HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 41-25 Signed & Certified
RESOLUTION 41-25 1 | P a g e
RESOLUTION 41-25
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
MAKING FINDINGS OF DENIAL PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 65589.5(d) AND DENYING A SENIOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
(CDP23-0001) LOCATED AT 10728 MORA DRIVE, LOS ALTOS HILLS
WHEREAS, on February 1, 2023, the Town of Los Altos Hills (“Town”) received a preliminary
application pursuant to Government Code section 65941.1 and a formal application from Forrest
Linebarger (“Applicant”) for a senior residential development project titled “S ilver Oaks Senior
Community” consisting of 44 units with 11 units reserved for low-income households (Application No.
CDP23-0001) at 10728 Mora Drive (“Project”); and
WHEREAS, on February 1, 2023, the Town also received a preliminary application and a formal
application for a nearly identical senior residential development project also titled “Silver Oaks Senior
Community” consisting of 44 units with 11 units reserved for low-income households (Application No.
CDP23-0002) at 10758 Mora Drive which is separated by one parcel from the Project site; and
WHEREAS, on April 11, 2023, the Applicant submitted a revised preliminary application and formal
application to add 10 additional market- rate units, for a total of 55 units where 44 units would be market-
rate, and 11 units would be reserved for low-income households which equates to a 20 percent project
affordability; this April 2023 revision represents a 20 percent change of the Project residential units as
proposed in the February 1, 2023 submittal, and thus necessitating a new preliminary application; and
WHEREAS, on April 11, 2023 and July 3, 2023, the Applicant submitted a revised preliminary
application and formal application, and the project plans, respectively, for the 10758 Mora Drive property
to ultimately add 13 additional market-rate units, for a total of 57 units where 45 units would be market-
rate, and 12 units would be reserved for low-income households which equates to a 21 percent project
affordability; this revision on April 11, 2023 represents more than 20 percent change of the project
residential units as proposed in the February 1, 2023 submittal, and thus necessitating a new preliminary
application; and
WHEREAS, on January 30, 2025, the Applicant made significant revisions to the Project application to
decrease both the number of dwelling units and the percentage of affordable units. Specifically, the
Applicant reduced the total Project density from 55 units to 43 units, with 3 units reserved for extremely-
low income households which equates to 10 percent project affordability pursuant to Government Code
section 65589.5(h)(3)(A). These revisions propose a base density of 30 units and 13 additional units
through the application of State Density Bonus Law, totaling 43 units. These revisions represent an
approximately 22 percent reduction in total density and a 10 percent reduction in project affordability, and
also completely eliminate any affordable units originally offered to low-income households. No revisions
to the building exteriors, building length, setbacks or other external features were made to the Project; and
WHEREAS, on January 30, 2025, the Applicant made significant revisions to the project application for
the 10758 Mora Drive property to decrease both the number of dwelling units and the percentage of
affordable units. Specifically, the Applicant reduced the total Project density from 57 units to 45 units, with
3 units reserved for extremely-low income households which equates to approximately 9 percent project
affordability pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(h)(3)(A). These revisions propose a base
density of 32 units and 13 additional units through the application of State Density Bonus Law, totaling 45
units. These revisions represent an approximately 21 percent reduction in total density and a 10 percent
reduction in project affordability, and also completely eliminate any affordable units originally offered to
low-income households. No revisions to the building exteriors, building length, setbacks or other external
RESOLUTION 41-25 2 | P a g e
features were made to the project; and
WHEREAS, on February 25, 2025, the Applicant submitted revised plans for the Project and for the
10758 Mora Drive property, to provide supplemental drawings from the January 2025 submittals and
certain updated plan components. The unit counts and affordability for both projects remain the same. No
additional revisions to the building exteriors, building length, setbacks or other external features were made
to either project; and
WHEREAS, on May 29, 2025, the Applicant submitted another revision of the Project application to
further reduce Project units from 43 to 30 units, resulting in the loss of 13 units and removing certain
assisted living features from the building. The Project continues to propose 30 base units and also includes
3 units affordable units reserved for either very-low or extremely-low income households1 but is no longer
utilizing State Density Bonus Law; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant also submitted another revision to the project application for the 10758 Mora
Drive property by reducing density from 45 to 32 units, resulting in the loss of 13 units and removed certain
assisted living features from the building. As a result, the 10758 Mora Drive project continues to propose
32 base units with 3 units reserved for extremely-low income households but is no longer utilizing State
Density Bonus Law; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant states that the Project, inclusive of the foregoing revisions, is being filed under
Government Code section 65589.5(d), commonly referred to as the “Builder’s Remedy”, which in
summary provides that a local government may not deny a qualifying affordable housing project for very
low, low- or moderate-income households unless the local government makes certain written statutory
findings; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant also states that the January 30, February 25, and May 29, 2025 revisions are
being submitted pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(f)(7), which allows a developer who
submitted a preliminary application before January 1, 2025 to (1) choose to either be subject to the
Builder’s Remedy statute that was in effect on the date that their project submitted a preliminary
application, or if their project qualifies as a builder’s remedy project (as defined by Government Code
section 65589.5(h)(11)), to be subject to the statute that is in effect as of January 1, 2025; and (2) to revise
their project to meet the definition of a Builder’s Remedy project without having to submit a new
preliminary application; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant further specifies that the Project and the 10758 Mora Drive project are seeking
to avoid the provision under Government Code section 65589.5(f)(6)(G)(ii), which requires the
affordable and market rate units in a Builder’s Remedy project to have comparable bedroom and
bathroom count, as both the Project and the 10758 Mora Drive project will have affordable units that are
studios only and thus contain a lesser number of bedrooms and bathrooms than does the market-rate units;
and
WHEREAS, Under Section 65589.5(d)(2), a local government may deny a qualifying affordable housing
development project if it finds, based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record, that the
1 The submitted plans contain a discrepancy where the project description states the affordable units are reserved for extremely-
low income households, but the density calculation table states the units are reserved for very-low income households. The
Applicant has not responded to the Town’s inquiries for clarification.
RESOLUTION 41-25 3 | P a g e
proposed housing development project would have a “specific, adverse impact upon the public health or
safety” as defined by statute, and that “there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the
specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income
households”; and
WHEREAS, similarly, under Section 65589.5(d)(6) (as added by Assembly Bill 1893 on September 19,
2024 and effective as of January 1, 2025), a local government may deny said affordable housing
development project if it finds, based on based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record, that on
the date a preliminary application was submitted, the local government did not have an adopted revised
housing element that was in substantial compliance with state housing element law and the housing
development project is not a “builder’s remedy project” defined by Section 65589.5(h)(11); and
WHEREAS, in recent years, the state of California has experienced several serious wildfire and structural
fire catastrophes, including but not limited to the 2017 fires in Sonoma and Napa Counties, the Camp Fire
in Northern California's Butte County in 2018 and the most recent destructive Pacific Palisades and Eaton
fires in Southern California. Los Altos Hills has historically been an area with high exposure to wildfire
hazards and faces challenges of community evacuations during times of natural catastrophes; and
WHEREAS, according to the United States Fire Administration, a federal government entity within the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, individuals aged 65 and up are 2.5 times more likely to die in a
fire compared to the general population and the risk of death increases significantly as age increases; and
WHEREAS, as documented in a Fire Code and Safety Analysis Report prepared by Pyroanalysis, LLC
for the Town dated June 13, 2025, the disproportionate impact on seniors during wildfire events is well-
documented. For example, in the 2018 Camp Fire, 80% of the 86 fatalities were age 65 and older. The
average age of those who died was 72. In the 2017 Sonoma and Napa Fires, the average age of those who
died in the fire was 73; in the recent Eaton Fire, the majority of victims were older than 65 and the average
age of the victim was 77; and
WHEREAS, Seniors are particularly vulnerable in emergencies due to factors such as decreased mobility,
vision, and hearing. In addition, conditions such as cognitive decline, preexisting medical conditions such
as cardiovascular disease, increased fall risk, and social isolation also contribute to greater risk of injury
and death to seniors in emergencies; and
WHEREAS, the Project site is a 0.374 acre parcel of a narrow shape with steep topography. The lot is 68
feet wide at the front property line which narrows to 59 feet at the rear (with average width of 63.5 feet)
and 260.52 feet deep with an average slope of 20.44 percent. It is surrounded by single-family residential
homes in a heavily vegetated hillside area of Los Altos Hills. The parcels next to the Project on either side
at 10730 Mora Drive and the vacant lot (Parcel No. 331-150-21) are both larger parcels with dense
vegetation and 10730 Mora Drive is improved with a single family dwelling and related structures
currently occupied by residents. All of the neighboring parcels contain dense trees and shrubs where the
homes are situated among such vegetation and screened from the roadway. The City Council staff report
and related attachments provide additional description regarding the Project site location and its
topographical, geographical and locational challenges, including but not limited to situating next to dense
vegetation and grassy open space and having limited developable area on the parcel due to its steep average
slope and narrow parcel width; and
WHEREAS, on February 24, 2025, the State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE)
published updated Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps as required by Government Code section
51178, which maps identify areas of the state as Moderate, High, or Very High FHSZs, including areas
within Los Altos Hills and under the Town’s jurisdiction. These FHSZ designations are based on consistent
RESOLUTION 41-25 4 | P a g e
statewide criteria and severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas. Within in the Town,
the CALFIRE FHSZ map identifies the Project site as a “High” FHSZ with heightened fire hazard risks;
and
WHEREAS, the Town is required, under Government Code section 51179(a), to adopt by ordinance the
CALFIRE designations of Moderate, High, and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones within 120 days
of receiving the CALFIRE FHSZ maps; the Town is also authorized, under Government Code section
51179(b), to increase, but not decrease, the level of hazard severity recommended by CALFIRE, provided
that if it makes any increases of a hazard severity designation to Very High, that the Town makes findings
supported by substantial evidence in the record that defensible space requirements in Government Code
section 51182 are necessary for effective fire protection in the area; and
WHEREAS, according to an article in the Mercury News dated June 9, 2025 and entitled “New Map
Shows Bay Area Locations with Highest Risk of Ember-Driven Wildfires,” a new fire risk map has been
developed by the NASA Ames Research Center and the Santa Clara Fire Safe Council utilizing NASA
satellite technology, which map depicts the types and densities of vegetation would be expected to generate
embers that could ride winds to new locations. Los Altos Hills is shown on the map to be among the most
“ember-vulnerable” communities in the South Bay; and
WHEREAS, based on the submitted plans and project description, the Project proposes to construct a
“senior living community” providing housing for people of retirement age and proposes to map the units
as condominiums. Additionally, the Project proposes to include amenities and services such as
leasing/offices, physical therapy, nail/hair salon, massage and chiropractic services, food/beverage/alcohol
sales, transportation shuttles, roof deck bar, gift shop, arts and crafts, pool/pool deck,, and entertainment
facilities (including exercise, laundry, TV, dining, music room, and related facilities) as accessory uses.
