Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the City Council discuss and provide direction based upon the policy choices set forth in this memorandum.
Purpose
The presentation is in response to the City Council’s request to review how properties are included in the HRI and how the HRI is applied.
Background
The Community Design and Historic Resources Element of the City’s General Plan focuses on the protection and enhancement of historic structures, objects, or properties in the city. The Community Design and Historic Resources Element identifies several national and state laws responsible for preserving and protecting resources significant at the national, state and local levels. However, resources that are more historically significant at the local level are protected through municipal code Chapter 12.44, Historic Preservation.
The Historic Preservation Ordinance establishes criteria to determine the significance of resources, an evaluation methodology, and procedures to designate a resource as either a historic resource or a historic landmark on the Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) (Sections 12.44.040 thru 12.44.090).
Once listed on the HRI or designated as a landmark, a historic alteration permit or an advisory review by the Historical Commission must be completed to alter, demolish, remove, relocate or otherwise change in any manner any exterior architectural feature or natural feature that contributes to the integrity or the historic significance of a historic resource; or remove or relocate any improvements, structures or natural features that contribute to the integrity or the historic significance of a historic landmark. The last citywide comprehensive review and update of the HRI was completed in 2012; however, new listings have been included on the HRI since then after completion of the historic resource listing process.
With regards to applications for housing development projects, SB 330 and SB8 require that the City determine whether a proposed project involves the alteration or demolition of a historic resource at the time the application for the housing development project is deemed complete. If an applicant has submitted all the application materials listed on the city’s application requirement list, this determination must be made within 30 days from application submittal. If a housing development project site is listed on the HRI or in the California Register (which includes historic resources listed in the National Register), then it is presumed to be a historic site. Resources not listed in the California Register but determined to be eligible for listing by the state’s Historic Resources Commission are also deemed historic.
502
Agenda Item # 11.
Subject: Historic Resource Inventory (HRI):
March 8, 2022
Other project sites, sometimes referred to as “discretionary historic resources,” may also be historically significant. As stated in 14 CCR § 15064.5(a)(3), (4), any building or structure “may be considered to be a historic resource” by a local agency if the local agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence. Generally, this requires a showing that the resource is eligible for listing in the California Register, even if the resource is not already listed in the California Register or determined to be a local historic resource or historic landmark. If there is reason to believe that the City’s HRI is not sufficiently comprehensive in identifying all potential historic resources in the City, then to facilitate the requirement under SB 330 and SB 8 for an early historic determination, it is necessary at the application phase for the City to require that some kind of historic analysis be submitted with the application so that staff can make the required determination by the time the application is accepted for processing or deemed complete.
The necessity of early historic evaluation applies to all types of housing developments. Since January 1, 2020, SB 330 has required early historic determination for all multi-family and mixeduse housing development projects. Since January 1, 2022, SB 8 has extended the requirement for early historic determination to single-family housing development projects. The City also can apply early historic determination to SB 9 projects. SB 9 categorically excludes projects on sites “located within a historic district or property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory … or within a site that is designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district pursuant to a city or county ordinance,” but it also states that the local building official may deny a proposed SB 9 project that will have a specific, adverse impact on the physical environment.
A significant, adverse impact on the physical environment includes a significant impact on any historic resource, including any discretionary historic resource.
One way that local agencies address early historic evaluation is to require housing development project applicants to submit historic evaluations using Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Forms 523A and 523B (“DPR forms”). Pursuant to the City’s participation in the Certified Local Government Program (CLG), established through the National Historic Preservation Act, DPR forms should be used to determine whether structures fifty years or older are historically significant. As a CLG, the DPR forms shall be completed by a qualified historian, which includes:
“A professional with at least one year of graduate study in architectural preservation, American architectural history, preservation planning, or closely related field; or (2) at least one year of full- time professional experience on historic preservation projects” To make historic determinations within the 30-day time period allotted under SB8 and SB 330, the Planning Division requires the submission of completed DPR forms as part of all housing development applications involving projects that will alter or destroy buildings or structures that were constructed at least 50 years ago. DPR forms create a streamlined way for applicants to provide information to the City about the potential historic character of their properties. However, DPR forms must be prepared by qualified historic consultants, which requires an investment of 503
Agenda Item # 11.
