Los Altos Hills City Council
September 18, 2025

The above and foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council ofthe Town of Los Altos Hills at a regular meeting held on the
17th
day of August 2023 by the following vote:

AYES: Swan, Mok, Schmidt, Tankha, Tyson
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:

Deborah Padovan, City Clerk
BY:

Linda G. Swan, Mayor
Resolution 77- 23 Page 2

Exhibit A
Planning Fees
Note: Ifthere is more than one action associated with a project, including - zoning permits, Site Development, Variances, Conditional Use Permits, and Environmental Review, separate fees for each action apply and the applicant shall pay a cumulative fee to cover the entire amount due for all applicable actions. All items marked as a " deposit" require replenishment once the initial amount has been exhausted, and any unused portion will be refunded to the applicant once the final project review is completed.

General Fee Deposit
Pre -Application Meeting 520
Pre -Application Meeting - ADU 410
Additional Plan Review 625
Permit Modification 1, 450
Extension — Administrative 250
Extension— City Council 1, 140
Site Analysis 260
Deposit
Appeal 900 2, 000
NPDES C. 3 Review
3, 010
4, 000. 00 plus 10%
admin fee
Sight Distance and Traffic Study Peer Review
4, 160
3, 000. 00 plus 10%
admin fee
Sewer Capacity/ Impact/ Rate Study ( for
multifamily and non-residential projects)
4, 880
10, 000. 00 plus 10%
admin fee
Town Attorney Land Use Review
7, 125
2, 000 plus 10% admin
fee
Zoning Permits Fee Deposit
General Zoning Permit 260
Fence Permit — Administrative 520
Fence Permit — Public Hearing 1, 140
Wireless Facility Mod — Administrative 2, 180
Oak Tree Removal 250
Oak Tree Removal ( Dead/ Emergency) 0
Arborist Report Review
Site Development
500
Deposit
Minor Administrative Review 1, 560
Major Administrative Review 3, 010
Site Development Hearing Review 4, 160
Fast Track Hearing Review 4, 880
Planning Commission Hearing Review 7, 125
Conditional Development Permit 2, 180
Geotechnical Report Review 2, 000
Grading Policy Exception Planning 1, 560
Resolution 77- 23 Page 3

Commission Review
Landscape Performance Deposit — Director' s
Discretion
Variances and Conditional Use Permits Fee
5, 000
Deposit
Minor Variance - Site Development Committee 3, 120
Major Variance - Planning Commission 5, 200
Conditional Use Permit - Planning Commission 6, 080
Conditional Use Permit - City Council 880 6, 000
CUP Renewal/ Amendment - Planning Comm. 3, 840
CUP Renewal/Amendment — City Council 880 6, 000
Fee Type
Environmental Review
Current
Fee Deposit
Technical Environment Study Review 1, 500
Preparation of Initial Study/NegDec by Staff 7, 500
Preparation of Initial Study/NegDec/EIR by
Outside Consultant
Actual Cost
This amount is the actual cost to prepare the work based on an approved proposal from an outside consultant + a 10% administrative fee to cover stafftime.

Planning Staff Billable Rates Rate
Planning Director 278/ hr
Principal Planner 246/ hr
Senior Planner 233/ hr
Associate Planner 220/ hr
Assistant Planner 213/ hr
These are the rates used when stafftime is billed against a deposit. These hourly rates are set as part of the Town' s annual adopted budget.

Subdivisions and Mapping Fee Deposit
Minor Land Division (< 5 lots) 725 5, 000
Subdivision ( 5+ lots) 880 10, 000
Extension 550
Modification/ Amendment 625 2, 500
Minor Land Division (< 5 lots) 5000
Subdivision ( 5+ lots) 5, 000
Certification of Correction 2, 000
Lot -Line Adjustment and Merger 725 3, 500
Certificate of Compliance 725 3, 500
Easement Review
Annexation
3, 500
Up to Four Lots
deposit is per number of lots)
880 5, 000
More than Four Lots
deposit is per number of lots)
880 5, 000
Extension/ Modification
Rental Licenses
205
Fee
2, 000
Deposit
Resolution 77- 23 Page 4

Short -Term Rental License ( initial) 205
Pathway Fee
Short -Term Rental Renewal 105
10, 943
Conditional Short -Term Rental License 1, 350
Additions ( 900 sq ft or larger)
These fees are set per Municipal Code Section 10-1. 1206.

Fee Type
Other Fees
Current Fee
Fee Deposit
General Plan Amendment 880 5, 000
Municipal Code Amendment 880 5, 000
Zoning Ordinance Interpretation 830
Historic Review/Mills Act Agreement 725 3, 000
Application Process Violation Up to l Ox applic. fee
Impact Fees
Pathway Fee
New Single -Family Residence 10, 943
Accessory Dwelling Unit (900 sq ft or larger)* 3, 826
Additions ( 900 sq ft or larger) 3, 826
Equestrian Barns ( 900 sq ft or larger) 3, 826
This fee is set per Resolution 62- 19. * For Accessory Dwelling Units, this fee shall be waivedfor the Planning Period 2023-2031.

Recreation In -Lieu Fee
Storm Drainage Fee 0. 69 per sq ft
Thisfee assessed on all subdivisions for new hardscape/ impervious area added within a public rightof-way or easement.

Resolution 77- 23 Page 5

Building Fees
Building Permit Fees
All Projects Base Fee 240
All Projects - Modifier 0. 9% of project valuation
The project valuation is provided by the applicant at time ofsubmittal and confirmed by Building Dept staffduring initial plan review.

Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Permits
All Projects Base Fee 180
All Projects - Modifier 0. 9% of project valuation
The project valuation is provided by the applicant at time ofsubmittal and confirmed by Building Dept staffduring initial plan review.

Furnace 82
Gas Lines 82
Water Heater 82
Reroof (< $ 50, 000 valuation) 375
Reroof (> $50, 000 valuation)
375 + 0. 9% of project valuation over
50, 000
Solar energy system ( set by State law) 450 + $ 15/ kW ( above 15kW) This fee is set per California Government Code Section 66015.

Demolition 180
Plan Review Fee 65% of Permit Fee
Plan Retention Fee 25/ page
Plan Retention Fee ( electronic plans) 75
Planning and Engineering Review and Inspection Fees
Site Development Review 830
Site Development Compliance Inspections 980
ADU Plan Review 725
ADU Compliance Inspections 830
These review and inspection fees are assessed to all building permits that are subject to Planning and Engineering review and compliance inspections. Ifmore than three reviews are required to issue a permit or more than six inspections required final a permit, additional review/ inspections fees may be assessed.

Green Building Fee
4/$ 100, 000 of assessed valuation, ( Minimum
1/$ 25, 000 of valuation)
This fee is set per California Health and Safety Code Section 18931. 6 and goes into the Building Standards Administration Special Revolving Fund established under Section 19831. 7 Strong Motion Instrumentation & Seismic
Hazard Mapping Fee

0. 13/$ 1, 000 of assessed valuation ( Minimum
fee is $ 0. 50)
Energy Fee ( State Imposed)
Formula = 1. 65 x (0. 15 x building permit fee)
15% of Building Permit
Resolution 77- 23 Page 6

Thisfee is set by the State of California under Title 24 Part 2 Energy and Accessibility Code and Regulations.

Inspections Fees
During normal business hours 210
After normal business hours 240
Reinspection 210
Inspection for which no fee is otherwise
indicated
210
Code Compliance Inspection 300
NPDES C. 3 Maintenance Agreement and
Ins ections
Other Permit Fees
3, 000 deposit
Extension of Building Permit 180
Replacement of Inspection Card 80
Additional Plan Review 350
This fee is applied when an application requires more than three plan checks to be completed.

Temporary Certificate of Occupancy 1 $ 500
Approval by the Planning and Building Director is required to issue a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy and the project must demonstrate special circumstances.

Street Address Change 650
Work Without a Permit Up to 4x Permit Fee
The violation fee is setper Municipal Code sections 8-8.05 and 10-2.1318, with the specific amount determined by the Planning and Building Director based on the nature ofthe violation.

Geotechnical Report Review 2, 000
Less than $ 50, 000 0
50, 000 or more 0. 9% of valuation
Gas 20, 000
Electric 40, 000
Impermeable Structure ( per sq ft of development
area added) $

0. 96/ sq ft
Thisfee setper Municipal Code Section 8- 7.05.

Resolution 77- 23 Page 7

Engineering Fees
Site Development Fee Deposit
Miscellaneous Engineering Staff and Third- $
500. 00 to $5, 000. 00
Party Peer Review (
varies based on scope
and actual cost
Street and Pathway Excavation Permit Fee Deposit
Permit Fee 159. 00
Other Street Charges, where applicable
minimum $520)$ 11. 00/ sq.ft.

Other Pathway Charges, where applicable
minimum $ 520)$ 1. 28/ sq.ft.

Encroachment i Deposit
Application Fee 326. 00
Inspection Deposit 1, 000. 00
Trenching Fee ( minimum $ 400) 17. 00/ lf
Fence; Wall; Irrigation; Driveway Cuts 17. 00/ lf
maximum $595
Sight Distance and Traffic Study Peer Review
3, 000. 00 plus 10%
admin fee
300. 00 per sheet for
Traffic Control Plan Review (Traffic
standard lane closures;
900 per sheet for long- Consultant)
term ( over one- week)
closures
Engineering Staff and Consultant Fee Rate
Public Works Director/ City Engineer 278
Senior Engineer/ Utility Engineering Manager 234
Associate Engineer 219
Assistant Engineer 194
Contracted Associate Engineer 215. 00
Sewer Disposal Fee Deposit
Sewer Connection Fee ( Residence) 11, 236. 00
Sewer Connection Fee ( Church) 11, 236. 00
Sewer Connection Fee ( Country Club) 30, 112. 00
Sewer Connection Fee ( Office) 20,674. 00
Sewer Connection Fee ( Fire Station) 33, 708. 00
Sewer Reimbursement Fee Varies based on reimbursement agreement When connecting to privately developed sewer line
Annual Sewer Charge See Sewer Assessment Fee Schedule
Appeal — Filing Fee and Deposit 585. 00 1 $ 875. 00
Industrial Waste Discharge Permit Full Cost to Town
Resolution 77- 23 Page 8

Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Monthly
Fee
See Solid Waste Fee Schedule
Sewer Capacity/ Impact/ Rate Study ( for
multifamily and non- residential projects)
10, 000. 00 plus 10%
admin fee
Other
Effort out of standard scope Varies based on scope
Resolution 77- 23 Page 9

Report on Pathway Fee Nexus Study

TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS, CALIFORNIA

FINAL REPORT
September 2024
ITEM 7A Attachment 7

Table of Contents

1. Introduction and Executive Summary 1

2. Legal Framework 5

3. Types of Fees 7

4. Development Impact Fee Option 10

5. In-Lieu Fee Option 13

6. Benefit Assessment District Option 14

7. Summary of Proposed Pathway Fee Options 16

Pathway Nexus Study Report Town of Los Altos Hills, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 1

1. Introduction and Executive Summary
The report, which follows, presents the results of the Pathway Nexus Fee Study conducted by the Matrix Consulting Group for the Town of Los Altos Hills, California.

Project Background and Overview
The Town of Los Altos Hills currently charges a Pathway Impact Fee with the purpose of offsetting costs associated with implementing the Master Path Plan of the General Plan.

The Pathway Fee was created in 1996 and is based on Municipal Code Title 10, Chapter 2, Article 6 – Pathway Dedication, Maintenance, and Improvement. The development of the Municipal Code was in direct correlation to the Town’s adopted Pathways Element of the General Plan, which describes the benefit of having pathways, as well as the basis for the original Pathway Fee. The Town of Los Altos Hills has a series of pathways that can be used for walking, biking, horseback riding, or hiking that connect the Town. There are no sidewalks in the Town, and the pathways serve as a method of providing non-vehicular travel throughout the Town.

The purpose of the pathways is to provide circulation through the community, safe access and emergency routes, outdoor recreation / fitness, and preservation of the rural open space character of the Town. The existing pathways are part of the Town’s historic character and existed as a series of trails prior to incorporation. Upon incorporation, the Town established regulations that required each new development that adds potential new pathway users to contribute to the pathway system through the dedication of easements, the construction of paths, or payment of pathway fees.

As described in the Pathways Element of the Town’s General Plan, the Pathway Fees are to be used by the Town for the acquisition, design, and construction of the pathway system. The improvement includes covering the cost associated with construction and installation of new pathways in the Town to help meet the requirements of the Town’s General Plan and the Town’s Municipal Code.

The Pathway Fee is imposed during the Site Development process but collected at the Building phase of the project. The fee is deposited into a separate fund (Pathway Fund) which must be used to construct and acquire property for the Town’s pathway system (LAHMC § 3-3.03), improvements to the Town’s pathway system, or the installation of new pathways. This deposit into a separate fund is consistent with the Town’s General Plan Pathway Element Policy 4.6, which clearly states that Pathway Fees must be deposited in a designated fund.

Pathway Nexus Study Report Town of Los Altos Hills, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 2
The project team worked with Town staff to evaluate the legal basis of the Pathway fee, alternative fee structures, and proposed fee amount(s) to fully recover the cost associated with pathway construction.

Nexus Review Methodology
The scope of this analysis was to conduct an updated nexus analysis for the Pathway Impact Fee. The Matrix Consulting Group conducted the nexus analysis for the Pathway Impact Fee by reviewing the following data elements:
• General Plan and Ordinances: The project team reviewed the Town’s current General Plan and ordinances to ensure any proposed fees followed the Town’s goals and objectives.
• Cost Estimates: Data was collected regarding the construction cost estimates for constructing and installing pathways, whether outsourced, or done in-house by Town staff.
• Revenue & Expenses: Revenue and expenses for the Town Pathway Fund were reviewed.
• Fee Types and Assessments: The project team reviewed a multitude of options available to the Town for collecting a Pathway Fee.
• Nexus Analysis: For each option, information was presented regarding how the Town can comply with the legal regulations.

The above elements were used to conduct the analysis in this report.

Summary of Results
The Town’s current Pathway Fee is assessed as a one-time development impact fee on any project that results in increases in habitable space area. Pursuant to the Town’s adopted Fee Schedule, the Pathway Fee is calculated on a per project type basis. The following table shows the Town’s current fee structure and fee amount:

Table 1: Los Altos Hills – Current Pathway Fee Structure Fee Category Current Fee Amount
New Single-Family Residence $10,943
Accessory Dwelling Unit (900 sq ft. or larger) $3,8261
1 While there is a fee for ADUs, this fee is not currently assessed.

Pathway Nexus Study Report Town of Los Altos Hills, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 3
Fee Category Current Fee Amount
Additions (900 sq. ft. or larger) $3,826
Equestrian Barns (900 sq. ft. or larger) $3,826
The project team evaluated the nexus requirements needed for the Town to continue assessing fees for pathways. Based upon the current methodology of the fee application, as well as the intent behind the fee, the project team developed three options for the Town to collect and charge this fee. The following table summarizes the three options for consideration:

Table 2: Los Altos Hills – Proposed Pathway Fee Options Criteria
Development
Impact Fee (Current
Practice) In-Lieu Fee Benefit Assessment District
Legal
Requirement
Compliant with
AB1600 / Mitigation
Fee Act.

Compliant with
AB1600 / Mitigation
Fee Act.

Requires a “special benefit” in
compliance with Prop 218.

Adoption
Criteria
Town Council
through resolution
Town Council through
resolution
Majority vote of residents
Ordinance
Change
No Required Required
Frequency One-Time One-Time Annual
Fee Collection Building Permit Fee
Phase
Building Permit Fee
Phase
Property Tax Bill
Reporting
Requirements:

Annual regarding
revenues collected
and expenses
Annual regarding
revenues collected
and expenses
None
Refund
Requirements:

If funds are not
expended within 5
years
None None
Fees Assessed
to:

Property owners /
developers based on
square footage.

Property Owners /
Developers that do not
construct their
pathways
Existing and Potential Property
Owners within the Town and in
unincorporated areas around
Town with access to pathways
Fee Amount: $5.49 per sq. ft. $5.49 per sq. ft. TBD based on Engineer’s Assessment
Fund Type: Pathway Impact Fee
Fund
Pathway Impact Fee
Fund
Part of General Fund for Pathway
Maintenance and Construction
Fund
Disbursement:

Construction of new
pathways only
Construction of new
pathways only
Improvements to existing
pathways as well as construction
of new pathways
Annual Updates: Through
Construction Cost
Index
Through Construction
Cost Index
If engineer’s report indicates

Pathway Nexus Study Report Town of Los Altos Hills, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 4
Criteria
Development
Impact Fee (Current
Practice) In-Lieu Fee Benefit Assessment District
Recalculation of
Fees:

Every 8 years to
ensure nexus still
exists
Every 8 years to
ensure nexus still
exists
Only if required by voters
Each option has its advantages and disadvantages. The easiest option is to maintain the existing practice of the development impact fee; it allows the Town to collect and set aside funds based on new development. The In-Lieu fee is the next easiest option to administer, but it does have the added requirement of changing the Town ordinance, as well as the potential of the Town not collecting enough funds. The Assessment District is the best option for the Town to fund maintenance and construction, but it does require an Engineer’s assessment and a vote of the people. While the development impact fee is the Town’s current practice, it does have the option to explore these other options.

The proposed Impact Fee is based upon the proportionality of the development occurring, as a larger residence will have a higher impact and need for increased pathways, there is a higher fee relative to accessory dwelling units or smaller residential additions / remodels that increase the habitable space based upon the square footage. As such, additional fee categories are not needed for ADUs or Multi-Family units, as their proportional square footage will be utilized.

It is important to clarify that there is no estimated amount for the assessment district, as if the Town were to consider a Benefit Assessment District, as required by Proposition 218 (Cal. Const. art. XIIID, §4(b)), the actual assessment must be supported by a detailed Engineer’s Assessment Report, which is prepared by a registered professional engineer.

The results of the Engineer’s Assessment Report could vary depending upon the number of parcels and type of cost (upkeep only or upkeep and acquisition / construction of new pathways) being included in the benefit assessment. This cost can include both annual maintenance / operations and construction of new pathways.

As this section demonstrates, there are specific changes that would need to be made within the Town’s existing processes for the In-Lieu Fee and the Assessment District. The body of this report will provide further details regarding the proposed fee options, including the detailed calculations.

Pathway Nexus Study Report Town of Los Altos Hills, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 5

2. Legal Framework
Impact Fees are a mechanism for new development to pay for their proportionate share of impact upon Town infrastructure. The following subsections discuss the State’s requirements for impact fees and the Town’s legal authority for assessing these fees.

State Legal Authority – AB1600
Development Impact Fees in California are governed by the Mitigation Fee Act 2, which
includes AB1600 and AB602. At a high level, AB1600 specifies that there needs to be a reasonable relationship, or “nexus,” between the collection of fees and the new residential and non-residential development within a City’s service area. It states that revenue can only be used to expand current facilities or purchase new facilities, infrastructure, and equipment. It also states that the revenue generated cannot be used to fund staffing, maintenance, or other operational costs.

To establish a nexus between new development and the need for new facilities or infrastructure, the legislation requires that certain criteria be met. The following points highlight each of the required criteria:
• Purpose of Fee: Outlines specific types of facilities, infrastructure, equipment, and projects for which the impact fee will be utilized.
• Impact Relationship: Identifies clear and reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility or infrastructure and the type of development project upon which the fee is imposed.
• Proportionality: States that the impact fee established must be directly related to the proportionate impact of the type of development project. • Benefit Relationship: Requires that the use of the impact fee revenue and the type of development project upon which it is imposed is reasonable. • Use of Fee Revenue: Collects revenues from impact fees to fund identified expansions, infrastructure improvements, or purchase new equipment.

The Pathway Impact Fee option chapter will discuss how the fee is able to meet the nexus criteria identified.
2 CA Govt Code § 66001

Pathway Nexus Study Report Town of Los Altos Hills, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 6
State Legal Authority – AB602
In January of 2022, Assembly Bill 602 (AB602) went into effect. This Bill is applicable to all impact fees adopted / implemented January 1, 2022, or later. The bill has three main criteria:

1. Prior to the adoption of new impact fees, a nexus study needs to be adopted.

2. The nexus study needs to highlight existing service levels, the new service level, and an explanation of why the new service level is appropriate.

3. A fee levied on housing development must be proportionate to the square footage of proposed units unless findings are established on why square footage is not the appropriate metric. This ensures larger residential projects pay a higher portion of fees than smaller residential (i.e., ADU) projects.

Along with these three criteria, some other key provisions of the bill include:
• Impact fees must be posted online – along with the nexus analysis. • All impact fees must be collected by the time of final inspection or certificate of occupancy issuance, whichever occurs later3.
• A member of the public and / or developer can submit evidence citing the inability of the impact fee to comply with AB602 and AB1600 (Mitigation Fee Act)4. • Impact fee nexus studies must be updated every eight years.

Under directive from AB602, the State’s Department of Housing and Community Development created templates for a nexus study and residential feasibility analysis.

These resources establish a litmus test for cities to gauge their compliance.

This report will serve as the Town’s nexus analysis for the Pathway Impact Fee and will ensure that all criteria per AB602 are met and clearly outlined.

Town Legal Authority for Impact Fees
The Town of Los Altos Hills has the legal authority to charge for the Pathways Impact fee based upon Ordinance 10-2.608 of the Municipal Code. This states that an impact fee has been developed based upon Council resolution and will be assessed based upon review of the site development permit.
3 Section 65940.1.(3)
4 Section 66019(d)(1).

Pathway Nexus Study Report Town of Los Altos Hills, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 7

3. Types of Fees
There are several different types of fees that can be charged under the State of California’s legal regulations. The Town of Los Altos Hills’ Pathway Fee has been charged as a development impact fee. The following sections outline the different types of fees (non-tax-based options) available to the Town for assessing the Pathway Fee, as well as how and if the Pathway Fee can meet any of the criteria.

Types of Fees Under California Law
Within California, a tax is distinguished from a service charge, assessment, or fee. The following points discuss the different types of “fees” that do not qualify as a tax per Propositions 218 and 26:
• Utility Rates: These are fees for utility services charged to users who pay for water, sewer, electrical, and / or other utility services. These fees are meant to cover the cost of providing the service, including operations, maintenance, overhead, capital improvements and debt service. These are considered to be “property-related fees,” which means that there needs to be a public hearing and no protests from the majority of the affected property owners.
• Benefit Assessments: Assessments are charged by agencies on real property to pay for public facilities or services within an area which benefit the property or businesses. A common type of assessment is for landscaping and lighting for a neighborhood. The amount of the assessment is determined by a detailed Engineer’s Assessment Report which demonstrates a nexus to the special benefit to the property that results from the improvements or how the properties being assessed receive a special benefit from the tax improvements. Assessments are typically collected through the annual property tax bill. Imposing a benefit assessment requires a public hearing procedure, and if the assessment passes the public hearing, it must be approved by votes, which are weighted according to the amount that each property would be taxed.
• User Fees: User fees are for services and facilities that an agency provides. The amount of a user fee may not exceed the cost of providing the service. This cost may include overhead, capital improvements, and debt service. Proposition 13, Proposition 4, and Proposition 218, California Government Code Sections 66014 and 66016, and more recently Proposition 26 and the Attorney General’s Opinion 92-506 set the parameters under which the user fees typically administered by

Pathway Nexus Study Report Town of Los Altos Hills, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 8
local government are established and administered. An example of a user fee, is the review of a conditional use permit.
• Regulatory Fees: Regulatory fees relate to the administrative enforcement and audit component of compliance associated with codes and ordinances. An example of a regulatory fee is a business license inspection program. • Development Impact Fees: Development impact fees are typically imposed on new construction and are used to finance improvements and facilities required to serve new development. The amount of the fee must not exceed the cost of the improvement(s) associated with that fee. Development impact fees are governed by AB1600 and AB602 as part of the Mitigation Fee Act.
• In-Lieu Fees: In-lieu fees are charged to developers only if they are unable to comply with the requirements of the entitlement or development process and construct per requirements. This fee is typically considered to be a type of development impact fee. This fee cannot be assessed at greater than it costs the city or the jurisdiction to construct or implement the requirement. These fees are also governed by the Mitigation Fee Act. They are imposed to mitigate a very specific impact of development activity in the community.

The previous points illustrate that there are a variety of types of fees that are not considered to be “taxes” in the traditional sense that can be utilized by an agency to recover costs associated with services and potential improvements.

Pathway Fee Type Analysis
Based upon the types of fees and charges listed above, the current Pathway Fee meets the criteria for a Development Impact Fee, and the potential to be considered for a Benefit Assessment District or In Lieu Fee. The following table shows by type of fee, whether the Pathway Fee meets or has the potential to meet the criteria and / or cannot meet the criteria:

Table 3: Pathway Fee Type Analysis
Type of Fee Meets Criteria Doesn’t Meet Criteria
Utility Rates X
Benefit Assessments Potentially with some changes
User Fees X
Regulatory X
Development Impact Fees X
In Lieu Fees Potentially with some changes

Pathway Nexus Study Report Town of Los Altos Hills, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 9
As the table indicates, the Pathway Fee does not meet the criteria for a Utility Rate, User Fee, or Regulatory Fee. As the fee is not for a utility service, nor is there a specific service provided, it makes sense that those two categories or fees would be eliminated as a possibility. Additionally, the Pathway Fee does not have any regulatory impact as it relates to the Town and therefore would not qualify as a regulatory fee.

The primary type of fee exception under the state propositions that the Pathway Fee meets is the Development Impact Fee criteria as it is a one-time fee imposed on development projects for public infrastructure. In the same vein as a Development Impact Fee, the Pathway Fee could also easily be assessed as an In-Lieu Fee. However, usually, a jurisdiction will either charge an impact fee or an in-lieu fee, but not both fees. Both options are available to the Town and they would be calculated in the same manner and are discussed further in the report.

The current Pathway Fee also has the possibility to meet the criteria for a Benefit Assessment District with some key changes to the existing ordinance as well as legal changes. Subsequent chapters explore the Town’s ability to continue charging the Pathway Fee as a Development Impact Fee or In-Lieu Fee as well as explain the option of a Benefit Assessment District.

Pathway Nexus Study Report Town of Los Altos Hills, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 10

4. Development Impact Fee Option
The Town of Los Altos Hills currently has an extensive Pathways Master System. The purpose of these pathways is to provide a non-vehicular method of traveling through the town as well as provide recreational opportunities to residents. The following sections discuss the impact fee calculation and the Town’s ability to meet required nexus criteria.

