The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutResolution 42-25 Signed & Certified RESOLUTION 42-25 1 | P a g e RESOLUTION 42-25 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- 0002) LOCATED AT 10758 MORA DRIVE, LOS ALTOS HILLS WHEREAS, on February 1, 2023, the Town of Los Altos Hills (“Town”) received a preliminary application pursuant to Government Code section 65941.1 and a formal application from Forrest Linebarger (“Applicant”) for a senior residential development project titled “S ilver Oaks Senior Community” consisting of 44 units with 11 units reserved for low-income households (Application No. CDP23-0002) at 10758 Mora Drive (“Project”); and WHEREAS, on February 1, 2023, the Town also received a preliminary application and a formal application for a nearly identical senior residential development project also titled “Silver Oaks Senior Community” consisting of 44 units with 11 units reserved for low-income households (Application No. CDP23-0001) at 10728 Mora Drive which is separated by one parcel from the Project site; and WHEREAS, on April 11, 2023, the Applicant submitted a revised preliminary application and formal application for the 10728 Mora Drive property to add 10 additional market- rate units, for a total of 55 units where 44 units would be market-rate, and 11 units would be reserved for 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 Project to ultimately add 13 additional market-rate units, for a total of 57 units where 45 units would be market-rate, and 12 units would be reserved for low-income households which equates to a 21 percent project affordability; this revision on April 11, 2023 represents more than 20 percent change of the project residential units as proposed in the February 1, 2023 submittal, and thus necessitating a new preliminary application; and WHEREAS, on January 30, 2025, the Applicant made significant revisions to the application for the 10728 Mora Drive property to decrease both the number of dwelling units and the percentage of affordable units. Specifically, the Applicant reduced the total project density from 55 units to 43 units, with 3 units reserved for extremely-low income households which equates to 10 percent project affordability pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(h)(3)(A). These revisions propose a base density of 30 units and 13 additional units through the application of State Density Bonus Law, totaling 43 units. These revisions represent an approximately 22 percent reduction in total density and a 10 percent reduction in project affordability, and also completely eliminate any affordable units originally offered to low-income households. No revisions to the building exteriors, building length, setbacks or other external features were made to the project; and WHEREAS, on January 30, 2025, the Applicant made significant revisions to the Project application to decrease both the number of dwelling units and the percentage of affordable units. Specifically, the Applicant reduced the total Project density from 57 units to 45 units, with 3 units reserved for extremely- low income households which equates to approximately 9 percent project affordability pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(h)(3)(A). These revisions propose a base density of 32 units and 13 additional units through the application of State Density Bonus Law, totaling 45 units. These revisions represent an approximately 21 percent reduction in total density and a 10 percent reduction in project affordability, and also completely eliminate any affordable units originally offered to low-income RESOLUTION 42-25 2 | P a g e households. No revisions to the building exteriors, building length, setbacks or other external features were made to the project; and WHEREAS, on February 25, 2025, the Applicant submitted revised plans for the Project and for the 10728 Mora Drive property, to provide supplemental drawings from the January 2025 submittals and certain updated plan components. The unit counts and affordability for both projects remain the same. No additional revisions to the building exteriors, building length, setbacks or other external features were made to either project; and WHEREAS, on May 29, 2025, the Applicant submitted another revision of the application for the 10728 Mora Drive property to further reduce project units from 43 to 30 units, resulting in the loss of 13 units and removing assisted living features from the building. As a result, the project continues to propose 30 base units with 3 units reserved for very-low income households1 but is no longer utilizing State Density Bonus Law; and WHEREAS, the Applicant also submitted another revision to the Project application by reducing density from 45 to 32 units, resulting in the loss of 13 units and removed assisted living features from the building. As a result, the Project continues to propose 32 base units with 3 units reserved for extremely-low income households but is no longer utilizing State Density Bonus Law; and WHEREAS, the Applicant states that the Project, inclusive of the foregoing revisions, is being filed under Government Code section 65589.5(d), commonly referred to as the “Builder’s Remedy”, which in summary provides that a local government may not deny a qualifying affordable housing project for very low, low- or moderate-income households unless the local government makes certain written statutory findings; and WHEREAS, the Applicant also states that the January 30, February 25, and May 29, 2025 revisions are being submitted pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(f)(7), which allows a developer who submitted a preliminary application before January 1, 2025 to (1) choose to either be subject to the Builder’s Remedy statute that was in effect on the date that their project submitted a preliminary application, or if their project qualifies as a builder’s remedy project (as defined by Government Code section 65589.5(h)(11)), to be subject to the statute that is in effect as of January 1, 2025; and (2) to revise their project to meet the definition of a Builder’s Remedy project without having to submit a new preliminary application; and WHEREAS, the Applicant further specifies that the Project and the 10728 Mora Drive project are seeking to avoid the provision under Government Code section 65589.5(f)(6)(G)(ii), which requires the affordable and market rate units in a Builder’s Remedy project to have comparable bedroom and bathroom count, as both the Project and the 10728 Mora Drive project will have affordable units that are studios only and thus contain a lesser number of bedrooms and bathrooms than does the market-rate units; and WHEREAS, Under Section 65589.5(d)(2), a local government may deny a qualifying affordable housing development project if it finds, based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record, that