10 exertion like bending, crawling, and lifting, while the Los Altos Hills role combines office and outdoor fieldwork with less emphasis on physical demands related to law enforcement activities.
Evaluation: These two specifications represent intermediate similarity suitable for salary benchmarking within the broader category of civilian public safety support roles. The Los Altos Hills Community Service Officer is more community and liaison focused, while the City of Campbell Community Services Officer has a stronger law enforcement support and enforcement emphasis. Ambiguities arise from the differing scopes of duties and qualification requirements, which reflect distinct operational priorities and training expectations. Despite these differences, the shared foundational purpose of supporting public safety and community interaction provides a reasonable basis for comparative analysis, though adjustments may be necessary to account for the enforcement-related responsibilities unique to the City of Campbell role.
11 Los Gatos Town Benchmarks
Los Altos Hills's Community Service Officer <> Los Gatos Town's Community Services Officer (52% match)
Summary: The Community Service Officer from Los Altos Hills and the Community Services Officer from Los Gatos Town share a foundational role as civilian, non-sworn public safety support positions with community engagement and liaison responsibilities. Both roles involve responding to public requests, coordinating with agencies, and supporting community safety initiatives, though the Los Gatos Town role includes more direct law enforcement support functions such as patrol and evidence handling. The qualifications for both positions require a high school diploma or equivalent and emphasize communication and community relations skills, with some differences in desired additional knowledge and physical demands. Work environments for both are primarily office-based with community interaction, but the Los Gatos Town role includes shift work and uniform requirements, indicating a more formal law enforcement support context.
Key Similarities:
• Both positions are civilian, non-sworn roles focused on supporting public safety and community services within their respective towns.
• Each role involves responding to non-emergency public safety requests, community outreach, and coordination with other public agencies to enhance safety and service delivery.
• Both require effective communication skills, report preparation, and the ability to work independently while maintaining professionalism and sound judgment. • Educational requirements are similar, with a minimum of high school graduation or equivalent, and both value knowledge in public relations, community safety, and basic office procedures.
• The work environments include office settings with community interaction and require physical ability to perform duties such as walking, standing, and occasional lifting.
Key Differences:
• The Los Gatos Town Community Services Officer has a broader scope including patrol duties, crime prevention, evidence custody, and court appearances, reflecting a closer alignment with law enforcement functions, whereas the Los Altos Hills Community Service Officer focuses more on community liaison, non-emergency response, and emergency preparedness support.
• Los Gatos Town requires shift work, weekend availability, and uniform wearing, indicating a more formalized and possibly more demanding operational context compared to the general supervision and standard scheduling implied in Los Altos Hills.
12 • The Los Gatos Town role includes specific responsibilities such as issuing traffic citations, assisting injured citizens with first aid, and managing evidence, which are not present in the Los Altos Hills description.
• Qualification differences include Los Gatos Town emphasizing the ability to work irregular hours and maintain alertness under stress, while Los Altos Hills highlights abilities related to analyzing community concerns and establishing effective relationships.
• Physical demands in Los Gatos Town include maintaining concentration for prolonged periods and performing duties alone, whereas Los Altos Hills emphasizes mobility and occasional lifting with less focus on continuous alertness or solo work.
Evaluation: These two specifications represent intermediate similarity suitable for salary benchmarking within the public safety support sector, but with notable distinctions in operational scope and work context. The Los Gatos Town Community Services Officer role is more aligned with traditional law enforcement support functions, including patrol and evidence management, while the Los Altos Hills Community Service Officer centers on community liaison and non-emergency support. Ambiguities arise from the broader law enforcement duties in Los Gatos Town that are absent in Los Altos Hills, which may affect direct comparability. Overall, the roles share enough foundational elements to be considered related but require careful contextual adjustment when used for benchmarking purposes in California municipal public safety support roles.
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS October 15, 2026
Staff Report to the City Council
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF THE HISTORY COMMITTEE’S REQUEST TO
REINSTALL THE DE ANZA TREK PLAQUE AT EDITH PARK
FROM: Arika Birdsong-Miller
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council should:
Consider the History Committee’s request to reinstall one of the De Anza Trek plaques at Edith Park with an additional interpretive plaque clarifying its association with the 1976 De Anza Reenactment Trek and provide direction to staff.
BACKGROUND:
The Los Altos Hills History Committee has requested that the Town reinstall one of two existing De Anza Trek plaques at Edith Park as part of the Committee’s 2026 Work Plan and in recognition of the 250th anniversary of the original De Anza expedition.
The two plaques were originally installed at Edith Park and at the corner of Miranda and Fremont Roads to commemorate the 1976 De Anza Reenactment Trek. According to the History Committee, the plaques were subsequently removed following concerns that the inscriptions could lead members of the public to believe that the original 1776 De Anza expedition traveled through Los Altos Hills. The City Council at that time agreed to their removal.
DISCUSSION:
To address the concern that resulted in the original plaques being removed, the History Committee proposes installing a smaller supplemental plaque alongside the existing De Anza Trek plaque stating:“Route Taken by the De Anza Reenactment Riders March 26, 1976.” The Committee believes this additional language would provide appropriate historical context and clearly distinguish the route of the 1976 reenactment riders from that of the original 1776 expedition. The Committee is requesting that one of the existing plaques be reinstalled at Edith Park. The second existing plaque is currently being displayed as part of the 250th Anniversary Salute at the Los Altos History Museum and, upon its return to the Town, is proposed to be displayed at the Heritage House.
The Committee has also indicated that a large stone has been offered for mounting the plaque rather than reinstalling it in concrete as it was originally displayed.
Staff is seeking Council direction regarding whether to proceed with the History Committee’s proposed reinstatement of the plaque at Edith Park.
ITEM 7B
Staff Report to City Council
De Anza Trek Plaque
October 15, 2026
2 FISCAL IMPACT:
The History Committee estimates the cost of the proposed supplemental bronze plaque at approximately $250.
ATTACHMENT:
1. October 2, 2026 Letter from the Los Altos Hills History Committee Regarding Reinstallation of the De Anza Plaque
Los Altos Hills History Committee
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
October 2, 2026
Los Altos Hills Town Council
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Re: Reinstalling the De Anza Plaque – Part of the Committee’s 2026 Work Plan Dear Mayor and Council Members:
The History Committee is requesting that one of the two De Anza Trek Plaques be reinstated at Edith Park with a second small plaque that states “” Route Taken by the DeAnza Reenactment Riders March 26, 1976. The second Plaque is being displayed as part of the 250th Anniversary Salute at the Los Altos History Museum and when returned to the Town, it will be displayed at the Heritage House.
