Los Altos Hills City Council
June 18, 2025

1 City Council Special Meeting Agenda
June 18, 2025
LAH Agenda
September 28.docx j

NOTICE TO PUBLIC
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on the open session portion of this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s office located at 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, California during normal business hours. These materials will also be made available on the City website at www.losaltoshills.ca.gov subject to Staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE

LOS ALTOS HILLS CITY COUNCIL WILL BE HELD ON
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2025, AT 6:00 P.M.

Meetings of the City Council are held in-person. As a courtesy, and in compliance with applicable state law, staff and members of the public may participate in the meeting in person at Town Hall or virtually via Zoom Video Conference. Members of the City Council may participate remotely from time to time in accordance with the provisions of Government Code section 54953.

To attend the meeting in person:

City Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 To provide Public Comment in person:

Members of the public wishing to speak are requested to complete a speaker card and submit it to the City Clerk at the meeting.

To participate in the meeting via Zoom Video Conference, please follow the instructions below:

Public comment will also be accepted via email at [email protected] prior to the start of the meeting. Written comments will be posted on the website and distributed to the Council.

If you choose to email your comments, please indicate in the subject line “FOR PUBLIC COMMENT” and indicate the item number.

If you wish to submit a public comment during the meeting, please use the following information.

Before speaking, please identify yourself by name and where you reside. The City Council meeting will be live-streamed on the Town’s website and via Zoom at the following location:
https://bit.ly/June18SpecialMeetingLAH6pm
Webinar ID: 827 8471 4526
Passcode: 94022
Town of Los Altos Hills
City Council Special Meeting Agenda
Wednesday, June 18, 2025 at 6:00 PM
Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, California

2 City Council Special Meeting Agenda
June 18, 2025
Public testimony will be taken at the direction of the mayor and members of the public may only comment during times allotted for public comments. This meeting will be broadcast via livestream service at http://www.losaltoshills.ca.gov.

CALL TO ORDER (6:00 PM)

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL

1. PUBLIC COMMENT (Public Comment is Limited to Items which are the Subject of the Special Meeting)

2. PUBLIC HEARING
City Council Ex Parte Contacts Policy Disclosure
A. Adopt Resolutions making findings and deny two applications to construct multi-family senior residential developments on vacant parcels at 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive, respectively (File Nos. CDPD23-0001 and 0002) pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.5(d). (Staff: J. Bradford)

3. ADJOURN

ASSISTANCE FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in the meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 650-941-7222. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

Copies of all agenda reports and supporting data are available for inspection at Town Hall, 26379 Fremont Road 72 hours in advance of the meeting.

A complete agenda can be found on the Town’s webpage: http://www.losaltoshills.ca.gov. A complete packet of information is available for inspection during the meeting at the table to the back of the Council Chambers and online. Council may take action on any agendized matter in any manner deemed appropriate by Council.

THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS June 18, 2025
Staff Report to the City Council
SUBJECT: Adopt resolutions making findings to deny two applications to construct multifamily senior residential developments 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 take the following action:

Hold a public hearing to receive public comments and adopt resolutions making findings to deny two senior residential development projects 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 two preliminary applications and formal applications (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)”). Between April and November 2023, the BR Projects were revised to increase the number of units and to include other interior revisions. The BR Project applications were processed and reviewed by the Town and also routed to the Santa Clara County Fire Department (Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District’s fire department; referred to as “SCCFD” or “Fire Department”) for review.

On January 30, 2025, the City Council scheduled a public hearing to consider adoption of findings for denial of the BR Projects in accordance with Government Code section 65589.5(d), based on the results of project reviews. On the same day of and a few hours before the public hearing, the Applicant submitted revised Project plans and documents to the Town. In response, the City Council opened the public hearing but continued the hearing to March 20, 2025. The Applicant subsequently submitted another set of revised plans and supporting documentation on February 25, 2025, which necessitated further review by the Town. Consequently, the City Council continued the matter to a date uncertain at the March 20, 2025 hearing. On May 29, 20251, the Applicant submitted further revised Project plans and documents. Upon review of those revised submittals, the public hearing was then scheduled for June 18, 2025.
1 The Project resubmittals were emailed to Town staff email addresses on May 29, 2025 at 7:48 p.m. However, if the Town were to continue processing the BR Projects, it would deem the Projects to be resubmitted as of May 30, 2025 as the resubmittals were sent in significantly after normal business hours and not uploaded to the Town’s standard application portal.

ITEM 2A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Adoption of Findings for Denial Regarding 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive June 18, 2025
Attachments 3 – 6(b) and 25 contain the records that were included in the January 30, 2205 hearing agenda packet.

As noted in the January 30, 2025 Staff Report to the Council, these BR Projects proposals are not consistent with the Town’s current General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. For projects not covered by Builder’s Remedy provisions of state law, such developments would require legislative amendments approved by the City Council. For Builder’s Remedy projects , 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’ failure to qualify as a “Builder’s Remedy” under state law and their specific, adverse impact resulting from their failure to comply with the California Fire Code as adopted and amended by the Town and the absence of feasible mitigation without rendering the developments unaffordable.

The January 30, 2025 Staff Report is included as Attachment 7; it provides extensive details regarding circumstances and unique challenges of the Project sites; the Project submittals; and evidence in the record supporting findings of denial. The focus of this staff report will be on the BR Projects revisions made on and since January 30, 2025, by the Applicant, additional evidence supporting findings of denial, and responses to major arguments raised by the Applicant in the course of submitting revised Project iterations. We will start though with some background and context for the two projects.

Summary of Project Location and Site Conditions
The BR Projects are proposed at two vacant parcels at 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive, which are also commonly referred to as Lot 1 and 3, respectively. These 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 due to the grade and alignment of the road can only support one way traffic due to its configuration and width as larger vehicles like emergency response vehicles must enter into oncoming traffic to navigate the road. Both parcels are substandard when existing local zoning objective standards are applied 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. As described in further detail in Attachment 7, the subject parcels and surrounding residences are in close proximity to the San Antonio Open Space area in the hills and are backed up against the hillside area.

ITEM 2A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Adoption of Findings for Denial Regarding 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive June 18, 2025
Figure 1. Neighborhood Map. Source: County GIS – Markup by Staff These properties 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 of an emergency evacuation, Mora Drive would be the only direct main evacuation route towards Interstate 280 and major streets.

Furthermore, Mora Drive is a challenging roadway that twists and turns through steep elevation changes as it arrives and dead ends at the BR Project sites.

Attachment 7 contains extensive descriptions of the challenges and constraints of Mora Drive; in particular, it includes an observation where, due to Mora Drive’s configuration, fire trucks of the smallest engine size have been observed crossing into oncoming traffic to navigate the roadway.

Figure 2. Emergency Access. Source: County GIS – Markup by Staff ITEM 2A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Adoption of Findings for Denial Regarding 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive June 18, 2025
As detailed in Attachment 7, Los Altos Hills has historically been an area with high exposure to wildfire risk and hazards and faces challenges during evacuations in times of natural catastrophes.

The Town has practiced evacuations in other areas of town, the saddle mountain neighborhood, with similar constraints that have demonstrated prolonged evacuation times. The Town is one of the areas with heightened exposure to elevated dangers of wildfire and the increased risk of destruction by fast-moving fires, pursuant to a 2019 fire-risk modeling analysis conducted by Michael Wara, Woods Institute for the Environment researcher and Stanford University Climate and Energy Policy Program Director. A recent wildfire-risk map developed by the Santa Clara Fire Safe Council and NASA’s Ames Research Center, and utilizes NASA satellite technology shows areas in the South Bay where the types and densities of vegetation would be expected to general embers that could ride the winds to new locations, also shows Los Altos Hills to be among the most “ember-vulnerable” cities in the South Bay.2

On February 24, 2025, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE) published updated Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps as required by Government Code section 51178 to identify areas of the state as Moderate, High, or Very High FHSZs based on consistent statewide criteria and severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas. In Los Altos Hills, the CAL FIRE FHSZ map identifies the Project site as a “High” FHSZ with heightened fire hazard risks.

As another illustration, on June 11, 2025, a vegetation fire broke out on a parcel in the 27000 block of Robe Blanco Court in Los Altos Hills. The fire occurred on a residential property, threatened the home and destroyed at least one out-building. It required both the Santa Clara County and Palo Alto Fire Departments to respond to the fire and perform emergency traffic control. As can be observed from public photos, the fire broke out in a grass land aera and quicky moved to the densely vegetated, hillside residential area, these are the very same conditions that surround the BR projects.3
2 New map shows Bay Area locations with highest risk of ember-driven wildfires, Mercury News https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2025/06/07/flying-embers-my-god-new-map-bay-area-highest-risk-firebrandwildfires/?share=daa2dwboynghreyssle2 accessed June 11, 2025. 3 Recent wildfire activity coverage from KTVU and Social Media Platform X https://www.ktvu.com/news/structures-threatened-los-altos-fire; https://x.com/sccfiredept/status/1932949541394821517?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwter m%5E1932949541394821517%7Ctwgr%5Ea329b1b0216305f4794d98108e2b1e144fe0f386%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_ url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ktvu.com%2Fnews%2Fstructures-threatened-los-altos-fire; accessed June 12, 2025.

ITEM 2A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Adoption of Findings for Denial Regarding 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive June 18, 2025

Figures 3 and 4. Robe Blanco Court June 11, 2025 Fire. Source: KTVU article and SCC Fire social media ITEM 2A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Adoption of Findings for Denial Regarding 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive June 18, 2025
On May 15, the City Council introduced an ordinance making findings and designating additional areas, including the project sites, that are located in the southern portion of the Town along the Rancho San Antonio Open Space corridor as Very High FHSZ based on the public record and supporting technical evidence that local conditions (including but not limited to geographical, weather, fire history, evacuation access, and other risk factors) warrant the designation above the CALFIRE FHSZ maps and that the statutory defensible space requirements are necessary for effective fire protection in the area.

As described in Attachment 7, the Applicant previously submitted applications to develop one single-family residence on each of the 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive lots. These prior applications sought variances and Conditional Development Permits from the Town due to the constrained lot size and the proposed developments exceeded the Town’s objective development standards, including setbacks, maximum development and floor areas. Ultimately, as discussed in Attachment 7, the Planning Commission and City Council did not approve the applications due to unique site constraints and the limited development area available on site, rendering the Town unable to make required variance and conditional development permit findings. The applications were denied without prejudice so as to not affect the property owner’s ability to refile applications for the properties. The Applicant subsequently filed applications to construct a single-family residence and an accessory dwelling unit on each of the 10728 and 10758 Mora lots pursuant to Senate Bill 9. Those projects were processed by the Town but remain incomplete pending resubmittals from the Applicant, Staff remains prepared to work with the applicant on these applications if the applicant desires to proceed and in light of new laws that went into effect since the application filings. Again, the prior application history is provided for context and is not part of what is before the Council for consideration.

Summary of BR Projects Submittals and Revisions
The Applicant submitted the BR Project applications initially in February 2023 for multi-family senior residential buildings with assisted living features for the 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive lots (CDP23-0001; CDP23-0002)4
. The preliminary application first proposed a 44-unit building on both lots, but the preliminary application was then revised in April/July 2023 to propose a 55-unit building for 10728 Mora Drive and a 57-unit building for 10758 Mora Drive. As of the January 30, 2025 public hearing, the BR Projects proposed 11 and 12 units to be reserved for low-income households respectively for the two lots, representing around 20 percent affordability for each of the Projects. Attachment 7 provides additional details regarding the Project submittals as of the January 30 hearing.

On January 30, 2025, the Applicant made significant revisions to both BR Project applications to decrease both the number of dwelling units and the percentage of affordable units. Specifically, the Applicant reduced the total density for 10728 Mora Drive from 55 units to 43 units, with 3 units reserved for extremely-low income households, and reduced the total density for 10758 Mora Drive from 57 to 45 units, with 3 units reserved for extremely-low income households. The Applicant also proposed to rely on State Density Bonus Law to achieve these total densities.

Specifically, the Applicant proposed a base density of 30 units and 13 bonus units to achieve 43 4 As noted in Attachment 7, the permit numbers were assigned for ease of identification and processing and not for the purposes of determining the type of entitlements required.

ITEM 2A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Adoption of Findings for Denial Regarding 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive June 18, 2025
units for 10728 Mora Drive, and a base density of 32 units and 13 bonus units to achieve 45 units for 10758 Mora Drive. Through these revisions, the Projects’ total unit counts have been reduced by 12 units (over 20 percent of each Project); their affordability levels have been reduced by half (from 20 percent to 9-10 percent for each Project), and their units previously available to lowincome households have been eliminated.

On May 29, 2025, the Applicant further reduced the Projects’ total units by 13 units and removed certain assisted living features from each of the buildings. As a result, the Projects now propose 30 and 32 units respectively for 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive, with 3 units reserved for extremelylow income households each, and no longer utilizes State Density Bonus Law. It should be noted that the 10728 Mora Drive plans dated May 29, 2025, also contains many discrepancies, but there is a specific discrepancy where the project description proposes 3 units reserved for extremelylow income but the density calculations table indicates 3 units for very-low income households.

The Applicant’s letter to the Town describing changes in this May resubmittal makes no mention of revising the affordability levels. The Town has asked the Applicant to clarify this discrepancy on June 11, 2025 but has received no response. Thus, although it can be reasonably assumed that this is a clerical error on the 10728 Mora Drive plans, the findings and related reports presented for this item do take the change to very-low income into account out of an abundance of caution.

With the most recent revisions in May 2025, the BR Projects have each gone through eight iterations. The following tables show the submittal dates and unit breakdown for both Project sites.

Table 1: BR Project Iterations
10728 Mora Drive
Submittal Date Market Rate Units Affordable Units Total Units February 1, 2023 35 9 44
April 12, 2023 44 11 55
July 3, 2023 44 11 55
August 29, 2023 44 11 55
November 30, 2023 44 11 55
January 30, 2025 40 3 43
February 25, 2025 40 3 43
May 29, 2025 27 3 30
10758 Mora Drive
Submittal Date Market Rate Units Affordable Units Total Units February 1, 2023 35 9 44
April 12, 2023 45 12 57
July 3, 2023 45 12 57
August 29, 2023 45 12 57
November 30, 2023 45 12 57
January 30, 2025 42 3 45
February 25, 2025 42 3 45
May 29, 2025 29 3 32
ITEM 2A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Adoption of Findings for Denial Regarding 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive June 18, 2025
As described in detail in Attachment 7, the 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 proposed to include senior residential amenities and services such as leasing/offices, tenant management, physical therapy, nail/hair salon, massage and chiropractic services, food/beverage/alcohol sales, transportation shuttles, roof deck bar, gift shop, arts and crafts, pool/pool deck,, and entertainment facilities (including exercise, laundry, TV, dining, music room, and related facilities). For 10728 Mora the units are proposed to be located on various levels of a five-story building over a two-level podium with mezzanine for total over 9 floor levels, which constitute unprecedented, high-rise buildings not present in Los Altos Hills.

For 10758 Mora the units are proposed to be located on various levels of a five-story building over a two-level podium with mezzanine for total over 10 floor levels, which constitute unprecedented, high-rise buildings not present in Los Altos Hills.

Both Projects propose 27 parking spaces (amounting to approximately 0.62 (10728 Mora Drive) and 0.79 spaces per unit (10758 Mora Drive). The proposed building at 10728 Mora Drive would contain sub-basement and basement areas totaling 4,471 square feet, podium/garage area of 10,618 square feet, mezzanine area of 4,455 square feet, level one area of 10,031 square feet, level two area of 9,449 square feet, levels 3 and 4 areas of 10,025 square feet each, and level five/roof area of 6,749 square feet for a total floor area of 65,823 square feet. The proposed building at 10758 Mora Drive would contain sub-basement and basement areas of 220 and 1,526 square feet, lower podium area of 3,328 square feet and podium/garage area of 10,798 square feet, mezzanine area of 4,597 square feet, level one area of 10,212 square feet, level 2 area of 9,632 square feet, levels 3 and 4 area of 10,206 square feet and level 5/roof area of 6,132 square feet for a total of 66,856 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 10758 Mora) of setbacks from the rear property lines. The Projects also propose hardscape encroachments into the proposed rear yards. The cover sheet of the plans shows project data, including a breakdown of uses for each level. Proposed setbacks are shown on the site plan (sheet C1). Project data being cited is from the most current set of plans received May 29, 2025.

ITEM 2A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Adoption of Findings for Denial Regarding 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive June 18, 2025
Figure 6. 10728 Mora Drive – Rendering. Source: Applicant Figure 7: 10758 Mora Drive – Rendering. Source: Applicant ITEM 2A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Adoption of Findings for Denial Regarding 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive June 18, 2025
Figure 8 illustrates the significant change in the Projects’ topography moving from the front (West) to rear (East). The rear has the steepest slope resulting in a seven-story massing.

Figure 8. 10728 Mora Drive – Building Section, May 2025 plans. Source: Applicant – Markup by Staff Table 2 below illustrates the BR Projects proposals and their similarities based on the May 29, 2025 resubmittals. Project data including a breakdown of floor area for each level, building coverage, parking and landscaping, can be found on the cover sheets of the plans. Setbacks are shown on the site plans (sheet C1). Building heights are shown on the elevations and sections (sheets A2.1, A2.2 and A3.1). As noted above and iterated in Attachment 7, the use and development proposals are nearly identical, and the sites are naturally sloped and constrained in the same manner. Table 2 also shows the Town’s baseline development standards against the Projects’ proposals.

Table 2: BR Projects Overview
Standard 10728 Mora
Proposed
(0.374 acre site)
10758 Mora
Proposed
(0.398 acre site)
Town Requirement
Density and
dwelling
units/acre
(du/ac)
30 units

80.2 du/ac
32 units

80.6 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 5 inches 80 feet 2 inches 27 feet sectional 35 feet low to high ITEM 2A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Adoption of Findings for Denial Regarding 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive June 18, 2025
Standard 10728 Mora
Proposed
(0.374 acre site)
10758 Mora
Proposed
(0.398 acre site)
Town Requirement
Maximum
Development Area
(MDA)
14,379 sf + 65,823 sf 14,396 sf +
70,665 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:
2,415 sf Maximum per LAHMC Title
10, Chapter 1, Article 5
4,500 sf Maximum w/ CDP
Maximum Floor
Area (MFA)
65,823 sf 70,665 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
As detailed in Attachment 7, the Town received, reviewed and processed the BR Project applications in accordance with its standard residential development project review procedures, in compliance with the Permit Streamlining Act (Gov. Code section 65940 et seq.)(“PSA”) and the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code section 65589.5)(“HAA”). A summary of the review timeline and determinations in this case are shown as follows.

The incomplete determinations listed below were all due to Project submittals omitting items listed on the Town’s planning application checklist, providing required reports and studies that were missing information or contained incorrect information; and not paying fees specified on the application forms and fee schedules. Each response below were provided to the Applicant within 30 days from Project submittals to the Town.
• March 3, 2023: Applications determined incomplete.
• May 11, 2023: Applications determined incomplete. (10728 revised from 44 to 55 units 4/11/23)
• August 2, 2023: Applications determined incomplete. (10758 revised from 44 to 57 units 7/3/23)
• August 31, 2023: Inconsistency determination issued (GC § 65589.5(j)(2); Table 3 below).
• September 28, 2023: Applications determined to be complete. • December 21, 2023: Town notifies Applicant that Projects are subject to CEQA. • February 28, 2025: Comments provided to Applicant regarding missing items or errors on the plans (Projects revised from 55/57 to 43/45 units on 1/30/25).

ITEM 2A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Adoption of Findings for Denial Regarding 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive June 18, 2025
• March 27, 2025: Comments provided to Applicant regarding missing items or errors on the plans.

It should be noted that the forgoing response timelines are consistent with PSA requirements and deadlines. The Town has provided timely responds to every Projects’ application submittals and returned comments regarding incomplete and inconsistent items within 30 days from submittal, as required by the PSA. Although the Town previously determined the Project applications complete in September 2023, the January 2025 resubmittals made significant changes to the BR Projects and thus necessitated further review by staff. Each round of resubmittals contained unclear, deficient, or incorrect items (such as the affordability level discrepancy in the May 2025 plans) that required further clarifications. Thus, even though staff did not identify additional items that were needed from the Town’s application checklist, it was appropriate to identify these outstanding items that needed to be addressed for review. Finally, for clarity of the record, the Town devoted considerable efforts to reviewing and processing the Projects’ resubmittals, routed the plans for consultant and fire department plan reviews and response to comments from the Applicant, and corresponding with the Applicant regarding next steps. Prior to the January 30, 2025 public hearing, the last plan set and responses the Town received from the Applicant were on November 30, 2023.

As discussed in Attachment 7, the Town provided comments to Applicant regarding the BR Projects’ consistency with Town development standards and regulations pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5 (j)(2)5
, as shown in the table below.

Table 3: 10728 Mora Drive Inconsistency with Applicable Standards Zoning and Site Development Consistency Review May 29, 2025 Project Plans 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 5 inches No
MDA 3,226 sf Maximum per
LAHMC Title 10, Chapter
1, Article 5
4,500 sf Maximum w/
CDP*
14,379 + 65,823 No
5 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 STAFF REPORT

City Council
Adoption of Findings for Denial Regarding 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive June 18, 2025
MFA 1,594 sf Maximum per
LAHMC Title 10, Chapter
1, Article 5
2,500 sf Maximum w/
CDP*
65,823 No
Density Low Density Residential 30 units

80.2 units/acre
No
Grading See Grading Policy 14 feet cut, grading within
10 feet of property line
No
Exterior Color 50 LRV walls
40 LRV roof
Color light reflectivity
values provided
Yes
*These values are not guaranteed for lots with LUF less than .50, which this parcel qualifies.

Table 4: 10758 Mora Drive Inconsistency with Applicable Standards Zoning and Site Development Consistency Review May 29, 2025 Project plans at 10758 Mora Drive
Development
Standard
Requirement Proposed/Status Compliant Yes or No
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
80 feet 2 inches No
MDA 2,415 sf Maximum per
LAHMC Title 10,
Chapter 1, Article 5
4,500 sf Maximum w/
CDP*
14,396 + 66,856 No
MFA 1,378 sf Maximum per
LAHMC Title 10,
Chapter 1, Article 5
2,500 sf Maximum w/
CDP*
66,856 No
Density Low Density Residential 32 units

80.6 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.

Further, the BR Projects are also 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, as well as being inconsistent with Land Use Policies 1.1 and 2.1 regarding maintaining a semi-rural ITEM 2A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Adoption of Findings for Denial Regarding 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive June 18, 2025
atmosphere and limiting dwelling types to single-family detached residences and secondary units.

As mentioned in Attachment 7, 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.

Fire Code Analysis and County Fire Department Review
As described in Attachment 7, the Santa Clara County Fire Department (“SCCFD” or “Fire Department”) provides plan check review for the Town. This service is provided pursuant to a three-party “Fire and Emergency Medical Services Agreement” dated December 2016 by and between the City of Los Altos, Los Altos Hills County Fire District (LAHCFD), and Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District, which is the SCCFD. The Agreement obligates SCCFD to provide services, including fire protection and plan check reviews, to the Town of Los Altos Hills and certain unincorporated areas in Santa Clara County as they are a part of the LAHCFD. (Attachment 20).

As previously set forth in Attachment 7, it is the Town’s standard practice for all development applications to route the plans to SCCFD for plan check review at the planning entitlement stage.

This is to identify significant code compliance issue and afford applicants an opportunity to address any such issues at an earlier stage. This plan review does not negate or replace subsequent building permit review. SCCFD reviews projects for compliance with the California Fire Code and associated standards and references as adopted and amended by the Town of Los Altos Hills (the “Fire Code”) during the triennial building code update process and pursuant to state law authority.

For the BR Projects, as described in Attachment 7, SCCFD reviewed and determined that the Projects are inconsistent with Section 503.1.1 of the Fire Code. Section 503.1.1 requires a fire apparatus access road to extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building. As explained in the later part of this report and Attachment 7, the BR Projects do not comply with the 150-foot requirement and the fire apparatus access road distance proposed is close to 300 feet or double the length. The Applicant has been unable to propose an alternative safety measure that demonstrate equivalent means and methods to mitigate the significant and adverse impact resulting from noncompliance with this distance requirement.

Fire Code Applicability Summary
Before turning to the details for SCCFD review, it is helpful to provide clarifications regarding how the Fire Code is adopted and applied in Los Altos Hills, in particular Section 503.1.1. The origins of the California Fire Code and Section 503.1.1 is the International Fire Code (“IFC”) which is developed by the International Code Council (“ICC"). The ICC develops model codes which are widely accepted and form the basis for building codes throughout the United States, including the State of California. The California Fire Code (“CFC”), which is set forth under Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, is entirely based on the IFC with amendments adopted ITEM 2A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Adoption of Findings for Denial Regarding 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive June 18, 2025
by the state. Specifically, Title 24 provides an “adoption matrix”6 to denote the individual provisions of the IFC that has been adopted by the State Fire Marshal and form the state fire code.

