Los Altos Hills City Council
April 20, 2023

Town of Los Altos Hills’ 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Adopted Housing Element Page 3 March 17, 2023
findings, any changes to the analysis should be reflected in future re-adoption of the element.

Large Sites: While the element was revised to add Program A-11 (Large Sites) to encourage development on large sites, it must still provide analysis as to how development will occur on smaller portions of the large sites listed in the inventory, how this development will accommodate the lower income RHNA and modify Program A-11 as appropriate, including establishing additional incentives. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information.

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.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): The element now incorporates survey information into the ADU projection analysis, but it must still add and analyze market rents from comparable and nearby communities. Additionally, projections and affordability assumptions still do not appear to consider other relevant factors such as availability of units for rent.

Electronic Sites Inventory: For your information, pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, the Town must submit an electronic sites inventory with its adopted housing element. While the Town has submitted the electronic sites inventory in the appropriate form. Any changes to the inventory should be incorporated and re-submitted as part of re-adoption or future submittals. For more information, please reach out to HCD for technical assistance at [email protected].

Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types (Emergency Shelters): The element now clarifies that emergency shelters are permitted in the R-A without discretionary action, and revised Program E-2 (Emergency Shelters) to include a broad commitment to adopt development standards in compliance with statute. However, the element must still evaluate the impacts of development standards on development capacity. For example, the analysis should account for proximity criteria. In addition, the Program should specifically commit to address identified constraints, as opposed to a broad commitment. For example, the program should specifically commit to address spacing or proximity provisions, bed limits and parking requirements. Finally, as stated in HCD’s prior review, statute was recently amended to specify how to demonstrate suitable sites and sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelters. Future submittals may need to address these requirements. For more information and applicable timing, see HCD’s AB 2993 memorandum at
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/ab2339- notice.pdf.

3. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building

Town of Los Altos Hills’ 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Adopted Housing Element Page 4 March 17, 2023
codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)
Land Use Controls: The element largely does not address this requirement. For example, while the adopted element was revised to analyze story poles with regards to cost, it should still analyze story poles in terms of approval certainty, feasibility and timing. The element should still also analyze constraints on existing allowable uses in the proposed multifamily overlay zone and modify programs to ensure successful multifamily development. The element should also still analyze the line contour formula as a potential constraint on development.

In addition, while the adopted element was revised to include some analysis on SB 9 and ADU development on lots marginally smaller than one acre, the analysis must address the one-acre minimum lot size’s impact on housing supply, choices and affordability. Program actions also should commit to adopting appropriate development standards to facilitate intended densities and establish a variety of lot sizes and densities.

Finally, the element was not revised to analyze standards relating to Government Code sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 (SB 9). Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information.

Fees and Exaction: While the element was revised to list the various fees included in the total cost per unit, it should provide the cost for each fee and evaluate their impact on housing cost.

Processing and Permit Procedures: While the element was revised to list the stages of the site development and design review process, it must still provide typical approval findings, typical number of hearings if applicable, and timing and evaluate their impacts on housing supply, cost, feasibility and approval certainty.

4. An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including… …the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that housing development that hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need in accordance with Government Code section 65584... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(6).) Approval Times: While the adopted element was revised to provide the length of time it takes to receive a building permit (2-6 months), it must still identify the length of time between receiving approval for housing development and submittal of application for building permits and discuss any hindrances on construction.

C. Housing Programs

1. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with

Town of Los Altos Hills’ 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Adopted Housing Element Page 5 March 17, 2023
appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).)
As noted in Finding B2, the element does not include a complete site analysis, therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the Town may need to add or revise programs to address an additional shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. Additionally, the element should be revised as follows:
• Shortfall of Sites: While Program A-1 (Availability of Adequate Sites for New Housing to meet the RHNA) commits to allowable densities and appropriate development standards, it must still commit to acreage and meeting all the byright requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i). Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information. • Program A-3 (Town-owned Sites): While the Program commits to identifying sites and comply with the Surplus Land Act, it must still include a schedule of actions to facilitate development, including numerical objectives with affordability. • Program E-2 (Emergency Shelters): The Program should specifically commit to the development standards that will be removed or modified (e.g., spacing or proximity provisions, bed limits and parking requirements) and, if necessary, identify an additional zone based on a complete analysis as described in Finding B3.
• Program E-9 (Single Room Occupancy (SRO)): While the Program was revised to include actions to allow SROs as an “accessory use” in the proposed multifamily housing overlay, it should further explore and establish additional zoning opportunities given the lack of results in the prior planning period.

2. The Housing Element shall contain programs which assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderateincome households. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(2).) While the element was revised to include some actions to inform developers of opportunities and incentives to develop units affordable to extremely low income (ELI), these actions alone are not adequately significant and specific given the Town’s lack of implementation and results in the prior planning periods. Please see HCD’s prior review for additional information.

3. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of

Town of Los Altos Hills’ 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Adopted Housing Element Page 6 March 17, 2023
housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).)
As noted in Findings B3 and B4, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the Town may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints.

4. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)
As noted in Finding B1, the element must include a complete analysis of AFFH. The element must be revised to add goals and actions based on the outcomes of a complete analysis. Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and to the identified and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful enough to overcome identified patterns and trends. Actions must have specific commitment, discrete timing, geographic targeting and metrics or numerical targets. Programs, as appropriate, must address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in higher opportunity areas (throughout the Town), place-based strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection. For example, the element must add significant and meaningful housing mobility and new housing choices and affordability actions (not limited to the RHNA) to overcome the existing patterns in the Town related to the broader region.

From: Peter Pirnejad <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2022 9:37 PM
To: Judy Miner <[email protected]
>; Paula Norsell <[email protected]>; Patrick Ahrens <[email protected]
>; Mattas, Steven <[email protected]>; George Tyson <[email protected]
>; Sofia Mangalam <[email protected]>
Subject: REVISED Public Draft Review - Foothill College Dear Foothill-De Anza Community College District Trustee and Office of the Chancellor, We received your letter dated August 23, 2022, in response to the Public Review Draft of the Town’s Housing Element. We evaluated the concerns outlined in your letter and have made specific revisions pertaining to identified housing units at the College. We would like you to review the suggested changes and let us know if they are acceptable to you.

Mayor George Tyson spoke to Board member and President Patrick Ahrens and agreed that the appropriate next step would be to send a revised version of the Draft that the Town would be willing to submit to HCD as a curtesy revised Draft for the recipients on this email to review and react to.

We value our partnership with the College and believe that the suggested changes would benefit the College and the Town. As you understand, the Town along with the rest of the State is facing a challenge in terms of housing. Foothill College has been an essential partner of Los Altos Hills in this struggle over the last two Housing Element cycles, i.e. 16 years. We hope to continue in that tradition and rely on the college to support the larger community and Town in our efforts to have HCD certify our state mandated Housing Element. Please note that the softer language included in the Housing Element does not bind the District or the Town to build any housing and only provides a layer of options for housing if, in the future, the College desires so.

We are including a redline as well as a clean version of the Draft for your review. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out.

We look forward to hearing from you back.

Attachments:

1. Redline version – Foothill College specific

2. Redline version – Public Draft Review (entire version)

3. Clean version – Public Draft Review (entire version) Peter Pirnejad
City Manager
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
P: 650-947-2514 | F: 650-941-3160
E:
[email protected]
Stay Informed.

Sign-up to take Town Surveys!

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
April 29, 2022
Scott Reimers
City of Temple City
Community Development Director
9701 Las Tunas Drive
Temple City, CA 91780
Dear Scott Reimers:

RE: City of Temple City – Housing Crisis Act, Letter of Technical Assistance The purpose of this letter is to provide technical assistance to the City of Temple City (City) regarding the relationship between its recently adopted Senate Bill (SB) 9 implementation ordinance (Ordinance Nos. 21-1058 U, 21-1059) (“Ordinance”) and the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Gov. Code, § 66300), among other relevant state housing laws. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) received a complaint in which concerns were raised that certain provisions of the Ordinance may violate state law. HCD subsequently reviewed the adopted ordinance and other publicly available materials. This letter identifies several concerning provisions of the Ordinance and describes the ways in which these provisions likely violate the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (HCA).

This letter also identifies provisions of the Ordinance that raise concerns under other housing laws, such as State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq.), Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Law (Gov. Code, § 65852.2), Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) (Gov. Code, § 8899.50), and Anti-Discrimination in Land Use Law (Gov. Code, § 65008). These additional concerns are addressed briefly in anticipation of the forthcoming 6th Cycle Temple City Housing Element review letter.

Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Gov. Code, § 66300)
The HCA limits the ability of a local agency to reduce the intensity of land use anywhere where housing is an allowable use without concurrently increasing the intensity of land use elsewhere to compensate for the loss of residential development capacity. The HCA defines reductions in the intensity of land use to include the addition or modification of development standards. Specifically, the law provides the following:

Changing the general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning of a parcel or parcels of property to a less intensive use or reducing the intensity of land use within an existing general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning district in effect at the

Scott Reimers, Community Development Director

time of the proposed change, below what was allowed under the land use designation or zoning ordinances of the affected county or affected city, as applicable, as in effect on January 1, 2018, except as otherwise provided in clause (ii) of subparagraph (B) or subdivision (i). For purposes of this subparagraph, “reducing the intensity of land use” includes, but is not limited to, reductions to height, density, or floor area ratio, new or increased open space or lot size requirements, new or increased setback requirements, minimum frontage requirements, or maximum lot coverage limitations, or any other action that would individually or cumulatively reduce the site’s residential development capacity.
(Gov. Code, § 66300, subd. (b)(1)(A).) In addition, the HCA is to be broadly construed to maximize the development of housing.

HCD’s analysis of the adopted Ordinance involved identifying new or modified development standards, comparing those development standards against the development standards applicable to the R-1 Zone District and in effect on January 1, 20181, and noting instances that suggested a reduction in residential development capacity. In reviewing materials from the October 5, 2021; November 9, 2021; December 7, 2021; and January 4, 2022, Planning Commission and City Council meetings, it appears that the potential impacts of the HCA on the Ordinance were not discussed. For this reason, HCD assumes that no HCA analysis was undertaken and no concurrent and compensatory increase in the intensity of land use pursuant to subdivision (i) of Government Code section 66300 occurred.

Development Standard 1: Maximum Unit Size of 800 Square Feet:2:The Ordinance creates new maximum size standards for residential development that appear to reduce the intensity of land use. The Ordinance limits the maximum size of a dwelling built under SB 9 to 800 square feet (TCMC 9-1T-21.A.4.c). The development standards of the R-1 Zone District currently impose no equivalent limitation on the absolute maximum size of dwellings. Rather, the R-1 Zone District regulates the size of dwellings by a combination of maximum floor area ratios and maximum floor areas, which vary depending on lot area, depth, and whether the dwelling is one or two stories in height. It is beyond the scope of this letter to comprehensively describe the intricacies of these development standards; however, by examining the maximum lot coverage standard, it is possible to see how the new standard represents a reduction in residential development capacity. This section examines only the maximum lot coverage standard in order to provide a comparison; other development standards could also serve for this purpose.
1 For the purposes of this analysis, HCD assumes that the relevant current development standards were in effect on January 1, 2018.
2 While it is beyond the scope of this letter to address potential violations of SB 9 itself, Government Code section 65852.21, subdivision (b)(2)(A), seems to contemplate units that are “at least 800 square feet in floor area,” not limited to a maximum of 800 square feet, as required by the Ordinance.

Scott Reimers, Community Development Director

Table 9-1G-3 (R-1 Zone District Residential Development Standards) provides that the maximum lot coverage shall be calculated according to the following formula: (.275 x lot area) + 1,125 square feet. The resulting figure represents the maximum amount of ground level residential floor area that a development can have. Lots with existing development (e.g., a single-family home) can receive additional floor area by constructing additions or by constructing new structures until the maximum lot coverage limit is reached. Vacant lots are subject to the same maximum lot coverage limit as already developed lots. HCD is particularly concerned by scenarios under which the Ordinance will prevent a property owner from developing its lot to the extent permitted under the previously existing development standards.

For example, a typical 7,200 square-foot lot in the R-1 zone is generally able to be developed with a house approximately 3,000 square feet in size. Were the same size lot developed with “urban dwellings” pursuant to the City’s SB 9 implementation Ordinance, the size of each home would be limited to 800 square feet. This represents a reduction in floor area of approximately 75 percent if one urban dwelling were constructed and approximately 50 percent if two urban dwellings were constructed. As demonstrated here, the Ordinance’s 800 square-foot maximum unit size reduces the site’s residential development capacity dramatically in certain instances.

One potential remedy to this situation would be to impose the same suite of floor area-related development standards to lots with SB 9 units as to lots with one single-family dwelling.

Development Standard 2: Height Limit: The Ordinance limits the maximum height of a new attached or detached dwelling built under SB 9 to one story and 18 feet (TCMC 9-1T-21.A.4.f).

The development standards of the R-1 Zone District currently limit building heights depending on the lot characteristics. Lots wider than 75 feet allow one-story or two-story dwellings up to 32 feet in height. Lots narrower than 75 feet allow one-story or two-story dwellings up to 28 feet in height. On flag lots, uniquely shaped lots, or lots with less than 35 feet of street frontage, the building height is limited to one story and 18 feet. The Ordinance would impose the smallest, one-story, and 18-foot height limitation on all units built under SB 9 regardless of the size or other characteristics of the lot. This limitation, to the extent it prevents development of equivalent floor area compared to that allowed under the existing development standards as described above, reduces the intensity of land use and represents a reduction in residential development capacity.

Development Standard 3: Courtyards: The Ordinance requires that all new detached dwellings built under SB 9 provide an open space courtyard with a minimum area of 1,000 square feet or ten percent of the lot area and with a minimum width and depth of 20 feet, whichever is larger (TCMC 9-1T-21.A.6.m). The development standards of the R-1 Zone District currently impose no such requirement on other dwellings. As a point of comparison, in the higher density R-2 Zone District, a courtyard is required only for sites proposing more than two units and having a lot width of 50 feet or more. As with the height standard discussed above, imposing a courtyard requirement in the R-1 Zone District creates a reduction in residential development capacity if it prevents development of equivalent floor area compared to that allowed under the existing development standards.

Scott Reimers, Community Development Director

Governmental Constraints under Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, §§ 65580-65589.11) Housing elements are required to contain analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints on the development of housing for all income levels. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).) This includes, but is not limited to, analysis of land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, and locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development. After identifying governmental constraints, the City must implement programs to remove those governmental constraints to the development of housing where legally possible. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).) Therefore, the City should be aware that HCD will examine the City’s SB 9 implementation Ordinance in the context of the commitments made in the City’s forthcoming draft 6th Cycle Housing Element.

In addition to Development Standards 1-3 discussed above, the following provisions of the Ordinance appear to create governmental constraints on the development of housing that would reduce the economic feasibility of projects.

Parking Requirements: The Ordinance prohibits a property owner from constructing off-street parking spaces that would serve the residents of an SB 9 unit (TCMC 9-1T-21.A.4.j; 9-1T21.11.f). Additionally, the property owner must remove existing driveways and driveway aprons that might facilitate off-street parking. The development standards of the R-1 Zone District currently impose no such prohibition on the creation of additional off-street parking spaces beyond the two-space-per-dwelling minimum provided they meet the requirements of subsection G (Vehicle Parking and Driveways) of the R-1 Zone District development standards. These requirements impose a new burden on property owners seeking to develop housing under SB 9—a burden which is not borne by any other property owner in the R-1 Zone District. Coupled with the Ordinance’s prohibition on the issuance of on-street overnight parking permits to residents of SB 9 units (TCMC 3-3A-23.B.1.i), these requirements likely represent a governmental constraint on the development of housing.

Additionally, these requirements raise concerns related to AFFH and housing discrimination.

Materials reviewed by HCD indicate that the City did not perform an analysis to demonstrate that, within the R-1 Zone District in Temple City, households with protected characteristics that do not have a personal vehicle can access resources in a manner equivalent to households that do have a personal vehicle.
3 If the City is concerned with environmental impacts
associated with personal automobile use, a more defensible policy may be to make off-street 3 This may also raise concerns under 2 CCR § 12060(a) regarding practices with a discriminatory effect. Discriminatory effects occur when the policy or practice predictably results in a disparate impact on a group of individuals, or creates, increases, reinforces, or perpetuates segregated housing patterns based on membership in a protected class. See also Anti-Discrimination in Land Use Law (Gov. Code, § 65008) and AFFH (Gov. Code, § 8899.50).

Scott Reimers, Community Development Director

parking and on-street parking permits optional for SB 9 units and their residents while encouraging active transportation and transit use. Policies that encourage these behaviors can include covered and secure bicycle parking, subsidized bus passes, etc. 30-Year Affordable Housing Deed Restriction: The Ordinance requires that all units created under SB 9 be deed-restricted to low- or very low-income households (9-1T-21.A.4.l). While inclusionary zoning requirements are a well-used and important tool for the creation of affordable housing, this requirement is equivalent to a 100 percent inclusionary requirement that is not imposed on any other type of residential development in Temple City. A typical inclusionary requirement is 15 or 20 percent and is applicable to a broad range of residential development. This requirement has the potential to render development of SB 9 units economically infeasible, and as such may constitute a governmental constraint to housing development. As a part of the ongoing housing element update process, the City will need to demonstrate that local development costs and anticipated affordable rents will result in projects that are economically feasible.

Additionally, Government Code section 65850, subdivision (g), authorizes local agencies to adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance that includes residential rental units affordable to lower- and moderate-income households. In certain circumstances, HCD may request the submittal of an economic feasibility study to ensure the ordinance does not unduly constrain housing production. For additional information, see HCD’s Rental Inclusionary Housing Memorandum.

LEED Platinum Certification: The Ordinance requires that all new detached dwellings built under SB 9 achieve LEED Platinum certification (TCMC 9-1T-21.A.4.o). While environmental sustainability is a laudable goal, the development standards of the R-1 Zone District currently impose no such requirement on other dwellings. For a building to achieve a LEED Platinum certification, it must provide the very highest level of energy efficiency—far beyond the requirements of the state building code. To achieve this highest-level of sustainable design, specific building design, siting, materials, fixtures, appliances, and heating/cooling systems are required. These additional physical requirements will substantially increase the cost of development of SB 9 units and will therefore likely result in a governmental constraint to the development of housing.

As stated above, housing elements must contain an analysis of governmental constraints on the development of housing for all income levels (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5)) and implement programs to remove those constraints (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3)). The concerns raised above may constitute such constraints.

Subterranean Third Story Requirement: In certain instances, the Ordinance requires that a portion of the floor area of a dwelling built under SB 9 be located underground (TCMC 9-1T21.A.4.f). Under SB 9, when a local agency’s development standards would physically preclude the construction of up to two residential units at least 800 square feet in size, the local agency is required to modify or waive one or more development standards to accommodate a

Scott Reimers, Community Development Director

development of that size. (Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (b); 66411.7, subd. (c).) Anticipating that in some cases SB 9 units may need to be built as three-story dwellings to meet this statutory requirement, the City appears to have included this undergrounding requirement. In no other instance is a dwelling in the R-1 Zone District required to build habitable floor area that is otherwise consistent with other development standards such as maximum floor area, FAR, etc., as underground living space. This requirement could substantially increase the cost of development of some SB 9 units and may result in a governmental constraint to the development of housing.

State ADU Law (Gov. Code, §§ 65852.2 and 65858.22)
SB 9 and State ADU Law are complementary. Both laws can be implemented in ways that result in developments with both “SB 9 Units” and ADUs. When combined, up to four units may be built in the same lot area typically used for a single-family home. The calculation varies slightly depending on whether a lot split is involved, but the outcomes regarding total maximum unit counts are identical. After reviewing the City’s Ordinance to verify consistency with State ADU Law, the following concern was noted.

