Agenda packet, special meeting — Los Altos Hills City Council, June 18, 2025 (part 3 of 12)

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 1044 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
Plans and Scope of Review:

This project shall comply with the following:

The California Fire (CFC) & Building (CBC) Code, 2022 edition, as adopted by the Town of Los Altos Hills Municipal Code (LAHMC) and California Code of Regulations (CCR).

The scope of this project includes the following:

Proposed new 64,483 SF five-story multifamily apartment building with 2 podium levels and a basement.

Plan Status:

Plans are NOT APPROVED. Revise and resubmit drawings and provide a response letter addressing comments on this plan review. Comments having BOLD font require correction prior to approval.

Plan Review Comments:

1. Plans will need to demonstrate whether or not the proposed building meets the requirements of a high rise building as described in CBC 403.1.

2. Required Aerial Access: Where required: Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway. 2. Width: Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet (7925) in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building more than 30 feet (9144 mm) in height. 3. Proximity to building: At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet (4572) and a maximum of 30 feet (9144mm) from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building, as approved by the fire code official [CFC Chp. 5 and SCCFD SD&S A-1]. Aerial access is required. -Aerial access roadways shall meet the minimum road width of 26 feet adjacent to building -Aerial access roadways shall meet the required outside turning radii of 60 feet -One entire side of the building shall provide for aerial access and shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building; Revise plans to demonstrate compliance -Provide building/street section views showing how the aerial ladder access will be achieved; Provide more detail on any proposed trees, balconies, or power lines that may obstruct aerial access City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
64,4832
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
4 OF
7+bsmt
IIIA/IA 1
DATE
LAH 4/5/2023
Flanagan, Caleb

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 3750 25% 2813

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10728 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5A

Page 232 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 1044 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

3. Fire Department Aerial Apparatus Turnaround Required: Provide an approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of 60 feet outside. Maximum grade in any direction shall be a maximum of 5%. Installations shall conform with 2022 CA Fire Code Appendix D as amended by SCCFD. CFC Sec. 503 Driving surface shall be capable of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds (34050 kg). -Turnaround C is no longer acceptable due to aerial access requirements. -Aerial apparatus turnaround required
-Show a turnaround that accommodates aerial apparatus with minimum outside turning radii of 60 feet

4. Buildings and Facilities Access: Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or with the jurisdiction. 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. [CFC, Section 503.1.1].
-Show on the plans how access will be achieved to all portions of the building -All portions of the building shall be within 150 feet of fire department access

5. Standpipe system will be required. For reference see CFC Sec. 905. The standpipe systems shall be installed in accordance with this section and NFPA 14 as amended in Chapter 47. -Note on sheet C0 that a standpipe will be installed as a deferred submittal.

6. Required Fire Flow: The minimum required fire flow for this project is 3,750 Gallons Per Minute (GPM) at 20 psi residual pressure. Since an automatic fire sprinkler system will be installed, the fire flow will be reduced by 25%, establishing a required adjusted fire flow of 2,813 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure. Note: The minimum required number and spacing of the hydrants shall be in accordance with CFC Table C105.1 as amended by SCCFD.
-Hydrant is not capable of meeting the minimum required fire flow of 2,812 gpm at 20psi -Work with Calwater and provide documentation that that outlines how the fire flow will be met OR revise plans in order to meet fire flow requirements City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
64,4832
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
4 OF
7+bsmt
IIIA/IA 2
DATE
LAH 4/5/2023
Flanagan, Caleb

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 3750 25% 2813

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10728 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5A

Page 233 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 1044 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

7. Fire Department Connection: The fire department connection (FDC) for the structure in support of the sprinkler system shall be installed at the street on the street address side of the building. It shall be located within 100 feet of a public fire hydrant and within ten (10) feet of the main PIV (unless otherwise approved by the Chief due to practical difficulties). FDC's shall be equipped with a minimum of two (2), two-and-one-half (2- 1/2”) inch national standard threaded inlet couplings.

Orientation of the FDC shall be such that hose lines may be readily and conveniently attached to the inlets without interference. FDC's shall be painted safety yellow [SCCFD, SP-2 Standard]. -Show on the plans the proposed location of the FDC
-FDC needs to be within 100 feet of a hydrant

8. Two-way Communication System: Two-way communication systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with NFPA 72 (2016 edition), the California Electrical Code (2013 edition), the California Fire Code (2016 edition), the California Building Code (2016 edition), and the city ordinances where two way system is being installed, policies, and standards. Other standards also contain design/installation criteria for specific life safety related equipment. These other standards are referred to in NFPA 72.
-Make a note on sheet C0 that two-way communication system will be installed as a deferred submittal

9. Emergency responder radio coverage in new buildings: All new buildings shall have approved radio coverage for emergency responders within the building based upon the existing coverage levels of the public safety communication systems of the jurisdiction at the exterior of the building.

This section shall not require improvement of the existing public safety communication systems.

CFC Sec. 510.1 as adopted.
-Make a note on sheet C0 that radio coverage will be installed as a deferred submittal

10. Fire Alarm Requirements: Refer to CFC Sec. 907 and the currently adopted edition of NFPA 72 for fire alarm requirements.
-Note on Sheet C0 that fire alarm will be installed as a deferred submittal.

11. Fire Sprinklers 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. Noted on sheet C0.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
64,4832
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
4 OF
7+bsmt
IIIA/IA 3
DATE
LAH 4/5/2023
Flanagan, Caleb

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 3750 25% 2813

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10728 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5A

Page 234 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 1044 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

12. Construction Site Fire Safety: All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification S1-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33.

13. Address identification: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address numbers shall be maintained CFC Sec. 505.1.

14. Water Supply Requirements: Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2019 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7.

This review shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of the California Fire Code or of other laws or regulations of the jurisdiction. A permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the fire code or other such laws or regulations shall not be valid. Any addition to or alteration of approved construction documents shall be approved in advance [CFC, Ch.1, 105.3.6].

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
64,4832
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
4 OF
7+bsmt
IIIA/IA 4
DATE
LAH 4/5/2023
Flanagan, Caleb

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 3750 25% 2813

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10728 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5A

Page 235 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 1486 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
Plans and Scope of Review:

This project shall comply with the following:

The California Fire (CFC) & Building (CBC) Code, 2022 edition, as adopted by the Town of Los Altos Hills Municipal Code (LAHMC) and California Code of Regulations (CCR).

The scope of this project includes the following:

Proposed new 68,687 SF five-story multifamily apartment building with 2 podium levels and a basement.

Plan Status:

Plans are NOT APPROVED. Revise and resubmit drawings and provide a response letter addressing comments on this plan review. Comments having BOLD font require correction prior to approval.

Plan Review Comments:

1. Plans will need to demonstrate whether or not the proposed building meets the requirements of a high rise building as described in CBC 403.1.

SEC/FLOOR
R-2

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
68,687
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
4 OF
7+bsmt
IIIA/IA 1
DATE
LAH 4/25/2023
Flanagan, Caleb

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 3750 25% 2813

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10728 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5A

Page 236 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 1486 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

3. Fire Department Aerial Apparatus Turnaround Required: Provide an approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of 60 feet outside. Maximum grade in any direction shall be a maximum of 5%. Installations shall conform with 2022 CA Fire Code Appendix D as amended by SCCFD. CFC Sec. 503 Driving surface shall be capable of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds (34050 kg).
-Turnaround C is no longer acceptable due to aerial access requirements. -Aerial apparatus turnaround required
-Show a turnaround that accommodates aerial apparatus. Turnaround diagrams can be found on CFC Appendix D Figure D103.1.

4. Buildings and Facilities Access: Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or with the jurisdiction. 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. [CFC, Section 503.1.1]. -Show on the plans how access will be achieved to all portions of the building -All portions of the building shall be within 150 feet of fire department access

6. Required Fire Flow: The minimum required fire flow for this project is 3,750 Gallons Per Minute (GPM) at 20 psi residual pressure. Since an automatic fire sprinkler system will be installed, the fire flow will be reduced by 25%, establishing a required adjusted fire flow of 2,813 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure. Note: The minimum required number and spacing of the hydrants shall be in accordance with CFC Table C105.1 as amended by SCCFD.
-Provided will serve letter does not explain if there will be improvements in order to meet required fire flow
-Hydrant is not capable of meeting the minimum required fire flow of 2,812 gpm at 20psi -Work with Calwater and provide documentation that that outlines how the fire flow will be met OR revise plans in order to meet fire flow requirements
City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
68,687
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
4 OF
7+bsmt
IIIA/IA 2
DATE
LAH 4/25/2023
Flanagan, Caleb

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 3750 25% 2813

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10728 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5A

Page 237 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 1486 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

This section shall not require improvement of the existing public safety communication systems.

CFC Sec. 510.1 as adopted.
-Make a note on sheet C0 that radio coverage will be installed as a deferred submittal

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
68,687
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
4 OF
7+bsmt
IIIA/IA 3
DATE
LAH 4/25/2023
Flanagan, Caleb

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 3750 25% 2813

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10728 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5A

Page 238 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 1486 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
68,687
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
4 OF
7+bsmt
IIIA/IA 4
DATE
LAH 4/25/2023
Flanagan, Caleb

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 3750 25% 2813

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10728 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5A

Page 239 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 2718 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
This project has been reviewed with respect to the following:

The California Fire (CFC) & Building (CBC) Code, 2022 edition, as adopted by the Town of Los Altos Hills Municipal Code (LAHMC) and California Code of Regulations (CCR). Note: Code review for building permit will be reviewed with respect to the fire/building codes in effect at time of permit application.

The scope of this project includes the following:

Proposed new 67,475 SF, five-story, Type IIIA/IA construction, R-2/R-2.1/A-3/S-2/B Occupancy apartment building with 2 podium levels and a basement.

Plan Status:

Plans are NOT APPROVED. Revise and resubmit drawings and provide a response letter addressing comments on this plan review. Comments having BOLD font require correction prior to approval.

Plan Review Comments:

1. High Rise Requirements: 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, except buildings used as hospitals as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 1250 (CFC 202 Definition). - Sheet A2.2 reflects an elevation of 541.9 feet at the lowest building access (rear of building) and 631.6 feet at the highest floor having human occupancy (occupied roof). The resultant 89.7 feet exceeds 75 feet that establishes the building as a new high-rise structure, per CBC 403.1 and CBC 202 definition. - Revise design, as appropriate, to establish and demonstrate compliance with CBC/CFC provisions applicable to a new high-rise structure.

Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet A-1. CFC Sec. 503.

Roadway: A vehicular access roadway greater than or equal to 20 feet in width serving more than two singlefamily dwellings. - The roads leading to the subject parcel have not been evaluated for fire department aerial apparatus access.
- Provide a road study sufficient to demonstrate that the existing Mora Drive provides not less than 20 feet drivable surface, compliant turning radii, and 13'-6" vertical clearance across the required width. - Provide a road slope profile, prepared by a licensed professional. - Provide licensed engineering certification that demonstrates the roads ability to support the minimum loading capacity of 75,000 lbs.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
67,475
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
5 OF
7+bsmt
IIIA/IA 1
DATE
LAH 8/14/2023
Flanagan, Caleb

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2865 25% 2148

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10728 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5A

Page 240 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 2718 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

3. Buildings and Facilities Access: Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or with the jurisdiction. 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. [CFC, Section 503.1.1]. - Approval of up to 300 feet travel is requested by way of applicants response letter. Fire personnel access to the furthest portions of the building includes 35 to 42 foot elevation change, which is not conducive to efficient deployment of firefighting resources. The request for 300 feet travel distance shall not be approved without appropriate mitigating measures. Review and revise design to propose mitigating measures to ensure effective firefighting operations, given the excessive travel distance and elevation change to the rear of the building.
- The access to the rear of the building is not sufficient to accommodate simultaneous occupant evacuation (from stair #2) and firefighter access to the rear of the structure. Review and revise path widths to provide adequate space for simultaneous use of the paths.

4. Required Aerial Access: Where required: Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway. 2. Width: Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet (7925) in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building more than 30 feet (9144 mm) in height. 3. Proximity to building: At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet (4572) and a maximum of 30 feet (9144mm) from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building, as approved by the fire code official [CFC Chp. 5 and SCCFD SD&S A-1]. Aerial access shown on sheet A5.0. - The defined location for aerial apparatus access is arranged along one 52'-6" wide side of the building, and provides inadequate ladder access to the balance of the structure. The roof access is further obstructed by a rooftop dining facility with limited pathway access to the balance of the occupied roof. This configuration is insufficient for fire operations. Review project ability to provide additional aerial ladder access to the South building face.

5. Fire Department Aerial Apparatus Turnaround Required: Provide an approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of 60 feet outside. Maximum grade in any direction shall be a maximum of 5%. Installations shall conform with 2022 CA Fire Code Appendix D as amended by SCCFD. CFC Sec. 503 Driving surface shall be capable of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds (34050 kg).
- Turnaround from Appendix D103.1 shown on sheet A5.0.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
67,475
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
5 OF
7+bsmt
IIIA/IA 2
DATE
LAH 8/14/2023
Flanagan, Caleb

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2865 25% 2148

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10728 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5A

Page 241 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 2718 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

6. Fire Sprinklers 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. - Noted on Sheet A5.0.

7. New Public Fire Hydrant: Provide a public fire hydrant at a final location to be determined jointly by the Fire Department and California Water Service. Fire hydrants shall be provided along required fire apparatus access roads and adjacent public streets. CFC Sec. 507, Appendix B and Appendix C. - New fire hydrant authorization plans shall be approved by both SCCFD and CalWater. Fire flow shall be provided from new fire hydrant.

8. Sheet C3 shows two proposed [sic] "warf hydrants" of unspecified intent. Revise as appropriate to specify intended purpose of the hydrants. If proposed as mitigation for other concerns, so state.

