Staff Report to the City Council Page 10
Twin Oaks Key Terms Agreement
January 30, 2025
In this instance, however, if the Parties successfully negotiate, and subject to approval by the Council, a development agreement would be executed between the Town and Sea Landing/Draco Nest and be binding upon the parties. For the reasons set forth below, the terms in the proposed development agreement would in fact be enforceable, pursuant to state law, and in consistency with federal and state constitutional protections for development agreements. The following section discusses the legal authority related to development agreements and the enforceability of development agreements.
Statutory Authority for Development Agreements
The Legislature enacted the Development Agreement Law2 in 1979 to provide additional opportunities for vested rights (i.e. the ability to construct a project consistent with the agreed upon provisions of the development agreement including the applicable laws as of the date of the development agreement even if the laws subsequently change). Development agreements have statutory source and authority; they allow developers to negotiate with cities and counties to obtain vested rights by contract. The Development Agreement Law gives parties a broad range of flexibility to negotiate terms of development agreements; courts have historically viewed this set of statutes as something that should be liberally constructed as long as the agreement reached substantially complies with statutory specific terms and conditions and achieve essential objectives. 3
Specifically, the only terms required by law to be in a development agreement are (1) the duration of the agreement; (2) permitted uses of the property; (3) the density or intensity of use; (4) the maximum height and size of proposed buildings; and (5) provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes. Aside from these requirements, the statute enables parties to be flexible and agree to varying provisions, including the establishment4 and limitation of rights, as long as the provisions substantially comply with the foregoing statutory requirements.
In particular, while Development Agreement Law provides general guidance regarding certain requirements for development agreement provisions5, it does not obligate the parties to maintain their rights when entering into a development agreement, including any rights provided by state law. In other words, parties may “give up” their rights including any statutory rights, in negotiating a development agreement and exchange/obtain vested rights and benefits. This point is well supported by case law establishing that a development agreement is valid even if the party contracting away its rights is the local government,6 as is partially the case here.
Likewise, the Development Agreement Law additionally allows for conditions, terms, restrictions and requirements for subsequent discretionary actions provided that they “shall not prevent development of the land for the uses and to the density or intensity of development set forth in the 2 Gov. Code Sections 65864-65869.5. 3 Santa Margarita Area Residents Together v. San Luis Obispo Cnty. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 221, 228; see also Nat'l Parks & Conservation Assn. v. Cnty. of Riverside (1996) 42 Cal.App.4th 1505, 1522. 4 N. Murrieta Cmty., LLC v. City of Murrieta (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 31, 35 (“The trial court held the development agreement established the parties’ rights … We agree with the trial court.”). 5 Gov. Code §65865.2.
6 See Santa Margarita Area Residents Together v. San Luis Obispo Cnty. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 221, 232, wherein the court of appeal distinguished the county’s freeze on zoning before a project was ready for construction was not the county contracting away its right to exercise police power in the future.
Staff Report to the City Council Page 11
Twin Oaks Key Terms Agreement
January 30, 2025
agreement.”7
Therefore, limitation of parties’ rights provided by state law is permissible as long as it does not prohibit the developer from carrying out the project covered by the development agreement. This requirement serves to protect the vested rights negotiated by the parties and conferred upon the developer by the development agreement but also preserves discretionary authority of the public entity subsequent to the development agreement as long as the discretionary authority does not conflict with the vested development rights.
Applied here, since (1) the proposed development agreement at issue, that would be considered by the Planning Commission and then the City Council in late 2025 and early 2026, would conform to the basic statutory requirements, (2) case law supports either party contracting away its rights, including if one of the parties is the local government, and (3) the proposed development agreement would contain terms to protect vested rights and provide that exercise of subsequent discretionary action would not prevent the project under the agreement, this proposed Development Agreement with Sea Landing and Draco Nest, upon approval by the parties and the City Council, would in fact be enforceable against all parties, pursuant to state law.
Constitutional Protections for Contracts
A development agreement is a legislative action as it is approved by ordinance and is subject to referendum. At the same time, a development agreement is a binding contract between the parties.
The right to contract is protected by the California Constitutional provision guaranteeing the rights to liberty and property, the federal due process clause of the 14th Amendment, and the federal Contract Clause which prohibits states from passing laws that impair the obligation of contracts.8 These protections prevent state laws from impairing contractual relationships between parties.
Courts have recognized that although a development agreement can be disapproved by referendum, an unchallenged development agreement is an enforceable contract between the municipality and the developer. 9
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City Council’s consideration and approval of the Key Terms Agreement is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) as CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment; it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the approval of the Agreement may have a significant effect on the environment.
Any subsequent development agreement, entitlements, project alternative approvals would be analyzed as a part of the Town’s draft EIR prepared for the multi-family rezoning project or would be separately analyzed under CEQA with the appropriate environmental review. 7 Gov. Code Section 65865.2.
8 13 Cal. Jur. 3d Constitutional Law § 210.
9 Mammoth Lakes Land Acquisition, LLC v. Town of Mammoth Lakes (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 435, 442, citing to Gov. Code § 65867.5(a), and explaining further that ”because the development agreement is approved by ordinance, it is subject to referendum, which allows the electorate to overturn approval of the agreement.(Ibid.) While, as a legislative act, a development agreement can be disapproved by referendum, an unchallenged development agreement is an enforceable contract between the municipality and the developer.”
Staff Report to the City Council Page 12
Twin Oaks Key Terms Agreement
January 30, 2025
FISCAL IMPACT
The execution of the Key Term agreement and associated Development Agreement will take time from our contract City Attorney. Depending on whether litigation is filled and defended the legal fees associated with this project up to and including the execution of the DA and potential defense of any and all litigation that comes as a result of said agreements will need to be considered and could result in several hundreds of thousands of dollars.
In addition to the legal fees the expanded scope of work for the Housing Element Amendment and associated environmental analysis will also be at an additional cost that would need to be scoped out. It is expected that it will cost less than the cost for the original Housing Element and EIR but will not be included within the existing scope of work to complete the Zoning Ordinance, Objective Design Standards and associated CEQA work.
The additional costs in issuing permits and project-related costs will be billed to the applicant. 2024 / 2025 CITY COUNCIL WORK PLAN
This work had not been considered as part of Work Plan and will have a considerable impact on staff capacity. It is not clear what projects will need to be delayed but staff will make every effort to keep our existing projects on track but will likely need to hire additional contract staff to help minimize the collateral impacts of other competing projects.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution Approving the Key Terms Agreement
2. Key Terms Agreement
5435626.1
Resolution ___ Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. _________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS
ALTOS HILLS APPROVING 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 RESIDENTIAL USE ON 17 ACRES OF APPROXIMATELY 40- ACRE PARCEL OWNED BY SEA LANDING, LP.
WHEREAS, 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; and WHEREAS, 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. 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 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; and
WHEREAS, 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
Resolution ___ Page 2
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; and
WHEREAS, 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 to the Key Terms Agreement, respectively (the “AI Farm”), and (iii) a 6’ tall solid galvanized metal perimeter fence (painted in a woodcolored tone) around the agricultural uses of on both Twin Oaks and adjacent 40-acre property; and
WHEREAS, the Key Terms Agreement contain additional provisions regarding the Town and Sea Landing/Draco Nest’s respective obligations as shown in Attachment 2 to the accompanying January 30, 2025 City Council staff report; and WHEREAS, the City Council’s consideration and approval of the Key Terms Agreement is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) as CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment; it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the approval of the Agreement may have a significant effect on the environment. Any subsequent development agreement, entitlements, project alternative approvals would be analyzed as a part of the Town’s draft EIR prepared for the multi-family rezoning project or would be separately analyzed under CEQA with the appropriate environmental review.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills hereby approves the Key Terms Agreement attached accompanying January 30, 2025 City Council staff report as Attachment 2 and incorporated herein by reference.