Originally, the two plaques were placed at Edith Park and at the corner of Miranda and Fremont celebrating the1976 De Anza Reenactment Trek. A resident requested their removal because he felt that inscription on the plaques misled the public in believing the original 1776 De Anza Trek passed through Los Altos Hills. The Council at the time agreed and the plaques were removed. This explains our request for another small plaque, so it accurately states that it was the 1976 riders that passed by through Los Altos Hills.
The Committee think that this is the appropriate year for the reinstatement of the plaque in celebration of the 250th anniversary of the first Trek. The second plaque cost in bronze is estimated at $250.00. Originally, the plaque was set in concrete, but we have been offered a large stone in which to set the plaque.
Sincerely,
Bernardo Ferrari and Carol Gottlieb
Co – chairs of the History Committee
ITEM 7B, Attachment 1
ITEM 7C
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS October 15, 2026
Staff Report to the City Council
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF CONTINUED SUPPORT FOR THE JOINT
VOLUNTEER AWARDS COMMITTEE (JVAC) AND THE PROPOSED
DECEMBER 4, 2026 ANNUAL VOLUNTEER RECOGNITION EVENT
FROM: Arika Birdsong-Miller, City Clerk
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council should:
Staff recommends that the City Council discuss and provide direction regarding the Town's support for the proposed December 4, 2026 Joint Volunteer Awards Committee (JVAC) Annual Volunteer Recognition Event.
BACKGROUND:
The Joint Volunteer Awards Committee (JVAC) has historically been a collaborative effort between the Town of Los Altos Hills and the City of Los Altos to recognize individuals who have made significant contributions through volunteer service to their communities.
The Committee has traditionally organized an annual recognition event to celebrate these contributions and acknowledge the dedication of community volunteers.
DISCUSSION:
At its October 5, 2026 meeting, JVAC considered a motion to proceed with the Annual Volunteer Recognition Event scheduled for December 4, 2026. The motion received three votes in favor and two votes opposed, with Council Member Stanley Mok abstaining.
The City of Los Altos has communicated that it will not participate in the 2026 event.
Given the Committee's expressed interest in proceeding with the event and the City of Los Altos' decision not to participate, staff is bringing this matter before the Town Council to determine whether the Town wishes to continue supporting the event this year.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Town has historically contributed $1,500 annually in support of JVAC's volunteer recognition efforts. Should the Council wish to support the 2026 event, the Town could continue its customary $1,500 contribution. No additional funding is requested at this time.
2 Sincerely,
Laura Schmidt
Chair, Joint Volunteer Awards Committee
2 First, there are unresolved procedural questions, including those raised by Gabe regarding the validity of the October 5 JVAC meeting and the resulting vote. There are also questions about the appropriate use of existing JVAC funds, particularly now that the City of Los Altos is no longer participating. I am unclear whether a new vote by JVAC would be required to authorize the expenditure of those funds for an event that differs from the one originally planned. I would encourage the Council to seek clarification from the Town Attorney on these matters before proceeding.
Second, I have significant concerns about our ability to organize and execute the December 4 luncheon successfully. JVAC is a very small group, and the recent disagreements within our membership, along with concerns among some of our longtime supporters, have made an already challenging undertaking even more difficult. I worry that proceeding under these circumstances could further strain relationships and distract from our primary purpose of recognizing outstanding volunteers.
Finally, I believe we should consider whether a formal luncheon is necessary to accomplish that purpose. My strong preference would be to hold a simpler recognition event honoring Los Altos Hills volunteers as part of the Town Council's year-end meeting. This would provide a meaningful and dignified opportunity to celebrate their contributions while avoiding many of the procedural, financial and logistical complications we currently face.
Looking ahead, I would welcome the opportunity to work with the Town and other interested parties in 2027 to establish a more sustainable volunteer recognition program, with clear procedures, responsibilities, and funding arrangements.
I regret that I will be out of town and unable to attend Thursday's meeting. Please know that my concerns are offered in a constructive spirit and with the best interests of the Town, JVAC and our community volunteers in mind. I remain committed to ensuring that the important tradition of recognizing volunteer service continues in a way that is positive, meaningful and sustainable.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Laura Schmidt
Chair, Joint Volunteer Awards Committee
City Attorney Selection Update
Rajiv Bhateja & Kavita Tankha
Town of Los Altos Hills
October 15, 2026
BACKGROUND
2 • City Attorney, Steve Mattas (Redwood Public Law), is retiring from active duties in December
• Town invited proposals from law firms to help make a durable decision re:
replacement
• Request for Proposals was posted on <>
• As of close (September 25, 2026) 11 proposals were received from various law firms
• Ad hoc committee has reviewed the proposals
• Ad hoc committee recommends eliminating 7 based on various criteria, such as:
• Out of state / geographically remote
• Lack of similar municipality experience
• Poor match of qualifications vs. needs (esp. land use)
PROPOSED NEXT STEPS
3 • Council consideration of proposals received: Are these the right finalists? • Ad hoc committee does reference checks (references are provided) • Council interviews each of the four finalists
• Consideration of experience, approach, possible conflicts • Ad hoc appoints Citizens Advisory Panel (mix of attorneys and non-attorneys) • Panel meets with finalists
• Optionally: Each finalist holds a 1-hour public session where residents can meet and ask questions
• Status update at November 12 Council meeting
• Approve contract at December 17 meeting
DISCUSSION
4
Williamson Act
Ad Hoc Committee
Update
Rajiv Bhateja & George Tyson
Town of Los Altos Hills
October 15, 2026
WILLIAMSON ACT STATUS
2 BACKGROUND
• Per Williamson: compatible uses, open space, agricultural, free public recreation • Assessment and property tax based on actual use rather than market value • Town list shows 17 Williamson Act contracts covering 25 parcels • Variety of properties, uses, and tax statuses
• Some institutional (Poor Clare’s)
ISSUES
• Contract language dates back to 1974 – what is considered compatible use today? • No minimum parcel size
• Region has evolved significantly over past 5 decades: what is appropriate/compatible use today? • Some assessed close to current market value, some well below (could be due to Prop. 13), e.g., • 2.18 ac, 7 BR 10 BA 11.2K sq ft Zillow: $15.25M Assessed: $16.7M Property tax: $197K • 2.43 ac, 4 BR 3 BA 2693 sq ft Zillow: unk. Assessed: $362K Property tax: $7.3K Sept 17 2026 Council appointed Mayor Bhateja and Councilmember Tyson to look into Williamson Act matters affecting the town
3
SC COUNTY SEC. C13-12 - SEC. C13-12. - CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING
CONTRACT APPLICATIONS
4 (a) No application for a Williamson Act contract will be approved unless all of the following criteria are met:
(1) All parcels proposed for inclusion in the contract are devoted to an agricultural use that meets one of the definitions of commercial agriculture in the Guidelines for Williamson Act and Farmland Security Zone Programs adopted by the Board of Supervisors; and (2) There are no existing or permitted uses or development on the land that would significantly displace or interfere with the agricultural use of the land. (b) Even if all of the criteria in subsection (a) are met, the Board of Supervisors may, in its discretion, choose not to approve the application.