9. Timing of installation. When fire apparatus access roads or a water supply for fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternative methods of protection are provided. Temporary street signs shall be installed at each street intersection when construction of new roadways allows passage by vehicles in accordance with Section 505.2. Construction documents. Construction documents for proposed fire apparatus access, location of fire lanes, security gates across fire apparatus access and construction documents and hydraulic calculations for fire hydrant systems shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval prior to construction.

CFC Sec. 501.3, 501.4

10. Standpipe System Required. For reference see CFC Sec. 905. The standpipe systems shall be installed in accordance with this section and NFPA 14 as amended in Chapter 47. - Noted on Sheet A5.0.

11. Required Fire Flow: The minimum required fire flow for this project is 2,865 Gallons Per Minute (GPM) at 20 psi residual pressure. Since an automatic fire sprinkler system will be installed, the fire flow will be reduced by 25%, establishing a required adjusted fire flow of 2,148 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure. Note: The minimum required number and spacing of the hydrants shall be in accordance with CFC Table C105.1 as amended by SCCFD.
- After reduction and calculating fire flow for different portions of the building fire flow was calculated to be 2,148 gpm at 20 psi. Capacity to meet the specified fire flow has been demonstrated by way of a water utility flow report stating 2,224 gpm is available at 20 psi.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
67,475
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
5 OF
7+bsmt
IIIA/IA 3
DATE
LAH 8/14/2023
Flanagan, Caleb

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2865 25% 2148

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10728 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5A

Page 242 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 2718 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

12. Fire Department Connection: The fire department connection (FDC) for the structure in support of the sprinkler system shall be installed at the street on the street address side of the building. It shall be located within 100 feet of a public fire hydrant and within ten (10) feet of the main PIV (unless otherwise approved by the Chief due to practical difficulties). FDC's shall be equipped with a minimum of two (2), two-and-one-half (2- 1/2”) inch national standard threaded inlet couplings. Orientation of the FDC shall be such that hose lines may be readily and conveniently attached to the inlets without interference. FDC's shall be painted safety yellow [SCCFD, SP-2 Standard].
- FDC shown on sheet A5.0.

13. Two-way Communication System: Two-way communication systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with the relative codes and standards in affect at time of building permit submittal, including NFPA 72, the California Electrical Code, the California Fire Code, the California Building Code, and the city ordinances where two way system is being installed. Other standards also contain design/installation criteria for specific life safety related equipment. These other standards are referred to in NFPA 72. - Noted on Sheet A5.0.

14. Emergency responder radio coverage in new buildings: All new buildings shall have approved radio coverage for emergency responders within the building based upon the existing coverage levels of the public safety communication systems of the jurisdiction at the exterior of the building. This section shall not require improvement of the existing public safety communication systems. CFC Sec. 510.1 as adopted. - Noted on Sheet A5.0.

15. Fire Alarm Requirements: Refer to CFC Sec. 907 and the currently adopted edition of NFPA 72 for fire alarm requirements.
- Noted on Sheet A5.0.

16. Construction Site Fire Safety: All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification S1-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33. - Noted on Sheet A5.0.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
67,475
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
5 OF
7+bsmt
IIIA/IA 4
DATE
LAH 8/14/2023
Flanagan, Caleb

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2865 25% 2148

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10728 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5A

Page 243 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 2718 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

17. Address identification: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 6 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address numbers shall be maintained CFC Sec. 505.1. - Noted on Sheet A5.0.

The following comments are beyond the scope of a Planning level review. However, resolution of these concerns can influence building siting and footprint configuration, making them important to address at this time. Any revisions to address these concerns shall not negatively impact fire department access requirements.

18. It appears Stair #2 is proposed as an exterior exit stair. As such, it does not appear that adequate separation from the building and property lines are provided, per CBC 1027. 19 The Stair #2 exit discharge does not provide direct, unobstructed access to a public way, per CBC 1028.5, and does not appear to have adequate space for a safe dispersal area. It appears discharge from this stair must be treated as an egress court, per CBC 1029. Review and revise design to ensure adequate egress facilities are provided. Additionally, occupant load convergence of exit discharge from both stairs 1 and 2 will need to be addressed for building permit compliance. Effectively all evacuating occupants will be discharging in the same limited area required for fire department operations. This concern further challenges effective aerial operations in the limited space provided.

20. The egress concerns above are further exacerbated by the intended occupants of retirement age, including assisted living (R2.1 Occupancy), who may require significant egress assistance, given the project elevations.

21. Exterior wall ratings and opening protective measures shall meet the CBC requirements in effect at time of building permit submittal.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
67,475
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
5 OF
7+bsmt
IIIA/IA 5
DATE
LAH 8/14/2023
Flanagan, Caleb

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2865 25% 2148

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10728 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5A

Page 244 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 3522 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
This project has been reviewed with respect to the following:

The scope of this project includes the following:

Proposed new 67,475 SF, five-story, Type IIIA/IA construction, R-2/R-2.1/A-3/S-2/B Occupancy apartment building with 2 podium levels and a basement.

Plan Status:

Plans are NOT APPROVED. Revise and resubmit drawings and provide a response letter addressing comments on this plan review. Comments having BOLD font require correction prior to approval.

Plan Review Comments:

2. Fire Apparatus Access Roadway Required: Provide an access roadway with a paved all-weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 50 feet outside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Surface shall be capable of supporting 75K pounds. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet A-1. CFC Sec. 503. Roadway: A vehicular access roadway greater than or equal to 20 feet in width serving more than two single-family dwellings. - The roads leading to the subject parcel have not been evaluated for fire department aerial apparatus access. - Provide a road study sufficient to demonstrate that the existing Mora Drive provides not less than 20 feet drivable surface, compliant turning radii, and 13'-6" vertical clearance across the required width. - Provide a road slope profile, prepared by a licensed professional. - Provide licensed engineering certification that demonstrates the roads ability to support the minimum loading capacity of 75,000 lbs.
- Clearly represent all proposed road improvements, required for compliance, on the plans.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
67,475
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
5 OF
7+bsmt
IIIA/IA 1
DATE
LAH 9/27/2023
Flanagan, Caleb

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2865 25% 2148

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10728 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5A

Page 245 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 3522 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
67,475
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
5 OF
7+bsmt
IIIA/IA 2
DATE
LAH 9/27/2023
Flanagan, Caleb

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2865 25% 2148

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10728 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5A

Page 246 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 3522 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

8. Sheet C3 shows two proposed [sic] "warf hydrants" of unspecified intent. Revise as appropriate to specify intended purpose of the hydrants. If proposed as mitigation for other concerns, so state.

CFC Sec. 501.3, 501.4

10. Standpipe System Required. For reference see CFC Sec. 905. The standpipe systems shall be installed in accordance with this section and NFPA 14 as amended in Chapter 47. - Noted on Sheet A5.0.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
67,475
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
5 OF
7+bsmt
IIIA/IA 3
DATE
LAH 9/27/2023
Flanagan, Caleb

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2865 25% 2148

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10728 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5A

Page 247 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 3522 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

15. Fire Alarm Requirements: Refer to CFC Sec. 907 and the currently adopted edition of NFPA 72 for fire alarm requirements.
- Noted on Sheet A5.0.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
67,475
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
5 OF
7+bsmt
IIIA/IA 4
DATE
LAH 9/27/2023
Flanagan, Caleb

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2865 25% 2148

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10728 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5A

Page 248 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 3522 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

21. Exterior wall ratings and opening protective measures shall meet the CBC requirements in effect at time of building permit submittal.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
67,475
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
5 OF
7+bsmt
IIIA/IA 5
DATE
LAH 9/27/2023
Flanagan, Caleb

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2865 25% 2148

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10728 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5A

Page 249 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5A

Page 250 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5A

Page 251 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5A

Page 252 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5A

Page 253 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 2595 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
This project has been reviewed with respect to the following:

The scope of this project includes the following:

Proposed new 71,034 SF, five-story, Type IIIA/IA construction, R-2/R-2.1/A-3/S-2/B Occupancy apartment building with 3 podium levels and a basement.

Plan Status:

Plans are NOT APPROVED. Revise and resubmit drawings and provide a response letter addressing comments on this plan review. Comments having BOLD font require correction prior to approval.

Plan Review Comments:

1. High Rise Requirements: 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, except buildings used as hospitals as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 1250 (CFC 202 Definition). - Sheet A2.2 reflects an elevation of 514.7 feet at the lowest building access (rear of building) and 615.6 feet at the highest floor having human occupancy (occupied roof). The resultant 100.9 feet exceeds 75 feet that establishes the building as a new high-rise structure, per CBC 403.1 and CBC 202 definition. - Revise design, as appropriate, to establish and demonstrate compliance with CBC/CFC provisions applicable to a new high-rise structure.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
71034
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
5 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 1
DATE
LAH 8/14/2023
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2778 25% 2084

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5B

Page 254 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 2595 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

4. Required Aerial Access: Where required: Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway. 2. Width: Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet (7925) in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building more than 30 feet (9144 mm) in height. 3. Proximity to building: At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet (4572) and a maximum of 30 feet (9144mm) from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building, as approved by the fire code official [CFC Chp. 5 and SCCFD SD&S A-1]. Aerial access shown on sheet A5.0. - The defined location for aerial apparatus access is arranged along one 52'-6" wide side of the building, and provides inadequate ladder access to the balance of the structure. The roof access is further obstructed by rooftop dining facility with limited pathway access to the balance of the occupied roof. This configuration is insufficient for fire operations. Review project ability to provide functional aerial ladder access to greater portion of the building roof.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
71034
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
5 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 2
DATE
LAH 8/14/2023
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2778 25% 2084

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5B

Page 255 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 2595 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

8. Sheet C3 shows two proposed [sic] "warf hydrants" of unspecified intent. Revise as appropriate to specify intended purpose of the hydrants. If proposed as mitigation for other concerns, so state.

CFC Sec. 501.3, 501.4

10. Standpipe System Required. For reference see CFC Sec. 905. The standpipe systems shall be installed in accordance with this section and NFPA 14 as amended in Chapter 47. - Noted on Sheet A5.0.

11. Required Fire Flow: The minimum required fire flow for this project is 2,778 Gallons Per Minute (GPM) at 20 psi residual pressure. Since an automatic fire sprinkler system will be installed, the fire flow will be reduced by 25%, establishing a required adjusted fire flow of 2,084 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure. Note: The minimum required number and spacing of the hydrants shall be in accordance with CFC Table C105.1 as amended by SCCFD.
- After reduction and calculating fire flow for different portions of the building fire flow was calculated to be 2,084 gpm at 20 psi. Capacity to meet the specified fire flow has been demonstrated by way of a water utility flow report stating 2,224 gpm is available at 20 psi.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
71034
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
5 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 3
DATE
LAH 8/14/2023
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2778 25% 2084

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5B

Page 256 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 2595 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

15. Fire Alarm Requirements: Refer to CFC Sec. 907 and the currently adopted edition of NFPA 72 for fire alarm requirements.
- Noted on Sheet A5.0.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
71034
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
5 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 4
DATE
LAH 8/14/2023
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2778 25% 2084

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5B

Page 257 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 2595 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

21. Exterior wall ratings and opening protective measures shall meet the CBC requirements in effect at time of building permit submittal.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
71034
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
5 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 5
DATE
LAH 8/14/2023
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2778 25% 2084

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5B

Page 258 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 3524 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
This project has been reviewed with respect to the following:

The scope of this project includes the following:

Proposed new 71,034 SF, five-story, Type IIIA/IA construction, R-2/R-2.1/A-3/S-2/B Occupancy apartment building with 3 podium levels and a basement.

Plan Status:

Plans are NOT APPROVED. Revise and resubmit drawings and provide a response letter addressing comments on this plan review. Comments having BOLD font require correction prior to approval.

Plan Review Comments:

1. High Rise Requirements: 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, except buildings used as hospitals as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 1250 (CFC 202 Definition). - Sheet A2.2 reflects an elevation of 514.7 feet at the lowest building access (rear of building) and 615.6 feet at the highest floor having human occupancy (occupied roof). The resultant 100.9 feet exceeds 75 feet that establishes the building as a new high-rise structure, per CBC 403.1 and CBC 202 definition.
- Revise design, as appropriate, to establish and demonstrate compliance with CBC/CFC provisions applicable to a new high-rise structure.

Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet A-1. CFC Sec. 503.

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
71034
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
5 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 1
DATE
LAH 09/27/2023
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2778 25% 2084

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5B

Page 259 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 3524 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

4. Required Aerial Access: Where required: Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway. 2. Width: Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet (7925) in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building more than 30 feet (9144 mm) in height. 3. Proximity to building: At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet (4572) and a maximum of 30 feet (9144mm) from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building, as approved by the fire code official [CFC Chp. 5 and SCCFD SD&S A-1]. Aerial access shown on sheet A5.0. - The defined location for aerial apparatus access is arranged along one 52'-6" wide side of the building, and provides inadequate ladder access to the balance of the structure. The roof access is further obstructed by rooftop dining facility with limited pathway access to the balance of the occupied roof. This configuration is insufficient for fire operations. Review project ability to provide functional aerial ladder access to greater portion of the building roof.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
71034
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
5 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 2
DATE
LAH 09/27/2023
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2778 25% 2084

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5B

Page 260 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 3524 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

8. Sheet C3 shows two proposed [sic] "warf hydrants" of unspecified intent. Revise as appropriate to specify intended purpose of the hydrants. If proposed as mitigation for other concerns, so state.

CFC Sec. 501.3, 501.4

10. Standpipe System Required. For reference see CFC Sec. 905. The standpipe systems shall be installed in accordance with this section and NFPA 14 as amended in Chapter 47. - Noted on Sheet A5.0.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
71034
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
5 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 3
DATE
LAH 09/27/2023
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2778 25% 2084

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5B

Page 261 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 3524 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

15. Fire Alarm Requirements: Refer to CFC Sec. 907 and the currently adopted edition of NFPA 72 for fire alarm requirements.
- Noted on Sheet A5.0.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
71034
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
5 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 4
DATE
LAH 09/27/2023
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2778 25% 2084

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5B

Page 262 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 3524 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

21. Exterior wall ratings and opening protective measures shall meet the CBC requirements in effect at time of building permit submittal.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
71034
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
5 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 5
DATE
LAH 09/27/2023
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2778 25% 2084

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5B

Page 263 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 4781 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
This project has been reviewed with respect to the following:

The scope of this project includes the following:

Proposed new 70,983 SF, five-story, Type IIIA/IA construction, R-2/R-2.1/A-3/S-2/B Occupancy apartment building with 3 podium levels and a basement.

