Agenda packet, regular meeting — Los Altos City Council, September 8, 2026 (part 1 of 3)

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
September 8, 2026 - 7:00 PM
Hybrid
PARTICIPATION: Members of the public are invited to participate by attending the meeting at the Los Altos Council Chamber, located at Los Altos City Hall, 1 N. San Antonio Rd, Los Altos, CA, during the meeting.

Public comments are accepted in person at the physical meeting location, remotely using Zoom technology, or via email to [email protected] or through the Public Comment forum on the city website: Public Comments Form.

RULES FOR CONDUCT: According to Los Altos Municipal Code, Section 2.05.010 "Interruptions and rules for conduct": Understanding that the purpose of the city council meetings is to conduct the people's business for the benefit of all the people, in the event that any meeting of the city council is willfully interrupted by a person or group of persons so as to render the orderly conduct of the meeting impossible, the mayor, mayor pro tem, or any other member of the city council acting as the chair may order the removal of the person or persons responsible for the disruption and bar them from further attendance at the council meeting, or otherwise proceed pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.0 or any applicable penal statute or city ordinance.

REMOTE MEETING PARTICIPATION: Members of the public may view the meeting via the link below and will be permitted to provide public comment via Zoom or telephone. Those viewing the meeting via Zoom may use the "Raise Hand" feature to provide public comment on agenda items. Those calling in by telephone over Zoom may use the *9 feature to "raise their hand" to provide public comment. Public comments will also be accepted in person, and members of the public may submit written comments by following the instructions below.
https://losaltosca-gov.zoom.us/j/98576428350?pwd=vaP85DgmENcKxPJ2TYR3nUVhbReaxY.1 Telephone: 1-669-444-9171 / Webinar ID: 985 7642 8350 / Passcode: 869519 SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS: Before the meeting, comments on matters listed on the agenda may be emailed to [email protected]. Emailed public comments sent directly to the City Council, either as a group or individually, will not be included in the agenda packet but may be disclosable as part of a public records request. Emails sent to [email protected] will be included in the appropriate agenda packet and are also disclosable as part of a public records request.

Please note: Personal information, such as e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, home addresses, and other contact information, is not required to be included with your comments. If this information is included in your written comments, it will become part of the public record. Redactions and/or edits will not be made to public comments, and the comments will be posted as submitted. Please do not include any information in your communication that you do not want to be made public.

Correspondence submitted in hard copy/paper format must be received by 2:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting to ensure distribution prior to the meeting. Hard copy/paper format comments presented during the meeting will be distributed to the City Council the following day. Members of the public may present a copy of their comments or attachments to the City Clerk for distribution to the City Council.

The Mayor will open public comment and will announce the length of time provided for comments during each item.

Page 1 of 391 ends

AGENDA

CALL MEETING TO ORDER

ESTABLISH QUORUM

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION

CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Members of the audience may bring to the Council's attention any item that is not on the agenda. The Mayor will announce the time speakers will be granted before comments begin. Please be advised that, by law, the City Council is unable to discuss or take action on issues presented during the Public Comment Period.

According to State Law (also known as “The Brown Act”) items must first be noted on the agenda before any discussion or action.

CONSENT CALENDAR
These items will be considered by one motion. Prior to consideration of the Consent Calendar, a Councilmember may remove an item from the Consent Calendar. Any item removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion will be handled at the discretion of the Mayor.

1. Approval of Meeting Minutes - Draft Regular Meeting of August 25, 2026

2. Adoption of Resolution - Revised Fiscal Year 2026/27 Pay Schedules Adopt a resolution approving revised Fiscal Year 2026/27 Pay Schedules for the Los Altos Municipal Employee Association (LAMEA), Los Altos Peace Officers' Association (POA), Unrepresented Management, and Unrepresented Professional and Confidential classifications

3. Adoption of Resolution - Amendment No. 4 with Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc.

Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 4 to the Maintenance Service Agreement with Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc. to increase the total agreement amount by $250,000

4. Adoption of Resolution - Joint Volunteer Awards Committee Changes Adopt a resolution to disband the Los Altos - Los Altos Hills Joint Volunteer Awards Committee and establish the Los Altos Volunteer Awards Committee

5. Acceptance Item - Investment Reports
Receive and file the City's Investment Portfolio Report for the quarter ending March 31, 2026

6. Formation of Subcommittee - City Manager Annual Performance Review Establish a subcommittee comprised of the Mayor and Vice Mayor to develop the process for the City Manager’s Annual Performance Review

7. Authorization to Vote - 2026-27 CalCities Peninsula Division Authorize the Mayor to cast a vote for the 2026-27 CalCities Peninsula Division Executive Board

8. Adoption of Resolution - Street Renaming

Page 2 of 391 ends

Adopt a resolution approving the renaming of Lee Street to Tubman Street in Los Altos

DISCUSSION ITEMS

9. Citizen Initiative - Potential Impacts to Zoning
Receive the report and presentation.

10. Provide Direction - 2026 CalCities Resolution
Provide direction to Vice Mayor Lang, Primary Voting Delegate, and Councilmember Weinberg (Alternate Voting Delegate) on the 2026 Resolution packet for the CalCities Annual Conference

11. Discussion Item - Environmental Commission
Discuss the Environmental Commission and create a City Council Ad-Hoc Subcommittee, if necessary

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS / COUNCIL Q&A
There will be no discussion or action on Informational Items. The Council Q&A will be included in the packet the day of the meeting.

12. Tentative Council Calendar and Housing Element Implementation Schedule

13. 09-08-2026 Council QA

COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS AND DIRECTIONS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

ADJOURNMENT

SPECIAL NOTICES TO THE PUBLIC
According to the City Council Norms and Procedures: It will be customary to have a recess at approximately 9:00 p.m. Before the recess, the Mayor shall announce whether any items will be carried over to the next meeting. The established hour after which no new items will be started is 11:00 p.m. Remaining items, however, may be considered by consensus of the Council.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Los Altos will make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please get in touch with the City Clerk at least 72 hours before the meeting.

All public records relating to an open session item on this agenda, which are not exempt from disclosure according to the California Public Records Act, and that are distributed to a majority of the legislative body, will be available for public inspection at the same time that the public records are distributed or made available to the legislative body.

Page 3 of 391 ends

Page 4 of 391 ends

Page 5 of 391 ends

Page 6 of 391 ends

Page 7 of 391 ends

From: Couture, Terri
To: Public Comment
Subject: public comment for items not on the agenda for city council meeting Sept 8 Date: Thursday, September 3, 2026 11:37:26 AM
Dear City council & Public,
I am submitting my full statement, as I was only allowed 1 minute at the last city council meeting.

I want to say a few words in memory of someone who believed deeply in Los Altos and in the people who call it home.

Robert Phillips believed in communication. She was always willing to listen and to have a conversation. She believed that you had to be willing to hear the other side. I'm sure we all know that Roberta was able to speak to everyone -- and in fact if you engaged on city matters, there is a good chance she reached out to you. She was able to build bridges with nearly everyone.

Roberta was passionate about our history, our community, and the people who live here. She cared deeply about protecting the Los Altos we love, and she never stopped trying to do so.

We spoke of many subjects, but my last conversation with her was about Los Altos and speaking for the soul of our town. I thanked her for her courage in protecting the Los Altos that we love..

At the time, she wasn't ill. I had no idea that those would be my last words with her.

I will remember her course, her persistence, and especially that she believed that communication matters -- that we should keep listening, keep speaking, keep working to protect the community we love and to treat everyone with courtesy and respect.

I think one of the best ways we can honor her is to remember what she believed about our local government: that elected officials should listen to residents, seek out their views, and treat people with respect -- even when they openly disagree.

I hope we can honor her by carrying that spirit forward.

Thank you, Terri Couture
*Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication.

Page 8 of 391 ends

From: jim jolly
To: Public Comment
Subject: Local control of housing and land use
Date: Thursday, September 3, 2026 5:27:44 PM
I STRONGLY urge you to support a state constitutional amendment to return housing and land use regulation to local governments. Jim Jolly, 50 year resident of Los Altos Sent from my iPhone

Page 9 of 391 ends

From: Susan Russell
To: Public Comment; Gabriel Engeland; Jon Maginot; Monica Gallardo-Melkesian; Melissa Thurman Subject: September 8 Council Meeting - Study Session re BMR Units Date: Friday, September 4, 2026 11:55:12 AM
Attachments: LWV letter 94 to LA CC re BMR guidelines.doc Please see attached letter from LWV.

Page 10 of 391 ends

September 4, 2026
Re: September 8, 2026, City Council BMR Unit Study Session Meeting

Dear Mayor Meadows and Members of the City Council:

The League of Women Voters (LWV) supports strengthening procedures so that equality of opportunity for access to housing can be accomplished.

As the staff report points out, the current below market rate (BMR) guidelines include a longer list of preferences than most jurisdictions. “Preferences based on length of residency, prior residency, or family relationships with current residents….” are inconsistent with affirmatively furthering fair housing, the City’s legal obligation. Reducing the priority categories to two, the first for local public-service positions, and the second for those who live or work in Los Altos better meets fair housing standards.

Similarly, the current system of first-come, first-served is not as transparent and equitable as a lottery to select from applicants who have applied by a stated deadline. We urge the Council to adopt both changes to the BMR system.

Please send any questions about this email to Sue Russell at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Sue Russell, Co-Chair Housing Committee
Los Altos-Mountain View Area LWV
C: Gabe Engeland, City Manager
Monica Gallardo-Melkesian, Housing Manager
Jon Maginot, Assistant City Manager
Melissa Thurman, City Clerk
[email protected]

Page 11 of 391 ends

From: julia freda-eskenazi
To: Public Comment; Tania Katbi; City Council
Subject: Save the old Oak on Rinconada Court
Date: Friday, September 4, 2026 4:09:45 PM
Hello Los Altos decision makers,
Please carefully review both the city arborist report as well as the arborist report paid for by the neighbors before making a decision to cut down such large, beautiful, healthy heritage tree in Los Altos. Please also ensure a more transparent process in the future. The first neighbors heard about the impending removal was when they noticed a ‘cut this tree down in 7 days’ sign affixed to the tree. There should be time for public comment.

Thank you,
Julia Freda-Eskenazi

Page 12 of 391 ends

From: Pat Marriott
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM #8 SEPTEMBER 8, 2026
Date: Friday, September 4, 2026 7:48:25 PM
Council Members:

Please provide direction to Vice Mayor Lang, Primary Voting Delegate, and Councilmember Weinberg (Alternate Voting Delegate) on the 2026 Resolution packet for the CalCities Annual Conference to support this resolution.

Thank you,
Pat Marriott

Page 13 of 391 ends

From: Anne Paulson
To: Public Comment
Subject: BMR guidelines
Date: Friday, September 4, 2026 8:42:58 PM
Dear Mayor Meadows and Councilmembers,
The Los Altos Affordable Housing Alliance is pleased to see the new Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Guidelines coming before you. We agree with staff that the city’s BMR policies should be laid out in publicly available documents, one for rental housing and one for ownership housing.

For some time, we have been advocating for a lottery to award BMR units. We’re delighted to see this in the proposal. A lottery looks fairer and is fairer than what we have now.

The city has a long list of preferences for the below market units. It’s difficult to administer, and confusing for applicants. We urge you to simplify. Mountain View has one single preference, for those who live or work in Mountain View. We think that would work for Los Altos too. Alternatively, we could have first a preference for teachers, firefighters, and city workers; then a preference for all others who live or work in Los Altos.

We hope to see new guidelines adopted before 5150 El Camino begins leasing. We urge you to move this proposal forward quickly and appreciate your attention to this important issue.

Sincerely,
The Los Altos Affordable Housing Alliance

Page 14 of 391 ends

From: Joe Eyre
To: Public Comment; Public Comment - PARC
Subject: Playground Surfaces in Los Altos Parks
Date: Saturday, September 5, 2026 11:21:23 AM
Dear Los Altos City Council Members and PARC Commissioners, I believe that playground surfaces will be discussed during your meetings this month, particularly for Grant and Shoup Parks. I suggest that going forward you use natural products (such as Engineered Wood Fiber or wood chips) for the playground surfaces, rather than synthetic materials such as artificial turf or poured-in-place rubberized products (similar to what was just used at the exercise area near the Hillview baseball field).

I realize that synthetic surfaces appear to be safe and less expensive to maintain, but I really dislike the idea of propagating the use of artificial materials that age over time to be unattractive, unrepairable, and eventually a huge amount of landfill waste. Playgrounds have been fine with wood chips for decades and to suddenly start using synthetic surfaces seems unnecessary and unsustainable.

Thank you,
Joe Eyre
390 E. Edith Ave.

Los Altos
[email protected]

Page 15 of 391 ends

From: Pat Marriott
To: Public Comment
Subject: Fw: PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM #9 SEPTEMBER 8, 2026
Date: Saturday, September 5, 2026 1:05:16 PM
Council Members:

Thank you,
Pat Marriott

Page 16 of 391 ends

From: Anky van Deursen
To: Public Comment
Subject: BMR Guidelines
Date: Saturday, September 5, 2026 7:01:19 PM
Attachments: 2026.09.06 Public Comment BMR guidelines.pdf Dear Mayor and Members of the Los Altos City Council,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on the draft BMR Guidelines. I respectfully submit the attached comments/suggestions for your consideration and appreciate the time and attention of the City Council and staff in reviewing them.

Best regards,
Anky van Deursen

Page 17 of 391 ends

1 September 6, 2026
Dear Mayor and Members of the Los Altos City Council,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the September 8 study session regarding the proposed Below Market Rate (BMR) For-Sale and Rental Housing Guidelines.

I strongly support the City's effort to establish comprehensive written guidelines for the BMR program. As the staff report explains, Los Altos has historically administered the program through a combination of policies, affordable housing agreements, deed restrictions, administrative practices, and project-specific requirements. Consolidating these requirements into publicly available guidelines should improve transparency, consistency, and predictability for residents, applicants, developers, property managers, homeowners, and City staff.

I also support Council taking this opportunity to look beyond simply documenting existing practices and carefully consider whether some of the underlying policies should be updated. In particular, I encourage Council to provide direction on the following issues before the guidelines are returned for adoption.

1. Simplify the priority system, while carefully considering who should receive first priority.

I support staff's recommendation to simplify the existing four-tier preference system and remove preferences based on length of residency, former residency, and family relationships with current residents. The staff report raises important fair housing and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) concerns, noting that such preferences may create barriers to housing opportunities and be inconsistent with the City's obligation to expand housing access.

The separate question, however, is how the new preference system should be structured.

Under the proposal, first priority would be given to specified full-time school employees, full-time City employees, and full-time Santa Clara County Fire Department employees assigned to the two Los Altos fire stations. Everyone else who lives or works in Los Altos would receive second priority.

I support the goal of helping people who serve our community live closer to where they work.

However, I would like Council to consider whether the proposed first-priority category is too narrowly defined.

For example, preschool teachers, part-time school employees, caregivers, nurses, home-health workers, and other essential workers may provide important services to Los Altos residents but would not necessarily qualify for the first tier.

Rather than retaining the old four-tier structure, I encourage Council to consider whether the first tier should be broadened or whether a simpler live-or-work preference would better reflect the

Page 18 of 391 ends

2 range of people who contribute to our community, while remaining consistent with fair-housing requirements.

2. Support replacing first-come, first-served selection with a lottery, with additional operational clarification.

I support staff's recommendation to replace the current first-come, first-served selection process with a lottery. As the staff report explains, the current system can make an applicant's placement depend on the precise timing of an application, even when applicants are otherwise equally eligible. A lottery provides similarly situated applicants within a preference category an equal opportunity and creates a more transparent and repeatable process.

For the rental program, however, the final guidelines should explain more clearly how this will work when individual BMR units become vacant. If a lottery list remains valid for one year, the guidelines should specify when that existing list will be used, when a new lottery must be conducted, and how the City will minimize the time an affordable unit remains vacant. References to waiting lists, interest lists, and lottery lists should also be made internally consistent.

3. Consider a limit on annual rent increases for existing BMR tenants.

The rental guidelines establish maximum BMR rents but do not appear to separately limit how much an existing tenant's rent can increase from one year to the next.

I encourage Council to consider an annual cap for occupied BMR units. The purpose would not be to prevent the City from recalculating maximum BMR rents, but to protect an existing low- or moderate-income household from an unexpectedly large increase simply because the maximum allowable rent has increased. Predictability in housing costs should be an important component of an affordable housing program.

4. Reconsider the 90-day transition period for over-income households.

I agree that BMR units ultimately need to remain available to eligible households. However, becoming over-income can result from relatively ordinary and positive changes — a raise, promotion, additional work hours, or another household member obtaining employment.

Under the proposed guidelines, once a household exceeds the permitted income threshold, it must vacate within 90 days after receiving written notice.

Given our housing market, Council should consider whether six months, or potentially up to one year, would provide a more reasonable transition. This would preserve the integrity of the program while giving a household a realistic opportunity to find replacement housing.

Page 19 of 391 ends

3 5. Ask staff to explain and evaluate the $150,000 rental asset limit.

The proposed $150,000 asset limit deserves additional discussion. In particular, Council should consider how it may affect seniors and other lower-income households who have accumulated savings but continue to have relatively modest annual incomes.

I would like to understand the policy basis for selecting $150,000 and whether staff considered alternatives, including approaches that place greater emphasis on income generated by assets rather than simply the gross value of those assets.

6. Establish clearer affordability targets within the BMR requirements.

The percentage of units designated BMR tells us only part of the story. The income levels those units serve determine how deeply affordable the program actually is.

For rentals, the guidelines contemplate very-low-, low-, and moderate-income units but do not appear to establish a project-wide weighted-average AMI requirement or minimum distribution among those categories.

The same question exists for ownership housing. The draft establishes affordability calculations at different income levels but does not appear to require a particular project-wide affordability mix.

I encourage Council to ask staff to evaluate either a weighted-average AMI requirement or a minimum affordability mix for both programs. This would provide greater certainty about the actual level of affordability produced by the City's inclusionary requirements.

7. Preserve BMR housing as a permanent community asset where legally feasible.

The ownership guidelines provide for affordability restrictions of at least 55 years, while the rental guidelines provide for at least 99 years.

Given how difficult affordable housing is to create in Los Altos, I believe Council should consider whether affordability should instead be preserved in perpetuity where legally feasible.

For ownership units in particular, the proposed 55-year term raises an important policy question:
why should a home created through the City's inclusionary housing program eventually be permitted to become market-rate?
Similarly, while 99 years is obviously a very long period for rental housing, Council should understand the legal and policy rationale for choosing 99 years rather than permanent affordability.

Page 20 of 391 ends

4 Once Los Altos succeeds in creating an affordable home, I believe we should make every reasonable effort to preserve that affordability for future generations.

8. Reconsider whether 35% of income represents affordable ownership housing.

The proposed ownership guidelines calculate moderate-income housing costs using 35% of household income. Council should examine whether this provides an adequate affordability cushion once mortgage payments, property taxes, insurance, HOA dues, utilities, maintenance, and other ownership expenses are considered.

I encourage Council to consider whether a 30% standard would better support sustainable homeownership.

9. Protect lower-income BMR homeowners from HOA increases and special assessments.

Creating a BMR ownership opportunity is successful only if the household can continue to afford the home after purchasing it.

Condominium owners have limited control over future HOA dues and special assessments. This can be particularly problematic for very-low- and low-income purchasers. I therefore encourage Council to consider requiring a developer-funded HOA reserve or another mechanism to protect lowerincome BMR homeowners from substantial future increases or assessments.

10. Reconsider an absolute first-time-homebuyer requirement.

First-time homebuyers are an important population to serve, but Council should consider whether first-time status should be an absolute eligibility requirement rather than a preference or one factor in eligibility. An otherwise income- and asset-qualified senior, divorced individual, or other applicant who previously owned a home could be excluded even though that person currently has no realistic access to market-rate homeownership in Los Altos.

The central policy question is whether the program's objective is to provide affordable homeownership opportunities to qualifying households, or to limit those opportunities to people who meet the technical definition of a first-time homebuyer.

11. Include the basic resale-price methodology directly in the ownership guidelines.

A prospective BMR purchaser should be able to understand before buying a home how appreciation, equity, and the maximum future resale price will be determined.

Rather than leaving this important financial condition primarily to project-specific resale restriction documents, I encourage Council to require the basic resale methodology to be stated directly in the guidelines.

Page 21 of 391 ends

5 12. Consider a narrowly tailored hardship provision in the rental program.

Finally, I encourage Council to consider a limited, City-approved hardship provision for circumstances such as job loss, illness, caregiving responsibilities, or another significant temporary disruption. This should not create an unrestricted right to sublet a BMR unit. Any exception could require documentation, City approval, clear eligibility criteria, and a limited duration. Such a provision could recognize real-life emergencies without undermining the integrity of the BMR program.

Conclusion
The staff report asks Council three principal policy questions: whether to modify the priority categories, whether to replace first-come, first-served selection with a lottery, and whether Council has additional direction regarding the draft guidelines.

My answer would be yes to all three.

I support simplifying the preference system and removing the existing residency-duration and family-relationship preferences, while asking Council to carefully consider whether the proposed new first tier is sufficiently inclusive.

I support replacing first-come, first-served selection with a transparent lottery.

And I encourage Council to provide additional direction before final adoption, particularly regarding affordability levels, permanent affordability, tenant stability, asset limits, sustainable homeownership, and transparency.

Los Altos has relatively few opportunities to create BMR housing. When those opportunities arise, our goal should not simply be to produce a certain number of BMR units. We should ensure that those homes provide meaningful, lasting affordability, fair access, financial sustainability, and clear, transparent rules.

The proposed guidelines are an important step forward. With additional refinement, they can provide Los Altos with a strong BMR program that works for residents, property owners, developers, and administrators while preserving affordable housing as a lasting community asset.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Anky van Deursen

Page 22 of 391 ends

From: Brion LaPointe
To: Public Comment
Cc: Public Comment - PARC
Subject: Public Comment Not on the Agenda 9/8/2026 - Playground Surface at Grant and Shoup Parks Date: Saturday, September 5, 2026 8:31:12 PM
Subject: Public Comment Not on the Agenda 9/8/2026 - Playground Surface at Grant and Shoup Parks
Dear Los Altos City Council members & cc: PARC Commissioners, I am a longtime Los Altos resident and live just three house lots east of Grant Park on Holt Avenue. I use the park regularly and greatly value it, as do many of my neighbors. Grant Park is a beautiful community resource whose appeal comes in large part from its natural setting and well-maintained facilities, including its playgrounds.

This issue is also personal to my family. We are expecting two grandchildren who will live in San Mateo and San Francisco, and we look forward to having them use the Grant Park playground when they visit us. We want them—and all children who use Los Altos parks—to be able to play in an environment that minimizes unnecessary exposure to synthetic materials and chemicals.

For that reason, I was dismayed to learn that the City's preferred plan is to replace the existing Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) surfaces with poured-in-place rubber as playgrounds are upgraded. In my view, replacing EWF with PIP would be a significant step in the wrong direction.

PIP introduces legitimate health and environmental concerns that deserve careful consideration, particularly when the material will be installed in places specifically intended for young children. Natural playground surfacing alternatives are available that can provide appropriate fall protection and accessibility without introducing the same concerns associated with synthetic rubber surfaces.

When there are reasonable alternatives, I believe the City should apply a precautionary approach: choose the playground surface that minimizes potential exposure to synthetic chemicals, reduces environmental impacts, and preserves the natural character of our parks.

These playground improvements will remain in place for many years. The decision therefore affects not only today's children but future generations of Los Altos families. I believe the City Council has a responsibility to make the safest and most environmentally responsible choice available rather than unnecessarily introducing additional synthetic materials into our parks.

Please reject PIP rubber surfacing for Grant Park and other Los Altos playgrounds and direct City staff and the PARC Commission to evaluate and select natural surfacing alternatives.

Thank you for considering the long-term health of our children, our parks, and our community.

Sincerely,
Brion LaPointe
1621 Holt Ave
Los Altos, CA 94024

Page 23 of 391 ends

From: Nyssa Kansal
To: Public Comment
Cc: Public Comment - PARC
Subject: Public Comment Not on the Agenda 9/8/2026 - Playground Surface at Grant and Shoup Parks Date: Monday, September 7, 2026 2:45:31 AM
Dear Los Altos City Councilmembers, cc: PARC Commissioners, I am writing to strongly urge you to reject PIP playground surfaces on any Los Altos playground. Please direct the city staff and the PARC Commission to only consider natural surfaces.

I am a teenager who lives near Shoup Park and use it regularly to play with my friends and sometimes with my brother. It is a beautiful resource that I, and my neighbors appreciate for its natural setting and well maintained facilities, including the playgrounds.

I was dismayed to learn that the City’s preferred plan is to replace the current Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) surface with Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber as the playgrounds are upgraded.

PIP is a serious downgrade from the current playground surface. Natural play surfaces exist that avoid many of the health and environmental concerns associated with PIP.

Sincerely,
Nyssa.

Page 24 of 391 ends

From: Laura Fay
To: Public Comment
Cc: Public Comment - PARC
Subject: Public Comment Not on the Agenda 9/8/2026 - Playground Surface at Grant and Shoup Parks Date: Monday, September 7, 2026 7:37:30 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment Not on the Agenda 9/8/2026 - Playground Surface at Grant and Shoup Parks
Dear Los Altos City Councilmembers, cc: PARC Commissioners, I am writing to strongly urge you direct the city staff and the PARC Commission to prioritize natural surfaces and reject large swaths of PIP rubber surfaces.

The city has made the following statement in relation to the playground surface upgrades:
“The City also prioritizes access and safety when selecting playground surfacing. PIP provides a firm, stable surface that allows children and caregivers using wheelchairs, walkers and other mobility devices to move throughout the playground. While engineered wood fiber is ADA compliant when properly installed and maintained, it does not provide the same practical level of accessibility. It shifts, compacts and develops uneven areas through normal use, making it considerably more difficult to navigate with mobility devices. ” There are 3 main points to be made in response to the above statement:

The city cites higher maintenance costs to maintain EWF as ADA compliant, however there is no reference to the fact that PIP rubber surfaces have significantly higher up-front costs and a higher 10-year lifetime cost.

Why is ok for the city to spend more on a less suitable surface? The answer comes down to how the city is prepared to spend its tax dollars. It’s about a preference to spend upfront (from capital equipment funds) vs. ongoing maintenance cost (from operating funds). Thankfully the Los Altos’s finances are strong. Let’s not compromise the health of our children and their safe enjoyment of our parks, the health of the surrounding vegetation, and contribute to the heat generation in the face of our warming planet for the sake of accounting budget buckets.

Where ongoing maintenance costs are of concern to the city, the maintenance cost of EWF can be lowered significantly with playground wear mats. These are heavy-duty rubber pads placed under high-impact zones like swing sets and slide exits to protect the ground surface and prevent dangerous holes (see below for more detail). When covered with EWF, these are less toxic and more limited than PIP rubber surfaces.

Page 25 of 391 ends

SUPPORTING INFORMATION
EWF VS PIP – CHARACTERISTICS AND COST
EWF is roughly 25–35% cheaper over a 10-year window (source - Claude AI analysis), so why does the city want to spend more money on a ground cover that is the least preferred by residents?
Feature EWF PIP Rubber
Core
Philosophy
Nature-based, open-ended
play, and "beneficial risk".

High predictability, injury
prevention, and "safety-first".

Sustainability
Focus
Circular economy,
biodegradable, and low carbon
footprint.

Long lifecycle durability and
utilizing recycled materials (like
tires).

Upfront Cost Lower upfront cost; Higher upfront cost;
Ongoing Cost Higher recurring maintenance. Lower recurring maintenance.

RECAP WHY THE ADA CONSIDERS EWF A COMPLIANT SURFACE.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) considers Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) compliant for wheelchairs because it meets specific physical testing standards, provided it is properly installed and maintained. Under the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design, playground surfaces on accessible routes must be firm, stable, and slip-resistant. EWF achieves this status through specific engineering and testing protocols:

Balancing Safety and Mobility: EWF is widely utilized because it simultaneously satisfies two conflicting requirements: it is firm enough to pass accessibility standards (ASTM F1951), yet resilient and impact-absorbing enough to meet fall-attenuation safety protocols (ASTM F1292) Interlocking "Knit-Down" Structure: Unlike standard decorative wood chips or landscape mulch, EWF is manufactured from the interior soft fibers of virgin wood, cut into specific 1-to-2-inch lengths. When layered, compressed, and properly tamped down during installation, these fibers interlock (or "knit down").

