Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-32
▪ Get it on the ballot for voters to overturn SB 9 &10 & retain the quasi rural quality of LAH that prompted us to purchase (& want to retain value of) homes in town. ▪ funds for increasing numbers in schools, safety of more cars on narrow winding roads, fire exit accessibility, providing sufficient parkland for increased population ▪ Purissima Hills does not have enough water supply for all this new housing. New residents should have to buy supply from existing residents. ▪ LAH is part of the Bay Area and should not be catered only the well to do. The day that LAH approved the development of huge houses has voided the claim that LAH is "rural" which is used as a pretext for its restricting codes. ▪ Lower our Taxes if you move non tax paying housing into our town ▪ The town council and the building permitting committee have little interest in allowing our town to grow to meet housing needs. They spend all their time critiquing building plans and cribbing about when they exceed the height limit.
People should be allowed to build what they want. All these rules are just people being intolerable busybodies at the best and closet racists at the worst. There is no reason to preserve the town exactly the way it is now. If everyone always thought that way, we would just be a bunch of dirt roads and orchards. Let the town evolve and progress.
▪ Want to maintain the rural nature of our town. Worried about fire and the issues with traffic and parking
▪ We have narrow roads and are in an area of fire hazards plus wildlife zones. I strongly oppose increasing density of houses or multiplexes. This one size fits all solution makes little sense. I do not want public lands to be used by profit and Alec service g developers.
▪ Continue to fight against SB 9 and for intelligent zoning based on local needs. ▪ I would love Los Altos Hills to continue the current characteristics without altering anything. The things that I miss most are having more parks and kids' play areas. ▪ The whole trend toward urbanizing our community abs dramatically changing the nature of our community with more housing density is unconstitutional and will be reversed in court. So I would discourage any efforts to comply with these offensive proposed regulations.
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-33
▪ Using tax dollars, purchase 2 or 3 modest-size homes and manage them as rentals for Town staff and other essential workers.
▪ Again, build dense housing on Foothill College. Minimal impact to residents.
Housing can be for students/teachers/police/fire/very low income/low income.
California Bonus density law will let you build more units. Access to VTA means lower cars per unit. A larger plan with retail (grocery, casual restaurant) would benefit both the college and the community.
▪ Please make sure any infrastructure, such as private roads, are required to be updated with any increased use around whatever housing policies are decided upon. Increased building/people, means more services to support to support that building.
▪ Do not change the 1 acre rule. We moved here for that. Changing zoning retroactively is a violation of property rights of current owners. No infrastructure support for added density. You will ruin the nature of Los Altos Hills! ▪ Build dorms at Foothill college for the students and be done. ▪ There are so many vacant houses. Let's start by penalizing empty houses with a high fee that can fund affordable housing or dangerous tree removal. There are numerous empty houses nearby our house.
▪ To reach the goal of 489 units, it will take more than building ADUs. I could imagine surplus land being used to build large apartment building, 4-5 stories high, with affordable units, underground parking
▪ We need to make it much easier and cheaper to add dwelling units, either standalone units or separate entrances to existing homes. Streamline permitting, provide help from Town experts to landowners/homeowner, make permits very cheap or free. Town should serve to enable, not block, adding units. ▪ Until the Town has a public sewer there will be very little movement on this issue.
Septic system leach fields take up too much land. Land that could be used for additional dwellings.
▪ Los Altos Hills has been traditionally rural town. Preserving property values, space in between homes for privacy purposes should be at the forefront of the Towns goal with its new guidelines. I fear that developers will come in and purchase the land and destroy the quiet community by buying up ranch homes and changing them into apartment complexes and duplexes.
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-34
▪ i think the current nature of semi rural housing density in the town is good. i hope that will be maintained
▪ I have a Jr. ADU apartment in my home. I think the town should do a survey and find out how many units already exist that they do not know about. This does not show in County records even though home was built/finished in 1991. ▪ Do not reduce setbacks between properties. Do allow wildlife corridors. Consider the constant drought and water and other infrastructure needed for all these new units. How will you achieve adequate water? Don't cut trees to allow for new houses.
Can our narrow winding roads accommodate new traffic? There will be increased fire danger with additional homes.
▪ Support CA state initiatives to modify or overturn SB 9 ▪ Allow any ADU (detached or attached) to be up to 1200 sq feet in area.... Not be subject to Max Developable Area limits which were set 30+years ago. ▪ I think we should do something to provide some lower income housing in line with the state‘s policy.
▪ Streamline process to get ADU approved.
▪ LAH should join the Our Neighborhood Voices initiative. Also - consider subsidizing housing for qualified workforce (first responders, teachers). ▪ Do not allow for splitting lights or putting multi dwelling units on LAH lots. This is not the culture or history of Los Altos Hills! Keep LAH as it has always been . ▪ Los Altos Hills is not Redwood City or Mountain View. Housing policies are not "one size fits all". Housing policies or programs must have relevance to the area in which they are located. The only housing that makes sense for lower income residents would be for teachers, fire and police personnel. Apartments, townhouses and condos could be built on public or semi-public lands near the 280 corridor. ▪ Minimize changes to the fundamental character of the town. ▪ Carefully plan the change to keep neighborhood character. Another concrete jungle would be no-no.
▪ City funded tree trimming efforts can help prevent over growth ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-35
▪ People who buy homes in Los Altos Hills do so to get away from people. If they wanted to live near people they would buy homes in Atherton, or Hillsborough. It is understandable then that people living in Los Altos Hills will not be in favor of trying to help figure out ways for more people to live here.
▪ No high density housing. It is important to maintain the rural environment. ▪ A high end multi-unit development of condos/townhomes/small residences for seniors. I am 77 & have a home and contiguous lot. A luxury smaller residence in LAH would be an excellent option for me. This option doesn’t exist currently and could get older residents out of their homes.
▪ Seek out and join other private parties, cities and other entities in filing suit to challenge the constitutionality and provisions of S.B. 9. ▪ Need to have better internet infrastructure. With many people working from home, getting high speed, stable internet has been a huge issue for many LAH residences. ▪ Require all SB 9 properties to underground all local utilities for themselves and their neighbors
▪ Preserve rural atmosphere, set backs, screening etc
▪ Enabling larger homes to accommodate renters is a good idea if it supports the community (elderly home owners). Enabling home owners to expand their existing homes to support more inhabitants is ok to a limit along with ADUs. The purpose of buying a home in Los Altos Hills is privacy, peace, and the enjoyment that comes with a more rural feel. The value of the town and area is diluted with the addition of multiplexes. Affordable housing is available in surrounding areas, the answer for essential workers is transportation, not housing. The city of Los Altos Hills does not have a housing issue, but it can accommodate additions to existing homes and ADUs.
▪ Do not require homeowners to split their lots or add ADU's. ▪ Please don't make us look like Woodside.
▪ What is the criteria for "affordable housing"? I am in favor of allowing residents to reduce lot size to 1/2 acre. The opposition is increased congestion, but not all LAH residents will want to reduce their lot size.
▪ Maintain rural atmosphere, low density as much as possible ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-36
▪ Infrastructure. Are utilities, traffic and parking enhancements being factored into the City's plans? Just adding housing may cause further issues that need to be addressed up front.
▪ We have septic -in the hills. if additional homes are built on my hill, it’s going to be a problem for me.
My home was built in 1940, adding AdU will cause issues as the town will make me upgrade my house to meet current guidelines. That will cost a lot.
No lights or proper sidewalks-how will the town account for at least 500 more families without infrastructure.
Why are developers allowed to clear cut and build huge homes? ▪ Perhaps you should expand your focus to fighting back. There’s a petition out there to put this on the ballot in November. Only needs 1.5m sigs. We should also replace our representative in Congress I think his name is Becker. Or Berman. Maybe work together with like-minded towns to push back hard in a regional effort. ▪ Yeah stop them all
▪ I favor let’s stay in control.
▪ I prefer small and quiet neighborhood. I am against building a lot more units to make the town crowded. I don’t want the traffic to get worse either. ▪ It's important to protect the scenic, natural beauty of Los Altos Hills. ▪ LAH is somewhat unique. We should strive, as much as possible, to keep it that way. ▪ Please keep the semi-rural character of our town as it is.
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-37
▪ Consider the way to maintain the single family home and the spaciousness that LAH is known for
▪ Set a maximum on size of house in Los Altos Hills. Enforce a fire code that maintains safety of the area. Raise taxes to support construction in new areas of California where there is lots of land. People can work from home and start new zones of living. ▪ No lot splits or ADUs should be permitted on properties with private roads for ingress & egress due the additional/resultant maintenance costs (must be shared equally somehow) and adverse impacts from increased vehicle traffic and adverse safety impacts.
▪ Please continue to respect the rural nature of our Town. Insist on an impact report (on parking, traffic, water and sewage, environment, etc.) from the builders. ▪ Los Altos hills is a bucolic town. We need to push back on the state and prevent Los Altos hills from becoming another San Francisco or San Jose downtown ▪ Kill SB 9 and focus on encouraging ADAs
▪ Priority should be given to maintaining the value of the property existing residents while complying with state imposed regulations. Priority should NOT be given to solving some perceived societal macro issues.
▪ Please do not ruin the rural beauty of our town.
▪ Keep Real Estate people from buying the homes for investment They keep the prices up. They are bothering all the time. ▪ Permitting and approvals within the town are very time consuming. Please add or replace staff.
▪ Seek public funds required to support higher density housing, e.g. roadways, blind curves, pedestrian sidewalk, etc, before higher density housing is commissioned.
Los Altos Hill roads are not safe with increased traffic. ▪ Housing is a human right
▪ Fire department getting in the way of ADUs
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-38
▪ I live here because of the uncongested bucolic setting. Concerned that will be negatively impacted if we are forced into SB 9 regulations. The Hills with narrow country roads is not the place for high density housing. ▪ I would love to keep the town one that has land between homes. I know that doesn't support the goals of the city's mandate, but whatever can be done that prevents any of us finding ourselves with homes stacked up on one another would be ideal Perhaps those with over an acre can be encouraged to sub-divide to meet the goal? ▪ Fight like hell to overturn SB 9 & SB10 including lawsuits. Sacramento cannot manage it's current duties let alone manage the affairs of each city. ▪ Get less picky about adu conversions. But...keep trying to maintain the one acre lot standard.
▪ Consider abs respect the rural nature that attracted us to buying a property in Los Altos Hills. Be careful not to create eyesores! Don’t obstruct our lines of sight from our homes. Don’t create more traffic. Reduce our property taxes. Refund surplus taxes collected. Give neighbors the opportunity to have first right of refusal to neighboring properties and to purchase them. Prioritize fire prevention. Require owners to remove dead brush. Require owners to maintain their properties and not have them exist in a derelict state. Consider protecting wildlife. Zone affordable housing in commercial areas, not rural perhaps adjacent to schools. ▪ Don’t bc need high density housing here
▪ SB 9 was not voted on and is not supported by the majority ▪ Subdividing Lots and SB 9 is a load of crap being forced on us. It needs to be overturned and the politicians behind it replaced. Nobody voted for it and it is not supported by the majority. Water shortage.
▪ Sewer line’s
▪ Forcing more building will require more drilling into unstable hill sides, increasing the cost to build and making the hills more susceptible to landslides. Further, LAH does not have updated sewers that can handle the increased sewage capacity needed. LAH should do an economic impact and environmental safety study. ▪ (1) Please maintain minimum 1 acre lot size. (2) Please consider we have efficient supply of utility (such as water, sewer connection, etc.) (3) Please make sure there is ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-39
enough access roads and parking for the proposed additions of housing. Thank you!!
▪ Add housing for people with various CB kinds of disabilities ▪ The Town should prepare an in-depth document stating why this new law does not make any sense in LAH
▪ ease number of bedrooms requirement for county septic design ▪ Let's fight Communism rather than acquiescing to it. If the Commies succeed they will ruin out country.
▪ Many houses in the city are very old or structurally unsafe that require renovated or re-built. The cost to renovate/rebuild are high and also the re-appraisal property tax after remodel/rebuild is a significant increase. Is there a program to limit the property tax increase after remodel/rebuild especially for senior? ▪ No ideas.
▪ What about apartments on Lincoln Park or the baseball diamond? I love the idea of building teacher housing/housing for other town workers. Seems like apartments/condos would make some sense.
▪ Buy lots along 280 and build high density housing there. Start with the baseball diamond.
▪ I feel like the town is way too restrictive with allowing owners to use their property.
Removing the administrative red tape will give people the incentive to invest in housing.
▪ Support a proposition to get SB 9 removed
▪ If the state mandates 489 units over the next 8 years with 289 being low income the question is will the community voluntarily add 289 ADUs and what assurance is there that they will be rented at the low income level? Sounds like LAH would be required to break the one acre minimum code. LAH would also have to allow higher density per acre or lot split and allow multi unit properties (duplex, triplex, four plex, etc.) in specific areas in the current R-A zone that are in lower fire hazard areas with adequate sewer and water service availabilities.
▪ Subsidiaries for ADUs and lighter septic requirements ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-40
▪ Prioritize retaining current low density and semi-rural character of town with lots of open space and nature
▪ Preserve our one acre zoning and setbacks.
▪ I appreciate that you are doing this survey to get our inputs. Reduce ADU / house building fees to encourage construction.
▪ Join with woodside, Atherton and other acre zoned towns to resist or overturn this legislation.
▪ Fight Sacramento.
▪ Families who have lived in LAH for a long time enjoy the rural environment and as a result pay higher property taxes. Crowding the City with additional low income housing next to multi $million houses makes no sense. Also not only is it not desirable but the road system is not laid out to take much more traffic. ▪ Resist the state mandate
▪ Los Altos Hills has high fire danger areas and needs easy access for the fire department trucks. More housing means more water usage, more cars, more children for school. Current state legislation says more Housing but no reference to AFFORDABLE housing.
▪ Reduction of lot size requirement
▪ Infrastructure needs of additional residents.
▪ I think we all moved here in order to enjoy our semi rural atmosphere. We should keep that in mind while developing any new housing policies. ▪ Traffic and parking impact especially on narrow town roads. Fire safety issues resulting from increased housing in fire prone areas of the town. Putting sewer hookups throughout the town to support the development. ▪ If you are considering on promoting ADU or high density housing, I recommend that you provide reasonable solutions about the consequences. For example, the setbacks doesn’t allow home owners to build an ADU with enough dwelling space, it would ended up allowing home owners to build a shed. Or, if there are not enough transportation alternatives, the increase cars on the street would cause traffic jam, resulting in decrease in lifestyle satisfaction or overall productive time of residents.
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-41
▪ Infrastructure needs improvement to support growth: sewer being the top issue.
For youth, add high density housing near & around Foothill College. For affordable housing, encourage ADU's & encourage placement of local workforce in these ADU's.
▪ The legislation should be used to ensure developers do not profit from building multiple, expensive single-family homes on smaller lots. ▪ ADUs should be upto 1,800 sq ft. For example, my working daughter (single mom) and child (and occasional overnight nanny) would find 1,200 sq ft too small. On the one hand, the town wants ADUs. On the other hand, these tiny ADUs would be more suitable for a well-off single person than for a family with kids looking to be closer to good schools and outdoor beauty. If the town had made ADUs more attractive, it would have reached its housing goal. Now any homeowner who wants to make money can sell to a developer for SB 9 construction.
▪ We really like the look and feel of Los Altos Hills with space and no apartment style housing. Please don't change that. ADU's are probably the best solution if you need to add affordable housing. Don't do lot splits, you can't ever take that back. ▪ Not in favour of SB 9.Owners move here because of space and small town atmosphere
▪ It’s past time LAH did it’s fair share . Apts at FHill College would be a good start . We can’t continue to be NIMBYS
▪ Local control should be kept over state control! There is no way the state should be allowed to control rezoning. The land we all hold so dear would be taken from us all my ruthless developers!!
▪ ADUs and/or lot splits would have a severe negative impact on town ▪ Make the ADU and JADU process as easy as possible.
▪ Ways to keep seniors in their homes. If you want to bike but live on a hill and must drive to Fremont, safe place to park while using bike to get to town. Safe place for bike when not in use.
▪ No commercial development.
Maintain low density housing.
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-42
Preserve beautiful views.
▪ Pls don’t ruin the essence of Los Altos hills, which has the rural charm in the heart of Silicon Valley!
▪ Must keep the l acre minimum lot size for LAH.
▪ Pls maintain the rural, suburban Los Altos hill character that is the essence of the city
▪ Please change the setback rules from the main roads! We would love to build an ADU (or a 1500 sf home), but because of the 30' setback plus 10' easement, our ADU would have to be long and narrow (and within 6' of our main residence) in order to fit on our property! If the setback from Elena Road would change to 10' (or maybe even 20'), we would finally have enough usable land to build an ADU that wouldn't crowd our current house.
▪ The permitting bureaucracy is still a massive obstacle to building additional gousing especially around septic tanks.
▪ No-I appose the whole issue of forced “9” and “10” demands made by our state government. Please find away out of this decree.
▪ If needed keep density on flat ground and near the cities ▪ 1) develop covenant for maintaining a rural atmosphere where horses, cows, chicken etc would be allowed
2) Wild animal could still co-exist
3) Current Environmental policies are not compromised
4) No wide multi-lane roads
▪ Fire safety
▪ Increasing the housing density in LAH is an incredibly bad idea when we currently have grave concerns for providing water, sanitation, fire safety, traffic flow-through, etc. for our existing low-density populace.
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-43
▪ Please don't ruin the ambiance of LAH by allowing non-R1 zoning, such as apartment complexes.
▪ Take over private non-housing areas, such as horse areas and tennis courts, to build townhomes
▪ Consider infrastructure, fire safety, parking on narrow roads, access to public transportation, protecting rural environment that is part of the charter, protecting easements and wildlife, protesting SB 9 and 10
▪ If we're going to raise the housing density, where's the water and power going to come from? We already don't have enough water or power for the current residents.
Why are we trying to increase density? Nobody voted for SB 9 & 10! ▪ The impact upon existing infrastructure (water, power, sewer/septic, roads) and the Town itself should be considered not just for an individual application but for the aggregate. Costs to the Town need to be identified and not absorbed by the Town. ▪ Buy Lehigh Quarry and build low income housing there
▪ Please preserve our town's valuable rural atmosphere as much as possible. ▪ Since the Housing Element proposals will be reoccurring every 8 years, if possible master plan Foothill College to allocate space for 400+ units every 8 years, especially affordable housing. Maximize housing potentials on institutional sites. Retain the rural neighborhood vernacular with height and coverage restrictions, but make it easier to build 1-2 small one story ADU’s for each one acre lot. Discourage lot splits under SB-9 by allowing three housing units per one acre-lot. Encourage planting shade trees and low water landscaping and reexamine wildfire danger potentials at least every three to five years.
▪ septic system limitations and proper sewage connection responsibilities per residence.
▪ Amend Emergency Ordinance to allow for single family home construction on subdivided lot with less restrictions
▪ Plan for parking in all development activity. Consider making all of LAH to be no parking on the streets except in special areas that can accommodate on-street parking. Most LAH streets are narrow and cannot accommodate on-street parking.
Find a way to limit the use of NO PARKING signs.
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-44
▪ Los Altos Hills should be pushing for dense market rate and significant truly affordable housing units on the Foothill College Campus (parking lots) with priority going to Firefighters, Police officers, Nurses, Teachers, Librarians, Foothill College and city employees. Also, on Foothill’s campus, there should be affordable housing dedicated to college students who attend Foothill and the surrounding colleges/universities.
In the neighborhoods, Los Altos Hills should push for continued ADU construction but retain reasonable height, coverage and parking requirements to maintain the rural atmosphere we all love about the town. I think a main house with two detached 800-1000 sqft ADUs and parking for 5-6 cars per acre lot should be allowed as an alternative to lot splitting under SB-9.
Also, the town needs to reassess fire propensity at least every five years. Climate change is here and we should not be building density in high fire areas. ▪ 1. Replace Hillside Development Ordinance’s restrictive MDA & MFA formulas tied to lot’s slope when it comes to rezoning and lots splits with a reasonable lot coverage percentages.
2. Promote sewer system expansion to support new development. 3 Adhere to SB 9 setback requirements.
▪ Circulate and Sign the initiative to overturn SB 9
▪ Higher density may require upgraded utilities, concrete sidewalks, widened streets.
Existing property values may be negatively impacted.
Additional schools, parks, emergency services, downtown parking may be needed. ▪ Good luck fighting state bureaucrats.
▪ Multi-family housing is not appropriate for LAH, given the topography and lack of infrastructure to support such housing
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-45
▪ Must maintain the rural appearance when changing zoning, splitting lots, modifying design requirements, etc.
▪ Please keep a strong focus on LAH original charter and why that has been important for the existing residences. Also evaluate the impact on infrastructure including water, sewer, and power
▪ Traffic and noise
▪ Build denser housing where utilities, public transport, etc. are available. North of 280.
▪ This irresponsible state law would deny cities the opportunity to provide unique and very necessary housing opportunities by dictating California's nearly 200 cities all must look like a Los Angeles slum. There are very serious health consequences from this irresponsible law
▪ Traffic and transportation, and our hilly geography is not terribly conducive to lot splits or separate ADUs.
▪ Is there recourse against SB 9? It does not account for the needs of each community, rather puts requirements in a one-size-fits-all model. LAH does not have nor is it close to public transportation. Our town rules reflect our homeowners desire for privacy and space. If there is no recourse, then I would favor building large apartment units in the local school properties for the low income units the state is (unreasonably) requiring.
▪ HELP US. Make LAH affordable. How can you expect low income to afford this area? Maybe they can buy but property taxes require a mortgage. ▪ Los Altos Hills should retain its one-acre minimum lot size and single family zoning, and provide any required multi-family or lower income housing in nearby cities, such as Mountain View where there is already much multi-family. ▪ I have lived in Los Altos Hills for over 40 years. It started out as a pretty nice place to live. This law has nothing to do with affordable housing. It is a money grab by developers and they don't care if they ruin the communities. time to move out of the state, I guess.
▪ Consider the loss of the existing neighborhood and the creation of an overbuilt area with not enough parking, privacy, fire safety, etc.
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-46
▪ weekly office hours to explain ADU regulations to residents; financial incentives to those interested in ADUs ( lower fees, additional financing); webinars to explain SB 9 to local residents
▪ Don’t let the loud anti-9 voices overwhelm you!! Stay strong and keep up the good fight for more housing units in LAH.
▪ Do not destroy public lands by rezoning them for other purposes, these public reserves and park lands are key to Los Altos Hills enjoyment etc... ▪ Please fight to maintain the semi-rural character of the town that has brought most of here in the first place
▪ LAH should expand municipal sewer to all residents as this is a limiting factor in building a home for bigger families or adding an ADU.
▪ Like any city, leaving property vacant causes blight—there is not enough housing ▪ Tax the LAH population to (1) improve regional transportation and (2) accelerate construction of multi-family units near transportation corridors. ▪ Retain the rural nature of the town.
▪ Beyond institutional sites, if re-zoning for greater density must occur, the town should create a map that shows which properties would most-certainly be off-limits due to fire, slope and environmental concerns. Also, debate whether it's best to spread impact evenly across town or to consolidate it to neighborhoods situated nearest to shopping/public transportation/jobs, ie: downtown Los Altos and El Monte Ave bus route.
▪ The charter of the property owners and the city is to do what is right for us and that is to maintain a beautiful rural look and feel. The state cannot impose on us what to do. That is simply NOT right.
▪ Zoning changes (for affordable housing only) should be considered at the border of town. This will reduce the strain on infrastructure like sewer, roads, power, water etc. and maintain the towns core values. Think of it as changing the rules for all the areas we annexed maintaining the original town to its core values. ▪ repeal SB 9 - preserve the rural character of our community ▪ LAH should fight these state requirements. We want to retain the 1 acre single family community as well as much open space. LAH should make it very difficult to build ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-47
multi family and lots splits that are not based on our current set. backs. I do not want my next door neighbor to suddenly be a 4 unit property!!! ▪ Consider the impact of greedy property developers who don't live in the area.
Having lived thru mandatory rezoning overseas, the quality of homes and life does not improve just because more homes are permitted.
▪ Kill the bill. California needs two-party system.
▪ SEE MY LAST COMMENT
▪ Avoid multiple family dwellings on existing lots. It would be better to put townhouses on underutilized public land rather the clutter neighborhoods. ▪ Fire safety. Parking.
▪ Maintain open space. Oppose Sacramento & HCD on RHNA numbers. ▪ Provide better wildfire prevention to encourage residents to feel safe in their homes ▪ High turnover at the building department is a big problem.
In our project, onerous fire department requirements completely unrelated to the structure being built have slowed the project materially. Anyone who looks on our property thinks the requirements don't make any sense for our geography. ▪ Yes, don't agree to any changes to current zoning laws. ▪ Please ensure the infrastructure is updated to accommodate the housing policy ▪ Do not allow lots to be split, this will ruin the rural feel of LAH. This land should be not developed it will turn this beautiful area into a parking lot full of traffic jams. ▪ Set backs need to be adhered as they are currently. Views must be protected. ▪ protection and harmony with nature
▪ Fulfill RHNA at FootHill College campus. Follow Atheton's example. They fulfilled their RHNA with Menlo Highschool campus.
▪ Be helpful, not NIMBYs
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-48
▪ I do not believe Los Altos Hills is equipped to handle an increase of volume based on the infrastructure and the rural nature of the town. This is an example of government overreach that I have to say this in the first place. ▪ Please restrict lot splits to only certain streets where there's enough sewer connection options AND where slope is under 10%.
▪ Reconsider your approach to SB 9. Allowing subdivisions would be among the least impactful ways to add new homes in LAH. Consider creating multi-family designs that look like mansions if you're concerned with "neighborhood character." ▪ SC county fire defies State law and prevents LAH residents from adding ADUs ▪ Maintain our semi -rural charters
▪ Put housing at Foothill for students, teachers, and other support groups. Allow multiple stories in that one spot to solve this problem. Let’s not destroy the character of the town with duplexes and split lots.
▪ Explore all options for handling wastewater for ADUs
▪ Embrace change and consider the greater good. Steer away from NIMBY policies and actions (like the SB 9 Emergency Oridnance).
▪ Preservation of Town characteristics and protection of natural resources ▪ Infrastructure required for the development, wildfire risk. ▪ Don't change one acre minimum lot size for new houses. ▪ Yes, fight this nonsense along with other towns.
▪ Put any high density needs at Football College
▪ Sign Our Neigborhood Voices petition to rescind SB 9 and 10. This is a travesty. If I wanted to live in a condo or have neighbors peering in my windows, I wouldn’t have bought in LAH.
▪ Low income housing needs to be near transit routes. Multiple dwelling units need to be on flat areas, with wider roads for on street parking.
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-49
▪ Streamline the permitting process. Stop demanding weird easements for no good reason. I know someone who's spent more than a year without a decent roof on their house because the city can't permit things.