Impact Fee Calculation
For compliance with Mitigation Fee Regulations, the existing standard methodology was utilized. This methodology states that the fee developed will allow the Town to continue its current standard of service and infrastructure for the Town. Therefore, the project team gathered information from the Town regarding sample pathway projects from recent years to determine the current cost of constructing a pathway mile. The following graphic shows this calculation:
$744,0685 average pathway project cost = $1,060,659 per Pathway Mile 0.706 miles pathway built
Based upon sample project information, meaning that it cost $744,068 to construct a 0.7 mile, to construct one (1) Pathway mile, the estimated cost is $1,060,659. This cost per Pathway mile is multiplied by the existing pathway miles to calculate the current estimated cost of the existing pathway system. The following graphic shows this calculation:
$1,060,659 per pathway mile X 85.88 miles of pathways = $91,089,362 pathway system cost The calculation shows that the total current cost of the existing pathway system is $91,089,362. This value is divided by the number of current households to develop the existing standard of cost per household. The following graphic shows this calculation:
$91,089,362 pathway system cost = $28,908 per household 3,1517 households Therefore, the total estimated existing standard is $28,908 per household. This implies that for any current household the average estimated cost per pathway is $28,908.

Therefore, to maintain that existing standard, any new household in Town should on average be estimated to cover $28,908 worth of pathway cost. 5 This represents the total cost of completed pathway projects over the last 2-3 years. 6 This represents for the same projects, the total pathway miles that were completed over the last 2-3 years. 7 Based upon estimates obtained from California Department of Finance for 2023.

Pathway Nexus Study Report Town of Los Altos Hills, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 11
The new impact fee legislation of AB602, states that for residential impact fees, the impact fee must be proportionate based upon square footage. The concept is that larger properties will have a greater impact on the need for new infrastructure. Similarly, multifamily properties, which have smaller per unit sizes, will see a lower impact.

Therefore, the project team took the $28,908 per household and converted it to a cost per square foot based on the estimated average square footage per household. As discussed previously, the purpose of this impact fee is to be used towards new households / developments, therefore, existing permitting data from the Town’s system was utilized to generate the most recent average. The past two years are more reflective of the trend going forward. The following graphic shows that calculation:
$28,908 per household = $5.49 per square foot 5,2698
average sq. ft. per household
Therefore, the maximum justifiable impact fee that has been calculated is $5.49 per square foot. This would mean that if a brand new 10,000 sq. ft. home was built, the impact fee would $54,900. The Town is in the process of multi-family development, similarly if five (5) 600 sq. ft. units were being developed, the total impact fee would be $16,470 or $3,294 per unit being developed.

As the town’s current fee is based upon per dwelling unit or a flat fee based upon the type of project, a straight comparison cannot be conducted. However, if we were to look at a sample single-family residence that was 5,000 square feet, under the current fee schedule, the fee assessed would be $10,943, whereas the maximum justifiable fee based on square footage would be $27,450. This would indicate an increase of approximately $16,507.

Nexus Criteria
As discussed in the legal framework section, in order for an impact fee to be implemented it must meet all five of the nexus criteria as established per the Mitigation Fee Act. The following table outlines each criterion point, and how the Pathway Impact fee meets or does not meet the criteria.

Table 4: Impact Fees Nexus Criteria – Pathway Impact Fee Criteria Meet Doesn’t Meet
Purpose of Fee As the new pathways would only be developed as residents are added, the Town meets this criterion.
8 Based on average square footage for additions, remodels, and new residences greater than 900 sq. ft collected from TRAKiT for the last fiscal year.

Pathway Nexus Study Report Town of Los Altos Hills, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 12
Criteria Meet Doesn’t Meet
Use of Fee Revenue The Town has detailed capital improvement plans that outline the spending of this revenue source.

Benefit Relationship
The use of the impact fee revenue would be to construct the new pathways that would be a direct consequence of the
increase in residential population within the Town. The increase in residential population is related to the dwelling units and size of the development of the units, and therefore, the pathway fee is only applicable on the residential projects based upon the size of the development.

Impact Relationship
Based upon the current mileage of pathways in Town, there is a standard level of pathway to number of residents. In order to maintain that standard, the addition of new
residents would require the need for additional pathways.

Proportionality
The proposed impact fee would be a per square foot fee
proportionate to the development occurring. This captures the larger impact associated with larger residential projects.

The proportionality is that if there is greater square footage, there is the potential for higher residential population in that unit, resulting in a larger impact on the Town’s Pathways.

As the table demonstrates, the Town meets all five of the criteria necessary to continue charging a Pathway Development Impact Fee.

Development Impact Fee Implementation Guidelines
As the Town already has an impact fee in place, there are two key proposed recommendations for implementation:
• Pathway Fee Ordinance Update: The language would need to be modified to state that a development project would be assessed an impact fee based on square footage.
• Annual Updates: Similar to other fees, an annual inflationary factor should be incorporated for the Pathway Impact Fee. The Town’s last update was in 2019; however, there have been significant increases in costs since then and no change in the impact fee. A best practice is to utilize the Construction Cost Index (CCI) to capture increases in costs. This will allow the Town to continue to proportionately increase its fees as costs increase.

The Town should continue to follow other practices related to impact fees such as collecting revenues in a separate fund, annual revenue reports, and utilizing the impact fee revenue for construction and major rehabilitation projects. The fee calculated through

Pathway Nexus Study Report Town of Los Altos Hills, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 13
this nexus analysis is the maximum justifiable fee, the Town Council has the authority to set the fee up to this amount.

5. In-Lieu Fee Option
The proportionality and nexus requirements are the same for an impact fee and an in-lieu fee. Therefore, the In-Lieu Fee for the Pathway would be $5.49 per square foot.

The difference between the two fees is that an Impact Fee is imposed whenever the criteria is met, whereas an In-Lieu fee is optional. The developer has the option to either construct and install the pathway themselves OR pay the Town to perform the work through an In-Lieu fee. If this option is chosen, the developer can choose whether to build the pathway or contribute to the fund. This may result in smaller, easier pathway projects being constructed, and the more complex and expensive projects being left to the Town to construct. This can create an imbalance for the Town and may create more of a financial burden, rather than spreading it through the use of a consistent impact fee.

The Town can either have an impact fee or an in-lieu fee. Both fees cannot be implemented simultaneously. If the Town were to propose the In-Lieu fee option for the Pathways fee – the ordinance would need to be changed to state that it is an In-Lieu fee.

In addition to the ordinance, staff would need to develop clear conditions of approval and criteria regarding the installation and construction of pathways if not performed by Town staff. Lastly, the Town would still have the ability to utilize the CCI, same as the impact fee, to conduct annual updates.

Pathway Nexus Study Report Town of Los Altos Hills, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 14

6. Benefit Assessment District Option
As discussed in the types of fees and charges section, a Benefit Assessment District is created for a special benefit that is received by those who reside within the boundaries of the district. The special benefit must be above and beyond what is considered normal municipal services (i.e., Police, Fire, streets, parks, etc.). The use of pathways and development of pathways in the Town of Los Altos Hills is unique and a special benefit that residents of the Town and surrounding parcels receive with access to those pathways. As such, this type of infrastructure can quality for a Special Benefit Assessment.

The purpose of this district would be the same as the Pathway Fee, but instead of depending on development activity to occur within the Town, it would be collected annually as part of the annual property tax bill. As these charges are not based on property value, but rather the benefit associated with each property, they are not subject to Proposition 13, which limits cities’ ability to impose taxes.

In order for the Town of Los Altos Hills to implement a Benefit Assessment District, it must take a number of steps. These steps include Town Council approving required resolutions declaring their intention to levy the assessment, ordering the preparation of an Engineer’s Assessment Report, preliminarily approving the report, scheduling a public hearing, initiating the required assessment ballot proceeding, and taking any other actions as required by the applicable assessment statute and constitutional provisions.

The following points provide further information regarding the steps outlined for proposing the creation of a Benefit Assessment District:

1. Issue an Engineer’s Report: A detailed Engineer’s Assessment Report must be commissioned that clearly outlines the purpose of the Benefit Assessment District, the types of improvements that would be implemented, and the benefit to each property owner within the district’s boundaries, including determining the costs that should be included to be apportioned to the parcel owners. This report would generate the estimated cost per parcel or per lineal foot.

2. Notice a Public Hearing: All property owners within the registered proposed assessment district must be mailed a public hearing notice and a ballot with which to voice their approval or disapproval of the proposed district at least 45 days prior to the hearing. (Gov. Code §53753(b).)

3. Conduct Public Hearing: At the public hearing, the governing body (the Town Council) would consider all protests to the formation of the district.

Pathway Nexus Study Report Town of Los Altos Hills, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 15

4. Count Ballots: If the majority of the ballots received by the conclusion of the hearing period result in protest of the creation of the District, then the district cannot be created (Gov. Code §53753(e)(5).) The ballots are weighted according to the proportional financial obligation of the affected property (Gov. Code §53753(b).) If the financial obligation for each property is the same, then each ballot is weighted equally and only a simple majority would be required. If the ballot is approved, then the benefit assessment district can be created.

Upon completion of the process outlined, including majority voter approval, the Assessment District will be created. The assessment amount would then be billed on the property tax bills each year. The Pathway Assessment District could be applied to not only residents within the Town of Los Altos Hills, but also any property owners in unincorporated areas that could benefit from the use of the Town’s pathways. The determination of which parcels could be assessed would ultimately depend upon the Engineer’s Assessment Report.

The implementation of the Benefit Assessment District would also involve changing the Town’s current ordinance to reflect the Pathway Benefit Assessment District, as well as changing the policies and procedures associated with the pathway process.

It is important to note that the creation and formation of an Assessment District can be challenging and require a longer timeframe as there is the need for public outreach to ensure that the appropriate number of votes are collected via ballot from the property owners in the proposed district.

The Town can either continue to charge the Development Impact Fee or develop a Benefit Assessment District, however, both cannot be in effect concurrently.

Pathway Nexus Study Report Town of Los Altos Hills, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 16

7. Summary of Proposed Pathway Fee Options
As this report has demonstrated, the Town currently charges the Pathway Fee as a Pathway Development Impact Fee. However, per the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (AB1600) and best practices, impact fees must be reevaluated every five years (Gov.

Code § 66001 (d)(1).) to ensure that there is still a relevant nexus for the collection of funds. Therefore, for the Town to continue assessing the Pathway Impact Fee, this report conducted the necessary nexus study. In addition to the nexus study, the project team also looked at the proposed fee option of developing a Benefit Assessment District.

To assess the benefits of these options, the project team conducted a comparison of the Development Impact Fee, In-Lieu Fee, and the Benefit Assessment District. The following points identify the three options and a brief description of what they would entail.

1. Development Impact Fee (Current Practice): Due to the projected population and household growth estimated for the Town, as well as the current standard of Pathway to resident ratio, there could be the need to construct new pathways as new residents move into Town. The following sub-points detail some key aspects of this type of impact fee:

Type of Fee: Impact Fee – numerical fee based on proportionality.

Legal Authority: Must meet the criteria set forth by the Mitigation Fee Act (AB1600 and AB602) (Gov. Code §66000 et seq.), demonstrating the reasonable relationship that exists between the development activity and the proposed benefit. There is also the need for annual reporting requirements and reassessment of fees every eight years.

Adoption Criteria: Town Council can adopt the fee through resolution once a nexus study has been completed.

Frequency: One-time.

Method of charging: Collected during building permit phase.

As a one-time flat fee, the Impact Fee is intended to be assessed on all projects that result in the potential for increased residents as measured by square footage of new residential development, which would generate the need to construct new pathways. The Impact Fee must only be used for the construction of new pathways, while the General Fund would be used for the maintenance of existing pathways. This is the Town’s current practice

2. In-Lieu Fee: In this option, instead of a flat fee being charged, the developer / applicant is given the option to either build / construct their own pathway / portion

Pathway Nexus Study Report Town of Los Altos Hills, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 17
of pathway OR pay the Town’s established fee. The following sub-points detail some key aspects of this type of impact fee:

Type of Fee: In-Lieu Fee – optional fee based on if developer / applicant doesn’t choose to construct.

Legal Authority: Must meet the criteria set forth by the Mitigation Fee Act (AB1600) (Gov. Code §66000 et seq.), demonstrating the reasonable relationship that exists between the development activity and the proposed benefit.

Adoption Criteria: Town Council can adopt the fee through resolution once a nexus study has been completed.

Frequency: One-time.

Method of charging: Collected during building permit phase.

Like the impact fee, this would also be a one-time fee; however, it would be optional as developers could choose to construct their own pathway or portion of pathway rather than paying an impact fee. This fee can only be used for new pathway construction rather than maintenance of existing pathways.

3. Pathway Assessment District: The Town could create a benefit assessment district; as the benefit of the maintenance, upkeep, and addition of pathways is all in relation to the property owners and residents that currently reside in Town. The following sub-points detail some key aspects of this assessment:

Type of Fee: Benefit Assessment – per property owner.

Legal Authority: There are several assessment laws that authorize assessments for a variety of purposes. General law cities typically select an assessment law under which it will proceed, and then follow those procedures and limitation set by the law. For example, the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (Str. & Hwy Code §10000 et seq.) is the primary procedural assessment act used for the acquisition or construction of public improvement but does not provide any bond procedures.

Instead, bonds must be issued under the Improvement Act of 1911 (Str. & Hwy Code §5000 et seq.) or the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Str. & Hwy Code §8500 et seq.). In addition to the chosen assessment law, certain state laws and constitutional provisions apply to assessments generally. For instance, Proposition 218 defines what can be considered a special benefit (above and beyond typical service). This requires a detailed Engineer’s Assessment Report estimating the total cost associated with the maintenance and construction of all projected Town pathways.

Adoption Criteria: Public hearing and ballot / voter approval by majority of property owners affected by benefit district is required before the Town Council may adopt a resolution to establish the assessment district and levy the assessment.

Frequency: Annual

Pathway Nexus Study Report Town of Los Altos Hills, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 18
Method of charging: Collected through landowner’s property tax bill.

A benefit assessment district would allow an annual fee that would be charged to all parcels, which could benefit from access to pathways. This fee would be assessed to property owners that benefit from the upkeep and the construction of the pathways.

There are advantages and disadvantages associated with each option. The continued use of a development impact fee is easier, as the Town already has the fee set up, and any changes only require approval from the Town Council. However, these funds can only be used on construction of new pathways, not maintenance of existing pathways.

The In-Lieu fee would be the next easiest option to implement, as it would only be applicable to those developers that do not want to construct and / or install a new pathway. This would require changing the ordinance but could also be approved by Town Council. However, as discussed, this option may also make it so that developers choose to construct the cheaper / easier to install pathways and the Town would still be responsible for the more expensive and complicated pathways with insufficient funding.

The creation of a Benefit Assessment District can be a time-consuming process as it requires a detailed Engineer’s Assessment Report, property owner approval, outreach, and ensuring that there is a “special benefit.” However, the formation of a district comes with the advantage of allowing the Town greater flexibility in its ability to collect funds from all property owners (residents and non-residents of the Town that live within the District) that would benefit from the pathways. This calculation would ultimately be dependent upon the Engineer’s Assessment Report. Additionally, the assessment funds can be used for both construction and maintenance of existing pathways.

As there is the opportunity to reevaluate the nexus for the Pathway Fee in the next eight years, the Town should evaluate its potential for population growth and the type of impact on its pathway system to determine if all new pathways have been constructed and whether it might be beneficial to consider a Benefit Assessment District solely for the maintenance of the existing pathways.

1 | P a g e
Finance and Investment Committee (“FIC”) Meeting Minutes Town of Los Altos Hills – June 3, 2024
Members present Allan Epstein, Kjell Karlsson, Sean McGraw, Michelle Raffin and Jeanne Seeley
Member(s) absent: Nate Blair
Associate members: Attending by Zoom, Roddy Sloss; Associate Members Lai and Lloyd were absent.

Council present: Mayor, Stan Mok and Vice Mayor, Lisa Schmidt Staff present: Peter Pirnejad, City Manager, Woojae Kim, Public Works Director and City Engineer
Guests present: Drew Corbett in attendance to assist with the Budget presentation and Khushboo Ingle (by tele video), consultant presenting the Matrix Pathway fee presentation as seen on meeting Zoom recording following.

Public present: Rajiv Bhateja (in person) and Anan Ranganathan (by tele video) Meeting recording: https://losaltoshillsca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/3192/media Agenda attachments: Handouts attached to the Agenda were posted to the Town website before the meeting.

Meeting Called to Order: At 4pm, Chairman Epstein called the meeting to order and called the roll.

Public comments: None.

Presentations from
the floor: None.

Approval of Minutes: Allan Epstein
The May 13, 2024, meeting minutes attached to the meeting Agenda were unanimously accepted by all attending members after a unanimous enabling motion.

Pathways Impact Fee Study Results: Woojae Kim and Kushboo Ingle, Matrix Consulting Mr. Kim provided background for the study and asked Ms. Ingle to present the report. Ms. Ingle put the slide presentation on the screen in the meeting and discussed the work and conclusions described in the report. An extended discussion by the Committee members occurred in the meeting. Mr. Epstein expressed concern that the nexus study did not show the proportionality required by the Mitigation Act. Impact on pathways is driven by increased population and the study did not demonstrate any correlation between increased population and the square footage factor used in the study. Population growth in LAH is expected to come primarily from ADUs and multifamily housing and not larger, single-family residences. City Manager Pirnejad stated that the Council and housing plan committed to continue not charging a pathway impact fee for ADUs. All members supported the calculated charge per parcel, but there were questions on how the Town average square footage per parcel was determined and resultant charge per square foot. Mr.

Kim agreed to further investigate the average square footage calculation and to provide details on permits issued and pathway fees collected in the past year. There was also discussion on how to measure square ITEM 7A Attachment 8

2 | P a g e
footage, whether it should be all footage, livable footage, bedroom footage or some other measure. Current ordinance applies impact fee once per parcel.

MOTION: Recommend to Council approval of methodology shown in nexus study with annual CPI adjustments. (Seeley) Second: Raffin; Ayes: Seeley, Raffin, Karlsson, and McGraw; Naes: Epstein.

Motion carried 4-1. The committee chose not to consider a pathway benefit assessment at this time.

Two-Year Budget Review 2025/26 - Peter Pirnejad
Mr. Pirnejad introduced the subject, noting the updated printed presentation will be made at the next Council Meeting and described progress made to date to the Committee. Vice Mayor Schmidt requested that the Estimated-Actual figures for FY’24 be included in place of the nine-month actuals currently in the budget document. Mr. Pirnejad was unsure if that would be possible with current staffing and reminded the committee that the focus this year was on the operational budget and that the CIP, transfers and balances will need additional work in the following year. Members inquired about follow-up questions made in the previous presentation at the last meeting and Mr. Pirnejad stated they are being addressed and will be included in the presentation made to Council at its next meeting. Members made budget process, review and presentation recommendations suggesting more analysis on significant changes and emphasis on larger more material items. Mr. Epstein expressed continuing concerns about starting fund balances, the one million dollars increase in the building department budget and excessive overhead, among others. Mr.

Epstein provided background on how the pension reserve had been calculated in the past. It was agreed to wait for the most recent CalPERS valuation due in the fall before discussing the pension reserve. It was agreed that reserve discussions will be held at a later date due in part to incomplete CIP figures.

Council Report – Mayor Mok requested that Mr. Pirnejad comment on a recent contract let to a company called Traffic Patterns for HR consulting and Mr. Pirnejad explained the use of an HR resource in the company.

City Manager's Report - Peter Pirnejad
A brief update of selected current events was made, including consulting work, and recruiting for the Finance Director. Mr. Pirnejad stated that Cath Macleod had been engaged to do the OPED valuation and result would be available in July.

Next FIC meeting – July 1, 2024, subject to available topics.

Adjournment – The meeting adjourned at 6:15 pm.

Respectfully submitted: Roddy Sloss, Committee Secretary

DRAFT Finance and Investment Committee (“FIC”) Meeting Minutes Town of Los Altos Hills – October 7, 2024
Members present: Allan Epstein, Kjell Karlsson, and Sean McGraw Member(s) absent: Michelle Raffin and Jeanne Seeley
Associate members: Attending: Attending by Zoom Roddy Sloss (lost signal at 5:20p) Not attending: Jim Lai and Frank Lloyd
Council present: Mayor, Stan Mok (joined later in the meeting), Staff present: Peter Pirnejad, City Manager (joined later in the meeting), Thomas Leung, Finance Director, and WooJay Kim, Public Works Director Guests present: Catherine MacLeod with MacLeod Watts (actuaries for the Town OPEB Plan) Public present: Rajiv Bhateja (Town Council member elect) Meeting recording: Not available
Agenda attachments: Agenda with handouts were posted to the Town website before the meeting.

Meeting Called to Order: At 4:10 pm, Chairman Epstein called the meeting to order and called the roll.

Public comments: None
Presentations from the floor: None
Presentation by Catherine MacLeod, actuary for the Town OPEB Plan, regarding a $143,000 retiree survival benefit liability reported in the June 30, 2024, actuarial report.

Reference is made to the September 9, 2024, FIC special meeting minutes presentation made by Ms. MacLeod regarding a $143,000 liability added in the most recent actuarial report related to retiree survivor related medical benefit. After extended discussion as to why this benefit was included and whether it was authorized staff will review the matter, and if necessary, the matter will be referred to Town Council for future discussion and disposition.

Approval of Minutes – Allan Epstein
An enabling motion approved by members present was made, accepted and followed by a second unanimous motion of attending members to accept the September 9, 2024, Special Meeting minutes.

Finance Director’s Report – Thomas Leung
Mr. Leung reviewed changes in the Wells Fargo Bank arrangements that include use of a money market ‘sweep’ account that is only populated with U.S. government securities thereby meeting the California government code requirements. Mr. Leung reported there is no longer a compensating balance requirement imposed by Wells Fargo Bank. Mr. Leung also noted that overdraft protection is included in the new arrangement which relieves the Town of the need to keep minimum balances. In response to questions, Mr.

Leung described the present check signing procedures that continue to include dual signatures, which are currently routinely provided by Mr. Leung and Mr. Einfalt, assistant to the City Manager. Also, changes made to the Town’s purchasing and disbursement procedures offered by Tyler, the Town’s financial software provider, have been adopted, which are expected to provide efficiency and less reliance on unique Town disbursement procedures and controls.

Continued.

ITEM 7A Attachment 9

DRAFT Page 2. Continued October 7, 2024, FIC Meeting Minutes FIC Orientation – Thomas Leung
Mr. Leung presented the slides attached to the agenda and discussed the FIC planned activities and responsibilities. Members noted statutory training requirements for Committee members. Mr. Leung noted that applications for the Finance Manager/Senior Accountant position are now closed, several applications have been received and interviews are being scheduled for applicants. Mr. Leung also described recurring periodic public disclosures of financial matters such as monthly disbursement and Treasurer’s reports, which will now be included in the weekly reports as they are available. He also updated the committee on the status of the annual audit.

Pathways Impact Fee Study Results – WooJay Kim
Mr. Kim introduced Ms. Kushboo Ingle, representing the Matrix Consulting Group, who performed a study of the topic described in a slide presentation made in the meeting (visible on the meeting recording), and responded to questions from meeting participants. The approach, based on a charge per square foot of habitable space, has not changed but the amount of the fee was recalculated based on an updated calculation of the average footage of recently built residences in Los Altos Hills. The Town is obliged to review this matter every eight years and update the fee accordingly. A cost-of-living adjustment can be made in the interim years. In general, the homeowner pays this fee when a residence is built, or substantial square footage is added to an existing home that has not paid a pathway fee. The fee will be paid one time on each lot and credit will be given for existing footage when a house is demolished and a new one built. Mr. Epstein expressed concern that the study and methodology used did not provide for a different rate per square foot for multifamily homes even though their occupancy rate per square foot and therefore impact on pathways would be greater.

Alternatives were discussed and the Committee did not object to the recommendation made by Ms. Ingle on behalf of Matrix Consulting Group, which will be presented to the Town Council for approval.

Comments by the Mayor, City Manager and Public Works Director – Messrs. Mok, Prinejad, and Kim, respectively
A second public workshop on the Town’s Housing Element and Multifamily Zoning has been announced.

NBS will be engaged to perform a CAP and fee study, as well as an evaluation of the disposition of previous assessed excessive Building Permit fees. Discussion is underway with Palo Alto regarding the amount of markup charged on PARWQCP capital expenditures. The Town has been paying a 50% markup but based on the reading of the 1986 PA-LAH contract, it is believed the correct markup is 25%. A GFOA annual award on the Town’s most recent two-year budget disclosures was received.

Next FIC meeting – Allan Epstein
The next FIC meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, November 13, 2024, beginning at 4pm. A PFM presentation on the town’s quarterly investment performance is scheduled. FIC 2024-25 Goals’ status will be reviewed, and an update on the Palo Alto Sewer capital expenditure markup matter will be presented. Annual audit results are planned to be presented in the December 9, 2024, Special FIC meeting.

Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:20 pm.

Respectfully submitted: Roddy Sloss, Committee Secretary ---

Item 4.1
1 Town of Los Altos Hills--
Planning Commission Special Meeting
March 12, 2025, Minutes
Zoom Meeting and Town Hall, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, California

1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Chair Patel called the March 12, 2025, Planning Commission Special Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

Present: Commissioner Bredo, Commissioner Couperus, Commissioner Waschura, Vice-Chair Indaco(Remotely), Chair Patel

Absent: None
Staff: Town Manager Peter Pirnejad, Community Development Director Bradford, Associate Planner Fox, Administrative Clerk/Technician Ahumada, Administrative Clerk/Technician Brunner, City Attorney Steve Mattas, Assistant City Attorney Kimia Mahallati, Michael Baker Consultant Dan Wery

2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR
Chair Patel opened PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR.

Resident Gerda Cristal presented four photos demonstrating what little privacy they have been able to achieve on their property since the Arastradero wildfires in 1985.

Cristal clarified some facts in a piece of correspondence between her and the Town and criticized the Town for “taking sides” in this matter involving view protectionism.

Cristal ultimately advocated for amendments to the Town ordinance.

Rajiv Bhateja, speaking as a resident, he informed the Commission that the Technology Committee recently collaborated with the Town Manager to develop an AI Policy requiring all AI-augmented content to be clearly marked as such and to identify the staff member responsible for that content. [In response to discussion from CONSENT CALENDAR.]
Chair Patel, addressing Gerda Cristal’s presentation, noted that there is a view ordinance in Town and it may be the right time to review said ordinance especially with all the new types of developments in Town.

The Commission, to best guide Gerda Cristal, noted that these Ordinances emerge from The Environmental Design and Protection Committee but may first require direction from Council.

