Pathway Nexus Study Report Town of Los Altos Hills, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 15
4. Count Ballots: If the majority of the ballots received by the conclusion of the hearing period result in protest of the creation of the District, then the district cannot be created (Gov. Code §53753(e)(5).) The ballots are weighted according to the proportional financial obligation of the affected property (Gov. Code §53753(b).) If the financial obligation for each property is the same, then each ballot is weighted equally and only a simple majority would be required. If the ballot is approved, then the benefit assessment district can be created.
Upon completion of the process outlined, including majority voter approval, the Assessment District will be created. The assessment amount would then be billed on the property tax bills each year. The Pathway Assessment District could be applied to not only residents within the Town of Los Altos Hills, but also any property owners in unincorporated areas that could benefit from the use of the Town’s pathways. The determination of which parcels could be assessed would ultimately depend upon the Engineer’s Assessment Report.
The implementation of the Benefit Assessment District would also involve changing the Town’s current ordinance to reflect the Pathway Benefit Assessment District, as well as changing the policies and procedures associated with the pathway process.
It is important to note that the creation and formation of an Assessment District can be challenging and require a longer timeframe as there is the need for public outreach to ensure that the appropriate number of votes are collected via ballot from the property owners in the proposed district.
The Town can either continue to charge the Development Impact Fee or develop a Benefit Assessment District, however, both cannot be in effect concurrently.
Pathway Nexus Study Report Town of Los Altos Hills, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 16
7. Summary of Proposed Pathway Fee Options
As this report has demonstrated, the Town currently charges the Pathway Fee as a Pathway Development Impact Fee. However, per the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (AB1600) and best practices, impact fees must be reevaluated every five years (Gov.
Code § 66001 (d)(1).) to ensure that there is still a relevant nexus for the collection of funds. Therefore, for the Town to continue assessing the Pathway Impact Fee, this report conducted the necessary nexus study. In addition to the nexus study, the project team also looked at the proposed fee option of developing a Benefit Assessment District.
To assess the benefits of these options, the project team conducted a comparison of the Development Impact Fee, In-Lieu Fee, and the Benefit Assessment District. The following points identify the three options and a brief description of what they would entail.
1. Development Impact Fee (Current Practice): Due to the projected population and household growth estimated for the Town, as well as the current standard of Pathway to resident ratio, there could be the need to construct new pathways as new residents move into Town. The following sub-points detail some key aspects of this type of impact fee:
Type of Fee: Impact Fee – numerical fee based on proportionality.
Legal Authority: Must meet the criteria set forth by the Mitigation Fee Act (AB1600 and AB602) (Gov. Code §66000 et seq.), demonstrating the reasonable relationship that exists between the development activity and the proposed benefit. There is also the need for annual reporting requirements and reassessment of fees every eight years.
Adoption Criteria: Town Council can adopt the fee through resolution once a nexus study has been completed.
Frequency: One-time.
Method of charging: Collected during building permit phase.
As a one-time flat fee, the Impact Fee is intended to be assessed on all projects that result in the potential for increased residents as measured by square footage of new residential development, which would generate the need to construct new pathways. The Impact Fee must only be used for the construction of new pathways, while the General Fund would be used for the maintenance of existing pathways. This is the Town’s current practice
2. In-Lieu Fee: In this option, instead of a flat fee being charged, the developer / applicant is given the option to either build / construct their own pathway / portion
Pathway Nexus Study Report Town of Los Altos Hills, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 17
of pathway OR pay the Town’s established fee. The following sub-points detail some key aspects of this type of impact fee:
Type of Fee: In-Lieu Fee – optional fee based on if developer / applicant doesn’t choose to construct.
Legal Authority: Must meet the criteria set forth by the Mitigation Fee Act (AB1600) (Gov. Code §66000 et seq.), demonstrating the reasonable relationship that exists between the development activity and the proposed benefit.
Adoption Criteria: Town Council can adopt the fee through resolution once a nexus study has been completed.
Frequency: One-time.
Method of charging: Collected during building permit phase.
Like the impact fee, this would also be a one-time fee; however, it would be optional as developers could choose to construct their own pathway or portion of pathway rather than paying an impact fee. This fee can only be used for new pathway construction rather than maintenance of existing pathways.
3. Pathway Assessment District: The Town could create a benefit assessment district; as the benefit of the maintenance, upkeep, and addition of pathways is all in relation to the property owners and residents that currently reside in Town. The following sub-points detail some key aspects of this assessment:
Type of Fee: Benefit Assessment – per property owner.
