Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 8 law enforcement purposes, in accordance with all requirements under State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force.
3. 5.56mm Semi-Automatic Rifles and Ammunition: The Colt AR-15/M4 5.56 mm/.223 semiautomatic rifles are used for both patrol and the SWAT Team. (a) Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost i. COLT AR/M4 RIFLES, cost: $1200, quantity: 27. These rifles, equipped and locked in each patrol car or police motorcycle, offer a higher degree of accuracy at a longer distance. The ammunition used in rifles are also more effective at penetrating body armor (as some suspects have worn during high-profile shooting events in the country). They are normally kept secured in patrol cars or in the Police station and are only deployed on specific incidents where officers believe guns or weapons are involved.[Question: This listing is vague. Do we actually include both AR15 (semi-auto) and M4 (burst and fully auto) rifles in our inventory? Or is the use of the descriptor “AR-15/M4” being used as a generic term and we actually only stock semi-auto rifles? It would be better to itemize what kinds of rifles we actually have because they have different capabilities, barrel lengths (and therefore different targeting-efficacy metrics and closequarters suitability), and costs. Clarification is needed here.] ii. .223 CALIBER or 5.56MM RIFLE AMMUNITION, cost: $280 per case of 500 rounds, quantity: 10,800 rounds. This rifle ammunition used in conjunction with an AR-15 type rifle provides officers the ability to engage hostile suspects at distances generally greater than the effective distance of their handguns. Rifle ammunition fired from AR-15 rifles offer advantages over handguns, such as increased accuracy potential and the ability to defeat soft body armor but are not appropriate for every situation. (b) Purpose: To be used as precision weapon to address a threat with more precision and/or greater distances than a handgun, if present and feasible. (c) Authorized Use - Members may deploy the patrol rifle in any circumstance where the member can articulate a reasonable expectation that the rifle may be needed. Situations for use of the less this lethal weapon systems may include, but are not limited to the following; however, other situations not listed here may also be deemed authorized use cases under applicable penal codes and case law, and, in general, shall reflect necessary, reasonable, and proportional use of lethal weapon systems:
i. Situations where the member reasonably anticipates an armed encounter. ii. When a member is faced with a situation that may require accurate and effective fire at long range.
iii. Situations where a member reasonably expects the need to meet or exceed a suspect's firepower.
iv. When a member reasonably believes that there may be a need to fire on a barricaded person or a person with a hostage.
v. When a member reasonably believes that a suspect may be wearing body armor.
317
Agenda Item # 12.
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/04/22, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 9 vi. When authorized or requested by a supervisor.
vii. When needed to euthanize an animal.
(d) Lifespan:
i. Colt AR/M4 Rifles: Approximately 15-20 years
ii. 223 Caliber or 5.56mm rifle ammunition: No expiration 318
Agenda Item # 12.
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/04/22, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 10 (e) Training: Officers must successfully complete a 24-hour patrol rifle course as well as regular Department firearms training and qualifications as required by law and policy. Firearm Instructors attend a 40-hour POST-approved certified rifle instructor class, and SWAT personnel must attend an 80-hour basic SWAT Team course. (POST is the Peace Officer Standards and Training Council; SWAT is Special Weapons and Tactics.)
(f) Fiscal Impact: Annual maintenance is approximately $100 per rifle. (g) Legal and Procedural Rules: Use of the patrol rifles and ammunition are subject to the requirements of Policy 300 (USE OF FORCE), Policy 312.3.2 (PATROL RIFLES), and Policy 312 (FIREARMS). It is the policy of the Los Altos Police Department to utilize rifles only for official law enforcement purposes, in accordance with all requirements under State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force.
4. .308 Caliber Remington 700 and Heckler & Koch HK-91 Sniper Rifles and Ammunition: The sniper rifles are capable of firing a .308 caliber bullet. This rifle may only be used by a SWAT Officer trained and certified to be a sniper (LAPD currently has two such officers) and may be deployed to assist the SWAT Team in a critical incident or emergency.
(a) Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost i. .308 CALIBER REMINGTON 700 AND 700 LTR RIFLES, cost:
$1,000, quantity: 2. Remington 700: No cost, surveyed, Remington 700LTR
$1,000.
ii. .308 CALIBER HECKLER & KOCH HK-91 RIFLE, cost: No cost, surveyed, , quantity: 1.
iii. .308 AMMUNITION, cost: $1.50 per round, quantity: 3.040 3,040 rounds.
These nickel-plated bonded soft-point 308/7.62 cartridges from Speer Gold-Dot are resistant to corrosion, capable of expansion from barrels as short as 10", and retain accuracy from a variety of barrels lengths. (b) Purpose: This rifle may only be used by a SWAT Officer trained and certified to be a sniper and may be deployed to assist the SWAT Team in a critical incident or emergency. The main use of this lethal weapons system is for observation of an incident and to be able to accurately and immediately be able to stop a threat to life.
(c) Authorized Use: Examples of situations for deploying the sniper rifle may include, but are not limited to the following; however, other situations not listed here may also be deemed authorized use cases under applicable penal codes and case law, and, in general, shall reflect necessary, reasonable, and proportional use of lethal weapon systems:
i. where the Officer reasonably anticipates an armed encounter; ii. when the Officer is faced with a situation that may require accurate and effective fire at a long distance;
iii. where an Officer reasonably expects the need to meet or exceed the 319
Agenda Item # 12.
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/04/22, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 11 firearms and ammunition that a suspect is reported or believed to possess; iv. when an Officer reasonably believes that there may be a need to fire on a barricaded person or a person with a hostage;
320
Agenda Item # 12.
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/04/22, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 12 v. when an Officer reasonably believes that a suspect may be wearing body armor.
(d) Lifespan:
i. .308 Caliber Remington 700/700LTR: Approximately 15 years ii. .308 Caliber Heckler & Koch HK-91: Approximately 15 years iii. .308 Ammunition: No expiration
(e) Training: In addition to patrol rifle and standard SWAT operator training, SWAT snipers must successfully complete a California POST-certified sniper course as well as regular SWAT sniper training and qualifications as required by law and policy.
(f) Fiscal Impact: Annual maintenance is approximately $100 per Remington rifle.