This creates a dense, compacted mat that is solid enough to support the weight of mobility devices like wheelchairs, scooters, and walkers. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] Passing the ASTM F1951 Test: To meet the ADA definition of an accessible surface, a material must pass the ASTM F1951 standard. This test uses a rotational penetrometer to objectively measure the baseline physical work and force required to propel a standard wheelchair across a straight path and a turn.

When freshly installed and compacted, certified EWF falls below the maximum

Page 26 of 391 ends

rolling resistance threshold. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
A playground utilizing EWF is only legally compliant if it undergoes routine maintenance—including regular raking, adding wear mats under high-traffic zones (like swings and slide exits), and frequent top-offs to maintain the required compressed depth. [1, 2]
EWF can easily be racked to be even and more added whenever needed. It is a simple maintenance issue. Conversely, when PIP wears out, not only is it unsafe to use, but it breaks down (see photo below) this can cause significant accessibility issues.

OVERVIEW OF PLAYGROUND WEAR MATS
Playground wear mats are heavy-duty rubber pads placed under high-impact zones like swing sets and slide exits to protect the ground surface and prevent dangerous holes. [1, 2]
Key Functions and Benefits
Prevents Surface Displacement: Stops kids from kicking or pushing loose-fill materials (like wood fiber, gravel, or rubber mulch) out of place.

Eliminates Deep Holes: Stops dangerous divots and ruts from forming where children land, run, or drag their feet.

Reduces Maintenance: Cuts down on the constant need to rake and refill loose ground cover.

Improves Safety: Adds an extra layer of shock absorption for heavy landings and prevents tripping hazards by keeping the ground level.

Aids Accessibility: Helps playgrounds stay compliant with federal accessibility and safety laws. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]
Common Locations
Under individual swings and swing bays
At the bottom exits of slides
Around spinning toys and merry-go-rounds
Beneath track rides and overhead climbing rings [1, 2, 3, 4] Sincerely,
Laura Fay
30-year Los Altos resident

Page 27 of 391 ends

From: Peter Fay
To: Public Comment
Cc: Public Comment - PARC
Subject: [External Sender]Public Comment Not on the Agenda 9/8/2026 - Playground Surface at Grant and Shoup Parks Date: Monday, September 7, 2026 8:23:00 PM
Attachments: image.png
Dear Los Altos City Councilmembers, cc: PARC Commissioners, I am writing to strongly urge you to reject PIP playground surfaces on any Los Altos playground.

PIP rubber is not safe. Please direct the city staff and the PARC Commission to only consider natural surfaces.

Specifically, I want to address a statement made by the Los Altos city manager in recent weeks. “The City has reviewed the available research regarding PIP and recycled rubber recreational surfaces, and the research supports their continued use as safe playground surfaces. California recently completed a comprehensive study of recycled rubber recreational surfaces and found no evidence that their use creates a health concern. Federal research comparing recycled-rubber surfaces with natural grass similarly found no meaningful difference in the measured exposure to the chemicals studied.”
Unfortunately the city, the rubber industry and other promoters of rubber surfaces in parks would have you believe that PIP is safe based on scientific study results, however, there are a number of points that refute the implied assumptions of PIP safety. Let's be very clear on these few points...

Lack of evidence of harm is NOT the same as proven evidence of safety.

Limitations with the referenced Federal study have been acknowledged by the government agencies themselves. Independent researchers continue to highlight concerns.

Federal study (EPA/CDC/ATSDR/CPSC Federal Research Action Plan EPA's 2019 Tire Crumb Rubber Characterization report (Part 1 of the federal study)
CDC/ATSDR's overview page for the full Federal Research Action Plan
CPSC's Crumb Rubber Safety Information Center
The city's reference to the California study (published in March 2026) is a misguided attempt to distract from the reality that the study was explicitly NOT about PIP playground surfacing. Findings do not transfer to a "PIP playgrounds are safe" conclusion. In fact, the California study did not include PIP surfaces at all. The study was focused on artificial turf in specific settings. Even so, the study concluded "no evidence of significant risk" based on available data. Again, is a formal risk-assessment finding, not a declaration of safety. It is also worth noting that two industry trade groups — the U.S.

Page 28 of 391 ends

Rubber Manufacturers Association and the International Carbon Black Association were financial contributors to the referenced California study.

California study (OEHHA) on Artificial Turf
OEHHA's release page with the summary/press release
The full final report PDF (March 2026) — this is the primary document, with the appendices, chemical list, and methodology Health researchers continue to express concern about PIP exposure.

Toxic chemicals lurk at playgroundsReporting on researcher concerns about PAHs, phthalates, and VOCs in pour-in-place rubber playground surfacing.E&E News (POLITICO)
Toxic chemicals lurk at playgroundsNCHR's account of Diana Zuckerman's and Sarah Evans's concerns about chemical exposure and ingestion risk from PIP surfaces.National Center for Health Research Playground lead levels in rubber, soil, sand, and mulch surfaces in Boston Peer-reviewed study comparing lead levels in poured-in-place rubber vs. other playground surfacing materials. PMC / NIH
Playground Surfacing: Fun & safety without toxic chemicals Covers Ecology Center lead testing, organophosphate ester flame retardants, surface heat, and microplastic shedding from PIP. Collaborative for Health & Environment
A review of the potential risks associated with chemicals present in poured-in-place rubber surfacing. Peer-reviewed literature review finding no identified chemical health risks in bound PIP systems, while noting data gaps. Canadian Institute of Public Health Inspectors
Playground Surfacing: Choosing Safer Materials for Children's Health and the Environment. TURI's comparative hazard assessment of playground surfacing materials, including PIP rubber. Toxics Use Reduction Institute (TURI)
Toxic chemicals lurk at playgrounds NCHR's account of Diana Zuckerman's and Sarah Evans's concerns about chemical exposure and ingestion risk from PIP surfaces. National Center for Health Research Playground Surfacing: Fun & safety without toxic chemicals. Covers Ecology Center lead testing, organophosphate ester flame retardants, surface heat, and microplastic shedding from PIP. Collaborative for Health & Environment
A review of the potential risks associated with chemicals present in poured-in-place rubber surfacing. Peer-reviewed literature review finding no identified chemical health risks in bound PIP systems, while noting data gaps. Canadian Institute of Public Health Inspectors
Playground Surfacing: Choosing Safer Materials for Children's Health and the Environment. TURI's comparative hazard assessment of playground surfacing materials, including PIP rubber. Toxics Use Reduction Institute (TURI)

Page 29 of 391 ends

The financial motivation of the rubber industry is real and significant. The rubber industry works hard to convince cities and the public that rubber products are safe.

USTMA and TIA represent tire manufacturers and the broader tire industry, which generates roughly 300 million scrap tires a year in the U.S.

Landfilling and stockpiling tires is expensive, environmentally risky (fire hazards, mosquito breeding), and increasingly restricted by state law.

Playground and turf-infill markets are one of the biggest "beneficial use" outlets for that waste stream — 80 million discarded tires a year alone get processed into crumb rubber that becomes playground surfaces, synthetic turf infill, and other products. If crumb rubber were declared unsafe for children, the industry would lose a major disposal outlet and face costs, liability, and reputational damage. So they have a clear economic stake in the "recycled rubber is safe" conclusion.

Recycledmaterials
This has played out publicly. Concerns about crumb rubber on playgrounds and turf fields led to a joint federal investigation in 2016 by the EPA, CDC, and CPSC to see if there are possible health risks to young athletes, motivated partly because the EPA said existing studies didn't comprehensively evaluate the health-risk concerns from tire crumb exposure. Notably, before that federal probe, the synthetic turf industry had already been pointing to dozens of its own studies showing no link between crumb rubber and health risks — which is exactly the kind of industry-funded reassurance that prompted regulators to step in with independent research. Watch CBS News +2
TIA has been a staunch advocate for crumb rubber and has actively opposed state-level legislation seeking to restrict its use. The TIA is a trade association actively lobbying against restrictions.

Industry statements (TIA's, USTMA's, or a manufacturer's) shouldn't be your only source. The independent federal study is a stronger reference point than trade-association press releases, and even that study has real limitations that independent researchers continue to flag.

The National Center for Health Research has sent formal letters to municipalities (e.g., Kensington, MD, 2025) opposing new PIP installations, citing both heat/burn risk and the lack of pre-market safety testing on PIP chemical composition.

The EPA, the CDC and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) wants us to be very aware of the risk of thermal burns from playground equipment. All recommend the importance of washing after use, for example.

These recommendations are in place for health reasons and no other.

With PIP, the city of Los Altos is introducing a new source of liability. Should there be claims of harm (like a toddler's foot burn for example) in the future, and the city was informed loudly by the community and formal instutions about the harm risks, and then chose to proceed with PIP installations anyway, the claimants are more likely to prevail.

Page 30 of 391 ends

Ref: Toddler receives second-degree burns to feet from hot PIP Playground surface
Please direct the city staff and the PARC Commission to only consider natural surfaces.

Sincerely,
Peter Fay, MD
30 year Los Altos Resident

Page 31 of 391 ends

From: jim jolly
To: Public Comment
Subject: Local control
Date: Monday, September 7, 2026 11:39:40 PM
Sent from my iPhone

Page 32 of 391 ends

From: Quinten Yearsley
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Not on the Agenda 9/8/2026 - Playground Surface at Grant and Shoup Parks Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 9:13:09 AM
Dear Los Altos City Councilmembers, cc: PARC Commissioners, I am writing to express my support for retaining Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) rather than using Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber on Los Altos playground surfaces.

I share the environmental and health concerns raised regarding PIP rubber. I think wood chips provide a more natural, environmentally friendly option for our city's parks, and I support prioritizing natural surfacing options like EWF. I think we should choose the option that best balances environmental impact and safety (e.g. in high heat).

Sincerely and thank you,
Quinten Yearsley, a parent of children at Gardner Bullis Elementary.

Page 33 of 391 ends

From: ForLosAltos
To: Public Comment; City Council
Subject: Public Comment: City Council Meeting September 8, 2026-Item #9 Citizen Intiative Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 12:30:54 PM
Dear City Council,
Because there is no staff report for Item #9 Citizen Initiative- Potential Impacts to Zoning, it is not possible for the public to provide substantive comment. The lack of information raises suspicions around intention as reposting threat letters without context or analysis has the appearance of a political tactic by City Council which is questionable.

That aside, we expect the City to clarify for the public our understanding of the Housing Element and downtown development proposals.

The City of Los Altos did a good job of identifying 640 surplus housing units of various income levels in the 8-year state-certified Housing Element. Certainly, City Council has done the math to recognize that the Downtown Parking Plazas are not required for housing compliance beyond 16 units of above-moderate income on either Parking Plaza 7 or 8.

The opposition to Measure D, including City Councilmembers Lang, Weinberg and Dailey who have been speaking publicly “as residents,” argue that housing compliance is the foremost issue with Measure D; it is not.

City Manager Gabe Engeland has known that the housing question is a non-issue. In a July 2026 interview with Los Altos Community Coalition (LACC) regarding Measure D, Mr.

Engeland acknowledged that the City “could develop seven and eight, Plaza 7 and 8, under the exception … in a way that's dense enough that you wouldn't—you may not have to make up units elsewhere.” In the same interview, he clarified that decertification and Builder’s Remedy were not outcomes of Measure D passing.

City Council itself is moving forward with non-housing project plans (park, performing arts center, and parking garage) on Parking Plazas 1, 2 and 3. Presumably City Council is fully aware that housing compliance here is not at risk as long as Plaza 7 or 8 is developed with 16 units. As you know, Measure D exempts Plazas 7 and 8 from voter-approval allowing the City to meet its housing requirements.

Further, the HCD has confirmed that when Measure D passes, the City is not “automatically out of compliance.” Per the HCD letter, the City will need to amend the Housing Element to include voter-approval as a constraint much like utilities, fees, etc. The HCD also confirmed that Builder’s Remedy is not available during the amendment period.

The voter-approval requirement afforded by Measure D is a critical step in community decisions on costly non-housing projects and/or the disposition of city-owned downtown parking plazas.

Measure D is not a mechanism for preventing development, nor for interfering with housing development downtown, especially because affordable housing on the city-owned downtown parking plazas is essentially inconsequential according to the certified Los Altos Housing Element.

Page 34 of 391 ends

What the public deserves to know is whether or not city-proposed non-housing projects on the downtown parking plazas might jeopardize future state housing requirements. Only due to City Council’s own actions, this council or a future City Council may need to address zoning changes if the downtown parking plazas are no longer available housing options. Measure D gives residents a vote.

City-planned projects for Parking Plazas 1, 2, and 3 have arguably no impact on housing requirements; the same is true for Measure D. When Measure D passes, the City will need to amend the Housing Element per HCD instructions, and the City will need to build 16 abovemoderate income units on Parking Plaza 7 or 8 or find another site to accommodate those units.

In the meantime, City Councilmembers should not take part in generating fear, uncertainty and doubt around housing and zoning as a means to thwart voter support of Measure D primarily because it is clear City Staff and City Council know better.

Sincerely,
For Downtown Los Altos Committee

Page 35 of 391 ends

From: [email protected]
To: Public Comment
Subject: city council meeting 9/8/26 item 9
Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 1:35:31 PM
It is not clear from the material included in tonight’s packet that Measure D passage would create a shortage in meeting the city’s housing goals which it has committed to as part of its State approved housing plan.

There has been a number quoted of 124 housing units that would be “lost” should Measure D pass. That number is actually not correct. The city has a surplus of 640 units, of which 124 are located downtown. So the 124 represents a potentially lost surplus. If one presumes that none of the downtown units are built throughout the downtown, this still leaves a surplus of 516 units. The HCD letter does not state that reducing the surplus by 20% would necessarily require adding new opportunity sites. That analysis has to be done by the city and presumably the City Council will request staff undertake that work. And for reference, assuming both Plaza 7 & 8 are constructed, then the “shortfall” in the surplus is actually only 93 units. It is not a shortfall in the plan, just less in the surplus.

But if one wanted to replace the lost surplus of 93 units in downtown, that could be easily accomplished. At present there are other sites in downtown which could be added to the list of opportunity sites-the part of plaza 9 not owned by the city, the one acre of underdeveloped property along First Street, the vacant lot in front of Packard Foundation and the nearly one acre of parking lots across from Packard Foundation along Second Street. Most of these sites are better configured for housing and some have less issues with underground utilities that characterize the parking plazas.

Given the goal of spreading housing through different parts of the city, it makes the most sense, should it be needed, to replace the lost surplus in downtown with other possible sites in the downtown core. While I may have an opinion as to whether or not there is a need to replace the lost surplus, I would encourage the City Council, should the need arise, to replace it with the previously mentioned sites, all of which are located in the downtown core.

Virus-free.www.avg.com

Page 36 of 391 ends

From: [email protected]
To: Public Comment
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Public Comment Submission to City Council Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 2:32:48 PM
Public Comment Submission to City Council
Submitting Written Comments on Agenda Items
Please note: Personal information, such as email addresses, telephone numbers, home addresses, and other contact information are not required to be included with your comments. If this information is included, they will become part of the public record. Redactions and/or edits will not be made to public comments, and the comments will be posted as they are submitted. Please do not include any information in your communication that you do not want to be made public.

Public comments submitted by 5:00 PM of the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet.

Public comments and any associated attachments are subject to the California Public Records Act.

Your Public Comment Regarding withdrawing from JVAC, the Resolution says "Disbands the LA-LAH Joint Volunteer Awards Committee".

Since this committee was JOINTLY formed by the two cities, it must be dissolved by the two cities. There has been no
discussion with Los Altos Hills about their concurrence. Given that, maybe the appropriate language is "Los Altos withdraws from...". This leaves the Committee in tact until and unless Los Altos Hills decides to also withdraw.

Attachments Field not completed.

Name Benjamin Gikis
Email [email protected]
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

Page 37 of 391 ends

Page 38 of 391 ends

From: [email protected]
To: Public Comment
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Public Comment Submission to City Council Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 2:47:50 PM
Public Comment Submission to City Council
Submitting Written Comments on Agenda Items
Please note: Personal information, such as email addresses, telephone numbers, home addresses, and other contact information are not required to be included with your comments. If this information is included, they will become part of the public record. Redactions and/or edits will not be made to public comments, and the comments will be posted as they are submitted. Please do not include any information in your communication that you do not want to be made public.

Public comments submitted by 5:00 PM of the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet.

Public comments and any associated attachments are subject to the California Public Records Act.

Your Public Comment JVAC-There may be some incorrect statements made to Council regarding the JVAC. The comment that "the Committee may have run its course" is far from accurate. After 43 years, the Committee (JVAC) is receiving a large number of nominations of very qualified people. In 2025, JVAC made awards to 10 peoplethe maximum allowed by the By-Laws. Also, the event again was a sell out, and every event with a limited attendance due to facility fire code has been a sellout. This is far from 'having run its course".

Also, the cost of the event is mainly covered by ticket sales. Each City is asked for a nominal contribution ($1500) to help with other expenses, such as publicity, materials, decorations, etc.. The additional money that Los Altos chose to give was NOT needed, and if it would be used to reduce ticket prices, it would reduce price so low that it would sell out immediately. The extra $8500 divided by 170 attendees is $50 per person. With cost running about $50-60 per person. thsi would reduce ticket price to $0-10 per person.

Attachments Field not completed.

Name Benjamin Gikis
Email [email protected]

Page 39 of 391 ends

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

Page 40 of 391 ends

From: Laura Fay
To: Public Comment
Subject: Fwd: Public Comment Not on the Agenda 9/8/2026 - Playground Surface at Grant and Shoup Parks Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 5:16:23 PM
Attachments: PIP Objection Letters to Los Altos City Council.pdf resending to [email protected]
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Laura Fay <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, Sep 6, 2026 at 3:34 PM
Subject: Public Comment Not on the Agenda 9/8/2026 - Playground Surface at Grant and Shoup Parks
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Dear Los Altos City Councilmembers, cc: PARC Commissioners, Please protect our children's health and reject Poured-in-Place playground surfaces as Los Altos playgrounds are upgraded.Please direct the city staff and the PARC Commission to only consider natural surfaces. PIP is a serious downgrade from the current Engineered-Wood-Fiber (EWF) playground surface, for numerous well documented short term harm, longer term health, heat and numerous other environmental considerations. Natural play surfaces should be maximized to avoid many of the health and environmental concerns associated with PIP.

The 64 people below wish to voice this same request to you. This is a representative sample of concerned parents and grandparent Los Altans from the Shoup and Grant park neighborhoods.

Their individual letters are attached here.

First Name Last Name Time of Letter
Rahul Bammi 2026-05-04 22:21:21 ET
Lynnn Boucher 2026-05-02 14:03:25 ET
Allison Brown 2026-05-05 00:11:30 ET
Katherine Carpenter 2026-05-04 09:39:33 ET
Wan Ching Chang 2026-05-02 14:30:58 ET
Emily Chen 2026-05-02 14:16:18 ET
Mike and Pat Cleary 2026-05-02 13:44:03 ET
E. Tracy Cohan 2026-05-02 14:44:11 ET
Russell Cohan 2026-05-02 14:39:40 ET
Jill Curcio 2026-05-03 11:29:50 ET
Stephanie Deck 2026-05-02 16:32:41 ET
Badreddin Edris 2026-05-02 14:12:27 ET
Ingrid Espinosa 2026-05-03 12:18:08 ET
Viviana Espinosa 2026-05-03 22:23:11 ET
Nadia Espinosa 2026-05-02 13:32:24 ET

Page 41 of 391 ends

Valeria Faraci Sindra 2026-05-02 18:28:19 ET
Kathy FitzGerald 2026-05-03 11:01:48 ET
Mattieu Gamache-Asselin 2026-05-25 13:26:00 ET
Kinjal Gavadiya 2026-05-02 17:12:29 ET
Annette Graff 2026-05-02 19:15:40 ET
Douglas Greiman 2026-05-03 13:09:24 ET
Robert Hall 2026-05-01 20:58:48 ET
Sitara Holla 2026-05-02 14:21:33 ET
Linda Hutchins-Knowles 2026-05-03 20:30:00 ET
Theresa Iantosca 2026-05-02 14:15:59 ET
Theresa Iantosca 2026-05-02 14:40:02 ET
Theresa Iantosca 2026-05-02 18:55:50 ET
Sumia Ibrahim 2026-05-02 14:16:39 ET
Padmini Jaikumar 2026-05-04 23:47:15 ET
Kristin Kado 2026-05-03 11:28:48 ET
Dhruva Kashyap 2026-05-02 14:52:52 ET
Chitra Kashyap
Jennifer Keller 2026-05-02 13:06:24 ET
Eduard Keller 2026-05-02 13:07:32 ET
Inna Kupershmidt 2026-05-02 15:44:10 ET
Florence Lin 2026-05-09 13:50:59 ET
Jim Loveland 2026-04-28 19:24:33 ET
Jim Loveland 2026-04-28 19:24:33 ET
Tony Lu 2026-05-04 22:25:34 ET
Kuo Lu 2026-05-04 22:22:21 ET
Cindy Lu 2026-05-04 22:23:46 ET
Ashley Lu 2026-05-04 22:45:10 ET
Albert Luo 2026-05-04 00:47:11 ET
Jessica Lyall 2026-05-03 23:33:14 ET
John McKenna 2026-05-02 02:49:32 ET
Jenna Moore 2026-05-03 23:29:13 ET
David Moore 2026-05-03 23:32:50 ET
Smidth Panchamia 2026-05-04 09:44:56 ET
Vishal Pandya 2026-05-02 12:47:05 ET
Bernard Parente 2026-05-24 23:13:17 ET
Jarod Partlo 2026-05-02 17:47:25 ET
Lisa Paterson 2026-05-02 17:05:15 ET
Karen Rizkalla 2026-05-08 21:50:03 ET
Michael Rizkalla 2026-05-08 21:50:44 ET
Maitreyi Roy 2026-05-02 14:07:21 ET
Daryl Shafran 2026-05-04 15:35:03 ET
Mike Shafran 2026-05-04 15:38:13 ET
Shimol Shah 2026-05-03 21:05:53 ET
Shibani Shah 2026-05-03 21:51:13 ET
Parth Shah 2026-05-04 00:49:28 ET

Page 42 of 391 ends

Monica T 2026-05-02 19:56:31 ET
Christa-Lynn Vampola 2026-05-03 09:29:01 ET
Suparna Vashisht 2026-05-02 12:42:55 ET
Cynthia Verbitzky 2026-05-02 14:14:54 ET
ANDREA WALD 2026-05-02 08:07:15 ET
Ken Wang 2026-05-02 14:46:03 ET
Cheryl Weiden 2026-05-02 22:00:46 ET
--
Laura Fay
(650) 776-4352 | [email protected] | LinkedIn
"The greatest threat to our planet is the belief that someone else will save it" - Robert Swan

Page 43 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-04 22:25:34 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are numerous health and environmental problems associated with Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber surfaces including, heat islands, injuries resulting from UV degradation, chemical exposure, chemical runoff into our groundwater, reduced soil moisture, increased adjacent vegetation stress.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Please direct city staff to install play surfaces that factor both the short-term AND long-term health of our children, in addition to avoiding contamination of our drinking water and optimizing the health of our adjacent green spaces.

Sincerely,
Tony Lu

Page 44 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-03 12:18:08 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Please direct city staff to install play surfaces that factor both the short term AND long-term health of our children, in addition to avoiding contamination of our drinking water and optimizing the health of our adjacent green spaces.

Sincerely,
Ingrid Espinosa

Page 45 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-02 12:47:05 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Vishal Pandya

Page 46 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-02 13:06:24 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Keller

Page 47 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-02 13:07:32 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I live right next to the park and my kids use it everyday. I DO NOT want my children exposed to forever chemicals.

I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Eduard Keller

Page 48 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-02 13:32:24 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Nadia Espinosa

Page 49 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-02 13:44:03 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install/maintain natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park We would prefer the current small wood chips or other natural materials be used at Grant Park and other parks within the City. Our kids and grandkids have used and enjoyed nearby Grant Park over the past 50 years through itâ€™s progressive changes which have utilized natural surfaces.

Sincerely,
Mike and Pat Cleary
Mike and Pat Cleary
1501 Elnora Court
Los Altos

Page 50 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-02 14:03:25 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Lynn Boucher

Page 51 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-02 14:07:21 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

I have lived in Los Altos for over 2 years now and my little kids use Grant Prank very regularly.

Sincerely,
Maitreyi Roy

Page 52 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-02 14:12:27 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I have two young children who love to go to both Grant and Shoup park â€” we go to each park several times per week.

As a Stanford-trained PhD in the biomedical sciences, I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Dr. Badreddin Edris
1658 Ben Roe Drive, Los Altos

Page 53 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-02 14:14:54 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Cynthia Verbitzky

Page 54 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-02 14:15:59 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces We have lived in the Grant Park area since 1975. Our kids and grandkids grew up enjoying the park. Please don’t ruin it by installing PIP playground material.

Sincerely,
Theresa Iantosca

Page 55 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-02 14:16:18 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Emily Chen

Page 56 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-02 14:16:39 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

I’m a parent of a 2.5 year old that lives in the Grant Park neighborhood and we play there daily. I do not want him exposed to toxic chemicals at the neighborhood playground.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Sumia Ibrahim

Page 57 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-02 14:21:33 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Sitara Holla

Page 58 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-02 14:30:58 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Wan Ching Chang

Page 59 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-02 14:39:40 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Russell Cohan

Page 60 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-02 14:40:02 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces We have lived in the Grant Park area since 1975. Our children and grandchildren have grown up using the park. Please don’t ruin it by installing PIP surfaces.

Thank you
Sincerely,
Theresa Iantosca

Page 61 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-02 14:44:11 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth Tracy Cohan

Page 62 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-02 14:46:03 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Ken Wang

Page 63 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-02 14:52:52 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Dhruva Kashyap

Page 64 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-02 15:44:10 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Inna Kupershimdt

Page 65 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-02 16:32:41 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces We fully support the upgrade of our city however the choice to use PIP rubber at Shoup Park is alarming and there are safe alternatives available. We are sadly in an era where cancer rates in young people are soaring and these measures are vital in trying to reduce the toxicity we are exposing our kids to.

There is so much evidence all over the world that these rubber products are 100% proven harmful.

Please listen to the parents.

Stephanie Deck

Page 66 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-02 17:05:15 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Lisa Peterson

Page 67 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-02 17:12:29 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Kinjal Gavadiya

Page 68 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-02 17:47:25 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces We urge the City of Los Altos to prioritize natural playground surfaces and reconsider the use of poured-in-place (PIP) rubber at Shoup Park and in future park projects.

We live on University Avenue, just steps from Shoup Park, and care deeply about maintaining a safe, usable, and environmentally responsible space for families in our community.

There are well-established natural alternatives to PIP rubber, including engineered wood fiber (EWF) and cork-based products, that provide safe fall protection without the hazards associated with PIP rubber. These options are widely used, cost-effective, and align with a more natural park environment.

PIP rubber is typically made from recycled tire materials bound with polyurethane, which could expose our children to heavy metals, cancer-causing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and other hazardous â€œforever chemicals.â€ Exposure can occur through hand-to-mouth contact, dust inhalation, or chewing on debris. We want to bring our children to Shoup Park without worrying about the consequences to their health. Given the breadth of alternatives available, we hope you will choose one that doesnâ€™t pose a health risk to our young children that could last their entire lives.

PIP rubber surfaces can also reach extreme temperatures significantly higher than ambient air on sunny days, which limits usability and poses a burn risk for children on days the park is most likely to be busy. We walk Old Los Altos daily and we also wouldnâ€™t want our neighborhood impacted by the heat island this new surface would inevitably generate. Given how frequently Shoup Park is used during warm weather and given the potential effect on our neighborhood, please consider PIP rubberâ€™s heat retention in your decision.

We are concerned about long-term environmental impacts, as well. As these materials age and break down, they can release particulates that contaminate surrounding soil and run off into our limited water resources, including Adobe Creek. Natural playground surfaces are more compatible with soil health, permeability, vegetation, and clean ground water. Along with the adjacent Redwood Grove, Shoup Park is our most valued natural space in this beautiful neighborhood. Any improvements should enhance - not detract from - its environmental quality and long-term sustainability.

Page 69 of 391 ends

For these reasons, we respectfully implore city officials to prioritize natural surfacing materials that maintain our childrenâ€™s safety, their long-term well-being, and the health of our environment.

Sincerely,
Jarod Partlo & Taylor Howell
565 University Avenue

Page 70 of 391 ends

2026-05-02 18:55:50 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces We have lived in the Grant Park area since 1975. Our chiyand grandchildren have grown up using Grant Park. Please do not install a PIP surface in the park. Don’t ruin the park for the children who live in this area.