Legal Authority: There are several assessment laws that authorize assessments for a variety of purposes. General law cities typically select an assessment law under which it will proceed, and then follow those procedures and limitation set by the law. For example, the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (Str. & Hwy Code §10000 et seq.) is the primary procedural assessment act used for the acquisition or construction of public improvement but does not provide any bond procedures.
Instead, bonds must be issued under the Improvement Act of 1911 (Str. & Hwy Code §5000 et seq.) or the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Str. & Hwy Code §8500 et seq.). In addition to the chosen assessment law, certain state laws and constitutional provisions apply to assessments generally. For instance, Proposition 218 defines what can be considered a special benefit (above and beyond typical service). This requires a detailed Engineer’s Assessment Report estimating the total cost associated with the maintenance and construction of all projected Town pathways.
Adoption Criteria: Public hearing and ballot / voter approval by majority of property owners affected by benefit district is required before the Town Council may adopt a resolution to establish the assessment district and levy the assessment.
Frequency: Annual
Pathway Nexus Study Report Town of Los Altos Hills, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 18
Method of charging: Collected through landowner’s property tax bill.
A benefit assessment district would allow an annual fee that would be charged to all parcels, which could benefit from access to pathways. This fee would be assessed to property owners that benefit from the upkeep and the construction of the pathways.
There are advantages and disadvantages associated with each option. The continued use of a development impact fee is easier, as the Town already has the fee set up, and any changes only require approval from the Town Council. However, these funds can only be used on construction of new pathways, not maintenance of existing pathways.
The In-Lieu fee would be the next easiest option to implement, as it would only be applicable to those developers that do not want to construct and / or install a new pathway. This would require changing the ordinance but could also be approved by Town Council. However, as discussed, this option may also make it so that developers choose to construct the cheaper / easier to install pathways and the Town would still be responsible for the more expensive and complicated pathways with insufficient funding.
The creation of a Benefit Assessment District can be a time-consuming process as it requires a detailed Engineer’s Assessment Report, property owner approval, outreach, and ensuring that there is a “special benefit.” However, the formation of a district comes with the advantage of allowing the Town greater flexibility in its ability to collect funds from all property owners (residents and non-residents of the Town that live within the District) that would benefit from the pathways. This calculation would ultimately be dependent upon the Engineer’s Assessment Report. Additionally, the assessment funds can be used for both construction and maintenance of existing pathways.
As there is the opportunity to reevaluate the nexus for the Pathway Fee in the next eight years, the Town should evaluate its potential for population growth and the type of impact on its pathway system to determine if all new pathways have been constructed and whether it might be beneficial to consider a Benefit Assessment District solely for the maintenance of the existing pathways.
2 So my earlier questions are answered; There is no attempt at evenly distributing the cost of pathways to every parcel in town; and parcels that previously paid a pathway fee or constructed a pathway may be charged the pathway fee again.
Relating to this week’s agenda item, please consider the following:
1. The ordinance should implement a “net impact” feature because the structure of the Nexus study implies this requirement.
2. Some means is required to allow homeowners to construct their own pathways so they don’t have to wait 5 years or more for the CIP process to finally complete the landscaping for their project.
3. If the homeowner provides their own pathway, the savings to the town for not having to manage and build the pathway at its’ very high cost, should accrue to the homeowner somehow. This provides convenience to the homeowner, faster implementation of pathways, less cost to the homeowner, as well as less work for the town. Notice we have lost 10-12 pathways constructed per year by making everything go through the CIP process.
4. The nexus between square footage and pathways impact needs some adjustment, since a 4 bedroom home has the same pathways impact, no matter whether the home is 3,000 or 10,000 SQFT.
5. The lack of nexus between small remodels - to bump-out a kitchen for example - should be recognized somehow, and projects like these should not incur more pathways fees.
Lastly, I believe other committees should be figuring out these details, not the city council. Each time a committee has reviewed this changes have resulted, and the process would benefit from these changes going back to the original committees for reconciliation. This would enable the city council to receive a complete proposal that was recommended by committees prior to consideration.
I very much appreciate your time considering these points.
