2 Mary Jo Feeney MS
Nutrition Consultant to the Food and Agriculture Industries Los Altos Hills, CA 94024
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25
Arika Miller
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Kavita Tankha, Mayor
Rajiv Bhateja, Vice Mayor
Stanley Mok
Linda Swan
George Tyson
hal feeney.us.com
Wednesday, January 29, 2025 11 :37 AM
City Council
January 30,2025, Item 9A
Follow up
Flagged
Dear Mayor Tankha and Members of the LAH City Council:
I have lived on Mora Drive for 50 years. I urge the Council to deny Mr. Linebarger's projects (10728 & 10758 Mora Drive) because of the serious public safety impact of these proposals. There are only two roadways leading from this section of the Town that cross I-280-Mora Drive and Magdalena. These projects adversely affect the safety of all residents in this area, including the adjacent County pockets. The Los Angeles wildfires are a wake-up call for safe planning decisions.
The staff report describes Mora Drive as "The roadway serving the site twists and turns through steep elevation changes as it connects to the Project site". My home on Mora Drive is at a location where the roadway is the steepest, a 22% grade. Being close to Eastbrook, I thought it should be easy to evacuate the area in an emergency-that is not the case. The staff report did not examine the potential traffic limitations on Mora Drive below the Project sites. At Eastbrook, residential traffic from Mora Glen (19), Mora Heights (9), Eastbrook (6), and Eastbrook Court (5) as well as Mora Drive below our home (11) account for over 50 homes converging with no other way for egress. In addition, Waldorf School with over 250 students is at the Mora Drive/Eastbrook intersection. Over 100 cars could be downhill and ahead of us if an evacuation were mandatory.
Uphill, Terry Way (5), the private drive (8), and the balance of Mora Drive (22) account for more than 35 parcels and could account for 70 more cars.
If there were a mandatory evacuation today, over 200 cars could be gridlocked on Mora Drive. Additional 55 and 57-unit apartment Projects could be a public safety catastrophe. How will the necessary cars, buses, and ambulances be able to rescue Project residents and staff from these senior living facilities? Please deny this Project.
1 ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25
Arika Miller
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
DATE: January 29, 2025
TO:
Kavita Tankha, Mayor
Rajiv Bhateja, Vice Mayor
Stanley Mok
Linda Swan
George Tyson
B Mahbod
Wednesday, January 29, 2025 3:27 PM
City Council
B Mahbod
Jan 30, 2025 LAH city council meeting: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, agenda item #9 Follow up
Flagged
Dear Mayor Tankha and Members of the LAH City Council:
We would like to thank you and the staff for the thorough report, documenting and 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 you well know Los Altos Hills continues to have an elevated risk of fire, and therefore the safety of its residents should be of utmost concern. Mora Drive is the only evacuation route for the residents of Mora Drive, and the adjacent private and public roads. Adding 112 condo units would add immensely to the congestion on Mora Drive in case of rapid evacuation. And even in ordinary times, the amount of traffic congestion it will cause, both by the new residents, the support staff, and visitors, would create huge congestion and traffic problems. This creates hazards not only for the residents, but the frequent pedestrian traffic to Rancho San Antonio via Mora Drive. In addition, there is substantial wildlife traffic on Mora Drive (Deer, Turkeys, etc) which would be severely and negatively affected.
I urge you to approve the Resolutions and deny the two proposed senior developments. It is simply unacceptable to add 112 units for senior residents on upper Mora Drive.
Thanks and Regards,
Brian & Maryam Mahbod
Los Altos Hills, CA 94024
1 ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25
Arika Miller
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
jean qordon
Wednesday, January 29, 2025 5:08 PM
City Council
Linebarger project on Mora Drive
Follow up
Flagged
I am vehemently opposed. Traffic!!!! Destruction of bucolic setting!!!! Need for more utilities!! etc etc Jean Gordon MD PHO and Ron Greenwald MD
1 ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25
1 Arika Miller
From: Jack Farrell
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2025 11:35 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Public Comment - Agenda Item 9
Attachments: Mora Drive Builder's Remedy Projects.docx
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello,
Please find attached correspondence from YIMBY Law regarding tonight's meeting of the Council.
Sincerely,
Jack Farrell he/him
Research Attorney
To help p otect you p vacy M c osoft Off ce p evented autom t c download of th s pictu e f om the Inte net
To help p otect you p iva y
M c o so ft Off ce p evented
au o ma ic downlo ad o f thi
pictu e f om the Inte net Virus-free.www.avast.com
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25
YIMBYLaw
01/30/2025
Town of Los Altos Hills
City council
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills California
Via Email to: [email protected]
Re: Agenda Item 9 - 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive
Dear Council of Los Altos Hills,
YIMBY LAW
YIMBY Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. YIMBY Law sues municipalities when they fail to comply with state housing laws, including the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). As you know, the County has an obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the above captioned proposal, including the HAA. Should the County fail to follow the law, YIMBY Law will not hesitate to file suit to ensure that the law is enforced.
