Agenda packet, special meeting — Los Altos Hills City Council, June 18, 2025 (part 11 of 12)

Signs, Appendix I-Patio Covers, and Appendix J- Grading and any rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference herein. b) One copy ofthe Building Code shall be kept on file at the Town of Los Altos Hills. 8- 1. 1. 02 Amended sections of adopted codes.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 8- 1. 1. 01, the Building Code is amended as follows:

A. Section 1505. 1. 3 is amended to read as follows:
1505. 1. 3 Roof coverings within all other areas. The entire roof covering of every existing structure where more than 50 percent ofthe total roof area is replaced within any one- year period, the entire roof covering of every new structure, and any roof covering applied in the alteration, repair or replacement of the roof of every existing structure, shall be a fireretardant roof covering that is at least Class A.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does hereby ORDAIN as follows:

1. Title VIII, Chapter 1. 2, " California Residential Code," is hereby amended to read as follows:

Chapter 1. 2 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE
8- 1. 2.01 Adoption of 2016 California Residential Code. a) The 2016 California Residential Code, Part 2. 5, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, a portion of the California Building Standards Code, as defined in the California State Health and Safety Code Section 18901 et seq., ( hereinafter referred to as the" Residential Code"), including Appendix E-Manufactured Housing Used as Dwellings, Appendix H-Patio Covers, Appendix J-Existing Buildings and Structures, Appendix 0- Automatic Vehicular Gates, Appendix V-Swimming Pool Safety Act and any rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference herein.
b) One copy of the Residential Code shall be kept on file at the Town of Los Altos Hills. 8- 1. 2. 02 Amended sections of adopted codes.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 8- 1. 2. 01, the Residential Code is amended as follows:

A. Section R313. 2 is amended to read:

Ordinance 568 Page 3
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 22

Page 1128 of 1435 ends

R313. 2 One and two-family dwellings automatic fire sprinkler systems. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed in all new one- and two-family dwellings and in existing one- and two-family dwellings where during the process ofa remodel and/ or addition, the existing roof structure ( joists, rafters, etc.) is removed over an area that exceeds 75% of the existing dwelling floor area. For any disagreement on the amount of roof structure being removed, a State of California licensed architect or structural engineer shall be utilized to calculate the percentage of the roof to be replaced.

Exception: An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be required for additions or alterations to existing buildings that are already provided with an automatic residential fire sprinkler system.

B. Section R902. 1. 3 is amended to read as follows:
8902. 1. 3 Roof coverings in all other areas. The entire roof covering of every existing structure where more than 50 percent of the total roof area is replaced within any one- year period, the entire roof covering of every new structure, and any roof covering applied in the alteration, repair or replacement ofthe roof of every existing structure, shall be a fireretardant roof covering that is at least Class A.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does hereby further ORDAIN as follows:

1. Title VIII, Chapter 1. 3," California Electrical Code," is hereby amended to read as follows:

Chapter 1. 3 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE
8- 1. 3. 01 Adoption of 2016 California Electrical Code. a) The 2016 California Electrical Code, Part 3, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, a portion of the California Building Standards Code, as defined in the California State Health and Safety Code Section 18901 et seq., ( hereinafter referred to as the ` Electrical Code"), and any rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference herein.
b) One copy ofthe Electrical Code shall be kept on file at the Town of Los Altos Hills.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does hereby further ORDAIN as follows:

1. Title VIII, Chapter 1. 4, " California Mechanical Code," is hereby amended to read as follows:

Chapter 1. 4 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE
Ordinance 568 Page 4
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 22

Page 1129 of 1435 ends

8- 1. 4. 01 Adoption of 2016 California Mechanical Code. a) The 2016 California Mechanical Code, Part 4, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, a portion of the California Building Standards Code, as defined in the California State Health and Safety Code Section 18901 et seq., ( hereinafter referred to as the " Mechanical Code"), and any rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference herein.
b) One copy ofthe Mechanical Code shall be kept on file at the Town of Los Altos Hills.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does hereby further ORDAIN as follows:

1. Title VIII, Chapter 1. 5, " California Plumbing Code," is hereby amended to read as follows:

Chapter 1. 5 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE
8- 1. 5. 01 Adoption of 2016 California Plumbing Code.
a) The 2016 California Plumbing Code, Part 5, Title 24 ofthe California Code ofRegulations, a portion of the California Building Standards Code, as defined in the California State Health and Safety Code Section 18901 et seq., ( hereinafter referred to as the " Plumbing Code"), and any rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference herein.
b) One copy of the Plumbing Code shall be kept on file at the Town of Los Altos Hills. 8- 1. 5. 02 Amended sections of adopted code.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 8- 1. 5. 01, the Plumbing Code is amended as follows:

A. Section 719. 1 is amended to read:
719. 1 Locations. Cleanouts shall be placed inside the building near the connection between the building drain and the building sewer or installed outside the building at the lower end ofthe building drain and extended to grade.

Additional building sewer cleanouts shall be installed at intervals not to exceed 100 feet in straight runs, for each aggregate horizontal change in direction exceeding 135 degrees, and at the property line where the private sewer system connects to the publically- maintained sanitary sewer lateral. All such cleanouts shall be extended to grade with materials and according to specifications approved by the sewer agency and shall terminate with a concrete box.

Ordinance 568 Page 5
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 22

Page 1130 of 1435 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does hereby further ORDAIN as follows:

1. Title VIII, Chapter 1. 6, " Energy Code," is hereby amended to read as follows:

Chapter 1. 6 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE
8- 1. 6. 01 Adoption of 2016 California Energy Code.
a) The 2016 California Energy Code, Part 6, Title 24 ofthe California Code of Regulations, a portion of the California Building Standards Code, as defined in the California State Health and Safety Code Section 18901 et seq., ( hereinafter referred to as the " Energy Code"), and any rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference herein.
b) One copy ofthe Energy Code shall be kept on file at the Town of Los Altos Hills.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does hereby further ORDAIN as follows:

1. Title VIII, Chapter 1. 7, " California Historical Building Code," is hereby amended to read as follows:

Chapter 1. 7 CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE
8- 1. 7.01 Adoption of 2016 California Historical Building Code. a) The 2016 California Historical Building Code, Part 8, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, a portion of the California Building Standards Code, as defined in the California State Health and Safety Code Section 18901 et seq., ( hereinafter referred to as the " Historical Building Code"), and any rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference herein. b) One copy of the Historic Building Code shall be kept on file at the Town of Los Altos Hills.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does hereby further ORDAIN as follows:

1. Title VIII, Chapter 1. 8, " California Fire Code," is hereby amended to read as follows:

Ordinance 568 Page 6
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 22

Page 1131 of 1435 ends

Chapter 1. 8 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE
8- 1. 8. 01 Adoption of 2016 California Fire Code.
a) The 2016 California Fire Code, Part 9, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, a portion ofthe California Building Standards Code, as defined in the California State Health and Safety Code Section 18901 et seq., ( hereafter referred to as the Fire Code or CFC), and also the 2015 International Fire Code, published by the International Code Council, including Appendix B-Fire Flow Requirements, Appendix C- Fire Hydrant Locations and Appendix N-Temporary Haunted Houses and any rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference herein. b) One copy of the Fire Code shall be kept on file at the Town of Los Altos Hills. 8- 1. 8. 02 Amended sections of adopted code.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 8- 1. 8. 01, the following sections of Fire Code are amended as follows:

A. Section 106. 5 is added to read as follows:
106.5 Final Inspection. No final inspection as to all or any portion of a development shall be deemed completed until the installation of the required fire protection facilities and access ways have been completed and approved. No final certificate of occupancy may be granted until the Fire Department issues notice of final clearance of such fire protection facilities and access ways, as required by the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code, to the Town' s Building Department.

B. Section 108. 1 is amended to read as follows:
108. 1 Board of appeals established. In order to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determinations made by the fire code official relative to the application and interpretation of this code, there shall be and is hereby created a board of appeals. The board ofappeals, as it appears in this code, shall be deemed and construed to mean the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills. The fire code official shall be an ex officio member of said board but shall have no vote on any matter before the board. The board shall adopt rules ofprocedure for conducting its business and shall render all decisions and findings in writing to the appellant with a duplicate copy to the fire code official.

C. Section 108. 3, Qualifications, is deleted in its entirety.

D. Section 109. 4 is amended to read as follows:
109. 4 Violation Penalties. Persons who shall violate a provision of this code or shall fail to comply with any ofthe requirements thereof or who shall erect, install, alter, repair or do work in violation of the approved construction documents or directive of the fire code Ordinance 568 Page 7
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 22

Page 1132 of 1435 ends

official, or of a permit or certificate used under provisions ofthis code, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punishable as set forth in Title 1, Chapter 2 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code.

E. Section 109. 4. 1 is amended to read as follows:
109. 4. 1 Abatement of Violation. In addition to the imposition of the penalties herein described, the fire code official is authorized to institute appropriate action to prevent unlawful construction or to restrain, correct or abate a violation; or to prevent illegal occupancy of a structure or premises; or to stop an illegal act, conduct of business or occupancy of a structure on or about any premises. If any person fails to comply with the order of the fire code official, or in the event that the fire code official is unable to locate the responsible person within a reasonable time, the fire code official may take such steps to abate a fire hazard or health hazard as are necessary for the protection of the public health and safety. In no event is notice necessary before abatement when the fire hazard constitutes a clear and present danger to the public welfare. The cost of any such abatement is a debt to the Town, of the owner of the premises or who, by his or her act or inaction, caused the fire hazard. The cost ofthe abatement shall become a lien on the premises when the need for the abatement and the amount of the cost have been established.

F. Section 202 — General Definitions is amended by adding or amending the following definitions:

Administrator means the City Manager of the Town of Los Altos Hills or his or her designated representative.

Chief or Fire Chief or fire code official means the Fire Chiefretained by the Los Altos Hills County Fire District or designated representative.

Chief of Police means the Sheriff of the County of Santa Clara with whom the Town contracts for police services, or his or her designated representative.

Corporation Counsel means the City Attorney for the Town.

Fire Department means the Fire Department retained by the Los Altos Hills County Fire District.

Jurisdiction means the Town of Los Altos Hills.

Police Department means the Sheriff' s Department of the County of Santa Clara with whom the Town contracts for police service.

G. Section 503. 1 is amended to read as follows:

Ordinance 568 Page 8
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 22

Page 1133 of 1435 ends

503. 1 Where required. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided and maintained in accordance with Sections 503. 1. 1 through 503. 1. 2 and as per Fire Department access road Standards.

H. Section 503. 2. 1 is amended to read as follows:
503. 2. 1 Dimensions. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet( 6, 096 mm), exclusive of shoulders, except for approved security gates in accordance with Section 503. 6, and an unobstructed vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches 4, 115 mm).

Exception: When there are not more than two Group R, Division 3, or Group U occupancies, the access road width may be modified by the fire code official.

I. Section 5704. 2. 9. 6. 1 is amended to read as follows:
5704. 2. 9. 6. 1 Locations where above- ground tanks are prohibited. The storage of Class I and II liquids in above- ground tanks outside of buildings is prohibited within the limits established by law as the limits of districts in which such storage is prohibited. The limits referred to above, in which the storage of flammable or combustible liquids in aboveground tanks is prohibited, are hereby established as all locations within the Town of Los Altos Hills located within a" Very-High Fire Hazard Severity Zone" as designated on the state recommended CALFIRE Maps.

J. Section 5706. 2. 4. 4 is amended to read as follows:
5706.2.4. 4 Locations where above- ground tanks are prohibited. The storage of Class I and II liquids in above- ground tanks is prohibited within the limits established by law as the limits of districts in which such storage is prohibited. The limits referred to above, in which the storage offlammable or combustible liquids in above- ground tanks is prohibited, are hereby established as all locations within the Town of Los Altos Hills located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone" as designated on the state recommended CALFIRE Maps.

K. Section 5806. 2 is amended to read as follows:
5806. 2 Limitations. The storage of flammable cryogenic fluids in stationary containers outside of buildings is prohibited within the limits established by law as the limits of districts in which such storage is prohibited. The limits referred to above, in which the storage of flammable cryogenic fluids in stationary containers is prohibited, are hereby established as all locations within the Town of Los Altos Hills located within a" Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone" as designated on the state recommended CALFIRE Maps.

P. Section 6104. 2 is amended to read as follows:

Ordinance 568 Page 9
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 22

Page 1134 of 1435 ends

6104. 2 Maximum capacity within established limits. Within the limits established by law restricting the storage ofliquefied petroleum gas for the protection ofheavily populated or congested areas, the aggregate capacity of any one installation shall not exceed a water capacity of 2, 000 gallons ( 7, 570 liters). The limits referred to above, in which the storage of liquefied petroleum gas is restricted, are hereby established as all locations within the Town of Los Altos Hills.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does hereby further ORDAIN as follows:

1. Title VIII, Chapter 1. 9," California Existing Building Code," is hereby amended to read as follows:

Chapter 1. 9 CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE
8- 1. 9. 01 Adoption of 2016 California Existing Building Code. a) The 2016 California Existing Building Code, Part 10, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, a portion of the California Building Standards Code, as defined in the California State Health and Safety Code Section 18901 et seq., ( hereinafter referred to as the" Existing Building Code"), and any rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference herein. b) One copy of the Existing Building Code shall be kept on file at the Town of Los Altos Hills.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does hereby further ORDAIN as follows:

1. Title VIII, Chapter 1. 10, " California Green Building Standards Code," is hereby amended to read as follows:

Chapter 1. 10 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE
8- 1. 10. 01 Adoption of 2016 California Green Building Standards Code. a) The 2016 California Green Building Standards Code, Part 11, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, a portion of the California Building Standards Code, as defined in the California State Health and Safety Code Section 18901 et seq., ( hereinafter referred to as " CALGreen Code"), and any rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference herein.
b) One copy of the CALGreen Code shall be kept on file at the Town of Los Altos Hills.

Ordinance 568 Page 10
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 22

Page 1135 of 1435 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does hereby further ORDAIN as follows:

1. Title VIII, Chapter 1. 11, " California Referenced Standards Code," is hereby amended to read as follows:

Chapter 1. 11 CALIFORNIA REFERENCED STANDARDS CODE
8- 1. 11. 01 Adoption of 2016 California Referenced Standards Code. a) The 2016 California Referenced Standards Code, Part 12, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, a portion of the California Building Standards Code, as defined in the California State Health and Safety Code Section 18901 et seq., ( hereinafter referred to as Referenced Standards Code"), and any rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference herein. b) One copy ofthe Referenced Standards Code shall be kept on file at the Town of Los Altos Hills.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does hereby further ORDAIN as follows:

The City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.

2. Effective Date; Publication. This ordinance shall take effect thirty ( 30) days after adoption. Within fifteen days after the passage of this ordinance the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance or a summary thereof to be published once, with the names of those City Councilmembers voting for or against it in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Los Altos Hills, as required by law.

INTRODUCED: January 25, 2017
PASSED: February 16, 2017
AYES:

NOES:

Ordinance 568 Page 11
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 22

Page 1136 of 1435 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does hereby further ORDAIN as follows:

1. Title VIII, Chapter 1. 11, " California Referenced Standards Code," is hereby amended to read as follows:

Chapter 1. 11 CALIFORNIA REFERENCED STANDARDS CODE
8- 1. 11. 01 Adoption of 2016 California Referenced Standards Code. a) The 2016 California Referenced Standards Code, Part 12, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, a portion of the California Building Standards Code, as defined in the California State Health and Safety Code Section 18901 et seq., ( hereinafter referred to as Referenced Standards Code"), and any rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference herein. b) One copy of the Referenced Standards Code shall be kept on file at the Town of Los Altos Hills.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does hereby further ORDAIN as follows:

2. Effective Date; Publication. This ordinance shall take effect thirty ( 30) days after adoption. Within fifteen days after the passage of this ordinance the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance or a
summary thereof to be published once, with the names of those City Councilmembers voting for or against it in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Los Altos Hills, as required by law.