The above and foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills at a special meeting held on the ___ day of January, 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
BY: _______________________________
Kavita Tankha, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
Arika Birdsong-Miller, City Clerk
1 Key Terms Agreement – 1.24.25
This Key Terms Agreement, which includes presently non-binding but endorsed draft development agreement terms, (this “Key Terms Agreement” or “Agreement”) is between the Town of Los Altos Hills (the “Town”), Sea Landing LP, a Nevada limited partnership and its successors and assigns (“Sea Landing LP”), and Draco Nest, LLC, Inc., a California Limited Liability Corporation and its successors and assigns, (“Draco Nest”, and together with Sea Landing LP, “Sea Landing”), for a proposed development agreement in December 2025 or January 2026 for the property designated as APN 182-02-016 (the “Williamson Farm Property”) and APNs 182-02 017, 182-02-018, 182-02-019, 182-02-020, 182-02-021, and 182-02-022 (collectively, the “Twin Oaks Property”, and together with the Williamson Farm Property, the “Property”). Sea Landing and the Town are each sometimes referred to herein as a “Party” and collectively the “Parties”. The purpose of the development agreement is, in part, to help the Town address neighbor and community concerns regarding the Twin Oak Property’s permitted residential density under the 2023 Housing Element. Specifically, the neighbors’ legal counsel and third-party consultants have asserted that the Housing Element permits at least 378 residential units on the Twin Oaks Property, which number does not consider potential use of the State Density Bonus Law.
To address the community’s concern that the density permitted under the 2023 Housing Element is not compatible with the existing character of Los Altos Hills, the Parties are seeking to facilitate a development agreement that would permit Sea Landing to construct (i) a two-story, 77-unit residential project (with potential maximum density bonus equal to 50% of the 77 units) 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 Williamson Farm Property, 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 Williamson Farm Property and the portion of the Twin Oaks Property used for the AI Farm, as shown on Exhibit C1 and which complies with the Town setback requirement set forth in LAHMC Section 10-
1.507(f)(5)(iii) for any portion of the fence that is adjacent to a public or private road ((i), (ii), and (iii) being the “Project”).
By addressing the community’s concern regarding the density permitted on the Twin Oaks Property under the 2023 Housing Element, the Town acknowledges that it is receiving a material benefit through execution of this Agreement and the development agreement. It is of the utmost importance to the Parties that the Project can be completed in a manner that preserves the agricultural character of the Town while also providing the minimum amount of housing that would allow the Town to meet its state mandated housing goals. Therefore, if litigation, as discussed in this Agreement, significantly delays implementation of the Project under the 1 All or a portion of the fencing may be approved prior to the proposed development agreement, as further described herein.
2 development agreement beyond the time frames set forth in this Agreement, in a manner that frustrates the good faith negotiations and intentions of the Parties, Sea Landing shall have the right to construct more housing than what is currently contemplated under the Project as those rights are set forth later in this Agreement. Further, the Parties intend for the benefits of this Agreement to accrue to each party in the near term, with the Town immediately receiving Sea Landing’s commitment not to file a SB-330 application, and, in exchange, the Town agreeing to immediately process the permits and other required authorizations listed on Exhibit D for all the activities described on Exhibit D and the permitted activities listed in Exhibit E. The Town acknowledges that Sea Landing would be deprived of a major benefit of this Agreement if it is unable to construct these improvements listed in Exhibit D and the activities listed in Exhibit E, and the Parties have accordingly drafted this agreement to maintain the benefit of the bargain to Sea Landing if a lawsuit is filed challenging the actions authorized in Exhibits D and E and if a court determination invalidates the initial permits for fencing and other improvements to the Property as set forth in Exhibits D and E.
Sea Landing and the Town will execute this Agreement in January 2025 pursuant to which the Town will (i) make a non-binding endorsement of certain key terms of the development agreement, (ii) within sixty (60) calendar days, consider and take necessary actions to abandon and record within thirty (30) calendar days thereafter the Town’s proposed easements shown on Exhibit C2 (the “Easement Abandonment”), (iii) agree to support Sea Landing’s efforts to vacate any non-Town public utility easements, (iv) confirm in writing prior to execution of this Agreement those activities described on Exhibit E that require no further permits or approvals from the Town and that Sea Landing may immediately, upon approval and execution of the Agreement, commence work on such activities (the “Authorized Work”), and (v) agree to, within ninety (90) calendar days of this Agreement, consider and take action on the permits and other required authorizations listed on Exhibit D for all the activities described on Exhibit D (the activities described on Exhibit D being the “Farm Improvements” and the authorization of the Farm Improvements being the “Farm Improvement Authorization”). The timelines for the Town 2 All Town easements on the property would be abandoned, except the existing Fran Pathway but limited to its existing 10-foot width. In addition, Sea Landing would agree to create a new 10-foot wide public access easement commencing at the northeastern corner of Lot 1, continuing easterly along the northern boundary of Twin Oaks adjacent to the properties known as the Saddle Mountain Drive homes, and to the northeastern corner of Twin Oaks, except as such easement would conflict with any existing private agreements between Sea Landing and its neighbors. For avoidance of doubt, the existing easement in the foregoing location would be abandoned. The Town shall maintain and accept liability and maintenance responsibility for the existing, remaining, and proposed easement areas, including any liability caused by use of the existing, remaining and proposed easements by the public or neighbors. Sea Landing will agree to the proposed new easement so long as they would be effective only upon the expiration of any existing private agreements between Sea Landing and its neighbors.
3 to complete the Easement Abandonment and the Farm Improvement Authorization set forth above shall be extended as reasonably necessary (but in no event for more than thirty (30) calendar days) in the event of any natural disasters, acts of terrorism, or other non-economic occurrences outside of the Town’s reasonable control that prevent the Town from conducting any hearings or granting any approvals required to effectuate the Easement Abandonment and Farm Improvement Authorization.
The Parties agree that within fifteen (15) days of the approval of the Key Terms Agreement, the Parties will meet and confer regarding application submission requirements for the items listed in Exhibit D and may agree that certain items in Exhibit D will become requirements of the development agreement rather than be subject to the 90 day timeline set forth above.
Upon execution of this Agreement, which the Parties agree shall occur no later than January 31, 2025 assuming this Agreement is approved by the City Council on January 30, 2025, Sea Landing agrees that Sea Landing (and any successor in interest) shall not file a SB-330 application (under Gov. Code section 65941.1) 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 of the development agreement and recordation thereof, unless the Town (a) commences a formal administrative (including a staff directive) or legislative process that would effectuate an outcome that conflicts with or differs from the key terms below except as set forth in the next paragraph, or (b) is in default under the Key Terms Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, and by way of example, the Town shall be in default under this Agreement if it (x) imposes further permit or approval requirements for the Authorized Work, or (y) imposes further permit (including building permit) or other approval requirements on the Farm Improvements other than those requirements listed on Exhibit D, or otherwise seeks to delay or prohibit Sea Landing’s commencement of the Authorized Work or, after the Farm Improvement Authorization, construction of the Farm Improvements.
The Parties agree that the Town may introduce legislation to amend the 2023 Housing Element to limit designation of multi-family zoning to a maximum of four acres of the Twin Oaks Property, but only after the Town completes the Easement Abandonment and Farm Improvement Authorization to the reasonable satisfaction of Sea Landing. The Parties further agree that the Town may commence CEQA review of such potential 2023 Housing Element amendment prior to its performance of the Easement Abandonment and Farm Improvement Authorization. Such 2023 Housing Element amendment shall not be effective in relation to the Twin Oaks Property earlier than ninety (90) calendar days after the development agreement has been approved, executed, and recorded against the Twin Oaks Property, however the Parties agree that the development agreement terms shall be operative during such ninety (90) day period. The Parties agree that this timeline for the effective date of the 2023 Housing Element amendment shall be tolled with respect to the Twin Oaks Property if litigation is filed challenging the approval of this Agreement, the Easement Abandonment, the Authorized Work, the Farm Improvement Authorization, the development agreement, associated CEQA review, or any permits effectuating
4 Sea Landing’s rights under the development agreement that are issued in conjunction with execution of the development agreement. During any such tolling period, the Parties agree that the prohibition on Sea Landing (or any successor in interest to Sea Landing) filing an SB-330 application or any other development application to develop more than 77 residential units on the Twin Oaks Property shall continue to apply, except if the 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 which case the effective date of the Housing Element amendment will be tolled for ninety (90) calendar days with respect to the Twin Oaks Property following such invalidation and Sea Landing shall have the right during this period to file a SB330 application (under Gov. Code section 65941.1) to develop more than 77 units residential units on the Twin Oaks Property.
