Agenda packet, first session — Los Altos City Council, February 14, 2023

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
7:00 PM - Tuesday, February 14, 2023
via Videoconference and In Person
Please Note: The City Council will meet in person as well as via Telephone/Video Conference Telephone: 1-669-444-9171 / Webinar ID: 851 9801 8033
https://losaltosca-gov.zoom.us/j/85198018033?pwd=dEhlNXJJb1ZRK2l5RFZ3TVhxamhiQT09 Passcode: 455178
TO PARTICIPATE IN-PERSON: Members of the public may also participate in person by being present at the Los Altos Council Chamber at Los Altos City Hall located at 1 N. San Antonio Rd, Los Altos, CA.

TO PARTICIPATE VIA VIDEO: Follow the link above. Members of the public will need to have a working microphone on their device and must have the latest version of ZOOM installed (available at https://zoom.us/download). To request to speak, please use the “Raise hand” feature located at the bottom of the screen.

TO PARTICPATE VIA TELEPHONE: Members of the public may also participate via telephone by calling the number listed above. To request to speak, press *9 on your telephone.

TO SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS: Prior to the meeting, comments on matters listed on the agenda may be emailed to [email protected]. Emails sent to this email address are sent to/received immediately by the City Council. Please include a subject line in the following format:

PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM ## - MEETING DATE
Correspondence submitted in hard copy/paper must be received by 2:00 PM on the day of the meeting to ensure distribution prior to the meeting. Correspondence received prior to the meeting will be included in the public record. .

Public testimony will be taken at the direction of the Mayor, and members of the public may only comment during times allotted for public comments.

AGENDA

CALL MEETING TO ORDER

ESTABLISH QUORUM

PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
1 2/14/2023 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Page 2 of 3

CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Members of the audience may bring to the Council's attention any item that is not on the agenda. Speakers are generally given two or three minutes, at the discretion of the Mayor. Please be advised that, by law, the City Council is unable to discuss or take action on issues presented during the Public Comment Period. According to State Law (also known as “The Brown Act”) items must first be noted on the agenda before any discussion or action.

A. Public Comment

SPECIAL ITEM
i. Black History Month Proclamation

CONSENT CALENDAR
These items will be considered by one motion unless any member of the Council or audience wishes to remove an item for discussion. Any item removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion will be handled at the discretion of the Mayor.

1. Notice of Completion: Adopt Resolution No. 2023-XX for On-Call Sanitary Sewer Spot Repairs and CCTV Inspection Services for FY 21/22 (G. Grant)

2. Emergency Declaration Resolution: Adopt a Resolution terminating the local emergency declaration due to the COVID-19 pandemic (J. Maginot)

3. Amendment No. 3 to the Contract with Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc. for Traffic Signal and Streetlight Maintenance Services: Adopt a resolution to authorize the City Manager to execute contract Amendment No. 3 with Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc. to extend the term through FY 22/23 and add funds in the amount of $75,000 for a total not to exceed maintenance budget of $381,000 for on-call traffic signal and streetlight maintenance services. (N. S. Majd)

4. Approve the Updated Fiscal Year 2022/23 Pay Schedule: Adopt Resolution 2023-XX to adopt the Updated Fiscal Year 2022/23 Pay Schedule to Comply with California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) Statutory and Regulatory Requirements for Compensation Earnable and Publicly Available Pay Schedules (I. Silipin)

5. Minutes: Approve Minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting of January 24, 2023. (A.

Rodriguez)

PUBLIC HEARINGS - NONE

DISCUSSION ITEMS

6. Consider a Resolution to Adopt a Policy Implementing SB 743 and Finding the Council's Action Exempt from Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):

Adopting a resolution that would implement a policy establishing thresholds of significance, using Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT), to analyze transportation impacts under CEQA, consistent with 2 2/14/2023 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Page 3 of 3
SB 743; consider a finding that the City Council's action in adopting the resolution is not subject to review under CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065 (definition of a CEQA “project”), CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7 (requirements for adopting thresholds of significance), and CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (commonsense exemption).

7. FY22/23 Budget Appropriations: Approve and Adopt a Resolution for Adjustments to FY22/23 Budget Appropriations (J. Du)

8. Housing Element Implementing Resolutions: Elimination of Third Party Independent Architectural Review and Elimination of Story Pole Requirement. The proposed resolutions are exempt from environmental review pursuant to General Rule, Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines since there would be no possibility of a significant effect on the environment. (N. Zornes)

9. Commission Appointment Process: Amend the "Membership of City Commissions" section from the Los Altos Commission Handbook (A. Carnesecca)

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS ONLY

10. Tentative Council Calendar

COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS AND DIRECTIONS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

ADJOURNMENT
(Council Norms: It will be the custom to have a recess at approximately 9:00 p.m. Prior to the recess, the Mayor shall announce whether any items will be carried over to the next meeting. The established hour after which no new items will be started is 11:00 p.m. Remaining items, however, may be considered by consensus of the Council.)

SPECIAL NOTICES TO THE PUBLIC
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Los Altos will make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk 72 hours prior to the meeting at (650) 947-2610.

Agendas Staff Reports and some associated documents for City Council items may be viewed on the Internet at http://www.losaltosca.gov/citycouncil/online/index.html.

All public records relating to an open session item on this agenda, which are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act, and that are distributed to a majority of the legislative body, will be available for public inspection at the Office of the City Clerk’s Office, City of Los Altos, located at One North San Antonio Road, Los Altos, California at the same time that the public records are distributed or made available to the legislative body.

If you wish to provide written materials, please provide the City Clerk with 10 copies of any document that you would like to submit to the City Council for the public record. 3 PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA

The following is public comment received by the City Clerk’s Office. Members of the public may bring to the Council's attention any item that is not on the agenda. Please be advised that, according to State law, the City Council is unable to discuss or take action on issues presented during the Public Comment Period.

Individual contact information has been redacted for privacy. 4 Agenda Item # A.

From: Jonathan Weinberg
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: VTA board membership
Date: Thursday, February 9, 2023 11:14:58 AM
From: David Roode
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2023 3:49 PM
To: City Council
Subject: VTA board membership
VTA really should have its board be directly elected and I think the way that California law creates the VTA
board is unconstitutional because we aren't represented consistently as residents of Los Altos.

Still, the California public utilities code specifies
that while cities like Los Altos do not have a vote
every year, we are part of a group of cities that is
represented by a single individual and alternate on the board at all times. Moreover, the law says that the way that individual is selected is subject to an agreement
among the cities involved. The overall VTA board lacks
the legal authority to interfere with how our specific
cities select their representative and alternate.

Therefore VTA changing its bylaws to allow councilmember Lee Eng to choose ti ignore the system of the city
council changing representatives every two years is by
itself contrary to state law.

T think you should include that fact in your objections to VTA about this twist they put in, along with your not liking it. It's actually against the law.
5 Agenda Item # A.

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]
6 Agenda Item # A.

From: Couture, Terri
To: Public Comment
Subject: city council meeting Feb 14 - items not on the agenda Date: Saturday, February 11, 2023 6:30:45 PM
Dear City Council members
I would like to commend our Los Altos police. They were very proactive responding to our neighborhood complaints about speeders and reckless, irresponsible drivers. They have stepped up their patrolling and we have noticed calmer, more reasonable drivers.

Further we have noticed that they have responded to multiple county infraction requests with honor and resolution.

We are so lucky to have such a dedicated police and fire force in our town.

We are so thankful, and I know I speak for many of my neighbors.

Terri Couture
*Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication. 7 Agenda Item # A.
8 Agenda Item # i.

Reviewed By:

City Manager City Attorney
GE
Finance Director
JH JD

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Meeting Date: February 14, 2023
Subject Resolution No. 2023-XX: On-Call Sanitary Sewer Spot Repairs and CCTV Inspection Services for FY 21/22 Acceptance
Prepared by: Grant Gabler, Sewer Maintenance Supervisor Reviewed by: Aida Fairman, Environmental Services and Utilities Director Approved by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachment:

A. Resolution No. 2023-XX
Initiated by:

City Council/ Staff
Previous Council Consideration:

August 24, 2021
Fiscal Impact:

The final cost of this project is $67,181.50 for the On-Call Sanitary Sewer Spot Repairs and CCTV Inspection Services for FY 21/22; any remaining expenditure budget will be returned to the Sewer Maintenance Operating Budget balance for future allocation. The following table summarizes the final cost of this project.

Project Item Original Project Budget Final Cost
Construction (Spot Repair and CCTV
Inspections) $100,000 $66,344.00
Printing/Environmental Doc/Misc. $1,500 $837.50
Total Cost $101,500 $67,181.50
Environmental Review:

The acceptance of the work is categorically exempt from review under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(b) (Existing Facilities), in that the project consists of the operation, repair, and maintenance of existing facilities. Also, the project involves negligible or no expansion of existing or former use, and none of the circumstances stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies.
9 Agenda Item # 1.

Subject: Resolution No. 2023-XX: On-Call Sanitary Sewer Spot Repairs and CCTV Inspection Services for FY 21/22 Acceptance
January 24, 2023 Page 2
Summary:
 Adopt Resolution No. 2023-XX accepting completion of the On-Call Sanitary Sewer Spot Repairs and CCTV Inspection Services for FY 21/22
 Authorize the Environmental Services and Utilities Director to record a Notice of Completion as required by law
Staff Recommendation:

Move to adopt Resolution No. 2023-XX accepting completion of the On-Call Sanitary Sewer Spot Repairs and CCTV Inspection Services for FY 21/22 and authorizing the Environmental Services and Utilities Director to record a Notice of Completion as required by law 10 Agenda Item # 1.

Subject: Resolution No. 2023-XX: On-Call Sanitary Sewer Spot Repairs and CCTV Inspection Services for FY 21/22 Acceptance
January 24, 2023 Page 3
Purpose
Accept completion of the On-Call Sanitary Sewer Spot Repairs and CCTV Inspection Services for FY 21/22.

Background
On September 4, 2021, the City Manager executed a contract with C2R Engineering, Inc. for OnCall Sanitary Sewer Spot Repairs and CCTV Inspection Services for not-to-exceed $100,000.

Discussion/Analysis
C2R Engineering, Inc. completed the repairs and CCTV inspection of On-Call Sanitary Sewer Spot Repairs and CCTV Inspection Services per plans and specification. This project consisted of replacement of six laterals via pipe bursting method, televising 340 feet of 6-inch, and 314 feet of 12-inch sewer mainlines.

Recommendation
Move to adopt Resolution No. 2023-XX accepting completion of the On-Call Sanitary Sewer Spot Repairs and CCTV Inspection Services for FY 21/22 and authorizing the Environmental Services and Utilities Director to record a Notice of Completion as required by law 11 Agenda Item # 1.

ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 2023-__ Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS

ACCEPTING COMPLETION AND DIRECTING THE ENVIRONMENTAL

SERVICES AND UTILITY DIRECTOR TO FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION

OF THE ON-CALL SANITARY SEWER SPOT REPAIRS AND CCTV
INSPECTION SERVICES FY 2021-2022
WHEREAS, the Los Altos Environmental Services and Utilities Director has filed with the City Clerk of Los Altos an Engineer's Certificate for the completion of all work provided within and pursuant to the contract between said City and C2R Engineering, Inc., dated September 4, 2021; and
WHEREAS, it appears to the satisfaction of this City Council that work under said contract has been fully installed and completed as provided in said contract, and the plans and specifications therein referred to.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Los Altos hereby authorizes the following:

1. That acceptance of completion of said work is hereby made and ordered; and

2. That the City Manager or his designee is directed to execute and file for recording with the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, Notice of Acceptance of Completion thereof, as required by law; and

3. That the acceptance of the work is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (b) for reasons stated in the staff report, and none of the circumstances described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies, and

4. All remaining budget expenditures will be returned to the Operation Budget.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos at a meeting thereof on the 14 th
day of February, 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Sally Meadows, MAYOR
Attest:
12 Agenda Item # 1.

ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 2023-__ Page 1
_____________________________
Angel Rodriguez, INTERIM CITY CLERK
13 Agenda Item # 1.

Reviewed By:

City Manager City Attorney
GE
Finance Director
JH JD

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Meeting Date: February 14, 2023
Subject Emergency Declaration Resolution
Prepared by: Jon Maginot, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachment(s):

1. Resolution No. 2023-xx
Initiated by:

Staff
Previous Council Consideration:

March 12, 2020 (Declaration of Emergency); March 17, 2020; August 24, 2021; October 12, 2021; November 9, 2021; December 7, 2021; January 11, 2022; February 8, 2022; March 8, 2022; April 12, 2022; May 10, 2022; June 14, 2022; July 12, 2022; August 4, 2022; August 23, 2022; September 20, 2022; October 11, 2022; November, 15, 2022; December 13, 2022; January 10, 2023
Fiscal Impact:

None; however, a local emergency declaration is a prerequisite for requesting state or federal assistance.

Environmental Review:

Not applicable
Policy Question(s) for Council Consideration:
 Does the Council wish to adopt a resolution terminating the local emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic?
Summary:
 In order to end the local emergency declaration, the City Council must adopt a Resolution declaring the end of the emergency
14 Agenda Item # 2.

Subject: Emergency Declaration Resolution
February 14, 2023 Page 2
Staff Recommendation:

Adopt a Resolution terminating the local emergency declaration due to the COVID-19 pandemic 15 Agenda Item # 2.

Subject: Emergency Declaration Resolution
February 14, 2023 Page 3
Purpose
To adopt a resolution terminating the declaration of emergency Background
On March 12, 2020, the City Manager issued an Emergency Declaration in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 17, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-08 ratifying the Emergency Proclamation. The City Council subsequently adopted resolutions monthly beginning in October 2021 continuing the declaration of the existence of a local emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

On October 17, 2022, Governor Newsom announced that the State COVID-19 State of Emergency will end on February 28, 2023. Los Altos and Santa Clara County has maintained low daily cases counts for a number of months and have very high vaccination rates against COVID-19.

In order to terminate the local emergency declaration, City Council needs to adopt a Resolution declaring the end of the emergency.

Discussion/Analysis
The attached Resolution will terminate the local emergency declaration at 11:59 p.m. on February 28, 2023. The City will remain under both the State and local emergency declarations until that time.

Recommendation
The staff recommends Council adopt the resolution terminating the declaration of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
16 Agenda Item # 2.

Resolution No. 2023-XX Page 1
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS TERMINATING THE LOCAL EMERGENCY DUE TO THE COVID-19

PANDEMIC
WHEREAS, on March 12, 2020, the Los Altos City Manager, in his capacity as the City’s Director of Emergency Services, proclaimed a local emergency in response to the escalation of COVID-19 to a pandemic, and on March 17, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution 2020-08 ratifying and continuing the proclamation of local emergency; and WHEREAS, since October 2021, the City Council has monthly adopted resolutions extending the declaration of a local emergency; and
WHEREAS, due to the diligence of Los Altos residents in complying with health guidance, Los Altos has one of the lowest rates of reported incidence of COVID-19 infection in Santa Clara County; and
WHEREAS, Santa Clara County has maintained low new daily case counts for an extended period of time and approximately 88.2 percent of Santa Clara County residents of all ages have been vaccinated, and statewide vaccination rates are higher than the national average; and
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2022, Governor Newsom announced that the State COVID19 State of Emergency will end on February 28, 2023.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Los Altos that:

1. The City Council does hereby terminate the declaration of local emergency effective 11:59 p.m. on February 28, 2023.

2. The City Council continues to urge all individuals to maintain recommended practices to remain safe and healthy and to protect the community from a resurgence of the COVID-19 virus.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos at a meeting thereof on the ___ day of ____, 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
17 Agenda Item # 2.

Resolution No. 2023-XX Page 2
ATTACHMENT 1
___________________________
Sally Meadows, MAYOR
Attest:
_____________________________
Angel Rodriguez, INTERIM CITY CLERK
18 Agenda Item # 2.

PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE

To send correspondence to the City Council, on matters listed on the agenda please email [email protected]
19 Agenda Item # 2.

From: Bill Hough
To: City Council; Public Comment
Subject: Public comment on agenda item #2 on 2/14/2023 agenda Date: Friday, February 10, 2023 9:33:42 AM
It is past time to terminate the Emergency Declaration Resolution regarding COVID-19. The virus is no longer a death sentence, and it's not clear if it ever was unless you have comorbidities.

In fact, California will end plans to mandate COVID-19 vaccines for schoolchildren by the end of this month, California Department of Public Health officials told EdSource as reported here: https://url.avanan.click/v2/___https://edsource.org/2023/california-endsplans-for-kids-covid-vaccinemandate/685077___.YXAzOmxvc2FsdG9zY2E6YTpvOmQ0YzI3N2EzN2I3NWJhMzNlZTk1ZjY2YTljZWE2MzJkOjY6MWFhYTo5Yjc0ZDZlMzljZWVhZDQ2ZjAxY2I4NWEwYzU0Nzg4NDA5NWZiYmJiNTBiMWRlMGJkOWQxY2E5NjJkYjcyZmJhOnA6VA This is about three years too late.

Bill Hough
Los Altos Resident and taxpayer
20 Agenda Item # 2.