The Project’s 30 units are proposed to be located on various levels of a building that is 5 stories above grade
at the front of the building closest to Mora Drive and 9 stories in the rear (9 floor levels), with proposed
parking space of 27 spaces (approximately 0.62 spaces per unit). The proposed building would contain
sub-basement and basement areas totaling 4,471 square feet, podium/garage area of 10,618 square feet,
mezzanine area of 4,455 square feet, level one area of 10,031 square feet, level two area of 9,449 square
feet, levels 3 and 4 areas of 10,025 square feet each, and level five/roof area of 6,749 square feet for a
total floor area of 65,823 square feet. The proposed building is a mix of vehicular storage, residential units,
utility spaces and recreation spaces. The Project proposes to situate the residential “apartment” building and
related facility all the way throughout the Project parcel and with certain patio and hardscape located at the
rear side, leaving between 16‘ 8” and 20’5” feet of setback from the rear property line, where hardscape
also encroach into the proposed rear yards; and
WHEREAS, the Town received, reviewed and processed the Project application in accordance with
Government Code sections 65941.1, 65943, and 65589.5, by timely reviewing and providing comments
on the completeness of the application within a 30-day period from each submittal, timely routing and
transmitting comments from third-party review agencies including the Santa Clara County Fire
Department, and timely providing comments on the Project’s consistency with applicable objective
standards and regulations in accordance with Section 65589.5 and within 30 days from the Project
application being determined complete; and
WHEREAS, the Project as proposed is inconsistent with a number of objective development standards
and regulations under the Town’s General Plan and Zoning Code, including but not limited to: minimum
lot size, residential density, building height, and setbacks; in particular, the Project is inconsistent with the
R-A zoning designation under Zoning and the General Plan where the residential density is 1 dwelling
unit per acre and the minimum lot size is 1 acre. In contrast, the Project is proposing 30 units on one lot,
which is higher than any development project that has ever been proposed in Los Altos Hills, and in
RESOLUTION 41-25 5 | P a g e
conjunction with the adjacent 32-unit project on 10758 Mora Drive, the projects combined would result in
62 units on two lots less than one acre combined; and
WHEREAS, as a part of the Town’s standard development application review procedures, the Project
plans were routed by the Town’s Community Development Department to the Santa Clara County Fire
Department (“SCCFD”) for Fire Code plan-check review. 2022 California Fire Code as adopted and
amended by the Town of Los Altos Hills (the “Fire Code”) as part of the triennial state building code
update. SCCFD provides plan check review for the Town regarding Fire Code compliance, inclusive of
local amendments adopted by the Town during the triennial building standards code update process; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of SCCFD Fire Code plan-check review at planning entitlement stage is to
identify significant issues to the project applications which may require significant design or structural
changes, so that the applicant has an opportunity to address potential significant issues at an early stage;
and
WHEREAS, in reviewing the Project against the current Fire Code as adopted and amended by the Town
that is applicable to the Project, SCCFD identified, among other issues, that the Project is inconsistent with
Section 503.1.1 of the Fire Code by failure to provide the required distance between the proposed building
and fire apparatus access road at the Project site. Specifically, while Section 503.1.1 requires the fire
apparatus access road to be within 150 feet from the building exterior, the Project proposes to increase such
distance to 300 feet from the building which is twice the required distance; and
WHEREAS, SCCFD timely provided comments to the Applicant communicating the Section 503.1.1
inconsistency on April 5 and 25, 2023; August 14, 2023; September 27, 2023; and January 31, 2024. When
the inconsistency remained unaddressed, SCCFD advised the Applicant to either revise the design or
submit an Alternate Means and Methods Request (“AMMR”) to demonstrate how the excessive distance
would be mitigated; and
WHEREAS, it should be noted that SCCFD identified the same Section 503.1.1 inconsistency for the
project proposed at 10758 Mora Drive and requested the same re-design or AMMR submittal; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted an AMMR for the Project on March 20, 2024; that AMMR
proposed to provide an additional standpipe at the rear exit stair, include certain Type 1A construction
with 3-hour fire resistance rating at the garage level, provide sprinkler water curtain protection for certain
building openings, and widen certain building exit points. SCCFD did not approve these mitigation
alternatives to grant an exception or waive the Section 503.1.1 distance requirement because they do not
demonstrate how the excessive distance would be mitigated. SCCFD requested additional explanations
from the Applicant, which based on the record below has not been provided as of the adoption of this
Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant then submitted an AMMR for the 10758 Mora Drive parcel on October 8,
2024, proposing measures similar to those submitted for the Project in March 2024. Specifically, the
October 8, 2024 AMMR proposed to provide a sprinkler system; upgrade the fire resistance level for a
portion of the proposed building exterior wall; remove some of the glass windows or increase their fire
ratings for sides of the building; add standpipe outlet for water hoses at certain building exterior walls, and
to separate entry and exit pathways for residents and firefighters by reserving the north and south sides
respectively for each; and
WHEREAS, SCCFD denied the October 8, 2024 AMMR on November 20, 2024, because the proposed
measures do not mitigate the excessive distance deficiency under Section 503.1.1 and do not provide
equivalent safety and effectiveness protections. As set forth in the record below and in Exhibit A to this
Resolution, mitigating measures alleged by the Applicant as feasible alternatives are either already required
RESOLUTION 41-25 6 | P a g e
by the Fire Code elsewhere or being proposed as a “partial” response to upgrade some parts of the building
but not others. None of the measures specifically addresses the excessive distance being proposed by the
Project due to the location of the fire apparatus access road; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the SCCFD November 20, 2024 AMMR Denial, the Applicant has not
proposed additional alternatives for the Project or for 10758 Mora Drive, which have nearly identical
parcels and development proposals; and
WHEREAS, SCCFD reviewed the Applicant’s Project resubmittals dated January 30 and February 25,
2025, and issued two comment letters dated February 27 and March 25, 2025, respectively, affirming the
department’s prior determinations that the Project does not meet Section
503.1.1 requirements and an AMMR is not granted for the above-stated reasons, because the exterior
dimensions and layout of the Project building are unchanged and the resubmitted modifications therefore
do not alter the prior SCCFD determinations; and
WHEREAS, SCCFD further reviewed the Applicant’s Project resubmittal dated May 29, 2025, and again
affirmed the department’s prior determinations via a comment letter dated June 10, 2025 that the Project
does not meet Section 503.1.1 requirements regarding access and an AMMR is not granted for the reasons
previously identified; and
WHEREAS, Government Code section 65589.5(e) requires the Town to comply with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in reviewing a housing development project including any “Builder’s
Remedy” projects, and does not relieve the Town from its obligations to make required findings under
CEQA before approving or undertaking a project; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15270, CEQA does not apply to projects which a
public agency rejects or disapproves; and
WHEREAS, on February 25, 2025, the Applicant submitted an “AB 1633 Notice” along with certain
technical supplemental memos for the Project, citing to Government Code section 65589.5.1 to allege that
the Town has effectively disapproved the Project, and has committed an abuse of discretion, by failing to
determine that the Project is exempt from CEQA as a Class 32 In- Fill Development under CEQA
Guidelines section 15332; upon reviewing the Applicant’s Notice, the Town, out of an abundance of
caution and in accordance with the directions under Section 65589.5.1, published the Notice on its website
on or around February 25, 2025, and also filed it with the Santa Clara County Clerk’s on March 3, 2025
for a 30-day publication until April 2, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the Town duly reviewed the Notice submittals and supplemental memos, as well as other
evidence that has been presented to it, in order to determine whether there is substantial evidence in the
record that the Project is eligible for the Infill Development exemption sought by the Applicant including
whether there are “exceptions” to the exemption under CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2; and
WHEREAS, the City Council previously scheduled a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Project
on January 30, 2025; upon receiving the Applicant’s revised Project submittal on January 30, 2025, the
City Council opened the public hearing and continued the item to March 20, 2025 to allow for additional
time to review the revised Project; upon receiving the Applicant’s revised Project submittal on February
25, 2025, the City Council continued the public hearing to a date uncertain to allow for additional time to
review the further revised Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on June 18, 2025 to consider the Project,
provide the Applicant with due process and an opportunity to be heard, and considered all written
RESOLUTION 41-25 8 | P a g e
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS OF DENIAL
REGARDING A SENIOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT LOCATED AT
10728 MORA DRIVE, LOS ALTOS HILLS
Based on the entirety of the record before it, which includes, without limitation: the California
Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. and the CEQA Guidelines, 14
California Code of Regulations §15000, et seq. (collectively, “CEQA”); the California Fire Code; the
California Building Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations); the International Fire
Code; the California State Housing Law (California Health and Safety Code Part 1.5, commencing with
§17910); the California Housing Accountability Act (Government Code section 65589.5); the California
Housing Element Law (Government Code section 65580 et seq.); the California Permit Streamlining Act
(Government Code section 65920 et seq.); the Los Altos Hills General Plan; the Los Altos Hills 2023-
2031 Housing Element; the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code including all Town-adopted local
amendments to the California Building Standards Code and California Fire Code; the Project application
materials that includes: all site plans including those submitted on February 1, 2023, April 11, 2023, July
3, 2023, January 30, 2025, February 25, 2025, and May 29, 2025; all project building, engineering, grading
and utility, fire, and other plans and drawings; all Town plan check, and zoning consistency comment
letters and applicant responses thereto; all Santa Clara County Fire Department plan check reviews
comment letters and comment letters and decisions regarding the Project and the applicant’s Alternative
Means and Methods (AMMR) requests; all reports, minutes, public testimony submitted as a part of the
City Council’s duly noticed January 30, 2025 and June 18, 2025 public hearings; and any and all other
evidence (within the meaning of Public Resources Code §21080(e) and §21082.2), the City Council of
the Town of Los Altos Hills hereby finds as follows:
I. General Findings
1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution.
2. The documents and other material constituting the record for these proceedings are located at the
Community Development Department for the Town of Los Altos Hills, 26379 Fremont Road, Los
Altos Hills, CA 94022, and in the custody of the Community Development Director.
3. The City Council scheduled and opened a duly noticed public hearing on January 30, 2025, to make
findings for this Project pursuant to Gov. Code section 65589.5; upon receiving the Applicant’s revised
Project submittals on January 30 and February 25, 2025, the public hearing was first continued to
March 20, 2025, and then to June 18, 2025. There are no specific public hearing notice requirements
under that statute for making findings of denial. As the City Council is not considering a conditional
use permit, conditional development permit, site development permit, or other planning entitlements,
but rather is making requisite state law findings of denial on behalf of the Town, there are no applicable
public hearing requirements under state law or local ordinance which would apply. However, the notice
of the City Council January 30, 2025, public hearing was published on January 19, 2025, via posting
at the Project site; posting at Town Hall, at the Public Hearing Notice Board located on Christopher’s
Lane and Summerhill Avenue, Los Altos Hills; and posting on the Town’s website. The public hearing
notice was delivered by mail on January 19, 2025, to the Applicant and to property owners within a
500-foot radius of the Project site based on the most current information from the County Assessor’s
Office property tax roll. The Applicant was also notified of the potential hearing during a meeting with
the Town on January 17, 2025. Finally, the Town also overnight mailed and emailed public hearing
notices to your second address on the application on January 27 and 28, 2025.
RESOLUTION 41-25 9 | P a g e
Additionally, notice of the June 18, 2025, public hearing was published on June 6, 2025, via posting
at the Project site; posting at Town Hall; and posting at the Public Hearing Notice Board located on
Christopher’s Lane and Summerhill Avenue, Los Altos Hills. The public hearing notice was delivered
by mail on June 6, 2025, to the Applicant and to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the Project
site based on the most current information from the County Assessor’s Office property tax roll. The
public hearing notice was also mailed to the Applicant’s second address used on the Project application
on June 6, 2025. Finally, notice of the public hearing was emailed to the Applicant on June 9, 2025,
at the email addressed used on the Project application.
The City Council hereby finds that the above described noticing fulfils and is beyond the requirements
that otherwise applies to a site development permit or other planning discretionary entitlements
(including but not limited to variances and appeals) under Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Title 10,
Chapters 1 and 2, and also is consistent with the requirements under Government Code sections 65905
and 65091 that otherwise apply to applications on conditional use permits, variances, or equivalent
development permit or the proposed revocation or modification thereof, or the appeal therefrom. On
those bases, the City Council finds that the public hearing was duly and appropriately noticed, and that
the public hearing afforded Applicant with due process as well as provided adequate and meaningful
opportunity for the Applicant, all interested parties, and members of the public to respond to and
participate in the hearing process.
4. Under the Permit Streamlining Act (i.e. Government Code section 65943)(PSA) the Town is required
to determine an application “complete” based on the Town’s planning application submittal checklist if
all items on the checklist are provided by the project applicant. The Town is also required to provide
determinations of incomplete applications within 30 days from receipt of the application or
resubmittals. Under the Housing Accountability Act (i.e. Government Code section 65589.2 (j)(2)
(HAA)), for a project containing 150 or fewer units, the Town is required to provide a “consistency
determination” between the application and applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard,
requirement, or other similar provisions, within 30 days of the application being determined complete.
Here, the Project application was determined complete on September 28, 2023, and prior incomplete
application determinations were timely issued within 30 days of receipt of the application and
subsequent resubmittals. Further, as the Project contains less than 150 units, the Town timely issued a
consistency determination on August 31, 2023, and affirmed this determination for subsequent
resubmittals. Santa Clara County Fire Department comments identifying code inconsistencies,
including the Fire Code Section 503.1.1 distance requirement at issue, were raised to the Applicant as
early as May 2023 and Section 503.1.1 non-compliance along with other code inconsistencies were sent
to the Applicant on August 28, 2023. These comments, like the Town’s, were timely issued to the
Applicant assuming the foregoing PSA and HAA provisions even apply the same way in Fire
Department comments context.
Given the Project submittals after January 25, 2023, significantly revised the development proposals
and contains several errors and missing information, including but not limited to inconsistent unit
counts, unclear descriptions, and clouding errors, it was appropriate for the Town to require the
Applicant to make corrections and provide the information missing from the submittals. Also, the
Project as revised continues to remain inconsistent with the same standards and the Town’s
inconsistency determination remains valid and timely communicated to the Applicant. It is also worth
noting that, as described in Section III below, the Project does not qualify as a Builder’s Remedy under
Section 65589.5(h)(11) and consequently the provisions under Section 65589(f)(6) applicable to a
builder’s remedy project (including the scope of applicable objective standards) do not apply here.
The City Council hereby finds that the Project was reviewed and processed consistently with the
requirements and procedures set forth under Government Code sections 65943 and 65589.5
RESOLUTION 41-25 10 | P a g e
II. Findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”)
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15270, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency
rejects or disapproves.2 As it is adopting this resolution to make findings and deny the Project, the City
Council hereby finds that no environmental review or action is required for the making of these findings
to deny the Project.
For the sake of clarity, the City Council notes that the Applicant submitted an “AB 1633 Notice” on
February 25, 2025, citing to Government Code section 65589.5.1 arguing that the Town must find the
Project qualifies for a Class 32 In-Fill Development exemption under CEQA Guidelines section 15332.
At the outset, the Town is not required to make any determinations under CEQA as it is denying the
Project. Additionally, even if the Town were allowing the Project to move forward and were thus required
to make CEQA determinations, the Town would require additional biological, traffic, noise, air quality,
water quality, utility and public services analyses to determine whether the criteria under Section 15332
have been met. The Town would also require additional analysis to evaluate whether the Project meets
the location and zoning consistency requirements under Section 15332. Further, the Town would require
such additional analysis and further evaluations to determine whether there are “exceptions” to the
exemption under CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 that precludes reliance on the Infill Exemption as the
Town anticipates the proposed senior residential development would need to prepare either a mitigated
negative declaration for the significant and unusual impacts it potentially brings given the size and scale
of the project proposals.
III. Government Code Section 65589.5(d) Findings
On February 1, 2023, Forrest Linebarger (“Applicant”) filed a preliminary application pursuant to
Government Code section 65941.1 and a formal development application to the Town for the Project (No.
CDP23-0001) for the construction of 44 senior residential units with 11 units reserved for low- income
households, which constitutes 25 percent affordability. On the same date, the Town also received a
preliminary application and formal development application for a substantially similar senior residential
development project located at 10758 Mora Drive, which is separated by one parcel from the Project site.
Both projects were submitted pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(d), commonly referred to as
the “Builder’s Remedy”.
On April 11, 2023, the Project application was revised from 44 units to 55 units with 11 units reserved for
low-income households, which represents a 20 percent affordability. The Applicant submitted a new
preliminary application as the change proposed by the revised application exceeded 20 percent of the
residential units proposed under the initial February 2023 preliminary application submittal. The April
2023 revision also reduced the percentage of affordable units initially provided. The Applicant also revised
the 10758 Mora Drive project residential units by over 20 percent to be 57 units, while reducing its
affordability to 21 percent with 12 low-income units. Both projects remain substantially similar in their
proposed use, density, site plans/layout and development characteristics/proposals.
On January 30, 2025, the Applicant made significant revisions to the Project application to decrease both
the number of dwelling units and the percentage of affordable units. Specifically, the Applicant reduced
the total Project density from 55 units to 43 units, with 3 units reserved for extremely-low income
households which equates to 10 percent project affordability pursuant to Government Code section
65589.5(h)(3)(A). These revisions propose a base density of 30 units and 13 additional units through the
application of State Density Bonus Law, totaling 43 units. These revisions represent an approximately 22
2 Las Lomas Land Co., LLC v. City of Los Angeles (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 837 (“If an agency at any time decides not to
proceed with a project, CEQA is inapplicable from that time forward.”).
RESOLUTION 41-25 11 | P a g e
percent reduction in total density and a 10 percent reduction in project affordability, and also completely
eliminate any affordable units originally offered to low-income households. No revisions to the building
exteriors, building length, setbacks or other external features were made to the Project.
The Applicant also made significant revisions to the project application for the 10758 Mora Drive property
to decrease both the number of dwelling units and the percentage of affordable units. Specifically, the
Applicant reduced the total Project density from 57 units to 45 units, with 3 units reserved for extremely-
low income households which equates to approximately 9 percent project affordability pursuant to
Government Code section 65589.5(h)(3)(A). These revisions propose a base density of 32 units and 13
additional units through the application of State Density Bonus Law, totaling 45 units. These revisions
represent an approximately 21 percent reduction in total density and a 10 percent reduction in project
affordability, and completely eliminate any affordable units originally offered to low-income households.