▪ The Pink Horse Ranch Property on Tepa is a vacant lot and would be perfect for multi-family housing
▪ The rural character of LAH is no longer popular with the current generation of home buyers. They are looking for modern conveniences that includes sewer connections.
As a result LAH is loosing out to its neighbors like Los Altos, Menlo Park, Palo Alto, etc. These cities have far higher housing density, yet higher real estate values than comparable homes in LAH. In order to protect the value of our housing stock, the City should keep this in mind and develop future housing policies accordingly. ▪ High density housing really doesn't belong in this town. We should work to protect the qualities that make this a desirable place to live. Trashing the town to drive down housing prices does a dis-service to those who live here. For many of us, our houses are our most valuable investment, posing a direct conflict between the financial wellbeing of existing residents and those looking to purchase. ▪ Ensure infrastructure can accommodate any increased population and/or density.
Current infrastructure (emergency egress, power, data, etc.) is questionable for existing population.
▪ Los Altos Hills has a town mandate to have one acre lots for a reason, SB 9 takes that away. I do not want more housing. We don’t have the water, parking or need for more traffic. Evacuation will become harder in case of Earthquakes or fires. ▪ This ADU/affordable housing issue does not take into consideration the fact that LAH is a rural community in a moderate to high fire risk zone, and the home to many species of wildlife. Additional homes/density will put even greater pressure on the Town's ability to 1) protect residents' safety, and 2) ensure we preserve our open spaces, natural habitats, and the ability for wildlife to travel in and around our town. ▪ Retain setback existing law
▪ Make the process easier. It should not take years to start projects. Planning has too much involvement; more work should be by-right.
▪ Keep Los Altos Hills as rural as possible.
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-50
Q14. Have you or someone you know ever encountered any of the forms of housing discrimination described above?
Answered: 440
Skipped: 98
Other Responses
▪ "affordable" is a relative term even if "Market rate" is prevented. Factoring in land cost and building codes we are 10X+ away from anything being 'affordable.' The debate needs to be numerical, location specific, transportation and services specific, consider risks like evacuations for fire and EQ. The ADU approach is OK on the surface but the implementation is way beyond reasonable costs. ▪ No. Why would you ask this question?
▪ Town won lawsuit against this, but now would lose, because they have violated all the tools once used to created a planned ultimate community ▪ I am tired of this survey at this point.
▪ I haven't but many people including a former president have been racially discriminatory.
0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 2% 5% 3%
73%
8% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-51
▪ Not here but definitely in another state where I lived. Here the prejudices seem most likely to be based on economic snobbishness.
▪ I have faced discrimination in trying to develop housing for people with developmental disabilities in many local communities. Never even tried Los Altos Orr Los Altos hills. We were discouraged right from the beginning. We also faced discrimination in Los Altos in trying to find school site for autistic students ▪ another bullshit question. These laws have been around for decades and every real estate agent has to know them.
▪ Real estate agent discriminating during open house and asking people to leave ▪ BS question- there is no discrimination in LAH.
▪ Realtor jacking up prices to keep buyers out.
Q15. Have you or someone you know ever encountered any of the forms of housing discrimination described above?
Answered: 263
Skipped: 273
6%5% 5%4% 4%2%
9% 9%
4%
81.59% 83.12%
91.53%
Bay Area Santa Clara
County
Los Altos Hills
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
In the last 2 years
In the last 5 years
More than 5 years ago
Not applicable. Not aware of
any discrimination
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-52
Q16. Please check all of the following forms of housing discrimination that you believe are occurring in Los Altos Hills.
Answered: 359
Skipped: 179
Other Responses
▪ All of the above are possibilities
▪ I don't know
▪ We have a terrific mix of people here by background and income. I'm a "white" minority.
▪ Wealth - are you an all-cash offshore buyer with no intent to live in or contribute to LAH
▪ I do not know
▪ I would be very surprised if there is no discrimination taking place (why I did not mark that box), but I am not directly aware of any specific examples. ▪ Not aware of any discrimination
71%
12%
1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 4% 1% 4% 2% 2%
7%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-53
▪ affordabilty would seem to be the larger issue here
▪ No knowledge or comment
▪ We all know, it's all about having the money to live here ▪ B
▪ Arrogant staff
▪ I have no idea about this question.
▪ None experienced or know of such case.
▪ Wealth
▪ No programs to welcome any of the above, especially people with developmental disabilities
▪ Amount of income
▪ There probably are all kinds of discrimination but I have no experience with any specific incidents.
▪ I am not aware of any discrimination
▪ There is an inherent discrimination against low education and low income. ▪ Unknown
▪ Do not know
▪ Just what you hear
▪ I’m sure there is discrimination. But it’s $$.
▪ I don't know
▪ How would anyone know?
▪ Income/assets
▪ I am always amazed when I walk through town by the diversity of people.
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-54
▪ We are not a socialist country and some locales (such as LAH) have more expensive property. . . .this is not discrimination. Anyone who can afford to live here is welcome.
▪ None
▪ high costs of housing has priced many groups out of LAH ▪ If it is here, then it is every where
▪ I don't know of any, but I bet there is.
▪ prior to passage of SB8&9, local zoning laws prevented a majority of people from ever living in LAH
▪ I don't know anyone.
▪ DISCRIMINATION AGAINST PEOPLE WITHOUT LARGE INCOMES.
▪ The only discrimination I know of would be economic.
▪ dont know if there is or isnt, such a broad question! ▪ LAH is accessible only to high net worth people.
▪ The only barrier to entry is $$. Anyone with $$ can buy in. ▪ Socio-economic status
▪ High cost of housing is discriminatory but I don't have any knowledge of discrimination based on the above categories.
▪ Income
▪ I have no idea but I see every possible ethnicity and race represented in the hills ▪ I don’t know
▪ wealth
▪ Since people are required to buy or rent two parking spaces for every unit of housing, anyone who does not drive is discriminated against ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-55
▪ just price
Q17. Please indicate whether you feel Los Altos Hills is: (Select one) Answered: 407
Skipped: 131
Other Responses
▪ ?
▪ I feel that Los Altos Hills is lacking diversity, but I think it is a function of housing cost rather than discrimination
▪ A meaningless question in the hills
▪ The town segregates low income people to other cities because of lack of housing choice in the town.
▪ Don’t know
▪ Never looked at the data but our community appears diverse as I walk abs drive around, and the students at Gardner Bullis appear fairly diverse.
Racially Segregated
(defined as a high
concentration of persons
of a particular race or
ethnicity in a particular
geographic area when
compared to broader the
Bay Area)
Racially Integrated
(defined as not containing
a higher concentration of a
particular protected class
such as race or ethnicity)
Not sure. (please specify)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-56
▪ LAH is segregated by income. Racially the Town is reasonably mixed, but nearly everyone has to have substantial assets, which excludes most Black Americans. ▪ LAH is class/wealth segregated. Because of compounding generations of wealth and race being intertwined, that means that LAH does not have the same racial make up of the as the rest of the Bay Area
▪ Don’t know the percentage of racial or ethnic groups in the town ▪ LAH has always been a great place for everyone to live no matter what race or religion , I hope it stays that way .
▪ Exactly how many African Americans live in LAH?
▪ The only obstacle is owning in LAH is having the income to purchase. Many residents have lived here for a long time and can afford to own. There is no racial segregation.
People don't care what race or religion a neighbor is. Neighbors don't go next door to "visit" but that's because people are not friendly inherently. If there are children, particlularly young children, neighbors are friendlier. Pandemics do not encourage ▪ I don't know the racial mix in LAH to answer
▪ Don’t the demographic comparison between LAH and the broader Bay Area ▪ LAH is segregated by wealth and all that that entails ▪ There are few underrepresented minorities
▪ lots of different nationalities here. Fine with me
▪ Have not experienced or seen racial lines
▪ Not sure
▪ It's segregated due to income of course
▪ NA
▪ don't know breakdown of residents
▪ Not sure means not sure.
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-57
▪ LAH is mostly white and Asian-American. It would be good to have more racial integration with the Black and Latino communities. (This is related primarily to broader structural issues of racism over generations and therefore different economic situations currently, rather than current overt racism regarding selling properties. However it would be better if our town was more racially integrated, such as with first responders, teachers and health care workers. ▪ Older white folks are set in their ways
▪ People that can afford to buy homes in LAH buy homes. Their race is not relevant. ▪ Very homogenous socio demographic
▪ I don’t know
▪ Definitely income "segregated" but not by race or ethnicity ▪ Segregated with regard to African Americans, not at all with regard to those of Indian or Chinese ancestry
▪ I have no information regarding the existing distribution of any protected calasses in LAH.
▪ There was not any report or news about this subject to learn more. ▪ Does this need to mean black? We are certainly multi racial. ▪ For new comers it is largely based on who can afford to buy a home ▪ Not aware of any incidents.
▪ Don’t know.
▪ walking the hills I see people from various ethnicities and coming from countries all over. The segregation is from affordability not a particular protected class. ▪ Not sure, but sense their is a high concentration of Whites and Asians, and a low concentration of Mexican Americans and African Americans. ▪ Los Altos Hills is economically segregated.
▪ I feel there are a few ethnicities represented, but not all.
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-58
▪ Segregated because of housing cost.
▪ I don't know enough about Los Altos Hills' history
▪ The high cost of homes has probably made us less integrated but it's a wealth restriction, not a race restriction.
▪ At first glance it seems none but when considering the Bay Area ethnic distribution, a slew to particular ethnic groups seems palpable
▪ Plenty of people from everywhere in India and China. I don’t see many other minorities and wish there were. Pretty verified up here. ▪ Not racial segregated but economic segregated
▪ Los Altos Hills "segregation" is simply on the basis of financial means ▪ LAH seems no more “racially segregated” than other very expensive areas. My impression is that “race” is not directly segregating; instead, income/wealth is the predominant driver. While race certainly related to $, misleading to call a $ problem a race problem.
▪ We might need more black people
▪ How would I know?
▪ Don’t have data
▪ Don’t have demographic data
▪ Everyone in LAH seems to be well eduacated, nod from all over the globe. I don’t care about what ethnicity anyone is!
▪ None apppy
▪ Not relevant unless income is considered
▪ the town is white and asian
▪ I haven't seen any data on this so my narrow observation of the community I don't believe is a good indication to draw a conclusion.
▪ I have not identified such at all.
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-59
▪ Segregated economically, which has unequal racial representation. ▪ Race is factored into income and LAH is a fairly high income community. ▪ Discrimination can be subtle
▪ How would a citizen without city-wide statistics know? ▪ don't see a issue for now
▪ It seems like there is a high concentration of two races: White and Asian. ▪ Affordability is the issue. Not everyone can live in Los Altos Hills. We don't want our environment to be destroyed.
▪ LAH is a very expensive and unusual town. The demographics make it impossible to achieve any "conventional" standard of racial integration. One can't compare LAH to Portland or Detroit. Living in LAH is self-selected for those who can afford it.
There is no inherent racial bias in that selection beyond the extraordinary demographics of who can afford LAH. Clearly those who have the resources to live in LAH may not appear racially neutral. But for people any race that have access to those resources, I don't see LAH as being discriminatory. ▪ .
▪ In a community like LAH each one lives in their own silo, concept of segregation is not valid.
▪ This is stupid. Is California mandating that you do this? ▪ LAH is home to several groups -- white, AAPI -- but few Hispanic and Black residents.
I believe the primary reason for discrimination is income based but it does create a racially segregated community.
▪ How would I know?
▪ None of the above
▪ jhgljglgj
▪ Certain races dominate but it is more than one
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-60
▪ Any disparities in racial concentration is most likely due to disparate economic situations than any sort of discriminatory actions.
▪ Unsure of the latest data for "Broader the Bay Area" [sic] above ▪ Don't know where people live
▪ few black---- many Asian
Q18. Have you or someone you know ever seen or been involved with a property that included a racial covenant?
Answered: 436
Skipped: 102
Other Responses
▪ It was ignored, but existed in the covenants in a home I used to own in a neighboring city.
▪ When I lived in Virginia near Washington DC.
No Yes, please describe below:
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-61
▪ Disgusting to see this during title insurance paperwork for Los Altos Hills home purchase
▪ my home has an outdated racial covenant in the original CCR's attached to the property.
▪ Yes in ours.
▪ Our home on the buy cycle. The HO association is not even active ▪ I think our deed has a racial covenant and I want to get rid of it! ▪ Racial covenant in previous home in Los Altos. It was accompanied by a document stating the covenant no longer applies, but this was still very insulting to my Latina wife. We should no longer provide these covenants when one buys a home - don't even show them. Hopefully this is no longer done.
▪ In San Mateo, there are old covenants that still remain regarding race. ▪ Just read Palo Alto Title Reports. Shocking Racial Covenants. ▪ Yes, in a Sunnyvale property, but I knew it was unenforceable ▪ Everyone ignores such provisions in my experience.
▪ Old Redwood City house
▪ Almost every property on lah restricts race. Since these restrictions are illegal, everyone ignores them
▪ Before I bought it, my property was in a white-only covenant, but this was clearly negated by the time I purchased in 2003
▪ I believe Redwood City has such a covenant and it is no longer applied but does exist. ▪ The property I had in Los Angeles had such a covenant on it, from the 1920s, i think. ▪ A friend - in Sunnyvale
▪ Purchased a home with a racial covenant in the past
▪ it is in our deed dating back to 1935, but those sections are no longer valid ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-62
▪ Home purchased in Los Altos had a covenant
▪ As a youth in San Francisco they had CC&R's that were discriminatory...but none of my neighbors abided by them.rs
▪ Covenant in property deed in East Bay
▪ On a old deed to our property. Of course, not valid anymore. ▪ Co-worker’s house had one. Tried to get it removed but couldn’t change history. ▪ Some homes in the City of Santa Clara have unenforceable restrictions by race ▪ Every house I've bought still has racial covenants in the title, they just aren't enforceable anymore so we ignore them
▪ See below on #19 response
▪ Our home was subject to a racial covenant — the cover document was stamped with a notice that invalidates it due to the 1968 Fair Housing Act. ▪ my own CCR's indicate that people of color cannot own my own property. obviously, my CCR is outdated and needs to be thrown out.
▪ Fremont Hills Country Club
▪ A house we owned in another county that was built in the 1940s ▪ Not uncommon for older properties, especially in exclusionary areas ▪ was on a house we owned, but they are unenforcible
▪ When reaching Pathway Easements we found such language. ▪ Yes, deed had racial covenant even though real estate agent confirmed that it was no longer legal. Even being exposed to a defunct racial covenant was highly distasteful.
▪ Palo Alto house
▪ current deed has racial covenants
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-63
Q19. Have you or someone you know ever experienced discrimination with the purchase or rental of housing?
Answered: 431
Skipped: 107
Other Responses
▪ Our agency serves over 10,000 individuals/year and many face discrimination in rental housing
▪ landlords discriminating against children living in apartments ▪ For many years I worked as an attorney and checker for project sentinel and Midpen citizens for fair housing so saw many .
▪ In the 70s on East Coast
▪ It is common practice to provide a letter to the homeseller when buying a house, especially if the house is a hot property. The white family usually wins if the seller is also white.
No Yes, please describe below:
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-64
▪ Yes, I have in-laws who grew up in an area of the East Bay where there were designated "Asian neighborhoods" and realtors would not show homes to Asian families outside out of those neighborhoods.
▪ Asian Senior Client: Called Zillow re: a SFH rental. Zillow Agent ignored her, but immediately picked up after my VM. We concluded it was her accent. This happened in past 3 months.
▪ Black friend was told on phone rental available and when he went to the door was told it was already rented
▪ Growing up on Chicago’s North Shore
▪ It was in another state
▪ Trying to develop housing for people with developmental disabilities ▪ No thanks
▪ I had a property in Los Angeles that had such a covenant, against blacks & Asians.
Ironically, the neighborhood is primarily black & Asian now. ▪ Rental housing in SF
▪ When bought in lah a decade ago
▪ Rental in SF
▪ In San Francisco over 20 years ago.
▪ Tax man
▪ In Phoenix, AZ
▪ Steering toward majority asian neighborhoods
▪ When we were building our house, one of our neighbors came to our public hearing and made negative comments on how their family wished their white family friend would have bought the property instead.
▪ as a Stanford college student, my roomates and I experienced discrimination renting in Palo Alto.
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-65
▪ A black friend (single woman) had a hard time finding an apt. in SF. ▪ They were not rented to due to ethnicity.
▪ Income discrimination against voucher holders
▪ I know of younger families—all of South Asian descent—who were denied the opportunity to rent because they had multiple children
Q20. Please share any comments or recommendations that will help Los Altos Hills meet our fair share of housing needs of at least 489 units over the next 8 years (2023-2031) including 279 units that are affordable to low- and moderate-income households.
Answered: 166
Skipped: 372
Other Responses
▪ I think upzoning and actively encouraging and helping homeowners divide and renovate their properties and build ADUs could help get us our market rate units, but the affordable units would likely have to be new construction using a combination of public and private funding.
▪ I rent out rooms at below market rate to two tenants, but this “doesn’t count.” Work with the state to refine their definitions of “units.” (The rooms both have private bathrooms and shared kitchen access)
▪ Traffic problem needs to be addressed
▪ With about 3500 SF homes, you could likely do what you need with more ADU's. To get the price down you will need to have a fast pad approach - x slope can have y design for a foundation. Use your satellite and GIS to survey the place. Eliminate anything over 10% slope - cannot economically grade that or safely navigate it.Provide a bonus to a homeowner to design, designate. For properties that were sub LAH, country, or in a grey area, i.e. impacted by 280, consider relief on setbacks for something well engineered. Consider prebuilt - fly in housing modules. Crane or aircraft.
▪ Don’t want low cost housing in the hills. Not the place for it.
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-66
▪ We're a town of rich white, Indian, and some Asian families. Would love to see us contribute meaningfully to helping teachers, nurses, firefighters, police, all have access and integration into our lovely community.
▪ Partnering with neighboring cities may be a way, also looking at land next to schools/fire stations for housing for local workers in low and mid-incomes. ▪ Make it easier for homeowners to get permits for Duplexes, Lots Splits and ADU's ▪ Streamline permitting. Upzone. Offer city-owned sites to nonprofit housing developers.
▪ We cannot just open applications for the low income units to "friends and family" of LAH. They will look so similar to the current demographic. I hope outreach is done to open applications to the wider bay area region-- so many people would love to live here if they could afford it!
▪ I do not think so
▪ Less restricted zoning to help alleviate housing shortages. ▪ 1. Allow taller buildings. Tall buildings are not evil. They can be beautiful and can hold lots of people. 2. Stop dragging your feet on approving buildings. It should not take years and years to get a design approved. 3. Stop trying to design all the buildings yourself. Let people design buildings how they want to. We do not need building beauty police. 4. Allow smaller lots.
▪ As stated above this is a bogus requirement. What defines affordable ? Low end? Moderate?
▪ Low and moderate-income households must be tied to creation of a "Margueritetype" bus that can take them or others to downtown Los Altos and/or El Camino and the train station.
▪ Please think creatively about finding housing solutions for teachers & first responders...we need them in our community and not commuting from over an hour away! Simply having people build ADUs does not mean that they will rent them out. Some sort of multi-unit housing is necessary to support this need. ▪ Buy land near transportation and build lower-cost, higher-density housing. Increase property taxes on existing homeowners if necessary to fund.
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-67
▪ Please discourage as much as possible the subdivision of 1 acre lots. I'm concerned that the rural feel of Los Altos Hills will be destroyed by SB 9. I think the best way to build the 489 units is through encouraging small ADUs for young adults who are lowincome and multigenerational families with retired family members who can live in the ADUs, who are also low-income. If necessary, allow institutions in Los Altos Hills to build multiplex units on their property, which is already zoned nonresidential. I don't support allowing developers to subdivide single family home residences and residential properties, thus ruining our beautiful town of Los Altos Hills!! ▪ Dorms for college students at Foothill College. Eliminate property taxes for 8 years and more people can afford to build an ADU. Fund the ADU ▪ Need to build multi-unit apartment/condo buildings with high proportion of affordable units. Current new development in downtown Los Altos currently includes 2 or 3 affordable units, that is not enough
▪ See above for making ADUs simple, no-fee, supported by Town, etc. ▪ Please build higher density housing close to schools, public land, and close to bus stops and busy streets like Arastradero. It is difficult to build housing since we have many areas that are in protected ecological sites that are prone to fires. We also need to ensure that every unit has access to two parking spaces to avoid cluttering streets.
▪ Multi family housing on the Okeefe open space property left over from the construction of 280
▪ Building 6 Story High Density adjacent to Freeway or on Foothill Corridor.
Additionally, build High Rise (shocking I know) on El Camino Real. Make these darn units ONE STORY w/ elevators so local Seniors can live in them without fear of falling on stairs or being isolated by stairs.
▪ Fight SB 9. The financial ability to live in expensive neighborhoods is a privilege based on wealth, not a right. Allow more ADUs, but resist lot division. ▪ Please join Our Neighborhood Voices. Also consider subsidies for qualified workforce (first responders, teachers).
▪ I do not believe the government has the right to dictate housing to any community, including Los Altos Hills. It should be up to the community on how they wish to structure living options. I do not believe Los Altos Hills should be subject to building ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-68
structures or pricing such structures that are not in alignment with market forces for this area.
▪ Building apartments on Foothill College property for students and faculty. Housing for town staff in town hall property. Turning Pinewood School into afforadable housing for teachers and first responders who service Los Altos Hills. ▪ It is very hard to be optimistic about meeting these mandated goals . I imagine that whatever degree of success that is to be achieved will result from actions taken by individual proprty owners responding to changes in statute and town zoning . ▪ Encourage the building as many ADU dwellings as would meet the quota. Many people may like to move their aging parents in. Could also provide housing for students or local workers with lower paying jobs.
▪ Rezone the Deer Creek area away from business to residential and allow condos to be built where we currently have Tesla, etc. These are areas that can be accessed by public transit and will not impact the rural feeling of other areas of our town. ▪ Use whatever tactics necessary to resist the state in taking over planning for LAH ▪ More ADUs seems like the least disruptive way to do this ▪ I would start by helping existing home owners make expanded or better use of their existing homes and helping home owners create ADUs. Developer driven multi unit housing dilutes the value of the town.
▪ Multi unit housing near freeways and neighboring communities ▪ I believe we all want the beauty of the housing to match the beauty of our natural environment. Garden apartments and townhomes, if properly designed, could easily meet that desire. Like the senior residential homes at the Forum San Antonio ▪ Permitting process is onerous. Particularly with regards to County Fire Dept requirements. Process needs to be less bureaucratic, less time consuming. ▪ Why not put together a deal with another town that has more property available for low income housing.
▪ Reduce setbacks (both side and front) for ADUs. Don't take forever to approve permits.
▪ consider tax policy
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-69
▪ Hey Siri is getting very boring.
▪ Building more at Foothill College and at religious institutions. ▪ Some multi unit buildings, limit lot size to one acre if single family home ▪ Tax businesses that need to hire the folks that need low-income people ▪ This would be a mistake to add more traffic, more people, and more construction to a bucolic town
▪ Suggest home owners built homes for their married children and sell or re t to them to keep them from moving out of the area for affordable homes. ▪ Only consider areas that already has appropriate infrastructure, roadway, power grid, water, etc. Or seek public funds to remdy them prior to development. ▪ Los Altos Hills should allow condos to be built
▪ Bulldoze the NIMBYs houses
▪ Is there a large plot of land on which a community can be built? Something like The Forum at Rancho San Antonio?
▪ We need to do a better survey of the numbers actually living here, such as in adu's or mini-adus. I don't think the town knows. But do it nonpunitively or it will have the wrong effect. Otherwise ease construction, permitting, inspection (etc) requirements on edus.
▪ who are going to pay for those units?
▪ Shared above
▪ See Question 12, Other.
▪ We do not need these units already have an over supply of new apartments . Utilize them first
▪ No subdividing lots
▪ Overturn SB 9
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-70
▪ Do an economic and environmental impact study - Excessive building of this nature is not sustainable.
▪ FIle suit against the state. Ignore the mandate.
▪ Allow development of housing for people with developmental disabilities. Or work with Los Altos to develop appropriate housing. These individuals come with services that allow them to participate in the community very nicely ▪ None
▪ ease county septic requirement based on number of bedrooms ▪ The "fair share" rhetoric is Communist propaganda.
▪ Encourage to build ADU or second family unit with limited property tax increase. ▪ Thanks
▪ Housing on baseball diamond. Or in another park.
▪ Allow property owners to build structures that meet their needs. ▪ The roads are too busy with commute traffic already - this will jam them up even more.
▪ In a capitalist country like the USA that runs on a market based system, I do not support the new SB passed mandates. Exception may be given to Emergency workers who need to be close to where they are called on demand to provide services. Creating affording housing them while they remain employed in that capacity as rental housing seems reasonable. This should be done in a manner that does not affect the overall character of the town.
▪ Even if we built more units, they certainly won't be affordable. The law is unrealistic ▪ Encourage ADUs by allowing those who are maxed out on development area and by lowering fees. Reduce fees on new/modified construction. ▪ Good luck with an unpopular and nearly impossible job. ▪ High housing costs have led to racial segregation
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-71
▪ ADUs and SB 9 units. I think the town should not discourage lot splits because the number and size of units affect the look of the community more than the number of lots. Lot splitting can help fund new homes, and generate property taxes for the town and schools.
▪ Make it easier and cheaper to build ADU's. Also, Foothill College has land used by the baseball and softball fields that can be used for housing. ▪ Resist the mandte. There is no public transport to support low income workers and the price of land makes the "fair share" impossible
▪ No thoughts
▪ Build apartments 4 stories at Dog Park and adjacent strip of land along the freeway ▪ We can ask people who own large lots if they’ll be willing to build an ADU if given some incentives.
▪ Building high density housing (apartments/townhouses/condos) near Foothill College since there is a bus line that comes up to the college and close access to 280 could be a possibility.
▪ Please ensure that the future residents have enough space to experience the beauty of the nature in LAH.
▪ Resist SB 9 and 10, but promote ADU's
▪ Student housing around Foothill & ADU's for the local workforce. Short term rentals make these two items less affordable.
▪ Whatever real estate developers ask for, do the opposite ▪ No idea
▪ I believe LAH and other cities can achieve these recommendations without imposing SB 9 on cities throughout CA!!
▪ Make ADUs and JADUs as easy as possible. Oppose non-market solutions. ▪ I am married in to living up here. It was a tough adjustment. But I know our neighbors now at least superficially. You have to define your community not by where you live. But the beauty and open space compensate.
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-72
▪ Define "fair share."
▪ Encourage people to build ADU
▪ no additional comments.
▪ ADU is the most sensible option
▪ Make the whole permitting process easier including connection to public sewer or septic approval. Construction during winter should be easier ▪ Provide incentives for adus.