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY

Reviewed By:

City Manager City Attorney
GE
Finance Director
JH JD
Meeting Date: February 14, 2023
Subject: Amendment No. 3 to the Contract with Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc. for Traffic Signal and Streetlight Maintenance Services
Prepared by: Nafis Majd, Associate Civil Engineer
Reviewed by: James Sandoval, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachment(s):
 Resolution
Initiated by:

Staff initiated
Previous Council Consideration:
- Contract Award on July 10, 2018.
- Amendment #1 Award on September 22, 2020.
- Amendment #2 Award on October 12, 2021.

Fiscal Impact:

Bear Electrical Solutions provides as-needed traffic signal and streetlight maintenance services to the City of Los Altos. The City completed its fourth year of a three-year + one-year extension contract term with Bear on June 30th, 2022. Staff would like to extend the term and add $75,000 to FY 22/23. The original contract term was $52,000 per year over three years (i.e., $156,000).

The first amendment to the contract added $75,000 to the third year and the second amendment added $75,000 and the optional fourth year (FY21/22). The additional funds were necessary to keep up with the maintenance needed on traffic signals and street lighting. The City Council approved the original contract and both amendments on the dates listed above.

This proposed third amendment would add a fifth year (FY22/23) and $75,000 to the contract, which would increase the total contract value to $381,000. The CoLA Purchasing Policy allows for contracts up to five years on blanket purchase orders for maintenance vendors like Bear Electrical Solutions.
21 Agenda Item # 3.

Subject: Amendment No. 3 to the Contract with Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc. for Traffic Signal and Streetlight Maintenance Services
February 14, 2023 Page 2
Budget Summary:
 Breakdown of contract budget adjustment:
o Original Contract: $156,000 – Total for a 3-Year Contract Value with Bear Electrical Solutions. $52,000 per year for FY 18/19, FY 19/20, and FY 20/21 o Amendment #1: $75,000 addition to FY 20/21
o Amendment #2: $75,000 – Extend contract term through FY 21/22 and add funds to contract budget
o Amendment #3: $75,000 – Extend contract term through FY 22/23 and add funds to contract budget
o Total: $381,000
 Funding Source: General Fund Operating Budget – Traffic Control/Equipment Repairs. $125,000 is allocated for FY22/23
 Amount already included in approved budget: Yes
Environmental Review:

Categorically exempt
Policy Question(s) for Council Consideration:

Does the Council support the contract amendment to allow for continued traffic signal maintenance services by Bear Electrical Solutions?
Summary:
 Staff is requesting a one-year term extension through FY 23/24 and a $75,000 budget increase to the on-call traffic signal maintenance contract with Bear Electrical Solutions for FY 22/23. This would lead to a total of $381,000 for a five-year maintenance service.  The CoLA Purchasing Policy allows for contracts up to five years on blanket purchase orders for maintenance vendors like Bear Electrical Solutions.  Amendment No. 3 ensures on-going maintenance operations through the FY 22/23 term while the City plans to rebid the on-call contract for the next three-year period that would begin in FY 23/24.

Staff Recommendation:

Authorize the City Manager to execute contract Amendment No. 3 with Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc. to extend the term through FY 22/23 and add funds in the amount of $75,000 for a total not to exceed maintenance budget of $381,000 for on-call traffic signal and streetlight maintenance services.

Background:

Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc. provides the City with scheduled maintenance and on-call maintenance for the City’s traffic signal and streetlight infrastructure. Their services assure that the City’s traffic signals and streetlights safely operate 24/7. 22 Agenda Item # 3.

Subject: Amendment No. 3 to the Contract with Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc. for Traffic Signal and Streetlight Maintenance Services
February 14, 2023 Page 3
Discussion/Analysis:

Amendment No. 3 ensures on-going traffic signal and streetlight infrastructure maintenance operations continue through the FY 22/23 term while the City prepares to rebid the on-call contract for the next three-year period that would begin in FY 23/24.

Bear Electrical Solutions has been very responsive to the City’s maintenance needs and is intimately familiar with the Los Altos transportation infrastructure.

Recommendation:

Adopt a resolution to authorize the City Manager to execute contract Amendment No. 3 with Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc. to extend the term through FY 22/23 and add funds in the amount of $75,000 for a total not to exceed maintenance budget of $381,000 for on-call traffic signal and streetlight maintenance services.
23 Agenda Item # 3.

Resolution No. 2023-xx Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS FOR

AWARD OF THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE BEAR ELECTRICAL
SOLUTIONS, INC. FOR

TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND STREETLIGHT MAINTENANCE
WHEREAS, the City of Los Altos hired Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc. for maintenance service on City-owned traffic signals, streetlights, lighted crosswalk systems, RRFBs and radar speed limits signs; and
WHEREAS, Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc. was awarded a contract in the amount of $156,000 on September 20, 2018, and awarded Amendment No. 1 in the amount of $75,000 on August 27, 2020; and awarded Amendment No. 2 in the amount of $75,000 on October 13, 2021; and
WHEREAS, Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc. has provided traffic signal maintenance services to the City during past several years and is familiar with Los Altos community, and the City needs their expertise to maintain the traffic signals, streetlights, lighted crosswalk systems, RRFBs and radar speed limits signs; and WHEREAS, Amendment No. 3 to Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc.’s contract will carry forth traffic signal maintenance services for FY22/23; and WHEREAS, the FY 22/23 Council-approved Transportation Services Operations budget has adequate funding to fund the project.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Los Altos hereby adopt a resolution to:

1. Authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 3 to the Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc. Agreement between the City of Los Altos and Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc. through FY 22-23 in an amount not to exceed $75,000 to provide traffic signal and streetlight maintenance services for the City, and

2. Authorize the City Manager to take such further actions as may be necessary to implement the foregoing agreement.
24 Agenda Item # 3.

Resolution No. 2023-xx Page 2
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos at a meeting thereof on the 14th day of February 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Sally Meadows, MAYOR
Attest:
_____________________________
Angel Rodriguez, Interim City Clerk
25 Agenda Item # 3.

Reviewed By:

City Manager City Attorney
GE
Finance Director
JH JD

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Meeting Date: February 14, 2023
Subject Resolution 2023-XX Approve the Updated Fiscal Year 2022/23 Pay Schedule to Comply with California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) Statutory and Regulatory Requirements for Compensation Earnable and Publicly Available Pay Schedules
Prepared by: Irene Barragan Silipin, Human Resources Director Reviewed by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Approved by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachment(s):

1. Resolution 2023-XX

2. Updated Fiscal Year 2022/23 Pay Schedule
Initiated by:

City Manager
Previous Council Consideration:

City Council Meeting on June 14, 2022 (Initial Fiscal Year 22/23 Pay Schedule) City Council Meeting on July 12, 2022 (Adopted Teamster Memorandum of Understanding) City Council Meeting on October 11, 2022 (Miscellaneous FY 22/23 Pay Schedule Updates) City Council Meeting on October 11, 2022 (Amendment City Manager Employment Agreement) Fiscal Impact:

None
Environmental Review:

Not applicable
Policy Question(s) for Council Consideration:
 Does the Council wish to adopt Resolution 2023-XX that includes the updated fiscal year 2022/23 publicly available pay schedule?
26 Agenda Item # 4.

Subject: Resolution 2023-XX Approve the Fiscal Year 2022/23 Pay Schedule to Comply with California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) Statutory and Regulatory Requirements for Compensation Earnable and Publicly Available Pay Schedules
February 14, 2023 Page 2
Summary:
 There have been recent adjustments to pay rates due to the Los Altos Minimum Wage Increase in calendar year 2023, a new contract with the City Manager approved by Council in October 2022, and open pay ranges implemented for unrepresented management positions to attract and retain a highly skilled workforce in a competitive labor market.
 While the City of Los Altos has a publicly available pay schedule on its external website and incorporates all City Council approved Memorandum of Understandings (MOU) and non-represented pay increases to date, a comprehensive pay schedule needs to be approved by Council to confirm pay rates.
 Thus, to comply with both California Government Code (GC) 20636(d) and California Code of Regulations (CCR) 570.5, staff requests approval and confirmation of the updated comprehensive pay schedule.

Staff Recommendation:

Move to approve Resolution 2023-XX and the Updated Fiscal Year 2022/23 Pay Schedule. 27 Agenda Item # 4.

Background
The California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) reinforces the requirement under California Government Code (GC) section 20636(d) that “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, payrate and special compensation schedules, ordinances, or similar documents shall be public records available for public scrutiny”. Additionally, the California Code of Regulations (CCR) 570.5 specifies the required elements necessary to meet the definitions of a publicly available pay schedule. An overview of these requirements is as follows:

1. Has been duly approved and adopted by the employer's governing body in accordance with requirements of applicable public meetings laws;

2. Identifies the position title for every employee position;

3. Shows the payrate range for each identified classification,

4. Indicates the time base, including, but not limited to, whether the time base is hourly, daily, bi-weekly, monthly, bi-monthly, or annually;

5. Is posted at the office of the employer or immediately accessible and available for public review from the employer during normal business hours or posted on the employer's internet website;

6. Indicates an effective date and date of any revisions;

7. Is retained by the employer and available for public inspection for not less than five years; and

8. Does not reference another document in lieu of disclosing the payrate.

Discussion/Analysis
While the City of Los Altos has a publicly available salary schedule on its external website and incorporates all City Council approved Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) salary increases to date, a comprehensive salary schedule needs to be approved by Council when updates are made to the salary schedule. The updates to the salary schedule are as follows:

1. Per Resolution 2016-424 adopted by Council on October 18, 2016, the minimum wage in Los Altos increased from $16.40 to $17.40 per hour in calendar year 2023; and

2. Per Amendment #1 to the City Manager’s annual base salary increased from $245,095 to $257,595; and
28 Agenda Item # 4.

3. Open pay ranges implemented for unrepresented management classifications to attract and retain a highly skilled workforce in a competitive labor market.

Recommendation:

Move to approve Resolution 2023-XX and the Updated Fiscal Year 2022/23 Pay Schedule. 29 Agenda Item # 4.

City Manager: 5% increase effective 07/10/22 POA (Sworn): 3.5% increase effective 06/26/22 LAMEA: 3.5% increase effective 06/26/22 Unrepresented Department Heads: Market Range Adjustment to Individual Classifications effective 06/26/22 POA (Non-Sworn): 3.5% increase effective 06/26/22 Teamsters: 5% increase effective 06/26/22 Unrepresented Management: 5% increase or Market Adjustment effective 06/26/22 POA: 1.9% increase for classifications receiving Holiday In Lieu Pay effective 10/16/22 Unrepresented Confidential: 5% increase effective 06/26/22 *New Classification for FY 22/23
^Market Adjustment
+ Market Range Adjustment
City of Los Altos - Full Time Salary Schedule FY 22/23
Resolution 2023-XX
Unrep. Department Head Classifications FLSA Status Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E City Manager Exempt $9,907.50 $21,466.25 $257,595.00
Assistant City Manager+ Exempt $7,601.89 Open Range $9,240.10 $16,470.77 Open Range $20,020.22 $197,649.23 Open Range $240,242.58 Police Chief+ Exempt $7,371.71 Open Range $8,960.31 $15,972.03 Open Range $19,414.00 $191,664.34 Open Range $232,967.96 Public Works Director/City Engineer Exempt $6,741.58 Open Range $8,500.33 $14,606.75 Open Range $18,417.38 $175,280.96 Open Range $221,008.58 Utilities and Environmental Director* Exempt $6,741.58 Open Range $8,500.33 $14,606.75 Open Range $18,417.38 $175,280.96 Open Range $221,008.58 Finance Director Exempt $6,690.14 Open Range $8,500.33 $14,495.30 Open Range $18,417.38 $173,943.65 Open Range $221,008.58 Parks, Recreation, & Community Services Director* Exempt $6,465.34 Open Range $8,500.33 $14,008.23 Open Range $18,417.38 $168,098.73 Open Range $221,008.58 Development Services Director+ Exempt $6,774.39 Open Range $8,500.33 $14,677.85 Open Range $18,417.38 $176,134.15 Open Range $221,008.58 Human Resources Director* Exempt $6,310.38 Open Range $7,670.27 $13,672.49 Open Range $16,618.91 $164,069.88 Open Range $199,426.94 Unrep. Management Classifications FLSA Status Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Police Captain Exempt $6,652.31 Open Range $8,085.92 $14,413.34 Open Range $17,519.50 $172,960.07 Open Range $210,234.05 Capital Improvement Projects Manager* Exempt $6,331.76 Open Range $7,696.30 $13,718.82 Open Range $16,675.32 $164,625.89 Open Range $200,103.80 Deputy City Manager Exempt $6,026.66 Open Range $7,325.45 $13,057.77 Open Range $15,871.81 $156,693.29 Open Range $190,461.67 Engineering Services Manager Exempt $6,026.66 Open Range $7,325.45 $13,057.77 Open Range $15,871.81 $156,693.29 Open Range $190,461.67 Financial Services Manager Exempt $6,026.66 Open Range $7,325.45 $13,057.77 Open Range $15,871.81 $156,693.29 Open Range $190,461.67 Information Technology Manager Exempt $6,026.66 Open Range $7,325.45 $13,057.77 Open Range $15,871.81 $156,693.29 Open Range $190,461.67 Human Resources Manager Exempt $6,026.66 Open Range $7,325.45 $13,057.77 Open Range $15,871.81 $156,693.29 Open Range $190,461.67 Building Official Exempt $5,596.36 Open Range $6,802.41 $12,125.44 Open Range $14,738.55 $145,505.30 Open Range $176,862.60 Development Services Manager* Exempt $5,596.36 Open Range $6,802.41 $12,125.44 Open Range $14,738.55 $145,505.30 Open Range $176,862.60 Planning Services Manager Exempt $5,596.36 Open Range $6,802.41 $12,125.44 Open Range $14,738.55 $145,505.30 Open Range $176,862.60 Police Services Manager Exempt $5,596.36 Open Range $6,802.41 $12,125.44 Open Range $14,738.55 $145,505.30 Open Range $176,862.60 Transportation Services Manager Exempt $5,596.36 Open Range $6,802.41 $12,125.44 Open Range $14,738.55 $145,505.30 Open Range $176,862.60 Economic Development Manager Exempt $5,459.86 Open Range $6,636.50 $11,829.70 Open Range $14,379.07 $141,956.39 Open Range $172,548.88 City Clerk^ Exempt $5,158.02 Open Range $6,269.61 $11,175.72 Open Range $13,584.16 $134,108.62 Open Range $163,009.87 Special Projects Manager Exempt $5,196.77 Open Range $6,316.71 $11,259.68 Open Range $13,686.21 $135,116.13 Open Range $164,234.50 Project Manager Exempt $5,196.77 Open Range $6,316.71 $11,259.68 Open Range $13,686.21 $135,116.13 Open Range $164,234.50 Assistant to the City Manager Exempt $4,946.36 Open Range $6,012.34 $10,717.12 Open Range $13,026.73 $128,605.48 Open Range $156,320.76 Public Information Officer^ Exempt $4,828.91 Open Range $5,869.57 $10,462.65 Open Range $12,717.41 $125,551.75 Open Range $152,608.94 Recreation Manager Exempt $4,481.16 Open Range $5,446.88 $9,709.18 Open Range $11,801.57 $116,510.22 Open Range $141,618.90 Unrep. Confidential Classifications FLSA Status Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Senior Accountant Exempt $4,282.03 $4,496.13 $4,720.93 $4,956.98 $5,204.83 $9,277.73 $9,741.61 $10,228.69 $10,740.13 $11,277.13 $111,332.70 $116,899.34 $122,744.30 $128,881.52 $135,325.59 Senior Human Resouces Analyst* Exempt $4,282.03 $4,496.13 $4,720.93 $4,956.98 $5,204.83 $9,277.73 $9,741.61 $10,228.69 $10,740.13 $11,277.13 $111,332.70 $116,899.34 $122,744.30 $128,881.52 $135,325.59 Management Analyst II Exempt $4,177.59 $4,386.47 $4,605.79 $4,836.08 $5,077.88 $9,051.44 $9,504.01 $9,979.21 $10,478.17 $11,002.08 $108,617.27 $114,048.13 $119,750.54 $125,738.07 $132,024.97 Human Resources Analyst Exempt $3,976.29 $4,175.10 $4,383.86 $4,603.05 $4,833.20 $8,615.29 $9,046.05 $9,498.36 $9,973.28 $10,471.94 $103,383.48 $108,552.65 $113,980.29 $119,679.30 $125,663.27 Management Analyst I Exempt $3,784.69 $3,973.92 $4,172.62 $4,381.25 $4,600.31 $8,200.16 $8,610.16 $9,040.67 $9,492.71 $9,967.34 $98,401.89 $103,321.98 $108,488.08 $113,912.48 $119,608.11 Assistant City Clerk* Exempt $3,784.69 $3,973.92 $4,172.62 $4,381.25 $4,600.31 $8,200.16 $8,610.16 $9,040.67 $9,492.71 $9,967.34 $98,401.89 $103,321.98 $108,488.08 $113,912.48 $119,608.11 Executive Assistant to the City Manager Non-Exempt $3,428.74 $3,600.18 $3,780.19 $3,969.20 $4,167.66 $7,428.94 $7,800.38 $8,190.40 $8,599.92 $9,029.92 $89,147.25 $93,604.61 $98,284.84 $103,199.09 $108,359.04 Human Resources Technician Non-Exempt $3,263.52 $3,426.70 $3,598.04 $3,777.94 $3,966.83 $7,070.97 $7,424.52 $7,795.74 $8,185.53 $8,594.81 $84,851.64 $89,094.22 $93,548.93 $98,226.38 $103,137.70 Deputy City Clerk Exempt $3,106.27 $3,261.58 $3,424.66 $3,595.90 $3,775.69 $6,730.25 $7,066.76 $7,420.10 $7,791.11 $8,180.66 $80,763.01 $84,801.16 $89,041.22 $93,493.28 $98,167.94 Biweekly Monthly Annual