the proposed housing development project would have a “specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety” as defined by statute, and that “there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households”; and 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 42-25 3 | P a g e WHEREAS, similarly, under Section 65589.5(d)(6) (as added by Assembly Bill 1893 on September 19, 2024 and effective as of January 1, 2025), a local government may deny said affordable housing development project if it finds, based on based on a preponderance of the evidence in the record, that on the date a preliminary application was submitted, the local government did not have an adopted revised housing element that was in substantial compliance with state housing element law and the housing development project is not a “builder’s remedy project” defined by Section 65589.5(h)(11); and WHEREAS, in recent years, the state of California has experienced several serious wildfire and structural fire catastrophes, including but not limited to the 2017 fires in Sonoma and Napa Counties, the Camp Fire in Northern California's Butte County in 2018 and the most recent destructive Pacific Palisades and Eaton fires in Southern California. Los Altos Hills has historically been an area with high exposure to wildfire hazards and faces challenges of community evacuations during times of natural catastrophes; and WHEREAS, according to the United States Fire Administration, a federal government entity within the Federal Emergency Management Agency, individuals aged 65 and up are 2.5 times more likely to die in a fire compared to the general population and the risk of death increases significantly as age increases; and WHEREAS, as documented in a Fire Code and Safety Analysis Report prepared by Pyroanalysis, LLC for the Town dated June 13, 2025, the disproportionate impact on seniors during wildfire events is well- documented. For example, in the 2018 Camp Fire, 80% of the 86 fatalities were age 65 and older. The average age of those who died was 72. In the 2017 Sonoma and Napa Fires, the average age of those who died in the fire was 73; in the recent Eaton Fire, the majority of victims were older than 65 and the average age of the victim was 77; and WHEREAS, Seniors are particularly vulnerable in emergencies due to factors such as decreased mobility, vision, and hearing. In addition, conditions such as cognitive decline, preexisting medical conditions such as cardiovascular disease, increased fall risk, and social isolation also contribute to greater risk of injury and death to seniors in emergencies; and WHEREAS, the Project site is a 0.397 acre parcel of a narrow shape with steep topography. The lot is 62.5 feet wide and 280 feet deep with an average slope of 23.97 percent. It is surrounded by single-family residential homes in a heavily vegetated hillside area of Los Altos Hills. The parcels next to the Project on either side at 10730 and 10776 Mora Drive are both larger parcels improved with a single-family dwelling and related structures currently occupied by 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 limit ed developable area on the parcel due to its steep average slope and narrow parcel width; and WHEREAS, on February 24, 2025, the State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE) published updated Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps as required by Government Code section 51178, which maps identify areas of the state as Moderate, High, or Very High FHSZs, including areas within Los Altos Hills and under the Town’s jurisdiction. These FHSZ designations are based on consistent statewide criteria and severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas. Within in the Town, the CALFIRE FHSZ map identifies the Project site as a “High” FHSZ with heightened fire hazard risks; and WHEREAS, the Town is required, under Government Code section 51179(a), to adopt by ordinance the CALFIRE designations of Moderate, High, and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones within 120 days of receiving the CALFIRE FHSZ maps; the Town is also authorized, under Government Code section RESOLUTION 42-25 4 | P a g e 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 32 units are proposed to be located on various levels of a building that is 5 stories above grade at the front of the building closest to Mora Drive and 10 stories in the rear (10 floor levels), with proposed parking space of 27 spaces (approximately 0.79 spaces per unit). The proposed building would contain sub-basement and basement areas of 220 and 1,526 square feet, lower podium area of 3,328 square feet and podium/garage area of 10,798 square feet, mezzanine area of 4,597 square feet, level one area of 10,212 square feet, level 2 area of 9,632 square feet, levels 3 and 4 area of 10,206 square feet and level 5/roof area of 6,132 square feet for a total of 66,856 square feet. The proposed building is a mix of vehicular storage, residential units, utility spaces and recreation spaces. The Project proposes to situate the residential “apartment” building and related facility all the way throughout the Project parcel and with certain patio and hardscape located at the rear side, leaving between 16‘ 8” and 20’5” feet of setback from the rear property line, where hardscape also encroach into the proposed rear yards; and WHEREAS, the Town received, reviewed and processed the Project application in accordance with Government Code sections 65941.1, 65943, and 65589.5, by timely reviewing and providing comments on the completeness of the application within a 30-day period from each submittal, timely routing and transmitting comments from third-party review agencies including the Santa Clara County Fire Department, and timely providing comments on the Project’s consistency with applicable objective standards and regulations in accordance with Section 65589.5 and within 30 days from the Project application being determined complete; and WHEREAS, the Project as proposed is inconsistent with a number of objective development standards and regulations under the Town’s General Plan and Zoning Code, including but not limited to: minimum lot size, residential density, building height, and setbacks; in particular, the Project is inconsistent with the R-A zoning designation under Zoning and the General Plan where the residential density is 1 dwelling unit per acre and the minimum lot size is 1 acre. In contrast, the Project is proposing 32 units on one lot, which is higher than any development project that has ever been proposed in Los Altos Hills, and in conjunction with the adjacent 30-unit project on 10728 Mora Drive, the projects combined would result in 62 units on two lots less than one acre combined; and WHEREAS, as a part of the Town’s standard development application review procedures, the Project plans were routed by the Town’s Community Development Department to the Santa Clara County Fire Department (“SCCFD”) for Fire Code plan-check review. 