Los Altos Hills City Council
June 18, 2025

1 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
June 18, 2025
Town of Los Altos Hills
City Council Adjourned Regular Meeting Agenda
Wednesday, June 18, 2025, at 5:00 PM
Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, California

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE

LOS ALTOS HILLS CITY COUNCIL WILL BE HELD ON
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 18, 2025, AT 5:00 P.M.

Meetings of the City Council are held in-person. As a courtesy, and in compliance with applicable state law, staff and members of the public may participate in the meeting in person at Town Hall or virtually via Zoom Video Conference. Members of the City Council may participate remotely from time to time in accordance with the provisions of Government Code section 54953.

To attend the meeting in person:

City Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 To provide Public Comment in person:

Members of the public wishing to speak are requested to complete a speaker card and submit it to the City Clerk at the meeting.

To participate in the meeting via Zoom Video Conference, please follow the instructions below:

Public comment will also be accepted via email at [email protected] prior to the start of the meeting. Written comments will be posted on the website and distributed to the Council. If you choose to email your comments, please indicate in the subject line “FOR PUBLIC COMMENT” and indicate the item number. If you wish to submit a public comment during the meeting, please use the following information. Before speaking, please identify yourself by name and where you reside. The City Council meeting will be live streamed on the Town’s website and via Zoom at the following location:
https://bit.ly/June18SpecialMeetingLAH5pm
Webinar ID: 810 6952 2240
Passcode: 94022

NOTICE TO PUBLIC
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on the open session portion of this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s office located at 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, California during normal business hours.

These materials will also be made available on the City website at www.losaltoshills.ca.gov subject to Staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting.

2 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
June 18, 2025
CALL TO ORDER (5:00 P.M.)
A. Roll Call
B. Pledge of Allegiance

1. AGENDA REVIEW

2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR

3. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. Waive Reading and Adopt an Ordinance of the Town of Los Altos Hills designating Fire Hazard Severity Zones pursuant to Government Code Section 51179, based on the map titled “Town of Los Altos Hills Fire Hazard Severity Zones”, which reflects CALFIRE recommendations and local amendments. Properties are designated as moderate, high, or very high, with findings supported by substantial evidence for those reclassified to very high. (Staff: J. Bradford)
-Waive Reading and Adopt the Ordinance

4. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS (ITEMS PROVIDED SOLELY FOR

INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES)
A. FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget Informational Update (Staff: T. Leung)

5. ADJOURN
Pursuant to Ordinance No. 506, the Council Meeting shall adjourn no later than 10:00 p.m., unless otherwise approved by a majority of the Councilmembers present.

ASSISTANCE FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in the meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 650-941-7222. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

Copies of all agenda reports and supporting data are available for inspection at Town Hall, 26379 Fremont Road and the Los Altos Main Library 72 hours in advance of the meeting. A complete agenda can be found on the Town’s webpage:
http://www.losaltoshills.ca.gov. A complete packet of information is available for inspection during the meeting at the table to the back of the Council Chambers.

The Council may take action on any agendized matter in any manner deemed appropriate by the Council.

TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS June 18, 2025
Staff Report to the City Council
SUBJECT: Adopt an Ordinance of the Town of Los Altos Hills designating Fire Hazard Severity Zones pursuant to Government Code Section 51179, based on the map titled “Town of Los Altos Hills Fire Hazard Severity Zones”, which reflects CAL FIRE recommendations and local amendments. Properties are designated as moderate, high, or very high, with findings supported by substantial evidence for those reclassified to very high.

FROM: Jay Bradford, Community Development Director
APPROVED: Peter Pirnejad, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council waive reading and adopt an Ordinance (see Attachment 1) to designate Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Los Altos Hills.

If adopted the proposed ordinance would take effect thirty (30) days after adoption and would apply to any projects for which a development or permit application is filed with the Town as of the effective date of the ordinance.

Alternatively, keeping the adopting timeline required by state law in mind, the council may choose not to act and schedule a special meeting and another continued regular meeting to adopt an alternative plan before the state deadline of June 24th.

BACKGROUND:

The Town of Los Altos Hills has long recognized wildfire as one of its most serious communitywide risks. Increasing concerns about insurance availability, potential impacts on property values, and the cost of home hardening and vegetation management have made this issue even more urgent.

In response, the Town has engaged residents in a series of discussions on how to address these risks while balancing individual property rights with the broader goal of community safety. While perspectives differ, there is a growing consensus that action is needed to protect all residents from the escalating threat of wildfire.

At a recent community meeting, one attendee remarked, “If it’s not broken, don’t fix it.” However, the reality is that climate change has transformed the wildfire landscape in Los Altos Hills and across California. Recent weather conditions and fire behavior patterns show that the tools and strategies used in the past are no longer sufficient.

This point was reinforced in the May 15, 2025, staff report, which identified local conditions that support expanding the Town’s fire hazard designations beyond those provided by CALFIRE.

Specifically, Los Altos Hills possesses unique topographic, vegetative, and climatic characteristics that significantly increase wildfire risk and not just the areas impacted by the CALFIRE or local amendments, but throughout the town these conditions persist:

ITEM 3A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Ordinance to Designate Fire Hazard Severity Zones
June 18, 2025 Page 2 out of 6
• Dense vegetation: The Town contains extensive areas of chaparral, forest, and heavy brush that create exceptionally high fuel loads.
• Steep terrain: Frequent slopes and canyons intensify fire behavior, increasing the likelihood of crown fires and embers traveling over long distances. • Climatic stressors: The local climate features severe dry seasons and strong wind events such as Diablo winds, which elevate the likelihood and intensity of wildfire activity. • Evacuation challenges: Narrow roadways, limited ingress and egress, densely vegetated roads and the Town’s distance from major firefighting resources hinder evacuation and emergency response efforts.

These conditions collectively raise the risk of fast-moving and high-intensity fires. Properties located near vegetated slopes or within inaccessible areas are particularly vulnerable to embers, radiant heat, and direct flame contact. This supports the Town’s proposal to designate additional areas as High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Some community members have suggest the local amendment are not based on the criteria for hazards, this is not true.

The relevance of these findings was highlighted by the work of Dr. Stephen Quarles, a fire science expert who co-authored a technical study titled “Fire ember production from wildland and structural fuels”. This research formed the basis for a new ember cast model developed through a partnership between NASA Ames and the Santa Clara County FireSafe Council. Dr. Quarles' recommendations were presented to the City Council during the April 17, 2025, and factored into the recommendation presented in the May 15,2025 staff report for local amendments. He was not alone, City Council, staff from the Los Altos Hills County Fire District (LAHCFD), and the Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD) and representatives from Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS), Insurance Information Institute (Triple-I), and the California Department of Insurance, all provided input into the recommendations.

On June 10, 2025, the Mercury News published an article titled "Flying embers, my god’: New map shows Bay Area locations with highest risk of firebrand-driven wildfires." The article featured this research partnership between NASA Ames and the Santa Clara County FireSafe Council and specifically named Los Altos Hills as an area at heightened risk for ember-driven wildfires. Dr.

Quarles has publicly recommended that Los Altos Hills prioritize community-wide hardening strategies to better defend against these conditions.

These warnings became all too real when, the day after the article was published, a wildfire broke out in Los Altos Hills near the 27000 block of Roble Blanco Court. The fire grew rapidly and temporarily threatened a large home. Although only one outbuilding was lost, the incident required response from multiple fire agencies. Fire operations required the temporary closing of Page Mill Road for over 3 hours, a major evacuation route for the Town, Palo Alto, and the County. KTVU covered the event in a segment titled "Large home momentarily threatened in Los Altos Hills fire, one outbuilding burns", which included images documenting the fire’s impact.

ITEM 3A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Ordinance to Designate Fire Hazard Severity Zones
June 18, 2025 Page 3 out of 6
This image is from KTVU article documenting the June 11, 2025, fire near the 27000 block of Robe Blanco Court in Los Altos Hills
This recent fire underscores the urgency of implementing stronger fire hazard designations and mitigation measures now. As a community, Los Altos Hills cannot afford to wait. Every tool available should be used to reduce risk.

Recent legislation reform from 2021 suggests as much when a California law was updated to require CALFIRE to designate Moderate and High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas in addition to the previously required Very High zones. This led to the 2025 release of updated Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps by CALFIRE and the Office of the State Fire Marshal.

These maps classify areas into Moderate, High, or Very High Fire Hazard Zones based on a comprehensive, science-based model which were discussed with the City Council at the April 17, 2025, and May 15, 2025, City Council meetings referenced as Attachments 2 and 3.

During the May 15th meeting the City Council deliberated on two options:

1. Adoption of the CALFIRE map without making any additional local amendments; or

2. Adoption of the CALFIRE map with local amendments supported by substantial evidence as required under Government Code Section 51182.

The meeting culminated with City Council voting of three (AYES) to one (NOES) and one (RECUSED) in favor of the second option, the CALFIRE base map with local amendments and that the draft ordinance retains the portions of the language related to the local amendments option 2 and removes the language related to option 1.

DISCUSSION:

As part of ongoing engagement on this item, staff has continued regular coordination with the Town’s Emergency Preparedness and Response Committee (EPRC), the Los Altos Hills County ITEM 3A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Ordinance to Designate Fire Hazard Severity Zones
June 18, 2025 Page 4 out of 6
Fire District (LAHCFD), and the Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD) through both weekly and monthly meetings.

A key update is that staff attended two recent EPRC meetings: a regularly scheduled meeting on June 3, 2025, and a special meeting on June 10, 2025. During the June 3 meeting a short briefing of the May 15 City Council meeting when they acted on the FHSZ options, the Council Liaison to the EPRC requested a special meeting to allow the committee to discuss and provide input on the two FHSZ map options presented to the City Council.

At the June 10 special meeting, EPRC members were reminded of the conduct expectations outlined in Section 5 of the Town’s Standing Committee Resolution, which includes a Code of Conduct.

Specifically, subsection (d) states that: “Appointees will agree to … recuse themselves if or when a situation arises in which a member could be perceived to have a conflict of interest.” Members with property located in areas proposed for designation as High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) were encouraged to consider whether this provision applied to their participation.

Two EPRC members disclosed that their properties would be affected by the proposed designations.

Both chose to participate in the discussion. Following a robust discussion, the EPRC voted to “Recommend to town council that the town adopt the state minimum fire severity maps, and add additional town ordinances to increase fire resilience and enforcement.” Present Members In High or Very High FHSZ
Area
NOT in High or Very High
FHSZ Area
Amita Sachdeva X
Dave Stewart X
Jim Basiji X
Phil Harter X
Rabindra Singh X
Sam Wood X
Ben Gikis X
Of the members of the EPRC who were present for the motion, the vote was as follows:

Voted Yes (In High or Very
High FHSZ area)
Votes Yes (Not in High or
Very High FHSZ area)
Voted No (Not in High or
Very High FHSZ area)
Dave Stewart Sam Wood Phil Harter
Amita Sachdeva Ben Gikis Rabindra Singh
Jamshid “Jim” Basiji
Separately, on June 3, 2025, the Town hosted an informational session to provide an overview of the FHSZ maps and their potential impacts. Presenters included experts from the California Department of Insurance, the Insurance IBHS, the Santa Clara County Fire Department, and Town staff. Key topics discussed included:

ITEM 3A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Ordinance to Designate Fire Hazard Severity Zones
June 18, 2025 Page 5 out of 6
• Insurance Impact: Private insurers generally rely on their own risk models rather than state-designated maps. As such, the proposed FHSZ updates are not expected to directly impact insurance rates or availability.
• Property Values: While changes in fire hazard designation do not directly alter property values, associated factors such as insurance costs and availability may influence market dynamics.
• Fire Risk Mitigation: The importance of defensible space and home hardening was emphasized. Programs such as IBHS’s Wildfire Prepared Home offer valuable resources for residents to better protect their homes and, in some cases, reduce insurance risk.

In addition, staff mailed notification letters on June 6th to property owners whose designations were changed due to local amendments to the FHSZ maps. These letters explained the basis for the new designation and the implications for property maintenance and fire safety compliance. A copy of the letter template is provided as Attachment 4. Public feedback submitted to the City Council and staff is included in Attachment 5.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

An ordinance adopting FHSZ map and designations, as required by state law, is evaluated to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).

Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. In this case, the proposed ordinance designating fire hazard severity zones does not have a potential for creating a significant environmental effect as it does not create any zoning or introduce any land uses, approve any development projects, or issue any entitlements, but are regulatory actions taken by the Town to implement state law requirements only.

Additionally, this ordinance is also evaluated to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 as the Town is required by and authorized under Government Code Section 51175 et seq. to take this action to designate fire hazard severity zones, which would either require or encourage/facilitate fire prevention and mitigation measures to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment by reducing wildfire and structural fire risks. As such, this ordinance is a regulatory action involving procedures for environmental protections.
2024-25 CITY COUNCIL WORK PLAN:

This is part of the 2024-25 City Council Work Plan as the FHSZ is a component part of the Home Ignition Zone efforts.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact to the Town for the adoption and administration of the FHSZ maps.

ITEM 3A STAFF REPORT

City Council
Ordinance to Designate Fire Hazard Severity Zones
June 18, 2025 Page 6 out of 6

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Ordinance Designating FHSZ with local amendments (Introduced on May 15, 2025).

2. “Discussion Regarding the California Fire Marshal’s Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps in Los Altos Hills and Potential Amendment Options” from the City Council Meeting on April 17, 2025 https://losaltoshillsca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/3886/files/attachment/12282

3. “Public Hearing and Introduction of an Ordinance to Designate Fire Hazard Severity Zones in the Los Altos Hills Local Responsibility Area.” form the City Council Meeting on May 15, 2025 https://losaltoshillsca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/3884/files/attachment/12437

4. Notice to residents affected by local amendments the FHSZ maps that increased their properties designation

5. Community Feedback
ITEM 3A STAFF REPORT

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS

DESIGNATING FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 51179
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 51178 requires the State Fire Marshal (a part of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) to identify areas of the state as Moderate, High, or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ), based on consistent statewide criteria and based on the severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 51179(a) requires local agencies to adopt by ordinance, designations of Moderate, High, and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones within 120 days of receiving recommendations from the State Fire Marshal; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 51179(b) authorizes local agencies to increase, but not decrease, the level of hazard severity recommended by the State Fire Marshal provided that any local amendments to increase a hazard severity designation to Very High must be based on findings supported by substantial evidence in the record that defensible space requirements in Government Code section 51182 are necessary for effective fire protection in the area; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 51178.5 requires local agencies to, within 30 days after receiving a transmittal from the State Fire Marshal that identifies FHSZs pursuant to Section 51178, make the information accessible, understandable, and available for public review and comment; and
WHEREAS, Los Altos Hills contains uniquely sloped geography, narrow road withs, unpaved pathways and travel routes, and dense, highly flammable vegetation, including chaparral and heavy brush, which supports frequent and intense wildfire behavior and presents a substantial threat of catastrophic fires; and
WHEREAS, a portion of Los Altos Hills is also adjacent to the Rancho San Antonio Open Space, which also consists of highly flammable vegetation and terrain difficult to navigate, further increasing fire risk exposures. As a part of its commitment to fire prevention and hazard mitigation efforts, the Town is a participating jurisdiction in the 2024 Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP), which identifies wildfire as a significant threat to the community and recommends enhanced mitigation measures, including stricter fire hazard severity zone designations, to protect life and property; and
WHEREAS, the Town is a member of the Los Altos Hills County Fire District, which is subject to the Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP), a regionally coordinating document for wildfire mitigation projects, programs and education. The 2023 Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) Annex 4 applies to the Los Altos Hills County Fire District, and highlights critical evacuation challenges within the Town of Los Altos Hills, such as narrow, winding roads with limited turnarounds and single-access routes serving large residential areas, which impede emergency response and evacuation efforts during wildfires; and ITEM 3A ATTACHMENT 1

WHEREAS, designation of FHSZs, as shown in the attributes table attached to the accompanying staff report as Attachment B, accounts for different geographical, weather, fire history, evacuation access, and other attributes to facilitate risk evaluation and, where appropriate or required, defensible space and other fire hazard mitigation measures to reduce fire risk; and WHEREAS, the Town of Los Altos Hills (“Town”) received the recommended Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) maps from CAL FIRE on February 24, 2025, and published them on the Town’s website on March 26, 2025, along with several options for potential local amendments to the CAL FIRE FHSZ maps, for public review and comment in compliance with Government Code Section 51178.5; and
WHEREAS, on April 17, 2025, the City Council conducted a public meeting to discuss and consider the CAL FIRE FHSZ maps and potential local amendments thereto, received staff report and presentation from Town staff and third party experts regarding the Town’s geographical, topographical, and other community characteristics exposing it to fire hazards, as well as fire prevention considerations, took numerous comments from the public, and provided direction to Town staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on May 15, 2025, to discuss, receive public comments, and consider introduction of an ordinance adopting a map and designating FHSZs; and
WHEREAS, the Town reviewed the recommended maps and determined, based on the public record and supporting technical evidence, that local conditions warrant the designation of additional areas located in the southern portion of the Town along the Ranco San Antonio Open Space corridor; In summary, certain areas to the south along the open space would be designated as Very High, which streets that would be covered by this designation include the portions of Buena Vista Drive, Moody Road, Sherlock Road, Mora Drive, Tepa Way, and Blue Oaks Place, which are within close proximity to the open space. The areas immediately adjacent to that corridor being designated as High, and the areas to the north and in the northwestern portion of the Town would be designated as Moderate. These designations as High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones are beyond those identified by the State Fire Marshal, as described in the accompanying staff report and depicted in further detail as shown on Exhibit A to this Ordinance.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does hereby ORDAIN as follows:

Section 1. General and CEQA Findings.

1. The foregoing Recitals and true and correct and made a part of this Ordinance. The Exhibits and attachments hereto are incorporated herein by this reference.

2. Based on the entirety of the record before it, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills hereby finds that this ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).

Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. In this case, the proposed

ordinance designating fire hazard severity zones does not have a potential for creating a significant environmental effect as it does not create any zoning or introduce any land uses, approve any development projects, or issue any entitlements, but are regulatory actions taken by the Town to implement state law requirements only. Additionally, the City Council also finds that this ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 as the Town is required by and authorized under Government Code Section 51175 et seq. to take this action to designate fire hazard severity zones, which would either require or encourage/facilitate fire prevention and mitigation measures to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment by reducing wildfire and structural fire risks. As such, this ordinance is a regulatory action involving procedures for environmental protections.

Section 2. Findings and Fire Hazard Severity Zone Designation

1. The Town of Los Altos Hills hereby makes the following findings pursuant to Government Code section 51179(b)(1):
a. The Town of Los Altos Hills contains dense, highly flammable vegetation, including chaparral and heavy brush, which supports frequent and intense wildfire behavior and presents a substantial threat of catastrophic fires. b. The topography of the Town of Los Altos Hills, characterized by steep slopes, rugged canyons, and prominent ridgelines, contributes directly to rapid fire spread, extreme flame lengths, and challenging firefighting conditions. c. The fire behavior potential in the Town of Los Altos Hills is significant due to the regional history of severe wildfire events and the likelihood of high-intensity, fastmoving fires with crown fires, ember storms, and long-range spotting; and d. The Town of Los Altos Hills’ climatic conditions, including regular hot, dry seasons and high-wind events such as Diablo winds, exacerbate wildfire severity and warrant more stringent hazard designations.
e. The Town of Los Altos Hills’ limited evacuation and emergency response infrastructure, such as narrow, winding roads and constrained access route, poses additional risks during wildfire events and justifies stronger mitigation measures including the requirements of Government Code section 51182. f. Properties in the Town of Los Altos Hills are highly vulnerable to ignition due to their placement among dense vegetation and challenging terrain, making them susceptible to damage from embers, radiant heat, and direct flame contact. g. The Town of Los Altos Hills is a participating jurisdiction in the 2024 Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP), which identifies wildfire as a significant threat to the community and recommends enhanced mitigation measures, including stricter fire hazard severity zone designations, to protect life and property.
h. The 2023 Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) Annex 4 for Los Altos Hills County Fire District highlights critical evacuation challenges within the Town of Los Altos Hills, such as narrow, winding roads with limited turnarounds and single-access routes serving large residential areas, which impede emergency response and evacuation efforts during wildfires.

i. The CWPP identifies and prioritizes key evacuation routes in Los Altos Hills, including Page Mill Road, Elena Road, and Altamont Road, noting that these routes have high vegetation density and limited width, increasing ignition potential and evacuation delays, thereby supporting the designation of adjacent areas as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.
j. The CWPP outlines a comprehensive vegetation management strategy, emphasizing the need for defensible space and fuel reduction along critical evacuation corridors and in high-risk areas, to mitigate wildfire hazards and enhance community safety.
k. Over the long term, the replacement of existing homes with structures that meet wildfire construction standards and defensible space requirements is necessary to protect property and human life in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity zones so designated.
l. In particular, the areas proposed to be designated as Very High in the local amendment FHSZ map are characterized by single evacuation routes and narrow, winding streets. They are also located in proximity to dense vegetation and have topographic features that propel fast moving fires and ember spreading. Much of these areas are in proximity to the Rancho San Antonio Open Space and served by a limited number of evacuations routes—at times only a single evacuation route— leading to increased risk of delays in evacuation times and exposure to fire risk due to proximity to dense vegetation and those topographic, sloped features that support fast moving, wind driven fires. This is especially true as evacuation takes place from southern boundaries of the Town near the open space towards Interstate 280 in the north-eastern direction. To illustrate, the areas that are designated as Very High include portions of Buena Vista Drive, Moody Road, Sherlock Road, Mora Drive, which all consists of the same steep slope, winding road and narrow width, and are within close proximity to the open space area to create heightened risk of evacuation delays and spread of wind-driven fire.
m. More specifically, Buena Vista Drive is a cul-de-sac, offering only a single evacuation route; the road is narrow, winding, surrounded by dense vegetation and located on hilly terrain, increasing the risk of fire spreading as well as impediments to evacuation. Sherlock Road/Sherlock Court consists of single access via Sherlock Road with a cul-de-sac at the court. The road is likewise narrow and winding with dense natural vegetation around and is particularly difficult in providing insufficient emergency ingress and egress. Blue Oaks Place is another route that is limited to a single entry and exit point and a short, narrow cul-de-sac. It is adjacent to open spaces with dense vegetation and located on sloped terrain. Mora Drive similarly provides one access route for multiple properties with winding road and elevation changes; it is surrounded by natural vegetation and is located over steep slopes. Arroyo Oaks also presents the same single-access cul-de-sac feature that provides limited space for emergency vehicles amongst dense vegetation. These prominent examples of roadways and areas near wide open space, with steep slopes, dense vegetation, and having limiting/prohibiting spaces for fire trucks and emergency vehicles, create heightened fire risks and delayed evacuation times in the areas. As such, the defensible space requirements in Government Code section 51182 are necessary for effective fire protection in these areas.

2. The Town of Los Altos Hills hereby designates areas not identified as High Fire Hazard Severity Zones by the State Fire Marshal, as High Fire Severity Zones.

3. The Town of Los Altos Hills hereby designates areas not identified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones by the State Fire Marshal, as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones based upon the findings listed above that the requirements of Government Code Section 51182 are necessary for effective fire protection within the area.

4. The map adopted by the Town of Los Altos Hills, as shown in Exhibit A, is hereby incorporated and entitled “Town of Los Altos Hills Fire Hazard Severity Zones”.

5. Said adopted map is also located electronically on the following website:
https://www.losaltoshills.ca.gov/640/Fire-Hazard-Severity-Zone-Maps Section 3. Severability.

If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of this ordinance, including the application of such part or provision to the other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, the provisions of this ordinance are severable. The City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence clause, or phrase hereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be held unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable.

Section 4. Effective Date; Publication; Transmittal to the State.

This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after adoption. Within fifteen (15) days after the passage of this ordinance the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance or a summary thereof to be published once, with the names of those City Councilmembers voting for or against it in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Los Altos Hills, as required by law. Within thirty (30) days of adoption of this ordinance, the City Clerk shall transmit a copy of the ordinance to the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection.

INTRODUCED: May 15, 2025
PASSED:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

BY:
_________________________
Kavita Tankha, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Arika Birdsong-Miller, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Steve Mattas, City Attorney

EXHIBIT A

FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE MAP

June 5, 2025
[Address]
Subject: Notification of Fire Hazard Severity Zone Designation Changes Dear Property Owner,
The Town of Los Altos Hills is writing to inform you of recent changes to the Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) designation affecting your property. These changes stem from updated maps released by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE), combine with local amendments, to more accurately reflect wildfire hazards in our community. For a list of local changes to FHSZ designations please reference the following list:
https://losaltoshillsca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/3884/files/attachment/12440 Reason for the Change
CALFIRE’s has been charged by state legislature to update both the data used in creating FHSZ maps and the maps themselves. Updated FHSZ maps consider factors such as:
• Vegetation and fuel conditions (existing and potential) • Local topography (terrain features that influence fire behavior) • Climate and typical fire weather patterns
• Historical fire occurrences and patterns
These factors contribute to a long-term assessment of wildfire hazard, providing a scientifically grounded basis for designating areas as Moderate, High, or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

Requirements Impacting Your Property
If your property is now designated within a High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, the following requirements apply:
• Defensible Space: You must maintain a minimum 100-foot clearance of flammable vegetation and materials around your home to reduce fire risk. • Home Hardening: New construction will need to incorporate fire-resistant building materials and design features, such as ember-resistant vents and non-combustible roofing.

ITEM 3A ATTACHMENT 2

• Building Code Compliance: Structures must comply with the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) building code standards (California Building Code Chapter 7A) when applicable.
• Real Estate Disclosure: When selling your property, you are required by law to disclose the property's FHSZ designation to prospective buyers.

Where to Learn More
For more information on the FHSZ designation, please visit CALFIRE’s website at:
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-andmitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones For more information on the Town of Los Altos Hills efforts and local map modifications, please visit the Towns FHSZ website at:
https://www.losaltoshills.ca.gov/640/Fire-Hazard-Severity-Zone-Maps For more information on the impact of the various FHSZ designations and the Town’s actions to date, please refer to the information presented to the public and City Council at the April 17 and May 15 City Council meetings. See the links to the meeting for your convenience.

City Council April 17,2025, Meeting, Item 4A starting on page 33:
https://losaltoshillsca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/3886/files/agenda/7769 City Council May 15, 2025, Meeting, Item 7A starting on page 431:
https://losaltoshillsca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/3884/files/agenda/7836 We appreciate your cooperation in ensuring the safety of your property and our community.

If you have questions or need additional information, please contact the Community Development Department at [email protected]. The last opportunity for public comments will be at the June 18th City Council Meeting held at 5:00PM in the City Council Chambers.

Sincerely,
Jay Bradford, AICP, CASp, EI, MCP
Community Development Director
Town of Los Altos Hills

ITEM 3A ATTACHMENT 3

4. Alternative Strategies: Enhance existing fire prevention programs and education initiatives to reduce the risk of wildfires.

Conclusion
In conclusion, while fire safety is a top priority, changes to property classifications should be based on thorough risk assessments and consider economic implications for residents. I urge you to carefully consider these concerns and recommendations before making a decision.

Sincerely,
Kranti Singh
Los Altos Hills

acknowledge the importance of proactive fire safety measures, I have concerns regarding the necessity and potential consequences of this reclassification.

Historical Fire Data and Risk Assessment
Historical data indicates that Los Altos Hills has experienced relatively few significant wildfires in recent decades. Notably, the Liddicoat Fire in 1985 was the last major wildfire event in our area, and since then, there have been minimal incidents of similar magnitude. This suggests that the current fire hazard severity levels have been effective in mitigating large-scale fire risks.

Economic Impact on Homeowners
Reclassifying properties to higher fire hazard severity zones can lead to increased insurance premiums and stricter building codes, imposing financial burdens on homeowners. According to the California Department of Insurance, properties in high or very high fire hazard severity zones often face challenges in obtaining affordable insurance coverage. This could disproportionately affect residents on fixed incomes or those with limited financial flexibility.

Existing Fire Prevention Measures
Our community has implemented several fire prevention initiatives, including:

Defensible Space Requirements: As per Los Altos Hills Municipal Code 4-2.116, property owners are mandated to maintain a defensible space of 30 feet around structures to reduce fire risk.

Vegetation Management Programs: The Los Altos Hills County Fire District (LAHCFD) offers programs such as brush chipping and removal, weed abatement, and the Home Ignition Zone (HIZ) Assessment to assist residents in maintaining fire-safe properties.

These measures have contributed to our community's resilience against wildfires, and their continued enforcement should remain a priority.

Recommendations
Before proceeding with the proposed reclassification, I urge the Council to:

1. Request a Special Meeting of the Mayor: We understand a special Council meeting will be required prior to June 13, 2025, to effectuate these changes.

2. Conduct a Comprehensive Risk Assessment: Utilize up-to-date fire incident data and risk modeling to evaluate the necessity of reclassification.

2. Engage in Community Consultation: Facilitate public forums to gather input from residents and address concerns regarding the potential impacts of reclassification.

3. Explore Alternative Mitigation Strategies: Focus on enhancing existing fire prevention programs and community education initiatives to further reduce fire risks without altering property classifications.

In conclusion, while fire safety is paramount, any changes to property classifications should be based on thorough risk assessments and consider the economic implications for residents. I appreciate your attention to this matter and your commitment to the well-being of our community.

Sincerely,
Andy and Tiffany Coan
Los Altos Hills, CA 94024
References:

Los Altos Hills Municipal Code 4-2.116: Defensible Space Requirements
Los Altos Hills County Fire District Programs: Fire Prevention Initiatives
California Department of Insurance: Wildfire Insurance Information ---
Andy Coan
CEO
Splice Technologies, Inc.
www.SpliceIT.com
“Your true worth is determined by how much more
you give in value than you take in payment.”
~ The Go-Giver
“Your true worth is determined by how much more
you give in value than you take in payment.”
The Go Giver

abatement, and the Home Ignition Zone (HIZ) Assessment to assist residents in maintaining fire-safe properties.

These measures have contributed to our community's resilience against wildfires, and their continued enforcement should remain a priority.

Recommendations
Before proceeding with the proposed reclassification, I urge the Council to:

1. Request a Special Meeting of the Mayor: We understand a special Council meeting will be required prior to June 13, 2025, to effectuate these changes.

2. Conduct a Comprehensive Risk Assessment: Utilize up-to-date fire incident data and risk modeling to evaluate the necessity of reclassification.

2. Engage in Community Consultation: Facilitate public forums to gather input from residents and address concerns regarding the potential impacts of reclassification.

3. Explore Alternative Mitigation Strategies: Focus on enhancing existing fire prevention programs and community education initiatives to further reduce fire risks without altering property classifications.

In conclusion, while fire safety is paramount, any changes to property classifications should be based on thorough risk assessments and consider the economic implications for residents. I appreciate your attention to this matter and your commitment to the well-being of our community.

Sincerely,
Andy and Tiffany Coan
Los Altos Hills, CA 94024
References:

Los Altos Hills Municipal Code 4-2.116: Defensible Space Requirements Los Altos Hills County Fire District Programs: Fire Prevention Initiatives California Department of Insurance: Wildfire Insurance Information ---
Andy Coan
CEO
Splice Technologies, Inc.

www.SpliceIT.com
“Your true worth is determined by how much more
you give in value than you take in payment.”
~ The Go-Giver
“Your true worth is determined by how much more
you give in value than you take in payment.”
The Go Giver

Outlook
FW: Dispute of Increased Fire Hazard Severity Zone Designation for 25070 Tepa Way From: Ching Chow
Sent: Sunday, May 18, 2025 6:01 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Dispute of Increased Fire Hazard Severity Zone Designation for Dear Los Altos Hills City Council,
I am writing to formally express my concern and opposition to the recent decision to increase the Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) designation for my property at , Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 from high to very high. While I fully support the town’s efforts to mitigate fire risks, I believe this change is unnecessary, unfairly impacts my property, and lacks sufficient justification.

Key Points of Dispute:

1. Transparency and Process: The rationale for selecting specific parcels for increased severity was not clearly articulated in the public materials.