Page 1 of 5 ends

Revised: 10/11/2022 Approved by City Council 10/11/22
Resolution 2022-69 and 71
30 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos - Full Time Salary Schedule FY 22/23
Resolution 2023-XX
LAMEA Classifications FLSA Status Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Senior Engineer Exempt $5,136.39 $5,393.21 $5,662.87 $5,946.02 $6,243.32 $11,128.85 $11,685.29 $12,269.56 $12,883.04 $13,527.19 $133,546.21 $140,223.52 $147,234.70 $154,596.43 $162,326.25 Senior Planner Exempt $5,017.65 $5,268.53 $5,531.96 $5,808.56 $6,098.99 $10,871.58 $11,415.16 $11,985.92 $12,585.21 $13,214.47 $130,458.95 $136,981.89 $143,830.99 $151,022.54 $158,573.66 Network Systems Administrator Non-Exempt $4,583.40 $4,812.57 $5,053.20 $5,305.86 $5,571.15 $9,930.70 $10,427.23 $10,948.59 $11,496.02 $12,070.83 $119,168.38 $125,126.80 $131,383.14 $137,952.30 $144,849.91 Associate Civil Engineer Non-Exempt $4,482.75 $4,706.89 $4,942.23 $5,189.35 $5,448.81 $9,712.63 $10,198.26 $10,708.17 $11,243.58 $11,805.76 $116,551.56 $122,379.13 $128,498.09 $134,923.00 $141,669.15 Information Technology Analyst Exempt $4,365.14 $4,583.40 $4,812.57 $5,053.20 $5,305.86 $9,457.81 $9,930.70 $10,427.23 $10,948.59 $11,496.02 $113,493.70 $119,168.38 $125,126.80 $131,383.14 $137,952.30 Associate Planner Non-Exempt $4,233.96 $4,445.66 $4,667.94 $4,901.34 $5,146.41 $9,173.58 $9,632.26 $10,113.88 $10,619.57 $11,150.55 $110,083.00 $115,587.15 $121,366.51 $127,434.84 $133,806.58 Senior Building Inspector Exempt $4,176.29 $4,385.10 $4,604.36 $4,834.57 $5,076.30 $9,048.62 $9,501.05 $9,976.11 $10,474.91 $10,998.66 $108,583.48 $114,012.65 $119,713.28 $125,698.95 $131,983.89 Assistant Civil Engineer Non-Exempt $3,962.55 $4,160.68 $4,368.72 $4,587.15 $4,816.51 $8,585.53 $9,014.81 $9,465.55 $9,938.83 $10,435.77 $103,026.40 $108,177.72 $113,586.61 $119,265.94 $125,229.23 Accountant* Non-Exempt $3,924.27 $4,120.48 $4,326.51 $4,542.83 $4,769.97 $8,502.59 $8,927.71 $9,374.10 $9,842.80 $10,334.95 $102,031.02 $107,132.57 $112,489.20 $118,113.66 $124,019.34 Senior Recreation Supervisor Non-Exempt $3,919.58 $4,115.56 $4,321.34 $4,537.40 $4,764.28 $8,492.43 $8,917.05 $9,362.90 $9,831.04 $10,322.60 $101,909.11 $107,004.56 $112,354.79 $117,972.53 $123,871.16 Maintenance Supervisor Non-Exempt $3,843.81 $4,036.00 $4,237.80 $4,449.69 $4,672.18 $8,328.26 $8,744.67 $9,181.91 $9,641.00 $10,123.05 $99,939.14 $104,936.09 $110,182.90 $115,692.04 $121,476.65 Economic Development Coordinator Non-Exempt $3,842.68 $4,034.82 $4,236.56 $4,448.38 $4,670.80 $8,325.81 $8,742.10 $9,179.21 $9,638.17 $10,120.08 $99,909.74 $104,905.22 $110,150.48 $115,658.01 $121,440.91 Sustainability Coordinator Non-Exempt $3,842.68 $4,034.82 $4,236.56 $4,448.38 $4,670.80 $8,325.81 $8,742.10 $9,179.21 $9,638.17 $10,120.08 $99,909.74 $104,905.22 $110,150.48 $115,658.01 $121,440.91 Public Information Coordinator Non-Exempt $3,842.68 $4,034.82 $4,236.56 $4,448.38 $4,670.80 $8,325.81 $8,742.10 $9,179.21 $9,638.17 $10,120.08 $99,909.74 $104,905.22 $110,150.48 $115,658.01 $121,440.91 Assistant Planner Non-Exempt $3,832.50 $4,024.13 $4,225.34 $4,436.60 $4,658.43 $8,303.76 $8,718.95 $9,154.89 $9,612.64 $10,093.27 $99,645.11 $104,627.37 $109,858.74 $115,351.67 $121,119.26 Building Inspector Non-Exempt $3,778.22 $3,967.13 $4,165.49 $4,373.77 $4,592.45 $8,186.15 $8,595.46 $9,025.23 $9,476.49 $9,950.32 $98,233.79 $103,145.48 $108,302.76 $113,717.89 $119,403.79 Recreation Supervisor Non-Exempt $3,728.46 $3,914.89 $4,110.63 $4,316.16 $4,531.97 $8,078.34 $8,482.26 $8,906.37 $9,351.69 $9,819.27 $96,940.08 $101,787.09 $106,876.44 $112,220.26 $117,831.27 GIS Technician Non-Exempt $3,601.81 $3,781.90 $3,970.99 $4,169.54 $4,378.02 $7,803.92 $8,194.11 $8,603.82 $9,034.01 $9,485.71 $93,647.00 $98,329.35 $103,245.82 $108,408.11 $113,828.51 Junior Engineer Non-Exempt $3,601.81 $3,781.90 $3,970.99 $4,169.54 $4,378.02 $7,803.92 $8,194.11 $8,603.82 $9,034.01 $9,485.71 $93,647.00 $98,329.35 $103,245.82 $108,408.11 $113,828.51 Police Records Supervisor Non-Exempt $3,601.81 $3,781.90 $3,970.99 $4,169.54 $4,378.02 $7,803.92 $8,194.11 $8,603.82 $9,034.01 $9,485.71 $93,647.00 $98,329.35 $103,245.82 $108,408.11 $113,828.51 Construction Inspector Non-Exempt $3,429.92 $3,601.41 $3,781.48 $3,970.56 $4,169.08 $7,431.48 $7,803.06 $8,193.21 $8,602.87 $9,033.02 $89,177.82 $93,636.71 $98,318.54 $103,234.47 $108,396.20 Engineering Technician Non-Exempt $3,429.92 $3,601.41 $3,781.48 $3,970.56 $4,169.08 $7,431.48 $7,803.06 $8,193.21 $8,602.87 $9,033.02 $89,177.82 $93,636.71 $98,318.54 $103,234.47 $108,396.20 Information Technology Technician Non-Exempt $3,314.57 $3,480.30 $3,654.31 $3,837.03 $4,028.88 $7,181.56 $7,540.64 $7,917.67 $8,313.56 $8,729.24 $86,178.76 $90,487.70 $95,012.09 $99,762.69 $104,750.82 Code Enforcement Officer* Non-Exempt $3,231.83 $3,393.42 $3,563.09 $3,741.25 $3,928.31 $7,002.30 $7,352.41 $7,720.03 $8,106.04 $8,511.34 $84,027.58 $88,228.96 $92,640.41 $97,272.43 $102,136.05 Accounting Technician II Non-Exempt $3,118.93 $3,274.87 $3,438.62 $3,610.55 $3,791.08 $6,757.68 $7,095.56 $7,450.34 $7,822.86 $8,214.00 $81,092.13 $85,146.73 $89,404.07 $93,874.27 $98,567.99 Permit Technician Non-Exempt $3,035.24 $3,187.01 $3,346.36 $3,513.67 $3,689.36 $6,576.36 $6,905.18 $7,250.44 $7,612.96 $7,993.61 $78,916.34 $82,862.16 $87,005.27 $91,355.53 $95,923.31 Executive Assistant Non-Exempt $2,943.64 $3,090.83 $3,245.37 $3,407.64 $3,578.02 $6,377.89 $6,696.79 $7,031.63 $7,383.21 $7,752.37 $76,534.74 $80,361.48 $84,379.55 $88,598.53 $93,028.45 Recreation Coordinator Non-Exempt $2,831.69 $2,973.27 $3,121.94 $3,278.03 $3,441.93 $6,135.32 $6,442.09 $6,764.19 $7,102.40 $7,457.52 $73,623.89 $77,305.08 $81,170.34 $85,228.86 $89,490.30 Facilities Coordinator Non-Exempt $2,831.69 $2,973.27 $3,121.94 $3,278.03 $3,441.93 $6,135.32 $6,442.09 $6,764.19 $7,102.40 $7,457.52 $73,623.89 $77,305.08 $81,170.34 $85,228.86 $89,490.30 Lead Records Specialist Non-Exempt $2,748.00 $2,885.40 $3,029.67 $3,181.16 $3,340.22 $5,954.01 $6,251.71 $6,564.29 $6,892.51 $7,237.13 $71,448.10 $75,020.51 $78,771.53 $82,710.11 $86,845.62 Accounting Technician I Non-Exempt $2,708.42 $2,843.84 $2,986.04 $3,135.34 $3,292.11 $5,868.25 $6,161.66 $6,469.75 $6,793.23 $7,132.90 $70,419.02 $73,939.97 $77,636.96 $81,518.81 $85,594.75 Records Specialist Non-Exempt $2,495.82 $2,620.61 $2,751.64 $2,889.22 $3,033.69 $5,407.61 $5,677.99 $5,961.89 $6,259.99 $6,572.99 $64,891.34 $68,135.91 $71,542.71 $75,119.84 $78,875.83 Accounting Office Assistant Non-Exempt $2,381.60 $2,500.68 $2,625.72 $2,757.00 $2,894.85 $5,160.14 $5,418.15 $5,689.06 $5,973.51 $6,272.18 $61,921.69 $65,017.77 $68,268.66 $71,682.10 $75,266.20 Office Assistant II Non-Exempt $2,372.56 $2,491.18 $2,615.74 $2,746.53 $2,883.86 $5,140.54 $5,397.57 $5,667.44 $5,950.82 $6,248.36 $61,686.47 $64,770.79 $68,009.33 $71,409.80 $74,980.29 Office Assistant I Non-Exempt $2,130.55 $2,237.08 $2,348.93 $2,466.38 $2,589.70 $4,616.19 $4,847.00 $5,089.35 $5,343.82 $5,611.01 $55,394.33 $58,164.05 $61,072.25 $64,125.86 $67,332.16 Biweekly Monthly Annual

Page 2 of 5 ends

Revised: 10/11/2022 Approved by City Council 10/11/22
Resolution 2022-69 and 71
31 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos - Full Time Salary Schedule FY 22/23
Resolution 2023-XX
POA Classifications FLSA Status Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Police Sergeant Non-Exempt $5,210.60 $5,471.13 $5,744.68 $6,031.92 $6,333.51 $11,289.63 $11,854.11 $12,446.81 $13,069.15 $13,722.61 $135,475.51 $142,249.29 $149,361.75 $156,829.84 $164,671.33 Police Agent Non-Exempt $4,635.66 $4,867.44 $5,110.81 $5,366.35 $5,634.67 $10,043.92 $10,546.12 $11,073.43 $11,627.10 $12,208.45 $120,527.10 $126,553.45 $132,881.13 $139,525.18 $146,501.44 Police Officer Non-Exempt $4,415.40 $4,636.17 $4,867.97 $5,111.37 $5,366.94 $9,566.69 $10,045.03 $10,547.28 $11,074.64 $11,628.37 $114,800.30 $120,540.32 $126,567.33 $132,895.70 $139,540.48 Lead Communications Officer Non-Exempt $4,315.80 $4,531.59 $4,758.17 $4,996.08 $5,245.88 $9,350.91 $9,818.45 $10,309.37 $10,824.84 $11,366.08 $112,210.86 $117,821.41 $123,712.48 $129,898.10 $136,393.01 Police Officer Trainee Non-Exempt $4,204.17 $4,414.38 $4,635.10 $4,866.85 $5,110.20 $9,109.04 $9,564.49 $10,042.71 $10,544.85 $11,072.09 $109,308.45 $114,773.87 $120,512.56 $126,538.19 $132,865.10 Communications Officer Non-Exempt $3,921.63 $4,117.71 $4,323.60 $4,539.78 $4,766.77 $8,496.86 $8,921.71 $9,367.79 $9,836.18 $10,327.99 $101,962.37 $107,060.49 $112,413.51 $118,034.19 $123,935.90 Community Service Officer Non-Exempt $3,088.01 $3,242.41 $3,404.53 $3,574.76 $3,753.50 $6,690.69 $7,025.23 $7,376.49 $7,745.31 $8,132.58 $80,288.29 $84,302.71 $88,517.84 $92,943.73 $97,590.92 Biweekly Monthly Annual

Page 3 of 5 ends

Revised: 10/11/2022 Approved by City Council 10/11/22
Resolution 2022-69 and 71
32 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos - Full Time Salary Schedule FY 22/23
Resolution 2023-XX
Teamsters Classifications FLSA Status Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E Senior Wastewater Maintenance Worker* Non-Exempt $3,587.57 Open Range $4,360.71 $7,773.07 Open Range $9,448.21 $93,276.82 Open Range $113,378.56 Senior Maintenance Technician Non-Exempt $3,416.73 $3,587.56 $3,766.94 $3,955.29 $4,153.05 $7,402.91 $7,773.05 $8,161.71 $8,569.79 $8,998.28 $88,834.91 $93,276.65 $97,940.48 $102,837.51 $107,979.38 Wastewater Maintenance Worker II* Non-Exempt $3,261.43 Open Range $3,964.29 $7,066.43 Open Range $8,589.29 $84,797.18 Open Range $103,071.50 Equipment Mechanic Non-Exempt $3,106.12 $3,261.42 $3,424.49 $3,595.72 $3,775.50 $6,729.92 $7,066.41 $7,419.73 $7,790.72 $8,180.26 $80,759.01 $84,796.96 $89,036.80 $93,488.64 $98,163.08 Maintenance Leadworker Non-Exempt $3,106.12 $3,261.42 $3,424.49 $3,595.72 $3,775.50 $6,729.92 $7,066.41 $7,419.73 $7,790.72 $8,180.26 $80,759.01 $84,796.96 $89,036.80 $93,488.64 $98,163.08 Maintenance Technician Non-Exempt $3,106.12 $3,261.42 $3,424.49 $3,595.72 $3,775.50 $6,729.92 $7,066.41 $7,419.73 $7,790.72 $8,180.26 $80,759.01 $84,796.96 $89,036.80 $93,488.64 $98,163.08 Wastewater Maintenance Worker I* Non-Exempt $2,959.03 Open Range $3,596.72 $6,411.23 Open Range $7,792.89 $76,934.78 Open Range $93,514.71 Maintenance Worker II Non-Exempt $2,818.12 $2,959.02 $3,106.97 $3,262.32 $3,425.44 $6,105.92 $6,411.21 $6,731.77 $7,068.36 $7,421.78 $73,271.01 $76,934.56 $80,781.28 $84,820.35 $89,061.37 Maintenance Worker I Non-Exempt $2,492.03 $2,616.63 $2,747.47 $2,884.84 $3,029.08 $5,399.40 $5,669.37 $5,952.84 $6,250.49 $6,563.01 $64,792.86 $68,032.50 $71,434.12 $75,005.83 $78,756.12 Biweekly Monthly Annual

Page 4 of 5 ends

Revised: 10/11/2022 Approved by City Council 10/11/22
Resolution 2022-69 and 71
33 Agenda Item # 4.