In the event that only the CEQA approval is invalidated, the Parties shall, within 45 calendar days of the issuance of the court determination, commence and complete a meet and confer process in which the Parties will identify and agree upon (which such agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld by either Party) appropriate next steps to remedy the CEQA noncompliance set forth in the court order invalidating the CEQA approval. Thereafter, the City will have a maximum of 320 calendar days to remedy the CEQA non-compliance, conduct any required hearings, certify the modified CEQA document including making all required findings, and consider take action again to approve the development agreement. The effective date of the 2023 Housing Element amendment shall be tolled with respect to the Twin Oaks Property for 455 calendar days following the court’s invalidation of the CEQA approval. If the Town fails to complete the actions set forth in the first two sentences of this paragraph within 365 calendar days of issuance of a court decision invalidating the initial CEQA approval (i.e., Certification of the EIR), or if a second lawsuit is filed challenging the second CEQA approval described in the prior two sentences, Sea Landing reserves its right to file a SB 330 application or other development application to develop more than 77 residential units on the Twin Oaks Property.
During the maximum 365 day time period referenced above for the Town to meet and confer and the remedy the CEQA non-compliance, the prohibition on Sea Landing (or its successors) filing a SB-330 application or any other development application to develop more than 77 residential units on the Twin Oaks Property shall continue to apply. The Town shall be responsible for all costs associated with remedying the CEQA non-compliance. For the avoidance of doubt, if the Town ultimately approves a development agreement that is inconsistent with the key terms below, Sea Landing may refuse to execute such development agreement and, within ninety (90) calendar days of such approval, file a SB-330 application (under Gov. Code section 65941.1) or any other development application to develop more than 77 residential units on the Twin Oaks Property.
The Town staff will advise Sea Landing in advance at any time prior to January 24, 2025 that the Town staff discusses the terms in this Agreement with anyone person other than the City Council or Town staff. The Town will also consider, prior to or concurrent with the approval of the
5 development agreement an agricultural permit exemption ordinance applicable to agricultural uses only on parcels in excess of five acres. If such an ordinance is adopted the Town will include the agricultural permit exemption in the development agreement as an existing law to which the agricultural use of the property will apply.
The Town shall be the sponsor of the implementation of this Agreement, including the processing of the development agreement and associated CEQA analysis. Sea Landing shall have no responsibility to make presentations at or participate in public hearings to support such implementation or the approval of the development agreement. The Town shall explain and advocate for implementation of this Agreement during public hearings and undertake such actions as may be reasonably necessary to implement the Agreement. The Parties shall cooperate with each other, including submission of any required application materials on a timely basis, and act in good faith in complying with the provisions of this Agreement. If a lawsuit is filed challenging this Agreement, the Easement Abandonment, the Authorized Work, or the Farm Improvement Authorization, the development agreement shall additionally provide vested rights to Sea Landing to construct seventeen (17) single family homes on a 17-acre portion of the Williamson Farm Property adjacent to Elena Road and farm related improvements on the remaining portion of the Williamson Farm Property, as shown on Exhibit F (the “Alternate Farm Project”). If a plaintiff or petitioner prevails in lawsuit challenging this Agreement, the Easement Abandonment, the Authorized Work, or the Farm Improvement Authorization (including after approval, execution and recordation of the development agreement), then the development agreement shall additionally provide vested rights to Sea Landing to construct (i) the Alternate Farm Project, and (ii) 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, as shown on Exhibit G (the “Alternate Twin Oaks Projects”, and together with the Alternate Farm Project, the “Project Alternative”).
This 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) and that any such approval can only occur following adequate CEQA review. Through this Key Terms Agreement, the Town shall make a non-binding endorsement of the following development agreement terms:
1. Proposed development agreement term of 30 years.
2. Sea Landing’s 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 development agreement (a portion of which plans will also be attached to the Key Terms Agreement). Sea Landing will not be required to submit any additional applications for entitlements or approvals other than building permits to commence construction of the Project after approval of the development agreement.
3. Sea Landing will not be obligated to a specific development timeline and performance standards for development of the Project.
6 4. The Town shall agree not to impose any additional public access easements on the Property during the term of the development agreement, unless Sea Landing or its successor in interest proceeds with the Project Alternative.
5. The Town will proceed with the proposed multi-family rezoning for the Twin Oaks Property to conform with the permitted density under the 2023 Housing Element and this Agreement (the “Proposed Rezoning”). The parties agree that, subject to Sea Landing’s potential vested right to proceed with all or a portion of the Project Alternative, the development agreement will approve an overlay zoning district for the Twin Oaks Property that will (i) limit residential density on the Twin Oaks Property to 77 units (excluding (a) any residential units permitted under the 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 identified in (i) calculated consistent with affordability requirement thresholds set forth in State Density Bonus Law), and (ii) permit the AI Farm uses. The Town may introduce and process legislation to amend the 2023 Housing Element to limit designation of multi-family zoning to a maximum of four acres of Twin Oaks site, subject to the limitations of this Agreement and the Key Terms Agreement. The Development Agreement shall establish inclusionary housing obligations that require no more on-site affordable units than required to obtain a 50% state density bonus, and Sea Landing shall have the sole discretion to determine at what affordability levels it places the on-site affordable units to obtain the 50% state density bonus (so long as it complies with the state law requirements).
a. Alternately, if the Parties determine that the multi-family rezoning would permit the uses proposed by the Project at the Twin Oaks Property, Sea Landing (or any successor in interest) will agree to enter into a restrictive covenant or easement to limit the Twin Oaks Property to the residential density described in Section 5(i) above.
6. If requested by Sea Landing, the Town will support a Williamson Act Contract or federal farm conservation easement for the Twin Oaks Property and/or the Williamson Farm Property.
7. The Town will proceed with the current EIR under development for the Proposed Rezoning and will ensure that the current EIR also covers the Project as described in Exhibits A, B, and C and the Project Alternative described on Exhibits F and G. Sea Landing will be responsible for the allocated costs associated with increasing the scope of the EIR and modifying the objective design standards to encompass the Project and Project Alternative.
8. The development agreement will contain standard vested rights, indemnification, and mortgagee protection provisions. However, Sea Landing will not be obligated to indemnify the Town for any costs related to litigation challenging this Agreement, the Easement Abandonment, the Authorized Work, the Farm Improvement Authorization, the development agreement or EIR.
The vested rights provisions will require, among other things, that the Town will agree not to apply laws adopted by the Town (and not as required by state or federal law) after the execution of the development agreement that would conflict with, delay, materially increase the
7 construction costs of, or impede development of the Project, limit the type or price of housing proposed by the Project (except as generally required by Code for housing located in the RA and multi-family zoning districts), or limit the availability of infrastructure to the Project. The Parties agree that the reference to not limiting availability of infrastructure shall not be interpreted as prohibiting the Town from charging Sea Landing for such infrastructure in the same manner as charged to other property owners.
9. The term of the development agreement will be tolled by any litigation challenging the City’s approval of the multi-family rezoning, development agreement, or associated CEQA review.