No revisions to the building exteriors, building length, setbacks or other external features were made to
the project.
On February 25, 2025, the Applicant submitted revised plans for the Project and for the 10758 Mora Drive
property, to provide supplemental drawings from the January 2025 submittals and certain updated plan
components. The unit counts and affordability for both projects remain the same. No additional revisions
to the building exteriors, building length, setbacks or other external features were made to either project.
On May 29, 2025, the Applicant submitted another revision of the Project application and the project at
10758 Mora Drive to further reduce their units from 43 to 30 units and 45 to 32 units, respectively, resulting
in the loss of 13 units for both developments and removing certain assisted living features from the two
buildings. With this most recent revision, the Project and the 10758 Mora Drive development continue to
maintain a 30 unit and 32 unit base density, respectively, with 3 units reserved for either very-low or
extremely-low households for the Project and extremely-low income households for the 10758 Mora Drive
project. Neither project is utilizing State Density Bonus Law.
The Applicant states that the January 30, February 25, and May 29, 2025 revisions are being submitted
pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(f)(7), which allows a developer who submitted a
preliminary application before January 1, 2025 to (1) choose to either be subject to the Builder’s Remedy
statute that was in effect on the date that their project submitted a preliminary application, or if their project
qualifies as a builder’s remedy project (as defined by Government Code section 65589.5(h)(11)), to be
subject to the statute that is in effect as of January 1, 2025; and (2) to revise their project to meet the
definition of a Builder’s Remedy project without having to submit a new preliminary application. The
Applicant states that these revisions do not constitute new applications but are substantial modifications
to the Project that was submitted to the Town on February 1, 2023 (which has been replaced by the revised
preliminary application on April 11, 2023).3
3 See 10728 Mora Drive January 30 and February 25, 2025, Resubmittal Letters, Attachment 8 to the June 18, 2025, Staff
Report.
RESOLUTION 41-25 12 | P a g e
Government Code Section 65589.5(d)4 provides, in relevant part:
“For a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households.
. . a local agency shall not disapprove the housing development project... or condition approval in
a manner that renders the housing development project. . . infeasible, including through the use of
design review standards, unless it makes written findings, based upon a preponderance of the
evidence in the record” as to one of six statutory findings. (emphasis added).
As set forth below, the City Council hereby makes the following findings pursuant to Section 65589.5(d),
subdivisions (2), (5) and (6), for the denial of the proposed Project.
Finding #1: Section 65589.5(d)(6)- Failure to Qualify as a Builder’s Remedy Project
The Project, as revised on January 30, February 25, and May 29, 2025, does not qualify as a “Builder’s
Remedy project” because it fails to meet the maximum density requirements under Government Code
section 65589.5(h)(11). Even if the Applicant were to choose, assuming the choice is permitted by Section
65589.5(f)(7)(B), to be subject to the provisions of Section 65589.5 as it existed on April 11, 2023, when
his most recent preliminary application was submitted, the Project as revised also does not meet the
affordability requirements under that prior version of Section 65589.5. Because the Project revisions
submitted on January 30, February 25, and May 29, 2025 make revisions that resulted in the number of
units and construction square footage changing by over 20 percent, and such changes revised the Project
into a non-Builder’s Remedy development by proposing excessive density, they were not made for the
purpose of revising the applications to qualify for the Builder’s Remedy. Therefore, the Project’s April
2023 preliminary application have expired. A new preliminary application was required for those revised
Project submittals on January 30, February 25, and May 29, 2025.
1. Applicable Law Under Section 65589.5(d) and (h)(11)
The finding set forth under Section 65589.5(d)(6) provides:
On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was
deemed complete, the jurisdiction did not have an adopted revised housing element that was
in substantial compliance with this article and the housing development project is not a
builder’s remedy project
A housing development would qualify as a “Builders’ Remedy” project if it meets, as relevant here, the
following criteria under Section 65589.5(h)(11):
A. The project is a housing development project that provides housing for very low, low, or
moderate-income households.
4 The City Council notes that Section 65589.5, including its “Builder’s Remedy” provisions under subdivision (d), was amended
by Assembly Bill 1893 (2024) (AB 1893). One provision under AB 1893 allows a housing development project applicant who has
submitted a preliminary application before January 1, 2025 to choose to be subject to the provisions of Section 65589.5 in effect
on the date of that submittal, or to the statute applicable as of January 1, 2025 if the project meets the definition of a “builder’s
remedy project” defined by AB 1893. As the Project Applicant has elected to be subject to the version of Section 65589.5
effective as of January 1, 2025, this set of findings reviews the Project against Section 65589.5 as it was in effect on January 1,
2025. The City Council notes that, as further explained in this document, the record contains a preponderance of the evidence to
support denial findings under both versions of Section 65589.5 and that the Project as proposed as of the June 18, 2025 heari ng
would not meet the Builder’s Remedy requirements under Section 65589.5(d) as it does not provide at least 20 percent of the
project units to be affordable.
RESOLUTION 41-25 13 | P a g e
B. On or after the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was
deemed complete, the jurisdiction did not have a housing element that was in substantial
compliance with this article.
C. The project has a density such that the number of units, as calculated before the application of a
density bonus pursuant to Section 65915, complies with all of the following conditions:
(i) The density does not exceed the greatest of the following densities:
(I) Fifty percent greater than the minimum density deemed appropriate to accommodate
housing for that jurisdiction as specified in subparagraph (B) of paragraph (3) of
subdivision (c) of Section 65583.2.
(II) Three times the density allowed by the general plan, zoning ordinance, or state
law, whichever is greater.
(III) The density that is consistent with the density specified in the housing element.
(ii) Notwithstanding clause (i), the greatest allowable density shall be 35 units per acre more than
the amount allowable pursuant to clause (i), if any portion of the site is located within any of
the following:
(I) One-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources
Code.
(II) A very low vehicle travel area, as defined in subdivision (h).
(III) A high or highest resource census tract, as identified by the latest edition of the
“CTCAC/HCD Opportunity Map” published by the California Tax Credit Allocation
Committee and the Department of Housing and Community Development.
Under the recently effective Government Code section 65585.03, a housing element is considered to be
in substantial compliance when the city adopts that housing element, and the element is either certified
by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) or by a court of competent
jurisdiction. As relevant here, HCD certified the Town’s Housing Element on May 30, 2023, while the
Project preliminary applications were filed on February 1, 2023, and then revised on April 11, 2023.
As such, this Finding #1 would apply if the Project does not qualify as a “Builder’s Remedy” project
defined by statute. Here, the Applicant specified in the January 30, 2025, Project revisions that the
Project elects to be subject to the provisions of Section 65589.5 as in effect on January 1, 2025.5
In reviewing the foregoing, the Project, as revised based on plans submitted on January 30, February 25,
and May 29, 2025, exceeded the maximum density allowed pursuant to subsections (C)(1)(i) and (ii)
based on density proposed prior to the calculations of state density bonus. Thus, the Project does not
qualify as a “Builder’s Remedy” project. For the same reason, the 10758 Mora Drive project also does
not qualify as a Builder’s Remedy project.
2. Maximum Density Requirements under Section 65589.5(h)(11)(C)
Subsection (h)(11)(C), the applicable statutory provision here, first requires a Builder’s Remedy
project to have a density, as calculated before applying density bonus under Gov. Code section 65915,
that does not exceed the greatest of the following densities:
(1) 50 percent more than the minimum density for a housing inventory site required for Los
Altos Hills by Government Code section 65583.2(c)(3)(B);
5 See 10728 Mora Drive January 30 and February 25, 2025, Resubmittal Letters, Attachment 8 to the June 18, 2025, Staff
Report.
RESOLUTION 41-25 14 | P a g e
(2) Three times the density allowed by the Town’s General Plan, Zoning, or state law,
whichever is greater; or
(3) The density consistent with what is specified in the Town’s Housing Element.
Additionally, if the project site is located in any of the following areas, the greatest allowable density
under Subsection (h)(11)(C) will be another 35 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) more than the density
allowed under (1) – (3) above:
(A) One-half mile of a major transit stop as defined under Public Resources Code section
21064.3 (i.e. an existing rail or bus rapid transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a
bus or rail transit service, or two or more major bus route intersections with 20 minutes or
less service intervals during peak commute hours);
(B) A very low vehicle travel area, as defined in Section 65589.5(h)6; or
(C) A high or highest resource census tract, as identified by the latest edition of the
“CTCAC/HCD Opportunity Map” published by the California Tax Credit Allocation
Committee and the Department of Housing and Community Development.
Under Subsection (h)(11)(C)’s first prong above, the greatest allowable density under Items (1) – (3)
would be 20 dwelling units per acre pursuant to Gov. Code section 65583.2(c)(3)(B), identified in
Item (1). This is because Los Altos Hills is a “suburban jurisdiction” under subsection (c)(3)(B), and
the applicable minimum housing element site inventory density is 20 du/ac. Specifically, Section
65583.2(c)(3)(B) provides that for a suburban jurisdiction, the requisite density deemed suitable for
an inventory site is 20 du/ac; for a jurisdiction in a metropolitan county, the requisite density is 30
du/ac. To determine whether a jurisdiction is considered suburban or metropolitan, Section 65583.2(e)
and (f) provide the following criteria as relevant here:
• A jurisdiction shall be considered suburban if it is not an incorporated city within a
nonmetropolitan county a nonmetropolitan county that has a micropolitan area, or an
unincorporated area in a nonmetropolitan county (all as determined by the U.S. Census
Bureau) and is located in a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) of less than 2 million in
population. However, if the jurisdiction’s population is greater than 100,000, it would be
considered metropolitan. (Section 65583.2(e)(1).)
A jurisdiction shall be considered metropolitan if it does not meet the requirements for
“suburban area” above and is located in an MSA of 2,000,000 or greater in population.
However, if that jurisdiction’s population is less than 25,000, it will be considered suburban.
(Section 65583.2(f).)
In reviewing the foregoing, Los Altos Hills is a jurisdiction located in an MSA of 2,000,000 or greater
in population (i.e. Santa Clara County) based on the 2020 U.S. Census data. The population for Los
Altos Hills is less than 25,000- the 2020 Census places the population at 8,489.7 Therefore, it is
considered a suburban jurisdiction for the purposes of Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B). This conclusion
6 The City Council notes that the original statutory text states “subdivision (h)” which it assumes to mean subdivision (h) of
Section 65589.5; however, that subdivision (h) does not define a very low vehicle travel area and thus it’s unclear what this
term means unless it is assumed that said definition takes after the same term used under Section 65589.5.1. However, given
that the Town is located in a high resource area under Item (C), the City Council need not resolve this ambiguity.
7 https://data.census.gov/all?q=Los%20Altos%20Hills%20town,%20California (cited in June 18, 2025 Staff Report).
RESOLUTION 41-25 15 | P a g e
is reflected in more detail in the 2022 HCD Memo Regarding GC 65583.2 Density.8
It follows then that the other densities specified in Items (2) and (3) are not greater than 20 du/ac —
namely, the only density currently allowed under the Town’s General Plan and Zoning (which contains
only the R-A district designation) is one unit per acre, and there are no state laws that would allow an
increase to more than 20 du/ac even if laws like Senate Bill 9, Senate Bills 648/1123, or State
Accessory Dwelling Unit laws were utilized. Likewise, the Project parcel is not listed in the Housing
Element site inventory for 2023-2031, nor is it an opportunity site identified in the Housing Element.
Thus, the 1 du/ac standard under the Town’s General Plan and zoning would apply.
Under the second prong, the Project site is not located within one-half mile of a major transit stop or a
very low vehicle travel area as there are no such transit facilities that exist in the Project vicinity, and
the Project is located in a semi-rural setting substantially surrounded by open space and sporadic single-
family uses. The Project site, however, is within a “High Resource” area under the 2025 CTCAC/HCD
Opportunity Map.9 Thus, based on the foregoing two prongs, the greatest density allowed under
Section 65589.5(h)(11)(C) would be [20 du/ac + 50 percent] + 35 du/ac = 65 du/ac. Applying this
density to the 0.374 acre Project site, the maximum density allowed for the Project under the Builder’s
Remedy is 24.31 units—or 25 units after rounding up.
3. The Project Exceeds the Maximum Density Allowed under Section 65589.5(h)(11)(C)
In this case, the Applicant’s revised Project plans dated January 30, 2025 proposes a base density of
80 du/ac, which is calculated based on [30 du/ac + 50 percent] + 35 du/ac. This translates to 30 units
base density for the Project. This base density, which is the number before applying any state density
bonus, exceeds the maximum allowable density of 65 du/ac (25 units) for the Project under Section
65589.5(h)(11)(C)(i) and (ii). Specifically, the Applicant applied the incorrect 30 du/ac density under
Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(B)(3) to calculate the base density, resulting in a number that
exceeds the maximum allowed under Section 65589.5(h)(11)(C). The revised Project plans dated
February 25, 2025 maintain the same base density of 80 du/ac, or 30 base units. The further revised
Project plans dated May 29, 2025 continues to maintain the 30-unit base density.
The Town has requested the Applicant to confirm how the Project’s density was calculated in its
Comment Letters dated February 28 and March 27, 2025, but the Applicant has not responded in any
of the Project resubmittals nor provided correct calculations. The Applicant merely responded in its
May 29, 2025 resubmittal that a typographical error previously identified by the Town has been
corrected and that “the total number of units has been reduced” by eliminating density bonus units.
The resubmittal maintains the 30 units base density, which exceeds the maximum prescribed by state
law. Therefore, since Section 65589.5(d)(6) and (h)(11) are applicable statutes, and the Project density
exceeds the maximum density allowed by subsection (h)(11), the Project fails to qualify as a Builder’s
Remedy project.
It should be noted that the Project has been revised to reduce its affordable housing component from
the initial 20 percent low-income affordability (11 units) to the current 10 percent very low- or
extremely-low income affordability (3 units). Under the provisions of Government Code section
65589.5(d) as it existed on April 11, 2023, a project would only qualify for Builder’s Remedy if it
8 Gov. Code section 65583.2 (e)(1) and (f); See HCD Memo re GC 65583.2 Density (2022), Attachment 16 to the June 18,
2025 Staff Report; See also LAH 2023-2031 Housing Element, page 172, under Housing Resources.
9 Adopted December 2024 and located at https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity.asp;
https://belonging.berkeley.edu/2025-ctcachcd-affh-mapping-tool-nc (accessed May 1, 2025)
RESOLUTION 41-25 16 | P a g e
set aside at least 20 percent of the total units for lower income households or 100 percent of the total
units for moderate income households. As such, the Project as revised would not qualify as a Builder’s
Remedy project under Section 65589.5(d) as it existed on April 11, 2023.
