Los Altos Hills City Council
March 20, 2025

R.06-10-005 COM/CRC/jva

ATTACHMENT B

General Order XXX
Implementing The Digital Infrastructure and
Video Competition Act of 2006 (AB 2987)

Video Franchise Holder is not statutorily ineligible for a new, renewed, or transferred State Video Franchise pursuant to AB 2987.

D. Renewal of a State Video Franchise

1. Eligibility to Seek Renewal of a
State Video Franchise
A State Video Franchise expires absent any renewal effort on the last day of its ten-year term. A State Video Franchise Holder in good standing may file a renewal Application with the Commission to renew its State Video Franchise for an additional ten-year term.55 There are no limits on the number of times a State Video Franchise Holder may renew its State Video Franchise.

2. Procedures for Filing a State Video
Franchise Renewal
State Video Franchise renewals shall be submitted and evaluated by the Commission according to the same criteria and processes applicable to initial State Video Franchise Applications and pursuant to this General Order.56 The Commission shall not impose any additional or different criteria.57

3. Commission Review and Issuance of a
State Video Franchise Renewal
If a State Video Franchise Holder is statutorily ineligible for a new, renewed, or transferred State Video Franchise, the failure of the Commission to notify the State Video Franchise Holder of the renewal Application’s completeness or incompleteness before the forty-fourth calendar day after receipt 55 Id. at § 5850(a).
56 Id. at § 5850(c).
57 Id. at§ 5850(b).

R.06-10-005 COM/CRC/jva

ATTACHMENT B

General Order XXX
Implementing The Digital Infrastructure and
Video Competition Act of 2006 (AB 2987)

shall not be deemed to constitute issuance of the renewed State Video Franchise.58
The Commission shall not renew a State Video Franchise if the State Video Franchise Holder is in violation of any final nonappealable court order issued pursuant to AB 2987.59 The Commission shall not renew any State Video Franchise that is inconsistent with federal law and regulations.60 E. Transfer of a State Video Franchise

1. Necessary Conditions for the Transfer
of a State Video Franchise
A State Video Franchise may be transferred to a successor-in-interest of the State Video Franchise Holder to which the State Video Franchise was originally granted. This transfer may be as a result of merger, sale, assignment, bankruptcy, restructuring, or any other type of transaction, so long as two conditions are met:
(1) Prior to the transfer, the transferee (successor-ininterest) submits to the Commission and all affected Local Entities all of the information required by this
General Order of an initial Applicant for a State Video Franchise and the Application for transfer is granted;
and
58 Id. at §§ 5840(d), 5850(d).
59 Id. at § 5850(d).
60 Id. at § 5850(c).

R.06-10-005 COM/CRC/jva

ATTACHMENT B

General Order XXX
Implementing The Digital Infrastructure and
Video Competition Act of 2006 (AB 2987)

(2) As a condition of approval of the transfer, any collective bargaining agreement entered into by the predecessorin-interest State Video Franchise Holder shall continue to be honored, paid, or performed as if the predecessorin-interest State Video Franchise Holder continued to operate for the duration of the State Video Franchise,
unless the duration of the collective bargaining
agreement is limited by its own terms or by state or
federal law.61

2. Commission Review of the Transfer of a
State Video Franchise
The Commission will process the Application for transfer of the State Video Franchise pursuant to the same time frame as if such Application was a new State Video Franchise Application.

F. Voluntary Termination of a
State Video Franchise
A State Video Franchise Holder may terminate its State Video Franchise by submitting at least 90 days’ prior written notice to the Commission, affected Local Entities, and all of its customers.62
Within 14 business days of a decision to terminate a State Video Franchise, the State Video Franchise Holder shall inform the Commission and the affected Local Entities of the number of customers in the service area of the State Video 61 Id. at §§ 5840(l), 5970.
62 Id. at § 5840(j).

R.06-10-005 COM/CRC/jva

ATTACHMENT B

General Order XXX
Implementing The Digital Infrastructure and
Video Competition Act of 2006 (AB 2987)

Franchise being terminated; and the method by which customers were notified of the termination, including a copy of such customer notice.63 G. Miscellaneous Changes
As a condition of being issued a State Video Franchise, a State Video Franchise Holder must notify the Commission and affected Local Entities within 14 business days of the following:
(1) Any transaction involving a change in the ownership, operation, control, or organization of the State Video
Franchise Holder, including but not limited to a merger, acquisition, or reorganization;
(2) A change in the State Video Franchise Holder’s legal name or the adoption of, or change to, an assumed
business name. Notification to the Commission shall
consist of a certified copy of either of the following:
(a) an Application to amend the State Video Franchise, or (b) the certificate of assumed business name; or
(3) A change in the State Video Franchise Holder’s principal business address or the business address of the State
Video Franchise Holder’s registered service agent.64
VII. Reporting Requirements
A. Reports for Collection of the User Fee
The Commission may require a State Video Franchise Holder to furnish information and reports to the Commission, at the time or times the Commission 63 Id. at § 5840(m)(5).
64 Id. at § 5840(m).

R.06-10-005 COM/CRC/jva

ATTACHMENT B

General Order XXX
Implementing The Digital Infrastructure and
Video Competition Act of 2006 (AB 2987)

specifies, to enable the Commission to determine the User Fee pursuant to Public Utilities Code § 441.65
Any Video Service Provider required to submit information and reports for determination of the User Fee may, in lieu thereof, submit information or reports made to any other governmental agency if all of the following conditions are met: (i) the alternate information or reports contain all of the information required by the Commission; (ii) the requirements to which the alternate reports or information are responsive are clearly identified; and (iii) the information or reports are certified by the Video Service Provider to be true and correct.66 B. Annual Employment Reports

1. Reporting Obligations Imposed on
State Video Franchise Holders with
More than 750 California Employees
A State Video Franchise Holder employing more than 750 total employees in California shall report to the Commission annual information, as of January 1 of the year in which it first was issued a State Video Franchise and each year thereafter, on the extent to which it provides Video and Broadband Service in California. These reports shall include the following information:
(1) The number of California residents employed by the
State Video Franchise Holder, calculated on a full-time or full-time equivalent basis.
(2) The percentage of the State Video Franchise Holder’s total domestic workforce, calculated on a full-time or
full-time equivalent basis.
65 Id. at § 443(a).
66 Id. at § 443(b).

R.06-10-005 COM/CRC/jva

ATTACHMENT B

General Order XXX
Implementing The Digital Infrastructure and
Video Competition Act of 2006 (AB 2987)

(3) The types and numbers of jobs by occupational
classification held by residents of California employed by State Video Franchise Holders and the average pay
and benefits of those jobs and, separately, the number
of out-of-state residents employed by independent
contractors, companies, and consultants hired by the
State Video Franchise Holder, calculated on a full-time or full-time equivalent basis, when the State Video
Franchise Holder is not contractually prohibited from
disclosing the information to the public.67
(4) The number of net new positions proposed to be
created directly by the State Video Franchise Holder
during the upcoming year by occupational
classifications and by category of full-time, part-time, temporary, and contract employees.68
These reports shall be filed with the Commission no later than three months after the conclusion of each annual reporting period.

2. Commission Reports to
Legislative Committees
The Commission will annually report the employment information required to be reported by State Video Franchise Holders to the Assembly 67 This paragraph applies only to those employees of an independent contractor, company, or consultant that are personally providing services to the State Video Franchise Holder, and does not apply to employees of an independent contractor, company, or consultant not personally performing services for the State Video Franchise Holder.
68 Id. at § 5920(a).

R.06-10-005 COM/CRC/jva

ATTACHMENT B

General Order XXX
Implementing The Digital Infrastructure and
Video Competition Act of 2006 (AB 2987)

Committee on Utilities and Commerce and the Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications, or their successor committees, and within a reasonable time thereafter, shall make the information available to the public on its Internet website.69
C. Annual Reports on Broadband and
Video Services

1. Reporting Obligations Imposed on
State Video Franchise Holders
Commencing on April 1, 2008 and annually no later than April 1 each year thereafter, a State Video Franchise Holder shall report to the Commission annual information as of January 1, 2008 and each year thereafter on the extent to which it provides Video and Broadband Service in the state. These reports shall include the following information, as designated by individual Census Tracts:70 (1) Broadband Information:71
(a) The number of Households in each Census Tract to which the State Video Franchise Holder makes Broadband available in this state. Alternatively, the State Video Franchise Holder may submit a reasonable approximation of the number of
Households in each Census Tract if the State Video Franchise Holder is able to produce information that successfully demonstrates to the Commission (i) that the State Video Franchise Holder does not maintain this information on a 69 Id. at § 5920(b).
70 For example, the first report filed April 1, 2008 would be for calendar year 2007 (January to December 2007).
71 CAL. PUB. UTIL. CODE § 5960(b)(1).

R.06-10-005 COM/CRC/jva

ATTACHMENT B

General Order XXX
Implementing The Digital Infrastructure and
Video Competition Act of 2006 (AB 2987)

Census Tract basis in the normal course of business and (ii) the State Video Franchise Holder’s alternate reporting
methodology produces a reasonable approximation of data reported by Census Tract.72
(b) The number of Households in each Census Tract that
subscribe to Broadband that the State Video Franchise
Holder makes available in this state.
(c) The extent to which the Broadband provided by the State Video Franchise Holder to individual Households in each Census Tract utilizes wireline-based facilities or another technology. If another technology is used by the State
Franchise Holder, it shall specify the technology.
(2) Video Information73
(a) If the State Video Franchise Holder is a Telephone
Corporation:
(i) the number of Households in each Census Tract of
the State Video Franchise Holder’s Telephone
Service Area; and
(ii) the number of Households in each Census Tract of
the State Video Franchise Holder’s Telephone
72 We note that Public Utilities Code § 5960(b)(1)(B) requires State Video Franchise Holders to report Broadband customer subscribership on a Census Tract basis (without any approximation), and since State Video Franchise Holders will have to record this Broadband information by Census Tract, we expect that it will be difficult for a State Video Franchise Holder to successfully demonstrate that it does not maintain other forms of Broadband information on a Census Tract basis. 73 Id. at § 5960(b)(2).

R.06-10-005 COM/CRC/jva

ATTACHMENT B

General Order XXX
Implementing The Digital Infrastructure and
Video Competition Act of 2006 (AB 2987)

Service Area that are offered Video Service by the
State Video Franchise Holder.
(b) If the State Video Franchise Holder is not a Telephone Corporation:
(i) the number of Households in each Census Tract of
the State Video Franchise Holder’s Video Service
Area; and
(ii) the number of Households in each Census Tract of
the State Video Franchise Holder’s Video Service
Area that are offered Video Service by the State
Video Franchise Holder.
(3) Low-Income Household Information74
(a) The number of Low-Income Households in each Census
Tract of the State Video Franchise Holder’s Video Service Area.
(b) The number of Low-Income Households in the State
Video Franchise Holder’s Video Service Area that are
offered Video Service by the State Video Franchise
Holder.

State Video Franchise Holders shall utilize the most recent publicly available U.S.

Census information to determine the number of Households and Low-Income Households.

If a State Video Franchise is transferred to a successor-in-interest of the State Video Franchise Holder to which the certificate originally is granted, the 74 Id. at § 5960(b)(3).

R.06-10-005 COM/CRC/jva

ATTACHMENT B

General Order XXX
Implementing The Digital Infrastructure and
Video Competition Act of 2006 (AB 2987)

transferee shall submit to the Commission of the information required by Public Utilities Code Section 5960.75

2. Commission Reports to the Legislature
and Governor
The Commission, no later than July 1, 2008 and annually no later than July 1 thereafter, shall submit to the Legislature and Governor a report that includes information submitted by State Video Franchise Holders as to Broadband, Video Service, and Low-Income data, aggregated according to technology used in service provision.76
With transmittal of a report, the Commission will reach the finding that, pursuant to Public Utilities Code § 583, the report shall be made publicly available.77 No individually identifiable customer information shall be made available in these reports.78
D. Information on Service to Community Centers
A State Video Franchise Holder shall report annual information, as of January 1 of the year in which its State Video Franchise is granted and each year thereafter, on the extent to which the State Video Franchise Holder makes Video and Broadband Service available at no cost to Community Centers in 75 Id. at § 5970(a).
76 Id. at § 5960(c).
77 Id. at § 5960(d) (requiring that all information submitted to and reported by the Commission be disclosed to the public as provide pursuant to Public Utilities Code § 583).
78 Id.

R.06-10-005 COM/CRC/jva

ATTACHMENT B

General Order XXX
Implementing The Digital Infrastructure and
Video Competition Act of 2006 (AB 2987)

underserved areas, as determined by the State Video Franchise Holder. The reports shall include the following information:
(1) The number of Community Centers in underserved areas where the State Video Franchise Holder provides Video and
Broadband Service without charge.
(2) The number of video customers subscribing to the State Video Franchise Holder’s Video Service.79
The Community Center reports shall be filed with the Commission on a date no later than April 1 after the conclusion of each annual reporting period.

E. Additional Information
The Commission has broad authority to require additional reports consistent with AB 2987. If a legitimate need arises, the Commission will request additional data from State Video Franchise Holders.

F. Enforcement of Reporting Requirements
The State Video Franchise Holder has the obligation to comply with all regulations adopted in this General Order. Failure to comply with a reporting requirement may trigger an investigation by the Commission and could subject the State Video Franchise Holder to either a suspension or revocation of the State Video Franchise.80
79 Id. at § 5890(b)(3). A State Video Franchise Holder determines whether a specific area qualifies as an underserved area for the purposes of this reporting requirement. Id. 80 Id. at § 5890(g).

APPENDIX A

APPLICATION FOR A NEW OR AMENDED

CALIFORNIA STATE VIDEO FRANCHISE

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Definitions for the purposes of this Application:

A. “AB 2987” means Assembly Bill 2987, the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 (Ch. 700, Stats. 2006).1
B. “Applicant” means any person or entity that seeks to provide Video Service in the state pursuant to a State Video Franchise.