▪ ADU anf if needed density near cities not up in hills ▪ Encourage ADU, Develop affordable housing for service personnel like police, fire service, city staff and teachers in city lands like schools etc. ▪ The best thing that we could do for ourselves (LAH) and for our fellow Californians, would be to contribute to a sustained effort to create more high-quality, low-cost housing in places where the the new residents would have access to the features that they value most...ready access to jobs, transportation, and vibrant local communities (think down-town Mountain View). Turning LAH into something that it isn't, and never really can be, is simply destructive, with no hope of providing the real housing relief that we all recognize needs to occur regionally. ▪ Join with other towns in the state to contest imposition of a statewide policy that ignores town’s safety and rural foundation
▪ It would be interesting to formulate a process for (anonymously?) identifying 'underground' low cost housing which already exists in LAH. ▪ I think beyond Foothill College as a potential site for dense affordable housing, the 41 acres below the old Fenwick Estate have significant potential for smaller 1 to 2 story homes (with 2 ADUs each) for multigenerational family housing. (Ladera in Portola Valley would be a good precedent project for the old Fenwick property.) ▪ ADUs have most potential without negatively impacting property values. Allowing elderly couples to move out of big main house into ADU will free up housing supply for younger families to rent larger main house - help meeting moderate income requirements and attracting new energy to the town
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-73
▪ I have lived here 60 years. Please don't let this happen to LAH. ▪ Give priority to those who have jobs within the immediate area or are essential to the functioning of our community.
▪ Encourage building of ADUs. Offer affordable to teachers in LAH. ▪ Amend SB 9 Emergency Ordinance to be less restrictive ▪ LAH either needs more land or needs to convert public lands to multi-use affordable housing units or acquire lands that are available currently outside of LAH. Since LAH has no business properties available to rezone, the State mandate should not apply when land is not available. Open space MUST be protected! ▪ The Foothill college parking lots are perfect for dense market rate and truly affordable housing units.
▪ Pursue initiative to maintain local control over housing ▪ Locations with easy access to town, freeways, etc would best serve families & elderly. ▪ got to do it and i support doing it- suspect one approach is not the way to go ▪ Good luck.
▪ Used land that is an owned by private people
▪ I am all for this, but don't do it in a woke manner.
▪ "Fair" is a fake word in this context. It is highly political and smarts of campaign contributors idea
▪ No comment
▪ This is not a reasonable demand by the state.
▪ not an affordable area for this discussion. cut taxes since we get no benefite. ▪ See comment above regarding providing funds for multi-family in nearby cities. ▪ Good luck. With lots worth 6M an acre, it would be impossible to to create something afforable that someone could buy.
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-74
▪ i like the idea of allowing rental units on existing properties with certain requirements to uphold community standards
▪ ADUs
▪ Can the town do anything to prevent/limit a property tax re-assessment when adding an ADU?
▪ Like the idea of concentrating units at FH college to meet a real need but also keep LAH values intact
▪ Require ADU construction for major remodels and construction of new homes. ▪ Ideas listed in the previous page are good ideas
▪ Check all nonprofits in the area. How are they assisting employees? ▪ make it easy to build ADU, find a designated land to build condo as affordable housing
▪ Lot-splitting would be a death-knell to the relatively tranquil, rural feel of our community. So, my hope is that our institutions, particularly Foothill College, but also other schools, religious institutions, Hidden Villa, Fremont Hills Country Club, the fire department, LAH Town, will step up to create 2/3 of the necessary units. And that homeowners will do the rest with ADUs or homes remodeled into duplexes. I think we should go for the low-hanging fruit this cycle as we don't know how the winds will blow 8 years from now.
▪ Since 99.9% of LAH residents are white, the questions seem self-fulling. Whites haven't faced discrimination in LAH!
▪ Very excited that LAH is supporting more housing!
▪ In a high real estate cost town like ours, the only way to do so is based on deed restrictions and tax benefits to developers as incentive. Tax all parcels in town to fund rebates to deed restricted affordable housing units. ▪ repeal SB 9
▪ If any additions it should be for small inlaw type units. These could either be rented or used by family or caretakers. I am very against additional housing on LAH lots.
Also, just because the housing becomes affordable, everything else in LAH is ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-75
expensive, from water to garbage. People need to be have the economic means to live in their neighborhood.
▪ Avoid lot splits!
▪ WHILE ALLOWING THESE MULTIDWELLING LOT SPLITS THE TOWN SHOULD WORK
WITH A PUBLIC AGENCY THAT WILL OVERSEE , CONTROL AND MONITER THAT THES
NEW DWELLINGS ARE INDEED BEING INHABITED BY LOW AND MODERATE INCOME PEOPLE. OTHERWISE THE ULTIMATE JOKE WILL BE THAT THE ABOVE 489 UNITS END
UP WITH VERY HIGH RENTS OR RESALE PRICES PAID BY THE VERY WEALTHY PEOPLE THAT THE LAW IS TRYING TO AVOID! A LAH ADDRESS WILL GIVE INSTANT APPRECIATION TO ANY FOUR PLESX OR ADU CONSTRUCTED. THIS IS THE ULTIMATE FLAW IN THESE GOVERNMENT OVER REACH LAW!!
▪ Identifying a site to build ~500 units will be a major problem. Nothing is near transportation, so one might argue that this is a bad plan. Can the house contribution be outside the township on the basis that LAH is inaccessible. Clearly some large space closer to major roads (along 280 or Arastradero?) would be best.
No one would want to give up a major park space or try to displace Poor Clare's.
This is alot of units and would increase the population of LAH by 1500-2000 people (18-24% of the current 8500).
▪ Develop public owned land.
▪ Build high density housing on Foothill College property ▪ Amend property tax assessment laws
▪ Make it easier for more buildings to be developed. The frictions are very painful. ▪ Fight this NOW! Join other towns in fighting this.
▪ Housing in the bay area is very expensive. Putting high density housing in a rural area makes no sense. It should be near public transit and where there already is high density.
▪ Most discrimination happens discretely and is not obvious ▪ high density housing near mass transit
▪ California is saying we are running out of water and to conserve on one hand and then telling us to have more people move in to consume the same water on the other.
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-76
▪ Let us build JADU's outside of MFA and in 30' setbacks. ▪ Find a lot of land that can have low income apartment housing. ▪ The absence of apartments in LAH is discriminatory. Having only multi-million dollar mansions means that LAH is disproportionately inaccessible to BIPOC, femaleheaded households, people experiencing homelessness, etc. Legalize apartments! ▪ set specific target to add 50 ADUs per year for next 5 years; maintains rural character while adding housing
▪ Use of Foothill College vacant land.
▪ Focus on our local service providers
▪ No public hearings for anything
▪ There's no chance of even making a dent in that goal if the sentiments of the planning office and city council don't dramatically change. LAH's SB 9 emergency ordinance is a perfect example of how the city is fighting tooth and nail against any opportunity for new housing. Stop thinking about property values and density. The "I've got mine" attitudes have to shift. There is a middle ground that will benefit the greater good.
▪ provide student housing at Foothill College
▪ None
▪ Keep us out of this mess.
▪ It is not a fair share.
▪ There are local laws that make housing unaffordable. You could fix them if you wanted to. It's not a mystery.
▪ Look at any vacant lot as a prospective multi family housing development ▪ We will need access to public sewer first before we can attempt this level of housing density. So the City needs to figure out a plan to increase access to this critical utility. ▪ LAH needs to be brave about meeting this need. It can’t try the tricks that of places (see Woodside trying to declare itself mountain lion habitat to avoid SB 9 projects).
If LAH doesn’t take this process seriously, the state will enact more incisive ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix B: Survey Results B-77
legislation. If we do the Housing Element well, we can improve our tax base without further taxing ourselves
▪ Re-zone 2 acres near a border, build garden apartments and put them all under section 8. Near public transportation.Don’t subdivide the whole town. ▪ Build, build, build. Supply needs to go up fast.
▪ Continue to lobby lawmakers to repeal this requirement under certain conditions. ▪ maybe build apps at Foothill college
▪ Allow more housing, the bay area needs it, every town in the bay area needs to do its part to encourage new and more housing.
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-1
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest
This Appendix contains the following materials that documents and demonstrates RHNA site owner and developer interest, and other relevant evidence and support for development of housing on LAH RHNA sites and similar projects in the region.
Contents:
1. 2021-2022 Foothill-DeAnza Community College Board priorities ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-2
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-3
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-4
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-5
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-6
2. Recommended Projects for the 2021-22 Higher Education Student Housing Grant Program Appropriation
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-7
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-8
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-9
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-10
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-11
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-12
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-13
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-14
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-15
3. Letter from Foothill to Town acknowledging affordable housing needs and affirmative steps (Updated correspondence).
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-16
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-17
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-18
4. Examples of faith based and educational institutions are pursuing lower-income housing development across the region and state.
a. Casa del Maestro - Santa Clara County, 30-unit affordable housing project located on a 2-acre underutilized portion of Stratford Elementary, developed through a public-private partnership with the Santa Clara Unified School District.
b. Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church - San Diego, CA. Yes In God’s Backyard is building 16 units of affordable housing on-site to support seniors and veterans with disabilities.
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-19
c. Cañada Junior College - San Mateo County. Developed apartment complexes on underutilized parking lots on campus.
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-20
d. College of San Mateo - San Mateo County. Developed apartment complexes on underutilized parking lots on campus.
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-21
e. College of the Canyons – Santa Clarita, CA. 100 new single-bedroom affordable housing units were constructed on former parking lot on the COC campus. The Department of Finance approved the CCD for 100 student housing (per 3/1/22 Dept of Finance memo)
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-22
5. Letter from Foothill to Town acknowledging affordable housing needs and affirmative steps (Updated correspondence 12-2-2025).
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-23
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-24
5. Letter from property owner of 27690 Arastradero Rd to Town to request multifamily residential rezoning with commitment to build affordable housing in the next 8 years.
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-25
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-26
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
Town of Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Appendix C: Owner, Developer Interest C-27
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 2
9635 Granite Ridge Drive, Unit 300 | San Diego | CA | 92123 | 858.614-5000 | mbakerintl.com December 3, 2025
Jay Bradford, AICP, CASp, EI, MCP
Community Development Director
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Re: Feasibility Study: Three Rezoning Sites Implementing the Housing Element Dear Mr. Bradford:
As requested, Michael Baker International, Inc. has prepared a series of market feasibility studies on three sites to be rezoned to implement the Town's adopted and certified compliant Housing Element. The Town has designated the sites for rezoning to permit development up to 377 multifamily residential dwelling units.
The Town prepared draft amendments to the May 2023 Housing Element to reflect and ensure consistency with the proposed new multifamily zoning. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) reviewed the draft Housing Element amendment (HEA) by letter dated October 10, 2025. As part of its review, HCD requested that the Town evaluate the feasibility of the sites via the proposed changes in the HEA and the proposed zoning—namely, the change in the maximum density of the proposed multifamily zone.
The proposed HEA and new multifamily zones will yield the same 377 units identified and committed to in the Housing Element. The formula for calculating the maximum number of dwelling units is proposed to change from a maximum of:
• 30 dwelling units per acre of an approximated net buildable area based on known but unmeasured steep slope constraints on the sites;
TO
• 24 dwelling units per acre of contiguous buildable area (CBA) as defined in the proposed HEA and zoning amendments (excluding slopes over 25 percent and with certain minimum dimensions) and accurately measured for the specific rezone sites.
SUMMARY FINDINGS
As described more fully below, the feasibility study finds that:
• All three rezone sites can be developed feasibly with market-rate rental products at the proposed maximum density of 24 dwelling units per acre (du/ac).
Revised 12-3-25
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 3
Town of Los Altos Hills Michael Baker International
Feasibility Study: Three Rezoning Sites Implementing the Housing Element December 3, 2025
9635 Granite Ridge Drive, Unit 300 | San Diego | CA | 92123 | 858.614-5000 | mbakerintl.com • All market-rate rental scenarios at 24 du/ac result in substantially positive residual land value (RLV)—the primary measure for profitability and feasibility. • Podium parking is one of the most significant construction cost factors and reduces project feasibility.
The construction of below market-rate units that are affordable to lower-income households is achievable with traditional affordable housing funding mechanisms, such as Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC).
FEASIBILITY OF MARKET-RATE DEVELOPMENT
Michael Baker began by evaluating the potential financial feasibility of market-rate development on the sites. The study focused on rental developments since they are typically less profitable and more difficult to make feasible than for-sale condominium projects.
Pro-forma analyses were conducted for a series of development scenarios. Primary development factors included the number and size of units, parking spaces, amenities, and parcel size. The pro-forma includes direct and soft costs, and revenue. Direct construction (hard) costs were calculated for residential floor area, amenities, parking, on- and off-site improvements, and grading, and included a 15 percent contingency. Indirect (soft) costs included architecture and engineering costs, permit fees, legal/accounting, insurance, a 10 percent developer's fee, financing costs, and a 10 percent contingency.
Industry-standard cost factors were applied with local adjustments resulting in a total development cost, not including land cost for each scenario.
A market value was estimated for each scenario starting with gross annual rental income (based on local market rents), adjusted by vacancy rates, less rental operating costs, taxes and insurance, and marketing, resulting in a net operating income. The market value of multifamily development projects is typically determined by dividing the net operating income by an area capitalization rate. For the Los Altos/Mountain View/Sunnyvale area, the area capitalization rate is 4.1 percent based on an analysis of CoStar data.
The gross market value is the presumed open market sales price of the multifamily project. The net sales proceeds are the gross market value subtracting 3 percent for the cost of sales and a 12 percent developer's profit. Subtracting the total development cost from the net sales proceeds gives the RLV. RLV is a key parameter of market feasibility; it represents the maximum amount a developer can pay for the land and still achieve the developer's profit. A project is not financially feasible when its RLV is less than zero dollars.
Market land costs were established based on 2025 listings and sales activity for 1+-acre vacant building lots in Los Altos Hills. This included current listings and past and pending sales. The prices of vacant building lots ranged between $1.25 million and $6.5 million per lot with an average of $999,000 per acre.
Based on these current listings, a target RLV of $1 million per acre was used as a benchmark to indicate market feasibility of the sites/scenarios relative to the market value for land.
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 3
Town of Los Altos Hills Michael Baker International
Feasibility Study: Three Rezoning Sites Implementing the Housing Element December 3, 2025
9635 Granite Ridge Drive, Unit 300 | San Diego | CA | 92123 | 858.614-5000 | mbakerintl.com MARKET LAND VALUES:
2025 Vacant Land Sales Activity in Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
LISTINGS OF
VACANT BUILDING LOTS ACRES LIST PRICE COST/ACRE STATUS
27161 W Fremont Road 1.26 $ 6,500,000 $ 5,158,730 Sold
27500 Sherlock Court 4.23 $ 1,890,000 $ 446,809 Sold
28100 Laura Court 3.87 $ 5,950,000 $ 1,537,468 Pending
0 Arroyo Way 2.35 $ 1,250,000 $ 531,915 For Sale
27388 Sherlock Court 2.15 $ 1,995,000 $ 927,907 For Sale AVERAGE 2.79 $ 3,517,000 $ 999,097
Nine development scenarios were studied: five on Foothill Community College, two on Twin Oaks, and two on St. Nicholas. All nine development scenarios resulted in feasible projects with positive RLVs between $228,000 to over $2.9 million per acre. All of the development scenarios with tuck-under and surface parking (without podium parking) exceed the target RLV of $1 million per acre. The podium parking scenarios add considerable cost per unit in comparison and significantly reduce the RLVs.
All but three of the nine scenarios demonstrate feasibility in terms of the RLV being comparable to land values in the Town. In other words, these projects would support land values per acre that are sufficient to induce development of the sites in accordance with the given development parameters. The results of this feasibility study indicate that participation by the site owners and developers is warranted due to sufficient compensation for use of the land.
The podium parking scenarios on the Foothill College C2, St. Nicholas, and Twin Oaks sites resulted in RLVs of $950,000, $407,000 and $228,000 per acre, respectively. The $950,000 RLV for Foothill College site C2 is considered feasible as it is nominally the same at 95 percent of the target and well within the multiple contingency budgets for both direct and soft costs. While both podium parking scenarios for the Twin Oaks and St. Nicholas sites generate substantial positive RLVs, these scenarios are considered marginally feasible since they are below the targeted per acre market land value of $1 million for building lots in Los Altos Hills. However, it is noted that each site could be value engineered to reduce costs and meet the target RLV. For example, reducing the percentage of podium parking spaces from 87 percent to 66 percent would achieve the $1 million target RLV for St. Nicholas. Similarly, reducing the percentage of podium parking spaces from 75 percent to 53 percent would achieve the $1 million target RLV for the Twin Oaks site.
FEASIBILITY AND FUNDING OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS The proposed amendments to the Town's Zoning Ordinance to permit higher residential densities on the three rezoning sites would allow market-rate development to be financially feasible.
It is the norm that development of deed-restricted housing affordable to low- and very low-income households requires funding support. Funding sources for low-income housing developments are traditionally an aggregation of LIHTC, grants, the local agency's HOME funds, residual receipts loans, and ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 3
Town of Los Altos Hills Michael Baker International
Feasibility Study: Three Rezoning Sites Implementing the Housing Element December 3, 2025
9635 Granite Ridge Drive, Unit 300 | San Diego | CA | 92123 | 858.614-5000 | mbakerintl.com forgivable loans to achieve financial feasibility. These sources routinely support market-based land costs, even in high-cost areas such as Santa Clara County.
It is noted that the pro-forma analyses for each site indicate that each site is capable of generating a substantially positive RLV while providing 15 percent of the units for lower-income households (7.5 percent low and 7.5 percent very low). The tuck-under and surface parking scenarios for Twin Oaks and St. Nicholas generate a RLV of over $2 million per acre. All five of the Foothill College scenarios are positive, but only two exceed the $1 million target RLV. The other three Foothill College sites have RLVs of $600,000.
Similarly, an analysis of the distribution of the number of below-market rate units as projected in the 2023 Housing Element Update indicates that the tuck-under and surface (non-podium) parking scenarios for the Twin Oaks and St. Nicholas School sites generate positive RLVs, $2.6 million and $850,000, respectively. The five Foothill College sites with podium parking generate RLVs between $820,000 and $2.7 million.
It is noted that a lower RLV may be appropriate for the two institutional sites since their land has long been purchased, paid for and amortized, and they don't have or require the same investment-based expectations of a return on investment. Rather, housing on their sites would provide a service to each school if used for staff or student housing. Any housing development could be considered windfall gain over expectations.
We are available to discuss our findings as desired at your convenience.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Daniel K. Wery, AICP, LEED AP
Principal Community Planner
Dino Serafini
Project Manager – Public Finance/Planning
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 3
Town of Los Altos Hills Michael Baker International
Feasibility Study: Three Rezoning Sites Implementing the Housing Element December 3, 2025
9635 Granite Ridge Drive, Unit 300 | San Diego | CA | 92123 | 858.614-5000 | mbakerintl.com ATTACHMENT A – PRO FORMA SUMMARY TABLE: MARKET RATE RENTAL HOUSING Revised 12-3-25
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 3
Keren Brunner
From: Anne Paulson
Sent: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 12:59 PM
Planning Commission
FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: Agenda Item 4.6
To:
Subject:
Dear Planning Commissioners,
The point of a feasibility study is to show that under the rules and constraints of the jurisdiction and the current financial environment, a project can profitably be built. The feasibility study for the housing element amendment does not demonstrate feasibility for the Twin Oaks site, because the housing prototypes it analyzes are far too big under the Town’s development standards for the site. It should be rejected for that reason: a project that is legally prohibited is not feasible. In addition, the construction cost estimates are questionable and need to be broken out in more detail, the site size is wrong, and the assumed rent is more than market rate rents.
First, the feasibility study prototypes have units that are far too big. The Town allows multifamiliy units of a maximum gross average size of 750 feet. Under the Town's ordinances, that gross size includes the liveable space of the units, plus common spaces like stairwells, lobbies, and corridors. Under § 10-1.202 Designated, the gross size also includes garages. The study prototypes are much bigger than 750 average gross square feet.
For the Twin Oaks site, the study examines a prototype with podium parking, which costs too much even under its assumptions. It then moves to considering a prototype with tuck-under parking, where each parking spot has its own entrance from outside. The study assumes 750 average square feet net per unit, plus another 153 square feet per unit (presumably for stairwells, corridors, lobbies, etc.), and 116 tuck-under parking spaces.
The Town’s maximum average floor area for multifamily units is only 750 square feet, so the 750 net square feet plus 153 common square feet is already too much. But we have to include the 116 tuck-under garages as well. A small one-car garage is about 240 square feet. So the gross average square footage for the units in the Twin Oaks Alternative B is 1206 square feet, much more than is allowed.
That’s not the only problem with the Twin Oaks prototype. The Twin Oaks site is very steep, so extensive grading would be required, especially with tuck-in parking, where every garage door entry would have to be level. Moreover, the site is currently not connected with the sewer system. It would need a .7 mile connection from the existing sewers, underneath Arastradero road, to the edge of the site. The grading and sewer costs do not seem to be adequately included in the $360/square foot hard costs. These costs should be broken out.
Also, the site is listed as 3.85 acres. It’s actually 4.5 acres. This matters in the calculation of the residual value per acre.
The Town needs a new feasibility study. It has to prototype a legal unit size, have the correct parcel size, and account for the costs of the difficult Twin Oaks site.
-- Anne Paulson
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 4
1 Keren Brunner
From: Brian O'Neill
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 8:44 AM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Jay Bradford
Subject: Agenda Item 4.6 Comments
Attachments: 2025.12.04 Comments re Agenda Item 4.6 (HEA Revisions).pdf Hello,
Please see the attached comments regarding Agenda Item 4.6 on tonight’s Planning Commission agenda. Thank you for your consideration.
Please kindly confirm receipt.
Best,
Brian
Brian O’Neill
PaƩerson & O’Neill, PC
Office: (415) 907-9110
Direct: (415) 907-7702
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 950
San Francisco, CA 94104
brian@paƩersononeill.com
www.paƩersononeill.com
This email may contain privileged or confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the original sender and delete all copies.
Nothing in this email or any attachments should be regarded as tax advice unless expressly stated.
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 4
December 4, 2025
VIA E-MAIL
Planning Commission
Town Of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Re: Agenda Item 4.6 – Consideration of Housing Element Amendment Revisions Dear Commissioners:
Our office submits this letter on behalf of Draco Nest LLC, owner of the six lots known as the Twin Oaks Court site, and Sea Landing LP, owner of the adjacent lot, APN 182-02-016 (the “Sea Landing Property”). We understand that the Commission intends to consider approval of amendment to the Town’s Housing Element, which will eliminate three of the undeveloped Twin Oaks Court lots from the Town’s Housing Element rezoning program.
Just yesterday, the Town published new revisions to the Housing Element Amendment (“HEA”).
The revisions suggest that the Twin Oaks Court owners are interested in developing multifamily housing on the three remaining Twin Oaks Court site lots and that development of these three lots with 92 units is feasible. We submit this letter to correct the record.
The development scenario proposed in the HEA is not a feasible development. The owners have previously informed the Town that due to site constraints, limiting housing development to lots 4, 5, and 6 of the Twin Oaks Court site would not be feasible and the owners are not interested in developing a multifamily project on these three lots.
The owners instead request that the Town include a portion of the Sea Landing Property for rezoning to higher density development to replace the Twin Oaks Court site. The Sea Landing Property is flatter, less vegetated, has existing driveway access, and has easier access to sewer services. We urge the Commission to designate the Sea Landing Property as a housing opportunity site in lieu of the Twin Oaks Court site.
The Town’s Housing Element Amendment Revisions Cannot Be Adopted As a threshold matter, it appears that the Town believes it can adopt revisions to the HEA that was submitted to HCD for review on August 11, 2025. These new revisions, posted yesterday on December 2, 2025, must first be published for public review for seven days, resubmitted to HCD for review and comment, and only then can the revisions be adopted by the Town.
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 4
Gov. Code § 65585(f) gives jurisdictions two options when they have submitted a proposed Housing Element amendment to HCD that does not substantially comply with the Housing Element Law. Jurisdictions can either: (1) revise the proposed amendment in accordance with Gov. Code § 65585(b) which requires the amendment to be submitted back to HCD at least 60 days prior to approval; or (2) adopt the amendment without any changes but include written findings in its resolution of adoption that the amendment substantially complies with the Housing Element Law despite HCD’s findings.
There is no doubt that HCD found that the Town’s August 11, 2025 draft HEA does not comply with the Housing Element Law. At this time, the Town’s only option is to adopt the HEA submitted to HCD for review on August 11, along with written findings that explain the reasons the Town body believes that the prior draft amendment substantially complies with the Housing Element Law despite the findings of HCD. (Gov. Code § 65585(f)(2).) The revisions that were posted yesterday must first be posted for seven days and then submitted to HCD, and only then can the Town adopt the revisions 60 days after submittal.
The Legislature enacted amendments to the Housing Element Law specifically to prevent jurisdictions from making multiple revisions without public input and to prevent jurisdictions from adopting revisions without review from HCD. Assembly Bill 2667, effective January 1, 2025, was enacted in part to prevent this type of rushed, confusing process where the public and HCD have not had an opportunity to review a draft before it is adopted.
The Town’s Feasibility Analysis is Flawed
The Town provides a “Feasibility Analysis” to suggest that redevelopment of lots 4, 5, and 6 of the Twin Oaks Court site with 92 multifamily units is feasible. The owners of these lots disagree.
First, the Town’s feasibility analysis appears flawed, both because the underlying numbers do not make sense and because the analysis failed to address the factors required by law.
First, it is unclear how the costs and valuations listed in the summary table were calculated.
Without explanation of the underlying assumptions, it is impossible for members of the public to scrutinize the veracity of these numbers. For example, the cost of construction for the Foothill College site is calculated at approximately $458 per square-foot. On the other hand, the cost of construction on the Twin Oaks Court site is calculated at approximately $362 per square-foot.
It is unclear how the Town’s consultant determined that development of the Twin Oaks Court lots would cost nearly $100 less per square-foot than development at Foothill College, a site that is considerably flatter and less vegetated, with existing access to public services. After engaging a civil engineer to develop potential plans for developing the Twin Oaks Court site, the owners have been informed that development would require significant grading and retaining walls, significantly increasing project costs. The Town has also informed the owners that the Town believes that the developers would be entirely responsible for all infrastructure improvements, ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 4
including potentially a mile of new mains and potentially upsizing existing pipes. It is unclear whether the Town’s feasibility analysis took any of these construction costs into consideration.
Moreover, HCD was clear that any analysis of redevelopment potential for nonvacant sites such as lots 4, 5, and 6 of the Twin Oaks Court site must evaluate the current existing use and market value as compared to the value of higher density residential development as required by Gov.
Code, § 65583.2(g)(1). The Town’s consultant failed to conduct this legally required analysis, clearly comparing redevelopment valuations to “sales activity for 1+-acre vacant building lots in Los Altos Hills.” The remaining Twin Oaks Court site lots are not vacant but are developed with single-family homes. After conducting additional due diligence on the costs of construction, the owners believe that the Twin Oaks Court site is more valuable remaining as single-family. At a minimum, the Town’s feasibility analysis must compare higher density development to the value of single-family residential development within Los Altos Hills – not vacant land.