Thank You
Sincerely,
Theresa Iay Iantosca

Page 71 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-02 19:15:40 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely, Annette Graff

Page 72 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-02 19:56:31 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Monica T

Page 73 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-02 22:00:46 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I am concerned about the potential long-term impact of poured-in-place (PIP) rubber playground surfaces on Los Altos groundwater.

Groundwater is an important part of our local drinking water supply, and our community has water pumps and holding tanks located throughout residential neighborhoods. Because PIP surfaces contain recycled rubber and chemical binders, I believe the City should proceed cautiously and fully evaluate possible runoff and leaching impacts before installing these surfaces at Shoup and Grant Parks.

Once groundwater is contaminated, cleanup is extremely difficult and costly. Since safer alternative playground surfaces exist, including engineered wood fiber and cork-based materials, I urge the City Council to pause and carefully review the environmental and groundwater implications before moving forward.

Please prioritize the long-term health of our parks, soil, groundwater, and community.

Sincerely,
Cheryl Weiden

Page 74 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-03 09:29:01 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces My family lives near Grant Park. We have 3 kids, now 8, 10 and 12 years old that have grown up playing at Grant Park. Before starting school at Montclaire, they were there twice per day with grandma and we spent our Sundays at Shoup Park after church at St Nicks. I am deeply concerned since learning about the plan to replace the tan bark with rubber at both these parks. This rubber is very toxic and gets absorbed through the kidâ€™s skin and processed through the kidneys. What will end up in the creek? Especially as the rubber ages and breaks down?
I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Christa-Lynn Vampola

Page 75 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-03 11:01:48 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Kathy FitzGerald

Page 76 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-03 11:28:48 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Kristin Kado

Page 77 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-03 11:29:50 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces With so many disappointing, depressing leadership decisions being made right now, is Los Altos really going to pile on top and approve this synthetic installation over maintaining a natural ground cover in Shoup Park. Iâ€™ve lived on Orange Avenue for 30 years. Our kids grew up in Shoup Park on these playgrounds. It is heartbreaking to think that todayâ€™s City Council members would make such an unsafe, unhealthy choice for its people.

I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

Sincerely,
Jill Curcio

Page 78 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-03 13:09:24 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces Hi.

I live next to Grant Park. I've watched generations of kids play. My family, other people's families. Toddlers, children, teenagers, adults. And the thought of turning it into a chemical waste dump makes me shake with fury.

So ask yourself, what kind of person are you? Are you the kind of person that seeks to poison our children and our natural spaces? Are you filled with the callous disregard that seems so common today?
No, no you are not. I know you are not. So be better. Choose better. Do not pour cancer into our playgrounds.

If you want to talk to me more about this, by all means, stop by. I'd be absolutely delighted to discuss the matter.

Sincerely,
Douglas Greiman
1889 Grant Park Lane,
Los Altos, CA 94024

Page 79 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-03 21:05:53 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Shimol Shah

Page 80 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-03 21:51:13 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Shibani Shah

Page 81 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-03 23:29:13 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Jenna Moore
Lifetime resident of Los Altos and former PARC Commissioner

Page 82 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-03 23:32:50 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
David Moore
Thirteen year resident of Los Altos and father of two children who frequent Grant Park"

Page 83 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-03 23:33:14 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces My children love the amazing Grant Park, our neighborhood park. I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Jessica Lyall

Page 84 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-04 00:47:11 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces To Whom It May Concern:

I am physician and a father of 2 daughters who attend public elementary school in Los Altos, and we have lived adjacent to Grant Park for the past 9 years.

The playground surface at our parks should remain natural. Beyond the obvious environmental concerns regarding the manufacture, installation, and degradation of a synthetic surface from wear and weathering which should themselves be prohibitive, there is the simple discomfort â€” and potential danger â€” of playing on a hot artificial surface.

Our girls have practically grown up in Grant Park and have loved the nature aspect of the wood chips and sand at the playground. On countless occasions they have used the wood pieces as currency for their imaginary ice cream shops, or as cookies and crackers for their fantasy picnics, all while never having suffered any injury jumping and sliding into the ground. And all without our needing to worry about any unnecessarily additional microplastics exposure or excessively hot surfaces.

Like many of my other fellow parent neighbors are requesting, please direct city staff to install play surfaces that factor both the short term AND long-term health of our children, in addition to avoiding contamination of our drinking water and optimizing the health of our adjacent green spaces.

Sincerely,
Albert Luo, MD

Page 85 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-04 00:49:28 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Parth Shah

Page 86 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-04 09:39:33 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Aside from the environmental and health concerns, I don't want the City to spend money fixing problems that aren't there- the current play surfaces are fine. If the City wants to spend money on parks, please invest in newer playground equipment or repairs to what's there, added trees or benches, and ensuring that pathways are smooth and ADA-accessible.

Sincerely,
Katherine Winant Carpenter
Resident since childhood in 1985, now raising my own kids here!"

Page 87 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-04 09:44:56 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Smidth Panchamia

Page 88 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-04 15:35:03 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Daryl Shafran

Page 89 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-04 15:38:13 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Mike Shafran

Page 90 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-04 22:21:21 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Rahul Bammi

Page 91 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-04 22:22:21 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces Think about our children’s future. Keep the tan bark!!
I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely, Kuo Lu

Page 92 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-04 22:23:46 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Cindy Lu

Page 93 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-04 22:45:10 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Ashley Lu

Page 94 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-04 23:47:15 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I have two young kids who use the park everyday. We stay right across the street from the park, and the park was one of the reasons for us purchasing our home.

I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Padmini Jaikumar

Page 95 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-05 00:11:30 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces My daughter loves to play at parks and we often go to Grant Park.

I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Allison Brown

Page 96 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-08 21:50:03 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Karen Rizkalla

Page 97 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-08 21:50:44 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Michael Rizkalla

Page 98 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-09 13:50:59 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

I have resided in Los Altos since 2011. Iâ€™m very concerned about forever chemicals on the playground on which my children play and the possibility of groundwater contamination.

Please reject PIP on our playgrounds.

Sincerely,
Florence Lin

Page 99 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-24 23:13:17 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Bernard Parente

Page 100 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-25 13:26:00 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Mattieu Gamache-Asselin

Page 101 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-02 12:42:55 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Suparna Vashisht

Page 102 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-02 02:49:32 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I'm the father of a twelve-year-old, lived in Los Altos for many years, and graduated from Los Altos High School. It's a wonderful and safe community that we often visit. It greatly concerns me that so many natural settings, including playing surfaces (playgrounds and athletic fields) for our youth, are being replaced with unsafe artificial materials that harm both human and environmental health.

I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
John McKenna

Page 103 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-03 22:23:11 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Viviana Espinosa

Page 104 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-01 20:58:48 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Robert Hall

Page 105 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-04-28 19:24:33 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Jim Loveland

Page 106 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-03 20:30:00 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces When my children were little, we gathered each week with a group of other mothers and children at Shoup Park. The kids loved the big grassy field and the creek running along the edge of the park. This time in nature was priceless, as my kids were visibly calmer and happier after a day playing in the grassy park and playground, and I could relax knowing they weren't being exposed to toxic chemicals and were breathing in clean, healthy air.

So I was horrified to learn that the City of Los Altos is considering installing toxic, off-gasing and very hot Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber at Shoup and Grant park playgrouds.

I urge the Mayor and City Councilmembers to reject this proposal, and insist that ALL city park playgrounds are updated only with natural play surfaces, such as Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) or Corkeen.

There are numerous health and environmental problems associated with Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber surfaces including: heat islands, injuries resulting from UV degradation, chemical exposure, chemical runoff into our groundwater, reduced soil moisture, increased adjacent vegetation stress.

Natural play surfaces like EWF and Corkeen are much safer since they don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Therefore, as a mother, I ask that you direct city staff to install play surfaces that factor both the short term AND long-term health of our children. Please also act to avoid contamination of Los Altos' drinking water and instead optimize the health of adjacent green spaces.

Sincerely,
Linda Hutchins-Knowles

Page 107 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-02 08:07:15 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I’ve written and made public comments many times to city council and various commissions in Los Altos and actually locally in the Bay Area and across the US.

I, once again, am urging that Los Altos do the right thing for the environment and the health of not only your kids but the planet and the rest of us, to install natural surfaces and reject Pouredin-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

By now Iâ€™m certain you are aware of all the harms this petrochemical product is being linked to - not to mention it gets unbearably hot and is not recyclable.

Please stay with the current surface that has been used not only in Los Altos parks but many others around the Bay Area and beyond - Engineered Wood Fiber.

Please direct city staff to not allow anymore PIP into your parks and playgrounds.

Sincerely,
Andrea Wald
Co-Founder, Community for Natural Play Surfaces

Page 108 of 391 ends

Time Stamp: 2026-05-02 18:28:19 ET
Subject: Please protect our children's health and oppose Poured-in-Place playground surfaces I urge the city of Los Altos to install natural surfaces and reject Poured-in-Place (PIP) rubber in Shoup and Grant park playgrounds and in ALL city park playgrounds.

There are safer natural play surfaces (Engineered Wood Fiber (EWF) and Corkeen) that don’t have the same hazard profile as PIP rubber.

Sincerely,
Valeria Faraci Sindra

Page 109 of 391 ends

Page 110 of 391 ends

Page 111 of 391 ends

Page 112 of 391 ends

Page 113 of 391 ends

Page 114 of 391 ends

Page 115 of 391 ends

CITY OF LOS ALTOS

CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY, AUGUST 25, 2026
7:00 p.m.
1 N. San Antonio Rd. ~ Los Altos, CA
Sally Meadows, Mayor
Larry Lang, Vice Mayor
Pete Dailey, Councilmember
Jonathan D. Weinberg, Councilmember
CALL MEETING TO ORDER – Sally Meadows, Mayor, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

ESTABLISH QUORUM – All Councilmembers were present.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Jonathan D. Weinberg, Councilmember, led the Pledge of Allegiance.

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
No reportable action was taken during the Closed Session meeting on August 25, 2026.

SPECIAL ITEM
Recognition of 2026 Annual Employee Award Winners
Irene Barragan, Human Resources Director, presented the awards to the employee recipients.

CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
There were no changes to the order of the agenda.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
The following members of the public spoke during Public Comment:
• Stafford Lum • Atossa Leffert
• William Torbenson • Ken Elchert
• Sunshine Pooley • Terri Couture
• Steve Larson

CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no public speakers during the Consent Calendar.

Motion by Lang and Second by Weinberg to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

1. Approval of Meeting Minutes – Draft Special and Regular Meeting of July 14, 2026

2. Acceptance of Treasurer's Report
Receive and file the City's Treasurer's Report for the quarter ending June 30, 2026

Page 116 of 391 ends

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 25, 2026

Page 2 of 5 ends

3. Adoption of Resolution - History Museum Roof Replacement Adopt a resolution to authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Diablo Roofing Incorporated, to replace and repair the roofing at the Los Altos History Museum in an amount not-to-exceed $147,500 with a contingency of up to 15% (not-to-exceed $22,125.00), for a total combined project cost not-to-exceed $169,625

4. Approval of Draft Response - Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Approve the draft responses to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Reports: Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County and VTA's Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II

5. Adoption of Resolution – Award Construction Contract for the Maintenance Yard EV Chargers Project
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Bockmon & Woody Electric Co., Inc. of Stockton, California, to complete the Maintenance Yard EV Chargers Project in an amount not to exceed $363,220, and authorize up to 15% construction contingency in an amount not to exceed $54,483, for a total amount not to exceed $417,703

6. Adoption of Resolution - Woodland Library Patio Expansion Project Acceptance Adopt a resolution accepting completion of the Woodland Library Patio Expansion project and authorizing City staff to record a Notice of Completion as required by law

PUBLIC HEARINGS

7. Public Hearing - Resident Petition to Rename Lee Street to Tubman Street Receive the report and take one of the following actions:
• Rename Lee Street to Tubman Street; or
• Forward the item to the Historical Commission, or other relevant Commission, for further study and recommendation
Jon Maginot, Assistant City Manager, introduced the item, and Larry Lang, Vice Mayor, provided background information.

Sally Meadows, Mayor, opened the Public Hearing.

The following members of the public spoke during the Public Hearing:
• Joan LeMahieu • Katherine Carpenter
• Jim Forster • Eric Albert
• Raquel Friedman • Renee Rashid
• Brian Jones
Sally Meadows, Mayor, closed the Public Hearing.

Page 117 of 391 ends

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 25, 2026

Page 3 of 5 ends

Motion by Lang and Second by Dailey to rename Lee Street to Tubman Street, based on a resident petition. Motion carried unanimously by electronic vote.

This item will return for final adoption via resolution on the Consent Calendar at the regular meeting of September 8, 2026.

8. Adoption of Resolution - Vesting Tentative Map at 349 First Street Adopt a Resolution approving a Vesting Tentative Map for condominium purposes (Application No. TM23-0002) for the creation of 19 condominium units at 349 First Street, subject to the recommended findings and conditions of approval; and find the project is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 (Attachment 1) Sean Gallegos, Senior Planner, presented the item.

Sally Meadows, Mayor, opened the Public Hearing.

The following members of the public spoke during the Public Hearing:
• Jim Wing
• Ken Newman
• Cindy Newman
Motion by Weinberg and Second by Lang to adopt a Resolution approving a Vesting Tentative Map for condominium purposes (Application No. TM23-0002) for the creation of 19 condominium units at 349 First Street, subject to the recommended findings and conditions of approval; and find the project is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66. Motion carried unanimously by electronic vote.

9. Adoption of Resolution - Vesting Tentative Map at Sherwood and Acacia Avenue Adopt a Resolution approving a Vesting Tentative Map for condominium purposes (Application No. TM25-0002) for the creation of 33 condominium units at 966, 994, and 988 Sherwood Avenue, and 987, 994, and 1005 Acacia Avenue, subject to the recommended findings and conditions of approval; and find the project is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.66 (Attachment 1)
Brittany Whitehill, Senior Planner, provided the report.

Sally Meadows, Mayor, opened the Public Hearing.

There were no speakers during the Public Hearing.

Sally Meadows, Mayor, closed the Public Hearing.

Page 118 of 391 ends

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 25, 2026

Page 4 of 5 ends

Motion by Weinberg and Second by Lang to adopt a Resolution approving a Vesting Tentative Map for condominium purposes for the creation of 33 condominium units at 966, 994, and 988 Sherwood Avenue, and 987, 994, and 1005 Acacia Avenue, subject to the recommended findings and conditions of approval; and find the project is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.66. Motion carried unanimously by electronic vote.

DISCUSSION ITEMS

10. Provide Direction - Joint Volunteer Awards Committee Provide direction on how the Joint Volunteer Awards Committee shall proceed moving forward
Sally Meadows, Mayor, opened the item.

There were no public speakers regarding the item.

The City Council directed that the committee continue as a committee and support a Los Altosonly option for volunteer community service awards.

This item will return for final adoption via resolution on the Consent Calendar at the regular meeting of September 8, 2026.

COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS AND DIRECTIONS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS • Pete Dailey, Councilmember – Requested a future agenda item:
o Revisit privacy element in the Municipal Code (Support was unanimous, but direction was given to send this to the Planning Commission for review prior to discussion by the City Council)
o Discuss official city branding (No support)
o Council position on Proposition 37 (Supported by Weinberg) • Jonathan D. Weinberg, Councilmember – Requested a future agenda item:
o Discussion item to create a City Council subcommittee to review the Environmental Commission (Supported by Meadows and Lang) ADJOURNMENT – The regular meeting adjourned at 8:58 p.m.

The meeting minutes were prepared by Melissa Thurman, City Clerk, for approval at the regular meeting on September 8, 2026.
_________________________________ __________________________________ Sally Meadows Melissa Thurman, MMC
Mayor City Clerk

Page 119 of 391 ends

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 25, 2026

Page 5 of 5 ends

The August 25, 2026, City Council meeting recording may be viewed via the following external website: https://www.youtube.com/@CityofLosAltosCA
The City of Los Altos does not own or operate YouTube. The video referenced in these minutes was live at the time the minutes were published.

Page 120 of 391 ends

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: September 8, 2026
Prepared By: Scott Gerdes
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: Adoption of Resolution - Revised Fiscal Year 2026/27 Pay Schedules

COUNCIL PRIORITY AREA
General Government

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving revised Fiscal Year 2026/27 Pay Schedules for the Los Altos Municipal Employee Association (LAMEA), Los Altos Peace Officers' Association (POA), Unrepresented Management, and Unrepresented Professional and Confidential classifications

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The proposed action is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as it is an administrative governmental activity that will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no additional impact to the budget associated with the adoption of these revised Pay Schedules. Costs associated with the underlying compensation adjustments have been included in the adopted Fiscal Year 2026/27 budget.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
June 9, 2026 – Adoption of Resolution No. 2026-42 approving Fiscal Year 2026/27 Pay Schedules.

BACKGROUND
On June 9, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-42 approving the City's Fiscal Year 2026/27 pay schedules. The adopted schedules establish the publicly available pay rates for City classifications in accordance with California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) requirements.

Following adoption and implementation of the Fiscal Year 2026/27 pay schedules, staff identified updates and administrative corrections necessary to ensure the schedules accurately reflect classification assignments, pay ranges, and applicable effective dates.

The proposed action revises four Fiscal Year 2026/27 pay schedules: Los Altos Municipal Employee Association (LAMEA), Los Altos Peace Officers' Association (POA), Unrepresented Management, and Unrepresented Professional and Confidential.

Page 121 of 391 ends

Maintaining accurate, Council-adopted and publicly available pay schedules promotes transparency regarding City compensation and supports compliance with CalPERS pay schedule requirements.

ANALYSIS
Accurate and publicly available pay schedules provide transparency regarding the City's established compensation ranges and are necessary for the administration and reporting of compensation to CalPERS. California Code of Regulations Section 570.5 requires pay rates used to determine pensionable compensation to be contained in a publicly available pay schedule that has been duly approved and adopted by the employer's governing body.

The proposed revisions provide an accurate and consolidated record of the City's classification assignments, pay ranges, and applicable effective dates. Correcting the Recreation Assistant and Police Records Supervisor classifications ensures the LAMEA and POA schedules accurately reflect the classifications assigned to each bargaining unit. Updating the Deputy City Manager range reflects the revised internal alignment resulting from the City Manager's Office restructure.

The addition of classification-specific effective dates to the Unrepresented Management and Unrepresented Professional and Confidential schedules clarifies the implementation of the Fiscal Year 2026/27 compensation adjustments. This approach allows the City to maintain a single pay schedule for each employee group while accurately documenting the June 21, 2026 and July 5, 2026 effective dates applicable to individual classifications.

Approval of the revised schedules will ensure that the City's publicly available pay schedules accurately reflect the compensation administered by the City.

DISCUSSION
Los Altos Municipal Employee Association (LAMEA): The Recreation Assistant classification was inadvertently omitted from the Fiscal Year 2026/27 LAMEA pay schedule and has been restored effective June 21, 2026. The Police Records Supervisor classification has also been removed from the LAMEA pay schedule consistent with the intended transition of Police Records classifications to the POA bargaining unit effective June 21, 2026.

Los Altos Peace Officers' Association (POA): The Police Records Supervisor classification has been added to the POA pay schedule effective June 21, 2026, consistent with the transition of the other Police Records classifications to the POA bargaining unit.

Unrepresented Management and Unrepresented Professional and Confidential: The pay schedules have been revised to accurately reflect the effective dates of the Fiscal Year 2026/27 compensation adjustments. Unrepresented classifications received a 5% general compensation adjustment, with additional market-based range adjustments applied to designated classifications. Where a market range adjustment required an employee's pay to be increased to the new range minimum, the adjusted range became effective June 21, 2026. The final ranges for all remaining classifications became effective July 5, 2026. The revised schedules identify

Page 122 of 391 ends

the applicable effective date for each classification.

Deputy City Manager: The Deputy City Manager pay range has also been updated to reflect the appropriate internal alignment following a restructure within the City Manager's Office.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Resolution

2. Attachment 2 - LAMEA Pay Schedule

3. Attachment 3 - POA Pay Schedule

4. Attachment 4 - Unrepresented Management Pay Schedule

5. Attachment 5 - Unrepresented Professional and Confidential Pay Schedule

Page 123 of 391 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 1 of 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS ADOPTING REVISED FISCAL YEAR 2026/27 PAY SCHEDULES AND CONFIRMING

COMPLIANCE WITH CALPERS REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPENSATION

EARNABLE AND PUBLICLY AVAILABLE PAY SCHEDULES
WHEREAS, California Government Code section 20636 and California Code of Regulations section 570.5 establish requirements related to compensation earnable and publicly available pay schedules for California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) purposes, including that applicable pay schedules be duly approved and adopted by the employer's governing body and made publicly available; and
WHEREAS, on June 9, 2026, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2026-42 approving the City's Fiscal Year 2026/27 Pay Schedules; and
WHEREAS, following adoption and implementation of the Fiscal Year 2026/27 Pay Schedules, staff identified updates and administrative corrections necessary to accurately reflect classification assignments, pay ranges, and applicable effective dates; and WHEREAS, attached to this Resolution and incorporated herein by reference are the City’s Fiscal Year 2026/27 Pay Schedules which will be made publicly available on the City’s external website and provided upon request; and
WHEREAS, adoption of the revised Fiscal Year 2026/27 Pay Schedules is intended to accurately reflect the City's classification structure, pay ranges, and applicable effective dates and maintain compliance with applicable CalPERS statutory and regulatory requirements regarding compensation earnable and publicly available pay schedules; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Los Altos hereby:

1. Approves and adopts the revised Fiscal Year 2026/27 Pay Schedules attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as follows:
a. Los Altos Municipal Employee Association (LAMEA) Pay Schedule b. Los Altos Peace Officers' Association (POA) Pay Schedule c. Unrepresented Management Pay Schedule; and
d. Unrepresented Professional and Confidential Pay Schedule.

2. Provides that the revised Pay Schedules adopted by this Resolution supersede the corresponding Fiscal Year 2026/27 Pay Schedules previously adopted by Resolution No. 2026-42.

3. Directs staff to make the revised Pay Schedules publicly available in accordance with applicable CalPERS requirements.

4. Provides that all other Fiscal Year 2026/27 Pay Schedules adopted by Resolution No. 2026- 42 remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

Page 124 of 391 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 2 of 2
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos at a meeting thereof on the 8th day of September 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Sally Meadows, MAYOR
Attest:
_____________________________
Melissa Thurman, CITY CLERK

Page 125 of 391 ends

FY 2026/27 Compensation Adjustments: 3.8% CPI adjustment effective 06/21/26 Resolution 2026-XX
LAMEA Classifications FLSA Status Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Accountant Non-Exempt $4,439.59 $4,661.57 $4,894.65 $5,139.38 $5,396.35 $9,619.11 $10,100.07 $10,605.07 $11,135.32 $11,692.09 $115,429.35 $121,200.81 $127,260.85 $133,623.90 $140,305.09 Accounting Office Assistant Non-Exempt $2,873.32 $3,016.99 $3,167.84 $3,326.23 $3,492.54 $6,225.53 $6,536.81 $6,863.65 $7,206.83 $7,567.17 $74,706.39 $78,441.71 $82,363.79 $86,481.98 $90,806.08 Accounting Technician I Non-Exempt $3,064.08 $3,217.29 $3,378.15 $3,547.06 $3,724.41 $6,638.85 $6,970.79 $7,319.33 $7,685.30 $8,069.56 $79,666.17 $83,649.48 $87,831.96 $92,223.55 $96,834.73 Accounting Technician II Non-Exempt $3,528.49 $3,704.92 $3,890.16 $4,084.67 $4,288.91 $7,645.07 $8,027.32 $8,428.69 $8,850.12 $9,292.63 $91,740.84 $96,327.88 $101,144.27 $106,201.49 $111,511.56 Assistant Engineer Non-Exempt $4,813.03 $5,053.68 $5,306.36 $5,571.68 $5,850.26 $10,428.22 $10,949.64 $11,497.12 $12,071.97 $12,675.57 $125,138.70 $131,395.63 $137,965.41 $144,863.68 $152,106.87 Assistant Planner Non-Exempt $4,335.77 $4,552.56 $4,780.19 $5,019.20 $5,270.16 $9,394.18 $9,863.89 $10,357.08 $10,874.93 $11,418.68 $112,730.13 $118,366.64 $124,284.97 $130,499.22 $137,024.18 Associate Civil Engineer Non-Exempt $5,458.99 $5,731.94 $6,018.54 $6,319.47 $6,635.44 $11,827.82 $12,419.21 $13,040.17 $13,692.18 $14,376.79 $141,933.87 $149,030.56 $156,482.09 $164,306.20 $172,521.50 Associate Planner Non-Exempt $4,789.95 $5,029.45 $5,280.92 $5,544.97 $5,822.21 $10,378.22 $10,897.14 $11,441.99 $12,014.09 $12,614.80 $124,538.69 $130,765.62 $137,303.90 $144,169.10 $151,377.55 Building Inspector Non-Exempt $4,636.22 $4,868.03 $5,111.43 $5,367.00 $5,635.35 $10,045.14 $10,547.40 $11,074.77 $11,628.51 $12,209.93 $120,541.69 $126,568.77 $132,897.21 $139,542.07 $146,519.18 Code Enforcement Officer Non-Exempt $4,217.15 $4,428.01 $4,649.41 $4,881.88 $5,125.97 $9,137.16 $9,594.02 $10,073.72 $10,577.40 $11,106.27 $109,645.91 $115,128.21 $120,884.62 $126,928.85 $133,275.29 Construction Inspector Non-Exempt $4,494.86 $4,719.60 $4,955.58 $5,203.36 $5,463.53 $9,738.86 $10,225.80 $10,737.09 $11,273.94 $11,837.64 $116,866.27 $122,709.59 $128,845.07 $135,287.32 $142,051.68 Development Services Technician Non-Exempt $3,582.41 $3,761.53 $3,949.61 $4,147.09 $4,354.45 $7,761.90 $8,149.99 $8,557.49 $8,985.37 $9,434.63 $93,142.76 $97,799.89 $102,689.89 $107,824.38 $113,215.60 Economic Development Coordinator Non-Exempt $4,800.94 $5,040.99 $5,293.04 $5,557.69 $5,835.57 $10,402.04 $10,922.14 $11,468.24 $12,041.66 $12,643.74 $124,824.44 $131,065.66 $137,618.94 $144,499.89 $151,724.88 Emergency Response Coordinator Non-Exempt $5,150.44 $5,407.96 $5,678.36 $5,962.27 $6,260.39 $11,159.28 $11,717.24 $12,303.10 $12,918.26 $13,564.17 $133,911.33 $140,606.90 $147,637.24 $155,019.11 $162,770.06 Engineering Technician Non-Exempt $3,880.32 $4,074.34 $4,278.05 $4,491.96 $4,716.55 $8,407.36 $8,827.73 $9,269.11 $9,732.57 $10,219.20 $100,888.31 $105,932.73 $111,229.36 $116,790.83 $122,630.37 Executive Assistant Non-Exempt $3,592.06 $3,771.66 $3,960.24 $4,158.25 $4,366.17 $7,782.79 $8,171.93 $8,580.53 $9,009.55 $9,460.03 $93,393.47 $98,063.15 $102,966.31 $108,114.62 $113,520.35 GIS Technician Non-Exempt $4,643.12 $4,875.27 $5,119.03 $5,374.99 $5,643.74 $10,060.08 $10,563.09 $11,091.24 $11,645.80 $12,228.09 $120,721.00 $126,757.05 $133,094.90 $139,749.64 $146,737.12 Information Technology Analyst I Exempt $4,938.36 $5,185.27 $5,444.54 $5,716.76 $6,002.60 $10,699.77 $11,234.76 $11,796.50 $12,386.32 $13,005.64 $128,397.26 $134,817.12 $141,557.98 $148,635.87 $156,067.67 Information Technology Analyst II Exempt $5,185.27 $5,444.54 $5,716.76 $6,002.60 $6,302.73 $11,234.76 $11,796.50 $12,386.32 $13,005.64 $13,655.92 $134,817.12 $141,557.98 $148,635.87 $156,067.67 $163,871.05 Information Technology Technician Non-Exempt $4,150.89 $4,358.44 $4,576.36 $4,805.18 $5,045.43 $8,993.60 $9,443.28 $9,915.44 $10,411.21 $10,931.77 $107,923.17 $113,319.33 $118,985.29 $124,934.56 $131,181.29 Network Systems Administrator Exempt $5,507.42 $5,782.79 $6,071.93 $6,375.52 $6,694.30 $11,932.73 $12,529.37 $13,155.84 $13,813.63 $14,504.31 $143,192.80 $150,352.44 $157,870.06 $165,763.56 $174,051.74 Office Assistant I Non-Exempt $2,427.73 $2,549.12 $2,676.57 $2,810.40 $2,950.92 $5,260.09 $5,523.09 $5,799.25 $6,089.21 $6,393.67 $63,121.04 $66,277.09 $69,590.95 $73,070.49 $76,724.02 Office Assistant II Non-Exempt $2,873.32 $3,016.99 $3,167.84 $3,326.23 $3,492.54 $6,225.53 $6,536.81 $6,863.65 $7,206.83 $7,567.17 $74,706.39 $78,441.71 $82,363.79 $86,481.98 $90,806.08 Recreation Assistant Non-Exempt $2,729.40 $2,865.87 $3,009.16 $3,159.62 $3,317.60 $5,913.70 $6,209.39 $6,519.85 $6,845.85 $7,188.14 $70,964.40 $74,512.62 $78,238.25 $82,150.16 $86,257.67 Recreation Coordinator Non-Exempt $3,563.36 $3,741.53 $3,928.60 $4,125.03 $4,331.29 $7,720.61 $8,106.64 $8,511.98 $8,937.58 $9,384.45 $92,647.37 $97,279.74 $102,143.72 $107,250.91 $112,613.45 Senior Building Inspector Exempt $5,288.78 $5,553.22 $5,830.88 $6,122.42 $6,428.54 $11,459.02 $12,031.97 $12,633.56 $13,265.24 $13,928.51 $137,508.19 $144,383.60 $151,602.78 $159,182.92 $167,142.06 Senior Network Systems Administrator Exempt $5,782.79 $6,071.93 $6,375.52 $6,694.30 $7,029.01 $12,529.37 $13,155.84 $13,813.63 $14,504.31 $15,229.53 $150,352.44 $157,870.06 $165,763.56 $174,051.74 $182,754.33 Senior Planner Exempt $5,676.55 $5,960.38 $6,258.40 $6,571.32 $6,899.88 $12,299.19 $12,914.15 $13,559.86 $14,237.85 $14,949.75 $147,590.32 $154,969.83 $162,718.33 $170,854.24 $179,396.95 Sustainability Coordinator Non-Exempt $4,347.29 $4,564.65 $4,792.89 $5,032.53 $5,284.16 $9,419.13 $9,890.08 $10,384.59 $10,903.81 $11,449.01 $113,029.50 $118,680.98 $124,615.03 $130,845.78 $137,388.07 The city pays employees on a biweekly basis (every two weeks). Please note that monthly and annual salary figures are generated using an Excel formula and may not reflect exact totals due to rounding.