C. “Application” means the form prescribed by the Commission through which an Applicant may apply for a State Video Franchise or change its Video Service Area.

D. “Application Fee” means any fee that the Commission imposes to recover its actual and reasonable costs of processing an Application.2
E. “Broadband” or “Broadband Service” means any service defined as Broadband, or having advanced telecommunications capability, in the most recent Federal Communications Commission inquiry pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-104).3
F. “Census Block” has the same meaning as used by the U.S. Census Bureau.

G. “Census Tract” has the same meaning as used by the U.S. Census Bureau.4 1 In this Application, all further references to Public Utilities Code sections adopted or amended in AB 2987 track the statutory language effected by AB 2987. 2 CAL. PUB. UTIL. CODE § 5840(c). This fee is not levied for general revenue purposes, consistent with Public Utilities Code § 5840(c).
3 Id. at § 5830(a). The Federal Communications Commission currently uses the term “broadband” and “advanced telecommunications capability” to describe services and facilities with an upstream (customer-to-provider) and downstream (provider-tocustomer) transmission speed of more than 200 kilobits per second. FEDERAL

COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, AVAILABILITY OF ADVANCED TELECOMMUNICATIONS CAPABILITY IN THE UNITED STATES, FOURTH REPORT TO CONGRESS, FCC 04-208, 10 (Sept. 9, 2004). This definition, however, is under review by the Commission, and it may evolve in response to rapid technological changes in the marketplace. Id. 4 CAL. PUB. UTIL. CODE at § 5960(a).
1

R.06-10-005 COM/CRC/jva

APPENDIX A

H. “Commission” means the Public Utilities Commission.

I. “Company” means the Applicant, its parent company (if any), and any and all subsidiaries or affiliates of the Applicant or its parent company.

J. “Household” means, consistent with the U.S. Census Bureau, a house, apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is intended for occupancy as separate living quarters.5

K. “Local Entity” means any city, county, city and county, or joint powers authority within the state within whose jurisdiction a State Video Franchise Holder may provide Video Service.6
L. “Low-Income Household” means a residential Household where the average annual Household income is less than $35,000, as based on U.S. Census Bureau estimates adjusted annually to reflect rates of change and distribution through January 1, 2007.7 M. “State Video Franchise” means a franchise issued pursuant to AB 2987.8 N. “State Video Franchise Holder” means a successful Applicant’s parent company, or if none, the successful Applicant itself.9
Accordingly, for the purposes of imposing
statutory obligations, a “holder” is deemed to be a successful Applicant, its parent company (if any), and any and all subsidiaries or affiliates of the Applicant or its parent company that are offering services in California that are implicated by AB 2987 requirements.10
O. “Telephone Service Area” means the area where the Commission has granted an entity a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to provide telephone service. 5 Id. at § 5890(j)(1). Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live and eat separately from any other persons in building and which have direct access from the outside of the building or through a common hall. Id.
6 Id. at § 5830(k).
7 Id. at § 5890(j)(2) (defining “low-income households” for the purposes of imposing build-out requirements).
8 Id. at § 5830(p).
9 Pursuant to Public Utilities Code § 5840(e)(D)(5), an Applicant must submit information on the applicant’s parent company, if any exists. 10 This tentative conclusion follows from how we propose to issue state video franchises. See CAL. PUB. UTIL. CODE § 5830(i) (“‘Holder’ means a person or group of persons that has been issued a state franchise from the commission pursuant to this division.”).
2

R.06-10-005 COM/CRC/jva

APPENDIX A

P. “Telephone Corporation” means a telephone corporation as defined in Public Utilities Code § Section 234.

Q. “Video Service” means video programming services, cable service, or open-video system service provided through facilities located at least in part in public rights-of-way without regard to delivery technology, including Internet protocol or other technology. This definition does not include (1) any video programming provided by a commercial mobile service provider defined in Section 322(d) of Title 47 of the United States Code, or (2) video programming provided as part of, and via, a service that enables users to access content, information, electronic mail, or other services offered over the public Internet.11 R. “Video Service Area” means the area proposed to be served under a State Video Franchise.

S. “Video Service Provider” means any entity providing Video Service.12 PLEASE TYPE ALL INFORMATION UNLESS INSTRUCTED OTHERWISE.

Type of Application

1. Check as appropriate:
 New Franchise  Amended Franchise
Applicant Information

2. Applicant’s State Video Franchise number (if seeking an amended Franchise):
________________________________________________________________________

3. Applicant’s full legal name:
________________________________________________________________________

4. Name under which the Applicant does or will do business in California:
________________________________________________________________________

11 Id. at § 5830(s).
12 Id. at § 5830(t).
3

R.06-10-005 COM/CRC/jva

APPENDIX A

5. Parent company’s legal name and contact information:

Parent’s Full Legal Name: ________________________________________________ Address: ____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________ Phone: ____________________________________________________________

6. Applicant’s principal place of business:

Address: ____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________ Phone: ____________________________________________________________

7. Contact information for the person responsible for ongoing communication with the Commission about Video Service business:

Name: ___________________________________________________________ Title: ___________________________________________________________ Address: ___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________ Phone (Business and mobile if any): _________________________________________ Fax: ___________________________________________________________

Email: ___________________________________________________________

8. Attach as Appendix A the names and titles of the Applicant’s principal officers. 4

R.06-10-005 COM/CRC/jva

APPENDIX A
Build-Out Information

9. Is the Applicant or is an affiliate of the Applicant a Telephone Corporation?  Yes  No
Answer questions 10 through 12 only if the answer to question 9 is yes, otherwise skip to Question 13.

10. Does the Applicant alone or together with its affiliates have more than 1,000,000 telephone customers in California?
 Yes  No

11. Is the Video Service Area outside of the Company’s Telephone Service Area?  Yes  No  Video Service Area both inside and outside Telephone Service Area

12. Excluding direct-to-home satellite, is Video Service currently offered in the Company’s Video Service Area?
 Yes  No
Existing Local Cable or Video Franchise Holder Information If Applicant is not an existing local cable or video franchise holder, skip to Question 14:

13. Does the Company currently hold a local franchise, or has the Company held a local franchise in the last six months, in the Video Service Area?  Yes  No
If “Yes,” then download and complete the electronic template available at http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/video/application.

Video Service Area Information

14. Provide a geographic description of the Video Service Area that is to be served pursuant to this Application under the State Video Franchise.

The description shall be as detailed below:
a. A collection of U.S. Census Bureau Block numbers (13 digits), or b. A geographic information system digital boundary meeting or exceeding national map accuracy standards.
o If Applicant chooses “a,” then download and complete the electronic template available at http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/video/application . 5

R.06-10-005 COM/CRC/jva

APPENDIX A
o If Applicant chooses “b,” then submit the geographic information system digital boundary in digital format and on a CD to the Commission.

15. Provide, as detailed below, a description of the socioeconomic status information of residents within the Video Service Area served pursuant to this Application. o The Applicant shall provide this description utilizing the template available at http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/video/application.

Information requirements:
a. Unless directed otherwise below, Applicant shall submit socioeconomic status information as of January 1 of the year in which the Applicant or State Video Franchise Holder applies for a State Video Franchise or an amendment to a State Video Franchise.
b. This socioeconomic status information shall include at a minimum the following information, as designated by individual Census Tract included in the Video Service Area
i. Broadband (Utilize the most recent publicly available U.S. Census information to determine the number of Households)::

1. The number of Households in each Census Tract to which the Company makes Broadband available.

2. The number of Households in each Census Tract that subscribe to Broadband that the Company makes available.

3. Whether the Broadband Services provided by the Company to individual Households in each Census Tract utilize wirelinebased facilities or another technology. If another technology is used, Applicant shall specify the technology.
ii. Video service (Utilize the most recent publicly available U.S. Census information to determine the number of Households):

1. The number of Households in each Census Tract.

2. The number of Households in each Census Tract that are offered Video Service by the Company.
iii. Low-Income (Utilize the most recent publicly available U.S. Census information to determine the number of Low-Income Households):

1. The number of Low-Income Households in each Census Tract.

2. The number of Low-Income Households that are offered Video Service by the Company.

16. If the Applicant or any of its affiliates or subsidiaries is a Telephone Corporation, the Applicant shall provide a description of the socioeconomic status information of all residents within its Telephone Service Area.
6

R.06-10-005 COM/CRC/jva

APPENDIX A
o The Applicant shall provide this description utilizing the template available at http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/video/application.
7

R.06-10-005 COM/CRC/jva

APPENDIX A
Information requirements:
a. Unless directed otherwise below, Applicant shall submit socioeconomic status information as of January 1 of the year in which the Applicant or State Video Franchise Holder applies for a State Video Franchise or an amendment to a State Video Franchise.
b. This socioeconomic status information shall include at a minimum the following information, as designated by individual Census Tract included in the Telephone Service Area:
i. Broadband (Utilize the most recent publicly available U.S. Census information to determine the number of Households):

1. The number of Households in each Census Tract to which the Company makes Broadband available.

2. The number of Households in each Census Tract that subscribe to Broadband that the Company makes available.

3. Whether the Broadband Services provided by the Company to individual Households in each Census Tract utilize wireline-based facilities or another technology. If another technology is used, Applicant shall specify the technology.
ii. Video service (Utilize the most recent publicly available U.S. Census information to determine the number of Households):

1. The number of Households in each Census Tract.

2. The number of Households in each Census Tract that are offered Video Service by the Company.
iii. Low-Income (Utilize the most recent publicly available U.S. Census information to determine the number of Low-Income Households):

1. The number of Low-Income Households in each Census Tract.

2. The number of Low-Income Households that are offered Video Service by the Company.

17. Utilizing the template provided at http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/video/application, the Applicant shall input the expected date for the deployment of Video Service for each Census Block in the Video Service Area.
8

R.06-10-005 COM/CRC/jva

APPENDIX A
Financial, Legal, and Technical Qualifications

18. Attach to this Application, as Appendix B, a description of the Applicant’s financial, legal, and technical qualifications necessary to construct and operate the proposed system and promptly repair any damage to the public rights-of-way caused by the Applicant.

19. Attach to this Application, as Appendix C, either:
a. A bond in the amount of $100,000; or
b. A copy of Applicant’s most current audited financial statement, with an unqualified opinion, for a twelve-month reporting period ending no earlier than the prior calendar year. The financial statement must demonstrate that Applicant possesses a minimum of $100,000 of unencumbered cash that is reasonably liquid and readily available to meet expenses.

Local Entity Contact Information

20. Utilizing the template provided at http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/video/application, the Applicant shall provide the contact name and information for a representative from each Local Entity within the Video Service Area.

Application Fee

21. Attach to this Application a check in the amount of $2,000 made payable to the “California Public Utilities Commission.”
Affidavit

22. Complete and submit the affidavit attached to this Application.

A COMPLETE APPLICATION MUST INCLUDE:
 Completed Application form  Appendix B
 CD(s) containing template(s) and
data from the Commission website
 Appendix C
 Check in the amount of $2,000
 Appendix A  Completed Affidavit
9

R.06-10-005 COM/CRC/jva

APPENDIX A

AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF ________________

COUNTY OF ________________
My name is ____________________________. I am ___________________(Title) of __________________________ (Company). My personal knowledge of the facts stated herein has been derived from my employment with ____________________________ (Company).

I swear or affirm that I have personal knowledge of the facts stated in this Application for a California State Video Franchise to provide Video Service, that I am competent to testify to them, and that I have the authority to make this Application on behalf of and to bind the Company. I further swear or affirm that ________________________ [Name of Applicant]:

1. Has filed or will timely file with the Federal Communications Commission all forms required by the Federal Communications Commission before offering Video Service in this state.

2. Agrees to comply with all lawful city, county, or city and county regulations regarding the time, place, and manner of using the public rights-of-way, including but not limited to, payment of applicable encroachment, permit, and inspection fees.

3. Will concurrently deliver a copy of this Application to any Local Entity where the Applicant will provide service.

4. Possesses the financial, legal, and technical qualifications necessary to construct and operate the proposed system and promptly repair any damage to the public rights-of-way caused by the Applicant.

5. Is not in violation of any final nonappealable order relating to either the Cable Television and Video Providers Customer Service and Information Act (California Public Utilities Code Article 3.5 (commencing with § 53054) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code) or the Video Customer Service Act (California Public Utilities Code Article 4.5 (commencing with § 53088) of Chapter 1 or Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code).

I further swear or affirm that ________________________ [Name of Company] agrees to comply with all federal and state statutes, rules, and regulations, including, but not limited to, the following:

1. As provided in Public Utilities Code § 5890, Applicant will not discriminate in the provision of Video Service.

2. Applicant will abide by all applicable consumer protection laws and rules as provided in Public Utilities Code § 5900.

3. Applicant will remit the fee required by subdivision California Public Utilities Code § 5860(a) to the Local Entity.

4. The Applicant will provide public, educational, and governmental access channels and the required funding as required by Public Utilities Code § 5870. 10

R.06-10-005 COM/CRC/jva

APPENDIX A
I swear or affirm that all of the statements and representations made in this Application are true and correct.
____________________________________________________
Signature and title
________________________________________________
Typed or printed name and title
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on the _____ day of _____ ,20____.

Notary Public In and For the State of __________________.

My Commission expires: ______________________
11

R.06-10-005 COM/CRC/jva

APPENDIX B

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102
www.cpuc.ca.gov

CALIFORNIA VIDEO FRANCHISE CERTIFICATE
1) Franchise Holder:

Name: ______________________________________________________ Address: ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________
2) Application Date: ________________________________________________ 3) Effective Date: ________________________________________________ 4) Expiration Date: ________________________________________________ 5) Affected Local Entities1 __________________________________________ (attach additional sheets if necessary)
Issued at San Francisco this _______Day of _____________, 20__________.

