From: Kit Gordon
Sent: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 6:01 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Fire Severity Zone map
To whom it may concern,
Based on the recent fires throughout our state, Option 4B of Fire Severity Zone Map is the most accurate rating for our Town. Any part of town with steep slopes or heavy vegetation will be at risk for rapid fire spread.
Sincerely,
Kit Gord
From: Kit Gordon
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2025 8:50 PM
To: Jonathan Fox <[email protected]>
Cc: Jay Bradford <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Fire Severity Zone map
His Jonathan and Jay,
Please add this public comment.
I don’t think any of the maps looked accurate. Fire severity risk here is mostly a function of topography. The steep, inaccessible ravines have high fuel loads and their steep slopes create their own winds, pushing fires uphill.
In my area (between Hidden Villa and Byrne Preserve) the rating went from red to yellow (without the intermediate zone) with no difference in topography or fuel loads. This makes no sense.
The main town arteries are being limbed up for shaded fuel breaks so there is less risk there.
Good luck with this process. It doesn’t seem based on science.
Kit
From: Robert Dykes
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2025 1:15 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments on Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps
I would like to make a comment on a specific area, which appears to have been treated arbitrarily in all the maps:
That is, Kate Drive. There, Quarry Lake provides some protection from fires coming from the hills.
In addition, the homes are well spread out, and at the bottom of the adjacent hills.
The hills rise from Kate drive to homes on Oak Knoll Cir and Prospect Ave and any cinders from a fire blowing across the lake are more likely to set those hills on fire, endangering homes on those two streets.
The arbitrariness is deduced from those homes being zoned “moderate”, while Kate Drive is zoned “high”. It looks like those drawing the map simply used proximity to the hills as the criteria.
They clearly gave no regards to homes at the top of a hill being at much higher risk than homes situated at the bottom of the hill, well spaced out, and with the adjacent lake acting as a buffer.
Thus, I believe that homes on Kate Dr should be zoned “moderate”, while homes at the top of the hills, on Oak Knoll Circle and Prospect Ave should be zoned “high”.
I am hoping that the impact of this change will spur those home owners on Oak Knoll Cir and Prospect Ave, all of whom own the land on the hillside, to improve the fire risk by reducing the flammable growth on those hills.
Regards
Robert Dykes
, Los Altos Hills.
insurance.ca.gov │800-927-4357
CAL FIRE hazard maps do not affect insurance rates or availability Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara issued a fact
sheet explaining that CAL FIRE hazard maps do not
affect insurance rates or availability. A Spanishlanguage fact sheet is also available.
For many years, insurance companies have been
using wildfire risk models for determining where they
will write and renew policies, and how much premium
to charge a policyholder -- not the Fire Hazard
Severity Zone maps. CAL FIRE’s maps are required
by law and their purpose is to drive local planning
decisions, not insurance decisions.
Commissioner’s POV: “Let me be clear: The CAL
FIRE hazard maps are not used for insurance rates
or underwriting decisions. But they will empower
communities with more accurate information about
the very real hazards we face. The reality is we all
need to do more to protect our homes and communities from wildfires. When communities know and understand their risks, they can plan and prepare.”
Background: The Department of Insurance is implementing a Sustainable Insurance Strategy aimed at supporting safer communities. Based on feedback gathered from thousands of town halls and meetings with homeowners, businesses, and individual consumers, Commissioner Lara implemented an aggressive approach to modernize insurance regulations to address insurance accessibility challenges for consumers.
Commissioner Lara’s new Safer from Wildfires regulation clarifies what actions you should take to reduce wildfire risks and receive an insurance discount.
Insurance companies use computerized wildfire catastrophe models to determine which homes to write based on the risk of loss. Building on the Safer from Wildfires initiative — the nation’s first wildfire safety discount program — the strategy requires catastrophe models to account for mitigation efforts by homeowners, businesses, and communities, something not possible even a few months ago under outdated regulations.
Learn More: The Department of Insurance fact sheet is posted at CAL FIRE’s Fire Hazard Severity Zone web page where you can learn more about enhancing your property’s fire safety and view current versions of maps.
ITEM 7A, ATTACHMENT 8
insurance.ca.gov │800-927-4357
Exciting News! ��� The California Department of Insurance (CDI) is proud to introduce the Community Outreach and Education Partnership Initiative. This dynamic program is designed to raise consumer awareness about CDI's vital services and expand understanding of key insurance topics and fraud prevention. Become a valued partner and unlock exclusive access to:
• Comprehensive consumer education materials
• Specialized training sessions
• Powerful social media tools
Become a Partner Today: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/VHGZQHT
~ Outlook
From: Dana Stalder
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 12:28 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Opposition to Potential Proposed Increase in Fire Hazard Severity Zone Designation Dear Members of the Los Altos Hills City Council and Planning Department, I am writing as a concerned homeowner regarding the proposed reclassification of my property's Fire Hazard Severity Zone by the City Council beyond CAL FIRE's current baseline designation. My home would be impacted by several of your proposed scenarios, including Option 2A, which focuses on fuels, landscape and structural hardening along collectors While I support thoughtful fire risk mitigation, I am deeply concerned that increasing the severity zone for my property-outside of CAL FIRE's statewide criteria-could significantly and unfairly impact my home insurance premiums, resale value, and overall marketability. In many cases across California, homes placed in higher severity zones face difficulty obtaining or renewing insurance coverage, often leading to reduced access or inflated rates through the FAIR Plan.
Unless this change is backed by new, site-specific risk data, adopting a more aggressive local designation risks burdening homeowners without delivering corresponding public safety benefits. It also sets a precedent for discretionary classifications that may not be applied consistently or transparently.
