Agenda packet, regular meeting, second session — Los Altos Hills City Council, September 17, 2026 (part 3 of 3)

Policy Discussion Draft - September 17, 2026
Policy index: T1.6; T2.5 | Themes 1 and 2 - Penalty Management and Remedies Policy change: Retain penalty exposure after the base construction period but separate the penalty framework from a rigid codified daily collection rule.

Reason for change: A flexible framework can preserve the construction deadline while allowing project progress, compliance, neighborhood impacts, and escalation conditions to affect assessment, timing, and resolution.

POLICY QUESTION
Question: Should penalties be time-based, conduct-based, or hybrid, and how should penalties be calculated, adjusted, and collected? What staff adjustment authority is appropriate? Example policy options: Council could retain a codified daily schedule; use penalties primarily for defined noncompliance; or use a hybrid in which elapsed time creates potential exposure while project conduct affects assessment and collection. Adjustment authority could remain at $5,000 or be set at another objective threshold by resolution.

Staff recommendation: Use a hybrid framework. Exceeding the base construction time creates potential penalty liability, while a City Council resolution establishes amounts, accrual, grace periods, maximums, assessment timing, and collection procedures. Allow deferral while an approved extension is in effect and the project remains active and compliant; consider project conduct and circumstances in penalty resolution; and retain Planning Director adjustment authority up to $5,000, or another amount set by resolution, with Council approval above that amount.
§ 8-10.0807. Penalty for failure to comply with construction time limits.

If an applicant/owner fails to complete construction by the applicable time limits set forth in this chapter, including any extensions granted under Section 8-10.05, the property owner shall be subject to the following penalties payable to the Town which shall accrue daily up to the maximum established by this section:

If an applicant/owner exceeds the applicable base construction time limit, the property owner may be subject to a monetary penalty. Penalty amounts, accrual rules, grace periods, maximums, assessment timing, and collection procedures shall be established by City Council resolution.

An approved construction time extension does not eliminate potential penalty liability associated with exceeding the applicable base construction time limit. The Town may defer assessment or collection of a penalty while an approved construction time extension is in effect and the project remains active, is making reasonable progress, and is in substantial compliance with applicable permits, approvals, and extension conditions.

Documented and unresolved escalation conditions, failure to comply with construction time extension conditions, or other material noncompliance may be considered in determining the timing and amount of a penalty or other enforcement remedy.

In determining whether a penalty should be imposed, reduced, deferred, or waived, the Town may consider project progress, good-faith efforts to complete the work, circumstances beyond the property owner's reasonable control, nuisance or neighborhood impacts, unresolved violations, compliance with construction time extension conditions, and the public interest.

A penalty may be assessed or collected during construction, in connection with a construction time extension, or as part of project closeout, as appropriate to the circumstances and consistent with the resolution adopted by the City Council.

Page 320 of 365 ends

Policy Discussion Draft - September 17, 2026
The Planning Director may reduce, waive, defer, or otherwise resolve a penalty in accordance with the criteria in this section up to $5,000, or such other amount established by City Council resolution. Any adjustment exceeding that authority shall require City Council approval.

Time from Permit Expiration Penalty
0 to 30 days $0.00
31st day through the 60th day $400.00 per day
61st day through the 120th day $600.00 per day
121st day and every day thereafter $1,000.00 per day up to a maximum penalty of $250,000.00
Note: Penalties, fees and costs due to the Town pursuant to this chapter are due each day as the penalties accrue.

If a permit expires and there are documented violations not corrected the penalty will be doubled.

For purposes of this section, if a renewed permit expires and the property owner has not advanced a project to the next level of required inspection, the calculation of penalties shall relate back to the date of the previous permit expiration.

The Planning Director may reduce or waive a penalty accrued under this chapter upon finding that the property owner acted in good faith and either: (1) the delay was attributable to circumstances beyond the property owner's control; or (2) imposition of the full accrued penalty would harm the public interest, provided, however, that any reduction or waiver of more than $5,000 must be approved by the City Council.

Policy index: T2.6 | Theme 2 - Appeals and Due Process
Policy change: Shorten the appeal path for Chapter 10 administrative decisions.

Reason for change: A direct administrative appeal path is more consistent with the two-track framework and avoids an additional hearing body for routine construction-time decisions.

POLICY QUESTION
Question: Should the Planning Commission remain in the appeal chain, or should appeals proceed from the Building Official to the Planning Director and then directly to the City Council? Example policy options: Council could retain the existing multi-step path, shorten the path for all Chapter 10 decisions, or distinguish routine administrative appeals from nuisance or enforcement matters.

Staff recommendation: Use the Building Official to Planning Director to City Council appeal path. A Building Official decision would be appealed to the Planning Director within 10 days; the Planning Director would issue a written determination within 30 days; and a further appeal would go directly to the City Council. § 8-10.0708. Appeals.

Any party aggrieved by the determination of the Building Official regarding the applicable time limit or by the denial of an additional six month extension, may appeal the Building Official's determination in writing to the Planning Director within 10 days of the Building Official's decision. Upon making a determination on the appeal, the Planning Director shall notify the appellant in writing within 14 days of the filing of the appeal. If the appellant feels aggrieved by the determination of the Planning Director, then the appellant may appeal the decision to the Planning Commission. If the appellant feels aggrieved by the determination of the Planning Commission, then the appellant may appeal the decision to the City Council. The appellant shall pay a hearing appeal fee at the time of filing an appeal in an amount as shall be established from time to time by resolution of the City Council. The Planning Director shall notify the appellant in writing of the date of the hearing on the appeal, and such notice shall be sent at least 10 days before the date of the hearing, which shall be held no later than 30 days after the filing of the appeal.

Page 321 of 365 ends

Policy Discussion Draft - September 17, 2026
Any party aggrieved by a determination of the Building Official under this chapter, including the applicable construction time limit or the denial or conditioning of a construction time extension, may appeal the determination in writing to the Planning Director within 10 days of the Building Official's decision.

