Agenda packet — Los Altos Hills City Council, January 30, 2025 (part 3 of 4)

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 2718 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

6. Fire Sprinklers Required: Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.18. - Noted on Sheet A5.0.

7. New Public Fire Hydrant: Provide a public fire hydrant at a final location to be determined jointly by the Fire Department and California Water Service. Fire hydrants shall be provided along required fire apparatus access roads and adjacent public streets. CFC Sec. 507, Appendix B and Appendix C. - New fire hydrant authorization plans shall be approved by both SCCFD and CalWater. Fire flow shall be provided from new fire hydrant.

8. Sheet C3 shows two proposed [sic] "warf hydrants" of unspecified intent. Revise as appropriate to specify intended purpose of the hydrants. If proposed as mitigation for other concerns, so state.

9. Timing of installation. When fire apparatus access roads or a water supply for fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternative methods of protection are provided. Temporary street signs shall be installed at each street intersection when construction of new roadways allows passage by vehicles in accordance with Section 505.2. Construction documents. Construction documents for proposed fire apparatus access, location of fire lanes, security gates across fire apparatus access and construction documents and hydraulic calculations for fire hydrant systems shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval prior to construction.

CFC Sec. 501.3, 501.4

10. Standpipe System Required. For reference see CFC Sec. 905. The standpipe systems shall be installed in accordance with this section and NFPA 14 as amended in Chapter 47. - Noted on Sheet A5.0.

11. Required Fire Flow: The minimum required fire flow for this project is 2,865 Gallons Per Minute (GPM) at 20 psi residual pressure. Since an automatic fire sprinkler system will be installed, the fire flow will be reduced by 25%, establishing a required adjusted fire flow of 2,148 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure. Note: The minimum required number and spacing of the hydrants shall be in accordance with CFC Table C105.1 as amended by SCCFD.
- After reduction and calculating fire flow for different portions of the building fire flow was calculated to be 2,148 gpm at 20 psi. Capacity to meet the specified fire flow has been demonstrated by way of a water utility flow report stating 2,224 gpm is available at 20 psi.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
67,475
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
5 OF
7+bsmt
IIIA/IA 3
DATE
LAH 8/14/2023
Flanagan, Caleb

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2865 25% 2148

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10728 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 5a

Page 244 of 611 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 2718 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

12. Fire Department Connection: The fire department connection (FDC) for the structure in support of the sprinkler system shall be installed at the street on the street address side of the building. It shall be located within 100 feet of a public fire hydrant and within ten (10) feet of the main PIV (unless otherwise approved by the Chief due to practical difficulties). FDC's shall be equipped with a minimum of two (2), two-and-one-half (2- 1/2”) inch national standard threaded inlet couplings. Orientation of the FDC shall be such that hose lines may be readily and conveniently attached to the inlets without interference. FDC's shall be painted safety yellow [SCCFD, SP-2 Standard].
- FDC shown on sheet A5.0.

13. Two-way Communication System: Two-way communication systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with the relative codes and standards in affect at time of building permit submittal, including NFPA 72, the California Electrical Code, the California Fire Code, the California Building Code, and the city ordinances where two way system is being installed. Other standards also contain design/installation criteria for specific life safety related equipment. These other standards are referred to in NFPA 72. - Noted on Sheet A5.0.

14. Emergency responder radio coverage in new buildings: All new buildings shall have approved radio coverage for emergency responders within the building based upon the existing coverage levels of the public safety communication systems of the jurisdiction at the exterior of the building. This section shall not require improvement of the existing public safety communication systems. CFC Sec. 510.1 as adopted. - Noted on Sheet A5.0.

15. Fire Alarm Requirements: Refer to CFC Sec. 907 and the currently adopted edition of NFPA 72 for fire alarm requirements.
- Noted on Sheet A5.0.

16. Construction Site Fire Safety: All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification S1-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33. - Noted on Sheet A5.0.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
67,475
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
5 OF
7+bsmt
IIIA/IA 4
DATE
LAH 8/14/2023
Flanagan, Caleb

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2865 25% 2148

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10728 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 5a

Page 245 of 611 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 2718 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

17. Address identification: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 6 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address numbers shall be maintained CFC Sec. 505.1. - Noted on Sheet A5.0.

The following comments are beyond the scope of a Planning level review. However, resolution of these concerns can influence building siting and footprint configuration, making them important to address at this time. Any revisions to address these concerns shall not negatively impact fire department access requirements.

18. It appears Stair #2 is proposed as an exterior exit stair. As such, it does not appear that adequate separation from the building and property lines are provided, per CBC 1027. 19 The Stair #2 exit discharge does not provide direct, unobstructed access to a public way, per CBC 1028.5, and does not appear to have adequate space for a safe dispersal area. It appears discharge from this stair must be treated as an egress court, per CBC 1029. Review and revise design to ensure adequate egress facilities are provided. Additionally, occupant load convergence of exit discharge from both stairs 1 and 2 will need to be addressed for building permit compliance. Effectively all evacuating occupants will be discharging in the same limited area required for fire department operations. This concern further challenges effective aerial operations in the limited space provided.

20. The egress concerns above are further exacerbated by the intended occupants of retirement age, including assisted living (R2.1 Occupancy), who may require significant egress assistance, given the project elevations.

21. Exterior wall ratings and opening protective measures shall meet the CBC requirements in effect at time of building permit submittal.

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
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
67,475
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
5 OF
7+bsmt
IIIA/IA 5
DATE
LAH 8/14/2023
Flanagan, Caleb

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2865 25% 2148

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10728 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 5a

Page 246 of 611 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 3522 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
This project has been reviewed with respect to the following:

The California Fire (CFC) & Building (CBC) Code, 2022 edition, as adopted by the Town of Los Altos Hills Municipal Code (LAHMC) and California Code of Regulations (CCR). Note: Code review for building permit will be reviewed with respect to the fire/building codes in effect at time of permit application.

The scope of this project includes the following:

Proposed new 67,475 SF, five-story, Type IIIA/IA construction, R-2/R-2.1/A-3/S-2/B Occupancy apartment building with 2 podium levels and a basement.

Plan Status:

Plans are NOT APPROVED. Revise and resubmit drawings and provide a response letter addressing comments on this plan review. Comments having BOLD font require correction prior to approval.

Plan Review Comments:

1. High Rise Requirements: Every building of any type of construction or occupancy having floors used for human occupancy located more than 75 feet above the lowest floor level having building access, except buildings used as hospitals as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 1250 (CFC 202 Definition). - Sheet A2.2 reflects an elevation of 541.9 feet at the lowest building access (rear of building) and 631.6 feet at the highest floor having human occupancy (occupied roof). The resultant 89.7 feet exceeds 75 feet that establishes the building as a new high-rise structure, per CBC 403.1 and CBC 202 definition. - Revise design, as appropriate, to establish and demonstrate compliance with CBC/CFC provisions applicable to a new high-rise structure.

2. Fire Apparatus Access Roadway Required: Provide an access roadway with a paved all-weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 50 feet outside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Surface shall be capable of supporting 75K pounds. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet A-1. CFC Sec. 503. Roadway: A vehicular access roadway greater than or equal to 20 feet in width serving more than two single-family dwellings. - The roads leading to the subject parcel have not been evaluated for fire department aerial apparatus access. - Provide a road study sufficient to demonstrate that the existing Mora Drive provides not less than 20 feet drivable surface, compliant turning radii, and 13'-6" vertical clearance across the required width. - Provide a road slope profile, prepared by a licensed professional. - Provide licensed engineering certification that demonstrates the roads ability to support the minimum loading capacity of 75,000 lbs.
- Clearly represent all proposed road improvements, required for compliance, on the plans.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
67,475
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
5 OF
7+bsmt
IIIA/IA 1
DATE
LAH 9/27/2023
Flanagan, Caleb

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2865 25% 2148

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10728 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 5a

Page 247 of 611 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 3522 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

3. Buildings and Facilities Access: Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or with the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. [CFC, Section 503.1.1]. - Approval of up to 300 feet travel is requested by way of applicants response letter. Fire personnel access to the furthest portions of the building includes 35 to 42 foot elevation change, which is not conducive to efficient deployment of firefighting resources. The request for 300 feet travel distance shall not be approved without appropriate mitigating measures. Review and revise design to propose mitigating measures to ensure effective firefighting operations, given the excessive travel distance and elevation change to the rear of the building.
- The access to the rear of the building is not sufficient to accommodate simultaneous occupant evacuation (from stair #2) and firefighter access to the rear of the structure. Review and revise path widths to provide adequate space for simultaneous use of the paths.

4. Required Aerial Access: Where required: Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway. 2. Width: Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet (7925) in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building more than 30 feet (9144 mm) in height. 3. Proximity to building: At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet (4572) and a maximum of 30 feet (9144mm) from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building, as approved by the fire code official [CFC Chp. 5 and SCCFD SD&S A-1]. Aerial access shown on sheet A5.0. - The defined location for aerial apparatus access is arranged along one 52'-6" wide side of the building, and provides inadequate ladder access to the balance of the structure. The roof access is further obstructed by a rooftop dining facility with limited pathway access to the balance of the occupied roof. This configuration is insufficient for fire operations. Review project ability to provide additional aerial ladder access to the South building face.

5. Fire Department Aerial Apparatus Turnaround Required: Provide an approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of 60 feet outside. Maximum grade in any direction shall be a maximum of 5%. Installations shall conform with 2022 CA Fire Code Appendix D as amended by SCCFD. CFC Sec. 503 Driving surface shall be capable of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds (34050 kg).
- Turnaround from Appendix D103.1 shown on sheet A5.0.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
67,475
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
5 OF
7+bsmt
IIIA/IA 2
DATE
LAH 9/27/2023
Flanagan, Caleb

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2865 25% 2148

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10728 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 5a

Page 248 of 611 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 3522 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

8. Sheet C3 shows two proposed [sic] "warf hydrants" of unspecified intent. Revise as appropriate to specify intended purpose of the hydrants. If proposed as mitigation for other concerns, so state.

CFC Sec. 501.3, 501.4

10. Standpipe System Required. For reference see CFC Sec. 905. The standpipe systems shall be installed in accordance with this section and NFPA 14 as amended in Chapter 47. - Noted on Sheet A5.0.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
67,475
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
5 OF
7+bsmt
IIIA/IA 3
DATE
LAH 9/27/2023
Flanagan, Caleb

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2865 25% 2148

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10728 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 5a

Page 249 of 611 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 3522 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

15. Fire Alarm Requirements: Refer to CFC Sec. 907 and the currently adopted edition of NFPA 72 for fire alarm requirements.
- Noted on Sheet A5.0.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
67,475
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
5 OF
7+bsmt
IIIA/IA 4
DATE
LAH 9/27/2023
Flanagan, Caleb

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2865 25% 2148

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10728 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 5a

Page 250 of 611 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 3522 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

21. Exterior wall ratings and opening protective measures shall meet the CBC requirements in effect at time of building permit submittal.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
67,475
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
5 OF
7+bsmt
IIIA/IA 5
DATE
LAH 9/27/2023
Flanagan, Caleb

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2865 25% 2148

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10728 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 5a

Page 251 of 611 ends

ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 5a

Page 252 of 611 ends

ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 5a

Page 253 of 611 ends

ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 5a

Page 254 of 611 ends

ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 5a

Page 255 of 611 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 1045 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
Plans and Scope of Review:

This project shall comply with the following:

The California Fire (CFC) & Building (CBC) Code, 2022 edition, as adopted by the Town of Los Altos Hills Municipal Code (LAHMC) and California Code of Regulations (CCR).

The scope of this project includes the following:

Proposed new 64,483 SF five-story multifamily apartment building with 2 podium levels and a basement.

Plans Status:

Plans are NOT APPROVED. Revise and resubmit drawings and provide a response letter addressing comments on this plan review. All comments having BOLD Font require correction prior to approval.

Plan Review Comments:

1. Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access, water supply and may include specific additional requirements as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes.

Prior to performing any work, the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits.

2. Plans will need to demonstrate whether or not the proposed building meets the requirements of a high rise building as described in CBC 403.1.

3. Required Aerial Access: Where required: Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway. 2. Width: Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet (7925) in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building more than 30 feet (9144 mm) in height. 3. Proximity to building: At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet (4572) and a maximum of 30 feet (9144mm) from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building, as approved by the fire code official [CFC Chp. 5 and SCCFD SD&S A-1]. One entire side of aerial access is required.

Aerial access roadway shall be 26 feet wide. Provide section view how aerial ladder access will be achieved to the roof.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
64,4832
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
4 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 1
DATE
LAH 04/05/2023
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 3750 25% 2813

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 5b

Page 256 of 611 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 1045 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

4. Fire Department Aerial Apparatus Turnaround Required: Provide an approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of 60 feet outside. Maximum grade in any direction shall be a maximum of 5%. Installations shall conform with 2022 CA Fire Code Appendix D as amended by SCCFD. CFC Sec. 503 Driving surface shall be capable of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds (34050 kg). Show a turnaround that accommodates aerial apparatus with minimum outside turning radius of 60 feet. Show a turnaround that accommodates aerial apparatus with minimum outside turning radius of 60 ft.

5. Buildings and Facilities Access: Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or with the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. [CFC, Section 503.1.1]. Show how 150ft travel distance will be met.

6. Standpipe system will be required. For reference see CFC Sec. 905. The standpipe systems shall be installed in accordance with this section and NFPA 14 as amended in Chapter 47. Note on sheet C0 that a standpipe will be installed as a deferred submittal.

7. Fire Hydrant Systems Required: Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, onsite fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the fire code official. Exception: For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3, the distance requirement shall be not more than 600 feet. [CFC, Section 507.5.1].

Clarify if the the hydrant on sheet C3 is a new proposed hydrant. Add a note on sheet C0 that new hydrant will be installed and no combustible construct shall occurred prior to hydrant installation.

Submit hydrant spotting plan to SCCFD office.

8. Required Fire Flow: The minimum required fire flow for this project is 3,750 Gallons Per Minute (GPM) at 20 psi residual pressure. Since an automatic fire sprinkler system will be installed, the fire flow will be reduced by 25%, establishing a required adjusted fire flow of 2,813 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure. Note: The minimum required number and spacing of the hydrants shall be in accordance with CFC Table C105.1 as amended by SCCFD. Hydrant is not capable of meeting the minimum required fire flow of 2,812 gpm at 20psi. Work with Calwater and provide documentation that that outlines how the fire flow will be met OR revise plans in order to meet fire flow requirements
City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
64,4832
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
4 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 2
DATE
LAH 04/05/2023
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 3750 25% 2813

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 5b

Page 257 of 611 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 1045 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

9. Fire Department Connection: The fire department connection (FDC) for the structure in support of the sprinkler system shall be installed at the street on the street address side of the building. It shall be located within 100 feet of a public fire hydrant and within ten (10) feet of the main PIV (unless otherwise approved by the Chief due to practical difficulties). FDC's shall be equipped with a minimum of two (2), two-and-one-half (2- 1/2”) inch national standard threaded inlet couplings. Orientation of the FDC shall be such that hose lines may be readily and conveniently attached to the inlets without interference. FDC's shall be painted safety yellow [SCCFD, SP-2 Standard]. Show FDC on plans.

10. Two-way Communication System: Two-way communication systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with NFPA 72 (2016 edition), the California Electrical Code (2013 edition), the California Fire Code (2016 edition), the California Building Code (2016 edition), and the city ordinances where two way system is being installed, policies, and standards. Other standards also contain design/installation criteria for specific life safety related equipment. These other standards are referred to in NFPA 72. Make a note on sheet C0 that two-way communication system will be installed as a deferred submittal

11. Emergency responder radio coverage in new buildings: All new buildings shall have approved radio coverage for emergency responders within the building based upon the existing coverage levels of the public safety communication systems of the jurisdiction at the exterior of the building. This section shall not require improvement of the existing public safety communication systems. CFC Sec. 510.1 as adopted. Make a note on sheet C0 that radio coverage will be installed as a deferred submittal

12. Fire Alarm Requirements: Refer to CFC Sec. 907 and the currently adopted edition of NFPA 72 for fire alarm requirements. Make a note note on Sheet C0 that fire alarm will be installed as a deferred submittal.

13. Fire Sprinklers Required: (As Noted on Sheet C0) Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.18.

14. Construction Site Fire Safety: All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification S1-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
64,4832
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
4 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 3
DATE
LAH 04/05/2023
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 3750 25% 2813

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 5b

Page 258 of 611 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 1045 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

15. Address identification: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address numbers shall be maintained CFC Sec. 505.1.

16. Water Supply Requirements: Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record.

Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2019 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
64,4832
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
4 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 4
DATE
LAH 04/05/2023
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 3750 25% 2813

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 5b

Page 259 of 611 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 1490 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
Plans and Scope of Review:

This project shall comply with the following:

The California Fire (CFC) & Building (CBC) Code, 2022 edition, as adopted by the Town of Los Altos Hills Municipal Code (LAHMC) and California Code of Regulations (CCR).

The scope of this project includes the following:

Proposed new 71,034 SF five-story multifamily apartment building with 2 podium levels and a basement.

Plans Status:

Plans are NOT APPROVED. Revise and resubmit drawings and provide a response letter addressing comments on this plan review. All comments having BOLD Font require correction prior to approval.

Plan Review Comments:

Prior to performing any work, the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits.

2. Plans will need to demonstrate whether or not the proposed building meets the requirements of a high rise building as described in CBC 403.1.

Aerial access roadway shall be 26 feet wide. Provide section view how aerial ladder access will be achieved to the roof.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
71034
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
4 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 1
DATE
LAH 04/25/2023
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 3750 25% 2813

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 5b

Page 260 of 611 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 1490 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

Clarify if the the hydrant on sheet C3 is a new proposed hydrant. Add a note on sheet C0 that new hydrant will be installed and no combustible construct shall occurred prior to hydrant installation.

Submit hydrant spotting plan to SCCFD office.

SEC/FLOOR
R-2

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
71034
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
4 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 2
DATE
LAH 04/25/2023
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 3750 25% 2813

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 5b

Page 261 of 611 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 1490 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
71034
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
4 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 3
DATE
LAH 04/25/2023
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 3750 25% 2813

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 5b

Page 262 of 611 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 1490 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
71034
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
4 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 4
DATE
LAH 04/25/2023
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 3750 25% 2813

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 5b

Page 263 of 611 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 2595 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
This project has been reviewed with respect to the following:

The scope of this project includes the following:

Proposed new 71,034 SF, five-story, Type IIIA/IA construction, R-2/R-2.1/A-3/S-2/B Occupancy apartment building with 3 podium levels and a basement.

Plan Status:

Plans are NOT APPROVED. Revise and resubmit drawings and provide a response letter addressing comments on this plan review. Comments having BOLD font require correction prior to approval.

Plan Review Comments:

1. High Rise Requirements: Every building of any type of construction or occupancy having floors used for human occupancy located more than 75 feet above the lowest floor level having building access, except buildings used as hospitals as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 1250 (CFC 202 Definition). - Sheet A2.2 reflects an elevation of 514.7 feet at the lowest building access (rear of building) and 615.6 feet at the highest floor having human occupancy (occupied roof). The resultant 100.9 feet exceeds 75 feet that establishes the building as a new high-rise structure, per CBC 403.1 and CBC 202 definition. - Revise design, as appropriate, to establish and demonstrate compliance with CBC/CFC provisions applicable to a new high-rise structure.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
71034
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
5 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 1
DATE
LAH 8/14/2023
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2778 25% 2084

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 5b

Page 264 of 611 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 2595 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

4. Required Aerial Access: Where required: Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway. 2. Width: Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet (7925) in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building more than 30 feet (9144 mm) in height. 3. Proximity to building: At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet (4572) and a maximum of 30 feet (9144mm) from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building, as approved by the fire code official [CFC Chp. 5 and SCCFD SD&S A-1]. Aerial access shown on sheet A5.0. - The defined location for aerial apparatus access is arranged along one 52'-6" wide side of the building, and provides inadequate ladder access to the balance of the structure. The roof access is further obstructed by rooftop dining facility with limited pathway access to the balance of the occupied roof. This configuration is insufficient for fire operations. Review project ability to provide functional aerial ladder access to greater portion of the building roof.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
71034
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
5 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 2
DATE
LAH 8/14/2023
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2778 25% 2084

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 5b

Page 265 of 611 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 2595 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

8. Sheet C3 shows two proposed [sic] "warf hydrants" of unspecified intent. Revise as appropriate to specify intended purpose of the hydrants. If proposed as mitigation for other concerns, so state.

CFC Sec. 501.3, 501.4

10. Standpipe System Required. For reference see CFC Sec. 905. The standpipe systems shall be installed in accordance with this section and NFPA 14 as amended in Chapter 47. - Noted on Sheet A5.0.

11. Required Fire Flow: The minimum required fire flow for this project is 2,778 Gallons Per Minute (GPM) at 20 psi residual pressure. Since an automatic fire sprinkler system will be installed, the fire flow will be reduced by 25%, establishing a required adjusted fire flow of 2,084 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure. Note: The minimum required number and spacing of the hydrants shall be in accordance with CFC Table C105.1 as amended by SCCFD.
- After reduction and calculating fire flow for different portions of the building fire flow was calculated to be 2,084 gpm at 20 psi. Capacity to meet the specified fire flow has been demonstrated by way of a water utility flow report stating 2,224 gpm is available at 20 psi.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
71034
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
5 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 3
DATE
LAH 8/14/2023
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2778 25% 2084

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 5b

Page 266 of 611 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 2595 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

15. Fire Alarm Requirements: Refer to CFC Sec. 907 and the currently adopted edition of NFPA 72 for fire alarm requirements.
- Noted on Sheet A5.0.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
71034
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
5 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 4
DATE
LAH 8/14/2023
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2778 25% 2084

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 5b

Page 267 of 611 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 2595 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

21. Exterior wall ratings and opening protective measures shall meet the CBC requirements in effect at time of building permit submittal.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
71034
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
5 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 5
DATE
LAH 8/14/2023
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2778 25% 2084

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 5b

Page 268 of 611 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 3524 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
This project has been reviewed with respect to the following:

The scope of this project includes the following:

Proposed new 71,034 SF, five-story, Type IIIA/IA construction, R-2/R-2.1/A-3/S-2/B Occupancy apartment building with 3 podium levels and a basement.