I respectfully request that the Council reject such modifications to the Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps. If the Town believes additional risk exists, I encourage that concern to be addressed through fire-hardening grants, vegetation management programs, or community education-rather than shifting the cost burden to individual property owners.
Thank you for your attention and service.
Sincerely,
Dana Stalder
- Los Altos Hills
ITEM 7A, Additional Public Comments
~ Outlook
fire hazard severity zone
From matt murphy
Date Mon 5/5/2025 5:46 PM
To Planning <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]> Members of the Los Altos Hills City Council and Planning Department, I am writing as a concerned homeowner regarding the proposed reclassification of my property's Fire Hazard Severity Zone by the City Council beyond CAL FIRE's current baseline designation. My home would be impacted by several of your proposed scenarios, including Option 2A, which focuses on fuels, landscape and structural hardening along collectors While I support thoughtful fire risk mitigation, I am deeply concerned that increasing the severity zone for my property-outside of CAL FIRE's statewide criteria-could significantly and unfairly impact my home insurance premiums, resale value, and overall marketability. In many cases across Cal ifornia, homes placed in higher severity zones face difficulty obtaining or renewing insurance coverage, often leading to reduced access or inflated rates through the FAIR Plan.
Unless this change is backed by new, site specific risk data, adopting a more aggressive local designation risks burdening homeowners without delivering corresponding public safety benefits. It also sets a precedent for discretionary classifications that may not be applied consistently or transparently.
I believe the Council should reject such modifications to the Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps. If the Town believes additional risk exists, I encourage that concern be addressed through firehardening grants, vegetation management programs, or community education-rather than shifting the cost burden to individual property owners.
Appreciate the attention to this matter. Matt
Los Altos Hills, CA
~ Outlook
(No subject)
From Helen Lin Murphy
Date Tue 5/6/2025 8:55 AM
To City Council <[email protected]>; Planning <[email protected]> Dear Los Altos Hills City Council and Planning Dept,
I recently learned about the proposed reclassification of our property's Fire Hazard Severity Zone by the City Council, which extends beyond CAL FIRE's current baseline designation.
Several of your proposed scenarios, directly affect our home.
While we support proactive fire risk mitigation, increasing the severity zone outside of CAL FIRE's statewide criteria could unfairly raise our insurance premiums, reduce our home's resale value, and hinder its marketability. As you know, CA homes in higher severity zones often face difficulties obtaining or renewing insurance coverage, often at inflated rates through the FAIR Plan.
I respectfully ask the Council to reject modifications to the Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps. If there are genuine concerns about risk, it seems like burying power lines should be a priority since they are often the culprits. That and fire hardening along evacuation routes by Los Altos Hills, as the Town's been doing, make the most sense. I'm not in favor of expanding the Fire Hazard Severity Zone to areas like our home where CAL FIRE does not consider high risk. We have no regular or seasonal winds and are not at all close to open space. It seems very unfair to be designated as severe for the sake of carrying the costs of maintaining public evacuation routes for the town. If evacuation routes need funding, the financial burden should be shared and paid for by the town as it's a public good, in my opinion.
Thanks for your consideration and thoughtful service.
Best,
Helen Lin-Mwphy
~ Outlook
From: Dave Osborne
·sent: Wednesday, May 7, 2025 12:24 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]> Cc: Beth Osborne
Subject: Fire Hazard Severity Zone Changes
Hello members of the LAH City Council and Planning Dept- , and I've leamed that there is a discussion about potentially reclassifying my home's Fire Hazard Severity Zone beyond what's been prescribed by CAL Fire's statewide criteria. This would definitely have a negative impact on my insurance costs, and could result in my getting dropped by my provider- AGAIN. I was already dropped by my longtime provider, and had to find new coverage last year.
Is there some new data about our zone that is driving this conversation? Otherwise, implementing a new and more aggressive local classification creates undue strain on homeowners without creating any offsetting public safety benefits. It also sets a precedent for discretionary classifications that may not be applied consistently or transparently.
I would ask that this Council reject any more stringent modifications to the Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps. If the Town believes additional risk exists, I would like to see the town use taxpayer dollars to address the risks- rather than putting additional burden on LAH property owners.
Sincerely,
Dave Osbome
~ Outlook
From: Corinne Bright
.Sent: Friday, May 9, 2025 7:54 AM
To: Planning <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Opposition to Potential Proposed Increase in Fire Hazard Severity Zone Designations Dear Members of the LAH City Council and Planning Department, I read the most recent the Los Altos Town Crier article with a map of the current Fire Hazard Severity Zone Designations and was alarmed to see the sheer number of alternate proposals that would lose the spirit of a graded approach to fire hazard risk and instead affect the entire town of Los Altos Hills, seemingly arbitrarily. For example, my house is directly next to my neighbors house - theirs is on what is designated a collector and mine is one house away. My house has been designated an 'open space' even though this is one house away from a collector. I simply don't understand the motivation for any of this and by this argument, the Town of Los Altos and the entire state should be marked up similarly.
Secondarily, I specifically chose this house for proximity to town after living on Bear Gulch Road in Woodside, which, while beautiful, was a real fire hazard. I have invested considerable time personally in keeping my yard free of dead leaves and brush and the plantings, many of them 24" boxes, have been a labor of love for myself and my husband and are specifically in keeping with the natural aesthetic of Los Altos Hills. I would be devastated if all of this work would have to be removed.
I strongly oppose your maps and would like to return to a sensible graded approach based on proximity to real open space and the highest likelihood places for a fire to start and where access may be challenging.