City of Los Altos - Full Time Pay Schedule FY 26/27
Biweekly Monthly Annual

LOS ALTOS MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION CLASSIFICATIONS

Page 1 of 1 ends

Initial Adoption: 06/09/26
Revision: 09/XX/26
Adopted by City Council: 09/XX/26
Resolution 2026-XX
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 126 of 391 ends

FY 2026/27 Compensation Adjustments: Market Adjustment to Individual Classifications effective 06/21/2026 Resolution 2026-XX
POA Classifications FLSA Status Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Community Service Officer Non-Exempt $3,899.31 $4,094.27 $4,298.99 $4,513.93 $4,739.63 $8,448.50 $8,870.92 $9,314.47 $9,780.19 $10,269.20 $101,381.96 $106,451.06 $111,773.62 $117,362.30 $123,230.41 Crime Analyst Non-Exempt $4,937.78 $5,184.67 $5,443.90 $5,716.10 $6,001.90 $10,698.53 $11,233.45 $11,795.12 $12,384.88 $13,004.13 $128,382.31 $134,801.43 $141,541.50 $148,618.57 $156,049.50 Lead Police Dispatcher Non-Exempt $4,882.69 $5,126.82 $5,383.16 $5,652.32 $5,934.94 $10,579.16 $11,108.12 $11,663.52 $12,246.70 $12,859.03 $126,949.91 $133,297.40 $139,962.27 $146,960.39 $154,308.41 Lead Records Specialist Non-Exempt $3,302.78 $3,467.92 $3,641.31 $3,823.38 $4,014.55 $7,156.02 $7,513.82 $7,889.51 $8,283.99 $8,698.19 $85,872.25 $90,165.86 $94,674.15 $99,407.86 $104,378.25 Police Corporal Non-Exempt $5,747.93 $6,035.32 $6,337.09 $6,653.94 $6,986.64 $12,453.84 $13,076.54 $13,730.36 $14,416.88 $15,137.72 $149,446.12 $156,918.43 $164,764.35 $173,002.57 $181,652.69 Police Dispatch Supervisor Non-Exempt $5,513.43 $5,789.10 $6,078.55 $6,382.48 $6,701.60 $11,945.76 $12,543.04 $13,170.20 $13,828.71 $14,520.14 $143,349.08 $150,516.54 $158,042.36 $165,944.48 $174,241.71 Police Dispatcher Non-Exempt $4,512.39 $4,738.01 $4,974.91 $5,223.66 $5,484.84 $9,776.85 $10,265.69 $10,778.97 $11,317.92 $11,883.82 $117,322.17 $123,188.28 $129,347.69 $135,815.07 $142,605.83 Police Officer Non-Exempt $5,651.40 $5,933.97 $6,230.67 $6,542.20 $12,244.70 $12,856.94 $13,499.78 $14,174.77 $146,936.43 $154,283.25 $161,997.41 $170,097.28 $170,097.28 Police Officer Trainee Non-Exempt $5,382.29 $11,661.62 $139,939.45 $139,939.45 Police Records Supervisor Non-Exempt $3,925.61 $4,121.89 $4,327.99 $4,544.38 $4,771.60 $8,505.49 $8,930.76 $9,377.30 $9,846.17 $10,338.47 $102,065.87 $107,169.16 $112,527.62 $118,154.00 $124,061.70 Police Sergeant Non-Exempt $6,509.65 $6,835.13 $7,176.88 $7,535.73 $7,912.52 $14,104.23 $14,809.45 $15,549.92 $16,327.41 $17,143.78 $169,250.80 $177,713.34 $186,599.01 $195,928.96 $205,725.41 Records Specialist Non-Exempt $3,002.53 $3,152.65 $3,310.29 $3,475.80 $3,649.59 $6,505.47 $6,830.75 $7,172.28 $7,530.90 $7,907.44 $78,065.68 $81,968.96 $86,067.41 $90,370.78 $94,889.32 The city pays employees on a biweekly basis (every two weeks). Please note that monthly and annual salary figures are generated using an Excel formula and may not reflect exact totals due to rounding.

City of Los Altos - Full Time Pay Schedule FY 26/27
Biweekly Monthly Annual

PEACE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION CLASSIFICATIONS

Page 1 of 1 ends

Initial Adoption: 06/09/26
Revision: 09/XX/26
Adopted by City Council: 09/XX/26
Resolution 2026-XX
ATTACHMENT 3

Page 127 of 391 ends

FY 2026/27 Compensation Adjustments: Unrepresented classifications received a 5% general salary adjustment, with additional market-based salary range adjustments applied to designated classifications. The resulting salary ranges became effective June 21, 2026 or July 5, 2026, as reflected in the Effective Date column.

Unrep. Management Classifications FLSA Status Range Min. Range Max. Range Min. Range Max. Range Min. Range Max. Effective Date Assistant to the City Manager Exempt $6,012.31 $7,308.00 $13,026.67 $15,834.00 $156,320.06 $190,008.01 7/5/2026 Building Official Exempt $7,581.17 $9,214.96 $16,425.87 $19,965.75 $197,110.43 $239,588.96 6/21/2026 Capital Improvement Projects Manager Exempt $7,190.83 $8,740.50 $15,580.14 $18,937.75 $186,961.64 $227,253.04 7/5/2026 City Clerk Exempt $7,160.12 $8,703.17 $15,513.59 $18,856.86 $186,163.04 $226,282.34 6/21/2026 Communications & Engagement Supervisor Exempt $5,625.33 $6,837.62 $12,188.21 $14,814.84 $146,258.50 $177,778.12 7/5/2026 Deputy City Manager Exempt $7,450.00 $9,055.52 $16,141.67 $19,620.30 $193,700.00 $235,443.56 7/5/2026 Deputy Director Exempt $7,973.92 $9,692.34 $17,276.82 $21,000.08 $207,321.81 $252,000.96 6/21/2026 Development Services Manager Exempt $6,805.39 $8,271.99 $14,745.01 $17,922.65 $176,940.06 $215,071.75 7/5/2026 Engineering Manager Exempt $7,133.71 $8,671.06 $15,456.36 $18,787.31 $185,476.36 $225,447.67 7/5/2026 Finance Manager Exempt $7,368.27 $8,956.18 $15,964.59 $19,405.06 $191,575.06 $232,860.69 7/5/2026 Human Resources Administrator Exempt $6,597.16 $8,018.89 $14,293.86 $17,374.27 $171,526.28 $208,491.27 7/5/2026 Human Resources Manager Exempt $7,039.83 $8,556.95 $15,252.96 $18,540.06 $183,035.46 $222,480.75 7/5/2026 Information Technology Manager Exempt $7,039.83 $8,556.95 $15,252.96 $18,540.06 $183,035.46 $222,480.75 7/5/2026 Maintenance Superintendent Exempt $6,990.91 $8,497.49 $15,146.97 $18,411.23 $181,763.61 $220,934.80 7/5/2026 Maintenance Supervisor Exempt $5,108.74 $6,209.71 $11,068.94 $13,454.36 $132,827.25 $161,452.35 6/21/2026 Planning Manager Exempt $6,805.39 $8,271.99 $14,745.01 $17,922.65 $176,940.06 $215,071.75 7/5/2026 Police Captain Exempt $8,830.89 $10,734.01 $19,133.60 $23,257.01 $229,603.23 $279,084.16 7/5/2026 Police Lieutenant Exempt $7,907.00 $9,611.00 $17,131.82 $20,823.84 $205,581.88 $249,886.06 7/5/2026 Project Manager Exempt $5,901.85 $7,173.74 $12,787.34 $15,543.10 $153,448.12 $186,517.15 7/5/2026 Public Information Officer Exempt $6,259.58 $7,608.56 $13,562.42 $16,485.21 $162,749.07 $197,822.51 7/5/2026 Recreation Manager Exempt $6,428.33 $7,813.68 $13,928.06 $16,929.64 $167,136.70 $203,155.70 7/5/2026 Recreation Supervisor Exempt $5,225.01 $6,351.03 $11,320.85 $13,760.56 $135,850.20 $165,126.77 6/21/2026 Senior Recreation Supervisor Exempt $5,486.26 $6,668.58 $11,886.89 $14,448.59 $142,642.71 $173,383.11 7/5/2026 The city pays employees on a biweekly basis (every two weeks). Please note that monthly and annual salary figures are generated using an Excel formula and may not reflect exact totals due to rounding.

Open Range Open Range Open Range
City of Los Altos - Full Time Pay Schedule FY 26/27

UNREPRESENTED MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATIONS
Biweekly Monthly Annual

Page 1 of 1 ends

Initial Adoption: 06/09/26
Revision: 09/XX/26
Adopted by City Council: 09/XX/26
Resolution 2026-XX
ATTACHMENT 4

Page 128 of 391 ends

Unrep. Professional and Confidential
Classifications
FLSA Status Range Min. Range Max. Range Min. Range Max. Range Min. Range Max. Effective Date Confidential Executive Assistant Non-Exempt $4,176.52 $5,076.59 $9,049.13 $10,999.28 $108,589.59 $131,991.33 7/5/2026 Deputy City Clerk Exempt $4,003.36 $4,866.11 $8,673.96 $10,543.25 $104,087.48 $126,518.98 7/5/2026 Human Resources Analyst I Exempt $4,515.77 $5,488.95 $9,784.18 $11,892.73 $117,410.12 $142,712.73 7/5/2026 Human Resources Analyst II Exempt $4,929.03 $5,991.26 $10,679.56 $12,981.07 $128,154.73 $155,772.87 7/5/2026 Human Resources Technician Non-Exempt $3,961.03 $4,814.65 $8,582.23 $10,431.75 $102,986.73 $125,181.02 7/5/2026 Management Analyst I Exempt $4,502.19 $5,472.44 $9,754.74 $11,856.95 $117,056.87 $142,283.35 7/5/2026 Management Analyst II Exempt $4,963.90 $6,033.65 $10,755.11 $13,072.90 $129,061.29 $156,874.81 7/5/2026 Public Information Coordinator Non-Exempt $4,772.97 $5,801.57 $10,341.43 $12,570.07 $124,097.18 $150,840.90 7/5/2026 Senior Accountant Exempt $5,104.54 $6,204.59 $11,059.83 $13,443.29 $132,717.92 $161,319.46 7/5/2026 Senior Civil Engineer Exempt $7,494.65 $9,109.80 $16,238.41 $19,737.89 $194,860.94 $236,854.69 6/21/2026 Senior Human Resources Analyst Exempt $5,174.43 $6,289.56 $11,211.27 $13,627.37 $134,535.30 $163,528.49 7/5/2026 Senior Management Analyst Exempt $5,625.33 $6,837.62 $12,188.21 $14,814.84 $146,258.50 $177,778.12 7/5/2026 The city pays employees on a biweekly basis (every two weeks). Please note that monthly and annual salary figures are generated using an Excel formula and may not reflect exact totals due to rounding.

Open Range Open Range Open Range
City of Los Altos - Full Time Pay Schedule FY 26/27

UNREPRESENTED PROFESSIONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL CLASSIFICATIONS Biweekly Monthly Annual

Page 1 of 1 ends

Initial Adoption: 06/09/26
Revision: 09/XX/26
Adopted by City Council: 09/XX/26
Resolution 2026-XX
ATTACHMENT 5

Page 129 of 391 ends

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: September 8, 2026
Prepared By: Steven Son
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: Adopt a Resolution - Amendment No. 4 with Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc.

COUNCIL PRIORITY AREA
☒Public Safety
☒Business Communities
☒Circulation Safety and Efficiency
☐Environmental Sustainability
☐Housing
☒General Government

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 4 to the Maintenance Service Agreement with Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc. to increase the total agreement amount by $250,000.00.

FISCAL IMPACT
Funding was approved and adopted into the FY2026/2027 Capital Improvement budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not applicable - Categorically Exempt pursuant to CEQA Section 15301(c). It can be seen with certainty that the contract amendment will not have a significant effect on the physical environment, and none of the circumstances in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Council approved Amendment No. 3 on November 18, 2025, Amendment No. 2 on December 10, 2024, and Amendment No. 1 on January 9, 2024 Council meetings.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
On July 27, 2023, the City of Los Altos entered into an agreement in the amount of $78,816.00 with Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc. to provide maintenance services for traffic signal and streetlights for FY2023/24. Under the terms of the executed agreement, the City has the option to extend the contract up to four additional years, not to exceed a total of 5 years. The current scope of work included but is not limited to the following tasks: 1. Inventory and initial system health check, 2. Traffic signal quarterly maintenance checks, 3. Traffic signal annual maintenance checks, 4. Vehicle radar speed sign (RSS) quarterly maintenance checks, 5. Lighted crosswalk system quarterly maintenance checks, 6. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) lighted

Page 130 of 391 ends

crosswalk system quarterly maintenance checks, 7. Additional special services as needed, 8. Oncall support services.

On March 7, 2024, Amendment No. 1 was executed in the amount of $186,205.00. On February 7, 2025, Amendment No. 2 was executed in the amount of $150,130.00. On December 22, 2025, Amendment No. 3 was executed in the amount of $250,000.00. This contract extension would extend this contract for the fourth year, per our initial contract and staff will be soliciting new bids at the conclusion of this extension.

As existing equipment ages, the cost to maintain, to be repaired or replaced continues to escalate.

When safety equipment fails, becomes obsolete or unable to obtain parts staff has been replacing it accordingly. The cost of the new replacement has increased significantly with longer lead time because supply chain has been constrained since COVID.

In addition to the regularly scheduled maintenance tasks, during the past year, one malfunctioning lighted crosswalk was replaced with new RRFB crosswalk system and three existing crosswalks along San Antonio Road at Alma Court, San Antonio Road at Yerba Buena Avenue, and Fremont Avenue at Fallen Leaf Lane are scheduled to be installed with new RRFB crosswalk systems, pending delivery of materials.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Resolution

Page 131 of 391 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE AGREEMENT WITH BEAR ELECTRICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $250,000.00 FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND STREETLIGHT MAINTENANCE

SERVICES
WHEREAS, the CITY and CONTRACTOR entered into an agreement for maintenance services for traffic signal and streetlight maintenance services; and WHEREAS, Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc. was awarded a contract in the amount of $75,816 on July 27, 2023, Amendment No. 1 was executed in the amount of $186,205 on March 7, 2024, Amendment No. 2 was executed in the amount of $150,130 on February 7, 2025, and Amendment No. 3 was executed in the amount of $250,000 on December 22, 2025; and WHEREAS, Amendment No. 4 to Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc.’s contract will carry forth the maintenance services; and
WHEREAS, the FY2026/27 Council-approved operating budget has sufficient funds available; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Los Altos does hereby adopt a resolution:

1. Authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 4 to the Maintenance Service Agreement with Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc., in the amount of $250,000.00, increasing the total not-to-exceed contract amount to $912,151.00 for continued maintenance services.

2. Authorize the City Manager to take such further actions as may be necessary to implement the foregoing Maintenance Service Agreement.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos at a meeting thereof on the 8th day of September, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Page 132 of 391 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
__________________________
Sally Meadows
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Melissa Thurman, MMC
City Clerk

Page 133 of 391 ends

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: September 8, 2026
Prepared By: Anthony Carnesecca
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: Adoption of Resolution - Joint Volunteer Awards Committee Changes

COUNCIL PRIORITY AREA
General Government

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution to disband the Los Altos - Los Altos Hills Joint Volunteer Awards Committee and establish the Los Altos Volunteer Awards Committee

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The resolution is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.

FISCAL IMPACT
N/A

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
February 10, 2026, July 14, 2026, and August 25, 2026

BACKGROUND
Per their Bylaws, "the Los Altos - Los Altos Hills Joint Volunteer Awards Committee is organized jointly by the City of Los Altos and the Town of Los Altos Hills as a non-profit effort to recognize volunteers who have benefited these two communities." The Committee was created in the early 1980s through a partnership between both the City of Los Altos Council and Town of Los Altos Hills Council. In 1983, this Committee first presented awards to volunteers.

In 2009, the City Council approved the new amended Bylaws by an action of the Los Altos City Council and then it was approved by the Town of Los Altos Hills Council.

At their June 18, 2026 meeting, the Town of Los Altos Hills Council adopted a resolution that reclassifies the Los Altos - Los Altos Hills Joint Volunteer Awards Committee as a non-Brown Act advisory committee.

At their July 14, 2026 meeting, the City of Los Altos Council adopted a resolution that reclassifies the Los Altos - Los Altos Hills Joint Volunteer Awards Committee as a non-Brown

Page 134 of 391 ends

Act advisory committee.

This action means the Los Altos - Los Altos Hills Joint Volunteer Awards Committee is longer be required to follow Brown Act provisions so they could meet whenever would be convenient and retain more flexibility in their efforts to coordinate and plan their annual awards event.

Following Council action, the existing Brown Act committee structure would be dissolved, and the committee would be reconstituted as non-Brown Act advisory bodies. The members of the newly constituted committees would be responsible for establishing their own operating procedures and governance documents as appropriate.

After Council action that reclassified the Los Altos - Los Altos Hills Joint Volunteer Awards Committee as a non-Brown Act advisory committee, Mayor Meadows requested this item for a future discussion at their July 14, 2026 meeting with support from Vice Mayor Lang and Council member Weinberg.

The Los Altos representatives on the Joint Volunteer Awards Committee met at the end of July after this was agendized as a future agenda topic. At that meeting, the representatives discussed three options for the Committee moving forward:

1. Continue as-is with Los Altos Hills

2. Continue as a committee serving only Los Altos

3. Disband the group and begin again at some future point These representatives recommended that they continue as an appointed committee and support a Los Altos-only option for volunteer community service awards. This would mean that a Los Altos-only committee could propose a format for what areas the awards should include and what the event should look like. It could have a similar focus as has been happening, with the addition of our city recognizing retiring Los Altos Commissioners. Various processes and procedures clarifying the new focus will be identified and recommended by the Committee as one of their first items of discussion.

ANALYSIS
N/A

DISCUSSION
On August 25, 2026 meeting, the City Council directed City staff to return with a resolution that establishes a committee focused on recognizing volunteers and outgoing commissioners from the City of Los Altos.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Resolution

Page 135 of 391 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS DISBANDING THE LOS ALTOS–LOS ALTOS HILLS JOINT VOLUNTEER

AWARDS COMMITTEE AND ESTABLISHING THE LOS ALTOS

VOLUNTEER AWARDS COMITTEE
WHEREAS, the City of Los Altos and the Town of Los Altos Hills historically jointly participated in the Los Altos–Los Altos Hills Joint Volunteer Awards Committee; and WHEREAS, the City of Los Altos City Council wants to recognize the efforts of the volunteers of Los Altos and outgoing commissioners through their own Los Altos Volunteer Awards Committee; and
WHEREAS, on August 25, 2026, the City Council directed City staff to return with a resolution that establishes a committee focused on recognizing volunteers and outgoing commissioners from the City of Los Altos; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the functions of the Los Altos Volunteer Awards Committee are advisory, informational, and programmatic in nature and do not involve the exercise of decision-making authority on behalf of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to provide greater flexibility for the operation of the Los Altos Volunteer Awards Committee and reduce administrative requirements associated with the Ralph M. Brown Act while continuing to support its important community functions; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Los Altos hereby:

1. Disbands the Los Altos–Los Altos Hills Joint Volunteer Awards Committee at the adoption of this resolution; and

2. Rescinds any existing bylaws, rules, and procedures governing the Los Altos-Los Altos Hills Joint Volunteer Awards Committee; and

3. Establishes the Los Altos Volunteer Awards Committee to recognize the efforts of the volunteers of Los Altos and outgoing commissioners as a non-Brown Act advisory committee; and

4. Authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to take such administrative actions as are necessary to implement this Resolution and coordinate with the Los Altos Volunteer Awards Committee.

Page 136 of 391 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 2
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos at a meeting thereof on the day of 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST:
_________________________ ________________________
Sally Meadows Melissa Thurman, MMC
Mayor City Clerk

Page 137 of 391 ends

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: September 8, 2026
Prepared By: Jessie Kim
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: Acceptance Item - Investment Reports

COUNCIL PRIORITY AREA
General Government

RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file the City's Investment Portfolio Report for the quarter ending March 31, 2026

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
None.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
March 24, 2026

BACKGROUND
This report provides the City's quarterly investment update covering the quarter ending March 31, 2026.

The City invests its funds through five sources: two accounts managed by PTMA, the City's investment advisor, consisting of a short-term account laddered across 0 to 12 months for liquidity and a mid- to long-term account held for stable returns; the State of California Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF); California CLASS, a joint powers authority investment pool; and the U.S. Bank money market sweep account attached to the City's operating checking account.

All funds are invested in accordance with the City's Investment Policy and California Government Code Sections 53600 et seq. Section 53600.5 establishes the order of objectives that governs every investment decision: first, safety of principal; second, liquidity sufficient to meet the City's cash flow needs; and third, return. Section 53601 sets the categories of investment the City may hold and the concentration limits that apply to each.

ANALYSIS
The table below summarizes key changes across all City investments between the quarters ending December 31, 2025 and March 31, 2026. Yield and duration figures reflect the PTMA

Page 138 of 391 ends

managed securities, weighted by market value plus accrued interest; LAIF, CalCLASS, and the sweep account are daily-liquidity pools carried at par and are not subject to a duration measure.

Metric Q2 FY26 Q3 FY26 Change
Total City Investments $100.7M $104.5M Increase $3.8M
Quarterly Investment Income $1,124,835 $964,080 Decrease $160,755 Book Yield 3.978% 3.800% Decrease 17.8 basis points
Market Yield 3.653% 3.882% Increase 22.9 basis points
Duration (years) 1.088 1.306 Increase 0.218 years
Total City investments grew $3.8 million during the quarter, from $100.7 million to $104.5 million. The City recorded $964,080 in investment income during the quarter, about $10,700 per day. LAIF interest is recorded when credited by the State; interest earned January through March ($275,628) was credited April 15 and will appear in the next quarterly report. Investment income was $160,755 lower than the prior quarter, reflecting lower short-term rates as well as the timing of quarterly LAIF interest credits.

Within the PTMA managed portfolio, book yield, the average rate the City actually earns on the securities it holds, eased from 3.978% to 3.800%, a decrease of 17.8 basis points, reflecting the reinvestment of maturing securities at lower interest rates. Market yield, the rate the same securities would offer if purchased today, rose from 3.653% to 3.882%, an increase of 22.9 basis points. Duration of the managed portfolio lengthened from 1.088 years to 1.306 years, reflecting purchases of securities with slightly longer maturities. The daily-liquidity pools moved with the broader rate environment: the CalCLASS quarterly average yield eased from 4.035% to 3.740%, the sweep account's quarterly average rate declined from 3.577% to 3.300%, and the LAIF quarter-to-date rate published by the State declined from 4.090% to 3.876%.

The portfolio remains conservatively positioned. Asset-backed securities were 12.2% of the combined managed portfolio at March 31, well under the 20% limit set by Government Code Section 53601(o). Holdings are concentrated in high credit quality, with about 82% of the managed portfolio rated AA/A-1 or higher, and $48.9 million was available on a same-day or next-day basis at quarter end.

This report is submitted in accordance with California Government Code Section 53646(b)(1).

As required by Section 53646(b)(2), staff reports that the portfolio was in compliance with the City's Investment Policy and with applicable provisions of the Government Code throughout the quarter. As required by Section 53646(b)(3), the City has sufficient funds available to meet its expenditure requirements for the next six months.

DISCUSSION
Most of the $3.8 million growth in total City investments reflects a transfer of operating cash into the City's pooled investments, not investment returns. Investment income is shown separately in the table above.

The longer duration positions the portfolio for the current rate environment. A longer duration means the portfolio holds securities a little further into the future, which keeps today's yields in

Page 139 of 391 ends

place for longer as market rates decline. If the Federal Reserve continues to lower rates, quarterly investment income is expected to ease gradually rather than fall sharply.

Beginning April 1, 2026, PTMA began measuring the managed portfolio against the ICE BofA 1-3 Year AAA-AA U.S. Corporate and Government Index on a total return basis. A benchmark comparison will therefore appear for the first time in the report for the quarter ending June 30, 2026. LAIF, CalCLASS, and the sweep account are daily-liquidity pools and are not measured against a benchmark.

Staff continues to monitor two items. Asset-backed securities in the long-term account alone stood at 19.2% of that account, closer to the 20% limit than the combined figure. PTMA manages that account within the 20% limit and has advised that it expects to keep asset-backed securities near that level while high-quality AAA ABS offer favorable risk-adjusted returns relative to other short-duration spread assets. Separately, the "Not Rated" band in PTMA's rating distribution reflects securities not rated by S&P but rated by other agencies, including Moody's, and the "Below A" band consists of BBB+ investment-grade corporate notes. PTMA confirmed on September 2, 2026 that all securities in both bands met the Investment Policy rating requirements at the time of purchase.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Quarterly Investment Snapshot

2. Attachment 2 - Quarterly Statement

Page 140 of 391 ends

CITY OF LOS ALTOS
Quarter Ended March 31, 2026 (Q3, FY 2025-26) · compared with December 31, 2025 Investment Snapshot
Attachment · Page 1 of 3
The City recorded $964,080 in investment income this quarter, about $10,700 a day, across all five sources.

HOW MUCH THE CITY HAS
$104.5M
up $3.8M vs 12/31
all five investment sources

INCOME RECORDED

THIS QUARTER
$964K
about $10,700 per day
six months, Oct to Mar: $2.09M
WHAT EACH $100 EARNS
$3.78 a year
blended book yield 3.784%
PTMA managed accounts 3.800%

READY WITHIN A DAY
$48.9M
LAIF $28.6M + CalCLASS $14.4M
+ sweep $5.9M · 46.8% of total
Where the City's Money Sits: December 31 vs March 31 ($ millions) PTMA long-term $35.2M
$35.1M
PTMA short-term $20.4M
$20.2M
LAIF (State pool) $28.6M
$22.3M
CalCLASS $14.4M
$14.3M
U.S. Bank sweep $5.9M
$8.7M
Dec 31 Mar 31
+ $3.8M total
$6.0M of operating cash was
deposited to LAIF on January 8.