The Planning Director shall issue a written determination within 30 days after the filing of the appeal.

A party aggrieved by the Planning Director's determination may appeal the decision to the City Council in accordance with procedures and fees established by City Council resolution. The decision of the City Council shall be final.

Policy index: T2.1, T2.3, T2.4, T2.5 | Theme 2 - Nuisance / Problem Project Escalation Policy change: Define the conditions and remedies that move a project from routine administration into escalation and, when appropriate, City Council review.

Reason for change: Council involvement should be tied to a defined problem or a remedy requiring Council authority rather than to the mere request for more construction time.

POLICY QUESTION
Question: Which escalation conditions should require City Council referral, which should leave referral discretionary, and what Council-level remedies should be available? Example policy options: Mandatory referral could be limited to unresolved nuisance or violation conditions, prolonged inactivity after a completion schedule, repeated failure to comply with extension or enforcement conditions, or other circumstances requiring Council authority. Other escalated cases could remain discretionary.

Staff recommendation: Require referral when an unresolved escalation condition remains after notice and an opportunity to correct and staff determines a Council-level remedy is appropriate, or when resolution requires Council action. Allow discretionary referral when Council consideration would materially assist compliance or resolution of neighborhood impacts. Preserve Council authority to impose lawful completion, construction, penalty, nuisance-abatement, or related remedies.
§ 8-10.09. Public nuisance declared; escalation and referral.

Any violation of this chapter shall constitute a public nuisance and, in addition to being subject to any other remedies allowed by law, may be abated as provided for in Title 6, Chapter 5 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code.

A project subject to an escalation condition identified in Section 8-10.05 may be subject to corrective or enforcement action in addition to any construction time extension decision.

The Building Official or Planning Director shall refer a project to the City Council when: (a) an escalation condition remains unresolved after reasonable notice and an opportunity to correct and staff determines that a remedy requiring City Council authority is appropriate; or (b) resolution of the matter requires City Council action under this chapter.

The Building Official or Planning Director may refer another escalated project to the City Council when Council consideration would materially assist in achieving compliance or resolving neighborhood impacts.

The City Council may impose or approve any lawful remedy within its authority, including an enforceable completion schedule, conditions on continued construction, resolution of penalties exceeding staff authority, nuisance-abatement direction, or other appropriate action.

Nothing in this section limits the Town's authority to pursue administrative, civil, criminal, nuisance-abatement, stop-work, or other remedies otherwise available by law.

Page 322 of 365 ends

Policy Discussion Draft - September 17, 2026

UNCODIFIED TRANSITION / IMPLEMENTATION PROVISION
Policy index: T1.8 | Theme 1 - Routine Project Administration Policy change: Adopt a transition rule for projects already issued, already extended, or already beyond the current construction time limit.

Reason for change: Existing projects need a clear rule so the ordinance change does not reset prior elapsed time or leave extension, penalty, appeal, and closeout procedures uncertain.

POLICY QUESTION
Question: How should existing projects transition to the new framework? Example policy options: Council could apply all new rules immediately; preserve existing extension rights for a defined period; or keep each project's existing clock while applying the new extension, escalation, appeal, penalty-administration, and closeout procedures going forward.

Staff recommendation: Use a hybrid transition. Preserve the construction time limit, elapsed time, and previously approved extensions applicable immediately before the effective date. Apply the new extension, escalation, appeal, penalty-administration, and closeout procedures beginning on the effective date. Keep any existing deposit in place and require a new deposit, if none exists, as a condition of the first construction time extension approved after the effective date.

Building permits issued before the effective date of this ordinance shall retain the construction time limit applicable to the project immediately before the effective date, including elapsed time and any previously approved extensions.

Beginning on the effective date of this ordinance, requests for construction time extensions, escalation determinations, appeals, penalty administration, and project closeout shall be administered pursuant to the procedures established by this ordinance.

An existing construction completion deposit shall remain in effect. For an existing project for which no construction completion deposit has been provided, the deposit required by Section 8-10.06 shall be provided as a condition of the first construction time extension approved after the effective date of this ordinance.

ITEMS TO FINALIZE AFTER CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION
• Revise the staff-recommended operative language where the City Council selects a different policy approach. • Finalize the evidentiary and notice procedures for substantiated nuisance, inactivity, and other escalation conditions.
• Prepare any companion City Council resolution establishing deposit parameters, penalty amounts, accrual rules, and delegated adjustment authority.
• Confirm final legal language, section numbering, appeal procedures, referral authority, and transition provisions with the City Attorney.

Page 323 of 365 ends

1 Keren Brunner
From: Arika Miller
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2026 11:32 AM
To: Keren Brunner
Subject: FW: ITEM 8A – Discussion and Direction on Revisions to the Construction Time Limits Ordinance
Can you look into this?
From: allan epstein
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2026 11:30 AM
To: Arika Miller <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: ITEM 8A – Discussion and Direction on Revisions to the Construction Time Limits Ordinance Hi Arika,
I do not see this email as an attachment to the September 17, 2026 meeting. Was it attached and distributed to the Council?
Please advise.

Thank you,
Best,
Allan
From: allan epstein
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2026 3:52 PM
To: 'Arika Miller' <[email protected]>
Cc: Cody Einfalt <[email protected]>; 'Rajiv Bhateja' <[email protected]>; 'Jay Bradford' <[email protected]>
Subject: ITEM 8A – Discussion and Direction on Revisions to the Construction Time Limits Ordinance Hi Arika,
Please attach this to today’s agenda.

Thank you.

Best,
Allan
RE: ITEM 8A – Discussion and Direction on Revisions to the Construction Time Limits Ordinance Mayor and Councilmembers,
Supplemental

Page 324 of 365 ends

2 I want to comment on the proposed update to Chapter 10 and the two-track policy framework presented in the staff report. My focus is on the original purpose of the construction-time ordinance and the operational issues that continue to prevent it from functioning as intended.

