Agenda packet — Los Altos Hills City Council, March 19, 2026 (part 3 of 4)

Please let us know if you have any questions at this time and we have included a list of important Upper Campus event dates between now and the end of this school year for your information.

Sincerely,
Scott Riches Kyle Riches
President and Head of School Associate Head of School
23

Page 285 of 510 ends

2025–2026 General Calendar – Important Dates
● Wednesday, January 7, 2026: School Resumes
● Monday, January 19, 2026: Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday (No School) ● February 16–20, 2026: Presidents’ Day Holiday (No School) ● April 6-10, 2026: Spring Recess
● Monday, May 25, 2026: Memorial Day (No School)
● Wednesday, May 27, 2026: Junior High Graduation @ 6:00 PM ● Thursday, May 28, 2026: High School Graduation @ 9:00 AM 24

Page 286 of 510 ends

Upper Campus (grades 7-12)
26800 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022, (650) 209-3010 Monday, March 2, 2026
Dear Neighbor,
As a follow up to the February 5, 2026, Planning Commission public hearing, we are pleased to share that the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval to the City Council for Pinewood School’s Upper Campus Modernization project.

We appreciate the comprehensive evaluation of our Project application by Planning staff and the Planning Commission. We believe this project, if approved by the City Council, will provide the following benefits to our Los Altos Hills neighbors:
• A new local school site built to the highest state and local standards of sustainability, fire protection, accessibility, and student safety.
• A site plan which maintains the existing campus footprint/configuration as much as possible. • Architectural style respectful of the rural nature of Los Altos Hills. • Improve parking and traffic flow by reconfiguring the parking lot, adding new parking spaces, creating two internal lanes of traffic, and creating a new exit to address backups at Fremont and Weston during morning drop off and afternoon pickup.
• Enhance perimeter fencing, trees, and landscaping to improve the buffer for neighbor privacy and sound attenuation.
• Improved stormwater retention and treatment across the entire site where none exists today except under the existing turf field.
• Use of permeable materials on significant areas of campus which are impervious under current conditions.
• Improve Fremont Road and Barron Creek pathways.

March 19, 2026, City Council Public Hearing
The final public hearing for the Project application has been scheduled for the March 19, 2026 City Council meeting:
• Thursday, March 19th
• Meeting begins at 6:00pm
• Town of Los Altos Hills City Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road • Agenda usually posted the Friday prior to the week of the meeting – search for the March 19th regular city council meeting: https://losaltoshillsca.portal.civicclerk.com Town Advisory Body Presentations To Date
Town staff directed us to seek formal feedback from Town advisory bodies on the Project application over the past two years. To date we have made the following presentations:
• Planning Commission Study Session: September 5, 2024
• Open Space Committee: October 14, 2024
• Open Space Committee: September 10, 2025
• Pathways Committee: September 29, 2025
• EDPC: October 14, 2025
• Planning Commission Public Hearing: February 5, 2026 (unanimous recommendation for approval) 25

Page 287 of 510 ends

Summary of Neighbor Feedback
Our project team is grateful for the time, ideas, feedback, and questions we have received over the past two years from our neighbors gathered during on campus neighbor briefings, one-on-one meetings, campus visits, emails, and phone calls. As part of our formal submittals to the Town of Los Altos Hills, we shared the following summary of neighbor feedback:
• Traffic
o Address current traffic issues at Fremont and Weston during pickup/drop off o Ensure adequate parking in the new layout
o Fire gates at Ortega and Ascencion to remain for emergency use only • Privacy
o Sight lines and landscaping
o Fencing and other natural visual barriers to protect privacy o Move location of proposed new driveway exit south
• Noise
o Concerns about noise from the tennis courts, gym activities, school events, and theater shop o No pickleball
o No public use of school site or field after hours
• Landscape
o Suggestions for landscaping style and preferences for maintaining the rural nature of Los Altos Hills
o Open fencing along public sides and solid fencing along shared residential property lines • Construction
o Desire for ongoing and consistent communication with neighbors about construction activities and impacts
o Noise
o Hours of operation
o Parking management during construction
o Desire for Pinewood to enforce Town restrictions on construction activities o Interest in additional security measures during construction Incorporation of Neighbor Feedback
Below is a summary of design changes made based on neighbor feedback:
• Landscape screening options to increase privacy and sound barriers for adjacent neighbors • Fencing options depending on location to increase privacy for adjacent neighbors • New driveway exit shifted south to address privacy concerns on Weston • Worked with an acoustical consultant to identify design and location modifications for outdoor events utilizing sound system setup to focus sound inwards to campus and away from adjacent neighbors Letters of Support
• We are grateful that a total of 13 letters of support were submitted to the Planning Commission, including letters from all our adjacent neighbors.

Briefings Prior to City Council Meeting
If you would like to receive a briefing about the project prior to the March 19, 2026, City Council meeting, please email Diana Rocacorba at [email protected] and she will work with you to schedule time with us and the project team.

Next Steps After March 19th
If the City Council approves our Project application at their March 19, 2026, meeting, our team will continue to keep you informed, host individual and neighborhood meetings regarding next steps, construction timelines, and important issues such as safety and security during all phases of the project. And both of us will always be available to meet and discuss questions or issues.
26

Page 288 of 510 ends

As we continue to remind everyone, we both bring a personal history of growing up in Los Altos Hills to this process and a deep respect for the surrounding community that we have both called home for many years.

We invite you to contact us both at any time throughout the process:
● Scott Riches, President and Head of School, [email protected] ● Kyle Riches, Associate Head of School, [email protected] Please let us know if you have any questions at this time and we have included a list of important Upper Campus event dates between now and the end of this school year for your information.

Sincerely,
Scott Riches Kyle Riches
President and Head of School Associate Head of School
27

Page 289 of 510 ends

2025–2026 General Calendar – Important Remaining Dates
● April 6-10, 2026: Spring Recess
● Monday, May 25, 2026: Memorial Day (No School)
● Wednesday, May 27, 2026: Junior High Graduation @ 6:00 PM ● Thursday, May 28, 2026: High School Graduation @ 9:00 AM 28

Page 290 of 510 ends

From:

Rey and Gabby Banatao
Attn:

Jay Bradford and Jonathan Fox
Town of Los Altos Hills Planning Department
26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Re: Pinewood School Upper Campus Modernization Project
Dear Mr. Bradford and Mr. Fox,
We are writing to you with regard to the Pinewood School’s Upper Campus Modernization Project Application, to ensure our points of view are captured for public record.

Since April of 2015, we have been next door neighbors to Pinewood School, sharing the property line on the western border, adjacent to the current parking lot. Pinewood has always been a great, respectful neighbor. We have enjoyed living next to the school. Our family fully supports Pinewood’s modernization project plans. In our view, the school’s proposed improvements will not only enhance the external appearance and student experience, but also raise the inherent value and desirability of our neighborhood in Los Altos Hills.

Scott Riches and the Pinewood team pro-actively reached out to the surrounding community early in their process, sought feedback early in the design process to make sure the community opinion was considered, to not just preserve, but also improve the surrounding neighborhood and environment. We’ve met with the project team members in our home to discuss the project in detail.

Specifically we appreciate the proposed plan to improve parking and traffic on Fremont road, and the improved fencing, and screening along the school borders- including our shared property line. I would also like to express my opposition against the Town’s idea of public access to the campus during the weekends; as that would be difficult to control from a noise generation and safety perspective. For example, if the public were to gain access to the campus on the weekend, what would prevent them from using the tennis courts to play noisy pickle ball. We also would want to protect Ortega drive as an emergency exit only- and not to be considered as a regular outlet for traffic during normal school operations.

In summary we are very supportive of Pinewood’s improvement plan as is, including keeping the campus use closed to Pinewood’s community only.

Thank you for your consideration.

Rey and Gabby Banatao
ITEM 7A ATTACHMENT 6

Page 291 of 510 ends

Page 292 of 510 ends

Page 293 of 510 ends

January 20, 2026
Los Altos Hills Planning Commissioners
Jay Bradford
Jonathan Fox
Town of Los Altos Hills VIA E-MAIL
RE: Pinewood School Modernization Proposal
Dear Commissioners and Town Staff:

We are writing to express our strong support for the application to modernize Pinewood’s upper campus at 26800 Fremont Road.

We have lived on Snell Lane, within ¼ mile of the school, for the past 22 years. During that time, we have found the school and its leadership to have deep respect for the residential community that surrounds them. Even during the various, larger annual events the school hosts, we’ve never experienced any issues because of the way in which they choose to operate, as caring members of this community.

Pinewood holds a special place in our hearts because our son attended the school from 7th thru 12th grades and graduated from Pinewood. Independent schools like Pinewood offer a valuable educational choice for many families in our community and we feel it’s important to support them to ensure their ongoing viability in an increasingly competitive market.

We’ve reviewed Pinewood’s plans and believe that their expansion is appropriately sized for Los Altos Hills and that they’ve taken community input seriously and made changes in response. We are especially excited to see two-story buildings, a new state-of-the-art performing center, and improvements to vehicular circulation and access for added safety for all those that travel on Fremont Road.

Their proposal is the right scale and design approach for our rural town. We support Pinewood’s application and ask that you approve it without delay.

Best,
Katia and Bob Kamangar
Cc: Scott Riches – via email

Page 294 of 510 ends

Page 295 of 510 ends

Page 296 of 510 ends

Page 297 of 510 ends

Page 298 of 510 ends

Rafinejad Family
January 12, 2026
Jay Bradford and Jonathan Fox
Town of Los Altos Hills
Planning Department
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
RE: Pinewood School Upper Campus Modernization Project
Dear Mr. Bradford and Mr. Fox:

We are writing to you in support of Pinewood School’s Upper Campus Modernization Project.

We have been Pinewood School’s neighbor for 40 years and share a long property line. We value Pinewood as a good neighbor and the important role that Pinewood plays in Los Altos Hills’ education ecosystem of public and private schools. Our son was a student at Pinewood school system from first grade all the way to high school. His education at Pinewood enabled him to be admitted to Columbia University in New York.

We appreciate the early and consistent community engagement the Pinewood project team has undertaken to keep us fully informed, seek our feedback on key issues, and incorporate our ideas to make their plans even better for our quality of life. Members of the Pinewood project team have met with us and kept us informed at key milestones via written updates and emails.

Of particular importance to our family are the following benefits proposed by Pinewood’s modernization plan:
 Plans to improve fencing, vegetation, and trees along our shared property line to enhance our privacy and esthetics.
 Plans to improve circulation, parking, and ingress/egress from Fremont Road.  Adding a modern theater building and other learning spaces to enhance student experience.  Finally, based on the anticipated improvements from a modern campus, we also support modifications to Pinewood’s Use Permit including allowing up to 100 new students.

Pinewood is a good and conscientious neighbor who manages their operations and any corresponding impacts on neighborhood quality of life including safety and security.

We appreciate all that Town staff, committees and commissions, and the city council have undertaken to thoroughly evaluate Pinewood’s project application to modernized school facilities to improve operations, provide community benefits, and ensure that this site owned by the Palo Alto Unified School District will remain as an educational use far into the future.

Thank you,
Dariush & Shanaz Rafinejad

Page 299 of 510 ends

Page 300 of 510 ends

Joan Yu<
Planning Commission
Scott Riches < >
Dear Lis altos hills town hall,
I am the owner of ascension Dr, I support Pinewood school project. I am at oversee now and will not able to join the meeting but I am fully support the project.

Pinewood is a nice school, more kids should be benefited with the expansion.

Joanna Yu
Item 4.1 Supplemental 1

Page 301 of 510 ends

From: j miller < >
Sent: Wednesday, February 4, 2026 11:14 AM
To: Jonathan Fox <[email protected]>
Subject: Comment to Planning Commission re: Pinewood School expansion #CUP25-0004 Dear Project Planner Jonathan Fox,
I wish to submit the following letter to the Planning commission and Town council regarding Pinewood's enrollment expansion:

To: Los Altos Hills Council and Planning Commission
Date: February 4, 2026
Re: Pinewood High School Expansion
Dear Council Members and Commissioners,
I write to express my opposition to Pinewood High School's proposed student enrollment expansion due to significant traffic and parking concerns.

Background on Pinewood's Status
Pinewood operates as a private business in Los Altos Hills, grandfathered in despite the town's prohibition on private businesses. While the school has the right to continue operations, the town is not obligated to approve expansions that primarily serve the institution's economic interests. What prevents Pinewood from repeatedly requesting enrollment increases in years going forward?
Current Traffic and Parking Problems
Pinewood already creates substantial traffic and parking issues:
• Daily overflow parking of a dozen or more vehicles on Fremont Road and neighboring streets—a problem that has worsened in recent years and did not exist previously
• Twice-daily traffic congestion that frequently blocks egress from and entrance to nearby residential streets
• Street parking in order to accommodate business growth should be prohibited.

Item 4.1 Supplemental 3

Page 302 of 510 ends

Lack of Mitigation Efforts
Pinewood has failed to address these impacts on our community. At a recent community meeting, when neighbors raised traffic concerns, Pinewood management dismissed even simple suggestions—such as staggering school start and end times—that would demonstrate good faith in addressing this current burden on residents.

Inadequate Proposed Solutions
Pinewood proposes an additional eastbound exit from their parking lot. This minor adjustment to traffic flow is unlikely to resolve the current traffic nightmare, much less accommodate the approximately 200 additional daily car trips that the enrollment expansion would generate.

Conclusion
I oppose the proposed enrollment expansion because it will exacerbate existing traffic and parking problems. I do not object to Pinewood's facility improvement plans, only to increasing student enrollment without adequate solutions to current community impacts.

Respectfully,
Jeffrey Miller
Snell Lane
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Item 4.1 Supplemental 3

Page 303 of 510 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN and PROTECTION COMMITTEE
Application For: Redevelopment of Private School
Applicant Name: Pinewood School
Site Address: 26800 Fremont Rd
Reviewed By: The Environmental Design and Protection Committee Field Trip Date: Jan 16, 2026
Planner: Jonathan Fox
Due Date: Jan 26, 2026
File Number: CUP25-0004
Project Description:

Demolish four classroom buildings, one auditorium, and a servery.

Build three two-story classroom buildings, including administration.

Build one theater with upper level support.

Demolish and reconstruct site improvements including utilities and irrigation, grading and paving, fencing and gates, parking lot, and tennis courts.

Area: approx. 7 ac.

Grades 7-12 6 grade levels;
currently 300 students; after renovation: 25% increase to 375 students Faculty and Staff: currently approx. 50; after renovation: approx. 25% increase to approx. 62 Liquefaction: Yes, south portion near creek
Flood Zone: Yes, south portion near creek, Base Flood Elevations noted Open Space Conservation: Yes, near creek
Pathways: Native Pathway next to Barron Creek;
Pathway next to Fremont Rd.

Main Concerns:

1. Mostly hardscape: Over 80% of the site is covered with structures and hardscape, including artificial turf. This impacts stormwater runoff that contributes to flooding downstream, and water quality.

Are the proposed bio-retention basins sufficient to handle the stormwater runoff of that much hardscape and not increase the runoff vs a pre-developed landscape? The sports fields and/or tennis courts could offer opportunities for more significant stormwater management and bioretention strategies, if needed.

What is the impact on water quality of artificial turf? Does the use of organic pellets such as cork eliminate the toxic substances in the runoff?

2. Mitigate traffic impact on Fremont Rd

3. Manage parking needs of the school community

4. Visual Screening for neighbors

5. Mitigate Noise for neighborhood

6. Excessive Outdoor Lighting
ITEM 7A ATTACHMENT 7

Page 304 of 510 ends

7. Impact to Barron Creek and the riparian corridor: We recommend finding ways to support the Riparian Habitat on the south border of the site—supporting our local plant communities, wildlife, and watersheds.

8. Firewise structures and landscaping
Note: Because this is a school and its requirements and function are very different from residences, variances that are granted for this site should not be used as a precedent for residential sites.

Proposed Site Plan, with GIS data showing Flood Zones, Pathways and Utility Easements (Sources: Submitted Plans, LAH GIS, GoogleEarth)
SITE IMPACT (Location: Ridgeline/Hilltop/Knoll, Slopes, Views) The site is leased from the Palo Alto School District. It is an 80-year-old campus designed for lower grades. Existing single-story buildings are being replaced by two-story buildings with the addition of an indoor and an outdoor theater. The renovated campus would be able to accommodate an additional 75 students. The site is very well maintained.

The site is located at the base of La Cresta Ridge. It is bordered by Barron Creek along its southern border, and Fremont Rd along its northern border. 2 cul-de-sacs, Ortega Dr and Ascension Dr, abut its western and eastern borders, respectively.

Page 305 of 510 ends

The site is accessed primarily from Fremont Rd. Access from the 2 cul-de-sacs is limited to emergency use. There is a Native Pathway along the creek at the southern border, and another Pathway along Fremont Rd.

Neighbors: (Views, Screening, Noise)
Views: Conversion of all buildings from single story to two-story; larger building mass. Landscape screening along Fremont Rd will be important to mitigate the masses of the buildings.

Screening: Only one-third of the existing trees are proposed to remain, among them several heritage oaks. Most of the remaining trees are along the south fence, along the path and riparian area by Barron Creek. The trees along the perimeters will need to be supplemented to provide sufficient screening for the neighbors. We recommend the use of locally native species for screening. Coast Live Oaks, Hollyleaf cherries, Toyons and other native species have been observed flourishing along the riparian corridor next to the creek.

Noise
Lockers: should only be allowed against the first-floor walls (not on the upper floors), to minimize noise.

Tennis Courts: Move basketball striping to the last interior court. Not to be used for Pickleball.

Structures: (Setbacks, Color/Reflectivity, Roof Type, Skylights, Lights) Setbacks: Parking is not allowed in the setbacks: Front setback along Fremont Rd and Ortega side setback have parking.

Other setback encroachments include a corner of the artificial turf sports field, and roof eaves of the existing gym. Both of these are existing items that are to remain with some updates.

Color: On paper it looks compliant
Roof Color: On paper it looks compliant. Asphalt Shingles.

Height: Wall max height is 27’, Roof is 32’. Solar panels cannot extend past the height limitation.

No mechanical equipment allowed on the roof tops. The mechanical unit proposed on the roof of Bldg 400 should be moved to a different location.

Skylights. Existing skylights in Gym, no modifications proposed. The Gym is to remain the same except for new ramps, stairs and an exterior 2nd floor walk way.

Outdoor Lighting: Not allowed in the setbacks, except for 2 lights at the entry gate. The proposed outdoor lighting is excessive and is in the setbacks. In the Ortega side parking area it is 9 ft tall, which would be very visible to the neighbors. If lighting is allowed in these areas, it should be no higher than the fence proposed on the Ortega Side, per Town Ordinance max height is limited to 6’. In the Front setback the outdoor lights should be no higher than the proposed 4’-6” fence next to Fremont Rd.

We recommend discussing parking area lighting and fence options with the neighbors, balancing the visibility of the lights with fence height so the glare of the lights can be screened from the neighbors.

Could the light height be lowered and the fence height raised to find a good balance?

Page 306 of 510 ends

Can the lights be scheduled to turn off (or switched to motion sensor) after a certain time? Building 300 shows no exterior lights on the east side, facing the central quad. Is there a specific reason for this? Path lights to illuminate the pathway would be ok.

Traffic:

For the proposed new exit, there is a curve on Fremont Rd road just east of it. The sight distance from this curve to the proposed exit is questionable. Would a new stop sign or other measure be needed to warn drivers of vehicles exiting onto Fremont Rd and turning left onto the westbound lane? Would having staggered school start times for different grades help ease the traffic at pickup and dropoff?
Parking:

How does the proposed number of parking spots compare with the existing? Will the new number of parking spots be sufficient for the increased number of students (+75) and corresponding increase in faculty and staff?
90-degree parking is difficult to maneuver into, and may delay traffic at drop-off and pick-up. Angled parking may make it easier to maneuver into, with less disruption to traffic flow.

ENVIRONMENT (Pathways, Open Space, Riparian Habitat, Heritage Trees, other mature trees) Pathways: Pathway along Fremont to be upgraded to a 2-B path. Path along the creek side to remain native as it is the Riparian Habitat zone. Pathway along creek was granted to the Town via 2003 CUP.

As part of managing the potential increase in stormwater drainage from the Tennis Courts and the rest of the site, the native pathway may be affected.

Riparian Habitat and Barron Creek:

Since the planted areas proposed on the site are rather limited, this riparian corridor is a good opportunity to support and steward the local ecologies—planting native riparian vegetation which support the local wildlife and help with the health of the Barron Creek watershed.

The 25-ft Riparian Zone from Barron Creek extends up to the edge of the sports field and tennis courts. (The Preliminary Civil Site Plan , C3.0, shows the approximate location of the Top of Bank.) A scoreboard and drinking fountain were observed in this area--these would not be allowed.

Stewarding the riparian habitat would also support the semi-rural character of our Town, providing some natural vegetation to balance the large amount of hardscape on the campus grounds.

We also recommend adding more shade trees to the central quad to help with this. The trellis area could be a good place to have trees rather than another structure.

If appropriate, refer applicant to the EDPC landscaping guide to be prepared for the landscaping phase:
https://www.losaltoshills.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4764/

Page 307 of 510 ends

TREE REMOVAL & REPLACEMENT
See comments above.

WILDFIRE SAFETY (Defensible Space, Zones, Tree Spacing, Ladder Fuels, Mulch) Please refer to the Fire Safe Council's recommendations for defensible space:
https://cafiresafecouncil.org/all-resources/home-hardening/ The “Wildfire Home Retrofit Guide” on this webpage is a good resource.

OPTIONAL HARDSCAPE (MDA), FENCE/GATES (Height, location, style), LIGHTING MDA: The Proposed Floor Area will more than double the existing. The Proposed Development Area (including artificial turf) covers more than 80% of the site. These far exceed the Town’s MFA and MDA limits.

Ensure that mechanical equipment do not encroach into the setbacks.

See comments above on outdoor lighting.

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

Maximum Light Emission
(Lumens, Φv)
Maximum Color Temperature
(Kelvin, K)
Path Lights 200 2700
Step Lights 110 2700
Exterior Wall Sconces 600 3000
Front Door Pendants 600 3000
Gate Lights 600 3000

CONSTRUCTION
To protect neighbors, we recommend that NO construction trucks use the Ortega Dr or Ascension Dr gates.

Also, construction parking should be within the site, as much as possible.

Ensure that construction runoff does not flow into Barron Creek.

Coordinate plans and construction on Fremont Rd with the Town’s Fremont Rd improvement projects, e.g. sanitary sewer project, pavement improvement project, etc.

Page 308 of 510 ends

Existing Entrance of Pinewood School on Fremont Rd (Source: Google Maps) Existing campus, looking south towards La Cresta Ridge (Source: Google Maps) Existing campus, view from second floor of Gym. (Source: Google Maps, Brigitte Ganter)

Page 309 of 510 ends

Barron Creek and the native pathway at the southern border of the site. The sports field can be seen just beyond the wire fence.

Plan C3.0-Preliminary Civil Site Plan indicates the approximate location of Barron Creek’s top of bank around the edge of the native path. The 25-ft Riparian Zone would then extend beyond the native path and fence and include a portion within the fence up to approximately the edge of the sports field.

A drinking fountain and a scoreboard would not be allowed within the Riparian Area.

Page 310 of 510 ends

OPEN SPACE COMMITTEE PINEWOOD REDEVELOPMENT
TO: Jonathan Fox, Planner
FROM: Open Space Committee
DATE: 1/11/26
SUBJECT: Pinewood School Redevelopment Project
In September 2025, Pinewood School staff met with the OSC to update the committee on their progress for a second time. On January 9, 2026, OSC staff met with Kyle Riches, Associate Head of School, to walk the campus and discuss any recent changes. For context, below is the summary of the September 2025 presentation by the school. • Bird-safe glass is being planned, at least for large windows. • Pervious surfaces are being adopted where appropriate, such as pervious cement in drive-around, grass, and pavers. Stormwater is being addressed by more infiltration, less runoff in certain areas around the buildings. • Landscaping is largely the same and will use a variety of native plant species. • Four protected trees are to be removed, three pines and one redwood.

Some new trees will be added.
• Perimeter fencing proposed: Open fencing along Fremont Rd. Solid fencing along the sides, possibly Trexwood (compressed plastic boards). Black chain link fencing on the South to allow a view from the nearby pathway. Entrance gates to be patterned laser-cut steel.
• Geotechnical and paving noted; tennis courts and playing field in liquefaction zone.
• Lighting—all lighting downward facing (limited lumens/candlepower). Some on slightly higher posts along parking area.
• Construction timeline: Break ground in 2027. Work in Summer 2027, all year 2028, summer 2029.

Per Scott Riches, school president, there is only one change from these notes:
• The school is now planning to install bird-safe glass for ALL exterior windows.

The OSC appreciates the responsiveness of Pinewood School staff to the above issues.

No further comment.

ITEM 7A ATTACHMENT 8

Page 311 of 510 ends

INTEGRITY • COLLABORATION • QUALITY
333 Bryant St. Suite 220
San Francisco, CA 94107
T 415.863.5740
www.cammisawipf.com
(Progress - R1)
Pinewood School Upper Campus
Proposed Exterior Lighting Narrative
June 2025
ITEM 7A ATTACHMENT 9

Page 312 of 510 ends

Table of Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 Project and Project Area Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 – Lighting Zone .............................................................................................................................................1

1.2 – Backlight, Uplight, and Glare (BUG) Rating ...............................................................................................2

1.3 – Egress & Emergency Lighting .....................................................................................................................3 Los Altos Hills – Outdoor Lighting Policy Requirements......................................................................................... 4

2.1 – Policy Compliances ....................................................................................................................................4

2.2 – Policy Exceptions / Non-compliances ........................................................................................................5

2.3 – Policies Not Applicable ..............................................................................................................................5 Light Fixtures - Proposed Selection ........................................................................................................................ 6 Controls – Proposed System ................................................................................................................................... 6 Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................................. 7

Page 313 of 510 ends

1 Introduction
Cammisa + Wipf and CAW Architects have designed a proposed site, parking, and exterior lighting layout, fixture selection, and controls options for Pinewood School Upper Campus project. The proposed design has taken into account various Policy and Code requirements including the Town of Los Altos Hills Outdoor Lighting Policy and relevant Code requirements including 2022 California Green Building Standards Code, 2022 California Energy Code Title 24, and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 101 Life Safety Code.

The proposed site lighting design package includes drawings of the lighting layout and light fixture schedule with proposed fixture types, photometric calculations, and cutsheets of lighting fixtures and controls system components.

The following narrative describes the proposed site lighting design at Pinewood School Upper Campus and the compliances and any exceptions that may need review by the Town of Los Altos Hills.

Project and Project Area Analysis
Pinewood School Upper Campus is located at 26800 Fremont Rd, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022. The scope of this project is to demolish existing buildings and construct new at the same location. The new building construction will be subject to all current Code requirements and standards Nationally, by the State of California, and by the Town of Los Altos Hills.

Defining the project location and area type as categorized by the Codes is helpful in understanding the parameters we need to meet for all Codes and Policies.

1.1 – Lighting Zone
The following describes the Lighting Zone categories as defined by the California Energy Commission, 2022 Title 24, Table 6-2: Lighting Zone Characteristics and Rules for Amendments by Local Jurisdictions1 :
• LZ0: “Very Low” ambient illumination. Areas including Undeveloped areas of government designated parks, recreation areas, and wildlife preserves. • LZ1: “Low” ambient illumination. Areas including Rural areas, as defined by the 2010 U.S. Census. • LZ2: “Moderate” ambient illumination. Areas including Urban Clusters, as defined by the 2010 U.S. Census.
o This zone definition includes schools. This Lighting Zone will be utilized for the Pinewood School Upper Campus.
• LZ3: “Moderately High” ambient illumination. Areas including Urban areas, as defined by the 2010 U.S. Census.
• LZ4: “High” ambient illumination. Areas that are Special Use that may be created by a local government through application to the Energy Commission. 1 2022 Nonresidential and Multifamily Compliance Manual, Chapter 6 - Outdoor Lighting – Outdoor Lighting Zones, Page 6-7, Table 6-2

Page 314 of 510 ends

2 To determine the lighting zone area category that Pinewood School Upper Campus is defined by, the United States Census Bureau has an address geographies search engine that generates U.S. Census information by address. This search for the Pinewood School address yielded classification “UR: U” under Census Blocks. “U” is defined as Urban Clusters for LZ2 or Urbanized Areas for LZ3. The location at Pinewood School Upper Campus can be considered LZ2. Therefore, the parameters of LZ2 will be met in the site and exterior lighting design.

Image 12 - United States Census Bureau Census Blocks
Pinewood School Upper Campus Address Search

1.2 – Backlight, Uplight, and Glare (BUG) Rating
Each exterior fixture is given a rating which defines the light fixture’s emissions under three categories:

Backlight, Uplight, and Glare. This rating is referred to as the fixture’s BUG Rating which is referenced by the California Green Building Standards Code and California Energy Code Title 24.

BUG ratings are implemented primarily to regulate light pollution to any surrounding areas. The light fixture’s backlight, uplight, and glare are each measured and assigned a value from 0 (best) and 5 (worst).

The exterior fixture BUG Rating is measured per the system requirements and documented by the manufacturer. The BUG rating can be found on the manufacturer’s website along with photometric quantifications
Image 23 – BUG (Backlight, Uplight, Glare)
2 https://geocoding.geo.census.gov/geocoder/geographies/address?street=26800%20Fremont%20Rd&city=Los%20Altos%20Hills&state=ca&zip=94022&benchmark=4&vintage=4 3 https://www.accessfixtures.com/what-is-bug-rating-and-why-does-it-matter/

Page 315 of 510 ends

3 The BUG rating requirements for each Lighting Zone, as described in Section 1.1 – Lighting Zone, can be found at Table 5.106.8 of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code:

Image 34 - 2022 Cal Green Table 5.106.8
Exceptions to Table 5.106.8 include, but are not limited to, Emergency Lighting.

The BUG rating has been confirmed for each proposed light fixture type that each will meet the BUG requirements for the project location Lighting Zone (LZ2).

1.3 – Egress & Emergency Lighting
Requirements for egress pathway have been taken into account when proposing the exterior lighting design.