Subject: Historic Resource Inventory (HRI):
March 8, 2022
time and money. Requiring the submission of DPR forms would be unnecessary if a comprehensive update to the HRI is completed.
Analysis:
For non-housing development project applications, if staff receives information after a project application is submitted that the project may involve the alteration or destruction of a historic resource, City staff can require preparation of a full Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) by a qualified historic consultant. If there are further questions, a peer review of the HRE may be required. The ultimate determination whether the project site is historically significant is made by the approval authority at the same time the approval authority considers the project. This can be a lengthy and expensive process depending upon individualized circumstances. This case-by-case approach was previously applied to housing development projects, but as explained above, state law now requires that any historic determination be made early at the time the project application is accepted for processing or deemed complete. As a practical matter, this requirement for early historic evaluation requires a staff-level determination.
Considering the foregoing limitations of state law, the City essentially has four non-mutually exclusive options for addressing historic resources with respect to housing development project applications.
The first option is to rely upon state and local listing or designation of historic resources and not to require additional historic analysis for proposed housing development projects. Legally this is an option because an unlisted/undesignated historic resource is not deemed a historic resource for purposes of CEQA and other historic preservation laws unless it is determined to be significant by the local agency based on substantial evidence following historic review. This option would facilitate housing development in Los Altos to address the state’s current housing crisis, but it risks the loss of unlisted or undesignated local historic resources.
To avoid choosing between these policy goals, the City could update the HRI, but that will cost money and take time, so that an interim policy decision is still necessary.
Another option is to require early historic review, consistent with current City practice, for all housing development projects involving the alteration or destruction of buildings or structures constructed at least fifty years ago. Fifty years is considered a suitable cutoff for this type of analysis because it is extremely unlikely that any building or structure constructed less than fifty years ago would satisfy the criteria for historic designation. Requiring early historic review costs applicants time and money, but it will protect historic resources in the City that may not yet be formally identified as such.
504
Agenda Item # 11.
Subject: Historic Resource Inventory (HRI):
March 8, 2022
A final option is to establish more specific criteria for requiring early historic review. Much of the City’s housing stock was constructed prior to 1972, but most of it is not historically significant.
There may be criteria that would categorically rule out historic review for most single-family housing development projects in the City. Establishing those criteria, however, will take time and require historic expertise because if the criteria established are not exact, some historic resources may escape historic review.
The bottom line is that gone are the days when staff could determine on a case-by-case basis the best way to address historic resources when considering a housing development project application. The City is required to address historic resources in a manner that is uniform, fair, and consistent with state law.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends Option 3 below, and that the City Council discuss and provide direction at this meeting to be formalized in a future Council action. Options available to the City Council include the following, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive:
Option No. 1: Do not require early historic evaluation of housing development projects.
Pros: This option will facilitate housing development to address the state’s housing crisis.
Cons: Historic resources that have not yet been identified may be lost forever.
Option No. 2: Require early historic evaluation for all housing development projects that will alter or destroy buildings or structures constructed at least 50 years ago.
Pros: Of the options legally available to the City, this option is the most protective of historic resources.
Cons: This will add time and expense to housing development applications, which will especially impact single-family housing development projects.
Option No. 3: Require early historic review for housing development projects that are time sensitive and meet specific criteria.
Pros: This option balances the competing goals of housing and historic preservation. Also, although this option will require time and expense to the City, it is anticipated to require less time and expense than updating the HRI.
Cons: This option will require time, money, and an interim policy decision. 505
Agenda Item # 11.
Sean Gallegos, Senior Planner
Steve Golden, Interim Planning Services Manager
March 8, 2022
Historic Resources
Inventory and
Historic Resource
Evaluations
506
Agenda Item # 11.
Historic Designation Applications
Application for Historic Designation
1. An application for a historic landmark, or a historic resource designation may be initiated by a property owner, the City Council or the Planning Commission by resolution or motion, and the Community Development Director
Required Application Materials
1. Completed application form
2. Historic Resource Evaluation and DPR Form
a) Completed by historic professional
b) Historic professional required to meet National Parks Service Qualification Standards.