Plan Status:

Plans are NOT APPROVED. Revise and resubmit drawings and provide a response letter addressing comments on this plan review. Comments having BOLD font require correction prior to approval.

Plan Review Comments:

1. High Rise Requirements: Every building of any type of construction or occupancy having floors used for human occupancy located more than 75 feet above the lowest floor level having building access, except buildings used as hospitals as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 1250 (CFC 202 Definition). - Sheet A2.2 reflects an elevation of 514.7 feet at the lowest building access (rear of building) and 615.6 feet at the highest floor having human occupancy (occupied roof). The resultant 100.9 feet exceeds 75 feet that establishes the building as a new high-rise structure, per CBC 403.1 and CBC 202 definition.
- Revise design, as appropriate, to establish and demonstrate compliance with CBC/CFC provisions applicable to a new high-rise structure.

Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet A-1. CFC Sec. 503.

Roadway: A vehicular access roadway greater than or equal to 20 feet in width serving more than two singlefamily dwellings. - The roads leading to the subject parcel have not been evaluated for fire department aerial apparatus access.
- Provide a road study sufficient to demonstrate that the existing Mora Drive provides not less than 20 feet drivable surface, compliant turning radii, and 13'-6" vertical clearance across the required width. - Provide a road slope profile, prepared by a licensed professional. - Provide licensed engineering certification that demonstrates the roads ability to support the City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
71034
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
5 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 1
DATE
LAH 09/27/2023
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2778 25% 2084

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 5b

Page 269 of 611 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 3524 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

4. Required Aerial Access: Where required: Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway. 2. Width: Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet (7925) in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building more than 30 feet (9144 mm) in height. 3. Proximity to building: At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet (4572) and a maximum of 30 feet (9144mm) from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building, as approved by the fire code official [CFC Chp. 5 and SCCFD SD&S A-1]. Aerial access shown on sheet A5.0. - The defined location for aerial apparatus access is arranged along one 52'-6" wide side of the building, and provides inadequate ladder access to the balance of the structure. The roof access is further obstructed by rooftop dining facility with limited pathway access to the balance of the occupied roof. This configuration is insufficient for fire operations. Review project ability to provide functional aerial ladder access to greater portion of the building roof.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
71034
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
5 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 2
DATE
LAH 09/27/2023
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2778 25% 2084

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 5b

Page 270 of 611 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 3524 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

8. Sheet C3 shows two proposed [sic] "warf hydrants" of unspecified intent. Revise as appropriate to specify intended purpose of the hydrants. If proposed as mitigation for other concerns, so state.

CFC Sec. 501.3, 501.4

10. Standpipe System Required. For reference see CFC Sec. 905. The standpipe systems shall be installed in accordance with this section and NFPA 14 as amended in Chapter 47. - Noted on Sheet A5.0.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
71034
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
5 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 3
DATE
LAH 09/27/2023
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2778 25% 2084

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 5b

Page 271 of 611 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 3524 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

15. Fire Alarm Requirements: Refer to CFC Sec. 907 and the currently adopted edition of NFPA 72 for fire alarm requirements.
- Noted on Sheet A5.0.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
71034
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
5 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 4
DATE
LAH 09/27/2023
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2778 25% 2084

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 5b

Page 272 of 611 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 3524 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

21. Exterior wall ratings and opening protective measures shall meet the CBC requirements in effect at time of building permit submittal.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
71034
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
5 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 5
DATE
LAH 09/27/2023
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2778 25% 2084

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 5b

Page 273 of 611 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 4781 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
This project has been reviewed with respect to the following:

The scope of this project includes the following:

Proposed new 70,983 SF, five-story, Type IIIA/IA construction, R-2/R-2.1/A-3/S-2/B Occupancy apartment building with 3 podium levels and a basement.

Plan Status:

Plans are NOT APPROVED. Revise and resubmit drawings and provide a response letter addressing comments on this plan review. Comments having BOLD font require correction prior to approval.

Plan Review Comments:

1. Required Aerial Access: Where required: Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway. 2. Width: Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet (7925) in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building more than 30 feet (9144 mm) in height. 3. Proximity to building: At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet (4572) and a maximum of 30 feet (9144mm) from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building, as approved by the fire code official [CFC Chp. 5 and SCCFD SD&S A-1]. Aerial access shown on sheet A5.0. - The defined location for aerial apparatus access is arranged along one 52'-6" wide side of the building, and provides inadequate ladder access to the balance of the structure. The roof access is further obstructed by a rooftop dining facility with limited pathway access to the balance of the occupied roof. - Revise plans to provide clearance around the exterior of the rooftop dining facility. - Provide elevation diagrams that demonstrate ground ladder access to the roof of the dining facility.

Diagrams shall show proper clearance at the ground level and proper climbing angles to reach roof of dining facility.

2. Buildings and Facilities Access: Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
70983
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
4 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 1
DATE
LAH 01/31/2024
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2813 25% 2109

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 5b

Page 274 of 611 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 4781 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or with the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. [CFC, Section 503.1.1]. - Approval of up to 300 feet travel is not granted.
- Fire personnel access to the furthest portions of the building is hindered due to total travel distance, 34 to 37 foot elevation change, exposure to building interior from unrated openings, narrow path of travel, and close proximity to adjacent parcels. All of these hazards are not conducive to efficient deployment of firefighting resources. - Revise design to propose mitigating measures to ensure effective firefighting operations or submit an alternate means methods request (AMMR) to mitigate excessive distance.

3. New Public Fire Hydrant: Provide a public fire hydrant at a final location to be determined jointly by the Fire Department and California Water Service. Fire hydrants shall be provided along required fire apparatus access roads and adjacent public streets. CFC Sec. 507, Appendix B and Appendix C. - According to CFC C102.1, 3 fire hydrants are required for this structure, show 3 available hydrants on plans. - Fire flow shall be provided from new fire hydrant.

Comments that have been addressed:

4. Fire Apparatus Access Roadway Required: Provide an access roadway with a paved all-weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 50 feet outside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Surface shall be capable of supporting 75K pounds. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet A-1. CFC Sec. 503. Roadway: A vehicular access roadway greater than or equal to 20 feet in width serving more than two single-family dwellings. - Road study provided demonstrating width, slope, and turning radii. Vertical clearance issues to be resolved (See aerial truck survey).
- Geotechnical certification provided for loading capacity.

5. Fire Sprinklers Required: Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.18. - Noted on Sheet A5.0.

6. Standpipe System Required: For reference see CFC Sec. 905. The standpipe systems shall be installed in accordance with this section and NFPA 14 as amended in Chapter 47. - Noted on Sheet A5.0.

7. Required Fire Flow: The minimum required fire flow for this project is 2,813 Gallons Per Minute (GPM) at 20 psi residual pressure. Since an automatic fire sprinkler system will be installed, the fire flow will be reduced by City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
70983
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
4 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 2
DATE
LAH 01/31/2024
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2813 25% 2109

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 5b

Page 275 of 611 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 4781 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
25%, establishing a required adjusted fire flow of 2,109 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure. Note: The minimum required number and spacing of the hydrants shall be in accordance with CFC Table C105.1 as amended by SCCFD.
- After reduction and calculating fire flow for different portions of the building fire flow was calculated to be 2,109 gpm at 20 psi. Capacity to meet the specified fire flow has been demonstrated by way of a water utility flow report stating 2,224 gpm is available at 20 psi.

8. Timing of installation. When fire apparatus access roads or a water supply for fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternative methods of protection are provided. Temporary street signs shall be installed at each street intersection when construction of new roadways allows passage by vehicles in accordance with Section 505.2. Construction documents. Construction documents for proposed fire apparatus access, location of fire lanes, security gates across fire apparatus access and construction documents and hydraulic calculations for fire hydrant systems shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval prior to construction. CFC Sec. 501.3, 501.4
9 Fire Department Connection: The fire department connection (FDC) for the structure in support of the sprinkler system shall be installed at the street on the street address side of the building. It shall be located within 100 feet of a public fire hydrant and within ten (10) feet of the main PIV (unless otherwise approved by the Chief due to practical difficulties). FDC's shall be equipped with a minimum of two (2), two-and-one-half (2- 1/2”) inch national standard threaded inlet couplings. Orientation of the FDC shall be such that hose lines may be readily and conveniently attached to the inlets without interference. FDC's shall be painted safety yellow [SCCFD, SP-2 Standard].
- FDC shown on sheet A5.0.

10. Fire Department Aerial Apparatus Turnaround Required: Provide an approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of 60 feet outside. Maximum grade in any direction shall be a maximum of 5%. Installations shall conform with 2022 CA Fire Code Appendix D as amended by SCCFD. CFC Sec. 503 Driving surface shall be capable of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds (34050 kg).
- Turnaround from Appendix D103.1 shown on sheet A5.0.

11. Fire Alarm Requirements: Refer to CFC Sec. 907 and the currently adopted edition of NFPA 72 for fire alarm requirements.
- Noted on Sheet A5.0.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
70983
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
4 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 3
DATE
LAH 01/31/2024
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2813 25% 2109

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 5b

Page 276 of 611 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 4781 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

12. Two-way Communication System: Two-way communication systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with the relative codes and standards in affect at time of building permit submittal, including NFPA 72, the California Electrical Code, the California Fire Code, the California Building Code, and the city ordinances where two way system is being installed. Other standards also contain design/installation criteria for specific life safety related equipment. These other standards are referred to in NFPA 72. - Noted on Sheet A5.0.

13. Emergency responder radio coverage in new buildings: All new buildings shall have approved radio coverage for emergency responders within the building based upon the existing coverage levels of the public safety communication systems of the jurisdiction at the exterior of the building. This section shall not require improvement of the existing public safety communication systems. CFC Sec. 510.1 as adopted. - Noted on Sheet A5.0.

15. Address identification: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 6 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address numbers shall be maintained CFC Sec. 505.1. - Noted on Sheet A5.0.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
70983
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
4 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 4
DATE
LAH 01/31/2024
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2813 25% 2109

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 5b

Page 277 of 611 ends

ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 6a Page 278 of 611
ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 6a

Page 279 of 611 ends

ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 6a

Page 280 of 611 ends

ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 6a

Page 281 of 611 ends

ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 6a

Page 282 of 611 ends

ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 6a

Page 283 of 611 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
24 1147 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
Plans and Scope of Review:

This project has been reviewed with respect to the following:

The scope of this project includes the following:

Alternate Means & Methods Request (AMMR) for a proposed new 67,840 SF, five-story, Type IIIA/IA construction, R-2/R-2.1/A-3/S-2/B Occupancy apartment building with 2 podium levels and a basement.

Plan Status:

The alternate means/methods request is NOT APPROVED. Review and revise request to address the following comments.

Plan Review Comments:

Discussion: Application proposes alternate measures to meeting the requirements of CFC section 503.1.1 that fire apparatus access roads shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the building. The alternate includes seven measures discussed below.

1. "Provide an additional standpipe at rear exit stair." - Provide clarification how this is a mitigation measure, as it would appear that the required standpipe system for the building would be required to extend to all interior exit stairways with hose valves at all stairs landings. [CFC, Section 905.4 or Section 905.6].

2. "Type 1A construction with 3-hour fire resistance rating." - Provide clarification how this is a mitigation measure, as it would appear that the podium and construction below would be required to be Type 1A. [CBC, Section 510.2].

3. "Openings protected by approved sprinkler water curtain." - Provide clarification how this is a mitigation measure, as it would appear that the due to the egress court proximity to the building all openings within the Type 1A are required to be protected. [CBC, Section 1029.3].

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR

OCCUPANCY

AREA LOAD
Tower Investments, Llc
ApplicantName
SFR

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
2 OF 1
DATE
LAH 04/23/2024
Mckenna, Matthew

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Application for Use of Alternate Materials
10728 Mora Dr Los Altos Hills
ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 6a

Page 284 of 611 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
24 1147 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
Plan Review Comments: (con't)

4. "We widened exit discharge & entire path around building to 4' wide (clear width) last revision." - Provide clarification how this is a mitigation measure, as it would appear that based on the occupancy load that all of the exist discharge corridors and paths are required to be 44" clear. Please clarify how this would allow for simultaneous egress and fire department access. [CBC, Section 1029.2].

5. "Windows to be removed."
- Provide clarification how this is a mitigation measure. Please include an explanation of how firefighters are protected from the unprotected openings overhead. [CBC, Section 1029.3].

6. "Ladder access to roof of dining facility."
- Provide clarification how this is a mitigation measure, as it would appear that this measure seeks to address the concerns regarding fire department aerial apparatus access which was not indicated as being part of this request. [CFC, Section D105].

7. "Move wall 6" to provide 4'-2" wide access pathway (48" clear)." - Provide clarification how this is a mitigation measure, as it would appear that this measure seeks to address the concerns regarding fire department aerial apparatus access which was not indicated as being part of this request. [CFC, Section D105].

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR

OCCUPANCY

AREA LOAD
Tower Investments, Llc
ApplicantName
SFR

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
2 OF 2
DATE
LAH 04/23/2024
Mckenna, Matthew

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Application for Use of Alternate Materials
10728 Mora Dr Los Altos Hills
ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 6a

Page 285 of 611 ends

ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 6b

Page 286 of 611 ends

ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 6b

Page 287 of 611 ends

ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 6b

Page 288 of 611 ends

ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 6b

Page 289 of 611 ends

ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 6b

Page 290 of 611 ends

ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 6b

Page 291 of 611 ends

ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 6b

Page 292 of 611 ends

ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 6b

Page 293 of 611 ends

ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 6b

Page 294 of 611 ends

ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 6b

Page 295 of 611 ends

ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 6b

Page 296 of 611 ends

ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 6b

Page 297 of 611 ends

ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 6b

Page 298 of 611 ends

ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 6b

Page 299 of 611 ends

10728 and 10758 Mora Drive Projects AƯordability Analysis – January 2025 Construction Costs
This analysis references the International Code Council (ICC) Building Valuation Data (BVD) to estimate construction costs. ICC is the leading global source of model codes, standards, and building safety solutions, including product evaluation, accreditation, technology, training, and certification. The ICC's codes, standards, and solutions are utilized worldwide to ensure safe, aƯordable, and sustainable communities and buildings, and constitute a source of uniformed benchmarks utilized by jurisdictions throughout California and the country. Among ICC resources is the Building Valuation Data (BVD), a resource that jurisdictions across the U.S. use as a benchmark to determine building permit fees.

The BVD helps establish fees for permitting and provides national construction costs per square foot for various Occupancy Groups and Construction Types.  Occupancy Group: A classification of structures based on their intended use or the type of activities conducted within the building. This classification determines safety requirements such as fire resistance, egress, and structural integrity.  Construction Type: Refers to the materials and methods used to construct a structure, focusing on fire resistance and structural stability.
10758 Mora Drive Project Details
For the project at 10758 Mora Drive, the following Occupancy Groups and Construction Types apply, as outlined in the plan set prepared by Stevens Ferrone & Bailey, Berry and Associates, and Tower from October 1, 2024:

Occupancy Groups:
 Group A (Assembly): Buildings used for gathering people (e.g., gyms, restaurants).  Group B (Business): OƯices and professional services.  Group R (Residential): Housing (e.g., apartments).
 Group S (Storage): Warehouses or storage facilities.

Construction Types:
 Type I: Non-combustible materials with high fire resistance (e.g., steel, concrete), often used for high-rise buildings.
 Type III: Combustible (wood) materials for interior elements with non-combustible or limited-combustible exterior walls.

For this project, Type I-A construction includes the sub-basement, basement, lower podium, podium/garage, and mezzanine. Levels 1 through 5 and the roof are identified as Type III-A in the plans, with the building designed to include sprinkler protection.

Table 1. 10758 Mora Dr as proposed in the Oct 1, 2024 plans (most recent in Town’s possession) ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 7

Page 300 of 611 ends

Occupancy
Group
Construction
Type ICC BVD ($) Project Area (sf) Estimated Project Valuation ($) A-3 Type III-A $207.19 1,557 $322,594.83
B Type I-A $292.48 1,034 $302,424.32
B Type III-A $237.85 7,867 $1,871,165.95
R-2 Type I-A $223.61 13,334 $2,981,615.74
R-2 Type III-A $177.77 36,290 $6,451,273.30
R-2.1 * Type III-A $177.77 2,597 $461,668.69
S-2 Type I-A $ 149.65 8,615 $1,289,234.75
Total Project Valuation $13,679,977.58
*Note: The R-2.1 Occupancy Group is unique to California and applies to residential care facilities.

Since it is not included in the ICC BVD, the square footage cost for R-2 with the same construction type was used.

As submitted, the Town estimates the construction valuation at $13,679,977.58, excluding adjustments for the regional cost diƯerential in the Bay Area, where construction costs are typically higher than the national average.

Fire Apparatus Access Road Requirements
Per California Fire Code Section 503.1.1, fire department access is required:
“The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility.” To comply, the project must include a fire apparatus access road with a width of 20 feet at the rear of the structure. The current design proposes a 5-foot-wide sidewalk, which is insuƯicient.

Incorporating the access road would necessitate significant modifications to the building design, potentially causing other code compliance issues.

Assuming the rest of the project remains compliant, the aƯected area due to the fire apparatus access road would be 8,284 square feet. The adjusted building areas are detailed below:

Table 2. 10758 Mora Dr as proposed in the plans with the fire apparatus access road area removed Occupancy
Group
Construction
Type
ICC
BVD ($)
Project
Area (sf)
Area
Removed (sf)
Estimated Project Valuation
($)
A-3 Type III-A $207.19 1,557 $322,594.83
B Type I-A $292.48 1,034 450 $170,808.32
B Type III-A $237.85 7,867 450 $1,764,133.45
R-2 Type I-A $223.61 13,334 2,193 $2,491,239.01
R-2 Type III-A $177.77 36,290 2,758 $5,960,983.64
R-2.1 * Type III-A $177.77 2,597 $461,668.69
S-2 Type I-A $149.65 8,615 2,433 $925,136.30
Total Project Valuation $12,096,564.24
*Note: The R-2.1 adjustments are based on R-2 unit costs.

ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 7

Page 301 of 611 ends

As revised, the estimated construction valuation would decrease to $12,096,564.24, excluding regional cost adjustments. It is observed that this value remains a significantly high figure.

AƯordability Considerations
Reducing the building footprint to incorporate the fire apparatus access road would decrease the number or size of units or the overall residential area. The following will show that this modification also aƯects the projects aƯordability for BMR units.

Before we get into an analysis of the current project versus possible impacts to the overall aƯordability, let’s discuss what we know about the projects and these impacts. Currently there are 57 units in total with a total square footage of 72,848 sf. Of total residential area 5,401 square feet of the R-2 Occupancy Groups are aƯected due to the inclusion of fire apparatus access road. Of the 57 units, 12 units or ~20% are proposed to be aƯordable (BMR).

According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Fair Market Rents (FMRs) for the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA HUD Metro FMR Area for Fiscal Year 2025 are as follows:
 Studio (0-bedroom): $2,608 per month
 1-bedroom: $2,975 per month
 2-bedroom: $3,446 per month
The BMR units vary in size from the smallest being 318 sf to the largest being 461 sf and are all studio apartments. While the market rate units range from 316 sf to 1079 sf and the majority being 2- bedroom apartments. As such we will assume the value of the market rate units is equivalent to the 2-bedroom rental costs and the BMR units would be equivalent to the rental costs of a studio. This assumes there is no discount provided to the BMR units via subsidies or other funding sources.

The last consideration is the land costs, or the purchase price of the land being developed, which under conventional lending standards is a fixed price plus interest. This consideration would be consistent across all project configurations when comparing aƯordability as the land cost is a fixed price.

Given the information above we can start the analysis of the current project versus possible impacts to the overall aƯordability caused by the required for a fire apparatus access road. Using a Fixed Cost Allocation Analysis, we will be looking at the fixed project costs like land cost, ICC BVD Construction Costs vs the rental income produced yearly. Additionally, we need to determine the range of impacts to consider as compared to the original project. For this we need to determine how many units would be aƯected by the removal of the 5,401 square feet of the R-2 Occupancy Groups.

To do so we will use the smallest unit size and the largest unit size for the market rate units and the BMR unit. This results in a range of 10 of the small market rate units to 5 larger units being eliminated.

Only one BMR unit can be removed otherwise the Builders Remedy status would come into question.

Due to the projects existing distribution of units eliminating one BMR has no impact on the number of market rate units that need elimination.

ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 7

Page 302 of 611 ends

With recent changes to state law, we have also analyzed changes to the overall aƯordability structure of the project with the impacts from the Fire Apparatus Access Road. Below one will see the 13% aƯordable project faces the same relative impacts as the 20% aƯordable project.

ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 7

Page 303 of 611 ends

Table 3. 10758 Mora Dr Fire Apparatus Access Road Area Impact Analysis For 20% Affordable Elimination of Only Market Rate Units Elimination of Market Rate and BMR Units Project Budget Items
Current 20%
AƯordable Project 10 Units Removed 5 Units Removed
10 Market Rate Units &
1 BMR Unit Removed
5 Market Rate Units & 1
BMR Unit Removed

Assumes Smallest Units
are Eliminated First
Assumes Largest Units
are Eliminated First
Assumes Smallest Units
are Eliminated First
Assumes Largest Units
are Eliminated First
Land Cost* $5,000,000.00 $5,000,000.00 $5,000,000.00 $5,000,000.00 $5,000,000.00 ICC BVD Construction
Costs $13,679,977.58 $12,096,564.24 $12,096,564.24 $12,096,564.24 $12,096,564.24 Yearly Income Projection $2,236,392.00 $1,822,872.00 $2,029,632.00 $1,832,928.00 $2,039,688.00 Return of Investment
(Years) 8.35 9.38 8.42 9.33 8.38
Note: * = not actual project land cost
Table 4. 10758 Mora Dr Fire Apparatus Access Road Area Impact Analysis For 13% Affordable Elimination of Only Market Rate Units Elimination of Market Rate and BMR Units Project Budget Items
13% Affordable
Project 10 Units Removed 5 Units Removed
Mixed 10 Market Rate
Units & 1 BMR Unit
Removed
Mixed 5 Market Rate
Units & 1 BMR Unit
Removed

Page 304 of 611 ends

In tables 3 and 4 one will see using Fixed Costs Allocation Analysis that reducing the number of units in an aƯordable housing project will make it less aƯordable. As fixed costs are divided across all units. Fewer units mean higher costs per unit. It can also be argued that fewer units mean fewer opportunities to cross-subsidize aƯordable units with market-rate units, making it harder to maintain aƯordability for lower-income households. Additionally, a longer Return on Investment (ROI) period delays the accumulation of capital needed for future aƯordable projects. If subsidies or tax credits are used, they often are distributed per project. Reducing units dilutes the benefit of these subsidies across fewer units, requiring higher per-unit public investment.

These factors highlight numerous reasons why including the required fire apparatus access road would aƯect the aƯordability of the project’s BMR units for 10758 Mora Dr. 10728 Mora Drive Project Details
For the project at 10728 Mora Drive, the following Occupancy Groups and Construction Types apply, as outlined in the plan set prepared by Stevens Ferrone & Bailey, Berry and Associates, and Tower from May 17, 2023:

Table 5. 10728 Mora Dr as proposed in November 21, 2023 plans (most recent submitted to the Town) Occupancy
Group
Construction
Type ICC BVD ($) Project Area (sf) Estimated Project Valuation ($) A-3 Type III-A $207.19 2,611 $540,973.09
B Type I-A $292.48 1,044 $305,349.12
B Type III-A $237.85 4,761 $1,132,403.85
R-2 Type I-A $223.61 4,331 $968,454.91
R-2 Type III-A $177.77 40,735 $7,241,460.95
ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 7

Page 305 of 611 ends

R-2.1 * Type III-A $177.77 3,251 $577,930.27
S-2 Type I-A $149.65 7,943 $1,188,669.95
Total Project Valuation $11,955,242.14
*Note: The R-2.1 Occupancy Group is unique to California and applies to residential care facilities.

Since it is not included in the ICC BVD, the square footage cost for R-2 with the same construction type was used.

As submitted, the Town estimates the construction valuation at $11,955,242.14, excluding adjustments for the regional cost diƯerential in the Bay Area, where construction costs are typically higher than the national average.

Incorporating the access road would necessitate significant modifications to the building design, potentially causing other code compliance issues.

Assuming the rest of the project remains compliant, the aƯected area due to the fire apparatus access road would be 8,866 square feet. The adjusted building areas are detailed below:

Table 6. 10728 Mora Dr May 17, 2023 with fire apparatus access road area removed Occupancy
Group
Construction
Type

ICC BVD
($)
Project
Area (sf)
Area
Removed (sf)
Estimated Project
Valuation ($)
A-3 Type III-A $207.19 2,611 $540,973.09
B Type I-A $292.48 1,044 494 $160,814.82
B Type III-A $237.85 4,761 1,358 $809,344.09
R-2 Type I-A $223.61 4,331 1,438 $646,875.78
R-2 Type III-A $177.77 40,735 2,720 $6,757,948.77
R-2.1 * Type III-A $177.77 3,251 $577,930.27
S-2 Type I-A $149.65 7,943 2,433 $824,571.50
Total Project Valuation $10,318,458.32
*Note: The R-2.1 adjustments are based on R-2 unit costs.

As revised, the estimated construction valuation would decrease to $10,318,458.32, excluding regional cost adjustments. It is observed that this value remains a significantly high figure.

AƯordability Considerations
ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 7

Page 306 of 611 ends

Reducing the building footprint to incorporate the fire apparatus access road would decrease the number or size of units or the overall residential area. The following will show that this modification also aƯects the projects aƯordability for BMR units.

Before we get into an analysis of the current project versus possible impacts to the overall aƯordability, let’s discuss what we know about the projects and these impacts. Currently there are 55 units in total with a total square footage of 67,475 sf. Of total residential area 4,158 square feet of the R-2 Occupancy Groups are aƯected due to the inclusion of fire apparatus access road. Of the 55 units, 11 units or ~20% are proposed to be aƯordable (BMR).

Assuming maintaining the same level of aƯordability as the proposed by the project currently citing to the Builder’s Remedy, only one BMR unit wouldbe removed. Due to the projects existing distribution of units eliminating one BMR has no impact on the number of market rate units that need elimination.

ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 7

Page 307 of 611 ends

Table 7. 10728 Mora Dr Fire Apparatus Access Road Area Impact Analysis For 20% Affordable Elimination of Only Market Rate Units Elimination of Market Rate and BMR Units Project Budget Items
Current 20%
Affordable
Project
9 Units Removed 4 Units Removed 9 Market Rate Units &
1 BMR Unit Removed
4 Market Rate Units &
1 BMR Unit Removed

Assumes Smallest
Units are Eliminated
First
Assumes Largest
Units are Eliminated
First
Assumes Smallest
Units are Eliminated
First
Assumes Largest Units
are Eliminated First
Land Cost* $5,000,000.00 $5,000,000.00 $5,000,000.00 $5,000,000.00 $5,000,000.00 ICC BVD Construction
Costs $11,955,242.14 $10,318,458.32 $10,318,458.32 $10,318,458.32 $10,318,458.32 Yearly Income Projection $2,163,744.00 $1,791,576.00 $1,998,336.00 $1,801,632.00 $2,008,392.00 Return of Investment
(Years) 7.8 8.6 7.7 8.5 7.6
Note: * estimated project land cost
Table 8. 10728 Mora Dr Fire Apparatus Access Road Area Impact Analysis For 13% Affordable Elimination of Market Rate and BMR Units Elimination of Mix of Market Rate and BMR Project Budget Items 13% Affordable
Project 10 Units Removed 5 Units Removed
Mixed 10 Market Rate
Units & 1 BMR Unit
Removed
Mixed 5 Market Rate
Units & 1 BMR Unit
Removed

Page 308 of 611 ends

In tables 3 and 4 one will see using Fixed Costs Allocation Analysis that reducing the number of units in an aƯordable housing project will make it less aƯordable in some configurations.

The key diƯerences between the project at 10728 Mora Drive and 10758 Mora Drive boils down to a few details. The diƯerences identified include a decrease to 55 units in total with a total square footage of 67,475 sf due to the lots sizes and shapes varying slightly causing the design used for 10758 Mora Dr to be modified for 10728 Mora Dr to account for the property narrowing as one head east into the property from Mora Dr. Another key diƯerence is that the sub basement from 10758 Mora Dr. has been removed along with the mezzanine this accounts for the reduced floor area in 10728 Mora Drive. Of total residential area 4,158 square feet of the R-2 Occupancy Groups are aƯected due to the inclusion of fire apparatus access road. Of the 55 units, 11 units or ~20% are proposed to be aƯordable (BMR).

Ultimately, the diƯerence in construction cost aƯected by the change is the residential floor area for 10728 Mora Dr causes the Fixed Costs Allocation Analysis to show approximately the same performance post adjustments in unit counts and the aƯected residential areas to account for the incorporation of the fire apparatus access road. In addition, the application for 10728 Mora Drive has yet to address other technical comments that had been addressed for 10758 Mora Drive which would also aƯect the building’s design impacting the over cost of construction. Both projects would need to formally revise plans to accommodate the fire apparatus access road which would lead to additional reductions in each project’s building area so again the following logic would apply.

As fixed costs are divided across all units. Fewer units mean higher costs per unit. It can also be argued that fewer units mean fewer opportunities to cross-subsidize aƯordable units with marketrate units, making it harder to maintain aƯordability for lower-income households. Additionally, a longer Return on Investment (ROI) period delays the accumulation of capital needed for future aƯordable projects. If subsidies or tax credits are used, they often are distributed per project.

Reducing units dilutes the benefit of these subsidies across fewer units, requiring higher per-unit public investment.

These factors highlight numerous reasons why including the required fire apparatus access road would aƯect the aƯordability of the project’s BMR units for 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive.

ITEM 9A ATTACHMENT 7

Page 309 of 611 ends

1 Arika Miller
From: Dorit Perry
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 1:45 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Mora drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
To City Council,
10728 and 10758 Mora drive. A few years ago this same developer sought a variance to allow a single residence. It was justly denied. These lots are not just sub-standard. These lots are not even 1/2 the size of a regular lot. The applicaƟon was fully reviewed, debated and denied.

Now this same developer wants to build 50 plus units on this miniature lot. This is even more egregious. For the same reasons that the original variance was denied, this must be denied.

Moreover, the amount of traffic generated by residents, staff and employees would become untenable.

Los Altos Hills is a quiet rural community. We, and all our neighbors, bought homes for this quiet. It will be forever ruined by this development. In essence it’s starƟng to feel like a “taking.” Please deny this.

Dorit Perry
Brief because sent from my iPhone
ITEM 9A, Supplement 1

Page 310 of 611 ends

1 Arika Miller
From: Dorit Perry
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 1:44 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Re: Mora drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Thank you City Council. One more issue. At the Ɵme this was last discussed, a lot of emphasis was placed on light polluƟon issues. There was discussion about the amount and direcƟon of lights. And all lights would face downward.

With a mulƟ story building and so many apartments, it seems as if this issue has simply been ignored. How will it be possible to contain the light and not have light polluƟon? Dorit
Brief because sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 26, 2025, at 17:45, Dorit Perry wrote:
>
> To City Council,
>
> 10728 and 10758 Mora drive. A few years ago this same developer sought a variance to allow a single residence. It was justly denied. These lots are not just sub-standard. These lots are not even 1/2 the size of a regular lot. The applicaƟon was fully reviewed, debated and denied.
>
> Now this same developer wants to build 50 plus units on this miniature lot. This is even more egregious. For the same reasons that the original variance was denied, this must be denied. >
> Moreover, the amount of traffic generated by residents, staff and employees would become untenable. >
> Los Altos Hills is a quiet rural community. We, and all our neighbors, bought homes for this quiet. It will be forever ruined by this development. In essence it’s starƟng to feel like a “taking.” >
> Please deny this.
>
> Dorit Perry
>
> Brief because sent from my iPhone
ITEM 9A, Supplement 1a

Page 311 of 611 ends

ITEM 9A, Supplement 2

Page 312 of 611 ends

1 Arika Miller
From: Lekha Srinivasan
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 6:59 PM
To: City Council
Subject: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM NO 9
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello City Council Members
We strongly oppose the construction of multi-family units on 10728 Mora Drive and 10758 Mora Drive. If this approval for construction went forward it would cause unbearable traffic congestion on Mora Drive. It would also prevent the use of the Rancho San Antonio entrance on Mora Drive due to likely traffic overflow from the multi-family units.

Not only will this negatively impact surrounding house value, it may also result in potential danger to school children at Waldorf School on Mora drive at the intersection of Mora and Eastbrook, due to significantly higher volume of traffic. There are many children who bike to local schools such as Loyola Elementary, Blach Junior High and Mountain View High Schools, and the significant increase in traffic due to the 112 multi-family units could create dangerous traffic congestions. The potential traffic congestion and negative environmental impact ( additional vehicle emission impacting humans and animals) would discourage joggers, hikers and bikers from using this area regularly. The family friendly environment of this neighborhood would be destroyed forever.

Mora drive leading to Rancho San Antonio entrance is already a busy street with cars driving up and down to the homes there, and such a massive increase in vehicles with the multi-family units would be a significant physical risk to anyone walking or biking on mora. It is likely to adversely impact the wildlife in the San Antonio Preserve as well.

Please review the request carefully and do not allow profiteering of developers to overtake the welfare of residents in the neighborhood. As residents of this neighborhood, we strongly oppose this request to put profits above rights of the residents and children of this neighborhood.

I request you to please deny the request for multi-family housing units on Mora Drive.

Thank you for your consideration and action.

Best,
Lekha Srinivasan
Los Altos Hills, CA 94024
phone:

ITEM 9A, Supplement 3

Page 313 of 611 ends

1 Arika Miller
From: Raman Kapur
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 6:58 PM
To: City Council
Subject: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT (item #9).

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello:

This is regarding proposed residential development projects by Forrest Linebarger to construct two multi-family senior residential developments consisting of 55 and 57 condo units at 10728 Mora Drive ( 0.374 acre lot) and 10758 Mora Drive (0.397 acre lot), right next to the entry gate to Rancho San Antonio.

Here are some things for the Council to consider:
- Danger to drivers and pedestrians: Mora drive is narrow and has a very steep incline. Having 100 apartments at the end of this narrow road will create a lot of traffic - both cars and pedestrians on this narrow lane which does not have a sidewalk or a shoulder. This could result in a very unsafe situation for anyone walking on this road. - At the end of the road on the crossing of Mora and Eastbrook is a primary school Waldorf. Having a lot of traffic coming down the steep hill will be highly unsafe for the kids who are crossing the street. The parents park their cars at the crossing of Mora and Eastbrook and then cross the street with their young children - Rancho is a place for hiking and having so many apartments right at the entrance will totally ruin it for local residents.

Today local residents have to walk up Mora as there is no parking at the entrance. Increasing the traffic on a street with no side walk or shoulder will make Rancho unsafe and unusable for residents of Los Altos and others who use this entrance
The neighborhood and the streets was designed for minimal traffic. Putting 100+ apartments in such area will completely destroy the character of this area. It is putting one persons desire to make a large profit ahead of the residents of this neighborhood.

Please do not allow such a development to happen.

Regards
Raman Kapur
Los Altos Hills, CA 94024
ITEM 9A, Supplement 4

Page 314 of 611 ends

1 Arika Miller
From: Kranti Singh
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 5:40 PM
To: City Council
Subject: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT(Agenda item#9)
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello,
I am wriƟng this mail to express my strong objecƟon to the proposal of building mulƟ family senior development units right next to the entrance of Rancho San Antonio.

This area is used by pedestrians and bicyclists and it a narrow lane not suited for the high traffic that the new development will generate. It will also negaƟvely impact the natural aestheƟcs of the park which is enjoyed by the enƟre community.

I urge you to please reject this proposal and not destroy the character of this beauƟful natural area.

Regards,
KranƟ Singh
Resident
ITEM 9A, Supplement 5

Page 315 of 611 ends

1 Arika Miller
From:

Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 4:31 PM
To: City Council
Subject: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, agenda item #9 - multifamily development on Mora Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Ladies and gentlemen of the Los Altos Hills City Council:

We are writing to ask that you deny the applications to build multifamily senior living buildings at 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive. As residents of the neighborhood, we are very familiar with that section of Mora Drive, and have seen how narrow and crowded it can get with not just the existing residential traffic but also the visitors (cars, cyclists and pedestrians) to the Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve and Mora Trail. From a fire safety standpoint alone, it would be irresponsible to place high-density housing in those locations.

We applaud the staff for the thoroughness of the report, and urge you to uphold their recommendations and deny the applications.

Thank you,
Bill and Sarah Nowlin
Los Altos Hills, CA. 94024
ITEM 9A, Supplement 6

Page 316 of 611 ends

1 Arika Miller
From: Marj Green
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 3:12 PM
To: City Council
Subject: For the City County meeting on Jan 30th: Opposition to Forrest Linebarger's proposals.

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear City Council Members,
We oppose Forrest Linebarger's proposed multi-family senior residential developments consisting of 55 and 57 condo units at 10728 Mora Drive ( 0.374 acre lot) and 10758 Mora Drive (0.397 acre lot), right next to the entry gate to Rancho San Antonio.

The high density buildings would be a disaster in the making. Senior living with no public transportation, few private car parking, and limited options for egress cannot possibly be reasonable when you consider what would happen during a fire or earthquake.

We ask the Council to deny his applications.

Tom & Marj Green
Los Altos Hills, CA 94024
ITEM 9A, Supplement 7

Page 317 of 611 ends

1 Arika Miller
From: Weegie Caughlan
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 1:26 PM
To: City Council
Subject: For Public Comment
Letter to LAH Town Council
Mr. Linebarger has been pushing his absurd, money wasting proposals for far too many years and my answer to all his proposals has been and still is a resounding NO! Had These two lots been combined and a large estate built, not only would it conform to the neighborhood and its limited road and sewer access infrastructure, but Linebarger would have walked away with a tidy sum to invest elsewhere where he could develop in a more suitable housing environment.

Linebarger is determined to get his way and will fight for his multiple use for these two lots FOR THE PURE SAKE OF FIGHTING, hoping for a different council which might be on his side.

Do not let him get his way.

PLEASE VOTE NO!
Eleanor Caughlan
Los Altos Hills
ITEM 9A, Supplement 8

Page 318 of 611 ends

Page 319 of 611 ends

Town of Los Altos Hills City Council,
10728 and 10758 Mora Drive
David C. Kehlet
1/30/2025
ITEM 9A, Supplement 9a

Page 320 of 611 ends

Approve the Resolutions to Deny
• The 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive Staff Report
and the two Mora Resolutions show the Town’s
strong commitment to its residents and the rule
of law – Thank You!
.

Page 321 of 611 ends

Approve the Resolutions to Deny
• The 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive Staff Report
and the two Mora Resolutions show the Town’s
strong commitment to its residents and the rule
of law – Thank You!
• The overwhelming challenges of the proposed
developments are not just about:
– Density, Town Charter, Adverse Impact, Developer’s
Special Privileges, Inapplicability of Builders Remedy, (and many more showstoppers!), NIMBY/YIMBY
• Now people’s lives are at stake!

Page 322 of 611 ends

Mora Drive

Page 323 of 611 ends

Mora Drive
Pacific Palisades, 2025

Page 324 of 611 ends

Mora Drive

Page 325 of 611 ends

Mora Drive
Oakland Hills, 1991

Page 326 of 611 ends

Evacuation?
• 112 units for seniors
• Dozens of existing homes on Mora Drive, Sunhills
Drive and Terry Way
• With the prevailing winds from Rancho San
Antonio Park, the way out is down Mora Drive!
• How will 200-300 souls evacuate?
• How will emergency responders decide who to
save and who will burn?

Page 327 of 611 ends

1 Arika Miller
From: Esther M. John
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 9:47 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Jan 30 city council meeting: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, agenda item #9 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
January 27, 2025
Kavita Tankha, Mayor
Rajiv Bhateja, Vice Mayor
Stanley Mok
Linda Swan
George Tyson
Dear Mayor Tankha and Members of the LAH City Council:

Thank you for the thorough staff report and documentation enumerating numerous safety and evacuation issues related to the development plans for two senior housing towers to be constructed by Forrest Linebarger at 10728 Mora Drive (55 condos on 0.374 acre lot) and 10758 Mora Drive (57 condos on 0.397 acre lot).

Residents on Mora Drive are at high risk of fire exposure, as acknowledged in the staff report.

It is only recently, in August 2020, that the CZU Lightning Complex fires broke out and crossed highway 35.

Our family certainly felt at risk and was on high alert. We had our go-bags ready to evacuate, and made immediate other arrangements in case of fire that are still in place.

There is only one route of evacuation in case of fire, thus all residents on Mora Drive, the Private Road, Terry Way, and Sunhills Drive would need to use the narrow and curvy Mora Drive to evacuate, with residents driving downhill and first responders and fire trucks driving uphill. Adding 112 condo units would add immensely to the congestion on Mora Drive in case of rapid evacuation.

How would senior residents who may have limited mobility or use wheelchairs evacuate in case of fire? The proposed architectural plans show only 33 parking spaces in each of the two proposed buildings. Thus, many senior residents would not even have their own car to evacuate in case of a fire or another emergency like a severe earthquake. If a fire were to occur, it would most likely come from Rancho San Antonio, thus the proposed senior development and nearby neighbors would be the first to be affected on upper Mora Drive.

How would relatives and friends of the senior residents be able to assist with rapid evacuation? The proposed architectural plans show only one visitor parking space for each building. Street parking is not possible, given that the end of Mora Drive is a no-parking zone and fire truck turn-around area.

I urge you to approve the Resolutions and deny the two proposed senior developments. It is unconscionable to put 112 units for senior residents on upper Mora Drive.

ITEM 9A, Supplement 10

Page 328 of 611 ends

2 Thank you, Esther M. John
Los Altos Hills, CA 94024

Page 329 of 611 ends

Page 330 of 611 ends

Page 331 of 611 ends

2 project, but the proposed design clashes with the needs, values and character of our community. We respectfully urge the City Council to reject the proposal.

Sincerely,
Christian and Kristen Dubiel
Los Altos Hills, CA 94024

Page 332 of 611 ends

Page 333 of 611 ends

Page 334 of 611 ends

2 Susan Barnes

Page 335 of 611 ends

Page 336 of 611 ends

Page 337 of 611 ends

Page 338 of 611 ends

Page 339 of 611 ends

Page 340 of 611 ends

1 Arika Miller
From: Rob Fagen
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 9:06 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Subject: Public comment for Jan 30 city council meeting, item #9 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
The staff has nailed it on this one. The degree of danger in the event of a fire evacuation posed by adding more than 100 residents at the top of Mora Drive is unacceptable.

Please support rejecting this application. Thank you.
--
Rob Fagen
ITEM 9A, Supplement 20

Page 341 of 611 ends

Page 342 of 611 ends

Page 343 of 611 ends

Page 344 of 611 ends

2 Mary Jo Feeney MS
Nutrition Consultant to the Food and Agriculture Industries Los Altos Hills, CA 94024

Page 345 of 611 ends

Page 346 of 611 ends

Page 347 of 611 ends

Page 348 of 611 ends

1 Arika Miller
From: Jack Farrell
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2025 11:35 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Public Comment - Agenda Item 9
Attachments: Mora Drive Builder's Remedy Projects.docx
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello,
Please find attached correspondence from YIMBY Law regarding tonight's meeting of the Council.