Background
The construction time-limit policy was adopted because some projects in Town went on for years, creating prolonged noise, traffic, and visual blight for nearby neighbors. Others were abandoned mid-stream, leaving unsightly and unsafe conditions. The ordinance was designed to motivate timely completion and prevent these impacts. The original structure — a base period plus two six-month administrative extensions — gave new homes four years to finish, which is more than sufficient for a predictable construction process. The intent was never to create an open-ended extension system; it was to ensure projects finish and neighborhoods are not burdened indefinitely. As one example, the house five doors up the street from me took seven years to build and was never charged a penalty. This illustrates the gap between the ordinance’s intent and the Town’s enforcement practices.

Problem: Town’s Lack of Monitoring and Enforcement
The fundamental problem has never been the time limits themselves. It has been the Town’s lack of monitoring and enforcement. For years, the Town has not tracked construction progress, issued warnings when work stalls, investigated when Trak-It shows a project has expired, or stopped construction occurring under expired permits. More than 100 expired permits remain open in the system without investigation or closure. As a result, the accountability mechanism built into Chapter 10 has not been functioning. The Town has repeatedly brought expired projects to Council for extensions, and each time I have reminded Council that the underlying issue is operational, not legislative.

Construction Process
Construction is a sequential and highly predictable process. When inspections are not occurring at intervals consistent with normal progress, it is clear long before a deadline that a project will not finish on time. The Town should be monitoring inspection activity and intervening early, not waiting until the permit expires and then asking Council to grant relief. This monitoring can easily be automated.

New Proposal Does Not Address Core Issue
The proposed two-track framework is a step forward, and I support the distinction between routine projects and nuisance/problem projects. However, the draft ordinance still does not address the core operational deficiency: the Town must actively monitor progress, issue timely warnings, investigate stalled or abandoned projects, suspend work when permits expire, and close out the existing backlog of expired permits. Without these requirements, the ordinance will continue to rely on Council extensions rather than staff-level enforcement — exactly the problem the original policy was designed to avoid.

Purpose of Penalties
Penalties were created as incentives to encourage timely completion, not as revenue tools. If the Town monitors progress and intervenes early, penalties should rarely be needed. Extending the construction period or weakening the time framework undermines the incentive structure and shifts the burden back

Page 325 of 365 ends

3 onto neighbors. Four years is already a generous period for a new home, and the solution is not to lengthen the time limits. The solution is to enforce the limits we already have. The Town should not charge a penalty before it is earned.

Recommendation
I urge the Council to incorporate mandatory operational enforcement into the ordinance update:
required progress monitoring, required warnings, required investigation of expired permits, required cessation of work under expired permits, and required closure of the existing backlog. Without these elements, the ordinance will remain a time-limit policy in name only.

Thank you for considering these comments and for your continued work on improving the Town’s construction-management framework.

Respectfully,
Allan

Page 326 of 365 ends

ITEM 8B

TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS

MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 17, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council
FROM: Arika Birdsong-Miller, City Clerk ABM
RE: Discussion and Possible Direction Regarding the Los Altos–Los Altos Hills Joint Volunteer Awards Committee (JVAC)
Purpose
This memorandum provides a summary of staff coordination between the Town of Los Altos Hills and the City of Los Altos regarding changes to the governance structure of the Los Altos– Los Altos Hills Joint Volunteer Awards Committee (JVAC).

Initial Coordination
In April 2026, Town and City staff began discussions regarding proposed changes to JVAC.

Major points of the discussion included:
• Transitioning JVAC from a Brown Act body to an independent organization • The group’s governance structure
• Financial support for the annual volunteer recognition event • Membership and process for the public to join the advisory group Both the City and the Town readily reaffirmed their financial support of JVAC through the Brown Act transition as always had been done over the past years.

Regarding the governance structure, various approaches were considered including discontinuing the existing bylaws, establishing a more limited organizational framework, or allowing the restructured JVAC to develop its own operating procedures or future bylaws independent from the City Council’s approval process.

Throughout the process, a primary objective expressed by both Town and City staff was to coordinate their respective actions so that both governing bodies would consider a consistent approach.

Page 327 of 365 ends

Staff Agreement on an Approach
In late April 2026, Town and City staff agreed on a path forward: the governance structure would remain broad and flexible. The existing bylaws would not be amended and approved by the City Councils of Los Altos Los Altos Hills as part of the immediate transition. Instead, the agreed upon approach was to allow the newly structured JVAC to determine whether it wished to amend or update its bylaws after the governance transition. (Attachment 1) Based on that information, Town staff understood that the only Council action needed was to declassify JVAC as a Brown Act Standing Committee. As apart of this transition, the Council liaison would be removed from both cities and Council appointments to the organization would no longer take place.

Los Altos Hills City Council Action
On June 18, 2026, the Los Altos Hills City Council approved the transition of JVAC from a Brown Act body to a non-Brown Act advisory committee (Attachment 2) Following that action, Town staff implemented the transition based on the governance structure that had been discussed during the preceding coordination between the two agencies. This included removal of the committee from being mentioned on the Town’s website.

Summary
Town staff made multiple efforts to understand and coordinate the JVAC governance transition before presenting the matter to the Los Altos Hills City Council. These efforts included meeting with City staff, seeking clarification regarding the proposed governance structure, requesting coordination of the two agencies' Council actions, monitoring the timing of the City's consideration, and specifically asking whether proposed bylaws or revisions were being prepared so that corresponding materials could be presented to the Town Council.

The information provided to Town staff was that the existing bylaws were not being amended as part of the immediate transition and that the restructured JVAC would determine whether to amend or update its bylaws or establish its own operating procedures.

