1 City Council Special Meeting Agenda
March 20, 2025
LAH Agenda
September 28.docx j
NOTICE TO PUBLIC
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on the open session portion of this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s office located at 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, California during normal business hours. These materials will also be made available on the City website at www.losaltoshills.ca.gov subject to Staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
LOS ALTOS HILLS CITY COUNCIL WILL BE HELD ON
THURSDAY, MARCH 20, 2025, AT 4:00 P.M.
Meetings of the City Council are held in-person. As a courtesy, and in compliance with applicable state law, staff and members of the public may participate in the meeting in person at Town Hall or virtually via Zoom Video Conference. Members of the City Council may participate remotely from time to time in accordance with the provisions of Government Code section 54953.
To attend the meeting in person:
City Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 To provide Public Comment in person:
Members of the public wishing to speak are requested to complete a speaker card and submit it to the City Clerk at the meeting.
To participate in the meeting via Zoom Video Conference, please follow the instructions below:
Public comment will also be accepted via email at [email protected] prior to the start of the meeting. Written comments will be posted on the website and distributed to the Council.
If you choose to email your comments, please indicate in the subject line “FOR PUBLIC COMMENT” and indicate the item number.
If you wish to submit a public comment during the meeting, please use the following information.
Before speaking, please identify yourself by name and where you reside. The City Council meeting will be live-streamed on the Town’s website and via Zoom at the following location:
https://bit.ly/March20ClosedSessionCCLAH
Webinar ID: 821 5224 7661
Password: 94022
Town of Los Altos Hills
City Council Special Meeting Agenda
Thursday, March 20, 2025 at 4:00 PM
Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, California
2 City Council Special Meeting Agenda
March 20, 2025
Public testimony will be taken at the direction of the Mayor and members of the public may only comment during times allotted for public comments. This meeting will be broadcast via livestream service at http://www.losaltoshills.ca.gov.
CALL TO ORDER (4:00 PM)
ROLL CALL
1. PUBLIC COMMENT (Public Comment is Limited to Items which are the Subject of the Special Meeting)
2. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS THE FOLLOWING:
A. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1))
Sea Landing Limited Partnership v. Town of Los Altos Hills, Case No. 22-CV400255 B. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2)
Significant Exposure to Litigation – Two cases –
(Potential Litigation Related to: (1) SB 330 Issue related to Twin Oaks property and (2) Options for Housing Element and Land Use Element Amendment and Zoning/Objective Development Standards)
3. ADJOURN CLOSED SESSION
4. REPORT OUT OF CLOSED SESSION
5. ADJOURN
ASSISTANCE FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in the meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 650-941-7222. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
Copies of all agenda reports and supporting data are available for inspection at Town Hall, 26379 Fremont Road 72 hours in advance of the meeting.
A complete agenda can be found on the Town’s webpage: http://www.losaltoshills.ca.gov. A complete packet of information is available for inspection during the meeting at the table to the back of the Council Chambers and online. Council may take action on any agendized matter in any manner deemed appropriate by Council.
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
ITEM 1, Supplement 1
�Arika Miller
Public Comment on Twin Oaks & Housing Element (March 20 Special and Regular Council Meetings Wednesday, March 19, 2025 9:37:23 PM
Dear Councilmembers:
Everyone (except Councilmen Bhateja and Mok, apparently) agrees that any multifamily development at a density of 20+ units per acre MUST BE ON THE FLAT AREAS of Twin Oaks, NOT on the steep slopes. When they were appointed to the ad hoc committee, Councilmen Bhateja & Mok were given a mandate to lead the Town's effort to amend its current Housing Element.