_________________________
Signed
1 The franchise granted herein may include all or part of the Affected Local Entities’ territory. For more information on the service area covered by this franchise, contact the Public Utilities Commission. (END OF ATTACHMENT B)

1 Cost Sharing Policy for the Construction of Comcast Broadband Cable System Infrastructure Within Public Ways Approved by City Council 8/18/2016

TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Phone: (650) 941-7222
www.losaltoshills.ca.gov

COST SHARING POLICY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF COMCAST BROADBAND

AND CABLE SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN PUBLIC WAYS
Approved by City Council 8/18/2016
Town of Los Altos Hills(hereinafter “Town”)
Background
In accordance with Section 4 of the Cable System Franchise Agreement (“Franchise Agreement”) between the Town and Comcast, dated November 18, 2004, in exchange for a nonexclusive franchise in the Town to construct, maintain and operate a cable system, Comcast is obligated to make cable service available to every residential dwelling unit in the areas where the number of dwelling units meet minimum density requirements.

However, in 2006 with the California State Assembly passing Assembly Bill 2987, this established a new regulation in regard to the state franchise process for cable infrastructure in local municipalities. The Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 (DIVCA) created a new state franchise process that replaced the current local franchise process to speed new infrastructure investment and to promote competition for broadband and video services in California
Currently, most Town residents have access to Comcast cable service. With DIVCA, residents now have access to alternative service providers for cable service and internet services that can operate within the public rights of way. This law means that new video competitors may greatly speed up their deployment of state-of-the-art infrastructure that will deliver video and broadband services to Californians. certain residences within the Franchise Area do not meet the minimum density requirements as defined in Section 4.1 of the Franchise Agreement and do not presently have access to Comcast cable services, nor do they have access to reliable alternative service providers. Per the terms of the Franchise Agreement, residents must contribute to the cost to construct the infrastructure necessary to deliver services on their street. Consequently, some homeowners / residents have requested Town assistance including supporting construction funds for Comcast cable and broadband services for their residences.

Purpose
The City Council believes that it is in the public’s interest to have adequate cable services available to all residents for better access to public safety information, more opportunity for civic engagement, and enhancing education and digital literacy. The purpose of this policy is to ITEM 5I, Attachment 3

Cost Sharing Policy for the Construction of Comcast Broadband Cable System Infrastructure Within Public Ways Approved by City Council 8/18/2016
of Comcast cable and broadband equipment within public ways as defined in Section 1.12 of the Franchise Agreement.

Eligibility
This program applies only to the installation of Comcast broadband and cable system equipment within public ways. This program applies only to areas where residential dwelling units do not meet minimum density requirements established under Section 4.1 “General Service Obligation” of the Franchise Agreement and to Section 4.1.2 of the Franchise Agreement regarding residences that are located along private streets.

Cable system construction must be completed by Comcast-approved contractors and construction and maintenance of the system must conform to the provisions of DIVCA of Section 3 of the Franchise Agreement.

Cost Sharing
If an application for supporting funds is approved by the Town, the Town will contribute a maximum of one dollar (25%) for every three dollars (75%) contributed by residents toward the customer contribution cost of constructing new cable system infrastructure established in accordance with Franchise Agreement Section 4 “Service Obligations.” The Town’s maximum contribution for any single project shall be $15,000 $25,000, except as otherwise approved by the City Council. For this purpose, “project” shall mean cable system and broadband infrastructure constructed in public ways for the benefit of the public residing within the franchise area. Customer contribution shall mean that portion of the project construction cost which is the payment obligation of the resident-customer.

Procedure
One or more residents of a particular eligible street desiring cable broadband service may request that the Town Public Works Department obtain a project construction cost estimate in writing from Comcast the desired cable or broadband company. Depending on the company the time request time for this can vary from four to six weeks Usually this takes Comcast four to six weeks from date of request to provide this estimate to the Town. The Town will forward a copy of the cost estimate to residents.

Upon receipt of the Comcast-prepared project cost estimate, which will specify the customer contribution amount, residents may request supporting funds from the Town and shall submit their request for such funds to the Town on a Town-approved application form. Supporting fund requests are subject to availability of budgeted funds and will be disbursed on a first-come, firstserved basis.

The City Manager of the Town shall review and consider for approval supporting funds requests establish a means by which the Town can provide limited financial support for the construction

3 Cost Sharing Policy for the Construction of Comcast Broadband Cable System Infrastructure Within Public Ways Approved by City Council 8/18/2016
within 30 days and may request any relevant supporting documentation as necessary. Supporting funds requests of $15,000 $25,000 or less may be approved by the City Manager. However, any funds request may be forwarded to the City Council for review and consideration and all supporting funds requests in excess of $15,000 $25,000 shall require City Council review and approval.

The Town’s supporting funds amount shall not exceed 25% of the residents customer contribution cost for construction of the cable system based on the project construction cost estimate prepared by Comcast. If the supporting funds request is approved, applicants shall have ten (10) business days from date of approval by the Town to deposit their 75% share of the required customer contribution with Comcast the cable or internet provider. The City Manager and Public Works Department staff will work with residents in facilitating communications with Comcast the company. The Town shall remit its share of the customer contribution to Comcast the company upon receipt of invoice from Comcast and notification that the 75% resident customer contribution has been received.

Ineligibility
For this program, eligible contribution costs for supporting funds shall be amounts paid directly to Comcast the company for cable system construction and shall NOT include: 1) cable service installation costs from the Public Way to any residence, 2) costs or expenses incurred directly by property owner residents beyond the customer contribution cost, 3) reimbursements of similar costs previously incurred by other property owner residents, 4) costs for extended warranty, future maintenance, or future enhancements to the cable service or system infrastructure, or 5) other costs deemed ineligible by the Town’s City Manager.

Miscellaneous Provisions
Exceptions to this policy shall be subject to review and approval of the City Council.

The Town reserves the right to terminate or make changes to the provisions of this policy at any time.

If all budgeted supporting funds are committed prior to the end of a given fiscal year, the City Council may approve an additional contribution of supporting funds at its discretion.

The Town is not responsible for cable system project design, project cost estimates, project 2

4 Cost Sharing Policy for the Construction of Comcast Broadband Cable System Infrastructure Within Public Ways Approved by City Council 8/18/2016
other costs billed directly to the property owner resident by the cable service provider. construction, project management and billing services, warranty, future enhancements or any

ITEM 5J:

The City Council will consider the appointment of Council Member George Tyson to the Ad Hoc Committee for the Sewer Project, where he will serve alongside Mayor Tankha as a City Council liaison. This committee will guide and oversee the project’s progress and related discussions.

ITEM 5K:

The City Council will consider approving a Joint Meeting between the City Council and the Finance and Investment Committee to discuss the FY25-26 Proposed Budget. The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 22, 2025, at 4:00 PM.

TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS March 20, 2025
Staff Report to the City Council
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CALPERS 457 PLAN
FROM: Thomas Leung, Finance Director
APPROVED: Peter Pirnejad, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

Approve resolution adopting the CalPERS 457 Plan.

DISCUSSION:

The Town of Los Altos Hills currently offers a 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plan through ICMA MissionSquare, which provides employees with an opportunity to contribute pre-tax or Roth after-tax dollars toward their retirement savings. While this plan has served employees well, staff has explored additional options to enhance choices and potentially reduce investment costs for employees.

The CalPERS 457 Plan, administered by Voya Financial, is another highly regarded option available to public agency employees. Many California municipalities, including neighboring jurisdictions, offer CalPERS 457 due to its competitive fees.

Adding the CalPERS Voya 457 plan would provide employees with greater flexibility and investment diversity, allowing them to select between two different 457 plans based on their individual financial goals. Key considerations include:

1. Low Fees and Competitive Investments
• The CalPERS 457 Plan offers low administrative and investment fees, with total fees ranging between 0.21% and 0.34%.
• CalPERS 457 plan has a Schwab Self Directed Brokerage option that has over 8500 mutual funds to choose from.
• CalPERS’ size and economies of scale help keep costs low, providing a cost-effective alternative for employees.

2. No Additional Employer Contributions
• Offering a second 457 plan does not require any additional employer contributions. Employee participation remains voluntary, with contributions coming directly from their paychecks. • The Town's current 401(a) match to MissionSquare will continue to apply, and the introduction of the CalPERS 457 Plan does not impact existing employer contributions. • There is no cost to the Town for setting up or offering the CalPERS 457 plan.

3. Improved Employee Choice and Financial Wellness
• Employees benefit from having two high-quality 457 plan options, allowing them to choose the PP
ITEM 5L

plan that best suits their retirement strategy.
• The CalPERS 457 plan also provides strong participant education and financial planning resources.

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 WORK PLAN:

This is not on the City Council’s Work Plan items for 2024-25.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution

2. CalPERS 457 Plan Agreement

Resolution ____ - 25
RESOLUTION No. xx-25
RESOLUTION APPROVING ADOPTION OF CALPERS 457 PLAN
WHEREAS, the Town of Los Altos Hills desires to establish an additional deferred compensation plan for the benefit of its employees; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Administration (the "Board") of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (“CalPERS”) has established the CalPERS 457 Plan (the “CalPERS 457 Plan”), which may be adopted by a governmental employer whose employees are public employees; and WHEREAS, the Town of Los Altos Hills believes that the CalPERS 457 Plan and the investment options available thereunder will provide valuable benefits to its employees; and WHEREAS, the Board has appointed Voya Financial® (the Plan Recordkeeper) to perform recordkeeping and administrative services under the CalPERS 457 Plan and to act as the Board’s agent in all matters relating to the administration of the CalPERS 457 Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town of Los Altos Hills adopts the CalPERS 457 Plan for the benefit of its employees and authorizes and directs the Town Manager to execute the attached adoption agreement on behalf of the Town of Los Altos Hills and to provide CalPERS or any successor agent duly appointed by the Board with such information and cooperation as may be needed on an ongoing basis in the administration of the CalPERS 457 Plan. A copy of this resolution, the agreement, and any attachments thereto shall be on file in the office of the City Clerk.

The above and foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills at a regular meeting held on the 20th day of March 2025 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

BY:

ATTEST: Kavita Tankha, Mayor
Arika Birdsong-Miller, City Clerk
ITEM 5L, Attachment 1

CalPERS-MR-2-20 #3039872.EC.G
Employer Adoption Agreement
The employer identified below (the “Employer”) adopts the CalPERS 457 Plan (the “CalPERS 457 Plan” or the “Plan”) for the benefit of its employees and agrees to be bound by and subject to the terms of the Plan, as it may be amended from time to time.

The Employer further agrees and represents as follows:

1. The Employer is a political subdivision of the State of California and is eligible to adopt the Plan.

2. The Employer has duly adopted a resolution (copy attached) or taken such other official action as required for its lawful adoption and implementation of the Plan and has authorized the undersigned to execute this Agreement on its behalf.

3. The Employer has received and has had the opportunity to review the following documents and information:
• The Plan document;
• A description of the optional provisions of the Plan; • A description of the investment options available to Plan participants and historical performance data for those investment options;
• A complete description of fees and expenses that will or may be charged to Plan participants including, but not limited to, investment fees and administrative expenses; and • T he Enrollment Kit for eligible employees, which includes forms and information for employees to participate in the Plan.

Contributions

4. The Employer understands that its employees will have the opportunity to defer their own compensation by designating an amount or percentage to be withheld from each paycheck and contributed to the Plan on the employee’s behalf.

5. The Employer understands that the Plan must be made available to all employees and agrees to offer all employees the opportunity to participate in the Plan.

6. The Employer understands that the Plan cannot be made available to individuals who are not the Employer’s common law employees and agrees not to offer such individuals the opportunity to participate in the Plan.

7. The Employer understands that each employee’s deferrals under the Plan and any other eligible deferred compensation plan maintained by the Employer are subject to certain limits imposed by the Plan and the federal tax code. The Employer agrees to limit employees’ deferrals under all plans maintained by the Employer to amounts that do not exceed applicable limitations.

8. The Employer agrees to deduct deferral amounts from employees’ salaries and wages in accordance with the employees’ elections, to remit all amounts deducted to the Plan as soon as reasonably practicable after such amounts are withheld, and to accurately report the amounts remitted.

9. The Employer understands and agrees that all amounts deferred under the Plan shall be 100% vested and shall be deposited in the Public Employees’ Deferred Compensation Fund (the “Fund”), a trust established to hold such amounts, for the exclusive benefit of participants and their beneficiaries. The Employer shall have no right to Fund assets or to sell, redeem, or otherwise liquidate Fund assets, except as provided Plan section 10.6.

CalPERS 457 Plan
ITEM 5L, Attachment 2

SKU #EAA-1015
Investments

10. The Employer understands and agrees that employees who defer compensation under the Plan will have the right to direct the investment of their individual Plan accounts by choosing among the investment options selected by the CalPERS Board of Administration (the “Board”) and offered under the Plan. The Employer further understands and agrees that any employee who does not provide timely directions for investing his or her account will be deemed to have selected the Plan’s default investment. The Plan’s default investment is currently the CalPERS Target Retirement Fund designated for an employee, based on his or her expected retirement date. The Employer understands and agrees that the Board, in its sole discretion, may add, eliminate, or consolidate investment options offered under the Plan, including the Plan’s default investment option.

11. The Employer further understands and agrees that certain fees are charged to Plan participants for investment and administration expenses, and that such fees will be offset against investment returns or deducted from participants’ Plan accounts periodically.

Administration

12. The Employer understands and agrees that, except as specifically set forth in the Plan, the administration of the Plan and Fund is subject to the exclusive control of the Board and that the Board has the authority to retain third parties to provide investment services, record keeping, accounting, or other services for the Plan.

13. The Employer agrees to assist and cooperate in providing Plan information to employees and to follow administrative procedures established by the Board or its designee(s) from time to time.

14. The Employer has completed the attached New Employer Data Sheet, which is incorporated by reference. The Employer hereby certifies that all information provided in connection with its adoption of the Plan is true and accurate.

15. The Employer understands and agrees that the Board has retained the power and authority to amend the Plan from time to time, subject to limitations set forth in the California Government Code and the Plan. The Employer may not amend the Plan.

16. The Employer understands and agrees that its participation in the Plan may be terminated by the Employer or by the Board upon sixty (60) days advance written notice. Upon termination, all amounts held for participants will continue to be held in the Fund for the exclusive benefit of participants and their beneficiaries, except for distributions or transfers permitted under the Plan terms.