The HK is not used.
(g) Legal and Procedural Rules: Use of the sniper rifles and ammunition are subject to the requirements of the SWAT Standard Operating Procedures for Mountain View/Los Altos, Policy 300 (USE OF FORCE), Policy 312.3.2 (PATROL RIFLES), Policy 312 (FIREARMS), and Policy 414 (HOSTAGE AND BARRICADE INCIDENTS). It is the policy of the Los Altos Police Department to utilize rifles only for official law enforcement purposes, in accordance with all requirements under State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force.
5. Benelli M3Super90 12 gauge shotgun and ammunition: This firearm is not currently used by the department and is stored in the armory. The Benelli M3 is a dual-mode (hybrid pump-action and semi-automatic) shotgun The ammunition for the shotgun is 00 Buck and slug rounds.
(a) Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost i. BENELLI M3SUPER90 12 GAUGE SHOTGUN, cost $500, quantity:
1. The Benelli M3 is a combination Pump-Action and Semi-Automatic Shotgun. The shotgun can be chambered for 12 GA shells with a 20 inch barrel.
ii. 00 BUCK AMMUNITION, cost: $1.80 per round, quantity: 600 rounds. A typical 12-gauge, 2 ¾-inch 00 Buckshot shell holds 8 pellets that are 0.33" in diameter. A 3-inch shell most often contains 12 of these same sized pellets.
iii. SLUG AMMUNITION, cost: $1.40 per round, quantity: 100. The Fostertype shotgun slug features exterior rifled grooves which contact the shotgun's bore to give it spin; and, the slug's hollow-point design initiates expansion to augment stopping power.
(b) Purpose: This shotgun is not currently utilized by the department. The only shotguns used by the Department are the less lethal shotguns. The ammunition is purchased solely for recruits in the police academy, where shotgun instruction occurs.
321
Agenda Item # 12.
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/04/22, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 13 (c) Authorized Use: There is currently no authorized use for the shotgun in our policy.
(d) Lifespan:
i. Benelli M3Super90 12 gauge shotgun: Approximately 15 years ii. OO Buck Ammunition: No expiration
iii. Slug ammunition: No expiration
(e) Training: Officers receive training in shotgun use in the police academy, and have to pass firearm qualifications. There is no further training with the Benelli shotgun or ammunition.
(f) Fiscal Impact: None, the weapon is not utilized.
(g) Legal and Procedural Rules: Use of all firearms fall under the following policies:
Policy 300 (USE OF FORCE) and Policy 312 (FIREARMS). It is the policy of the Los Altos Police Department to utilize firearms only for official law enforcement purposes, in accordance with all requirements under State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force.
6. Remington 870 MCS 12 Gauge Breaching shotgun and breaching rounds: This firearm/ammunition is not currently used by the department and is stored in the SWAT armory.
(a) Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost i. REMINGTON 870 MCS 12 GAUGE BREACHING SHOTGUN, cost:
$1,400, quantity: 1. Extremely compact breaching model 12 gauge with a ten inch cylinder bore breaching barrel with parkerized finish, a Knoxx recoil reducing breacher pistol grip stock, and synthetic modular fore-end. ii. 12 GAUGE BREACHING ROUNDS, cost: $5.00 per round, quantity: 25 rounds. The 12-Gauge TKO Breaching Round is a 12-Gauge shell loaded with a compressed zinc slug, utilizing smokeless powder as a propellant.
The is a widely used method to breach door locks or hinges for entry during tactical operations.
(b) Purpose: The breaching shotgun is used to safely gain entry into a structure.
When properly deployed, the TKO breaching round is capable of defeating door lock mechanisms, door knobs, hinges, dead bolts, safety chains, and pad locks on both wooden or hollow core doors. Upon impact with the target, the zinc slug disintegrates in to a fine powder eliminating fragmentation. The Explosive Breaching Program, conducted in conjunction with the Mountain View Police Department, was established to provide the joint SWAT Team the ability to quickly create an opening in a wall or window to quickly enter a building for an emergency rescue of hostages. It is reserved for rescue operations only. (c) Authorized Use: This equipment would only be deployed during a SWAT incident, and its use would need specific authorization from the Incident Commander. The equipment may only be used by a "tactical breacher" on the SWAT team. We currently do not have any authorized users at the Department. 322
Agenda Item # 12.
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/04/22, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 14 (d) Lifespan:
i. Remington 870 MCS 12 Gauge Breaching shotgun: Approximately 15 years
ii. 12-Gauge TKO Breaching Round: Approximately 5 years (e) Training: The training consists of an 80-hour course for a member of the SWAT Team specifically designated as the "breacher." At the conclusion of the course, the breacher must pass a test proctored by CAL/OSHA. The OSHA certification is valid for 5 years. Before the expiration of the certification, the breacher must retake and pass the test.
(f) Fiscal Impact: None, the weapon is not utilized.
(g) Legal and Procedural Rules: Use of the breaching shotgun and ammunition are subject to the requirements of the SWAT Standard Operating Procedures for Mountain View/Los Altos. Use is also under Policy 414 (HOSTAGE AND BARRICADE INCIDENTS). It is the policy of the LAPD to utilize diversion devices only for official law enforcement purposes and pursuant to State and Federal law regarding the use of force.
7. Kaiser Precision Vulcan II Munitions Pole: Telescoping tool utilized by SWAT personnel to safely deliver approved noise/diversionary devices. [This product does not come up in any Google or manufacturer’s searches. I think I found its patent, though). Is it obsolete? Lots of court cases and settlements in favor of complainants who suffered injuries as a result of burns and impact by flashbang deployment using poles similar to this one.] (a) Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost i. KAISER PRECISION VULCAN II MUNITIONS POLE, cost: $2,000, quantity: 1. The munitions pole is a multi-purpose breaching tool, constructed of lightweight aluminum square tubing used to deploy distraction devices and chemical munitions in order to gain entrance into a building, structure or even a vehicle.
(b) Purpose: The munitions pole is used to safely deploy diversionary devices, chemical munitions, or other objects (cell phones, cameras) during SWAT operations.
(c) Authorized Use: This equipment would be deployed during primarily during a SWAT incident, but could be utilized to gain entry into a residence during other high- risk operations on patrol.