Councilman Mok's resolution to continue trying to negotiate a Development Agreement with the Twin Oaks owner didn't ever receive a second. Councilmen Bhateja and Mok have deviated from their assigned mission into trying to renegotiate the horrific "deal" which the Twin Oaks owner tried to impose on the Town, and which was unanimously rejected by the Planning Commission and the Town Council in January. As was the case in January, the terms demanded by the Twin Oaks owner (that all of the flat lots at Twin Oaks be reserved for her "farming," thereby leaving only the steeply sloped lots 1 and 2 for multifamily housing) are simply unacceptable. Unless she changes her position, the Town should simply stop trying to negotiate a deal with her and just proceed with amendment of the Housing Element and rezoning only such portion of the flat lots of Twin Oaks for high density (20+ units/acre) housing as will be sufficient to meet the 61 unit RHNA allocation for the Twin Oaks site.
At its March 12 meeting, the Planning Commission, along with the Town's housing consultant, Dan Wery, and John O'Connell unanimously agreed that high density housing development should not take place on hillside lots with slopes of 20% or more. Accordingly, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the Council pursue amendment of the Housing Element to limit high density housing (20+ units/acre) to a portion of the flatter lots of the Twin Oaks site (i.e. lots 4-6, and possibly, under O'Connell's proposal, a bottom portion of lot 3).
Keeping the high density housing off the steep slopes would protect our
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
ITEM 1, Supplement 2
From:
To: ..
Cc:
Subject:
Planning Commission: Peter Pimejad: -; Arika Miller
Comments from the floor 03/20/25 S�ting
Date: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 10:32:45 PM
1. As stated at the closed session on 03/09/25, the process used in Januaiy for negotiation of the KTA undennined the tmst of a large number of residents. The issue of continued negotiations was raised at the CC meeting 01/30/25, and councilor Mok's motion did not receive a second. The process of trying to negotiate a development agreement with the owner of the Twin Oaks and Fenwick properties is allowing that owner to circumvent the process that all other Los Altos Hills residents are required to follow, with respect to their development requests. I am not alone in my belief that having council members representing, advocating and appearing as agents for any resident is unacceptable.
If a resident of Los Altos Hills has proposals for what they wish to do with their prope1iy, the Town has processes. The proposals are presented to Town staff, possibly refeITed to the Planning Commission, and ultimately may end up for decision by the Council. The commissioners and council members listen, clarify, question, deliberate and come to a consensus IN PUBLIC! If the owner of the prope1iy does not wish to do this personally, they can select agents to represent them. Under no circumstances should those agents be a planning commissioner, city council member, or other Town official.
2. The assertion that the owner of Twin Oaks is not interested in development, and only wants to build a farm, does not correlate with the public records of her activities in Palo Alto, Saratoga & Los Altos. The records of her activities in Los Altos Hills include proposing a 6 unit multifamily residence on land zoned RA in 2011, the April 2023 development proposals and the recent SB330 application also convey a stronger interest in development than "fanning". Town staff also instructed that unpennitted grading at Twin Oaks must be coITected, but has not taken any action to coITect these unpennitted activities. and public data fmiher shows that t
his illegal grading continues. Fences that do not confo1m to Town policies are still in place. The obvious question residents are asking is "Why is the Town treating the owner of Twin Oaks so differently?" The Town normally enforces such issues with red tags, fines and in the event of non-cooperation, hiring a contractor to correct the grading or remove the fencing and applying the cost as a secured lien on the property's tax bill.
• There is a perception of favourable bias in treatment of the owner of the Twin Oaks & Fenwick properties. Any commissioner or council member should disclose current and past affiliations with the owner, and any actual or potential conflict of interests, and if such exist, recuse themselves.
Residents of Los Altos Hills request that nonnal processes for coITecting unpennitted activity and site development proposals follow standai·d processes with full public ti·ansparency. Most development agreements are something a developer wishes to avoid changes dming the development process, i.e. the owness is on the developer to provide reciprocal benefits to the Town. The Town pursuing a development agreement, based upon feai·, should be te1minated.
3. I will be presenting my progress on the plan the CC approved 5-0 on 02/20/25 to amend the housing element. While there are still some significant differences with my (JOC) plan and the
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 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 1, Supplement 3