INTRODUCED: January 25, 2017
PASSED: February 16, 2017
AYES: Mayor Waldeck, Vice Mayor Radford, Councilmember Corrigan, Councilmember Spreen, Councilmember Wu
NOES: None
Ordinance 568 Page I I
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 22

Page 1137 of 1435 ends

ABSTENTIONS: None
ABSENT: None
BY:

Mayor
ATTEST:

City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City ttorney
Ordinance 568 Page 12
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 22

Page 1138 of 1435 ends

ORDINANCE 585

AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS AMENDING
CHAPTERS 1 THROUGH 1. 11 OF TITLE VIII OF THE LOS ALTOS

HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE WHICH ADOPTS AND AMENDS BY
REFERENCE PROVISIONS OF THE 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING

STANDARDS CODE AND LOCAL CODE AMENDMENTS
WHEREAS, the 2019 Edition ofthe California Building Standards Code has been amended and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission; and WHEREAS, the Town of Los Altos Hills (" Town") wishes to adopt building code regulations in accordance with law and to use the most updated regulations in the processing of development in the Town; and
WHEREAS, Government Code § 50022. 2 authorizes cities to enact ordinances adopting any code by reference; and
WHEREAS, because of the Town's unique climatic, topographic and geologic conditions, the Town desires to make amendments and additions to the 2019 Edition of the California Building Standards Code, as set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Health and Safety Code sections 18941. 5 and 17958, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills hereby finds that the amendments adopted herein are reasonably necessary because ofthe following local climatic, topographic and geologic conditions:

1. The Town. of Los Altos Hills experiences low humidity, high winds and warm temperatures during the summer months creating conditions which are particularly conducive to the ignition and spread of grass, brush and structure fires.

2. The remoteness and steepness of hillside areas in the Town significantly impacts the ability of emergency responders to extinguish or control wildland or structure fires.

These factors cumulatively mandate special provisions for Fire Department access, fire protection water supplies, automatic fire sprinklers and fire retardant roof coverings.

3. The Town of Los Altos Hills is geographically situated adjacent to active earthquake faults capable of producing substantial seismic events. Since the Town is divided by a freeway and other major traffic corridors, the occurrence of a major earthquake would significantly impact the ability of fire crews to respond to emergencies should one or more bridges collapse or be substantially damaged.

4. Fire suppression capabilities will be severely limited should the water system be extensively damaged during the seismic event.

5. Roofs that are not fire -retardant contribute to the spread of fires, and therefore pose a risk to the safety ofthe Town' s citizens and their property.

Ordinance 585. Page 1
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 22

Page 1139 of 1435 ends

WHEREAS, prior to the effective date of this ordinance, the City Clerk shall file a copy of the ordinance with the California Building Standards Commission; and.

WHEREAS, in accordance with Health and Safety Code section 17958. 7, the City Council hereby finds that each ofthe above findings is applicable to each of the modifications to the 2019 Edition of the California Building Standards Code described in this ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (" CEQA"), pursuant to Section 15061( b)( 3) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does hereby ORDAIN as follows:

1. Title VIII, Chapter 1, " California Administrative Code," is hereby amended to read as follows:

Chapter 1 CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
8- 1. 01 Adoption of the 2019 California Administrative Code. a. The 2019 California Administrative Code, Part 1, a portion of the California Building Standards Code, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, as defined in the California State Health and Safety Code Section 18901 et seq., ( hereinafter referred to as the Administrative Code"), and any rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference herein.
b. One copy ofthe Administrative Code shall be kept on file at the Town of Los Altos Hills.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does hereby ORDAIN as follows:

1. Title VIII, Chapter 1. 1, ". California. Building Code ( Volumes 1 & 2)" is hereby amended to read as follows:

Chapter 1. 1 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE ( Volumes 1 & 2)
8- 1.1. 01 Adoption of 2019 California Building Code ( Volumes 1 & 2). a) The 2019 California Building Code, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2, a portion of the California Building Standards Code, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, as defined in the California State Health and Safety Code Section 18901 et seq., ( hereinafter referred to as the " Building Code"), including all Appendices and any rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference herein.

Ordinance 585 Page 2
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 22

Page 1140 of 1435 ends

b) One copy of the Building Code shall be kept on file at the Town of Los Altos Hills. 8- 1. 1. 02 Amended sections of adopted codes.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 8- 1. 1. 01, the Building Code is amended as follows:

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council ofthe Town of Los Altos Hills does hereby ORDAIN as follows:

1. Title VIII, Chapter 1. 2, " California Residential Code," is hereby amended to read as follows:

Chapter 1. 2 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE
8- 1. 2. 01 Adoption of 2019 California Residential Code. a) The 2019 California Residential Code, Part 2. 5, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, a portion of the California Building Standards Code, as defined in the California State Health and Safety Code Section 18901 et seq., ( hereinafter referred to as the " Residential Code"), including all Appendices and any rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference herein. b) One copy of the Residential Code shall be kept on file at the Town of Los Altos Hills. 8- 1. 2. 02 Amended sections of adopted codes.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 8- 1. 2. 01, the Residential Code is amended as follows:

A. Section R310. 1 Emergency escape and rescue opening required is amended by deleting Exception No. 2.

B. Section R313. 2 is amended to read:

Page 1141 of 1435 ends

exceeds 75% of the existing dwelling floor area. For any disagreement on the amount of roof structure being removed, a State ofCalifornia licensed architect or structural engineer shall be utilized to calculate the percentage ofthe roofto be replaced.

C. Section R902. 1. 3 is amended to read as follows:

R902. 1. 3 Roof coverings in all other areas. The entire roof covering of every existing structure where more than 50 percent of the total roof area is replaced within any one- year period, the entire roof covering of every new structure, and any roof covering applied in the alteration, repair or replacement of the roof of every existing structure, shall be a fire - retardant roof covering that is at least Class A.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does hereby further ORDAIN as follows:

1. Title VIII, Chapter 1. 3, " California Electrical Code," is hereby amended to read as follows:

Chapter 1. 3 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE
8- 1. 3. 01 Adoption of 2019 California Electrical Code. a) The 2019 California Electrical Code, Part 3, Title 24 of the California. Code of -Regulations, a portion of the California Building Standards Code, as defined in the California State Health and Safety Code Section 18901 et seq., ( hereinafter referred to as the ` Electrical Code"), and any rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference herein.
b) One copy ofthe Electrical Code shall be kept on file at the Town of Los Altos Hills.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does hereby further ORDAIN as follows:

1. Title VIII, Chapter 1. 4, " California Mechanical Code," is hereby amended to read as follows:

Chapter 1. 4 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE
8- 1. 4. 01 Adoption of 2019 California Mechanical Code. a) The 2019 California Mechanical Code, Part 4, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, a portion of the California Building Standards Code, as defined in the Ordinance 585 Page 4
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 22

Page 1142 of 1435 ends

California State Health and Safety Code Section 18901 et seq., ( hereinafter referred to as the " Mechanical Code"), and any rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference herein.
b) One copy ofthe Mechanical Code shall be kept on file at the Town of Los Altos Hills.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does hereby further ORDAIN as follows:

1. Title VIII, Chapter 1. 5, " California Plumbing Code," is hereby amended to read as follows:

Chapter 1. 5 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE
8- 1. 5. 01 Adoption of 2019 California Plumbing Code.
a) The 2019 California Plumbing Code, Part 5, Title 24 ofthe California Code of Regulations, a portion of the California Building Standards Code, as defined in the California State Health and Safety Code Section 18901 et seq., ( hereinafter referred to as the " Plumbing Code"), and any rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference herein.
b) One copy ofthe Plumbing Code shall be kept on file at the Town of Los Altos Hills. 8- 1. 5. 02 Amended sections of adopted code.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 8- 1. 5. 01, the Plumbing Code is amended as follows:

Additional building sewer cleanouts shall be installed at intervals not to exceed 100 feet in straight runs, for each aggregate horizontal change in direction exceeding 135 degrees, and at the property line where the private sewer system connects to the publically-maintained sanitary sewer lateral. All such cleanouts . shall be extended to grade with materials and according to specifications approved by the sewer agency and shall terminate with a concrete box.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does hereby further ORDAIN as follows:

Title VIII, Chapter 1. 6, " Energy Code," is hereby amended to read as follows:

Ordinance 585 Page 5
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 22

Page 1143 of 1435 ends

Chapter 1. 6 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE
8- 1. 6. 01 Adoption of 2019 California Energy Code.
a) The 2019 California Energy Code, Part 6, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, a portion of the California Building Standards Code, as defined in the California State Health and Safety Code Section 18901 et seq., ( hereinafter referred to as the " Energy Code"), and any rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference herein.
b) One copy of the Energy Code shall be kept on file at the Town of Los Altos Hills.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does hereby further ORDAIN as follows:

Title VIII, Chapter 1. 7, " California Historical Building Code," is hereby amended to read as follows:

Chapter 1. 7 CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE
8- 1. 7. 01 Adoption of 2019 California Historical Building Code. a) The 2019 California Historical Building Code, Part 8, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, a portion of the California Building Standards Code, as defined in the California State Health and Safety. Code Section 18901 et seq., ( hereinafter referred to as the " Historical Building Code"), and any rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference herein. b) One copy of the Historic Building Code shall be kept on file at the Town of Los Altos Hills.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does hereby further ORDAIN as follows:

1. Title VIII, Chapter 1. 8, " California Fire Code," is hereby amended to read as follows:

Chapter 1. 8 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE
8- 1. 8. 01 Adoption of 2019 California Fire Code.
a) The 2019 California Fire Code, Part 9, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, a portion ofthe California Building Standards Code, as defined in the California State Health and Safety Code Section 18901 et seq.; ( hereafter referred to as the Fire Code or CFC), and also the 2018 International Fire Code, published by the International Code Council, including Appendix B -Fire Flow Requirements, Appendix C -Fire Hydrant Locations and Ordinance 585 Page 6
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 22

Page 1144 of 1435 ends

Appendix O -Temporary Haunted Houses and any rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference herein. b) One copy ofthe Fire Code shall be kept on file at the Town of Los Altos Hills. 8- 1. 8. 02 Amended sections of adopted code.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 8- 1. 8. 01, the following sections of Fire Code are amended as follows:

A. Section 105. 6. 30 is deleted in its entirety.

B. Section 107. 5 is added to read as follows:
107. 5 Final Inspection. No final inspection as to all or any portion of a development shall be deemed completed until the installation of the required fire protection facilities and access ways have been completed and approved. No final certificate of occupancy may be granted until the Fire Department issues notice of final clearance of such fire protection facilities and access ways, as required by the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code, to the Town' s Building Department.

B. Section 109. 1 is amended to read as follows:
109. 1 Board of appeals established. In order to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions or determinations made by the fire code official relative to the application and interpretation of this code, there shall be and is hereby created a board of appeals. The board of appeals, as it appears in this code, shall be deemed and construed to mean the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills. The fire code official shall be an ex officio member of said board but shall have no vote on any matter before the board. The board shall adopt rules ofprocedure for conducting its business and shall render all decisions and findings in writing to the appellant with a duplicate copy to the fire code official.

C. Section 109.3, Qualifications, is deleted in its entirety.

D. Section 110. 4 is amended to read as follows:
110. 4 Violation Penalties. Persons who shall violate a provision of this code or shall fail to comply with any of the requirements thereof or who shall erect, install, alter, repair or do work in violation of the approved construction documents or directive of the fire code official, or of a permit or certificate used under provisions ofthis code, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punishable as set forth in Title 1, Chapter 2 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code.

E. Section 110. 4. 1 is amended to read as follows:
110. 4. 1 Abatement of Violation. In addition to the imposition of the penalties herein Ordinance 585 Page 7
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 22

Page 1145 of 1435 ends

described, the fire code official is authorized to institute appropriate action to prevent unlawful construction or to restrain, correct or abate a violation; or to prevent illegal occupancy of a structure or premises; or to stop an illegal act, conduct of business or occupancy of a structure on or about any premises. If any person fails to comply with the order of the fire code official, or in the event that the fire code official is unable to locate the responsible person within a reasonable time, the fire code official may take such steps to abate a fire hazard or health hazard as are necessary for the protection of the public health and safety. In no event is notice necessary before abatement when the fire hazard constitutes a clear and present danger to the public welfare. The cost of any such abatement is a debt to the Town, of the owner of the premises or who, by his or her act or inaction, caused the fire hazard. The cost of the abatement shall become a lien on the premises when the need for the abatement and the amount of the cost have been established.

F. Section 202 — General Definitions is amended by adding or amending the following definitions:

Administrator means the City Manager of the Town of Los Altos Hills or his or her designated representative.

Chief or Fire Chief or fire code official means the Fire Chief retained by the Los Altos Hills County Fire District or designated representative.

Chief of Police means the Sheriff of the County of Santa Clara with whom the Town contracts for police services, or his or her designated representative.

Corporation Counsel means the City Attorney for the Town.

Fire Department means the Fire Department retained by the Los Altos Hills County Fire District.

Police Department means the Sheriff' s Department of the County of Santa Clara with whom the Town contracts for police service.

G. Section 503. 1 is amended to read as follows:
503. 1 Where required. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided and maintained in accordance with Sections 503. 1. 1 through 503. 1. 3 and as per Fire Department Access Road Standards.

H. Section 503. 2. 1 is amended to read as follows:
503.2. 1 Dimensions. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet (6,096 mm), exclusive of shoulders, or as required by the Fire Department Access Road Standards, except for approved security gates in accordance with Section 503. 6, and an unobstructed vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches ( 4, 115 mm).

Ordinance 585 Page 8
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 22

Page 1146 of 1435 ends

Exception: When there are not more than two Group R, Division 3, or Group U occupancies, the access road width may be modified by the fire code official.

I. Section 5704. 2. 9. 6. 1 is amended to read as follows:
5704.2. 9. 6. 1 Locations where above -ground tanks are prohibited. The storage of Class I and II liquids in above -ground tanks outside of buildings is prohibited within the limits established by law as the limits of districts in which such storage is prohibited. The limits referred to above, in which the storage of flammable or combustible liquids in aboveground tanks outside of buildings is prohibited, are hereby established as all locations within the Town of Los Altos Hills.

J. Section 5706. 2. 4. 4 is amended to read as follows:
5706. 2. 4. 4 Locations where above - ground tanks are prohibited. The storage of Class I and II liquids in above -ground tanks is prohibited within the limits established by law as the limits of districts in which such storage is prohibited. The limits referred to above, in which the storage of flammable or combustible liquids in above - ground tanks is prohibited, are hereby established as all locations within the Town of Los Altos Hills.

K. Section 5806. 2 is amended to read as follows:
5806.2 Limitations. The storage of flammable cryogenic fluids in stationary containers outside of buildings is prohibited within the limits established by law as the limits of districts in which such storage is prohibited. The limits referred to above, in which the storage of flammable cryogenic fluids in stationary containers is prohibited, are hereby established as all locations within the Town of Los Altos Hills.