2. Insurance Implications: Even if the Insurance Commissioner’s office claims these maps do not currently affect rates, insurers may still use them as justification for future premium hikes or coverage denials. Given California’s ongoing insurance crisis, this could place undue strain on homeowners.

3. Lack of Tangible Benefits: Increasing severity designations does not come with additional funding or resources for mitigation. If the goal is improved safety, why not allocate more support to existing programs rather than imposing stricter (and potentially punitive) standards?
Requested Actions:

Reconsider the adoption of the state’s Cal Fire map, as it already reflects a scientifically validated risk level.

Sincerely,
Ching K Chow
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022

From: Andy Coan
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2025 12:49 PM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Increase in Property Fire Hazard Severity Levels Dear Members of the Los Altos Hills City Council,
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed reclassification of property fire hazard severity levels within our community. While I acknowledge the importance of proactive fire safety measures, I have concerns regarding the necessity and potential consequences of this reclassification.

Historical Fire Data and Risk Assessment
Historical data indicates that Los Altos Hills has experienced relatively few significant wildfires in recent decades. Notably, the Liddicoat Fire in 1985 was the last major wildfire event in our area, and since then, there have been minimal incidents of similar magnitude. This suggests that the current fire hazard severity levels have been effective in mitigating large-scale fire risks.

Economic Impact on Homeowners
Reclassifying properties to higher fire hazard severity zones can lead to increased insurance premiums and stricter building codes, imposing financial burdens on homeowners. According to the California Department of Insurance, properties in high or very high fire hazard severity zones often face challenges in obtaining affordable insurance coverage. This could disproportionately affect residents on fixed incomes or those with limited financial flexibility.

Existing Fire Prevention Measures
Our community has implemented several fire prevention initiatives, including:
· Defensible Space Requirements: As per Los Altos Hills Municipal Code 4-2.116, property owners are mandated to maintain a defensible space of 30 feet around structures to reduce fire risk.
· Vegetation Management Programs: The Los Altos Hills
County Fire District (LAHCFD) offers programs such as brush chipping and removal, weed abatement, and the Home Ignition Zone (HIZ) Assessment to assist residents in maintaining fire-safe properties.

These measures have contributed to our community's resilience against wildfires, and their continued enforcement should remain a priority.

Recommendations
Before proceeding with the proposed reclassification, I urge the Council to:

1. Request a Special Meeting of the Mayor: We
understand a special Council meeting will be required prior to June 13, 2025, to effectuate these changes.

2. Conduct a Comprehensive Risk Assessment: Utilize upto-date fire incident data and risk modeling to evaluate the necessity of reclassification.

2. Engage in Community Consultation: Facilitate public
forums to gather input from residents and address concerns regarding the potential impacts of reclassification.

3. Explore Alternative Mitigation Strategies: Focus on
enhancing existing fire prevention programs and community education initiatives to further reduce fire risks without altering property classifications.

In conclusion, while fire safety is paramount, any changes to property classifications should be based on thorough risk assessments and consider the economic implications for residents. I appreciate your attention to this matter and your commitment to the well-being of our community.

Sincerely,
Andy and Tiffany Coan
Los Altos Hills, CA 94024
References:
· Los Altos Hills Municipal Code 4-2.116: Defensible Space Requirements
· Los Altos Hills County Fire District Programs: Fire
Prevention Initiatives
· California Department of Insurance: Wildfire Insurance Information
Andy Coan
Hi Neighbors,
The Town Council did vote to increase the Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map affecting the rating for your property. Neighbor Allan Epstein sent me the list of properties affected and an email from the Los Altos Hills Info Team https://losaltoshills.info on what the changes mean and when the Map will come up for final approval by the Town Council.

Marj

On May 17, 2025, at 5:19 PM, allan epstein wrote:

Hi Marj,
Here is complete local list with changes.

APN

CAL FIRE
designation
Los Altos
Hills
Designation Address
33638038 moderate very high 12181 WINTON WY
33638037 moderate very high 12177 WINTON WY
33638036 moderate very high 12150 WINTON WY
33638035 moderate very high 12186 WINTON WY
33105026 moderate high 11535 HILLPARK LN
33105025 moderate high 11551 HILLPARK LN
33105024 moderate high 11555 HILLPARK LN
33105023 moderate high 11540 HILLPARK LN
33105022 moderate high 11559 HILLPARK LN
33105021 moderate high 11557 HILLPARK LN
33105020 moderate high 11556 HILLPARK LN
33105019 moderate high 11552 HILLPARK LN
33105018 moderate high 11534 HILLPARK L
33105043 moderate high
11555 ARROYO
OAKS
33105042 moderate high
11565 ARROYO
OAKS
33105041 moderate high
11569 ARROYO
OAKS
33105040 moderate high
11568 ARROYO
OAKS
33105039 moderate high
11566 ARROYO
OAKS
33115050 high very high 10755 MORA DR
33115023 high very high 10776 MORA DR
33115062 high very high 10758 MORA DR
33115060 high very high 10730 MORA DR
33115061 high very high 10728 MORA DR
33115021 high very high
33114063 high very high 10710 MORA DR
35108023 high very high
Below is body of INFO Email.

Thanks.

Best,
Allan
From: Los Altos Hills Info Team
https://losaltoshills.info

Hello,
This message is going to a number of residents in Los Altos Hills to alert you to the impact of a decision by the City Council related to your property.

On Thursday May 15, the Los Altos Hills City Council voted to increase the Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) designations of various properties in Los Altos Hills to the High or Very High categories. The town has an informational page on this issue.

The documents considered by the Council (including 13 public comments) can be found here (starting at page 431 of 511).

A list of impacted properties can be found here:
https://losaltoshillsca.portal.civicclerk.com/event/3884/files/attachment/12440 You are receiving this message because it appears that your property is on the list.

Here's a brief FAQ:

Q. What did the City Council need to do?
A. By law, the Council had two choices: adopt the state Cal Fire hazard map, OR use an alternate map with higher severities in certain areas. By law, the Council is prevented from adopting a map with lower severities than the state hazard map. The Council did not need to increase the severity of any areas but elected to do so.

Q. What did the City Council do?
A. After some discussion, the Council voted 3-1 (3 for, 1 against, with 1 recusal) to adopt the alternate higher severity map (developed by Town Staff). You can find a video recording of the meeting here . The Fire Map discussion starts at around the 33 minute mark. (There are currently problems playing the video but that is being addressed.) Approximately 50 parcels in town were impacted by the increased severities.

Q. Why did the Council elect to increase severity for certain areas? A. Among the reasons provided by Councilmembers who supported the increased severities, were the need to mitigate fire risks in town, and the desire to take action on an important safety issue. The Council declined to use other means (such as a town ordinance) to accomplish the same outcome, citing the additional staff time and resources that would require.

Q, What does this mean for me as a property owner?
A. The higher designations will result in stricter building code requirements, mandatory defensible space requirements, and real estate disclosure obligations.

See the LRA (Local Response Area) part of this link for details of the impact on different severity levels.

Q. Will the higher severities increase my insurance rates? A. Per the Insurance Commissioner's office, these maps do not affect insurance rates or availability because insurers use a much more fine-grained map and additional criteria. It is unclear whether these maps could impact insurance rates or availability in the future.

Q. What's next?
A. The Town needs to adopt either the state Fire Hazard map or the alternate map via two public meetings. The first meeting occurred on May 15. A second meeting on this topic is scheduled for June 18 at which time the decision will be final.

Q. Can the severity designations be changed?
A. Once adopted the severity ratings cannot be changed except after the state releases a fresh set of hazard maps (which is expected to occur annually).

Q. Can the Council reverse their decision?
A. For the Council to reverse the decision, they would need to hear from members of the community in significant numbers and feel compelled to hold another meeting prior to June 13.

Q. What should I do?
A. If you are fine with the severity increase, no action is necessary. If you prefer to have your property fire hazard severity level kept at the lower state level, you can contact the City Council at [email protected] with your concerns. Keep in mind that the Council is more likely to respond if confronted with new information or overwhelming public opposition.

Thank you.

Los Altos Hills Info Team
https://losaltoshills.info

Our community already has robust and effective fire prevention initiatives in place, which have significantly contributed to our resilience against wildfires:

Defensible Space Requirements: Los Altos Hills Municipal Code 4-2.116 mandates a 30-foot defensible space around structures, actively reducing fire risk.

Vegetation Management Programs: The Los Altos Hills County Fire District (LAHCFD) offers valuable programs such as brush chipping and removal, weed abatement, and the Home Ignition Zone (HIZ) Assessment. These programs empower residents to maintain fire-safe properties.

These existing measures are vital and their continued enforcement should remain our top priority.

Recommendations
Before proceeding with the proposed reclassification, I urge the Council to take the following steps:

Request a Special Meeting of the Mayor: We understand a special Council meeting will be required prior to June 13, 2025, to effectuate these changes. This meeting is critical for open discussion.

Conduct a Comprehensive Risk Assessment: Base any decisions on thorough and upto-date fire incident data and risk modeling.

Engage in Community Consultation: Facilitate public forums to gather direct input from residents, ensuring all concerns regarding potential impacts are heard and addressed.

Explore Alternative Mitigation Strategies: Focus on enhancing our already effective fire prevention programs and community education initiatives. We should prioritize further reducing fire risks without resorting to altering property classifications, which carries significant economic repercussions for residents.

Spending some more property tax money to address this issue if possible.

In conclusion, while fire safety is paramount, any changes to property classifications must be grounded in thorough risk assessments and fully consider the economic implications for our residents. I appreciate your attention to this critical matter and your ongoing commitment to the well being of our community.

Sincerely,
Prabhu Govindaswamy
CA 94024

A more balanced path forward:

1. Pause for a true risk study. Up to date incident maps, wind pattern modeling, and fuel load surveys should guide any reshuffle—not a one‑size‑fits‑all state template.

2. Hold a town hall series. Give residents a chance to see the data, ask questions, and suggest tweaks before classifications are locked in.

3. Soften Policies. When an oak tree fell in our property due to rains, the city made us plant 4 to replace it to get a planning approval for a remodel. Our property already has around 100 mature oaks (12 inch diameter or more) and we had to plant 4 more. Such aggressive “preservation” policies only increase the fuel available and worsen the situation.

Safety is everyone’s priority. But labels carry real‑world price tags, and we owe it to the community to be sure a reclassification will save more homes than it jeopardizes financially. Thank you for taking the time to weigh these concerns.

Warm regards,
Nara Rajagopalan. Los Altos Hills.

2. Conduct a Comprehensive Risk Assessment: Utilize up-to-date fire incident data and risk modeling to evaluate the necessity of reclassification.

2. Engage in Community Consultation: Facilitate public forums to gather input from residents and address concerns regarding the potential impacts of reclassification.

3. Explore Alternative Mitigation Strategies: Focus on enhancing existing fire prevention programs and community education initiatives to further reduce fire risks without altering property classifications.

In conclusion, while fire safety is paramount, any changes to property classifications should be based on thorough risk assessments and consider the economic implications for residents. I appreciate your attention to this matter and your commitment to the well-being of our community.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth Lee and Gordon Sakamoto
Los Altos Hills, CA 94024
References:

Los Altos Hills Municipal Code 4-2.116: Defensible Space Requirements Los Altos Hills County Fire District Programs: Fire Prevention Initiatives California Department of Insurance: Wildfire Insurance Information ---
Andy Coan

Los Altos Hills, California 94022

street.  Over 100 parcels are being moved into the High Risk category over and above the 50.  This inconsistency highlights the lack discipline and forthrightness on the part of the Planning Department.

This appears to be a deliberate understatement.  These additional parcels were not discussed at the Council meeting, leaving the Council members without the full facts.

The categorization system is inconsistent and not transparent.

Property owners were not notified.

We object to our property being reclassified.

We object to being identified with a blue dot when others on our street were not so identified.

Further, we object to our entire property being reclassified based on a tiny portion of out property being marked as a Very High Fire Risk by the State map when 99.7% of our parcel was declared to be of Moderate risk.  A similar parcel located at 23923 Jabil Lane also has a small corner designated by the State as being Very High Risk.  Unlike our property, that entire parcel has not been designated by Staff as Very High Fire Risk, another inconsistency.

We met with Jay Bradford on Tuesday, Thursday May 22.  We found the meeting to be frustrating and non-direct.  Without other recourse, we proposed granting that small portion to owner of an adjacent parcel which was declared Very High Risk by the State  and asked that our parcel not be reassigned.

He said he would consult with the Town Attorney and get back to us by May 30.  He did not.

The State of California does not require an entire parcel to be recategorized to a higher level if only a portion is considered risky.

This process has been rushed, flawed, inconsistent and non-transparent.  The Town is opening itself up to the risk of a class action suit.

We believe the Town should accept the State map at this time.   The Town has the power to adopt a new map later.  Meanwhile, ordinances and mitigation can be used to lower the risk factors.

And finally, the Town states that there will be no financial impact on the town.  However, there is tremendous impact on the members of the community who will find insurance even more difficult to obtain and will likely incur a 4.3% loss in the sales price of their home when compared to neighboring properties which are not required to declare location within high fire risk zones (Santa Barbara Independent.)  A decrease in property values and increase in insurance for part of the town is likely to hurt all residents of Los Altos Hills.

The Town is not listening to the residents.  Public comments indicates that residents are not in favor of this change.

If the Town proceeds with the proposed map, we insist our parcel to be excluded based on the evidence above.

Walter and Elizabeth Wilson

We thank you for your time and your dedication to the safety and well-being of our community. We’re proud to call Los Altos Hills our home, and we hope you’ll consider our perspective as you evaluate the best course forward.

Sincerely,
Azita & Farzin Shakib
Los Altos Hills, CA 94024

PROSPECT AVE

MIRANDA RD

NATOMA RD
BLACK

MOUNTAIN RD

LA LOMA DR

STONEBROOK
D
R

MAGDALENA RD

PURISSIMA RD

MAGDALENA RD

CHAPIN RD

PURISSIMA RD

SUMMIT WOODRD

VISCAINO RD

MIRANDA RD

PURISSIMA RD

BLACKMOUNTAI N RD

NATOMA RD

VISCAINO RD

LACRESTA DR

ROBL EDA RD

ELENA RD

ROBLEDA
RD

ESTACADA DR

VISCAINO RD

CAMINO HER
M
O
SO
BLACK

MOUNTAIN RD

ELENA RD

ALTAMONT RD

ALTAMONT RD

MAGDALENA RD

PURISSIMA RD

TEPA WAY

MANUELLA
RD

OLDALTOSRD

ALTAMONT RD

ROBLEDA RD

ELENA RD

ELENA RD

ROBLEDA RD

ELENA RD

ROBLEDA RD

MAGD A LENA RD

ELENARD

FREMONT RD

STONEBROOK DR

ELENA RD

ELENA RD

ROBLEDA RD

LA PALOMA RD

NATOMA RD
PU

RISSIMA RD

MAGDALENA RD

MAGDALENA RD

MANUELLA RD

CONCEPCI
O
N RD

PURISSIMA
RD

ST FRANCIS RD
ELENA
RD

LA PALOMA RD

ELENA RD

ROBLEDA
RD

ALTAMONT RD

VISCAINO RD

ROBLEDA
RD

ART LAUCHENBRUCH PATH

CHAPIN RD

ELENA RD

PURISSIMA RD

ALTAMONT RD

PURISSIMA RD

ALTAMONTRD

ALTAMONT RD

MUS M I T W OODRD

ELENA RD

LA CRESTA DR

CONCE PCION RD

LA PALOMA RD

LA PALOMA RD

BURKE RD

ST FRANCIS RD

LA CRESTADR

PURISSIMA RD

COLL E GE LOOP RD

MOON LN

SHERLOC
K RD

COLLEGE LOOP RD

RAVENSBURY AVE

VISTA DEL
VALL
E CT

SIMON LN

SUNSET DR

BYRNE PARK LN

LUCERO LN

NICOLELN

DAWSON DR

UNNAMED
STREET
RAVENS
AVE
BURY
ARROYO
OAKS

MOO D Y CT
APPAL
OOSA
WAY

LA BARRANCA
CT

ENCINAL C T

MULBERRY LN

HILLPARKLN

LUPINE RD

MAURER LN

RIDGEWOOD
LN

CANTATA WAY

TANGLEWOO D LN

CENTRAL DR
AP
OL

MINO PL
COLD

SPRINGLN

ESTRALITA PL

CORTEZ LN

NOR T HCREST
L N

AVILA CT

SUNRISE FA R M RD

WRIGHT WA Y

EL SI E CT

BELLA LADERA DR

BURKE LN

BEATRICE LN

CASA MIA WAY

S HERLOC K RD

RED ROCK DR

HOOP E R LN

RADCLIFFE LN

MOODY CT

FORK LN

SHERLOCK C T
OLD

SNAK E Y RD

THENDARA LN

JABIL LN
VINEDO
LN

VINEDO LN

CO LLEGELO
OP RD

YUBA LN

JARVIS WAY
M
RI M

RI OUDR

MARIA LN

ARROYOWAY

LA LOMA PL

KATE DR

TAAFFELN

SADDLE MOUNTA
NI DR

COLLEGE LOOP RD

LONE OAK LN
MA R
AI CT
BLUE

O AKS PL

REBECCA LN
NATOMA

OA K S LN

ELOISECIR

GERTH LN

C OUNTRY WAY

BUENA VISTA DR

FRANCEMONTDR

CENTRAL DR

UNNAMED STREET

MOON LN

SHERLO C KRD

BRENDEL DR
E
RB

NDEL DR
OKEEFE
LN

OKEEFE LN

ROBL EDA
CT

W LOY O L A
DR

WE STWIND
WAY

WILD C R EST
DR

A R ICLN

LABARRANCARD
BYRDLN

ADOBELN

JULIETTA
LN

VIA FELIZ

HILLVIEW DR

JOSEFA LN
LA

LOMA DR

DEBE L L
RD
ED
G
E
RTON
RD

ALMADEN CT

D AWSONDR

DAWNRIDGE DR

ESPER A NZA DR

OAK KNOLLC
RI
V

A VEN I TANA

NOR M ANDYLN

VISTA SERENA
OLD
PAG
E
MILL
RD

MORA DR
MAPLE
LEAF
CT
HIDDEN

SPRINGS
CT
LAURA
CT
TOYONI
TA RD
BARTON
CT

WINDSOR
CT

KENBAR RD

VISCAINO
RD

BERKSHI R EDR

OKEEFELN

BENTLEY
CT
BALERI

RANCH RD

TIARE WAY
LAUREL
LN

OLIV E TRE
E
L
N
W
LOYOLA
DR

HILLVIEW DR

MIRANDA
CT
BEA
LN
TRICE

TRACY CT

TRIPOLI CT

ESTACADA
WAY
ROBLE
ALTO
CT

N ATOMA
DR

HILL PARK
LN
OLIVE
TREE
LN
SCARFF
WAY
OLD

RANCH RD

ELMBERG
RDG

TEMPLETON
PL

CONEJOCT

ROBLEDACT

NA T OMARD

LA LOMA DR

LA LOMA CT
SEVEN

ACRES LN
OAK

KNOLL CIR

HOMSLEY PL
MI R
W

ANDA AY

SPRINGHILL
RD
ROBLE

VENENO LN

ESHNER CT

SAMUELL
N
DELSON
CT

UNNAMED
STREET

TERESA WAY
VIA

CORITACT
NEW

BRIDGE DR

PADRE CT

CLAUSEN CT

ADONNACT

HILL WAY

CARADO CT
BLACK

MOUNTAIN
RD
N ALTA
LN
FINN
LN

W LOYOLA DR

ELSIE WAY

TAAFFE RD

STONEBROOK
RD

TORELLO LN

ESPERANZA DR

ROBLE ALTO
OLIV
E
TRE
E
CT

DAWN LN
ALEJA
NDRO
DR

BAKER LN
OLD
RAN
CH
LN
SILENT

HILLS LN

BURKE RD

ALTAMONT CT

COWDEN PL
GIGLI
CT

LYNNDALE
WAY
Emerald Hill LN
CARIL
LO
LN

WESTWIND WAY

WIN TON WAY
RANCHO

MANUELLA LN
LOMITA

LINDA CT

VIA VEN
TANA

ANACAPA DR

MENALTO DR

JESS ICA LN

CAL LE DEL SOL

NATOMA RD

CAT H ARINECT
SADDLE

MOUNTAIND
R
CAMINO
MEDIO
LN

BE A VER LN

HORSESHOE
LN

MIRALOMA WAY

LIDDICOAT CIR

OLIV E TREELN

LEANDER DR

NOR T HCREST
LN

BUR K E
RD
LA
C

R E STA DR

UNNA MED
STREET

RAVENSBURY
AVE

MORA DR

ALTAMONT LN

DORI LN
ED

GECLIFF P
L
CRE

SCENT LN

VIA AIRLINERD
G R E
E
N

HI LLS CT

CRESTRIDGE DR

TERRYWAY

OLD C R O W RD

PRISCILLA LN

KATE DR

SALTAMONTES
WAY

ALEXIS DR
CORTE
MADERA
L
N

LA CRESTA
DR
ALTOVE
RD
E
LN

MANDOLI DR

CICER O NI LN
PASEO
ROB
DEL
LE

W EDITH AVE

KRISTE LN
SU
N
HIL
LS DR

EMERALD
HILLLN

FREMONT

PINESLN AT
H
E
RTO
N
C T

ALTADENA DR

WILD PLUM LN

VI S TA DEL

VALL E CT
M NI

ORCA CT

ORCHARD HILL LN

HILLTOP DR

ALEXANDER PL

ASCENSION DR

MATADERO

CREEK CT

SNELL LN

DEER CREEK LN

WILLOWPOND LN

STONEBROOK DR

TEPA WAY

BRIONES WAY

ALICANT E LN
BLACK

MOUNTAIN RD

WLOYOLA DR

RAVENSBURY AVE

PASEO DEL ROBLE

ALTA TIERRA RD

VIA CERROGORDO

CHAPARRA LWAY

BASSETTLN

PALOHILLSDR
SALTA
LN

RHODA DR

UNNAMED STREET

EL CAMINITO RD

TODD LN
DIANNE
DR

GOL DENHILL
CT

STIRRUPWAY

ALTA TIERRA RD

WILDCREST
D
R

SUMMITWOOD RD
NINAPL
ELLE

PRINCESS
ENA CT

ENCINAL CT

WLOYOLA DR
L E NN
X
O
WAY

STONEBROOK CT

ORTEGADR

QUAIL LN

KATE DR

MORA GLEN
D
R
VOGUE
CT

WESTRIDGE CT

LIDDICOAT
D
R
RAVE

N SBURY
AVE

CUMBRAVISTA CT

BLANDORWAY
M
URI

E T TA LN

ONEONTADR

MELODY LN

LA CRESTA CT

KINGSLEY AVE

REBECCALN

WESTON DR

DEERFIELD DR

LA LANNE CT

ROBLEB LANCO

TAAFFE RD

MORA DR

CANARIO
WAY

ARIC LN

PASEO DEL ROBLE
D
E
ER SPR
NI
GS WAY

SADDLE CT

CAMI NO HERMOSO

FOOTHI LL LN

MIDDLE FORK
LN
CA
MPO

VISTA L
N
CORBE
TTA LN

HILLTOP DR

LA BARRANCA RD

HILLTOPDR

OAK PARK CT

URSULA LN

RAVENSBURY AVE

N F ORK LN

AMHERST CT

MOODY CT

V ISCAINO
C
T

FERNHILLDR

TAAFFE RD

TAAFFE RD

HILLTOP DR

TAAF F E RD
S
ADDL E
MO

UNTA IN
DR

LA RENA LN

DUVALWAY

LUPINE RD

BYR D L N

OKEEFE LN

ADOBE LN

STONE B ROOKDR

ASCENSION DR

ANACAPA
DR

OKEEFE LN

ANACAPA
DR

MATADERO CREEK
L
N
JUL

EI TTA LN

VIA FELI Z

LIDDICOAT CIR

JOSEFA LN

LA LOMADR

DEZAHARA WAY

W S UNSET
DR
DE
BELLRD
BARLEY
HILL
RD

EDGERTON RD

E SUNS ET
DR

CHRISTOPHERS LN

ALMADEN CT

DAWSON DR

ROBLELADERA
RD

DAWNRIDGE DR
R

HUS RIDGE RD

ESPERANZADR

OAK KNOL L CIR
§¨¦280
§¨¦280
§¨¦280
§¨¦280
§¨¦280
§¨¦280
§¨¦280
§¨¦280
§¨¦280
§¨¦280
§¨¦280

FOOTHILL EXPY

FOOTHILL EXPY

MAGDALENA
AVE

MOODY RD

MOODY RD

MAGDALENA
AVE
MOODY
RD
MOODY
RD
MOODY
RD

FREMONT
RD
FRE
MONT
RD

MAGDALENA
AVE

FREMONT RD

FREMONT RD

FREMONT RD

MOODY RD

MOODY RD

FREMONTRD

ARASTRADERO RD

FREMONT RD
F

R E MONT
RD

FREMONT RD

MOODY RD

ARASTRADERO RD

ARASTRADERO RD

MOODY RD
PA
R
MILL
GE
D
PAGE
MILL
RD
PAGE
MILL
RD
PAGE
MILL
RD
PAGE
MILL
RD
EL

MONTE RD
S EL

MONTE AVE
PAGE
M ILL
RD

EL MONTE RD
PAGE

MILL RD

PAGE MILL RD

PAGEMILL RD

PAGE MILL RD

EL MONTE RD

EL MONTE RD

P AGE MILL
RD

PAGE MILL RD

PAGEMIL
L
RD
PAG
E

MILL RD

PAGE MILL RD
PAG
E

MILL RD

EL MONTE RD
May 14,2025 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
Presented May 15, 2025
Neighborhood
Collector
Arterial
Street Centerline
Town Limits
NonWildland
Moderate
High
Very High
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
.