Accessory Dwelling Units – No Lot Split: The Ordinance establishes a limit of two residential units on each lot developed under SB 9 and requires that ADUs and Junior ADUs (JADUs) count toward that limit (TCMC 9-1T-21.A.4.b). As written, this limitation applies to situations in which a lot split is proposed as well as to situations when a lot split is not proposed. This inaccurately implements SB 9 and denies property owners the right to develop ADU(s) consistent with State ADU Law. (Gov. Code, §§ 65852.2; 65852.22.) The provisions of SB 9 that allow a local agency to impose a limit of two residential units specifies that ADUs/JADUs are to be counted towards that limit only in instances when a lot split is proposed. (Gov. Code, § 66411.7, subd. (j)(1).) In instances when a lot split is not proposed, these limitations do not apply and the local agency must allow ADUs as it typically would pursuant to State ADU Law. (Gov. Code, § 65852.21, subd. (f).)
Conclusion
Separately and collectively, these development standards and other requirements reduce the intensity of land use, raising concerns under the HCA. They also raise concerns under State Housing Element Law, State ADU Law, AFFH, and Anti-Discrimination in Land Use Law. The implementation of these policies will almost certainly have a chilling effect on the production of housing under SB 9 by rendering projects economically infeasible. HCD would like to remind the City that under Government Code section 65585, subdivision (j), HCD has enforcement authority over these and other housing laws. Accordingly, HCD may review local government actions to determine consistency with these and other laws. (Gov.

Code, § 65585, subd. (i).). If HCD finds that a city’s actions do not comply with state law, HCD may notify the California Office of the Attorney General. (Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (j).)

Scott Reimers, Community Development Director

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. HCD recommends the City conduct a comprehensive review of the HCA and other applicable state housing laws and update its SB 9 implementing ordinance accordingly. Additionally, HCD requests that the City respond in writing within 30 days of receipt of this letter. The City’s response should include a proposed timeline for corrective actions. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact Brian Heaton, of our staff, at [email protected].

Sincerely,
David Zisser
Assistant Deputy Director
Local Government Relations and Accountability
cc: Brian Cooke, City Manager
Greg Murphy, City Attorney

360 Grand Ave #323, Oakland 94610
www.calhdf.org
Apr 20, 2023
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Re: Proposed Housing Element, Required Notice under Government Code Section 65009 By email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]
Dear Los Altos Hills City Council and City Attorney:

The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) writes to inform the Town that the Housing Element to its General Plan (the “January Plan”), adopted on January 30, fails to comply with state law on numerous points. Many of these failures are detailed below and have been outlined by the March 17, 2023 letter from the state Department of Housing and Community Development rejecting the January Plan. The Town is now proposing to approve a resolution that finds the January Plan remains in substantial compliance, contrary to the evidence and HCD’s determination, while at the same time introducing substantive changes to the plan to address the deficiencies in the January Plan. These changes would also fall short of achieving substantial compliance. Further, the Update would not be a legally adopted amendment to the general plan until the city votes to adopt the new plan.

If the Town does not promptly adopt a Housing Element that complies with state law, CalHDF intends to pursue all available legal remedies, including but not limited to those provided for in Government Code §§ 65583, et seq.; Government Code section § 65008; Government Code §§ 12955, et seq..; Government Code § 8899.50; and 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601, et seq. See Martinez v. City of Clovis (5th Dist. April 7, 2023) No.

FO82914, --- Cal.App.5th ---, 2023 WL 2820092. This letter serves as the notice required by Government Code section 65009, subd. (d)(3)(A).

I. Changes to the January Plan Must be Adopted Anew
At its January 30th meeting, this Town Council found that the “2015-2023 Housing Element is hereby repealed in its entirety, and the Town of Los Altos Hills 2023-2031 Housing Element . . . is hereby adopted.” The resolution adopting the January Plan (Resolution 09-23) further gave authority to the Town’s Planning Director “to make all non-substantive changes to the Housing Element to make it internally consistent or Supplemental No. 12
AGENDA ITEM #6.A
Distributed 4/20/23

2 of 8
to address any non-substantive changes or amendments requested by the Department to achieve certification.” Unfortunately, this adopted plan was found by HCD to fall far short of substantial compliance with state housing laws, so far that it cannot conceivably be brought into compliance through non-substantive changes or amendments.

Confusingly, tonight the Town Council proposes not to adopt any changes to the January Plan, but instead to “approve” the Update. The proposed resolution would further find that the Update is “all within the revision authority established by Resolution No. 09-23,” presumably meaning that the changes are all nonsubstantive, in accordance with the previous resolution. Finally, under the proposed resolution the Town Council would find that the adopted housing element “continues to be in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law . . .”
If this all seems like confusing nonsense, that is because it is exactly that. After an adopted housing element is rejected by HCD, state law gives local governments a clear choice. First, a local government can maintain the compliance of the previously adopted housing element, risking enforcement action by the state under Gov. Code, Section 65585, subd. (i)-(j), and private lawsuits under Section 65587.

Alternatively, the local government can work on substantive changes to the adopted housing element to address areas of noncompliance, and adopt these changes under proper procedures. The Town Council seems to be attempting both in the proposed resolution, and as a consequence is failing to legally adopt any substantive changes to the January Plan, while risking enforcement actions by continuing to find that plan in compliance contrary to state law.

All of this would be plausibly legal if the Town’s January Plan had only minor deficiencies, and the Update merely contained non-substantive changes. This is clearly not the case. According to the Town’s own words, the changes in the Update include:
clarifications regarding suitability and development potentials of parcels included in the Site Inventory; modifications and clarifications regarding multi-family zoning and site development capacity; enhanced programs to affirmatively furthering fair housing such as addressing housing mobility and increasing housing choices throughout Los Altos Hills, removing barriers to accessible and affordable housing, increasing housing opportunities and public outreach, and further removing governmental constraints; and inclusion of additional mid-cycle review process to evaluate the Town’s progress in achieving its Housing Element goals.

In one example, the Update includes an entirely new program to allow conversions of single-family homes into triplexes throughout the Town. These changes are clearly substantive. No amount of non-substantive changes could bring the January Plan into substantial compliance. Instead of moving forward with the current proposed resolution, the Town Council should simply adopt any changes to the January Plan as a new 6th Cycle Housing Element and submit them to HCD for review of compliance.

3 of 8
II. The Site Inventory is Inadequate
The Town’s Housing Element must provide an inventory of sites where housing is likely to be built in the upcoming cycle. (Gov. Code § 65583, subd. (a)(3).) This inventory must satisfy certain requirements. (See Gov. Code §§ 65583.1, 65583.2.) The inventory in the Town’s current Housing Element does not do this.

A. The Sites Identified for Multifamily Housing Are Unlikely to Be Developed The Town relies on three large sites to accommodate all multi-family housing development for the 6th Cycle. None of these sites is likely to develop as promised in the Housing Element. The Town provides no documentation from two of the site owners expressing interest in development, and the documentation it provides for the third site – the Foothill College site – is insufficient. The letter from the College to the Town included in Appendix C says only that the College is willing to work with the Town “when and if” future housing plans materialize. It does not walk back the College’s position in its letter of August 23, 2022, where it stated, “we do not envision housing on the Foothill College campus at any time in the near future and are not interested in supporting rezoning.”
Compounding the Housing Element’s deficiencies here, the Town has chosen to delay rezoning the inventory sites until 2026. That is nearly halfway through the 6th Cycle. What is more, the Town still has not completed the rezoning for the Foothill College site promised in the last Housing Element.1 While some of the new information provided by the Update relating to owner interest in development on the expanded Twin Oaks site is encouraging, this site alone cannot bring the city’s site inventory into compliance. The Update continues to fail to address the likelihood of development on the two other multifamily sites, and fails to identify additional sites for multifamily development.

B. The Proposed Zoning Overlay Is Not Sufficient
A key component of the Town’s strategy to accommodate its Regional Housing Needs Determination (“RHND”) is a planned multi-family infill overlay zone. The overlay zone would not supplant the base zoning, however. This is a problem: the California Court of Appeal, 5th District, recently held that a zoning overlay does not satisfy the requirements of Government Code section 65583.2(h). (See Martinez v. City of Clovis (5th Dist. April 7, 2023) No. FO82914, --- Cal.App.5th ---, 2023 WL 2820092 [certified for publication, available here].) If the base zoning permits a density below what the Housing Element Law requires – as it does here – an overlay zone will not bring the Town into compliance. (Id.) We are encouraged to see that the Update would establish some multifamily zoning with minimum densities, rather than an overlay, but until these changes are legally adopted, the Town’s housing element falls short of compliance on this issue.
1 The current Housing Element also fails to adequately analyze this failure to rezone and adapt its plans to address the factors that led to it. (See Section III, infra.)

4 of 8
C. The Town Must More Thoroughly Analyze Sites over Ten Acres Sites over ten acres in size are not good candidates for lower-income housing development, and the Town cannot rely on them for such development without making specific findings. (Gov. Code § 65583.2, subd. (c)(2)(B).) The Town includes three such sites in its inventory and marks them for lower-income development, but it has not included the statutorily required findings. The January Plan does not provide sufficient detail on how these sites will produce below-market-rate housing and merely asserts without explanation that only portions of these sites smaller than ten acres are expected to develop. It lists no sites of comparable size that were successfully developed into lower-income housing during the prior planning cycle, and the comparisons it makes to other sites around the state are dubious.

The proposed Update attempts to address this problem, but it falls short. It lists specific sites less than ten acres in area within the St. Nicholas and Foothill College parcels that could be developed into multi-family and lower-income housing. But it proffers only scanty evidence that these sites are well-suited to development. The Update, like the January Plan, fails to point to comparable sites that were successfully developed into lower-income housing. State law requires more, and until more is provided, the Town will remain out of compliance with the Housing Element Law.

D. The Housing Element Makes Unrealistic Assumptions about ADU Development The Housing Element relies on Accessory Dwelling Units (“ADUs”) for the bulk of its low-income housing quota. Its assumptions, however, are too rosy as to the number of ADUs that will be built and their availability for rent. The Housing Element predicts 160 ADUs will be constructed over the planning cycle – an average of 20 per year. Although this number is grounded in recent ADU construction levels in the Town, the Housing Element should provide evidence that these construction levels will hold steady, especially given that many single-family lots already host ADUs. ADUs, in fact, comprise ten percent of the Town’s housing units. Just as worrying, the Town’s survey of existing ADUs reveals that less than half of them are occupied, and, of these, approximately four in nine are occupied by family members not paying rent. The Town’s Housing Element should take this into account in projecting the number of new housing units available for rent that further ADU construction will produce.

HCD’s March letter specifically asks the Town to address ADU availability for rent in order to bring the housing element into compliance. In response the Update simply cites misleading statistics to avoid this issue. The Update states that in the Town’s ADU survey, “83% demonstrated a high occupancy rate having been occupied in the last six months.” What the Town’s survey actually said was that only 51% of ADUs were used as dwelling units at all, and of those used as dwelling units, there was an 83% occupancy rate.

Further, of the ADU available for rent, 44% were occupied by family members not being charged rent.

Changes to the to the adopted housing element must account for the lack of availability of ADUs for rent.

E. Assumptions Regarding SB 9 Projects Are Similarly Unrealistic

5 of 8
The Housing Element relies on projects developed under Senate Bill 9 (“SB 9”) to produce 32 units during the 6th Cycle. Half of these are expected to be ADUs. For these SB 9 ADUs, the Town has made the same unrealistic assumptions regarding availability and affordability outlined in the previous section. Further, the Town provides no explanation for why ADUs would be developed as opposed to duplex developments under SB 9. The Housing Element also states “[t]he Town is anticipating increased applications under SB 9” beyond the six total applications it has received so far, but it offers no evidence for this claim beyond a list of sites where SB 9 applications might be feasible. This list includes several sites zoned for open space preservation, two non-vacant sites (APNs 17554076 and 17544069, both listed without analysis of the likelihood that present uses will be discontinued), one site without access to a public right-of-way (APN 33640077), and one oddly-shaped lot that is not well-suited to development (APN 18225018). If the Town wants to rely on SB 9 projects to satisfy its RHND, it should gather and assess further evidence to support the numbers it hopes for, and it should remove sites where SB 9 development is unlikely to happen from its analysis. It should also add specific programs and policies that will facilitate SB 9 development and address any hurdles to such development identified in the analysis.

F. Further Analysis of Impediments to Building Emergency Shelters Is Necessary Although the Town’s Housing Element states emergency shelters are permitted throughout the Town with no discretionary approval process, it neglects analysis of potential constraints on emergency shelters. This analysis must be included, and the Town must identify specific steps it will take to deal with these constraints.

III. The Town Has Failed to Sufficiently Analyze Its 5th Cycle Housing Element and Incorporate Lessons from that Analysis into the 6th Cycle Housing Element
Each cycle’s housing element must contain an assessment of the previous cycle’s. (Gov. Code § 65588, subds. (a), (b).) The Town’s current Housing Element contains such an assessment, but it does not measure up to the law’s standards. The assessment emphasizes the Town’s success in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Determinations (“RHND”) but does not address the Town’s failure to develop a wider variety of housing options, particularly multi-family housing. The assessment falls even further short on incorporating lessons from this failure into the current Housing Element’s policies and programs. HCD’s comment letters, dated January 25 and March 17, 2023, specifically call out the Town’s cursory analysis of Program 19 in the 5th Cycle Housing Element, and CalHDF agrees this is a serious barrier to compliance with State Housing Element Law. The Town must address this or face the penalties of noncompliance.

IV. The Town Has Not Sufficiently Analyzed and Addressed Constraints on Housing Production The Housing Element Law mandates that the Town’s Housing Element analyze governmental constraints on housing development. (Gov. Code § 65583, subds. (a)(5), (a)(6).) The current Housing Element does not do this in enough depth to satisfy the law. It includes only minimal analysis of the barriers that land use restrictions impose on housing production. This is particularly troubling in light of the absence of multi-family housing options in Los Altos Hills. Minimum lot sizes – currently set at one acre – are a glaring

6 of 8
problem here, and the proposed fix – an overlay zone – requires more analysis to prove multifamily development can succeed.2
The Town should also offer more regarding each of the following policies’ effects on development:
● Setback requirements, currently 30 feet for side and rear property lines, and 40 feet for the front property line. The Housing Element notes these would inhibit multi-family housing development but does not elaborate, instead proffering boilerplate assurances that the Town’s new multifamily housing overlay “will not have setbacks that inhibit reaching the maximum density allowed.”
● The contour line formula, which the Housing Element notes as a source of frustration for property owners seeking to build housing on their land.
● Story pole requirements, which may have an effect on the likelihood and timing of development approval. The two additional sentences of boilerplate included in the Update do not suffice: the Town must provide more robust evidence.

Impact fees, application fees, and permitting fees are another area for further analysis before the Town’s Housing Element can be judged compliant. Currently, the Housing Element sets out the amounts of these fees and compares them to neighboring jurisdictions. It should add an evaluation of how these fees increase housing costs and discuss whether current fee levels can be lowered or otherwise adjusted to mitigate their impact. The current analysis also looks at only single-family residences: the Town should give details on how the fees will apply to and potentially impede multi-family housing development.

Finally, the Town must include more information and analysis concerning permitting procedures and processing times. As HCD’s letter notes, the Housing Element should “provide typical approval findings,” give the “typical number of hearings” a proposal must navigate, and lay out the usual timeline for approval, as well as how long it takes for a developer to apply for building permits following an approval.

This information should all be assessed, furthermore, for its effect on housing construction, supply, and cost.

V. The Current Housing Element Does Not Affirmatively Further Fair Housing The Town has a duty to affirmatively further fair housing in preparing its Housing Element. (See Gov. Code § 8899.50.) The Housing Element itself, moreover, must assess fair housing within the Town. (Gov. Code § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).) The current Housing Element falls short. It needs to take a deeper look at the underlying causes of fair housing issues in the Town, and adapt the policies in its Housing Element to account for those causes. Among other things, the Housing Element’s current site inventory concentrates multi-family and lower-income development on three sites, leaving the vast majority of the Town’s large lot, single-family zones untouched. The fair housing consequences of this approach must be analyzed. The current Housing Element also does not – though it should – speak to the fair housing impact associated 2 The proposed overlay zone, as noted before, is also facially inadequate to satisfy the Housing Element Law. (See Section II.B, supra.)

7 of 8
with the Town’s lack of multi-family housing and other housing types accessible to economically marginalized groups.

As a measure to address AFFH, the Update proposes a new program to allow for conversion of singlefamily homes into triplexes. This is an encouraging step. Small apartment development in existing singlefamily neighborhoods can effectively provide more diverse housing options, opening up housing options for families who lack the means to purchase multimillion-dollar homes. The proposed program in the Update would not result in a meaningful increase in triplexes, however. Limiting the applicability of the program to conversion of existing single-family homes would severely limit the likelihood of any triplex development. Existing homes are often unfit for conversion, and the extremely high cost of acquiring an existing single-family property would further deter potential developers. We encourage the Town to endorse a triplex or fourplex development option that would permit new development and reduce lot size, width, and frontage requirements to open up new housing options in single-family neighborhoods.

VI. To Achieve Compliance, the Housing Element Must Include More Robust Programs to Facilitate Housing Construction
Overall, and throughout the Housing Element, the Town must provide more than it has in the way of programs and policies to address problems identified in the analyses of barriers to housing development.

These programs and policies must be specific, detailed, and well-tailored to erode or remove such barriers. (See Gov. Code § 65583, subd. (c).) Right now, the Housing Element commits the Town to fewer and weaker actions than it should. The proposed Update also falls short on this mark. The Town should commit to doing more. In particular, CalHDF is concerned that the current Housing Element’s programs will not do enough to ensure the site inventory develops as promised. We are also concerned that the Town has not outlined a strong enough pathway for creating housing accessible to more household types, especially extremely-low-income families.

Throughout the process of developing a new Housing Element, the Town Council has consistently maintained that has a good faith commitment to achieving compliance, and shares the goals of state law to provide increased and diverse housing options. The Town’s actions, however, have not reflected these goals. In the last cycle of RHNA, the Town’s entire production of low-income housing consisted of ADUs.

The majority of these ADUs were not actually used as housing, and 44% of the remainder were occupied by family members of the owners of multimillion-dollar homes. This leaves a little over a quarter of the Town’s low-income housing available for tenants who are not related to existing homeowners. The city failed to implement its only other commitment to establish multifamily housing last cycle by failing to rezone Foothill College.

In the eighth cycle, facing the need for more housing, the city has taken a few modest steps to commit to multifamily housing development. The proposed plan, however, seems designed to ensure that this housing remains only a theoretical plan, never to be realized. The Town has consistently maintained an overestimate of ADUs production and availability for low-income housing in order to avoid having to zone for more multifamily housing. The Town chose to locate multifamily housing on sites where owners have

8 of 8
no interest in housing development. Two out of the three sites are outside of the Town’s single-family zones.

Rather than provide needed housing growth for all income levels, provide a diversity of housing types, and affirmatively further fair housing, the proposed plan would ensure that Los Altos Hills remains a racially concentrated area of affluence for the foreseeable future. This is primarily due to the Town’s land use policies, which effectively require that residents must be able to afford a large home on a large lot.

While we understand that these policies reflect the Town’s founding commitment to preserving its rural character, modest change is required of all cities in California if we are going to reduce our housing shortage. Los Altos Hills is only being asked to plan for 489 new homes, with just over nine square miles of land. By comparison, neighboring Los Altos adopted a compliant housing element on time, and was required to plan for nearly 2000 homes with 6.5 square miles of land. Los Altos Hills can and should do more to allow and encourage a variety of housing options – multi-family housing developments should be a major focus – and this entails better, more detailed policy commitments to create incentives for and remove barriers to such development. We ask the Town Council to abandon the proposed resolution and work towards a realistic, substantially compliant housing element to be adopted at a future meeting. ◆◆◆
CalHDF urges the Town to take its legal obligations seriously. The problems presented here are major shortcomings, and the law demands they be addressed. If the Town does not address them on its own, CalHDF will explore all available legal remedies.