Name of Employer:

By: Title:

Date:

Accepted by CalPERS (or an agent duly appointed by the Board) on behalf of the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System.

Signature:

Print Name:

Title:

Date:

To be
completed
by CalPERS

TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS March 20, 2025
Staff Report to the City Council
SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION ON HOUSING ELEMENT

AMENDMENTS INCLUSIVE OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE GENERAL
PLAN, LAND USE ELEMENT, PROPOSED ZONING, AND INCENTIVES.

FROM: Jay Bradford, Community Development Director
APPROVED: Peter Pirnejad, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council receive and provide direction on the recommended approaches for amendment and modification of the 6th Cycle Housing Element.

Staff recommends that the City Council prioritize the Housing Element and Land Use Element amendments, incorporating HCD feedback, to maximize the Town’s benefits in meeting its housing goals.

In addition to addressing community concerns about development density, these approaches are recommended to mitigate exposure to current and future SB330 applications. It is recommended that the Town take proactive steps to reduce the total land area and maximum allowable density in both the Housing Element and Land Use Element, as well as in the Zoning Ordinance (ZO) and Objective Design Standards (ODS). These amendments should be prioritized and implemented as soon as the City Council is prepared to take action. By refining zoning parameters and land use designations, the Town can better align with its planning objectives while minimizing unintended development pressures under SB330.

BACKGROUND
The 6th Cycle Housing Element is a key component of the Town's General Plan, guiding the development and preservation of housing over an 8-year period (2023–2031). The Housing Element must comply with state laws, including policies established by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), which sets regional housing needs allocations (RHNA). The Town of Los Altos Hills is required to accommodate a specific number of housing units based on its RHNA.

The Town’s initial draft Housing Element was submitted to HCD for review and certification with the final document being adopted on January 30th, 2023, and certified by HCD on May 30, 2023.

The implementation remains ongoing as the Community Development Department develops the programs contained in the element. In August of 2024, the Community Development Department published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for a programmatic-level Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the rezoning of the housing opportunity sites including the location adjacent to Twin Oaks Court. In addition to the study there were the subsequent series of meetings and community engagement events resulted in requests to amend the housing element. A concurrent effort led to ITEM 6A STAFF REPORT

City Council Page 2
Recommendations for the Amendment of the 6th Cycle Housing Element March 20, 2025
the creation of a proposed Key Terms Agreement with the owners of Twin Oaks Court which would have been the basis for a development agreement with the town to limit the impacts expressed as the need to amend the housing element. Ultimately the City Council decided to remain silent on the key terms agreement and instead created an Ad Hoc committee at the January 28th, 2025, City Council meeting. This Ad Hoc committee is composed of Vice Mayor Bhateja and Councilmember Mok and invited Town residents to discuss a revision and amendment to the Housing Element which would modify the total proposed scope of development at the Twin Oaks site. Since its creation, the Ad Hoc committee has met weekly to discuss a variety of approaches to amending the Housing Element with input from residents, the Town’s Housing Element consultants, representatives from HCD, and Town Council members and staff.

Following its formation, the Housing Element amendment Ad Hoc committee conducted weekly meetings with residents, council members, consultants, and staff to discuss both approaches to amending or modifying the Housing Element as well as technical feasibility for approvable options to present to HCD. The Ad Hoc Committee held listening sessions to receive resident feedback on the Housing Element amendment on March 4th and March 9th, 2025.

At the March 12, 2025 Planning Commission special meeting, a report was given from Community Development Director Jay Bradford on approaches to amending the Housing Element including recommendations from Los Altos Hills resident John O’Connell, Town housing consultant Michael Baker International, and a development agreement approach. The Planning Commission received a recap of the various Ad Hoc Committee listening sessions and expressed support for the Committee's options. The Commission recommended that staff refine the range of Housing Element Amendment options and incorporate direct analysis from HCD when presenting to the City Council, with emphasis on investigating and prioritizing options based on duration, feasibility, and overall benefit to the Town. The Commission voted 5-0 in favor of the motion.

DISCUSSION:

The proposed amendments to the Housing Element are intended to strengthen the Town’s compliance with state law while taking into account the feedback received from both HCD and the local community. These changes will ensure that the Housing Element remains an effective, actionable plan that accommodates the Town’s housing needs and objectives. The Town of Los Altos Hills is committed to preserving its semi-rural character and protecting its unique environmental assets while meeting the state’s housing requirements. The proposed amendment to the Housing Element is designed to balance these priorities by incorporating flexibility in zoning and development strategies, while also addressing the need for more affordable and diverse housing options within the community.

The approaches in amending the Housing Element are presented by Town residents, Michael Baker International, and City Council members.

Option 1: R4 R20 w/ LUF Approach
The first option in modifying the Housing Element is presented by Los Altos Hills resident John O’Connell through discussion with the Ad Hoc committee. This approach adjusts the metric used ITEM 6A STAFF REPORT

City Council Page 3
Recommendations for the Amendment of the 6th Cycle Housing Element March 20, 2025
to determine density on the subject parcels at Twin Oaks. The proposal is to adjust the density on the site from dwelling units per acre, which currently set at 20-30 units/acre in the current Housing Element, to square footage per acre and the creation of two classifications of rezoning in the form of R4 zoning (base) and R20. Under this approach, factors such as slope would be more heavily factored into the eligibility and development standards for multifamily zoning with lower slopes (less than or equal to 15%) being eligible for higher density zoning (R20).

Under this proposal, R4 zoning would require a maximum number of residential structures to be capped at 4 units/acre with a maximum number of residential units in the above-moderate income category set at 4*Lot Unit Factor (LUF). This proposal includes the Density Bonus units based on the percentage of lower and moderate-priced units included in the project totals. To accommodate lower-income units, a new “R20 zoning” classification would be placed on portions of lots 3, 5, and 6.

R20 zoning would incorporate R4 parcels which sit on a slope less than or equal to 15%. The maximum size of residential structures would be set at 2,000 square feet on “R20 site” yielding a total of ~22 units per acre to facilitate densities deemed suitable for lower-income housing. The Density Bonus units would then be based upon % of lower & moderate-income units included.

The resulting land use formulas for the sites would be: “R20 site” area(s) ≥ 0.5 LUF on parcels, lots or “site(s)” ≤ 15% gradient. R20 unit capacity = “R20 site” LUF*43,560/2,000.

The proposal centers on implementing an R4 standard on all seven Twin Oaks parcels resulting in 42 units before Density Bonus which under the assumptions of this proposal could potentially meet the RHNA allocation for the Town. Per this recommendation, this could result in 63 to 84 units being built after density bonus is factored in. R4 zoning would include the density bonus incentive mechanism to provide for the small number of some lower-income units required once the Housing Element amendment is complete. R4 zoning applied to the Housing Element Program A-12 would streamline this program to convert single-family housing to duplexes and triplexes for the approximately 50 sites specified and create approximately 100 of the required above-moderateand moderate-income units.

This approach additionally recommends that changes be made to the existing land use element of the general plan to match zoning standards for all residential uses and establish the application ITEM 6A STAFF REPORT

City Council Page 4
Recommendations for the Amendment of the 6th Cycle Housing Element March 20, 2025
pipeline for all R4 and R20 project submittals. This approach relies on the use of current ADU stock to count towards total RHNA allocation and a continuation of the same rate of ADU development for a total of 200 units over the course of the 8-year planning period.

Option 2: 24 Units/Acre Approach
Michael Baker International (MBI), the Town’s consultant which prepared the originally adopted Housing Element, has considered community feedback as well as input from the City Council, Town attorney, staff, and HCD in the preparation of another approach to amending or modifying the adopted Housing Element. The MBI approach factors in a prospective Land Use Element amendment, a Housing Element amendment, as well as upcoming multi-family zone and objective design standards with the combined result of compliance with state laws for multi - family housing and provide consistency with Town regulatory documents such as existing zoning law and standards.

The MBI approach focuses on reduction of maximum development potential (total units) while still meeting Housing Element RHNA unit commitments. This leaves the amendment option to reduce zoning acreage (from 14.5 to 4-5 acres) and reduction in maximum allowable base density from 30 du/ac to 24 du/acre as shown in the diagram below:

The MBI approach cites the following elements of state law as the basis for the modification approach in alignment with:

Housing Element Program A-5 references 65583.2 (h)(2)
65583.2 (h)(2): establishes the absolute minimum density of any rezone required to meet a RHNA shortfall – 20 du/ac for Suburban communities like Los Altos Hills. • “(2) These sites shall be zoned with minimum density and development standards that permit:
• at least 16 units per site …
• shall be at least 20 units per acre in jurisdictions described in clauses (iii) and (iv) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) …” • There is no provision that allows for an alternative to this minimum density. 65583.2(c)(3)(B): sets the minimum allowable maximum density (e.g., 20 du/ac in Los Altos Hills).
• This provision allows a city to argue for less than the otherwise established minimum allowable maximum zoning density. For example, a city could argue for a maximum density of 28 du/ac instead of the standard 30 du/ac.

ITEM 6A STAFF REPORT

City Council Page 5
Recommendations for the Amendment of the 6th Cycle Housing Element March 20, 2025
• This is not applicable in Los Altos Hills since the minimum allowable maximum density under Section 65583.2(c)(3) is 20 du/ac and the maximum density must be reasonably greater than the absolute minimum density of 20 du/ac (e.g., 24 du/ac)
This yields the following re-allocation of units in a revised approach to multifamily zoning:

This approach creates a new building placement concept through a newly established Minimum Lot Size of approximately 4 acres, a height limitation of 50 ft (4 stories above parking) and front, side, and rear setback lines set at 60ft. The MBI approach keeps the scope of change limited to the Twin Oaks opportunity sites without involving nearby parcels.

Option 3: Development Agreement Approach
Option 3 the Development Agreement approached was highlighted at the meeting but not discussed in any detail.

ITEM 6A STAFF REPORT

City Council Page 6
Recommendations for the Amendment of the 6th Cycle Housing Element March 20, 2025

ANALYSIS
Through various public engagement events and the creation of the Ad Hoc the town has spent hundreds of hours reviewing, discussing, and acting on resident feedback to ensure the intent of the housing element matches the community need. The most recent series of Ad Hoc public listening sessions presents the most recent efforts regarding proposals to address concerns in multifamily and affordable housing development.

It’s important to note that these options come from multiple sources, and each have their own merits. Some of the options are more theoretical while others are steeped in past practice. For the options based on past practice there is some understanding of HCD’s expectations. For the other options, additional feedback from HCD is needed to ensure that unforeseen conflicts are mitigated prior to moving forward with a less tested option. To that end HCD has been contacted and there has been initial feedback provided by HCD. However, the full approach or impact of options has not been vetted with the agency in totality. This leaves some uncertainty in some of the options.

To that end, additional coordination with HCD is recommended, but from the initial feedback it appears a blending to the approaches appears to be the most viable options. The blended option would take the amendment to HE terminally from option 1, paired with the site area reduction in option 2, and using zoning options in option 1 and 2. All while continuing effort on option 3.

The third option for the amendment of the Housing Element involves a combination of approaches and the creation of a development agreement between the owners of the Twin Oaks site, the adjacent Fenwick property, and the Town to develop the site in compliance with State requirements.

In keeping with ongoing certification of the Housing Element, care should be taken in gathering as much information as possible from HCD, consultants, and staff on the compliance and feasibility of amendments prior to formal submission to HCD for review. Additionally, the current Housing Element will be under examination through the scheduled HCD mid-cycle review to assess progress the Town has made in the implementation of the Housing Element. The Town has submitted ongoing status updates to HCD through the required Annual Progress Report (APR) which is submitted in the first quarter of the year and covers all building and planning activity for the previous calendar year. The Town is in good standing and compliance with building, planning and implementation and is currently in the process of collecting data to submit the 2024 Housing Element APR to HCD. Any changes to the Housing Element implementation or follow-up impact on building and planning metrics will appear in the 2025 APR.

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact of the proposed amendments is thought to range from $100,000 to $200,000, as in some options the Town would be undertaking large-scale revision to the Housing Element.

Additionally, future implementation of the Housing Element may involve costs associated with infrastructure improvements, potential permitting expenditures for new development, staff time ITEM 6A STAFF REPORT

City Council Page 7
Recommendations for the Amendment of the 6th Cycle Housing Element March 20, 2025
and consultant time for the administration of updated housing programs. These costs will be assessed in subsequent budgeting cycles.

NEXT STEPS

1. City Council Initial Public Hearing and Review: Prior to proceeding with further action, the Council would provide direction on the Planning Commission recommendation at a public hearing to gather additional feedback and ensure that all community concerns are addressed before adoption.

2. Council Adoption:

The City Council would adopt the agreed upon approach to amending the Housing Element.

3. Submission to HCD for Certification:

Once adopted by the City Council, the amended Housing Element will be resubmitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for final review and certification.