Option 1
ITEM 3A ATTACHMENT 4

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

PROSPECT AVE

MIRANDA RD

NATOMA RD
BLACK
MOU

NTAIN RD

LA LOMA DR

STONEBROOK
D
R

MAGDALENA RD

PURISSIMA RD

MAGDALENA RD

CHAPIN RD

PURISSIMA RD

SUMMIT WOODRD

VISCAINO RD

MIRANDA RD

PURISSIMA RD

BLACK MOUNTAI N RD

NATOMA RD

VISCAINO RD

LA CRESTA DR

ROBL EDA RD

ELENA RD
RO
B
LEDA
RD

ESTACADA DR

VISCAINO RD

CAMINO H
E
R
M
O
SO
BLACK

MOUNTAIN RD

ELENA RD

ALTAMONT RD

ALTAMONT RD

MAGDALENA RD

PURISSIMA RD

TEPA WAY

MANUELLA
RD

OLD ALTOSRD

ALTAMONT RD

ROBLEDA RD

ELENA RD

ELENA RD

ROBLEDA RD

ELENA RD

ROBLEDA RD

MAGD A LENA RD

ELENA RD
FR
E
MON
T
RD

STONEBROOK DR

ELENA RD

ELENA RD

ROBLEDA RD

LA PALOMA RD

NATOMA RD
PU
RISS
I
MA RD

MAGDALENA RD

MAGDALENA RD

MANUELLA RD

CONCEPCI
O
N RD

PURISSIMA
RD
S
T

FRANCIS RD
E
L
ENA
RD

LA PALOMA RD

ELENA RD
RO
B
L
E
DA
RD

ALTAMONT RD

VISCAINO RD

ROBLEDA
RD

ARTLAUCHENBRUCH PATH

CHAPIN RD

ELENA RD

PURISSIMA RD

ALTAMONT RD

PURISSIMA RD

ALTAMONT RD

ALTAMONT RD

MUS M I

T W OODRD

ELENA RD

LA CRESTA DR
CO
N

CE PCION RD

LA PALOMA RD

LA PALOMA RD

BURKE RD

ST FRANCIS RD

LA CRESTADR

PURISSIMA RD

COLL E GE LOOP RD

MOON LN
SHE
RLOC
K RD

COLLEGE LOOP RD

RAVENSBURY AVE

VISTA DEL
VALL
E CT

SIMON LN

SUNSET DR

BYRNE PARK LN

LUCERO LN

NICOLELN
DAWSO
N DR

UNNAMED
STREET
RAVENS
AVE
BURY
ARROYO
OAKS

MOO D Y CT
APPAL
OOSA
WAY

LA BARRANCA
CT

ENCINAL C T
MU

LBERRY LN
H
I
L
L
PARKLN

LUPINE RD

MAURER LN

RIDGEWOOD
LN

CANTATA WAY

TANGLEWOO D LN
CENTRA
L DR
AP
OL

MINO PL
COLD
SPRI
NGLN

ESTRALITA PL

CORTEZ LN

NOR T HCREST
L N

AVILA CT

SUNRISE FA R M RD

WRIGHT WA Y
EL

SI E CT

BELLA LADERA DR

BURKE LN

BEATRICE LN

CASA MIA WAY

S HERLOC K RD

RED ROCK
DR

HOOP E R LN

RADCLIFFE LN

MOODY CT

FORK LN
SH

ERLOCK C T
O
L
D

SNAK E Y RD

THENDARA L
N

JABIL LN
VINEDO
LN

VINEDO LN

CO LLEGE
L
O
OP RD

YUBA LN

JARVIS WAY
M
RI
M
RI
OUDR

MARIA LN

ARROYO WAY

LA LOMA PL

KATE DR

TAAFFELN

SADDLE MO
U
N
TA
NI
DR

COLLEGE LOOP RD

LONE OAK LN
MA R
AI
CT
BLUE

O AKS PL

REBECCA LN
NATOMA

OA K S LN
ELOISE
CIR

GERTH LN

C OUNTRY WAY

BUENA VISTA DR

FRANCEMONTDR

CENTRAL DR

UNNAMED STREET

MOON LN

SHERLO C K RD

BRENDEL DR
ERB

NDEL DR
OKEEFE
LN

OKEEFE LN

ROBL EDA
CT

W LOY O L A
DR

WE STWIND
WAY

WILD C R EST
DR

A R ICLN

LA BARRANCA RD
BYRDLN

ADOBE LN
JUL
I
ETTA
LN

VIA FELIZ

HILLVIEW DR

JOSEFA LN
LA

LOMA DR

DE BE L L
RD
ED
G
E
RTON
RD

ALMADEN CT

D AWSONDR

DAWNRIDGE DR

ESPER A NZA DR

OAK KNOLLC
RI
V
A VEN
I
TANA

NOR M ANDY LN

VISTA SERENA
OLD
PAG
E
MILL
RD

MORA DR
MAPLE
LEAF
CT
HIDDEN

SPRINGS
CT
LAURA
CT
TOYONI
TA RD
BARTON
CT

WINDSOR
CT

KENBAR RD

VISCAINO
RD

BERKSHI R EDR

OKEEFELN

BENTLEY
CT
BALERI

RANCH RD

TIARE WAY
LAUREL
LN

OLIV E TRE
E
L
N
W
LOYOLA
DR

HILLVIEW DR

MIRANDA
CT
BEA
LN
TRICE

TRACY CT

TRIPOLI CT

ESTACADA
WAY
ROBLE
ALTO
CT

N ATOMA
DR

HILL PARK
LN
OLIVE
TREE
LN
SCARFF
WAY
OLD

RANCH RD

ELMBERG
RDG

TEMPLETON
PL

CONEJOCT

ROBLEDACT

NA T OMARD

LA LOMA DR

LA LOMA CT
SEVEN

ACRES LN
OAK

KNOLL CIR

HOMSLEY PL
MI R
W
ANDA
AY

SPRINGHILL
RD
ROBLE

VENENO LN

ESHNER CT

SAMUEL L
N
DELSON
CT

UNNAMED
STREET

TERESA WAY
VIA

CORITACT
NEW

BRIDGE DR

PADRE CT

CLAUSEN CT

ADONNA CT

HILL WAY

CARADO CT
BLACK

MOUNTAIN
RD
N ALTA
LN
F
I
NN
LN

W LOYOLA DR

ELSIE WAY

TAAFFE RD

STONEBROOK
RD

TORELLO LN

ESPERANZA
DR

ROBLE ALTO
OL
I
V
E
TRE
E
CT

DAWN LN
ALEJA
NDRO
DR

BAKER LN
OLD
RAN
CH
LN
SILENT

HILLS LN

BURKE RD

ALTAMONT CT

COWDEN PL
GIGLI
CT

LYNNDALE
WAY
Emerald Hill LN
CARIL
LO
LN

WESTWIND WAY

WIN TON WAY
RANCHO

MANUELLA LN
LOMITA

LINDA CT

VIA VEN
TANA

ANACAPA DR

MENALTO DR

JESS ICA
L
N

CAL LE DEL SOL

NATOMA RD

CAT H ARINE CT
SADDLE

MOUNTAIN DR
CAMINO
MEDIO
LN

BE A VER LN

HORSESHOE
LN

MIRALOMA WAY

LIDDICOAT CIR

OLIV E TREELN

LEANDER DR

NOR T HCREST
LN

BUR K E
RD
LA
C

R E STA DR

UNNA MED
STREET

RAVENSBURY
AVE

MORA DR

ALTAMONT LN

DORI LN
ED
GEC
L
I
FF P
L
CRE

SCENT LN

VIA AIRLINERD
G R E
E
N

HI LLS CT

CRESTRIDGE DR

TERRYWAY

OLD C R O W RD

PRISCILLA LN

KATE DR

SALTAMONTES
WAY

ALEXIS DR
CORTE
MADERA
L
N

LA CRESTA
DR
ALTOVE
RD
E
LN

MANDOLI DR

CICER O NI LN
PASEO
ROB
DEL
LE

W EDITH AVE

KRISTE LN
SU
N
H
I
L
LS DR

EMERALD

HILL LN

FREMONT

PINESLN AT
H
E
RTO
N
C T

ALTADENA DR

WILD PLUM LN

VI S TA DEL

VALL E CT
M NI

ORCA CT

ORCHARD HILL LN

HILLTOP DR

ALEXANDER PL

ASCENSION DR

MATADERO

CREEK CT

SNELL LN

DEER CREEK LN

WILLOW POND LN

STONEBROOK DR

TEPA WAY

BRIONES WAY

ALICANT E LN
BLACK

MOUNTAIN RD

W LOYOLA DR

RAVENSBURY AVE

PASEO DEL ROBLE

ALTA TIERRA RD

VIA CERRO GORDO

CHAPARRA LWAY

BASSETTLN

PALO HILLS DR
SALTA
LN

RHODA DR

UNNAMED STREET

EL CAMINITO RD

TODD LN
DIANNE
DR

GOL DENHILL
CT

STIRRUPWAY

ALTA TIERRA RD

WILDCREST
D
R

SUMMITWOOD RD
NINAPL
ELLE

PRINCESS
ENA CT

ENCINAL CT

W LOYOLA DR
L E NN
XO
WAY

STONEBROOK CT

ORTEGADR

QUAIL LN

KATE DR

MORA GLEN
D
R
VOGUE
CT

WESTRIDGE CT

LIDDICOAT
D
R
RAVE

N SBURY
AVE

CUMBRA VISTA CT

BLANDORWAY
M
URI

E T TA LN

ONEONTADR

MELODY LN

LA CRESTA CT

KINGSLEY AVE

REBECCALN

WESTON DR

DEERFIELD DR

LA LANNE CT

ROBLE B LANCO

TAAFFE RD

MORA DR

CANARIO
WAY

ARIC LN

PASEO DEL ROBLE
D
E
ER SPR
NI
GS WAY

SADDLE CT
CAM
I

NO HERMOSO

FOOTHI LL LN

MIDDLE FORK
LN
CA
MPO
V
I
STA L
N
CORBE
TTA LN

HILLTOP DR

LA BARRANCA RD

HILLTOPDR

OAK PARK CT

URSULA LN

RAVENSBURY AVE

N F ORK LN

AMHERST CT

MOODY CT

V ISCAINO
C
T

FERNHILLDR

TAAFFE RD

TAAFFE RD

HILLTOP DR

TAAF F E RD
S
ADDL E
MO

UNTA IN
DR

LA RENA LN

DUVALWAY

LUPINE RD
BYR D
L N

OKEEFE LN

ADOBE LN

STONE B ROOK DR

ASCENSION
DR

ANACAPA
DR

OKEEFE LN

ANACAPA
DR

MATADERO CREEK
L
N
JUL
E
I
TTA LN

VIA FELI Z

LIDDICOAT CIR

JOSEFA LN

LA LOMA DR

DEZAHARA WAY

W S UNSET
DR
DE

BELL RD
BARLEY
H
I
L
L
RD

EDGERTON RD

E SUNS ET
DR

CHRISTOPHERS LN

ALMADEN CT

DAWSON DR

ROBLE LADERA
RD

DAWNRIDGE DR
R

HUS RIDGE RD

ESPERANZADR

OAK KNOL L CIR
§¨¦280
§¨¦280
§¨¦280
§¨¦280
§¨¦280
§¨¦280
§¨¦280
§¨¦280
§¨¦280
§¨¦280
§¨¦280

FOOTHILL EXPY

FOOTHILL EXPY

MAGDALENA
AVE

MOODY RD

MOODY RD

MAGDALENA
AVE
MOODY
RD
MOODY
RD
MOODY
RD

FREMONT
RD
FRE
MONT
RD

MAGDALENA
AVE

FREMONT RD

FREMONT RD

FREMONT RD

MOODY RD

MOODY RD

FREMONTRD

ARASTRADERO RD

FREMONT RD
F

R E MONT
RD

FREMONT RD

MOODY RD

ARASTRADERO RD

ARASTRADERO RD

MOODY RD
PA
R
MILL
GE
D

PAGE MILL
RD
PAGE
MILL
RD
PAGE
MILL
RD
PAGE
MILL
RD
EL

MONTE RD
S EL

MONTE AVE
PAGE
M ILL
RD

EL MONTE RD
PAGE

MILL RD

PAGE MILL RD

PAGE MILL RD

PAGE MILL RD

EL MONTE RD

EL MONTE RD

P AGE MILL
RD

PAGE MILL RD

PAGE MIL
L
RD
PAG
E

MILL RD

PAGE MILL RD
PAG
E

MILL RD

EL MONTE RD
May 13,2025 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
May 15, 2025
Neighborhood
Collector
Arterial
Street Centerline
Town Limits
NonWildland
Moderate
High
Very High
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
.
!
Properties Subject to
Local Modification
ITEM 3A Attachment 5

City and County boundaries as of 10/22/24 (CA Board of Equalization) CAL FIRE State Responsibility Areas (SRA25_1)
CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZSRA23_3, FHSZLRA_25_1) Data Sources:

Daniel Berlant, State Fire Marshal, CA Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Joe Tyler, Director/Fire Chief, CA Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Wade Crowfoot, Secretary for Natural Resources, CA Natural Resources Agency The State of California and the Department of Forestry and Fire Gavin Newsom, Governor, State of California Protection make no representations or warranties regarding the accuracy of data or maps. Neither the State nor the Department shall be liable under any circumstances for any direct, special, incidental, or consequential damages with respect to any claim by any user or third party on account of, or arising from, the use of data or maps. and other relevant factors including areas where winds
have been identified by the Office of the State Fire Marshal as a major cause of wildfire spread.
statewide criteria and based on the severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas. Moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones shall be based on fuel loading, slope, fire weather, Government Code section 51178 requires the State Fire
Marshal to identify areas in the state as moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones based on consistent Waterbody
Unzoned LRA
Incorporated City
Projection: NAD 83 California Teale Albers
Scale: 1:31,000 at 11" x 17"
Km 0 1 2
Mi 0 1
Very High High Moderate
Very High High Moderate
Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) in Local Responsibility Area (LRA), as Identified by the State Fire Marshal
Los Altos
Hills
280

UNINCORPORATED
SANTA
CLARA CO.

UNINCORPORATED
SANTA CLARA CO.

CUPERTINO

LOS ALTOS

PALO ALTO MOUNTAIN VIEW

PALO ALTO
February 24, 2025
As Identified by the
State Fire Marshal
Local Responsibility Area
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
CITY OF LOS ALTOS HILLS – SANTA CLARA COUNTY
Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility
Area (SRA), Effective April 1, 2024
ITEM 3A ATTACHMENT 6

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

PROSPECT AVE

MIRANDA RD

NATOMA RD
BLACK
MOU

NTAIN RD

LA LOMA DR

STONEBROOK
D
R

MAGDALENA RD

PURISSIMA RD

MAGDALENA RD

CHAPIN RD

PURISSIMA RD

SUMMIT WOODRD

VISCAINO RD

MIRANDA RD

PURISSIMA RD

BLACK MOUNTAI N RD

NATOMA RD

VISCAINO RD

LA CRESTA DR

ROBL EDA RD

ELENA RD
RO
B
LEDA
RD

ESTACADA DR

VISCAINO RD

CAMINO H
E
R
M
O
SO
BLACK

MOUNTAIN RD

ELENA RD

ALTAMONT RD

ALTAMONT RD

MAGDALENA RD

PURISSIMA RD

TEPA WAY

MANUELLA
RD

OLD ALTOSRD

ALTAMONT RD

ROBLEDA RD

ELENA RD

ELENA RD

ROBLEDA RD

ELENA RD

ROBLEDA RD

MAGD A LENA RD

ELENA RD
FR
E
MON
T
RD

STONEBROOK DR

ELENA RD

ELENA RD

ROBLEDA RD

LA PALOMA RD

NATOMA RD
PU
RISS
I
MA RD

MAGDALENA RD

MAGDALENA RD

MANUELLA RD

CONCEPCI
O
N RD

PURISSIMA
RD
S
T

FRANCIS RD
E
L
ENA
RD

LA PALOMA RD

ELENA RD
RO
B
L
E
DA
RD

ALTAMONT RD

VISCAINO RD

ROBLEDA
RD

ARTLAUCHENBRUCH PATH

CHAPIN RD

ELENA RD

PURISSIMA RD

ALTAMONT RD

PURISSIMA RD

ALTAMONT RD

ALTAMONT RD

MUS M I

T W OODRD

ELENA RD

LA CRESTA DR
CO
N

CE PCION RD

LA PALOMA RD

LA PALOMA RD

BURKE RD

ST FRANCIS RD

LA CRESTADR

PURISSIMA RD

COLL E GE LOOP RD

MOON LN
SHE
RLOC
K RD

COLLEGE LOOP RD

RAVENSBURY AVE

VISTA DEL
VALL
E CT

SIMON LN

SUNSET DR

BYRNE PARK LN

LUCERO LN

NICOLELN
DAWSO
N DR

UNNAMED
STREET
RAVENS
AVE
BURY
ARROYO
OAKS

MOO D Y CT
APPAL
OOSA
WAY

LA BARRANCA
CT

ENCINAL C T
MU

LBERRY LN
H
I
L
L
PARKLN

LUPINE RD

MAURER LN

RIDGEWOOD
LN

CANTATA WAY

TANGLEWOO D LN
CENTRA
L DR
AP
OL

MINO PL
COLD
SPRI
NGLN

ESTRALITA PL

CORTEZ LN

NOR T HCREST
L N

AVILA CT

SUNRISE FA R M RD

WRIGHT WA Y
EL

SI E CT

BELLA LADERA DR

BURKE LN

BEATRICE LN

CASA MIA WAY

S HERLOC K RD

RED ROCK
DR

HOOP E R LN

RADCLIFFE LN

MOODY CT

FORK LN
SH

ERLOCK C T
O
L
D

SNAK E Y RD

THENDARA L
N

JABIL LN
VINEDO
LN

VINEDO LN

CO LLEGE
L
O
OP RD

YUBA LN

JARVIS WAY
M
RI
M
RI
OUDR

MARIA LN

ARROYO WAY

LA LOMA PL

KATE DR

TAAFFELN

SADDLE MO
U
N
TA
NI
DR

COLLEGE LOOP RD

LONE OAK LN
MA R
AI
CT
BLUE

O AKS PL

REBECCA LN
NATOMA

OA K S LN
ELOISE
CIR

GERTH LN

C OUNTRY WAY

BUENA VISTA DR

FRANCEMONTDR

CENTRAL DR

UNNAMED STREET

MOON LN

SHERLO C K RD

BRENDEL DR
ERB

NDEL DR
OKEEFE
LN

OKEEFE LN

ROBL EDA
CT

W LOY O L A
DR

WE STWIND
WAY

WILD C R EST
DR

A R ICLN

LA BARRANCA RD
BYRDLN

ADOBE LN
JUL
I
ETTA
LN

VIA FELIZ

HILLVIEW DR

JOSEFA LN
LA

LOMA DR

DE BE L L
RD
ED
G
E
RTON
RD

ALMADEN CT

D AWSONDR

DAWNRIDGE DR

ESPER A NZA DR

OAK KNOLLC
RI
V
A VEN
I
TANA

NOR M ANDY LN

VISTA SERENA
OLD
PAG
E
MILL
RD

MORA DR
MAPLE
LEAF
CT
HIDDEN

SPRINGS
CT
LAURA
CT
TOYONI
TA RD
BARTON
CT

WINDSOR
CT

KENBAR RD

VISCAINO
RD

BERKSHI R EDR

OKEEFELN

BENTLEY
CT
BALERI

RANCH RD

TIARE WAY
LAUREL
LN

OLIV E TRE
E
L
N
W
LOYOLA
DR

HILLVIEW DR

MIRANDA
CT
BEA
LN
TRICE

TRACY CT

TRIPOLI CT

ESTACADA
WAY
ROBLE
ALTO
CT

N ATOMA
DR

HILL PARK
LN
OLIVE
TREE
LN
SCARFF
WAY
OLD

RANCH RD

ELMBERG
RDG

TEMPLETON
PL

CONEJOCT

ROBLEDACT

NA T OMARD

LA LOMA DR

LA LOMA CT
SEVEN

ACRES LN
OAK

KNOLL CIR

HOMSLEY PL
MI R
W
ANDA
AY

SPRINGHILL
RD
ROBLE

VENENO LN

ESHNER CT

SAMUEL L
N
DELSON
CT

UNNAMED
STREET

TERESA WAY
VIA

CORITACT
NEW

BRIDGE DR

PADRE CT

CLAUSEN CT

ADONNA CT

HILL WAY

CARADO CT
BLACK

MOUNTAIN
RD
N ALTA
LN
F
I
NN
LN

W LOYOLA DR

ELSIE WAY

TAAFFE RD

STONEBROOK
RD

TORELLO LN

ESPERANZA
DR

ROBLE ALTO
OL
I
V
E
TRE
E
CT

DAWN LN
ALEJA
NDRO
DR

BAKER LN
OLD
RAN
CH
LN
SILENT

HILLS LN

BURKE RD

ALTAMONT CT

COWDEN PL
GIGLI
CT

LYNNDALE
WAY
Emerald Hill LN
CARIL
LO
LN

WESTWIND WAY

WIN TON WAY
RANCHO

MANUELLA LN
LOMITA

LINDA CT

VIA VEN
TANA

ANACAPA DR

MENALTO DR

JESS ICA
L
N

CAL LE DEL SOL

NATOMA RD

CAT H ARINE CT
SADDLE

MOUNTAIN DR
CAMINO
MEDIO
LN

BE A VER LN

HORSESHOE
LN

MIRALOMA WAY

LIDDICOAT CIR

OLIV E TREELN

LEANDER DR

NOR T HCREST
LN

BUR K E
RD
LA
C

R E STA DR

UNNA MED
STREET

RAVENSBURY
AVE

MORA DR

ALTAMONT LN

DORI LN
ED
GEC
L
I
FF P
L
CRE

SCENT LN

VIA AIRLINERD
G R E
E
N

HI LLS CT

CRESTRIDGE DR

TERRYWAY

OLD C R O W RD

PRISCILLA LN

KATE DR

SALTAMONTES
WAY

ALEXIS DR
CORTE
MADERA
L
N

LA CRESTA
DR
ALTOVE
RD
E
LN

MANDOLI DR

CICER O NI LN
PASEO
ROB
DEL
LE

W EDITH AVE

KRISTE LN
SU
N
H
I
L
LS DR

EMERALD

HILL LN

FREMONT

PINESLN AT
H
E
RTO
N
C T

ALTADENA DR

WILD PLUM LN

VI S TA DEL

VALL E CT
M NI

ORCA CT

ORCHARD HILL LN

HILLTOP DR

ALEXANDER PL

ASCENSION DR

MATADERO

CREEK CT

SNELL LN

DEER CREEK LN

WILLOW POND LN

STONEBROOK DR

TEPA WAY

BRIONES WAY

ALICANT E LN
BLACK

MOUNTAIN RD

W LOYOLA DR

RAVENSBURY AVE

PASEO DEL ROBLE

ALTA TIERRA RD

VIA CERRO GORDO

CHAPARRA LWAY

BASSETTLN

PALO HILLS DR
SALTA
LN

RHODA DR

UNNAMED STREET

EL CAMINITO RD

TODD LN
DIANNE
DR

GOL DENHILL
CT

STIRRUPWAY

ALTA TIERRA RD

WILDCREST
D
R

SUMMITWOOD RD
NINAPL
ELLE

PRINCESS
ENA CT

ENCINAL CT

W LOYOLA DR
L E NN
XO
WAY

STONEBROOK CT

ORTEGADR

QUAIL LN

KATE DR

MORA GLEN
D
R
VOGUE
CT

WESTRIDGE CT

LIDDICOAT
D
R
RAVE

N SBURY
AVE

CUMBRA VISTA CT

BLANDORWAY
M
URI

E T TA LN

ONEONTADR

MELODY LN

LA CRESTA CT

KINGSLEY AVE

REBECCALN

WESTON DR

DEERFIELD DR

LA LANNE CT

ROBLE B LANCO

TAAFFE RD

MORA DR

CANARIO
WAY

ARIC LN

PASEO DEL ROBLE
D
E
ER SPR
NI
GS WAY

SADDLE CT
CAM
I

NO HERMOSO

FOOTHI LL LN

MIDDLE FORK
LN
CA
MPO
V
I
STA L
N
CORBE
TTA LN

HILLTOP DR

LA BARRANCA RD

HILLTOPDR

OAK PARK CT

URSULA LN

RAVENSBURY AVE

N F ORK LN

AMHERST CT

MOODY CT

V ISCAINO
C
T

FERNHILLDR

TAAFFE RD

TAAFFE RD

HILLTOP DR

TAAF F E RD
S
ADDL E
MO

UNTA IN
DR

LA RENA LN

DUVALWAY

LUPINE RD
BYR D
L N

OKEEFE LN

ADOBE LN

STONE B ROOK DR

ASCENSION
DR

ANACAPA
DR

OKEEFE LN

ANACAPA
DR

MATADERO CREEK
L
N
JUL
E
I
TTA LN

VIA FELI Z

LIDDICOAT CIR

JOSEFA LN

LA LOMA DR

DEZAHARA WAY

W S UNSET
DR
DE

BELL RD
BARLEY
H
I
L
L
RD

EDGERTON RD

E SUNS ET
DR

CHRISTOPHERS LN

ALMADEN CT

DAWSON DR

ROBLE LADERA
RD

DAWNRIDGE DR
R

HUS RIDGE RD

ESPERANZADR

OAK KNOL L CIR
§¨¦280
§¨¦280
§¨¦280
§¨¦280
§¨¦280
§¨¦280
§¨¦280
§¨¦280
§¨¦280
§¨¦280
§¨¦280

FOOTHILL EXPY

FOOTHILL EXPY

MAGDALENA
AVE

MOODY RD

MOODY RD

MAGDALENA
AVE
MOODY
RD
MOODY
RD
MOODY
RD

FREMONT
RD
FRE
MONT
RD

MAGDALENA
AVE

FREMONT RD

FREMONT RD

FREMONT RD

MOODY RD

MOODY RD

FREMONTRD

ARASTRADERO RD

FREMONT RD
F

R E MONT
RD

FREMONT RD

MOODY RD

ARASTRADERO RD

ARASTRADERO RD

MOODY RD
PA
R
MILL
GE
D

PAGE MILL
RD
PAGE
MILL
RD
PAGE
MILL
RD
PAGE
MILL
RD
EL

MONTE RD
S EL

MONTE AVE
PAGE
M ILL
RD

EL MONTE RD
PAGE

MILL RD

PAGE MILL RD

PAGE MILL RD

PAGE MILL RD

EL MONTE RD

EL MONTE RD

P AGE MILL
RD

PAGE MILL RD

PAGE MIL
L
RD
PAG
E

MILL RD

PAGE MILL RD
PAG
E

MILL RD

EL MONTE RD
May 13,2025 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
Presented May 15, 2025
Neighborhood
Collector
Arterial
Street Centerline
Town Limits
NonWildland
Moderate
High
Very High
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
.
!
Properties Subject to
Local Modification
ITEM 3A Attachment 7

FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE

DISCUSSION

RAJIV BHATEJA

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JUNE 18, 2025
ITEM 3A Supplemental 1

TIMELINE
• The State Fire Marshall published Fire Hazard Map, the “State Map” on February 24, 2025 • The “State Map” defines Fire Hazard Severity Zones rating areas in town Moderate, High or Very High
• By law, the town has to approve an ordnance adopting either the State Map or an alternate map, the “Town Map” within 120 days (June 24, 2025)
• The Town Map can increase severities but cannot lower them vs. the State Map • Town staff developed a “Town Map” that increased severities on 50 parcels from Moderate to High or Very High; or High to Very High.
• The ordinance requires majority Council votes and readings (waived) at two meetings • Barring a referendum (by at least 10% of voters) the ordinance takes effect in 30 days • On May 15, 2025 the City Council voted 3-1 to adopt the Town Map (Mayor Tankha recused) • Today is the 2nd meeting

MAPS
STATE MAP TOWN ADDITIONS (50 Blue Dots)

CONFLATING HAZARD WITH RISK…
❖ Definition of Hazard
❑ Fire Hazard Severity maps evaluate “hazard,” not “risk”. ❑ They are like flood zone maps, where lands are
described in terms of the probability level of a particular area being inundated by floodwaters
❑ State Fire Hazard maps are based on natural conditions:
“fire history, existing and potential fuel (natural
vegetation), predicted flame length, blowing
embers, terrain, and typical fire weather.” [Source:

OSFM]
❑ Hazard does not consider access, defensible space,
code requirements, building/structure risk, mitigation
measures or rescue challenges
❖ Gov. Code 51180.

CHAPTER 6.8. Moderate, High, and Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zones
❑ For the purposes of Division 3.6 (commencing with
Section 810) of Title 1, vegetation removal or
management, undertaken in whole or in part, for fire
prevention or suppression purposes shall not be deemed
to alter the natural condition of public property. This section shall apply only to natural conditions of public property

TOWN CRITERIA
HAZARD
RISK

TOWN MAP: ISSUES
❖ Town erred by using RISK factors (vs HAZARD factors) developing the Town Map ❑ Evacuation/Emergency Access
❑ Road Widths
❑ Distance from resources
❑ Operational concerns
➢ Thus: Town Map is NOT a Hazard Map
❖ This is a fundamental flaw
❑ Uses irrational / inconsistent criteria (vs. state requirements) ❑ Exposes us to a legal challenge
❑ If adopted and challenged legally or by referendum, we won’t have an adopted map ❖ State Map is based on science, simulations, computer modeling, extensive studies ❖ Town map is a less objective standard
❖ Safer to adopt the State Map

NOTIFICATION CONCERNS
❖ 100+ parcels uprated based on slivers/portions of higher severity:

NO NOTIFICATION!

NEARBY LOCAL GOVERNMENT DECISIONS

ADOPTED THE STATE MAP
❑ Atherton
❑ County of Santa Clara
❑ County of San Mateo
❑ Cupertino
❑ Hillsborough
❑ Los Gatos
❑ Monte Sereno
❑ Palo Alto
❑ Portola Valley
❑ San Jose
❑ Saratoga
❑ Woodside

ADOPTED A DIFFERENT MAP
Los Altos Hills

INSTEAD OF TARGETING HOMEOWNERS
❖ Targeting 50 properties puts a “scarlet letter” on a few homes, victimizes a few homeowners. ➢ Unfair to burden a few homeowners with unnecessary disclosure requirements ❖ What would we do if we really wanted to improve fire safety? ➢ We wouldn’t focus on burdening 50 parcels with disclosure requirements ➢ Prioritize, inspect and incentivize defensible space everywhere in town ➢ Work with LAHCFD ($40M+ reserves) to eliminate excess vegetation on public lands ➢ This would address fire safety AND insurance
➢ Leverage work done by staff via a town-wide ordinance for defensible space ❖ This would do much more to defend property values AND availability of insurance town-wide ❖ EPRC: Adopt State Map AND add town-wide ordinance to increase resilience, enforcement ❖ Fires are highly unpredictable and do not follow maps. Requires a systemic (vs. localized) approach. ➢ Alta Dena was a moderate hazard area
➢ Last three fires in town, on Page Mill Rd, Old Ranch Lane were equipment-related. Liddicoat was arson. ➢ ALL other local governments are using the State Map. Why aren’t we?

IN CLOSING…
Karen Chi
Chanh Chi
Courtenay Corrigan
Peggy Lizaur
Tom Goff
Eric Evans
Arvind Purushotham
Chandan Sonecha
Sandhya Prabhakara
Prabhu Govindaswamy
Monal Sonecha
Craig Hansen
Susan Barnes (for Judith
Klein)
Mina Malek
Hubert Altendorfer
Ann Minooka
Lolith Chollete
Sunita Sethi
Joe Siudzinski
Yinging Zhao
Dave Stewart
Donald McCauley
Ashu Gupta
Alexei Tumarkin
Dana Stalder
Pedro Lizaur
Jimmy Lo
Greta Hamm
Doug Morgan
Paul Tsui
Bud Cristal
Elizabeth Wilson
Walt Wilson
Amir Abbas Sadeghian
Paul Tsui
Bud Cristal
Elizabeth Wilson
Walt Wilson Asif Iqbal
Gerda Cristal
Colin Earl
Marj Green
Aparna Reddy
Azita Shakib
Farzin Shakib
Tom Green
Bridget Morgan
Ching Chow
Gary Dorchak
Ryan Knauss
Andy Coan
Anupam Bordia
Surbhi Bordia
Sanquan Song
Pirooz Parvarandeh
Rosemarie Nahm
Nara Rajagopalan
Pankaj Raghuvanshi
Kranti Singh
Esther John
Roddy Sloss
Laura Mozer
❖ This is a difficult issue, emotions can run high
❖ Acknowledge differences
❖ Discuss respectfully
❖ Healthy debate, constructive discourse
❖ Fires are hot. Debates don’t have to be!
Residents Who Wrote Letters for State Map

From:

To:

Subject:

Date:
11!!11
LAH Staff is confused about hazard vs risk
Wednesday, June 11, 2025 6:48:33 PM
Dear City Council,
ITEM 3A, PUBLIC COMMENT
During yesterday's EPRC meeting it became clear that LAH Town Staffrecommendations were based on an apparent confusion about FHSZ principles. California State makes a point in sti·essing the distinction between hazards and risks, therefore any considerations such as location of the prope1ties within cul-de-sacs should not have been grounds for recategorizations. Here is a direct quote from the state:
"Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps evaluate "hazard," not "risk". They are like flood zone maps, where lands are described in tenns of the probability level of a paiticular area being inundated by floodwaters, and not specifically prescriptive of impacts. "Hazai·d" is based on the physical conditions that create a likelihood and expected fire behavior over a 30 to 50-yeai· period without considering mitigation measures such as home hai·dening, recent wildfire, or fuel reduction effo1ts. "Risk" is the potential damage a fire can do to the ai·ea under existing conditions, accounting for any modifications such as fuel reduction projects, defensible space, and ignition resistant building construction."
https • 1/osfm fire ca gov/what-we-do/comm1wity-wjldfire-pre.paredness-and-miti gation/firehazard-severity-zones I urge you to suppo1t the State's proposal without proposed modifications.

Yours,
Alexei Tumai·kin
Los Altos Hills, CA

From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

LAH City Council:
l!!P
Concerns Over Moody Q's Fire Risk Reclassification
Wednesday, June 11, 2025 10:44:02 PM
ITEM 3A, PUBLIC COMMENT
At a recent May 15th LAH council meeting, our neighborhood-along with Moody Rd and Sherlock Rd (approximately 50 homes)---was reclassified from a High to a "Ve1y High" fire risk zone in a 3-1 vote. 1bis change could have serious consequences, including:
in a 3-1 vote. 1bis unfair change could have serious consequences, including:
-Increased difficulty securing home insurance ( or higher premiums) - Potential negative impact on prope1ty values
- No additional fire mitigation suppo1t from the town (historically, our area has not received bmsh cleanup or fire prevention services)
Best,
Lohith

ITEM 3A, PUBLIC COMMENT
From:

To: 119
Subject: Fire Hazard Severity Map
Date: Thursday, June 12, 2025 10:08:07 AM
We are writing to oppose increasing the fire hazard severity level beyond that established by the CalFire Map. We do not believe increasing the severity level for the 50 affected properties will materially affect their risk of harm from a major fire, while it most certainly will impose the cost of implementing additional mitigation measures and either paying far higher fire insurance premiums or having that insurance cancelled entirely.

The CalFire map was adopted after careful analysis and recommendation of experts. We urge you to follow the lead of adjacent cities of Cupertino, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno and Saratoga and adopt the original CalFire Map for Los Altos Hills.

From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

ITEM 3A, PUBLIC COMMENT
111!!!9ty Council
Re: Opposition to Potential Proposed Increase in Fire Hazard Severity Zone Designation Saturday, June 14, 2025 8:59:45 AM
Dear Council Members and Planning Commission,
This note is a follow-up to my May 5 letter after fmther consideration of all the public and city council deliberations on this matter in Los Altos Hills as well as similar deliberations in neighboring communities.

While my own property isn't affected by the vote that was recently taken, I remain concerned as a member of this community about the additional regulatory burden being placed on select homeowners, with uncertain long-term consequences.

After reviewing the full video of the council's discussions, it was clear that several thoughtful alternatives were raised by residents. Unfortunately, these were ultimately seemed to be set aside more due to expedience and time pressure than a genuine effo1i to fully consider the best solution for all homeowners.

It's also wo1th noting that our staff and council are heading in a different direction than all of our neighboring communities, who have chosen not to adopt additional designations beyond the CAL FIRE maps.

I continue to encourage the Council to reconsider and pursue a path that balances safety, fairness, and the long-te1m interests of the entire collllllunity.

Thank you,
Dana Stalder
On Mon, May 05, 2025 at 12:28 PM, Dana Stalde-> wrote:

Dear Members of the Los Altos Hills City Coun�nent,
I am writing as a concerned homeowner regarding the proposed reclassification of my prope1iy's Fire Hazard Severity Zone by the City Council beyond CAL FIRE's cmTent baseline designation. My home would be impacted by several of your proposed scenarios, including Option 2A, which focuses on fuels, landscape and strnctural hardening along collectors
While I support thoughtful fire risk mitigation, I am deeply concerned that increasing the severity zone for my prope1iy--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.

From:

To: City Council
Subject: Fire Severity Zones
Date: Sunday, June 15, 2025 9:04:10 AM
Dear Vice Mayor Bhateja, Council-members Mok, Tyson and Swan My wife and I are Los Altos Hills residents (52 years) and we are writing to express our strong opposition to the proposal to increase the fire severity zone designations for 50 parcels beyond those already included in the Cal Fire 2025 Fire Hazard Severity Zone map.

The State requires the Town to adopt Cal Fire’s map which is based on decades of science and wildfire expertise. However, the Town is not required to add more parcels and no neighboring city has done so. Reclassifying additional properties will unfairly burden homeowners with increase construction costs, disclosure requirements, and very like increased insurance costs.

It does not necessarily increase abatement methods which many, most homeowners are already doing, or are willing to do.

We respectfully urge you to adopt the Cal Fire map as-is and reject the staff recommendation to up zone additional parcels. Let’s focus on meaningful wildfire safety policies that are community supported and data driven.