Minimum Wage Increase: $17.40 effective 01/01/23
City of Los Altos - Part-Time Hourly Rate Schedule FY 22/23 Resolution 2023-XX
Part-Time Classifications Title FLSA Status
Employment
Status
Rate Type Min Max
Network Engineer Non-Exempt Part-Time Hourly $50.00 $75.00 Public Safety Specialist - Dispatch Non-Exempt Part-Time Hourly $51.00 $68.34 Project Manager Non-Exempt Part-Time Hourly $42.50 $66.30 Property & Evidence CSO Non-Exempt Part-Time Hourly $43.12 $52.41 Emergency Preparedness Coordinator Non-Exempt Part-Time Hourly $35.70 $51.00 Police Officer (Reserve) - Level I Non-Exempt Part-Time Hourly $49.00 $49.00 Department Support Specialist Non-Exempt Part-Time Hourly $35.70 $45.90 IT Technician Non-Exempt Part-Time Hourly $32.64 $45.90 Parking Enforcement Officer Non-Exempt Part-Time Hourly $35.70 $42.84 Public Safety Specialist - Records Non-Exempt Part-Time Hourly $26.52 $42.84 Project Coordinator Non-Exempt Part-Time Hourly $30.60 $40.80 Preschool Teacher III Non-Exempt Part-Time Hourly $25.00 $31.67 Recreation Specialist Non-Exempt Part-Time Hourly $25.00 $30.00 Clerical Assistant II Non-Exempt Part-Time Hourly $23.75 $29.16 Maintenance Worker I Non-Exempt Part-Time Hourly $22.44 $27.54 Preschool Teacher II Non-Exempt Temporary Hourly $20.50 $24.75 Clerical Assistant I Non-Exempt Part-Time Hourly $17.75 $22.75 Recreation Leader III Non-Exempt Seasonal Hourly $18.75 $21.75 Facility Attendant Non-Exempt Part-Time Hourly $17.20 $20.60 Intern Non-Exempt Temporary Hourly $17.20 $20.40
Preschool Teacher I Non-Exempt Temporary Hourly $17.20 $19.75 Recreation Leader II Non-Exempt Seasonal Hourly $17.20 $18.75 Recreation Leader I Non-Exempt Seasonal Hourly $17.20 $16.75 Council Member Non-Exempt Part-Time Stipend Stipend $300.00 / Month Police Officer (Reserve) - Level II Non-Exempt Per-Diem Stipend Stipend $200.00 / Month

Page 5 of 5 ends

Revised: 10/11/2022 Approved by City Council 10/11/22
Resolution 2022-69 and 71
34 Agenda Item # 4.

Resolution No. 2023-XX Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS APPROVING THE UPDATED FISCAL YEAR 2022/23 PAY SCHEDULE TO COMPLY WITH CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM (CALPERS)

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPENSATION

EARNABLE AND PUBLICLY AVAILABLE PAY SCHEDULES
WHEREAS, all employers must comply with the compensation earnable and publicly available pay schedules provisions contained within California Government Code (GC) section 20636(d) and California Code of Regulations (CCR) 570.5; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the City Council to review and duly approve and adopt in accordance with requirements of applicable public meetings laws a publicly available pay schedule; and WHEREAS, attached to this resolution and incorporated by reference is the City’s comprehensive pay schedule which will be made publicly available on the City’s external website and provided upon request; and
WHEREAS, the City reviews and may revise employee compensation and pay schedule ranges; and WHEREAS, the City benefits from a highly qualified, municipal workforce; and WHEREAS, to assist in retaining such a workforce, it is critical that the City’s compensation levels are competitive in the marketplace; and
WHEREAS, the City should adjust pay to reflect changes in the region’s cost of living; and WHEREAS, represented classifications are covered by current contracts which specify the amount of the pay adjustments in the fiscal year; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Los Altos hereby:

1. Approves updating the minimum wage to $17.40 per hour effective 01/01/2023; and

2. Approves updating the City Manager’s annual base salary to $257,595 based on comparable market peers effective 07/10/2023; and

3. Approves open pay ranges for unrepresented management classifications; and

4. Adopts the Update Fiscal Year 2022/23 Pay Schedule in Exhibit A reflecting these pay adjustments.

Resolution No. 2023-XX Page 2
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Sally Meadows, MAYOR
Attest:
_____________________________
Angel Rodriguez, INTERIM CITY CLERK
36 Agenda Item # 4.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES
7:00 PM - Tuesday, January 24, 2023
via Videoconference and In Person

CALL MEETING TO ORDER
At 7:04 p.m. Mayor Meadows called the meeting to order.

ESTABLISH QUORUM
PRESENT: Councilmembers Fligor, Lee Eng (via Zoom), Dailey, Vice Mayor Weinberg, Mayor Meadows
ABSENT: None

PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Tara Sridhar, from Troop 61911, and Mili Sridhar, from Troop 60425 led the pledge of allegiance.

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
There was no reportable action from the Closed Session held earlier today.

CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
There were no changes.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
There were none.

SPECIAL ITEM
A. Introduction of New Capitol Improvement Projects Manager Franklin Wong Public Works Director Jim Sandoval introduced Franklin Wong to Council.

B. Recognition of Emergency Workers
Mayor Meadows recognized the City’s Emergency/Storm Responders.

C. Recognition of Outgoing 2022 Commissioners
Mayor Meadows recognized outgoing commissioners of 2022.

D. Climate Action and Adaptation Plan Award
37 Agenda Item # 5.
01/24/23 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Page 2 of 4
Mayor Meadows presented the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan Award to the Chair of the Environmental Commission.

E. Proclamation Celebrating Martin Luther King Jr. Day
Mayor Meadows introduced Maxim Asmar and Ana Asmar who read the Martin Luther King Jr. proclamation.

F. Proclamation Celebrating 2023 Lunar New Year
Mayor Meadows introduced Larry Chu, III, who read the 2023 Lunar New Year proclamation.

Mayor Meadows acknowledged the recent shootings at Monterey Park and Half Moon Bay and asked for a moment of silence for those tragically impacted by these senseless acts of violence.

CONSENT CALENDAR

1. Response to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report: Show Me the Money:

Financial Transparency Needed: Approve the draft response to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report: Show Me the Money: Financial Transparency Needed (J. Maginot)

2. Minutes: Approve Minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting of January 10, 2023. (A.

Rodriguez)
A motion by Vice Mayor Weinberg, seconded by Councilmember Dailey, to approve the consent calendar was approved with the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Fligor, Lee Eng, Dailey, Vice Mayor Weinberg, Mayor Meadows NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

PUBLIC HEARINGS

3. Sixth Cycle Housing Element 2023-2031: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Los Altos, California, adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), based on its independent analysis that MND was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); find that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment; and that the MND reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis; approving the 2023-2031 Housing Element of the City’s General Plan; and Authorizing the Development Services Director to submit the Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for its consideration and certification.

Community Development Director Nick Zornes presented the Sixth Cycle Housing Element to Council.

The following members of the public spoke: Jeanine Valadez, Anne Paulson, Tom Ferry, Rigo Gallardo, Teresa Morris, Debbie Skelton, and Nancy Martin.

Mayor Meadows closed the public hearing.

Councilmember Lee Eng asked a question and Director Zornes responded. 38 Agenda Item # 5.
01/24/23 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Page 3 of 4
Vice Mayor Weinberg, Councilmember Fligor, Dailey, and Mayor Meadows commented.

City Attorney Houston addressed the Council regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

A motion made was by Councilmember Fligor, seconded by Vice Mayor Weinberg, to adopt a general plan amendment to repeal the 2015-2023 Housing Element and adopt the Housing Element of the general plan for the period of 2023-2031 and mitigated negative declaration in compliance with state housing element law and the California Environmental Quality Act. Vice Mayor Weinberg provided a friendly amendment to modify the proposed resolution to replace from sections eight and nine the phrase “The Development Services Director, Nick Zornes” to be “The City Manager, or his designee,”. The amendment was accepted by Councilmember Fligor. Mayor Meadows suggested a friendly amendment of correcting the date of the last page of the resolution, which was accepted. The motion was approved with the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Fligor, Dailey, Vice Mayor Weinberg, Mayor Meadows NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers Lee Eng

DISCUSSION ITEMS

4. Affirm 2023 Council Commission and Committee Assignments: Pursuant to City Council Norms and Procedures, Affirm Mayor appointment to the Santa Clara County Library District JPA Mayor Meadows introduced the item to the Council.

The following members of the public spoke: Jeanine Valadez.

Mayor Meadows provided additional comments and appointed Councilmember Fligor be the primary representative and Councilmember Daily as the alternate representative as the Santa Clara County Library District JPA.

Councilmember Lee Eng commented.

A motion by Councilmember Dailey, seconded by Vice Mayor Weinberg, to affirm the appointment was approved by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmembers Dailey, Vice Mayor Weinberg, Mayor Meadows NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers Fligor, and Lee Eng

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS ONLY

5. Tentative Council Calendar

6. Independent Intake Official (IIO) Yearly Report

COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS AND DIRECTIONS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS City Manager England reported the award of Exemplary Financial Reporting made to the City of Los Altos.
39 Agenda Item # 5.
01/24/23 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Page 4 of 4
Mayor Meadows reported that the Council will be reviewing the Council Tentative Calendar at the upcoming Council retreat scheduled for February 21, 2023, at City Hall.

Councilmember Fligor requested a neighborhood parking program to be conducted and Director Zornes responded. Councilmember Fligor asked for an update on Housley House and City Manager Engeland responded.

Vice Mayor Weinberg asked for an update on the Sewer and Storm Water Master Plans.

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Meadows adjourned the meeting at 8:39 pm.
_____________________________________
Sally Meadows, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Angel Rodriguez, INTERIM CITY CLERK
40 Agenda Item # 5.

Reviewed By:

City Manager City Attorney
GE
Finance Director
JH JD

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Meeting Date: February 14, 2023
Subject: Consider a Resolution to Adopt a Policy Implementing SB 743 and Finding the Council's Action Exempt from Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) -- Consider adopting a resolution that would implement a policy establishing thresholds of significance, using Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT), to analyze transportation impacts under CEQA, consistent with SB 743; consider a finding that the City Council's action in adopting the resolution is not subject to review under CEQA pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065 (definition of a CEQA “project”), CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7 (requirements for adopting thresholds of significance), and CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (commonsense exemption).

Prepared by: Erik Ramakrishnan, Law Office of Erik Ramakrishnan, Contractor to City Attorney
Stephanie Williams, Planning Services Manager
Reviewed by: Jolie Houston, City Attorney; Nick Zornes, Development Services Director Approved by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachments:

1. Draft Resolution Adopting VMT Policy

2. Draft VMT Policy

3. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research SB 743 Technical Advisory

4. Hexagon Memorandum, dated August 18, 2021
Initiated by: City Staff
Previous Council Consideration: None.

Fiscal Impact: None.

Environmental Review:

The approval of the VMT Policy is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065 (definition of a CEQA “project”), CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7 (requirements for adopting thresholds of 41 Agenda Item # 6.

Subject: Consider a Resolution Implementing SB 743 and Finding the Council's Action Exempt from Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
February 14, 2023 Page 2
significance), and CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (commonsense exemption), and none of the exceptions under CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply.

Background:

Historically, when new development projects were reviewed under CEQA, traffic impacts were measured in terms of Level of Service (LOS), which essentially measures wait times at traffic stops. This is because the theory under which traffic impacts were analyzed under CEQA was that sitting in traffic was considered an impact on the “human” environment. In other words, the emphasis was on inconvenience to persons. However, this approach to traffic impacts had an unintended result in that urban infill projects may have significant local traffic impacts if measured using LOS even though infill projects are considered overall to be environmentally desirable because they avoid sprawl. Sprawl forces people to commute further, which increases fossil fuel consumption, puts greater pressure on roadways, and renders public transportation less practical.

In 2013, the Legislature enacted SB 743 to address climate change and to reform CEQA. One of the provisions of the bill required all jurisdictions to drop the use of LOS in measuring traffic impacts for purposes of CEQA beginning July 1, 2020. In place of LOS, the Legislature determined to require vehicle miles travelled (VMT) to be used. VMT favors infill projects because infill projects typically place homes closer to workplaces, thereby reducing the average number of miles people in a community travel per day by automobile.

Importantly, SB 743 does not prohibit local agencies from using LOS for purposes other than CEQA analysis. Program C8 of the Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan requires LOS analysis of development projects that will generate 50 or more vehicle trips per day. This allows the City to determine the effects of projects on local street operations so that significant effects can be minimized or avoided. The adoption of a VMT policy by the City Council to implement SB 743 will not affect implementation of Program C8.

SB 743 required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop guidelines for implementation of VMT as a measure of traffic impacts for purposes of CEQA. In carrying out its task, OPR faced an “urban-rural divide” over the best way to measure VMT because, depending on how VMT is measured, the switch from LOS to VMT could have forced preparation of an EIR for almost any development project in a rural area where settlement patterns are more spread out.

To encourage flexibility, OPR issued guidelines allowing each lead agency to develop its own thresholds of significance for VMT. To assist lead agencies in performing this function, OPR issued a Technical Advisory, which is attached to the staff report as Attachment 3. 42 Agenda Item # 6.

Subject: Consider a Resolution Implementing SB 743 and Finding the Council's Action Exempt from Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
February 14, 2023 Page 3
Thresholds of significance are a core CEQA concept. CEQA requires lead agencies to distinguish between environmental impacts of projects that may be deemed “significant” and those that would be “less than significant.” Significance is a flexible concept, and so each jurisdiction is encouraged to establish thresholds that establish tolerable limits of environmental effects for their community.

Thresholds may be qualitative, but ideally they should be quantitative. An agency may adopt thresholds on a project-by-project basis, but absent unique circumstances, ad hoc thresholds are less defensible than standard thresholds of significance. There is no requirement that standard thresholds be adopted by a lead agency’s legislative body, but courts tend to defer to thresholds that have been scrutinized by the public and by elected officials.

When SB 743’s mandate to use VMT took effect on July 1, 2020, the Planning Director at the time adopted staff level guidelines for measuring traffic impacts using VMT for purposes of CEQA.

The intent was to obtain an analysis from a transportation consultant to assist in developing a more permanent policy that eventually would be brought to the City Council for its review and approval.

A draft policy was prepared by staff, which was considered in study sessions by the City Council (May 11, 2020), the Planning Commission (May 20, 2020, and October 7,2021), and the Complete Streets Commission (May 11, 2020, March 31, 2021, and August 24, 2021). In August 2021, the analysis attached to the staff report as Attachment 4 was obtained from Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., which generally reflects the approach outlined in OPR’s Technical Advisory, but which also incorporates feedback received at public meetings.

Due to staff shortages and turnover and other priorities, especially the Housing Element Update, efforts to bring forward a formal VMT policy for the City Council’s approval were delayed beginning in October 2021. More recently, the City Manager directed the City Attorney to work with the Planning Division to finalize the process. Pending before your Council this evening is a resolution that would adopt staff’s current recommendation. The proposed policy largely reflects the draft policy most recently considered by the Planning Commission in October 2021, but it incorporates changes recommended by current planning staff. These changes represent staff’s considered opinions based on their experience in implementing SB 743 since July 1, 2020.

Analysis:

The key components of the proposed policy are as follows:
(1) The policy identifies projects that do not require screening for VMT impacts because they can be presumed not to have a significant impact on traffic. The identification of such projects is generally consistent with OPR guidance, and include small projects, local serving retail and public services (which are intended to put people closer to services, and therefore reduce overall VMT), affordable housing, projects proximate to transit, projects 43 Agenda Item # 6.

Subject: Consider a Resolution Implementing SB 743 and Finding the Council's Action Exempt from Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
February 14, 2023 Page 4
that will reduce VMT over existing baseline conditions, and certain projects that encourage multimodal transportation alternatives.
(2) “Map-based” screening, as recommended by OPR, is also included. This method of screening involves the use of transportation heat maps prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, which compare VMT in various parts of the community to average VMT, measured both locally and regionally. Projects located in areas with existing VMT at least 15 percent below average are presumed not to have a significant effect on traffic and therefore should also be screened out.
(3) If a project is not screened out, then its project-level per capita VMT will have to be calculated. The policy sets forth thresholds for various land use types to determine whether projects’ individually calculated VMT are significant for purposes of CEQA. Consistent with the map-based screening approach, these thresholds generally treat projects that will result in VMT at least 15 percent below average as not having a significant effect on the environment.
(4) For projects deemed to have a significant impact on traffic, the policy describes how impacts can be mitigated below the level of significance. Options include modifying a project, implementing a transportation demand management (TDM) program to reduce vehicle trips, fee-based mitigation, or providing public improvements that will reduce vehicle trips.
(5) Finally, the policy exempts projects already being reviewed under the City’s existing stafflevel VMT policy, includes general implementation provisions, and authorizes the Planning Director to interpret any ambiguities in the policy.

As indicated above, the current draft policy differs from the prior draft regarding use of VMT thresholds of significance using local per capita averages for both residential and non-residential projects. To understand the differences, please refer to the following table:

Area Average Per Capita
Residential VMT in Miles
(2015)
Average Per Capita NonResidential VMT in Miles
(2015)
Bay Area 13.95 15.33
Santa Clara County 13.33 16.64
Los Altos 12.22 19.07
44 Agenda Item # 6.

Subject: Consider a Resolution Implementing SB 743 and Finding the Council's Action Exempt from Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
February 14, 2023 Page 5
State law allows lead agencies to set VMT thresholds of significance based either on local or regional per capita averages. As can be seen from the data in the table above, average per capita VMT for residential projects in Los Altos is somewhat below county and regional levels, but average non-residential VMT is significantly greater than county and regional levels. This suggests that those who live in Los Altos generally live closer to their workplaces than individuals in other communities in the region, but that many individuals who work in Los Altos do not live in or near the City, possibly because they cannot afford to do so. We can assume then that increased housing production, consistent with the City’s obligations to meet its RHNA targets, will reduce VMT by making it possible for more people who work in or near the City to live here. On the other hand, since people who live in the City generally work closer to home than average for the region, it also behooves the City in the interest of reducing VMT to retain the City’s employment lands.