Finally, the financial analysis relied upon by the Town assumes an average unit size of 750 square feet. The owners have engaged in discussions with potential development partners, who have not expressed an interest in developing smaller multi-family units due to a limited market for such units in the Los Altos Hills area. The Town’s feasibility analysis shows annual rental income of $4,214,520, which equates to an assumed monthly rent of $3,817 per unit (unrealistically assuming 100% occupancy with 100% market rate units). The owners do not believe that Los Altos Hills has a market for such units or that the feasibility analysis accurately reflects the current market value.
Particularly when the HEA lowers the allowable density and removes lots 1, 2, and 3 entirely, which would help spread the cost of development, the multifamily scenario explored by the Town is not feasible or realistic. The Town’s statement that the owners are interested in a 92-unit multifamily development on lots 4, 5, and 6 of the Twin Oaks Court site is simply not accurate.
The Sea Landing Property is a Significantly More Feasible Development Site After engaging with civil engineers, investigating several development scenarios, and discussing options with potential development partners, the owners have determined that high density development on the Sea Landing Property is the far superior option over lots 4, 5, and 6 of the Twin Oaks Court site.
The Sea Landing Property is best suited for redevelopment at a density of ten units per acre due to the flatter terrain, existing driveway, and minimal vegetation. Development at this property would significantly reduce the grading, tree removal, and retaining walls necessary to support development. This development scenario would reduce overall construction costs and allow for larger units, greatly increasing feasibility. Development of the Sea Landing Property would also be an environmentally superior option due to the extensive grading and tree removal that would be necessary to construct on lots 4, 5, and 6 of the Twin Oaks Court site.
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 4
The owners have been in discussions with Town ad-hoc committee about the Sea Landing Property and believe that Town ad-hoc committee supports development of the site. We respectfully request the Planning Commission direct staff to replace the Twin Oaks Court site with the Sea Landing Property and rezone a 20-acre portion of the Sea Landing Property for development at a density of ten units per acre.
Conclusion
The owners look forward to providing new homes for the community of Los Altos Hills to help meet the Town’s RHNA requirements. We appreciate the Town’s continued efforts in supporting housing solutions that are compliant with State law and aligned with community needs. To that end, the owners believe that the best path toward reaching the Town’s housing goal is to designate the Sea Landing Property as a housing opportunity site. We welcome further collaboration with the Planning Commission and Town staff to make the construction of new housing a reality.
Very truly yours,
PATTERSON & O’NEILL, PC
__________________________
Brian O’Neill
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 4
Housing Plan - LAH should honor its committment
Olivia Iannicelli
Planning
I'm a 15 year resident of Los Altos Hills and I am writing to express my distress that the city is reneging on the housing plan LAH submitted to the state. CalMaters recently had a devastating article (linked below) about how the city is trying to back out of its commitment to the state for housing.
I am writing to ask that the city honor its commitment. https://calmatters.org/housing/2025/10/los-altos-hills-housing-element-hcd/ We all know that California has a housing crisis and we all need to do our part to address it. By reneging on this, deal, LAH is NOT doing its part. Also, I note that backing out on a commitment like this is not appropriate and is arguably unethical.
I would appreciate an explanation of why LAH is reneging on a previously agreed commitment and failing to do its part to address housing availability in California. I strongly believe the city should honor its commitment to do our part to address the housing crisis.
Olivia Iannicelli
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 4
Item 4.6 Supplemental
Response to Public Comments Received
A public comment was provided by Anne Paulson to the Town and Planning Commission on December 2, 2025 regarding Attachment 3 to Item 4.6, the Opportunity Site Feasibility Study.
Town staff and Michael Baker International have prepared the following responses to issues raised by the comment. We also summarize the issues raised by the public comment with each response.
Summary of Issues Raised and Responses
1. Average Unit Size (750 square feet max per zoning vs Figures in the Summary Table).
The public comment states that housing prototypes in the Feasibility Study are too big (exceeding the 750 square feet average unit size) under the Town’s development standards for the site; thus, the comment claims that such projects are not feasible as they would not be allowed under proposed zoning. The comment points to the Twin Oaks site and the prototype studied in that scenario as an example.
Response: The Feasibility Study previously published in the agenda packet contains an error in the “Total Floor Area” row of the summary table. This is due to a technical linking error when the table was compiled from a larger master table and has been corrected; a revised Feasibility Study will be posted online. However, notwithstanding this technical error, the feasibility formula used the correct data based on the average unit size of 750 square feet (sf). The calculation of construction costs and revenues are based on the average unit size of 750 sf (e.g., 25% 500 sf 1br units; 50% 750 sf 2br units; 25% 1,000 sf 3br units). Therefore, the study calculations are based on the correct zoning standard (750 sf average size) and therefore its conclusions are accurate. Again, the error in Total Floor Area is only a technical linking error and do not affect the calculations of the project costs, revenues or the project feasibility based on Residual Land Value (RLV). Contrary to what the comment states, the Feasibility Study analyzed development prototypes that are consistent with the proposed 750 sf average unit size under the multi-family zoning.
The corrected table is shown below and also published as a part of the agenda.
Revised 12-3-25
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 4
2. Site Size and RLV calculations.
The comment appears to claim that the Feasibility Study does not take into account the fact that the Twin Oaks site is steep, so extensive grading would be required, especially with tuck-in parking, where every garage door entry would have to be level. The comment states that the site size is incorrect because the Twin Oaks property is listed as 3.85 acres when it is actually 4.5 acres; the comment claims that this inconsistency affects the calculation of the residual value per acre.
Response: Most (85%) of the proposed Twin Oaks rezone site (Lots 4-6) is relatively flat as reflected by the 3.85 acres of Contiguous Buildable Area (CBA). The Feasibility Study includes costs for grading based on the slopes of each of the three sites. Additionally, RLV (not residual value per acre) reflects the amount a developer would be willing to pay for the project site based on the project costs, revenue and profit – not the size of the property.
The calculation of the RLV per acre, per square foot, or per dwelling unit are simply ways to illustrate the overall RLV. Each scenario for each site results in a positive RLV. The Feasibility correctly uses 3.85 acres because this number is the CBA for Twin Oaks. CBA was used since it is the basis of the maximum permissible number of dwelling units under the draft multi-family zoning. The study likewise used correct site size data for the other two rezoning sites. Therefore, the conclusions of positive RLV in the study are correct.
3. Analysis of Other Feasibility Factors.
The comment states that the Feasibility Study does not consider other feasibility factors such as sewer system connection costs, grading costs, and other hard development costs.
The comment cites Twin Oaks as an example of needing extensive grading and groundlevel garage door entry, as well as sewer connections.
Response: The Feasibility Study is based on industry standard methodology and assumptions. These include factors for on-site and off-site improvements (such as sewer connections) and factors for grading based on the slopes of the three sites. The study also includes multiple safety factors including generous developer fee of 10% on top of the direct construction costs, 10% contingencies on the direct costs, 10% contingencies on the indirect costs, and a 12% developer profit on the total capitalized project value. As noted in the study, for example, the analysis includes a 15% contingency for construction costs.
For the Twin Oaks scenarios this amounts to over $4,000,000 of additional unspecified costs for the project. This amount is amply above and includes the cost to extend a sewer lateral to the project. The analysis, as noted above, also includes additional contingencies in anticipation of other costs. Therefore, the Feasibility Study appropriately assesses cost factors for all sites and the conclusion of projects being feasible is correct. Together, the study includes multiple factors that ensure the calculation of RLV and project feasibility is reliable and defensible.
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 4
9635 Granite Ridge Drive, Unit 300 | San Diego | CA | 92123 | 858.614-5000 | mbakerintl.com December 3, 2025
Jay Bradford, AICP, CASp, EI, MCP
Community Development Director
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Re: Feasibility Study: Three Rezoning Sites Implementing the Housing Element Dear Mr. Bradford:
As requested, Michael Baker International, Inc. has prepared a series of market feasibility studies on three sites to be rezoned to implement the Town's adopted and certified compliant Housing Element. The Town has designated the sites for rezoning to permit development up to 377 multifamily residential dwelling units.
The Town prepared draft amendments to the May 2023 Housing Element to reflect and ensure consistency with the proposed new multifamily zoning. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) reviewed the draft Housing Element amendment (HEA) by letter dated October 10, 2025. As part of its review, HCD requested that the Town evaluate the feasibility of the sites via the proposed changes in the HEA and the proposed zoning—namely, the change in the maximum density of the proposed multifamily zone.
The proposed HEA and new multifamily zones will yield the same 377 units identified and committed to in the Housing Element. The formula for calculating the maximum number of dwelling units is proposed to change from a maximum of:
• 30 dwelling units per acre of an approximated net buildable area based on known but unmeasured steep slope constraints on the sites;
TO
• 24 dwelling units per acre of contiguous buildable area (CBA) as defined in the proposed HEA and zoning amendments (excluding slopes over 25 percent and with certain minimum dimensions) and accurately measured for the specific rezone sites.
SUMMARY FINDINGS
As described more fully below, the feasibility study finds that:
• All three rezone sites can be developed feasibly with market-rate rental products at the proposed maximum density of 24 dwelling units per acre (du/ac).
Revised 12-3-25
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 4
Town of Los Altos Hills Michael Baker International
Feasibility Study: Three Rezoning Sites Implementing the Housing Element December 3, 2025
9635 Granite Ridge Drive, Unit 300 | San Diego | CA | 92123 | 858.614-5000 | mbakerintl.com • All market-rate rental scenarios at 24 du/ac result in substantially positive residual land value (RLV)—the primary measure for profitability and feasibility. • Podium parking is one of the most significant construction cost factors and reduces project feasibility.
The construction of below market-rate units that are affordable to lower-income households is achievable with traditional affordable housing funding mechanisms, such as Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC).
FEASIBILITY OF MARKET-RATE DEVELOPMENT
Michael Baker began by evaluating the potential financial feasibility of market-rate development on the sites. The study focused on rental developments since they are typically less profitable and more difficult to make feasible than for-sale condominium projects.
Pro-forma analyses were conducted for a series of development scenarios. Primary development factors included the number and size of units, parking spaces, amenities, and parcel size. The pro-forma includes direct and soft costs, and revenue. Direct construction (hard) costs were calculated for residential floor area, amenities, parking, on- and off-site improvements, and grading, and included a 15 percent contingency. Indirect (soft) costs included architecture and engineering costs, permit fees, legal/accounting, insurance, a 10 percent developer's fee, financing costs, and a 10 percent contingency.
Industry-standard cost factors were applied with local adjustments resulting in a total development cost, not including land cost for each scenario.
A market value was estimated for each scenario starting with gross annual rental income (based on local market rents), adjusted by vacancy rates, less rental operating costs, taxes and insurance, and marketing, resulting in a net operating income. The market value of multifamily development projects is typically determined by dividing the net operating income by an area capitalization rate. For the Los Altos/Mountain View/Sunnyvale area, the area capitalization rate is 4.1 percent based on an analysis of CoStar data.
The gross market value is the presumed open market sales price of the multifamily project. The net sales proceeds are the gross market value subtracting 3 percent for the cost of sales and a 12 percent developer's profit. Subtracting the total development cost from the net sales proceeds gives the RLV. RLV is a key parameter of market feasibility; it represents the maximum amount a developer can pay for the land and still achieve the developer's profit. A project is not financially feasible when its RLV is less than zero dollars.
Market land costs were established based on 2025 listings and sales activity for 1+-acre vacant building lots in Los Altos Hills. This included current listings and past and pending sales. The prices of vacant building lots ranged between $1.25 million and $6.5 million per lot with an average of $999,000 per acre.
Based on these current listings, a target RLV of $1 million per acre was used as a benchmark to indicate market feasibility of the sites/scenarios relative to the market value for land.
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 4
Town of Los Altos Hills Michael Baker International
Feasibility Study: Three Rezoning Sites Implementing the Housing Element December 3, 2025
9635 Granite Ridge Drive, Unit 300 | San Diego | CA | 92123 | 858.614-5000 | mbakerintl.com MARKET LAND VALUES:
2025 Vacant Land Sales Activity in Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
LISTINGS OF
VACANT BUILDING LOTS ACRES LIST PRICE COST/ACRE STATUS
27161 W Fremont Road 1.26 $ 6,500,000 $ 5,158,730 Sold
27500 Sherlock Court 4.23 $ 1,890,000 $ 446,809 Sold
28100 Laura Court 3.87 $ 5,950,000 $ 1,537,468 Pending
0 Arroyo Way 2.35 $ 1,250,000 $ 531,915 For Sale
27388 Sherlock Court 2.15 $ 1,995,000 $ 927,907 For Sale AVERAGE 2.79 $ 3,517,000 $ 999,097
Nine development scenarios were studied: five on Foothill Community College, two on Twin Oaks, and two on St. Nicholas. All nine development scenarios resulted in feasible projects with positive RLVs between $228,000 to over $2.9 million per acre. All of the development scenarios with tuck-under and surface parking (without podium parking) exceed the target RLV of $1 million per acre. The podium parking scenarios add considerable cost per unit in comparison and significantly reduce the RLVs.
All but three of the nine scenarios demonstrate feasibility in terms of the RLV being comparable to land values in the Town. In other words, these projects would support land values per acre that are sufficient to induce development of the sites in accordance with the given development parameters. The results of this feasibility study indicate that participation by the site owners and developers is warranted due to sufficient compensation for use of the land.
The podium parking scenarios on the Foothill College C2, St. Nicholas, and Twin Oaks sites resulted in RLVs of $950,000, $407,000 and $228,000 per acre, respectively. The $950,000 RLV for Foothill College site C2 is considered feasible as it is nominally the same at 95 percent of the target and well within the multiple contingency budgets for both direct and soft costs. While both podium parking scenarios for the Twin Oaks and St. Nicholas sites generate substantial positive RLVs, these scenarios are considered marginally feasible since they are below the targeted per acre market land value of $1 million for building lots in Los Altos Hills. However, it is noted that each site could be value engineered to reduce costs and meet the target RLV. For example, reducing the percentage of podium parking spaces from 87 percent to 66 percent would achieve the $1 million target RLV for St. Nicholas. Similarly, reducing the percentage of podium parking spaces from 75 percent to 53 percent would achieve the $1 million target RLV for the Twin Oaks site.
FEASIBILITY AND FUNDING OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS The proposed amendments to the Town's Zoning Ordinance to permit higher residential densities on the three rezoning sites would allow market-rate development to be financially feasible.
It is the norm that development of deed-restricted housing affordable to low- and very low-income households requires funding support. Funding sources for low-income housing developments are traditionally an aggregation of LIHTC, grants, the local agency's HOME funds, residual receipts loans, and ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 4
Town of Los Altos Hills Michael Baker International
Feasibility Study: Three Rezoning Sites Implementing the Housing Element December 3, 2025
9635 Granite Ridge Drive, Unit 300 | San Diego | CA | 92123 | 858.614-5000 | mbakerintl.com forgivable loans to achieve financial feasibility. These sources routinely support market-based land costs, even in high-cost areas such as Santa Clara County.
It is noted that the pro-forma analyses for each site indicate that each site is capable of generating a substantially positive RLV while providing 15 percent of the units for lower-income households (7.5 percent low and 7.5 percent very low). The tuck-under and surface parking scenarios for Twin Oaks and St. Nicholas generate a RLV of over $2 million per acre. All five of the Foothill College scenarios are positive, but only two exceed the $1 million target RLV. The other three Foothill College sites have RLVs of $600,000.
Similarly, an analysis of the distribution of the number of below-market rate units as projected in the 2023 Housing Element Update indicates that the tuck-under and surface (non-podium) parking scenarios for the Twin Oaks and St. Nicholas School sites generate positive RLVs, $2.6 million and $850,000, respectively. The five Foothill College sites with podium parking generate RLVs between $820,000 and $2.7 million.
It is noted that a lower RLV may be appropriate for the two institutional sites since their land has long been purchased, paid for and amortized, and they don't have or require the same investment-based expectations of a return on investment. Rather, housing on their sites would provide a service to each school if used for staff or student housing. Any housing development could be considered windfall gain over expectations.
We are available to discuss our findings as desired at your convenience.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Daniel K. Wery, AICP, LEED AP
Principal Community Planner
Dino Serafini
Project Manager – Public Finance/Planning
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 4
Town of Los Altos Hills Michael Baker International
Feasibility Study: Three Rezoning Sites Implementing the Housing Element December 3, 2025
9635 Granite Ridge Drive, Unit 300 | San Diego | CA | 92123 | 858.614-5000 | mbakerintl.com ATTACHMENT A – PRO FORMA SUMMARY TABLE: MARKET RATE RENTAL HOUSING Revised 12-3-25
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 4
December 4, 2025
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
By email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Re: Amended Los Altos Hills Housing Element, December 2025 Dear Los Altos HIlls Planning Commission,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this correspondence as comment on the Town’s latest proposed amended Housing Element, calendared as agenda item 4.6 for today’s Planning Commission meeting.
The Town should abandon this Housing Element amendment. Town staff and the Council know full well that the St. Nicholas School and Foothill College sites will not be developed during the planning period. The proposed zoning overlays violate state law. And the entire purpose of this amendment is thwarting the first affordable housing in the Town’s history.
The Town Cannot Amend the Housing Element Prior to HCD Review The Town is proposing to adopt the amendment to the housing element on December 9th, 2025. According to the staff report, the amendment will become effective once HCD reviews and signs off on the amendment. This approach is a flagrant violation of procedures for amending housing elements required by state law. Government Code section 65585, subdivision (e) requires that:
Prior to the adoption of its draft element or draft amendment, the legislative body shall consider the findings made by the department. If the department’s findings are not available within the time limits set by this section, the legislative body may act without them.
2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
www.calhdf.org
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 4
The Town is required to submit the draft housing element amendment to HCD for official review at least 60 days prior to adoption to allow sufficient time for HCD to review and make findings as to whether the amendment complies. (Id. at subd. (b)(1)(A).) The Town has failed to comply with any of these required procedures. Instead, the Town is seeking to illegally rush through a poorly conceived amendment in order to thwart proposed housing developments under the prior plan.
Two of the Three Lower-Income Sites Will Not Be Developed The Town is well aware that neither the St. Nicholas School site nor the Foothill College site will be developed. Together, these two sites account for 110 lower-income units of the Town’s total lower-income RHNA of 197 units.
During the City Council meeting of November 17, 2025, the Mayor stated that these sites will not be developed. At time 1:09 of the video of the proceeding, the Mayor made the following statement:
Foothill College has publicly declared that they will not be building any affordable housing there. They have actually bought a property in Cupertino in order to build housing. St. Nicholas School has gone on record to say that they will not be building anything there. So those two [sites] have not panned out.
The Housing Element plans for 40 total units including 30 lower-income units on the St.
Nicholas School site. The Town’s Housing Element pretends that the Diocese will develop the school site: “The Town has been in contact with the school and received positive initial feedback regarding the potential for new housing at the project site.” (p. 209 of the Housing Element)
However, the Town knows full well that the Diocese will not develop the school, and this statement in the Housing Element misrepresents the owner’s intentions. From the attached CalMatters article on the Los Altos Hills housing element:
The Diocese of San José, owner of the [St. Nicholas School site], has “no intention of developing or selling” any part of the school, said spokesperson Cynthia Shaw. “Legal counsel clearly conveyed the Diocese’s opposition to the Town’s submission of the housing plan in 2022.”
The St. Nicholas School sites will simply not be developed during the planning period.
Regarding Foothill College, where the Housing Element calls for 210 units of housing including 80 lower-income units, the Town staff prevailed upon the College to write a 2 of 9
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 4
December 1, 2025 letter expressing vague support, which is on page C-23 of the amended Housing Element. The pertinent paragraphs are below:
As part of our broader exploration of future housing opportunities, the District has welcomed the Town's interest in identifying the Foothill College campus in its Housing Element as a potential housing opportunity site. In 2023, the District provided correspondence expressing our willingness to remain engaged in conversations that support the Town's Housing Element goals while advancing the District's mission to improve the quality of life for our students, faculty, staff, and the surrounding community.
We understand the Town is currently undertaking rezoning efforts that would create a multi-family overlay zone and establish associated development standards. While the District is continuing to review these planning efforts, we appreciate the Town's proactive work to expand regional affordable housing options. We are open to exploring how the opportunities envisioned in the Town's planning framework may align with the District's long-term goals for student and employee housing at the Foothill College campus.
These statements fall short of what the Town says they are. On page 278 of the Housing Element, the Town states, “As of November, 2025, Foothill College has expressed continued interest in residential development between 20 and 24 du/ac …” However, being “exploring how the opportunities envisioned in the Town's planning framework may align with the District's long-term goals” is not the same as expressing “continued interest in residential development between 20 and 24 du/ac.” Given that the College purchased property in Cupertino to satisfy its housing requirements (as reflected by the Mayor’s statements and the attached CalMatters article), the December 1, 2025 letter from the College should be viewed as a noncommittal way for the College to maintain cordial relations with the Town, rather than an expression of genuine interest in housing development.
The brief market study produced by the Town is not terribly relevant to the question of whether or not these sites will be developed as housing. Los Altos Hills is one of the most expensive and desirable communities in the state. Housing developers (affordable or market rate) would likely leap at an opportunity to develop in the Town. However, if the owners of the sites have no genuine interest in development, as is the case with the St. Nicholas school site and the Foothill College site, then the market is irrelevant.
At the end of the day, neither the Foothill College site nor the St. Nicholas School site will be developed during the planning period.
3 of 9
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 4
The Proposed Overlays Violate the Law
The Housing Element (p. 188) proposes to use zoning overlays to accommodate multifamily on the Foothill College and St. Nicholas school campuses. Zoning overlays leave a base zoning designation in place, allowing for developers to choose to build under the base zoning or under the overlay, usually allowing for greater density. This approach has been found to violate housing element law by the California Court of Appeal.
In New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach (Oct. 10, 2025, No. B336042) ___ Cal.App.5th ___), the Court held that the use of a zoning overlay for housing element rezonings does not comply with the mimum density provisions of housing element law. (See Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (h)(2).) In order to comply with minimum density, housing element rezonings must require all new development include the minimum residential density mandated by state law. Allowing uses permitted under the base zoning, such as underlying, non-residential uses, or lower density residential development, violates the minimum residential density requirement imposed by state housing law.
The overlays proposed for the Foothill College and St. Nicholas sites were introduced by the Council on October 16, 2025. These overlays allow the uses of the underlying Residential-Agricultural district (except for what is explicitly forbidden by code section 10-1.1608). Additionally, they expressly allow the establishment of public and private schools.
Because the overlays allow for non-residential uses, they do not satisfy the minimum density requirements of state law. (See Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (h)(2)) They therefore violate the binding precedent established by New Commune.
The zoning for these sites must require the minimum residential density for all new development on designated sites in order to comply with New Commune. This means that both the Foothill College and St. Nicholas School sites must be rezoned to only allow residential use at least at the required minimum density and not allow any development or expansion of education facilities or accessory uses.
Additionally, the proposed zoning may otherwise violate the minimum density standards in state law because the proposed zoning excludes areas with steep slopes. (See page 202 of the Housing Element and the October 16, 2025 proposed rezoning). The Town should be aware that the gross density of the sites must still meet or exceed 20 units/acre after the steep slopes have been excluded. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (h)(2).
This is a Bad Faith Housing Element Amendment
Today, the Town has zero deed-restricted affordable housing units. The Town also has only 16 units of multifamily housing out of 3,180 units total, the vast majority of which are large 4 of 9
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 4
single family homes built on minimum one-acre lots. With an average home value of $5.7 million, the Town is one of the most expensive and exclusionary jurisdictions in the state.
The Town’s Housing Element commits to rezoning the 15-acre Twin Oaks Court site to multifamily housing at a density of 30 units per acre. Subsequent to adoption of the Housing Element, a developer proposed a 593-unit, mixed-income, multifamily development on the site, which would create the Town’s first ever deed-restricted affordable units. This development would make major steps towards meeting the Town’s RHNA obligations and would reverse decades of exclusionary zoning in the Town.
However, it seems as though the Town has no intention of actually meeting its obligations under state Housing Element law. As soon as the development was proposed, the Town began the process of amending its Housing Element in order to cut back the Twin Oaks Court site as much as possible in order to stop the development.
The amended Housing Element would remove more than 2/3rds of the site and change the proposed zoning from 30 units/acre to 24 units/acre, while also excluding areas with steep slopes from density calculations. Removing more than 10 acres of the site, reducing the density from 30 units/acre to 24 units/acre, and excluding steep slopes (resulting in a buildable area of 3.8 acres) would change the total zoned capacity of the site from 450 units to 91 units (the produce of 24 units/acre and 3.8 acres), or actually less than the 92 units planned for the site.
Furthermore, the Town removed the vacant portion of the site, and the 4.5 acres of the site that remain include at least two single-family homes in addition to other structures. Given that these homes would have to be redeveloped (and the Town’s extremely high home prices), the Town is making development as unattractive as possible.
Given the timelines necessary for housing development, the fact that we are already two and a half years into the planning period, and its terrible history on affordable and/or multifamily housing, it is grossly inappropriate for the Town to carve back its most important low-income site.
Government Code Section 65583, subdivision (a)(3) requires that the Housing Element include (emphasis added) “An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites, and an analysis of the relationship of the sites identified in the land inventory to the jurisdiction’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing.” The Town’s original housing element included additional capacity in the low-income site inventory to account for the fact that two of the three sites did not have demonstrated potential for 5 of 9
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 4
development during the planning period. The Twin Oaks site, at its full size and proposed density, represented the only realistic possibility of low income housing development in the housing element. The Town’s actions will directly thwart the ability of the Twin Oaks Court site to redevelop during the planning period, and will result in a noncompliant housing element.
The Town should not amend its Housing Element in order to prevent a mixed-income, multifamily development that would fulfill so much of the Town’s RHNA and provide the first deed-restricted affordable housing in the Town’s history.
Amending the Housing Element Would Violate Fair Housing Law Local governments have an obligation under California to refrain from any actions that would discriminate against protected classes, or against the “intended occupancy of any residential development by persons or families of very low, low, moderate, or middle income.” (Gov. Code, § 65008, subs. (a)(3), (b)(1)(C), and (b)(2)(B).) In addition, both local governments and California state agencies are tasked with affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH), requiring “meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” (Gov. Code, § 8899.50, subd. (a)(1).) The obligation to AFFH works in conjunction with, and independently of, local government’s housing element obligations. Local governments are required to include a plan to AFFH as part of a compliant housing element, and are required to carry out this plan and other policies consistent with their obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. (Id., § 65583, subd. (a)(3), (b)(1).) By any measure, the actions of Los Altos Hills since the adoption of their current housing element, and these amendments to that housing element, fail to meet its fair housing obligations.
