Regular City Council Meeting Minutes 6PM, June 18, 2026 Page 5 of 19 Ms. Woods presented information regarding the I-280 Shaded Fuel Break Connectivity Project.
Ms. Logan reported on two active partnerships with the Town: an enhancement to the Home Ignition Zone program providing tree hazard assessment rebates and a shared-services resource supporting the Town’s emergency planning and preparedness efforts.
Ms. Logan announced that the Board of Supervisors had approved a $109,000 budget modification, bringing the total budget for the tree hazard assessment program to $600,000.
The Council discussed the potential use of pathways during wildfire evacuations.
Staff advised that pathways should generally be considered a last resort for evacuation due to the hazards associated with navigating pathways during dark or smoky conditions. Council discussed areas with limited roadway access and the importance of considering emergency alternatives. Staff reported that preliminary discussions had begun regarding a potential pathway preparedness program.
No motion.
G. Proclamation Recognizing the 250th Anniversary of the United States of America and Poem Presentation by Poet Laureate William Manche
The City Council recognized the 250th Anniversary of the United States of America. Poet Laureate William Manche presented a poem reflecting themes of freedom, hope, and the Town’s values in recognition of the occasion.
3. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR
Michael Grady commented on the SB 330 development application for the Twin Oaks property, stating that, in addition to concerns about the application's completeness, he believed the application was invalid because the entity that purportedly authorized it did not own the property. He cited California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 23302(d) and urged the Town to reject the application, arguing that it had a fiduciary duty to do so.
Cheryl Evans introduced Friends of the Hills/Los Altos Hills Residents Association, a new organization focused on preserving the Town’s character and engaging residents. She urged the Town to promptly appoint members to the Housing Element Standing Committee to address the RHNA allocation gap and evaluate potential solutions.
Rosemary Nam, Mora Drive, discussed annexation issues affecting properties along Mora Drive. She referenced a sewer extension agreement entered into by the Town and property owners in 2000 and requested that the Town complete the annexation of remaining parcels in the area.
Bella, a Terry Way property owner, asked the Council to consider the interests of property owners who had made investment decisions based upon the properties remaining under Santa Clara County jurisdiction. She noted that a County review process was underway.
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes 6PM, June 18, 2026 Page 6 of 19 Additional members of the public provided comments regarding SB 33 and related matters.
4. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
A. Disbursement Report
Received.
B. Treasurer’s Report
Received.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
Dr. Gautam Agrawal shared a presentation on the Los Altos Hills Community Fiber Project, ITEM 6A, which was moved to the CONSENT CALENDAR.
The Consent Calendar included approval of meeting minutes; reclassification of the Los Altos-Los Altos Hills Joint Volunteer Awards Committee and Senior Commission as Non-Brown Act advisory committees; public works, sewer, recreation, employment, planning, GIS, inspection scheduling, and other agreements and resolutions; and the six-month extension of the Los Altos Hills Community Fiber Grant Agreement.
Mayor Bhateja recused himself from voting on ITEM 5G on the CONSENT CALENDAR.
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Councilmember Tankha motioned to APPROVE the CONSENT CALENDAR.
The motion was seconded by Councilmember Swan.
AYES: Councilmember Mok, Councilmember Swan, Councilmember Tankha, Vice Mayor Tyson, Mayor Bhateja
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Mayor Bhateja abstained from voting on Item 5G only.
Motion passed: 5-0 for all but ITEM 5G and 4-0-0-1 for ITEM 5G.
6. ONGOING BUSINESS
A. Resolution Approving the Second Amendment to the Grant Agreement with Los Altos Hills Community Fiber for the Broadband Infrastructure Project for a SixMonth Term Extension This item was moved to and approved as part of the Consent Calendar.
Staff and representatives also provided an update regarding the Community Fiber project. The system was reported to be performing well and capable of delivering 10-gigabit optical service to residences, with capacity for future expansion.
B. Consideration of the Proposed Juan Bautista De Anza Trail Alignments and Provide Staff Directions on the Formal Designation of the Route Staff presented two potential alignments for designation of the Juan Bautista de
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes 6PM, June 18, 2026 Page 7 of 19 Anza National Historic Trail through Los Altos Hills.
Option 1 followed existing pathways through the Town, while Option 2 provided a more rigorous route over Black Mountain through Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District property.
The Pathways Committee expressed a preference for Option 1 while deferring the final selection to the City Council.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Alice Mansell, a longtime real estate professional, spoke in support of recognizing the Anza Trail. She noted that the historic route passes through the area and is already included on National Park Service and tourism maps. She encouraged the city to pursue signage and recreational trail connections in coordination with neighboring communities and the National Park Service, especially for the expedition’s 250th anniversary.
Alisa Bredo, attending via Zoom, clarified an element on the map that was shown in the staff report.
WooJae Kim, attending via Zoom, noted he was available to respond to questions or comments.
Following discussion, the City Council unanimously selected Option 1 and directed staff to proceed with the public hearing process and necessary next steps for formal trail designation.
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Vice Mayor Tyson motioned to proceed with Option 1 and direct staff to proceed with the items outlined on the “Next Steps” slide from the presentation.
The motion was seconded by Mayor Bhateja.
AYES: Councilmember Mok, Councilmember Swan, Councilmember Tankha, Vice Mayor Tyson, Mayor Bhateja
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 5-0.
A brief recess was taken following the vote.
C. Review of the Town’s Code Enforcement Program
Staff presented a review of the Town’s Code Enforcement Program, including existing procedures, identified gaps, and potential additional enforcement tools that could assist the Town in addressing persistent code violations. The presentation was provided in response to previous direction from the City Council.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes 6PM, June 18, 2026 Page 8 of 19 Al Whaley discussed ongoing concerns regarding unpermitted work near his property that he said had contributed to landslides, erosion, and impacts to a creek bed and conservation area. He stated that the Town currently lacks effective procedures for enforcing certain code violations and expressed appreciation for recent meetings with Town staff and legal counsel to explore improvements. He encouraged the Council to support stronger code enforcement and restoration processes, particularly for significant violations affecting public safety, neighboring properties, and open space resources.
Beth Most expressed support for the proposed code enforcement improvements but shared frustration with her experience reporting an unpermitted pickleball court near her home. She stated that, despite repeated reports and missed compliance deadlines, the Town did not take timely enforcement action and granted multiple extensions without penalties. She questioned why residents must expend significant time and resources to obtain code enforcement and urged the Town to consider the message this sends to residents who comply with Town regulations.
Donna Gurzynski described concerns about a neighbor’s unpermitted grading project near her property that she said would have created a large gravel driveway for additional parking. She reported that work continued despite repeated stop-work directives from the Town’s code enforcement officer and expressed concern about the extent of grading that occurred before the project was halted. She urged the Town to strengthen code enforcement procedures to ensure violations are addressed more quickly and effectively.
Rajiv Patel, speaking as a resident, expressed strong support for improving the Town’s code enforcement program, stating that enforcement has been inadequate for many years. He noted that residents and the Planning Commission have repeatedly raised concerns about violations and urged the Council to establish effective enforcement mechanisms, including penalties and fee collection. He encouraged the Council to prioritize the issue and seek input from Town committees familiar with ongoing enforcement challenges.
John O’Connell supported stronger code enforcement and distinguished between minor violations and cases where property owners repeatedly ignore Town directives. He suggested that enforcement should focus on persistent violators and recommended using mechanisms like the weed abatement program, where corrective actions can be completed by the Town and costs recovered through property tax assessments. He emphasized the need for meaningful consequences when violations remain unaddressed.
Allan Epstein supported improvements to the Town’s code enforcement program and emphasized the need for regular reporting and performance metrics. He stated that the Town lacks sufficient data on the number, duration, and nature of outstanding cases, making it difficult to assess the scope of enforcement issues. He urged the Council to establish tracking and reporting measures and noted that the work plan may need to be amended to address the issue.
Mahdi Hamza encouraged the Council to consider not only how code violations are enforced, but also why violations occur. He questioned whether existing codes and permitting processes are reasonable and effective, and urged the Town to review its
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes 6PM, June 18, 2026 Page 9 of 19 regulations to determine whether changes could help reduce violations.
The Council discussed the program and provided direction to staff.
No motion.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Ex Parte:
Councilmember Swan had communications with Carol Gottlieb and other residents on the topic of Green Sheets.
Councilmember Mok had communications with Allan Epstein on the topic of cost allocation and members of the Open Space Committee (OSC) on the topic of Green Sheets.
Mayor Bhateja had communications with Allan Epstein and members of the Finance & Investment committee (FIC) on the topic of cost allocation plan and development fee study. He also reported discussing the Green Sheets with a few people at a past planning commission meeting.
Councilmember Tankha and Vice Mayor Tyson had no ex parte communications.
A. Receive the Cost Allocation Plan and Development Services Fee Study and Approve a Resolution Adopting the Town of Los Altos Hills Master Fee Schedule and Local Building Valuation Multiplier
Staff presented the Cost Allocation Plan and Development Services Fee Study prepared with NBS. The study evaluated the cost of providing Town services and proposed cost-recovery levels and associated fees.
The City Council discussed appropriate cost-recovery levels for development services, including Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), projects of varying valuations, and heat pump permits. Councilmembers also discussed the potential impact of fees on smaller projects.
PUBLIC COMMENT
John O’Connell stated the report omitted key FIC concerns, particularly excessive increases in permit and plan-check fees. He proposed a revised fee formula and questioned administrative cost allocations and whether ADUs count toward RHNA requirements.
Rajiv Patel said higher ADU fees reflect the town’s more complex terrain and infrastructure requirements. He suggested focusing incentives on smaller or deed-restricted affordable ADUs to better support RHNA goals, including possible fee waivers.
Birgitta Indico said existing ADU incentives are already substantial, so additional subsidies may not be necessary. She supported Rajiv Patel’s suggestion to focus incentives on affordable ADUs and emphasized that Los Altos Hills’ fees should not be compared directly with Los Altos due to differences in development costs and conditions.
Carol Gottlieb said many ADUs function as extensions of existing homes rather
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes 6PM, June 18, 2026 Page 10 of 19 than affordable rentals. She opposed subsidizing those ADUs but supported incentives for deed-restricted, low-cost ADUs that contribute to RHNA goals.
Kjell Karlsson suggested incentivizing junior ADUs (JADUs) as a way to help meet RHNA goals, noting that their small size makes them relatively easy to add. He recommended confirming whether JADUs count toward RHNA numbers.
Allan Epstein said rising town overhead has driven fee increases and questioned the allocation of $500,000 in expenses to the sewer fund. He also supported reviewing plan-check fees to ensure small projects are not overcharged relative to the actual cost of review.
John O’Connell said the FIC’s direction to review recovery rates and fee increases was not reflected in the report. He urged town staff to address the methodology and avoid excessive increases in permit and plan-check fees.
Jim Waschura urged the Council to address rising town overhead costs rather than relying primarily on higher fees. He opposed large fee increases and suggested using property tax revenue to cover some administrative costs instead of allocating them to project fees.
During consideration of this item, the City Council unanimously approved continuing the meeting beyond 10:00 p.m. The motion was initiated by Councilmember Swan and seconded by Vice Mayor Tyson.
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Mayor Bhateja motioned to APPROVE cost recovery of fees for projects valued at $250,000 and higher at 100%, ADUs and projects valued below $250,000 at 80%, and heat pumps at 50%.
The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Tyson.
AYES: Councilmember Mok, Councilmember Swan, Councilmember Tankha, Vice Mayor Tyson, Mayor Bhateja
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 5-0.
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Mayor Bhateja motioned to receive the Cost Allocation Plan and Development Services Fee Study and APPROVE a Resolution Adopting the Town of Los Altos Hills Master Fee Schedule and Local Building Valuation Multiplier.
The motion was seconded by Councilmember Mok.
AYES: Councilmember Mok, Councilmember Swan, Councilmember Tankha, Vice Mayor Tyson, Mayor Bhateja
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes 6PM, June 18, 2026 Page 11 of 19 ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 5-0.
B. Receive and File the Annual Workforce Vacancy, Recruitment, and Retention Report as Required Under AB 2561
Finance staff presented the Annual Workforce Vacancy, Recruitment, and Retention Report required pursuant to AB 2561.
The report addressed Town vacancies, recruitment and retention efforts, and challenges associated with filling positions. Staff reported that the Town did not have bargaining groups with vacancy rates exceeding 20 percent.
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Councilmember Swan motioned to receive a n d f i l e the Annual Workforce Vacancy, Recruitment, and Retention Report as Required Under AB 2561.
The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Tyson.
AYES: Councilmember Mok, Councilmember Swan, Councilmember Tankha, Vice Mayor Tyson, Mayor Bhateja
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 5-0.
C. Consideration of a Resolution Adopting the Proposed FY 2026-27 and FY 2027- 28 Operating Budget and FY 2026-27 to FY 2030-31 Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan and Gann Limit for the Town of Los Altos Hills and Resolution Approving the FY 2026-27 Salary Schedule
Staff presented the proposed operating and capital budgets.
The FY 2026-27 budget included approximately $20.9 million in General Fund revenues,
$20.4 million in General Fund expenditures, approximately $5.1 million in capital projects, and 32 full-time equivalent positions, including the addition of a Code Enforcement Officer and Principal Planner.
Staff discussed the Sheriff’s contract as a significant budget consideration and reported that the Town continued negotiations and had engaged Vasquez & Company to conduct an overhead assessment.
The budget incorporated the fee schedule changes approved under Item 7A.
Allan Epstein provided public comments and thanked staff for their work on the budget.
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Mayor Bhateja motioned to APPROVE a resolution adopting the town’s the FY 2026-27 Operating and FY 2026-27 to 2030-
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes 6PM, June 18, 2026 Page 12 of 19 31 Five-Year Capital Budget, and the FY 2026-27 Gann Appropriations Limit (Attachment 1) and approve a resolution adopting the Town's FY 2026-27 Salary Schedule (Attachment 2).
The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Tyson.
AYES: Councilmember Mok, Councilmember Swan, Councilmember Tankha, Vice Mayor Tyson, Mayor Bhateja
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 5-0.
D. Consideration of a Resolution Submitting a Measure to the Voters of Los Altos Hills for the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election Regarding the “Green Sheets” Land Use Principles
The City Council considered a resolution submitting a measure to Los Altos Hills voters on the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election regarding proposed modifications to the Land Use Element related to the keeping of horses and domesticated animals, new industrial, large-scale commercial and retail uses on private property, and related Green Sheets land use principles.
Councilmember Swan advocated for including pathway protections in the proposed ballot measure and discussed the value of the Town’s pathway system relative to the estimated cost of placing the measure on the ballot.
The City Attorney confirmed that three affirmative votes were required to place the measure on the ballot.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Alice Mansell urged the Council to codify the town’s Green Sheet principles in an ordinance to protect Los Altos Hills from future overdevelopment. She emphasized preserving the town’s rural character and suggested requiring voter approval for major changes.
Carol Gottlieb urged the Council to include the town’s pathway system in the Green Sheet principles, emphasizing that the pathways are a valuable community asset that has previously faced threats and required voter action to preserve.
Allan Epstein questioned the project’s rising costs, saying the public was initially told it would cost $5,000–$10,000 but expenses have already exceeded $20,000, with additional ballot costs. He argued the measure provides limited benefit and suggested that, if pursued, it should go through a citizen-led initiative rather than Council action.
Kjell Karlsson supported moving forward with the measure, arguing the cost is relatively minor and that putting it on the ballot would engage residents and build community support. He stressed the importance of protecting the town from future Council or state decisions that could increase development.
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes 6PM, June 18, 2026 Page 13 of 19 Birgitta Indaco supported preserving the Green Sheet principles as a precaution against future changes. She also urged the Council to include and strengthen protections for the town’s pathway system.
John Swan supported moving forward with the Green Sheet protections to preserve the town’s rural character. He also urged the Council to restore pathway easements to the proposal, noting that they previously came close to being eliminated.
Jim Waschura urged the Council to obtain a complete cost estimate for the project, including expenses after the election such as staff, legal, and planning work. He supported protections against state mandates but questioned whether the proposal would address the primary threats of overdevelopment.
Jitze Couperus urged the Council to move forward with the proposal as a form of long-term protection against state interference. He argued that the cost is small compared with the potential loss of local control and emphasized thinking 20–50 years ahead.
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Councilmember Swan motioned to APPROVE a Resolution submitting a Measure to the voters of Los Altos Hills for the November 3, 2026, General Municipal Election regarding the “Green Sheets” Land Use Principles, adding in the commercial, the retail, the animals, and the pathways.
The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Tyson.
AYES: Councilmember Mok, Councilmember Swan
NOES: Councilmember Tankha, Vice Mayor Tyson, Mayor Bhateja ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion failed 2-3.
John Swan warned against assuming current political norms will continue, arguing that recent events in Washington, D.C. show the importance of preparing for unexpected future changes.
E. Introduction of an Ordinance Designating the Martha Lynn Tank House at 12889 Viscaino Place as a Historic Landmark, File #SP24-0001
Senior Planner Jonathan Fox presented the proposed historic landmark designation for the Martha Lynn Tank House located at Fremont Hills Country Club.
Staff reported that the City Council had previously approved a Conditional Use Permit for a new aquatics building at the property with a condition requiring an application for landmark designation of the Tank House.
Page & Turnbull evaluated the structure and determined that it was constructed in 1906, possessed historical significance to Los Altos Hills and Santa Clara County, and qualified for designation as a historic landmark.
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes 6PM, June 18, 2026 Page 14 of 19
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Carol Gottlieb, co-chair of the History Committee, urged the Council to approve the landmark designation, praising the work of Paige and Trumbull and noting community interest in fundraising for improvements to the water tank.
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Councilmember Swan motioned to waive the reading and introduce an Ordinance Designating the Martha Lynn Tank House at 12889 Viscaino Place as a Historic Landmark, File #SP24-0001.
The motion was seconded by Mayor Bhateja.
AYES: Councilmember Mok, Councilmember Swan, Councilmember Tankha, Vice Mayor Tyson, Mayor Bhateja
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 5-0.
F. Consideration of a Waiver of Reading and Introduction of an Ordinance Adding Article 17 to Chapter 1 (Zoning) of Title 10 (Zoning and Site Development) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code to Implement State Density Bonus Law Pursuant to Housing Element Program B-3
The City Council considered an ordinance to implement State Density Bonus Law pursuant to Housing Element Program B-3.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No public comments were received.
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Vice Mayor Tyson motioned to waive the reading and introduce an Ordinance adding Article 17 to Chapter 1 (Zoning) of Title 10 (Zoning and Site Development) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code to Implement State Density Bonus Law Pursuant to Housing Element Program B-3.
The motion was seconded by Councilmember Swan.
AYES: Councilmember Mok, Councilmember Swan, Councilmember Tankha, Vice Mayor Tyson, Mayor Bhateja
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 5-0.
G. Resolution Approving a 10-Year Renewal of an Existing AT&T T-MobileOperated Wireless Communications Facility at 26140 Duval Way; Lands of Episcopal Laymens Group of Los Altos; File #CUP24-0004
Staff presented the proposed renewal of the Conditional Use Permit for the existing wireless communications facility at St. Luke’s Chapel in the Hills, 26140 Duval Way.
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes 6PM, June 18, 2026 Page 15 of 19 Staff reported that the facility was originally approved in 1997 and had remained in continuous operation. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the renewal at its April 13, 2026, meeting.
The Council discussed extending the renewal term from three years to 10 years and modifying the radio frequency emissions testing requirement from annual testing to testing at staff’s direction, but no more than once per year.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No public comments were received.
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Councilmember Tankha motioned to ADOPT a resolution (Attachment 1) making a Categorical Exemption determination under CEA pursuant to Section 15301(b) and APPROVING the Conditional Use Permit, subject to conditions of approval, increase renewal terms from 3 to 10 years, and modify RF emission testing from annual requirements to at staff's discretion, but no more than once per year.
The motion was seconded by Mayor Bhateja.
AYES: Councilmember Mok, Councilmember Swan, Councilmember Tankha, Vice Mayor Tyson, Mayor Bhateja
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 5-0.
8. NEW BUSINESS
A. Discussion and Direction Regarding a Potential Westwind Community Barn Master Plan
Staff presented options for addressing ongoing and long-term capital improvement needs at Westwind Community Barn.
Staff described maintenance needs that could be addressed through routine operations as well as larger capital projects, including paddock replacement, barn and stall doors, pasture improvements, roof improvements, and security system upgrades.
Staff discussed the possibility of developing a comprehensive master plan similar to the Town’s Corporation Yard Master Plan to assess operations and long-term capital needs.
The Council discussed whether a reserve study may be an appropriate tool to assess the condition of the facility, anticipated replacement cycles, and longterm capital requirements. Councilmembers also discussed the approximately $250,000 in annual revenue associated with barn operations and the possibility of directing a portion of those revenues toward maintenance and improvements.
The Council provided direction to staff regarding further evaluation of the appropriate long-term planning approach.
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes 6PM, June 18, 2026 Page 16 of 19 No motion.
9. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES, SUB-COMMITTEES, AND COUNCILMEMBERS
ON OUTSIDE AGENCIES
A. Update from the Alternative Sites Ad Hoc Committee
Mayor Bhateja and Vice Mayor Tyson provided an update regarding the Alternative Sites Ad Hoc Committee’s efforts to identify potential sites that could assist the Town in meeting its Housing Element and Regional Housing Needs Allocation obligations.
The Council discussed outreach to property owners who may be willing to participate in rezoning discussions and the respective roles of the Alternative Sites Ad Hoc Committee and Housing Element Implementation Committee.
The City Attorney discussed the potential benefit of demonstrating willing property-owner participation as part of the Town’s Housing Element implementation efforts.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Birgitta Indaco urged the Council to proceed cautiously and allow the Housing Element Implementation Committee and community groups to get involved before beginning negotiations. She warned that acting too quickly could repeat past problems with the development agreement.
Birgitta Indaco cautioned that initiating negotiations too soon could affect the outcome and urged the Council not to bypass the Housing Implementation Committee.
Allan Epstein clarified that the proposed fee waiver would be an incentive for the property owner to pursue the project, not a promise that the project would be approved. He suggested tying the waiver to conditions such as limiting development to 20 units per acre.
Carol Gottlieb questioned why the town was spending $200,000 and asked where the Housing Element funding comes from.
Following discussion, a motion was made to authorize the Alternative Sites Ad Hoc Committee to proceed with the site identification process and bring potential multifamily housing sites forward to the Housing Element Implementation Committee and City Council. The motion was amended to remove the proposed initial budget allocation.
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Councilmember Mok motioned to give the ad hoc committee the authority to proceed with the Considerations shared in the presentation and an initial budget authority of up to $200,000.
The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Tyson.
AMENDED MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Councilmember Mok motioned to give the ad hoc committee the authority to proceed with the Considerations shared in the presentation.
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes 6PM, June 18, 2026 Page 17 of 19 The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Tyson.
AYES: Councilmember Mok, Vice Mayor Tyson, Mayor Bhateja NOES: Councilmember Swan, Councilmember Tankha
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 3-2.
B. Update from the Community Service Survey Ad Hoc Committee Mayor Bhateja and Vice Mayor Tyson presented an update regarding a proposed Planning and Building Experience Survey.
The approximately 20-question survey addressed project types, permitting timelines, ease of the application process, communication with Town staff, and opportunities for improving the planning and building experience. The survey had been reviewed by the City Manager and Community Development Director.
No motion.
10. STAFF REPORTS
A. City Attorney
The City Attorney provided his report.
B. City Clerk
The City Clerk provided her report.
C. Community Development Director
The Community Development Director provided his report.
D. Finance Director
The Finance Director welcomed summer intern Emily Zhang, who would assist with reconciliations, audit preparation, compliance reporting, and financial records management.
Staff reported that preparations were underway for the annual audit, with final fieldwork anticipated in October. Printed budget books were expected to be provided to the City Council in the coming weeks.
E. Public Works Director – Summerhill Pathway Update
Staff reported that the Town had submitted an ADA memorandum to Santa Clara County Roads and Airports requesting an exception relating to the Summerhill pathways. The County advised that ADA requirements could not be waived, with additional written information anticipated.
Staff also reported that the Heritage House Ribbon Cutting was scheduled for August 19, 2026, from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Staff were working with M. Designs on conceptual plans for the Parks and Recreation remodel, with committee review anticipated in August or September.
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes 6PM, June 18, 2026 Page 18 of 19 F. City Manager
The City Manager reported that five responses had been received for the Private Security Patrol Request for Proposals and that a review panel had been established. Staff noted that none of the responding vendors had experience patrolling an area comparable in size to Los Altos Hills.
Staff provided an update on speed feedback signs, including relocation of signs to additional areas of Town.
Regarding the Sheriff’s contract, Vasquez & Company had begun its overhead assessment, and the three contract cities had approved an extension while negotiations continued.
Staff also reported that Genesis had conducted a sound study at 17 potential locations for audible emergency alerts as part of an Emergency Preparedness and Response Committee project. A subcommittee would further evaluate and prioritize potential locations.
11. COUNCIL INITIATED ITEMS
A. Possible Revisions to the Council Proclamation Policy Mayor Bhateja initiated discussion regarding whether the Town should establish clearer criteria for issuing proclamations due to the number of requests received.
Staff advised that an existing policy addressed proclamations, commendations, and commemorations but had not been consistently followed.
The City Council directed staff to return with recommendations regarding the policy.
B. Update on Cherish Los Altos Hills
Mayor Bhateja provided an update regarding Cherish Los Altos Hills, including fundraising efforts. Mayor Bhateja reported commitments totaling approximately $100,000.
C. Letter to PAUSD and LASD Regarding Gardner-Bullis
D. Formation of a Standing Committee for Town Safety
E. Coal Creek Open Space Preserve Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction Project Support Letter
The City Council considered a request for a letter supporting the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District’s Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction Project in the Coal Creek Open Space Preserve.
Following discussion, the City Council authorized the preparation of a letter of support.
MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Mayor Bhateja motioned that the Council authorize a letter of support to the Coal Creek Open Space Preserve Wildland Fire Fuels Reduction Project.
The motion was seconded by Councilmember Swan.
Regular City Council Meeting Minutes 6PM, June 18, 2026 Page 19 of 19 AYES: Councilmember Mok, Councilmember Swan, Councilmember Tankha Vice Mayor Tyson, Mayor Bhateja
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Motion passed 5-0.
12. OATH OF OFFICE
Swearing-In Ceremony of Incoming Vice Mayor Linda Swan
Councilmember Linda Swan took the Oath of Office as incoming Vice Mayor.
Mayor Bhateja congratulated Vice Mayor Swan.
13. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Bhateja adjourned the meeting.
ITEM 5C
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 20, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council
FROM: Arika Birdsong-Miller, City Clerk
RE: Authorize the History Committee to Utilize Town Media and Approve Funding for the Fall 2026 Presentation, “The Anza Experience – 250th Anniversary”
Summary
The History Committee is preparing its Fall 2026 presentation, "The Anza Expedition - 250th Anniversary," as part of its ongoing efforts to preserve and promote awareness of the Town's history and regional heritage.
The Committee is requesting authorization to advertise the presentation through Town communication channels, including the Town website, social media platforms, and official newsletters, as well as through external print and digital media. The Committee is also requesting authorization to use up to $1,500 from its existing designated budget for advertising and outreach associated with the presentation.
Staff is bringing the request to the City Council for consideration and direction regarding the Committee's proposed use of Town communication resources and Committee funds.
Background
The History Committee has a longstanding role in preserving and promoting the Town's historical and cultural heritage through educational programs, community presentations, and public outreach. The Committee has historically organized annual presentations on topics of local and regional historical significance and has utilized various outreach methods to encourage community participation.