2022 California Fire Code as adopted and RESOLUTION 42-25 5 | P a g e 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 10728 Mora Drive and requested the same re-design or AMMR submittal; and WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted an AMMR first for the 10728 Mora Drive project on March 20, 2024; that AMMR proposed to provide an additional standpipe at the rear exit stair, include certain Type 1A construction with 3-hour fire resistance rating at the garage level, provide sprinkler water curtain protection for certain building openings, and widen certain building exit points. SCCFD did not approve these mitigation alternatives to grant an exception or waive the Section 503.1.1 distance requirement because they do not demonstrate how the excessive distance would be mitigated. SCCFD requested additional explanations from the Applicant, which based on the record below has not been provided as of the adoption of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Applicant then submitted an AMMR for the Project on October 8, 2024, proposing measures similar to those submitted for the 10728 Mora Drive project in March 2024. Specifically, the October 8, 2024 AMMR proposed to provide a sprinkler system; upgrade the fire resistance level for a portion of the proposed building exterior wall; remove some of the glass windows or increase their fire ratings for sides of the building; add standpipe outlet for water hoses at certain building exterior walls, and to separate entry and exit pathways for residents and firefighters by reserving the north and south sides respectively for each; and WHEREAS, SCCFD denied the Project AMMR on November 20, 2024, because the proposed measures do not mitigate the excessive distance deficiency under Section 503.1.1 and do not provide equivalent safety and effectiveness protections. As set forth in the record below and in Exhibit A to this Resolution, mitigating measures alleged by the Applicant as feasible alternatives are either already required by the Fire Code elsewhere or being proposed as a “partial” response to upgrade some parts of the building but not others. None of the measures specifically addresses the excessive distance being proposed by the Project due to the location of the fire apparatus access road; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the SCCFD November 20, 2024 AMMR Denial, the Applicant has not proposed additional alternatives for the Project or for 10728 Mora Drive, which have nearly identical parcels RESOLUTION 42-25 6 | P a g e 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 documentation and public comments, pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(d); and WHEREAS, there are no specific public hearing notice requirements under Government Code section 65589.5 or subdivision (d) for making findings of denial with regards to the Project. However, notice of the City Council January 30, 2025 public hearing was published on January 19, 2025 via posting at the Project site; posting at Town Hall; and posting at the Public Hearing Notice Board located on Christopher’s RESOLUTION 42-25 8 | P a g e EXHIBIT A FINDINGS OF DENIAL REGARDING A SENIOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT LOCATED AT 10758 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 42-25 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 42-25 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. CDP23-0002) 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 10728 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 and July 3, 2023, the Project application was revised from 44 units to 57 units with 12 units reserved for low-income households, which represents a 21 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 10728 Mora Drive project residential units by over 20 percent to be 55 units, while reducing its affordability to 20 percent with 11 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 57 units to 45 units, with 3 units reserved for extremely-low income households which equates to approximately 9 percent project affordability pursuant to 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 42-25 11 | P a g e 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 43 units. These revisions represent an approximately 21 percent reduction in total density and a 10 percent reduction in project affordability, and also completely eliminate any affordable units originally offered to low-income households. No revisions to the building exteriors, building length, setbacks or other external features were made to the Project. The Applicant also made significant revisions to the project application for the 10728 Mora Drive property to decrease both the number of dwelling units and the percentage of affordable units. Specifically, the Applicant reduced the total project density from 55 units to 43 units, with 3 units reserved for extremely-low income households which equates to approximately 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. On February 25, 2025, the Applicant submitted revised plans for the Project and for the 10728 Mora Drive property, to provide supplemental drawings from the January 2025 submittals and certain updated plan components. The unit counts and affordability for both projects remain the same. No additional revisions to the building exteriors, building length, setbacks or other external features were made to either project. On May 29, 2025, the Applicant submitted another revision of the Project application and the project at 10728 Mora Drive to further reduce their units from 45 to 32 units and 43 to 30 units, respectively, resulting in the loss of 13 units for both developments and removing assisted living features from the two buildings. With this most recent revision, the Project and the 10728 Mora Drive development continue to maintain a 32 unit and 30 unit base density, respectively, with 3 units reserved for extremely-low and very-low income households for each project respectively. 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 10758 Mora Drive January 30 and February 25, 2025 Resubmittal Letters, Attachment 8 to the June 18, 2025 Staff Report. RESOLUTION 42-25 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 42-25 13 | P a g e B. The project is a housing development project that provides housing for very low, low, or moderate-income households. C. 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. D. 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 10728 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. 