The NFPA 101 requires an average of 1fc (foot-candle) measured at the egress path with the minimum being no less than 0.1fc along the designated pathway. The foot candle measurement is taken at the ground (0 feet) where people will be walking the defined egress path.

The 2022 California Building Code also notes that “illumination shall be provided along the path of travel for the exit discharge from each exit to the public way”.

The proposed lighting design by Cammisa + Wipf and CAW Architects meets the Egress minimum requirements to safely illuminate the defined egress and exit discharge pathways while also staying close to the minimum allowed so that the surrounding areas are not unnecessarily impacted. 4 2022 Cal Green Table 5.106.8, https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAGBC2022P1/chapter-5-nonresidential-mandatory-measures

Page 316 of 510 ends

4 Los Altos Hills – Outdoor Lighting Policy Requirements

2.1 – Policy Compliances
The following are compliances with the Los Altos Hills Outdoor Lighting Policy Requirements:

1. Taking into account the Egress and Exit Discharge pathway requirements defined by the 2022 NFPA 101 and 2022 CBC, the minimum parameters were designed to in the proposed site lighting design.

2. A frosted lens will be provided at each fixture possible to mitigate view of light emanating diodes. This meets the definition of “fully shielded fixture” where “no portion of the light bulb or light emanating diode is visible when viewed directly.”

3. Proposed light fixture selection color temperature can meet requirements of 2700 Kelvins and 3000 Kelvins.

4. Number of lights has been taken into consideration in the proposed design and a minimum quantity of fixtures is proposed to still meet Code requirements.

5. All proposed light fixtures are shielded and/or lensed to project light emissions downward. See associated polar plots, shown on Sheet E1.1 - Proposed Exterior Lighting Layout Photometrics, and below at Image 4, where light emissions are projected below 0°-180°.

Image 4 – Polar Plots for Proposed Light Fixtures

Page 317 of 510 ends

5 6. Downlights are located below 2nd Floor walkways / balconies for egress pathways. These are not located at roof eaves.

7. All proposed fixtures are LED.

8. All proposed light fixtures have directional shielding that limit light emissions within the property only.

9. All proposed light fixtures have the minimum or no up-lighting as categorized by the BUG rating scale referenced in Section 1.2 – BUG Rating. Additionally, Types L6 and L7, located at the parking lot, will be below tree branch canopy to additionally minimize any light emissions from view.

2.2 – Policy Exceptions / Non-compliances
A few items that are proposed due to Code Requirements and/or recommended for safety may not comply with the Los Altos Hills Outdoor Lighting. These are noted as follows:

1. Light fixture maximum light emission policy requirements, measured in Lumens, cannot be met due to the types of non-residential category fixtures. Lumens will be higher to cover the distances needed to meet various Code requirements.

2. Some pathway and driveway lighting may be mounted higher than 1’-6”. This is due to the distance of light projection needed for visibility and also the characteristics of the buildings and parking lot. Proposed Type L3 & L4 will meet the policy requirement and be mounted at 1’-3”.

3. Two bollard fixtures are located at each the entrance and exit of the property to provide safety visibility for entry/exit. These fixtures are lensed and light emissions are directed downwards.

4. Temporary Construction Lighting is to be determined in Construction Design phase but will meet all requirements listed in the Outdoor Lighting Policy with the exception of the Lumens limitation. Most likely, the lumens output for temporary construction lighting will need to be greater than 500 lumens.

2.3 – Policies Not Applicable
Several policy definitions and requirements do not apply towards the Pinewood School proposed lighting design. These are noted as follows:

1. No garage door lighting, light transmitting windows are proposed.

2. No wall-wash fixtures are proposed.

3. No unshielded or unlensed LED lighting strips, tape lights, or bistro lights are proposed.

4. No spotlights or floodlights are proposed.

5. No non-LED lamps/bulbs are proposed.

6. No tree lights are proposed. Including bistro lights, pendant lights, etc.

7. No lighting at recreation / sports courts is proposed.

8. No pool lighting is proposed or applicable.

9. Special events lighting is not applicable for this design.

10. No lighting is proposed in Open Space Easments.

Page 318 of 510 ends

6 Light Fixtures - Proposed Selection
The proposed light fixture selection is as follows:

L1 L2 L3, L4 L5 L6,L7 L8
Model#: BEGA 99856/7 BEGA 24497 BEGA 24065 BEGA 33242 BEGA 84104/6 BEGA 84107 Type: Bollard, 180° Downlight Stair & Wall Wall Light Extended Bollard Bollard Height: 3’-1 ½”H 12’-0”H 1’-3”H 7’-0” 9’-0” 3’-11”
BUG: B1-U0-G0 B3-U0-G0 B0-U2-G2 B2-U0-G0 B0-U0-G1 B0-U1-G1 Note: directed down with frosted lens directed out/down with frosted lens with frosted lens with frosted lens These proposed light fixtures meet the minimum current Code requirements while also meeting the Los Altos Hills Outdoor Lighting Policy requirements. The BUG rating for each fixture is noted and complies with the requirements for Lighting Zone (LZ2) and BUG ratings described in Sections 1.1 & 1.2.

Controls – Proposed System
A controls system is required and recommended to customize the usage of different exterior fixtures.

The proposed system meeting the below features and also compatible with the proposed light fixture selections is the Wattstopper DLM system. This will allow exterior lighting to be controlled with dimming capabilities and multiple on-site zone control which provides flexibility of exterior lighting control.

The lighting control system shall consist of the following features:

1. Lighting Control Panel - to control up to 48 individual on-site zones.

2. Astronomical Timeclock – to be able adjust light fixture on/off and dimming during different hours (daylight, night, holidays, etc.), applicable for 365 days per year.

3. Dimming – to adjust each on-site control zone light levels as needed. Dimming will be essential to control the brightness of each zone especially during non-school hours where fixtures can be dimmed to lower light levels to minimize light pollution further.

4. Override Switch – required by Code. Will allow on/off control for the school representative as needed.

5. Configuration Tool – allows for configuration of the system and will allow the school flexibility to make adjustments to the lighting controls as needed after installation.

6. Interface with Interior System - the exterior and interior light controls system shall be able to interface for easy use for the school.

Page 319 of 510 ends

7 Conclusion
This report has included Code and Policy analysis of the Project Scope and Project Area. The proposed Light Fixture Selection and Controls System most closely meet the Code requirements while also taking Town Policy requirements into consideration.

Page 320 of 510 ends

Application
BEGA system bollard head with shielded 180º light distribution. Simply order the bollard head and also the required bollard tube in various heights and options. Both modules can be joined together easily and quickly during the installation.

Materials
Clear safety glass
Marine grade, copper free (≤ 0.3% copper content) A360.0 aluminum alloy High temperature silicone gasket
Mechanically captive stainless steel fasteners
Interlocking stainless steel mounting mechanism for attachment of head and tube
Pure anodized aluminum reflector
NRTL listed to North American Standards, suitable for wet locations Protection class IP 65
Weight: 9.0 lbs.

Electrical
Operating voltage 120-277VAC
Minimum start temperature -30° C
LED module wattage 16.5 W
System wattage 19.8 W
Controllability 0-10V dimmable
Color rendering index Ra > 80
Luminaire lumens 923 lm
LED service life (L70) 60000 hrs
LED color temperature
4000K (K4)
3500K (K35)
3000K (K3)
2700K (K27)
BEGA can supply you with suitable LED replacement modules for up to 20 years after the purchase of LED luminaires - see website for details Finish
All BEGA standard finishes are matte, textured powder coat with minimum 3 mil thickness. BEGA Unidure® finish provides superior fade protection in Black, Bronze, and Silver. BEGA standard White is a super durable polyester powder. Optionally available RAL, custom, and premium colors provided in polyester powder and/or liquid paint.

Available colors
Black (BLK) Bronze (BRZ)
Silver (SLV) White (WHT)
Natural Bronze (NTB) RAL:

CUS:

System bollard head · Shielded with reflector · 180°
BEGA 1000 BEGA Way, Carpinteria, CA 93013 (805) 684-0533 [email protected] Due to the dynamic nature of lighting products and the associated technologies, luminaire data on this sheet is subject to change at the discretion of BEGA North America. For the most current technical data, please refer to bega-us .com © copyright BEGA 2025
Type:

BEGA Product:

Project:

Modified:

Available options
CUS Custom finish
DALI-2 DALI dimming (99622 tube only)
MGU Marine grade undercoat
NTB Natural bronze (premium finish)
RAL RAL finish
System bollard head · Shielded with reflector · 180°

LED A B
B99857 16.5 W 71
/2 71/4
Updated 04/28/25

Page 321 of 510 ends

Wood system bollard tube · Round
A B
B84464 7 1/2 32 1/8
System bollard tube · Integral emergency lighting battery A B
B99635 7 1/2 32
System bollard tube · Integral GFCI outlet
A B
B99626 7 1/2 32
System bollard tube · No access door
A B
B99615 7 1/2 14 1/2
System bollard tube · With access door
A B
B99622 7 1/2 32
BEGA 1000 BEGA Way, Carpinteria, CA 93013 (805) 684-0533 [email protected] Due to the dynamic nature of lighting products and the associated technologies, luminaire data on this sheet is subject to change at the discretion of BEGA North America. For the most current technical data, please refer to bega-us .com © copyright BEGA 2025 Updated 01/30/23
Compatible tubes · Ø7 1⁄
2 The overview provides a compact summary of the possibilities for combining the various bollard heads with the bollard tubes and their additional functions.

For each bollard head you can find matching bollard tubes with and without components.

System bollard summary · Round
System bollard heads
with compatible tubes
BEGA bollard tubes
Ø in inches ø5 1
⁄
2 ø7 1
⁄
2 ø5 1
⁄
2 ø7 1
⁄
2 ø10 3
⁄
8 ø5 1
⁄
2 ø7 1
⁄
2 ø5 1
⁄
2 ø7 1
⁄
2 ø7 1
⁄
2 ø7 1
⁄
2 ø10 3
⁄
8 ø7 1
⁄
2 ø10 3
⁄
8 ø7 1
⁄
2 ø5 1
⁄
2 ø7 1
⁄
2 ø10 3
⁄
8 Without components
in two heights • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
With integral floodlight • • • • • • • • •
C With integral PIR
motion sensor • • • • • • • • • • • • •
With emergency
lighting battery • • • • • • • • • • • • •
E With drive-through
protection • • • •
With integral GFCI outlet • • • • • • • • • • • • •
With integral 240V
receptaclefor
electric vehicles • • • •
Wood bollard tubes • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
System bollard tube · No access door
A B
B96177 7 1/2 32
System bollard tube · Integral PIR motion sensor
A B
B99658 7 1/2 32
System bollard tube · Integral floodlight

LED A B
B99644 19.3 W 7 1/2 32

Page 322 of 510 ends

Application
BEGA system bollard luminaire tube without components. BEGA system bollard tubes are designed for easy attachment to system bollard heads using an interlocking mechanism. An accompanying bollard head must be selected for proper installation.

Materials
Extruded aluminum
Marine grade, copper free (≤ 0.3% copper content) A360.0 aluminum alloy Interlocking stainless steel mounting mechanism for attachment of head and tube
Stainless steel hardware
Stainless steel helicoils
Threaded stainless steel anchor rods
NRTL listed to North American Standards, suitable for wet locations Protection class IP 65
Weight: 13.0 lbs.

Finish
All BEGA standard finishes are matte, textured powder coat with minimum 3 mil thickness. BEGA Unidure® finish provides superior fade protection in Black, Bronze, and Silver. BEGA standard White is a super durable polyester powder. Optionally available RAL, custom, and premium colors provided in polyester powder and/or liquid paint.

Available colors
Black (BLK) Bronze (BRZ)
Silver (SLV) White (WHT)
Natural Bronze (NTB) RAL:

CUS:

System bollard tube · No access door
BEGA 1000 BEGA Way, Carpinteria, CA 93013 (805) 684-0533 [email protected] Due to the dynamic nature of lighting products and the associated technologies, luminaire data on this sheet is subject to change at the discretion of BEGA North America. For the most current technical data, please refer to bega-us .com © copyright BEGA 2025
Type:

BEGA Product:

Project:

Modified:

Available options
70896 Direct burial anchorage (replaces included
anchorage kit, pre-shippable)
CUS Custom finish
MGU Marine grade undercoat
NTB Natural bronze (premium finish)
RAL RAL finish
Included (available for pre-shipment)
B79818 Anchorage kit
System bollard tube · No access door
A B
B96177 71
/2 32
Updated 05/22/25

Page 323 of 510 ends

System bollard head · Shielded · 360°

LED A B
B99862 16.5 W 7 1/2 5 1/2
System bollard head · Shielded · 360°

LED A B
B84642 31.6 W 15 1 3/4
System bollard head · Non-illuminated cap
A B
B71127 7 1/2 0 3/4
System bollard head · Shielded with reflector · 360°

LED A B C
B84244 15.6 W 14 8 1/8 7 1/2
System bollard head · 180º light output

LED A B
B84706 8.2 W 7 1/2 2 1/4
System bollard head · 360° light output

LED A B
B84704 16.6 W 7 1/2 2 1/4
System bollard head · Unshielded with safety guard · 360°

LED A B
B84683 16.5 W 7 1/2 9 1/8
System bollard head · Shielded with reflector · 360°

LED A B
B99856 16.5 W 7 1/2 7 1/4
System bollard head · Shielded with reflector · 180°

LED A B
B99857 16.5 W 7 1/2 7 1/4
System bollard head · Unshielded with safety guard · 360°

LED A B
B99765 16.5 W 7 1/2 7 1/4
System bollard head · Unshielded with safety guard · 180°

LED A B
B99776 16.5 W 7 1/2 7 1/4
System bollard head · Unshielded · 360°

LED A B
B99727 16.5 W 7 1/2 7 1/4
BEGA 1000 BEGA Way, Carpinteria, CA 93013 (805) 684-0533 [email protected] Due to the dynamic nature of lighting products and the associated technologies, luminaire data on this sheet is subject to change at the discretion of BEGA North America. For the most current technical data, please refer to bega-us .com © copyright BEGA 2025 Updated 01/30/23
Compatible heads · Ø7 1⁄
2 The overview provides a compact summary of the possibilities for combining the various bollard heads with the bollard tubes and their additional functions.

For each bollard head you can find matching bollard tubes with and without components.

Page 324 of 510 ends

Application
Flush-mounted downlights create a very clean ceiling appearance for atriums, canopies, and other interior and exterior locations. Designed for use in pre-cast or cast-in-place concrete ceilings. Standard housing designed for use with formwork and no plaster finish. Select the appropriate housing option for use with a plaster finish.

Materials
Clear safety glass
Marine grade, copper free (≤ 0.3% copper content) A360.0 aluminum alloy Stainless steel housing
Silicone applied robotically to casting, plasma treated for increased adhesion
Aluminum installation housing
Pure anodized aluminum reflector surface
Silicone optic with excellent high temperature and UV stability BEGA Hybrid Optics®
NRTL listed to North American Standards, suitable for wet locations Protection class IP 65
Weight: 7.9 lbs.

Electrical
Operating voltage 120-277VAC
Minimum start temperature -30° C
LED module wattage 24.1 W
System wattage 27.0 W
Controllability 0-10V, TRIAC, and ELV dimmable
Color rendering index Ra > 80
Luminaire lumens 2932 lm
LED service life (L70) 60000 hrs
LED color temperature
4000K (K4)
3500K (K35)
3000K (K3)
2700K (K27)
BEGA can supply you with suitable LED replacement modules for up to 20 years after the purchase of LED luminaires - see website for details Finish
Stainless steel finish. Custom colors not available.

Downlight · Wide beam
BEGA 1000 BEGA Way, Carpinteria, CA 93013 (805) 684-0533 [email protected] Due to the dynamic nature of lighting products and the associated technologies, luminaire data on this sheet is subject to change at the discretion of BEGA North America. For the most current technical data, please refer to bega-us .com © copyright BEGA 2025
Type:

BEGA Product:

Project:

Modified:

Available options
BB24497 Installation housing, concrete with plaster
(replaces included installation housing, preshippable) Included (available for pre-shipment)
BB24485 Installation housing, concrete only
Downlight · Wide beam
LED β A B C
B24497 24.1 W 25° 103
/8 83/4 6
Updated 03/28/25

Page 325 of 510 ends

Application
Recessed wall luminaire with asymmetric forward throw distribution for superior illumination of ground surfaces from an extremely low mounting height. The optimal mounting height between 1' and 1.5' above finished grade. Separate installation housing allows for seamless coordination into construction and easy maintenance.

Materials
Clear safety glass with printed optical texture
Marine grade, copper free (≤ 0.3% copper content) A360.0 aluminum alloy BEGA Tricoat ®, a 3-layer finishing technology for increased corrosion protection
Stainless steel screw clamps
Mechanically captive stainless steel fasteners
Composite installation housing
Pure anodized aluminum reflector
NRTL listed to North American Standards, suitable for wet locations Protection class IP 65
Weight: 2.0 lbs.

Electrical
Operating voltage 120-277VAC
Minimum start temperature -30° C
LED module wattage 8.7 W
System wattage 11.0 W
Controllability 0-10V, TRIAC, and ELV dimmable
Color rendering index Ra > 80
Luminaire lumens 557 lm
LED service life (L70) 60000 hrs
LED color temperature
4000K (K4)
3500K (K35)
3000K (K3)
2700K (K27)
BEGA can supply you with suitable LED replacement modules for up to 20 years after the purchase of LED luminaires - see website for details Finish
All BEGA standard finishes are matte, textured powder coat with minimum 3 mil thickness. BEGA Unidure® finish provides superior fade protection in Black, Bronze, and Silver. BEGA standard White is a super durable polyester powder. Optionally available RAL, custom, and premium colors provided in polyester powder and/or liquid paint.

Available colors
Black (BLK) Bronze (BRZ)
Silver (SLV) White (WHT)
Natural Bronze (NTB) RAL:

CUS:

Recessed wall luminaire · Extended throw
BEGA 1000 BEGA Way, Carpinteria, CA 93013 (805) 684-0533 [email protected] Due to the dynamic nature of lighting products and the associated technologies, luminaire data on this sheet is subject to change at the discretion of BEGA North America. For the most current technical data, please refer to bega-us .com © copyright BEGA 2025
Type:

BEGA Product:

Project:

Modified:

Available options
CUS Custom finish
MGU Marine grade undercoat
NTB Natural bronze (premium finish)
RAL RAL finish
Included (available for pre-shipment)
BB24065 Installation housing
Recessed wall luminaire · Extended throw

LED A B C
B24065 8.7 W 121
/2 23/4 5
Updated 05/22/25

Page 326 of 510 ends

Application
Wall luminaire with symmetric light distribution designed for general illumination of pathways, plazas and building entrances.

Materials
Clear safety glass with matte finish
Marine grade, copper free (≤ 0.3% copper content) A360.0 aluminum alloy High temperature silicone gasket
Mechanically captive stainless steel fasteners
Silicone applied robotically to casting, plasma treated for increased adhesion
Galvanized zinc-plated mounting bracket
Pure anodized aluminum reflector
NRTL listed to North American Standards, suitable for wet locations Protection class IP 65
Weight: 4.4 lbs.

Electrical
Operating voltage 120-277VAC
Minimum start temperature -30° C
LED module wattage 17.9 W
System wattage 23.0 W
Controllability 0-10V dimming down to 1%
Color rendering index Ra > 90
Luminaire lumens 1893 lm
LED service life (L70) 60000 hrs
LED color temperature
4000K (K4)
3500K (K35)
3000K (K3)
2700K (K27)
BEGA can supply you with suitable LED replacement modules for up to 20 years after the purchase of LED luminaires - see website for details Finish
All BEGA standard finishes are matte, textured powder coat with minimum 3 mil thickness. BEGA Unidure® finish provides superior fade protection in Black, Bronze, and Silver. BEGA standard White is a super durable polyester powder. Optionally available RAL, custom, and premium colors provided in polyester powder and/or liquid paint.

Available colors
Black (BLK) Bronze (BRZ)
Silver (SLV) White (WHT)
Natural Bronze (NTB) RAL:

CUS:

Wall luminaire · Symmetric
BEGA 1000 BEGA Way, Carpinteria, CA 93013 (805) 684-0533 [email protected] Due to the dynamic nature of lighting products and the associated technologies, luminaire data on this sheet is subject to change at the discretion of BEGA North America. For the most current technical data, please refer to bega-us .com © copyright BEGA 2025
Type:

BEGA Product:

Project:

Modified:

Available options
CUS Custom finish
FSC Fusing
MGU Marine grade undercoat
NTB Natural bronze (premium finish)
RAL RAL finish
Wall luminaire · Symmetric

LED A B C
B33242 ADA 17.9 W 8 8 33
/4
Updated 04/28/25

Page 327 of 510 ends

Application
Building elements with adjustable luminaire head for maximum flexibility.

Light building elements are luminous design features for public areas. They are ideally suited for delineating and structuring interior and exterior spaces such as landscape areas, plazas, building entrances and atria.

Materials
Clear safety glass
Extruded aluminum pole shaft
Marine grade, copper free (≤ 0.3% copper content) A360.0 aluminum alloy Silicone applied robotically to casting, plasma treated for increased adhesion
Covered handhole with hardware and grounding provisions provided Mechanically captive stainless steel fasteners
Zinc plated carbon steel anchor bolts with template
2-piece aluminum cover provided with anchor base
Pure anodized aluminum reflector
NRTL listed to North American Standards, suitable for wet locations Protection class IP 65
Weight: 35.1 lbs.

Electrical
Operating voltage 120-277VAC
Minimum start temperature -30° C
LED module wattage 19.4 W
System wattage 24.0 W
Controllability 0-10V, TRIAC, and ELV dimmable
Color rendering index Ra > 90
Luminaire lumens 2661 lm
LED service life (L70) 60000 hrs
LED color temperature
4000K (K4)
3500K (K35)
3000K (K3)
2700K (K27)
BEGA can supply you with suitable LED replacement modules for up to 20 years after the purchase of LED luminaires - see website for details Finish
All BEGA standard finishes are matte, textured powder coat with minimum 3 mil thickness. BEGA Unidure® finish provides superior fade protection in Black, Bronze, and Silver. BEGA standard White is a super durable polyester powder. Optionally available RAL, custom, and premium colors provided in polyester powder and/or liquid paint.

Available colors
Black (BLK) White (WHT)
Bronze (BRZ) Silver (SLV)
RAL: CUS:

Building element · Asymmetric · Single
BEGA 1000 BEGA Way, Carpinteria, CA 93013 (805) 684-0533 [email protected] Due to the dynamic nature of lighting products and the associated technologies, luminaire data on this sheet is subject to change at the discretion of BEGA North America. For the most current technical data, please refer to bega-us .com © copyright BEGA 2025
Type:

BEGA Product:

Project:

Modified:

Available options
CUS Custom finish
FSC Fusing
MGU Marine grade undercoat
RAL RAL finish
Included (available for pre-shipment)
B79818 Anchorage kit
Building element · Asymmetric · Single

LED A B C
B84103 19.4 W 101
/4 1027/8 14
Updated 04/08/25

Page 328 of 510 ends

Application
Building elements with adjustable luminaire head for maximum flexibility.

Materials
Clear safety glass
Marine grade, copper free (≤ 0.3% copper content) A360.0 aluminum alloy Extruded aluminum pole shaft
Covered handhole with hardware and grounding provisions provided Mechanically captive stainless steel fasteners
Silicone applied robotically to casting, plasma treated for increased adhesion
2-piece aluminum cover provided with anchor base
Zinc plated carbon steel anchor bolts with template
Pure anodized aluminum reflector
NRTL listed to North American Standards, suitable for wet locations Protection class IP 65
Weight: 41.4 lbs.

Electrical
Operating voltage 120-277VAC
Minimum start temperature -30° C
LED module wattage 38.8 W
System wattage 48.0 W
Controllability 0-10V, TRIAC, and ELV dimmable
Color rendering index Ra > 90
Luminaire lumens 5322 lm
LED service life (L70) 60000 hrs
LED color temperature
4000K (K4)
3500K (K35)
3000K (K3)
2700K (K27)
BEGA can supply you with suitable LED replacement modules for up to 20 years after the purchase of LED luminaires - see website for details Finish
All BEGA standard finishes are matte, textured powder coat with minimum 3 mil thickness. BEGA Unidure® finish provides superior fade protection in Black, Bronze, and Silver. BEGA standard White is a super durable polyester powder. Optionally available RAL, custom, and premium colors provided in polyester powder and/or liquid paint.

Available colors
Black (BLK) Bronze (BRZ)
Silver (SLV) White (WHT)
RAL: CUS:

Building element · Asymmetric · Twin
BEGA 1000 BEGA Way, Carpinteria, CA 93013 (805) 684-0533 [email protected] Due to the dynamic nature of lighting products and the associated technologies, luminaire data on this sheet is subject to change at the discretion of BEGA North America. For the most current technical data, please refer to bega-us .com © copyright BEGA 2025
Type:

BEGA Product:

Project:

Modified:

Available options
CUS Custom finish
FSC Fusing
MGU Marine grade undercoat
RAL RAL finish
Included (available for pre-shipment)
B79818 Anchorage kit
Building element · Asymmetric · Twin

LED A B C
B84104 38.8 W 101
/4 1027/8 247/8
Updated 04/08/25

Page 329 of 510 ends

Application
Surface washer bollards for the uniform illumination of ground surfaces. The luminaire housing is adjustable, allowing the light distribution to be adapted to meet the requirements of the installation site.

Materials
Clear safety glass with printed optical texture
Aluminum housing
High temperature silicone gasket
Mechanically captive stainless steel fasteners
Pure anodized aluminum reflector
NRTL listed to North American Standards, suitable for wet locations Protection class IP 65
Weight: 15.4 lbs.

Available colors
Black (BLK) Bronze (BRZ)
Silver (SLV) White (WHT)
Natural Bronze (NTB) RAL:

CUS:

Bollard · Asymmetric
BEGA 1000 BEGA Way, Carpinteria, CA 93013 (805) 684-0533 [email protected] Due to the dynamic nature of lighting products and the associated technologies, luminaire data on this sheet is subject to change at the discretion of BEGA North America. For the most current technical data, please refer to bega-us .com © copyright BEGA 2025
Type:

BEGA Product:

Project:

Modified:

Available options
70895 Direct burial anchorage (replaces included
anchorage kit, pre-shippable)
CUS Custom finish
MGU Marine grade undercoat
NTB Natural bronze (premium finish)
RAL RAL finish
Included (available for pre-shipment)
B79817 Anchorage kit
Bollard · Asymmetric

LED A B C
B84107 19.4 W 101
/4 471/8 14
Updated 04/28/25

Page 330 of 510 ends

Wattstopper
LMCP panel w/48-relay max capacity
Part No. LMCP48
The LMCP series panel provides simple network capable lighting control enabling the automation of lighting functions throughout an entire facility. The HDR relays in the panel can respond directly to inputs from Digital Lighting Management (DLM) switches, occupancy sensors, daylight sensors, and input modules.

Features & Benefits
Runs scheduled and photocell events autonomously Easy setup via LMCT-100 handheld configuration tool HDR relays include switch for manual override even when panel is powered off
Native BACnet communications for network control
solutions
Compatible with Digital Lighting Management switches, sensors and input devices
99 control groups accessible via handheld configuration tool
UL 20 listed for receptacle circuit control Compatible with DLM occupancy sensors,single pole heavy duty relays
Specifications
General Info
Product Line Wattstopper Color Nickel
UPC Number 754182934508 Country Of Origin United
States
Product Series LMCP Installation Location Enclosure,
Wall
May 22 2025 - For latest specs visit www.legrand.us

Page 331 of 510 ends

Application Sector Commercial Standard
UL 924, cUL,

BAA, TAA,
OSHPD
Approved
OSP-0257,

PEP, ISO
14025:2010,
ISO 14001,
ISO
14040:2006,
ISO
14044:2006,
RoHS
2011/65/EC
Warranty Type 5-Year Type Relay Panel
Additional Information
Product Has Potential to Contribute to LEED Yes DesignLights Consortium Qualified System Yes Security Yes
Technical Information
Operating Temperature Min 32 °F Output Voltage 24 VDC
Timer Type Event Based Compatibility LENC
Enclosures
Operating Temperature Max 140 °F Topology Free
Topology
Number of Relays 48 Input Voltage
115/277 V,
120/347 V,
240 V
Line Frequency 60 Hz Indoor/Outdoor Indoor
Operating Temperature 0°-60°C, 32°-
140°F
Operating Humidity
5-95% RH
(NonCondensing)
Wire Connection Type RJ-45
May 22 2025 - For latest specs visit www.legrand.us

Page 332 of 510 ends

Wattstopper
DIGITAL WIRELESS CONFIGURATION TOOL w/USB
Part No. LMCT-100-2
The LMCT-100-2 Wireless Configuration Tool is a handheld tool for advanced remote configuration of any Wattstopper Digital Lighting Management (DLM) system. The tool enables system and device modifications via pushbutton, without ladders or tools, as well as easy duplication of settings between DLM local networks.

Features & Benefits
Wireless advanced configuration capabilities for Digital Lighting Management systems
Component of Digital Lighting Management
integrated control systems
Easy-to-read OLED screen Micro-USB port allows easy updating of firmware 2-way IR communication for data upload, download, confirmation and storage
Easy-to-use navigation pad
Configures occupancy sensors, switches, room controllers, photosensors and DLM relay panels
Specifications
General Info
Product Line Wattstopper Color Black
UPC Number 754182941766 Country Of Origin China
Product Series LMCT Included Batteries, Carrying Case
Application Sector Commercial Standard RoHS
Warranty Type 5-Year Type Configuration Tool
Dimensions
Product Width US 1.5 in Product Weight US 0.1 lb
Product Volume US 36.06 cu in Product Depth US 1.1 in
May 16 2025 - For latest specs visit www.legrand.us

Page 333 of 510 ends

Product Height US 4.0 in
Additional Information
RoHS Compliant Yes
Technical Information
Compatibility DLM Wired Wireless Range IR, up to 32 feet Indoor/Outdoor Indoor Battery 3 AAA Batteries
Engraving Type Icon
May 16 2025 - For latest specs visit www.legrand.us

Page 334 of 510 ends

Wattstopper
DLM Wired Standard Switch, 2B, White
Part No. LMSW-220-W
LMSW-200 Series Wall Switches are programmable, low voltage devices for manual on/off, dimming, and scene control of one or more loads from one or more locations. They are part of the Digital Lighting Management (DLM) system and can control any load(s) connected to DLM room controllers.