4. A New Preliminary Application Is Required for the Revised Project Submittals and the February 1
and April 11, 2023, Preliminary Applications have expired as of January 30, 2025, pursuant to
Government Code section 65941.1(d)
Under Government Code section 65941.1(d), a preliminary application expires if the developer revises
the project units or square footage by 20 percent or more, exclusive of any increases from State Density
Bonus Law. Government Code section 65589.5(f)(7) provides an exception for this rule where a
housing development project that submitted a preliminary application before January 1, 2025, may be
revised by more than 20 percent in unit count or square footage in order to qualify as a Builder’s
Remedy project without having to submit a new preliminary application.
In this case, the Applicant revised the Project by more than 20 percent with the January 30, 2025,
resubmittal. The Project was significantly revised to decrease both the number of dwelling units and
the percentage of affordable units. Specifically, the Applicant reduced the total Project density from
55 units to 43 units, with 3 units reserved for extremely-low income households which equates to 10
percent project affordability pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(h)(3)(A). These revisions
propose a base density of 30 units and 13 additional units through the application of State Density
Bonus Law, totaling 43 units. These revisions represent an approximately 22 percent reduction in total
density and a 10 percent reduction in project affordability. They also completely eliminated any
affordable units originally offered to low-income households. Similarly, the May 29, 2025, reduction
in density also represents an approximately 30 percent further change in the number of units, reducing
the unit count from 43 to 30.
As illustrated in the foregoing paragraphs under this Finding #1, all of these changes resulted in
density that exceeded the maximum allowable density under the Builder’s Remedy statute, and thus
these Project revisions were not made to qualify the Project as a Builder’s Remedy development. The
Applicant has not made any corrections nor responded to the Town’s comments requesting
clarification on Project density. Instead, the Applicant maintained the same base density in three
rounds of resubmittals on and since January 30, 2025. The Applicant also stated in his May 29, 2025,
resubmittal to the Town that the total number of units have been reduced by eliminating state density
bonus units, but the base density remains unchanged. Thus, the Project continues to propose 30 units
base density which exceeds the maximum density allowed under state law.
Therefore, pursuant to Government Code section 65941.1(d), the preliminary application submitted
on February 1, 2023 for the Project was replaced by the April 11, 2023 preliminary application based
on a 20 percent change in Project base unit count, and the April 11, 2023 preliminary application has
expired due to the 20 percent change in Project unit count pursuant to the January 30, February 25,
and May 29, 2025 revisions. Therefore, a new preliminary application is required (and would have
been required at the time of the January 30, 2025, resubmittal) for the Project revisions.
Conclusion
Accordingly, and based on the record before it, the City Council finds that on the date the Applicant
submitted a preliminary application for the Project, which is deemed to be April 11, 2023 (as this
preliminary application replaced the February 1, 2023 preliminary application), the Los Altos Hills
Housing Element had not yet been certified by HCD in accordance with Government Code section
65585.03. Pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(h)(11), the Project as revised on January 30,
RESOLUTION 41-25 17 | P a g e
February 25, and May 29, 2025, does not meet the maximum allowable density under that statute and
therefore does not qualify as a Builder’s Remedy project. Consequently, the April 11 2023 preliminary
application for the Project has expired and a new preliminary application would have been required, and
is required, for Project revisions. This Finding #1 pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(d)(6)
therefore supports denial of the Project.
Finding #2: Section 65589.5(d)(2)- Specific, Adverse Impact
The finding set forth under Section 65589.5(d)(2) provides:
The housing development project or emergency shelter as proposed would have a specific, adverse
impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate
or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and
moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially
infeasible. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant,
quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or
safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed
complete. The following shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or
safety:
A. Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation.
B. The eligibility to claim a welfare exemption under subdivision (g) of Section 214 of the
Revenue and Taxation Code.
A. The Project as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety.
1. Background- Site Characteristics
The Project site is a 0.374 acre parcel of a narrow shape and steep topography. The lot is 68 feet wide at
the front property line which narrows to 59 feet at the rear (with average width of 63.5 feet) and 260.5
feet deep with an average slope of 20.44 percent. It is surrounded by single-family residential homes
in a heavily vegetated hillside area of Los Altos Hills. The parcel next to the Project at 10730 Mora
Drive is a larger parcel improved with a single-family dwelling and related structures currently
occupied by residents. All of the adjacent and neighboring parcels contain dense trees and shrubs
where the homes are situated among such vegetation and screened from the roadway.
The Project site is only accessible from Mora Drive, a public roadway fronting the parcel. Mora Drive
has an approximate paved width of 25 feet in a 50-foot public right of way and does not contain
sidewalks. Mora Drive also serves as the only public access road for at least seven other properties on
the same side of the Project site, namely: 10710 Mora Drive, 10679 Mora Drive, 10696 Mora Drive,
10702 Mora Drive, 10724 Mora Drive, 10716 Mora Drive, and 10700 Mora Drive, all of which utilize
a private driveway to connect to Mora Drive. There are at least five other lots on the opposite side
facing the Project site that utilize the same segment of Mora Drive as the only access road.
Additionally, the Project site is in close proximity to the Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve
and the Mora Trail. Both open space areas contain vast areas of dry grass, shrubs and trees. The
roadway serving the site twists and turns through steep elevation changes as it connects to the Project
site. The record contains observations that due to Mora Drive’s configuration, fire response apparatus
was seen cross into oncoming traffic to navigate the roadway with its smallest engine which would not
be of a size sufficient to address a structure fire due to its proposed configuration.
The Town’s Municipal Code offers an illustration as to the sloped nature and limited development
characteristic of this parcel. Under the Municipal Code, a Lot Unit Factor (LUF) is calculated for each
RESOLUTION 41-25 18 | P a g e
parcel in Los Altos Hills by dividing the net lot area of the subject property by the minimum average
lot size that would be required for a parcel of average slope equal to that of the subject property. This
value is used in determining the allowable development and floor areas. Because of their geographical
characteristics, substandard lots with a lower LUF would result in a smaller buildable area comparing
to standard lots with a LUF of over 0.5. A LUF of 0.5 or less indicates that the property is a substandard
lot with steeper than average slope and limited development area. The further the LUF is reduced from
0.5 means that the parcel slopes steeper and the development area is smaller. As an illustration here
using the LUF calculations, the Project site would only have a LUF of approximately 0.29 due to its
narrow width and steep average slope of approximately 20 percent. The resulting development area is
3,226 square feet and floor area of 1,594 square feet.
The Applicant proposes to construct a multifamily 5-story structure with 9 distinct floor levels of
approximately 80-85 feet in height. The Project units are proposed to be located on various levels of a
5-story building over a two-level podium with mezzanine, for a total of 9 floor levels. The building
would be served by narrow 5-foot-wide exterior stairways bordered by wooden fencing on the steeply
sloped lot. The only potential fire personnel access (and without other equipment or apparatus) would
be to the outside perimeter of the building.
2. Project Fire Code Compliance Review by the County Fire Department
As a part of the Town’s standard development application review procedures, the Project plans were
routed by the Town Community Development Department to the Santa Clara County Fire
Department (“SCCFD”) for Fire Code plan-check review. SCCFD provides plan check review for
the Town regarding California Fire Code compliance, inclusive of local amendments adopted by the
Town during the triennial building standards code update process. SCCFD provides plan check
services to the Town pursuant to the three-party “Fire and Emergency Medical Services Agreement”
dated December 2016 by and between the City of Los Altos, Los Altos Hills County Fire District
(LAHCFD), and Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District.10 The Agreement obligates
SCCFD to provide services, including fire protection and plan check reviews, to the Town of Los
Altos Hills and certain unincorporated areas in Santa Clara County as they are a part of the LAHCFD.
It should be noted that SCCFD’s review is for the purpose of a planning -entitlement plan check
review and does not relieve the Project from undergoing further Fire Code and related requirements
review based on the code in effect at the building permit application stage.11 The purpose of fire plan
10 See LAH-SCCFD Agreement, Attachment 20 to the June 18, 2025, Staff Report.
11 Notwithstanding this clarification, these findings note that the Project, like other development projects processed by the Town,
would be required to comply with the California Building Standards Code most recently in effect at the time it submits a
building permit for review. This includes compliance with the California Fire Code as adopted and amended by the Town
pursuant to the authorities conferred upon it by Health and Safety Code sections 17958.5 and 17958.7. The Applicant has argued
in previous correspondences to the Town and SCCFD that the state Permit Streamlining Act and a preliminary application under
Government Code section 65941.1 would allow the Project to “vest” building and fire code standards as of the February 2023
initial Project submittal date. This claim is incorrect; based on Government Code section 65589.5(f)(9), the Housing
Accountability Act and related preliminary application provisions do not affect the obligation of a housing developer to comply
with minimum building standards approved by the California Building Standards Commission. Likewise, the Fire Code, like
other building standards codes is a part of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations adopted by the Commission, and
independently apply to housing developments including projects outside the “planning entitlements” phase which is the current
stage that the Project is in. Any code amendments adopted by the Town pursuant to state law authority would apply as
development projects undergo building permit review. This reasoning is also supported by the fact that the Legislature has
adopted Government Code section 65913.3, a separate statute governing “post -entitlement” permits that are separate from
planning entitlement approvals. Further, in this ca se the building and fire code provisions at issue were adopted by the Town
in 2022 and went into effect January 14, 2023, making them applicable to the Project even under the
RESOLUTION 41-25 19 | P a g e
check review at planning entitlement stage is to identify significant issues to the project applications
which may require significant design or structural changes, so that the applicant has an opportunity
to address potential significant issues at an early stage. The Town requires all development
applications to undergo such SCCFD review and this requirement is not unique to the Project.
At this planning review stage, the Project was reviewed against the 2022 California Fire Code as
adopted and amended by the Town of Los Altos Hills (the “Fire Code”) as part of the triennial state
building code update. It was adopted on December 15, 2022 and became effective as of January 14,
2023.12 For the purposes of planning entitlement plan check review, such code was in existence at the
time the Project filed a preliminary application (February 1, 2023) and at the time of its subsequent
revision (April 11, 2023) and is the applicable law for the Project.
Pursuant to its review of the Project plans, and among other issues, SCCFD identified a Project
inconsistency with the Fire Code to provide an approved fire apparatus access road for meeting the
Code’s distance requirement. This Fire Code provision, as outlined in Los Altos Hills Municipal
Code Title 8, Chapter 1.8, requires the following:
503.1.1 Buildings and Facilities.
Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion
of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus
access road shall comply with the requirements for this section and shall extend to within 150
feet (45,720 mm) of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first
story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or
facility.
Exceptions:
1. In other than R-3 or U occupancies, when the building is equipped throughout with
an approved automatic sprinkler system, installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1,
the dimension may be increased to a maximum of 300 feet when approved by the fire code
official.
2. When there are not more than two Group R-3 or accessory Group U occupancies, the
dimension may be increased to a maximum of 200 feet.
3. When apparatus roads cannot be installed because of topography, waterways,
nonnegotiable grades or other similar conditions, an approved alternative means of fire
protection shall be provided. (emphasis added.)
The origin of the Section 503.1.1 is the International Fire Code (“IFC”) which is developed by the
lens of Government Code sections 65589.5 and 65941.1. Consequently, although not directly an issue relating to the review of
this Project at the planning entitlement stage, in any event the Project would be required to comply with Building and Fire
Codes, inclusive of any local amendments made thereto, in effect at the time it submits a building permit and thus it is
appropriate for the Town to evaluate significant code compliance issues at this stage.
12 January 14, 2023, is 30 days from December 15, 2022, the date of the ordinance adoption. Typically, as stated in Ordinance
No. 607, an ordinance introduced and adopted by a city goes into effect 30 days after adoption pursuant to Government Code
section 36937. However, the Council notes that H&S Code section 18941.5 provides local amendments to the Building
Standards Code “shall become effective” 180 days after the Building Standards Commission publishes the Building Standards
Code, which is January 1, 2023. For the purposes of a conservative narrative the January 14, 2023, date is used here. In either
case, the Fire Code was adopted before Project submittals and would apply.
RESOLUTION 41-25 20 | P a g e
International Code Council (“ICC"). The ICC develops model codes which are widely accepted and
form the basis for building codes throughout the United States, including the State of California. The
California Fire Code (“CFC”), which is set forth under Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations,
is entirely based on the IFC with amendments adopted by the state. Specifically, Title 24 provides an
“adoption matrix”13 to denote the individual provisions of the IFC that has been adopted by the State
Fire Marshal and form the state fire code. Local jurisdictions, like the Town, are required to enforce
CFC provisions adopted by the State Fire Marshal but may also elect to adopt further amendments
that are in addition to those adopted by the Fire Marshal.
Pursuant to Health and Safety Code sections 17958.5 and 17958.7, the Town adopts the CFC and the
IFC by reference as set forth in Los Altos Hills Ordinance No. 607 (2022). This means that all
provisions of the CFC and IFC, including Section 503.1.1, are incorporated into the fire regulations
applicable to Los Altos Hills. It should be noted that the Town has been adopting the IFC and CFC
by reference since at least 2015.14 Again, this means that Section 503.1.1 has been a part of the Fire
Code regulations for the Town for a significant period of time. Additionally, the Town has adopted
certain more restrictive local amendments to these Fire Code regulations over the years, including
the most recent modifications to Section 503.1.1 in 2022 via Ordinance No. 607. Together, these
provisions form the applicable Fire Code for projects being carried out in Los Altos Hills. In other
words, the CFC plus the local amendments to the CFC adopted by the Town (which are drawn from
the IFC underlying Title 24), governs fire code compliance in Los Altos Hills. There is no separate
state fire code or otherwise that would separately apply to the Town or with which applicants may
“elect” to comply. It is also important to clarify that although the Town is within the Los Altos Hills
County Fire District, all of the foregoing regulatory actions were taken by the Town as an independent
incorporated city.
The fire apparatus road distance rule set forth in Section 503.1.1 has been part of the model code for
decades and represents the outer limit of reach of preconnected hose lines from fire apparatus. As
noted above, Section 503.1.1 has also been adopted and incorporated by the Town since at least 2015.