(d) Lifespan: Approximately 10 years
(e) Training: Kaiser Precision provided an instructional video for individual and team training.
(f) Fiscal Impact: None, does not require annual maintenance (g) Legal and Procedural Rules: Use of the munitions pole are subject to the requirements of the SWAT Standard Operating Procedures for Mountain View/Los Altos. Use is also under Policy 317 (HIGH RISK OPERATIONS PROTOCOL), Policy 322 (SEARCH AND SEIZURE), and Policy 414 323
Agenda Item # 12.
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/04/22, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 15 (HOSTAGE AND BARRICADE INCIDENTS). It is the policy of the LAPD to 324
Agenda Item # 12.
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/04/22, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 16 utilize diversion devices only for official law enforcement purposes and pursuant to State and Federal law regarding the use of force.
8. CTS Flash-bang Training Kit: The training flash-bangs are built and weigh exactly the same as it's equivalent live Flash-Bang, but have no flash charge. (a) Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost i. CTS FLASH-BANG TRAINING KIT, cost: $964, Quantity 1 kit (comes with 70 reload Training Fuzes, 1 body), current fuze inventory is 25. The training bodies are painted with a bright blue coating, and can be used an unlimited number of times. The M201FB fuze for this system has 10 times the output of a normal M201 fuze and it is threaded with a left hand thread so it can not be accidentally used in any other munitions. The training devices produce an output of about 120db.
(b) Purpose: Flash-bangs are used to distract and temporarily immobilize dangerous suspects by overwhelming their senses of vision and hearing. The distraction gives Officers time to seize a moment and create an opportunity to take control of high-risk or dangerous situations.
(c) Authorized Use: SWAT operators may utilize the training flash-bangs as a training tool to distract and temporarily immobilize dangerous suspects by overwhelming their senses of vision and hearing. Los Altos Police Department does not have any live flash-bangs in the inventory. Our operators use live flashbangs while on SWAT events or at training with Mountain View Police Department.
(d) Lifespan: 5 years
(e) Training: These are a training tool. SWAT operators must attend and pass an 80-hour SWAT training class. Flash-bang training is provided by an instructor who has completed an 8-hour noise flash diversionary device course. (f) Legal and Procedural Rules: Use of the live flash-bangs are subject to the requirements of the SWAT Standard Operating Procedures for Mountain View/Los Altos. Use is also under Policy 317 (HIGH RISK OPERATIONS PROTOCOL), Policy 322 (SEARCH AND SEIZURE), and Policy 414 (HOSTAGE AND BARRICADE INCIDENTS). It is the policy of the LAPD to utilize diversion devices only for official law enforcement purposes and pursuant to State and Federal law regarding the use of force.
9. Specialty Impact Munition (SIM) weapons and ammunition: Simunition® is the pioneer and world leader in providing military, law enforcement and approved range members with the most realistic and non-lethal force-on-force, short range, simulation training system.
(a) Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost i. SIMUNITION GLOCK 17T, cost: $500 each, quantity: 8. The GLOCK Training Pistols were developed with the purpose of enabling realitybased tactical operations training using color marking or plastic projectile 325
Agenda Item # 12.
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/04/22, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 17 ammunition. When utilized in a pistol caliber barrel training platform (9mm), SIMs have an effective range of 25 feet.
ii. SIM CONVERTED BERETTA 92, cost: $500 each, quantity: 4. The Simunition® conversion kit, conversion bolt, bolt carrier assembly and safety-ring insert allow the FX® Marking Cartridges and the SecuriBlank® to be fired safely from the user's own service weapon. These easy-toinstall kits help preclude the inadvertent chambering of live ammunition and ensure the proper operation and cycling of the weapons. When utilized in a pistol caliber barrel training platform (9mm), SIMs have an effective range of 25 feet.
iii. HK MP5 CONVERSION KITS, cost: $500 each, quantity 2. The Simunition® conversion kit, conversion bolt, bolt carrier assembly and safety-ring insert allow the FX® Marking Cartridges and the SecuriBlank® to be fired safely from the user's own service weapon. These easy-toinstall kits help preclude the inadvertent chambering of live ammunition and ensure the proper operation and cycling of the weapons. When utilized with a training munition bolt carrier group in a 5.56mm rifle platform, SIMs have an effective range of approximately 27 yards.
iv. SIMUNITION COLT AR-15 CARBINE RIFLE UPPERS, cost: $1,000 each, quantity: 3. The Simunition® conversion kit, conversion bolt, bolt carrier assembly and safety-ring insert allow the FX® Marking Cartridges and the SecuriBlank® to be fired safely from the user's own service weapon.
These easy-to-install kits help preclude the inadvertent chambering of live ammunition and ensure the proper operation and cycling of the weapons.
When utilized with a training munition bolt carrier group in a 5.56mm rifle platform, SIMs have an effective range of approximately 27 yards. v. FX MARKING CARTRIDGES, cost: $350 for 500 rounds, quantity: 3,500 rounds. The reduced-energy, non-lethal cartridges leave a detergentbased, water-soluble color-marking compound. The visible impacts allow accurate assessment of simulated lethality. They feature tactical accuracy up to 25 feet (7.6 meters).
(b) Purpose: Enabling reality-based, force-on-force tactical operations training using color marking or plastic projectile ammunition.
(c) Authorized Use: Simunition weapons and marking rounds are non-operational rounds and non-operational weapons systems. These munitions provide for realistic close quarters firearms training while allowing the shooter to visually assess shot placement and accuracy in force-on-force training scenarios. These items are used for training purposes for all sworn staff members. (d) Lifespan:
i. Simunition Glock 17T: – 24-month limited warranty. No lifespan indicated by manufacturer. Lifespan varies on operational usage and wear. ii. Sim Converted Beretta: – 24-month limited warranty. No lifespan indicated by manufacturer. Lifespan varies on operational usage and wear. 326
Agenda Item # 12.
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/04/22, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 18 iii. HK MP5 Conversion Kits: – 24-month limited warranty. No lifespan indicated by manufacturer. Lifespan varies on operational usage and wear.
iv. Simunition Colt AR-15 Rifle Uppers: – 24-month limited warranty. No lifespan indicated by manufacturer. Lifespan varies on operational usage and wear.
v. FX Marking Cartridges: Shelf life five (5) years.