Features & Benefits
Software lockable configuration button, accessible without faceplate removal
Digital Lighting Management components plug together
on a free-topology Category 5e DLM local network
Infrared (IR) transceiver for wireless configuration and control Switches may be used for multi-way control Each button and rocker can control individual or multiple loads.

Buttons can instead control one scene. LED indicates status. Each button can be used to dim assigned loads Custom engraving available to replace standard engraving Sleek single gang devices fit decorator wall plates The product meets the materials restrictions of RoHS BAA compliant options available Specifications
General Info
Product Line Wattstopper Color White
Finish Matte UPC Number 754182948857
Country Of Origin China Product Series LMSW
Switch Type Push Number of Switches 2
Application Sector Commercial Standard UL, cUL, FCC part 15, RoHS
Warranty Type 5-Year Type Switch
Dimensions
May 22 2025 - For latest specs visit www.legrand.us

Page 335 of 510 ends

Product Width US 1.6 in Product Weight US 0.1 lb
Product Volume US 20.3 cu in Product Depth US 1.6 in
Product Height US 4.1 in
Additional Information
Product Has Potential to Contribute to LEED Yes
Technical Information
Operating Temperature Min 0 °C Compatibility DLM Wired
Seismic Tested No Has Battery No
Operating Temperature Max 55 °C Number of Gangs 1
Number of Buttons 2 Number of Rockers 0
Topology Free Topology Input Voltage 24 VDC
Requires Neutral Wire No Indoor/Outdoor Indoor
Wattage 0.168 W Mounting Type J-Box
Current Draw 5 mA Operating Temperature 0°-55°C
Operating Humidity 5-95% RH (NonCondensing) Wire Connection Type RJ-45 Engraving Type Icon Environmental Conditions 5 to 95%
Storage Temperature 23° - 176° F, -5° -
80° C
May 22 2025 - For latest specs visit www.legrand.us
ITEM 7A ATTACHMENT 9

Page 336 of 510 ends

19 July 2024
Scott Riches, President and Head of School
Pinewood School
26800 Fremont Rd
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
[email protected]
Subject: Pinewood School, Upper Campus
Noise Assessment Summary
Salter Project 23-0501
Dear Scott:

Thank you for engaging Salter regarding Pinewood School’s proposed upper campus modernization project and desired enrollment increase of 25 students in each of the four high school classes for a total of 100 new potential students over the existing 300 enrollment cap. Regardless of the any enrollment cap increase, we understand the school will be seeking approval for a comprehensive modernization project that includes the following major elements:
● Tennis courts will be relocated from the northeast side of campus to the southwest side ● Two-story classroom buildings will replace single-story buildings ● A Theater building and quad will be constructed on the area of the existing tennis courts ● There will be new outdoor HVAC equipment serving the new construction ● The parking lot will be reconfigured for improved traffic flow and an additional exit As requested, we have conducted an analysis to investigate potential noise increases associated with these proposed changes. Our assessment includes calculated future noise levels expected from new mechanical equipment, traffic pattern changes, and potential school events.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Pinewood School Upper Campus serves grades 7 to 12 and is located at 26800 Fremont Road. Per the Town’s Interactive Geographic Information System (GIS) map, the school is surrounded by residential zoning.

ITEM 7A ATTACHMENT 10

Page 337 of 510 ends

Pinewood School, Upper Campus
19 July 2024
Noise Assessment Summary

Page 2 ends

CRITERIA
Los Altos Hills Noise Ordinance
Title 5, Chapter 2 of the Town’s Municipal Code1 provides the Noise Ordinance. Paragraph 5-2.02(g) specifies allowable noise thresholds for various noise sources. Those applicable to this project are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Town Noise Limits
Noise Sources
Exterior Noise Level Standard (dBA2)
Daytime Nighttime
Fixed noise source 50 40
Persons 50 40
Sound-producing or amplifying device 50 40
* For the purposes of enforcing the provisions of this chapter “daytime” shall be the period from 8 a.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. on weekends and Town Holidays, to 7 p.m. “Nighttime” shall begin at 10 p.m. for persons and sound-producing or amplifying devices
Additionally, the following definitions and clarifications from the Code are applicable to our analysis:
● Fixed Noise Source means a stationary device which creates sound while fixed or motionless, including, but not limited to pumps, fans, compressors, air-conditioners, pool equipment, generators, and refrigeration equipment.

We expect this would apply to the project’s outdoor HVAC equipment. ● Person means and includes every human being, whether adult, minor, or infant. When a group of persons acts in unison to create noise, each individual shall be deemed as responsible as though solely the principal producing the resultant noise.

Though this might originally be intended for social gatherings at private residences (i.e., house parties), we assume that this could apply to unamplified student activities. ● Sound-producing or amplifying device means any device for the creation or amplification of the human voice, music, or any other sound. Examples include, without limitation, public address systems, music amplifiers, horns, sirens, whistles, bells, and drums.

We expect this would apply to outdoor school events (e.g., assemblies in the quad) featuring amplified voices and/or music.
1 https://ecode360.com/43814998?highlight=noise&searchId=27987491896577952#43814998 2 A-Weighted Sound Level – The A-weighted sound pressure level, expressed in decibels (dB). Sometimes the unit of sound level is written as dBA. A weighting is a standard weighting that accounts for the sensitivity of human hearing to the range of audible frequencies. People perceive a 10 dB increase in sound level to be twice as loud.

Page 338 of 510 ends

Pinewood School, Upper Campus
19 July 2024
Noise Assessment Summary

Page 3 ends

● Standard 5-2.02(b) When the (noise) source is on private property, measurements shall be made at any location on or beyond the project boundary.

We assume that noise measurements comparing sound levels to the criteria in Table 1 would be made at the adjacent residential property lines.
● Standard 5-2.02(d) Vehicles on public streets and highways within the Town shall conform to the noise emission standards prescribed for them b the Vehicle Code of the State.

For the purposes of our traffic noise analyses, we assume that vehicles associated with school pickup/dropoff will generally conform with the applicable State standards. ● Standard 5-2.02(e) Fixed noise source installations shall conform to applicable setback standards.

Additional noise attenuation such as enclosure, baffling or housing may be required for roof mounted installations to meet the standards in Subsection (g) (i.e., Table 1) of this section.

Furthermore, Title 10, Chapter 1, Standard 10-1.505(c.3) specifies a minimum 30-foot setback from property lines for any new structures. We understand that this would apply to fixed noise sources.

ANALYSIS
Measurements
To determine the ambient noise levels at the site, we conducted long-term noise measurements along each property line from 8 to 13 December 2023. School was in session on the weekdays (8 December and 11 through 13 December) during our measurements. Figure 1 shows the measurement locations and measured ambient noise levels during school operation times. The monitors were located at an approximate height of 10 feet above grade.

Table 2 summarizes the ambient noise levels we measured during school hours (weekdays, 8 a.m. to 3 p.m.) in terms of Leq(h)3.

Table 2: Measured Ambient Noise Level at the Property Lines Property Line Ambient Noise Level (dBA)
North 60 to 62
East 45 to 59
South 49 to 59
West 43 to 54
3 Leq(h) – The equivalent steady-state A-weighted sound level that, in an hour, would contain the same acoustic energy as the time-varying sound level during the same period. This metric is often used to describe the “average” noise level in an hour.

Page 339 of 510 ends

Pinewood School, Upper Campus
19 July 2024
Noise Assessment Summary

Page 4 ends

Proposed Mechanical Equipment
Table 3 lists the proposed mechanical equipment and equipment noise levels as provided by the design team via email on 24 May 2024.

Table 3. Proposed Mechanical Equipment
Equipment Model Sound Power Level
VRV (per group) Daikin Emerion 20T Unit REYQ240AA TJA/YDA 81 dB Exhaust Fan Greenheck CUE-160-VG 73 dB
AHU Daikin Rebel 28T 83 dB
Estimated Noise Levels
The mechanical equipment is located throughout the campus with VRVs grouped and the AHU located on the theater rooftop. All proposed equipment will be beyond the requisite 30-foot setback from adjacent residential property lines.

Based on the preliminary mechanical markup dated 17 May 2024, we estimated the noise levels from the mechanical equipment as follows. Our analysis includes shielding provided by the rooftop parapet wall and walls of the surrounding campus buildings.

Table 4. Estimated Property Line Noise Levels
Property Line Estimated Noise Level (dBA) Criteria
North 48
50 dBA (Daytime)
40 dBA (Nighttime)
East 48
South 41
West 48
Noise levels are calculated to be within the daytime criterion but exceed the adjusted nighttime criterion.

This would be acceptable if equipment will not run after 7 p.m.

However, we understand enclosures or sound barriers will be designed and constructed around the mechanical equipment to further reduce equipment noise to meet the nighttime criteria.

TRAFFIC NOISE
Based on the traffic volume data provided in the preliminary traffic memo dated 22 January 2024, we modeled the increase in noise for the project traffic. The estimated project trip generation is noted in the memo to increase by 119 vehicles in peak traffic time (morning drop-off). Using the total peak traffic volumes of 355 vehicles and 474 vehicles (existing and future respectively), the expected increase in noise level is approximately 1 dB. For reference, noise increases of less than 3 dB are generally considered unnoticeable.

Page 340 of 510 ends

Pinewood School, Upper Campus
19 July 2024
Noise Assessment Summary

Page 5 ends

Figures 7-2 and 7-3 of the Los Altos Hills Noise Element provide the Towns existing and future noise contour maps
4 respectively. These identify Fremont Road as being within the CNEL5 65 dB Noise Contour.

Our long-term noise measurements indicate that Fremont Road is CNEL 61 dB near the school which is within the CNEL 65 dB Noise Contour with the 1 dB expected increase in traffic noise level.

OPERATIONAL NOISE
Students
Noise increases are calculated via a 10 LOG (X/Y) relationship where “X” is the number of new noise sources and “Y” is the original number of noise sources. Therefore, treating students as individual noise sources, an enrollment increase from 300 to 400 students could be calculated as an overall 1.25 dB increase (i.e., 10 LOG (400/300) = 1.25). As noted previously, increases of less than 3 dB are considered unnoticeable.

Our long-term noise measurements indicate that daytime ambient noise levels range from 43 to 62 dBA around the perimeter of the school. At the north property line, we expect that traffic along Fremont Road will be the dominant noise source. At all property lines, existing noise levels frequently exceed the Town’s 50 dBA daytime property line noise criterion. Therefore, we do not expect the enrollment increase to result in a drastic (or even noticeable) change to the existing noise environment. Nonetheless, students should be discouraged from loitering near the adjacent residential property line as feasible.

Note that the 1.25 dB increase refers to overall noise levels measured over time. Typical conversational speech levels are around 65 dBA. Thus, noise levels at the property lines would be expected to exceed 50 dBA at various times throughout the day. Again, students should be discouraged from loitering near the adjacent residential property line as feasible.

Tennis courts
We understand that the tennis court will be relocated to the southwest corner of the campus. This would place them approximately 45 feet from the western property line. The existing tennis courts are currently approximately 45 feet from the eastern property line. We expect the tennis court noise levels to remain the same but with noise primarily transferring to the southwest property lines instead of east. 4 https://www.losaltoshills.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/155/General-Plan---7-Noise-PDF 5 CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level) – A descriptor for a 24-hour A-weighted average noise level. CNEL accounts for the increased acoustical sensitivity of people to noise during the evening and nighttime hours. CNEL penalizes sound levels by 5 dB during the hours from 7 PM to 10 PM and by 10 dB during the hours from 10 PM to 7 AM. For practical purposes, the CNEL and DNL are usually interchangeable.

Page 341 of 510 ends

Pinewood School, Upper Campus
19 July 2024
Noise Assessment Summary

Page 6 ends

School Events
For our assessment, we were provided the school’s 2023/2024 event calendar. School events include sports, meetings, and musical/theatrical performances. None of these are scheduled to occur past 10 p.m. We understand that additional school events are not proposed for the future project. Therefore, we do not expect there to be a noticeable noise levels increase associated with school events after the proposed enrollment increase.

Outdoor Amplified Activities
We understand that amplified music and voices are not currently allowed at the school’s outdoor sporting events and that these would still be prohibited post-enrollment increase. However, there are approximately 5 outdoor events in the quad per year that feature amplified voices and music. To meet the Town’s 50 dBA property line criterion, speaker volumes should be limited accordingly.

Our calculations indicate that speakers placed as follows could be played at approximately 95 dBA (at the speaker location) and meet the 50 dBA criterion at adjacent residential property lines:
● On the quad stage (approximately 350 feet from the south property line) facing south ● At the rear of the quad (approximately 250 feet from the south property line) facing north Per Figure 7-1 of the Town’s Noise Element, 95 dBA is between the noise level of a tractor/truck and a school dance. Therefore, this might be appropriate for the school’s purposes. New public address systems will utilize directional speakers and distributed locations to meet the required performance needs even at louder noise levels with the 50 dBA property line criterion still being met.

Per the Town Noise Ordinance, amplified speech and music need to be concluded by no later than 10 p.m.
* * *
This concludes our Noise Assessment Summary letter for the Pinewood School Upper Campus project. Let us know if you have any questions.

Best,
SALTER
Matthew Hsiung
Senior Consultant
Ben Piper
Senior Associate

Page 342 of 510 ends

LT-1: Ambient Leq(h) 60 dB CNEL 61 dB LT-3: Ambient Leq(h) 45 dB LT-4: Ambient Leq(h) 49 dB LT-2: Ambient Leq(h) 43 dB www.salter-inc.com San Francisco San Jose Honolulu Seattle Los Angeles

Page 343 of 510 ends

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840

MEMORANDUM
To:

From:

Date:

Subject:

Scott Riches
Pinewood School
Mike Mowery, P.E. and Elizabeth Chau, P.E.

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

January 7, 2026
Pinewood School Upper Campus Preliminary Traffic and Parking Evaluation A preliminary traffic and parking evaluation was conducted related to the proposed campus modernization for the Pinewood School Upper Campus. This memorandum summarizes the methodology and results of the preliminary traffic and parking evaluation.

Background
Pinewood School is a private school in Santa Clara County. The school has operated continuously since the mid-1970’s in the former Fremont Hill’s Elementary School site through a lease with the Palo Alto Unified School District. The school proposes to replace the majority of existing structures and infrastructure originally designed for elementary school-aged students with a modern high school campus with the goals of sustainable development, new learning spaces, and enhanced parking and traffic management. The Upper School Campus is located at 26800 Fremont Road in Los Altos Hills, California. Figure 1 shows an aerial of the existing Upper School Campus. Currently, the campus allows up to 300 students between grades 7 through 12. The expansion will also seek approval to increase maximum enrollment by 75 students for a total of 375 students.

Figure 1. Upper School Campus
Pinewood
School Upper
Campus
ITEM 7A ATTACHMENT 11

Page 344 of 510 ends

Page 2 ends

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 The proposed site plan, dated January 2026, is included as Attachment A. Some notable improvements include:
• Converting existing driveway (Fremont Road & Weston Drive) to an entrance-only driveway • Reconfiguring the parking lot west and north of the academic buildings, to include o Removal of existing traffic circle, just south of existing driveway o Relocate student loading zone to north of academic buildings ▪ Loading zone will include passing lane and drop-off lane o Provide additional parking north of academic buildings • Install striping and signage to improve site circulation for all modes o Pedestrian crosswalk at each driveway, as well two internal crosswalks on the northern side of campus
o One-way circulation arrows throughout the site
o “No Stopping” signage along curb between building 100 and 300 o School crossing warning assembly prior to west internal crosswalk o “Passing Lane” and “Drop-off” striping for passing and drop-off lanes o Loading / unloading signage in loading zone
o “Merge Ahead” signage for the drop-off lane
o Red curb – fire lane along gymnasium frontage
• Constructing an exit driveway approximately 355 feet east of existing driveway (Fremont Road & Weston Drive)
School Driveway Traffic Operations
A trip generation analysis was conducted to determine the increase of traffic generated by the expansion. In addition, an intersection level of service analysis was conducted to evaluate the traffic operation at the school driveway(s) with the proposed expansion.

TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation is the amount of traffic expected to be created by a development within a given time period. These trips are typically calculated using trip generation rates from the most recent edition of Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. In this situation, this reference material does not have a rate that is consistent with a private school with students between grades 7 and 12. Therefore, trips rates were determined using existing site information such as current maximum student enrollment and traffic counts.

Traffic counts were collected for three (3) days between Tuesday November 7, 2023, and Thursday November 9, 2023, during the morning student drop-off (7:30-8:30 AM) and afternoon student pick-up (2:45-3:45 PM) peak hours. These peak hours were chosen based on the current bell schedule.

Average existing peak hour volumes are shown in Figure 2. Raw counts are included in Attachment B.

Page 345 of 510 ends

Page 3 ends

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Figure 2. Existing Peak Hour Volumes
Trip generation rates for the peak morning and afternoon hours are shown in Table 1 for students commuting to/from the school by vehicle, bicycle, or walking. The trip generation rates for each mode were determined by dividing the 3-day average peak hour trips by the current maximum enrollment of 300 students. The distribution during each peak hour is based on the percentage of “in” and “out” trips of the driveway trips. Trip generation calculations are included in Attachment C.

Table 1: Pinewood School Trip Generation Rates
Mode #
Students
Morning Drop-off Afternoon Pick-Up
Total
Trips Rate % In % Out Total Trips Rate % In % Out
Vehicle
300
339 1.13 45% 55% 254 0.85 54% 46%
Bicycle 6 0.02 33% 67% 6 0.02 79% 21%
Pedestrian 10 0.03 55% 45% 12 0.04 33% 67%
Total 355 1.19 45% 55% 272 0.91 53% 47%
Vehicle trip generation rates from Table 1 were compared with rates for similar land uses from the most recent ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, which is summarized in Table 2. Overall, the observed rates are higher than the rates derived from other similar school uses in the ITE Trip Generation Manual.

Table 2: Vehicle Trip Generation Rates Comparison
Peak
Hour
Pinewood
School
Observed Rates
ITE Trip Generation, 11th Edition
530 – Private
School (K-8)
532 – Private
School (K-12)
534 – Private
High School
538 – Charter
School (K-12)
Morning 1.13 1.01 0.80 0.66 0.94
Afternoon 0.85 0.60 0.53 0.40 0.73
The trip generation for the proposed maximum enrollment of 375 students is shown in Table 3. These trips were determined based on trip generation rates from Table 1. The new enrollment will generate

Page 346 of 510 ends

Page 4 ends

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 85 new vehicle trips during the morning drop-off (plus 4 bicycle or pedestrian trips). The afternoon pick-up period will generate 63 new vehicle trips (plus 5 bicycle and pedestrian trips).

Table 3: Proposed Trip Generation
Mode #
Students
Morning Drop-off Afternoon Pick-Up
Total In Out Total In Out
Vehicle
375
424 192 232 317 170 147
Bicycle 8 3 5 8 6 2
Pedestrian 13 7 6 15 5 10
Total Proposed 445 202 243 340 181 159
Vehicle
300
339 153 185 254 136 117
Bicycle 6 2 4 6 5 1
Pedestrian 10 6 4 12 4 8
Total Existing 356 161 195 272 145 127
New Trips (all modes)
(Proposed – Existing) 89 41 48 68 36 32
New Trips (Vehicles)
(Proposed – Existing) 85 39 47 63 34 30
The new vehicle trips from Table 3 were assigned to the roadway network based existing trip distribution as shown in Figure 3. Figure 3 also shows the existing outbound traffic that was moved from the existing driveway at Fremont Road and Weston Drive (#1) to the new exit Driveway (#2).

Note approximately 80-130 vehicles making a northbound right out of the school account for 53-56% of the outbound school volume. With the proposed improvements, these vehicles would no longer travel through the stop-controlled intersection of Fremont Road and Weston Drive.

Figure 3. Project Trip Assignment
Figure 4 shows traffic volumes under the proposed condition, which was determined by adding project volumes (Figure 3) to existing traffic volumes (Figure 2).

Page 347 of 510 ends

Page 5 ends

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Figure 4. Proposed Peak Hour Volumes

LEVEL OF SERVICE
Level of service (LOS) analysis was conducted to determine the potential change in traffic operations at the school driveways with the proposed school expansion. LOS for the intersection was determined using Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition (HCM 6) methodology within the Synchro 11 software.

Note HCM 6 methodology determines the average delay over a 1-hour time period, thus some periods within the hour may experience more or less delay than summarized.

The existing and proposed LOS are summarized in Table 4. It is anticipated that proposed improvements (converting existing driveway Fremont Road & Weston Drive to an entrance-only driveway, constructing an exit driveway, and reconfiguring parking lot west and north of the academic buildings) will have the following results:
• Entrance Driveway (Fremont Road & Weston Drive) will continue to operate at LOS B during the morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up periods.
• The worst movement at the Exit Driveway (i.e. northbound left) will operate at LOS B or better.

There is minimal increase in delay at the Entrance Driveway (Fremont Road & Weston Drive) due to the proposed site plan redistributing outbound school traffic to the exit driveway which results in eliminating some conflicting movements for vehicles on Fremont Road. In addition, more than half of exiting vehicles are anticipated to turn right out of the new exit driveway and will avoid the intersection of Fremont Road and Weston Drive.

The delay at the proposed new exit driveway will affect Pinewood-related traffic exiting the school at a new side-street stop sign, but not delay traffic on Fremont Road. Synchro outputs are included in Attachment D.

Page 348 of 510 ends

Page 6 ends

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Table 4: Level of Service Summary
Driveway Time Period
Existing Proposed
Delay
(s/veh) LOS Delay(s/veh) LOS
Entrance
(Fremont Road &
Weston Drive)
Morning Drop-off 12.7 B 12.5 B
Afternoon Pick-Up 10.3 B 10.5 B
Exit
Morning Drop-off
Does not exist

14.9 B
Afternoon Pick-Up 12.7 B
Average intersection delay and LOS is reported for Entrance Driveway, while the worst movement delay and LOS is reported for the Exit Driveway
Parking
A parking analysis was conducted to identify potential impacts to parking due to the school expansion.

EXISTING CONDITION
Existing peak parking occupancy counts were collected on November 8, 2023 during the peak period between 10:00 AM and 11:00 AM. The parking occupancy during this time is summarized in Table 5.

The data collection found that 66% of school parking is occupied. Figure 5 illustrates that the drive aisle for parking spaces adjacent to the school building is also utilized for student loading which results in the spaces being blocked during student loading periods. This configuration may lead to lower occupancy since it can be more inconvenient to park in these spaces.

Table 5: Existing Parking Occupancy
Space Type
#
Parking
Spaces
#
Occupied
Spaces
%
Occupancy
Regular/Compact 23 18 78%
Staff 47 30 64%
Student 26 18 69%
ADA 5 2 40%
Other* 7 3 43%
Total 108 71 66%
*Other includes spaces for the school cargo vans or EV charging and compact

Page 349 of 510 ends

Page 7 ends

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Source: Google Maps (accessed January 2024)
Figure 5. Parking blocked by student loading traffic

PROPOSED CONDITION
The proposed site plan will reconfigure the parking area west and north of the academic buildings and will provide 114 spaces, six (6) more spaces more than the current inventory. The west parking lot will have 90-degree parking, with 20-feet drive aisle where vehicles will circulate the lot in one-direction.

The north parking lot will have angled parking.

The increase in parking demand will be dependent on the additional staff and number of students that would park at the school, which is at the school’s discretion. For example, the proposed student enrollment increase is not anticipated to have a ratio of increase in staff. Additionally, the proposed site plan does addresses parking inefficiencies with the existing site plan by relocating the student loading area, so it no longer blocks any parking spaces. The proposed reconfiguration of the parking area west and north of the academic buildings and additional 5 spaces will help mitigate impacts.

Gap Analysis
A gap analysis was conducted to determine if there would be adequate gaps, the time between vehicles traveling on Fremont Road, so vehicles can safely turn out of the proposed exit driveway.

Existing gap data was collected in a location approximate to where the proposed egress driveway will be constructed (~460 feet east of Weston Drive). Data was collected during the peak 30-minute morning drop-off period (7:45 AM to 8:15 AM) and peak 30-minute afternoon pick-up period (3:00 PM to 3:30 PM) on Tuesday, April 22, 2025. Table 6 summarizes the gap data, with complete data provided in Attachment E.

Page 350 of 510 ends

Page 8 ends

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Gap data was reviewed to determine if there would be adequate gaps for a passenger vehicle making a left or right from a stop-controlled per AASHTO’s A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Street, which is a minimum gap of 8 and 6.5 seconds, respectively.

Table 6: Gap Analysis Summary
Morning Drop-off
(7:45-8:15 AM)
Afternoon Pick-up
(3:00-3:30 PM)

EB WB EB WB
# Observed Gaps 89 139 81 55
# Unusable gaps (%) 31 (35%) 78 (56%) 30 (38%) 11 (21%) # Usable Gaps (%) 58 (65%) 61 (44%) 51 (62%) 44 (79%)
Usable Gap Range (sec) 8-103 8-91 8-138 8-187
Average Usable Gap (sec) 19 13 22 31
During the morning drop-off period, in the eastbound direction there were 58 (65%) usable gaps during the 30-minute peak period with an average usable gap of 19 seconds. For westbound traffic, there were 61 (44%) usable gaps with an average usable gap of 13 seconds in the 30-minute peak period. During the afternoon pick-up period, in the eastbound direction, there were 51 (62%) usable gaps during the 30-minute peak period with an average usable gap of 22 seconds. For westbound traffic, there were 44 (79%) usable gaps with an average usable gap of 31 seconds in the 30-minute peak period.

The gap data was used to estimate the number of vehicles that could turn during the 30-minute peak periods, summarized in Table 7. Based on existing counts, approximately 75% vehicles arrive within 30 minutes before the morning bell and 77% vehicles depart within 30 minutes after the afternoon dismissal bell, which equates to 174 and 131 vehicles respectively. The number of turning vehicles was determined based on the number of occurrences of certain gap duration. There is a minimum gap acceptance of 7-8 seconds for the first vehicle and then a follow-up time typically around 2-3 seconds for each additional vehicle. The existing gaps could accommodate approximately 205-215 turning vehicles during the morning drop-off period and approximately 180-190 turning vehicles during the afternoon pick-up period.

The gap analysis found that there are currently adequate gaps for vehicles to turn onto Fremont Road during the morning and afternoon peak periods. It is anticipated that similar gaps or an increase in usable gaps would occur under the proposed conditions as there will be less eastbound traffic due to the Project redistribution outbound traffic to the new proposed exit driveway.

Page 351 of 510 ends

Page 9 ends

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Table 7: Gap Analysis – Number Turning Vehicles
Gap
Duration
#
Allowable
Turning
Vehicles
Morning Drop-off
(7:45-8:15 AM)
Afternoon Pick-up
(3:00-3:30 PM)

EB WB EB WB
#
Observation
#
Turning
Vehicles
#
Observation
#
Turning
Vehicles
#
Observation
#
Turning
Vehicles
#
Observation
#
Turning
Vehicles
0-7 s 0 31 0 78 0 30 0 11 0
8-10 s 1 8 8 8 8 4 4 5 5
11-13 s 2 9 18 14 28 10 20 1 2
14-16 s 3 9 27 6 18 3 9 6 18
17-19 s 4 5 20 6 24 4 16 2 8
≥ 20 s 5+ 27 135 27 135 30 150 30 150
Total 89 208 139 213 81 199 55 183

Page 352 of 510 ends

Page 10 ends

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Site Access and Circulation
The existing and proposed site plan was reviewed to identify any potential site access and circulation deficiencies.

EXISTING CONDITION
Pedestrian and Bicycle Traffic
Pedestrian and bicycle traffic may access the site through the dirt path on either side of Fremont Road and can cross Fremont Road at the school crosswalk on the west leg at the intersection of Fremont Road and Weston Drive. On Fremont Road there are two pedestrian gates which provide site access for pedestrian and bicyclists for the school. The western gate is located approximately 230 feet east of Weston Drive and the eastern gate is located approximately 330 feet east of Western Drive. Both gates connect to a paved path which leads to the northern parking area. Note there is onstreet parking on the south side of Fremont Road along the school’s frontage. There are logs and rocks that help delineate the pathway so on-street parking does not encroach on the pedestrian path as shown in Figure 6.

Source: Google Streetview, Image date April 2023, Accessed April 2024 Figure 6. Streetview of Froment Road (facing southeast, approximately 230 feet east of Western Drive) Figure 7 illustrates an existing on-site deficiency for pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Currently there is no marked crossing connecting the paved paths with the academic building.

Page 353 of 510 ends

Page 11 ends

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Source: Google Maps, Image date May 12, 2023
Figure 7. Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity Deficiency Vehicular Traffic
The Pinewood School currently has one (1) driveway located on the south leg of the intersection of Fremont Road and Weston Drive. Immediately after the driveway, vehicles may either continue south towards the main parking spaces and student loading area or make a left-turn and head east towards some additional parking area. There are designated spots for junior high and high school drop-off.

The junior high drop-off zone is located at the bottom of the driveway, while the high school drop-off zone is located on the top of the driveway.

As noted in the parking section, the drive aisle for parking adjacent to the school building is utilized for student loading which results inefficiencies for both parking and student loading. The parked cars may make it difficult for students to see their vehicle arrive at the loading area or could be potential barriers for students to get into their vehicles.

PROPOSED CONDITION
Kimley-Horn reviewed the proposed site plan, dated January 2026 (Attachment A).

Pedestrian and Bicycle Traffic
Site access would remain the same as existing conditions where pedestrian and bicycle traffic would access the site through pedestrian gates on Fremont Road. The proposed site plan includes steps from southeast corner of Fremont Road and Weston Drive that leads to a pathway that connects to the academic buildings. The site plan proposes install a school crossing warning sign assembly prior Missing marked
cross-walk

Page 354 of 510 ends

Page 12 ends

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 to this crossing. Additionally, there are two crossings located near the accessible parking spaces in the west and north parking lots. It is recommended that personnel be stationed at these crossings to help manage vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic during morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up periods.