As part of the Committee's 2026-2028 Work Plan, adopted by the City Council on January 21, 2026, the Committee identified participation in activities commemorating the 250th anniversary of the Anza Expedition as one of its planned initiatives. Activities include collaboration with other historical organizations, educational outreach, and the reinstallation of commemorative plagues associated with the expedition.
The Fall 2026 presentation, "The Anza Expedition - 250th Anniversary," is intended to provide residents and members of the community with an opportunity to learn more about the expedition and its historical significance to the region.
Proposed Advertising and Outreach
To promote attendance at the Fall 2026 presentation, the History Committee would like to use a combination of Town and external communication channels.
Town communication resources may include the Town website, social media platforms, newsletters, and other appropriate communication channels. The Committee would also like the ability to advertise through external print and digital media to reach residents and members of the broader community who may not regularly receive Town communications.
Advertising and outreach may include event announcements, articles, digital flyers, printed materials, and other promotional materials related to the presentation.
Town staff would coordinate with the History Committee on materials distributed through Town communication channels to ensure consistency with Town branding and communication standards and would provide reasonable technical assistance for digital outreach as needed.
Funding
The History Committee is requesting authorization to expend up to $1,500 from its existing Committee budget for advertising and outreach associated with the Fall 2026 presentation.
Potential expenses may include print and digital advertising, design and production costs, printing of flyers or other promotional materials, and other incidental outreach expenses directly related to the event.
The requested expenditure would be made from funds already allocated to the History Committee. No additional appropriation or budget amendment is requested.
Council Consideration and Options
Staff is providing this memo to the City Council to request direction regarding the History Committee's proposed advertising and outreach for the Fall 2026 presentation.
1. Authorize the History Committee to utilize Town media channels, including the Town website, social media platforms, and official newsletters, as well as appropriate external print and digital media, to advertise the Fall 2026 presentation, "The Anza Expedition - 250th Anniversary."
2. Authorize the expenditure of up to $1,500 from the History Committee's existing budget for advertising and outreach expenses related to the Fall 2026 presentation, including approximately $575 for videography services. Any additional costs associated with staff time or KMVT services required to operate the Council Chambers audiovisual system shall also be charged to the History Committee's budget.
3. Direct staff to coordinate with the History Committee regarding advertising materials distributed through Town communication channels and provide reasonable technical support for digital outreach as needed.
Environmental Review
The proposed action does not constitute a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the action consists of administrative and fiscal activities related to advertising and community outreach and would not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
Fiscal Impact
The maximum fiscal impact associated with the proposed action is $1,500. Funding is available within the History Committee's existing FY 2026-27 budget. No additional appropriation or use of General Fund reserves is requested.
Staff time associated with coordinating Town communications and providing technical assistance would be absorbed within existing departmental resources.
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 20, 2026
TO: Los Altos Hills City Council
FROM: Joram Parcutilo, Management Analyst
APPROVED: Cody Einfalt, City Manager
RE: Mid-Year Status Update on 2026-2027 City Council Workplan SUMMARY:
This mid-year update provides the Los Altos Hills City Council with a status report on the 2026–2027 Workplan, which outlines the Town’s projects not as strategic priority focus areas, but instead as projects compartmentalized by department: City Clerk, City Manager’s Office, Community Development, Finance (Administrative Services), Community Services (Parks and Recreation), and Public Works.
As of August 2026, the Workplan includes 64 projects, of which:
• 13 are completed
• 42 are in progress
• 4 are scheduled
• 5 have not yet started
ITEM 5D
REVISED and DISTRIBUTED 08.17.26
2 Memo to City Council
Update on 2026-27 Workplan
August 20, 2026
Approximately 20% of Workplan projects have been completed, while 66% are currently in progress, meaning more than three-quarters of the Workplan is either completed or actively underway. Staff continues to advance a broad range of initiatives, including public safety and emergency preparedness efforts, Town facility security improvements, Housing Element implementation, development and permit process improvements, financial policies and long-term forecasting, community programs, and infrastructure-related projects.
The full status of each project is detailed withing the online Workplan Tracker. A full list of all the projects in the Workplan is found on the approved 2026-2027 City Council Workplan (Attachment 1).
BACKGROUND:
To initiate the process of putting together the 2026-2027 workplan, staff re-engaged Dr. Frank Benest, ICMA Executive Leader, and retired City Manager Dan Rich to review the priorities in the existing workplan and facilitate discussions regarding potential adjustments. Town staff began its 2026–2027 Work Plan process with the first of two Management Group meetings facilitated by Dr. Frank Benest. During the first session on October 30, 2025, staff reviewed department-submitted baseline workplans reflecting ongoing, Council-directed, and mandated projects within current staffing and budget parameters.
By the end of 2025 and early 2026, staff had developed a draft of the proposed 2026-2027 workplan that incorporated Council ideas, committee and commission input, staff-identified priorities, mandated requirements, and carryover items from the 2024-2025 workplan.
3 Memo to City Council
Update on 2026-27 Workplan
August 20, 2026
On February 4, 2026, the City council held its annual Goal Setting Workshop, and on February 10, 2026, the Council adopted the 2026-2027 Workplan.
Understanding the 2026-2027 Workplan
For the 2026–2027 Workplan, the projects are not listed by priority area; instead, each project is categorized by the lead department. This approach more accurately reflects departmental capacity and better captures the amount of staff bandwidth available to take on and complete projects.
Staff heard from the Council in previous goal setting sessions that there is confusion between what constitutes a day-to-day activity and what falls into the category of discretionary capacity, which is at the heart of the goal setting session discussions. To address this question, for every department, staff has included a list of several day-to-day activities to communicate to Council some of the items that take up staff’s bandwidth which do not need to be prioritized by Council.
This list is not intended to be 100% comprehensive.
To further communicate staff bandwidth, the workplan also includes estimated staff hours that are dedicated to a project. While it is impossible to calculate work hours with total accuracy, the addition to the workplan attempts at communicating impacts to staff’s bandwidth when comparing projects.
The 2026-2027 Workplan is comprised of 64 total projects within our discretionary capacity.
Many of these projects have several milestones to each full completion of the project.
DISCUSSION:
Progress Report on the 2026-2027 Workplan
In the six departments, the Workplan Tracker identifies projects that are: not started, scheduled, in-progress, and completed. The content below summarizes the status of some of the projects as of August 2026. Again, the summary below does not reflect the full status of the City Council Workplan for 2026-2027.
Projects Not Started (8% of Projects on Workplan)
Community Development:
• Complete Safety Element- Staff plans on assigning this work to the Planning Manager, which is currently under recruitment for the Town.
• Department of Forestry Community Wildfire Risk Reduction List – Maintain compliance with California State fire policy and focus on reducing wildfire risks by modifying the immediate surroundings of a property ignition from embers and radiant heat.
Parks and Recreation (Community Services):
• Develop a Comprehensive Bench Donation Policy – Staff will work on creating a clear, consistent guideline for bench placement, design standards, fees, and maintenance upon
4 Memo to City Council
Update on 2026-27 Workplan
August 20, 2026
the return of the Community Services Supervisor from her maternity leave.
Public Works
• Phase II Native Garden – In 2026, the Town applied for a Valley Water Standard Grant to support design and construction of the Native Garden, but the Town was not awarded the grant. Staff plan to pursue the Valley Water Stewardship Grant in 2027 as another potential funding opportunity. The project would need to be deferred to a future year. • Sewer Rate Study - The sewer rate study will be considered following the completion of the sewer processing and conveyance charge negotiations with Palo Alto and Los Altos, as the outcome will impact future sewer rates.
Projects Scheduled (6% of Projects on Workplan)
City Clerk:
• 2027 Volunteer Dinner – Staff will work on putting together the details for the 2027 Volunteer Dinner next year.
Finance (Administrative Services):
• Financial Policies - Create Financial Policy for uncollectible Accounts Receivables, stale dated checks or escheatment process, and Purchasing Policy. A new Purchasing Policy is set to be presented to City Council at the August 20, City Council Meeting.
Public Works:
• Local Roads (Traffic) Safety Plan (LRSP) – Through the Safe Streets for All (SS4A) grant, staff are scheduled to develop a comprehensive Local Roads Traffic Safety Plan to identify opportunities to improve roadway safety and guide future traffic safety improvements. Once the SS4A grant agreement has been executed with the Federal Highway Administration, the schedule is to hire a traffic consultant for the traffic safety plan by Q1 2027, followed by development and finalization of the plan by Q2 2028. • Townwide Guardrail Upgrade - The Town is scheduled to pursue townwide guardrail upgrades, pending the submittal and approval of Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant funding. Staff will identify guardrails for replacement or improvement in Q3 or Q4 2027 and apply for grant funding for design and construction in Q1 2028. Subject to funding, final design is anticipated in Q3 2028, with construction scheduled for Q2 2029.
Projects In Progress (66% of Projects on Workplan)
The largest percentage of projects on the workplan are currently classified as In-Progress. The In-Progress list in this memo is not the complete list. A complete list can be accessed utilizing the Workplan Tracker.
5 Memo to City Council
Update on 2026-27 Workplan
August 20, 2026
City Clerk:
• 2026 Election – The Town is actively preparing for the 2026 General Municipal Election, which will result in the election of two City Council members. Staff is currently advancing the necessary election preparations, with the milestone of establishing the ballot for the upcoming election scheduled for Q3 2026. • 2026 Volunteer Dinner – The Town is actively planning the 2026 Volunteer Dinner to recognize and celebrate the contributions of volunteers who serve the Los Altos Hills community. Staff is coordinating event preparations with the goal of hosting a successful Volunteer Dinner in Q3 2026.
City Manager’s Office:
• Emergency Communication Items from the EPRC (Sound Study, ALERT SCC) – The Town is actively working to strengthen its emergency response framework and improve emergency communication capabilities. As part of this effort, the Town is coordinating a sound alert system demonstration at Purissima Park on August 26, 2026, to test and evaluate the system’s capabilities for communicating critical information during emergencies. The demonstration will help inform the Town’s continued evaluation of emergency alert and notification tools.
• Renegotiate New Contract with Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department – The Town continues to work toward a new law enforcement services agreement with the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office. An Ad Hoc Committee has been engaged in the negotiation process, with ongoing discussions focused on key contract terms, service levels, and financial considerations. Staff and the Ad Hoc Committee will continue to provide updates to the City Council as negotiations progress toward a new agreement. • Town Hall Facility Security Camera Upgrade – The Town continues to advance improvements to security systems at Town facilities. With assistance from Technology Committee member George Lee, staff has completed the installation of the new security camera system, bringing the Town’s facility cameras under a unified platform. The project is now moving into Phase 2, which will focus on upgrading the security card access panels and alarm systems at Town Hall and the Corporation Yard, with improvements at Heritage House planned as the project progresses. These upgrades will further strengthen facility security and modernize the Town’s access control infrastructure.
Community Development:
• Housing Element Programs – The Town continues to advance implementation of its Housing Element programs to maintain compliance with State housing requirements and expand opportunities for a variety of housing types. This comprehensive effort includes updates to the Town’s Objective Design Standards, multifamily zoning, Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, ADU and SB 9 regulations, Density Bonus requirements, permit streamlining, minimum zoning densities, and other housing-related policies and procedures.
6 Memo to City Council
Update on 2026-27 Workplan
August 20, 2026
Staff is also progressing longer-term initiatives related to pre-approved ADU plans, multifamily opportunity sites, housing mobility, public information and outreach, fee and development information, and coordination with regional housing and transportation partners. Several programs remain ongoing, while additional milestones are scheduled throughout 2026 and 2027, including the Housing Element Mid-Cycle Review, continued implementation of State-mandated programs, and updates necessary to maintain consistency with evolving State housing law.
• Prepare the HCD Annual Progress Report – The Town is actively preparing its Annual Progress Report (APR) for the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to document progress in implementing the Town’s Housing Element and associated housing programs. Following completion of the 2026 Annual Report, Community Development staff will continue tracking implementation activities and prepare the next HCD Annual Progress Report for completion in Q1 2027. • Improve Deposit Management for Current Projects – The Town is working to improve the management and tracking of deposit accounts for Building, Planning, and Public Works projects, with a focus on increasing efficiency and ensuring timely processing of deposit returns. Community Development staff is improving backend processes and internal procedures to review and process deposits on a regular cadence, with implementation targeted for Q4 2026.
• TRAKit & eTRAKit upgrades – The Town is working to upgrade its TRAKiT and eTRAKiT systems to improve project tracking, internal workflows, and overall efficiency within the development review process. The upgrades are intended to provide staff with better tools for managing permit and project information while improving system functionality. Completion of the upgrades is targeted for Q2 2027.
Finance:
• Finance Standard Operating Procedures – The Town is working to develop and document Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for common Finance functions to promote consistency, efficiency, and continuity in financial operations. The project will establish standardized procedures for key Finance processes and strengthen internal administrative practices, with completion targeted for Q4 2027. • Internal Purchasing Policy – The Town is working to develop an Internal Purchasing Policy for goods, services, and public works projects to establish clear and consistent procedures for Town purchasing activities. The policy is intended to strengthen internal controls, standardize procurement practices, and provide staff with clear guidance for purchasing decisions. The proposed policy is scheduled to be presented to the City Council for consideration at its August 20, 2026 meeting.
Public Works:
• Corporation Yard Improvements – The Town continues to advance a series of improvements at the Corporation Yard to enhance facility operations, infrastructure, and long-term reliability. The garage door improvements were completed in Q1 2026, while additional work includes removal of the propane tank and installation of additional
7 Memo to City Council
Update on 2026-27 Workplan
August 20, 2026
storage, a second automatic gate in Q4 2026, and a yard pavement overcoat in Q3 2027.
Longer-term improvements scheduled for Q4 2027 include EV chargers, solar and battery backup power, and gutter improvements.
• HVAC Upgrade at Town Hall and Council Chambers – The Town is advancing the electrification and HVAC upgrade of Town Hall and the Council Chambers to modernize building systems and support the Town’s sustainability goals. The project includes design work scheduled for Q2 2027, followed by the electrification of Town Hall and the Council Chambers in Q4 2027.
• Los Altos Hills Community Fiber Installation – The Town continues to advance the Los Altos Hills Community Fiber Installation Project to expand fiber infrastructure and improve connectivity throughout the community. Current work includes fiber installation near Town Hall along Fremont Road, the Stonebrook/Prospect/La Loma area, and the connection from Stonebrook. The project is being coordinated with the Technology Committee, with completion of the planned improvements targeted by Q4 2026. • Magdalena Avenue Pathway Project – The Town is advancing the Magdalena Avenue Pathway Project, which will install approximately 1,300 linear feet of Type 2B pathway along Magdalena Avenue from Camino Hermoso Drive. Design work has been completed in Q2 2026. Construction work started in Q3 2026. The project is being coordinated with the Pathways Committee and is funded through the Town’s approved Capital Improvement Program.
• Measure B Bike/Ped Education & Encouragement (E&E) Program – The Town continues to implement the Measure B Bicycle/Pedestrian Education & Encouragement (E&E) Program to promote and educate the community about alternative modes of transportation, including bicycling and walking. The ongoing program includes the implementation of walking audits of the Town’s pathway network by staff in Q3 2026 to update the GIS pathway information.
• Parks & Recreation Center Renovation – Town staff are working with M.Designs Architects in preparing the concept design options for the new prefabricated “Town Annex” building. In Q3 2026, staff will gather public comments on the concept design options before presenting the options to Council in Q4 2026 for consideration. • Sewer Processing and Conveyance Charge Negotiations with Palo Alto and Los Altos - Sewer ad hoc committee and town staff are currently in talks with the Palo Alto and Los Altos staff on the negotiations of the sewer processing and conveyance charges.
In Q3 2026, the Town is looking to hire a subject matter expert to assist with the studies and negotiations.
• Middle Fork to Maple Leaf Court Pathway - Staff are working with WRA Environmental Consultants for the CEQA Initial Study for the proposed pathway segment before including the segment in the Master Path Plan. The Initial Study is anticipated to be completed by Q4 2026, followed by a Master Path Plan Amendment in Q1 2027. Construction is anticipated to be completed in Q4 2027. • Miscellaneous Pathways – Staff are working to advance construction of priority Master Path Plan (MPP) pathways and other miscellaneous pathway projects. Upcoming work includes pathway staking and improvements along Altamont Road in Q3 2026, followed by a broader evaluation and update of the Town’s Pathway Standards and processes by
8 Memo to City Council
Update on 2026-27 Workplan
August 20, 2026
Q4 2027.
• Purissima Park Improvement Program – Staff are working to complete several improvements at Purissima Park to support the ongoing maintenance and condition of park facilities. Planned work includes fence repairs at Field 1 and gate repairs at Fields 3 and 4 in Q4 2026, followed by parking lot maintenance in Q3 2027. • Summerhill Avenue Pathway – Phase II - The Town is working to advance Phase II of the Summerhill Avenue Pathway Project, once an encroachment permit is obtained from the Santa Clara County. The County has indicated that the pathway will need to meet ADA requirements. Town staff will discuss these requirements with the Pathways Committee and City Council.
• Storm Drain Improvements – Storm drain assets and improvement needs are being evaluated. An actual storm drain improvement project may not start until 2027. • Update Sewer Construction Standards - The Town is working to update its Sewer Construction Standards to ensure current requirements and standard details reflect appropriate engineering practices. Freyer & Laureta, Inc. completed a peer review of the Town’s Sewer Standard Details and provided recommended revisions to the drawings.
Staff will use these recommendations to advance the update to the Town’s sewer construction standards.
• Westwind Community Barn Improvements - The Town continues to advance facility improvements at Westwind Community Barn to address ongoing maintenance needs and support the long-term operation of the facility. Staff will assess and evaluate facility needs in Q4 2026, followed by planned paddock repairs in Q1 2027 and Q1 2028 as part of the Town’s ongoing Capital Improvement Program.
Projects Completed (20% of Projects on Workplan)
City Clerk:
• Safe Storage of records at the Corp Yard – The Town has completed improvements for the safe storage of records at the Corporation Yard, providing a more secure and organized location for Town records. The project improves records retention, accessibility, and long-term document management, helping staff more efficiently maintain and retrieve important Town files.
• Update PRA Software – The Town has completed the implementation of updated Public Records Act (PRA) software to improve the management and processing of public records requests. The new system is intended to streamline internal workflows, improve tracking records, and support faster response times for PRA requests, completing this project ahead of its originally anticipated Q1 2027 timeline.
City Manager’s Office
• Check-in On Cultural Reset Items- Stay Interviews + New Round – The Town has completed its cultural reset check-in and employee stay interview initiative as part of ongoing efforts to strengthen employee recruitment and retention. The project provided an opportunity to gather staff feedback, assess workplace culture, and identify
9 Memo to City Council
Update on 2026-27 Workplan
August 20, 2026
opportunities to support employee engagement, retention, and organizational development.
• Green Sheets – The Green Sheets initiative was brought before the City Council for discussion and consideration on June 18, 2026. Council considered placing the initiative on the November 2026 ballot; however, the motion failed by a 2–3 vote and did not advance to the ballot.
• Our Town Publication – The Town has completed the transition from the former Quarterly publication to publishing Our Town four times per year, providing residents with more frequent updates on Town projects, programs, events, and community news.
Staff completed the RFP process for a new editor/designer and entered into a new contract in Q2 2026. Staff will continue to oversee and review the publication as part of ongoing Town communications.
Community Development:
• Complete Permit Fee Assessment and Issue Reimbursements – The Town has completed its assessment of outstanding permit fee reimbursements for residents who were overcharged for development-related services. Following the assessment, the Town issued the applicable reimbursements to affected residents, completing this City Councildirected initiative and addressing outstanding amounts identified through the permit fee review process.
Finance:
• Cost for Service Study – The Town has completed the Cost of Service Study and Cost Allocation Plan to evaluate the cost of providing Town services and establish a basis for reviewing and updating applicable fees. Following consultant analysis and review by the Finance and Investment Committee (FIC), the final study was presented to the City Council in Q2 2026, completing the project and providing the foundation for subsequent updates to the Town’s fee schedules.
• Five-Year Financial Forecast – The Town has completed its first Five-Year Financial Forecast, providing a long-term fiscal projection to support budget planning and informed financial decision-making. The forecast was presented to the Finance and Investment Committee (FIC) and City Council during their May 15, 2026 Joint Special Meeting as part of the FY 2026–27 Proposed Budget study session. Completion of the forecast fulfills a City Council-directed Workplan initiative and provides the Town with a tool to evaluate its longer-term financial outlook and future budget considerations. • New Building Permit Fee Schedule – The Town completed a Development Services Fee Study and proposed update to the Building Permit Fee Schedule to better align fees with the cost of providing development-related services. The proposed fee schedule was reviewed by the Finance and Investment Committee (FIC) and presented to the City Council on May 14, 2026. The new fee schedule was approved
10 Memo to City Council
Update on 2026-27 Workplan
August 20, 2026
Public Works:
• Replacement of Road Signage Across the Town – In Q2 2026, the Maintenance Team completed the replacement of roadway signs throughout the Town to ensure compliance with State reflective code requirements and improve sign visibility. • Annual Pavement Rehabilitation and Drainage Improvement - The Town has completed the FY 2026 Pavement Rehabilitation and Drainage Improvement Project, including design and construction activities to maintain and improve the condition of Town roadways and drainage infrastructure. The broader program also includes the FY 2027 Pavement Rehabilitation and Drainage Improvement Project, with grant evaluation planned for Q4 2026, design in Q1 2027, and construction anticipated in Q3 2027.
ANALYSIS:
The large number of projects currently in progress reflects the multi-year nature and complexity of the Workplan, rather than a lack of project advancement. Many initiatives require multiple phases of planning, community or committee engagement, consultant support, design, permitting, funding, and construction before they can be considered complete. Public Works projects in particular include substantial infrastructure efforts involving pathways, roadways, drainage, sewer infrastructure, Town facilities, traffic safety, and other capital improvements.
Significant progress has nevertheless occurred during the first portion of the Workplan.
Completed initiatives include projects related to records storage, Public Records Act software, employee recruitment and retention efforts, the Green Sheets initiative, the Our Town publication, permit fee reimbursements, the Cost of Service Study, and the Five-Year Financial Forecast, among others. At the same time, major initiatives remain actively underway in areas such as Housing Element implementation, emergency preparedness and communications, facility security, financial policies and procedures, community fiber, pathways, and Town infrastructure.
The Workplan also demonstrates that project completion alone does not capture the full scope of progress. Several projects classified as In Progress have already reached significant milestones.
For example, the Town facility security project has progressed through security camera installation and is moving into access control and alarm system improvements. Similarly, Housing Element implementation consists of numerous individual programs and regulatory milestones that will continue throughout the two-year Workplan period.
Comparison to Previous Mid-Year Updates
For additional perspective, the current Workplan can be compared with the previous mid-year reporting periods (Table A).
11 Memo to City Council
Update on 2026-27 Workplan
August 20, 2026
Table A – Mid-Year Workplan Comparison
Mid-Year Update Total Projects Complete In-Progress
July 2024 61 8 35
July 2025 84 23 49
August 2026 64 13 42
Because the 2026–2027 Workplan was restructured by department rather than the former strategic priority areas, comparisons with previous Workplans should be viewed with caution, as the lower project count does not necessarily reflect a reduced workload. The current Workplan more clearly distinguishes Council-directed projects, core day-to-day operations, and initiatives beyond existing capacity. Departments continue to manage substantial ongoing responsibilities— including regular day-to-day responsibilities, emergency preparedness, grant management, data analysis, website administration, and other operational assignments—that are not included in the 64-project status count.
While the overall status demonstrates substantial progress, staff capacity remains an important consideration as implementation continues through 2027. The adopted Workplan specifically identifies a number of initiatives as “Beyond Capacity,” recognizing that additional projects cannot necessarily be absorbed without affecting existing priorities, timelines, or service delivery.
Overall, the 2026–2027 Workplan is progressing steadily, with more than three-quarters of projects either completed or actively underway. Because many of the remaining initiatives are intentionally multi-year projects, a significant portion of the Workplan will continue through 2027 and beyond. As new priorities emerge, Council may need to consider their timing in relation to existing commitments and determine whether projects should be reprioritized, rescheduled, or provided additional resources to maintain achievable workloads and continued progress.