CalHDF, formerly known as the California Renters Legal Advocacy and Education Fund, or “CaRLA,” is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.

Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director

2023-04-20
To: City Council, Town of Los Altos Hills
CC: California HCD
Sasha Zbrozek
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Please send the draft to HCD and get their thumbs-up before adopting this Housing Element into the General Plan. Recall from my previous letter on the topic that the Town is only allowed to revise its General Plan four times within one calendar year. Also, for future updates, please try not to make such a mess of the associated adoption meeting scheduling. This meeting was canceled and rescheduled multiple times and associated with documents lying about what outreach there was and when it was conducted. Post the draft in a timely manner for interested parties to read.

The new Housing Element continues to be non-committal in its program timelines and deliverables, and is not convincing on the plausibility of its goals. Program A-12, for example, seeks to produce 50 units through conversions of single-family residences into triplexes or duplexes. It does not specify where that will be permitted, what the restrictions will be, or whether any owners have expressed interest. Further, it only offers to complete the rezoning in 2027; that’s very late in the cycle. Those are nice words on a page, but the program isn’t credible.

The town also tries to wave away the constraints that it imposes. Requiring story poles and public hearings is a burden. The contour line formula drives lots to be, on average, substantially larger than the nominal 1-acre minimum. The floor area constraints drive most lots to a FAR below 0.1. The developable area constraints are a burden with increasing fire access and turnaround requirements. Taking nearly 20 months to make it through the permitting gauntlet is a constraint. Charging nearly $100k per door in permitting fees is a constraint. All of these constraints need to be properly addressed and relaxed.

The town is also trying to wave away concerns about the feasibility of meeting the new RHNA. Foothill College is not planning to build units. St. Nicholas Catholic School is not planning to build units. It’s not clear where so many ADUs will go given fire access road constraints. Please provide addresses so that we can check for plausibility.

The housing shortage is caused by our policy choices. It’s time to make different choices, ones that will restore property rights and enable would-be neighbors to become our actual neighbors.

Thank you,
Sasha Zbrozek
Supplemental No. 13
AGENDA ITEM #6.A
Distributed 4/20/23

proposing 332 units. (FYI, the resident's petition you received on Jan 30 forecast 300 units if all lots at Twin Oaks were zoned for 30 du/ac).

Why are 240 of the proposed 320 units being developed at the top of the 5 acres of the steep hillside, 80ft above the entrance to Twin oaks? The planning commission stated this was “undevelopable” and that development would be in phases on the lower 7.5 ac.

Why is the developer proposing densities of 57 du/ac on 2.73 acres and 43 du/ac on steepest gradient 5.5 acres, that is not what was envisaged.

The fundamental issue is the higher steeper parts of the lots are the highest value and that is the reason we have the slope density equations. Why Town staff are already thinking that these should not be applied to multifamily is alarming!

3. Was it a good idea to increase the density from 20du/ac to 30 du/ac. Town staff and the planning commission did not mention that this would require modifying LAH ordinances of building structure height, setbacks, grading policy, increasing the percent of lot development area beyond Mr. Lachenbruch's respected slope density methodology.

Did Town staff already know this, and is that why they have already contracted Micael Baker to prepare new objective design standards for multifamily housing?

4. Is expanding Twin Oaks from 12.4 ac to 14.6 ac a good idea. Could that section of Arastradero support the original target of 70 dwelling units? Can it support 248 dwelling units, 292 dwelling units, 372 dwelling units, 480 dwelling units? Would it be worthwhile to have an analysis completed before pulling numbers out of a hat? Based upon using it every day, it is already congested at peak times and traffic overflows to find alternate routes.

5. What is the basis for granting the owners of 27690 Arastradero an increase in the value of their property by granting 30du/ac multifamily zoning. Will the Town consider requests by the owners of other adjacent properties e.g. 14414, 14321 or 14313 Saddle Mountain Dr.

In fact what is the basis for approving or rejecting any residents request to rezone their properties 30du/ac multifamily. Some properties may be more suitable, i.e. lower slopes, existing sewers, better access, lower fire risk, not adding unreasonable load to an emergency evacuation route.

6. Will this revised HE meet AB686 affirmatively fair housing (AFFH) requirements which are a fundamental component of RHNA. The proposed development at Twin Oaks segregates the 80 units of moderate, low, and very low, income units into one building separate from the other buildings. Does the LAH HE segregate AFFH housing?

7. Should Twin Oaks be rezoned before or after negotiations with the developer on the scope and plans for are agreed? Absent the HE May31st deadline, from a negotiation perspective, why would you do it before?
I am sure the response from town staff to my submission is that there is no intention of accepting the proposal for Twin Oaks etc. etc. Equally I expect they will state that the revised submission does not have 27690 being developed for 66 dwelling units. Zoning 12.4 ac for 30 du/ac, but expecting a developer to only develop 70 units never made sense. If the target is 70 units, then zone lots 4, 5 & 6 at 20du/ac.

This is a decision that we will have to live with, some more so than others! It deserves the attention of a Special Council meeting not rubber stamping the proposed motion from Town staff.

John O'Connell
Resident Los Altos Hills.

In your consideration of Resolution to adopt a General Plan Amendment to update the Housing Element of the General Plan for the period of 2023 -2031, as recommended by the Planning Commission, an important determination is if that General Plan Amendment is exempt from CEQA review. The requirements made by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), a council of governments, or a city or county pursuant to Section 65584 of the Government Tit. 14, § 15283. are clearly exempt from CEQA.

However, the Housing Element Policy recommended by the Planning Commission to achieve those requirements are only exempt from CEQA, under Section 15061, “if they can be seen with certainty to have no possibility for causing a significant effect on the environment.”
The resolution you have received from the Planning Commission claims that the Housing Element is a policy document, and that since no entitlement is being given to a specific project, and that it is only specific projects that can have any environmental impact, and that such projects would be subject to environmental review, common sense exempts the policy itself from CEQA, since it can be seen with certainty that a policy can have no possibility for causing a significant effect on the environment.

The undersigned residents of Los Altos Hills believe that the logic of the above argument and claim are incorrect. It is inherent in the policy decision to concentrate all RHNA fair housing in 3 large sites, combined with the pre-selection of those sites, that a priori guarantees that projects authorized under this policy can be seen with certainty to cause a significant effect on the environment. The following are specific environmental issues that the policy creates by including 12 acres at Twin Oaks Ct zoned for 30 dwelling units per acre.

1. There are few, if any, streets in Los Altos Hills where adding a concentration of 70-300 dwelling units would not cause major traffic related environmental problems, but placing such a development on a designated fire evacuation route is clearly a major environmental danger.

2. Zoning a 12 acre site for hundreds of dwelling units, at the bottom of a steep hillside, on the west side of I-280, in an area designated by the planning commission as a Wildland Urban Interface zone and of increased fire risk, without a thorough environmental review, is risking the safety of existing residents and the new residents.

3. The environmental issues of zoning a 12 acre site for 20-30 dwelling units per acre with no public transit, on a road where both directions are already congested and where Caltrans concerns of the safety of I-280 traffic due to already known to Los Altos Hills, should be subject to environmental review before becoming official policy of Los Altos Hills .

4. A plan to locate hundreds of dwelling units in a location not served by public sewers and any plans to connect to public sewers should be subject to consultation with affected agencies and environmental review before it

becomes an official policy of Los Altos Hills, as such any plans to connect to such a development to public sewers that requires The environmental impacts on services outside the scope of Los Altos Hills e.g Palo Alto Schools, of such a concentrated development needs to be understood before becoming official policy.

5. Locating a hundreds of dwelling units in extremely close proximity to I-280 is known a priori that it creates environmental and health considerations for future residents.

6. One of lots at this site is frequented by mating White Tailed Kites, which have been photographed and observed hunting by many residents and ornithologists. Changing the zoning of such these sites threatens a fully protected species and requires environmental review with the California Dept of Fish & Game before becoming official policy of Los Altos Hills.

The proposed policy document is not a zoning ordinance with rules and requirements for the approval of future, unknown applications. Applications for 10 dwelling units on a ½ acre site, or 4 dwelling units on a 1/5th acre site, may easily fit into the proposed location(s) with no environmental issues. If 50 of these applications were approved and distributed through Los Altos Hills, and some were not approved, based upon normal environmental review, the claim that the policy itself had no possibility for causing a significant effect on the environment would be correct.

However, creation of a policy that a priori converts an existing residential area of 12 contiguous acres and grants a 30 du/ac overlay zoning, where the environmental issues should be clear to anyone performing the role of Planning Director or Planning Commissioner, cannot be claimed as a common sense exemption under Section 15061, since such policy cannot be seen with certainty to have no possibility for causing a significant effect on the environment.” What can be seen with certainty is that if this policy is approved and becomes part of the general plan, we will have either an environmental mess, a legal mess, or both! Los Altos Hills Council members, and Planning Commissioners are elected by residents to make decisions in the best interest of ALL residents. The policy document approved and submitted by the Planning Commission is intended to minimize the impact on Los Altos Hills and protect the semi-rural environment enjoyed by majority of Los Altos Hills Residents from the negative impacts of the RHNA fair housing requirements. Public record (1/27/2023) “Taking the hit in a small number of areas where it is easier to get the numbers” was a more important consideration than the utter chaos this policy will cause for the specific areas of Los Altos Hills identified in the policy document. This is not acting in the best interests of ALL existing residents. It is not acting in the best interests of the hundreds of new residents that will be moving to live into Los Altos Hills. It may not even legally meet the definition of “affirmatively furthering fair housing” specified in 65584(e).

We understand that you are faced with the risk of not having a plan that meets HCD requirements by the specified dates. However, we ask you to carefully consider the implications of passing the proposed resolution and making this the official Housing Element policy of the Los Altos Hills General Plan. Unless you are personally convinced that that the proposed plan can be seen with certainty to have no possibility for causing a significant effect on the environment we request that you reject the motion before you.

Name Signature Address
Diane Doolittle
Michael F Grady

Anne OConnell
John OConnell
LanVi Evans
Mike Evans
Hari Sankar
Meera Sankar
Devi Jarschel
Stefan Jarschel
Albert Wang
Canis Wang

Peter Nguyen
Tami Nguyen
Eddie Leung
Nancy Leung
Feng Xu
Yong Li
Roland Yang
Luu Yang
Bob Anderson
Dru Anderson
Dr. Hsu
Mrs. Hsu

Purissima circulation
La Cresta circulation
Fremont circulation
Page Mill circulation
Arastradero circulation

TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS April 20, 2023
Staff Report to the City Council
SUBJECT: APN 336-35-044 – File #CUP22-0004 – Lands of California Water Service Company

A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT TWO

CHEMICAL STORAGE SHEDS AND ONE EQUIPMENT SHED ON THE
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY PROPERTY BETWEEN 24752 OLIVE TREE LANE AND 24802 OLIVE TREE LANE. CEQA REVIEW:

CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15301(B)
FROM: Jeremy Loh, Associate Planner
APPROVED: Peter Pirnejad, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission:

Adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) APPROVING the request for a Conditional Use Permit for an existing water storage facility and permit construction of chemical storage sheds and an equipment shed, subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment 1.

BACKGROUND
The California Water Service Company (Cal Water) operates a water storage facility on property located on the southerly side of Olive Tree Lane between two residential properties, 24752 Olive Tree Lane and 24802 Olive Tree Lane, and across from Northcrest Lane. The land itself is an interior lot and accessed by an ingress and egress easement located on 24752 Olive Tree Lane. The existing water storage facility contains two 250,000 Gallon water tanks, associated equipment and fences.

Figure 1: APN 336-35-044 - Source: Google Maps
AGENDA ITEM #7.A
J.L.

P.P.

City Council Page 2
APN336-35-044
April 20, 2023
The site contained an existing 50,000 Gallon water tank and one new 250,000 Gallon water tank permitted with a Variance (Permit #V-78-61) in 1961 and a new 250,000 Gallon water tank permitted in 1967 to replace the existing 50,000 Gallon water tank. No permit could be located for the first 50,000 Gallon water tank and it may have predated the Town’s incorporation; hence, no Conditional Use Permit (CUP) was found for the facility and the individual water tanks and accessory equipment. A Site Development application (#261-12-ZP-SD-VAR) was submitted in 2013 for a new pressure tank, generator, and booster station but was withdrawn. The existing improvements were constructed with a Building Permit (#17722). This would indicate that the tanks and incidental uses, being related to a public utility, were deemed exempt from requiring a CUP as there is no official action on record.

A public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on March 3, 2023, to consider the item and forward a recommendation to the City Council. Upon receiving staff’s report and after deliberation, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the CUP with one added condition of approval, requiring sound attenuation for exhaust fans in the proposed sheds. The March 3, 2023, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes are included as Attachment 2.

PROPOSED PROJECT
The applicant, Cal Water, is requesting a CUP to construct two 36 square-foot chemical storage sheds and one 36 square-foot equipment shed. One shed will contain 40 gallons of 40% concentration Ammonium Sulfate with a 150-gallon secondary containment (in case of leaks) while the other shed will contain 120 gallons of Sodium Hypochlorite with a 190-gallon secondary containment (in case of leaks). The chemicals are necessary in order to comply with current state regulations for water storage/quality. The CUP for the proposed improvements is necessary to bring the facility into conformity with the Town’s Zoning Code.

NOTICING/PUBLIC OUTREACH
The public was advised of this Public Hearing in the following ways:
• Mailing to property owners who own property within a 500-foot radius – April 7, 2023 • Posted at the project site – April 7, 2023
• Public Posting Places – April 7, 2023
• Town Website: www.losaltoshills.ca.gov – April 7, 2023 To date, staff has not received public comment regarding the proposed project.

MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS
The Zoning and Site Development Ordinances do not explicitly refer to hazardous materials storage/containment as a primary, accessory, or conditional use. However, the Zoning Ordinance refers to “Public utility and service uses” as a conditional use pursuant to the following subsection:
10-1.703 Conditional uses and Structures (R-A)
(h) Public utility and service uses:

City Council Page 3
APN336-35-044
April 20, 2023
(1) No conditional use permit or building permit shall be required for any public utility distribution or transmission line; provided, however, the proposed routes of all electrical distribution lines carrying current in excess of fifteen (15) kilovolts and the location of public utility structures requiring rights-of-way of thirty (30) feet or more in width shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval prior to the acquisition of rights-of-way therefor, and any construction thereon shall not be commenced until such approval shall have been received; and
(2) Service uses are those uses which are determined by the Council to be beneficial to the provision of emergency or public safety services (including, but not limited to, communications facilities, storage of vehicular and other equipment, materials and supplies for emergency use in protective work, the restoration of public facilities, and/or debris and wreckage clearance).

Based solely on this definition, hazardous materials storage/containment is not a listed conditional use. However, Title 4 Public Safety, Chapter 8 Hazardous Materials Storage has the following requirements for new storage facilities:
4-8.302 New storage facilities.
(a) No person, firm or corporation shall construct or install any new storage facility until a permit or approval has been issued pursuant to this chapter. (b) Monitoring Capability. All new storage facilities intended for the storage of hazardous materials which are liquids or solids at standard temperature and pressure (STP) shall be designed and constructed with a monitoring system capable of detecting that the hazardous material stored in the primary containment has entered the secondary containment. Visual inspection of the primary containment is the preferred method; however, other means of monitoring may be required by City. Where secondary containment may be subject to the intrusion of water, a means of monitoring for water intrusion and for safely removing the water shall also be provided.

Whenever monitoring devices are provided, they shall, where applicable, be connected to attention-getting visual and/or audible alarms.
(c) Containment Requirements. Primary and secondary levels of containment shall be required for all new storage facilities intended for the storage of hazardous materials which are liquids or solids at standard temperature and pressure (STP) unless exempted by the officer. (1) All primary containment shall be product-tight.
(2) Secondary containment:
(i) All secondary containment shall be constructed of materials of sufficient thickness, density, and composition so as not to be structurally weakened as a result of contact with the discharged hazardous materials and so as to be capable of containing hazardous materials discharged from a primary container for a period of time equal to or longer than the maximum anticipated time sufficient to allow recovery of the discharged hazardous material.

City Council Page 4
APN336-35-044
April 20, 2023
(ii) In the case of an installation with one primary container, the secondary containment shall be large enough to contain at least one hundred ten (110) percent of the volume of the primary container.
(iii) In the case of a storage facility with multiple primary containers, the secondary container shall be large enough to contain one hundred fifty (150) percent of the volume of the largest primary container placed in it, or ten (10) percent of the aggregate internal volume of all primary containers in the storage facility, whichever is greater. (iv) If the storage facility is open to rainfall, then the secondary containment must be able to additionally accommodate the volume of a twenty-four (24) hour rainfall as determined by a on hundred (100) year storm history.
(3) Laminated, coated, or clad materials shall be considered single-walled and shall not be construed to fulfill the requirements both primary and secondary containment.

Despite hazardous materials storage not being a listed conditional use, it is not expressly prohibited given the above permit requirement. The Code section references a permit requirement but does not specify the permitting body, besides the “City”, or permit type. Therefore, it is appropriate to follow the typical procedure for a CUP requiring City Council approval.

DISCUSSION
Per Cal Water’s submittal cover letter, the proposed storage sheds and their contents are required to mitigate nitrification of Cal Water’s water. Cal Water uses chloramines, a combination of chlorine and ammonia, as the residual disinfectant to safeguard microbial contamination.

Nitrification is a microbial process by which ammonia is transformed into nitrite and nitrate in water systems that use chloramines as a disinfectant. If unmanaged, there could be bacterial growth, low chlorine, and sometimes odorous, discolored water. Cal Water’s submittal cover letter is included as Attachment 3.

The facility is an existing water storage site and has been operating on the subject property for over 60 years. The storage site had equipment upgrades permitted in 2013. Existing equipment includes tank mixers, electrical box, air compressor, and panelboard have approximately 3-foot setbacks from the easterly property line. The existing tanks have an approximately 5-foot setback to the northerly property line and 7.5-foot setback from the southerly property line. The existing generator is setback approximately 4 feet from the westerly property line and 6 feet from the southerly property line.

The proposed shed containing 12% concentration Sodium Hypochlorite will have an approximately 3’-6” setback from the northerly property line and 7’-6” setback from the easterly property line. The proposed shed containing the 40% concentration Ammonium Sulfate will have an approximately 3’-9” setback from the easterly property line. The proposed control shed will have an approximately 3’-6” setback from the easterly property line. All three proposed sheds will be approximately 9’-0” tall and mounted on concrete slabs, the two storage sheds will have exhaust vents and other appurtenances approximately 1’6” above the roof ridges. The proposed 40 gallons of Ammonium Sulfate will be contained in a 40-gallon tank inside 150-gallon secondary container and the 120 gallons of Sodium Hypochlorite will be contained in a 120-gallon tank in a 190-gallon secondary container. The primary containment tank will be High Density Polyethylene (HDPE)

City Council Page 5
APN336-35-044
April 20, 2023
and the secondary containment will be polypropylene. The concrete slab will have a 2” stem wall/curb to help contain spills and will be double coated with waterproofing sealer. All pipes will also be double walled. Project plans are included as Attachment 9.

There is no single, consistent definition of “hazardous material” on the federal level. There are multiple classification systems depending on the reviewing authority. For example, the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) uses a 9-category classification system while the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has its own definitions which align with the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals. Safety Data Sheets incorporate multiple classifications systems depending on the use, such as storage or transportation. For the purposes of storage, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) classification is used. NFPA400 defines a hazardous material as “a chemical substance that is classified as a physical hazard material or health hazard material, whether the chemical or substance is in usable or waste condition. According to NFPA400, Sodium Hypochlorite is a Classification 1A health hazard for skin corrosion/irritation, Classification 1 health hazard for eye damage/irritation, Classification 1 health hazard for acute aquatic toxicity (aquatic life), Classification 3 health hazard for chronic aquatic toxicity (aquatic life), and Classification 1 health hazard corrosive to metals. Ammonium Sulfate is not classified as a hazardous material. Neither material is considered a physical hazard and there is no risk of explosion. The Safety Data Sheets for the proposed chemicals being stored are included as Attachments 4 and 5.