-- Various other rules for application, rescission, etc.
SC COUNTY SEC. SEC. C13-15. - COMPATIBLE USES AND DEVELOPMENT 5 (a) All use or development of any contracted land shall comply with Government Code § 51238.1 and all of the following criteria:
(1) Agricultural use shall be the primary use of contracted land before any other use or development is allowed. (2) The proposed use or development is compatible with and will not significantly compromise the long-term productive agricultural capability of any contracted land within the agricultural preserve, including the land upon which the use or development is proposed to occur;
(3) The proposed use or development will not significantly displace or impair current or reasonably foreseeable agricultural operations on the land upon which the use or development is proposed to occur. A use or development that significantly displaces agricultural operations on the land upon which the use or development is proposed to occur may, in the County's discretion, be deemed compatible if the uses or development relate directly to the production of commercial agricultural products on that parcel or nearby parcels (e.g., harvesting, processing, or shipping of locally produced commercial agricultural products). (4) The proposed use or development will not substantially interfere with the agricultural use of the land upon which the use or development is proposed to occur;
(5) The portion of the parcel to remain in agricultural use shall be capable of sustaining a commercially viable agricultural use; (6) The proposed use or development will not hinder or impair agricultural operations in the area by significantly increasing the permanent or temporary human population of the area;
(7) The proposed use or development does not constitute a residential subdivision; and (8) The proposed use or development complies with all other federal, state, and local laws, regulations, ordinances, and guidelines, including the County general plan, this Code, and the Guidelines for Williamson Act and Farmland Security Zone Programs adopted by the Board of Supervisors.
RECOMMENDATIONS
6 • Update town rules covering Williamson Act
• Review contracts from neighboring jurisdictions
• Consider what is compatible use in today’s context
• Consider a minimum acreage, other suitability for contract • Review & propose future contract terms and language
• Share proposal at public meeting and obtain resident feedback • Upon Council approval of any changes to Town rules, properties may be renewed if qualifying under new rules – or non-renewed, with right of appeal to the City Council
• Note: Contracts are at the Council’s discretion
NEXT STEPS
• Ad hoc committee to work with legal and staff – develop proposal for Council • Plan to implement by year end
300 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza
Unit 430
Oakland, CA 94612
redwoodpubliclaw.com
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 1, 2026
TO: City Council and Planning Commission
FROM: Steve Mattas, City Attorney
By: Claire Lai, Assistant City Attorney
COPY: Cody Einfalt, City Manager
Jay Bradford, Community Development Director
RE: Overview of Williamson Act Provisions and Requirements - Public Distribution
INTRODUCTION
Twenty-five properties situated in Los Altos Hills are subject to an agricultural land preservation contract under the provisions of Government Code section 51200 et seq., commonly referred to as the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 or the “Williamson Act”. We have prepared this memo to assist the Planning Commission and City Council with understanding the Williamson Act.
This memo summarizes the Williamson Act statutory requirements for creating agricultural preserves and entering into contracts to preserve lands for agricultural and compatible uses, as well as the tax assessment approach for lands under contract. Williamson Act contracts and use limitations are primarily enforced by local governments through adopting use compatibility rules on contracted lands.
WILLIAMSON ACT OVERVIEW
The Williamson Act authorizes cities and counties to establish “agricultural preserves” within their jurisdictions.
1 Within these preserve areas, landowners may enter into long-term contracts with the city or county to voluntarily restrict their properties to agricultural and compatible uses. The land under contract receives a lower tax assessment based on its agricultural use, rather than market value under Proposition 13.
The Williamson Act is primarily enforced by local governments; the statute gives cities and counties substantial authority to create preserves, execute and administer land contracts, and to establish rules about uses that are compatible with agricultural uses on contracted lands. The State Department of Conservation provides technical assistance, researches policy issues, and shares program data. However, it does not enforce the statute nor local Williamson Act programs.2
Agricultural Preserves
An agricultural preserve is an area devoted to “agricultural, recreational, or open-space uses, or any combination thereof.”3 For the purposes of this definition, “agricultural use” means commercial agriculture where agricultural commodities are produced for commercial purposes; “recreational use” means public use of land in its agricultural or natural state, with or without charge, for walking, hiking, picnicking, camping, 1 Government Code (GC) §51230.
2 GC §51206. 3 GC §51201(d).
Williamson Act Overview
October 1, 2026
2 swimming, fishing, hunting, or other outdoor public games or sports; and “open-space use” means preserving land in natural state for public enjoyment, to preserve wildlife habitat, or for salt production if the land is located within certain locations specified by statute.4 In this case, the entire Town was previously established as an agricultural preserve.5
The purpose of creating such preserves is to identify the boundaries of lands within which Williamson Act contracts would be available to property owners. The default land size required to establish an agricultural preserve is 100 acres; however, the city or county may establish a smaller agricultural preserve if it makes findings that the smaller preserve is necessary due to special agricultural characteristics in the area and is consistent with its general plan.6 An agricultural preserve may contain non-agricultural land, and the city or county must restrict such land’s uses under zoning to be compatible with other Williamson Act contracted properties within the preserve. However, a failure by the city or county to adopt such zoning restrictions does not constitute grounds to cancel or invalidate Williamson Act contracts.7 The city or county is required to adopt rules governing the administration of the agricultural preserves. These include, but are not limited to, agricultural preserves enrollment guidelines, acreage minimums, enforcement procedures, and compatible uses on preserved lands.8 They must also submit GIS data to the Department of Conservation annually to account for all preserves and contracted properties.9
Compatible Use Principles
The city or county is responsible for determining which uses are compatible with the agricultural, recreational, or open space uses within agricultural preserves.10 The Williamson Act provides broad discretion for the city or county to define compatible uses but also establishes a set of “principles of compatibility”.11 Uses approved on contract lands must comply with all of these principles, unless the city or county otherwise makes statutory findings. The compatibility principles are as follows: 12 (1) The use will not significantly compromise the long-term productive agricultural capability of the subject contracted parcel or parcels or on other contracted lands in agricultural preserves. (2) The use will not significantly displace or impair current or reasonably foreseeable agricultural operations on the subject contracted parcel or parcels or on other contracted lands in agricultural preserves. Uses that significantly displace agricultural operations on the subject contracted parcel or parcels may be deemed compatible if they relate directly to the production of commercial agricultural products on the subject contracted parcel or parcels or neighboring lands, including activities such as harvesting, processing, or shipping. (3) The use will not result in the significant removal of adjacent contracted land from agricultural or open-space use.