Vice-Chair Indaco suggested reaching out to the EDPC first and Commissioner Bredo added that the Committee was currently working on ridgelines, which is a related topic.

Chair Patel closed PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR
ITEM 7A Attachment 10

Item 4.1
2 3. CONSENT CALENDAR

3.1 Approval of February 3rd, 2025, Regular Meeting Minutes

3.2 Approval of February 10th, 2025, Planning Commission and Environmental Design and Protection Committee.

Chair Patel opened discussion on CONSENT CALENDAR.

Commissioner Waschura began this discussion by noting that this was his first experience with AI-assisted meeting minutes and expressed support for its use, while recommending that a disclaimer be included within the minutes.

Chair Patel agreed and mentioned that some corrections were sent over to staff.

Commissioner Waschura clarified that his support AI use in meeting minutes is conditional, emphasizing that it is appropriate only if it results in savings of staff time.

Commissioner Bredo added that she noticed mistakes in the meeting minutes in the form of comments that she did not recall making.

Commissioner Waschura asked for clarification on how AI-software was implemented to produce the minutes.

Community Development Director Jay Bradford answered.

The Commission provided several recommendations on how to proceed with AI-assisted software in meeting minutes.

The Commission unanimously approved the February 3rd Regular Meeting Minutes and deferred approval of the February 10th Meeting minutes for further consideration at the next Planning Commission Meeting.
4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ex Parte for 4.1 and 5.1:
(4.1) Vice-Chair Indaco communicated with Elisa Bredo, Alan Epstein, Robert Elson, Carol Gottlieb and Rajiv Bhateja.
(4.1) Commissioner Waschura communicated with Alan Epstein, Marco Ahumada, WooJae Kim, Jay Bradford, Robert Elson, and Rajiv Bhateja.
(4.1) Commissioner Bredo communicated with Birgitta Indaco, Robert Elson, Richard Partridge, and Carol Gottlieb.
(5.1) Vice Chair Indaco communicated with Elisa Bredo, John O’Connell, Carol Gottlieb and Rajiv Bhateja.
(5.1) Commissioner Waschura communicated with John O’Connell, Rajiv Bhateja, Bridget Morgan and Sue Welch.

Item 4.1
3 (5.1)Commissioner Couperus communicated with John O’Connell, Michael Grady, and Rajiv Bhateja, Bridget Morgan and noted he was copied in several emails of which he did not respond to.
(5.1) Commissioner Bredo Communicated with Birgitta Indaco, John O’Connell and Eric Bredo. (5.1) Chair Patel communicated with Rajiv Bhateja and John O’Connell and noted he received plenty of emails on this topic but did not respond.

4.1 Consideration of a General Plan Amendment for Text Amendments to the Pathways Element, Municipal Code Amendments to Article 6 of Chapter 2, Title 10 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code related to the Pathway Fee; Town of Los Altos Hills; File #GPA25-0001, MCA25-0001.

Review and forward a recommendation to the City Council on General Plan and Municipal Code Amendments for the implementation of the Pathway Development Impact Fee update, based on the 2024 Pathway Fee Nexus Study, for a proposed fee based on square footage of development.

CEQA Review: Categorical Exemption Per Section 15061(B)(2).

Staff: Jonathan Fox
Community Development Director Jay Bradford informed the Commission of ongoing power outages, and that staff are prepared make adjustments if a power outage occurs during the meeting.

Public Works Director WooJae Kim began the Staff Report.

Associate Planner Jonathan Fox concluded the Staff Report.

A question-and-answer session ensued between Vice-Chair Indaco and staff regarding the historical context of the topic across Town meetings, and the methodology behind the “flat fee calculations”.

Chair Patel and Jonathan Fox interjected with the distinctions between “habitable floor area” and “accountable floor area.”
Associate Planner Fox confirmed that “habitable floor area” was used in this case.

The Commission asked several clarifying questions regarding the 900 square-foot threshold and the methodology involved in reaching this figure as well as hypotheticals and definitions on related terms and staff responded accordingly.

Commissioner Waschura asked about “net area” and how it may trigger fees. Staff responded and referenced the final sentence of the proposed Municipal Code Amendment. “If a lot has been assessed a pathway fee…etc.”
Vice-Chair Indaco inquired about fee tracking.

Commissioner Waschura inquired if Council has an option to use “in lieu fees” as opposed to “impact fees.”

Item 4.1
4 Director Kim explained that “in lieu” fees were taken into consideration and that there is an absent fee structure to support the recommendation of “in lieu” fees.

A question-and-answer session ensued between staff and The Commission regarding exemptions for Accessory Dwelling Units and Senate Bill 9 units, and further questions were raised regarding their potential implications for the Housing Element.

Chair Patel recommended that SB9 units be assessed a pathway fee and noted that the fee structure change was not heard by the Planning Commission in 2019.

A question-and-answer session ensued between Chair Patel and staff regarding spending on Nexus projects and inquired about the assessment of pathway fees for Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) and upcoming multifamily developments.

Public Comment
Nicholas Erndt, speaking as a member of the Pathways Committee, expressed general support for the staff’s pathway recommendation.

Resident John O’Connell opposed the implementation of an additional fee and voiced disapproval of the Town’s reliance on consultants.

Alan Epstein, speaking as an individual, provided historical context on the item and advocated for a different, more proportional fee structure.

Commissioner Waschura asked Director Bradford to clarify the appropriate scope of the Planning Commission’s recommendation on this item.

Assistant City Attorney Kimia Mahallati confirmed that The Planning Commission can recommend changes in the amendment language.

Carol Gottlieb, speaking on behalf of the Environmental Design and Protection Committee (EDPC), noted the importance of clarifying “who is responsible” for the pathway given staff turnover. She also provided historical context for the 900 sq. ft. threshold, explained that stables are not entirely 'habitable areas' (hay rooms), and pointed out that many pathways are tied to subdivisions rather than residential projects and cited other examples that suggest closer review of this amendment is necessary.

Resident Sasha Zbrozek inquired about the 2024 Nexus Study and asked where it could be accessed, and Commissioner Waschura responded accordingly.

Resident Sue Welch informed the commission that during her time on the Pathways Committee in 2019, the committee developed a pathway fee

Item 4.1
5 database, which she offered to share as a useful starting point for a fee tracker.

Chair Patel closed PUBLIC COMMENT.

Commission Discussion
Vice-Chair Indaco requested clarification on the proposed language and triggering fees.

Commissioner Couperus shared an anecdote related to a pathway outside of his residence to demonstrate the challenges of pathway activity tracking.

Commissioner Waschura, asked if there was an existing database that can be accessed “by anyone.”
Director Kim responded that although several records can be gathered to gain and understand pathway activities there is no reliable database for financial records for pathways.

Commissioner Waschura suggested adding language to the amendment specifying what actions staff may take in the absence of financial pathway records.

Commissioner Couperus referenced a supplemental letter from Bob Elson noted that, while not ideal, square footage remains the most practical basis for the fee calculation.

Consultant Courtney Ramos of Matrix Consulting Group, Town staff, and the Commission engaged in a discussion on the current fee structure and explored whether alternative metrics could be used, like number of people or bedrooms.

Commissioner Waschura commented on the significant difference between a $10,000 fee and the proposed ~$30,000 Pathway Fee.

The Commission debated the approach adopted in 2019 regarding fee assessments
Commissioner Couperus refocused the conversation on the specific text proposed.

Vice-Chair Indaco outlined her five concerns related to the proposal.

The Commission further debated the efficacy of the Nexus study.

Commissioner Waschura suggested that the Council consider a fee structure more closely tied to proportionality, such as using an in-lieu fee model.

Item 4.1
6 Commissioner Bredo noted the value of the pathway system, supported the use of an in-lieu fee, is not opposed to a “maximum” for the fee, noted that CIP project Pathways were the most complicated and spoke further on ADUs and the 900 square-foot threshold and supported applying the fee to multifamily housing.

Commissioner Bredo presented a slideshow to illustrate different barn types and to note that tying a pathway fee to the existence of a barn without a minimum size would be difficult to enforce.

Chair Patel led a discussion and deliberated with staff on the goals of this item and the scope of the Commission’s recommendation.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Waschura
motioned to Make a request to the City Council to consider the pathway fee structure according to these listed items:
· To retain the 900 square-foot exemption for residential additions and barns
· To allow owners to optionally build their pathways
· To apply to multifamily units, CUP projects, and SB9 units · To reimburse the pathway fund from the general fund for ADU exemptions.

All the preceding in the context of the current 2024 Nexus study for pathway fees.

Vice-Chair Indaco seconded the motion.

Meeting recessed at 8:49 PM
MOTION
PASSED:
5-0
AYES:

Commissioner Bredo, Commissioner Couperus,
Commissioner Waschura,
Vice-Chair Indaco, Chair Patel
NOES:

ABSTAIN:

RECUSE:

ABSENT:

4.2 26616 Westwind Way – File #SD25-0010, VAR25-0002 – Lands of Chakravarthy Site Development Permit and Variance for (1) installation of a pad-mounted transformer at 0 feet from the side property line where 30 feet is required, (2) grading within 10 feet of a property line, and (3) exceeding the Maximum Development Area by 229 square feet. The project is associated with a previously approved residence, File #SD20-0096.

CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303(d) Staff: Jonathan Fox

Item 4.1
7 4.2 continued without discussion to the April 3rd Regular Planning Commission Meeting

5.1 Planning Commission Recommendations to the City Council on Preferred Amendments to the General Plan, Housing Element, Land Use Element, Zoning Implementation, and Inclusionary Housing and Incentive Policies Staff: Jay Bradford
Meeting resumed at 8:59 PM
Chair Patel presented item 5.1 and invited staff to begin the presentation.

Jay Bradford began the presentation.

Jay Bradford concluded the presentation.

Commissioner Waschura asked for clarification on the difference between the two options presented as it relates to zoning on the Twin Oaks site.

Commissioner Waschura noted that he referred to the Michael Baker and Associates option (presented by Jay Bradford) as “MB” and the John O’Connell option as “JOC.”
John O'Connell described R4 and R20 as a general zoning standard that can be applied to multiple lots, not just the Twin Oaks Site.

Resident John O'Connell began his presentation.

A question-and-answer session ensued between John O'Connell and the Commission regarding the implications of R4 and R20 zoning classifications applied to the lots at Twin Oaks and other sites.

John O’Connell clarified to Commissioner Waschura that his approach would always produce less units than the MB approach.

Chair Patel noted that there is no concept of MFA/MDA (maximum floor area and maximum development area) in Michael Baker's zoning approach.

The question-and-answer session continued regarding density bonuses and the types of units that would be produced.

Item 4.1
8 Commissioner Waschura asked John O’Connell a question relating to the Land Use Element and SB330 applications.

John O'Connell reiterated that removing "dwelling units per acre" from the Housing Element is key in applying local standards to multifamily developments.

John O'Connell warned that grading on lots 1 and 2 would diminish the character of the hillside.

Commissioner Couperus and John O'Connell deliberated existing ordinance on cut and fill.

Vice-Chair Indaco inquired about buffer numbers and density bonuses based on O'Connell's proposal.

Commissioner Waschura noted that "buffer" cannot be used in RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation).

John O'Connell concluded his presentation.

Director Jay Bradford provided insight into how units would factor into RHNA obligations.

A question-and-answer session ensued between City Attorney Steve Mattas, staff, John O’Connell and the Commission wherein Mattas provided further insight into how HCD(California Department of Housing & Community Development) reviews all categories of units.

A question-and-answer session ensued between Dan Wery of Michael Baker and Associates and the Commission with respect to MFA/MDA and density bonus units.

Chair Patel stated that MFA/MDA is the key difference between the MB and JOC approach.

John O’Connell stated that it would be impossible to apply existing Los Altos Hills Objective Design Standards if the zoning is in “dwelling units per acre.” Dan Wery countered stating that John O’Connell has some misunderstandings about the law and noted that 6583.2 (h)(2) is the provision that sets absolute minimum density for multifamily zoning.” And ultimately noted that the JOC approach does not meet the current requirements of state law.

Town Manager Peter Pirnejad added context, reporting on Housing Element AdHoc Committee meetings and Veronica Tam’s presence at said meeting, who is an “authority” on the subject.

Item 4.1
9 Town Manager Pirnejad further informed the Commission about the committee’s access to legal opinion, Dan Wery, and communication with HCD and timelines.

Commissioner Waschura regretted Veronica Tam’s absence from the meeting.

Commissioner Waschura suggested that staff approach HCD with the JOC option in good faith but to be prepared to pivot to the MB approach. Ultimately HCD should inform staff whether the JOC approach is viable, not the Planning Commission.

Town Manager Pirnejad informed the Commission that Victoria Tam would be present at the City Council Meeting on the 20th of March and suggested the idea of a joint Planning Commission and Council Meeting.

Town Manager Peter Pirnejad informed the Commission that staff had been, and would continue to, engage with HCD regarding the JOC approach and the likelihood of producing a revised Housing Element that meets community needs and provides protection against an SB 330 application.

Chair Patel voiced support for the dual strategy approach.

John O’ Connell outlined the differences in methodology between his approach and MB’s, stating that his approach considers Housing Element law while also taking a proactive stance in addressing developer actions after the law is enacted.

John O’Connell presented on-screen the legal opinion of a Land Use lawyer (name not mentioned).

City Attorney Steve Mattas reiterated that additional meetings were to come and acknowledged similarities between the MB and JOC approaches. He noted that the legal opinion presented by O’Connell referenced language from Density Bonus Law rather than Housing Element Law, but he commended the overall approach.

Chair Patel suggested that staff find the differences and commonalities between both approaches with respect to MFA/MDA.

Commissioner Couperus provided an anecdote about a municipality in the Netherlands which operates under two distinct “styles of zoning” ultimately to illustrate that there is opportunity for synergy.

Vice-Chair Indaco asked Dan Wery about base RHNA numbers, and no net loss buffers in the MB approach and how it compares to the JOC approach.

Commissioner Bredo asked for clarification on R20 as applied to lots 3, 5 and 6.

Item 4.1
10 John O’Connell provided insight into how his approach addresses density bonus law
Commissioner Bredo voiced support for exploring the R20, R4 approaches wondered if the buffer for a multifamily zone could be removed.

Chair Patel inquired about the sets of figures currently being used by each stakeholder.

Public Comment
Resident Marta Bowden commended the JOC approach and its ability to retain a sense of “neighborhood” via duplexes, triplexes and town houses and still meet RHNA numbers.

Chair Patel voiced appreciation for Martha Bowden’s suggestions and reiterated that the Town should be open to all options pending HCD feedback.

Resident of Los Altos, Anne Paulson, called attention to the steepness of the proposed Twin Oaks site and asked for clarification on the JOC approach regarding “low-income housing.”
City Attorney Steve Mattas provided insight on the legal implications of a dual approach.

Commissioner Couperus inquired about the risk of SB330 applications.

Town Manager Pirnejad called attention to the January 31, 2026, deadline, noting that it effectively makes it impossible to select an alternative development site.

City Attorney Steve Mattas noted that this topic(alternative sites) will be discussed during the mid-cycle review.

MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Commissioner Waschura motioned to:

Make a recommendation to the City Council that the priorities for the Housing Element Amendment be:
· to continue developing both the John O’Connell and Michael Baker and Associates approaches
· to meet with HCD to begin updating easier things such as updating tables and confirming whether we(Town of Los Altos Hills) can reduce the buffers. · push to change the base density mechanism using the John O’Connell approach and be prepared to pivot to the Michael Baker approach if necessary. · meanwhile we (Planning Commission) will continue on objective standards, zoning, and land use element.

Chair Patel seconded the motion.

Item 4.1
11 5.2 Discuss and direct Staff regarding Housing Element implementation.

Discuss and direct Staff regarding Housing Element implementation (Planning Commission discussion and direction).

Staff: Jay Bradford
Chair Patel opened this item for quick discussion regarding Objective Design Standards and any proactive measure the Commission can take. Patel called to specifically agendize this topic in the future in the form of a short proposal on how to “tackle” this problem.

6. REPORTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS

6.1 Upcoming City Council Meeting Assignments
• March 20, 2025 – Commissioner Couperus
• April 17, 2025 – Chair Bredo
• May 15, 2025 – Chair Patel
All assignments were confirmed by the Commission.

7. REPORTS ON PAST FAST TRACK/SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETINGS

7.1 March 4,2025
13010 East Sunset Drive – File #SD24-0033 – Lands of Zheng Site Development Permit for a landscape screening plan and installation of a 6-foottall fence and vehicle gate to an approved residence (SD21-0030 – Previously Approved on September 2, 2021).

CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15304(b) APPROVED

7.2 March 11, 2025

CANCELLED
Director Bradford reported on the meetings as written.

MOTION
PASSED:
5-0
AYES:

Commissioner Bredo, Commissioner Couperus,
Commissioner Waschura,
Vice-Chair Indaco, Chair Patel
NOES:

ABSTAIN:

RECUSE:

ABSENT:

Item 4.1
12 8. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S REPORT
Director Bradford reported that the department would be posting recruitment for an additional associate or assistant planner in the upcoming weeks and reported that Fire Severity Zone maps would be published by the 24th of March.

Chair Patel requested a copy of the checklist the Planning Department uses for ministerial ADU and SB9 approvals.

Vice-Chair Indaco thanked Martha Bowden for her earlier input.

9. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 12:37 AM.

Finance and Investment Committee (“FIC”) – Special Meeting Minutes Town of Los Altos Hills – July 22, 2025

1. Roll Call
Members Present: Allan Epstein, Kjell Karlsson, Dominic Grau, Sean McGraw and Jeanne Seeley Member Absent: Michelle Raffin
Associate Members: Roddy Sloss (committee secretary) attending ZOOM teleconference call.

Absent: Jim Lai and Frank Lloyd
Council Present: Rajiv Bhateja, Vice Mayor
Staff Present: Peter Pirnejad, City Manager, Jay Bradford, Community Development Director; WooJae Kim, Public Works Director; joined later: Thomas Leung, Finance Director; Drew Corbettfinancial consultant Guests Present: None
Public Present: None
Meeting Recording: https://bit.ly.FICJuly // ID: 203 738 2535 // Passcode: 94022 Agenda Attachments: Draft June 2, 2025, meeting minutes, Pathway Impact Fee presentation, Excessive Building Fees July 1, 2020 – April 2022, 5-15-25 A. Epstein email to Council; Draft presentation on Building Permit Fee Refunds – Council Review and Intent to Share Publicly dated May 9, 2025; Building Permit Fee Presentation dated March 18, 2025.

Meeting Called to Order: At 4:00 pm, Chairman Epstein called the meeting to order and noted attendance

2. Approval of June 2, 2025, Meeting Minutes – Allan Epstein An enabling motion approved by members present was made, approved and followed by a second unanimous motion of attending members to accept the June 2, 2025, regular meeting minutes.

3. Presentations from the floor: None

4. Pathway Impact Fee – WooJae Kim – Director of Public Works Mr. Kim presented and discussed the background and proposed changes to the Pathway Impact Fee.

The Pathway Impact Fee has been collected in connection with new residential construction and will continue to be a one-time event as opposed to periodic billings. In summary, the Pathway Impact Fee is proposed to be assessed at a rate of $5.49 per square foot of habitable areas constructed exceeding 900 square feet, with an upper cap of 7,000 square feet. Fee is waived on ADU’s. Fee will also be waived for properties on the Master Path Plan who opt to build a conforming pathway. On a typical new home this fee would represent a three-fold increase from the prior $10,943 fixed fee. Director Kim estimated that this change should increase revenue from a little over $100K per year to $250- 300K per year. The fee would be adjusted each year by the Construction Cost Index. A separate analysis would be needed for multi-family residences. After listening to and discussing proposed changes, the Committee members in attendance voted unanimously in favor of the changes presented by Director Kim.

ITEM 7A Attachment 11

5. Excessive Building Fee Review and Refunds – Allan Epstein, Chairman Epstein presented numerous slides to explain this subject that addresses the alleged excessive billing of Building Fees for new residence building permits between June 2020 and April 2022 and the Council’s decision to refund only a portion of the “duplicated” charges. The overcharges are believed to have resulted from an unintended error relating to the implementation of the Council approved building fees passed in April 2020, resulting in the unapproved charge and payment of a MEP fee on new residences covering the inspections of mechanical, electrical and plumbing work performed and related plan check fee. The error is believed to have been caused by the substantial revision and updating of these costs followed by the turnover of the staff most familiar with the fees and related procedures. A substantial portion of the fees were paid to (and recovered from) the Town’s building plan third-party reviewers who are compensated by a percentage of the fees collected by the Town.

Upon review in October 2025, the Council directed that the roughly $304,000 returned from the third-party reviewer in June 2023 be refunded to affected permit holders. Mr. Epstein believes the principled thing to do is to return the entire overcharged amount and was looking for guidance from the Committee as to whether to recommend that after consideration of the circumstance the Council reconsider their refund decision. Despite the matter being deferred from the July 22, 2025, meeting and on the agenda for this meeting, City Manager Pirnejad stated that staff were not prepared to discuss the matter. He believes the CAP and Building Fee Study that is underway is informative to the decision and would like to delay discussion until that information is available. He continued that all costs (including planning department costs) have not been and should be included in the fee analysis and that the overcharges should be retained to compensate for the higher overall permit expenses. He also believes that no error occurred, and the fees were charged per the Council approved fee schedule. Mr. Epstein differed and stated that the Council did not approve charging a duplicate MEP fee for new residences and that fact is demonstrated in the April 2019 Council meeting recording where the fees were approved and by the Council’s decision in October 2022 to stop charging the duplicated MEP fee. The Vice Mayor requested links to the recordings be sent to members for their review. At the Vice Mayor’s request, the Committee also briefly reviewed the March 2025 staff presentation prepared for Councilmember Tyson on the matter, attached to the agenda. The City Manager stated the Town has not yet refunded the recovered fees that Council directed in October 2024 to be refunded, however the process is underway but has been delayed by other Council directed refund projects. After additional discussion, the committee agreed to postpone the decision until August, when Staff will present on the Town's cost recovery condition.

6. Report on finance activities of interest

7. Report on recent Town activities of interest – City Manager Pirnejad City Manager Pirnejad informed the committee that he would be out of the office in August until August 13, 2025, and that any questions or comments should be referred to Deputy City Manager Einfalt.

8. Report on recent Council activities of interest

9. FIC Officer Election
Being no other members willing to serve as officers, Messrs. Epstein, Karlsson and Sloss agreed to remain in their existing positions of Chairman, Vice Chairman and Secretary, respectively.

10. The next FIC meeting is scheduled for August 18, 2025, when further discussion of excess building fees, third party studies underlying annual fee reviews and Quarterly PFM Investment Report will be presented.

Another special meeting is scheduled for September 15, 2025.

11. Mr. Epstein adjourned the meeting at 7 pm.

Respectfully submitted, R. Sloss Secretary

HEADER BOARDS SHALL NOT

PROJECT ABOVE THE PATHWAY
OR ADJACENT GRADES 5'-0" 2'-0"
2'-0"

SHOULDER
(MINIMUM)
3% SLOPE*
6" STEVENS CREEK QUARRY

CRUSHED FINES

SHOULDER
(MINIMUM)
3%-10%
2"x 4" STAKE 2' -0" LONG 2"x 6
11 REDWOOD OR PRESSURE
TREATED HEADER. (2-1 "x 6"

REDWOOD HEADERS MAY BE USED
ON CURVES).
@ 6' MAXIMUM SPACING AND
AT EACH SPLICE. CONNECT

STAKE TO HEADER WITH A
MINIMUM OF 4-1 Od
GALVANIZED NAILS.

SEE NOTES

OR CURB
NOTES:

1. PATHWAY MATERIAL AND SHOULDERS SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 95% RELATIVE DENSITY.

2. IRRIGATION SYSTEMS SHALL NOT BE LOCATED CLOSER THAN 3 FEET TO A PATHWAY.

NO IRRIGATION WATER MAY BE DIRECTED TOWARD OR ON THE PATHWAY.

3. TREES AND SHRUBS SHALL NOT BE PLANTED CLOSER THAN 5 FEET TO A PATHWAY.

GROUND COVER MAY NOT BE PLANTED CLOSER THAN 3 FEET FROM A PATHWAY. * 4. 5% MAXIMUM IF APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. PATHWAY AND SHOULDER CROSS

SLOPES SHALL DRAIN TOWARD OR AWAY FROM THE ADJACENT ROAD AS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER.

5. UTILITY BOXES, SERVICE METERS, MANHOLES, MAIL BOXES, FIRE HYDRANTS AND ALL OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE PATHWAY. PATHWAYS MAY

MEANDER AROUND EXISTING UTILITY POLES, FIRE HYDRANTS AND MAIL BOXES WHERE FEASIBLE.

6. HEADER BOARDS MAY BE OMITTED ON THE SIDE OF THE PATHWAY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO BERM AND CURBS.

7. SEE STANDARD DETAIL #21 FOR WATER BAR INSTALLATION.

LOS ALTOS HILLS TITLE
ROADSIDE PATH TYPE (28)
-
.. 111
ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL DATE:
12/07/2011
SCALE: NONE
DATE: 11/18/2011
CHK: JMP

STANDARD DETAIL
1 5
CALIFORNIA 26379 FREMONT ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS, CA 94022 • Phone: (650) 941-7222 ITEM 7A Attachment 12

ITEM 7A Attachment 13

THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS September 18, 2025
Staff Report to the City Council
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
(“CEQA”) SECTION 15074 AND APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE

PERMIT, VARIANCE, AND GRADING POLICY EXCEPTION FOR A NEW OPERATIONS CENTER AT 26451 ASCENSION DRIVE; LANDS OF
PURISSIMA HILLS WATER DISTRICT; FILE #CUP23-0004
PREPARED BY: Jonathan Fox, Senior Planner
FROM: Jay Bradford, Community Development Director
APPROVED: Peter Pirnejad, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pursuant to CEQA Section 15074; and approve the Conditional Use Permit, Variance, and Grading Policy Exception, subject to the attached conditions of approval.

BACKGROUND
Purissima Hills Water District (PHWD) is a County Special District providing drinking water to approximately 6,400 residents in Los Altos Hills. This represents more than two-thirds of the Town’s population, with Cal Water serving the remainder. The 1.49-acre PHWD site at 26451 Ascension Drive—known as the McCann Operations Center—operates as a conditional use in the Town’s Residential-Agricultural Zoning District (R-A). The site functions as the district’s primary service and maintenance yard and contains two large water tanks and a pump house as well as other site improvements to facilitate the district's operations.

PHWD is requesting approval to replace the existing 2,500 square-foot single-story maintenance building with a new 7,600 square-foot two-story operations and maintenance building. The applicant’s narrative and project summary is included as Attachment 5.