FIRE DEPARTMENT REVIEW
The Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD) reviewed the proposal and has no conditions related to water supply or fire apparatus access. Their comments did include a permitting requirement from the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health, Hazardous Materials Division (HMCD). Fire department final inspection will only be granted in conjunction with HMCD approval. Fire Department letter is included as Attachment 6.

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH REVIEW
The Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) requires a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) for any regulated materials as defined by Santa Clara County Code of Ordinances, Title B, Division B11, Chapter XIII. This Code Section defines a regulated material as “any material regulated by Chapter 6.5 of Division 20 of the California Health and Safety Code”. This Chapter defines a regulated material as one listed in Section 130, Subpart F, Part 68, Subchapter C, Chapter 1, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Sodium Hypochlorite is not a listed material and, therefore, not subject to DEH review. Ammonia in concentrations greater than 20% is a listed material but the regulatory threshold is 10,000 lb, or 2,000 gallons. The proposed system will only contain 40 gallons and, therefore, not subject to DEH review. Staff contacted DEH and they had no concerns. Per the above Fire Department review, a DEH HMCD approval will be required before they final the project.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed structures are categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15303(e), which allows for new

City Council Page 6
APN336-35-044
April 20, 2023
accessory or appurtenant structures, and 15301(b), which allows for additions to existing facilities providing public utility services.

COMMITTEE REVIEW
The proposal was reviewed by the Environmental Design and Protection Committee (EDPC). The Committee wondered if the proposed sheds could be located on the opposite side of the water tanks to reduce potential impacts to the neighbors. The Committee was also wondering if considerations have been made for leaks or explosions as they considered the materials to be unstable. They also noted that if any lighting is proposed, it should conform to the Town’s outdoor lighting policy.

EDPC comments are included as Attachment 7.

As stated above and shown on the Safety Data Sheets (which the Committee may not have accessed), the materials are stable under normal storage and transportation conditions and are noncombustible. Staff cannot comment on the siting of the sheds but the piping diagram in the proposed plans seem to indicate that siting the sheds on the opposite side of the tanks would be challenging and could limit Cal Water personnel or emergency responder parking.

The proposal was also reviewed by the Open Space Committee (OSC). The Committee recommends following Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPP) best practices for chemical storage, movement and management. OSC comments are included as Attachment 8.

CONCLUSION
The facility would operate within the provisions of Town regulations related to containment. The immediate neighbors would not be at risk as the health hazards related to a potential spill/breach in containment would only be an issue if ingested or if it comes into contact with skin or eyes. No changes to existing structures or equipment are proposed. Sound attenuation would mitigate some of the noise when the exhaust fans are in use.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution with Recommended Conditions of Approval

2. March 3, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes

3. California Water Service Formal Submittal Cover Letter dated October 5, 2022

4. 40% Concentration Liquid Ammonium Sulfate Safety Data Sheet

5. 12% Concentration Sodium Hypochlorite Safety Data Sheet

6. Santa Clara County Fire Department approval letter dated January 6, 2023

7. Environmental Design and Protection Committee comments dated November 11, 2022

8. Open Space Committee comments dated November 4, 2022

9. Project Plans – City Council Only

Resolution ____-23 Page 1
RESOLUTION ____-23

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

MAKING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION DETERMINATION UNDER CEQA AND

APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING WATER STORAGE

FACILITY AND PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF TWO CHEMICAL STORAGE SHEDS

AND AN EQUIPMENT SHED
(LANDS OF CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY)
WHEREAS, public utility facilities and materials storage are a conditional uses in the ResidentialAgricultural Zoning District of the Town of Los Altos Hills; and WHEREAS, on December 14, 1961, the Building Department of the Town of Los Altos Hills issued a Building Permit and Variance (V-78-61) to construct a 250,000 Gallon water storage tank at Accessor’s Parcel Number 336-35-044 at an existing water storage site containing a 50,000 Gallon water storage tank; and
WHEREAS, on December 6, 1967, the Building Department of the Town of Los Altos Hills issued a Building Permit (2121) to replace the existing 50,000 Gallon water storage tank with a 250,000 Gallon water storage tank at Accessor’s Parcel Number 336-35-044; and WHEREAS, the existing water storage facility is a public utility use owned by California Water Service Company (Cal Water) (“Owner”) and California Water Service Company is a company providing drinking water and wastewater services; and
WHEREAS, on October 12, 2022, the Town received an application from the property owner for two new chemical storage sheds, one containing 40% concentration Ammonium Sulfate and one containing 12% concentration Sodium Hypochlorite for the purpose of eliminating nitrification of water, and one new equipment shed (File #CUP22-0004); and WHEREAS, the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health requires a Hazardous Materials Business Plan for any regulated materials as defined by Santa Clara County Code of Ordinances, Title B, Division B11, Chapter XIII; and
WHEREAS, the Santa Clara County Code of Ordinances defines a regulated material as any material regulated by Chapter 6.5 of Division 20 of the California Health and Safety Code; and WHEREAS, the California Health and Safety Code defines any regulated material as one listed in Section 130, Subpart F, Part 68, Subchapter C, Chapter 1, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the proposed chemicals are either not regulated or beneath the regulatory thresholds of Code of Federal Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Project on March 2, 2023 and considered all written documentation and public comments; and finds that the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(b) and RECOMMEND that the City Council GRANT the request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP22-0004) subject to the findings and conditions.

Attachment 1

Resolution ____-23 Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does hereby make the findings Attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A and approve the Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions of approval attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B.

The above and foregoing Resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills at a regular meeting held on the 20th day of April, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN: BY: _______________________________
Linda Swan, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Deborah L. Padovan, City Clerk

Resolution ____-23 Page 3

EXHIBIT A

FINDINGS
APN 336-35-044 – File #CUP22-0004

1. With regard to the Conditional Use Permit Renewal (CUP22-0004) for an existing water storage facility and new chemical storage sheds at APN 336-35-044, the Planning Commission finds in accordance with Section 10-1.1007(1) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code as follows:
a. The proposed use or facility is properly located in relation to the community as a whole, land uses, and transportation and service facilities in the vicinity; The facility has been in continuous operation since at least 1961 and was originally located at the edge of the Town’s jurisdiction before the 2012 annexation of the rest of Olive Tree Lane.

The original location with respect to Town’s original boundaries was properly located in relation to the community as a whole.
b. The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and all yards, open spaces, walls and fences, parking, loading, landscaping, and such other features as may be required by this chapter or, will be needed to assure that the proposed use will be reasonably compatible with land uses normally permitted in the surrounding area; The existing facility is small and available building locations are constrained by the existing improvements, including water tanks, pumps, generators and fencing. The site is adequate in size for the proposed sheds as they have a small footprint and are no taller than the existing water tanks and will not pose additional visual impacts to the neighboring properties. Public utility uses are allowed as a Conditional Use in the Residential Agriculture Zoning District and are, therefore, compatible with the community.
c. The site for the proposed use will be served by streets and highways of adequate width and pavement to carry the quantity and kind of traffic generated by the proposed use; The existing site is served by streets or adequate width and pavement to carry the traffic typically generated by the existing use, which is minimal. The proposed sheds will not materially increase traffic.
d. The proposed use will not adversely affect the abutting property or the permitted use thereof;.

The existing facility does not adversely affect the abutting property or limit the use as a residential property.

Resolution ____-23 Page 4

EXHIBIT B

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
APN 336-35-044 – File # CUP22-0004

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

1. Any changes or revisions to the entire facility or its use shall require an amendment to the applicable permit(s). Additionally, the Planning Director may schedule a review or revocation hearing before the Planning Commission regarding any Conditional Use Permit, if any condition of approval is not being met or the facility is being used inconsistent with the approved use or in violation of Town development codes.

2. No modifications to the approved plans are allowed except as otherwise first reviewed and approved in writing by the Planning Director or by action of the Planning Commission, depending on the scope of the changes, and consistent with the requirements of applicable codes.

3. This Use Permit does not relieve the property owners from responsibility for compliance with any other applicable federal, state or local law, rule, standard ordinance, order, judgment or decree.

4. The discharge of any wastewater into the storm drain system, trench dissipater or water channels is prohibited. The property owner shall utilize Best management Practices (BMPs) when washing down the stalls, animals, manure storage area or other areas to ensure that no wastewater is discharged into the storm drain system or the nearest watercourse. Prior to discharging any wastewater into the sanitary sewer the applicant shall obtain authorization from the City Engineer and shall be responsible for complying with all applicable sanitary sewer regulations pertaining to wastewater discharge pursuant to Title 6, Chapter 4 of the Municipal Code.

5. As is required for other construction projects within the Town, the applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Town of Los Altos Hills and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the Town of Los Altos Hills or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the project to the extent such actions are brought within the time period required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable law; provided, however, that the Applicant’s duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the Town’s promptly notifying the Applicant of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the Town’s full cooperation in the defense of such actions or proceedings.

6. The applicant shall propose sound attenuation for the exhaust fans and equipment in the approved sheds and the facility shall comply with the Town’s noise ordinance at all times.

If the Town receives a complaint of excessive noise at the facility, then the applicant shall perform an acoustical analysis of the ground equipment to demonstrate that noise emissions from the equipment is at or below 40 dbl at the property line.

7. The applicant shall not place any facilities that will deny access to, or otherwise interfere with, any public utility, easement or right-of-way located on the site. The applicant shall allow thee town reasonable access, and maintenance of, all utilities and existing public improvements within

Resolution ____-23 Page 5
or adjacent to the site, including but not limited to, pavement, trees, public utilities, lighting and public signage.

8. All conditions of approval shall be binding as to the applicant and all successors in interest to applicant.

9. The property owner shall inform the Town of any damage and shall repair any damage caused by the construction of the project to pathways, private driveways, and public and private roadways, prior to final inspection and shall provide the Town with photographs of the existing conditions of the roadways and pathways prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check.

Please refer to the Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein. If you believe that these Conditions impose any fees, dedications, reservation or other exactions under the California Government Code Section 66000, you are hereby notified that these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and/or a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions.

You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest such fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.

Town of Los Altos Hills
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
March 2, 2023 Minutes
Zoom Meeting and Town Hall, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, California

1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair Waschura called the March 2, 2023 Planning Commission Regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

Present: Commissioner Patel, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Indaco, Vice-Chair Bredo, Chair Waschura

Absent: None
Staff: Senior Planner Ling, Associate Planner Loh, Administrative Clerk/Technician Brunner

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

No presentations from the floor.

Chair Waschura closed PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR.

3. CONSENT CALENDAR

3.1 Approval of February 15, 2023 Special Meeting Minutes Chair Waschura called a Commission vote for “ayes.”
The Planning Commission approved the Consent Calendar as presented with all “ayes.” MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Chair Waschura moved to approve Consent Calendar containing the February 15, 2023 Special Planning Commission meeting minutes as presented.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Indaco.

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

4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Planning Commission Ex Parte
Commissioner Indaco had communications with Commissioner Bredo, neighbors John & Anne O’Connell, and the applicants and their architect on Item 4.1.

Vice-Chair Bredo had communications with Commissioner Indaco, neighbors John & Anne O’Connell, the applicants and their architect, and Carol Gottlieb of the Environmental Design & Protection Committee (EDPC) on Item 4.1.

Attachment 2

2 Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 2, 2023 Minutes Commissioner Patel had communications with the applicants and their architectural team on Item 4.1.

Commissioner Couperus had communications with neighbors Anne & John O'Connell and Mr. & Mrs. Leung on Item 4.1 and greeted neighbor Ian Ernest but did not discuss agendized items.

Chair Waschura had no ex parte communications.

4.1 27790 Stirrup Way – File #SD22-0032 – Lands of Parikh Site Development Permit for a new 5,000 square-foot residence with 2,861 square-foot basement.

CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303(a) Continued from January 17, 2023 Fast Track Public Hearing Project Planner: Jeremy Loh
Associate Planner Loh presented the staff report.

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

Chair Waschura opened the PUBLIC HEARING.

The applicants introduced themselves to the Commission and the public.

Malika Junaid, the applicants' architect, introduced herself, shared a presentation, and offered comments in response to the Commissioners' questions.

Public Comment
Eddie Leung, a resident of Los Altos Hills and uphill neighbor to the applicant, offered comments in opposition to the proposed development.

Michael Chiu, a resident of Los Altos Hills and neighbor to the applicant, offered comments in opposition to the proposed development.

John O'Connell, a resident of Los Altos Hills and neighbor to the applicant, offered comments regarding the proposed development.

Ian Ernest, attending via zoom and neighbor to the applicant, offered comments regarding the proposed development.

Hari Sankar, attending via zoom and neighbor to the applicant, offered comments regarding the proposed development.

Don, attending via zoom and neighbor to the applicant, offered comments regarding the proposed development.

The applicant's architect, Malika Junaid, offered comments in response to public comments.

Michael Chiu was invited by Chair Waschura to ask his question regarding landscape screening for this project.

Chair Waschura responded to his question and entertained another question from Mr.

Chiu regarding landscape screening.

3 Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 2, 2023 Minutes Chair Waschura closed the PUBLIC HEARING.

Commissioner Discussion
Commissioner Couperus offered comments regarding the proposed development, noting his concerns.

Commissioner Indaco offered comments regarding the proposed development, noting her concerns, and provided suggestions.

Commissioner Patel offered comments regarding the proposed development, noting his concerns, and provided suggestions.

Vice-Chair Bredo offered comments regarding the proposed development, agreed with Commissioners Couperus and Patel's comments regarding the large size of the proposed home, and shared her concerns.

Commissioner Patel offered additional comments related to views.

Chair Waschura offered comments addressing the concerns and comments raised by the public, the Commission, and the applicant.

Commissioner Couperus offered additional comments related to the large size of the proposed residents.

Chair Waschura noted the issue of parked cars in the cul-de-sac.

Commissioner Indaco commented on the availability of native planting guidance in the open space easement.

Chair Waschura invited architect Malika Junaid to comment on the future landscaping and noted this would be the last exception to the closed PUBLIC COMMENT section of the hearing.

Commission discussion ensued with the general consensus to propose a continuance and provided suggestions regarding modifications to the project.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Indaco motioned to CONTINUE to a date uncertain with suggestions that the applicant… • work with the neighbors to address their concerns,
• resolve the potential parking situation,
• address the turnaround issue in the driveway,
• have the residence follow the natural grade of the property, • modify the height of the structure to be lower, and
• reduce the bulk of the second story element.

The motion was seconded by Chair Waschura.

4 Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 2, 2023 Minutes MOTION PASSED: 5-0-0-0-0
AYES: Commissioner Patel, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Indaco, Vice-Chair Bredo, Chair Waschura
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None

4.2 APN 336-35-044 (water storage tanks near 24752 Olive Tree Lane) – File #CUP22-0004 – Lands of California Water Service Company
Planning Commission hearing for two new chemical storage sheds, one containing 40% concentration Ammonium Sulfate and one containing Sodium Hypochlorite; chemicals needed to prevent nitrification of water during purification process.

CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15301(b)g Project Planner: Jeremy Loh
Associate Planner Loh presented the staff report.

Chair Waschura asked who the applicant was and staff responded that CalWater representatives were available via zoom.

Nathan Houk-Syau introduced himself and responded to the Commissioners' questions.

Melinda Schmidt, a representative of CalWater, responded to Chair Waschura's question regarding CalWater's willingness to replace the black mesh along the existing fence.

Chair Waschura opened the PUBLIC HEARING.

Public Comment
No public comment.

Chair Waschura closed the PUBLIC HEARING.

Commissioner Discussion
Commissioner Indaco noted sound attenuation should be a consideration as a condition.

Commissioner Patel suggested that the Commission's concerns be resolved before it is presented to the City Council.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Indaco motioned to ADOPT a resolution (Attachment 1) recommending that the City Council grant a request for a Conditional Use Permit for an existing water storage facility and permit construction of chemical storage sheds and an equipment shed, subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment 1 with these added conditions:
• add sound deafening methods to lower the noise from the sheds with exhaust fans to below 40decibels and
• if the fence is the property of CalWater, that it be improved upon visually, subject to the neighbor’s approval of replacing the existing mesh.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner Patel.

5 Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 2, 2023 Minutes MOTION PASSED: 5-0-0-0-0
AYES: Commissioner Patel, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Indaco, Vice-Chair Bredo, Chair Waschura
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: None

5. REPORTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS

5.1 Past Meeting
• February 16, 2023 – Commissioner Couperus
Commissioner Couperus provided updates on the February 16, 2023 City Council meeting. He also noted there was a Special City Council meeting, sponsored by a Council member, to discuss the rise in burglaries among the residents in the town; however, he was unable to attend due to technical difficulties.

Chair Waschura and Commissioner Patel provided updates on that Special City Council meeting.

5.2 Upcoming Meeting Assignments
• March 16, 2023 – Commissioner Patel
• April 20, 2023 – Commissioner Indaco
• May 18, 2023 – Chair Waschura
• June 15, 20223– Vice-Chair Bredo
Chair Waschura confirmed the upcoming commission assignments. The agenda reflected the agreed upon swapped meetings between Commissioner Patel and Chair Waschura.

Commissioner Patel noted that the Commission might consider shifting the July 6, 2023 Regular Planning Commission meeting to a later date.

6. REPORT ON PAST FAST TRACK/SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETINGS

6.1 FEBRUARY 21, 2023
27983 Central Drive – File #SD22-0049 – Lands of Viam Central Partners, LLC Site Development Permit for landscape screening for an approved new residence.

APPROVED
14160 Miranda Road – File #SD22-0065 – Lands of Seetala Site Development Permit for a 672 square-foot addition and remodel to an existing two-story residence; project includes conversion of existing space into a 524 squarefoot attached ADU. Minor Variance request removed. APPROVED 12355 Hilltop Drive – File #SD21-0046 – Lands of 12355 HILLTOP DRIVE Lah LLC Site Development Permit for a new 5,359 square-foot residence with 3,461 square-foot basement, 718 square-foot pool, and 746 square-foot ADU. REFERRED TO

PLANNING COMMISSION AT A DATE UNCERTAIN

6 Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 2, 2023 Minutes

6.2 FEBRUARY 28, 2023
25020 Oneonta Drive – File #SD20-0066 – Lands of Ting
A request for Site Development Permit for an 865 square-foot second-floor addition over a 233 square-foot first-floor addition and 673 square-foot attached ADU at an existing single-story residence; project includes a detached 650 square-foot workshop in the backyard and new decking. TBD
26929 Almaden Court – File #SD22-0076 – Lands of Hogben A request for Site Development Permit for a 375 square-foot second-floor addition and two covered decks over an existing detached garage; project includes conversion of 185 square feet of garage square footage into a covered patio. TBD Associate Planner Jeremy Loh provided updates on past Site Development/Fast Track meetings.

Chair Waschura asked staff a question regarding a noise concern raised by a resident and Associate Planner Loh responded

8. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 9:45 PM by Chair Waschura.

Respectfully submitted,
Keren Brunner
Administrative Clerk/Technician

Attachment 3

Product Identifier: Liquid Ammonium Sulfate 40% Last Revision Date: 11/07/2016 Page 1 of 7 Safety Data Sheet

1. Product Identifier and Company Identification
Product name : Liquid Ammonium Sulfate 40%
HBCC SDS number : CA06800MO
Synonym : Ammonium Sulfate Solution
Product use and : Refer to label or call
Restrictions
Manufacturer : Corporate Headquarters Corporate Safety & Compliance Contact Address Hill Brothers Chemical Company Hill Brothers Chemical Company 1675 North Main Street 7121 West Bell Road, Suite 250
Orange, California 92867 Glendale, Arizona 85308
714-998-8800 – Office 623-535-9955 - Office
800-821-7234 – Office 623-535-9944 - Fax
Emergency telephone : 800-424-9300
Number (Chemtrec)
Website : http://hillbrothers.com

2. Hazard Identification
Classification : None
Signal Word : None
Pictogram(s) : None
Hazard Statements : None
Precautionary Statements
Response : None
Prevention : None
Storage : None
Disposal : None

3. Composition/Information on Ingredients
CAS Number Ingredient Name Weight %
7732-18-5 Water 60%
7783-20-2 Ammonium Sulfate 40%

4. First Aid Measures
Ingestion : Rinse mouth. Get medical attention if symptoms occur.

Inhalation : Move to fresh air. Get medical attention if symptoms develop or persist.