Thank you,
RESIDENT Jim Waschura
ITEM 8A, Supplement 2
1 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 15, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council
FROM: WooJae Kim, Public Works Director
RE: Response to Letter from Jim Waschura regarding Changes to Pathway Impact Fee, included as a Supplement to April 17th Agenda Item 8A _____________________________________________________________________________ This memorandum is in response to a letter from Jim Waschura submitted on April 14, 2025, regarding the Public Hearing Item on the City Council April 17 Meeting Agenda (Item 8A) for the Resolution Adopting the 2024 Pathway Fee Nexus Study and the Pathway In-lieu Fee to Replace the Current Pathway Development Impact Fee Starting FY2025/26; and Waiver of Reading and Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Article 6 of Chapter 2, Title 10 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code for the Pathway In-lieu Fee. Mr. Waschura’s letter has been included as a Supplement to Agenda Item 8A. This memo provides staff responses and clarifications to the comments raised by Mr. Washura in the letter.
STAFF RESPONSE TO LETTER
1. The ordinance should implement a “net impact” feature because the structure of the Nexus study implies this requirement.
An amendment proposed to the Zoning and Site Development Ordinance Section 10-2.608 – Pathway Fee is to assess the pathway fee on net increase to the habitable floor area for properties that have paid into Town pathways in the past. If a property has not paid into pathways, a rebuild development project may trigger a pathway fee assessment for the entire rebuilt structure.
2. Some means are required to allow homeowners to construct their own pathways so they don’t have to wait 5 years or more for the CIP process to finally complete the landscaping for their project.
As recommended by the Planning Commission at the March 12 meeting, the proposed pathway fee update includes an in-lieu fee option for developers to build pathways as part of private development projects.
2 3. If the homeowner provides their own pathway, the savings to the town for not having to manage and build the pathway at its’ very high cost, should accrue to the homeowner somehow. This provides convenience to the homeowner, faster implementation of pathways, less cost to the homeowner, as well as less work for the town. Notice we have lost ten to twelve pathways constructed per year by making everything go through the CIP process.
Implementing the Master Path Plan (Section 107) of General Plan Pathway Element states that “Construction of pathways is usually performed by property owners as a condition of approval for the site development or by the Town as a capital improvement Project.” The pathway fee update proposed includes an in-lieu fee option to encourage property owners to build pathways instead of paying the impact fee. Since 2020, pathways have been constructed by the Town, except for subdivision projects. The in-lieu fee would be based on the pathway impact fee established through the 2024 Pathway Fee Nexus Study.
With pathways built by private developers, staff would be involved in the oversight of design and construction of pathways. Staff resources may need to be shifted from managing capital projects to review and inspections of pathways built by developers.
4. The nexus between square footage and pathways impact needs some adjustment, since a 4 bedroom home has the same pathways impact, no matter whether the home is 3,000 or 10,000 SQFT.
As discussed with the Finance and Investment Committee (FIC) on June 3, 2024, the impact fee based on square footage of development is a requirement per Assembly Bill (AB) 602. FIC approved the methodology of the 2024 Pathway Fee Nexus Study and recommended it for Council approval.
5. The lack of nexus between small remodels - to bump-out a kitchen for example - should be recognized somehow, and projects like these should not incur more pathways fees.
Staff is proposing to keep the exemption of pathway fees and requirements for additions less than 900 square feet as recommended by the Planning Commission to account for small remodels.
6. Lastly, I believe other committees should be figuring out these details, not the city council. Each time a committee has reviewed this changes have resulted, and the process would benefit from these changes going back to the original committees for reconciliation. This would enable the city council to receive a complete proposal that was recommended by committees prior to consideration.
The pathway impact fee established in the 2024 Pathway Fee Nexus Study has been reviewed by FIC and Pathways Committee. Both committees recommended the methodology of the impact fee update for approval by Council. Since the committee reviews, the Planning Commission reviewed
3 the pathway fee update on March 12 and made several recommendations, including adding the inlieu fee option. On March 24, staff discussed the recommendations from the Planning Commission with the Pathways Committee who also supported the in-lieu fee option. From recommendations of the committees and Planning Commission, the details of how the pathway fee update would be implemented are specified in the resolution for Council’s consideration at the April 17th Public Hearing.
1 Arika Miller
From: anand ranganathan
Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2025 2:59 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Comment on Item 8A
Dear Council,
I am writing regarding Item 8A on the agenda for your next regular meeting. There are multiple reasons why I think adopting the pathway impact fees as presented would be a bad idea. I apologize about the length of this note, but I spent hours reading up on impact fees, and there is a lot of ground to cover.