Consistent with feedback received by the consultant during study sessions, the transportation consultant’s report proposes using local VMT as the basis for thresholds of significance for both residential and non-residential projects because this is the more “stringent” standard. But that is only true of residential development and using a more stringent standard is not necessarily a net benefit. If people who work in the City can afford to live in the City, then they will commute less, contributing to an overall lower VMT for the region. If a more stringent standard is used for housing, then more housing development projects will be subjected to additional requirements under CEQA, which may discourage housing development. This would have the unintended consequence of acting as a constraint on new housing development. Thus, there is merit in using a regional standard for housing which is proposed in the current draft of the policy. Additionally, if a regional standard is used for non-residential development, that will conversely discourage such commercial development, even though the City has an interest in preserving its employment lands.

Thus, there is merit in using a local standard for non-residential development, which staff recommends in the current draft of the policy and is the same as the previous draft.

Another major difference in the current draft policy from discussions in the transportation consultant’s report is that the transportation consultant’s report proposes using 50 daily vehicle trips as the threshold for small projects, whereas OPR recommends using 110 trips. It appears from the analysis at page 4 of the report that this proposal was largely informed by community comment, but staff does not see merit in subjecting small projects to increased scrutiny under CEQA beyond that recommended by state agencies with appropriate expertise. Note, however, that as indicated above in the discussion about LOS, development projects generating 50 or more daily trips will still be subject to transportation analysis to be consistent with other City policies. 45 Agenda Item # 6.

Subject: Consider a Resolution Implementing SB 743 and Finding the Council's Action Exempt from Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
February 14, 2023 Page 6
A final distinction is that the transportation’s consultant report assumed that the City was intending to adopt a city-wide TDM requirement for most new development projects. This, however, is not recommended because legal counsel has advised that projects cannot be required to mitigate for impacts they will not have. However, TDM programs may be implemented for individual projects to reduce their VMT when they are exceeding the VMT threshold.

Staff Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution to Adopt a Policy Implementing SB 743 and Finding the Council's Action Exempt from Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
46 Agenda Item # 6.

Resolution No. 2023-XX Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS

ADOPTING A POLICY IMPLEMENTING CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL
NO. 743 REGARDING TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS UNDER THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA),

AND FINDING THAT THE ADOPTION OF THIS RESOLUTION IS EXEMPT FROM

REVIEW UNDER CEQA
WHEREAS, Senate Bill No. 743 (SB 743) requires the City to use Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) to evaluate project transportation impacts for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) rather than Level of Service (LOS); and WHEREAS, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) CEQA Guidelines require every public agency in California to determine its own VMT thresholds of significance based on OPR guidance; and
WHEREAS, to implement OPR’s guidance, staff proposes the adoption of the City policies attached hereto as Attachment A; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on ____, 2023, on the proposed policies implementing SB 743; and after considering the whole record determined the policies are consistent with SB 743; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of the thresholds of significance described in Attachment A is not subject to CEQA review pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065 (definition of a CEQA “project”), CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7 (requirements for adopting thresholds of significance), and CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (commonsense exemption); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Los Altos hereby finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and approves and adopts the City policies attached hereto as Attachment A.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos at a meeting thereof on the XXth day of ____, 2023, by the following vote:
47 Agenda Item # 6.

Resolution No. 2023-XX Page 2
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

PRESENT:
____________________________________
Sally Meadows, MAYOR
Attest:
___________________________________
Angel Rodriguez, CITY CLERK
48 Agenda Item # 6.

Resolution No. 2023-XX

ATTACHMENT A

CITY POLICY ESTABLISHING THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE USING

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELLED (VMT) TO MEASURE

TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS
49 Agenda Item # 6.

CEQA Project Screening Criteria
Projects shall be presumed to have a less-than-significant transportation impact if they meet any of the following screening criteria:

1. Small Projects: Any development that would generate fewer than 110 daily vehicle trips.

Examples include:
a. Single-Family residential developments with 12 units or fewer units; b. Multi-Family residential developments with 20 or fewer units; c. Office development of 10,000 sf or less; and
d. Childcare facilities with fewer than 65 children.

2. Local-Serving Retail: Retail commercial projects comprised of stores of up to 60,000 gross square feet.

3. Local-Serving Public Facilities: Local-serving public facilities (publicly owned or controlled), excluding all private schools, high schools and middle schools. Examples of these projects include a park, branch library, community or senior center, fire station, and public elementary school.

4. Affordable Housing: Projects comprised of 100 percent affordable housing units.

5. Map-Based Screening: Residential and employment land use projects located in areas of low VMT, defined as exhibiting VMT that is 15 percent or greater below the existing average VMT. Average VMT per capita or per employee baseline values are obtained from VTA and may be amended periodically (subject to the reasonable discretion of the Community Development Director) to reflect the best available data and most relevant base year. For employment land use projects, the citywide average per capita VMT shall be used, and for residential land use projects, the regional nine-county Bay Area average per employee VMT shall be used.

6. Transit Proximity: All land -use projects located within one- half mile of a major transit stop, or a stop along a high- quality transit corridor, pursuant to State definitions for such facilities, unless any of the following factors are exhibited by the project:
a. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75;
b. Provides more parking than required by the City Code; or c. Replaces affordable housing with a fewer number of affordable units.

7. Existing Uses: Redevelopment projects that replace existing VMT-generating uses and result in a net decrease in total VMT shall be presumed to cause a less than significant impact. For redevelopment projects that result in a net increase in total VMT, the screening criteria for each land use will be based on the size of the proposed development without any credit for the existing use.
50 Agenda Item # 6.

8. Transportation Projects: Transportation projects that reduce or do not increase VMT.

Examples include transportation projects that enhance pedestrian, bike, or transit infrastructure, and transportation projects that maintain current infrastructure, without adding new automobile capacity.

CEQA Thresholds of Significance
For projects not screened out with a presumption of less-than-significant impact on VMT based upon the above criteria, the following thresholds of significance shall apply to the corresponding project types to determine the transportation impact level of significance:

1. Residential Land Use Projects: A proposed project exceeding a level of 15 percent below the existing regional nine-county Bay Area average VMT per capita shall be presumed to cause a significant transportation impact.

2. Office and Retail Land Use Projects: A proposed project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing Los Altos citywide average VMT per employee shall be presumed to cause a significant transportation impact.

3. Non-Local Serving Uses: A proposed non-local serving school (e.g. private schools, junior high schools, high schools, magnate schools, and charter schools), congregate care facilities/ assisted living, medical/dental office, research and development space, industrial, manufacturing, and warehouse uses should be treated as office for screening and analysis.

4. Other Uses: Religious institutions, business hotels, and athletic clubs should be treated as retail for screening and analysis.

5. Mixed-Use Projects: Each land use within a mixed-use project, shall be evaluated independently by applying the most appropriate threshold of significance from above to each land use type included in the project, given project-specific information.

6. Changing or Adding to Existing Use: Changes of use or additions to existing development that are not screened out will be analyzed based on the significance thresholds for each land use component described above.

7. Land Use Plans: For General Plan Amendments, Specific Plans or Other Area Plans, each land use component will be analyzed independently, applying the significance thresholds listed above for each land use component.

8. Transportation Projects: A net increase in VMT greater than that consistent with the Regional Sustainable Communities Strategy shall be presumed to cause a significant transportation impact.
51 Agenda Item # 6.

Mitigation of Significant Impacts
To mitigate VMT impacts, the project shall be conditioned for implementation of mitigation measures in the following categories:

1. Modify the project to reduce VMT generated by the project, such as a reduction in size, intensity, number of students, etc;

2. Implement multimodal transportation improvements to reduce VMT generated by the project such as implementing bike lanes, improving the pedestrian network, implementing traffic calming, increase transit accessibility, and improve network connectivity. These improvements require coordination with City staff and additional studies to determine feasibility. Ideally, consultants should use the City’s approved plans which contain various transportation improvements to bicycle, pedestrian, and roadway as VMT mitigation.

3. Implement transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures to reduce VMT generated by the project; and/or

4. Participate in a VMT fee program and/or VMT mitigation exchange/banking program (if they exist) to reduce VMT from the project or other land uses to achieve acceptable levels.

Applicability of Policy (Pipeline Provisions)
This policy is effective immediately upon approval by the City Council (the "Effective Date"), provided that for any active project for which a draft environmental review document was published prior to the Effective Date, the policies in effect as of the publication date shall determine the transportation analysis required for the project.

Implementation, Interpretation, and Savings
The Development Services Director is authorized and instructed to adopt such rules, procedures, or forms as may be necessary or convenient to implement this policy, and to resolve any ambiguity that may arise in the application of this policy to individual circumstances. If a court of competent jurisdiction determines that any portion of this policy is invalid or unenforceable, then the court is authorized and instructed to modify the same to effectuate as closely as possible the City Council’s original intent in adopting this policy. 52 Agenda Item # 6.

ON EVALUATING TRANSPORTATION

IMPACTS IN CEQA

TECHNICAL ADVISORY
December 2018
53 Agenda Item # 6.

Contents
A. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 B. Background ....................................................................................................................................... 2 C. Technical Considerations in Assessing Vehicle Miles Traveled......................................................... 4

1. Recommendations Regarding Methodology ................................................................................ 4 D. General Principles to Guide Consideration of VMT .......................................................................... 7 E. Recommendations Regarding Significance Thresholds.................................................................... 8

1. Screening Thresholds for Land Use Projects...............................................................................12

2. Recommended Numeric Thresholds for Residential, Office, and Retail Projects.......................15

3. Recommendations Regarding Land Use Plans............................................................................18

4. Other Considerations..................................................................................................................19 F. Considering the Effects of Transportation Projects on Vehicle Travel ...........................................19

1. Recommended Significance Threshold for Transportation Projects..........................................22

2. Estimating VMT Impacts from Transportation Projects .............................................................23 G. Analyzing Other Impacts Related to Transportation ......................................................................25 H. VMT Mitigation and Alternatives....................................................................................................26 Appendix 1. Considerations About Which VMT to Count .......................................................................29 Appendix 2. Induced Travel: Mechanisms, Research, and Additional Assessment Approaches ............32 54 Agenda Item # 6.
1 | Page
December 2018
A. Introduction
This technical advisory is one in a series of advisories provided by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) as a service to professional planners, land use officials, and CEQA practitioners. OPR issues technical assistance on issues that broadly affect the practice of land use planning and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.). (Gov. Code, § 65040, subds. (g), (l), (m).) The purpose of this document is to provide advice and recommendations, which agencies and other entities may use at their discretion. This document does not alter lead agency discretion in preparing environmental documents subject to CEQA. This document should not be construed as legal advice.

Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg, 2013), which was codified in Public Resources Code section 21099, required changes to the guidelines implementing CEQA (CEQA Guidelines) (Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, Div. 6, Ch. 3, § 15000 et seq.) regarding the analysis of transportation impacts. As one appellate court recently explained: “During the last 10 years, the Legislature has charted a course of long-term sustainability based on denser infill development, reduced reliance on individual vehicles and improved mass transit, all with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Section 21099 is part of that strategy . . . .” (Covina Residents for Responsible Development v. City of Covina (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 712, 729.) Pursuant to Section 21099, the criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts must “promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” (Id., subd. (b)(1); see generally, adopted CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.3, subd. (b) [Criteria for Analyzing Transportation Impacts].) To that end, in developing the criteria, OPR has proposed, and the California Natural Resources Agency (Agency) has certified and adopted, changes to the CEQA Guidelines that identify vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the most appropriate metric to evaluate a project’s transportation impacts. With the California Natural Resources Agency’s certification and adoption of the changes to the CEQA Guidelines, automobile delay, as measured by “level of service” and other similar metrics, generally no longer constitutes a significant environmental effect under CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21099, subd. (b)(3).)

This advisory contains technical recommendations regarding assessment of VMT, thresholds of significance, and mitigation measures. Again, OPR provides this Technical Advisory as a resource for the public to use at their discretion. OPR is not enforcing or attempting to enforce any part of the recommendations contained herein. (Gov. Code, § 65035 [“It is not the intent of the Legislature to vest in the Office of Planning and Research any direct operating or regulatory powers over land use, public works, or other state, regional, or local projects or programs.”].) This December 2018 technical advisory is an update to the advisory it published in April 2018. OPR will continue to monitor implementation of these new provisions and may update or supplement this advisory in response to new information and advancements in modeling and methods. 55 Agenda Item # 6.
2 | Page
December 2018
B. Background
VMT and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction. Senate Bill 32 (Pavley, 2016) requires California to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and Executive Order B16-12 provides a target of 80 percent below 1990 emissions levels for the transportation sector by 2050.

The transportation sector has three major means of reducing GHG emissions: increasing vehicle efficiency, reducing fuel carbon content, and reducing the amount of vehicle travel. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has provided a path forward for achieving these emissions reductions from the transportation sector in its 2016 Mobile Source Strategy. CARB determined that it will not be possible to achieve the State’s 2030 and post-2030 emissions goals without reducing VMT growth. Further, in its 2018 Progress Report on California’s Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, CARB found that despite the State meeting its 2020 climate goals, “emissions from statewide passenger vehicle travel per capita [have been] increasing and going in the wrong direction,” and “California cannot meet its [long-term] climate goals without curbing growth in single-occupancy vehicle activity.”1 CARB also found that “[w]ith emissions from the transportation sector continuing to rise despite increases in fuel efficiency and decreases in the carbon content of fuel, California will not achieve the necessary greenhouse gas emissions reductions to meet mandates for 2030 and beyond without significant changes to how communities and transportation systems are planned, funded, and built.”2

Thus, to achieve the State’s long-term climate goals, California needs to reduce per capita VMT. This can occur under CEQA through VMT mitigation. Half of California’s GHG emissions come from the transportation sector3
, therefore, reducing VMT is an effective climate strategy, which can also result in co-benefits.
4 Furthermore, without early VMT mitigation, the state may follow a path that meets GHG targets in the early years, but finds itself poorly positioned to meet more stringent targets later. For example, in absence of VMT analysis and mitigation in CEQA, lead agencies might rely upon verifiable offsets for GHG mitigation, ignoring the longer-term climate change impacts resulting from land use development and infrastructure investment decisions. As stated in CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan:
“California’s future climate strategy will require increased focus on integrated land use planning to support livable, transit-connected communities, and conservation of agricultural and other lands. Accommodating population and economic growth through travel- and energy-efficient land use provides GHG-efficient growth, reducing GHGs from both transportation and building energy use. GHGs can be further reduced at the project level through implementing energyefficient construction and travel demand management approaches.”5 (Id. at p. 102.)

1 California Air Resources Board (Nov. 2018) 2018 Progress Report on California’s Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, pp. 4, 5, available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2018-11/Final2018Report_SB150_112618_02_Report.pdf. 2 Id., p. 28. 3 See https://ca50million.ca.gov/transportation/ 4 Fang et al. (2017) Cutting Greenhouse Gas Emissions Is Only the Beginning: A Literature Review of the Co-Benefits of Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled. 5 California Air Resources Board (Nov. 2017) California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, p. 102, available at https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. 56 Agenda Item # 6.
3 | Page
December 2018
In light of this, the 2017 Scoping Plan describes and quantifies VMT reductions needed to achieve our long-term GHG emissions reduction goals, and specifically points to the need for statewide deployment of the VMT metric in CEQA:
“Employing VMT as the metric of transportation impact statewide will help to ensure GHG reductions planned under SB 375 will be achieved through on-the-ground development, and will also play an important role in creating the additional GHG reductions needed beyond SB 375 across the State. Implementation of this change will rely, in part, on local land use decisions to reduce GHG emissions associated with the transportation sector, both at the project level, and in long-term plans (including general plans, climate action plans, specific plans, and transportation plans) and supporting sustainable community strategies developed under SB 375.”6

VMT and Other Impacts to Health and Environment. VMT mitigation also creates substantial benefits (sometimes characterized as “co-benefits” to GHG reduction) in both in the near-term and the longterm. Beyond GHG emissions, increases in VMT also impact human health and the natural environment.

Human health is impacted as increases in vehicle travel lead to more vehicle crashes, poorer air quality, increases in chronic diseases associated with reduced physical activity, and worse mental health.