Attachments:
1. Approved 2026-2027 City Council Workplan
Mandated/Budgeted KEY PROJECTS/INITIATIVES KEY OUTCOME MILESTONES QUARTER OF COMPLETION PROJECT STATUS $10,000 Update PRA Software Faster PRA response time Find and implement new software 1 2027 COMPLETE $60,000 Safe Storage of records at the Corp Yard Better retention and more accessible files
COMPLETE
$15,000 Edisclosure Software exhange Streamlined collection of Ethics and SH training Implement new software 4 2026 IN PROGRESS $45,000 2027 Volunteer Dinner Successful Dinner Host Successful event 3 2027 SCHEDULED $45,000 2026 Volunteer Dinner Successful Dinner Host Successful event 3 2026 IN PROGRESS $40,000 2026 Election 2 Elected Council Members (new) Establish Ballot for Upcoming Election 3 2026 IN PROGRESS
IN PROGRESS
COMPLETED
NOT STARTED
SCHEDULED
LEGEND
2026-2027 Workplan
City Clerk
1 ITEM 5D Attachment 1
REVISED and DISTRIBUTED 08.17.26
Mandated/Budgeted KEY PROJECTS/INITIATIVES KEY OUTCOME MILESTONES QUARTER OF COMPLETION COMMITTEE INVOLVEMENT PROJECT STATUS $0 Green Sheets Gain Council consensus on how to codify document City Council discussion at CC meeting 1 2027 COMPLETE $10K Check-in on cultural reset items-stay interviews + new round Maintain recruitment and retention efforts COMPLETE $60,000 Emergency Communication items from the EPRC (Sound Study, ALERT SCC) Improve the Town's emergency response framework Emergency Preparedness and Response
IN PROGRESS
Continue review and discussion with the Tech Committee on which vendor to move forward with 4 2025 Present item to City Council 4 2025
Town Hall installation 1 2026
Corpyard Installation 1 2026
Westwind Barn Installation 1 2026
Access Panel Upgrades 2 2026
$0 Emergency Preparedness Keep the Town Safe and prepared for emergencies with a full-time emergency manager position Ensure that their is continuity within the Emergency Management position Ongoing Emergency Preparedness and Response
IN PROGRESS
Establish Ad Hoc Committee and have Ad Hoc Committee report to City Council progress on negotiations Ongoing Continue Discussion with City Council on key issues Ongoing Engage in new Contract with Sheriff's Office 2 2026
Finalize RFP for new editor/designer for Our Town 1 2026 Enter into contract with new editor/deisgner for Our Town, ongoing review of publication 2 2026
IN PROGRESS
COMPLETED
NOT STARTED
SCHEDULED
IN PROGRESS
IN PROGRESS
COMPLETE
LEGEND
$49,000 Our Town Publication Phase out the Quarterly and Increase Our Town to four issues a year $5,200,000 Renegotiate New Contract with SCC Sheriff's Department Engage in a new contract with the Sheriff's Office ~$40K Town Hall Facility Security Camera Upgrade Bring Town facility security systems under one platform Technology 2026-2027 Workplan
City Managers Office
2
Mandated/Budgeted KEY PROJECTS/INITIATIVES KEY OUTCOME MILESTONES QUARTER OF COMPLETION COMMITTEE INVOLVEMENT PROJECT STATUS Uncollectible Accounts Receivables 4 2026
Stale dated checks or escheatment process 4 2026
Budget 2 2025
Payroll 3 2024
Accounts Payable 4 2025
Purchasing 4 2026
Bank and Cash Reconciliation 2 2026
ACFR 4 2026
$0 Finance Standard Operating Procedures Complete SOPs for common Finance functions Complete SOPs 4 2027 Finance and Investment IN PROGRESS $0 Five-Year Financial Forecast Prepare long-term fiscal projection for budget planning Complete five-year financial forecast and present to FIC and City Council during budget presentations 2 2026 Finance and Investment
COMPLETE
Solicit consultant support, execute contract to prepare Study 1 2025 Complete Cost of Service Study and Cost Allocation Plan 3 2025 Present final Cost of Service Study to FIC and City Council 2 2026 Solicit consultant support, execute contract to prepare draft Fee Schedule 1 2025 Update Fee Schedule and present to FIC and City Council 1 2026 $0 Internal Purchasing Policy Internal purchasing policy for goods, services, and public works projects Council approval of internal purchasing policy 2 2026 Finance and Investment
IN PROGRESS
IN PROGRESS
COMPLETED
NOT STARTED
SCHEDULED
COMPLETE
SCHEDULED
IN PROGRESS
COMPLETE
LEGEND
$20K New Building Permit Fee Schedule New Building Permit Fee Schedule Finance and Investment $20K Cost for Service Study Complete a Cost of Service Study which is the basis to evaluate new fees Finance and Investment $20K Maximize functions of financial systems Use and streamline functions of financial systems (Budget, Project Accounting, Purchasing, AP, Fixed Assets, Bank Reconciliation, ACFR) Finance and Investment
$0 Financial Policies Create Financial Policy for uncollectible Accounts Receivables, stale dated checks or escheatment process, and Purchasing Policy
Finance and Investment
2026-2027 Workplan
Administrative Services
3
Mandated/Budgeted KEY PROJECTS/INITIATIVES KEY OUTCOME MILESTONES QUARTER OF COMPLETION
COMMITTEE
INVOLVEMENT PROJECT STATUS
$15,000 Heat pump rebates/Whole Home assessment/administration Promote the use of heat pumps (~10 rebates a year) Continue to provide funding for electrification of heat pumps in Town Ongoing EIC
IN PROGRESS
$15,000 Improve deposit management for current projects Track deposit accounts for building, planning and public works and improve efficiency of deposit returns Improve backend management for staff to process deposits on a regular cadence 4 2026 FIC
IN PROGRESS
$70,000 Inspection scheduling system Improve inspection scheduling system Software to improve UI and accessibility for applicants 2 2026
IN PROGRESS
Prepare LCI General Plan Annual Report 1 2026
Prepare LCI General Plan Annual Report 1 2027
Complete HCD Annual Report 1 2026
Complete HCD Annual Report 1 2027
Muni Code Update - Firescape: Update code Ongoing
Muni Code Update - Landscape (Guide 2.1): Update code Ongoing Muni Code Update - Ridgelines/Hilltops: Update code Ongoing Objective Design Standards: Establishment of methodology; creation of draft document 1 2026 Zoning Ordinance (Multi-Family) (CIP): Creation of draft document 1 2026 Inclusionary Housing / Feasibility: Identify relevant example policies; craft draft policy 1 2026 ADU Ordinance Update: Creation of draft document Ongoing Density Bonus Ordinance and Incentives for ELIs: Identify relevant example policies; craft draft policy 1 2027 (A-4) By-right Approval Ordinance: Creation of draft document 1 2026 SB 35 and SB 330 Application Streaming Procedure: Identify relevant example policies; craft draft policy 1 2026 No Net Loss Monitoring: Identification of project and permit tools to assess activity against existing inventory 1 2027 Pre-approved ADU Plans: Develop standards for pre-approval of ADUs Ongoing Education, Outreach, and Information Exchange for housing resources: Establish scope/parameters for each task; identify relevant examples; prepare outline to execute programs
Ongoing
A-1 Prepare report for Mid-Cycle review of Housing Element implementation: Report for HCD on program status with letters of intent from developers 4 2026 A-3 Annual report and review of surplus lands: Report to include with APR 4 2026 A-5 Minimum Zoning Density: Ensure Zoning Code complies with a establish minimum densities to ensure that parcels are able to be developed at appropriate densities for lower-income
1 2026
A-11 Continued outreach to large site owners: Maintain list of prospective RHNA backup sites for remainder of 6th and 7th cycle 1 2026 "A-12 Conversion to Duplex or Triplex": Rezoning for conversion of Duplexes or Triplexes 1 2027 B-1 Permit Streamlining: "Establish and implement expedited permit processing for affordable housing projects, including projects that qualify for density bonuses (in compliance with SB 35 and SB
330). Advertise the expedited permit process on the Town’s website and circulate a notice with the Building Industry Association and Chamber of Commerce." Ongoing
B-3 Density Bonus Updates: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to update density bonus regulations to meet updated state requirements 3 2026 B-4 Development of User guides for multifamily objective design standards: Updated MF ODS webpage and user guides 1 2026 B-6 ADU Ordinance Update to Meet State Law: Annual review of current ADU policy and amendments to remain in comliane with state law 2 2026 B-7 Public Fees: Town will compile all development standards, plans, fees, and nexus studies in an easily accessible online location. The Town will update its zoning and general plan maps to provide a high quality, parcel-specific reference 2 2026
B-8 Development of long-range sewer plan to accommodate for multifamily opportunity sites: Publish final schedule and user guide 1 2027 "B-10 SB 9 Ordinance Amendments": Annual review of current SB 9 policy and amendments to remain in compliance with state law 3 2026 B-13 Finalize Fee Nexus study publish final schedule and user guide: Publish final schedule and user guide 1 2026
IN PROGRESS
IN PROGRESS
IN PROGRESS
$287,500 Housing Element Programs *Please refer to project description or project milestones for extensive list of key outcomes* Planning Commission/EDPC/Op
en Space
$0 Municipal Code Updates: In Alignment with California State Law
*Please refer to milestones for extensive list of key outcomes* $0 Prepare the HCD Annual Progress Report Complete HCD Annual Report $0 Complete the LCI General Plan Annual Progress Report Complete the LCI General Plan Annual Report 2026-2027 Workplan
Community Development
4
C-1 At risk housing preservation: Inclusion of reporting in the APR 1 2026 F-2 Housing Mobility: In coordination with programs A-1, A-3,and A-6, allow multi-family residential opportunities in the Town. Additionally, in coordination with programs G-1 and G-3, maintain an education program to inform tenants of the 2019 Tenant Protection Act and provide information on the Town webpage 1 2026
F-5 Transit improvements with Plan Bay Area: Engage in Planning Collaborative and VTA working groups for multifamily housing transit connection 1 2027 Legislative updates: Provide bi-annual reports on recent legislation to the Planning Commission Ongoing Housing mobility and working group participation to support a variety of ongoing and previously implemented Housing Element programs: Continue regular engagement with the Santa Clara County Planning Collaborative, County Office of Supportive Housing, VTA, and Santa Clara County Association of Planning Officials
Ongoing
$40,000 Department of Forestry Community Wildfire Risk Reduction List Maintain compliance with California State fire policy and focus on reducing wildfire risks by modifying the immediate surroundings of a property ignition from embers and radiant heat
EPRC
NOT STARTED
$60,000 Complete Safety Element Have a completed GP element Creation of draft document 2 2027 EPRC NOT STARTED $1,000,000 Complete Permit Fee Assessment and Issue Reimbursements Complete an assessment of outstanding reimbursements to residents for overcharged services FIC COMPLETE $26,000 TRAKit & eTRAKiT upgrades TRAKiT & eTRAKiT upgrades Increased tracking and efficiency 2 2027
IN PROGRESS
Have current information on the site development process and key requirements of the municipal code Ongoing Conduct an assessment of expired Town permits 2 2026
Complete a digital survey 4 2026
Audit and updated of the Town's ADU in formational handouts, appointment scheduling, and website resources 3 2026
IN PROGRESS
COMPLETED
NOT STARTED
SCHEDULED
LEGEND
IN PROGRESS
IN PROGRESS
$65,000 CDD Listening Response Session -Prepare and publish updated informational handouts, checklists, workflow charts, and staff schedules -Expired Permit Management
-Conduct a satisfaction survey of planning/development services in the past three years -Updated ADU Permit streamlining processes
Planning Commission
5
Mandated/Budgeted KEY PROJECTS/INITIATIVES KEY OUTCOME MILESTONES QUARTER OF COMPLETION COMMITTEE INVOLVEMENT PROJECT STATUS Develop a comprehensive Bench Donation Policy Create clear, consistent guidelines for bench placement, design standards, fees, and maintenance A comprehensive bench donation policy that clearly defines placement, design standards, fees, and maintenance responsibilities to support community benefit
3 2026 FIC/Open Space/PRCE
NOT STARTED
Renew Victoria Dye Equestrian Concession Agreement Ongoing, reliable operation of equestrian programs and services at Westwind Community Barn A renewed agreement that clearly defines maintenance responsibilities, cost-sharing, and supports continued equestrian programming. Ongoing FIC
COMPLETE
Renew Los Altos/Los Altos Hills Little League Contract Clear terms outlining use, maintenance responsibilities, and cost-sharing A renewed agreement that clearly defines field use, maintenance responsibilities, and cost-sharing. Ongoing FIC/PRCE COMPLETE Community Building through Town-Wide Events and Activities Host Community Events throughout the year and continue to produce the Activity Guide 2x a year High-quality, well-attended community events that foster resident engagement and connection. Ongoing PRCE IN PROGRESS
IN PROGRESS
COMPLETED
NOT STARTED
SCHEDULED
LEGEND
2026-2027 Workplan
Community Services
6
Mandated/Budgeted KEY PROJECTS/INITIATIVES KEY OUTCOME MILESTONES QUARTER OF COMPLETION COMMITTEE INVOLVEMENT PROJECT STATUS $25K Phase II Native Garden Install new (and renew existing) native plantings along with irrigation and rain harvesting features EDPC to specify native plantings, irrigation system, and rain harvesting features for Public Works Maintenance staff to install 4 2027 Environmental Design and Protection
NOT STARTED
CIP Budget Approved Matadero Creek Erosion Project Maintenance & monitoring of mitigation measures Mitigation Measure - Monitoring Ongoing
IN PROGRESS
2026 Storm Draining Improvement Project 4 2026
2027 Storm Draining Improvement Project 4 2027
Consultant review of current charges and recommendation on proposed 4 2026 Negotiations with Palo Alto and Los Altos Ongoing
Hire sewer rate consultant 4 2026
Sewer rate study 4 2027
$0 Septic Tank Guide Develop a septic tank guidelines for developers Septic Tank Guide 3 2026
IN PROGRESS
Replace Control Panel: Design/Procurement/Installation 3 2026 Install Backup power source for O'keefe Sanitary Sewer Lift Station (Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Action Item): Procurement/Installation of Backup Power Generator
3 2026
2026 Sewer CIP: Design 2 2026
2026 Sewer CIP: Construction 3 2026
2027 Sewer CIP: Design 1 2027
2027 Sewer CIP: Construction 3 2027
$20K Update Sewer Construction Standards Update Sewer Construction Standards Update Sewer Construction Standards 2 2026
IN PROGRESS
Staking of pathways 3 2026
Altamont Road 3 2026
Evaluate/update Pathway Standards & Processes 4 2027
Environmental Initial Study 4 2026
Master Path Plan Amendment 1 2027
Design 2 2027
Construction 4 2027
Survey Staking + Topographic Survey 4 2026
Design 2 2026
Construction 4 2026
Design 3 2026
Obtain encroachment permit from Santa Clara County 4 2026 Construct Phase 2 3 2027
Recommendation from Pathways Committee 1 2026
Install advisory signs 2 2026
Continue working with Pathways Committee Ongoing
Replace Chipper 2 2026
Replace a light-duty truck w/ electric vehicle 3 2026
Replace a light-duty truck w/ electric vehicle 3 2027
Design 2 2027
Electrification of Town Hall & Council Chambers 4 2027
Fence repair for Fields 1 and gate repairs at Fields 3 and 4 4 2026 Parking Lot Maintenance 3 2027
Assess and evaluate facility needs at Westwind Community Barn 4 2026 Paddock Repair 1 2027
Paddock Repair 1 2028
Garage Doors – completed 1 2026
Removal of propane tank and additional storage bin 2 2026 Removal of propane tank and additional storage bin 4 2026 Second Automatic Gate 4 2026
Yard Pavement Overcoat 3 2027
EV Chargers 4 2027
Backup Power- solar with battery 4 2027
2026-2027 Workplan
Public Works/Engineering
CIP Budget Approved Storm Drain Improvements Storm Drain Improvements to prevent failures $100K O'Keefe Sanitary Sewer Lift Station Upgrade *See milestones* CIP Budget Approved:
$900,000
Sewer Rehabilitation and Repair 2026 and 2027 Sewer CIP's $0 Sewer Processing and Conveyance Charge
Negotiations with Palo Alto and Los Altos
Sewer Treatment and Conveyance Charge Negotiations
$80K Sewer Rate Study Sewer rate study Finance and Investment CIP Budget Approved Magdalena Avenue Pathway Project Key outcome – Installation of 1,300 linear foot 2B Pathway along Magdalena Avenue from Camino Hermoso Drive
Pathways
CIP Budget Approved Summerhill Avenue Pathway - Phase II Construct Summerhill Pathway, Phase II Pathways CIP Budget Approved Miscellaneous Pathways Construction of other priority MPP pathways and miscellaneous pathway projects. Pathways CIP Budget Approved Middle Fork to Maple Leaf Court Pathway Construct Middle Fork to Maple Leaf Court Path Pathways $400k HVAC Upgrade at Town Hall & Council Chambers Electrification of Town Hall and Council Chambers Environmental Initiatives CIP Budget Approved Purissima Park Improvement Program Purissima Park Improvements $5,000 Bike Advisory Signages for Pathways Install bike advisory signs at specific pathways per Pathways Committee Pathways $260K Fleet & Equipment Procurement Replace old trucks and equipment per Town policies. Environmental Initiatives CIP Budget Approved Westwind Community Barn Improvements Westwind Community Barn Improvement CIP Budget Approved Corporation Yard Improvements Corporation Yard Improvements
IN PROGRESS
IN PROGRESS
NOT STARTED
IN PROGRESS
IN PROGRESS
IN PROGRESS
IN PROGRESS
IN PROGRESS
IN PROGRESS
IN PROGRESS
IN PROGRESS
IN PROGRESS
IN PROGRESS
IN PROGRESS
IN PROGRESS
Gutters 4 2027
Hire a design team 2 2026
Concept Design for pre-fab building and site 4 2026
CUP Planning Process 3 2027
Select general contractor/prefab vendor 4 2027
Construction 4 2028
Scoping for Phase 2 Rule 20A Project 4 2026
Preliminary Design 4 2027
CIP Budget Approved Los Altos Hills Community Fiber Installation Install Los Altos Hills Community Fiber infrastructure near Town Hall on Fremont Road, Stonebrook/Prospect/La Loma, and Stonebrook to ARK.
Install Los Altos Hills Community Fiber infrastructure near Town Hall on Fremont Road, Stonebrook/Prospect/La Loma, and Stonebrook to ARK. 4 2026 Technology
IN PROGRESS
Annual Reporting for FY2026 3 2026
E&E Program 2026 4 2026
Annual Reporting for FY2027 3 2027
E&E Program 2027 4 2027
CIP Budget Approved Replacement of Road Signage Across the Town Meet State's reflective code requirements Sign replacement 4 2026
COMPLETE
Identify guardrails to replace/improve 2 2027
Apply for grant funds to design/construction guardrails. 3 2027 Final Design 2 2028
Construction 4 2028
Hire a Traffic Consultant for Traffic Safety Plan 1 2027 Finalize local roads (traffic) safety plan 2 2028
Signage and striping improvements at seven (7) street curve sections 3 2026 Implement other traffic calming and safety measures Ongoing FY 2026 Pavement Rehab and Drainage Improvement Project: Design 1 2026 FY 2026 Pavement Rehab and Drainage Improvement Project: Construction 3 2026 FY 2027 Pavement Rehab and Drainage Improvement Project: Evaluate and secure potential grants 4 2026 FY 2027 Pavement Rehab and Drainage Improvement Project: Design 1 2027 FY 2027 Pavement Rehab and Drainage Improvement Project: Construction 3 2027
IN PROGRESS
COMPLETED
NOT STARTED
SCHEDULED
CIP Budget Approved Parks & Rec Center Renovation Replace with new pre-fabricated building $0 Undergrounding Utilities - Rule 20A (Phase 2) Utility Undergrounding with remaining Rule 20A (Phase 2) CIP Budget Approved Measure B Bike/Ped Education & Encouragement (E&E) Program
Programs to encourage and educate alternative modes of transportation $200k (80% grant
funded)
Townwide Guardrail Upgrade Townwide Guardrail Upgrade (pending approval of HSIP federal grant)
SCHEDULED
SCHEDULED
$225k (80% grant
funded)
Local Roads (Traffic) Safety Plan (LRSP) Traffic (Local Roads) Safety Plan CIP Budget Approved Road Safety and Traffic Calming Implement traffic and calming safety measures
IN PROGRESS
COMPLETE
LEGEND
CIP Budget Approved:
$1.4 Million
Annual Pavement Rehabilitation and Drainage
Improvement
*see milestones for list of key outcomes*
IN PROGRESS
IN PROGRESS
IN PROGRESS
IN PROGRESS
ITEM 5E
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS August 20, 2026
Staff Report to the City Council
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION FOR CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE STANDING PURCHASE ORDERS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026 – 2027 IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $9,156,224
FROM: Varsha Srinivasan, Management Analyst VS
APPROVED: Cody Einfalt, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
Adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 1) authorizing the City Manager to execute purchase orders for routine supplies and services for the fiscal year 2026-27 in accordance with the adopted budget.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Town operations require supplies and specialized services to conduct business and provide certain specialized services. The attached resolution provides the City Manager with authorization to execute purchase orders with vendors where expenses are anticipated to exceed $60,000. This resolution does not include capital project related services which the City Council considers on a case-by-case basis. The resolution does include previous non-capital project contracts and agreements that the Council individually considers through separate resolutions and authorizations.
Additionally, the FY 2026-27 standing purchase order vendor listing (Attachment 2) provides a detailed breakdown of changes in expenses compared to FY 2025-26.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The Standing Purchase Order report does not qualify as a “Project” as defined in California Government Code Section 15378(b) of the Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act.
CITY COUNCIL WORKPLAN:
The report was not specified as one of the Council’s priorities in FY 2026-2027.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Staff Report to City Council Page 2
Fiscal Year 2026-27 Standing Purchase Order Report
August 20, 2026
2 There is no fiscal impact on the Standing Purchase Order report. Purchase orders will be issued in an amount not exceeding an aggregate total of $9,156,224 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2027. The expenditures were included in the City Council’s Adopted Budget for the fiscal year 2026-27.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution
2. FY 2026-27 Standing Purchase Order Vendor Listing
Prepared by: Jocelyn Misola, Senior Accountant
ITE 5E Attachment 1
RESOLUTION xx-26
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE STANDING PURCHASE ORDERS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-2027 IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $9,156,224
WHEREAS, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills approved and adopted the Operating and Capital Improvement Program Budget for the Town of Los Altos Hills for fiscal year 2026- 2027 on the 18
th of June 2026; and
WHEREAS, the Town requiressupplies and specialized services to conduct business and augment the Town’s in-house staff for specific purposes;
WHEREAS, the budget includes appropriations to procure the services as set forth in Attachment A and attached hereto;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does hereby resolve to authorize the City Manager to execute purchase orders for fiscal year 2026-2027 in an amount not to exceed $9,156,224 in accordance with Attachment A.
The above and foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills at a City Council meeting held on 20th day of August 2026 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
By:
Rajiv Bhateja, Mayor
ATTEST:
Arika Birdsong-Miller, City Clerk
Town of Los Altos Hills
Standing Purchase Orders
FY 2026-27
Not to
Vendor Service Exceed Change from FY25-26 Notes
City of Los Altos Sewer operations and maintenance 1,350,000.00 $ 250,000.00
This is based on RWQTP 2026-2035 Budget forecast, dated 3/12/26.
Based on RWQCP latest projection, 3/12/26. This amount
includes the authorized amount for minor capital needs.
City of Palo Alto Sewer operations and maintenance 1,600,000.00 $ - No change Regional animal control services 162,000.00 $ 5,000.00 These numbers reflect roughly a 3% annual increase.
CSG Consultants Inc Planning, building services, plan review, and building official services 575,000.00
$ (361,250.00)
Reduction of building official (FY25-26), and code enforcement (FY25-26) officer costs
On-Call engineering services and Sewer services 60,000.00 $ 60,000.00
Billable Charges for Grading Moratorium and Parcel
Management Reviews
Metropolitan Life Ins Dental Insurance 88,829.00 $ 9,021.00 Redwood Public Law Legal services 194,926.00 $ 11,436.00 Special Projects & Other 248,500.00 $ 36,500.00 Includes legal - special projects and billable attorney fees Pooled Liability Assurance Net
(PLAN JPA) General Liability
450,585.00
$ 16,661.00 Per PLAN JPA budget
Purissima Hills Water District Water 93,875.00
$ (15,855.00)
Santa Clara Co. Sheriff
Department
Law enforcement services 3,379,757.00
$ 674,474.00
Significant increase due to updated overhead cost allocation model from Santa Clara County
Shared Agency Risk Pool
(SHARP)
Worker's Compensation Premium 154,691.00
$ 29,320.00 Increase due to rising insurance premiums
Victoria Dye Equestrian LLC Barn Management 48,000.00
$ 8,000.00
Increased per recommendation from Finance & Investment
Committee (FIC)
Camps and cost-shared expenses 120,000.00 $ - No change West Bay Sanitary District Sewer Maint Svcs 630,061.00 $ 20,061.00 Per 5-year contract term FY 2026-27 9,156,224.00
ITEM 5E Attachment 2
ITEM 5F
1 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS August 20, 2026
Staff Report to the City Council
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO THE GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT ON THE VTA’S
MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE
II
FROM: Arika Birdsong-Miller, City Clerk
APPROVED: Cody Einfalt, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council should:
Approve the attached response letter to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Final Report, “VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II” BACKGROUND:
The Civil Grand Jury investigated VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II (Attachment 1) and concluded with the following finding:
Finding 6:
The Cities of Group 2, which includes the Town, share the Grand Jury’s concerns regarding the BART project. However, the Town disagrees that all Authority Groups do not follow VTA Administrative Code (Section 2-14) admonitions to “appoint individuals with appropriate experience and qualifications in transportation” and to “reappoint representatives to consecutive terms.” The Cities of Group 2 have adopted by-laws governing the appointment of the VTA Group 2 Board Representative (see Attachment 1). Consistent with those by-laws, the Group 2 Cities strive to select representatives with transportation experience and knowledge by selecting individuals who have two or more of the following qualifications: (1) at least one year’s service on the VTA Board within the last 4 years; (2) at least one year’s service on a policy advisory body that reports directly to the VTA Board (Policy Advisory Committee, Policy Advisory Board, the Citizens Advisory Committee) and has a minimum 80% attendance record; (3) any other transportation policy credential deemed relevant by the majority of the Working Group as meeting the intent of the experience requirement within the last 4 years; and (4) demonstrates working knowledge of the VTA.
Regarding Recommendation 6, Group 2 Cities, including the Town, remain committed to improving VTA efficiency and services and will adhere to VTA Administrative Code (Section 2- 14) admonitions regarding Board member expertise and appointment to consecutive terms and to do so by December 31, 2026.
Findings 7:
The Town agrees VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 have different processes for making Board appointments.
Staff Report to City Council Page 2
Civil Grand Jury Response Letter
August 20, 2026
Regarding Recommendation 7, the Town is supportive of a uniform process of making Board appointments for the Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 and to do so by December 31, 2026.
Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933.05, the Town of Los Altos Hills is required to respond within 90 days to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations within the final report on the use of language in ballot measure questions.
The proposed letter (Attachment 2) to the Grand Jury’s report stating the Town’s response to the report’s findings and recommendations.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Submitting a response letter to the Civil Grand Jury is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) due to the response not being defined as a “project” under CEQA. 2026-2027 CITY COUNCIL WORK PLAN:
This action is not identified on the 2026-27 City Council Work Plan, instead falls in the category of day-to-day operations.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact related response letter.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Letter received from the Grand Jury – dated June 17, 2026
2. Proposed Response to the VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II
3. VTA Group 2 Bylaws Amended December 2021
SUPERIOR COURT BUILDING • 191 NORTH FIRST STREET, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 • (408) 882-2721 • FAX (408) 882-2795
G R A N D J U R Y S A N T A C L A R A C O U N T Y
June 17, 2026
Town of Los Altos Hills
c/o Ms. Arika Miller, City Clerk
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, California 94022
Sent via email: [email protected]
Dear Ms. Miller,
The 2025-26 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury is transmitting to you its Final Report, VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II.
California Penal Code section 933(c) requires that a governing body of the particular public agency or department that has been the subject of a Grand Jury final report shall respond within 90 days to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. California Penal Code section 933.05 contains guidelines for responses to Grand Jury findings and recommendations and is attached to this transmission.
Please note:
1. As stated in Penal Code section 933.05(a), attached, you are required to "Agree" or "Disagree" with each applicable Finding: 6 and 7. If you disagree, in whole or part, you must include an explanation of the reasons you disagree.
2. As stated in Penal Code section 933.05(b), attached, you are required to respond with one of four possible actions to each applicable Recommendation: 6 and 7.
Your comments are due to the office of the Honorable Julie A. Emede, Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, 191 North First Street, San José, CA 95113, no later than Tuesday, September 15, 2026. You may transmit these via email to [email protected]. Copies of all responses shall be placed on file with the Clerk of the Court.
If you have any questions, please contact Britney Huelbig, Deputy Manager for the Civil Grand Jury, at (408) 882-2721 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Dinesh Ramde
Foreperson
2025-2026 Civil Grand Jury
Enclosures
cc: Cody Einfalt, City Manager
Kavita Narayan, Chief Assistant County Counsel, County of Santa Clara
State of California
PENAL CODE
Section 933.05
933.05. (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
(c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decisionmaking authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. (d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release.
(e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental.
(f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report.
(Amended by Stats. 1997, Ch. 443, Sec. 5. Effective January 1, 1998.)
2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury
VTA’s Management and
Oversight of BART
Silicon Valley Phase II
June 17, 2026
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 2 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 3 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 7 INVESTIGATION........................................................................................................................ 8 Financial Risks .......................................................................................................................... 8 Oversight Concerns ................................................................................................................ 13 Coordination with BART ....................................................................................................... 21 Board Experience and Continuity......................................................................................... 22 Public Communication ........................................................................................................... 25 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 26 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 27 REQUIRED RESPONSES......................................................................................................... 31 APPENDIX A: BART Management Letter ............................................................................. 32 CONFLICTS ............................................................................................................................... 34 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 34
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II
SUMMARY
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) project to extend rapid transit rail service through downtown San José is controversial and the most costly and complex project it has ever undertaken. Known as BART Silicon Valley Phase II (BSVII), the $12.7 billion project extends rail service six miles and includes a large, single-bore underground tunnel and will take 10 years or more from 2026 to complete (VTA, March 2024).
Despite significantly reduced ridership projections and uncertainty about funding sources for both capital and operating costs, VTA has awarded major construction contracts, including for the construction of a launch structure to stage a specialized one-of-a-kind Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM), which will be owned by VTA. Over the next few years, VTA anticipates awarding further construction contracts worth billions of dollars. To reduce uncertainty, the spokesperson for an independent peer review of the project urged VTA to move quickly to “build as much as you can, as fast as you can” (VTA Special Board Meeting, 2025). Such an approach assumes that there will be political will and taxpayer support to finish an incomplete project regardless of cost increases, delays, or reduced ridership.