First, the study is based on a faulty premise. To wit, "[t]he proposed Impact Fee is based upon the proportionality of the development occurring,as a larger residence will have a higher impact and need for increased pathways, there is a higher fee relative to accessory dwelling units or smaller residential additions/remodels that increase the habitable space based upon the square footage. As such, additional fee categories are not needed for ADUs or Multi-Family units, as their proportional square footage will be utilized." This assumes facts not in evidence. Is it, in fact, the case that people living in larger houses use the pathways more than those who don't? Is it the case that people living in multifamily units are less likely to go on hikes around town than those who live in single-family units? These ridiculous leaps of logic are required if we want to impose Developer Impact Fees and thus obey AB602, but the question to ask is whether, therefore, we are looking a the wrong model entirely.
Second, the study uses the wrong numbers to come to its conclusions. Specifically, it uses the estimated total present cost of building all of the town's pathways to come up with a number for a household's share of that cost. But, of course, the pathways already exist. The right number to use here would be incremental annual cost to the town to maintain and expand the pathway network, and then to estimate the per-sqft fee that would generate the revenue, if indeed a development impact fee were the right way to go. Another example of the innumeracy of this study is in its treatment of ADUs. The perhousehold number is derived by using the total number of residences in town and not treating ADUs as separate. However, all subsequent analysis begins to treat ADUs as separate. This does not compute. If ADUs are to be treated as separate residences for the purpose of fee impact, they should be considered so for fee calculation as well.
Third, the study suggests that the new fees would result in about $300-350k in fees to the town. Between February 2024 and February 2025, the town finaled 10 new homes and 24 ADUs. Just that construction alone would indicate revenues of almost $500k and that is before we consider remodels (many new houses qualify as remodels) and other additions that would also generate these fees. It would appear that the impact fees are too high given this level of construction activity, if the demand is only $300-350k.
Fourth, AB602 is very clear: Large jurisdictions (Los Altos Hills is one) should adopt a Capital Improvement Plan as part of the nexus study. It is obvious why this should be so, absent such a plan it would be unclear why the fees were required at all. This nexus study includes no Capital Improvement Plan. Adopting it as is would be a violation of the law and any developer could challenge it and refuse to pay. Additionally, the requirement for the CIP indicates that my reading in my 2nd point above is what the ITEM 8A, Supplement 3
2 state intended. Not that impact fees pay for facilities that already exist but that they pay for facilities that are to be built in the future.
Finally, I argue that funding pathway improvements via developer impact fees is a bad idea. (So for that matter are the in-lieu fees presented as an option). The right way would be via a benefit assessment district. All of us residents benefit equally from our wonderful pathway system. Funding it via developer impact fees creates a vicious cycle where new home builders pay ever-increasing amounts of money to largely benefit existing residents (think about it: the next nexus study will compute fees based on a (hopefully) larger pathway network as well as an inflated per-mile cost of building that larger network, while the total number of residences will not have changed appreciably). Funding it via an assessment district, spreads the cost of the pathway system equally among all residents, as well as gives everyone an equal stake in its improvement. $350k spread among the 3151 households in town is a reasonably small number and, I would argue, a good reflection of the value that we derive from the pathways.
The study presented assumes that Developer Impact Fees are the way to fund our pathways and then attempts to shoehorn some numbers into a model to come up with a fee structure that would satisfy those numbers. The right questions are never asked and thus seemingly wrong answers are supplied at the end. It's worse though. The answers provided are not even wrong.
Thank you
Anand Ranganathan
2 The presentation and discussion of pathway fees is much needed and I appreciate the staff for organizing and consolidating the Nexus study information into an approach to increasing the Pathway fund. However, there is a need for more discussion and notification. Also, we need to continue to encourage housing toward our RHNA numbers without creating more obstacles.
Sincerely,
Birgitta Indaco, Resident of LAH
Dear City Council,
The pathway fee structure does need improvement but the current proposal by staff has items that need to be better defined and further reviewed by Planning Commission and committees.
Some of the items of concern are:
1- Previously paid pathway fees are not addressed in current proposal. The problem is record keeping of paid pathway fees. Does this mean that the same property pays multiple pathway fees?
2- The 900 sq ft exemption for small additions and barns is kept but if the addition is 1000 sq ft, the total amount is charged $5.49 per sq ft so $5490 pathway incurred. If an existing house of 3000 sq ft is demolished and a new home of 6000 sq ft is built. The fee is 6000 x $5.49 = $ 32,940. The fee is capped at 7000 sq ft or $38,400. 3- ADUs are exempt from pathway fees but SB9 units are not. The fees lost from ADU incentives should be recovered from the General fund per Planning Commission recommendations. (The number of ADUs far outnumber small additions of < 900 sq ft). 4- Habitable space includes basements.