In 2022, the Town adopted 503.1.1 with amendments only to the “Exceptions” portion of Section
503.1.1 identified above and only makes changes regarding exceptions for situations other than those
involving Group R-3 or U occupancies (i.e. buildings with two or less dwelling units and
utilities/accessory buildings). The 150-foot distance requirement remains the baseline standards and
is unchanged.
3. The Town Validly Adopted the California Fire Code with Local Amendments, Pursuant to State
Law Authority; Thus, the Fire Code Inclusive of Section 503.1.1 Is In Effect
Before addressing the substantive Fire Code compliance issues, the City Council first turn to a procedural objection
raised by the Applicant. Specifically, as a part of his February 25 and May 29, 2025, Project revisions, the Applicant
asserts that the Los Altos Hills Fire Code amendments, including Section 503.1.1, are not in effect because the
amendments were not filed with HCD pursuant to Health and Safety (H&S) Code section 13869.7. The Applicant
argues that because SCCFD recommended local amendments to the Town pursuant to Section 13869.7
and because the Town adopted such recommendations, that section applies. The Applicant asserts
that the Town’s staff report for Ordinance No. 607 also states SCCFD recommendations were
13 A review of the 2022 California Fire Code under Title 24 at https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAFC2022P3 shows the IFC
is listed as the base model code and Section 503.1.1 is listed along with other Title 24 sections, although the adoption matrix
indicates that Section 503.1.1 has not been adopted by the State Fire Marshal. Access to Title 24 is available only through the
Building Standards Commission and the ICC, which holds a copyright to the model building code.
14 See Prior LAH Building Code Adoption Ordinances, Attachment 22 to the June 18, 2025, Staff Report.
RESOLUTION 41-25 21 | P a g e
made pursuant to Section 13869.7 and therefore his assertions are supported.
The City Council finds that these assertions are without merit. At the outset, the staff report for
Ordinance No. 607 does not reference Section 13869.7 anywhere. It is also clear from that document
and Ordinance No. 607 that adoption of the Building Standards Code, including the CFC, and all
local amendments to those codes, was an action pursuant to Health and Safety Code sections 17958.5
and 17958.7 and independently by the Town as an incorporated city. It is also clear that the Town
consulted SCCFD (as well as PyroAnalysis from an additional consulting perspective) because
SCCFD is the Town’s contracted fire agency. Further, as discussed in the accompanying staff report,
the statute cited by Applicant is wholly inapplicable and applies only to fire protection district
ordinances adopted by a fire protection district board and then ratified by the local jurisdiction.
H&S Code Section 13869.7 sets forth a procedure for when a “fire protection district” proposes to
adopt an ordinance that will apply to a city or county. A fire protection district proposing such an
ordinance shall, at least 30 days prior to the public hearing, provide a copy of the ordinance to the
local jurisdictions within the district so they may provide the district with written comments. Upon
adoption of the ordinance by the fire protection district, the fire protection district is required to
transmit the adopted ordinance to the local jurisdiction. The legislative body of the local jurisdiction
then has 15 days to either ratify, modify or deny the adopted ordinance. No ordinance adopted by the
fire protection district becomes effective unless ratified by the local agency. Upon ratification, the
adopted ordinance must be filed with HCD.
In contrast, H&S Code sections 17958, 17958,7, and 18941.5 provide for a separate procedure
pursuant to which a city or county may adopt more restrictive changes to the Building Standards
Code under Title 24, including the California Fire Code, by making findings that such modifications
or changes are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical
conditions. These findings and the code modifications must be filed with the Building Standards
Commission and are not effective until filed.15 As opposed to a fire protection district, codes and
modifications adopted by cities pursuant to this independent authority do not require filing with HCD
or a state agency other than the Building Standards Commission.
Here, Section 503.1.1 was adopted by the Town pursuant to its authority as an incorporated city under
H&S Code sections 17958, 17958.7, and 18941.5, based on findings of local climatic, geographic,
and topographical conditions. The codes adopted by references and amended based on local findings
are clearly set forth under Ordinance No. 607, which also specified it is being adopted pursuant to
H&S Code sections 17958, 17958.7, and 18941.5. There was no fire protection district or local
jurisdiction ratification action that took place. In this case, there was no fire protection district that
adopted an ordinance applicable to the Town, no adopted fire protection district ordinance that was
transmitted to Los Altos Hills for ratification, and no action was taken by Los Altos Hills on such an
ordinance.16 Instead, Los Altos Hills consulted SCCFD on the proposed amendments per SCCFD’s
15 H&S Code section 17958.7(a); See Building Standards Commission 2022 Title 24 Guide, page 54 of 62, Attachment 19 to
the June 18, 2025, Staff Report.
16 As noted above, there was no fire district action adopting or transmitting an ordinance to the Town in this case. However,
even if the SCCFD (the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District) had adopted an ordinance, such ordinance would
not be applicable to Los Altos Hills as Los Altos Hills is outside the boundaries of the district whose jurisdictional boundaries
encompass the cities of Cupertino, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, a portion of Saratoga and certain unincorporated areas. Instead,
SCCFD serves as Los Altos Hills’ contract fire protection agency pursuant to the parties’ 2016 Fire and Emergency Medical
Services Agreement. This Agreement makes clear that Los Altos Hills retains all of its authority to promulgate, adopt, and
apply/rule on disputes for its codes. See Attachment 20 and sections 3.2.3, 3.2.4 as an example.
RESOLUTION 41-25 22 | P a g e
role as the contract fire agency for the Town. As specifically identified in Ordinance No. 607, Los
Altos Hills adopted its local amendments to the California Fire Code pursuant to H&S Code sections
17958, 17958.7, and 18941.5, which specifically authorizes cities and counties to adopt amendments
to the California Building Standards Code upon making requisite findings that the more restrictive
standard is reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions.
Ordinance No. 607 made these findings and was properly adopted by the Town. Ordinance No. 607
was then timely filed with the Building Standards Commission on December 19, 2022.17
Based on the foregoing, therefore, the Fire Code regulations were validly adopted by the Town. These
regulations, inclusive of Section 503.1.1, were adopted and in effect prior to the Project’s initial
preliminary application filed on February 1, 2023, and the most recent preliminary application filed
on April 11, 2023. As further explained below, Section 503.1.1 represents an objective standard
designed to promote and protect health and safety within the Town. Therefore, it applies to the Project
and Applicant’s procedural arguments are invalid.
4. County Fire Department Determination of Project Non-Compliance
Pursuant to SCCFD review, the Project does not comply with Section 503.1.1 of the Fire Code as
adopted and amended by the Town. SCCFD determinations and bases are set forth in further detail
as follows, with information retrieved from staff report attachments accompanying this resolution and
a part of the record before the City Council. The City Council adopts these determinations and bases
for the purposes of making its findings. All references to Section 503.1.1 below are to the Fire Code
as adopted and amended by the Town.
• SCCFD April 5, 2023, Plan Review Comments (No. 23-1044): This letter reviews the
Project’s initial 44-unit proposal. It directs the Applicant to demonstrate how the Project will
meet the 150 feet distance requirement under Section 503.1.1 and specifies that all portions
of the building shall be within 150 feet of fire department access.
• SCCFD April 25, 2023, Plan Review Comments (No. 23-1486): This letter reviews the
Project’s initial 44-unit proposal. It directs the Applicant to demonstrate how the Project will
meet the 150 feet distance requirement under Section 503.1.1.
SCCFD August 14, 2023, Plan Review Comments (No. 23-2718): This letter reviews the
Project’s revised 55-unit proposal. It specifies that the Project does not meet the 150-foot
distance requirement in Section 503.1.1 and that the Applicant requests an approval of up to
300 feet. The letter notes that fire personnel would have to travel 35-to-42-foot elevation
change to the furthest portions of the proposed residential building, and that the access to the
back of the building cannot accommodate both firefighters accessing and residents
evacuating at the same time. The comment letter requests revisions to width of the path of
travel and mitigation measures to address the requested 300-foot travel distance.
• SCCFD September 27, 2023, Plan Review Comments (No. 23-3522): This letter reviews
the Project’s revised 55-unit proposal. It continues to affirm the comments provided in the
August 14, 2023, letter, and notes that firefighters would need to navigate a 35- to 42- foot
elevation change to access the furthest portions of the proposed residential building, which is
not conducive to efficiently deploying firefighting resources. The letter continues to request
design revisions or mitigation measures to address this code inconsistency as identified
above.
17 See Building Standards Commission Correspondence, Attachment 21 to the June 18, 2025, Staff Report.
RESOLUTION 41-25 23 | P a g e
• SCCFD January 31, 2024, Plan Review Comments (No. 23-4780): This letter reviews the
Project’s revised 55-unit proposal. It specifies that the Project continues to be inconsistent
with Section 503.1.1’s 150 feet distance requirement and does not approve the requested 300
feet exception. It specifies that firefighters cannot access the furthest portions of the building
due to “total travel distance, 34-to-37-foot elevation change, exposure to building interior
from unrated openings, narrow path of travel, and close proximity to adjacent parcels.” The
comment letter directs the Applicant to revise building design or to propose mitigating
measures through an “Alternate Means and Methods Request” to mitigate excessive distance.
The City Council notes that SCCFD in the foregoing review also determined that the neighboring
senior residential development project at 10758 Mora Drive, which is located one parcel away from
this Project and with nearly identical development proposals and unit count, is inconsistent with
Section 503.1.1 for the same reasons.
5. Applicant Request for Alternative Measures and Denial by County Fire Department
On March 20, 2024, the Applicant submitted an Alternate Means and Methods Request (“AMMR”)
for the Project. On October 8, 2024, the Applicant submitted an AMMR for the neighboring
residential project at 10758 Mora Drive. The March 4 AMMR proposes certain mitigation measures
to “increase safety along access paths” and to “mitigate excessive distance” with regards to Fire Code
Section 503.1.1.
As discussed in further detail in the next subsection, the October 8 AMMR for 10758 Mora Drive
proposes to provide a sprinkler system; upgrade the fire resistance level for a portion of the proposed
building exterior wall; remove some of the glass windows or increase their fire ratings for sides of
the building; add standpipe outlet for water hoses at certain building exterior walls, and to separate
entry and exit pathways for residents and firefighters by reserving the north and south sides
respectively for each. Ultimately, as specified below, all of these measures were denied as feasible
mitigation measures by SCCFD because they do not mitigate the excessive distance deficiency under
Section 503.1.1 and do not provide equivalent safety and effectiveness protections. The October 8
AMMR provides helpful insight for reviewing feasible alternatives at 10728 Mora Drive because of
the sites’ and projects’ substantial similarities. The following summarizes the AMMR review.
• SCCFD April 23, 2024, Plan Review Comments (Plan Check No. 24-1147): This
comment letter disapproves the AMMR and requests additional information and revisions.
Specifically, the comment letter responds to the proposed alternate measures as follows:
o Providing an additional standpipe at rear exit stair: clarify how this constitutes a mitigation
measure as it appears to be a requirement for all interior exit stairways.
o Type 1A construction with 3-hour fire resistance rating: clarify how this constitutes a
mitigation measure as Type 1A is already required by code at the podium and construction
below.
o Openings protected by approved sprinkler water curtain: clarify how this constitutes a
mitigation measure as such protection is already required by code for all openings with Type
1A construction.
o Widened exit discharge and entire path around building to 4 feet wide: clarify how this
constitutes a mitigation measure as occupancy load already requires 44-inch clearance for
all discharge corridors. Also clarify how this provides simultaneous exiting for non-fire
personnel and access for fire department personnel.
o Windows to be removed: clarify how this constitutes a mitigation measure and explain how
firefighters are protected from such unprotected openings over their head.
RESOLUTION 41-25 24 | P a g e
The record demonstrates that the Applicant did not submit the requested information after SCCFD
issued the April 23 letter. On October 8, 2024, the Applicant submitted an AMMR for the 10758
Mora Drive project. That AMMR proposes similar measures as the request submitted for the Project.
Due to the similarities in both 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive projects including but not limited to size
and constraints of the underlying parcels, development proposals, proposed uses, site layout, and
density, the 10758 AMMR and the SCCFD response are helpful and persuasive in determining that
the Project creates a specific, adverse impact and fails to provide mitigation without rendering the
Project unaffordable to lower and moderate income households.
The SCCFD response to the 10758 Mora Drive AMMR is summarized below.
• 10758 Mora Drive- SCCFD November 20, 2024, Letter (Plan Check No. 24-4312): this
letter formally denies the AMMR for the Project because the proposed mitigations measures
do not sufficiently address the safety issue including firefighter access and evacuation safety
created by the noncompliance with Section 503.1.1 for the reasons summarized as follows:
o Providing automatic sprinklers: this proposed measure is already required by the Fire Code
and cannot be used to replace or supplement an existing deficiency.
o Upgrade fire resistance walls: the proposed upgrade only addresses a portion of the building
and not others. It also fails to address the deficiency that there is insufficient length for a fire
hose to reach the building and still exposes firefighters to fire during the path of travel.
o Increase fire window rating and removing glass: Similarly, this proposed AMMR measure
is already a requirement under the Fire Code and cannot be used to address an existing
deficiency. This proposal also does not address all windows and leaves some residential unit
windows not being fire rated.
o Providing separate pathways for residents exiting and firefighters entering: Like the proposal
above, this proposed measure still leaves certain parts of the path of travel to be shared by
firefighters and residents. In particular, such shared space would be shared by occupants in
wheelchairs while firefighters also utilize the same space. It therefore does not safely
separate ingress and egress. Further, with regards to a portion of the path of travel,
firefighters would need to travel a longer distance if they wanted to gain access up the stairs
to the north side of the building, and the travel distance would actually increase over 300 feet.
This measure therefore does not address the issue that the fire apparatus (truck) is too far
away from the building because of the distance between the access road and the building
exterior walls.
6. Subsequent Resubmittals by the Applicant in 2025
On January 30, 2025, the Applicant submitted revisions to the Project which decreased both the
number of dwelling units and the percentage of affordable units. The Applicant also made similar
significant revisions to the project application for the 10758 Mora Drive property. On February 25
and May 29, 2025, the Applicant made further revisions to the Project that reduced both unit counts
and affordability. Despite these revisions, however, the Applicant did not make changes to the
building exteriors, building length, setbacks or other external features of the Project. For instance, in
all three Project iterations continued to occupy over 80 percent of the entire lot and maintain 5 -foot
side setbacks. The only additional fire protection feature proposed to the Project was an external
standpipe connection on the east end of each of the 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive buildings. In the
May 29 resubmittal, the Applicant specifies that the building has been provided with two fire
sprinklers in the rear pursuant to Fire Code section 901.3.1.1 per NFPA 14 standards.