5 See 10758 Mora Drive January 30 and February 25, 2025 Resubmittal Letters, Attachment 9 to the June 18, 2025 Staff Report. RESOLUTION 42-25 14 | P a g e 65915, that does not exceed the greatest of the following densities: (1) 50 percent more than the minimum density for a housing inventory site required for Los Altos Hills by Government Code section 65583.2(c)(3)(B); (2) Three times the density allowed by the Town’s General Plan, Zoning, or state law, whichever is greater; or (3) The density consistent with what is specified in the Town’s Housing Element. Additionally, if the project site is located in any of the following areas, the greatest allowable density under Subsection (h)(11)(C) will be another 35 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) more than the density allowed under (1) – (3) above: (A) One-half mile of a major transit stop as defined under Public Resources Code section 21064.3 (i.e. an existing rail or bus rapid transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or two or more major bus route intersections with 20 minutes or less service intervals during peak commute hours); (B) A very low vehicle travel area, as defined in Section 65589.5(h)6; or (C) A high or highest resource census tract, as identified by the latest edition of the “CTCAC/HCD Opportunity Map” published by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and the Department of Housing and Community Development. Under Subsection (h)(11)(C)’s first prong above, the greatest allowable density under Items (1) – (3) would be 20 dwelling units per acre pursuant to Gov. Code section 65583.2(c)(3)(B), identified in Item (1). This is because Los Altos Hills is a “suburban jurisdiction” under subsection (c)(3)(B), and the applicable minimum housing element site inventory density is 20 du/ac. Specifically, Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B) provides that for a suburban jurisdiction, the requisite density deemed suitable for an inventory site is 20 du/ac; for a jurisdiction in a metropolitan county, the requisite density is 30 du/ac. To determine whether a jurisdiction is considered suburban or metropolitan, Section 65583.2(e) and (f) provide the following criteria as relevant here: • A jurisdiction shall be considered suburban if it is not an incorporated city within a nonmetropolitan county a nonmetropolitan county that has a micropolitan area, or an unincorporated area in a nonmetropolitan county (all as determined by the U.S. Census Bureau) and is located in a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) of less than 2 million in population. However, if the jurisdiction’s population is greater than 100,000, it would be considered metropolitan. (Section 65583.2(e)(1).) • 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).) 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. RESOLUTION 42-25 15 | P a g e In reviewing the foregoing, Los Altos Hills is a jurisdiction located in an MSA of 2,000,000 or greater in population (i.e. Santa Clara County) based on the 2020 U.S. Census data. The population for Los Altos Hills is less than 25,000- the 2020 Census places the population at 8,489.7 Therefore, it is considered a suburban jurisdiction for the purposes of Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B). This conclusion is reflected in more detail in the 2022 HCD Memo Regarding GC 65583.2 Density.8 It follows then that the other densities specified in Items (2) and (3) are not greater than 20 du/ac— namely, the only density currently allowed under the Town’s General Plan and Zoning (which contains only the R-A district designation) is one unit per acre, and there are no state laws that would allow an increase to more than 20 du/ac even if laws like Senate Bill 9, Senate Bills 648/1123, or State Accessory Dwelling Unit laws were utilized. Likewise, the Project parcel is not listed in the Housing Element site inventory for 2023-2031, nor is it an opportunity site identified in the Housing Element. Thus, the 1 du/ac standard under the Town’s General Plan and zoning would apply. Under the second prong, the Project site is not located within one-half mile of a major transit stop or a very low vehicle travel area as there are no such transit facilities that exist in the Project vicinity, and the Project is located in a semi-rural setting substantially surrounded by open space and sporadic single-family uses. The Project site, however, is within a “High Resource” area under the 2025 CTCAC/HCD Opportunity Map.9 Thus, based on the foregoing two prongs, the greatest density allowed under Section 65589.5(h)(11)(C) would be [20 du/ac + 50 percent] + 35 du/ac = 65 du/ac. Applying this density to the 0.397 acre Project site, the maximum density allowed for the Project under the Builder’s Remedy is 25.80 units—or 26 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 32 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 (26 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 32 base units. The further revised Project plans dated May 29, 2025, continues to maintain the 32-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 32 units base density, which 7 https://data.census.gov/all?q=Los%20Altos%20Hills%20town,%20California (cited in June 18, 2025 Staff Report). 8 Gov. Code section 65583.2 (e)(1) and (f); See HCD Memo re GC 65583.2 Density (2022), Attachment 16 to the June 18, 2025 Staff Report; See also LAH 2023-2031 Housing Element, page 172, under Housing Resources. 9 Adopted December 2024 and located at https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity.asp; https://belonging.berkeley.edu/2025-ctcachcd-affh-mapping-tool-nc (accessed May 1, 2025) RESOLUTION 42-25 16 | P a g e 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 21 percent low-income affordability (12 units) to the current approximately 9 percent very low- or extremely-low income affordability (3 units). Under the provisions of Government Code section 65589.5(d) as it existed on April 11, 2023, a project would only qualify for Builder’s Remedy if it set aside at least 20 percent of the total units for lower income households or 100 percent of the total units for moderate income households. As such, the Project as revised would not qualify as a Builder’s Remedy project under Section 65589.5(d) as it existed on April 11, 2023. 4. A New Preliminary Application Is Required for the Revised Project Submittals and the February 1 and April 11, 2023 Preliminary Applications have expired as of January 30, 2025, pursuant to Government Code section 65941.1(d) Under Government Code section 65941.1(d), a preliminary application expires if the developer revises the project units or square footage by 20 percent or more, exclusive of any increases from State Density Bonus Law. Government Code section 65589.5(f)(7) provides an exception for this rule where a housing development project that submitted a preliminary application before January 1, 2025, may be revised by more than 20 percent in unit count or square footage in order to qualify as a Builder’s Remedy project without having to submit a new preliminary application. In this case, the Applicant revised the Project by more than 20 percent with the January 30, 2025 resubmittal. The Project was significantly revised to decrease both the number of dwelling units and the percentage of affordable units. Specifically, the Applicant reduced the total Project density from 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 an 11 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 33 percent further change in the number of units, reducing the unit count from 45 to 32. 