• Allow two ADUs to be constructed on a lot if a multifamily dwelling is proposed to be developed. SB 897 would allow a property owner to construct two ADUs on a vacant parcel years before the proposed multifamily structure begins construction. Additionally, there is no guarantee that the multifamily structure will ever be constructed. It is unclear why local jurisdictions should be forced to allow ADUs to be constructed before the originally proposed multifamily structure. Constructing an ADU without a primary structure makes them accessory to nothing, but rather a standalone unit.
For these reasons, Cal Cities, CSAC, UCC, and RCRC oppose SB 987. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Jason Rhine (Cal Cities) at [email protected], Chris Lee (CSAC) at [email protected], Kiana Valentine (UCC) at [email protected], or Tracy Rhine (RCRC) at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Jason Rhine
Cal Cities
Kiana Valentine
UCC
Christopher Lee
CSAC
Tracy Rhine
RCRC
cc. Members, Senate Committee on Governance and Finance Anton Favorini-Csorba, Consultant, Senate Committee on
Governance and Finance
Ryan Eisberg, Policy Consultant, Senate Republican Caucus 400
Agenda Item # 8.
1 North San Antonio Road
Los Altos, California 94022-3087
April XX, 2022
Senate Bill 932 (Portantino): General plans, circulation element
OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED
Dear Senator Portantino:
The City of Los Altos joins the League of California Cities (Cal Cities) in regrettably taking an “oppose unless amended” position on your Senate Bill 932. SB 932 would make significant, unprecedented, and overly prescriptive changes to the requirements of the circulation element of local general plans; impost costly, unfunded mandates for physical changes to local transportation infrastructure; and expose local governments to significant legal liability.
The City of Los Altos has taken a pro-active approach to meeting the important goals of this bill: to make streets and roads safer for all users. We have partnered with the County of Santa Clara in designing new bike paths along the section of Foothill Expressway that transects the city of Los Altos and integrated those new paths with local streets. This required considerable interagency coordination, but the result is a significant improvement in safe, shared use. In another project, we partnered with the County and with the City of Cupertino to design comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle paths to schools that cross all three jurisdictions. These are the types of critical projects that require flexibility and quick response to the opportunities to work across multiple jurisdictions to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety. They cannot be achieved through a top-down approach that dictates the type of improvements and timing for implementation when multiple jurisdictions are involved.
Most recently we completed a new Complete Streets Master Plan that codifies the integration of improved bicycle/pedestrian paths and safety with routine street maintenance and sets out a long-term plan for making our streets more available to and safer for all users. Unfortunately, the plan will require funding of at least $44Million (today’s dollars). Much of the plan remains unfunded, despite planned use of SB 1, Block Grants, fuel tax, and other revenue sources. The requirements of SB 932 are likely even to exceed the ambitious plan we have just developed.
We note that cities that have made safety a priority and that have virtually no fatalities would be penalized under 65302(b)(2)(ii)(III) because the already excellent safety record would not allow for the reductions that are needed to be granted a 10-year extension of 401
Agenda Item # 8.
time to implement the provisions of SB 932. This is probably unintended and could perhaps be corrected through amendment.
Our city faces significant tradeoffs in prioritizing competing needs for roadway maintenance and improvements. The loss of employees during COVID, escalating costs for materials, and problems with supply chains are all impediments to be overcome. In addition, we need to consider the impact on our business community and the steps we need to take to help them recover and to mitigate changes to infrastructure on their operations. The circulation element must continue to provide flexibility as to the type of transportation improvements warranted in specific contexts, and any timelines for implementation must be developed in consideration of realistically available financial resources. We note that there is significant pressure from the legislature for local agencies to reduce, eliminate or defer development impact fees, which are among the few sources of revenue the small cities need to implement the provisions of this bill.
Finally, SB 932 creates significant new legal liability for local jurisdictions in Santa Clara County that fail to meet the bill’s arbitrary implementation timeframes. In addition to the funding constraints and issues discussed above, the new private right of action created by SB 932 will be counter-productive to making progress on improving our local streets.
Simply put, every additional dollar that goes toward defending against litigation is one fewer dollar available for improving our local streets and roads. Section 65302(b)(2)B)(iii) must be removed from the bill for our city to remove opposition to SB 932.