Increases in vehicle travel also negatively affect other road users, including pedestrians, cyclists, other motorists, and many transit users. The natural environment is impacted as higher VMT leads to more collisions with wildlife and fragments habitat. Additionally, development that leads to more vehicle travel also tends to consume more energy, water, and open space (including farmland and sensitive habitat). This increase in impermeable surfaces raises the flood risk and pollutant transport into waterways.7
VMT and Economic Growth. While it was previously believed that VMT growth was a necessary component of economic growth, data from the past two decades shows that economic growth is possible without a concomitant increase in VMT. (Figure 1.) Recent research shows that requiring development projects to mitigate LOS may actually reduce accessibility to destinations and impede economic growth.8,9

6 Id. at p. 76. 7 Fang et al. (2017) Cutting Greenhouse Gas Emissions Is Only the Beginning: A Literature Review of the Co-Benefits of Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled, available at https://ncst.ucdavis.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2017/03/NCST-VMT-Co-Benefits-White-Paper_Fang_March-2017.pdf. 8 Haynes et al. (Sept. 2015) Congested Development: A Study of Traffic Delays, Access, and Economic Activity in Metropolitan Los Angeles, available at http://www.its.ucla.edu/wpcontent/uploads/sites/6/2015/11/Haynes_Congested-Development_1-Oct-2015_final.pdf. 9 Osman et al. (Mar. 2016) Not So Fast: A Study of Traffic Delays, Access, and Economic Activity in the San Francisco Bay Area, available at http://www.its.ucla.edu/wpcontent/uploads/sites/6/2016/08/Taylor-Not-so-Fast-04-01-2016_final.pdf. 57 Agenda Item # 6.
4 | Page
December 2018
Figure 1. Kooshian and Winkelman (2011) VMT and Gross Domestic Product (GDP), 1960-2010.

C. Technical Considerations in Assessing Vehicle Miles Traveled Many practitioners are familiar with accounting for VMT in connection with long-range planning, or as part of the CEQA analysis of a project’s greenhouse gas emissions or energy impacts. This document provides technical information on how to assess VMT as part of a transportation impacts analysis under CEQA. Appendix 1 provides a description of which VMT to count and options on how to count it.

Appendix 2 provides information on induced travel resulting from roadway capacity projects, including the mechanisms giving rise to induced travel, the research quantifying it, and information on additional approaches for assessing it.

1. Recommendations Regarding Methodology
Proposed Section 15064.3 explains that a “lead agency may use models to estimate a project’s vehicle miles traveled . . . .” CEQA generally defers to lead agencies on the choice of methodology to analyze impacts. (Santa Monica Baykeeper v. City of Malibu (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1546; see Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 409 [“the issue is not whether the studies are irrefutable or whether they could have been better” … rather, the “relevant issue is only whether the studies are sufficiently credible to be considered” as part of the lead agency’s overall evaluation].) This section provides suggestions to lead agencies regarding methodologies to analyze VMT associated with a project.

Vehicle Types. Proposed Section 15064.3, subdivision (a), states, “For the purposes of this section, ‘vehicle miles traveled’ refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project.” Here, the term “automobile” refers to on-road passenger vehicles, specifically cars and light trucks. Heavy-duty truck VMT could be included for modeling convenience and ease of calculation (for example, where models or data provide combined auto and heavy truck VMT). For an apples-to-apples 58 Agenda Item # 6.
5 | Page
December 2018
comparison, vehicle types considered should be consistent across project assessment, significance thresholds, and mitigation.

Residential and Office Projects. Tour- and trip-based approaches10 offer the best methods for assessing VMT from residential/office projects and for comparing those assessments to VMT thresholds. These approaches also offer the most straightforward methods for assessing VMT reductions from mitigation measures for residential/office projects. When available, tour-based assessment is ideal because it captures travel behavior more comprehensively. But where tour-based tools or data are not available for all components of an analysis, a trip-based assessment of VMT serves as a reasonable proxy.

Models and methodologies used to calculate thresholds, estimate project VMT, and estimate VMT reduction due to mitigation should be comparable. For example:
• A tour-based assessment of project VMT should be compared to a tour-based threshold, or a trip-based assessment to a trip-based VMT threshold.
• Where a travel demand model is used to determine thresholds, the same model should also be used to provide trip lengths as part of assessing project VMT. • Where only trip-based estimates of VMT reduction from mitigation are available, a trip-based threshold should be used, and project VMT should be assessed in a trip-based manner.

When a trip-based method is used to analyze a residential project, the focus can be on home-based trips. Similarly, when a trip-based method is used to analyze an office project, the focus can be on home-based work trips.

When tour-based models are used to analyze an office project, either employee work tour VMT or VMT from all employee tours may be attributed to the project. This is because workplace location influences overall travel. For consistency, the significance threshold should be based on the same metric: either employee work tour VMT or VMT from all employee tours.

For office projects that feature a customer component, such as a government office that serves the public, a lead agency can analyze the customer VMT component of the project using the methodology for retail development (see below).

Retail Projects. Generally, lead agencies should analyze the effects of a retail project by assessing the change in total VMT11 because retail projects typically re-route travel from other retail destinations. A retail project might lead to increases or decreases in VMT, depending on previously existing retail travel patterns.

10 See Appendix 1, Considerations About Which VMT to Count, for a description of these approaches. 11 See Appendix 1, Considerations About Which VMT to Count, “Assessing Change in Total VMT” section, for a description of this approach.
59 Agenda Item # 6.
6 | Page
December 2018
Considerations for All Projects. Lead agencies should not truncate any VMT analysis because of jurisdictional or other boundaries, for example, by failing to count the portion of a trip that falls outside the jurisdiction or by discounting the VMT from a trip that crosses a jurisdictional boundary. CEQA requires environmental analyses to reflect a “good faith effort at full disclosure.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15151.) Thus, where methodologies exist that can estimate the full extent of vehicle travel from a project, the lead agency should apply them to do so. Where those VMT effects will grow over time, analyses should consider both a project’s short-term and long-term effects on VMT.

Combining land uses for VMT analysis is not recommended. Different land uses generate different amounts of VMT, so the outcome of such an analysis could depend more on the mix of uses than on their travel efficiency. As a result, it could be difficult or impossible for a lead agency to connect a significance threshold with an environmental policy objective (such as a target set by law), inhibiting the CEQA imperative of identifying a project’s significant impacts and providing mitigation where feasible.

Combining land uses for a VMT analysis could streamline certain mixes of uses in a manner disconnected from policy objectives or environmental outcomes. Instead, OPR recommends analyzing each use separately, or simply focusing analysis on the dominant use, and comparing each result to the appropriate threshold. Recommendations for methods of analysis and thresholds are provided below.

In the analysis of each use, a mixed-use project should take credit for internal capture.

Any project that includes in its geographic bounds a portion of an existing or planned Transit Priority Area (i.e., the project is within a ½ mile of an existing or planned major transit stop or an existing stop along a high quality transit corridor) may employ VMT as its primary metric of transportation impact for the entire project. (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21099, subds. (a)(7), (b)(1).) Cumulative Impacts. A project’s cumulative impacts are based on an assessment of whether the “incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083, subd. (b)(2); see CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (h)(1).) When using an absolute VMT metric, i.e., total VMT (as recommended below for retail and transportation projects), analyzing the combined impacts for a cumulative impacts analysis may be appropriate. However, metrics such as VMT per capita or VMT per employee, i.e., metrics framed in terms of efficiency (as recommended below for use on residential and office projects), cannot be summed because they employ a denominator. A project that falls below an efficiency-based threshold that is aligned with long-term environmental goals and relevant plans would have no cumulative impact distinct from the project impact. Accordingly, a finding of a less-than-significant project impact would imply a less than significant cumulative impact, and vice versa. This is similar to the analysis typically conducted for greenhouse gas emissions, air quality impacts, and impacts that utilize plan compliance as a threshold of significance. (See Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 219, 223; CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (h)(3).) 60 Agenda Item # 6.
7 | Page
December 2018
D. General Principles to Guide Consideration of VMT
SB 743 directs OPR to establish specific “criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts of projects[.]” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21099, subd. (b)(1).) In establishing this criterion, OPR was guided by the general principles contained within CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and applicable case law.

To assist in the determination of significance, many lead agencies rely on “thresholds of significance.” The CEQA Guidelines define a “threshold of significance” to mean “an identifiable quantitative, qualitative12 or performance level of a particular environmental effect, non-compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be significant by the agency and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.7, subd. (a) (emphasis added).) Lead agencies have discretion to develop and adopt their own, or rely on thresholds recommended by other agencies, “provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence.” (Id. at subd. (c); Save Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1068.) Substantial evidence means “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.” (Id. at § 15384 (emphasis added); Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1108-1109.)
Additionally, the analysis leading to the determination of significance need not be perfect. The CEQA Guidelines describe the standard for adequacy of environmental analyses:

An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in the light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness, and a good faith effort at full disclosure.
(CEQA Guidelines, § 15151 (emphasis added).)
These general principles guide OPR’s recommendations regarding thresholds of significance for VMT set forth below.

12 Generally, qualitative analyses should only be conducted when methods do not exist for undertaking a quantitative analysis.
61 Agenda Item # 6.
8 | Page
December 2018
E. Recommendations Regarding Significance Thresholds
As noted above, lead agencies have the discretion to set or apply their own thresholds of significance. (Center for Biological Diversity v. California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife (2015) 62 Cal.4th 204, 218-223 [lead agency had discretion to use compliance with AB 32’s emissions goals as a significance threshold]; Save Cuyama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th at p. 1068.) However, Section 21099 of the Public Resources Code states that the criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts must promote: (1) reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; (2) development of multimodal transportation networks; and (3) a diversity of land uses. It further directed OPR to prepare and develop criteria for determining significance. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21099, subd. (b)(1).) This section provides OPR’s suggested thresholds, as well as considerations for lead agencies that choose to adopt their own thresholds.

The VMT metric can support the three statutory goals: “the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21099, subd. (b)(1), emphasis added.) However, in order for it to promote and support all three, lead agencies should select a significance threshold that aligns with state law on all three. State law concerning the development of multimodal transportation networks and diversity of land uses requires planning for and prioritizing increases in complete streets and infill development, but does not mandate a particular depth of implementation that could translate into a particular threshold of significance.

Meanwhile, the State has clear quantitative targets for GHG emissions reduction set forth in law and based on scientific consensus, and the depth of VMT reduction needed to achieve those targets has been quantified. Tying VMT thresholds to GHG reduction also supports the two other statutory goals.

Therefore, to ensure adequate analysis of transportation impacts, OPR recommends using quantitative VMT thresholds linked to GHG reduction targets when methods exist to do so.

Various legislative mandates and state policies establish quantitative greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. For example:
• Assembly Bill 32 (2006) requires statewide GHG emissions reductions to 1990 levels by 2020 and continued reductions beyond 2020.
• Senate Bill 32 (2016) requires at least a 40 percent reduction in GHG emissions from 1990 levels by 2030.
• Pursuant to Senate Bill 375 (2008), the California Air Resources Board GHG emissions reduction targets for metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to achieve based on land use patterns and transportation systems specified in Regional Transportation Plans and Sustainable Community Strategies (RTP/SCS). Current targets for the State’s largest MPOs call for a 19 percent reduction in GHG emissions from cars and light trucks from 2005 emissions levels by 2035.
• Executive Order B-30-15 (2015) sets a GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
62 Agenda Item # 6.
9 | Page
December 2018
• Executive Order S-3-05 (2005) sets a GHG emissions reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
• Executive Order B-16-12 (2012) specifies a GHG emissions reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 specifically for transportation.
• Executive Order B-55-18 (2018) established an additional statewide goal of achieving carbon neutrality as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, and maintaining net negative emissions thereafter. It states, “The California Air Resources Board shall work with relevant state agencies to develop a framework for implementation and accounting that tracks progress toward this goal.”
• Senate Bill 391 requires the California Transportation Plan to support 80 percent reduction in GHGs below 1990 levels by 2050.
• The California Air Resources Board Mobile Source Strategy (2016) describes California’s strategy for containing air pollutant emissions from vehicles, and quantifies VMT growth compatible with achieving state targets.
• The California Air Resources Board’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target describes California’s strategy for containing GHG emissions from vehicles, and quantifies VMT growth compatible with achieving state targets.

Considering these various targets, the California Supreme Court observed:

Meeting our statewide reduction goals does not preclude all new development. Rather, the Scoping Plan … assumes continued growth and depends on increased efficiency and conservation in land use and transportation from all Californians. (Center for Biological Diversity v. California Dept. of Fish & Wildlife, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 220.) Indeed, the Court noted that when a lead agency uses consistency with climate goals as a way to determine significance, particularly for long-term projects, the lead agency must consider the project’s effect on meeting long-term reduction goals. (Ibid.) And more recently, the Supreme Court stated that “CEQA requires public agencies . . . to ensure that such analysis stay in step with evolving scientific knowledge and state regulatory schemes.” (Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497, 504.)
Meeting the targets described above will require substantial reductions in existing VMT per capita to curb GHG emissions and other pollutants. But targets for overall GHG emissions reduction do not translate directly into VMT thresholds for individual projects for many reasons, including:
• Some, but not all, of the emissions reductions needed to achieve those targets could be accomplished by other measures, including increased vehicle efficiency and decreased fuel carbon content. The CARB’s First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan explains:
63 Agenda Item # 6.
10 | Page
December 2018
“Achieving California’s long-term criteria pollutant and GHG emissions goals will require four strategies to be employed: (1) improve vehicle efficiency and develop zero emission technologies, (2) reduce the carbon content of fuels and provide market support to get these lower-carbon fuels into the marketplace, (3) plan and build communities to reduce vehicular GHG emissions and provide more transportation options, and (4) improve the efficiency and throughput of existing transportation systems.”13 CARB’s 2018 Progress Report on California’s Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act states on page 28 that “California cannot meet its climate goals without curbing growth in single-occupancy vehicle activity.” In other words, vehicle efficiency and better fuels are necessary, but insufficient, to address the GHG emissions from the transportation system. Land use patterns and transportation options also will need to change to support reductions in vehicle travel/VMT. • New land use projects alone will not sufficiently reduce per-capita VMT to achieve those targets, nor are they expected to be the sole source of VMT reduction. • Interactions between land use projects, and also between land use and transportation projects, existing and future, together affect VMT.
• Because location within the region is the most important determinant of VMT, in some cases, streamlining CEQA review of projects in travel efficient locations may be the most effective means of reducing VMT.
• When assessing climate impacts of some types of land use projects, use of an efficiency metric (e.g., per capita, per employee) may provide a better measure of impact than an absolute numeric threshold. (Center for Biological Diversity, supra.) Public Resources Code section 21099 directs OPR to propose criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts. In this Technical Advisory, OPR provides its recommendations to assist lead agencies in selecting a significance threshold that may be appropriate for their particular projects. While OPR’s Technical Advisory is not binding on public agencies, CEQA allows lead agencies to “consider thresholds of significance . . . recommended by other public agencies, provided the decision to adopt those thresholds is supported by substantial evidence.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.7, subd. (c).) Based on OPR’s extensive review of the applicable research, and in light of an assessment by the California Air Resources Board quantifying the need for VMT reduction in order to meet the State’s long-term climate goals, OPR recommends that a per capita or per employee VMT that is fifteen percent below that of existing development may be a reasonable threshold.

Fifteen percent reductions in VMT are achievable at the project level in a variety of place types.14 Moreover, a fifteen percent reduction is consistent with SB 743’s direction to OPR to select a threshold that will help the State achieve its climate goals. As described above, section 21099 states that the

13 California Air Resources Board (May 2014) First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan, p. 46 (emphasis added).
14 CAPCOA (2010) Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, p. 55, available at http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf. 64 Agenda Item # 6.
11 | Page
December 2018
criteria for determining significance must “promote the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.” In its document California Air Resources Board 2017 Scoping Plan-Identified VMT Reductions and Relationship to State Climate Goals15, CARB assesses VMT reduction per capita consistent with its evidence-based modeling scenario that would achieve State climate goals of 40 percent GHG emissions reduction from 1990 levels by 2030 and 80 percent GHG emissions reduction levels from 1990 by 2050. Applying California Department of Finance population forecasts, CARB finds per-capita light-duty vehicle travel would need to be approximately 16.8 percent lower than existing, and overall per-capita vehicle travel would need to be approximately 14.3 percent lower than existing levels under that scenario. Below these levels, a project could be considered low VMT and would, on that metric, be consistent with 2017 Scoping Plan Update assumptions that achieve climate state climate goals.

CARB finds per capita vehicle travel would need to be kept below what today’s policies and plans would achieve.

CARB’s assessment is based on data in the 2017 Scoping Plan Update and 2016 Mobile Source Strategy.