Accordingly, Town staff proceeded with the understanding that separate adoption of revised JVAC bylaws by the Los Altos Hills City Council was not part of the immediate governance transition. Had Town staff been advised that adoption or ratification of bylaws by the Los Altos Hills City Council was necessary, that action could have been included as part of the Town's Council consideration.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Email thread between Los Altos City Clerk and Los Altos Hills City Clerk

2. June 18, 2026 City Council Staff Report

Page 328 of 365 ends

1 Arika Miller
From: laura belote <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 12:06 PM
To: Arika Miller; Cody Einfalt
Subject: Fwd: LAH Standing Committee Question
Hi Arika and Cody,
This is Laura Schmidt, the Chair of the LAH/LA Joint Volunteer Appreciation Committee. I had a favor to ask. One of the LAH members of our committee, Kelly Davis, moved out of the Hills and off of the committee in 2025. She is still listed as a committee member, which is preventing any new Hills resident from applying. Apparently, someone can only apply if there is a vacancy and because Kelly is still listed, it appears there is no vacancy. Can you please remove her as a committee member? We have another Hills resident ready to apply, but she can't because of this.

Thanks very much!
Warmly,
Laura Schmidt
Chair, JVAC
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: laura belote <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, Jun 19, 2026 at 11:45 AM
Subject: LAH Standing Committee Question
To: Arika Miller <[email protected]>
Hi Arika,
This is Laura Schmidt, the Chair of the LAH/LA Joint Volunteer Appreciation Committee. I had a favor to ask. One of the LAH members of our committee, Kelly Davis, moved out of the Hills and off of the committee in 2025. She is still listed as a committee member, which is preventing any new Hills resident from applying. Apparently, someone can only apply if there is a vacancy and because Kelly is still listed, it appears there is no vacancy. Can you please remove her as a committee member? Thanks very much!
Warmly,
Laura Schmidt
Chair, JVAC
ITEM 8B, Attachment 1

Page 329 of 365 ends

1 Arika Miller
From: Arika Miller
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 12:13 PM
To: laura belote; Cody Einfalt
Subject: RE: LAH Standing Committee Question
Hi Laura,
Thank you for reaching out, and I appreciate you bringing this to our attention.

I wanted to let you know that at its June 18, 2026, meeting, the Los Altos Hills City Council approved reclassifying the Los Altos–Los Altos Hills Joint Volunteer Awards Committee as a non-Brown Act advisory committee, effective immediately.

As part of that transition, the committee is no longer subject to the Brown Act committee appointment process. Future membership recruitment, appointments, and governance will be established by the committee through its own operating procedures.

Because of this change, the Town will no longer be maintaining committee vacancies or processing appointments for the Joint Volunteer Awards Committee. We are coordinating with the City of Los Altos on the transition, and we'll work to ensure the Town's website and any outdated committee information are updated accordingly.

Please let me know if you have any questions, and thank you for your continued service.

Best,
Arika Birdsong-Miller
City Clerk
From: laura belote <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 12:06 PM
To: Arika Miller <[email protected]>; Cody Einfalt <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: LAH Standing Committee Question

Page 330 of 365 ends

2 Hi Arika and Cody,
This is Laura Schmidt, the Chair of the LAH/LA Joint Volunteer Appreciation Committee. I had a favor to ask. One of the LAH members of our committee, Kelly Davis, moved out of the Hills and off of the committee in 2025. She is still listed as a committee member, which is preventing any new Hills resident from applying. Apparently, someone can only apply if there is a vacancy and because Kelly is still listed, it appears there is no vacancy. Can you please remove her as a committee member? We have another Hills resident ready to apply, but she can't because of this.

Page 331 of 365 ends

1 Arika Miller
From: Melissa Thurman <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2026 10:03 AM
To: Arika Miller
Cc: Taylor Brown
Subject: RE: JVAC Bylaws
Hi Arika,
We have moved the JVAC item to June, tentatively. We have too many items on our upcoming agendas and we want to make sure we have all the info for JVAC correct before proceeding further.

Once we know exactly what meeting we will have this on, we’ll be in touch. Thanks.

Melissa Thurman, MMC
City Clerk
City of Los Altos
www.losaltosca.gov
1 N. San Antonio Road | Los Altos, CA 94022
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and protected information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

From: Arika Miller <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2026 9:57 AM
To: Melissa Thurman <[email protected]>
Cc: Taylor Brown <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: JVAC Bylaws
Good morning,
Happy Thursday! Just checking to see if this item made it to your agenda packet for the upcoming meeting? Best,
Arika
From: Melissa Thurman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 2:59 PM
To: Arika Miller <[email protected]>
Cc: Taylor Brown <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: JVAC Bylaws
Hi Arika,
I don’t. Our Assistant to the City Manager is preparing the staff report, but he’s still drafting it. We’re not amending the bylaws; we’re going to let the new JVAC figure out if they want to amend or update their bylaws.

Once we have the report finalized, I’ll send it to you.

Page 332 of 365 ends

2 Thanks.

From: Arika Miller <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 2:57 PM
To: Melissa Thurman <[email protected]>
Cc: Taylor Brown <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: JVAC Bylaws
Hi Melissa,
Thank you for the update. This is very helpful.

Do you happen to have a draft of the proposed bylaws or revisions that you’re planning to bring forward? I’m working to take this to my Council this month as well and would love to align with your approach as much as possible.

Appreciate your coordination on this.

Best,
Arika
From: Melissa Thurman <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2026 4:49 PM
To: Arika Miller <[email protected]>
Cc: Taylor Brown <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: JVAC Bylaws
Hi Arika,
We will be bringing the changes to JVAC, and changes to a number of our Commissions, to the Council for adoption on consent on May 12th.

If we’re able to get it in the packet (the report hasn’t even been started yet, d’oh!), we’ll have it published by Thursday.

I believe we are going to leave it pretty broad and open-ended, based on the conversation we had, with the overall direction to be to commit to the financial support of their event, but to remove them from them from being a Brown Act body, so they can meet independently.

Page 333 of 365 ends

3 Have a great weekend!
Melissa Thurman, MMC
City Clerk
City of Los Altos
www.losaltosca.gov
1 N. San Antonio Road | Los Altos, CA 94022
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and protected information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

From: Arika Miller <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2026 4:14 PM
To: Melissa Thurman <[email protected]>
Subject: JVAC Bylaws
Good afternoon,
Happy Friday Eve! I hope you are doing well. Do you know if you plan to take the JVAC modifications to your Council this month or next month? I want to align with you on the month we present to Council for consideration. Please let me know.