The sweep drew down $2.8M
to fund expenditures.

Investment income added
about $0.6M.

Reporting basis
All five sources are included:
both PTMA accounts, LAIF,
CalCLASS and the sweep.

Prior-period figures are
restated on the same basis.

PTMA Mix (Both Accounts) at Mar 31
U.S. Treasuries 56.7%
Corporate notes 14.2%
Asset-backed 12.2%
Commercial paper 6.2%
Federal agencies 5.7%
CDs 3.5%
MMF and cash 1.5%
Blended duration 1.31 years (1.09 at 12/31) · LT extended $55.6M
market value
+ accrued
Investment Income Recorded by Quarter
$1,125K
Q2
Oct-Dec
$964K
Q3
Jan-Mar
Q3 detail
PTMA long-term $352K
PTMA short-term $185K
LAIF $243K
CalCLASS $132K
U.S. Bank sweep $53K
LAIF is shown as credited (Jan 15,
for Oct to Dec). Interest earned
Jan to Mar, $275,628, was credited
April 15 and appears in Q4.

Sources: PTMA quarterly statements (Jan-Mar 2026, both accounts) · LAIF · U.S. Bank sweep · CalCLASS participant statements.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 141 of 391 ends

CITY OF LOS ALTOS
Quarter Ended March 31, 2026 · What the money earns, and how safe it is Investment Snapshot
Attachment · Page 2 of 3
What the Money Earns: December 31 to March 31
12/31 3/31
PTMA combined, book yield
long-term 3.87% · short-term 3.68%; stepped down with extension

3.98% 3.80%
PTMA combined, market yield
compared against the benchmark index below

3.65% 3.88%
Benchmark yield: ICE BofA 1-3 Yr AAA-AA Corp & Govt

3.83% is the index yield at March 31; total-return performance comparison begins in Q4 n/a 3.83%
LAIF, PMIA quarter-to-date yield
paid quarterly in arrears; Jan-Mar interest credited Apr 15 ($275,628)

4.09% 3.88%
CalCLASS, average monthly yield
average of the three monthly yields in the quarter

4.04% 3.74%
U.S. Bank sweep, average rate
declining with Federal Reserve rate cuts

3.58% 3.30%
The long-term account's duration extended from 1.47 to 1.82 years, locking in yields near 4% before further rate cuts.

How Safe Is It? PTMA Managed Portfolio ($55.6M), Mar 31 26% 11% 45% 12%
A-1+/A-1 26.5% AAA 11.0% AA 44.6% A 12.4% Below A* 2.5% Not rated* 3.0% About 82% is rated AA / A-1 or higher · 57% U.S. Treasuries · the short-term account holds only T-bills, CP and CDs This page covers the two PTMA managed accounts only. LAIF, CalCLASS and the sweep are separate pooled funds carried at par. * Below A is four BBB+ corporate notes (investment grade; Moody's A1 to A3). Not rated consists of senior ABS that S&P did not rate; Moody's rates the securities Aaa. PTMA confirmed on September 2, 2026 that all securities in both bands met the Investment Policy rating requirements at purchase.

MATURITY PROFILE 45% matures within 1 year · 99% within 5 years <1 yr

45.0%
1-2 yrs

22.2%
2-3 yrs

20.3%
3-4 yrs

9.4%
4-5 yrs

2.5%
5+ yrs

0.7%
Rate sensitivity: each 0.25% move in market yields changes market value by roughly $180K in either direction (1.31-year blended duration).

Sources: PTMA quarterly statements (Jan-Mar 2026, both accounts) · LAIF · U.S. Bank sweep · CalCLASS participant statements.

Page 142 of 391 ends

CITY OF LOS ALTOS
Quarter Ended March 31, 2026 · What changed this quarter, and items to monitor Investment Snapshot
Attachment · Page 3 of 3
What Changed This Quarter
Reporting now covers all five investment sources.

Alongside the $35.2M long-term portfolio and the $20.4M short-term ladder at PTMA, totals now include LAIF, CalCLASS and the U.S. Bank sweep. Prior-period figures are restated on the same basis.

Most of the portfolio growth came from cash movement, not investment returns.

Of the $3.8M increase, $6.0M was operating cash moved into LAIF on January 8, offset by a $2.8M sweep drawdown to fund expenditures. Investment income added about $0.6M.

The long-term portfolio locked in yields for longer.

Duration extended from 1.47 to 1.82 years, with new purchases near 4%. Combined book yield stepped from

3.98% to 3.80% as older higher-coupon paper rolled off.

Market values moved to a small unrealized loss.

Yields rose about 0.23%, moving the combined portfolio from a $105K gain to a $170K unrealized loss, 0.3% of value. These are unrealized market-value changes; they do not affect principal when securities are held to maturity and perform as expected.

Items to Monitor
ABS remains under the cap on a combined basis.

Asset-backed securities are 12.2% of the combined PTMA portfolio against the 20% limit in Government Code Section 53601(o). Within the long-term account alone they are 19.2%. PTMA manages that account within the 20% limit and has advised it expects to keep ABS near that level while AAA ABS offer the best risk-adjusted returns among short-duration assets.

Rating-band detail.

The 2.5% in S&P's Below A band is four BBB+ corporate notes, still investment grade. The 3.0% Not rated consists of senior ABS that S&P did not rate; Moody's rates the securities Aaa. PTMA confirmed in writing on September 2 that all met the Investment Policy rating requirements at purchase (A or better for corporates, AA or better for ABS, by at least one agency).

Benchmark reporting begins with the June quarter.

PTMA has advised that performance against the index is measured by total return, with tracking starting April 1, 2026. The first full comparison will accompany the Q4 report.

At March 31: $104.5M invested, $48.9M available within a day, and $964,080 of investment income this quarter.

Sources: PTMA quarterly statements (Jan-Mar 2026, both accounts) · LAIF · U.S. Bank sweep · CalCLASS participant statements.

Page 143 of 391 ends

Investment Review
City of Los Altos, CA
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 144 of 391 ends

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Portfolio Overview ��3 Maturity Distribution��4 Rating Distribution ��7 Security Distribution – Market Value��8 Security Distribution – Historical Cost ��9

SUPPORTING REPORTS
Portfolio Holdings ��10 Transactions ��21 Income�� 30 GASB 40 �� 39 Portfolio Activity Summary�� 55 Table of Contents
John Grady | Managing Director
[email protected]
Tom Tight | Managing Director
[email protected]

RELATIONSHIP MANAGERS
Tim Palmer | SVP, Senior Portfolio
Manager
[email protected]
Jake Fitzpatrick | Portfolio Manager,
Multisector
[email protected]

PORTFOLIO MANAGER

Page 145 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
3 PORTFOLIO CHARACTERISTICS PORTFOLIO SUMMARY

INCOME SUMMARY
12/31/25 03/31/26
Duration 1.088 1.306
Years to Effective Maturity 1.207 1.475
Years to Final Maturity 1.413 1.687
Coupon Rate 2.918 3.061
Book Yield 3.978 3.800
Market Yield 3.653 3.882
Benchmark Yield -- --
Summary 12/31/25 03/31/26
Historical Cost $54,653,352.30 $55,181,088.79
Book Value 54,871,457.89 55,470,155.93
Accrued Interest 358,285.38 296,614.20
Net Pending Transactions 3,004.03 2,543.35
Book Value Plus Accrued $55,232,747.31 $55,769,313.47
Net Unrealized Gain/Loss 105,471.28 (170,497.02)
Market Value Plus Accrued $55,338,218.59 $55,598,816.45 Period Income Income
Interest Income $364,293.81
Net Amortization/Accretion Income 120,916.87
Net Realized Gain/Loss 51,355.49
Net Income $536,566.17

ASSET ALLOCATION
Detail may not add to total due to rounding.

Portfolio Overview

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Page 146 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
4 Portfolio Overview

MATURITY DISTRIBUTION BY SECURITY TYPE

TOP TEN HOLDINGS MATURITY DISTRIBUTION BY TYPE
Issuer Value
United States 56.67%
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 5.33%
Groupe BPCE 2.48%
SAS Rue La Boetie 1.79%
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. 1.76%
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 1.57%
Federated Hermes, Inc. 1.46%
Carmax Auto Owner Trust 2024-3 1.37%
American Express Credit Account Master Trust
2025-1

1.36%
Capital One Multi-Asset Execution Trust,
Series 2024-1

1.35%
Maturity Distribution
Security
Distribution
0-3 Months 3-6 Months 6-9 Months 9-12 Months 1-2 Years 2-3 Years 3-4 Years 4-5 Years 5+ Years Portfolio Total ABS $15,721.05 $112,137.59 $116,052.26 $125,494.24 $2,380,250.47 $1,861,748.19 $1,746,178.10 $399,241.65 -- $6,756,823.56 CASH 2,543.35 2,543.35
CD 518,566.72 870,666.70 562,108.87 1,951,342.29
CORP 380,149.12 328,735.09 201,691.45 2,367,038.48 3,281,090.86 994,921.96 364,321.08 7,917,948.05 CP 996,158.00 1,483,160.00 979,145.00 3,458,463.00

FED INST
(GSE)
1,508,797.43 542,116.16 258,664.88 883,253.18 3,192,831.65 MMFUND 813,027.99 813,027.99
US GOV 4,382,346.16 3,858,702.97 3,773,429.90 3,429,864.81 7,325,785.56 5,253,625.46 3,482,081.70 31,505,836.55 TOTAL $7,108,512.40 $8,162,199.79 $6,174,543.63 $3,555,359.05 $12,331,739.39 $11,279,717.69 $5,228,259.81 $1,394,163.61 $364,321.08 $55,598,816.45

Page 147 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
5 Portfolio Overview

WAL DISTRIBUTION BY SECURITY TYPE

TOP TEN HOLDINGS WAL DISTRIBUTION BY TYPE
Issuer Value
United States 56.67%
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 5.33%
Groupe BPCE 2.48%
SAS Rue La Boetie 1.79%
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. 1.76%
JPMorgan Chase & Co. 1.57%
Federated Hermes, Inc. 1.46%
Carmax Auto Owner Trust 2024-3 1.37%
American Express Credit Account Master Trust
2025-1

1.36%
Security
Distribution
0-3 Months 3-6 Months 6-9 Months 9-12 Months 1-2 Years 2-3 Years 3-4 Years 4-5 Years 5+ Years Portfolio Total ABS $164,008.76 $248,574.34 $79,266.96 -- $3,356,580.01 $2,908,393.49 -- -- -- $6,756,823.56 TOTAL $164,008.76 $248,574.34 $79,266.96 -- $3,356,580.01 $2,908,393.49 -- -- -- $6,756,823.56

Page 148 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
6 Portfolio Overview

WAL DISTRIBUTION BY SECURITY TYPE

TOP TEN HOLDINGS WAL DISTRIBUTION BY TYPE
Issuer Value
Capital One Multi-Asset Execution Trust,
Series 2024-1

1.35%
Security
Distribution
0-3 Months 3-6 Months 6-9 Months 9-12 Months 1-2 Years 2-3 Years 3-4 Years 4-5 Years 5+ Years Portfolio Total ABS $164,008.76 $248,574.34 $79,266.96 -- $3,356,580.01 $2,908,393.49 -- -- -- $6,756,823.56 TOTAL $164,008.76 $248,574.34 $79,266.96 -- $3,356,580.01 $2,908,393.49 -- -- -- $6,756,823.56

Page 149 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
7 S&P RATING DISTRIBUTION MOODY’S RATING DISTRIBUTION
ALLOCATION BY STANDARD AND POOR’S RATING ALLOCATION BY MOODY’S RATING Portfolio Overview
S&P Rating Distribution Mar 31, 2026
Ending Balance
Portfolio
Allocation
Short Term Rating Distribution
A-1+ $10,751,082.12 19.34%
A-1 $3,977,029.72 7.15%
A-2
Total Short Term Ratings $14,728,111.85 26.49%
Long Term Rating Distribution
AAA $6,114,286.79 11.00%
AA $24,774,639.82 44.56%
A $6,875,818.16 12.37%
Below A $1,410,960.33 2.54%
Not Rated $1,694,999.50 3.05%
Total Long Term Ratings $40,870,704.61 73.51%
Portfolio Total $55,598,816.45 100.00%
Moody's Rating Distribution Mar 31, 2026
Ending Balance
Portfolio
Allocation
Short Term Rating Distribution
P-1 $14,728,111.85 26.49%
P-2
Total Short Term Ratings $14,728,111.85 26.49%
Long Term Rating Distribution
Aaa $4,651,228.58 8.37%
Aa $25,193,643.86 45.31%
A $8,104,665.84 14.58%
Below A
Not Rated $2,921,166.33 5.25%
Total Long Term Ratings $40,870,704.61 73.51%
Portfolio Total $55,598,816.45 100.00%
Rating Distribution

Page 150 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
8 MARKET VALUE BASIS SECURITY DISTRIBUTION

ASSET BALANCE BY SECURITY TYPE
Portfolio Overview
Security Distribution Dec 31, 2025
Ending Balance
Dec 31, 2025
Portfolio Allocation
Mar 31, 2026
Ending Balance
Mar 31, 2026
Portfolio Allocation
Change in
Allocation
Book Yield
Cash $3,004.03 0.01% $2,543.35 0.00% (0.00%) 0.00%
U.S. Treasury Notes $30,767,563.74 55.60% $31,505,836.55 56.67% 1.07% 3.60% Federal Instrumentality (GSE) 3,047,548.23 5.51% 3,192,831.65 5.74% 0.24% 4.05% Money Market Funds $846,162.67 1.53% $813,027.99 1.46% (0.07%) 3.32% Corporate Notes 8,858,326.77 16.01% 7,917,948.05 14.24% (1.77%) 4.15% Asset-Backed Securities 6,438,435.95 11.63% 6,756,823.56 12.15% 0.52% 4.03% CD 1,927,804.21 3.48% 1,951,342.29 3.51% 0.03% 4.45%
Commercial Paper 3,449,373.00 6.23% 3,458,463.00 6.22% (0.01%) 3.91% Portfolio Total $55,338,218.59 100.00% $55,598,816.45 100.00% 3.80% Security Distribution – Market Value

Page 151 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
9 ASSET BALANCE BY SECURITY TYPE
Portfolio Overview
Security Distribution Dec 31, 2025
Ending Balance
Dec 31, 2025
Portfolio Allocation
Mar 31, 2026
Ending Balance
Mar 31, 2026
Portfolio Allocation
Change in
Allocation
Book Yield
Cash $3,004.03 0.01% $2,543.35 0.00% (0.00%) 0.00%
U.S. Treasury Notes $30,469,131.36 55.75% $31,297,124.61 56.71% 0.97% 3.60% Federal Instrumentality (GSE) 2,974,037.24 5.44% 3,103,814.92 5.62% 0.18% 4.05% Money Market Funds $846,162.67 1.55% $813,027.99 1.47% (0.07%) 3.32% Corporate Notes 8,680,496.75 15.88% 7,868,787.25 14.26% (1.62%) 4.15% Asset-Backed Securities 6,415,007.89 11.74% 6,779,865.77 12.29% 0.55% 4.03% CD 1,850,000.00 3.38% 1,905,699.91 3.45% 0.07% 4.45%
Commercial Paper 3,418,516.39 6.25% 3,412,768.34 6.18% (0.07%) 3.91% Portfolio Total $54,656,356.33 100.00% $55,183,632.14 100.00% 3.80%

HISTORIC COST BASIS SECURITY DISTRIBUTION
Security Distribution – Historical Cost

Page 152 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
10 Portfolio Holdings

SUPPORTING REPORTS
Description
Identifier
Coupon
Effective Maturity
Final Maturity
Duration
Trade Date
Settle Date
Par Value Original Cost
Book Value
Market Value
Market Price
MV + Accrued
Accrued Balance
Net Unrealized
Gain/Loss
% of
Market
Value
Callable
Next Call
Date
Book
Yield
YTM
YTC
S&P
Moody's
CASH
Cash
CCYUSD

0.00%
03/31/26
03/31/26

0.00 --
--

0.00 $0.00
$0.00
$0.00

1.00 $0.00
$0.00
$0.00 0.00% N
--

0.00%

0.00%
AAA
Aaa
Receivable
CCYUSD

0.00%
03/31/26
03/31/26

0.00 --
--
2,543.35 2,543.35
2,543.35
2,543.35

1.00 2,543.35

0.00 0.00 0.00% N
--

0.00%

0.00%
AAA
Aaa
CASH TOTAL 03/31/26
03/31/26

0.00 --
--
2,543.35 $2,543.35
$2,543.35
$2,543.35

1.00 $2,543.35
$0.00
$0.00 0.00% N
--

0.00%

0.00%
AAA
Aaa
MMFUND

FEDERATED HRMS

TRS SVC
60934N872

3.30%
03/31/26
03/31/26

0.00 --
--
813,027.99 $813,027.99
$813,027.99
$813,027.99

1.00 $813,027.99
$0.00
($0.00) 1.46% N
--

3.32%
--
--
AAAm
Aaa
MMFUND TOTAL 03/31/26
03/31/26

0.00 --
--
813,027.99 $813,027.99
$813,027.99
$813,027.99

1.00 $813,027.99
$0.00
($0.00) 1.46% N
--

3.32%
--
--
AAAm
Aaa
US GOV

UNITED STATES

TREASURY
912797SL2

0.00%
04/09/26
04/09/26

0.02 10/08/25
10/09/25
1,800,000.00 $1,766,307.25
$1,798,519.00
$1,798,558.67

99.92 $1,798,558.67
$0.00
$39.67 3.23% N
--

3.83%

3.25%
--
A-1+
P-1

UNITED STATES

TREASURY
912797QN0

0.00%
05/14/26
05/14/26

0.12 10/08/25
10/09/25
800,000.00 782,876.29
796,606.82
796,532.47

99.57 796,532.47

0.00 (74.35) 1.43% N
--

3.67%

3.61%
--
A-1+
P-1

UNITED STATES

TREASURY
912797QX8

0.00%
06/11/26
06/11/26

0.20 10/08/25
10/09/25
1,800,000.00 1,756,665.62
1,787,441.87
1,787,255.02

99.29 1,787,255.02

0.00 (186.86) 3.21% N
--

3.66%

3.62%
--
A-1+
P-1

Page 153 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
11 Portfolio Holdings

UNITED STATES

TREASURY
912797RF6

0.00%
07/09/26
07/09/26

0.27 10/08/25
10/09/25
800,000.00 778,508.83
792,206.50
792,082.84

99.01 792,082.84

0.00 (123.66) 1.42% N
--

3.67%

3.65%
--
A-1+
P-1

UNITED STATES

TREASURY
912797RG4

0.00%
08/06/26
08/06/26

0.35 10/08/25
10/09/25
1,300,000.00 1,261,508.58
1,283,759.43
1,283,570.10

98.74 1,283,570.10

0.00 (189.33) 2.31% N
--

3.67%

3.65%
--
A-1+
P-1

UNITED STATES

TREASURY
912797RS8

0.00%
09/03/26
09/03/26

0.42 10/08/25
10/09/25
1,300,000.00 1,258,385.38
1,280,394.33
1,279,950.51

98.46 1,279,950.51

0.00 (443.82) 2.30% N
--

3.64%

3.67%
--
A-1+
P-1

UNITED STATES

TREASURY
91282CHY0

4.63%
09/15/26
09/15/26

0.45 12/17/25
12/18/25
500,000.00 503,828.13
502,372.16
502,031.25
100.41
503,099.52
1,068.27
(340.91) 0.90% N
--

3.56%

3.71%
--
AA+
Aa1

UNITED STATES

TREASURY
912797SA6

0.00%
10/01/26
10/01/26

0.50 10/08/25
10/09/25
1,200,000.00 1,158,228.03
1,178,587.48
1,178,148.55

98.18 1,178,148.55

0.00 (438.93) 2.12% N
--

3.65%

3.68%
--
A-1+
P-1

UNITED STATES

TREASURY
912797SK4

0.00%
10/29/26
10/29/26

0.57 11/12/25
11/13/25
1,300,000.00 1,255,748.09
1,273,322.42
1,272,875.10

97.91 1,272,875.10

0.00 (447.32) 2.29% N
--

3.64%

3.66%
--
A-1+
P-1

UNITED STATES

TREASURY
91282CJP7

4.38%
12/15/26
12/15/26

0.69 12/17/25
12/18/25
1,300,000.00 1,310,765.63
1,307,692.39
1,305,687.50
100.44
1,322,406.25
16,718.75
(2,004.89) 2.38% N
--

3.52%

3.74%
--
AA+
Aa1

UNITED STATES

TREASURY
91282CJT9

4.00%
01/15/27
01/15/27

0.77 --
--
1,300,000.00 1,306,265.63
1,304,907.48
1,302,691.41
100.21
1,313,608.53
10,917.13
(2,216.08) 2.36% N
--

3.51%

3.73%
--
AA+
Aa1

UNITED STATES

TREASURY
91282CKA8

4.13%
02/15/27
02/15/27

0.85 02/12/26
02/13/26
1,300,000.00 1,307,414.06
1,306,468.20
1,304,113.28
100.32
1,310,779.37
6,666.09
(2,354.92) 2.36% N
--

3.54%

3.75%
--
AA+
Aa1

Page 154 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
12 Portfolio Holdings

UNITED STATES

TREASURY
91282CKE0

4.25%
03/15/27
03/15/27

0.93 03/09/26
03/10/26
800,000.00 805,093.75
804,799.35
803,906.25
100.49
805,476.90
1,570.65
(893.10) 1.45% N
--

3.60%

3.72%
--
AA+
Aa1

UNITED STATES

TREASURY
91282CNP2

3.88%
07/31/27
07/31/27

1.28 --
--
1,000,000.00 1,004,882.82
1,004,146.95
1,000,566.41
100.06
1,006,989.06
6,422.65
(3,580.54) 1.81% N
--

3.55%

3.83%
--
AA+
Aa1

UNITED STATES

TREASURY
91282CFH9

3.13%
08/31/27
08/31/27

1.37 11/18/25
11/19/25
1,000,000.00 991,992.19
993,619.22
990,371.09

99.04 993,088.49
2,717.39
(3,248.13) 1.79% N
--

3.59%

3.83%
--
AA+
Aa1

UNITED STATES

TREASURY
91282CFZ9

3.88%
11/30/27
11/30/27

1.58 --
--
1,500,000.00 1,510,390.63
1,508,712.57
1,501,054.69
100.07
1,520,536.14
19,481.46
(7,657.88) 2.73% N
--

3.51%

3.83%
--
AA+
Aa1

UNITED STATES

TREASURY
91282CMF5

4.25%
01/15/28
01/15/28

1.70 --
--
2,000,000.00 2,030,585.94
2,025,284.19
2,014,375.00
100.72
2,032,220.30
17,845.30
(10,909.19) 3.66% N
--

3.51%

3.83%
--
AA+
Aa1

UNITED STATES

TREASURY
91282CMN8

4.25%
02/15/28
02/15/28

1.78 --
--
1,750,000.00 1,776,523.45
1,773,443.04
1,763,706.05
100.78
1,772,951.57
9,245.51
(9,736.98) 3.19% N
--

3.51%

3.81%
--
AA+
Aa1

UNITED STATES

TREASURY
91282CND9

3.75%
05/15/28
05/15/28

2.00 --
--
1,750,000.00 1,754,658.21
1,754,330.79
1,747,744.14

99.87 1,772,580.12
24,835.98
(6,586.65) 3.19% N
--

3.63%

3.81%
--
AA+
Aa1

UNITED STATES

TREASURY
91282CJA0

4.63%
09/30/28
09/30/28

2.35 10/14/25
10/15/25
1,500,000.00 1,547,343.75
1,540,293.26
1,528,886.72
101.93
1,529,076.27
189.55
(11,406.54) 2.75% N
--

3.49%

3.81%
--
AA+
Aa1

UNITED STATES

TREASURY
91282CPP0

3.50%
12/15/28
12/15/28

2.53 12/23/25
12/24/25
1,250,000.00 1,246,240.23
1,246,569.83
1,239,843.75

99.19 1,252,704.33
12,860.58
(6,726.08) 2.25% N
--

3.61%

3.82%
--
AA+
Aa1

Page 155 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
13 Portfolio Holdings

UNITED STATES

TREASURY
91282CPT2

3.50%
01/15/29
01/15/29

2.62 02/05/26
02/06/26
700,000.00 698,222.66
698,312.28
694,121.09

99.16 699,264.74
5,143.65
(4,191.19) 1.26% N
--

3.59%

3.82%
--
AA+
Aa1

UNITED STATES

TREASURY
91282CKG5

4.13%
03/31/29
03/31/29

2.80 12/15/25
12/16/25
1,250,000.00 1,270,947.27
1,269,240.35
1,260,644.53
100.85
1,260,785.41
140.88
(8,595.82) 2.27% N
--

3.58%

3.82%
--
AA+
Aa1

UNITED STATES

TREASURY
91282CEM9

2.88%
04/30/29
04/30/29

2.88 02/03/26
02/04/26
500,000.00 487,910.16
488,467.29
486,171.88

97.23 492,207.79
6,035.91
(2,295.41) 0.89% N
--

3.67%

3.83%
--
AA+
Aa1

UNITED STATES

TREASURY
91282CKT7

4.50%
05/31/29
05/31/29

2.89 01/08/26
01/09/26
1,000,000.00 1,028,593.75
1,026,811.31
1,019,570.31
101.96
1,034,652.73
15,082.42
(7,241.00) 1.86% N
--

3.60%

3.84%
--
AA+
Aa1

UNITED STATES

TREASURY
91282CGJ4

3.50%
01/31/30
01/31/30

3.53 02/12/26
02/13/26
700,000.00 697,238.28
697,324.99
690,375.00

98.63 694,435.77
4,060.77
(6,949.99) 1.25% N
--

3.61%

3.89%
--
AA+
Aa1
US GOV TOTAL 08/19/27
08/19/27

1.31 --
--
31,400,000.00 $31,297,124.61
$31,443,633.52
$31,344,833.61

99.84 $31,505,836.55
$161,002.95
($98,799.91) 56.67% N
--

3.60%

3.73%
--
AA+
Aa1

GSE MBS
FHMS K-736 A2
3137FNWX4

2.28%
07/01/26
07/25/26

0.26 10/05/23
10/11/23
227,319.21 $210,918.48
$225,211.75
$226,216.74

99.52 $226,649.03
$432.29
$1,005.00 0.41% N
--

5.29%
--
--
AA+
Aa1
FHMS K-057 A2
3137BRQJ7

2.57%
07/01/26
07/25/26

0.28 --
--
421,122.63 396,019.78
417,954.27
419,109.87

99.52 420,011.77
901.90
1,155.59 0.76% Y
--

4.61%
--
--
AA+
Aa1
FHMS K-058 A2
3137BSP72

2.65%
08/01/26
08/25/26

0.35 04/06/23
04/12/23
400,000.00 383,156.25
397,448.04
397,683.71

99.42 398,568.05
884.33
235.67 0.72% Y
--

3.98%
--
--
AA+
Aa1

Page 156 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
14 Portfolio Holdings

3.12%
09/01/26
09/25/26

0.46 11/15/23
11/20/23
237,562.08 225,006.55
234,907.66
236,273.73

99.46 236,891.39
617.66
1,366.06 0.43% Y
--

5.16%
--
--
AAA
Aa1
FNA 2016-M12 A2
3136AUKX8

2.44%
09/01/26
09/25/26

0.33 11/20/23
11/27/23
227,678.37 231,261.31
228,222.21
226,215.00

99.36 226,677.19
462.19
(2,007.21) 0.41% N
--

0.00%
--
--
AA+
Aa1
FHMS K-062 A2
3137BUX60

3.41%
12/01/26
12/25/26

0.67 --
--
543,494.03 518,123.90
536,482.27
540,570.37

99.46 542,116.16
1,545.79
4,088.10 0.98% N
--

5.04%
--
--
AA+
Aa1
FHMS K-065 A2
3137F1G44

3.24%
04/01/27
04/25/27

0.95 11/09/23
11/14/23
260,000.00 244,938.28
254,956.68
257,962.23

99.22 258,664.88
702.65
3,005.54 0.47% Y
--

5.11%
--
--
AA+
Aa1
FHMS K-083 A2
3137FJXV6

4.05%
09/01/28
09/25/28

2.30 02/03/26
02/06/26
750,000.00 752,548.83
752,295.44
748,616.61

99.82 751,147.86
2,531.25
(3,678.83) 1.35% Y
--

3.83%
--
--
AA+
Aa1
FHMS K-092 A1
3137FLYU2

3.13%
08/01/28
10/25/28

1.21 10/25/23
10/30/23
133,390.83 141,841.54
137,339.53
131,757.95

98.78 132,105.32
347.37
(5,581.58) 0.24% Y
--

0.68%
--
--
AA+
Aa1
GSE MBS TOTAL 04/06/27
05/03/27

0.94 --
--
3,200,567.15 $3,103,814.92
$3,184,817.87
$3,184,406.22

99.50 $3,192,831.65
$8,425.43
($411.65) 5.74%
--

4.05%
--
--
AA+
Aa1
CP
Credit Agricole
Corporate And
Investment Bank,
New
22533UE82