Sincerely,
Jack Farrell he/him
Research Attorney
To help p otect you p vacy M c osoft Off ce p evented autom t c download of th s pictu e f om the Inte net
To help p otect you p iva y
M c o so ft Off ce p evented
au o ma ic downlo ad o f thi
pictu e f om the Inte net Virus-free.www.avast.com
ITEM 9A, Supplement 27

Page 349 of 611 ends

Page 350 of 611 ends

2 That pretext comes in the form of fire codes; Denial Finding 1 would find the applications incomplete because of the HAA’s allowance for denial where a project proposes an adverse impact to health and safety. However, that language only applies where there is no method to mitigate or avoid said impacts without rendering the project infeasible.

The Los Altos Hills Fire Department has not approved the project as proposed so far, but that is not to say that no feasible mitigation measures are possible. The City has already proposed potential alternatives via a reduction in FAR or unit count, which would be cognizable within HAA policies. Staff claim that such measures would render the project infeasible, but nothing in the HAA grants the City authority to conduct its own feasibility analysis to make this determination. Even so, staff’s own financial feasibility analysis shows a negligible fiscal impact between the projects as proposed and the projects with mitigation efforts. Under that analysis, the projects remain feasible and must be approved.

This is besides the fact that such mitigation efforts should be considered during the post-entitlement permit phase, not during review of a submitted application.

Regardless, post-entitlement phase permits are governed by 65913.3, which contains distinct provisions governing public health and safety provisions. The process to mitigate health or safety concerns including building code interpretations to the Building Standards Commission1 and AMMR denials to the state fire marshal2 both occur well past the point that an application is considered complete. Any incompleteness determination on the reason of health and safety is premature and robs the applicant of a chance to mitigate those concerns.

Furthermore, the proposals at issue do comply with the fire codes. Local code 503.1.1 requires that the “fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements for this section and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility.” However, it provides for an exception where:

In other than R-3 or U occupancies, when the building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system, installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 the dimension may be increased to a maximum of 300 feet when approved by the fire code official.
1 See Health and Safety Code §§ 1893-18949.
2 See 19 CCR § 2.03.

Page 351 of 611 ends

3 The projects at issue are equipped with automatic sprinkler systems throughout the buildings, and at 287 feet will be within 300 feet of the nearby access road. Under Denial finding 2, the staff report states that denial is appropriate because the project does not comply with state law. However, Section 503.1.1 has been adopted by the town of Los Altos Hills, but it has not been adopted by the state of California. Review of the Adoption Matrix in Chapter 5 of the California Fire code notes that Section 503 is not included in statewide code.3
Denial Finding 3 states that the project does not meet AB 1983’s density requirements for Builder’s Remedy projects. This statement is incorrect, ignoring the fact that AB 1893 subdivision (f)(7)(A) explicitly allows the applicant to be subject to provisions present on the date the preliminary application was submitted or under (f)(7)(B) revise the application.

The report’s claim that the project does not comply with the local Lot Unit Factor (LUF) is similarly irrelevant. The Housing Accountability Act expressly prohibits zoning ordinances from constituting a public health and safety issue per Ca Gov. Code 65589.5(d)(2)(A).

As the city has failed to comply with state law, it does not have discretion to deny this project. Determining that the application is incomplete is not a legitimate means of preventing it from moving forward, and is not within the city’s authority. The Project proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Builders’ Remedy, therefore, you must approve the application, or else make findings to the effect that the proposed project would have an adverse impact on public health and safety, as described above.

Should the City fail to comply with the law, YIMBY Law will not hesitate to take legal action to ensure that the law is enforced. I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY Law, and as a resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state.

Sincerely,
Sonja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY Law
3 See California Fire Code – Matrix Adoption Table, Chapter 5 – Fire Service Features, available at https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAFC2022P1/chapter-5-fire-service-features.

Page 352 of 611 ends

Page 353 of 611 ends

Page 354 of 611 ends

1 Arika Miller
From: James Lloyd
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2025 2:26 PM
To: Kavita Tankha; Stanley Mok; George Tyson; Linda Swan; City Council Cc: Peter Pirnejad; Arika Miller; Planning; Steve Mattas; Subject: CalHDF comment re item 9A, 10728 & 10758 Mora Drive, for 1/30/25 Council meeting Attachments: Los Altos Hills - 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive - HAA-BR Letter.pdf; HB Statement of decision 10-4 (2).pdf; CalHDF v LCF compressed(1).pdf
Dear Los Altos Hills City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits the attached public comment (and referenced court cases) regarding the proposed 55 and 57 dwelling unit projects located at 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive, respectively, calendared as agenda item 9A for tonight's Council meeting Sincerely,
James M. Lloyd
Director of Planning and Investigations
California Housing Defense Fund
ITEM 9A, Supplement 29

Page 355 of 611 ends

Page 356 of 611 ends

Page 357 of 611 ends

Page 358 of 611 ends

Page 359 of 611 ends

Page 360 of 611 ends

Page 361 of 611 ends

Page 362 of 611 ends

Page 363 of 611 ends

ITEM 9A, Supplement 29b

Page 364 of 611 ends

Page 365 of 611 ends

Page 366 of 611 ends

Page 367 of 611 ends

Page 368 of 611 ends

Page 369 of 611 ends

Page 370 of 611 ends

Page 371 of 611 ends

Page 372 of 611 ends

Page 373 of 611 ends

Page 374 of 611 ends

Page 375 of 611 ends

Page 376 of 611 ends

Page 377 of 611 ends

Page 378 of 611 ends

Page 379 of 611 ends

Page 380 of 611 ends

Page 381 of 611 ends

Page 382 of 611 ends

Page 383 of 611 ends

Page 384 of 611 ends

Page 385 of 611 ends

ITEM 9A, Supplement 29c

Page 386 of 611 ends

Page 387 of 611 ends

Page 388 of 611 ends

Page 389 of 611 ends

Page 390 of 611 ends

Page 391 of 611 ends

Page 392 of 611 ends

Page 393 of 611 ends

Page 394 of 611 ends

Page 395 of 611 ends

Page 396 of 611 ends

Page 397 of 611 ends

Page 398 of 611 ends

Page 399 of 611 ends

Page 400 of 611 ends

Page 401 of 611 ends

Page 402 of 611 ends

Page 403 of 611 ends

Page 404 of 611 ends

Page 405 of 611 ends

Page 406 of 611 ends

Page 407 of 611 ends

Page 408 of 611 ends

Page 409 of 611 ends

Page 410 of 611 ends

Page 411 of 611 ends

Page 412 of 611 ends

Page 413 of 611 ends

Page 414 of 611 ends

Page 415 of 611 ends

Page 416 of 611 ends

Page 417 of 611 ends

Page 418 of 611 ends

Page 419 of 611 ends

Page 420 of 611 ends

Page 421 of 611 ends

Page 422 of 611 ends

Page 423 of 611 ends

Page 424 of 611 ends

Page 425 of 611 ends

Page 426 of 611 ends

PATTERSON & O’NEILL, PC
San Francisco, CA 9410
Telephone: (415) 907-9110
Facsimile: (415) 907-7704
www.pattersononeill.com
January 30, 2025

VIA E-MAIL
Los Altos Hills City Council
Town Hall Council Chambers
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Re: Agenda Item 9A
Housing Development Project Applications (File Nos. CDP23-0001 and CDP23-0001) 10728 Mora Drive and 10758 Mora Drive (Forrest Linebarger) Dear Mayor Tankha and Councilmembers:

Our office represents Forrest Linebarger. Our client submitted development project applications for the construction of two housing development projects located on 10758 Mora Drive and 10728 Mora Drive. These projects will provide much needed senior housing, a segment of the population that currently has very few living options in the Town.

As the staff report admits, Mr. Linebarger submitted the preliminary applications at a time when the Town was out of compliance with the Housing Element Law and subsequently submitted development applications pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(5), commonly referred to as the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) “builder’s remedy.” Under the builder’s remedy, a local government cannot deny an affordable housing development project, even if the project is inconsistent with the jurisdiction’s zoning and general plan. unless the local government can make one of five enumerated findings.

Due to the historic housing crisis in our state, California has passed dozens of housing laws to reduce local impediments to housing. Our firm specializes in the enforcement and litigation of state housing laws when local agencies fail to carry out their duties under those laws. We have represented the non-profit housing advocacy group Yes In My Back Yard (YIMBY) Law in numerous successful lawsuits, including the first published case regarding the Housing Crisis Act, Yes In My Back Yard v. City of Culver City (2023) 96 Cal. App. 5th 1103, and also brought a lawsuit that resulted in one of the first superior court decisions upholding the builder’s remedy, Jha v. City of Los Angeles (July 24, 2024, Los Angeles. Superior Court Case No. 23STCP03499).

ITEM 9A, Supplement 31a

Page 427 of 611 ends

Mayor Tankha and Councilmembers
January 30, 2025

Page 2 ends

YIMBY Law is tracking local government compliance with the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), and has already initiated several lawsuits against agencies that have refused to approve builder’s remedy projects. YIMBY Law has submitted a letter in support of Mr. Linebarger’s project, as has the nonprofit advocacy organization California Housing Defense Fund, formerly known as CARLA, the organization at the center of the seminal HAA case Cal. Renters Legal Advocacy & Educ. Fund v. City of San Mateo, 68 Cal.App.5th 820.) The Legislature recently enacted AB 1893, which made significant changes to the HAA to strengthen the builder’s remedy provision. The legislative author explained that the intent of AB 1893 was to “modernize the builder’s remedy to make it clear, objective, and easily usable” and that “the message to local jurisdictions is clear — when it comes to housing policy, the days of shirking your responsibility to your neighbors are over.” As explained below, the proposed action to disapprove Mr. Linebarger’s projects is premature, including because he has utilized his rights under AB 1893 to revise his project to meet the new definition of a “builder’s remedy project.” The project under consideration by Council is no longer the applicable project. However, if the Council insists on taking an action to disapprove the projects over my client’s request for a continuance, the Town’s action would constitute an unlawful disapproval and constitute a violation of the HAA.

The Project Plans Under Consideration are No Longer Applicable AB 1983 provides applicants with existing applications that are deemed complete prior to January 1, 2025 with the option to be subject to “any or all of the provisions of this section applicable as of January 1, 2025.” (Gov. Code Sec. 65589.5(f)(7).) Further, this subdivision allows an applicant to “revise their application so that the project is a builder’s remedy project, without being required to resubmit a preliminary application.” The staff report erroneously argues that the project is not a builder’s remedy project because the applicant had not yet revised the application to reflect the new provisions in AB 1893 that went into effect January 1, 2025. First, a project with a complete application may choose whether to be subject to the new provisions or continue to be processed under the prior version of the builder’s remedy. In other words, an applicant does not need to meet the new definition of “builder’s remedy project” in subd. (h)(11) cited in the staff report – unless the applicant chooses to be subject to that definition.

Regardless, the applicant has chosen to revise his application to meet the definition of “builder’s remedy project” in subd. (h)(11). The revisions include significant changes such as reducing the number of units, amending the affordability levels, amending the fire access plans, and amending the proposed accessory uses, parking, and elevations. The project plans that are the subject of the January 30 hearing no longer exist and have been replaced with new application materials. As a result, the proposed public hearing notices, resolutions, findings, and attached project plans are

Page 428 of 611 ends

Mayor Tankha and Councilmembers
January 30, 2025

Page 3 ends

all describing a project that the Town has no authority to act upon, as the applicant has now exercised his right to revise the applications under Gov. Code Sec. 65589.5(f)(7).

The new project plans have not been reviewed by Town staff and any proposed action would be premature, including because the Town is required to provide 10-days’ advanced notice prior to any hearing. (Gov. Code § 65094.) That is impossible here, as the revised application materials were only submitted today. In sum, the Council does not have the authority to act on the project and this hearing must be continued.

The Proposed Findings Are Inadequate to Disapprove the Project Colloquially known as the “builder’s remedy,” a local government is required to approve housing, or not otherwise condition approval in a manner that renders the housing development project infeasible, unless the local government can make certain written findings based upon a preponderance of the evidence. Under Gov. Code § 65589.5, subd. (d)(5), a local government cannot deny a housing development project for low-income households, even if the project is inconsistent with the jurisdiction’s zoning and inconsistent with the general plan land use designation, unless the local government can make written findings, supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record, that it has adopted a housing element in substantial compliance with the Housing Element law. Otherwise, a local government must make written findings that one of the other four enumerated sets of circumstances exist.

As the staff report admits, a preliminary application for the project was submitted before the Town had adopted a substantially compliant housing element. The purpose of the preliminary application is to “vest” the standards that are in effect at the time a complete preliminary application is submitted. In other words, housing development projects are only subject to the standards that were adopted and in effect at the time a complete preliminary application is submitted. (Gov Code § 65589.5 subd. (o)(1).) Therefore, if the preliminary application submittal occurs at a time when a jurisdiction does not have a compliant housing element, any potential benefits afforded to the applicant as a result of the jurisdiction’s noncompliant status, including the builder’s remedy, remain throughout the entitlement process.

The staff report claims that there are three reasons to support the proposed disapproval. Each is addressed in more detail below.

The Project Meets the Requirements of the Builder’s Remedy As explained above, the staff report argues that the project does not qualify for the new definition of builder’s remedy in Gov. Code Sec. 65589.5(h)(11), which did not go into effect until January 1, 2025. Pursuant to Gov. Code Sec. 65589.5(f)(7), the applicant can choose whether to be subject to this definition. Prior to January 1, 2025, any project that met the prior definition of “housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households,” qualifies for the builder’s remedy. This project previously provided 20% of the units as affordable to low-income

Page 429 of 611 ends

Mayor Tankha and Councilmembers
January 30, 2025

Page 4 ends

households, meeting the definition of “housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households.” Moreover, the applicant has since revised the project to meet the new definition of builder’s remedy project as explicitly permitted by Gov. Code Sec. 65589.5(f)(7). Either way, the projects are eligible for the protection of the builder’s remedy. Staff’s assertion otherwise is without merit. As a result, the disapproval finding no. 3 is not a legally valid reason to deny the project.

The Town has Not Identified Any Specific State or Federal Laws that the Project Fails to Meet The staff report erroneously claims that the project is inconsistent with the California Fire Code, citing Section 503.1.1. Presumably, the Town is suggesting that the project does not meet regulations adopted into Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, which contains the California Building Standards Code. First, we note that Title 24 includes regulations, not state laws, that are adopted by various state agencies and implemented by the California Building Standards Commission.

However, the Town’s claim that Section 503.1.1 is part of the California Fire Code is simply wrong. The Office of the State Fire Marshal (SFM) is solely responsible for promulgating regulations for inclusion in Part 9 of the State Building Codes, also referred to as the California Fire Code. In 2022, the SFM chose not to adopt Section 503 of the International Code Council (ICC) Fire Code.1
In the most recent proposed update, the SFM once again is proposing not to adopt Section 503 into the California Fire Code.2
In short, the Town’s citation to an ICC model code that has not been adopted by the SFM, and is not a part of Title 24, is erroneous. Section 503.1.1 has no force and effect in California. The Town has not identified any specific state or federal laws that the project fails to meet, and disapproval finding no. 2 is not legally valid reason to deny the project. 1 The State Building Codes are all based on ICC code standards. When the State Building Code is updated, each responsible agency may choose to adopt, amend, or not adopt portions of the ICC Code. Because the ICC’s codes are copyrighted, the ICC is the only entity that is allowed to publish the State Building Code. The ICC publishes both the ICC’s “model code” along with the California amendments (in italics) in one document. Each chapter of the code begins with an “adoption matrix” that indicates which ICC model codes have been adopted by the relevant California agency. Chapter 5 of the Fire Code matrix confirms that Section 503 has not been adopted by the SFM and is therefore not part of the California Fire Code. https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAFC2022P1/chapter-5-fire-service-features 2 See SFM Final Statement of Reasons, available at https://www.dgs.ca.gov/- /media/Divisions/BSC/03-Rulemaking/2024-Triennial-Cycle/Commission-Meetings/2025-02- 26/SFM-06-24-FSOR-PT9.pdf

Page 430 of 611 ends

Mayor Tankha and Councilmembers
January 30, 2025

Page 5 ends

The Town has Not Identified Any Specific, Adverse Impact Upon the Public Health or Safety The staff report suggests that the project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety based on Section 503.1.1, again erroneously claiming that this section is part of the California Fire Code. This section was not adopted by the SFM and is not part of the California Fire Code.

The Town did adopt a local amendment to the state Fire Code into the Town’s Fire Code in January 2023,3
to add and amend Section 503.1.1 of the ICC model code language. The local code provision states as follows:
503.1.1: Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements for this section and shall extend to within 150 feet (45,720 mm) of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility.

Exceptions:

1. In other than R-3 or U occupancies, when the building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system, installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 the dimension may be increased to a maximum of 300 feet when approved by the fire code official.

The HAA defines “specific, adverse impact” to mean a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)(2).) The HAA further defines “objective” to mean standards that require “no personal or subjective judgment by a public official” that are “knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(8).) The HAA’s objectivity requirement applies to all applicable development 3 In addition, the Town’s fire code violates the Housing Crisis Act, which prohibits the Town from enacting or implementing any new code standards that reduce the intensity of land use or reduce a site’s residential development capacity. (Gov. Code § 66300(b)(1)(A).) The Town’s fire code ordinance reduces the amount of space on a parcel where housing can be built, which clearly reduces a site’s residential capacity in violation of the Housing Crisis Act, and is therefore void. (Gov. Code § 66300(b)(2).) Further, the Housing Crisis Act prohibits the Town from imposing or enforcing design standards that are not objective design standards. (Gov. Code § 66300(b)(1)(C).) The Town’s ordinance imposes design standards that are not objective and is therefore void. (Gov. Code § 66300(b)(2).)

Page 431 of 611 ends

Mayor Tankha and Councilmembers
January 30, 2025

Page 6 ends

standards, conditions, and policies, which necessarily includes local fire code requirements. (See Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1).)
In addition, consistency review is subject to the “reasonable person” standard in subdivision (f)(4), which states that a project must be deemed consistent with applicable objective standards “if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude” that the project is consistent. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(4).) Courts have explained that these two provisions work in tandem, and the reasonable person standard “complements and reinforces” the HAA’s objectivity requirement and “[w]hether one focuses on the first, subdivision (j)(1) question or on the second, applying subdivision (f)(4), the effect is the same.” (Cal. Renters Legal Advocacy & Educ. Fund v. City of San Mateo (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 820, 845.) Courts have also explained that to the extent the question of consistency “is close,” the burden is clearly on the agency to demonstrate that it has complied with the HAA. (Id.) The Town’s local fire code requirements fail to meet the HAA’s definition of objective by giving fire officials broad and subjective authority to determine consistency on an ad hoc basis.

Specifically, the code requires “approved” fire apparatus access roads to be sited no more than 150 feet away from the exterior of a building from an “approved” route but specifically allows the distance to be increased to 300 feet with an “approved” automatic sprinkler system when “approved” by the fire code official. The Town’s local code is littered with subjective determinations that may be approved or denied at the whim of the subjective determination of the local agency. The Town’s subjective code requirement therefore cannot form the legal basis for a denial of the project.

Moreover, the Project does, in fact, meet the objective requirements of the Town’s ordinance.

The project provides a fire apparatus access road that is sited to within 300 feet of a proposed building that is equipped with an automatic sprinkler system that will be installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1. This exception, unlike exception 3, does not require an “alternative means” of compliance. In other words, so long as the project meets the sprinkler requirement, the maximum distance is increased to 300 feet.

Even if this consistency determination were “close,” which it is not, under the “reasonable person” standard using the substantial evidence test, the project can be found consistent with the Town’s requirements. Fire consultant Carol Rice, who has decades of experience in fire safety and forestry, confirmed that the project meets the Town’s Section 503 requirements. This provides substantial evidence that a reasonable person could conclude the project meets the Town’s requirements. This is particularly true since the HAA must be interpreted and implemented to “afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(2)(L).) The Town’s prejudicial and subjective interpretation, ignoring the objective 300 foot extension allowed by exception 1.1, is an interpretation tailored to deny housing.

Page 432 of 611 ends

Mayor Tankha and Councilmembers
January 30, 2025

Page 7 ends

We further note that the Town’s staff report seems to suggest that the Zoning Code’s Lot Unit Factor (LUF) requirements are a public health and safety standard related to slope and reducing fire risk. The Town’s LUF requirements are nothing more than a development standard meant to reduce the size of buildings. Regardless, the HAA expressly prohibits inconsistency with zoning ordinances from constituting a public health and safety impact. (Gov. Code 65589.5 § (d)(2)(A).) The Project is Deemed Compliant with the Town’s Requirements.

The Town sent a new letter on February 22, 2024, claiming that the project was inconsistent with fire code requirements. The fact that these comments were from the Santa Clara County Fire Department (“SCCFD”) is immaterial, as the HAA applies to any “local agency,” which is broadly defined to include “a county, city, whether general law or chartered, city and county, school district, special district, authority, agency, any other municipal public corporation or district, or other political subdivision of the state.” (Gov. Code § 66000(c).).4 LAHFD is a Special Fire District established pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 13800, and clearly falls within the definition of a local agency. Thus, the letter must adhere to HAA requirements. As explained below, the letter was untimely and is based on subjective standards that fail to meet the requirements of state law.