Skin : Remove affected clothing and wash all exposed skin areas with mild soap and water. Get medical attention if symptoms develop or persist.

Attachment 4

Product Identifier: Liquid Ammonium Sulfate 40% Last Revision Date: 11/07/2016 Page 2 of 7 Eyes : Rinse immediately with plenty of water. Get medical attention if symptoms develop or persist.

Effects of : N/A
Overexposure

Summary of Acute Health : Not expected to present a significant hazard under anticipated conditions for Hazards normal use.

Ingestion : N/A
Inhalation : N/A
Skin : N/A
Eyes : Direct contact with eyes may cause temporary irritation.

Note to : N/A
Physicians

Summary of Chronic Health : Not expected to present a significant hazard under anticipated conditions for normal use.

5. Fire Fighting Measures
Extinguishing : Foam. Dry powder. Carbon dioxide. Water spray. Sand.

Do not use heavy water stream.

Special Exposure : N/A
Hazards

Special Protective : Do not enter fire area without proper protective equipment, including Equipment for respiratory protection.

Firefighters

Fire Fighting : Use water spray or fog for cooling exposed containers. Use standard fire Procedures fighting procedures and consider the hazards of other involved materials.

NFPA Rating : Health - 1
Flammability - 0
Instability – 0

0=Insignificant 1=Slight 2=Moderate 3=High 4=Extreme
Uniform Fire : N/A
Code Rating

Product Identifier: Liquid Ammonium Sulfate 40% Last Revision Date: 11/07/2016 Page 3 of 7

6. Accidental Release Measures
Personal : Keep unnecessary personnel away. Keep people away from and upwind of Precautions & spill or leak. Wear appropriate PPE and clothing during cleanup. Ensure Emergency Procedures adequate ventilation. Evacuate unnecessary personnel. Equip cleanup crew with proper protection. Ventilate area.

Methods of : Soak up spills with inert solids, such as clay or diatomaceous earth as soon Containment as possible. Collect spillage. Store away from other materials.

And Clean-Up
Environmental : Void release to the environment. Prevent entry to sewers and public waters.

Precautions Notify authorities if liquid enters sewers or public waters.

7. Handling and Storage
Safe Handling : Wear appropriate PPE. Observe good industrial hygiene practices.

Storage : Store in original, tightly closed container. Keep container closed when not in use.

Work/Hygienic : Wash hands and other exposed areas with mild soap and water before Practices eating, drinking or smoking and when leaving work.

Ventilation : Provide good ventilation in process area to prevent formation of vapor.

Incompatible Products : Strong bases. Strong acids.

Incompatible Materials : Sources of ignition. Direct sunlight.

8. Exposure Controls/Personal Protection
Occupational Exposure :

Limits
Protective Equipment : Avoid all unnecessary exposure. Wear protective gloves.

Eye Protection : Chemical goggles or safety glasses.

Respiratory : Wear appropriate respiratory equipment.

Protection

Chemical Name: Liquid Ammonium Sulfate
Exposure Limits (TWAs) in Air
CAS Number IDLH ACGIH TLV OSHA PEL STEL
7783-20-2 - - - -

Product Identifier: Liquid Ammonium Sulfate 40% Last Revision Date: 11/07/2016 Page 4 of 7

9. Physical and Chemical Properties
Appearance: A clear, colorless liquid Odor: Odorless
Odor Threshold: N/A pH: 2.7
Melting Point/Freezing Point: N/A Initial Boiling Point/Range: N/A Flash Point: N/A Evaporation Rate (BuAc=1): N/A
Flammability: N/A Lower/Upper Explosive Limit: N/A
Vapor Pressure (mmHg): N/A Vapor Density (Air=1): N/A
Relative Density: 10.25 lbs/gallon Solubility in Water: 77g/100ml Partition Coefficient: N/A Autoignition Temperature: N/A Decomposition Temperature: N/A Viscosity: N/A
% Volatiles: 60% estimated Specific Gravity (Water=1): 1.77 estimated Molecular Weight: N/A VOC: N/A

10. Stability and Reactivity
Reactivity : Stable and non-reactive under normal conditions of use, storage and transport.

Chemical Stability : Material is stable under normal conditions.

Possibility of Hazardous : No dangerous reaction known under conditions of normal use.

Reactions or
Polymerizations
Conditions to Avoid : Heat. Open flame. Direct sunlight. Extremely high or low temperatures.

Incompatible Materials : Oxidizing agents. Metals. Strong acids. Strong bases.

Hazardous Decomposition : Fume. Carbon Monoxide. Carbon Dioxide.

Products

11. Toxicological Information
Acute Toxicity : Not classified
Routes of Exposure
Ingestion : Expected to be a low ingestion hazard
Inhalation : No adverse effects due to inhalation are expected.

Skin : No adverse effects due to skin contact are expected.

Eyes : Direct contact with eyes may cause temporary irritation.

Symptoms related to : May cause abdominal pain, nausea, and/or vomiting. Product mists may Physical, Chemical & cause irritation to the respiratory tract. Prolonged exposure may cause Toxicological irritation or burns if the product is wet or in the presence of perspiration.

Characteristics Prolonged exposure may cause irritation and inflammation of the eye.

Product Identifier: Liquid Ammonium Sulfate 40% Last Revision Date: 11/07/2016 Page 5 of 7

Numerical Measures of : Ammonium Sulfate Solution 40%:

Toxicity LD50 (dermal, rat): >2000 mg/kg
LD50 (oral, rat): 640-4250 mg/kg
ATE US (oral): 640.00000000 mg/kg body weight
Ammonium Sulfate (7783-20-2):

LD50 (dermal, rat): >2000 mg/kg
LD50 (oral, rat): 2840 mg/kg (Rat)
ATE US (oral): 2840.00000000 mg/kg body weight

Chronic Toxicity : Not classified
Carcinogenicity : Not classified
Product Name: Liquid Ammonium Sulfate

ACGIH IARC EPA NIOSH NTP OSHA
- - - - - -
TARGET ORGANS : May cause respiratory irritation (single exposure).

12. Ecological Information
Ecotoxicity : Ammonium Sulfate (7783-20-2):

LC50 fish 1: 126mg/l (96 h; Poecilia reticulate)
EC50 Daphnia 1: 202 mg/l (96 h; Daphnia magna)
LC50 fish 2: 250-480 mg/l (96 h; Brachydanio rerio)
EC50 Daphnia 2: 433 mg/l (50 h; Daphnia magna)
TLM fish 1: 1290 ppm (96 h; Gambusia affinis)
Persistence and : Ammonium Sulfate Solution 40%: Not established.

Degradability
Ammonium Sulfate (7783-20-2): Biodegradability in water: no data available. Not established.

Water (7732-18-5): Not established
Bioaccumulative Potential : Ammonium Sulfate Solution 40%: Not established Ammonium Sulfate (7783-20-2):

Log Pow: -5.1
Bioaccumulation: Not applicable. Not established.

Water (7732-18-5): Not established.

Mobility in Soil : No additional information available.

13. Disposal Considerations
Disposal of Container : Dispose in a safe manner in accordance with local/national regulations.

Avoid release to the environment.

Product Identifier: Liquid Ammonium Sulfate 40% Last Revision Date: 11/07/2016 Page 6 of 7

14. Transport Information
This product is not regulated as a hazardous material, substance or dangerous good.

15. Regulatory Information
SARA 302 Extremely : No chemical in this product is listed as an Extremely Hazardous Substances Hazardous Substance (EHS) under Section 302 of EPCRA. (EHS)
SARA 304 Extremely : No chemical in this product is listed as an Extremely Hazardous Substances Hazardous Substance (EHS) which, if released to the (EHS) Release Notification environment in quantities at or above the substance’s Reportable Quantity (RQ), would require reporting to the SERC and LEPC under Section 304 of EPCRA.

SARA 311/312 Hazards :

SARA 311/312 Hazards
Acute Chronic Flammability Pressure Reactivity
No No No No No
SARA 313 Reportable : No chemical in this product is subject to annual emissions, Chemicals transfers, or waste management reporting under the Community-Right-to-Know provisions of EPCRA Section 313, also known as the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Report or Form R.

CERCLA Hazardous : No chemical in this product is listed as a CERCLA hazardous Substances substance subject to the National Response Center (NRC) release reporting requirements.

Clean Air Act (CAA) Section : No chemical in this product is listed as an air pollutant under 112(r) Air Pollutants the U.S. Clean Air Act, Section 112(r) (40 CFR 61).

California Prop 65 : This product does not contain any chemicals known to the Chemicals state of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm.

Hazard Label Warning : None
TSCA (Toxic Substances : All chemical substances in this product are listed on the U.S.

Control Act) TSCA Inventory List except for:

Water (7732-18-5) 60%
ACRONYMS:

CAS # – Chemical Abstract Services Registry Number
CFR – Code of Federal Regulations
CERCLA – Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act EPCRA – Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act LEPC – Local Emergency Planning Committee
SERC – State Emergency Response Commission

Product Identifier: Liquid Ammonium Sulfate 40% Last Revision Date: 11/07/2016 Page 7 of 7

16. Other Information
First Issue : 11/07/2016
Chemical Family/Type : Inorganic Salt
Section(s) changed : This is the first issue of this SDS since last revision
IMPORTANT! Read this SDS before use or disposal of this product. Pass along the information to employees and any other persons who could be exposed to the product to be sure that they are aware of the information before use or other exposure. This SDS has been prepared in accordance with the Globally Harmonized System of Chemical and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) Fifth Edition and the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard [29 CFR 1910.1200]. The SDS information is based on sources believed to be reliable. Available data, safety standards, and government regulations are subject to change and the conditions of handling and use, or misuse are beyond our control; Hill Brothers Chemical Company makes no warranty, either expressed or implied, with respect to the completeness or continuing accuracy of the information contained herein and disclaims all liability for reliance thereon. Additional information may be necessary or helpful for specific conditions and circumstances of use. It is the user's responsibility to determine the suitability of this product and to evaluate risks and exercise appropriate precautions for protection of employees and others prior to use.

Product Identifier: Sodium Hypochlorite Last Revision Date: 12/10/2020 Page 1 of 9 Safety Data Sheet

1. Product Identifier and Company Identification
Product name : Sodium Hypochlorite
HBCC SDS number : CC17000
Synonym : Liquid Bleach
Product use and : Refer to label or call
Restrictions
Manufacturer : Corporate Headquarters Corporate Safety & Compliance Contact Address Hill Brothers Chemical Company Hill Brothers Chemical Company 3000 E. Birch St., Ste 108 7121 West Bell Road, Suite 250 Brea, California 92821 Glendale, Arizona 85308
714-998-8800 623-535-9955 – Office
800-821-7234 623-535-9944 - Fax
Emergency telephone : 800-424-9300
Number (Chemtrec)
Website : https://www.hillbrothers.com

2. Hazard Identification
Classification : Skin Corrosion/Irritation – Category 1A Serious Eye Damage/Eye Irritation – Category 1
Aquatic Toxicity (ACUTE) – Category 1
Aquatic Toxicity (CHRONIC) – Category 3
Corrosive to Metals – Category 1
Signal Word : Danger
Pictogram(s) :

Hazard Statements : H290 May be corrosive to metals.

H314 Causes severe skin burns and eye damage.

H400 Very toxic to aquatic life.

H412 Harmful to aquatic life with long lasting effects.

Precautionary Statements
Response : P304+P340+P310 IF INHALED: Remove person to fresh air and keep at rest in a position comfortable for breathing. Immediately call a POISON CENTER or doctor.

P301+P310+P330+P331 IF SWALLOWED: Immediately call a POISON CENTER or doctor. Rinse mouth. Do NOT induce vomiting.

P302+P361+P353+P363+P310 IF ON SKIN (or hair): Take off immediately all contaminated clothing. Rinse skin with water/shower. Wash Attachment 5

Product Identifier: Sodium Hypochlorite Last Revision Date: 12/10/2020 Page 2 of 9 contaminated clothing before reuse. Immediately call a POISON CENTER or doctor.

P305+P351+P338+P310 IF IN EYES: Rinse cautiously with water for several minutes. Remove contact lenses, if present and easy to do.

Continue rinsing. Immediately call a POISON CENTER or doctor.

Prevention : P280 Wear chemical resistant gloves, protective clothing, goggles and/or face shield.

P273 Avoid release to the environment.

P264 Wash thoroughly after handling.

P391 Collect spillage.

Storage : P405 Store locked up.

P406 Store in a corrosive resistant container with a resistant inner liner.

Disposal : P501 Dispose of contents and container in accordance with all local, regional, national and international regulations.

3. Composition/Information on Ingredients
CAS Number Ingredient Name Weight %
7681-52-9
1310-73-2
7732-18-5
Sodium Hypochlorite
Sodium Hydroxide
Water
>=5.25% - <=12.5%
>=0.1% - <=1%
>=86.5% - <=94.9%
Synonyms/ : Liquid Bleach
Common Names

4. First Aid Measures
Summary of First Aid Measures
Ingestion : Do not give any liquid to an unconscious person. Drink large quantities of gelatin solution if able to swallow. If these are not available, drink large quantities of water. DO NOT give vinegar, baking soda or acidic antidotes.

Do not induce vomiting unless directed by a Poison Control Center or Medical Doctor. GET MEDICAL ATTENTION IMMEDIATELY.

Inhalation : If adverse effects occur, remove to fresh air. Give artificial respiration if not breathing. If breathing is difficult, oxygen should be administered by qualified personnel. If respiration or pulse has stopped, call 911 or an ambulance, have a trained person administer Basic Life Support, CardioPulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) / Automatic External Defibrillator (AED), and GET MEDICAL ATTENTION IMMEDIATELY.

Skin : Immediately flush contaminated areas with plenty of water for 15 to 20 minutes. Remove contaminated clothing, jewelry, and shoes immediately.

Wash contaminated areas with soap and water. Thoroughly clean and dry contaminated clothing and shoes before reuse. GET MEDICAL ATTENTION IMMEDIATELY.

Eyes : Hold eye open and rinse slowly and gently with water for 15 to 20 minutes.

Product Identifier: Sodium Hypochlorite Last Revision Date: 12/10/2020 Page 3 of 9 GET MEDICAL ATTENTION IMMEDIATELY. Remove contact lenses, if present, after the first 5 minutes, then continue rinsing. Contact lenses should not be worn when working with this chemical.

Medical Conditions : N/A

Effects of : N/A
Overexposure
Summary of Acute Health Hazards
Ingestion : May cause irritation of the membranes of the mouth and throat, stomach pain, and possible ulceration.

Inhalation : May cause burns, cough, pulmonary edema, up to 48 hours after exposure.

Avoid breathing vapors.

Skin : May cause severe skin irritation and reddening of the skin. Prolonged exposure may cause burns, blistering.

Eyes : May cause severe irritation such as burns, and eye damage.

Note to : The absence of visible signs of burns does NOT reliably exclude the Physicians presence of actual tissue damage.

Summary of Chronic Health : Irritating effects increase with strength of solution and time of exposure.

5. Fire Fighting Measures
Extinguishing : Use extinguishing agents appropriate for surrounding fire.

Special Exposure : Heat and acid contamination will produce irritating and toxic fumes. May Hazards decompose, generating irritating chlorine gas. Move container from fire area if it can be done without risk. Avoid inhalation of material or combustion by -products. Stay upwind and keep out of low areas.

Special Protective : Wear NIOSH approved positive-pressure self-contained breathing Equipment for apparatus.

Firefighters

Fire Fighting : N/A
Procedures

NFPA Rating : Health - 2
Flammability - 0
Instability - 1

Product Identifier: Sodium Hypochlorite Last Revision Date: 12/10/2020 Page 4 of 9

0=Insignificant 1=Slight 2=Moderate 3=High 4=Extreme
Uniform Fire
Code Rating : N/A

6. Accidental Release Measures
Personal : Avoid contact with the eyes. Avoid prolonged or repeated contact with the Precautions skin.

Emergency Procedures : Ventilate the area of the spill or leak. Vacate poorly ventilated areas as soon as possible. Do not return until odors have dissipated.

Methods of : Spills may need to be reported to the National Response Center (800/424 Containment -8802) DOT Reportable Quantity (RQ) is 100 pounds. For large spills, And Clean-Up evacuate the hazard area of unprotected personnel. Wear appropriate protective clothing. Dike and contain. Neutralize with sodium sulfite, bisulfite or thiosulfite. Remove with vacuum trucks or pump to storage vessels. Soak up residue with an absorbent such as clay, sand or other suitable material; place in non-leaking containers for proper disposal. Flush area with water to remove trace residue; dispose of flush solutions as above. For small spills, take up with an absorbent material and place in non-leaking containers; seal tightly for proper disposal. This material is alkaline and may raise the pH of surface waters with low buffering capacity.

7. Handling and Storage
Safe Handling : Mix only with water according to label directions. Mixing this product with gross filth such as feces, urine, etc. or with ammonia, acids, detergents, hydrocarbons, alcohols, ethers or other chemicals will release hazardous gases irritating to the eyes, lungs and mucous membranes.

Storage : Store in vented, closed, clean non-corrosive containers in a cool, dry location away from direct sunlight and heat to avoid deterioration. Do not store adjacent to chemicals which may react with the bleach if spillage occurs. If closed containers become heated, the containers should be vented to release decomposition products (mainly oxygen under normal decomposition).

Work/Hygienic : Wash hands thoroughly with soap and water before eating, drinking, Practices smoking or using toilet facilities. Do NOT place food, coffee or other drinks in the area where dusting or splashing of solutions is possible.

Ventilation : No special ventilation is required unless bleach is exposed to decomposition conditions, i.e., heat or acidic conditions.

Product Identifier: Sodium Hypochlorite Last Revision Date: 12/10/2020 Page 5 of 9

8. Exposure Controls/Personal Protection
Occupational Exposure :

Limits
Protective Equipment : Wear chemical-resistant gloves and other clothing as required to minimize contact. Safety showers and eyewash fountains should be available in storage and handling areas.

Eye Protection : Wear chemical goggles and/or face shield if there is the likelihood of contact with the eyes.

Respiratory : Not required under normal use conditions. In the case of a fire use selfProtection contained breathing apparatus. A NIOSH approved respirator with N95 (dust, fume, mist) filters may be permissible under certain circumstances where airborne concentrations are expected to exceed exposure limits, or when symptoms have been observed that are indicative of overexposure.

When decomposition products exist, acid gas cartridges are also required.

A half-piece air-purifying respirator may be used in concentrations up to 10X the acceptable exposure level and a full facepiece air-purifying respirator may be used in concentrations up to 50X the acceptable exposure level.

Supplied air should be used when the level is expected to above 50X the acceptable level, or when there is a potential for uncontrolled release.

A respiratory program that meets 29 CFR 1910.134 must be followed whenever workplace conditions warrant use of a respirator.