Thank you for your consideration
Edward Cristal
Gerda Cristal
ITEM 3A, PUBLIC COMMENT

From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:
--Jay Bradford
Correcting factual error in Council Packet for June 18th meeting Sunday, June 15, 2025 1:32:22 PM
ITEM 3A, PUBLIC COMMENT
On pages 6 & 7 of Mr. Bradford's staff report it says, "Two EPRC members disclosed that their properties would be affected by the proposed designations. Both chose to participate in the discussion."
In fact, my property is rated as Very High Severity on the Cal Fire map, and therefore would not "be affected", regardless of any possible map choice. I have no conflict of interest, as implied by the subsequent paragraphs of the staff rep01t.

I chose to participate in the discussion and vote based on my experience as a Firewise leader for Loma Wood, and my understanding of the law and options as presented by Mr. Bradford in 3 prior meetings. I have the utmost respect for his experience and opinions, but we disagree on the need for a more severe map.

Dave Stewart
EPRC member
Los Altos Hill resident
Loma Wood Firewise co-lead

From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:
1111
�
City Council
MENT] City Council Meeting June 18 2025 Item 2A
Sunday, June 15, 2025 1:34:01 PM
Dear Sir/Madam,
ITEM 3A, PUBLIC COMMENT
I am submitting the following public comment for Item 2A (Waive Reading and Adopt an Ordinance of the Town of Los Altos Hills designating Fire Hazard Severity Zones):

My name is Yinqing Zhao and I am a LAH resident. On May 15, 2025, the Los Altos Hills City Council voted 3-1 to adopt an alternate Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) map, increasing fire hazard designation of my house beyond the level determined by the State of California's Cal Fire map. I had never been contacted by the City regarding this change before the decision was made. Moreover, this action was not required by state law. This alternate designation results in: (1) stricter and costly building resti·ictions, (2) increased sale disclosure obligations negatively impacting my house value; (3) potential future insurance coverage and premium increase, even insurance policy cancellation.

While I fully suppo1t responsible fire safety measures, I do believe this decision unfairly burdens me as a house owner, lacks sufficient community engagement, and bypasses alternative means to promote safety without pennanent designations.

I object to the above decision to change fire hazard zones and respectfully urge the City Council to: (1) Reverse the May 15, 2025, decision; (2) adopt the official Cal Fire hazard map; (3) engage in fuither ti·ansparent dialogue with affected homeowners.

Thank you!
Yinqing

From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Re: LAH staff is confused about hazard vs risk
Saturday, June 14, 2025 8:07:05 PM
ITEM 3A, PUBLIC COMMENT
More on the fire hazard vs risk from the academic publications. None of the factors that Staff is trying to bring into the discussion (Diablo winds, embers, evacuation routes, etc.) are relevant to the State's and fire community's accepted definition of hazards.

Wildland fire hazard and risk: Problems, definitions, and context: Colin C. Hardy Forest Ecology and Management 2005
The term 'hazard' must only be used to express the state of the fuel complex. 'Hazard' refers to the state of the fuel, exclusive of weather or the environs in which the fuel is found. It applies only to the fuel itself, expressed for an instant or period of time, and does not include the weather or environs in which the fuel is distributed. The implications of this are not trivial. We know that to cause and sustain fire requires fuel, heat and oxygen; we also know that fire behavior is affected by fuel, weather, and topography. In either case, fuel is only one of three components required to predict or characterize fire.

In the business of fire management, the term 'fire risk' refers only to the chance (probability) of ignition of a spreading fire, and does not address values or damages. 'Hazard' is a fire-centric term, and is independent of weather. https://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/FireForestEcology/FireScienceResearch/FireEcology/FireEcoloqyHardy05.pdf On Wed, Jtm 11, 2025 at 6:48 PM Alexei Tumarkin
Dear City Council,
wrote:

During yesterday's EPRC meeting it became clear that LAH Town Staff recommendations were based on an apparent confusion about FHSZ principles. California State makes a point in stressing the distinction between hazards and risks, therefore any considerations such as location of the properties within cul-de-sacs should not have been grotmds for recategorizations. Here is a direct quote from the state:
"Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps evaluate "hazard," not "risk". They are like flood zone maps, where lands are described in terms of the probability level of a particular area being inundated by floodwaters, and not specifically prescl'iptive of impacts. "Hazard" is based on the physical conditions that create a likelihood and expected fire behavior over a 30 to 50-year period without considering mitigation measures such as home hardening, recent wildfire, or fuel reduction efforts. ''Risk" is the potential damage a fire can do to the area tmder existing conditions, accounting for any modifications such as fuel reduction projects, defensible space, and ignition resistant building construction." htq,?s://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-pr�aredness-and-mitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones I urge you to support the State's proposal without proposed modifications.

Yours,
Alexei Tumarkin

From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:
6/17/2025
--
Peter Pimejaa
Arika Miller
Opposition letter
Tuesday, June 17, 2025 12:21:49 AM
Mayor Tankha
Vice Mayor Bhateja
Councilmember Mok
Councilmember Tyson
Councilmember Swan
ITEM 3A, PUBLIC HEARING
Re: Strong Opposition to Expanding Fire Severity Designation Beyond Cal Fire M.il2
I am a long-term resident of Los Altos Hills, having lived here for 19 years, and I am writing to register my unequivocal opposition to your proposal to expand the fire severity zone designation for 50 parcels-two of which I own-beyond the boundaries already established in the Cal Fire 2025 Fire Hazard Severity Zone map.

Frankly, I am compelled to ask: why my two properties, and the others, were singled out by the Town for reclassification into the "High Fire Severity Zone"? What compels the Town to impose a designation that exceeds the requirements set by the State of California? What is the "why?" There is no discernible benefit to the residents whose properties are targeted here. This reclassification does nothing to further mitigate fire risk for us. One could ask, would this make the fire risk worse for us if the higher risk designation served to influence the fire fighters from spending resources on our property in an emergency and instead bypassing us for a lower fire zone designation? So, again: who stands to gain from this? It is certainly not the property owners.

Your duty as Town Council is to serve your residents and our community. This proposal amounts to a "downzoning" of our land, reducing property values without justification. Such a significant change demands a transparent public process that includes direct engagement with affected property owners. Yet, I was neither

consulted nor invited to participate in any meaningful discussion. There was no adequate notification to me, no opportunity for thoughtful discourse, and no chance to challenge the rationale behind this decision before it was pushed forward.

It is also perplexing that three of my immediate neighbors—whose properties are adjacent to mine—are not listed by address in this reclassification. Our subdivision is new, with homes built to WUI standards between 2016 and 2018. The roadway, constructed in 2010, is fully accessible to emergency vehicles, and Foothill fire crews drive their truck to us and have toured our properties annually. They have consistently remarked on our high level of fire preparedness, even suggesting that my property, due to its defensibility and accessibility, would be ideal as an emergency command center during a fire event.

Moreover, both my properties
are equipped with exterior Class A fire foam systems that can be activated automatically or manually in the event of a fire threat. The effectiveness of this system is proven: during the recent Palisades fire, 62 out of 64 homes equipped with this same system survived unscathed. This is not theoretical—it is a matter of record.

Instead of imposing arbitrary and excessive designations, the Town should engage with residents who have invested in real, effective fire mitigation. I urge you to reconsider this proposal, respect the established Cal Fire map, and fulfill your responsibility to act in the best interests of your constituents by voting NO.

Regrettably, I am unable to attend the meeting Wednesday as my travel plans were made prior to and without the benefit of any formal notification from the Town that this matter was pending.

Sincerely,
Gary Wimmer
Los Altos Hills CA 94022

From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Attachments:

Tuesday, June 17, 2025 4:23:53 PM
image001.png
2025.06.17 - FHSZ Legal Memo Hillpark Lane.pdf
CALFIRE - I.AH Town Map Comparison.pdf
Dear Town of Los Altos Hills- City Council:

ITEM 3A, PUBLIC COMMENT
endments to CAL ARE Hazard Severity Maps
Please see the attached memorandum offered in anticipation of tomorrow night's town meeting on the proposed Ordinance to Designate Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

I, myself, am a Los Altos Hills resident on Hill park Lane. For the reasons stated in the attached memorandum, I strongly oppose the proposal to adopt local amendments to the FHSZ map established by CALFIRE -particularly those that unfairly and arbitrarily target the Hillpark Lane residents and community.

Best,
Craig Alan Hansen
ID ��!':J.�E.�
San Jose, CA 95113
This message and all attachments are a private communication sent by a law firm and may be confidential or protected by privilege. If you received this message in error, please note that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the information contained in or attached to this message is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender of the delivery error by replying to this message, and then delete it from your system. Thank you.

MEMORANDUM
Date: June 17, 2025
To: Town of Los Altos Hills – City Council
From: Craig Alan Hansen
Re: Legal Basis for Challenging Local Amendments to CAL FIRE Hazard Severity Maps
I. Executive Summary
The Town of Los Altos Hills proposes to adopt a modified Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) map that increases hazard designations for several areas—including Hillpark Lane—from “Moderate” to “High.” This action constitutes a local amendment to the CAL FIRE map pursuant to Government Code § 51179(b), which requires that such changes be supported by “findings supported by substantial evidence.” The CAL FIRE map was itself derived from a comprehensive, science-based model. This memo evaluates whether the Town’s findings meet the legal threshold for substantial evidence and outlines the basis for a potential legal challenge.

II. The Governing Statutes and Scope of Local Authority Government Code § 51178 requires the State Fire Marshal to classify areas into Very High, High, or Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) based on scientific modeling of “hazard,” defined as the likelihood and behavior of wildfire based on physical conditions over a 30- to 50-year period, excluding local mitigation efforts such as defensible space or home hardening.

Government Code § 51179(b)(2) permits local agencies to include additional areas in high or moderate FHSZs, provided such action is based on “local conditions.” However, this statutory discretion is not unfettered. The Town must demonstrate:
• That the added severity designations are grounded in evidence, consistent with the statutory intent, and
• That such designations are applied evenhandedly and not arbitrarily or capriciously.

III. Legal Standard: “Substantial Evidence”
Under California law, “‘Substantial evidence” means “evidence which, when viewed in light of the entire record, is of solid probative value, maintains its credibility and inspires confidence that the ultimate fact it addresses has been justly determined.” People v. Lehman (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 795, 804.

2 Substantial evidence is not synonymous with uncorroborated opinion, generalized fears, or speculative future harms.

IV. The Town’s Claimed Substantial Evidence
According to the June 18, 2025 City Council Packet, the Town relies on the following as justification for increasing hazard designations:

1. Topography & Vegetation: Steep slopes and dense vegetation allegedly make Hillpark Lane more susceptible to wildfire spread.

2. Evacuation Challenges: Narrow roads and limited access cited as impeding emergency response.

3. Climatic Factors: Dry seasons and wind events (e.g., Diablo winds) increase fire potential.

4. Scientific Input: References to Dr. Stephen Quarles’ ember cast modeling and NASA FireSafe Council research.

5. Recent Fire: A June 11, 2025 fire on Roble Blanco Court is presented as evidence of urgency.

V. Challenges to the Sufficiency of This Evidence
To date, the Town has provided no technical study or independent scientific justification supporting the redesignation of the 50 targeted properties. By contrast, the State map— developed using comprehensive hazard models—classifies these same properties as “Moderate.”
If the Town adopts a higher designation without substantial evidence, it may be in violation of the “substantial evidence” standard under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1085 and 1094.5, exposing the ordinance to reversal via writ of mandate.

1. Contradiction with CAL FIRE Map
The CAL FIRE map designates Hillpark Lane as “Moderate.” CAL FIRE used a standardized, statewide model evaluating slope, vegetation, wind exposure, and historical fire patterns. The Town must show not merely a difference in judgment, but new or superior localized evidence.

2. No Specific Data for Hillpark Lane
The Town presents generalized data and anecdotal reports. There is no parcel-specific analysis showing:

3 - Fire behavior modeling on Hillpark Lane
- Comparative risk between Hillpark and unmodified Moderate areas - Fuel load measurements or slope-specific maps tied to Hillpark

3. Misapplication of Risk vs. Hazard
As noted by residents and CAL FIRE guidance:
“FHSZ maps evaluate hazard, not risk. ‘Hazard’ is the likelihood of fire behavior over 30–50 years without mitigation... ‘Risk’ accounts for defensible space and construction.” The Town appears to justify increased designations based on emergency access and mitigation efforts—which are elements of risk, not hazard. These do not meet the statutory criteria for increasing hazard designations.

4. Inconsistency with Other Jurisdictions
Other cities—including Cupertino, Los Gatos, Saratoga, and Monte Sereno—adopted the CAL FIRE map without upward modifications, even where similar or more severe conditions exist. This undermines the claim that Los Altos Hills is uniquely vulnerable.

VI. Legal Exposure for the Town
A challenge under Code of Civil Procedure § 1085 (traditional mandamus) or § 1094.5 (administrative mandamus) could argue that:
• The Town abused its discretion or acted arbitrarily in classifying Hillpark Lane as “High” without substantial evidence.
• The designation imposes financial burdens without a rational basis and violates equal protection where similar properties are treated differently. • The Town relied on improper factors (evacuation risk) not contemplated by the hazard-based statute.

Additionally, homeowners may assert inverse condemnation claims if the designation causes significant property devaluation through insurance unavailability or regulatory burdens.

1. Arbitrary and Unequal Treatment
The proposal affects a small subset of homes, without a consistent standard for inclusion or exclusion. If similarly situated properties are excluded from the new

4 designation, this may constitute a violation of equal protection under the California Constitution (Cal. Const. Art. I, § 7), particularly if the classification:
• Is not rationally related to a legitimate public purpose, and • Results in disparate impacts on insurance availability, resale value, or disclosure obligations.

As noted on the accompanying CALFIRE – LAH Town FHZS Map Comparison, the CALFIRE FHZS map treated Hillpark Lane equally with adjacent properties with a transition zone of HIGH to MODERATE to LOW. Conversely, the proposed LAH FHZS Map places Hillpark Lane in a HIGH FHZS – with no accompanying “LOW” FHZS transition zone – unlike all adjacent properties. There is no rational or scientific reason for the Town to single out Hillpark Lane in such an arbitrary and capricious manner.

2. Misapplication of “Hazard” vs. “Risk”
State guidance clearly distinguishes “hazard” (a map designation) from “risk” (a policy consideration based on human behavior and mitigation). The record indicates that Town staff and certain councilmembers are advocating a “higher severity” map based on evacuation concerns, human ignition sources, and fuel load management—all of which pertain to risk, not hazard.

This conflation undermines the legal basis for map-based reclassification under § 51178, which does not permit local agencies to factor in mitigation or policy goals when designating hazard zones.

3. Property Value and Inverse Condemnation Risk
A high FHSZ designation:
• Triggers mandatory disclosure obligations (see Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1102.6c, 1103),
• Increases insurance costs or limits availability (see Cal. Ins. Code § 10083.2), and
• Potentially depresses real estate values.

In certain cases, courts have entertained inverse condemnation or regulatory takings claims where government action impairs a property’s marketability without adequate justification. While difficult to win, such claims raise potential exposure to liability.

5 IV. Alternative Measures Available to the Town
If the Town’s intent is to enhance wildfire preparedness and public safety, it may do so through ordinances requiring mitigation, enforcement of defensible space requirements, or improvements to egress infrastructure—without altering the hazard designation.

This approach aligns with the practices of other cities—Cupertino, Los Gatos, Saratoga, and Monte Sereno—which have adopted the State maps without applying local upzoning.

VI. Conclusion and Recommendation
The Town’s record lacks parcel-specific substantial evidence to support the reclassification of Hillpark Lane from “Moderate” to “High.” The justification appears to conflate hazard and risk, relies heavily on generalized commentary, and lacks rigorous comparison with similarly situated areas. A well-grounded legal challenge— emphasizing procedural irregularity and evidentiary deficiency—has a reasonable chance of success.

While the Town has legal discretion to increase fire hazard severity designations under § 51179, such discretion must be exercised carefully, transparently, and in compliance with statutory limits. The current proposal appears to lack evidentiary grounding, applies inconsistently to similarly situated homes, and may expose the Town to litigation risk from affected homeowners.

Recommendation:

The Council should decline to adopt the proposed ordinance in its current form. Instead, it should adopt the State Fire Marshal’s hazard map and separately pursue mitigation strategies through targeted regulation and community engagement.

CALFIRE – LAH Town FHZS Map Comparison

ITEM 3A, PUBLIC COMMENT
From:

To:
-
City Council
Subject: Special meeting June 18 at 6 PM
Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 4:30:55 PM
Dear Members of the Los Altos Hills City Council,
I am writing to express my strnng opposition to the proposed reclassification of prope1iy fire hazard severity levels within our collllllunity. While I fully suppo1i proactive fire safety, I have significant concerns about the necessity and potential negative consequences of this reclassification. Also, I was there at one of the meetings and I kindly request to not mix this hazard severity levels with other concerns like low volunteering involvements, map availability and new home buyer training. Those can be achieved in different fomms and no need for increasing the hazard severity levels for achieving the same.

Historical Fire Data and Risk Assessment
Los Altos Hills has a collllllendable record of fire safety. Historical data shows relatively few significant wildfires in recent decades. The last major wildfire, the Liddicoat Fire, occuned in 1985. Since then, we've seen minimal incidents of similar scale. This suggests that our current fire hazard severity levels have been effective in mitigating large-scale fire risks. Before any reclassification, a comprehensive risk assessment using up-to-date fire incident data and modeling is cmcial to objectively evaluate its necessity.

Economic Impact on Homeowners
Reclassifying properties to higher fire hazard severity zones would inevitably lead to increased insurance premiums and stricter building codes, placing a substantial financial burden on homeowners. The California Department of Insurance has clearly stated that prope1iies in high or ve1y high fire hazard severity zones often snuggle to secure affordable insurance. This could dispropo1iionately affect residents on fixed incomes and those with limited financial flexibility, undermining the financial stability of many in our community.

Existing Fire Prevention Measures
Our COilllllllllity ah-eady has robust and effective fire prevention initiatives in place, which have significantly conti·ibuted to our resilience against wildfires:
• Defensible Space Requirements: Los Altos Hills Municipal Code 4-2.116 mandates a 30-foot defensible space arOlmd sti11ctures, actively reducing fire risk. • Vegetation Management Programs: The Los Altos Hills County Fire District (LAHCFD) offers valuable programs such as bmsh chipping and removal, weed abatement, and the Home Ignition Zone (HIZ) Assessment. These programs empower residents to maintain fire-safe prope1iies.

These existing measures are vital and their continued enforcement should remain our top priority.

Recommendations
Before proceeding with the proposed reclassification, I urge the Council to take the following steps:

Request a Special Meeting of the Mayor: We understand a special Council meeting will be required prior to June 13, 2025, to effectuate these changes. This meeting is critical for open discussion.

Conduct a Comprehensive Risk Assessment: Base any decisions on thorough and up-to-date fire incident data and risk modeling.

Engage in Community Consultation: Facilitate public forums to gather direct input from residents, ensuring all concerns regarding potential impacts are heard and addressed.

Explore Alternative Mitigation Strategies: Focus on enhancing our already effective fire prevention programs and community education initiatives. We should prioritize further reducing fire risks without resorting to altering property classifications, which carries significant economic repercussions for residents.

Spending some more property tax money to address this issue if possible.

In conclusion, while fire safety is paramount, any changes to property classifications must be grounded in thorough risk assessments and fully consider the economic implications for our residents. I appreciate your attention to this critical matter and your ongoing commitment to the well-being of our community.

Sincerely,
Prabhu Govindaswamy
CA 94024

ITEM 3A, PUBLIC COMMENT
To:

From: _,...

Subject: Special meeting June 18 at 6 PM
Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2025 4:32:56 PM
Dear Esteemed Members of the Los Altos Hills City Council, I am writing to you today to voice my strnng opposition to the proposed reclassification of prope1iy fire hazard severity levels within our cherished community. While I fully recognize and suppo1i the critical impo1iance of proactive fire safety, I have profound concerns regarding the necessity, justification, and severe potential consequences of this reclassification.

Our Proven Track Record: Historical Fire Data and Risk
Assessment
Los Altos Hills has a remarkably strong histo1y of fire safety. Decades of historical data unequivocally show that our community has experienced very few significant wildfires.

The last major event, the Liddicoat Fire, occuned in 1985. Since then, incidents of comparable magnitude have been virtually non-existent. This compelling evidence strongly suggests that our current fire hazard severity levels, coupled with existing prevention efforts, have been highly effective in mitigating large-scale fire risks. Any reclassification must be based on a tmly comprehensive, data-driven risk assessment utilizing the most cunent fire incident data and advanced risk modeling, not on assumptions or outdated infonnation.

The Unacceptable Economic Burden on Homeowners
The reclassification of properties into higher fire hazard severity zones would impose an unacceptable and immediate financial burden on Los Altos Hills homeowners. This change would inevitably lead to:
• Soaring Insurance Premiums: Prope1iies in high or ve1y high fire hazard severity zones consistently face immense challenges in securing affordable, or even any, insurance coverage, as highlighted by the California Depa1iment of Insurance. • Stricter, Costly Building Codes: New and more stringent building requirements would add significant, often prohibitive, expenses to home maintenance, renovations, and new construction.

This financial sti·ain would dispropo1iionately impact our residents, especially those on fixed incomes or with limited financial flexibility, threatening the long-te1m affordability and stability of homeownership in Los Altos Hills.

Our Robust and Effective Existing Fire Prevention
Measures
Our community is not passive; we are proactive. We ah-eady have a comprehensive and highly

effective framework of fire prevention initiatives that have demonstrably contributed to our resilience:

Mandatory Defensible Space: Los Altos Hills Municipal Code 4-2.116 legally mandates property owners to maintain a crucial 30-foot defensible space around structures, a cornerstone of fire risk reduction.

Proactive Vegetation Management Programs: The Los Altos Hills County Fire District (LAHCFD) offers invaluable programs, including brush chipping and removal, weed abatement, and the essential Home Ignition Zone (HIZ) Assessment. These programs actively assist residents in maintaining fire-safe properties and foster a culture of preparedness.

These established measures are the bedrock of our community's wildfire defense. Their continued rigorous enforcement and enhancement should be the absolute priority, not a costly and potentially unnecessary reclassification.

Urgent Recommendations for Council Action
Given the gravity of this proposal, I strongly urge the City Council to take the following critical steps before proceeding with any reclassification:

1. Immediate Special Meeting Request: We understand a special Council meeting is required prior to June 13, 2025, to implement these changes. I formally request that this meeting be called promptly to allow for thorough public discourse and transparency.

2. Conduct an Independent, Comprehensive Risk Assessment: Commission an objective, third-party assessment using the latest fire incident data, climate modeling, and localized risk factors to truly evaluate the necessity and impact of reclassification.

3. Mandate Extensive Community Consultation: Organize multiple public forums, workshops, and accessible feedback channels to genuinely gather input from all residents. Our community deserves to be heard and have its concerns directly addressed.

4. Prioritize Alternative Mitigation Strategies: Instead of reclassification, focus resources and efforts on significantly enhancing our existing, proven fire prevention programs, expanding community education initiatives, and investing in strategic infrastructure improvements that reduce fire risks without financially penalizing homeowners.

In closing, while fire safety remains paramount, any fundamental changes to property classifications must be predicated on irrefutable evidence, a transparent process, and a deep understanding of the profound economic implications for our residents. I trust that you will give this matter the serious consideration it deserves and prioritize the well-being and financial stability of the Los Altos Hills community.

Sincerely,
Sandhya Gurajala Prabhakara
, Los Altos Hills, CA 94024

From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Attachments:

Hello Alika,
-r
Request to have slides shown on the screen this evening Wednesday, June 18, 2025 10:11:45 AM
OPTION 3 - Cal Fire Base Map Agenda item 7a - CAL FIRE Map .pdf TOWNS" OPTION 1 MODIFIED CAL FIRE MAP.pdf
Town Option 2 Map with Blue Dots.pdf
ITEM 3A, PUBLIC COMMENT
I would like to request that the following slides be posted on the screen while I address the Council this evening for the 5 o'clock Fire Hazard Zone Map meeting.

Best regards,
Eric Evans

From: Laura Mozer
To: City Council
Subject: Fire severity map
Date: Wednesday, June 18, 2025 12:24:10 PM
Dear Los Altos Hills City Council Members,
Unfortunately, I can't attend the meeting tonight. But I am asking you to please vote for keeping the CalFire rating and not increase the ratings on 50 houses. CalFire is the expert on this matter. All the adjoining towns adopted the CalFire ratings. You are forcing certain houses to have a harder time staying insured. And wasting tax payer money on hiring other people to rate houses.

Thank you for reevaluating this issue and adopting the CalFire ratings.

Laura Mozer
LAH
ITEM 3A PUBLIC COMMENT
Distributed 06.18.2025

From: Courtenay C. Corrigan
To: City Council
Subject: Fire maps
Date: Wednesday, June 18, 2025 10:37:51 AM
Dear Mayor Tankha and esteemed council members,
I’d like to add my voice to those of the many neighbors opposing the council’s support of anything beyond the mandatory Cal fire map. I am very thankful for the generous time that staff spent explaining this issue to me yesterday and understand the enormous amount of work and effort that has gone into their proposal. However, I remain committed to the notion that LAH residents must take responsibility for fire mitigation throughout ALL of town. Arbitrary lines complicate this. Cal Fire’s map is unfortunate in and of itself, but to add additional properties beyond what they are demanding seems arbitrary and unfortunately penalizes individual neighbors who are at no greater or no worse risk than many others.

Again, I want to thank staff for their time yesterday, but I remain firmly convinced that fire mitigation starts with individual homeowners. My greatest concern is that insurance and property values will be dramatically impacted on properties that are included. Why add additional restrictions to select homeowners?
Best wishes with this complicated discussion tonight. I’ll be eager to see what you guys decide to do.

Thank you,
Courtenay
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
ITEM 3A, PUBLIC COMMENT

TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS

MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 18, 2025
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Thomas Leung, Finance Director
APPROVED: Peter Pirnejad, City Manager
RE: Follow-Up on Budget Questions from May 22, 2025 Joint Study Session BACKGROUND:

The annual budget serves as the Town’s primary financial planning tool, aligning resources with priorities and establishing the operating and spending framework for the fiscal year.

As required by Municipal Code 2-3.219, the City Manager is responsible for presenting a proposed budget to the City Council that ensures adequate funding for ongoing services and operations.

The proposed FY 2025–26 budget has undergone multiple reviews leading up to adoption, including a preview to the FIC on May 5, a joint City Council/FIC study session on May 22, and a follow-up FIC discussion on June 2.

Answers to questions from the City Council and FIC (or individuals therein) are provided below.

DISCUSSION:

Budget Changes
Q1: What changes have been made to the budget?
A: See full list of adjustments made in May 19 and June 18 versions, including updates to fund balances, positions, revenue estimates, and contract services.

May 19, 2025 version:
• Town-wide Fund Summary (Page 46)
o Added Pension Trust (restricted)
o Updated beginning and ending fund balances
• Town-wide Financial Summary (Page 47)
o Updated beginning and ending fund balances
• Financial and Personnel Allocations Summaries (Page 43) o Updated Miscellaneous Pathways Budget (-$50k)

Memo to City Council
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget Informational Update
June 18, 2025
• Capital Improvement Plan Summary and Funding Source (Page 140) o Updated Miscellaneous Pathways Budget (-$50k)
June 18, 2025 version:
• Update RMRA and Gas Tax revenue estimates (+$11.8K)
• Convert Assistant Community Development Director to 2 Planners (+$151.3K) • Remove Law Enforcement consultant (-$60K)
• Remove West Valley Substation budget (-$30K)
• Update private security budget (+$50K)
• Update Bank Fees estimate (-$20K)
• Update Emergency Services Manager budget (-$30K)
• Update Sewer Assessment Charges revenue (+$167K)
• Update Special Events revenue (+$17.5K)
• Update Parks revenue (+$51.7K)
• Update Rentals revenue (+$57.1K)
• Update Water Franchise Fees Revenue (+14K)
• Allocate investment income to all funds (allocate $232K to other funds in FY 2025-26)
• Add Fire Services consultant (+$35K)
• Update and Allocate Unrealized Gain/Loss to all funds • Incorporate updated Cost Allocation Plan – TBD
• Alternative Site Study – TBD
Q2: What are the major FY’25 Budget vs. Actual variances, and what are the implications for FY’26?
A: Staff will address these variances in the ACFR and mid-year update. Revenues are expected to come in higher and expenditures lower than projected in the FY 2024–25 budget.

Q3: Were there mid-year changes to the FY’25 Budget that should be documented or adjusted for before year-end?
A: Yes, the City Council approved the purchase of a utility truck using funds from the Vehicle and Equipment Reserve and increased the budget for the Housing Element.

Q4: Why do total expenditures not equal total revenues in some departments? Why is General Fund support no longer shown at the department level like prior years? A: In prior budgets, a “General Fund Support” line was added or allocations were adjusted to make departmental revenues match expenditures. For FY 2025–26, we are following best practices by showing actual revenues and expenditures. Any shortfall for General Fund departments is funded by General Fund resources and reflected at the fund level, rather than forcing revenues to match expenditures within each department.

Revenues
Q5: If a new pathway impact fee is implemented, will the budget be updated? A: Yes, revenue projections will be updated accordingly in future budget cycles or through mid-year amendments.

Memo to City Council
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget Informational Update
June 18, 2025
Q6: Are General Fund revenue assumptions for FY’26 realistic (e.g., 5.7% Property Tax increase, Use of Money, Water Franchise Fees)?
A: Yes, the revenue assumptions are reasonable. The 5.7% Property Tax growth aligns with projections from the Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office and HdL, the Town’s property tax consultant.

Use of Money projections are realistic. Investment income continues to perform well due to elevated interest rates and the addition of a sweep account that captures earnings on idle cash balances. However, investment income remains sensitive to monetary policy shifts. While the Federal Reserve has held rates steady through mid-2025, market consensus now anticipates three quarter-point rate cuts beginning in September 2025, driven by moderating inflation and signs of softening in the labor market. The Town’s investment income projections incorporate these anticipated reductions, consistent with current futures market expectations.

For FY 2025–26, interest earnings are projected using varying assumptions to reflect each investment type’s sensitivity to rate changes. CAMP is budgeted at 3.75%, below its current 4.15% yield, with a weighted average maturity of 995 days that helps preserve higher returns as rates decline. LAIF is budgeted at 2.9%, below its current 4.3% yield, with a 233-day maturity that makes it more sensitive to rate cuts. The Wells Fargo Sweep account is budgeted at 2.6%, below its 4.2% yield and 43-day maturity, and is expected to reprice quickly with market changes. This approach balances strong current performance with a realistic outlook for declining yields. Total investment income is projected to be $961,000.

Water Franchise Fees have been increased to align with current year actuals.

Q7: What is the status of ERAF volatility risk, and how is it budgeted? A: The Town is monitoring Excess ERAF closely. A court date is set for September 30, 2025, and the State Controller has not yet begun an audit of Santa Clara County.

Although up to 18% of ERAF revenue may be at risk, no budget adjustment has been made at this time.

Q8: Should unrealized investment gains be included and are interest earnings allocated appropriately across funds?
A: Unrealized investment gains are excluded from the budget, in line with best practices, as they do not represent actual, spendable income. Interest earnings are proportionally allocated across all funds based on average balances. Unrealized gains and losses are reported in prior year actuals to reflect full investment performance, which is consistent with the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR).

Q9: Is Planning and Building revenue reasonable based on FY’25 actuals? A: FY 2024-25 building revenue is currently lower than in prior years; however, not all revenue owed to the Town has been collected or recorded to date. Revenues are expected to increase in FY 2025-26 due to higher collection efficiency, continued development activity, and implementation of updated fees following the new fee study. The addition of a Management Analyst in the Community Development Department will further improve cost recovery through better tracking, billing, and timely revenue collection. Staff will

Memo to City Council
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget Informational Update
June 18, 2025
continue to monitor trends and adjust projections as needed. FY 2024-25 planning revenue is expected to increase in FY 2025-26 due to implementation of updated fees following the new fee study. Currently, planning fees are below the cost recovery target.

Q10: Why is Playing Field and Special Events revenue so low in FY’25? A: Estimated FY 2024–25 revenues for Playing Field and Special Events have been updated.

Q11: Are Encroachment Fees collected and recorded appropriately? Where are they shown?
A: The Encroachment Fees are recorded under Fund 046 Charges for Services.