L. Section 6104. 2 is amended to read as follows:
6104.2 Maximum capacity within established limits. Within the limits established by law restricting the storage of liquefied petroleum gas ( LPG) for the protection of heavily populated or congested areas, the aggregate capacity of any one installation shall not exceed a water capacity of 2, 000 gallons ( 7, 570 liters). The limits referred to above, in which the storage of liquefied petroleum gas is restricted, are hereby established as all locations within the Town of Los Altos Hills.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does hereby further ORDAIN as follows:

1. Title VIII, Chapter 1. 9, " California Existing Building Code," is hereby amended to read as follows:

Ordinance 585 Page 9
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 22

Page 1147 of 1435 ends

Chapter 1. 9 CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE
8- 1. 9.01 Adoption of 2019 California Existing Building Code. a) The 2019 California Existing Building Code, Part 10, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, a portion of the California Building Standards Code, as defined in the California State Health and Safety Code Section 18901 et seq., ( hereinafter referred to as the " Existing Building Code"), and any rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference herein. b) One copy of the Existing Building Code shall be kept on file at the Town of Los Altos Hills.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does hereby further ORDAIN as follows:

1. Title VIII, Chapter 1. 10, " California Green Building Standards Code," is hereby amended to read as follows:

Chapter 1. 10 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE
8- 1. 10. 01 Adoption of 2019 California Green Building Standards Code. a) The 2019 California Green Building Standards Code, Part 11, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, a portion of the California Building Standards Code, as defined in the California State Health and Safety Code Section 18901 et seq., ( hereinafter referred to as " CALGreen Code"), and any rules .and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference herein.
b) One copy ofthe CALGreen Code shall be kept on file at the Town of Los Altos Hills.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does hereby further ORDAIN as follows:

Title VIII, Chapter 1. 11, " California Referenced Standards Code," is hereby amended to read as follows:

Chapter 1. 11 CALIFORNIA REFERENCED STANDARDS CODE
8- 1. 11. 01 Adoption of 2019 California Referenced Standards Code. a) The 2019 California Referenced Standards Code, Part 12, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, a portion of the California Building Standards Code, as defined in the California State Health and Safety Code Section 18901 et seq., ( hereinafter referred to as Referenced Standards Code"), and any rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference herein.

Ordinance 585 Page 10
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 22

Page 1148 of 1435 ends

b) One copy of the Referenced Standards Code shall be kept on file at the Town of Los Altos Hills.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does hereby further ORDAIN as follows:

The City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences,. clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.

INTRODUCED: October 17, 2019
PASSED: December 19, 2019
AYES: Mayor Spreen, Vice Mayor Wu, Councilmember Corrigan, Councilmember Tankha, Councilmember Tyson
NOES: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
w4d=dA;
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
BY: 4
May
Ordinance 585 Page 11
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 22

Page 1149 of 1435 ends

ORDINANCE 588

AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS AMENDING
CHAPTERS 1. 2 ( RESIDENTIAL CODE) AND 1. 8 ( FIRE CODE) OF TITLE

VIII OF THE LOS ALTOS HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE WHICH ADOPTS AND AMENDS BY REFERENCE PROVISIONS OF THE 2019

CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE AND LOCAL CODE

AMENDMENTS
WHEREAS, the 2019 Edition of the California Building Standards Code, has been amended and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission; and WHEREAS, the Town of Los Altos Hills (" Town") has adopted the 2019 Edition of the California Building Standards Code with amendments, and
WHEREAS, Government Code § 50022. 2 authorizes cities to enact ordinances adopting any code by reference; and
WHEREAS, because of the Town's unique climatic, topographic and geologic conditions, the Town desires to make amendments and additions to the 2019 California Residential Code and California Fire Code, as set forth herein; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Health and Safety Code sections 18941. 5 and 17958, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills hereby finds that the amendments adopted herein are reasonably necessary because of the following local climatic, topographic and geologic conditions:

1. The Town of Los Altos Hills experiences low humidity, high winds and warm temperatures during the summer months creating conditions which are particularly conducive to the ignition and spread of grass, brush and structure fires.

2. The remoteness and steepness of hillside areas in the Town significantly impacts the ability of emergency responders to extinguish or control wildland or structure fires.

These factors cumulatively mandate special provisions for Fire Department access, fire protection water supplies, automatic fire sprinklers, fire retardant roof coverings and ignition -resistant exterior materials.

The Town of Los Altos Hills is geographically situated adjacent to active earthquake faults capable of producing substantial seismic events. Since the Town is divided by a freeway and other major traffic corridors, the occurrence. of a major earthquake would significantly impact the ability of fire crews to respond to emergencies should one or more bridges collapse or be substantially damaged.

4. Fire suppression capabilities will be severely limited should the water system be extensively damaged during the seismic event.

Ordinance 588 Page 1
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 22

Page 1150 of 1435 ends

5. Roofs and exterior materials that are not ignition -resistant contribute to the spread of fires, and therefore pose a risk to the safety of the Town' s citizens and their property.

WHEREAS, prior to the effective date of this ordinance, the City Clerk shall file a copy of the ordinance, with the California Building Standards Commission; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Health and Safety Code section 17958. 7, the City Council hereby finds that each of the above findings is applicable to each of the modifications to the 2019 Edition of the California Building Standards Code described in this ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills finds that this project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (" CEQA"), pursuant to Section 15061( b)( 3) of the CEQA Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does hereby ORDAIN as follows:

1. Title 8, Chapter 1. 2, " California Residential Code," is hereby amended to read as follows:

Chapter 1. 2 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE
8- 1. 2. 02 Amended sections of adopted codes.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 8- 1. 2. 01, the Residential Code is amended as follows:

A. Section R313. 2 is amended to read:

R313. 2 One and two- family dwellings automatic fire sprinkler systems. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed in one- and two-family dwellings as follows:

1. In all new one- and two-family dwellings.

2. In existing one- and two-family dwellings where during the process of a remodel and/ or addition, the existing roof structure (joists, rafters, etc.) is removed over an area that exceeds 75% ofthe existing dwelling floor area. For any disagreement on the amount ofroof structure being removed, a State of California licensed architect or structural engineer shall be utilized to calculate the percentage of the roof to be replaced.

3. In existing one- and two-family dwellings when additions are made that increase the building area by 50% or more.

4. In all attached Accessory Dwelling Units, additions or alterations to an existing one- and two-family dwelling that have an existing fire sprinkler system.

Ordinance 588 Page 2
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 22

Page 1151 of 1435 ends

5. In all new basements and in existing basements that are expanded by more than 50%.

Exceptions:

Detached Accessory Dwelling Units, provided that all of the following are met:
a) The unit meets the definition of an Accessory Dwelling Unit as defined in the Government Code Section 65852. 2.
b) The existing primary residence does not have automatic fire sprinklers. c) The detached accessory dwelling unit does not exceed 1, 200 square feet in size.
d) The accessory dwelling unit is on the same lot as the primary residence. e) The accessory dwelling unit meets all access and water supply requirements. of Chapter 5 and Appendix B and C of the 2019 California Fire Code.

B. Section 8337 - Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure is hereby adopted in its entirety.

2. Title 8, Chapter 1. 8, " California Fire Code," is hereby amended to read as follows:

Chapter 1. 8 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE
8- 1. 8. 02 Amended sections of adopted code.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 8- 1. 8. 01, the following sections of Fire Code are amended as follows:

N. Section 105. 6. 52 is added to read as follows:
105. 6.52 Day care facility. An operational permit is required to operate a business as a day care facility for more than 6 people.

O. Section 105. 6. 53 is added to read as follows:
105. 6. 53 Institutional. A permit is required to operate, maintain, or use any institutional type occupancy. For the purpose of this Section, an institution shall be, but is not limited to: hospitals, children' s home, home or institution for insane or mentally retarded persons, home or institution for the care of aged or senile persons, sanitarium, nursing or convalescent home, certified family care homes, residential care homes for the elderly, out of home placement facilities, halfway house, and day care nurseries or similar facility ofany capacity.

Ordinance 588 Page 3
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 22

Page 1152 of 1435 ends

P. Section 105. 6. 54 is added to read:
105. 6. 54 Lithium Batteries. An operational permit is required to collect or store more than 1, 000 pounds ( 454 kg) of lithium batteries.

Q. Section 315. 8 is added to read:
315. 8 Lithium Battery Storage and Handling. The storage and handling of lithium ion and lithium metal batteries or cells in quantities exceeding 1, 000 pounds ( 4086 kg) shall comply with Section 315. 8. 1 through 315. 8. 10, and Chapter 32 where applicable. 315. 8. 1 Permits. Permits shall be required as set forth in Section 105. 6. 54. 315. 8. 2 Maximum quantity in a fire area. The aggregate amount of lithium batteries stored and handled in a single fire area shall not exceed 9, 000 pounds ( 4086 kg). 315.8.3 Construction requirements. Fire areas shall be separated from each other by fire barriers having not less than 2 -hour fire resistance rating constructed in accordance with Section 707 ofthe Building Code and horizontal assemblies constructed in accordance with Section 711 ofthe Building Code.
315.8.4 Number of fire areas. The maximum number of fire areas within a building shall be four.
315.8. 5 Group H, Division 2 occupancy. Storage and handling ofmore than 9,000 pounds of lithium batteries per fire area shall be in an approved Group H, Division 2 occupancy constructed in accordance with the Building Code and provided throughout with approved automatic smoke detection and radiant -energy detection systems. 315.8. 6 Automatic sprinkler system. Buildings containing fire areas used for lithium battery storage or handling shall be equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903. 3. 1. 1. The design of the sprinkler system within each fire area shall not be less than that required for Extra Hazard Group 2 with a minimum design area of 2, 500 square feet. Where the storage arrangement is required by other provisions of this code to be provided with a higher level of sprinkler system protection, the higher level of sprinkler system protection shall be provided. 315. 8. 7 Automatic smoke detection system. An approved automatic smoke detection system that activates an approved occupant notification system shall be provided throughout each fire area in accordance with Section 907. 315. 8. 8 Radiant energy detection. An approved radiant -energy detection system that activates an approved occupant notification system shall be installed throughout each fire area in accordance with Section 907.

Ordinance 588 Page 4
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 22

Page 1153 of 1435 ends

315. 8. 9 Collection containers. Containers used to collect or store lithium batteries shall be noncombustible and shall not have an individual capacity exceeding 30 gallons ( 113. 6 L), or be approved for transportation in accordance with the Department of Transportation DOT).
315. 8. 10 Storage configuration. Lithium batteries shall be considered a high -hazard commodity in accordance with Chapter 32 and where applicable, lithium battery storage shall comply with Chapter 32 in addition to Section 315. 8.

R. Section 316. 7 is added to read as follows:

Section 316. 7 Roof guardrails at interior courts.

Roof openings into interior courts that are bounded on all sides by building walls shall be protected with guardrails. The top of the guardrail shall not be less than 42 inches in height above the adjacent roof surface that can be walked on. Intermediate rails shall be designed and spaced such that a 12 -inch diameter sphere cannot pass through.

Exception:

Where the roof opening is greater than 600 square feet in area.

S. Section 503. 1. 1 is amended to read as follows:
503. 1. 1 Buildings and facilities. Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements for this section and shall extend to within 150 feet (45 720 mm) ofall portions ofthe facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility.

Exceptions:

1. In other than R-3 or U occupancies, when the building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system, installed in accordance with Section 903. 3. 1. 1 the dimension may be increased to a maximum of 300 feet when approved by the fire code official.

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

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

T. Section 503. 2. 2 is amended to read as follows:

Ordinance 588 Page 5
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 22

Page 1154 of 1435 ends

503. 2. 2 Authority. The fire code official shall have the authority to require or permit modifications to the required access widths and/ or vertical clearance where they are inadequate for fire or rescue operations or where necessary to meet the public safety objectives of the jurisdiction.

U. Section 504. 5 is added to read as follows:

Section 504. 5 Access control devices. When access control devices including bars, grates, gates, electric or magnetic locks or similar devices, which would inhibit rapid fire department emergency access to the building, are installed, such devices shall be approved by the fire code official. All electrically powered access control devices shall be provided with an approved means for deactivation or unlocking from a single location or otherwise approved by the fire code official. Access control devices shall also comply with Chapter 10 Means of Egress
V. Section 510. 1 is amended to read as follows:
510. 1 Emergency responder radio coverage in new buildings. Approved radio coverage for emergency responders shall be provided within all buildings meeting any one of the following conditions:
a. There are more than 3 stories above grade plane ( as defined by the Building Code Section 202);
b. The total building area is 30,000 square feet or more; c. The total basement area is 5, 000 square feet or more; d. Where required by the fire code official and radio coverage signal strength levels are not consistent with the minimum levels set forth in Section 510. 4. 1 Exceptions:

1. Where approved by the fire code official, a wired communication system in accordance with Section 907. 2. 12. 2 shall be permitted to be installed or maintained in lieu of an approved radio coverage system.

2. Where it is determined by the fire code official that the radio coverage system is not needed.

3. In facilities where emergency responder radio coverage is required and such systems, components or equipment required could have a negative impact on the normal operations of that facility, the fire code official shall have the authority to accept an automatically activated emergency responder radio coverage system.

Ordinance 588 Page 6
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 22

Page 1155 of 1435 ends

4. Buildings and areas of buildings that have minimum radio coverage signal strength levels of the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority ( SVRIA) P25 Phase 2 700 MHz Digital Trunked Radio System within the building in accordance with Section 510. 4. 1 without the use of an indoor radio coverage system.

The radio coverage system shall be installed and maintained in accordance with Sections 510. 4 through 510. 6. 4 of this code and with the applicable provisions of NFPA 1221, Standard for the Installation, Maintenance and Use of Emergency Services Communications Systems.

The coverage shall be based upon the existing coverage levels of the public safety communication systems ofthe jurisdiction at the exterior ofthe building. This section shall not require improvement of the existing public safety communication systems.

W. Section 510. 1. 1 is amended to read as follows:
510. 1. 1 Obstruction by new buildings. No obstruction of the public safety system backhaul shall be allowed without an approved mitigating plan.

X. Section 510.2 is deleted.

Y. Section 510. 3 is amended to read as follows:
510. 3 Permit required. A construction permit, for the installation of, or modification of, emergency responder radio coverage systems and related equipment is required as specified in Section 105. 7. 6. Maintenance performed in accordance with this code is not considered a modification and does not require a permit. A frequency change made to an existing system is considered to be new construction and will require a construction permit.

Z. Section 510.4 is amended to read as follows:
510. 4 Technical requirements. Systems, components and equipment required to provide the emergency responder radio coverage system shall comply with the current Emergency Responders Radio Coverage Systems Standard Details & Specification enforced by the Santa Clara County Fire Department.

AA, Section 510.4. 1. 1 is amended to read as follows:
510.4. 1. 1 Minimum signal strength into the building. The minimum inbound signal strength shall be sufficient to provide usable voice communications throughout the Ordinance 588 Page 7
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 22

Page 1156 of 1435 ends

coverage area as specified by the fire code official. The inbound signal level shall be sufficient to provide not less than a Delivered Audio Quality ( DAQ) of 3. 0 for analog communications and DAQ of 3. 4 for digital communications systems or an equivalent Signal -to -Interference -Plus -Noise Ratio (SINR) applicable to the technology.