5- Should there be a transition phase for the fees to increase slowly? Increasing the fee by 4 times should have better notification to town residents.
The current proposal has items that were not presented at the Planning Commission meeting of March 12, 2025.
1- The fee table has three new items not previously presented. That means a homeowner planning to install a pathway during construction of their property with ongoing town inspections have to deposit an additional 3 x $3,000 = $9,000 total on top of construction fees of the actual pathway. In the past, homeowners were encouraged to build out the pathways but these deposit fees are an obstacle. 2- Subdivisions are given the choice of tentative map specifics or 5000 sq ft whichever is greater for their pathway fees. Potentially only $27,450 for a subdivision developer versus homeowners with a cap of $38,400.
The presentation and discussion of pathway fees is much needed and I appreciate the staff for organizing and consolidating the Nexus study information into an approach to increasing the Pathway fund. However, there is a need for more discussion and notification. Also, we need to continue to encourage housing toward our RHNA numbers without creating more obstacles.
Sincerely,
Birgitta Indaco, Resident of LAH
ITEM 8A, Supplement 4a
ITEM 8A, Supplement 5
DATE: April 17, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: WooJae Kim, Public Works Director
RE: Staff Response to Email from Anand Ranganathan regarding the April 17 Agenda Item 8A Objecting to the Pathway In-lieu Fee
This memorandum is in response to an email from Anand Ranganathan received on April 15, 2025, regarding the Public Hearing Item on the City Council April 17 Meeting Agenda (Item 8A) for the Resolution Adopting the 2024 Pathway Fee Nexus Study and the Pathway In-lieu Fee to Replace the Current Pathway Development Impact Fee Starting FY2025/26; and Waiver of Reading and Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Article 6 of Chapter 2, Title 10 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code for the Pathway In-lieu Fee. Mr. Ranganathan’s email has been included as a Supplement to Agenda Item 8A. This memo provides staff responses to Mr. Ranganathan’s comments in the email.
STAFF RESPONSE TO EMAIL FROM ANAND RANGANATHAN
1. [Abbreviated version of the comment] First, the study is based on a faulty premise that additional fee categories are not needed for ADUs or Multi-Family units. Is it the case that people living in larger houses use the pathways more than those who don't? Is it the case that people living in multi-family units are less likely to go on hikes around town than those who live in single-family units? These leaps of logic are required if we want to impose Developer Impact Fees and thus obey AB602, but the question to ask is whether the Town is looking at a wrong model entirely.
The focus of the 2024 Pathway Fee Nexus Study was an update to the current impact fee structure for single-family residential development. The nexus of an impact fee needs to justify proportionality of impact from development as required by State legislature. Larger spaces can accommodate more people, therefore, there is a greater impact. Understanding that Los Altos Hills is unique, but the current nexus and proportionality developed is the most logical and defensible method to assess pathway impact fees. Pathway fees for multi-family and other categories of development would require additional studies as part of the Housing Element and Zoning Ordinance amendments.
Currently, ADUs are exempt from pathway requirements.ك
2. [Abbreviated version] The nexus study uses wrong numbers to come to its conclusions.
Specifically, it uses the estimated total present cost of building Town's pathways to come up
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
MEMORANDUM
with a number for a household's share of that cost. But, of course, the pathways already exist. The right number to use here would be the incremental annual cost to the town to maintain and expand the pathway network, and then to estimate the per-square footage fee that would generate the revenue, if indeed a development impact fee were the right way to go. Another example of the innumeracy of this study is in its treatment of ADUs. The perhousehold number is derived by using the total number of residences in town and not treating ADUs as separate. However, all subsequent analysis begins to treat ADUs as separate. This does not compute. If ADUs are to be treated as separate residences for the purpose of fee impact, they should be considered so for fee calculation as well.
A nexus study for an impact fee needs to establish a direct proportionality of developments to population growth and the need for more pathways. The unit pathway impact fee of $5.49 per square footage of habitable floor area is based on the current construction cost of 85.88 miles of existing pathway divided by total parcels and by the average development size in the Town to set a standard for pathway needs. Hence, additional development should proportionately contribute toward that system to retain the pathway standard. This methodology has been reviewed by Finance and Investment Committee (FIC) and the Pathways Committee. They both recommended the methodology for Council approval.