Best,
Arika Birdsong-Miller, CMC
City Clerk
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
P: 650-823-0055 | F: 650-941-3160
E: [email protected]
Stay Informed
Sign up to take Town Surveys!

Page 334 of 365 ends

1 Arika Miller
From: Arika Miller
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 3:00 PM
To: 'Melissa Thurman'
Subject: RE: JVAC Bylaws
Thank you so much뇤눎눐눑눒눏
From: Melissa Thurman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2026 2:59 PM
To: Arika Miller <[email protected]>
Cc: Taylor Brown <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: JVAC Bylaws
Hi Arika,
I don’t. Our Assistant to the City Manager is preparing the staff report, but he’s still drafting it. We’re not amending the bylaws; we’re going to let the new JVAC figure out if they want to amend or update their bylaws.

Once we have the report finalized, I’ll send it to you.

Thanks.

Page 335 of 365 ends

2 Appreciate your coordination on this.

If we’re able to get it in the packet (the report hasn’t even been started yet, d’oh!), we’ll have it published by Thursday.

Have a great weekend!
Melissa Thurman, MMC
City Clerk
City of Los Altos
www.losaltosca.gov
1 N. San Antonio Road | Los Altos, CA 94022
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and protected information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.

Best,
Arika Birdsong-Miller, CMC
City Clerk
Town of Los Altos Hills

Page 336 of 365 ends

3 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
P: 650-823-0055 | F: 650-941-3160
E: [email protected]
Stay Informed
Sign up to take Town Surveys!

Page 337 of 365 ends

1 Arika Miller
From: Gabriel Engeland <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 6, 2026 5:42 PM
To: Cody Einfalt; Melissa Thurman; Arika Miller
Cc: Jon Maginot; Taylor Brown
Subject: Re: [External Sender]RE: Meeting with LAH Clerk Thank you, Cody.

Melissa, Arika,
Please let us know if there is anything else you need at this stage.

Thanks,
Gabe
Latest Los Altos news at your fingertips: Subscribe for Los Altos Updates.

Gabriel Engeland
City Manager, City of Los Altos
ICMA Credentialed Manager
(650) 947-2740 | www.losaltosca.gov
1 N. San Antonio Road | Los Altos, CA 94022

From: Cody Einfalt <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 6, 2026 9:13 AM
To: Gabriel Engeland <[email protected]>; Melissa Thurman <[email protected]>; Arika Miller <[email protected]>
Cc: Jon Maginot <[email protected]>; Taylor Brown <[email protected]> Subject: [External Sender]RE: Meeting with LAH Clerk

My response is below in Blue

Page 338 of 365 ends

2 the Hills which may detract from the celebratory nature of the event. We could propose a cost share to JVAC based on population where the City provides $8,500 and the Hills provides $1,500. JVAC would receive $10k and everyone would be able to say it was based on a fair assumption. I'm open to other models as well, but I do not think we should force honorees to pay to get into the event honoring them. I like this proposal for the split to make $10K. We can run with this.

2. Can the changes be made in tandem between the two agencies? For instance, Arika asked if we plan to present the changes to JVAC/Removal of Brown Act be presented at one of our meetings in May, that we let the Hills know, because they will have their meeting immediately after so the two actions can occur simultaneously. Yes, I think this is a good idea. Agreed

3. She wanted us to know that Cody and the Hills’ Council is very eager to proceed with these changes, but they just want everyone to be on the same page. I agree. I think coordinating the final changes is the best. Confirmed – I have spoken with my councilmembers independently and we are all on board for an item to come to Council for approval.

LAH would prefer the current bylaws be voided, and either a new set of limited rules/structure outline be provided, or we let the group come up with their own internal document for their use. I don't have an issue with this approach, but it was JVAC that redlined the current bylaws, proposed the changes, and it is what they voted on. Howver, this proposal may be a better path. We could either 1) proceed with the redlines to each Council, but state that JVAC would come up with new limited rules or bylaws in their first year, as their first order of business, that both Councils would accept, or 2) ask JVAC to do this work now and proceed with changes in a few months. I think #1 is probably the easiest path to get JVAC what it needs while also staying in line with what the Hills prefers Im open to either as well. Arika and Taylor/Melissa can chart the path forward as they see fit.

Cody Einfalt, MPA
Acting City Manager
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
P: 650-947-2508 | F: 650-941-3160
E: [email protected]
From: Gabriel Engeland <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2026 11:08 AM
To: Melissa Thurman <[email protected]>; Cody Einfalt <[email protected]>; Arika Miller <[email protected]>
Cc: Jon Maginot <[email protected]>; Taylor Brown <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Meeting with LAH Clerk

Thank you, Melissa. I've responded below in RED. I've also added Cody and Arika to the email so we can coordinate. I moved Jolie to BCC so she isn't caught up in the back and forth.

Cody, Arika,
Please let me know what you think. Thanks for the collaboration on this.

Page 339 of 365 ends

3 Thanks,
Gabe
Latest Los Altos news at your fingertips: Subscribe for Los Altos Updates.

Gabriel Engeland
City Manager, City of Los Altos
ICMA Credentialed Manager
(650) 947-2740 | www.losaltosca.gov
1 N. San Antonio Road | Los Altos, CA 94022

From: Melissa Thurman <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2026 4:41 PM
To: Gabriel Engeland <[email protected]>; Jolie Houston <[email protected]> Cc: Jon Maginot <[email protected]>; Taylor Brown <[email protected]> Subject: Meeting with LAH Clerk

Hi All,
Taylor and I just met with the Town Clerk for LAH. We provided answers to the questions Cody provided, but Arika had comments/concerns that we were unable to answer, but we said we would forward them to you for consideration/review.