BB. Section 510. 4. 1. 2 is amended to read as follows:
510. 4. 1. 2 Minimum signal strength out of the building. The minimum outbound signal strength shall be sufficient to provide usable voice communications throughout the coverage area as specified by the fire code official. The outbound signal level shall be sufficient to provide not less than a DAQ of 3. 0 for analog communications and DAQ of

3. 4 for digital communications systems or an equivalent SINR applicable to the technology.

CC. Section 510. 5 is amended to read as follows:
510. 5 Installation requirement. The installation of the emergency responder radio coverage system shall be in accordance with NFPA 1221 and the current Emergency Responder Radio Coverage Systems Standard Details & Specification enforced by the Santa Clara County Fire Department.

DD. Section 510. 5. 1 is amended to read as follows:
510. 5. 1 Approval prior to installation. Amplification systems capable of operating on frequencies licensed to any public safety agency by the FCC or other radio licensing authority shall not be installed without prior coordination and approval of the fire code official and the agency FCC license holder or systems administrator.

EE. The First Paragraph of Section 510. 5. 3 is amended to read as follows:
510. 5.3 Acceptance test procedure. Where an emergency responder radio coverage system is required, and upon completion of installation, the building owner shall have the radio system tested to verify that two- way coverage on each floor of the building is not less than 95 percent. Final system acceptance will require ERRCS power level and DAQ testing with agency FCC license holder, systems administrators, or designee.

FF. Section 603. 4. 2. 1. 1 is amended to read as follows and delete the exception:
603.4.2. 1. 1 Prohibited locations. The storage or use of portable outdoor gas-fired heating appliances is prohibited in any of the following locations:

1. Inside of any occupancy where connected to the fuel gas container.

2. Inside of tents, canopies and membrane structures.

Ordinance 588 Page 8
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 22

Page 1157 of 1435 ends

3. On exterior balconies and rooftops in other than R-3 occupancies.

GG. Section 806. 1. 1 is amended to read as follows:
806. 1. 1 Restricted occupancies. The display of natural cut trees and other decorative vegetation shall be in accordance with the California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Division 1, § 3. 08 and Sections 806. 1 through 806. 4.

HH. Section 901. 6. 3 is amended to read as follows:
901. 6. 3 Records. Records of all system inspections, tests and maintenance required by the referenced standard shall be maintained on the premises for a minimum of five years.

Inspections and tests performed on fire alarm systems shall be documented on NFPA 72 forms
II. Section 903. 2 is amended to read as follows:

Section 903. 2 Where required. Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sections 903. 2. 1 through 903. 2. 18 whichever is the more restrictive.

For the purposes of this section, firewalls and fire barriers used to separate building areas shall be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and shall not be utilized as a means of area reduction for the purposes of circumventing automatic fire sprinkler system installation requirements.

1. An approved automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all new buildings and structures.

Exception: Buildings and structures that do not exceed 1, 000 square feet of building area.

2. An automatic sprinkler. system shall be provided throughout existing buildings and structures when alterations or additions are made that create conditions described in Sections 903. 2. 1 through 903. 2. 18.

3. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout existing buildings and structures, when additions are made that increase the existing building area by more than 50%.

4. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all new basements regardless of size and throughout existing basements that are expanded by more than 50%.

5. Any change in the character of occupancy or in use of any building with a building area equal to or greater than 3, 600 square feet which, in the opinion of the fire code Ordinance 588 Page 9
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 22

Page 1158 of 1435 ends

official or Building Official, would place the building into a more hazardous division ofthe same occupancy group or into a different group of occupancies and constitutes a greater degree of life safety' or increased fire risk', shall require the installation of an approved automatic fire sprinkler system.

Life Safety — Increased occupant load, public assembly areas, public meeting areas, churches, indoor amusement attractions, buildings with complex exiting systems due to increased occupant loads, large schools/ day-care facilities, large residential care facilities with non-ambulatory;
Fire Risks — High -piled combustible storage, woodworking operations, hazardous operations using hazardous materials, increased fuel loads ( storage of moderate to highly combustible materials), increased sources of ignition (welding, automotive repair with the use of flammable liquids and open flames).

JJ. Section 903. 2. 18 is amended to delete the Exception.

KK. Chapter 11 of the 2018 International Fire Code is deleted in its entirety.

LL. Section 3304. 9 is added to read:
3304. 9 Fire walls. When firewalls are required in combustible construction, the wall construction shall be completed ( with all openings protected) immediately after the building is sufficiently weather -protected at the location ofthe wall(s).

MM. Section 3311. 1 is amended to read as follows:
3311. 1 Stairways required. Each level above the first story in multi -story buildings that require two exit stairways shall be provided with at least two usable exit stairways after the floor decking is installed. Exit stairs in new and in existing, occupied buildings shall be lighted and maintained clear of debris and construction materials at all times.

Exception: For new multi -story buildings, one of the required exit stairs may be obstructed on not more than two contiguous floor levels for the purposes of stairway construction ( i.e., installation of gypsum board, painting, flooring, etc.).

NN. Section 3311. 1. 1 is added to read:

Section 3311. 1. 1 Required means of egress. All buildings under construction shall have at least one unobstructed means of egress. All means of egress shall be identified in the prefire plan see Section 3308. 3.

00. Section 5601. 1. 3 is amended to read as follows:

Ordinance 588 Page 10
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 22

Page 1159 of 1435 ends

5601. 1. 3 Fireworks. The possession, manufacture, storage, sale, handling, and use of fireworks, including those fireworks classified as Safe and Sane by the California State Fire Marshal, are prohibited.

Exceptions: The use of fireworks for firework displays as allowed in Section 5608.

PP. Section 5704. 2. 7. 5. 8 is amended to read as follows:

Section 5704. 2. 7. 5. 8 Overfill Prevention. An approved means or method in accordance with Section 5704. 2. 9. 7. 5. shall be provided to prevent the overfill of all Class I, II and IIIA liquid storage tanks. Storage tanks in refineries, bulk plants or terminals regulated by Sections 5706.4 or 5706.7 shall have overfill protection in accordance with API 2350.

Exception: Deleted
An approved means or method in accordance with Section 5704. 2. 9. 7. 5 shall be provided to prevent the overfilling of Class IIIB liquid storage tanks connected to fuel -burning equipment inside buildings.

QQ. Section 5704. 2. 7. 5. 9 is added to read as follows:

Section 5704. 2. 7. 5. 9 Automatic Filling of Tanks. Systems that automatically fill flammable or combustible liquid tanks shall be equipped with overfill protection, approved by the fire code official, that sends an alarm signal to a constantly attended location and immediately stops the filling of the tank. The alarm signal and automatic shutoff shall be tested on an annual basis and records of such testing shall be maintained on- site for a period of five ( 5) years.

RR. Section 5707. 3. 3 is added to read as follows:
5707. 3. 3, Site plan. A site plan shall be developed for each location at which mobile fueling occurs. The site plan shall be in sufficient detail to indicate: all buildings, structures, lot lines, property lines and appurtenances on site and their use and function; all uses adjacent to the lot lines of the site; fueling locations, the locations of all storm drain openings and adjacent waterways or wetlands; information regarding slope, natural drainage, curbing, impounding and how a spill will be kept on the site property; and the scale of the site plan.

SS. Section 5809. 3. 4 is amended to read as follows:
5809. 3. 4 Site plan. For other than emergency roadside service, a site plan shall be developed for each location at which mobile gaseous hydrogen fueling occurs. The site plan shall be in sufficient detail to indicate; all buildings, structures, lot lines, property lines and appurtenances on site and their use and function, and the scale of the site plan.

Ordinance 588 Page 11
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 22

Page 1160 of 1435 ends

plan shall be in sufficient detail to indicate; all buildings, structures, lot lines, property lines and appurtenances on site and their use and function, and the scale of the site plan.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does hereby further ORDAIN as follows:

1. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of this ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this ordinance are severable. The City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.

INTRODUCED: December 4, 2019
PASSED: December 19, 2019
AYES: Mayor Spreen, Vice Mayor Wu, Councilmember Corrigan Councilmember Tankha, Councilmember Tyson
NOES: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
ABSENT: None
BY: L'e'
Ma ,Ar
ATTEST:

City Clerk
APPROVYN AS TO FORM:

City Attorney
Ordinance 588 Page 12
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 22

Page 1161 of 1435 ends

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

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

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

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

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

Table 1. 10758 Mora Dr as proposed in the Oct 1, 2024 plans (most recent in Town’s possession) ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 23

Page 1162 of 1435 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 23

Page 1163 of 1435 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 23

Page 1164 of 1435 ends

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

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 23

Page 1165 of 1435 ends

Table 3. 10758 Mora Dr Fire Apparatus Access Road Area Impact Analysis For 20% Affordable Elimination of Only Market Rate Units Elimination of Market Rate and BMR Units ˚ ₄ Ŧ�9ŉ�h 
;  ��
Ō₄ ŉãŊ⁶�˚ ₄ Ŧ ��µ  �˛  ₄ ≠ŉ ��µ  �˛  ₄ ≠ŉ ��¢ ã2 �˛ ã�µ  ��
��9¢ ˛ �µ �˛  ₄ ≠ŉ
��¢ ã2 �˛ ã�µ  ��
9¢ ˛ �µ �˛  ₄ ≠ŉ
 �ª  ã⁶⁶�µ �
ã�G⁶  ãŉ�] 
 �zã�µ �
ã�G⁶  ãŉ�] 
 �ª  ã⁶⁶�µ �
ã�G⁶  ãŉ�] 
 �zã�µ �
ã�G⁶  ãŉ�] 
Land Cost* �� ICC BVD Construction
Costs �� Yearly Income Projection �� Return of Investment
(Years) ��
Note: * = not actual project land cost
Table 4. 10758 Mora Dr Fire Apparatus Access Road Area Impact Analysis For 13% Affordable Elimination of Only Market Rate Units Elimination of Market Rate and BMR Units Project Budget Items
13% Affordable
Project 10 Units Removed 5 Units Removed
Mixed 10 Market Rate
Units & 1 BMR Unit
Removed
Mixed 5 Market Rate
Units & 1 BMR Unit
Removed

Page 1166 of 1435 ends

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

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

Table 5. 10728 Mora Dr as proposed in November 21, 2023 plans (most recent submitted to the Town) Occupancy
Group
Construction
Type ICC BVD ($) Project Area (sf) Estimated Project Valuation ($) A-3 Type III-A $207.19 2,611 $540,973.09
B Type I-A $292.48 1,044 $305,349.12
B Type III-A $237.85 4,761 $1,132,403.85
R-2 Type I-A $223.61 4,331 $968,454.91
R-2 Type III-A $177.77 40,735 $7,241,460.95
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 23

Page 1167 of 1435 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

ICC BVD
($)
Project
Area (sf)
Area
Removed (sf)
Estimated Project
Valuation ($)
A-3 Type III-A $207.19 2,611 ��
B Type I-A $292.48 1,044 ��
B Type III-A $237.85 4,761 ��
R-2 Type I-A $223.61 4,331 ��
R-2 Type III-A $177.77 40,735 ��
R-2.1 * Type III-A $177.77 3,251 ��
S-2 Type I-A $149.65 7,943 ��
Total Project Valuation $10,318,458.32
*Note: The R-2.1 adjustments are based on R-2 unit costs.

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

Affordability Considerations
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 23

Page 1168 of 1435 ends

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

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

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

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 23

Page 1169 of 1435 ends

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

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

Page 1170 of 1435 ends

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

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

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

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

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

These factors highlight numerous reasons why including the required fire apparatus access road would affect the affordability of the project’s BMR units for 10728 Mora Dr.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 23

Page 1171 of 1435 ends

W1
Presented to:

Town of Los Altos Hills
June 12, 2025
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 629 | San Francisco, CA 94104 | 415.786.2875 | www.centuryurban.com www.centuryurban.com
Century | Urban
Strategic
Real Estate
Advisory Services
Town of Los Altos Hills – Mora Drive
Feasibility Analysis
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 24

Page 1172 of 1435 ends

PAGE 2

TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
TO: Town of Los Altos Hills
FROM: Century Urban, LLC
SUBJECT: Town of Los Altos Hills – Mora Drive Feasibility Analysis DATE: June 12, 2025

INTRODUCTION
Century Urban, LLC (“Century | Urban”) is a real estate investment, advisory, and asset management company headquartered in San Francisco, California, with a commitment to excellence, integrity and attention to detail in every aspect of its work.

As a privately held firm, Century | Urban’s team consists of real estate professionals with expertise in valuation, economic feasibility analysis, investment underwriting, transaction structuring, real estate development, public-private partnerships, and capital markets. The firm is recognized as a leader in assisting public agencies, non-profits, and for-profit companies with real estate advisory needs throughout the state of California.

Century | Urban was engaged by the Town of Los Altos Hills (the “Town”) to conduct an economic feasibility analysis for two proposed projects located on Mora Drive. Below is a detailed summary of Century | Urban’s methodology, approach, and key findings from the analysis.

On February 1, 2023, Forrest Linebarger (the “Developer”) submitted a preliminary and formal application for two multi-family senior residential buildings located at 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills. These applications were submitted under Government Code Section 65589.5(d), commonly known as the “Builder’s Remedy.” The proposed projects consist of fivestory multi-family senior residential buildings, each situated on a parcel of less than 0.4 acres, significantly below the Town’s one-acre minimum lot size requirement and with a proposed density higher than neighboring sites as well as the Town’s predominately single-family residential uses.

Access to the project sites is limited to Mora Drive, the only public roadway serving the parcels and several neighboring properties. Mora Drive is a narrow, winding road with steep elevation changes and limited width, allowing only one-way traffic in sections. These conditions pose significant challenges for emergency response vehicles, especially large fire apparatus required to respond to structure fires or wildfires.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 24

Page 1173 of 1435 ends

PAGE 3
Figure 1: Site Map
Source: January 30, 2025, Town Staff Report.

Pursuant to the plans submitted February 25, 2025, each development includes a five-story building over a one-to-two-level podium garage and 27 parking spaces. The buildings would occupy nearly the full extent of each lot, leaving minimal rear setbacks, which further restricts emergency access to the structures. Pursuant to “The Town of Los Altos Hills – Staff Report to the City Council” dated January 30, 2025, the Developer intends to map both sites for condominiums.

Under the Housing Accountability Act, the Builder’s Remedy applies to qualifying housing projects and limits the Town’s ability to deny or condition such projects, unless specific statutory findings can be made. One of the six allowable findings under Government Code Section 65589.5(d) permits denial if the project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, and if no feasible method exists to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the impact without rendering the proposed affordable units unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households.

In this case, the project fails to comply with Section 503.1.1 of the California Fire Code, as adopted and amended by the Town of Los Altos Hills (the “Fire Code”), which requires that a fire apparatus access road extend to within 150 feet of all exterior walls of the building. The purpose of this requirement is to limit the length of hose needed for fire suppression and ensure full exterior access for emergency response. Given the steep slope and dense vegetation on the project sites, this requirement is especially critical. The Santa Clara County Fire Department has confirmed that the proposed designs do not meet the 150-foot access requirement, an objective standard under this Fire Code provision.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 24

Page 1174 of 1435 ends

PAGE 4
Pursuant to information provided by the Town, the Developer has submitted several major iterations of the projects since February 2023 which made certain changes to project unit counts, proposed amenities, proposed parking spaces, and other various programmatic aspects.

However, the projects’ building footprint and lot coverage remain unchanged throughout these revisions. Based on the submittals to date, the Town has indicated that the Developer has not proposed any changes to the exterior of the building that would accommodate the 150-foot access requirement.