The projects at 10728 and 10758 respectively will contain 55 and 57 senior residential units. Applications for the projects were submitted on February 1, 2023. Los Altos Hills' Housing Element was submitted on January 31, 2023, but HCD found that it was not in substantial compliance with state law. The City only came into compliance in May of 2023. The projects qualify for the Builders Remedy once a full, complete application has been submitted; the SB-330 preliminary application will vest the rights of this project to be approved, and any additional roadblocks placed on the developer may be considered violations of Gov. Code§ 65589.5(d). Therefore, City staff seek a pretext to find the applications incomplete so that this Council can deny them inappropriately. 1 ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25
2 That pretext comes in the form of fire codes; Denial Finding 1 would find the applications incomplete because of the HAA’s allowance for denial where a project proposes an adverse impact to health and safety. However, that language only applies where there is no method to mitigate or avoid said impacts without rendering the project infeasible.
The Los Altos Hills Fire Department has not approved the project as proposed so far, but that is not to say that no feasible mitigation measures are possible. The City has already proposed potential alternatives via a reduction in FAR or unit count, which would be cognizable within HAA policies. Staff claim that such measures would render the project infeasible, but nothing in the HAA grants the City authority to conduct its own feasibility analysis to make this determination. Even so, staff’s own financial feasibility analysis shows a negligible fiscal impact between the projects as proposed and the projects with mitigation efforts. Under that analysis, the projects remain feasible and must be approved.
This is besides the fact that such mitigation efforts should be considered during the post-entitlement permit phase, not during review of a submitted application.
Regardless, post-entitlement phase permits are governed by 65913.3, which contains distinct provisions governing public health and safety provisions. The process to mitigate health or safety concerns including building code interpretations to the Building Standards Commission1 and AMMR denials to the state fire marshal2 both occur well past the point that an application is considered complete. Any incompleteness determination on the reason of health and safety is premature and robs the applicant of a chance to mitigate those concerns.
Furthermore, the proposals at issue do comply with the fire codes. Local code 503.1.1 requires that the “fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements for this section and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility.” However, it provides for an exception where:
In other than R-3 or U occupancies, when the building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system, installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 the dimension may be increased to a maximum of 300 feet when approved by the fire code official.
1 See Health and Safety Code §§ 1893-18949.
2 See 19 CCR § 2.03.
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25
3 The projects at issue are equipped with automatic sprinkler systems throughout the buildings, and at 287 feet will be within 300 feet of the nearby access road. Under Denial finding 2, the staff report states that denial is appropriate because the project does not comply with state law. However, Section 503.1.1 has been adopted by the town of Los Altos Hills, but it has not been adopted by the state of California. Review of the Adoption Matrix in Chapter 5 of the California Fire code notes that Section 503 is not included in statewide code.3
Denial Finding 3 states that the project does not meet AB 1983’s density requirements for Builder’s Remedy projects. This statement is incorrect, ignoring the fact that AB 1893 subdivision (f)(7)(A) explicitly allows the applicant to be subject to provisions present on the date the preliminary application was submitted or under (f)(7)(B) revise the application.
The report’s claim that the project does not comply with the local Lot Unit Factor (LUF) is similarly irrelevant. The Housing Accountability Act expressly prohibits zoning ordinances from constituting a public health and safety issue per Ca Gov. Code 65589.5(d)(2)(A).
As the city has failed to comply with state law, it does not have discretion to deny this project. Determining that the application is incomplete is not a legitimate means of preventing it from moving forward, and is not within the city’s authority. The Project proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Builders’ Remedy, therefore, you must approve the application, or else make findings to the effect that the proposed project would have an adverse impact on public health and safety, as described above.
Should the City fail to comply with the law, YIMBY Law will not hesitate to take legal action to ensure that the law is enforced. I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY Law, and as a resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state.
Sincerely,
Sonja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY Law
3 See California Fire Code – Matrix Adoption Table, Chapter 5 – Fire Service Features, available at https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAFC2022P1/chapter-5-fire-service-features.
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25
4 ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25
1 Arika Miller
From: Dorit Perry
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2025 1:45 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Mora drive
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
To City Council,
10728 and 10758 Mora drive. A few years ago this same developer sought a variance to allow a single residence. It was justly denied. These lots are not just sub-standard. These lots are not even 1/2 the size of a regular lot. The applicaƟon was fully reviewed, debated and denied.
Now this same developer wants to build 50 plus units on this miniature lot. This is even more egregious. For the same reasons that the original variance was denied, this must be denied.
Moreover, the amount of traffic generated by residents, staff and employees would become untenable.
Los Altos Hills is a quiet rural community. We, and all our neighbors, bought homes for this quiet. It will be forever ruined by this development. In essence it’s starƟng to feel like a “taking.” Please deny this.
Dorit Perry
Brief because sent from my iPhone
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 25
From: Arika Miller
To:
Bcc: City Council
Subject: RE: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – 6 PM special meeting on June 18 Date: Friday, June 13, 2025 1:19:00 PM
Thank you for your email. I will include it as part of the public correspondence supplement for the Special City Council Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, June 18th at 6:00 p.m.