Plan Status:

Plans are NOT APPROVED. Revise and resubmit drawings and provide a response letter addressing comments on this plan review. Comments having BOLD font require correction prior to approval.

Plan Review Comments:

1. Required Aerial Access: Where required: Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway. 2. Width: Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet (7925) in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building more than 30 feet (9144 mm) in height. 3. Proximity to building: At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet (4572) and a maximum of 30 feet (9144mm) from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building, as approved by the fire code official [CFC Chp. 5 and SCCFD SD&S A-1]. Aerial access shown on sheet A5.0. - The defined location for aerial apparatus access is arranged along one 52'-6" wide side of the building, and provides inadequate ladder access to the balance of the structure. The roof access is further obstructed by a rooftop dining facility with limited pathway access to the balance of the occupied roof. - Revise plans to provide clearance around the exterior of the rooftop dining facility. - Provide elevation diagrams that demonstrate ground ladder access to the roof of the dining facility.

Diagrams shall show proper clearance at the ground level and proper climbing angles to reach roof of dining facility.

2. Buildings and Facilities Access: Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
70983
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
4 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 1
DATE
LAH 01/31/2024
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2813 25% 2109

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5B

Page 264 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 4781 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or with the jurisdiction. 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. [CFC, Section 503.1.1]. - Approval of up to 300 feet travel is not granted.
- Fire personnel access to the furthest portions of the building is hindered due to total travel distance, 34 to 37 foot elevation change, exposure to building interior from unrated openings, narrow path of travel, and close proximity to adjacent parcels. All of these hazards are not conducive to efficient deployment of firefighting resources. - Revise design to propose mitigating measures to ensure effective firefighting operations or submit an alternate means methods request (AMMR) to mitigate excessive distance.

3. New Public Fire Hydrant: Provide a public fire hydrant at a final location to be determined jointly by the Fire Department and California Water Service. Fire hydrants shall be provided along required fire apparatus access roads and adjacent public streets. CFC Sec. 507, Appendix B and Appendix C. - According to CFC C102.1, 3 fire hydrants are required for this structure, show 3 available hydrants on plans. - Fire flow shall be provided from new fire hydrant.

Comments that have been addressed:

4. Fire Apparatus Access Roadway Required: Provide an access roadway with a paved all-weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 50 feet outside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Surface shall be capable of supporting 75K pounds. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet A-1. CFC Sec. 503. Roadway: A vehicular access roadway greater than or equal to 20 feet in width serving more than two single-family dwellings. - Road study provided demonstrating width, slope, and turning radii. Vertical clearance issues to be resolved (See aerial truck survey).
- Geotechnical certification provided for loading capacity.

5. Fire Sprinklers 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. - Noted on Sheet A5.0.

6. Standpipe System Required: For reference see CFC Sec. 905. The standpipe systems shall be installed in accordance with this section and NFPA 14 as amended in Chapter 47. - Noted on Sheet A5.0.

7. Required Fire Flow: The minimum required fire flow for this project is 2,813 Gallons Per Minute (GPM) at 20 psi residual pressure. Since an automatic fire sprinkler system will be installed, the fire flow will be reduced by City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
70983
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
4 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 2
DATE
LAH 01/31/2024
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2813 25% 2109

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5B

Page 265 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 4781 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
25%, establishing a required adjusted fire flow of 2,109 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure. Note: The minimum required number and spacing of the hydrants shall be in accordance with CFC Table C105.1 as amended by SCCFD.
- After reduction and calculating fire flow for different portions of the building fire flow was calculated to be 2,109 gpm at 20 psi. Capacity to meet the specified fire flow has been demonstrated by way of a water utility flow report stating 2,224 gpm is available at 20 psi.

8. Timing of installation. When fire apparatus access roads or a water supply for fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternative methods of protection are provided. Temporary street signs shall be installed at each street intersection when construction of new roadways allows passage by vehicles in accordance with Section 505.2. Construction documents. Construction documents for proposed fire apparatus access, location of fire lanes, security gates across fire apparatus access and construction documents and hydraulic calculations for fire hydrant systems shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval prior to construction. CFC Sec. 501.3, 501.4
9 Fire Department Connection: The fire department connection (FDC) for the structure in support of the sprinkler system shall be installed at the street on the street address side of the building. It shall be located within 100 feet of a public fire hydrant and within ten (10) feet of the main PIV (unless otherwise approved by the Chief due to practical difficulties). FDC's shall be equipped with a minimum of two (2), two-and-one-half (2- 1/2”) inch national standard threaded inlet couplings. Orientation of the FDC shall be such that hose lines may be readily and conveniently attached to the inlets without interference. FDC's shall be painted safety yellow [SCCFD, SP-2 Standard].
- FDC shown on sheet A5.0.

10. Fire Department Aerial Apparatus Turnaround Required: Provide an approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of 60 feet outside. Maximum grade in any direction shall be a maximum of 5%. Installations shall conform with 2022 CA Fire Code Appendix D as amended by SCCFD. CFC Sec. 503 Driving surface shall be capable of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds (34050 kg).
- Turnaround from Appendix D103.1 shown on sheet A5.0.

11. Fire Alarm Requirements: Refer to CFC Sec. 907 and the currently adopted edition of NFPA 72 for fire alarm requirements.
- Noted on Sheet A5.0.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
70983
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
4 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 3
DATE
LAH 01/31/2024
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2813 25% 2109

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5B

Page 266 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 4781 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

12. Two-way Communication System: Two-way communication systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with the relative codes and standards in affect at time of building permit submittal, including NFPA 72, the California Electrical Code, the California Fire Code, the California Building Code, and the city ordinances where two way system is being installed. Other standards also contain design/installation criteria for specific life safety related equipment. These other standards are referred to in NFPA 72. - Noted on Sheet A5.0.

13. Emergency responder radio coverage in new buildings: All new buildings shall have approved radio coverage for emergency responders within the building based upon the existing coverage levels of the public safety communication systems of the jurisdiction at the exterior of the building. This section shall not require improvement of the existing public safety communication systems. CFC Sec. 510.1 as adopted. - Noted on Sheet A5.0.

14. Construction Site Fire Safety: All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification S1-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33. - Noted on Sheet A5.0.

15. Address identification: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 6 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address numbers shall be maintained CFC Sec. 505.1. - Noted on Sheet A5.0.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2.1

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
70983
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
4 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 4
DATE
LAH 01/31/2024
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 2813 25% 2109

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5B

Page 267 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 1045 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
Plans and Scope of Review:

This project shall comply with the following:

The California Fire (CFC) & Building (CBC) Code, 2022 edition, as adopted by the Town of Los Altos Hills Municipal Code (LAHMC) and California Code of Regulations (CCR).

The scope of this project includes the following:

Proposed new 64,483 SF five-story multifamily apartment building with 2 podium levels and a basement.

Plans Status:

Plans are NOT APPROVED. Revise and resubmit drawings and provide a response letter addressing comments on this plan review. All comments having BOLD Font require correction prior to approval.

Plan Review Comments:

1. Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access, water supply and may include specific additional requirements as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes.

Prior to performing any work, the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits.

2. Plans will need to demonstrate whether or not the proposed building meets the requirements of a high rise building as described in CBC 403.1.

3. Required Aerial Access: Where required: Buildings or portions of buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144 mm) in height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire apparatus access roadway. 2. Width: Fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet (7925) in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building more than 30 feet (9144 mm) in height. 3. Proximity to building: At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet (4572) and a maximum of 30 feet (9144mm) from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building, as approved by the fire code official [CFC Chp. 5 and SCCFD SD&S A-1]. One entire side of aerial access is required.

Aerial access roadway shall be 26 feet wide. Provide section view how aerial ladder access will be achieved to the roof.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
64,4832
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
4 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 1
DATE
LAH 04/05/2023
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 3750 25% 2813

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5B

Page 268 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 1045 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

4. Fire Department Aerial Apparatus Turnaround Required: Provide an approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of 60 feet outside. Maximum grade in any direction shall be a maximum of 5%. Installations shall conform with 2022 CA Fire Code Appendix D as amended by SCCFD. CFC Sec. 503 Driving surface shall be capable of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds (34050 kg). Show a turnaround that accommodates aerial apparatus with minimum outside turning radius of 60 feet. Show a turnaround that accommodates aerial apparatus with minimum outside turning radius of 60 ft.

5. Buildings and Facilities Access: Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or with the jurisdiction. 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. [CFC, Section 503.1.1]. Show how 150ft travel distance will be met.

6. Standpipe system will be required. For reference see CFC Sec. 905. The standpipe systems shall be installed in accordance with this section and NFPA 14 as amended in Chapter 47. Note on sheet C0 that a standpipe will be installed as a deferred submittal.

7. Fire Hydrant Systems Required: Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, onsite fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the fire code official. Exception: For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies 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, the distance requirement shall be not more than 600 feet. [CFC, Section 507.5.1].

Clarify if the the hydrant on sheet C3 is a new proposed hydrant. Add a note on sheet C0 that new hydrant will be installed and no combustible construct shall occurred prior to hydrant installation.

Submit hydrant spotting plan to SCCFD office.

8. Required Fire Flow: The minimum required fire flow for this project is 3,750 Gallons Per Minute (GPM) at 20 psi residual pressure. Since an automatic fire sprinkler system will be installed, the fire flow will be reduced by 25%, establishing a required adjusted fire flow of 2,813 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure. Note: The minimum required number and spacing of the hydrants shall be in accordance with CFC Table C105.1 as amended by SCCFD. Hydrant is not capable of meeting the minimum required fire flow of 2,812 gpm at 20psi. Work with Calwater and provide documentation that that outlines how the fire flow will be met OR revise plans in order to meet fire flow requirements
City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
64,4832
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
4 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 2
DATE
LAH 04/05/2023
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 3750 25% 2813

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5B

Page 269 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 1045 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

9. Fire Department Connection: The fire department connection (FDC) for the structure in support of the sprinkler system shall be installed at the street on the street address side of the building. It shall be located within 100 feet of a public fire hydrant and within ten (10) feet of the main PIV (unless otherwise approved by the Chief due to practical difficulties). FDC's shall be equipped with a minimum of two (2), two-and-one-half (2- 1/2”) inch national standard threaded inlet couplings. Orientation of the FDC shall be such that hose lines may be readily and conveniently attached to the inlets without interference. FDC's shall be painted safety yellow [SCCFD, SP-2 Standard]. Show FDC on plans.

10. Two-way Communication System: Two-way communication systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with NFPA 72 (2016 edition), the California Electrical Code (2013 edition), the California Fire Code (2016 edition), the California Building Code (2016 edition), and the city ordinances where two way system is being installed, policies, and standards. Other standards also contain design/installation criteria for specific life safety related equipment. These other standards are referred to in NFPA 72. Make a note on sheet C0 that two-way communication system will be installed as a deferred submittal

11. Emergency responder radio coverage in new buildings: All new buildings shall have approved radio coverage for emergency responders within the building based upon the existing coverage levels of the public safety communication systems of the jurisdiction at the exterior of the building. This section shall not require improvement of the existing public safety communication systems. CFC Sec. 510.1 as adopted. Make a note on sheet C0 that radio coverage will be installed as a deferred submittal

12. Fire Alarm Requirements: Refer to CFC Sec. 907 and the currently adopted edition of NFPA 72 for fire alarm requirements. Make a note note on Sheet C0 that fire alarm will be installed as a deferred submittal.

13. Fire Sprinklers Required: (As Noted on Sheet C0) 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.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
64,4832
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
4 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 3
DATE
LAH 04/05/2023
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 3750 25% 2813

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5B

Page 270 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 1045 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

15. Address identification: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address numbers shall be maintained CFC Sec. 505.1.

16. Water Supply Requirements: Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record.

Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2019 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
64,4832
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
4 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 4
DATE
LAH 04/05/2023
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 3750 25% 2813

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5B

Page 271 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 1490 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
Plans and Scope of Review:

This project shall comply with the following:

The California Fire (CFC) & Building (CBC) Code, 2022 edition, as adopted by the Town of Los Altos Hills Municipal Code (LAHMC) and California Code of Regulations (CCR).

The scope of this project includes the following:

Proposed new 71,034 SF five-story multifamily apartment building with 2 podium levels and a basement.

Plans Status:

Plans are NOT APPROVED. Revise and resubmit drawings and provide a response letter addressing comments on this plan review. All comments having BOLD Font require correction prior to approval.

Plan Review Comments:

Prior to performing any work, the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits.

2. Plans will need to demonstrate whether or not the proposed building meets the requirements of a high rise building as described in CBC 403.1.

Aerial access roadway shall be 26 feet wide. Provide section view how aerial ladder access will be achieved to the roof.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
71034
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
4 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 1
DATE
LAH 04/25/2023
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 3750 25% 2813

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5B

Page 272 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 1490 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

Clarify if the the hydrant on sheet C3 is a new proposed hydrant. Add a note on sheet C0 that new hydrant will be installed and no combustible construct shall occurred prior to hydrant installation.

Submit hydrant spotting plan to SCCFD office.

SEC/FLOOR
R-2

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
71034
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
4 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 2
DATE
LAH 04/25/2023
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 3750 25% 2813

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5B

Page 273 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 1490 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
71034
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
4 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 3
DATE
LAH 04/25/2023
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 3750 25% 2813

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5B

Page 274 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
23 1490 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS

15. Address identification: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address numbers shall be maintained CFC Sec. 505.1.