10. The development agreement shall also provide for the following:
a. If a lawsuit challenging this Agreement, the Easement Abandonment, the Authorized Work, or the Farm Improvement Authorization is upheld (i.e. the plaintiff or petitioner prevails) before or after approval, execution, and recordation of the development agreement, then Sea Landing shall additionally have the vested right to construct the Alternate Farm Project and the Alternate Twin Oaks Project.
b. If a lawsuit is filed challenging the development agreement, associated CEQA review, or any permits arising from Sea Landing’s rights under the development agreement (and the development agreement, associated CEQA review and permits are eventually upheld – i.e. the Town prevails in the lawsuit), Sea Landing shall additionally have vested rights to construct the Alternate Farm Project.
The Parties’ rights and obligations with respect to the Project Alternative shall be the same as those set forth for the Project in Sections 1-9.
Town of Los Altos Hills, a municipal corporation
By: _________________________________
Sea Landing, LP, a Nevada Limited Partnership
By: __________________________________
Draco Nest, LLC, a California Limited Liability Corporation By: _______________________________
Exhibit A
AI Farm Improvements on Twin Oaks Property
[attached]
Exhibit B
AI Farm Improvements on Williamson Farm Property
[attached]
Exhibit C
Fencing and Easements to be Removed
[attached]
Exhibit D
[see attached]
8 EXHIBIT D
FARM IMPROVEMENT AUTHORIZATION TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE THE
TOWN INTRODUCES LEGISLATION TO AMEND THE HOUSING ELEMENT
1. Agricultural Preparation: Leveling, reaping, grading (with no more than a 4-foot cut and 3-foot fill).
2. Annual Shrub and Weed Removal: Regular weeding, shrub clearing, and chipping of dry, dead trees or branches to provide ground cover to equipment access paths for compliance with the Town’s weed abatement program.
3. Tree Removal: Removal of the eucalyptus trees as shown in Exhibit D1.6.
The Farm Improvement Authorization shall also include the following for the Williamson Farm Property and Twin Oaks Property:
Williamson Farm Property
1. Approval of 6’ galvanized metal Solid Fence and Gate Permits:
o For Williamson Farm Property, as shown on Exhibit D1).
2. Approval of Two Well Building Permits:
o For constructing well structures (Exhibit D1.1), truck and equipment access roads, and water facilities.
3. Approval of Truck and Equipment Access for:
o Fencing Installation: Planting three layers of large trees for screening (Exhibit D1.1) and repairing the existing permitted fence. A new solid fence will be attached to the existing or repaired fence.
o Fence Post Installation: Digging 2-foot-deep holes to install galvanized fence posts set in cement (Exhibit D1.1).
o Sprinkler/Drip Irrigation Systems: Installation along private equipment access paths (Exhibit D1.1).
o Recycled Water System: Installation for the fishpond and cannery, including electrical and water lines (Exhibit D1.1).
o Water Recycling Structures and Piping: For TO site operations (Exhibit D1,1). o Weeding Access Paths: Mandatory clearing to allow shrub reaping and ground leveling, maintaining a 100-foot clearance from the perimeter and creating equipment access paths.
9 o Relocation of Trees: Relocate trees under 12 inches in diameter to the property’s perimeter to provide natural screening for the farm.
Twin Oaks Property
1. Approval of 6’ galvanized metal Solid Fence and Gate Permits:
o For Twin Oaks as shown on Exhibit D2.1.3
2. Approval of Additional Structures (per Exhibit D2.2):
o One or more combined galvanized metal manufacturing storage units not to exceed one-story and a total area of 20,000 square feet, as depicted as figure(s) D2.21 on Exhibit D2.2.
o A Primary Farm House consisting of one or more structures, including a pool, car garage, sunroom, conservatory garden, and pickleball court , which structures shall not exceed two-stories and a total area of 22,250 square feet, as depicted as “Primary Farm House (Williamson Act)” on Exhibit D2.2.
o One or more combined galvanized metal or steel frame conservatory structures, not to exceed two-stories and a total area of 20,000 square feet, as depicted as “Crystal Palace Conservatory Botanical Garden” on Exhibit D2.2.
o One or more combined galvanized metal or steel frame barn houses not to exceed one-story and a total area of 22,250 square feet, as depicted as figure D2.24 on Exhibit D2.2.
All structures described in Section 2 above will be built to a core and shell level. All plumbing fixtures, electrical, and septic systems will be included in the development agreement. 3 The exact location of interior fencing on the Twin Oaks Property subject to minor modifications.
Exhibit D1
[see attached]
Exhibit D1.1
[To Be Distributed on Monday]
Exhibit D2.1
Fencing for Twin Oaks Property
Exhibit D2.2
Approval of Additional Structures on Twin Oaks
Property
[Exhibit to Be Distributed on Monday]
Exhibit E
Authorized Work
[Exhibit to Be Distributed on Monday]
11 Exhibit F
Alternate Farm Project
12 Exhibit G
Alternate Twin Oaks Project
1 Arika Miller
From: Michael Grady
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 2:57 PM
To: Planning Commission; City Council
Cc: John O'Connell; LanVi Le & Mike Evans Neighbors; Martha Bowden; Hari Sankar; lu; Dru Anderson; Timothy Schreiner; Eric Bredo; Chris Hanzo; Marjorie Lee; Sharon Dally; KK SL; ; Robert Hughes; R. K. Anand; Stephen Chan; Yafei Bi;
; Phyllis Young; anne smith; ;
Tara; Ian Earnest; Tim Chown; Anne S. Kiremidjian;
Jennifer Basiji; J Huang; George
Perlegos; Peter Perlegos;
Subject: Critical Meetings this week re Twin Oaks development True to form, Town Manager Pirnejad and Town Attorney Mattas are, like cheap car salesmen, once again trying to rush the Council into approving an ill considered deal that they put together with the Twin Oaks attorneys behind closed doors without input from Town residents (the terms of this proposal state that if the Council doesn’t agree to it by Jan. 31, the deal is off). This is exactly the same kind of secret, rushed process which resulted in the detrimental Housing Element.
The interesting thing is that this proposal from Mattas and Pirnejad, provides for amending the Housing Element. Thus these men, who planted the time bomb in the original Housing Element, finally are admitting that the Housing Element which they foisted on the Council and Town is in fact dangerously defective and needs to be amended. The problem is that instead of simply fixing their mistake in the original Housing Element, their latest proposed deal offers a "cure" which is poisonous to our Town.
Look carefully at the plans shown on the exhibits to the proposal which Pirnejad & Mattas recommend that the Council approve. You will see that the Twin Oaks owners ask the Town to approve pouring tons of concrete over pretty much the entire Twin Oaks property. It is highly inappropriate to install 15’ wide concrete roadways all across and around the steep hillsides of our Town (a standard dump truck is 8.5’ wide). Look carefully at the plans. The speckled areas denoting where concrete is to be installed is not only in these 15' wide roadway areas, but actually covers most of the Twin Oaks property. The plans show about 58% of the property would be impermeable concrete, asphalt or buildings, with only about 23% of the area actually devoted to "farming." (Even apart from the adverse impact this proposal would have on the hillside, visually and creating a risk of landslides, do we have the spare water needed to sustain the proposed farming operations?)
Another problem with this latest bad proposal by Pirnejad and Mattas is that it links the poisonous "cure" to the Twin Oaks time bomb to development on the adjacent 40 acre Fenwick property. This horrible "deal" which they would have the Council accept would ITEM 10A, Supplement 1
2 require the Town to relinquish its existing open space and pathway easements and approve inappropriate development plans on the 40 acres, including, for example, more concrete roadways and a “fish farm” and dam on the northern portion of the 40 acres which is currently heavily wooded with Heritage Oaks and Buckeye trees.
Bottom line, while there are aspects of this deal which are a step forward (a cap on the number of residential units, as well as the residential buildings being only two stories and built on the lower portions of the Twin Oaks property) and while the concept of an orchard or farm on the upper portions of Twin Oaks is interesting (provided there are no greenhouse buildings permitted, and if it can be established that there is sufficient water available to sustain a farming operation), the specific proposal being proposed, on a rushed, “take it or the deal goes away on Jan. 31” basis, should be rejected.