If you have any further comments or questions, please don't hesitate to let me know.
Best regards,
Arika Miller
From: Susan Barnes
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 1:04 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – 6 PM special meeting on June 18 Attention: Los Altos Hills City Council
RE: Residential Development Projects at 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive 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 ITEM 2A, PUBLIC COMMENT
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,
Susan Barnes
(on behalf of Judy Klein, )
From: Arika Miller
To:
Bcc: City Council
Subject: RE: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – 6 PM special meeting on June 18 Date: Friday, June 13, 2025 11:07:00 AM
Thank you for your email. I will include it as part of the public correspondence supplement for the Special City Council Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, June 18th at 6:00 p.m.
If you have any further comments or questions, please don't hesitate to let me know.
Best regards,
Arika Miller
From: Sanquan Song
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 11:05 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – 6 PM special meeting on June 18 Hi,
I OPPOSE Forest Linebarger's proposal to build two multi-family senior residential developments consisting of two 30 units at 10728 Mora Drive ( 0.374 acre lot) and 10758 Mora Drive (0.397 acre lot), right next to the entry gate to .
The reasons are:
1. We are very close to the faulty line. Building of such height will be very vulnerable.
When accidents like that happen, it will be very challenging for the seniors to escape.
2. Fire hazard. They are very close to the dense forest, and with this many residents living in such a small area, it will be hard to escape.
3. Privacy, these tall buildings will intrude on the neighborhood's privacy. Not fair.
4. The infrastructure, like the road, is not meant to support this many residents. best,
Sanquan Song
ITEM 2A, PUBLIC COMMENT
From: Arika Miller
To:
Bcc: City Council
Subject: RE: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – 6 PM special meeting on June 18” Date: Friday, June 13, 2025 9:56:00 AM
Thank you for your email. I will include it as part of the public correspondence supplement for the Special City Council Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, June 18th at 6:00 p.m.
If you have any further comments or questions, please don't hesitate to let me know.
Best regards,
Arika Miller
From: Marj Green
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2025 9:51 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT – 6 PM special meeting on June 18” Dear City Council Members,
We oppose Forrest Linebarger's proposed multi-family senior residential developments consisting of two 30 units at 10728 Mora Drive ( 0.374 acre lot) and 10758 Mora Drive (0.397 acre lot), right next to the entry gate to .
The high density buildings would be a disaster in the making. Senior living with no public transportation, few private car parking, and limited options for egress cannot possibly be reasonable when you consider what would happen during a fire or earthquake.
We ask the Council to deny his applications.
Tom & Marj Green
Los Altos Hills, CA 94024
ITEM 2A, PUBLIC COMMENT
ITEM 2A, PUBLIC COMMENT
June 17, 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 multi-story buildings for senior housing to be constructed by Forrest Linebarger. The buildings would accommodate 30 condos at 10728 Mora Drive (0.374 acre lot) and 32 condos at 10758 Mora Drive (on 0.397 acre lot).
While the number of units is lower now compared to the plans submitted for the postponed January 30 meeting, the issues remain the same:
1) As acknowledged in the staff report, residents on Mora Drive are at high risk of fire exposure. There is only one evacuation route 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 62 condo units would add immensely to the congestion on Mora Drive and make rapid and safe evacuation impossible. Keep in mind that senior residents might have limited mobility or use wheelchairs. How would they evacuate in case of fire?
2) The lack of adequate parking for residents, staff, and visitors is a major concern. The current development plans show only 27 parking spaces for each of the two proposed buildings, each with 24 regular parking spaces in a stacked parking garage, 2 accessible parking spaces, and 1 visitor parking.
a. This means that not every condo unit will have its own parking space for 1 car.
How will senior residents who don’t own a car evacuate in case of an emergency?
b. Where will visitors park if there is only 1 visitor parking space for each building? Mora Drive is a no-parking zone on both sides of the street and the end of Mora Drive at the entry gate to Rancho San Antonio is a turn-around area for fire trucks and other emergency vehicles. Thus visitor parking along Mora Drive is not permitted.
c. The proposed development plans show various amenities such as physical therapy, leasing offices, kitchen and dining areas, and a roof garden with a pool.
Where will staff park who service these amenities?
d. It is also not clear where workers would park their cars during construction, given that Mora Drive is a no-parking zone.
I fully support the recommendations in the staff report, urge you to approve the Resolutions, and deny the two proposed developments for senior housing. It is unconscionable to put 60 units for senior residents on upper Mora Drive.
Thank you, Esther John
Los Altos Hills, CA 94024
Town of Los Altos Hills City Council,
10728 and 10758 Mora Drive
David C. Kehlet
6/18/2025
ITEM 2A, PUBLIC COMMENT
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 law –
Thank You!
.
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 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!
Mora Drive
Mora Drive
Pacific Palisades, 1/2025
Mora Drive
Mora Drive
Oakland Hills, 1991
Evacuation?
• 62 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?
• Please approve the motions for denial
– Proposals do not meet the requirements for safe
buildings
– Limited access puts all of us in the surrounding
neighborhood at extreme risk of fire death