4. Implementation of Revised Strategies:

After certification by HCD, the Town will begin implementing the revised strategies outlined in the Housing Element, including potential zoning adjustments, outreach to developers, and ongoing community outreach.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1: Presentation from Jay Bradford, Community Development Director

2. Attachment 2: Presentation from John O’Connell, Los Altos Hills Resident Report prepared by: Jay Bradford, Community Development Director ITEM 6A STAFF REPORT

Housing Element Amendment Options and
Recommendations

PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING
MARCH 12, 2025
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 1

HOUSING ELEMENT
• 60 Housing Programs
• Organized in the following seven major housing goals:
• To satisfy the community’s housing needs / Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) • A-1 Availability of Adequate Sites for New Hosing to Meet RHNA (aka Multifamily Zoning) • A-2 No Net Loss Monitoring
• To meet the requirements of State law / Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) • A-8 Pre-Approved ADUs
• A-12 Duplex and Triplex Conversion
2 1. Housing Production

2. Removal of Governmental Constraints

3. Housing Preservation and Improvement

4. Housing Assistance

5. Special Housing Needs

6. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing

7. Education and Outreach
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 1

HOUSING GOALS
3 ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 1

AD HOC COMMITTEE PRIORITIES
• Address sustainable development at Twin Oaks/Arastradero (aka Twin Oaks+) site
• Keep as close as possible to: ~92 base units
• Maintain our current Housing Element Certification and comply with state and case law: meet all deadlines
• Avoid Builder’s Remedy
• Avoid penalties from HCD, e.g., SB 35, No Net Loss
• Demonstrate progress towards RHNA numbers at mid-cycle review (01/31/2027)
• Meet our RHNA numbers in the cycle
• Preserve town character
4 ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 1

CITY COUNCIL APPROVED 3 OPTIONS
AMEND LAND USE ELEMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT
 Rezone 13.0 acres to R4 and 1.5 acres to R20
 Replace "du/ac" with “sq. ft. of land per dwelling unit“  Limit to current MFA (50,000 sf) and MDA (92,000 sf)
AMEND LAND USE ELEMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT
 Reduce acreage and max du/ac
 Use zoning rules to manage density, # of units
REVISIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
 Tried once but not successful
 Owners want a farm. Residents want managed development. ? What kind of farm? What kind of development?
 Go back, compromise, one more try
 Also reopen discussions with Foothill College
OPTION 1

AMEND HEA
OPTION 2

AMEND HEA

DEVEOLOPMENT

AGREEMENT
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 1

HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT OPTIONS 1 AND 2
Option 1 Option 2
Which General Plan Components
Would Be Amended?
Housing Element
Land Use Element
Housing Element
Land Use Element
Rezoning Acreage R4: allow for sites that have the same slope and LUF meeting R-A requirements. Total MDA = 92,307 sf, MFA = 50,430 sf.

R20: lots with LUF equal to or greater than 0.5 and less than or equal to 15% slope. Total capacity: LUF = 5.13, MFA = 27,650 sf, MD = 53,425 sf

3.9 acres
Minimum Density 2,000 sf/unit for R20 Zoning
(translates to approximately 22 DU/acre)
20 du/ac
Maximum Density 24 du/ac
Minimum and Potential Maximum
Base Units for Multi-Family
R4: 42 multiplex units maximum on 13.0 acres (3.25 du/ac) R20: 33 high-density multifamily units maximum (22 du/ac) combined 75 units maximum (5.2 du/ac)
Variations can occur based on mixing of these two uses and underlying sites utilized

3.9 acre option
Minimum: 78 units (20 du/ac)
Maximum: 94 units(24 du/ac)
Variations can occur based on different acreage
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 1

HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDMENT OPTIONS 1 AND 2
Option 1 Option 2
Potential Maximum Units after
Density Bonus (assumes 15% mod
and 15% VL)
R20:
50 units with 50% bonus
66 units with 100% bonus
Combined R4 and R20:
113 units with 50% bonus
150 units with 100% bonus
Variations can occur based on mixing of these two uses and underlying sites utilized
141-188 units
Variations can occur based on different acreage
Slope Density Standard R4: any slope same as R-A SF zoning R20: use <15% slope as threshold Both uses LUF, MDA,
MFA
Use <20% max slope as limit of MF zone and development
Setbacks 30 feet side, 40 feet front, increasing at 10% based upon heigh (up to 32 feet) and floor area (up to 18,000 sf)
60 feet front, side, corner and rear setbacks
Height 1-2 stories 35-50 feet (3-4 stories above parking) Potential Incentives Incentive MFA and MDA bonus for affordable units in both R4 and R20
• Provision of affordable/senior housing in exchange for additional floor area, larger units, steeper slopes and certain design flexibilities • Decreased MFA/MDA and/or underground parking in exchange for increased height
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 1

R4/R20 Land Use Designation for
Twin Oaks (7 parcels 14.5ac)
~131 units before
density bonus
R4 ZONING

CAPACITY
• 28 structures (7 lots x ≤ 4 structures per lot)
• 42 units before Density Bonus
• ≤ 84 units after Density Bonus
– 15% Moderate- & 15% Very low-income units
• Total MDA = 92,370 sf. MFA = 50,430 sf.
• 1,200 sf. Floor area / unit before density bonus.
• 2,200 sf. Dev. Area / unit before density bonus.
• Incentive MFA & MDA bonus for affordable units
R20 Zoning Capacity
• Total LUF = ~5.13, MFA = 27,650 sf. MDA = 53,425 sf.
• Max 112 units before Density Bonus
– ≥ min 190 sf./unit required by law.
• ≤ 224 units after Density Bonus
– 15% Moderate- & 15% Very low-income units
• Incentive MFA & MDA bonus for affordable units
27690A
R4
LUF 1.48
≤ 4 structures
≤ 6 Units
Lot 2
R4
LUF 1.78
≤ 4 structures
≤ 8 Units
Lot 1
R4
LUF 1.14
≤ 4 structures
≤ 5 Units
Lot 3
R4
LUF 1.47
≤ 4 structures
≤ 6 Units
Lot 5
R4
LUF 1.28
≤ 4 structures
≤ 6 Units
(OSE) Open
Space Easement
Slope > 30%
(OSE)
Slope > 30%
R4 Base
R20 allowed
R4 Only
R20 not allowed
Slope > 15%
≤ 12 Structures
≤ 19 units before bonus
≤ 38 units after bonus
R20 Capacity
≤ 16 Structures
≤ 72 units before bonus
≤ 144 units after bonus
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 1

R4 ZONING
CAPACITY • 28 structures (7 lots x ≤ 4 structures per lot) • 42 units before Density Bonus
• ≤ 84 units after Density Bonus
– 15% Moderate- & 15% Very low-income units
• Total MDA = 92,370 sf. MFA = 50,430 sf.
• 1,200 sf. Floor area / unit before density bonus.
• 2,200 sf. Dev. Area / unit before density bonus.
• Incentive MFA & MDA bonus for affordable units
– (state law min 190 sf. / unit).
– 100% Bonus MFA based upon DBL.
– MDA allocation pro-rate MFA.
• Remaining MFA & MDA for R4 use.
27690A
R4
LUF 1.48
≤ 4 structures
≤ 6 Units
Lot 2
R4
LUF 1.78
≤ 4 structures
≤ 8 Units
Lot 1
R4
LUF 1.14
≤ 4 structures
≤ 5 Units
Lot 3
R4
LUF 1.47
≤ 4 structures
≤ 6 Units
Lot 5
R4
LUF 1.28
≤ 4 structures
≤ 6 Units
(OSE) Open
Space Easement
Slope > 30%
(OSE)
Slope > 30%
R20 Zoning Capacity
• R20 allowed on lots with site areas ≤15% slope.
• Total R20 sites LUF = 1.5
• 1.5 x 43,560 /2,100 = 33 units before bonus.
– Minimum assigned MFA = 6,270 sf. To R20 sites
R4 Only
R20 not allowed
Slope > 15%
≤ 12 Structures
≤ 19 units before bonus
≤ 38 units after bonus
R4 Base
R20 allowed
R20 Site
1 LUF
21 units
R20 Site

0.5 LUF
11 units
R4/R20 for Twin Oaks (7 parcels

14.5ac). 75 units before,
108 units after Density
Bonus. Floor area
~ 900sf. Average
per unit.

ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 1

10 MF ZONE – TWIN OAKS EXAMPLE: LOTS 4-6
<20% slope acreage = 3.6
Zone Acres (Blue Dash)= 3.9
20 du/ac = 78 units Minimum
24 du/ac = 94 units Maximum
50% Bonus = 141 units
100% Bonus = 188 units
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 1

11 MF ZONE: BUILDING PLACEMENT CONCEPT
4 5 6
1 7
2 3
• Minimum Lot Size: ~4
acres
• Height: 50 ft (4 stories
above parking)
• Front setbacks: 60 ft
• Side, corner, rear
setbacks: 60 ft
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 1

12 MF ZONE: BUILDING PLACEMENT CONCEPT SECTION
• Minimum Lot Size:
~4 acres
• Height: 50 ft (4
stories above
parking)
• Front setbacks: 60 ft
• Side, corner, rear
setbacks: 60 ft

EXISTING SECTION

POTENTIAL ILLUSTRATIVE SECTION
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 1

LISTENING SESSION
Residences provided feedback on three options presented at Listing Sessions held by the AD Hoc Committee on March 4th and March 9th.
• ADU production vs Housing Element projections.
• Can amendments consider current ADU production?
• If so, what impact would it have?
• RHNA allocation
• Can the RHNA buffer be reduced?
• Can the RHNA buffer be eliminated?
• How do RHNA projections relate to actuals?
• Option 3 Development Agreement supplemental to Options 1 and 2 13 ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 1

AMENDMENT FOCUS
The primary concern related to the current Housing Elements is that the total density per multifamily opportunity site leaves the current development standards in question and could be challenged through a SB-330 density bonus application.

What affect the total density?
• Size of land being rezoned
• Density of dwelling units required
• Zoning approach
• Objective Design Standards apply to the building typology 14 ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 1

HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (HCD)
Size of land being rezoned
• RHNA sites must meet certain criteria to be consider suitable for multifamily development Density of dwelling units required
• Density must be a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre • There must be a range (e.g., 20-24)
Zoning approach
• Reduction of land area from gross to net is allowed (no amendment required) Objective Design Standards apply to the building typology • Yes, but constrains can not be overall burdensome
15 ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 1

16 DENSITY REQUIREMENTS – STATE LAW
Program A-5 aka 65583.2 (h)(2): establishes the absolute minimum density of any rezone required to meet a RHNA shortfall – 20 du/ac for Suburban communities like Los Altos Hills. • “(2) These sites shall be zoned with minimum density and development standards that permit:
• at least 16 units per site …
• shall be at least 20 units per acre in jurisdictions described in clauses (iii) and (iv) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) …”
• There is no provision that allows for an alternative to this minimum density. 65583.2(c)(3)(B): sets the minimum allowable maximum density (e.g., 20 du/ac in Los Altos Hills).
• This provision allows a city to argue for less than the otherwise established minimum allowable maximum zoning density. For example, a city could argue for a maximum density of 28 du/ac instead of the standard 30 du/ac.
• This is not applicable in Los Altos Hills since the minimum allowable maximum density under Section 65583.2(c)(3) is 20 du/ac and the maximum density must be reasonably greater than the absolute minimum density of 20 du/ac (e.g., 24 du/ac).

ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 1

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Focus on reducing the total size and maximum density of the MF zoning on Twin Oaks in the Housing Element Amendment and continue to consider the various zoning approaches, or

2. Pursue some combination of the three options, or

3. Pursue all three options, or

4. Pursue one option
17 ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 1

QUESTIONS /COMMENTS? THANK YOU
Housing Element Amendment Options and Recommendations
Prepared and Presented by: Jay Bradford, Community Development Director ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 1

LAH is about to take its 1st steps in
multifamily housing. Twin Oaks may
be the first, but wont be the last.

Precedent is hard to reverse!
✅ ❌
JOC
R4 & R20
MB
International
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2

Milestones
Feb 26 PC MF Zoning presentation
• Michael baker and John O’Connell present
MF zoning and objective standards.

Mar 4 Public Meeting-1 presentation
• Summary of HE amendment & receiving
feedback & suggestions.

Mar 9 Public Meeting-2 presentation (repeat)
Mar 12 PC draft HE amendment review
• Draft redline of HE changes with supporting
backgound explanations. Review &
feedback.

Mar 20 CC draft HE amendment review
• Updated redline draft review & feeback
Mar 31 ad hoc committee review
• prior to opening communications with HCD.
• including strategy for engagement
Updated schedule after initial HCD discussions
• Target HCD certification < Aug 31, 2025.

Principles, Objectives & Resources
• Minimally invasive surgery approach!
• Delivers both the number of units (92) and the
required RNHA distribution.
• Reduce risk of No Net Loss scenarios.
• Update ADU,SB9 & SF data consistent with 2024 APR.
• Proofpoints for techniques used by other jurisdictions. • Remove zoning density specified in du/ac from the
Housing Element
• Ensure consistency of the Housing Element (& hence
the General plan) and the Land Use element & Zoning
ordinances.
• Consultant support ~30 hrs (MB are busy with other
priorities. VTA recognised for strategic role by B.

Swanson-Carmel)
• Staff support ~45 hours (Jonathan Fox has developed
good knowledge of existing LAH codes)
• Support from Jay Bradford & other Town staff & use
of meeting rooms.

ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2

• Updating the “Remaining Need” using the 2024 HCD Annual Progress Report data for ADUs reduces the249 units (remaining need) to 160.
• Updating the RHNA distribution now results in a target of 42 units for Twin Oaks plus 27690 Arastradero Rd. with only 9 lower-income and 32 Above Moderate- Income units.
• Rather than inflating the RHNA target, the bonus units from DBL should be used to meet the 31 unit “buffer” calculation. It is against the law to include DBL units in the RHNA target.

29.4 42 73
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2

Program A-12 alternative
• Any lot ≥ 1.1ac, on sewers, could apply
for Multi-Family rezoning to add a 2 or
4 unit building (R4).
• Not § compliant but the ultimate metric
is achieving the RHNA .
• Compliant to all LAH codes and to the
Density Bonus law.
• Program A-12 already converts 50 existing SF
homes to duplex/triplex.
• R4 could / would produce > 100 units. The key
is to get moving and not waste time.

ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2

This does not create the issues that 50-500 unit
developments create!
• Any lot ≥ 1.1ac, on sewers, could
apply for Multi-Family rezoning 2 or 4
unit buildin.g (MF2-4).
• Default Density Compliant: 2units
(4356 sf.) or 4units (8712 sf.) = 20du/
ac.
• 8 units on two sites each 0.2ac = 0.4ac
Default Density = 20du/ac.
• Adding a new program is the best way to
mitigate against NNL.
• A 15% buffer on FC & SNS = 0 if they don’t
happen.
• Program A12 converts 50 SF homes to ~150 a
net of 100 = 25% of LAH RHNA not in the
calculations.

ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2

Arastradero
Lot 5 Rd
~16% slope
R4/R20
Lot 4
~22% slope
R4/R20
Lot 3
~32% slope
R4
Lot 2
~27% slope R4
Lot 1
~29% slope R4
27690 Arastradero Rd
~24% slope R4
Stirrup
Way
Saddle Mountain
Application to Twin Oaks +
27690 Arastradero Rd.

Lot 6
~15% slope
R4/R20
Parcel #
MF
Zoning Ac Net Ac
Slope
Density LUF MDA MFA
27690
Arastradero MF4 2.11 2.11 24% 1.46 14,103 7,734 Twin Oaks #1 MF4 2.04 1.89 29% 1.14 9,182 5,784 #2 MF4 2.80 2.80 27% 1.79 15,537 9,229
#3 MF4 2.91 2.73 32% 1.46 10,052 7,189
#4 MF20 1.78 1.78 22% 1.31 13,706 7,086
#5 MF20 1.51 1.51 17% 1.29 16,005 7,286
#6 MF20 1.36 1.21 16% 1.06 13,531 6,034
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2

45ft.

R4/R20 for lots ≤ 15% slope. Lots ≤ 20% could have a max limit of 0.5 LUF.

ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2

✅ ✅
• Slope density, LUF, MDA & MFA remain identical for Above Moderate-income units.
• Lower- & Moderate-inc.ome units qualify for incentive MDA & MFA based upon exactly the same guidelines as the Density Bonus law.
• An “R20 site” is added as “that portion of a parcel or sites designated to accommodate lower income sites.” An ”R20
site” must be ≥0.5 LUF.
• Grading Standards for R4 are exactly the same as for RA, but translated to Objective Standards.
• Grading standards for R20 will include 16ft max of
combined cut & fill to faciltate creation of “R20 site” on 15% slopes.
• Heights will be 27 ft. standard upto 32 ft. max
• Setbacks will be 30 ft. side & rear, 40ft. Front
• Setbacks will increase by 10% for:
– Each 1 ft. increase of height from the 27 ft. standard. – Each 2,00 sf. increase of floor area beyond 10,000 sf. – Setbacks not be required for boundaries between
contguous in a multi family housing project.
• Basements conforming to exisiting LAH codes (75% wholly underground, with daylighting rules) will be alloed for underground parking, storage, amenities, but not for housing units.
• MF Housing must be on puvlic sewers.

ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2

119. (I) Institutional
114. Residential
Common to all sub-sections
114. 1 (RA1) Single
Family Housing Specific
114.2 (R4 & R20)
Multi Family Housing
114.3 (CU) Conditional use:

Religious facilities & schools.
115. (OSP) Open
Space Preserve
116. (OSCA) Open Space
Conservation Area
117. (PA-PB) Public
Recreation Area
118. (RA-PR) Private
Recreation Area
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2

R4/R20 for Twin Oaks
(7 parcels 14.5ac).
69 units combined
before density
bonus
R4 Zoning Capacity
• 28 structures (7 lots x ≤ 4 structures per lot)
• 42 units before Density Bonus
• Total MDA = 92,370 sf. MFA = 50,430 sf.
• 1,200 sf. Floor area / unit before density bonus.
• 2,200 sf. Dev. Area / unit before density bonus
• Incentive MFA & MDA bonus for affordable units
• Mechanism is a per $69515
R20 zoning is required on parcels designated R4/
R20 in the Land Use Element.
• Total R20 sites LUF = 1.5
• 1.5 x 43,560 /2,100 = 33 units before bonus.
• R20 site receives minimum pro-rata LUF allocation of
MFA/MDA plus a bonus (R20LUF/Parcel LUF)
• R20 site can be allocated additional MFA/MDA e.g. Lot 3 27690A
R4
LUF 1.48
≤ 4 structures
≤ 6 Units
Lot 2
R4
LUF 1.78
≤ 4 structures
≤ 8 Units
Lot 1
R4
LUF 1.14
≤ 4 structures
≤ 5 Units
Lot 3
R4
LUF 1.47
≤ 4 structures
≤ 6 Units
Lot 5
R4
LUF 1.28
≤ 4 structures
≤ 6 Units Lot 6 R4 LUF 1.05
≤ 4 structures
≤ 5 Units
(OSE) Open
Space Easement
Slope > 30%
(OSE)
Slope > 30%
R4 Base
R20 allowed
R4 Only
R20 not allowed
Slope > 15%
≤ 12 Structures
≤ 19 units before bonus
≤ 38 units after bonus
R20 Site
1 LUF
21 units
R20 Site

0.5 LUF
11 units
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2

1. R4 Base Density = LUF*4 rounded up
– If R4/R20 designated subtract any R20 LUF

2. R4 FA & DA = (LUF-R20LUF)/LUF * MDA or MFA

3. R20 Base Density = LUF*43,560/2,100 rounded up
– If R4/R20 designated R20 LUF = 0.5 minimum
– If slopedensity is >15% but ≤20% maximum R20 LUF =

0.5 4. R20 FA & DA = 2* R20LUF/LUF * MDA or MFA
– Total bonus% = R20LUF/LUF
– Additional FA & DA from R4 may be allocated to R20,
but not from R20-R4.

ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2

1. R4 Base Density = LUF*4 rounded up
– If R4/R20 designated subtract any R20 LUF

2. R4 FA & DA = (LUF-R20LUF)/LUF * MDA or MFA
• Fundamentally R4/R20 are MFA/MDA
driven.
• Bonus Floor area, development area &
units are provided as per §69515
• The applicant gains the bonus floor &
development area even if they do not use
the bonus units
• This is different to SDBL where additional
floor & development area are effectively
associated with the bonus units.
• Open issues are restrictions on relative
sizes of bonus units vs base units. Current
thought is to not use any such restictions.

ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2

Housing Element amendement must include:

1. A Lower-income zoning ordinace that does not use du/ac & removal of du/ac from the Housing Element

2. Update the RHNA tables and clearly separate RHNA targets & buffers.

3. Maintain KEY currentLAH standards, translated into Objective Standards.

4. Implement state Density Bonus law as an integral part of our strategy – LAH cannot include Bonus units in RHNA targets, but can use them as No Net Loss buffers. ✅ ✅
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2

It is impossible to create a legal
compliant area of ≤ 0.5ac for
lower income housing.

Lot 2
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2

Goodbye Hillside
Lot 2
Lot 1
27690
Arastradero Rd.

ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2

hillsides from extensive grading and minimize the visual impact of high density building(s). (O'Connell presented topographical slides showing the depth of grading on the steep slopes of Twin Oaks lots 1 and 2 to accommodate high density housing could be 45 feet, and the existing hillside would be eviscerated.Apparently in response to O'Connell's illustration of the horrific grading that allowing high density housing on the steep slopes would entail, Councilman Bhateja recently, and shockingly, posited that perhaps the high density housing could be built on piers or stilts, with the buildings cantilevered over the steep slopes!
Councilmen Bhateja and Mok have been continuing to try to negotiate a "new deal" with the Twin Oaks owner (after the horrific "Key Terms Agreement" demanded by her was unanimously rejected), but the problem is that the Twin Oaks owner now apparently "demands" terms which would leave only the steeper lots of the Twin Oaks site available for high density housing.Specifically, the owner claims she wants to "farm" all of the flat lots at Twin Oaks (in addition to the adjacent 40 acre Fenwick property), thereby leaving only the steeper and higher (i.e. better view) lots 1 and 2 of Twin Oaks for multifamily housing.

Without even getting into what kind of "farming" activities the Town should permit (remember the greenhouses, dam, and fish cannery which she wanted in the rejected Key Terms Agreement?) or the other terms being demanded (e.g. a "poison pill" for the purpose of dissuading Town residents from asserting their legal rights!), the demand that high density housing take place on the steep lots 1 and 2 should be a nonstarter which the Town should simply reject. While I continue to believe the "farm" idea is a pretext to maneuver the Town into permitting high density housing on the steep lots, if the Twin Oaks owner truly just wants a farm, she has 40 acres of Fenwick land, and a portion of the flatter lots of Twin Oaks could still be available to give her access to the Fenwick land and for some appropriate farming activity. But in any event, the Town should insist on rezoning for high density (20 units/acre) housing enough of the flatter portion of Twin Oaks (lots 4-6) to pass muster with HCD and keep the steep lots free of high density housing.

Sincerely,

Michael Grady

Michael Baker (MB) plans, there is 100% consensus that multifamily developments at a density of >20du/ac should be restricted to lots 4, 5 & 6 and not allowed on lots 1, 2 or 27690 Arastradero. Lot 3 is still in discussion. The planning commission also passed a motion 5-0 supporting this at their most recent, March 12 meeting.

Negotiating a Development Agreement that concedes lots 3, 4, 5 & 6 to being used for farming, but gives rights to develop lots 1 & 2 for high density housing totally undermines the raison d'etre of the ad hoc committee. If the Town doesn't want to rezone the flat lots at Twin Oaks for multifamily housing, it should then leave all of Twin Oaks RA, and move on to identify other sites to meet its multifamily RHNA (not my preferred or recommended path). I am committed to ensuring the current HE is not placed at risk of decertification, and submit to the Council that the Development Agreement being negotiated behind closed doors creates more risk than it avoids. I am happy to explain why upon request.

The council should STOP the ad hoc committee from continuing negotiations and move things into a process as per #1 above.

4. With regards to protecting the Housing Element from decertification, I have previously stated that I believe it would be prudent for the Town to identify other potential sites in advance of a potential 180 day clock. Rather than residents acting on their own initiative, it makes sense for the Town to enlist residents in a managed process. From my past experience, having alternative options only strengthens a party's position in any negotiation. This should be a higher priority for the ad hoc committee than continuing to negotiate with the Twin Oaks/Fenwick owner.

Thank you for consideration of the above in your closed session deliberations.

Yours sincerely. . . John O'Connell

From:

To: -City Cou nci I
Subject: Twin Oaks/Housing Element
Date: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 1:17:43 PM
To: Los Altos Hills City Council Members
From: Eric Bredo
Re: Twin Oaks
Dear Council members,
ITEM 6A, Supplement 3
You have heard from me before but as details of the Twin Oaks/Housing Element issue keep changing I'd like to add another comment relevant to where we are now.

Mostly I want to agree with Michael Grady John O'Connell and the Tovvn planning consultant, Dan Wery, that it is by far preferable that the high density aspect of the Twin Oaks development be limited to the relatively flat land of the site (lots 4-6 and possibly the bottom of lot 3) and not allowed on the steep slopes higher up. I note that this suggestion was also recommended unanin1ously by the Town Planning Commission.

The principal reason for avoiding high density in the higher areas, aside from excessive grading, is that it would create a veiy visible and ugly development, wiping out the beautiful hilltop/ridge line. While one can quibble about whether the hill line constitutes a ridge line, on which town code still prohibits building, the visual effect of the long side of the hill is pretty much the same as a ridge line. Maintaining the natural contours of the town's rolling is truly pa.it of what this town was about, and should still be about.

I was here when the Saddle Mountain development occuned, which violated Town code at the time prohibiting building on the ridge line. The result was that a beautiful 1idge, with large scenic oak one saw silhouetted in the evening sun was replaced with a much uglier set of houses on the ridge, changing the mral charactei· of that pa.it of the Town forever. The developer favored the ridge line because it was cheaper and he could put in more houses on it. It was contentious at the time, and the decision seems to have been made illegitimately, but now we have to live with it. I want to make a strong plea for not making the same kind of mistake twice. It tmly affects the character of our town.

I am also confused about how the discussion has been going, with the reasons for continued negotiation with Twin Oaks' owner remaining obscure to the public, not to speak of the details of what is being discussed. This needs to be made more public so LAH residents don't think some kind of private deal is being done.

Please do limit the high density development to the lower lots!! As to the differences between the O'Connel/Grady versus the Weiy plat1S I have no opinion since it is too detailed for me to follow carefully, but do hope you will consider those differences and their implications with cai·e.

Respectfully,
Eric Bredo
,LAH

From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

I
City Council
Allow Los Altos Hills to be Annexed by Los Altos
Tuesday, March 18, 2025 4:17:06 PM
Dear City Council,
ITEM 6A, Supplement 4
I am a resident of Saddle Mountain. I am deeply opposed to the proposed developments, in all their various forms over the last few months.

NONE of it is in keeping with the spirit of our community. High density housing just doesn't belong in our small, rural community.

If you insist, because the state insists, then it's on the town government to develop a true town plan. One that includes:
- a town center
- a grocery store
- a post office
- gas stations and charging lots
Density housing belongs close to services. Building an apartment building in a c01ner of Los Altos Hills that avoids addressing the real issues is not getting support because it isn't a plan that shows how the town will actually grow over time. It just tries to "get rid of the problem". So we will end up with an eyesore in one part of town. This is not a way to grow.

If we are going to grow, let's do it right. Let's put together a plan that makes sense and come up with a town center.

If we DON'T want to create a town center, I urge you to allow Los Altos Hills to be annexed by Los Altos. Why? They already have all of the amenities and a town center we can build around. This is a far more attractive option, as we would then have the opportunity to build high density housing on El Camino, where it belongs.

Best regards,
Luanne Dauber
-

From:

To: City Council; Planning Commission
Subject: Fw: Special Meeting March 20, 2025
Date: Thursday, March 20, 2025 12:35:33 PM
Dear Planning Commission and City Council Members of Los Altos Hills, I understand that a special City Council meeting is scheduled today at 4:00 pm to discuss the ongoing litigation between Sea Landing LP and the Town of Los Altos Hills, Case No. 22-CV400255. According to public records, this case was dismissed on 07/12/2024 without prejudice by Attorney Hechtman.

The residents and property owners of Los Altos Hills believe that Sea Landing is receiving special and favorable treatment compared to other property owners. While others are required to follow the rules and pay fines, it seems that the town has consistently bent the rules in favor of Sea Landing, as well as in the case of the Twin Oaks Housing Element.