The HAA requires a local agency to provide written documentation identifying any inconsistencies with any applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision “[w]ithin 30 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete” or the project is deemed consistent as a matter of law. (Gov’t. Code § 65589.5(j)(2).)
The Town’s September 28, 2023 completeness determination stated that the Town included the Town’s written documentation of code consistency. The Town also previously acknowledged that the fire department was required to comply with the HAA’s deadlines, stating in its March 3, 2023 completeness determination that the fire department will conduct substantive review of the plans “in accordance with applicable timelines.” Despite this commitment, the Town failed to send the fire department’s comments for nearly five months after the application was deemed complete. These comments were not timely, and therefore the project has been deemed compliant with all applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirements that were not identified within 30 days after the application was deemed complete (i.e. October 28, 2023). 4 We note that the Town, not SCCFD, sent the letter directly to Mr. Linebarger, and the Town refused to send the letter for several weeks until Planning staff reviewed its contents. We are unclear whether these comments are from Planning staff, SCCFD staff, or whether the two agencies are collaborating to provide joint comments. However, as explained above, the difference is immaterial because both the Town and SCCFD are local agencies bound by the HAA’s requirements.

Page 433 of 611 ends

Mayor Tankha and Councilmembers
January 30, 2025

Page 8 ends

The Town has Not Demonstrated That There Are No Feasible Mitigation Measures.

As explained above, the project is both compliant in fact and deemed compliant in law with the Town’s fire code requirements. But even if it were not, the Town has failed to demonstrate that there are no feasible mitigation measures to address the purported health and safety impacts. The Town points to the Town’s Fire Department’s denial of an application for a Use of Alternate Materials or Method of Construction or Modification of Code, referred to as an AMMR.

Despite meeting the requirements of the Town’s code and the fact that no AMMR is required, my client takes fire risk very seriously and has worked closely with the Town’s department to identify potential mitigation measures that go above and beyond code requirements to reduce fire risk. While the specific AMMRs were not approved, this does not demonstrate that there are no possible feasible mitigation measures available. In fact, the Town’s Fire Department has confirmed via email they believe mitigating fire risk is possible for the project – which is why the Department encouraged my client to go through the AMMR process. My client has reached out to Fire Department staff and continues to work with the Department in an effort to further reduce potential fire risk. The Town’s claim that no feasible mitigation exists is simply false.

We further note that the Town’s financial analysis, which the Town suggests supports their finding that no mitigation is available, is significantly flawed. Regardless, the analysis the Town provides fails to show that the Town’s preferred mitigation of reducing density and residential space is financially infeasible. The difference in return between the proposed project and the Town’s proposed mitigation is minimal.

The Council’s Actions Are Not Ripe and Violate the Applicant’s Due Process Rights.

As the staff report admits, consistency with the Town’s local fire code requirements, contained in Title 8 of the Town’s municipal code, is supposed to be determined by a building official during the post-entitlement building permit phase. For other projects, the Town does not require Fire Department AMMR approval until after the project receives a planning entitlement.5 Here, staff
is singling out my client’s project for differential treatment simply for asserting his rights under the builder’s remedy. Not only is this a violation of my client’s due process rights, but this is also a violation of the HAA that prohibits a local government from imposing “any requirement, process, practice, or procedure . . . that applies to a project solely or partially on the basis that the project is a builder’s remedy project.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(6)(E).) The Council, acting on a Conditional Development Permit, are limited to reviewing a project for consistency with Town’s Zoning and Site Development Standards contained in Chapter 10. (See Code § 10-1.1007(3) regarding findings for approval or denial of permits). As the staff report admits, the applicant has not yet even submitted a building permit application to the Town. We 5 See Lands of Bowers – 26875 Nina Place – File# SD21-0061, Condition 38 https://www.losaltoshills.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/5365/26875-Nina-Pl-COA?bidId=

Page 434 of 611 ends

Mayor Tankha and Councilmembers
January 30, 2025

Page 9 ends

further note that, under state law and the Town’s own code, the Planning Commission is required to hold a public hearing on conditional permits before a hearing at the City Council. (Code § 10-

1.1004 and Gov. Code § 65901 and 65902.)
The Town has decided to skip the required steps and rush to disapprove my client’s project, failing to even inform Mr. Linebarger of the pending hearing when the City Manager and City Attorney met with my client on January 17, 2025 (without our office’s consent). The Town’s actions are clearly evidence of bad faith, as staff kept its disapproval plans a secret from the applicant and attempted to gain information to support a denial without his attorney present. The Town has skipped over Planning Commission review, refused to continue the hearing, and attempts to deny the project based on building code requirements that are not yet at issue. We can only assume that the Town is attempting to rush this disapproval through to try to prevent my client from converting the application to the new, strengthened builder’s remedy provisions of AB 1893. Attempting to skirt state law is not a valid reason to disapprove a project and further demonstrates bad faith.

We note that post-entitlement phase permits are subject to their own process under Gov. Code 65913.3. Moreover, building code compliance issues, including fire code issues, are also subject to appeal to the Building Standards Commission (see Health and Safety Code §§ 1893-18949) and the state fire marshal (see 19 CCR § 2.03). The Town is attempting to short circuit the proper process, deny my client his appeal rights, prevent my client from being able to properly prepare for a surprise hearing, and prematurely disapprove the project. Even if the Town’s code basis for disapproval were legally valid, which they are not, the Town’s actions are a violation of my client’s due process rights to a fair hearing.

Quasi-judicial proceedings are subject to federal and state due process requirements, the fair hearing requirement of Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, and additional requirements applicable to particular hearings. Relying on these authorities, California courts have held that administrative hearings must be fair and that administrative decision makers must be impartial.

Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5(b) creates a statutory right to a fair hearing, which must be conducted before an impartial tribunal. (Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1152.)
As a quasi-judicial proceeding, the Town is required to afford the Applicant due process. Due process “unlike some technical rules, is not a technical conception with a fixed content unrelated to time, place and circumstances [citations omitted].” (Mathews v. Eldridge (1976) 424 US 319, 334). .) The ability to bring evidence and to respond to evidence presented against oneself, the entitlement to adjudicators to pay attention to the proceedings and review the evidence, and the provision of adequate notice are all features of this comprehensive right.

We urge the Council not to take any action, at minimum, until my client has sufficient time to prepare a rebuttal to the staff’s surprise hearing.

Page 435 of 611 ends

Mayor Tankha and Councilmembers
January 30, 2025

Page 10 ends

Conclusion
The Town’s rushed disapproval findings are based on flawed analysis and the proposed action is legally invalid. The Town must review the revised version of the project, consistent with the provisions of AB 1893. If the Town acts to disapprove the prior project in an attempt to extinguish his rights under the builder’s remedy, my client may have no choice but to take legal action. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Very truly yours,
PATTERSON & O’NEILL, PC
____________________________________ Brian O’Neill

Page 436 of 611 ends

Wildland Res Mgt
January 29, 3025
City Council
Town of Los Altos Hills
I am writing to indicate the reasons why the Proposed projects at 10728 Mora Drive and 10758 Mora Drive should be approved, which is that it complies with the 2022 Fire Code. I head the operations of Wildland Res Mgt, which, first, does business in California, as well as other states. I have more than 45 years of experience, building on an education in Forestry and Wildland Fire Science from the University of California, Berkeley. I have delivered authored more than a hundred presentations and articles, and a textbook used by Cal Poly, Fire in the Urban-Wildland Interface: Practical Solutions for Local Government, Planners, Fire Authorities, Developers, and Homeowners. Presentations and publications address plan use planning, interagency collaboration, fire behavior modeling, ecological sensitivities in fuel reduction treatments, and best practices in fire hazard reduction planning and implementation.

I have led and served on boards of the International Association of Wildland Fire (co-founder), California-Nevada-Fire Council, National Fire Protection Association Wildland Fire Section (co-founder), and Northern California Fire Prevention Officers (WUI Committee Co-chair). (Gov. Code § 65589.5(o).) states that the building permit for these projects will be reviewed against the fire/building codes in effect at the time that the preliminary application for the projects were submitted. The preliminary applications were submitted February 1, 2023, when the California 2022 Fire Code was in effect.

The site is not designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone within the City of Los Alto Hills. Therefore Chapter 49 of the Fire Code (which covers risk assessment, access and egress, vegetation management, water supply and other infrastructure) does not apply.

Similarly, Chapter 7A of the California Building Code which directs the design and construction of buildings to resist wildfire is not applicable to the site because it is not in a VHFHSZ.

The Proposed projects at 10728 Mora Drive and 10758 Mora Drive meet all requirements of the adopted 2022 California Fire Code.

The staff report dated January 30, 2025 documents a series of applicant submittals and review comments by the Santa Clara Fire Department. The main objection by the fire department rests on Section 503.1.11
, which states:
503.1Where required.

Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided and maintained in accordance with Sections 503.1.1 through 503.1.3. 1
https://codes.iccsafe.org/s/CAFC2022P1/chapter-5-fire-service-features/CAFC2022P1- ITEM 9A, Supplement 31a

Page 437 of 611 ends

503.1.1Buildings and facilities.

Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet (45 720 mm) of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility.

Exceptions:

1.The fire code official is authorized to increase the dimension of 150 feet (45 720 mm) where any of the following conditions occur:

1.1. The building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3. 1.2. Fire apparatus access roads cannot be installed because of location on property, topography, waterways, nonnegotiable grades or other similar conditions, and an approved alternative means of fire protection is provided.

1.3. There are not more than two Group R-3 or Group U occupancies.

Section 503 of the Model Code was NOT adopted by the State Fire Marshal as part of the 2022 California Fire Code. See the adopted code matrix for 2022 on the figure below. Note the California State Fire Marshal, labeled “SFM” in the matrix, contains the symbol “ ” which identifies the section 503 as not adopted.

Instead, State requirements for Fire Department access are found in Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations, which states:
§ 3.05. Fire Department Access and Egress.
(a) Roads. Required access roads from every building to a public street shall be all-weather hardsurfaced (suitable for use by fire apparatus) right-of-way not less than 20 feet in width. Such right-of-way shall be unobstructed and maintained only as access to the public street.

Los Altos Hills adopted amendments to the 2022 California Fire Code, which differs from Section 503.1.1 of the Model Code. The local amendment states:
503.1.1 Buildings and facilities. Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements for this section and shall extend to within 150 feet (45,720 mm) of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility.

Exceptions:

2. When there are not more than two Group R-3 or accessory Group U occupancies, the dimension may be increased to a maximum of 200 feet.

3. When apparatus roads cannot be installed because of topography, waterways, nonnegotiable grades or other similar conditions, an approved alternative means of fire protection shall be provided.

Page 438 of 611 ends

The Project Meets State Fire Department Access Requirements The projects meet the California Fire Department Access and Egress of Title 19, as the buildings are proposed to be accessible to a public street (Mora Drive) by an unobstructed all-weather hard-surfaced right-of-way not less than 20 feet in width. It must be noted that the projects will improve upon the safety of the area by providing a fire turn-around for aerial trucks at the top of Mora Drive, which currently is not served by aerial fire trucks. This is to be improved through increased maintenance of the trees over Mora Drive along the City right-of-way. This is an improvement to a road that was deemed suitable for fire response by the Santa Clara Fire Department in 20122 and verified by Stevens, Ferrone, and Bailey, a
Geotechnical Engineering firm3
. This improvement supports multiple evacuation routes, and constitutes a benefit to the neighborhood.

The Projects Meet the Requirements to Increase The Distance from the Fire Road Access While the applicable code for this project review is the California Fire Code, the project also meets the requirement of the Los Altos Hills fire code. The applicant states that the projects would include a sprinkler system that is consistent with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3 (i.e., per NFPA 13D).

The current plans (Sheet A5.0) indicate that the distance from fire access road to the rear of the structure less than 300 feet, which is within the specified distance from an access road. The project thereby satisfies the requirements to qualify for Exception 503.1.1.1 under the Town’s code. Although the applicant proposed the sprinklers and distance in an October 8, 2024 Alternative Means Methods Request (AMMR), an AMMR was not necessary because the projects meets the requirements to increase the distance to an access road to 300 feet.

Because the conditions for an exception are provided in Section 503.1.1.1, there is no need for an AMMR. The project should be deemed compliant with the Town’s Fire Code.

Further, Section 503.1.1.2 indicates that when apparatus roads cannot be installed because of topography or other conditions, and “approved alternative means of fire protection” must be provided. However, the alternative means of fire protection is necessary only if the project cannot comply with Exception 503.1.1.1. As explained above, the project meets Exception 503.1.1.1, and no alternative means is required.

Although no alternative means application is necessary, the applicant has gone beyond code requirement to increase fire safety. The alternative means process is intended to provide equivalent fire protection to the intent of provision of the code that the applicant seeks to amend. The ICC commentary on Section 503.1.1.1 states that the intent of the provision is to limit the maximum length of hose needed to reach the exterior of a building and specifically lists standpipes as an appropriate alternative means to meet the intent of Section 503.1.1.1. Again, although the project already meets Exception 503.1.1.1 and no alternative means is necessary, the applicant proposed a standpipe towards the back of the building to limit the maximum hose length needed to reach the exterior of the building. The project as proposed with a standpipe and sprinklers increases fire safety beyond what it is required by code.

One comment from the Fire Department concerning the lack of two exits should be clarified. Occupants of the proposed property locations have two choices of exits. The obvious exit is along Mora Drive, and the other fire access is to take Sunhills Drive to West Loyola Drive to Magdalena Avenue that is located 2 Letter dated September 20, 2012, from Doug Harding, DFM II to Cynthia Richardson, regarding the consideration of Mora Drive for annexation. 3bearing.

Page 439 of 611 ends

just a few parcels away from the proposed project. See Figure X. When the project is in place, only 14 parcels must traverse the end of Mora Drive before reaching the intersection of SunHills Dr. and Mora Dr. Even the updated California Fire Code Appendix D.107.1 notes that “Where there are more than 30 dwelling units accessed from a single public or private fire apparatus access road and all dwelling units are equipped through with an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3, access from two directions shall not be required.4 ”
The applicant has demonstrated a commitment to exceed the codes and standards and to enhance the fire safety of the area. The plans meet those codes and standards and should be considered compliant.

Sincerely,
Carol Rice
Figures:
4 https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAFC2022P1/appendix-d- -apparatus-access-roads

Page 440 of 611 ends

Page 441 of 611 ends

Page 442 of 611 ends

Page 443 of 611 ends

CAROL L. RICE
Carol Rice provides (i.e.
structural
management.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
General Manager, Wildland Res Mgt, Reno Nevada and Alamo, CA. Since 2013.

President, Wildland Resource Management, Inc., Walnut Alamo, CA. Head of performance. 1979-2013.

Associate Director, Fire Research Institute, Roslyn, WA and Established and comanaged a non- -1992.

Resource Analyst, Arabian American Oil Co., Community Services Programs and Planning, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. Authored project proposals, performed analysis of department issues. Was responsible for cost estimates and proponent representation for expenses totaling $11 million. 1976-79.

Fire Ecologist, USDA Forest Service, Big Bar, CA. ecology in the Trinity Alps, Shasta Trinity National Forest. 1975.

EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science, 1975 (forestry), University of California at Masters of Science The
master's thesis evaluates potential

SELECTED PROFESSIONAL RECOGNITION
Co-Chair, Wildland Urban Interface Committee, Northern California Fire 2011- 2015
Coordinating Group Prevention Committee. 2012-2017.

Wildland Fire Manager, from the Association for Fire Ecology. 2012 Education Award, American Planning Association, Northern California Section 2011 for the Managing Fire in the Urban Wildland Interface. Outstanding Environmental Resource Document Managing Fire In the Urban Wildland Interface, Association of Environmental Professionals. 2011.

BOARD OF DIRECTOR EXPERIENCE
International Association of Wildland Fire: Vice- - -Chair Second International Congress on Fire Ecology and Management, 2003, National Fire Protection Association: -
Second Vice-chair of Wildland Fire Section, 1990-1994.
-90.

California-Nevada- Forest Fire Council: - - - Chair
Secretary 2015-

Page 444 of 611 ends

More than 50 publications, presentations and fuel
modification.

SELECTED PUBLICATIONS, PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS
by the California Chapter of the Association of Environmental Professionals.

Carol Tools and best Practices. Invited presentation to the Board of Forestry, December 4, 2014.

Rice, Carol and Laing, George. 2014. Insurance Industry De- An
part of the Planning for
November 6, 2013.

Webinar presented January 26, 2012. http://uc- California Fire Science Consortium.

George Laing and Carol Rice. 2011. Assessment: Fire Protection Planning and from 30,000 feet. Invited Presentation at the California Fire Prevention Institute, Buellton, CA. March 11- 2010. Fire in the Urban-Wildland Interface:

Practical Solutions for Local Government, Planners, Fire Authorities, Developers, and Homeowners. Solano Press, Pt. Arena, CA. 396 pgs.

Cheryl and Carol L. Rice. 2010. You too can prevent
Fall, 2010.

Incorporating Fire Behavior into Evacuation
Plans. Presented at the International Association of Wildland Fire Conference on Fire Behavior and - Presented at the International Association of Wildland Fire Conference on Human Dimensions. April 26-29, 2010, San Antonio, TX. In press.

George Laing, Rice and Brian Collins -
-
2005. Get Real! Community Based Solutions for
your WUI Issues – Using Collaboration Beyond Planning. Presentation at Wildland Fire 2005, February 16-
Unpublished report prepared for Associates, Pt. Richmond, CA.

Page 445 of 611 ends

Gettle, Guy L. and Carol L. Rice 2002. Criteria for determining the safe separation IV International Conference on Forest Fire Research and 2002 Wildland Fire Safety -2, Luso, Portugal. Published by Associacao para o Desenvolvimento da Aerodinamica Industrial, Coimbra, Portugal.

McClure, Rich, Carol Rice, and Kate Bolton. 2001. Developing -safe sustainable landscape at the . -13, 2001, McClure, Rich, Carol Rice, and Kate Bolton. - Rice, Carol L. 2000. Getting things done – Lessons learned in California. Interface Fires 2000, Halifax, Nova Scotia, May 7-10, 2000. Invited presentation available at Rice, Carol L. 2000. Fire prevention in the Urban-Wildland Interface. Fire Department Instructors -31, 2000. Invited presentation.

Rice, Carol Fire Prevention, California-Nevada-
April 23-
Rice, Carol L. and Cheryl Miller. to
impacts of fuel reductions at Fire in California
Ecosystems: Integrating Ecology, Prevention and Management, Nov. 17-20, 1997, San Diego.

Invited presentation at the California Under Fire - A Prescription for a Fire Safe future, Partnership Summit, Diamond Bar, CA. June 24-26, 1997. In Summary Report. Forest Resources Assessment Program, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. -safe sustainable
Wildland Fire Conference. May 25-30, 1997. Vancouver, BC.

Rice, Carol L. and Cheryl 561-570 In:
13th Conference on Fire and Forest Meteorology. International Association of Wildland Fire, Lorne, -31, 1996.

Rice, Carol L. 1996. Fire Ecology. pgs. 162-176, Chapter 14 in California’s I-Zone: Urban/Wildland Fire Prevention and Mitigation, Training
Rice, Carol L. 1996. Fire Hardening your home. pg 15-20 In After the Vision Fire - Restoration, Safety & Published by the Environmental Action Committee
of West Marin.
pgs 147-149 In Symposium - Fire Issues and Solutions in Urban Interface and Wildland Ecosystems; Feb. 17- Gen Tech.

Rep. PSW-GTR- Albany, CA Research Station, USDA For. Serv. 199 p.

Page 446 of 611 ends

Rice, Carol L. 1994. Aftermath of the Hills Fire. pgs. 26-33, In the 46th Annual Conference of the California Weed Science Society, January 17-19, San Jose, CA. reduction in the
-urban interface of the East Bay Hills. Invited presentation to the Annual Conference of the National Fire Protection Association, May 17, 1994, San Francisco, CA.

Rice, Carol L. 1992. Fire and fuels at the Pgs. 61-62. In Proceedings of Fire in - Carol of interagency cooperation and volunteerism. Selected for Meeting, Scottsdale - 1991. - intermix. Experiment Station General Technical Report PSW-127. reduction. California Native Plant Society, Bay Area Chapter; January 24, 1990. Invited presentation.

Presented at the Meeting Global Wildland Fire Challenges - the People, the Land, the Resources, Boston. MA, July 23-
Rice, Carol that address - Nevada-
- Invited Presentation.
by - of Forestry and Fire Protection, USDA Forest
Service, and California State Universities. Invited Presentation.

Area. - In Protecting People and Homes from - USDA Forest Service GTRRice, Carol be or future - - -101, - Fire and Forest 21- assessment. Vegetation Management at the Urban Interface, La Canada, Ca. March 3- Los Angeles County Department of Foresters and Fire Warden. Invited presentation.
program in the East Bay Regional
pp.172-
State University.

Page 447 of 611 ends

Page 448 of 611 ends

-1-

DECLARATION OF FORREST LINEBARGER
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

PATTERSON
& O`NEILL, PC 235
MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 950 SAN
FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104

DECLARATION OF FORREST

LINEBARGER
Builder’s Remedy Project Applications
10758 and 10728 Mora Drive
I, Forrest Linebarger, declare as follows:

1. I am the owner of 10728 Mora Drive and 10758 Mora Drive in the town of Los Altos Hills in Santa Clara County, California. I make this declaration based on personal knowledge of the following facts, except to those matters stated on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. If called as a witness to testify, I could and would competently testify thereto.

2. On February 1, 2025 I went to the Town of Los Altos Hills to submit applications under the “Builder’s Remedy” provision of the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) and the Permit Streamlining Act (“PSA”) to the Town of Los Altos Hills (Town”) for projects located at 10758 Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills, CA and 10728 Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills, CA.

3. I met with Planner Elaine Ling and City Manager Peter Pirnejad. The Town staff refused to accept the applications, stating they did not know how to charge for them as there was no line in their fee schedule for the Builder’s Remedy. I told them I had my checkbook and was prepared to pay any application fees. Mr. Pirnejad eventually stated he would “receive” the applications but not “accept” them, and he took the submittal documents but not any fees. A true and correct version of this email is attached as Exhibit A.

4. Mr. Pirnejad responded to the applications on March 3, 2023, claiming the Town was not in violation of the Housing Element law as it had “self-adopted” its Housing Element. He also required the payment of fees of $5,200 for a major variance in its zoning code, and refused to process the applications further until that fee was paid.