1. Cost of the event – Cody and Arika need more information on the cost of the event, specifically how the dollar amount is so high when the event space is provided without charge. This was a big learning curve for me as well. The costs are largely associated with the catering for the event, advertising, printing of the program, and the cost of the tables for the honorees. In previous years, if a person was honored, they were asked to purchase tickets for their family, colleagues, etc. to attend the event with them. I proposed that honorees were given an allotment of tickets (I forget the exact number) so they were able to have people attend with them. I didn't think it was fair they were being "honored" while also being asked to pay the cost of the attendance to the dinner. While I don't think it's necessary to try to have an "even" split of funding, I do understand that how fund it currently could lead to poor optics for the Hills which may detract from the celebratory nature of the event. We could propose a cost share to JVAC based on population where the City provides $8,500 and the Hills provides $1,500. JVAC would receive $10k and everyone would be able to say it was based on a fair assumption. I'm open to other models as well, but I do not think we should force honorees to pay to get into the event honoring them.

Page 340 of 365 ends

4 4. LAH would prefer the current bylaws be voided, and either a new set of limited rules/structure outline be provided, or we let the group come up with their own internal document for their use. I don't have an issue with this approach, but it was JVAC that redlined the current bylaws, proposed the changes, and it is what they voted on. Howver, this proposal may be a better path. We could either 1) proceed with the redlines to each Council, but state that JVAC would come up with new limited rules or bylaws in their first year, as their first order of business, that both Councils would accept, or 2) ask JVAC to do this work now and proceed with changes in a few months. I think #1 is probably the easiest path to get JVAC what it needs while also staying in line with what the Hills prefers.

Page 341 of 365 ends

Melissa, Arika,
Please let us know if there is anything else you need at this stage.

Thanks,
Gabe
Latest Los Altos news at your fingertips: Subscribe for Los Altos Updates.

Gabriel Engeland
City Manager, City of Los Altos
ICMA Credentialed Manager
(650) 947-2740 | www.losaltosca.gov
1 N. San Antonio Road | Los Altos, CA 94022

My response is below in Blue

Page 342 of 365 ends

Thank you, Melissa. I've responded below in RED. I've also added Cody and Arika to the email so we can coordinate. I moved Jolie to BCC so she isn't caught up in the back and forth.

Cody, Arika,
Please let me know what you think. Thanks for the collaboration on this.

Page 343 of 365 ends

3 Thanks,
Gabe
Latest Los Altos news at your fingertips: Subscribe for Los Altos Updates.

Gabriel Engeland
City Manager, City of Los Altos
ICMA Credentialed Manager
(650) 947-2740 | www.losaltosca.gov
1 N. San Antonio Road | Los Altos, CA 94022

Page 344 of 365 ends

Page 345 of 365 ends

ITEM 8B, Attachment 2
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS June 18, 2026
Staff Report to the City Council
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION RECLASSIFYING THE LOS ALTOSLOS ALTOS HILLS JOINT VOLUNTEER AWARDS COMMITTEE AND THE

SENIOR COMMISSION AS NON-BROWN ACT ADVISORY COMMITTEES
FROM: Arika Birdsong-Miller, City Clerk ABM
APPROVED: Cody Einfalt, City Manager CE
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Reclassify the Los Altos–Los Altos Hills Joint Volunteer Awards Committee as a nonBrown Act advisory committee; and

2. Reclassify the Senior Commission as a non-Brown Act advisory committee.

BACKGROUND:

The Town of Los Altos Hills and the City of Los Altos jointly participate in the Los Altos–Los Altos Hills Joint Volunteer Awards Committee and the Senior Commission. Both committees have historically operated as Brown Act bodies pursuant to bylaws adopted by the participating agencies.

The committees serve primarily as advisory and programmatic groups that support volunteer recognition activities and programs benefiting older adults in the community. Neither committee exercises decision-making authority on behalf of the Town.

DISCUSSION:

The proposal to reclassify the Los Altos–Los Altos Hills Joint Volunteer Awards Committee and the Senior Commission as non-Brown Act advisory bodies originated from the committees themselves. Committee members expressed concerns regarding the administrative and procedural requirements associated with Brown Act compliance and requested that the participating agencies consider a governance structure that would allow the groups to operate more efficiently while continuing to fulfill their respective missions.

In particular, committee members identified challenges associated with compliance with the Brown Act's meeting requirements, including recent changes to remote participation requirements under Senate Bill 707. Members indicated that these requirements have made scheduling meetings and conducting committee business more difficult, particularly for volunteer bodies whose primary functions are community engagement, volunteer recognition, information sharing, and support for senior programs.

Page 346 of 365 ends

Staff Report to City Council Page 2
Reclassifying Non-Brown Act Committees
June 18, 2026
Staff from the Town of Los Altos Hills and the City of Los Altos have discussed the proposed governance change and believe that reclassifying the committees as non-Brown Act advisory bodies would provide greater flexibility in conducting meetings and carrying out committee activities while reducing administrative requirements associated with Brown Act compliance.

On June 9, 2026, the Los Altos City Council approved reclassifying the Senior Commission as a non-Brown Act advisory body. Staff recommends that the Town take corresponding action to maintain consistency between the two agencies with respect to the Senior Commission.

The Los Altos–Los Altos Hills Joint Volunteer Awards Committee has not yet been considered by the Los Altos City Council. However, staff from both agencies have discussed the proposed reclassification and believe the committee would similarly benefit from the flexibility afforded to non-Brown Act advisory bodies.

Both committees currently operate pursuant to bylaws adopted by the participating agencies. Staff from both agencies have determined that any revisions to the bylaws may be addressed separately from the proposed reclassification and do not need to be considered as part of the current action.

As non-Brown Act advisory bodies, the committees would no longer be subject to the Town's appointment process for Brown Act committees, and Council liaison positions would no longer be assigned. Future membership recruitment, appointments, and governance procedures would be established by the committees through their operating procedures and governance documents, as appropriate.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

This action does not qualify as a “Project” as defined in California Government Code Section 15378(b) of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act. 2026-27 CITY COUNCIL WORK PLAN:

This item is not part of the adopted FY 2026–27 City Council Work Plan and is considered part of the Town’s routine administrative functions.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact to the Town associated with the proposed reclassification of the Los Altos–Los Altos Hills Joint Volunteer Awards Committee and the Senior Commission as nonBrown Act advisory committees.