NOTICING/PUBLIC OUTREACH
The public was advised of this Public Hearing in the following ways:
• Mailing to property owners within 500-foot radius – September 5, 2025 • Posted at the project site – September 5, 2025
• Public Posting Places – September 5, 2025
• Town Website: www.losaltoshills.ca.gov – September 12, 2025 ITEM 7B STAFF REPORT

City Council Page 2
Purissima Hills Water District – McCann Operations Center September 18, 2025
In addition to the statutorily required public noticing list described above, PHWD conducted targeted outreach to the adjacent property owners on Anacapa Drive and Ascension Drive. Of the eight property owners contacted, seven responded, with five submitting letters of support. The district’s Resident Outreach Log and the letters of support are included as Attachment 6. Public comment received after publication of the staff report but before the September 18, 2025, City Council meeting will be forwarded to the Council and added as a supplement to the agenda under this item.

Figure 1. Outreach Map Source: Applicant. Annotated by Staff.

TOWN COMMITTEE REVIEWS
Environmental Design and Protection Committee (EDPC)
The Committee reviewed the application and visited the property in October 2023 and July 2025.

Its most recent July 2025 report (Attachment 8) included the following recommendations:
• Reduce roof pitch to decrease overall building height • Relocate mechanical equipment to second floor by eliminating balcony spaces • Reduce grade at building footprint to lower building height • Eliminate balcony to reduce privacy impacts to downslope neighbor The Committee’s report was forwarded to the Planning Commission and discussed at the public hearing on July 10, 2025.

Open Space Committee (OSC)
The Committee reviewed the application and conducted a site visit in July 2025. It recommended that the Planning Commission and PHWD minimize encroachment into the existing conservation easement. OSC also expressed concern that the removal of numerous trees could destabilize the steep hillside. The Committee’s report (Attachment 9) was forwarded to the Planning Commission and discussed at the public hearing on July 10, 2025.

ITEM 7B STAFF REPORT

City Council Page 3
Purissima Hills Water District – McCann Operations Center September 18, 2025

PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION
On June 6, 2024, the Planning Commission held a study session where it received a presentation on the project from PHWD and provided initial feedback on the conceptual plans. In summary, the Commission directed the applicant to conduct more public outreach, study alternatives to decrease the building height, and work with the County Fire Department to address emergency access requirements. The Commission acknowledged that the R-A zoning district standards, which are largely intended for residential uses, presented a challenge to the Water District’s public utility and service use. However, the Commission requested that the applicant study ways to maintain the 27-foot building height limit and reduce potential impacts to neighboring properties.

Following the June 6, 2024, Planning Commission Study Session, Planning staff met with the PHWD General Manager and district staff to review the Commission’s feedback. During those meetings, specific concerns raised by the Commission were discussed, including the reduction in building height and relocation/elimination of second floor components. PHWD reaffirmed that the proposed building height and floor area represent the minimum necessary to meet its operational needs, including enclosed vehicle bays, office spaces, and a conference room. The applicant’s responses to comments from the Planning Commission’s study session are included as Attachment

4. GENERAL PLAN and MUNICIPAL CODE
General Plan Land Use Element
Policy 1.1 Uses of land shall be consistent with the semi-rural atmosphere of the community, minimize disturbance to natural terrain, minimize removal of the natural vegetation, and create the maximum compatibility of development with the natural environmental through site design and landscaping.

Policy 1.3 Large non-residential structures shall be compatible with the residential character of the community.

Policy 2.6 Limits on the development of individual residential lots shall be determined based on evaluation of such factors as natural vegetation, topographic characteristics, soils and geology.

Municipal Code
Pursuant to the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code (LAHMC), all conditional uses are subject to Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Section 10-1.007(1): variances are subject to Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Section 10-1.1007(2);
Conditional use permits may be granted only when facts are established which support the findings required by the provisions of this section.
(a) Findings. Conditional use permits shall be granted by the City Council only when it is found that:
(1) The proposed use of facility is properly located in relation to the community as a whole, land uses, and transportation and service facilities in the vicinity; (2) The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and all yards, open spaces, walls and fences, parking, loading, landscaping, and such other features as may be required by this chapter or, will be ITEM 7B STAFF REPORT

City Council Page 4
Purissima Hills Water District – McCann Operations Center September 18, 2025
needed to assure that the proposed use will be reasonably compatible with land uses normally permitted in the surrounding area;
(3) The site for the proposed use will be served by streets and highways of adequate width and pavement to carry the quantity and kind of traffic generated by the proposed use; and
(4) The proposed use will not adversely affect the abutting property or the permitted use thereof.
(b) Conditions. Every conditional use permit granted may be subject to such conditions as are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare and secure the objectives of the General Plan and this chapter.

Variances may be granted only when the hearing authority can affirmatively find that all of the following four requirements have been met:
(1) That, because of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the provisions of this title is found to deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification; (2) That upon the granting of the variance, the intent and purpose of the applicable sections of this title will still be served and the recipient of the variance will not be granted special privileges not enjoyed by other surrounding property owners; (3) That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and within the same zoning district;
(4) That the variance will not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning district regulations governing the parcel or property.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to demolish a 2,500 square-foot building and replace it with a new two-story 7,600 square-foot operations and maintenance building.

Site Data
Gross Lot Area: 1.49 acres
Net Lot Area: 1.44 acres
Average Slope: 28.3%
Lot Unit Factor: 0.876
Floor Area and Development Area
Area (sq. ft.) Maximum Existing Proposed Increase Remaining Development 7,500 32,939 45,403 12,464 0
Floor 5,000 3,371 8,316 4,945 0
Due to the average slope of 28.3% and LUF of 0.876, the calculated Maximum Development Area (MDA) and Maximum Floor Area (MFA) default to the standard baselines of 7,500 square feet and 5,000 square feet, respectively. The existing development area on the project site is legal nonconforming, as it significantly exceeds the MDA of 7,500 square feet. Notably, one existing water tank alone occupies 7,500 square feet. Additional existing features—including pavement, a second water tank, a pump house, and the existing operations center—further contribute to the ITEM 7B STAFF REPORT

City Council Page 5
Purissima Hills Water District – McCann Operations Center September 18, 2025
nonconformity. The existing floor area of 3,371 square feet is within the MFA, and accounts for the existing operations center and pump house.

The project requests a variance to further exceed both MDA and MFA limits to accommodate the new two-story building, covered storage area, and expanded paved areas for emergency access.

Staff supports the district’s Response to Findings, which asserts that the variances are necessary to support this essential facility. If approved, the new MDA and MFA would be 45,403 square feet and 8,316 square feet, respectively. Increases in development area or floor area beyond these limits would be subject to variance approval by the Town.

Height:

Height (ft) Maximum Proposed
On Vertical Plane 27’ 32’-8”
Lowest to Highest 35’ 32’-8”
Setbacks:

Distance* Minimum Proposed
Front 40’ 204’-2”
Side (north) 30’ 45’-2”
Side (south) 30’ 53’-2”
Rear 30’ 23’-0”
*Distances are measured from the proposed building to the respective property line.

DISCUSSION
Because the Town only has two zoning districts—Residential-Agricultural (R-A) and Open Space Reserve District (OSR)—many conditional uses such as public utility, private recreation, and religious institutions often do not fully comply with the development standards of the underlying zoning district. This is true for the project site, where several variances and exceptions are required for the proposed expansion beyond the existing nonconforming condition.

The following are the list of variances/exceptions required:

A. Variance to Rear Setback
a. Required – 30 feet
b. Existing – 30 feet
c. Proposed – Approximately 23 feet to new operations and maintenance building.

B. Variance to Side Setback
a. Required – 30 feet
b. Existing – Existing covered storage bay is 8’-10” feet from the property line. c. Proposed – New covered storage bay is 8’-2” from the property line.

C. Variance to Maximum Development Area
a. MDA is 7,500 square feet.
b. Existing development area is 32,939 square feet.
c. Proposed development area is 45,403 square feet.

D. Variance to Maximum Floor Area
a. MFA is 5,000 square feet.
b. Existing floor area is 3,371 square feet.
c. Proposed floor area is 8,316 square feet.

E. Variance to Maximum Building Height
ITEM 7B STAFF REPORT

City Council Page 6
Purissima Hills Water District – McCann Operations Center September 18, 2025
a. Building height is limited to 27 feet for all structures. Per Section 10-1.504, primary dwellings are allowed 32 feet with additional requirements. b. Existing building is single-story.
c. Proposed height is 32’-8” but not a primary dwelling.

F. Variance to Driveway Width
a. Maximum width of a driveway is 14 feet.
b. Existing driveway is 14 feet wide.
c. New driveway is 18 feet wide.

G. Variance to Ground Coverage for Conditional Uses
a. Required – Combined ground coverage of structures, roadways, parking areas, or other impervious facilities shall not exceed 40% of the net area of the lot. b. Proposed – Approximately 60% of the net area of the lot is covered.

H. Grading Policy Exception
a. Required – Maximum 8-foot Cut and 3-foot Fill for primary structures. b. Proposed – Approximately 20-foot Cut for operations center.

I. Grading Policy Exception
a. Required – Maximum 4-foot Cut and 3-foot Fill for driveways and yard areas. b. Proposed – Approximately 10-foot Cut for storage area next to driveway.

J. Amendment to Conservation Easement
a. The project requires grading, hardscape, and placement of the new operations and maintenance building within the existing Conservation Easement. These improvements are not allowed per the Easement Agreement adopted by the City Council in 2003.

Site Design and Architecture
The proposed 7,600 square-foot, two-story operations and maintenance building includes a garage bay, maintenance shop, and parts storage totaling approximately 4,000 square feet on the ground floor. The second floor includes an office, conference room, break room, locker room, and restrooms totaling approximately 3,600 square feet. The building height is 32’-8” measured from finished grade (building pad) to the top of the roof, exceeding the municipal code limit of 27 feet.

As outlined in previous sections of the report, the project requires both a setback variance and amendment to the existing conservation easement to accommodate the proposed building location.

This need arises from a combination of regulatory requirements, operational needs, and site constraints. For instance, the Santa Clara County Fire Department mandates a 20-foot clearance around all buildings for emergency access. Additionally, a 7,500 square-foot water tank located in the center of the property significantly restricts available space for new construction.

Compounding these challenges is the existing conservation easement, which encumbers 42% of the lot. When combined with the standard R-A zoning district setbacks—40 feet at the front, 30 feet at the sides and rear—buildable area is substantially reduced. As a result, the proposed building must be sited within a very limited footprint to comply with all applicable regulations.

Given these constraints, PWHD argues that variances from the R-A zoning district development standards are necessary to meet their operational requirements. Based on the site constraints and unique nature of this essential facility, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the project, subject to conditions. Previous Planning Commission discussions ITEM 7B STAFF REPORT

City Council Page 7
Purissima Hills Water District – McCann Operations Center September 18, 2025
highlighted the importance of maintaining flexibility in the R-A zoning district to support nonresidential uses.

Grading and Drainage
Grading Policy Exception #1
The purpose of the policy is to outline desired criteria for grading which assures that construction retains the existing contours and basic landforms of the site to the greatest extent feasible. The policy further states, “Cuts and fills in excess of the following levels generally will be considered excessive and contrary to Town ordinances and policies to grade only to the minimum extent necessary to accommodate structures and to site structures consistent with slope contours”.

According to the Policy, houses are limited to 8 feet of cut and 3 feet of fill. Staff finds this policy also applies to non-residential buildings, as the stated intent of the Policy is to establish grading criteria for “construction” and “structures” in general—not solely for residential development.

Therefore, the proposed operations center, which includes a cut of nearly 20 vertical feet into the hillside, requires an exception from the Council. The Planning Commission supported the Grading Policy Exception to exceed 8 feet of cut as the placement into the hillside lowers the profile of the structure. Additionally, site constraints—such as existing structures to remain and emergency access requirements—limit the placement of the building footprint to the site’s flatter areas.

Grading Policy Exception #2
A second exception is requested to exceed the 4-foot cut threshold for driveways and yard areas.

Excavation into the hillside is necessary to accommodate the 20-foot clear emergency access road required by the Santa Clara County Fire Department. This area will require a cut of approximately 10 vertical feet into the hillside. The excavated area will accommodate new covered storage, a fueling tank, a generator, and a covered trash enclosure. Similar to Grading Policy Exception #1, the Planning Commission supported an exception to exceed 4 feet of cut, as site constraints limit the placement of ancillary equipment to the site’s flatter areas.

PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On July 10, 2025, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at a duly noticed public hearing and voted 4-1 (four ayes, one nay, none absent) to recommend approval to the City Council, subject to conditions of approval. A full staff analysis of the project is found in the staff report to the Planning Commission, dated July 10, 2025 (Attachment 3).

The Commission found that PHWD provides an essential service and the existing facility is in severe need of improvement. It found that physical constraints to the property warranted variances to several R-A developments standards and grading policy exceptions. Furthermore, it found that the District conducted extensive public outreach and sufficiently addressed the neighborhood’s concerns. The Commission noted that remaining concerns could be resolved with landscape screening, which would be subject to future review.

ITEM 7B STAFF REPORT

City Council Page 8
Purissima Hills Water District – McCann Operations Center September 18, 2025
The Commission’s resolution includes the following recommended project-specific conditions of approval, in addition to the standard conditions:
• Incorporate Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through CUL-2b listed in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program into the Conditions of Approval. • Require Planning Commission for review of landscape screening application o Application to be submitted after completion of rough framing or at least six months prior to scheduling a final inspection.

The Planning Commission’s recommended findings of approval are found in the Draft Resolution, included as Exhibit A to Attachment 1.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study was prepared by Purissima Hills Water District through its environmental consultant, MIG Inc. Based on the findings in the Initial Study, supported by technical analyses, it was determined that the project would not result in any significant environmental impacts requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) were prepared.

PHWD is the lead agency under CEQA, as it is the public agency with the principal responsibility for carrying out the project. The Town of Los Altos Hills is a responsible agency, as it holds discretionary approval authority over the project through the required Conditional Use Permit, Site Development Permit, Variance, and other approvals. As a responsible agency, the Town must consider the environmental effects of the project, as disclosed in the MND, before taking action on the project.

The Draft MND was circulated in the Palo Alto Daily Post on May 7, 2025 where a 20-day public comment period was advertised. The public comment period extended from May 7, 2025 to May 27, 2025. PHWD did not receive any public comment during this period; therefore, no revisions to the Initial Study or MND, nor formal responses to comments were required. The MND identifies the potential for significant adverse effects to biological resources, cultural resources, and tribal cultural resources. However, the inclusion of mitigation measures reduces these impacts to lessthan-significant levels. Mitigation measures include pre-construction biological surveys, procedures for the inadvertent discovery of cultural or tribal cultural resources, and coordination with appropriate Native American tribes. Accordingly, staff recommends adoption of the MND and MMRP as part of the City Council’s action. The MND and MMRP is included as Attachment

10. 2024-25 CITY COUNCIL WORK PLAN:

This is not part of the 2024-25 City Council Work Plan, as granting new conditional use permits or amending existing ones are standard processes outlined in the Municipal Code.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact to the Town for review of the conditional use permit as the Town required payment of an application fee of $6,880 to cover staff time.

ITEM 7B STAFF REPORT

City Council Page 9
Purissima Hills Water District – McCann Operations Center September 18, 2025

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution with Conditions of Approval

2. Planning Commission Resolution

3. July 10, 2025, Planning Commission Staff Report

4. Applicant Response to Planning Commission Comments

5. Applicant Narrative (Quick Reference Sheet and Operations Plan)

6. Resident Outreach Log

7. Environmental Design and Protection Committee Report, dated July 2025

8. Environmental Design and Protection Committee Report, dated October 2023

9. Open Space Committee Report, dated July 2025

10. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program [LINK]

11. Project Plans – City Council only
ITEM 7B STAFF REPORT

Resolution CC _-25 Page 1
RESOLUTION CC _-25

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

ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (“CEQA”) SECTION 15074 AND APPROVAL OF

A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCE, AND GRADING POLICY EXCEPTION FOR A NEW OPERATIONS CENTER AT 26451 ASCENSION DRIVE AND IMPOSING

CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
WHEREAS, on September 14, 2023, The Town of Los Altos Hills received an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP23-0004) from the property owner, Purissima Hills Water District, for the construction of a new operations and maintenance building at 26451 Ascension Drive (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the project application was processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a study session on the project on June 6, 2024 where it received a presentation on the project from the property owner and provided initial feedback on the conceptual plans; and
WHEREAS, on December 12, 2024, the applicant submitted a detailed response to comments received at the June 6, 2024, Planning Commission study session; and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) were prepared for the Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (“CEQA”); and
WHEREAS, in conformance with CEQA, the MND was noticed and circulated for a 20-day public review period from May 7, 2025 to May 27, 2025; and WHEREAS, on July 10, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project and considered all evidence, testimony, written documentation, and public comments and voted 4-1 to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council; and NOW, THEREFORE, based on the entirety of the record before it, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074; and approve the Conditional Use Permit subject to the findings contained in Exhibit “A” and conditions contained in Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by reference.

The above and foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of September 2025 by the following vote:

ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution CC _-25 Page 2
AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

By: ___________________________________
Kavita Tankha, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________________________
Arika Miller, City Clerk
ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution CC _-25 Page 3
EXHIBIT “A”

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS OF APPROVAL
Conditional use permits shall be granted by the City Council only when it is found that:
(1) The proposed use of facility is properly located in relation to the community as a whole, land uses, and transportation and service facilities in the vicinity; The project proposes to construct a new operations center for the Purissima Hills Water District to replace the existing building. The operations center is properly located to serve as the primary maintenance and service yard for the District, who’s service area encompasses nearly two-thirds of the Town of Los Altos Hills. The two-story, public utility building is designed to blend with the existing residential character of the surrounding neighborhood.

Access is provided on Ascension Drive, a public road. The facility will provide for a 20-foot clearance around all buildings for emergency access from Ascension Drive. (2) The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and all yards, open spaces, walls and fences, parking, loading, landscaping, and such other features as may be required by this chapter or, will be needed to assure that the proposed use will be reasonably compatible with land uses normally permitted in the surrounding area; The 1.49-acre site is adequate in size and configuration to accommodate the operational needs of the Purissima Hills Water District and emergency access requirements of the Santa Clara County Fire Department. The site’s sloped topography, along with the preservation of numerous perimeter screening trees, helps ensure compatibility with the surrounding residential uses. Additionally, sufficient yard areas will remain undisturbed, allowing for additional landscape screening and visual impact mitigation for adjacent properties. (3) The site for the proposed use will be served by streets and highways of adequate width and pavement to carry the quantity and kind of traffic generated by the proposed use; and There will be no additional traffic related issues with the reconstruction because the number of district employees is not being increased and therefore, no additional traffic is anticipated to be generated. Vehicle access will be reconfigured to allow for a new secondary driveway for ingress only, while the existing driveway will be limited to egress only, in accordance with Santa Clara County Fire Department requirements. Vehicle access to the site will continue to be provided from Ascension Drive, a public road.
(4) The proposed use will not adversely affect the abutting property or the permitted use thereof.

The proposed development will not adversely affect the adjacent properties or uses as the project seeks to replace an existing building but maintain the current operational characteristics. Although the new operations center is larger than the existing, it utilizes a residential design to blend in the public utility use with the adjacent residential properties.

Furthermore, significant vegetation along the property perimeter will be retained to reduce potential for noise and view impacts. Long standing characteristics such as day-to-day operations, hours of operation, vehicle trips, and number of employees will remain unchanged.

ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution CC _-25 Page 4

VARIANCE FINDINGS OF APPROVAL
The requested variance may be granted by the City Council only when it is found that:
(1) Because of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the ordinance is found to deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classifications:

The project requests several variances, including encroachments into the required 30-foot rear and side setbacks; exceeding the Maximum Development Area, Maximum Floor Area, and the 27-foot building limit; constructing a driveway wider than 14 feet; and exceeding the ground coverage limits for conditional uses. These development standards are primarily intended for residential uses within the Residential-Agricultural (R-A) zoning district. The Municipal Code does not provide flexibility for public utility providers in the R-A zoning district, other than through the variance process. Given the operational needs of the Purissima Hills Water District, a strict application of these standards would significantly limit the district’s ability to provide essential services to nearly two-thirds of the Town of Los Altos Hills. (2) That upon granting of the Variance, the intent and purpose of the ordinance will still be served, and the recipient of the Variance will not be granted special privileges not enjoyed by other surrounding property owners:

The City Council finds that the granting of the requested variances will not constitute a special privilege, as the constraints on the subject property are unique and significantly limit the feasible placement of new development. The site is encumbered by a conservation easement covering approximately 42% of the lot area, a centrally located 7,500 square-foot water tank, and mandatory fire access requirements, all of which reduce the buildable area beyond what is typical for properties in the RA zoning district.
(3) That granting the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and within the same zoning district;
The City Council finds that location and design of the proposed operations center are compatible with the site and surrounding properties. The property contains substantial existing vegetation in the rear and side yards, which helps reduce the visibility of development.

Additionally, a landscape screening application is required as a condition of approval to further screen development from adjacent properties and roadways. The Commission finds that approval of the project will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, nor will it be injurious to the property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and within the R-A zoning district.
(4) That the Variance will not allow a use or activity which is not expressly authorized by the Zoning Ordinance:

Grant of a variance to these development standards will allow the Purissima Hills Water District to continue to provide an essential public utility to the residents of the Town of Los Altos Hills. Public utility and service uses are conditional uses within the R-A zoning district.

ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution CC _-25 Page 5
EXHIBIT “B”

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Purissima Hills Water District – 26451 Ascension Drive – File# CUP23-0004 PLANNING:

1. No other modifications to the approved plans submitted on March 4, 2025, are allowed except as otherwise first reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director or the Planning Commission, depending on the scope of the changes.

2. All conditions of approval shall be printed on plans submitted for building permit plan check.

3. The project is subject to the Town’s Construction Time Limit Ordinance (Chapter 10, Title VIII of the Municipal Code). The maximum time for completion of the project shall be set by said policy and run from date of Building Permit issuance. Any extensions to the time for completion shall be subject to said policy. Failure to complete the project in the allotted time with approved extensions may result in substantial penalties and fees per the policy.

4. Exterior finish colors of all buildings shall have a light reflectivity value of 50 or less and roof materials shall have a light reflectivity value of 40 or less, per manufacturer specifications. All color samples shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval at time of submittal for building plan check. All applicable structures shall be painted in conformance with the approved color(s) prior to final inspection.

5. Roof eaves of all structures shall not encroach into the required side and rear yard setbacks.

The roof eaves shall be shown on the site and civil plans in the construction drawings.

6. No new fencing is approved with this site development permit. Any additional or modified fencing or gates shall require review and approval by the Community Development Department with the required landscape screening plan and prior to installation.

7. All exterior lighting fixtures shall be down directed or shielded non-movable fixtures and shall not exceed 3,000 Kelvins and 600 lumens. Exterior lighting on the new structure shall be designed for compliance with the Town’s Outdoor Lighting Policy. The construction drawings shall be revised to include an outdoor lighting plan for Community Development Department staff review and approval.

8. Skylights, if utilized, shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light (tinted or colored glass, or other material). No lighting may be placed within skylight wells.

9. Fire retardant roofing (Class A) is required for all new construction.

10. All construction shall comply with the applicable California Green Building Standards Code, Part 11, Title 24 mandatory measures in effect at the time of building permit application. The property owner shall provide a CALGreen Non-Residential Checklist demonstrating conformance with all applicable mandatory measures at time of building permit submittal.

ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution CC _-25 Page 6

11. All construction shall comply with 2022 California Building and Fire Code for construction within wildland urban interfaces. (Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildlife Exposure).

12. All properties shall pay School District fees to either the Los Altos School District and Mountain View Los Altos Union High School District or the Palo Alto Unified School District, as applicable, prior to permit issuance. The applicant shall take a copy of worksheet #2 to school district offices, pay the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a receipt.

13. The property owner shall provide legal description and plat exhibit(s) prepared by a licensed land surveyor for the amendment to the conservation easement. An easement review deposit (per Planning Fee schedule in effect at time of review request) shall be paid to the Town prior to review of the legal description and plat exhibit(s). The conservation easement amendment shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council prior to issuance of a building permit.

14. Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Pre-Construction Survey for White-Tailed Kites and Other Nesting Birds. Avoidance. To the extent feasible, construction activities shall be scheduled between November and January to avoid the white-tailed kite nesting season (FebruaryOctober) and general nesting bird season (February 1-September 15). If construction activities are scheduled to take place outside the white-tailed kite and general nesting bird season, all impacts to white-tailed kites and nesting birds protected under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code would be avoided.

Pre-Construction Surveys. If it is not possible to schedule construction activities between November 1 and January 31, then a preconstruction survey for white-tailed kite and other nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that no nests would be disturbed during project implementation. The survey shall be conducted no more than five days prior to the initiation of construction (including but not limited to mobilization and staging, clearing, grubbing, tree removal, vegetation removal, fence installation, demolition, and grading). If project activities are delayed by more than five days, an additional nesting bird survey shall be performed. During this survey, the biologist shall inspect all trees and other potential nesting habitats (e.g., trees, shrubs, buildings and other structures) in the impact area plus a 250-foot buffer for nests. Active nesting is present if a bird is building a nest, sitting in a nest, a nest has eggs or chicks in it, or adults are observed carrying food to the nest. The results of the surveys shall be documented.

If an active nest is found during the survey, the biologist shall determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone to be established around the nest (typically up to 0.25 mile for white-tailed kites, 1,000 feet for other raptors, and 250 feet for other species), to ensure that no nests of species protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code will be disturbed during project implementation. Within the buffer zone, no site disturbance and mobilization of heavy equipment, including but not limited to equipment staging, fence installation, clearing, grubbing, vegetation removal, demolition, and grading shall be permitted until the chicks have fledged. Monitoring shall be required to ensure compliance ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution CC _-25 Page 7
with MBTA and relevant California Fish and Game Code requirements. Monitoring dates and findings shall be documented.

A qualified biologist is defined as a biologist that has a degree in biological sciences, or similar degree; a minimum of two years of experience in white-tailed kite and other nesting bird surveys with positive results; and must be able to identify the species and be familiar with nesting behavior of common and special-status bird species found in the project area.

15. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Roosting Bat Protection. Within 30 days before the start of construction at the project site (including but not limited to mobilization and staging, clearing, grubbing, tree removal, vegetation removal, fence installation, demolition, and grading), a qualified biologist shall survey the site and a 50-foot buffer for bat roosting habitat (large trees with cavities or exfoliating bark, structures with crevices, etc.). The results of the surveys shall be documented.