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 RESOLUTION 42-25 17 | P a g e 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, 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 0.397 acre parcel of a narrow shape and steep topography. The lot is 62.5 feet wide at the front property line and 280 feet deep with an average slope of 23.97 percent. It is surrounded by single-family residential homes in a heavily vegetated hillside area of Los Altos Hills. The parcels next to the Project at 10730 and 10776 Mora Drive are both larger parcels 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 RESOLUTION 42-25 18 | P a g e 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 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 0.28 due to its narrow width and steep average slope of approximately 23 - 24 percent. The resulting development area is 2,714 square feet and floor area of 1,474 square feet. The Applicant proposes to construct a multifamily 5-story structure with 10 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 10 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. 10 See LAH-SCCFD Agreement, Attachment 20 to the June 18, 2025 Staff Report. RESOLUTION 42-25 19 | P a g e 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 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 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 case the building and fire code provisions at issue were adopted by the Town in 2022 and went into effect January 14, 2023, making them applicable to the Project even under the lens of Government Code sections 65589.5 and 65941.1. Consequently, although not directly an issue relating to the review of this Project at the plan ning 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 evalua te 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 42-25 20 | P a g e 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 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. 13 A review of the 2022 California Fire Code under Title 24 at https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAFC2022P3 shows the IFC is listed as the base model code and Section 503.1.1 is listed along with other Title 24 sections, although the adoption matrix indicates that Section 503.1.1 has not been adopted by the State Fire Marshal. Access to Title 24 is available only through the Building Standards Commission and the ICC, which holds a copy right to the model building code. 14 See Prior LAH Building Code Adoption Ordinances, Attachment 22 to the June 18, 2025 Staff Report. RESOLUTION 42-25 21 | P a g e 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 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 RESOLUTION 42-25 22 | P a g e 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 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. 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 exam ple. 17 See Building Standards Commission Correspondence, Attachment 21 to the June 18, 2025 Staff Report. RESOLUTION 42-25 23 | P a g e • SCCFD April 5, 2023 Plan Review Comments (No. 23-1045): 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 April 25, 2023 Plan Review Comments (No. 23-1490): 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. 23-2595): This letter reviews the Project’s revised 57-unit proposal. It specifies that Project does not meet the 150 feet distance requirement in Section 503.1.1 and that the Applicant requests an approval of up to 300 feet travel. 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 feet travel distance. • SCCFD September 27, 2023 Plan Review Comments (No. 23-3524): This letter reviews the Project’s revised 57-unit proposal. It continues to affirm the comments provided in the August 14, 2023 letter, and notes that firefighters would need to navigate a 35- to 42- foot elevation change to access the furthest portions of the proposed residential building, which is not conducive to efficiently deploying firefighting resources. The letter continues to request design revisions or mitigation measures to address this code inconsistency as identified above. • SCCFD January 31, 2024 Plan Review Comments (No. 23-4781): This letter reviews the Project’s revised 57-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 10728 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 neighboring residential project at 10728 Mora Drive. On October 8, 2024, the Applicant submitted an AMMR for the Project. The 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 AMMR for the Project 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 RESOLUTION 42-25 24 | P a g e 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 following summarizes the AMMR review. • 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 10728 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 wet standpipes in the rear pursuant to Fire Code section 901.3.1.1 per NFPA 14 and SCCFD standards. The SCCFD reviewed the Project revisions in 2025 and maintained its prior determination that the Project does not comply with Section 503.1.1 and the AMMR remains denied. Specifically, as summarized below: RESOLUTION 42-25 25 | P a g e • 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 ability to access the building remains unchanged. The letter refers to the previous denials and notes that the Project does not provide a fire apparatus access road within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building. The letter goes on to state that the Fire Code Official did not approve an extension to the 150- foot requirement for the proposed development under Exception 1 to Section 503.1.1 as adopted and amended by the Town “due to site-specific challenges, including but not limited to the site’s topography, varying access slopes and elevations adjacent to the sides and rear of the building, and the threat of wildfire.” • SCCFD March 25, 2025 Plan Review Comments (No. 25-0959): This letter reviews the Project’s revised 45-unit proposal. It specifies that the Project continues to be inconsistent with Section 503.1.1’s 150 feet distance requirement. Specifically, the project does not provide a fire apparatus access road within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building. Thus, the fire code official does not approve an exception to the 150-foot requirement for the same reasons. It also notes that the proposed supplemental fire protection