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR
R-2

OCCUPANCY
LOAD
71034
AREA
Inhabiture
ApplicantName

SILVER OAKS

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
4 OF
7+bsmt
IA/IIIA 4
DATE
LAH 04/25/2023
Ip, Kenny

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 3750 25% 2813

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
10758 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 5B

Page 275 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 6A

Page 276 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 6A

Page 277 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 6A

Page 278 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 6A

Page 279 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 6A

Page 280 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 6A

Page 281 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
24 1147 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
Plans and Scope of Review:

This project has been reviewed with respect to the following:

The scope of this project includes the following:

Alternate Means & Methods Request (AMMR) for a proposed new 67,840 SF, five-story, Type IIIA/IA construction, R-2/R-2.1/A-3/S-2/B Occupancy apartment building with 2 podium levels and a basement.

Plan Status:

The alternate means/methods request is NOT APPROVED. Review and revise request to address the following comments.

Plan Review Comments:

Discussion: Application proposes alternate measures to meeting the requirements of CFC section 503.1.1 that fire apparatus access roads shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the building. The alternate includes seven measures discussed below.

1. "Provide an additional standpipe at rear exit stair." - Provide clarification how this is a mitigation measure, as it would appear that the required standpipe system for the building would be required to extend to all interior exit stairways with hose valves at all stairs landings. [CFC, Section 905.4 or Section 905.6].

2. "Type 1A construction with 3-hour fire resistance rating." - Provide clarification how this is a mitigation measure, as it would appear that the podium and construction below would be required to be Type 1A. [CBC, Section 510.2].

3. "Openings protected by approved sprinkler water curtain." - Provide clarification how this is a mitigation measure, as it would appear that the due to the egress court proximity to the building all openings within the Type 1A are required to be protected. [CBC, Section 1029.3].

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR

OCCUPANCY

AREA LOAD
Tower Investments, Llc
ApplicantName
SFR

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
2 OF 1
DATE
LAH 04/23/2024
Mckenna, Matthew

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Application for Use of Alternate Materials
10728 Mora Dr Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 6A

Page 282 of 1435 ends

BLDG
PERMIT No.
24 1147 PLANREVIEW No.

PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
Plan Review Comments: (con't)

4. "We widened exit discharge & entire path around building to 4' wide (clear width) last revision." - Provide clarification how this is a mitigation measure, as it would appear that based on the occupancy load that all of the exist discharge corridors and paths are required to be 44" clear. Please clarify how this would allow for simultaneous egress and fire department access. [CBC, Section 1029.2].

5. "Windows to be removed."
- Provide clarification how this is a mitigation measure. Please include an explanation of how firefighters are protected from the unprotected openings overhead. [CBC, Section 1029.3].

6. "Ladder access to roof of dining facility."
- Provide clarification how this is a mitigation measure, as it would appear that this measure seeks to address the concerns regarding fire department aerial apparatus access which was not indicated as being part of this request. [CFC, Section D105].

7. "Move wall 6" to provide 4'-2" wide access pathway (48" clear)." - Provide clarification how this is a mitigation measure, as it would appear that this measure seeks to address the concerns regarding fire department aerial apparatus access which was not indicated as being part of this request. [CFC, Section D105].

City
Y
E
PLANS
Y
E
SPECS
Y
E
NEW
Y
E
RMDL CONST. TYPE
BY
PAGE

SEC/FLOOR

OCCUPANCY

AREA LOAD
Tower Investments, Llc
ApplicantName
SFR

NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION
Y
E
AS
2 OF 2
DATE
LAH 04/23/2024
Mckenna, Matthew

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Construction
TABULAR FIRE FLOW REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI

PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Application for Use of Alternate Materials
10728 Mora Dr Los Altos Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 6A

Page 283 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 6B

Page 284 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 6B

Page 285 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 6B

Page 286 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 6B

Page 287 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 6B

Page 288 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 6B

Page 289 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 6B

Page 290 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 6B

Page 291 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 6B

Page 292 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 6B

Page 293 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 6B

Page 294 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 6B

Page 295 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 6B

Page 296 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 6B

Page 297 of 1435 ends

THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS January 30, 2025
Staff Report to the City Council
SUBJECT: Adopt resolutions making findings to deny two applications for residential development projects to construct multi-family senior developments consisting of 55 and 57 dwelling units on undeveloped parcels located at 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive; APNs 331-15-061 and 331-15-062; File Nos. CDP23-0001 and CDP23- 0002, pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(d).

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

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council takes the following action:

Hold a public hearing to receive public comments and adopt resolutions making findings to deny two senior residential development projects of 55 and 57 units located at 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive, respectively (APNs 331-15-061 and 331-15-062; File Nos. CDP23-0001 and CDP23- 0002).

BACKGROUND
On February 1, 2023, Forrest Linebarger (“Applicant”) submitted a preliminary application and formal application (File Nos. CDP23-0001 and CDP23-0002) under Government Code sections 65941.1 and 65589.5 for multi-family senior residential buildings located on 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills. These applications were submitted pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(d), commonly known as the “Builder’s Remedy” (the “BR Project(s)”). These applications have been processed and reviewed by the Town and also routed to the Santa Clara County Fire Department for fire code plan check review.

The development proposals are not consistent with the Town’s current General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. In non-Builder’s Remedy situations, normally such developments would require legislative amendments approved by the City Council. In a Builder’s Remedy project context, state law restricts the Town’s ability to require legislative amendments and requires the Town to make certain written findings prior to denying such a project or imposing conditions that render it infeasible. Based on these parameters, it is appropriate for the City Council to review the applications and make requisite findings for the denial of these projects.

As described in further detail below, it is recommended that the City Council review the record below and make findings to deny the BR Projects pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(d), based on the Projects’ specific, adverse impact resulting from their failure to comply with the California Fire Code and the absence of feasible mitigation without rendering the developments unaffordable.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 7 PAGE 1

Page 298 of 1435 ends

Project Sites Description
The two project parcels at 10728 (Lot 1) and 10758 Mora Drive (Lot 3) were originally a part of a three-lot Jo Mora Ranch subdivision along with 10730 Mora Drive (Lot 2), which sits between the 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive parcels. These parcels were acquired by Mr. Linebarger in 2006 and were annexed into Los Altos Hills in 2012. The property at 10730 Mora Drive had been developed prior to Mr. Linebarger’s purchase and was eventually sold to a new owner; that property is currently developed with a single-family home that is occupied by residents and is not covered by the BR Projects.

As described below, the two parcels are located in a densely vegetated, hillside area on the edge of Town boundaries; the parcels as well as neighboring lots are served by only one public access roadway where in places the road can only support one way traffic due to its configuration. Both parcels are substandard as they are substantially smaller than the standard one-acre minimum lot size and do not have a Lot Unit Factor of at least 1.0. The subject parcels and surrounding residences are served by only one public access road, Mora Drive, which is the only entry and exit point from major thoroughfares to the area. In the event that residents in the area where the Project parcels are located need to travel or evacuate towards Interstate 280 or other major roadways/state highways, Mora Drive is the only main roadway. Additionally, the roadway serving the site twists and turns through steep elevation changes as it connects to the subject property. Due to Mora Drive’s configuration, fire responses apparatus has been observed cross into oncoming traffic to navigate the roadway with its smallest engine which would not be of a size sufficient to address a structure fire due to its purposed configuration.

In recent years, the state of California has experienced several serious wildfire and structural fire catastrophes, including but not limited to the Camp Fire in Northern California's Butte County in 2018 and the most recent destructive Pacific Palisades and Eaton fires in Southern California. The Town of Los Altos Hills has historically been an area with high exposure to wildfire hazards and faces challenges of community evacuations during times of natural catastrophes. In 2019, Mchael Wara, a researcher at the Woods Institute for the Environment and Director of the Climate and Energy Policy Program at Stanford University, utilized fire-risk models for the California Legislature as it considered the series of challenges faced by PG&E and its aging infrastructure to determine the extent of damages and potential costs in worst case wildfire scenarios. As reported recently, Wara’s modeling included Los Altos Hills as one of the areas where local weather and topography exposes the community to heightened dangers of wildfire and the increased possibilities that fast-moving fires can burn homes and structures quickly while narrow roadways make firefighting difficult.
10728 Mora Drive
The property is part of Lot 1 of the Jo Mora Ranch, split by deed in 1941. The property was acquired by Mr. Linebarger in 2006 and was annexed into Los Altos Hills in 2012. This parcel is

0.374 acres and the subject of one of the BR Project applications under consideration by the City Council.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 7 PAGE 2

Page 299 of 1435 ends

The parcel is one of narrow shape with steep topography. The lot is a narrow, 0.374-acre parcel, of 68 feet wide at the front property line which narrows to 59 feet at the rear (with average width of 63.5 feet) and 260.5 feet deep with an average slope of 20.44 percent. It is surrounded by singlefamily residential homes in a heavily vegetated hillside area of Los Altos Hills. The site is adjacent to a vacant, residentially zoned parcel to the south which serves as a private access road to several easterly properties. The site is also in close proximity to the Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve and the Mora Trail, owned and controlled by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in Santa Clara County. Both open space areas contain vast areas of dry grass, shrubs and trees.
10758 Mora Drive
This property is part of Lot 3 of the Jo Mora Ranch, split by deed in 1941. It was also acquired by the applicant in 2006 and annexed into Los Altos Hills in 2012. This parcel is 0.397 acres and the subject of one of the BR Project applications under consideration by the Council.

Like 10728 Mora Drive, the 10758 Mora Drive parcel is also of narrow shape and steep topography. The lot is 62.5 feet wide and 280 feet deep with an average slope of 23.97 percent. It is surrounded by single-family residential homes in a heavily vegetated hillside area of Los Altos Hills. The parcels next to the Projects on either side at 10730 and 10776 Mora Drive are both larger parcels improved with a single-family dwelling and related structures currently occupied by residents. The site is also in close proximity to the Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve and the Mora Trail.

Figure 1. Neighborhood Map. Source: County GIS – Markup by Staff ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 7 PAGE 3

Page 300 of 1435 ends

As noted above, all of the adjacent and neighboring parcels surrounding 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive contain dense trees and shrubs where the homes are situated among such vegetation and screened from the roadway.

The Project sites are only accessible from Mora Drive, a public roadway fronting the parcels. Mora Drive has an approximate width of 50 feet and does not contain sidewalks or pathways. Mora Drive also serves as the only public access road for at least seven other properties, namely: 10710 Mora Drive, 10679 Mora Drive, 10696 Mora Drive, 10702 Mora Drive, 10724 Mora Drive, 10716 Mora Drive, and 10700 Mora Drive, all of which utilize a private driveway to connect to Mora Drive. In order to travel away or evacuate from the hillside towards Interstate 280 and other major thoroughfares, all occupants of these parcels would need to utilize Mora Drive as the only egress point. Similarly, in order to travel towards the 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive and neighborhood parcels (such as in the instance of a fire truck coming on site), Mora Drive also serves as the only entry point roadway.

Figure 2 illustrates Mora Drive as the only egress point for the project sites and several neighboring properties.

Figure 2. Emergency Access. Source: County GIS – Markup by Staff The Town’s Municipal Code offers an illustration as to the sloped nature and limited development characteristic of this parcel. Under the Municipal Code, a Lot Unit Factor (LUF) is calculated for each parcel in Los Altos Hills by dividing the net lot area of the subject property by the minimum average lot size that would be required for a parcel of average slope equal to that of the subject property. This value is used in determining the allowable development and floor areas. Because of their geographical characteristics, substandard lots with a lower LUF would result in a smaller buildable area comparing to standard lots with a LUF of over 0.5. A LUF of 0.5 or less indicates that the property is a substandard lot with steeper than average slope and limited development area.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 7 PAGE 4

Page 301 of 1435 ends

The further the LUF is reduced from 0.5 means that the parcel slopes steeper and the development area is smaller.

As an illustration using the LUF calculations, the parcel at 10728 Mora Drive would only have a LUF of approximately 0.29 and the parcel at 10758 Mora Drive would only have a LUF of approximately 0.28, both due to their substandard lot sizes and average slopes ranging from 20- 24%. The resulting maximum development area is 3,226 square feet and maximum floor area of 1,594 square feet for 10728 Mora Drive and the resulting maximum; the resulting maximum development area is 2,714 square feet and maximum floor area of 1,474 square feet for 10758 Mora Drive. As mentioned above, the Project sites on Mora Drive are of similarly uniquely small size and steeply sloped, presenting a set of site-specific constraints due to such geological features and topography.

Figure 3. Slope Guide. Source: Community Development Department Staff Summary of Prior Development Proposals at Project Sites In 2014, a few years after acquiring the properties Mr. Linebarger submitted applications for each property proposing construction of a new residence. The projects were denied by the Planning Commission because of noncompliance with zoning standards including setbacks and allowable MDA and MFA, and the denial was appealed to the City Council by the Applicant; at the appeal, the Applicant presented a redesigned project and the City Council referred the revised project back to the Planning Commission on August 25, 2016. To support the applications for new residences Mr. Linebarger applied for a Certificate of Compliance for each property on February 23, 2017.

At the August 17, 2017 City Council meeting, the City Council discussed the Certificate of Compliance for 10728 Mora Drive, a .347-acre lot and 10758 Mora Drive, a .397-acre lot. The staff report recommended approval of the Certificate of Compliance, which was necessary to confirm the legality of the substandard lot. The Council approved the Certificate of Compliances based on historical deed conveyances and the California State Subdivision Map Act.

The Applicant previously submitted applications to develop one single-family residence on each ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 7 PAGE 5

Page 302 of 1435 ends

of the 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive lots. Such prior applications sought variances and conditional development permits from the Town due to the constrained lot side and the proposed developments exceeded the Town’s development standards, including setbacks, Maximum Development Area (MDA), and Maximum Floor Area (MFA). Those development projects were processed and reviewed by the Town during public hearings between 2018 and 2021, and ultimately the project applications were not approved by the Town’s Planning Commission and City Council due to unique site constraints and the limited development area available on site, and the Town’s inability to make required variance and conditional development permit findings to exceed the Town’s objective development standards. These applications were denied without prejudice to the property owner’s ability to refile applications for the properties.