The SCCFD reviewed the Project revisions in 2025 and maintained its prior determination that the
RESOLUTION 41-25 25 | P a g e
Project does not comply with Section 503.1.1 and the AMMR remains denied. Specifically, as
summarized below:
• SCCFD February 27, 2025, Plan Review Comments (No. 25-0570): This letter reviews
the Project’s 43-unit revision submitted January 30, 2025. The letter notes that the exterior
dimensions and layout of the building are unchanged from the prior submittal and that
therefore, the Fire Department’s inability to access the building remains unchanged. The
letter refers to the previous denials and notes that the Project does not provide a fire apparatus
access road within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls
of the first story of the building. The letter goes on to state that the Fire Code Official did not
approve an extension to the 150-foot requirement for the proposed development under
Exception 1 to Section 503.1.1 as adopted and amended by the Town “due to site-specific
challenges, including but not limited to the site’s topography, varying access slopes and
elevations adjacent to the sides and rear of building, minimal access widths between fencing
and the building, a single access road on one side of the building, and the threat of wildfire.”
• SCCFD March 25, 2025, Plan Review Comments (No. 25-0960): This letter reviews the
Project’s revised 43-unit proposal submitted February 25, 2025. It specifies that the Project
continues to be inconsistent with Section 503.1.1’s 150 feet distance requirement as the
exterior dimensions and layout of the building are unchanged. Specifically, the project does
not provide a fire apparatus access road within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all
portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building. Thus, the fire code official
does not approve an exception to the 150-foot requirement for the same reasons. It also notes
that the proposed supplemental fire protection measures (which as noted in the
accompanying staff report, consists of generally similar measures to upgrade fire resistance,
separate exits, and removing glass/windows, as the previously proposed AMMR measures)
do not sufficiently address these site-specific challenges.
• SCCFD June 10, 2025, Plan Review Comments (No. 25-2538): This letter reviews the
Project’s revised 30-unit proposal submitted May 29, 2025. It specifies that the Project
continues to be inconsistent with Section 503.1.1, as the exterior dimensions and layout of
the building are unchanged. It also notes that the proposed supplemental fire protection
measures do not sufficiently address the site-specific challenges because they fail to properly
mitigate risks caused by the building’s layout and siting.
The SCCFD also reviewed the 2025 revisions to the 10758 Mora Drive project and reached the same
conclusions. Similar to the section above, it is helpful and persuasive to review the SCCFD comments
for the 10758 Mora Drive project because of the similarities between these two developments and
site constraints. In its review, the SCCFD maintained its prior determination that the 10758 Mora
Drive project does not comply with Section 503.1.1 and the AMMR remains denied. Specifically:
• SCCFD February 27, 2025, Plan Review Comments (No. 25-0571): This letter reviews the
Project’s 45-unit revision submitted January 30, 2025. The letter notes that the exterior
dimensions and layout of the building are unchanged from the prior submittal and that
therefore, the Fire Department’s inability to access the building remains unchanged. The
letter refers to the previous denials and notes that the Project does not provide a fire apparatus
access road within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls
of the first story of the building. The letter goes on to state that the Fire Code Official did not
approve an extension to the 150-foot requirement for the proposed development under
Exception 1 to Section 503.1.1 as adopted and amended by the Town “due to site-specific
challenges, including but not limited to the site’s topography, varying access slopes and
RESOLUTION 41-25 26 | P a g e
elevations adjacent to the sides and rear of building, minimal access widths between fencing
and the building, a single access road on one side of the building, and the threat of wildfire.”
• SCCFD March 25, 2025, Plan Review Comments (No. 25-0959): This letter reviews the
Project’s revised 45-unit proposal submitted February 25, 2025. It specifies that the Project
continues to be inconsistent with Section 503.1.1’s 150 feet distance requirement as the
exterior dimensions and layout of the building are unchanged. Specifically, the project does
not provide a fire apparatus access road within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all
portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building. Thus, the fire code official does
not approve an exception to the 150-foot requirement for the same reasons. It also notes that
the proposed supplemental fire protection measures (which again as noted in the
accompanying staff report, consists of generally similar measures to upgrade fire resistance,
separate exits, and removing glass/windows, as the previously proposed AMMR measures)
do not sufficiently address these site-specific challenges.
• SCCFD June 10, 2025, Plan Review Comments (No. 25-2537): This letter reviews the
Project’s revised 32-unit proposal submitted May 29, 2025. It specifies that the Project
continues to be inconsistent with Section 503.1.1, as the exterior dimensions and layout of
the building are unchanged. It also notes that the proposed supplemental fire protection
measures do not sufficiently address the site-specific challenges because they fail to properly
mitigate risks caused by the building’s layout and siting.
7. The Project does not comply with Section 503.1.1 of the Fire Code as adopted and amended by the
Town and does not provide adequate fire apparatus/personnel access, thereby resulting in a specific,
adverse impact on public health or safety under Gov. Code Section 65589.5.
Section 65589.5 requires the determination of a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety to
be based on objective, identified written public health and safety standards in existence when the
preliminary application was submitted. That section also defines objective standards as criteria that
“involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by
reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the
development applicant or proponent and the public official before submittal.”18
In this case, the 150-foot distance requirement under Section 503.1.1 is an objective and quantifiable
numeric standard; applying it to the Project does not involve personal or subjective judgment by
Town or SCCFD officials. This standard is also uniformly verifiable by an external benchmark
known by both the Applicant and the Town before submitting any application for a development
project. The City Council further notes that, as explained above, the 150-foot standard is an objective
standard contained in the IFC’s model Fire Code based on measurable technical factors like hose
reach, water flow requirements and tactical response needs. This standard has been adopted by the
Town through the authority conferred and process set forth under Health and Safety Code sections
17958 and 17958.7, and was in effect prior to the Project preliminary application submittals of
February 1 and April 11, 2023. As such, it is an applicable standard for the Project. The application
of Section 503.1.1 and the 150-foot standard to the Project and the specific adverse impact analysis
are, therefore, well supported by Section 65589.5.
Based on the record below, it is clear that the Project proposes a fire access road that fails to meet
Section 503.1.1 because it does not provide a fire apparatus access road that extends to within 150 feet
of all portions of the proposed residential building and all portions of the exterior walls of the first
story of the building, as measured by that proposed fire access road. This inconsistency is a numeric
deficiency and does not require any exercise of judgment or subjective evaluation on the part of the
RESOLUTION 41-25 27 | P a g e
reviewing body. In other words, as noted on the diagram in the accompanying staff report and the
Project plans, the proposed fire apparatus access road situated at the front of the parcel and proposed
building does not extend to allow firefighters and hoses to reach all sides of the building including
the rear within the required 150 feet distance. The bulk of the building is beyond the 150 foot distance
and contains only narrow 5-foot side setbacks on a steeply sloped lot. Instead, the Applicant has
proposed to increase the travel distance to 300 feet which is double the distance required. This
increase is proposed on a narrow, steeply sloped lot in a densely vegetated hillside area of the Town
on a roadway where portions of the road can only support one way traffic due to its twist and turn
configuration and as explained below render it difficult and dangerous for firefighters to navigate the
challenging terrain.
As defined by Section 202 of the California Fire Code19, a “fire apparatus access road” is “a road that
provides fire apparatus [i.e. fire trucks] access from a fire station to a facility, building or portion
therefor.” The requirement of this path of travel and the distance that it must be located from the
proposed building provides firefighters and fire trucks the ability to quickly access a building or facility
once they arrive on scene during a fire emergency. As specified in the SCCFD November 20, 2024,
AMMR denial letter, the primary purpose of Section 503.1.1 is to limit the maximum length of hose
needed to reach any point along the exterior of a building or facility from a fire department truck.
The Project’s failure to satisfy this 150-foot distance requirement significantly impedes the ability of
firefighters to have sufficient water hose length to efficiently deploy firefighting resources, thereby
creating a significant safety risk and dangers of substantial injury and death for both the firefighters
and the residents and staff of the building.
Given the Project’s unique location and exposure to wildfire hazards, the significance of this public
safety/health and life-threatening risk cannot be overstated. As set forth above, the Project site is
located in a densely vegetated area at the edge of the Los Altos Hills town boundary. It is also
surrounded by single-family, occupied residences and is in close proximity to the Rancho San
Antonio County Park/Open Space Preserve and the recreational Mora Trail, which areas contain a
significant amount of open space and dry grass vegetation. Images of the Project site in the record
demonstrate that all of its surrounding areas are covered by dense trees, shrubs, grass, and/or other
vegetation that are naturally grown or installed as a part of landscape screening mechanisms on
various private parcels so that the residential units are not visible or less visible from the roadway.
Notably, Cal Fire has determined that the area is in a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The
designation demonstrates the Project is located in an area at real and substantiated risk of wildfire.
Additionally, the Project site itself contains unique topographical and geological limitations that
worsen these safety and life-threatening risks. At the outset, the Project site is a 0.374-acre parcel of
a narrow shape and steep topography. The lot is 68 feet wide at the front property line which narrows
to 59 feet at the rear (with average width of 63.5 feet) and 260.52 feet deep with an average slope of
20.44 percent. This significant slope and narrow width already limit the parcel’s development
capacity and available building envelope. Further, the Project site has only one main accessible public
roadway from Mora Drive fronting the parcel and without any roadways in the back of the parcel
where the bulk of the building is located. This roadway at the front of the site is further shared by
several other lots on both sides of Mora Drive, with some relying on only one other private driveway
to connect to Mora Drive. The Project site is also sloped towards the back of the parcel, which means
that access to the back of the site and proposed building requires navigating steeper elevations in an
18 Gov. Code section 65589.5(f)(9).
19 Chapter 2, Part 29, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. The Council notes this provision has also been adopted by
the Town as a part of the applicable Fire Code for Los Altos Hills.
RESOLUTION 41-25 28 | P a g e
area without access roads. All of these unique site-specific problems further exacerbate the risk of fire
spreading and the inability of firefighters to deploy effectively in time. The topography and the single
point of access results in much of the building lies beyond the reach of fire suppression equipment
from Mora Drive. This means that the fire department cannot initiate a standard hose stretch along
the lower levels of the buildings’ eastern elevations.
Indeed, the SCCFD April 23, 2024, AMMR Disapproval Letter demonstrates that none of the
proposed mitigation alternatives address the excessive distance deficiency. The prior SCCFD
Comment Letter dated August 14, 2023, noted that that fire personnel would have to travel a 35- to
42-foot elevation change to the furthest portions of the proposed residential building, and that the
access to the back of the building cannot accommodate both firefighters accessing and residents
evacuating at the same time. None of the AMMR measures proposed addressed this critical
deficiency that creates life-threatening conditions for both firefighters and evacuating residents alike.
The Applicant has since failed to further propose any alternatives to the Fire Department to address
this code noncompliance.
Likewise, due to the substantial similarities between the Project site and the 10758 Mora Drive site,
the SCCFD November 20, 2024, AMMR Denial Letter further illustrates how the naturally
challenging and constraining site risk factors create site-specific challenges due to its topography and
threat of wildfire. Here, the Project proposes to construct a multi-story residential building that is
significantly higher and denser than any other dwellings typically proposed in Los Altos Hills and in
a such densely vegetated areas where fire hazard exposure is high, and where the targeted tenants
would be seniors, a population demonstrably seniors who are particularly vulnerable in emergencies
due to higher incidence of limited mobility, hearing and cognitive decline, and pre-existing health
conditions. Notwithstanding these risk factors, the Project site configurations show that there are
various slopes and elevation gains adjacent to the sides and rear of the building, which are
significantly close to the dense vegetation and dry grass open space. The path of travel along the
exterior of the building is narrow, being 5 feet in width (and with potential additional project features
encroaching into that space) with steps as the elevation changes downslope, and would need to
accommodate both evacuating residents and firefighters. The 10758 Mora Drive AMMR Denial
Letter accurately pointed out that there is already minimal access widths between the proposed fence
and the residential building, with only a single access road on one side of the building to the right of
way on Mora Drive.
As reflected in these comments, the Project’s location in a remote and steep hillside area as well as
its geographical/topographical/access limitations make it essential for emergency responders to be
able to extinguish or control wildland and structure fires, and for its residents and staff to be able to
efficiently evacuate without crossing paths with firefighters or obstruct their travel routes. The Project
has failed to address these essential public safety needs and respond to the risk exposure. It fails to
adhere to the 150-foot distance requirement under Section 503.1.1 but rather proposes to increase
fire apparatus access road distance beyond the code requirements, at double the distance of 300 feet.
This does not allow firefighters and fire trucks to have sufficient hose length and minimal travel
distance to quickly respond to fire threats both in the building itself or externally. Consequently, the
Project creates a significant, quantifiable, direct and unavoidable impact not only for the number of
senior residents who would occupy the development at full capacity, but also for the immediate and
surrounding residents exposed to the same wildfire threats. As noted in the Fire Code and Safety
Analysis Report prepared by Pyroanalysis, LLC, response to a fire a multi-story building like the
project would involve multiple engines and truck companies, including an initial assignment of 42-
50 firefighters to deploy hoselines, conduct search operations to extend ground ladders involving
multiple engines and truck companies. Such a response simply cannot be accommodated by a single
point of fire apparatus access.
RESOLUTION 41-25 29 | P a g e
It must be highlighted that the foregoing site risk factors also cannot be discounted in the event that
emergency responders need to access the building and respond to urgency medical or life-threatening
events. Such personnel would need the same amount of quick access and ability to transport
equipment/patients from the residential building. The likelihood of such medical or life-threatening
emergencies, given the nature of the senior residential development and the dense occupancy, is much
higher than any other development in the Town. In cases of emergencies, responders would be
required to traverse longer distances from the emergency response vehicle or fire engine and similarly
would be required to transport patients or victims via the same significantly longer path of travel.
These emergency responders would also be required to navigate steep elevations when trying to reach
the rear of the building due to the site’s natural geographical constraints. A fire access road that does
not meet Section 503.1.1 would impede rescue capacity and deny responders the ease of access and
the ability to efficiently and effectively respond to such emergencies. The severity and significance
of this threat to public safety is reflected in SCCFD’s repeated rejections of the Applicant’s proposal
to allow for excessive distance and be exempted from the 150-foot requirement.
The City Council hereby finds that the foregoing failure to comply with Section 503.1.1 creates a
significant, adverse impact as defined by Government Code section 65589.5 based on the objective,
identified 150-foot distance, as that section and the Town’s Fire Code existed on February 2023 when
the Project preliminary application was submitted and on April 2023 when it was revised.