9. Physical and Chemical Properties
Appearance: Light green to light yellow Odor: Pungent chlorine odor Odor Threshold: 0.9 mg/m³ pH: 11.9 - 13
Melting Point/Freezing Point: -5 to -25°C Initial Boiling Point/Range: 40-76°C (104-169°F) (Decomposes)
Flash Point: Nonflammable Evaporation Rate (BuAc=1): N/A Flammability: N/A Lower/Upper Explosive Limit: N/A
Vapor Pressure (mmHg): 12-17 @ 20°C Vapor Density (Air=1): 2.61 Relative Density: N/A Solubility in Water: 100%
Partition Coefficient: N/A Autoignition Temperature: N/A Decomposition Temperature: N/A Viscosity: N/A
% Volatiles: Variable-Water plus products of
Decomposition Specific Gravity (Water=1): 1.07-1.26 @ 20°C Molecular Weight: 75.45 VOC: N/A
Chemical Name: Sodium Hypochlorite
Exposure Limits (TWAs) in Air
CAS Number ACGIH TLV OSHA PEL STEL
Sodium Hypochlorite 7681-52-9 N/A N/A 2mg/m³
Sodium Hydroxide 1310-73-2 2mg/m³ 2mg/m³ 2mg/m³

Product Identifier: Sodium Hypochlorite Last Revision Date: 12/10/2020 Page 6 of 9

10. Stability and Reactivity
Reactivity : The product is stable and non-reactive under normal conditions of use, storage and transport.

Chemical Stability : Material is stable under normal conditions.

Possibility of Hazardous : Hazardous polymerization will not occur Reactions or
Polymerizations
Conditions to Avoid : Stability decreases with concentration, heat, light exposure, decrease in pH and contamination with heavy metals, such as nickel, cobalt, copper and iron.

Incompatible Materials : Strong acids, oxidizable materials, heavy metals (which act as catalysts), reducing agents, ammonia solutions, ether, and many organic and inorganic chemicals such as paint, kerosene, paint thinners, shellac, grease and oils.

Hazardous Decomposition : Chlorine. Additional decomposition products which depend upon pH, Products temperature and time are sodium chloride, sodium chlorate and oxygen.

11. Toxicological Information
Acute and Chronic Effects : See Section 4
Routes of Exposure
Inhalation : Yes
Ingestion : Yes
Skin : Yes
Eyes : Yes
Symptoms related to : Irritating effects increase with strength of solution and time of exposure.

Physical, Chemical &
Toxicological
Characteristics

Numerical Measures of : By ingestion, Grade 1: oral rat LD50 = 8.91 g/kg IDLH Value: Data not Toxicity available

Chronic Toxicity : N/A
Carcinogenicity : This product is not considered to be a carcinogen by IARC, ACGIH, NTP, or OSHA.

TARGET ORGANS : May cause respiratory irritation.

Product Identifier: Sodium Hypochlorite Last Revision Date: 12/10/2020 Page 7 of 9

12. Ecological Information
Ecotoxicity : This pesticide is toxic to fish and aquatic organisms.

Persistence and : N/A
Degradability
Bioaccumulative Potential :

Mobility in Soil : N/A

13. Disposal Considerations
Disposal of Container : Do not discharge effluent containing this product into lakes, streams, estuaries, oceans, or public waters unless in accordance with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and the Permitting Authority has been notified in writing prior to discharge. Do not discharge effluent containing this product to sewer systems without previously notifying the sewage treatment plant authority. For guidance, contact your State Water Board or Regional Office of the EPA.

Do not contaminate food or feed by storage, disposal or cleaning of equipment. Product or rinsates that cannot be used should be diluted with water before disposal in a sanitary sewer. Can be neutralized with weak reducing agents such as sodium sulfite, bisulfite, or thiosulfite (DO NOT USE SULFATES OR BISULFATES). Dispose of in accordance with all applicable local, county, state and federal regulations.

14. Transport Information
UN# : UN1791
Proper Shipping Name : Hypochlorite Solutions
Hazard Class/Division : 8
Packing Group : III
Marine Pollutant : Yes
Special Precautions : N/A
Emergency Response : 2012 ERG, Guide 154, pages 246-247 Guidebook
Placard Advisory :

Product/Ingredient Log Pow BCF Potential

N/A N/A N/A N/A

Product Identifier: Sodium Hypochlorite Last Revision Date: 12/10/2020 Page 8 of 9

15. Regulatory Information
FIFRA LABEL INFORMATION:

This chemical is a pesticide product registered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and is subject to certain labeling requirements under federal pesticide law. These requirements differ from the classification criteria and the hazard information required for safety data sheets, and for workplace labels of non-pesticide chemicals. The following is hazard information as required on the pesticide label:

HAZARDS TO HUMANS AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS: CORROSIVE. Causes irreversible eye damage and skin burns. Do not get in eyes, on skin, or on clothing. Harmful or fatal if swallowed. Applicators and other handlers Must wear: coveralls work over long-sleeved shirt and long pants; Waterproof footwear and gloves; and goggles or face shield. Avoid breathing vapors. Vacate poorly ventilated areas as soon as possible. Do not return until odors have dissipated. Wash hand thoroughly with soap and water after handling and before eating, drinking, chewing gum, using tobacco or using the toilet. Remove and wash contaminated clothing before reuse.

ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS: This pesticide is toxic to fish and aquatic organisms. Do not discharge effluent containing this product into lakes, streams, estuaries, oceans, or public waters unless in accordance with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) permit and the Permitting Authority has been notified in writing prior to discharge. Do not discharge effluent containing this product to sewer systems without previously notifying the sewage treatment plant authority. For guidance, contact your State Water Board or Regional Office of the EPA.

PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL HAZARDS: STRONG OXIDIZING AGENT: May be corrosive to metals. Mix only with water according to directions for use. Mixing this product with gross filth such as feces, urine, etc., or with ammonia, acids, detergents, or other chemicals will release hazardous gasses irritating to the eyes, lungs, and mucous membranes.

Section 302 Extremely : N/A Clean Air Act (CAA) : N/A
Hazardous Substance
(EHS)
Section 304 Extremely : N/A California Prop 65 : N/A
Hazardous Substance
(EHS)
CERCLA Hazardous : N/A Label Warning : N/A
Substance
Section 313 Supplier : N/A EPA Registration(s) : 266-40; 266-20001; Notification 266-20002; 266-20007
Reportable Quantity : 100 Pounds (45.4 Kilograms)
Maximum use level for Sodium Hypochlorite under NSF/ANSI Standard 60

5.25% Liquid Bleach
10% Liquid Bleach

12.5% Liquid Bleach
Maximum Use
Maximum Use
Maximum Use
200 mg/L
105 mg/L
84 mg/L

Product Identifier: Sodium Hypochlorite Last Revision Date: 12/10/2020 Page 9 of 9

16. Other Information
Revision date : 12/10/2020
Supersedes : 02/25/2015
First Issue : 06/17/1987
Chemical Family/Type : Halogen Compound
Section(s) changed : MSDS to First Issue SDS Conversion since last revision
Hazardous Ingredients : Sodium hypochlorite is manufactured only in solution form. Industrial grade sodium hypochlorite contains from 5.25 - 15% by weight NaOCL (5 – 14.3% available chlorine) with about

0.1-1.00% excess NaOH for stability control.

IMPORTANT! Read this SDS before use or disposal of this product. Pass along the information to employees and any other persons who could be exposed to the product to be sure that they are aware of the information before use or other exposure. This SDS has been prepared in accordance with the Globally Harmonized System of Chemical and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) Fifth Edition and the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard [29 CFR 1910.1200]. The SDS information is based on sources believed to be reliable. Available data, safety standards, and government regulations are subject to change and the conditions of handling and use, or misuse are beyond our control; Hill Brothers Chemical Company makes no warranty, either expressed or implied, with respect to the completeness or continuing accuracy of the information contained herein and disclaims all liability for reliance thereon. Additional information may be necessary or helpful for specific conditions and circumstances of use. It is the user's responsibility to determine the suitability of this product and to evaluate risks and exercise appropriate precautions for protection of employees and others prior to use.

BLDG
PERMIT No.
22 3933 PLANREVIEW No.

DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
Plans and Scope of Review:

This project shall comply with the following:

The California Fire (CFC) & Building (CBC) Code, 2019 edition, as adopted by the City of Los Altos Hills Municipal Code (LAHMC), California Code of Regulations (CCR) and Health & Safety Code.

The scope of this project includes the following:

Review of application for conditional use permit for the installation of two 6x6 "tough sheds" to house a new water chlorimination system, including chemical drums, pumps and chemical lines to existing water storage tanks.

Plan Status:

Plans are APPROVED, subject to the following conditions.

Note: This project also falls under the jurisdiction of the Santa Clara County Dept. of Environmental Health, Hazardous Materials Compliance Division (HMCD). Fire final will only be granted in conjunction with HMCD approval. Contact HMCD at (408) 918-3400 for any additional requirements.

Plan Review Comments:

1. Storage and use of any hazardous materials shall be reviewed under a separate permit submittal to the Santa Clara County Fire Department, prior to installation.

2. The fire department has no conditions relevant to fire apparatus access or water supply requirements.

This review shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of the California Fire Code or of other laws or regulations of the jurisdiction.  A permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the fire code or other such laws or regulations shall not be valid.

Any addition to or alteration of approved construction documents shall be approved in advance. [CFC, Ch.1, 105.3.6]
City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
U

OCCUPANCY

AREA LOAD
California Water Service
ApplicantName

CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE - LOS ALTOS
STATION 28

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
1 OF V-B 1
DATE
LAH 1/6/2023
Flanagan/ip/benjamin

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Commercial Development
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI

N/A N/A

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Use Permit
Olive Tree Lane Los Altos Hills
Attachment 6

ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN and PROTECTION COMMITTEE
New Residence, Addition/Remodel, 2 nd Unit
Applicaon For: Demolish old piping and install chloraminaon equipment Applicant Name: California Water Services
Site Address: APN 336 35 044 (adjacent to 24752 Olive Tree Ln) Reviewed By: Carol & Grace
Field Trip Date: October 28, 2022
Planner: Jeremy Loh
Due Date: November 11, 2022
File Number: Project: CUP22-0004
SITE IMPACT (Locaon: Ridgeline/Hilltop/Knoll, Slopes, Views) This water storage site includes two tanks and is located on the south side of Olive Tree Ln, between two residenal sites: 24752 and 24808 Olive Tree Ln.

Neighbors: (Views, Screening, Noise)
A note on the plans state that noise level from this installaon will be less than 55dB at the property line.

The exisng mature planngs around the site achieve adequate screening, given the mass and ght sing of the tanks. Photo is looking east from 24752 Olive Tree Ln.

Attachment 7

Residence: (Setbacks, Color/Reflecvity, Roof Type, Skylights, Lights) N/A
ENVIRONMENT (Pathways, Open Space, Riparian Habitat, Heritage Trees, other mature trees) There is a slope going west downward from 24808 Olive Tree Lane, this site and 24752 Olive Ln. This puts the site above the last address. The new chemical storage sheds (for ammonia and sodium hypochlorite) are located near and above the property line with 24752 Olive Tree Ln and are closer to this house than if they were located on the other side of the water tanks. We are wondering if consideraons have been made for the case of chemical leaks or explosions given that the two components of the chloraminaon reacon are unstable.

TREE REMOVAL & REPLACEMENT
None noted.

WILDFIRE SAFETY (Defensible Space, Zones, Tree Spacing, Ladder Fuels, Mulch) This site sits on a concrete pad. We are not apprised of wildfire hardening for the chemical sheds.

OPTIONAL HARDSCAPE (MDA), FENCE/GATES (Height, locaon, style), LIGHTING No lighng is indicated on the plans. Do the town standards apply to this ulity site? All exterior lighng must conform to the town’s dark sky standards:

Maximum Light Emission
(Lumens, Φv)
Maximum Color Temperature
(Kelvin, K)
Path Lights 200 2700
Step Lights 110 2700

Exterior Wall Sconces 600 3000
Front Door Pendants 600 3000
Gate Lights 600 3000

OSC Review Cal Water Olive Tree Ln.docx 1
To: Los Altos Hills Planning Department
From: Open Space Committee member Kit Gordon, full committee review on Dec 2 Date: Nov 4, 2022
Property address: Cal Water next to 24752 Olive Tree Ln Date of Site Visit: Nov 2, 2022
Lands of Cal Water Service APN 336-35-044
Town
Planner
Jeremy Loh Project
Number
CUP22-0004
Reason for review: New chemical storage

PROPERTY SUMMARY
Cal Water is adding chemical storage to their water storage tank site. Pumps are noted in the new sheds. Will this site add noise to the community?

OSC RECOMMENDATION

1. Recommend following Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) best practices for chemical storage, movement and management.

Google Map view of property
Attachment 8

OSC Review Cal Water Olive Tree Ln.docx 2

OSC Review Cal Water Olive Tree Ln.docx 3

OSC Review Cal Water Olive Tree Ln.docx 4
Conservation Element Policy 5.2 Protect the Town’s groundwater from the adverse impacts of urban uses.

Conservation Element Program 5.2 In the planning, environmental impact review, and completion of all land development or land alteration projects, direct particular attention toward the protection of the natural water system.

Attachment 9 – Project Plans
Digital project plans are available for the City Council only. However, the public can request to review the physical files in person at the Town Hall.

TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS April 20, 2023
Staff Report to the City Council
SUBJECT: 12345 El Monte Road – File #SP23-0001 – Lands of Foothill-De Anza Community College District

RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LANDMARK ALTERATION PERMIT FOR

INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS TO CARRIAGE HOUSE, A
DESIGNATED NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK.

FROM: Jeremy Loh, Associate Planner
APPROVED: Peter Pirnejad, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

Adopt a Resolution (Attachment 1) approving a Landmark Alteration Permit for interior and exterior alterations to Carriage House at 12345 El Monte Road.

BACKGROUND
The subject 133.58-acre property, commonly referred to as Foothill Community College, is comprised of five (5) parcels, located to the south of I-280 and north of El Monte Road. Owned by the Foothill-De Anza Community College District, the college features multiple administration and classroom facilities, an observatory, parking lots, sports fields, and other structures. Two (2) structures on the campus are listed on the California Point of Historical Interest and the National Register of Historic Places – Griffin Home and Carriage House (Figure 1). Completed in 1903, the home of Willard Mugett Griffin was designed by Frank Delos Wolfe, a prominent South Bay architect in the late 19th and early 20th century. The approximately 5,000-square-foot mansion was imposing by 1903 standards, with its steep, shingled roof as the basis for Foothill College’s awardwinning campus architecture. Additionally, the Griffins’ horse carriage house, completed in 1901, is similarly impressive but with slightly shallower roof pitches.

Both structures were nominated for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places on April 8, 1976, and entered the Register on April 13, 1977(No. 77000342, Attachment 2). At the time of its entry, the Carriage House had been used by the Los Altos Fire Department, El Monte Station, and featured two non-original metal garage doors and metal window frames. The Carriage House is currently being used by the Foothill-De Anza Community College District Archives Foundation.

After the Fire Department discontinued the use, the garage doors were filled with walls with a faux barn door installed outside the wall to emulate the original layout.

On February 15, 2023, an application was submitted to the Town proposing alterations to the Carriage House, with an impact analysis report of the proposed alterations on the historic structure (Attachment 3). On March 8, 2023, payment was made for the application, and the plans were made available to the Town’s History Committee for review.

AGENDA ITEM #7.B
P.P.

J.L.

Staff Report to the City Council
Lands of Foothill-De Anza Community College District
April 20, 2023

Figure 1: Carriage House Vicinity Map Source: Google Maps

NOTICING/PUBLIC OUTREACH
The public was advised of this Public Hearing in the following ways:
• Mailing to property owners who own property within a 500-foot radius – April 7, 2023 • Posted at the project site – April 7, 2023
• Public Posting Places – April 7, 2023
• Town Website: www.losaltoshills.ca.gov – April 14, 2023 To date, staff has not received public comment regarding the proposed project.

MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENTS
The Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Title 11 regulates Landmark Designations and Preservation.

Sections 11-1.09 through 11-1.12 specifically deals with Landmark Alteration Permits, while Section 11-1.13 requires that property owners have a duty to maintain and repair landmarks, these sections read as follows:
11-1.09 Landmark Designation—Alteration or Removal.

No person shall carry out or cause to be carried out on a designated landmark any material change in exterior appearance through alteration, construction, relocation, exterior painting or demolition, without obtaining a landmark alteration permit from the City Council.

Staff Report to the City Council
Lands of Foothill-De Anza Community College District
April 20, 2023

11-1.10 Permit—Application.

The Building Department shall maintain within the said department a current record of designated landmarks. Upon receipt of an application for a permit which indicates a possible material change to the exterior of a landmark, the Building Inspector shall require an application for a landmark alteration permit which shall include plans and specifications indicating the proposed siting, elevations, colors, and material of the structure, or otherwise indicating the proposed material change. (§ 2, Ord. 257, eff. December 7, 1979) 11-1.11 Permit—Hearing.

No landmark alteration permit shall be approved by the City Council until a public hearing shall have been held. The requirement for notice and hearing shall be the same as set forth in this chapter for designating landmarks. (§ 2, Ord. 257, eff. December 7, 1979) 11-1.12 Permit—Findings.

Prior to issuing any landmark alteration permit, the City Council shall make a specific finding on each of the following issues:
(a) That the action proposed is consistent with the purposes of this chapter. (b) That the action proposed will not be detrimental to a landmark of significant aesthetical, cultural, historical, or architectural interest or value. (c) That the applicant has demonstrated denial of the application will result in an immediate or substantial hardship. (§ 2, Ord. 257, eff. December 7, 1979) 11-1.13 Duty to keep landmark in repair.

Every landmark shall be maintained in good repair by the owner thereof in order to preserve it against decay and deterioration. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed so as to prohibit ordinary maintenance and repair of a landmark. For the purposes of this chapter, ordinary maintenance and repairs shall mean any work the sole purpose and effect of which is to correct or prevent deterioration, decay, or damage. (§ 2, Ord. 257, eff. December 7, 1979) 11-1.16 Public nuisance—Abatement.

Without excluding any penalty for violation of the Municipal Code, any material change made by any person in the exterior appearance of any designated landmark through alteration, construction, exterior painting or demolition without the issuance of a landmark alteration permit having first been obtained shall be, and is hereby declared to be unlawful and a public nuisance, and shall be abated in the method provided for in Chapter 5 of Title 6 of this Municipal Code.

Staff Report to the City Council
Lands of Foothill-De Anza Community College District
April 20, 2023

DISCUSSION
Project Introduction
The photograph on the left Figure 2 presents the Carriage House, as nominated to the National Register in 1976, in comparison to its appearance today on the right; note the faux barn door replaced one of the Fire Department garage doors, and the metal window frames remained until today.

Figure 2: Carriage House circa 1976 (left); Carriage House today (right) Source: National Register of Historic Places (left); staff (right) The proposed exterior alterations to the Carriage House include replacing existing asphalt single roofing and wood shingle siding in-kind, replacing non-original aluminum windows with aluminum-clad wood windows, replacing exterior doors with wooden doors patterned off historic photographs, and installation of a steel fire escape, metal gutters, and downspouts. The proposed interior alterations include interior room renovation, voluntary seismic upgrades, and access improvements for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). ADA improvements include an accessible parking space and associated parking lot improvements. The replacement of siding, roofing, and seismic upgrade will help preserve the Carriage House for years to come. A portable facility will be removed from the immediate vicinity, and a “decorative” steel fence is proposed around the structure with one opening for vehicular and pedestrian access.

Project plans in Attachment 5 illustrate the proposed changes in detail in terms of materials and installation techniques.

Landmark Alteration Findings
All Landmark Alteration applications are subject to the scope of review as listed in §11-1.12 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code (LAHMC). The overall purpose of landmark alteration review is to minimize the impact on historic resources. In the following discussion, the scope of review criteria is in bold, and an explanation of how the project meets the required standard is in plain text below.

Staff Report to the City Council
Lands of Foothill-De Anza Community College District
April 20, 2023

1. That the action proposed is consistent with the purposes of this chapter.

A thorough evaluation of the plans reveals that the proposed alterations are to restore the historical features of the building to the greatest extent possible with volunteer seismic and building code upgrades to extend the lifespan of the structure. The proposal will not cause a material change in the exterior appearance of the structure apart from the addition of gutters, downspouts, and a fire escape; the structure will otherwise be unaltered apart from the replacement of siding and roofing, removal of ahistorical windows and trim, and removal of a conjectured faux barn door. Therefore, the action proposed is consistent with the purposes of this chapter, and this finding can be made.

