Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Legal Costs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges council to explain housing denial, criticizes legal costs and safety risks
Summary
At a June 18 special meeting, a Los Altos Hills resident urged the council to clarify why it denied a proposed multi‑family project, raised fire‑safety concerns for seniors, and criticized what she described as rising legal costs in related cases; the council then went into closed session.
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Legal Costs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Joan, a Los Altos Hills resident, used the meeting’s public‑comment period to urge the Town Council to spell out why it denied a proposed multi‑family housing project and to criticize the town’s handling of related legal disputes.
"None of them should be wasting the town's time and money," Joan said, arguing that court filings by the project’s plaintiff portray the town as a bad actor and that the town should make its reasons for denial clear instead of relying on technical interpretations of government code language.
Joan raised specific safety concerns about a building she described as roughly 55 by 150 feet and four to five stories tall, saying it could be difficult to evacuate "40 to 80 seniors" on a lot she said is under 66 feet wide. She also said the site is in a high fire hazard severity zone and said a reasonable person would expect Santa Clara County Fire and Los Altos Hills to prioritize resident safety.
She criticized the town’s handling of prior legal disputes, including what she characterized as stonewalling by the town manager in a separate case involving an individual identified as Mr. Grady and higher legal invoices for the city attorney compared with amounts Mr. Grady spent. Joan said another matter she called the "shield" case has already exceeded 140 hours and more than $60,000 in legal costs and said she would comment further during the second closed session.
Mayor Batisha closed public comment after Joan spoke and said the council would retire to closed session; no public votes or actions were taken before the recess.
The council did not respond on the public record during the open session to the specific allegations Joan raised; the meeting record shows the matter moved into closed session for further discussion.