2 507
Agenda Item # 11.
Historic Designation Process
Historical Resource
1. The Historical Commission shall consider the proposed historic resource and determine whether or not the property satisfies the three criteria outlined in Section 12.44.040.
2. The Historical Commission either approves or disapproves the designation of the property as a historic resource and list it in the historic resources inventory.
3. The Historical Commission’s approval of a historic resource shall become effective immediately.
Historical Landmark
1. The Historical Commission shall consider the proposed historic resource and make a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed designation. The commission shall make the following findings:
a) That the proposed historic landmark satisfies the three criteria outlined in Section 12.44.040; and b) That the proposed landmark has special historical, cultural, archeological, scientific, architectural or aesthetic interest or value as part of the heritage or history of the city, the county, the state or the nation.
2. The City Council shall consider the proposed historic landmark and determine whether or not to accept the historical commission's recommendation by resolution, and approve in whole or in part or as modified, or shall, by motion, disapprove the proposal in its entirety
3. If the city council approves the landmark designation, the resolution shall become effective immediately.
3 508
Agenda Item # 11.
City of Los Altos Criteria for Designation
1. Age. A structure or property should be more than fifty (50) years in age.
2. Determination of Integrity. A structure or property should retain sufficient historic integrity in most of the following areas:
a) Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. b) Setting: The physical environment of a historic property. c) Materials: The physical elements from a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.
d) Workmanship: The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.
e) Feeling: A property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.
3. Historic Significance. A structure or property should be clearly associated with one or more of the following areas of significance:
a) Event: Associated with a single significant event or a pattern of events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of local or regional history, or cultural heritage of California or the United States.
b) Person/People: Associated with the lives of persons important to the local, California or national history. c) Architecture/Design: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a design-type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic value. d) Archaeology: Yields important information about prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
4 509
Agenda Item # 11.
Local Landmark Designation
To be potentially eligible for individual listing as a
local landmark in the City of Los Altos:
1.The proposed historic landmark satisfies three
criteria outlined in Section 12.44.040
2.The proposed landmark has special historical,
cultural, archeological, scientific, architectural or
aesthetic interest or value as part of the heritage or
history of the city, the county, the state or the
nation.
5 510
Agenda Item # 11.
Land Development/Entitlement Historic Review
SB330 and SB8 Requirements
• Historic resource determination when application
considered “complete”
• A site listed on the HRI or California Register is
presumed to be a historic site
• Not listed but eligible for listing are also considered historically significant
• Other “discretionary historic sites”
6 511
Agenda Item # 11.
Land Development/Entitlement Historic Review
SB9 Requirements
• Excludes projects:
“located within a historic district or property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory … or within a site that is designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district pursuant to a city or county ordinance”
• The project can be denied if it will have a specific, adverse impact on the physical environment…
An impact to a discretionary historic resource is
a significant impact.
7 512
Agenda Item # 11.
Options to Address Early Historic Evaluations
•Do not require early historic evaluation of
housing development projects.
•Require early historic evaluation using DPR
forms for all housing development projects
that will alter or destroy buildings or
structures constructed at least 50 years ago.
•Require early historic review for housing
development projects that meet specific
criteria.
8 513
Agenda Item # 11.
Recommendation to Address Early Historic
Evaluations
For Buildings and Structures 50 years or older –
Additional Criteria/Exemptions
• Examples: Construction type and materials, property location, proportionality of structure being modified/size of addition, location of building modification, etc
• Historical Commission Recommendation
• Interim policy
For Buildings and Structures less than 50 years
old –
No Further Requirement
9 514
Agenda Item # 11.