We hope you will continue to work with the League of California Cities and others on amendments that will allow us to remove our position of “oppose unless amended.” 402
Agenda Item # 8.
March 11, 2022
The Honorable Anthony Portantino
Member, California State Senate
1021 O Street, Suite 7630
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Senate Bill 932 (Portantino): General plans: circulation element As introduced February 7, 2022 – OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED
Set for hearing in Senate Governance and Finance March 17, 2022 Dear Senator Portantino:
The California State Association of Counties (CSAC), the League of California Cities (Cal Cities), the Urban Counties of California (UCC), the California Chapter of the American Planning Association (APA California), and the Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC) have regrettably taken an oppose unless amended position on your Senate Bill 932. SB 932 would make significant, unprecedented, and overly prescriptive changes to the requirements of the circulation element of local general plans; impose costly, unfunded mandates for physical changes to local transportation infrastructure; and expose local governments to significant legal liability.
Local agencies support active transportation projects and have been leading the charge to improve local streets and roads, while also retrofitting them to improve safety for all roadway users. According to the California Transportation Commission, during just the first two and a half fiscal years when SB 1 (Beall, 2017) funds were available, cities and counties reported spending $1.5 billion to complete over 3,100 projects, with another 1,300 plus projects in progress. In addition to repairing 10,000 miles of local roads, local governments also installed or improved 4,700 Americans with Disabilities Act curb ramps and over 1,223 miles of bicycle lanes. These vital multi-modal projects were delivered through maintenance funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account. These statistics do not include additional local government pedestrian and bicycle safety projects or complete streets projects funded with dedicated federal Highway Safety Improvement Program funds or Active Transportation Program grants; nor do they include any regionally funded projects from the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program, or projects funded with Highway User Tax Account funds or local funds.
We recognize that despite this significant progress at the local level, there remains a significant funding gap for projects needed to make local streets and roads safer for all users. Unfortunately, SB 932 fails to 403
Agenda Item # 8.
consider local funding constraints, instead taking a top-down approach that dictates both the type of improvements required as well as the timing for implementing such improvements. California’s 2020 Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment (“Needs Assessment”) identified a significant funding gap for simply maintaining existing local streets and roads ($37.6 billion in unfunded needs over the next decade), and existing essential safety and traffic components such as curb ramps, sidewalks, storm drains, streetlights, and signals ($22.1 billion in unfunded needs over the next decade). The time horizons in SB 932 do not account for these existing funding gaps, much less the additional capital costs of the improvements the bill requires. For example, Stanislaus County and its cities project a $234 million cost for build-out of the Stanislaus County Association of Governments Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, which, given its use of class-II and -III bicycle facilities in some areas, would likely not meet the criteria imposed by SB 932.
The specific improvements required by SB 932 are much costlier than solutions local agencies may have already planned and may not be warranted in every context where SB 932 would apply. For instance, the Needs Assessment identified an incredibly wide range of costs for complete streets improvements, ranging from as low as $18/square yard for simple treatments, like painted class-II bike lanes, to as high as $726/square yard for a complete streets project that widened sidewalks, added curb ramps and bike lanes, and improved medians. The same trend is apparent in regional plans for non-motorized transportation, with the class-I and -IV bicycle facilities mandated by SB 932 costing approximately 2.5 times more than class-II bike lanes.
Local agencies face significant tradeoffs in prioritizing competing needs for roadway maintenance and improvements across their jurisdictions. The circulation element must continue to provide flexibility as to the type of transportation improvements warranted in specific contexts (rural vs. urban and various types of streets and roads) and any timelines for implementation must be developed in consideration of realistically available financial resources. We note that despite significant pressure from the legislature on local agencies to reduce, eliminate, or defer development impact fees, those fees are one of the few sources of revenue that local agencies could quickly increase to implement the provisions of this bill, although with the significant tradeoff of immediately increasing housing development costs.
Finally, SB 932 creates significant new legal liability for local jurisdictions that fail to meet the bill’s arbitrary implementation timeframes. In addition to the funding constraints and practical issues discussed above, the new private right of action created by SB 932 will be counter-productive to making progress on improving our local streets. Simply put, every additional dollar that goes toward defending against litigation is one fewer dollar available for improving our local streets and roads. Section 65302(b)(2)(B)(iv) must be removed from the bill for our groups to remove opposition to SB 932.