The VTA’s Board of Directors (Board) has recognized the need for additional oversight and guidance, but the Board has failed to exercise its obligation to provide the strategic direction needed for a successful project. The Oversight Committee it created has been left to define its own role. It was not required to, and does not, provide reports that share available independent analyses of critical issues. The Oversight Committee does not routinely make policy recommendations to the Board and does not hold VTA staff accountable for providing the timely analysis it has requested.
The 2025-26 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (Civil Grand Jury) investigated the role of the VTA Board, its Oversight Committee, its staff, and officials in the management and oversight of the BSVII project.
This report identifies financial challenges, risks, and accountability issues that VTA must address to earn the public’s trust in delivering the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) extension to Silicon Valley and to secure support for future sales tax measures.
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II
BACKGROUND
The Valley Transportation Authority is a transportation agency established by state law. It is responsible for operating public transit services, including buses, light rail, and paratransit within Santa Clara County. In addition to public transit, VTA is a planning and funding agency for transportation infrastructure projects throughout Santa Clara County. As established by the California Public Utilities Code Sections 100060-100070, the VTA is governed by a 12-person Board of Directors composed of elected officials appointed by the County of Santa Clara (County) and the cities in Santa Clara County, who each serve two-year terms. The Board has many responsibilities and its monthly meeting agendas are lengthy.
The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District provides regional commuter rail service and is governed by a nine-person Board of Directors elected to four-year terms from districts representing San Francisco, Alameda, and Contra Costa counties. As part of its larger regional system, BART operates the commuter rail service within Santa Clara County.
By contract with BART, VTA is solely responsible for paying the capital and net operating costs of extending commuter rail service into Santa Clara County (BART and VTA, Comprehensive Agreement, 2001). Although the County was not included in the legislation establishing BART, voters of Santa Clara County supported three sales tax measures which provided funds to plan, build, and operate the extension of BART to Santa Clara County. Today, 1.625% of sales tax collected in Santa Clara County supports VTA and other local jurisdictions (see Table 1). If a currently proposed measure qualifies for the ballot, in November 2026, voters will decide whether to approve an additional 0.5% sales tax to fund local transit, which would increase the County’s base sales tax rate from the current 9.75% to 10.25%.
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Table 1: Countywide Sales Tax in Santa Clara County, Effective April 2026 Description Sales Tax % Expiration Funding Purpose
California Base 7.250% No Expiration
State General Fund
Local Revenue Fund
Local Public Safety
Health & Social Services
1976 Measure A 0.500% No Expiration Transit: VTA
2000 Measure A 0.500% 2036 Transit: VTA, BART Silicon
Valley
2008 Measure B 0.125% 2042 Transit: BART Silicon Valley 2016 Measure B 0.500% 2047
Transit: VTA +
County/City/Caltrain/Caltrans
Infrastructure
2012 Measure A 0.125% No Expiration County General Fund 2020 Measure RR 0.125% 2050 Transit: Caltrain
2026 Measure A 0.625% 2031 General incl. Healthcare
Total Base Sales Tax
Rate 9.750%
Data extracted from: California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. 2026. (https://cdtfa.ca.gov/formspubs/cdtfa105.pdf); VTA Annual Comprehensive Financial Report.
Note: Some cities have higher voter-approved rates in addition to the County base rate; Highlighted section of the table refers to sales tax measures that fund VTA.
The first phase of BART to Silicon Valley extended service to Milpitas and then to the Berryessa Transit Center (Berryessa). Construction started in 2012 and was completed in 2020. Ridership for Phase I has not met forecasts, and due to operational, maintenance, and depreciation expenses, VTA has experienced significant financial losses. According to data reviewed by the Civil Grand Jury, BART to Silicon Valley Phase I has lost an average of $69 million annually during the first five years of operation.
The second phase consists of a six-mile, four-station extension from Berryessa through downtown San José to the City of Santa Clara. For this phase, VTA is targeting completion by 2037. As a condition of federal funding, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has appointed a Project Management Oversight Consultant (PMOC). The PMOC uses a more conservative schedule and forecasts completion in 2039 (AtkinsRéalis USA Holdings LLC, 2026).
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II At an early planning stage in 2014, the BSVII project cost was estimated at $4.7 billion. By 2020, the cost estimate increased to $6.9 billion. In 2022, based on the PMOC’s projected cost analysis, VTA submitted an estimate of $9.1 billion to the federal government for an Early Start Grant. In October 2023, VTA estimated the construction cost at $12.2 billion with operations to begin in 2036. The most recent estimate is $12.7 billion, and operations are pushed back to 2037 (VTA Auditor General Report, January 2024).
The project's funding sources include federal and state grants, as well as local revenues from voterapproved sales tax measures. All the funding sources are subject to risks, which are identified in this report. Figure 1 shows the funding sources with $700 million to be determined (TBD) and $375 million from a potential ballot measure in November 2026.
Figure 1: Components of $12.7 Billion in BSVII Funding Sources as of April 2026 Source: vtabart.org website (accessed April 9, 2026)
Although two years earlier, VTA had asked for a federal commitment of $6.3 billion, in August 2024, the FTA announced that its share of funding would be capped at $5.1 billion (Geha, 2024).
VTA was forced to increase its reliance on local sales tax revenue and still faced a gap of approximately $700 million (VTA, Summer 2025). To reduce project costs, VTA has been studying design changes while maintaining the full six-mile extension with four stations. Options discussed by VTA staff and officials include (VTA, November 11, 2024):
• Simplifying station configurations;
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II • Modifying the Santa Clara Newhall Yard and Maintenance Facility; • Modifying the tunnel and station ventilation systems; • Substituting a surface parking lot for a parking structure; • Reconfiguring the tunnel to use less concrete and steel.
In addition, the funding strategy assumes $375 million from the yet-to-be-approved regional sales tax measure for a total outstanding gap of $1.075 billion.
Due in part to the significant increase in estimated cost and a perceived lack of communication about the project’s cost, risks, and schedule, the Board conducted a workshop in October 2023 to review the project’s status. At this workshop, individual Board members expressed a lack of confidence in the VTA staff’s management of the project and requested a new system of oversight and project management.
In response, the Board chair established an Ad Hoc BART Silicon Valley Phase II oversight committee (Oversight Committee) responsible for overseeing all aspects of the project, focusing on a full, independent, and transparent review of costs, funding, risks, and completion schedule.
The Oversight Committee’s bylaws later stated that its purpose was to provide “guidance and oversight” of the project (VTA, April 4, 2024).
The VTA independent auditor general was tasked with providing staff support to the Oversight Committee and was authorized to contract with Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to independently review and comment on VTA staff recommendations regarding costs, risks, and schedule. In turn, the Oversight Committee authorized the SME firm, Gall Zeidler (GZ), to independently assess the risks and viability of cost-saving alternatives.
In a 2001 Agreement, VTA and BART agreed to cooperate in the project’s planning, design, and construction. They established a series of interagency committees, the latest of which is the Joint VTA/BART Working Committee, which depending on the availability of its members, is scheduled to meet quarterly. BART staff members have been assigned to co-locate with VTA engineers to participate in the preparation and review of BSVII designs in accordance with the agreed Project Design Criteria Manual. According to the BART Inspector General, VTA has reimbursed BART $19.2 million through 2025 for the cost of the assigned employees (BART, December 19, 2025). In August 2025, the BART assistant general manager, operations, rejected some of VTA’s proposed design changes and scope reductions and complained about inadequate coordination (see Appendix A). The BART inspector general issued a report in December 2025 that also raised concerns about inadequate coordination and criticized VTA’s communication with BART officials (Id.).
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II
METHODOLOGY
The Civil Grand Jury reviewed every meeting of the BSVII Oversight Committee, as well as select VTA Board meetings. This included reviewing agendas, minutes, agenda item reports, public comment submittals, and associated discussions.
In addition, the Civil Grand Jury conducted 17 interviews of officials from VTA, BART, and the State of California. The Civil Grand Jury also reviewed publicly available documents as described in the reference section, as well as documents requested from VTA and submitted to the Civil Grand Jury.
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II
INVESTIGATION
The Civil Grand Jury investigation of the BSVII project covered critical aspects of VTA’s management and oversight, including:
• VTA’s funding strategy and its reliance on voter-approved sales tax measures, some of which expire before completion of the project, and some of which have yet to be approved; • The establishment of a separate Oversight Committee which provides guidance on the BSVII project and how it evaluates independent analyses provided by the VTA auditor general, contracted SMEs, and the federally mandated PMOC; • The contractual and practical requirement to closely coordinate with BART, which will serve as the system operator;
• The impact of the VTA Board’s governance structure on the effectiveness of strategic direction, management, and oversight of the project;
• VTA’s approach for keeping the public informed of costs, risks, and schedule.
Financial Risks
The 10-year project completion timeline of BSVII exposes VTA to financial risks that require careful, ongoing assessment of capital and operating costs, including that:
• Rising labor and material costs, combined with aggressive construction methods and schedules, may increase total project costs and strain the budget’s contingency for unforeseen risks and unexpected expenses;
• Delays or reductions in state and federal funding will create greater pressure to rely on local funding sources or scale back the scope of the project; • Lower ridership levels will increase VTA’s ongoing obligation to pay net operating costs, which would necessitate service level reductions or voter approval of new or extended sales tax measures;
• Failure to maintain a cash-flow model exclusive to BSVII, means that contracting options for accelerating work may not be able to be financed with available resources.
Risk of Increased Costs of Labor and Materials
The FTA fiscal year 2025 New Starts Financial Assessment report for BSVII stated the VTA inflation estimate was optimistic. If labor and material costs were to rise above those estimated in VTA’s budget, it could lead to funding shortfalls (FTA, 2024).
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II The VTA auditor general’s May 1, 2025, report to the Board also identified BSVII financial risks associated with project construction costs. The report found that the assumptions and historical data underlying VTA’s financial plan could be more robust to enable the Board and the public to evaluate the financial risk associated with the potential cost increases (VTA, 2025).
Another factor that increases the difficulty in predicting materials and labor costs is the possible extension of the 2037 project completion date. The longer timeline for BSVII increases the likelihood that future costs will differ from current estimates, thereby increasing financial risk.
Local, State, and Federal Funding Risks
The capital cost of construction and the net operating costs are to be paid by VTA from specific revenue sources, some of which are grants with fixed amounts.
The financial risks identified by the Civil Grand Jury have been experienced by other major transit agencies. For example, the various rail projects of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) faced escalating cost estimates, reductions in federal funding, cuts into smaller construction segments to match available funding, and shifting agency priorities (Shalby, 2026).
Local Funding Risks
VTA’s capital financing plan calls for the 2016 Measure B to pay $2.5 billion and for the 2000 Measure A to pay $2.0 billion of the estimated $12.7 billion BSVII project. Measure A expires in 2036, before BSVII is expected to be completed. Measure B expires in 2047 (VTA, About 2016 Measure B, n.d.). As the project’s cost estimates have evolved, so have the planned funding sources. Measure B has become a much more significant source of proposed funding.
Because Measure B also funds bus transit, local streets, and highway projects, there are built-in limitations on the amount available to close a BSVII financing gap. Measure B limits spending on BSVII to 23.8% of net sales tax revenue over its 30-year life (FTA, 2024). Net sales tax revenue (defined as Program Tax Revenue in the measure) is calculated as the amount remaining after deducting administrative costs and any debt service.
To close current and potential future funding gaps, VTA could issue bonds to be repaid from Measure B sales tax revenue. However, this would reduce the revenue available for other voterapproved projects. Every dollar spent on debt service for BSVII is a dollar that cannot be spent on
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II the other transportation projects approved by the voters. Because of bond issuance and interest costs, the total project costs would exceed the current estimate of $12.7 billion.
Another risky approach to filling funding gaps would allow the Board to change the rules and permit a greater percentage of Measure B net sales tax revenue to be used for BSVII. One VTA official acknowledged to the Civil Grand Jury that this would be a “heavy lift” because VTA would first have to notify all the local agencies of the proposed increase in the percentage limit and then approve it by a ¾ vote of the Board (9 of 12 Board members). The County and the cities that have planned other transportation measures are likely to object to reduced funding for their projects.
Of course, more Measure B funds could become available to support the capital costs of BSVII if the expected sales tax revenue exceeds previously anticipated levels. While early projections were based on 2016 economic conditions, it is important for the strategic funding plan that the sales tax forecast be updated regularly. The Civil Grand Jury was informed that VTA has ordered an updated forecast.
Because two key sales tax measures are set to expire, several VTA officials stated in interviews that they would simply place a measure on a future ballot for voter consideration if an extension were needed. Given the current sales tax rates applicable within Santa Clara County and the need for management and oversight reforms identified in this report, there is a risk that voters may not approve such a measure.
State Funding Risk
As of April 2026, the capital construction funding strategy required $1.5 billion from two State of California grants. The VTA has received commitments for nearly $200 million of that total. The sources of funding are the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) and transportation funds administered by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), both of which may be affected by a recent state decision to provide a bridge loan to Bay Area transit agencies (MTC, 2026).
In February 2026, the California legislature appropriated $590 million from the same TIRCP account to provide a 12-year loan to MTC. These loan proceeds will be made available to San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, AC Transit, BART, and Caltrain to help address a greater need for public transit subsidies. The agencies are required to repay the loan over 12 years (MTC, 2026).
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II The state justified the loan on the basis that the transit agencies would be able to stabilize their financial situations and avoid service reductions pending the anticipated approval in November of a regional sales tax measure. If the regional measure does not pass, or if for any other reason the agencies do not repay the loans on time, the timing of the receipt of funding to VTA might create some cash flow risk for the project.
Further, the TIRCP account itself is funded by payments from private parties who agree to purchase pollution credits in the state’s Cap and Invest program. The program’s future is uncertain in light of federal changes to environmental regulations and pending legal challenges from the State of California (California State Transportation Agency, n.d.).
Federal Funding Risk
In August 2024, the FTA advised VTA that the federal government’s total contribution to the project would be limited to $5.1 billion. To receive these funds, VTA plans to apply for a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) by the end of 2026.
Federal support for large-scale rail projects is uncertain. In 2025, the FTA canceled a $4.2 billion commitment to the California High-Speed Rail Project (Shalby, 2025). VTA’s lobbyists have suggested delaying the FFGA application until similar requests from other states are resolved.
Considering the political, economic, and budgetary conditions of the United States, approval of VTA’s request for an FFGA is highly uncertain. It may be delayed, reduced, or denied.
Low Levels of Ridership Could Increase VTA’s Future Costs BART ridership on the current regional system has not recovered to pre-pandemic levels.
Ridership in January 2026 remains only 48% of the levels in January 2019 (BART, January 2026; BART, 2019). Recovering ridership may prove difficult due to the growth of hybrid work patterns.
The Civil Grand Jury also reviewed the forecasts for the first phase of the project, which included the new Milpitas and Berryessa stations. For January 2026, ridership was 86% below estimates (see Table 2).
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Table 2: BART Ridership at Milpitas and Berryessa Stations Forecast for Average Daily
Weekday Ridership for
June 2021 at launch
Actual Ridership,
January 2026
Ridership/Day 20,110 2,789
Source: Joint VTA/BART Working Committee Meeting, December 4, 2020; BART February 2026 Monthly Ridership Snapshot.
Note: VTA created forecasts in 2020, expressed as rides per day. BART actuals are based on recorded station entries and exits. To normalize BART actuals to the VTA forecast, entries and exits were averaged to produce a daily ridership figure.
An overall decrease in ridership has led BART to project a $376 million budget deficit for FY2026-
27. To seek additional revenue, BART is relying on a 0.5% additional sales tax measure on the November 2026 ballot that would begin in 2027 and remain in place for 14 years. If the ballot measure does not pass, BART has proposed closing up to 15 stations and reducing service hours and train frequency (BART, February 26, 2026). Ironically, the proposed station closures would not affect Santa Clara County because VTA is solely responsible for the net operating costs.
According to VTA records reviewed by the Civil Grand Jury, for the first three years of operation, VTA forecasts annual average costs of $274 million for operations, maintenance, and capital costs.
Average fare revenue is forecast at $60 million, offsetting VTA's financial obligation to BART, resulting in an average annual financial loss of $214 million. Any drop in ridership will lead to further financial losses.
The Need for a BSVII Cash Flow Model
With a price tag of $12.7 billion, BSVII is the largest public infrastructure project in Santa Clara County (Aragon, 2025). Nearly 60% of the planned funding sources include revenue from grants that will not be distributed in advance but will be reimbursed in accordance with each grant’s draw schedule (See Figure 1). The timing of those cash inflows must be carefully matched with the timing of payment schedules for construction contracts worth billions of dollars.
VTA staff is evaluating different approaches to contracting the construction work. Alternatives are being evaluated for the following reasons: 1) to identify segments of work that could be bid out separately to accelerate the overall schedule; and 2) to identify segments for which there is a greater likelihood of strong competitive bids. For each contract, the cash outflows will be specified and must be carefully matched with the cash inflows.
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II A cash flow model that matches receipts and expenditures for BSVII would enable VTA decisionmakers to fully evaluate the alternative approaches being studied. However, VTA officials have advised the Civil Grand Jury that such a model has not yet been developed. A cash flow model is necessary to avoid unplanned delays from cash shortfalls.
Oversight Concerns
VTA Board Recognizes That Oversight Must be Improved
Independent reports and audits have identified problems with project management and VTA Board oversight, including those identified by a prior Civil Grand Jury, the California State Auditor, and the PMOC (AtkinsRéalis USA Holdings LLC, 2026). VTA’s cost-estimation practices, along with its lack of transparency around changes to project scope and cost, were identified as significant deficiencies. VTA’s oversight and management of the BSVII project have also been heavily criticized by the media, in public comments presented at Board meetings, and in letters to the editor of multiple local publications.
VTA Board Outsources Guidance and Oversight of the BSVII Project Following a workshop on the project’s direction in October 2023, the VTA Board Chairman announced the creation of an Ad Hoc BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee (VTA, 2023).
However, only the Board can make binding decisions on the project’s scope, funding, risks, schedule, and contracting approach. While ultimately accountable itself, the Board nonetheless effectively delegated oversight to a committee without providing clear direction. By abdicating its responsibility to set its expectations of how the Oversight Committee can best support the Board, the committee has been left to set its own course. That course does not keep the Board fully informed of issues raised by independent experts or the PMOC, hampering its ability to make the best decisions about the project's funding and schedule.
At its meeting on January 15, 2026, the Oversight Committee adopted what it called a revised charter intended to clarify the lines of communication and relationships among the auditor general, SME, VTA staff, and Oversight Committee (VTA, January 15, 2026). Members of the Oversight Committee had expressed concern about a perceived lack of coordination between VTA staff and the SME. Nonetheless, the question remains: Is the role of an SME to provide the Board with an independent review of VTA staff recommendations as originally intended, or is it to help VTA staff improve their recommendations? Notably, in the following excerpt, the Charter requires the
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II auditor general to document issues raised by the SME and the VTA staff but does not require that the full Board be advised of the critical issues:
To ensure transparency and balanced oversight, selected advisory input from SME will be documented in Oversight Committee materials. Where consensus exists between the SME and the Project Team, it will be noted. Where minority or dissenting views are expressed, the AG [auditor general] will explicitly record final input received alongside the majority view (VTA Oversight Committee Charter, 2026).
During Oversight Committee meetings, there are few deliberations or actions to provide collective guidance or oversight, leaving individual members to raise questions and propose guidance for VTA staff to consider. VTA staff also receives input from individual members in private premeeting briefings. As a result, the full Board does not benefit from Oversight Committee analysis, and the public is not fully informed about individual Board member perspectives.
The Committee Has Two Purposes: Guidance and Oversight
“Guidance” suggests that the committee helps the Board establish a strategic direction and recommend actions to keep the project on track. “Oversight,” on the other hand, is a separate function that ensures VTA staff is accountable for following the Board’s direction in an efficient and effective manner. “Guidance” looks forward. “Oversight” monitors implementation as it happens.
Better at Oversight than Guidance
The Oversight Committee requires VTA staff to produce a comprehensive monthly report detailing the financing and construction progress of the BSVII project. The auditor general provides insightful periodic reports on his independent review of the project’s costs, risks, and schedule.
The VTA staff’s monthly reports address the information gap identified in the auditor general’s January 2024 report. As a result, the Oversight Committee can effectively monitor compliance with the Board’s direction.
However, the Oversight Committee often fails to provide guidance on issues critical to future strategic direction.
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Strategic Guidance on Critical Issues is Informal, Intermittent, and Often Late VTA staff routinely provide private briefings to Oversight Committee members prior to meetings.
Those briefings allow VTA staff to explain and advocate for their recommendations and to receive input and questions from individual members. Occasionally, some agenda materials for an Oversight Committee meeting are not published with the rest of the agenda because VTA staff members will modify presentations up to the last minute based on what they have heard in private briefings.
The Oversight Committee has established an informal standard of limiting its once-monthly meetings to no more than two hours, and meetings often do not begin on time. At the meetings, VTA staff often deliver lengthy presentations on issues for which it will subsequently seek Board approval, leaving little time for committee deliberations.
During these presentations, only a few members ask questions, and rarely does a committee member propose a policy recommendation that the Oversight Committee might take action on.
Individual Oversight Committee members are given the opportunity to express support or concern about a proposed VTA staff position, providing VTA staff with some insight into how to frame their recommendations to the Board.
The Oversight Committee receives independent analyses from the VTA auditor general, its contracted SME, and the PMOC. The committee often receives lengthy written comments from the public but limits oral comments to one minute. Members of the committee rarely comment on materials received from the public, many of which are extensive critiques of the VTA staff recommendations. Following each meeting, the Oversight Committee chair submits a short report summarizing discussion topics, which is placed on the VTA Board’s consent calendar.
Following presentation to the Oversight Committee, formal VTA staff recommendations are made to the VTA Board, but without the benefit of a summary or synthesis of the alternative perspectives from the auditor general, SME, PMOC, or informed public comment.
The Civil Grand Jury identified three examples of policy issues for which guidance was needed but delivered inadequately. One of the examples, the single-bore versus twin-bore issue, illustrates both the failure of the committee to make recommendations and the VTA staff’s failure to follow through on committee requests in a timely manner.
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Example of Inadequate Guidance: The KST Contract Decision The Oversight Committee endorsed a major contract change without providing independent analysis, articulating its rationale, or conveying identified risks to the Board.
VTA had issued a contract to a construction consortium, Kiewit Shea Traylor (KST), using a “progressive/design/build” approach, under which KST would design the tunnel project and, after reviews by VTA and its construction management consultant, KST would build it. By the spring of 2025, VTA believed that KST’s proposed design could significantly increase the project’s estimated cost by up to $1 billion and that it would be preferable to engage in a competitive bidding process for the remaining tunnel work. In a more traditional contract approach, VTA would prepare the design specifications and contract conditions. To accomplish this, it was necessary to limit the contract with KST to only the work required to prepare for the TBM, which VTA would own but make available to the tunneling contractor to operate and maintain.
At its June 12, 2025, meeting, VTA staff presented its proposal to modify the KST contract to the Oversight Committee, which unanimously endorsed it. Two weeks later, the VTA Board met and approved VTA staff recommendations. Although the VTA staff agenda report did include a reference to the Committee’s recommendation, it did not include the risk analysis that had been reviewed by the Committee. The Oversight Committee’s regular report to the VTA Board was placed on the consent calendar and simply reported the committee’s concurrence with the VTA staff recommendation. There was no report or analysis laying out the reasons for the Oversight Committee’s concurrence or the SME’s risk assessment. Therefore, the Board made its decision without a complete understanding of the risks.
Example of Inadequate Guidance: The Twin-Bore versus Single-Bore Decision The Oversight Committee retroactively requested a side-by-side analysis of tunnel options through Downtown San José.
A preliminary design controversy was whether to tunnel two smaller bores for the downtown San José underground tracks or to tunnel a single larger bore at greater depth. Downtown businesses had raised concerns that the twin-bore approach would require additional work and disrupt their operations during construction.
BART initially opposed the single-bore tunnel approach because it differed from its existing, smaller twin-bore tunnels. However, the BART inspector general reported that in the spirit of
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II cooperation, BART officials consented to the single-bore approach after being assured that operational and safety concerns would be met (BART, December 19, 2025).
In December 2022, VTA approved the fabrication and purchase of a large TBM for $76 million, effectively locking in the single-bore approach. In a news article dated November 7, 2023, in the Mountain View Voice, San José Mayor Matt Mahan was quoted as saying: “There is no turning back now” (Hicks, 2023).
Nonetheless, individual Board members and informed public commenters continued to raise questions about whether a twin-bore approach might be cheaper, faster, and safer for BART operations. In response, members of the Oversight Committee commissioned an analysis of the two options for costs, risks, and impact on schedules.
In September 2025, more than 18 months after the request, VTA and its engineering consultants presented their analysis to the Oversight Committee, confirming the single-bore approach.
Although it had requested the analysis, the Oversight Committee did not make a recommendation to the Board. In October 2025, the Board was presented with the VTA staff and consultants’ analysis and confirmed the single-bore approach by declining to take steps to amend the environmental documents or modify the tunneling contracts.
Example of Inadequate Guidance: Scenario 1 versus 1a Decision In October 2025, VTA decided on an approach to the construction of the tunnel without the benefit of the SME’s analysis that the Oversight Committee had requested.
Before design work could progress to a more advanced level, the VTA Board needed to decide between two alternatives for staging the actual tunneling work. The SME had suggested that concurrent tunneling from both ends could reduce costs and accelerate the schedule (VTA, June 12, 2025). The two options were labeled “Scenario 1” (a straight-through tunneling using the larger TBM from west-to-east) and “Scenario 1a” (an option of concurrent tunneling starting at both the east and west portals using two TBMs).
Although this would require two TBMs, the east-to-west work could be done simultaneously with a smaller-bore tunneling machine. Further, the SME reported that a smaller-bore TBM was readily available and would require less lead time than the TBM being fabricated in Germany.
Because the Oversight Committee considered the potential benefits significant, the committee asked both VTA staff and the SME to analyze the options and prepare a recommendation. On
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II August 4, 2025, the Oversight Committee authorized an expenditure of $110,000 and directed the auditor general to contract with GZ for the requested work. GZ presented interim reports on September 11, 2025, and October 9, 2025, and promised to deliver its completed report at the November 2025 meeting of the Oversight Committee.
VTA staff subsequently presented its analysis and recommendations to the Oversight Committee on October 9, 2025. Although the Project Manager stated that the VTA staff was aware of some of GZ’s preliminary analysis (especially differing assumptions about the rate at which each of the two TBMs can move forward when digging a tunnel), VTA staff requested a Board meeting to decide between the two alternatives. In prior presentations to the Oversight Committee, VTA staff said that the analysis would be presented at a Board “workshop” (at which no formal action could be taken). However, a special meeting of the Board was called for October 17, 2025, and VTA staff made its recommendations to the Board, neglecting to advise the Board that the Oversight Committee was still awaiting the GZ analysis that the Committee had authorized.
The Oversight Committee failed to present any report or recommendation at the special meeting.
As a result, the Board adopted ‘Scenario 1’ without the benefit of an independent analysis of the risks.
On February 12, 2026, four months after the Board made its decision, the SME presented his written report analyzing the options and raising concerns that should have been considered before the decision.