B. There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact
without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households.
1. AMMR Review and Determination by SCCFD
Section 503.1.1, as modified by Town local amendments under Health and Safety Code sections
18941.5 and 17958, allow certain exceptions to be granted from the 150-foot distance requirement
under limited circumstances. In this case, the Applicant seeks such an exception from the 150-foot
distance requirement, under Exception No. 1 of Section 503.1.1. Exception No. 1 states that the fire
code official may grant a distance increase of up to 300 feet when the building is equipped
throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with other
provisions of the Fire Code. SCCFD, in its January 31, 2024 Plan Review Comment Letter, directed
the Applicant to either revise building design or to propose mitigating measures through an
“Alternate Means and Methods Request” (“AMMR”) to mitigate the excessive distance.
In his March 20, 2024, AMMR for the Project, the Applicant proposed the following mitigation
measures:
1) Providing an additional standpipe at rear exit stair.
2) Type 1A construction with 3-hour fire resistance rating.
3) Openings protected by approved sprinkler water curtain.
4) Widened exit discharge and entire path around building to 4 feet wide.
5) Windows to be removed.
SCCFD did not accept any of the foregoing proposal in its April 23, 2024, disapproval letter. The
Fire Department specifically asked for clarification to show that these options can offer equivalent
safety and protection, since some if not all are already required by the Fire Code or Building Code
due to certain Project features.
In the October 8, 2024, AMMR for the 10758 Mora Drive property, the Applicant proposed the
following similar mitigating measures:
RESOLUTION 41-25 30 | P a g e
1) Provide an NFPA 13 sprinkler system.
2) Upgrade the fire resistance rating of the Type I-A exterior wall.
3) Remove glass or increase fire ratings of windows within 10 feet of the path of travel on the
sides of buildings.
4) Add standpipe outlets at the north and south exterior walls.
5) Separate occupant egress and firefighter ingress pathways- reserve the north side of the
building for occupant egress, and the south side of the building for fire department personnel
ingress.
Likewise, SCCFD rejected all of these proposals in the November 20, 2024, Denial Letter. These
rejections offer valuable insight into the Project’s inability to propose feasible mitigation measures
since it failed to do so for a substantially similar project on a substantially similar site. Specifically:
1) Provide an NFPA 13 sprinkler system. This measure is already required by the California
Fire Code and therefore fails to mitigate the excessive distance deficiency. As noted in
SCCFD’s findings, a less stringent sprinkler system would not be permitted under any
circumstances and thus a measure already required by code cannot serve as an alternative to
resolve a separate noncompliance.
2) Upgrade the fire resistance rating of the Type I-A exterior wall. SCCFD determined that
“this measure fails to address the Type III-A construction portion of the building that a
firefighter would need to pass while traversing the sides of the building, which is not
proposed for an upgrade in fire rating.” As noted in SCCFD’s letter, although the Applicant
claims that such wall upgrade would protect firefighters from potential fire exposure at a
critical entry point, the proposed mitigating measure fails to address the “Type III-A”
construction which is that is adjacent to and above the path of travel. Additionally, the
proposed measure does not address fire apparatus access needs, which is the original
distance requirement under Section 503.1.1. Thus, as stated by SCCFD, the proposed
measure “fails to provide equivalent effectiveness and safety” under Section 503.1.1.
3) Remove glass or increase fire ratings of windows within 10 feet of the path of travel on the
sides of buildings. As an AMMR measure, the Applicant proposed removing all windows
within 10 feet of the firefighter path of travel from the Type I-A construction portion of the
building and upgrading the remaining windows in the Type I-A portion to ¾-hour rated
glass. However, SCCFD notes that the proposal to upgrade the fire resistance rating of the
exterior walls, discussed in #2 above, already requires 1.5-hour rated glass per California
Building Code (CBC) Table 716.1 (3). Additionally, SCCFD observed that there are
residential unit windows at the south elevation path of travel (within 10 feet of the path of
travel) that are not proposed to be fire rated. In particular, SCCFD’s comment notes that “A
single window in the Type Ill-A portion of the southwest side is proposed to be upgraded
from ¾ to 1-hour rated glass. It appears an additional residential unit window within 10 feet
of the firefighter path of travel (directly above stairs) is not proposed to be fire rated. All
remaining windows in the Type III-A portion of the building are not rated.” Consequently,
the Project “proposes unrated windows directly above and adjacent to firefighter path of
travel.” Ultimately, the proposed modification to the windows does not address the need for
fire apparatus access under Section 503.1.1. For these reasons, SCCFD concluded that the
proposed alternative fails to provide equivalent effectiveness and safety to mitigate excessive
distance pursuant to Section 503.1.1.
4) Standpipe outlets added at north and south exterior walls. SCCFD determined that these
proposed outlets do not provide the same level of safety and effectiveness protections and
does not satisfy Section 503.1.1, because they “increase operational hose deployment time
RESOLUTION 41-25 31 | P a g e
compared to hose pre-connects from an apparatus. Standpipe outlets are also less reliable
than pre-connects fed directly from an apparatus for several reasons, including required
system maintenance and the potential for closed valves and other system failures upstream
of the hose valves.” Accordingly, SCCFD concluded that this measure likewise fails to
provide equivalent effectiveness and safety of the requirements of Section 503.1.1.
5) Separation of occupant egress and firefighter ingress pathways. Applicant claims that this
designation will reduce the conflict between occupant egress and firefighter ingress during
an event. However, SCCFD concluded that this measure also fails to address site-specific
risk factors and does not mitigate the need for fire apparatus access. Specifically, SCCFD
notes as follows: “In the proposed plans, occupants utilizing the wheelchair ramp will share
space with firefighter ingress for a limited portion of the front right (south) side of the
building. Because of this shared ingress/egress space, the measure fails to separate ingress
and egress pathways. Furthermore, if firefighters need to gain access to stairway #2 on the
north side of the building, this mitigation measure would increase the travel distance to over
300 feet by requiring firefighters to traverse the south, east, and finally north sides of the
building.” Accordingly, SCCFD notes that this measure actually increases the distance from
the fire apparatus access road to portions of the building. It therefore concluded that the
proposed measure does not address the need for equivalent effectiveness and safety of the
requirements of Section 503.1.1.
The SCCFD then affirmed its AMMR denial and its reasoning in comment letters dated February
27, March 25, and June 10, 2025. Specifically, reasons articulated by SCCFD include:
• The Applicant made no changes to the building footprint, external dimensions, and building
layout throughout the 2025 revisions. Consequently, the excessive distance issue is still
present and the Fire Department’s inability to access the building remains unchanged.
• The Project has site-specific challenges, including but not limited to the site’s topography,
varying access slopes and elevations adjacent to the sides and rear of building, minimal
access widths between fencing and the building, a single access road on one side of the
building, and the threat of wildfire.
• The supplemental fire protection measures proposed (i.e. upgrade fire resistance materials,
separate exits, removing glass, enhanced construction materials), and standpipes to the rear
of the building, are inadequate as they do not sufficiently address the dangers created by the
Project’s site-specific challenges. Notably, SCCFD previously already determined in its
November 2024 denial letter that standpipe outlets and interior sprinkler system do not
provide equivalent effectiveness safety in the absence of adequate fire apparatus access
distance.
The City Council first notes that the foregoing AMMR exception and review process is consistent
with Section 65589.5 and SCCFD’s denial of Applicant’s AMMR is also consistent with the
application of objective standards of the Town’s Fire Code. There is not hing in the record
demonstrating that the Applicant is precluded from complying with the 150-foot distance
requirement, nor does the Applicant argue that he is unable to comply. In fact, the compliance issue
with Section 503.1.1 was raised by SCCFD during the first plan check comment letter after the initial
Project submittal, but the Applicant has not taken any actions to revise the Project so that it complies
with Section 503.1.1. Instead, the Applicant elected to pursue Exception No. 1 but failed to
demonstrate that proposed alternatives provided the equivalent of fire apparatus access to the lower
portion of the building and failed to adequately address site specific factors such as the narrow
evacuation routes. These inadequacies remained throughout the 2025 Project revisions and
RESOLUTION 41-25 32 | P a g e
Applicant has not proposed any measures that were not already considered by SCCFD to address
them. Therefore, the fire code official properly denied the AMMR.
The Council notes that the Applicant has argued in his October 8, 2024, AMMR for 10758 Mora
Drive and the record below that Exception No. 1 violates the Housing Accountability Act because
it states that the 150-foot distance “may” be increased to up to 300 feet when approved by the fire
code official; however, the Applicant is incorrect. The 150-foot distance required by Section 503.1.1
is an objective standard and applies equally to every project. Where the Project fails to meet such
objective standard, Section 503.1.1 provides an opportunity to pursue exceptions at the discretion
of the fire code official. In this case, the Applicant elected to pursue an exception to the objective
standard instead of revising the Project to conform with said standard. The Project remains
inconsistent with the applicable objective standard, which is applied uniformly to all developments.
Thus, the approving authority’s discretion to approve or deny the exception is consistent with
Section 65589.5 provisions.
2. The AMMR Was Properly Denied by SCCFD
Turning to the AMMR and denial at issue, the record below clearly demonstrates that the Applicant has
failed to present a “feasible method” to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact
resulting from the Project’s failure to comply with Section 503.1.1, both for his first attempt in
submitting one for the Project and then again for the substantially similar project and site at 10758
Mora Drive. For that second attempt, the Applicant has not proposed to reduce the distance of the fire
access road to the proposed residential building at all. Nor has the Applicant presented any alternative
that would specifically address the excessive distance between the fire access road and the building,
in particular with respect to the back of the building where slope and elevation gain significantly.
With the Project revisions since January 2025, the Applicant has not made any changes to the
building exterior or setbacks. The Project remains a massive building occupying over 80 percent of
a steeply sloped, narrow parcel, with only 5 feet of side setbacks on either side the building that do
not allow sufficient space for fire crew access. The only measure that Applicant most recently
included in the May 29, 2025, resubmittal is to modify the project notes to identify the two standpipes
at the rear of the building be “per NFPA-14 and SCCFD standards”. As noted above, the standpipe
outlet approach was already reviewed and determined inadequate by SCCFD as a part of the AMMR
denial in November 2024. SCCFD in particular pointed out that these measures increase operational
hose deployment time as opposed to just having the fire hose already connected from a fire truck.
Plus, they are less reliable than having the hose coming directly from the fire truck including but not
limited to maintenance and valve failure issues.
As demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence in the record, the Applicant has not provided
equivalent safety and effectiveness measures that would mitigate the significant risk of fire exposure
for the Project’s occupants, especially in the case where the anticipated residents would be seniors
with limited mobility, and the significant challenges that firefighters and emergency responders will
face in navigating long distances, narrow paths, and steep elevations, while responding to wildfire
and other life-threatening emergencies on site. The PyroAnalysis Fire Code Safety and Analysis
Report provides extensive rationale for the 150-foot distance requirement as well as the inadequacy
of the measures proposed as potential alternatives. As detailed in the report, none of the measures
provide equivalent safety and effectiveness, hence do not satisfactorily mitigate the excessive
distance adverse impact.
It is particularly important to emphasize that, in reviewing the AMMR proposals, the City Council
observes that the mitigating measures proposed by the Applicant are either already required by the
Fire Code elsewhere or being proposed as a “partial” response to upgrade some parts of the building
RESOLUTION 41-25 33 | P a g e
but not others. None of the measures specifically addresses the excessive distance being proposed by
the Project due to the location of the fire access road and the impact on rescue capacity at the site.
Instead, the alternatives proposed by the Applicant are passive approaches, ignoring external threat
of fire, and attempt to reduce only some of the fire risk exposures once firefighters and emergency
personnel have had to navigate the single excessive fire access road distance in order to reach the
residential building. As another example, even if assuming internal sprinklers all activated
successfully and have control of the fire (which likely is an uncertainty and not always the case,
particularly for large scale, serious fire incidents) fire crews would be unable to perform critical
exterior operations, such as ladder rescues or fire attack from the structure’s downhill face. The risks
and dangers posed by the excessive distance remain for firefighters and residents alike. Similarly, for
these reasons, the evidence in the record amply demonstrates that the Applicant has not proposed any
feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact created by the Project’s
excessive fire access road distance described above.
The City Council notes that as a part of the May 29, 2025, resubmittal, the Applicant cites to a project
reviewed by SCCFD for Apple Park Campus in the City of Cupertino. The Applicant claims that the
SCCFD approved an AMMR for two separate projects for Apple Park where an AMMR for utilizing
an NFPA-14 standpipe at the building rear was approved in lieu of compliance with Section 503.1.1.
The Applicant asserts, on this basis, that the Project is providing the same standpipe at the rear of the
building and thus the AMMR must be approved here. The City Council finds these assertions to be
invalid.
At the outset, the Applicant incorrectly states that an AMMR was approved for two separate projects.
In fact, it was a single project with an amendment to AMMR where SCCFD approved installation of
a manual wet standpipe. The proposed building for which the AMMR was requested was a single
story, below grade, non-residential, 10,4000 square foot structure proposed for part of the Apple
Park’s underground roadway and parking structure. There is no comparison between this structure
and the current Project. The size, intended occupancy, location, and site characteristics are
completely different. There are no residential uses proposed for the Apple Park project; that project
site is also located within a well-established commercial campus and does not present the same
unique safety challenges and fire risks as the Project parcel. The fire risks and adverse impact to
public health and safety is significantly more serious and drastic in the Project. Thus, based on the
record presented, the Cupertino project in no way compares to the Project and the need to mitigate
significant fire, safety and health dangers to residents and the community that is present for the
Project and the 10758 Mora Drive development. The Applicant’s assertions, therefore, do not provide
any evidence to suggest that Applicant proposed any feasible mitigation alternatives or that the
SCCFD denial was incorrect or improper. It remains that the Applicant has not proposed any feasible
method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact created by the Project’s
excessive fire access road distance described above.
3. There Is No Feasible Mitigation Without Rendering the Development Unaffordable to Low - and
Moderate-Income Households
Likewise, the record also demonstrates that there is no feasible mitigation without rendering the
development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households. As set forth above, the
Applicant has been involved in several rounds of plan check review and AMMR review with SCCFD
but has only proposed conventional modifications to portions of building features as indirect attempts
to address the excessive distance issue. SCCFD has determined these indirect measures are
inadequate and do not satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific Project public safety impact. The
Applicant did not propose any alternatives involving revising the actual building footprint or building
design to provide more space on the parcel to accommodate the proposed fire access road.