ITEM 9A, Supplement 31b

Page 449 of 611 ends

-2-

DECLARATION OF FORREST LINEBARGER
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

PATTERSON
& O`NEILL, PC 235
MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 950 SAN
FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104

5. I received a second comment letter from Consultant Principal Planner Susanne Avila for each project, dated March 3, 2023. The items the Town requested varied, but the letters claimed to attach a Pre-Application Checklist. However, that document was not provided. Most of the items requested were not included on any Pre-Application Checklist.

6. The Town’s Housing Element was not found in compliance with the Housing Element law at the time of the submission or at the time of Mr. Pirnejad’s March 3, 2023 letter. Our submissions on February 1, 2023 contained all 17 elements required under the Permit Streamlining Act for a complete preliminary application submittal.

7. On April 18, 2023 I received the Santa Clara County Fire Department (“Fire Dept.”) comment letter (dated April 5, 2023) our 10758 Mora Proposal. This letter was the first Fire responses, 76 days after the submission of our PSA application. The plan reviewer was Kenny Ip.

8. On May 8, 2023 I received the first Fire Dept. response to our 10728 Mora Proposal, 84 days after the submission of our PSA application. The plan reviewer was Caleb Flanagan.

9. I had worked with both Kenny Ip and Caleb Flanagan before as they were the regular reviewer for projects in our area at the Fire Department. I asked James Bevan, who worked with me on these and other projects, to take the lead on responses to the Fire Dept. comments.

10. After reaching out to the Fire Dept. reviewers, Mr. Bevan informed me he had solutions to the comments based on his communications with the Fire Dept. and the only remaining issues were a Hydrant Spotting Plan and hydrant water flow tests at the hydrants.

11. The Hydrant Spotting Plan and the hydrant water flow tests were approved on April 25, 2023.

12. The fire department response was not received until September 28, 2023, when we received fire department comments for both projects dated September 27, 2023.

13. Despite our many efforts to get objective code references from the Fire Dept. reviewer, they were unable to articulate what they wanted to see in our submissions or explain why our plan that met the objective code requirements were not being accepted.

Page 450 of 611 ends

-3-

DECLARATION OF FORREST LINEBARGER
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

PATTERSON
& O`NEILL, PC 235
MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 950 SAN
FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104

14. After numerous submittals and letters to the Fire Dept. We were unable to get the Fire Department to apply State Fire Codes rather than the Los Altos Hills Fire Codes, or to apply the Exception in Section 503 that allows the distance from access roads to be increased when a building is fully sprinklered. I asked to have a meeting to try to resolve the issues.

15. On May 22, 2024 I had a meeting with Assistant Fire Chief Brian Glass, Aaron Forbath, Brad Fox, and Brian O’Neill, as well as others from the fire department. Mr. Glass informed me that the Fire Department considered its contract with Los Altos Hills required it to apply the codes that the Town wished to apply, in this case the Los Altos Hills CFC, rather than the California CFC. Mr. Glass also told me that under the contract the Fire Dept. was required to follow the Town’s interpretation of the Los Altos Hills CFC and they could not issue an approval letter that went against the Town’s recommendation. After the meeting, the Fire Department sent me a copy of the Department’s contract with the Town. A true and correct copy of the contract the Department sent me is attached as Exhibit B.

16. After further submissions and responses, we were still unable to get the Fire Department to apply State fire code or approve the project based on local code. Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of a letter my attorney submitted after the meeting. This led me to request another meeting with Fire Dept. staff.

17. On August 28, 2024 I had a meeting with Mathew McKenna, Brian Glass, Brad Fox, Kenny Ip, Caleb Flanegan, Rob Campbell and others from the Fire Dept. to hash out potential solutions that would satisfy them, even if they were not required by the CFC. The Fire Dept. team, particularly Mathew McKenna and Brad Fox drove the discussion and suggested and agreed to the four solutions: 1) retain the fire sprinkler systems per 903.3.1.1 2) Separate the fire department access from the occupant egress along the sides of the building adjacent to the parking area, except where the ADA ramp brought the two paths together; 3) add standpipe outlets on the exterior walls on the lower portion of the building to provide places for them to attach fire hoses; 4) Increase the fire rating at the wall to Type 1-A for the non bearing walls at sides of the parking garage; 5) Remove most of the glass and openings below 10’ from grade at the firefighters egress side and increase the fire rating of the remaining glass to ¾ of an hour

Page 451 of 611 ends

-4-

DECLARATION OF FORREST LINEBARGER
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

PATTERSON
& O`NEILL, PC 235
MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 950 SAN
FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
rating. Mr. Mckenna and Mr. Fox both made clear that the solutions still had to be approved by the Fire Chief but that they felt the solutions were workable and adequate. I faithfully executed those mitigation measures and put them on the plans in the form of an AMMR.

18. The Fire Department in their response to the AMMR on 10578 Mora Dr. rejected all of the solutions that we had come up with together. The Fire Department never responded to the AMMR on the 10728 Mora Drive.

19. On January 15, 2025 at 3:46 pm Los Altos Hills City Manager Peter Pirnejad called my on the telephone to set up a meeting to discuss my Builders Remedy Projects. We decided to meet on January 17, 2025 at the Town City Hall. He told me he would check with “Steve” also.

I did not know who he was talking about as there has been a lot of staff turnover in the last few years. He did not identify Steve at the Town’s Attorney nor did he suggest I invite my attorney.

20. On January 17, 2025 I arrived at City Hall for our meeting, both Peter Pirnejad and Steve Mattus, the City Attorney, were sitting in the conference room. Before we began Steve asked if it was OK to have this meeting be a confidential settlement and I said it was OK. They did not suggest that I have my attorney present. Neither Peter Pirnejad nor Steve Mattas told me about a planned city council meeting to consider denial of my projects on January 30, 2025.

21. On January 29, 2025 I received an email from an outside consultant, Suzzane Avila, that I was advised that of the January 30 city council meeting during my meeting on January 17, 2025 with Mr. Pirnejad and Mr. Mattus. This is not true, and it breached the confidentiality of the meeting. Attached is a true and correct copy of the email. See email attached as Exhibit D.

22. On January 31, 2025 I had a phone call with my attorney, Brian O’Neill about the meeting with the City Attorney on January 30, 2025. Mr. O’Neill he told me that the Town should have informed him of the meeting and received consent if it involved the City Attorney and but he was not informed, nor did he provide consent.

23. The Town’s Staff Report dated January 30, 2025 contains an ad hoc feasibility study and exegesis on page 18. As a developer, it is clear to me that this evaluation was not done by a developer or finance expert, and contains numerous flaws in the analysis. The study assumes

Page 452 of 611 ends

Page 453 of 611 ends

Exhibit

Page 454 of 611 ends

Builders Remedy Submissions Feb 1, 2023
Forrest Linebarger <[email protected]> Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 4:11 PM
To: [email protected]
Bcc: Brian O'Neill <[email protected]>, Ryan Patterson <[email protected]>, Usha Rani Kodali <[email protected]>, James Bevan <[email protected]> Elaine,
Thank you for meeting with me today when I came in to submit my "Builder's Remedy" SB 330 Preliminary Applications and formal Development Applications for two residential development projects, one at 10728 Mora Drive and the other at 10758 Mora Drive. In that meeting Peter Pirnejad, the City Manager, told me you were receiving the applications but not accepting them. I urged you to accept the applications. You both told me you could not figure out what fees to charge as nothing seemed applicable from the Town's fee chart. I told you repeatedly that I was ready to pay any applicable fees right there and then, but the Town could not figure out what to charge.

You also requested that I needed to email an open Dropbox type link to your email of all the application materials. I have included the links below. 10758 Mora Submittal Package Dropbox link:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/n9sg5tixdy5tg48622f4h/h?dl=0&rlkey=oxy2vs6dxoep0l6u77osesblf 10728 Mora Submittal Package Dropbox link:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/qlc9j1wv2o1226coxq4hz/h?dl=0&rlkey=9iirxuhva7tofpjohlny80adp Peter told me that the Town would look at the documents and tell me what else was needed before accepting them, but would do so expeditiously. I asked that he accept the applications there and then and then merely respond to them of course, anything missing could be taken care of in the response stage.

Please let me know if you have any trouble accessing the documents or with anything else.

I look forward to your response.

Thank you,
Forrest Linebarger

Page 455 of 611 ends

Exhibit

Page 456 of 611 ends

Page 457 of 611 ends

Page 458 of 611 ends

Page 459 of 611 ends

Page 460 of 611 ends

Page 461 of 611 ends

Page 462 of 611 ends

Page 463 of 611 ends

Page 464 of 611 ends

Page 465 of 611 ends

Page 466 of 611 ends

Page 467 of 611 ends

Page 468 of 611 ends

Page 469 of 611 ends

Page 470 of 611 ends

Page 471 of 611 ends

Page 472 of 611 ends

Page 473 of 611 ends

Page 474 of 611 ends

Page 475 of 611 ends

Page 476 of 611 ends

Page 477 of 611 ends

Page 478 of 611 ends

Page 479 of 611 ends

Exhibit

Page 480 of 611 ends

PATTERSON & O’NEILL, PC
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 950
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 907-9110
Facsimile: (415) 907-7704
www.pattersononeill.com
June 4, 2024

VIA E-MAIL
Brian Glass, Assistant Fire Chief
Santa Clara County Fire Department
14700 Winchester Blvd.

Los Gatos, CA 95032
Re: Housing Development Project Applications 10728 Mora Drive (File No. CDP23-0001) & 10758 Mora Drive (File No. CDP23-0002)
Dear Mr. Glass:

As you are aware, our office represents Forrest Linebarger, owner of 10728 Mora Drive in Los Altos Hills. Our client submitted two development project applications for the construction of a multi-unit housing development projects on 10728 and 0758 Mora Drive. These projects will provide much needed senior housing, a segment of the population that currently has very few living options in the Town.

Due to the historic housing crisis in our state, California has recently passed dozens of housing laws to reduce local impediments to housing. Our firm specializes in the enforcement and litigation of state housing laws when local agencies fail to carry out their duties under those laws.

We have represented the non-profit housing advocacy group Yes In My Back Yard (YIMBY) Law in numerous successful lawsuits, including the first published case regarding the Housing Crisis Act, Yes In My Back Yard v. City of Culver City (2023) 96 Cal. App. 5th 1103. YIMBY Law is tracking local government compliance with the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), and has already initiated several lawsuits against agencies that have refused to approve Builder’s Remedy projects.

On September 28, 2023, the Town of Los Altos Hills (“Town”) confirmed that the project application was complete pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act. On February 22, 2024, the Town forwarded a letter from the Santa Clara County Fire District (“SCCFD”), dated January 31, 2024. The letter stated that the project plans are “NOT APPROVED,” and the Town has informed my client that it will not process the proposed application based on SCCFD’s disapproval.

We appreciate the time you and your staff took to meet with us on May 22, 2024 to discuss this project, and we wanted to follow-up with an additional explanation as to why SCCFD must

Page 481 of 611 ends

Brian Glass, Assistant Fire Chief
June 4, 2024

Page 2 ends

approve the project as submitted. As explained in more detail below, approval of the project plans is required by the HAA, including because the project has been deemed consistent with fire code requirements by operation of law and the project meets all objective fire code requirements.

The Fire Department is Subject to State Law Requirements.

The HAA applies to any “local agency,” which is broadly defined to include “a county, city, whether general law or chartered, city and county, school district, special district, authority, agency, any other municipal public corporation or district, or other political subdivision of the state.” (Gov. Code § 66000(c).) LAHFD is a Special Fire District established pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 13800, and clearly falls within the definition of a local agency. Thus, SCCFD acting in its capacity as LAHFD must adhere to HAA requirements.

The California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) has confirmed that special districts must adhere to the HAA’s requirements, regardless of whether an application was submitted directly to the special district.1 Because all local agencies are bound by the HAA, HCD “recommends coordination between all local agencies that may be involved in either the entitlement or post-entitlement process.” In short, the HAA’s requirements clearly apply to LAHFD’s review of this project.

The Project is Deemed Consistent with all Fire Code Requirement by Operation of Law.

The Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) requires a local agency to provide written documentation identifying any inconsistencies with any applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision “[w]ithin 30 days of the date that the application for the housing development project is determined to be complete.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(A).) If an agency fails to provide written document of a code inconsistency, the project “shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision. (Id. subd. (B).) Any purported code inconsistencies for this project were required to be identified within 30 days after the application was deemed complete on September 28, 2023 (i.e. by October 28, 2023.) On February 22, 2024, nearly five months after the application was deemed complete, the applicant received a letter claiming that the project was inconsistent with local fire code requirements.

These comments were untimely, and thus pursuant to Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2)(B), the project has already been deemed consistent with the local fire code by operation of law.

The Town’s September 28, 2023 completeness determination stated that the Town included the Town’s written documentation of code consistency. The Town also previously acknowledged that LAHFD review was required to comply with the HAA’s deadlines, stating in its March 3, 1 See HCD, SB 330 Preliminary Application Vesting Rights and Local Agencies – Letter of Technical Assistance, dated July 20, 2023, available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/ranchocucamonga-ta-072023.pdf.

Page 482 of 611 ends

Brian Glass, Assistant Fire Chief
June 4, 2024

Page 3 ends

2023 completeness determination that the fire department will conduct substantive review of the plans “in accordance with applicable timelines.” Despite this commitment, the applicant did not receive the fire department’s comments for nearly five months after the application was deemed complete. These comments were not timely, and therefore the project has been deemed compliant with all applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirements that were not identified within 30 days after the application was deemed complete (i.e. October 28, 2023), including local fire code requirements.

We note that according to the contract between the Town and SCCFD, SCCFD is required to review and return all development review items within ten working days. (See Fire and Emergency Medical Services Agreement (Hereinafter “Fire Services Agreement,” § 3.4.) Thus, even though fire review in this case required inter-agency communications, SCCFD should have been able to provide review well within the HAA’s timelines. Whether the delay was due to the Town’s delay in relaying information or the time it took SCCFD to review the project plans, the result is the same. The project has been deemed consistent with all fire code requirements by operation of law.

The Project is Consistent with all Objective Fire Code Requirements.

HAA subdivision (f)(1) only permits local agencies to require housing development projects to comply with “objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies.” The HAA defines “objective” to mean standards that require “no personal or subjective judgment by a public official” that are “knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(8).) The HAA’s objectivity requirement applies to all applicable development standards, conditions, and policies, which necessarily includes local fire code requirements. (See Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1).)
In addition, consistency review is subject to the “reasonable person” standard in subdivision (f)(4), which states that a project must be deemed consistent with applicable objective standards “if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude” that the project is consistent. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(4).) Courts have clarified that these two provisions work in tandem, and the reasonable person standard “complements and reinforces subdivision (j)’s objectivity requirement” and “[w]hether one focuses on the first, subdivision (j)(1) question or on the second, applying subdivision (f)(4), the effect is the same.” (Cal. Renters Legal Advocacy & Educ. Fund v. City of San Mateo (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 820, 845.) Courts have also explained that to the extent the question of consistency “is close,” the burden is clearly on the agency to demonstrate that it has complied with the HAA. (Id.) Further, the Legislature has commanded that the HAA must be interpreted and implemented to “afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(2)(L).) Said another way, if there are two reasonable interpretations of a code requirement, the interpretation that is most benefits the approval of housing must be utilized.

Page 483 of 611 ends

Brian Glass, Assistant Fire Chief
June 4, 2024

Page 4 ends

During our meeting, Assistant Fire Marshal Brad Fox suggested that SCCFD must review the plans according to the Town’s interpretation of its local fire code. However, the Fire Services Agreement makes clear that SCCFD is required to check development plans to certify compliance “with all ordinances, statutes and regulations applicable to the CITY, the County or the LAHCFD as the case may be . . .” (Agreement § 3.2.1.) In other words, SCCFD is not just required to review projects for local fire code compliance in isolation, but SCCFD is contractually and statutorily obligated to independently review projects while taking into account all statutes and regulations, including the HAA.

At our meeting, Deputy County Counsel Arron Forbath asked which portion of the LAHFC 503.1 requirements should be struck. The HAA does not provide a formulaic approach that would eliminate specific subjective words. Rather, as explained herein, SCCFD must utilize a wholistic approach that interprets the code in manner that afford the fullest possible weight to the approval of housing and asks whether a reasonable person could conclude that the project is consistent with an interpretation that fully favors project approval. Under such an inquiry, this project must be found consistent with fire apparatus access roads requirements.

The Town is Refusing to Process the Projects Pending Fire Department Approval.The Town has informed Mr. Linebarger that it will not continue to process his application until the project receives SCCFD approval, squarely placing the responsibility for fire review on SCCFD alone. (See Exhibit A.) Although the Town is the entity that will ultimately take final action on the project entitlements, the HAA limits the ability of all local agencies to enforce subjective standards via subdivision (f) and (j). In short, SCCFD must review the project consistent with the HAA’s requirements.

The Town’s local fire code requirements fail to meet the HAA’s definition of objective bygiving fire officials broad and subjective authority to determine code consistency on an ad hoc basis.

Specifically, the state fire code regarding fire apparatus access roads allows an access road to be sited more than 150 feet away from the exterior of a building when the building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with CFC Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3. The LAHFC, on the other hand, gives unfettered subjective authority to fire officials when an access road is located more than 150 feet away.

LAHFC 503.1 states that “In other than R-3 or U occupancies, when the building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system, installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 the dimension may be increased to a maximum of 300 feet when approved by the fire code official.” This addition, which inserts an entirely subjective component to determine when the distance can be increased, and imposing this subjective requirement is in violation of the HAA.

Moreover, the project meets the objective fire apparatus access roads requirements. Specifically, the proposed access road is less than 300 feet away from the exterior of the building and the building is proposed to be equipped with an approved automatic sprinkler system throughout, installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1. Any reasonable person would conclude that a

Page 484 of 611 ends

Brian Glass, Assistant Fire Chief
June 4, 2024

Page 5 ends

fully-sprinklered project that includes an access road within 300 feet of the building meets the CFC and LAHFC 503.1 requirements, particularly since the HAA must be interpreted and implemented to “afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(2)(L).) Yet, SCCFD is still unlawfully withholding its approval based on the entirely subjective portion of LAHFC. Whether the Department utilizes the CFC version of 503.1, or the objective requirements LAHFC 503.1, the result is the same. The project must be approved as submitted because there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude the project complies with 503.1’s requirements, and any ambiguity must be afforded for the approval of housing, not to its hinderance.

The Project is Only Subject to the Requirements in Effect When the Preliminary Application was Submitted.

Finally, we note that the SCCFD’s letter states that the building permit for this project will be reviewed against the fire/building codes in effect at the time of the building permit application.2 Although we understand that SFFCD believes that the Town will decide what codes to apply, please be advised that this project is only subject to the ordinances, policies, standards, and fees adopted and in effect on the date that the preliminary application for this project was submitted. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(o).) HCD has confirmed that these vesting rights apply to any entity that meets the definition of a “local agency” reviewing the project as part either the entitlement or post-entitlement permitting process.3 Thus, SCCFD is required to only review the project against the fire/building code in effect at the time the preliminary application for this project was submitted (i.e. February 1, 2023) regardless of the Town’s position.

Conclusion
Again, we appreciate the time SCCFD has taken to meet with us and consider our comments. We urge SCCFD to take a closer look at the project plans vis-à-vis the HAA’s legal requirements.

Mr. Linebarger takes fire safety very seriously, and has worked closely with fire officials to go above and beyond the code requirements to ensure that the project is safe for residents and fire personnel. The project meets all objective fire code requirements, and therefore Mr. Linebarger requests that SCCFD issue project approvals. I am available at (415) 907-9110 or at [email protected] if you would like to discuss this matter further. 2 We note that an earlier SCCFD letter did not contain this language, and this appears to be a new requirement that was not previously identified. 3
See HCD, SB 330 Preliminary Application Vesting Rights and Local Agencies – Letter of Technical Assistance, dated July 20, 2023, available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/ranchocucamonga-ta-072023.pdf.

Page 485 of 611 ends

Brian Glass, Assistant Fire Chief
June 4, 2024

Page 6 ends

Very truly yours,
PATTERSON & O’NEILL, PC ____________________________________ Brian O’Neill

Page 486 of 611 ends

Exhibit

Page 487 of 611 ends

From: Suzanne Avila <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, May 24, 2024, 10:05 AM
Subject: 10728 & 10758 Mora Drive
To: Forrest Linebarger <[email protected]>
Cc: Bradley Evanson <[email protected]>, Peter Pirnejad <[email protected]>
Forrest,
I am circling back to your previous inquiry regarding the Town starting environmental review process under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive projects (CDP23-0001 and 002). Although the Town is preparing to solicit an environmental consultant to perform this work, the analysis cannot be started because there are outstanding Fire Department comments which could result in changes to the scope of the project. In the Town’s review of Fire Department comments dated January 31, 2024, it is staff's understanding that in order for the projects to address outstanding comments regarding aerial apparatus and building and facilities access, the development plans will likely need to be modified significantly. Significant modifications to the plans would likely result in substantial changes to the scope of the projects and thereby impact the Town’s ability as the lead agency to prepare a project description and scope of review as required by CEQA.

Additionally, the Town understands that you have submitted a request for Alternate Materials, Methods of Construction (AMMR) to the Santa Clara County Fire Department on March 21, 2024, and that request was rejected by the Fire Department on April 23, 2024. Staff is not aware of any resubmittals for the projects since then.

Thus, until there is certainty that the building footprints and building sizes can proceed as proposed and in compliance with Fire Department requirements, the Town is not able to commence environmental review. Please note that as the applicant, you would be responsible for providing a deposit and payment of fees for the environmental review prior to commencement of analysis and studies.