Our organizations appreciate your openness to addressing most of the aforementioned issues. We are willing to work with you on amendments that refocus the bill on incorporating a safe systems approach in the circulation element with an increased focus on implementation but have taken an “oppose unless amended” position based on our significant concerns. If you need additional information about our position on SB 932, please contact Chris Lee (CSAC) at [email protected], Kiana Valentine (UCC) at [email protected], Lauren de Valencia y Sanchez (APA California) at [email protected], Jason Rhine (Cal Cities) at [email protected], or Tracy Rhine (RCRC) at [email protected]. 404
Agenda Item # 8.
Sincerely,
Christopher Lee Kiana Valentine
CSAC UCC
Damon Conklin Eric Phillips
Cal Cities APA California
Tracy Rhine
RCRC
cc: The Honorable Anna Caballero, Chair, Senate Governance and Finance Committee Honorable Members, Senate Governance and Finance Committee Anton Favorini-Csorba, Consultant, Senate Governance and Finance Committee Ryan Eisberg, Senate Republican Caucus
405
Agenda Item # 8.
P.O. Box 3144
Los Altos, CA 94024
www.citiesassociation.org
408-766-9534
April 20, 2022
The Honorable Cecilia M. Aguiar-Curry, Chair
Local Government Committee
1020 N Street, Room 157
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 1944 (Lee): Brown Act Modernization
Dear Chair Aguiar-Curry,
On Thursday, April 14th, the Cities Association of Santa Clara County Board of Directors, at the recommendation of the Legislative Action Committee (LAC), voted to Support Assembly Bill 1944, with a proposed amendment. AB 1944 aims to modernize the Brown Act by giving local legislative bodies the option to waive the requirement that its members appearing virtually from a remote location need to publish their private address on the public meeting agenda. AB 1944 also requires a remote participation option for members of the public to address the body.
During the last couple of years of the COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 that allowed local agencies to appear remotely without having to disclose their private addresses. In 2021, Assemblymember Rivas’s Bill 361 further allowed local agencies to continue to meet virtually during a state-declared emergency without having to meet the quorum and other requirements of teleconference meetings under the Brown Act. Our city councils have taken advantage of AB 361 and continue to meet virtually, some using a hybrid format.
The Cities Association, however, recommends that AB 1944 be amended to require local legislative bodies, which opt to waive the requirement, have its members appearing virtually from a remote location provide the legislative body with the address of the remote location.
The legislative body would not make the address public. The reasons for this amendment are to ensure members appearing virtually from a remote location are participating within the jurisdiction, avoiding any potential abuse of the flexibility that AB 1944 provides, and to make it easier to enforce compliance with the Brown Act quorum requirement. Therefore, the Cities Association supports AB 1944 with that amendment.
Sincerely,
Chappie Jones Neysa Fligor
President, Cities Association of Santa Clara Chair, CASCC Legislative Action Committee Vice Mayor, City of San Jose Councilmember, City of Los Altos Campbell
Cupertino
Gilroy
Los Altos
Los Altos Hills
Los Gatos
Milpitas
Monte Sereno
Morgan Hill
Mountain View
Palo Alto
San José
Santa Clara
Saratoga
Sunnyvale
406
Agenda Item # 8.
Cities Association of Santa Clara County
Support with Amendment AB 1944 (Lee) Brown Act Modernization April 20, 2022
CC: Assemblymember Alex Lee
Vice Chair James Gallagher
Assemblymember Marc Berman
Assemblymember Laurie Davies
Assemblymember Chris Holden
Assemblymember Ash Kalra
Assemblymember Kevin Kiley
Assemblymember Brian Maienschein
Assemblymember Eloise Gomez Reyes
Assemblymember Robert Rivas
State Senator Josh Becker
State Senator Dave Cortese
Cities Association of Santa Clara County Board of Directors 407
Agenda Item # 8.
P.O. Box 3144
Los Altos, CA 94024
www.citiesassociation.org
408-766-9534
April 20, 2022
The Honorable Chris Holden, Chair
Assembly Appropriations Committee
1021 O Street, Room 8220
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 2164 (Lee): Disability Access Funding
Dear Chair Stone,
On Thursday, April 14th, the Cities Association of Santa Clara County Board of Directors, at the recommendation of the Legislative Action Committee (LAC), voted to Support Assembly Bill 2164, which will allow local jurisdictions to continue programs ensuring that Californians with disabilities have barrier-free access to businesses.