2. That the action proposed will not be detrimental to a landmark of significant aesthetical, cultural, historical, or architectural interest or value.

The Secretary of the Interior sets Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to avoid detrimental damage to a landmark of significant aesthetical, cultural, historical, or architectural interest or value. The ten (10) standards and staff’s assessment are as follows:

1. A property will be used as it has historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.

The historical use as a horse carriage house has long since been replaced with uses consistent with the property’s current academic use. The carriage house is currently used for campus archival storage and viewing and will continue to be used as such.

2. The historic character of a property will be maintained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.

The project does not propose removing distinctive materials or altering exterior features. A fire escape will be added to the second story without the addition of an exterior doorway. Changes to exterior windows and doorways will improve the structure's historic character, while interior modifications will not change the structure's historic character. The addition of a steel fence may impose an alteration of the spatial relationship of the structure to the greater campus.

3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use.

Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be taken.

No conjectured features will be added to the structure. In fact, a faux barn door will be removed from the structure to decrease a false sense of historical development. Besides the fire escape, the structure will remain a physical record of its time, place, and use.

The steel fire escape will be clearly distinguishable from the unaltered exterior architecture and shape of the structure without creating a false sense of historical

Staff Report to the City Council
Lands of Foothill-De Anza Community College District
April 20, 2023

development that a wooden fire escape might try to accomplish. In addition, the fire escape is a necessity to meet today’s life and standards for the proposed uses.

4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.

Previous changes to the structure, such as the aluminum windows, new doors, and faux barn doors, have not acquired historical significance and will be replaced with more appropriate features.

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.

The distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques of the Carriage House will be preserved by the proposed rehabilitation.

6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.

The distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques of the Carriage House will be preserved by the proposed rehabilitation. The existing wood siding and roofing materials have deteriorated beyond repair, and the existing doors were replaced in the previous alterations without matching the historical materials. The proposed alterations propose unpainted wood shingles and shingle roofing be replaced in kind.

New doors will be patterned off historic photographs. Therefore, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. The replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.

7. Chemical or physical treatments if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.

No treatments will be used in the rehabilitation. The replacement roof shingles may contain coatings for waterproofing treated by the manufacturer.

8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.

No grading will occur with this rehabilitation. The addition of an accessible parking space will replace an existing asphalt surface.

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and special relationships that characterize the property.

The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the

Staff Report to the City Council
Lands of Foothill-De Anza Community College District
April 20, 2023

historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.

The alterations to the windows and doors will restore the historic character and match the historical materials of the structure. The steel fire escape will be easily differentiated from the old one and is compatible with the size, scale, proportion, and massing of the structure. Adding a metal fire escape to historic structures is a typical practice in historic preservation.

10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

The removal of the added components would not alter the form and integrity of the historic structure as the alterations do not substantially change the structure itself. The siding, roofing, and materials replacement, if reversed, would keep the structure as it was constructed. Removal of the fire escape would return the structure to its historic massing.

Knapp Architects’ analysis of the structure and how it meets the Secretary of the Interior’s standards are included in Attachment 3. The action proposed will not be detrimental to a landmark of significant aesthetic, cultural, historical, or architectural interest or value. Therefore, findings can be made.

3. That the applicant has demonstrated denial of the application will result in an immediate or substantial hardship.

Denial of the application could result in further deterioration of the structure as future rehabilitation could be financially more expensive and technically more difficult. Further deterioration of the structure could result in an irreplaceable loss to the State and Country.

Both the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and LAHMC require proper maintenance and repair by the property owners in order to preserve it against decay and deterioration. Foothill College submitted the proposed project to the Division of the State Architect (DSA) for building code review and the Town of Los Altos Hills for a Landmark Alteration Permit, with a good faith effort. Per the correspondence between the school and the Town staff, DSA approved the plans. The funds for this project must be encumbered by June 30, 2023. Denial of the application will result in an immediate or substantial hardship for protection of this National Historic Place.

HISTORY COMMITTEE REVIEW
The project was routed to the Town’s History Committee for review and comments. The History Committee visited the site and provided a report dated March 30, 2023. The report is included in Attachment 4 and comments are summarized as follows:

Staff Report to the City Council
Lands of Foothill-De Anza Community College District
April 20, 2023

• Recommend removing the proposed 6-foot metal fence encircling the site on all sides, as it would obstruct the view of the Carriage House and narrow the evacuation routes. • Recommend replacing the faux barn door with two new doors to match the historical photos.
• Recommend removing the awnings to maintain the original carriage house look. • Recommend replacing the lighting fixtures and using the old hardware to reflect the architectural integrity of the building.

With the above-recommended changes, the History Committee agrees that “the rehabilitation seems to go back to the Carriage House period.”
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The Landmark Alteration Permit project conforms to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(3) states that “generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer, shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource.” Therefore, the project qualifies for categorical exemption as outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15331 and 15301(d). CEQA Section 15331 exempts projects proposing maintenance, repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation, or reconstruction of historic resources consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. CEQA Section 15301(d) exempts projects for rehabilitation of deteriorated structures to meet current standards of public health and safety.
2023 CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
The Landmark Alteration Permit is a special project type but is not a Town initiated activity and, therefore, not a Council priority. Permit applications such as this are a part of the Planning Department’s daily duties and do not interfere with City Council Strategic Priorities.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Landmark Alteration Permit and proposed rehabilitation will have no fiscal impact on the Town besides staff time. Processing the application required payment of a $725.00 fee and a $3,000.00 deposit to cover staff time reviewing the application, preparing the staff report, and presenting the project.

CONCLUSION

Staff Report to the City Council
Lands of Foothill-De Anza Community College District
April 20, 2023

The proposed building rehabilitation will extend the lifespan of the structure, improve its usefulness to the property owner, improve emergency egress, and improve accessibility. Staff recommends approving the Landmark Alteration Permit.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution Approving Landmark Alteration Permit

2. National Register of Historic Places Inventory – Nomination Form dated April 8, 1976

3. Analysis of Proposed Rehabilitation of Carriage House, Foothill College prepared by Knapp Architects dated January 5, 2023

4. History Committee Report dated March 30, 2023

5. Project Plans – City Council Only

Resolution ____-23 Page 1
RESOLUTION ____-23

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

MAKING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION DETERMINATION UNDER CEQA AND

APPROVING A LANDMARK ALTERATION PERMIT TO ALLOW INTERIOR AND

EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS TO THE CARRIAGE HOUSE AT FOOTHILL COLLEGE (LANDS OF FOOTHILL-DE ANZA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT)
WHEREAS, the Foothill-De Anza Community College District (“Owner”) owns the property commonly known as Foothill College located at 12345 El Monte Road, Los Altos Hills (APN 175- 41-015); and
WHEREAS, the property was once home to Willard Mugett Griffin and the horse carriage house (“Carriage House”) designed by Frank Delos Wolfe, a prominent South Bay architect in the late 19th and early 20th century; and
WHEREAS, the Griffin House and Carriage House are California Points of Historical Interest and were added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1977; and WHEREAS, on February 15, 2023, the Town received an application from the Owner to rehabilitate the Carriage House only; and
WHEREAS, the Town has adopted a General Plan and Municipal Code and, pursuant thereto, requires a Landmark Alteration Permit for alterations to a designated landmark that will materially change the exterior appearance; and
WHEREAS, Secretary of the Interior establishes standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties when altering historic properties; and
WHEREAS, the Town finds the application to be consistent with the Municipal Code and the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does hereby make the findings Attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A and approve the Landmark Alteration Permit subject to the conditions of approval attached to this Resolution as Exhibit B.

The above and foregoing Resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills at a regular meeting held on the 20th day of April, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN: BY: _______________________________
Linda Swan, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Deborah L. Padovan, City Clerk
Attachment 1

Resolution ____-23 Page 2

EXHIBIT A

FINDINGS
12345 El Monte Road – File #SP23-0001

1. With regard to the Landmark Alteration Permit (SP23-0001) for rehabilitation alterations made to a designated landmark, the City Council finds in accordance with Section 11-1.12 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code as follows:
a. That the action proposed is consistent with the purposes of this chapter; The proposal to rehabilitate the Carriage House is mostly to maintain and repair the structure to prevent deterioration, decay, or damage consistent with Section 11-1.13 of the Municipal Code. The proposal will not cause a material change in the exterior appearance of the structure apart from the addition of gutters, downspouts, and a fire escape; the structure will otherwise be unaltered apart from the replacement of siding and roofing, removal of ahistorical windows and trim, and removal of a conjectured faux barn door.
b. That the action proposed will not be detrimental to a landmark of significant aesthetical, cultural, historical, or architectural interest or value; The proposed landmark alteration project conforms to the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to avoid detrimental damage to a landmark of significant aesthetical, cultural, historical, or architectural interest or value. The project does not propose removing distinctive materials or altering exterior features. A fire escape will be added to the second story without the addition of an exterior doorway; Thus, the structure’s features will not be altered with the fire escape addition. Changes to exterior windows and doorways will improve the historic character of the structure, while interior modifications will not change the historic character of the structure. The addition of a steel fence may impose an alteration of the spatial relationship of the structure to the greater campus. The new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. The replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Therefore, the findings can be made.
c. That the applicant has demonstrated denial of the application will result in an immediate or substantial hardship;
Denial of the application could result in further deterioration of the structure as future rehabilitation could be financially more expensive and technically more difficult. Further deterioration of the structure could result in an irreplaceable loss to the State and Country.

Both the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and LAHMC require proper maintenance and repair by the property owners in order to preserve it against decay and deterioration. Foothill College submitted the proposed project to the Division of the State Architect (DSA) for building code review and the Town of Los Altos Hills for a Landmark Alteration Permit, with a good faith effort. Per the correspondence between the school and the Town staff, DSA approved the plans. The funds for this project must be encumbered by June 30, 2023. Denial of the application will result in an immediate or substantial hardship for the protection of this National Historic Place. Therefore, this finding can be made.

Resolution ____-23 Page 3

EXHIBIT B

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
12345 El Monte Road – File # SP23-0001

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

1. No modifications to the approved plans are allowed except as otherwise first reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or City Council, depending on the scope of the changes, and consistent with the requirements of applicable codes. Material changes to gutters, fencing, or interior fixture or layout changes shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director while substantial exterior materials or massing changes shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council.

2. As is required for other construction projects within the Town, the applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Town of Los Altos Hills and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the Town of Los Altos Hills or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the project to the extent such actions are brought within the time period required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable law; provided, however, that the Applicant’s duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the Town’s promptly notifying the Applicant of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the Town’s full cooperation in the defense of such actions or proceedings.

3. The applicant shall not place any structures or facilities that will deny access to, or otherwise interfere with public enjoyment of the designated landmark. The applicant shall allow the Town reasonable access to, and inspection of, the designated landmark upon request of the Town or in response to possible violations of this approval, Building Code, or Zoning Code.

4. All conditions of approval shall be binding as to the applicant and all successors in interest to applicant.

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

Form No. 10-300

UNITED STATES DEPA RTMENT OI- THE INTERIOR

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM

SEE INSTRUCTIONS IN HOWTO COMPLETE NATIONAL REGISTER FORMS ________ TYPE ALL ENTRIES - COM PLETE APPLICABLE SECTIONS NAME

HISTORIC

AND/OR COMMON
Willard Housb and Carriage House

LOCATION

STREET & NUMBER
12345 South El Monte Avenue
Los Altos__ VICINITY OP
Ofll 4 f»r*n-l o

CLASSIFICATION

CATEGORY
.DISTRICT
^BUILDING(S)
—STRUCTURE
—SITE
—OBJECT

DATA SDEET
APR13 1Q77
received
Dateenterbd
—NOT FOR PUBLICATION
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 12
CODE
06 COUNTY
SAntfl Clara
CODE

OWNERSHIP
PUBLIC
—PRIVATE
Xboth

PUBLIC ACQUISITION
—IN PROCESS
—BEING CONSIDERED
STATUS

OCCUPIED
?Lunoccupied

WORK IN PROGRESS ACCESSIBLE
?LyES: restricted
YES: UNRESTRICTED

PRESENTUSE
—AGRICULTURE —MUSEUM
—COMMERCIAL —PARK
—EDUCATIONAL —PRIVATE RESIDENCE
—ENTERTAINMENT —RELIGIOUS
—GOVERNMENT —SCIENTIFIC
—INDUSTRIAL —TRANSPORTATION
—MILITARY ISOTHER: Storage
—NO

STREET & NUMBER
12345 South El Monte Avenue
CITY. TOWN STATE
Los Altos Hills VICINITY OF California

LOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION

COURTHOUSE
REGISTRY OF DEEDS,ETC. Courthouse/Hall of Records

STREETS NUMBER
191 North First Street
CITY. TOWN STATE
.Snn .Tn«o California

REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS
TITLE
Point of Historical Interest SCI-035
DATE
January 17, 1975 —FEDERAL x-STATE —COUNTY —LOCAL

DEPOSITORY FOR

SURVEY RE
CITY. TOWN
UR YRE R California Dept, of ParVa Recreation
STATE
P«0» Box 239Q> Sacramento^ California 95813
Qowner of property
Foothlll-Pe Anza Community College Dlstrlct
. .. I# / /
Attachment 2

DESCRIPTION El SIGNIFICANCE

CONDITION
—EXCELLENT
X-GOOD
—FAIR
—DETERIORATED
—RUINS —UNEXPOSEO

CHECK ONE
—UNALTERED
X.ALTEREO

CHECK ONE

TCORIGINAL SITE
—MOVED DATE.

DESCRIBE THE PRESENT AND ORIGINAL (IF KNOWN) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE The brown-shingled Willard Griffin House and Carriage House were built in 1901 by Willard M. Griffin, a shipbuilder from Maine. He bad purchased 98 acres of the beautiful rolling hill land from Daniel T. Ames at the turn of the centLiry.

According to architectural historian, Richard Longstreth, "The Griffin house is a fine example of domestic design of the early twentieth century and every effort should be made to preserve it. The exterior represents a very Interesting combination of forms found on Craftsman houses of the period and the steep pitch roof and tall, thin dormers characteristic of George W. Maher's (Chicago)nearly work. I have seen many houses of its period in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties and consider this to be one of the most Interesting. The fact that the exterior has experienced almost no alterations and that the main rooms retain much of their original finish make it the more desirable for preseinFation purposes.

To demolish the house would certainly prove to be a great cultural embarassment for the community in years hence," This beautiful home today remains the same in its outward appearance but the inside has been miserably mistreated.

The carriage house, in its early days, housed six work horses, stalls for two cows and the carriage, as well as a workshop and upper loft. Today the building serves as the foothill Fire Department.

The property was purchased by the Foothill Community College District in 1959. The Willard Griffin House and Carriage House are now a part of that college campus. They were retained on the original site; these structures of another age and another style of architectural design and construction materials le.id a pleasant contrast to the newer structures of the Foothill College campus.

PERIOD
-PREHISTORIC
—1400-;499
—1600-1699
—1600-1699
-1700-1799
—1800-1899
X.190D-
—ARCHEOLOGY-PI
—ARCHEOLOGV-H
—AGRICULTURE
aLARCHITEC'UHE
_JkRT
—COMMERCE
—COMMUNICATIO
SPECIFIC DATES 1901 (cc

STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Willard GrJ
Built in 1901 t
part of a large
western Santa C
According to nc
house was at it
form of the lat
of Charles VoyE
Brothers, it si
the medieval re
in window foimE
is a very fine
that it is a VE
When Griffin's
decided that he
lovely grey anc
near the tennis
to see which sc
Willard Griffir
college in 197C
It was at this
from Japan to ]
They desigried e
garden structui
where they came
before retlrlnj
The elder Wills
widow and two e
often dotted wJ
the land. In ]
Charles and Anc
California Frui
Packing Corpore

El SIGNIFICANCE

HECK ONE
miGINALSITE
«OVeO DATElANCE
e were built
e had purchased
Ames at the
The Griffin
ntieth century
or represents
houses of the
acteristic
,y houses of
er this to
has
etain much of
•vation purposes,
ultural embarase^
ippearance but
les, stalls for
loft. Today
;e District in
1 a part of
:te; these
il design and
‘r structures
PERIOD
—PREHISTORIC
_1400-:499
—>600-1599
—1600-1699
—1700-1799
—1800-1899
X.100O.

AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE - CHECK AND JUSTIFY BELOW
—ARCHEOLUOY-PREHISTORIC
—ARCHEOLOGY-HISTORIC
—AGRICULTURE

XARCHITECTURE
—ART
—COMMERCE
—COMMUNICATIONS
—COMMUNITY PLANNING
—CONSERVATION
—ECONOMICS
—EDUCATION
—ENGINEERING
—EXPLORATION/SETTLEMENT
X.INDUSTRY
—INVENTION
—LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE —LAW
—LITERATURE
—MILITARY
—MUSIC
—PHILOSOPHY
—POLITICS/GOVERNMENT
—RELIGION
—SCIENCE
—SCULPTURE
—SOCIAl/HUMANITARIAN
—THEATER
—TRANSPORTATION
—OTHER (SPECIFY)
SPECIFIC OATES 1901 (construction) builoer/architect Wolfe &.McKenzie 12 STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Willard Griffin house and carriage house are structures of a bygone era.

Built in 1901 by Willard M, Griffin, a shipbuilder from Maine, they were part of a large, private 98 acre estate in the rolling hill land of northwestern Santa Glara County.

According to noted architectural historian Joseph A. Baird, Jr., "The Griffin house was at its time one of the most interesting combinations of architectural form of the ]ate 19th and early 20th Century. Like the houses in England of Charles Voysey and a few rare houses in California by one of the Greene Brothers, it shows the still powerful impulse to sharp vertical forms of the medieval revivals of the 19th Century combined with progressive interests in window forms—the whole clothed in a subtle covering of shingles....It is a very fine example of Shingle- Modern with period overtones; aside from that it is a very handsome house."
When Griffin's sons, Charles W. and Andrew G., were approaching manhood he decided that he should have another house for one of them. Therefore the lovely grey and white flat roofed home, nestled between the large oak trees near the tennis courts, was built in 1906. He proceeded to "flip a coin" to see which son would be given the newer home. Andrew, the present Willard Griffin's uncle, won the "toss". (This home was demolished by the college in 1970).

It was at this time that Griffin brought three or four Japanese artisans from Japan to landscape and maintain the gardens throughout the estate.

They designed and built the Japanese tea house, arched bridge and other garden structures in and around the pond or lake about 1906. This was where they came to worship and drink their tea, as was their custom, before retiring.

The elder Willard Griffin passed away in 1913 and the estate went to hla widow and two sons. During this era the gently rolling hillsides were often dotted with tray upon tray of drying fruit which was grown on the land. In 1916, after operating under the name of Griffin & Skelly, Charles and Andrew and four other companies consolidated to form the California Fruit Canners Association, which later became the California Packing Corporation, now the present Del Monte Corporation.

MS
■H
•if ■' h"
;;2 ' L

Foim No 1^-3008
iflov. 10-741
UNlTtD S I A I I S UI-PARTMENTOI- THi; INTERIOR

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

INVENTORY - NOMINATION FORM

FOR NPS USE ONIY

RECEIVED

DATE ENTERED
-APR 8 1976
1 3 1372

CONTINUATION SHEET ITEM NUMBER PAGE
S-M
Willard, the son of. Charles W., named for his grandfather, married In 1921 and left the area. After an absence of about 16 years and upon hearing that the family desired to sell the "family homestead", he returned and bought the 100 + acres In the year 1936, In reminiscing, he states that the tea-garden and pond area was a "magnificent and wonderful part of the estate", lie recalls the many days spent there with his cousins "boating and playing" at the age of four or five.