We urge you and your LAH friends and neighbors to attend the Monday Planning Commission “study session” as well as the Jan. 30 Council meeting and voice your opposition to this proposal. (The study session will allow residents to provide detailed feedback on all aspects of the proposal, including suggested changes, whereas at the Council meeting we will each be limited to our typical two or three minutes of comment.)
1 Arika Miller
From: jim basiji
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 10:11 AM
To: City Council; Jennifer Basiji
Subject: Fwd: Critical Meetings this week re Twin Oaks development Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Honorable Los Altos Hills Council members,
Based on my informal reach out, Mr. Grady’s message below has the support of pretty much the full neighborhood. I know that this problem is quite complex and does not lend itself to a easy answers, but please be reminds of another hugely problematic situation namely “ the Linebarger” project that our town and the Council faced about eight years ago. The project had similar neighborhood opposition to the Twin Oaks development. And with courage and resolve, our Council at the time stood by the Mora Drive neighbors on multiple occasions to soundly rejected that development. Our Saddle Mountain and the Lower Page Mill residents that will be subjected to the very serious ill effects of the Twin Oaks development deserve similar consideration by our present Council.
Respectfully,
Jim and Jennifer Basiji
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Michael Grady
Date: Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 2:57 PM
Subject: Critical Meetings this week re Twin Oaks development To: Planning Commission <[email protected]>, City Council <[email protected]>
CC: John O'Connell , LanVi Le & Mike Evans Neighbors
Martha Bowden >, Hari Sankar , lu
, Dru Anderson , Timothy Schreiner
>, Eric Bredo , Chris Hanzo
Marjorie Lee , Sharon Dally < , KK SL
, >, Robert Hughes >, R. K.
Anand >, Stephen Chan < >, Yafei Bi
Phyllis Young
, anne smith
Tara , Ian Earnest
Tim Chown , Anne S. Kiremidjian
Jennifer Basiji J Huang >,
George Perlegos >, Peter Perlegos ,
ITEM 10A, Supplement 2
2 True to form, Town Manager Pirnejad and Town Attorney Mattas are, like cheap car salesmen, once again trying to rush the Council into approving an ill considered deal that they put together with the Twin Oaks attorneys behind closed doors without input from Town residents (the terms of this proposal state that if the Council doesn’t agree to it by Jan. 31, the deal is off). This is exactly the same kind of secret, rushed process which resulted in the detrimental Housing Element.
The interesting thing is that this proposal from Mattas and Pirnejad, provides for amending the Housing Element. Thus these men, who planted the time bomb in the original Housing Element, finally are admitting that the Housing Element which they foisted on the Council and Town is in fact dangerously defective and needs to be amended. The problem is that instead of simply fixing their mistake in the original Housing Element, their latest proposed deal offers a "cure" which is poisonous to our Town.
Look carefully at the plans shown on the exhibits to the proposal which Pirnejad & Mattas recommend that the Council approve. You will see that the Twin Oaks owners ask the Town to approve pouring tons of concrete over pretty much the entire Twin Oaks property. It is highly inappropriate to install 15’ wide concrete roadways all across and around the steep hillsides of our Town (a standard dump truck is 8.5’ wide). Look carefully at the plans. The speckled areas denoting where concrete is to be installed is not only in these 15' wide roadway areas, but actually covers most of the Twin Oaks property. The plans show about 58% of the property would be impermeable concrete, asphalt or buildings, with only about 23% of the area actually devoted to "farming." (Even apart from the adverse impact this proposal would have on the hillside, visually and creating a risk of landslides, do we have the spare water needed to sustain the proposed farming operations?)
Another problem with this latest bad proposal by Pirnejad and Mattas is that it links the poisonous "cure" to the Twin Oaks time bomb to development on the adjacent 40 acre Fenwick property. This horrible "deal" which they would have the Council accept would require the Town to relinquish its existing open space and pathway easements and approve inappropriate development plans on the 40 acres, including, for example, more concrete roadways and a “fish farm” and dam on the northern portion of the 40 acres which is currently heavily wooded with Heritage Oaks and Buckeye trees.
Bottom line, while there are aspects of this deal which are a step forward (a cap on the number of residential units, as well as the residential buildings being only two stories and built on the lower portions of the Twin Oaks property) and while the concept of an orchard or farm on the upper portions of Twin Oaks is interesting (provided there are no greenhouse buildings permitted, and if it can be established that there is sufficient water available to sustain a farming operation), the specific proposal being proposed, on a rushed, “take it or the deal goes away on Jan. 31” basis, should be rejected.
3 We urge you and your LAH friends and neighbors to attend the Monday Planning Commission “study session” as well as the Jan. 30 Council meeting and voice your opposition to this proposal. (The study session will allow residents to provide detailed feedback on all aspects of the proposal, including suggested changes, whereas at the Council meeting we will each be limited to our typical two or three minutes of comment.)
2 I understand how Town representatives would feel defensive in the face of a possible SB30 suite. However, it also seems that the developer is using this fear to force through a proposal that should, as constructed, simply be rejected.
As far as I can tell there are three alternatives to consider: 1) Approve the AI Farm and its associated elements; 2) Deny the AI Farm and get further development on the Fenwick property, as threatened by the developer; 3) Face an SB30 suit, as threatened by the developer; 4) Amend the current Housing Element to attempt to meet State requirements in a different way.
I would find it more helpful if the Council and Staff compared the value of these courses of action before getting into the weeds regarding every legal contingency. There’s a place for the latter but only after values associated with the larger choices have been clarified.
3. At this point I fail to see why we are not moving expeditiously to ammend the Housing Element.
There may be good reasons not to open this issue up but they remain obscure, aside from sheer defensiveness.
In other respects I see that the (renewed) Council and Staff are hearing public concerns on these issues and appreciate their responsiveness. This is a key moment for our Town and I hope we can preserve a greater sense of community democracy as well as make good decisions about the current issue.
Respectfully,
Eric Bredo
Los Altos Hills
2
2 Manager to ensure all his dealings completely represent the will of the people of Los Altos Hills and that our tax dollars are being properly spent on people who deserve it - so please do your job (thank you).
PROTECT Los Altos Hills
Our precious and beautiful town of Los Altos Hills was never intended to reflect the terrible terms of the "Key Terms Agreement," and my family, LAH neighbors and I are completely against it. Please vote against this deal tonight at the Jan. 30th meeting.
Thank you,
From a 50 year resident of Los Altos Hills on behalf of myself, family and many LAH neighbors. sense! Additionally, it is the job of Town Council to closely monitor and supervise the Town
ITEM 11A
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS January 30, 2025
Staff Report to the City Council
SUBJECT: RECEIVE COUNCIL DIRECTION ON THE TOWN’S
SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES – SPECIFICALLY
THE AGREEMENTS WITH FLOCK SAFTEY’S ALPR SYSTEM AND
PALAMERICAN PRIVATE SECURITY PATROLS
FROM: Cody Einfalt, Deputy City Manager
APPROVED: Peter Pirnejad, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council should:
Provide staff direction on the ALPR system with Flock Safety and the Private Security Patrols with PalAmerican agreements.
Options for ALPR system:
- Decrease the number of cameras, or
- Keep the same number of cameras and appropriate additional funds to cover cost; or - Eliminate the service
Options for Private Security Patrols:
- Reduce the number of patrols taking place each day in Town; or - Keep the same number of patrols and appropriate additional funds to cover cost; or - Eliminate the service
Staff will return at the February City Council meeting with corresponding resolutions reflecting the Council motion that is passed this evening.
BACKGROUND:
In response to residential burglaries that have occurred in Town over the last several years, the Town enacted the following approach to supplement the base law enforcement services from the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office to help curb the rate of events:
- Allotted $200,000 for overtime hours through the Santa Clara County Sheriff for FY 24-
25. These hours can be used for patrol services or investigative services. Overtime hours are particularly targeted for holidays when residents may be traveling. - Installed 40 ALPR (Automatic License Plate Reader Cameras) throughout Town. - Hired private security to patrol Town streets 7 days a week to supplement Sheriff’s patrols. - Launched a public education campaign and supported the formation of additional Neighborhood Watch groups throughout Town.