Furthermore, impact fees cannot fund maintenance of existing pathways, and any future considerations not in the current work plan cannot be factored in for the nexus study. Maintenance of pathways is currently covered under the operating budget by General Fund.
3. [Abbreviated version] The study suggests that the new fees would result in about $300k - $350k in fees to the town. Between February 2024 and February 2025, the town finaled 10 new homes and 24 ADUs. Just that construction alone would indicate revenues of almost $500k and that is before we consider remodels (many new houses qualify as remodels) and other additions that would also generate these fees. It would appear that the impact fees are too high given this level of construction activity, if the demand is only $300k - $350k.
For properties that have paid into pathways, the proposed impact fee would only apply to the net increase of habitable floor area from the current. ADUs are exempt from Town pathway fees. Also, additions less than 900 square feet are exempt from pathway fees. The estimate pathway impact fee to be collected annually (without the in-lieu fee option) was $300k to $350k, which may be a conservative estimate. In any case, the Town would need to adjust the pathway capital program depending on the Pathway Fund accrued from pathway fees. With the in-lieu option to promote more pathway construction, staff anticipates less fees to be collected.
4. AB602 is very clear: Large jurisdictions (Los Altos Hills is one) should adopt a Capital Improvement Plan as part of the nexus study. It is obvious why this should be so, absent such a plan it would be unclear why the fees were required at all. This nexus study includes no Capital Improvement Plan. Adopting it as is would be a violation of the law and any developer could challenge it and refuse to pay. Additionally, the requirement for the CIP indicates that my reading in my 2nd point above is what the state intended. Not that impact
fees pay for facilities that already exist but that they pay for facilities that are to be built in the future.
As for the capital improvement plan requirement, it is primarily a requirement that the fees be used towards capital improvement projects. The Town has adopted the Master Path Plan as part of the General Plan Pathway Element and also has an adopted Capital Improvement Program for pathways.
The capital projects currently approved include Summerhill Pathway with a project budget of almost $440,000 and Miscellaneous Pathways with an annual allocation of $325k for various pathway projects recommended by the Pathways Committee and as approved by the City Council.
5. I argue that funding pathway improvements via developer impact fees is a bad idea. (So for that matter are the in-lieu fees presented as an option). The right way would be via a benefit assessment district. All of us residents benefit equally from our wonderful pathway system.
Funding it via developer impact fees creates a vicious cycle where new home builders pay ever-increasing amounts of money to largely benefit existing residents (think about it: the next nexus study will compute fees based on a (hopefully) larger pathway network as well as an inflated per-mile cost of building that larger network, while the total number of residences will not have changed appreciably). Funding it via an assessment district, spreads the cost of the pathway system equally among all residents, as well as gives everyone an equal stake in its improvement. $350k spread among the 3151 households in town is a reasonably small number and, I would argue, a good reflection of the value that we derive from the pathways.
As stated in the Nexus Study, the Benefit Assessment District may be the best option for the Town to fund both maintenance and construction of pathways. However, this would be a heavy lift for the Town and staff since it would require an extensive engineer’s assessment report and a majority vote of the people. This topic was discussed with the Pathways Committee, who also agreed that the Town should at some point consider an assessment district for the Town’s pathway system.
Staff would be willing to further investigate the Benefit Assessment District option for pathways, if directed by Council. The effort involved to establish an assessment district is more than updating an impact fee, and there would be no guaranty that such ballot measure would pass.
Wildfires!
What are we doing?
George Tyson and Kavita Tankha
Councilmembers and LAHCFD Commissioners
Update for the LAH City Council
17Apr2025
Los Altos Hills County Fire District
• Dependent district of Santa Clara County
• Governed by seven Commissioners, including two LAH
councilmembers
• Encompasses all of Los Altos Hills and surrounding
unincorporated areas
• Fire and emergency services contracted with County Fire • Contract is joint with City of Los Altos – three fire stations, integrated with County Fire and mutual aid with other entities • Regional collaboration – Hidden Villa, MidPen, the Town!