If bat roosting habitat and/or signs of bats (e.g., guano pellets or urine staining) are identified in the survey, a follow-up dusk emergence survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to the start of construction activities. A dusk survey will determine the number of bats present and shall also include the use of acoustic equipment to determine species of bats present. The results of the surveys shall be documented.

If roosting bats are detected, they shall be avoided with roost avoidance buffers, seasonal activity restrictions, or monitoring of roost locations. If an occupied maternity or colony roost is detected, CDFW shall be consulted to determine appropriate measures, such as the establishment of a no-disturbance buffer. Within the buffer zone, no site disturbance and mobilization of heavy equipment, including but not limited to equipment staging, fence installation, clearing, grubbing, vegetation removal, demolition, and grading shall be permitted. Monitoring shall be required to ensure compliance with relevant California Fish and Game Code requirements. Monitoring dates and findings shall be documented.

A qualified biologist is defined as a biologist that has a degree in biological sciences, or similar degree; has at least two years of experience conducting bat surveys that resulted in detections of species present in the project area; and is familiar with the types of equipment used to conduct surveys.

16. Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources. The District should retain a Professional Archaeologist on an “on-call” basis during ground disturbing construction to review, identify and evaluate any potential cultural resources that may be inadvertently exposed during construction. The archaeologist shall review and evaluate any discoveries to determine if they are historical resource(s) and/or unique archaeological resources under CEQA.

If the Professional Archaeologist determines that any cultural resources exposed during construction constitute a historical resource and/or unique archaeological resource under CEQA, he/she shall notify the District and other appropriate parties of the evaluation and recommend mitigation measures to mitigate to a less than significant impact in accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 15064.5. Mitigation measures may include ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution CC _-25 Page 8
avoidance, preservation in place, recordation, additional archaeological testing and data recovery among other options. The completion of a formal Archaeological Monitoring Plan (AMP) and Archaeological Treatment Plan (ATP) that may include data recovery may be recommended by the Professional Archaeologist if significant archaeological deposits are exposed during ground disturbing construction. Development and implementation of the AMP and ATP and treatment of significant cultural resources will be determined by the District in consultation with any regulatory agencies.

17. Mitigation Measure CUL-2a: Construction Plans. The Purissima Hills Water District (District) shall note the project plans that require ground disturbing excavation that there is a potential for exposing buried cultural resources1 including prehistoric Native American burials.

18. Mitigation Measure CUL-2b: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains. In accordance with Section 7050.5, Chapter 1492 of the California Health and Safety Code and Sections 5097.94, 5097.98 and 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code, if potential human remains are found, the lead agency (Purissima Hills Water District) staff and the Santa Clara County Coroner shall be immediately notified of the discovery. The coroner would provide a determination regarding the nature of the remains within 48 hours of notification. No further excavation or disturbance of the identified material, or any area reasonably suspected to overlie additional remains, can occur until a determination has been made. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are, or are believed to be, of Native American ancestry, the coroner would notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. In accordance with California Public Resources Code, Section 5097.98, the Native American Heritage Commission must immediately notify those persons it believes to be the Most Likely Descendant from the deceased Native American. Within 48 hours of this notification, the Most Likely Descendant would recommend to the lead agency their preferred treatment of the remains and associated grave goods.

State law shall be followed in regard to Native American burials (Chapter 1492, Section 7050.5 to the Health and Safety Code, Sections 5097.94, 5097.98 and 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code). This shall include immediate notification of the appropriate county Coroner/Medical Examiner and the District.

19. Prior to beginning any grading operation, all significant trees, particularly any heritage oak trees, are to be fenced at the drip line. The fencing shall be of a material and structure (chainlink) to clearly delineate the drip line. Town staff must inspect the fencing and the trees to be fenced prior to commencement of any grading. The property owner shall call for said inspection at least three days in advance of the inspection. The fencing must remain throughout the course of construction. No storage of equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the drip lines of these trees. Existing perimeter plantings shall be fenced and retained throughout the entire construction period.

20. After completion of rough framing or at least six (6) months prior to scheduling a final inspection, the applicant shall submit landscape screening and erosion control plans for review by the Planning Commission. The application for landscape screening and erosion control shall be accompanied by the applicable fee and deposit. The plans shall be reviewed ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution CC _-25 Page 9
at a noticed public hearing. Attention shall be given to plantings which will be adequate to break up the view of the new structure from surrounding properties and streets. All landscaping required for screening purposes and for erosion control (as determined by the City Engineer) must be installed prior to final inspection of the new structure. The landscape screening plan shall comply with Section 10-2.809 (water efficient landscaping) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code.

21. A $5,000 landscape maintenance and water usage deposit shall be paid to the Town prior to final inspection of the new structure. Two years after the project has been completed, the applicant shall furnish staff with the last 12 months of water usage for the property and conduct a site inspection to ensure installed landscape screening is still present and has been adequately maintained. Inadequate maintenance of installed landscape screening and/or water usage greater than the annual usage indicated on the approved parcel water budget worksheet, may result in complete forfeiture of this deposit.

22. Prior to requesting the final inspection, a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that “the height of the new structure complies with the proposed 32’-8” maximum structure height, measured as the vertical distance at any point from the top of the crawl space or basement ceiling if excavated below natural grade, to the highest part of the structure directly above (including roof materials).” The overall structure height shall be similarly certified in writing and state that “all points of the building (including chimneys and appurtenances) lie within a thirty-five (35’) foot horizontal band based, measured from the lowest visible natural or finished grade topographical elevation of the structure along the building line and the highest topographical elevation of the roof of the structure.” The applicant shall submit the stamped and signed letter(s) to the Community Development Department prior to requesting a final inspection.

23. Prior to requesting the final inspection, a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that “the location of the structure and roof eaves, are no less than 23’ from the rear property line and 39’ from the side and rear property lines.” The elevation of the new structure shall be similarly certified in writing to state that “the elevation of the new structure matches the elevation and location shown on the Site Development plan.” The applicant shall submit the stamped and signed letter(s) to the Community Development Department prior to requesting a final inspection.

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

24. Any, and all, changes to the approved Grading and Drainage plan shall first be approved by the Town Engineering Department. No grading shall take place during the grading moratorium (October 1st to April 30th) except with prior approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line.

25. An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department for all work proposed in the public right-of-way. No work within the public right-of-way shall commence without an encroachment permit.

ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution CC _-25 Page 10

26. All public utility services serving the new structure shall be placed underground. The applicant should contact PG&E immediately after issuance of building permit to start the application process for undergrounding utilities which can take up to 6-8 months.

Prior To Building Plan Check

27. Submit a final Grading and Drainage Plan for review and approval by the Engineering Department. The final plan must meet all stormwater requirements for regulated projects (C.3 requirements) and include all applicable site design and source control measures.

28. The property owner shall enter into a Stormwater Control Maintenance Agreement with the Town. This agreement must be signed, notarized, and returned to the Town prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check.

At Building Plan Check

29. Submit a Grading and Construction Operation Plan for review and approval by the City Engineer. This plan must address the following: truck traffic (dust, noise, vehicle and pedestrian safety), storage of construction materials, placement of sanitary facilities, and parking arrangements for construction vehicles and personnel. A debris box (trash dumpster) shall be placed on-site for construction debris collection. The applicant must make arrangements with Green Waste Recovery, Inc. the Town’s exclusive franchise hauler.

30. Submit a Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) Plan for review and approval.

31. Submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for review and approval by the Engineering Department. The contractor and property owner must comply with all applicable NPDES permit requirements related to grading and erosion/sediment control.

32. Submit high-quality color photographs of the existing roadways and pathways prior to the building permit issuance.

33. Pay pathway fee of in the amount of $10,943.

Prior To Final Approval

34. The Engineer of Record shall observe the installation of the drainage system, construction of the energy dissipators, and completion of the grading activities and state that items have been installed and constructed per the approved plans. A stamped and signed letter shall be prepared and submitted to the Town prior to final inspection.

35. All areas on the site that have the native soil disturbed shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy season and shall be replanted prior to final inspection.

36. The property owner shall inform the Town of any damage and shall repair any damage caused by the construction of the project to pathways, private driveways, and public and private roadways prior to final inspection.

FIRE DEPARTMENT
ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution CC _-25 Page 11

37. Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access, water supply and may include specific additional requirements as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work, the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits.

38. Fire Sprinklers Required: (As Noted on Sheet T1.0) Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.18 whichever is the more restrictive. For the purposes of this section, firewalls used to separate building areas shall be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and shall be without openings or penetrations.

NOTE: The owner(s), occupant(s) and any contractor(s) or subcontractor(s) are responsible for consulting with the water purveyor of record in order to determine if any modification or upgrade of the existing water service is required. A State of California licensed (C-16) Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work.

CFC Sec. 903.2.

39. Requirement of Fire Alarm system will be determined during building permit.

40. Fire Apparatus (Engine)Access Roadway Required: Provide an access roadway with a paved all-weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 30 feet inside, 50 feet outside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Surface shall be capable of supporting 75K pounds. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet A-1. CFC Sec. 503. On the building permit plan set, make a note on coversheet that an approved AMMR is included in this project. The new roadway shall be paved with all weather pavement. The new vehicular loop will be a one-way road, demarcated with arrows painted on the asphalt. "On Way" road signage will be painted at the entry onto the pavement. "No Entry" signage will be painted onto the pavement at the existing of the site. Curbs will be painted red. The boundary for the all-weather fire access toad to be a painted red strip on the pavement to identify the clear area as part of the AMMR conditions. PC 24-3591

41. Buildings and Facilities Access: (As Noted on Sheet A1.1) Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or with the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. [CFC, Section 503.1.1].

42. Emergency Gate/Access Gate Requirements: (As Noted on Sheet A1.1) Gate installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specification G-1 and, when open shall not obstruct any portion of the required 20' width for emergency access roadways.

Locks, if provided, shall be fire department approved prior to installation. Gates across the ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution CC _-25 Page 12
emergency access roadways shall be equipped with an approved access device. If the gates are operated electrically, an approved Knox key switch shall be installed; if they are operated manually, then an approved Knox padlock shall be installed. CFC Sec. 503.6 and 506. Sheet A1.1 showing automatic sliding gates.

43. Knox Key Boxes/Locks Where Required for Access: (As Noted on Sheet A1.1) Where access to or within a structure or an area is restricted because of secured openings or where immediate access is necessary for lifesaving or firefighting purposes, the fire code official is authorized to require a key box to be installed in an approved location. The Knox Key Box shall be a of an approved type and shall contain keys to gain necessary access as required by the fire code official. Locks. An approved Knox Lock shall be installed on gates or similar barriers when required by the fire code official. Key box maintenance. The operator of the building shall immediately notify the fire code official and provide the new key when a lock is changed or re-keyed. The key to such lock shall be secured in the key box. [CFC Sec. 506].

44. Fire Department Connection: (As Noted on Sheet 2.0) The fire department connection (FDC) shall be installed at the street on the street address side of the building. It shall be located within 100 feet of a public fire hydrant and within ten (10) feet of the main PIV (unless otherwise approved by the Chief due to practical difficulties). FDC's shall be equipped with a minimum of two (2), two-and-one-half (2- 1/2”) inch national standard threaded inlet couplings. Orientation of the FDC shall be such that hose lines may be readily and conveniently attached to the inlets without interference. FDC's shall be painted safety yellow. [SCCFD, SP-2 Standard].

45. Required Fire Flow: (Letter received) The fire flow for this project is 1,750 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure. Since an automatic fire sprinkler system will be installed, the fire flow will be reduced by 25%, establishing a required adjusted fire flow of 1,312 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure. Note: The minimum required number and spacing of the hydrants shall be in accordance with CFC Table C102.1.

46. Address identification: (As Noted on Sheet A1.1) New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address numbers shall be maintained. CFC Sec. 505.1.

47. Water Supply Requirements: Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 1

Resolution CC _-25 Page 13
any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2019 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7.

48. Construction Site Fire Safety: (As Noted on Sheet A1.1) All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification S1-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33.

Please refer to the Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein. If you believe that these conditions impose any fees, dedications, reservation or other exactions under the California Government Code Section 66000, you are hereby notified that these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and/or a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest such fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day period complying with all requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.

Upon completion of the construction, a final inspection shall be required to be set with the Community Development and Engineering Departments two weeks prior to final building inspection approval.

NOTE: The Conditional Use Permit is valid for one year from the approval date. All required building permits must be obtained within that year and work completed per the Town’s Construction Time Limit Ordinance (Chapter 10, Title VIII of the Municipal Code).

The maximum time for completion of the project shall be set by said policy and run from date of Building Permit issuance.

ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 1

RESOLUTION PC _-25

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS

HILLS RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED

NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (“CEQA”) SECTION 15074 AND APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,

VARIANCE, AND GRADING POLICY EXCEPTION FOR A NEW OPERATIONS CENTER AT 26451 ASCENSION DRIVE AND IMPOSING CERTAIN CONDITIONS

OF APPROVAL
WHEREAS, on September 14, 2023, The Town of Los Altos Hills received an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP23-0004) from the property owner, Purissima Hills Water District, for the construction of a new operations and maintenance building at 26451 Ascension Drive (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, the project application was processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a study session on the project on June 6, 2024 where it received a presentation on the project from the property owner and provided initial feedback on the conceptual plans; and
WHEREAS, on December 12, 2024, the applicant submitted a detailed response to comments received at the June 6, 2024, Planning Commission study session; and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) were prepared for the Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (“CEQA”); and
WHEREAS, in conformance with CEQA, the MND was noticed and circulated for a 20-day public review period from May 7, 2025 to May 27, 2025; and WHEREAS, on July 10, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the entirety of the record before it, the Planning Commission of the Town of Los Altos Hills hereby recommends the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074; and approve the Conditional Use Permit subject to the findings contained in Exhibit “A” and conditions contained in Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by reference.

ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 2

The above and foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the Town of Los Altos Hills at a special meeting held on the 10th day of July 2025 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

By: ___________________________________
Rajiv Patel, Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
______________________________________________
Jay Bradford, Community Development Director
ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 2

EXHIBIT “A”

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS OF APPROVAL
Conditional use permits shall be granted by the City Council only when it is found that:
(1) The proposed use of facility is properly located in relation to the community as a whole, land uses, and transportation and service facilities in the vicinity; The project proposes to construct a new operations center for the Purissima Hills Water District to replace the existing building. The operations center is properly located to serve as the primary maintenance and service yard for the District, who’s service area encompasses nearly two-thirds of the Town of Los Altos Hills. The two-story, public utility building is designed to blend with the existing residential character of the surrounding neighborhood.

Access is provided on Ascension Drive, a public road. The facility will provide for a 20-foot clearance around all buildings for emergency access from Ascension Drive. (2) The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and all yards, open spaces, walls and fences, parking, loading, landscaping, and such other features as may be required by this chapter or, will be needed to assure that the proposed use will be reasonably compatible with land uses normally permitted in the surrounding area; The 1.49-acre site is adequate in size and configuration to accommodate the operational needs of the Purissima Hills Water District and emergency access requirements of the Santa Clara County Fire Department. The site’s sloped topography, along with the preservation of numerous perimeter screening trees, helps ensure compatibility with the surrounding residential uses. Additionally, sufficient yard areas will remain undisturbed, allowing for additional landscape screening and visual impact mitigation for adjacent properties. (3) The site for the proposed use will be served by streets and highways of adequate width and pavement to carry the quantity and kind of traffic generated by the proposed use; and There will be no additional traffic related issues with the reconstruction because the number of district employees is not being increased and therefore, no additional traffic is anticipated to be generated. Vehicle access will be reconfigured to allow for a new secondary driveway for ingress only, while the existing driveway will be limited to egress only, in accordance with Santa Clara County Fire Department requirements. Vehicle access to the site will continue to be provided from Ascension Drive, a public road.
(4) The proposed use will not adversely affect the abutting property or the permitted use thereof.

The proposed development will not adversely affect the adjacent properties or uses as the project seeks to replace an existing building but maintain the current operational characteristics. Although the new operations center is larger than the existing, it utilizes a residential design to blend in the public utility use with the adjacent residential properties.

Furthermore, significant vegetation along the property perimeter will be retained to reduce potential for noise and view impacts. Long standing characteristics such as day-to-day operations, hours of operation, vehicle trips, and number of employees will remain unchanged.

ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 2

VARIANCE FINDINGS OF APPROVAL
The requested variance may be granted by the City Council only when it is found that:
(1) Because of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the ordinance is found to deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classifications:

The project requests several variances, including encroachments into the required 30-foot rear and side setbacks; exceeding the Maximum Development Area, Maximum Floor Area, and the 27-foot building limit; constructing a driveway wider than 14 feet; and exceeding the ground coverage limits for conditional uses. These development standards are primarily intended for residential uses within the Residential-Agricultural (R-A) zoning district. The Municipal Code does not provide flexibility for public utility providers in the R-A zoning district, other than through the variance process. Given the operational needs of the Purissima Hills Water District, a strict application of these standards would significantly limit the district’s ability to provide essential services to nearly two-thirds of the Town of Los Altos Hills.
(2) That upon granting of the Variance, the intent and purpose of the ordinance will still be served, and the recipient of the Variance will not be granted special privileges not enjoyed by other surrounding property owners:

The Planning Commission finds that the granting of the requested variances will not constitute a special privilege, as the constraints on the subject property are unique and significantly limit the feasible placement of new development. The site is encumbered by a conservation easement covering approximately 42% of the lot area, a centrally located 7,500 square-foot water tank, and mandatory fire access requirements, all of which reduce the buildable area beyond what is typical for properties in the RA zoning district. (3) That granting the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and within the same zoning district;
The Planning Commission finds that location and design of the proposed operations center are compatible with the site and surrounding properties. The property contains substantial existing vegetation in the rear and side yards, which helps reduce the visibility of development. Additionally, a landscape screening application is required as a condition of approval to further screen development from adjacent properties and roadways. The Commission finds that approval of the project will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare, nor will it be injurious to the property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and within the R-A zoning district.
(4) That the Variance will not allow a use or activity which is not expressly authorized by the Zoning Ordinance:

ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 2

Grant of a variance to these development standards will allow the Purissima Hills Water District to continue to provide an essential public utility to the residents of the Town of Los Altos Hills. Public utility and service uses are conditional uses within the R-A zoning district.

ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 2

EXHIBIT “B”

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Purissima Hills Water District – 26451 Ascension Drive – File# CUP23-0004 PLANNING:

1. No other modifications to the approved plans submitted on March 4, 2025, are allowed except as otherwise first reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director or the Planning Commission, depending on the scope of the changes.

2. All conditions of approval shall be printed on plans submitted for building permit plan check.

3. The project is subject to the Town’s Construction Time Limit Ordinance (Chapter 10, Title VIII of the Municipal Code). The maximum time for completion of the project shall be set by said policy and run from date of Building Permit issuance. Any extensions to the time for completion shall be subject to said policy. Failure to complete the project in the allotted time with approved extensions may result in substantial penalties and fees per the policy.

4. Exterior finish colors of all buildings shall have a light reflectivity value of 50 or less and roof materials shall have a light reflectivity value of 40 or less, per manufacturer specifications. All color samples shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for approval at time of submittal for building plan check. All applicable structures shall be painted in conformance with the approved color(s) prior to final inspection.

5. Roof eaves of all structures shall not encroach into the required side and rear yard setbacks.

The roof eaves shall be shown on the site and civil plans in the construction drawings.

6. No new fencing is approved with this site development permit. Any additional or modified fencing or gates shall require review and approval by the Community Development Department with the required landscape screening plan and prior to installation.

7. All exterior lighting fixtures shall be down directed or shielded non-movable fixtures and shall not exceed 3,000 Kelvins and 600 lumens. Exterior lighting on the new structure shall be designed for compliance with the Town’s Outdoor Lighting Policy. The construction drawings shall be revised to include an outdoor lighting plan for Community Development Department staff review and approval.

8. Skylights, if utilized, shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light (tinted or colored glass, or other material). No lighting may be placed within skylight wells.

9. Fire retardant roofing (Class A) is required for all new construction.

10. All construction shall comply with the applicable California Green Building Standards Code, Part 11, Title 24 mandatory measures in effect at the time of building permit application. The property owner shall provide a CALGreen Non-Residential Checklist demonstrating conformance with all applicable mandatory measures at time of building permit submittal.

ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 2

11. All construction shall comply with 2022 California Building and Fire Code for construction within wildland urban interfaces. (Materials and Construction Methods for Exterior Wildlife Exposure).

12. All properties shall pay School District fees to either the Los Altos School District and Mountain View Los Altos Union High School District or the Palo Alto Unified School District, as applicable, prior to permit issuance. The applicant shall take a copy of worksheet #2 to school district offices, pay the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a receipt.

13. The property owner shall provide legal description and plat exhibit(s) prepared by a licensed land surveyor for the amendment to the conservation easement. An easement review deposit (per Planning Fee schedule in effect at time of review request) shall be paid to the Town prior to review of the legal description and plat exhibit(s). The conservation easement amendment shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council prior to issuance of a building permit.

14. Prior to beginning any grading operation, all significant trees, particularly any heritage oak trees, are to be fenced at the drip line. The fencing shall be of a material and structure (chainlink) to clearly delineate the drip line. Town staff must inspect the fencing and the trees to be fenced prior to commencement of any grading. The property owner shall call for said inspection at least three days in advance of the inspection. The fencing must remain throughout the course of construction. No storage of equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the drip lines of these trees. Existing perimeter plantings shall be fenced and retained throughout the entire construction period.

15. After completion of rough framing or at least six (6) months prior to scheduling a final inspection, the applicant shall submit landscape screening and erosion control plans for review by the Planning Commission. The application for landscape screening and erosion control shall be accompanied by the applicable fee and deposit. The plans shall be reviewed at a noticed public hearing. Attention shall be given to plantings which will be adequate to break up the view of the new structure from surrounding properties and streets. All landscaping required for screening purposes and for erosion control (as determined by the City Engineer) must be installed prior to final inspection of the new structure. The landscape screening plan shall comply with Section 10-2.809 (water efficient landscaping) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code.

16. A $5,000 landscape maintenance and water usage deposit shall be paid to the Town prior to final inspection of the new structure. Two years after the project has been completed, the applicant shall furnish staff with the last 12 months of water usage for the property and conduct a site inspection to ensure installed landscape screening is still present and has been adequately maintained. Inadequate maintenance of installed landscape screening and/or water usage greater than the annual usage indicated on the approved parcel water budget worksheet, may result in complete forfeiture of this deposit.

17. Prior to requesting the final inspection, a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that “the height of the new structure complies with the ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 2

proposed 32’-8” maximum structure height, measured as the vertical distance at any point from the top of the crawl space or basement ceiling if excavated below natural grade, to the highest part of the structure directly above (including roof materials).” The overall structure height shall be similarly certified in writing and state that “all points of the building (including chimneys and appurtenances) lie within a thirty-five (35’) foot horizontal band based, measured from the lowest visible natural or finished grade topographical elevation of the structure along the building line and the highest topographical elevation of the roof of the structure.” The applicant shall submit the stamped and signed letter(s) to the Community Development Department prior to requesting a final inspection.

18. Prior to requesting the final inspection, a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that “the location of the structure and roof eaves, are no less than 23’ from the rear property line and 39’ from the side and rear property lines.” The elevation of the new structure shall be similarly certified in writing to state that “the elevation of the new structure matches the elevation and location shown on the Site Development plan.” The applicant shall submit the stamped and signed letter(s) to the Community Development Department prior to requesting a final inspection.

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

19. Any, and all, changes to the approved Grading and Drainage plan shall first be approved by the Town Engineering Department. No grading shall take place during the grading moratorium (October 1st to April 30th) except with prior approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line.

20. An encroachment permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department for all work proposed in the public right-of-way. No work within the public right-of-way shall commence without an encroachment permit.

21. All public utility services serving the new structure shall be placed underground. The applicant should contact PG&E immediately after issuance of building permit to start the application process for undergrounding utilities which can take up to 6-8 months.

Prior To Building Plan Check

22. Submit a final Grading and Drainage Plan for review and approval by the Engineering Department. The final plan must meet all stormwater requirements for regulated projects (C.3 requirements) and include all applicable site design and source control measures.

23. The property owner shall enter into a Stormwater Control Maintenance Agreement with the Town. This agreement must be signed, notarized, and returned to the Town prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check.

At Building Plan Check

24. Submit a Grading and Construction Operation Plan for review and approval by the City Engineer. This plan must address the following: truck traffic (dust, noise, vehicle and pedestrian safety), storage of construction materials, placement of sanitary facilities, and parking arrangements for construction vehicles and personnel. A debris box (trash dumpster) ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 2

shall be placed on-site for construction debris collection. The applicant must make arrangements with Green Waste Recovery, Inc. the Town’s exclusive franchise hauler.

25. Submit a Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) Plan for review and approval.

26. Submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for review and approval by the Engineering Department. The contractor and property owner must comply with all applicable NPDES permit requirements related to grading and erosion/sediment control.

27. Submit high-quality color photographs of the existing roadways and pathways prior to the building permit issuance.

28. Pay pathway fee of in the amount of $10,943.

Prior To Final Approval

29. The Engineer of Record shall observe the installation of the drainage system, construction of the energy dissipators, and completion of the grading activities and state that items have been installed and constructed per the approved plans. A stamped and signed letter shall be prepared and submitted to the Town prior to final inspection.

30. All areas on the site that have the native soil disturbed shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy season and shall be replanted prior to final inspection.

31. The property owner shall inform the Town of any damage and shall repair any damage caused by the construction of the project to pathways, private driveways, and public and private roadways prior to final inspection.

FIRE DEPARTMENT

32. Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access, water supply and may include specific additional requirements as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work, the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits.

33. Fire Sprinklers Required: (As Noted on Sheet T1.0) Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.18 whichever is the more restrictive. For the purposes of this section, firewalls used to separate building areas shall be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and shall be without openings or penetrations.

NOTE: The owner(s), occupant(s) and any contractor(s) or subcontractor(s) are responsible for consulting with the water purveyor of record in order to determine if any modification or upgrade of the existing water service is required. A State of California licensed (C-16) Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work.

CFC Sec. 903.2.

ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 2

34. Requirement of Fire Alarm system will be determined during building permit.

35. Fire Apparatus (Engine)Access Roadway Required: Provide an access roadway with a paved all-weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 30 feet inside, 50 feet outside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Surface shall be capable of supporting 75K pounds. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet A-1. CFC Sec. 503. On the building permit plan set, make a note on coversheet that an approved AMMR is included in this project. The new roadway shall be paved with all weather pavement. The new vehicular loop will be a one-way road, demarcated with arrows painted on the asphalt. "On Way" road signage will be painted at the entry onto the pavement. "No Entry" signage will be painted onto the pavement at the existing of the site. Curbs will be painted red. The boundary for the all-weather fire access toad to be a painted red strip on the pavement to identify the clear area as part of the AMMR conditions. PC 24-3591

36. Buildings and Facilities Access: (As Noted on Sheet A1.1) Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or with the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. [CFC, Section 503.1.1].