As part of an initial feasibility analysis titled “10728 and 10759 Mora Drive Projects Affordability Analysis” dated January 2025, the Town’s Community Development Director / Building Official evaluated whether the buildings could be redesigned to comply with Section 503.1.1. This evaluation was based on the projects’ need to include a fire apparatus access road with a width of 20 feet at the rear of the structure, which would necessitate modifications to the building design. Based on revised plan sets provided prior to January 2025 and assuming the project would remain compliant with other applicable fire and building code provisions, it was determined that the 10758 Mora Drive project would need to be reduced by more than 8,200 square feet, including approximately 5,400 square feet of residential space, in order to meet the fire access standard while 10728 Mora Drive would require a total reduction of approximately 8,860 square feet of which 4,160 is residential. These reductions would be necessary to decrease the depth of the building, allowing a fire hose of no greater than 150’ to reach the back of the building. An adjustment to meet the Fire Code requirement would require eliminating several units, potentially undermining both the financial feasibility and affordability required under the Builder’s Remedy provisions.

The following pages present a summary of the economic feasibility analysis conducted by Century | Urban to evaluate whether the proposed project can remain financially viable with a reduced building footprint that complies with Fire Code Section 503.1.1, while still preserving affordability for the below-market-rate units.

Please note revised site plans were submitted on May 30, 2025. The updated site plans have been addressed at the end of this report.

PROJECT OVERVIEW

PROGRAM
Per an application resubmittal with revised plan sets dated February 25, 2025, the project consists of two separate developments: 10758 and 10728 Mora Drive. The Developer has submitted applications for each site proposing the construction of a multi-tenant residential building on each parcel.

The Town has indicated that the Developer intends each site to be separately mapped for condominiums but, pursuant to documents provided to date, the Developer does not state whether the project is intended for for-sale or for-rent product. Based on available information including the provided site plans, it is assumed the project will be for-rent senior housing.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 24

Page 1175 of 1435 ends

PAGE 5
Both buildings are generally similar in overall design featuring multiple floors of Type I podium used for parking, mezzanine, and basement space topped by five floors of Type-III residential. 10758 and 10728 Mora Drive include 45 and 42 for-rent residential units, respectively, inclusive of a unit mix of studio, one- and two-bedroom apartments.

Market rate senior housing projects typically provide various levels of resident services including tenant events, recreational activities, limited or full medical support, health and wellness programs and food services. The Developer’s plan sets provided limited information and, based on available information, it appears the subject properties will operate with limited resident services.

STATE DENSITY BONUS AND BUILDER’S REMEDY
The application resubmittal dated February 25, 2025, reflected a substantialrevision of the project, with the addition of the California State Density Bonus Law (“SDB”). The SDB provides developers with additional building density beyond and above a site’s baseline zoning in return for providing onsite Below Market Rate (“BMR”) units. Developers can achieve up to 50% additional density based on both the amount of affordable housing units as well as the affordability level of these units. Additional concessions and waivers are also provided to developers based on the level of affordability and units provided.

Rents for BMR units are typically sized to a percentage of Area Median Income (“AMI”) pursuant to prevailing county income levels in which the project is developed. The Developer has indicated that each building will provide three residential units at extremely low-income levels or 30.0% AMI. This results in a projected density bonus of approximately 38.75% and 42.50% for 10758 and 10728 Mora Drive, respectively.

As previously noted in this report, the Developer is seeking entitlements under the “Builder’s Remedy” pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act. Similar to the SDB, compliance and approval under this act also require projects to provide a minimum number of onsite BMR units at specific AMI tiers. The Developer has proposed onsite BMR units at the extremely low-income AMI level, which meets the requirement under AB 1893 of approximately 7.0% of total units. The Developer has indicated the project’s base density (i.e. number of units prior to the additional State Density Bonus Units) to be approximately 32 and 30 units for 10758 and 10728 Mora Drive, respectively. The three BMR units at 30.0% AMI, or approximately 9.4% of the base density for 10758 Mora Drive and 10.0% for 10728 Mora Drive, exceeds the required 7.0% threshold.

Please note revised site plans submitted on May 30, 2025, no longer utilize the State Density Bonus program. The updated site plans have been addressed at the end of this report.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 24

Page 1176 of 1435 ends

PAGE 6

ANALYSIS

OVERVIEW
Developers typically only undertake ground-up development if a project is determined to be financially feasible. This is determined via a pro forma analysis and feasibility is typically achieved if the project reaches or exceeds a target project return and/or the project provides a sufficient residual land value (“RLV”). Economic factors such as construction costs, rents, and the cost of capital, are analyzed and included in the pro forma.

To evaluate project financial feasibility, Century | Urban conducted market research to assess market rents, construction costs, and other key development factors, which were incorporated into the pro forma analysis. An overview of the market research and analytical approach can be found below.

RENTS AND OPERATING EXPENSES
Century | Urban conducted a survey of residential rents for comparable senior housing communities. Due to lack of communities in and around the Town of Los Altos Hills, the analysis was expanded to include properties in the greater Peninsula area. The survey revealed a wide range in asking rents primarily driven by the level of services offered at these facilities with the higher end of the range associated with more highly amenitized properties.

Overall, average rents ranged from approximately $3.53 per square foot per month to $7.72 with an average of $5.14 per square foot. Given the proposed projects’ location and new construction, the analysis assumes an average rent near the higher end of the range, or $6.75 per square foot per month. This rent is assumed to include all resident services, with no additional fees for amenities. In line with the higher estimated rents, the analysis also assumes higher operating expenses to support tenant events, recreational activities, limited medical support, wellness programs, and food services, consistent with luxury senior housing standards. Operating expense assumptions were informed by market research on high-service, market-rate residential properties in the Peninsula, with increased payroll and benefits to reflect the higher level of service.

CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Century | Urban relied on its extensive network of general contractors, cost estimators, and developers, as well as its direct construction management experience, to estimate construction costs for the proposed projects. Construction cost data from comparable residential developments across the greater Bay Area were analyzed with adjustments made for location and construction start timing. Based on available data, Century | Urban concluded a projected hard cost of approximately $508 per square foot for the Type III residential floors and a hard cost of approximately $167 per square foot for the Type I parking podium levels. This resulted in an average hard cost of approximately $890,000 per unit, untrended, which is consistent with similar development projects analyzed by Century | Urban.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 24

Page 1177 of 1435 ends

PAGE 7
The project was noted as featuring site conditions, such as slope and narrow parcel shape, that are not favorable with ground-up development. Pursuant to “The Town of Los Altos Hills – Staff Report to the City Council” dated January 30, 2025, the two developments include an average slope of 20% to 24% and narrow parcel sizes limiting the overall development area. All else equal, this results in increased development costs when compared to similar developments due to increased grading and shoring requirements.

TARGET RETURNS
Going-In Return-on-Cost
As noted above, developers typically determine a development’s feasibility if the project can achieve a market rate return. Various return metrics are utilized by developers but due to its widespread use, we have utilized the going-in return-on-Cost (“ROC”) as a key target return metric for this analysis.

A going-in ROC is calculating by dividing the projected, untrended net operating income of the proposed project as if it was developed and stabilized today. This figure is then divided by the project’s untrended total development cost.

Target ROCs are typically determined by a spread over current capitalization rates and the 10- Year treasury rate. This spread ranges from 50 to 150 basis points and is determined by various factors including asset type, interest rates and market conditions. Based on the subject’s location, product type, and current market, a target going-in ROC of 6.0% is assumed. A more detailed description of current market conditions is provided in the following pages.

Residual Land Values
In addition to the target ROC noted above, developers also determine feasibility by deriving a project’s RLV. An RLV is the maximum amount a developer can pay for a development site and achieve a market rate return. RLVs must be positive and greater than the existing improvements in order to spur development. A 6.0% going-in ROC as described above is used as the target return metric in deriving the resulting RLV.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 24

Page 1178 of 1435 ends

PAGE 8
BUILDER’S REMEDY AFFORDABILITY ANALYSIS
The addition of a fire apparatus access road to comply with the Fire Code will require a reduction in the size of both proposed developments. According to plan check comment letters from the Santa Clara County Fire Department, the projects do not provide access within 150 feet of all portions of the buildings and the exterior walls of the first story, as required by the Fire Code. As noted above, the Town’s Community Development Director and Building Official evaluated that compliance with this Fire Code requirement would necessitate reducing the building footprint to accommodate the required access road, assuming all other aspects of the projects comply with other applicable Fire Code and Building Code provisions. The reduction in building footprint resulted in an approximate gross square foot reduction of 11.4% and 13.1% for 10758 and 10728 Mora Drive, respectively.

Alternatively, the buildings could be redesigned with a shallower depth to ensure that no point is more than 150 feet from Mora Drive. However, this approach would require a significantly greater reduction in building footprint than what was determined by the Town’s Community Development Director. It's also important to note that the Town’s analysis was based on an earlier plan set, and the proportional reduction was subsequently applied to the updated plan set dated February 25, 2025.

As described above, a Builder’s Remedy project must comply with objective public health and safety standards so that such project does not create or fails to mitigate any specific, adverse impacts resulting therefrom. However, if compliance is not feasible without rendering the affordable units unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households, the Town may deny the project on that basis. This analysis evaluates the financial feasibility of the proposed developments both with and without compliance with Fire Code requirements, specifically, by comparing the projects as proposed to scenarios with reduced building square footage. The goal is to determine whether the affordable units can remain affordable to extremely low-income households while maintaining overall project feasibility.

FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
Real estate development projects are typically financed through a combination of private equity and debt. The maximum amount of permanent debt a lender will provide is generally determined based on a debt service coverage ratio (“DSCR”), typically estimated between 1.15- and 1.20-times net operating income. Assuming a 1.15x DSCR, we estimate a loan-to-value ratio of approximately 60% for each project. The remaining project funding would need to come from developer and/or investor equity.

As noted above, developers and investors require a return on their investment to undertake the risks involved with a development project. The required return for a specific project may vary based on the project’s specific characteristics, as well as market/economic conditions including specifically capital market conditions. The target ROC is often set as a spread over prevailing capitalization rates, which are influenced by the 10-year Treasury yield, commonly viewed as the risk-free rate. As of March 28, 2025, the 10-year Treasury yield is 4.480%. To account for development risk, investors typically seek a return well above this benchmark.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 24

Page 1179 of 1435 ends

PAGE 9

MARKET CONDITIONS
Starting in 2019, market rate and mixed-income land transactions have declined across the Bay Area, coinciding with increasing construction costs. According to TBD Consultants, a local cost consultant which tracks construction costs in the San Francisco Bay Area on a quarterly basis1, construction costs rose by approximately 31% from the first quarter of 2020, at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, to the fourth quarter of 2024, which is the latest available data. Both material and labor cost inflation have contributed to this upward trend. During this period, rental rates and sales prices have not kept pace with the rise in construction costs. As a result, market rate and mixed-income projects have become less economically feasible, leading to fewer transactions.

Predicting future construction cost escalation is challenging particularly in light of potential tariffs as discussed below. Higher interest rates have curtailed new construction activity and may lead to lower escalation as demand for construction labor wanes. However, as depicted in Figure 2 below, there have only been a few marginal instances of construction cost declines since 2015.

Figure 2. TBD Construction Bid Index
Source: TBD Index
1 TBD Consultants’ index is available at: https://www.tbdconsultants.com/tbd-bid-index. TBD’s index started in 2003 at 100.00 and has tracked construction cost increases on a quarterly basis since that time. 0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 24

Page 1180 of 1435 ends

PAGE 10

FINANCING COSTS
Interest rates have experienced a rapid increase over the past two years, initiated by the Federal Reserve's federal funds rate hikes starting in March 2022. This has led to interest rates reaching their highest level in 22 years, with the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (“SOFR”), a key indicator for borrowing costs collateralized by Treasury securities, following suit. As illustrated in Figure 3, the SOFR rose from approximately 3.00% in October 2022 to 5.32% at its peak as of June 1, 2024. While the SOFR has declined over the past three quarters, it is likely to remain higher than historical rates due to current market uncertainty. Construction lenders have also increased the interest rate spread on loans, increasing borrower costs at a disproportionately higher level than SOFR. Presently, construction loan interest rates are estimated to be between 7.5% and 8.00% based on a debt market update report prepared by Newmark, a global commercial real estate advisory and services firm, as of May 19, 2025. Permanent financing rates currently average between 6.4% and 6.8% for moderate leverage levels of between 60% and 65% loan-to-value.

Figure 3. SOFR Rate Since 2018

TARIFFS
The Trump administration has introduced policies that could have lasting impacts on the construction industry. For example, changes in immigration policy are exacerbating an already existing labor shortage. This may accelerate the adoption of AI technologies and prefabricated construction methods. In the short term, however, contractors affected by these policies are being forced to offer higher wages to attract workers, driving up overall construction costs.

As a result, material prices are expected to rise, and these increases may not be recoverable under typical construction contracts. Additionally, disruptions to the supply chain are likely, potentially leading to project delays and increased claims. While imported materials account for roughly 10% of construction inputs overall, certain materials, such as lumber, structural steel, aluminum,

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%
2018-Q22018-Q32018-Q42019-Q12019-Q22019-Q32019-Q42020-Q12020-Q22020-Q32020-Q42021-Q12021-Q22021-Q32021-Q42022-Q12022-Q22022-Q32022-Q42023-Q12023-Q22023-Q32023-Q42024-Q12024-Q22024-Q32024-Q42025-Q12025-Q2 ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 24

Page 1181 of 1435 ends

PAGE 11
cement, and gypsum, have significantly higher import rates, often from countries directly impacted by potential tariffs.

RENTAL GROWTH
According to the CoStar, an industry-standard commercial real estate database, rental rate growth for market-rate senior housing units has remained relatively flat over the past 10 years, with current rents averaging less than $6.00 per square foot. As noted above, rental rates vary depending on the level of amenities offered and whether those amenities are included in the monthly rent. While rents have remained stable, operating expenses have increased significantly, driven primarily by rising labor and insurance costs. Senior housing developments like the proposed projects typically provide a range of services beyond those found in standard apartment buildings, resulting in higher payroll costs due to the staffing required for entertainment, exercise, and dining programs. As a result, operating expense growth has outpaced rent growth, leading to lower projected net operating income for the projects.

Figure 4. Market Rate Senior Housing Rents by Bedroom Type $0.00
$1.00
$2.00
$3.00
$4.00
$5.00
$6.00
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
YTD
Studio 1 Bed 2 Beds
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 24

Page 1182 of 1435 ends

PAGE 12

ECONOMIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Century | Urban performed an economic analysis to evaluate project feasibility under the proposed Developer program, “Base Scenario”, and “Reduced SF Scenario” which models the reduced building footprint and depth necessary to achieve the required fire apparatus access road. The pro forma analysis resulted in a going-in ROC of approximately 4.3% and 4.4% for 10758 and 10728 Mora Drive, respectively for the Base Scenario assuming no land cost. These returns are well below the target ROC of 6.0%. In addition, when evaluating project feasibility utilizing an RLV approach, the analysis results in significantly negative RLVs of -$305,000 and - $286,000 per unit for 10758 and 10728 Mora Drive, respectively. The “Reduced SF Scenarios” further decrease the resulting ROCs and RLVs due to a reduction in economies of scale and an increased allocation of fixed costs to a now lower number of units due to a decreased building depth and resulting footprint.