VTA Staff Accountability for Responding to Oversight Committee Member Requests The auditor general maintains two types of monitoring reports: a tracking report that lists the requests of individual committee members for information or analysis, and a work plan that lists the schedule for upcoming formal reports, including risk assessments such as financing and procurement risks. Both monitoring reports establish a due date, but the deadlines are often not met.
During public meetings, Oversight Committee members rarely discuss the tracking report or the work plan and do not publicly comment on changes to the expected date in subsequent reports.
More importantly, neither the auditor general nor the Oversight Committee holds VTA staff accountable for late responses to issues raised in the tracking report. Below, the Civil Grand Jury presents two examples:
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Example of Lack of Accountability: Prolonged Delay in Analysis of Single-Bore versus Twin-Bore The side-by-side analysis of two design options was not provided until more than 18 months after it was first requested.
At the Oversight Committee’s first meeting in November 2023, a member of the public requested that the committee order a cost and risk analysis of the single-bore versus twin-bore options, which remained controversial following the VTA Board’s selection of the single-bore option in 2018. In 2023, the Chair of the Oversight Committee responded that such an “apples-to-apples” (side-byside) analysis would be one of the committee’s first tasks. Here are some of the subsequent activities:
• At the committee’s meeting on January 19, 2023, two committee members formally requested the “apples-to-apples” analysis and placed it on the committee’s tracking list. (VTA, March 2025). At its meeting on June 13, 2024, the Project Manager reported that the scope of the twin-bore analysis would be worked on and reported to the Board “over the course of the summer.”
• At its meeting on August 8, 2024, a member of the public asked about the status of the “apples-to-apples” analysis.
• At the September 12, 2024, Oversight Committee, the auditor general announced that VTA staff had asked engineering design contractor Mott Macdonald to conduct the “apples-toapples” review. • The March 2025 tracking report included a comment regarding the “apples-to-apples” comparison: “These items are being evaluated as part of cost savings task force efforts with participation from GZ” (VTA, April 2024).
• One year later, on September 11, 2025, Mott Macdonald presented its analysis of the twinbore versus single-bore options – nearly 22 months after the request was first discussed at an Oversight Committee meeting – concluding that the single-bore option was preferred (VTA, September 11, 2025).
Example of Lack of Accountability: An Alternative Strategy Some Call “Plan B” Despite multiple requests for an alternative strategy to address risks associated with the federal funding decision, VTA staff advised the Oversight Committee that it would wait until after the federal decision.
Since the Oversight Committee meeting on October 9, 2025, committee members have stressed the need for an alternative strategy in the event the federal government delays or denies the FFGA
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II for the promised $5.1 billion. Some committee members asked whether a “Plan B” might include reducing the number of planned stations or revising the funding strategy. VTA staff reported to the Civil Grand Jury that there was reluctance to discuss a “Plan B” out of concern that the discussion itself might jeopardize the FFGA. At public meetings, VTA staff dismissed requests for an alternative funding strategy, instead reporting that an alternative plan should not be prepared until the FTA made its decision in 2027. This is an example of the VTA staff’s dismissal of the Oversight Committee direction.
Expediency of Decisions versus Rigorous Analysis
The Civil Grand Jury identified tension between VTA Board members’ competing goals: avoiding delays in decision-making and requiring rigorous, independent analysis of costs, risks, and schedule. In public meetings, the Project Manager has often stated that each month of delay adds $20 to $30 million to the overall project cost (Dorsey, 2025).
There is a strong financial incentive to keep the project moving by advancing decisions incrementally—approving one component at a time to show visible progress—without fully evaluating how each step alters the project’s overall cost, scope, and risk. For a project of this size, complexity, and cost, this piecemeal approach masks cumulative effects, increasing the likelihood of cost escalation and delays. These should be identified and addressed through rigorous, frontend analysis.
With two-year terms and constituencies limited to portions of the County, Board members may understandably focus on immediate actions rather than the long-term, systemwide implications that demand a coherent strategic plan.
The Role Assigned to the Auditor General
The Oversight Committee benefits from periodic risk assessments and audits performed by the VTA auditor general on the BSVII project. However, by assigning the auditor general the responsibility to also provide staff support to the Oversight Committee, VTA has created a situation in which the auditor general is asked to provide an independent audit of prior decisions while also assisting the committee in evaluating future policy and management decisions.
At the June 2025 public Board meeting, the auditor general stated that he sometimes feels like a referee among the analyses provided by VTA staff, the SME, the public, and the PMOC. However, the VTA Board is the final arbiter, not the auditor general.
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II The Board is best served when it hears all relevant views on an upcoming decision and is presented with options and a recommendation. The auditor general’s participation and input are critical, but he should not be placed in the position of having to synthesize all the competing views, including his own.
The auditor general is better placed to assist the Oversight Committee in its role of “oversight” and less so in commenting on the Oversight Committee's “guidance” functions. Accordingly, the Oversight Committee and the VTA Board would be better served if a VTA staff person were assigned responsibility for staffing the committee. This person could be part of the General Manager’s Office and should not report to the Project Manager. The position would be like that of the chief of staff, which was recently assigned to support the chair of the Board.
Coordination with BART
Because the County of Santa Clara is not part of the BART District, the extension of rail service to San José required a contract that established both VTA’s and BART’s commitment to cooperate.
Under the 2001 Cooperative Agreement, VTA is financially responsible for paying for the design, construction, and operation of the segment in Santa Clara County (BART and VTA, Comprehensive Agreement, 2001). BART retained approval authority over design elements that affect operations, maintenance, and safety. To date, this has been accomplished through the joint preparation of a Design Criteria Manual.
As recently as December 2025, BART’s Independent Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued a report titled: “Transparency & Communication Gaps in the BSVII Project.” The report summarizes years of controversy over the single-bore versus twin-bore approach but acknowledges that BART eventually agreed to the single-bore concept evaluated in the final environmental impact statement. However, the BART OIG remained critical of the extent of cooperation between the two agencies:
We also determined that the length of time since the project began, extensive media coverage of the project, conflicting subject-matter opinions, and some public displeasure with the single-bore design have created uncertainty about the project’s direction. We concluded that gaps in transparency and communication, including limited public discussions in recent years, have resulted in mixed messaging on a project that has evolved over multiple decades (BART Independent Office of the Inspector General, 2025).
In August 2025, the lack of communication and cooperation was publicly exposed when a BART official wrote a letter to VTA (Appendix A) specifically objecting to the consideration of reducing
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II the size of the Newhall Yard and Maintenance Facility as a capital cost-saving measure. The VTA Project Manager publicly acknowledged a failure to keep BART informed of design issues that might impact BART’s operational efficiency and pledged to develop recommendations to the administrative heads of both agencies on a more formal process to identify and resolve those issues (VTA Oversight Committee, 2025).
Board Experience and Continuity
Since 2019, five audits and reports have critiqued VTA’s governance structure and recommended a series of revisions to improve VTA’s capability to provide Board direction and oversight of the BART extension. Those audits have included the 2018-19 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury in 2019; the Auditor of the State of California, in 2024; the BART Independent Office of the Inspector General in 2025; RSM US LLC, a VTA subcontractor, in 2019; and the VTA Auditor General in 2024. VTA has accepted and acted on most of the recommendations for governance reform, except those relating to the terms and required experience level of Board members.
During the investigation of the BSVII project, sources repeatedly raised concerns about the level of knowledge and decision-making ability of the full VTA Board, which is responsible for the project’s success. Decisions made today will have a direct impact on its ultimate success. Diligent oversight of its schedule, cost, progress, and scope is required.
According to the California Public Utilities Code, which established the VTA Board, “to the extent possible, the appointing powers shall appoint individuals who have expertise, experience, or knowledge relative to transportation issues” (Pub. Util. Code 10000 et seq).
VTA Board members are appointed to two-year terms by appointing agencies, organized into six groups as detailed in Table 3. Appointing agency groups are established and defined by VTA Administrative Code, which states “Appointing Authorities are strongly encouraged, where possible, to: (1) appoint individuals with appropriate experience and qualifications in transportation; (2) ensure that there is sufficient remaining time in the elected official’s term of office to allow full completion of their term as a Director; and (3) reappoint representatives to consecutive terms” (VTA Administrative Code § 2-13).
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Table 3: Appointing Authorities Composition of the VTA Board Appointing
Agency
Group
Jurisdiction Represented Number of
Board Members
Method of
Appointment
Group 1 San José 5 members
1 alternate
Appointed by city
council from city
council members/mayor
Group 2 Los Altos, Los Altos Hills,
Mountain View, Palo Alto
1 member
1 alternate
Determined by
Group 2 members
Group 3
Campbell, Cupertino,
Los Gatos, Monte Sereno,
Saratoga
1 member
1 alternate
Determined by
Group 3 members
Group 4 Gilroy, Morgan Hill 1 member
1 alternate
Determined by
Group 4 members
Group 5 Milpitas, Santa Clara,
Sunnyvale
2 members
1 alternate
Determined by
Group 5 members
Group 6 County of Santa Clara 2 members
1 alternate
Appointed by County
Board of Supervisors
Source: California Pub. Util. Code section 100060.
While VTA continues to insist that two-year terms are suitable for its governance (as specified in PUC § 100060.2), peer agencies in the state appoint their Board members to four-year terms, leading to much longer average lengths of service and potentially greater experience and transportation-related knowledge (see Figure 2).
Multiple reports and audits have suggested weaknesses introduced by VTA’s approach to the appointment of Board members. For example, the 2019 Board Governance Assessment concluded, in part, that some processes and policies (e.g., committee structure, term limits, and Board member selection guidelines) might not reflect best practices or support long-term Board stability (VTA, 2019). Additionally, a report by the 2018-19 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury found that the VTA Board suffers from:
• A lack of experience and limited continuity by many Board members; • Inadequate time for the directors to devote to the Board’s oversight and policy-making functions;
• A lack of engagement by some of the directors, fostered in part by the committee system, resulted in VTA functioning largely as a staff-driven organization.
More recently, a critical 2024 report from the State Auditor regarding VTA’s project management and financial oversight noted the following weaknesses:
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II • The process for selecting directors for the Board is not always transparent enough to ensure the appointment of directors experienced in transportation issues. • Some groups of cities appoint VTA directors without public deliberation, limiting transparency and sometimes bypassing the statutory recommendation for transportation expertise.
• VTA directors have shorter tenures, on average, than their peers, meaning that VTA’s Board has less experience overseeing the agency’s operations than the Boards of peer agencies.
Figure 2: Average Directors’ Tenure among VTA and Peer Agencies Source: Auditor of the State of California, “Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Improvements Are Necessary to Strengthen Its Project Management and Financial Oversight,” June 2024.
Note: LA Metro stands for Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority; OCTA stands for Orange County Transportation Authority; SacRT stands for Sacramento Regional Transit District.
During interviews and in reviewing existing reports and audits about VTA, the Civil Grand Jury learned that Board members and elected officials broadly support a four-year term for directors.
Lengthening terms would require a change to VTA’s enabling legislation. The findings of the State and VTA’s own auditors’ governance reform recommendations remain unchanged.
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Public Communication
Following the VTA auditor general’s report in January 2024, public communication and community outreach regarding the BSVII project have improved. The Civil Grand Jury noted improvements to the VTA BSVII project website, including efforts to deliver timely updates to residents about the impact of construction activities, and a section for frequently asked questions (FAQ) (VTA, BART Silicon Valley Phase II Project, n.d.). In addition, many interviewees told the Civil Grand Jury that VTA has made efforts to better inform the public and officials since the auditor general's report highlighted communication breakdowns in 2023.
However, there are areas where the public would benefit from VTA focusing more on improving communication.
The VTA’s BSVII project website does not offer a simple, clear dashboard outlining the costs, timeline, and progress of the BSVII project. Although it includes technical reports from the federally sponsored PMOC, it does not include the independent analyses by the SME or the VTA auditor general.
A high-level dashboard would consolidate information from multiple sources, present project metrics to the public, and provide access to source materials. Today, information on funding, expenditures, and schedule status is available on the website, but is buried in layers of reports that are nonintuitive to find or navigate.
In addition, the Civil Grand Jury found the site’s search function inadequate for locating specific details or addressing questions not covered in the FAQ, and it often returned results for irrelevant materials. The website would be more user-friendly if VTA incorporated a more robust search engine.
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II
CONCLUSION
The VTA Board has failed in its responsibility to provide effective management, oversight, and financial control of the BSVII Project.
Based on its investigation, the Civil Grand Jury concludes:
• There is no realistic plan to deal with foreseeable financial risks, including significant uncertainty about BSVII’s construction and operating costs, reliance on expiring voterapproved sales tax measures, uncertain federal government support, cash flow, and declining ridership.
• When considering major scope and design decisions, the Oversight Committee and the VTA Board do not take into account the ongoing operations and maintenance costs that will be borne by VTA and will require voter approval of subsequent sales tax measures. • The Oversight Committee exercises its oversight responsibility by requiring monthly progress reports and by questioning VTA project staff, but when it declines to make recommendations to the VTA Board, it fails in its responsibility to provide guidance on critical policy issues.
• The Oversight Committee receives valuable input from multiple sources but does not share this information with the VTA Board in the form of helpful reports that synthesize the different perspectives of VTA staff, the Subject Matter Expert, the auditor general, the Project Management Oversight Consultant, and the public. • The VTA Board and the Oversight Committee have failed to hold VTA staff accountable for missing deadlines to provide analysis and information requested by members of the Oversight Committee.
• There is a lack of meaningful communication and cooperation between BART and VTA officials, which undermines public confidence.
• VTA’s failure to adopt governance reform recommendations from prior Civil Grand Jury reports and independent audits has led to a lack of Board member continuity and expertise, weakening the Board’s ability to successfully oversee the BSVII project.
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Finding 1
The BSVII project currently requires voter approval of additional sales tax measures to address gaps in construction and operations funding.
Recommendation 1
VTA should adopt and publish a strategy for the completion and operation of the project that reduces dependency on new sales tax measures.
This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.
Finding 2
VTA does not maintain a cash-flow model for the BSVII project.
Recommendation 2
The VTA Board should direct the General Manager to prepare a cash-flow model for the BSVII project and present it quarterly to the Oversight Committee and the Board.
This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.
Finding 3
VTA has not developed an alternative funding strategy for the project in the event that planned funding sources are unavailable or insufficient.
Recommendation 3
The VTA Board should direct the General Manager to prepare an alternative funding strategy to meet the project’s estimated total capital costs and VTA’s responsibility for operating and maintenance costs and present it to the Oversight Committee and Board for approval.
This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.
Finding 4
Project management does not consistently report the operating and maintenance cost implications of design and construction decisions to the Oversight Committee or the Board.
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Recommendation 4
VTA should adopt a policy requiring staff to present an analysis of operating and maintenance costs when considering design and construction alternatives for BSVII.
This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.
Finding 5
The VTA Board would benefit from longer terms of office to improve continuity and institutional knowledge.
Recommendation 5
VTA should reconsider its prior rejections of audit recommendations calling for the establishment of four-year terms and direct its legislative advocates to seek a legislative author to amend VTA’s enabling statute to require four-year terms.
This should be implemented by December 31, 2026
Finding 6
VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 often do not follow VTA Administrative Code (Section 2-14) admonitions to “appoint individuals with appropriate experience and qualifications in transportation” and to “reappoint representatives to consecutive terms.” Recommendation 6
VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 should certify to the VTA Board that they will adhere to VTA Administrative Code (Section 2-14) admonitions, regarding Board member expertise and appointment to consecutive terms.
This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.
Finding 7
VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 have different processes for making Board appointments.
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Recommendation 7
The cities represented in Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 should agree on a uniform process for making Board appointments.
This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.
Finding 8
The role assigned to the auditor general is outside the traditional scope of an auditor’s responsibilities and has introduced conflict and uncertainty among VTA staff and the Oversight Committee. Being involved in the management and policy-making process threatens the auditor general’s independence.
Recommendation 8
The Board should implement an alternative model for supporting the Oversight Committee that does not rely on the auditor general to provide services such as agenda preparation, monitoring of VTA staff assignments, or preparation of a synthesis of multiple independent inputs to the Committee’s deliberations.
This should be implemented by December 31, 2026
Finding 9
The Board of Directors has not approved the bylaws, nor the charter of the Oversight Committee.
Recommendation 9
VTA should formally adopt a revised Charter for the Oversight Committee, setting the Board’s expectations on the following issues:
• Defining the role of the auditor general to no longer require him to supervise the presentations by VTA staff to the Oversight Committee;
• The responsibility of the Oversight Committee to report regularly to the Board on the independent analyses of costs, risks, and schedule by the PMOC and any SMEs; and to provide the Oversight Committee’s synthesis of those analyses with recommendations to resolve conflicts when necessary;
• The responsibility of the Oversight Committee to consider and present its recommendations before the Board considers major decisions such as scope of the project, contracting, risk management, budgeting, and funding strategy;
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II • The responsibility of the Oversight Committee to hold subject matter experts accountable for timely analysis of costs, risk, and schedule;
• The responsibility of the Oversight Committee to report to the Board on the implications of design and construction issues that impact future ongoing operations and maintenance costs to be borne by VTA.
This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.
Finding 10
VTA’s vtabart.org website is poorly organized and not always intuitive to navigate, making it hard to find information about the status, cost, and schedule of the BSVII project.
Recommendation 10
The VTA Board should direct the General Manager to implement and maintain a project dashboard on its vtabart.org website that includes status, cost, and schedule information.
This should be implemented by October 31, 2026.
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II
REQUIRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to California Penal Code section 933(a) et seq. and California Penal Code section 933.05, the 2025-26 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury requests responses from the following governing bodies:
Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
VTA Board of Directors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 County of Santa Clara, Board of Supervisors 6 6
The City of Campbell, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Cupertino, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Gilroy, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Los Altos, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The Town of Los Altos Hills, Town Council 6, 7 6, 7
The Town of Los Gatos, Town Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Milpitas, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Monte Sereno, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Morgan Hill, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Mountain View, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Palo Alto, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of San José, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Santa Clara, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Saratoga, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Sunnyvale, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II APPENDIX A: BART Management Letter
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART VTA'S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE SILICON VALLEY PHASE IIII kai BART SILICON VALLEY
PHASE II (BSV I)
BART remains fully committed to the successful delvi ery of this critical regional investment.
However, that commitment depends on VTA's immediate corrective action to restore transparency and accountability.
Sincerely,
Shane Edwards
BART Assistant General Manager, 0perations
BART Project Director
Ce: VTA's BART S i licon Valley Phase II 0versight Committee Members Greg Ri chardson, VTA Deputy General Manager
Robert Powers, BART General Manager
Michael Jones, BART Deputy General Manager
Ni Lee, BART Deputy Proj ect Director
Mon ica Born, VTA Program Director
Tom Maguire, VTA Chief Del ivery Officer of Mega Projects BSVII: Co ll aborati o n , I n n ovat i on, Safety, R e l i ability 2
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II
CONFLICTS
Members of the Civil Grand Jury are conflicted from a Civil Grand Jury investigation if, as a result of prior or current employment or associations, investment in public or private enterprise, financial interest, bias, or personal relationship, they are subject to recusal from participating in a matter before the Civil Grand Jury. One juror was recused from this matter.
REFERENCES
Bibliography
2018-19 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury. “Inquiry Into Governance of the Valley Transportation Authority.” June 18, 2019.
(https://santaclara.courts.ca.gov/system/files/cgj-vta-final-report-061819_0.pdf).
Accessed April 5, 2026.
Aragon, Greg, “Single-Bore Tunnel Method Chosen for BART Silicon Valley Phase II.” ENRWest. November 4, 2025. (https://www.enr.com/articles/61798-single-bore-tunnelmethod-chosen-for-bart-silicon-valley-phase-ii). Accessed April 29, 2026.
AtkinsRéalis USA Holdings LLC. “Project Monitoring Report.” March 9, 2026. (https://vtabart.org/transparency-commitment/#docaccess8dd20a14312d4f35dd29658c7e4d5f55). Accessed May 1, 2026.
Auditor General, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “Auditor General’s Risk Assessment Report on VTA’s BSVII Finance Risks.” May 1, 2025. (https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?MeetingID=4412&ID= 9358). Accessed April 5, 2026.
Auditor of the State of California. “Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Improvements Are Necessary to Strengthen Its Project Management and Financial Oversight.” June 2024. (https://www.auditor.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2023-101-Report.pdf).
Accessed April 5, 2026.
California State Transportation Agency. “Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program.” n.d. (https://calsta.ca.gov/subject-areas/transit-intercity-rail-capital-prog). Accessed May 12, 2026.
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Cal. Pub. Util. Code section 10000 et seq.
Cal. Pub. Util. Code section 100060 et seq.
Dorsey, Dustin. “Silicon Valley BART Extension construction remains on time, budget.” ABC Eyewitness News. December 8, 2025. (https://abc7news.com/post/silicon-valley-bartextension-construction-remains-time-budget-west-portal-site/18265543/). Accessed April 29, 2026.
Federal Transit Administration. “FY 2025 New Starts Financial Assessment.” June 2024. (https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/grant-programs/capital-investments/bartsilicon-valley-phase-ii-project-profile-fy-0).
Federal Transit Administration. “BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project San Jose, California. June 2024. (https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/2024-08/CABART-Silicon-Valley-Phase-II-Eng-Profile-20240705.pdf). Accessed March 30, 2026.
Geha, Joseph. “Feds Commit $5.1 Billion to South Bay BART Extension.” KQED.org. August 2, 2024. (https://www.kqed.org/news/11998646/feds-commit-5-1-billion-to-south-baybart-extension#:~:text=Joseph%20Geha,increases%20to%20the%20current%20figure).
Accessed April 22, 2026.
Hicks, Tony. “VTA Board approves purchase of machine to bore BART line.” Mountain View Voice. November 7, 2023. (https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2023/11/07/vta-boardapproves-purchase-of-machine-to-bore-bart-line/). Accessed April 5, 2026.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission. “Agreement Reached on Loan for Bay Area Transit Agencies.” January 30, 2026. (https://mtc.ca.gov/news/agreement-reached-loan-bay-areatransitagencies#:~:text=Because%20many%20transit%20capital%20projects,funds%20remaine d%20in%20state%20accounts.). Accessed April 28, 2026
Office of the County Counsel, County of Santa Clara. “County Counsel’s Impartial Analysis of Measure B.” 2016. (https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2025- 08/2016%20Measure%20B%20Ballot.pdf). Accessed April 29, 2026.
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Independent Office of the Inspector General. “Transparency & Communication Gaps in BSVII Project.” December 19, 2025. (https://www.bartoig.org/investigation-reports-2025#docaccess-98152ed2acf38 cd4da53e1efbb737c86cc96ef6c2e1f439edf6ec6f51905271f). Accessed April 5, 2026.
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Comprehensive Agreement, November 22, 2001.
(www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/O%26M%20Agreement_Silicon%20Valley%20B ART%20Extn.pdf). Accessed May 12, 2026.
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. “BART Board initially approves Alternative Service Plan outlining budget balancing details.” February 26, 2026. (https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2026/news20260226-0). Accessed April 29, 2026.
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. "January 2026 Monthly Ridership Snapshot." February 2026. (https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/2026- 02/202601%20Monthly%20Ridership%20Snapshot.pdf). Accessed April 29, 2026.
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. " 2019 Monthly Ridership Reports." 2019. (https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/ridership_2019.zip). Accessed April 29, 2026.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, BART Silicon Valley Phase II Project. n.d. (https://www.vtabart.org). Accessed May 12, 2026.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, “VTA Board of Directors Workshop Reviews BART Phase II Timeline, Costs, And Next Steps.” October 23, 2023. (https://www.vta.org/blog/vta-board-directors-workshop-reviews-bart-phase-ii-timelinecosts-and-next-steps). Accessed April 29, 2026.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Auditor General. “Auditor General’s Initial Monitoring Report on VTA’s BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project.” VTA’s BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Oversight Committee Agenda. Item 8a. January 19, 2024. (https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=4233).
Accessed April 5, 2026.
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority/RSM US LLC. “Board Governance Assessment – Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.” December 20, 2019. (https://www.vta.gov/ sites/default/files/2020-01/VTA%20Board%20Governance%20Assessment%20 %281%29.pdf). Accessed April 5, 2026.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Agency. “BART Silicon Valley Extension Project Implements Major Cost Reductions.” November 13, 2024. (https://www.vta.org/blog/bart-siliconvalley-extension-project-implements-major-cost-reductions). Accessed April 23, 2026.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority/HayGroup. “Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Organizational and Financial Assessment Executive Report.” March 2007. (https://ti.org/pdfs/HayGrouponVTA.pdf). Accessed April 5, 2026.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “Operations and Maintenance Agreement By and Between the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District.” May 22, 2020. (https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2020- 12/VTA%20BART%20Operations%20and%20Maintenance%20Agreement_0.pdf).
Accessed April 23, 2026.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority Administrative Code (With Amendments through March 6, 2025).” March 2025. (https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2025-04/VTA_Administrative_Code_2025-3-
6.pdf). Accessed April 5, 2026.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “Bylaws for VTA’s BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee.” April 4, 2024. (https://www.vta.gov/sites/default/files/2024-04/ vta-bsv-oversight-committee-bylaws_0.pdf). Accessed April 8, 2026.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. Special Board Meeting. October 17, 2025. (https:// santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=14&ID=4297&Inline=True) Accessed April 9, 2026.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “VTA's BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee Regular Meeting”, Agenda Item 9.a, Item #25. April 17, 2024. (https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=3940&Inline=True ). Accessed May 1, 2026.
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “VTA's BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee Regular Meeting.” Agenda Item 4, Item #4. March 13, 2025. (https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=4138&Inline=True ). Accessed May 1, 2026.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “VTA's BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee Regular Meeting.” Item 11a. June 12, 2025.
(https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=4430). Accessed April 29, 2026.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “BSVII Project Update.” Summer, 2025. (https://vtabart.org/vtas-bart-silicon-valley-phase-ii-extension-project-summer-2025/).
Accessed May 13, 2026.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “VTA's BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee Regular Meeting.” Item 8. January 15, 2026.
(https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=4354&Inline=True ). Accessed April 22, 2026.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “2000 Measure A.” n.d. (https://www.vta.org/projects/funding/2000-measure-a). Accessed April 29, 2026.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “About 2016 Measure B.” n.d. (https://2016measureb.vta.org/about). Accessed April 29, 2026.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “VTA's BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee Regular Meeting.” Item 10b. Slide 21. September 11, 2025. (https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=4273&Inline=True ). Accessed April 13, 2026.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “Fact Sheet: VTA's Bart Silicon Valley Phase 2 Extension Project.” March 2024. (https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2024- 07/VTABSV_FactSheet_2024_OverviewBenefits%201.pdf). Accessed April 13, 2026.
Shalby, Colleen. “Trump administration pulls billions in funding for high-speed rail project; state leaders call decision ‘illegal.’” Los Angeles Times. July 16, 2025. (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-07-16/trump-administration-cancelsfunding-for-high-speed-rail-project). Accessed April 29, 2026.
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Shalby, Colleen. “Multibillion-dollar transit project to tunnel through the Santa Monica Mountains is approved by L.A. Metro.” LA Times. January 22, 2026. (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-01-22/this-multibillion-dollar-transitproject-could-improve-traffic-across-la-it-goes-to-vote-today - :~:text=This is read by an,transit projects in the country). Accessed April 13, 2026.
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II This report was ADOPTED by the 2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury on this 17th day of June, 2026.