Page 347 of 365 ends

Staff Report to City Council Page 3
Reclassifying Non-Brown Act Committees
June 18, 2026
The Town currently provides financial support through the annual budget process for the Los Altos–Los Altos Hills Joint Volunteer Awards Luncheon and contributes funding toward programs and activities associated with the Senior Commission. Staff recommends continuing these budgeted contributions following the proposed reclassification.

ATTACHMENT:

1. Resolution Reclassifying the Los Altos-Los Altos Hills JVAC and Senior Commission as Non-Brown Act Advisory Committees

Page 348 of 365 ends

Resolution XX-26 Page 1
RESOLUTION XX-26

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

AWARDS COMMITTEE AND THE SENIOR COMMISSION AS NON-BROWN ACT

ADVISORY COMMITTEES
WHEREAS, the Town of Los Altos Hills and the City of Los Altos jointly participate in the Los Altos–Los Altos Hills Joint Volunteer Awards Committee and the Senior Commission; and WHEREAS, the Joint Volunteer Awards Committee supports volunteer recognition and community engagement activities within the Los Altos and Los Altos Hills communities; and WHEREAS, the Senior Commission serves as a forum for identifying opportunities, programs, and resources that benefit older adults residing in the Los Altos and Los Altos Hills communities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the functions of the Joint Volunteer Awards Committee and the Senior Commission are advisory, informational, and programmatic in nature and do not involve the exercise of decision-making authority on behalf of the Town; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to provide greater flexibility for the operation of these committees and reduce administrative requirements associated with the Ralph M. Brown Act while continuing to support their important community functions; and WHEREAS, the City of Los Altos has taken action to similarly reclassify these committees as non-Brown Act advisory committees.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills as follows:

Section 1 The Los Altos–Los Altos Hills Joint Volunteer Awards Committee is hereby reclassified as a non-Brown Act advisory committee effective immediately.

Section 2 The Senior Commission is hereby reclassified as a non-Brown Act advisory committee effective immediately.

Section 3 Following the effective date of this Resolution, the committees shall no longer be subject to the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act unless otherwise required by law.

Section 4 The existing bylaws, rules, and procedures governing the committees shall remain in effect only to the extent necessary to facilitate an orderly transition to the newly reclassified advisory committees and may be revised or replaced by the committees as appropriate.

Section 5 The City Manager, or designee, is authorized to take such administrative actions as are necessary to implement this Resolution and coordinate with the City of Los Altos regarding the transition of the committees.

The above Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of June 2026, by the following vote:

Page 349 of 365 ends

ITEM 5C, Attachment 1
Resolution XX-26 Page 2
AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

BY:

ATTEST: Rajiv Bhateja, Mayor
Arika Birdsong-Miller, City Clerk

Page 350 of 365 ends

Page 351 of 365 ends

SPEED SIGN DATA 2026
(January-July)

Page 352 of 365 ends

INTRODUCTION

Page 353 of 365 ends

Page 354 of 365 ends

In November 2025 Sheriff’s Office provided targeted enforcement in these areas as indicated in the speed sign Data:

Page 355 of 365 ends

SB ALTAMONT AND PADRE COURT
Speed Limit at Location: 25 MPH
February 12 – February 23
Max Speed: 72mph 85th Percentile Speed: 34mph
February 24 – March 9
Max Speed: 62 mph 85th Percentile Speed: 35 mph

0.0 10.0

20.0 30.0

40.0 50.0

60.0 70.0

80.0 90.0
100.0
0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:009:00
10:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:00 Speed (mph)
Hour of Day (24-hour)
SB Altamont & Padre (Speed Display OFF)
Average Speed Per Hour Maximum Speed at Location Per hour

0.0 10.0

20.0 30.0

40.0 50.0

60.0 70.0

80.0 90.0
100.0
Speed (mph)
Hour of Day (24-hour)
SB Altamont & Padre Court (Speed Display ON)
Average Speed Per Hour Maximum Speed at Location Per hour

Page 356 of 365 ends

SB ALTAMONT AT PADRE
Speed Limit at Location: 25 MPH
July 13 – July 20
Max Speed: 61mph
85th Percentile Speed: 36mph
July 20 - July 27
Max Speed: 62mph
85th Percentile Speed: 34mph

0.0 10.0

20.0 30.0

40.0 50.0

60.0 70.0
0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:009:00
10:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:00 SB Altamont at Padre (Speed Display OFF)
Average Speed Per Hour Maximum Speed at Location Per hour

0.0 10.0

20.0 30.0

40.0 50.0

60.0 70.0
0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:009:00
10:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:00 SB Altamont at Padre (Speed Display ON)
Average Speed Per Hour Maximum Speed at Location Per hour

Page 357 of 365 ends

NB ELENA AND JOSEFA
Speed Limit at Location: 25 MPH
March 9 – March 16
Max Speed: 73mph
85th Percentile Speed: 36mph
March 16 – March 23
Max Speed: 61mph
85th Percentile Speed: 35mph

0.0 20.0

40.0 60.0

80.0 Speed (mph)
Hour of Day (24-hour)
NB Elena and Josefa (Speed Display ON)
Average Speed Per Hour Maximum Speed at Location Per hour

0.0 10.0

20.0 30.0

40.0 50.0

60.0 70.0

80.0 90.0
100.0
0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:009:00
10:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:00 Speed (mph)
Hour of Day (24-hour)
NB Elena and Josefa (Speed Display OFF)
Average Speed Per Hour Maximum Speed at Location Per hour

Page 358 of 365 ends

SB ELENA AND JOSEFA
Speed Limit at Location: 25 MPH
April 21 – April 27
Max Speed: 48mph
85th Percentile Speed: 30mph
April 28 – May 4
Max Speed: 56mph
85th Percentile Speed: 28mph