Additionally, I wanted to take this opportunity to remind you that all requests and applications for the projects must go through the Town as it is the ultimate reviewing body for the development applications. The Town was notified by the Fire Department

Page 488 of 611 ends

that you submitted the AMMR request, and you did not include the Town in your submittals. Failure to include the Town on project requests and submittals curtails Town staff's ability to timely review applications and provide comments. If you plan to submit another AMMR request or any additional application materials, please submit to the Town directly or concurrently include the Town on your submittals to the Fire Department.

If you have any questions I can be reached by email or phone.

Thank you,
Suzanne

SUZANNE AVILA, AICP
Principal Planner
she/her
408-340-5642 X-128 c 408-477-5820
a new design on urban planning

Page 489 of 611 ends

Exhibit

Page 490 of 611 ends

10728 & 10758 Mora Dr
Suzanne Avila
hours ago)
to me, Forrest, Jay, Jonathan
Forrest,
The Town intends to proceed with the public hearing tomorrow evening. You were apparently advised of the hearing date at the January 17 meeting with the Town Manager and City Attorney.

You can request a continuance at the meeting, which the Council can then decide whether or not to grant.

Suzanne

SUZANNE AVILA, AICP
Principal Planner
she/her
408-340-5642 X-128 c 408-477-5820
a new design on urban planning

Page 491 of 611 ends

-1-

DECLARATION OF JAMES BEVAN
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

PATTERSON
& O`NEILL, PC 235
MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 950 SA
N
F
RA

NCISCO, C
A
LIFO
RNIA 94104 DECLARATION OF JAMES BEVAN 10758 and 10728 Mora Drive I, James Bevan, declare as follows:

1. I make this declaration based on personal knowledge of the following facts, except to those matters stated on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. If called as a witness to testify, I could and would competently testify thereto.

2. I worked for Tower Investments LLC throughout 2023 through October 9, 2024.

During that time, I was involved in communications, preparations of plans, attachments and On or about October 9, 2024 I
am no longer employed at Tower Investments LLC

3. On April 18, 2023 I received the comment letter from the Santa Clara County Fire Dept. response from our February 1, 2023 submittal.

4. On April 20, 2023, I spoke with Kenny Ip via telephone for 35 minutes about the above comment letter. We discussed the exceptions to CFC 503.1.1 (item 5) and item 7. Mr. Ip told me the addition of NPFA 13 Fire Sprinklers per 903.3.1.1 would both extend the distance to and the distance from the fire hydrant around the building to 400 feet, resolving both issues.

My preparation notes for that meeting were written in pencil on the letter. A true and correct ITEM 9A, Supplement 31c

Page 492 of 611 ends

-2-

DECLARATION OF JAMES BEVAN
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

PATTERSON
& O`NEILL, PC 235
MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 950 SA
N
F
RA

NCISCO, C
A
LIFO
RNIA 94104
copy of my notes from the meeting with Mr. Ip is attached as Exhibit A. The notes in various color ink are later additions.

5. On May 8, 2023 I received a comment letter directly from the Fire Dept., dated April 25, 2023, from Caleb Flanagan for 10728 Mora Drive. This letter was the first response from the Fire Dept. we received on our Feb 1, 2023 submission.

6. On or about Tuesday May 2, 2023, I had a phone conversation with our plan reviewer, We discussed
how to respond to the Fire Departments April 25, 2023 comment letter that I had already spoken with Kenny Ip about similar issues. On Comment #4 Building and Facilities Access based on California Fire Code Sec 503.1.1, he told me to add a note stating that the fire sprinklers would comply with Sec. 903.3.1.1 (of the California Fire Code) to extend the 150 foot access exception to 300 feet. He told me this issue was not a big concern as they regularly resolved the 150-foot distance issue in Sec. 503.1.1 with this solution as permitted by code.

7. In the same meeting Mr. Flanagan and I discussed creating a Hydrant Spotting Plan where we would add an additional hydrant by 10758 Mora and show that fire hoses could make it around the both buildings and providing the length of hoses needed to reach around the structures. We also discussed submitting a Hydrant Spotting Plan and he could review it.

8. I used sheet A5.0, dated May 9, 2023, to address all the fire code comments. Per my I also included the Hydrant Spotting Plan and we submitted it directly to the Fire Dept., which approved the plan, Attached as Exhibit B, that showed how a hose could reach all exterior points of the building. We used the same sheet, A5.0 for both projects and it combined both lots with one fire turn-around on one sheet and included the solutions I had discussed with both reviewers for both projects. We included a comment letter with our response directly to the Fire Dept. which is attached as Exhibit C.

9. On July 3, 2023, we also submitted the same sheet A5.0, along with Fire Dept. responses, to the Town of Los Altos Hills along with the rest of our submittal sets for both projects.

Page 493 of 611 ends

-3-

DECLARATION OF JAMES BEVAN
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

PATTERSON
& O`NEILL, PC 235
MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 950 SA
N
F
RA

NCISCO, C
A
LIFO
RNIA 94104 10. On August 28, 2023 I received an email with the Fire Dept., response letters dated August 14, 2023 in response to our 10758 Mora Dr. application, 56 days after our submission on July 3, 2023. Attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the email where I received the responses.

11. On August 28, 2023 I received an email with the Fire Dept., response letters dated August 14, 2023 in response to our 10728 Mora Dr. application, 56 days after our submission on July 3, 2023. Attached as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the email where I received the responses.

12. Both Fire Department response letters dated August 24, 2023 had a number of additions and comment that were not included in the previous letters. The Code review standard in the with respect to the fire/building code
Dept. responses stated that review would be by the 2022 CFC codes as adopted by the Town of Los Altos Hills. This addition is not accurate for a Permit Streamlining Act application. Four comments were added that had not been included in previous response letters. The additional comments were # 18, #19, #20, & #21 on page 5 and which cited California Building Code sections rather than California Fire Code sections. True and correct copies of the August 14, 2023 comment letters from the Fire Dept. and the Comments are attached as Exhibit F & G.

13. The new CBC sections in the Fire Dept. letters attached as Exhibit D & E appeared to be carefully coordinated with an entirely new comment letter from the Town of Los Altos Hills titled
2023. A true and correct copy of which is Attached as Exhibit H.

14. Comment 18 from the Fire Dept. letters (Exabits F & G) correspond to bullet 1 on page 2 of the H) regarding stair separation CBC section 1027; comment 19 corresponds to bullet 5 page 2 regarding exit discharge 1CBC section 1028.5; Item 21 corresponds to bullet points 2 and 3 page 1 regarding exterior wall ratings. Neither of these review letters were necessary and they arrived in close proximity to each other. In my

Page 494 of 611 ends

Page 495 of 611 ends

Exhibit

Page 496 of 611 ends

Page 497 of 611 ends

Page 498 of 611 ends

Page 499 of 611 ends

Page 500 of 611 ends

Exhibit

Page 501 of 611 ends

Page 502 of 611 ends

Exhibit

Page 503 of 611 ends

Tower Investment LLC
Co/James Bevan
785 Castro St. Ste A.

Mountain View, CA 94041
May 9, 2023
RE: 10728 Mora Drive Response to Comment Letter dated April 25, 2023 SSCFD File # 23 1486
LAH File # CDP23-0001
Caleb Flanagan
Santa Clara County Fire Department
14700 Winchester Blvd.

Los Gatos, CA 95032

Page 504 of 611 ends

Page 505 of 611 ends

Page 506 of 611 ends

Page 507 of 611 ends

Exhibit

Page 508 of 611 ends

From: James Bevan <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 7:11 PM
To: Forrest Linebarger <[email protected]>
Subject: 10758 email chain with attached comment letter From: Caleb Flanagan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 2:39 PM
To: LAH Plan Check Comments <[email protected]> Cc: James Bevan <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: SCCFD Review - CDP23-0002 10758 Mora Dr PC 23-2595 Good afternoon,
The applicant informed me they have not received the comments for 10728 and 10758 Mora.

Please see attached.

Caleb Flanagan | Deputy Fire Marshal I
Fire Prevention Division
Santa Clara County Fire Department
[email protected] | 408-341-4441
From: [email protected]
To: "LAH Plan Check Comments" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 12:27:09 PM
Subject: SCCFD Review - CDP23-0002 10758 Mora Dr PC 23-2595 Please see attached for subject review comments.

Respectfully,
Kenny Ip

Page 509 of 611 ends

Deputy Fire Marshal I
Fire Prevention Division
Santa Clara County Fire Department
16795 Lark Ave | Los Gatos, CA 95030
tel: 408.341.4437 | fax: 408.378.9342 | [email protected]

Page 510 of 611 ends

Exhibit

Page 511 of 611 ends

From: James Bevan <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 7:10 PM
To: Forrest Linebarger <[email protected]>
Subject: 10728 email chain with attached comment letter From: Caleb Flanagan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 2:39 PM
To: LAH Plan Check Comments <[email protected]> Cc: James Bevan <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: SCCFD Review CDP23-0001 - 10728 Mora Dr - PC 23 2718 Good afternoon,
The applicant informed me they have not received the comments for 10728 and 10758 Mora.

Please see attached.

Caleb Flanagan | Deputy Fire Marshal I
Fire Prevention Division
Santa Clara County Fire Department
[email protected] | 408-341-4441
From: [email protected]
To: "LAH Plan Check Comments" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 11:04:26 AM
Subject: SCCFD Review CDP23-0001 - 10728 Mora Dr - PC 23 2718 Please see attached for subject review comments.

Page 512 of 611 ends

Caleb Flanagan | Deputy Fire Marshal I
Fire Prevention Division
Santa Clara County Fire Department
[email protected] | 408-341-4441

Page 513 of 611 ends

Exhibit

Page 514 of 611 ends

Page 515 of 611 ends

Page 516 of 611 ends

Page 517 of 611 ends

Page 518 of 611 ends

Page 519 of 611 ends

Exhibit

Page 520 of 611 ends

Page 521 of 611 ends

Page 522 of 611 ends

Page 523 of 611 ends

Page 524 of 611 ends

Page 525 of 611 ends

Exhibit

Page 526 of 611 ends

26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills California 94022 (650) 941-7222 Fax: 650/941-3160 September 19, 2023
Preliminary Building Code Review of 10728 & 10758 Mora Dr.

This document is a Preliminary Building Code Review of the plans for the proposed projects at 10728 and 10758 Mora Dr in Los Altos Hills. This review is not intended to be a complete plan review, rather a review to identify significant code issues that may affective overall building design. The order of the code issues listed is in no particular order of importance and addressing one or more issues may well lead to code issues not currently shown.
10728 Mora Dr.

Code Assumptions based on information included on plans:
67,475 Sq Ft
Total Occupant Load per plans is 669
Construction Type
Podium Garage S-2 Type l-A Sprinklered
R-2, R-2.1, A-3 & B Type lll-A Sprinklered
Significant Code Issues
CBC Section 202 defines a High-Rise structure as every building of any type of construction or occupancy having floors used for human occupancy located more than 75 feet above the lowest floor level having building access. Based on this definition this building is considered a high-rise building and shall comply with CBC sections 403.2 through 403.7. Per CBC Table 601, the bearing walls of Type l-A buildings shall have a 3-hour Fire-Resistive Rating. Per CBC Table 705.5 the Fire-Resistance Rating for the exterior walls of a Type l-A building, with a Fire Separation Distance of less than 30 feet, shall be 1-hour rated. Therefore, the maximum area of exterior wall openings shall comply with CBC Table 705.8. Per CBC Table 601, the exterior walls of Type lll-A buildings shall have a 1-hour Fire-Resistive Rating. Per CBC Table 705.5 the Fire-Resistance Rating for the exterior walls of a Type lll-A building, with a Fire Separation Distance of less than 30 feet shall be 1-hour rated. Therefore, the maximum area of exterior wall openings shall comply with CBC Table 705.8. Per CBC Table 504.4, A-3 occupancies in buildings of Type lll-A construction may not be more than 4 stories above grade plane. The A-3 Occupancy is shown to be located on the 5th level above grade plane and therefore per CBC Table 504.4 is not allowed.

Page 527 of 611 ends

Preliminary Building Code Review
10728 & 10758 Mora Dr.

Page 2 of 3 ends

26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills California 94022 (650) 941-7222 Fax: 650/941-3160 Per CBC Section 1027.5, Exterior exit stairways and ramps shall have a minimum fire-separation distance of 10 feet measured at right angles from the exterior edge of the stairway or ramps, including landings, to adjacent lot lines.
Per CBC Section 1028.3, the minimum width or required capacity of the exit discharge shall not be less than the minimum width or required capacity of the exits being served. Based on occupant load of 669, the minimum exit discharge width would be 100. (669/2 = 334.5 * 0.3 = 100) exit discharge paths shown on plan are 48 on the north side of the and 36 on the south side of the building. The width of these exit discharge elements is insufficient to meet code. Per CBC 1005.7.1 Doors, when fully opened, shall not reduce the required width of the exit discharge by more than 7 inches. Doors in any position shall not reduce the required width by more than one-half. Exit door from front stairwell and doors from trash enclosure reduce the required exit passageway width by more than 7.
Per CBC Section 1005.4, the minimum width or required capacity of the means of egress required from any story of a building shall not be reduced along the path of egress travel until arrival at the public way. The convergence of exit discharge paths at the front of the building in an area designated for emergency vehicles will restrict access to the public way, affecting both egress and emergency response.
CBC 1028.5 requires the exit discharge shall provide a direct unobstructed access to the public way, when that cannot be provided, as per the inadequate exit discharge width above, a safe area of dispersal shall be provided where all of the following shall be met:

1. The area shall be of a size to accommodate not less than 5 square feet for each person.

2. For other than Group E buildings, the area shall be located on the same lot not less than 50 feet away from the building requiring egress. Rear yard area shown does not show a code compliant area of safe dispersal as it is smaller than required to accommodate 5 sq. ft. per person and cannot be located 50 from the building. 10758 Mora Dr.

Code Assumptions based on information included on plans:
71,034 Sq Ft
Total Occupant Load per plans is 666
Construction Type
Podium Garage S-2 Type l-A Sprinklered
R-2, R-2.1, A-3 & B Type lll-A Sprinklered
Significant Code Issues
CBC Section 202 defines a High-Rise structure as every building of any type of construction or occupancy having floors used for human occupancy located more than 75 feet above the lowest floor level having building access. Based on this definition this building is considered a high-rise building and shall comply with CBC sections 403.2 through 403.7.

Page 528 of 611 ends

Preliminary Building Code Review
10728 & 10758 Mora Dr.

Page 3 of 3 ends

26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills California 94022 (650) 941-7222 Fax: 650/941-3160 Per CBC Table 601, the bearing walls of Type l-A buildings shall have a 3-hour Fire-Resistive Rating. Per CBC Table 705.5 the Fire-Resistance Rating for the exterior walls of a Type l-A building, with a Fire Separation Distance of less than 30 feet, shall be 1-hour rated. Therefore, the maximum area of exterior wall openings shall comply with CBC Table 705.8. Per CBC Table 601, the exterior walls of Type lll-A buildings shall have a 1-hour Fire-Resistive Rating. Per CBC Table 705.5 the Fire-Resistance Rating for the exterior walls of a Type lll-A building, with a Fire Separation Distance of less than 30 feet shall be 1-hour rated. Therefore, the maximum area of exterior wall openings shall comply with CBC Table 705.8. Per CBC Table 504.4, A-3 occupancies in buildings of Type lll-A construction may not be more than 4 stories above grade plane. The A-3 Occupancy is shown to be located on the 5th level above grade plane and therefore per CBC Table 504.4 is not allowed. Per CBC Section 1028.3, the minimum width or required capacity of the exit discharge shall not be less than the minimum width or required capacity of the exits being served. Based on occupant load of 666, the minimum exit discharge width would be 100. (666/2 = 333 * 0.3 = 100) exit discharge paths shown on plan are 48 on the north side of the and 36 on the south side of the building. The width of these exit discharge elements is insufficient to meet code. Per CBC 1005.7.1 Doors, when fully opened, shall not reduce the required width by more than 7 inches. Doors in any position shall not reduce the required width by more than one-half. Exit door from front stairwell and doors from trash enclosure reduce the required exit passageway width by more than 7.
Per CBC Section 1005.4, the minimum width or required capacity of the means of egress required from any story of a building shall not be reduced along the path of egress travel until arrival at the public way. The convergence of exit discharge paths at the front of the building in an area designated for emergency vehicles will restrict access to the public way, affecting both egress and emergency response.
CBC 1028.5 requires the exit discharge shall provide a direct unobstructed access to the public way, when that cannot be provided, as per the inadequate exit discharge width above, a safe area of dispersal shall be provided where all of the following shall be met:

1. The area shall be of a size to accommodate not less than 5 square feet for each person.

Gregory J McFann
Interim Building Official
Town of Los Alto Hills

Page 529 of 611 ends

Exhibit

Page 530 of 611 ends

-----Original Message-----
From: james bevan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 3:22 PM
To: Forrest Linebarger <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Alternative Means And Methods Request (PR# 23 1147) for project at 10728 Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills (PR# 23 4780)
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Matthew McKenna <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: Alternative Means And Methods Request (PR# 23 1147) for project at 10728 Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills (PR# 23 4780)
To: james bevan <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Good Afternoon James,
Thank you for the email. I appreciate the chance to clear up what appears to be a bit of confusion. I did not say that I did not see any proposed mitigation measures that I felt would be satisfactory for the project to move forward. I said your current proposal did not appear to provide satisfactory mitigation, which is why the plan review comments asked for additional clarification.

I will work with our staff to find a meeting time that works for everyone, and follow up with additional information.

However, we will not be able to make you proposed time for next week work.

Respectfully,
Matthew L. McKenna | Senior Deputy Fire Marshal
Fire Prevention Division
Santa Clara County Fire Department
[email protected] | (408) 341-4420
----- Original Message -----

Page 531 of 611 ends

From: "james bevan" <[email protected]>
To: "matthew mckenna" <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 6:46:07 PM
Subject: Alternative Means And Methods Request (PR# 23 1147) for project at 10728 Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills (PR# 23 4780)
Mathew,
It was good speaking with you yesterday about our Alternative Means and Methods request for the project at 10728 Mora Drive in Los Altos Hills. I was disappointed to hear that you did not see any proposed mitigation measures that you felt would be satisfactory for the project to move forward.

We would like to set up an in-person meeting to find a solution. Here are a couple of times that could work on our end:

Monday May 6th at 1:00pm
Tuesday May 7th at 11:00am
If either of these times work for you please let us know, otherwise suggest a time that works better for you.

We will have our legal counsel present at the meeting and thought it best if you could have both senior management and SCCFD's outside legal counsel in attendance as well.

We want to work with you to find a solution and feel that having all parties involved in the decision present at the meeting offers the best pathway toward that solution.

James Bevan
(805)405-5654

Page 532 of 611 ends

Page 533 of 611 ends

ITEM 9A, Supplement 32a

Page 534 of 611 ends

Page 535 of 611 ends

Page 536 of 611 ends

Page 537 of 611 ends

1 Arika Miller
From: Josh Manion
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2025 5:29 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Senior housing towers on Mora Dr.

January 30, 2025
Kavita Tankha, Mayor
Rajiv Bhateja, Vice Mayor
Stanley Mok
Linda Swan
George Tyson
Dear Mayor Tankha and Members of the LAH City Council:

As a long time resident of Mora Dr (I live on the private drive at the top of the hill) I am strongly opposed to this project. It poses a great fire danger to the current reidents and would completely overwhelm the current infrastructure and roads. Below is a list of resaons for my opposition.  The project is too big and out of place for Los Altos Hills, which is historically a low-density, semi-rural community.
 A sudden shift to high-density housing with 140 units is an extreme jump that lacks thoughtful integration with the existing neighborhood.
 TraƯic congestion will increase significantly on roads not designed for this level of density.  Public transit options are limited, meaning nearly every resident of these buildings will rely on personal vehicles, worsening road conditions.
 Emergency response times could be aƯected, which is especially concerning in a fire-prone area where quick evacuations are critical.
 This project will not solve the housing crisis but instead attract wealthy buyers and investors rather than providing aƯordable housing for local workers and families.  High-end developments like this typically do not create meaningful aƯordability, as trickle-down housing eƯects take too long and do not address current needs.

I urge you to approve the Resolutions and deny the two proposed senior developments. It is unconscionable to put 112 units for senior residents on upper Mora Drive.

Thank you, Josh Manion
Item 9A Supplemental 34

Page 538 of 611 ends

TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS January 30, 2025
Staff Report to the City Council
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A

KEY TERMS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS, SEA LANDING, LP AND DRACO NEST, LLC RELATED TO A POTENTIAL:
(1) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT LIMITING RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT ON THE APPROXIMATELY 13.5 ACRES OF DRACO
NEST, LLC OWNED LAND ON THE TWIN OAKS PROPERTY (APN NOS. 182-02 017, 182-02-018, 182-02-019, 182-02-020, 182-02-021, and 182-02-022), (2) HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT FOR THE TWIN OAKS
PROPERTY, (3) FENCE PERMIT FOR THE PORTION OF THE TWIN OAKS

PROPERTY OWNED BY DRACO NEST, LLC AND FOR THE ADJACENT
APPROXIMATELY 40-ACRE PARCEL OWNED BY SEA LANDING, LP
(APN NO . 182-02-016), (4) REMOVAL AND IMPOSITION OF EASEMENTS

RELATED TO THE PORTION OF THE TWIN OAKS PROPERTY OWNED BY DRACO NEST, LLC AND FOR THE ADJACENT APPROXIMATELY 40-
ACRE PARCEL OWNED BY SEA LANDING, LP, (5) FARM USES ON THE

NON-RESIDENTIAL PORTIONS OF THE TWIN OAKS PROPERTY OWNED BY DRACO NEST, LLC AND THE ADJACENT APPROXIMATELY 40-ACRE

PARCEL OWNED BY SEA LANDING, LP, AND POTENTIAL SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDNETIAL USE ON 17 ACRES OF APPROXIMATELY 40- ACRE PARCEL OWNED BY SEA LANDING, LP.