Local jurisdictions, like the Town, are required to enforce CFC provisions adopted by the State Fire Marshal but may also elect to adopt further amendments that are in addition to and more restrictive than those adopted by the State Fire Marshal.

Pursuant to Health and Safety Code (H&S) sections 17958.5 and 17958.7, the Town adopts the CFC and the IFC by reference and also additional amendments to those codes that are more restrictive than state law, as set forth in the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. This means that all provisions of the CFC and IFC, including Section 503.1.1, and any amendments thereto, are incorporated into the fire regulations applicable to Los Altos Hills. The Town has been adopting the IFC and CFC by reference since at least 2015 (see Attachment 22). Again, this means that Section 503.1.1 has been a part of the Fire Code regulations for the Town for a significant period of time. For the last triennial building code cycle in 2022, the Town again adopted these codes and amendments via Ordinance No. 607 (2022).

Together, these provisions form the applicable Fire Code for projects being carried out in Los Altos Hills. In other words, the CFC plus the local amendments to the CFC adopted by the Town (which are drawn from the IFC), governs fire code compliance in Los Altos Hills. There is no separate state fire code or otherwise that would separately apply to the Town or with which applicants may “elect” to comply. It is also important to clarify that although the Town is within the Los Altos Hills County Fire District, all of the foregoing regulatory actions were taken by the Town as an independent incorporated city. As relevant to the BR Projects, the fire apparatus road distance rule set forth in Section 503.1.1 has been part of the model code for decades and represents the outer limit of reach of preconnected hose lines from fire apparatus. As noted above, Section 503.1.1 has also been adopted and incorporated by the Town since at least 2015.

In order to adopt more restrictive local amendments to Title 24 including the CFC, pursuant to H&S Code sections 17958, 17958.7, and 18941 the Town is required to make findings that the more restrictive standard is reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions. Further, the Town is required to file the local adoption and amendments ordinance with the Building Standards Commission, in order for the ordinance to be in effect. In compliance with these rules, for the 2022 cycle the Town adopted Ordinance No. 607, made requisite findings, and timely filed the ordinance with the Commission on December 19, 2022 which the Commission later affirmed was accepted for filing (See Attachment 21). Ordinance No. 607 continued to adopt 503.1.1 along with the remainder of the IFC and the CFC; it also made amendments to the “Exceptions” portion of Section 503.1.1. The 150-foot distance requirement remains the baseline standards and is unchanged. Ordinance No. 607 was adopted on December 15, 2022 and became effective as of January 14, 2023.7
Thus, Ordinance No. 607 was in effect at
6 A review of the 2022 California Fire Code under Title 24 at https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAFC2022P3 shows the IFC is listed as the base model code and Section 503.1.1 is listed along with other Title 24 sections, although the adoption matrix indicates that Section 503.1.1 has not been adopted by the State Fire Marshal. Access to Title 24 is available only through the Building Standards Commission and the ICC, which holds a copy right to the model building code.
7 January 14, 2023 is 30 days from December 15, 2022, the date of the ordinance adoption. Typically, as stated in Ordinance No. 607, an ordinance introduced and adopted by a city goes into effect 30 days after adoption pursuant to Government Code section 36937. However, the Council notes that H&S Code section 18941.5 provides local amendments to the Building Standards Code (BSC) “shall become effective” 180 days after the Building Standards Commission publishes the BSC, which is January 1, 2023. For the purposes of a conservative narrative the January 14, 2023 date is used here. In either case, the Fire Code was adopted before Project submittals and would apply.

ITEM 2A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Adoption of Findings for Denial Regarding 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive June 18, 2025
the time the Project submitted a preliminary application first on February 1, 2023 and the revised preliminary application submitted on April 11, 2023.

SCCFD Review and Section 503.1.1 Non-compliance8
Attachment 7 contains a detailed narrative of the Fire Department’s review of the BR Projects since February 2023. In summary, SCCFD first advised Applicant in April 2023 that the BR Projects will need to comply with Section 503.1.1, and then from August 2023 to January 2024 the Department provided comments to Applicant that the BR Projects are not compliant with the 150-foot distance requirement in Section 503.1.1. At the same time in January 2024, the Fire Department directed the Applicant to revise building design or to propose mitigation measures through the “Alternate Means and Methods request” (“AMMR”) process outlined in CFC Section104.10 to mitigate excessive distance.

Subsequently, the Applicant submitted an AMMR for the 10728 Mora Drive property on March 20, 2024, and then another AMMR for the 10758 Mora Drive property on October 8, 2024. Both AMMRs proposed similar, conventional fire protection measures—sprinkler systems, fire resistance rating upgrades to certain portions of the buildings, additional standpipe outlets, separate exits and ingress/egress paths; and window/glass removals in certain portions of the building. All of these measures were rejected by SCCFD because they were either already required by the Fire Code, were only proposed for portions of the building, or actually increased fire crew travel distance and further deviating from the 150-foot distance standard. In sum, none of these alternative measures directly address the excessive distance deficiency and does not provide equivalent safety and effectiveness. These comments were provided to the Applicant between March and November 2024, affording the Applicant with ample opportunities to propose additional measures or revisions. However, the Applicant did not propose any new measures or revisions. On November 20, 2024, SCCFD denied the Applicant’s AMMR based on the foregoing rationale. Attachment 7 provides additional comprehensive overview of these exchanges and the persistent Project deficiencies; Attachments 6a and 6b provide the SCCFD AMMR determination letters.

Since the January 30, 2025 resubmittal, SCCFD has further reviewed the Applicant’s Project revisions and has affirmed the AMMR denials. These reviews and comments are summarized below:

For 10728 Mora:
• SCCFD February 27, 2025 Plan Review Comments (No. 25-0570): This letter reviews the Project’s Revision 8 dated January 28, 2025. The letter notes that the exterior dimensions and layout of the building are unchanged from the prior submittal and that therefore, the Fire Department’s ability to access the building remains unchanged. The letter refers to the previous denials and notes that the Project does not provide a fire apparatus access road within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first 8 All references to Section 503.1.1 under this subheading and elsewhere in the report are to the Fire Code, unless otherwise noted.

ITEM 2A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Adoption of Findings for Denial Regarding 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive June 18, 2025
story of the building. The letter goes on to state that the Fire Code Official did not approve an extension to the 150-foot requirement for the proposed development under Exception 1 to Section 503.1.1 as adopted and amended by the Town “due to site-specific challenges, including but not limited to the site’s topography, varying access slopes and elevations adjacent to the sides and rear of the building, and the threat of wildfire.” • SCCFD March 25, 2025 Plan Review Comments (No. 25-0960): This letter reviews the Project’s revised 43-unit proposal. It specifies that the Project continues to be inconsistent with Section 503.1.1’s 150 feet distance requirement. Specifically, the Project does not provide a fire apparatus access road within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building. Thus, the fire code official does not approve an exception to the 150-foot requirement for the same reasons. It also notes that the proposed supplemental fire protection measures (which, as shown on the plans, consists of generally similar measures to upgrade fire resistance, separate exits, and remove glass, as the previously proposed measures) do not sufficiently address these sitespecific challenges. • SCCFD June 10, 2025 Plan Review Comments (No. 25-2538): This letter reviews the Project’ May 29, 2025 submittals. The letter provides that the project remains inconsistent with California Fire Code 503.1.1 as adopted and amended by the Town of Los Altos Hills because the project does not provide a fire apparatus access road within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story building. The letter notes that the Fire Code Official did not approve an extension to the 150-foot requirement for the proposed development under Exception 1 to Section 503.1.1 due to sitespecific challenges, including but not limited to the site's topography, varying access slopes and elevations adjacent to the sides and rear of building, minimal access widths between fencing and building, a single access road on one side of the building, and the threat of wildfire. The letter also notes that the proposed supplemental fire protection measure in Revision 10 whereby Applicant proposed identifying the already proposed wet manual standpipe in the plans as meeting “NFPA-14 and SCCFD standards,” do not sufficiently address the site specific challenges as they fail to properly mitigate the risks caused by the building’s layout and siting, and do not change the Fire Code Official’s decision.

For 10758 Mora Drive:
• SCCFD February 27, 2025 Plan Review Comments (No. 25-0571): This letter reviews the Project’s revision dated January 28, 2025. The letter notes that the exterior dimensions and layout of the building are unchanged from the prior submittal and that therefore, the Fire Department’s ability to access the building remains unchanged. The letter refers to the previous denials and notes that the Project does not provide a fire apparatus access road within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building. The letter goes on to state that the Fire Code Official did not approve an extension to the 150-foot requirement for the proposed development under Exception 1 to Section 503.1.1 as adopted and amended by the Town “due to site-specific challenges, including but not limited to the site’s topography, varying access slopes and elevations adjacent to the sides and rear of the building, and the threat of wildfire.” ITEM 2A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Adoption of Findings for Denial Regarding 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive June 18, 2025
• SCCFD March 25, 2025 Plan Review Comments (No. 25-0959): This letter reviews the Project’s revised 45-unit proposal. It specifies that the Project continues to be inconsistent with Section 503.1.1’s 150 feet distance requirement. Specifically, the project does not provide a fire apparatus access road within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building. Thus, the fire code official does not approve an exception to the 150-foot requirement for the same reasons. It also notes that the proposed supplemental fire protection measures (which, as shown on the plans, consists of generally similar measures to upgrade fire resistance, separate exits, and remove glass, as the previously proposed measures) do not sufficiently address these sitespecific challenges. • SCCFD June 10, 2025 Plan Review Comments (No. 25-2537): This letter reviews the Project’ May 29, 2025 submittals. The letter provides that the project remains inconsistent with California Fire Code 503.1.1 as adopted and amended by the Town of Los Altos Hills because the project does not provide a fire apparatus access road within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story building. The letter notes that the Fire Code Official did not approve an extension to the 150-foot requirement for the proposed development under Exception 1 to Section 503.1.1 due to site-specific challenges, including but not limited to the site's topography, varying access slopes and elevations adjacent to the sides and rear of building, minimal access widths between fencing and building, a single access road on one side of the building, and the threat of wildfire. The letter also notes that the proposed supplemental fire protection measure in Revision 10 whereby Applicant proposed identifying the already proposed wet manual standpipe in the plans as meeting “NFPA-14 and SCCFD standards,” do not sufficiently address the site specific challenges because they fail to properly mitigate the risks caused by the building’s layout and siting, and do not change the Fire Code Official’s decision not to approve an extension.

As illustrated in Attachment 7, and for ease of reference here, the specific text of Section 503.1.1 requires as follows:
503.1.1 Buildings and Facilities.

Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements for this section and shall extend to within 150 feet (45,720mm) 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, ITEM 2A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Adoption of Findings for Denial Regarding 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive June 18, 2025
nonnegotiable grades or other similar conditions, an approved alternative means of fire protection shall be provided. (emphasis added.)
Essentially, the 150-foot standard requires the road, which provides fire truck access from a fire station to the building9, to be situated on the project site in a way that “wraps around” 150 feet of all portions of the proposed building exterior walls. The following figures illustrate this requirement.

Figure 9. Fire Access Travel Distance. Source: Applicant – Markup by Staff 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 ensure fire department access, limit the maximum length of hose needed to reach any point along the exterior of a building or facility from a fire department truck. The following graphic illustrates this concept. 9 A fire apparatus access road is defined by Section 202 of the Fire Code to be “a road that provides fire apparatus access from a fire station to a facility, building or portion therefor.” ITEM 2A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Adoption of Findings for Denial Regarding 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive June 18, 2025
Figure 10. Fire Access Travel Distance. Source: PyroAnalysis LLC Also, as can be seen from Figure 8, fire truck access for the entire building is limited to the narrow portion of the building fronting Mora Drive. Given that the Project sites at 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive are sloped steeply towards the rear of the parcels, firefighters must traverse the sloped area when trying to access the area where the bulk of the building is located along the sides and rear.

Access to the rear of the structure is further restricted as multiple exits for the residents are located on the sides and rear of the building either blocking or limiting fire operation or the egress of the residents. This is further illustrated in the SCCFD February 27, March 25, and June 10, 2025 comment letters that summarized why the AMMR is rejected for both Projects “due to site-specific challenges, including but not limited to the site’s topography, varying access slopes and elevations adjacent to the sides and rear of the building, and the threat of wildfire.” To the Town’s knowledge, and based on the most recent May 2025 plans, the only modification Applicant has proposed to address the deficiencies repeatedly identified by the Fire Department is in Applicant’s May 29, 2025, Response to Comments whereby it designated the previously proposed wet standpipe as “per NFPA-14 and SCCFD standards.” In making this “modification” to the plans, Applicant cites to an exception to 503.1.1 approved by the SCCFD in the City of Cupertino. There, SCCFD approved a wet standpipe for a single story 10,400 square foot belowgrade amenity structure for the Apple Park Roadway and Parking Garage. SCCFD’s approval of the AMMR for this small non-residential below grade structure in a commercial corporate park with it own security and monitoring does not compare to the high-rise multi-family residential senior project proposed on a narrow, steeply sloped lot in a heavily vegetated area at documented risk of wildfire. This point is further illustrated in the Town fire consultant report prepared by ITEM 2A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Adoption of Findings for Denial Regarding 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive June 18, 2025
PyroAnalysis LLC (Attachment 17). The Fire Department concluded the supplemental measures do not sufficiently address the site specific challenges because they fail to properly mitigate the risks caused by the building’s layout and location on site, and do not change the Fire Code Official’s decision not to approve an extension.

As noted in Attachment 7, the Project applications may present additional Building Code compliance issues that has yet to be reviewed by the Town’s Building Official. 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. This issue has not been fully addressed by the Applicant. Similarly, the most recent Project submittals suggest that the buildings are considered as “high rise” structures, which would trigger additional building code requirements. These issues have also not been fully addressed by the Applicant.

Additional review and necessary approval would also need to be done by the Building Official.

DISCUSSION
Builder’s Remedy Denial Findings (GC 65589.5(d))
As presented in Attachment 7 and the proposed Findings under Attachments 1 and 2, Government Code section 65589.5(d) requires the Town to make specific statutory findings in order to deny “Builder’s Remedy” projects. This section of the staff report discusses the two major statutory findings that are proposed for the City Council’s consideration, specifically findings under Section 65589.5(d)(2) and (6), for the denial of the BR Projects.

The Council should first understand that the Builder’s Remedy law under Section 65589.5, including subsection (d), was revised by Assembly Bill 1893 in 2024 and the revised statute went into effect on January 1, 2025. The revised Section 65589.5, among other things, does the following:
• Lowers affordability criteria for a project to utilize the Builder’s Remedy benefits; • Imposes certain minimum and maximum density criteria with which a Builder’s Remedy project must comply;
• Permits a housing development with a preliminary application dated before January 2025 to choose to be subject to the pre-2025 version of the statute, or the 2025 version of the statute (but only if it qualifies as a builder’s remedy project); • Allows the applicant with a preliminary application dated before January 2025 to revise their application so that the project can rely on the 2025 version of the Builder’s Remedy law, even if the revision is more than 20 percent of the units or square footage of the project. Recall that under typical circumstances, Government Code section 65941.1 would void a project’s preliminary application if the project makes changes to unit count or total square footage by more than 20 percent.

In his January 30, 2025 resubmittal, the Applicant specified that he elects to be subject to the provisions of Section 65589.5 as in effect on January 1, 2025, and proposes the Project revisions accordingly. The Applicant continued to cite to the new provisions of Section 65589.5 that went ITEM 2A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Adoption of Findings for Denial Regarding 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive June 18, 2025
into effect on January 1, 2025, in his subsequent submittals.

In summary, the two primary findings are:
1) The BR Projects fail to qualify as Builder’s Remedy Projects (Section 65589.5(d)(6)) As explained below, based on the January, February, and May 2025 submittals, the BR Projects propose densities that exceed the maximum allowed under state law to qualify as a builder’s remedy project. Also, because the submittals since January 2025 changed the Projects by more than 20 percent, and the Projects no longer qualify for Builder’s Remedy, the Projects are required to file new preliminary applications.

If the Projects were to file new preliminary applications, the Town would be able to deny those applications under a different section of the Builder’s Remedy statute (GC 65589.5(d)(5)) because the Town has a substantially compliant housing element and the Projects are inconsistent with general plan and zoning. 2) The BR Projects would have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate the impact without rendering the Projects unaffordable (Section 65589.5(d)(2))
Even assuming they qualify as builder’s remedy projects, the BR Projects do not comply with the distance requirement under Section 503.1.1 of the Fire Code. This requirement is an objective standard on public health and safety; the Projects’ failure to comply with it creates a specific, adverse impact as defined by statute (for example, puts the senior residents, staff, neighborhood, and community at significant and unavoidable risks of injury and death). Further, the Projects have failed to demonstrate a feasible method to mitigate the excessive distance and adverse impact with equivalent safety and effectiveness. Based on economic analyses included in the record, a reduction in building footprint as a mitigation measure for excessive distance would render the Projects unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households due to economic infeasibility.

The following sections provide additional details regarding each of the findings.

Finding #1: Section 65589.5(d)(6)- Failure to Qualify as a Builder’s Remedy Project The Project, as revised on January 30, February 25, and May 29, 2025, does not qualify as a “Builder’s Remedy project” because it fails to meet the maximum density requirements under Government Code section 65589.5(h)(11). Even if the Applicant were to choose, assuming the choice is permitted by Section 65589.5(f)(7)(B), to be subject to the provisions of Section 65589.5 as it existed on April 11, 2023, when his most recent preliminary application was submitted, the Project as revised also does not meet the affordability requirements under that prior version of Section 65589.5. Because the Project revisions submitted on January 30, February 25, and May 29, 2025 make revisions that resulted in the number of units and construction square footage changing by over 20 percent, and such changes revised the Project into a non-Builder’s Remedy development by proposing excessive density, they were not made for the purpose of revising the applications to qualify for the Builder’s Remedy. Therefore, the Project’s preliminary application—submitted on February 1, 2023 and revised on April 11, 2023—have expired. A new preliminary application was required for those revised Project submittals on January 30, February ITEM 2A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Adoption of Findings for Denial Regarding 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive June 18, 2025
25, and May 29, 2025.

The following table summarizes the maximum density requirements under Gov. Code section 65589.5(h)(11)(C) (effective January 1, 2025) to qualify as a Builder’s Remedy project, and how the BR Projects exceed the maximum density.

Maximum Density Allowed
Under GC 65589.5(h)(11)(C)
10728 Mora Drive Proposed
Base Density
10758 Mora Drive Proposed
Base Density
65 dwelling units per acre
Calculated based on [20 du/ac +
50 percent] + 35 du/ac = 20 + 10
+ 35 = 65 du/ac.
10728 Mora
65 du/ac x 0.374 acre site = 24.31
units, rounded up to 25 units
10758 Mora
65 du/ac x 0.397 acre= 25.80
units, rounded up to 26 units
The Projects’ base densities
(before density bonus) must not
be greater than 25 and 26 units,
respectively, to qualify as
Builder’s Remedy projects under
Section 65589.5(h)(11)(C).

February 2023: 44 units
April 2023: 55 units
July 2023: 55 units
August 2023: 55 units
November 2023: 55 units
January 2025: 30 units
February 2025: 30 units
May 2025: 30 units
These are base densities,
excluding application of State
Density Bonus Law. Applicant
only relied on SDBL between
January – February 2025.

These base densities exceed
state law maximum.

February 2023: 44 units
April 2023: 57 units
July 2023: 57 units
August 2023: 57 units
November 2023: 57 units
January 2025: 32 units
February 2025: 32 units
May 2025: 32 units
These are base densities,
excluding application of State
Density Bonus Law. Applicant
only relied on SDBL between
January – February 2025.

These base densities exceed
state law maximum.

Below we explain these provisions in further detail.

The finding set forth under Section 65589.5(d)(6) provides:

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.

A housing development would qualify as a “Builders’ Remedy” project if it meets, as relevant here, the following criteria under Section 65589.5(h)(11):

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 ITEM 2A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Adoption of Findings for Denial Regarding 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive June 18, 2025
application of a density bonus pursuant to Section 65915, complies with all of the following conditions:
(i) 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. (ii) Notwithstanding clause (i), the greatest allowable density shall be 35 units per acre more than the amount allowable pursuant to clause (i), if any portion of the site is located within any of the following:
(I) One-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code.
(II) A very low vehicle travel area, as defined in subdivision (h). (III) A high or highest resource census tract, as identified by the latest edition of the “CTCAC/HCD Opportunity Map” published by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and the Department of Housing and Community Development. (emphasis added.)
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 Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) or by a court of competent jurisdiction. As relevant here, HCD certified the Town’s Housing Element on May 30, 2023, while the Project preliminary applications were filed on February 1, 2023 and then revised on April 11, 2023.

As such, this Finding #1 would apply if the Project does not qualify as a “Builder’s Remedy” project defined by statute. Here, as noted above, the Applicant specified in the January 30, 2025 Project revisions that the Project elects to be subject to the provisions of Section 65589.5 as in effect on January 1, 2025 (see Attachments 8 and 9).

In reviewing the foregoing, the Project, as revised based on plans submitted on January 30, February 25, and May 29, 2025, exceeded the maximum density allowed pursuant to subsections (C)(1)(i) and (ii) based on density proposed prior to the calculations of state density bonus. Thus, the Project does not qualify as a “Builder’s Remedy” project. For the same reason, the 10758 Mora Drive project also does not qualify as a Builder’s Remedy project.

Maximum Density Requirements under Section 65589.5(h)(11)(C) Subsection (h)(11)(C), the applicable statutory provision here, first requires a Builder’s Remedy project to have a density, as calculated before applying density bonus under Gov. Code section 65915, that does now exceed the greatest of the following densities:
(1) 50 percent more than the minimum density for a housing inventory site required for Los Altos Hills by Government Code section 65583.2(c)(3)(B); ITEM 2A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Adoption of Findings for Denial Regarding 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive June 18, 2025
(2) Three times the density allowed by the Town’s General Plan, Zoning, or state law, whichever is greater; or
(3) The density consistent with what is specified in the Town’s Housing Element.

Additionally, if the project site is located in any of the following areas, the greatest allowable density under Subsection (h)(11)(C) will be another 35 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) more than the density allowed under (1) – (3) above:
(A)One-half mile of a major transit stop as defined under Public Resources Code section 21064.3 (i.e. an existing rail or bus rapid transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or two or more major bus route intersections with 20 minutes or less service intervals during peak commute hours);
(B) A very low vehicle travel area, as defined in Section 65589.5(h)10; or (C) A high or highest resource census tract, as identified by the latest edition of the “CTCAC/HCD Opportunity Map” published by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and the Department of Housing and Community Development.

Under Subsection (h)(11)(C)’s first prong above, the greatest allowable density under Items (1) – (3) would be 20 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) pursuant to Gov. Code section 65583.2(c)(3)(B), identified in Item (1). As the Council will recall, this is the density applicable to the Town under Housing Element Program A-1, multi-family rezoning and sets the requisite level of density for creating a multi-family rezone and overlay zones.

This is because Los Altos Hills is a “suburban jurisdiction” under subsection (c)(3)(B), and the applicable minimum housing element site inventory density is 20 du/ac. Specifically, Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B) provides that for a suburban jurisdiction, the requisite density deemed suitable for an inventory site is 20 du/ac; for a jurisdiction in a metropolitan county, the requisite density is 30 du/ac. To determine whether a jurisdiction is considered suburban or metropolitan, Section 65583.2(e) and (f) provide the following criteria as relevant here:
• A jurisdiction shall be considered suburban if it is not an incorporated city within a nonmetropolitan county a nonmetropolitan county that has a micropolitan area , or an unincorporated area in a nonmetropolitan county (all as determined by the U.S. Census Bureau) and is located in a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) of less than 2 million in population. However, if the jurisdiction’s population is greater than 100,000, it would be considered metropolitan. (Section 65583.2(e)(1).)
• A jurisdiction shall be considered metropolitan if it does not meet the requirements for “suburban area” above and is located in an MSA of 2,000,000 or greater in population.

However, if that jurisdiction’s population is less than 25,000, it will be considered suburban. (Section 65583.2(f).)
10 For clarity, the original statutory text states “subdivision (h)” which it assumes to mean subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5; however, that subdivision (h) does not define a very low vehicle travel area and thus it’s unclear what this term means unless it is assumed that said definition takes after the same term used under Section 65589.5.1. However, given that the Town is located in a high resource area under Item (C), this discrepancy is not relevant here.

ITEM 2A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Adoption of Findings for Denial Regarding 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive June 18, 2025
In reviewing the foregoing, Los Altos Hills is a jurisdiction located in an MSA of 2,000,000 or greater in population (i.e. Santa Clara County) based on the 2020 U.S. Census data. The population for Los Altos Hills is less than 25,000—its population is 8,489 based on the 2020 Census. 11 Therefore, it is considered a suburban jurisdiction for the purposes of Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B).