Vehicular Traffic
With the proposed site plan, vehicles will enter the existing driveway at the intersection of Fremont Road and Weston Drive. Based on the proposed pavement marking, arrows and line striping for lane delineation, vehicles will be directed to continue south and circulate through the parking area located to the west of academic buildings. At the south end of the parking lot, vehicles will turn around, head north, turn right to travel along the north side of campus. North of the academic buildings will be angled parking on the north side of the drive aisle and a student drop-off/pick-up area on the south side. The loading area consists of two lanes with “Passing Lane” and “Drop Off” pavement marking designations. Vehicles in the “Passing Lane” may by-pass vehicles dwelling in the “Drop off” lane or access the angled parking. Vehicles in the “Drop off” lane will be directed to pull forward. Once student has been drop-off or picked-up, vehicles will merge into “Passing Lane” and will exit the campus at the proposed new driveways located approximately 355 feet east of the intersection of Fremont Road and Weston Drive. As discussed in the Gap Analysis section, it is anticipated that there should be sufficient gap in traffic for vehicles to exit the driveway and turn onto Fremont Road.

In addition, there are emergency vehicle access gates that will connect to Ascension Drive on the east side of campus and Ortega Drive on the west side of campus. In addition to the proposed pavement marking, the school will continue to have staff stationed throughout the site to direct vehicles during the peak morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up periods.

The proposed site plan does improve the parking and student loading inefficiencies from the existing site plan by relocating the student loading area, so it no longer blocks any parking spaces. Also having a dedicated student drop-off/pick-up area will reduce potential confusion for new staff/parents/students circulating the site.

The proposed site plan also improves efficiency for student loading activities. The new student loading zone is approximately 280 feet which can accommodate up to 11-12 vehicles. The inclusion of a passing lane will allow vehicles that have completed drop-off/pick-up to exit without waiting for vehicles to move forward.

A student loading queue analysis was conducted to determine if the proposed loading area would be adequate during a 30-minute peak during the morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up periods and summarized in Table 8. Based on existing counts, approximately 75% vehicles arrive within 30 minutes before the morning bell and 77% vehicles depart within 30 minutes after the afternoon dismissal bell. Based on engineering and professional judgment, conservative estimates for drop-off and pick-up dwelling times of 60 seconds and 120 seconds, respectively, were used in the analysis.

The drop-off/pick-up time is the assumed amount of time it takes for a vehicle to enter a temporary curb-side space and for children to safely exit or enter the car. The conservative estimates used in this analysis are higher than those typically used for middle/high-school age children.

Page 355 of 510 ends

Page 13 ends

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 In the morning drop-off period, it is estimated the average arrival rate of 5.8 vehicles per minute (veh/min) and an average departure rate of 11 veh/min. In the afternoon pick-up period, it is estimated the average arrival rate of 4.4 veh/min and a departure rate of 5.5 veh/min. Since the arrival rates are less than the departure rates, all vehicles could be served within the 280-foot student loading area. If required, there is additional queuing storage as vehicles can queue overflow in the west parking lot. The queue analysis calculation is included in Attachment F.

Table 8: Student Loading Queue Analysis Summary
Morning Drop-off
(7:45-8:15 AM)
Afternoon Pick-up
(3:00-3:30 PM)
Dwell Time (sec) 60 120
# vehicles during peak period 174 131
Arrival Rate (veh/ min) 5.8 4.4
Departure Rate (veh /min) 11 5.5
Unserved Queue (veh) 0 0
Vehicle Miles Traveled
As of July 1, 2020, the State of California has fully adopted a change in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) significant impact methodology for transportation impacts to use vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as opposed to level of service (LOS) via State Bill 743 (SB 743).

The Town of Los Altos Hills has not adopted local VMT thresholds, therefore VMT analysis was consistent with the December 2018 guidance provided by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), the guidance does not specifically address school land uses. However, for the purposes of this analysis, the project was treated as an office project, which evaluates VMT based on VMT per employee since the predominate driver of VMT for the proposed project will be student, staff, and faculty trips commuting to school. This approach is consistent with OPR guidelines which state, “where methodologies exist that can estimate the full extent of vehicle miles travel from a project, the lead agency should apply them to do so.”
OPR Guidelines recommend a threshold of 15-percent below the average. For this analysis the Town Average VMT per Capita of 26.59 was selected over the County’s average as the Town of Los Altos Hills is topographically hillier and includes less amenities per square mile compared to other jurisdictions within Santa Clara County. A relatively lower density of amenities leads to greater travel distances on average, or higher VMT per capita. A comparison of Project’s VMT per capita to townwide VMT per capita would therefore be more appropriate than a comparison of Project VMT per capita to countywide VMT per capita. A threshold of 15-percent below the townwide average would equate to a target of 22.60 vehicle-miles.

Table 9 presents a summary of the VMT analysis. According to existing student and staff/faulty household data provided by the school, the Project is estimated to generate approximately 19.42 VMT per capita. The estimated Project VMT per capita falls below the 15-percent reduced townwide target of 22.60, therefore the project would not generate a significant transportation impact.

Page 356 of 510 ends

Page 14 ends

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Table 9: VMT Analysis Summary
County Average VMT per Worker 16.64
Town Average VMT per Worker 26.59
Threshold (-15% below average) 22.60
Project’s VMT per Capita 19.42
Conclusion
The following is a summary of the results of the preliminary traffic study:

School Driveway Traffic Operation
• It is anticipated that the increase enrollment will result in:
o 85 new vehicle trips during the morning drop-off period. o 63 new vehicle trips during the afternoon pick-up period. • Level of service analysis during the peak hour found that:
o Entrance Driveway (Fremont Road & Weston Drive) will continue to operate at LOS B during the morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up periods. o The worst movement at the new Exit Driveway (i.e. northbound left) will operate at LOS B or better.
• It is anticipated that constructing an exit driveway approximately 355 feet east of existing driveway at Fremont Road & Weston Drive will contribute to the minimal changes to LOS and delay by redistributing outbound school traffic, which results in eliminating some conflicting movements for vehicles on Fremont Road. In additional more than half of existing vehicles are anticipated to turn right out of the new exit driveway and will avoid the intersection of Fremont Road and Weston Drive as an exiting trip.

Parking
• Existing student and staff peak parking occupancies range from 64 to 69 percent. • Proposed site plan will increase on-site parking supply from 108 spaces to 113 spaces. • Proposed parking inventory would accommodate additional parking demand.

Site Circulation
• The existing site has inefficiencies for pedestrian/bicycle circulation, parking, and student loading.
• The proposed site plan addresses existing deficiencies by separating parking and student loading area and providing pedestrian pathways through the site. • The proposed site plan improves efficiency for student loading activities. The proposed 280- foot loading area will accommodate peak morning drop-off and afternoon pick-up. • A gap study determined adequate gaps for vehicles to exit the new driveway and turn right or left onto Fremont Road.

Page 357 of 510 ends

Page 15 ends

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Vehicles Miles Traveled
• The project average VMT’s is estimated to be 19.42 VMT per capita. • The Town does not have any VMT thresholds, therefore 15 percent below townwide VMT per employee or 22.60 VMT per employe was used.
• The Project’s VMT is less than target VMT, therefore there are no significant impacts.

Attachment A – Proposed Site Plan
Attachment B – Traffic Counts
Attachment C – Trip Generation Calculations
Attachment D – Synchro Reports
Attachment E – Gap Study
Attachment F – Student Loading Queue Worksheet

Page 358 of 510 ends

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 A – Proposed Site Plan

Page 359 of 510 ends

DN
DN
DN
DN
DN
DN
DN
DN
DN
DN
DN
DN DN
DN
UP
DN
UP
DN
UP
DN
UP
DN
DN
DN
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X XXXXXXXXX
X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X
X

X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X
X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X
X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X
X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X

X X X X
X XX
X X
X
X

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X
X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X
X
X
X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X XX
X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X
1 A5.05 ————
BLDG. 100BLDG. 100
BLDG. 300BLDG. 300
BLDG. 200BLDG. 200

FREMONT ROAD
ORTEGA
DRIVE

ASCENSION DRIVE
BLDG. 400
15,579 SQ. FT.

OCC. TYPE A-1

CONSTRUCTION TYPE II-B

SPRINKLERED
23,912 SQ. FT.

OCC. TYPE E

CONSTRUCTION TYPE II-B

SPRINKLERED
22,301 SQ. FT.

OCC. TYPE E

CONSTRUCTION TYPE II-B

SPRINKLERED
13,475 SQ. FT.

OCC. TYPE E

CONSTRUCTION TYPE II-B

SPRINKLERED

WESTON DRIVE
1 1
2 2
2 3
4 4
3 5
6 38' - 8"
23 15' - 8"
15' - 0"
14' - 11"
14' - 11"
7 8
8 9 5
5 30' - 0"
10 10
17' - 6"
42' - 0"
14' - 6"
11 12
13 14
15 16
18 19
19 DN
DN
DN
20 21
22 22
20 22
22 22
24 17
30' - 0"
40' - 0"
30' - 0"
30' - 0"
25 26
27 28
0' - 0"
-1' - 2"
22' - 6" 14
14 BLDG. 300BLDG. 300
2 A5.05 ————

EXISTING GYMNASIUM
15,179 SQ. FT.

OCC. TYPE A-3

CONSTRUCTION TYPE V-B

SPRINKLERED
3 A5.05 ————
1 CAR
VAN
CAR
CAR
CAR
29 29
30 0' - 3"
31 32
33 34
35 PASSING PASSING
LANE
DROP
OFF

PASSING
LANE
DROP
OFF
37 36
37 38
39 GENERAL SITE NOTES

FOR BUILDING DIMENSIONS, SEE FLOOR PLANS

FOR (E) TREE LOCATIONS, SEE SURVEY AND LANDSCAPE PLAN

FOR A SUMMARY OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CALCULATIONS, SEE CIVIL PLANS (TO BE CONFIRMED)

FOR INFORMATION ABOUT TREES TO BE REMOVED, SEE ARBORIST REPORT

AND LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS
FENCING AND GATES TO BE A DEFERRED SUBMITTAL. SEE LANDSCAPE

DRAWINGS FOR FENCING INFORMATION
FOR DEVELOPMENT AREA INFORMATION, SEE WORKSHEET #2

ALL APPLICABLE BUILDING PERMITS SHALL BE APPLIED FOR AND RECEIVED

PRIOR TO PERFORMING ANY WORK
THE SEPARATION BETWEEN BUILDING 200 AND THE EXISTING GYMNASIUM IS 6'-0". PER CBC TABLE 705.5, THERE WILL BE A MINIMUM OF 1 HR-RATED FIRE

SEPARATION AT THE EXTERIOR WALLS BETWEEN THESE TWO BUILDINGS

SCHOOL STAFF MEMBERS WILL DIRECT VEHICLES DURING PICK UP AND DROP

OFF TIMES TO KEEP CARS PROCEEDING STRAIGHT AT DRIVEWAY ENTRY

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9. KEYNOTES #
LANDSCAPING AND VEGETATION AREA: SEE

LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS

ARTIFICIAL TURF FIELDS

BIORETENTION AREA, SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
(N) BUILDINGS
(E) BUILDINGS

LOS ALTOS HILLS PATHWAY EASEMENT

VEHICULAR ACCESS LOCATION
NEW / EXISTING TREE LOCATION: SEE LANDSCAPE

DRAWINGS

FIRE HYDRANT

KNOX BOX
FIRE LANE: ENTRANCES AND LANES 20' WIDE MIN.

FENCE LINE

PROPERTY LINE

OTHER'S PROPERTY LINE

SITE SETBACK LINE

VEHICULAR RIGHT OF WAY CENTER LINE

ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL

OVERHEAD BALCONIES AND EAVES
LEGEND
K

1. NO

STOPPING

SIGNAGE

2. LOADING /

UNLOADING

3. MERGE 4. STOP 5. SCHOOL

CROSSING
SHEET

SHEET TITLE
PROJECT NO.

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY

PROJECT NAME

APPROVAL STAMP

CONSULTANTS
STAMP
12/22/2025 11:34:34 AM
A0.22
AM
MD
23014

SITE PLAN

PINEWOOD SCHOOL
26800 FREMONT RD.

UPPER CAMPUS
LOS ALTOS HILLS, CA, 94022
1" = 30'-0"
1 SITE PLAN
1 (E) 20' WIDE EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS GATE
2 (E) PUBLIC PATHWAY WITHIN PROPERTY LINE FOR PUBLIC USE. MAINTAINED BY TOWN.
3 (E) R.O.W. PATHWAY OUTSIDE OF PROPERTY LINE. MAINTAINED BY TOWN. 4 BIKE RACKS
5 (E) OFF-STREET PARKING
6 SYNTHETIC TURF FIELD
7 OPEN VISIBILITY FENCING. TYP ALONG SOUTHERN FENCE LINE. SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS.
8 CLOSED VISIBILITY FENCING. TYP ALONG WEST AND EAST FENCE LINE. SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS.
9 OPEN VISIBILITY FENCING. TYP ALONG NORTH FENCE LINE. SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS.
10 4' - 6" (AVG.) HIGH OPEN VISIBILITY VEHICLE GATE.
11 PARKING / QUEUE ENTRANCE
12 PARKING / QUEUE EXIT
13 (E) ARTIFICIAL TURF FIELD, TO BE RESTRIPED
14 LINE OF BALCONY ABOVE
15 TRELLIS
16 (N) MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT PAD WITH FENCING
17 TWO DUMPSTER TRASH & ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER ENCLOSURE 18 ATHLETIC FIELD BACKSTOP
19 CONCRETE HARDSCAPE TYP. U.N.O.: SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
20 PERMEABLE PAVERS: SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS
21 DECK PLATFORM
22 PLANTERS WITH CONCRETE RETAINING WALLS
23 RECREATION COURTS, WITH FENCING: 10' - 0"
24 ELEVATOR
25 OWNER DESIGNATION SIGNAGE: 3' -0" HIGH, LESS THAN 6 S.F. IN AREA, NOT

ILLUMINATED
26 OWNER DESIGNATION SIGNAGE: NOT ILLUMINATED
27 FIXED BENCH SEATING
28 PARKING LOT TO BE PERMEABLE CONCRETE: SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS 29 FIRE ACCESS LANE TO BE GRASSCRETE: SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS 30 SOLID LINE INDICATING LANE SEPARATION
31 CURB PAINTED YELLOW TO INDICATE LOADING/UNLOADING FOR PASSENGERS 32 NO STOPPING SIGNAGE, SEE SIGN TYPE #1
33 LOADING / UNLOADING ZONE SIGNAGE, SEE SIGN TYPE #2
34 MERGE SIGNAGE, SEE SIGN TYPE #3
35 STOP SIGN, SEE SIGN TYPE #4
36 SCHOOL CROSSING SIGN, SEE SIGN TYPE #5
37 PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK
38 8" LIMIT LINE
39 RED CURB
0' 15' 30' 60'

MILESTONE DATE
PLANNING SUBMITTAL 02/03/2025
PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 06/16/2025
PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 10/03/2025
PLANNING RESUBMITTAL 1/X/2026

Page 360 of 510 ends

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 B – Traffic Counts

Page 361 of 510 ends

Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 23-080334-001 Day:

City: Los Altos Hills Date:

AM 131 51 1 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 54 46 6 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0 1 0 0 0 3 0 6
1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3
90 0 53 0 TEV 550 0 359 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 PHF 0.49 0.59
91 0 82 0
0 0 1 0

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 51 59 4 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 0 116 59 2 AM
0 NONE
02:45 PM - 03:45 PM 115
Fremont Rd & Weston Dr
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Fremont Rd Tuesday
SOUTHBOUND 11/7/2023

PEAK HOURS
2:45 PM - 03:45 PM
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM 155 7:30 AM - 08:30 AM

COUNT PERIODS
NONE
10 0 3
Totals (AM) 129 Total Bikes (AM)
Weston Dr

EASTBOUND

WESTBOUND
Weston Dr
247 0 105

CONTROL
3-Way Stop(NB/SB/WB)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
0 145

NORTHBOUND
Fremont Rd
Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON)

AM NOON PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
4 0
5 3
0 4
10000
0 10
0 1
1 0
1 102201
0 0
1 1
0 0
060
020
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
010
050
3 0
82 1
0 53
54466
51594
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
6 0
91 3
0 90
131511
116592

Page 362 of 510 ends

Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 23-080334-001 Day:

City: Los Altos Hills Date:

AM 127 51 4 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 61 51 5 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0 1 0 0 0 3 0 5
1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1
84 0 69 0 TEV 571 0 375 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 PHF 0.51 0.69
100 0 82 0
0 0 1 0

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 1 49 52 0 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 0 123 75 1 AM
0 NONE
02:45 PM - 03:45 PM 124
Fremont Rd & Weston Dr
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Fremont Rd Wednesday
SOUTHBOUND 11/8/2023

PEAK HOURS
2:45 PM - 03:45 PM
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM 164 7:30 AM - 08:30 AM

COUNT PERIODS
NONE
5 0 5
Totals (AM) 136 Total Bikes (AM)
Weston Dr

EASTBOUND

WESTBOUND
Weston Dr
250 0 110

CONTROL
3-Way Stop(NB/SB/WB)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
0 152

NORTHBOUND
Fremont Rd
Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON)

AM NOON PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
1 0
5 3
0 4
00000
0 0
0 1
0 0
3 200200
0 0
1 0
0 0
050
020
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
110
020
3 0
82 2
0 69
61515
49520
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
5 0
100 1
0 84
127514
123751

Page 363 of 510 ends

Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 23-080334-001 Day:

City: Los Altos Hills Date:

AM 123 63 4 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 41 67 3 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
0 1 0 0 0 3 0 5
1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 3 0 5
80 0 63 0 TEV 557 0 392 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 PHF 0.50 0.61
95 0 75 0
0 0 1 0

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 54 80 3 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 0 115 65 2 AM
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Totals (PM) Total Bikes (PM)
0 163

NORTHBOUND
Fremont Rd
Totals (NOON) Total Bikes (NOON)
NONE
6 0 6
Totals (AM) 145 Total Bikes (AM)
Weston Dr

EASTBOUND

WESTBOUND
Weston Dr
238 0 95

CONTROL
3-Way Stop(NB/SB/WB)
0 NONE
02:45 PM - 03:45 PM 146
Fremont Rd & Weston Dr
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Fremont Rd Thursday
SOUTHBOUND 11/9/2023

PEAK HOURS
2:45 PM - 03:45 PM
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM 150 7:30 AM - 08:30 AM

COUNT PERIODS

AM NOON PM
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM

PMNOONAMAMNOONPM
4 0
3 8
0 3
00000
0 0
0 1
2 0
0 200100
0 0
0 0
0 0
010
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
0 0
0 0
0 0
040
050
3 0
75 3
0 63
41673
54803
0 0
0 0
0 0
000
000
5 0
95 5
0 80
123634
115652

Page 364 of 510 ends

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 C – Trip Generation Calculations

Page 365 of 510 ends

SBT EBR WBL Total NBL NBT NBR Total SBT EBR WBL Total NBL NBT NBR Total SBT EBR WBL Total NBL NBT NBR Total 7:30 12 4 0 16 7 11 0 18 11 5 1 17 10 16 0 26 16 6 0 22 11 14 1 26 7:45 11 16 1 28 30 20 1 51 11 19 0 30 29 24 0 53 12 13 0 25 23 24 0 47 8:30 12 58 1 71 77 15 0 92 13 61 0 74 78 11 1 90 17 60 2 79 76 12 1 89 8:15 16 13 1 30 2 13 1 16 16 15 0 31 6 24 0 30 18 16 3 37 5 15 0 20 Total 145 177 152 199 163 182
SBT EBR WBL Total NBL NBT NBR Total SBT EBR WBL Total NBL NBT NBR Total SBT EBR WBL Total NBL NBT NBR Total 7:30 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
7:45 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 2
8:30 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3
8:15 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 1 5 1 2 4 5
E leg
SB
W leg
SB Total
E leg
NB
W leg
NB Total
E leg
SB
W leg
SB Total
E leg
NB
W leg
NB Total
E leg
SB
W leg
SB Total
E leg
NB
W leg
NB Total
7:30 1 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 3 3 0 2 2 1 1 2
7:45 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8:30 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 4 6 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 2
8:15 0 0 0 1 2 3 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 6 5 8 5 3 4
In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total % Total In Out Total Vehicle 145 177 322 152 199 351 163 182 345 153 186 339 95% 45% 55% 1.13 Bicycle 1 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 9 2 4 6 2% 33% 67% 0.02
Pedestrain 6 5 11 8 5 13 3 4 7 6 5 10 3% 55% 45% 0.03
Total 152 187 339 161 206 367 170 191 361 161 195 356 45% 55% 1.19 AM Peak
Vehicle
Bicycle
11/9/2023
Vehicle
Outbound
Vehicle
11/7/2023
Bicycle
Inbound
Bicycle
11/8/2023
Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound
Inbound
In
11/8/2023 11/9/2023
In Out In Out
Outbound Inbound Outbound
Average Rate
Pedestrain Pedestrain Pedestrain
Out
11/7/2023

Page 366 of 510 ends

SBT EBR WBL Total NBL NBT NBR Total SBT EBR WBL Total NBL NBT NBR Total SBT EBR WBL Total NBL NBT NBR Total 2:45 15 0 0 15 9 6 1 16 19 2 0 21 10 8 0 18 18 0 1 19 13 14 2 29 3:00 12 37 0 49 19 19 1 39 11 30 1 42 19 13 0 32 14 36 1 51 23 27 1 51 3:15 6 37 1 44 19 23 0 42 9 31 1 41 11 21 0 32 14 29 0 43 13 19 0 32 3:30 13 8 0 21 4 11 2 17 12 19 0 31 9 10 0 19 21 10 1 32 5 20 0 25 Total 129 114 135 101 145 137
SBT EBR WBL Total NBL NBT NBR Total SBT EBR WBL Total NBL NBT NBR Total SBT EBR WBL Total NBL NBT NBR Total 2:45 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
3:00 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:15 3 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:30 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 3 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 8 2 6 2 1 0
E leg
SB
W leg
SB Total
E leg
NB
W leg
NB Total
E leg
SB
W leg
SB Total
E leg
NB
W leg
NB Total
E leg
SB
W leg
SB Total
E leg
NB
W leg
NB Total
2:45 1 0 1 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3:00 0 1 1 3 3 6 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 2 0 4 4
3:15 0 2 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 3 3
3:30 0 1 1 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 0 1 1
Total 5 13 1 3 6 8
In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total % Total In Out Total Vehicle 129 114 243 135 101 236 145 137 282 136 117 254 93% 54% 46% 0.85 Bicycle 8 2 10 6 2 8 1 0 1 5 1 6 2% 79% 21% 0.02
Pedestrain 5 13 18 1 3 4 6 8 14 4 8 12 4% 33% 67% 0.04
Total 142 129 271 142 106 248 152 145 297 145 127 272 53% 47% 0.91 Rate
PM Peak
11/8/2023 11/9/2023
Vehicle Vehicle Vehicle
Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound
11/7/2023
Bicycle Bicycle
Inbound Outbound
Outbound Inbound
Bicycle
Outbound
11/8/2023 11/9/2023
Inbound Outbound Inbound
Out
Pedestrain Pedestrain Pedestrain
In Out In Out In
11/7/2023 Average

Page 367 of 510 ends

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 D – Synchro Reports

Page 368 of 510 ends

HCM 6th AWSC Existing AM
1: School Driveway/Weston Drive & Fremont Street
Pinewood School Expansion Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 12.7
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 55 80 73 67 1 87 0 98 2 0 5
Future Vol, veh/h 3 55 80 73 67 1 87 0 98 2 0 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2
Mvmt Flow 6 110 160 146 134 2 174 0 196 4 0 10
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 11.4 12.6 14 8.9

HCM LOS B B B A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 47% 2% 52% 29%
Vol Thru, % 0% 40% 48% 0%
Vol Right, % 53% 58% 1% 71%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 185 138 141 7
LT Vol 87 3 73 2
Through Vol 0 55 67 0
RT Vol 98 80 1 5
Lane Flow Rate 370 276 282 14
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.533 0.39 0.428 0.022
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.19 5.092 5.466 5.705
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 696 707 657 625
Service Time 3.225 3.131 3.504 3.763
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.532 0.39 0.429 0.022
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 14 11.4 12.6 8.9
HCM Lane LOS B B B A
HCM 95th-tile Q 3.2 1.9 2.1 0.1

Page 369 of 510 ends

HCM 6th AWSC Existing School PM
1: School Driveway/Weston Drive & Fremont Street
Pinewood School Expansion Synchro 12 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 10.3
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 54 69 67 64 3 51 0 66 2 0 3
Future Vol, veh/h 5 54 69 67 64 3 51 0 66 2 0 3
Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2
Mvmt Flow 10 108 138 134 128 6 102 0 132 4 0 6
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 9.8 10.8 10.3 8.4

HCM LOS A B B A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 44% 4% 50% 40%
Vol Thru, % 0% 42% 48% 0%
Vol Right, % 56% 54% 2% 60%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 117 128 134 5
LT Vol 51 5 67 2
Through Vol 0 54 64 0
RT Vol 66 69 3 3
Lane Flow Rate 234 256 268 10
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0.318 0.324 0.364 0.015
Departure Headway (Hd) 4.892 4.555 4.887 5.313
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 728 783 732 678
Service Time 2.966 2.623 2.955 3.313
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.321 0.327 0.366 0.015
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 10.3 9.8 10.8 8.4
HCM Lane LOS B A B A
HCM 95th-tile Q 1.4 1.4 1.7 0

Page 370 of 510 ends

HCM 6th AWSC Existing + Expansion AM
1: School Driveway/Weston Drive & Fremont Street 04/23/2025 03-Expansion AM Pinewood School Expansion 9:50 pm 07/09/2024 Existing + Expansion AM Synchro 12 Report Kimley-Horn Page 1
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 12.5
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 3 55 100 92 176 1 0 0 0 2 0 5
Future Vol, veh/h 3 55 100 92 176 1 0 0 0 2 0 5
Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2
Mvmt Flow 6 110 200 184 352 2 0 0 0 4 0 10
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 9.5 14.4 0 8.5

HCM LOS A B - A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 0% 2% 34% 29%
Vol Thru, % 100% 35% 65% 0%
Vol Right, % 0% 63% 0% 71%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 0 158 269 7
LT Vol 0 3 92 2
Through Vol 0 55 176 0
RT Vol 0 100 1 5
Lane Flow Rate 0 316 538 14
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0 0.362 0.631 0.021
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.731 4.124 4.225 5.321
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 0 875 845 674
Service Time 3.754 2.128 2.312 3.341
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0 0.361 0.637 0.021
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.8 9.5 14.4 8.5
HCM Lane LOS N A B A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0 1.7 4.6 0.1

Page 371 of 510 ends

HCM 6th TWSC Existing + Expansion AM
2: School Exit Driveway & Fremont Street 04/23/2025
03-Expansion AM Pinewood School Expansion 9:50 pm 07/09/2024 Existing + Expansion AM Synchro 12 Report Kimley-Horn Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 6.4
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 57 0 0 160 109 123
Future Vol, veh/h 57 0 0 160 109 123
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 50 50 50 50 50 50
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 114 0 0 320 218 246
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 - - - 434 114
Stage 1 - - - - 114 -
Stage 2 - - - - 320 -
Critical Hdwy - - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - 0 0 - 579 939
Stage 1 - 0 0 - 911 -
Stage 2 - 0 0 - 736 -
Platoon blocked, % - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - - 579 939
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 579 -
Stage 1 - - - - 911 -
Stage 2 - - - - 736 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0 12.4

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBT WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 579 939 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.377 0.262 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 14.9 10.2 - -
HCM Lane LOS B B - -
HCM 95th %tile Q (veh) 1.7 1.1 - -

Page 372 of 510 ends

HCM 6th AWSC Existing + Expansion School PM
1: School Driveway/Weston Drive & Fremont Street 04/23/2025 04-Expansion PM Pinewood School Expansion 9:58 pm 07/09/2024 Existing + Expansion School PM Synchro 12 Report Kimley-Horn Page 1
Intersection
Intersection Delay, s/veh 10.5
Intersection LOS B
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 5 54 86 84 128 3 0 0 0 2 0 3
Future Vol, veh/h 5 54 86 84 128 3 0 0 0 2 0 3
Peak Hour Factor 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2
Mvmt Flow 10 108 172 168 256 6 0 0 0 4 0 6
Number of Lanes 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Approach EB WB NB SB
Opposing Approach WB EB SB NB
Opposing Lanes 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Left SB NB EB WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1 1 1 1
Conflicting Approach Right NB SB WB EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1 1 1 1
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 9 11.5 0 8.2

HCM LOS A B - A
Lane NBLn1 EBLn1 WBLn1 SBLn1
Vol Left, % 0% 3% 39% 40%
Vol Thru, % 100% 37% 60% 0%
Vol Right, % 0% 59% 1% 60%
Sign Control Stop Stop Stop Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane 0 145 215 5
LT Vol 0 5 84 2
Through Vol 0 54 128 0
RT Vol 0 86 3 3
Lane Flow Rate 0 290 430 10
Geometry Grp 1 1 1 1
Degree of Util (X) 0 0.325 0.502 0.014
Departure Headway (Hd) 5.446 4.03 4.203 5.14
Convergence, Y/N Yes Yes Yes Yes
Cap 0 896 851 699
Service Time 3.462 2.032 2.27 3.154
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0 0.324 0.505 0.014
HCM Control Delay, s/veh 8.5 9 11.5 8.2
HCM Lane LOS N A B A
HCM 95th-tile Q 0 1.4 2.9 0