Staff Report to City Council
Public Safety Discussion
January 30, 2025
2 The combination of these supplemental services alongside the hours dedicated to the Town through the law enforcement agreement with the Santa Clara County Office of the Sheriff has contributed toward the reduction in residential burglaries in Town.
A note about the overtime hours from the Sheriff’s Office. The City Council approved $200,000 for overtime hours from the Sheriff’s Office as a part of the FY23-24 operating budget. It was determined that this was a better use of public funds than onboarding one additional full-time deputy at over $500,000. However, overtime hours are voluntarily filled by Deputies of the Sheriff’s Office, meaning only when officers are available and agree to work are these open overtime shifts filled in the Town.
It has been known for some time that the Sheriff's Office has been experiencing a drop in the number of officers they have on hand. Making this situation more difficult is the fact that the Sheriff’s Office was forced to require mandatory overtime hours for their Courts/Jail Division for several months at the beginning of the 2024 calendar year. This in-house overtime requirement took away any potential officers looking for more work in Los Altos Hills.
This shortage of officers accepting overtime in the hills can be seen January – April 2024:
For comparison, below is a chart showing overtime usage in 2023.
As shown above, the number of overtime hours received from the Sheriff decreased in 2024 as compared to 2023.
The number of residential burglaries for 2024 have fallen from 2022 and 2023 when the Town experienced a spike in activity. The number of occurrences of residential burglaries in 2024 are at levels last seen in 2018, and technically are at the lowest since 2016, as shown in clippings of charts below from the Sheriff’s Office monthly reports. All these reports are available in an archive on the Town’s website.
Staff Report to City Council
Public Safety Discussion
January 30, 2025
3 In the last 5 years, the average burglary rate in Town was roughly 37 per year. Looking at the last 10 years, the average rate of residential burglary was 29 per year. Meaning, the rate of residential burglaries in Town for 2024 has currently decreased to below a 10-year average (2024 had 20 events)
Given this reduction, Town staff is recommending a discussion take place on two of the contracts within the Town’s public safety efforts -- the agreement with Flock for ALPRs and the private security contract with PalAmerican. Both agreements need contract extensions and altered terms, or termination, which would need Council direction to implement.
DISCUSSION:
ALPR Contract with Flock Safety
In April 2021, the Town entered into a contract with Flock Safety for the installation and maintenance of 40 ALPR cameras throughout Town. The initial term of the contract was 12 months with a renewal period of 24 months. The current term of the contract is set to expire March 31, 2025.
Recently, Town staff was notified that Flock Safety intends to increase the annual cost of the cameras at the next renewal date for the Town – April 1, 2025. Under the current contract, the cameras cost $2,500/camera (or $100,000 annually for 40 cameras), however Flock has raised the price per camera to $3,000/camera (or $120,000 annually for 40 cameras) should the Town renewal the agreement.
For the current budget cycle (FY24-25), staff only budgeted $100,000 for this contract.
Given this price change, Staff began working with the Technology Committee to review the Town’s ALPR system. At the December 11, 2024 Technology Committee meeting the Committee passed a motion to recommend reducing the Town’s ALPR system down by nine cameras, from 40 to 31 (Attachment 1).
The Committee’s rationale behind reducing the ALPR cameras was to keep cameras at all entrances to Town but remove cameras that are entirely in the interior. That way, every entrance is still covered (with some very slight exceptions) so that no vehicle can come into Town without passing an ALPR. There are nine cameras that fit this description.
Staff Report to City Council
Public Safety Discussion
January 30, 2025
4 Below is a table of information compiled by the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office indicated the number of times detectives have used the Town’s ALPR system in responding to incidents.
Los Altos
Hills
ALPR
Productivity
Stolen Vehicles
Located/Recovered
Stolen License
Plates
Located/Recovered
Suspects
Arrested
Wanted Vehicles
Located Warrants Served
2022 2 2 7 3 10
2023 3 3 3 1 0
2024 2 2 2 0 0
Since its installation in Town, the ALPR system has assisted the Sheriff’s Office twice in solving residential burglary cases post event.
Event #: 23-299-0134L – LAH ALPR camera used to identify a suspect vehicle that was used in a Los Altos Hills residential burglary. Two out of the three suspects were arrested and identified by Orinda Police Dept. while committing a residential burglary in their city several weeks later.
Event #: 24-164-0070L – LAH ALPR camera captured a stolen pickup truck that was used in a residential construction site burglary. The stolen truck was recovered; however, it was abandoned and returned to the rightful owner.
It is important to remember that the footage from the ALPRs needs to be researched as part of an open investigation and often results in additional detective hours necessary to review the footage.
Below is an overview of the hours used by the Sheriff’s Office for investigative services, much of which comes from the reviewing of footage from the Town’s ALPR system.
Fiscal Year 2023-24
Fiscal Year 2022-23
Fiscal Year 2021-22
The Sheriff’s Office dedicated a large portion of hours in 2021 and 2022 to the Town’s ALPR system given the time needed for the cameras to be integrated into the processes of the Sheriff’s
Staff Report to City Council
Public Safety Discussion
January 30, 2025
5 Office and the training that was needed on the platform. Investigated hours dedicated to the ALPR system have tapered off in 2023 and 2024, but remain higher than what detectives were billing prior to the introduction of the system into the Town pre 2021.
Should the City Council move forward with the Technology Committee’s recommendation of reducing the number of ALPR cameras by nine cameras, from 40 to 31 (Attachment 1), the annual price to the Town would reduce to $93,000 per year and no additional funds would need to be appropriated. Staff would recommend a three-year agreement to lock in pricing.
On the other hand, should the City Council renew the Town’s lease for all 40 current ALPR cameras, the new contract amount would be $120,000. Therefore, the council would need to appropriate an additional $20,000 this fiscal year. Based on that direction staff would incorporate the remaining portion of the contract into the next budget cycle (FY 2024-25).
Separately, staff is researching an option to allow residents to privately fund ALPR cameras in their neighborhoods and have those cameras managed by the Sheriff’s Office. It is unclear at this time how much oversight the Sheriff’s Office could provide for privately funded cameras; however, staff will report back on this effort when more is known.
Private Security Contract with PalAmerican
In April of 2023 the Town entered into an agreement with PalAmerican (previously known as Genesis Safety) for private security patrols of the Town’s streets. The Town started with 2 shifts per day for 7 days a week.
In response to the uptick in residential burglaries in September 2023, the Town increased the number of patrols from 2 shifts a day to 4 shifts a day for 7 days a week, including holidays. The City Council took actions to expand the service level and during the budget process appropriated the funding for the enhanced private security detail through the end of FY 23-24. Patrol services have remained at 4 shifts a day, 7 days a week since September 2023.
Current PalAmerican private security patrol schedule:
6:30am – 3:00pm (1 patrol officer)
12:00pm – 8:30pm (2 patrol officers)
3:00pm – 11:30pm (1 patrol officer)
Although the council approved both the enhanced scope and allocated the funding, Town staff recently become aware that the private security contract was not renewed. The Town has been operating past the term of the contract (expired June 31, 2024). Staff wanted to bring this to the Council attention as soon as we realized the error but considering the Council had authorized the current service level and adopted the budget in June, Town staff continued to honor the expired permit until we could agendize a more comprehensive conversation about public safety with the Council.
Staff Report to City Council
Public Safety Discussion
January 30, 2025
6 Town staff has continued to pay the monthly invoices on the contract until the Council could discuss this agreement alongside the expiring ALPR contact. Acting on this contract independent of a larger discussion would limit the Council’s options.