The City Council must allow the Planning Commission to do its job by reviewing all requests and ensuring property owners follow the established rules. Any new requests should be referred back to the Planning Commission for review, with proper public input and comment.

Failure to adhere to these procedures could create the appearance that City Council members are compromised. The same principle applies to the Housing Element—if it is not allowed to be amended, it should be reviewed in a transparent and lawful manner so as to restrict the amount of housing that is developed on the hillside and try to protect the scenery of Los Altos Hills, safety of residents traffic , etc ..

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Thank you
George Perlegos
* to be included in the Council Meeting March 20 , 2025 the 4:00 pm and 6:00 pm meetings.

Sent from iPhone
ITEM 6A, Supplement 5 & ITEM 9A, Supplement 5

ITEM 7A:

This item has been continued to a date uncertain, meaning it will not be heard until it is re-noticed for a future meeting. The City Council was scheduled to consider Resolutions making findings and denying applications for two residential development projects proposing multi-family senior residential developments with 55 and 57 dwelling units at 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive, respectively (CDP23-0001 and CDP23-0002), pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(d).

ITEM 8A
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS March 20, 2025
Staff Report to the City Council
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION GRANTING EXTENSION REQUEST FOR BUILDING PERMIT AT 26700 PALO HILLS DRIVE.

FROM: Jay Bradford, Community Development Director
APPROVED: Peter Pirnejad, City Manager PP
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
1) Adopt the resolution (Attachment 1) approving the extension request for Building Permit #8999 under Permit BLD25-0020.
2) Approve temporary changes to the Construction Time Limits regulation until proposed updates can be considered.

DISCUSSION:

The property owner is requesting an extension of Building Permit #8999 for 26700 Palo Hills Drive. The permit was originally issued on October 22, 1997, for the construction of a new residence. See Attachment 2 for a copy of the request.

This permit extension request is unique because most requests involve permits that have recently expired. However, this permit is like one other recent request in that it is over two decades old, and construction was ceased around 2000. Upon reviewing the extension request and further investigating the project file, staff identified outstanding corrections that had not been resolved.

Staff determined the project was officially expired by former staff on January 12, 2001. Unlike other recent extension requests, this project has remained inactive since around 2000. During this time, the Town adopted the Construction Time Limits regulations under Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Section 8-10.

Under the current construction time limits outlined in the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Section 8-10, remodel projects valued between $250,001 and $500,000 are limited to a 24-month timeframe from the date of permit issuance. See Attachment 3 for an excerpt from the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Title 8, Chapter 10, detailing time limitations based on project type and value. Since the estimated value of this project is $456,415, it would have expired in 1999 under the current regulations. The Construction Time Limits regulations allow for up to two 6-month extensions if the extension request is made within the allotted time, as outlined in Section 8-10.04.

However, in this case, the standard extension options are not applicable, requiring City Council approval.

As part of the project status review, staff requested that a new permit be filed to cover staff time and efforts in resolving the outstanding issues. The applicant has since submitted an extension

City Council Page 2
Permit Extensions
March 20, 2025
request for up to one year to complete the work while operating under the new permit (BLD25- 0020). However, this approach is expressly prohibited under the current Construction Time Limits regulations. At the time of the request, this regulatory limitation had not yet been identified, and it was discovered only after the review process was completed.

ANALYSIS:

While the Construction Time Limits regulations clearly define expectations for current projects, it is unclear whether projects like this one, which expired before the adoption of these regulations, warrant additional considerations.

To date, staff has handled two other similar requests; one heard at the November 21, 2024, City Council meeting, this request, and one still pending. In each instance, staff has attempted to align with the intent of the current Construction Time Limits regulations, but the complexity of each project has varied:
• The November request was a formality to correct a processing error. • This project required a new permit and had unresolved corrections. • The pending requests lack final documentation and involve minor interior corrections. • All of these projects expired prior to the adoption of the Construction Time Limits regulations.

This raises key questions regarding process, enforcement, and application of penalties referenced in the Construction Time Limits regulations.

After reviewing multiple approaches, the most straightforward solution has been to require a new permit and work under that permit to resolve any outstanding issues. To formalize this approach, staff would need to return with a code amendment as part of the building code updates at the end of 2025. This would also provide time to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed methodology and make any adjustments prior to a final recommendation.

RECOMENDATIONS:
1) Staff recommends granting an extension to allow for the additional inspections required for project closeout under Permit BLD25-0020. With this extension, the applicant will have one year from City Council approval to complete the project. 2) Temporarily suspend the provisions of the current Construction Time Limits regulations regarding the use of a new permit to extend time limitations for projects that expired prior to the adoption of the regulations and have had no construction activity since expiration.

Direct staff to return with proposed ordinance amendments in alignment with the 2025 building code updates.

City Council Page 3
Permit Extensions
March 20, 2025
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The proposed request is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3), which exempts actions that can be seen with certainty will not cause significant environmental impacts.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with these time extension requests as the applicant pays a fee for service covering the Town’s costs.
2024-25 CITY COUNCIL WORK PLAN:

This is not part of the 2024-25 City Council Work Plan as extensions are, depending on applicability, part of the standard core department functions.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1: Resolution Approving Time Extension for 26700 Palo Hills Drive, Building Permit # 8999

2. Attachment 2: Extension Requests

3. Attachment 3: Construction Time Limits Section 8-10.04-10.06

4. Attachment 4: 8999 Inspection Record

ITEM 8A, Attachment 1
RESOLUTION -25

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

APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION OF AN APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT

FOR A NEW RESIDENCE
(LANDS OF CAROL D AND DONALD R CIFRES TRUST)
WHEREAS, the Carol D And Donald R Cifres Trust (“Owner”) owns the property commonly known as 26700 Palo Hills Drive, Los Altos Hills, California (APN 175-33-048); and
WHEREAS, the building permit (# 8999) for a new residence were issued on October 22, 1997; and
WHEREAS, the building permits expired on January 12, 2001, as the Town has adopted a Construction Time Limits Ordinance and, pursuant thereto, sets an expiration date for Building Permits for new dwellings and remodels with additions with a project valuation between $250,001 and $500,000 at twenty-four (24) months; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Construction Time Limits Ordinance, the City Council has the authority to grant reasonable extensions of time for Building Permits that have expired; and WHEREAS, the Town generally grants time extensions of one (1) calendar year; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does hereby approve on behalf of the Owners, a one (1) year Time Extension of approved Building Permit (#BLD25-0020).

The above and foregoing Resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills at a regular meeting held on the 20th day of March 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

BY: _______________________________
Kavita Tankha, Mayor
ATTEST: _______________________________
Arika Birdsong-Miller, City Clerk

ITEM 8A, Attachment 2 Page 387 of 406

§ 8-10.04. Construction completion time limit guidelines.

New Dwellings and Remodels with Additions. Except where a longer time period is approved pursuant to Section 8-10.05, the maximum time for completion of approved new dwellings or remodels with additions, following issuance of the building permit, shall not exceed the following time limits listed in Table 1:

TABLE 1 New Dwellings and Remodels with Additions
Estimated Value of Project ($) Construction Time Limit
$0 to $250,000 18 months
$250,001 to $500,000 24 months
$500,001 to $1,000,000 30 months
$1,000,001 and over 36 months
All Other Construction Projects. Except where a longer time period is approved pursuant to Section 8-10.05, the maximum time for completion of all other applicable construction projects (e.g., remodels, alterations, modifications, repairs, new construction of accessory structures, etc.), following issuance of the building permit, shall not exceed the following time limits listed in Table 2:

TABLE 2 All Other Construction Projects
Estimated Value of Project ($) Construction Time Limit
$0 to $100,000 12 months
$100,001 to $250,000 18 months
$250,001 to $500,000 24 months
$500,001 and over 30 months
The construction time limit period shall commence on the date the building permit is issued.

The time limits stated in Tables 1 and 2 are the maximum time limits allowed and lesser time periods may be allocated to a project depending on the status of previously issued building permits or code enforcement actions.

Every building permit issued by the Town under the provisions of the building code shall expire and automatically become null and void upon reaching the construction time limit unless a time extension is granted under Section 8-10.05. Said time extension shall be granted prior to the expiration of the building permit.
(§ 1, Ord. 555, eff. February 15, 2015)
§ 8-10.05. Extension of construction time limit.

In the event a project has not passed a final inspection in the allotted time period as prescribed by Table 1 or Table 2 under Section 8-10.04, the applicant/owner may be entitled to up to two, Town of Los Altos Hills, CA
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/LO4964 on 2024-11-07 Attachment 3

six month extensions to complete the work. An application for an extension of the construction time limit shall be submitted at least 14 days prior to the expiration of the time limit period and shall be accompanied by a written explanation of the reasons for the requested extension and a fee, as established by City Council resolution. If the Building Official, upon review of the application, grants an extension, the additional six month extension period shall start from the date of the original time limit expiration or the most recent extension expiration date. A construction completion deposit shall be required pursuant to Section 8-10.06 prior to the granting of the time extension.

Time limits shall not be increased through the issuance of subsequent building permits for the same project or for modifications to the original permit unless authorized by the City Council. (§ 1, Ord. 555, eff. February 15, 2015)
§ 8-10.06. Construction completion deposit.

Upon reaching the construction time limit set pursuant to Section 8-10.04, if a final certificate of occupancy has not been issued or final building inspection made, the property owner or representative shall deliver to the Building Department a refundable construction completion deposit (in cash or other security instrument acceptable to the Town and valid for a minimum period of two years) in an amount equal to the lesser of 10% of the estimated cost to complete the project, as determined by the Building Official, or $50,000. The deposit shall be retained until the final inspection is completed. Should penalties accrue due to failure to complete the project within the time limits granted, said penalties may be deducted from the construction completion deposit.

If a building permit issued prior to the date of adoption of the construction time limit ordinance expires, the property owner or representative shall deliver to the Building Department a construction completion deposit prior to the issuance of a new building permit for that project. (§ 1, Ord. 555, eff. February 15, 2015)
Town of Los Altos Hills, CA
§ 8-10.05 § 8-10.06
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/LO4964 on 2024-11-07

From:

To: Arika Miller
Subject: AGENDA ITEM 8A: RESOLUTION GRANTING EXTENSION REQUEST FOR BUILDING PERMIT AT 26700 PALO

HILLS DRIVE
Date: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 5:03:00 PM
Hi Arika,
Please add the following to the Council Meeting Agenda Packet for March 20, 2025.

Thank you.

Best,
Allan
ITEM 8A: RESOLUTION GRANTING EXTENSION REQUEST FOR BUILDING PERMIT AT 26700 PALO HILLS DRIVE.

Summary
Two recommendations are outlined:

1. Approve the Extension: The resolution is acceptable for this case, although it may set a precedent for the hundreds of other expired permits.

2. Temporarily pause the Construction Time Limit Regulations: This recommendation is mentioned in the staff report but not included in the resolution. The solution proposed only addresses some expired permits.

Recommendation:

Council should direct Staff to return to Council with a comprehensive plan for dealing with all categories of expired permits and procedures for ensuring proper implementation of town permitting regulations.

Key Concerns Highlighted:

There are hundreds of expired permits in the "Trak-it" system (691 listed as “expired,” with over 1,100 still listed as "issued" of those issued in just the last ten years).

The Construction Time Limit regulation was adopted in February 2015, ten years ago. The proposed suspension would only address a small fraction of the hundreds of expired permits in the system.

Staff recommendation is not a systematic, comprehensive solution to the permitting process problems.

Background
The second recommendation states:
“Temporarily suspend the provisions of the current Construction Time Limits regulations regarding the use of a new permit to extend time limitations for projects that expired prior to the adoption of the regulations and have had no construction activity since expiration. Direct staff to return with proposed ordinance amendments in alignment with ITEM 8A, Supplement 1

the 2025 building code updates.”
The proposed suspension would only apply to a small fraction of the hundreds of expired permits in the system since The Construction Time Limit regulation was adopted in February 2015, ten years ago.

This is not the first time issues with expired permits have come before the Council, nor will it be the last.

November 21. 2024 Council meeting: Ten properties need extensions to their construction time limits.

January 29, 2025 Special Council Meeting: Six additional properties need extensions.

February 20, 2025 Council meeting FY’24-25 Amended Work Plan. I advised the Council that more action was required than simply “Conduct an assessment of expired Town Permits.
“The plethora of expired permits on the Trak-it system is just one of many indicators that the Town has insufficient control of its building permitting process. Time limits are not enforced. Proper fees are not charged. Projects are not finaled and construction is allowed to continue after permits have expired. Deposits are not returned. More action is required than simply an “assessment” of expired permits. An audit of the permitting system processes and procedures should be performed with results reported back to the Council for subsequent action.”

hillsides from extensive grading and minimize the visual impact of high density building(s). (O'Connell presented topographical slides showing the depth of grading on the steep slopes of Twin Oaks lots 1 and 2 to accommodate high density housing could be 45 feet, and the existing hillside would be eviscerated.Apparently in response to O'Connell's illustration of the horrific grading that allowing high density housing on the steep slopes would entail, Councilman Bhateja recently, and shockingly, posited that perhaps the high density housing could be built on piers or stilts, with the buildings cantilevered over the steep slopes!
Councilmen Bhateja and Mok have been continuing to try to negotiate a "new deal" with the Twin Oaks owner (after the horrific "Key Terms Agreement" demanded by her was unanimously rejected), but the problem is that the Twin Oaks owner now apparently "demands" terms which would leave only the steeper lots of the Twin Oaks site available for high density housing.Specifically, the owner claims she wants to "farm" all of the flat lots at Twin Oaks (in addition to the adjacent 40 acre Fenwick property), thereby leaving only the steeper and higher (i.e. better view) lots 1 and 2 of Twin Oaks for multifamily housing.