Thanks,
Corinne
~ Outlook
FW: NO on New Fire Hazard Severity Zone Designation
From: Brad Dinsmore
Sent: Friday, May 9, 2025 8:33 AM
To: Planning <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]> Subject: NO on New Fire Hazard Severity Zone Designation Dear Members of the Los Altos Hills City Council and Planning Department, I am writing as a concerned homeowner regarding the proposed reclassification of my property's Fire Hazard Severity Zone by the City Council, which exceeds CAL FIRE's current baseline designation. Many properties, including ours, would be affected by several proposed scenarios, including Option 2A, which emphasizes fuels, landscape, and structural hardening along collectors.
While I fully support prudent measures to mitigate fire risks, I am concerned that increasing the severity zone designation beyond CAL FIRE's statewide criteria could significantly impact our home insurance premiums, resale value, and marketability. Across California, properties in higher severity zones often face challenges in securing or renewing insurance coverage, resulting in limited options or elevated costs through the FAIR Plan.
Unless supported by new, site-specific risk data, adopting a more stringent local designation would place an undue financial burden on homeowners without clear public safety benefits.
Furthermore, it risks establishing a precedent for discretionary classifications that may lack consistency or transparency.
I respectfully urge the Council to reconsider modifications to the Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps. Should the Town identify additional risks, I encourage exploring alternatives such as firehardening grants, vegetation management programs, or community education initiatives, which would address safety concerns without imposing costs on individual property owners.
Thank you for your dedication and for considering this matter.
Sincerely,
Brad Dinsmore
l!!tos 1
~ Outlook
NO on New Fire Hazard Severity Zone Designation
From Denise Dinsmore
Date Fri 5/9/2025 10:46 AM
To Planning <[email protected]>; City Counci l <[email protected]> Dear Council Members,
I'm writing as a concerned homeowner about the proposed changes to the Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps-specifically, the reclassification of our property and others under scenarios like Option 2A, which appear to go beyond CAL FIRE's current designations.
I absolutely support thoughtful steps to reduce wildfire risk-we all want our neighborhoods to be safe. But I'm worried that raising the severity classification beyond state criteria could bring serious consequences for homeowners, including higher insurance premiums, difficulty maintaining coverage, and potential impacts on resale value. We've seen this play out across Cal ifornia in similar zones, and it's become a real challenge for many famil ies.
Unless there's clear, site specific data that shows a need for a stricter designation, I believe applying a higher risk label could do more harm than good-especially without providing tangible safety benefits. It could also create a slippery slope for how these classifications are made in the future, leaving homeowners in the dark about what to expect.
If additional risks have been identified, I'd strongly encourage the Town to look at other ways to protect our community: expanding vegetation management programs, offering fire-hardening grants, or investing in public education. These are solutions that directly improve safety without placing the financial burden solely on individual property owners.
One other idea worth exploring is partnering with PG&E to underground power lines in high risk areas. It's a proven strategy to reduce ignition sources, and one that could offer long term value for the entire community.
Thank you for your time, your service, and for listening to community feedback on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Denise Dinsmore
Los Altos Hills
"Nicole recommended California live oak and toyon, and even some non-natives, including bird of paradise. “If you cut into that, water flows out of it,” she said."
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-02-06/column-can-an-oak-or-sycamore-slow-the-spread-of-fire-possibly-the-experts-say Ask the Experts: 5 Actionable Tips for a Fire-wise Landscape "“Oaks are considered ember catcher plants. They have thick, well-hydrated, tough leaves and they don’t ignite easily.” On top of that, those leaves aren’t easily blown off the tree by the sorts of high winds that made L.A.’s recent fires so severe. Creating a grove of oaks at the perimeter of a property can provide a windbreak that also helps block embers from reaching the exterior of a house." https://www.gardenista.com/posts/how-protect-home-wildfires-landscaping-tips/ Regards,
Alexei Tumarkin
M E M O R A N D U M
Council Meeting Agenda Item 7A
To: Town Council cc: J. Bradford, Peter Prinejad, Arika Miller From: Roddy Sloss (resident)
Subject: Simplified description of new fire safety requirements for LAH homeowners Date: May 12, 2025
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ I am trying to understand proposed new fire safety requirements for Los Altos Hills homeowners related to wildfire prevention and safety. My current understanding is summarized as follows:
The Town has the minimum responsibility to accept the “updated CAL FIRE base maps” within 120 days of their release. And the Town can increase (but not decrease) the severity of the related requirements.
Questions:
1a. What is the release date of these Cal Fire base maps? 1b. What are the related requirements; and what, if any, are the severity requirements the Town is increasing?
2.It appears to me that every residence in Los Altos Hills is designated with a “Very High” rating and is therefore subject to the following requirements:
2a. Create and Maintain A Defensible Space meaning all structures must have at least 30 feet around each structure that is i) cleared of flammable vegetation and ii) cleared of combustible growth; 2b. Additional requirements: Remove tree branches within 10 feet of chimney’s, clear dead vegetation from roofs and gutters, and ensure trees overhanging buildings are free of deadwood.
3. If the Town adopts the Updated Maps (which it is obliged to do), it becomes obliged to adhere to “landscaping regulations” that require removing combustible materials within 5 feet of structures to create an ember resistant zone. (combustible materials is not further defined.)
4. Guidance in further defining the foregoing is available from either the Los Altos Hills Planning Department OR the Santa Clara County Fire Department.
5. Are the foregoing requirements in force year around? If not, when are they in force?
6. Some homeowners may find these requirements costly and unaffordable. If they are unable to comply for financial reasons, what are the consequences, remedies, and penalties?