4 GC §51201(b), (n), (o). 5 City Council Resolution No. 629. See also City Council Resolution No. 616 which established the rules and procedures governing the creation of agricultural preserves and administering Williamson Act contracts. It should be noted that the establishment of agricultural preserves does not require the lands within the preserve area to enter into Williamson Act contracts 6 GC §51230. 7 Id.
8 GC §§51230, 51232 - 51236. See also Department of Conservation FAQ at https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/wa 9 GC §51237.5. 10 GC §§51231. 11 GC §§51201(e), 51238.1. 12 GC §51238.1 (a))1)-(3).
Williamson Act Overview
October 1, 2026
3 As noted above, the city or county may approve uses on lands that are not classified as “prime farmlands”13 that do not meet compatibility principles due to onsite or offsite impacts, as long as the use is approved pursuant to a conditional use permit with mitigating measures imposed to comply with the foregoing principles as much as possible and to maintain consistency with the statute’s agricultural preservation purposes.14 However, the city or county cannot approve a residential subdivision that constitutes an incompatible use.15 Williamson Act Contracts
A city or county may enter into a contract pursuant to the Williamson Act for a property if (1) the property is located within an agricultural preserve, and (2) if the land is “devoted to agricultural use.”16 The terms of each contract may be different to reflect the location and characteristics of the land, subject to uniform compatibility rules adopted by the city or county.17 Statutory requirements for a Williamson Act contract are summarized below.
Topic Requirements
Contract
Formation
Every contract must contain the following:18
• Land must be within agricultural preserve and devoted to agricultural use • Allow only agricultural uses and uses compatible with agricultural uses, for the duration of the contract
• Runs with the land and binds all successors to land owner Term of
Contract
Contracts must have an initial term of at least 10 years; they are then renewed automatically for an additional year on each annual anniversary date of the contract, unless notice of nonrenewal is given.19 20 Uses on
Contracted
Property
City Council must adopt rules about permitted uses/compatible uses on Williamson Act contracted lands. Uses must be compatible with three Compatibility Use principles set forth above unless the City Council makes findings stating otherwise. The statute considers solar, gas, electricity, water, communication, and farm housing uses to be compatible uses.21 Commercial agriculture is also permitted by statute as discussed above.
Subdivision
of Contract
Lands
Cities and counties must deny a tentative map or parcel map application if the land is under contract, and either (1) the resulting new parcels would be too small to sustain agricultural uses, or (2) the subdivision will result in residential development that is not “incidental” to the commercial agricultural use of the land.22
13 “Prime farmland” is defined by GC §51201(c) which, in simple terms, means properties that either are on specific resource conservation/soils rating classification lists, supports food-production livestock as defined by the federal Department of Agriculture, or that reaches a certain production value per acre from fruit trees, crops, or unprocessed agricultural plant products. 14 GC §51238.1(c)(1)-(4). 15 GC §51238.1(c)(4). 16 GC §§51240, 51242. 17 Id. 18 GC §51243. 19 GC §51244(a); County of Humboldt v. McKee (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1476 (Court holding that renewal means the parties enter into a new contract every year, subject to the regulations in effect at each renewal). 20 Prior to 2009, the Open Space Subvention Act of 1971 provided local governments with an annual state subvention payment to partially cover the loss of property tax revenue from enrolling properties under Williamson Act contracts. The term of a Williamson Act contract could be reduced to 9 years for contracts currently 10 years in length or 18 years for contracts currently 20 years in length, as the case may be. It is our understanding that no subvention has been paid since 2009, and thus this provision does not currently have much relevance. See also Department of Conservation FAQ at https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/wa/Documents/Williamson%20Act%20FAQ%202024.pdf 21 GC §§51231, 51238.1, 51238. 22 GC §66474.4; Cleveland Nat’l Forest Found. v County of San Diego (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 1021.
Williamson Act Overview
October 1, 2026
4 Topic Requirements
Sale or
Transfer of
Property
Williamson Act contracts are binding on all successors in interest, including annexing jurisdictions.23 Transfer of ownership to spouse, children, parent or sibling is also permitted subject to compliance with certain conditions (statutory size requirements, zoning and local rules), and if the family member agrees to operate the land consistently with the contract).24 Terminating
the Contract
Terminating
the Contract
(cont’d)
There are a couple of ways in which a Williamson Act contract can end:
Non-Renewal (most common)25
Either the city/county or the land owner can serve a Notice of Non-Renewal. The land owner must serve at least 90 days prior to the next renewal date (anniversary of the contract), the government must serve at least 60 days before the renewal date. The property owner may serve a notice of non-renewal on a portion of the land under contract. The owner may also protest the city or county’s notice of nonrenewal; the city or county may withdraw its notice at any time prior to the renewal date. If the non-renewal notice is not withdrawn, the existing contract remains in effect for the remainder of its term from execution or the last renewal, as the case may be. (Section 51246(a).)26 At the end of that time period, the contract will be terminated.
Rescission27
The Williamson Act contract is removed upon mutual agreement so that the parties can simultaneously enter into a new contract, an open-space easement agreement, or a solar use easement for that same property, or an agricultural conservation easement for another property.
Cancellation28
This option is only available to the land owner, who must file a petition for cancellation. The city council may only grant tentative approval for cancelling a contract if it finds either that (1) the cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act (to make this finding, the council must make additional findings of compatibility), or (2) the cancellation is in the public interest. The city council must hold a noticed public hearing to consider the cancellation and provide notice to the state and the county. The land owner must submit an alternative proposal for the property’s use, and must pay a cancellation fee calculated by the county assessor’s office before the council can give final approval on the cancellation. 23 GC §51243. 24 GC §51230.1. 25 GC §51245.
26 GC §51246(a) provides in the context in non-renewal that, “the existing contract shall remain in effect for the balance for the period remaining since the original execution or the last renewal of the contract, as the case may be.” This language is subject to interpretation in such a manner as to mean that if the original term of the contract has already expired then the remainder of the term would only be the one-year renewal period. Alternatively, the view acknowledged in some case law is that the remaining period would be for ten years as the original ten-year contract had renewed automatically every year prior to that on an annual basis. The Department of Conservation guidelines reflect the second interpretation and that interpretation is also consistent with dicta in Sierra Club vs. City of Hayward, a 1971 California appellate court decision. While we are still researching more recent case law and attorney general opinions on this issue, we do believe that the reasonable interpretation is that the notice of nonrenewal commences a ten-year time period for termination of the contract. 27 GC §§51254-51256. 28 GC §§51280-51287.