37. Emergency Gate/Access Gate Requirements: (As Noted on Sheet A1.1) Gate installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specification G-1 and, when open shall not obstruct any portion of the required 20' width for emergency access roadways.

Locks, if provided, shall be fire department approved prior to installation. Gates across the emergency access roadways shall be equipped with an approved access device. If the gates are operated electrically, an approved Knox key switch shall be installed; if they are operated manually, then an approved Knox padlock shall be installed. CFC Sec. 503.6 and 506. Sheet A1.1 showing automatic sliding gates.

38. Knox Key Boxes/Locks Where Required for Access: (As Noted on Sheet A1.1) Where access to or within a structure or an area is restricted because of secured openings or where immediate access is necessary for lifesaving or firefighting purposes, the fire code official is authorized to require a key box to be installed in an approved location. The Knox Key Box shall be a of an approved type and shall contain keys to gain necessary access as required by the fire code official. Locks. An approved Knox Lock shall be installed on gates or similar barriers when required by the fire code official. Key box maintenance. The operator of the building shall immediately notify the fire code official and provide the new key when a lock is changed or re-keyed. The key to such lock shall be secured in the key box. [CFC Sec. 506].

39. Fire Department Connection: (As Noted on Sheet 2.0) The fire department connection (FDC) shall be installed at the street on the street address side of the building. It shall be located within 100 feet of a public fire hydrant and within ten (10) feet of the main PIV ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 2

(unless otherwise approved by the Chief due to practical difficulties). FDC's shall be equipped with a minimum of two (2), two-and-one-half (2- 1/2”) inch national standard threaded inlet couplings. Orientation of the FDC shall be such that hose lines may be readily and conveniently attached to the inlets without interference. FDC's shall be painted safety yellow. [SCCFD, SP-2 Standard].

40. Required Fire Flow: (Letter received) The fire flow for this project is 1,750 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure. Since an automatic fire sprinkler system will be installed, the fire flow will be reduced by 25%, establishing a required adjusted fire flow of 1,312 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure. Note: The minimum required number and spacing of the hydrants shall be in accordance with CFC Table C102.1.

41. Address identification: (As Noted on Sheet A1.1) New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address numbers shall be maintained. CFC Sec. 505.1.

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

43. Construction Site Fire Safety: (As Noted on Sheet A1.1) All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification S1-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33.

Please refer to the Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein. If you believe that these conditions impose any fees, dedications, reservation or other exactions under the California Government Code Section 66000, you are hereby notified that these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and/or a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90-day approval period in which you may protest such fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90-day ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 2

period complying with all requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions.

Upon completion of the construction, a final inspection shall be required to be set with the Community Development and Engineering Departments two weeks prior to final building inspection approval.

NOTE: The Conditional Use Permit is valid for one year from the approval date. All required building permits must be obtained within that year and work completed per the Town’s Construction Time Limit Ordinance (Chapter 10, Title VIII of the Municipal Code).

The maximum time for completion of the project shall be set by said policy and run from date of Building Permit issuance.

ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 2

THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS July 10, 2025
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
SUBJECT: 26451 Ascension Drive – File #CUP23-0004 – Lands of Purissima Hills Water District
Request for (1) Conditional Use Permit for the demolition of an existing singlestory 2,500 square-foot building and construction of a new two-story 7,600 squarefoot operations and maintenance building, (2) Variances to the ResidentialAgricultural District (R-A) Development Standards for Setbacks, Maximum Development Area, Maximum Floor Area, Building Height, and Ground Coverage for Conditional Uses, (3) Grading Policy Exception to exceed thresholds for cut/fill, and (4) Amendment to reduce the area of an existing Conservation Easement. The project includes a new secondary driveway for egress, paved areas for vehicular circulation, material bins, equipment storage, and areas for large parts storage.

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be considered.

FROM: Jonathan Fox, Senior Planner
APPROVED: Jay Bradford, Community Development Director
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission takes one of the following actions:

1. Adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) to forward a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program pursuant to CEQA Section 15074; and approve the Conditional Use Permit, subject to the attached conditions of approval.

2. Continue the public hearing to a date uncertain and direct the applicant to make specific design changes.

BACKGROUND
Purissima Hills Water District (PHWD) is a County Special District providing drinking water to approximately 6,400 residents in Los Altos Hills. This represents more than two-thirds of the Town’s population, with Cal Water serving the remainder. The 1.49-acre PHWD site at 26451 Ascension Drive—known as the McCann Operations Center—operates as a conditional use in the Town’s Residential-Agricultural Zoning District (R-A). The site functions as the district’s primary service and maintenance yard and also contains two large water tanks and a pump house.

The District’s Board of Directors has designated it as an essential facility due to its vital role in emergency response and in ensuring the supply of safe drinking water.

According to the district, the existing 2,500-square-foot operations building was originally constructed in 1970, although the water tanks are known to predate this structure. Unlike other long-standing non-residential uses in the Town, such as the Fremont Hills Country Club, or the ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 3

various religious institutions, the McCann Operations Center does not have a formal conditional use permit (CUP) on record that governs its operations. Town records recognize the property’s use as a public utility and service site as early as 2003; however, no site development or building permits have been identified prior to that time.

On July 17, 2003, the City Council approved File #41-03-CUP-VAR for the establishment of a wireless facility at the project site. As a condition of approval, a 0.62-acre conservation easement was dedicated to the Town along the southern property line. This easement represents nearly 42% of the total lot area, and prohibits construction, grading, and cutting of vegetation within its boundaries. Since 2003, only minor permits—such as wireless facility modifications and building maintenance/repairs—have been issued for the site.

The site is surrounded by residentially developed properties. Access is provided on Ascension Drive, a public road. Substantial portions of the 1.5-acre site contain steep slopes, largely aligning with the conservation easement. There is a 54-foot grade change between the lowest point at the existing driveway (248’) to the highest point at the southern property line (302’).

Figure 1. Context Map Source: Town GIS
According to a 2013 report completed by a structural engineering firm, the existing building has exceeded its useful service life and is expected to perform below average during seismic events compared to similar structures. As such, PHWD requests a conditional use permit to demolish the existing single-story building and replace it with a new two-story operations center. The new facility will be designed to accommodate the district’s current operational needs, which will result in increases in building height, development area, and floor area—exceeding standard zoning requirements.

Because the Town only has two zoning districts—Residential-Agricultural (R-A) and Open Space Reserve District (OSR)—many conditional uses such as public utility, private recreation, and religious institutions often do not fully comply with the development standards of the underlying zoning district. This is true for the project site, where several variances and exceptions are required for the proposed expansion beyond the existing nonconforming condition.

ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 3

The following are the list of variances/exceptions required:

A. Variance to Rear Setback
a. Required – 30 feet
b. Existing – 30 feet
c. Proposed – Approximately 23 feet to (N) operations building.

B. Variance to Side Setback
a. Required – 30 feet
b. Existing – Existing covered storage bay is 8’-10” feet from the property line. c. Proposed – New covered storage bay is 8’-2” from the property line.

C. Variance to Maximum Development Area
a. MDA is 7,500 square feet.
b. Existing development area is 32,939 square feet.
c. Proposed development area is 45,403 square feet.

D. Variance to Maximum Floor Area
a. MFA is 5,000 square feet.
b. Existing floor area is 3,371 square feet.
c. Proposed floor area is 8,316 square feet.

E. Variance to Maximum Building Height
a. Building height is limited to 27 feet for all structures. Per Section 10-1.504, primary dwellings are allowed 32 feet with additional requirements. b. Existing building is single-story.
c. Proposed height is 32’-8” but not a primary dwelling.

F. Variance to Driveway Width
a. Maximum width of a driveway is 14 feet.
b. Existing driveway is 14 feet wide.
c. New driveway is 18 feet wide.

G. Variance to Ground Coverage for Conditional Uses
a. Required – Combined ground coverage of structures, roadways, parking areas, or other impervious facilities shall not exceed 40% of the net area of the lot. b. Proposed – Approximately 60% of the net area of the lot is covered.

H. Grading Policy Exception
a. Required – Maximum 8-foot Cut and 3-foot Fill for primary structures. b. Proposed – Approximately 20-foot Cut for operations center.

I. Grading Policy Exception
a. Required – Maximum 4-foot Cut and 3-foot Fill for driveways and yard areas. b. Proposed – Approximately 10-foot Cut for storage area next to driveway.

J. Amendment to Conservation Easement
a. The project requires grading, hardscape, and placement of the (N) operations building within the existing Conservation Easement. These improvements are not allowed per the Easement Agreement adopted by the City Council in 2003.

PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION
On June 6, 2024, the Planning Commission held a study session where it received a presentation on the project from PHWD and provided initial feedback on the conceptual plans. In summary, the Commission directed the applicant to conduct more public outreach, study alternatives to decrease the building height, and work with the County Fire Department to address emergency ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 3

access requirements. The Commission acknowledged that the R-A zoning district standards, which are largely intended for residential uses, presented a challenge to the Water District’s public utility and service use. However, the Commission requested that the applicant study ways to maintain the 27-foot building height limit and reduce potential impacts to neighboring properties.

On December 12, 2024, the applicant submitted a detailed response to comments received at the June 6, 2024, Planning Commission study session (Attachment 3). Staff has provided a summary below:

Planning Commission Feedback Applicant Response
Conduct more neighborhood outreach Addressed. See Resident Outreach Log in Attachment 5.

Coordinate with County Fire Department to
remove the new driveway
Addressed. County Fire will not permit the
new driveway to be removed.

Coordinate with County Fire Department to
reduce width of the new driveway
Addressed. County Fire agreed to allow the
new driveway at 18 feet wide instead of 20
feet.

Reduce ceiling heights to decrease building
height to 27 feet or less
PHWD states there is no capacity to reduce
building height while meeting the operational
needs of the building and screening
mechanical equipment.

Study flat roof alternative to decrease building
height to 27 feet or less
PHWD states a flat roof design reduces the
overall building height by 1 foot.

Neighborhood outreach showed a preference
for a pitched roof.

Consider no second floor as an alternative PHWD states eliminating the second floor is not a viable option because the available site
area for the building is limited.

Reduce the number of variances PHWD continues to request variances to rear setback, side setback, building height, floor
area, development area, driveway width, and
ground coverage.

Following the June 6, 2024, Planning Commission Study Session, Planning staff met with the PHWD General Manager and district staff to review the Commission’s feedback. During those meetings, specific concerns raised by the Commission were discussed, including the reduction in building height and relocation/elimination of second floor components. PHWD reaffirmed that the proposed building height and floor area represent the minimum necessary to meet its operational needs, including enclosed vehicle bays, office spaces, and a conference room. The district requested to move forward with a formal Planning Commission public hearing, noting that significant neighborhood outreach had been completed, and alternatives have been thoroughly studied. The project has also gone through multiple rounds of review with the Water District’s Board of Directors.

NOTICING/PUBLIC OUTREACH
ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 3

The public was advised of this Public Hearing in the following ways:
• Mailing to property owners within 500-foot radius – June 27, 2025 • Posted at the project site – June 27, 2025
• Public Posting Places – June 27, 2025
• Town Website: www.losaltoshills.ca.gov – June 27, 2025 In addition to the statutorily required public noticing list described above, PHWD conducted targeted outreach to the adjacent property owners on Anacapa Drive and Ascension Drive. Of the eight property owners contacted, seven responded, with five submitting letters of support. The district’s Resident Outreach Log and the letters of support are included as Attachment 5. Public comment received after publication of the staff report but before the July 10, 2025, Planning Commission meeting will be forwarded to the Commission.

Figure 1. Outreach Map Source: Applicant. Annotated by Staff.

GENERAL PLAN and MUNICIPAL CODE
General Plan Land Use Element
Policy 1.1 Uses of land shall be consistent with the semi-rural atmosphere of the community, minimize disturbance to natural terrain, minimize removal of the natural vegetation, and create the maximum compatibility of development with the natural environmental through site design and landscaping.

Policy 1.3 Large non-residential structures shall be compatible with the residential character of the community.

Policy 2.6 Limits on the development of individual residential lots shall be determined based on evaluation of such factors as natural vegetation, topographic characteristics, soils and geology.

Municipal Code
ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 3

Pursuant to the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code (LAHMC), all conditional uses are subject to Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Section 10-1.007(1): variances are subject to Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Section 10-1.1007(2);
Conditional use permits may be granted only when facts are established which support the findings required by the provisions of this section.
(a) Findings. Conditional use permits shall be granted by the City Council only when it is found that:
(1) The proposed use of facility is properly located in relation to the community as a whole, land uses, and transportation and service facilities in the vicinity; (2) The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use and all yards, open spaces, walls and fences, parking, loading, landscaping, and such other features as may be required by this chapter or, will be needed to assure that the proposed use will be reasonably compatible with land uses normally permitted in the surrounding area;
(3) The site for the proposed use will be served by streets and highways of adequate width and pavement to carry the quantity and kind of traffic generated by the proposed use; and
(4) The proposed use will not adversely affect the abutting property or the permitted use thereof.
(b) Conditions. Every conditional use permit granted may be subject to such conditions as are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare and secure the objectives of the General Plan and this chapter.

Variances may be granted only when the hearing authority can affirmatively find that all of the following four requirements have been met:
(1) That, because of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the provisions of this title is found to deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification; (2) That upon the granting of the variance, the intent and purpose of the applicable sections of this title will still be served and the recipient of the variance will not be granted special privileges not enjoyed by other surrounding property owners; (3) That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and within the same zoning district;
(4) That the variance will not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning district regulations governing the parcel or property.

Staff responses to the required findings of approval are found in the Draft Resolution, Exhibit A.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to demolish a 2,500 square-foot building and replace it with a new two-story 7,600 square-foot operations and maintenance building.

Site Data
Gross Lot Area: 1.49 acres
ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 3

Net Lot Area: 1.44 acres
Average Slope: 28.3%
Lot Unit Factor: 0.876
Floor Area and Development Area
Area (sq. ft.) Maximum Existing Proposed Increase Remaining Development 7,500 32,939 45,403 12,464 0
Floor 5,000 3,371 8,316 4,945 0
Due to the average slope of 28.3% and LUF of 0.876, the calculated Maximum Development Area (MDA) and Maximum Floor Area (MFA) default to the standard baselines of 7,500 square feet and 5,000 square feet, respectively. The existing development area on the project site is legal nonconforming, as it significantly exceeds the MDA of 7,500 square feet. Notably, one existing water tank alone occupies 7,500 square feet. Additional existing features—including pavement, a second water tank, a pump house, and the existing operations center—further contribute to the nonconformity. The existing floor area of 3,371 square feet, is within the MFA, and accounts for the existing operations center and pump house.

The project requests a variance to further exceed both MDA and MFA limits to accommodate the new two-story building, covered storage area, and expanded paved areas for emergency access. Staff supports the district’s Response to Findings, which asserts that the variances are necessary to support this essential facility. If approved, the new MDA and MFA would be 45,403 square feet and 8,316 square feet, respectively. Increases in development area or floor area beyond these limits would be subject to variance approval by the Town.

Height:

Height (ft) Maximum Proposed
On Vertical Plane 27’ 32’-8”
Lowest to Highest 35’ 32’-8”
Setbacks:

Distance* Minimum Proposed
Front 40’ 204’-2”
Side (north) 30’ 45’-2”
Side (south) 30’ 53’-2”
Rear 30’ 23’-0”
*Distances are measured from the proposed building to the respective property line.

DISCUSSION
Site Design and Architecture
As outlined in previous sections of the report, the project requires both a setback variance and amendment to the existing conservation easement to accommodate the proposed building location.

This need arises from a combination of regulatory requirements, operational needs, and site constraints. For instance, the Santa Clara County Fire Department mandates a 20-foot clearance around all buildings for emergency access. Additionally, a 7,500 square-foot water tank located in the center of the property significantly restricts available space for new construction.

Compounding these challenges is the existing conservation easement, which encumbers 42% of the lot. When combined with the standard R-A zoning district setbacks—40 feet at the front, 30 ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 3

feet at the sides and rear—buildable area is substantially reduced. As a result, the proposed building must be sited within a very limited footprint to comply with all applicable regulations.

Given these constraints, PWHD argues that variances from the R-A zoning district development standards are necessary to meet their operational requirements. Based on the site constraints and unique nature of this essential facility, staff can support the findings by the applicant for a variance to setbacks and recommends the Planning Commission approve the project, subject to conditions.

Staff references previous Planning Commission discussions that highlighted the importance of maintaining flexibility in the R-A zoning district to support non-residential uses.

The proposed 7,600 square-foot, two-story operations building includes a garage bay, maintenance shop, and parts storage totaling approximately 4,000 square feet on the ground floor. The second floor includes an office, conference room, break room, locker room, and restrooms totaling approximately 3,600 square feet. The building height is 32’-8” measured from finished grade (building pad) to the top of the roof, exceeding the municipal code limit of 27 feet.

At the June 6, 2024, Planning Commission Study Session, the Commission directed the district to explore a flat roof design to reduce the building height to 27 feet. In response, the design team explained in their comment response letter that a flat roof would still not achieve the 27-foot limit due to the need for mechanical screen walls to conceal rooftop equipment. As such, the current proposal maintains the same building height and roof pitch presented at the study session.

Feedback from adjacent property owners supports the pitched roof design.

Grading and Drainage
The Engineering Department has reviewed the civil/drainage plans and found that compliance with C.3 requirements for stormwater management can be addressed through conditions of approval. The Engineering Department has provided their recommended conditions of approval (see Conditions #19 through #31, Attachment 1).

The grading quantities for the project include 2,700 cubic yards of cut and no fill, for a total of 2,700 cubic yards of dirt to be exported. A majority of the cut is attributed to the excavation in the hillside to site the two-story building and storage area. A Grading Policy Exception is required on two fronts.

Grading Policy Exception #1
The purpose of the policy is to outline desired criteria for grading which assures that construction retains the existing contours and basic landforms of the site to the greatest extent feasible. The policy further states, “Cuts and fills in excess of the following levels generally will be considered excessive and contrary to Town ordinances and policies to grade only to the minimum extent necessary to accommodate structures and to site structures consistent with slope contours”.

According to the Policy, houses are limited to 8 feet of cut and 3 feet of fill. Staff finds this policy also applies to non-residential buildings, as the stated intent of the Policy is to establish grading criteria for “construction” and “structures” in general—not solely for residential development. Therefore, the proposed operations center, which includes a cut of nearly 20 vertical feet into the hillside, requires an exception from the Commission. Staff supports the Grading Policy Exception to exceed 8 feet of cut as the placement into the hillside lowers the profile of the structure. Additionally, site constraints—such as existing structures to remain and ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 3

emergency access requirements—limit the placement of the building footprint to the site’s flatter areas.

Grading Policy Exception #2
A second exception is requested to exceed the 4-foot cut threshold for driveways and yard areas.

Excavation into the hillside is necessary to accommodate the 20-foot clear emergency access road required by the Santa Clara County Fire Department. This area will require a cut of approximately 10 vertical feet into the hillside. The excavated area will accommodate new covered storage, a fueling tank, a generator, and a covered trash enclosure. Similar to Grading Policy Exception #1, staff supports this exception to exceed 4 feet of cut, as site constraints limit the placement of ancillary equipment to the site’s flatter areas.

Trees and Landscaping
The project proposes to remove a total of 32 non-protected trees, including 17 redwoods and 15 oaks. At the June 6, 2024, Planning Commission Study Session, the Commission directed the applicant to retain as many existing trees as feasible to help screen the proposed building. In response, the revised demolition plan identifies an additional 14 trees that were previously marked for removal, all located along the western property line. Staff supports the revised tree removal plan, given the significant number of perimeter screening trees being preserved.

The Commission also requested that the applicant return with a preliminary landscape screening plan, which is included as Attachment 7. The plan proposes a combination of ironwood, oaks, coffeeberry, and toyon along the western property line to help replace the vegetation being removed. A standard condition of approval for a landscape screening application is included in Attachment 1. The Planning Commission has been set as the default hearing authority. The Commission may also dictate areas of concern to be addressed in the landscape screening application.

Lighting
In review of the application, staff requested PHWD submit an outdoor lighting plan that illustrates the type of exterior light fixtures proposed. Between the east and north elevations, it appears thirteen (13) light fixtures are shown. Staff is recommending again that a more detailed lighting plan be presented at the July 10th public hearing where the Planning Commission can offer direction and refine the design with conditions of approval. Then, the City Council can evaluate the proposal for final approval. Staff has prepared a standard condition of approval requiring that exterior lighting comply with the Policy. All exterior lighting shall be fully shielded and limited to one fixture per doorway, with the exception of two lights at the main entrance and at multi-door systems.

Town Committee Reviews
Environmental Design and Protection Committee (EDPC)
The Committee reviewed the application and visited the property in October 2023. The Committee report recommends replacing the two upper deck spaces for office or conference room. The report also puts forth a project alternative to build a second story over the existing building. EDPC plans to visit the property again prior to the July 10, 2025 Planning Commission meeting. If an updated ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 3

report is prepared, it will be forwarded to the Commission and uploaded as a supplemental attachment.

Open Space Committee (OSC)
Staff routed the application to OSC, as the project would require an amendment to an existing conservation easement. The committee’s report will be forwarded to the Commission and uploaded as a supplemental attachment when it becomes available.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study was prepared by Purissima Hills Water District through its environmental consultant, MIG Inc. Based on the findings in the Initial Study, supported by technical analyses, it was determined that the project would not result in any significant environmental impacts requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) were prepared.

PHWD is the lead agency under CEQA, as it is the public agency with the principal responsibility for carrying out the project. The Town of Los Altos Hills is a responsible agency, as it holds discretionary approval authority over the project through the required Conditional Use Permit, Site Development Permit, Variance, and other approvals. As a responsible agency, the Town must consider the environmental effects of the project, as disclosed in the MND, before taking action on the project.

The Draft MND was circulated in the Palo Alto Daily Post on May 7, 2025 where a 20-day public comment period was advertised. The public comment period extended from May 7, 2025 to May 27, 2025. PHWD did not receive any public comment during this period; therefore, no revisions to the Initial Study or MND, nor formal responses to comments were required. The MND identifies the potential for significant adverse effects to biological resources, cultural resources, and tribal cultural resources. However, the inclusion of mitigation measures reduces these impacts to lessthan-significant levels. Mitigation measures include pre-construction biological surveys, procedures for the inadvertent discovery of cultural or tribal cultural resources, and coordination with appropriate Native American tribes. Accordingly, staff recommends adoption of the MND and MMRP as part of the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the City Council. The MND and MMRP is included as Attachment 8.

CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis provided in this report, staff finds that exceptional or extraordinary circumstances exist on the property —specifically, the steep topography, existing legal nonconforming development, and the operational requirements of an essential public facility— warrant deviations to the R-A zoning district development standards. Staff concludes that the required findings can be made in support of the conditional use permit, variances, and grading policy exceptions. Thus, staff recommends the Planning Commission review the project, conduct a public hearing, and adopt Attachment 1 Draft Resolution, forwarding a recommendation of approval to the City Council. Alternatively, the Commission may continue the public hearing to a date uncertain and direct the applicant to make specific design changes.

ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 3

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution with Conditions of Approval [DRAFT]

2. June 6, 2024, Planning Commission Staff Report

3. Applicant Response to Planning Commission Comments

4. Applicant Narrative (Quick Reference Sheet and Operations Plan)

5. Resident Outreach Log

6. Environmental Design and Protection Committee Report, dated October 2023

7. Preliminary Planting Plan

8. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program [LINK]

9. Project Plans – Planning Commission only
ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 3

Ten Over Studio, Inc.
805.541.1010
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
tenoverstudio.com

MCCANN OPERATIONS CENTER

PLANNING STUDY SESSION COMMENTS WITH TEN OVER STUDIO

RESPONSES
DATE 12/12/24
The planning commission study session was held on June 6, 2024. The planning commission provided the following comments for the District and design team to evaluate and provide responses.

COMMENT #1: REACH OUT TO THE NEIGHBORS
Please refer to the Pakpour Consulting Group response
COMMENT #2: LEAVE SOME OF THE EXISTING TREES FOR SCREENING The project was planning to remove any trees that were evaluated with a health score of 3 or less per the Arborist Report, prepared by Hort Barlett Consulting, dated April 2023.

RESPONSE AND ACTION ITEM #2A:

The project has considered the planning commission comments and plan to reduce removal to trees with a health score of 1 or less. This will allow the project to keep 14 trees on the site that were previously marked for removal, all of which are on the west side of the property.

RESPONSE AND ACTION ITEM #2B:

The landscape architecture team developed a screening plan that included some lower, fastgrowing shrubbery to screen the area below the redwoods. Please note that after meeting with the immediate adjacent neighbors to the project, they expressed a preference to replace the existing chain link fencing with a nicer screening fence, rather than using planting to screen the building.

RESPONSE AND ACTION ITEM #2C:

Based on the project team’s direct conversations with the immediate adjacent neighbors to the project, the District will provide a new screen fencing as part of the project on the south and west property lines.

ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 4

Ten Over Studio, Inc.
805.541.1010
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
tenoverstudio.com

COMMENT #3: TAKE THE PROJECT BACK TO SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE AND REQUEST TO

REMOVE THE NEW DRIVEWAY
Two 20 feet wide driveways are a requirement by the Santa Clara County Fire Department for commercial projects. The project must provide the driveways and a 20 feet wide clear drive aisle around the site for fire truck access.

Prior to the planning commission study session, the project team had negotiated with Santa Clara County Fire to allow the existing 14 feet wide driveway to remain due to location of existing utilities and site constraints. The Fire Department agreed to this condition if a new fully compliant, 20 feet wide driveway would be provided along with one-way directional traffic signage indicating that the new driveway was the new main entry to the site and the 20 feet wide clear drive aisle around the site for fire truck access was provided.

The Planning Commission requested that the project team go back to Santa Clara County Fire to see if they would agree to the removal of the new 20 feet wide driveway requirement.

RESPONSE BY THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT:

Santa Clara County Fire will not permit the new driveway to be removed. Having at least one fully compliant fire access driveway and roadway is a requirement for fire truck access.