(e) Training: These are a training tool. Simunition Instructors attend an informative, three-day (24-hour) course designed to provide students with substantial handson experience with Simunition® FX® training ammunition technology, weapons conversion kits, and the Simunition® line of protective equipment. The course provides in-depth, hands-on instruction in scenario-based training program development and training methodology, and gives critical practical experience to students on the best use of Simunition® training products in a highly effective, realistic, extremely safe training program. Sworn staff members are given extensive firearms handling courses and weapons safety instruction to include the use of SIMs for training purposes.
(f) Legal and Procedural Rules: Use of the Simunition firearms and marking rounds are subject to the requirements of Policy 300 (USE OF FORCE) and Policy 312 (FIREARMS) while training. It is the policy of the Los Altos Police Department to utilize Simunition equipment only for official law enforcement training purposes, in accordance with all requirements under State and Federal law, including those regarding the use of force.
709.5 APPROVAL
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall obtain approval from the governing body by way of an ordinance adopting the military equipment policy. As part of the approval process, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall ensure the proposed military equipment policy is submitted to the governing body and is available on the department website at least 30 days prior to any public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue (Government Code § 7071). The military equipment policy must be approved by the governing body prior tobefore the Department engagesing in any of the following (Government Code § 7071):
(a) Requestsing military equipment made available pursuant to 10 USC § 2576a. (b) Seeksing funds for military equipment, including but not limited to applying for a grant, soliciting or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in-kind donations, or other donations or transfers.
(c) Acquiresing military equipment either permanently or temporarily, including by borrowing or leasing.
(d) Collaboratesing with another law enforcement agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the jurisdiction of this department. 327
Agenda Item # 12.
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/04/22, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 19 (e) Usesing any new or existing military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not previously approved by the governing body.
(f) Solicitesing or respondsing to a proposal for, or enteresing into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek funds for, apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of military equipment.
(g) Acquiresing military equipment through any means not provided above.
The governing body shall approve the military equipment use policy in accordance with the scope of assessment described in AB 481: Subsection 7071 (1), Sec 2, Para 2, subpara A-D.
Should the governing body at any review cycle fail to approve the military equipment use policy within 180 days of the commencement of said review cycle, the use of military equipment shall cease by the Department until that time that the governing body approves a military equipment policy.
709.6 COORDINATION WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS
Military equipment used by other law enforcement agencies that are providing mutual aid to this jurisdiction or otherwise engaged in law enforcement operations within this jurisdiction shall comply with their respective military equipment policies in rendering mutual aid. 709.7 ANNUAL REPORT
Upon approval of a military equipment policy, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee should submit a military equipment report to the governing body for each type of military equipment approved within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use (Government Code § 7072).
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee should also make each annual military equipment report publicly available on the department website for as long as the military equipment is available for use. The report shall include all information required by Government Code § 7072 for the preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment in department inventory. 709.8 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing the annual report, the Department shall hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the Department should discuss the report and respond to public questions regarding the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment.
Pursuant to California Government Code 7070(d)(7), members of the public may register complaints or concerns or submit questions about the use of each specific type of listed equipment in this policy by any of the following means:
(a) Via email to: [email protected]
(b) Via phone call to : 650-947-2672
(c) Via mail sent to:
Los Altos Police Department
328
Agenda Item # 12.
Los Altos Police Department
Los Altos Police Department Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/04/22, All Rights Reserved.
Published with permission by Los Altos Police Department ***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 20 Attention Operations Captain
1 North San Antonio Rd
Los Altos CA 94022
[COMPLIANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY: Need to add section that fulfills AB 481’s requirement to detail “the mechanisms to ensure compliance with the military equipment use policy, including which independent persons or entities have oversight authority, and, if applicable, what legally enforceable sanctions are put in place for violations of the policy.” 329
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]
330
Agenda Item # 12.
From: Debra Strichartz
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 12 - JUNE 12 2022
Date: Monday, June 13, 2022 3:09:39 PM
To Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and CouncilmembersI do not support the approval of our draft Military Equipment Use policy as is. The policy as proposed does not safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties, so it should not be approved. The policy leaves too many loopholes for the usage of military equipment in any capacity. I want to see prohibited use cases for each piece of military equipment so that we can minimize injuries and fatalities in our community.Thank you for your consideration of this matter.Sincerely Debra Strichartz
331
Agenda Item # 12.
From: Annie Rogaski
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Agenda, Item 12, June 12, 2022
Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 1:50:28 PM
Dear Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and Councilmembers,
I do not support the approval of the current draft of the Military Equipment Use policy. It does not sufficiently safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties, so should not be approved. The policy leaves too many loopholes for the usage of military equipment in any capacity. I want to see prohibited use cases for each piece of military equipment so that we can minimize injuries and fatalities in our community and best protect public safety.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Best,
Anne Rogaski
Los Altos Resident
332
Agenda Item # 12.
From: Los Altos Racial Equity
To: Public Comment; City Council
Subject: Fwd: Military Equipment Use Policy
Date: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 2:23:14 PM
Dear Mayor, Vice-Mayor & City Council Members,
The LAPD has submitted its Military Equipment Use Policy for review and vote by City Council. As per CA Govt. Code 7071, City Council can only approve this policy if it meets all four of these requirements:
(A) The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.
(B) The proposed military equipment use policy will safeguard the public's welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.
(C) If purchasing the equipment, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety. (D) Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.
LARE does not feel that this proposal meets requirement B. Below we outline the issues and our proposed changes to safeguard the safety and civil rights of Los Altans. We would be happy to chat about our proposal and go over any questions you may have.
Renee Rashid
On behalf of LARE.
GOVERNING BODY
Current:
709.1.1: Los Altos City Council should be explicitly defined as the governing body so there is no confusion.
Proposed Change:
709.1.1 - Governing body - The Los Altos City Council which oversees the department.
MILITARY EQUIPMENT
Current:
The definitions of military equipment used in this policy do not match the definitions in AB 481. We believe they should match.
Proposed Change:
The offending definitions along with the corrections to make it match AB 481 are below. 333
Agenda Item # 12.
- Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants and utilize a tracked system instead of wheels for forward motion. - Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. This does not include items designed to remove a lock, or a handheld, one-person ram. - Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than .50 caliber, including firearms and accessories identified as assault weapons in Penal Code § 30510 and Penal Code § 30515, with the exception of standard-issue firearms and ammunition of less than .50 caliber.
- Munitions containing tear gas or OC (Oleoresin capsicum), excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray.
- Kinetic energy weapons and munitions, including lethal and less-lethal implementations.
VIOLATIONS OF POLICY
Current:
709.2: There is no indication of who can investigate violations of this policy and repercussions for violations found. Los Altans should have a route for private right of action for violations on the usage of military equipment by the Police Department.
Proposed Change: 709.2 could be modified in the following way, or a new section - 709.9 - could be created for COMPLIANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY, which is what 7070 (d)(6) requires. (We would prefer a new section be created, but sample wording/accountability is below)
709.2 - It is the policy of the Los Altos Police Department that members of this department comply with the provisions of Government Code § 7071 with respect to military equipment.
Any violations can be investigated by the Los Altos IIO and be brought to the City Council. The City Council may vote on sanctions for violations. If the Los Altos Police Department or its individual officers violate this policy, they shall be liable for actual damages resulting from military equipment used against individuals.
AUTHORIZED USE OF EQUIPMENT
Current:
Each of the military equipment items listed in the PD inventory must have an authorized use. In fact, every one of our authorized use cases uses the language “may include, but not limited to”. This seemingly authorizes ALL use cases without limitation. However, the use of lethal and non-lethal weapons has limitations in the CA penal code, which is not evident here. We are still digging in to whether there are loopholes in state law that we feel should be addressed here through prohibited use cases to strengthen accountability, but at the very least, we should state more explicitly that we rely on state laws and penal code.
Proposed Change:
334
Agenda Item # 12.
Each of authorized use cases should have verbiage like this that refer to our state code. "Examples of situations for deploying the <equipment> may include, but are not limited to the following; however, other situations not listed here may also be deemed authorized or unauthorized use cases under applicable penal codes and case law, and, in general, shall reflect necessary, reasonable, and proportional use of <lethal or non/lethal> weapon systems" Thank you for your consideration,
Renee Rashid
on behalf of Los Altos for Racial Equity
335
Agenda Item # 12.
Los Altos City Council
Legislative Committee
June 14, 2022
Summary of current status on bills being followed, listed in two sections: “Recommended for Action” and “Continue to Watch” (no action recommended at this time).
RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION
AB 1944 (Lee) – Amend Brown Act to allow hybrid meetings, change notice and requirements regarding legislative body officials participating remotely.
Previous letter of Support Unless Amended was sent, with recommended amendment to require notice to city of location of member not appearing in person (with location not to be disclosed to public) for purposes of establishing there is a quorum in the jurisdiction.
Amended May 25 in Assembly to allow notice to be given within 72 hours and posted to agenda (exception to current Brown Act) and with requirement that there to be a quorum in person. Effective date established of Jan. 1, 2024.
Recommendation: Reaffirm support in letter, with or without request for further amendments at Council direction.
AB 2011 (Wicks) – Allow housing and mixed-use in office, retail, or parking regardless of general plan or zoning
Last amended May 11 (minor). Hot bill per CalCities.
Recommendation: Send Oppose letter
AB 2097 (Friedman) – Prohibit any requirement for parking on developments within one-half mile of major transit stop
Previous letter of Oppose. Amended May 19 to apply to developments within 1/2 mile of major transit stop (eliminated “major transit corridor”). All other objections remain.
Recommendation: Send revised Oppose letter acknowledging amendment and restating reasons for opposition.
AB 2181 (Berman) – Change composition and selection of VTA board VTA board took Oppose position on June 2.
Recommendation: Send Oppose letter based on recent VTA Board opposition, with specific focus on the lack of small city representation.
SB 897 (Wieckowski) – Requires objective standards for ADUs/JADUs; prohibits limiting to less than 25 feet; reduces parking; further limits owner-occupancy requirement Previous letter of Oppose. Amended May 19, but only significant change re: deadline for limit on rules and effective dates prohibiting owner occupancy requirements.
Recommendation: Send revised Oppose letter acknowledging amendments and restating reasons for opposition.
336
Agenda Item # 13.
SB 922 (Wiener) – Changes sunset for exempting certain bicycle and other transportation plans from CEQA.
Support by CalCities. Amended May 11 (minor).
Recommendation: Send letter of Support.
SB 932 (Portantino) – Changes requirements in Circulation Element of General Plan Amended May 4 with new expiration date; limits new “cause of action” that creates new liability for cities to the period 1/1/24-1/1/28.
Recommendation: Send Oppose letter using CalCities letter as revised based on committee and council member Weinberg’s input (if received).
CONTINUE TO WATCH
AB 2053 (Lee) – Would create a new California Housing Authority Amended May 19. Continue to watch.
AB 2164 (Lee) – Use business license tax to provide financial assistance to small businesses re: Disability access
Support letter previously sent. Significantly amended May 19 (seems to gut bill).
Continue to watch for new amendments.
AB 2221 (Quirk-Silva) – Specifies additional staff requirements on processing ADU applications.
Amended May 2. Continue to watch.
AB 2625 (Ting) – Exceptions to Subdivision Map Act for leasing or easement on land involving an electrical energy storage system.
Amended May 5. Continue to watch.
SB 930 (Wiener) – (as of April 18) Authorizes HCD to review, adopt, amend, and repeal standards, forms, or definitions to implement the Housing Accountability Act without complying with the Administrative Procedure Act.
Amended June 2. Gut and amend to replace HCD bill with alcohol control bill.
Continue to watch for possible return of HCD language.
337
Agenda Item # 13.
338
Agenda Item # 13.
[Addressee TBD upon assignment by Senate Rules Committee] RE: AB 1944 (Lee): Brown Act Modernization
SUPPORT IF AMENDED (As amended 5/25/22)
The City of Los Altos supports AB 1944, as amended. AB 1944 aims to modernize the Brown Act by giving local legislative bodies the option to waive the requirement that its members who are 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 COVID-19 pandemic, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 that allowed officials of 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 council has taken advantage of AB 361 and continues to meet virtually.