Williamson Act Overview
October 1, 2026
5 Topic Requirements
Eminent Domain29
The land under contract may be acquired by a public agency through eminent domain. In such situations, the contract would be voided. The public agency would still be required to make certain findings in order to make public improvements on lands within agricultural preserves.
Breach of
Contract
A breach of Williamson Contract occurs when both of the following are true:
30 (1) A commercial, industrial or residential building unrelated to an agricultural or compatible use is built against local compatibility rules (excluding buildings that were constructed or that received a building permit prior to 1/1/2004; a building that only became incompatible because of a change in the law; or a state-owned building); and (2) The total area of all the building(s) exceeds 2,500 square feet.
If a potential breach is discovered, the city would need to provide notice to the landowner and hold a noticed public hearing, to provide the owner with the opportunity to cure the breach. If the breach is not cured, there will be a fine of 25% of the market value of the portion of land with the incompatible uses, plus 25% of the value of the incompatible building and improvements. These values will be determined by independent appraisal. The penalty would be secured by a lien on the property.31
Property Tax Assessment for Lands Under Contract32
Properties under Williamson Act contracts are valued based on their “capitalization of income” rather on the market value/sale of the land as taxes are normally assessed under Proposition 13. 33 Specifically, the county
assessor’s office determines the property’s annual income based on market data of how much revenue the land can generate based on the type of agricultural use being operated (for example, grazing, fruit trees, plantings), all expenditures, and any land rent if applicable.34 The net income is capitalized based on a formula comprised of interests, risk factors, property taxes, and amortization, to arrive at the parcel’s assessment value under the Williamson Act.
35 The assessor’s office compares this Williamson Act valuation against the property’s Prop 13 valuation and enroll the lowest of the two.36
Not every property under contract can fully benefit from the reduced tax assessment described above. Notably, the Williamson Act tax assessment method does not apply to any residence (including agricultural housing) on a land under contract, nor does it apply to a “home site”—an area of “reasonable size” used as a residence site on the contracted land.37 We understand that the County of Santa Clara has determined that properties that are one acre or less are treated as “homesites”. Additionally, any existing improvements and new construction on contracted lands are assessed under Prop 13 just like any other parcel not under a Williamson Act contract.38 29 GC §§51290-51295. 30 GC §51250. 31 GC §51250 (e)-(o). 32 In addition to reviewing relevant state law, staff also reached out to the Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office to confirm that the Williamson Act calculation and assessment method described in this section is accurate. The Assessor’s Office confirmed via email on August 8, 2026 to staff that this methodology description is correct. 33 Revenue and Taxation Code (RTC) §§421-423. Proposition 13 is codified at Article XIIIA of the California Constitution. 34 RTC §423. 35 RTC §423(b). 36 Per communication with the County Assessor’s Office. Also, RTC §423(d) provides that the Williamson Act valuation amount cannot exceed the valuation determined pursuant to Prop 13 provisions (i.e. how property tax is assessed for all properties not subject to a land conservation contract). 37 RTC §428. 38 RTC §§51, 70. See also Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office information at https://asr.santaclaracounty.gov/tax-savings/taxreductions/farmers-and-ranchers
Williamson Act Overview
October 1, 2026
6 In other words, “improvements” on Williamson Act lands are assessed in the same way as those on noncontracted lands without the favorable tax treatment.39
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
This section of the memo answers several questions raised during the hearing process including how the Williamson Act contract limits the use and development of a property.
Is a property under Williamson Act contract required to pursue agricultural uses or can the property owner undertake a compatible use only?
There is no specific requirement under the Williamson Act statute, but local governments may establish compatible use rules to regulate this issue. To be eligible for a Williamson Act contract, a property must be located within an agricultural preserve and be “devoted to agricultural use” which means commercial agriculture. The contract shall exclude all uses “other than agricultural, and other than those compatible with agricultural uses” for the life of the contract. Accordingly, a property under contract may only be developed with commercial agricultural uses and uses compatible therewith. However, state law does not further specify whether the property can only contain compatible uses, or whether commercial agriculture is required to be pursued with any compatible uses. As required by Government Code sections 51231 and 51238.1, the local government is tasked with establishing compatible uses and how those uses may be carried out on contracted lands.
As noted above in Footnote 5, City Council Resolution No. 616 established the procedures and requirements for creating an agricultural preserve and entering into Williamson Act contracts. Section 9 of that resolution states “uses which are considered ‘compatible’ (as defined in the Williamson Act) include permitted uses in any zoning district as set forth in Ordinance No. 78, the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Los Altos Hills, as amended, and which are designated in contracts entered into pursuant to the Act.” This section and the resolution does not further specify additional use distribution or occupancy percentages on contract lands.
Based on our review of the statute and Resolution No. 616, it appears that if a property is restricted under contract to commercial agriculture and compatible uses, it will meet Williamson Act requirements and may carry out any of those uses permitted under the contract. Resolution No. 616 specifies that uses permitted within agricultural preserves are those allowed by the zoning code—which specifically includes residential and agriculture—and those designated under contract. This language does not specify the order in which these uses must be undertaken or whether they must proceed concurrently or separately. The resolution is consistent with the statutory text that uses within preserve areas and on contracted lands be restricted to agriculture and compatible uses. Thus, to illustrate, a property owner can execute a Williamson Act contract for a vacant property even though commercial agricultural activities have yet to take place. If the contract provides that open space uses are compatible with agriculture, that vacant parcel will continue to satisfy its contractual obligations if it remains open space even without agricultural activities. 40 The Town can resolve this statutory
ambiguity by adopting local compatible use rules to address the issue.
Does agricultural use have to be a “principal use” or “primary use” on a contracted parcel? The Williamson Act statute does not specify agriculture must be a “principal” or “primary” use generally, nor 39 Id. 40 See, for example, the County of San Luis Obispo Assessor’s Office illustrating how a 160-acre vacant dry farm property may be assessed under Williamson Act contract (https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/departments/assessor/forms-documents/assessor-soffice-pamphlets/land-conservation-act-properties-(williamson-act). Tax assessment is a separate issue from which uses or permitted uses can occur on the parcel.
Williamson Act Overview
October 1, 2026
7 does it require a specific percentage of agricultural uses. It also does not define what a primary or principal use means. As noted above, Resolution No. 616 also does not contain such a requirement. Thus, this question appears to be one where the Town needs to regulate how compatible uses may be carried out on contracted lands. In Los Altos Hills, the Town has not adopted any rules regarding principal/primary uses or the percentage threshold of uses on contract lands.41
We are aware that several public comments cited to a 1979 Attorney General Opinion out of Santa Clara County (62 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 233) and Cleveland Nat’l Forest Found. v County of San Diego (2019) for the argument that residential uses must be “incidental” to a primary agricultural use. It is important to clarify that the Attorney General Opinion and Cleveland pertain to approval of subdivisions on Williamson Act contract lands, where Government Code section 66474.4 specifically requires the Town to deny a tentative map if the subdivision will result in residential development not incidental to the land’s commercial agricultural use.