______________________________
Dinesh Ramde
Foreperson
ITEM 5F, Attachment 2
Resolution No 2022-01 Exhibit A
RESOLUTION NO. 2021
A RESOLUTION OF THE GROUP 2 CITIES WORKING GROUP OF THE VTA POLICY
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ADOPTING REVISED BY-LAWS
WHEREAS, the members of the VTA Group 2 Cities Working Group created a set of by-laws to govern itself and selection of its VTA Board representative on November 18, 2011; and WHEREAS, on November 3, 2015, the VTA Group 2 Cities Working Group adopted Resolution No. 2015-01 amending the by-laws; and
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2018, the VTA Group 2 Cities Working Group adopted Resolution No. 2018-01 amending the by-laws; and
WHEREAS, in December 2021, the VTA Group 2 Cities Working Group reviewed said by-laws as revised in 2018 and determined amendments were needed in order for the Group 2 to be best represented at the VTA Board; and
WHEREAS, the VTA Group 2 Cities Working Group as a majority, has agreed with the recommended changes and deems the amended by-laws are in the best interest of each of the Cities they represent; and
WHEREAS, the Working Group representatives of Group 2 Cities have ratified the Working Group’s recommended changes;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Group 2 Cities Working Group does hereby adopt the revised by-laws shown in Exhibit A on December 15, 2021 North County Cities Group” (aka Group 2 Cities)
Procedure for Appointment of Board Member Representation and Expectations of the Board Member
Background: The VTA Board of Directors sets VTA policy. The Board has 18 members and exofficio members, all of whom are elected officials appointed to serve on the Board by the jurisdictions they represent. Fifteen Directors are city council members and three are County Supervisors. Twelve Directors serve as voting members and there are six Directors who serve as alternates. Group 2 Cities (aka North County Cities) has one voting member of the Board and one alternate.
ITEM 5F, Attachment 3
Resolution No 2022-01 Exhibit A
The purpose of this document is to define the procedures for appointing the Group 2 Cities Board Member and Alternate and to provide expectation of the appointees as it relates to Group 2.
Membership: The Group 2 Cities Working Group is composed of the VTA Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) members and their alternates who represent the cities of Mountain View, Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills, as well as the Group 2 VTA board member and Group 2 VTA Board alternate. Should the PAC position for any of these cities be vacant at the time of election, that city council may appoint a councilmember to participate in the Working Group.
Voting Membership: PAC members who represent the Group 2 cities shall be the voting members of the working group. Should the PAC member for any city be unavailable at the time of the election, but the PAC Alternate is available, the Alternate may vote on behalf of their city.
Should the PAC and Alternate position for any of these cities be vacant at the time of the election, that city council may appoint a councilmember to participate in the election.
Appointment of VTA Board Member
VTA Board member’s term is a for two years with a maximum of two consecutive terms in Group
2. The appointment of the Group 2 VTA Board member is made through an election process that takes place in December of even years or the following January or when needed due to a vacancy, and is guided by a nomination rotation that gives opportunity to the next city in the rotation.
City Rotation: Nominations may rotate in the prescribed order rotation so as to give each city an opportunity to have a representative serve at the VTA Board level or unless voted on by the Working Group voting members to amend rotation. If a city is skipped over in the rotation, that city’s City Council must request or approve the change in the rotation. The order shall be:
Mountain View
Los Altos Hills
Palo Alto
Los Altos and so on.
Qualification and Consideration of the Nominees: Nominees must be incumbent city councilmembers who will not face a term limit1 before the end of the VTA Board term under consideration.
1 Term limit refers to the statutory limit on the number of years of consecutive terms an official may serve in their elected capacity.
Resolution No 2022-01 Exhibit A
In order to satisfy the enabling legislation’s requirement that “the appointing powers shall appoint individuals who have expertise, experience, or knowledge to transportation issues,” each nominee must meet at least 2 of the following criteria:
1. At least one year’s service on the VTA Board within the last 4 years.
2. At least one year’s service on a policy advisory body that reports directly to the VTA Board (Policy Advisory Committee, Policy Advisory Board, the Citizens Advisory Committee) and has a minimum 80% attendance record.
3. Any other transportation policy credential deemed relevant by the majority of the Working Group as meeting the intent of the experience requirement within the last 4 years.
4. Demonstrate working knowledge of VTA.
A VTA Board member may not serve simultaneously on the PAC in any capacity, but an Alternate member may simultaneously serve on the PAC.
Re-election: By November of the election year, the current Board member or Alternate Board member shall notify the working group of whether they intend to seek a second 2-year term. If the member or alternate eligible to complete the upcoming board term, then that person will be considered the nominee. If the sitting Board member or Alternate is not eligible or does not wish to seek a second term, then the nominees shall be provided as described below.
Board Member Nomination Process: The City Council of the PAC member whose turn it is to nominate (“nominating city”) may nominate up to two of its qualified councilmembers for the VTA Board. The nominees can be put forth simultaneously or serially (in the event that the first nominee is not elected). A nominating city with no qualified councilmember may not make a nomination. The nominating city also has the option of declining to nominate any of its councilmembers. In the case of no eligible candidates or the nominating city declines to make a nomination, the option to nominate shall pass to the next city in the rotation. The nominating city shall notify the group of whether it intends to nominate a candidate by November 1 of the election year. The choice of who to nominate will be at the discretion of the nominating city.
Nominees must be affirmed by a majority of the nominating city’s Council. Each city will have the opportunity to put forth two nominees for consideration. If neither succeeds, then the nomination process shall pass to the next city in order.
Alternate Board Member Nomination Process: Alternate Board members may be put forth by any city provided the person meets the qualifications noted above and the Alternate Board member does not come from the same city as the Board Member.
The Working Group shall give consideration to selecting someone from the city next in the rotation. It is desirable that in addition to the qualifications above that the Alternate be eligible to become the Board Member at a future election.
Resolution No 2022-01 Exhibit A
Meeting of the Working Group for Purpose of Election: A meeting of the Group 2 membership shall be convened for the purpose of electing/re-electing the VTA Board member and Alternate.
This shall be a noticed meeting open to the public.
Quorum: Representatives from at least three of the Group 2 cities must be present in order for an election to proceed.
Presentations: Nominees will be given equal opportunities to present arguments for their election during the meeting and before the election is held. The length of time per nominee will be three minutes.
Election Process: Election to the Board shall be accomplished by a show of hands of the voting members. Each city will have one vote. A majority vote constitutes a successful election.
The group will first vote on any member seeking a second term. If re-election is successful, then the group shall move on to selecting an Alternate. If unsuccessful, the group shall consider the nominees from the nominating city. Voting shall continue on each proposed nominee until a Board member and Alternate are selected.
Vacancies: Should the Board member resign or cease to be a city councilmember, that seat shall be declared vacant. The seat shall remain with the current city and be filled by a selection of the current city council. That person will serve the remainder of the existing term.
Expectations of the VTA Board Member
The VTA Board member shall keep the VTA Group 2 Cities Working Group apprised of items coming before the VTA Board, facilitate communications with the Working Group, and help build consensus with respect to policy matters the Working Group determines to be relevant to the Member Agency or VTA. The VTA Board member is the Chairperson of Group 2 Cities.
Amendments
This document may be amended by a resolution approved by a majority of the VTA Group 2 Cities Working Group. A meeting of the North County Board and PAC members shall be convened as necessary in order to evaluate the fairness of the selection process and the quality of the Board members.
AMENDED December 15, 2021 by:
Lynette Lee Eng, Los Altos City Councilmember representing Los Altos
Resolution No 2022-01 Exhibit A
George Tyson, Los Altos Hills City Councilmember representing Los Altos Hills Ellen Kamei, Mountain View City Councilmember representing Mountain View Lydia Kou, Palo Alto City Councilmember representing Palo Alto AMENDED October 30, 2018 by:
Lynette Eng, Los Altos City Councilmember representing Los Altos Lenny Siegel, Mountain View City Councilmember representing Mountain View Liz Kniss, Palo Alto City Councilmember representing Palo Alto AMENDED November 3, 2015 by:
Mary Prochnow, Los Altos City Councilmember representing Los Altos John Harpootlian, Los Altos Hills City Councilmember representing Los Altos Hills John McAlister, Mountain View City Councilmember representing Mountain View Liz Kniss, Palo Alto City Councilmember representing Palo Alto ADOPTED November 28, 2011 by:
Megan Satterlee, Los Altos City Councilmember representing Los Altos Rich Larsen, Los Altos Hills City Councilmember representing Los Altos Hills John Inks, Mountain View City Councilmember representing Mountain View Gail Price, Palo Alto City Councilmember representing Palo Alto
ITEM 5G
1 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS August 20, 2026
Staff Report to the City Council
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO THE GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT ON POTHOLE DAMAGE: IMPROVING CLAIMS PROCESSES WITHIN SANTA CLARA
COUNTY
FROM: Arika Birdsong-Miller, City Clerk
APPROVED: Cody Einfalt, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council should:
Approve the attached response letter to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Final Report, “Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County” BACKGROUND:
The Civil Grand Jury investigated (Attachment 1) Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County and concluded with the following finding:
Finding 1:
The Town of Los Altos Hills maintains public streets that are generally free of potholes, and staff are not aware of any claims related to pothole damage. Therefore, the Town disagrees with the Finding.
Finding 2:
The Town of Los Altos Hills is not aware of any pothole damage claims. Therefore, the Town has not denied any claims related to pothole damage and disagrees with the Finding.
Relative to Recommendation 2a, the Town will improve its website to provide clearer direction regarding how to file a claim for pothole damage on roads maintained by the Town and agrees to do so by December 15, 2026.
Relative to Recommendation 2b, the Town will update its claims website to identify roads that are commonly mistaken as being under the Town's jurisdiction and agrees to do so by December 15, 2026.
Finding 3:
The Town provides information on its website regarding how to file a claim. Because the Town partially agrees with the Report’s Finding, the Town will improve the website to make it more user-friendly by December 15, 2026.
Relative to Recommendation 3a, by December 15, 2026, the Town agrees to undertake steps to update its website to provide clear instructions and information on how to file a claim and will include a direct link to the claim form itself.
Staff Report to City Council Page 2
Civil Grand Jury Response Letter
August 20, 2026
Relative to Recommendation 3b, the Town will incorporate language translation services based on the Town demographics and will do so by December 15, 2026.
The proposed letter (Attachment 2) to the Grand Jury’s report stating the Town’s response to the report’s findings and recommendations.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Submitting a response letter to the Civil Grand Jury is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) due to the response not being defined as a “project” under CEQA. 2026-2027 CITY COUNCIL WORK PLAN:
This action is not identified on the 2026-27 City Council Work Plan, instead falls in the category of day-to-day operations.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact related response letter.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Letter received from the Grand Jury – dated June 12, 2026
2. Proposed Response to Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County
SUPERIOR COURT BUILDING • 191 NORTH FIRST STREET, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 • (408) 882-2721 • FAX (408) 882-2795
G R A N D J U R Y S A N T A C L A R A C O U N T Y
June 12, 2026
Town of Los Altos Hills
c/o Ms. Arika Miller, City Clerk
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, California 94022
Sent via email: [email protected]
Dear Ms. Miller,
The 2025-26 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury is transmitting to you its Final Report, Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County.
California Penal Code section 933(c) requires that a governing body of the particular public agency or department that has been the subject of a Grand Jury final report shall respond within 90 days to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. California Penal Code section 933.05 contains guidelines for responses to Grand Jury findings and recommendations and is attached to this transmission.
Please note:
1. As stated in Penal Code section 933.05(a), attached, you are required to "Agree" or "Disagree" with each applicable Finding: 1, 2, and 3. If you disagree, in whole or part, you must include an explanation of the reasons you disagree.
2. As stated in Penal Code section 933.05(b), attached, you are required to respond with one of four possible actions to each applicable Recommendation: 2a, 2b, 3a, and 3b.
Your comments are due to the office of the Honorable Julie A. Emede, Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, 191 North First Street, San José, CA 95113, no later than Thursday, September 10, 2026. You may transmit these via email to [email protected]. Copies of all responses shall be placed on file with the Clerk of the Court.
If you have any questions, please contact Britney Huelbig, Deputy Manager for the Civil Grand Jury, at (408) 882-2721 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Dinesh Ramde
Foreperson
2025-2026 Civil Grand Jury
Enclosures
cc: Kavita Narayan, Chief Assistant County Counsel, County of Santa Clara Cody Einfalt, City Manager
ITEM 5G, Attachment 1
State of California
PENAL CODE
Section 933.05
933.05. (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
(c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decisionmaking authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. (d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release.
(e) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental.
(f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report.
(Amended by Stats. 1997, Ch. 443, Sec. 5. Effective January 1, 1998.)
2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury
Pothole Damage:
Improving claims processes within Santa
Clara County
June 12, 2026
POTHOLE DAMAGE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 2 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 3 Who Is Responsible for Pothole Damage................................................................................ 3 Why So Many Claims Are Rejected........................................................................................ 3 The California Government Claims Act................................................................................. 4 Why the Civil Grand Jury Conducted This Investigation .................................................... 4 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 5 INVESTIGATION........................................................................................................................ 6 How Jurisdictions Investigate Claims..................................................................................... 6 Two Common Reasons for Rejection...................................................................................... 7 Rejection Notices are Often Vague.......................................................................................... 8 Filing a Claim: Determining which Jurisdiction is Responsible .......................................... 9 Filing a Claim: Obtaining and Submitting a Claim Form.................................................. 10 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 14 REQUIRED RESPONSES......................................................................................................... 16 APPENDIX A: Reporting a Pothole ......................................................................................... 17 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 18
POTHOLE DAMAGE
SUMMARY
If you hit a pothole within Santa Clara County and damage your vehicle, chances are that your local government will decline to reimburse you for repairs. According to data analyzed by the 2025-26 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (Civil Grand Jury), 92% of pothole claims filed with the County of Santa Clara (County) and the 15 cities and towns in Santa Clara County from 2020 to 2025 were rejected.
People who file claims may find this high rejection rate disappointing. They may also be frustrated by the state law that establishes the claims process, which can often be complex and opaque.
For example, in some jurisdictions, it’s not easy to figure out how to file a claim. Also, while the City of Palo Alto (Palo Alto) and the City of Saratoga (Saratoga) offer e-filing options, claims filed in other jurisdictions must be mailed in or returned in person. And when a claim is denied, the rejection notice often provides little or no explanation.
The County, cities, and towns can and should do better. Specifically, they should:
• Make online claim forms available or easier to find, and include clearer instructions and timelines;
• Provide forms in multiple languages that reflect their specific demographics; • Make it easier for claimants to determine which jurisdiction is responsible for a given roadway;
• Update their rejection letters to specify why claims were denied.
Implementing these changes would make the claims process simpler and more accessible. It would also minimize at least one source of frustration for residents who are already burdened by unexpected repair costs.
POTHOLE DAMAGE
BACKGROUND
For the purposes of this report, a pothole is defined as a depression or hole in the road that forms when pavement breaks apart due to traffic stress and weather conditions.
Potholes can cause severe damage to tires and the underside of vehicles, with a particular risk to two-wheeled vehicles. If drivers believe the local government is responsible for their damage, they can file a claim seeking reimbursement.
According to local media reports, Bay Area drivers in 2022 filed more than 1,000 claims for potholes and other road damages. According to data that the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) provided to CBS News, it rejected more than 95% of Bay Area claims (Feingold and Manthey, 2024; Manthey and Watts, 2024).
Who Is Responsible for Pothole Damage
Claims for road-related damage must be filed with the state, county, or city agency that has jurisdiction over the road where the damage occurred.
For example:
• Caltrans is generally responsible for major freeways and highways, such as US-101, I-280, and State Route 87.
• The County is responsible for expressways and county roads, such as Capitol and Lawrence Expressways.
• Cities and towns are generally responsible for local streets within their boundaries, including residential neighborhoods.
Why So Many Claims Are Rejected
The Civil Grand Jury requested and received claims data from the County and the 15 cities and towns in Santa Clara County covering the period from 2020 to 2025. The Civil Grand Jury’s analysis of that data revealed that only 9% of pothole claims across Santa Clara County were settled.
Under the California Government Claims Act (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 810 et seq.), local agencies have wide discretion to reject a pothole claim for reasons including but not limited to:
• The claim form was incomplete or not filed by the required deadline;
POTHOLE DAMAGE
• It was filed in the wrong jurisdiction;
• The responsible county, city, or town either was not aware of the pothole or was aware but had not had sufficient time to repair it.
These laws make it difficult for a claimant to dispute a denial. For example, if an agency rejects a claim on the grounds that it was not aware of the pothole, the law does not require it to provide evidence to back up its assertion.
In addition, because different agencies can have jurisdiction over different sections of the same road, it can be difficult for a claimant to determine which agency is responsible for the specific location where the damage occurred. If the person files with the wrong jurisdiction, the agency can reject the claim with no obligation to specify the reason or redirect the claimant to the correct jurisdiction.
If a claim is rejected, the claimant can pursue legal action according to the California Government Claims Act.
The California Government Claims Act
The California Government Claims Act (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 810 et seq.) establishes timelines and procedures for filing lawsuits seeking money or damages from a public entity.
In general, the Government Claims Act specifies that a claim must be filed no later than six months from the date of the incident. The claim must include what happened, what harm occurred, and the amount of compensation requested.
Once the public entity receives the claim, it has 45 days to review, investigate, and decide whether to settle or reject it. If a claim is rejected, the claimant has six months to file a lawsuit.
Why the Civil Grand Jury Conducted This Investigation
The Civil Grand Jury believes that claims processes should be consistent, accessible, and transparent. It also believes the public interest is served by highlighting when processes fall short of that standard.
The Civil Grand Jury conducted this investigation to:
• Examine how local government agencies manage pothole claims; • Understand why so many claims are denied;
POTHOLE DAMAGE
• Recommend how jurisdictions can make it easier for potential claimants to engage in the process.
METHODOLOGY
The Civil Grand Jury requested data from all 16 jurisdictions responsible for road maintenance within Santa Clara County. The data excluded state routes and interstate highways because Caltrans, a state agency, is not subject to Civil Grand Jury review. Jurisdictions provided data about all claims filed against them for road-related damages between 2020 and 2025. Information provided included the number of pothole claims, the amount claimed, the resolution, and the reason for rejection. Three jurisdictions provided response letters sent to claimants.
The Civil Grand Jury reviewed the websites of the following 16 agencies to analyze what content was included and how clearly it was presented:
• County of Santa Clara (County)
• City of Campbell (Campbell)
• City of Cupertino (Cupertino)
• City of Gilroy (Gilroy)
• City of Los Altos (Los Altos)
• Town of Los Altos Hills (Los Altos Hills)
• Town of Los Gatos (Los Gatos)
• City of Milpitas (Milpitas)
• City of Monte Sereno (Monte Sereno)
• City of Morgan Hill (Morgan Hill)
• City of Mountain View (Mountain View)
• City of Palo Alto (Palo Alto)
• City of San José (San José)
• City of Santa Clara (Santa Clara)
• City of Saratoga (Saratoga)
• City of Sunnyvale (Sunnyvale)
The Civil Grand Jury also interviewed representatives from four jurisdictions that together account for about two-thirds of the roads in Santa Clara County. These interviews provided further insight into the agencies’ processes and decision‑making practices.
POTHOLE DAMAGE
INVESTIGATION
There are over 10,000 miles of locally maintained lanes in Santa Clara County (Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2026). Between 2020 and 2025, the agencies received exactly 400 claims specifically due to potholes.
Of the pothole claims, the Civil Grand Jury determined that the jurisdictions collectively settled 34 claims, or 8.5%. The percentage of settlements for damages varied among the individual entities. The data showed that during that five-year period:
• Gilroy and Saratoga each settled 50% of claims filed (however, they each averaged 1-2 claims per year, among the smallest sample sizes in Santa Clara County). • Four jurisdictions paid at least 10% of claims: Morgan Hill (17%), the County (11%), Santa Clara (11%), and Milpitas (10%).
• The remaining jurisdictions paid 9% of claims or fewer.
The Civil Grand Jury acknowledges that the significance of this data is limited; if an entity received a high volume of claims filed in the wrong jurisdiction, it will not settle those claims.
How Jurisdictions Investigate Claims
Jurisdictions within Santa Clara County generally follow a similar process for receiving and evaluating a claim.
First, the claim gets submitted to a city clerk, city manager, or equivalent official, who logs it along with any accompanying documents. Next, the official notifies the local public works department so it can investigate the incident site as needed.
In the meantime, the official assigns the claim to an investigator, usually in the city attorney’s or county counsel’s office. The investigator verifies whether the agency has jurisdiction, ensures the form was filled out correctly, and reviews any photographs and receipts that were submitted.
If the jurisdiction agrees to pay out the claim, it will often mail a check. But if the claim involves injuries or death, or the claimant is seeking tens of thousands of dollars, the settlement may need approval from the respective city council or the County Board of Supervisors.
If the jurisdiction rejects the claim, it will inform the claimant via a form letter or email. The California Government Claims Act does not require jurisdictions to specify the reason for denial.
POTHOLE DAMAGE
Two Common Reasons for Rejection
According to the data provided to the Civil Grand Jury, claims are frequently denied for one of two reasons: The claim was out of the entity’s jurisdiction, or the County, city, or town had no prior notice of the pothole.
Out of Jurisdiction
A claim must be filed with the agency that has jurisdiction over the specific location where the incident occurred. According to interviews conducted by the Civil Grand Jury, claims that are filed with the wrong jurisdiction will almost certainly be rejected as outside of jurisdiction.
A road’s location within an agency’s boundaries does not necessarily mean that agency is responsible for receiving or resolving related claims. Jurisdiction over road maintenance can shift multiple times as roads cross between state, county, and municipal boundaries. This patchwork of responsibility can be confusing, making it hard for claimants to figure out which agency has jurisdiction over the specific location of their incident.
Agencies typically verify their jurisdiction by consulting their local public works, utilities, or roads departments.
No Prior Notice
The Government Claims Act also establishes limits to the public entities’ liability for the condition of its roadways. One of those limitations is the issue of notice to the public entity. The Civil Grand Jury found this was one of the two most common reasons pothole claims are rejected.
Notice typically requires evidence that at least one of four circumstances exists:
1. The public entity created the condition;
2. The pothole had been reported prior to an incident in which a vehicle was damaged;
3. An agency’s employee observed the pothole and reported it;
4. The pothole existed long enough that the jurisdiction should have known about it through regular inspections.
If none of these circumstances applies, the agency can declare it had no prior notice and deny the claim.
When an agency receives notice of a pothole, state law allows for a reasonable period to address the hazard. It does not specify what constitutes a reasonable timeframe.
POTHOLE DAMAGE
Drivers can help ensure that a jurisdiction receives prior notice by promptly reporting any potholes.
All jurisdictions have a mechanism for reporting potholes and other issues (see Appendix A).
Rejection Notices are Often Vague
As noted above, it is not unusual for an agency to withhold its reason for rejecting a claim. A rejection notice would contain this language, in part, which is required by the California Government Claims Act (Cal. Gov. Code § 913):
NOTICE OF REJECTION OF CLAIM
Dear Claimant,
Notice is hereby given that the claim you presented to (insert title of board or officer) on (date) was rejected on (date).
WARNING
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally delivered or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim.
See Government Code Section 945.6.
You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you desire to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately.
Agencies may provide further information, such as the reason for rejection. A notice of denial can be aggravating enough, but when it is written in minimal legalistic terms, claimants may feel even more frustrated. The Civil Grand Jury learned about rejection letters from the County, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and San José and found that some but not all rejection letters provide a reason for rejection. Rejection letters from other jurisdictions may follow this same approach.
In Civil Grand Jury interviews, one agency official suggested that people who receive a letter like this contact the agency and see if it will share the reason for rejection. Although the reason for rejection is recorded by the agency, there is no legal obligation to provide this information, and agencies may limit this information.
POTHOLE DAMAGE
Filing a Claim: Determining which Jurisdiction is Responsible Caltrans Jurisdiction
If a pothole is located on a state route or interstate highway, the claim would generally fall under Caltrans’s jurisdiction. These routes, which, according to Caltrans, cover about 250 miles throughout Santa Clara County (California Department of Transportation, 2025) include:
• U.S. Route 101 (US-101)
• Interstate 280 (I-280)
• Interstate 680 (I-680)
• Interstate 880 (I-880)
• State Route 17 (SR-17)
• State Route 35 (SR-35)
• State Route 82 (SR-82), which includes El Camino Real • State Route 85 (SR-85)
• State Route 87 (SR-87)
• State Route 130 (SR-130), which includes part of Alum Rock Road and Mount Hamilton Road
• State Route 152 (SR-152)
• State Route 237 (SR-237)
Residents may not realize that some common local routes fall under Caltrans jurisdiction. These include SR-82, a large part of which includes El Camino Real; Mount Hamilton Road; and SR130, which is part of Alum Rock Avenue.
When a local road crosses or overlaps a state route or interstate, that portion is generally under Caltrans jurisdiction.
County Jurisdiction
Expressways and many county roads are maintained by the County Roads and Airports Department.
Major roads include:
• Almaden Expressway
• Capitol Expressway
• Central Expressway
• Foothill Expressway
• Lawrence Expressway
POTHOLE DAMAGE
• Montague Expressway
• Oregon Expressway
• San Tomas Expressway
• Southwest Expressway
Complicated Exceptions
Further complicating efforts to determine which agency has jurisdiction over a particular area, cities, Caltrans, the County, and even the federal government (such as near Moffett Federal Airfield) have maintenance agreements that specify which agency is responsible for certain roadway segments – such as onramps, offramps, and other defined areas (City of Mountain View, 2019). It is not always easy to determine which agency is responsible for which segments.
Complicated Maps
Some jurisdictions have no public maps indicating which roads they are responsible for. The County and some cities, including San José, Campbell, and Mountain View, do post searchable maps online that can help the public narrow down which jurisdiction is responsible for a particular road. However, the maps often use complicated interfaces rather than a simple image or printout, and many maps are not specific to just the roads maintained by the jurisdictions.
San José, which maintains more than 4,000 miles of locally maintained lanes within its borders, has its own mapping website (Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2026; City of San José, 2020). It shows whether a particular street within its boundaries is maintained by San José, the County, a private entity, or another agency. The website provides a large amount of information, although it is complicated for the average user to navigate.
An alternative source of information is pavement management plans that some agencies make available. These plans may list all roads maintained by the jurisdiction and can be used as a reference. As an example, Morgan Hill has a link to its latest 2024 Pavement Management Report with a list of streets at the end. However, there is no direct link from the claim forms webpage, so claimants would not be aware of this reference (AMS Consulting, 2025).
Filing a Claim: Obtaining and Submitting a Claim Form
Once a person has found the proper jurisdiction, the next step is to download the claim form from the local agency’s website.
Of the 16 jurisdictions, the Civil Grand Jury found that only Gilroy, Los Gatos, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale provide adequate claims process information on their webpages or on the claim form itself.
POTHOLE DAMAGE
Most jurisdictions provide forms only in English. This is an omission that could potentially disenfranchise community members who have limited proficiency in English.
The Civil Grand Jury identified three cities that took the helpful step of providing additional language options:
• Morgan Hill provides a PDF of its claim form in English and Spanish. • Sunnyvale has a translation feature that allows claimants to translate the form into one of 200+ languages. Users can either fill out the translated form online and print a copy or print out a blank translated form and fill it out by hand.
• Saratoga’s website uses a third-party widget to translate its website in addition to an online form to many other languages.
The Civil Grand Jury also investigated how easy it is to find claim forms on each jurisdiction’s website by searching for the term “claim form.”
The Civil Grand Jury could not find any information about submitting a pothole claim in four entities: Campbell, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and Monte Sereno.
Cupertino provides a claim form, but users must use the website’s search function to find it.
Gilroy does not link directly to a claim form, although it does provide instructions on how to request a form by email or in person.