0.00%
05/08/26
05/08/26

0.11 10/08/25
10/09/25
1,000,000.00 $977,317.50
$996,022.50
$996,158.00

99.62 $996,158.00
$0.00
$135.50 1.79% N
--

3.96%

3.65%
--
A-1
P-1
Natixis, New York
Branch
63873KG27

0.00%
07/02/26
07/02/26

0.26 10/08/25
10/09/25
1,000,000.00 971,700.56
990,212.22
990,080.00

99.01 990,080.00

0.00 (132.22) 1.78% N
--

3.94%

3.88%
--
A-1
P-1

Page 157 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
15 Portfolio Holdings

0.00%
08/07/26
08/07/26

0.35 11/12/25
11/13/25
500,000.00 485,982.50
493,280.00
493,080.00

98.62 493,080.00

0.00 (200.00) 0.89% N
--

3.89%

3.92%
--
A-1
P-1
MUFG Bank, Ltd.,
New York Branch
62479MK93

0.00%
10/09/26
10/09/26

0.52 03/09/26
03/09/26
1,000,000.00 977,767.78
980,157.22
979,145.00

97.91 979,145.00

0.00 (1,012.22) 1.76% N
--

3.83%

3.99%
--
A-1
P-1
CP TOTAL 07/19/26
07/19/26

0.30 --
--
3,500,000.00 $3,412,768.34
$3,459,671.95
$3,458,463.00

98.82 $3,458,463.00
$0.00
($1,208.95) 6.22% N
--

3.91%

3.85%
--
A-1
P-1
CORP

BANK OF AMERICA
CORP
06051GFX2

3.50%
04/19/26
04/19/26

0.05 05/11/23
05/16/23
175,000.00 $170,066.75
$174,912.00
$174,959.49

99.98 $177,715.74
$2,756.25
$47.50 0.32% N
--

4.54%

3.90%
--
AA1

WELLS FARGO &
CO
949746RW3

3.00%
04/22/26
04/22/26

0.06 03/28/23
03/30/23
200,000.00 188,176.00
199,762.38
199,783.38

99.89 202,433.38
2,650.00

21.00 0.36% N
--

5.11%

4.80%
--
BBB+
A1

STATE STREET
CORP
857477CD3

5.27%
07/04/26
08/03/26

0.26 07/31/23
08/03/23
200,000.00 200,000.00
200,000.00
200,641.09
100.32
202,339.84
1,698.76
641.09 0.36% Y
07/04/26

5.27%

4.28%

3.98%
A
Aa3

PACCAR FINANCIAL
CORP
69371RS56

5.05%
08/10/26
08/10/26

0.35 08/03/23
08/10/23
125,000.00 124,937.50
124,992.00
125,500.98
100.40
126,395.25
894.27
508.98 0.23% N
--

5.07%

3.89%
--
A+
A1

GOLDMAN SACHS

GROUP INC
38145GAH3

3.50%
11/16/26
11/16/26

0.60 08/07/23
08/09/23
200,000.00 188,710.00
197,694.46
199,066.45

99.53 201,691.45
2,625.00
1,371.99 0.36% Y
05/16/26

5.41%

4.26%

7.17%
BBB+
A2

Page 158 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
16 Portfolio Holdings

TOYOTA MOTOR

CREDIT CORP
89236TMS1

4.35%
10/08/27
10/08/27

1.43 12/02/25
12/03/25
500,000.00 504,935.00
504,100.08
501,483.84
100.30
511,935.92
10,452.08
(2,616.24) 0.92% N
--

3.79%

4.15%
--
A+
A1

AMERICAN

EXPRESS CO
025816DP1

5.10%
02/16/27
02/16/28

0.84 03/04/26
03/05/26
350,000.00 353,258.50
353,008.52
351,986.51
100.57
354,216.88
2,230.38
(1,022.01) 0.64% Y
02/16/27

4.08%

4.54%

4.42%
AA2

PACCAR FINANCIAL
CORP
69371RT63

4.55%
03/03/28
03/03/28

1.82 12/03/25
12/04/25
500,000.00 508,505.00
507,335.15
504,326.52
100.87
506,095.96
1,769.44
(3,008.63) 0.91% N
--

3.75%

4.08%
--
A+
A1

ABBVIE INC
00287YED7

3.78%
03/03/28
03/03/28

1.83 02/24/26
03/04/26
500,000.00 499,830.00
499,836.24
496,633.67

99.33 498,049.29
1,415.63
(3,202.57) 0.90% N
--

3.79%

4.14%
--
AA2

GOLDMAN SACHS

GROUP INC
38141GZR8

3.62%
03/15/28
03/15/28

0.93 12/02/25
12/03/25
500,000.00 496,990.00
499,092.89
495,937.09

99.19 496,740.42
803.33
(3,155.80) 0.89% Y
03/15/27

4.66%

5.00%

4.49%
BBB+
A2

CITIGROUP INC
172967PZ8

4.64%
05/07/27
05/07/28

1.04 12/02/25
12/03/25
500,000.00 503,625.00
502,815.97
500,809.08
100.16
510,095.08
9,286.00
(2,006.89) 0.92% Y
05/07/27

4.11%

4.63%

4.49%
BBB+
A3
PFIZER

INVESTMENT

ENTERPRISES PTE
LTD
716973AC6

4.45%
04/19/28
05/19/28

1.94 12/02/25
12/03/25
500,000.00 505,695.00
504,943.72
502,931.61
100.59
511,089.94
8,158.33
(2,012.11) 0.92% Y
04/19/28

3.94%

4.16%

4.15%
A
A2

BANK OF AMERICA
CORP
06051GKW8

4.95%
07/22/27
07/22/28

1.25 12/02/25
12/03/25
500,000.00 507,070.00
505,709.69
503,299.66
100.66
508,041.49
4,741.83
(2,410.03) 0.91% Y
07/22/27

4.04%

4.96%

4.42%
AA1

JPMORGAN CHASE
& CO
46647PDG8

4.85%
07/25/27
07/25/28

1.25 12/02/25
12/03/25
500,000.00 506,585.00
505,325.97
502,585.26
100.52
507,032.01
4,446.75
(2,740.70) 0.91% Y
07/25/27

4.01%

4.94%

4.44%
A
A1

Page 159 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
17 Portfolio Holdings

BANK OF

MONTREAL
06368MXU3

4.06%
09/22/28
09/22/28

1.43 12/04/25
12/05/25
750,000.00 750,307.50
750,283.80
746,484.50

99.53 747,246.13
761.63
(3,799.30) 1.34% Y
09/22/27

4.04%
--
--
AA2

JOHN DEERE

CAPITAL CORP
24422EYK9

3.90%
03/09/29
03/09/29

2.74 03/05/26
03/10/26
500,000.00 499,330.00
499,342.67
496,448.70

99.29 497,586.20
1,137.50
(2,893.96) 0.89% N
--

3.95%

4.16%
--
A
A1
AMAZON.COM INC
023135CT1

4.10%
11/20/30
11/20/30

4.11 --
11/20/25
500,000.00 500,612.50
500,571.07
494,376.54

98.88 501,836.27
7,459.72
(6,194.53) 0.90% Y
10/20/30

4.07%

4.37%

4.37%
AA
A1

ASTRAZENECA

FINANCE LLC
04636NAQ6

4.00%
03/02/31
03/02/31

4.39 02/26/26
03/02/26
500,000.00 499,755.00
499,758.65
491,474.58

98.29 493,085.69
1,611.11
(8,284.07) 0.89% Y
02/02/31

4.01%

4.39%

4.40%
A+
A1

JPMORGAN CHASE
& CO
46647PEY8

5.10%
04/22/30
04/22/31

3.56 02/03/26
02/04/26
350,000.00 360,398.50
360,058.51
356,432.70
101.84
364,321.08
7,888.39
(3,625.81) 0.66% Y
04/22/30

4.32%

4.69%

4.60%
A
A1
CORP TOTAL 05/11/28
08/25/28

1.81 --
--
7,850,000.00 $7,868,787.25
$7,889,543.74
$7,845,161.65

99.95 $7,917,948.05
$72,786.40
($44,382.09) 14.24%
--

4.15%

4.44%

4.51%
A
A1
CD
Sumitomo Mitsui
Banking Corporation
86565GQA1

4.40%
06/04/26
06/04/26

0.18 01/14/26
01/15/26
500,000.00 $500,951.22
$500,434.84
$500,294.50
100.06
$518,566.72
$18,272.22
($140.34) 0.93% N
--

3.80%

3.93%
--
A-1
P-1
Coöperatieve
Rabobank U.A., New
York Branch
21684LGS5

5.08%
07/17/26
07/17/26

0.29 07/17/23
07/20/23
475,000.00 475,000.00
475,000.00
476,649.01
100.35
481,609.07
4,960.06
1,649.01 0.87% N
--

5.08%

3.88%
--
A+
Aa2

Page 160 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
18 Portfolio Holdings

5.61%
09/18/26
09/18/26

0.47 09/18/23
09/20/23
375,000.00 375,000.00
375,000.00
377,818.42
100.75
389,057.63
11,239.21
2,818.42 0.70% N
--

5.61%

3.85%
--
A+
A1
Svenska
Handelsbanken AB
(publ)
86959TSF4

3.94%
11/17/26
11/17/26

0.63 02/12/26
02/12/26
554,000.00 554,748.69
554,619.42
553,994.46
100.00
562,108.87
8,114.41
(624.96) 1.01% N
--

3.72%

3.88%
--
A-1+
P-1
CD TOTAL 08/23/26
08/23/26

0.39 --
--
1,904,000.00 $1,905,699.91
$1,905,054.26
$1,908,756.40
100.25
$1,951,342.29
$42,585.90
$3,702.13 3.51% N
--

4.45%

3.89%
--
AAAa2
ABS
TAOT 2022-C A3
89231CAD9

3.76%
05/15/26
04/15/27

0.06 08/08/22
08/16/22
4,219.60 $4,218.90
$4,219.58
$4,218.70

99.98 $4,225.75
$7.05
($0.88) 0.01% Y
--

3.80%
--
--
AAA
NA
NAROT 2022-B A3
65480JAC4

4.46%
08/15/26
05/17/27

0.15 09/20/22
09/28/22
23,686.15 23,681.25
23,685.75
23,695.40
100.04
23,742.35

46.95 9.65 0.04% Y
--

4.51%
--
--
AAA
Aaa
HART 2022-C A3
44933DAD3

5.39%
05/15/26
06/15/27

0.04 11/01/22
11/09/22
11,462.42 11,462.36
11,462.41
11,467.84
100.05
11,495.30

27.46 5.43 0.02% Y
--

5.45%
--
--
AAA
NA
CARMX 2022-4 A3
14318UAD3

5.34%
07/15/26
08/16/27

0.11 10/26/22
10/31/22
24,558.20 24,552.44
24,557.81
24,584.82
100.11
24,643.11

58.28 27.01 0.04% Y
--

5.41%
--
--
AAA
NA
MBART 2022-1 A3
58768PAC8

5.21%
07/15/26
08/16/27

0.14 11/15/22
11/22/22
33,536.51 33,529.87
33,536.02
33,582.21
100.14
33,659.86

77.66 46.18 0.06% Y
--

5.28%
--
--
AAA
Aaa
TAOT 2023-A A3
891940AC2

4.63%
10/15/26
09/15/27

0.24 01/24/23
01/30/23
36,022.26 36,022.24
36,022.25
36,075.99
100.15
36,150.12

74.13 53.74 0.07% Y
--

4.67%
--
--
AAA
NA
TAOT 2022-D A3
89239HAD0

5.30%
10/15/26
09/15/27

0.25 11/01/22
11/08/22
24,258.79 24,256.40
24,258.55
24,330.33
100.29
24,387.47

57.14 71.78 0.04% Y
--

5.36%
--
--
NA
Aaa

Page 161 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
19 Portfolio Holdings

4.91%
11/15/26
11/15/27

0.30 04/18/23
04/26/23
55,277.49 55,267.72
55,276.10
55,394.04
100.21
55,514.66
120.63
117.94 0.10% Y
--

4.97%
--
--
NA
Aaa
HDMOT 2023-A A3
41285JAD0

5.05%
09/15/26
12/15/27

0.21 02/13/23
02/23/23
29,970.29 29,967.27
29,969.98
30,025.01
100.18
30,092.27

67.27 55.02 0.05% Y
--

5.11%
--
--
NA
Aaa
FORDO 2023-A A3
344928AD8

4.65%
01/15/27
02/15/28

0.34 03/28/23
03/31/23
33,817.65 33,814.12
33,817.09
33,871.69
100.16
33,941.58

69.89 54.60 0.06% Y
--

4.70%
--
--
AAA
NA
GMCAR 2023-2 A3
362583AD8

4.47%
01/16/27
02/16/28

0.34 04/04/23
04/12/23
38,023.57 38,022.52
38,023.42
38,063.94
100.11
38,134.76

70.82 40.52 0.07% Y
--

4.51%
--
--
AAA
Aaa
BMWOT 2023-A A3
05592XAD2

5.47%
02/25/27
02/25/28

0.45 07/11/23
07/18/23
24,570.62 24,566.27
24,569.76
24,676.65
100.43
24,699.05

22.40 106.89 0.04% Y
--

5.54%
--
--
AAA
NA
NAROT 2023-B A3
65480MAD5

5.93%
04/15/27
03/15/28

0.42 10/18/23
10/25/23
42,811.79 42,803.10
42,809.93
43,065.13
100.59
43,177.96
112.83
255.19 0.08% Y
--

6.01%
--
--
NA
Aaa
HART 2023-B A3
44933XAD9

5.48%
02/15/27
04/17/28

0.41 07/11/23
07/19/23
28,504.34 28,503.10
28,504.10
28,649.43
100.51
28,718.85

69.42 145.33 0.05% Y
--

5.54%
--
--
AAA
NA
GMCAR 2023-3 A3
36267KAD9

5.45%
06/16/27
06/16/28

0.49 07/11/23
07/19/23
31,442.19 31,440.98
31,441.92
31,615.23
100.55
31,686.63

71.40 173.31 0.06% Y
--

5.51%
--
--
AAA
Aaa
HAROT 2023-4 A3
438123AC5

5.67%
10/21/27
06/21/28

0.63 11/01/23
11/08/23
47,069.80 47,061.51
47,067.62
47,506.20
100.93
47,580.33

74.13 438.58 0.09% Y
--

5.74%
--
--
NA
Aaa
NALT 2026-A A3
65481HAD5

3.87%
06/15/28
03/15/29

1.72 02/18/26
02/26/26
250,000.00 249,973.33
249,974.30
248,514.17

99.41 248,944.17
430.00
(1,460.14) 0.45% Y
--

4.34%
--
--
NA
Aaa
COMET 2024-1 A
14041NGE5

3.92%
09/15/27
09/17/29

1.39 12/03/25
12/04/25
750,000.00 751,904.30
751,565.86
749,350.22

99.91 750,656.88
1,306.67
(2,215.64) 1.35% Y
--

3.80%

4.01%
--
AAA
NA

Page 162 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
20 Portfolio Holdings

4.56%
12/15/27
12/17/29

1.61 12/03/25
12/04/25
750,000.00 762,158.20
760,266.76
756,132.27
100.82
757,652.27
1,520.00
(4,134.50) 1.36% Y
--

3.76%

4.09%
--
AAA
NA
CARMX 2024-3 A4
14319GAE1

4.85%
03/15/29
01/15/30

2.45 11/19/25
11/20/25
750,000.00 764,560.55
762,902.36
758,513.14
101.14
760,129.81
1,616.67
(4,389.22) 1.37% Y
--

4.20%
--
--
AAA
Aaa
MBALT 2026-A A3
58770YAD3

3.93%
08/15/28
01/15/30

1.75 01/13/26
01/21/26
350,000.00 349,930.60
349,936.69
348,254.96

99.50 348,866.30
611.33
(1,681.73) 0.63% Y
--

3.97%
--
--
NA
Aaa
HART 2025-C A3
44935JAD8

3.88%
05/15/29
04/15/30

1.94 12/02/25
12/03/25
750,000.00 751,171.88
751,018.52
746,726.09

99.56 748,019.43
1,293.33
(4,292.43) 1.35% Y
--

3.84%
--
--
AAA
NA
TAOT 2024-D A4
89239TAE2

4.43%
03/15/29
04/15/30

2.43 12/02/25
12/03/25
500,000.00 506,367.19
505,698.06
502,823.47
100.56
503,807.91
984.44
(2,874.59) 0.91% Y
--

4.01%
--
--
AAA
Aaa
VWALT 2025-B A4
92868BAE3

4.00%
12/20/27
05/20/30

1.62 12/02/25
12/03/25
750,000.00 751,699.22
751,433.00
748,579.73

99.81 749,496.40
916.67
(2,853.27) 1.35% Y
--

3.92%
--
--
AAA
Aaa
GMCAR 2025-3 A3
379957AD5

4.18%
06/16/29
08/16/30

1.82 11/19/25
11/20/25
500,000.00 503,085.94
502,620.53
500,093.16
100.02
500,964.00
870.83
(2,527.36) 0.90% Y
--

3.93%
--
--
AAA
NA
HAROT 2026-1 A3
43815CAD0

3.78%
11/21/29
09/23/30

2.29 02/10/26
02/18/26
500,000.00 499,920.35
499,924.16
496,669.68

99.33 497,194.68
525.00
(3,254.47) 0.89% Y
--

3.82%
--
--
NA
Aaa
CNH 2026-A A3
189920AD3

4.00%
05/15/30
05/15/31

2.67 01/21/26
01/28/26
400,000.00 399,924.16
399,844.05
398,530.54

99.63 399,241.65
711.11
(1,313.50) 0.72% Y
--

4.05%
--
--
NA
Aaa
ABS TOTAL 09/12/28
01/26/30

1.82 --
--
6,739,231.65 $6,779,865.77
$6,774,406.60
$6,745,010.04
100.09
$6,756,823.56
$11,813.52
($29,396.56) 12.15% Y
--

4.03%

4.05%
--
AAA
Aaa
PORTFOLIO TOTAL 09/21/27
12/07/27

1.31 --
--
55,409,370.14 $55,183,632.14
$55,472,699.28
$55,302,202.26

98.37 $55,598,816.45
$296,614.20
($170,497.02) 100.00%
--

3.80%

3.87%

4.51%
AAAa2

Page 163 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
21 Transactions
Description
Identifier
Current Units Type Trade Date Settle Date Price Principal Realized Gain/Loss
Broker Amount

UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CJT9
800,000.00 Buy 01/07/26 01/08/26 100.500 $804,000.00 $0.00 WELLS FARGO

SECURITIES, LLC
($819,391.30)

UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CMN8
500,000.00 Buy 01/08/26 01/09/26 101.516 507,578.13 0.00 CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.
(516,066.58)

UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CKT7
1,000,000.00 Buy 01/08/26 01/09/26 102.859 1,028,593.75 0.00 CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.
(1,033,538.80)
MBALT 2026-A A3
58770YAD3
350,000.00 Buy 01/13/26 01/21/26 99.980 349,930.60 0.00 BOFA SECURITIES, INC (349,930.60) Sumitomo Mitsui Banking
Corporation
86565GQA1
500,000.00 Buy 01/14/26 01/15/26 100.190 500,951.22 0.00 JPMORGAN/MUNI DEALER
(514,579.00)

UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CJT9
500,000.00 Buy 01/14/26 01/15/26 100.453 502,265.63 0.00 Bank of Montreal Chicago
(502,265.63)

UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CND9
500,000.00 Buy 01/20/26 01/21/26 100.297 501,484.38 0.00 J.P. MORGAN

SECURITIES LLC
(504,954.68)
CNH 2026-A A3
189920AD3
400,000.00 Buy 01/21/26 01/28/26 99.981 399,924.16 0.00 BOFA SECURITIES, INC (399,924.16)

UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CND9
1,000,000.00 Buy 01/22/26 01/23/26 100.234 1,002,343.75 0.00 CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.
(1,009,491.54)

UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CNP2
500,000.00 Buy 01/27/26 01/28/26 100.457 502,285.16 0.00 J.P. MORGAN

SECURITIES LLC
(511,814.71)

UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CND9
250,000.00 Buy 01/27/26 01/28/26 100.332 250,830.08 0.00 CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.
(252,746.52)

JPMORGAN CHASE & CO
46647PEY8
350,000.00 Buy 02/03/26 02/04/26 102.971 360,398.50 0.00 MARKETAXESS

CORPORATION
(365,458.97)

UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CEM9
500,000.00 Buy 02/03/26 02/04/26 97.582 487,910.16 0.00 MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC
(491,722.31)
FHMS K-083 A2
3137FJXV6
750,000.00 Buy 02/03/26 02/06/26 100.340 752,548.83 0.00 GOLDMAN SACHS & CO.
(752,970.70)

UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CPT2
700,000.00 Buy 02/05/26 02/06/26 99.746 698,222.66 0.00 CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.
(699,711.61)
HAROT 2026-1 A3
43815CAD0
500,000.00 Buy 02/10/26 02/18/26 99.984 499,920.35 0.00 MITSUBISHI UFJ

SECURITIES (USA),
INC.
(499,920.35)

Page 164 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
22 Transactions
Description
Identifier
Current Units Type Trade Date Settle Date Price Principal Realized Gain/Loss
Broker Amount
Svenska Handelsbanken AB
(publ)
86959TSF4
554,000.00 Buy 02/12/26 02/12/26 100.135 554,748.69 0.00 GOLDMAN SACHS & CO.
(559,956.44)

UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CGJ4
700,000.00 Buy 02/12/26 02/13/26 99.605 697,238.28 0.00 J.P. MORGAN

SECURITIES LLC
(698,118.11)

UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CKA8
1,300,000.00 Buy 02/12/26 02/13/26 100.570 1,307,414.06 0.00 Bank of Montreal Chicago
(1,333,935.12)
NALT 2026-A A3
65481HAD5
250,000.00 Buy 02/18/26 02/26/26 99.989 249,973.33 0.00 BOFA SECURITIES, INC (249,973.33)

UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CMN8
250,000.00 Buy 02/20/26 02/23/26 101.469 253,671.88 0.00 CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.
(253,906.69)

ABBVIE INC
00287YED7
500,000.00 Buy 02/24/26 03/04/26 99.966 499,830.00 0.00 BOFA SECURITIES, INC (499,830.00)

ASTRAZENECA FINANCE LLC
04636NAQ6
500,000.00 Buy 02/26/26 03/02/26 99.951 499,755.00 0.00 MARKETAXESS

CORPORATION
(499,755.00)

AMERICAN EXPRESS CO
025816DP1
350,000.00 Buy 03/04/26 03/05/26 100.931 353,258.50 0.00 MARKETAXESS

CORPORATION
(354,200.21)

JOHN DEERE CAPITAL CORP
24422EYK9
500,000.00 Buy 03/05/26 03/10/26 99.866 499,330.00 0.00 CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.
(499,330.00)
MUFG Bank, Ltd., New York
Branch
62479MK93
1,000,000.00 Buy 03/09/26 03/09/26 97.777 977,767.78 0.00 Citigroup (977,767.78)

UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CKE0
800,000.00 Buy 03/09/26 03/10/26 100.637 805,093.75 0.00 BOFA SECURITIES, INC (821,624.14) Buy Total $15,847,268.63 $0.00 ($15,972,884.28)

UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CHU8
(1,100,000.00) Sell 01/08/26 01/09/26 100.457 ($1,105,027.34) $7,287.82 MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC
$1,124,251.19
TAOT 2023-B A3
891941AD8
(97,340.89) Sell 01/15/26 01/16/26 100.414 (97,743.94) 404.25 SCOTIA CAPITAL (USA) INC.
97,756.68
AMXCA 2023-1 A
02582JJZ4
(140,000.00) Sell 01/15/26 01/16/26 100.313 (140,437.50) 439.17 US Bancorp Investments Inc.
140,456.44

UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CJK8
(1,250,000.00) Sell 01/22/26 01/23/26 100.773 (1,259,667.97) 6,821.67 CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.
1,270,687.48

UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CJC6
(450,000.00) Sell 01/27/26 01/28/26 100.699 (453,146.48) 3,466.29 WELLS FARGO

SECURITIES, LLC
459,150.09

Page 165 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
23 Transactions
Description
Identifier
Current Units Type Trade Date Settle Date Price Principal Realized Gain/Loss
Broker Amount

UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CJP7
(1,350,000.00) Sell 02/03/26 02/04/26 100.672 (1,359,070.31) 6,210.50 MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC
1,367,345.55
FHMS K-063 A2
3137BVZ82
(273,154.27) Sell 02/03/26 02/06/26 99.559 (271,948.55) 3,637.69 PNC BANK N.A./PNC

CAPITAL MARKETS LLC
272,078.68
FITAT 2023-1 A3
31680EAD3
(144,886.39) Sell 02/04/26 02/05/26 100.727 (145,939.08) 1,055.17 US BANCORP INVESTMENTS INC.
146,384.20
FORDO 2023-B A3
344930AD4
(76,848.16) Sell 02/04/26 02/05/26 100.516 (77,244.41) 396.52 US BANCORP INVESTMENTS INC.
77,467.70
HAROT 2023-2 A3
437927AC0
(74,415.96) Sell 02/04/26 02/05/26 100.367 (74,689.20) 275.48 US BANCORP INVESTMENTS INC.
74,893.03
BACCT 2023-2 A
05522RDH8
(170,000.00) Sell 02/04/26 02/05/26 100.922 (171,567.19) 1,573.80 MITSUBISHI UFJ

SECURITIES (USA),
INC.
172,037.52

UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CJP7
(1,000,000.00) Sell 02/12/26 02/13/26 100.668 (1,006,679.69) 4,621.50 MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC
1,013,891.23

AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE
CORP
02665WEK3
(200,000.00) Sell 02/18/26 02/19/26 100.520 (201,040.00) 1,076.04 MARKETAXESS

CORPORATION
202,265.00

CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL

SERVICES CORP
14913UAA8
(250,000.00) Sell 02/18/26 02/19/26 100.131 (250,327.50) 337.18 MARKETAXESS

CORPORATION
253,167.08

AUSTRALIA AND NEW

ZEALAND BANKING GROUP

LTD (NEW Y
05253JAZ4
(250,000.00) Sell 02/26/26 02/27/26 100.920 (252,300.00) 2,300.00 MARKETAXESS

CORPORATION
253,586.46

WELLS FARGO BANK NA
94988J6F9
(375,000.00) Sell 02/26/26 02/27/26 101.071 (379,016.25) 4,016.25 MARKETAXESS

CORPORATION
383,175.67

BANK OF AMERICA NA
06428CAA2
(275,000.00) Sell 02/26/26 02/27/26 100.640 (276,760.00) 1,760.00 MARKETAXESS

CORPORATION
277,139.91

JOHN DEERE CAPITAL CORP
24422EXF1
(200,000.00) Sell 03/03/26 03/04/26 100.544 (201,088.00) 1,153.70 MARKETAXESS

CORPORATION
202,488.00

TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP
89236TKT1
(210,000.00) Sell 03/03/26 03/04/26 100.084 (210,176.40) 185.27 MARKETAXESS

CORPORATION
212,927.98

COMCAST CORP
20030NBY6
(200,000.00) Sell 03/03/26 03/04/26 99.564 (199,128.00) 3,277.53 MARKETAXESS

CORPORATION
199,733.00

Page 166 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
24 Transactions
Description
Identifier
Current Units Type Trade Date Settle Date Price Principal Realized Gain/Loss
Broker Amount