In 2022, the Applicant filed applications to construct a single-family residence and an accessory dwelling unit on each of the 10728 and 10758 Mora lots. The Applicant also filed applications pursuant to SB 9 to construct similar residential projects and to subdivide the parcels. Those projects were processed by the Town but remain incomplete pending resubmittals from the Applicant. Those projects are referenced here as background context only and are not before the City Council for consideration tonight.

Staff remains prepared to work with the applicant on these applications if the applicant desires to proceed with further consideration of these applications based on existing law which has changed since the applications were filed.

Builder’s Remedy Projects Submittal
The Applicant submitted the BR Project applications on February 1, 2023, for a 44-unit MultiFamily Residential Building under Project # CDP23-0001 for 10728 Mora Drive and a 44-unit Multi-Family Residential Building under Project # CDP23-0002 for 10758 Mora Drive. Staff notes that the permit numbers were assigned to the project submittals for ease of identification and process and not for the purposes of determining the type of entitlements required. On April 11, 2023, the BR Project application on 10728 Mora Drive was revised to be 55 units where 44 units would be market-rate, and 11 units would be reserved for low-income households. On April 11, 2023 and July 3, 2023, the BR Project application on 10758 Mora Drive was revised to be 57 units where 45 units would be market-rate, and 12 units would be reserved for low-income households.

These BR Projects are nearly identical in terms of proposed use, density, and development characteristics/proposals. Specifically, both projects propose to construct a “senior living community” providing housing for people of retirement age and proposes to map the units as condominiums. The Projects also propose to add residential assisted living, nursing station, entertainment facilities including exercise, laundry, TV, dining, music room, and related facilities, as accessory uses.

The Projects’ units are proposed to be located on various levels of a five-story building over a twolevel podium. Respectively, the 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive propose 32 parking spaces for each project (amounting to approximately 0.56 and 0.58 spaces per unit for each project respectively).

The proposed building at 10728 Mora Drive would contain basement and podium 1 (i.e. garage) areas of 1,547 and 2,438 square feet, podium 2 area of 11,044 square feet and a roof area of 3,698 square feet. The proposed building at 10758 Mora Drive would contain basement and podium 1 ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 7 PAGE 6

Page 303 of 1435 ends

areas of 1,593 and 2,567 square feet, podium 2 area of 2,567 square feet and podium 3/garage area of 11,169 square feet and roof area of 4,240 square feet. The living area square footage on each floor are between 5,215 square feet and 11,184 square feet. The Projects propose to situate the residential “apartment” building and related facilities all the way throughout each of the parcels and with certain patio and hardscape located at the rear side, leaving an approximately 16.8 feet (for 10728 Mora) and 35 feet (for 10728 Mora) of setbacks from the rear property lines.

Figure 4. 10728 Mora Drive – Rendering. Source: Applicant Figure 5. 10758 Mora Drive – Rendering. Source: Applicant Figure 9 shown on next page illustrates the significant change in topography moving from the front (West) to rear (East). The rear has the steepest slope resulting in a seven-story massing.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 7 PAGE 7

Page 304 of 1435 ends

Figure 6. 10728 Mora Drive – Building Section. Source: Applicant – Markup by Staff Table 1 below illustrates the BR Projects proposals and their similarities. As noted above, the use and development proposals are nearly identical, and the sites are naturally sloped and constrained in the same manner. Table 1 also shows the Town’s baseline development standards against the Projects’ proposals.

Table 1: BR Projects Overview
Standard 10728 Mora Proposed
(0.374 acre site)
10758 Mora Proposed
(0.398 acre site)
Town Requirement
Density and
dwelling
units per
acre
(du/ac)
55 units
143.6 du/ac
57 units
143.6 du/ac
R-A zoning = 1 residential
unit (or 2 units per SB 9,
and/or + ADUs)
Lot Size 0.374 acre 0.397 acre 1 acre minimum
Setbacks 30 feet front, 5 feet sides,

16.8 feet rear
25 feet front, 5 feet sides
35 feet-8 inches rear
40 feet front
30 feet sides & rear
Building
Height
84 feet 10 inches 84 feet 10 inches 27 feet sectional
35 feet low to high
Maximum
Development
Area (MDA)
14,396 sf + 72,848 sf 14,396 sf + 72,848 sf 10728 Mora:
3,226 sf Maximum per
LAHMC Title 10, Chapter
1, Article 5
4,500 sf Maximum w/
Conditional Development
Permit (CDP)
10758 Mora:

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 7 PAGE 8

Page 305 of 1435 ends

2,415 sf Maximum per
LAHMC Title 10, Chapter
1, Article 5
4,500 sf Maximum w/ CDP
Maximum
Floor Area
(MFA)
70,983 sf 70,983 sf 10728 Mora:
1,594 sf Maximum per
LAHMC Title 10, Chapter
1, Article 5
2,500 sf Maximum w/ CDP
10758 Mora:
1,378 sf Maximum per
LAHMC Title 10, Chapter
1, Article 5
2,500 sf Maximum w/ CDP
Town Planning Review of the BR Projects
The Town received, reviewed and processed the BR Project applications in accordance with its standard residential development project review procedures. It also reviewed the applications for submittal completeness and consistency with applicable standards in accordance with Government Code section 65589.5. Specifically, this review entails: (1) whether the Project applications are complete by providing all information based on the Town’s development project checklist, in accordance with Government Code sections 65941 and 65943; and (2) whether the applications are consistent with applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirements, or other applicable regulations in effect at the time of a preliminary application submittal, in accordance with Government Code section 65589.5(j)(2). A summary of the review timeline and determinations conducted in this case are shown as follows:
• March 3, 2023: Both applications were determined to be incomplete because several outstanding submittal requirements and fees were identified. • May 11, 2023: The project at 10728 was revised from 44 units to 55 units with this resubmittal (resubmittal April 11, 2023). Both applications determined to be incomplete as materials and fees were still outstanding.
• August 2, 2023: The project at 10758 was revised from 55 units to 57 units with this resubmittal comment (revised on July 3, 2023).
• August 31, 2023: Applications determined to be inconsistent with applicable standards and regulations (see Table 3 below).
• September 28, 2023: Applications determined to be complete, meaning the minimum set of application materials were submitted to continue processing the application. • December 21, 2023: The Town advised Applicant that the Projects are covered by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and would require the preparation of either a mitigated negative declaration or an environmental impact report.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 7 PAGE 9

Page 306 of 1435 ends

In compliance with Government Code section 65589.5 (j)(2)1 , Town staff reviewed the BR
Projects and timely provided comments determining the Project applications are inconsistent with a number of development standards and regulations. These inconsistencies are summarized in Tables 2 and 3 below.

Table 2: 10728 Mora Drive Inconsistency with Applicable Standards Zoning and Site Development Consistency Review
55-unit development project at 10728 Mora Drive
Development
Standard
Requirement Proposed/Status Compliance
Lot Size 1 acre minimum 16,308 sq. ft./.374 Ac
Nonconforming lot
Nonconforming lot
Setbacks 40 feet front
30 feet sides & rear
30 feet front
5 feet sides

16.8 feet rear
No
Building Height 27 feet sectional
35 feet low to high
84 feet 4 inches No
MDA 3,226 sf Maximum per
LAHMC Title 10, Chapter
1, Article 5
4,500 sf Maximum w/
CDP*
14,379 + 67,475 No
MFA 1,594 sf Maximum per
LAHMC Title 10, Chapter
1, Article 5
2,500 sf Maximum w/
CDP*
67,840 No
Density Low Density Residential 55 units
147 units/acre
No
Grading See Grading Policy 16 feet cut No
Exterior Color 50 LRV walls
40 LRV roof
Color light reflectivity
values not provided
No
*These values are not guaranteed for lots with LUF less than .50, which this parcel qualifies.

Table 3: 10758 Mora Drive Inconsistency with Applicable Standards Zoning and Site Development Consistency Review
57-unit development project at 10758 Mora Drive
Development
Standard
Requirement Proposed/Status Compliant Yes or No
1 Under Gov. Code section 65589.5(j)(2), if a local government considers a proposed housing development project to be inconsistent with applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision, it will provide the applicant with written documentation explaining the reasons for inconsistency within 30 days from a complete application if the project contains 150 or fewer units. The Town reviewed the BR Projects against applicable objective standards and followed the timeline set forth under 65589.5(j)(2) to provide consistency review comments described here.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 7 PAGE 10

Page 307 of 1435 ends

Lot Size 1 acre minimum 17,325 sq. ft./.397 Ac
Nonconforming lot
Nonconforming lot
Setbacks 40 feet front
30 feet sides & rear
25 feet front
5 feet sides
35 feet 8-inches rear
(hardscape encroaches)
No
Building Height 27 feet sectional
35 feet low to high
84 feet 10 inches No
MDA 2,415 sf Maximum per
LAHMC Title 10,
Chapter 1, Article 5
4,500 sf Maximum w/
CDP*
14,396 + 72,848 No
MFA 1,378 sf Maximum per
LAHMC Title 10,
Chapter 1, Article 5
2,500 sf Maximum w/
CDP*
70,983 No
Density Low Density
Residential
57 units
143.6 units/acre
No
Grading See Grading Policy 17 feet cut/grading
within 10 feet of PL
No
Exterior Color 50 LRV walls
40 LRV roof
Color light reflectivity
values not provided
No
*These values are not guaranteed for lots with LUF less than .50, which this parcel qualifies.

The Builder’s Remedy projects submitted as projects CDP23-0001 and CDP23-0002 are inconsistent with the Town’s General Plan because the General Plan only permits single-family residential and accessory uses at the two properties in question. The projects are also inconsistent with the following policies of the Land Use Element.
• Land Use Policy 1.1 Uses of land shall be consistent with the semi-rural atmosphere of the community, minimize disturbance to natural terrain, minimize removal of the natural vegetation, and create the maximum compatibility of development with the natural environment through site design and landscaping.
• Land Use Policy 2.1 Within incorporated Los Altos Hills and its sphere of influence dwelling types shall be limited to single-family detached residences, which may include a single secondary unit.

It should further be noted that neither 10728 Mora Drive nor 10758 Mora Drive are included in the Town’s 2023-2031 Housing Element site inventory as a potential opportunity site. Thus, the applicable density on these parcels under the General Plan (including the Housing Element) and zoning remains 1 dwelling unit per acre and the Housing Element does not otherwise set any unit production goals in order to meet the Town’s Regional Housing Allocation Need (RHNA) obligations.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 7 PAGE 11

Page 308 of 1435 ends

Copies of Town comment letters and consistency determinations are provided as Attachment 4.

Like the previous applications, the BR Project applications were reviewed by technical Town consultants for geotechnical and stormwater issues at the planning entitlement stage. The Project applications were also reviewed by the Santa Clara County Fire Department (“SCCFD”) regarding Fire Code compliance, as discussed in the next section.

County Fire Department Review of the BR Projects
The Santa Clara County Fire Department provides plan check review for the Town regarding California Fire Code compliance, including local amendments adopted by the Town during the triennial building standards code update process. The Fire Department first reviews an application at the planning entitlement stage and identifies major issues that have a significant effect on the development proposal, if any, that can be seen to preclude the project from moving forward in the review process. This review assists applicants with identifying code compliance issues early in the application review process and provides an opportunity to make necessary revisions in a timely manner. The Fire Department also reviews plans during the building permit submittal stage after planning entitlement is obtained.

A summary of the Fire Department review timeline and determinations are as follows. References to Section 503.1.1 are to the Fire Code.

For 10728 Mora Drive:
• SCCFD April 5, 2023 Plan Review Comments (No. 23-1044): This letter reviews the Project’s initial 44-unit proposal. It directs the Applicant to demonstrate how the Project will meet the 150 feet distance requirement under Fire Code Section 503.1.1. • SCCFD April 25, 2023 Plan Review Comments (No. 23-1486): This letter reviews the Project’s initial 44-unit proposal. It directs the Applicant to demonstrate how the Project will meet the 150 feet distance requirement under Fire Code Section 503.1.1 and specifies that all portions of the building shall be within 150 feet of fire department access. All references below to Section 503.1.1 are to the Fire Code. • SCCFD August 14, 2023 Plan Review Comments (No. 23-2718): This letter reviews the Project’s revised 55-unit proposal. It specifies that Project does not meet the 150 feet distance requirement in Section 503.1.1 and that the Applicant requests an approval of up to 300 feet travel. The letter notes that fire personnel would have to travel 35 to 42 foot elevation change to the furthest portions of the proposed residential building, and that the access to the back of the building cannot accommodate both firefighters accessing and residents evacuating at the same time. The comment letter requests revisions to width of the path of travel and mitigation measures to address the requested 300 feet travel distance. • SCCFD September 27, 2023 Plan Review Comments (No. 23-3522): This letter reviews the Project’s revised 55-unit proposal. It continues to affirm the comments provided in the ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 7 PAGE 12

Page 309 of 1435 ends

August 14, 2023 letter, and notes that firefighters would need to navigate a 35 to 42 foot elevation change to access the furthest portions of the proposed residential building, which is not conducive to efficiently deploying firefighting resources. The letter continues to request design revisions or mitigation measures to address this code inconsistency as identified above.
• SCCFD January 31, 2024 Plan Review Comments (No. 23-4780): These letters review the Project’s revised 55-unit and 57-unit proposals. They specify that the Project continues to be inconsistent with Section 503.1.1’s 150 feet distance requirement and does not approve the requested 300 feet exception. They also specify that firefighters cannot access the furthest portions of the building due to “total travel distance, 34 to 37 foot elevation change, exposure to building interior from unrated openings, narrow path of travel, and close proximity to adjacent parcels.” The comment letters direct the Applicant to revise building design or to propose mitigating measures through an “Alternate Means and Methods request” to mitigate excessive distance.