Page 373 of 510 ends

HCM 6th TWSC Existing + Expansion School PM
2: School Exit Driveway & Fremont Street 04/23/2025
04-Expansion PM Pinewood School Expansion 9:58 pm 07/09/2024 Existing + Expansion School PM Synchro 12 Report Kimley-Horn Page 2
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.5
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 56 0 0 151 64 83
Future Vol, veh/h 56 0 0 151 64 83
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - - - 0 0
Veh in Median Storage, # 0 - - 0 0 -
Grade, % 0 - - 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 50 50 50 50 50 50
Heavy Vehicles, % 2 2 2 2 2 2
Mvmt Flow 112 0 0 302 128 166
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 - - - 414 112
Stage 1 - - - - 112 -
Stage 2 - - - - 302 -
Critical Hdwy - - - - 6.42 6.22
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - - - 5.42 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - - - 5.42 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - - - 3.518 3.318
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - 0 0 - 595 941
Stage 1 - 0 0 - 913 -
Stage 2 - 0 0 - 750 -
Platoon blocked, % - -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - - - 595 941
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - 595 -
Stage 1 - - - - 913 -
Stage 2 - - - - 750 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s/v 0 0 10.9

HCM LOS B
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 NBLn2 EBT WBT
Capacity (veh/h) 595 941 - -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.215 0.176 - -
HCM Control Delay (s/veh) 12.7 9.6 - -
HCM Lane LOS B A - -
HCM 95th %tile Q (veh) 0.8 0.6 - -

Page 374 of 510 ends

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 E – Gap Study

Page 375 of 510 ends

Date: 4/22/2025
Time: 7:45 - 8:15 AM
Gap Min Sec Total Sec Gap Min Sec Total Sec
0:00:18 0 18 18 0:00:18 0 18 18
0:00:03 0 3 3 0:00:19 0 19 19
0:00:48 0 48 48 0:00:20 0 20 20
0:00:06 0 6 6 0:00:03 0 3 3
0:00:02 0 2 2 0:00:01 0 1 1
0:00:05 0 5 5 0:00:01 0 1 1
0:00:15 0 15 15 0:00:01 0 1 1
0:00:13 0 13 13 0:00:06 0 6 6
0:00:04 0 4 4 0:00:01 0 1 1
0:01:21 1 21 81 0:00:04 0 4 4
0:00:09 0 9 9 0:00:03 0 3 3
0:00:16 0 16 16 0:00:01 0 1 1
0:00:03 0 3 3 0:00:43 0 43 43
0:00:11 0 11 11 0:00:05 0 5 5
0:00:31 0 31 31 0:00:21 0 21 21
0:00:07 0 7 7 0:00:23 0 23 23
0:00:02 0 2 2 0:00:46 0 46 46
0:00:06 0 6 6 0:00:12 0 12 12
0:00:26 0 26 26 0:00:15 0 15 15
0:00:13 0 13 13 0:00:02 0 2 2
0:00:15 0 15 15 0:00:02 0 2 2
0:00:14 0 14 14 0:00:27 0 27 27
0:00:14 0 14 14 0:00:05 0 5 5
0:00:03 0 3 3 0:00:06 0 6 6
0:00:16 0 16 16 0:00:03 0 3 3
0:00:08 0 8 8 0:00:10 0 10 10
0:00:02 0 2 2 0:00:03 0 3 3
0:00:07 0 7 7 0:00:05 0 5 5
0:00:13 0 13 13 0:00:05 0 5 5
0:00:12 0 12 12 0:00:18 0 18 18
0:00:12 0 12 12 0:00:02 0 2 2
0:00:09 0 9 9 0:00:11 0 11 11
0:00:04 0 4 4 0:00:08 0 8 8
0:00:22 0 22 22 0:00:12 0 12 12
0:00:08 0 8 8 0:00:11 0 11 11
0:00:06 0 6 6 0:00:19 0 19 19
0:00:32 0 32 32 0:00:12 0 12 12
0:00:03 0 3 3 0:00:01 0 1 1
0:00:26 0 26 26 0:00:11 0 11 11
0:00:04 0 4 4 0:00:24 0 24 24
0:00:11 0 11 11 0:00:02 0 2 2
EB WB

Page 376 of 510 ends

Date: 4/22/2025
Time: 7:45 - 8:15 AM
Gap Min Sec Total Sec Gap Min Sec Total Sec
EB WB
0:00:02 0 2 2 0:00:01 0 1 1
0:00:21 0 21 21 0:00:12 0 12 12
0:00:05 0 5 5 0:00:04 0 4 4
0:00:22 0 22 22 0:00:07 0 7 7
0:00:06 0 6 6 0:00:04 0 4 4
0:00:02 0 2 2 0:00:25 0 25 25
0:00:20 0 20 20 0:00:02 0 2 2
0:00:11 0 11 11 0:00:07 0 7 7
0:00:18 0 18 18 0:00:18 0 18 18
0:00:18 0 18 18 0:00:02 0 2 2
0:00:08 0 8 8 0:00:02 0 2 2
0:00:05 0 5 5 0:00:04 0 4 4
0:00:03 0 3 3 0:00:16 0 16 16
0:00:04 0 4 4 0:00:01 0 1 1
0:00:56 0 56 56 0:00:13 0 13 13
0:00:07 0 7 7 0:00:15 0 15 15
0:00:02 0 2 2 0:00:05 0 5 5
0:00:02 0 2 2 0:00:01 0 1 1
0:00:20 0 20 20 0:00:51 0 51 51
0:00:16 0 16 16 0:00:03 0 3 3
0:00:46 0 46 46 0:00:03 0 3 3
0:00:06 0 6 6 0:00:07 0 7 7
0:00:11 0 11 11 0:00:03 0 3 3
0:00:05 0 5 5 0:00:03 0 3 3
0:00:08 0 8 8 0:00:05 0 5 5
0:00:26 0 26 26 0:00:13 0 13 13
0:00:33 0 33 33 0:00:09 0 9 9
0:01:43 1 43 103 0:00:02 0 2 2
0:00:08 0 8 8 0:00:01 0 1 1
0:00:18 0 18 18 0:00:28 0 28 28
0:00:14 0 14 14 0:00:04 0 4 4
0:00:25 0 25 25 0:00:08 0 8 8
0:00:03 0 3 3 0:00:07 0 7 7
0:00:05 0 5 5 0:00:05 0 5 5
0:00:14 0 14 14 0:00:13 0 13 13
0:00:45 0 45 45 0:00:09 0 9 9
0:00:39 0 39 39 0:00:02 0 2 2
0:00:07 0 7 7 0:00:01 0 1 1
0:00:50 0 50 50 0:00:10 0 10 10
0:00:31 0 31 31 0:00:04 0 4 4
0:01:27 1 27 87 0:00:07 0 7 7

Page 377 of 510 ends

Date: 4/22/2025
Time: 7:45 - 8:15 AM
Gap Min Sec Total Sec Gap Min Sec Total Sec
EB WB
0:00:47 0 47 47 0:00:03 0 3 3
0:01:20 1 20 80 0:00:12 0 12 12
0:00:48 0 48 48 0:00:11 0 11 11
0:01:09 1 9 69 0:00:03 0 3 3
0:01:23 1 23 83 0:00:37 0 37 37
0:00:10 0 10 10 0:00:26 0 26 26
0:00:18 0 18 18 0:00:03 0 3 3
0:00:05 0 5 5
0:00:07 0 7 7
0:00:03 0 3 3
0:00:18 0 18 18
0:00:01 0 1 1
0:00:33 0 33 33
0:00:40 0 40 40
0:00:01 0 1 1
0:00:03 0 3 3
0:00:02 0 2 2
0:00:02 0 2 2
0:00:03 0 3 3
0:00:03 0 3 3
0:00:57 0 57 57
0:00:04 0 4 4
0:00:29 0 29 29
0:00:03 0 3 3
0:00:03 0 3 3
0:00:04 0 4 4
0:00:05 0 5 5
0:01:31 1 31 91
0:00:05 0 5 5
0:00:11 0 11 11
0:00:03 0 3 3
0:00:05 0 5 5
0:01:00 1 0 60
0:00:08 0 8 8
0:00:02 0 2 2
0:00:20 0 20 20
0:00:04 0 4 4
0:00:10 0 10 10
0:00:03 0 3 3
0:00:47 0 47 47
0:00:47 0 47 47

Page 378 of 510 ends

Date: 4/22/2025
Time: 7:45 - 8:15 AM
Gap Min Sec Total Sec Gap Min Sec Total Sec
EB WB
0:00:02 0 2 2
0:00:21 0 21 21
0:01:12 1 12 72
0:00:06 0 6 6
0:00:01 0 1 1
0:01:11 1 11 71
0:00:44 0 44 44
0:00:01 0 1 1
0:00:14 0 14 14
0:00:04 0 4 4
0:00:36 0 36 36
0:00:14 0 14 14
0:00:14 0 14 14
0:00:11 0 11 11
0:00:22 0 22 22
0:00:06 0 6 6
0:00:00 0 0 0

Page 379 of 510 ends

Date: 4/22/2025
Time: 3:00 - 3:30 PM
Gap Min Sec Total Sec Gap Min Sec Total Sec
0:00:05 0 5 5 0:00:18 0 18 18
0:01:11 1 11 71 0:00:03 0 3 3
0:01:18 1 18 78 0:00:21 0 21 21
0:01:07 1 7 67 0:00:02 0 2 2
0:00:41 0 41 41 0:00:02 0 2 2
0:00:21 0 21 21 0:00:57 0 57 57
0:00:30 0 30 30 0:00:22 0 22 22
0:00:15 0 15 15 0:00:20 0 20 20
0:00:33 0 33 33 0:00:14 0 14 14
0:00:09 0 9 9 0:00:40 0 40 40
0:00:04 0 4 4 0:02:41 2 41 161
0:00:46 0 46 46 0:00:55 0 55 55
0:01:22 1 22 82 0:00:31 0 31 31
0:00:47 0 47 47 0:01:19 1 19 79
0:00:03 0 3 3 0:00:13 0 13 13
0:00:12 0 12 12 0:00:55 0 55 55
0:02:18 2 18 138 0:00:10 0 10 10
0:00:31 0 31 31 0:00:25 0 25 25
0:00:09 0 9 9 0:01:07 1 7 67
0:00:11 0 11 11 0:00:03 0 3 3
0:00:05 0 5 5 0:00:27 0 27 27
0:00:17 0 17 17 0:00:14 0 14 14
0:00:07 0 7 7 0:00:43 0 43 43
0:00:04 0 4 4 0:00:16 0 16 16
0:00:04 0 4 4 0:00:07 0 7 7
0:00:28 0 28 28 0:00:03 0 3 3
0:00:04 0 4 4 0:00:50 0 50 50
0:00:03 0 3 3 0:00:09 0 9 9
0:00:06 0 6 6 0:00:06 0 6 6
0:00:42 0 42 42 0:00:03 0 3 3
0:00:28 0 28 28 0:00:15 0 15 15
0:00:05 0 5 5 0:00:15 0 15 15
0:00:09 0 9 9 0:00:08 0 8 8
0:00:05 0 5 5 0:00:42 0 42 42
0:00:31 0 31 31 0:01:05 1 5 65
0:00:03 0 3 3 0:00:17 0 17 17
0:00:11 0 11 11 0:00:39 0 39 39
0:00:12 0 12 12 0:00:22 0 22 22
0:00:37 0 37 37 0:00:46 0 46 46
0:00:04 0 4 4 0:00:05 0 5 5
0:00:20 0 20 20 0:00:23 0 23 23
EB WB

Page 380 of 510 ends

Date: 4/22/2025
Time: 3:00 - 3:30 PM
Gap Min Sec Total Sec Gap Min Sec Total Sec
EB WB
0:01:15 1 15 75 0:00:08 0 8 8
0:00:03 0 3 3 0:00:01 0 1 1
0:00:12 0 12 12 0:00:39 0 39 39
0:00:21 0 21 21 0:00:01 0 1 1
0:00:18 0 18 18 0:00:10 0 10 10
0:00:15 0 15 15 0:00:55 0 55 55
0:00:03 0 3 3 0:01:03 1 3 63
0:00:07 0 7 7 0:00:29 0 29 29
0:00:07 0 7 7 0:00:20 0 20 20
0:00:04 0 4 4 0:00:24 0 24 24
0:00:04 0 4 4 0:03:07 3 7 187
0:00:31 0 31 31 0:00:58 0 58 58
0:00:36 0 36 36 0:00:34 0 34 34
0:00:17 0 17 17 0:00:14 0 14 14
0:00:27 0 27 27
0:00:08 0 8 8
0:00:29 0 29 29
0:00:06 0 6 6
0:00:37 0 37 37
0:00:03 0 3 3
0:00:02 0 2 2
0:00:11 0 11 11
0:00:03 0 3 3
0:00:04 0 4 4
0:00:12 0 12 12
0:00:11 0 11 11
0:00:07 0 7 7
0:00:14 0 14 14
0:00:11 0 11 11
0:00:19 0 19 19
0:00:05 0 5 5
0:00:12 0 12 12
0:00:46 0 46 46
0:00:02 0 2 2
0:00:04 0 4 4
0:00:29 0 29 29
0:00:32 0 32 32
0:00:03 0 3 3
0:02:15 2 15 135
0:00:34 0 34 34

Page 381 of 510 ends

kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Dr., Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 F – Student Loading Queue Worksheet

Page 382 of 510 ends

Assumptions: Demand
Drop-Off AM - 7:45 - 7:15
60 sec dwell 174 veh
11 veh / min Capacity
Total Arrival Time
30 min
Arrival Rate

5.80 veh / min
Unserved Rate (Arrival - Departure)
-5.20 veh / min
Queue:
0 veh
0 feet
Pick-Up PM - 3:00 - 3:30
120 sec dwell 131 veh

5.5 veh / min Capacity
Total Arrival Time
30 min
Arrival Rate

4.37 veh / min
Unserved Rate (Arrival - Departure)
-1.13 veh / min
Queue:

Queue Storage: 0 veh
11 veh 0 feet
280 feet
25 feet / veh
Assumes 75% morning peak hour traffic
arriving 30 minutes before first bell.

Assumes 77% afternoon peak hour traffic
arriving 30 minutes after afternoon dismissal
bell.

Projected Queuing for Pinewood School Expansion
4/30/2025

Page 383 of 510 ends

SMRH:4904-7851-7860.4 -1-
Pinewood School
Notice of Exemption1
I. Project Background
A. Project Location and Zoning
The project site is located on the existing upper campus of Pinewood School, located at 26800 Fremont Road in the Town of Los Altos Hills, California (Project). Under the General Plan, the site is designated Institutional (I) and permits private schools. The site is zoned ResidentialAgricultural (R-A). The R-A zoning district permits private schools with a conditional use permit where the General Plan Land Use Diagram designates that they are allowed. As such, the Project is consistent with the General Plan and zoning.

B. Existing Facilities
The existing campus consists of 26 classrooms of various square footages. In addition, there is a theater and gymnasium, as well as an administration building and a small servery structure.

Building 1st Floor (SF) Over 17’ High
Spaces (SF)
2nd Floor (SF) Total (SF)
Building 1 9,501 - - 9,501
Building 2 7,170 - - 7,170
Building 3 2,715 - - 2,715
Building 4 2,657 - - 2,657
Gymnasium
(Remaining)
11,102 7,977 2,688 21,767
Theater 2,718 - - 2,718
TOTAL 26,303 7,977 2,688 46,968
II. Project Description
The Project proposes the demolition and reconstruction of the classroom buildings, resulting in a total of 34 classrooms – an eight classroom increase – that will be modernized to serve the evolving 1 Exhibit A provides examples of Notices of Exemption that rely on multiple categorical exemptions for school renovation projects.

ITEM 7A ATTACHMENT 12

Page 384 of 510 ends

SMRH:4904-7851-7860.4 -2-
needs of the student body and teachers. The campus was constructed in the early 1950s to serve as an elementary school for the Palo Alto Unified School District, while Pinewood has been using the campus as a middle school and then high school since the early 1970s. The Project intends to upgrade and right size the dated facilities to better serve these older students, incorporate modern classroom sizes and types, and provide specialty and enrichment classrooms—in addition to adding other essential student and staff services that come with the modern educational landscape.

To this end, the Project expands the administration space and student support space (i.e. the wellness center), in addition to upgrading the cafeteria and food servery/kitchen, as well as reconfiguring the parking lot. The Project proposes to replace the theater with a new a building that consists of 250 seats, 2 rehearsal rooms, a scene shop, green room, and lobby. The Project will keep the existing gymnasium.

Building Basement
(SF) (Exempt)
1st Floor (SF) Over 17’
High Spaces
(SF)
2nd Floor
(SF)
Total (SF)
Gymnasium
(Existing)
- 11,102 7,977 2,688 21,767
BLDG 100 8,159 7,005 - 6,571 13,576
BLDG 200 - 6,705 - 6,833 13,538
BLDG 300 - 12,406 - 12,359 24,765
BLDG 400 - 13,335 4,012 5,294 22,641
Proposed
Total
- - - - 74,520
TOTAL 8,159 50,553 11,989 33,745 96,287
III. CEQA Evaluation
The Project is exempt from further environmental analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) pursuant to categorical exemptions Class 1, Class 2, and Class 14.

A. Class 1 Exemption – Existing Facilities
Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.

The Project includes the grading, repaving, and reconfiguring of the existing parking lot within the existing boundaries and would not expand the existing use or capacity (except for the negligible

Page 385 of 510 ends

SMRH:4904-7851-7860.4 -3-
addition of five spaces). Therefore, the Project meets the criteria for an exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. A review of the possible exceptions to the exemption, as outlined under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 and discussed in Section D, determined that no characteristics or circumstances would invalidate findings that the Project is exempt from further analysis under CEQA.

B. Class 2 Exemption – Replacement or Reconstruction
Class 2 consists of replacement or reconstruction of existing structures and facilities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structure replaced The Project proposes to demolish and replace the existing administrative space, theater, food servery/kitchen, and classroom buildings. As shown on the site plan, the proposed buildings will be constructed on the existing school site and in generally the same portions of the site as the existing buildings. The proposed buildings will contain the same uses and have the same purposes as the buildings they will replace. The four replacement buildings are larger than the existing buildings due to the need for the modernization of existing uses and additional classrooms, as discussed below. However, the replacement activities will not substantially increase campus capacity, as discussed below. Therefore, the Project meets the criteria for an exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15302. A review of the possible exceptions to the exemption, as outlined under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 and discussed in Section D, determined that no characteristics or circumstances would invalidate findings that the Project is exempt from further analysis under CEQA.

C. Class 14 Exemption – Minor Additions to Schools
Class 14 consists of minor additions to existing schools within existing school grounds where the addition does not increase original student capacity by more than 25% or ten classrooms, whichever is less. The addition of portable classrooms is included in this exemption.

The Project proposes to replace 26 existing classrooms with 34 new classrooms that will be more uniform in size and more conducive to modern educational needs. This would be an eight classroom increase, which is less than the maximum of 10 classrooms under this exemption.

Pinewood also seeks to increase student enrollment capacity from 300 to 375 students. This would increase original student capacity by 25%, which is also within the scope of this exemption. Other improvements, including the replaced theater, student support space (i.e. the wellness center), and common spaces on campus, would not increase the intensity of uses on the campus. Therefore, the Project meets the criteria for an exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15314. A review of the possible exceptions to the exemption, as outlined under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 and discussed in Section D, determined that no characteristics or circumstances would invalidate findings that the Project is exempt from further analysis under CEQA.

D. Exceptions to Categorical Exemptions
CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2, Exceptions, identifies conditions under which categorical exemptions would not be applicable.

Page 386 of 510 ends

SMRH:4904-7851-7860.4 -4-

1. Location
Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located – a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies.

The Project does not propose to use any of these CEQA exemptions and is not subject to this exception.

2. Cumulative Impact
All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.

The Project proposes to demolish five existing buildings and replace them with four new buildings.

These buildings will serve the same purposes and will be located in generally the same location as the existing buildings. Due to the limited scope of building modifications and consistency with allowable site uses, the Project will not result in significant cumulative impacts. Therefore, this exception does not apply to the Project.

3. Significant Effects
A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.

The determination whether this exception applies involves two distinct questions: (1) whether the project presents unusual circumstances, and (2) whether there is a reasonable possibility that a significant environmental impact will result from those unusual circumstances. The lead agency considers the second prong of this test only if it first finds that some circumstance of the project is unusual. Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 C4th 1086, 1104.

The Project does not present unusual circumstances. The site has operated as an educational facility for many decades and the Project is confined to the boundaries of the existing school campus. All demolition and construction activities would conform to applicable laws and regulations. Further, the operation and use of the Project will be substantially the same as the operation and use of the existing school. Therefore, there will be no unusual circumstances and no reasonable possibility that significant environmental impacts will result. As such, this exception does not apply to the Project.

4. Scenic Highways
A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply

Page 387 of 510 ends

SMRH:4904-7851-7860.4 -5-
to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR.

The closest officially designated scenic highway is a stretch of Interstate 280 approximately eight miles from the Project site. Additionally, State Route 35 is approximately 12 miles away. Due to the distance, topography, and intervening hills/structures, the project site would not be visible or result in a visual impact to a scenic resource, including Interstate 280 and State Route 35.

Therefore, this exception does not apply to the Project.

5. Hazardous Waste Sites
A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.

Based on the California Department of Toxic Substances Control ENVIROSTOR database, there are no hazardous waste sites on or near the Project site. As such, the proroject would not result in any activities that would disturb or release hazardous materials from known hazardous waste sites.

Therefore, this exception does not apply to the Project.

6. Historic Resources
A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

The Project site is not located on the California Register of Historical Resources or National Register of Historic Places and is not an historic resource under CEQA. Additionally, the Project is not located near any known historic resources and will not have an impact on historical resources. Therefore, this exception does not apply to the Project.

E. Conclusion
The Project expands the administration space, student support space (i.e. the wellness center), cafeteria, food servery/kitchen, and reconfiguration of the parking lot. The Project would provide an addition of eight new classrooms. The Project also proposes a new theater building with 250 seats, 2 rehearsal rooms, a scene shop, green room, and lobby. As demonstrated above, the Project is exempt from environmental review under CEQA pursuant to the provisions of CEQA Guidelines for Categorical Exemptions Section 15301 – Existing Facilities, Section 15302 - Replacement or Reconstruction, and Section 15314 – Minor Additions to Schools.

Page 388 of 510 ends

SMRH:4904-7851-7860.4 -6-

EXHIBIT A

EXAMPLES OF SCHOOL RENOVATION PROJECTS UTILIZING CEQA

EXEMPTIONS
Project Name/Location Exemptions Utilized Project Overview East Union High
School/Manteca
Class 1, Class 2, Class 3,
Class 11, Class 14
Replacement of 28 portable
classrooms with a two-story
28-classroom building with a
media center totaling
approximately 30,000 SF and
new auxiliary gym
(approximately 15,100 SF)
and a weight room (3,000
SF).

San Jacinto High School
Modernization
Project/Riverside
Class 1, Class 2, Class 11,
Class 14
Construction of new twostory classroom building
totaling 22,567 SF and
including 12 new classrooms,
restrooms, utility rooms, a
health office, administrative
offices, an elevator and
exterior stairs. Interior
alterations to an existing
building and existing batting
cages. Removal of 12
portable classrooms and
parking lot expansion.

Benito Juarez Elementary
School/Santa Ana
Class 2, Class 3, Class 14 Construction of 8,228 SF
multi-purpose building with
additional 3,500 SF flex lab
and music room.

Reconfiguration of existing
7,025 SF library and two
learning center rooms.

Sage Hill Middle School and
Gymnasium
Building/Newport Beach
Class 1, Class 14 Construction of new middle
school and gymnasium
building within existing
campus. New building with 8
classrooms, associated
support facilities, and new
gymnasium, plus replacement
of grassy practice field with
artificial turf.

Montgomery High
School/Santa Rosa
Class 14 Construction of new 17-
classroom, approximately

Page 389 of 510 ends

SMRH:4904-7851-7860.4 -7-
27,000 SF, two-story building
on existing campus. Removal
of 7 portables.

Foothill High School
Performing Arts, Visual Arts,
and Athletic Facilities
Project/Pleasanton
Class 1, Class 2, Class 3,
Class 14
Replacement of existing
theater. Reconfiguration of
existing competition gym
with expanded floor area and
new concessions facilities,
new restrooms, and lobby
spaces. Relocation of existing
practice gym and build new
practice gym with
reconfiguration for locker
rooms, weight rooms, and
wrestling rooms.

Construction of new physical
education classroom and
fitness lab, construction of
new theater building, and
installation of new art and
music classrooms with
associate support spaces.

Total SF is approximately
56,500.

Hans Christensen Middle
School/Riverside
Class 1, Class 14 Expansion of existing middle
school into TK-8 grade.

Project would add 5
classrooms and a playground.

Page 390 of 510 ends

Page | 3 2022-08-01
Worksheet #1
Maximum Development Area and Maximum Floor Area
Submit with Application
Property Owner’s Name:

Property Address:

Calculated By: Date:

1. Calculation of Average Slope
a. Contour Length Within Net Area of Lot (An)
Contour Length
(feet)
Contour Length
(feet)
Contour Length
(feet)
Contour Length
(feet)
Total:
(L) = feet
b. Average Slope Within Net Area of Lot
S = (0.0023) (I) (L) I =
Contour
interval in
feet
L =
Total length
of contours
in feet
An =
Net acreage of
lot to nearest

0.001 acres
An
S = (0.0023) ( ) ( )= Nearest 0.1% ( )

2. Calculation of Lot Unit Factor (LUF)
LUF = (An) {1 – [0.02143(S – 10)]} =
Nearest

0.001
• If the average slope is less than 10%, the LUF for the lot is equal to the net area. • If the LUF is equal to 0.50 or less, you will need a Conditional Development Permit. Please make an appointment with the Planning Department for further information.

ITEM 7A ATTACHMENT 13

Page 391 of 510 ends

Page | 4 2022-08-01

3. CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT AREA (MDA)
a. For S equal to or less than 10%
MDA= (LUF) (15,000) = Square feet*
b. For S greater than 10% and less than 30%
MDA= (LUF) [15,000 – 375 (S - 10)] = Square feet*
c. For S equal to or greater than 30%
MDA= (LUF) (7,500) = Square feet*
*If the MDA is less than 7,500 square feet and the LUF is greater than 0.50, use 7,500 square feet for your MDA.

4. CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA (MFA)
a. For S equal to or less than 10%
MFA= (LUF) (6,000) = Square feet**
b. For S greater than 10% and less than 30%
MFA= (LUF) [6,000 – 50 (S – 10)] = Square feet**
c. For S equal or greater than 30%
MFA= (LUF) (5,000) = Square feet**
**If the MFA is less than 5,000 square feet and the LUF is greater than 0.50, use 5,000 square feet for your MFA.

NOTE:

The MDA and MFA are maximums allowed by the Town Municipal Code. The City Council or the Planning Commission may further limit development area or floor area due to site specific constraints or site visibility (see “Site Development Policy Statement”).

Town Use Only
Checked By: Date:

Page 392 of 510 ends

Page | 6 2022-08-01
Worksheet #2
Existing and Proposed Development Area and Floor Area
Submit with Application
Property Owner’s Name:

Property Address:

Calculated By: Date:

1. DEVELOPMENT AREA
Existing Proposed DA Credit Total
A. House and Garage from part 2.A N/A
B. Accessory Dwelling Unit from part 2.B 800
C. Accessory Building from part 2.C N/A
D. Driveway, Turnaround, and Parking
E. Patios and Walkways
F. Recreation Court N/A
G. Pool and Pool Decking
H. Decks N/A
I. Solar Panels (ground mounted)
J. Any Other Coverage
TOTALS
MDA from Worksheet #1

2. FLOOR AREA
Existing Proposed FA Credit Total
A. House and Garage
a. First Floor
b. Second Floor
c. Basement (LAHMC 10-1.202)
d. Garage
e. Area Over 17 ft (LAHMC 10-1.202)
f. Attic Over 7 ft (LAHMC 10-1.202)
B. Accessory Dwelling Unit (800 credit) 800
C. Accessory Buildings
a. First Floor
b. Second Floor
c. Basement (LAHMC 10-1.202)
d. Attic
TOTALS
MFA from Worksheet #1
Town Use Only
Checked By: Date:

Palo Alto Unified School District 26800 Fremont Road CAW Architects 5/14/202596,287 N/A N/A 23,364 N/A 9,951 N/A 90% 50,004 33,745 8,159 (EXEMPT) N/A 11,989 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 42,498 46,968 N/A N/A 49,725 31,974 28,809 N/A 905 N/A 13,022 170,498 (uncredited) 96,287 N/A N/A 54,211 49,350 23,364 N/A 9,951 N/A 7,547 230,759 (uncredited) 36,568 49,117 N/A N/A 755 216,042 106,245 36,303 2,688 N/A N/A 7,977 N/A 50,553 33,745 8,159 (EXEMPT) N/A 11,989 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 46,968 N/A N/A N/A N/A 96,287 96,287 (Perm. Conc.
& Grasscrete)
47,314 (@ 70%) +
6,897 (@ 50%)
(Typ. Conc. &
Perm. Pavers)
47,017 + 2,333 (@ 90%)
(Non-athletic
field turf)
(Non-athletic
field turf) SEE ATTACHED PLANS AND

SPREADSHEET CALCULATIONS

FOR DEVELOPMENT AREA

BREAKDOWN
50,553Page 393 of 510
182.6
X
X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X
X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X
X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X
X
X
X XX
X
XX
X
X
X
X

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X
X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X
X

X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X
X

X XXXXXXXX
X

X X X X X X X X X

X X XXXXXXX
X
X

X XXXXXXXX

X X X X X X X X X
X XXXX

EXISTING GYMNASIUM

TO REMAIN
ADMINISTRATION AND CLASSROOM BUILDING 1

TO BE REMOVED
CLASSROOM BUILDING 2 TO BE REMOVED AUDITORIUM BUILDING TO BE REMOVED CLASSROOM BUILDING 4 TO BE REMOVED
CLASSROOM BUILDING 3 TO BE REMOVED
TYP
TYP

TYP TYP

SERVERY

TO BE REMOVED

UN- DEVELOPED AREA (PERMEABLE ATHLETIC

FIELD TURF INCLUDED

TYPICAL CONCRETE (NO CREDIT)

PERMEABLE PAVERS

PERMEABLE CONCRETE

GRASSCRETE

ARTIFICIAL TURF FIELDS

BALCONIES

FENCE LINE

PROPERTY LINE

OTHER'S PROPERTY LINE

SITE SETBACK LINE
LEGEND

AREA CALCULATIONS

BUILDING
BUILDING 1
BUILDING 2
BUILDING 3
BUILDING 4

GYMNASIUM

AUDITORIUM

SERVERY
TOTAL
1ST FLOOR (SF)
9,501
7,170
2,715
2,657
11,102
2,718
440
36,303

TOTAL (SF)
9,501
7,170
2,715
2,657
21,767
2,718
440
46,968
FLOOR AREA: EXSITING
2ND FLOOR (SF)
----
2,688
--
2,688
OVER 17' HIGH

SPACES (SF)
----
7,977--
7,977
SHEET

SHEET TITLE
PROJECT NO.