This conclusion is reflected in more detail in the 2022 HCD Memo Regarding GC 65583.2 Density (Attachment 16).

It follows then that the other densities specified in Items (2) and (3) are not greater than 20 du/ac— namely, the only density currently allowed under the Town’s General Plan and Zoning (which contains only the R-A district designation) is one unit per acre, and there are no state laws that would allow an increase to more than 20 du/ac even if laws like Senate Bill 9, Senate Bills 648/1123, or State Accessory Dwelling Unit laws were utilized. Likewise, the Project parcel is not listed in the Housing Element site inventory for 2023-2031, nor is it an opportunity site identified in the Housing Element. Thus, the 1 du/ac standard under the Town’s General Plan and zoning would apply.

Under the second prong, the Project sites are not located within one-half mile of a major transit stop or a very low vehicle travel area as there are no such transit facilities that exist in the Projects’ vicinity, and the Projects are located in a semi-rural setting substantially surrounded by open space and sporadic single-family uses. The Project sites, however, are within a “High Resource” area under the 2025 CTCAC/HCD Opportunity Map.12 Thus, based on the foregoing two prongs, the greatest density allowed for the Project sites under Section 65589.5(h)(11)(C) would be [20 du/ac + 50 percent] + 35 du/ac = 65 du/ac. Applying this density to the 0.374 acre 10728 Mora site, the maximum density allowed for the Project under the Builder’s Remedy is 24.31 units— or 25 units after rounding up. For the 0.397 acre 10758 Mora site, the maximum density allowed is 25.80 units — or 26 units rounding up.

The Projects exceed Section 65589.5(h)(11)(C) density
In this case, the Applicant’s revised Project plans for 10728 Mora Drive dated January 30, 2025 proposes a base density of 80 du/ac, which is calculated based on [30 du/ac + 50 percent] + 35 du/ac. This translates to 30 units (29.92 units rounding up) base density for the Project. This base density, which is the number before applying any state density bonus, exceeds the maximum allowable density of 65 du/ac (25 units) for 10728 Mora Drive under Section 65589.5(h)(11)(C)(i) and (ii). For 10758 Mora Drive, the base density is also 80 du/ac and translates to 31.76 = 32 base units. This base density likewise exceeds the 26-unit maximum base density allowed under statute.

When reviewing the submitted plans it shows that the Applicant applied the incorrect 30 du/ac density under Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(B)(3) to calculate the base density, resulting in a number that exceeds the maximum allowed under Section 65589.5(h)(11)(C). The revised Project plans dated February 25, 2025 maintain the same base density of 80 du/ac, or 30/32 base units. The further revised Project plans dated May 29, 2025 continues to maintain the 30-/32-unit base density.
11 https://data.census.gov/all?q=Los%20Altos%20Hills%20town,%20California accessed June 12, 2025. 12 Adopted December 2024 and located at https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity.asp; https://belonging.berkeley.edu/2025-ctcachcd-affh-mapping-tool-nc (accessed May 1, 2025) ITEM 2A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Adoption of Findings for Denial Regarding 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive June 18, 2025
The Town previously requested the Applicant to confirm how the Projects’ density was calculated in its Comment Letters dated February 28 and March 27, 2025, but the Applicant has not responded in any of the Project resubmittals nor provided correct calculations. The Applicant merely responded in his May 29, 2025 resubmittal that a typographical error previously identified by the Town has been corrected and that “the total number of units has been reduced” by eliminating density bonus units. The resubmittal maintains the 30/32 units base density, which exceeds the maximum prescribed by state law. Therefore, since Section 65589.5(d)(6) and (h)(11) are applicable statutes, and the Project densities exceeds the maximum density allowed by subsection (h)(11), the Projects fail to qualify as a Builder’s Remedy project.

For the purposes of a conservative review, the Projects have been revised to reduce its affordable housing component from the initial 20 percent low-income affordability (11 units/13 units) to the current 9-10 percent extremely-low income affordability (3 units). Under the provisions of Government Code section 65589.5(d) as it existed on April 11, 2023, a project would only qualify for Builder’s Remedy if it set aside at least 20 percent of the total units for lower income households or 100 percent of the total units for moderate income households. As such, the Projects as revised would not qualify as Builder’s Remedy projects under Section 65589.5(d) as it existed on April 11, 2023.

The February 1 and April 11, 2023 preliminary applications have expired as of January 30, 2025, pursuant to government code section 65941.1(d)
Under Government Code section 65941.1(d), a preliminary application expires if the developer revises project units or square footage by 20 percent or more, exclusive of any increases from Density Bonus Law. Government Code section 65589.5(f)(7) provides an exception for this rule where a housing project that submitted a preliminary application before January 1, 2025, may be revised by more than 20 percent in units or square footage in order to qualify as a Builder’s Remedy project without having to resubmit a preliminary application.

In this case, the Applicant revised the Projects by more than 20 percent with the January 30, 2025 resubmittal. The Projects were significantly revised to decrease both the number of dwelling units and the percentage of affordable units. Specifically, the Applicant reduced the total 10728 Mora density from 55 units to 43 units, with 3 units reserved for extremely-low income households (or very-low income, but likely a clerical error) which equates to 10 percent project affordability pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(h)(3)(C). The Applicant reduced the total 10758 Mora density from 57 units to 45 units, with 3 units reserved for extremely-low income households which equates to 9 percent project affordability pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(h)(3)(C). These revisions propose a base density of 30/32 units and 13 additional units through the application of State Density Bonus Law, totaling 43/45 units. These revisions represent an approximately 21-22 percent reduction in total density and a 10 percent reduction in project affordability. They also completely eliminated any affordable units originally offered to lowincome households. Similarly, the May 29, 2025 reduction in density also represents an approximately 30 percent further change in the number of units, reducing the unit count from 43 to 30/45 to 32.

All of these changes resulted in density that exceeded the maximum allowable density under the ITEM 2A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Adoption of Findings for Denial Regarding 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive June 18, 2025
Builder’s Remedy statute, and thus these Project revisions were not made to qualify the Project as a Builder’s Remedy development. The Applicant has not made any corrections nor responded to the Town’s comments requesting clarification on Project density. Instead, the Applicant maintained the same base density in three rounds of resubmittals on and since January 30, 2025.

The Applicant also stated in his May 29, 2025 resubmittal to the Town that the total number of units have been reduced by eliminating state density bonus units, but the base density remains unchanged. Thus, the Projects continue to propose the excessive 30/32 units base density exceeding the maximum density allowed under state law.

Therefore, pursuant to Government Code section 65941.1(d), the preliminary applications submitted on February 1, 2023 for the Projects were replaced by the April 11, 2023 preliminary application based on a 20 percent change in Project base unit counts, and the April 11, 2023 preliminary applications have expired due to the 20 percent change in Project unit counts pursuant to the January 30, February 25, and May 29, 2025 revisions. Therefore, new preliminary applications are required (and would have been required at the time of the January 30, 2025 resubmittal) for the Project revisions.

It should be noted, additionally, that to the extent that the Projects submit a preliminary application for its January 30, February 25, and May 29, 2025 revisions, those submittals would be inconsistent with both the Los Altos Hills General Plan and Zoning Code as no multi-family or high density development is allowed under these regulations, and the Project sites are not included in the Town’s 2023-2031 Housing Element site inventory. The Los Altos Hills 2023-2031 Housing Element was certified by HCD on May 30, 2023, and thus a preliminary application submitted after that time would be appropriately denied under Section 65589.5 given that the February 1, 2023 preliminary applications have been replaced by the April 11, 2023 preliminary applications (since it introduced a 20 percent unit count change to the Projects, as acknowledged by the Applicant) and the April 11, 2023 preliminary applications have expired, as set forth above.

Finding #2: Section 65589.5(d)(2)- Specific, Adverse Impact which cannot be feasibly mitigated without rendering the Projects unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households Attachment 7 sets forth, in extensive detail, the reasons that the Projects are not compliant with the 150-foot fire apparatus road access distance requirement. It also accounts for how the Projects’ failure to comply with Section 503.1.1’s 150-foot distance requirement creates a specific, adverse impact as defined by statute, and that the Projects’ failure to propose feasible alternatives to satisfactorily mitigate such impact demonstrates that there is no feasible mitigation without rendering the Projects unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households. In addition to the discussion in Attachment 7, the Project revisions made and circumstances since January 30, 2025 continue to support this finding under Section 65589.5(d)(2). To illustrate, the Projects’ January, February and May 2025 revisions continue to propose the same building footprint and depth to occupy over 80 percent of the lot area on each of the two parcels. There has not been any physical improvements made to reduce the building depth in order to mitigate the excessive distance requirement.

Additionally, the Projects continue to propose similar conventional, supplemental fire safety measures such as fire sprinklers, maintaining defensible space, and enhanced construction ITEM 2A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Adoption of Findings for Denial Regarding 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive June 18, 2025
materials. These measures are the same or substantially similar to those previously reviewed and rejected by SCCFD as a part of the November 2024 denial. The Projects have not proposed any safety alternatives that would provide means and methods to satisfactorily mitigate the specific adverse impacts resulting from the excessive distance. The specific adverse impact and the failure to present satisfactory, equivalent mitigation measures are further analyzed in the report prepared by PyroAnalysis, LLC, included as Attachment 17. As reflected by the Fire Department’s 2025 comment letters, for example, the Projects’ location in a remote and steep hillside area as well as its geographical, topographical, and 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 significant adverse impacts to the Projects’ residents, in particular where the Projects target the senior population with high chances of experiencing impaired mobility and health conditions, cannot be discounted.

Furthermore, as explained in Attachment 7, the Town’s Building Official previously provided an initial affordability analysis to evaluate potential scenarios where the Project buildings would be redesigned to reduce square footage in order to address the excessive distance issue. Specifically, the analysis estimated that the Project would need to remove approximately 8,284 square feet of building area to accommodate the additional fire access road distance. It also estimated that the most feasible approach is likely for the Project to remove a combination of market-rate and belowmarket rate (BMR) units for low-income. It should be noted that this point is acknowledged by the Applicant in his January 2025 resubmittals, where he states that the number of BMR units are a direct percentage of the number of market rate units, so that if market rate units are removed, the number of BMR units would also be reduced. This initial affordability analysis concluded, conservatively assuming that no other code revision or cost issues arise, that the Project is not estimated to achieve a rate of return and would continue to carry costs for a significant number of years (8-9 years), demonstrating infeasibility.

The Town further engaged the services of Century | Urban, a well known real estate advisory firm, to conduct a Feasibility Analysis (Attachment 24), examining the revised Projects submitted in February and May 2025. This feasibility study reviewed factors and metrics such as construction costs, economic conditions, market rent trends, and return-on-cost (i.e. net operating income over the total development cost) to determine whether the Project can achieve a market return and what the Project’s “residual land value”—the maximum amount a developer can pay for a development site and achieve a market rate return—would be, in order to demonstrate feasibility.

The Feasibility Analysis evaluated the Project under a base development scenario with BMR units, a “reduced development” scenario with reduced building design and with BMR units, and both of those scenarios without BMR units assuming they were removed to maintain Project development.

The Feasibility Analysis concluded that even without BMR units, the Project already does not achieve returns consistent with market returns which suggests that the project would be challenging to attract capital and financing for development, and that unit rents for the proposed affordable units would need to exceed market levels, effectively rendering those units unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households in particular for the “reduced” scenarios where the Projects are redesigned to reduce building depth and square footage to mitigate the excessive distance issue. As detailed in Attachment 24, the study also evaluated the May 2025 Project ITEM 2A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Adoption of Findings for Denial Regarding 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive June 18, 2025
submittal for 10728 Mora Drive by taking into account the discrepancy on very-low income units versus extremely-low income units. Even assuming a very-low income unit proposal (which staff notes is likely not the case and is only a clerical typo), the study results demonstrate that such Project scenario remains infeasible.

Consequently, based on these economic analyses, the Projects are already infeasible under its base development scenario and reducing the building square footage to address the Fire Code 150-foot standard most likely results in the reduction of dwelling units, which impedes the Projects’ 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 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 low and moderate income households.

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 such impact without rendering the Projects unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(d)(2).

Response to Applicant’s Additional Legal Arguments
To further assist the City Council with adoption of denial findings and in support of the record, staff has reviewed additional primary arguments raised by the Applicant as a part of his resubmittals and responds to them in this next section. Specifically, the Applicant’s attorney submitted a lengthy letters dated January 30, 2025 and on February, 25, 2025 asserting, among other things, that (1) Section 503.1.1 could not be applied to the project because it is not part of the California Fire Code; (2) that Section 503.1.1 is not an objective standard and therefore may not be applied to the projects; and (3) that Section 503/503.1.1 is not in effect because the Los Altos Hills Ordinance 607 was not filed with the California Department of Housing and Community Development.13
Section 503.1.1 is Applicable to the Projects
As set forth above, the applicable Fire Code in Los Altos Hills includes the CFC, the IFC and local amendments. This code structure is specifically authorized by state law and was adopted and implemented by the Town pursuant to that authority and findings made. Section 503.1.1 is thus applicable to the BR Projects as it was adopted an in effect prior to the submittal of Project preliminary applications. Additionally, there is nothing in the Builder’s Remedy statute that prohibits application of locally adopted building or fire code requirements. Rather, the statute 13 Applicant’s attorney has also argued in a footnote that that the Fire Code as adopted and amended by the Town violates the Housing Crisis Act provisions set forth in Government Code section 66300 which prohibits a county or city from “changing a land use designation, specific plan land use designation or zoning district. . . below what was allowed under the land use designation or zoning ordinances on January 1, 2018 or imposing or enforcing design standards established after January 1, 2020 that are not objective design standards. (Government Code section 66300 (b)(1)(A) and (b)(1)(C).) However, the Town’s Fire Code is not a “land use designation, specific plan use designation or zoning” or a “design standard” to which the statute applies. Moreover, section 503.1 has been part of the Town’s Fire Code since at least 2015. Thus, these Housing Crisis Act provisions do not apply.

ITEM 2A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Adoption of Findings for Denial Regarding 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive June 18, 2025
requires such standards to be based on objective, identified written public health and safety standards in existence when the preliminary application was submitted. As discussed further below, Section 503.1.1 represents objective measurable standard and as such it applies to the Project.

Section 503.1.1 150-foot Distance Is An Objective Standard Section 65589.5 defines “objective standards” as standards that “involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being 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.” Here, the 150-foot distance requirement under Section 503.1.1 is an objective and quantifiable numeric standard; it 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 IFC’s model code based on measurable technical factors like hose reach, water flow requirements and tactical response needs. This standard has been adopted by the Town through the authority conferred and process set forth under Health and Safety Code sections 17958 and 17958.7, and was in effect prior to the Project preliminary application submittals of February 1, 2023 and April 11, 2023. As such, it is an applicable standard for the Projects.

It is clear that the Projects lack of fire access road that fails to meet Section 503.1.1 because it does not provide a fire apparatus access road that extends to within 150 feet of all portions of the proposed residential building and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building.

This inconsistency is a numeric deficiency and does not require any exercise of judgment or subjective evaluation on the part of the reviewing body. In other words, as noted on Figures 8 and 9 above and in the Project plans, the proposed fire apparatus access situated at the front of the parcel and proposed buildings does not extend to allow firefighters and hoses to reach all sides of the buildings including the rear within the required 150 feet distance. The bulk of the building is beyond the 150 foot distance and contains only narrow 5-foot side setbacks on a steeply sloped lot. Of note, there are also certain encroachments, like stair hand rails that limit access to 44 inches, that extend into the setbacks further narrowing accessible space. Instead, the Applicant has proposed to increase the travel distance to 300 feet which is double the distance required. This increase is proposed on a narrow, steeply sloped lot in a densely vegetated hillside area of the Town on a roadway where due to the grade and alignment of the road can only support one way traffic as larger vehicles like emergency response vehicles must enter into oncoming traffic to navigate the road. The combination of these factors plus challenging site terrain make is dangerous for firefighters and residents in the event of an emergency. The Project’s failure to satisfy this 150- foot distance requirement significantly impedes the ability of firefighters to have sufficient water hose length to efficiently deploy firefighting resources, thereby creating a significant safety risk and dangers of substantial injury and death for both the firefighters and the residents and staff of the building.

The Town Validly Adopted the California Fire Code With Local Amendments and the Subject Amendments were not a Fire Protection District Ordinance.

ITEM 2A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Adoption of Findings for Denial Regarding 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive June 18, 2025
Applicant erroneously argues that the Los Altos Hills Ordinance 607 is a fire protection district ordinance pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 13869.7 and as such was required to be filed with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) to become effective. H&S Code Section 13869.7 sets forth a procedure for when a “fire protection district” proposes to adopt an ordinance that will apply to a city or county. A fire protection district proposing such an ordinance shall, at least 30 days prior to the public hearing, provide a copy of the ordinance to the local jurisdictions within the district so they may provide the district with written comments. Upon adoption of the ordinance by the district, the fire protection district is required to transmit the adopted ordinance to the local jurisdiction. The legislative body of the local jurisdiction then has 15 days to either ratify, modify or deny the adopted ordinance. No ordinance adopted by the fire protection district becomes effective unless ratified by the local agency. Upon ratification, the adopted ordinance must be filed with HCD.

In contrast, H&S Code section 17958, 17958,7, and 18941.5 provide for a separate procedure pursuant to which a city or county may adopt changes to the Building Standards Code under Title 24, including the California Fire Code, by making findings that such modifications or changes are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions. These findings and the code modifications must be filed with the Building Standards Commission and are not effective until filed (see Attachment 19). As opposed to a fire protection district, codes and modifications adopted by cities pursuant to this independent authority do not require filing with HCD or a state agency other than the Building Standards Commission.

Here, Section 503.1.1 was adopted by the Town pursuant to its authority as an incorporated city under H&S Code sections 17958, 17958.7, and 18941.5, based on findings of local climatic, geographic, and topographical conditions. The codes adopted by references and amended based on local findings are clearly set forth under Ordinance No. 607, which also specified it is being adopted pursuant to H&S Code sections 17958, 17958.7, and 18941.5. There was no fire protection district or local jurisdiction ratification action that took place. There was no fire protection district that adopted an ordinance applicable to the Town, no adopted fire protection district ordinance that was transmitted to Los Altos Hills for ratification, and no action by Los Altos Hills on such an ordinance.

Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District had adopted an ordinance, such ordinance would not be applicable to Los Altos Hills as Los Altos Hills is outside the boundaries of the district whose jurisdictional boundaries encompass the cities of Cupertino, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, a portion of Saratoga and certain unincorporated areas. Instead, Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District serves as Los Altos Hills’ contract fire protection agency pursuant to the parties’ 2016 Fire and Emergency Medical Services Agreement. This Agreement makes clear that Los Altos Hills retains all of its authority to promulgate, adopt, and apply/rule on disputes for its codes. See Attachment 20 and sections 3.2.3,

3.2.4 as an example.

Instead, Los Altos Hills consulted Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District on the proposed amendments per Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District ’s role as the contract fire agency for the Town. As specifically identified in Ordinance No. 607, Los Altos Hills adopted its local amendments to the California Fire Code pursuant to H&S Code sections 17958, ITEM 2A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Adoption of Findings for Denial Regarding 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive June 18, 2025
17958.7, and 18941.5, which specifically authorizes cities and counties to adopt amendments to the California Building Standards Code upon making requisite findings that the more restrictive standard is reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions.

Ordinance No. 607 made these findings and was properly adopted by the Town. Ordinance No. 607 was then timely filed with the Building Standards Commission on December 19, 2022.

Thus, the Fire Code regulations were validly adopted by the Town. These regulations, inclusive of Section 503.1.1, were adopted and in effect prior to the Projects’ initial preliminary applications filed on February 1, 2023 and revised on April 11, 2023. As further explained above, Section 503.1.1 represents an objective standard designed to promote and protect health and safety within the Town. Therefore, it applies to the Projects and Applicant’s procedural arguments are invalid.

Report by PyroAnalysis, LLC
The Town of Los Altos Hills retained the services of PyroAnalysis to review the projects for the Town. PyroAnalysis principal consultant, Shane Lauderdale, performed the review. Mr.

Lauderdale has over 30 years’ experience as a fire professional and regularly consults with public agencies throughout California on code compliance. In the report dated June 13, 2025 (Attachment 17), PyroAnalysis identified the critical fire safety issues with the Projects and agreed with SCCFD’s determination. These conclusions in the report further support the foregoing findings and responses.

The PyroAnalysis report describes the Projects as either a high-rise or the functional equivalent of a high-rise development, located in a constrained fire prone area with limited emergency access.

The report notes that the steep slopes, served by a narrow 5 foot wide exterior walkway and stairways, combustible landscaping and dense riparian vegetation at the rear of the buildings pose a fire risk for the occupants of the dwelling.

The report discusses the well-known demographic risks associated with senior citizens, the intended occupants of the structure. As set forth in the report, according to the U.S. Fire Administration, individuals aged 65 and over faced a fire death rate 2.5 times more likely to die in a fire compared to the general population. The risk escalates with age. Between 2014 to 2023, the fire death rate for adults over 65 increased by 26 percent.

Among the factors leading to heightened vulnerability for seniors are reduced mobility, cognitive impairment, sensory limitations such as hearing, and medical dependencies. The PyroAnalysis Report references recent fires that have sadly confirmed the acute vulnerability of a senior population:
• Most of the 18 fatalities recorded in the 2025 Eaton Fire in Southern California were 65 or older, with the average age being 74.
• During the 2023 Maui wildfires, over two-thirds of the 102 confirmed deaths were individuals aged 60 and older. Some lived in older structures with poor egress; others failed to receive evacuation orders or physically could not escape in time. • In the 2022 Mill Fire in Weed, California, two elderly women were among the fatalities, illustrating that even relatively small fires can be deadly when evacuation timing or support ITEM 2A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Adoption of Findings for Denial Regarding 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive June 18, 2025
is inadequate.
• In the 2020 East Troublesome Fire in Colorado, an elderly couple aged 86 and 84 perished in their home after choosing not to evacuate—a common issue when communication or trust in emergency messaging is lacking.
• In the 2018 Camp Fire, which destroyed the town of Paradise, California, 67 of the 85 confirmed fatalities were aged 65 and older
PyroAnalysis concludes that the proposed Projects “raise critical life safety concerns, particularly for high acuity residents.”
The PyroAnalysis report also provides a thorough analysis of Section 503 (inclusive of 503.1.1) and confirms that the life safety function of Section 503 is establishing prescriptive site access criteria reflecting the operational realities of fireground response. The report states: “[m]ost engines are equipped with pre-connected attack lines of 150 feet, and that distance defines the outer limit of rapid intervention without requiring time-consuming hose extensions. Once that limit is exceeded the speed and efficiency of initial fire attach are compromised.” The PyroAnalysis report confirmed SCCFD’s denial of the AMMR, concluding that the AMMR proposed by Applicant did not demonstrate equivalent fire protection or fulfil the purposes of 503.1.1 in that Applicant did not provide the following:
• A credible analysis proving that fire hose deployments and egress times would remain within acceptable thresholds; Greater time is required to deploy a high-rise bundle or adaptors and wildland fire hose from a remote standpipe than from a fire engine positioned within 150 feet of all portions of the building
• That firefighters deploying hose lines down the stairways to protect the building and occupants from a wildland fire would not be placed in harm’s way. • Engineered fire flow analyses or staffing models accounting for high-occupancy rescue in limited access conditions.

The report noted that Applicant’s proposal to provide measures like NFPA 13-compliant fire sprinklers; defensible space and landscaping; staff emergency training; enhanced construction materials; and external standpipe, did not meet performance expectations and would not obviate the need for timely fire crew access. The report concludes the measures “offer no substitute for recue capability when residents are trapped in areas unreachable by ladders or hose line.” PyroAnalysis emphasized that the concerns are heightened because the Projects are located in a CALFIRE designated high fire hazard severity zone with steep slopes and vegetated ravines. The sites also lack a secondary access route and is constrained in ways that limit firefighting logistics and resident evacuation. The report concludes:
“In short, the project’s fire proposed protection measures are either already required by the code or of limited value in addressing the fact that the proposed design does not meet minimum fire code requirements. The proposed alternatives, including the installation of ITEM 2A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Adoption of Findings for Denial Regarding 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive June 18, 2025
exterior standpipe connections, are grossly inadequate when evaluated against the integrated fire risk posed by the site’s topography, limited access, and resident vulnerabilities. These conditions collectively justify the fire official’s conclusion that the project does not meet the intent or the letter of Section 503.1.1, nor does it qualify for an alternate means exception under CFC Section 104.10.”
PyroAnalysis also reviewed the report prepared by Applicant’s fire consultant Carol Rice with Wildland Resources Management in the letter dated January 2025 as a part of the Applicant’s January 30, 2025 resubmittal. PyroAnalysis identified the following deficiencies in the Wildland Resource Management’s analysis:
• Inadequate consideration to the evacuation limitations posed by the singular access to the proposed multistory building, noting that recent fire incidents such as Paradise (2018) and Lahaina (2023) demonstrate that the single-route evacuation corridors frequently result in severe congestion, delayed emergency response, and fatalities, risks further amplified for seniors.
• Erroneously concludes that building code compliance fully addresses fire risk and would relieve the projects from meeting the required fire apparatus access road distance.