For 10758 Mora Drive:
· SCCFD April 5, 2023 Plan Review Comments (No. 23-1045): This letter reviews the Project’s initial 44-unit proposal. It directs the Applicant to demonstrate how the Project will meet the 150 feet distance requirement under Section 503.1.1. · SCCFD April 25, 2023 Plan Review Comments (No. 23-1490): This letter reviews the Project’s initial 44-unit proposal. It directs the Applicant to demonstrate how the Project will meet the 150 feet distance requirement under Section 503.1.1. · SCCFD August 14, 2023 Plan Review Comments (No. 23-2595): This letter reviews the Project’s revised 57-unit proposal. It specifies that Project does not meet the 150 feet distance requirement in Section 503.1.1 and that the Applicant requests an approval of up to 300 feet travel. The letter notes that fire personnel would have to travel 35 to 42 foot elevation change to the furthest portions of the proposed residential building, and that the access to the back of the building cannot accommodate both firefighters accessing and residents evacuating at the same time. The comment letter requests revisions to width of the path of travel and mitigation measures to address the requested 300 feet travel distance. · SCCFD September 27, 2023 Plan Review Comments (No. 23-3524): This letter reviews the Project’s revised 57-unit proposal. It continues to affirm the comments provided in the August 14, 2023 letter, and notes that firefighters would need to navigate a 35 to 42 foot elevation change to access the furthest portions of the proposed residential building, which is not conducive to efficiently deploying firefighting resources. The letter continues to request design revisions or mitigation measures to address this code inconsistency as identified above.
· SCCFD January 31, 2024 Plan Review Comments (No. 23-4781): This letter reviews the Project’s revised 57-unit proposal. It specifies that the Project continues to be inconsistent with Section 503.1.1’s 150 feet distance requirement and does not approve the requested 300 feet exception. It specifies that firefighters cannot access the furthest ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 7 PAGE 13

Page 310 of 1435 ends

portions of the building due to “total travel distance, 34 to 37 foot elevation change, exposure to building interior from unrated openings, narrow path of travel, and close proximity to adjacent parcels.” The comment letter directs the Applicant to revise building design or to propose mitigating measures through an “Alternate Means and Methods Request” to mitigate excessive distance.

The significant issue identified by the Fire Department during the plan check and AMMR review process is the Projects’ inability to comply with a provision of the 2022 California Fire Code, Section 503.1.1 (with local amendments under Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Title 8, Chapter

1.8). To note, this state code is an objective standard (i.e. since it sets forth a specific, verifiable number that is uniformly applicable) that was adopted and in effect at the time the BR Projects submitted and revised preliminary applications in February and July 2023. Section 503.1.1 requires the following:
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 (45,720mm) 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. (emphasis added.)
Section 503.1.1 is a part of the State of California Fire Code; the Town has adopted this code provision during the triennial Building Standards Code update cycle in 2022, inclusive of certain local amendments. These local amendments introduced by the Town were based on reasonably necessary changes due to local climatic, topographic, and geologic conditions, and were made pursuant to Health and Safety Code sections 18941.5 and 17958 accompanied by requisite findings made by City Council under state law. It is important to note, however, that the local amendments introduced by the Town only affect the “Exceptions” portion of Section 503.1.1 identified above and only make changes regarding situations involving Group R-3 or U occupancies (i.e. buildings with two or less dwelling units and utilities/accessory buildings). They do not otherwise impact ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 7 PAGE 14

Page 311 of 1435 ends

Section 503.1.1; the 150-foot distance requirement remains a provision of the state Fire Code and is unchanged.

As shown in the illustration below, Section 503.1.1 requires the fire apparatus access road to be situated on the project site in a way that “wraps around” 150 feet of all portions of the proposed building exterior walls. A fire apparatus access road is defined by Section 202 of the Fire Code to be “a road that provides fire apparatus [i.e. fire trucks] access from a fire station to a facility, building or portion therefor.” This means that the access road must be able to allow fire truck and firefighters to be able to quickly access the building and pull a fire hose to all portions of the exterior walls of the building, hence the 150 feet distance requirement. The primary purpose of Section 503.1.1 is to limit the maximum length of hose needed to reach any point along the exterior of a building or facility from a fire department truck. Given that the Project sites at 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive are sloped steeply towards the back of the parcels, this requirement becomes even more necessary where firefighters must traverse the sloped area when trying to access the proposed buildings.

Figure 7. Fire Access Travel Distance. Source: Applicant – Markup by Staff ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 7 PAGE 15

Page 312 of 1435 ends

Pursuant to SCCFD’s review, the BR Project is inconsistent with the 150-foot apparatus road requirement under Section 503.1.1 because it fails to provide that required distance.

Figure 8 shown above illustrates how the placement of the fire access road and length of the building results in noncompliance. On March 20, 2024, the Applicant submitted an Alternate Means and Methods Request (“AMMR”) for the 10728 Mora Drive Property to request an exception from the 150-foot requirement under Section 503.1.1, and to propose in its place certain alternatives that the Applicant asserts would be able to provide equivalent safety and effectiveness protections. As a part of that March 20, 2024 AMMR, the Applicant proposed the following:
1) Providing an additional standpipe at rear exit stair. 2) Type 1A construction with 3-hour fire resistance rating. 3) Openings protected by approved sprinkler water curtain. 4) Widened exit discharge and entire path around building to 4 feet wide. 5) Windows to be removed.

SCCFD did not accept any of these proposals. In a comment letter dated April 23, 2024, the Fire Department disapproved the AMMR and asked for clarification to show that these options can offer equivalent safety and protection, since some if not all are apparently already required by the Fire Code or Building Code due to certain Project features. To summarize, the SCCFD letter responded with the following comments:
o Providing an additional standpipe at rear exit stair: clarify how this constitutes a mitigation measure as it appears to be a requirement for all interior exit stairways. o Type 1A construction with 3-hour fire resistance rating: clarify how this constitutes a mitigation measure as Type 1A is already required by code at the podium and construction below.
o Openings protected by approved sprinkler water curtain: clarify how this constitutes a mitigation measure as such protection is already required by code for all openings with Type 1A construction.
o Widened exit discharge and entire path around building to 4 feet wide: clarify how this constitutes a mitigation measure as occupancy load already requires 44 -inch clearance for all discharge corridors. Also clarify how this provides simultaneous exiting for non-fire personnel and access for fire department personnel. o Windows to be removed: clarify how this constitutes a mitigation measure and explain how firefighters are protected from such unprotected openings over their head.

Based on Town staff’s communication with the Fire Department, the Applicant did not respond to the above comments nor provide further clarifications in support of his request.

On October 8, 2024, the Applicant submitted an AMMR for the 10758 Mora Drive project. That AMMR Request proposes similar measures as the request submitted for 10728 Mora Drive, seeking to be exempted from the 150-foot distance requirement and have the standard be extended to 300 feet of travel distance. Because of the similarities in the 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 7 PAGE 16

Page 313 of 1435 ends

parcels, and the two projects’ density, use, site layout, and site constraints, the 10758 Mora Drive AMMR evaluation is useful for both sites as it highlights the importance of adhering to Section 503.1.1 in a narrow, steep and hillside location, where in places the road can only support one way traffic due to its configuration, and the challenges in providing an alternate mitigation that offers equivalent protection and safety. In his October 8, 2024 AMMR request for the 10758 Mora Drive property, the Applicant proposed the following similar mitigating measures:
5) Provide an NFPA 13 sprinkler system.
5) Upgrade the fire resistance rating of the Type I-A exterior wall. 5) Remove glass or increase fire ratings of windows within 10 feet of the path of travel on the sides of buildings.
5) Add standpipe outlets at the north and south exterior walls. 5) Separate occupant egress and firefighter ingress pathways- reserve the north side of the building for occupant egress, and the south side of the building for fire department personnel ingress.

These measures were likewise rejected by the Fire Department. In a letter dated November 20, 2024, SCCFD denied the AMMR because the proposed mitigations measures do not sufficiently address the safety issue including firefighter access and evacuation safety created by the noncompliance with Section 503.1.1 for the reasons summarized as follows:
ο Providing automatic sprinklers: this proposed measure is already required by the Fire Code and cannot be used to replace or supplement an existing deficiency. ο Upgrade fire resistance walls: the proposed upgrade only addresses a portion of the building and not others. It also fails to address the deficiency that there is insufficient length for a fire hose to reach the building and still exposes firefighters to fire during the path of travel.
ο Increase fire window rating and removing glass: Similarly, this proposed AMMR measure is already a requirement under the Fire Code and cannot be used to address an existing deficiency. This proposal also does not address all windows and leaves some residential unit windows not being fire rated.
ο Providing separate pathways for residents exiting and firefighters entering: Like the proposal above, this proposed measure still leaves certain parts of the path of travel to be shared by firefighters and residents. In particular, such shared space with be shared by occupants in wheelchairs while firefighters also utilize the same space. It therefore does not safely separate ingress and egress. Further, with regards to a portion of the path of travel, firefighters would need to travel a longer distance if they wanted to gain access up the stairs to the north side of the building, and the travel distance would actually increase over 300 feet. This measure therefore does not address the issue that the fire apparatus (truck) is too far away from the building because of the distance between the access road and the building exterior walls.

The Fire Department specifically noted that none of these measures directly address the excessive distance deficiency. They are, as stated above, also measures that are already required elsewhere by the Fire Code and cannot serve as meaningful alternatives to another equally applicable code provision. SCCFD’s comments and AMMR denial letters are included as Attachments 5 and 6.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 7 PAGE 17

Page 314 of 1435 ends

Similarly, to the Town’s knowledge the Applicant has not proposed to provide additional alternatives or respond further to the Fire Department’s comments as of the writing of this staff report. Relatedly, it should be noted that the Project applications may present additional Building Code compliance issues that has yet to be reviewed by the Town’s Building Officials. For example, the Applicant’s March 20, 2024 AMMR for the 10728 Mora Drive property contained requests to mitigate excessive distance under Building Code section 705.8.2, to which the Fire Department April 23, 2024 rejection letter cited to provisions of the Building Code requesting clarification on how the measures proposed constituted mitigation if already required by the Building Code. If an AMMR is requested for standards under the Building Code as apparently shown in the March 20, 2024 AMMR, such exception request will also need to be reviewed and approved by the Town’s Building Official. The Applicant has not presented such request to the Town at this time.

The Town’s Community Development Director/Building Official has reviewed potential implications of the Projects re-designing their respective buildings to reduce width and accommodate the required fire apparatus road distance. Based on the most recent October 1, 2024 plan set prepared plan set prepared by Stevens Ferrone & Bailey, Berry and Associates on behalf of the Applicant, it appears that approximately 8,284 square feet of building area would need to be removed to accommodate the additional distance, and that 5,401 square feet of that area would be residential square footage. Consequently, in order for the Projects to maintain affordability under Section 65589.5(d), it appears the most feasible approach would be for the Projects to remove a combination of market-rate and below-market rate (BMR) units for low-income.

Using the 10758 Mora Drive parcel as an example, the Project currently as proposed has an estimated land cost of $5 million, estimated construction costs of $13.6 million, and a 1-year income projection of $1.9 million equating to an approximately 8 years rate of return (i.e. the Project would not recover its costs until Year 8). Assuming that a combination of BMR units and market-rate units are removed to accommodate for fire access while maintaining the affordability levels under Section 65589.5, the Project rate of returns either remains at 8 years or increases to 9 years. The figures for 10728 Mora Drive are substantially similar in this regard.

It should be noted that the affordability analysis also conservatively assumes that there are no additional code compliance or other financing issues that further increases Project costs and reduces its financial feasibility. Consequently, reducing the building square footage most likely results in the reduction of dwelling units, which impedes the Project’s ability to recover its initial capital expenses and would have to carry costs for a significant period of time. This in turn reduces the ability of the Project’s market-rate units to generate sufficient income to support BMR units and the Project as a whole, and thus results in increase in rent for BMR units or the loss thereof, rendering the Project unaffordable to lower and moderate income.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 7 PAGE 18

Page 315 of 1435 ends

The relevant affordability analysis is included with further detail as Attachment 7.

DISCUSSION
Applicable Law
The “Builder’s Remedy” is a provision under Government Code section 65589.5(d), which statute is otherwise known as the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). This provision applies to affordable housing development projects for very low, low-, or moderate-income households that meet certain statutory criteria. Under Section 65589.5(d), the Town may not deny a Builder’s Remedy project or impose conditions that render the project infeasible (including through the use of design review standards), unless it makes written findings, based upon a preponderance of the evidence in the record, one of the six statutory findings. Some of the findings relate to the status of a municipality’s housing element compliance and others relate to the impacts stemming from the project.

In addition to the foregoing, the HAA generally requires cities to make written findings in order to deny or reduce the density of a residential development project that is otherwise compliant with applicable “objective standards and regulations” in effect at the time of its preliminary application submittal. “Objective” standards means that there is no personal judgement involved and that can be uniformly determined by a knowable benchmark. In other words, if a residential development project is consistent with objective standards and requirements, it would be subject to the protections of the HAA.

BR Projects Review and Applicable Findings
In this case, the Town has reviewed the BR Projects against objective development standards and policies as set forth in the section above. Likewise, SCCFD has also reviewed the submittals against the Fire Code and determined that they are not consistent with the objective distance standard required for fire apparatus access road. Finally, with respect to any Building Code compliance issues, the Town’s Building Official would also need to review and approve any alternatives proposed to be excepted from a certain requirement. The potentially relevant findings under the Builder’s Remedy provision are listed and discussed below.

Finding No. 1: The Project as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households. (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(d)(2).)
Section 65589.5 requires the determination of a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety to be based on objective, identified written public health and safety standards in existence when the preliminary application was submitted. That section also defines objective standards as criteria that “involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official before submittal.”2 2 Gov. Code section 65589.5(f)(9).