The Current Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Los Altos Hills’s current housing element was certified by HCD in late May of 2023, just in time to give the Town a full three years to complete the required rezonings of low income sites. The housing element contained a detailed discussion of the Town’s plan to AFFH. This discussion outlines how the Town was founded in 1956, eight years after the Supreme Court outlawed explicit racial covenants in its Shelley v. Kraemer decision, in order to preserve the “rural character” of the area. (2023 Housing Element, page 83, 122.) Many properties in the area contained racial covenants, and many still do today despite these restrictions being unenforceable. (pg. 122.) At the time of incorporation, the Town “required a 1-acre minimum lot size and barred the construction of multifamily housing.” Not coincidentally, the Town maintains a sizable white majority today. The Town identifies the dominance of expensive large-lot single family homes, and community opposition to housing as key barriers to fair housing. The main program to break down these barriers is Program A-1, requiring the 6 of 9
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 4
rezoning of three identified sites to promote the development of multifamily affordable housing.
Amending its Housing Element to carve back the Twin Oaks Court site would establish a clear pattern of discrimination against multifamily and affordable housing, and it would also fail to affirmatively further fair housing. The change would be clearly contrary to the Town’s adopted plan to AFFH. Removing more than 10 acres of the site, and reducing the density from 30 to 24 acres, would dramatically reduce the ability of the site to produce housing affordable to lower-income households.
The City Council’s February 20, 2025 public meeting regarding the Twin Oaks proposal and potential Housing Element amendments revealed that the explicit purpose of this change is to prevent the development of a mixed-income housing development on the Twin Oaks site.
Vice Mayor Bhateja and Council Member Mok stated that the Town was going to amend the Housing Element regarding the Twin Oaks site: “The goal is to limit development to approximately 92 units while addressing key concerns such as wildfire safety, traffic congestion, and preserving the town’s character.” Their presentation concluded by stating that “the focus remains on responsible development that aligns with state requirements while preserving the town’s unique character.” While maintaining more limited capacity on the site allows the Town to put forth a facade of maintaining compliance with the law, there is no proposed housing development at such lower density, and the Town has done nothing to demonstrate such a proposal is viable.
In addition to the proposed changes to the Twin Oaks site, the Town has already denied two affordable housing developments since the adoption of the previous plan. Both were builder’s remedy projects proposed during the period when the Town was out of compliance with its housing element, and both were denied on technicalities manufactured by the Town. If the Town is allowed to thwart the proposed Twin Oaks development, it would result in the denial of three consecutive developments that would have brought the Town its first ever deed restricted affordable housing.
While the Council leaves unsaid what it means by “preserving the Town’s character,” we can infer that they are referring to the exact character identified in their AFFH plan as a barrier to fair housing. Approving the proposed reduction in density on the Twin Oaks site would aid in a clear effort to prevent the development of lower-income housing in one of the wealthiest municipalities in the state. This effort is wildly inconsistent with the Town’s and the State’s obligation to take "meaningful actions . . . to overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” (Gov. Code, § 8899.50, subd. (a)(1).) 7 of 9
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 4
Relying Heavily on ADUs Violates Fair Housing Law
Aside from the Twin Oaks site, the remainder of the Town’s low income site inventory relies heavily on ADUs. The Town is therefore planning on using ADUs to account for 105 units of its total lower-income RHNA of 197 units. In fact, during the February 20, 2025 public hearing, a number of members of the public testified that the Town should rely even more heavily on ADUs rather than allow the Twin Oaks development to proceed.
However, this ADU-heavy strategy is highly problematic from a fair housing perspective. The federal Fair Housing Act does not apply to ADUs, and state fair housing law is unclear on the issue. Additionally, the Town’s recent survey of ADUs found that less than half of ADUs in the Town were used as dwelling units - the majority were used as guest houses, as office spaces, or as other extra space for the primary dwelling unit. Furthermore, the survey in Los Altos Hills showed that 44% of the occupied ADUs were inhabited by family members. Both of these factors mean that historically excluded groups, such as Black or Latino-headed households, will have much greater challenges living in a Los Altos Hills ADU, as only half of the ADUs are available for residential use and only about half of the remaining ADUs are available for non-family members.
Furthermore, ADUs are significantly smaller than other types of housing. While this makes them naturally more affordable, it also reduces housing opportunities for families with children. As discussed supra, state law obligates the Town’s Housing Element to affirmatively further fair housing. Protected categories include familial status, as mandated by Gov. Code 65583, subd. (c)(5):
Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law.
Los Altos Hills’s overreliance on ADUs fails to promote housing throughout the community for families with children, which is a familial status.
If the Town is allowed to amend its Housing Element to hamstring the site with the best potential to be developed into multifamily, mixed-income housing, then the primary lower-income units developed in the Town will be ADUs, with the result there were may not be any zero deed restricted affordable housing developed in the Town. And 3/4ths of the ADUs developed will either not be used as housing or will only be available to relatives of existing town residents. This will be a fair housing disaster. ⧫ ⧫ ⧫
8 of 9
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 4
The Town’s proposed amendment to its Housing Element is a transparent effort to thwart the first genuine mixed-income housing proposal (and first deed-restricted affordable units) in the Town’s history. This amendment would violate the Town’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing. By over-relying on ADUs and actively sabotaging mixed-income development, the Town is acting to continue to exclude marginalized racial and ethnic groups from the community. The Town’s history of building exclusively large, expensive single-family homes on one-acre lots compounds these concerns. The Town should abandon this amendment and implement its current Housing Element, as the law requires.
CalHDF is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households.
You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.
Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
9 of 9
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 4
Item 4.6 Supplemental
Response to Public Comments Received - #2
A public comment was provided by Brian O’Neill to the Town and Planning Commission on December 4, 2025 regarding Item 4.6, draft Housing Element Amendment (“HEA”). Town staff and Michael Baker International have prepared the following responses to issues raised by the comment. We also summarize the issues raised by the public comment with each response.
Summary of Issues Raised and Responses
1. Procedural Objections to the Town’s Housing Element Amendment.
The public comment states that the Town must first publish the HEA, most recently revised as of December 2, 2025, for a seven-day public review period and then submit the draft HEA to the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), before the draft HEA can be adopted.
Response: The Town is in compliance with housing element amendment procedural requirements outlined under Gov. Code section 65585. Specifically, under section 65585(b)(1) the Town has submitted the draft amendment to HCD at least 60 days prior to adoption. HCD has specified in its October 10 comment letter that the draft amendment does not impact its determination that the Town’s Housing Element is in substantial compliance. Even so, pursuant to subsection (f) the Town is making changes to the draft HEA and is following the procedures under subsection (b)(1)(A), as directed by subsection (f), to publish the subsequent draft revisions online and emailing a link thereto to all interested parties at least seven days before submitting the draft revision. The Town has complied with this step and will meet the seven-day requirement prior to submitting it to HCD again. Lastly, the Town’s adoption of the HEA is subject to and is only considered adopted once HCD certifies the amendment as substantially compliant with state law. Thus, the Town is complying with procedural requirements under state law.
2. Feasibility Analysis for the Twin Oaks Property.
The comment claims the Town’s feasibility analysis regarding redevelopment of Lots 4-6 at the Twin Oaks Site is incorrect and does not include appropriate feasibility factors. The comment raises the following issues summarized below:
a) The differences between the per square foot costs of construction between the Foothill College and Twin Oaks sites suggest an error.
b) The feasibility study did not evaluate the current exiting use and market value in comparison to the proposed value of the proposed multifamily zoning. The study compared to vacant building lots instead of single-family homes. c) The property owners believe that the proposed Twin Oaks site is more valuable as a single-family lots.
d) The study assumed 100% occupancy.
Response to (a): There was a table linking error in the summary table that identified the wrong values for the total floor areas. This led the commentor to calculate an erroneously low total per square foot construction cost for the Twin Oaks site. The table and the floor areas for each site have been corrected. The actual total construction cost for the Twin Oaks scenario is $451 per square foot. This includes the cost of the housing structure, parking, typical on-site and off-site improvements, estimated grading based on the actual slopes of ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 4
the site, and amenities. The feasibility study also included a 15% contingency on the total construction costs.
Response to (b): The feasibility study projected the residual land value (RLV) for development scenarios for each site. The RLV is the amount that a developer would pay for the land based on the total project value and profit. The study compared the RLV per acre of contiguous buildable area (CBA) of each lot. The CBA is the area that is used to calculate the maximum number of permissible dwelling units.
The RLV per acre of CBA was compared to the average cost per acre of vacant building lots in LAH during 2025. The comparison to vacant lot values is appropriate since the land would be purchased for its value of the raw land as a building lot for a new single-family home, not for the value of the old existing homes on the Twin Oaks lots. The older homes on the Twin Oaks lots could reduce the value of the land because they represent a cost to remove the old homes to make way for a modern home to meet current market expectations.
Response to (c): The feasibility study demonstrates that the MF development would generate $7.7m in developer profit; $3.1m in developer fee; plus potential profit from $700k in contingency of indirect costs; $4.0m in contingency of direct construction costs, and a residual land value of $11.4m. This is a potential total developer profit between $7.7 and $15.5 million after paying $11.4 for the property. This appears to exceed the estimated $4.5 million value of the lots with existing SF homes (average $1m per acre x 4.5 gross acres for Lots 4-6).
Response to (d): The study assumes 3% vacancy.
Based on the foregoing, we continue to conclude that the feasibility study is reliable and the feasibility conclusions are appropriate based on factors analyzed.
3. Proposing the Sea Landing Property (lot adjacent to Twin Oaks) as an inventory site to replace the Twin Oaks Site.
The comment claims that the Sea Landing Property, a parcel adjacent to the Twin Oaks site, is better suited for redevelopment. It generally states that the property owner has engaged with civil engineers and potential development partners to reach this conclusion.
It also states that development of the Sea Landing Property would avoid extensive grading and tree removal when compared to Lots 4-6 at Twin Oaks and thus would be environmentally superior. Thus, the comment requests the Sea Landing Property replace Twin Oaks as an opportunity site.
Response: It is important to highlight that the proposed Housing Element Amendment is for the limited purpose of providing additional clarity and strengthen consistency across governing land use and zoning documents. The proposed amendments are not intended to revisit the Town’s housing strategies and site inventory to meet RHNA. On the other hand, the proposed HEA does not prevent the Town from considering other opportunity sites in the future or rezoning additional properties/amending the Housing Element further as necessary. The Sea Landing Property has not been previously evaluated for its site suitability; the Town would need to engage in the same analysis under Government Code section 65583 to evaluate that the site is suitable for inclusion in its inventory and subject to review by HCD. In response to the few points raised by this comment, the Sea Landing Property also contains significant slopes (at some points greater than 30 percent) and ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 4
potential waterway resources that require further constraints analysis. Additional environmental analysis may also be required for grading and construction impacts to these areas. Further, based on the Town’s records the Sea Landing Property is subject to a Williamson Act contract for the conservation of agricultural and open space uses. Thus, additional analysis would be needed to determine whether such existing contractual obligation constrains development. Without conducting the same site characteristics analysis as the Town has done for its three rezone sites, no conclusion can be reached as to the Sea Landing Property and its suitability as an opportunity site at this time. On the other hand, Lots 4-6 at Twin Oaks have undergone such analysis which concluded that development is feasible without current uses being constraints to housing.
ITEM 6A ATTACHMENT 4
Item 6A Supplemental
Response to Additional Public Comments Received
Public Comment from CalHDF
A public comment was provided by CalHDF to the Town on December 4, 2025 regarding the proposed Housing Element Amendment (“HEA”). Town staff and Michael Baker International responded to these comments during the presentation to the Planning Commission at its December 4 meeting and have now prepared further responses to issues raised by the comment. We also summarize the issues raised by the public comment with each response.
Summary of Issues Raised and Responses
1. Town cannot amend the Housing Element prior to HCD Review.
The public comment claims that the Town must submit the draft HEA to the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for official review at least 60 days prior to adoption, before the draft HEA can be adopted.
Response: The Town has met this procedural requirement and is in compliance with housing element amendment procedural requirements outlined under Gov. Code section 65585. Specifically, under Section 65585(b)(1) the Town has submitted the draft amendment to HCD at least 60 days prior to adoption on August 11, 2025. The Town received HCD comments via letter on October 10, 2025. Town met and discussed with HCD on October 22, 2025 and November 14, 2025 and prepared revised HEA dated December 2, 2025. Pursuant to Section 65585(b)(1)(A) and (f), the December 2, 2025 revised draft has been published and circulated for public review 7 days prior to the City Council hearing and potential adoption. The Town will also be submitting the draft HEA to HCD before adoption takes effect as adoption is specifically contingent upon HCD review and certification. This submittal also complies Section 65585(g)(1) and (2).
Therefore, the Town is in compliance with procedural requirements under state housing element law.
2. Likelihood of Development for the Inventory Sites
The comment claims that two of the three lower-income sites will not be developed, specifically alleging that neither St. Nicholas School nor Foothill College will develop their respective sites. The comment argues that St. Nicholas School has not shown interest and that Foothill College already purchased property in Cupertino to satisfy its housing requirements and its December 1, 2025 correspondence to the Town is non-committal.
Response: The comment does not take into account additional circumstances where the Town has been in consultation with both St. Nicholas School and Foothill College. During those conversations, St. Nicholas School continues to review the implications and options for housing development on its property and to consider providing a letter of interest.
Foothill College did provide such a letter which specifically confirmed “the District’s longterm goals for student and employee housing on the Foothill College campus.” The College also expressed in said letter that acquiring housing in other jurisdictions is a part of their long term plan and commitment to housing, rather than the conclusion of interest. The conditions and circumstances of these sites are essentially unchanged from those at the time of adoption of the Housing Element in 2023. Additionally, the comment ignores that the Feasibility Study conducted by the Town shows housing development of various ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 1
prototypes on these sites are feasible. The legislative trend also supports such development such as Senate Bill 4 allowing for streamlined review of housing projects on institutional/faith-based properties. The letter acknowledges that housing developments, affordable or market rate, would “leap at an opportunity to develop in the Town” (page 3 of 9). The Feasibility Study supports this acknowledgement and property owner interest status quo remains largely unchanged. Thus, these sites are feasible and suitable for housing development.
3. Objections regarding Proposed Zoning Overlay.
The comment argues that the proposed zoning overlay at Foothill College and St. Nicholas violate New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach (2025) because it allows uses of the underlying R-A district and allows public and private schools. Further, the comment alleges that the proposed zoning violates state law minimum density standards because they exclude areas with steep slopes.
Response: The proposed MF Overlays are consistent with state law and the Redondo Beach decision because (1) the MF overlays supersede the underlying R-A uses; (2) conditional uses, which would only be allowed at the Town’s discretion and thus not guaranteed in these zones, require at least 50% of the gross floor area is multi-family residential use as required by Gov. Code section 65583.2(h)(2). These elements are incorporated into the draft Ordinance under Item 4H on the December 9 agenda for Council’s consideration of adoption. Additionally, the zoning is consistent with the required minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) under Gov. Code section 65583.2. It also would allow for the 377 units committed to in the Housing Element. As noted above, the Feasibility Study analyzed various building typology including rental apartments using the net acreage standard in the proposed zoning and found housing development to be feasible. Thus, the ordinance is consistent with statute and case law.
4. Objections regarding the Housing Element Amendment Generally The comment argues that the proposed HEA is “in bad faith” and does not serve to meet the Town’s RHNA obligations. The comment claims that the proposed amendments would remove most of the inventory sites; the comment uses Twin Oaks as an example to claim that the proposed HEA would reduce zoning capacity of the site from 450 units to 91 units.
The comment also argues, similar to the above, that two of the three sites do not have realistic development capacity.
Response: The comment makes several incorrect assumptions such as insisting that the two institutional properties have zero possibility of housing development. The comment also incorrectly states that the Housing Element had projected 450 units at the Twin Oaks site. The Housing Element was clear that zoning would be based on buildable area and would accommodate the projected yield of 92 units. It should be noted that the Twin Oaks site has 3.85 contiguous buildable area acres, resulting in 92 units at 24 du/ac. The proposed HEA also specifically describes how existing uses do not serve as a constraint to housing, and how feasibility of housing development is tied to value of the properties for potential new homes. The proposed HEA continues to provide for development at all 3 inventory sites, including Twin Oaks, at the densities projected in the Housing Element.
As we have presented over numerous public hearings before the Council and Planning Commission, the proposed HEA is to provide clarity and greater consistency between land use and zoning documents, not to change housing strategy or unit projections and is thus consistent with the approach initially identified in the Housing Element. The comment also ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 1
fails to recognize that Los Altos Hills has been exemplary among the Bay Area jurisdictions. The Town is one of the few cities in California that actually built all of its RHNA obligations at each income level in the last planning cycle. It is also one of the few Bay Area jurisdictions to have its 2023-2031 Housing Element certified by the statutory deadline. The Town continues to promote housing and additional site opportunities through implementing many programs to facilitate housing production and expanding housing mobility. Contrary to the comment, the Town’s housing strategy and housing element programs remain robust and designed to meet its RHNA goals and to encourage housing development.
5. Arguing that Amending the Housing Element Would Violate Fair Housing Law.
The comment argues that the proposed HEA does not affirmatively further fair housing and its purpose is to prevent development, including that proposed at the Twin Oaks Site.
Response: The proposed housing element amendment is to promote consistency across land use documents and provide clarity, rather than changing the Town’s RHNA strategy or alter any AFFH programs. The proposed HEA does not alter locations of the sites proposed for rezoning to multifamily use as part of Program A-1. The rezoning as part of Program A-1 is the single most important action toward affirmatively furthering fair housing in Los Altos Hills as it will allow and encourage a variety of new types of housing and households in the town. The Housing Element contains a robust set of 13 significant programs to affirmatively furthering fair housing, all of which were certified by HCD. This includes Program A-12, the conversion of duplex or triplex on properties throughout the Town; Programs F-1 – F6 all aimed at improving housing mobility and housing choices.
The Town has also adopted several ordinances to allow and streamline special needs and supportive housing around the community to promote mobility. It should also be noted that the Town’s housing strategy is focused on spreading projected units in various areas of the Town, which further addresses housing mobility and fair housing needs.
6. Arguing Relying Heavily on ADUs Violates Fair Housing Law.
The comment argues that the Town impermissibly relies on ADUs to meet RHNA, which violates state fair housing laws. The comment alleges that the Town overrelies on ADUs which is not a sufficient housing source and does not provide housing for families with children. The comment argues that the Town “sabotages” other mixed-income development with this approach.
Response: As described above, the proposed HEA does not change the Town’s RHNA strategy. It continues to implement the proposed zoning, projected yields, and other goals of the Housing Element. There is no reduction in the number of units the Town committed to provide and the Town is not proposing to amend any strategies relating to ADUs. The HEA also does not alter any other housing programs and approaches, all of which were certified by HCD. ADUs are a part of the Town’s housing strategies in addition to many other programs, and the Town was able to demonstrate a strong trend of ADU development for HCD’s certification. It is worth noting that since adoption and certification of the Housing Element, the Town has experienced a continued increased rate of ADU construction. The 4-year average has increased 50% from 20 ADUs per year as reported in the 2023 housing element to 30 ADUs per year. There is no basis to show that these trendlines would create impediments to other multi-family housing development, which are provided for in the Housing Element and continue to be accommodated in the HEA.
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 1
Public Comment from Anne Paulson
A public comment was provided by Anne Paulson to the Town on December 8, 2025 regarding the Feasibility Study conducted for the inventory sites. Town staff and Michael Baker International have prepared further responses to issues raised by the comment. The comments are listed below followed by staff responses.
1. Comment: The feasibility study computes the value of an acre of Twin Oaks land by looking at recent sales of vacant lots. However, as the Twin Oaks site’s owners pointed out, the three Twin Oaks parcels are not vacant. They all have houses on them. Therefore, the study’s computation of the cost per acre of vacant land in Los Altos Hills is not comparable.
The relevant comparator is parcels with houses on them. The Planning Commission remarked that these houses are teardowns. That’s probably true, so I used Zillow to find the houses sold in the last six months in Los Altos Hills that were marketed as teardowns, with terms like Be creative and build your custom dream home and Approximate MDA:
14,900 MFA: 6,215. Turns out, in the last six months, an acre of land on a teardown parcel seems to cost about $3.69 million, rather than the $1 million calculated in the feasibility study. I didn’t find any parcel with a house on it that sold for as little as a million dollars an acre in the last six months. With the updated price per acre, the whole Twin Oaks site would be valued at $16.6 million, far more than the Residual Land Value calculated for the site when used for multifamily housing. That would make this housing infeasible.
Response: The Feasibility Study is based on data surveyed and reasonable, conservative assumptions to analyze market feasibility. The RLV for the Twin Oaks feasibility study scenario is over $11 million. That’s the amount a developer would be willing to pay for the land with or without single-family homes. As noted, the Feasibility Study included multiple contingencies and conservative factors. These factors could yield significantly more profit or allow a developer to pay more significantly more for the property (RLV). These values and conservative assumptions demonstrate project feasibility. While market conditions are constantly fluctuating and land values can change with owner and developer negotiations, these changes do not impact the reasonable conclusions of the Feasibility Study. The values raised by the commentor are likewise not determinative or absolute and dependent on negotiation circumstances of the sale or other factors.
It should be noted that selecting and comparing vacant sites is the best way to determine and compare relevant land costs for future development. A developer is looking for land with development potential, ideally vacant land, not units that need to be removed. The existing homes could reduce the value to the developer due to demolition, removal and remediation costs, among others. Isolating the land eliminates the many and significant factors associated with the built improvements. There are many variables when comparing lots with single-family homes since they can represent a wide range of sizes, ages, amenities, improvements, values and suitability for continued use as homes. They could range from uninhabitable and effectively raw land to perfectly serviceable for 10 or more years. At typically three to four times the value of the land, a developer is not looking to pay for structures that are not part of the proposed development plan, revenue stream, or that are going to increase development costs.
2. Comment: Also, the study does not justify its projected rent revenues. They look high. At the Planning Commission meeting, the consultant said the study prototypes a combination of 25% 500 square foot, 50% 750 square foot, and 25% 1000 square foot townhouses, with the smaller ones having one car garages and the biggest ones having two car garages.
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 1
Response: The Feasibility Study included a rent analysis based on unit sizes (bedrooms and square footage) and age based on a survey of nearly 500 multifamily projects nearest Los Altos Hills. From this sample, the assumed rents for the Feasibility Study were based on the average rents from projects constructed within the last 5 years since these would be most comparable with respect to construction, cost, design, and amenities.
The survey of multifamily projects built within the last 5 years has a weighted average $5.20 per square foot for 1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom units with the same 25-50-25 distribution assumed for the development scenarios in the Feasibility Study. The Feasibility Study assumed a lower average of $5.09 per square foot. This results in less revenue and a lower RLV. If the average per square foot rent was increased to the weighted average of $5.20 per square foot supported by the survey, then the RLV would increase 16% from a RLV of $11.4 million ($2,960,124 per acre of contiguous buildable area) to $13.2 million ($3,425,593 per acre of contiguous buildable area). The Feasibility Study assumed the lower value to ensure conservative and defensible analysis.
3. Comment: Los Altos Hills counts garages as part of the gross floor area, so the townhouses would actually be 260 square foot, 510 square foot, and 520 square foot cottages over garages, certainly not worth an average of $4000/month.
Response: The comment suggests that the Feasibility Study should be revised to deduct the tuck-under parking from the rent for leasable (private interior) habitable space. If the net leasable space assumed in the feasibility model is reduced to provide space for parking (e.g., the minimum 10’ x 20’ per space per unit), then the net revenue and RLV would decrease.
The Feasibility Study is based on rent values per square foot that include all improvements, amenities and parking. Parking is a significant feature of housing and is included in the surveyed and assumed average rents. If the areas used for parking are deducted from the gross floor area and the calculation of revenue per square foot, the model needs to be adjusted to include a separate revenue line for the parking spaces in addition to the revenue from the net leasable area of interior spaces. However, this does not impact the accuracy of the current study as the analysis conducted conservatively assumes the costs to construct the parking. In an auto-oriented area like Los Altos Hills, it is assumed that parking will be provided and will be included in the sales price or rent. Parking in highly desirable areas such as Los Altos Hills can exceed $350 per space per month. Assuming an average rent of $250/month per parking space per unit results in a RLV of $10.33 million ($2,683,206 per acre of contiguous buildable area). At an average of $280 per space, the Twin Oaks RLV would be slightly greater than the $11.4 million ($2,960,124 per acre of contiguous buildable area) projected in the Feasibility Study.
4. Comment: Even assuming the garages didn’t eat up gross floor area (which they would, according to the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code), the rent claims seem unjustified. This project is 92 units on 2.5 acres, with nothing allowed outside that area except the driveway.
That’s a density of 37 dwelling units per acre, with part of that area being a large parking lot. For comparison, a normal townhouse complex, like the one on Montecito in Mountain View, has a gross density of 15 dwelling units per acre; a mobile home park, like Santiago Villas near the Googleplex, has a density of 8 dwelling units per acre; the Via Del Oro tiny home project in San Jose for homeless people has a density of 54 dwelling units per acre.
With the access needed for the garages, and the allowance for fire trucks to get to the ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 1
townhouses, the Twin Oaks project would be a sea of asphalt. Would someone pay $4000 a month for a tiny home in a sea of asphalt?
Response: The Feasibility Study appropriately analyzed conceptual site yield studies developed to demonstrate that the maximum number of units allowed by the proposed zoning fit onto each rezone site in a reasonable way and without large areas of surface parking. The concepts include buildings with plenty of floor area for the maximum number of units, common areas, amenities; access, parking and circulation; and setbacks, buffers, landscaped areas, open space and amenities.
At the outset, there is no requirement for enclosed parking for the multifamily developments. However, assuming for the sake of argument as the comment alleges, that the Town’s definition of floor area disfavors provision of enclosed parking, this assumption does not change the feasibility conclusion. Under that assumption, a developer will have a strong incentive to minimize enclosed parking. This can be done by:
1. Building open surface parking lots
2. Building open surface parking with carports and shade structures
3. Building open common surface parking beneath the habitable space
4. Waiving the inclusion of parking in the floor area calculation and/or waiving the parking requirement via waivers allowed as part of density bonus project for affordable housing projects.
The Feasibility Study assumed 155 spaces for the maximum 92 units on the Twin Oaks site. This would require roughly one-acre of parking area. In the worst-case scenario where 100% of the parking would be uncovered surface parking, this would cover roughly 26% of the 3.85 acres of contiguous buildable area. That leaves plenty of room for the 92 units, common areas, open space, setbacks, landscaping, and amenities.
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 1
ITEM 6A, Supplement 2A
December 9, 2025
VIA E-MAIL
City Council
Town Of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Re: Agenda Item 6.A – Consideration of Housing Element Amendment Revisions Dear Mayor Tankha and Councilmembers:
Our office submits this letter on behalf of Draco Nest LLC, owner of the six lots known as the Twin Oaks Court site, and Sea Landing LP, owner of the adjacent lot, APN 182-02-016 (the “Sea Landing Property”). The Council intends to consider approval of amendment to the Town’s Housing Element, which will eliminate three of the undeveloped Twin Oaks Court lots from the Town’s Housing Element rezoning program and reduce the density from 30 units to 24 units per acre.
As the Council is likely aware, Draco Nest LLC submitted a preliminary application for a 334- unit housing development project on lots 1-6 of the Twin Oaks site and requested an exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to the new in-fill housing exemption enacted by the legislature as part of AB 130, effective June 30, 2025. Regardless of the Town’s attempt to downzone the Twin Oaks site, the applicant is entitled to approval of the project consistent with current housing element density.
To date, the Town has failed to process the preliminary application or issue the requested CEQA exemption in violation of the law. WE DEMAND THAT THE COUNCIL DIRECT STAFF TO ISSUE THE REQUESTED CEQA EXEMPTION AS REQUIRED BY LAW.
The staff report attempts to confuse the Council, suggesting that the owners of the Twin Oaks site are interested in pursuing a project on lots 4-6 and erroneously stating that the owners have submitted a preliminary application on these sites. THIS IS FALSE. The owners unequivocally have no interest in pursuing a multi-family project on lots 4-6 at the density proposed by the housing element amendment. This is not a feasible option.
My clients have suggested replacing the Twin Oaks site with a portion of the Sea Landing Property, as the Sea Landing Property would be better suited for the type of clustered small lot development that both the Planning Commission and members of the public prefer. However, if the Town instead insists on attempting to downzone the Twin Oaks site and eliminate lots 1-3, ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 3
the owners will have no other choice but to demand approval of the 334-unit housing development project on lots 1-6 as currently permitted.1 This density is necessary to offset the cost of construction and create a feasible project.
The Proposed Project Must Be Processed Pursuant to the Current Housing Element Pursuant to AB 1893, a housing development project that is consistent with the density on a site that is identified as suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income households in the jurisdiction’s housing element must be approved, and a local government is prohibited from imposing standards that would make a project infeasible.
A project that is consistent with the density specified in the most recently updated and adopted housing element, but that is inconsistent with the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation, is subject to Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(6)(A), (B), and (D). (Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(8).) Subparagraph (A) states that a local agency may only impose the objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies that would have applied to the project had it been proposed on a site with a general plan designation and zoning classification that allow the density and unit type proposed by the applicant. Subparagraph (B) states an agency shall not apply any standards that render the project infeasible. Subparagraph (D) states a project that is consistent with the housing element density “shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, redevelopment plan and implementing instruments, or other similar provision for all purposes.” Together, these provisions make clear that a local government must approve a project proposed at a density consistent with a housing element.
The proposed project is consistent with the density of the Town’s most recently updated housing element, which identified the site as suitable for very low, low-, or moderate-income households.
Specifically, the Town’s housing element identifies the Twin Oaks site for 20-30 units per acre for all six Twin Oaks lots. Regardless of whether the Town amends the density, the Town is prohibited from imposing any standards that were not adopted and in effect at the time a preliminary application was submitted. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(o).) The Town’s attempt to downzone the property only jeopardizes the Town’s Housing Element Law compliance status – and potentially subjects the Town to the Builder’s Remedy – while the owners of the Twin Oaks site can still move forward with current housing element density. 1 As previously explained, the Town must first submit any revisions to HCD for review prior to approval. Gov. Code § 65585(b)(1)(A) does not just require public review, but plainly states that the local government shall post the draft revision on its internet website and shall email a link to the draft revision to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting the draft revision to the department.”
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 3
The Town Must Issue a CEQA Exemption
As part of AB 130, effective June 30, 2025, the Legislature enacted a new CEQA exemption for urban infill housing development projects that meet certain criteria. Pub. Res. Code § 21080.66 exempts from CEQA “any permits, approvals, or public improvements required for the housing development project.”
The proposed Twin Oaks housing development project meets the criteria for the new CEQA exemption. The project site is less than 20 acres; is located within the boundaries of an incorporated municipality; has been previously developed with an urban use (i.e. residential) and at least 75 percent of the area within a one-quarter mile radius of the site is developed with urban uses; the project is consistent with the housing element of the general plan; the project is greater than one-half of the applicable density specified in Gov. Code § 65583.2(c)(3)(B); satisfies the requirements of Gov. Code § 65913.4(a)(6); does not require the demolition of a registered historic structure; and does not designate any portion of the project for transient lodging. As such, the project is exempt from CEQA review.
AB 130 requires local governments to provide formal notification via certified mail and email to each California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project site as an invitation to consult on the proposed project, its location, and the project’s potential effects on tribal cultural resources pursuant within 14 days of the application for the project being deemed complete pursuant to Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(5). (Pub. Res. Code § 21080.66(b).) Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(5) defines “deemed complete” to mean “that the applicant has submitted a preliminary application pursuant to Section 65941.1.” Further, because the project is exempt from CEQA, the Town is required to take a final action on the project within 60 days after the consultation process concludes. (Gov. Code § 65950.) Further, if the Town fails to approve the project within that 60 day timeframe after the exemption is issued, “the failure to act shall be deemed approval of the permit application for the development project.” (Gov. Code § 65956.)
AB 130 has created a process that is similar to the ministerial processing requirements of SB 423/SB 35. Although local agencies are not expressly prohibited from holding a public hearing, the HAA only permits local governments to require housing development projects to comply with “objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies.” (Gov Code § 655895.5(j).) Because the City lacks the authority to impose CEQA mitigation measures, or impose any subjective standards at all, the project should be approved ministerially as a matter of right without any public hearing. If the Town chooses to hold a public hearing, the review must be limited solely to the objective requirements of the Town code, as modified by the HAA and State Density Bonus Law.
Thus far Town staff has failed to conduct tribal consultation or process the owner’s preliminary application. We demand that the Council direct staff to take immediate steps to comply with the law, issue the CEQA exemption, and approve the project.
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 3
The Town’s Feasibility Analysis is Flawed
The owners previously submitted comments explaining why the Town’s “Feasibility Analysis” is flawed. (See Exhibit A.) The Town’s consultant made certain clarifications and corrections, which only further demonstrate the analysis is incorrect. The Town has still not made the underlying assumptions and data public, preventing any meaningful review.
The calculations were updated to increase the cost of construction on Twin Oaks by nearly $100 per square foot, while simultaneously increasing the cost of construction for the other sites such that the analysis still shows the cost of construction for Twin Oaks as nearly $100 less per square-foot than development at the other housing element sites without any explanation. The cost of construction is also calculated based on a proposed floor area of 69,000 square feet, or 750 square feet per unit. This floor area calculation does not include floor area for circulation requirements, hallways, elevators, mechanical equipment, or any other common space. In short, this floor area calculation and construction costs do not make sense.
The Town’s consultant assumes a 3% vacancy rate, when industry standard is to assume 8% vacancy to account not just for vacancies, but also unit turnover and unpaid rent. Even with this unrealistic vacancy rate, this equates to nearly $4,000 a month for 750-square-foot units. The rental income analysis is similarly unrealistic for the current market.
Even with these flaws, the feasibility analysis calls redevelopment of Twin Oaks site “marginally” feasible. Development of multi-family is inherently risky, particularly in a jurisdiction that has absolutely no history of approving multi-family structures. The owners of the site have engaged with potential development partners, and there is simply no interest in pursuing a high-risk project that even the Town admits is marginally feasible. Particularly when the HEA lowers the allowable density and removes lots 1, 2, and 3 entirely, the multifamily scenario proposed by the Town is not at all realistic.
Conclusion
The owners look forward to providing new homes for the community of Los Altos Hills to help meet the Town’s RHNA requirements. To that end, we demand that the Town move forward with approval of the 334-unit housing development project on lots 1-6 of the Twin Oaks site as required by law.
Very truly yours,
PATTERSON & O’NEILL, PC
__________________________
Brian O’Neill
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 3
Exhibit A
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 3
December 4, 2025
VIA E-MAIL
Planning Commission
Town Of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Re: Agenda Item 4.6 – Consideration of Housing Element Amendment Revisions
Dear Commissioners:
Our office submits this letter on behalf of Draco Nest LLC, owner of the six lots known as the Twin Oaks Court site, and Sea Landing LP, owner of the adjacent lot, APN 182-02-016 (the “Sea Landing Property”). We understand that the Commission intends to consider approval of amendment to the Town’s Housing Element, which will eliminate three of the undeveloped Twin Oaks Court lots from the Town’s Housing Element rezoning program.
Just yesterday, the Town published new revisions to the Housing Element Amendment (“HEA”).
The revisions suggest that the Twin Oaks Court owners are interested in developing multifamily housing on the three remaining Twin Oaks Court site lots and that development of these three lots with 92 units is feasible. We submit this letter to correct the record.
The development scenario proposed in the HEA is not a feasible development. The owners have previously informed the Town that due to site constraints, limiting housing development to lots 4, 5, and 6 of the Twin Oaks Court site would not be feasible and the owners are not interested in developing a multifamily project on these three lots.
The owners instead request that the Town include a portion of the Sea Landing Property for rezoning to higher density development to replace the Twin Oaks Court site. The Sea Landing Property is flatter, less vegetated, has existing driveway access, and has easier access to sewer services. We urge the Commission to designate the Sea Landing Property as a housing opportunity site in lieu of the Twin Oaks Court site.
The Town’s Housing Element Amendment Revisions Cannot Be Adopted As a threshold matter, it appears that the Town believes it can adopt revisions to the HEA that was submitted to HCD for review on August 11, 2025. These new revisions, posted yesterday on December 2, 2025, must first be published for public review for seven days, resubmitted to HCD for review and comment, and only then can the revisions be adopted by the Town.
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 3
Gov. Code § 65585(f) gives jurisdictions two options when they have submitted a proposed Housing Element amendment to HCD that does not substantially comply with the Housing Element Law. Jurisdictions can either: (1) revise the proposed amendment in accordance with Gov. Code § 65585(b) which requires the amendment to be submitted back to HCD at least 60 days prior to approval; or (2) adopt the amendment without any changes but include written findings in its resolution of adoption that the amendment substantially complies with the Housing Element Law despite HCD’s findings.
There is no doubt that HCD found that the Town’s August 11, 2025 draft HEA does not comply with the Housing Element Law. At this time, the Town’s only option is to adopt the HEA submitted to HCD for review on August 11, along with written findings that explain the reasons the Town body believes that the prior draft amendment substantially complies with the Housing Element Law despite the findings of HCD. (Gov. Code § 65585(f)(2).) The revisions that were posted yesterday must first be posted for seven days and then submitted to HCD, and only then can the Town adopt the revisions 60 days after submittal.
The Legislature enacted amendments to the Housing Element Law specifically to prevent jurisdictions from making multiple revisions without public input and to prevent jurisdictions from adopting revisions without review from HCD. Assembly Bill 2667, effective January 1, 2025, was enacted in part to prevent this type of rushed, confusing process where the public and HCD have not had an opportunity to review a draft before it is adopted.
The Town’s Feasibility Analysis is Flawed
The Town provides a “Feasibility Analysis” to suggest that redevelopment of lots 4, 5, and 6 of the Twin Oaks Court site with 92 multifamily units is feasible. The owners of these lots disagree.
First, the Town’s feasibility analysis appears flawed, both because the underlying numbers do not make sense and because the analysis failed to address the factors required by law.
First, it is unclear how the costs and valuations listed in the summary table were calculated.
Without explanation of the underlying assumptions, it is impossible for members of the public to scrutinize the veracity of these numbers. For example, the cost of construction for the Foothill College site is calculated at approximately $458 per square-foot. On the other hand, the cost of construction on the Twin Oaks Court site is calculated at approximately $362 per square-foot.
It is unclear how the Town’s consultant determined that development of the Twin Oaks Court lots would cost nearly $100 less per square-foot than development at Foothill College, a site that is considerably flatter and less vegetated, with existing access to public services. After engaging a civil engineer to develop potential plans for developing the Twin Oaks Court site, the owners have been informed that development would require significant grading and retaining walls, significantly increasing project costs. The Town has also informed the owners that the Town believes that the developers would be entirely responsible for all infrastructure improvements, ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 3
including potentially a mile of new mains and potentially upsizing existing pipes. It is unclear whether the Town’s feasibility analysis took any of these construction costs into consideration.
Moreover, HCD was clear that any analysis of redevelopment potential for nonvacant sites such as lots 4, 5, and 6 of the Twin Oaks Court site must evaluate the current existing use and market value as compared to the value of higher density residential development as required by Gov.
Code, § 65583.2(g)(1). The Town’s consultant failed to conduct this legally required analysis, clearly comparing redevelopment valuations to “sales activity for 1+-acre vacant building lots in Los Altos Hills.” The remaining Twin Oaks Court site lots are not vacant but are developed with single-family homes. After conducting additional due diligence on the costs of construction, the owners believe that the Twin Oaks Court site is more valuable remaining as single-family. At a minimum, the Town’s feasibility analysis must compare higher density development to the value of single-family residential development within Los Altos Hills – not vacant land.
Finally, the financial analysis relied upon by the Town assumes an average unit size of 750 square feet. The owners have engaged in discussions with potential development partners, who have not expressed an interest in developing smaller multi-family units due to a limited market for such units in the Los Altos Hills area. The Town’s feasibility analysis shows annual rental income of $4,214,520, which equates to an assumed monthly rent of $3,817 per unit (unrealistically assuming 100% occupancy with 100% market rate units). The owners do not believe that Los Altos Hills has a market for such units or that the feasibility analysis accurately reflects the current market value.
Particularly when the HEA lowers the allowable density and removes lots 1, 2, and 3 entirely, which would help spread the cost of development, the multifamily scenario explored by the Town is not feasible or realistic. The Town’s statement that the owners are interested in a 92-unit multifamily development on lots 4, 5, and 6 of the Twin Oaks Court site is simply not accurate.
The Sea Landing Property is a Significantly More Feasible Development Site After engaging with civil engineers, investigating several development scenarios, and discussing options with potential development partners, the owners have determined that high density development on the Sea Landing Property is the far superior option over lots 4, 5, and 6 of the Twin Oaks Court site.
The Sea Landing Property is best suited for redevelopment at a density of ten units per acre due to the flatter terrain, existing driveway, and minimal vegetation. Development at this property would significantly reduce the grading, tree removal, and retaining walls necessary to support development. This development scenario would reduce overall construction costs and allow for larger units, greatly increasing feasibility. Development of the Sea Landing Property would also be an environmentally superior option due to the extensive grading and tree removal that would be necessary to construct on lots 4, 5, and 6 of the Twin Oaks Court site.
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 3
The owners have been in discussions with Town ad-hoc committee about the Sea Landing Property and believe that Town ad-hoc committee supports development of the site. We respectfully request the Planning Commission direct staff to replace the Twin Oaks Court site with the Sea Landing Property and rezone a 20-acre portion of the Sea Landing Property for development at a density of ten units per acre.
Conclusion
The owners look forward to providing new homes for the community of Los Altos Hills to help meet the Town’s RHNA requirements. We appreciate the Town’s continued efforts in supporting housing solutions that are compliant with State law and aligned with community needs. To that end, the owners believe that the best path toward reaching the Town’s housing goal is to designate the Sea Landing Property as a housing opportunity site. We welcome further collaboration with the Planning Commission and Town staff to make the construction of new housing a reality.
Very truly yours,
PATTERSON & O’NEILL, PC
__________________________
Brian O’Neill
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 3
December 9, 2025
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
By email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Re: Amended Los Altos Hills Housing Element, December 2025 Dear Los Altos Hills City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this correspondence as a comment on the Town’s latest proposed amended Housing Element, calendared as agenda item 6A for tonight’s Council meeting. Additionally, this public comment also addresses the housing element rezoning, calendared as item 4H for tonight’s Council meeting.
The Town should abandon this Housing Element amendment. Town staff and the Council know full well that the St. Nicholas School and Foothill College sites will not be developed during the planning period. Additionally, under the proposed Housing Element amendment and accompanying zoning, the Twin Oaks site will not be developed either. And the entire purpose of this amendment is thwarting the first affordable housing in the Town’s history.
The Rezoning is Inadequate
See our October 16, 2025 comment letter on the rezoning attached.
In addition to this comment letter, we would like to reiterate that the proposed floating zone (“FMFO”) is not a rezoning, as it requires a future legislative action. The Town will be failing to fulfill its commitments under the Housing Element Law if it relies on this action. 2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
www.calhdf.org
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 4
The Town Cannot Amend the Housing Element Prior to HCD Review The Town is proposing to adopt the amendment to the housing element on December 9th, 2025. According to the staff report, the amendment will become effective once HCD reviews and signs off on the amendment. This approach is a flagrant violation of procedures for amending housing elements required by state law. Government Code section 65585, subdivision (e) requires that:
Prior to the adoption of its draft element or draft amendment, the legislative body shall consider the findings made by the department. If the department’s findings are not available within the time limits set by this section, the legislative body may act without them.
The Town is required to submit the draft housing element amendment to HCD for official review at least 60 days prior to adoption to allow sufficient time for HCD to review and make findings as to whether the amendment complies. (Id. at subd. (b)(1)(A).) The Town has failed to comply with any of these required procedures. Instead, the Town is seeking to illegally rush through a poorly conceived amendment in order to thwart proposed housing developments under the prior plan.
None of the Three Lower-Income Sites Will Be Developed
The Town knows full well that none of its three lower-income sites will be developed. See evidence below for information on why each of the sites will not be developed.
Foothill College and St. Nicholas School Sites
The Town is well aware that neither the St. Nicholas School site nor the Foothill College site will be developed. Together, these two sites account for 110 lower-income units of the Town’s total lower-income RHNA of 197 units.
During the City Council meeting of November 17, 2025, the Mayor stated that neither the Foothill College nor the St. Nicholas School Sites would be developed. At time 1:09 of the video of the proceeding, the Mayor made the following statement:
Foothill College has publicly declared that they will not be building any affordable housing there. They have actually bought a property in Cupertino1 [sic] in order to build housing. St. Nicholas School has gone on record to say that they will not be building anything there. So those two [sites] have not panned out.
The Housing Element plans for 40 total units including 30 lower-income units on the St.
Nicholas School site. The Town’s Housing Element pretends that the Diocese will develop the school site: “The Town has been in contact with the school and received positive initial 1 Note: the College has actually bought property in Mountain View, not Cupertino, to build housing. 2 of 12
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 4
feedback regarding the potential for new housing at the project site.” (p. 209 of the Housing Element)
However, the Town knows full well that the Diocese will not develop the school, and this statement in the Housing Element misrepresents the owner’s intentions. From the attached CalMatters article on the Los Altos Hills housing element:
The Diocese of San José, owner of the [St. Nicholas School site], has “no intention of developing or selling” any part of the school, said spokesperson Cynthia Shaw. “Legal counsel clearly conveyed the Diocese’s opposition to the Town’s submission of the housing plan in 2022.”
The Diocese also clearly stated its opposition to being included in the housing plan in an October 14, 2025 letter to the Town:
The St. Nicholas School sites will simply not be developed during the planning period.
Regarding Foothill College, where the Housing Element calls for 210 units of housing including 80 lower-income units, the Town staff prevailed upon the College to write a December 1, 2025 letter expressing vague support, which is on page C-23 of the amended Housing Element. The pertinent paragraphs are below:
As part of our broader exploration of future housing opportunities, the District has welcomed the Town's interest in identifying the Foothill College campus in its Housing Element as a potential housing opportunity site. In 2023, the District provided correspondence expressing our willingness to remain engaged in conversations that support the Town's Housing Element goals while advancing the District's mission to improve the quality of life for our students, faculty, staff, and the surrounding community.
We understand the Town is currently undertaking rezoning efforts that would create a multi-family overlay zone and establish associated development standards. While the District is continuing to review these planning efforts, we appreciate the Town's 3 of 12
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 4
proactive work to expand regional affordable housing options. We are open to exploring how the opportunities envisioned in the Town's planning framework may align with the District's long-term goals for student and employee housing at the Foothill College campus.
These statements fall short of what the Town says they are. On page 278 of the Housing Element, the Town states, “As of November, 2025, Foothill College has expressed continued interest in residential development between 20 and 24 du/ac …” However, “exploring how the opportunities envisioned in the Town's planning framework may align with the District's long-term goals” is not the same as expressing “continued interest in residential development between 20 and 24 du/ac.” Given that the College purchased property (purchase agreement attached) in Mountain View to satisfy its housing requirements (as reflected by the Mayor’s statements and the attached CalMatters article), the December 1, 2025 letter from the College should be viewed as a noncommittal way for the College to maintain cordial relations with the Town, rather than an expression of genuine interest in housing development.
Furthermore, the College prepared an explicit comparison (attached) of developing its own property and the Mountain View development, and it found the Mountain View option superior and therefore elected to pursue that option.
Twin Oaks Sites
Under the amendment’s proposed zoning framework, the Twin Oaks site will not be developed either. This is because the site is more valuable with its current use, single-family homes, than as multifamily housing.
The brief market study produced by the Town is not worth the paper it’s printed on. Its primary assumption is that the sites are vacant and that land cost is therefore one million dollars per acre:
However, the Twin Oaks site (or at least the remaining portion of it) is not vacant - it has been developed with single-family homes. The Zillow home index for Los Altos Hills is $5.6 million. Even assuming, as the Town avers, that the present homes are “tear-downs,” they should be priced as such, not as vacant land. Even an inferior home in Los Altos Hills is 4 of 12
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 4
worth much more than vacant land. Research on real estate websites has shown that “tear-downs” sell for about $3.7 million an acre in Los Altos Hills.
If the feasibility study is adjusted to account for this difference in land value, then the residual land value (i.e. the profit) disappears, and the Twin Oaks site is no longer worth developing.
A representative of the landowner testified to that effect during the December 4, 2025 Planning Commission meeting. Furthermore, the owners of the Twin Oaks site submitted a letter to that effect (December 4, 2025 letter from Brian O’Neill to the Town), with the following instructive excerpt:
The development scenario proposed in the HEA is not a feasible development. The owners have previously informed the Town that due to site constraints, limiting housing development to lots 4, 5, and 6 of the Twin Oaks Court site would not be feasible and the owners are not interested in developing a multifamily project on these three lots.
In sum, none of the three lower-income sites will be developed during the planning period.
Failure to Provide Evidence That Existing Uses Will Be Discontinued Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (g)(2), states:
In addition to the analysis required in paragraph (1), when a city or county is relying on nonvacant sites described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) to accommodate 50 percent or more of its housing need for lower income households, the methodology used to determine additional development potential shall demonstrate that the existing use identified pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) does not constitute an impediment to additional residential development during the period covered by the housing element. An existing use shall be presumed to impede additional residential development, absent findings based on substantial evidence that the use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
The proposed amended Housing Element relies on nonvacant sites (the St. Nicholas school site, the Foothill College site, lots on the Twin Oaks site that include existing single-family homes, and lots with existing single-family homes on which the Town expects ADUs to be constructed) for 50 percent or more of its housing need for lower income households.
However, the proposed amended housing element does not provide the required evidence demonstrating that existing uses on these sites will not impede residential development.
What evidence currently exists in the record, as explained above, is not only inadequate to 5 of 12
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 4
satisfy this requirement, it conclusively demonstrates that the existing uses on these sites will impede additional residential development.
The Proposed Overlays May Violate the Law
The Housing Element (p. 188) proposes to use zoning overlays to accommodate multifamily on the Foothill College and St. Nicholas school campuses. Zoning overlays leave a base zoning designation in place, allowing for developers to choose to build under the base zoning or under the overlay, usually allowing for greater density. This approach has been found to violate housing element law by the California Court of Appeal.
In New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 111), the Court held that the use of a zoning overlay for housing element rezonings does not comply with the mimum density provisions of housing element law. (See Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (h)(2).) In order to comply with minimum density, housing element rezonings must require that all new development include the minimum residential density mandated by state law.
Allowing uses permitted under the base zoning, such as underlying, non-residential uses, or lower density residential development, violates the minimum residential density requirement imposed by state housing law.
The overlays proposed for the Foothill College and St. Nicholas sites were introduced by the Council on October 16, 2025. These overlays allowed the uses of the underlying Residential-Agricultural district (except for what is explicitly forbidden by code section 10-1.1608). Additionally, they expressly allowed the establishment of public and private schools.
Because the overlays allow for non-residential uses, they did not satisfy the minimum density requirements of state law. (See Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (h)(2)). As the Court explained in New Commune, “the goal of the Housing Element Law . . . was not merely to require the identification of sites that could theoretically accommodate housing needs, but to encourage development to meet housing needs.” The Town’s proposed overlays therefore violate the binding precedent established by New Commune.
CalHDF notes that the proposed zoning has been adjusted to attempt to comply with New Commune:
6 of 12
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 4
The Floating Multi-Family Overlay covers the entire Foothill College campus. It seems highly improbable that Foothill College would have agreed to submit a tentative letter of interest had it known that all future development on its campus would be subject to a 50% residential requirement.
Additionally, the proposed zoning may otherwise violate the minimum density standards in state law because the proposed zoning excludes areas with steep slopes. (See page 202 of the Housing Element and the October 16, 2025 proposed rezoning.) The Town should be aware that the gross density of the sites must still meet or exceed 20 units/acre after the steep slopes have been excluded. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (h)(2).
This is a Bad Faith Housing Element Amendment
Today, the Town has zero deed-restricted affordable housing units. The Town also has only 16 units of multifamily housing out of 3,180 units total, the vast majority of which are large single family homes built on minimum one-acre lots. With an average home value of $5.7 million, the Town is one of the most expensive and exclusionary jurisdictions in the state.
The Town’s Housing Element commits to rezoning the 15-acre Twin Oaks Court site to multifamily housing at a density of 30 units per acre. Subsequent to adoption of the Housing Element, a developer proposed a 593-unit, mixed-income, multifamily development on the site, which would create the Town’s first ever deed-restricted affordable units. This development would make major steps towards meeting the Town’s RHNA obligations and would reverse decades of exclusionary zoning in the Town.
However, it seems as though the Town has no intention of actually meeting its obligations under state Housing Element law. As soon as the development was proposed, the Town began the process of amending its Housing Element in order to cut back the Twin Oaks Court site as much as possible in order to stop the development. 7 of 12
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 4
The amended Housing Element would remove more than 2/3rds of the site and change the proposed zoning from 30 units/acre to 24 units/acre, while also excluding areas with steep slopes from density calculations. Removing more than 10 acres of the site, reducing the density from 30 units/acre to 24 units/acre, and excluding steep slopes (resulting in a buildable area of 3.8 acres) would change the total zoned capacity of the site from 450 units to 91 units (the produce of 24 units/acre and 3.8 acres), or actually less than the 92 units planned for the site.
Furthermore, the Town removed the vacant portion of the site, and the 4.5 acres of the site that remain include at least two single-family homes in addition to other structures. Given that these homes would have to be redeveloped (and the Town’s extremely high home prices), the Town is making development as unattractive as possible.