Further, the Santa Clara County Williamson Act contract that is the subject of the Attorney General Opinion required single family dwellings be “incidental” to agriculture in order to be considered a compatible use.42 Similarly, other public comments cited to Government Code section 51250 stating that residential buildings on contracted lands cannot exceed 2,500 square feet. It is also important to clarify that Section 51250 pertains to commercial, industrial, or residential buildings that are not allowed by state law or the contract, local uniform rules or ordinance consistent with the Williamson Act, and that is unrelated to an agricultural or compatible use. This statute merely describes what constitutes a breach of contract when the type of building is not permitted by contract. It does not establish a blanket square footage standard to determine whether residential uses would be compatible. Such compatibility, again, must be established by local rules and by contract.
It should be noted that the Town may take these legal principles into account when establishing compatible use regulations, such as requiring certain uses to be incidental to commercial agriculture or to require a specific percentage of agricultural or compatible uses on contracted lands.
Does a property owner need to cancel or terminate a Williamson Act contract before developing the property?
No. Properties under contract may develop uses that are compatible with commercial agriculture, as specified in the contract, without terminating the contract. Either the Town or the property owner have the ability to serve a notice not to renew the contract, or the land owner may petition the Town to cancel the contract, but there is no requirement to do so as a condition to develop the property consistent with contract provisions.
What are the compatibility rules for Williamson Act contract properties in Los Altos Hills? Resolution No. 616 established compatible uses for agricultural and open space preserves within Los Altos Hills, as described above, which specifies that uses “designated in Williamson Act contracts” are considered compatible uses in the preserve area. The Town has not formally adopted any additional compatibility use rules for contracted lands. Thus, the compatible uses are governed on a case-by-case basis by each contract for individual properties under Williamson Act contracts. Based on staff’s review, it appears that Williamson Act contracts previously executed in Los Altos Hills all utilize the same template or similar templates stating that agriculture, open space, primary and secondary dwellings, churches, and recreational facilities are compatible 41 As set forth above, the entire Town was previously established as an agricultural preserve. The Town’s zoning code specifies that primary uses permitted in the R-A zoning district include primary dwellings and agriculture. Thus, although not directly relevant to lands under Williamson Act contracts, it is worth considering that the base agricultural preserve rules considers residential a primary use.
42 See 62 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 233 footnote 2 https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/opinions/pdfs/79-309.pdf
Williamson Act Overview
October 1, 2026
8 uses.
Does the County of Santa Clara compatibility rules for Williamson Act apply to Los Altos Hills? No. The Williamson Act statute provides that the city or county has the authority to establish an agricultural preserve and requires them to establish rules governing the preserve(s) as well as compatibility uses. Because the statute imposes the requirement on “cities and counties” and references the city councils and boards of supervisors making findings, the cities and counties would have to establish rules governing the preserves within their jurisdictions. Additionally, under general rules of sovereignty, city and county zoning regulations do not apply to lands within each other’s jurisdiction. With that said, the Town is not prohibited from considering the County’s rules as examples or incorporate them when adopting compatibility rules for Williamson Act contracts.
How is property tax calculated for a partially developed Williamson Act property? A concise way to describe the tax assessment is that the Williamson Act values would be calculated using land rents and other market data for different types of agricultural uses (depending on the type of use). Using this information, the County Assessor’s office would establish an income dollar figure and use that income number, plus other economic factors and capitalization, to determine what the land is worth—its assessed value—under Williamson Act contract. If the property is being used for residential (i.e. a home site), the buildings would be valued under Prop 13 rules. The Assessor’s Office then determines what the Prop 13 value of the land would be and compares said value against the Williamson Act value. The lower of the two values would be included on the tax roll. The County Assessor’s Office has confirmed by email to staff that the foregoing correctly describes the assessment method.
How is property tax calculated if the contract is not renewed? If the landowner gives notice, or if the Town gives notice and the owner does not protest, the property is to be valued thereafter as if the Williamson Act restriction has been removed from the property. If the Town gives notice and the landowner protests the Town’s action, the Williamson Act restriction continues through the first five years of nonrenewal period; i.e., it will be valued as if the notice had not been given. In the final five years of nonrenewal period, the property will be valued as if the enforceable restriction has been removed.
Does residential development on a parcel that is subject to a Williamson Act contract benefit from lower taxes under the Williamson Act?
No. Pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code section 428, the Williamson Act tax assessment (which results in the lower tax rate) does not apply to any residence or any homesite (an area of reasonable size used as a residence site) and structures on Williamson Act parcels are still valued under Prop 13 rules. The size of a homesite utilized by the Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office is 1 acre. The Assessors’ Office communicated via email to staff that if a parcel is only 1.16 acres, the entire value of the parcel would be as a homesite and there would not be Williamson Act tax reductions.43
If you have any questions regarding the information presented in this memo, please contact Steve or Claire. 43 Email from County Assessor’s Office dated August 28, 2026.
Hanson Bridgett LLP
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1500, Sacramento, CA 95814
CHRISTOPHER L. POWELL
PARTNER
DIRECT DIAL (916) 551-2804
E-MAIL [email protected]
September 30, 2026
VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Town Council
Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Re: Objection to Proposed Williamson Act Compatibility Determination and Related Entitlements — Unaddressed La Barranca Road, Lands of Vangala & Tokala, APN 182-05-034 (File Nos. SD25-0072, VAR25-0016)
Dear Mayor, Members of the Town Council, and Members of the Planning Commission:
This firm represents Citizens of Los Altos Hills for Responsible Development, which is comprised of residents of the Town of Los Altos Hills (the “Town”), in connection with the above-referenced application by the Lands of Vangala & Tokala (the “applicant”) to develop the parcel at APN 182-05-034 on La Barranca Road (the “Property”). We write to urge the Town to (1) decline to make an affirmative Williamson Act compatibility determination for the project as proposed; (2) deny, or at a minimum defer, the requested Site Development Permit and related entitlements until the Property’s Land Conservation Contract has been lawfully cancelled in accordance with Government Code sections 51280 through 51287; and (3) decline to rely on a categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and instead undertake appropriate environmental review.
Our client does not oppose reasonable use of the Property. They ask only that the Town follow the law that governs land under a Williamson Act contract. As set out below, the project the Town staff has analyzed (more than 6,300 square feet of residential floor area across three dwelling units, together with a driveway variance, a grading exception, and the removal of a substantial share of the parcel’s vegetation) cannot honestly be characterized as “compatible” with the Property’s continued agricultural and open-space use. Approving it under the guise of a compatibility determination would, in substance, terminate the contract without the process, findings, and fee the Legislature requires.