What are we doing - highlights
• In the event of a fire:
• Water supply – coordinate with Purissima Hills and Cal Water • Equipment – fire truck, 2 fire engines, water tender
• Fast response – enhanced staffing during red flag events, remote station 8 staffing during fire season
• New Pilot Program for early wildfire warning sensors
• Fuel reduction
• Brush chipping – now on-call
• Brush drop-off - monthly
• Evacuation route hardening – throughout town, regular refreshes, giant Hwy 280 project in the works
• Feel free to join our meetings – third Tuesday of every month, on zoom and at LAH Town Hall
What are we doing – other highlights
• Public Outreach
• April is “Landscaping for Wildfire Preparedness Month” • Fire-resistant landscaping class – held 12Apr
• Home Ignition Zone Assessment and Rebate program
• 25 teens graduated from our 7th Teen CERT academy in March • Joint Wildfire Workshop –Gardner Bullis – 23Apr
• Disaster preparedness class – at Town Hall, 24Apr
• Next CERT academy – 29 Apr
• 2025 Preparedness Guide – lahcfd.org/prep-guide
• Firewise communities – like Neighborhood Watch - expanding
ITEM 11A
[Date]
The Honorable Josh Becker
California State Senate
1021 O Street, Suite 7320
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 457 (Becker) – Housing Element Compliance and Builder’s Remedy Reform City of X -Notice of Support
Dear Senator Becker:
On behalf of [Entity] I am writing to express strong support for SB 457, which proposes critical technical clarifications to state housing law that will promote consistency, procedural integrity, and predictability in the implementation of the Housing Element Law and the Housing Accountability Act.
As currently structured, state law allows a jurisdiction that has adopted a housing element meeting all statutory requirements to remain out of compliance until the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) completes its review and issues a formal determination. In practice, this creates a window of legal vulnerability—sometimes spanning several months— during which Builder’s Remedy applications may be submitted, regardless of the jurisdiction’s good-faith efforts to adopt a compliant element on time. This disconnect between local compliance and state certification timelines undermines confidence in the housing element process and introduces unnecessary risk and ambiguity.
SB 457 addresses this issue by aligning the effective date of compliance with the date of adoption of a housing element or amendment that is subsequently found by HCD or a court to substantially comply with Housing Element Law. This change reinforces procedural fairness, particularly for jurisdictions that have met their statutory obligations, completed extensive rezoning programs, and engaged in robust community planning to accommodate their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligations.
The bill also enhances the integrity of the Builder’s Remedy by requiring that a project application be complete—as defined under the Permit Streamlining Act—prior to the effective date of compliance. This is an important clarification. The submission of incomplete or speculative applications during periods of temporary noncompliance creates significant challenges for local planning staff, particularly when these applications conflict with new development standards or housing element implementation programs already underway. By establishing a higher procedural threshold, SB 457 discourages opportunistic filings and promotes the Remedy’s intended use:
incentivizing housing production when jurisdictions fail to plan for it.
In addition, we appreciate that SB 457 promotes a more uniform and predictable regulatory environment. Cities across the state have experienced inconsistencies in the interpretation and application of housing element compliance standards, including variations in HCD’s review timelines and feedback. Creating clearer statutory parameters around compliance determination will enable jurisdictions to better align local planning, zoning, CEQA clearance, and permitting workflows with state housing deadlines.
ITEM 11A
The City of [City Name] is fully committed to addressing California’s housing crisis and has taken meaningful steps to expand housing production across all income levels. We continue to implement aggressive rezoning programs, adopt pro-housing policies, and invest in streamlined permitting pathways. At the same time, it is essential that the state’s accountability frameworks recognize and reward local jurisdictions that are earnestly working to comply with housing element law in a timely and substantive manner.
SB 457 provides a necessary and equitable refinement to state law that will support improved coordination between local governments and the state, reduce litigation exposure, and ensure that planning efforts are grounded in clear and enforceable rules.
For these reasons, the City of [City Name] respectfully urges the Legislature to advance SB 457.
Thank you for your leadership and continued partnership.
Sincerely,
[Name]
[Title]
City of X
cc: Members, Senate Housing Committee
Your Legislators
SB 457
SUMMARY
SB 457 prevents the misuse of the Builder’s
Remedy while continuing to provide strong
incentives for cities to develop and adopt
compliant housing elements on a timely basis.
PROBLEM
Currently, a housing element is not considered
compliant until the date on which it is deemed
compliant by the California Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD)
or a court, even if the agency adopted the
housing element, without any change in
substance well before that date. This puts the
agency at the mercy of HCD’s workload and
timeline for reviewing housing elements.
In addition, existing law allows a developer to
secure rights to the Builder’s Remedy simply by
filing a preliminary application with minimal
detail. Developers may substantially change the
project described in a preliminary application, so
long as the density and floor area do not change
by more than 20 percent. While this flexibility is
not normally problematic, in combination with
the Builder’s Remedy, which allows a developer
to bypass all zoning and general plan
regulations, it means the project described in a
preliminary application has very little meaning.