Erroneously equates code compliance to sufficient equivalency measures to offset site access limitations with no differentiation between internal fire suppression measures and essential external operational access needed for rescue and firefighting. • Erroneously concludes that SCCFD can effectively respond to emergencies at the projects ignoring site conditions such as the steep slope and building heights and ignoring that a response to a fire in a multi-story facility would involve multiple engines and truck companies, including an initial assignment of 42-50 firefighters to deploy hose lines, conduct search operations to extend ground ladders involving multiple engines and truck companies, with such response being compromised by the single point of fire department apparatus.
• Omits any discussion of key demographic data specific to the targeted senior residents. • Erroneously concludes that development of the project converts the project site from high hazard area to a no hazard zone as that fails to account for ember cast and wildland fire behavior and the vegetation, climate and topography of the surrounding area.

In summary, PyroAnalysis concludes that Wildland Resource Management significantly underestimates critical site-specific hazards, inadequately addresses access limitations, and neglects important demographic risks. Further, it provides no empirical validation that the measures proposed by Applicant would meet the objectives of Section 503.1.1 fire apparatus requirements.

More importantly, it is the Town’s position that the California Building Standards Code reserves the right to make specific interpretations of code such as those provided by Wildland Resource Management for the Building and Fire Officials for the authority having jurisdiction, i.e. Los Altos Hills. So, any interpretations offered by Wildland Resource Management have no legal standing in matters of public safety covered by building and fire code.

Attachments 1 and 2 are Resolutions making findings in further detail for the 10728 and 10758 ITEM 2A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Adoption of Findings for Denial Regarding 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive June 18, 2025
Mora Drive BR Projects, respectively. In order to deny the BR Projects, the City Council must adopt these resolutions to make the written findings contained therein, based on the entirety of the record and a preponderance of the evidence therein.

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.

Staff notes that the Applicant did submit an “AB 1633 Notice” on February 25, 2025 citing to Government Code section 65589.5.1 arguing that the Town must find the Project qualifies for a Class 32 In-Fill Development exemption under CEQA Guidelines section 15332. The Applicant also argues that because the BR Projects were filed under the Builder’s Remedy, they are ministerial and would be exempt from CEQA.

As the City Council is denying the BR Projects, no further CEQA action would be required; however, even if the Town were allowing the BR Projects to move forward and were thus required to make CEQA determinations pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(e) and the Public Resources Code, the Town would require additional biological, traffic, noise, air quality, water quality, utility and public services analyses to determine whether the criteria under Section 15332 have been met. The Town would also require additional analysis to evaluate whether the Project meets the location and zoning consistency requirements under Section 15332. Further, the Town would require such additional analysis and further evaluations to determine whether there are “exceptions” to the exemption under CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 that precludes reliance on the Infill Exemption as the Town anticipates the proposed senior residential development would need to prepare either a mitigated negative declaration for the significant and unusual impacts it potentially brings given the size and scale of the project proposals. The City Council need not address those issues under CEQA as a part of the hearing.

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 and also to Applicant’s second address on the Project applications – June 6, 2025 • Posted at the project sites – June 6, 2025
• Public Posting Places – June 6, 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 – June 13, 2025 (publication of agenda materials)
To date, staff has not received public comment regarding the proposed project. Public comment ITEM 2A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Adoption of Findings for Denial Regarding 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive June 18, 2025
received after publication of the staff report but before the June 18, 2025 City Council meeting will be forwarded to the Council and published as a supplemental document in the agenda.

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 two senior residential development projects located at 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive (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 (February and April 2023)

4. Town Community Development Project Comment Letters
a. 10728 Mora Drive dated March 3, 2023; May 11, 2023; August 2, 2023; August 31, 2023; September 28, 2023; December 21, 2023; February 28, 2025, and March 27, 2025 b. 10758 Mora Drive dated March 3, 2023; May 11, 2023; August 2, 2023; August 31, 2023; September 28, 2023; December 21, 2023; February 28, 2025, and March 27, 2025

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 & March 25, 2025
b. 10758 Mora Drive dated April 5, 2023; April 25, 2023; August 14, 2023; September 27, 2023; January 31, 2024 & March 25, 2025

6. Santa Clara County Fire Department Project AMMR Reponses 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. January 30, 2025 City Council Public Hearing Staff Report

8. 10728 Resubmittals (January, February, May 2025)
a. Applicant Responses to Town Comments (February and March 2025)

9. 10758 Resubmittals (January, February, May 2025)
a. Applicant Responses to Town Comments (February and March 2025)

10. Town Consistency Analysis and Unit Mixes
a. 10728 Mora Drive Review
b. 10758 Mora Drive Review

11. June 18, 2025 Public Hearing Notice and Prior Continuances ITEM 2A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Adoption of Findings for Denial Regarding 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive June 18, 2025

12. Town Comment Letters- 10728 Mora 2025 Submittals

13. Town Comment Letters- 10758 Mora 2025 Submittals

14. Santa Clara County Fire Department Project Comment Letters- 10728 Mora 2025 Submittals

15. Santa Clara County Fire Department Project Comment Letters- 10758 Mora 2025 Submittals

16. State Housing and Community Development Department Memo: GC 65583.2 Density

17. PyroAnalysis Fire Code Safety and Analysis Report (June 13, 2025)

18. Ordinance No. 607

19. Building Standards Commission 2022 Guide to Title 24

20. SCCFD Fire and Medical Services Agreement

21. Building Standards Commission Correspondence re Ordinance 607

22. Prior Los Altos Hills Building Code Adoption Ordinances

23. Town Affordability Analysis (January 30, 2025)

24. Century | Urban Feasibility Analysis (June 12, 2025)

25. Public Comments received as of January 30, 2025

26. 10728 and 10758 Mora Drives Project Plans and Submittals (2023-2025) Physical copy of most recent plans (May 2025)- City Council Only All plans and submittals are on file with the Community Development Department for review ITEM 2A STAFF REPORT

Resolution Page 1
RESOLUTION NO.

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

HILLS MAKING FINDINGS OF DENIAL PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65589.5(d) AND DENYING A SENIOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (CDP23-0001) LOCATED AT 10728

MORA DRIVE, LOS ALTOS HILLS
WHEREAS, on February 1, 2023, the Town of Los Altos Hills (“Town”) received a preliminary application pursuant to Government Code section 65941.1 and a formal application from Forrest Linebarger (“Applicant”) for a senior residential development project titled “Silver Oaks Senior Community” consisting of 44 units with 11 units reserved for low-income households (Application No. CDP23-0001) at 10728 Mora Drive (“Project”); and WHEREAS, on February 1, 2023, the Town also received a preliminary application and a formal application for a nearly identical senior residential development project also titled “Silver Oaks Senior Community” consisting of 44 units with 11 units reserved for low-income households (Application No. CDP23-0002) at 10758 Mora Drive which is separated by one parcel from the Project site; and
WHEREAS, on April 11, 2023, the Applicant submitted a revised preliminary application and formal application to add 10 additional market- rate units, for a total of 55 units where 44 units would be market-rate, and 11 units would be reserved for low-income households which equates to a 20 percent project affordability; this April 2023 revision represents a 20 percent change of the Project residential units as proposed in the February 1, 2023 submittal, and thus necessitating a new preliminary application; and
WHEREAS, on April 11, 2023 and July 3, 2023, the Applicant submitted a revised preliminary application and formal application, and the project plans, respectively, for the 10758 Mora Drive property to ultimately add 13 additional market-rate units, for a total of 57 units where 45 units would be market-rate, and 12 units would be reserved for low-income households which equates to a 21 percent project affordability; this revision on April 11, 2023 represents more than 20 percent change of the project residential units as proposed in the February 1, 2023 submittal, and thus necessitating a new preliminary application; and
WHEREAS, on January 30, 2025, the Applicant made significant revisions to the Project application to decrease both the number of dwelling units and the percentage of affordable units.

Specifically, the Applicant reduced the total Project density from 55 units to 43 units, with 3 units reserved for extremely-low income households which equates to 10 percent project affordability pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(h)(3)(A). These revisions propose a base density of 30 units and 13 additional units through the application of State Density Bonus Law, totaling 43 units. These revisions represent an approximately 22 percent reduction in total density and a 10 percent reduction in project affordability, and also completely eliminate any affordable units originally offered to low-income households. No revisions to the building exteriors, building length, setbacks or other external features were made to the Project; and WHEREAS, on January 30, 2025, the Applicant made significant revisions to the project application for the 10758 Mora Drive property to decrease both the number of dwelling units and ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 2
the percentage of affordable units. Specifically, the Applicant reduced the total Project density from 57 units to 45 units, with 3 units reserved for extremely-low income households which equates to approximately 9 percent project affordability pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(h)(3)(A). These revisions propose a base density of 32 units and 13 additional units through the application of State Density Bonus Law, totaling 45 units. These revisions represent an approximately 21 percent reduction in total density and a 10 percent reduction in project affordability, and also completely eliminate any affordable units originally offered to low-income households. No revisions to the building exteriors, building length, setbacks or other external features were made to the project; and
WHEREAS, on February 25, 2025, the Applicant submitted revised plans for the Project and for the 10758 Mora Drive property, to provide supplemental drawings from the January 2025 submittals and certain updated plan components. The unit counts and affordability for both projects remain the same. No additional revisions to the building exteriors, building length, setbacks or other external features were made to either project; and
WHEREAS, on May 29, 2025, the Applicant submitted another revision of the Project application to further reduce Project units from 43 to 30 units, resulting in the loss of 13 units and removing certain assisted living features from the building. The Project continues to propose 30 base units and also includes 3 units affordable units reserved for either very-low or extremely-low income households1
but is no longer utilizing State Density Bonus Law; and WHEREAS, the Applicant also submitted another revision to the project application for the 10758 Mora Drive property by reducing density from 45 to 32 units, resulting in the loss of 13 units and removed certain assisted living features from the building. As a result, the 10758 Mora Drive project continues to propose 32 base units with 3 units reserved for extremely-low income households but is no longer utilizing State Density Bonus Law; and WHEREAS, the Applicant states that the Project, inclusive of the foregoing revisions, is being filed under Government Code section 65589.5(d), commonly referred to as the “Builder’s Remedy”, which in summary provides that a local government may not deny a qualifying affordable housing project for very low, low- or moderate-income households unless the local government makes certain written statutory findings; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant also states that the January 30, February 25, and May 29, 2025 revisions are being submitted pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(f)(7), which allows a developer who submitted a preliminary application before January 1, 2025 to (1) choose to either be subject to the Builder’s Remedy statute that was in effect on the date that their project submitted a preliminary application, or if their project qualifies as a builder’s remedy project (as defined by Government Code section 65589.5(h)(11)), to be subject to the statute that is in effect as of January 1, 2025; and (2) to revise their project to meet the definition of a Builder’s Remedy project without having to submit a new preliminary application; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant further specifies that the Project and the 10758 Mora Drive project are seeking to avoid the provision under Government Code section 65589.5(f)(6)(G)(ii), which requires the affordable and market rate units in a Builder’s Remedy project to have 1 The submitted plans contain a discrepancy where the project description states the affordable units are reserved for extremely-low income households, but the density calculation table states the units are reserved for very-low income households. The Applicant has not responded to the Town’s inquiries for clarification.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 3
comparable bedroom and bathroom count, as both the Project and the 10758 Mora Drive project will have affordable units that are studios only and thus contain a lesser number of bedrooms and bathrooms than does the market-rate units; and
WHEREAS, Under Section 65589.5(d)(2), a local government may deny a qualifying affordable housing development project if it finds, based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record, that the proposed housing development project would have a “specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety” as defined by statute, and that “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”; and WHEREAS, similarly, under Section 65589.5(d)(6) (as added by Assembly Bill 1893 on September 19, 2024 and effective as of January 1, 2025), a local government may deny said affordable housing development project if it finds, based on based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record, that on the date a preliminary application was submitted, the local government did not have an adopted revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with state housing element law and the housing development project is not a “builder’s remedy project” defined by Section 65589.5(h)(11); and
WHEREAS, in recent years, the state of California has experienced several serious wildfire and structural fire catastrophes, including but not limited to the 2017 fires in Sonoma and Napa Counties, the Camp Fire in Northern California's Butte County in 2018 and the most recent destructive Pacific Palisades and Eaton fires in Southern California. 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; and
WHEREAS, according to the United States Fire Administration, a federal government entity within the Federal Emergency Management Agency, individuals aged 65 and up are 2.5 times more likely to die in a fire compared to the general population and the risk of death increases significantly as age increases; and
WHEREAS, as documented in a Fire Code and Safety Analysis Report prepared by Pyroanalysis, LLC for the Town dated June 13, 2025, the disproportionate impact on seniors during wildfire events is well-documented. For example, in the 2018 Camp Fire, 80% of the 86 fatalities were age 65 and older. The average age of those who died was 72. In the 2017 Sonoma and Napa Fires, the average age of those who died in the fire was 73; in the recent Eaton Fire, the majority of victims were older than 65 and the average age of the victim was 77; and WHEREAS, Seniors are particularly vulnerable in emergencies due to factors such as decreased mobility, vision, and hearing. In addition, conditions such as cognitive decline, preexisting medical conditions such as cardiovascular disease, increased fall risk, and social isolation also contribute to greater risk of injury and death to seniors in emergencies; and WHEREAS, the Project site is a 0.374 acre parcel of a narrow shape with steep topography.

The lot is 68 feet wide at the front property line which narrows to 59 feet at the rear (with average width of 63.5 feet) and 260.52 feet deep with an average slope of 20.44 percent. It is surrounded by single-family residential homes in a heavily vegetated hillside area of Los Altos Hills. The parcels next to the Project on either side at 10730 Mora Drive and the vacant lot (Parcel No. 331-150-21) are both larger parcels with dense vegetation and 10730 Mora Drive is improved with a single family ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 4
dwelling and related structures currently occupied by residents. All of the neighboring parcels contain dense trees and shrubs where the homes are situated among such vegetation and screened from the roadway. The City Council staff report and related attachments provide additional description regarding the Project site location and its topographical, geographical and locational challenges, including but not limited to situating next to dense vegetation and grassy open space and having limited developable area on the parcel due to itssteep average slope and narrow parcel width; and
WHEREAS, on February 24, 2025, the State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE) published updated Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps as required by Government Code section 51178, which mapsidentify areas of the state as Moderate, High, or Very High FHSZs, including areas within Los Altos Hills and under the Town’s jurisdiction. These FHSZ designations are based on consistent statewide criteria and severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas. Within in the Town, the CALFIRE FHSZ map identifies the Project site as a “High” FHSZ with heightened fire hazard risks; and
WHEREAS, the Town is required, under Government Code section 51179(a), to adopt by ordinance the CALFIRE designations of Moderate, High, and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones within 120 days of receiving the CALFIRE FHSZ maps; the Town is also authorized, under Government Code section 51179(b), to increase, but not decrease, the level of hazard severity recommended by CALFIRE, provided that if it makes any increases of a hazard severity designation to Very High, that the Town makes findings supported by substantial evidence in the record that defensible space requirements in Government Code section 51182 are necessary for effective fire protection in the area; and
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2025, the Los Altos Hills City Council introduced an ordinance making findings and designating additional areas, including the Project site, that are located in the southern portion of the Town along the Rancho San Antonio Open Space corridor as Very High FHSZ based on the public record and supporting technical evidence that local conditions (including but not limited to geographical, weather, fire history, evacuation access, and other risk factors) warrant the designation above the CALFIRE FHSZ maps and that the statutory defensible space requirements are necessary for effective fire protection in the area; if the ordinance is adopted, the Project site would be designated as a Very High FHSZ; and WHEREAS, according to an article in the Mercury News dated June 9, 2025 and entitled “New Map Shows Bay Area Locations with Highest Risk of Ember-Driven Wildfires,” a new fire risk map has been developed by the NASA Ames Research Center and the Santa Clara Fire Safe Council utilizing NASA satellite technology, which map depicts the types and densities of vegetation would be expected to generate embers that could ride winds to new locations. Los Altos Hills is shown on the map to be among the most “ember-vulnerable” communities in the South Bay; and
WHEREAS, based on the submitted plans and project description, the Project proposes to construct a “senior living community” providing housing for people of retirement age and proposes to map the units as condominiums. Additionally, the Project proposes to include amenities and services such as leasing/offices, physical therapy, nail/hair salon, massage and chiropractic services, food/beverage/alcohol sales, transportation shuttles, roof deck bar, gift shop, arts and crafts, pool/pool deck,, and entertainment facilities (including exercise, laundry, TV, dining, music room, and related facilities) as accessory uses. The Project’s 30 units are proposed to be located on various ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 5
levels of a building that is 5 stories above grade at the front of the building closest to Mora Drive and 9 stories in the rear (9 floor levels), with proposed parking space of 27 spaces (approximately

0.62 spaces per unit). The proposed building would contain sub-basement and basement areas totaling 4,471 square feet, podium/garage area of 10,618 square feet, mezzanine area of 4,455 square feet, level one area of 10,031 square feet, level two area of 9,449 square feet, levels 3 and 4 areas of 10,025 square feet each, and level five/roof area of 6,749 square feet for a total floor area of 65,823 square feet. The proposed building is a mix of vehicular storage, residential units, utility spaces and recreation spaces.The Project proposes to situate the residential “apartment” building and related facility all the way throughout the Project parcel and with certain patio and hardscape located at the rear side, leaving between 16‘ 8” and 20’5” feet of setback from the rear property line, where hardscape also encroach into the proposed rear yards; and WHEREAS, the Town received, reviewed and processed the Project application in accordance with Government Code sections 65941.1, 65943, and 65589.5, by timely reviewing and providing comments on the completeness of the application within a 30-day period from each submittal, timely routing and transmitting comments from third-party review agencies including the Santa Clara County Fire Department, and timely providing comments on the Project’s consistency with applicable objective standards and regulations in accordance with Section 65589.5 and within 30 days from the Project application being determined complete; and WHEREAS, the Project as proposed is inconsistent with a number of objective development standards and regulations under the Town’s General Plan and Zoning Code, including but not limited to: minimum lot size, residential density, building height, and setbacks; in particular, the Project is inconsistent with the R-A zoning designation under Zoning and the General Plan where the residential density is 1 dwelling unit per acre and the minimum lot size is 1 acre. In contrast, the Project is proposing 30 units on one lot, which is higher than any development project that has ever been proposed in Los Altos Hills, and in conjunction with the adjacent 32-unit project on 10758 Mora Drive, the projects combined would result in 62 units on two lots less than one acre combined; and
WHEREAS, as a part of the Town’s standard development application review procedures, the Project plans were routed by the Town’s Community Development Department to the Santa Clara County Fire Department (“SCCFD”) for Fire Code plan-check review. 2022 California Fire Code as adopted and amended by the Town of Los Altos Hills (the “Fire Code”) as part of the triennial state building code update. SCCFD provides plan check review for the Town regarding Fire Code compliance, inclusive of local amendments adopted by the Town during the triennial building standards code update process; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of SCCFD Fire Code plan-check review at planning entitlement stage is to identify significant issues to the project applications which may require significant design or structural changes, so that the applicant has an opportunity to address potential significant issues at an early stage; and
WHEREAS, in reviewing the Project against the current Fire Code as adopted and amended by the Town that is applicable to the Project, SCCFD identified, among other issues, that the Project is inconsistent with Section 503.1.1 of the Fire Code by failure to provide the required distance between the proposed building and fire apparatus access road at the Project site. Specifically, while Section 503.1.1 requires the fire apparatus access road to be within 150 feet from the building exterior, the Project proposes to increase such distance to 300 feet from the building which is twice ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 6
the required distance; and
WHEREAS, SCCFD timely provided comments to the Applicant communicating the Section 503.1.1 inconsistency on April 5 and 25, 2023; August 14, 2023; September 27, 2023; and January 31, 2024. When the inconsistency remained unaddressed, SCCFD advised the Applicant to either revise the design or submit an Alternate Means and Methods Request (“AMMR”) to demonstrate how the excessive distance would be mitigated; and WHEREAS, it should be noted that SCCFD identified the same Section 503.1.1 inconsistency for the project proposed at 10758 Mora Drive and requested the same re-design or AMMR submittal; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted an AMMR for the Project on March 20, 2024; that AMMR proposed to provide an additional standpipe at the rear exit stair, include certain Type 1A construction with 3-hour fire resistance rating at the garage level, provide sprinkler water curtain protection for certain building openings, and widen certain building exit points. SCCFD did not approve these mitigation alternatives to grant an exception or waive the Section 503.1.1 distance requirement because they do not demonstrate how the excessive distance would be mitigated.

SCCFD requested additional explanations from the Applicant, which based on the record below has not been provided as of the adoption of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Applicant then submitted an AMMR for the 10758 Mora Drive parcel on October 8, 2024, proposing measures similar to those submitted for the Project in March 2024.

Specifically, the October 8, 2024 AMMR proposed to provide a sprinkler system; upgrade the fire resistance level for a portion of the proposed building exterior wall; remove some of the glass windows or increase their fire ratingsforsides of the building; add standpipe outlet for water hoses at certain building exterior walls, and to separate entry and exit pathways for residents and firefighters by reserving the north and south sides respectively for each; and WHEREAS, SCCFD denied the October 8, 2024 AMMR on November 20, 2024, because the proposed measures do not mitigate the excessive distance deficiency under Section 503.1.1 and do not provide equivalent safety and effectiveness protections. As set forth in the record below and in Exhibit A to this Resolution, mitigating measures alleged by the Applicant asfeasible alternatives are either already required by the Fire Code elsewhere or being proposed as a “partial” response to upgrade some parts of the building but not others. None of the measures specifically addresses the excessive distance being proposed by the Project due to the location of the fire apparatus access road; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the SCCFD November 20, 2024 AMMR Denial, the Applicant has not proposed additional alternatives for the Project or for 10758 Mora Drive, which have nearly identical parcels and development proposals; and
WHEREAS, SCCFD reviewed the Applicant’s Project resubmittals dated January 30 and February 25, 2025, and issued two comment letters dated February 27 and March 25, 2025, respectively, affirming the department’s prior determinations that the Project does not meet Section 503.1.1 requirements and an AMMR is not granted for the above-stated reasons, because the exterior dimensions and layout of the Project building are unchanged and the resubmitted modifications therefore do not alter the prior SCCFD determinations; and ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 7
WHEREAS, SCCFD further reviewed the Applicant’s Project resubmittal dated May 29, 2025, and again affirmed the department’s prior determinations via a comment letter dated June 10, 2025 that the Project does not meet Section 503.1.1 requirements regarding access and an AMMR is not granted for the reasons previously identified; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 65589.5(e) requires the Town to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in reviewing a housing development project including any “Builder’s Remedy” projects, and does not relieve the Town from its obligations to make required findings under CEQA before approving or undertaking a project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15270, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves; and WHEREAS, on February 25, 2025, the Applicant submitted an “AB 1633 Notice” along with certain technical supplemental memos for the Project, citing to Government Code section 65589.5.1 to allege that the Town has effectively disapproved the Project, and has committed an abuse of discretion, by failing to determine that the Project is exempt from CEQA as a Class 32 InFill Development under CEQA Guidelines section 15332; upon reviewing the Applicant’s Notice, the Town, out of an abundance of caution and in accordance with the directions under Section 65589.5.1, published the Notice on its website on or around February 25, 2025, and also filed it with the Santa Clara County Clerk’s on March 3, 2025 for a 30-day publication until April 2, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the Town duly reviewed the Notice submittals and supplemental memos, as well as other evidence that has been presented to it, in order to determine whether there is substantial evidence in the record that the Project is eligible for the Infill Development exemption sought by the Applicant including whether there are “exceptions” to the exemption under CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2; and
WHEREAS, the City Council previously scheduled a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Project on January 30, 2025; upon receiving the Applicant’s revised Project submittal on January 30, 2025, the City Council opened the public hearing and continued the item to March 20, 2025 to allow for additional time to review the revised Project; upon receiving the Applicant’s revised Project submittal on February 25, 2025, the City Council continued the public hearing to a date uncertain to allow for additional time to review the further revised Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on June 18, 2025 to consider the Project, provide the Applicant with due process and an opportunity to be heard, and considered all written documentation and public comments, pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(d); and
WHEREAS, there are no specific public hearing notice requirements under Government Code section 65589.5 or subdivision (d) for making findings of denial with regards to the Project.