FROM: Peter Pirnejad, City Manager
Steve Mattas, City Attorney
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council consider and adopt a resolution to approve a Key Terms Agreement between the Town and the property owner (Draco Nest, LLC) of the approximately 13-acre portion of the “Twin Oaks” parcel and the owner (Sea Landing, LP) of the adjacent approximately 40-acre parcel, which sets forth certain binding and non-binding key terms and actions to facilitate: (1) the negotiation of a proposed Development Agreement between the Town and the property owner for development plans for residential (77 multifamily units plus the potential for up a maximum 50% density bonus [i.e. 39 units] on four acres of the Twin Oaks site and one main house and up to six other smaller residential units as part of the proposed AI organic farm) on the remaining portion of the Twin Oaks property owned by Draco Nest, LLC (2) an AI organic farm on the remainder of the Twin Oaks property and the adjacent 40-acre parcel owned by Sea Landing, LP, (3) specified removal/vacation and creation of proposed and existing easements (including an agricultural use easement) related to both parcels, and (4) construction of solid fence surrounding the agricultural uses on the both portions of the Draco Nest and Sea Landing properties.

Also, pursuant to the Key Terms Agreement, the property owner (on behalf of themselves and any successors in in interest) will agree not file an SB 330 application or any other development application for the Twin Oaks property for any residential development in excess of 77 residential

Page 539 of 611 ends

Staff Report to the City Council Page 2
Twin Oaks Key Terms Agreement
January 30, 2025
units plus the potential for up a maximum 50% density bonus [i.e. 39 units] prior to the City Council’s consideration and approval of the Development Agreement and execution and recordation of the development agreement. The Key Terms Agreement does contain provisions that either allow for the potential of additional development or the filing of a SB 330 application if the Town does not comply with the binding portions of the Key Terms Agreement, fails to negotiate a development agreement that is consistent with the specified provisions in the Key Terms Agreement, ultimately denies approval of a development agreement or in the event of litigation challenging the Key Terms Agreement or the development agreement as well as implementation of either of the agreements consistent with the terms of those agreements.

In addition, under the Key Terms Agreement, Draco Nest and Sea Landing also consent to the Town processing of a Housing Element amendment to limit the amount of multi-family housing provided for on the Twin Oaks property owned by Draco Nest to a maximum of four acres thereby providing the density for 77 residential units currently for the Draco Nest owned portion of the Twin Oaks property. Pursuant to the Key Terms Agreement, the Town may include the Housing Element amendment as part of the CEQA process currently underway and may commence work on the Housing Element following approval of the initial improvements set forth in Exhibit D and the vacation of certain specified proposed and existing easement on the Sea Landing property.

Said approvals are scheduled to take place in 90 days following approval of the Key Terms Agreement in January. The Housing Element amendment, if approved by the City Council and the State HCD would take effect following the approval and recordation of the development agreement.

Following completion of an environmental impact report analyzing potential environmental impacts from these potential actions as well as the proposed Town multi-family zoning and objective development standards applicable to the Twin Oaks properties, the Foothill College property and the St. Nicholas property, the Planning Commission and City Council will conduct public hearings to consider the draft Development Agreement, the multi-family zoning and objective design standards in either December 2025 or January 2026.

BACKGROUND:

The Town’s 2023-2031 Housing Element identifies the Twin Oaks property in northwest area of the Town between Interstate 280 and Saddle Mountain Drive, consisting of seven parcels totaling approximately 15 acres, as a housing opportunity site to be rezoned for multi-family development.

Draco Nest owns approximately 13.5 acres (covering six of the seven parcels) of the approximately 15-acre Twin Oaks area properties. The Draco Nest Twin Oaks property is located adjacent to the approximately 40-acre property owned by Sea Landing, LP and which is covered under a Williamson Act contract for agricultural activities. Program A-1 in the state-certified Housing Element requires the Town to rezone this property (along with a smaller adjacent parcel on Arastradero Road) from its current R-A zoning to a new multi-family zone with a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre.

Given site constraints such as slope and other encumbrances, the Housing Element determined that the reasonable yield of residential units for the Twin Oaks properties were 77 units for the Draco Nest parcels and 15 units for the adjacent parcel. The adoption of multi-family zoning for the Twin Oaks properties (along with the Foothill College and St. Nicholas properties) is required to

Page 540 of 611 ends

Staff Report to the City Council Page 3
Twin Oaks Key Terms Agreement
January 30, 2025
be adopted by under Program A-1 of the Town’s Certified Housing Element and needs to be adopted by January 31, 2026 to meet the deadline for compliance set forth in the Housing Element.

As noted above, the Housing Element takes into consideration site constraints (such as steep slopes and utility easements) to estimate that the Twin Oaks property and the Arastradero Road property are anticipated to yield 92 units pursuant to the rezoning.

To meet the timeline specified under Program A-1, the Town is currently engaged in the process of preparing an Environmental Impact Report under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed rezoning and crafting new multi-family zoning regulations and objective development and design standards for the new zoning district. During this process, the Town received public comments from a number of community members who have raised concerns asserting that the Housing Element would permit a rezoning density of 20-30 dwelling units/acre on the Twin Oaks property, and asserting on that basis the Housing Element would permit at least 378 residential units to be constructed on the Twin Oaks Property, with the potential for the construction of additional residential units if the State Density Bonus Law were to be utilized accordingly resulting in substantially more units than anticipated in the Housing Element and counted towards the Town’s RHNA obligation for new residential units under state law and the Housing Element.

As noted in the Housing Element site suitability analysis, the Twin Oaks property owner identified above (hereinafter referred to as “Draco Nest” or “Sea Landing”) previously expressed development interest to the Town during the housing element certification process. Since the expression of that interest, the Town and Sea Landing/Draco Nest have engaged in discussion regarding negotiating a preliminary Key Terms Agreement, which would ultimately authorize a residential project on four acres of the Twin Oaks property consistent with the 77-unit yield described in the Housing Element (plus density bonus at a maximum level of 50 percent of the 77 units and a farming project on the remainder (approximately 9.5 acres) of the Twin Oaks Property owned by Draco Nest as well as farming improvements on the adjacent 40 acre parcel owned by Sea Landing.

In addition to a summary of the proposed development agreement terms, this staff report also provides a brief analysis confirming that the terms in the proposed Development Agreement would in fact be enforceable, pursuant to state law, as well as federal and state constitutional protections for development agreements. This analysis is being provided in response to public comments received by the Town regarding concerns about whether development agreement provisions may voluntarily limit the rights of a party and therefore affect the enforceability of certain terms in a development agreement that might limit those rights.

DISCUSSION
The Town and Sea Landing/Draco Nest seek to facilitate a Development Agreement that would allow Sea Landing to construct (i) a two-story, 77-unit residential project plus a density bonus voluntarily capped at 50 percent of the 77-unit base density on a portion of the Twin Oaks property (the “Residential Project”), (ii) an AI operated farm and related structures on a portion of the Twin Oaks Property and the adjacent approximately 40 acre property owned by Sea Landing, as shown on Exhibit A and Exhibit B, respectively (the “AI Farm”), and (iii) a 6’ tall solid galvanized metal perimeter fence (painted in a wood-colored tone) around the agricultural uses of on both Twin

Page 541 of 611 ends

Staff Report to the City Council Page 4
Twin Oaks Key Terms Agreement
January 30, 2025
Oaks and adjacent 40-acre property. The key terms for the Residential Project and the Farm Improvements (collectively referred to as the “Project”), along with a timeline of certain triggering events, are summarized in further detail in Table 1, below, and are set forth in full in the Key Terms Agreement included herein as Attachment 1.

This development proposal, if negotiated and approved by the City Council, and which is subject to CEQA review, is intended to meet Program A-1 objectives and unit-yield in the Housing Element and to address community concerns regarding the potential maximum residential density that may be accomplished at Twin Oaks pursuant to the Housing Element.

The Key Terms Agreement seeks to facilitate subsequent development agreement negotiations through the Town and Sea Landing/Draco Nest agreeing to certain initial terms and process for preparation, adoption and recordation of a development agreement that results in a residential development that is consistent with the 77 units currently anticipated in the Housing Element plus agricultural uses and limited additional residential units on the remainder of the property and the adjacent 40 acre parcel owned by Sea Landing.

The Key Terms Agreement also presents certain remedial measures to protect the parties’ rights.

For example, if the Town performs its obligations under the Key Terms Agreement, Sea Landing agrees not to file an SB 330 application or any other residential development application to develop more than 77 units on the Twin Oaks property prior to the Development Agreement be considered at public hearings, approved by the City Council, executed by the parties and recorded against the Twin Oaks and adjacent 40 acre parcel. Similarly, if in the event that Sea Landing is prevented by the Town or through litigation from constructing certain improvements and undertaking certain activities, as set forth in Exhibit D and E to the Key Terms Agreement or other the potential development agreement that is ultimately adopted by the City Council, the Parties have also agreed to terms for two different sets of enforcement mechanisms that could be pursued by Sea Landing/Draco Nest, depending on the manner in which certain terms of the Project may become compromised to the detriment of Sea Landing. These two alternatives are known as the “Alternate Twin Oaks Project” and the “Alternate Farm Project” and are collectively referred to as the “Project Alternative.”
The Alternative Twin Oaks project, which could only be available to Sea Landing/Draco Nest if the Sea Landing/Draco Nest are prevented by Town action or litigation from getting necessary permits for and constructing the initial farm and fence improvements set forth Exhibit D to the Key Terms agreement, would provide through the development agreement for additional residential units on the four acre portion of Draco Nest property up to a maximum of 200 units inclusive of density bonus units. Also, under limited circumstances including filing of litigation as described further below, an Alternative Farm Project would allow the construction of 17 single family units on 17 acres of the approximately 40-acre parcel that is adjacent to the Twin Oaks parcel with the remainder of the land used for agricultural purposes. The current general plan and zoning does allow for single-family residential development on this parcel already.

1. Key Terms Agreement Provisions for Proposed Development Agreement As stated above, the Town and Sea Landing (referenced hereinafter as “Parties”) have negotiated certain terms set forth in the Key Terms Agreement, to facilitate negotiation and approval of the

Page 542 of 611 ends

Staff Report to the City Council Page 5
Twin Oaks Key Terms Agreement
January 30, 2025
proposed Development Agreement (“DA”), which are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 below, and which are set forth in full in the Key Terms Agreement (Attachment 1).

Table 1

SUMMARY OF KEY TERMS AGREEMENT PROVISIONS

1. Execution Timeline: by January 31, 2025 (assuming Council approves on January 30, 2025.)

2. Town Obligations Upon Execution of Key Terms Agreement i. Make a non-binding endorsement of certain key terms to be included in the development agreement as those terms are described in the Key Terms Agreement; ii. Within 60 days, commence actions to abandon and record within 30 days the Town’s proposed easements shown on Exhibit C (the “Easement Abandonment”); iii. Support efforts by Sea Landing to vacate any non-Town public utility easements; and iv. Within 90 days, commence and approve actions on permits and other required authorizations for the activities related to the Farm Improvements listed on Exhibit D (the “Farm Improvement Authorization”). The Parties will meet and confer within 15 days of approval of the Key Terms Agreement to discuss the application submission requirements for the Farm Improvement Authorization and may agree to extend the timeline for some items within the Farm Improvement Authorization to be complete prior to the consideration and approval of the development agreement. Moreover, the Town agrees that the items listed in Exhibit E do not require Town approval.

3. Sea Landing Obligations Upon Execution of Key Terms Agreement Upon execution of the Agreement, Sea Landing commits to the Town that it will not file an SB-330 application,1 or any other development application to develop more than 77 residential units on the Twin Oaks Property at any time prior to the Town’s approval and recordation of the DA.

The exception to this commitment is that if the Town denies the Key Terms Agreement; undertakes legislative or administrative processes that results in a different outcome to conflict with the Key Terms Agreement; the Town approves a development agreement in conflict with the Key Terms Agreement; if the Town is in default of its obligations under the Agreement; or if there is litigation that successfully challenges the Key Terms Agreement, or the development agreement once approved (with the exception that if litigation challenges the CEQA determination by the Town, there is a process for the Town to correct the CEQA noncompliance issue). In those latter situations, Sea Landing reserves its ability to file an SB 330 application based on the current 2023 Housing Element (which it is able to do so presently). 1 Senate Bill (“SB”) 330, passed on 2019, made numerous changes to the Permit Streamlining Act and the Housing Accountability Act, and established the Housing Crisis Act. SB 330 (under Gov. Code § 65941.1) provides that, upon application by a housing developer, cities and counties are limited from applying its ordinances and/or policies in a manner that would render infeasible a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households or an emergency shelter unless the local agency makes specific written findings. Essentially an SB 330 application allows the developer to “vest” applicable standards and regulations to those at the time of filing, which in this case includes the density specified under the Housing Element, which is a part of the Town’s General Plan, in effect at the time of filing even if the Zoning Code is later changed to be more restrictive.

Page 543 of 611 ends

Staff Report to the City Council Page 6
Twin Oaks Key Terms Agreement
January 30, 2025
Table 2

CORE TERMS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

1. Development Agreement term of 30 years between Town and Sea Landing.

2. Sea Landing’s Right to Construct the Following Projects on Twin Oaks and Fenwick Properties:
a. Residential Project:
i. A two-story, 77-unit residential project on a four-acre portion of the Twin Oaks Property. As noted below, if Sea Landing seeks to utilize density bonus, the DA would require that density bonus be capped at 50 percent of the 77-unit base density.
b. Farm Improvements:
i. An AI-operated farm and related structures on a portion of the Twin Oaks Property and the Williamson Farm Property, as shown on Exhibit A and Exhibit B to the Key Terms Agreement (the “AI Farm”).
ii. A six-foot tall solid galvanized metal perimeter fence, painted in a wood-colored tone, around the Williamson Farm Property and portion of the Twin Oaks Property used for the AI Farm, as shown on Exhibit C to the Key Terms Agreement, and subject to the Town’s setback requirements for any portion of the fence that is adjacent to a public or private road. iii. If the Town adopts a agricultural permit exemption ordinance for agricultural uses on parcels in excess of five acres the Town will include the ordinance as part of the existing regulations in the development agreement.

3. Sea Landing shall have a vested right to construct all or a portion of the Project pursuant to the plans and maps attached to and approved in conjunction with the DA. After approval of a development agreement, Sea Landing will not be required to submit any additional applications for entitlements or approvals other than building permits to proceed with construction of the Project.

4. Sea Landing will not be obligated to a specific timeline and performance standards for development of the Project.

5. Town shall not impose any additional public access easements on the Property during the term of the development agreement, unless Sea Landing proceeds with the Project Alternative (i.e. the Alternative Twin Oaks Project or the Alternative Farm Project.

6. The Town’s Ability to Carry Out Muti-Family Rezoning under the Housing Element and to seek to Amend the current Housing Element:
a. Town may introduce legislation to amend 2023 Housing Element to limit designation of multi-family zoning to a maximum of four acres of the Twin Oaks Property (but only after Town completes Easement Abandonment and Farm Improvement Authorization to reasonable satisfaction of Sea Landing.)

Page 544 of 611 ends

Staff Report to the City Council Page 7
Twin Oaks Key Terms Agreement
January 30, 2025
b. Town may commence CEQA review for potential 2023 Housing Element amendment prior to performance of Easement Abandonment and Farm Improvement Authorization.
c. Any such amendment to 2023 Housing Element by Town will only be effective 90 days with respect to the Twin Oaks property only after the DA has been approved, executed and recorded against Twin Oaks Property. However, the development agreement terms shall be operative during such 90-day period.

7. Tolling effects of certain types of litigation:
a. If any litigation is filed to challenge approval of the Key Terms Agreement, the Easement Abandonment, the Authorized Work, the Farm Improvement Authorization, the development agreement, associated CEQA review, or any permits effectuating Sea Landing’s rights under the development agreement, timeline for the effective date of a 2023 Housing Element Amendment relating to the Twin Oaks Property shall be tolled.
i. During such tolling, the prohibition on Sea Landing filing an SB-330 application or any other development application to develop more than 77 residential units shall continue to apply, unless:
1) Development agreement and associated CEQA review, or any permits arising from Sea Landing’s rights under the development agreement are invalidated by a court. In that case, effective date of Housing Element shall be tolled for 90 days, and Sea Landing shall be able to file a SB330 or other similar development application. a) If only CEQA invalidated: the Parties will meet and confer within 45 days from the court order to agree on the appropriate path to correct the CEQA deficiency; the City will then have 320 days to make such correction happen including conducting hearings and re-certify documents and approving the DA again. b. Term of development agreement will be tolled by any litigation challenging the Town’s approval of the multi-family rezoning, development agreement, or associated CEQA review.

8. Town shall rezone the Twin Oaks Property to conform with the permitted density under the 2023 Housing Element and this Agreement (the “Proposed Rezoning”). a. Subject to Project Alternative, development agreement will approve overlay zoning district for Twin Oaks Property that will:
1) Limit residential density on Twin Oaks Property to 77 units, but excluding:
a) Any residential units permitted under AI Farm, and
b) Any additional residential units permitted under the State Density Bonus Law up to a maximum density bonus of 50
percent of the 77-unit base density; and
2) Permit the AI Farm use.
b. Development agreement shall establish inclusionary housing obligations that require no more on-site affordable units than required to obtain a 50% state density bonus.

Page 545 of 611 ends

Staff Report to the City Council Page 8
Twin Oaks Key Terms Agreement
January 30, 2025

9. If requested by Sea Landing, Town shall support a Williamson Act Contract or federal farm conservation easement for the Twin Oaks Property and/or the Williamson Farm Property.

10. CEQA- Current EIR:
a. Town to proceed with current EIR under development for the Proposed Rezoning and will ensure the current EIR also covers the Project as described in Exhibits A through C and Project Alternative described in Exhibits F and G. b. Sea Landing is responsible for any costs to increase scope of EIR or modifications to objective design standards to encompass the Project and Project Alternative. The Town will be responsible for any costs associated with correcting any CEQA noncompliance issue if the initial EIR is invalidated by a court decision.

11. Town shall be sponsor of implementation of Key Terms Agreement, including processing of the development agreement and associated CEQA analysis.

12. Development agreement to contain standard vested rights, indemnification, and mortgagee protection provisions, but shall not include obligations for Sea Landing to indemnify the Town for costs related to certain litigation challenges.

The Key Terms Agreement does not constitute approval of the Project or Project Alternative, except for the Authorized Work, Easement Abandonment and Farm Improvement Authorization as discussed above. Any such approval of the Project or the Project Alternative can only occur following adequate CEQA review.

2. Project Alternative
As alluded to above, the development agreement will also provide for two different sets of enforcement mechanisms – as set forth accordingly in Tables 3 and 4 below – that could be pursued by Sea Landing if certain events are triggered.

Table 3

ALTERNATE FARM PROJECT
Trigger Outcome
 If a lawsuit is filed challenging either:
- The Key Terms Agreement;
- The Easement Abandonment;
- The Authorized Work; or
- The Farm Improvement Authorization
 Then development agreement shall give Sea
Landing additional vested rights to
construct seventeen (17) single family
homes on a 17-acre portion of the
Williamson Farm Property (see Exhibit F).

Table 4

ALTERNATE TWIN OAKS PROJECT
Trigger Outcome

Page 546 of 611 ends

Staff Report to the City Council Page 9
Twin Oaks Key Terms Agreement
January 30, 2025
 If a plaintiff or petitioner prevails in a
lawsuit challenging either:
- The Key Terms Agreement;
- The Easement Abandonment;
- The Authorized Work; or
- The Farm Improvement Authorization
 Then development agreement shall give Sea
Landing additional vested rights to
construct:
- The Alternate Farm Project; and
- Up to 200 residential units (inclusive of
any “bonus” units under the State
Density Bonus Law) on up to 4 acres of
the Twin Oaks Property (see Exhibit G).

3. Development Agreement Provisions that Voluntarily Limit a Party’s Rights are Enforceable.

This discussion is provided in response to some concerns from the public received by the Town about whether development agreement provisions may voluntarily limit the rights of a party and therefore affect the enforceability of certain terms in a development agreement that might limit those rights. These comments were made in light of some public comments that a developer of a project in Los Gatos, known as the Los Gatos Grosvenor Project, that some members of the public have asserted was the subject of a development agreement, was subsequently able to avoid being held to the development parameters (including density) previously agreed to.

At the outset, in conducting independent research and speaking with the Los Gatos Town Attorney, staff has confirmed that there was not a prior development agreement, nor is there currently any such existing development agreement, for the Grosvenor Project. Second, the Grosvenor Project is referring to the “North 40 Specific Plan” that was previously proposed by Grosvenor and approved by the Town. This is a legislative approval creating a specific plan to govern future development. There was no development agreement involved with this legislative approval, and thus, there were no issues regarding the developer being relieved from any contractual obligations under a development agreement.

For additional context, staff’s understanding of the facts based on the foregoing is as follows: the Los Gatos Grosvenor Project involved legislative approval creating a specific plan to govern future development. There was no development agreement involved with this legislative approval.

Subsequently, Grosvenor proposed a smaller residential development project, which Los Gatos ultimately denied on the basis that it was not consistent with that North 40 Specific Plan and the general plan. The developer then filed lawsuit against the town of Los Gatos and prevailed on the litigation on a different reason- in essence, the court in that case determined that Los Gatos did not comply with the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) which requires jurisdictions to rely on objective standards and requirements to review and deny (by making required findings) housing development projects. The court determined that Los Gatos did not adhere to this requirement to rely on objective standards under the Specific Plan to review the project and make applicable written findings if it were to deny the project, as required by the HAA. Thus, there is no development agreement or vesting issues implicated; the matter is more appropriately characterized as a city needing to comply with the HAA, rather than the developer being relieved from certain contractual obligations under the DA.

Page 547 of 611 ends

Los Altos Hills City CouncilJanuary 30, 2025

Los Altos Hills City Council
January 30, 2025