Q12: Are all appropriate revenues and transfers included in the Sewer Fund (e.g., assessment charges, Town connections, school district contributions)? A: Yes, all appropriate revenues and transfers are included in the Sewer Fund.

Q13: Why is “Use of Money and Property” revenue missing from the Sewer Fund? A: Use of Money and Property revenue has now been allocated to all funds.

Department Budgets
Q14: How much is budgeted for legal costs?
A: Legal costs are distributed across departments. Total legal spending will depend on activity in areas such as housing, code enforcement, and special projects.

Q15: How much have we spent on legal costs in FY 2024-25? A: The chart below illustrates legal expenditures over the past five years.

For FY 2024–25, total legal expenses as of May 31, 2025 are projected to be approximately $736,000. This estimate includes both general legal costs and departmentspecific legal expenses.

Department legal expenses have increased in FY 2024–25—primarily due to litigation related to the Housing Element and Builder’s Remedy applications.

Memo to City Council
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget Informational Update
June 18, 2025
Q16: Are legal costs truly down, or just moved into department budgets (e.g., Housing Element legal fees)?
A: Pass-through and department-specific legal expenses are included in each department’s overall legal costs. Pass-through costs are billed directly to the applicant.

In FY 2025-26, general legal expenses have decreased to align with prior year actuals.

Housing Element legal costs are also expected to be lower in FY 2025-26.

Q17: What is the $300K–$900K range for pathway-related projects under Council Priorities?
A: These are placeholder estimates; final costs will depend on the scope and direction provided by the Pathways Committee.

Q18: What is the $600,000 for traffic enforcement?
A: This amount reflects a dedicated traffic enforcement deputy under contract. While it is allocated for traffic enforcement, the funds may also be used for other sheriff services as needed.

Q19: What is the budget for ‘Our Town’ spent on?
A: The amount includes writing, layout, printing, and mailing of the publication. Of this, $25,000 is for design and $24,000 for printing.
$181,096
$288,625
$452,813
$687,824
$410,073
$735,757
FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 Redwood Public Law/Meyers Nave Invoices

Memo to City Council
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget Informational Update
June 18, 2025
Q20: Is the KMVT contract and Emergency Notification Study funding justified? A: The Town’s decision to contract with KMVT was driven by the need for professional, reliable, and high-quality video services. It was a 2023 City Council Work Plan item.

The emergency notification study, which was recommended by the Emergency Preparedness and Response Committee, will enhance public safety by improving the reach, reliability, and effectiveness of emergency alerts during events such as evacuations. It is a 2024 City Council Work Plan item.

Q21: Why does personnel expenses increase 48%? Why does Town Center professional services decline 68%?
A: Personnel costs increased due to additional staffing allocated to the Town Center, while professional services declined because software expenses previously recorded under 6208–Programming and Computer (Professional Services) were reclassified to 6313–Computer Software (Operations). This improves accuracy by categorizing software as an operational expense rather than a professional service.

Q22: How is the maintenance crew allocated across departments, and are allocations to Building and Sewer accurate?
A: The allocations for the Public Works maintenance staff are estimates for the year based on work performed in previous fiscal years and work anticipated for the upcoming year.

Q23: Is standby pay for Corporation Yard staff authorized and reasonable? A: Standby pay for Corporation Yard staff is authorized in accordance with the Town’s personnel policies and operational needs. During the wet season (October through April), standby pay is provided to one maintenance employee per week on a rotating basis to ensure emergency response coverage.

Q24: Revenues are also down because Planning Entitlement fees are artificially low and their percentage of Building fees are also low. What does this mean? Fees are too low?
A: Yes, current Planning fees fall significantly short of cost recovery targets established in the Town’s fee schedule, contributing to the overall shortfall in development-related revenues.

Q25: How is crew charged for maintaining playing fields. Is this through salaries? A: Yes, the crew is charged for maintenance through salaries.

Q26: How much was relocated from Town Center to recruitment in Finance? A: $10,000 for recruitment and $5,000 for training was moved from Town Center to Finance.

Q27: Why does Finance operations expense increase by 112%? A: A total of $15,000 was transferred from the Town Center budget for recruitment ($10,000) and training ($5,000). Additional appropriations were added for software:
$23,100 for Gravity budgeting software, $27,000 for ADP payroll software, and $8,000

Memo to City Council
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget Informational Update
June 18, 2025
for Holly compensation and job description software. The travel and conferences budget was also increased to support attendance at six conferences.

Q28: When are Animal Control expenses paid?
A: Animal Control expenses were paid in April last year. We have not received the invoice for FY 2024-25 yet.

Q29: Why are some Recreation accounts (Events, Programs) not consolidated? A: It makes sense to consolidate the Recreation programs given the current structure of the department. We will consider consolidating these accounts as part of next year’s budget cycle.

Q30: What’s the justification for a 51% increase in Code Enforcement budget? Is there a backlog?
A: The increase is due to the increase in hours for the contracted Code Enforcement Officer. The increase in hours would allow the Town to be more responsive to resident requests.

Q31: Why does the Building budget show a 2X revenue increase but a 29% cut in contract services? Is cost recovery realistic?
A: The increase in revenues is driven by updated fees from the new fee study and improved fee collection resulting from the addition of a Management Analyst focused on revenue analysis. The decrease in contract services reflects the conversion of a Building Technician position from contract to full-time. The cost recovery target remains at 90%, consistent with the previous fee study.

Personnel
Q32: What does the salary study show for executive positions when larger or less comparable cities are excluded?
A: The attached salary study presents data for all positions using the full set of comparator agencies and includes a separate analysis of executive positions with the larger and least comparable cities—Cupertino, Los Gatos, Saratoga, and Campbell— excluded.

Q33: Should the Town prioritize paying down the CalPERS UAL or increasing contributions to the Section 115 trust?
A: The FIC recommended the Town contribute $1 million from the General Fund Pension Contribution Reserve to the Section 115 Trust, with $100,000 each month for 10 months.

Paying down the CalPERS UAL provides cost savings and reduces long-term liabilities, but the Town loses control of those funds once they are remitted to CalPERS. In contrast, contributions to the Section 115 trust offer investment flexibility and liquidity to manage future pension rate increases. A balanced approach—targeted UAL prepayments combined with ongoing trust contributions—can optimize both cost savings and financial flexibility.

Memo to City Council
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget Informational Update
June 18, 2025
Q34: Does the Retirement City Share increase cover both UAL and Normal Cost? A: Yes
Q35: What is driving the 17% increase in total employment costs? Are health insurance and overtime growth sustainable?
A: The increase reflects additional positions, health premiums, pension rates, and overtime costs.

Q36: Do personnel allocations (e.g., to ISF, departments, and Sewer Fund) reflect actual work performed?
A: Yes, personnel allocations are updated annually by departments based on actual work performed and time spent across functions.

Q37: Are there new positions (e.g., Project Manager, Emergency Services Manager) that require justification?
A: The proposed staffing changes focus on strengthening core services and internal capacity. The Associate Engineer is proposed to be reclassified as a Project Manager, as this position will focus more on supervising and training the Assistant Engineers to build in-house knowledge.

The contract Building Technician would be converted to full-time to provide consistent permitting and customer service support. A new Management Analyst would improve oversight of planning and building fees and deposits, ensuring more accurate tracking, billing, and collection across departments, as well as assist with the budget. The vacant Assistant Director role is proposed to be replaced with two Assistant Planners to handle increased planning workloads and improve responsiveness to residents.

Lastly, a part-time Emergency Services Manager, funded at $120,000, is proposed to enhance the Town’s emergency response planning and coordination.

Q38: Why is health insurance increasing by nearly 30% (~$22K/employee)? Is this sustainable?
A: Health insurance is increasing due to the addition of three new full-time employees as well as increases in health insurance rates.

Capital Improvement Plan
Q39: Why is the Five-Year CIP effectively a one-year plan? What long-term capital planning progress has been made?
A: Staff acknowledge the need for a long-term capital plan, but this shift will take time.

The Town has historically focused on short-term needs due to limited staffing and changing priorities. As part of last year’s budget process, consultant Drew Corbett reconciled the CIP with actual expenditures and funding sources in December 2024. The CIP reflects only projects with known timelines and secured funding. Staff are working on developing a prioritized list of capital projects to serve as the foundation for a fiveyear capital improvement plan.

Memo to City Council
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget Informational Update
June 18, 2025
Q40: El Monte Undergrounding – these are 20A funds, not Town money. Eliminate from table to avoid distorting totals. Expenses are reimbursed. Show in a separate table. How much 20A funding is left?
A: El Monte Undergrounding is funded through Rule 20A reimbursements and has its own project number for tracking. Although the Town previously purchased Rule 20A credits, the reimbursements represent a recovery of eligible costs and are appropriately shown as revenue. The related expenses flow through the Town’s budget and should remain in the table to ensure full transparency of project funding and spending. At project completion, the projected remaining Rule 20A balance is approximately $700,000. A separate summary of 20A-funded projects can be provided if helpful.

Q41: What is the justification for high-cost items like the Security Camera system, energy studies, or Magdalena Pathway costs?
A: For the Magdalena Pathway, the estimate is based on past roadside pathways at $150- $170 per linear feet of pathway. Magdalena has almost 2,000 linear feet.

Q42: Is the Town facility energy efficiency study cost-effective? A: The goal of this project is to have energy efficient facilities. Any recommendation and design from this project would have to offset current energy costs.

Q43: Is the proposed water well at Purissima viable?
A: Per the 2022 geological study, it is worth further investigation.

Q44: Why are some previously listed projects (e.g., Phase 2 Corporate Yard, HVAC electrification) missing from the current Capital Plan? A: Corp Yard Locker Room Phase 2 project will be further assessed after the completion of the Phase 1 project. Phase 2 work comes at high costs beyond the current approved CIP budget. Council Chambers HVAC electrification will be assessed as part of the Town Facilities Energy Efficiency CIP.

Q45: Are vehicle and corporate yard costs being fairly allocated? A: Yes, the costs are fairly allocated.

Q46: Why are there no Housing Element-related costs after FY’26, and do they include legal expenses?
A: The Town does not anticipate significant Housing Element-related expenses beyond FY 2025–26. If any unplanned legal costs arise, staff would return to Council to request a budget adjustment.

Cost Allocation
Q47: How does the updated NBS Cost Allocation Plan affect year-over-year comparability and allocation methodology?
A: NBS developed a new Cost Allocation Plan (CAP) model that streamlines the methodology used in the prior Matrix study. The updated model relies on standardized, objective metrics—such as budgeted expenditures and FTEs—rather than subjective estimates or equal distributions. This approach improves consistency and aligns with federal and industry standards.

Memo to City Council
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget Informational Update
June 18, 2025
The original NBS draft reasonably used data readily available from the Town’s financial system. Since then, staff have provided manually compiled supplemental data—such as invoices, journal entries, and contracts by department— to better reflect actual service levels.

NBS will present the final CAP and fee schedule to the FIC and Council in August and September.

Q48: Are cost allocations—such as overhead—reasonable, transparent, and consistently applied across departments and funds?
A: Yes. The NBS Cost Allocation Plan (CAP) applies overhead charges using consistent, well-established methodologies grounded in federal and industry standards. The model relies on objective metrics such as full-time equivalent (FTE) counts, budgeted expenditures, and other measurable service drivers to ensure a transparent allocation structure across departments and funds.

FTE’s and Total Expenditures are the two most common industry standard practices for allocating local government overhead costs. These two methods are the most widely applied and consistently approved as reasonable allocation bases by State and Federal auditors when the purpose of the cost allocation requires compliance with Title 2 CFR Part 200 regulations. This set of federal regulations is the original guidelines for cost allocation plans that evolved into the application of current day less restrictive uses of cost allocation plans in local governments for budgeting and fee recovery purposes.

In NBS’ opinion, many of the allocation approaches and bases used in the Matrix report did not rely on actual data sets but rather estimated non-data based splits between departments. While there is a degree of estimation involved in the approach to both versions of the plans, NBS recommended that the Town simplify the cost plan’s structure and utilize available and industry standard data sets to inform these cost allocations.

Overall, as compared to the Matrix plan, we increased the frequency of use of agenda items and expenditures as allocation factors, yet we reduced the use of estimated non data-based splits and “equal” distributions of costs. We also held constant the use of committee count and transaction count as allocation factors, and we added use of salary cost distribution, and vehicle count.

The original NBS draft reasonably used data readily available from the Town’s financial system. Since then, staff have provided manually compiled supplemental data—such as invoices, journal entries, and contracts by department— to better reflect actual service levels.

While NBS typically limits review cycles during CAP engagements, the Town has worked collaboratively with their team through several iterations to ensure the final product is fair, defensible, and tailored to the Town’s operations. NBS will present the final CAP and fee schedule to the FIC and Council in August and September.

Q49: Why is the Public Safety overhead allocation $508K when there is no in-house staff?
A: The Public Safety overhead allocation reflects the internal support required to manage

Memo to City Council
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget Informational Update
June 18, 2025
outsourced services. Although the Town contracts for law enforcement, staff still provide oversight, budgeting, and contract management. Overhead is allocated based on service usage, not just staffing, to capture the full cost of delivering public safety.

Q50: Why is there a $560K drop in allocation to Community Services? A: The drop in overhead allocation to Community Services is due to reduced staffing in that department, which lowered both its FTE count and budget. Since cost allocations are based in part on staffing levels and expenditures, the department’s share of overhead decreased accordingly.

Q51: Why is the FY’25 Estimated Actual insurance overhead $867,090? A: The FY 2024-25 estimated actual insurance overhead allocation has been updated to $105.8K.

Q52: Why are there no cost allocations to capital funds? A: While overhead costs can be charged to capital funds under specific conditions, the Town’s current Cost Allocation Plan (CAP) excludes capital funds based on accounting standards, best practices, and methodology improvements over prior studies. The prior Matrix study did allocate overhead to capital funds using methods that are no longer recommended:
• Equal share or estimated share methods were used to spread City Clerk or administrative costs evenly across departments, including Capital Funds. This method is not reasonable or industry standard, and NBS very rarely uses it. • The prior study also used budgeted expenditures as an allocation factor, which included capital outlay. This is problematic because capital budgets vary significantly year to year and are not ongoing operating expenses. Including them skews cost allocations. The current NBS study properly excludes capital and onetime expenditures per federal guidelines.

Fund Balances
Q53: Why are there missing or incorrect transfers (e.g., COPS Fund to General Fund, ARPA)?
A: The transfer from COPS to General Fund has been updated.

Q54: Are balances and revenues in the Sewer Fund up to date with the adopted roll?
A: Yes, Sewer Fund revenues were updated to match the Council-approved FY 2025-26 sewer roll.

Q55: Are beginning and ending fund balances consistent across summary pages and fund sheets?
A: Yes, staff has updated these figures to ensure consistency across the document.

Q56: Will all ARPA funds be fully expended before fiscal year-end? Why is ARPA showing $0 starting balance and no status update on fund usage?

Memo to City Council
FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget Informational Update
June 18, 2025
A: Yes, ARPA funds are expected to be fully expended before the end of FY 2024–25.

The $0 beginning balance shown for FY 2025–26 reflects this.

Q57: Why don’t FY’25 reserve figures tie to the original budget? Should interim changes be reconciled in FY’25 or FY’26?
A: FY 2024-25 reserve figures were tied to Tyler and the ACFR. Staff will reconcile interim changes in FY 2024-25 to align with the ACFR.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget – June 18, 2025

2. Updated Salary Study – May 19, 2025

1 TO: Los Altos Hills City Council
FROM: Brendan Hellweg & Cherie Chung, Founders, Holly
DATE: April 17, 2025, Revised May 19, 2025
SUBJECT: Los Altos Hills Salary Study and Recommendations Report Summary
Holly completed a compensation study for the Town of Los Altos Hills, benchmarking salaries for all positions against selected comparator agencies. The study identifies current market competitiveness, highlights critical gaps, and provides targeted recommendations for adjustments to ensure the Town remains an attractive employer in a highly competitive regional labor market.

Holly's compensation analysis for 38 Los Altos Hills positions against 183 benchmarks reveals the Town's salaries are approximately 6% below benchmark median townwide. Further analysis will cover upcoming salary changes among comparators and total compensation. ● While most positions remain competitive, over half (54%) fall 5% or more below market, of which eight are more than 10% below the market median and two are significantly below market (>15%). The average market gap is 6%.
● The largest gaps appear in key roles, with Maintenance Superintendent (13%), Building Official (-14%), Building Inspector (-14%), Senior Building Inspector (-11%), and Maintenance Worker I (-11%), and Finance Manager (-10%) showing double-digit disparities with the market.
● These gaps affect departments essential to core service delivery across all levels of seniority and create vulnerability to recruitment and retention challenges as neighboring jurisdictions offer more competitive compensation.

Note: At the request of the Council, we have revised this report to include an additional table for Senior Staff roles without larger jurisdiction comparators (Campbell, Cupertino, Saratoga, and Los Gatos). This request was due to the higher level of complexity (and therefore lower jurisdictional similarity scoring) of these comparators. We have also revised Exhibits 2 and 3 to reflect requests to add benchmark roles that were not included in the initial presentation.

With these revised comparators, City Clerk’s market disparity was eliminated, and several positions saw a modest reduction in the market gap. Exhibits 4 and 5 detail how Los Altos Hills compares under this reduced set of comparators.

Key Recommendations

1. Prioritized Adjustments: Implement a phased correction strategy beginning with the most below-market positions (>10% below median), followed by moderately undermarket positions, to address immediate retention risks.

2 2. Technical Position Focus: Allocate resources first to specialized roles in Building, Engineering, and Administrative leadership where skill gaps are hardest to fill and retention is most critical.

3. Structural Reform: Revise the salary structure to better align with market medians and establish biennial compensation reviews to maintain competitiveness.

Implementing these recommendations would strategically address Los Altos Hills' compensation gaps while balancing fiscal responsibility. These targeted adjustments will strengthen the Town's position in a competitive labor market, improve employee retention, and ensure continued highquality service delivery to residents.

About Holly
Holly is an AI-powered platform dedicated to modernizing government hiring and compensation practices. By leveraging data-driven analysis and technology, we support jurisdictions in achieving equitable, competitive, and efficient compensation structures. We are currently active in jurisdictions representing three million California residents.

The Town of Los Altos Hills contracted with Holly on April 1, 2025, and data was collected between April 4 through April 7, using salary data for the 2024-2025 Fiscal Year for all jurisdictions. Our compensation analysis followed a structured, transparent methodology:
● Comparator Selection: Comparator jurisdictions were selected based on geographic proximity, community demographics, organizational size, and service delivery models. ● Data Collection: Holly leveraged current-year comparator jurisdiction public disclosures to gather and process position descriptions and salary data. ● Benchmarking Analysis: Holly utilized AI-powered analytics to perform precise, dutiesbased comparisons, ensuring robust alignment of roles across jurisdictions. ● Human Confirmation: Holly team conducted independent review of position matches to ensure effective benchmarking against roles and weigh in on ambiguous cases. ● Market Positioning: Each Town position was evaluated against the midpoint salaries of equivalent roles in comparator agencies, highlighting competitive alignment and gaps. ● Recommendations: Adjustments were recommended based on identified market gaps, recruitment priorities, and retention risks.

1. Comparator Selection
Comparator jurisdictions were selected based on:
● Geographic proximity and relevance to Los Altos Hills. ● Similar population sizes, community profiles, and staffing structures. ● Comparable labor markets and organizational service delivery models.

Comparator Agencies Assessed:

Entity Type Population Operating Budget Similarity Mean Diff Los Altos Hills Town 8,189 $19M 100% 0%

3 Portola Valley Town 4,329 $10M 95% 1%
Woodside Town 5,037 $12M 92% 8%
Los Altos City 29,990 $55M 91% -7%
Atherton Town 6,823 $22M 87% -5%
Hillsborough Town 10,883 $33M 84% -2%
Saratoga City 29,607 $31M 82% -11%
Los Gatos Town 32,216 $53M 81% -5%
Cupertino City 57,285 $90M 78% -7%
Campbell City 41,700 $56M 76% -12%
These agencies reflect competitive labor pools that align closely with Los Altos Hills' organizational profile and employment market. Factors considered include size, operating budget, economic & labor market status, density, and agency service coverage (Police, utilities, etc.). Notably, the highest similarity score jurisdictions have smaller Mean Differences (calculated as the averages of all midpoint-to-midpoint median benchmarks for that jurisdiction against Los Altos Hills positions).

2. Data Collection, Benchmarking, & Validation
Holly assessed similarity for all Los Altos Hills against the most similar jobs within each comparator jurisdiction. We used a minimum similarity of 70% for inclusion based on the core duties, working structure, and position in the organizational structure of the roles.

1. Collection: Holly utilized scraping, optical character recognition, and manual confirmation to collect current-year salary information from each jurisdiction as well as class specifications or job descriptions to assist in position matching.

2. Position Tagging: The analysis uses five broad categories of matching criteria: Job Function Alignment (20%), Work Characteristics (45%), Environmental Factors (15%), Role Alignment (15%), and Semantic Similarity (5%). Within each category, the system evaluates 15-20 criteria, prioritizing job function match.

3. Position Matches: Our matches had a mean similarity of 84%, a high of 100% (for functionally identical roles such as Town Manager to Town Manager), and a low of 72%.

4. Match Validation: Following programmatic matching, we assessed each position to ensure accurate comparisons.

3. Competitive Positioning and Recommendations
Holly then processed the competitive relationships between Los Altos Hills and position benchmarks.

A detailed table, attached separately, outlines each Town position's current compensation relative to market median rates from selected comparator jurisdictions. Among these jurisdictions, Los Altos Hills seeks to track the market median, which we assess at the midpoint or middle grade for each position (and the single salary for roles without grades). For the purpose of this analysis, we solely consider salary and do not include other forms of compensation, which will be the subject of subsequent reports.

4 Positions are categorized as:
● At Market (within 5% of comparator median)
● Below Market (5%-15% below comparator median)
● Significantly Below Market (>15% below comparator median) Recommendations:

1. Prioritized Adjustment Approach
Implement a phased strategy addressing critical gaps first:
● Phase 1 (Immediate): Address positions >15% below market ● Phase 2 (Within 6 months): Adjust positions 10-15% below market ● Phase 3 (Within 12 months): Address positions 5-10% below market

2. Further Analysis
Assess additional factors in recruitment and retention:
● Compensation: Review total compensation factors as well as upcoming changes to competitors to remain competitive in the market.
● Job Design: Assess position features such as requirements, duties, and career pathways to make the Town a more appealing employer. Assessments of skills-based hiring and barriers to employment can widen the set of potential candidates. ● Satisfaction: As it becomes relevant, survey staff on the nature of their duties and satisfaction with roles.

3. Structural Adjustments
● Salary Structure Revision: Align salary structures with median market rates, particularly for technical positions.
● Advancement Pathways: Create clearer progression for entry-level positions to improve retention.

Analysis of Each Position Against Benchmarks
For each role, Holly conducted a thorough market comparison based on:
● Role responsibilities, qualifications, and experience requirements. ● Direct salary comparisons with equivalent positions in comparator jurisdictions. ● Evaluation of unique factors influencing recruitment and retention challenges.

5 Key findings for critical positions are highlighted, outlining specific gaps and suggested adjustments to ensure ongoing competitiveness and effective staff retention. Exhibit 1 details the current salary schedule for the Town, while Exhibit 2 provides an aggregated summary of salary competitiveness. Exhibit 3 provides a detailed table of competitiveness and is available in Excel form alongside this report.

We appreciate the opportunity to support Los Altos Hills in ensuring fair, competitive, and strategically-aligned compensation practices. The Holly team is available for any and all questions as the City Council digests these assessments.

Respectfully submitted,
Brendan Hellweg
Co-founder, Holly
[email protected]
(413) 552-9365

6 EXHIBIT 1: TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS SUMMARY TABLE
Position Annual Low Annual High Midpoint
City Manager $24,833 $24,833 $24,833
Deputy City Manager $12,953 $17,486 $15,219
Assistant to the City Manager $11,159 $15,064 $13,112
Management Analyst II $9,388 $12,673 $11,030
Management Analyst $8,095 $10,928 $9,511
Senior City Clerk $12,017 $16,223 $14,120
City Clerk $10,362 $13,989 $12,176
Admin Clerk/Technician $6,482 $8,750 $7,616
Administrative Services Director $15,767 $21,286 $18,527 Finance Director $14,964 $20,221 $17,593
Finance Manager $11,916 $16,087 $14,002
Senior Accountant $10,362 $13,989 $12,176
Accountant $8,505 $11,481 $9,993
Accounting Technician $7,705 $10,402 $9,053
Accounting Office Assistant $6,644 $8,969 $7,807
Community Development Director $15,767 $21,286 $18,527
Assistant Community Development Director/Building $12,953 $17,486 $15,219 Principal Planner $11,438 $15,441 $13,439
Senior Planner $9,863 $13,315 $11,589
Associate Planner $8,505 $11,481 $9,993
Assistant Planner $7,334 $9,900 $8,617
Building Official $10,362 $13,989 $12,176
Deputy Building Official/Plan Examiner $9,844 $13,289 $11,566 Senior Building Inspector $8,505 $11,481 $9,993
Building Inspector $7,334 $9,900 $8,617
Building Technician $6,810 $9,193 $8,002
Public Works Director & City Engineer $15,767 $21,286 $18,527 Utility Engineering Manager $12,017 $16,223 $14,120
Senior Civil Engineer $10,887 $14,697 $12,792
Associate Engineer $9,388 $12,673 $11,030
Assistant Engineer $8,095 $10,928 $9,511
Senior Maintenance Superintendent $11,438 $15,441 $13,439 Maintenance Superintendent $9,863 $13,315 $11,589
Maintenance Worker III $6,644 $8,969 $7,807
Maintenance Worker II $5,729 $7,734 $6,732
Maintenance Worker I $4,940 $6,669 $5,805
Community Services Manager $9,714 $13,113 $11,414
Community Services Supervisor $8,095 $10,928 $9,511
Recreation Specialist $5,190 $7,007 $6,098

7 Senior Public Works Inspector $9,770 $13,190 $11,480
Public Works Inspector $7,919 $10,691 $9,305

8 EXHIBIT 2: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS WITH BENCHMARK PEERS
Note: this list continues to show the full set of comparators for senior roles. To see the adjusted values for the reduced list of comparators for senior roles, please go to Exhibits 4 and 5.

Row Labels
LAH
Midpoint
Roles
Included Benchmark Median Diff
Accountant $9,993 6 $10,167 -2%
Accounting Office Assistant $7,807 2 $8,146 -4%
Accounting Technician $9,053 5 $8,515 6%
Administrative Clerk / Technician $7,616 6 $7,711 -1%
Administrative Services Director $18,527 4 $19,771 -6%
Assistant Community Development
Director / Building Official $15,219 7 $16,337 -7%
Assistant Engineer $9,511 6 $10,385 -8%
Assistant Planner $8,617 6 $9,184 -6%
Assistant to the City Manager $13,112 5 $13,709 -4%
Associate Engineer $11,030 6 $11,557 -5%
Associate Planner $9,993 9 $10,862 -8%
Building Inspector $8,617 6 $10,068 -14%
Building Official $12,176 8 $14,480 -16%
Building Technician $8,002 3 $8,090 -1%
City Clerk $12,176 9 $14,391 -15%
Community Development Director $18,527 9 $19,429 -5%
Community Services Manager $11,414 4 $12,250 -7%
Community Services Supervisor $9,511 4 $10,102 -6%
Deputy Building Official / Plan Examiner $11,566 4 $11,761 -2% Deputy City Manager $14,761 4 $16,424 -10%
Finance Director $17,593 6 $18,896 -7%
Finance Manager $14,002 7 $15,617 -10%
Maintenance Superintendent $11,589 4 $13,275 -13%
Maintenance Worker I $5,805 7 $6,489 -11%
Maintenance Worker II $6,732 7 $7,246 -7%
Maintenance Worker III $7,807 5 $8,193 -5%
Management Analyst $9,511 6 $10,029 -5%
Management Analyst II $11,030 6 $10,943 1%
Principal Planner $13,439 4 $13,935 -4%
Public Works Director $18,527 8 $19,645 -6%
Public Works Inspector $9,305 8 $9,290 0%

9 Recreation Specialist $6,098 3 $6,357 -4%
Senior Accountant $12,176 5 $11,318 8%
Senior Building Inspector $9,993 7 $11,252 -11%
Senior Civil Engineer $12,792 6 $13,586 -6%
Senior Planner $11,589 9 $12,503 -7%
Senior Public Works Inspector $11,480 4 $10,852 6%
Utility Engineering Manager $14,120 6 $13,928 1%
Grand Total $11,553 221 $12,313 -6%

10 EXHIBIT 3: DETAILED COMPARATOR TABLE BY POSITION
Note: this list continues to show the full set of comparators for senior roles. To see the adjusted values for the reduced list of comparators for senior roles, please go to Exhibits 4 and 5.