[DELETE THE FOLLOWING ORIGINAL PARAGRAPH AND REPLACE WITH NEW TERMINAL PARAGRAPH BASED ON MAY AMENDMENT]
[ORIGINAL] The City of Los Altos recommends that AB 1944 be amended to require local legislative bodies, which opt to waive the requirement, have its members who are appearing virtually from a remote location provide the legislative body with the address of the remote location. The legislative body would be required not to make the address public. We support this amendment to ensure that members who are appearing virtually from a remote location are participating within the jurisdiction, thus avoiding any potential abuse of the flexibility that AB 1944 provides. This amendment further makes it easier to enforce compliance with the Brown Act quorum requirement. Therefore, the City of Los Altos supports AB 1944 with that amendment.]
[NEW] The amendments made May 25, 2022, address the concerns previously expressed. The current language, which requires a physical quorum while allowing remote participation without necessitating that the member disclose their physical address, resolves the issues we previously raised while maintaining compliance with the Brown Act quorum requirement.
Sincerely,
Anita Enander
Mayor, City of Los Altos
Cc:
The Honorable Alex Lee
The Honorable Josh Becker
The Honorable Marc Berman
League of California Cities [email protected]
Seth Miller [email protected]
339
Agenda Item # 13.
The Honorable Scott Wiener
Chair, Senate Housing Committee
1021 O Street, Room 3330
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Senator Wiener:
Re: AB 2011 (Wicks) Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022 NOTICE OF OPPOSITION (As amended 5/11/22)
The City of Los Altos joins the League of California Cities (Cal Cities) in respectfully opposing AB 2011, which would require cities to ministerially approve, without condition or discretion, certain affordable housing and mixed-use housing developments in zones where office, retail, or parking are a principally permitted use regardless of any inconsistency with a local government’s general plan, specific plan, zoning ordinance, or regulation.
Housing affordability and homelessness are among the most critical issues facing California cities. Affordably priced homes are out of reach for many people, and housing is not being built fast enough to meet the current or projected needs of people living in the state. Cities lay the essential groundwork for housing production through planning and zoning new projects in their communities based on extensive public input and engagement, state housing laws, and the needs of the building industry. Importantly, cities are currently updating housing plans to identify sites for more than two million additional housing units.
AB 2011 disregards this state-mandated local planning effort and forces cities to allow housing developments in nearly all areas of a city. This seriously questions the rationale for the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) process. If developers can build housing in office, retail, and parking areas, why should cities go through the multiyear planning process to identify sites suitable for new housing units, only to have those plans ignored and housing built on sites never considered for new housing?
Less than 5% of the land area in the City of Los Altos is currently devoted to commercial and retail use. These areas provide critical retail (especially grocery) within walkable distances to every neighborhood. Nevertheless, we have judiciously identified commercial areas that could accommodate mixed use and multi-family housing while retaining walkability. This bill would potentially negate those efforts.
Eliminating opportunities for public review of housing developments goes against the principles of transparency and public engagement. Public hearings allow members of the community to inform their representatives of their support or concerns. “Streamlining” in the context of AB 2011 is a shortcut around public input. While it may be frustrating for some developers to address neighborhood concerns about traffic, parking, and other development impacts, those directly affected by such projects should be heard. Public engagement often leads to better projects.
Developers for projects that we have approved in recent years have uniformly stated that the Planning Commission and public review have resulted in better projects. Disregarding community input will increase public distrust in government and may result in additional efforts by voters to restrict growth.
The City of Los Altos is committed to being part of the solution to the housing shortfall across all income levels and will work collaboratively with you and other stakeholders on legislative 340
Agenda Item # 13.
proposals that will spur much needed housing construction without disregarding the statemandated local planning process and important public engagement.
For these reasons, the City of Los Altos of opposes AB 2011.
Sincerely,
Anita Enander
Mayor, City of Los Altos
Cc:
The Honorable Buffy Wicks
The Honorable Josh Becker
The Honorable Marc Berman
League of California Cities [email protected]
Seth Miller [email protected]
341
Agenda Item # 13.
[Amended from original to reflect single amendment that eliminates “public transit corridors”] [Addressee TBD upon assignment by Senate Rules Committee] RE: AB 2097 (Friedman): Residential and Commercial Development. Parking Requirements.
NOTICE OF OPPOSITION (As amended 5/19/22)
The City of Los Altos joins the League of California Cities (Cal Cities) in respectfully opposing your measure Assembly Bill 2097, which would prohibit a local government from imposing or enforcing a minimum automobile parking requirement on residential, commercial, or other developments, without regard to the development size, if the development is located on a parcel within one-half mile of public transit.
The amendment to eliminate applicability to high-frequency transit routes improves but does not eliminate the problems with the bill. AB 2097 would essentially allow developers to dictate parking requirements in areas within ½ mile of current major transit stops. This does not guarantee individuals living, working, or shopping on those parcels will actually use transit.
Many residents will continue to own automobiles and require nearby parking, which will only increase parking demand, displace parking to adjacent neighborhoods, and increase congestion.
AB 2097 would give both developers and transit agencies, who are unaccountable to local voters, the power to determine parking requirements. Transit agencies would be able to dramatically alter local parking standards by shifting transit routes and adjusting service intervals.
Additionally, AB 2097 could negatively impact the State’s Density Bonus Law by providing developers parking concessions without also requiring developers to include affordable housing units in the project. The purpose of the Density Bonus Law is to provide concessions and waivers to developers in exchange for affordable housing units.
While AB 2097 may be well intended, parking requirements are most appropriately established at the local level based on community needs. A one-size fits all approach to an issue that is project specific just does not work. For these reasons, the City of Los Altos opposes AB 2097.
Sincerely,
Anita Enander
Mayor, City of Los Altos
Cc:
The Honorable Laura Friedman
The Honorable Josh Becker
The Honorable Marc Berman
League of California Cities [email protected]
Seth Miller [email protected]
342
Agenda Item # 13.
The Honorable Lena Gonzalez
Chair, Senate Transportation Committee
State Capitol, Room 405
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Senator Gonzalez:
AB 2181 (Berman) Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority: board of directors.