measures (which, as shown on the plans, consists of generally similar measures to upgrade fire resistance, separate exits, and remove glass, as the previously proposed measures) do not sufficiently address these site- specific challenges. • SCCFD June 10, 2025 Plan Review Comments (No. 25-2537): This letter reviews the Project’s May 29, 2025 32-unit submittals. The letter provides that the project remains inconsistent with California Fire Code 503.1.1 as adopted and amended by the Town of Los Altos Hills because the project does not provide a fire apparatus access road within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story building. The letter notes that the Fire Code Official did not approve an extension to the 150-foot requirement for the proposed development under Exception 1 to Section 503.1.1 due to site-specific challenges, including but not limited to the site's topography, varying access slopes and elevations adjacent to the sides and rear of building, minimal access widths between fencing and building, a single access road on one side of the building, and the threat of wildfire. The letter also notes that the proposed supplemental fire protection measure in Revision 10 whereby Applicant proposed identifying the already proposed wet manual standpipe in the plans as meeting “NFPA-14 and SCCFD standards,” do not sufficiently address the site specific challenges because they fail to properly mitigate the risks caused by the building’s layout and siting, and do not change the Fire Code Official’s decision not to approve an extension. The SCCFD also reviewed the 2025 revisions to the 10728 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 10728 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 10728 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. 25-0570): 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 RESOLUTION 42-25 26 | P a g e 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 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. 25-2538): 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. 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 18 Gov. Code section 65589.5(f)(9). on measurable technical factors like hose reach, water flow requirements and tactical response RESOLUTION 42-25 27 | P a g e needs. This standard has been adopted by the Town through the authority conferred and process set forth under Health and Safety Code sections 17958 and 17958.7 and was in effect prior to the Project preliminary application submittals of February 1 and April 11, 2023. As such, it is an applicable standard for the Project. The application of Section 503.1.1 and the 150-foot standard to the Project and the specific adverse impact analysis are, therefore, well supported by Section 65589.5. Based on the record below, it is clear that the Project proposes a fire access road that fails to meet Section 503.1.1 because it does not provide a fire apparatus access road that extends to within 150 feet of all portions of the proposed residential building and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of the building, as measured by that proposed fire access road. This inconsistency is a numeric deficiency and does not require any exercise of judgment or subjective evaluation on the part of the reviewing body. In other words, as noted on the diagram in the accompanying staff report and the Project plans, the proposed fire apparatus access road situated at the front of the parcel and proposed building does not extend to allow firefighters and hoses to reach all sides of the building including the rear within the required 150 feet distance. The bulk of the building is beyond the 150 foot distance and contains only narrow 5- foot side setbacks on a steeply sloped lot. Instead, the Applicant has proposed to increase the travel distance to 300 feet which is double the distance required. This increase is proposed on a narrow, steeply sloped lot in a densely vegetated hillside area of the Town on a roadway where portions of the road can only support one way traffic due to its twist and turn configuration and as explained below render it difficult and dangerous for firefighters to navigate the challenging terrain. As defined by Section 202 of the California Fire Code19, a “fire apparatus access road” is “a road that provides fire apparatus [i.e. fire trucks] access from a fire station to a facility, building or portion therefor.” The requirement of this path of travel and the distance that it must be located from the proposed building 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 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 42-25 28 | P a g e 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 0.397 acre parcel of a narrow shape and steep topography. The lot is 62.5 feet wide and 280.33 feet deep with an average slope of 23.97 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 area without access roads. All of these unique site-specific problems further exacerbates 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 lying 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 for the 10728 Mora Drive project 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, the SCCFD November 20, 2024 AMMR Denial Letter for the Project also 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 densely vegetated areas where fire hazard exposure is high, and where the targeted tenants would be seniors, a population 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 4 to 5 feet in width with steps as the elevation changes downslope and would need to accommodate both evacuating residents and firefighters. The Project 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 RESOLUTION 42-25 29 | P a g e and staff to be able to efficiently evacuate without crossing paths with firefighters or obstruct their travel routes. The Project has failed to address these essential public safety needs and respond to the risk exposure. It fails to adhere to the 150-foot distance requirement under Section 503.1.1 but rather proposes to increase fire apparatus access road distance beyond the code requirements, at double the distance of 300 feet. This does not allow firefighters and fire trucks to have sufficient hose length and minimal travel distance to quickly respond to fire threats both in the building itself or externally. Consequently, the Project creates a significant, quantifiable, direct and unavoidable impact not only for the number of senior residents who would occupy the development at full capacity, but also for the immediate and surrounding residents exposed to the same wildfire threats. As noted in the Fire Code and Safety Analysis Report prepared by Pyroanalysis, LLC, response to a fire a multi-story building like the project would involve multiple engines and truck companies, including an initial assignment of 42-50 firefighters to deploy hoselines, conduct