COMMENT #3A: THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS REQUESTED THAT THE PROJECT TEAM GO

BACK TO SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE TO SEE IF WE COULD REDUCE THE WIDTH OF THE NEW

DRIVEWAY
RESPONSE BY THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT AND ACTION ITEM #3A:

The Santa Clara County Fire Department agreed to allow the project to reduce the new driveway from 20 feet wide to 18 feet wide. This is a 2-foot reduction in the width of the new driveway.

The new driveway is to remain the main entry and fire truck access for the project. The 20 feet wide clear drive aisle around the site is still a requirement.

ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 4

Ten Over Studio, Inc.
805.541.1010
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
tenoverstudio.com

COMMENT #4: REDUCE THE CEILING HEIGHTS OF THE SPACES TO BRING THE OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT DOWN TO 27 FEET
The original design for this building was developed to comply with the zoning code requirement for buildings to fit the “rural residential character of the community” and the overall height of the building was driven by District operational requirements.

The planning commission requested that the District review the ceiling heights in the building to see if there was an opportunity to reduce them.

RESPONSE TO ITEM #4:

The design team developed the following building section exhibit to demonstrate the District’s operations vertical clearances requirements for equipment and vehicles on the first floor.

As shown, the first-floor height is driven by the height of the existing District utility trucks. The District’s utility trucks require 12-foot clearance to safely enter the Garage Bays. The garage doors are 12 feet to meet this requirement. There is a requirement for 2 feet of clearance above the utility trucks for lighting, mechanical ductwork, fire sprinklers and the garage door operator.

There are no ceilings on the first floor. All spaces have an “open” ceiling to the underside of the second-floor framing. There is no extra height, required clearances, or ceiling heights to reduce.

The floor framing between the first and second floors requires 2 feet of depth to meet building code requirements. This makes the floor-to-floor height requirement to be 16 feet.

The second-floor ceiling heights range from 8 feet to 9 feet depending on the function of the individual spaces, which is standard for office and meeting spaces. The mechanical equipment is located in the attic space using a pitched roof design approach to better blend in with the residential neighborhood and adjacent homes along Ascension Drive.

ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 4

Ten Over Studio, Inc.
805.541.1010
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
tenoverstudio.com

As mentioned in the response to Comment #1, the District met with and discussed the project design with the adjacent neighbors. The neighbors all expressed that they would not mind if they were to see a little bit of the residential style pitched roof as it is in keeping with the overall residential design of the neighborhood where the roof designs are residential in scale, materials and character.

The District erected temporary story poles on top of the existing building to demonstrate the overall maximum roof height of 32 feet- 8-1/4 inches.

The District visited each neighbor at their properties to see if they could see the story poles from their back yards or homes. Please refer to Comment #1 responses for notes regarding what was visible from each property.

ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 4

Ten Over Studio, Inc.
805.541.1010
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
tenoverstudio.com

COMMENT #5: EXPLORE THE OPTION OF A FLAT ROOF BUILDING TO BRING DOWN THE OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT TO 27 FEET
The original design for this building was developed to comply with the zoning code requirement for buildings to fit the “rural residential character of the community” and the overall height of the building was driven by District operational requirements.

The planning commission requested that the District to consider eliminating the pitched roof design approach for a parapet and flat roof design approach to reduce the overall building height to 27 feet.

RESPONSE AND ACTION ITEM #5:

The design team has explored the parapet and flat roof design option. This option did not reduce the overall roof/parapet height down to 27 feet as this design approach requires the inclusion of mechanical screen walls to hide the mechanical units from view. Mechanical screen walls were not necessary with the pitched roof design approach as the mechanical units were hidden in the attic space of the building.

As shown on the two exterior building elevations, the overall roof height for the pitched roof is 32 feet- 8-1/4 inches. The overall roof height for the parapet, flat roof and mechanical screen walls is 31 feet – 7 inches. The overall reduction in roof height is 1 foot – 1- 1/4 inches.

East Elevation – Original Design
East Elevation – Flat Roof Design
As mentioned in the response to Comment #1, the District met with and discussed the project design with the adjacent neighbors. The neighbors all expressed that they favor the residential style of the project with the pitched roof and hidden mechanical unit in the attic space.

ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 4

Ten Over Studio, Inc.
805.541.1010
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
tenoverstudio.com

The adjacent neighbors did not like the parapet and flat roof design approach as the mechanical screen walls are more commercial looking and not pleasing visually.

COMMENT #5A: THE PLANNING COMMISSION REQUESTED THAT THE PROJECT TEAM

CONSIDER NO SECOND FLOOR AS AN OPTION
RESPONSE TO ITEM #5A:

The project is highly constrained, and the available site area for the building is limited. The location of existing water tanks, pump house, and the requirement for fire truck access as discussed in Comment #2, mean that locating the office, meeting, and support spaces to the second floor is the only way to meet all of the operational space needs for the District on this project site.

Eliminating the second floor is not a viable option for the District.

COMMENT 6: REDUCE THE NUMBER OF VARIANCES
MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT AREA VARIANCE:

Based on our MDA worksheet calculations, the Town’s requirement for maximum development area on this site is 7,500 sf, which is appropriate for residential projects. This project is a commercial project and must receive a variance.

The existing site development is 32,939 sf. The existing site already exceeds the maximum development area by 25,439 sf.

The requested project development for this variance is 41,950 sf. The increase in the development area is mainly due to the new pavement on the south side of the site due to the fire truck access and clearances required for the drive aisle.

The site plan exhibit below shows the extents of the new development.

ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 4

Ten Over Studio, Inc.
805.541.1010
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
tenoverstudio.com

MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA VARIANCE:

Based on the calculations on the MFA worksheet, the Town’s requirement for maximum floor area for this site is 5,000 sf, which is appropriate for residential projects. This project is a commercial project and must receive a variance.

The minimum floor area needed to meet the District’s operational needs for this project is 7,528 SF, including the garage space. This number does exclude the square footage of the existing pump house, which is not a part of the new improvements for this project.

The District engaged in an intensive review of their operational space needs for this new facility.

Functions and spaces that could be achieved at the District’s other facilities were leveraged and used to reduce the overall SF required for this project. All spaces and functions that were “nice to have” were eliminated.

There is no increase in staffing or activity with this new project at this project site, The existing facility is simply insufficient and inefficient to meet the needs of current operations.

We offer the following research of the neighboring properties on the maximum floor area associated with each property. We found that many neighboring residential buildings were similar in size, with some being larger.
• 26475 Ascension Dr - 9,284 sf
• 26491 Ascension Dr - 9,729 sf
• In 2022 a Site Development Permit for a new 4,979 square-foot two story residence with a detached 3- car garage and related hardscape improvements; and a request for grading policy exception for the rear deck and patio were requested for 26405 Ascension Dr. • 26550 Anacapa - 8430 sf
• 26347 Esperanza Dr. - 7312 sf
• 26478 Ascension - 7,163 sf
ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 4

Ten Over Studio, Inc.
805.541.1010
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
tenoverstudio.com

MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCE:

The town’s requirement for maximum building height of 27 feet is appropriate for residential projects. This project is a commercial project and must receive a variance. Please refer to Comments 4 and 5 for further explanation and action items.

As mentioned in the response to Comments #4 and #5, the District met with and discussed the project design with the adjacent neighbors. The neighbors all expressed that they favor the residential pitched roof style of the project where the mechanical units are hidden in the attic space.

The adjacent neighbors did not like the parapet and flat roof design approach as the mechanical screen walls were visible and not pleasing visually.

MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY WIDTH VARIANCE:

The town’s requirement for maximum driveway width is 14 feet is appropriate for residential projects and conflicts with the requirements of the Santa Clara County Fire Department for commercial projects. The project must comply with the fire department requirements for a commercial driveway width and fire truck access.

The District has received two variances from the Santa Clara County Fire Department that reduce the overall width of the new driveway and allows the existing 14 feet wide driveway to remain.

This project is commercial and not residential and therefore must receive a variance. Please refer to Comment 3 for further explanation and action items.

SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE:

The Town’s requirement for the side setback is 30 feet, which is appropriate for residential projects. This project is a commercial project and must receive a variance.

With the existing site conditions, the setback is 5’-7” at its nearest to property line. The existing retaining wall and the start of pavement are about 9’ off of the property line. The location of the existing driveway and material bins are within the northern side setback. As shown on the new site plan, the project is rebuilding the existing retaining wall and material bins (with no change in quantity). The new site retaining wall is pushed northward slightly to accommodate the 20 feet clearance requirement for the fire truck access and drive aisle by the Santa Clara County Fire Department.

In discussions with the northern neighbors, there was a request to replace the existing chain link fencing with a nicer, more aesthetic fencing option that would provide some screening of the existing water tank. The District intends to comply with this request. 30’ SIDE SETBACK
ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 4

Ten Over Studio, Inc.
805.541.1010
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
tenoverstudio.com

The project is requesting to maintain the existing side setback of ~6’. The back of the new retaining wall will be set at 6’ off the property line, to allow for the fire access that is needed.

Please note that the existing water tank and pump house are 30 feet from the northern property line and meet the side setback requirements.

REAR SETBACK VARIANCE:

The Town’s requirement for the rear setback is 30 feet, which is appropriate for residential projects. This project is a commercial project and must receive a variance.

The design team went through many iterations of design to meet the required setback. In order to maximize the District’s space needs and operational efficiencies and meet the 20 feet clearance requirement for the fire truck access and drive aisle by the Santa Clara County Fire Department around the existing water tank, the new two-story building was placed to maximize the rear setback. All functions and spaces that could be located on the second floor to minimize the first-floor footprint were taken.

The project is requesting a 10’ reduction of the read setback. A 20’ setback is more appropriate for a commercial property.

ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 4

Project Timeline
August 2013 Structural engineering report determined existing operation center is past useful service life and susceptible to damage during a major seismic event
October 2020 PHWD awards contract to Ten Over Studios (TOS) to prepare conceptual report
Mar 2021 PHWD/TOS meets with Town Planning Director to discuss project requirements and planning process
August 2021 Conceptual design package prepared by TOS received by PHWD Board Nov 2023 Entitlement documents submitted to Town Planning Department for review
June 2024 Study session with Planning Commission (PC) to discuss project.

Informational meeting with no action taken by PC.

Fall 2024 Project presented to PC for approval
Fall 2024 City Council approval, if necessary.

Summer 2025 Project released for public bidding
Fall 2026 Construction completed
ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 5

Project Summary
Project Location: 26451 Ascension Drive
Project Architect: Ten Over Studios
Project Site: ~1.5 acres, existing improvements: two water tanks, pump house, and one-story operation center
Project Need:
• Past useful service life
• Susceptible to major damage and becoming non-operational in a major seismic event • Essential facility due to the importance of its role in emergency response and ensuring the provision of safe drinking water. District’s tools, parts, vehicles are stored here.

District’s day-to-day and emergency response hub.

Project Scope:
• Replace ~55-year old one-story 2,500 SF operation center with a two-story ~7,600 SF operation center.
• New retaining wall to provide 20’ clear space from tank for emergency vehicle access • Second driveway for improved emergency vehicle circulation • Miscellaneous stormwater improvements
• Relocation of existing wireless tower
• No improvements or modifications to water tanks or pump houses Operations:
• 5 full time staff
• Normal Operating Hours: 7:00 am to 3:30pm
• No increase in activity or traffic
ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 5

What is the project scope?
The project includes the replacement of an existing one-story, 2,500 SF operation center with a two-story, ~7,600 SF operation center on District property at 26451 Ascension Drive. Other site improvements include a new retaining wall and a second driveway for improved emergency vehicle access, as well as miscellaneous stormwater improvements. The proposed building will house the District’s vehicles, parts, and tools and be the hub the District’s response to emergencies.

Why is the project needed?
A 2013 report completed by a structural engineering firm determined that the existing building is past its useful service life and will perform below average in comparison to buildings of similar construction during seismic events. The building houses all the District’s tools, parts, and vehicles and is critical for emergency response. As such, the District Board designated the building as an essential facility requiring that it be operational after a major seismic event. In addition, the existing building lacks adequate security measures to safeguard the District’s property.

How was the project developed?
The project was developed through a series of needs assessments and a conceptual site design with District staff. The design team also collaborated with the Town’s Planning Director both during the conceptual and entitlement phases. The design prioritized minimizing the building’s impact on the site while meeting the District’s operational needs.

Why does the building need to cut into the hillside and required setbacks? To meet Los Altos Hills County Fire District regulations, a clear path of 20’ is needed around the tank to provide emergency vehicle access to the site. This requires the building footprint and retaining be moved further from the tank and into the hillside.

Will there be nighttime lighting?
Exterior safety and wayfinding lighting will be shaded and conform to Town’s lighting policy.

Additional site lighting will be switched on manually only during emergency response.

What is the Project Schedule?
The District anticipates construction to start next summer and continue for ~12-18 months.

Why does the building require a height requirement variance? The building is designed to be the minimum height to meet operational needs and maintain a residential feel to the building. The pitched roof design allows the HVAC equipment to remain ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 5

hidden. The alternative of a flat roof is with exposed HVAC equipment would give the building a more industrial feel.

Will any heritage oak trees be removed/affected?
No heritage oak trees will be removed. Design was guided by arborist report dated April 2023.

ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 5

Variance Requests
This project and site is unique in that it serves a Water District and public utility. The project site is the existing headquarters for the Purissima Hills Water District, which serves 6,400 residents and 10 institutional customers in Los Altos Hills.. The existing site and buildings were permitted through the Town and the project site has an existing approved CUP from the Town of Los Altos Hills. There are a number of existing site and building elements that will remain in place, which include the large water tank, small water tank, pump house, driveway entrance, and pavement areas around the existing tanks and pump building to remain. The existing site and building elements limit the site area that is available for the District's new replacement operations building.

Variance to Driveway Width
The District currently has proposed new secondary driveway as part of this project. The allowed 14' width does not meet the requirements of Los Altos Hills County Fired District. 18' width allows for convenient access for large emergency vehicles. As discussed, this building is critical to the District’s mission to provide safe and reliable supply of drinking water.

Emergency vehicles must be able to respond quickly with minimal obstructions to preserve the functionality of the building during emergencies.

Variance to Rear and Side Setbacks, Maximum Development Area, Maximum Floor Area, Grading Policy
The District went through an intensive evaluation of their mission critical operations and requirements necessary to maintain water operations at this specific site. This operations evaluation resulted in identifying Prithe functions and space requirements for each individual space in the proposed replacement operations building. The District's proposed building and site design is as space efficient as possible. The sizes of all the building spaces are designed to meet operational and emergency vehicle access requirements.

This 1.5-acre site houses all parts, materials, and vehicles for a District that serves 6,400 residents and about 2/3 of the Town of Los Altos Hills. The District aims to consolidate all operations on this site so impacts are minimized throughout the rest of the Town Height Variance
The District's proposed design attempts to minimize the impact of the new building footprint on the site and to also accommodate material and equipment storage and parking. All of the proposed mission critical spaces requiring ground floor access and operations are placed on the ground floor. All remaining spaces are placed on the 2nd floor. The proposed 2 story building design, attempts to minimize the overall height of the building with low sloped roof design and minimum floor to floor and floor to ceiling heights. The garage space on the ground floor and ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 5

the District's utility vehicle heights was the driver for the ground floor to 2nd floor height. The design team selected this option instead of a flat roof with exposed HVAC and MEP equipment to preserve the residential feel of the building.

ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 5

Operations Plan
Purissima Hills Water District, McCann Operation Center 26451 Ascension Dr. Los Altos Hills, CA
The Purissima Hills Water District's reliance on the McCann Operations Center underscores its vital role in ensuring the provision of safe drinking water to two thirds of Los Altos Hills. This center serves not only as the hub for day-to-day operations but also as the linchpin for 24-hour emergency response efforts. Given its crucial function in safeguarding public health and wellbeing, especially during times of crisis such as natural disasters, it is imperative that the center be constructed to the highest critical infrastructure building code standards.

Los Altos Hills, with its sprawling landscape and diverse population, relies heavily on the consistent and reliable supply of clean water provided by the Purissima Hills Water District. As such, any disruption to water services could have far-reaching consequences for residents, businesses, and essential services. The McCann Operations Center, with its strategic location and advanced infrastructure, will continue to serve as the backbone of the district's ability to respond swiftly and effectively to emergencies, ensuring that water services remain uninterrupted even in the face of adversity.

Hours of Operations
Normal Hours -Monday to Friday 7:00AM to 3:30 PM
Emergency Hours- As Needed 24 hours, 7 days a week.

Staff
4 - Field Staff
Vehicles
4 - utility/ pickup trucks
1 - Small Dump Truck
Equipment
1 - John Deer Backhoe
1 - Bobcat Skid Steer
Miscellaneous small tools
Materials on Site
Emergency parts and inventory for Water District needs
ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 5

2 4
1 3
7 6
5 8

ANACAPA DR

ASCENSION DR
N
McCANN OPERATION CENTER IMPROVEMENTS

PURISSIMA HILLS WATER DISTRICT

RESIDENT OUTREACH MAP
ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 6

McCann Operation Center Improvements
Purissima Hills Water District
Resident Outreach Log
The following attendees were at all meetings unless otherwise noted:

Phil Witt General Manager
Erik Walter Foreman
William Lai Associate Engineer (PCG)
Map Number Name Address Comments
1 Heidi Chen 26440 Anacapa Dr
Email and call with Erik only. The hillside and tree coverage prevent her from seeing our property and she has no concerns about the new facility.
2 Ling 26450 Anacapa Dr
Met at resident's home. Poles are minimally visible. Ling was supportive of the project and was open to sending a letter of support for the PC meeting.
3 Douglas Yeung and
family 26480 Anacapa Dr
Met at project site and their back yard. Main concern is screening especially where trees are being removed. They are willing to provide an email of support and possibly attend PC. They indicated support for a pitched roof. Flew a drone after installation of story poles. No impact of building on his view. Sent letter of support 2/24/25 4 PK Dubey and
family 26475 Ascension Dr
Met on-site. The wife had some operational feedback.. They are concerned as all their bedrooms face our site. We offered the wooden fence alternative which was well received. They had no opposition to the project as long as construction and operational hours are limited to 8am to 5pm. They supported a pitched roof. Sent letter of support 2/27/25
5 Ashfaq Munshi 26478 Ascension Dr
Met at resident's home. He was very understanding and supportive of the project. Offered full support and would attend Planning Commission meeting. His only concern would be cell service in his house when cell tower is removed. Resident supported a pitched roof. Flew a drone after installation of story poles. No impact of building on his view. Sent letter of support 2/12/25
6 Vats Srivatsan 26450 Ascension Dr Emailed, but have yet to receive a response. Resident will not have a view of the operations building. 7 Diane Ciesinski and
family 26435 Ascension Dr
Met at resident's backyard. The poles were barely visible and far below view line. They had no issues and indicated support for a pitched roof. They may be willing to send an email of support or attend PC meeting. Sent letter of support 1/21/25
8 Frank Petterson 26405 Ascension Dr
Met on-site. He flew a drone and indicated that he had no issues as long as screening in the southwest corner of the property remained lush. No screening modifications are proposed there as part of the project. Flew a drone after installation of story poles. No impact of building on his view. Sent letter of support 6/29/25 Updated 6/30/2025 Page 1
ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 6

Douglas Yeung & Teresa Ko
26480 Anacapa Drive
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
(626) 817-2852
[email protected]
February 24, 2025
Erik Walter
Purissima Hills Water District
[email protected]
Phone: 650-948-1217
Cell: 650-518-9221
26375 Fremont Rd. Los Altos Hills, CA. 94022
Hi Erik,
Please see our answers to the items you asked about:
● Building Design: We prefer the taller building with pitched roof. ● Screening Plan: We prefer the fence with horizontal boards. ● Impact on Views: We would like sufficient vegetation for screening (e.g., to replace the removed trees) and to ensure that building windows that face our property are minimized.
● Receptiveness to Concerns: Purissima Hills Water District has been extremely receptive to discussing issues relevant to us.

Sincerely,
Douglas Yeung & Teresa Ko
ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 6

From: Erik Walter
To: William Lai
Subject: RE: PHWD - Operations Facility Letter of Support Date: Thursday, February 27, 2025 9:40:04 AM
Attachments: image002.png
26435 Ascension Letter of Support.pdf
Letter from 26480 Anacapa .pdf
Morning Will,
Here are the two letters of support.

PK Dubey - 26475 Ascension Dr
Building Design: We are considering a taller building with a pitched roof to enclose the HVAC equipment, as opposed to a shorter building with a flat roof that would leave the HVAC equipment exposed. We would appreciate your thoughts on this preference. Good plan. I prefer this.

Screening Plan: We are proposing the construction of a solid wooden fence along the west and north sides of the property to help screen the facility. We would appreciate your input on this plan. Examples are in the attached PDF. Go for it. Hope you go for the vertical option.

Impact on Views: We believe the building will have a negligible impact on the view from your property. Please let us know if you agree or have any concerns.

I agree, especially because of fence.

Receptiveness to Concerns: We would also like your feedback on whether you feel Purissima Hills Water District has been receptive to any concerns you've raised during the planning process. Yes, you have been very
receptive. I wish you the best in updating the facility.

Thanks
Erik Walter
Purissima Hills Water District
[email protected]
Phone: 650-948-1217
Cell: 650-518-9221
26375 Fremont Rd. Los Altos Hills, CA. 94022
www.purissimawater.org
From: William Lai <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 9:09 AM
ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 6

To: Erik Walter <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: PHWD - Operations Facility Letter of Support Erik,
Can you send me all the letters of support to me? Some of the emails didn’t include the attachments.

Thanks,
Will
William Lai, PE
Pakpour Consulting Group, Inc.

From: Erik Walter <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 7:06 AM
To: Douglas Yeung <[email protected]>
Cc: William Lai <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: PHWD - Operations Facility Letter of Support Hi Douglas,
Thank you for your response. We appreciate your feed back and your support of the new Operations Facility.

Thanks
Erik Walter
Purissima Hills Water District
[email protected]
Phone: 650-948-1217
Cell: 650-518-9221
26375 Fremont Rd. Los Altos Hills, CA. 94022
www.purissimawater.org
From: Douglas Yeung <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2025 4:53 PM
To: Erik Walter <[email protected]>
Cc: William Lai <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: PHWD - Operations Facility Letter of Support Hi Erik,
ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 6

Thanks for your patience. Please see attached and let us know what else you may need.

Thanks,
Doug
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 2:02 PM Erik Walter <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Douglas,
We are in the process of preparing to present our Operations Facility proposal to the Town Planning Commission and would greatly appreciate your input on several key aspects of the project, outlined below. I’ve also attached screening options, especially related to the fencing.

Here are the main points we would like your input on:

Building Design: We are considering a taller building with a pitched roof to enclose the HVAC equipment, as opposed to a shorter building with a flat roof that would leave the HVAC equipment exposed. We would appreciate your thoughts on this preference.

Screening Plan: We are proposing the construction of a solid wooden fence along the west and north sides of the property to help screen the facility. We would appreciate your input on this plan. Examples are in the attached PDF.

Impact on Views: We believe the building will have a negligible impact on the view from your property. Please let us know if you agree or have any concerns.

Receptiveness to Concerns: We would also like your feedback on whether you feel Purissima Hills Water District has been receptive to any concerns you've raised during the planning process.

A letter of support from you would be extremely helpful in advancing this project. You can attach it to this email or send it directly to our office. Please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any questions or need more information.

Thanks
Erik Walter
Purissima Hills Water District
[email protected]
Phone: 650-948-1217
Cell: 650-518-9221
26375 Fremont Rd. Los Altos Hills, CA. 94022
www.purissimawater.org
From: Erik Walter
Sent: Friday, January 17, 2025 3:04 PM
ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 6

Cc: William Lai <[email protected]>; Phil Witt <[email protected]> Subject: PHWD - Operations Facility Letter of Support
Hello Neighbors,
I am reaching out to request your support for the new operations facility we are planning to construct. We value your input and would appreciate your feedback on several key aspects of the project.

Here are the main points we would like your input on:

Building Design: We are considering a taller building with a pitched roof to enclose the HVAC equipment, as opposed to a shorter building with a flat roof that would leave the HVAC equipment exposed. We would appreciate your thoughts on this preference.

Screening Plan: We are proposing the construction of a solid wooden fence along the west and north sides of the property to help screen the facility. We would appreciate your input on this plan. Examples are in the attached PDF.

Impact on Views: We believe the building will have a negligible impact on the view from your property. Please let us know if you agree or have any concerns.

Receptiveness to Concerns: We would also like your feedback on whether you feel Purissima Hills Water District has been receptive to any concerns you've raised during the planning process.

Your support in the form of a letter would greatly assist in moving this project forward. If you have any questions or need additional details, please feel free to contact us.

Thank you,
Erik Walter
Purissima Hills Water District
[email protected]
Phone: 650-948-1217
Cell: 650-518-9221
26375 Fremont Rd. Los Altos Hills, CA. 94022
www.purissimawater.org
ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 6

Ash Munshi – 26478 Ascension
To Whom It May Concern,
I write this letter as a long time neighbor of PHWD (30 years or so). The department desperately needs to be upgraded and I fully support their efforts to do so. I have been fortunate to have them as neighbors and to a person this is an amazing crew. They have always been there for me and my family and I offer my full throated support for their effort. If you need to contact me please do so via email ([email protected]) or phone at 650-333- 9302. I am happy to personally endorse their effort.

Best,
Ashfaq Munshi
26478 Ascension Drive
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 6

January 21, 2025
Dear Erik Watter end Phil Wh.ill,.

We live Just above the Purissima Weter facility et 26435 Ascension Drive and warned 10 send a letter of suppon !or your proposed building upgrade. You were kind enough to visit ourpropenytosee if our views would be effected by your hlgt,or building. end It cenalnly appears thet we would not be able to see it ot all due to the steep slope between our home and your"bulldlng.

The HVAC equipment would certainly be more protected� It was enclosed, we suppon the building desl"gn thet places the equipment under tho roof.

You both have been great to workwltb and we appreciate you keeping us Informed otthe project status.

Sincerely.
- , D�
Diane Ciesinski
[email protected]
Steve Ciesinski
[email protected]
ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 6

From: Frank Petterson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2025 10:59 AM
To: Erik Walter <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 26405 Ascension Dr
Hi Erik,
We took a look at the story poles and it addresses our concerns. Here's a statement for your application:

To Los Altos Hills planning commission,
We are the South-West neighbors at 26405 Ascension Dr to the site that Purissima Hills water district is proposing to upgrade. The current story poles indicate that there will be minimal impact on our views as long as the district maintains the current level of tree screening between the properties. Purissima Hills have been great to work with in this process and in the past. We appreciate their communication during the planning process.