7. Who is responsible for concluding and reporting that homeowner requirements are met?
8. The Town owns undeveloped land within Town borders. Is the Town responsible for adhering to the same requirements as homeowners for Town owned land?
9. There are wildlands adjacent to Town borders. Are wildland owners responsible for the same or similar measures?
10. Is compliance with the above requirements reimbursable from the resident’s Homeowner’s Policy? I would appreciate receiving a simple condensed summary of the subject after Council meets on May 15th.
Thank you.
increase the difficulty of insuring a home in our community and lead to devaluing a family's largest investment. It will make selling one's home tough and lead to making Los Altos Hills a less desirable place for newcomers to buy a home.
Insurance companies are not to be trusted. Of course they will look at these designations of risk although they are directed not to use this information.
Please keep the CalFire map as proposed by the state and continue to individually address areas which need improvement as is being done currently, for example, by more aggressive cleaning of the evacuation routes and by identifying individual properties which need more effort. In this case, one size does not fit all.
Walter and Elizabeth Wilson
Thank you!
Esther John
ITEM 8A
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 15, 2025
FROM: Emina Mahic, Community Services Supervisor EM
APPROVED: Peter Pirnejad, City Manager PP
RE: Consideration and Direction Regarding the Town of Los Altos Hills’ 70th Anniversary Celebratory Activities
Recommendation:
Review the discussions from the History Committee and Parks, Recreation, and Community Events Committee, and direct staff on how to proceed with planning the Town’s 70th Anniversary Celebratory Activities.
Background:
This item was first introduced by the City Council under Council-Initiated Items at the April 17, 2025 City Council meeting, where staff was directed to return with a formal discussion for the May meeting.
The History Committee and the Parks, Recreation, and Community Events Committee (PRCEC) have separately discussed plans for commemorating the Town of Los Altos Hills' 70th anniversary. Below is a summary of their discussions and proposed recommendations for the celebration.
History Committee Discussion:
The History Committee met on April 15, 2025, to discuss ideas for the 70th anniversary (Attachment 1). They reviewed past milestone celebrations and proposed using the Heritage House as a central feature. While reflecting on previous efforts such as booklets and formal dinners, the committee expressed a preference for keeping the 70th anniversary modest. They recommended planning a larger gala for the 75th anniversary, which would also require more time to develop a thoughtful and updated anthology or historical publication.
Their recommendation includes a three-part celebration:
1. Mayoral Changeover Event (December 2025): A formal recognition of the town's milestone during the transition of mayoral leadership with a 70th birthday cake.
2. Heritage House Tours (January 2026): Opening the Heritage House for public tours to showcase the Town’s historical elements, contingent on the completion of renovations. The committee also discussed hosting historical displays throughout the year and inviting local students and community members to learn about the Town’s history through open houses and educational visits.
3. Town Picnic Celebration (June 2026): Celebrate the 70th birthday with a cake.
The committee recommends focusing on these three main events while keeping plans manageable.
Parks, Recreation, and Community Events Committee Discussion:
The Parks, Recreation, and Community Events Committee (PRCEC) met on April 7, 2025 (Attachment 2) and April 28, 2025 (Attachment 3) to discuss ideas for the 70th anniversary celebration. They considered a range of options, from formal gatherings to communitywide events. Ideas included a masquerade ball, a formal event at a local country club, or smaller events spread throughout the year. Specific considerations discussed were:
- Venue Options: Palo Alto Hills Country Club, Los Altos Country Club, Thomas - Fogarty Winery, or Elks club banquet room with a ticket cost of approximately $150–$220 per person, including meals.
- Current Committee member helped plan the 50th at the Los Altos Country Club - Entertainment Ideas: A DJ instead of a magician, a potential black-tie event, and a cake contest to engage attendees.
- Community Engagement: Ensuring the event is accessible to residents through ticket pricing and diverse celebration activities.
- Highlight the 70th anniversary at smaller events with swag The committee has decided to gather more information on venues and pricing before finalizing recommendations.
Attachments:
1. Draft Minutes from the April 15, 2025 History Committee Meeting
2. Approved Minutes from the April 7, 2025 PRCEC Meeting
3. Draft Minutes from the April 28, 2025 PRCEC Meeting
ITEM8A, ATTACHMENT 1
Los Altos Hills History Committee Draft Meeting Minutes Date: Tuesday, April 15, 2025
Time: Approximately 3:30 p.m.
Meeting Place: Duxbury Room, Los Altos Hills Town Hall
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Zoom Connected
1. Call to Order and Roll Call
Carol called the meeting to order at approximately 3:35 p.m.
Roll Call followed: Sally Wood, no; Jitze Couperus, no joined at 4:45; Carol Gottlieb, yes; Bernardo Ferrari, yes; Sylvia Jensen, yes; Duffy Price, yes; Patsy Woolsey, no; Associate Members: Joe Heinrick, yes; Barry Smith, yes; Council Liaison, Linda Swan. Councilman Councilmen Rajiv Bhateja, yes.
2. Heritage House to be Taken Out of Order to accommodate Melissa Schedule. Melissa was sick so we could not Comment on the Stain Color for the Moldings. The Ad Hoc Committee will meet separately to discuss the color.
3. Presentations from the floor:
4. Old Business
A. Historical Sites Under Consideration
1) Heritage House Update: See # 2.