From: Anne Paulson
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 11 - March 8, 2022
Date: Monday, March 7, 2022 8:39:29 AM
March 7, 2022
Re: City Council Meeting Agenda Item #11 - Historic Resource Inventory Dear Mayor Enander and Councilmembers,
On the matter of historical determination for housing projects, I urge the City Council to select Option 1, verifying that the project site is not already listed as a historic resource and requiring nothing more. When we require an applicant to hire a historian for thousands of dollars and wait months for the historic review process to play out, we’re almost certainly merely making the applicant wait months and spend time and money to no purpose, as most houses are not historic. We need to get rid of red tape for housing, and this is a good place to start.
Even if the city elects to continue to require this discretionary historical determination for discretionary approvals, it cannot do so for SB 9 applications, which must be handled ministerially. By way of reminder, a discretionary approval is one that may require the exercise of judgment, deliberation, or discretion; it might require hearings, public comment, research, or any number of complicated processes. A ministerial approval is the opposite:
the project must be approved or denied based on whether it satisfies objective criteria.
Historical reviews, which are judgment calls, cannot be ministerial.
The city would be erring in two ways in doing a discretionary historical review for SB 9 projects. First, the city is prohibited from doing the discretionary review at all, because the approval process has to be ministerial.The planning department seeks to require a historian report to help it determine whether an SB 9 site is a “discretionary historic resource”. It can't. The very word “discretionary” indicates why this is not permitted. The planning department is not permitted to use “some kind of historic analysis;” such an analysis is not part of a ministerial review. The planning department may only use the objective ministerial process of determining whether the site is already listed in the California Register or already determined to be a local historic resource or historic landmark.
Second, the city cannot use the results of the discretionary review to deny an SB 9 project, because a denial has to be based on violations of objective written standards, rather than a 515
Agenda Item # 11.
discretionary decision about the historical nature of a property. Staff claims that, "the local building official may deny a proposed SB 9 project that will have a specific, adverse impact on the physical environment ... including any discretionary historic resource". But the statutes require that any such denial be based on "objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions" and that those objective, written standards be identified in the denial. (The relevant sections of the law are included below.) Staff's suggestion of denial for an impact on a "discretionary historic resource" is, by their own words, discretionary, rather than objective, and thus not permitted by SB 9.
This discretionary review must be eliminated for SB 9 projects, and should in my view be eliminated for all other projects as well. If the city wants to identify historical resources, it should do so before an applicant puts forward a building application.
Sincerely,
Anne Paulson
SB 9: Section 65852.21 (d)
Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a local agency may deny a proposed housing development project if the building official makes a written finding, based upon a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. [my bold] Housing Accountability Act: Section 65589.5 (d) (2)
The housing development project or emergency shelter as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderate-income households or rendering the development of the emergency shelter financially infeasible. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. [my bold]
516
Agenda Item # 11.
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
GE JH N/A
City Manager Finance Director
Reviewed by:
City Attorney
Meeting Date: March 8, 2022
Subject: Commission Appointments
Prepared by: Andrea M. Chelemengos, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Jon Maginot, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachment(s):
None
Initiated by:
City Council
Previous Council Consideration: None
Fiscal Impact:
None
Environmental Review:
Not applicable
Policy Question(s) for Council Consideration:
Does the Council wish to appoint the applicants to serve on the following Commissions? • Complete Streets
• Environmental Commission
• Parks and Recreation Commission
• Public Arts Commission
Summary:
Below is a summary of the number of seats to be filled, the terms, number of applications received for each Commission, an alphabetical listing of the applicants. Eligible incumbents seeking re-appointment are indicated with an asterisk (*) following the applicant’s name. All, but one of the applicant’s invited to the interview were interviewed by the City Council on March 1, 2022.
517
Agenda Item # 12.
Subject: Commission Appointments – Complete Streets Commission, Environmental Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Public Arts Commission March 8, 2022, Page 2
COMPLETE STREETS COMMISSION: 3 full terms expiring march, 2026 4 applications received (1 new 3 incumbents*)
Stacy Banerjee*
Tom Gschneidner*
Nadim Maluf*
Scott Jacob Pietka
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION: 4 full terms expiring in March 2026 5 applications received (2 new 3 incumbents*)
Tom Hecht
David J Klein*
Shiao ping Lu*
Carl van Reis
Donald Weiden*
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION: 1 partial term expiring in March 2025
1 application received
Scott Spielman
PUBLIC ARTS COMMISSION: 1 partial term expiring September 2025 1 application received
Dana Tasic
Staff Recommendation:
Appoint applicants to fill the vacancies on the Complete Streets Commission, Environmental Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission and the Public Arts Commission.