Given the timelines necessary for housing development, the fact that we are already two and a half years into the planning period, and its terrible history on affordable and/or multifamily housing, it is grossly inappropriate for the Town to carve back its most important low-income site.
Government Code Section 65583, subdivision (a)(3) requires that the Housing Element include (emphasis added) “An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites, and an analysis of the relationship of the sites identified in the land inventory to the jurisdiction’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing.” The Town’s original housing element included additional capacity in the low-income site inventory to account for the fact that two of the three sites did not have demonstrated potential for development during the planning period. The Twin Oaks site, at its full size and proposed density, represented the only realistic possibility of low income housing development in the housing element. The Town’s actions will directly thwart the ability of the Twin Oaks Court site to redevelop during the planning period, and will result in a noncompliant housing element.
The Town should not amend its Housing Element in order to prevent a mixed-income, multifamily development that would fulfill so much of the Town’s RHNA and provide the first deed-restricted affordable housing in the Town’s history.
Amending the Housing Element Would Violate Fair Housing Law Local governments have an obligation under California to refrain from any actions that would discriminate against protected classes, or against the “intended occupancy of any 8 of 12
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 4
residential development by persons or families of very low, low, moderate, or middle income.” (Gov. Code, § 65008, subs. (a)(3), (b)(1)(C), and (b)(2)(B).) In addition, both local governments and California state agencies are tasked with affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH), requiring “meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” (Gov. Code, § 8899.50, subd. (a)(1).) The obligation to AFFH works in conjunction with, and independently of, local government’s housing element obligations. Local governments are required to include a plan to AFFH as part of a compliant housing element, and are required to carry out this plan and other policies consistent with their obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. (Id., § 65583, subd. (a)(3), (b)(1).) By any measure, the actions of Los Altos Hills since the adoption of their current housing element, and these amendments to that housing element, fail to meet its fair housing obligations.
The Current Los Altos Hills Housing Element
Los Altos Hills’s current housing element was certified by HCD in late May of 2023, just in time to give the Town a full three years to complete the required rezonings of low income sites. The housing element contained a detailed discussion of the Town’s plan to AFFH. This discussion outlines how the Town was founded in 1956, eight years after the Supreme Court outlawed explicit racial covenants in its Shelley v. Kraemer decision, in order to preserve the “rural character” of the area. (2023 Housing Element, page 83, 122.) Many properties in the area contained racial covenants, and many still do today despite these restrictions being unenforceable. (pg. 122.) At the time of incorporation, the Town “required a 1-acre minimum lot size and barred the construction of multifamily housing.” Not coincidentally, the Town maintains a sizable white majority today. The Town identifies the dominance of expensive large-lot single family homes, and community opposition to housing as key barriers to fair housing. The main program to break down these barriers is Program A-1, requiring the rezoning of three identified sites to promote the development of multifamily affordable housing.
Amending its Housing Element to carve back the Twin Oaks Court site would establish a clear pattern of discrimination against multifamily and affordable housing, and it would also fail to affirmatively further fair housing. The change would be clearly contrary to the Town’s adopted plan to AFFH. Removing more than 10 acres of the site, and reducing the density from 30 to 24 acres, would dramatically reduce the ability of the site to produce housing affordable to lower-income households.
The City Council’s February 20, 2025 public meeting regarding the Twin Oaks proposal and potential Housing Element amendments revealed that the explicit purpose of this change is to prevent the development of a mixed-income housing development on the Twin Oaks site.
Vice Mayor Bhateja and Council Member Mok stated that the Town was going to amend the 9 of 12
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 4
Housing Element regarding the Twin Oaks site: “The goal is to limit development to approximately 92 units while addressing key concerns such as wildfire safety, traffic congestion, and preserving the town’s character.” Their presentation concluded by stating that “the focus remains on responsible development that aligns with state requirements while preserving the town’s unique character.” While maintaining more limited capacity on the site allows the Town to put forth a facade of maintaining compliance with the law, there is no proposed housing development at such lower density, and the Town has done nothing to demonstrate such a proposal is viable.
In addition to the proposed changes to the Twin Oaks site, the Town has already denied two affordable housing developments since the adoption of the previous plan. Both were builder’s remedy projects proposed during the period when the Town was out of compliance with its housing element, and both were denied on technicalities manufactured by the Town. If the Town is allowed to thwart the proposed Twin Oaks development, it would result in the denial of three consecutive developments that would have brought the Town its first ever deed restricted affordable housing.
While the Council leaves unsaid what it means by “preserving the Town’s character,” we can infer that they are referring to the exact character identified in their AFFH plan as a barrier to fair housing. Approving the proposed reduction in density on the Twin Oaks site would aid in a clear effort to prevent the development of lower-income housing in one of the wealthiest municipalities in the state. This effort is wildly inconsistent with the Town’s and the State’s obligation to take "meaningful actions . . . to overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” (Gov. Code, § 8899.50, subd. (a)(1).) Relying Heavily on ADUs Violates Fair Housing Law
Aside from the Twin Oaks site, the remainder of the Town’s low income site inventory relies heavily on ADUs. The Town is therefore planning on using ADUs to account for 105 units of its total lower-income RHNA of 197 units. In fact, during the February 20, 2025 public hearing, a number of members of the public testified that the Town should rely even more heavily on ADUs rather than allow the Twin Oaks development to proceed.
However, this ADU-heavy strategy is highly problematic from a fair housing perspective. The federal Fair Housing Act does not apply to ADUs, and state fair housing law is unclear on the issue. Additionally, the Town’s recent survey of ADUs found that less than half of ADUs in the Town were used as dwelling units - the majority were used as guest houses, as office spaces, or as other extra space for the primary dwelling unit. Furthermore, the survey in Los Altos Hills showed that 44% of the occupied ADUs were inhabited by family members. Both of these factors mean that historically excluded groups, such as Black or Latino-headed households, will have much greater challenges living in a Los Altos Hills ADU, as only half of 10 of 12
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 4
the ADUs are available for residential use and only about half of the remaining ADUs are available for non-family members.
Furthermore, ADUs are significantly smaller than other types of housing. While this makes them naturally more affordable, it also reduces housing opportunities for families with children. As discussed supra, state law obligates the Town’s Housing Element to affirmatively further fair housing. Protected categories include familial status, as mandated by Gov. Code 65583, subd. (c)(5):
Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law.
Los Altos Hills’s overreliance on ADUs fails to promote housing throughout the community for families with children, which is a familial status.
If the Town is allowed to amend its Housing Element to hamstring the site with the best potential to be developed into multifamily, mixed-income housing, then the primary lower-income units developed in the Town will be ADUs, with the result there were may not be any zero deed restricted affordable housing developed in the Town. And 3/4ths of the ADUs developed will either not be used as housing or will only be available to relatives of existing town residents. This will be a fair housing disaster. ⧫ ⧫ ⧫
The Town’s proposed amendment to its Housing Element is a transparent effort to thwart the first genuine mixed-income housing proposal (and first deed-restricted affordable units) in the Town’s history. This amendment would violate the Town’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing. By over-relying on ADUs and actively sabotaging mixed-income development, the Town is acting to continue to exclude marginalized racial and ethnic groups from the community. The Town’s history of building exclusively large, expensive single-family homes on one-acre lots compounds these concerns. The Town should abandon this amendment and implement its current Housing Element, as the law requires.
CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org. 11 of 12
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 4
Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
12 of 12
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 4
October 16, 2025
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
By email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Re: Proposed Zoning Map and Text Amendments
Dear Los Altos Hills City Council and Staff,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this correspondence as comment regarding agenda item 7A for the October 16, 2025 Council meeting, proposed amendments to the Town of Los Altos Hills (“Town”) General Plan, zoning map, and zoning code.
The proposed rezoning does not fulfill the Town’s obligations under Housing Element law.
The proposal also violates a recently decided binding Court of Appeal decision and state fair housing law.
It is clear that the Town, having seen its proposed housing element amendment disapproved by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) (see attached disapproval letter), is attempting to disregard that disapproval by implementing a rezoning the accomplishes the same goal as the failed housing element amendment - the carving back of the Twin Oaks Site in order to thwart the first affordable housing in the Town’s history.
This is disappointing, but hardly surprising, given the Town’s history of exclusionary land use policies.
2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
www.calhdf.org
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 4
Inadequate Rezoning
The Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, §§ 65580 et seq.) establishes a clear process for the evaluation, planning, and enactment of the Town’s housing policy. That process has a two-part structure. In the first part, the Town must adopt a housing element on a specified timeline and that meets certain requirements. In the second part, the Town must implement the programs promised in its housing element. Crucially, the second step relies on the first step: what, precisely, the Town must do in the second step has already been established by the housing element. (See Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c).) The second step is not a freestanding exercise in policymaking or policy analysis. (See id.) The policymaking and policy analysis are conducted in the first step, and the Housing Element Law leaves essentially no room to alter the results at the second step.1 The Town has completed the first step. It adopted a housing element in January 2023, adhering to the substantive and procedural rules in the Housing Element Law. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) also certified the Town’s adopted housing element as legally compliant, pursuant to its statutory authority. (See, e.g., Gov. Code, § 65585.) That housing element made numerous detailed commitments. These commitments include promises to rezone three sites to accommodate housing for lower income households. (See Gov. Code, §§ 65583 [establishing standards for required rezonings]; 65583.1 [same]; 65583.2 [same].) The scope and density of the rezoning program in the housing element was informed by the likelihood of development in each individual site. The plan that was certified by HCD required a larger and denser rezoning, precisely because the individual sites were not likely to be developed, and to offset the many constraints on housing development that would confront any development proposal on each site. When the Town attempted to amend its plan to reduce the scale of the proposed upzoning, this amendment was rejected by HCD because there was insufficient evidence that the sites were likely to develop at the proposed density.
The Town is now at the second step of the process: implementing the commitments in its housing element. This includes the aforementioned rezoning and associated policy analyses. The Town’s proposed rezoning, however, seeks to accomplish the same scaled-back rezoning that HCD has already rejected as failing to comply with housing element law, and fails to fulfill crucial aspects of its housing element commitments. These are commitments that the Town, as explained above, cannot renege on without going through a full amendment process for its housing element.
Twin Oaks Site
1 If the Town wishes to alter the policy analysis or programs promised by its housing element, it has an avenue to do that: it may amend its housing element according to the procedures set forth in Government Code section 65585. But the process remains a two-step process: the Town must first amend its housing element, and only then can it proceed to the second step of implementing the promised housing element programs.
2 of 11
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 4
For the Twin Oaks Site, the Town’s proposed rezoning fails to implement the rezoning that it committed to in its Housing Element.
The Twin Oaks site, composed of APNs 18202017, 18202018, 18202019, 18202020, 18202021, 18202022, 18202007, is discussed on pages 192-194 of the Housing Element. The Housing Element commits to rezoning it to 20-30 units per acre.
Appendix A of the Housing Element, the Housing Element site inventory, assigns a certain number of units by income to each of these parcels. The relevant section of the table is reproduced below:
As can be seen, the site inventory assigns specific numbers of housing units, including low-income units, to each parcel contained in the Twin Oaks site [APN 182 02 016 is not part of the Twin Oaks Site].
However, the proposed rezoning only rezones parcels 18202020, 18202021, and 18202022.
Furthermore, rather than rezone these parcels for a density of 20 to 30 units an acre, as committed to on page 193 of the Housing Element, the rezoning only allows a density of 20 to 24 units per acre. As discussed infra, the rezoning has an effectively much lower density, given that it implements numerous additional constraints, which reduce the area of the site that may be developed and also reduce the density generated by the zoning by excluding large portions of the parcels from density calculations.
By failing to rezone parcels in the site inventory, and rezoning parcels and densities less than what the Town committed to in its Housing Element, this rezoning fails to meet the requirements of the Housing Element Law. (See Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).) 3 of 11
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 4
Creating a Floating Zone Is Not a Rezoning
The Town is proposing to amend its zoning text to establish a floating zone, which would cover the campus of Foothill College: the “Floating Multi-Family Overlay.” Housing Element pages 186-188 provide the Town’s commitments for the Foothill College site (APNs 17541014, 17541015, and 17541016):
“The Foothill College site consists of a portion of three parcels located along El Monte Road with a gross area of approximately 124 acres. As a part of the Town’s planned Multi-family Infill Overlay Zone to allow and facilitate multi-family residential to meet the RHNA, the adopted overlay would allow a projected density of 30 du/ac. The Town would allow Foothill College to develop approximately 14.5 cumulative acres on the campus as that is the amount of acreage that can realistically be developed without the displacement or removal of any existing use on the campus (through redevelopment or building retrofitting) … Surface parking areas are among the most likely areas to accommodate infill housing. Two parking lots, approximately 9.5 and
4.5 acres in area are located at the northern and southwestern portions of the campus property. Both sites are accessed by the loop road through the campus. The parking lots are easily developed since they already have road access and utilities, a lack of habitat or environmental constraints.”
The Town therefore committed to rezoning 14.5 acres of the College’s campus at 30 units per acre. However, rather than following through on that commitment, the Town is instead creating a mechanism for the future mapping of a new zoning district somewhere on the campus. Additionally, the future (unmapped) zoning district would only allow 24 units per acre, not the 30 units / acre committed to in the Housing Element, and it would also be subject to the various unanalyzed constraints discussed infra.
Proposed code section 10-1.1603 provides the process by which an actual zoning district might be mapped (emphasis added):
The FMFO zone is hereby established as a floating zone on all properties designated on the General Plan Land Use Diagram as FMFO. The precise location of one or more FMFO zoning districts shall be mapped at a later date. The FMFO zoning district(s) shall include a total of not less than 8.8 acres of contiguous buildable area as defined herein and shall meet all other applicable requirements of this Article 16. The FMFO district boundaries may be mapped and recorded after review and recommendation by the Planning Commission and adoption by resolution of the City Council:
a. At the discretion of the Town at any time;
4 of 11
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 4
b. After selection by the property owner and confirmation by the Town Planning Director of compliance with MF zone requirements; or c. In conjunction with a proposed development application for multi-family development on the FMFO designated property.
Upon selection and demonstration of compliance, the Town shall adopt by resolution and subsequently publish the updated Zoning Map showing the boundaries of the MFO zoning district established by adoption of this Article 16.
Creating a mechanism for the creation of a future zoning district does not fulfill the requirements of Housing Element Law. Government Code section 65583, subd. (c)(1)(A)(i) reads, in pertinent part (emphasis added):
For the adoption of the sixth revision of the housing element, jurisdictions with an eight-year housing element planning period pursuant to Section 65588, including adoption of minimum density and development standards or, for a jurisdiction in the coastal zone, any necessary local coastal program amendments related to land use designations, changes in intensity of land use, zoning ordinances, or zoning district maps … shall be completed no later than three years after either the date the housing element is adopted pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 65585 … The Town must “complete” the zoning changes necessary to implement its Housing Element by January 30, 2026. The Town’s proposed mechanism leaves a host of required zoning changes that must be completed in the future. This means that the Town will not have rezoned the Foothill College site and will thereby miss its January 30, 2026, rezoning deadline.
Overlay Problems
The town is proposing to map an overlay on the St. Nicholas School site (APNs 33621003, 33621004) to allow housing development there. The Town’s commitments related to the St.
Nicholas School site are located on pages 188-191 of the Housing Element:
The property contains ample room to accommodate new residential units by developing the vacant, approximately 5-acreportion [sic] on the north side of the site above El Monte Road.The northern five-acre portion of the St. Nicholas school property is vacant and independent of the school facilities and operations to the south. The 5-acre site is located between El Monte Road and the campus facilities … This identified portion of the property has a high potential to be developed as there are no existing structures, the site has been previously disturbed, there is availability of water, sewer and other utilities, and the area at the top of the hill is relatively flat. 5 of 11
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 4
The adopted overlay zone will allow for a density of 30 du/ac to incentivize and allow residential redevelopment. The maximum unit capacity for this site is 150 units, while the realistic capacity assumed for this site is 75 units.
The Town therefore committed to rezoning five acres of the site at 30 units per acre. The Town’s proposed Multifamily Overlay zone will only allow developments up to 24 units per acre, violating the commitment made in the Housing Element.
However, the Town is choosing to rezone the St. Nicholas site with an overlay. From proposed code section 10-1.1603:
For areas where the MF zone is applied as an Overlay (MFO) or Floating MFO, the MFO zone standards and permitted uses supersede the single-family residential uses and development standards of the underlying Residential-Agricultural (R-A) zone when in conflict. All public and private school uses shall be subject to the otherwise applicable standards of the underlying R-A zone.
Code section 10-1.1608 forbids certain uses in the Multifamily Overlay, such as single-family homes. However, schools are specifically allowed in the Multifamily Overlay and Floating Multifamily Overlay.
Proposed code section 10-1.1607 Conditional Uses (MFO):
The following uses may be established in the Multi-Family Overlay (MFO) and Floating Multi-Family Overlay (FMFO) zones subject to the approval of the Planning Commission, and the issuance of a conditional development permit therefor pursuant to the provisions of this Title per Section 10-1.1004:
(a) Public schools where designated on the General Plan Land Use Diagram. (b) Private schools where designated on the General Plan Land Use Diagram.
However, binding caselaw from the California Court of Appeal forbids the Town from using an overlay to accomplish its rezoning. In New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach (Oct. 10, 2025, No. B336042) ___ Cal.App.5th ___), the Court held that an overlay cannot be used to satisfy the requirements of state law for rezonings for lower-income sites (See Gov.
Code, § 65583.2, subd. (h)(2)) if the zoning expressly permits development that does not include housing. Allowing underlying, non-residential uses would not satisfy the minimum residential density requirement imposed by state housing law.
Not only do the overlays allow the uses of the underlying Residential-Agricultural district (except for what is explicitly forbidden by code section 10-1.1608), they expressly allow the establishment of public and private schools.
6 of 11
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 4
Given that the owner of the St. Nicholas School site is opposed to the development of housing on the site, the fact that school uses will continue to be allowed by zoning makes the development of housing on this site highly unlikely. From the attached CalMatters article on the Los Altos Hills housing element:
The Diocese of San José, owner of the [St. Nicholas School site], has “no intention of developing or selling” any part of the school, said spokesperson Cynthia Shaw. “Legal counsel clearly conveyed the Diocese’s opposition to the Town’s submission of the housing plan in 2022.”
New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach clearly forbids the Town from using an overlay to accomplish its required rezoning.
New Constraints
Housing Element Law requires local governments to analyze governmental constraints on housing production. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).) The results of this analysis then inform the policies and programs in the housing element. (See id.; id. at subd. (c)(3); Californians for Homeownership, Inc. v. City of Beverly Hills (2023) Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 23STCP00143, at p. 6, [finding planned rezonings for housing element site inventory must consider constraints identified by the housing element’s constraints analysis] [opinion attached to this letter].)
However, because the new constraints included in the Town’s rezoning proposal were not analyzed in the Town’s housing element, the Town cannot rely on the rezoning proposal to produce as many units as it is required to unless the Town analyzes the effects of the new constraints and offsets their impact on housing production. The Multifamily, Multifamily Overlay, and Floating Multifamily Overlay (MF/MFO/FMFO) impose the following, unanalyzed constraints (proposed code § 10-1.1611):
● MF/MFO/FMFO imposes a requirement that each development site shall contain a contiguous buildable area, exclusive of steep slopes greater than 25% with a minimum horizontal measurement of 25 feet, with a minimum dimension not less than 50 feet wide.
○ This was not analyzed in the Housing Element and this will make development of these sites challenging given the gradients involved. ● MF/MFO/FMFO has a minimum lot size of 3.5 acres and a maximum lot size of 10 acres.
○ This was not analyzed in the Housing Element and these standards prevent the entire Twin Oaks site from being developed and it also inhibits the development of individual parcels within the Twin Oaks site. ● MF/MFO/FMFO has minimum front, side, and rear setbacks of 60 feet. 7 of 11
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 4
○ The Housing Element only considered 40 foot front setbacks and 30 foot side and rear setbacks.
○ Increased setbacks diminish the amount of buildable area on a parcel. ● MF/MFO/FMFO establishes a maximum average of 750 square feet of gross floor area per dwelling unit.
○ The Housing Element instead held that every parcel was allowed at least a 2,500 square foot dwelling. See Fair Housing implications infra. ● MF/MFO/FMFO establishes a requirement for 40 square feet of private recreation space per dwelling.
○ This was not analyzed in the Housing Element and private recreation space is challenging for affordable housing given the expense of constructing and maintaining balconies.
● MF/MFO/FMFO establishes a requirement for 100 square feet of common recreation space per dwelling unit.
○ This was not analyzed in the Housing Element and, when coupled with the above maximum average gross floor area per dwelling unit, this imposes a dramatic constraint on housing development.
● MF/MFO/FMFO establishes a building-to-building separation requirement of 25-50 feet.
○ This was not analyzed in the Housing Element and this will impose another barrier to housing, particularly on mixed-use sites.
Proposed code section 10-1.1614 also prohibits or strictly limits development on/near ridgelines, hilltops, steep slopes, hillsides, and near riparian corridors. These constraints were not analyzed in the Housing Element and this will impose another barrier to housing, particularly on mixed-use sites.
Most alarming is the fact that the proposed zoning calculates density differently based on net buildable area, as opposed to gross density based on total parcel area.
Proposed code section 10-1.1609 provides the following definition of “Contiguous Buildable Area:”
The contiguous area of a parcel, lot or development site with a minimum dimension not less than 50 feet wide and excluding areas of steep slopes greater than 25% measured over a minimum horizontal distance of 25 feet. The contiguous area may include small individual areas of slopes greater than 25% where such small individual areas are less than 1,000 square feet in area and are surrounded by slopes less than 25% on all sides of said area.
Then, proposed code section 10-1.1611 defines density as “dwelling units per acre of contiguous buildable area.”
8 of 11
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 4
As discussed supra, the Town is only rezoning the three lower-income Housing Element sites (Twin Oaks, St. Nicholas School, Foothill College) at 24 units per acre, as opposed to the 30 units per acre that the Housing Element committed to. However, because the proposed MF/MFO/FMFO zoning calculates the density in a more restrictive manner, the proposed rezoning will actually grant a density well under 24 units per acre.
Based on all these various new constraints, it is entirely unclear whether the lower-income sites will be able to generate the number of units committed to by the Housing Element.
Fair Housing Implications
The proposed rezoning fails to meet the Town’s fair housing obligations.
First, carving back the Twin Oaks Court site in order to thwart a proposed mixed-income housing development would establish a clear pattern of discrimination against multifamily and affordable housing, and it would also fail to affirmatively further fair housing. The change would be clearly contrary to the Town’s adopted plan to affirmatively further fair housing. Removing more than 10 acres of the site, and reducing the density from 30 to 24 acres, would dramatically reduce the ability of the site to produce housing affordable to lower-income households.
Local governments have an obligation under California to refrain from any actions that would discriminate against protected classes, or against the “intended occupancy of any residential development by persons or families of very low, low, moderate, or middle income.” (Gov. Code, § 65008, subs. (a)(3), (b)(1)(C), and (b)(2)(B).) CalHDF addressed the fair housing implications of carving back the Twin Oaks Site more thoroughly in our September 12, 2025 letter to HCD (attached).
Second, the proposed multifamily development standards establish a maximum average gross floor area per dwelling unit standard of 750 square feet. Because this is maximum average square footage, the average maximum floor area per dwelling unit will be approximately 600 square feet, due to the need for circulation space and common areas.
Beyond this, the zoning establishes a requirement for 100 square feet of common recreation space per dwelling unit, some of which would likely be in the form of exercise rooms or other common spaces. This will require projects to be predominantly studios and one-bedroom apartments, resulting in disparate impact against families with children.
Local governments have an obligation under California to refrain from any actions that would discriminate against protected classes based on protected characteristics (Gov. Code, 9 of 11
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 4
§ 65008, subs. (a)(1)(A). One such protected characteristic is familial status. (Gov. Code, § 12955 subd. (a).)
By forcing the units in these developments to be, on average, predominantly studios and one-bedrooms, the Town will make it vastly more challenging to develop housing units that are large enough to accommodate families with children. It is not surprising that the Town is engaging in this practice, given that the addition of lower-income children to the local school district is often highly opposed by the residents of high-income communities across the state and country.
Both local governments and California state agencies are tasked with affirmatively further fair housing, requiring “meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” (Gov. Code, § 8899.50, subd. (a)(1).) The obligation to affirmatively further fair housing works in conjunction with, and independently of, local government’s housing element obligations. Local governments are required to include a plan to affirmatively further fair housing as part of a compliant housing element, and are required to carry out this plan and other policies consistent with their obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. (Id., § 65583, subd. (a)(3), (b)(1).) The Town’s proposed rezoning therefore fails to meet its obligations under state fair housing law and housing element law.
⧫ ⧫ ⧫
The Town’s proposed rezoning is a transparent effort to thwart the Twin Oaks project, which would be the first genuine mixed-income housing proposal (and first deed-restricted affordable units) in the Town’s history. This rezoning would violate both Housing Element Law and state fair housing law. By actively sabotaging mixed-income development, the Town is acting to continue to exclude marginalized racial and ethnic groups from the community.
The Town’s history of building exclusively large, expensive single-family homes on one-acre lots compounds these concerns. The Town should reject this proposed rezoning and instead implement its Housing Element in accordance with state law.
CalHDF is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households.
You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.
10 of 11
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 4
Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
11 of 11
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 4
“CalMatters is my lifeline to understand the policies, power and people shaping our state.” —CalMatters member Nalini Lasiewicz of La Cañada Flintridge
An aerial photo near Los Altos Hills, in 2014. Photo by Jewel Samad, AFP via Getty Images Politics Immigration Housing Education Economy Environment California Voices Digital Democracy Impact
HOUSING
Why this wealthy Bay Area suburb is at the center of the next big fight over California housing
BY BEN CHRISTOPHER
OCTOBER 8, 2025
Republish
Donate
We don’t bend to power. We have no agenda
but the truth.
Back independent, nonpartisan journalism for all Californians.
Triple your donation
Why this Bay Area suburb is the center of the next CA housing fight - ... https://calmatters.org/housing/2025/10/los-altos-hills-housing-element-hcd/ 1 of 7 12/9/25, 4:15 PM
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 4
IN SUMMARY
Los Altos Hills agreed to legalize some apartment buildings. State housing regulators agreed. Nearly two years later, the town wants the state to reconsider.
In January 2023, the town council of Los Altos Hills, a mansion-studded bedroom community perched above Silicon Valley, reluctantly voted to legalize some apartment buildings.
It was a historic vote. Incorporated in 1956 by well-to-do hill dwellers trying to keep out the encroaching urbanity of nearby cities, the town’s “country residence zoning” rules only permit the construction of one type of building: Single-family homes, and no more than one per acre.
But town officials felt they had no choice. Bowing to state mandates to plan for more residential development, they zeroed in on three sites with apartment potential. The most promising of the three was Twin Oaks Court, a cluster of lots on a dead-end street sprouting from a frontage road along the I-280 freeway. State housing regulators signed off on the plan that spring.