Comparator
Agency Benchmark Title Similarity Low Midpoint High Difference Median Median
Diff
Los Altos Hills Accountant 100% $8,505 $9,993 $11,481 0% $10,167 -2% Atherton Accountant 90% $9,462 $10,208 $10,953 -2% $10,167 -2% Campbell Accountant 90% $9,268 $10,264 $11,260 -3% $10,167 -2% Hillsborough Accountant 90% $9,142 $10,127 $11,112 -1% $10,167 -2% Los Altos Accountant 90% $9,267 $10,266 $11,264 -3% $10,167 -2% Cupertino Accountant I 76% $8,077 $8,948 $9,819 12% $10,167 -2% Los Altos Hills
Accounting Office
Assistant 100% $6,644 $7,807 $8,969 0% $8,146 -4%
Campbell Accounting Clerk II 83% $7,667 $8,485 $9,303 -8% $8,146 -4% Los Altos Hills
Accounting
Technician 100% $7,705 $9,054 $10,402 0% $8,515 6%
Cupertino
Accounting
Technician 90% $8,011 $8,875 $9,738 2% $8,515 6%
Hillsborough
Accounting
Technician 84% $7,232 $8,011 $8,790 13% $8,515 6%
Saratoga
Accounting
Technician 84% $7,277 $8,515 $9,753 6% $8,515 6%
Los Altos
Accounting
Technician II 83% $7,365 $8,159 $8,952 11% $8,515 6%
Los Altos Hills
Administrative
Clerk / Technician 100% $6,482 $7,616 $8,750 0% $7,711 -1% Saratoga
Administrative
Assistant 84% $6,937 $8,115 $9,294 -6% $7,711 -1%
Cupertino
Administrative
Assistant 83% $7,046 $7,805 $8,564 -2% $7,711 -1%
Hillsborough
Administrative
Assistant 81% $6,455 $7,151 $7,846 7% $7,711 -1%
Woodside
Administrative
Assistant 81% $4,722 $7,083 $9,444 8% $7,711 -1%
Saratoga
Administrative
Technician 77% $7,277 $8,283 $9,289 -8% $7,711 -1%
Los Altos Hills
Administrative
Services Director 100% $15,767 $18,527 $21,286 0% $19,771 -6% Saratoga
Administrative
Services Director 88% $17,961 $21,015 $24,069 -12% $19,771 -6%

11 Woodside
Administrative
Services Director 88% $11,830 $17,745 $23,660 4% $19,771 -6% Cupertino
Director of
Administrative
Services 72% $19,430 $21,524 $23,618 -14% $19,771 -6%
Los Altos Hills
Assistant
Community
Development
Director / Building
Official 100% $12,953 $15,220 $17,486 0% $16,337 -7%
Campbell Building Official 94% $13,924 $15,426 $16,928 -1% $16,337 -7% Hillsborough Building Official 94% $12,498 $13,845 $15,192 10% $16,337 -7% Cupertino Building Official 91% $14,792 $16,386 $17,979 -7% $16,337 -7% Saratoga Building Official 84% $14,014 $16,398 $18,781 -7% $16,337 -7% Cupertino
Assistant Director
of Community
Development 76% $15,738 $17,435 $19,131 -13% $16,337 -7% Hillsborough
Assistant Director
of Building &
Planning 72% $14,747 $16,337 $17,926 -7% $16,337 -7%
Los Altos Hills Assistant Engineer 100% $8,095 $9,512 $10,928 0% $10,385 -8% Hillsborough Assistant Engineer I 89% $8,384 $9,286 $10,189 2% $10,385 -8% Saratoga Assistant Engineer 88% $9,663 $11,306 $12,948 -16% $10,385 -8% Hillsborough
Assistant Engineer
II 87% $9,243 $10,239 $11,234 -7% $10,385 -8%
Campbell Assistant Engineer 84% $10,599 $11,745 $12,891 -19% $10,385 -8% Los Gatos Assistant Engineer 84% $9,209 $10,531 $11,853 -10% $10,385 -8% Los Altos Hills Assistant Planner 100% $7,334 $8,617 $9,900 0% $9,184 -6% Woodside Assistant Planner 88% $5,922 $8,883 $11,844 -3% $9,184 -6% Campbell Assistant Planner 87% $9,294 $10,294 $11,294 -16% $9,184 -6% Cupertino Assistant Planner 84% $8,817 $9,954 $11,092 -13% $9,184 -6% Los Gatos Assistant Planner 84% $8,163 $9,341 $10,519 -8% $9,184 -6% Portola Valley
Assistant/Associate
Planner 78% $7,684 $9,028 $10,371 -5% $9,184 -6%
Los Altos Hills
Assistant to the
City Manager 100% $11,159 $13,112 $15,064 0% $13,709 -4% Cupertino
Assistant to the
City Manager 92% $12,944 $14,339 $15,734 -9% $13,709 -4%

12 Los Altos
Assistant to the
City Manager 92% $12,375 $13,709 $15,042 -4% $13,709 -4% Campbell
Assistant To City
Manager 90% $12,405 $13,743 $15,080 -5% $13,709 -4%
Woodside
Assistant to the
Town Manager 79% $7,335 $11,002 $14,669 19% $13,709 -4% Los Altos Hills Associate Engineer 100% $9,388 $11,031 $12,673 0% $11,557 -5% Los Gatos
Associate Civil
Engineer 94% $10,478 $11,975 $13,473 -8% $11,557 -5%
Cupertino
Associate Civil
Engineer 93% $10,552 $11,913 $13,274 -7% $11,557 -5%
Woodside Associate Engineer 88% $6,387 $9,581 $12,774 15% $11,557 -5% Atherton
Associate Civil
Engineer 84% $10,383 $11,202 $12,020 -2% $11,557 -5%
Campbell
Associate Civil
Engineer 80% $11,962 $13,253 $14,544 -17% $11,557 -5%
Los Altos Hills Associate Planner 100% $8,505 $9,993 $11,481 0% $10,862 -8% Hillsborough Associate Planner 97% $9,884 $10,950 $12,016 -9% $10,862 -8% Saratoga Associate Planner 88% $10,001 $11,703 $13,404 -15% $10,862 -8% Woodside Associate Planner 88% $6,387 $9,581 $12,774 4% $10,862 -8% Cupertino Associate Planner 87% $9,502 $10,728 $11,953 -7% $10,862 -8% Portola Valley
Assistant/Associate
Planner 84% $7,684 $9,028 $10,371 11% $10,862 -8%
Campbell Associate Planner 84% $10,863 $12,031 $13,199 -17% $10,862 -8% Los Altos Associate Planner 84% $9,998 $11,076 $12,153 -10% $10,862 -8% Los Gatos Associate Planner 84% $9,499 $10,862 $12,224 -8% $10,862 -8% Los Altos Hills Building Inspector 100% $7,334 $8,617 $9,900 0% $10,068 -14% Campbell Building Inspector 94% $10,275 $11,385 $12,494 -24% $10,068 -14% Cupertino Building Inspector 94% $9,327 $10,531 $11,735 -18% $10,068 -14% Los Altos Building Inspector 94% $8,922 $9,884 $10,845 -13% $10,068 -14% Los Gatos Building Inspector 94% $8,963 $10,252 $11,540 -16% $10,068 -14% Hillsborough Building Inspector I 94% $8,232 $9,108 $9,985 -5% $10,068 -14% Los Altos Hills Building Official 100% $10,362 $12,176 $13,989 0% $14,528 -16% Campbell Building Official 94% $13,924 $15,426 $16,928 -21% $14,528 -16% Cupertino Building Official 94% $14,792 $16,386 $17,979 -26% $14,528 -16% Hillsborough Building Official 94% $12,498 $13,845 $15,192 -12% $14,528 -16%

13 Los Gatos
Chief Building
Official 94% $12,282 $14,431 $16,581 -16% $14,528 -16%
Los Altos Building Official 90% $13,115 $14,528 $15,941 -16% $14,528 -16% Saratoga Building Official 84% $14,014 $16,398 $18,781 -26% $14,528 -16% Los Altos Hills
Building
Technician 100% $6,810 $8,002 $9,193 0% $8,090 -1%
Campbell Permit Technician 73% $7,439 $8,241 $9,043 -3% $8,090 -1% Cupertino Permit Technician 73% $7,165 $8,090 $9,015 -1% $8,090 -1% Los Altos Hills City Clerk 100% $10,362 $12,176 $13,989 0% $14,391 -15% Los Altos City Clerk 92% $12,991 $14,391 $15,791 -15% $14,391 -15% Cupertino City Clerk 90% $13,126 $14,540 $15,955 -16% $14,391 -15% Saratoga City Clerk 88% $12,561 $14,696 $16,831 -17% $14,391 -15% Campbell City Clerk 84% $13,078 $14,486 $15,893 -16% $14,391 -15% Hillsborough City Clerk 81% $11,307 $12,524 $13,740 -3% $14,391 -15% Portola Valley Town Clerk 77% $9,718 $11,213 $12,707 9% $14,391 -15% Woodside Town Clerk 76% $7,335 $11,002 $14,669 11% $14,391 -15% Los Gatos Town Clerk 74% $12,282 $14,431 $16,581 -16% $14,391 -15% Los Altos Hills
Community
Development
Director 100% $15,767 $18,527 $21,286 0% $19,429 -5%
Portola Valley
Planning &
Building Director 94% $14,592 $16,824 $19,055 10% $19,429 -5% Hillsborough
Director of
Building and
Planning 91% $17,539 $19,429 $21,318 -5% $19,429 -5%
Campbell
Community
Development
Director 90% $18,521 $21,372 $24,223 -13% $19,429 -5%
Los Altos
Development
Services Director 86% $17,610 $19,507 $21,405 -5% $19,429 -5% Los Gatos
Community
Development
Director 84% $15,721 $18,473 $21,224 0% $19,429 -5%
Woodside Planning Director 84% $11,830 $17,745 $23,660 4% $19,429 -5% Cupertino
Director of
Community
Development 78% $19,430 $21,524 $23,618 -14% $19,429 -5% Saratoga
Community
Development
Director 75% $17,784 $20,807 $23,830 -11% $19,429 -5%

14 Los Altos Hills
Community
Services Manager 100% $9,714 $11,414 $13,113 0% $12,250 -7% Cupertino
Recreation
Manager 81% $10,402 $11,522 $12,643 -1% $12,250 -7%
Los Altos
Recreation
Manager 81% $11,716 $12,979 $14,241 -12% $12,250 -7%
Campbell
Recreation Services
Manager 81% $13,260 $14,692 $16,123 -22% $12,250 -7%
Los Altos Hills
Community
Services Supervisor 100% $8,095 $9,512 $10,928 0% $10,102 -6% Cupertino
Recreation
Supervisor 92% $9,434 $10,451 $11,468 -9% $10,102 -6%
Los Altos
Recreation
Supervisor 92% $8,805 $9,753 $10,702 -2% $10,102 -6%
Campbell
Recreation
Supervisor 87% $9,923 $10,996 $12,069 -14% $10,102 -6%
Los Altos Hills
Deputy Building
Official / Plan
Examiner** 100% $9,844 $11,566 $13,289 0% $11,761 -2%
Cupertino
Deputy Building
Official 90% $12,795 $14,174 $15,553 23% $11,761 -2%
Campbell
Plan Check
Examiner 75% $10,020 $11,163 $12,305 -4% $11,761 -2%
Cupertino
Plan Check
Engineer 70% $10,793 $11,955 $13,118 3% $11,761 -2%
Los Altos Hills
Deputy City
Manager 100% $12,036 $14,761 $17,486 0% $16,424 -10%
Campbell
Deputy City
Manager 95% $13,913 $15,413 $16,912 -4% $16,424 -10%
Cupertino
Deputy City
Manager 92% $15,738 $17,435 $19,131 -15% $16,424 -10%
Los Altos
Deputy City
Manager 91% $15,942 $17,660 $19,378 -16% $16,424 -10%
Los Altos Hills Finance Director 100% $14,964 $17,593 $20,221 0% $18,896 -7% Hillsborough Director of Finance 97% $17,539 $19,429 $21,318 -9% $18,896 -7% Atherton Finance Director 94% $17,022 $18,363 $19,704 -4% $18,896 -7% Campbell Finance Director 94% $18,424 $21,259 $24,093 -17% $18,896 -7% Los Gatos Finance Director 94% $15,338 $18,022 $20,707 -2% $18,896 -7% Los Altos Finance Director 82% $17,604 $19,501 $21,398 -10% $18,896 -7% Los Altos Hills Finance Manager 100% $11,916 $14,002 $16,087 0% $15,617 -10% Cupertino Finance Manager 91% $14,717 $16,303 $17,889 -14% $15,617 -10% Saratoga Finance Manager 88% $13,582 $15,890 $18,198 -12% $15,617 -10%

15 Campbell Finance Manager 84% $14,097 $15,617 $17,137 -10% $15,617 -10% Los Altos
Financial Services
Manager 84% $14,123 $15,645 $17,167 -11% $15,617 -10%
Los Gatos
Finance and Budget
Manager 79% $12,282 $14,431 $16,581 -3% $15,617 -10%
Los Gatos
Finance and
Accounting
Manager 78% $12,282 $14,431 $16,581 -3% $15,617 -10%
Los Altos Hills
Maintenance
Superintendent 100% $9,863 $11,589 $13,315 0% $13,275 -13% Los Altos
Maintenance
Superintendent 88% $12,991 $14,391 $15,791 -19% $13,275 -13% Atherton
Public Works
Maintenance
Manager 82% $11,271 $12,160 $13,048 -5% $13,275 -13%
Cupertino
Service Center
Superintendent 76% $13,026 $14,430 $15,834 -20% $13,275 -13% Los Altos Hills
Maintenance
Worker I 100% $4,940 $5,805 $6,669 0% $6,489 -11%
Campbell
Maintenance
Worker I 97% $5,973 $6,617 $7,261 -12% $6,489 -11%
Cupertino
Maintenance
Worker I 97% $5,398 $6,095 $6,791 -5% $6,489 -11%
Hillsborough
Maintenance
Worker I 94% $5,865 $6,489 $7,113 -11% $6,489 -11%
Saratoga
Maintenance
Worker I 93% $5,801 $6,787 $7,772 -14% $6,489 -11%
Portola Valley
Maintenance
Worker I* 92% $5,675 $6,271 $6,866 -7% $6,489 -11%
Los Altos
Maintenance
Worker I 84% $5,932 $6,572 $7,211 -12% $6,489 -11%
Los Altos Hills
Maintenance
Worker II 100% $5,729 $6,732 $7,734 0% $7,246 -7%
Campbell
Maintenance
Worker II 94% $6,602 $7,314 $8,025 -8% $7,246 -7%
Portola Valley
Maintenance
Worker II* 92% $6,866 $7,461 $8,056 -10% $7,246 -7%
Saratoga
Maintenance
Worker II 85% $6,408 $7,497 $8,585 -10% $7,246 -7%
Cupertino
Maintenance
Worker II 82% $6,250 $7,059 $7,867 -5% $7,246 -7%
Los Altos
Maintenance
Worker II 81% $6,541 $7,246 $7,950 -7% $7,246 -7%

16 Hillsborough
Maintenance
Worker II 80% $6,453 $7,147 $7,841 -6% $7,246 -7%
Los Altos Hills
Maintenance
Worker III 100% $6,644 $7,807 $8,969 0% $8,193 -5%
Los Gatos
Senior Parks &
Maintenance
Worker 91% $6,625 $7,540 $8,455 4% $8,193 -5%
Los Altos
Maintenance Lead
Worker 81% $7,396 $8,193 $8,990 -5% $8,193 -5%
Saratoga
Maintenance
Worker III 81% $7,047 $8,247 $9,447 -5% $8,193 -5%
Hillsborough
Lead Maintenance
Worker 79% $7,612 $8,432 $9,252 -7% $8,193 -5%
Los Altos Hills
Management
Analyst 100% $8,095 $9,512 $10,928 0% $10,029 -5%
Atherton
Management
Analyst 91% $10,158 $11,003 $11,848 -14% $10,029 -5%
Woodside
Management
Analyst 88% $5,500 $8,250 $11,000 15% $10,029 -5%
Los Altos
Management
Analyst I 85% $9,290 $10,291 $11,292 -8% $10,029 -5%
Hillsborough
Management
Analyst I 80% $8,816 $9,767 $10,718 -3% $10,029 -5%
Los Gatos
Administrative
Analyst 74% $9,004 $10,298 $11,592 -8% $10,029 -5%
Los Altos Hills
Management
Analyst II 100% $9,388 $11,031 $12,673 0% $10,943 1%
Los Altos
Management
Analyst II 92% $9,790 $10,845 $11,900 2% $10,943 1%
Atherton
Management
Analyst II 91% $11,173 $12,102 $13,032 -9% $10,943 1%
Hillsborough
Management
Analyst II 86% $9,700 $10,744 $11,789 3% $10,943 1%
Cupertino
Management
Analyst 82% $9,800 $10,856 $11,912 2% $10,943 1%
Campbell
Administrative
Analyst II 72% $10,157 $11,254 $12,350 -2% $10,943 1%
Los Altos Hills Principal Planner 100% $11,438 $13,440 $15,441 0% $13,935 -4% Woodside Principal Planner 88% $8,746 $13,119 $17,492 2% $13,935 -4% Los Altos
Planning Services
Manager 86% $13,115 $14,528 $15,941 -7% $13,935 -4%
Los Gatos Planning Manager 84% $12,282 $14,431 $16,581 -7% $13,935 -4%

17 Los Altos Hills
Public Works
Director 100% $15,767 $18,527 $21,286 0% $19,645 -6%
Hillsborough
Director of Public
Works - City
Engineer 94% $18,744 $20,763 $22,781 -11% $19,645 -6%
Cupertino
Director of Public
Works 93% $19,999 $22,154 $24,310 -16% $19,645 -6%
Campbell
Public Works
Director 93% $18,963 $21,937 $24,911 -16% $19,645 -6%
Atherton
Public Works
Director/City
Engineer 92% $16,962 $18,299 $19,635 1% $19,645 -6%
Saratoga
Public Works
Director 91% $18,406 $21,538 $24,669 -14% $19,645 -6%
Woodside
Town
Engineer/Director
of Public Works 84% $11,830 $17,745 $23,660 4% $19,645 -6% Los Gatos
Parks & Public
Works Director 74% $15,721 $18,473 $21,224 0% $19,645 -6% Los Altos Hills
Public Works
Inspector 100% $7,919 $9,305 $10,691 0% $9,290 0%
Los Gatos
Public Works
Inspector 95% $7,787 $8,863 $9,939 5% $9,290 0%
Cupertino
Public Works
Inspector 94% $9,327 $10,332 $11,338 -10% $9,290 0%
Campbell
Public Works
Inspector 93% $10,275 $11,385 $12,494 -18% $9,290 0%
Saratoga
Public Works
Inspector 93% $9,086 $10,630 $12,173 -12% $9,290 0%
Hillsborough
Public Works
Inspector I 92% $7,612 $8,432 $9,252 10% $9,290 0%
Hillsborough
Public Works
Inspector II 90% $8,372 $9,275 $10,177 0% $9,290 0%
Los Altos
Construction
Inspector 79% $8,100 $8,972 $9,845 4% $9,290 0%
Los Altos Hills
Recreation
Specialist 100% $5,190 $6,099 $7,007 0% $6,357 -4%
Campbell
Recreation
Specialist 84% $5,526 $6,357 $7,188 -4% $6,357 -4%
Campbell
Recreation
Specialist Facilities 81% $5,526 $6,357 $7,188 -4% $6,357 -4% Los Altos Hills
Senior Accountant /
Finance Manager 100% $10,362 $12,176 $13,989 0% $11,318 8% Hillsborough Senior Accountant 96% $10,056 $11,139 $12,223 9% $11,318 8%

18 Campbell Senior Accountant 94% $10,215 $11,318 $12,421 8% $11,318 8% Cupertino Senior Accountant 94% $10,310 $11,421 $12,531 7% $11,318 8% Los Altos Senior Accountant 84% $10,035 $11,116 $12,197 10% $11,318 8% Los Altos Hills
Senior Building
Inspector 100% $8,505 $9,993 $11,481 0% $11,252 -11%
Hillsborough
Building Inspector
II 94% $9,056 $10,032 $11,008 0% $11,252 -11%
Campbell
Senior Building
Inspector 94% $11,161 $12,371 $13,581 -19% $11,252 -11% Cupertino
Senior Building
Inspector 94% $9,966 $11,252 $12,539 -11% $11,252 -11%
Los Altos
Senior Building
Inspector 90% $9,862 $10,925 $11,987 -9% $11,252 -11%
Los Gatos
Senior Building
Inspector 90% $10,476 $11,973 $13,470 -17% $11,252 -11% Hillsborough
Senior Building
Inspector/Plan
Checker 86% $10,215 $11,315 $12,414 -12% $11,252 -11%
Los Altos Hills
Senior Civil
Engineer 100% $10,887 $12,792 $14,697 0% $13,586 -6%
Cupertino
Senior Civil
Engineer 97% $13,807 $15,295 $16,783 -16% $13,586 -6%
Los Gatos
Senior Civil
Engineer 88% $11,690 $13,736 $15,781 -7% $13,586 -6%
Woodside Senior Engineer 88% $7,811 $11,717 $15,622 9% $13,586 -6% Los Altos Senior Engineer 87% $12,129 $13,436 $14,743 -5% $13,586 -6% Campbell
Senior Civil
Engineer 84% $13,652 $15,125 $16,597 -15% $13,586 -6%
Los Altos Hills Senior Planner 100% $9,863 $11,589 $13,315 0% $12,503 -7% Saratoga Senior Planner 94% $11,152 $13,048 $14,943 -11% $12,503 -7% Los Altos Senior Planner 92% $11,849 $13,126 $14,402 -12% $12,503 -7% Hillsborough Senior Planner 91% $11,368 $12,593 $13,818 -8% $12,503 -7% Los Gatos Senior Planner 90% $10,941 $12,503 $14,064 -7% $12,503 -7% Woodside Senior Planner 88% $7,811 $11,717 $15,622 -1% $12,503 -7% Portola Valley Senior Planner 87% $9,926 $11,956 $13,986 -3% $12,503 -7% Campbell Senior Planner 84% $12,314 $13,646 $14,978 -15% $12,503 -7% Cupertino Senior Planner 84% $10,188 $11,503 $12,818 1% $12,503 -7% Los Altos Hills
Senior Public
Works Inspector 100% $9,770 $11,480 $13,190 0% $10,852 6%

19 Los Gatos
Senior Public
Works Inspector 93% $7,787 $8,863 $9,939 30% $10,852 6% Campbell
Senior Public
Works Inspector 89% $10,974 $12,160 $13,347 -6% $10,852 6% Hillsborough
Public Works
Inspector III 87% $9,230 $10,224 $11,218 12% $10,852 6% Los Altos Hills
Utility Engineering
Manager 100% $12,017 $14,120 $16,223 0% $13,928 1%
Cupertino
Senior Civil
Engineer 97% $13,807 $15,295 $16,783 -8% $13,928 1%
Los Gatos
Senior Civil
Engineer 88% $11,690 $13,736 $15,781 3% $13,928 1%
Woodside Senior Engineer 88% $7,811 $11,717 $15,622 21% $13,928 1% Los Altos Senior Engineer 87% $12,129 $13,436 $14,743 5% $13,928 1% Campbell
Senior Civil
Engineer 84% $13,652 $15,125 $16,597 -7% $13,928 1%
*Portola Valley Maintenance Worker split between I and II at midpoint **New addition added on 5.13.25

20 EXHIBIT 4: SUMMARY COMPARATOR TABLE FOR SENIOR ROLES Modified to remove the largest jurisdictions (Cupertino, Campbell, Los Gatos, and Saratoga) Roles
LAH
Midpoint
Roles
Included
Benchmark
Median Diff
Administrative Services Director $18,527 2 $18,136 2%
Assistant Community Development Director / Building
Official $15,219 3 $15,220 0%
Assistant to the City Manager $13,112 3 $13,112 0%
Building Official $12,176 4 $14,138 -14%
City Clerk $12,176 5 $12,176 0%
Community Development Director $18,527 5 $18,527 0%
Deputy Building Official / Plan Examiner $11,566 2 $12,463 -7% Deputy City Manager $14,761 2 $16,210 -9%
Finance Director $17,593 4 $18,896 -7%
Public Works Director $18,527 4 $18,413 1%
Grand Total $15,335 34 $15,821 -3%

21 EXHIBIT 5: DETAILED COMPARATOR TABLE FOR SENIOR ROLES Modified to remove the largest jurisdictions (Cupertino, Campbell, Los Gatos, and Saratoga) Comparator
Agency Benchmark Title Similarity Low Midpoint High
Differenc
e Median
Median_
Diff
Los Altos
Hills
Administrative
Services Director 100% $15,767 $18,527 $21,286 0% $18,136 2% Woodside
Administrative
Services Director 88% $11,830 $17,745 $23,660 4% $18,136 2% Los Altos
Hills
Assistant
Community
Development
Director / Building
Official 100% $12,953 $15,220 $17,486 0% $15,220 0%
Hillsborough Building Official 94% $12,498 $13,845 $15,192 10% $15,220 0% Hillsborough
Assistant Director
of Building &
Planning 72% $14,747 $16,337 $17,926 -7% $15,220 0%
Los Altos
Hills
Assistant to the
City Manager 100% $11,159 $13,112 $15,064 0% $13,112 0% Los Altos
Assistant to the
City Manager 92% $12,375 $13,709 $15,042 -4% $13,112 0% Woodside
Assistant to the
Town Manager 79% $7,335 $11,002 $14,669 19% $13,112 0%
Los Altos
Hills Building Official 100% $10,362 $12,176 $13,989 0% $13,845 -12% Hillsborough Building Official 94% $12,498 $13,845 $15,192 -12% $13,845 -12% Los Altos Building Official 90% $13,115 $14,528 $15,941 -16% $13,845 -12% Los Altos
Hills City Clerk 100% $10,362 $12,176 $13,989 0% $12,176 0% Los Altos City Clerk 92% $12,991 $14,391 $15,791 -15% $12,176 0% Hillsborough City Clerk 81% $11,307 $12,524 $13,740 -3% $12,176 0% Portola
Valley Town Clerk 77% $9,718 $11,213 $12,707 9% $12,176 0% Woodside Town Clerk 76% $7,335 $11,002 $14,669 11% $12,176 0% Los Altos
Hills
Community
Development
Director 100% $15,767 $18,527 $21,286 0% $18,527 0%
Portola
Valley
Planning &
Building Director 94% $14,592 $16,824 $19,055 10% $18,527 0% Hillsborough
Director of
Building and
Planning 91% $17,539 $19,429 $21,318 -5% $18,527 0%

22 Los Altos
Development
Services Director 86% $17,610 $19,507 $21,405 -5% $18,527 0% Woodside Planning Director 84% $11,830 $17,745 $23,660 4% $18,527 0% Los Altos
Hills
Deputy Building
Official / Plan
Examiner 100% $9,844 $11,566 $13,289 0% $12,463 -7%
San Carlos
Assistant Building
Official 85% $12,060 $13,360 $14,659 16% $12,463 -7%
Los Altos
Hills
Deputy City
Manager 100% $12,036 $14,761 $17,486 0% $16,210 -9%
Los Altos
Deputy City
Manager 91% $15,942 $17,660 $19,378 -16% $16,210 -9%
Los Altos
Hills Finance Director 100% $14,964 $17,593 $20,221 0% $18,896 -7% Hillsborough
Director of
Finance 97% $17,539 $19,429 $21,318 -9% $18,896 -7%
Atherton Finance Director 94% $17,022 $18,363 $19,704 -4% $18,896 -7% Los Altos Finance Director 82% $17,604 $19,501 $21,398 -10% $18,896 -7% Los Altos
Hills
Public Works
Director 100% $15,767 $18,527 $21,286 0% $18,413 1%
Hillsborough
Director of Public
Works - City
Engineer 94% $18,744 $20,763 $22,781 -11% $18,413 1%
Atherton
Public Works
Director/City
Engineer 92% $16,962 $18,299 $19,635 1% $18,413 1%
Woodside
Town
Engineer/Director
of Public Works 84% $11,830 $17,745 $23,660 4% $18,413 1% *Removed Cupertino and Campbell due to larger scope covered by senior staff

PROPOSED

OPERATING

AND CAPITAL
BUDGET

F O R F I S C A L Y E A R
2025-2026

TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS

CALIFORNIA

(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CITY MANAGER’S BUDGET MESSAGE � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 5 BUDGET PROCESS� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 21 TOWN INFORMATION � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 29

FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL ALLOCATION
SUMMARIES� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 41 2025-26 City Council Priorities 42
Funds Overview 44
Town Wide Financial Summary 47
General Fund 48
Sewer Fund 50
Department Spending 51
Personnel Allocations 52
DEPARTMENT BUDGETS � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 55 Department Overview 56
Cost Allocation 61
2025-26 City Council Goals 63
General Administration 67
Finance & Administrative Svcs 84
Public Safety 95
Community Development 100
Community Services 112
Public Works 123
GUIDE TO FIVE‐YEAR CIP � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �138

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN SUMMARY AND
FUNDING SOURCES � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �142 TOWN POLICIES� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �180 APPENDIX� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �208

(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)

City Manager’s
Budget Message

6 Town of Los Altos Hills | FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and FY 2026-2030 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan City Manager’s Budget Message
City Manager’s Budget Message
To the Residents of the Town of Los Altos Hills, Honorable Mayor, and Members of the City Council:

It is my pleasure to present the FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and the FY 2026–30 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan for the Town of Los Altos Hills. This marks the second year of the Town’s two-year operating budget, originally adopted for FY 2024–26.

The two-year budget structure provides a long-range planning framework while allowing for mid-cycle updates.

This year’s revisions reflect updated revenue projections, operational needs, and Council direction. The FY 2025-26 Budget is scheduled for formal adoption on June 26, 2025.

The budget serves not only as a financial and operational plan but also as a tool for advancing the City Council’s two-year strategic goals. These goals—first outlined in the 2024 Work Plan and updated during the 2025 goalsetting session—guide investments in infrastructure, service delivery, staffing, and community resilience. While the first year of the two-year budget focused on operations, the second year shifts more attention to capital planning and long-term initiatives.

I am pleased to report that the FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget is structurally balanced—ongoing revenues are sufficient to fund ongoing operating expenditures without relying on one-time resources. Excluding transfers for capital improvement projects, General Fund revenues are $18.5 million and expenditures are $18.2 million. However, the budget includes the planned use of reserves, specifically from the Facilities Replacement Reserve, to support select capital improvement projects. Core priorities remain: enhancing service levels, retaining staff, improving efficiency, supporting technology, complying with state mandates (such as Housing Element and CEQA-related updates), and promoting safety and resilience.

Despite continued economic uncertainty, the Town maintains a strong financial position, bolstered by healthy reserves and sound fiscal management. This budget meets today’s needs while continuing to fund the Town’s long-term priorities with fiscal responsibility.
2025 and 2026 City Council Work Plan
The City Council’s two-year Work Plan outlines the Town’s strategic priorities and is intended to guide decisionmaking and resource allocation through FY 2025-26. The Work Plan is organized into four broad categories:
> Maintaining Quality of Life and Community Character
> Promoting Public Safety
> Increasing Effective Service Delivery and Governance
> Protecting and Maintaining Infrastructure
These categories represent the Council’s focus areas and reflect where time, staff effort, and funding will be directed over the coming year.

The FY 2025-26 Budget aligns with this framework and advances a wide range of initiatives:
> Maintaining Quality of Life and Community Character: The Town is continuing the Housing Element amendment process while investing in community engagement, water conservation efforts, and public outreach through events and publications.
> Promoting Public Safety: Initiatives include emergency preparedness, upgrades to emergency communication systems such as a Town-wide sound study and ALERT SCC, updates to the fire hazard

Town of Los Altos Hills | FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and FY 2026-2030 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan 7 City Manager’s Budget Message
severity zone maps, and wildfire risk reduction through defensible space strategies and hazard mitigation work.
> Increasing Effective Service Delivery and Governance: Projects include permitting system upgrades (TRAKiT), cost-of-service and user fee studies, an impact fee analysis, policy and process improvements, and continued updates to financial and administrative systems. > Protecting and Maintaining Infrastructure: Major efforts include the remodel of the Heritage House, improvements to the Corporation Yard, roadway and pathway upgrades, stormwater system enhancements, and ongoing sewer processing and conveyance negotiations with partner agencies.

Additional projects focus on utility undergrounding, broadband expansion, energy efficiency upgrades at Town facilities, and replacement of aging fleet and equipment.

Some projects are long-term and ongoing, while others are new to this Work Plan cycle, with many expected to reach key milestones by FY 2025-26. The Plan is reviewed regularly to ensure progress remains on track and aligned with available resources. Mid-year updates and a year-end summary help the Council adjust priorities as community needs evolve.

A copy of the most current Council Work Plan, including project-level detail, is available at https://www.losaltoshills.ca.gov/544/2024-25-City-Council-Work-Plan.

In 2024, staff observed from several prior workplans that many projects identified each year required more than a single year to complete. This resulted in multiple carryover items from one workplan to the next. To address this, staff proposed a two-year workplan instead of setting priorities annually, aiming to save time and streamline the process. The goal of this shift in the Town’s goal-setting process was to reduce planning workload for staff and better align with the Council’s priorities established at the start of each year.

The two-year workplan adopted by the Council in 2024 included 63 key projects comprising 138 individual milestones.

These projects included adopting the Housing Element, reducing residential burglaries, improving the Town’s permitting system, expanding broadband access for residents, and more.

Throughout the 2024 calendar year, the committees, Council, and staff encountered new challenges and emerging priorities, many of which were incorporated into the workplan. Ultimately, several additional projects were added during the year. A key lesson learned was that projects often took longer than anticipated due to factors such as staff turnover, competing and evolving priorities, state mandates, natural disasters, and other unforeseen events.

By the end of 2024 the Town had completed 20 Projects and 27 are in progress. The chart below shows the current status of the Council work plan.

8 Town of Los Altos Hills | FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and FY 2026-2030 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan City Manager’s Budget Message
Revenues
The FY 2025-26 revenue outlook is strong, with General Fund revenues—including allocations—projected to increase to $18.5 million, a 4.9% increase from final FY 2024-25 estimates and 4.0% over the FY 2024-25 adopted budget. Excluding allocations, General Fund revenues are projected at $15.1 million.

The Town’s largest and most stable revenue source—property tax—continues to show steady growth. Property tax revenues are estimated at $9.5 million for FY 2025-26, a 5.5% increase from final FY 2024-25 estimates.