However, notice of the City Council January 30, 2025 public hearing was published on January 19, 2025 via posting at the Project site; posting at Town Hall; and posting at the Public Hearing Notice Board located on Christopher’s Lane and Summerhill Avenue, Los Altos Hills. The public hearing notice was delivered by mail on January 19, 2025 to the Applicant and to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the Project site based on the most current information from the County Assessor’s Office property tax roll. The Applicant was also notified of the potential hearing during a meeting ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 8
with the Town on January 17, 2025. Finally, the Town also overnight mailed and emailed public hearing notices to the Applicant’s second address on the application on January 27 and 28, 2025; and
WHEREAS, in addition, notice of the June 18, 2025 public hearing was published on June 6, 2025 via posting at the Project site; posting at Town Hall; and posting at the Public Hearing Notice Board located on Christopher’s Lane and Summerhill Avenue, Los Altos Hills. The public hearing notice was delivered by mail on June 6, 2025 to the Applicant and to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the Project site based on the most current information from the County Assessor’s Office property tax roll. The public hearing notice was also mailed to the Applicant’s second address used on the Project application on June 6, 2025. Finally, notice of the public hearing was emailed to the Applicant on June 9, 2025 at the email address used on the Project application; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is not considering a conditional use permit, conditional development permit, site development permit, or other planning entitlements, but rather is making requisite state law findings of denial on behalf of the Town for the denial of the Project as a “Builder’s Remedy” application.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills hereby makes the findings in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference and hereby DENIES the proposed development at 10728 Mora Drive (No. CDP23-0001) pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(d) based on the findings set forth in Exhibit A.

The above and foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills at a special meeting held on the day of June, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

BY:

Kavita Tankha, Mayor
ATTEST:

Arika Birdsong-Miller, City Clerk
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 9

EXHIBIT A

FINDINGS OF DENIAL

REGARDING A SENIOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT LOCATED AT 10728 MORA DRIVE, LOS ALTOS HILLS
Based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes, without limitation: the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 California Code of Regulations §15000, et seq. (collectively, “CEQA”); the California Fire Code; the California Building Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations); the International Fire Code; the California State Housing Law (California Health and Safety Code Part 1.5, commencing with §17910); the California Housing Accountability Act (Government Code section 65589.5); the California Housing Element Law (Government Code section 65580 et seq.); the California Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code section 65920 et seq.); the Los Altos Hills General Plan; the Los Altos Hills 2023-2031 Housing Element; the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code including all Town-adopted local amendments to the California Building Standards Code and California Fire Code; the Project application materials that includes: all site plans including those submitted on February 1, 2023, April 11, 2023, July 3, 2023, January 30, 2025, February 25, 2025, and May 29, 2025; all project building, engineering, grading and utility, fire, and other plans and drawings; all Town plan check, and zoning consistency comment letters and applicant responses thereto; all Santa Clara County Fire Department plan check reviews comment letters and comment letters and decisions regarding the Project and the applicant’s Alternative Means and Methods (AMMR) requests; all reports, minutes, public testimony submitted as a part of the City Council’s duly noticed January 30, 2025 and June 18, 2025 public hearings; and any and all other evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills hereby finds as follows:

I. General Findings

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.

2. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the Community Development Department for the Town of Los Altos Hills, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022, and in the custody of the Community Development Director.

3. The City Council scheduled and opened a duly noticed public hearing on January 30, 2025 to make findings for this Project pursuant to Gov. Code section 65589.5; upon receiving the Applicant’s revised Project submittals on January 30 and February 25, 2025, the public hearing was first continued to March 20, 2025 and then to June 18, 2025. There are no specific public hearing notice requirements under that statute for making findings of denial.

As the City Council is not considering a conditional use permit, conditional development permit, site development permit, or other planning entitlements, but ratheris making requisite state law findings of denial on behalf of the Town, there are no applicable public hearing requirements under state law or local ordinance which would apply. However, the notice of the City Council January 30, 2025 public hearing was published on January 19, 2025 via posting at the Project site; posting at Town Hall, at the Public Hearing Notice Board located on Christopher’s Lane and Summerhill Avenue, Los Altos Hills; and posting on the Town’s website. The public hearing notice was delivered by mail on January 19, 2025 to the Applicant and to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the Project site based on the ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 10
most current information from the County Assessor’s Office property tax roll. The Applicant was also notified of the potential hearing during a meeting with the Town on January 17, 2025. Finally, the Town also overnight mailed and emailed public hearing notices to your second address on the application on January 27 and 28, 2025.

Additionally, notice of the June 18, 2025 public hearing was published on June 6, 2025 via posting at the Project site; posting at Town Hall; and posting at the Public Hearing Notice Board located on Christopher’s Lane and Summerhill Avenue, Los Altos Hills. The public hearing notice was delivered by mail on June 6, 2025 to the Applicant and to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the Project site based on the most current information from the County Assessor’s Office property tax roll. The public hearing notice was also mailed to the Applicant’s second address used on the Project application on June 6, 2025. Finally, notice of the public hearing was emailed to the Applicant on June 9, 2025 at the email addressed used on the Project application.

The City Council hereby finds that the above described noticing fulfils and is beyond the requirements that otherwise applies to a site development permit or other planning discretionary entitlements (including but not limited to variances and appeals) under Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Title 10, Chapters 1 and 2, and also is consistent with the requirements under Government Code sections 65905 and 65091 that otherwise apply to applications on conditional use permits, variances, or equivalent development permit or the proposed revocation or modification thereof, or the appeal therefrom. On those bases, the City Council finds that the public hearing was duly and appropriately noticed, and that the public hearing afforded Applicant with due process as well as provided adequate and meaningful opportunity for the Applicant, all interested parties, and members of the public to respond to and participate in the hearing process.

4. Under the Permit Streamlining Act (i.e. Government Code section 65943)(PSA) the Town is required to determine an application “complete” based on the Town’s planning application submittal checklist if all items on the checklist are provided by the project applicant. The Town is also required to provide determinations of incomplete applications within 30 days from receipt of the application or resubmittals. Under the Housing Accountability Act (i.e.

Government Code section 65589.2 (j)(2) (HAA)), for a project containing 150 or fewer units, the Town is required to provide a “consistency determination” between the application and applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provisions, within 30 days of the application being determined complete.

Here, the Project application was determined complete on September 28, 2023 and prior incomplete application determinations were timely issued within 30 days of receipt of the application and subsequent resubmittals. Further, as the Project contains less than 150 units, the Town timely issued a consistency determination on August 31, 2023 and affirmed this determination for subsequent resubmittals. Santa Clara County Fire Department comments identifying code inconsistencies, including the Fire Code Section 503.1.1 distance requirement at issue, were raised to the Applicant as early as May 2023 and Section 503.1.1 non-compliance along with other code inconsistencies were sent to the Applicant on August 28, 2023. These comments, like the Town’s, were timely issued to the Applicant assuming the foregoing PSA and HAA provisions even apply the same way in Fire Department comments context.

Given the Project submittals after January 25, 2023 significantly revised the development ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 11
proposals and contains several errors and missing information, including but not limited to inconsistent unit counts, unclear descriptions, and clouding errors, it was appropriate for the Town to require the Applicant to make corrections and provide the information missing from the submittals. Also, the Project as revised continues to remain inconsistent with the same standards and the Town’s inconsistency determination remains valid and timely communicated to the Applicant. It is also worth noting that, as described in Section III below, the Project does not qualify as a Builder’s Remedy under Section 65589.5(h)(11) and consequently the provisions under Section 65589(f)(6) applicable to a builder’s remedy project (including the scope of applicable objective standards) do not apply here. The City Council hereby finds that the Project was reviewed and processed consistently with the requirements and procedures set forth under Government Code sections 65943 and 65589.5 II. Findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15270, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.2 As it is adopting this resolution to make findings and deny the Project, the City Council hereby finds that no environmental review or action is required for the making of these findings to deny the Project.

For the sake of clarity, the City Council notes that the Applicant submitted an “AB 1633 Notice” on February 25, 2025 citing to Government Code section 65589.5.1 arguing that the Town must find the Project qualifies for a Class 32 In-Fill Development exemption under CEQA Guidelines section 15332. At the outset, the Town is not required to make any determinations under CEQA as it is denying the Project. Additionally, even if the Town were allowing the Project to move forward and were thus required to make CEQA determinations, the Town would require additional biological, traffic, noise, air quality, water quality, utility and public services analyses to determine whether the criteria under Section 15332 have been met. The Town would also require additional analysis to evaluate whether the Project meets the location and zoning consistency requirements under Section 15332. Further, the Town would require such additional analysis and further evaluations to determine whether there are “exceptions” to the exemption under CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 that precludes reliance on the Infill Exemption as the Town anticipates the proposed senior residential development would need to prepare either a mitigated negative declaration for the significant and unusual impacts it potentially brings given the size and scale of the project proposals.

III. Government Code Section 65589.5(d) Findings
On February 1, 2023, Forrest Linebarger (“Applicant”) filed a preliminary application pursuant to Government Code section 65941.1 and a formal development application to the Town for the Project (No. CDP23-0001) for the construction of 44 senior residential units with 11 units reserved for lowincome households, which constitutes 25 percent affordability. On the same date, the Town also received a preliminary application and formal development application for a substantially similar senior residential development project located at 10758 Mora Drive, which is separated by one parcel from the Project site. Both projects were submitted pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(d), commonly referred to as the “Builder’s Remedy”.

On April 11, 2023, the Project application was revised from 44 units to 55 units with 11 units reserved for low-income households, which represents a 20 percent affordability. The Applicant submitted a 2 Las Lomas Land Co., LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 837 (“If an agency at any time decides not to proceed with a project, CEQA is inapplicable from that time forward.”).

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 12
new preliminary application as the change proposed by the revised application exceeded 20 percent of the residential units proposed under the initial February 2023 preliminary application submittal.

The April 2023 revision also reduced the percentage of affordable units initially provided. The Applicant also revised the 10758 Mora Drive project residential units by over 20 percent to be 57 units, while reducing its affordability to 21 percent with 12 low-income units. Both projects remain substantially similar in their proposed use, density, site plans/layout and development characteristics/proposals.

On January 30, 2025, the Applicant made significant revisions to the Project application to decrease both the number of dwelling units and the percentage of affordable units. Specifically, the Applicant reduced the total Project density from 55 units to 43 units, with 3 units reserved for extremely-low income households which equates to 10 percent project affordability pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(h)(3)(A). These revisions propose a base density of 30 units and 13 additional units through the application of State Density Bonus Law, totaling 43 units. These revisions represent an approximately 22 percent reduction in total density and a 10 percent reduction in project affordability, and also completely eliminate any affordable units originally offered to low-income households. No revisions to the building exteriors, building length, setbacks or other external features were made to the Project.

The Applicant also made significant revisions to the project application for the 10758 Mora Drive property to decrease both the number of dwelling units and the percentage of affordable units.

Specifically, the Applicant reduced the total Project density from 57 units to 45 units, with 3 units reserved for extremely-low income households which equates to approximately 9 percent project affordability pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(h)(3)(A). These revisions propose a base density of 32 units and 13 additional units through the application of State Density Bonus Law, totaling 45 units. These revisions represent an approximately 21 percent reduction in total density and a 10 percent reduction in project affordability, and completely eliminate any affordable units originally offered to low-income households. No revisions to the building exteriors, building length, setbacks or other external features were made to the project.

On February 25, 2025, the Applicant submitted revised plans for the Project and for the 10758 Mora Drive property, to provide supplemental drawings from the January 2025 submittals and certain updated plan components. The unit counts and affordability for both projects remain the same. No additional revisions to the building exteriors, building length, setbacks or other external features were made to either project.

On May 29, 2025, the Applicant submitted another revision of the Project application and the project at 10758 Mora Drive to further reduce their units from 43 to 30 units and 45 to 32 units, respectively, resulting in the loss of 13 units for both developments and removing certain assisted living features from the two buildings. With this most recent revision, the Project and the 10758 Mora Drive development continue to maintain a 30 unit and 32 unit base density, respectively, with 3 units reserved for either very-low or extremely-low households for the Project and extremely-low income households for the 10758 Mora Drive project. Neither project is utilizing State Density Bonus Law.

The Applicant states that the January 30, February 25, and May 29, 2025 revisions are being submitted pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(f)(7), which allows a developer who submitted a preliminary application before January 1, 2025 to (1) choose to either be subject to the Builder’s Remedy statute that was in effect on the date that their project submitted a preliminary application, or if their project qualifies as a builder’s remedy project (as defined by Government Code section 65589.5(h)(11)), to be subject to the statute that is in effect as of January 1, 2025; and (2) to ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 13
revise their project to meet the definition of a Builder’s Remedy project without having to submit a new preliminary application. The Applicant states that these revisions do not constitute new applications but are substantial modifications to the Project that was submitted to the Town on February 1, 2023 (which has been replaced by the revised preliminary application on April 11, 2023).3
Government Code Section 65589.5(d)4 provides, in relevant part:
“For a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households. . . a local agency shall not disapprove the housing development project... or condition approval in a manner that renders the housing development 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” as to one of six statutory findings. (emphasis added).

As set forth below, the City Council hereby makes the following findings pursuant to Section 65589.5(d), subdivisions (2), (5) and (6), for the denial of the proposed Project.

Finding #1: Section 65589.5(d)(6)- Failure to Qualify as a Builder’s Remedy Project The Project, as revised on January 30, February 25, and May 29, 2025, does not qualify as a “Builder’s Remedy project” because it fails to meet the maximum density requirements under Government Code section 65589.5(h)(11). Even if the Applicant were to choose, assuming the choice is permitted by Section 65589.5(f)(7)(B), to be subject to the provisions of Section 65589.5 as it existed on April 11, 2023, when his most recent preliminary application was submitted, the Project as revised also does not meet the affordability requirements under that prior version of Section 65589.5. Because the Project revisions submitted on January 30, February 25, and May 29, 2025 make revisions that resulted in the number of units and construction square footage changing by over 20 percent, and such changes revised the Project into a non-Builder’s Remedy development by proposing excessive density, they were not made for the purpose of revising the applications to qualify for the Builder’s Remedy. Therefore, the Project’s April 2023 preliminary application have expired. A new preliminary application was required for those revised Project submittals on January 30, February 25, and May 29, 2025.

1. Applicable Law Under Section 65589.5(d) and (h)(11)
The finding set forth under Section 65589.5(d)(6) provides:

On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was 3 See 10728 Mora Drive January 30 and February 25, 2025 Resubmittal Letters, Attachment 8 to the June 18, 2025 Staff Report.
4 The City Council notes that Section 65589.5, including its “Builder’s Remedy” provisions under subdivision (d), was amended by Assembly Bill 1893 (2024) (AB1893). One provision under AB 1893 allows a housing development project applicant who has submitted a preliminary application before January 1, 2025 to choose to be subject to the provisions of Section 65589.5 in effect on the date of that submittal, or to the statute applicable as of January 1, 2025 if the project meets the definition of a “builder’s remedy project” defined by AB 1893. As the Project Applicant has elected to be subject to the version of Section 65589.5 effective as of January 1, 2025, this set of findings reviews the Project against Section 65589.5 asit wasin effect on January 1, 2025. The City Council notes that, asfurther explained in this document, the record contains a preponderance of the evidence to support denial findings under both versions of Section 65589.5 and that the Project as proposed as of the June 18, 2025 hearing would not meet the Builder’s Remedy requirements under Section 65589.5(d) as it does not provide at least 20 percent of the project units to be affordable.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 14
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.

A housing development would qualify as a “Builders’ Remedy” project if it meets, as relevant here, the following criteria under Section 65589.5(h)(11):

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:
(i) 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. (ii) Notwithstanding clause (i), the greatest allowable density shall be 35 units per acre more than the amount allowable pursuant to clause (i), if any portion of the site is located within any of the following:
(I) One-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code.
(II) A very low vehicle travel area, as defined in subdivision (h). (III) A high or highest resource census tract, as identified by the latest edition of the “CTCAC/HCD Opportunity Map” published by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and the Department of Housing and Community Development.

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 Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) or by a court of competent jurisdiction. As relevant here, HCD certified the Town’s Housing Element on May 30, 2023, while the Project preliminary applications were filed on February 1, 2023 and then revised on April 11, 2023.

As such, this Finding #1 would apply if the Project does not qualify as a “Builder’s Remedy” project defined by statute. Here, the Applicant specified in the January 30, 2025 Project revisions that the Project elects to be subject to the provisions of Section 65589.5 as in effect on January 1, 2025.5 In reviewing the foregoing, the Project, as revised based on plans submitted on January 30, February 25, and May 29, 2025, exceeded the maximum density allowed pursuant to subsections (C)(1)(i) and (ii) based on density proposed prior to the calculations of state density bonus. Thus, the Project does not qualify as a “Builder’s Remedy” project. For the same reason, the 10758 Mora Drive project also 5 See 10728 Mora Drive January 30 and February 25, 2025 Resubmittal Letters, Attachment 8 to the June 18, 2025 Staff Report.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 15
does not qualify as a Builder’s Remedy project.

2. Maximum Density Requirements under Section 65589.5(h)(11)(C) Subsection (h)(11)(C), the applicable statutory provision here, first requires a Builder’s Remedy project to have a density, as calculated before applying density bonus under Gov. Code section 65915, that does not exceed the greatest of the following densities:
(1) 50 percent more than the minimum density for a housing inventory site required for Los Altos Hills by Government Code section 65583.2(c)(3)(B); (2) Three times the density allowed by the Town’s General Plan, Zoning, or state law, whichever is greater; or
(3) The density consistent with what is specified in the Town’s Housing Element.

Additionally, if the project site is located in any of the following areas, the greatest allowable density under Subsection (h)(11)(C) will be another 35 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) more than the density allowed under (1) – (3) above:
(A) One-half mile of a major transit stop as defined under Public Resources Code section 21064.3 (i.e. an existing rail or bus rapid transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or two or more major bus route intersections with 20 minutes or less service intervals during peak commute hours);
(B) A very low vehicle travel area, as defined in Section 65589.5(h)6; or (C) A high or highest resource census tract, as identified by the latest edition of the “CTCAC/HCD Opportunity Map” published by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and the Department of Housing and Community Development.

Under Subsection (h)(11)(C)’s first prong above, the greatest allowable density under Items (1) – (3) would be 20 dwelling units per acre pursuant to Gov. Code section 65583.2(c)(3)(B), identified in Item (1). This is because Los Altos Hills is a “suburban jurisdiction” under subsection (c)(3)(B), and the applicable minimum housing element site inventory density is 20 du/ac. Specifically, Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B) provides that for a suburban jurisdiction, the requisite density deemed suitable for an inventory site is 20 du/ac; for a jurisdiction in a metropolitan county, the requisite density is 30 du/ac. To determine whether a jurisdiction is considered suburban or metropolitan, Section 65583.2(e) and (f) provide the following criteria as relevant here:
• A jurisdiction shall be considered suburban if it is not an incorporated city within a nonmetropolitan county a nonmetropolitan county that has a micropolitan area, or an unincorporated area in a nonmetropolitan county (all as determined by the U.S. Census Bureau) and is located in a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) of less than 2 million in population. However, if the jurisdiction’s population is greater than 100,000, it would be considered metropolitan. (Section 65583.2(e)(1).)
6 The City Council notes that the original statutory text states “subdivision (h)” which it assumes to mean subdivision (h) of Section 65589.5; however, that subdivision (h) does not define a very low vehicle travel area and thus it’s unclear what this term means unless it is assumed that said definition takes after the same term used under Section 65589.5.1.

However, given that the Town is located in a high resource area under Item (C), the City Council need not resolve this ambiguity.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 16
• A jurisdiction shall be considered metropolitan if it does not meet the requirements for “suburban area” above and is located in an MSA of 2,000,000 or greater in population.

However, if that jurisdiction’s population is less than 25,000, it will be considered suburban. (Section 65583.2(f).)
In reviewing the foregoing, Los Altos Hills is a jurisdiction located in an MSA of 2,000,000 or greater in population (i.e. Santa Clara County) based on the 2020 U.S. Census data. The population for Los Altos Hills is less than 25,000- the 2020 Census places the population at 8,489.7 Therefore, it is considered a suburban jurisdiction for the purposes of Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B). This conclusion is reflected in more detail in the 2022 HCD Memo Regarding GC 65583.2 Density.8 It follows then that the other densities specified in Items (2) and (3) are not greater than 20 du/ac— namely, the only density currently allowed under the Town’s General Plan and Zoning (which contains only the R-A district designation) is one unit per acre, and there are no state laws that would allow an increase to more than 20 du/ac even if laws like Senate Bill 9, Senate Bills 648/1123, or State Accessory Dwelling Unit laws were utilized. Likewise, the Project parcel is not listed in the Housing Element site inventory for 2023-2031, nor is it an opportunity site identified in the Housing Element. Thus, the 1 du/ac standard under the Town’s General Plan and zoning would apply.

Under the second prong, the Project site is not located within one-half mile of a major transit stop or a very low vehicle travel area as there are no such transit facilities that exist in the Project vicinity, and the Project is located in a semi-rural setting substantially surrounded by open space and sporadic single-family uses. The Project site, however, is within a “High Resource” area under the 2025 CTCAC/HCD Opportunity Map.
9 Thus, based on the foregoing two prongs, the greatest density allowed under Section 65589.5(h)(11)(C) would be [20 du/ac + 50 percent] + 35 du/ac = 65 du/ac.

Applying this density to the 0.374 acre Project site, the maximum density allowed for the Project under the Builder’s Remedy is 24.31 units—or 25 units after rounding up.

3. The Project Exceeds the Maximum Density Allowed under Section 65589.5(h)(11)(C) In this case, the Applicant’s revised Project plans dated January 30, 2025 proposes a base density of 80 du/ac, which is calculated based on [30 du/ac + 50 percent] + 35 du/ac. This translates to 30 units base density for the Project. This base density, which is the number before applying any state density bonus, exceeds the maximum allowable density of 65 du/ac (25 units) for the Project under Section 65589.5(h)(11)(C)(i) and (ii). Specifically, the Applicant applied the incorrect 30 du/ac density under Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(B)(3) to calculate the base density, resulting in a number that exceeds the maximum allowed under Section 65589.5(h)(11)(C). The revised Project plans dated February 25, 2025 maintain the same base density of 80 du/ac, or 30 base units. The further revised Project plans dated May 29, 2025 continues to maintain the 30-unit base density.

The Town has requested the Applicant to confirm how the Project’s density was calculated in its Comment Letters dated February 28 and March 27, 2025, but the Applicant has not responded in any of the Project resubmittals nor provided correct calculations. The Applicant merely responded in its May 29, 2025 resubmittal that a typographical error previously identified by the Town has been corrected and that “the total number of units has been reduced” by eliminating density bonus units. 7 https://data.census.gov/all?q=Los%20Altos%20Hills%20town,%20California (cited in June 18, 2025 Staff Report). 8 Gov. Code section 65583.2 (e)(1) and (f); See HCD Memo re GC 65583.2 Density (2022), Attachment 16 to the June 18, 2025 Staff Report; See also LAH 2023-2031 Housing Element, page 172, under Housing Resources. 9 Adopted December 2024 and located at https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity.asp; https://belonging.berkeley.edu/2025-ctcachcd-affh-mapping-tool-nc (accessed May 1, 2025) ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 17
The resubmittal maintains the 30 units base density, which exceeds the maximum prescribed by state law. Therefore, since Section 65589.5(d)(6) and (h)(11) are applicable statutes, and the Project density exceeds the maximum density allowed by subsection (h)(11), the Project fails to qualify as a Builder’s Remedy project.

It should be noted that the Project has been revised to reduce its affordable housing component from the initial 20 percent low-income affordability (11 units) to the current 10 percent very low- or extremely-low income affordability (3 units). Under the provisions of Government Code section 65589.5(d) as it existed on April 11, 2023, a project would only qualify for Builder’s Remedy if it set aside at least 20 percent of the total units for lower income households or 100 percent of the total units for moderate income households. As such, the Project as revised would not qualify as a Builder’s Remedy project under Section 65589.5(d) as it existed on April 11, 2023.

4. A New Preliminary Application Is Required for the Revised Project Submittals and the February 1 and April 11, 2023 Preliminary Applications have expired as of January 30, 2025, pursuant to Government Code section 65941.1(d)
Under Government Code section 65941.1(d), a preliminary application expires if the developer revises the project units or square footage by 20 percent or more, exclusive of any increases from State Density Bonus Law. Government Code section 65589.5(f)(7) provides an exception for this rule where a housing development project that submitted a preliminary application before January 1, 2025, may be revised by more than 20 percent in unit count or square footage in order to qualify as a Builder’s Remedy project without having to submit a new preliminary application.