It should be noted that if the Council decides to extend the PalAmerican agreement at the current rate (four, 8-hour patrol shifts a day), the following would be the amount billed to the Town:
224 hours per week x $54.00 per. hour = $12,096.00 /per week or $628,992 annually Holidays: ~7 days recognized = $6,048 Annually
Total Annually: $635,040
Currently the Town budgeted $550,000 for FY 24-25 for private security services, similar to the previous fiscal year (FY23-24). However, what was missed was the fact that in the beginning of FY 23-24, only two patrol shifts were occurring in Town for a couple months and holidays did not have extra patrols (as they do now).
At the conclusion of December, halfway through the FY24-25 budget cycle, the Town has spent roughly $317,000 on private security patrols. In reviewing the remaining public safety budget at this halfway point (which includes funding for the base services form the Sheriff and all the supplemental public safety services), staff anticipates needing approximately $65,000 of additional funds to maintain 4 private security patrol shifts through June 30, 2024. If the council were to choose to continue this level of service it would require we accommodate approximately $635,040 into next year’s budget (FY 2025-26), or an increase of $85,040 over the previous year’s budget for private security patrols with PalAmerican.
An option the Council can consider is reducing the number of shifts per day by 1 officer during the overlap period of 12:00pm – 8:30pm. This would result in the following schedule:
6:30am – 3:00pm (1 patrol officer)
12:00pm – 8:30pm (1 patrol officers)
3:00pm – 11:30pm (1 patrol officer)
Reducing the patrols by one officer would reduce the contract by roughly $160,000 annually.
Making this reduction would not require any additional funds to be appropriated in FY24/25, keeping the contract in budget.
Below is a table of the number of times a PalAmerican patrol officer called the Santa Clara County Sheriff for suspicious sights in Town. As a reminder, the patrol officers with PalAmerican are nonconfrontational, their patrol orders are to only be another set of eyes in the Town and to call law enforcement should they see anything suspicious.
Staff Report to City Council
Public Safety Discussion
January 30, 2025
7 Number of Police Contacts Per Month – Contact began April 2023 Jan Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
2023 2 2 3 1 0 0 1 0 2
2024 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0
As shown in the table, the number of times PalAmerican officers has contacted the Sheriff’s Office each month has decreased since the start of the contract. This may be an indicator that suspicious activity in the Town has dropped since 2023.
Another indication of crime decreasing in Town can be seen in the number of calls for service being received by the Sheriff’s Office. Below is a table showing the past three years. The number of calls have steadily decreased
Call Count
Totals 2022 2023 2024
Los Altos Hills 6101 5272 3496
Regional crime trends, specifically residential burglary rates, are also somewhat decreasing for the other two contract cities of Cupertino and Saratoga, which are serviced by the Santa Clara County Sheriff.
Residential
Burglary Totals
2022 2023 2024
Cupertino 85 68 78
Los Altos Hills 51 60 20
Saratoga 75 56 46
Given this information, staff would recommend a one-year renewal agreement with PalAmerican so that the Town can review this contract on an annual basis.
Neighborhood Watch
For Council information, the Neighborhood Watch program continues to grow in Town. At the end of 2023, the Town had 17 active Neighborhood Watch zones and by the end of 2024 that number has grown to 21 active zones. Staff is current working with two additional zones to get them assembled for an orientation with the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office.
Funding to support the Neighborhood Watch program also continues. Roughly $10,000 is budgeted every year to pay for signs, gatherings, and advertisements of the program. Many residents take advantage of this funding and participation in the events has steadily increased over the year.
Staff Report to City Council
Public Safety Discussion
January 30, 2025
8 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
This action does not qualify as a “Project” as defined in California Government Code Section 15378(b) of the Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act. 2024-25 CITY COUNCIL WORKPLAN:
Public Safety efforts to reduce the rate of residential burglaries in Town was identified on the City Council Work Plan. Discussion public safety options will continue the Town’s efforts to hear from residents on how to spend the Town’s public safety funds.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Both the ALPR contract and Private Security Contract have fiscal impacts on the Town budget.
The Town can either decrease services to stay within budget, or appropriate additional funds to maintain the current level of service.
Should the Council decide to maintain the current level of service for both the ALPR contract with Flock and contract with PalAmerican, an appropriation of $85,000 would be needed from the unreserved general fund for FY 2024-25 ($20,000 for ALPRs and $65,000 for private security).
Below is a rough overview of the Town’s current public safety expenses for the fiscal year under that scenario:
Base services from Sheriff (Attachment 2): $2,458,826
Additional Overtime for the Sheriff: $200,000
PalAmerican Patrols (at 4 shifts per day): $635,040
ALPR cameras (at 40 cameras): $120,000
Neighborhood Watch Expenses: $10,000
Total: $3,429,866
Given the Town’s budget this fiscal year cycle, services may need to be reduced or reprioritized in other areas to accommodate any increase in public safety expenses.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. December 11, 2024 - Technology Committee Meeting Minutes
2. FY2024-25 Proposed Costs from the Santa Clara County Sheriff
Technology Committee Regular Meeting
Wednesday, December 11, 2024, 5:00-6:30 PM
Town Hall Chambers
26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Committee meetings are held in-person. As a courtesy, and in compliance with applicable state law, staff and members of the public may participate in the meeting in person at Town Hall or virtually via Zoom Video Conference.
To attend the meeting in person:
Council Chambers conference Room, Town Hall, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 If you wish to submit a public comment during the meeting, raise your hand and wait for the chair to recognize you.
Please identify yourself by name and where you reside.
To participate via Zoom Video Conference:
Click on the link provided below and log in using the meeting ID and passcode. https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84031233243?pwd=alJuaGRpeDBqSnd0QXF0eFFhZ1V2UT09 Meeting ID: 840 3123 3243 Passcode: 673521 +16699006833, 84031233243# US (San Jose) If you wish to submit a public comment during the meeting, raise your virtual hand and wait for the chair to recognize you. Please identify yourself by name and where you reside.
Note: All votes shall be made by roll call and individual votes will be stated in the minutes.
1. Roll Call; Committee Membership at 5:05pm
a. Members:
- Lew Jamison
- Rajiv Bhateja
- Ameesh Divatia
- Ron Haley (absent)
- Annie Ju
- George Lee
- John Swan
b. Associate Members:
- Andreas Bibl (absent)
- Sam Wood
- Sally Wood
c. Council Liaison:
- Stan Mok (online)
d. Town:
- Cody Einfalt
- Joram Parcutilo, Management Analyst
- WooJae Kim, Public Works Director
Public:
- Gautam Agrawal
- Neil Katin
- Daniel Dulitz
2. Welcome Members of the Public, Public Comment (up to 3 minutes each) a. None
3. Approval of prior meeting minutes (10 minutes to here) Motion Approve 11/20/24 Meeting Minutes
Moved by: Rajiv
Seconded: John
Roll Call: Yes No Abstain
Ameesh X
Annie X
George X
John X
Lew X
Rajiv X
Ron
Passes unanimously X
4. AI powered Roundabout traffic lights (10 minutes Rajiv) a. Discussion on a complaint about traffic lights not triggering for bicycles at Stonebrook and El Monte. The discussion covers the potential benefits of using AI to detect different types of traffic, including cars, bicycles, and pedestrians, to improve traffic flow. b. Roundabout Technologies offered a pilot program with Los Altos Hills, with a cost of $10K/intersection/year, and willing to reduce to $8K/intersection/year. c. The committee decided not to pursue it at this time.
5. FLOCK subcommittee report Rajiv and Ameesh (10 minutes) a. Rajiv and Ameesh: Subscription costs have increased after 3 years. A review of 40 locations, have identified 9 cameras that could be removed, reducing costs to $93K. Sheriff and FLOCK do not recommend removal.
b. Motion:
Motion Present 2 options to Council:
1. Keep all 40 cameras as is, OR
2. Take out 9 interior cameras, with a
total of 31 cameras
Moved by: Rajiv
Seconded: Lew
Roll Call: Yes No Abstain
Ameesh X
Annie X
George X
John X
Lew X
Rajiv X
Ron
Passes unanimously X
c. Motion:
Motion Recommend option #2 from previous motion,
to take out 9 interior cameras.