2) Martha Lynn Water Tower, Fremont Hills Country Club Letter – Staff to Send 3) Willow Pond Lane Update – according to Sylvia, Landscape Plans have been submitted. Carol will ask staff if the Landmark designation has been submitted. 4) Shumate Gate and Brick Pillar: Meno to Staff was presented regarding the request for maintenance of the Shumate Gate and Brick Pillar and addition of a bronze plaque. It was motioned by Duffy and seconded by Bernardo to approve the memo and send it to WooJae Kim the Public Works Director.
5) Duffy, yes; Sylvia, yes; Bernando, yes; Carol, yes; It was passed 4-0.
B. Updating Digital Archival Need. – Rajiv said it had updated more information from Jitze.
C. Our Town Publication: Duffy updated the articles under consideration.
D. D. Work Plan – Update to the General Plan: Ad-Hok Committee met and discussed the Portola Vally’s Historical Element. They also discussed using it as guideline for producing our Historical Element. The Committee decided that work that has already been completed be once again sent to Committee members for our discussion at our May meeting.
E. Signage of the Heritage Oak Trees in Bryne Preserve – No Update F. 70th Anniversary – Ideas of How to Celebrate. Carol brought documentation of what had been done for the 25th, 30th, 50th and the 65th. According to a newspaper article, the 30th anniversary centered around the Heritage House, so we thought the Town could center the 70th Anniversary around the renovation of the Heritage House. We could hold open houses and invite the public and students at the local schools to visit to learn about the History of Los Altos Hill. We thought the 70th could be acknowledged at the December Council meetings and at the June Picnic with a 70th Birthday Cake.
We also discussed establishing a committee in 2026 to begin the planning for the Town’s 75th Celebration. The motion was made Sylvia and second by Duffy to suggest to the Council that we make the renovation of our Heritage House the center of the 70th anniversary event, and either or celebrate at the December Council Meeting and or the June Picnic with a Birthday cake. Aldo we could have Historical displays throughout the year. Sylvia, yes; Duffy, yes; Bernardo, yes; Carol yes.
The motion passed 4-0.
G. Fall Presentation: Barry discussed the fall presentation centering around the influence of the Catholic institutions on the History of Los Altos Hills and the surrounding communities. He suggested Kirk Hanson as a possible speaker.
H. June 2025 Picnic Walk – to be decided at the next meeting.
I. Halsey House. Our motion was sent to WooJae Kim, and his return email suggested the committee send the letter and it was explained to him, that the Committee could not send a letter without the approval of the Council. Then asked Jay Bradford for help on the matter.
J. Other items for maintenance. – Held over to next meeting
4. New Business
a. February 18 and March 18, 2025, Minutes – unavailable for consideration.
5. Adjourned at 5.07 p.m.
ATTACHMENT 2
Parks, Recreation and Community Events Committee Meeting Apr 7 6-7:00 pm
Approved Meeting Minutes
In person meeting
Location: Duxbury Room
Note: All votes shall be made by roll call and individual votes will be stated in the minutes
1. Call to order/Roll Call
Parks, Rec and Community Events Committee
Chair: Jasmeen Pombra, Vice-Chair: Boxia Schmdit,
Members: Yibin Tang, Jennifer Bardsley, Weiwin Li, Mukta Sharangpani, April Anair Lew Jamison, Lana Einschlag
Staff: Emina Mahic, Interim Community Services Supervisor Council Liaison: Stanley Mok
Associate Members: Patty Radlo, Rebecca Hickman, Helene Karlsson, Kjell Karlsson, Val Metcalfe, Jim Basiji, Craig Murray, Kejun (Ben) Xu
2. Review Draft Minutes for Park and Rec Committee 2/24/2025 Approved Unanimously
3. Public Comment
4. New Business
-LAH 70th Anniversary celebration
- Roger Burnell had membership at Los Altos Country Club, Lew Jamison helped organize the 50th one
- Hot buffet, Offered Tours, indoor/outdoor venue, Band, Dancing, CD that had images of Town, Magician
- Menu was prime rib and fish
- Recommend doing it when the weather is warmer
- Sold tickets at $100-$125/person, cost increase will be necessary. May deter some from attending
- Adult Only, no dogs
-Emina to see if she can find Rogers contact
- at least 300 people came
- Venue Recommendations: Los Altos Country Club, Fremont hills might be too small, Thomas Fogarty Winery, Elks club banquet room
-City Clerk sent out mailer
Locking Purissima Parks Fields:
- in favor of it
- number lock so that we can monitor who goes/in out
- will all fields be locked or just one?
- a lot of residents don’t use the fields
-Town Picnic-Jun 1
-Hopping Hounds – Apr 19
-Family Game Night- Apr 26
Future Meeting: Apr 28, May 26
ITEM 8A, ATTACHMENT 3
Town of Los Altos Hills
Parks , Recreation, and Community Events Committee
April 28, 6-7:00 pm
Draft Meeting Minutes
In-person Meeting Location:
Duxbury Conference Room, Town Hall, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Note: All votes shall be made by roll call and individual votes will be stated in the minutes Join via Zoom:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89230259736?pwd=uqIJBBYsXNmR51tatmu5lrVhAjbCbw.1 Meeting ID: 892 3025 9736
Passcode: 94022
One tap mobile: +16694449171,,89230259736# US,+16699006833,,89230259736# US (San Jose), +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
Meeting ID: 892 3025 9736
1. Call to order/Roll Call
Parks, Rec and Community Events Committee
Chair: Jasmeen Pombra, Vice-Chair: Boxia Schmdit,
Members: Yibin Tang, Jennifer Bardsley, Weiwin Li, Mukta Sharangpani, April Anair Lew Jamison, Lana Einschlag
Yibin, Jennifer, Boxia, Jasmeen, Lew Attended
Staff: Emina Mahic, Interim Community Services Supervisor Council Liaison: Stanley Mok
Associate Members: Patty Radlo, Rebecca Hickman, Helene Karlsson, Kjell Karlsson, Val Metcalfe, Jim Basiji, Craig Murray, Kejun (Ben) Xu
2. Review Draft Minutes for Park and Rec Committee 4/7/2025
3. Public Comment
4. Active Business
a. June 1 picnic: Picnic mailer (change background to dark blue and picnic table to be red) passed unanimously,change registration deadline), registration volunteers, committee participation and vendor booths, review picnic checklist, ticket collection, drinks, ice cream Yibin can volunteer
b. Hopping Hounds : April 19 feedback went really well. More photo opps
c. Family Game Night : Apr 26, 6 pm, volunteers, any other planning requirement? Pizza delivery
i Very few showed up. Try again for Halloween. Reduce to once a year.