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY

PROJECT NAME

APPROVAL STAMP

CONSULTANTS
STAMP
5/22/2025 12:53:54 PM
P0.10
AM
MD
23014

EXISTING SITE

DEVELOPMENT AREA

PINEWOOD SCHOOL
26800 FREMONT RD.

UPPER CAMPUS
LOS ALTOS HILLS, CA, 94022
1" = 30'-0"
1 SITE DEVELOPMENT AND DEMOLITION PLAN
0' 15' 30' 60'

MILESTONE DATE
PLANNING SUBMITTAL 2/3/2025

Page 394 of 510 ends

DN
DN
DN DN
DN
UP
DN
UP
DN
UP
DN
DN
UP
DN
DN
X
X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X
X
X
X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X
X
X
X XX
X
XX
X
X
X
X

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X
X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X

X X X X X X X
X
X
X
X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X
X
X
X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X
X X X
X
X
XX
X
X
X
X

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X
X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X

X X X X X X X
X
X
X
X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X XX
X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X XXXX
BLDG. 100BLDG. 100 BLDG. 200BLDG. 200

FREMONT ROAD
ORTEGA
DRIVE

ASCENSION DRIVE

EXISTING GYMNASIUM
BLDG. 400

WESTON DRIVE
DN
DN
DN
65' - 3"
30' - 0"
40' - 0" 20' - 0"
128' - 9"
30' - 0"
30' - 0"
15' - 10"
BLDG. 300BLDG. 300
22' - 0"
CAR

VAN CAR
CAR
CAR

UN- DEVELOPED AREA (PERMEABLE ATHLETIC

FIELD TURF INCLUDED

TYPICAL CONCRETE (NO CREDIT)

PERMEABLE PAVERS

PERMEABLE CONCRETE

GRASSCRETE

ARTIFICIAL TURF FIELDS

BALCONIES

FENCE LINE

PROPERTY LINE

OTHER'S PROPERTY LINE

SITE SETBACK LINE
LEGEND

FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS
FLOOR AREA: PROPOSED

BUILDING

EXISTING
(E) GYMNASIUM

PROPOSED
BLDG. 100
BLDG. 200
BLDG. 300
BLDG. 400
TOTAL
1ST FLOOR (SF)
11,102
7005
6,705
12,406
13,335
50,553

TOTAL (SF)
21,767
13,576
13,538
24,765
22,641
96,287
2ND FLOOR (SF)
2,688
6,571
6,833
12,359
5,294
33,745
OVER 17' HIGH

SPACES (SF)
7,977
4,012
11,989

BASEMENT
(SF)
8,159
(EXEMPT)
8,159
SHEET

SHEET TITLE
PROJECT NO.

DRAWN BY

CHECKED BY

PROJECT NAME

APPROVAL STAMP

CONSULTANTS
STAMP
5/22/2025 12:54:08 PM
P0.11
AM
MD
23014

PROPOSED SITE

DEVELOPMENT AREA

PINEWOOD SCHOOL
26800 FREMONT RD.

UPPER CAMPUS
LOS ALTOS HILLS, CA, 94022
1" = 30'-0"
1 SITE DEVELOPMENT AND FLOOR AREA PLAN
0' 15' 30' 60'

MILESTONE DATE
PLANNING SUBMITTAL 2/3/2025

Page 395 of 510 ends

Proposed Site Plan
Uncredited Area Typical Concrete (x1.0) Permeable Pavers (x 0.9) Permeable Concrete (x 0.7) Grasscrete (x 0.5) Artificial turf (x 0.1) Remarks A. First Floor Area (LAH defined) 50,553 50,553
D. Driveway/Drive Aisles/Parking 47,314 33119.8 D Total (Credited) below D. Fire Lane 6,897 3448.5 36,568
E. Pedestrian Paths (Perm. Pavers) 2,333 2099.7
E. Pedestrian Paths (Typical Conc.) 43,044 43,044 E Total (Credit) below E. Stairs, Walls, MEP Pads, etc. 3,973 3,973 47,017
F. Recreational Courts 23,364 23,364
J. Artificial Turf (Not Athletic Fields) 7,547 754.7
Total Area Percentages (%)
Total Site 308,507 100
Uncredited Development Area 185,025 60
Credited Development Area 160,357 52
Existing Site Plan
Actual Area Typical Concrete (x1.0) Permeable Pavers (x 0.9) Permeable Concrete (x 0.7) Grasscrete (x 0.5) Artificial turf (x 0.1) Remarks A. First Floor Area 36,303 36,303
D. Parking Spaces 22,880 22,880 D Total below
D. Driveway/Drive Aisles 26,845 26,845 49,725
E. Pedestrian Pavement 27,495 27,495 E Total Below
E. Stairs, Walls, Etc. 4,479 4,479 31,974
F. Recreational Courts 28,809 28,809
J. Artificial Turf (Not Athletic Fields) 13,022 1302.2
Total Development Area (unweighted) 159,833
Total Area Percentages
Total Site 308,507 100
Uncredited Development Area 159,833 51.9
Credited Development Area 148,113 48.1
Proposed Site Coverage Percentages
Existing Site Coverage Percentages
Development Area
Development Area

Page 396 of 510 ends

THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS February 5, 2026
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
SUBJECT: 26800 Fremont Road / Pinewood School – File #CUP25-0004 Lands of Palo Alto Unified School District
Request for (1) Conditional Use Permit for the demolition of four classroom buildings, one auditorium, and a servery; construction of three two-story class room buildings, including administration building; construction of one theater with upper-level support; demolition and reconstruction of site improvements including utilities and irrigation, grading and paving, fencing and gates, parking lot, and tennis courts; as well as an increase in student enrollment and modification of hours of operation; and (2) Variances to the ResidentialAgricultural District (R-A) Development Standards for Setbacks, Maximum Development Area, Maximum Floor Area, Maximum Building Height and Ground Coverage for Conditional Uses.

CEQA review: Categorical Exemption per Sections 15301, 15302, 15314 FROM: Jonathan Fox, Senior Planner
APPROVED: Jay Bradford, Community Development Director
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission takes one of the following actions:

1. Adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) to forward a recommendation to the City Council to make a Categorical Exemption under CEQA pursuant to Sections 15301, 15302, and 15314 and approve the Conditional Use Permit, subject to conditions of approval.

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

BACKGROUND
Pinewood School is a private school with two campuses: the Lower Campus in Los Altos and the Upper Campus in the Los Altos Hills, which is the subject of this application and referred to in this staff report as “the campus”. Pinewood School operates under a long-term lease at 26800 Fremont Road, which is owned by the Palo Alto Unified School District. The City Council originally approved a Condition Use Permit (CUP) for the operation of the private school at this location in 1976. A review of this CUP was last conducted in 2004 with the City Council’s approval of a lease agreement for public access to a pathway.

The site is surrounded by residentially developed properties. Access is provided on Fremont, a public road, via a single two-way driveway located near the intersection of Fremont Road and Weston Drive. Emergency vehicle access is available from both Ortega Drive and Ascension Drive. The approximately 7-acre site is largely flat, with an average slope of 3.5%. Barron Creek runs along the rear property line, with a publicly accessible pathway located between the creek ITEM 7A STAFF REPORT

Page 397 of 510 ends

Planning Commission Page 2
Pinewood School Upper Campus
February 5, 2026
and the campus. Public access to the pathway is provided through an agreement rather than a recorded easement.

Figure 1. Context Map Source: Town GIS
Because the Town is largely zoned Residential-Agricultural (R-A), many conditional uses such as public utility, private recreation, religious institutions, and private schools often do not fully comply with the development standards of the underlying zoning district. This is true for the project site, where several variances are required for the proposed redevelopment beyond the existing nonconforming condition.

The following are the list of variances/exceptions required:

A. Variance to Front Setback
a. Required Front Setback is 40 feet to the property line. b. Existing paving for parking is located at the front property line (Fremont Road). c. Proposed paving for parking is increased significantly at the front property line.

B. Variance to Side Setback
a. Required Side Setback is 30 feet to the property line. b. Existing paving for parking is located approx. 6 feet from the side property line. c. Proposed paving for parking is increased within the 30-foot side setback.

C. Variance to Maximum Development Area (MDA)
a. MDA is 106,245 square feet.
b. Existing development area is 170,498 square feet.
c. Proposed development area is 216,042 square feet.

D. Variance to Maximum Floor Area (MFA)
a. MFA is 42,498 square feet.
b. Existing floor area is 46,968 square feet.
c. Proposed floor area is 96,287 square feet.

E. Variance to Maximum Building Height
a. Building height is limited to 27 feet for all structures. Per Section 10-1.504, primary dwellings are allowed 32 feet with additional requirements. b. Existing buildings are single-story.

Page 398 of 510 ends

Planning Commission Page 3
Pinewood School Upper Campus
February 5, 2026
c. Proposed height is 37’-5” at the theater.

F. Variance to Ground Coverage for Conditional Uses
a. Required – Combined ground coverage of structures, roadways, parking areas, or other impervious facilities shall not exceed 40% of the net area of the lot. b. Proposed – Approximately 90% of the net area of the lot is covered.

PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION
On September 5, 2024, the Planning Commission held a study session where it received a presentation on the project from Pinewood School and provided initial feedback on the conceptual plans. The chart below summarizes feedback from the Planning Commission and includes the applicant’s response based on the current project application.

Planning Commission Feedback Applicant Response
Project will need to conduct a traffic study. The project has retained Kimley Horn to conduct a preliminary traffic study and
Pinewood will work with staff on any
additional analysis that may be required.

Maintain the existing robust tree line which
will screen the new theater from homes on
Ascension.

The tree line will be maintained and enhanced
as part of the project.

Provided specific feedback on acceptable
landscaping and tree species.

The landscape plant pallet will incorporate this
feedback.

The line of trees along Fremont should remain
if possible.

Every effort will be made to preserve or
replace trees along Fremont.

Existing parking along Fremont should remain
if possible.

Every effort will be made to preserve parking
along Fremont.

Consider allowing the Town to use the theatre
as a community benefit.

Pinewood is open to working with the Town to
use the new theater for a select number of
annual community events.

Consider allowing the Town to use the new
campus in emergency response situations.

Pinewood is already designated as an
emergency response site by the American Red
Cross and will continue to be so after
modernization.

Make every effort to use aesthetically pleasing
solar panels.

Pinewood will work with our architects and
Town staff on acceptable options for roofmounted solar panel options.

Preference is for roof-mounted solar panels
and not parking lot canopy solar panels.

The proposed plan will only consider roofmounted solar panel options.

Preference is for gable roofs and not flat roofs. The proposed plan will only consider gable roofs.

Maintain existing pathways. The proposed plan will maintain all existing pathways.

Sustainability is important. The proposed plan will use sustainable technology and materials whenever possible.

Consider splitting the physical improvements
from enrollment increase.

Pinewood has reduced the enrollment increase
request from 100 down to 75 new students.

Page 399 of 510 ends

Planning Commission Page 4
Pinewood School Upper Campus
February 5, 2026
Plan for bike and scooter parking. The proposed plan will identify specific locations for bike and scooter parking.

Following the September 5, 2024, Planning Commission Study Session, the project team provided informational presentations to the committees, continued neighborhood outreach, refined the planning submittal, and prepared supporting technical studies (including traffic, noise, lighting). The formal Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application was submitted on February 13, 2025. Since that time, the project team has addressed comments from Planning, Engineering, County Fire, and the Town’s consultants for geotechnical, stormwater management, and traffic review.

NOTICING/PUBLIC OUTREACH
The public was advised of this Public Hearing in the following ways:
• Mailing to property owners within 500-foot radius – January 23, 2026 • Posted at the project site – January 23, 2026
• Public Posting Places – January 23, 2026
• Town Website: www.losaltoshills.ca.gov – January 30, 2026 In addition to the statutorily required public noticing by the Town, the project team has conducted extensive neighborhood outreach since 2024. Outreach efforts have included mailing notices to an extended notification zone (as shown in Figure 2), hosting neighborhood meetings, and meeting directly with adjacent neighbors. For reference, the Town’s standard 500-foot-radius notification area includes approximately 50 properties, while Pinewood’s expanded notification zone includes 119 properties. A detailed description of the project team’s public outreach activities is provided in Attachment 5. To date, the Town has received ten public comments, which are included in Attachment 6.

Figure 2. Outreach Map Source: Applicant

Page 400 of 510 ends

Planning Commission Page 5
Pinewood School Upper Campus
February 5, 2026
GENERAL PLAN and MUNICIPAL CODE
General Plan Land Use Element
Policy 1.1 Uses of land shall be consistent with the semi-rural atmosphere of the community, minimize disturbance to natural terrain, minimize removal of the natural vegetation, and create the maximum compatibility of development with the natural environmental through site design and landscaping.

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

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

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

Variances may be granted only when the hearing authority can affirmatively find that all of the following four requirements have been met:
(1) That, because of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the provisions of this title is found to deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification; (2) That upon the granting of the variance, the intent and purpose of the applicable sections of this title will still be served and the recipient of the variance will not be granted special privileges not enjoyed by other surrounding property owners;

Page 401 of 510 ends

Planning Commission Page 6
Pinewood School Upper Campus
February 5, 2026
(3) That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and within the same zoning district;
(4) That the variance will not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning district regulations governing the parcel or property.

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

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to demolish five, single-story buildings and construct three, two-story buildings and a theater. The gym and turf field are to remain. The tennis courts are to be relocated to the rear corner of the school site. Onsite parking and circulation is to be reconfigured, along with a new driveway on Fremont Road.

Site Data
Net Lot Area: 7.083 acres
Average Slope: 3.5%
Lot Unit Factor: 7.083
Floor Area and Development Area
Area (sq. ft.) Maximum Existing Proposed Increase Remaining Development 106,245 170,498 216,042 45,544 0
Floor 42,498 46,968 96,287 49,319 0
The existing school development exceeds the Maximum Development Area (MDA) by a substantial margin and the Maximum Floor Area (MFA) by a smaller margin. This condition has been recognized since at least 2003, when the City Council approved the synthetic turf field.

The proposed project includes two-story buildings and a theater, resulting in a total floor area that is more than double the existing floor area. The resulting increases in both development area and floor area beyond the allowable MDA and MFA are the subject of the requested variances. If approved, any future increases in development area or floor area would require additional variance approval by the Town.

The proposed development area totals 216,042 square feet when calculated with credits under the Town’s Development Area Policy, which allows reductions in development area calculations based on materials used. However, eligibility for these credits is contingent upon the total uncredited development area not exceeding 34 percent of the lot area. The proposed uncredited development area is 230,759 square feet, which exceeds 34 percent of the lot area; therefore, the Development Area Policy credits should not be applied.

Accordingly, the Planning Commission may consider the variance request based on the uncredited proposed development area of 230,759 square feet. Lastly, the synthetic turf field is excluded from development area calculations pursuant to LAHMC Section 10-1.502(b)(5), as it is used for school purposes.

DISCUSSION

Page 402 of 510 ends

Planning Commission Page 7
Pinewood School Upper Campus
February 5, 2026
Site Design and Architecture
Setbacks:

Distance* Minimum Proposed
Front 40’ 40’-0”
Side (Ortega) 30’ 95’-3”
Side (Ascension) 30’ 30’-0”
Rear 30’ 158’-9”
*Distances are measured from the nearest building to the respective property line.

The proposed site layout is generally similar to existing conditions. Buildings 100, 200, and 300 would replace the existing classroom, auditorium, and administration buildings. The tennis courts currently located adjacent to Ascension Drive would be relocated to the rear corner of the site near Ortega Drive, and the former tennis court area would be redeveloped with the theater (Building 400). The existing gymnasium and synthetic turf field would remain in their current locations.

Parking lots and driveways would be expanded or reconfigured in generally the same areas as existing facilities.

The requested variances to the front and side yard setbacks apply to the reconfigured parking areas, not to new building locations. The existing school site is nonconforming, as parking and paved areas currently encroach into required setbacks. A variance to the front yard setback adjacent to Fremont Road is requested to allow a substantial increase in parking spaces along the property line. Similarly, a variance to the side yard setback adjacent to Ortega Drive is requested to allow parking to be located several feet closer to the property line. Pinewood School has stated that the requested front and side yard setback variances would improve site circulation, ingress and egress, and on-site parking efficiency.

Building Use Number of Stories Building Height (Vertical Plane) Building 100
(Proposed)
Administration,
classrooms, storage
Two-stories +
basement
33’-2”
Building 200
(Proposed)
Cafeteria,
classrooms
Two-stories 33’-3”
Building 300
(Proposed)
Classrooms Two-stories 33’-2”
Building 400
(Proposed)
Theater Single-story, small
portion with threestories
37’-5”
Gym
(Existing)
Gym Two-stories 29’-6”
As outlined in previous sections of the report, the project requires a variance to exceed the Maximum Building Height. Building height is measured using two standards: (1) a maximum vertical height of 27 feet, measured from the lowest point of the building to the highest point directly above, and (2) a maximum height of 35 feet, measured from the lowest pad elevation to the highest point of the building. These standards are mainly intended for residential use as this site and a majority of the Town is in the Residential-Agricultural Zoning District. Pinewood School has asserted that the application of the 27-foot height limit deprives it of the opportunity to appropriately modernize these outdated facilities.

Page 403 of 510 ends

Planning Commission Page 8
Pinewood School Upper Campus
February 5, 2026
Grading and Drainage
The Engineering Department has reviewed the civil/drainage plans and found that compliance with C.3 requirements for stormwater management can be addressed through conditions of approval. The Engineering Department has provided their recommended conditions of approval (see Conditions #32 through #43, Attachment 1).

The grading quantities for the project include 60,200 cubic yards of cut and 43,000 cubic yards fill, for a total of 17,200 cubic yards of dirt to be exported.

Trees and Landscaping
The project proposes to remove a total of 76 non-protected trees, many of which are in the parking or circulation areas to be reconfigured. The project team has included a preliminary landscape screening plan identifying conceptual planting arrangements and plant palette, fencing, vehicles, and outdoor furniture.

Formal review of landscape screening will be deferred until framing of the new buildings, consistent with the standard site development practice. A standard condition of approval requiring submittal of a landscape screening application is included in Attachment 1. The Planning Commission is the default hearing authority and may identify specific areas of concern to be addressed in the landscape screening application.

Lighting
The project team submitted an exterior lighting design, photometric study, and accompanying narrative analyzing the site lighting against national, state, and local requirements. The design (Sheet E1.0 of the project plans) includes eight distinct light fixtures that include wall lights, step lights, recessed lights, pole lights, and bollards. Each fixture features directional shielding to prevent light spill beyond the property. Site lighting is provided across all areas of the school, with the exception of the tennis courts, quad, and turf field. The photometric study on Sheet E1.1 illustrates how the light from the proposed fixtures illuminate the ground surface, showing that lighting is concentrated on parking and pedestrian areas rather than driving lanes or gathering spaces.

The exterior lighting narrative (Attachment 9) notes that the design does not fully comply with several standards in the Town’s Outdoor Lighting Policy. These standards primarily apply to residential development rather than institutional or educational sites. Specifically, the narrative identifies noncompliance with the policy’s limits on lumens (light emissions), the number of light fixtures permitted in the setback, and the height of path lights, all of which are constrained by national and state code requirements. Staff acknowledges that lighting is increased near the parking lot adjacent to the side property line and supports efforts to reduce the number and/or height of bollards in this area.

A condition of approval has been prepared requiring the applicant to identify all lighting necessary to meet national and state code requirements. Any additional lighting beyond the minimum required will be reviewed in conjunction with the landscape screening application.

Noise
The project team submitted a noise study prepared by Salter, an acoustical consulting firm. The study included long-term ambient noise measurements conducted in December 2023 at each

Page 404 of 510 ends

Planning Commission Page 9
Pinewood School Upper Campus
February 5, 2026
property line. The results indicate that existing ambient noise levels frequently exceed the 50 dBA-limit for daytime hours at the property line. The study further notes that an increase of 100 students would raise the overall noise level by 1.25 dB, which is considered unnoticeable.

Pinewood School has since modified its request, reducing the proposed increase 100 students to 75 students. The study also concludes that traffic noise associated with the additional vehicle trips is expected to increase by approximately 1 dB, which is again considered unnoticeable. The full noise study and assessment is included as Attachment 10.

Traffic Study
The project team submitted a traffic and parking evaluation (Attachment 11) prepared by Kimley Horn. The traffic study estimates that the enrollment increase will generate 85 additional vehicle trips during the morning drop-off period and 63 during the afternoon pick-up period. Level of service (LOS) at the Fremont Road/Weston Drive entrance and the proposed exit driveway is expected to remain at LOS B or better. The new exit driveway, located approximately 355 feet east of the existing driveway, would reduce vehicle conflicts on Fremont Road. Existing parking demand utilizes 64 to 69 percent of capacity, and the proposed increase from 108 to 113 parking spaces is sufficient to meet future demand. The site plan also improves circulation by separating student loading and parking areas, adding pedestrian pathways, and providing a 280-foot loading zone that accommodates peak drop-off and pick-up demand.

Conditional Use Permit Amendment
As part of the Conditional Use Permit, Pinewood School requests modifications to existing conditions previously approved by City Council in 2003. Attachment 4 includes a matrix prepared by the project team proposing revisions to conditions related to student enrollment, full-time faculty, hours of operation, outdoor sound amplification, and ongoing permit review. These requested modifications are reflected in the draft conditions included as Exhibit B of Attachment 1 (resolution).

Town Committee Reviews
Environmental Design and Protection Committee (EDPC)
The Committee reviewed the application and visited the property in January 2026. The EDPC report (Attachment 7) identifies concerns related to stormwater runoff, traffic on Fremont Road, on-site parking, visual screening for neighboring properties, noise impacts, and outdoor lighting.

Many of these concerns are addressed through technical studies (traffic and parking, noise, outdoor lighting) or through conditions of approval (landscape screening and stormwater management compliance). However, staff supports modification to the parking lot lighting adjacent to Ortega Drive, if flexibility exists after meeting national and state code requirements.

Open Space Committee (OSC)
Pinewood School met with OSC on three occasions following the Planning Commission Study Session. At each meeting, the project team updated the Committee on its progress. A summary of OSC’s meeting with Pinewood School on January 9, 2026, is included as Attachment 8. The Committee has no further comments.

Pathways Committee

Page 405 of 510 ends

Planning Commission Page 10
Pinewood School Upper Campus
February 5, 2026
The Committee discussed the project in January 2026 and recommended that the existing path along Fremont Road is roughened for horses. It was also discussed that a berm be installed between the pathway and edge of pavement to prevent cars from parking on the pathway.

Alternatively, the existing log barrier could be replaced to prevent vehicular encroachment.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project qualifies for exemption under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 (Existing Facilities), 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction), and 15314 (Minor Additions to Schools).

CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis provided in this report, staff finds that there are exceptional circumstances which warrant deviations to the R-A zoning district development standards. Staff concludes that the required findings can be made in support of the conditional use permit and variances. Thus, staff recommends the Planning Commission review the project, conduct a public hearing, and adopt Attachment 1 Draft Resolution, forwarding a recommendation of approval to the City Council. Alternatively, the Commission may continue the public hearing to a date uncertain and direct the applicant to make specific design changes.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution with Conditions of Approval [DRAFT]

2. Current Conditions of Approval

3. Applicant Narrative

4. Applicant Response to Existing Conditions

5. Resident Outreach Log

6. Public Comment

7. Environmental Design and Protection Committee Report, dated January 2026

8. Open Space Committee, dated January 2026

9. Exterior Lighting Narrative

10. Noise Assessment Summary

11. Traffic and Parking Evaluation

12. Applicant CEQA Exemption Justification Letter

13. Worksheets 1 and 2

14. Project Plans – Planning Commission only

Page 406 of 510 ends

March 16, 2026
Mayor Bhateja & Councilmembers – [email protected] c/o Town Clerk – [email protected]
Town of Los Altos Hills VIA E-MAIL
RE: Pinewood School Modernization Proposal – Agenda Item #7A March 19th Honorable Mayor Bhateja and Town Councilmembers:

We are writing to express our strong support for the application to modernize Pinewood’s upper campus at 26800 Fremont Road.

We’ve reviewed Pinewood’s plans and believe that their expansion is appropriately sized for Los Altos Hills and that they’ve taken community input seriously and they’ve made several changes in response to the neighborhood’s comments. We are especially excited to see two-story buildings, a new state-of-the-art performing center, and improvements to vehicular circulation and access for added safety for all those that travel on Fremont Road.

Their proposal is the right scale and design approach for our rural town. We support Pinewood’s application and ask that you approve it without delay.

Katia and Bob Kamangar
, Los Altos Hills
Cc: Scott Riches – via email
Jay Bradford and Jonathan Fox – Town of Los Altos Hills ITEM 7A Supplemental 1

Page 407 of 510 ends

Page 408 of 510 ends

Page 409 of 510 ends

Page 410 of 510 ends

Keren Brunner
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Arika Miller
Tuesday, March 17, 2026 9:23 AM
Keren Brunner
FW: Planning Commission Review of Pinewood Proposal
Please add a supplement to Item 7 A.

From:

Sent: Monday, March 16, 2026 10:53 PM
ITEM 7 A Supplemental 5
To: City Council <[email protected]>; Rajiv Bhateja <[email protected]>; George Tyson <[email protected]>
Subject: Fw: Planning Commission Review of Pinewood Proposal Mayor, Vice Mayor and City Council Members,
In advance of Thursday's Council meeting in which the Pinewood conditional use permit and variance will be discussed, I am resending the email I sent to the planning commission back in late 2024.

Unfortunately, I never received a response from the planning commission but I hope you will have an opportunity to consider this email before any additional approvals or decisions are made on Thursday and perhaps this email can help to inform the go forward management and oversight of the Pinewood project.

Regards,
Mike Gupta
LAH Resident
---- Forwarded Message --
From: Mike Gupta
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2024 at 05:14:17 PM PDT
Subject: Planning Commission Review of Pinewood Proposal Dear Planning Commission,
I am writing in regard to the Pinewood Expansion that is currently being contemplated. I was at the recent study session that took place at Town Hall and I wanted to share some thoughts. My thoughts and concerns capture similar concerns that were shared with me by other residents.

Page 411 of 510 ends

2 elements/requirements in return. While the variances may seem small, we should recognize that the variances are tied to a very significant increase in the number of students who will be attending the school. This increase will further exacerbate the issues that exist today. It was noted that this was a site originally zoned as a school and that these variances are in regard to residential buildings in the Town given the limited zoning classifications we have. Regardless, our current zoning laws were put into place for a reason.

The point was made that this site was already approved and zoned for a school. While that is true, we should recognize that this was originally zoned as a public elementary school. Why does that matter?

1. A local public elementary school directly served residents of this neighborhood. Pinewood is an independent school that serves an unrestricted geographic footprint so the direct benefit to this neighborhood is lessened. Do we have a requirement that a certain portion of their student body needs to be from the nearby neighborhood? As an example, Woodside Priory has a requirement for enrolling Portola Valley residents.

2. As a public school the grounds were open to community members to use the outdoor facilities after school hours -- like the grounds and play structures at Gardner Bullis or the tennis courts at Gunn High School, etc. I am not suggesting that Pinewood open their facilities to the public but I want to point out that this benefit to the broader community is non-existent compared to a public school.

3. As a local elementary school, the traffic was likely less and likely included many children who walked or biked to school. In the case of Pinewood, not only do we have many people driving from further away, we also have a high school student body, a portion of which is driving to and from school and back and forth to school throughout the day thereby increasing overall traffic, noise, etc.

4. Unlike an elementary school, Pinewood is a high school with many afternoon activities and organized team sports. This means that students are on campus longer, there are meaningful outdoor activities after school and even visiting teams coming to compete at Pinewood. These after school activities and related traffic, noise etc. did not exist for a local, public elementary school.

Given this, I urge the Commission to be thoughtful in what they approve and what they ask for in return both during the construction phase and on an ongoing basis. There are numerous things that I urge the commission to consider as CUP requirements:

1. We should have a full traffic study conducted including the exploration of a left turn lane going into Pinewood

2. Other independent and public schools have numerous mitigations in place but Pinewood does not appear to have any. Pinewood is aware of the morning and afternoon traffic issues that impact neighbors daily but they haven't taken steps to address the issue. Pinewood says they care about the community. Many of these mitigation strategies could have already been implemented if they were genuine in their concern for the community. Some of the efforts I have seen at other private (and public) schools include

1. Staff/leadership (or hired personnel) actively managing traffic upon arrival and departure

2. Staggered drop off and pick times. A 10 to 15 minute difference amongst different grades would have a meaningful impact

3. Encouraging biking to school with free bike tune up days, etc.

4. Shuttle service from neighborhood towns or pre-determined pickup and drop off spots like the Los Altos Library

5. Name signs, walkie-talkies and other technology for pick up efficiency

Page 412 of 510 ends

3 3. Other municipalities have required carpooling and shuttle/bus service (as part of the CUP) to minimize traffic into the neighborhood. They have also prescribed specific routes so people aren't using other neighborhood streets for through traffic, parking or u-turns Other municipalities have also required very specific actions to be taken during construction. You can look at the recent Castilleja requirements as an example (Castilleja School). The City of Palo Alto reviewed and iterated with Castilleja for more than 5 years given the impact on the community. Los Altos Hills shouldn't feel pressured to move unduly fast. We should take the requisite time to get to the best outcome for our residents. Requirements for Castilleja include:

1. Construction worker parking having to be within the construction perimeter and not on public roads

2. Very specific ingress and egress routes for construction vehicles

3. Tire washing stations to minimize dirt and debris transfer onto public streets

4. Having the site watered down twice daily to prevent dust

5. Non-disruptive backup beepers on trucks

6. No vehicle idling

7. All on-site material piles to be covered
Importantly, in addition to the building variances, Pinewood is asking for a very significant increase in its student population. If I recall, it was around 33%. This large increase will only exacerbate the traffic and noise issues. I would encourage the Commission to consider having the student population size grow gradually over a multi-year period while simultaneously studying impact to the community and adherence to any new requirements the Commission is asking for.