518
Agenda Item # 12.
Subject: Commission Appointments – Complete Streets Commission, Environmental Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Public Arts Commission March 8, 2022, Page 3
Purpose
To fill existing or upcoming, due to expiration of terms, Commission vacancies.
Background
The City Council appoints individuals to serve on the various City Commissions and one Committee.
Except for Senior and Youth Commissioners, members are appointed to four-year terms and may serve a total of two consecutive terms plus the fulfillment of an unexpired term should they be so appointed.
Discussion/Analysis
Currently there are two (2) vacancies and seven (7) Commission terms expiring March, 2022 resulting in the following nine (9) Commission seats to be filled:
Complete Streets Commission: 3 full terms expiring March 2026 Environmental Commission: 4 full terms expiring in March 2026 Parks And Recreation Commission: 1 partial term expiring in March 2025 Public Arts Commission: 1 partial term expiring September 2025
On March 1, 2022, the City Council interviewed all but one of the applicants. 519
Agenda Item # 12.
PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE
The following is public correspondence received by the City Clerk’s Office after the posting of the original agenda. Individual contact information has been redacted for privacy. This may not be a comprehensive collection of the public correspondence, but staff makes its best effort to include all correspondence received to date.
To send correspondence to the City Council, on matters listed on the agenda please email [email protected]
520
Agenda Item # 12.
March 7, 2022
VIA EMAIL
Los Altos City Council
Los Altos City Hall
1 North San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
Re: Public Comment Agenda Item #12 - March 8, 2022 Meeting – Commission Appointments
Dear Mayor Enander, Vice Mayor Meadows, Councilmember Lee Eng, Councilmember Weinberg, and Councilmember Fligor,
We are Los Altos residents and submit this unsolicited letter in support of Scott Spielman’s re-appointment to the Parks and Recreation Commission.
1. Mr. Spielman has demonstrated a commitment to representing the interests of the community at-large.
Section 4.1 of the City Council Norms and Procedures provides that commissioners represent the interests of the community at large. During his tenure as a commissioner on the Parks and Recreation Commission, Mr. Spielman was a role model of representing the interests of the community at large. As an example, when the commission was considering a site for a fenced-in dog park, many of us expressed our concern about the process during public comment. Mr. Spielman responded to our concern by proactively proposing a meeting with our neighborhood. He spent hours listening to our concerns and helping us understand the process. He also facilitated educating other commissioners about the concerns and issues we raised.
His dedication to reaching out to residents was a role model for seeking to represent the interests of the community at-large. Moreover, we believe his efforts contributed to enabling the city to move forward with the plan that the City Council recently approved.
2. Mr. Spielman is uniquely qualified to serve on the Parks and Recreation Commission.
Mr. Spielman served on the commission for approximately 18 months. His effectiveness was recognized when he was elected Vice Chair. At a time when the Parks and Recreation Commission is considering many important matters, we believe the City Council and the commission will benefit from Mr. Spielman’s prior experience, familiarity with the current matters before the commission, as well as his pre-existing, positive working relationships with the current commission members. 521
Agenda Item # 12.
We ask that each of you vote to re-appoint Mr. Spielman to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Janet Corrigan1, Harry Guy, Daryl Shafran, Michael Shafran, Mark Homan, Parisa Naseralavi, Sarah S. Shreve, and Kim Lorz
1 Signatory submits this letter as a resident of Los Altos and not as a member of the Public Arts Commission 522
Agenda Item # 12.
523
Agenda Item # 12.
AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Reviewed By:
City Manager City Attorney
CJ
Finance Director
JH SE
Meeting Date: March 8, 2022
Subject; Council Legislative Subcommittee Update And Potential Council Action No written report – Oral report and discussion to take place at the meeting 524
Agenda Item # 13.