In those documents, CARB previously examined the relationship between VMT and the state’s GHG emissions reduction targets. The Scoping Plan finds:
“While the State can do more to accelerate and incentivize these local decisions, local actions that reduce VMT are also necessary to meet transportation sector-specific goals and achieve the 2030 target under SB 32. Through developing the Scoping Plan, CARB staff is more convinced than ever that, in addition to achieving GHG reductions from cleaner fuels and vehicles, California must also reduce VMT. Stronger SB 375 GHG reduction targets will enable the State to make significant progress toward needed reductions, but alone will not provide the VMT growth reductions needed; there is a gap between what SB 375 can provide and what is needed to meet the State’s 2030 and 2050 goals.”16
Note that, at present, consistency with RTP/SCSs does not necessarily lead to a less-than-significant VMT impact.17 As the Final 2017 Scoping Plan Update states, VMT reductions are necessary to achieve the 2030 target and must be part of any strategy evaluated in this Plan. Stronger SB 375 GHG reduction targets will enable the State to make significant progress toward this goal, but alone will not provide all of the VMT growth reductions that will be needed. There is a gap between what SB 375 can provide and what is needed to meet the State’s 2030 and 2050 goals.”18

15 California Air Resources Board (Jan. 2019) California Air Resources Board 2017 Scoping Plan-Identified VMT Reductions and Relationship to State Climate Goals, available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/carb-2017-scoping-plan-identified-vmt-reductions-andrelationship-state-climate. 16 California Air Resources Board (Nov. 2017) California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, p. 101. 17 California Air Resources Board (Feb. 2018) Updated Final Staff Report: Proposed Update to the SB 375 Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets, Figure 3, p. 35, available at https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/sb375_target_update_final_staff_report_feb2018.pdf. 18 California Air Resources Board (Nov. 2017) California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, p. 75. 65 Agenda Item # 6.
12 | Page
December 2018
Also, in order to capture the full effects of induced travel resulting from roadway capacity projects, an RTP/SCS would need to include an assessment of land use effects of those projects, and the effects of those land uses on VMT. (See section titled “Estimating VMT Impacts from Transportation Projects” below.) RTP/SCSs typically model VMT using a collaboratively-developed land use “vision” for the region’s land use, rather than studying the effects on land use of the proposed transportation investments.

In summary, achieving 15 percent lower per capita (residential) or per employee (office) VMT than existing development is both generally achievable and is supported by evidence that connects this level of reduction to the State’s emissions goals.

1. Screening Thresholds for Land Use Projects
Many agencies use “screening thresholds” to quickly identify when a project should be expected to cause a less-than-significant impact without conducting a detailed study. (See e.g., CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15063(c)(3)(C), 15128, and Appendix G.) As explained below, this technical advisory suggests that lead agencies may screen out VMT impacts using project size, maps, transit availability, and provision of affordable housing.

Screening Threshold for Small Projects
Many local agencies have developed screening thresholds to indicate when detailed analysis is needed.

Absent substantial evidence indicating that a project would generate a potentially significant level of VMT, or inconsistency with a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) or general plan, projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day19 generally may be assumed to cause a less-thansignificant transportation impact.

Map-Based Screening for Residential and Office Projects Residential and office projects that locate in areas with low VMT, and that incorporate similar features (i.e., density, mix of uses, transit accessibility), will tend to exhibit similarly low VMT. Maps created with VMT data, for example from a travel survey or a travel demand model, can illustrate areas that are

19 CEQA provides a categorical exemption for existing facilities, including additions to existing structures of up to 10,000 square feet, so long as the project is in an area where public infrastructure is available to allow for maximum planned development and the project is not in an environmentally sensitive area. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15301, subd. (e)(2).) Typical project types for which trip generation increases relatively linearly with building footprint (i.e., general office building, single tenant office building, office park, and business park) generate or attract an additional 110-124 trips per 10,000 square feet.

Therefore, absent substantial evidence otherwise, it is reasonable to conclude that the addition of 110 or fewer trips could be considered not to lead to a significant impact. 66 Agenda Item # 6.
13 | Page
December 2018
currently below threshold VMT (see recommendations below). Because new development in such locations would likely result in a similar level of VMT, such maps can be used to screen out residential and office projects from needing to prepare a detailed VMT analysis.

Figure 2. Example map of household VMT that could be used to delineate areas eligible to receive streamlining for VMT analysis. (Source: City of San José, Department of Transportation, draft output of City Transportation Model.)
Presumption of Less Than Significant Impact Near Transit Stations Proposed CEQA Guideline Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)(1), states that lead agencies generally should presume that certain projects (including residential, retail, and office projects, as well as projects that are a mix of these uses) proposed within ½ mile of an existing major transit stop20 or an existing stop

20 Pub. Resources Code, § 21064.3 (“‘Major transit stop’ means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.”).
67 Agenda Item # 6.
14 | Page
December 2018
along a high quality transit corridor21 will have a less-than-significant impact on VMT. This presumption would not apply, however, if project-specific or location-specific information indicates that the project will still generate significant levels of VMT. For example, the presumption might not be appropriate if the project:
● Has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of less than 0.75
● Includes more parking for use by residents, customers, or employees of the project than required by the jurisdiction (if the jurisdiction requires the project to supply parking) ● Is inconsistent with the applicable Sustainable Communities Strategy (as determined by the lead agency, with input from the Metropolitan Planning Organization) ● Replaces affordable residential units with a smaller number of moderate- or high-income residential units
A project or plan near transit which replaces affordable residential units22 with a smaller number of moderate- or high-income residential units may increase overall VMT because the increase in VMT of displaced residents could overwhelm the improvements in travel efficiency enjoyed by new residents.23 If any of these exceptions to the presumption might apply, the lead agency should conduct a detailed VMT analysis to determine whether the project would exceed VMT thresholds (see below).

Presumption of Less Than Significant Impact for Affordable Residential Development Adding affordable housing to infill locations generally improves jobs-housing match, in turn shortening commutes and reducing VMT.
24,25 Further, “… low-wage workers in particular would be more likely to choose a residential location close to their workplace, if one is available.”26 In areas where existing jobshousing match is closer to optimal, low income housing nevertheless generates less VMT than market-

21 Pub. Resources Code, § 21155 (“For purposes of this section, a high-quality transit corridor means a corridor with fixed route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours.”).
22 Including naturally-occurring affordable residential units. 23 Chapple et al. (2017) Developing a New Methodology for Analyzing Potential Displacement, Chapter 4, pp. 159-160, available at https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/13-310.pdf. 24 Karner and Benner (2016) The convergence of social equity and environmental sustainability: Jobshousing fit and commute distance (“[P]olicies that advance a more equitable distribution of jobs and housing by linking the affordability of locally available housing with local wage levels are likely to be associated with reduced commuting distances”).
25 Karner and Benner (2015) Low-wage jobs-housing fit: identifying locations of affordable housing shortages.
26 Karner and Benner (2015) Low-wage jobs-housing fit: identifying locations of affordable housing shortages.
68 Agenda Item # 6.
15 | Page
December 2018
rate housing.
27,28 Therefore, a project consisting of a high percentage of affordable housing may be a basis for the lead agency to find a less-than-significant impact on VMT. Evidence supports a presumption of less than significant impact for a 100 percent affordable residential development (or the residential component of a mixed-use development) in infill locations. Lead agencies may develop their own presumption of less than significant impact for residential projects (or residential portions of mixed use projects) containing a particular amount of affordable housing, based on local circumstances and evidence. Furthermore, a project which includes any affordable residential units may factor the effect of the affordability on VMT into the assessment of VMT generated by those units.

2. Recommended Numeric Thresholds for Residential, Office, and Retail Projects
Recommended threshold for residential projects: A proposed project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing VMT per capita may indicate a significant transportation impact. Existing VMT per capita may be measured as regional VMT per capita or as city VMT per capita. Proposed development referencing a threshold based on city VMT per capita (rather than regional VMT per capita) should not cumulatively exceed the number of units specified in the SCS for that city, and should be consistent with the SCS.

Residential development that would generate vehicle travel that is 15 or more percent below the existing residential VMT per capita, measured against the region or city, may indicate a less-thansignificant transportation impact. In MPO areas, development measured against city VMT per capita (rather than regional VMT per capita) should not cumulatively exceed the population or number of units specified in the SCS for that city because greater-than-planned amounts of development in areas above the region-based threshold would undermine the VMT containment needed to achieve regional targets under SB 375.

For residential projects in unincorporated county areas, the local agency can compare a residential project’s VMT to (1) the region’s VMT per capita, or (2) the aggregate population-weighted VMT per capita of all cities in the region. In MPO areas, development in unincorporated areas measured against aggregate city VMT per capita (rather than regional VMT per capita) should not cumulatively exceed the population or number of units specified in the SCS for that city because greater-than-planned amounts of development in areas above the regional threshold would undermine achievement of regional targets under SB 375.
27 Chapple et al. (2017) Developing a New Methodology for Analyzing Potential Displacement, available at https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/13-310.pdf. 28 CAPCOA (2010) Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures, pp. 176-178, available at http://www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CAPCOA-Quantification-Report-9-14-Final.pdf. 69 Agenda Item # 6.
16 | Page
December 2018
These thresholds can be applied to either household (i.e., tour-based) VMT or home-based (i.e., tripbased) VMT assessments. 29 It is critical, however, that the agency be consistent in its VMT measurement approach throughout the analysis to maintain an “apples-to-apples” comparison. For example, if the agency uses a home-based VMT for the threshold, it should also be use home-based VMT for calculating project VMT and VMT reduction due to mitigation measures.

Because new retail development typically redistributes shopping trips rather than creating new trips, 30 estimating the total change in VMT (i.e., the difference in total VMT in the area affected with and without the project) is the best way to analyze a retail project’s transportation impacts.

By adding retail opportunities into the urban fabric and thereby improving retail destination proximity, local-serving retail development tends to shorten trips and reduce VMT. Thus, lead agencies generally may presume such development creates a less-than-significant transportation impact. Regional-serving retail development, on the other hand, which can lead to substitution of longer trips for shorter ones, may tend to have a significant impact. Where such development decreases VMT, lead agencies should consider the impact to be less-than-significant.

Many cities and counties define local-serving and regional-serving retail in their zoning codes. Lead agencies may refer to those local definitions when available, but should also consider any project-

29 See Appendix 1 for a description of these approaches. 30 Lovejoy, et al. (2013) Measuring the impacts of local land-use policies on vehicle miles of travel:

The case of the first big-box store in Davis, California, The Journal of Transport and Land Use.

Recommended threshold for retail projects: A net increase in total VMT may indicate a significant transportation impact.

Office projects that would generate vehicle travel exceeding 15 percent below existing VMT per employee for the region may indicate a significant transportation impact. In cases where the region is substantially larger than the geography over which most workers would be expected to live, it might be appropriate to refer to a smaller geography, such as the county, that includes the area over which nearly all workers would be expected to live.

Office VMT screening maps can be developed using tour-based data, considering either total employee VMT or employee work tour VMT. Similarly, tour-based analysis of office project VMT could consider either total employee VMT or employee work tour VMT. Where tour-based information is unavailable for threshold determination, project assessment, or assessment of mitigation, home-based work trip VMT should be used throughout all steps of the analysis to maintain an “apples-to-apples” comparison.

Recommended threshold for office projects: A proposed project exceeding a level of 15 percent below existing regional VMT per employee may indicate a significant transportation impact. 70 Agenda Item # 6.
17 | Page
December 2018
specific information, such as market studies or economic impacts analyses that might bear on customers’ travel behavior. Because lead agencies will best understand their own communities and the likely travel behaviors of future project users, they are likely in the best position to decide when a project will likely be local-serving. Generally, however, retail development including stores larger than 50,000 square feet might be considered regional-serving, and so lead agencies should undertake an analysis to determine whether the project might increase or decrease VMT.

Mixed-Use Projects
Lead agencies can evaluate each component of a mixed-use project independently and apply the significance threshold for each project type included (e.g., residential and retail). Alternatively, a lead agency may consider only the project’s dominant use. In the analysis of each use, a project should take credit for internal capture. Combining different land uses and applying one threshold to those land uses may result in an inaccurate impact assessment.

Other Project Types
Of land use projects, residential, office, and retail projects tend to have the greatest influence on VMT.

For that reason, OPR recommends the quantified thresholds described above for purposes of analysis and mitigation. Lead agencies, using more location-specific information, may develop their own more specific thresholds, which may include other land use types. In developing thresholds for other project types, or thresholds different from those recommended here, lead agencies should consider the purposes described in section 21099 of the Public Resources Code and regulations in the CEQA Guidelines on the development of thresholds of significance (e.g., CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.7).

Strategies and projects that decrease local VMT but increase total VMT should be avoided. Agencies should consider whether their actions encourage development in a less travel-efficient location by limiting development in travel-efficient locations.

Redevelopment Projects
Where a project replaces existing VMT-generating land uses, if the replacement leads to a net overall decrease in VMT, the project would lead to a less-than-significant transportation impact. If the project leads to a net overall increase in VMT, then the thresholds described above should apply.

As described above, a project or plan near transit which replaces affordable31 residential units with a smaller number of moderate- or high-income residential units may increase overall VMT, because

31 Including naturally-occurring affordable residential units. 71 Agenda Item # 6.
18 | Page
December 2018
displaced residents’ VMT may increase.
32 A lead agency should analyze VMT for such a project even if it otherwise would have been presumed less than significant. The assessment should incorporate an estimate of the aggregate VMT increase experienced by displaced residents. That additional VMT should be included in the numerator of the VMT per capita assessed for the project.

If a residential or office project leads to a net increase in VMT, then the project’s VMT per capita (residential) or per employee (office) should be compared to thresholds recommended above. Per capita and per employee VMT are efficiency metrics, and, as such, apply only to the existing project without regard to the VMT generated by the previously existing land use.

If the project leads to a net increase in provision of locally-serving retail, transportation impacts from the retail portion of the development should be presumed to be less than significant. If the project consists of regionally-serving retail, and increases overall VMT compared to with existing uses, then the project would lead to a significant transportation impact.

RTP/SCS Consistency (All Land Use Projects)
Section 15125, subdivision (d), of the CEQA Guidelines provides that lead agencies should analyze impacts resulting from inconsistencies with regional plans, including regional transportation plans. For this reason, if a project is inconsistent with the Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), the lead agency should evaluate whether that inconsistency indicates a significant impact on transportation. For example, a development may be inconsistent with an RTP/SCS if the development is outside the footprint of development or within an area specified as open space as shown in the SCS.

3. Recommendations Regarding Land Use Plans
As with projects, agencies should analyze VMT outcomes of land use plans across the full area over which the plan may substantively affect travel patterns, including beyond the boundary of the plan or jurisdiction’s geography. And as with projects, VMT should be counted in full rather than split between origin and destination. (Emissions inventories have sometimes spit cross-boundary trips in order to sum to a regional total, but CEQA requires accounting for the full impact without truncation or discounting).

Analysis of specific plans may employ the same thresholds described above for projects. A general plan, area plan, or community plan may have a significant impact on transportation if proposed new residential, office, or retail land uses would in aggregate exceed the respective thresholds recommended above. Where the lead agency tiers from a general plan EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15152 and 15166, the lead agency generally focuses on the environmental impacts that are specific to the later project and were not analyzed as significant impacts in the prior EIR. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21068.5; Guidelines, § 15152, subd. (a).) Thus, in analyzing the later project, the lead agency

32 Chapple et al. (2017) Developing a New Methodology for Analyzing Potential Displacement, Chapter 4, pp. 159-160, available at https://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/past/13-310.pdf. 72 Agenda Item # 6.
19 | Page
December 2018
would focus on the VMT impacts that were not adequately addressed in the prior EIR. In the tiered document, the lead agency should continue to apply the thresholds recommended above.

Thresholds for plans in non-MPO areas may be determined on a case-by-case basis.

4. Other Considerations
Rural Projects Outside of MPOs
In rural areas of non-MPO counties (i.e., areas not near established or incorporated cities or towns), fewer options may be available for reducing VMT, and significance thresholds may be best determined on a case-by-case basis. Note, however, that clustered small towns and small town main streets may have substantial VMT benefits compared to isolated rural development, similar to the transit oriented development described above.

Impacts to Transit
Because criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts must promote “the development of multimodal transportation networks” pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21099, subd. (b)(1), lead agencies should consider project impacts to transit systems and bicycle and pedestrian networks. For example, a project that blocks access to a transit stop or blocks a transit route itself may interfere with transit functions. Lead agencies should consult with transit agencies as early as possible in the development process, particularly for projects that are located within one half mile of transit stops.

When evaluating impacts to multimodal transportation networks, lead agencies generally should not treat the addition of new transit users as an adverse impact. An infill development may add riders to transit systems and the additional boarding and alighting may slow transit vehicles, but it also adds destinations, improving proximity and accessibility. Such development also improves regional vehicle flow by adding less vehicle travel onto the regional network.

Increased demand throughout a region may, however, cause a cumulative impact by requiring new or additional transit infrastructure. Such impacts may be adequately addressed through a fee program that fairly allocates the cost of improvements not just to projects that happen to locate near transit, but rather across a region to all projects that impose burdens on the entire transportation system, since transit can broadly improve the function of the transportation system.

F. Considering the Effects of Transportation Projects on Vehicle Travel Many transportation projects change travel patterns. A transportation project which leads to additional vehicle travel on the roadway network, commonly referred to as “induced vehicle travel,” would need to quantify the amount of additional vehicle travel in order to assess air quality impacts, greenhouse gas emissions impacts, energy impacts, and noise impacts. Transportation projects also are required to 73 Agenda Item # 6.
20 | Page
December 2018
examine induced growth impacts under CEQA. (See generally, Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21065 [defining “project” under CEQA as an activity as causing either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change], 21065.3 [defining “project-specific effect” to mean all direct or indirect environmental effects], 21100, subd. (b) [required contents of an EIR].) For any project that increases vehicle travel, explicit assessment and quantitative reporting of the amount of additional vehicle travel should not be omitted from the document; such information may be useful and necessary for a full understanding of a project’s environmental impacts. (See Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000, 21001, 21001.1, 21002, 21002.1 [discussing the policies of CEQA].) A lead agency that uses the VMT metric to assess the transportation impacts of a transportation project may simply report that change in VMT as the impact. When the lead agency uses another metric to analyze the transportation impacts of a roadway project, changes in amount of vehicle travel added to the roadway network should still be analyzed and reported. 33 While CEQA does not require perfection, it is important to make a reasonably accurate estimate of transportation projects’ effects on vehicle travel in order to make reasonably accurate estimates of GHG emissions, air quality emissions, energy impacts, and noise impacts. (See, e.g., California Clean Energy Com. v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 173, 210 [EIR failed to consider project’s transportation energy impacts]; Ukiah Citizens for Safety First v. City of Ukiah (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 256, 266.) Appendix 2 describes in detail the causes of induced vehicle travel, the robust empirical evidence of induced vehicle travel, and how models and research can be used in conjunction to quantitatively assess induced vehicle travel with reasonable accuracy.

