Council Meeting - January 30, 2025
Below is a summary of the agenda and (when available) minutes of the City Council Meeting on the above date. While the summary is believed to be accurate, that is not guaranteed. The current City Council meeting agenda and detailed agenda packet can be found on the Town's website.
Agenda Highlights
MEETING STRUCTURE
​
There is a CLOSED SESSION to discuss anticipated litigation at 5PM. The regular meeting will start after that (likely at 6PM).
CLOSED SESSION​
Agenda for the Closed Session:
​Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
Linebarger v. Town of Los Altos Hills, Case No. 2015-1-CV-282970
Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation
(Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2)
Significant Exposure to Litigation – Two Cases
OPEN SESSION
ITEM 7. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS (items provided solely for informational purposes)
A. Treasurer's Report (Staff: T. Leung)
B. Disbursement Report (Staff: T. Leung)
9. PUBLIC HEARING
​
ITEM 9A. Adopt resolutions making findings and deny applications for residential development projects to construct multi-family senior residential developments consisting of 55 and 57 dwelling units on a vacant parcel at 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive, respectively (Nos. CDP23-0001 and 0002) pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(d). (Staff: S. Mattas)
​​​
ITEM 10A. NEW BUSINESS
ITEM 10A. Twin Oaks / Housing Element Key Terms Agreement
[Breaking News: As of Jan 29, 2025, the applicant has requested that the item be removed from consideration.]
This is an ​​issue of considerable interest to residents. The Twin Oaks housing site (at Arastradero Road and Twin Oaks Ct) was identified in the Town's Housing Element as a possible site for multi-family housing. While initial estimates by the town suggested that the site would host 92 units, later estimates have estimated a possible number of units of many times that number. This has caused considerable consternation among residents in the Saddle Mountain area who have had concerns about traffic, noise, parking, utilities, etc. Fire and emergency evacuation route crowding is a major concern since there are no other major exit routes for Saddle Mountain residents.
​
The City Attorney and City Manager have worked with the owner(s) of the major property on Twin Oaks to come up with a "Key Terms Agreement" (KTA) which provides a framework for a Development Agreement (DA). Under the terms of the KTA, the Town would permit construction of up to 138 units on six Twin Oaks parcels in exchange for allowing certain farm-related development on a portion of those parcels and on the adjoining "Fenwick" lands. (However, in the event of successful litigation the permissible number of units would increase to 200 units.)
​
This document contains the Staff Report (as a preamble) and the Key Terms Agreement (starting on p. 13 of the document).
​​
The terms of the KTA and the (anticipated) DA are complex and nuanced. In addition, the nature of the farm development and associated structures vary considerably from the typical landscapes seen in Los Altos Hills.
​
As currently written, the timeline for concluding this agreement is January 31, 2025.
​
Residents would do well to apprise themselves of the ins and outs of this critical issue to be decided by the Council. ​​​​​​​
​
ITEM 10B: Discussion and Formation of the Housing Element Subcommittee (Staff: P. Pirnejad)
Council will discuss formation of a subcommittee to address a possible Housing Element Amendment.
​
​
ONGOING BUSINESS
​
​
Annual town burglary statistics are shown below:]
2019: 21
2020: 31
2021: 22
2022: 51
2023: 60 (was projected at 86 before private security was increased)
2024: 20
Since burglaries have declined while ALPR and Private Security costs have exceeded budgets, Staff is coming before the Council to ask for guidance regarding (a) ALPRs and (b) PalAmerican Private Security.
Staff is suggesting the following options:
Options for ALPR system:
- Decrease the number of cameras, or
- Keep the same number of cameras and appropriate additional funds to cover cost; or
- Eliminate the service
Options for Private Security Patrols:
- Reduce the number of patrols taking place each day in Town; or
- Keep the same number of patrols and appropriate additional funds to cover cost; or
- Eliminate the service
​​
Flock has increased the cost of ALPRs from $2500/year to $3000/year per camera. Since burglary rates have come down, Staff is proposing to reduce the number of ALPRs. Staff states that the Technology Committee recommended reducing the number of ALPR cameras by 9, from 40 to 31.
In fact, the Technology Committee unanimously approved a motion stating:
"Present 2 options to Council:
1. Keep all 40 cameras as is, OR
2. Take out 9 interior cameras, with a total of 31 cameras."
In a separate motion, a majority of the Technology Committee then recommended going with option 2 (reducing the cameras from 40 to 31). Staff neglected to point out that the Sheriff recommended not reducing the number of cameras. The Town had budgeted $100K/year for ALPRs. Under the increased price, 40 cameras would cost the town $120K/year while 31 cameras would cost the town $93K/year.
​
In addition to reducing the number of cameras, Staff is suggesting cutting back on PalAmerican Security due to cost. At current rates, PalAmerican is projected to cost the Town $635K/year (vs. budgeted $550K/year).
Recall that one neighborhood in town has hired their own private security (Woodside Patrol). They have not experienced a burglary since then at a cost of $207K/year. [Neighborhood Watch programs cost the town around $10K/year.]
​​
The conundrum is this: when anti-burglary measures are apparently helping reduce burglaries, should we cut back to help finances? Or hang on to what appears to be working?​