City of Los Altos 2022 Tentative Council Agenda Calendar February 28, 2022
All items and dates are tentative and subject to change unless a specific date has been noticed for a legally required Public Hearing. Items may be added or removed from the shown date at any time and for any reason prior to the publication of the agenda eight days prior to the next Council meeting.
Date Agenda Item
(Date identified by Council)
Agenda Section
(Consent,
Discussion Item -
note in red if
Public Hearing)
Dept/
Date of
request
to add.
March 22, 2022 STUDY SESSION - Complete Streets Master Plan
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
Compensation Philosophy
Story Pole Exemption request: 330 Distel Circle
Policy of use of City Land by Non-Profits at Civic Center Housing Element Annual Progress Report CC
Policy Discussion on Housing Element Update
El Camino Real Bike Lanes Transp.
Expansion of Scope of Housing Element Outreach Subcommittee Discussion CC
1.25.202
2 Financial System Purchase
Tree Policy
525
Agenda Item # A.
City of Los Altos Tentative Council Agenda Calendar
February 28, 2022
All items and dates are tentative and subject to change unless a specific date has been noticed for a legally required Public Hearing. Items may be added or removed from the shown date at any time and for any reason prior to the publication of the agenda eight days prior to the next Council meeting.
Date Agenda Item
(Date identified by Council)
Agenda Section
(Consent,
Discussion Item -
note in red if
Public Hearing)
Dept.
April 12, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
Mid Year Budget Report
115 Plan Discussion 4/12
Construction Contract Award: Fremont Avenue Pedestrian Bridge Rehabilitation Project, TS-01055 (1)
April 26, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
May 3, 2022 Joint Meeting w/Commissions
May 10, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
Resolution Calling for Election (?)
FY23 Budget Session Public Hearing?
3rd Quarter Report
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
May 24, 2022 Resolution Calling for Election (?)
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
June 14, 2022 Adopt Resolution No. 2022-XX approving the Report of Sewer Service Charges and directing the Filing of Charges for Collection by the Tax Collector
2 Printed Public
Hearing -
- not less than 10
days - published
once a week for
526
Agenda Item # A.
City of Los Altos Tentative Council Agenda Calendar
February 28, 2022
All items and dates are tentative and subject to change unless a specific date has been noticed for a legally required Public Hearing. Items may be added or removed from the shown date at any time and for any reason prior to the publication of the agenda eight days prior to the next Council meeting.
Date Agenda Item
(Date identified by Council)
Agenda Section
(Consent,
Discussion Item -
note in red if
Public Hearing)
Dept.
two consecutive
weeks 5/11/2022
& 5/18/2022
FY23 Budget Adoption
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
June 28, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
June 28, 2022
July 12, 2022
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
August 23, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
August 30, 2022 Commission Interviews
September 6, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
September 20, 2022* Year End tentative report – September (if needed)
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
October 11, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
October 25, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
November 1, 2021 Joint w/Commissions
November 15, 2022 * 1st Quarter report FY 2021/2022
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
November 29, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
527
Agenda Item # A.
City of Los Altos Tentative Council Agenda Calendar
February 28, 2022
All items and dates are tentative and subject to change unless a specific date has been noticed for a legally required Public Hearing. Items may be added or removed from the shown date at any time and for any reason prior to the publication of the agenda eight days prior to the next Council meeting.
Date Agenda Item
(Date identified by Council)
Agenda Section
(Consent,
Discussion Item -
note in red if
Public Hearing)
Dept.
December 6, 2022 CAFR and Year End – 1st meeting December December 13, 2022 Special meeting REORG.
Future Agenda Topics To Be Scheduled….
Proposed City policy that modifies the environmental analysis standard for circulation impacts from a Level of Service (LOS) analysis to a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis.
Public Hearing
info on Cuesta speed tables
League of California Cities – Role and Representation Presentation/Disc ussion
Council
Initiated
Alta Housing
Comprehensive multi-modal traffic study (analysis of recent projects projected parking, trip generation, & traffic impacts to actuals; ECR impacts should include adjacent streets) ES
528
Agenda Item # A.