I. BACKGROUND
The Property is a 1.16-acre parcel zoned Residential-Agricultural (R-A). It has been subject to a Land Conservation Contract under the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (the “Williamson Act” or “Act”), Government Code section 51200 et seq., since the contract was executed in 1971 and recorded in January 1972 (the “Contract”). The Contract restricts the Property, during its term and all renewals, to “the production of agricultural commodities for commercial purposes and uses compatible thereto,” and lists the compatible uses in Exhibit A.
ITEM 10A, Supplement 2
Town of Los Altos Hills
September 30, 2026
In exchange, the owner receives a substantially reduced property-tax assessment. (Contract, ¶¶ 1–2 & Ex. A.)
The applicant seeks approval of (1) a Site Development Permit to construct a 4,584-square-foot, two-story single-family residence with attached garage, a 793-square-foot attached accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”), and a 999-square-foot attached unit described as an “SB 9 unit,” together with associated hardscape and site improvements; (2) a variance to permit a driveway wider than the 14-foot maximum; (3) a grading policy exception to allow excavation exceeding the Town’s maximum cut thresholds; and (4) a Williamson Act compatibility determination. (Staff Report to the Planning Commission, Unaddressed La Barranca Road (APN 182-05-034), File Nos. SD25-0072 & VAR25-0016 (Sept. 3, 2026) (“Staff Report”), at 1.) The only agricultural uses proposed are a chicken coop for egg production and a shed for potted plants and vegetables. (Staff Report, at 2.)
On August 6, 2026, after receiving extensive public comment, the Planning Commission voted 4-0-1 (one recusal) to continue the matter and to direct staff to prepare a resolution recommending that the Town Council deny the project on the ground that the project is incompatible with the Williamson Act: “specifically, the Commission’s determination that agriculture would not remain the primary use of the parcel.” (Staff Report, at 2–3.) The Commission expressly “acknowledged that the proposed project is consistent with the uses permitted under the existing Williamson Act Contract,” yet nonetheless “determined that the project did not support a positive compatibility determination.” (Staff Report, at 3.) Our client agrees with the Commission’s conclusion, and writes to explain why it is correct as a matter of law.
II. THE PROJECT AS PROPOSED IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE WILLIAMSON ACT A regulation that denies an owner the economically viable use of property, or that goes “too far” in burdening property, effects a taking that the Fifth Amendment and Article I, section 19 of the California Constitution forbid without just compensation. (See Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (2005) 544 U.S. 528.)
A. The Act requires that agriculture or open space remain the primary use; compatible uses are, by definition, subordinate.
The Williamson Act was enacted to preserve agricultural and open-space land by restricting its use in exchange for reduced assessment. (Gov. Code, § 51220.) Land under contract “shall not be used for any purpose other than the production of agricultural commodities for commercial purposes and uses compatible thereto.” (Contract, ¶ 2; Gov. Code, § 51243.) A “compatible use” is defined as a use “determined by the county or city administering the preserve … to be compatible with the agricultural, recreational, or open-space use” of the land, and one that satisfies the statutory principles of compatibility. (Gov. Code, § 51201, subd. (e).) The statutory scheme thus contemplates that the agricultural or open-space use remains primary, and that any compatible use is subordinate and incidental to it. A use that displaces agriculture as the principal use of the land is not “compatible, rather, it is a conversion.
B. A use listed in the Contract’s Exhibit A must still independently satisfy the principles of compatibility in Government Code section 51238.1.
Item 3.3 Supplemental 4
Town of Los Altos Hills
September 30, 2026
We recognize that Exhibit A to the Contract lists “Primary dwellings” and “Secondary dwellings” among the enumerated compatible uses. That a dwelling appears on the list, however, does not end the inquiry. Whether a particular project is compatible turns not merely on the category of use but on whether that project satisfies the mandatory principles of compatibility set out in Government Code section 51238.1. Those principles require that an approved use:
(1) will not significantly compromise the long-term productive agricultural capability of the contracted parcel;
(2) will not significantly displace or impair current or reasonably foreseeable agricultural operations on the parcel; and
(3) will not result in the significant removal of adjacent contracted land from agricultural or open-space use.
(Gov. Code, § 51238.1, subd. (a); see also Staff Report, at 2–3 [reciting the same principles].) These principles operate as a statutory floor. While the Town may, by rule or contract, add to or make more restrictive the uses it treats as compatible (Gov. Code, § 51231; Contract, ¶ 2), it may not treat a use as compatible on terms less protective than section 51238.1 demands.
Neither the Contract’s Exhibit A nor the Town’s Resolution No. 616, which, as staff acknowledges, merely cross-references uses permitted in the R-A zone (Staff Report, at 2–3), can authorize a project that fails the section 51238.1 principles as applied to this parcel.
C. As applied here, the project fails the principles of compatibility: it makes residential use primary and agriculture incidental.
The project proposes more than 6,300 square feet of residential floor area, a 4,584-square-foot house, a 793-square-foot ADU, and a 999-square-foot additional unit, plus an attached garage, hardscape, an oversized driveway requiring a variance, and grading that exceeds the Town’s maximum cut thresholds and so requires a grading policy exception. (Staff Report, at 1.) Against that, the entirety of the proposed “agriculture” is a chicken coop and a potted-plant shed. (Staff Report, at 2.) According to the applicant’s own plans, the project would remove roughly 41 percent of the 1.16-acre parcel from agricultural or open-space use, leaving approximately 59 percent. (Applicant’s plans; see Staff Report, Attach. 5 [Farming Operation and Business Plan] & Attach. 6 [Worksheet 1-2].)
On these facts, agriculture plainly would not “remain the primary use of the parcel,” the very conclusion the Planning Commission reached. (Staff Report, at 3.) A backyard chicken coop and a shed of potted plants are not the principal use of a parcel dominated by a multi-unit residential compound; they are incidental to it. That inversion, residence as the primary use, agriculture as the incidental use, is the opposite of what the Act permits, and it “significantly compromise[s]” and “displace[s]” the parcel’s agricultural capability and operations within the meaning of section 51238.1, subdivisions (a)(1) and (a)(2). The permanent removal of a large share of the parcel’s vegetation and of significant trees to accommodate the residence, driveway, and grading only underscores the point.
We note as well that the compatibility of residential structures on contracted land has historically been understood to turn on their relationship to the agricultural operation — for example, housing for agricultural labor reasonably required by the farming use. The proposed agricultural Item 3.3 Supplemental 4
Town of Los Altos Hills
September 30, 2026
operation here (a chicken coop and potted plants) requires no year-round labor force, and the residence is not proposed as agricultural-worker housing. That confirms what the scale of the project already shows: the dwellings are the object of the project, not an accessory to farming.