To further illustrate project feasibility, Century | Urban evaluated each project under an allmarket-rate scenario, designated as “No BMR Units.” As shown in the table below, even without the inclusion of below-market-rate (BMR) units, the projects do not achieve returns consistent with market expectations. This suggests that, to meet feasibility thresholds, unit rents for the proposed affordable units would need to exceed market levels, effectively rendering those units unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households.

Please note the analysis does not include the Project’s historical land basis as well as developer carrying costs to date. The addition of these items would further increase the Project’s total development costs, resulting in further decreased feasibility.

As shown below, the estimated returns and RLVs across all scenarios fall below current target return benchmarks. These findings suggest the projects are financially infeasible and would likely have difficulty attracting the necessary capital to proceed with development.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 24

Page 1183 of 1435 ends

PAGE 13

DEVELOPER REVISED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
On May 30, 2025, the Developer submitted a revised application accompanied by new plan sets that no longer utilized the State Density Program. Resulting changes include a decreased residential unit count of 32 and 30 units for 10758 and 10728 Mora Drive, respectively, as well as a decrease in overall building size. Additionally, pursuant to the updated drawings, 10728 Mora Drive’s onsite inclusionary has been converted from extremely low income to very low-income housing units or 50.0% AMI.

The updated plans included a significant increase in average unit size from the prior submittal (for example, 10758 Mora Drive increased from approximately 912 square feet to 1,435 square feet in the May 2025 submittal). It appears the Developer has removed the assisted living units and reduced amenity space. All else being equal, residential rental rates tend to decrease on a persquare-foot basis as unit sizes increase and rents for senior housing projects will depend on the Residual Land Value Analysis
Base Scenario Reduced Scenario Base Scenario Reduced Scenario # Category + BMR Units + BMR Units + No BMR Units + No BMR Units 10758 Mora Drive

1.) Residential SF 66,354 59,832 66,354 59,832

2.) Podium / Parking SF 7,590 6,367 7,590 6,367

3.) Total SF 73,944 66,199 73,944 66,199

4.) Market Units 42 37 45 40

5.) BMR Units (a) 3 3 0 0

6.) Total Units 45 40 45 40

7.) RLV - Gross (b) $ (13,710,000) $ (13,150,000) $ (13,280,000) $ (12,700,000)

8.) RLV - $/Unit (b) $ (305,000) $ (329,000) $ (295,000) $ (318,000)

9.) Going-In ROC (c) 4.3% 4.2% 4.4% 4.3%
10728 Mora Drive

1.) Residential SF 61,779 56,881 61,779 56,881

2.) Podium / Parking SF 7,590 5,212 7,590 5,212

3.) Total SF 69,369 62,093 69,369 62,093

4.) Market Units 40 36 43 39

5.) BMR Units (a) 3 3 0 0

6.) Total Units 43 39 43 39

7.) RLV - Gross (b) $ (12,310,000) $ (11,860,000) $ (11,740,000) $ (11,860,000)

8.) RLV - $/Unit (b) $ (286,000) $ (304,000) $ (273,000) $ (304,000)

9.) Going-In ROC (c) 4.4% 4.3% 4.5% 4.3%
Notes:
(a) Extremely low income units at 30% AMI or less.
(b) Residual Land Value ("RLV") resulting from target Going-In Return-on-Cost ("ROC") of 6.0%. (c) Assumes zero land value and no developer carrying costs to date.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 24

Page 1184 of 1435 ends

PAGE 14
level of amenities offered. Accordingly, we have adjusted the projected rent downward to approximately $5.50 per square foot per month.

As with the previous analysis, Century | Urban has provided a Base Scenario reflecting the Developer’s proposed program, along with a sensitivity analysis evaluating economic returns without the inclusion of BMR units. An alternative reduced square footage scenario inclusive of the access road requirements was also developed with the same methodology previously described in this report.

A high-level overview of the economic analysis for the revised plan set is provided below:

As shown above, the resulting ROCs and RLVs generally improve from the previous analysis but are still below the required return thresholds to arrive at feasibility.

Residual Land Value Analysis - Resubmittal
Resubmittal Base Reduced Scenario Resubmittal Base Reduced Scenario # Category + BMR Units + BMR Units + No BMR Units + No BMR Units 10758 Mora Drive

1.) Residential SF 56,825 51,240 56,825 51,240

2.) Podium / Parking SF 10,031 8,415 10,031 8,415

3.) Total SF 66,856 59,655 66,856 59,655

4.) Market Units 29 25 32 28

5.) BMR Units (a) 3 3 0 0

6.) Total Units 32 28 32 28

7.) RLV - Gross (b) $ (8,680,000) $ (9,390,000) $ (8,210,000) $ (8,910,000)

8.) RLV - $/Unit (b) $ (271,000) $ (335,000) $ (257,000) $ (318,000)

9.) Going-In ROC (c) 4.8% 4.5% 4.8% 4.6%
10728 Mora Drive

1.) Residential SF 55,501 51,101 55,501 51,101

2.) Podium / Parking SF 10,322 7,089 10,322 7,089

3.) Total SF 65,823 58,190 65,823 58,190

4.) Market Units 27 24 30 27

5.) BMR Units (a) 3 3 0 0

6.) Total Units 30 27 30 27

7.) RLV - Gross (b) $ (7,210,000) $ (7,720,000) $ (7,220,000) $ (7,710,000)

8.) RLV - $/Unit (b) $ (240,000) $ (286,000) $ (241,000) $ (286,000)

9.) Going-In ROC (c) 4.9% 4.8% 4.9% 4.8%
Notes:
(a) Extremely low income units at 30% AMI or less for 10758 Mora Drive and very low income or 50% AMI for 10728 Mora.
(b) Residual Land Value ("RLV") resulting from target Going-In Return-on-Cost ("ROC") of 6.0%. (c) Assumes zero land value and no developer carrying costs to date.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 24

Page 1185 of 1435 ends

Arika Miller
From:

Sent:

To:

Karen and Chanh Ch
Thursday, January 30, 2025 1 :59 PM
City Council
Subject: For PUBLIC COMMENT on Item #9 for 1/30/25 meeting Dear LAH City Council,
I am writing in regards to the proposed residential development projects at 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills.

I am so woITied for om safety if this project gets the green light. The roads in Los Altos Hills are ve1y naITow and Mora Drive is even more so. The lot sizes are subpar and are not suited for such a large development. With the wildfire in mind, how do the residents escape while navigating the curvy and ve1y nanow Mora Drive. It will be a disaster.

I am so upset that the owner of this lot does not care about the residents here. It is like a BIG F-U to the town and the community.

Please do eve1ything you can to stop this from advancing fmther.

Karen Chi
Resident on Camino He1moso Dr.
1 ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1186 of 1435 ends

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

Page 1187 of 1435 ends

Jan 30, 2025
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Re: Proposed Housing Development Projects at 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive By email: [email protected]; [email protected]; gtnoo@losaltosbills,ca.gov; [email protected],gov; [email protected]
Dear Los Altos Hills City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund ("CalHDF") submits this letter to remind the Town of Los Altos Hills ("the Town") of its obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the proposed 55 and 57 dwelling unit projects located at 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive, respectively (collectively, "the Projects"). These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code,§ 65589.5; the "HAA'') and SB 330 (Gov. Code,§ 65941.1).

Under the HAA,1 a city (or town) may not disapprove a qualifying affordable housing project (i.e., a housing development project that provides at least 20 percent of the total units to lower income households, as defined by Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5) on the grounds it does not comply with the local zoning and general plan if the developer submitted either a statutorily defined "preliminary application" or a "complete development application" while the city's (or town's) housing element was not in substantial compliance with state law. (See Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d)(5), (h)(5), (o)(l).) This statutory provision temporarily suspends the power of non-compliant municipalities to enforce their zoning rules against qualifying affordable housing projects. (See, e.g., California Housing Defense 1 AB 1893, effective January 1, 2025, has amended the "Builder's Remedy" provisions of the HAA.

However, the AB 1893 allows for vested Builder's Remedy applications to proceed under current law or opt into the provisions of the new law, at the choice of the project applicant. (Gov. Code,§ 65589.5, subd. (f)(7).)
360 Grand
www.calhdf.org
Ave #323, Oakland 94610
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1188 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1189 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1190 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1191 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1192 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1193 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1194 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1195 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1196 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1197 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1198 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1199 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1200 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1201 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1202 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1203 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1204 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1205 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1206 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1207 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1208 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1209 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1210 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1211 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1212 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1213 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1214 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1215 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1216 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1217 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1218 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1219 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1220 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1221 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1222 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1223 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1224 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1225 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1226 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1227 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1228 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1229 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1230 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1231 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1232 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1233 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1234 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1235 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1236 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1237 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1238 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1239 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1240 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1241 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1242 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1243 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1244 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1245 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1246 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1247 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1248 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1249 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1250 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1251 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1252 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1253 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1254 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1255 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1256 of 1435 ends

Arika Miller
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Dear City Council,
Karen Jessen
Thursday, January 30, 2025 3:31 PM
City Council
For Public Comment (Item 9)
We cannot attend the meeting this evening regarding the proposed development at the end of Mora Drive in Los Altos Hills. We live on Ravensbury Ave., around the corner from this project. We absolutely oppose any such development at this location. The amount of traffic it would engender on Mora Drive would be reprehensible. Plus, there are many walkers and bicyclists on this street, including children from the Charter School at the bottom of Mora. All that traffic would be dangerous for these people. Please vote "no" on this proposal.

Thank you,
Dave and Karen Jessen
1 ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1257 of 1435 ends

Arika Miller
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:

Dear Councilmembers,
Brian O'Neill
Thursday, January 30, 2025 3:45 PM
Stanley Mok; George Tyson; Linda Swan; Kavita Tankha; [email protected]; Jay Bradford; Steve Mattas; Suzanne Avila; City Council; Peter Pirnejad Forrest Linebarqer
Applicant Response Letter - Item 9.A
2025.01.30 Applicant's Response Letter - Executed.pdf; Fire Expert Letter to City Council (FLCR).pdf; 2025.01.30 Linebarger Declaration - Executed.pdf; 2025.01.30 Bevan Declaration - Executed.pdf
Please see the attached comment letter, fire expert report, and declarations submitted on behatf of the applicant regarding the proposed housing development projects at 10758 and 10728 Mora Drive, which is currently set to be heard at this evening's City Council hearing (Agenda Item No. 9A). As previously requested, and as explained more fully in the attached letter, the Council should defer consideration of this matter until a future date and should reject staff's recommendation to disapprove the projects.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Respectfully,
Brian
Brian O'Neill
Patterson & O'Neill, PC
www.pattersononeill.com
This email may contain privileged or confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the original sender and delete all copies.

Nothing in this email or any attachments should be regarded as tax advice unless expressly stated. 1 ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1258 of 1435 ends

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

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

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

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

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

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1259 of 1435 ends

Mayor Tankha and Councilmembers
January 30, 2025

Page 2 ends

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

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

Regardless, the applicant has chosen to revise his application to meet the definition of “builder’s remedy project” in subd. (h)(11). The revisions include significant changes such as reducing the number of units, amending the affordability levels, amending the fire access plans, and amending the proposed accessory uses, parking, and elevations. The project plans that are the subject of the January 30 hearing no longer exist and have been replaced with new application materials. As a result, the proposed public hearing notices, resolutions, findings, and attached project plans are ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1260 of 1435 ends

Mayor Tankha and Councilmembers
January 30, 2025

Page 3 ends

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

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

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

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

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

The Project Meets the Requirements of the Builder’s Remedy As explained above, the staff report argues that the project does not qualify for the new definition of builder’s remedy in Gov. Code Sec. 65589.5(h)(11), which did not go into effect until January 1, 2025. Pursuant to Gov. Code Sec. 65589.5(f)(7), the applicant can choose whether to be subject to this definition. Prior to January 1, 2025, any project that met the prior definition of “housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households,” qualifies for the builder’s remedy. This project previously provided 20% of the units as affordable to low-income ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1261 of 1435 ends

Mayor Tankha and Councilmembers
January 30, 2025

Page 4 ends

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

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

However, the Town’s claim that Section 503.1.1 is part of the California Fire Code is simply wrong. The Office of the State Fire Marshal (SFM) is solely responsible for promulgating regulations for inclusion in Part 9 of the State Building Codes, also referred to as the California Fire Code. In 2022, the SFM chose not to adopt Section 503 of the International Code Council (ICC) Fire Code.1
In the most recent proposed update, the SFM once again is proposing not to adopt Section 503 into the California Fire Code.2
In short, the Town’s citation to an ICC model code that has not been adopted by the SFM, and is not a part of Title 24, is erroneous. Section 503.1.1 has no force and effect in California. The Town has not identified any specific state or federal laws that the project fails to meet, and disapproval finding no. 2 is not legally valid reason to deny the project. 1 The State Building Codes are all based on ICC code standards. When the State Building Code is updated, each responsible agency may choose to adopt, amend, or not adopt portions of the ICC Code. Because the ICC’s codes are copyrighted, the ICC is the only entity that is allowed to publish the State Building Code. The ICC publishes both the ICC’s “model code” along with the California amendments (in italics) in one document. Each chapter of the code begins with an “adoption matrix” that indicates which ICC model codes have been adopted by the relevant California agency. Chapter 5 of the Fire Code matrix confirms that Section 503 has not been adopted by the SFM and is therefore not part of the California Fire Code. https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAFC2022P1/chapter-5-fire-service-features 2 See SFM Final Statement of Reasons, available at https://www.dgs.ca.gov/- /media/Divisions/BSC/03-Rulemaking/2024-Triennial-Cycle/Commission-Meetings/2025-02- 26/SFM-06-24-FSOR-PT9.pdf
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1262 of 1435 ends

Mayor Tankha and Councilmembers
January 30, 2025

Page 5 ends

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

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

Exceptions:

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

The HAA defines “specific, adverse impact” to mean a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)(2).) The HAA further defines “objective” to mean standards that require “no personal or subjective judgment by a public official” that are “knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(8).) The HAA’s objectivity requirement applies to all applicable development 3 In addition, the Town’s fire code violates the Housing Crisis Act, which prohibits the Town from enacting or implementing any new code standards that reduce the intensity of land use or reduce a site’s residential development capacity. (Gov. Code § 66300(b)(1)(A).) The Town’s fire code ordinance reduces the amount of space on a parcel where housing can be built, which clearly reduces a site’s residential capacity in violation of the Housing Crisis Act, and is therefore void. (Gov. Code § 66300(b)(2).) Further, the Housing Crisis Act prohibits the Town from imposing or enforcing design standards that are not objective design standards. (Gov. Code § 66300(b)(1)(C).) The Town’s ordinance imposes design standards that are not objective and is therefore void. (Gov. Code § 66300(b)(2).)
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1263 of 1435 ends

Mayor Tankha and Councilmembers
January 30, 2025

Page 6 ends

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

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

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

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

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

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1264 of 1435 ends

Mayor Tankha and Councilmembers
January 30, 2025

Page 7 ends

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

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

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

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1265 of 1435 ends

Mayor Tankha and Councilmembers
January 30, 2025

Page 8 ends

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

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

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

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

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

As the staff report admits, consistency with the Town’s local fire code requirements, contained in Title 8 of the Town’s municipal code, is supposed to be determined by a building official during the post-entitlement building permit phase. For other projects, the Town does not require Fire Department AMMR approval until after the project receives a planning entitlement.5 Here, staff
is singling out my client’s project for differential treatment simply for asserting his rights under the builder’s remedy. Not only is this a violation of my client’s due process rights, but this is also a violation of the HAA that prohibits a local government from imposing “any requirement, process, practice, or procedure . . . that applies to a project solely or partially on the basis that the project is a builder’s remedy project.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(6)(E).) The Council, acting on a Conditional Development Permit, are limited to reviewing a project for consistency with Town’s Zoning and Site Development Standards contained in Chapter 10. (See Code § 10-1.1007(3) regarding findings for approval or denial of permits). As the staff report admits, the applicant has not yet even submitted a building permit application to the Town. We 5 See Lands of Bowers – 26875 Nina Place – File# SD21-0061, Condition 38 https://www.losaltoshills.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/5365/26875-Nina-Pl-COA?bidId= ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1266 of 1435 ends

Mayor Tankha and Councilmembers
January 30, 2025

Page 9 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1267 of 1435 ends

Mayor Tankha and Councilmembers
January 30, 2025

Page 10 ends

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

Very truly yours,
PATTERSON & O’NEILL, PC
____________________________________ Brian O’Neill
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1268 of 1435 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided and maintained in accordance with Sections 503.1.1 through 503.1.3. 1
https://codes.iccsafe.org/s/CAFC2022P1/chapter-5-fire-service-features/CAFC2022P1- ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1269 of 1435 ends

503.1.1Buildings and facilities.