Without even getting into what kind of "farming" activities the Town should permit (remember the greenhouses, dam, and fish cannery which she wanted in the rejected Key Terms Agreement?) or the other terms being demanded (e.g. a "poison pill" for the purpose of dissuading Town residents from asserting their legal rights!), the demand that high density housing take place on the steep lots 1 and 2 should be a nonstarter which the Town should simply reject. While I continue to believe the "farm" idea is a pretext to maneuver the Town into permitting high density housing on the steep lots, if the Twin Oaks owner truly just wants a farm, she has 40 acres of Fenwick land, and a portion of the flatter lots of Twin Oaks could still be available to give her access to the Fenwick land and for some appropriate farming activity. But in any event, the Town should insist on rezoning for high density (20 units/acre) housing enough of the flatter portion of Twin Oaks (lots 4-6) to pass muster with HCD and keep the steep lots free of high density housing.

Sincerely,

Michael Grady

Michael Baker (MB) plans, there is 100% consensus that multifamily developments at a density of >20du/ac should be restricted to lots 4, 5 & 6 and not allowed on lots 1, 2 or 27690 Arastradero. Lot 3 is still in discussion. The planning commission also passed a motion 5-0 supporting this at their most recent, March 12 meeting.

Negotiating a Development Agreement that concedes lots 3, 4, 5 & 6 to being used for farming, but gives rights to develop lots 1 & 2 for high density housing totally undermines the raison d'etre of the ad hoc committee. If the Town doesn't want to rezone the flat lots at Twin Oaks for multifamily housing, it should then leave all of Twin Oaks RA, and move on to identify other sites to meet its multifamily RHNA (not my preferred or recommended path). I am committed to ensuring the current HE is not placed at risk of decertification, and submit to the Council that the Development Agreement being negotiated behind closed doors creates more risk than it avoids. I am happy to explain why upon request.

The council should STOP the ad hoc committee from continuing negotiations and move things into a process as per #1 above.

4. With regards to protecting the Housing Element from decertification, I have previously stated that I believe it would be prudent for the Town to identify other potential sites in advance of a potential 180 day clock. Rather than residents acting on their own initiative, it makes sense for the Town to enlist residents in a managed process. From my past experience, having alternative options only strengthens a party's position in any negotiation. This should be a higher priority for the ad hoc committee than continuing to negotiate with the Twin Oaks/Fenwick owner.

Thank you for consideration of the above in your closed session deliberations.

Yours sincerely. . . John O'Connell

To: <Board of Directors, Fremont Hills Country Club>
Cc: Mr. Randy Popp
From: <Town of Los Altos Hills>
Subj: Reminder – Occupancy Permit for new construction is conditional This letter is in reference to permits issued by The Town of Los Altos Hills for your new construction at 12889 Viscaino Road (Lands of Fremont Hills Country Club), namely the new aquatics building/multipurpose room and 230 square-foot addition to an existing office building.

We wish to clarify and remind you of the fact that an eventual occupancy permit for this new construction work is contingent upon a Landmark application being submitted for the existing water tower located elsewhere on the premises. Specifically, note condition number 49 as formulated by the Town Council at their meeting on October 22nd 2024.

Condition #49: Prior to the earlier issuance of the certificate of occupancy of the aquatics center or the issuance of a final building inspection for the modification to the equipment and office building, the applicant shall apply for, and upon approval by the City Council receive or upon disapproval not receive, the Landmark Designation for the water tower located on the property pursuant to Title 11, Chapter 1 of the Los Altos Municipal Code.

We wish to emphasize at this point that it obligates the Club to take protective measures in the interim period to ensure that the subject water tower does not suffer any fate that might make it ineligible to achieve such Landmark status. Any accident or disaster such as (for example but not limited to) fire, or collapse due to compromised infrastructure, or even earthquake, might make achievement of Landmark status much more expensive (or potentially unattainable) which in turn would jeopardize your ability to enjoy the use of your newly constructed facilities.

To avoid such unhoped-for problems, we would urge you to have the water tower inspected by competent personnel sooner, rather than later, and take measures to counter any deterioration or increase in risk that might take place during the interim period – especially in view of the extra heavy rains and windstorms that we are told we can expect this winter. If (as would not be a surprise) the roof is leaky in places – leading to various forms of rot or other damage – fixing the problem at this point might be a worthwhile investment to avoid jeopardizing your interests.

We note that at the Council meeting where this situation was discussed in a public hearing, Mr. Randy Popp, architect and representative for the Fremont Hills Country Club, said they have no issue with adding the historical designation and tying it to the final occupancy permit.

It should also be noted that time be allowed for review of the application by the History Committee, followed by review of the City Council, which each meet once a month. The City Council will not be meeting in July, so depending when the application is received, it may take two months for the review to occur, so we urge you to take this into account in your schedule for submitting the application.

ITEM 11B

QUOTE Q-93808
Questions contact:

DATE: 01/21/2025 PAGE
NO: 1
Mail Purchase
Orders to:
3100 Research Dr.

State College, PA
16801
All Traffic Solutions Inc.

PO Box 221410
Chantilly, VA 20153
Phone: 814-237-9005
Fax: 814-237-9006
DUNS #: 001225114
Tax ID: 25-1887906
CAGE Code: 34FQ5
Contract:

Sourcewell 090122-ATS
Sourcewell Account #:
66929
MANUFACTURER:

All Traffic Solutions
Grahm Zieba
x
[email protected]
Independent Sales Rep:

BILL TO: SHIP TO:

Technology Committee, Town of Los Altos Hills
, CA
Billing Contact:

Technology Committee, Town of Los Altos Hills
, CA
Attn: Rajiv Bhateja

PAYMENT
TERMS:

Net 30
CUSTOMER:

Technology Committee,
Town of Los Altos Hills
CONTACT:(408) 796-1276
ITEM NO: DESCRIPTION: QTY: EACH: EXT.

PRICE:
4000750 App, Mobile User Interface perpetual license (only 1 required per account—Bluetooth required,
enabled separately)
1 $100.00 $100.00
4000741 SpeedAlert 18 Radar Message Sign (RMS); base
unit w/ mounting bracket
1 $3,892.32 $3,892.32
4001299 3 Year Warranty 1 $0.00 $0.00
4000874 All Options Activation: Bluetooth, Traffic Data, Violator Alert, Pictures, ($3000 Value, requires
Traffic or Message Suite)
1 $0.00 $0.00
4000647 App, Traffic Suite (12mo); Equip Mgmt, Reporting, Image Mgmt, Alerts, Mapping and PremierCare
1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00
4001626 VZW communications prep 1 $0.00 $0.00
4000793 Violator Strobe, Dual; Hardware for SpeedAlert 18, flash helps draw attention to the driver's speed.

Requires color assignment PN.
1 $420.24 $420.24
4000826 Strobe Color: Red and Blue (Requires 4000793
Dual Violator Strobe)
1 $0.00 $0.00
4001819 Integrated Solar pole mount battery kit (iA/SA18)

16.5Ah batt, LFP charger & solar controller
1 $617.10 $617.10
4000913 Solar panel, 100W; includes bracket for pole and harness
1 $900.00 $900.00
4000247 Hitch mount, for 1.25" & 2" hitch, includes: trailer connector & hardware
1 $603.84 $603.84
4001889 Shipping and Handling 1 $419.00 $419.00

4001190 Discount - New Purchase 1 ($887.51) ($887.51)
4000705 Sales Tax 1 $0.00 $0.00
SALES
AMOUNT:

Special Notes: $7,564.99
sales tax - 9.13%
TOTAL
USD:
$7,564.99
Duration: This quote is good for 60 days from date of issue.

Shipping Notes: All shipments shall be FOB shipper. Shipping charges shall be additional unless listed on quote.

Taxes: Taxes are not included in quote. Please provide a tax-exempt certificate or sales tax will be applied.

Warranty: Unless otherwise indicated, all products have a one year warranty from date of sale. Warranty extensions are a component of some applications that are available at time of purchase. A Finance Charge of 1.5% per month will be applied to overdue balances. GSA GS-07F-6092R I am authorized to commit my organization to this order. If your organization will be creating a purchase order for this order, please submit purchase order to either of the following: Email: [email protected] or Physical Address: Listed at top of quote.

Signature: Date:

Print Name: Title:
\signature1\ \date1\
\fullname1\ \title1\

QUOTE Q-93806
Questions contact:

DATE: 01/21/2025 PAGE
NO: 1
Mail Purchase
Orders to:
3100 Research Dr.

State College, PA
16801
All Traffic Solutions Inc.

PO Box 221410
Chantilly, VA 20153
Phone: 814-237-9005
Fax: 814-237-9006
DUNS #: 001225114
Tax ID: 25-1887906
CAGE Code: 34FQ5
Contract:

Sourcewell 090122-ATS
Sourcewell Account #:
66929
MANUFACTURER:

All Traffic Solutions
Grahm Zieba
x
[email protected]
Independent Sales Rep:

BILL TO: SHIP TO:

Technology Committee, Town of Los Altos Hills
, CA
Billing Contact:

Technology Committee, Town of Los Altos Hills
, CA
Attn: Rajiv Bhateja

PAYMENT
TERMS:

Net 30
CUSTOMER:

Technology Committee,
Town of Los Altos Hills
CONTACT:(408) 796-1276
ITEM NO: DESCRIPTION: QTY: EACH: EXT.

PRICE:
4000750 App, Mobile User Interface perpetual license (only 1 required per account—Bluetooth required,
enabled separately)
1 $100.00 $100.00
4000566 Shield 15 Speed Display; base unit w/ mounting
bracket
1 $3,417.00 $3,417.00
4001299 3 Year Warranty 1 $0.00 $0.00
4000874 All Options Activation: Bluetooth, Traffic Data, Violator Alert, Pictures, ($3000 Value, requires
Traffic or Message Suite)
1 $0.00 $0.00
4000647 App, Traffic Suite (12mo); Equip Mgmt, Reporting, Image Mgmt, Alerts, Mapping and PremierCare
1 $1,500.00 $1,500.00
4001626 VZW communications prep 1 $0.00 $0.00
4001817 Integrated Solar pole mount battery kit (Sh15)

16.5Ah batt, LFP charger & solar controller
1 $596.70 $596.70
4000659 Solar panel, 50W; includes bracket for pole and harness
1 $496.74 $496.74
4000247 Hitch mount, for 1.25" & 2" hitch, includes: trailer connector & hardware
1 $603.84 $603.84
4001889 Shipping and Handling 1 $365.00 $365.00
4001190 Discount - New Purchase 1 ($743.32) ($743.32)
4000705 Sales Tax 1 $0.00 $0.00

SALES
AMOUNT:

Special Notes: $6,335.96
sales tax - 9.13%
TOTAL
USD:
$6,335.96
Duration: This quote is good for 60 days from date of issue.

Shipping Notes: All shipments shall be FOB shipper. Shipping charges shall be additional unless listed on quote.

Taxes: Taxes are not included in quote. Please provide a tax-exempt certificate or sales tax will be applied.

Warranty: Unless otherwise indicated, all products have a one year warranty from date of sale. Warranty extensions are a component of some applications that are available at time of purchase. A Finance Charge of 1.5% per month will be applied to overdue balances. GSA GS-07F-6092R I am authorized to commit my organization to this order. If your organization will be creating a purchase order for this order, please submit purchase order to either of the following: Email: [email protected] or Physical Address: Listed at top of quote.

Signature: Date:

Print Name: Title:
\signature1\ \date1\
\fullname1\ \title1\

Complete this form by typing
your information into the
editable PDF and printing, OR
print the form and complete
by hand. Be sure to sign.

1. Scan and email completed
form to your ATS rep or FAX
to (814) 237-9006

2. Once your request is
authorized, you will be
notified of the expected ship
date (subject to availability).

3. Deploy the equipment using
the instructions that will be
provided

4. Take advantage of
complimentary remote
TraffiCloudTM training

5. After the evaluation period,
return all equipment by
following the instructions
that will be provided.

TRY TRAFFICLOUD™

FREE DURING YOUR

TEST DRIVE

TEST DRIVE FORM
SHIELD
Select Product
Shield 12 Shield 15
Contact Information
Name:

Title:

Department/Company:

Email:

Phone:

Shipping Information
Department/Company:

Attention:

Address:

City, State, Zip:

Email:

Phone:

The Customer

1. Agrees to use and evaluate the product as recommended by All Traffic Solutions and return within two (2) weeks.

2. Acknowledges that if equipment is not returned or is damaged, customer will be invoiced up to the full purchase price.

3. Agrees to complete a feedback form upon equipment return.

Your signature indicates agreement to the above terms.

Signature Date
©All Traffic Solutions AllTrafficSolutions.com (866) 366-6602 12950 Worldgate Drive #310 Herndon VA 20170 Shield
The demo unit includes:
• Mounting Bracket
• TraffiCloud Remote
Management Software

Complete this form by typing
your information into the
editable PDF and printing, OR
print the form and complete
by hand. Be sure to sign.

1. Scan and email completed
form to your ATS rep or FAX
to (814) 237-9006

2. Once your request is
authorized, you will be
notified of the expected ship
date (subject to availability).

3. Deploy the equipment using
the instructions that will be
provided

4. Take advantage of
complimentary remote
TraffiCloudTM training

5. After the evaluation period,
return all equipment by
following the instructions
that will be provided.

SpeedAlert 18
The demo unit includes:
• Mounting Bracket
• Li-ion Battery/Charger Kit
• TraffiCloud Remote
Management Software
TRY TRAFFICLOUD™

FREE DURING YOUR

TEST DRIVE

TEST DRIVE FORM
SPEEDALERT 18
Product Options
Red and Blue Strobe
Portable Post
White Strobe
Carrying Case
Contact Information
Name:

Title:

Department/Company:

Email:

Phone:

Shipping Information
Department/Company:

Attention:

Address:

City, State, Zip:

Email:

Phone:

The Customer

1. Agrees to use and evaluate the product as recommended by All Traffic Solutions and return within two (2) weeks.

2. Acknowledges that if equipment is not returned or is damaged, customer will be invoiced up to the full purchase price.

3. Agrees to complete a feedback form upon equipment return.

Your signature indicates agreement to the above terms.

Signature Date
©All Traffic Solutions AllTrafficSolutions.com (866) 366-6602 12950 Worldgate Drive #310 Herndon VA 20170