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 7 PAGE 19

Page 316 of 1435 ends

In this case, the 150-foot distance requirement under Section 503.1.1 is an objective and quantifiable numeric standard; applying it to the Projects does not involve personal or subjective judgment by Town or SCCFD officials. This standard is also uniformly verifiable by an external benchmark known by both the Applicant and the Town before submitting any application for a development project. As explained above, the 150-foot standard is an objective standard contained in the state Fire Code and not a Town-imposed standard through any local amendments; in any event, the Projects would be required to meet Fire Code requirements regardless of whether it is under the planning entitlements review or building permit submittal stage. The application of Section 503.1.1 and the 150-foot standard to the Projects and the specific adverse impact analysis are, therefore, well supported by Section 65589.5.

The Project sites are located in a densely vegetated area at the edge of the Los Altos Hills town boundary. They are also surrounded by single-family, occupied residences and are in close proximity to the Mora Trail and Rancho San Antonio County Part/Open Space Preserve and the Mora Trail, which areas contain a significant amount of open space and dry grass vegetation.

Images of the Project sites above demonstrate that all of its surrounding areas are covered by dense trees, shrubs, grass, and/or other vegetation that are naturally grown or installed as a part of landscape screening mechanisms on various private parcels so that the residential units are not or less visible from the roadway. All of these location factors significantly increase the risk of fire spreading during a wildfire event or firestorm catastrophe, the difficulties in the Projects and surrounding residents to evacuate, and the challenges for firefighters to deploy resources and manpower to control and extinguish fires for the Project buildings and surrounding neighborhood.

Additionally, the Project sites contain unique topographical and geological limitations that worsen these safety and life-threatening risks. As described above, the 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive parcels are “substandard” lots less than the Town’s standard one-acre lots and have a LUF of less than 0.5 due to their steep slopes and narrow width. These lots are only approximately 65 feet wide on average and have an average slope between 20 and 26 percent. This is particularly concerning when the slopes are slanted towards the back of the lots where roadway access is extremely limited as the only public access road is at the front of the parcels on Mora Drive. This roadway at the front of the site is further shared by several other lots on both sides of Mora Drive, with some relying on only one other private driveway to connect to Mora Drive. All of these unique sitespecific problems further exacerbate the risk of wildfire spreading and the inability of firefighters to deploy effectively in time.

Using the SCCFD November 20, 2024 AMMR Denial Letter as an illustration, and because of the substantial similarities between the Project sites, the Projects’ site constraints and dense developments further exacerbates the excessive distance deficiency. The BR Projects propose to construct senior residential buildings that are significantly higher and denser than any other dwellings typically proposed in Los Altos Hills and in a such densely vegetated areas where fire hazard exposure is high, and where the targeted tenants would be elderly residents who are already of limited mobility. Notwithstanding these risk factors, the Project sites’ configurations show that there are various slopes and elevation gains adjacent to the sides and rear of the building, which are significantly close to the dense vegetation and dry grass open space. The SCCFD AMMR Denial Letter accurately pointed out that there is already minimal access widths between the ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 7 PAGE 20

Page 317 of 1435 ends

proposed fence and the residential building, with only a single access road on one side of the building to the right of way on Mora Drive.

As introduced above, Los Altos Hills is already situated in a location with high exposure to wildfire hazards. The Projects’ location in a remote and steep hillside area as well as their geographical/topographical/access limitations make it essential for emergency responders to be able to extinguish or control wildland and structure fires, and for its residents and staff to be able to efficiently evacuate without crossing paths with firefighters or obstruct their travel routes. The Projects have failed to address these essential public safety needs and respond to the risk exposure.

The Projects also fail to adhere to the 150-foot distance requirement under Section 503.1.1 but rather propose to increase fire apparatus access road distance beyond the code requirements, at double the distance of 300 feet. This code noncompliance does not allow firefighters and fire trucks to have sufficient hose length and minimal travel distance to quickly respond to fire threats.

Section 503.1.1, as modified by Los Altos Hills local amendments under Health and Safety Code sections 18941.5 and 17958, allow certain exceptions to be granted from the 150-foot distance requirement under limited circumstances. In this case, the Applicant seeks such an exception from the 150-foot distance requirement, under Exception No. 1 of Section 503.1.1. Exception No. 1 states that the fire code official may grant a distance increase of up to 300 feet when the building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with other provisions of the Fire Code. SCCFD, in its January 31, 2024 Plan Review Comment Letter, directed the Applicant to either revise building design or to propose mitigating measures through the AMMR process to mitigate the excessive distance. As outlined above, however, the Applicant submitted two separate AMMRs during the course of a seven-month review for the 10728 and 10758 Mora properties respectively, but none of the measures proposed were acceptable to the Fire Department. This is because, as indicated above, the proposed measures do not directly address excessive distance and are either already required by code or do not offer equivalent safety and effectiveness protections against dangers created by the excessive distance.

In particular, for his second attempt at 10758 Mora AMMR, the Applicant has not proposed to reduce the distance of the fire access road to the proposed residential building at all. Nor has the Applicant presented any alternative that would specifically address the excessive distance between the fire access road and the building, in particular with respect to the back of the building where slope and elevation gain significantly. Neither has the Applicant provided equivalent safety and effectiveness measures that would mitigate the significant risk of fire exposure for the Projects’ occupants including seniors with limited mobility, and the significant challenges that firefighters and emergency responders will face in navigating long distances, narrow paths, and steep elevations, while responding to wildfire and other life threatening emergencies on site.

The Projects’ failure to propose feasible alternatives further highlight the fact that there is no feasible mitigation without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households. As set forth above, the Applicant has been involved in several rounds of plan check review and AMMR request review with SCCFD but has only proposed modifications to portions of building features as indirect attempts to address the excessive distance issue. SCCFD has determined these indirect measures are inadequate and do not satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific Project public safety impact. The Applicant did not propose any alternatives involving ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 7 PAGE 21

Page 318 of 1435 ends

revising the actual building footprint or building design to provide more space on the parcel to accommodate the proposed fire access road. Based on the affordability analysis performed by the Town’s Building Official, in order for the Projects to maintain affordability under Section 65589.5(d), it appears the most feasible approach is for the Projects to remove a combination of market-rate and below-market rate (BMR) units for low-income. Based on a combination of estimated construction costs, land costs, and unit income projection, however, it is most likely that the reduction of the units reduces the ability of the Projects’ market-rate units to generate sufficient income to support BMR units and the Projects as a whole, and thus results in increase in rent for BMR units or the loss thereof, rendering the Projects unaffordable to lower and moderate income.

Notably, this conclusion is further supported by and consistent with the Applicant’s proposal to increase the number of market rate units and reducing the number of affordable units through the Projects revisions in April and July 2023, and his unwillingness to propose such a design change, despite the Section 503.1.1 compliance issue was first questioned by SCCFD on April 5, 2023, approximately two months after the Projects’ submittal, and then raised again soon thereafter on August 14, 2023, providing ample opportunities for the Applicant to propose such re-design options to accommodate sufficient fire access road distance.

Therefore, based on the record before the City Council, a preponderance of the evidence shows that the Projects as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households, pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(d)(2).

Finding No. 2: The denial of the housing development project or imposition of conditions is required in order to comply with specific state or federal law, and there is no feasible method to comply without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. (Gov.

Code Section 65589.5(d)(3).)
As described in the finding above, the BR Projects are not consistent with the California Fire Code and there is no feasible method to comply with that statute as evidenced by SCCFD’s denial of the AMMR requests. Additionally, the Projects’ non-compliance with the Fire Code also renders it to be non-compliant with the Building Code. The alternative means and methods required by the Fire Department, for instance, where it references Building Code standards, must also be reviewed and approved by the Town’s Building Official pursuant to Building Code section 104.11. The Applicant has not submitted such requests for the Town’s review and the record does not support the Building Official approving an AMMR request based on the determination by the Fire Department.

Finding No. 3: On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction did not have an adopted revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article and the housing development project is not a builder’s remedy project. (Gov. Code Section 65589.5(d)(6).) ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 7 PAGE 22

Page 319 of 1435 ends

Under the recently effective Government Code section 65585.03, a housing element is considered to be in substantial compliance when the city adopts that housing element, and the element is either certified by the state Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) or by a court of competent jurisdiction. As relevant here, HCD certified the Town’s Housing Element on May 30, 2023, while the BR Project applications were filed on February 1, 2023. As such, this Finding No. 3 would apply if the BR Projects do not qualify as a “Builder’s Remedy” project defined by statute.

Under Government Code section 65589.5(h)(11), as amended as of September 19, 2024 and as effective as of January 1, 2025, a housing development would qualify as a “Builders’ Remedy” project if it meets the following criteria, among other things:

A. The project is a housing development project that provides housing for very low, low, or moderate-income households.

B. On or after the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction did not have a housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article.

C. The project has a density such that the number of units, as calculated before the application of a density bonus pursuant to Section 65915, complies with all of the following conditions:
1) The density does not exceed the greatest of the following densities:
i. Fifty percent greater than the minimum density deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for that jurisdiction as specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2.
ii. Three times the density allowed by the general plan, zoning ordinance, or state law, whichever is greater.
iii. The density that is consistent with the density specified in the housing element.

In reviewing the foregoing, these BR Projects do not meet Items (C)(1)(i)-(iii) because its density exceeds the minimum prescribed by statute. Under (i) the density applicable to Los Altos Hills under Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B) is 20 dwelling units per acre as the Town is a “suburban jurisdiction” defined by the housing element statute and based on the Census Bureau data. Under (ii), the density currently allowed under the Town’s General Plan and Zoning (which contains only the R-A district designation) is one unit per acre. Finally, under (iii), as the 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive parcels are not listed in the Housing Element site inventory for 2023-2031, the 1 du/ac standard under the Town’s General Plan and zoning continues to apply. The BR Projects propose 55 and 57 units respectively, which equates to a density of 143.6 du/ac. This density far exceeds the statutory thresholds as listed above since it would well exceed fifty percent of 20 du/ac alone.

Consequently, the BR Projects do not qualify as “Builder’s Remedy Projects” under Government Code section 65589.5(d)(6) and are subject to denial.

Attachment 1 and 2 are Resolutions making the foregoing findings in further detail for 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive BR Projects respectively. In order to deny the BR Projects, the City Council must adopt those resolutions to make the written findings contained therein based on the entirety of the record.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 7 PAGE 23

Page 320 of 1435 ends

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15270, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. Thus, no environmental review is required for this recommended Council action. If the BR Projects were to move forward for further Town review, CEQA analysis would be required pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(e). In that situation, given the size and scale of the project proposals it is likely that a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report would be required to be prepared.

NOTICING/PUBLIC OUTREACH
The public was advised of this Public Hearing in the following ways:
• Mailing to the Applicant and to property owners within a 500-foot radius of each property based on the most current information from the County Assessor’s Office property tax roll – January 19, 2025
• Posted at the project sites – January 19, 2025
• Public Posting Places – January 19, 2025
o Town Hall
o Public Noticing Board on Christopher’s Lane
o Public Noticing Board on Summerhill Avenue
• Town Website: www.losaltoshills.ca.gov – January 24, 2025 (publication of agenda materials)
In addition, the Applicant was advised of the potential hearing during an in-person meeting with the Town on January 17, 2025.

To date, staff has not received public comment regarding the proposed project. Public comment received after publication of the staff report but before the January 30, 2025, City Council meeting will be forwarded to the Council.

CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing to receive comments, and adopt resolutions (Attachment 1 and 2) making findings pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(d) to deny senior residential development projects of 55 and 57 units located at 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive, respectively (Nos. CDP23-0001 and 0002).

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution Making Findings of Denial for 10728 Mora

2. Resolution Making Findings of Denial for 10758 Mora

3. 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive - Builder’s Remedy Project Application

4. Town Community Development Project Comment Letters
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 7 PAGE 24

Page 321 of 1435 ends

a. 10728 Mora Drive dated March 3, 2023; May 11, 2023; August 2, 2023; August 31, 2023; September 28, 2023; December 21, 2023
b. 10758 Mora Drive dated March 3, 2023; May 11, 2023; August 2, 2023; August 31, 2023; September 28, 2023; December 21, 2023

5. Santa Clara County Fire Department Project Comment Letters a. 10728 Mora Drive dated April 5, 2023; April 25, 2023; August 14, 2023; September 27, 2023; January 31, 2024
b. 10758 Mora Drive dated April 5, 2023; April 25, 2023; August 14, 2023; September 27, 2023; January 31, 2024

6. Santa Clara County Fire Department AMMR Comment Letters a. 10728 Mora Drive AMMR Application dated March 20, 2024; Comment letter dated April 23, 2024
b. 10758 Mora Drive AMMR Application dated October 8, 2024; Comment letter dated November 20, 2024

7. Affordability Analysis

8. 10728 Mora Project Plans – City Council only
a. AMMR partial plan modifications shown

9. 10758 Mora Project Plans – City Council only
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 7 PAGE 25

Page 322 of 1435 ends

☐ Application / Response(s) to Comments
☐ Accessibility Exemption Form (Commercial)
☐ Arborist Report
☐ Bay Area Air Quality Management J#
☐ CalGreen Checklist
☐ COP (Construction Operation Plan)
☐ Electrical Load Calculations
☐ Energy Code documents (ex: CF1R)
☐ Manufacturer’s Specifications
☐ PCB’s Demo Program Screening
Assessment
☐ Photos of road & path prior to construction
☐ SCC Environmental Health Department
permit and/or approved stamped site plan
☐ Soils/Geotechnical Report
☐ Special Inspection Form
☐ Structural Calculations
☐ Truss Calculations
☐ Truss Diagrams
☐ Utility Shut-Off Letter
☐ Waste Management Plan

TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
26370 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Phone: (650) 941-7222
Email: [email protected]
www.losaltoshills.ca.gov
Supplemental Documents Index
Project Information
For initial submittals, include this index after the application. For all resubmittals, include this index at the beginning of the SUP document PDF.