POTHOLE DAMAGE
Table 1: Access to online claim process instructions and link to claim form (See References for links)
Jurisdiction Online Claims Process
Instructions
Link to
Claim Form
Caltrans Yes Yes
County of Santa Clara No Yes
Campbell No No
Cupertino No Yes
Gilroy Yes No
Los Altos No No
Los Altos Hills No No
Los Gatos Yes Yes
Milpitas No Yes
Monte Sereno No No
Morgan Hill No Yes
Mountain View No Yes
Palo Alto Yes Yes
San José No Yes
Santa Clara Yes Yes
Saratoga No Yes
Sunnyvale Yes Yes
Many jurisdictions recommend that claimants deliver the claim form in person, including all relevant information, such as photos, receipts, and witness statements. The claimant should retain a signed copy.
Some agencies allow for email submission, but this is the exception. Alternatively, a claimant could submit the claim by mail to the city or town clerk (or, for the County, the Clerk of the Board).
According to the California Government Claims Act, the agency has 45 days from the date the claim form was mailed or delivered in person to respond to the claimant.
POTHOLE DAMAGE
CONCLUSION
Even though state law sets strict rules for filing and reviewing claims, local government agencies retain significant discretion over their processes. By offering clearer online information, improving access to claim forms, expanding language options, and providing more detailed explanations when claims are denied, jurisdictions can significantly improve public trust, reduce frustration, and increase fairness.
Implementing the recommended updates is not only feasible, but it also aligns with the spirit of responsive and transparent public service. The Civil Grand Jury urges all jurisdictions to adopt these improvements by the recommended deadlines to ensure that the claims process is fairer, more consistent, and easier for the public to navigate.
POTHOLE DAMAGE
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Finding 1
Jurisdictions within Santa Clara County rejected 92% of pothole claims from 2020 to 2025 due to reasons including missed deadlines, incorrect jurisdiction, and lack of prior notice.
Recommendation 1
No recommendation.
Finding 2
Claims are often rejected because the claimant filed with the incorrect jurisdiction, which can happen because jurisdictional lines are often unclear or poorly communicated. The claims websites of all jurisdictions within Santa Clara County lack information about how to determine if a road is in its jurisdiction.
Recommendation 2a
All jurisdictions within Santa Clara County should include a link to a map or list of roads they maintain on their claims website.
The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.
Recommendation 2b
All jurisdictions within Santa Clara County should update their claims websites to identify roads that are commonly mistaken as being in their jurisdictions.
The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.
Finding 3
Fifteen jurisdictions – the County, Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San José, Santa Clara, and Saratoga – have websites with deficiencies that make it difficult to file a claim.
Recommendation 3a
Eleven jurisdictions – the County, Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, San José, and Saratoga – should update their websites to provide clear instructions and information about how to file a claim in addition to a link to the claim form.
The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.
POTHOLE DAMAGE
Recommendation 3b
Fourteen jurisdictions – the County, Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San José, and Santa Clara – should incorporate useable software on their websites that can translate claim forms into multiple languages or provide claim forms in multiple languages based on the demographics they serve.
The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.
Finding 4
When pothole claims are rejected, claimants filing claims against the County, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and San José receive a notice that provides little or sometimes no explanation for the rejection. Although jurisdictions within Santa Clara County are not legally obligated to provide a reason for rejection, the lack of clarity in the decisions made on the claims can add to a claimant’s frustration.
Recommendation 4
The County, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and San José should update their rejection letters to specify whether the decision was due to lack of timeliness, incorrect jurisdiction, lack of prior notice, or other reason and to provide a specific contact to call or email if the claimant has further questions about the reason for rejection.
The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.
POTHOLE DAMAGE
REQUIRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to California Penal Code section 933(a) et seq. and California Penal Code section 933.05, the 2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury requests responses from the following governing body:
Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
County of Santa Clara 1, 2, 3, 4 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4
City of Campbell 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b
City of Cupertino 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b
City of Gilroy 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3b
City of Los Altos 1, 2, 3, 4 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4
Town of Los Altos Hills 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b
Town of Los Gatos 1, 2, 3, 4 2a, 2b, 3b, 4
City of Milpitas 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b
City of Monte Sereno 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b
City of Morgan Hill 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b
City of Mountain View 1, 2, 3, 4 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4
City of Palo Alto 1, 2, 3, 4 2a, 2b, 3b, 4
City of San José 1, 2, 3, 4 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4
City of Santa Clara 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3b
City of Saratoga 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a
City of Sunnyvale 1, 2 2a, 2b
POTHOLE DAMAGE
APPENDIX A: Reporting a Pothole
Residents who see a pothole can report it so the jurisdiction can repair it in a timely manner.
Based on a Civil Grand Jury review, here is a list of contacts (as of April 15, 2026) where potholes or other needed street repairs can be reported:
Jurisdiction Website to report a pothole
Caltrans https://csr.dot.ca.gov/index.php/Msrsubmit
County of Santa Clara https://roads.santaclaracounty.gov/services/service-requests Campbell https://www.campbellca.gov/requesttracker.aspx Cupertino https://cupertinoca.citysourced.com/servicerequests/create Gilroy https://seeclickfix.com/gilroy
Los Altos https://www.losaltosca.gov/FormCenter/Public-Works-6/ Maintenance-Service-Request-46
Los Altos Hills https://www.losaltoshills.ca.gov/requesttracker.aspx Los Gatos https://www.losgatosca.gov/FormCenter/PPW-15/Report-aParks-Public-Works-Concern-87 Milpitas https://seeclickfix.com/web_portal/
chZ2d7WdKoe4V2BriJxUCFqd/report/category
Monte Sereno https://www.montesereno.org/forms.aspx?FID=80 Morgan Hill https://www.morganhill.ca.gov/509/Maintenance Mountain View https://www.mountainview.gov/our-city/departments/publicworks/roads-and-transportation/street-maintenance Palo Alto https://www.paloalto.gov/Residents/Services/Report-an-Issue San José https://311.sanjoseca.gov/
Santa Clara https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/government/mayor-andcouncil/contact-city-council Saratoga https://www.saratoga.ca.us/FormCenter/Report-a-Concern6/Fix-It-Form-45 Sunnyvale https://sunnyvale.dynamics365portals.us/neighborhoodcomplaints/
POTHOLE DAMAGE
REFERENCES
Bibliography
AMS Consulting. “Pavement Management Technical Assistance Program (P-TAP) Round 25, 2024/2025 Pavement Management Report.” March 21, 2025.
(https://www.morganhill.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/53950/Updated-Morgan-HillPTAP-25-Rev01-for-Web). Accessed April 16, 2026.
Cal. Gov. Code § 810 et seq.
Cal. Gov. Code § 913 et seq.
California Department of Transportation. “California Road Data 2024.” November 2025. (https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/research-innovation-systeminformation/documents/hpms/hpms-2024-prd-a11y.pdf). Accessed April 28, 2026.
California Department of Transportation. “Submit Damage Claim.” n.d. (https://dot.ca.gov/ online-services/submit-damage-claim). Accessed April 15, 2026.
City of Cupertino. “Claim Form.” September 2022.
(https://cupertinoca.prelive.opencities.com/files/assets/city/v/1/yourcity/documents/claim-form-rev-102523.pdf). Accessed April 29, 2026.
City of Gilroy. “How to File a Claim.” n.d. (https://www.cityofgilroy.org/966/How-to-File-aClaim). Accessed April 15, 2026.
City of Milpitas. “Helpful Links.” n.d. (https://www.milpitas.gov/188/Helpful-Links). Accessed April 15, 2026.
City of Morgan Hill. “Claim for Damages Form.” n.d. (https://www.morganhill.ca.gov/1411/ Claim-for-Damages-Form). Accessed April 15, 2026.
City of Mountain View. “Claim Form.” n.d. (https://www.mountainview.gov/our-city/ departments/city-attorneys-office/claim-form). Accessed April 15, 2026.
City of Mountain View. “GIS/Mapping Portal, Map Road Centerline” July 18, 2019. (https://data-mountainview.opendata.arcgis.com/search?q=roads). Accessed April 28, 2026.
POTHOLE DAMAGE
City of Palo Alto. “Submit a Claim Against the City.” n.d. (https://www.paloalto.gov/ Departments/City-Attorney/Submit-a-Claim-Against-the-City). Accessed April 15, 2026.
City of San José. “File Claim Against City Form.” n.d. (https://www.sanjoseca.gov/yourgovernment/appointees/city-clerk/forms-filings/file-claim-against-city-form). Accessed April 15, 2026.
City of San José. “Streets.” August 27, 2020. (https://gisdatacsj.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/CSJ::streets/about). Accessed April 16, 2026.
City of Santa Clara. “Frequently Asked Questions.” July 23, 2015. (https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-a-f/city-attorney-s-office/frequentlyasked-questions). Accessed April 15, 2026.
City of Saratoga. “Claims Against Saratoga.” n.d. (https://www.saratoga.ca.us/FormCenter/ Claims-Form-37/Claims-Against-Saratoga-102). Accessed April 15, 2026.
City of Sunnyvale. “File a Claim Against the City.” n.d. (https://www.sunnyvale.ca.gov/yourgovernment/city-clerk/file-a-claim-against-the-city). Accessed April 15, 2026.
County of Santa Clara. “File a claim of loss against the County.” n.d. (https://cob.santaclaracounty.gov/services/file-claim-loss-against-county). Accessed April 15, 2026.
Feingold, Lindsey and Manthey, Grace. “Less than 4% of Bay Area Caltrans pothole, other damage claims approved in recent years: data.” KGO-TV. January 25, 2024. (https:// abc7news.com/post/bay-area-potholes-caltrans-claims-car-damages/14359988/).
Accessed April 14, 2026.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission. “Pavement Conditions of Bay Area Jurisdictions 2024.” January 5, 2026. (https://mtc.ca.gov/digital-library/5099739-pavement-conditionbay-area-jurisdictions-2024). Accessed April 15, 2026.
Town of Los Gatos. “File a Claim.” n.d. (https://www.losgatosca.gov/2422/File-a-Claim).
Accessed April 15, 2026.
Watts, Julie and Manthey, Grace. “California freeways with the most potholes and car damage claims.” CBS News California. May 23, 2024.
(https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-freeways-most-potholes-damage-claims/).
Accessed April 14, 2026.
POTHOLE DAMAGE
This report was ADOPTED by the 2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury on this 12th day of June, 2026.
______________________________
Dinesh Ramde
Foreperson
ITEM 5G, Attachment 2
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS August 20, 2026
Staff Report to the City Council
___________________________________________________________________________ SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE FY26 PAVEMENT REHABILITATION AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PERFORMED BY G.
BORTOLOTTO & COMPANY, INC. AS COMPLETE; AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF THE FINAL RETENTION PAYMENT; AND DIRECTING THE
CITY CLERK TO FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION
FROM: WooJae Kim, Public Works Director
John Chau, Project Manager
APPROVED: Cody Einfalt, City Manager
____________________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve a resolution (Attachment 1) that:
1. Accept the FY26 Pavement Rehabilitation and Drainage Improvement Project performed by G. Bortolotto & Company, Inc. as complete; and
2. Authorize the release of the final retention payment to G. Bortolotto & Company, Inc.; and
3. Direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion.
BACKGROUND:
The FY26 Pavement Rehabilitation and Drainage Improvement Project is part of the Annual Road Rehabilitation Program adopted in FY26 Operating and Capital Budgets. This annual program is an ongoing capital program that provides for the maintenance and improvement of Town streets to ensure safety and functionality.
On January 15, 2026, the City Council approved the Plans and Specifications for the FY26 Pavement Rehabilitation and Drainage Improvement Project and authorized staff to advertise the project for bids. On February 11, 2026, the Town received three (3) bids ranging from $1,103,935.64 to $1,237,723.10. On March 19, 2026, City Council awarded the contract to G.
Bortolotto & Company, Inc. in the amount of $1,103,935.64 and approved construction contingency of $165,000.00 for potential change orders.
DISCUSSION:
The following street segments and treatments, approximately 2.2 miles (11,486 linear feet) in total, were included in the FY26 Pavement Rehabilitation and Drainage Improvement Project:
ITEM 5H
Staff Report to City Council Page 2
Acceptance of FY26 Pavement Rehabilitation and Drainage Improvement August 20, 2026
Street From To Length
(Feet) Type of Work
Corbetta Lane Altamont Road End 1,193
2" AC Overlay with Crack
Seal, Digouts and AC Dike
Replacement
Corte Madera
Lane
Concepcion
Road End N/A 6" Digouts (localized repairs)
East Sunset
Drive Burke Road End 1,022 2" AC Overlay with Crack Seal and Digouts Elena Road Robleda Road Josefa Lane N/A
6" Digouts (localized repairs)
Striping improvement at
Vinedo Lane
Elena Road Vinedo Lane Becky
Lane 1,405
Microsurfacing with Crack
Seal, Digouts, and Striping
improvement at Vinedo Lane
Fremont Road Arastradero
Road
Saint
Francis
Road
3,551
2" AC Overlay with Crack
Seal, Digouts, AC Dike
Replacement, added Shoulder
Backing, and Area
Reconstruction
Robleda Road Elena Road Chapin
Road 4,315 Microsurfacing with Crack Seal and Digouts
Total 11,486
2.2 Miles
The construction contract with G. Bortolotto & Company, Inc. was executed on March 30, 2026, and a Notice to Proceed with the contracted work was issued on April 23.
On June 17, 2026, the project was determined to be complete, and the contractor provided a oneyear warranty bond. The project was completed within the authorized construction schedule and approved budget. Construction activities were inspected by the Town’s contract inspector and Engineering staff to verify compliance with the approved plans and specifications.
A summary of the project budget and expenditure is provided below:
Approved/Budgeted Actual
Contract Amount $1,103,936 $1,063,038
Inspection Services $60,000 $46,508
Total Project Expenditure $1,163,936 $1,109,546
There were no change orders for the project. The final contract amount was $40,898 less than the originally approved contract amount of $1,103,936 due to the use of a more cost-effective construction method at Fremont Road and Shady Oaks Court. Instead of removing and replacing the entire pavement section, the contractor grinded down the pavement crown then placed a thinner layer of asphalt, resulting in a project cost savings.
Staff Report to City Council Page 3
Acceptance of FY26 Pavement Rehabilitation and Drainage Improvement August 20, 2026
Staff recommend that the City Council accept the FY26 Pavement Rehabilitation and Drainage Improvement Project as complete; authorize the release of the five percent (5%) retention to the contractor 35 days after project acceptance; and direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion of this Capital Improvement Project.
Staff are aware of a potential damage claim against the Town related to this project on Becky Lane.
However, the claim will be handled through a separate process and is independent of the project's acceptance.
FY27 Annual Road Rehabilitation Program
Staff are currently preparing for the FY27 Pavement Rehabilitation and Drainage Improvement Project. The plans and specifications are anticipated to be completed and advertised for bid in early 2027, with construction scheduled to begin in spring 2027 and be completed by summer 2027.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
This project is categorially exempt under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15301(c) Existing Facilities for alterations to existing streets. 2026-27 CITY COUNCIL WORK PLAN:
This action is identified on the 2026-27 City Council Work Plan under Protect and Maintain Infrastructure Priority for the construction of the FY26 Pavement Rehabilitation and Storm Drainage Improvement Project.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The total project expenditure was within the City Council approved budget. The remaining budget from the FY26 Pavement Rehabilitation and Drainage Improvement Project will carry forward to the FY27 project.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution
2. Notice of Completion
RESOLUTION NO. ___-26
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS ACCEPTING THE FY26 PAVEMENT REHABILITATION AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PERFORMED BY G. BORTOLOTTO & COMPANY, INC.
AS COMPLETE; AUTHORIZING THE RELEASE OF THE FINAL RETENTION PAYMENT; AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO FILE A NOTICE OF
COMPLETION
WHEREAS, on January 15, 2026, the City Council approved the Plans and Specifications for the FY26 Pavement Rehabilitation and Drainage Improvement Project; and WHEREAS, on March 19, 2026, the City Council adopted a resolution awarding the contract to G. Bortolotto & Company, Inc. for $1,103,935.64; and
WHEREAS, the construction contract with G. Bortolotto & Company, Inc. was executed on March 30, 2026, and a Notice to Proceed with the contracted work was issued on April 23; and WHEREAS, the project was completed according to the Plans and Specifications on June 17, 2026; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council accept the project as complete and authorize the remittance of the 5% percent retention 35 days following project acceptance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills that:
Section 1. The FY26 Pavement Rehabilitation and Drainage Improvement Project is accepted as complete, and the appropriate officer of the Town is authorized to make final payment.
Section 2. The City Clerk is directed to file with the County Recorder of Santa Clara County, notice of the completion of said project within ten (10) days of the date of this Resolution.
The resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills at a regular meeting held on 20th day of August 2026 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
By:
Rajiv Bhateja, Mayor
ATTEST:
Arika Birdsong-Miller, City Clerk
ITEM 5H Attachment 1
This Document is Recorded
For the Benefit of the
Town of Los Altos Hills
And is Exempt from Fee
Per Government Code
Sections 6103 and 27383
When Recorded, Mail to:
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Attention: City Clerk
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that G. Bortolotto & Company, Inc., on March 30, 2026, did enter into a contract for the FY26 Pavement Rehabilitation and Drainage Improvement Project, in Los Altos Hills, situated in Santa Clara County, with the Town of Los Altos Hills. Said improvements were completed in accordance with the Plans and Specifications adopted by the City Council and upon the terms and conditions set forth and identified by the written contract.
On the 20th day of August 2026, the work provided to be done under the contract was fully completed in accordance with the terms of the contract.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the public board for whom the above-described work was done is the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills, a municipal corporation of the State of California, and that the name and address of the political subdivision for which the abovedescribed work was done is the Town of Los Altos Hills, State of California, Town Hall, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, California 94022.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the name of the contractor by whom the abovedescribed work was done is as follows:
CONTRACTOR: G. Bortolotto & Company, Inc.
WooJae Kim, PE
Public Works Director
Town of Los Altos Hills
DATE:
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDMENT CIVIL CODE § 1189
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)
COUNTY OF ___________ )
On _________________, 2026, before me, _____________________________ , Notary Public, personally appeared ____________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that she executed the same in her authorized capacity, and that by her signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature: _________________________________ (Seal)
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS August 20, 2026
Staff Report to the City Council
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT
DEDICATION FROM THE LANDS OF KRISHNAMURTHY AND
MUTHUKRISHNAN LOCATED AT 26540 PURISSIMA ROAD
FROM: WooJae Kim, PE, Public Works Director
APPROVED: Cody Einfalt, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
Adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) accepting a public right-of-way easement dedication from the Lands of Krishnamurthy and Muthukrishnan, trustees of the Iyer Family Trust at 26540 Purissima Road.
BACKGROUND:
On October 7, 2025, at the Town’s Site Development/Fast Track Public Hearing, a development project on 26540 Purissima Road (Site Development Permit No. SD25-0026) for the demolition of an existing 2,320 square-foot single-family residence and construction of a new 5,952 squarefoot two-story single-family residence was approved at the October 7th Fast Track Meeting.
One of the Conditions of Approval for the project is for the property owner to dedicate a 10-footwide public right-of-way easement to create a 30’ wide half-width public right-of-way to the Town along Purissima Road, prior to submittal for building permit plan check.
Policy 2.6 of the Circulation and Scenic Roadways Element of the General Plan states that new or expanded development impacting a roadway, whether public or private, shall improve roadway surface and width to ensure adequate emergency access and repair any damage caused by construction.
The Town’s standard public road right-of-way width is 60 feet, except for roads serving four or fewer properties that may not be eligible for further subdivision, consistent with the Town’s Rightof-Way Policy adopted by the City Council on February 15, 1989 (Attachment 2) and the Town’s Road System Policy adopted by the Council on May 18, 2017 (Attachment 3).
DISCUSSION:
The subject property is located on Purissima Road between La Paloma Road and Concepcion Road. Purissima Road is a public road, and the street provides less than 30 feet of half-width rightof-way along the frontage of the subject property. Accordingly, the property owners have agreed to grant a 10-foot-wide public right-of-way easement along the frontage of their property, as shown in Exhibit A of the grant document included with the resolution (Attachment 1). The total area of the easement dedication is 1,439 square feet.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
ITEM 5I
Staff Report to City Council Page 2
Dedication of Right of Way Easement at 26540 Purissima Road August 20, 2026
The right-of-way easement dedication qualifies for the commonsense exemption outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), as it can be found with certainty that the activity in question is not a project and, therefore, not subject to the provisions of CEQA. 2026-27 CITY COUNCIL WORK PLAN:
This is not part of the 2026-27 City Council Work Plan, as such easement dedications are part of the standard site development approval process.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact to the Town. The acceptance of these right-of-way easements is not expected to increase funding requirements for maintenance.
CONCLUSION:
The proposed right-of-way easement dedication is consistent with the goals of the Town’s General Plan Circulation and Scenic Roadways Element, the Town’s Right-of-Way Policy, and Town’s Road System Policy. The requirement to dedicate additional right-of-way to achieve a 30-foot half-width (60-foot total right-of-way) along both street frontages is also consistent with prior site development permit approvals.
Accordingly, staff recommend that the Council accept the grant of public right-of-way easement for the property located at 26540 Purissima Road.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution Accepting a Public Right-of-Way Easement with Plats and Legal Descriptions
2. Town’s 1989 Right-of-Way Policy
3. Town’s 2017 Road System Policy
Report prepared by: Astha Khanal, Associate Engineer
RESOLUTION ____-26
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
ACCEPTING A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT DEDICATION FROM THE LANDS OF KRISHNAMURTHY AND MUTHUKRISHNAN LOCATED AT 26540
PURISSIMA ROAD
WHEREAS, Rajiv Krishnamurthy and Subhashini Muthukrishnan, Trustees of the Iyer Family Trust (“Owner”) own the property commonly known as 26540 Purissima Road, Los Altos Hills, California (APN 182-06-047), which is located between La Paloma Road and Concepcion Road; and WHEREAS, Site Development Permit (SD25-0026) for a new residence on the property was approved at the Town’s Site Development/Fast Track Public Hearing on October 7, 2025, with reasonable conditions of approval, including the dedication of public right-of-way easement along Purissima Road to the Town; and
WHEREAS, attached to this Resolution is the “Offer of Right-of-Way Easement Dedication” (Exhibit A) for the site development project for roadway right-of-way purposes and incidents thereto; and
WHEREAS, the Town has adopted a General Plan and, pursuant thereto, may require and accept right-of-way dedications on privately owned lands lying within the Town; and WHEREAS, the Town finds the “Offer of Right-of-Way Easement Dedication” to be consistent with the Town’s General Plan and in the best interests of the Town; WHEREAS, the Owner and the Town recognize that the lands subject to the Offer of Right-of-Way Easement Dedication are adjacent to an existing public right-of-way and are necessary to create a 30- foot half width for the 60-foot right-of-way.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED based on the entirety of the record before it, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills hereby finds that the Project qualifies for the commonsense exemption outlined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), and does hereby accepts on behalf of the public, and for the purposes herein described, the “Offer of Right-of-Way Easement Dedication” attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A.
ITM 5I Attachment 1
The above and foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills at a regular meeting held on the 20th day of August 2026, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BY: _______________________________
Rajiv Bhateja, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Arika Birdsong-Miller, City Clerk
This Document Is Recorded
For the Benefit of the
Town of Los Altos Hills
And is Exempt from Fee
Per Government Code
Sections 6103 and 27383
When Recorded, Mail to:
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Attention: City Clerk
OFFER OF RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT DEDICATION
TO THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
(Lands of Krishnamurthy and Muthukrishnan)
THIS DEDICATION is made this _____ day of _______________, 2026, by Rajiv Krishnamurthy and Subhashini Muthukrishnan, Trustees of the Iyer Family Trust (“Owner”), the owner of the property located at 26540 Purissima Road, Los Altos Hills, California, to and for the benefit of the Town of Los Altos Hills, a municipal corporation (“Town”).
Section 1. Owner does hereby offer to dedicate to Town an easement for street right of way purposes and incidents thereto that portion of the real property situated in the Town of Los Altos Hills, County of Santa Clara, State of California as described and depicted in Exhibit A attached hereto (“Dedication”).
Section 2. The Town hereby accepts this Dedication.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Owner has properly executed, and the Town has hereby accepted, this Dedication as follows:
OWNER:
Date: _____________ _______________________________________ Rajiv Krishnamurthy
Date: _____________ _______________________________________ Subhashini Muthukrishnan
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS:
Date: _____________ ______________________________
Rajiv Bhateja, Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Arika Birdsong-Miller, City Clerk
Exhibit A
Legal Description for Street Dedication
and Plat Accompanying Legal Description
2026.07.27
CSG-PC#3
ZB / DR
RECOMMENDED FOR
APPROVAL Page 321 of 845
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDMENT CIVIL CODE § 1189
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)
COUNTY OF ___________ )
On _________________, 2026, before me, _____________________________ , Notary Public, personally appeared ____________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature: _________________________________ (Seal)
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
ITEM 5I Attachment 2
ITEM 5I Attachment 3
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS August 20, 2026
Staff Report to the City Council
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SEWER CONSTRUCTION AND DEDICATION AGREEMENT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER OF 25386 LA
LOMA DRIVE FOR THE LA LOMA DRIVE SANITARY SEWER FORCE
MAIN SLEEVE EXTENSION
FROM: WooJae Kim, Public Works Director/City Engineer
Daniel Liang, Utility Engineering Manager
APPROVED: Cody Einfalt, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommend that the City Council approve a resolution (Attachment 1) approving the Sewer Construction and Dedication Agreement with the property owner of 25386 La Loma Drive for the La Loma Drive Sanitary Sewer Force Main Sleeve Extension.
BACKGROUND:
Pursuant to Town Municipal Code Section 6-4.446 “Extension of sewer main facilities”, sewer main facilities may be extended by an applicant in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the City Engineer. The Sewer Construction and Dedication Agreement transfer the ownership of the sewer main from the property owners to the Town once the sewer extension is completed.
DISCUSSION:
The property owner/applicant of 25386 La Loma Drive (APN 336-32-035) wishes to connect to the Town’s sanitary sewer system by constructing a new eight-inch sanitary sewer force main sleeve within the public utility easement at 25090 La Loma Drive. The new sewer line will begin at the existing manhole in the northerly portion of 25090 La Loma Drive and end at a new sewer manhole in the southernly portion of the public utility easement at 25090 La Loma Drive, as shown on the site plan included as Attachment 2. The improvements include 267 feet of eight-inch HDPE force main sleeve and one new sewer manhole in the existing public utility easement. The construction plans for the project is included as Exhibit B of the Sewer Construction and Dedication Agreement included as Attachment 3.
Staff have reviewed and approved the sewer application and design plans for the proposed La Loma Drive sanitary sewer force main sleeve extension project. Construction for the project is expected to commence after the City Council adopts the resolution, and once an encroachment permit is issued by the Town.
The Sewer Construction and Dedication Agreement (Attachment 3) has been prepared to ensure that the ownership and maintenance responsibilities of the new sanitary sewer main extension are ITEM 5J
Staff Report to City Council Page 2
La Loma Drive Force Main Sleeve Extension
August 20, 2026
2 properly transferred to the Town. The applicant intends to enter into a sewer reimbursement agreement with the Town upon completion of the project with one future user.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
This action is a Class 3 categorical exemption per Article 19 (Categorical Exemptions) section 15303(d) New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures of the California Environmental Quality ACT (CEQA) guidelines.