search operations to extend ground ladders involving multiple engines and truck companies. Such a response simply cannot be accommodated by a single point of fire apparatus access. It must be highlighted that the foregoing site risk factors also cannot be discounted in the event that emergency responders need to access the building and respond to urgency medical or life- threatening events. Such personnel would need the same amount of quick access and ability to transport equipment/patients from the residential building. The likelihood of such medical or life- threatening emergencies, given the nature of the senior residential development and the dense occupancy, is much higher than any other development in the Town. In cases of emergencies, responders would be required to traverse longer 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 RESOLUTION 42-25 30 | P a g e 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 10728 Mora Drive 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 Project, the Applicant proposed the following similar mitigating measures: 1) Provide an NFPA 13 sprinkler system. 2) Upgrade the fire resistance rating of the Type I-A exterior wall. 3) Remove glass or increase fire ratings of windows within 10 feet of the path of travel on the sides of buildings. 4) Add standpipe outlets at the north and south exterior walls. 5) Separate occupant egress and firefighter ingress pathways- reserve the north side of the building for occupant egress, and the south side of the building for fire department personnel ingress. Likewise, SCCFD rejected all of these proposals in the November 20, 2024 Denial Letter. These rejections offer valuable insight into the Project’s inability to propose feasible mitigation measures since it failed to do so for a substantially similar project on a substantially 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 RESOLUTION 42-25 31 | P a g e 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 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: RESOLUTION 42-25 32 | P a g e • The Applicant made no changes to the building footprint, external dimensions, and building layout throughout the 2025 revisions. Consequently, the excessive distance issue is still present and the Fire Department’s inability to access the building remains unchanged. • The Project has site-specific challenges, including but not limited to the site’s topography, varying access slopes and elevations adjacent to the sides and rear of building, minimal access widths between fencing and the building, a single access road on one side of the building, and the threat of wildfire. • The supplemental fire protection measures proposed (i.e. upgrade fire resistance materials, separate exits, removing glass, enhanced construction materials), and standpipes to the rear of the building, are inadequate as they do not sufficiently address the dangers created by the Project’s site specific challenges. Notably, SCCFD previously already determined in its November 2024 denial letter that standpipe outlets and interior sprinkler system do not provide equivalent effectiveness safety in the absence of adequate fire apparatus access distance. The City Council first notes that the foregoing AMMR exception and review process is consistent with Section 65589.5 and SCCFD’s denial of Applicant’s AMMR is also consistent with the application of objective standards of the Town’s Fire Code. There is nothing in the record demonstrating that the Applicant is precluded from complying with the 150-foot distance requirement, nor does the Applicant argue that he is unable to comply. In fact, the compliance issue with Section 503.1.1 was raised by SCCFD during the first plan check comment letter after the initial Project submittal, but the Applicant has not taken any actions to revise the Project so that it complies with Section 503.1.1. Instead, the Applicant elected to pursue Exception No. 1 but failed to demonstrate that proposed alternatives provided the equivalent of fire apparatus access to the lower portion of the building and failed to adequately address site specific factors such as the narrow evacuation routes. These inadequacies remained throughout the 2025 Project revisions and Applicant has not proposed any measures that were not already considered by SCCFD to address them. Therefore, the fire code official properly denied the AMMR. The Council notes that the Applicant has argued in his October 8, 2024 AMMR for the Project 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 10728 Mora Drive project and then again RESOLUTION 42-25 33 | P a g e for the substantially similar development and site at the Project. 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 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. RESOLUTION 42-25 34 | P a g e 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 the 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 10728 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. 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 62.5 feet and constrained by a 280.33-foot depth and average slope of 23.97 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 RESOLUTION 42-25 35 | P a g e setback requirement is 30 feet). Under these circumstances, redesigning to reduce building depth to create a smaller building necessarily results in reduction of the number of residential units. The Project, as revised on May 29, 2025, proposes 32 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 analysis 21 (“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 more than 8,200 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 5,400 square feet would be residential. In order for the Project to maintain affordability and Builder’s Remedy eligibility under Section 65589.5(d), it appears the most feasible approach is for the Project to remove a combination of market-rate and below-market rate (BMR) units for low-income. The Applicant’s declaration submitted as a part of the January 30, 2025 revisions acknowledge this point—the number of BMR units are a direct percentage of the number of market rate units, so that if market rate units are removed, the number of BMR units would also be reduced.23 The Affordability Analysis performed a cost evaluation on the November 2023 Project plans based on the International Code Council (ICC) Building Valuation Data, which is a well - established, identified benchmark utilized by jurisdiction in California and nationwide for purposes including but not limited to determining development and building permit fees. Additionally, the affordability analysis also examined the Project’s estimated rate of return by comparing the change in estimated construction costs, land costs, and projected income from Project units. Based on a combination of estimated construction costs, land costs, and unit income projection, the Project is not estimated to achieve and rate of return, and would continue to carry its costs, for approximately 8 years. Assuming that a combination of BMR units and market-rate units are removed to accommodate for fire access while maintaining the affordability levels under Section 65589.5, the Project rate of returns either remains at 8 years or increases to nearly 9 years. 