This growth is supported by a 2.0% CPI adjustment, reassessments following property sales, and an anticipated FY 2025-26 General Fund Revenues ($18.5M)
Property T Property Taxes axes
$9,483,540, 51.3% $9,483,540, 51.3%
Property Taxes
TTaxes Other Than Property axes Other Than Property
$610,750, 3.3% $610,750, 3.3%
Taxes Other Than Property
Franchise Fees Franchise Fees
$705,500, 3.8% $705,500, 3.8%
Franchise Fees
Licenses and Permits Licenses and Permits
$2,012,774, 10.9% $2,012,774, 10.9%
Licenses and Permits
Use of Money and Property Use of Money and Property
$955,186, 5.2% $955,186, 5.2%
Use of Money and Property Intergovernmental Subventions Intergovernmental Subventions $46,001, 0.2% $46,001, 0.2%
Intergovernmental Subventions
Charges for Services Charges for Services
$1,241,925, 6.7% $1,241,925, 6.7%
Charges for Services
Miscellaneous Revenues Miscellaneous Revenues
$18,000, 0.1% $18,000, 0.1%
Miscellaneous Revenues
Allocations In Allocations In
$3,407,530, 18.4% $3,407,530, 18.4%
Allocations In
Economic Outlook and Fiscal Position
While the Town’s near-term financial position is sound, broader economic uncertainty persists. Inflation remains elevated in select sectors, tariff risks have reemerged, and the yield curve remains inverted. Treasury yields declined in Q1 2025, signaling slowing growth expectations. If interest rates fall further, investment returns will likely decline, reducing General Fund revenues. In this environment, preserving structural balance will require active budget management and continued discipline in both operating and capital spending.

In addition, the Town’s financial outlook remains partially dependent on continued growth in property tax revenues, which are inherently tied to broader economic trends and housing market conditions. Although recent property tax trends have been positive, they do not guarantee future performance, particularly in a volatile economic climate.

Interest earnings have also served as an important revenue source in recent years. While return on investments is anticipated, projecting future yields based on past performance carries greater uncertainty due to ongoing global market disruptions, evolving tariff policies, and other macroeconomic risks. Planning and Building revenue is similarly sensitive to economic conditions, as it is closely linked to local development activity, building permit volume, and real estate market health.

Despite these risks, the Town’s strong reserves and sound financial practices provide a solid foundation to manage risk and maintain service levels in the year ahead.

Town of Los Altos Hills | FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and FY 2026-2030 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan 9 City Manager’s Budget Message
increase in Excess Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) revenue. The estimate is based on data from the County Assessor’s Office and analysis by the Town’s revenue consultant, HdL Companies.

License and Permits revenues, which is the second largest revenue category, are projected at $2.0 million for FY 2025-26. This represents an increase of 92.6% from final FY 2024-25 estimates and 22.0% over the FY 2024-25 adopted budget, largely driven by expected adjustments from the fee study and continued high service demand.

Use of Money and Property revenues—which include both investment income and rental income—is projected at $1.0 million for FY 2025-26, an approximate 40.1% decrease from final FY 2024-25 estimates and 15.0% under the FY 2024-25 adopted budget.

Investment income continues to perform well due to elevated interest rates and the addition of a sweep account that captures earnings on idle cash balances. However, investment income remains sensitive to monetary policy shifts. While the Federal Reserve has held rates steady through mid-2025, market consensus now anticipates three quarter-point rate cuts beginning in September 2025, driven by moderating inflation and signs of softening in the labor market. As these reductions take effect, reinvestment returns are expected to decline, particularly for short-term instruments.

For FY 2025–26, interest earnings are projected using varying assumptions to reflect each investment type’s sensitivity to rate changes. CAMP/PFM is budgeted at 3.75%, below its current 4.15% yield, with a weighted average maturity of 995 days that helps preserve higher returns as rates decline. LAIF is budgeted at 2.9%, below its current 4.3% yield, with a 233-day maturity that makes it more sensitive to rate cuts. The Wells Fargo Sweep account is budgeted at 2.6%, below its 4.2% yield, with a 43-day maturity that is expected to reprice quickly with market changes. This approach balances strong current performance with a realistic outlook for declining yields.

Other revenue categories—including franchise fees, intergovernmental subventions, and miscellaneous sources— are expected to remain stable. However, Planning and Building revenues continue to fluctuate, reflecting the timing of major development projects. Cost recovery in Planning remains low—currently around 30%—due to non-reimbursable, state-mandated activities such as Housing Element implementation and Builder’s Remedy applications. To better align revenue with service costs, the Town is proceeding with a comprehensive user fee update and cost allocation study, with a new Planning and Building Fee Schedule expected to be implemented in FY 2025-26.

10 Town of Los Altos Hills | FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and FY 2026-2030 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan City Manager’s Budget Message
General Fund Expenditures
General Fund expenditures–including allocations–are projected at $18.2 million in FY 2025-26, a 12.2% increase from final FY 2024-25 estimates and 0.0% under the FY 2024-25 adopted budget. Excluding allocations, General Fund expenditures are estimated at $13.7 million.

Personnel costs are increasing due to two staffing changes, as well as rising health and pension obligations. The budget includes a new full-time Management Analyst (shared between Finance and Community Development) and converts a contract Building Technician to a full-time role. No cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) are budgeted; instead, a merit-based contingency is provided to fund any salary increases. The Building Technician conversion reduces reliance on contract staff, which results in an overall decrease in Contractual Services costs.

Public safety remains the largest contractual service cost, with increased costs driven by adjustments to the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office contract and continued funding for private security and Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs). Professional services and operations budgets remain consistent with prior years.

General Fund Revenues
$8,153,742 $8,153,742 $8,531,557 $8,531,557 $8,991,000 $8,991,000 $9,483,540 $9,483,540 $575,010 $575,010 $599,106 $599,106 $650,120 $650,120 $610,750 $610,750 $391,129 $391,129 $665,597 $665,597 $696,291 $696,291 $705,500 $705,500 $1,366,066 $1,366,066 $1,837,123 $1,837,123 $1,044,918 $1,044,918 $2,012,774 $2,012,774 $344,281 $344,281 $1,108,231 $1,108,231 $1,595,567 $1,595,567 $955,186 $955,186 $38,439 $38,439 $49,422 $49,422 $103,683 $103,683 $46,001 $46,001 $1,035,404 $1,035,404 $1,099,638 $1,099,638 $802,312 $802,312 $1,241,925 $1,241,925 $82,691 $82,691 $69,012 $69,012 $16,745 $16,745 $18,000 $18,000 Property Taxes
Taxes Other Than Property
Franchise Fees
Licenses and Permits
Use of Money and Property
Intergovernmental Subventions
Charges for Services
Miscellaneous Revenues
Allocations In
10k
100k
1M
10M
100M
2022-23
Actual
2023-24
Actual
2024-25
Est. Actual
2025-26
Budget
Proposal
$2,962,480 $2,999,794 $3,711,885 $3,407,530

Town of Los Altos Hills | FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and FY 2026-2030 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan 11 City Manager’s Budget Message
Department Highlights
Public Safety
Public safety remains a major cost driver for the Town. The Public Safety budget is $4.1 million, a 10.2% increase from the FY 2024-25 adopted budget. The increase is driven largely by contract cost increases and the continued need for supplemental services.

The Town is now in the second year of its public safety contract with the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office, which increased by 8%, from $2.5 million to $2.7 million, due to Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustments and rising pension obligations.

Much of the increase in public safety spending began in FY 2021-22, when the Town expanded its law enforcement tools in response to a surge in residential burglaries. In April 2021, the Town added Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs), to monitor the license plates of vehicles entering and exiting the Town. In April 2023, private security patrols were added as a deterrent and investigative aid. Additional measures included funding for overtime deputies and consultants to explore further crime prevention strategies. As a result, public safety expenditures have increased by over $1 million since FY 2021–22.

To manage rising expenses, the Town implemented several cost-saving measures:
> Overtime funding was reduced from $200,000 to $100,000 in FY 2025-26 based on actual usage trends. > In February 2025, the Council approved a reduction in private security patrols from four shifts to three, reducing costs by $50,000.
> In February 2025, the number of Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) was reduced from 40 to 31, reducing costs by $17,000.

Despite these reductions, key public safety investments will remain in place. The FY 2025-26 Budget includes $550,000 for private security services, $93,000 for ALPRs, $100,000 in overtime funding for deputies and FY 2025-26 General Fund Expenditures ($18.1M)
General Administration General Administration
$2,519,074, 14% $2,519,074, 14%
Finance & Administrative Services Finance & Administrative Services $1,616,028, 9% $1,616,028, 9%
Community Development Community Development
$4,919,808, 27% $4,919,808, 27%
Public W Public Works orks
$3,574,951, 20% $3,574,951, 20%
Public Safety Public Safety
$4,073,524, 22% $4,073,524, 22%
Non-Departmental Non-Departmental
$13,240, 0% $13,240, 0%
Community Services Community Services
$1,452,365, 8% $1,452,365, 8%

12 Town of Los Altos Hills | FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and FY 2026-2030 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan City Manager’s Budget Message
investigators to provide additional coverage during holidays or as needed throughout the year, and $60,000 for a law enforcement consultant—recommended by the Sheriff’s Contract Ad Hoc Committee—to help evaluate future service model options.

In addition, the animal control services contract with Pets in Need is budgeted to increase from $150,000 to $157,000, reflecting cost escalations from the provider.

One cost area not yet reflected in the FY 2025-26 budget is the annual contract reconciliation performed by the Sheriff’s Office. This reconciliation covers overages and underages for detective work, call volumes, and services above or below the base contract and authorized overtime. The amount is not known until Q3 2025 and can range significantly—from a credit to several hundred thousand dollars in additional charges—depending on service levels provided.

Community Development
The Community Development budget for FY 2025-26 is $4.9 million, a 6.2% decrease from the FY 2024-25 adopted budget. The decrease is due to the completion of several Housing Element tasks. However, ongoing long-range planning and the processing of complex, state-mandated applications will continue to place pressure on department resources through the coming year. Most Housing Element-related costs are budgeted in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), with some expenses reflected in the Operating Budget.

The FY 2025-26 Planning Division budget reflects continued demands related to Housing Element implementation and long-range planning, which have significantly impacted staff workload and resource needs. Although application volumes have declined due to new state-mandated streamlining laws, substantial staff and consultant time remains committed to housing element amendments, rezoning, and legal compliance efforts. Revenues are projected at $633,673, while expenditures are expected to decline by 7% compared to FY 2024-25, reflecting the completion of key Housing Element adoption milestones. Despite efforts to achieve a 90% cost recovery rate for current planning services, overall cost recovery remains low (approximately 30%) due to the predominance of non-fee-recoverable activities. The Town is implementing updated fee schedules from the ongoing Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study to improve alignment between revenues and service costs. However, General Fund support will continue to be necessary as the Town advances its long-range planning obligations and manages complex housing-related applications. Additionally, significant Housing Element-related costs—while budgeted under the Capital Improvement Program (CIP)—have affected the General Fund.

Code Enforcement expenditures remained steady in FY 2024-25 following an increase in contracted hours from 24 to 32 hours per week to address higher case volume. The FY 2025-26 budget continues funding at the expanded service level, based on the current hourly rate.

The FY 2025-26 Building Division budget reflects ongoing investment to support strong development activity and improved service delivery. While actual revenues in FY 2024-25 came in below projections due to delays in large project starts, overall permit volumes remain robust, and revenues are expected to rebound in FY 2025-26 as deferred activity proceeds. The budget includes targeted staffing changes, such as converting a contract Building Technician to a full-time role and adding a shared Management Analyst, reducing reliance on consultants. Continued investments in permitting technology and implementation of updated user fees from the ongoing User Fee Study will enhance efficiency, customer service, and long-term financial sustainability.

Public Works
The General Fund Public Works budget for FY 2025-26 is $3.6 million, a 0.7% increase from the FY 2024-25 adopted budget.

Town of Los Altos Hills | FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and FY 2026-2030 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan 13 City Manager’s Budget Message
The Engineering budget decreased by $371,514, or 27%, primarily due to a reduction in billable professional and contract services now being handled by in-house staff. The Storm Drain Operations budget increased by $62,613, or 12% due to additional contract services to support the Storm Drainage Fee Study. The Street Operations budget increased by $71,685, or 9% due to higher personnel costs from bringing inspection services in-house. The Pathway Operations budget increased by $261,331, or 32% due to higher personnel costs.

In the Internal Service Fund, the Corporation Yard budget increased by $43,606, or 24% largely due to increased personnel costs and the Vehicle Operations budget increased by $46,840, or 35%, also driven by higher personnel costs. In the Sewer Fund, the Sewer Operating budget increased by $417,959, or 7%, primarily due to increased treatment charges from the Palo Alto Treatment Plant and higher conveyance fees in Los Altos.

General Administration
The General Administration budget is made up of all the support departments which include City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, and Committees and Commissions.

The General Administration budget for FY 2025-26 is $2.5 million, a 9.2% increase from the FY 2024-25 adopted budget.

The FY 2025-26 City Manager’s budget reflects increased personnel costs due to a reallocation of the Deputy City Manager’s time from other departments to the City Manager program. The budget also includes a contract Emergency Services Manager to support emergency planning, training, and committee initiatives. To maintain flexibility for advancing Council priorities and addressing specialized needs, funding is included for consultant services on an as-needed basis.

The FY 2025-26 City Attorney’s budget remains largely consistent with the prior year. Legal costs related to Community Development and Public Works—such as Housing Element implementation, SB 9 compliance, and pathway projects—continue to be reflected in those departmental budgets. Many legal costs related to development applications are billable to applicants and cost-recoverable. The remaining budget covers anticipated litigation, settlements, and general legal services. A modest reduction was made to better align with projected actual expenditures.

Finance and Administrative Services
The Finance and Administrative Services budget includes: Finance and Administrative Services, Community Services Grants (Donations to Non- Profits), Insurance, and Town Center (overhead charges). In FY 2024-25, Finance and Administrative Services reached full staffing for the first time in several years, following a period of significant turnover. With key positions now filled, the department is well-positioned to deliver stable, efficient, and highquality Finance and Human Resources services.

The General Fund Finance and Administrative Services budget for FY 2025-26 is $1.6 million, a 11.7% increase from the FY 2024-25 adopted budget. The increase is due to continued investment in financial and HR systems, the transfer of the recruitment budget from the Town Center, and higher insurance costs. It also includes a new 0.5 FTE Management Analyst, shared with Community Development, to support building deposit tracking, fee studies, budget development, and HR functions—reducing consultant reliance and improving interdepartmental support.

Community Services
The Community Services budget includes: Recreation Administration, Recreation Programs, Special Events, Parks, and Westwind Community Barn. The Community Services budget for FY 2025-26 is $1.5 million, a 20.8% decrease

14 Town of Los Altos Hills | FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and FY 2026-2030 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan City Manager’s Budget Message
from the FY 2024-25 adopted budget. The decrease is due to a reduction in personnel costs as staffing is now a single Community Services Supervisor.

Staffing
The FY 2025-26 budget proposes a few staffing adjustments to meet operational needs. One Associate Engineer position is proposed to be reclassified to Project Manager to assist in managing engineers for land development reviews, encroachment permits, and CIPs. A contract Building Technician is proposed to be converted to a full-time role to provide consistent support for permitting and customer service. In addition, a new Management Analyst position is proposed, split between Finance and Community Development, to support building deposit tracking, analysis and collection of planning and building fees, budget development, and broader analytical needs across both departments. Finally, the vacant Assistant Director of Community Development position is proposed to be replaced with two Assistant Planners to better handle increased planning workload, improve responsiveness, and support long-range planning. The total number of budgeted positions would increase from 27 to 30 FTEs.

Capital Improvement Plan
FY 2025–26 marks the second year of the Town’s two-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Over the past year, the Town has made steady progress on priority infrastructure projects. In FY 2024–25, the Town funded and implemented a range of capital improvements, including roadway rehabilitation, storm drain upgrades, sewer system maintenance, and equipment replacement. Several long-range projects also advanced through key planning and design phases.

One of the most significant changes in this year’s CIP is the scaling back of the Civic Center Improvements project, which has been refocused on the renovation of the Parks and Recreation Building. This narrower scope reflects both fiscal constraints and evolving community needs, while still investing in long-term facility upgrades.

In addition to continuing core programs, the FY 2025–26 CIP introduces several new projects, including Road Safety and Traffic Calming, the Magdalena Avenue Pathway, and development of a Local Road Safety Plan—each of which supports community safety and mobility goals.

The Annual Road Rehabilitation Project remains the cornerstone of the CIP and is funded at $1.4 million in FY 2025–26. Supported by SB1, Gas Tax, and Measure B revenues, this project prioritizes pavement preservation based on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s Pavement Management Program (PMP), supplemented by staff field inspections and local conditions.

The Sewer Fund also remains adequately funded, with $0.9 million allocated in FY 2025–26 for capital improvements to maintain the Town’s collection and distribution system.

Town of Los Altos Hills | FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and FY 2026-2030 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan 15 City Manager’s Budget Message
FY 2025-26 Capital Projects by Category ($4.2M)
Infrastructure Infrastructure
$1,069,310, 33% $1,069,310, 33%
Pathways Pathways
$565,000, 17% $565,000, 17%
Road Rehabilitation Road Rehabilitation
$558,196, 17% $558,196, 17%
Sewer Sewer
$900,000, 28% $900,000, 28%
VVehicle and Equipment ehicle and Equipment
$100,000, 3% $100,000, 3%
WWestwind Community Barn estwind Community Barn
$50,000, 2% $50,000, 2%
Sewer Fund
The Sewer Fund is fully supported by sewer service charges to residential and non- residential customers and sewer connection fee assessments on new connections to the Town’s sewer system. The Town’s sewer service charge rates have annually increased since FY 2022-23 per the sewer rate study conducted in 2022, due to substantial increases to waste treatment costs from Palo Alto as the regional treatment facility requires significant capital improvements and upgrades to adhere to regulatory requirements. Additionally, the capital needs for the Town’s infrastructure have increased.

The Town has also recently been notified by Los Altos and Palo Alto that service charges for FY 2023-24 will be higher than originally budgeted due to ongoing capital improvements to the system. These additional charges will be captured in the year-end close process, with the ACFR containing the most up-to-date unrestricted net position for the Sewer Fund. These additional charges underscore the need to consider a new rate study in the near future to ensure rates are able to meet the cost of providing these services.

Long Term Debt
The Town has no long-term debt as of the year ending June 30, 2025. The Town does have a special assessment without Town commitment. Special assessments for West Loyola Sanitary Assessment Sewer district are established in various parts of the Town to provide improvements to properties located in those districts. Properties are assessed for the cost of the improvements. These assessments are payable solely by the property owners over the term of the debt issued to finance the improvements. The Town acts solely as the collecting and paying agent for the district’s debt, which is not included in the general debt of the Town. The bonds are not a general obligation of the Town. The Town is not legally obligated to pay these debts or be the purchaser of last resort of foreclosed properties in the special assessment district.

Pension and Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB)
As of the most recent actuarial report from CalPERS, with a valuation date as of June 30, 2023, the Town’s Unfunded Actuarial Liability (UAL) is approximately $3.8 million. The required UAL contribution is approximately $0.3 million for FY 2025-26, which has been incorporated in the operating budget. The Town maintains three pension plans:
the Classic Miscellaneous group is 81.1% funded, the Second Tier plan is 88.2% funded, and the PEPRA tier is 88.9%

16 Town of Los Altos Hills | FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and FY 2026-2030 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan City Manager’s Budget Message
funded. While the unfunded pension liability is significant, the Town has set aside approximately $1.1 million in a Section 115 Pension Trust and another $2.1 million in a General Fund Pension Reserve. The Town expects to retain a consulting actuary to analyze the Town’s updated unfunded liability and provide options and considerations related to the existing funding that has been set aside for pensions. The Town’s Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) Trust is now underfunded by $59,461. The decrease is due to updated actuarial assumptions, unexpected plan experience (including higher retirements and new hires), and lower-than-expected investment returns.

Overhead and Internal Service Fund Allocation
The Town’s overhead cost allocation methodology was updated in FY 2025–26 by NBS to more accurately reflect the cost of administrative services. Overhead includes core functions such as the City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, Finance, Human Resources, and Town Center operations. Due to the Town’s small size, fixed administrative costs represent a larger share of the budget than in larger jurisdictions, yet they reflect the baseline staffing needed for effective governance.

The updated cost allocation plan ensures that overhead is fairly distributed across departments, improving transparency and supporting fee-based cost recovery in Planning, Building, Public Works, and Parks & Recreation.

Since FY 2018–19, administrative costs have ranged from 20% to 29% of the General Fund operating budget, and that range remains consistent in FY 2025–26.

Historically, the Town’s budget combined General Fund and Internal Service Fund operations, while the financial statements and ACFR reported them separately. This made year-over-year comparisons appear larger than they actually were, particularly in administrative budgets.

Beginning with the FY 2025–26 budget, this issue has been corrected: the General Fund and Internal Service Fund are now presented separately, aligning the budget with the ACFR and ensuring consistent, accurate comparisons.

A clarifying footnote has been added to the budget document to explain the change.

Reserves
As part of the FY 2025–26 budget process, the Town reviewed and updated its reserves to ensure alignment with adopted policy targets, actual funding needs, and best practices. The Operating Contingency Reserve was renamed the General Fund Stabilization Reserve to more accurately reflect its purpose and to align with Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) terminology and recommendations. Adjustments were also made to reflect actual program needs and avoid duplicate pension reserves. These changes ensure consistency with the Town’s reserve policy and support long-term financial sustainability. A detailed summary of reserve levels, including projected year-end balances, is provided in the Financial Summary section.

Financial Summary
As of July 1, 2025, the Town’s General Fund reserves are projected at $15.0 million, increasing slightly to $15.2 million by June 30, 2026. The Unassigned Fund Balance is expected to grow from $2.1 million to $2.6 million, reflecting strong revenue performance and disciplined expenditure management.

The General Fund Stabilization Reserve will increase to $3.1 million, meeting the Town’s policy target of three months of operating costs and aligning with GFOA best practices. The Capital Projects Reserve remains at $3.4 million, preserving prior appropriations to fund approved but incomplete capital projects. The Facilities Replacement Reserve decreases to $3.0 million following the scaled-back Civic Center Improvements project, now focused on

Town of Los Altos Hills | FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and FY 2026-2030 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan 17 City Manager’s Budget Message
Parks and Recreation Building renovations. The Pension Contribution Reserve will drop to $0.5 million, reflecting the planned $1.0 million transfer to the Section 115 Trust based on the recommendation from the Finance and Investment Committee. The balance in the reserve was also updated to avoid counting the same funds twice. Other reserves include $1.25 million for disaster contingency and $509,000 for vehicle and equipment replacement.

Looking ahead, the Town’s long-term fiscal outlook remains stable but will require close monitoring. Cost pressures from public safety, pension obligations, and capital needs may require future adjustments. Maintaining structural balance will likely involve reassessing baseline expenditures and exploring new revenue options in the years ahead.

The Town continues to maintain no long-term debt and has no plans to issue any at this time, reinforcing its strong financial position.

Town-Wide Budget at a Glance
This budget document is purposefully organized to flow from summary to detailed levels of information. It is organized by several key sections, Town-Wide fund balance projections, Town-wide revenue and expenditures summaries, and the Sewer Fund. In the following budget sections, you can locate the budget details that describe where the Town gets its money from and how it is utilized by the Town departments. The budget process involves all the departments in its creation with their level of control and responsibility.

Special Acknowledgements
I am proud to announce that the Town of Los Altos Hills has received the GFOA Award for Excellence in the preparation of our FY 2024-25 Budget. This prestigious recognition reflects our ongoing commitment to fiscal responsibility, transparency, and effective financial management. I extend my heartfelt gratitude to our dedicated staff, FIC and Council whose hard work and collaboration made this achievement possible. As we move forward with the FY 2025-26 budget, we remain steadfast in our dedication to maintaining the highest standards of financial stewardship for the benefit of our Town.

A special thanks to the Finance and Administrative Services department and the Management Team for the success of the FY 2025-26 budget. Without the support of the entire Management Team, providing good stewardship of the budget isn’t possible. Finally, a special acknowledgement to the City Council for providing clear policy direction and look forward to the Council’s guidance and leadership as we work to adopt a budget that funds services and projects for our community while also balancing fiscal sustainability.

Respectfully Submitted,
Peter Pirnejad, City Manager

18 Town of Los Altos Hills | FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and FY 2026-2030 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan City Manager’s Budget Message

PRESENTED TO
Town of Los Altos Hills
California
For the Biennium Beginning
July 01, 2024
Executive Director

GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
Distinguished
Budget Presentation
Award

Town of Los Altos Hills | FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and FY 2026-2030 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan 19 City Manager’s Budget Message
September 30, 2024
Thomas Leung
Finance Director
Town of Los Altos Hills, California
Dear Thomas:

A panel of independent reviewers have completed their examination of your Biennial budget document for the period beginning July 2024. We are pleased to inform you that your budget document has been awarded the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award from Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). This award is the highest form of recognition in governmental budgeting. Its attainment represents a significant achievement by your organization.

Your Distinguished Budget Presentation Award is valid for two years. To continue your participation in the program, it will be necessary to submit your next budget document to GFOA within 90 days of the proposed budget's submission to the legislature or within 90 days of the budget's final adoption.

Your electronic award package contains the following:
 Scores and Comments. Each entity submitting a budget to the program is provided with reviewers’ scores for each of the categories on which the budget document was judged along with reviewers’ confidential comments and suggestions for possible improvements to the budget document. We urge you to carefully consider these suggestions as you prepare your next budget.  Budget Award. A camera-ready reproduction of the Award is included for inclusion in your next budget. If you reproduce the camera-ready image in your next budget, it should be accompanied by a statement indicating continued compliance with program criteria. Please refer to the instructions for reproducing your Award in your next budget (also included in your award package).  Certificate of Recognition. When a Distinguished Budget Presentation Award is granted to an entity, a Certificate of Recognition for Budget Presentation is also presented to the individual(s) or department designated as being primarily responsible for its having achieved the award.  Sample press release. Attaining this Award is a significant accomplishment. The sample press release may be used to give appropriate publicity to this notable achievement.

In addition, award recipients will receive via mail either a plaque (if the government is a first-time recipient or has received the Award fifteen times since it received its last plaque) or a brass medallion to affix to the plaque.

We appreciate your participation in this program, and we sincerely hope that your example will encourage others in their efforts to achieve and maintain excellence in governmental budgeting. The most current list of award recipients can be found on GFOA's website at www.gfoa.org. If we can be of further assistance, please contact the Awards Programs staff at (312) 977-9700.

Sincerely,
Michele Mark Levine
Director, Technical Services Center

20 Town of Los Altos Hills | FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and FY 2026-2030 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan City Manager’s Budget Message
Finance Department
Town of Los Altos Hills, California
9/30/2024
The Government Finance Officers Association
of the United States and Canada
The Certificate of Recognition for Budget Preparation is presented by the Government Finance Officers Association to those individuals who have been instrumental in their government unit achieving a Distinguished Budget Presentation Award. The Distinguished Budget Presentation Award, which is the highest award in governmental budgeting, is presented to those government units whose budgets are judged to adhere to program standards.
presents this
CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION FOR BUDGET PREPARATION to
Date:

Executive Director

Budget Process

22 Town of Los Altos Hills | FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and FY 2026-2030 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan Budget Process
Budget Process
Budget Process Overview
Beginning in FY 2024–25, the Town of Los Altos Hills transitioned to a two-year budget cycle. Previously, the Town adopted an annual Operating Budget alongside a five-year Capital Improvement Plan. The new biennial budget includes detailed revenue and expenditure appropriations for each fiscal year, covering the period from July 1 through June 30. Budget documents are presented in a summary format and prepared on the same accounting basis as the Town’s financial statements, in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).

Budget Purpose
The Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) serve not only as the Town’s financial blueprint but also as key policy instruments, communication tools, and operational guides. These documents are developed with a strong emphasis on long-term financial stewardship, sustainability, effective service delivery, and sound program management. A core objective is to clearly connect the services and projects the Town plans to undertake with the resources allocated to achieve them. The budget format reinforces this connection by explicitly identifying each program’s purpose, key initiatives, and work plan goals in relation to corresponding revenue and expenditure appropriations.

Basis of Budgeting and Accounting
The Budget is prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The budget for governmental funds has been prepared on a modified accrual basis. The modified accrual method recognizes expenditures when the related Fund liability is incurred. Revenues are recognized when they become both measurable and available. “Measurable” means the amount of the transaction can be determined and “available” means collectible within the current accounting period or soon enough thereafter to be used to pay liabilities of the current period. The annual budget contains the revenues, expenditure appropriations and other financial information pertaining to all Town operating and capital budgets. This is consistent with the Town’s basis of accounting as reported in its Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR).

Government budgets and governmental accounting use a mix of accounting methods. A hybrid cash and accrual accounting system known as a Modified Accrual Basis of Accounting recognizes revenues when measurable and available.

The Town considers all revenues reported in the governmental funds to be available if the revenues are collected within 45 days after the fiscal year.

Revenues are recognized in the period earned/collected. Expenditures are recorded when the liability is incurred.

General long-term debt is recognized as expenditures to the extent they have matured.

Governmental Funds are reported using the current financial resources measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Under this method, revenues are recognized when measurable and available. Property and sales tax, interest certain state and federal grants, and charges for services are accrued when their receipt occurs with sixty (60) days after the end of the accounting period to be both measurable and available. However, debt service expenditures, as well as expenditures related to claims and judgments are recorded only when payment is due. General capital assets acquisitions are reported as expenditures in governmental funds. Proceeds of longterm debt and capital leases are reported as other financing sources.

Town of Los Altos Hills | FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and FY 2026-2030 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan 23 Budget Process
Proprietary Fund Types include the Enterprise and Internal Service Funds, are used to account for the Town’s business-type activities. Proprietary Funds are reported using the economic resources measurement focus and full accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recorded when earned, and expenses are recorded at the time liabilities are incurred, regardless of when the related cash flows take place.

Fiduciary Funds are custodial in nature, assets equal liabilities, and they do not involve the measurement of the results of operations.

Key Difference Between Basis of Budgeting and Basis of Accounting There are two main differences between the basis of budgeting and the basis of accounting:

1. Often budgets reflect the Town’s goals and intentions, while accounting reflects actual events. For example, the Town may intend to fill a vacant position in a future fiscal year and contract with a consultant in the current fiscal year. Under such circumstances, the Town would budget for the vacant position as if it will be filled in the current fiscal year, but it will record the consulting costs as contractual or professional services when the bill comes.

2. Within the same accounting Fund, allocations in and allocations out must be offset in accounting method. In the Town’s Operating Budgets, they are presented as whole. Budgeting rules allow this flexibility - to offset or to present separately. Budgeting “best practices” allows the agency to show both if the methodology is consistent, and the budget document indicates area of duplication.

Summary of Budget Development
The Town’s budget is developed through a collaborative, team-based process involving departments and their leadership. While the City Manager and the Administrative Services Director/Finance Director provide overall guidance throughout budget development, individual program budgets and work plans are shaped with the direct involvement and subject-matter expertise of department directors and program managers. This hands-on approach fosters strategic planning, ensures alignment with organizational goals, and promotes a shared understanding among management and staff of each program’s objectives and intended outcomes for the upcoming fiscal year.

Development Process
The development of the Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) begins each January, as the City Manager collaborates with the City Council to establish and refine strategic goals and policy directives for the upcoming budget cycle. Concurrently, the CIP is reviewed to assess available funding, evaluate project priorities, and update work plans accordingly. While the CIP is a distinct planning effort, its projects often have operational impacts and are therefore integrated into the Operating and Capital Summary Budget through their associated appropriations and service level implications.

Through multiple rounds of internal review and refinement, departmental work plans for both operations and capital projects are evaluated, revised, and consolidated. Staff then prepares the proposed program and capital budgets, along with finalized financial summaries. These materials are compiled into a proposed budget document for City Manager and City Council review. To support public transparency, a summary-level presentation is also prepared for the public hearing to highlight key budgetary impacts and priorities for the upcoming fiscal period.

24 Town of Los Altos Hills | FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and FY 2026-2030 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan Budget Process
Budget Adoption
The development of the Town’s operating and capital budgets is a continuous, year-round process, with formal compilation and analysis occurring over approximately three months. It begins with a review of mid-year actual revenues and expenditures, presented to the City Council through the Mid-Year Financial Update. This mid-year information is carried forward into the new budget development cycle.

In February, the City Manager and Finance and Administrative Services Department issue budget development guidelines to departments, outlining the economic outlook and setting parameters for departmental budget preparation. The budget cycle officially begins with the preparation of budget instructions, including policy directives and a detailed budget calendar.

Department heads submit their budget projections to the Finance and Administrative Services Department, which then compiles a draft proposed budget for the City Manager’s review. Following this review, the City Manager presents the proposed operating and capital budgets to the City Council and the Finance and Investment Committee.