Permit No: __________________________________ File Name: _________________________________ APN: _______________________________________ Date Submitted:_____________________________ Project Address: __________________________________________________________________________ Legal Owner:______________________________________________________________________________ Applicant:_________________________________________________________________________________ Scope of Work: ______________________________________________________________________ Notes: Each time the SUP file is uploaded, the PDF must be complete and include all documents required for permit issuance. Keep all documents in the SUP file in the same order each time.

Supplemental Documents Checkmark all items included in SUP file Additional Documents Please list additional items below

1. _____________________________________

2. _____________________________________

3. _____________________________________

4. _____________________________________

5. ___________________________________

6. ___________________________________

7. ___________________________________

8. ___________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CDP23-0001 CDP23-0001_V6_SUP
331-15-061 1/30/2025
10728 MORA DRIVE, LOS ALTOS HILLS

FORREST LINEBARGER

FORREST LINEBARGER
PROPOSED BUILDERS REMEDY 43 UNIT MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ✔
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 323 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 324 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 325 of 1435 ends

Wildland Res Mgt (510) 502-4737
316 California Ave. #68
Reno NV 89509 [email protected]
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 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- Commented [BO1]: Please say something about your
experience with fire safety etc, also please include a cv.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 326 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 8

Page 327 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.
3 Letter dated June 9, 2023, from Kenneth Farrone to Forrest Linebarger regarding fire truck access weight bearing.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 328 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-fire-apparatus-access-roads Commented [FL2]: It seems like we don’t meet this
requirement
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 329 of 1435 ends

Two different access/egress routes
Approximate
project site
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 330 of 1435 ends

Properties that have one exit prior to the intersection of SunHill and Mora Dr.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 331 of 1435 ends

Adoption Matrix for the 2002 Model Fire Code, identifying section 503 as not adopted by State Fire Marshal

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 332 of 1435 ends

CAROL L. RICE
Carol Rice provides expertise in fire management, with specialized knowledge in fire behavior (i.e. spread and potential loss) along with fire codes and policies, hazard and risk assessment, structural ignition potential, fire ecology, defensible space creation and maintenance, fuel and vegetation management.

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

President, Wildland Resource Management, Inc., Walnut Creek and Alamo, CA. Head of consulting firm focusing on fire management. Responsible for marketing, and program planning as well as contract performance. 1979-2013.

Associate Director, Fire Research Institute, Roslyn, WA and Walnut Creek, CA. Established and comanaged a non-profit international organization of fire researchers and managers, from 1983-1992.

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. Designed and conducted study of fire ecology in the Trinity Alps, Shasta Trinity National Forest. 1975.

EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science, 1975 (forestry), University of California at Berkeley.

Masters of Science, University of California, Berkeley, Wildland Resource Sciences Program. The master's thesis evaluates potential fire behavior in the urban interface of the Berkeley/Oakland hills. 1987.

SELECTED PROFESSIONAL RECOGNITION
Co-Chair, Wildland Urban Interface Committee, Northern California Fire Prevention OƯicers. 2011- 2015
California Wildfire Coordinating Group Prevention Committee. 2012-2017. Certified Senior Wildland Fire Manager, from the Association for Fire Ecology. 2012 Education Award, American Planning Association, Northern California Section 2011 for the Book Managing Fire in the Urban Wildland Interface.
Outstanding Environmental Resource Document for the book Managing Fire In the Urban Wildland Interface, Association of Environmental Professionals. 2011.

BOARD OF DIRECTOR EXPERIENCE
International Association of Wildland Fire: Vice-President, Secretary of Board of Directors. 1998- 2008. Program Co-Chair Second International Congress on Fire Ecology and Management, 2003, Steering Committee Coordinator, California's 2001 Wildfire Conference. National Fire Protection Association: Member of Task Force to establish Wildland Fire Section, 1987-

88. Second Vice-chair of Wildland Fire Section, 1990-1994. Managing Editor, Section newsletter, 1988-90.
California-Nevada-Hawaii Forest Fire Council: Chair 1985-86, Vice-Chair 1984-85, Program Chair 1983, 2001 and 2014. Secretary 2015-2018.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 333 of 1435 ends

More than 50 publications, presentations regarding wildland urban interface, fire behavior and fuel modification.

SELECTED PUBLICATIONS, PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS
Curtis Alline, Heather Blair, Carol Rice, Molly Mowery. 2020 Fire Resiliency and CEQA. Webinar hosted by the California Chapter of the Association of Environmental Professionals.

Carol L. Rice. 2014. Planning to Live with Fire: Tools and best Practices. Invited presentation to the Board of Forestry, December 4, 2014.

Rice, Carol and Laing, George. 2014. Insurance Industry De-Mystified, Closing Remarks. Northern California Fire Prevention OƯicers Training, October 28, 2014, Roseville, CA, Carol L. Rice, Sarah McCaƯrey and Molly Mowery. 2013. Community Wildfire Protection Planning. An invited webinar as part of the Planning for Growth and Open Space Conservation webinar series.

November 6, 2013.

Carol L. Rice 2012. Planning to Live with Fire: Designing and Retrofitting Communities with Fire in Mind.

Webinar presented January 26, 2012. http://uc-d.adobeconnect.com/p13qiwdmlmk/ California Fire Science Consortium.

George Laing and Carol Rice. 2011. Risk Assessment: Fire Protection Planning and Mitigation Options from 30,000 feet. Invited Presentation at the California Fire Prevention Institute, Buellton, CA. March 11- 14, 2011.California Fire Prevention OƯicers.

Kenneth S. Blonski, Cheryl Miller and Carol L. Rice. 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 Miller, Ken Blonski and Carol L. Rice. 2010. You too can prevent wildfires. Environmental Monitor.

Fall, 2010.

Rice, Carol L., Ronny J. Coleman and Mike Price. 2010. Incorporating Fire Behavior into Evacuation Plans. Presented at the International Association of Wildland Fire Conference on Fire Behavior and Fuels. October 24-28, 2010. Spokane, WA.

Rice, Carol L., Ronny J. Coleman and Mike Price. 2010.Clarifying Evacuation Options Through Fire Behavior and TraƯic Modeling. Presented at the International Association of Wildland Fire Conference on Human Dimensions. April 26-29, 2010, San Antonio, TX. In press.

George Laing, Mike Mentink, Carol Rice and Brian Collins , 2008. Parcel-Based Risk Rating to Motivate Fuel Management. Presented at The ’88 Fires: Yellowstone and Beyond, September 22-27, 2008.

Jackson Hole, WY, International Association of Wildland Fire.

Kenneth S. Blonski, Cheryl Miller and Carol L. Rice. 2005. Get Real! Community Based Solutions for your WUI Issues – Using Collaboration Beyond Planning. Presentation at Wildland Fire 2005, February 16-18, 2005, Albuquerque, NM.

Rice, Carol L. 2006. Fire Hazard Reduction Plan, Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Unpublished report prepared for Eldon Beck Associates, Pt. Richmond, CA.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 334 of 1435 ends

Gettle, Guy L. and Carol L. Rice 2002. Criteria for determining the safe separation between structures and wildlands. IV International Conference on Forest Fire Research and 2002 Wildland Fire Safety Summit, Nov 18-2, Luso, Portugal. Published by Associacao para o Desenvolvimento da Aerodinamica Industrial, Coimbra, Portugal.

McClure, Rich, Carol Rice, and Kate Bolton. 2001. Developing a fire-safe sustainable landscape at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. California's 2001 Wildfire Conference, October 10-13, 2001, Oakland, CA.

McClure, Rich, Carol Rice, and Kate Bolton. 2001. Perhaps burned through, but NOT burned out.

California's 2001 Wildfire Conference, October 10-13, 2001, Oakland, CA.

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 www.fires2000.org.

Rice, Carol L. 2000. Fire prevention in the Urban-Wildland Interface. Fire Department Instructors Conference, Sacramento, CA, March 28-31, 2000. Invited presentation.

Rice, Carol L. 1998. Urban and Community Forestry and Fire Prevention, California-Nevada- Hawaii Fire Council, Kailua, Hawaii. April 23-25, 1998. Invited Presentation.

Rice, Carol L. and Cheryl Miller. 1997. Working to have it all in the urban wildland interface: Ways to minimize environmental impacts of fuel reductions at the urban wildland interface. Fire in California Ecosystems: Integrating Ecology, Prevention and Management, Nov. 17-20, 1997, San Diego.

Rice, Carol L. 1997. The role of land use planning in reconciling fire safety and ecosystem management.

Invited presentation at the California Under Fire - A Prescription for a Fire Safe future, Partnership Summit, Diamond Bar, CA. June 24-26, 1997. pg 8 In Summary Report. Forest Resources Assessment Program, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

Rice, Carol L., Kate Bolton, and Rich McClure. 1997. Maintenance program for a fire-safe sustainable landscape at the Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The Second International Wildland Fire Conference. May 25-30, 1997. Vancouver, BC.

Rice, Carol L. and Cheryl Miller. 1997. FARSITE modeling in the urban/wildland intermix. Pgs 561-570 In:
13th Conference on Fire and Forest Meteorology. International Association of Wildland Fire, Lorne, Australia, October 26-31, 1996.

Rice, Carol L. 1996. Fire Ecology. pgs. 162-176, Chapter 14 in California’s I-Zone: Urban/Wildland Fire Prevention and Mitigation, Training textbook, compiled and edited by California Fire Marshal OƯice.

Rice, Carol L. 1996. Fire Hardening your home. pg 15-20 In After the Vision Fire - Restoration, Safety & Stewardship for the Inverness Ridge Communities. Published by the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin. 83 pg.

Rice, Carol L. 1994. A balanced approach: Dr. Biswell's solution to fire issues in urban interface and wildland ecosystems. pgs 147-149 In The Biswell Symposium - Fire Issues and Solutions in Urban Interface and Wildland Ecosystems; Feb. 17-19, 1994, Walnut Creek, CA. Gen Tech.

Rep. PSW-GTR-158. Albany, CA Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA For. Serv. 199 p.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 335 of 1435 ends

Rice, Carol L. 1994. Aftermath of the Oakland Hills Fire. pgs. 26-33, In the 46th Annual Conference of the California Weed Science Society, January 17-19, San Jose, CA.

Rice, Carol L. and Cheryl Miller. 1994. Regional vegetation management for fire hazard reduction in the wildland-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 wildland/urban interface. Pgs. 61-62. In Proceedings of Fire in Pacific Northwest Ecosystems: Exploring Emerging Issues, January 21-24, Portland, OR. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

Carol Rice. 1991. Realizing benefits of interagency cooperation and volunteerism. Selected for recognition at the Western Association of College and University Business OƯicers 53rd.

Meeting, Scottsdale Az. May 5-8 1991.

Carol Rice and James B. Davis. 1991. Land use planning may reduce fire damage in the urban- wildland intermix. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station General Technical Report PSW-127.

Rice, Carol L. 1990. Restoration of the University of California, Berkeley Hill Area through fire hazard reduction. California Native Plant Society, Bay Area Chapter; January 24, 1990. Invited presentation.

Rice Carol, and James B. Davis. 1989. Minimizing fire damage through local land use planning.

Presented at the Meeting Global Wildland Fire Challenges - the People, the Land, the Resources, Boston. MA, July 23-26, 1989.

Rice, Carol L. 1988. Programs that address urban/wildland Interface fire problems, California- NevadaHawaii Fire Council, April 13-14, Honolulu, Hawaii. Invited Presentation.

Rice, Carol. 1988. How wildfire behaves: what we need to know to protect our neighborhoods. Survival by Design Workshop, March 29-30, 1988. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, USDA Forest Service, and California State Universities. Invited Presentation.

Rice, Carol and Elaine Bild. 1988. The fire hazard reduction program in the University of California Berkeley Hill Area. pgs. 182-183. In Protecting People and Homes from Wildfire in the Interior West, October 5-8, 1987. Missoula, MT. USDA Forest Service GTR-INT 251; Ogden, UT 213p.

Rice, Carol L. 1987. What will the western wildlands be like in the year 2000? Future perfect or future imperfect? pgs. 26-32 In Wildland Fire 2000, South Lake Tahoe, CA. April 27-30, 1987. GTR PSW-101, Pacific Southwest For. and Range Expt. Sta., Berkeley, CA.

Rice, Carol L. 1988. The value of scientific meetings - closing remarks. pg. 281 In Ninth Conference on Fire and Forest Meteorology. Rice and Fujioka, editors. April 21-24, 1987, San Diego, CA. American Meteorological Society, Boston, MA. 281p.

Rice, Carol L. 1986. Vegetation hazard assessment. Vegetation Management at the Urban Interface, La Canada, Ca. March 3-5,1986. Los Angeles County Department of Foresters and Fire Warden. Invited presentation.

Rice, C.L. and C.R. Aronson. 1985. The fire management program in the East Bay Regional Park District. pp.172-178. In Fire Management: the Challenge of Protection and Use. April, 1985, Logan Utah. Utah State University.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 336 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 337 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 9A, Supplement 31a
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 338 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 8

Page 339 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 8

Page 340 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 8

Page 341 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:

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 8

Page 342 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 8

Page 343 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 8

Page 344 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 8

Page 345 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 8

Page 346 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 8

Page 347 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 9A, Supplement 31b
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 348 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 8

Page 349 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 8

Page 350 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 8

Page 351 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 352 of 1435 ends

Exhibit
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 353 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 8

Page 354 of 1435 ends

Exhibit
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 355 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 356 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 357 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 358 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 359 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 360 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 361 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 362 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 363 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 364 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 365 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 366 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 367 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 368 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 369 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 370 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 371 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 372 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 373 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 374 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 375 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 376 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 377 of 1435 ends

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 378 of 1435 ends

Exhibit
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 379 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 8

Page 380 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 8

Page 381 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 8

Page 382 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 8

Page 383 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 8

Page 384 of 1435 ends

Los Altos Hills City CouncilJune 18, 2025

Los Altos Hills City Council
June 18, 2025