2026-2027 CITY COUNCIL WORK PLAN:
This action is not identified on the 2026-27 City Council Work Plan, but it supports the council priorities related to the Sewer Program.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with this recommendation. The sewer main will be installed according to the Town standards at the expense of the property owner. The new sanitary sewer main extension will become the Town’s asset, and the Town will assume maintenance responsibilities for the new sewer main after the project is accepted by the Town.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution Approving Sewer Construction and Dedication Agreement for La Loma Drive Sanitary Sewer Force Main Sleeve Extension
2. Site Plan for La Loma Drive Sanitary Sewer Force Main Sleeve
3. La Loma Drive Sanitary Sewer Force Main Sleeve Construction and Dedication Agreement
RESOLUTION -26
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
APPROVING THE SEWER CONSTRUCTION AND DEDICATION AGREEMENT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER OF 25386 LA LOMA DRIVE FOR THE LA LOMA
DRIVE SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAIN SLEEVE EXTENSION
WHEREAS, pursuant to Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Section 6-4.446, sewer main facilities may be extended by an applicant in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the City Engineer; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Los Altos Hills received an application from the property owner at 25386 La Loma Drive (APN 336-32-035) for construction of the La Loma Drive Sanitary Sewer Force Main Sleeve Extension at the applicant’s sole cost and expense for the benefit of the applicant; and
WHEREAS, the applicant desires to dedicate the La Loma Drive Sanitary Sewer Force Main Sleeve Extension to the Town upon completion of construction; and WHEREAS, Town staff prepared the Sewer Construction and Dedication Agreement for the proposed work to ensure that the ownership and maintenance responsibilities of the newly constructed sewer are transferred to the Town; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has reviewed the application and plans for the project and recommends that the Council approve the Sewer Construction and Dedication Agreement for the proposed sewer improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does hereby approve the Sewer Construction and Dedication Agreement for the La Loma Drive Sanitary Sewer Force Main Sleeve Extension and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement.
The above and foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills at a regular meeting held on the 20th day of August 2026 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
BY: _______________________________
Rajiv Bhateja, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Arika Birdsong-Miller, City Clerk
ITEM 5J Attachment 1
ATTACHMENT 2
ITEM 5J Attachment 2
1 LA LOMA DRIVE SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAIN SLEEVE EXTENSION
SEWER CONSTRUCTION AND DEDICATION AGREEMENT
THIS SEWER CONSTRUCTION AND DEDICATION AGREEMENT (this
“Agreement”) is entered into as of __________, 2026, (“Effective Date”) by and between YE JANE LI (“Applicant”), and the TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS (“Town”), a California municipal corporation (collectively, the “Parties” and individually as “Party”).
R E C I T A L S
A. Applicant is the owner of certain property located at 25386 La Loma Drive (APN 336- 32-035) in the Town of Los Altos Hills, County of Santa Clara, State of California.
B. Applicant proposes to construct the La Loma Drive Sanitary Sewer Main Sleeve Extension to serve Applicant’s property on La Loma Drive. The location of the proposed sanitary sewer force main sleeve extension is located in the Public Utility Easement on 25090 La Loma Drive more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (“La Loma Drive Sanitary Sewer Force Main Sleeve Extension” or “Project”).
C. The plans and specifications for the Project are more particularly described on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (“Plans and Specifications”).
D. Section 6-4.446 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code provides that sewer main facilities may be extended by an applicant in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the City Engineer, at applicant’s cost.
E. Applicant desires to construct the Project at Applicant’s sole cost and expense.
Applicant also intends to install a private 4-inch sanitary sewer force sleeve within a private utility easement on 25010 La Loma Drive and connect to the new 8-inch public sanitary sewer force main sleeve in the Public Utility Easement on 25090 La Loma Drive to provide a path for Applicant’s private force main to discharge in a gravity sanitary sewer manhole.
F. Upon completion of construction, Applicant further desires to dedicate and the Town desires to accept, the Project to the Town, subject to final inspection by the Town.
G. It is the intention of the Parties to set forth the terms and conditions on which Applicant shall construct and dedicate the Project to the Town and reimburse the Town for all related costs.
ITEM 5J Attachment 3
REVISED and DISTRIBUTED 08.17.2026
2 AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
1. Construction. Applicant shall construct the Project at her sole cost and expense, and in accordance with approved Plans and Specifications attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B, and in conformity with all applicable federal, state and local laws, rules, ordinances and regulations, including the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. Applicants shall be required to obtain an encroachment permit from the Town and comply with all applicable terms and conditions of such permit, and shall also be responsible for obtaining any and all other required permits and other governmental approvals necessary for the construction and installation of the Project. If Applicant fails to construct the Project in accordance with this Agreement, such failure shall constitute a breach of the Applicant’s obligations herein and the Town shall be entitled to enforce the Applicant’s bond or security as provided in Section 5 below.
2. Timing of Construction. Applicant shall complete construction of the Project no later than September 30, 2027.
3. Inspection and Acceptance by the Town. Upon completion of construction by Applicant, the Town shall have the right to inspect, measure, survey, and test the Project for compliance with the approved plans and specifications. A deposit of $10,000 payable to the Town is required for inspection services, construction management, and other Town’s expenses for this project.
Any unused amount will be refunded after the project is accepted by the City Engineer.
4. Dedication. Upon final inspection and approval by the Town of the Project, Applicant shall deliver to the Town an irrevocable offer of dedication substantially in the same form set forth on Exhibit C attached hereto (“IOD”) offering the Project to the Town; provided, however, the IOD shall be subject to, and not allow acceptance by the Town until, all of the conditions precedent in Sections 1-3 above are satisfied.
5. Provision of Security. Applicant agrees to guarantee the completion of the Project and, as security for that guarantee, Applicant shall provide the Town with security, in the form of a cashier’s check or bond, no more than one hundred percent (100%) of the estimated cost of constructing the Project as approved by the City Engineer. The Town shall release the security for completion of the sewer extension upon final inspection and approval by the Town. Applicant shall also file with the City a two (2) year warranty bond or equivalent security in a form and in an amount of 10% of the construction cost, and with a surety acceptable to City, to warrant the Project against any defective work or labor done or defective materials furnished following the Project being accepted by the Los Altos Hills City Council.
6. Responsibility of Applicant. Applicant acknowledges and agrees that he shall be responsible for the construction, maintenance, upkeep and any issues relating to the condition of the Project until such time that the sewer line has been dedicated to and accepted by the Town. Upon acceptance of dedication by the Town, the Applicant shall not have responsibility for the Project.
3 7. Indemnity. Applicant agrees to indemnify, defend (with counsel approved by Town) and hold the Town and its respective elected and appointed officers, officials, employees, agents, consultants, and contractors (collectively, the “Indemnitees”) harmless from and against all liability, loss, cost, expense (including without limitation attorneys’ fees and costs of litigation), claim, demand, action, suit, judicial or administrative proceeding, penalty, deficiency, fine, order, and damage (all of the foregoing collectively “Claims”) which directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, are caused by, arise in connection with, result from, relate to, or are alleged to be caused by, arise in connection with, or relate to, Applicant’s performance of their obligations under this Agreement prior to the Town approving and accepting dedication of the Project. Applicant’s indemnification obligations set forth in this Section shall not apply to the extent of Claims arising from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitees.
8. Waiver of Claims for Potential Subsequent Users and Reimbursements. Applicant hereby on behalf of himself and his respective successors and assigns, knowingly and voluntarily releases and forever discharges, to the full extent permitted by law, the Town, of and from, any and all claims, actions, causes of action, demands, rights, damages, costs, expenses, including attorney’s fees, and compensation whatsoever, relating to any potential subsequent sewer users of the Project, including any claims to collect any future sewer future user fees and reimbursements. Applicant further agrees not to sue, file a claim, or institute any other proceedings against the Town for any and all liability, claims, loss, damages, expenses and costs related to any claim that may be filed for the collection of subsequent sewer user reimbursements or fees.
9. Cost Reimbursement. Applicant assumes full responsibility for all costs incurred by the Town in relation to the administration of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, charges for outside consultants such as the Town's consulting engineer and the City Attorney, among others. A Cost Reimbursement Agreement will be considered before acceptance of the Project.
10. Defaults. In the event a Party believes another Party has breached any provision of this Agreement, the non-defaulting Party shall give written notice to the defaulting Party specifying the grounds of the alleged breach. The defaulting Party shall have thirty (30) days to cure the alleged breach or begin cure if the breach cannot be cured within thirty (30) days and shall diligently continue to cure until complete. In the event a breach is not cured within the time provided or fails to diligently continue to cure, the defaulting party shall be deemed in default.
11. Amendment. This Agreement or any portion hereof may be amended or modified, except where otherwise provided in this Agreement, only by mutual consent of the Parties in writing.
12. Termination. This Agreement shall automatically terminate upon the Town accepting the dedication of the Project. After termination, the Parties shall execute such additional documents as are reasonably required by a title company to remove this Agreement as an encumbrance.
13. Successors and Assigns. The covenants, obligations and agreements contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns, successors-in-interest, as the case may be.
14. Notices. All written notices required to be given pursuant to the terms hereof shall be sent by (a) personal delivery, (b) a nationally recognized overnight courier service, or (c) United States first class mail, registered or certified return receipt requested and postage prepaid as expressly provided
4 herein.
All notices shall be addressed as follows:
To Town: Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Attn: City Manager
To Applicants: Ye Jane Li
25386 La Loma Drive,
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
The foregoing addresses may be changed by written notice. All notices shall be deemed received upon receipt or the date indicated on any return receipt or other receipt of delivery.
15. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire understanding of the parties and supersedes any and all other written or oral understandings.
16. No Beneficiaries. No third party, individual, organizations, persons or entity besides the Parties to this Agreement has any rights or remedies under this Agreement.
17. Incorporation. The recitals set forth above and exhibits attached hereto and referred to herein are incorporated into this Agreement.
18. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be enforced and interpreted under California’s laws and judicial decisions without giving effect to its conflicts of law provisions.
19. Headings. Section headings are for reference purposes only and do not affect this Agreement.
20. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which, taken together, shall constitute one and the same instrument.
This Agreement may be delivered to all Parties by facsimile or other form of electronic transmission.
21. Severability. If any part of this Agreement is invalid or unenforceable, then the remainder of this Agreement shall remain valid and enforceable and in force and effect.
22. No Waiver. A waiver by any Party of a default by another Party is only effective against a Party that waives such default in writing and shall not be construed as a waiver of any other default.
23. Knowing and Voluntary Execution. Both parties to this Agreement have had the opportunity to be advised by and to have this Agreement reviewed by legal counsel of their choosing.
5 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written by their duly authorized representatives.
APPLICANT
By:
Ye Jane Li
25386 La Loma Drive,
Los Altos Hills
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
By:
Cody Einfalt
City Manager
ATTEST:
Arika Birdsong-Miller
City Clerk
EXHIBIT “A”
-1-
EXHIBIT A
La Loma Drive Sanitary Sewer Force Main Sleeve Extension Sanitary Sewer Main Extension Location
[see attached]
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT “B”
-1-
EXHIBIT B
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
[see attached]
H:\6768 Jane Li\6768-001 Jane Li SS Design\Engineering\Construction Drawings\C1 TITLE SHEET.dwg 6-27-26 01:57:12 PM RobertMoorhead LOS ALTOS HILLS SANTA CLARA COUNTY CALIFORNIA 3130 La Selva Street, Suite 100 San Mateo, CA 94403 650.349.2151 whbengineers.com CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF CALIFORNIA Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig. R SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAIN SLEEVE IN LA LOME DRIVE EASEMENT 25386 LA LOMA DRIVE SHEET DESCRIPTION JUNE 11, 2026
C1 TITLE SHEETC2 GENERAL CIVIL NOTESC3 PLAN & PROFILEC4 PLAN & PROFILEC5 DETAIL 25386 LA LOMA DRIVE
VERTICAL BASIS:
HORIZONTAL DATUM:
THE WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE CODE
REQUIREMENTS, AND APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF ALL OTHER REGULATORY AGENCIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING:
CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE (TITLE 24)CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE 2025 CBCCALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE 2025 CECCALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE 2025 CMCCALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE 2025 CPCCALIFORNIA FIRE CODE 2025 CFCCALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE 2025 CECCABO/ANSI 117.1-98
ACCESSIBLE AND USABLE BUILDINGS AND FACILITIESAMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP ACCURATE RECORD DRAWINGS, WHICH SHOW THE FINAL LOCATION, ELEVATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF ALL WORK. CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO NOTE THE LOCATION ANDELEVATION OF ANY EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS ENCOUNTERED. RECORDS SHALL BE "REDLINED" ON A SET OF CONSTRUCTION PLAN DRAWINGS AND GIVEN TO THE OWNER UPON COMPLETION OF WORK.THE ENGINEER PREPARING THESE PLANS WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, OR LIABLE FOR, UNAUTHORIZED CHANGES TO OR USES OF THESE PLANS. ALL CHANGES TO THESE PLANS MUST BE IN WRITING AND MUST BE APPROVED BY WILSEY HAM.
ALL REVISIONS TO THESE PLANS MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE OWNER, WILSEY HAM AND THE CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF AFFECTED ITEMS. IN ADDITION, REVISIONS
AFFECTING THE WATER SYSTEM ALSO REQUIRE WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE AFFECTED ITEMS.
AS TO THE ACCURACY BETWEEN THE WORK SET FORTH ON THESE PLANS AND THE WORK IN THE FIELD,ANY DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF WILSEY HAM PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PARTICULAR ITEM OF WORK.
CALGREEN 2025
DATUM & BENCHMARK
RECORD DRAWINGSUNAUTHORIZED CHANGESREVISIONS
ACCURACY
APPLICABLE CODES
LOCATION MAP
NOT TO SCALE
VICINITY MAPNOT TO SCALE
BENCHMARK:
C6 DETAIL
LOS
ALTOS
HILLS
TITLE SHEET
C1
BC
CLCMP
DCDWY
ECEPFCFHFLFP
G
HPIP
MHMON
RCP
SSSSCOSSMH
TBCTELTGTOETOP
VIF
WV
APPROXIMATE PROPERTY LINE
WATER LINE (PER RECORD DWGS.)WALLEASEMENT LINE
BEGIN CURVE
CENTERLINECORRUGATED METAL PIPE
DEPRESSED CURBDRIVEWAYEND OF CURVEEDGE OF PAVEMENTFACE OF CURBFIRE HYDRANTFLOWLINEFINISHED PAVEMENT GROUND
HIGH POINT
IRON PIPE
MANHOLEMONUMENTREINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE
SANITARY SEWERSANITARY SEWER CLEANOUTSANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
TOP BACK OF CURBTELEPHONETOP OF GRATETOE OF EMBANKMENTTOP OF EMBANKMENT
VERIFY IN FIELDWATER VALVE
CONTROL LINEBUILDINGCURBSANITARY SEWER PIPE
PROPOSED EXISTING
1+00 CONTROL LINE 'X'
GAS LINE (PER RECORD DWGS.)
S SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE/ JUNCTION BOX
OVERHEAD UTILITY
WATER VALVESANITARY SEWER CLEANOUTTREE
EXISTING CONTOUR
ABBREVIATIONS LEGEND
BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE BEARING N 62-56'41” W BETWEEN TWO FOUND MONUMENTS ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOT 5, AS SHOWN ON TRACT 2003 FILED IN RECORD BOOK 81 OF MAPS AT PAGE 47, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS, WAS TAKEN AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY.
HORIZONTAL COORDINATES ASSUMED
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS ELEVATION DATUMTOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS BENCHMARK #27
SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAIN SLEEVE
IN LA LOMA DRIVE EASEMENT
H:\6768 Jane Li\6768-001 Jane Li SS Design\Engineering\Construction Drawings\C2 NOTES SHEET.dwg 6-27-26 02:08:22 PM RobertMoorhead LOS ALTOS HILLS SANTA CLARA COUNTY CALIFORNIA 3130 La Selva Street, Suite 100 San Mateo, CA 94403 650.349.2151 whbengineers.com CALL UTILITY NOTIFICATION CENTER OF CALIFORNIA Know what'sbelow. Callbefore you dig. R SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAIN SLEEVE IN LA LOME DRIVE EASEMENT 25386 LA LOMA DRIVE GENERAL CIVIL NOTES C2
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
1. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING:
A. APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, LATEST EDITION, HEREIN REFERRED TO AS 'CALTRANS'.
B. TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND DETAILS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION, WHERE APPLICABLE.
C. THESE PLANS AND DETAILS.
D. STANDARDS OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF STANDARDS AND RULES OF THE STATE OF THE STATE DIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL SAFETY.
2. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO SECURE ALL PERMITS NECESSARY TO PERFORM WORK, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WORK IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, GRADING, TREE REMOVAL, AND UTILITY MODIFICATIONS.
3. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUPPLY ALL EQUIPMENT, LABOR AND MATERIALS NECESSARY TO PERFORM THE WORK SHOWN ON THE PLANS.
4. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE VARIOUS CONTRACTORS TO COORDINATE THEIR WORK SO AS TO ELIMINATE CONFLICTS AND WORK TOWARD THE GENERAL GOOD AND COMPLETION OF THE ENTIRE PROJECT.
5. ALL WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FURNISHED BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE THE KIND AND QUALITY DESCRIBED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS AND SHALL BE FIRST CLASS THROUGHOUT. NEITHER FINAL ACCEPTANCE NOR FINAL PAYMENT BY OWNER SHALL RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR FAULTY MATERIALS OR WORKMANSHIP.
6. IN THE EVENT OF ANY CONFLICT OF INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE PLANS OR ANY CONFLICT BETWEEN THESE PLANS AND THE INTENT OF A CONSISTENT AND FUNCTIONAL PRODUCT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SO NOTIFY THE OWNER/ENGINEER IN WRITING, UPON WHICH NOTICE THE OWNER/ENGINEER SHALL RESOLVE THE CONFLICTS BY THE ISSUANCE OF A WRITTEN ORDER, REVISED PLANS OR BOTH. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BEAR FULL COST AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR WORK AFFECTED BY SUCH CONFLICTS AND PERFORMED BY THE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO SUCH NOTICE TO THE OWNER AND ISSUANCE OF SUCH ORDER AND/OR REVISED PLANS.
7. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ADEQUATE DUST CONTROL AT ALL TIMES AS REQUIRED BY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. NO VISIBLE AIRBORNE PARTICLES WILL BE ALLOWED AT ANY TIME DURING CONSTRUCTION.
8. CONTRACTOR SHALL EXERCISE ALL NECESSARY CAUTION TO AVOID DAMAGE TO ANY EXISTING TREES, OR SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS OR TO ANY EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURE, WATER STRUCTURE, SEWER CLEANOUTS, MANHOLES, OR JUNCTION BOXES FOR UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC, GAS, TELEPHONE, CABLE TV, STORM, SANITARY, WATER, OR OTHER UTILITIES WHICH ARE TO REMAIN IN PLACE AND SHALL BEAR FULL COST AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGE THERETO.
9. ALL KNOWN EXISTING UTILITY LINES ARE SHOWN FOR INFORMATION ONLY. CONTRACTOR SHALL EXERCISE ALL NECESSARY CAUTION TO AVOID DAMAGE TO ANY EXISTING UTILITY LINES OR FACILITIES TO REMAIN IN PLACE, WHETHER FOR UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC, GAS, TELEPHONE, CABLE TV, STORM, SANITARY, WATER, OR OTHER UTILITIES WHICH ARE TO REMAIN IN PLACE AND SHALL BEAR FULL COST AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGE THERETO. 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT BOTH UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT (USA) (800-227-2600) AND THE AFFECTED UTILITY COMPANIES PRIOR TO STARTING WORK TO REQUEST AND OBTAIN THE MARKING OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. 11. AT CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE, ENGINEER FOR OWNER SHALL FURNISH ADEQUATE SURVEY CONTROL ONCE ONLY FOR SANITARY SEWER. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL GRADE STAKES IN ADDITION TO ANY FURNISHED BY ENGINEER AS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT TO THE LINES AND GRADES SHOWN ON THE PLANS. 12. INSPECTION OF WORK: THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WILL INSPECT ALL WORK WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EASEMENTS. THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT WILL INSPECT ALL WORK INVOLVING SANITARY SEWER CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS AND CITY OF LOS ALTOS PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO START OF WORK. 13. ENGINEER SHALL BEAR NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR METHODS AND PROCEDURES OF WORK ESTABLISHED BY CONTRACTOR, JOB SITE CONDITIONS, JOB SAFETY OR CONFORMANCE WITH SAFETY PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS. 14. IN CONFORMANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE JOB SITE CONDITIONS DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY. THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND SHALL NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS BOTH THE OWNER AND ENGINEER FROM ANY AND ALL LIABILITY REAL OR ALLEGED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK ON THIS PROJECT, EXCEPTING LIABILITY ARISING FROM SOLE NEGLIGENCE OF THE OWNER OR ENGINEER. 15. CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT TEMPORARY DETOUR PLANS TO BE APPROVED BY ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. PLANS SHALL OUTLINE DETOURS OF LOCAL TRAFFIC AND DESIGNATE PROPER SIGNAGE. DETOURS SHALL BE IN EFFECT DURING CONSTRUCTION HOURS AND REMOVED AT THE END OF EACH WORKDAY. 16. CONSTRUCTION HOURS SHALL BE LIMITED TO MONDAY THOUGH FRIDAY, 8:00 A.M. TO 4:00 P.M. WORK WILL NOT BE PERMITTED ON WEEKENDS, AFTER HOURS OR HOLIDAYS. ANY EXCEPTIONS MUST BE REQUESTED BY CONTRACTOR IN WRITING AND APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE ENGINEER. 17. A DETAILED TRAFFIC-HANDLING PLAN SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION. 18. A CONSTRUCTION STAGING AND EQUIPMENT STORAGE AREA SHALL BE DESIGNATED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. ALL PARKING OF CONTRACTOR'S AND WORKERS' VEHICLES SHALL BE OFF THE ROADWAY AND CONFORM TO APPLICABLE LAWS. AT THE REQUEST OF PROPERTY OWNERS, ANY VEHICLES SHALL BE PROMPTLY MOVED. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ADEQUATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL MEASURES PER THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. 19. THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LENGTH OF ANY OPEN TRENCH SHALL BE 300 LINEAL FEET. ONLY ONE AREA OF THE CONSTRUCTION IS TO HAVE AN OPEN TRENCH AT ANY GIVEN TIME. STEEL PLATES TO BE INSTALLED OVER ANY OPEN TRENCH SECTIONS AT THE END OF THE WORKDAY (IN PLACE NO LATER THAN 4:00 P.M.). PLATES TO BE PINNED AND TEMPORARY ASPHALT CUTBACK TO BE PLACED A MINIMUM OF 4 INCHES BEYOND ANY EXPOSED PLATE EDGES. ALL TRENCH SAFETY MEASURES SHALL BE INCIDENTAL TO PIPE COSTS AND INCORPORATED INTO THE CONTRACTOR'S BID.
20. LATERAL SEWER LOCATIONS SHOWN ON PLANS ARE APPROXIMATE AND FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. EXACT LOCATIONS TO BE DETERMINED IN THE FIELD AND SHALL BE APPROVED IN WRITING BY BOTH THE ENGINEER AND EACH PROPERTY OWNER PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF THE WORK.
1. ALL WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TOWN STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TOWN ENGINEER.
2. THE TOWN ENGINEER IS AUTHORIZED TO REQUIRE MODIFICATIONS DURING CONSTRUCTION.
3. THE TOWN ENGINEER'S OFFICE SHALL BE NOTIFIED TWO WORKING DAYS PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. LOS ALTOS HILLS (650) 941-7222.
4. THE MANHOLE FRAMES AND COVERS, EXISTING AND PROPOSED MONUMENTS, SHALL BE BROUGHT TO FINISH GRADE AFTER FINISH PAVING.
5. ALL SANITARY SEWER LATERALS SHALL BE 4” PVC-SDR26 OR APPROVED EQUAL ONE PER LOT AND MARKED WITH THE LETTER 'S' ON A POST PER TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS STANDARDS.
6. SEWER LATERALS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 4' BELOW TOP OF CURB AT PROPERTY LINE UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY TOWN ENGINEER.
7. SEWER TRENCHES WITHIN RIGHT-OF-WAY AND/OR EASEMENTS, THE PAVEMENT SHALL CONFORM TO TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS STANDARD DETAIL NO. 22 AND 23.
8. SEWER CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCATE ALL SEWER LATERALS WYES IN THE MAIN TRUNK WITH REFERENCE TO MANHOLES AND SHALL FURNISH THE TOWN ENGINEER WITH AN AS-BUILT PLAN OF THE LOCATIONS PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS.
9. PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF EXCAVATION WORK, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT ALL UTILITY COMPANIES BY CALLING UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT (USA) AT 1-800-227-2600 AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION.
10. NO INSTALLATION OF BASE ROCK OR ASPHALT SURFACING SHALL BEGIN UNTIL ALL UTILITY CONSTRUCTION AND UTILITY REVISIONS ARE COMPLETE.
11. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PLACE TEMPORARY FORM FITTING PIECES OF PLYWOOD OR OTHER SUITABLE MATERIAL OVER THE BOTTOMS OF THE MANHOLES TO PREVENT ENTRY OF FOREIGN MATERIAL FROM THE MANHOLE TO THE PIPE.
12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE ELEVATIONS OF ALL EXISTING STORM DRAINS AND SEWERS TO BE EXTENDED OR CONNECTED PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK.
13. TWO OPEN TRAFFIC LANES ARE REQUIRED DURING ALL NON-WORKING HOURS. ONE TRAVEL LANE MAY BE CLOSED DURING WORK HOURS WHEN FLAG MEN ARE PRESENT. PROVIDE TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE CITY ENGINEER.
14. SANITARY SEWER MAINS SHALL BE FLUSHED, MANDRELED, AIR TESTED AND VIDEO TAPED PER THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS STANDARDS.
15. SEWER CONNECTION PERMITS SHALL BE ISSUED BY THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS FOR ALL PROPOSED NEW CONNECTIONS.
16. THE SEWER MAIN SHALL BE VIDEO TAPED AND APPROVED BY THE TOWN ENGINEER PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF THE SEWER MAIN.
17. AS-BUILT MYLARS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS PRIOR TO FINAL APPROVAL.18. SEWER MAINS SHALL BE PVC-SDR26 OR APPROVED EQUAL.19. IN AREAS WHERE THE EXISTING ROAD PAVEMENT IS TRENCHED FOR INSTALLATION OF THE SEWER, CONTRACTOR SHALL RESTORE THE PAVEMENT PER TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS STANDARDS. IF THE TRENCH IS MORE THAN 300 FEET LONG, THE STREET SHALL BE SLURRY SEALED.
20. 'TRACER WIRE' SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONG THE TOP OF THE PIPE FOR ALL SECTIONS OF THE SEWER LINE.
THE WIRE SHALL BE SOLID COPPER AWG #10 WITH AN INSULATED JACKET. DETECTOR TAPE SHALL ALSO BE INSTALLED WITHIN TOP 12” OF PAVEMENT.
21. ALL SANITARY SEWERS AND APPURTENANCES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL CURRENT TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
22. CONTRACTOR TO OBTAIN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR ALL WORK IN THE TOWN RIGHT-OF-WAY. A PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING IS REQUIRED WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
23. ALL SANITARY SEWER PIPE LENGTHS ARE FROM CENTER OF MANHOLE TO CENTER OF MANHOLE.
ESTIMATED QUANTITIES OF PIPE LENGTHS ARE FROM INSIDE FACE OF MANHOLE TO INSIDE FACE OF MANHOLE.
GENERAL NOTES: CONSTRUCTION NOTES: