Los Altos Hills council adopts minor housing-element revisions after HCD comments

Los Altos Hills — The Town Council on Monday approved minor revisions to the town’s housing element amendment intended to address questions raised by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), staff said, and set those changes to be transmitted to HCD after a seven-day public review period.

Mayor Bateja moved to adopt a resolution approving the wording changes to the housing element amendment and making adoption contingent on HCD certification; an unnamed council member seconded the motion. The roll call in the record shows Council member Swan voting “Yes” and Mayor Bateja voting “Yes.” The resolution authorizes staff to transmit the revised language and make nonsubstantive typographical edits if HCD requests them; any substantive change would return to council.

Why it matters: The edits are time-sensitive because state law requires towns to post final wording for seven days before HCD completes its review. Staff said the changes are modest clarifications — adding a brief feasibility analysis statement, updating letters of support, and explicitly adding a mid-cycle review in 2029 with a procedure to identify replacement sites if any listed sites prove inadequate. Staff and the town’s consultant said these additions are intended to increase predictability and satisfy HCD’s request without altering the town’s policy goals.

Consultant Dan Wherry of Michael Baker International told the council the revisions fall into three parts: “trend analysis, add a paragraph … about the difference of going from a single family to multifamily development,” updating letters of support and “add[ing] a little additional protection and comfort for HCD” by specifying a 2029 mid-cycle review. Wherry said the town commissioned a local-feasibility analysis that examined actual multifamily projects built in the region in the last five years and found an average replacement ratio of about 3.6 times the preexisting single-family units; he contrasted that regional average with a replacement metric applied on the Twin Oaks site of roughly 45-to-1, which staff said corresponds to about 90–92 units on that site under the adopted zoning.

Several residents urged clearer public access to the HCD feedback before the council voted. John O’Connell said posting the material online did not give the public enough context: “Given the topic that's on the agenda tonight, it's a little difficult to be able to make constructive comments by just reading what has been put on the website,” he said. Assistant City Attorney Claire Lai replied that the town has followed the statutory requirements, that the overlay zones were revised to comply with state law, and that staff had provided extensive responses and documentation in the meeting record: “We responded to all these comments, and that is included as a part of the record before the council,” she said.

Public and some council members pressed the consultants on whether feasibility assumptions reflected local market realities and typical unit sizes. Resident Anne Paulson argued the study’s townhouse prototypes were smaller than typical local townhouses and said that built projects are not the same as projects that lacked permits or were never constructed. Wherry said his team used conservative assumptions and contingency buffers and noted that podium parking configurations reduce profitability in some scenarios but that modest design or parking adjustments can make projects viable.

Staff said HCD officials look for any of three kinds of evidence that a listed site can produce housing: developer interest (letters), a feasibility analysis, or alternative sites. The town submitted a letter of interest from Foothill and feasibility analyses for the three candidate sites (Twin Oaks, Foothill College site and St. Nicholas). Staff said it also told HCD the town has an ad hoc committee looking for backup sites and that program A14 in the existing housing element anticipates a replacement-site process.

What the action does: The resolution approves the minor wording changes to the housing element amendment as shown in the agenda packet exhibit, authorizes transmission to HCD after the seven‑day public review period and allows ministerial final edits if HCD requests only nonsubstantive corrections. The approval is contingent on HCD certification; if HCD does not certify, the town’s existing housing element remains effective.

What’s next: Staff will transmit the revisions to HCD at the conclusion of the seven-day public review period and await HCD’s response. If HCD asks for substantive changes, staff said it would return the item to council. The mayor closed the meeting after the vote.

Sources: Transcript of the Town of Los Altos Hills special meeting, Feb. 2, 2026; presentation and comments by Dan Wherry, Michael Baker International; remarks by Assistant City Attorney Claire Lai; public comments recorded in the meeting record.