Taken together, these conditions allow some
developers to file hasty, preliminary applications
as placeholders to claim Builder’s Remedy
protections, even after an agency has adopted all
of the analyses, policies, and programs that are
later determined to satisfy state law. This strays
beyond the purpose of the Builder’s Remedy to
provide developers with relief when an agency’s
land use policies do not comply with state
requirements. Instead, it permits developers to
proceed with projects that may not comply with
local policies and programs that have met the
state’s high standards for both fair housing and
overall housing production.
CURRENT LAW
Provides that for purposes of a local agency's
approval, conditional approval, or disapproval of
a housing development project, a housing
element or amendment shall be considered in
substantial compliance with housing element
law only if the element or amendment was in
substantial compliance as determined by HCD
or a court of competent jurisdiction.
The Builder's Remedy prohibits a local
government from denying a housing
development project that includes a percentage
of units set aside for affordable housing for a
period of 55 years for rental units, and 45 years
for ownership.
THIS BILL
SB 457 would ensure that agencies are treated
equitably and that their exposure to the Builder’s
Remedy is not dependent on HCD’s review
timelines. It will ensure that agencies are not
penalized after they have committed to a
compliant housing element and that they are able
to enforce the policies contained in their
compliant housing element.
This bill would also clarify that the Builder’s
Remedy is available only to developers that
demonstrate a serious commitment to a Builder’s
Remedy project by requiring a complete
application to be filed before the agency adopts
a housing element later determined to be
compliant by HCD or a court.
SUPPORT
None on file.
OPPOSE
None on file.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Sabrina Bertadillo, Legislative Aide
[email protected]
(916) 651- 4013
Status: Introduced. Last Updated 03/24/2025
ITEM 11B
From: WooJae Kim <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2025 6:28 PM
To: ………………………………………
Subject: RE: Safety
Hi Tom,
Chaparral Way is a private road. The Town has a pathway easement that overlaps with the narrow roadway. Staff would agree that this would not be an ideal or safe route for bikes.
The Town may not be able to install a proper pathway there due to the narrow roadway.
Bikes are generally allowed on Town pathway routes, unless there is a critical safety issue. I am sure there are other pathway segments where bikes can be restricted.
If Council directs staff, staff can investigate the resources required to add this task to the City Council Work Plan, but I have to admit that our resources are extremely tight at the moment. Thank you.
WooJae
From: Peter Pirnejad <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 8:05:49 PM
To: Rajiv Bhateja <[email protected]>
Cc: Kavita Tankha <[email protected]>;……………………………….. ………………………….>; WooJae Kim <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Safety
Thank you for passing along this message
I will work with our PW director to look into the issue.
ITEM 11B
Peter Pirnejad
City Manager
Town of Los Altos Hills
[email protected]
(650) 947-2514
On Apr 1, 2025, at 7:27 PM, Rajiv Bhateja <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello Peter,
Please see the request below from Former Mayor McReynolds. I would like to add this item to the April 17 Council meeting.
Unless you have another way you'd like to proceed on this.
Rajiv
From: …………………………………………………………………………>
Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 3:07 PM
To: Rajiv Bhateja <[email protected]>
Subject: Safety
Dear Vice Mayor Bhateja,
This note is to call your attention to a serious safety matter.
The problem is bikes on the town’s paths.
The paths were established in place of sidewalks and for use of pedestrians and equestrians.
The City’s ordinances prohibited riding bicycles in the Bryne preserve And this should be applied to all town paths.
ITEM 11B
A very serious example is Chaparral Road which is a mile long narrow gravel road with sharp blind curves.
Recently a resident on the road upgraded the surface to drain but still it is a loose gravel road.
Apparently the smoothing attracted bicycle riders of all ages.
However the town has a unmaintained path easement on one side of the road.
Physically separating the path would not solve the problem because of the configuration and steep hillsides.
The problem is that residents, guests, service trucks, including the garbage trucks, use the road and the bicycles on a gravel hilly road do not mix.
The unrestrained bicycles use the center of the road, one or two abreast on the sharp turns.
Because of the gravel surface it is very difficult to swerve and/or stop in short distances.
I am referring this to you because this is a town liability that is easily corrected with a very simple ordinance change.
This problem probably exists on other town paths.
Thanks,
Tom McReynolds
Mayor 1980