Moved by: Rajiv
Seconded: John
Roll Call: Yes No Abstain
Ameesh X
Annie X
George X
John X
Lew X
Rajiv X
Ron
Passes: X
d. Additional Notes: Residents may be allowed to self-fund cameras in the future.
2. Speed Camera Status (5 minutes, George Lee)
a. George: No updates.
b. Rajiv suggested identifying streets where speeding is an issue and obtaining physical data. c. Action Item: George to gather data on streets with speeding issues.
3. IT RFP & ALPR Status (5 minutes, Cody)
a. Joram reported that the city council adopted a work plan that includes upgrading the security camera system. Verkada systems was chosen as the vendor, with installation by Qovo Solutions. Verkada Systems offers cloud-based storage for security camera feeds, which eliminates the need for on-site storage. The project includes installing 11 cameras at Town Hall, replacing outdated equipment, and addressing blind spots. The $79,451.46 cost covers installation, licensing, and maintenance for 10 years, including a 10-year warranty. b. Verkada has security features like proximity passes and alarms that can be added later. c. Additional Details: Night vision cameras will be included in certain areas. Only one camera inside the lobby will be replaced.
d. Motion:
Motion Appoint George and John to the subcommittee
to help the town explore the security camera
system. Sally Wood will also join the
subcommittee.
Moved by: Rajiv
Seconded: Ameesh
Roll Call: Yes No Abstain
Ameesh X
Annie X
George X
John X
Lew X
Rajiv X
Ron
Passes: X
4. Broadband Fiber project update (20 minutes, WooJae/Sean) a. WooJae met with Foothill IT staff; they are working with LAHCF and other partners on the project.
b. Daniel and Sean are rescheduling meetings.
c. Action Item: Daniel plans to submit a design package for January, with a target completion by the next meeting.
d. Sam noted that the town already put down a pathway on El Monte, which might be useful for putting fiber under 280 near Foothill College. Concerns were raised about potential delays from AT&T and the need for a permit from Caltrans for a town-owned pathway under 280. e. Gautam clarified that the master agreement does not cover pathways, only roads with right of way.
f. Ameesh and Daniel have contacts at AT&T, and can utilize those contacts to facilitate progress, if needed.
5. Foothill/Hidden Villa-LAHCF commitment status (10 minutes, Gautam/LAHCF) a. Gautam explained that there will be a separate contract for a small conduit run from the cabinet to Town Hall; these funds are not related to the current project. b. The additional work is expected to be a small cost for the town, as the conduit installation is simple and can be done while the machinery is on-site. The town may decide later whether to connect it to the network. The idea of adding a second conduit for future use (e.g., for power backup or additional fiber needs) was discussed.
c. Action Item: Gautam will draft a letter detailing the recommendation and submit it to the Technology Committee for review.
The item should be included in the January Technology Committee agenda for council consideration.
6. Update on earthquake valve promotion (5 minutes, Cody/Jay) a. No updates.
7. Community Chest concept (10 minutes, John)
a. No updates.
Rajiv summarized the committee’s accomplishments from 2023-2024.
8. Adjourn at 6:50pm
Cupertino Los Altos Hills Saratoga
Unincorporated
Areas
Budgeted Costs FY 2023-2024 $11,756,416 $1,521,729 $5,631,043 $4,125,314 Proposed Costs FY 2024-2025 $12,788,363 $1,655,302 $6,125,321 $4,487,424 Change ($) $1,031,947 $133,573 $494,278 $362,110
Change (%) 8.78% 8.78% 8.78% 8.78%
Budgeted Costs FY 2023-2024 $2,509,784 $516,755 $1,165,888 $0 Proposed Costs FY 2024-2025 $2,732,224 $562,555 $1,269,219 $0 Change ($) $222,440 $45,800 $103,331 $0
Change (%) 8.86% 8.86% 8.86%
Budgeted Costs FY 2023-2024 $1,815,480 $189,113 $605,160 $0 Proposed Costs FY 2024-2025 $1,870,920 $194,888 $623,640 $0 Change ($) $55,440 $5,775 $18,480 $0
Change (%) 3.05% 3.05% 3.05%
Budgeted Costs FY 2023-2024 $24,090 $1,606 $4,964 $0
Proposed Costs FY 2024-2025 $25,410 $1,694 $5,236 $0
Change ($) $1,320 $88 $272 $0
Change (%) 5.48% 5.48% 5.48%
Budgeted Costs FY 2023-2024 $539,190 $0 $0 $0
Proposed Costs FY 2024-2025 $593,910 $0 $0 $0
Change ($) $54,720 $0 $0 $0
Change (%) 10.15% 0.00% 0.00%
Budgeted Costs FY 2023-2024 $637,308 $0 $278,822 $0
Proposed Costs FY 2024-2025 $725,330 $0 $317,332 $0
Change ($) $88,022 $0 $38,510 $0
Change (%) 13.81% 0.00% 13.81%
COSTS COMPARISON BETWEEN
Fiscal Years 2023-2024 and 2024-2025
Supplemental Services - Traffic Enforcement - Day
General Law Enforcement Services
Investigative Services
Supplemental Reserve Services
School Resources Officer
Traffic Sergeant
Cupertino Los Altos Hills Saratoga
Unincorporated
Areas
Budgeted Costs FY 2023-2024 $284,858 $38,064 $126,322 $69,468 Proposed Costs FY 2024-2025 $293,280 $39,190 $130,057 $71,523 Change ($) $8,422 $1,126 $3,735 $2,055
Change (%) 2.96% 2.96% 2.96% 2.96%
Budgeted Costs FY 2023-2024 $0 $200,000 $0 $0
Proposed Costs FY 2024-2025 $0 $200,000 $0 $0
Change ($) $0 $0 $0 $0
Change (%) 0%
Total Budgeted Costs FY 2023-2024 $17,567,126 $2,467,267 $7,812,199 $4,194,782 Total Proposed Costs FY 2024-2025 $19,029,437 $2,653,629 $8,470,805 $4,558,947 Change ($) $1,462,311 $186,362 $658,606 $364,165
Change (%) 8.32% 7.55% 8.43% 8.68%
Overtime
Operating Costs Of West Valley Substation
2 Towns like Portola Valley, Woodside, Monte Sereno, and maybe even Los Gatos, are closer in size and along the western traffic corridor (along I-280 or route 85 freeway). These similarities make them more comparable. I believe these geographical attributes correlate with more expensive areas that may attract crime for that reason.
The pertinent question I believe is whether these towns are experiencing the same drop in residential burglaries that we are experiencing? If so, then I would ask if these towns were also spending an increase of $250,000 on ALPRs and $750,000 on private patrols. If they are, I'm not sure that proves this spending improves crime statistics, but if they are not, I believe it does prove this spending may not have been the reason our crime statistics improved.
Obviously, we all want low crime statistics. But we also want to be responsible stewards of our resources and civil liberties, and with respect to the former, I'd like have more concrete cause-and-effect proof as well as more actual evidence efforts such as ALPRs prevent crime, before continuing to spend.
This $1,000,000 would go a long way to improve the town's infrastructure in other ways, but I would recommend spending it on crime prevention in a second, if there is evidence that it works. I am concerned that crime is actually something that occurs in waves that are independent of our spending, and that this $1,000,000 would be better applied elsewhere if there is no evidence it is having a meaningful impact, in terms of crime prevention.
If I had to pick one of these programs to continue, that would be a hard decision. I believe the patrols provide a perception of increased safety among residents who see them in town, and I believe ALPRs allow us to contribute to regional crime investigations even if they don't prevent crime here. Given that, I think I would favor the private patrols. But truthfully, spending $750,000 for a perception of increased safety is still a hard pill to swallow.
With my regards and thanks for your consideration,
Jim Waschura
LAH Resident