HOME DEPOT INC
437076CV2
(105,000.00) Sell 03/03/26 03/04/26 100.486 (105,510.30) 561.04 MARKETAXESS

CORPORATION
107,733.67

PEPSICO INC
713448FW3
(65,000.00) Sell 03/03/26 03/04/26 100.756 (65,491.40) 495.61 MARKETAXESS

CORPORATION
66,546.30
Sell Total ($8,303,999.51) $51,352.49 $8,375,162.86

TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP
89236TLJ2
(175,000.00) Maturity 01/05/26 01/05/26 100.000 ($175,000.00) $0.00 Maturity $175,000.00

UNITED STATES TREASURY
912797RH2
(800,000.00) Maturity 01/08/26 01/08/26 100.000 (800,000.00) 0.00 Maturity 800,000.00

NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK

LTD (NEW YORK BRANCH)
63253QAA2
(415,000.00) Maturity 01/12/26 01/12/26 100.000 (415,000.00) 0.00 Maturity 415,000.00

CITIGROUP INC
172967KG5
(200,000.00) Maturity 01/12/26 01/12/26 100.000 (200,000.00) 0.00 Maturity 200,000.00 Toronto-Dominion Bank - New
York Branch
89115D3Z7
(1,000,000.00) Maturity 01/15/26 01/15/26 100.000 (1,000,000.00) 0.00 Maturity 1,000,000.00

UNITED STATES TREASURY
912797RT6
(1,800,000.00) Maturity 02/12/26 02/12/26 100.000 (1,800,000.00) 0.00 Maturity 1,800,000.00

UNITED STATES TREASURY
912797RV1
(800,000.00) Maturity 03/05/26 03/05/26 100.000 (800,000.00) 0.00 Maturity 800,000.00 MUFG Bank, Ltd., New York
Branch
62479MC92
(1,000,000.00) Maturity 03/09/26 03/09/26 100.000 (1,000,000.00) 0.00 Maturity 1,000,000.00 Maturity Total ($6,190,000.00) $0.00 $6,190,000.00

NATIONAL RURAL UTILITIES

COOPERATIVE FINANCE CORP
63743HFH0
(125,000.00) Call
Redemption
03/06/26 03/06/26 100.000 ($125,000.00) $3.03 Redemption $125,000.00 Call Redemption Total ($125,000.00) $3.03 $125,000.00
FNA 2016-M12 A2
3136AUKX8
(468.27) Principal
Paydown
01/01/26 01/01/26 ($468.27) ($0.00) Direct $468.27
FHMS K-054 A2
3137BNGT5
(85,158.50) Principal
Paydown
01/01/26 01/01/26 (85,158.50) (0.00) Direct 85,158.50
FHMS K-054 A2
3137BNGT5
(69,675.14) Principal
Paydown
01/01/26 01/01/26 (69,675.14) (0.00) Direct 69,675.14

Page 167 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
25 Transactions
Description
Identifier
Current Units Type Trade Date Settle Date Price Principal Realized Gain/Loss
Broker Amount
FNA 2016-M03 A2
3136ARTE8
(28,213.92) Principal
Paydown
01/01/26 01/01/26 (28,213.92) 0.00 Direct 28,213.92
FHMS K-063 A2
3137BVZ82
(1,231.87) Principal
Paydown
01/01/26 01/01/26 (1,231.87) 0.00 Direct 1,231.87
FHMS K-092 A1
3137FLYU2
(3,977.55) Principal
Paydown
01/01/26 01/01/26 (3,977.55) 0.01 Direct 3,977.55
FHMS K-057 A2
3137BRQJ7
(885.38) Principal
Paydown
01/01/26 01/01/26 (885.38) (0.00) Direct 885.38
FHMS K-736 A2
3137FNWX4
(3,265.42) Principal
Paydown
01/01/26 01/01/26 (3,265.42) 0.00 Direct 3,265.42
FHMS K-059 A2
3137BSRE5
(11,545.29) Principal
Paydown
01/01/26 01/01/26 (11,545.29) (0.00) Direct 11,545.29
FHMS K-062 A2
3137BUX60
(1,156.85) Principal
Paydown
01/01/26 01/01/26 (1,156.84) (0.01) Direct 1,156.84
NAROT 2022-B A3
65480JAC4
(9,165.30) Principal
Paydown
01/15/26 01/15/26 (9,165.30) 0.00 Direct 9,165.30
TAOT 2022-C A3
89231CAD9
(4,133.31) Principal
Paydown
01/15/26 01/15/26 (4,133.31) (0.00) Direct 4,133.31
NAROT 2023-B A3
65480MAD5
(6,907.43) Principal
Paydown
01/15/26 01/15/26 (6,907.43) 0.00 Direct 6,907.43
TAOT 2022-D A3
89239HAD0
(4,683.29) Principal
Paydown
01/15/26 01/15/26 (4,683.29) (0.00) Direct 4,683.29
FORDO 2023-B A3
344930AD4
(8,520.01) Principal
Paydown
01/15/26 01/15/26 (8,520.01) 0.00 Direct 8,520.01
TAOT 2023-B A3
891941AD8
(9,631.80) Principal
Paydown
01/15/26 01/15/26 (9,631.80) 0.00 Direct 9,631.80
HAROT 2023-2 A3
437927AC0
(8,999.59) Principal
Paydown
01/15/26 01/15/26 (8,999.59) 0.00 Direct 8,999.59
MBART 2022-1 A3
58768PAC8
(14,021.43) Principal
Paydown
01/15/26 01/15/26 (14,021.43) 0.00 Direct 14,021.43
FITAT 2023-1 A3
31680EAD3
(13,159.04) Principal
Paydown
01/15/26 01/15/26 (13,159.04) 0.00 Direct 13,159.04
ALLYA 2022-2 A3
02008MAC3
(15,906.33) Principal
Paydown
01/15/26 01/15/26 (15,906.33) 0.00 Direct 15,906.33

Page 168 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
26 Transactions
Description
Identifier
Current Units Type Trade Date Settle Date Price Principal Realized Gain/Loss
Broker Amount
CARMX 2022-3 A3
14318MAD1
(9,619.68) Principal
Paydown
01/15/26 01/15/26 (9,619.68) (0.00) Direct 9,619.68
NAROT 2023-A A3
65480WAD3
(11,600.38) Principal
Paydown
01/15/26 01/15/26 (11,600.38) (0.00) Direct 11,600.38
TAOT 2023-A A3
891940AC2
(7,092.42) Principal
Paydown
01/15/26 01/15/26 (7,092.42) 0.00 Direct 7,092.42
CARMX 2022-4 A3
14318UAD3
(11,729.41) Principal
Paydown
01/15/26 01/15/26 (11,729.41) (0.00) Direct 11,729.41
HART 2023-B A3
44933XAD9
(3,718.57) Principal
Paydown
01/15/26 01/15/26 (3,718.57) 0.00 Direct 3,718.57
HDMOT 2023-A A3
41285JAD0
(6,751.37) Principal
Paydown
01/15/26 01/15/26 (6,751.37) (0.00) Direct 6,751.37
FORDO 2023-A A3
344928AD8
(6,380.32) Principal
Paydown
01/15/26 01/15/26 (6,380.32) (0.00) Direct 6,380.32
HART 2022-C A3
44933DAD3
(13,424.51) Principal
Paydown
01/15/26 01/15/26 (13,424.51) 0.00 Direct 13,424.51
GMCAR 2022-3 A3
36265WAD5
(426.53) Principal
Paydown
01/16/26 01/16/26 (426.54) 0.01 Direct 426.54
GMCAR 2023-3 A3
36267KAD9
(3,678.63) Principal
Paydown
01/16/26 01/16/26 (3,678.63) 0.00 Direct 3,678.63
GMCAR 2023-2 A3
362583AD8
(6,336.36) Principal
Paydown
01/16/26 01/16/26 (6,336.36) 0.00 Direct 6,336.36
HAROT 2023-4 A3
438123AC5
(4,640.18) Principal
Paydown
01/21/26 01/21/26 (4,640.18) (0.00) Direct 4,640.18
BMWOT 2023-A A3
05592XAD2
(4,284.21) Principal
Paydown
01/25/26 01/25/26 (4,284.21) 0.00 Direct 4,284.21
FHMS K-059 A2
3137BSRE5
(517.23) Principal
Paydown
02/01/26 02/01/26 (517.23) 0.00 Direct 517.23
FHMS K-092 A1
3137FLYU2
(3,992.93) Principal
Paydown
02/01/26 02/01/26 (3,992.93) (0.00) Direct 3,992.93
FNA 2016-M12 A2
3136AUKX8
(469.86) Principal
Paydown
02/01/26 02/01/26 (469.86) 0.00 Direct 469.86
FHMS K-736 A2
3137FNWX4
(380.16) Principal
Paydown
02/01/26 02/01/26 (380.16) 0.00 Direct 380.16

Page 169 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
27 Transactions
Description
Identifier
Current Units Type Trade Date Settle Date Price Principal Realized Gain/Loss
Broker Amount
FNA 2016-M03 A2
3136ARTE8
(27,944.29) Principal
Paydown
02/01/26 02/01/26 (27,944.23) (0.06) Direct 27,944.23
FHMS K-057 A2
3137BRQJ7
(52,162.86) Principal
Paydown
02/01/26 02/01/26 (52,162.86) 0.00 Direct 52,162.86
FHMS K-063 A2
3137BVZ82
(613.86) Principal
Paydown
02/01/26 02/01/26 (613.86) (0.00) Direct 613.86
FHMS K-062 A2
3137BUX60
(1,160.84) Principal
Paydown
02/01/26 02/01/26 (1,160.84) (0.00) Direct 1,160.84
NAROT 2023-A A3
65480WAD3
(10,667.07) Principal
Paydown
02/15/26 02/15/26 (10,667.07) 0.00 Direct 10,667.07
CARMX 2022-4 A3
14318UAD3
(11,652.71) Principal
Paydown
02/15/26 02/15/26 (11,652.71) (0.00) Direct 11,652.71
TAOT 2022-D A3
89239HAD0
(4,347.37) Principal
Paydown
02/15/26 02/15/26 (4,347.37) (0.00) Direct 4,347.37
MBART 2022-1 A3
58768PAC8
(11,956.75) Principal
Paydown
02/15/26 02/15/26 (11,956.75) 0.00 Direct 11,956.75
TAOT 2023-A A3
891940AC2
(6,826.18) Principal
Paydown
02/15/26 02/15/26 (6,826.18) 0.00 Direct 6,826.18
HART 2022-C A3
44933DAD3
(12,881.24) Principal
Paydown
02/15/26 02/15/26 (12,881.24) (0.00) Direct 12,881.24
NAROT 2022-B A3
65480JAC4
(8,388.06) Principal
Paydown
02/15/26 02/15/26 (8,388.06) 0.00 Direct 8,388.06
HART 2023-B A3
44933XAD9
(3,661.09) Principal
Paydown
02/15/26 02/15/26 (3,661.09) (0.00) Direct 3,661.09
FORDO 2023-A A3
344928AD8
(5,286.98) Principal
Paydown
02/15/26 02/15/26 (5,286.98) 0.00 Direct 5,286.98
TAOT 2022-C A3
89231CAD9
(3,801.42) Principal
Paydown
02/15/26 02/15/26 (3,801.42) 0.00 Direct 3,801.42
CARMX 2022-3 A3
14318MAD1
(9,681.20) Principal
Paydown
02/15/26 02/15/26 (9,681.20) (0.00) Direct 9,681.20
ALLYA 2022-2 A3
02008MAC3
(14,647.61) Principal
Paydown
02/15/26 02/15/26 (14,647.61) 0.00 Direct 14,647.61
HDMOT 2023-A A3
41285JAD0
(6,903.35) Principal
Paydown
02/15/26 02/15/26 (6,903.35) (0.00) Direct 6,903.35

Page 170 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
28 Transactions
Description
Identifier
Current Units Type Trade Date Settle Date Price Principal Realized Gain/Loss
Broker Amount
NAROT 2023-B A3
65480MAD5
(6,373.86) Principal
Paydown
02/15/26 02/15/26 (6,373.86) 0.00 Direct 6,373.86
GMCAR 2023-2 A3
362583AD8
(5,895.44) Principal
Paydown
02/16/26 02/16/26 (5,895.44) 0.00 Direct 5,895.44
GMCAR 2023-3 A3
36267KAD9
(3,607.93) Principal
Paydown
02/16/26 02/16/26 (3,607.93) 0.00 Direct 3,607.93
HAROT 2023-4 A3
438123AC5
(4,387.01) Principal
Paydown
02/21/26 02/21/26 (4,387.01) (0.00) Direct 4,387.01
BMWOT 2023-A A3
05592XAD2
(3,806.42) Principal
Paydown
02/25/26 02/25/26 (3,806.42) (0.00) Direct 3,806.42
FHMS K-057 A2
3137BRQJ7
(951.71) Principal
Paydown
03/01/26 03/01/26 (951.71) (0.00) Direct 951.71
FHMS K-092 A1
3137FLYU2
(5,074.74) Principal
Paydown
03/01/26 03/01/26 (5,074.74) 0.00 Direct 5,074.74
FHMS K-059 A2
3137BSRE5
(21,767.68) Principal
Paydown
03/01/26 03/01/26 (21,767.68) 0.00 Direct 21,767.68
FHMS K-736 A2
3137FNWX4
(7,658.98) Principal
Paydown
03/01/26 03/01/26 (7,658.98) 0.00 Direct 7,658.98
FHMS K-062 A2
3137BUX60
(1,373.57) Principal
Paydown
03/01/26 03/01/26 (1,373.58) 0.01 Direct 1,373.58
FNA 2016-M12 A2
3136AUKX8
(7,553.25) Principal
Paydown
03/01/26 03/01/26 (7,553.25) 0.00 Direct 7,553.25
HART 2022-C A3
44933DAD3
(12,783.36) Principal
Paydown
03/15/26 03/15/26 (12,783.36) 0.00 Direct 12,783.36
NAROT 2023-B A3
65480MAD5
(5,490.27) Principal
Paydown
03/15/26 03/15/26 (5,490.27) (0.00) Direct 5,490.27
CARMX 2022-4 A3
14318UAD3
(11,069.75) Principal
Paydown
03/15/26 03/15/26 (11,069.75) (0.00) Direct 11,069.75
HART 2023-B A3
44933XAD9
(3,486.72) Principal
Paydown
03/15/26 03/15/26 (3,486.72) 0.00 Direct 3,486.72
MBART 2022-1 A3
58768PAC8
(10,223.91) Principal
Paydown
03/15/26 03/15/26 (10,223.91) (0.00) Direct 10,223.91
CARMX 2022-3 A3
14318MAD1
(2,997.16) Principal
Paydown
03/15/26 03/15/26 (2,997.14) (0.02) Direct 2,997.14

Page 171 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
29 Transactions
Description
Identifier
Current Units Type Trade Date Settle Date Price Principal Realized Gain/Loss
Broker Amount
ALLYA 2022-2 A3
02008MAC3
(6,522.13) Principal
Paydown
03/15/26 03/15/26 (6,522.14) 0.01 Direct 6,522.14
TAOT 2022-D A3
89239HAD0
(4,046.23) Principal
Paydown
03/15/26 03/15/26 (4,046.23) 0.00 Direct 4,046.23
TAOT 2022-C A3
89231CAD9
(3,464.92) Principal
Paydown
03/15/26 03/15/26 (3,464.92) 0.00 Direct 3,464.92
NAROT 2023-A A3
65480WAD3
(9,626.68) Principal
Paydown
03/15/26 03/15/26 (9,626.68) 0.00 Direct 9,626.68
HDMOT 2023-A A3
41285JAD0
(6,924.99) Principal
Paydown
03/15/26 03/15/26 (6,924.99) (0.00) Direct 6,924.99
FORDO 2023-A A3
344928AD8
(4,783.62) Principal
Paydown
03/15/26 03/15/26 (4,783.62) (0.00) Direct 4,783.62
NAROT 2022-B A3
65480JAC4
(7,611.19) Principal
Paydown
03/15/26 03/15/26 (7,611.19) 0.00 Direct 7,611.19
TAOT 2023-A A3
891940AC2
(6,559.53) Principal
Paydown
03/15/26 03/15/26 (6,559.53) 0.00 Direct 6,559.53
GMCAR 2023-2 A3
362583AD8
(5,336.15) Principal
Paydown
03/16/26 03/16/26 (5,336.15) 0.00 Direct 5,336.15
GMCAR 2023-3 A3
36267KAD9
(3,443.14) Principal
Paydown
03/16/26 03/16/26 (3,443.14) (0.00) Direct 3,443.14
HAROT 2023-4 A3
438123AC5
(4,141.83) Principal
Paydown
03/21/26 03/21/26 (4,141.83) 0.00 Direct 4,141.83
BMWOT 2023-A A3
05592XAD2
(3,415.30) Principal
Paydown
03/25/26 03/25/26 (3,415.30) (0.00) Direct 3,415.30
Principal Paydown Total ($768,708.76) ($0.03) $768,708.76

Page 172 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
30 Income
Description
Identifier
Final
Maturity
Current Units Interest
Income
Realized Gain
Realized Loss
Accretion
Income
Amortization
Expense
Misc
Income
Net Income Interest Received
Interest Due

ABBVIE INC
00287YED7
03/03/28 500,000.00 $1,415.63 $0.00
$0.00
$6.24 $0.00 $0.00 $1,421.86 $0.00
$0.00
ALLYA 2022-2 A3
02008MAC3
05/17/27 0.00 178.47 0.01

0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 178.51 256.91

0.00 AMAZON.COM INC
023135CT1
11/20/30 250,000.00 2,562.50 0.00

0.00 0.00 (40.36) 0.00 2,522.14 0.00

0.00 AMAZON.COM INC
023135CT1
11/20/30 250,000.00 2,562.50 0.00

0.00 12.11 0.00 0.00 2,574.61 0.00

0.00 AMERICAN EXPRESS CO
025816DP1
02/16/28 350,000.00 1,288.67 0.00

0.00 0.00 (249.98) 0.00 1,038.68 0.00

0.00 AMXCA 2023-1 A
02582JJZ4
05/15/26 0.00 284.09 439.17

0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 723.44 568.17

0.00 AMXCA 2025-1 A
02582JKM1
12/17/29 750,000.00 8,550.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 (1,451.97) 0.00 7,098.03 8,550.00

0.00 AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORP
02665WEK3
07/07/26 0.00 595.00 456.16

0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 1,056.16 2,231.25

0.00 AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORP
02665WEK3
07/07/26 0.00 455.00 394.71

0.00 20.03 0.00 0.00 869.75 1,706.25

0.00 AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORP
02665WEK3
07/07/26 0.00 350.00 225.17

0.00 0.00 (12.31) 0.00 562.86 1,312.50

0.00 ASTRAZENECA FINANCE LLC
04636NAQ6
03/02/31 500,000.00 1,611.11 0.00

0.00 3.65 0.00 0.00 1,614.76 0.00

0.00 AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING

GROUP LTD (NEW Y
05253JAZ4
01/18/27 0.00 1,847.22 2,300.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,147.22 5,937.50

0.00 BACCT 2023-2 A
05522RDH8
11/16/26 0.00 799.56 1,573.80

0.00 0.86 0.00 0.00 2,374.23 705.50

0.00 BMWOT 2023-A A3
05592XAD2
02/25/28 24,570.62 426.45 0.00
(0.01)

0.57 0.00 0.00 427.02 436.94

0.00 BANK OF AMERICA CORP
06051GFX2
04/19/26 175,000.00 1,531.25 0.00

0.00 440.02 0.00 0.00 1,971.27 0.00

0.00 BANK OF AMERICA CORP
06051GKW8
07/22/28 500,000.00 6,185.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 (1,042.42) 0.00 5,142.58 12,370.00

0.00 BANK OF MONTREAL
06368MXU3
09/22/28 750,000.00 7,616.25 0.00

0.00 0.00 (19.01) 0.00 7,597.24 15,232.50

0.00

Page 173 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
31 Income
Description
Identifier
Final
Maturity
Current Units Interest
Income
Realized Gain
Realized Loss
Accretion
Income
Amortization
Expense
Misc
Income
Net Income Interest Received
Interest Due

BANK OF AMERICA NA
06428CAA2
08/18/26 0.00 2,363.90 1,760.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,123.90 7,598.25

0.00 BNP Paribas New York Branch
09659CH76
08/07/26 500,000.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 4,725.00 0.00 0.00 4,725.00 0.00

0.00 COMET 2024-1 A
14041NGE5
09/17/29 750,000.00 7,350.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 (260.19) 0.00 7,089.81 7,350.00

0.00 CARMX 2022-3 A3
14318MAD1
04/15/27 0.00 86.29 0.00
(0.02)

0.03 0.00 0.00 86.30 125.63

0.00 CARMX 2022-4 A3
14318UAD3
08/16/27 24,558.20 549.76 0.00
(0.00)

1.22 0.00 0.00 550.98 631.53

0.00 CARMX 2024-3 A4
14319GAE1
01/15/30 750,000.00 9,093.75 0.00

0.00 0.00 (1,138.96) 0.00 7,954.79 9,093.75

0.00 CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORP
14913UAA8
05/15/26 0.00 1,450.00 337.18

0.00 5.58 0.00 0.00 1,792.76 0.00

0.00 CITIGROUP INC
172967KG5
01/12/26 0.00 226.11 0.00

0.00 61.77 0.00 0.00 287.88 3,700.00

0.00 CITIGROUP INC
172967PZ8
05/07/28 500,000.00 5,803.75 0.00

0.00 0.00 (611.87) 0.00 5,191.88 0.00

0.00 CNH 2026-A A3
189920AD3
05/15/31 400,000.00 2,800.00 0.00

0.00 (80.11) 0.00 0.00 2,719.89 2,088.89

0.00 COMCAST CORP
20030NBY6
02/01/27 0.00 1,155.00 3,277.53

0.00 748.80 0.00 0.00 5,181.33 3,300.00

0.00 Coöperatieve Rabobank U.A., New York Branch
21684LGS5
07/17/26 475,000.00 5,764.39 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,764.39 12,065.00

0.00 Credit Agricole Corporate And Investment Bank,
New
22533UE82
05/08/26 1,000,000.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 9,675.00 0.00 0.00 9,675.00 0.00

0.00 JOHN DEERE CAPITAL CORP
24422EXF1
01/08/27 0.00 1,575.00 1,153.70

0.00 13.04 0.00 0.00 2,741.74 4,500.00

0.00 JOHN DEERE CAPITAL CORP
24422EYK9
03/09/29 500,000.00 1,137.50 0.00

0.00 12.67 0.00 0.00 1,150.17 0.00

0.00 FNA 2016-M03 A2
3136ARTE8
02/25/26 0.00 62.92 0.00
(0.06)

0.00 (973.36) 0.00 (910.50) 189.37

0.00 FNA 2016-M12 A2
3136AUKX8
09/25/26 227,678.37 1,417.99 0.01
(0.00)

0.00 (352.12) 0.00 1,065.87 1,435.03

0.00

Page 174 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
32 Income
Description
Identifier
Final
Maturity
Current Units Interest
Income
Realized Gain
Realized Loss
Accretion
Income
Amortization
Expense
Misc
Income
Net Income Interest Received
Interest Due
FHMS K-054 A2
3137BNGT5
01/25/26 0.00 0.01 0.00
(0.00)

0.00 (0.00) 0.00 0.01 194.81

0.00 FHMS K-054 A2
3137BNGT5
01/25/26 0.00 0.01 0.00
(0.00)

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 159.39

0.00 FHMS K-057 A2
3137BRQJ7
07/25/26 210,561.31 1,410.76 0.00
(0.00)
814.44 0.00 0.00 2,225.19 1,468.58

0.00 FHMS K-057 A2
3137BRQJ7
07/25/26 210,561.31 1,410.76 0.00
(0.00)
1,091.50 0.00 0.00 2,502.25 1,468.58

0.00 FHMS K-058 A2
3137BSP72
08/25/26 400,000.00 2,652.99 0.00

0.00 1,269.90 0.00 0.00 3,922.89 2,652.99

0.00 FHMS K-059 A2
3137BSRE5
09/25/26 237,562.08 1,967.52 0.00
(0.00)
1,574.00 0.00 0.00 3,541.53 2,055.48

0.00 FHMS K-062 A2
3137BUX60
12/25/26 271,747.02 2,324.24 0.01
(0.00)
1,060.29 0.00 0.00 3,384.53 2,329.49

0.00 FHMS K-062 A2
3137BUX60
12/25/26 271,747.02 2,324.24 0.01
(0.00)
1,012.22 0.00 0.00 3,336.46 2,329.49

0.00 FHMS K-063 A2
3137BVZ82
01/25/27 0.00 921.73 3,637.70
(0.00)
525.28 0.00 0.00 5,084.70 1,577.64

0.00 FHMS K-065 A2
3137F1G44
04/25/27 260,000.00 2,107.95 0.00

0.00 1,112.75 0.00 0.00 3,220.70 2,107.95

0.00 FHMS K-083 A2
3137FJXV6
09/25/28 750,000.00 4,640.63 0.00

0.00 0.00 (253.39) 0.00 4,387.24 2,531.25

0.00 FHMS K-092 A1
3137FLYU2
10/25/28 133,390.83 1,078.95 0.01
(0.00)

0.00 (783.96) 0.00 294.99 1,112.92

0.00 FHMS K-736 A2
3137FNWX4
07/25/26 227,319.21 1,326.70 0.01

0.00 1,401.34 0.00 0.00 2,728.05 1,348.20

0.00 FITAT 2023-1 A3
31680EAD3
08/15/28 0.00 785.01 1,055.17

0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 1,840.57 728.33

0.00 FORDO 2023-A A3
344928AD8
02/15/28 33,817.65 480.44 0.00
(0.01)

0.50 0.00 0.00 480.94 514.44

0.00 FORDO 2023-B A3
344930AD4
05/15/28 0.00 396.92 396.52

0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 793.48 372.06

0.00 GMCAR 2023-2 A3
362583AD8
02/16/28 38,023.57 519.36 0.01

0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 519.50 552.08

0.00

Page 175 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
33 Income
Description
Identifier
Final
Maturity
Current Units Interest
Income
Realized Gain
Realized Loss
Accretion
Income
Amortization
Expense
Misc
Income
Net Income Interest Received
Interest Due
GMCAR 2022-3 A3
36265WAD5
04/16/27 0.00 0.64 0.01

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 1.29

0.00 GMCAR 2023-3 A3
36267KAD9
06/16/28 31,442.19 500.42 0.01
(0.00)

0.16 0.00 0.00 500.60 524.79

0.00 GMCAR 2025-3 A3
379957AD5
08/16/30 500,000.00 5,225.01 0.00

0.00 0.00 (320.14) 0.00 4,904.87 5,225.01

0.00 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC
38141GZR8
03/15/28 500,000.00 4,518.75 0.00

0.00 1,589.11 0.00 0.00 6,107.86 9,037.50

0.00 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC
38145GAH3
11/16/26 200,000.00 1,750.00 0.00

0.00 898.68 0.00 0.00 2,648.68 0.00

0.00 HDMOT 2023-A A3
41285JAD0
12/15/27 29,970.29 506.13 0.00
(0.00)

0.47 0.00 0.00 506.60 552.32

0.00 HOME DEPOT INC
437076CV2
09/30/26 0.00 909.56 561.04

0.00 14.87 0.00 0.00 1,485.47 0.00

0.00 HAROT 2023-2 A3
437927AC0
11/15/27 0.00 363.76 275.48

0.00 0.49 0.00 0.00 639.74 342.70

0.00 HAROT 2023-4 A3
438123AC5
06/21/28 47,069.80 768.56 0.00
(0.00)

0.99 0.00 0.00 769.55 789.30

0.00 HAROT 2026-1 A3
43815CAD0
09/23/30 500,000.00 2,257.50 0.00

0.00 3.81 0.00 0.00 2,261.31 1,732.50

0.00 HART 2022-C A3
44933DAD3
06/15/27 11,462.42 409.08 0.00
(0.00)

0.01 0.00 0.00 409.09 502.72

0.00 HART 2023-B A3
44933XAD9
04/17/28 28,504.34 462.22 0.00
(0.00)

0.17 0.00 0.00 462.39 488.69

0.00 HART 2025-C A3
44935JAD8
04/15/30 750,000.00 7,275.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 (117.14) 0.00 7,157.86 7,275.00

0.00 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO
46647PDG8
07/25/28 500,000.00 6,063.75 0.00

0.00 0.00 (964.29) 0.00 5,099.46 12,127.50

0.00 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO
46647PEY8
04/22/31 350,000.00 2,827.92 0.00