In this case, the Applicant revised the Project by more than 20 percent with the January 30, 2025 resubmittal. The Project was significantly revised to decrease both the number of dwelling units and the percentage of affordable units. Specifically, the Applicant reduced the total Project density from 55 units to 43 units, with 3 units reserved for extremely-low income households which equates to 10 percent project affordability pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(h)(3)(A). These revisions propose a base density of 30 units and 13 additional units through the application of State Density Bonus Law, totaling 43 units. These revisions represent an approximately 22 percent reduction in total density and a 10 percent reduction in project affordability. They also completely eliminated any affordable units originally offered to low-income households. Similarly, the May 29, 2025 reduction in density also represents an approximately 30 percent further change in the number of units, reducing the unit count from 43 to 30.

As illustrated in the foregoing paragraphs under this Finding #1, all of these changes resulted in density that exceeded the maximum allowable density under the Builder’s Remedy statute, and thus these Project revisions were not made to qualify the Project as a Builder’s Remedy development. The Applicant has not made any corrections nor responded to the Town’s comments requesting clarification on Project density. Instead, the Applicant maintained the same base density in three rounds of resubmittals on and since January 30, 2025. The Applicant also stated in his May 29, 2025 resubmittal to the Town that the total number of units have been reduced by eliminating state density bonus units, but the base density remains unchanged. Thus, the Project continues to propose 30 units base density which exceeds the maximum density allowed under state law.

Therefore, pursuant to Government Code section 65941.1(d), the preliminary application submitted on February 1, 2023 for the Project was replaced by the April 11, 2023 preliminary application based on a 20 percent change in Project base unit count, and the April 11, 2023 preliminary application has expired due to the 20 percent change in Project unit count pursuant to the January 30, February 25, ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 18
and May 29, 2025 revisions. Therefore, a new preliminary application is required (and would have been required at the time of the January 30, 2025 resubmittal) for the Project revisions.

Conclusion
Accordingly, and based on the record before it, the City Council finds that on the date the Applicant submitted a preliminary application for the Project, which is deemed to be April 11, 2023 (as this preliminary application replaced the February 1, 2023 preliminary application), the Los Altos Hills Housing Element had not yet been certified by HCD in accordance with Government Code section 65585.03. Pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(h)(11), the Project as revised on January 30, February 25, and May 29, 2025 does not meet the maximum allowable density under that statute and therefore does not qualify as a Builder’s Remedy project. Consequently, the April 11 2023 preliminary application for the Project has expired and a new preliminary application would have been required, and is required, for Project revisions. This Finding #1 pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(d)(6) therefore supports denial of the Project.

Finding #2: Section 65589.5(d)(2)- Specific, Adverse Impact The finding set forth under Section 65589.5(d)(2) provides:

The housing development project or emergency shelter 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 or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. The following shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety:

A. Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation.

B. The eligibility to claim a welfare exemption under subdivision (g) of Section 214 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.

A. The Project as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.

1. Background- Site Characteristics
The Project site is a 0.374 acre parcel of a narrow shape and steep topography. The lot is 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 single-family residential homes in a heavily vegetated hillside area of Los Altos Hills. The parcel next to the Project at 10730 Mora Drive is a larger parcel improved with a single-family dwelling and related structures currently occupied by residents. All of the adjacent and neighboring parcels contain dense trees and shrubs where the homes are situated among such vegetation and screened from the roadway.

The Project site is only accessible from Mora Drive, a public roadway fronting the parcel. Mora Drive has an approximate paved width of 25 feet in a 50-foot public right of way and does not contain sidewalks. Mora Drive also serves as the only public access road for at least seven other properties on the same side of the Project site, namely: 10710 Mora Drive, 10679 Mora Drive, 10696 Mora ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 19
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. There are at least five other lots on the opposite side facing the Project site that utilize the same segment of Mora Drive as the only access road. Additionally, the Project site is in close proximity to the Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve and the Mora Trail. Both open space areas contain vast areas of dry grass, shrubs and trees.

The roadway serving the site twists and turns through steep elevation changes as it connects to the Project site. The record contains observations that due to Mora Drive’s configuration, fire response apparatus was seen cross into oncoming traffic to navigate the roadway with itssmallest engine which would not be of a size sufficient to address a structure fire due to its proposed configuration.

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. The further the LUF is reduced from 0.5 means that the parcel slopes steeper and the development area is smaller. As an illustration here using the LUF calculations, the Project site would only have a LUF of approximately 0.29 due to its narrow width and steep average slope of approximately 20 percent. The resulting development area is 3,226 square feet and floor area of 1,594 square feet.

The Applicant proposes to construct a multifamily 5-story structure with 9 distinct floor levels of approximately 80-85 feet in height. The Project units are proposed to be located on various levels of a 5-story building over a two-level podium with mezzanine, for a total of 9 floor levels. The building would be served by narrow 5-foot-wide exterior stairways bordered by wooden fencing on the steeply sloped lot. The only potential fire personnel access (and without other equipment or apparatus) would be to the outside perimeter of the building.

2. Project Fire Code Compliance Review by the County Fire Department As a part of the Town’s standard development application review procedures, the Project plans were routed by the Town Community Development Department to the Santa Clara County Fire Department (“SCCFD”) for Fire Code plan-check review. SCCFD provides plan check review for the Town regarding California Fire Code compliance, inclusive of local amendments adopted by the Town during the triennial building standards code update process. SCCFD provides plan check services to the Town pursuant to the three-party “Fire and Emergency Medical Services Agreement” dated December 2016 by and between the City of Los Altos, Los Altos Hills County Fire District (LAHCFD), and Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District.10 The Agreement obligates SCCFD to provide services, including fire protection and plan check reviews, to the Town of Los Altos Hills and certain unincorporated areas in Santa Clara County as they are a part of the LAHCFD.

It should be noted that SCCFD’s review is for the purpose of a planning-entitlement plan check review and does not relieve the Project from undergoing further Fire Code and related requirements review based on the code in effect at the building permit application stage.11 The purpose of fire plan 10 See LAH-SCCFD Agreement, Attachment 20 to the June 18, 2025 Staff Report. 11 Notwithstanding this clarification, these findings note that the Project, like other development projects processed by the Town, would be required to comply with the California Building Standards Code most recently in effect at the time it ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 20
check review at planning entitlement stage is to identify significant issues to the project applications which may require significant design or structural changes, so that the applicant has an opportunity to address potential significant issues at an early stage. The Town requires all development applications to undergo such SCCFD review and this requirement is not unique to the Project.

At this planning review stage, the Project was reviewed against the 2022 California Fire Code as adopted and amended by the Town of Los Altos Hills (the “Fire Code”) as part of the triennial state building code update. It was adopted on December 15, 2022 and became effective as of January 14, 2023.12 For the purposes of planning entitlement plan check review, such code was in existence at the time the Project filed a preliminary application (February 1, 2023) and at the time of its subsequent revision (April 11, 2023) and is the applicable law for the Project.

Pursuant to its review of the Project plans, and among other issues, SCCFD identified a Project inconsistency with the Fire Code to provide an approved fire apparatus access road for meeting the Code’s distance requirement. This Fire Code provision, as outlined in Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Title 8, Chapter 1.8, 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 (45,720 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 submits a building permit for review. This includes compliance with the California Fire Code as adopted and amended by the Town pursuant to the authorities conferred upon it by Health and Safety Code sections 17958.5 and 17958.7. The Applicant has argued in previous correspondences to the Town and SCCFD that the state Permit Streamlining Act and a preliminary application under Government Code section 65941.1 would allow the Project to “vest” building and fire code standards as of the February 2023 initial Project submittal date. This claim is incorrect; based on Government Code section 65589.5(f)(9), the Housing Accountability Act and related preliminary application provisions do not affect the obligation of a housing developer to comply with minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission. Likewise, the Fire Code, like other building standards codes is a part of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations adopted by the Commission, and independently apply to housing developments including projects outside the “planning entitlements” phase which is the current stage that the Project is in. Any code amendments adopted by the Town pursuant to state law authority would apply as development projects undergo building permit review. This reasoning is also supported by the fact that the Legislature has adopted Government Code section 65913.3, a separate statute governing “post-entitlement” permits that are separate from planning entitlement approvals. Further, in this case the building and fire code provisions at issue were adopted by the Town in 2022 and went into effect January 14, 2023, making them applicable to the Project even under the lens of Government Code sections 65589.5 and 65941.1.

Consequently, although not directly an issue relating to the review of this Project at the planning entitlement stage, in any event the Project would be required to comply with Building and Fire Codes, inclusive of any local amendments made thereto, in effect at the time it submits a building permit and thus it is appropriate for the Town to evaluate significant code compliance issues at this stage.
12 January 14, 2023 is 30 days from December 15, 2022, the date of the ordinance adoption. Typically, as stated in Ordinance No. 607, an ordinance introduced and adopted by a city goes into effect 30 days after adoption pursuant to Government Code section 36937. However, the Council notes that H&S Code section 18941.5 provides local amendments to the Building Standards Code “shall become effective” 180 days after the Building Standards Commission publishes the Building Standards Code, which is January 1, 2023. For the purposes of a conservative narrative the January 14, 2023 date is used here. In either case, the Fire Code was adopted before Project submittals and would apply.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 21
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.)
The origin of the Section 503.1.1 is the International Fire Code (“IFC”) which is developed by the International Code Council (“ICC"). The ICC develops model codes which are widely accepted and form the basis for building codes throughout the United States, including the State of California. The California Fire Code (“CFC”), which is set forth under Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, is entirely based on the IFC with amendments adopted by the state. Specifically, Title 24 provides an “adoption matrix”13 to denote the individual provisions of the IFC that has been adopted by the State Fire Marshal and form the state fire code. Local jurisdictions, like the Town, are required to enforce CFC provisions adopted by the State Fire Marshal but may also elect to adopt further amendments that are in addition to those adopted by the Fire Marshal.

Pursuant to Health and Safety Code sections 17958.5 and 17958.7, the Town adopts the CFC and the IFC by reference as set forth in Los Altos Hills Ordinance No. 607 (2022). This means that all provisions of the CFC and IFC, including Section 503.1.1, are incorporated into the fire regulations applicable to Los Altos Hills. It should be noted that the Town has been adopting the IFC and CFC by reference since at least 2015.14 Again, this means that Section 503.1.1 has been a part of the Fire Code regulations for the Town for a significant period of time. Additionally, the Town has adopted certain more restrictive local amendments to these Fire Code regulations over the years, including the most recent modifications to Section 503.1.1 in 2022 via Ordinance No. 607. Together, these provisions form the applicable Fire Code for projects being carried out in Los Altos Hills. In other words, the CFC plus the local amendments to the CFC adopted by the Town (which are drawn from the IFC underlying Title 24), governs fire code compliance in Los Altos Hills. There is no separate state fire code or otherwise that would separately apply to the Town or with which applicants may “elect” to comply. It is also important to clarify that although the Town is within the Los Altos Hills County Fire District, all of the foregoing regulatory actions were taken by the Town as an independent incorporated city.

The fire apparatus road distance rule set forth in Section 503.1.1 has been part of the model code for decades and represents the outer limit of reach of preconnected hose lines from fire apparatus. As noted above, Section 503.1.1 has also been adopted and incorporated by the Town since at least 2015.

In 2022, the Town adopted 503.1.1 with amendments only to the “Exceptions” portion of Section 503.1.1 identified above and only makes changes regarding exceptions for situations other than those involving Group R-3 or U occupancies (i.e. buildings with two or less dwelling units and utilities/accessory buildings). The 150-foot distance requirement remains the baseline standards and is unchanged.
13 A review of the 2022 California Fire Code under Title 24 at https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAFC2022P3 shows the IFC is listed as the base model code and Section 503.1.1 is listed along with other Title 24 sections, although the adoption matrix indicates that Section 503.1.1 has not been adopted by the State Fire Marshal. Access to Title 24 is available only through the Building Standards Commission and the ICC, which holds a copy right to the model building code.
14 See Prior LAH Building Code Adoption Ordinances, Attachment 22 to the June 18, 2025 Staff Report.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 22

3. The Town Validly Adopted the California Fire Code With Local Amendments, Pursuant to State Law Authority; Thus, the Fire Code Inclusive of Section 503.1.1 Is In Effect Before addressing the substantive Fire Code compliance issues, the City Council first turn to a procedural objection raised by the Applicant. Specifically, as a part of his February 25 and May 29, 2025 Project revisions, the Applicant asserts that the Los Altos Hills Fire Code amendments, including Section 503.1.1, are not in effect because the amendments were not filed with HCD pursuant to Health and Safety (H&S) Code section 13869.7. The Applicant argues that because SCCFD recommended local amendments to the Town pursuant to Section 13869.7 and because the Town adopted such recommendations, that section applies. The Applicant asserts that the Town’s staff report for Ordinance No. 607 also states SCCFD recommendations were made pursuant to Section 13869.7 and therefore his assertions are supported.

The City Council finds that these assertions are without merit. At the outset, the staff report for Ordinance No. 607 does not reference Section 13869.7 anywhere. It is also clear from that document and Ordinance No. 607 that adoption of the Building Standards Code, including the CFC, and all local amendments to those codes, was an action pursuant to Health and Safety Code sections 17958.5 and 17958.7 and independently by the Town as an incorporated city. It is also clear that the Town consulted SCCFD (as well as PyroAnalysis from an additional consulting perspective) because SCCFD is the Town’s contracted fire agency. Further, as discussed in the accompanying staff report, the statute cited by Applicant is wholly inapplicable and applies only to fire protection district ordinances adopted by a fire protection district board and then ratified by the local jurisdiction.

H&S Code Section 13869.7 sets forth a procedure for when a “fire protection district” proposes to adopt an ordinance that will apply to a city or county. A fire protection district proposing such an ordinance shall, at least 30 days prior to the public hearing, provide a copy of the ordinance to the local jurisdictions within the district so they may provide the district with written comments. Upon adoption of the ordinance by the fire protection district, the fire protection district is required to transmit the adopted ordinance to the local jurisdiction. The legislative body of the local jurisdiction then has 15 days to either ratify, modify or deny the adopted ordinance. No ordinance adopted by the fire protection district becomes effective unless ratified by the local agency. Upon ratification, the adopted ordinance must be filed with HCD.

In contrast, H&S Code sections 17958, 17958,7, and 18941.5 provide for a separate procedure pursuant to which a city or county may adopt more restrictive changes to the Building Standards Code under Title 24, including the California Fire Code, by making findings that such modifications or changes are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions. These findings and the code modifications must be filed with the Building Standards Commission and are not effective until filed.15 As opposed to a fire protection district, codes and modifications adopted by cities pursuant to this independent authority do not require filing with HCD or a state agency other than the Building Standards Commission.

Here, Section 503.1.1 was adopted by the Town pursuant to its authority as an incorporated city under H&S Code sections 17958, 17958.7, and 18941.5, based on findings of local climatic, geographic, and topographical conditions. The codes adopted by references and amended based on local findings are clearly set forth under Ordinance No. 607, which also specified it is being adopted pursuant to 15 H&S Code section 17958.7(a); See Building Standards Commission 2022 Title 24 Guide, page 54 of 62, Attachment 19 to the June 18, 2025 Staff Report.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 23
H&S Code sections 17958, 17958.7, and 18941.5. There was no fire protection district or local jurisdiction ratification action that took place. In this case, there was no fire protection district that adopted an ordinance applicable to the Town, no adopted fire protection district ordinance that was transmitted to Los Altos Hills for ratification, and no action was taken by Los Altos Hills on such an ordinance.16 Instead, Los Altos Hills consulted SCCFD on the proposed amendments per SCCFD’s role as the contract fire agency for the Town. As specifically identified in Ordinance No. 607, Los Altos Hills adopted its local amendments to the California Fire Code pursuant to H&S Code sections 17958, 17958.7, and 18941.5, which specifically authorizes cities and counties to adopt amendments to the California Building Standards Code upon making requisite findings that the more restrictive standard is reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions.

Ordinance No. 607 made these findings and was properly adopted by the Town. Ordinance No. 607 was then timely filed with the Building Standards Commission on December 19, 2022.17 Based on the foregoing, therefore, the Fire Code regulations were validly adopted by the Town. These regulations, inclusive of Section 503.1.1, were adopted and in effect prior to the Project’s initial preliminary application filed on February 1, 2023 and the most recent preliminary application filed on April 11, 2023. As further explained below, Section 503.1.1 represents an objective standard designed to promote and protect health and safety within the Town. Therefore, it applies to the Project and Applicant’s procedural arguments are invalid.

4. County Fire Department Determination of Project Non-Compliance Pursuant to SCCFD review, the Project does not comply with Section 503.1.1 of the Fire Code as adopted and amended by the Town. SCCFD determinations and bases are set forth in further detail as follows, with information retrieved from staff report attachments accompanying this resolution and a part of the record before the City Council. The City Council adopts these determinations and bases for the purposes of making its findings. All references to Section 503.1.1 below are to the Fire Code as adopted and amended by the Town.
• 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 Section 503.1.1 and specifies that all portions of the building shall be within 150 feet of fire department access. • 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 Section 503.1.1. • SCCFD August 14, 2023 Plan Review Comments (No. 23-2718): This letter reviews the Project’s revised 55-unit proposal. It specifies that the Project does not meet the 150-foot distance requirement in Section 503.1.1 and that the Applicant requests an approval of up to 300 feet. The letter notes that fire personnel would have to travel 35 to 42 foot elevation 16 As noted above, there was no fire district action adopting or transmitting an ordinance to the Town in this case.

However, even if the SCCFD (the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District) had adopted an ordinance, such ordinance would not be applicable to Los Altos Hills as Los Altos Hills is outside the boundaries of the district whose jurisdictional boundaries encompass the cities of Cupertino, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, a portion of Saratoga and certain unincorporated areas. Instead, SCCFD serves as Los Altos Hills’ contract fire protection agency pursuant to the parties’ 2016 Fire and Emergency Medical Services Agreement. This Agreement makes clear that Los Altos Hills retains all of its authority to promulgate, adopt, and apply/rule on disputes for its codes. See Attachment 20 and sections 3.2.3, 3.2.4 as an example.
17 See Building Standards Commission Correspondence, Attachment 21 to the June 18, 2025 Staff Report.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 24
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-foot 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 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): This letter reviews the Project’s revised 55-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 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 City Council notes that SCCFD in the foregoing review also determined that the neighboring senior residential development project at 10758 Mora Drive, which is located one parcel away from this Project and with nearly identical development proposals and unit count, is inconsistent with Section 503.1.1 for the same reasons.

5. Applicant Request for Alternative Measures and Denial by County Fire Department On March 20, 2024, the Applicant submitted an Alternate Means and Methods Request (“AMMR”) for the Project. On October 8, 2024, the Applicant submitted an AMMR for the neighboring residential project at 10758 Mora Drive. The March 4 AMMR proposes certain mitigation measures to “increase safety along access paths” and to “mitigate excessive distance” with regards to Fire Code Section 503.1.1.

As discussed in further detail in the next subsection, the October 8 AMMR for 10758 Mora Drive proposes to provide a sprinkler system; upgrade the fire resistance level for a portion of the proposed building exterior wall; remove some of the glass windows or increase their fire ratings for sides of the building; add standpipe outlet for water hoses at certain building exterior walls, and to separate entry and exit pathways for residents and firefighters by reserving the north and south sides respectively for each. Ultimately, as specified below, all of these measures were denied as feasible mitigation measures by SCCFD because they do not mitigate the excessive distance deficiency under Section 503.1.1 and do not provide equivalent safety and effectiveness protections. The October 8 AMMR provides helpful insight for reviewing feasible alternatives at 10728 Mora Drive because of the sites’ and projects’ substantial similarities. The following summarizes the AMMR review. • SCCFD April 23, 2024 Plan Review Comments (Plan Check No. 24-1147): This comment letter disapproves the AMMR and requests additional information and revisions.

Specifically, the comment letter responds to the proposed alternate measures as follows:
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.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 25
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.

The record demonstrates that the Applicant did not submit the requested information after SCCFD issued the April 23 letter. On October 8, 2024, the Applicant submitted an AMMR for the 10758 Mora Drive project. That AMMR proposes similar measures as the request submitted for the Project.

Due to the similarities in both 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive projects including but not limited to size and constraints of the underlying parcels, development proposals, proposed uses, site layout, and density, the 10758 AMMR and the SCCFD response are helpful and persuasive in determining that the Project creates a specific, adverse impact and fails to provide mitigation without rendering the Project unaffordable to lower and moderate income households.

The SCCFD response to the 10758 Mora Drive AMMR is summarized below. • 10758 Mora Drive- SCCFD November 20, 2024 Letter (Plan Check No. 24-4312): this letter formally denies the AMMR for the Project 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:
o Providing automatic sprinklers: this proposed measure is already required by the Fire Code and cannot be used to replace or supplement an existing deficiency. o 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.
o 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.
o 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 would 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 stairsto 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.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 26

6. Subsequent Resubmittals by the Applicant in 2025
On January 30, 2025, the Applicant submitted revisions to the Project which decreased both the number of dwelling units and the percentage of affordable units. The Applicant also made similar significant revisions to the project application for the 10758 Mora Drive property. On February 25 and May 29, 2025, the Applicant made further revisions to the Project that reduced both unit counts and affordability. Despite these revisions, however, the Applicant did not make changes to the building exteriors, building length, setbacks or other external features of the Project. For instance, in all three Project iterations continued to occupy over 80 percent of the entire lot and maintain 5-foot side setbacks. The only additional fire protection feature proposed to the Project was an external standpipe connection on the east end of each of the 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive buildings. In the May 29 resubmittal, the Applicant specifies that the building has been provided with two fire sprinklers in the rear pursuant to Fire Code section 901.3.1.1 per NFPA 14 standards.

The SCCFD reviewed the Project revisions in 2025 and maintained its prior determination that the Project does not comply with Section 503.1.1 and the AMMR remains denied. Specifically, as summarized below:
• SCCFD February 27, 2025 Plan Review Comments (No. 25-0570): This letter reviews the Project’s 43-unit revision submitted January 30, 2025. The letter notes that the exterior dimensions and layout of the building are unchanged from the prior submittal and that therefore, the Fire Department’s inability to access the building remains unchanged. The letter refers to the previous denials and notes that the Project does not provide a fire apparatus access road within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building. The letter goes on to state that the Fire Code Official did not approve an extension to the 150-foot requirement for the proposed development under Exception 1 to Section 503.1.1 as adopted and amended by the Town “due to site-specific challenges, including but not limited to the site’s topography, varying access slopes and elevations adjacent to the sides and rear of building, minimal access widths between fencing and the building, a single access road on one side of the building, and the threat of wildfire.”
• SCCFD March 25, 2025 Plan Review Comments (No. 25-0960): This letter reviews the Project’s revised 43-unit proposal submitted February 25, 2025. It specifies that the Project continues to be inconsistent with Section 503.1.1’s 150 feet distance requirement as the exterior dimensions and layout of the building are unchanged. Specifically, the project does not provide a fire apparatus access road within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building. Thus, the fire code official does not approve an exception to the 150-foot requirement for the same reasons. It also notes that the proposed supplemental fire protection measures (which as noted in the accompanying staff report, consists of generally similar measures to upgrade fire resistance, separate exits, and removing glass/windows, as the previously proposed AMMR measures) do not sufficiently address these site-specific challenges. • SCCFD June 10, 2025 Plan Review Comments (No. 25-2538): This letter reviews the Project’s revised 30-unit proposal submitted May 29, 2025. It specifies that the Project continues to be inconsistent with Section 503.1.1, as the exterior dimensions and layout of the building are unchanged. It also notes that the proposed supplemental fire protection measures do not sufficiently address the site-specific challenges because they fail to properly mitigate risks caused by the building’s layout and siting.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 27
The SCCFD also reviewed the 2025 revisions to the 10758 Mora Drive project and reached the same conclusions. Similar to the section above, it is helpful and persuasive to review the SCCFD comments for the 10758 Mora Drive project because of the similarities between these two developments and site constraints. In its review, the SCCFD maintained its prior determination that the 10758 Mora Drive project does not comply with Section 503.1.1 and the AMMR remains denied. Specifically:
• SCCFD February 27, 2025 Plan Review Comments (No. 25-0571): This letter reviews the Project’s 45-unit revision submitted January 30, 2025. The letter notes that the exterior dimensions and layout of the building are unchanged from the prior submittal and that therefore, the Fire Department’s inability to access the building remains unchanged. The letter refers to the previous denials and notes that the Project does not provide a fire apparatus access road within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building. The letter goes on to state that the Fire Code Official did not approve an extension to the 150-foot requirement for the proposed development under Exception 1 to Section 503.1.1 as adopted and amended by the Town “due to site-specific challenges, including but not limited to the site’s topography, varying access slopes and elevations adjacent to the sides and rear of building, minimal access widths between fencing and the building, a single access road on one side of the building, and the threat of wildfire.” • SCCFD March 25, 2025 Plan Review Comments (No. 25-0959): This letter reviews the Project’s revised 45-unit proposal submitted February 25, 2025. It specifies that the Project continues to be inconsistent with Section 503.1.1’s 150 feet distance requirement as the exterior dimensions and layout of the building are unchanged. Specifically, the project does not provide a fire apparatus access road within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building. Thus, the fire code official does not approve an exception to the 150-foot requirement for the same reasons. It also notes that the proposed supplemental fire protection measures (which again as noted in the accompanying staff report, consists of generally similar measures to upgrade fire resistance, separate exits, and removing glass/windows, as the previously proposed AMMR measures) do not sufficiently address these site-specific challenges. • SCCFD June 10, 2025 Plan Review Comments (No. 25-2537): This letter reviews the Project’s revised 32-unit proposal submitted May 29, 2025. It specifies that the Project continues to be inconsistent with Section 503.1.1, as the exterior dimensions and layout of the building are unchanged. It also notes that the proposed supplemental fire protection measures do not sufficiently address the site-specific challenges because they fail to properly mitigate risks caused by the building’s layout and siting.