RESOLUTION 41-25 34 | P a g e
Based on the submitted plans and the 150-foot distance requirement, the proposed Project building
depth would need to be reduced in order to have all sides of the building to be within the 150-foot
distance reach. Such a redesign of the proposed building, however, most likely would result in a loss
of residential units. Given the Project site already has a narrow width of 68 feet and is constrained
by a 260.52-foot depth and average slope of 25.68 percent, the available buildable area is naturally
diminished. The Project site plans show the proposed building utilizing as much of the horizontal site
area as possible, leaving only 5 feet of side setback from the property boundaries (in contrast, the
Town’s standard side setback requirement is 30 feet). Under these circumstances, redesigning to
reduce building depth to create a smaller building necessarily results in a reduction of the number of
residential units.
The Project, as revised on May 29, 2025, proposes 30 residential units with 3 units set aside for very
low- or extremely-low income households. As a part of the initial February and April 2023
submittals, the Project proposes to map the units as condominiums.20 Because the project is proposed
as senior housing with amenities commonly provided in senior residential communities (which are
frequently operated as for-rent communities) including nail and hair salon, chiropractic,
transportation shuttles, medical treatment, assisted living services, and giftshop, and also proposes to
provide leasing offices, tenant management, as well as interior-management services, it is reasonably
assumed that the Project units will operate as rental units.
In January 2025, the Town’s Building Official provided an initial affordability analysis21
(“Affordability Analysis”) and in June 2025, the Town’s economic/real estate consultant Century |
Urban provided a Feasibility Analysis22 (“Feasibility Analysis”), to evaluate potential Project
redesign scenarios and feasibility. These analyses reviewed various Project iterations in 2023 and
2025 to examined project feasibility scenarios under the base development and a reduced
development scenario. The Affordability Analysis estimates that the Project would need to remove
approximately 8,284 square feet of building area to accommodate the additional fire access road
distance. Of this square footage, it is estimated based on the distribution of individual dwelling unit
square footages that 5,401 square feet would be residential.
In order for the Project to maintain affordability and Builder’s Remedy eligibility under Section
65589.5(d), it appears the most feasible approach is for the Project to remove a combination of
market-rate and below-market rate (BMR) units for low-income. The Applicant’s declaration
submitted as a part of the January 30, 2025 revisions acknowledge this point—the number of BMR
units are a direct percentage of the number of market rate units, so that if market rate units are
removed, the number of BMR units would also be reduced.23
The Affordability Analysis performed a cost evaluation on the November 2023 Project plans based
on the International Code Council (ICC) Building Valuation Data, which is a well-established,
identified benchmark utilized by jurisdiction in California and nationwide for purposes including but
not limited to determining development and building permit fees. Additionally, the affordability
analysis also examined the Project’s estimated rate of return by comparing the change in estimated
construction costs, land costs, and projected income from Project units. Based on a combination of
estimated construction costs, land costs, and unit income projection, the Project is not estimated to
20 February and April 2023 Preliminary Applications, Attachment 3 to the June 18, 2025, Staff Report. Applicant has not
proposed to change or withdraw the condominium plan but has yet to provide a complete condo map.
21 Attachment 23 to June 18, 2025, Staff Report.
22 Attachment 24 to June 18, 2025, Staff Report.
23 Declaration of Forrest Linebarger, Attachment 8 (page 30 of 187) to the June 18, 2025, Staff Report.
RESOLUTION 41-25 35 | P a g e
achieve its rate of return, and would continue to carry its costs, for approximately 8 years. Assuming
that a combination of BMR units and market-rate units are removed to accommodate fire access while
maintaining the affordability levels under Section 65589.5, the Project rate of returns either remains
at 8 years or increases to nearly 9 years.
The Feasibility Analysis conducted another substantive review of the Project as revised in February
2025 and May 2025. It reviews factors and metrics such as construction costs, economic conditions,
market rent trends, and return-on-cost (i.e. net operating income over the total development cost) to
determine whether the Project can achieve a market return and what the Project’s “residual land
value”—the maximum amount a developer can pay for a development site and achieve a market rate
return—would be, in order to demonstrate feasibility. The Feasibility Analysis evaluated the Project
under a base development scenario with BMR units, a “reduced development” scenario with reduced
building design and with BMR units, and both of those scenarios without BMR units assuming they
were removed to maintain Project development.
The Feasibility Analysis concluded that even without BMR units, the Project already does not
achieve returns consistent with market returns which suggests that the project would be challenging
to attract capital and financing for development, and that unit rents for the proposed affordable units
would need to exceed market levels, effectively rendering those units unaffordable to low- and
moderate-income households. It should be noted that the Affordability Analysis conservatively
assumes that there are no additional code compliance or other financing issues that further increases
Project costs and reduces its financial feasibility. The Feasibility Analysis also conservatively omits
the Project’s historical land basis and developer carrying costs to date, both of which would further
increase the Project’s total development costs to further reduce feasibility.
Using the 10728 Mora Drive parcel as an example, as reviewed by the Feasibility Analysis, the
Project in the base development scenario with BMR units as of the February 2025 submittal already
has a negative Residual Land Value (RLV) of $12 million. A reduced development scenario where
the building footprint and unit numbers are decreased but with BMR units, the negative RLV is
lessened to $11 million but remains significant. The Going-In Return-On-Cost is approximately 4
percent in either scenario, which is well below the target return of 6 percent based on market trends.
Similarly, under the May 2025 Project submittal the base development scenario is also infeasible and
a reduced building footprint results in a lower return that further diminishes affordability. Finally,
the Affordability Analysis reviewing the earlier version of the Project also similarly concludes that
if a combination of BMR units and market-rate units are removed to accommodate for fire access
while maintaining the affordability levels under Section 65589.5, the Project rate of returns either
remains at 8 years or increases to nearly 9 years. This significant cost carrying period would r esult
in either the loss of BMR units or raising their rents rendering them unaffordable to low- or moderate-
income households.
Consequently, based on these economic analyses, the Project is already infeasible under its base
development scenario and reducing the building square footage to address the Fire Code 150-foot
standard most likely results in the reduction of dwelling units, which impedes the Project’s ability to
recover its initial capital expenses and would have to carry costs for a significant period of time. This
in turn reduces the ability of the Project’s market-rate units to generate sufficient income to support
BMR units and the Project as a whole and thus results in an increase in rent for BMR units or the loss
thereof, rendering the Project unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households.
Notably, this conclusion is further supported by and consistent with the Applicant’s consistent
approaches to increase the number of market rate units and reducing the number of affordable units
and affordability targets. Since its inception, the Project has been reduced from a 20 percent
affordable development with 11 affordable units for low-income households to a project with 10
RESOLUTION 41-25 36 | P a g e
percent affordable units—3 units out of the 30-unit project—reserved only for very low- or
extremely-low income households24 and eliminating affordable opportunities for low- and moderate-
income households. The overall Project units have also been reduced from 55 to 30 units,
representing an approximately 45 percent decrease. In addition to this significant reduction in
affordable units and the number of dwellings, the Project has also proposed to reserve the smallest
units of in the development as affordable housing, which are approximately 300 square feet and
appear to be studio units. The market rate units, on the other hand, are as large as 2,826 square feet
as shown in the May 2025 resubmittal. The Applicant has also specified that the Project will not
provide a comparable bedroom and bathroom count for the affordable units as the market rate units.
These Project proposals clearly contradict Government Code Section 65589.5(f)(6)(G)(ii) and the
overall goal of the Builder’s Remedy statute to incentivize and streamline development of affordable
housing to serve the low- and moderate-income households with equal housing opportunity.
The City Council notes that the California Legislature has committed significant efforts to address
the state’s housing shortage crisis by adopting a number of statutes aimed at promoting housing
development, affirmatively furthering fair housing, increasing housing mobility, and incentivizing
the production of affordable housing. These goals are unequivocally reflected in the findings set forth
in Section 65589.5(a) of the Housing Accountability Act. The Town of Los Altos Hills is among the
few California and Bay Area municipalities to have achieved its Regional Housing Need Obligation
target in the Fifth Planning Cycle. The Town continues to support housing development and
expansion of affordable opportunities via progressive goals, policies, and programs in its Sixth Cycle
2023-2031 Housing Element. With those accomplishments and goals in mind, the City Council and the
Town has thoroughly examined this Project with regards to its development proposals, affordable
housing choices, and the potential impacts it creates on public health and safety due to constrained
site characteristics and unique fire risks.
Although the Project desires to utilize the Builder’s Remedy, its proposals, which consists of a senior
living/retirement community with large market-rate units and disproportionately small affordable
units, are not aligned with the intent of the statute to address housing shortage, reduce housing costs
and rent, and to expand housing opportunities for all economic segments. Further, although the
Section 503.1.1 compliance issue was first questioned by SCCFD on April 5, 2023, approximately two
months after the Project submittal, and then raised again soon thereafter on August 14, 2023,
providing ample opportunities for the Applicant to propose such re-design options to accommodate
sufficient fire access road distance, the Applicant has not proposed a satisfactory, feasible mitigation
measure to demonstrate equivalent safety and effectiveness. The Project’s unwillingness to propose
building design changes to address the Section 503.1.1 compliance issue creates significant concerns
for public health and safety, exposes future residents and the surrounding community to fire dangers
and evacuation/rescue challenges, and calls into question the Project’s ability to maintain
affordability. Pursuant to the foregoing analyses, the Project already faces infeasibility as proposed;
re-designing the building increases such infeasibility and resulting in the Project becoming
unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households based on a combination of the reduction of
unit count and the increase in the Project’s ability to carry costs and supporting below-market-rate
units based on market rate unit income generation.
Thus, a conclusion can be reached based on the foregoing that reducing the building footprint to meet
24 The Feasibility Analysis accounted for the affordability discrepancy in the 10728 Mora Drive May 2025 plans and
conservatively used very-low income for the purposes of that portion of the analysis covering the May revisions. Assuming
costs, code compliance, and other criteria being equal, extremely-low income units (which are essentially 30 percent of the Area
Median Income (AMI) has more financial effect on feasibility when compared to the same unit at very-low income (50 percent
of AMI); however, even assuming the project includes very -low income units, the Feasibility Analysis still concludes that the
project would be infeasible.
RESOLUTION 41-25 37 | P a g e
Section 503.1.1 requirements are infeasible for the Project and renders it unaffordable to low- and
moderate-income households. To date, the City Council further observes that the Applicant has not
proposed any other alternatives or redesign options since the SCCFD’s November 20, 2024 AMMR
Denial Letter and in the subsequent revisions submitted during 2025.
Conclusion
In light of the foregoing and based on the entirety of the record before it and a preponderance of the
evidence therein, the City Council therefore finds that the Project as proposed would have a specific,
adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily
mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to
low- and moderate-income households, pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(d)(2).
The City Council specifically notes that per the description set forth in Footnote 1 of this Findings
document, the City Council finds that this Finding #1 would apply and is supported by a
preponderance of the evidence in the record, regardless of whether the Project is analyzed under
Government Code section 65589.5 as it existed in 2024 or as it is in effect on January 1, 2025.
Finding #3: Section 65589.5(d)(5)- Inconsistency with General Plan and Zoning
As relevant here, Section 65589.5(d)(5) provides:
On the date an application for the housing development project or emergency shelter was deemed
complete, the jurisdiction had adopted a revised housing element that was in substantial
compliance with this article, and the housing development project or emergency shelter was
inconsistent with both the jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation as
specified in any element of the general plan.
(A) This paragraph shall not be utilized to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing
development project proposed on a site, including a candidate site for rezoning, that is identified as
suitable or available for very low, low-, or moderate-income households in the jurisdiction’s
housing element if the housing development project is consistent with the density specified in the
housing element, even though the housing development project was inconsistent with both the
jurisdiction’s zoning ordinance and general plan land use designation on the date the application was
deemed complete.
As explained in Finding #1 above, the Project (as well as the 10758 Mora Drive development) fails to
qualify as a Builder’s Remedy project and a new preliminary application should have been required for
the January 30, February 25, and May 29, 2025, revision submittals. As set forth above, a new preliminary
application would be required since the foregoing revisions change the Project unit count by more than 20
percent but not for the purpose of revising the Project to be a Builder’s Remedy project as allowed under
Government Code section 65589.5(f)(7). Therefore, pursuant to Government Code section 65941.1(d),
the preliminary application submitted on February 1, 2023, for the Project has expired due to the unit
count changing by more than 20 percent, and a new preliminary application is required (and would have
been required at the time of the January 30, 2025, resubmittal) for the Project revisions.
To the extent that the Project submits a preliminary application for its January 30, February 25, and May
29, 2025 revisions, the City Council hereby finds that such submittals would be inconsistent with both the
Los Altos Hills General Plan and Zoning Code as no multi-family or high density development is allowed
under these regulations, and the Project site is not included in the Town’s 2023-2031 Housing Element
site inventory. The Los Altos Hills 2023-2031 Housing Element was certified by HCD on May 30, 2023,
and thus a preliminary application submitted after that time would be appropriately denied pursuant to
RESOLUTION 41-25 38 | P a g e
Section 65589.5(d)(5) given that the February 1, 2023, preliminary application has been replaced by the
April 11, 2023, preliminary application and the April 11 preliminary application has expired, as set forth
above.
IV. Government Code Section 65589.5(j) Findings
Section 65589.5(j) provides:
When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan,
zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at
the time that the application was deemed complete [defined by statute to be the filing of a
preliminary application], but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose
a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its
decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported
by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
(A) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public
health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that
the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific,
adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact,
based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or
conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
(B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact
identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing
development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be
developed at a lower density. (emphasis and clarifications added.)
For the purposes of clarity, the City Council hereby finds that the proposed Project is not compliant with
applicable objective standards as set forth in Section 65589.5(j). Specifically, based on the record below
including the Town’s Consistency Determination Letter dated August 31, 2023, the Project is inconsistent
with a number of objective General Plan and zoning development standards and policies, including but not
limited to minimum lot size, setbacks, height, and residential density. As such, it is not a housing
development project covered by subsection (j).
However, even if the Project were to be analyzed under the two findings set forth in subdivision (j) above,
as set forth in detail under Finding #1 above which are incorporated here for the purposes of this section,
the Project would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety based on its failure to comply
with Fire Code Section 503.1.1 to provide adequate distance between the proposed fire access road and
the residential building. Based on reasons articulated in Finding #2, there is no feasible method to
satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact other than reducing the Project density by reducing the
size of the residential building proposed or to deny the Project. Finding #2 illustrates in detail the
Applicant’s inability to propose alternative mitigation methods that directly address the excessive distance
or provide equally protective and efficient measures to mitigate the adverse impact.