Public joint study sessions with the City Council and Finance and Investment Committee are held in May and/or June to review the proposed budget. The final Town operating and capital budgets must be adopted no later than June 30.

Two-Year Budget Cycle
The Town operates on a two-year budget cycle following the same sequence annually. In the second year of the two-year cycle, the review process is streamlined for budget elements that are more predictable and stable. The two-year budgeting process is designed to:
> Provide a longer planning horizon for operational needs > Free up staff capacity during the second year to focus on deeper analysis of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and development of the capital budget
Budget Monitoring and Public Input
Throughout the fiscal year, the Finance and Administrative Services Department:
> Monitors economic conditions that may impact revenues > Coordinates with departments to identify emerging needs and changing demands > Proposes budget adjustments to the City Council as needed during the mid-year review Public input is incorporated through the Town’s 16 standing committees and their staff liaisons. These contributions are considered during budget development and throughout the year as separate Council action items.

Final Budget Adoption
After incorporating City Council-directed revisions, the final budget documents are resubmitted for adoption at a publicly noticed hearing, typically in late June before the start of the new fiscal year. Adoption resolutions for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), operating budget, and Appropriation Limit (also known as the Gann Limit) follow thereafter.

Town of Los Altos Hills | FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and FY 2026-2030 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan 25 Budget Process
Budgetary Control
The City Council is responsible for appropriating the funds necessary to support the Town’s operating and capital activities. Budgetary control is exercised at the department level to ensure adherence to approved spending plans.

The City Manager is authorized to approve transfers of appropriations between programs, activities, or line items— whether within a department or across departments—provided that the total appropriation within a given Fund is not increased. Any increase in a Fund’s total appropriation requires formal approval by the City Council.

Departments actively monitor their budgets using the Town’s financial system, supported by monthly revenue and expenditure reports. If additional appropriations are needed after budget adoption, departments may submit requests for Council approval. Such adjustments are formally adopted by resolution and are summarized in the Mid-Year Financial Update.

26 Town of Los Altos Hills | FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and FY 2026-2030 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan Budget Process
Budget Calendar
Beginning in FY 2024–25, the Town of Los Altos Hills transitioned to a two-year budget cycle. This is expected to provide a longer view of operational revenues and expenses, as well as a mid-cycle labor savings. This labor savings will allow for a more comprehensive review of the Town’s Capital Plan, and the budgets for the capital projects contained therein.

JANUARY
> The Finance and Administrative Services Department prepares Mid-Year Budget Report and CIP update for Council review.
> The Finance and Administrative Services Department builds preliminary budget information and budget assumptions.
> The Finance and Administrative Services Department prepares operating budget worksheets for updates, including departmental/program narratives, staffing and financial worksheets.

FEBRUARY
> The Finance and Administrative Services Department prepares budget worksheets for departments. > Departments prepare personnel allocations.
> Project Managers attend Committee meetings to receive feedback on the proposed CIP. > Project Managers prepare funding, scope of work, and cost estimates for new CIP proposed projects.

MARCH
> Departments turn in proposed budget worksheets.
> The Finance and Administrative Services Department prepares estimates for revenues and expenditures. > Departments turn in new CIP proposed projects.
> The City Manager begins to review new proposed CIP projects.

APRIL
> Departments finalize program narratives.
> The Finance and Administrative Services Department compiles final program narratives, financial and supplemental schedules, and financial budget summaries for the City Manager’s review and discussion. > Project Managers finalize new proposed CIP projects and existing projects.

MAY
> Final budget briefing with the City Manager.
> Review Proposed Budget with the Finance and Investment Committee. > Joint meeting with the City Council and the Finance and Investment Committee. > The Finance and Administrative Services Department incorporates Council-directed changes into proposed budgets and prepares final documents for Public Hearing presentation.

JUNE
> City Council revisions are incorporated into budget documents. > City Council adoption of Operating Budget and Capital Budget.

Town of Los Altos Hills | FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and FY 2026-2030 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan 27 Budget Process
> City Council adoption of the Town’s Appropriation Limit.

JULY – SEPTEMBER
> The Finance and Administrative Services Department finalizes recognition of and recordation of the prior fiscal year revenues and expenditures in preparation for the production of the Town’s Annual Financial Statements as of the twelve months ending June 30.
> Determine operating budget carryforwards (encumbrances). > Finalize capital project expenditures and roll-over amounts. > Finalize detailed budgets and distribute them to Town departments. > Prepare final financial and supplemental schedules, charts, and reference materials for budget documents. > Finalize the Adopted Operating & Capital Summary Budget documents. > Post Adopted Operating and Capital Budget document on website. > Submit for Budget Award.

(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)

Town
Information

30 Town of Los Altos Hills | FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and FY 2026-2030 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan Town Infor
mation
Town Profile
Town History
The Town of Los Altos Hills encompasses nine square miles, making it one of the smallest incorporated towns in Santa Clara County. There is an additional 5.2 square miles of unincorporated land adjacent to the Town’s boundaries designated within the Town’s “sphere of influence” and may be subject to the Town’s guidelines or annexation.

Incorporated on January 27, 1956, Los Altos Hills had an original population of 2,500 and has grown to approximately 8,500 residents. Many are drawn to this Town because of the area’s beauty—rolling hills, picturesque valleys, and mild climate, much of the same reasons which drew the first inhabitants. Another significant feature of the Town is the absence of commercial activity, which the founding fathers foresaw, and present residents have long upheld as necessary to preserve the kind of lifestyle they desire by choosing to live within the Town limits. However, permitted uses such as schools, religious, and recreational clubs. Combined with the natural beauty, physical assets, and the residents’ determination to maintain their rural lifestyles, the Town remains one of the most beautiful, unspoiled, and desirable residential communities in Northern California.

One of the unique features of the Town of Los Altos Hills, which the Town is justifiably proud of, is its Pathway System. This system of pathways comprises about 86 miles of beautiful trails and off‐road paths that meander around and connects most of the community and the Town’s sidewalk located in areas around the Town. With the cooperation of the residents, through easements and donations, this unique system is designed to allow users to appreciate the Town’s natural beauty at their leisure, whether by walking, running, or even on horseback, and get acquainted with it, other residents.

Town of Los Altos Hills | FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and FY 2026-2030 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan 31 Town Infor
mation
Personal Income and Unemployment
Per Capita Personal Income Unemployment Rate
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
0 25,000
50,000
75,000
100,000
125,000
150,000
175,000
200,000
225,000

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

16.0%
Education Level Attained for Population 25 and Over
% of Pop 25+ with High School Degree % of Pop 25+ with Bachelor’s degree 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%
100.0%
120.0%
Town Demographics and Economic Statistics
Year
Town
Population
Personal
Income (in
thousands)
Per Capita
Personal
Income
Unemployment
Rate Median Age
% of Pop 25+
with High
School
Degree
% of Pop 25+
with Bachelor’s
degree
2013 8,354 843,253 100,940 2.6% 48.9 98.1% 84.2%
2014 8,330 930,261 111,676 3.4% 49.3 97.9% 84.7%
2015 8,658 1,015,063 117,239 2.7% 50.3 98.1% 82.8%
2016 8,634 1,028,190 119,086 2.4% 51.1 98.0% 83.7%
2017 8,580 1,214,396 141,538 2.2% 51.4 97.1% 83.5%
2018 8,559 1,211,424 141,538 2.6% 51.4 97.1% 83.5%
2019 8,413 1,234,482 146,735 14.9% 52.3 97.3% 84.3%
2020 8,390 1,302,757 155,274 4.2% 51.1 97.3% 85.3%
2021 8,400 1,299,447 154,696 3.4% 52.2 98.5% 87.6%
2022 8,414 1,437,120 170,801 2.8% 53.5 99.1% 86.3%
2023 8,477 1,473,616 173,837 3.5% 53.5 99.2% 85.6%
Sources: Population - California State Department of Finance; Unemployment Data - California Employment Development Department; Income, Age, and Education
Data – U.S. Census Bureau

32 Town of Los Altos Hills | FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and FY 2026-2030 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan Town Information
Population
Year Los Altos Hills Santa Clara County California
2013 8,354 1,871,000 37,684,000
2014 8,330 1,867,000 38,054,000
2015 8,658 1,888,000 38,441,000
2016 8,634 1,902,000 39,071,000
2017 8,580 1,932,510 39,337,785
2018 8,559 1,932,340 39,437,463
2019 8,413 1,927,850 39,437,610
2020 8,390 1,936,259 35,538,223
2021 8,400 1,907,693 39,303,157
2022 8,414 1,894,783 39,185,605
2023 8,477 1,902,799 39,061,058
2024 8,476 1,903,198 39,128,162

Town of Los Altos Hills | FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and FY 2026-2030 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan 33 Town Infor
mation
2025 City Council
Mayor Kavita Tankha
Term of Office: November 2026
Vice Mayor Rajiv Bhateja
Term of Office: November 2029
Councilmember Linda G. Swan
Term of Office: November 2029
Councilmember Stanley Q. Mok
Term of Office: November 2029
Councilmember George K. Tyson
Term of Office: November 2026

34 Town of Los Altos Hills | FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and FY 2026-2030 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan Town Infor
mation
Residents of Los Altos Hills
Planning Commission
City Council Volunteer Advisory
Committees (13)
City Attorney
Contract
Mayor and
City Council
City Manager
Community
Development
Director
City Clerk
Administrative
Services /
Finance Director
Senior Planner
Admin. Clerk/
Technician
Building
Technician/
Inspector (2)
Administrative
Clerk/Technician
Accounting
Technician
Associate
Planner
Management
Analyst
Assistant
Planner (2)
Public Safety
Contract
SCC Office of
the Sheriff
Emergency
Services
Manager
Contract
Public Works
Director
& City
Engineer
Project
Manager
Assistant
Engineer (2)
Maintenance
Worker I
Maintenance
Superintendent
Maintenance
Worker II
Maintenance
Worker III (2)
Utility
Engineering
Manager
Public Works
Inspector
IT Services
Contract
Senior
Accountant
(2)
Community
Services
Supervisor
Deputy City
Manager
Management
Analyst (0.5)
Management
Analyst (0.5)

Town of Los Altos Hills | FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and FY 2026-2030 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan 35 Town Infor
mation
Town Information
Standing Committees, Commission, and Volunteer Appointments The Town of Los Altos Hills offers residents many opportunities to contribute to its direction and vision and to making the Town a place that is the best it can be for all who call it home. Residents are invited to weigh in on major initiatives and suggest beneficial improvements for the Town. Residents can address the City Council at all meetings, and volunteers serve on a variety of committees. The meetings of the standing committees follow California’s Open Meeting Laws (also known as the Ralph M. Brown Act). Roster as of May 2025 appointments.

Emergency Preparedness and Response Committee
City Council Liaison: Rajiv Bhateja

MEMBERS TERM TERM EXPIRATION
Amita Sachdeva (Chair) 1st June 2026
Phillip M. Harter (Vice Chair) 1st March 2027
Dave Stewart 1st June 2026
Sam Wood 1st June 2026
Jamshid “Jim” Basiji 1st June 2026
Terry Kearney 1st August 2027
Rabindra “Rob” Singh 1st February 2027
BenGikis 1st June 2026
Vacant

ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
Neil Katin Bill Lattin Victoria Bebee
Andrew Kirk David Gilmour
Environmental Design and Protection
City Council Liaison: Kavita Tankha

MEMBERS TERM TERM EXPIRATION
Grace P. Tsang (Chair) 1st June 2026
Peter Brown (Vice-Chair) 2nd July 2025
Anne Hsiao (Secretary) 1st May 2028
Carol Gottlieb 4th September 2028
Elizabeth Loinaz 1st August 2025
Vijay Chawla 2nd August 2026
Ivy Mei 1st January 2029
Vacant

ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
Kjell Karlsson Hajime Murakami

36 Town of Los Altos Hills | FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and FY 2026-2030 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan Town Infor
mation
Environmental Initiatives
City Council Liaison: George Tyson

MEMBERS TERM TERM EXPIRATION
Anand Ranganathan (Chair) 1st October 2028
Mike Salameh (Vice Chair) 1st June 2026
Steve Schmdit (Secretary) 2nd May 2028
Vrinda Bhandarkar 2nd October 2028
Aileen Lee 2nd May 2025
George Lee 1st February 2027
Johann George 1st May 2027
April Anair 3rd October 2028
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant

ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
Kunjan Shah Kit Gordon Raj Reddy
Jay Shideler Serena Giori
Finance and Investment
City Council Liaison: Kavita Tankha & Rajiv Bhateja

MEMBERS TERM TERM EXPIRATION
Allan Epstein (Chair) 4th October 2028
Kjell Karlsson (Vice Chair) 4th February 2029
Sean McGraw 1st November 2027
Michele Raffin 1st May 2027
Jeanne Seeley 1st May 2028
Dominique Grau 1st April 2029
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant

ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
Jim Lai Frank Lloyd Roddy Sloss (Secretay)
History
City Council Liaison: Linda Swan

MEMBERS TERM TERM EXPIRATION
Duffy Price 1st January 2027
Sylvia Jensen (Vice-Chair) 2nd March 2026
Carol Gottlieb (Chair) 4th May 2028
Sally Wood (Secretary) 2nd July 2025
Jitze Couperus 3rd March 2028
Patty Woolsey 1st September 2027
Bernardo Ferrari 1st August 2026
Vacant
Vacant

ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
Joe Heinrich Deanna Tryon Barry Smith

Town of Los Altos Hills | FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and FY 2026-2030 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan 37 Town Infor
mation
LA-LAH Joint Community Volunteer Service Awards
City Council Liaison: Stan Mok/Neysa Fligor

MEMBERS TERM TERM EXPIRATION
Ginny Lear (Chair) 1st September 2027
Lindsay Carpenter (Secretary) 1st September 2027
Sumita Chandra 1st September 2027
Archanna Appanna 1st September 2029
Charles (Chuck) Lindauer 1st September 2029
Sandy Mingia 2nd March 2027
Kelly Davis 1st January 2027
Ben Gikis 1st July 2028
Donald Mattson 2nd March 2027
Vacant LAH
LA-LAH Library Commission
City Council Liaison: Linda Swan/Larry Lang

MEMBERS TERM TERM EXPIRATION
Pierre Bedard (Chair) 1st September 2025
Michelle Morris (Vice Chair) 1st September 2027
Carolle Carter 1st September 2025
Vacant Los Altos
Vacant Los Altos
Christine Fawcett 1st January 2027
Vacant LAH
LA-LAH Senior Commission
City Council Liaison: George Tyson/Sally Meadows

MEMBERS TERM TERM EXPIRATION
Jayne Cohen (Chair) 2nd September 2028
Kris Olson (Vice Chair) 1st September 2027
Dolores Gallagher Thompson 1st September 2028
Nomi Trapnell 1st September 2028
William Buchholz 2nd September 2025
Jamshid “Jim” Basiji 3rd August 2027
Sharvari Dixit 2nd September 2027

ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
Ben Gikis

38 Town of Los Altos Hills | FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and FY 2026-2030 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan Town Infor
mation
Open Space
City Council Liaison: Stan Mok

MEMBERS TERM TERM EXPIRATION
Anita Baldwin (Chair) 1st February 2026
Peter Brown 2nd March 2026
Viggy Mokkarala 1st February 2026
Richard Contreras 3rd March 2029
Sarah He (Vice Chair) 1st March 2028
Eric Bredo 1st March 2029
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant

ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
Sharen Schoendorf George Clifford Hayley Louth Ditzler
Karen Lemes Nancy Couperus Jean Struthers
Kit Gordon
Parks, Recreation and Community Events
City Council Liaison: Stan Mok

MEMBERS TERM TERM EXPIRATION
Jasmeen Pombra (Chair) 1st January 2029
Boxia Schmidt (Vice Chair) 2nd January 2029
Jennifer Lauren Kan Bardsley 1st January 2029
Yibin Tang 2nd January 2029
Weiwen Li 1st January 2029
Mukta Sharangpani 1st January 2029
April Anair 2nd January 2029
Lewis “Lew” Jamison 1st January 2029
Lana Einschlag 2nd January 2029
Vacant

ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
Rebecca Hickman Valerie Metcalfe Kjell Karlsson
Helene Karlsson Jim Basiji Mehda Rishi
Nena Price Barbara Cannon Neal Rayborn
Craig Murray

Town of Los Altos Hills | FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and FY 2026-2030 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan 39 Town Infor
mation
Pathways
City Council Liaison: Linda Swan

MEMBERS TERM TERM EXPIRATION
Richard Partridge (Chair) 2nd February 2027
Mike Orlando 1st July 2028
Marc Gurwith 1st October 2028
Michael Henshaw 1st October 2028
Nick Erndt 1st November 2028
Rajesh Shakkarwar 1st June 2026
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant

ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
Val Metcalfe
Planning Commission
Staff Liaison: Jay Bradford

MEMBERS TERM TERM EXPIRATION
Alisa Bredo 1st June 2026
Rajiv Patel (Chair) 3rd June 2026
Birgitta Indaco (Vice Chair) 2nd June 2028
Jim Waschura 2nd June 2028
Jitze Couperus 4th June 2028
Public Art
City Council Liaison: Stan Mok, COMMITTEE ON HIATUS

MEMBERS TERM TERM EXPIRATION
Diane Brauch (Secretary) 2nd November 2025
David Milgram 2nd August 2025
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant

ASSOCIATE MEMBERS

40 Town of Los Altos Hills | FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and FY 2026-2030 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan Town Infor
mation
Technology Commission
City Council Liaison: Rajiv Bhateja

MEMBERS TERM TERM EXPIRATION
Lew Jamison (Chair) 1st October 2027
Ameesh Divatia (Vice Chair) 1st February 2026
Annie Ju (Secretary) 1st February 2026
George Lee 1st February 2026
John Swan 1st January 2027
Sam Wood 1st January 2029
Vacant

ASSOCIATE MEMBERS
Andrea Bibl
Youth Commission
Staff Liaison: Emina Mahic
Commission members are minors; therefore, their names are not publicly listed to protect their privacy.

Financial and
Personnel
Allocation
Summaries

42 Town of Los Altos Hills | FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and FY 2026-2030 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan Financial and Personnel Allocation Summaries
City Council Priorities Budget Highlights
Priority Area General Fund - Operating
Estimated Amount
2025-26
Maintain Quality of Life and
Community Character Community Building through Town-wide Events and Activities $ 150,000 Housing Element Programs $ 500,000
Housing Element Amendment $ 100,000
Water Conservation (WELO)
Our Town Publication
Promote Public Safety Emergency Preparedness
Complete Safety Element $ 50,000
Fire Hazard Severity Zone Update $ 10,000
Emrgency Communication Items from EPRC (Sound Study,
ALERT SCC) $ 130,000
HIZ (Home Ignition Zone)
Increase Effective Service Delivery &
Governance TRAKiT & eTRAKiT Upgrades $ 130,000
Land Use Element Updates $ 25,000
Impact Fee Assessment $ 20,000
Heat Pump Rebates $ 10,000
Electrification Assessments $ 10,000
Reach Codes 2025
Leaf Blower Regulation Implementation
Deposit/Permit Tracking Report
Permit Fee Audit Study
Cost Service Study
New Building Permit Fee Schedule $ 20,000
Green House Gas Inventory $ 17,000
FY 2025-26 Annual Financial Report $ 50,000
Maximize functions of EPR system and change to online
payment $ 20,000
Explore an Agenda Management System $ 20,000
Continue Employee Enhancement & Retention
Program + Onboarding new employees
Internal Purchasing Policy
Town Survey $ 30,000
Expired Permit Management
Code Enforcement Program Evaluation
Upgrade the Town’s Website $ 20,000
Protect and Maintain Infrastructure Summerhill Avenue Pathway (Phase 2 & 3) $ 100,000 - $150,000 Pathway Fee Nexus Study
Middle Fork to Maple Court Path $ 50,000 - $300,000
Work with the Pathways Committee to reprioritize the
order of pathways to be worked on throughout the year $ 300,000 - $900,000 Subtotal of General Fund (Estimated) $ 1,902,000 - $2,802,000

Town of Los Altos Hills | FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and FY 2026-2030 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan 43 Financial and Personnel Allocation Summaries
City Council Priorities Budget Highlights (Continued)
Priority Area Capital Projects
Estimated Amount
2025-26
Infrastructure BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE $ -
BYRNE PRESERVE RESTORATION $ 101,310
CABLE SERVICE COST SHARING PROGRAM $ 50,000
CORPORATION YARD IMPROVEMENTS $ -
CORPORATION YARD LOCKER ROOM $ -

EL MONTE FIRE STATION UNDERGROUNDING PROJECT (RULE
20A) $ -
HERITAGE HOUSE UPGRADE $ -
HOUSING ELEMENT $ 53,000
MISCELLANEOUS TECHNOLOGY $ 80,000
PARKS AND RECREATION CENTER RENOVATION (NEW) $ 200,000

PURISSIMA PARK IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (FIELD & FACILITY
IMPROVEMENTS) $ 30,000
ROAD SAFETY AND TRAFFIC CALMING $ 60,000
SECURITY CAMERA UPGRADE $ 100,000
STREET SIGN REPLACEMENT $ 25,000
TOWN FACILITIES ENERGY EFFICIENCY (NEW) $ 150,000
TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS $ 20,000
WATER WELL AT PURISSIMA PARK $ 200,000
Pathways MAGDALENA AVENUE PATHWAY (NEW) $ 315,000
MAPLE LEAF - MIDDLE FORK LANE PATHWAY (NEW) $ 100,000
MISCELLANEOUS PATHWAYS $ 50,000
SUMMERHILL PATHWAY $ 100,000
Road Rehabilitation ANNUAL ROAD REHABILITATION PROGRAM $ 1,375,000 LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN (NEW) $ 80,000

MEASURE B BIKE/PEDESTRIAN EDUCATION &
ENCOURAGEMENT PROGRAM $ 10,000
Sewer ANNUAL SANITARY SEWER REPLACEMENT AND REHAB $ 900,000 Storm Drain MATADERO CREEK EROSION $ -
STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS $ -
Vehicle and Equipment VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT (NEW) $ 100,000 Westwind Community Barn WESTWIND COMMUNITY BARN IMPROVEMENTS $ 50,000 Subtotal of Capital Projects (Estimated) $ 4,149,310

44 Town of Los Altos Hills | FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and FY 2026-2030 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan Financial and Personnel Allocation Summaries
Funds Overview
Town of Los Altos Hills
Budgetary Funds
Operations
Funds
Enterprise
Funds
Special Revenue
Funds
Capital Project
Funds
011 General
Fund
048 Sewer
Fund CIP
016 Parks & Rec
In-lieu Fund
041 General
CIP Fund
051 Sewer
Fund
019 American Rescue
PLan Act Fund
042 Pathways
CIP
021 COPS
Fund
043 Westwind
Barn CIP
071 Special
Donations
045 Drainage
CIP
046 Street
CIP
061 General Service
Fund (Internal Service
Fund)

Town of Los Altos Hills | FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and FY 2026-2030 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan 45 Financial and Personnel Allocation Summaries
Fund Description
Fund Fund Description
011 General Fund is the primary operating fund of the Town and is used to account for most day‐to‐day activities.

Revenue sources include (but are not limited to) property tax, current fees for services, and business registration. 061 General Service Fund provides centralized support to all Town departments by accounting for the shared costs of Town Center operations, Corporation Yard operations, and vehicle and equipment operations. 016 Parks & Recreation in‐lieu Fund is used to account for development revenues from parks and recreation in‐lieu fees which are designated for park maintenance, improvement, construction, and acquisition. 019 American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funds are Federal funds that are used specifically for COVID‐19 eligible uses. All funds must be obligated by 2024 and expensed by 2026.
021 Police Grants are used to account for grant activities and services paid for and reimbursed by grant funding. This fund includes grants from the following funding source; Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Account (SLESA) – Under the SLESA program (commonly referred to as the Citizens Option for Public Safety, or COPS grant), cities and counties receive state funds to augment public safety expenditures.

The General Fund supports the Emergency Preparedness contract and the Automatic License Plate Readers. 041 General CIP Fund is used to account for general capital projects including building construction, technology purchases and other infrastructure needs. The main source of revenue comes from the General Fund. 042 Pathway Fund is used to account for all funds received in the Pathway Fund shall be used exclusively for the construction of the Town’s pathway system.
043 Westwind Community Barn Fund is used to account for capital projects at Westwind Community Barn financed by Verizon Cell.
045 Storm Drain Fund are used to account for revenues from drainage fees, which are designated for storm drain maintenance, improvement, and construction.
048
051
Sewer (Wastewater) Funds are used to account for Town operations that are financed and operated like a private business enterprise. The Sewer Fund is used to account for sewer treatment, transmission, major replacements and improvements to the Town’s sewer system.

46 Town of Los Altos Hills | FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and FY 2026-2030 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan Financial and Personnel Allocation Summaries
Town-Wide Fund Summary
2025-26 Budget Summary
Fund No Fund Title
Estimated Fund Balance @
7/1/2025 Revenue Expenditure Transfers In/(Out)
Projected Fund Balance @
6/30/2026
% Change in
Fund Balance
General Fund
011 General Fund
Pension Trust (Restricted) $ 2,209,137 $ - $ - $ 2,209,137 General Fund Stabilization Reserve 3,113,623 - - 3,113,623 Capital Projects Reserve 3,407,739 - - - 3,407,739
Disaster Contingency Reserve 1,250,000 - - 1,250,000
Facilities Replacement Reserve 3,017,081 - - 3,017,081
Pension Contribution Reserve 535,439 - - 535,439
Technology Reserve - - - - -
Vehicle & Equip Reserve 409,000 - - 100,000 509,000
Unassigned Fund Balance 2,737,798 18,481,207 (18,162,369) (1,613,070) 1,443,565 Subtotal $ 16,679,817 $ 18,481,207 $ (18,162,369) $ (1,513,070) $ 15,485,584 -7.2% Internal Service Fund
061 General Service Fund $ 822,325 $ 1,426,106 $ (1,426,106) $ - $ 822,325 Subtotal $ 822,325 $ 1,426,106 $ (1,426,106) $ - $ 822,325 0.0% Special Revenue Funds
016 Parks & Recreation in-Lieu $ 463,136 $ 15,974 $ - $ 479,110 019 American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) - - - -
021 COPS Fund 1,541 115,000 - (116,541) (0)
071 Special Donation 34,472 - - 34,472
Subtotal $ 499,149 $ 130,974 $ - $ (116,541) $ 513,582 2.9% Capital Funds
041 General Capital $ 1,180,551 $ - $ (1,169,310) $ 1,169,310 $ 1,180,551 042 Pathway Capital 910,568 150,376 (565,000) - 495,944 043 Westwind Barn Capital 374,004 50,000 (50,000) - 374,004 045 Drainage Capital 703,564 80,498 - (40,000) 744,062
046 Street Capital 316,631 975,675 (1,465,000) 489,325 316,631 Subtotal $ 3,485,318 $ 1,256,550 $ (3,249,310) $ 1,618,635 $ 3,111,193 -10.7% Sewer Funds
048 Sewer CIP $ - $ (906,620) $ 900,000 (6,620)
051 Sewer Operations-Exc Depreciator 4,699,667 4,401,444 (4,226,442) (889,024) 3,985,644 Subtotal $ 4,699,667 $ 4,401,444 $ (5,133,062) $ 10,976 $ 3,979,024 -15.3% All Funds $ 26,186,276 $ 25,696,280 $ (27,970,848) $ - $ 23,911,709 -8.7%

47 Town of Los Altos Hills | FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and FY 2026-2030 Five Year Capital Improvement Plan Financial and Personnel Allocation Summaries
Town-Wide Financial Summary
General Fund Special Revenue Funds Capital Project Funds Enterprise Funds (Sewer Funds) Internal Service Funds Total All Funds 2024-25
Est. Actual
2025-26
Budget
Proposal
2024-25
Est. Actual
2025-26
Budget
Proposal
2024-25
Est. Actual
2025-26
Budget
Proposal
2024-25
Est. Actual
2025-26
Budget
Proposal
2024-25
Est. Actual
2025-26
Budget
Proposal
2024-25
Est. Actual
2025-26
Budget
Proposal
Revenues
Property Taxes $ 8,991,000 $ 9,483,540 $ - $ - $ - $ - - $ - $ - - $ 8,991,000 $ 9,483,540 Taxes Other Than Property 650,120 610,750 - - - - - - - - 650,120 610,750 Franchise Fees 696,291 705,500 - - - - - - - - 696,291 705,500 Licenses and Permits 1,044,918 2,012,774 - - - - - - - - 1,044,918 2,012,774 Use of Money and Property 1,595,567 955,186 14,368 15,974 164,509 100,875 351,516 166,116 - - 2,125,960 1,238,150 Intergovernmental Subventions 103,683 46,001 194,664 115,000 1,040,562 868,575 - - - - 1,338,909 1,029,576 Charges for Services 802,312 1,241,925 - - 502,817 287,100 6,691 - - - 1,311,820 1,529,025 Miscellaneous Revenues 16,745 18,000 - - 4,091,696 - 2,293 - - - 4,110,734 18,000 Allocations In 3,711,885 3,407,530 - - - - - - 1,228,422 1,426,106 4,940,307 4,833,636 Sewer Connection Fees - - - - - - 211,884 129,430 - - 211,884 129,430 Sewer Assessment Charges - - - - - - 3,719,000 4,105,898 - - 3,719,000 4,105,898 Total Revenues $ 17,612,520 $ 18,481,207 $ 209,032 $ 130,974 $ 5,799,585 $ 1,256,550 $ 4,291,383 $ 4,401,444 $ 1,228,422 $ 1,426,106 $ 29,140,942 $ 25,696,280 Expenditures by Function
General Administration $ 1,986,746 $ 2,519,074 $ - $ - $ - $ - - $ - $ - - $ 1,986,746 $ 2,519,074 Finance & Administrative Services 1,518,605 1,616,028 - - - - - - 955,450 1,021,892 2,474,056 2,637,920 Public Safety 3,633,097 4,073,524 2,100 - - - - - - - 3,635,197 4,073,524 Community Development 4,368,989 4,919,808 - - - - - - - - 4,368,989 4,919,808 Community Services 1,474,574 1,452,365 - - - - - - - - 1,474,574 1,452,365 Public Works 3,199,794 3,574,951 - - - - 3,872,591 4,226,442 272,970 404,214 7,345,354 8,205,607 Capital Projects - - 2,091 - 7,511,970 3,249,310 508,520 906,620 - - 8,022,581 4,155,930 Non-Departmental 1,267 6,620 - - - - - - - - 1,267 6,620 Total Expenditures $ 16,183,073 $ 18,162,369 $ 4,191 $ - $ 7,511,970 $ 3,249,310 $ 4,381,111 $ 5,133,062 $ 1,228,420 $ 1,426,106 $ 29,308,765 $ 27,970,848 Operating Surplus/(Deficit) $ 1,429,447 $ 318,837 $ 204,841 $ 130,974 (1,712,386) $ (1,992,760) (89,727) $ (731,619) $ 2 $ - $ (167,822) $ (2,274,567) Transfers In/(Out)
Transfers In 903,299 - - - 2,538,168 1,658,635 910,452 910,976 - - 4,351,919 2,569,611 Transfers Out (2,598,814) (1,513,070) (813,105) (116,541) (40,000) (40,000) (900,000) (900,000) - - (4,351,919) (2,569,611) Total Transfers In/(Out) $ (1,695,515) $ (1,513,070) $ (813,105) $ (116,541) $ 2,498,168 $ 1,618,635 $ 10,452 $ 10,976 $ - $ - $ - $ - Change in Fund Balance (266,068) (1,194,233) (608,264) 14,433 785,782 (374,125) (79,275) (720,643) 2 - (167,822) (2,274,567) Beginning 16,945,885 16,679,817 1,107,413 499,149 2,699,536 3,485,318 10,842,131 10,762,856 822,323 822,325 32,417,288 32,249,465 Ending Fund Balance $ 16,679,817 $ 15,485,584 $ 499,149 $ 513,582 $ 3,485,318 $ 3,111,193 $ 10,762,856 $ 10,042,213 $ 822,325 $ 822,325 $ 32,249,466 $ 29,974,898