Painting party one person came. Avoid events end of April d. Pathway Run; May 10, T shirts, volunteer, any other planning needs i Jenny, Yibin and Sophia, Boxia
e. Purissima Park signage
f. Locks on field: P1 field damage and need for lock discussion i i. 2 signs confusing
ii ii. remove "on the infield"
iii iii. Cover the original sign during baseball season with this sign with months
iv iv. no A-frame
g. Heritage House community use; discussion regarding multi use update h. LAH 70th anniversary celebration; planning time frame i. cake contest. do something interactive
ii. give something away
iii. Palo Alto Hills Country Club 250 capacity, Los Altos Country Club 200 max iv. Yibin and Boxia have contacts
v. Dinner. entertainment
vi. maybe cake decorating for picnic
5. Future planned events discussion ( if time permits)
a. New Event ; Committee mixer Aug 24, 1-3 pm, start planning in spring move to next year for 70th anniversary
b. Pickle ball court; Business case, update? If time permits c. Photo scavenger hunt for equine community members: date April, start planning early 2025; Jenny start working on it end of summer
d. Pedestrian Scavenger Hunt: put it out. Showcase it at picnic and have a child place it on path.
e. Gnome: Update ,
f. Westwind barn; clean-up/restoration , Fundraising Horse show or happy hour
6. Events
Hopping Hounds Apr 19
Family Game Night Apr 26
Pathway Run May 10
Annual picnic Jun 1
Adjourn
Future Meeting: May 26, Jun 23
ITEM 8B
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS May 15, 2025
Staff Report to the City Council
SUBJECT: Review and Reappointment of Active Ad Hoc Committees FROM: Arika Birdsong-Miller, City Clerk ABM
APPROVED: Peter Pirnejad, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council review the status of all currently active Ad Hoc committees and take action to:
1. Reappoint, revise, or sunset each committee as appropriate; and
2. Confirm or update Councilmember appointments, particularly for those committees that have been in place for more than one year.
BACKGROUND:
Ad Hoc committees are temporary advisory bodies formed by the City Council to investigate and make recommendations on specific, short-term issues. In accordance with best practices and guidance under the Brown Act, Ad Hoc committees should be limited in scope and duration and are typically expected to sunset within one year unless reauthorized by Council action.
Over time, some Town Ad Hoc committees have continued beyond their initial intent or formation date. As part of good governance and transparency, it is appropriate to periodically review the purpose, progress, and need for each existing Ad Hoc committee.
DISCUSSION:
The following table summarizes all current City Council Ad Hoc committees, including their formation dates, members, and staff liaisons:
Committee Name Formed Members Staff Liaison
Undergrounding Ad Hoc
Committee 6/2019 Councilmember Tyson WooJae Kim, Public Works Fire Service Option Ad Hoc
Committee 2/2021 Mayor Tankha, Councilmember Tyson
Cody Einfalt, Deputy
City Manager
Sheriff’s Contract Review Ad Hoc
Committee 3/2025 Vice Mayor Bhateja,
Councilmember Swan
Cody Einfalt, Deputy
City Manager
Emergency Communication Ad
Hoc Committee 1/2025 Vice Mayor Bhateja Cody Einfalt, Deputy City Manager
Staff Report to City Council Page 2
Review and Reappointment of Active Ad Hoc Committees
May 15, 2025
Committee Name Formed Members Staff Liaison
Sewer Negotiation with Palo Alto
and Los Altos Ad Hoc Committee 1/2025 Mayor Tankha, Councilmember Tyson WooJae Kim, Public
Works
Housing Element Ad Hoc
Committee 1/2025 Vice Mayor Bhateja, Councilmember Mok
JayBradford,
Community
Development
Ad Hoc Committee on Residential
Burglaries 2/2022 MayorTankha, Councilmember Tyson
Cody Einfalt, Deputy
City Manager
Lifetime Volunteer Award Ad Hoc
Committee 8/2023 Mayor Tankha, Vice Mayor Bhateja
Arika Miller,City
Clerk
Several of the above committees were formed over a year ago and have not been formally reauthorized. Staff recommends that the Council discuss whether the scope of these committees remains relevant and whether their membership or status should be updated.
Unless specifically listed in this staff report all historical Ad Hoc Committees have been sunset.
For example:
• The Undergrounding Ad Hoc Committee (formed in 2019) and the Residential Burglaries Ad Hoc Committee (formed in 2022) have significantly exceeded the typical one-year lifespan.
• The Fire Service Option Ad Hoc and Lifetime Volunteer Award Ad Hoc committees may also be evaluated for continued need and updated timelines.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
This action does not qualify as a “Project” as defined in California Government Code Section 15378(b) of the Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act. 2024-25 CITY COUNCIL WORK PLAN:
This item is not part of the adopted FY 2024–25 City Council Work Plan and is considered part of the Town’s routine administrative functions.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact to the Town associated with the proposed modification to the meeting schedule.