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 9 (page 30 of 188) to the June 18, 2025, Staff Report. RESOLUTION 42-25 36 | P a g e 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 result in either the loss of BMR units or raising their rents rendering them unaffordable to low- or moderate-income households. The analysis done for the Project also presents negative RLV figures that are worse than those above. Consequently, based on these economic analyses, the Project is already infeasible under its base development scenario and reducing the building square footage to address the Fire Code 150-foot standard most likely results in the reduction of dwelling units, which impedes the Project’s ability to recover its initial capital expenses and would have to carry costs for a significant period of time. This in turn reduces the ability of the Project’s market- rate units to generate sufficient income to support BMR units and the Project as a whole, and thus results in increase in rent for BMR units or the loss thereof, rendering the Project unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households. Notably, this conclusion is further supported by and consistent with the Applicant’s consistent approaches to increase the number of market rate units and reducing the number of affordable units and affordability targets. Since its inception, the Project has been RESOLUTION 42-25 37 | P a g e reduced from a 21 percent affordable development with 11 affordable units for low-income households to a project with 10 percent affordable units—3 units out of the 32-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 57 to 32 units, representing an approximately 44 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 2,574 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 gorals are unequivocally reflected in the findings set forth in Section 65589.5(a) of the Housing Accountability Act. The Town of Los Altos Hills is among the few California and Bay Area municipalities to have achieved its Regional Housing Need Obligation target in the Fifth Planning Cycle. The Town continues to support housing development and expansion of affordable opportunities via progressive goals, policies, and programs in its Sixth Cycle 2023-2031 Housing Element. With those accomplishments and goals in mind, the City Council and the Town has thoroughly examined this Project with regards to its development proposals, affordable housing choices, and the potential impacts it creates on public health and safety due to constrained site characteristics and unique fire risks. Although the Project desires to utilize the Builder’s Remedy, its proposals, which consists of a senior living/retirement community with large market-rate units and disproportionately small affordable units, are not aligned with the intent of the statute to address housing shortage, reduce housing costs and rent, and to expand housing opportunities for all economic segments. Further, although the Section 503.1.1 compliance issue 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 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 42-25 38 | P a g e foregoing analyses, the Project already faces infeasibility as proposed; re-designing the building increases such infeasibility and resulting in the Project becoming unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households based on a combination of the reduction of unit count and the increase in the Project’s ability to carry costs and supporting below-market- rate units based on market rate unit income generation. Thus, a conclusion can be reached based on the foregoing that reducing the building footprint to meet Section 503.1.1 requirements is infeasible for the Project and renders it unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households. To date, the City Council further observes that the Applicant has not proposed any other alternatives or redesign options since the SCCFD’s November 20, 2024 AMMR Denial Letter and in the subsequent revisions submitted during 2025. Conclusion In light of the foregoing and based on the entirety of the record before it and a preponderance of the evidence therein, the City Council therefore finds that the Project as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households, pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(d)(2). The City Council specifically notes that per the description set forth in Footnote 1 of this Findings document, the City Council finds that this Finding #1 would apply and is supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record, regardless of whether the Project is analyzed under 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 10728 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 RESOLUTION 42-25 39 | P a g e by more than 20 percent but not for the purpose of revising the Project to be a Builder’s Remedy project as allowed under Government Code section 65589.5(f)(7). Therefore, pursuant to Government Code section 65941.1(d), the preliminary application submitted on February 1, 2023 for the Project has expired due to the unit count changing by more than 20 percent, and a new preliminary application is required (and would have been required at the time of the January 30, 2025 resubmittal) for the Project revisions. To the extent that the Project submits a preliminary application for its January 30, February 25, and May 29, 2025 revisions, the City Council hereby finds that such submittals would be inconsistent with both the Los Altos Hills General Plan and Zoning Code as no multi-family or high density development is allowed under these regulations, and the Project site is not included in the Town’s 2023-2031 Housing Element site inventory. The Los Altos Hills 2023-2031 Housing Element was certified by HCD on May 30, 2023, and thus a preliminary application submitted after that time would be appropriately denied pursuant to Section 65589.5(d)(5) given that the February 1, 2023, preliminary application has been replaced by the April 11, 2023, preliminary application and the April 11 preliminary application has expired, as set forth above. IV. Government Code Section 65589.5(j) Findings Section 65589.5(j) provides: When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete [defined by statute to be the filing of a preliminary application], but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to 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) RESOLUTION 42-25 40 | P a g e 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.