For Californians with disabilities, barrier-free access to businesses and other facilities is a constant concern. Federal, state, and local governments provide some resources to help businesses comply with these accessibility requirements and reduce barriers for patrons with disabilities. State law also requires local jurisdictions to collect a dedicated fee of $4.00 for business licenses and business permit renewals to fund programs improving barrier-free access to businesses (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 4465- 4470). Under current law, this fee will drop to $1.00 after December 31, 2023.
Many small businesses in our county find the complex requirements challenging, especially if they have limited English proficiency and limited financial resources. Many of our businesses are also in older spaces built before the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed into law. These business owners are now subject to frivolous claims or litigation. We, as elected officials, see this legislation as a way to assist these businesses and continue to fund accessibility related certification, design, construction, and permitting fees so they are accessible and compliant with the law. Therefore, along with several Santa Clara County Chambers of Commerce, the Cities Association of Santa Clara County supports AB 2164.
Sincerely,
Chappie Jones Neysa Fligor
President, Cities Association of Santa Clara Chair, CASCC Legislative Action Committee Vice Mayor, City of San Jose Councilmember, City of Los Altos Campbell
Cupertino
Gilroy
Los Altos
Los Altos Hills
Los Gatos
Milpitas
Monte Sereno
Morgan Hill
Mountain View
Palo Alto
San José
Santa Clara
Saratoga
Sunnyvale
408
Agenda Item # 8.
Cities Association of Santa Clara County
Support AB 2164 (Lee) Disability Access Funding
April 20, 2022
CC: Assemblymember Alex Lee
Vice Chair Frank Bigelow
Assemblymember Isaac G. Bryan
Assemblymember Lisa Calderon
Assemblymember Wendy Carillo
Assemblymember Megan Dahle
Assemblymember Laurie Davies
Assemblymember Mike Fong
Assemblymember Vince Fong
Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel
Assemblymember Eduardo Garcia
Assemblymember Marc Levine
Assemblymember Bill Quirk
Assemblymember Robert Rivas
Assemblymember Akilah Weber, MD
State Senator Josh Becker
State Senator Dave Cortese
Cities Association of Santa Clara County Board of Directors 409
Agenda Item # 8.
City of Los Altos 2022 Tentative Council Agenda Calendar April 22, 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.
May 3, 2022 Joint Meeting w/Commissions
Closed session – HR, Ram
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
Special Item – Intro of New Development Services Director Resolution Calling for Election (?)
Wireless Ordinance
Professional Services Contract Amendment Traffic patterns Solid Waste Rates
Emergency Resolution
May 24, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
Alta Housing BMR waiting list
Resolution Calling for Election (?)
Military Equipment Purchase
Use of Civic Center Property
Tree Policy – tree protection ordinance
410
Agenda Item # 9.
City of Los Altos Tentative Council Agenda Calendar
April 22, 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.
3rd Quarter Investment Report
Return to in-person Council Meeting
Financial System Purchase
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
FY23 Budget Session (Tent.)
2 Printed Public
Hearing -
- not less than 10
days - published
once a week for
two consecutive
weeks 5/11/2022
& 5/18/2022
FY23 Budget Adoption
June 28, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
FY23 Budget Session (Tent.)
June 28, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
July 12, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
411
Agenda Item # 9.
City of Los Altos Tentative Council Agenda Calendar
April 22, 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.
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
1st Quarter report FY 2021/2022
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
November 29, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
December 6, 2022 CAFR and Year End – 1st meeting December 412
Agenda Item # 9.
City of Los Altos Tentative Council Agenda Calendar
April 22, 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 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 Presentati on/Discu
ssion
Council Initiated
Story Pole Policy
FOL Waiver Request at LACC
Subcommittee on Grants GE 03.25.2022
Comprehensive multi-modal traffic study (analysis of recent projects projected parking, trip generation, & traffic impacts to actuals; ECR impacts should include adjacent streets) ES
413
Agenda Item # 9.
City of Los Altos Tentative Council Agenda Calendar
April 22, 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.
Reach Code 2.0
Boards and Commission Proc
414
Agenda Item # 9.