ITEM 8C
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS May 15, 2025
Staff Report to the City Council
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ADDING A CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON MONDAY, JULY 21, 2025, AND CANCELING THE SCHEDULED REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 2025
FROM: Arika Birdsong-Miller, City Clerk ABM
APPROVED: Peter Pirnejad, City Manager PP
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council consider the proposed adjustment to the Council meeting schedule by:
1. Adding a Regular City Council meeting on Monday, July 21, 2025, and
2. Cancel the Regular City Council meeting scheduled on Thursday, August 21, 2025.
BACKGROUND:
The Regular City Council meeting schedule is typically set in advance to ensure consistency and transparency in public engagement. However, occasionally, scheduling adjustments are warranted due to the timing of major agenda items, Councilmember availability, or seasonal scheduling challenges.
Staff has identified that moving the August meeting earlier may improve attendance and allow sufficient time for preparation and follow-up on significant matters before the fall legislative season.
DISCUSSION:
The proposal to hold a meeting on Monday, July 21, 2025, is intended to accommodate Council availability and provide an opportunity to address time-sensitive items before the late summer period. Canceling the Thursday, August 21, 2025, meeting will accommodate anticipated scheduling conflicts and help ensure full participation in Council discussions.
If approved, staff will publish a revised meeting notice in accordance with the Brown Act and update the Town’s calendar and website accordingly.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
This action does not qualify as a “Project” as defined in California Government Code Section 15378(b) of the Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act.
Staff Report to City Council Page 2
City Council Meeting Schedule
May 15, 2025
2024-25 CITY COUNCIL WORK PLAN:
This item is not part of the adopted FY 2024–25 City Council Work Plan and is considered part of the Town’s routine administrative functions.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact to the Town associated with the proposed modification to the meeting schedule.
Town of Los Altos Hills
Planning Commission Updates
May 15, 2025
Rajiv Patel, Chair Planning Commission
Agenda
1. Town Staffing and Budgeting needs for the Planning
Department
2. Updates from May 1, 2025, Planning Commission
Meeting
2025 Planning Activities Requiring Staffing
1. Housing Element Related Activities
• Land Use document updates
• Housing Element document updates
• Zoning Updates for various Programs in the Housing Element (special emphasis on A-block programs)
• Objective Design Standards (extensive efforts required for updating all types of residential uses)
• Other activities as listed and needed to be completed based on the Housing Element
2. New State Housing Legislation based Town Ordinance
and Policy updates
3. Ministerial Development Planning Checklists
4. Reviewing/Approving Site Development Applications
Planning Department Staffing
2025 5-10 years ago
Community Development Director Planning Director
Associate Planner Senior Planner
Planning Technician (consultant) Associate Planner
TBH: Junior/Associate Planner Junior/Associate Planner
TBH: Summer Intern
Community Development Director responsibility:
Planning Department, Building Department and Code Enforcement
Observations
1. Many of the Housing Element, other ordinance update
and ministerial checklist activities are progressing
slower than appropriate.
2. Other town activities related to important topics like Fire Safety, Road Safety, Tree Ordinance and
Landscape policy reviews are not even on the radar.
3. Activities that should be done by staff are being offloaded to contractors leading to loss of developing critical institutional knowledge.
Recommendations
1. Review and plan the staffing of the Planning
Department to an adequate level
2. Use Consultants where required as experts or for peak workloads
3. Workload is only going to increase as we start to plan and approve Multi Family Housing and increased
Ministerial Reviews. Hiring staff for these increased
activities ahead of need will benefit the town
Updates from the Planning Commission Meeting - May 1, 2025 • Code Interpretations
• SB-9 ordinance floor area exemption clarifications (there are NO exemptions for SB-9, we only have for ADU developments) • SB-9 MFA for sub-acre lots (new SB 450)
• Town Grading Policy interpretation for height restrictions for decks, balconies, terraces and similar structures.
• Town’s Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance update
• Multi-Family Zoning and Objective Design Standards
May 12, 2025
Town of Los Altos Hills
City Council
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Re: Housing Element and Zoning Code Amendments Application to Twin Oaks Dear Councilmembers,
I represent the owners of the properties located at property located at APNs 182-02 017, 182-02- 018, 182-02-019, 182-02-020, 182-02-021, and 182-02-022 (the “Twin Oaks Property”). We understand that the Council will likely soon direct Town staff to undertake a rezoning and amendment of the Town’s Housing element applicable to the Twin Oaks Property to permit multifamily housing on certain of its parcels. We ask that this letter be included in the public materials published for the next City Council hearing or any subsequent hearings.
We are writing to respectfully request that the Council designate one or more alternate properties to the Twin Oaks Property for multi-family housing in both the revised Housing Element and multi-family rezoning. The Twin Oaks Property should remain designated for single-family housing.
We make this suggestion, because, after due diligence, the owners have come to the understanding that the Twin Oaks Property is likely not suitable for multi-family development given certain infrastructure and environmental conditions. As a result, we believe that the Town cannot meet its state-mandated housing production goals (the “RHNA” goals) by assuming that the Twin Oaks Property will be developed with multi-family housing. Because of these constraints, we will not be completing the SB-330 application filed for the Twin Oaks Property in February.