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

Exceptions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exceptions:

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

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

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

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1270 of 1435 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1271 of 1435 ends

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

Sincerely,
Carol Rice
Figures:
4 https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAFC2022P1/appendix-d- -apparatus-access-roads ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1272 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1273 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1274 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1275 of 1435 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California-Nevada- Forest Fire Council: - - - Chair
Secretary 2015-
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1276 of 1435 ends

More than 50 publications, presentations and fuel
modification.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1277 of 1435 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1278 of 1435 ends

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

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

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

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

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1279 of 1435 ends

-1-

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

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

DECLARATION OF FORREST

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

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

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

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

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

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1280 of 1435 ends

-2-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1281 of 1435 ends

-3-

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

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

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

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

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

17. On August 28, 2024 I had a meeting with Mathew McKenna, Brian Glass, Brad Fox, Kenny Ip, Caleb Flanegan, Rob Campbell and others from the Fire Dept. to hash out potential solutions that would satisfy them, even if they were not required by the CFC. The Fire Dept. team, particularly Mathew McKenna and Brad Fox drove the discussion and suggested and agreed to the four solutions: 1) retain the fire sprinkler systems per 903.3.1.1 2) Separate the fire department access from the occupant egress along the sides of the building adjacent to the parking area, except where the ADA ramp brought the two paths together; 3) add standpipe outlets on the exterior walls on the lower portion of the building to provide places for them to attach fire hoses; 4) Increase the fire rating at the wall to Type 1-A for the non bearing walls at sides of the parking garage; 5) Remove most of the glass and openings below 10’ from grade at the firefighters egress side and increase the fire rating of the remaining glass to ¾ of an hour ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1282 of 1435 ends

-4-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

23. The Town’s Staff Report dated January 30, 2025 contains an ad hoc feasibility study and exegesis on page 18. As a developer, it is clear to me that this evaluation was not done by a developer or finance expert, and contains numerous flaws in the analysis. The study assumes ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1283 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1284 of 1435 ends

Exhibit
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1285 of 1435 ends

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

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

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

I look forward to your response.

Thank you,
Forrest Linebarger
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1286 of 1435 ends

Exhibit
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1287 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1288 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1289 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1290 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1291 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1292 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1293 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1294 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1295 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1296 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1297 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1298 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1299 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1300 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1301 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1302 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1303 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1304 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1305 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1306 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1307 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1308 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1309 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1310 of 1435 ends

Exhibit
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1311 of 1435 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We appreciate the time you and your staff took to meet with us on May 22, 2024 to discuss this project, and we wanted to follow-up with an additional explanation as to why SCCFD must ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1312 of 1435 ends

Brian Glass, Assistant Fire Chief
June 4, 2024

Page 2 ends

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

The Fire Department is Subject to State Law Requirements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1313 of 1435 ends

Brian Glass, Assistant Fire Chief
June 4, 2024

Page 3 ends

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

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

The Project is Consistent with all Objective Fire Code Requirements.

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

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1314 of 1435 ends

Brian Glass, Assistant Fire Chief
June 4, 2024

Page 4 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moreover, the project meets the objective fire apparatus access roads requirements. Specifically, the proposed access road is less than 300 feet away from the exterior of the building and the building is proposed to be equipped with an approved automatic sprinkler system throughout, installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1. Any reasonable person would conclude that a ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1315 of 1435 ends

Brian Glass, Assistant Fire Chief
June 4, 2024

Page 5 ends

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

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

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

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

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

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1316 of 1435 ends

Brian Glass, Assistant Fire Chief
June 4, 2024

Page 6 ends

Very truly yours,
PATTERSON & O’NEILL, PC ____________________________________ Brian O’Neill ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1317 of 1435 ends

Exhibit
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1318 of 1435 ends

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

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

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

Additionally, I wanted to take this opportunity to remind you that all requests and applications for the projects must go through the Town as it is the ultimate reviewing body for the development applications. The Town was notified by the Fire Department ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1319 of 1435 ends

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

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

Thank you,
Suzanne

SUZANNE AVILA, AICP
Principal Planner
she/her
408-340-5642 X-128 c 408-477-5820
a new design on urban planning
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1320 of 1435 ends

Exhibit
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1321 of 1435 ends

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

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

Suzanne

SUZANNE AVILA, AICP
Principal Planner
she/her
408-340-5642 X-128 c 408-477-5820
a new design on urban planning
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1322 of 1435 ends

-1-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My preparation notes for that meeting were written in pencil on the letter. A true and correct ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1323 of 1435 ends

-2-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1324 of 1435 ends

-3-

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

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

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

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

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

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

14. Comment 18 from the Fire Dept. letters (Exabits F & G) correspond to bullet 1 on page 2 of the H) regarding stair separation CBC section 1027; comment 19 corresponds to bullet 5 page 2 regarding exit discharge 1CBC section 1028.5; Item 21 corresponds to bullet points 2 and 3 page 1 regarding exterior wall ratings. Neither of these review letters were necessary and they arrived in close proximity to each other. In my ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1325 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1326 of 1435 ends

Exhibit
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1327 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1328 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1329 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1330 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1331 of 1435 ends

Exhibit
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1332 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1333 of 1435 ends

Exhibit
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1334 of 1435 ends

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

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

Los Gatos, CA 95032
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1335 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1336 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1337 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1338 of 1435 ends

Exhibit
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1339 of 1435 ends

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

Please see attached.

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

Respectfully,
Kenny Ip
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1340 of 1435 ends

Deputy Fire Marshal I
Fire Prevention Division
Santa Clara County Fire Department
16795 Lark Ave | Los Gatos, CA 95030
tel: 408.341.4437 | fax: 408.378.9342 | [email protected] ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1341 of 1435 ends

Exhibit
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1342 of 1435 ends

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

Please see attached.

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

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1343 of 1435 ends

Caleb Flanagan | Deputy Fire Marshal I
Fire Prevention Division
Santa Clara County Fire Department
[email protected] | 408-341-4441
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1344 of 1435 ends

Exhibit
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1345 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1346 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1347 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1348 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1349 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1350 of 1435 ends

Exhibit
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1351 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1352 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1353 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1354 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1355 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1356 of 1435 ends

Exhibit
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1357 of 1435 ends

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

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

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

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1358 of 1435 ends

Preliminary Building Code Review
10728 & 10758 Mora Dr.

Page 2 of 3 ends

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

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

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

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

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1359 of 1435 ends

Preliminary Building Code Review
10728 & 10758 Mora Dr.

Page 3 of 3 ends

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

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

Gregory J McFann
Interim Building Official
Town of Los Alto Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1360 of 1435 ends

Exhibit
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1361 of 1435 ends

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

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

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

Respectfully,
Matthew L. McKenna | Senior Deputy Fire Marshal
Fire Prevention Division
Santa Clara County Fire Department
[email protected] | (408) 341-4420
----- Original Message -----
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1362 of 1435 ends

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

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

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

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

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

James Bevan
(805)405-5654
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1363 of 1435 ends

Arika Miller
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Attachments:

To the City Council:

Matt Gelfand
Thursday, January 30, 2025 4:22 PM
City Council
Comment regarding Agenda Item 9A
2025-1-30 - Letter to City Council.pdf
on behalf of
Please see the attached correspondence regarding Agenda Item 9A being discussed at your meeting today.

Sincerely,
Matthew Gelfand
Matthew Gelfand
Counsel, Californians for Homeownership
Californians for Homeownership is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that works to address California's housing crisis through impact litigation and other legal tools.
1 ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1364 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1365 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1366 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1367 of 1435 ends

Arika Miller
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Sent by Jean Gordon MD PhD
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Jean Gordon
Jean Gordon
Thursday, January 30, 2025 4:50 PM
City Council
Fwd: Linebarger Mora project
Date: January 30, 2025 at 4:49:27 PM PST
To: [email protected]
Subject: Linebarger Mora project
We oppose Forrest Linebarger's proposed multi-family senior residential developments consisting of 55 and 57 condo units at 10728 Mora Drive ( 0.374 acre lot) and 10758 Mora Drive (0.397 acre lot), right next to the entry gate to Rancho San Antonio.

The high density buildings would be a disaster in the making. Senior living with no public transportation, few private car parking, and limited options for egress cannot possibly be reasonable when you consider what would happen during a fire or earthquake. not only that, these buildings would destroy the rural and bucolic nature of the neighborhood and threaten the happiness of the wildlife that abounds up there!!! This is the very atmosphere that the San Antonio preserve is trying to preserve! We ask the Council to deny his applications.

Sent by Jean Gordon MD PhD
Sent from my iPhone
1 ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1368 of 1435 ends

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Josh Manion
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1369 of 1435 ends

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

With a mulƟ story building and so many apartments, it seems as if this issue has simply been ignored. How will it be possible to contain the light and not have light polluƟon? Dorit
Brief because sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 26, 2025, at 17:45, Dorit Perry wrote:
>
> To City Council,
>
> 10728 and 10758 Mora drive. A few years ago this same developer sought a variance to allow a single residence. It was justly denied. These lots are not just sub-standard. These lots are not even 1/2 the size of a regular lot. The applicaƟon was fully reviewed, debated and denied.
>
> Now this same developer wants to build 50 plus units on this miniature lot. This is even more egregious. For the same reasons that the original variance was denied, this must be denied. >
> Moreover, the amount of traffic generated by residents, staff and employees would become untenable. >
> Los Altos Hills is a quiet rural community. We, and all our neighbors, bought homes for this quiet. It will be forever ruined by this development. In essence it’s starƟng to feel like a “taking.” >
> Please deny this.
>
> Dorit Perry
>
> Brief because sent from my iPhone
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1370 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1371 of 1435 ends

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your consideration and action.

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

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1372 of 1435 ends

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

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

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

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

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

Please do not allow such a development to happen.

Regards
Raman Kapur
Los Altos Hills, CA 94024
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1373 of 1435 ends

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

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

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

Regards,
KranƟ Singh
Resident
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1374 of 1435 ends

1 Arika Miller
From:

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

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

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

Thank you,
Bill and Sarah Nowlin
Los Altos Hills, CA. 94024
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1375 of 1435 ends

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

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

We ask the Council to deny his applications.

Tom & Marj Green
Los Altos Hills, CA 94024
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1376 of 1435 ends

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

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

Do not let him get his way.

PLEASE VOTE NO!
Eleanor Caughlan
Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1377 of 1435 ends

From:

To: II!!
Subject:

Date:
1/30/2025 Council Meeting, agenda item Mora Drive: Approve Resolutions to Deny Monday, January 27, 2025 10: 10:07 AM
Kavita Tankha, Mayor
Raj iv Bhateja, Vice Mayor
Stanley Mok
George Tyson
Linda Swan
Dear Mayor and Members of the Council:

The Town StaffRepo1i and proposed Resolutions to Deny are ove1whelmingly compelling.

The findings identify multiple unresolvable challenges with the proposed developments.

Foremost is that these developments would put the new residents at extreme risk for their lives, and also me, my family and my neighbors in high peril of death from fire.

I strongly mge you to approve the Resolutions to deny the proposed developments.

David Kehlet
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1378 of 1435 ends

Town of Los Altos Hills City Council,
10728 and 10758 Mora Drive
David C. Kehlet
1/30/2025
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1379 of 1435 ends

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

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1380 of 1435 ends

Approve the Resolutions to Deny
• The 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive Staff Report
and the two Mora Resolutions show the Town’s
strong commitment to its residents and the rule
of law – Thank You!
• The overwhelming challenges of the proposed
developments are not just about:
– Density, Town Charter, Adverse Impact, Developer’s
Special Privileges, Inapplicability of Builders Remedy, (and many more showstoppers!), NIMBY/YIMBY
• Now people’s lives are at stake!
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1381 of 1435 ends

Mora Drive
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1382 of 1435 ends

Mora Drive
Pacific Palisades, 2025
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1383 of 1435 ends

Mora Drive
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1384 of 1435 ends

Mora Drive
Oakland Hills, 1991
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1385 of 1435 ends

Evacuation?
• 112 units for seniors
• Dozens of existing homes on Mora Drive, Sunhills
Drive and Terry Way
• With the prevailing winds from Rancho San
Antonio Park, the way out is down Mora Drive!
• How will 200-300 souls evacuate?
• How will emergency responders decide who to
save and who will burn?
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1386 of 1435 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1387 of 1435 ends

2 Thank you, Esther M. John
Los Altos Hills, CA 94024
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1388 of 1435 ends

Arika Miller
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:

City Council members,
ROBERT Rodriguez
Tuesday, January 28, 2025 10:12 AM
City Council
Hal Feeney
Forest Linebarger residential development
Follow up
Flagged
We are STRONGLY AGAINST the proposed residential development projects by Forrest Linebarger to construct two multi-family senior residential developments consisting of 55 and 57 condo units at 10728 Mora Drive ( 0.37 4 acre lot) and 10758 Mora Drive (0.397 acre lot).

My wife and I reside at . We moved to this home 36 years ago primarily due to the CC&R of one-acre minimum lots and that each of the primarily single-story homes are of different design with primarily distinctive historical oak trees. Mora Drive is a narrow two-lane road, there are no sidewalks, that does not allow parking on the road. Primarily senior couples or widowers reside in the 26 homes on Mora Drive. Mora Drive leads to the limited entrances to San Antonio Open Space Preserve. Walkers consistently walk up Mora Drive for access to the park. Adding 112 condo units, along with staff, would not only greatly change the beauty of the area, but it would also be extremely out of place in such a serene established neighborhood. It would greatly increase traffic and endanger walkers, school children walking field trips up Mora to the park, and senior residences driving on this "dead end" road (one way up to the park entrance and one way back down to Eastbrook Avenue).

Please DO NOT allow this residential development project to be approved.

Thank you,
Robert & Louise Rodriguez
Los Altos Hills, CA 94024
1 ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1389 of 1435 ends

Arika Miller
From: Kristen Lamb Dubiel
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 11 :42 AM
To: City Council
Subject: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT (Agenda Item #9)
Dear Members of the Los Altos Hills City Council,
We are writing to express opposition to the proposed development projects at 10728 Mora Drive and 10758 Mora Drive. As residents of this neighborhood, we're concerned about the potential impacts of these projects on our community, environment, and quality of life. We urge the Council to consider the following factors:

1. Incompatibility with the Character of the Neighborhood The proposed development of 55 and 57 condo units awkwardly squeezed onto two small, nonconforming lots conflicts with the character of our neighborhood. The design appears to maximize volume and commercial gain without considering tone, place, or use; it clashes with the natural beauty of adjacent Rancho San Antonio Preserve, disrupts our neighborhood's long-standing tranquil character, and violates the town design guidelines. This project would fundamentally alter the character of our neighborhood and set a dangerous precedent for developments in all neighborhoods of Los Altos Hills.