0.00 0.00 (339.99) 0.00 2,487.92 0.00

0.00 MBART 2022-1 A3
58768PAC8
08/16/27 33,536.51 650.85 0.00
(0.00)

1.35 0.00 0.00 652.20 734.68

0.00 MBALT 2026-A A3
58770YAD3
01/15/30 350,000.00 2,674.58 0.00

0.00 6.09 0.00 0.00 2,680.67 2,063.25

0.00

Page 176 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
34 Income
Description
Identifier
Final
Maturity
Current Units Interest
Income
Realized Gain
Realized Loss
Accretion
Income
Amortization
Expense
Misc
Income
Net Income Interest Received
Interest Due

FEDERATED HRMS TRS SVC
60934N872
03/31/26 402,616.65 3,849.20 0.02
(0.02)

0.00 0.00 0.00 3,849.20 4,429.21
1,061.15

FEDERATED HRMS TRS SVC
60934N872
03/31/26 410,411.34 3,896.08 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,896.08 3,776.75
1,482.20
MUFG Bank, Ltd., New York Branch
62479MC92
03/09/26 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 7,314.17 0.00 0.00 7,314.17 0.00

0.00 MUFG Bank, Ltd., New York Branch
62479MK93
10/09/26 1,000,000.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 2,389.44 0.00 0.00 2,389.44 0.00

0.00 NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LTD (NEW YORK

BRANCH)
63253QAA2
01/12/26 0.00 629.72 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 629.72 10,304.45

0.00 NATIONAL RURAL UTILITIES COOPERATIVE

FINANCE CORP
63743HFH0
03/13/26 0.00 1,004.34 3.03

0.00 27.67 0.00 0.00 1,035.04 2,673.09

0.00 Natixis, New York Branch
63873KG27
07/02/26 1,000,000.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 9,575.00 0.00 0.00 9,575.00 0.00

0.00 Natixis, New York Branch
63873QP65
09/18/26 375,000.00 (36,830.03) 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (36,830.03) 0.00

0.00 NAROT 2022-B A3
65480JAC4
05/17/27 23,686.15 395.50 0.01

0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 396.40 445.38

0.00 NAROT 2023-B A3
65480MAD5
03/15/28 42,811.79 763.73 0.00
(0.00)

1.30 0.00 0.00 765.03 813.20

0.00 NAROT 2023-A A3
65480WAD3
11/15/27 55,277.49 861.86 0.01
(0.00)

1.64 0.00 0.00 863.50 931.46

0.00 NALT 2026-A A3
65481HAD5
03/15/29 250,000.00 940.63 0.00

0.00 0.97 0.00 0.00 941.60 510.63

0.00 PACCAR FINANCIAL CORP
69371RS56
08/10/26 125,000.00 1,578.13 0.00

0.00 5.40 0.00 0.00 1,583.52 3,156.25

0.00 PACCAR FINANCIAL CORP
69371RT63
03/03/28 500,000.00 5,687.50 0.00

0.00 0.00 (893.74) 0.00 4,793.76 11,375.00

0.00 PEPSICO INC
713448FW3
11/10/26 0.00 582.97 495.61

0.00 1.03 0.00 0.00 1,079.62 0.00

0.00 PFIZER INVESTMENT ENTERPRISES PTE LTD
716973AC6
05/19/28 500,000.00 5,562.50 0.00

0.00 0.00 (568.20) 0.00 4,994.30 0.00

0.00

Page 177 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
35 Income
Description
Identifier
Final
Maturity
Current Units Interest
Income
Realized Gain
Realized Loss
Accretion
Income
Amortization
Expense
Misc
Income
Net Income Interest Received
Interest Due

STATE STREET CORP
857477CD3
08/03/26 200,000.00 2,636.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,636.00 5,272.00

0.00 Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation
86565GQA1
06/04/26 500,000.00 4,644.44 0.00

0.00 0.00 (516.38) 0.00 4,128.07 0.00

0.00 Svenska Handelsbanken AB (publ)
86959TSF4
11/17/26 554,000.00 2,906.66 0.00

0.00 0.00 (129.27) 0.00 2,777.39 0.00

0.00 Toronto-Dominion Bank - New York Branch
89115D3Z7
01/15/26 0.00 1,575.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,575.00 10,912.50

0.00 TAOT 2023-A A3
891940AC2
09/15/27 36,022.26 530.78 0.01

0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 530.80 572.92

0.00 TAOT 2023-B A3
891941AD8
02/15/28 0.00 208.68 404.25

0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 613.09 419.87

0.00 TAOT 2022-C A3
89231CAD9
04/15/27 4,219.60 89.96 0.00
(0.00)

0.17 0.00 0.00 90.13 109.01

0.00 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP
89236TKT1
05/18/26 0.00 1,635.37 185.27

0.00 7.33 0.00 0.00 1,827.97 0.00

0.00 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP
89236TLJ2
01/05/26 0.00 93.33 0.00

0.00 0.76 0.00 0.00 94.09 4,200.00

0.00 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP
89236TMS1
10/08/27 500,000.00 5,437.50 0.00

0.00 0.00 (631.45) 0.00 4,806.05 0.00

0.00 TAOT 2022-D A3
89239HAD0
09/15/27 24,258.79 403.32 0.00
(0.00)

0.27 0.00 0.00 403.59 434.12

0.00 TAOT 2024-D A4
89239TAE2
04/15/30 500,000.00 5,537.49 0.00

0.00 0.00 (510.04) 0.00 5,027.45 5,537.49

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
912797QN0
05/14/26 800,000.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 7,102.00 0.00 0.00 7,102.00 0.00

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
912797QX8
06/11/26 1,800,000.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 15,918.75 0.00 0.00 15,918.75 0.00

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
912797RF6
07/09/26 800,000.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 7,085.00 0.00 0.00 7,085.00 0.00

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
912797RG4
08/06/26 1,300,000.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 11,509.06 0.00 0.00 11,509.06 0.00

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
912797RH2
01/08/26 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 598.50 0.00 0.00 598.50 0.00

0.00

Page 178 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
36 Income
Description
Identifier
Final
Maturity
Current Units Interest
Income
Realized Gain
Realized Loss
Accretion
Income
Amortization
Expense
Misc
Income
Net Income Interest Received
Interest Due

UNITED STATES TREASURY
912797RS8
09/03/26 1,300,000.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 11,383.94 0.00 0.00 11,383.94 0.00

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
912797RT6
02/12/26 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 7,830.37 0.00 0.00 7,830.37 0.00

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
912797RV1
03/05/26 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 5,201.00 0.00 0.00 5,201.00 0.00

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
912797SA6
10/01/26 1,200,000.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 10,530.75 0.00 0.00 10,530.75 0.00

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
912797SK4
10/29/26 1,300,000.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 11,379.06 0.00 0.00 11,379.06 0.00

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
912797SL2
04/09/26 1,800,000.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 16,661.25 0.00 0.00 16,661.25 0.00

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CEM9
04/30/29 500,000.00 2,223.76 0.00

0.00 557.13 0.00 0.00 2,780.89 0.00

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CFH9
08/31/27 1,000,000.00 7,724.30 0.00

0.00 1,101.25 0.00 0.00 8,825.55 15,625.00

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CFZ9
11/30/27 500,000.00 4,790.52 0.00

0.00 0.00 (439.06) 0.00 4,351.46 0.00

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CFZ9
11/30/27 1,000,000.00 9,581.04 0.00

0.00 0.00 (812.85) 0.00 8,768.20 0.00

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CGJ4
01/31/30 700,000.00 3,180.94 0.00

0.00 86.71 0.00 0.00 3,267.65 0.00

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CHU8
08/15/26 0.00 1,046.20 7,287.82

0.00 80.25 0.00 0.00 8,414.27 0.00

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CHY0
09/15/26 500,000.00 5,731.60 0.00

0.00 0.00 (1,260.53) 0.00 4,471.07 11,562.50

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CJA0
09/30/28 1,500,000.00 17,152.12 0.00

0.00 0.00 (3,777.33) 0.00 13,374.79 34,687.50

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CJC6
10/15/26 0.00 1,543.79 3,466.29

0.00 32.79 0.00 0.00 5,042.87 0.00

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CJK8
11/15/26 0.00 3,513.47 6,821.67

0.00 0.00 (210.89) 0.00 10,124.24 0.00

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CJP7
12/15/26 0.00 8,411.67 8,080.87

0.00 0.00 (522.07) 0.00 15,970.48 0.00

0.00

Page 179 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
37 Income
Description
Identifier
Final
Maturity
Current Units Interest
Income
Realized Gain
Realized Loss
Accretion
Income
Amortization
Expense
Misc
Income
Net Income Interest Received
Interest Due

UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CJP7
12/15/26 0.00 2,273.43 2,751.13

0.00 0.00 (72.50) 0.00 4,952.05 0.00

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CJP7
12/15/26 1,300,000.00 14,062.50 0.00

0.00 0.00 (2,659.53) 0.00 11,402.97 0.00

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CJT9
01/15/27 800,000.00 7,326.93 0.00

0.00 0.00 (886.66) 0.00 6,440.27 16,000.00

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CJT9
01/15/27 500,000.00 4,198.90 0.00

0.00 0.00 (471.49) 0.00 3,727.40 0.00

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CKA8
02/15/27 1,300,000.00 6,957.53 0.00

0.00 0.00 (945.86) 0.00 6,011.67 26,812.50

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CKE0
03/15/27 800,000.00 2,040.26 0.00

0.00 0.00 (294.40) 0.00 1,745.86 17,000.00

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CKG5
03/31/29 1,250,000.00 12,748.20 0.00

0.00 0.00 (1,449.37) 0.00 11,298.83 25,781.25

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CKT7
05/31/29 1,000,000.00 10,137.37 0.00

0.00 0.00 (1,782.44) 0.00 8,354.93 0.00

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CMF5
01/15/28 1,000,000.00 10,539.50 0.00

0.00 0.00 (1,721.41) 0.00 8,818.09 21,250.00

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CMF5
01/15/28 1,000,000.00 10,539.50 0.00

0.00 0.00 (1,655.97) 0.00 8,883.53 21,250.00

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CMN8
02/15/28 1,000,000.00 10,480.16 0.00

0.00 0.00 (1,643.56) 0.00 8,836.60 21,250.00

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CMN8
02/15/28 500,000.00 4,778.12 0.00

0.00 0.00 (774.68) 0.00 4,003.45 10,625.00

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CMN8
02/15/28 250,000.00 1,085.98 0.00

0.00 0.00 (184.56) 0.00 901.42 0.00

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CND9
05/15/28 500,000.00 3,625.69 0.00

0.00 0.00 (109.17) 0.00 3,516.53 0.00

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CND9
05/15/28 1,000,000.00 7,044.20 0.00

0.00 0.00 (162.75) 0.00 6,881.45 0.00

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CND9
05/15/28 250,000.00 1,631.56 0.00

0.00 0.00 (55.51) 0.00 1,576.05 0.00

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CNP2
07/31/27 500,000.00 4,790.81 0.00

0.00 0.00 (374.00) 0.00 4,416.81 9,687.50

0.00

Page 180 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
38 Income
Description
Identifier
Final
Maturity
Current Units Interest
Income
Realized Gain
Realized Loss
Accretion
Income
Amortization
Expense
Misc
Income
Net Income Interest Received
Interest Due

UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CNP2
07/31/27 500,000.00 3,369.28 0.00

0.00 0.00 (257.56) 0.00 3,111.71 9,687.50

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CPP0
12/15/28 1,250,000.00 10,817.31 0.00

0.00 302.69 0.00 0.00 11,120.00 0.00

0.00 UNITED STATES TREASURY
91282CPT2
01/15/29 700,000.00 3,654.70 0.00

0.00 89.62 0.00 0.00 3,744.32 0.00

0.00 VWALT 2025-B A4
92868BAE3
05/20/30 750,000.00 7,500.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 (203.85) 0.00 7,296.15 7,500.00

0.00 WELLS FARGO & CO
949746RW3
04/22/26 200,000.00 1,500.00 0.00

0.00 1,018.36 0.00 0.00 2,518.36 0.00

0.00 WELLS FARGO BANK NA
94988J6F9
12/11/26 0.00 3,064.84 4,016.25

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7,081.09 0.00

0.00 Cash
CCYUSD
03/31/26 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 Receivable
CCYUSD
03/31/26 1,061.15 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 Receivable
CCYUSD
03/31/26 1,482.20 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 Portfolio Total 55,409,370.14 $364,293.81 $51,355.67 ($0.18)
($34,908.54) $0.00 $536,566.17 $480,877.98
$2,543.35

Page 181 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
39 GASB 40
Issuer
Identifier
Security Type
% of Market
Value
Book Yield
Market Yield
Duration S&P
Moody's
Effective Maturity
Final Maturity
Current Units Accrued Book Value
Book Value + Accrued
Market Value
Market Value +
Accrued

ASTRAZENECA FINANCE LLC

ASTRAZENECA FINANCE LLC
04636NAQ6
CORP

0.89%

4.01%

4.39%

4.39 A+
A1
03/02/31
03/02/31
500,000.00 $1,611.11 $499,758.65
$501,369.76
$491,474.58
$493,085.69

ASTRAZENECA FINANCE LLC

0.89%

4.01%

4.39%

4.39 A+
A1
500,000.00 $1,611.11 $499,758.65
$501,369.76
$491,474.58
$493,085.69
AbbVie Inc.

AbbVie Inc.
00287YED7
CORP

0.90%

3.79%

4.14%

1.83 AA203/03/28
03/03/28
500,000.00 $1,415.63 $499,836.24
$501,251.86
$496,633.67
$498,049.29
AbbVie Inc.

0.90%

3.79%

4.14%

1.83 AA2500,000.00 $1,415.63 $499,836.24
$501,251.86
$496,633.67
$498,049.29
Amazon.com, Inc.

Amazon.com, Inc.
023135CT1
CORP

0.45%

4.02%

4.37%

4.11 AA
A1
11/20/30
11/20/30
250,000.00 $3,729.86 $250,820.80
$254,550.67
$247,188.27
$250,918.13
Amazon.com, Inc.
023135CT1
CORP

0.45%

4.12%

4.37%

4.11 AA
A1
11/20/30
11/20/30
250,000.00 3,729.86 249,750.27
253,480.13
247,188.27
250,918.13
Amazon.com, Inc.

0.90%

4.07%

4.37%

4.11 AA
A1
500,000.00 $7,459.72 $500,571.07
$508,030.79
$494,376.54
$501,836.27
American Express Company
American Express Company
025816DP1
CORP

0.64%

4.08%

4.42%

0.84 AA202/16/27
02/16/28
350,000.00 $2,230.38 $353,008.52
$355,238.89
$351,986.51
$354,216.88
American Express Company

0.64%

4.08%

4.42%

0.84 AA2350,000.00 $2,230.38 $353,008.52
$355,238.89
$351,986.51
$354,216.88
American Express Credit
Account Master Trust 2025-1
American Express Credit
Account Master Trust 2025-1
02582JKM1
ABS

1.36%

3.76%

4.09%

1.61 AAA
NA
12/15/27
12/17/29
750,000.00 $1,520.00 $760,266.76
$761,786.76
$756,132.27
$757,652.27
American Express Credit
Account Master Trust 2025-1 1.36%

3.76%

4.09%

1.61 AAA
NA
750,000.00 $1,520.00 $760,266.76
$761,786.76
$756,132.27
$757,652.27

Page 182 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
40 GASB 40
Issuer
Identifier
Security Type
% of Market
Value
Book Yield
Market Yield
Duration S&P
Moody's
Effective Maturity
Final Maturity
Current Units Accrued Book Value
Book Value + Accrued
Market Value
Market Value +
Accrued
BNP Paribas New York Branch
BNP Paribas New York Branch
09659CH76
CP

0.89%

3.89%

3.92%

0.35 A-1
P-1
08/07/26
08/07/26
500,000.00 $0.00 $493,280.00
$493,280.00
$493,080.00
$493,080.00
BNP Paribas New York Branch

0.89%

3.89%

3.92%

0.35 A-1
P-1
500,000.00 $0.00 $493,280.00
$493,280.00
$493,080.00
$493,080.00
Bank of America Corporation
Bank of America Corporation
06051GFX2
CORP

0.32%

4.54%

3.90%

0.05 AA104/19/26
04/19/26
175,000.00 $2,756.25 $174,912.00
$177,668.25
$174,959.49
$177,715.74
Bank of America Corporation
06051GKW8
CORP

0.91%

4.04%

4.42%

1.25 AA107/22/27
07/22/28
500,000.00 4,741.83 505,709.69
510,451.52
503,299.66
508,041.49
Bank of America Corporation

1.23%

4.17%

4.28%

0.94 AA1675,000.00 $7,498.08 $680,621.68
$688,119.77
$678,259.15
$685,757.24
Bank of Montreal
Bank of Montreal
06368MXU3
CORP

1.34%

4.04%

4.47%

1.43 AA209/22/28
09/22/28
750,000.00 $761.63 $750,283.80
$751,045.43
$746,484.50
$747,246.13
Bank of Montreal

1.34%

4.04%

4.47%

1.43 AA2750,000.00 $761.63 $750,283.80
$751,045.43
$746,484.50
$747,246.13
Bmw Vehicle Owner Trust 2023-A
Bmw Vehicle Owner Trust 2023-A
05592XAD2
ABS

0.04%

5.54%

4.53%

0.45 AAA
NA
02/25/27
02/25/28
24,570.62 $22.40 $24,569.76
$24,592.16
$24,676.65
$24,699.05
Bmw Vehicle Owner Trust 2023-A

0.04%

5.54%

4.53%

0.45 AAA
NA
24,570.62 $22.40 $24,569.76
$24,592.16
$24,676.65
$24,699.05
COMET_24-A1
COMET_24-A1
14041NGE5
ABS

1.35%

3.80%

4.01%

1.39 AAA
NA
09/15/27
09/17/29
750,000.00 $1,306.67 $751,565.86
$752,872.52
$749,350.22
$750,656.88
COMET_24-A1

1.35%

3.80%

4.01%

1.39 AAA
NA
750,000.00 $1,306.67 $751,565.86
$752,872.52
$749,350.22
$750,656.88
CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2022-4

Page 183 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
41 GASB 40
Issuer
Identifier
Security Type
% of Market
Value
Book Yield
Market Yield
Duration S&P
Moody's
Effective Maturity
Final Maturity
Current Units Accrued Book Value
Book Value + Accrued
Market Value
Market Value +
Accrued
CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2022-4
14318UAD3
ABS

0.04%

5.41%

4.25%

0.11 AAA
NA
07/15/26
08/16/27
24,558.20 $58.28 $24,557.81
$24,616.10
$24,584.82
$24,643.11
CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2022-4

0.04%

5.41%

4.25%

0.11 AAA
NA
24,558.20 $58.28 $24,557.81
$24,616.10
$24,584.82
$24,643.11
Carmax Auto Owner Trust 2024-3
Carmax Auto Owner Trust 2024-3
14319GAE1
ABS

1.37%

4.20%

4.43%

2.45 AAA
Aaa
03/15/29
01/15/30
750,000.00 $1,616.67 $762,902.36
$764,519.03
$758,513.14
$760,129.81
Carmax Auto Owner Trust 2024-3

1.37%

4.20%

4.43%

2.45 AAA
Aaa
750,000.00 $1,616.67 $762,902.36
$764,519.03
$758,513.14
$760,129.81
Citigroup Inc.

Citigroup Inc.
172967PZ8
CORP

0.92%

4.11%

4.49%

1.04 BBB+
A3
05/07/27
05/07/28
500,000.00 $9,286.00 $502,815.97
$512,101.97
$500,809.08
$510,095.08
Citigroup Inc.

0.92%

4.11%

4.49%

1.04 BBB+
A3
500,000.00 $9,286.00 $502,815.97
$512,101.97
$500,809.08
$510,095.08
Cnh Equipment Trust 2026-A
Cnh Equipment Trust 2026-A
189920AD3
ABS

0.72%

4.05%

4.17%

2.67 NA
Aaa
05/15/30
05/15/31
400,000.00 $711.11 $399,844.05
$400,555.16
$398,530.54
$399,241.65
Cnh Equipment Trust 2026-A

0.72%

4.05%

4.17%

2.67 NA
Aaa
400,000.00 $711.11 $399,844.05
$400,555.16
$398,530.54
$399,241.65
Coöperatieve Rabobank U.A.,
New York Branch
Coöperatieve Rabobank U.A.,
New York Branch
21684LGS5
CD

0.87%

5.08%

3.88%

0.29 A+
Aa2
07/17/26
07/17/26
475,000.00 $4,960.06 $475,000.00
$479,960.06
$476,649.01
$481,609.07
Coöperatieve Rabobank U.A.,
New York Branch 0.87%

5.08%

3.88%

0.29 A+
Aa2
475,000.00 $4,960.06 $475,000.00
$479,960.06
$476,649.01
$481,609.07
Credit Agricole Corporate And
Investment Bank, New York Branch

Page 184 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
42 GASB 40
Issuer
Identifier
Security Type
% of Market
Value
Book Yield
Market Yield
Duration S&P
Moody's
Effective Maturity
Final Maturity
Current Units Accrued Book Value
Book Value + Accrued
Market Value
Market Value +
Accrued
Credit Agricole Corporate And
Investment Bank, New York Branch
22533UE82
CP

1.79%

3.96%

3.65%

0.11 A-1
P-1
05/08/26
05/08/26
1,000,000.00 $0.00 $996,022.50
$996,022.50
$996,158.00
$996,158.00
Credit Agricole Corporate And
Investment Bank, New York Branch 1.79%

3.96%

3.65%

0.11 A-1
P-1
1,000,000.00 $0.00 $996,022.50
$996,022.50
$996,158.00
$996,158.00
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation
3137FNWX4

GSE MBS

0.41%

5.29%

3.57%

0.26 AA+
Aa1
07/01/26
07/25/26
227,319.21 $432.29 $225,211.75
$225,644.03
$226,216.74
$226,649.03
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation
3137BRQJ7

GSE MBS

0.38%

4.29%

3.66%

0.28 AA+
Aa1
07/01/26
07/25/26
210,561.31 450.95 209,165.98
209,616.93
209,554.93
210,005.89
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation
3137BRQJ7

GSE MBS

0.38%

4.92%

3.66%

0.28 AA+
Aa1
07/01/26
07/25/26
210,561.31 450.95 208,788.29
209,239.24
209,554.93
210,005.89
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation
3137BSP72

GSE MBS

0.72%

3.98%

3.78%

0.35 AA+
Aa1
08/01/26
08/25/26
400,000.00 884.33 397,448.04
398,332.37
397,683.71
398,568.05
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation
3137BSRE5

GSE MBS

0.43%

5.16%

3.86%

0.46 AAA
Aa1
09/01/26
09/25/26
237,562.08 617.66 234,907.66
235,525.33
236,273.73
236,891.39
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation
3137BUX60

GSE MBS

0.49%

5.08%

3.89%

0.67 AA+
Aa1
12/01/26
12/25/26
271,747.02 772.89 268,173.35
268,946.25
270,285.19
271,058.08
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation
3137BUX60

GSE MBS

0.49%

5.00%

3.89%

0.67 AA+
Aa1
12/01/26
12/25/26
271,747.02 772.89 268,308.92
269,081.82
270,285.19
271,058.08
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation
3137F1G44

GSE MBS

0.47%

5.11%

3.85%

0.95 AA+
Aa1
04/01/27
04/25/27
260,000.00 702.65 254,956.68
255,659.33
257,962.23
258,664.88
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation
3137FJXV6

GSE MBS

1.35%

3.83%

4.04%

2.30 AA+
Aa1
09/01/28
09/25/28
750,000.00 2,531.25 752,295.44
754,826.69
748,616.61
751,147.86

Page 185 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
43 GASB 40
Issuer
Identifier
Security Type
% of Market
Value
Book Yield
Market Yield
Duration S&P
Moody's
Effective Maturity
Final Maturity
Current Units Accrued Book Value
Book Value + Accrued
Market Value
Market Value +
Accrued
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation
3137FLYU2

GSE MBS

0.24%

0.68%

3.98%

1.21 AA+
Aa1
08/01/28
10/25/28
133,390.83 347.37 137,339.53
137,686.90
131,757.95
132,105.32
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation 5.34%

4.36%

3.85%

0.98 AA+
Aa1
2,972,888.78 $7,963.24 $2,956,595.65
$2,964,558.90
$2,958,191.22
$2,966,154.46
Federal National Mortgage
Association
Federal National Mortgage
Association
3136AUKX8

GSE MBS

0.41%

0.00%

3.90%

0.33 AA+
Aa1
09/01/26
09/25/26
227,678.37 $462.19 $228,222.21
$228,684.40
$226,215.00
$226,677.19
Federal National Mortgage
Association 0.41%

0.00%

3.90%

0.33 AA+
Aa1
227,678.37 $462.19 $228,222.21
$228,684.40
$226,215.00
$226,677.19
Ford Credit Auto Owner Trust
2023-A
Ford Credit Auto Owner Trust
2023-A
344928AD8
ABS

0.06%

4.70%

4.18%

0.34 AAA
NA
01/15/27
02/15/28
33,817.65 $69.89 $33,817.09
$33,886.98
$33,871.69
$33,941.58
Ford Credit Auto Owner Trust
2023-A 0.06%

4.70%

4.18%

0.34 AAA
NA
33,817.65 $69.89 $33,817.09
$33,886.98
$33,871.69
$33,941.58
GM Financial Consumer
Automobile Receivables Trust
2023-2
GM Financial Consumer
Automobile Receivables Trust 2023-2
362583AD8
ABS

0.07%

4.51%

4.16%

0.34 AAA
Aaa
01/16/27
02/16/28
38,023.57 $70.82 $38,023.42
$38,094.24
$38,063.94
$38,134.76
GM Financial Consumer
Automobile Receivables Trust
2023-2

0.07%

4.51%

4.16%

0.34 AAA
Aaa
38,023.57 $70.82 $38,023.42
$38,094.24
$38,063.94
$38,134.76

Page 186 of 391 ends

January 1 - March 31, 2026
01/01/2026 to 03/31/2026
44 GASB 40
Issuer
Identifier
Security Type
% of Market
Value
Book Yield
Market Yield
Duration S&P
Moody's
Effective Maturity
Final Maturity
Current Units Accrued Book Value
Book Value + Accrued
Market Value
Market Value +
Accrued
Gm Financial Consumer
Automobile Receivables Trust
2023-3
Gm Financial Consumer
Automobile Receivables Trust 2023-3
36267KAD9
ABS

0.06%

5.51%

4.36%

0.49 AAA
Aaa
06/16/27
06/16/28
31,442.19 $71.40 $31,441.92
$31,513.32
$31,615.23
$31,686.63
Gm Financial Consumer
Automobile Receivables Trust
2023-3

0.06%

5.51%

4.36%

0.49 AAA
Aaa
31,442.19 $71.40 $31,441.92
$31,513.32
$31,615.23
$31,686.63
Gm Financial Consumer
Automobile Receivables Trust
2025-3
Gm Financial Consumer
Automobile Receivables Trust 2025-3
379957AD5
ABS

0.90%

3.93%

4.20%

1.82 AAA
NA
06/16/29
08/16/30
500,000.00 $870.83 $502,620.53
$503,491.36
$500,093.16
$500,964.00
Gm Financial Consumer
Automobile Receivables Trust
2025-3

0.90%

3.93%

4.20%

1.82 AAA
NA
500,000.00 $870.83 $502,620.53
$503,491.36
$500,093.16
$500,964.00
Harley-Davidson Motorcycle
Trust 2023-A
Harley-Davidson Motorcycle
Trust 2023-A
41285JAD0
ABS

0.05%

5.11%

4.16%

0.21 NA
Aaa
09/15/26
12/15/27
29,970.29 $67.27 $29,969.98
$30,037.25
$30,025.01
$30,092.27
Harley-Davidson Motorcycle
Trust 2023-A 0.05%

5.11%

4.16%

0.21 NA
Aaa
29,970.29 $67.27 $29,969.98
$30,037.25
$30,025.01
$30,092.27
Honda Auto Receivables 2023-4
Owner Trust
Honda Auto Receivables 2023-4
Owner Trust
438123AC5
ABS

0.09%

5.74%

4.25%

0.63 NA
Aaa
10/21/27
06/21/28
47,069.80 $74.13 $47,067.62
$47,141.75
$47,506.20
$47,580.33

Page 187 of 391 ends

Los Altos City CouncilSeptember 8, 2026

Los Altos City Council
September 8, 2026