7. The Project does not comply with Section 503.1.1 of the Fire Code as adopted and amended by the Town and does not provide adequate fire apparatus/personnel access, thereby resulting in a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety under Gov. Code Section 65589.5.

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 ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 28
development applicant or proponent and the public official before submittal.”18 In this case, the 150-foot distance requirement under Section 503.1.1 is an objective and quantifiable numeric standard; applying it to the Project 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. The City Council further notes that, as explained above, the 150-foot standard is an objective standard contained in the IFC’s model Fire Code based on measurable technical factors like hose reach, water flow requirements and tactical response needs. This standard has been adopted by the Town through the authority conferred and process set forth under Health and Safety Code sections 17958 and 17958.7, and was in effect prior to the Project preliminary application submittals of February 1 and April 11, 2023. As such, it is an applicable standard for the Project. The application of Section 503.1.1 and the 150-foot standard to the Project and the specific adverse impact analysis are, therefore, well supported by Section 65589.5.

Based on the record below, it is clear that the Project proposes a fire access road that fails to meet Section 503.1.1 because it does not provide a fire apparatus access road that extends to within 150 feet of all portions of the proposed residential building and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building, as measured by that proposed fire access road. This inconsistency is a numeric deficiency and does not require any exercise of judgment or subjective evaluation on the part of the reviewing body. In other words, as noted on the diagram in the accompanying staff report and the Project plans, the proposed fire apparatus access road situated at the front of the parcel and proposed building does not extend to allow firefighters and hoses to reach all sides of the building including the rear within the required 150 feet distance. The bulk of the building is beyond the 150 foot distance and contains only narrow 5-foot side setbacks on a steeply sloped lot. Instead, the Applicant has proposed to increase the travel distance to 300 feet which is double the distance required. This increase is proposed on a narrow, steeply sloped lot in a densely vegetated hillside area of the Town on a roadway where portions of the road can only support one way traffic due to its twist and turn configuration and as explained below render it difficult and dangerous for firefighters to navigate the challenging terrain.

As defined by Section 202 of the California Fire Code19, a “fire apparatus access road” is “a road that provides fire apparatus [i.e. fire trucks] access from a fire station to a facility, building or portion therefor.” The requirement of this path of travel and the distance that it must be located from the proposed building providesfirefighters and fire trucks the ability to quickly access a building or facility once they arrive on scene during a fire emergency. As specified in the SCCFD November 20, 2024 AMMR denial letter, 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.

The Project’s failure to satisfy this 150-foot distance requirement significantly impedes the ability of firefighters to have sufficient water hose length to efficiently deploy firefighting resources, thereby creating a significant safety risk and dangers of substantial injury and death for both the firefighters and the residents and staff of the building.

Given the Project’s unique location and exposure to wildfire hazards, the significance of this public safety/health and life-threatening risk cannot be overstated. As set forth above, the Project site is located in a densely vegetated area at the edge of the Los Altos Hills town boundary. It is also 18 Gov. Code section 65589.5(f)(9).
19 Chapter 2, Part 29, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. The Council notes this provision has also been adopted by the Town as a part of the applicable Fire Code for Los Altos Hills.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 29
surrounded by single-family, occupied residences and is in close proximity to the Rancho San Antonio County Park/Open Space Preserve and the recreational Mora Trail, which areas contain a significant amount of open space and dry grass vegetation. Images of the Project site in the record 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 visible or less visible from the roadway.

Notably, Cal Fire has determined that the area is in a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The Town is in the process of adopting an ordinance that will amend the designation for this area to Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone based on observed local conditions. Regardless of the designation as a High or Very High hazard zone, the designation itself demonstrates the Project is located in an area at real and substantiated risk of wildfire.

Additionally, the Project site itself contains unique topographical and geological limitations that worsen these safety and life-threatening risks. At the outset, the Project site is a 0.374-acre parcel of a narrow shape and steep topography. The lot is 68 feet wide at the front property line which narrows to 59 feet at the rear (with average width of 63.5 feet) and 260.52 feet deep with an average slope of

20.44 percent. This significant slope and narrow width already limit the parcel’s development capacity and available building envelope. Further, the Projectsite has only one main accessible public roadway from Mora Drive fronting the parcel and without any roadways in the back of the parcel where the bulk of the building is located. 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. The Project site is also sloped towards the back of the parcel, which means that access to the back of the site and proposed building requires navigating steeper elevations in an area without access roads. All of these unique site-specific problems further exacerbate the risk of fire spreading and the inability of firefighters to deploy effectively in time. The topography and the single point of access results in much of the building lies beyond the reach of fire suppression equipment from Mora Drive. This means that the fire department cannot initiate a standard hose stretch along the lower levels of the buildings’ eastern elevations.

Indeed, the SCCFD April 23, 2024 AMMR Disapproval Letter demonstrates that none of the proposed mitigation alternatives address the excessive distance deficiency. The prior SCCFD Comment Letter dated August 14, 2023 noted that that fire personnel would have to travel a 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. None of the AMMR measures proposed addressed this critical deficiency that creates life-threatening conditions for both firefighters and evacuating residents alike.

The Applicant has since failed to further propose any alternatives to the Fire Department to address this code noncompliance.

Likewise, due to the substantial similarities between the Project site and the 10758 Mora Drive site, the SCCFD November 20, 2024 AMMR Denial Letter further illustrates how the naturally challenging and constraining site risk factors create site-specific challenges due to its topography and threat of wildfire. Here, the Project proposes to construct a multi-story residential building that is 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 seniors, a population demonstrably seniors who are particularly vulnerable in emergencies due to higher incidence of limited mobility, hearing and cognitive decline, and pre-existing health conditions. Notwithstanding these risk factors, the Project site 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 path of travel along the ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 30
exterior of the building is narrow, being 5 feet in width (and with potential additional project features encroaching into that space) with steps as the elevation changes downslope, and would need to accommodate both evacuating residents and firefighters. The 10758 Mora Drive AMMR Denial Letter accurately pointed out that there is already minimal access widths between the 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 reflected in these comments, the Project’s location in a remote and steep hillside area as well as its 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 Project has failed to address these essential public safety needs and respond to the risk exposure. It fails to adhere to the 150-foot distance requirement under Section 503.1.1 but rather proposes to increase fire apparatus access road distance beyond the code requirements, at double the distance of 300 feet.

This does not allow firefighters and fire trucks to have sufficient hose length and minimal travel distance to quickly respond to fire threats both in the building itself or externally. Consequently, the Project creates a significant, quantifiable, direct and unavoidable impact not only for the number of senior residents who would occupy the development at full capacity, but also for the immediate and surrounding residents exposed to the same wildfire threats. As noted in the Fire Code and Safety Analysis Report prepared by Pyroanalysis, LLC, response to a fire a multi-story building like the project would involve multiple engines and truck companies, including an initial assignment of 42- 50 firefighters to deploy hoselines, conduct search operations to extend ground ladders involving multiple engines and truck companies. Such a response simply cannot be accommodated by a single point of fire apparatus access.

It must be highlighted that the foregoing site risk factors also cannot be discounted in the event that emergency responders need to access the building and respond to urgency medical or life-threatening events. Such personnel would need the same amount of quick access and ability to transport equipment/patients from the residential building. The likelihood of such medical or life-threatening emergencies, given the nature of the senior residential development and the dense occupancy, is much higher than any other development in the Town. In cases of emergencies, responders would be required to traverse longer distancesfrom the emergency response vehicle or fire engine and similarly would be required to transport patients or victims via the same significantly longer path of travel.

These emergency responders would also be required to navigate steep elevations when trying to reach the rear of the building due to the site’s natural geographical constraints. A fire access road that does not meet Section 503.1.1 would impede rescue capacity and deny responders the ease of access and the ability to efficiently and effectively respond to such emergencies. The severity and significance of this threat to public safety is reflected in SCCFD’s repeated rejections of the Applicant’s proposal to allow for excessive distance and be exempted from the 150-foot requirement.

The City Council hereby finds that the foregoing failure to comply with Section 503.1.1 creates a significant, adverse impact as defined by Government Code section 65589.5 based on the objective, identified 150-foot distance, as that section and the Town’s Fire Code existed on February 2023 when the Project preliminary application wassubmitted and on April 2023 when it was revised.

B. 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.

1. AMMR Review and Determination by SCCFD
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 31
Section 503.1.1, as modified by Town 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 an “Alternate Means and Methods Request” (“AMMR”) to mitigate the excessive distance.

In his March 20, 2024 AMMR for the Project, the Applicant proposed the following mitigation measures:
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 the foregoing proposal in its April 23, 2024 disapproval letter. The Fire Department specifically asked for clarification to show that these options can offer equivalent safety and protection, since some if not all are already required by the Fire Code or Building Code due to certain Project features.

In the October 8, 2024 AMMR for the 10758 Mora Drive property, the Applicant proposed the following similar mitigating measures:
1) Provide an NFPA 13 sprinkler system.
2) Upgrade the fire resistance rating of the Type I-A exterior wall. 3) Remove glass or increase fire ratings of windows within 10 feet of the path of travel on the sides of buildings.
4) 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.

Likewise, SCCFD rejected all of these proposals in the November 20, 2024 Denial Letter. These rejections offer valuable insight into the Project’s inability to propose feasible mitigation measures since it failed to do so for a substantially similar project on a substantially similarsite. Specifically:
1) Provide an NFPA 13 sprinkler system. This measure is already required by the California Fire Code and therefore fails to mitigate the excessive distance deficiency. As noted in SCCFD’s findings, a less stringent sprinkler system would not be permitted under any circumstances and thus a measure already required by code cannot serve as an alternative to resolve a separate noncompliance.
2) Upgrade the fire resistance rating of the Type I-A exterior wall. SCCFD determined that “this measure fails to address the Type III-A construction portion of the building that a firefighter would need to pass while traversing the sides of the building, which is not ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 32
proposed for an upgrade in fire rating.” As noted in SCCFD’s letter, although the Applicant claims that such wall upgrade would protect firefighters from potential fire exposure at a critical entry point, the proposed mitigating measure fails to address the “Type III-A” construction which is that is adjacent to and above the path of travel. Additionally, the proposed measure does not address fire apparatus access needs, which is the original distance requirement under Section 503.1.1. Thus, as stated by SCCFD, the proposed measure “fails to provide equivalent effectiveness and safety” under Section 503.1.1. 3) Remove glass or increase fire ratings of windows within 10 feet of the path of travel on the sides of buildings. As an AMMR measure, the Applicant proposed removing all windows within 10 feet of the firefighter path of travel from the Type I-A construction portion of the building and upgrading the remaining windows in the Type I-A portion to ¾-hour rated glass. However, SCCFD notes that the proposal to upgrade the fire resistance rating of the exterior walls, discussed in #2 above, already requires 1.5-hour rated glass per California Building Code (CBC) Table 716.1 (3). Additionally, SCCFD observed that there are residential unit windows at the south elevation path of travel (within 10 feet of the path of travel) that are not proposed to be fire rated. In particular, SCCFD’s comment notes that “A single window in the Type Ill-A portion of the southwest side is proposed to be upgraded from ¾ to 1-hour rated glass. It appears an additional residential unit window within 10 feet of the firefighter path of travel (directly above stairs) is not proposed to be fire rated. All remaining windows in the Type III-A portion of the building are not rated.” Consequently, the Project “proposes unrated windows directly above and adjacent to firefighter path of travel.” Ultimately, the proposed modification to the windows does not address the need for fire apparatus access under Section 503.1.1. For these reasons, SCCFD concluded that the proposed alternative failsto provide equivalent effectiveness and safety to mitigate excessive distance pursuant to Section 503.1.1.
4) Standpipe outlets added at north and south exterior walls. SCCFD determined that these proposed outlets do not provide the same level of safety and effectiveness protections and does not satisfy Section 503.1.1, because they “increase operational hose deployment time compared to hose pre-connects from an apparatus. Standpipe outlets are also less reliable than pre-connects fed directly from an apparatus for several reasons, including required system maintenance and the potential for closed valves and other system failures upstream of the hose valves.” Accordingly, SCCFD concluded that this measure likewise fails to provide equivalent effectiveness and safety of the requirements of Section 503.1.1. 5) Separation of occupant egress and firefighter ingress pathways. Applicant claims that this designation will reduce the conflict between occupant egress and firefighter ingress during an event. However, SCCFD concluded that this measure also fails to address site-specific risk factors and does not mitigate the need for fire apparatus access. Specifically, SCCFD notes as follows: “In the proposed plans, occupants utilizing the wheelchair ramp will share space with firefighter ingress for a limited portion of the front right (south) side of the building. Because of this shared ingress/egress space, the measure fails to separate ingress and egress pathways. Furthermore, if firefighters need to gain access to stairway #2 on the north side of the building, this mitigation measure would increase the travel distance to over 300 feet by requiring firefighters to traverse the south, east, and finally north sides of the building.” Accordingly, SCCFD notes that this measure actually increases the distance from the fire apparatus access road to portions of the building. It therefore concluded that the proposed measure does not address the need for equivalent effectiveness and safety of the requirements of Section 503.1.1.

The SCCFD then affirmed its AMMR denial and its reasoning in comment letters dated February 27, March 25, and June 10, 2025. Specifically, reasons articulated by SCCFD include:

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 33
• The Applicant made no changes to the building footprint, external dimensions, and building layout throughout the 2025 revisions. Consequently, the excessive distance issue is still present and the Fire Department’s inability to access the building remains unchanged. • The Project has site-specific challenges, including but not limited to the site’s topography, varying access slopes and elevations adjacent to the sides and rear of building, minimal access widths between fencing and the building, a single access road on one side of the building, and the threat of wildfire.
• The supplemental fire protection measures proposed (i.e. upgrade fire resistance materials, separate exits, removing glass, enhanced construction materials), and standpipes to the rear of the building, are inadequate as they do not sufficiently address the dangers created by the Project’s site specific challenges. Notably, SCCFD previously already determined in its November 2024 denial letter that standpipe outlets and interior sprinkler system do not provide equivalent effectiveness safety in the absence of adequate fire apparatus access distance.

The City Council first notes that the foregoing AMMR exception and review process is consistent with Section 65589.5 and SCCFD’s denial of Applicant’s AMMR is also consistent with the application of objective standards of the Town’s Fire Code. There is nothing in the record demonstrating that the Applicant is precluded from complying with the 150-foot distance requirement, nor does the Applicant argue that he is unable to comply. In fact, the compliance issue with Section 503.1.1 was raised by SCCFD during the first plan check comment letter after the initial Project submittal, but the Applicant has not taken any actions to revise the Project so that it complies with Section 503.1.1. Instead, the Applicant elected to pursue Exception No. 1 but failed to demonstrate that proposed alternatives provided the equivalent of fire apparatus access to the lower portion of the building and failed to adequately address site specific factors such as the narrow evacuation routes. These inadequacies remained throughout the 2025 Project revisions and Applicant has not proposed any measures that were not already considered by SCCFD to address them. Therefore, the fire code official properly denied the AMMR.

The Council notes that the Applicant has argued in his October 8, 2024 AMMR for 10758 Mora Drive and the record below that Exception No. 1 violates the Housing Accountability Act because it states that the 150-foot distance “may” be increased to up to 300 feet when approved by the fire code official; however, the Applicant is incorrect. The 150-foot distance required by Section 503.1.1 is an objective standard and applies equally to every project. Where the Project fails to meet such objective standard, Section 503.1.1 provides an opportunity to pursue exceptions at the discretion of the fire code official. In this case, the Applicant elected to pursue an exception to the objective standard instead of revising the Project to conform with said standard. The Project remains inconsistent with the applicable objective standard, which is applied uniformly to all developments.

Thus, the approving authority’s discretion to approve or deny the exception is consistent with Section 65589.5 provisions.

2. The AMMR Was Properly Denied by SCCFD
Turning to the AMMR and denial at issue, the record below clearly demonstrates that the Applicant has failed to present a “feasible method” to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact resulting from the Project’s failure to comply with Section 503.1.1, both for his first attempt in submitting one for the Project and then again for the substantially similar project and site at 10758 Mora Drive. For that second attempt, 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 ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 34
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.

With the Project revisions since January 2025, the Applicant has not made any changes to the building exterior or setbacks. The Project remains a massive building occupying over 80 percent of a steeply sloped, narrow parcel, with only 5 feet of side setbacks on either side the building that do not allow sufficient space for fire crew access. The only measure that Applicant most recently included in the May 29, 2025 resubmittal is to modify the project notes to identify the two standpipes at the rear of the building be “per NFPA-14 and SCCFD standards”. As noted above, the standpipe outlet approach was already reviewed and determined inadequate by SCCFD as a part of the AMMR denial in November 2024. SCCFD in particular pointed out that these measures increase operational hose deployment time as opposed to just having the fire hose already connected from a fire truck.

Plus, they are less reliable than having the hose coming directly from the fire truck including but not limited to maintenance and valve failure issues.

As demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence in the record, the Applicant has not provided equivalent safety and effectiveness measures that would mitigate the significant risk of fire exposure for the Project’s occupants, especially in the case where the anticipated residents would be 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 PyroAnalysis Fire Code Safety and Analysis Report provides extensive rationale for the 150-foot distance requirement as well as the inadequacy of the measures proposed as potential alternatives. As detailed in the report, none of the measures provide equivalent safety and effectiveness, hence do not satisfactorily mitigate the excessive distance adverse impact.

It is particularly important to emphasize that, in reviewing the AMMR proposals, the City Council observes that the mitigating measures proposed by the Applicant are either already required by the Fire Code elsewhere or being proposed as a “partial” response to upgrade some parts of the building but not others. None of the measures specifically addresses the excessive distance being proposed by the Project due to the location of the fire access road and the impact on rescue capacity at the site.

Instead, the alternatives proposed by the Applicant are passive approaches, ignoring external threat of fire, and attempt to reduce only some of the fire risk exposures once firefighters and emergency personnel have had to navigate the single excessive fire access road distance in order to reach the residential building. As another example, even if assuming internal sprinklers all activated successfully and have control of the fire (which likely is an uncertainty and not always the case, particularly for large scale, serious fire incidents) fire crews would be unable to perform critical exterior operations, such as ladder rescues or fire attack from the structure’s downhill face. The risks and dangers posed by the excessive distance remain for firefighters and residents alike. Similarly, for these reasons, the evidence in the record amply demonstrates that the Applicant has not proposed any feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact created by the Project’s excessive fire access road distance described above.

The City Council notes that as a part of the May 29, 2025 resubmittal, the Applicant cites to a project reviewed by SCCFD for Apple Park Campus in the City of Cupertino. The Applicant claims that the SCCFD approved an AMMR for two separate projects for Apple Park where an AMMR for utilizing an NFPA-14 standpipe at the building rear was approved in lieu of compliance with Section 503.1.1.

The Applicant asserts, on this basis, that the Project is providing the same standpipe at the rear of the building and thus the AMMR must be approved here. The City Council finds these assertions to be invalid.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 35
At the outset, the Applicant incorrectly states that an AMMR was approved for two separate projects.

In fact, it was a single project with an amendment to AMMR where SCCFD approved installation of a manual wet standpipe. The proposed building for which the AMMR was requested was a single story, below grade, non-residential, 10,4000 square foot structure proposed for part of the Apple Park’s underground roadway and parking structure. There is no comparison between this structure and the current Project. The size, intended occupancy, location, and site characteristics are completely different. There are no residential uses proposed for the Apple Park project; that project site is also located within a well-established commercial campus and does not present the same unique safety challenges and fire risks as the Project parcel. The fire risks and adverse impact to public health and safety is significantly more serious and drastic in the Project. Thus, based on the record presented, the Cupertino project in no way compares to the Project and the need to mitigate significant fire, safety and health dangers to residents and the community that is present for the Project and the 10758 Mora Drive development. The Applicant’s assertions, therefore, do not provide any evidence to suggest that Applicant proposed any feasible mitigation alternatives or that the SCCFD denial was incorrect or improper. It remains that the Applicant has not proposed any feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact created by the Project’s excessive fire access road distance described above.

3. There Is No Feasible Mitigation Without Rendering the Development Unaffordable to Lowand Moderate-Income Households Likewise, the record also demonstrates 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 review with SCCFD but has only proposed conventional 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 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 submitted plans and the 150-foot distance requirement, the proposed Project building depth would need to be reduced in order to have all sides of the building to be within the 150-foot distance reach. Such a redesign of the proposed building, however, most likely would result in a loss of residential units. Given the Project site already has a narrow width of 68 feet and is constrained by a 260.52-foot depth and average slope of 25.68 percent, the available buildable area is naturally diminished. The Project site plans show the proposed building utilizing as much of the horizontal site area as possible, leaving only 5 feet of side setback from the property boundaries (in contrast, the Town’s standard side setback requirement is 30 feet). Under these circumstances, redesigning to reduce building depth to create a smaller building necessarily results in reduction of the number of residential units.

The Project, as revised on May 29, 2025, proposes 30 residential units with 3 units set aside for very low- or extremely-low income households. As a part of the initial February and April 2023 submittals, the Project proposes to map the units as condominiums.20 Because the project is proposed as senior housing with amenities commonly provided in senior residential communities (which are frequently operated as for-rent communities) including nail and hair salon, chiropractic, 20 February and April 2023 Preliminary Applications, Attachment 3 to the June 18, 2025 Staff Report. Applicant has not proposed to change or withdraw the condominium plan but has yet to provide a complete condo map.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 36
transportation shuttles, medical treatment, assisted living services, and giftshop, and also proposes to provide leasing offices, tenant management, as well as interior-management services, it is reasonably assumed that the Project units will operate as rental units.

In January 2025, the Town’s Building Official provided an initial affordability analysis21 (“Affordability Analysis”) and in June 2025, the Town’s economic/real estate consultant Century | Urban provided a Feasibility Analysis22 (“Feasibility Analysis”), to evaluate potential Project redesign scenarios and feasibility. These analyses reviewed various Project iterations in 2023 and 2025 to examined project feasibility scenarios under the base development and a reduced development scenario. The Affordability Analysis estimates that the Project would need to remove approximately 8,284 square feet of building area to accommodate the additional fire access road distance. Of this square footage, it is estimated based on the distribution of individual dwelling unit square footages that 5,401 square feet would be residential.

In order for the Project to maintain affordability and Builder’s Remedy eligibility under Section 65589.5(d), it appears the most feasible approach is for the Project to remove a combination of market-rate and below-market rate (BMR) units for low-income. The Applicant’s declaration submitted as a part of the January 30, 2025 revisions acknowledge this point—the number of BMR units are a direct percentage of the number of market rate units, so that if market rate units are removed, the number of BMR units would also be reduced.23 The Affordability Analysis performed a cost evaluation on the November 2023 Project plans based on the International Code Council (ICC) Building Valuation Data, which is a well-established, identified benchmark utilized by jurisdiction in California and nationwide for purposes including but not limited to determining development and building permit fees. Additionally, the affordability analysis also examined the Project’s estimated rate of return by comparing the change in estimated construction costs, land costs, and projected income from Project units. Based on a combination of estimated construction costs, land costs, and unit income projection, the Project is not estimated to achieve and rate of return, and would continue to carry its costs, for approximately 8 years. 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 nearly 9 years.

The Feasibility Analysis conducted another substantive review of the Project as revised in February 2025 and May 2025. It reviews factors and metrics such as construction costs, economic conditions, market rent trends, and return-on-cost (i.e. net operating income over the total development cost) to determine whether the Project can achieve a market return and what the Project’s “residual land value”—the maximum amount a developer can pay for a development site and achieve a market rate return—would be, in order to demonstrate feasibility. The Feasibility Analysis evaluated the Project under a base development scenario with BMR units, a “reduced development” scenario with reduced building design and with BMR units, and both of those scenarios without BMR units assuming they were removed to maintain Project development.