NOTICE OF OPPOSITION (As amended 5/2/22)
The City of Los Altos respectfully opposes AB 2181. We concur with Assembly member Berman’s concern that the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Governance structure should provide the most effective policy and oversight leadership possible for this critical transportation agency.
A complete change to the governance structure as proposed in AB 2181 would have far reaching implications and long-lasting effects on the delivery of transit and transportation in Santa Clara County. On behalf of our community, we must make sure any legislated change to the Board structure is an effective change, which, regrettably, AB 2181 is not.
The total re-structuring of the VTA Board of Directors under AB 2181 would eliminate the role of elected representatives from certain jurisdictions, leaving no representatives – who are accountable to residents – to convey and represent their city’s priorities and concerns.
Elected city officials provide critical experience and knowledge of local transit and transportation concerns, land use and policy making. Mayors and council members understand and implement land-use decisions that enhance VTA’s transit service planning as well. But more particularly for small cities like Los Altos, AB 2181 would greatly reduce our ability to meaningfully represent the interests of our city within the context of regional needs. AB 2181 would seriously undermine this principle of local representation. The Legislature has chosen to link a number of housing bills and parking requirements for multi-family developments to the availability of local transit. Under AB 2181, jurisdictions seeking to meet housing goals, that both depend on and are affected by transit, would be excluded from participating in VTA governance, with potentially profound adverse effects.
VTA’s Board Enhancement Committee and the Governance and Audit Committee have worked effectively since 2019 on dozens of improvements to the governance of VTA and the process for recruiting and retaining engaged and knowledgeable Board members. Los Altos has diligently participated in and supported these efforts, and VTA’s governance has been improved through these changes. Additional potential improvements are undergoing careful evaluation, consistent with an open process that involves all affected jurisdictions.
The future carries a double responsibility for the VTA Board, as public transportation has the huge challenge of recovering from the impacts of the pandemic and providing service to help Santa Clara County and the state reduce GHG emissions by moving people from singleoccupancy vehicles to transit. This bill is not a good solution to these challenges, especially as there has been insufficient engagement with the Santa Clara County community and the member cities like Los Altos that would be most directly affected.
The City of Los Altos therefore must oppose AB 2181.
343
Agenda Item # 13.
Sincerely,
Anita Enander
Mayor, City of Los Altos
Cc:
The Honorable Marc Berman
The Honorable Josh Becker
League of California Cities [email protected]
Seth Miller [email protected]
344
Agenda Item # 13.
The Honorable Buffy Wicks
Chair, Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee 1020 N Street, Room 156
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Assembly Member Wicks:
Senate Bill 897 (Wieckowski): Accessory dwelling units: junior accessory dwelling units.
NOTICE OF OPPOSITION (As amended 5/19/22)
The City of Los Altos joins the League of California Cities (Cal Cities) in regrettably taking an “oppose” position on your Senate Bill 897, which would significantly amend the statewide standards that apply to locally adopted ordinances concerning the construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), even though the law has been substantially amended nearly every year since 2016.
Specifically, SB 897 would require local jurisdictions to:
• Allow ADUs to be constructed with a height of up to 25 feet. Current law appropriately authorizes cities and counties to restrict ADU height to 16 feet, thus helping ensure that these accessory units blend into the existing neighborhood. Mandating that local jurisdictions allow essentially two-story ADUs, even if limited to residential neighborhoods near transit, is completely contrary to the stated belief that ADUs are a way to increase density in a modest fashion that is not disruptive to established communities. Shoehorning a 25-foot structure into a backyard of a single-story ranch style home calls to question the idea that these are “accessory dwelling units.”
• Permit constructed ADUs in violation of State building standards and in violation of local zoning requirements. Current law already requires cities and counties to approve ADUs ministerially, without discretionary review. Expanding this to prohibit local jurisdictions from denying permits for already constructed ADUs that fail to comply with State mandated building standards or local zoning requirements could result in dangerous or substandard living conditions. • 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, the City of Los Altos opposes SB 897.
Sincerely,
Anita Enander
Mayor, City of Los Altos
Cc:
The Honorable Bob Weickowski
345
Agenda Item # 13.
The Honorable Josh Becker
The Honorable Marc Berman
League of California Cities [email protected]
Seth Miller [email protected]
346
Agenda Item # 13.
The Honorable Luz Rivas
Chair, Assembly Natural Resources Committee
1020 N Street, Room 164
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Assembly Member Rivas:
RE: SB 922 (Wiener) California Environmental Quality Act: Exemption: transportation Related Projects
NOTICE OF SUPPORT (As Amended 5/11/22)
The City of Los Altos write in support of SB 922 to help transit agencies and local governments build active and sustainable transportation projects that will create a safer, healthier, and more equitable future for all Californians. The author’s previous bill (SB 288) temporarily exempted from CEQA certain clean transportation projects. Under current law, these CEQA exemptions sunset on January 1, 2023.
SB 922 would eliminate the sunset and provide greater clarity about how to use the exemption and which types of projects are eligible for exemption. SB 922 would streamline CEQA with targeted statutory exemptions for transit and active transportation projects that significantly advance the state’s climate, safety, and health goals.
We favor the criteria required in the bill that the community be meaningfully engaged in shaping projects to require that they benefit residents. The racial equity analysis and residential displacement risk analysis are particularly significant.
SB 922 helps ensure that transportation spending aligns with the state’s policy goals while benefitting communities. For these reasons, the City of Los Altos is pleased to support SB 922.
Sincerely,
Anita Enander
Mayor, City of Los Altos
Cc:
The Honorable Scott Wiener
The Honorable Josh Becker
The Honorable Marc Berman
League of California Cities [email protected]
Seth Miller [email protected]
347
Agenda Item # 13.