III. A COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION CANNOT BE USED TO ACCOMPLISH A DE
FACTO CANCELLATION OF THE CONTRACT
The Williamson Act provides two distinct mechanisms that bear on contracted land, and they do very different things. Nonrenewal (Gov. Code, §§ 51245–51246; Contract, ¶¶ 3–4) does not release the land from the contract’s use restrictions; it stops only the contract’s automatic annual renewal, so that the contract runs out over the balance of its remaining term: here, approximately nine years, while the assessed value steps up toward unrestricted value over that period. Throughout the nonrenewal wind-down, the Property remains fully subject to the restriction that it be used only for agriculture and compatible uses. Cancellation (Gov. Code, §§ 51280–51287), by contrast, is the only mechanism that terminates the contract and permits a non-agricultural use before the term expires, and it is disfavored: it requires the Town to make the specific statutory findings prescribed by section 51282 and the landowner to pay a cancellation fee equal to 12.5 percent of the land’s unrestricted fair market value (Gov. Code, § 51283).
That distinction is decisive here, because the applicant proposes to build now, during the contract term. Nonrenewal cannot authorize that construction: even if a notice of nonrenewal were served today, the Property would remain restricted to agriculture and compatible uses for the entire balance of the term, and an estate-scale residence could not lawfully be built during that period. The only mechanism that could authorize this Project before the contract expires is cancellation. Nonrenewal is, at most, a predicate to one of the statutory cancellation routes (see Gov. Code, § 51282), not a substitute for it. The Staff Report’s reference to nonrenewal under section 51245 (Staff Report, at 2) therefore does not answer the objection: a direction merely to initiate nonrenewal would leave the Project just as incompatible with the Contract for every year of the wind-down.
Approving development of this scale under the label of a “compatibility determination” would let the applicant achieve the practical result of cancellation, conversion of the Property to a residential estate, while retaining the Contract’s tax benefit and evading the findings, fee, and public process the Act requires. The courts have long insisted that the Act’s exit provisions be strictly construed and not circumvented. (See Sierra Club v. City of Hayward (1981) 28 Cal.3d 840 [Williamson Act cancellation findings strictly construed].) A local agency cannot do indirectly, through an over-generous compatibility finding, what the statute requires be done directly, through cancellation. If the Town wishes to allow this project, the lawful path is to pursue cancellation, satisfying the section 51282 findings and paying the section 51283 fee, before any entitlement authorizing construction is granted - not to declare an estate-scale residential development “compatible” with a contract that exists to keep the land in agriculture.
Because the compatibility question is close and consequential, we further urge the Town to request a technical advisory opinion from the California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, which administers the Act at the state level, before acting. Doing so would help the Town avoid a costly error and the litigation risk that an unsupported compatibility determination would invite.
Item 3.3 Supplemental 4
Town of Los Altos Hills
September 30, 2026
IV. THE PROJECT DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR A CLASS 3 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION The Staff Report proposes to find the project categorically exempt from CEQA under the Class 3 exemption for new construction of small structures. (Staff Report, at 1, 4; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15303, subd. (a).) That exemption is unavailable here for at least three reasons.
First, the Class 3 exemption authorizes “[o]ne single-family residence” outside urbanized areas, and permits “up to three single-family residences” only “[i]n urbanized areas.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15303, subd. (a).) Los Altos Hills is a low-density, rural-residential community, and this Property is contracted agricultural and open-space land within an agricultural preserve. A threeunit residential project on such a parcel does not fit the terms of subdivision (a).
Second, even if the exemption otherwise applied, it is barred by the exceptions in section 15300.2. The location exception withholds the Class 3 exemption where the project may affect an environmental resource of critical concern (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15300.2, subd. (a)); Williamson Act agricultural preserve land, and the significant trees the project would remove, are such resources. The unusual-circumstances exception applies where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. (Id., § 15300.2, subd. (c); Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086.) The removal of roughly 41 percent of the parcel’s vegetation and of numerous significant trees, grading that exceeds the Town’s maximum cut thresholds, and a driveway that exceeds the Town’s width standard are exactly the kind of unusual circumstances that defeat a categorical exemption.
Third, CEQA independently treats the conversion of, or conflict with, Williamson Act land as a potentially significant impact. (See CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, § II [Agriculture and Forestry Resources: whether a project would “[c]onflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract”].) Where, as here, a fair argument exists that the project will impair or effectively convert contracted agricultural land, the Town cannot lawfully rely on a categorical exemption; at a minimum, an initial study is required to evaluate the project’s agricultural, biological (tree removal), and related impacts.
V. THE PROPOSED “SB 9 UNIT” RAISES ADDITIONAL ELIGIBILITY QUESTIONS THE
TOWN MUST RESOLVE
The Staff Report describes one of the three units as an “SB 9 unit.” (Staff Report, at 1.) SB 9 (Gov. Code, § 65852.21) does not apply to parcels excluded under Government Code section 65913.4, subdivision (a)(6)(B)–(K), which include prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, and other environmentally sensitive or protected lands. Before treating any portion of this project as an SB 9 unit, the Town should confirm on the record whether the Property carries any such designation, and should also address whether an R-A parcel enrolled under a Williamson Act contract qualifies as a “single-family residential zone” eligible for SB 9 treatment, and whether a unit being approved through a discretionary Site Development Permit is properly characterized as a ministerial SB 9 unit at all. We raise these as questions the Town must answer, and reserve our client’s rights on each.
Item 3.3 Supplemental 4
Town of Los Altos Hills
September 30, 2026
VI. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request that the Town: (1) decline to make an affirmative Williamson Act compatibility determination for the project as proposed, consistent with the Planning Commission’s determination that agriculture would not remain the primary use of the parcel; (2) deny the requested Site Development Permit, variance, and grading exception, or defer any approval unless and until the Contract has been lawfully cancelled under Government Code sections 51280 through 51287, including the findings required by section 51282 and payment of the cancellation fee required by section 51283; (3) decline to rely on a Class 3 categorical exemption and instead conduct appropriate CEQA review; and (4) consider requesting a technical advisory opinion from the Department of Conservation on the compatibility question.
Our client appreciates the Town’s careful attention to this matter and stands ready to provide any additional information that would assist the Council and the Commission. We ask that this letter be included in the administrative record for the project.
Sincerely,
HANSON BRIDGETT LLP
Christopher L. Powell
Partner
cc: Citizens of Los Altos Hills for Responsible Development Steve Mattas, Esq., Town Attorney (Redwood Public Law LLP) Item 3.3 Supplemental 4