0.0 10.0

20.0 30.0

40.0 50.0

60.0 0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:009:00
10:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:00 Speed (mph)
Hour of Day (24-hour)
SB Elena and Josefa (Speed Display OFF)
Average Speed Per Hour Maximum Speed at Location Per hour

0.0 10.0

20.0 30.0

40.0 50.0

60.0 0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:009:00
10:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:00 Speed (mph)
Hour of Day (24-hour)
SB Elena and Josefa (Speed Display ON)
Average Speed Per Hour Maximum Speed at Location Per hour

Page 359 of 365 ends

NB MANUELLA ROAD
Speed Limit at Location: 30 MPH
March 23 –March 30
Max Speed: 69mph
85th Percentile Speed: 36mph
March 30 – April 6
Max Speed: 56mph
85th Percentile Speed: 36mph

0.0 10.0

20.0 30.0

40.0 50.0

60.0 70.0

80.0 0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:009:00
10:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:00 Speed (mph)
Hour of Day (24-hr)
NB Manuella Rd (Speed Display Off)
Average Speed Per Hour Maximum Speed at Location Per hour

0.0 10.0

20.0 30.0

40.0 50.0

60.0 0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:009:00
10:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:00 Speed (mph)
Hour of Day (24-hour)
NB Manuella (Speed Display On)
Average Speed Per Hour Maximum Speed at Location Per hour

Page 360 of 365 ends

SB MOODY AND RHUS RIDGE
Speed Limit at Location: 30 MPH
April 6 – April 13
Max Speed: 56mph
85th Percentile Speed: 36mph
April 13 – April 20
Max Speed: 76mph
85th Percentile Speed: 35mph

0.0 10.0

20.0 30.0

40.0 50.0

60.0 0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:009:00
10:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:00 Speed (mph)
Hour of Day (24-hour)
SB Moody and Rhus Ridge (Speed Display OFF)
Average Speed Per Hour Maximum Speed at Location Per hour

0.0 10.0

20.0 30.0

40.0 50.0

60.0 70.0

80.0 0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:009:00
10:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:00 Speed (mph)
Hour of Day (24-hour)
SB Moody and Rhus Ridge (Speed Display ON)
Average Speed Per Hour Maximum Speed at Location Per hour

Page 361 of 365 ends

NB BLACK MOUNTAIN AND ALTAMONT
Speed Limit at Location: 30 MPH
May 4 – May 11
Max Speed: 60mph
85th Percentile Speed: 49mph
May 11 – May 18
Max Speed: 64mph
85th Percentile Speed: 44mph

0.0 10.0

20.0 30.0

40.0 50.0

60.0 70.0
0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:009:00
10:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:00 Speed (mph)
Hour of Day (24-hour)
NB Black Mountain and Altamont (Speed
Display OFF)
Average Speed Per Hour Maximum Speed at Location Per hour

0.0 10.0

20.0 30.0

40.0 50.0

60.0 70.0
0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:009:00
10:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:00 Speed (mph)
Time of Day (24-hour)
NB Black Mountain and Altamont (Speed
Display ON)
Average Speed Per Hour Maximum Speed at Location Per hour

Page 362 of 365 ends

SB PURISSIMA AND CONCEPCION
Speed Limit at Location: 30 MPH
May 18 – May 25
Max Speed: 70mph
85th Percentile Speed: 36mph
May 25 – June 1
Max Speed: 77mph
85th Percentile Speed: 36mph

0.0 10.0

20.0 30.0

40.0 50.0

60.0 70.0

80.0 0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:009:00
10:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:00 Speed (mph)
Hour of Day (24-hour)
SB Purissima and Concepcion (Speed Display
OFF)
Average Speed Per Hour Maximum Speed at Location Per hour

0.0 10.0

20.0 30.0

40.0 50.0

60.0 70.0

80.0 90.0
0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:009:00
10:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:00 Speed (mph)
Hour of Day (24-hour)
SB Purissima and Concepcion (Speed Display ON)
Average Speed Per Hour Maximum Speed at Location Per hour

Page 363 of 365 ends

SB PURISSIMA AND LA PALOMA
Speed Limit at Location: 30 MPH
June 1 – June 8
Max Speed: 72mph
85th Percentile Speed: 36mph
June 8 – June 15
Max Speed: 61mph
85th Percentile Speed: 30mph

0.0 10.0

20.0 30.0

40.0 50.0

60.0 70.0

80.0 0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:009:00
10:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:00 Speed (mph)
Hour of Day (24-hour)
SB Purissima and La Paloma (Speed Display
OFF)
Average Speed Per Hour Maximum Speed at Location Per hour

0.0 10.0

20.0 30.0

40.0 50.0

60.0 70.0
0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:009:00
10:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:00 Speed (mph)
Hour of Day (24-hour)
SB Purissima and La Paloma (Speed Display
ON)
Average Speed Per Hour Maximum Speed at Location Per hour

Page 364 of 365 ends

SB ROBLEDA AND DORI
Speed Limit at Location: 25 MPH
June 29 – July 6
Max Speed: 72mph
85th Percentile Speed: 34mph
July 6 – July 13
Max Speed: 60mph
85th Percentile Speed: 32mph

0.0 10.0

20.0 30.0

40.0 50.0

60.0 70.0

80.0 0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:009:00
10:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:00 SB Robleda and Dori (Speed Display OFF)
Average Speed Per Hour Maximum Speed at Location Per hour

0.0 10.0

20.0 30.0

40.0 50.0

60.0 70.0
0:001:002:003:004:005:006:007:008:009:00
10:0011:0012:0013:0014:0015:0016:0017:0018:0019:0020:0021:0022:0023:00 SB Robleda and Dori (Speed Display ON)
Average Speed Per Hour Maximum Speed at Location Per hour

Page 365 of 365 ends

Los Altos Hills City CouncilSeptember 17, 2026

Los Altos Hills City Council
September 17, 2026