The site improvements are one thing but the significantly larger student body is another major change and concern. I kindly ask that the Commission make a full and deep evaluation. I implore the Commission to consider construction related and ongoing mitigation tactics similar to the examples I have noted above.

Thank you for your consideration. Please reach out if you would like to discuss this.

Best regards,
Mike Gupta
Los Altos Hills Resident

Page 413 of 510 ends

1 Keren Brunner
From: Arika Miller
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2026 5:44 PM
To: Keren Brunner
Subject: FW: Pinewood Modernization Project
Importance: High
Add to packet please.

From: Manisha Gupta
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 8:19 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; Rajiv Bhateja <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Pinewood Modernization Project
Dear Councilmembers,
I write to address the Pinewood modernization project and concern around neighborhood traffic and noise that will surely arise from the project. Every morning at around 8:15am, traffic backs up to Snell Lane (westbound) and to Palo Hills (eastbound). The same occurs every afternoon at pickup.

In the ten years that we have lived near Pinewood, Pinewood has not made an effort to remedy this traffic backup which clearly burdens the neighbors and people simply trying to get to work. Having three kids who have attended both public and private schools, we know firsthand that congestion at school pickup and dropoff is not unique to Pinewood or to most schools. The schools ours have attended did not have the luxury of a large parking lot but still enacted guidelines and implemented traffic management tools to alleviate neighborhood disruption. We appreciated all of the schools we attended caring for their communities with integrity. Schools have managed traffic through shuttle and bus offerings, staggered drop off and pickups, and enhanced staffing to direct the flow of traffic. Oftentimes the principals themselves are onsite directing and managing traffic.

My daughter currently attends Castilleja, which is undergoing their own campus renovation project, approved with a strict traffic management plan to ensure noise and traffic would be controlled during and after construction. I hope that you will consider adopting a similar vetted plan as part of this approval process. It took several years and a lot of collaboration and concession for the City of Palo Alto to approve Castilleja's project. At Castilleja's pickup and drop off, there are numerous Castilleja employees and hired security personnel monitoring and directing traffic. I encourage you to review Castilleja's Final Transportation Management Plan which includes the following:
 Castilleja provides roundtrip shuttle service to Caltrain for students and staff with at least two roundtrips for each schedule.
 Juniors are not allowed to drive to school.
 Traffic entering and exiting at the Bryant Street drop off location can only make right turns  Once a day, school personnel monitors parking onsite and on surrounding streets

Page 414 of 510 ends

2  Traffic monitors wearing safety vests at drop off, pickup and special events direct cars to ensure a constant flow of traffic
 Parents may not wait in the driveway if their student is not at pickup  The school annually updates its parking and traffic manual for parents and employees  Parents are instructed not to make left turns out of any driveways during peak times. Signs are posted to this effect.
 There are disciplinary consequences for students and parents who do not cooperate with the parking requirements
 The school provides bicycle safety education and encourages students and staff to bike to school.

Castilleja also provides free bus service with pickup/dropoff locations in Los Altos, Burlingame/Woodside, Menlo Park, Portola Valley, and San Carlos. It is my understanding that much of Pinewood's student body lives in or close to Los Altos making it conducive to easy busing and carpooling. Other bay area private schools, such as Crystal Springs Upland School, Nueva, Menlo School and Synapse all provide buses to alleviate traffic and promote sustainability. As you can see from Menlo's Transportation page, the school encourages carpooling and offers five free bus routes to and from school. Likewise, Crystal Springs Uplands School offers buses from Los Altos, Menlo Park and Woodside along with shuttles to/from Caltrain.

Pinewood could, as an act of good faith, immediately implement measures to alleviate traffic by, at a minimum:

1. Stagger drop off times for different grade levels.

2. Appropriately staff the parking lot and Fremont/Weston to allow for more efficient flow of traffic.

3. Offer a few initial bus routes to and from nearby neighborhoods and encourage carpooling. I note, at pickup, most of the cars hold one student only.

4. Offer an overflow local parking lot for school events to alleviate parking and noise on surrounding streets.

5. Incentivize employees and students who carpool, bike or walk to school.

I would hope that Pinewood would like to encourage a more environmentally-friendly school environment while also being a positive part of the neighborhood community.

I would also hope that this City Council would act methodically in approving Pinewood's modernization plan with care for our neighborhood which this will impact for decades.

I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to hearing from you and Pinewood on March 19th.

Sincerely,
Manisha Gupta

Page 415 of 510 ends

327 Fremont Avenue, Los Altos, CA 94024 | 650-209-3030 | www.pinewood.edu March 17, 2026 Via Electronic Mail
Mayor Rajiv Bhateja
And Members of the City Council
The Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
RE: Pinewood School Modernization Project
Dear Honorable Mayor Bhateja and Members of the City Council:

On behalf of the Pinewood School (Pinewood) community, we look forward to the City Council hearing on March 19, 2026, for your consideration of the project application for the modernization of our Upper Campus (Project) located at 26800 Fremont Road in Los Altos Hills, CA (Town) and the Planning Commission’s unanimous recommendation for approval. Pinewood takes great pride in having operated a campus on this site since the 1970’s and knowing that approximately 20% of our current 300 grade 7-12 students are also Los Altos Hills residents.

Pinewood would like to thank Town staff, the Planning Commission, EDPC Committee, Open Space Committee, Pathways Committee, and our neighbors for the time and attention since 2024 to provide feedback and evaluate the modernization of a public school site within the constraints of the Town’s residential zoning code and objective design standards.

Our work is further guided by the fact that the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) owns this site and the Project will also be evaluated under the jurisdiction of the State of California Division of the State Architect (DSA), which requires an additional layer of building codes, fire/life/safety requirements, and ADA standards to ensure the safety and accessibility of publicly owned facilities.

We recognize that Project approval will require the careful consideration of several residential variances to allow for the construction of a modern educational facility that could one day be occupied again by PAUSD. With good reason, the Town of Los Altos Hills has a history of carefully evaluating any requests for variances, but we would like to emphasize that this Project is unique, will do no harm by modernizing an existing school campus, will not set any precedents for future residential projects, and will result in significant improvements for immediate neighbors and the broader community.

Page 416 of 510 ends

327 Fremont Avenue, Los Altos, CA 94024 | 650-209-3030 | www.pinewood.edu What follows in Exhibit 1 is a summary of important topics we want to highlight to complement the staff report and agenda packet materials. Our team looks forward to the March 19, 2026, public hearing. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Scott Riches
President and Head of School
Pinewood School
cc: Jay Bradford, Community Development Director
Jonathan Fox, Senior Planner

Page 417 of 510 ends

327 Fremont Avenue, Los Altos, CA 94024 | 650-209-3030 | www.pinewood.edu EXHIBIT 1

SUMMARY OF PROJECT BENEFITS
• Most of the current campus buildings, originally built in the 1950’s as an elementary school, are over 70 years old and structurally lacking in technology, efficiency, and modern building design. The proposed campus will add 21st Century learning spaces built to the highest state and local standards of sustainability, fire protection, accessibility, and student safety standards.
• A site plan which maintains the existing campus footprint as much as possible with classroom and school buildings.
• Improve parking and traffic flow by reconfiguring the parking lot, adding new parking spaces, creating two internal lanes of traffic, and creating a new exit to address backups at Fremont and Weston during morning drop off and afternoon pickup. • Enhance perimeter fencing, trees, and landscaping to improve the buffer for neighbor privacy and sound attenuation.
• Improved stormwater retention and treatment across the entire site where none exists today except under the existing turf field.
• Use of permeable materials on significant areas of campus which are impervious under current conditions.
• Improve Fremont Road and Barron Creek pathways.
• Use of modern lighting technology and materials to control lighting required by the State of California for public facilities while also respecting the Town’s commitment to dark skies.

PROJECT BACKGROUND
• The Zoning Code of the Town of Los Alto Hills (Zoning) was adopted to protect and guide the residential growth and expansion of the Town in an orderly manner, consistent with the General Plan and true to the rural residential character of the community. • The Zoning and General Plan do contemplate public/private services and institutional uses, such as the schools, religious facilities, fire stations, and community centers needed to locally serve residents; however, all of the Town’s development standards being used to evaluate the Pinewood School Upper Campus Modernization Project application (Project) are written for the Town’s Residential-Agricultural (R-A) Zoning District.
• This is an unusual circumstance because most jurisdictions have zoning mechanisms, such as planned developments, etc., that allow for custom development standards and avoid the need for a project’s reliance on variances.
• Therefore, under the Town’s zoning rules, the Project necessitates exceptions from numerous R-A Zoning District development standards, which, under the Town’s current Zoning, require variances due to the fundamental incompatibility of the school’s institutional use with the R-A development standards.
• In other words, the Town’s Zoning does not have appropriate development standards for a typical school use; therefore, the Project must seek the relief of variances to accommodate its unique development needs as a school.

Page 418 of 510 ends

327 Fremont Avenue, Los Altos, CA 94024 | 650-209-3030 | www.pinewood.edu

CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE AND SCHOOL MODERNIZATION PROJECTS • Since the mid-1970’s, when PAUSD closed the Fremont Hills Elementary School, the public school site has been leased to Pinewood School (Pinewood) for the operation of a private middle and high school.
• Since that time, through a series of leases, Pinewood has operated continuously on the site making only limited upgrades to the original campus layout and design, as required by law for fire and life safety and limited accessibility, along with the conversion of the former cafeteria to a theatre, the construction of a gym and 4 classrooms, addition of tennis courts, and installation of a turf field.
• The Project proposes an upgrade of the entire campus, except for the existing gym, which was constructed in the 1980s. Additionally, consistent with State of California (State) laws and regulations, the school site must be brought up to current State standards for a public school facility in the event it should ever be used in the future by PAUSD as a public school site at the end of the lease term. • The Project will require review, conformance, and approval by both the Town and the State. The California Building Code (CBC), specifically Title 24, along with Title 5, sets the standards for school construction in California, ensuring safety, accessibility, and educational appropriateness.
• The Division of the State Architect (DSA) plays a crucial role in reviewing and approving plans for K-12 schools and community colleges, ensuring compliance with codes addressing fire and life safety, structural integrity, and accessibility.

REQUESTED VARIANCES

VARIANCE

CATEGORY

JUSTIFICATION
Maximum Floor
Area (MFA)
The ability to upgrade the campus with increased MFA will provide for right-sized classrooms, student support spaces, and administrative spaces to better serve the student population. Consequently, the application of the Town’s current MFA requirements would deprive Pinewood from the opportunity to modernize these outdated school facilities under the Town’s strict residential zoning rules.

Maximum
Development
Area (MDA)
The granting of this variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and within the same zoning district because the Project will be enhancing the tree canopy on the periphery of the campus, landscaping gaps along the fenceline, and increasing setbacks from property lines.

Page 419 of 510 ends

327 Fremont Avenue, Los Altos, CA 94024 | 650-209-3030 | www.pinewood.edu Front & Side
Setbacks
The current front setback for the property is 40 feet. The existing configuration of the driveway entrance and exits, two drive lanes, 30 parking spaces, and trash enclosure likely pre-dated the Town’s setback rules (or the PAUSD was exempt from them), so they now are located within this front setback area. The Project intends to re-configure this area within the setback to improve traffic circulation and increase parking, which will help alleviate queuing onto the intersection at Fremont Road/Weston Drive.

Grading within
10ft of Property
Line
The Project must grade and build a retaining wall within 10 feet of the property line to create the space necessary to improve both parking and site circulation, which will alleviate the queuing of cars on Fremont Road during pick-up and drop-off.

Maximum
Building Height
(MBH)
A variance for this limitation is necessary because, as noted above, it has no reasonable application to Pinewood as an existing school in a residential zone. Similarly, the Town should consider all the Project’s buildings as “primary” thus allowing for the 32 foot maximum height, Moreover, the proposed theater, with its lighting angles and ADA accessible catwalk level cannot be designed to comply with the minimum roof pitch of 4:12 for its sloped roof surfaces and maintain the 32 foot height. Consequently, the application of the Town’s MBH requirements would deprive Pinewood from the opportunity to appropriately modernize these outdated facilities at a typical institutional height.

Ground
Coverage for
Conditional Use
The existing campus has an estimated ground coverage percentage of

50.5%. The Project proposes to maximize the use of permeable materials, approved in the Town Development Area Policy, which grants development area credits. The combination of these materials and credits allows Pinewood to achieve a ground coverage of an estimated 53%.

Only the pedestrian circulation and actual building footprints have increased in area between the existing and proposed Project.

Consequently, the application of the Town’s current ground coverage requirements would deprive Pinewood from the opportunity to modernize these outdated school facilities with improved site circulation and environmentally friendly materials.

Page 420 of 510 ends

327 Fremont Avenue, Los Altos, CA 94024 | 650-209-3030 | www.pinewood.edu Grading Policy
Exception
The exterior balconies are not defined as “decks” but rather are coderequired circulation and egress for the second floor classrooms. There are seven classrooms on the second floor of Buildings 100 and 200. The buildings were designed with exterior circulation, including the balcony, to minimize the building footprint and a need for internal hallways.

Outdoor Lighting
Policy Exception
The Project has submitted an exterior lighting package which includes site and photometric plans, a narrative to describe the project and lighting analysis, code analysis, and lighting and controls fixtures. The Project team is evaluating all the comments from Town staff, Planning Commission, and Committees and will work with Town staff and neighbors to submit a more formal Outdoor Lighting proposal at the time of building permits.

NEIGHBOR FEEDBACK INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT
Since early 2024, Pinewood has been engaging with our residential neighbors immediately adjacent to the school’s property line and on the streets within an extended radius on both sides of Fremont Road to ensure awareness of the proposed modernization project, seek feedback, and incorporate changes reflected in the project application.

To date our neighborhood outreach and engagement activities have identified several ideas which have been incorporated into the current project plan, including:
• Moving the proposed second driveway further south at the request of neighbors living on Weston Drive.
• Identifying plant pallet and fencing type preferences neighbor-by-neighbor where Pinewood shares a property line and more broadly for privacy and sound mitigation. • Noting fencing type preferences for fencing type along Fremont and the creek pathway. • Consulted acoustical engineers for guidance on design and location modifications for post-construction outdoor events utilizing equipment placement to focus sound inwards to campus and away from adjacent neighbors.
• Maintain Ortega and Ascension Gates as emergency access only. • No pickleball.
• No public use of the school site or field to protect neighbor privacy and quality of life.

To date several Los Altos Hills residents have submitted letters of support, including:
• Immediately Adjacent Neighbor Support Letters
o Rafinejad Family, 26650 Ascension Drive
o Yu Family, 26625 ascension Drive
o Banatao Family, 26810 Ortega Drive
o Carmack Family, 26815 Ortega Drive
• Other Los Altos Hills Support Letters
o Kamangar Family, 26590 Snell Lane
o Ahrens Family, 12800 Camino Medio Lane
o Jarschel Family, 26060 Kriste Lane
o Li/Liu Family, 26966 Fremont Road
o Gujral family, 11035 Magdalena Road
o Murphy Family, 13870 Ciceroni Lane

Page 421 of 510 ends

327 Fremont Avenue, Los Altos, CA 94024 | 650-209-3030 | www.pinewood.edu o Kramer Family, 14269 Sholes Court
o Poindexter McHan Family, 24032 Oak Knoll Circle
o Pickett Family, 24555 Bella Ladera
o Hussey-Hongsaranagon Family, 12386 Priscilla Lane
o Desai/Pandharikar Family, 12650 Viscaino Court
o Xie Family, 27161 Fremont Road & 26700 Shady Oaks Court And looking to the future if the Project is approved by the Planning Commission and City Council, Pinewood and all construction project team members will continue to keep neighbors informed on a consistent basis, host one-on-one and neighborhood meetings regarding next steps, construction timelines, and important issues such as safety and security during all phases of the Project.

Page 422 of 510 ends

1 Keren Brunner
From: Arika Miller
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2026 9:03 AM
Keren Brunner
FW: Planning Commission Review of Pinewood Proposal
To:

Subject:

From: Mike Gupta
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2026 9:59 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; Rajiv Bhateja <[email protected]>; George Tyson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Planning Commission Review of Pinewood Proposal Mayor and City Council members,
Thank you for your focus on the Pinewood CUP.

Following up on this evening’s meeting, I would encourage the council to explore the left turn pocket for entry into the school.

Pinewood’s own traffic engineer stated that the traffic on Fremont will be the same given the increase in student population — offsetting the ingress and egress improvements they are proposing. As noted traffic is the number issue cited by residents.

I believe the left turn pocket will help with entry. In addition, all the exit traffic the exits turning left onto Fremont would be able to bypass the left turn backup. The left turn pocket also seems more feasible given the space available on that side of the stop sign. There is a should which would allow for the lane without impacting the pathway.

Lastly, I believe the council asked some great questions. I know the resolution was approved but I appreciate that you will follow up on traffic post opening of the new facility.

I also appreciate that the planning commission will keep a close eye on the specifics of how construction is conducted.

Thank you,
Mike
Sent from my iPhone

Page 423 of 510 ends

2 On Mar 16, 2026, at 10:52 PM, Mike Gupta wrote:

Mayor, Vice Mayor and City Council Members,
In advance of Thursday's Council meeting in which the Pinewood conditional use permit and variance will be discussed, I am resending the email I sent to the planning commission back in late 2024.

Regards,
Mike Gupta
LAH Resident
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Mike Gupta
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2024 at 05:14:17 PM PDT
Subject: Planning Commission Review of Pinewood Proposal Dear Planning Commission,
I am writing in regard to the Pinewood Expansion that is currently being contemplated. I was at the recent study session that took place at Town Hall and I wanted to share some thoughts. My thoughts and concerns capture similar concerns that were shared with me by other residents.

I appreciate that Pinewood was thoughtful in their approach and presentation and did what they could to limit the variances. As several commissioners pointed out these weren't big variances but I urge you to recognize that they are in fact variances and to the extent The Commission grants an exception they should make sure it is for the right reasons and because the Town is getting other elements/requirements in return. While the variances may seem small, we should recognize that the variances are tied to a very significant increase in the number of students who will be attending the school.

This increase will further exacerbate the issues that exist today. It was noted that this was a site originally zoned as a school and that these variances are in regard to residential buildings in the Town given the limited zoning classifications we have. Regardless, our current zoning laws were put into place for a reason.

Page 424 of 510 ends

3 1. A local public elementary school directly served residents of this neighborhood.

Pinewood is an independent school that serves an unrestricted geographic footprint so the direct benefit to this neighborhood is lessened. Do we have a requirement that a certain portion of their student body needs to be from the nearby neighborhood? As an example, Woodside Priory has a requirement for enrolling Portola Valley residents.

1. We should have a full traffic study conducted including the exploration of a left turn lane going into Pinewood

1. Staff/leadership (or hired personnel) actively managing traffic upon arrival and departure

2. Staggered drop off and pick times. A 10 to 15 minute difference amongst different grades would have a meaningful impact

3. Encouraging biking to school with free bike tune up days, etc.

4. Shuttle service from neighborhood towns or pre-determined pickup and drop off spots like the Los Altos Library

5. Name signs, walkie-talkies and other technology for pick up efficiency

3. Other municipalities have required carpooling and shuttle/bus service (as part of the CUP) to minimize traffic into the neighborhood. They have also prescribed specific routes so people aren't using other neighborhood streets for through traffic, parking or u-turns
Other municipalities have also required very specific actions to be taken during construction. You can look at the recent Castilleja requirements as an example (Castilleja School). The City of Palo Alto reviewed and iterated with Castilleja for more

Page 425 of 510 ends

4 than 5 years given the impact on the community. Los Altos Hills shouldn't feel pressured to move unduly fast. We should take the requisite time to get to the best outcome for our residents. Requirements for Castilleja include:

1. Construction worker parking having to be within the construction perimeter and not on public roads

2. Very specific ingress and egress routes for construction vehicles

3. Tire washing stations to minimize dirt and debris transfer onto public streets

4. Having the site watered down twice daily to prevent dust

5. Non-disruptive backup beepers on trucks

6. No vehicle idling

7. All on-site material piles to be covered
Importantly, in addition to the building variances, Pinewood is asking for a very significant increase in its student population. If I recall, it was around 33%. This large increase will only exacerbate the traffic and noise issues. I would encourage the Commission to consider having the student population size grow gradually over a multiyear period while simultaneously studying impact to the community and adherence to any new requirements the Commission is asking for.

Thank you for your consideration. Please reach out if you would like to discuss this.

Best regards,
Mike Gupta
Los Altos Hills Resident

Page 426 of 510 ends

TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS MARCH 19, 2026
Staff Report to the City Council
SUBJECT: WAIVER OF READING AND INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 2, CHAPTER 1 “COUNCILMEMBER SALARIES” OF

THE LOS ALTOS HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCREASE THE
COUNCILMEMBERS’ SALARIES TO NINE HUNDRED FIFTY

DOLLARS A MONTH
FROM: Joram Parcutilo, Management Analyst JP
APPROVED: Cody Einfalt, Acting City Manager CE
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:

1. Waive reading and introduce an Ordinance (Attachment 1) Amending Title 2, Chapter 1 (“Councilmember salaries”) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code to:
a. Increase City Councilmember salaries from three hundred dollars ($300) per month to nine hundred fifty dollars ($950) per month.

BACKGROUND:

California Government Code Section 36516 authorizes city councils in general law cities to establish salaries for their members by ordinance, based on the population of the city. The salary schedule set forth in Section 36516(a)(1) remained unchanged since 1984 until legislative action in 2023 to update salary levels to keep pace with the evolving scope, time commitment, and complexity of local governance.

On June 29, 2023, the California Legislature enacted Senate Bill (SB) 329, which amended Section 36516 to update the population-based salary schedule by ordinance for city council members in general law cities, including the Town of Los Altos Hills (Town). In adopting SB 329, the Legislature expressed its intent to reduce financial barriers to public service and to support greater diversity among city councils by enabling individuals from a broader range of income levels to serve and continue serving in elected office while supporting their families.

On February 10, 2026, the City Council discussed potential increase to City Council compensation amounts and provided direction to staff to present an ordinance to increase Councilmembers’ salaries to $950 per month for Council consideration, as well as review the schedule for the two-meeting/public hearing process consistent with SB 329. Town Staff and the City Attorney’s Office completed a review of the current Municipal Code in February 2026.

A redline version showing the updated Municipal Code to reflect this change is included in this report (Attachment 1).

The proposed ordinance would amend Title 2, Chapter 1 of the Municipal Code to reflect the approved salary level.

DISCUSSION:

ITEM 7B

Page 427 of 510 ends

Staff Report to City Council
Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code to Increase Councilmember Salaries March 19, 2026 2
Per SB 329 amendments to Section 36516(a)(2), salaries approved by ordinance shall be up to and including $950 per month for cities with a population size of 35,000 or smaller. Based on the U.S. Census, the Town’s population size was 8,489 as of 2020.

SB 329 also amended Section 36516(a)(4) to allow future adjustments beyond the base maximum amount, provided that any increase does not exceed the greater of:
• Five percent (5%) per calendar year from the operative date of the last adjustment, or • Inflation since January 1, 2024, based on the California Consumer Price Index, not to exceed ten percent (10%) per calendar year.

In addition, SB 329 added procedural requirements under Sections 36516(g)(1)-(3), requiring that an ordinance increasing Councilmembers’ salaries be considered at a minimum of two regular City Council meetings. Section 36516(g) requires that the ordinance must be introduced at one regular meeting and adopted at a subsequent regular meeting at least seven days after the first meeting.

Government Code Section 36516.5 further provides that any change in salary will take effect prospectively and does not apply to a Councilmember during their current term of office. Any increase will only take effect for all Councilmembers serving staggered terms upon any Councilmember beginning a new term of office.

ANALYSIS:

During the February 10, 2026 City Council meeting, Council discussed and reached consensus that $950 per month is an appropriate salary level within the statutory maximum for the Town’s population size (Attachment 2). The City Council gave direction to increase Councilmembers’ salaries to $950 per month, which is within the maximum amount authorized under Government Code Section 36516(a)(2) for cities within the Town’s population category. The proposed ordinance implements that Council direction in compliance with State law, including the required two-meeting adoption process.

City Councilmembers devote significant time and effort to Town business, including:
• Regular and special City Council meetings;
• Study sessions, subcommittee assignments, and regional agency participation; • Review of staff reports and agenda materials in preparation for council meetings; • Responding to resident inquiries and conducting community outreach; and • Attendance at Town events and ceremonial functions.

These responsibilities routinely extend beyond formal meeting hours and have increased in complexity due to regulatory mandates, fiscal oversight responsibilities, housing law requirements, regional coordination efforts, and heightened community engagement expectations.

Page 428 of 510 ends

Staff Report to City Council
Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code to Increase Councilmember Salaries March 19, 2026 3
Adoption of SB 329 in 2023 updated salary limits that had remained largely unchanged since 1984, recognizing the increasing time commitment, regulatory complexity, and public engagement expectations associated with local governance. At $950 per month and maintaining optional medical, vision, and dental benefits, the Town remains within statutory limits and consistent with salary approaches used by neighboring jurisdictions.

Pursuant to Section 36516(g), the ordinance must be brought back to City Council at a following regular meeting for adoption.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The proposed ordinance is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. Amendments to the Municipal Code do not create any physical changes, approve any projects, or alter any environmental or land uses and therefore does not have the potential or possibility to create significant environmental effects. As such, the proposed ordinance is exempt from CEQA. 2026-2027 CITY COUNCIL WORKPLAN:

Although this item was not identified as one of the City Council’s priorities in the adopted 2026–2027 City Council Workplan, it was initiated by a Council during the January 15, 2026 Regular City Council meeting (Attachment 3) and discussed further at the February 10, 2026 Regular City Council meeting. At that meeting, the Council considered and directed staff to return with a draft ordinance to increase Councilmembers’ salaries to $950 per month to be reviewed under procedures consistent with State law.

In approving this action, the Council acknowledged the Legislature’s stated intent under SB 329 to reduce financial barriers to public service and recognized that modernized salary levels may help encourage broader participation in local governance, including greater involvement from younger generations and working professionals who may otherwise face financial constraints in serving. Accordingly, this item reflects implementation of prior Council direction rather than a new Workplan initiative.

FISCAL IMPACT:

At $950 per month, the annual salary per Councilmember would total $11,400.

For five Councilmembers, the sum of all annual salaries would be $57,000, exclusive of payroll taxes and any optional benefit participation.

Any increase will not take effect for a Councilmember during their current term of office pursuant to Government Code Section 36516.5 and will only take effect for all Councilmembers upon any Councilmember beginning a new term of office.

ATTACHMENTS:

Page 429 of 510 ends

Staff Report to City Council
Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code to Increase Councilmember Salaries March 19, 2026 4

1. Ordinance Amending Councilmember Salaries

2. City Council Regular Meeting Recap: January 15, 2026

3. City Council Regular Meeting Recap: February 10, 2026

Page 430 of 510 ends

ITEM 7B Attachment 1
ORDINANCE ______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS AMENDING TITLE 2, CHAPTER 1 “COUNCILMEMBER SALARIES” OF THE LOS ALTOS HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCREASE COUNCILMEMBERS’ SALARIES TO NINE

HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS A MONTH
WHEREAS, Title 2, Chapter 1 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code (“Councilmember salaries”) was adopted to establish the Town of Los Altos Hill’s (Town) salaries for City Councilmembers; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 36516 authorizes city councils in general law cities to establish salaries for their members by ordinance based on the population of the city, and the salary schedule set forth in Section 36516(a)(1) has remained unchanged since 1984; and
WHEREAS, Senate Bill (SB) 329 of 2023 amended Section 36516 to update the population-based salary schedule by ordinance for city council members in general law cities, including salary increases up to $950 per month for cities with a population size of 35,000 or smaller; and
WHEREAS, the current Ordinance sets City Councilmembers salaries’ at $300 per month and the Town’s population size was most recently estimated to be 8,489 based on the 2020 U.S.

Census; and
WHEREAS, City Councilmembers devote significant time and effort to Town business, including regular and special City Council meetings; study sessions, subcommittee assignments, and regional agency participation; review of staff reports and agenda materials in preparation for council meetings; responding to resident inquiries and conducting community outreach; and attendance at Town events and ceremonial functions; and WHEREAS, City Councilmember responsibilities routinely extend beyond formal meeting hours and have increased in complexity due to regulatory mandates, fiscal oversight responsibilities, housing law requirements, regional coordination efforts, and heightened community engagement expectations; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Ordinance increases City Councilmember salaries from $300 per month to $950 per month; and
WHEREAS, during the February 10, 2026 City Council meeting, Council discussed and gave direction to Town staff to prepare an ordinance to increase the Council salary to $950 per month. The Council, in giving this direction, concluded that such increase is an appropriate salary level within the statutory maximum for the Town’s population size and consistent with salary approaches used by neighboring jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, any increase will not take effect for a Councilmember during their current term of office pursuant to Government Code Section 36516.5 and will only take effect for all Councilmembers upon any Councilmember beginning a new term of office; and

Page 431 of 510 ends

Page 2 of 3 ends

WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 36516(g), the ordinance must be introduced at one regular meeting and adopted at a subsequent regular meeting at least seven days after the first meeting; and
WHEREAS, adoption of this proposed Ordinance will align with the Legislature’s stated intent under SB 329 to reduce financial barriers to public service and recognize that modernized salary levels may help encourage broader participation in local governance, including greater involvement from younger generations and working professionals who may otherwise face financial constraints in serving.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills hereby ordains as follows:

SECTION I. FINDINGS.