The eight or ten beautiful oak trees still remaining around the pond have large circles of black around the upper trunks. Mr. Griffin explained that they are the remaining evidence of "tanglefoot" or flypaper which he put on the trees to keep the caterpillars from crawling back upon them.

Twenty-five acres of the estate was sold to Sidney Treat, the first Mayor of Los Altos Hills, who had his entrance on Robleda. The estate Itself was later sold to William Cusack who held It for about two years then sold It to the Foothill Community College District (1959).

Willard Griffin and his wife retired to Portola Valley where he resides today.
. i-:

■I*;. A' ?■.,
□major bibliographical references
Personal interview with Willard Griffin, Fortola Valley, California, May and June, 1970.

Dr. Joseph Armstrong Baird, Jr., written correspondence, June 30, 1975.

Richard W. Longstreth, written correspondence, July 22, 1975.

OiJGEOGRAPHICAL DATA
ACREAGE OF NOMINATED PROPERTY ^ aCrO

UTM REFERENCES

ZONE EASTINC NORTHING ZONE EASTING
1 1 1 NORTHING
cl j 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 dI . 1 1 1 , i ,1 1 '1 1 . 1 . 1 . . 1

VERBAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION
•-. i T ..'57 T--. '

LIST ALL STATES AND COUNTIES FOR PROPERTIES OVERLAPPING STATE OR COUNTY BOUNDARIES state code COUNTY CODE
STATE CODE county CODE
fflFORM PREPARED BY

NAME/TITLE
Mrs. Florence M. Fava. Los Altos Hills Town Historian ORGANIZATION July 9. 1975

STREET& NUMBER

CITY OR TOWN STATE
Los Altos Hills California

IBSTATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER CERTIFICATION
THE EVALUATED SIGNIFICANCE OFTHiS PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE IS:

NATIONAL___ STATE____ LOCAL X
As the designated State Historic Preservation Officer for the National Historic Preservalion Act of 1966 IPublic Law 89-665). I hereby nominate this property for inclusion in the National R^istej^iii^/certify that it has been evaluated according to the criteria and procedures set forth by the National Park Servitf'e/

STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER SIGNATURE
TITLE
State Historic Preservation Officer '’ATE ocr 1 1975
FDRNPSySE ONLY
■ ( HEREBY CERTIFY THAT;ffilS PROPERTY (IDED IN THE NATIONAL REGISTER , DATE
OFpy
ATTEST: fC PRESBpVATI/bN /f ■
KEEPER OF THE NATIONAL.REGISTER
C#>0 892.451
S.-: -'S'
■
■fV.. .

Mm.:
s'-.'
,• ^ ■ -V r L. '
'****1*«.,»

¥
iPage 711 of 751

FROM; f\aurc>n CuaJlm^
r«.dUiLS+<X
CAJJfytvct pkjcj+ds UJiKa/jL
Hou.i,^ f^p +ke nJUion^
Mbwe i$ SxvctTA,
ajju+u>n9 *■"',, . ' U,, Co^^aucJr AMTOtn. (VIkp a* ” « ;a2z-^3s:
‘SvIn response to your recent inquiry,
the enclosed information
is
supplied with the

COMPLIMENTS
of the

OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
State of California - The Resources Agency

I) DEPARTMENT OF PARKS & RECREATION
P. O. Box 2390 Sacramento 95811

Willard M, Griffin Home
Los Altos, California vicinity
Willard M. Griffin Home
Los Altos, California vicinity
House''"’^^^" Carriage House - now the Fire

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

PROPERTY PHOTOGRAPH FORM
NAME: Willard Griffin House and Carriage House
LOCATION; Los Altos Hills, Santa Clara County, California PHOTO REFERENCE:

Photo Credit: Willard Griffin
Negative Filed at: Los Altos Hills City Hall
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022

IDENTIFICATION
Sideview of the house facing northeast
APR 8 1976
APR
Date of Photo:1906
Photo No. 1

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

PROPERTY PHOTOGRAPH FORM
NAME: Willard Griffin House and Carriage House
LOCATION: Los Altos Hills, Santa Clara County, California PHOTO REFERENCE:

Photo Credit: H. Lawrence Fava
Negative filed at: Los Altos Hills City Hall
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022

IDENTIFICATION
Front entrance of the house, facing southeast
APR 8 1976
WR 13 197?
Date of Photo: June 1970
Photo No. 2

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

PROPERTY PHOTOGRAPH FORM
APR 8 1976
APH 1 3 1977
Date of Photo: 1971
NAME: Historic - Willard Griffin House and Carriage House LOCATION: Los Altos Hills, Santa Clara County, California PHOTO REFERENCE:

Photo Credit: H. Lawrence Fava
Negative Filed at: Los Altos Hills City Hall
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022

IDENTIFICATION
Willard Griffin Carriage House, rear of the building facing northeast Phone No. 3

Correspondence for this property is in the microfiche
collection.

Attachment 3

The Los Altos Hills History Committee
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
650-941-7222
March 30, 2023
Elaine Ling
Senior Planner
Department of Planning
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Re: Willard M. Griffin Home and Carriage House Rehabilitation National Historical Landmark #197700372 – California Historic Landmark N485 and P373, respectively, Dear Elaine:

The Los Altos Hills History Committee has reviewed the Proposed Rehabilitation of the Carriage House at Foothill College by Knapp Architecture with the following motion:

The Los Altos History Committee directs Carol Gottlieb to consolidate the finding of the History Committee regarding the proposed rehabilitation plans for the Carriage House and deliver the document to staff by Friday March 30, 2023. Passed 5-0 The History Committee reviewed the rehabilitation project with the two caveats that thebuilding had been renovated twice, once, as a Fire Station and second to house the Historical Archives from its original use. We have no documentation that the Carriage House was moved. (Knapp Architecture should provide the date”, by Florence Fava shows it to be in its present location in the 1950’s.

General Comments are based on rehabilitation of Carriage House to its original Carriage House appearance using code compliant materials.

First Page Comments:
• Siding: Agree that the unpainted siding, left to age, will return the building to its original historic appearance.
• Windows: Prefer to see wood framed windows, dual pane. that match the existing Griffin House’s Windows instead of the aluminum-clad wood windows.

Attachment 4

• Fire Escape: Agree that the fire escape although not compatible is necessary to make the building fire safe. Discussed the fact that a wood fire escape of the period would be more acceptable.
• Location: Disagree with the fact that because it is now part of the of a higher education facility rather than exurban estate should change the ability to refurbished to its original state. • Fencing: Disagree to the fencing comment that the fence is not necessarily a concern as the materials designated for the fence are not of historic in nature and the view of Carriage House will not be obstructed. We think that the fence will obstruct the view of the Carriage House. As for being code compliant, some seismic upgrades are being done to building and new material used that are fire rated. The fence is very close to the structure and in case fire or earthquake will make it very difficult to evacuate the Carriage House as only the driveway will be available; thus, creating a dangerous situation. The use of a split rail fence instead would be in keeping with the style of the period and in keeping with Los Altos Hills fencing ordinance. • Faux Barn Door: Agree to disagree that the existing faux barn door should be eliminated. We suggest that the faux barn door be replaced with a design which is more compatible to the original Carriage House, plus a second barn door be added as shown in the Carriage House earlier photos. (Barn Door need not to be operable).
• Roof: Not discussed as it needs to meet the existing Fire Code.

Impact of Evaluation: History Committee Comments
The proposed design conforms to the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation as follows:

Standard 1: A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that minimal changes to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationship. • The present use will not change, the historical use has changed twice.

Standard 2: The historical character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.
• We agree that the faux barn door should not be removed but replaced with two (potentially faux) barn doors of the (carriage house period) and adding a second barn door to match the old photos. The one barn door could cover a large window and be opened when daylight is needed.

Standard 3: Each property will be recognized as a physical record of time, place and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historical properties will not be undertaken.
• To maintain the original carriage house look, the awnings should be removed.

• Lightings fixtures could be changed to reflect the architectural integrity of the building and old existing hardware could be reused as the Carriage House is being restored to features of the original Carriage House.
•
Standard 4:

Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.
• As suggested before faux-barn door could be exchanged for more architectural compatible Barn Door of its origin and a second barn door added. As stated, the new siding is to be left unpainted to return it to its historical appearance.

Standard 5:

Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
• The architectural features are being preserved, but all materials are being changed. The barn door features need to be replaced and lighting fixtures more compatible to the carriage house period.

Standard 6:

Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and where possible features. Replacement of missing features will be substantially by documentary and physical evidence.
• Agree that the statement is relevant to the siding and windows.

Standard 7:

Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate will be undertaken using gentle means possible.

Treatment that causes damage to historic materials will not be used. • Have no information to the contrary.

Standard 8: Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
• No information to the contrary .

Standard 9:

New additions , exterior alternations or related new construction will not destroy the historical materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be

differential from the old and will be compatible with the historical materials, features, size, and scale, and proportions, land massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. • Agree that the rehabilitation seems to go back to the Carriage House period. • Prefer replacement windows be wood to match the Griffin’s house windows. • Agree to the Fire Escape but would like it more compatible with the time period. • Disagree to the fencing; There must be a more compatible design for the fence. Since the building has been occupied without a fence, why now does it need a fence? Standard 10:

New addition and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historical property and its environment would be unimpaired.
• Agree, however, if the fence can be removed in the future, it would be less costly not to build now?
Sincerely,
The Los Altos Hills History Committee
Carol Gottlieb, Secretary

Attachment 5 – Project Plans
Digital project plans are available for the City Council only. However, the public can request to review the physical files in person at the Town Hall.

Los Altos Hills History Commitee
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
18 April 2023
Memo to Planning Staff and Council:

Re: 20 April 2023 City Council Mee�ng Agenda Item 7B: 12345 El Monte Road – File #SP23-0001- Land of Foothill College -De Anza Community College District Landmark Altera�on Permit for Interior and Exterior Altera�ons to the Carriage House, a designated Na�onal Historic Landmark.

The LAH History Commitee is asking that the Council amend the Condi�ons of Approval to include the findings of the History Commitee at its March 30, 2023, Special Mee�ng, based on the fact that Jeremy Loh was on vaca�on prior to our mee�ng and the report may have been writen prior to his leaving for vaca�on April 1, 2023.

Our recommenda�ons were based on the leter submited by Knapp architects in which the leter states:
“There will be exterior changes to the building that are extensive in scope but limited in visual impact. The asphalt shingle roofing and the wood shingle will be replaced in kind; the new siding will not be painted, in order to return it to the appearance seen in historical photos.” The Commitee suggested that the following condi�ons will enhance the historical appearance and not be a burden cost-wise.
• Recommend replacing the single faux barn door with two such doors to match the historical photos.
• Recommend removing the awning to maintain the original carriage house look. • Recommend replacing the ligh�ng fixtures and using the old hardware to reflect the architectural integrity of the building.
• Recommend removing the proposed 6-foot fence encircling the site on all sides, as it obstructs the view of the Carriage House and narrows evacua�on routes. Fencing more typical of that era could be used instead.

We would appreciate your considera�on of the addi�ons to the Condi�ons of Approval.

Sincerely,
The Los Altos Hills History Commitee
Sally Wood, chair
Supplemental No. 1
AGENDA ITEM #7.B
Distributed 4/19/2023

AGENDA ITEM #9A-E

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

COMMITTEES, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ON OUTSIDE AGENCIES
A. Report by the Undergrounding Subcommittee (Councilmember Tyson) B. Report from the Council Ad Hoc Committee Focusing on Broadband (Councilmembers Mok and Tankha)
C. Report from the Council Ad Hoc Committee on Residential Burglaries (Councilmembers Tankha and Tyson)
D. Report from the City Council Ad Hoc Committee to Review the Changes to the Standing Committee Resolution (Councilmembers Schmidt and Tyson) E. Status Reports from All Councilmembers on Committee Liaison Assignments and Outside Agencies Activities
These reports will be presented verbally.

AGENDA ITEM #9A-E

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

COMMITTEES, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ON OUTSIDE AGENCIES
A. Report by the Undergrounding Subcommittee (Councilmember Tyson) B. Report from the Council Ad Hoc Committee Focusing on Broadband (Councilmembers Mok and Tankha)
C. Report from the Council Ad Hoc Committee on Residential Burglaries (Councilmembers Tankha and Tyson)
D. Report from the City Council Ad Hoc Committee to Review the Changes to the Standing Committee Resolution (Councilmembers Schmidt and Tyson) E. Status Reports from All Councilmembers on Committee Liaison Assignments and Outside Agencies Activities
These reports will be presented verbally.

AGENDA ITEM #9A-E

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

COMMITTEES, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ON OUTSIDE AGENCIES
A. Report by the Undergrounding Subcommittee (Councilmember Tyson) B. Report from the Council Ad Hoc Committee Focusing on Broadband (Councilmembers Mok and Tankha)
C. Report from the Council Ad Hoc Committee on Residential Burglaries (Councilmembers Tankha and Tyson)
D. Report from the City Council Ad Hoc Committee to Review the Changes to the Standing Committee Resolution (Councilmembers Schmidt and Tyson) E. Status Reports from All Councilmembers on Committee Liaison Assignments and Outside Agencies Activities
These reports will be presented verbally.

AGENDA ITEM #9A-E

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

COMMITTEES, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ON OUTSIDE AGENCIES
A. Report by the Undergrounding Subcommittee (Councilmember Tyson) B. Report from the Council Ad Hoc Committee Focusing on Broadband (Councilmembers Mok and Tankha)
C. Report from the Council Ad Hoc Committee on Residential Burglaries (Councilmembers Tankha and Tyson)
D. Report from the City Council Ad Hoc Committee to Review the Changes to the Standing Committee Resolution (Councilmembers Schmidt and Tyson) E. Status Reports from All Councilmembers on Committee Liaison Assignments and Outside Agencies Activities
These reports will be presented verbally.

AGENDA ITEM #9A-E

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

COMMITTEES, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ON OUTSIDE AGENCIES
A. Report by the Undergrounding Subcommittee (Councilmember Tyson) B. Report from the Council Ad Hoc Committee Focusing on Broadband (Councilmembers Mok and Tankha)
C. Report from the Council Ad Hoc Committee on Residential Burglaries (Councilmembers Tankha and Tyson)
D. Report from the City Council Ad Hoc Committee to Review the Changes to the Standing Committee Resolution (Councilmembers Schmidt and Tyson) E. Status Reports from All Councilmembers on Committee Liaison Assignments and Outside Agencies Activities
These reports will be presented verbally.

AGENDA ITEM #10.A

10. COUNCIL INITIATED
A. Request by the History Committee for Funding of the Stegner Outdoor Exhibit (Mayor Swan)

TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS

MEMORANDUM
DATE:

TO:

FROM:

RE:

April 20, 2023
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
Mayor Linda G. Swan
Council Liaison and Standing Committee Relationship
RECOMMENDATION:

Prompt preliminary discussion and guidance to the Council Liaison and Staff on the role and expectations as it relates to the relationship between the Council Liaison and Standing Committees.

DISCUSSION:

The Council liaison relationship to the standing committees is essential in cultivating and supporting the formation and discussion of creative and critical ideas and discussions that should ultimately come to the City Council and staff’s attention for consideration and action. In so doing the Council and staff have formed a process for standing committees to raise issues and priorities the Council and staff should consider in their annual goalsetting process. Those committee goals are collected early in the year and considered in light of all the other goals, obligations, and mandates being placed on staff. The Council meets in January to set the priorities for the year and by so doing determine what the staff should be focused on. Those goals translate into the formation of the next FY Operations and CIP Budget.

At the same time the Council and staff understand that priorities and circumstances can change, as we saw with the multiple extreme weather events that played havoc on municipal operations since December. Therefore, the Council and staff developed a process to consider new priorities and additional tasks that should be assigned to staff and absorbed or allocated in the budget throughout the year. In some cases, those ideas for additional tasks can start with the Standing Committee and make their way to the Council via the Council Liaison.

It is important to note that while the City Council establishes the policy direction of the Town and approves the budget, the City Manager is tasked accomplishing that direction with the budget and staff resources allocated. Both budget and staff time are fixed resources. Any changes to those priorities should come to the entire Council and be made in light of the entire work plan and budget previously approved by the Council.

AGENDA ITEM #10.B

Memorandum
April 10, 2023
Page Two
Therefore, that then raises the question of what is the role of the Council Liaison to the Standing Committee when committees ask for work that requires staff support and/or Town budget? What should the role of the Council Liaison be in working with those standing committees when faced with priorities that may be of grave importance to that committee but have not been accounted for in the approved work plan or the approved budget? How do we ensure the staff and the Council liaison can continue to support the work of the committees while being mindful of the approved workplan and budget? How does the Council ensure there is equal access to every committee that wants to advance their goals that require Town resources and budget? Is it the Council Liaison’s responsibility to advocate for their committee to the entire Council with the goals of prioritizing their committee over others or is the Council’s role to advocate for the approved work plan and navigate the committees to the annual goal setting process unless their request has enough merit and urgency to advance to the Council for consideration? Should the Council liaison, committee member or chair work directly with line staff to advance their priorities or work through the Council Liaison and City Manager and determine if there is capacity, budget, and alignment with the approved Council work plan?
These questions are being raised considering multiple committee members asking how they might advance their priorities that require staff time and/or budget that were not on the approved workplan or budget. The Council should agree on the role of the Council Liaison and in so doing give clear direction to both the standing committee members and staff.

Considering the AdHoc Committee on the Standing Resolution made up of Councilmembers Tyson and Schmidt have recently started discussions with committee chairs this memo may be the beginning of a longer discussion. This memo is an effort to prompt discussion and give the liaison and staff preliminary direction or guidance on what the goals of the Council are as we ultimatly work to a final resolution and decision.

I welcome discussion and understand this topic will not be resolved in one meeting.

TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS

MEMORANDUM
DATE:

TO:

FROM:

RE:

April 20, 2023
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
Councilmember Schmidt
April 23rd Dinner for Community Safety Leaders
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council support Councilmember Schmidt in hosting a dinner to thank existing and promote additional volunteers in emergency preparedness. Although this was not in the approved workplan I am asking that it be absorbed in the current workload and budget and ask for the Council’s support.

DISCUSSION:

Community Safety leaders have been invited to an informal dinner on Sunday, April 23rd, happening in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. The list of invitees include the following: CERTs, Neighborhood Watch leaders, FireWise leaders, EPRC members, council and staff. At the dinner, the leaders will be thanked, make connections, and learn about all three programs from Town and the Los Altos Hills County Fire District (LAHCFD) staff through presentations. The goal is to have more community members participate in all three programs: Neighborhood Watch, FireWise, and CERT.

The Town has successfully supported the organization of "number" Neighborhood Watch groups. These groups have helped reduce crime in their neighborhoods and helped build neighborhood cohesion.

The LAHCFD has supported the training and organization of CERTs. CERTs are local volunteers and an important component of community disaster response.

LAHCFD and FireWise have successfully supported one LAH community achieve FireWise neighborhood status.

All three of the neighborhood groups contribute to and care about community safety. The purpose of this dinner is to honor their service and also encourage each group to participate in additional safety measures. All participants will learn about all three programs--Neighborhood Watch, CERT and FireWise--and the benefits in participating in each one.

AGENDA ITEM #10.C

Memorandum
April 10, 2023
Page Two
The timing is important. Additional Neighborhood Watch communities can help reduce burglaries and LAHCFD and FireWise have substantial support to help neighborhoods achieve FireWise rating, which reduces both their fire risk and insurance premiums.

Becoming a FireWise Neighborhood is a natural next step for Neighborhood Watch groups because they can build on the organizing, they have already achieved.

In discussions with the City Manager staff sent an invitation to the event to 64 people.

An estimated cost for the event could be as much as $3,500 if at full attendance. The estimated staff time necessary to prepare for, organize, plan, attend and support the event is estimated at 10 hours. It is not expected that we need to revise the annual work plan or de-prioritize other activities. In discussion with the City Manager the time and budget necessary to run the event could be absorbed using our existing operating budget and staff capacity.