The Feasibility Analysis concluded that even without BMR units, the Project already does not achieve returns consistent with market returns which suggests that the project would be challenging to attract capital and financing for development, and that unit rents for the proposed affordable units would need to exceed market levels, effectively rendering those units unaffordable to low- and 21 Attachment 23 to June 18, 2025 Staff Report. 22 Attachment 24 to June 18, 2025 Staff Report. 23 Declaration of Forrest Linebarger, Attachment 8 (page 30 of 187) to the June 18, 2025 Staff Report.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 37
moderate-income households. It should be noted that the Affordability Analysis conservatively assumes that there are no additional code compliance or other financing issues that further increases Project costs and reduces its financial feasibility. The Feasibility Analysis also conservatively omits the Project’s historical land basis and developer carrying costs to date, both of which would further increase the Project’s total development costs to further reduce feasibility.

Using the 10728 Mora Drive parcel as an example, as reviewed by the Feasibility Analysis, the Project in the base development scenario with BMR units as of the February 2025 submittal already has a negative Residual Land Value (RLV) of $12 million. A reduced development scenario where the building footprint and unit numbers are decreased but with BMR units, the negative RLV is lessened to $11 million but remains significant. The Going-In Return-On-Cost is approximately 4 percent in either scenario, which is well below the target return of 6 percent based on market trends.

Similarly, under the May 2025 Project submittal the base development scenario is also infeasible and a reduced building footprint results in a lower return that further diminishes affordability. Finally, the Affordability Analysis reviewing the earlier version of the Project also similarly concludes that if 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 nearly 9 years. This significant cost carrying period would result in either the loss of BMR units or raising their rents rendering them unaffordable to low- or moderateincome households.

Consequently, based on these economic analyses, the Project is already infeasible under its base development scenario and reducing the building square footage to address the Fire Code 150-foot standard 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 low- and moderate-income households.

Notably, this conclusion is further supported by and consistent with the Applicant’s consistent approaches to increase the number of market rate units and reducing the number of affordable units and affordability targets. Since its inception, the Project has been reduced from a 20 percent affordable development with 11 affordable units for low-income households to a project with 10 percent affordable units—3 units out of the 30-unit project—reserved only for very low- or extremely-low income households24 and eliminating affordable opportunities for low- and moderateincome households. The overall Project units have also been reduced from 55 to 30 units, representing an approximately 45 percent decrease. In addition to this significant reduction in affordable units and the number of dwellings, the Project has also proposed to reserve the smallest units of in the development as affordable housing, which are approximately 300 square feet and appear to be studio units. The market rate units, on the other hand, are as large as 2,826 square feet as shown in the May 2025 resubmittal. The Applicant has also specified that the Project will not provide a comparable bedroom and bathroom count for the affordable units as the market rate units.

These Project proposals clearly contradict Government Code Section 65589.5(f)(6)(G)(ii) and the overall goal of the Builder’s Remedy statute to incentivize and streamline development of affordable 24 The Feasibility Analysis accounted for the affordability discrepancy in the 10728 Mora Drive May 2025 plans, and conservatively used very-low income for the purposes of that portion of the analysis covering the May revisions.

Assuming costs, code compliance, and other criteria being equal, extremely-low income units (which are essentially 30 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI) has more financial effect on feasibility when compared to the same unit at very-low income (50 percent of AMI); however, even assuming the project includes very-low income units, the Feasibility Analysis still concludes that the project would be infeasible.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 38
housing to serve the low- and moderate-income households with equal housing opportunity.

The City Council notes that the California Legislature has committed significant efforts to address the state’s housing shortage crisis by adopting a number of statutes aimed at promoting housing development, affirmatively furthering fair housing, increasing housing mobility, and incentivizing the production of affordable housing. These gorals are unequivocally reflected in the findings set forth in Section 65589.5(a) of the Housing Accountability Act. The Town of Los Altos Hills is among the few California and Bay Area municipalities to have achieved its Regional Housing Need Obligation target in the Fifth Planning Cycle. The Town continues to support housing development and expansion of affordable opportunities via progressive goals, policies, and programs in its Sixth Cycle 2023-2031 Housing Element. With those accomplishments and goals in mind, the City Council and the Town has thoroughly examined this Project with regards to its development proposals, affordable housing choices, and the potential impacts it creates on public health and safety due to constrained site characteristics and unique fire risks.

Although the Project desires to utilize the Builder’s Remedy, its proposals, which consists of a senior living/retirement community with large market-rate units and disproportionately small affordable units, are not aligned with the intent of the statute to address housing shortage, reduce housing costs and rent, and to expand housing opportunities for all economic segments. Further, although the Section 503.1.1 compliance issue wasfirst questioned by SCCFD on April 5, 2023, approximately two months after the Project 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, the Applicant has not proposed a satisfactory, feasible mitigation measure to demonstrate equivalent safety and effectiveness. The Project’s unwillingness to propose building design changes to address the Section 503.1.1 compliance issue creates significant concerns for public health and safety, exposes future residents and the surrounding community to fire dangers and evacuation/rescue challenges, and calls into question the Project’s ability to maintain affordability. Pursuant to the foregoing analyses, the Project already faces infeasibility as proposed; re-designing the building increases such infeasibility and resulting in the Project becoming unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households based on a combination of the reduction of unit count and the increase in the Project’s ability to carry costs and supporting below-market-rate units based on market rate unit income generation.

Thus, a conclusion can be reached based on the foregoing that reducing the building footprint to meet Section 503.1.1 requirements is infeasible for the Project and renders it unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households. To date, the City Council further observes that the Applicant has not proposed any other alternatives or redesign options since the SCCFD’s November 20, 2024 AMMR Denial Letter and in the subsequent revisions submitted during 2025.

Conclusion
In light of the foregoing and based on the entirety of the record before it and a preponderance of the evidence therein, the City Council therefore finds that 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, pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(d)(2).

The City Council specifically notes that per the description set forth in Footnote 1 of this Findings document, the City Council finds that this Finding #1 would apply and is supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record, regardless of whether the Project is analyzed under ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 39
Government Code section 65589.5 as it existed in 2024 or as it is in effect on January 1, 2025.

Finding #3: Section 65589.5(d)(5)- Inconsistency with General Plan and Zoning As relevant here, Section 65589.5(d)(5) provides:

On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed complete, the jurisdiction had adopted a revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with this article, and the housing development project or emergency shelter was inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as specified in any element of the general plan.
(A) This paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project proposed on a site, including a candidate site for rezoning, that is identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income households in the jurisdiction’s housing element if the housing development project is consistent with the density specified in the housing element, even though the housing development project was inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation on the date the application was deemed complete.

As explained in Finding #1 above, the Project (as well as the 10758 Mora Drive development) fails to qualify as a Builder’s Remedy project and a new preliminary application should have been required for the January 30, February 25, and May 29, 2025 revision submittals. As set forth above, a new preliminary application would be required since the foregoing revisions change the Project unit count by more than 20 percent but not for the purpose of revising the Project to be a Builder’s Remedy project as allowed under Government Code section 65589.5(f)(7). Therefore, pursuant to Government Code section 65941.1(d), the preliminary application submitted on February 1, 2023 for the Project has expired due to the unit count changing by more than 20 percent, and a new preliminary application is required (and would have been required at the time of the January 30, 2025 resubmittal) for the Project revisions.

To the extent that the Project submits a preliminary application for its January 30, February 25, and May 29, 2025 revisions, the City Council hereby finds that such submittals would be inconsistent with both the Los Altos Hills General Plan and Zoning Code as no multi-family or high density development is allowed under these regulations, and the Project site is not included in the Town’s 2023-2031 Housing Element site inventory. The Los Altos Hills 2023-2031 Housing Element was certified by HCD on May 30, 2023, and thus a preliminary application submitted after that time would be appropriately denied pursuant to Section 65589.5(d)(5) given that the February 1, 2023 preliminary application has been replaced by the April 11, 2023 preliminary application and the April 11 preliminary application has expired, as set forth above.

IV. Government Code Section 65589.5(j) Findings
Section 65589.5(j) provides:

When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete [defined by statute to be the filing of a preliminary application], but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 40
impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
(A) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions asthey existed on the date the application was deemed complete. (B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density. (emphasis and clarifications added.) For the purposes of clarity, the City Council hereby finds that the proposed Project is not compliant with applicable objective standards as set forth in Section 65589.5(j). Specifically, based on the record below including the Town’s Consistency Determination Letter dated August 31, 2023, the Project is inconsistent with a number of objective General Plan and zoning development standards and policies, including but not limited to minimum lot size, setbacks, height, and residential density.

As such, it is not a housing development project covered by subsection (j).

However, even if the Project were to be analyzed under the two findings set forth in subdivision (j) above, as set forth in detail under Finding #1 above which are incorporated here for the purposes of this section, the Project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety based on its failure to comply with Fire Code Section 503.1.1 to provide adequate distance between the proposed fire access road and the residential building. Based on reasons articulated in Finding #2, there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact other than reducing the Project density by reducing the size of the residential building proposed or to deny the Project.

Finding #2 illustrates in detail the Applicant’s inability to propose alternative mitigation methods that directly address the excessive distance or provide equally protective and efficient measures to mitigate the adverse impact.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution Page 1
RESOLUTION NO.

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

HILLS MAKING FINDINGS OF DENIAL PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65589.5(d) AND DENYING A SENIOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (CDP23-0002) LOCATED AT 10758 MORA DRIVE, LOS ALTOS HILLS
WHEREAS, on February 1, 2023, the Town of Los Altos Hills (“Town”) received a preliminary application pursuant to Government Code section 65941.1 and a formal application from Forrest Linebarger (“Applicant”) for a senior residential development project titled “Silver Oaks Senior Community” consisting of 44 units with 11 units reserved for low-income households (Application No. CDP23-0002) at 10758 Mora Drive (“Project”); and WHEREAS, on February 1, 2023, the Town also received a preliminary application and a formal application for a nearly identical senior residential development project also titled “Silver Oaks Senior Community” consisting of 44 units with 11 units reserved for low-income households (Application No. CDP23-0001) at 10728 Mora Drive which is separated by one parcel from the Project site; and
WHEREAS, on April 11, 2023, the Applicant submitted a revised preliminary application and formal application for the 10728 Mora Drive property to add 10 additional market- rate units, for a total of 55 units where 44 units would be market-rate, and 11 units would be reserved for lowincome households which equates to a 20 percent project affordability; this April 2023 revision represents a 20 percent change of the Project residential units as proposed in the February 1, 2023 submittal, and thus necessitating a new preliminary application; and WHEREAS, on April 11, 2023 and July 3, 2023, the Applicant submitted a revised preliminary application and formal application, and the project plans, respectively, for the Project to ultimately add 13 additional market-rate units, for a total of 57 units where 45 units would be market-rate, and 12 units would be reserved for low-income households which equates to a 21 percent project affordability; this revision on April 11, 2023 represents more than 20 percent change of the project residential units as proposed in the February 1, 2023 submittal, and thus necessitating a new preliminary application; and
WHEREAS, on January 30, 2025, the Applicant made significant revisions to the application for the 10728 Mora Drive property to decrease both the number of dwelling units and the percentage of affordable units. Specifically, the Applicant reduced the total project density from 55 units to 43 units, with 3 units reserved for extremely-low income households which equates to 10 percent project affordability pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(h)(3)(A).

These revisions propose a base density of 30 units and 13 additional units through the application of State Density Bonus Law, totaling 43 units. These revisions represent an approximately 22 percent reduction in total density and a 10 percent reduction in project affordability, and also completely eliminate any affordable units originally offered to low-income households. No revisions to the building exteriors, building length, setbacks or other external features were made to the project; and
WHEREAS, on January 30, 2025, the Applicant made significant revisions to the Project ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 2

Resolution Page 2
application to decrease both the number of dwelling units and the percentage of affordable units.

Specifically, the Applicant reduced the total Project density from 57 units to 45 units, with 3 units reserved for extremely-low income households which equates to approximately 9 percent project affordability pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(h)(3)(A). These revisions propose a base density of 32 units and 13 additional units through the application of State Density Bonus Law, totaling 45 units. These revisions represent an approximately 21 percent reduction in total density and a 10 percent reduction in project affordability, and also completely eliminate any affordable units originally offered to low-income households. No revisions to the building exteriors, building length, setbacks or other external features were made to the project; and WHEREAS, on February 25, 2025, the Applicant submitted revised plans for the Project and for the 10728 Mora Drive property, to provide supplemental drawings from the January 2025 submittals and certain updated plan components. The unit counts and affordability for both projects remain the same. No additional revisions to the building exteriors, building length, setbacks or other external features were made to either project; and WHEREAS, on May 29, 2025, the Applicant submitted another revision of the application for the 10728 Mora Drive property to further reduce project units from 43 to 30 units, resulting in the loss of 13 units and removing assisted living features from the building. As a result, the project continues to propose 30 base units with 3 units reserved for very-low income households1 but is no longer utilizing State Density Bonus Law; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant also submitted another revision to the Project application by reducing density from 45 to 32 units, resulting in the loss of 13 units and removed assisted living features from the building. As a result, the Project continues to propose 32 base units with 3 units reserved for extremely-low income households but is no longer utilizing State Density Bonus Law; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant states that the Project, inclusive of the foregoing revisions, is being filed under Government Code section 65589.5(d), commonly referred to as the “Builder’s Remedy”, which in summary provides that a local government may not deny a qualifying affordable housing project for very low, low- or moderate-income households unless the local government makes certain written statutory findings; and WHEREAS, the Applicant also states that the January 30, February 25, and May 29, 2025 revisions are being submitted pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(f)(7), which allows a developer who submitted a preliminary application before January 1, 2025 to (1) choose to either be subject to the Builder’s Remedy statute that was in effect on the date that their project submitted a preliminary application, or if their project qualifies as a builder’s remedy project (as defined by Government Code section 65589.5(h)(11)), to be subject to the statute that is in effect as of January 1, 2025; and (2) to revise their project to meet the definition of a Builder’s Remedy project without having to submit a new preliminary application; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant further specifies that the Project and the 10728 Mora Drive project are seeking to avoid the provision under Government Code section 65589.5(f)(6)(G)(ii), 1 The submitted plans contain a discrepancy where the project description states the affordable units are reserved for extremely-low income households, but the density calculation table states the units are reserved for very-low income households. The Applicant has not responded to the Town’s inquiries for clarification.

ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 2

Resolution Page 3
which requires the affordable and market rate units in a Builder’s Remedy project to have comparable bedroom and bathroom count, as both the Project and the 10728 Mora Drive project will have affordable units that are studios only and thus contain a lesser number of bedrooms and bathrooms than does the market-rate units; and
WHEREAS, Under Section 65589.5(d)(2), a local government may deny a qualifying affordable housing development project if it finds, based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record, that the proposed housing development project would have a “specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety” as defined by statute, and that “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”; and WHEREAS, similarly, under Section 65589.5(d)(6) (as added by Assembly Bill 1893 on September 19, 2024 and effective as of January 1, 2025), a local government may deny said affordable housing development project if it finds, based on based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record, that on the date a preliminary application was submitted, the local government did not have an adopted revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with state housing element law and the housing development project is not a “builder’s remedy project” defined by Section 65589.5(h)(11); and
WHEREAS, in recent years, the state of California has experienced several serious wildfire and structural fire catastrophes, including but not limited to the 2017 fires in Sonoma and Napa Counties, the Camp Fire in Northern California's Butte County in 2018 and the most recent destructive Pacific Palisades and Eaton fires in Southern California. 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; and
WHEREAS, according to the United States Fire Administration, a federal government entity within the Federal Emergency Management Agency, individuals aged 65 and up are 2.5 times more likely to die in a fire compared to the general population and the risk of death increases significantly as age increases; and
WHEREAS, as documented in a Fire Code and Safety Analysis Report prepared by Pyroanalysis, LLC for the Town dated June 13, 2025, the disproportionate impact on seniors during wildfire events is well-documented. For example, in the 2018 Camp Fire, 80% of the 86 fatalities were age 65 and older. The average age of those who died was 72. In the 2017 Sonoma and Napa Fires, the average age of those who died in the fire was 73; in the recent Eaton Fire, the majority of victims were older than 65 and the average age of the victim was 77; and WHEREAS, Seniors are particularly vulnerable in emergencies due to factors such as decreased mobility, vision, and hearing. In addition, conditions such as cognitive decline, preexisting medical conditions such as cardiovascular disease, increased fall risk, and social isolation also contribute to greater risk of injury and death to seniors in emergencies; and WHEREAS, the Project site is a 0.397 acre parcel of a narrow shape with 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 Project 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 ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 2

Resolution Page 4
residents. All of the neighboring parcels contain dense trees and shrubs where the homes are situated among such vegetation and screened from the roadway. The City Council staff report and related attachments provide additional description regarding the Project site location and its topographical, geographical and locational challenges, including but not limited to situating next to dense vegetation and grassy open space and having limited developable area on the parcel due to its steep average slope and narrow parcel width; and WHEREAS, on February 24, 2025, the State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE) published updated Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps as required by Government Code section 51178, which maps identify areas of the state as Moderate, High, or Very High FHSZs, including areas within Los Altos Hills and under the Town’s jurisdiction. These FHSZ designations are based on consistent statewide criteria and severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas. Within in the Town, the CALFIRE FHSZ map identifies the Project site as a “High” FHSZ with heightened fire hazard risks; and WHEREAS, the Town is required, under Government Code section 51179(a), to adopt by ordinance the CALFIRE designations of Moderate, High, and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones within 120 days of receiving the CALFIRE FHSZ maps; the Town is also authorized, under Government Code section 51179(b), to increase, but not decrease, the level of hazard severity recommended by CALFIRE, provided that if it makes any increases of a hazard severity designation to Very High, that the Town makes findings supported by substantial evidence in the record that defensible space requirements in Government Code section 51182 are necessary for effective fire protection in the area; and
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2025, the Los Altos Hills City Council introduced an ordinance making findings and designating additional areas, including the Project site, that are located in the southern portion of the Town along the Rancho San Antonio Open Space corridor as Very High FHSZ based on the public record and supporting technical evidence that local conditions (including but not limited to geographical, weather, fire history, evacuation access, and other risk factors) warrant the designation above the CALFIRE FHSZ maps and that the statutory defensible space requirements are necessary for effective fire protection in the area; if the ordinance is adopted, the Project site would be designated as a Very High FHSZ; and WHEREAS, according to an article in the Mercury News dated June 9, 2025 and entitled “New Map Shows Bay Area Locations with Highest Risk of Ember-Driven Wildfires,” a new fire risk map has been developed by the NASA Ames Research Center and the Santa Clara Fire Safe Council utilizing NASA satellite technology, which map depicts the types and densities of vegetation would be expected to generate embers that could ride winds to new locations. Los Altos Hills is shown on the map to be among the most “ember-vulnerable” communities in the South Bay; and
WHEREAS, based on the submitted plans and project description, the Project proposes to construct a “senior living community” providing housing for people of retirement age and proposes to map the units as condominiums. Additionally, the Project proposes to include amenities and services such as leasing/offices, physical therapy, nail/hair salon, massage and chiropractic services, food/beverage/alcohol sales, transportation shuttles, roof deck bar, gift shop, arts and crafts, pool/pool deck, and entertainment facilities (including exercise, laundry, TV, dining, music room, and related facilities) as accessory uses. The Project’s 32 units are proposed to be located on various levels of a building that is 5 stories above grade at the front of the building closest to ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 2

Resolution Page 5
Mora Drive and 10 stories in the rear (10 floor levels), with proposed parking space of 27 spaces (approximately 0.79 spaces per unit). The proposed building would contain sub-basement and basement areas of 220 and 1,526 square feet, lower podium area of 3,328 square feet and podium/garage area of 10,798 square feet, mezzanine area of 4,597 square feet, level one area of 10,212 square feet, level 2 area of 9,632 square feet, levels 3 and 4 area of 10,206 square feet and level 5/roof area of 6,132 square feet for a total of 66,856 square feet. The proposed building is a mix of vehicular storage, residential units, utility spaces and recreation spaces. The Project proposes to situate the residential “apartment” building and related facility all the way throughout the Project parcel and with certain patio and hardscape located at the rear side, leaving between 16‘ 8” and 20’5” feet of setback from the rear property line, where hardscape also encroach into the proposed rear yards; and
WHEREAS, the Town received, reviewed and processed the Project application in accordance with Government Code sections 65941.1, 65943, and 65589.5, by timely reviewing and providing comments on the completeness of the application within a 30-day period from each submittal, timely routing and transmitting comments from third-party review agencies including the Santa Clara County Fire Department, and timely providing comments on the Project’s consistency with applicable objective standards and regulations in accordance with Section 65589.5 and within 30 days from the Project application being determined complete; and WHEREAS, the Project as proposed is inconsistent with a number of objective development standards and regulations under the Town’s General Plan and Zoning Code, including but not limited to: minimum lot size, residential density, building height, and setbacks; in particular, the Project is inconsistent with the R-A zoning designation under Zoning and the General Plan where the residential density is 1 dwelling unit per acre and the minimum lot size is 1 acre. In contrast, the Project is proposing 32 units on one lot, which is higher than any development project that has ever been proposed in Los Altos Hills, and in conjunction with the adjacent 30-unit project on 10728 Mora Drive, the projects combined would result in 62 units on two lots less than one acre combined; and
WHEREAS, as a part of the Town’s standard development application review procedures, the Project plans were routed by the Town’s Community Development Department to the Santa Clara County Fire Department (“SCCFD”) for Fire Code plan-check review. 2022 California Fire Code as adopted and amended by the Town of Los Altos Hills (the “Fire Code”) as part of the triennial state building code update. SCCFD provides plan check review for the Town regarding Fire Code compliance, inclusive of local amendments adopted by the Town during the triennial building standards code update process; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of SCCFD Fire Code plan-check review at planning entitlement stage is to identify significant issues to the project applications which may require significant design or structural changes, so that the applicant has an opportunity to address potential significant issues at an early stage; and
WHEREAS, in reviewing the Project against the current Fire Code as adopted and amended by the Town that is applicable to the Project, SCCFD identified, among other issues, that the Project is inconsistent with Section 503.1.1 of the Fire Code by failure to provide the required distance between the proposed building and fire apparatus access road at the Project site.

Specifically, while Section 503.1.1 requires the fire apparatus access road to be within 150 feet from the building exterior, the Project proposes to increase such distance to 300 feet from the ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 2

Resolution Page 6
building which is twice the required distance; and
WHEREAS, SCCFD timely provided comments to the Applicant communicating the Section 503.1.1 inconsistency on April 5 and 25, 2023; August 14, 2023; September 27, 2023; and January 31, 2024. When the inconsistency remained unaddressed, SCCFD advised the Applicant to either revise the design or submit an Alternate Means and Methods Request (“AMMR”) to demonstrate how the excessive distance would be mitigated; and WHEREAS, it should be noted that SCCFD identified the same Section 503.1.1 inconsistency for the project proposed at 10728 Mora Drive and requested the same re-design or AMMR submittal; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted an AMMR first for the 10728 Mora Drive project on March 20, 2024; that AMMR proposed to provide an additional standpipe at the rear exit stair, include certain Type 1A construction with 3-hour fire resistance rating at the garage level, provide sprinkler water curtain protection for certain building openings, and widen certain building exit points. SCCFD did not approve these mitigation alternatives to grant an exception or waive the Section 503.1.1 distance requirement because they do not demonstrate how the excessive distance would be mitigated. SCCFD requested additional explanations from the Applicant, which based on the record below has not been provided as of the adoption of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Applicant then submitted an AMMR for the Project on October 8, 2024, proposing measures similar to those submitted for the 10728 Mora Drive project in March 2024.

Specifically, the October 8, 2024 AMMR proposed to provide a sprinkler system; upgrade the fire resistance level for a portion of the proposed building exterior wall; remove some of the glass windows or increase their fire ratings for sides of the building; add standpipe outlet for water hoses at certain building exterior walls, and to separate entry and exit pathways for residents and firefighters by reserving the north and south sides respectively for each; and WHEREAS, SCCFD denied the Project AMMR on November 20, 2024, because the proposed measures do not mitigate the excessive distance deficiency under Section 503.1.1 and do not provide equivalent safety and effectiveness protections. As set forth in the record below and in Exhibit A to this Resolution,mitigatingmeasures alleged by the Applicant asfeasible alternatives are either already required by the Fire Code elsewhere or being proposed as a “partial” response to upgrade some parts of the building but not others. None of the measures specifically addresses the excessive distance being proposed by the Project due to the location of the fire apparatus access road; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the SCCFD November 20, 2024 AMMR Denial, the Applicant has not proposed additional alternatives for the Project or for 10728 Mora Drive, which have nearly identical parcels and development proposals; and
WHEREAS, SCCFD reviewed the Applicant’s Project resubmittals dated January 30 and February 25, 2025, and issued two comment letters dated February 27 and March 25, 2025, respectively, affirming the department’s prior determinations that the Project does not meet Section 503.1.1 requirements and an AMMR is not granted for the above-stated reasons, because the exterior dimensions and layout of the Project building are unchanged and the resubmitted modifications therefore do not alter the prior SCCFD determinations; and ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 2