2. Traffic and Safety Concerns
The sites are located at the top of the steep, windy, narrow Mora Drive. This route is frequented by neighbors walking their dogs, hikers, cyclists, and children from the Waldorf school, who walk in large groups up and down the hill as part of their nature education at Rancho San Antonio Preserve. Mora Drive is not capable of handling the traffic that will be generated by 112 new units. We've personally witnessed several close calls where cars have nearly struck pedestrians, pets or cyclists along the curves of Mora Drive, Sunhills Drive and West Loyola Drive. We fear that adding a large cohort of senior citizen drivers to these roads would lead to worse than close calls.

3. Fire Risk
The projects exacerbate fire risk. The added human impact of 112 new units in a critical location, immediately adjacent to the Rancho San Antonio Preserve, poses an increased risk of a fire- and there are no safeguards preventing such fire from spreading to the wildland. Moreover, the projects sit at the junction of the neighborhood's fire egress routes, creating a precarious chokepoint in the event of any emergency- residents of the entire neighborhood might not be able to evacuate, while emergency vehicles might not be able to enter.

4. Environmental Impact
The project sites are immediately adjacent to the Rancho San Antonio Preserve. The development will reduce green space and disrupt the habitat of species that depend upon the vital wildland. Additionally, the establishment of a "concrete island" and the abrupt impact associated with 112 new units would strain our existing infrastructure, exacerbate water runoff, endanger our creeks, and pose a nuisance to downhill neighbors.

If one were to imagine the ideal location for 112 new units in Los Altos Hills, the lots at 10728 Mora Drive and 10758 Mora Drive would not merit any serious consideration- because they present insurmountable risks concerning safety, traffic, fire, and the environment. Not only is this not the right site for Forrest Linebarger's 1 ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1390 of 1435 ends

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

Sincerely,
Christian and Kristen Dubiel
Los Altos Hills, CA 94024
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1391 of 1435 ends

Arika Miller
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:

Margo Seymour
Tuesday, January 28, 2025 2:07 PM
City Council
Linebarger
Follow up
Flagged
Before you vote for this, at least come to drive up Mora. People park at the bottom to hike it (wearing bright clothes for visibility), but any more traffic on it will be ghastly. And it is the only way to get to those sites. Suggest that he erect two very tall houses. He'll charge more because of the views. If he is counting on a senior residence not adding cars, good luck. No one will move up there without a car; too isolating.

Margo Seymour
1 ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1392 of 1435 ends

Arika Miller
From: Susan Barnes >
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2025 3:20 PM
To: City Council
Subject: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Agenda Item #9
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Attention: Los Altos Hills City Council
RE: Residential Development Projects at 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive January 28, 2025
Dear Los Altos Hills City Council members,
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed residential development projects by Forrest Linebarger to construct two multi-family senior residential developments consisting of 55 and 57 condo units at 10728 Mora Drive and 10758 Mora Drive.

I am the niece of Judy Klein, who resides at . I am her Durable Power of Attorney as she has Alzheimer's disease and can no longer adequately communicate her opinions regarding this matter. Judy and Enrique Klein (Enrique is now deceased) have been long time opponents of the over-development of the lots owned by Mr. Linebarger. I have been in many conversations with Judy and Enrique over the years regarding these lots, and can attest to their strong desire to preserve the integrity and safety of the neighborhood and ensure the appropriate development of these lots. Out of respect to their efforts, and their inability to continue to advocate for the neighborhood, I am taking the time to write this letter regarding the current proposal.

Mr. Linebarger's current proposal for large condominium units on these lots is irresponsible as the plans ignore important safety needs. Specifically:
• This area is at high risk for exposure to wildfire, so much that insurance companies are beginning to cancel home insurance policies. In fact, my Aunt's policy was canceled just last year forcing her to obtain the CA Fair Plan. I wonder how Mr. Linebarger expects to provide adequate insurance for his condominiums given the current insurance landscape?
• There would be significant challenges to evacuate residents during an emergency. To my understanding, there will not be enough parking spaces for all of the residents, which would leave many adults of a vulnerable age without an easy evacuation strategy. • The roads to and from the buildings are narrow and would pose problems for the fire department to access the buildings in an emergency. Also, to my understanding, the proposal calls for the fie hydrants to be 300 feet from the building violated the required 150 feet.

I hope you will consider these issues when considering Mr. Linebarger's application, and perhaps encourage Mr. Linebarger to propose a more suitable development for these lots.

Respectfully,
1 ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1393 of 1435 ends

2 Susan Barnes
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1394 of 1435 ends

To: Members of the LAH City Council
From: Esther & Richard Blanchard
Date: January 28, 2025
Subject: Proposed Senior Housing Towers on Upper Mora Drive Dear LAH City Council Members:

My wife, Esther and I, wish to thank you and the LAH City Staff for the thorough evaluation that has been performed on the requests to build two separate high density senior housing towers at 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive. Though we do not live in Los Altos Hills, we access our property at from Mora Drive. As you might expect, we oppose these construction projects for a number of reasons.

Our greatest concern is for our safety and the safety of our neighbors that live on Mora Drive and nearby streets in the event of a fire. Even with no additional housing on or near Mora Drive, it is not clear that a safe evacuation can occur in case of a fire. As your analysis has shown, the addition of more than 100 living units will only compound this problem, possibly resulting in a foreseeable series of events including unnecessary injuries and deaths.

Thank you for your concern on this matter.

I' �1.J
QJW_
(7/,t,, {_,,
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1395 of 1435 ends

Arika Miller
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:
prabhu G >
Tuesday, January 28, 2025 7:18 PM
City Council
Jan 30 city council meeting: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, agenda item #9 Follow up
Flagged
Dear Mayor Tankha, Vice Mayor Bhateja, and Members of the Los Altos Hills City Council, My family and I recently purchased a home , Los Altos, CA 94024, intending to raise our two young daughters in a safe and peaceful environment. We are the left-side neighbors of 10758 Mora Dr. I am writing to express serious concerns regarding the proposed 55+57 unit senior developments planned for the adjacent property.

The prospect of such a large development so close to our home is quite unsettling. Our daughters currently bike to Los Altos public schools - my younger daughter to and my elder daughter to - along Mora Drive. This road is already narrow, steep, curvy, and I believe the addition of potentially 112 new units would significantly increase traffic and create a dangerous situation for our children and other residents.

Beyond the traffic concerns, I have significant questions about the feasibility of accommodating such a large number of units in this location. I am particularly concerned about the strain on existing infrastructure (water, electricity, sewer, parking, and garbage collection) and the fact that this area is designated as a high fire risk zone. I respectfully request that the City Council carefully consider the concerns and deny the proposed senior developments. I believe these projects pose a significant safety risk to all residents, including the seniors who might eventually reside in these units.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Prabhu Govindaswamy
Los Altos Hills, CA 94024
1 ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1396 of 1435 ends

Arika Miller
From:

Sent:

To:

Sandhya G Prabhakara
Tuesday, January 28, 2025 7:51 PM
City Council
Subject: Jan 30 city council meeting: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, agenda item #9 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mayor Tankha, Vice Mayor Bhateja,
As immediate neighbors of 10758 Mora Dr, we are writing to express serious concerns regarding the proposed 112 unit senior developments planned for the adjacent property.

Our primary concern is the increased fire risk in this already designated high fire risk zone, especially given its proximity to Rancho. Adding 112 units will necessitate a substantial increase in electrical infrastructure, including additional transformers. We are particularly worried about the potential for increased fire risk associated with this added electrical load, especially considering the power demands of senior residents, including specialized medical equipment, backup power systems (batteries), and climate control essential for their well-being. The need for consistent power, without risk of outages, is paramount for senior care, and we question the capacity of the current infrastructure to reliably support such a significant increase in demand.

Furthermore, we believe that placing a large senior development in a designated high fire risk zone raises serious ethical questions. Can we, in good conscience, place vulnerable seniors in a location where their safety could be compromised by fire? Beyond physical safety, the added stress of living in a high fire risk area, coupled with potential community opposition to the project's scale (due to safety risk, traffic etc), could negatively impact the peace of mind and overall well-being of the senior residents.

We respectfully request that the City Council thoroughly and critically evaluate these safety and infrastructure concerns and urge you to deny the proposed developments, as we believe they pose an unacceptable level of risk to all residents, including the seniors they intend to serve.

Sincerely,
Sandhya Gurajala Prabhakara
Los Altos CA 94024
1 ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1397 of 1435 ends

Arika Miller
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:

Alan Schatzber
Tuesday, January 28, 2025 9:12 PM
City Council
Nancy Schatzberg; Alan Schatzberg
For Public Comment
Follow up
Flagged
In regard to agenda item #9 to be discussed on January 30, 2025, we are unfortunately unable to attend the meeting. My wife and I live on West Loyola Drive and we are opposed to the proposed development of senior housing on the 2 Forest Linebarger lots on Mora. It would have a dramatic effect on the neighborhood which is almost entirely properties of 1 acre or more and would increased the traffic considerably .. Thanks for considering this. Alan and Nancy Schatzberg
Alan F. Schatzberg, MD
Kenneth T. Norris, Jr., Professor
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences
Stanford University School of Medicine
1 ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1398 of 1435 ends

Arika Miller
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:

John Loiacono
Tuesday, January 28, 2025 10:13 PM
City Council
Kara The Babe Wife
FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, Agenda Item #9
Follow up
Flagged
Dear Mayor Tankha and Members of the LAH City Council:

We are John and Kara Loiacono. Our family has lived on Mora Drive for the past 27 years. We, along with a couple other Mora residents were involved with adding a sewer line to Mora Drive and fully understand the complexity and challenges with organizing and planning for a large neighborhood development.

We are strong opponents to the proposed development proposed by Mr. Linebarger.

As many concerned residents have already mentioned, there is a long list of impractical as well as out right dangerous issues with the proposal. We are astonished that such a high density development of greater than 100 condo units would even be considered for the two properties at 10728 and 10758 Mora Dr.

I wave cars down all the time trying to get them to slow down, as we live on one of the steepest sections of the road. I am fearful of what would happen with an additional 100 units and the commensurate number of associated vehicles. Increased traffic and congestion on a narrow, two-lane road would clearly be a danger to the number of Rancho San Antonio Open Space patrons who park at the the bottom of Mora and hike up and down the street daily, not to mention the bikers who use the Magdalena-Ravensbury-Mora loop as a workout route, and the young children who single-file walk up to the park's entrance on a regular basis on Mora's no sidewalk, narrow margin street.

I urge you to agree with the staff's initial report and reject Mr. Linebarger's proposals.

Respectfully,
John & Kara Loiacono
1 ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1399 of 1435 ends

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

Please support rejecting this application. Thank you.
--
Rob Fagen
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1400 of 1435 ends

Arika Miller
From:

Sent:

To:

Marla Staffanson
Wednesday, January 29, 2025 9:32 AM
City Council
Subject: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT - Item #9 - Jan 30th council meeting Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
City Council,
I am a resident of Los Altos Hills and live very near the proposed residential development projects at the top of Mora Drive. It is my understanding that 55 and 57 unit condos are being proposed to go in there.

I have really only one issue with this project - it's not optics or zoning. There is, to me, only one reason why this project should absolutely not go through and that is TRAFFIC ON MORA DRIVE. Have you driven it recently? It's steep and it's narrow. There are no streetlights. It is an avenue to get into Rancho San Antonio Park, so the street is constantly full of walkers/hikers and bikers heading up that road to head into the park. As it is, it's a bit dangerous. You have to be really careful on that road.

Adding that many residences would be a disaster for the residents and good people of this community and others who use that road. There will be a fatality. Probably many. It simply cannot handle that kind of traffic and there's no option to widen or brighten that road that would be a better option. It just is what it is. I am 51 and struggle seeing at night already, so when you tell me it's a senior residential area, I think the potential for traffic related deaths will skyrocket. Because of that, there will be blood on Forrest Linebarger's hands for forcing an issue that endangered the lives of others to make money and potentially the city council's hands for approving it. I don't know anyone who would sacrifice a child, a mother, a beloved friend for the progression of condos. I hope we, as a community, can block any loopholes that may allow this to go forward.

Please do not allow that much traffic onto this road.

Sincerely,
Marla Staffanson
(also in agreement is my husband, David Staffanson)
Los Altos Hills
1 ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1401 of 1435 ends

Arika Miller
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Tom O'Grady
Wednesday, January 29, 2025 10:08 AM
City Council
Linebarger proposed condos
Council members , I live at . I live in one of those small pockets of county land adjacent to all my neighbors that are in Los Altos Hills. I've lived on Mora Drive for 35 years and being a paving contractor in the Bay Area I'm quite familiar with traffic and traffic patterns. Mora Dr is a very narrow street already used by 300-400 people walking and biking and driving up and down into the county park per day, not to mention the elementary school kids on the corner of East Brook and Mora that have field trips up there periodically . Right now I believe the traffic is too congested on Mora as is but I can't imagine how bad the safety issues would be if the proposed condos are allowed to be built. Besides safety of people walking or biking, what about the logistics of the fire danger . ( How did those LA fires turn out) How can fire trucks and equipment get up that road and stage and how can people living up at that end get out of there in time of an evacuation . There are only two entrances to 280 up here, Magdalena and Mora to get over or under the freeway and back into Los Altos. I just wanted to put my valid concerns in and to state that the safety of the community is number one and everybody's eyes. Hopefully the town council votes for the rejection of this project.

Yours truly , Tom OGrady
Sent from my iPhone
1 ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1402 of 1435 ends

Arika Miller
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:

Kavita Tankha, Mayor
Raj iv Bhateja, Vice Mayor
Stanley Mok
Linda Swan
George Tyson
Wednesday, January 29, 2025 3:03 PM
City Council
For Public Comment Jan. 30 Item 9A
Follow up
Flagged
Dear Mayor Tankha and Members of the LAH City Council:

My name is Mary Jo Feeney. I've lived on Mora Dr. for half a century and urge your unanimous acceptance of the staff report and deny the applicant's proposals.

The public comments coupled with the thorough staff report already documented the numerous safety and evacuation issues related to the two multiple story developments proposed by Forrest Linebarger at 10728 Mora Drive (55 condos on 0.374 acre lot) and 10758 Mora Drive (57 condos on 0.397 acre lot). I live at the steepest slope on the street and see daily the safety challenges facing cyclists who routinely use Mora Dr. to test hill stamina and the walkers. Waldorf School regularly uses Mora Dr. for children to access Rancho San Antonio Open Space.

However, my question is whether buildings that include residential assisted living units and a nursing station, (emphasis added) identified on page 6 in the staff report as accessory uses, have different or more stringent code requirements than buildings that are residences only, and if so, have these been sufficiently met? These "accessory uses" suggest significant mobility issues which might put some occupants in an even higher category of risk during a mandatory evacuation.

Please ensure that the Town residents' safety takes priority over a developer's profits.

Thank you for your consideration.
1 ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25

Page 1403 of 1435 ends

Los Altos Hills City CouncilJune 18, 2025

Los Altos Hills City Council
June 18, 2025