Based on the entirety of the record as described above, the City Council for the Town of Los Altos Hills hereby makes the following findings:

1. All of the facts and recitals above are true, correct, incorporated herein, and made a part hereof.

2. Based on the entirety of the record before it, the City Council hereby finds that this proposed Ordinance is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). Under Section 15061(b)(3), CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. In this case, the proposed amendment does not create any physical changes, approve any projects, or alter any environmental or land uses and therefore does not have the potential or possibility to create significant environmental effects. As such, the proposed Ordinance is exempt from CEQA.

3. The proposed Ordinance is consistent with the Legislature’s stated intent under SB 329 to reduce financial barriers to public service and recognize that modernized salary levels may help encourage broader participation in local governance, including greater involvement from younger generations and working professionals who may otherwise face financial constraints in serving.

SECTION II. AMENDMENT.

Chapter 1 of Title 2 of the Town of Los Altos Hills Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as set forth in full herein.

The following sections in Title 2, Chapter 1 are amended as follows, with additions in red double underline and deletions in strikethrough. Sections, subsections, paragraphs, and texts not modified by this amendment are not included below and shall remain in full force and effect. § 2-1.201. Councilmember salaries.

Each member of the City Council shall receive, as salary, $300950 per month pursuant to Government Code Section 36516.

Page 432 of 510 ends

Page 3 of 3 ends

SECTION III. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional the remainder of this Ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.

SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE AND PUBLICATION.

Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance shall be prepared by the City Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Council meeting at which this Ordinance is scheduled to be adopted, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the Summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified copy of this Ordinance. Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall (1) publish the summary, and (2) post in the City Clerk’s Office a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance along with the names of those City Council members voting for and against this Ordinance or otherwise voting.

This Ordinance shall become effective upon the later of: (1) thirty (30) days from and after its adoption, and (2) the date upon which one or more members of the City Council begins a new term of office following the general municipal election.

INTRODUCED: ______________, 2026
PASSED: _______________, 2026
AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

BY: _________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
City Attorney

Page 433 of 510 ends

Tuesday, February 10, 2026, at 6:00 P.M.

Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, California

Present: Mayor Rajiv Bhateja, Vice Mayor George Tyson, Council Member Stanley Mok, Council Member Linda Swan, Council Member Kavita Tankha

Absent: None
Staff: Acting City Manager Cody Einfalt, Public Works Director WooJae Kim, Community Development Director Jay Bradford, Finance Director Thomas Leung, and City Clerk Arika Birdsong-Miller

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Bhateja called the Regular Meeting of the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills to order at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 10, 2026. The meeting was conducted in person and via Zoom, as permitted by state law.

ROLL CALL
Mayor Rajiv Bhateja, Vice Mayor George Tyson, Council Member Stanley Mok, Council Member Linda Swan and Council Member Kavita Tankha were present.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

1. AGENDA REVIEW
Mayor Bhateja announced an adjustment to the order of discussion to receive an update from the Community Development Director earlier in the meeting.

2. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
A. Consideration of an Appointment to the Los Altos Hills Pathways Committee – John Lewis
The Council appointed John Lewis to the Los Altos Hills Pathways Committee for a term beginning February 10, 2026, and ending February 10, 2030.

John Lewis is a Los Altos Hills resident with experience in home construction and the Town's planning process. He expressed interest in improving communication between the planning department and the pathways committee, as well as expanding the pathway system.

MOTION PASSED: 5-0
AYES: Bhateja, Tyson, Mok, Swan, Tankha
NOES: None
RECUSE: None
ITEM 7B Attachment 2

Page 434 of 510 ends

ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
B. Consideration of Reappointments to the Los Altos Hills Open Space Committee – Anita Baldwin and Viggy Mokkarala
The Council reappointed Anita Baldwin and Viggy Mokkarala to the Los Altos Hills Open Space Committee for terms beginning February 5, 2026, and ending February 5, 2030.

MOTION PASSED: 5-0
AYES: Bhateja, Tyson, Mok, Swan, Tankha
NOES: None
RECUSE: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
C. Report from the Los Altos Hills County Fire District Jay Logan, General Manager, provided a report. The Fire District presented an overview of the 2026–27 draft budget process and how funding supports service delivery. The presentation also included an overview of services provided under the fire and EMS agreement and collaboration on ongoing and future efforts, including planning and facility-related work.

Public Comments:

1. Jim Waschura

2. John O’Connell

3. Eric Evans

4. Dave Stewart

3. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

1. Gautam Agrawal

4. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
A. Treasurer’s Report - Informational reports received; no action taken.

B. Disbursement Report - Informational reports received; no action taken.

5. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes – January 15, 2026

Page 435 of 510 ends

B. Vacating Appointments to the History Committee – Jitze Couperus and Duffy Price C. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Purchase a Replacement Chipper Not to Exceed $100,000 and Either Sell or Donate the 2009 Carlton 1790 Towable Chipper D. Consideration of a Resolution Adopting the 2026–2027 Two-Year City Council Work Plan Mayor Bhateja pulled Item 5C from the Consent Calendar.

Vice Mayor Tyson made a motion to Approve Consent Calendar Items 5A, 5B, and 5D. Council Member Swan seconded the motion.

MOTION PASSED: 5-0
AYES: Bhateja, Tyson, Mok, Swan, Tankha
NOES: None
RECUSE: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Item 5C (removed from Consent Calendar)
Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Purchase a Replacement Chipper Not to Exceed $100,000 and Either Sell or Donate the 2009 Carlton 1790 Towable Chipper Public Comments:

1. John O’Connell
Council Member Swan made a motion to Approve the Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Purchase a Replacement Chipper Not to Exceed $100,000 and Either Sell or Donate the 2009 Carlton 1790 Towable Chipper. Council Member Mok seconded the motion.

MOTION PASSED: 5-0
AYES: Bhateja, Tyson, Mok, Swan, Tankha
NOES: None
RECUSE: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None

Page 436 of 510 ends

6. NEW BUSINESS
A. Emergency Management Services in Town and Possible Council Action to Approve Resolution Adopting Job Classification for an Emergency Manager and Amendments to the Town’s Salary Schedule
Acting City Manager Cody Einfalt explained Town’s emergency management needs, including EOC training/compliance, staffing structure, and prior recruitment/contracting efforts. Council discussed staffing approaches and potential partnerships.

Public Comments:

1. Phil Harter

2. Dave Stewart

3. John O’Connell
There was a consensus of City Council that staff is to return with two specific items:

1. the opportunity for cost sharing/collaboration/resource sharing with the Fire District, and

2. whether a full-time position could be cost-shared with the City of Los Altos (and related structure).

B. Process and Considerations for Establishing a New Standing Committee City Clerk Arika Miller presented process considerations and options for charter development.

Council discussed approaches used by other jurisdictions and options for developing a charter.

Public Comments:

1. Cheryl Evans

2. Jim Waschura

3. John O’Connell

4. Sue Welch
Council indicated it would consider next steps further and asked staff to reach out to neighboring cities who have formed a similar committee; no formal action or vote was taken.

C. Discussion on Adjustments to the City Council Member Stipend Acting City Manager Cody Einfalt provided background and legal framework, including the requirement for two public hearings at separate meetings and timing for effectiveness.

Page 437 of 510 ends

Public Comment:

1. Jim Waschura
Vice Mayor Tyson made a motion to increase compensation to $600/month and add an annual inflation adjustment, with no other changes. Council Member Mok seconded the motion.

Council Member Swan made a substitute motion made to set the stipend at $950/month.

Council Member Mok seconded the substitute motion.

Vote on Substitute Motion
MOTION PASSED: 3-2
AYES: Tyson, Mok, Swan
NOES: Bhateja, Tankha
RECUSE: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Substitute motion carried 3-2
Direction to staff to return with the required documentation and schedule for the twomeeting/public hearing process consistent with state law requirements.

7. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES, SUB-COMMITTEES, AND COUNCILMEMBERS

ON OUTSIDE AGENCIES
A. Update from Mayoral Rotation Ad Hoc Committee - The Council received an update from the Mayoral Rotation Ad Hoc Committee, which was established at the January 15, 2026 meeting with Vice Mayor George Tyson and Council Member Kavita Tankha appointed as members.

B. Update from Community Survey Ad Hoc Committee - The Council received an update from the Community Survey Ad Hoc Committee, which was also established at the January 15, 2026 meeting with Mayor Rajiv Bhateja and Vice Mayor George Tyson appointed as members.

8. STAFF REPORTS
A. City Attorney Steve Mattas had no report.

B. City Clerk Arika Miller

Page 438 of 510 ends

C. Community Development Director Jay Bradford provided an update on the status of the Town’s Housing Element, Housing Element Amendment, and related zoning compliance. He reported that the Housing Element remains certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Mr. Bradford stated that the Housing Element Amendment has addressed the requirements outlined in HCD’s October 10, 2025, review letter and that staff has responded to the comments identified in that correspondence. He further reported that the Town’s zoning regulations are compliant with applicable state law.

Mr. Bradford noted, however, that three components of the Town’s adopted objective design standards require additional review and potential refinement to ensure full alignment with state requirements. These elements relate to setbacks, site minimums and maximums, and dwelling unit sizes. He indicated that staff will continue to evaluate these standards and return with recommendations as appropriate.

Public Comments:

1. Dave Kehlet

2. John O’Connell
D. Finance Director Thomas Leung provided an update on financial operations and the upcoming budget process. He reported that staff continues to implement AI-based software intended to streamline bank and cash reconciliations and improve financial reporting efficiency. Staff is currently working on ingesting and integrating data from the Town’s Tyler ERP system, as well as from bank and investment accounts, to support automation and enhanced reporting capabilities.

Mr. Leung further reported that staff is analyzing the Fiscal Year 2025–26 mid-year budget and evaluating potential adjustments in preparation for the mid-year budget report. The report is scheduled to be presented to the Finance and Investment Committee on February 24 and to the City Council on March 19.

With respect to the Fiscal Year 2026–27 budget, Mr. Leung stated that the budget development process commenced with a retreat held on February 2, 2026. A five-year financial forecast has been prepared and reviewed with Town departments. Departments are expected to submit budget requests in March, after which staff will prepare the proposed budget in April. The draft proposed budget will then be presented to the Finance and Investment Committee. Staff is also coordinating a joint meeting of the City Council and the Finance and Investment Committee in May to review the proposed budget.

E. Public Works Director WooJae Kim provided an update on the Town Hall Emergency HVAC Project. He reported that on December 9, 2025, at staff’s

Page 439 of 510 ends

recommendation, the City Council declared an emergency to replace the Town Hall heat pump HVAC system after heating was lost in two of the three zones. Fuse Service was retained to address the two affected HVAC systems. Mr. Kim noted that the gas furnace system serving the lobby was successfully repaired. For the existing heat pump system serving the Town Hall offices and kitchen area, Fuse has demolished and removed the existing equipment in preparation for replacement with new mini-split units. Installation of the new equipment is scheduled to begin the following week and is expected to take approximately ten business days to complete. Mr. Kim further reported that two of the three gas furnace units serving the Council Chambers have now failed. Staff is evaluating replacement of at least one of the failed furnaces with a heat pump unit at an estimated cost of approximately $23,000. Staff will continue to provide updates to the City Council as the work progresses.

Mr. Kim also provided an update on the sewer charge negotiations with the Cities of Los Altos and Palo Alto, a City Council work plan item. He reported that staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to solicit consultants to conduct the sewer cost-sharing and flow estimate study required prior to commencing negotiations. Only one proposal was received. Staff plans to review the proposal with the Sewer Ad Hoc Committee, which includes Vice Mayor Tyson, Councilmember Tankha, and Allan Epstein of the Finance and Investment Committee. The cost of the proposal submitted by F&L is approximately $50,000.

F. Acting City Manager Cody Einfalt provided updates on the Security Camera Project.

George Lee will complete installation at Town Hall over the next two weeks, including installation of storage devices in the server room and the remaining five cameras.

Following completion at Town Hall, installation will begin later this month at the Corporation Yard, followed by Westwind Community Barn in mid-March to early April.

Heritage House will be the next location; staff will conduct a walkthrough to determine appropriate camera placements.

Regarding the Speed Feedback Sign, staff updated the rotation locations based on the Sheriff’s Office presentation at the January City Council meeting. Staff will analyze before-and-after data from the Sheriff’s targeted enforcement locations and present findings to Council at the May City Council meeting.

Mr. Einfalt also reported on a residential burglary that occurred on February 8, 2026, at approximately 3:17 p.m. on the 12000 block of La Barranca Road. Deputies responded to an in-progress burglary reported by the homeowner, who observed a suspect inside the residence via surveillance. Deputies detained the driver of a van leaving the area, and video footage confirmed the individual as the suspect. Although stolen property was not recovered from the vehicle, indicating a possible second suspect and vehicle, the detained

Page 440 of 510 ends

individual was arrested for burglary and two outstanding warrants for burglary and grand theft.

Mr. Einfalt provided reminders of upcoming events, including the Town Hall closure on Presidents Day, Coffee with the Sheriff, and the LAHCFD Brush and Yard Trimmings Collection Event on February 21. Additional information will be included in the Weekly and posted on the Town’s website calendar.

He also highlighted the 24th Annual Los Altos Hills Pathways Run/Walk scheduled for May 9 at Westwind Community Barn. The event includes 5K and 10K races at 9:00 a.m. and a 1-Mile Fun Run at 10:30 a.m. Early bird registration pricing is available through February 28, with group discounts offered for groups of ten or more.

9. COUNCIL INITIATED ITEMS- None
Council Member Swan asked that at the next meeting Consideration of a Poet Laureate be added to Council Initiated Items.

10. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.

Page 441 of 510 ends

Thursday, January 15, 2026, at 6:00 P.M.

Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, California & 2800 I-10 Frontage Road, Port Allen, LA 70767

Present: Mayor Rajiv Bhateja, Vice Mayor George Tyson, Council Member Stanley Mok, Council Member Linda Swan, Council Member Kavita Tankha

Absent: None
Staff: Acting City Manager Cody Einfalt, Public Works Director WooJae Kim, Community Development Director Jay Bradford, Finance Director Thomas Leung, Senior Planner Jonathan Fox, Associate Engineer Melissa Elian, and City Clerk Arika Birdsong-Miller
CALL TO ORDER (6:00 P.M.)
Mayor Tankha called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M.

ROLL CALL
Mayor Rajiv Bhateja, Vice Mayor George Tyson, Council Member Stanley Mok, Council Member Linda Swan and Council Member Kavita Tankha were present.

Council Member Swan participated remotely from 2800 I-10 Frontage Road, Port Allen, LA 70767.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

1. AGENDA REVIEW
The agenda was approved with the Community Development Director’s Report moved to follow Presentations from the Floor. Additionally, Mayor Bhateja requested that Assistant City Attorney Claire Lai provide the report for Item 5L.

Assistant City Attorney Claire Lai provided a brief report on the 4:30 p.m. special City Council meeting held immediately before the regular meeting. During the special meeting, the City Council conducted a closed session regarding anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9, subdivision (d)(2). There were no reportable actions from the closed session.

The City Council also considered an item in open session regarding the issuance of a Brown Act unconditional commitment pursuant to Government Code section 54960.2 in response to a demand letter from Safford Law dated December 16, 2025. The unconditional commitment allows the Council to respond to allegations of Brown Act violations.

Assistant City Attorney Lai noted that the issuance of the unconditional commitment and the related action under Consent Item 5L do not constitute an admission or evidence of any Brown Act violation by the Town.

During the special meeting, the City Council voted 5-0 to approve the issuance of the unconditional commitment as included in the staff report. Although the Town disagrees with the allegations raised in the demand letter and maintains that no Brown Act violations occurred, the City Council elected to utilize the unconditional commitment option under state law to foreclose unnecessary litigation and in furtherance of the ITEM 7B Attachment 3

Page 442 of 510 ends

Town’s commitment to transparency and public participation.

Community Development Director Jay Bradford provided an update on the current status of the Housing Element amendment at last night's City Council meeting. The update included progress with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The Town has received comments from HCD sent by the owners of the Twin Oaks site and Sea Landing Limited Partners. He also briefed the City Council on recent SB 330 applications received from the owners of the Twin Oaks and outlined a potential approach for responding to HCD comments, should any be received.

A Special City Council meeting is reserved and scheduled for January 29th, contingent on further feedback from HCD. An update was also given on the building fee refund project with applicants being contacted this week to initiate the process for completing refunds.

2. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
A. Consideration of Appointment to the Los Altos Hills Planning Commission Council Member Tankha recused herself from this item due to a contractual professional relationship with all of the applicants.

Public Comments:

1. John O’Connell

2. Cheryl Evans

3. Birgitta Indaco
Mayor Bhateja made a motion to appoint Malika Junaid to the Planning Commission to a term beginning January 15, 2026 expiring June 30, 2028. Vice Mayor Tyson seconded the motion. APPROVED, VOTE 3-1-1

3. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

1. Erin Vitus

2. Kyrri Vitus

3. Ron Haley

4. Susan Stark

5. Jennifer Couperus

6. Era Nangia

7. Ayaan

8. Farshid Jamshidian

9. Mitesh Dhruv

10. Regina Pareigis

11. Kristina Pareigis

12. John O’Connell

13. George Lance

14. Sharbari Dixit

15. Dashiell Leeds

16. Yatin Mundkur

17. Martin Luther

Page 443 of 510 ends

4. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS (items provided solely for informational purposes) A. Treasurer’s Report – This item was provided solely for informational purposes.

B. Disbursement Report - This item was provided solely for informational purposes.

C. Quarterly Investment Report- This item was provided solely for informational purposes.

5. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Approval of the City Council Special Meeting Minutes November 6, 2025 APPROVED, VOTE 5-0
B. Approval of the City Council Special Meeting Minutes November 17, 2025 APPROVED, VOTE 5-0
C. Approval of the City Council Special Meeting Minutes November 20, 2025 APPROVED, VOTE 5-0
D. Approval of the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes November 20, 2025 APPROVED, VOTE 5-0
E. Approval of the City Council Special Meeting Minutes December 9, 2025 APPROVED, VOTE 5-0
F. Approval of the City Council Adjourned Regular Meeting Minutes December 9, 2025 APPROVED, VOTE 5-0
G. Approval of the City Council Special Meeting Minutes December 18, 2025 APPROVED, VOTE 5-0
H. Approval of the City Council Regular Meeting Minutes December 18, 2025 APPROVED, VOTE 5-0
I. Resolution Approving the Plans and Specifications for the FY2025-26 Pavement Rehabilitation and Drainage Improvement Project and Authorizing Staff to Advertise for Formal Bid APPROVED, VOTE 5-0
J. Consideration of Resolution Granting Extensions for Various Building Permits APPROVED, VOTE 5-0
K. Resolution Accepting the Town of Los Altos Hills Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2025 APPROVED, VOTE 5-0

Page 444 of 510 ends

6. ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Discuss and Possible Direction on Terminating Agreement with FLOCK Safety for the Town’s Automatic License Plate Reader System
Public Comments:

1. Malika Junaid

2. Anand Ra

3. Eric Evans

4. Ryan
Vice Mayor Tyson made a motion directing staff to immediately cancel the Town’s Flock Safety ALPR contract, deactivate the cameras, and seek a refund of prepaid funds for the remaining term of the contract. Council Member Tankha seconded the motion. APPROVED, VOTE 5-0 B. Ongoing Discussion with the Santa Clara County Sheriff and Possible Action on Traffic Enforcement in Town
Public Comments:

1. John O’Connell

2. Allan Epstein

3. Katherine Frey

4. Anand Ranganathan
Mayor Bhateja made a motion to continue spontaneous traffic enforcement by the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department with a cost cap of $5,000 per month. Vice Mayor Tyson seconded the motion. APPROVED, VOTE 4-1.

C. Consider Project Scope Options for the Parks and Recreation Center Renovation and Provide Staff with Direction
Public Comment:

1. Allan Epstein
Council Member Mok made a motion to direct staff to proceed with Option 2, which includes constructing a new prefabricated building to replace the existing Parks and Recreation building.

Council Member Tankha seconded the motion. APPROVED, VOTE 5-0

7. PUBLIC HEARING
L. Affirmation of Mayor’s Appointment of Vice Mayor Tyson to the Alternative Sites Ad Hoc Committee Pursuant to Government Code Section 54960.1 APPROVED, VOTE 5-0
PUBLIC COMMENT:

1. Anand Ranganathan
Council Member Tankha made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar as presented.

Vice Mayor Tyson seconded the motion. APPROVED, VOTE 5-0

Page 445 of 510 ends

A. Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 1,088 square-foot addition to an existing administration building at St. Nicholas Catholic School, and a request for a 10-year review of the existing Conditional Use Permit at 12816 El Monte Road; Lands of The Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose
Public Comment:

1. Allan Epstein
Vice Mayor Tyson made a motion to Approve the Resolution for a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of a 1,088 square-foot addition to an existing administration building at St. Nicholas Catholic School, and a request for a 10-year review of the existing Conditional Use Permit at 12816 El Monte Road; Lands of The Roman Catholic Bishop of San Jose Council Member Mok seconded the motion. APPROVED, VOTE 5-0 MOTION PASSED: 5-0
AYES: Bhateja, Tyson, Mok, Swan,
Tankha
NOES: None
RECUSE: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
B. Resolution Approving a Conditional Use Permit Extension for upgrades to an existing water storage and booster pump station, and variance to the minimum 40-foot front and 30-foot side setback for the installation of new booster pumps and concrete foundations. This station is located at Assessor’s Parcel Number 175-46-004, adjacent to 13070 S. Alta Lanee of California Water Service.

The Public Hearing was opened, and no members of the public came forward to speak.

A. Council Member Mok made a motion to Approve the Resolution for a Conditional Use Permit Extension for upgrades to an existing water storage and booster pump station, and variance to the minimum 40-foot front and 30-foot side setback for the installation of new booster pumps and concrete foundations. This station is located at Assessor’s Parcel Number 175-46-004, adjacent to 13070 S. Alta Lanee of California Water Service. Council Member Swan seconded the motion. APPROVED, VOTE 5-0
MOTION PASSED: 5-0
AYES: Tankha, Bhateja, Swan, Tyson
NOES: None
RECUSE: None
ABSTAIN: Mok
ABSENT: None

Page 446 of 510 ends

8. NEW BUSINESS
A. City Council Appointments to Standing Committees and Outside Agencies Mayor Bhateja made a motion to Approve the Appointment to the Standing Committees and Outside Agencies. Vice Mayor Tyson seconded the motion. APPROVED, VOTE 5-0 B. Resolution Approving an Eligible Project Option for the Silicon Valley Clean Energy Grant Application and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Grant Agreement Public Comment:

1. Anand Ranganthan
Mayor Bhateja made a motion to adopt the resolution approving the purchase of two electric light-duty trucks (Option 1) as the eligible project for the Silicon Valley Clean Energy Noncompetitive Member Agency Grant application and authorizing the City Manager to execute the grant agreement. Council Member Swan seconded the motion.

APPROVED, VOTE 4-1
C. Review and Update of the Town’s Mayoral Rotation Policy

Page 447 of 510 ends

Mayor Bhateja made a motion to create an Ad Hoc Committee to review the Town’s Mayoral Rotation Policy, appointing Vice Mayor Tyson and Council Member Tankha to the committee. Council Member Tankha seconded the motion. APPROVED, VOTE 5-0 D. Consideration of Forming a Town-wide Community Survey Ad Hoc Committee Mayor Bhateja made a motion to create an Ad Hoc Committee for a Town-wide Community Survey, appointing Mayor Bhateja and Vice Mayor Tyson to the committee.

Vice Mayor Tyson seconded the motion. APPROVED, VOTE 5-0

9. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES, SUBCOMMITTEES, AND COUNCILMEMBERS

ON OUTSIDE AGENCIES
Mayor Bhateja and Vice Mayor Tyson provided reports.

10. COUNCIL INITIATED ITEMS
A. Consideration of an Adjustment to the City Council Member Stipend Public Comment:

1. Allan Epstein
There was a consensus of the Council to move this item to the next Council agenda for consideration.

B. Consideration to Form a Housing Ad Hoc Committee for Residential Input on the Housing Element
Public Comments:

1. Cheryl Evans

2. Eric Evans

3. John O’Connell

4. George Perlegos

5. Yatin Munakur

6. Dashiell Leeds
There was a consensus of the Council to move this item to the next Council agenda for consideration.

11. STAFF REPORTS
A. Assistant City Attorney Claire Lai had no report.

B. City Clerk Arika Miller provided two brief informational items for Council this evening. First, regarding Senate Bill 707, which amended the Brown Act related to managing disruptive behavior at public meetings, staff has confirmed, in consultation with

Page 448 of 510 ends

the Town Attorney, that the Town’s current meeting practices are already in compliance and no changes are required. Second, I am providing a recommendation from the Our Town Newsletter subcommittee. Based on the subcommittee’s evaluation of all proposals, including experience, institutional knowledge, design quality, and overall ability to meet the Town’s expectations, the recommendation is to proceed with Alex Atkins Design, Inc. The subcommittee carefully considered all proposals and reached consensus that Alex Atkins Design, Inc. is best positioned to deliver the newsletter with the level of quality, consistency, and familiarity the Town has historically maintained.

C. Community Development Director Jay Bradford provided an update on the current status of the Housing Element amendment at last night's City Council meeting. The update included progress with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The Town has received comments from HCD sent by the owners of the Twin Oaks site and Sea Landing Limited Partners. He also briefed the City Council on recent SB 330 applications received from the owners of the Twin Oaks and outlined a potential approach for responding to HCD comments, should any be received.

D. Finance Director Thomas Leung reported that staff is continuing to work with Edwin (formerly known as Civitas) to streamline bank and cash reconciliation processes, which currently require significant staff time each month. These improvements are expected to allow staff to produce the monthly Treasurer’s Reports earlier each month.

He further reported that, as discussed in the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR), General Fund revenues for Fiscal Year 2024-25 exceeded expenditures due to strong property tax growth of approximately $414,000, higher investment income of approximately $354,000, and lower net transfers compared to the prior year. The results also reflect a one-time transfer of approximately $0.8 million in ARPA funds back to the General Fund following the elimination of the ARPA fund. On the expenditure side, spending was below budget due to project and hiring timing.

As a result, the total General Fund fund balance increased by approximately $1.5 million to $18.4 million.

Mr. Leung also noted that staff will analyze budget-to-actual results for Fiscal Year 2024- 25 as part of the mid-year budget report to be presented to the Finance and Investment Committee in February. He added that staff will begin the Fiscal Year 2026-27 budget process with a budget retreat scheduled for February 2, 2026.

E. Public Works Director WooJae Kim reported that on December 9, 2025, based on staff’s recommendation, the City Council declared an emergency for the replacement of the Town Hall heat pump HVAC system after two HVAC zones lost heating. He noted that the existing gas/electrical furnace serving the lobby area was repaired by replacing the blower motor and cleaning the condensate line at an approximate cost of $2,000.

Mr. Kim reported that for the replacement of the heat pump system serving the Town Hall offices and kitchen area, staff worked with Mayor Bhateja, Allan Epstein of the Finance and Investment Committee, and Anand Ranganathan of the Environmental Initiatives Committee to evaluate options and select an appropriate contractor and solution. The existing rooftop heat pump and fan coil system has reached the end of its service life. After reviewing alternatives, the team selected a solution consisting of three mini-split heat pump systems—two serving the

Page 449 of 510 ends

office areas and one serving the kitchen area—as the most efficient and effective replacement option.

He explained that the mini-split units will be installed within the plenum spaces, with condenser units located at the rear of the building. This configuration allows each system to be maintained or replaced independently, reducing future maintenance costs and improving energy efficiency compared to the existing rooftop system.

Mr. Kim stated that the total estimated project cost is approximately $160,000, which includes engineering services for building permit, energy calculations, and plans, as well as a 10 percent contingency for potential change orders. As authorized by Council, staff intends to execute a construction contract within the next couple of weeks and authorize the contractor to order materials and begin installation. He added that, due to the emergency declaration, staff is exploring proceeding with construction concurrently with building permit submittals, with installation anticipated to be completed by the end of February if no delays occur. He thanked Mayor Bhateja, Allan Epstein, and Anand Ranganathan for their collaboration throughout the decision-making process.

Regarding the El Monte Fire Station Utility Undergrounding (Rule 20A) Project, Mr. Kim reported that all overhead facilities have now been undergrounded by PG&E, AT&T, and Comcast. He announced that a ribbon-cutting ceremony to celebrate completion of the Town’s Rule 20A Project is scheduled for Thursday, January 22, at 11:00 a.m., at the corner of El Monte and Elena Road near the El Monte Fire Station. He noted that residents are welcome to attend and that staff will gather project closeout data over the next one to two months, including the final remaining balance of the Town’s Rule 20A credits, to present to Council.

Regarding the Heritage House Upgrade Project, Mr. Kim reported that the project team successfully reconnected the building's power to the Town Hall electrical system. He acknowledged George Lee of the Technology Committee and Environmental Initiatives Committee for assisting with the temporary shutdown of the switchgear to allow the power connection to be completed. He noted that additional delays were encountered due to door hardware compatibility issues, which the contractor is addressing, and that project completion is now anticipated by the end of February.

F. Acting City Manager Cody Einfalt announced that the Los Altos Hills Youth Commissioners are hosting a free Technology for Seniors program to help older adults confidently navigate their electronic devices. Seniors may bring phones, tablets, laptops, or other devices to receive one-on-one assistance from youth volunteers. The program will take place on January 25, 2026, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. at Town Hall.

Appointments may be scheduled at losaltoshills.ca.gov/tech tutoring. He noted that questions may be directed to Emina Steta.

Committee Goals Presentation
Mr. Einfalt reported that the Committee Goals Presentation is scheduled for Wednesday, January 21, 2026, from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

Law Enforcement Services Investigation
Mr. Einfalt reported that staff has received a proposal and is currently working with the County to better understand the associated cost figures. He noted that multiple cities are now participating in this effort.

Telecommunications Negotiations
Mr. Einfalt reported that telecommunications carriers are currently analyzing their tower assets. He stated that the Technology Committee and the Finance and Investment

Page 450 of 510 ends

Los Altos Hills City CouncilMarch 19, 2026

Los Altos Hills City Council
March 19, 2026