Now, with a project proposed at Twin Oaks that would include the town’s first-ever affordable housing units, Los Altos Hills is having second thoughts.
Earlier this summer, the town council voted to amend its state-mandated development plan, cutting the number of new homes that could be legally crammed onto the site by nearly two-thirds.
Town officials and many local residents say the proposed changes to the municipal land-use blueprint, known as a housing element, still meet the letter of the state’s planning requirements while capping would-be development at a scale better suited to the town’s rural character and consistent with the intent of the original plan.
Packing hundreds of new residences along a narrow access road out of town is “totally inappropriate,” said Michael Grady, a retired lawyer who lives near the Twin Oaks site and who created an online petition calling on the town to revise its original plan. He said development at the densities initially permitted would snarl emergency access to and from the area, turbocharge traffic and disrupt local wildlife.
Pro-development activists are characterizing the proposed change as a bait-and-switch by an affluent Why this Bay Area suburb is the center of the next CA housing fight - ... https://calmatters.org/housing/2025/10/los-altos-hills-housing-element-hcd/ 2 of 7 12/9/25, 4:15 PM
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 4
community trying to evade state housing law and their obligations to make space for new residents, including those with lower incomes. The typical price of a home in the town currently tops $5.5 million, according to Zillow.
“Local agencies should not be allowed to amend their housing elements the moment that they are confronted with a real housing development project,” the California Housing Defense Fund, a legal advocacy group that regularly sues cities for violating state housing laws, wrote in a letter to the California Department of Housing and Community Development last month.
As far back as 2018, state housing department regulators, newly emboldened by a raft of California laws, have been sparring with municipalities over their state-mandated plans to make way for more houses and apartments. These battles have taken the form of lawsuits, threats of funding cuts and, in some cases, cities losing authority over local development entirely. Now, years into the process, most of California’s cities and towns have housing elements in place with the state’s certification.
The local tussle over Twin Oaks Court shows that getting the housing department’s seal of approval isn’t the end of the fight, but possibly the beginning of a new one.
California housing regulators are slated to respond to the town’s proposed changes later this week. ‘Testing the waters’
Cities across the state have reason to watch and see how things play out.
After receiving housing department certification for its housing plan in 2024, Carmel, a picturesque beach town in Monterey County, almost immediately got to work trying to change it. The main goal: remove cityowned parking lots from the city’s list of potential affordable housing sites and replace them with less politically controversial alternatives.
The town has yet to submit an amended version of its plan with the state, but has formed a working group composed of town staff and a group of local activists opposed to development on the lots.
South Pasadena has likewise submitted its own amendment to reduce the number of new homes allowed, citing a calculation error that led to the original plan providing far more capacity than is required by law.
Other affluent towns have sought out similar changes in the past — with mixed results.
Why this Bay Area suburb is the center of the next CA housing fight - ... https://calmatters.org/housing/2025/10/los-altos-hills-housing-element-hcd/ 3 of 7 12/9/25, 4:15 PM
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 4
READ NEXT
Earlier this summer, Rancho Palos Verdes in south Los Angeles County considered removing a handful of parcels from its state-approved list of developable properties. The town argued that its original plan included more development capacity than was strictly required under state law, so trimming the sites — including one with a proposed cluster of townhomes — was perfectly legal. The town eventually backed down in the face of threatened litigation.
In May, Sausalito, a well-heeled suburb overlooking the San Francisco Bay, succeeded where Rancho Palos Verdes failed. The town amended its state-approved housing plan, reducing the amount that can be built at the site of a controversial condo project. The housing department approved the changes. “We’re in the ‘testing the waters’ phase,” said Matt Gelfand, an attorney with Californians for Homeownership, which sues cities in Southern California for failing to plan or zone for enough housing. “If some smaller cities can get away with it, it’s going to be something that is employed by more cities.” In evaluating each city’s proposed changes, the state housing department is tasked with distinguishing proposed amendments that fix legitimate flubs or that make reasonable alterations to existing plans from those made in bad faith in order to delay or quash proposed developments.
The developers behind the Twin Oaks Court site clearly see Los Altos Hills’ new plan as the latter. “I don’t think that is what the housing element amendment process is supposed to be for,” said Brian O’Neill, a lawyer representing the group of developers operating under the business name Twin Oaks Court LLC. “It is supposed to be for looking at and strengthening your housing policies, not as a method to kill housing projects.”
“The Town chose to pursue an amendment to its certified Housing Element to better align planned development with our commitments to the state, the region, and our community,” Jay Bradford, the town’s Community Development Director, said in an email. “There were concerns raised by nearby residents and the community regarding potential development densities that could be accommodated at the site.” California is about to have a massive fight over taxes. Here’s why Los Angeles is the frontline
OCTOBER 6, 2025
Why this Bay Area suburb is the center of the next CA housing fight - ... https://calmatters.org/housing/2025/10/los-altos-hills-housing-element-hcd/ 4 of 7 12/9/25, 4:15 PM
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 4
How much is enough?
Local governments across California are on the hook under state law to plan for more than 2.5 million new homes before the end of the decade. Los Altos Hills’ share is 489.
In trying to hit that target, the town leaned heavily on Twin Oaks. The site had a “realistic capacity” of 92 units, the plan noted. But the town’s specific proposal to rezone the parcels allowed for considerably denser development: Upwards of 250.
Meanwhile, the other two sites identified as possible multifamily developments — campuses of the Saint Nicholas Catholic School and Foothill College — never looked especially promising.
The Diocese of San José, owner of the catholic school site, has “no intention of developing or selling” any part of the school, said spokesperson Cynthia Shaw. “Legal counsel clearly conveyed the Diocese’s opposition to the Town’s submission of the housing plan in 2022.”
The Foothill College district initially expressed interest in building on-site housing for faculty and staff, but recently opted to purchase an apartment complex in nearby Mountain View instead.
Earlier this year, Twin Oaks Court LLC took the town up on its state-certified plan. The group filed a preliminary development application that maxed out the capacity of the site — and then some. Making use of a series of state laws that let developers pack in more units if a certain share are for lower-income tenants, the project proposed building 598 homes.
Density-averse town residents panicked.
“This is exactly what we’ve been asking you to protect us from,” local resident Martha Bowden said, excoriating the town council after details of the proposal emerged in February. “This would be a disaster.” “They shouldn’t get to weasel out of what they promised on the basis that they just noticed steep land is steep.”
Why this Bay Area suburb is the center of the next CA housing fight - ... https://calmatters.org/housing/2025/10/los-altos-hills-housing-element-hcd/ 5 of 7 12/9/25, 4:15 PM
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 4
“This is illustrative of exactly why I’ve been saying for over a year and a half that the housing element as drafted is a time bomb,” said Grady, the petition organizer.
Not every spectator agreed.
“After the housing element was accepted, residents and the council were wailing, ‘but it’s steep at Twin Oaks,’” said Anne Paulson, who has attended town hall meetings as a member of the Los Altos Affordable Housing Alliance. “They nevertheless chose those sites, instead of flatter sites down the hill. They shouldn’t get to weasel out of what they promised on the basis that they just noticed steep land is steep.” The Twin Oaks developers have since reined in their plans. Their latest proposal includes a cluster of 334 single-family modular homes, including 56 set aside for lower-income residents. But that proposal is still bigger and denser than what would be allowed under the town’s amended housing plan, which cuts the number of allowable units to 92, the “realistic capacity” figure included in the original housing plan.
That makes the new plan squarely consistent with state law, said Bradford. The remaining housing capacity needed to hit the state’s target of 489 can still be met through a combination of the two school sites and less clustered development, like accessory dwelling units.
The proposed changes to the housing element “continue to affirm the projected unit yield of 92 units. It does not serve to reduce the site’s development capacity,” Bradford said. “The Town is also committed to its other multifamily sites, though these institutional properties remain subject to the decisions of their respective stakeholders. Priorities may change over time, and while development may not occur immediately, the Town continues to create opportunities for future housing through rezoning efforts.” Pro-development advocates disagree. Housing regulators signed off on the town’s housing plan two years ago.
Since then, the two proposed school sites have not been developed and more evidence has emerged to suggest that they won’t be anytime soon.
Cities are “going to have to demonstrate, with substantial evidence, that these sites are likely to be developed…(despite) years of history demonstrating that there hasn’t been very much development,” said Gelfand with Californians for Homeownership. Municipal governments are “fantasizing” that they “can just take some sites off of our sites inventory and then just assume that the remaining sites are still valid just as they were a couple years ago. But that’s not how it works.” Whether that is or isn’t how it works will ultimately depend on what state housing regulators decide.
Why this Bay Area suburb is the center of the next CA housing fight - ... https://calmatters.org/housing/2025/10/los-altos-hills-housing-element-hcd/ 6 of 7 12/9/25, 4:15 PM
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 4
READ NEXT
So many reasons to stay put: What’s behind California’s frozen housing market?
JULY 28, 2025
Ballot battles, lawsuits and a ticked off millionaire: What’s behind Eureka’s parking lot war?
JULY 25, 2024
© 2025 CalMatters
Why this Bay Area suburb is the center of the next CA housing fight - ... https://calmatters.org/housing/2025/10/los-altos-hills-housing-element-hcd/ 7 of 7 12/9/25, 4:15 PM
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 4
____________
Buyer’s Initials
____________
Seller’s Initials
______________________________________________________________________________ PSA – MVWSD & FHDACCD (699 N. Shoreline; APN 153-24-027) Page 1 4901-8247-7152v2/024031-0027
Assessor's Parcel No.(s): 153-24-027
County: Santa Clara
PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT
This Purchase and Sale Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered as of September ___, 2025, (“Effective Date”) by and between the Mountain View Whisman School District (“MVWSD” or “Seller”), and Foothill-De Anza Community College District (“FHDACCD” or “Buyer”). MVWSD and FHDACCD are California public entities located in the County of Santa Clara. Parties may be individually referred to herein as a “Party“ or collectively as “Parties.”
RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, MVWSD is the fee simple owner of the property, which includes a 144-unit residential apartment building, located at 699 North Shoreline Boulevard, in the City of Mountain View, California and County of Santa Clara, with the assessor parcel number (“APN") 153-24-027 and as more specifically described below and in Exhibit A, attached and made a part hereto ("Property").
B. WHEREAS, the Property is adjacent to and was developed as part of an integrated residential apartment complex with the Property and the adjacent parcel owned and developed by Mountain View Owner LLC consisting of 572 market-rate residential units, for a total of 716 residential units, subterranean parking structure (“Parking Garage”) and certain amenities (“Master Development”) and subject to that certain Agreement by and Among the City of Mountain View, Mountain View Owner, LLC, and Mountain View Wishman School District, Regarding the Provision of Affordable Rental Housing Units for A Residential Project Located at 777 West Middlefield Road (“Agreement for Affordable Rental Housing Units”) dated September 19, 2022 and recorded October 13, 2022 as Document No. 2536075 of Official Records and that certain Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions and Establishment of Easements ad Cost Sharing Obligations for 777 West Middlefield (“CC&Rs”) dated November 28, 2022 and recorded December 6, 2022 as Document No. 25411919 of Official Records.
C. WHEREAS, MVWSD intends to sell to FHDACCD, and FHDACCD intends to purchase from MVWSD, an Ownership Interest (as further detailed and defined below) of an undivided thirty-five percent (35%) interest as tenants in common in the Property, including ownership of fifty (50) residential units and a proportionate share of the land, improvements, access to and use of a proportionate share of parking spaces in the Parking Garage, access to and use of all amenities, common areas and appurtenances of the Property, including easements or rights-of-way relating thereto, in the Master Development, of which the Property is a part thereof.
D. WHEREAS, MVWSD warrants it is authorized to sell the Ownership Interest, as defined herein, to FHDACCD.
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 4
____________
Buyer’s Initials
____________
Seller’s Initials
______________________________________________________________________________ PSA – MVWSD & FHDACCD (699 N. Shoreline; APN 153-24-027) Page 2 4901-8247-7152v2/024031-0027
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth MVWSD and FHDACCD agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
1. PROPERTY INTEREST TO BE PURCHASED
1.1 MVWSD agrees to sell and grant to FHDACCD the Ownership Interest in the Property and convey by a grant deed substantially in the form of Exhibit B, attached hereto (the “Grant Deed”).
1.2 Purchase Price: Buyer agrees to pay Fifty-Four Million Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($54,450,000.00) (“Purchase Price”) for the Ownership Interest in the Property.
1.3 Deposits, Independent Consideration, and Payment of Purchase Price:
1.3.1 Initial Deposit. Buyer shall deposit Five Hundred Forty-Four Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($544,500.00) into the escrow within one (1) business day of the Opening of Escrow (as defined below) (“Initial Deposit”). The Initial Deposit shall be deposited into an interest-bearing account.
1.3.2 Second Deposit. If Buyer, in its sole and absolute discretion, elects to proceed with the purchase of the Property, then Buyer shall deposit a second deposit in the sum of Five Hundred Forty-Four Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($544,500.00) into the escrow within two (2) business days of the delivery of the “Approval Notice” as defined below (the “Second Deposit”). The Second Deposit shall be deposited into an interest-bearing account with the Initial Deposit and the Initial Deposit and the Second Deposit shall be referred to as the “Deposit.” If the sale of the Property is consummated, 100% of the Deposit, with interest, shall be credited against the Purchase Price.
1.3.3 Independent Contract Consideration. A portion of the Initial Deposit in the sum of $100.00 (the “Independent Contract Consideration”) has been bargained for and agreed to as consideration for Buyer’s exclusive right to purchase the Property and the right to inspect the Property during the Feasibility Period provided and defined herein, and for Seller’s execution and delivery of this Agreement. The Independent Contract Consideration is in addition to and independent of all other consideration provided in this Agreement, is non-refundable in all events (notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein), and shall be released to Seller upon Buyer’s deposit of the Initial Deposit into Escrow.
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 4
____________
Buyer’s Initials
____________
Seller’s Initials
______________________________________________________________________________ PSA – MVWSD & FHDACCD (699 N. Shoreline; APN 153-24-027) Page 3 4901-8247-7152v2/024031-0027
1.3.4 The remaining portion of the Purchase Price in the amount of Fifty Three Million Three Hundred Sixty-One Thousand One Hundred Dollars ($53,361,100) shall be due and payable by Buyer to Seller at the Close of Escrow (as defined below), subject to the conditions set forth in this Agreement.
2. DEFINED TERMS
2.1 Close of Escrow. The term “Close of Escrow“ or “Closing“ shall mean the consummation of the purchase and sale of the Ownership Interest in the Property by the Parties by payment of the Purchase Price and the recordation of the Grant Deed substantially in the form of Exhibit B attached hereto, the Amendment to Agreement for Affordable Rental Housing Units, which shall be attached hereto as Exhibit C upon final approval of the City of Mountain View, and the Mountain View Whisman School District and Foothill-De Anza Community College District Co-Tenancy Agreement (“Co-Tenancy Agreement”) , which shall be agreed upon by the Parties and attached hereto as Exhibit D, attached hereto in accordance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement, including the “Closing” section herein.
2.2 Day. Unless otherwise indicated, “day” or “Day” shall mean a calendar day.
Opening of Escrow. Within two (2) business days of the Effective Date, Seller shall open an escrow to consummate the purchase of the Ownership Interest in the Property by Buyer with First American Title Company, Attention: Rhonda Watts, 222 De Anza Blvd., San Mateo, CA 94402 and 333 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite #220, San Jose, CA 95113, Phone: 650.356.1731, Cell: 650.822.4026 Email: [email protected] (“Escrow Holder”), and the Seller shall deposit with the Escrow Holder a duly fully executed copy of this Agreement (the “Opening of Escrow”), which shall constitute the joint escrow instructions.
2.3 Ownership Interest (“Ownership Interest”)
2.3.1 Buyer’s Ownership Interest in the Property shall be a thirty-five percent (35%) undivided tenant in common ownership interest. Buyer’s Ownership Interest shall include fifty (50) undesignated units (individually, an “FHDA Unit,” collectively, the “FHDA Units”), identified as to unit types and income levels and other amenities as follows:
2.3.1.1 Two (2) 80% AMI studio apartments,
2.3.1.2 Five (5) 150% AMI studio apartments,
2.3.1.3 Eight (8) 80% AMI one-bedroom apartments,
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 4
____________
Buyer’s Initials
____________
Seller’s Initials
______________________________________________________________________________ PSA – MVWSD & FHDACCD (699 N. Shoreline; APN 153-24-027) Page 4 4901-8247-7152v2/024031-0027
2.3.1.4 Twenty-Two (22) 150% AMI one-bedroom apartments,
2.3.1.5 Three (3) 80% AMI two-bedroom apartments,
2.3.1.6 Ten (10) 150% AMI two-bedroom apartments,
Of the FHDA Units, FHDA will have access to 35% of the ADA accessible units.
The specific location of FHDA Units shall be assigned periodically by MWVSD to FHDA for FHDA’s exclusive use and occupancy pursuant to the Master Maintenance and Operations Agreement (“M&O Agreement”), which shall be entered into between the Parties by the Close of Escrow, and the Agreement for Affordable Rental Housing Units, as amended.
2.3.2 As part of Buyer’s Ownership Interest, Buyer shall own and have access to and use of fifty (50) parking spaces located in the Parking Garage (“FHDA Parking Spaces”), the general location of which is as shown in Exhibit A.
2.3.3 As part of Buyer’s Ownership Interest, Buyer shall have full access to and the use and enjoyment of all amenities that are part of the Master Development and appurtenant to the Property subject to: Section 2.3.4 below; the Agreement for Affordable Rental Housing Units, as amended; the CC&R’s; other matters of record that are identified encumbrances herein; and the M&O Agreement.
2.3.4 Seller’s and Buyer’s ownership interests in the Property shall be subject to the Agreement for Affordable Rental Housing Units, as amended, the Co-Tenancy Agreement, the M&O Agreement, CC&Rs and other matters of record, subject to Section 3.3.
2.4 Title Policy. The term “Title Policy“ shall mean the American Land Title Association (“ALTA”) owner's standard (or extended if applicable) coverage policy of title insurance to be issued by the Title Company upon the Close of Escrow pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
3. DUE DILIGENCE; MARKETING; "AS-IS" PURCHASE; RELEASE OF SELLER.
3.1 Due Diligence. Close of Escrow shall be subject to Buyer’s determination of the suitability of the Property for Buyer’s intended use in Buyer’s sole and absolute discretion. Buyer shall have ten (10) days from the Opening of Escrow (the “Due Diligence Period”) to determine the suitability of the Property. Prior to 5:00 p.m. (local time) on the last day of the Due Diligence Period (the “Due Diligence ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 4
____________
Buyer’s Initials
____________
Seller’s Initials
______________________________________________________________________________ PSA – MVWSD & FHDACCD (699 N. Shoreline; APN 153-24-027) Page 5 4901-8247-7152v2/024031-0027
Deadline”), Buyer shall either approve or disapprove the suitability of the Property. Buyer’s failure to deliver to Seller written notice approving the suitability of the Property (the “Notice of Due Diligence Approval” or “Notice to Proceed”) on or before the Due Diligence Deadline shall constitute Buyer’s disapproval, whereupon this Agreement and the Escrow shall automatically terminate, and Seller and Escrow Holder shall immediately return the Initial Deposit to Buyer, all without further instructions from Seller or Buyer, and neither Seller nor Buyer shall have any further rights or obligations under this Agreement.
3.2 Sellers Documents. Within two (2) business days of execution of this Agreement, Seller shall provide Buyer with copies of any of the following reports that Buyer has in its possession: proforma title policies, surveys, reports, environmental inspections, soil or geological reports, information concerning the most recent property taxes, land use entitlements for the Master Development, below market rate housing restrictions; zoning restrictions on the use of the Property, appurtenant easements, and other documents that Seller may have in its possession pertaining to the Property (“Diligence Materials”). Buyer shall review and inspect the Diligence Materials and shall provide the Seller a Notice to Proceed on or before the Due Diligence Deadline.
3.3 Title. Within two (2) business days after the Opening of Escrow, Seller shall cause the Title Company to issue a current preliminary title report with respect to the Property, accompanied by legible copies of all documents referred to in the report. Within two (2) business days after Buyer’s receipt of the preliminary title report, Buyer shall provide notice to Seller of any objections that Buyer has with respect to the exceptions to title listed in the preliminary title report. Seller shall have two (2) business days from the date of notice to (i) cure any exceptions to which Buyer objects, (ii) agree to cause such exception removed or eliminated prior to or at the Closing, to the reasonable satisfaction of Buyer, unless a longer period is mutually agreed by Parties, or (iii) decline to cure any Buyer title objections. If Buyer’s objection to any exception to title cannot be removed or eliminated to the reasonable satisfaction of Buyer, prior to the Due Diligence Deadline, Buyer may elect to cancel escrow and terminate this Agreement and thereafter, the Deposit shall be returned to Buyer. If Seller declines to cure any or all of Buyer’s title objections, then Buyer shall have the right to terminate this Agreement on or before the Due Diligence Deadline and the Deposit shall be returned to Buyer. If Buyer provides the Seller and Escrow Holder a Notice to Proceed as set forth in this Agreement and approves the condition of the Property on or before the Due Diligence Deadline, Buyer shall be deemed to have waived any prior title objections to which Seller declined to cure. Buyer shall not be required to object to deeds of trust, mortgages, mechanics’ liens, judgments or other monetary liens encumbering the Property, ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 4
____________
Buyer’s Initials
____________
Seller’s Initials
______________________________________________________________________________ PSA – MVWSD & FHDACCD (699 N. Shoreline; APN 153-24-027) Page 6 4901-8247-7152v2/024031-0027
provided such monetary encumbrances were not created by or through any action or inaction of Seller, its agents or representatives (“Monetary Liens”) and to the Agreement for Affordable Rental Housing Units, as amended.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, neither (i) the Title Company’s standard printed exceptions; (ii) matters affecting title created by or with the consent of Buyer; nor (iii) liens to secure taxes and assessments not yet due and payable shall give rise to any objection to title by Buyer. Additionally, the Title Policy shall contain such endorsements, if any, as Buyer may negotiate with Title Company on or before the Due Diligence Deadline. Seller will provide the Title Company with a customary and reasonable owner’s affidavit permitting the Title Company to provide extended coverage to Buyer on the Property. Evidence of title to the Property shall be the issuance at the Close of Escrow by Title Company of a standard ALTA owner's coverage policy of title insurance, or extended ALTA owner’s coverage of title insurance at Buyer’s option and additional expense for said extended owner’s coverage) insuring title to the Property and containing such endorsements as Buyer shall request (if any), as the same shall be negotiated by Buyer with Title Company on or before the Due Diligence Deadline.
3.4 Marketing. From the Effective Date until Close of Escrow, Buyer may accept and process housing applications from qualified FHDA staff for FHDA Units and Seller, at no cost or expense to Seller, will cooperate as requested by Buyer to allow FHDA staff to take occupancy of FHDA Unit as soon as practical after Close of Escrow.
3.5 "AS-IS" PURCHASE. BUYER SPECIFICALLY ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES THAT
SELLER IS SELLING AND BUYER IS PURCHASING AN OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY ON AN "AS-IS WITH ALL FAULTS" BASIS. SELLER SHALL OFFER NO
CREDITS TO THE PURCHASE PRICE TO OFFSET ANY POTENTIAL MITIGATION OF
SOILS, UTILITIES, ENVIRONMENTAL, WETLANDS OR ANY OTHER CONDITION AFFECTING THE PROPERTY. EXCEPT FOR THE REPRESENTATIONS, WARRANTIES
AND COVENANTS OF SELLER IN THIS AGREEMENT, BUYER IS RELYING SOLELY ON
ITS INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION AND NOT ON ANY REPRESENTATIONS OR
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, FROM SELLER
AS TO ANY MATTERS CONCERNING THE PROPERTY, ITS SUITABILITY FOR BUYER'S INTENDED USES OR ANY OF THE PROPERTY CONDITIONS. SELLER DOES NOT
GUARANTEE THE LEGAL, PHYSICAL, GEOLOGICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL OR OTHER
CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTY, NOR DOES IT ASSUME ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR
THE COMPLIANCE OF THE PROPERTY OR ITS USE WITH ANY STATUTE, ORDINANCE OR REGULATION. IT IS BUYER'S SOLE RESPONSIBILITY TO
DETERMINE ALL BUILDING, PLANNING, ZONING AND OTHER REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE PROPERTY AND THE USES TO WHICH IT MAY BE PUT.
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 4
____________
Buyer’s Initials
____________
Seller’s Initials
______________________________________________________________________________ PSA – MVWSD & FHDACCD (699 N. Shoreline; APN 153-24-027) Page 7 4901-8247-7152v2/024031-0027
3.6 Release of Seller. As part of its agreement to purchase the Property in its "AS-IS WITH ALL FAULTS" condition, and except for the representations, warranties and covenants of Seller in this Agreement, Buyer, on behalf of itself and its successors and assigns, waives any right to recover from, and forever releases and discharges Seller and their respective members, trustees, staff, heirs, successors, legal representatives and assigns, from any and all demands, claims, legal or administrative proceedings, losses, liabilities, damages, penalties, fines, liens, judgments, costs or expenses whatsoever (including, without limitation, attorneys' fees and costs) (collectively the “Claims”), whether direct or indirect, known or unknown, foreseen or unforeseen, that may arise on account of or in any way be connected with (i) Buyer’s past, present and future use of the Property, (ii) the physical, geological or environmental condition of the Property, including, without limitation, any Hazardous Material in, on, under, above or about the Property, and (iii) any federal, state, local or administrative law, rule, regulation, order or requirement applicable thereto, including, without limitation, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA," also commonly known as the "Superfund" law), as amended by Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 ("SARA") (42 U.S.C. Sections 9601-9657), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended by the Solid Waste and Disposal Act of 1984 (collectively, "RCRA") (42 U.S.C. Sections 6901-6987), the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (collectively the "Clean Water Act") (33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.), the Toxic Substances Control Act ("TSCA") (15 U.S.C. Sections 2601-2629), the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. Section 1801 et seq.), the Carpenter-PresleyTanner Hazardous Substance Account Law (commonly known as the "California Superfund" law) (California Health and Safety Code Sections 25300-25395), the Hazardous Waste Control Act (California Health and Safety Code Section 25100 et seq.), the Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law (commonly known as the "Business Plan Law") (California Health and Safety Code Section 25500 et seq.), the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code Section 13000 et seq.), and the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (commonly known as "Proposition 65") (California Health and Safety Code Section 25249.5 et seq.). As used in this Agreement, the term “Hazardous Materials” means hazardous substances, hazardous waste, hazardous materials, toxic substances, contamination, pollution and words of similar import which are located in, on, under or about the Property, giving those terms the broadest meaning as accorded by statutes, regulations and/or court decisions in the federal or State jurisdictions in which the Property is located.
In connection with the foregoing release, Buyer expressly waives the benefits of Section 1542 of the California Civil Code, which provides as follows:
ITEM 6A SUPPLEMENTAL 4