Most importantly, the Twin Oaks Property lacks sanitary sewer service. The nearest sewer line is located near Deer Creek Road on Arastradero Road. The sewer is about 3,696 feet (0.7 mile) from the Town Oaks Property. Any development of multi-family housing at the Twin Oaks property will require the extension of this sewer line at considerable cost, especially given the terrain and narrow right-of-way. Additionally, this portion of Arastradero Road between Deer Creek and Twin Oaks is the shortest right of way connecting the Twin Oaks Property to the existing sewer manhole.
Constructing a sewer line down this lengthy narrow public road would likely require significant disruptions to the use of Arastradero Road for a lengthy period of time.
Additionally, as underscored by neighbors at recent public hearings, the addition of any significant number of multi-family units at the Twin Oaks property will create public safety issues between Twin Oaks and Arastradero Road with. A high percentage of bicyclist fatalities occur at nonintersection locations, especially on Arastradero Road, where cyclists speed through sharp turns with low visibility. Adding units would further elevate public safety risks and create a traffic and fire exit issue, particularly without adequate public roadside to expand to a four-lane upgrade.
Given that these site constraints significantly undermine the assumption that the Twin Oaks Property can feasibility be developed with multi-family housing, we respectfully ask the Town to ITEM 9B, Supplement 1
inform the State HCD of these site constraints and to pursue other alternative site(s) to rezone the Alternative Property(s).
As strong supporters of the City’s housing efforts, we remain committed to helping identify other alternative workable site(s) and working together to meet the City’s state-mandated housing goals.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to collaborating on a viable solution.
Sincerely,
Sung Yang
Twin Oaks Court LLC
c.c. Council Hearing on May 15, and any subsequent Hearings related to Housing Element and Zoning Code Amendments Application to Twin Oaks site
HOUSING ELEMENT
Ad Hoc Committee Update
VICE MAYOR RAJIV BHATEJA
COUNCIL MEMBER STAN MOK
MAY 15, 2025
PROBLEM STATEMENT & PRIORITIES
• Problem Statement:
• Address sustainable development at Twin Oaks/Arastradero (aka Twin Oaks+) site • Key concerns: fire safety, evacuation, infrastructure, environment… • Per Housing Element, Twin Oaks+:14.5 acres x 20-30 du/ac* x 2X bonus = N x 100 units • Goal: Keep as close as possible to: ~92 units
• Priorities:
1. Maintain our current Housing Element Certification: meet all deadlines Avoid Builder’s Remedy
Avoid penalties from HCD, e.g., SB 35, No Net Loss
2. Demonstrate progress towards RHNA numbers at mid-cycle review ( 1/31/2027 )
3. Meet our RHNA numbers in the cycle
4. Preserve town character
* du/ac = dwelling units per acre ** Regional Housing Neighborhood Allocation
CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED: 3 OPTIONS
AMEND LAND USE ELEMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT
Reduce acreage
Replace du/ac
Use “San Francisco Style” zoning in sq. ft. of land per dwelling unit AMEND LAND USE ELEMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT
Reduce acreage
Use zoning rules to manage density, # of units
REVISIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Go back, compromise, one more try ------ PURSUE IN PARALLEL ------ Removed March
20, 2025
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT – APPROACH
• Tried our best to represent the Town interest, achieve defined goals • Used a win-win mentality: respecting resident input, town ordinances • Over 60 hours of meetings with owner representative, counsel, staff & residents • Several attempts to come to a meeting of the minds
• A few “within reach” situations, “hairs breadth away” However…
• Continual abrupt, drastic changes; reversals; reneges • … often at the last minute
• Repeated “snatched failure from jaws of success”
• Also did not augur well for a Development Agreement (much more complex) FAILED
CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED: 3 OPTIONS
AMEND LAND USE ELEMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT
Reduce acreage
Replace du/ac
Use “San Francisco Style” zoning in sq. ft. of land per dwelling unit AMEND LAND USE ELEMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT
Reduce acreage
Use zoning rules to manage density, # of units
REVISIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Go back, compromise, one more try ------ PURSUE IN PARALLEL ------ Removed March
20, 2025
Today:
ad hoc
recommends
termination
CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED: 3 OPTIONS
AMEND LAND USE ELEMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT
Reduce acreage
Replace du/ac
Use “San Francisco Style” zoning in sq. ft. of land per dwelling unit AMEND LAND USE ELEMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT
Reduce acreage
Use zoning rules to manage density, # of units
REVISIT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
Go back, compromise, one more try ------ PURSUE IN PARALLEL ------ Removed March
20, 2025
Today:
ad hoc
recommends
termination
LOOKING AHEAD
• Town has a mid-cycle review in 20 months: January 31, 2027 • Current sites:
• St. Nicholas School
• Foothill College
• Twin Oaks
• No assurance of progress on any of these sites
• Site selection is a long and complex process
• Recommend starting the process of considering alternate sites soon (now) • Could help in the current cycle in case of a “Net Loss” event • Early start would also prepare the ground for next housing element (8th) cycle
THANK YOU
• City attorney Mattas
• City Council for supporting this effort
• City manager, staff and consultants for their support • Residents for their support, input and participation
• Recommend: Dissolve ad hoc committee, terminate the DA option • Proceed with zoning under the plan proposed by consultants
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS
• Terminate the Housing Element ad hoc committee
• Consider discussions with owner re: DA terminated
• Full speed ahead with land use element, zoning per Consultant proposal • Direct staff to begin process of considering alternate sites • Publicize, promote and incentivize development of ADUs in town • Proposed Motion:
• Terminate discussions on the Twin Oaks Development Agreement including consideration of lots 1 and part of 2; dissolve the Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee, and direct staff to proceed with considering alternate sites for multi-family housing