Thank you,
Frank Petterson
26405 Ascension Dr, Los Altos, CA 94022
On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 10:35 AM Frank Petterson <[email protected]> wrote:

Thanks Erik, we'll go out to the house this weekend to check out the poles.

On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 12:29 PM Erik Walter <[email protected]> wrote:

ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 6

Hi Frank,
I wanted to inform you that the official story poles have been placed on the property. We will be going to the Planning Commission on July 10th.

PHWD would appreciate a letter of support.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks
Erik Walter
Purissima Hills Water District
[email protected]
Phone: 650-948-1217
Cell: 650-518-9221
26375 Fremont Rd. Los Altos Hills, CA. 94022
www.purissimawater.org
From: Erik Walter
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 7:49 AM
To: 'Frank Petterson' <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 26405 Ascension Dr
Hi Frank,
We took down the temporary story poles but are scheduled to have them back up from April 17- May 1.

Here are the main points we would like your input on:

Building Design: We are considering a taller building with a pitched roof to enclose the HVAC equipment, as opposed to a shorter building with a flat roof that would leave the HVAC equipment exposed. We would appreciate your thoughts on this preference.

Impact on Views: We believe the building will have a negligible impact on the view from your property. Please let us know if you agree or have any concerns.

Receptiveness to Concerns: We would also like your feedback on whether you feel Purissima Hills Water District has been receptive to any concerns you've raised during the planning process.

Thanks
ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 6

Erik Walter
Purissima Hills Water District
[email protected]
Phone: 650-948-1217
Cell: 650-518-9221
26375 Fremont Rd. Los Altos Hills, CA. 94022
www.purissimawater.org
From: Frank Petterson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2025 3:32 PM
To: Erik Walter <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 26405 Ascension Dr
Thanks, Let me check with the team and get back to you.

For the ops building, Do you have a short statement I can use as a starting point? Also, we have the structure in place now. Do you still have the poles up? On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 10:21 PM Erik Walter <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Frank,
Thanks for getting back to me.

I wanted to check in and see if you’re considering upgrading your service line from the main to the meter, or if you plan to keep it as a 1” service line. During the shutdown last week, we noticed a small leak at the angle stop on the PHWD side of the meter. If you are planning to upgrade the service line, we would hold off on the repair until the upgrade is completed.

Additionally, I wanted to ask if you’d be willing to write a letter of support for the Operations Building we’re planning. We believe that letters from neighboring properties would be valuable in supporting our case with the planning commission.

Thanks
Erik Walter
Purissima Hills Water District
[email protected]
Phone: 650-948-1217
Cell: 650-518-9221
26375 Fremont Rd. Los Altos Hills, CA. 94022
www.purissimawater.org
ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 6

From: Frank Petterson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, March 9, 2025 6:04 PM
To: Erik Walter <[email protected]>
Subject: 26405 Ascension Dr
Hi Erik,
Rachel (my wife) said that you had left a message needing some information about the house build at 26405 Ascension Dr. What can I help you with?
Thanks,
Frank
ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 6

Ash Munshi – 26478 Ascension
To Whom It May Concern,
I write this letter as a long time neighbor of PHWD (30 years or so). The department desperately needs to be upgraded and I fully support their efforts to do so. I have been fortunate to have them as neighbors and to a person this is an amazing crew. They have always been there for me and my family and I offer my full throated support for their effort. If you need to contact me please do so via email ([email protected]) or phone at 650-333- 9302. I am happy to personally endorse their effort.

Best,
Ashfaq Munshi
26478 Ascension Drive
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 6

January 21, 2025
Dear Erik Watter end Phil Wh.ill,.

We live Just above the Purissima Weter facility et 26435 Ascension Drive and warned 10 send a letter of suppon !or your proposed building upgrade. You were kind enough to visit ourpropenytosee if our views would be effected by your hlgt,or building. end It cenalnly appears thet we would not be able to see it ot all due to the steep slope between our home and your"bulldlng.

The HVAC equipment would certainly be more protected� It was enclosed, we suppon the building desl"gn thet places the equipment under tho roof.

You both have been great to workwltb and we appreciate you keeping us Informed otthe project status.

Sincerely.
- , D�
Diane Ciesinski
[email protected]
Steve Ciesinski
[email protected]
ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 6

Douglas Yeung & Teresa Ko
26480 Anacapa Drive
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
(626) 817-2852
[email protected]
February 24, 2025
Erik Walter
Purissima Hills Water District
[email protected]
Phone: 650-948-1217
Cell: 650-518-9221
26375 Fremont Rd. Los Altos Hills, CA. 94022
Hi Erik,
Please see our answers to the items you asked about:
● Building Design: We prefer the taller building with pitched roof. ● Screening Plan: We prefer the fence with horizontal boards. ● Impact on Views: We would like sufficient vegetation for screening (e.g., to replace the removed trees) and to ensure that building windows that face our property are minimized.
● Receptiveness to Concerns: Purissima Hills Water District has been extremely receptive to discussing issues relevant to us.

Sincerely,
Douglas Yeung & Teresa Ko
ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 6

From: Frank Petterson <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2025 10:59 AM
To: Erik Walter <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 26405 Ascension Dr
Hi Erik,
We took a look at the story poles and it addresses our concerns. Here's a statement for your application:

To Los Altos Hills planning commission,
We are the South-West neighbors at 26405 Ascension Dr to the site that Purissima Hills water district is proposing to upgrade. The current story poles indicate that there will be minimal impact on our views as long as the district maintains the current level of tree screening between the properties. Purissima Hills have been great to work with in this process and in the past. We appreciate their communication during the planning process.

Thank you,
Frank Petterson
26405 Ascension Dr, Los Altos, CA 94022
On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 10:35 AM Frank Petterson <[email protected]> wrote:

Thanks Erik, we'll go out to the house this weekend to check out the poles.

On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 12:29 PM Erik Walter <[email protected]> wrote:

ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 6

From: Erik Walter
To: William Lai
Subject: RE: PHWD - Operations Facility Letter of Support Date: Thursday, February 27, 2025 9:40:04 AM
Attachments: image002.png
26435 Ascension Letter of Support.pdf
Letter from 26480 Anacapa .pdf
Morning Will,
Here are the two letters of support.

PK Dubey - 26475 Ascension Dr
Building Design: We are considering a taller building with a pitched roof to enclose the HVAC equipment, as opposed to a shorter building with a flat roof that would leave the HVAC equipment exposed. We would appreciate your thoughts on this preference. Good plan. I prefer this.

Screening Plan: We are proposing the construction of a solid wooden fence along the west and north sides of the property to help screen the facility. We would appreciate your input on this plan. Examples are in the attached PDF. Go for it. Hope you go for the vertical option.

Impact on Views: We believe the building will have a negligible impact on the view from your property. Please let us know if you agree or have any concerns.

I agree, especially because of fence.

Receptiveness to Concerns: We would also like your feedback on whether you feel Purissima Hills Water District has been receptive to any concerns you've raised during the planning process. Yes, you have been very
receptive. I wish you the best in updating the facility.

Thanks
Erik Walter
Purissima Hills Water District
[email protected]
Phone: 650-948-1217
Cell: 650-518-9221
26375 Fremont Rd. Los Altos Hills, CA. 94022
www.purissimawater.org
From: William Lai <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2025 9:09 AM
ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 6

ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN and PROTECTION COMMITTEE
New construction on enlarged building footprint
Application For: Construction of new 7,600 sq. ft. operations building Applicant Name: Purissima Hills Water District
Site Address: 26451 Ascension Drive
Reviewed By: Carol, Grace
Field Trip Date: June 27, 2025
Planner: Jonathan Fox
Due Date: 7/9/2025
File Number: CUP23-0004
● Are neighbors aware of the planned removal of 46 trees that presently help screen the site?
● The screening of the utility building from the uphill northwestern neighbor will be compromised by the removal of the redwood trees between these properties. ● Can the pitch of the sloped roof be reduced and still house the mechanical units (thereby reducing overall height)?
● Or can the mechanical units use space on the second floor by rearranging the rooms and taking up some of the balcony spaces (thereby not having an attic at all, with a flat roof over the top floor)?
● There is a slight slope upwards of the ground toward the present and eventual buildings. Can grading this to zero slope be worthwhile in bringing down the elevation of the new building?
● The northern downhill neighbor’s backyard and swimming pool will be highly visible from the balcony and we recommend that balcony be eliminated.

ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 7

Front of the present building and storey poles
Please see EDPC’s report from the site visit of 10/06/23 for the usual site report items.

View of the current building from the west of the property showing the steep downward slopes from the property lines
References:

Ten Over Studio, Inc., 3/26/25, “CUP23-0004 Project Plans received 2025.03.04” Ten Over Studio, Inc., 12/12/24, “CUP23-0004 - Planning Commission Study Session” Los Altos Hills Environmental Design and Protection Committee, 10/6/23, “CUP23-0004 EDPC Comments”
ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 7

ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN and PROTECTION COMMITTEE
New Operation Center
Application For: McCann Operations Center
Applicant Name: Purissima Hills Water District
Site Address: 26451 Ascension Drive
Reviewed By: Vijay, Carol
Field Trip Date: 10/06/23
Planner Jeremy Loh
Due Date: ?
File Number: CUP23-0004
• Is the Purissima Hills District subject to the same Residential Municipal Codes and Ordinances as Residential Development?
Existing Operations Center
SITE IMPACT (Location: Ridgeline/Hilltop/Knoll, Slopes, Views) 26451 Ascension Drive is a 1.52 acre lot, used as the McCann Operations Center by Purissima Hills Water District.

The Operations Center is located between two residential sites that front Ascension Drive: 26435 Ascension sits West and above, 26475 Ascension sits below and East of applicant. Three residential sites located off Anacapa are also impacted. The present Operations Center meets all Town requirements, including rear and side setbacks, protection of the Conservation Easement boundaries and height of 27-feet. The present site is screened on two sides. However, 19 trees are to be removed and of the 19 trees, some have already been removed. The southern boundary of the property has a 30 percent slope or more. We did not receive a complete topo map for the property.

ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 8

A retaining wall of 10 feet proposed to be built 10 feet into the Conservation Easement The proposed Operations Center extends 10 feet into the Western Boundary setback and even more into the Conservation Easement. The center also extends into the Conservation Easement along the Southern Boundary.

Trees have already been removed from the Conservation Easement and more are shown to be removed.

Height of the building’s roof is shown as 32 feet 8 ¼. This exceeds the 27-foot height limit as it does not meet the criteria of a step-down structure, nor does it qualify for additional height by increasing all setbacks by two feet.

View of the neighbor’s pool to the Eastern Side.

ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 8

Neighbors: (Views, Screening, Noise)
The two-story building will be more visible to all neighbors, but especially to the eastern neighbor whose pool is viewed from the site.

Operations Center (Setbacks, Color/Reflectivity, Roof Type, Skylights, Lights) • Conservation Easement: Extend into southern easement by 10 feet and much more for the western boundary. • Setbacks: Is being encroached by 10 feet as already stated, on the western boundary. • Roof Type: Not Given
• Lights: Not Shown
ENVIRONMENT (Pathways, Open Space, Riparian Habitat, Heritage Trees, other mature trees) The property is for the most part nicely screened, but with the removal of 19 trees it will be more open and with increased height and lights will be much more visible. There is an extensive Conservation Easement on the site which has been encroached upon by the proposed Operations Center.

TREE REMOVAL & REPLACEMENT
There did not appear to be a reason for so many trees to be removed.

WILDFIRE SAFETY (Defensible Space, Zones, Tree Spacing, Ladder Fuels, Mulch) Please refer to the Fire Safe Council's recommendations for defensible space:
https://cafiresafecouncil.org/resources/fire-safety-information-for-residents/ Entrance to Operations Center from Ascension.

OPTIONAL HARDSCAPE (MDA), FENCE/GATES (Height, location, style), LIGHTING Hardscape: No figures shown for MDA or MFA given in relationship to the square footage and slope density.

Fencing: New fencing shown, but not materials. Existing cyclone fence should be painted either black or brown to meet Town Code. Gates should open inward as shown. Currently, the gates open out. There is insufficient space to safely open the gate for the Pickup trucks that frequent this site.

ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 8

Lighting: None shown. Most conform to Town policies and should be on timers.

All exterior lighting must conform to the town’s dark sky standards:

Maximum Light Emission
(Lumens, Φv)
Maximum Color Temperature
(Kelvin, K)
Path Lights 200 2700
Step Lights 110 2700
Exterior Wall Sconces 600 3000
Front Door Pendants 600 3000
Gate Lights 600 3000
Additional Comments: The footprint of the building can be reduced by using the two upper deck spaces for office or conference room spaces. Also, since the existing building is conforming, why not put a second story over it? Its footprint, then, could be expanded without encroaching into the setbacks and the conservation easement to gain more floor space.

ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 8

DRAFT
To: Los Altos Hills Planning Department
From: Open Space Committee
Date: July 9, 2025
Property address: 26451 Ascension Drive
Date of Site Visit: July 3, 2025
Reason for review: Expansion Of Purissima Hills Water District Operations Center (McCann Operation Center)

PROPERTY SUMMARY
This is the Purissima Hills Water District Operations Center. The current center has outlived its use and a new, larger center is proposed. The Fire District requires a turn around which limits the development area. The project proposes encroaching into an existing Conservation Easement and the removal of numerous trees.

The plans have previously been reviewed by the Planning Commission in 2024. Two existing reports are informative:
1) Staff Report to the Planning Commission by Jonathon Fox, dated June 6, 2024 2) McCann Operation Center Improvements Planning Commission Study Session June 6, 2024, by Purissima Hills Water District
Reports are available here.

Fences: To be determined
Trees: many to be removed, see detailed list below
Creeks/Swales: None detected.

Wildlife Corridors: None detected.

Geology/Slopes: steep slope at west side of lot
Existing Easements: Conservation Easement detailed below Lands of Purissima Hills Co. APN 175-53-030
Town
Planner
Jonathon Fox Project
Number
Lot Size
(acre)
Slope (%) MFA
(sqft)
DA (sqft) FA (sqft) Earthworks

1.487 5000 7600 Cut 2700 CY
Fill 0 CY
ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 9

Property Location
Contour Lines from Town GIS Map (Conservation Easement not shown) ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 9

Existing plan
Proposed Plan
Fire Truck
turnaround
in hatched
red.

ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 9

Conservation Easement
Trees to be Removed
ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 9

View of Building Story Board in Steep Slope Covered by Conservation Easement Some of the Trees to be Removed from Northern Boundary
ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 9

OSC Recommendations

1. Proposed building requires a variance to the existing Conservation Easement covering slopes >30% (in some areas substantially more). The Open Space Committee wishes to minimize the encroachment into existing conservation easements, and request PC and applicant work to achieve this.

2. OSC is also concerned that the removal of many trees will destabilize the steep hillside.

ITEM 7B ATTACHMENT 9

ITEM 7B, ATTACHMENT 10
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program [LINK] https://losaltoshills.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/7523/CUP23-0004-CEQA-IS-MND-andChecklist-Executed

THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS September 18, 2025
Staff Report to the City Council
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE TOWN’S
STORY POLE POLICY UNDER HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAM B16 TO STREAMLINE THE STORY POLE REQUIREMENT OR

ALLOW ALTERNATIVES IN LIEU OF STORY POLES
PREPARED BY: Jonathan Fox, Senior Planner
FROM: Jay Bradford, Community Development Director
APPROVED: Peter Pirnejad, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

Adopt a resolution approving amendments (Attachment 1) to the Town’s Story Pole Policy for compliance with Housing Element Program B-16.

BACKGROUND
The Town of Los Altos Hills maintains a Story Pole Policy (Attachment 2), originally adopted by the City Council on September 8, 1999, and last revised on January 8, 2016. The policy requires the installation of story poles, height markers, and orange fencing prior to the approval of certain development projects. As part of the Town’s 6th Cycle Housing Element, Implementation Program B-16 calls for the development of a process to streamline the story pole requirement or allow digital renderings to be provided in lieu of story poles by Q3 2025 (Attachment 3).

DISCUSSION:

July 10, 2025 Planning Commission Study Session
At the July 10, 2025, Planning Commission meeting, staff initiated a discussion on potential modifications to the policy (Attachment 4). The Commission directed staff to pursue changes to the policy that would meet the requirements of Program B-16. Notably, the Commission suggested an exemption for single-family residences that are no more than 19 feet in height and 4,000 square feet in floor area, and that do not request variances or exceptions. Staff was directed to incorporate the suggested edits and return at a future meeting. A more detailed summary of the Commission’s direction and staff responses can be found in the September 4, 2025, Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 3).

September 4, 2025 Planning Commission Public Hearing
Staff returned to the Planning Commission on September 4, 2025, for formal consideration of amendments to the policy (Attachment 5). The redlined version presented at this meeting addressed four broad categories: (1) use of alternative visualization methods to replace traditional story poles for multi-family developments, (2) adjustments to the required duration for story pole ITEM 7C STAFF REPORT

City Council Page 2
Story Pole Policy
September 18, 2025
installation; (3) use of alternative installation materials; (4) change to applicability thresholds, such as project size, height, or location, that trigger the story pole requirement. The proposed modifications were supported by the Commission with additional edits. Ultimately, the Commission forwarded a recommendation for approval to the City Council, along with further direction to staff:

Planning Commission Direction Staff Response
Make minor grammatical changes. Complete.

Do not allow PVC piping or bamboo. Removed.

Require a rendering of the proposed development to be
posted adjacent to the public hearing notice for singlefamily residences seeking exemption.

Added.

Provide an exemption for multi-family buildings that
are no more than 19 feet in height, and do not request
variances or exceptions from development standards.

Include requirement for rendering same as above.

Added.

Table A
The final redlined version (Exhibit “A” of Attachment 1) proposes the following modifications to the existing policy:
• Minor grammatical edits for clarity
• Replacement of “second units” with “accessory dwelling units” • Reduction in story pole installation timing from 24 days prior to public hearing date to 10 days prior to the public hearing date
• Specification that rigid materials may include lumber or metal poles • Exemption from policy for single-family residences that are no more than 19 feet in height and 4,000 square feet in floor area, and that do not request variances or exceptions • Exemption from policy for multi-family buildings that are no more than 19 feet in height and do not request variances or exceptions
Staff finds that the proposed modifications to the policy satisfy the requirements of Program B-16 by reducing the required story pole installation period and eliminating the obligation for certain projects, as defined above, to install story poles. The amendments also require the posting of renderings for exempt projects, thereby reducing costs associated with story pole rental, and provide an exemption for development projects determined to have minimal community impact.

Accordingly, staff recommends that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to the Town’s Story Pole Policy to ensure compliance with Housing Element Program B-16.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The suggested policy amendments or modifications are categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378, and 15061(b)(3), as this does not constitute a project.
2024-25 CITY COUNCIL WORK PLAN:

ITEM 7C STAFF REPORT

City Council Page 3
Story Pole Policy
September 18, 2025
This is part of the 2024-25 City Council Work Plan, under Housing Element Implementation to maintain quality of life and community character.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no direct fiscal impact associated with this policy amendment.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution Approving Amendments to Story Pole Policy a. Exhibit “A” Town of Los Altos Hills Story Pole Policy [REDLINE]

2. Town of Los Altos Hills Story Pole Policy [CLEAN-No Change]

3. Housing Element Program B-16

4. Planning Commission July 10, 2025 Staff Report

5. Planning Commission September 4, 2025 Staff Report
ITEM 7C STAFF REPORT

RESOLUTION -25
RESOLUTION -25
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE TOWN’S STORY POLE POLICY UNDER HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAM B-16 TO STREAMLINE

THE STORY POLE REQUIREMENT OR ALLOW ALTERNATIVES IN LIEU OF STORY POLES
WHEREAS, the Town of Los Altos Hills maintains a Story Pole Policy that requires new construction and certain remodels to be staked on-site, with height poles and netting erected, in order to provide decision making bodies and neighbors with a visual tool to evaluate proposed construction; WHEREAS, the Town of Los Altos Hills 2023-2031 Housing Element includes Program B-16, which calls for development of a process to streamline the story pole requirement or to allow a visual rendering to be provided in lieu of story poles;
WHEREAS, on July 10, 2025, the Planning Commission held a study session and directed staff to pursue changes to the policy that would meet the requirements of Program B-16; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 4, 2025, and recommended approval of the proposed amendments to the policy to the City Council; WHEREAS, the City Council considered the proposed amendments at a public hearing held on September 18, 2025, at which time all interested persons were given the opportunity to be heard; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills hereby approves the amendments to the Town’s Story Pole Policy, as set forth in Exhibit “A” attached to this Resolution.

The above and foregoing Resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of September, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

BY:

ATTEST: Kavita Tankha, Mayor
Arika Birdsong-Miller, City Clerk
ITEM 7C ATTACHMENT 1

TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Phone: (650) 941-7222
www.losaltoshills.ca.gov
Story Pole Policy

PURPOSE
To request new construction and some remodels be staked on site and that height poles and fencing shall be erected to provide the decision-making bodies (City Council, Planning Commission, Planning Staff) and neighbors with a better visual tool to evaluate proposed construction.

POLICY
Story poles shall be used for the following types of applications:
• New buildings
• Second story additions
• Additions exceeding 900 square feet andor increases in roof height • Accessory structures (exceeding 900 square feet)
• Accessory dwelling units Second units (if in conjunction with new residence or major addition) • Driveway entrance modifications, sports court and pools (outlined with stakes and ribbon at ground level)
• Open Space easements
• Trees proposed to be removed (marked with ribbons or tags or some type of obvious marker) Exceptions may be granted by the Planning Department based on scope of work proposed.

Timing
Story poles shall be installed approximately two weeks prior to advertising the project for public before the project is publicly noticed for hearing, and no less than 10 days prior to the hearing date. Staff will inform the applicant when the story poles should be installed. The story poles shall remain in place until the project has been reviewed at a public hearing and the appeal period has passed. If the project is appealed, the story poles shall remain until the appeal has been acted upon. The applicant shall provide photographs of the installed story poles. Please note that public notices will not be mailed, and hearings will not be held until the staking has been completed and approved by staff.

Requirements
The project Surveyor or Civil Engineer shall determine the perimeter points of the proposed structures for story pole installation. Story poles shall be constructed of rigid material such as lumber and metal poles (plastic piping is not acceptable) and a two (2) foot wide band of plastic orange snow fencing which must clearly outline the proposed ridgelines and eaves for the new structure, addition and/or accessory buildings. In addition, proposed swimming pools, tennis courts, open space easements, and/or driveway modifications should be outlined and marked with ribbon at ground level. Please note that all trees proposed to be removed shall be marked with tape, flags, or other obvious identification markers.

ITEM 7C ATTACHMENT 1
Exhibit "A"

Staff may approve alternative materials for story pole construction for minor projects. If you have questions about materials contact the Planning Department.

Orange snow fencing at least two feet (2’) wide must be erected to represent the roofline of the proposed structure/addition. The fencing must be supported by height poles strong enough to accurately maintain the outline and height as shown below (plastic piping is not acceptable).

The height of story poles should indicate the final height of the building (grading should be accounted for in the height of the poles).

Exemptions
Single-family residences that are no more than 19 feet in height and 4,000 square feet in floor area, and that do not request variances or exceptions, are exempt from the requirements of this policy. To qualify for this exemption, the property owner shall provide a rendering of the proposed development, displayed adjacent to the public hearing notice, at a minimum size of 24” x 36”.

Multi-family buildings that are no more than 19 feet in height and do not request variances or exceptions are exempt from the requirements of this policy. To qualify for this exemption, the property owner shall provide a rendering of the proposed development, displayed adjacent to the public hearing notice, at a minimum size of 24” x 36”.

Example:

Roof Plan
Post locations
Story Poles
2’ fencing to cover proposed height
ITEM 7C ATTACHMENT 1

TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Phone: (650) 941-7222
www.losaltoshills.ca.gov
Story Pole Policy

PURPOSE
To request new construction and some remodels be staked on site and that height poles and fencing shall be erected to provide the decision making bodies (City Council, Planning Commission, Planning Staff) and neighbors with a better visual tool to evaluate proposed construction.

POLICY
Story poles shall be used for the following types of applications:
 New buildings
 Second story additions
 Additions exceeding 900 square feet and increases in roof height  Accessory structures (exceeding 900 square feet)
 Second units (if in conjunction with new residence or major addition)  Driveway entrance modifications, sports court and pools (outlined with stakes and ribbon at ground level)
 Open Space easements
 Trees proposed to be removed (marked with ribbons or tags or some type of obvious marker) Exceptions may be granted by the Planning Department based on scope of work proposed.

Timing
Story poles shall be installed approximately two weeks prior to advertising the project for public hearing. Staff will inform the applicant when the story poles should be installed. The story poles shall remain in place until the project has been reviewed at a public hearing and the appeal period has passed. If the project is appealed, the story poles shall remain until the appeal has been acted upon. The applicant shall provide photographs of the installed story poles. Please note that public notices will not be mailed until the staking has been completed and approved by staff.

Requirements
The project Surveyor or Civil Engineer shall determine the perimeter points of the proposed structures for story pole installation. Story poles shall be constructed of rigid material (plastic piping is not acceptable) and a two (2) foot wide band of plastic orange snow fencing which must clearly outline the proposed ridgelines and eaves for the new structure, addition and/or accessory buildings. In addition, proposed swimming pools, tennis courts, open space easements, and/or ITEM 7C ATTACHMENT 2

driveway modifications should be outlined and marked with ribbon at ground level. Please note that all trees proposed to be removed shall be marked with tape, flags, or other obvious identification markers.

Staff may approve alternative materials for story pole construction for minor projects. If you have questions about materials contact the Planning Department.

Orange snow fencing at least two feet (2’) wide must be erected to represent the roofline of the proposed structure/addition. The fencing must be supported by height poles strong enough to accurately maintain the outline and height as shown below (plastic piping is not acceptable).

The height of story poles should indicate the final height of the building (grading should be accounted for in the height of the poles).

Example:

Roof Plan
Story Poles
2’ fencing to cover proposed height
Post locations
ITEM 7C ATTACHMENT 2

Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Programs 223
Number Title Action Responsible
Party
Funding
Source Timeline
B-15
Streamline
Committee
Review Process
Amend the Town’s Zoning Ordinance to limit advisory
committee meetings to one meeting, and require
comments be provided to the decision making body within thirty days of a complete application. Further, specify that advisory committee review shall only provide comments
relating to conformance with the General Plan, Municipal Code, Council- adopted policies and guidelines, and
specific, Objective Design Standards.

PBD General
Fund By Q3, 2024
B-16
Story Pole Policy
Revisions
The Town will develop a process to streamline the story pole requirement or will allow a rendering to be provided in lieu of Story Poles.

PBD General
Fund By Q3, 2025
ITEM 7C ATTACHMENT 3