[Note: final Senate amendments only limited new cause of action applicability to the period 1/1/24-1/1/28. Changes were made to original draft of letter in response to Council member Weinberg’s comments. Project description in paragraph 2 was revised and then reviewed by staff transportation consultant familiar with the project for accuracy.] The Honorable Cecelia M. Aguiar-Curry
Chair, Assembly Local Government Committee
1020 N Street, Room 157
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry:
Senate Bill 932 (Portantino): General plans, circulation element NOTICE OF OPPOSITION UNLESS AMENDED (As amended 5/4/22) Dear Chair 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 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. With impetus from Los Altos, a safe-routes-to school infrastructure project is underway along Homestead Road that transects rights-of-way in the city of Los Altos, County of Santa Clara, City of Cupertino, and City of Sunnyvale and will integrate those new paths with local streets. After Los Altos brought all stakeholders together (the above jurisdictions plus two school districts), the County was persuaded to fund and complete the initial planning phase to help build consensus on a unified vision. Following a two-year period of awaiting appropriate grant fund opportunities, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Agency took the lead in developing and securing grant fund sources for the design and environmental phases of the project. Grant funding for the construction phases of the project are still unidentified. This project continues to require considerable interagency coordination as part of the design, but the result will be a significant improvement in safe, shared use for students who live in one city but attend school in another. This is just one example 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.
We are nearing completion of a new Complete Streets Master Plan that integrates 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. Much of the plan remains unfunded, despite planned use of state funding from sources such SB-1, Block Grants, gas tax, and other County return-to-fund sources. The requirements of SB 932 are likely even to exceed the ambitious plan we have just developed; without any additional revenue sources, SB 932 will place even greater strain on limited City resources.
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 348
Agenda Item # 13.
for the reductions that are needed to be granted a 10-year extension of 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. 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.
The following would allow us to remove our OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED position.
1. Remove the uniform, top-down mandates as to project type and timing.
2. Allow for flexibility in projects that cross jurisdictions.
3. Identify new funding sources for any new mandate.
4. Remove entirely the proposed new cause of action liability (we note the currently amended version imposes a time limit on its application, but the entire concept is problematic).
5. Eliminate the perhaps unintended penalties of 65302(b)(2)(ii)(III), as described above.
Sincerely,
Anita Enander
Mayor, City of Los Altos
Cc:
The Honorable Anthony Portantino
The Honorable Josh Becker
The Honorable Marc Berman
League of California Cities [email protected]
Seth Miller [email protected]
349
Agenda Item # 13.
June 8, 2022
Re: AB 2181 (Berman) OPPOSE
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers and Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara, Per action taken by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Board of Directors on June 2, 2022, I respectfully request your jurisdiction to consider opposing Assembly Bill 2181. Please see the attached letter on behalf of the Board indicating VTA’s opposition.
VTA remains committed to implementing governance reforms initiated by the VTA Board in 2019.
Thank you for your consideration and support of public transportation in Santa Clara County.
A letter stating your jurisdiction’s official position on AB 2181 can be submitted electronically at https://calegislation.lc.ca.gov/Advocates/faces/index.xhtml.
Sincerely,
Charles “Chappie” Jones
Chairperson, Board of Directors
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Cc: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Policy Advisory Committee Cities Association of Santa Clara County
350
Agenda Item # 13.
June 8, 2022
Honorable Marc Berman
Assemblymember
State Capitol
Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249
Re: AB 2181 (Berman) OPPOSE
Dear Assemblymember Berman,
On behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), I respectfully submit the Board of Directors’ opposition to Assembly Bill 2181. We appreciate and commend your efforts to reform local governance in Santa Clara County and agree that our organization, like any other, has areas in which it can certainly improve. However, we found that these proposed changes to the structure of the VTA Board of Directors in AB 2181 will undermine this policy making and oversight body as well as diminish our chances of successfully passing future local sales tax measures. These measures represent more than 63 percent of the funding for the day to day services VTA and its workforce provide. They would further weaken our position in competition for federal, state and regional funds.
AB 2181 would reduce the number of local elected officials on the VTA Board through a complex process to select city group representatives. The replacement of the Board with the proposed hybrid structure will limit the role of local elected officials who make the land use decisions that ultimately determine the transportation needs in the county. These local elected officials bring experience providing policy direction and oversight of the services VTA provides to the many jurisdictions within the county, the pay and benefits workers receive and their pensions. These local elected officials are vital to ensuring that cities’ priorities are represented in transportation sales tax measures and ensuring city council support.
With these concerns in mind, the VTA Board voted unanimously to oppose AB 2181 on June 2, 2022. When we voted, we made clear that VTA is not opposed to improvements and pledged to complete the reforms developed by the Board Enhancement Committee in a thoughtful process that began in 2019.
Thank you for your leadership, consideration and service to our community. We look forward to continuing to work with you on future transportation policies, projects and services.
Sincerely,
Charles “Chappie” Jones
Chairperson, Board of Directors
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
351
Agenda Item # 13.
Cc: County of Santa Clara Legislative Delegation
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Policy Advisory Committee Cities Association of Santa Clara County
352
Agenda Item # 13.
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 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 353
Agenda Item # 13.
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 their already excellent safety record would not allow for the reductions that are needed to be granted a 10-year extension of 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. 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 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.”
354
Agenda Item # 13.
City of Los Altos 2022 Tentative Council Agenda Calendar June 9, 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.
June 28, 2022 Closed Session – Labor Negotiations
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
Special Presentation; July makes Parks Better
Youth Commission Appointments
AB 481 Consent
FY23 Budget Adoption
Financial System Purchase
CalRecycle Grant Acceptance Consent Eng
Custodial Contract Consent MSC
355 First Street Public Hearing
Project Acceptance for Fremont Project – Interstate Grading & Paving Consent Project Acceptance for 2021 Resurfacing Project – G. Bortolotto & Co. Consent Wireless Ordinance Consent
July 12, 2022 Council Study Session – Housing Element
July 12, 2022 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
355
Agenda Item # 14.
City of Los Altos Tentative Council Agenda Calendar
June 9, 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
Reach Code Study Session with Env Commission
August 30, 2022 Commission Interviews
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
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 December 13, 2022 Special meeting REORG.
356
Agenda Item # 14.
City of Los Altos Tentative Council Agenda Calendar
June 9, 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.
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
Subcommittee on Grants NF 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
Reach Code 2.0
Boards and Commission Process /Survey use
PCI Report
Complete Streets Master Plan
Discussion “Ceding Time” at meeting
357
Agenda Item # 14.