If a project would likely lead to a measurable and substantial increase in vehicle travel, the lead agency should conduct an analysis assessing the amount of vehicle travel the project will induce. Project types that would likely lead to a measurable and substantial increase in vehicle travel generally include:
• Addition of through lanes on existing or new highways, including general purpose lanes, HOV lanes, peak period lanes, auxiliary lanes, or lanes through grade-separated interchanges Projects that would not likely lead to a substantial or measurable increase in vehicle travel, and therefore generally should not require an induced travel analysis, include:
• Rehabilitation, maintenance, replacement, safety, and repair projects designed to improve the condition of existing transportation assets (e.g., highways; roadways; bridges; culverts; Transportation Management System field elements such as cameras, message signs, detection, or signals; tunnels; transit systems; and assets that serve bicycle and pedestrian facilities) and that do not add additional motor vehicle capacity
• Roadside safety devices or hardware installation such as median barriers and guardrails

33 See, e.g., California Department of Transportation (2006) Guidance for Preparers of Growth-related, Indirect Impact Analyses, available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/Growthrelated_IndirectImpactAnalysis/GRI_guidance06May_files/gri_guidance.pdf. 74 Agenda Item # 6.
21 | Page
December 2018
• Roadway shoulder enhancements to provide “breakdown space,” dedicated space for use only by transit vehicles, to provide bicycle access, or to otherwise improve safety, but which will not be used as automobile vehicle travel lanes
• Addition of an auxiliary lane of less than one mile in length designed to improve roadway safety • Installation, removal, or reconfiguration of traffic lanes that are not for through traffic, such as left, right, and U-turn pockets, two-way left turn lanes, or emergency breakdown lanes that are not utilized as through lanes
• Addition of roadway capacity on local or collector streets provided the project also substantially improves conditions for pedestrians, cyclists, and, if applicable, transit • Conversion of existing general purpose lanes (including ramps) to managed lanes or transit lanes, or changing lane management in a manner that would not substantially increase vehicle travel
• Addition of a new lane that is permanently restricted to use only by transit vehicles • Reduction in number of through lanes
• Grade separation to separate vehicles from rail, transit, pedestrians or bicycles, or to replace a lane in order to separate preferential vehicles (e.g., HOV, HOT, or trucks) from general vehicles • Installation, removal, or reconfiguration of traffic control devices, including Transit Signal Priority (TSP) features
• Installation of traffic metering systems, detection systems, cameras, changeable message signs and other electronics designed to optimize vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian flow • Timing of signals to optimize vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian flow • Installation of roundabouts or traffic circles
• Installation or reconfiguration of traffic calming devices • Adoption of or increase in tolls
• Addition of tolled lanes, where tolls are sufficient to mitigate VMT increase • Initiation of new transit service
• Conversion of streets from one-way to two-way operation with no net increase in number of traffic lanes
• Removal or relocation of off-street or on-street parking spaces • Adoption or modification of on-street parking or loading restrictions (including meters, time limits, accessible spaces, and preferential/reserved parking permit programs) • Addition of traffic wayfinding signage
• Rehabilitation and maintenance projects that do not add motor vehicle capacity • Addition of new or enhanced bike or pedestrian facilities on existing streets/highways or within existing public rights-of-way
• Addition of Class I bike paths, trails, multi-use paths, or other off-road facilities that serve nonmotorized travel • Installation of publicly available alternative fuel/charging infrastructure • Addition of passing lanes, truck climbing lanes, or truck brake-check lanes in rural areas that do not increase overall vehicle capacity along the corridor 75 Agenda Item # 6.
22 | Page
December 2018

1. Recommended Significance Threshold for Transportation Projects As noted in Section 15064.3 of the CEQA Guidelines, lead agencies for roadway capacity projects have discretion, consistent with CEQA and planning requirements, to choose which metric to use to evaluate transportation impacts. This section recommends considerations for evaluating impacts using vehicle miles traveled. Lead agencies have discretion to choose a threshold of significance for transportation projects as they do for other types of projects. As explained above, Public Resources Code section 21099, subdivision (b)(1), provides that criteria for determining the significance of transportation impacts must promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. (Id.; see generally, adopted CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.3, subd. (b) [Criteria for Analyzing Transportation Impacts].) With those goals in mind, OPR prepared and the Agency adopted an appropriate transportation metric.

Whether adopting a threshold of significance, or evaluating transportation impacts on a case-by-case basis, a lead agency should ensure that the analysis addresses:
• Direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the transportation project (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subds. (d), (h))
• Near-term and long-term effects of the transportation project (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15063, subd. (a)(1), 15126.2, subd. (a))
• The transportation project’s consistency with state greenhouse gas reduction goals (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21099)34
• The impact of the transportation project on the development of multimodal transportation networks (Pub. Resources Code, § 21099)
• The impact of the transportation project on the development of a diversity of land uses (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21099)
The CARB Scoping Plan and the CARB Mobile Source Strategy delineate VMT levels required to achieve legally mandated GHG emissions reduction targets. A lead agency should develop a project-level threshold based on those VMT levels, and may apply the following approach:

1. Propose a fair-share allocation of those budgets to their jurisdiction (e.g., by population);

34 The California Air Resources Board has ascertained the limits of VMT growth compatible with California containing greenhouse gas emissions to levels research shows would allow for climate stabilization. (See The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target (p. 78, p. 101); Mobile Source Strategy (p. 37).) CARB’s Updated Final Staff Report on Proposed Update to the SB 375 Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Targets illustrates that the current Regional Transportation Plans and Sustainable Communities Strategies will fall short of achieving the necessary on-road transportation-related GHG emissions reductions called for in the 2017 Scoping Plan (Figure 3, p. 35). Accordingly, OPR recommends not basing GHG emissions or transportation impact analysis for a transportation project solely on consistency with an RTP/SCS. 76 Agenda Item # 6.
23 | Page
December 2018

2. Determine the amount of VMT growth likely to result from background population growth, and subtract that from their “budget”;

3. Allocate their jurisdiction’s share between their various VMT-increasing transportation projects, using whatever criteria the lead agency prefers.

2. Estimating VMT Impacts from Transportation Projects
CEQA requires analysis of a project’s potential growth-inducing impacts. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21100, subd. (b)(5); CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.2, subd. (d).) Many agencies are familiar with the analysis of growth inducing impacts associated with water, sewer, and other infrastructure. This technical advisory addresses growth that may be expected from roadway expansion projects.

Because a roadway expansion project can induce substantial VMT, incorporating quantitative estimates of induced VMT is critical to calculating both transportation and other impacts of these projects.

Induced travel also has the potential to reduce or eliminate congestion relief benefits. An accurate estimate of induced travel is needed to accurately weigh costs and benefits of a highway capacity expansion project.

The effect of a transportation project on vehicle travel should be estimated using the “change in total VMT” method described in Appendix 1. This means that an assessment of total VMT without the project and an assessment with the project should be made; the difference between the two is the amount of VMT attributable to the project. The assessment should cover the full area in which driving patterns are expected to change. As with other types of projects, the VMT estimation should not be truncated at a modeling or jurisdictional boundary for convenience of analysis when travel behavior is substantially affected beyond that boundary.

Transit and Active Transportation Projects
Transit and active transportation projects generally reduce VMT and therefore are presumed to cause a less-than-significant impact on transportation. This presumption may apply to all passenger rail projects, bus and bus rapid transit projects, and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects. Streamlining transit and active transportation projects aligns with each of the three statutory goals contained in SB 743 by reducing GHG emissions, increasing multimodal transportation networks, and facilitating mixed use development.

Roadway Projects
Reducing roadway capacity (for example, by removing or repurposing motor vehicle travel lanes) will generally reduce VMT and therefore is presumed to cause a less-than-significant impact on transportation. Generally, no transportation analysis is needed for such projects. 77 Agenda Item # 6.
24 | Page
December 2018
Building new roadways, adding roadway capacity in congested areas, or adding roadway capacity to areas where congestion is expected in the future, typically induces additional vehicle travel. For the types of projects previously indicated as likely to lead to additional vehicle travel, an estimate should be made of the change in vehicle travel resulting from the project.

For projects that increase roadway capacity, lead agencies can evaluate induced travel quantitatively by applying the results of existing studies that examine the magnitude of the increase of VMT resulting from a given increase in lane miles. These studies estimate the percent change in VMT for every percent change in miles to the roadway system (i.e., “elasticity”). 35 Given that lead agencies have discretion in
choosing their methodology, and the studies on induced travel reveal a range of elasticities, lead agencies may appropriately apply professional judgment in studying the transportation effects of a particular project. The most recent major study, estimates an elasticity of 1.0, meaning that every percent change in lane miles results in a one percent increase in VMT.36 To estimate VMT impacts from roadway expansion projects:

1. Determine the total lane-miles over an area that fully captures travel behavior changes resulting from the project (generally the region, but for projects affecting interregional travel look at all affected regions).

2. Determine the percent change in total lane miles that will result from the project.

3. Determine the total existing VMT over that same area.

4. Multiply the percent increase in lane miles by the existing VMT, and then multiply that by the elasticity from the induced travel literature:
[% increase in lane miles] x [existing VMT] x [elasticity] = [VMT resulting from the project] A National Center for Sustainable Transportation tool can be used to apply this method:
https://ncst.ucdavis.edu/research/tools
This method would not be suitable for rural (non-MPO) locations in the state which are neither congested nor projected to become congested. It also may not be suitable for a new road that provides new connectivity across a barrier (e.g., a bridge across a river) if it would be expected to substantially 35 See U.C. Davis, Institute for Transportation Studies (Oct. 2015) Increasing Highway Capacity Unlikely to Relieve Traffic Congestion; Boarnet and Handy (Sept. 2014) Impact of Highway Capacity and Induced Travel on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, California Air Resources Board Policy Brief, available at https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/hwycapacity/highway_capacity_brief.pdf. 36 See Duranton and Turner (2011) The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion: Evidence from US cities, available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w15376.
78 Agenda Item # 6.
25 | Page
December 2018
shorten existing trips. If it is likely to be substantial, the trips-shortening effect should be examined explicitly.

The effects of roadway capacity on vehicle travel can also be applied at a programmatic level. For example, in a regional planning process the lead agency can use that program-level analysis to streamline later project-level analysis. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15168.) A program-level analysis of VMT should include effects of the program on land use patterns, and the VMT that results from those land use effects. In order for a program-level document to adequately analyze potential induced demand from a project or program of roadway capacity expansion, lead agencies cannot assume a fixed land use pattern (i.e., a land use pattern that does not vary in response to the provision of roadway capacity). A proper analysis should account for land use investment and development pattern changes that react in a reasonable manner to changes in accessibility created by transportation infrastructure investments (whether at the project or program level).

Mitigation and Alternatives
Induced VMT has the potential to reduce or eliminate congestion relief benefits, increase VMT, and increase other environmental impacts that result from vehicle travel.37 If those effects are significant, the lead agency will need to consider mitigation or alternatives. In the context of increased travel that is induced by capacity increases, appropriate mitigation and alternatives that a lead agency might consider include the following:
• Tolling new lanes to encourage carpools and fund transit improvements • Converting existing general purpose lanes to HOV or HOT lanes • Implementing or funding off-site travel demand management • Implementing Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) strategies to improve passenger throughput on existing lanes
Tolling and other management strategies can have the additional benefit of preventing congestion and maintaining free-flow conditions, conferring substantial benefits to road users as discussed above.

G. Analyzing Other Impacts Related to Transportation
While requiring a change in the methodology of assessing transportation impacts, Public Resources Code section 21099 notes that this change “does not relieve a public agency of the requirement to analyze a project’s potentially significant transportation impacts related to air quality, noise, safety, or any other impact associated with transportation.” OPR expects that lead agencies will continue to

37 See National Center for Sustainable Transportation (Oct. 2015) Increasing Highway Capacity Unlikely to Relieve Traffic Congestion, available at
http://www.dot.ca.gov/newtech/researchreports/reports/2015/10-12-2015- NCST_Brief_InducedTravel_CS6_v3.pdf; see Duranton and Turner (2011) The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion: Evidence from US cities, available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w15376. 79 Agenda Item # 6.
26 | Page
December 2018
address mobile source emissions in the air quality and noise sections of an environmental document and the corresponding studies that support the analysis in those sections. Lead agencies should continue to address environmental impacts of a proposed project pursuant to CEQA’s requirements, using a format that is appropriate for their particular project.

Because safety concerns result from many different factors, they are best addressed at a programmatic level (i.e., in a general plan or regional transportation plan) in cooperation with local governments, metropolitan planning organizations, and, where the state highway system is involved, the California Department of Transportation. In most cases, such an analysis would not be appropriate on a projectby-project basis. Increases in traffic volumes at a particular location resulting from a project typically cannot be estimated with sufficient accuracy or precision to provide useful information for an analysis of safety concerns. Moreover, an array of factors affect travel demand (e.g., strength of the local economy, price of gasoline), causing substantial additional uncertainty. Appendix B of OPR’s General Plan Guidelines summarizes research which could be used to guide a programmatic analysis under CEQA.

Lead agencies should note that automobile congestion or delay does not constitute a significant environmental impact (Pub. Resources Code, §21099(b)(2)), and safety should not be used as a proxy for road capacity.

H. VMT Mitigation and Alternatives
When a lead agency identifies a significant impact, it must identify feasible mitigation measures that could avoid or substantially reduce that impact. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.1, subd. (a).) Additionally, CEQA requires that an environmental impact report identify feasible alternatives that could avoid or substantially reduce a project’s significant environmental impacts.

Indeed, the California Court of Appeal recently held that a long-term regional transportation plan was deficient for failing to discuss an alternative which could significantly reduce total vehicle miles traveled.

In Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Association of Governments, et al. (2017) 17 Cal.App.5th 413, the court found that omission “inexplicable” given the lead agency’s “acknowledgment in its Climate Action Strategy that the state’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from on-road transportation will not succeed if the amount of driving, or vehicle miles traveled, is not significantly reduced.” (Cleveland National Forest Foundation, supra, 17 Cal.App.5th at p. 436.) Additionally, the court noted that the project alternatives focused primarily on congestion relief even though “the [regional] transportation plan is a long-term and congestion relief is not necessarily an effective longterm strategy.” (Id. at p. 437.) The court concluded its discussion of the alternatives analysis by stating:
“Given the acknowledged long-term drawbacks of congestion relief alternatives, there is not substantial evidence to support the EIR’s exclusion of an alternative focused primarily on significantly reducing vehicle trips.” (Ibid.)
Several examples of potential mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce VMT are described below.

However, the selection of particular mitigation measures and alternatives are left to the discretion of 80 Agenda Item # 6.
27 | Page
December 2018
the lead agency, and mitigation measures may vary, depending on the proposed project and significant impacts, if any. Further, OPR expects that agencies will continue to innovate and find new ways to reduce vehicular travel.

Potential measures to reduce vehicle miles traveled include, but are not limited to:
• Improve or increase access to transit.
• Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and daycare. • Incorporate affordable housing into the project.
• Incorporate neighborhood electric vehicle network.
• Orient the project toward transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. • Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service. • Provide traffic calming.
• Provide bicycle parking.
• Limit or eliminate parking supply.
• Unbundle parking costs.
• Provide parking cash-out programs.
• Implement roadway pricing.
• Implement or provide access to a commute reduction program. • Provide car-sharing, bike sharing, and ride-sharing programs. • Provide transit passes.
• Shifting single occupancy vehicle trips to carpooling or vanpooling, for example providing ridematching services. • Providing telework options.
• Providing incentives or subsidies that increase the use of modes other than single-occupancy vehicle.
• Providing on-site amenities at places of work, such as priority parking for carpools and vanpools, secure bike parking, and showers and locker rooms.
• Providing employee transportation coordinators at employment sites. • Providing a guaranteed ride home service to users of non-auto modes.

Notably, because VMT is largely a regional impact, regional VMT-reduction programs may be an appropriate form of mitigation. In lieu fees have been found to be valid mitigation where there is both a commitment to pay fees and evidence that mitigation will actually occur. (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 140-141; Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359; Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 727–728.) Fee programs are particularly useful to address cumulative impacts. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15130, subd. (a)(3) [a “project’s incremental contribution is less than cumulatively considerable if the project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact”].) The mitigation program must undergo CEQA evaluation, either on the program as a whole, or the in-lieu fees or other mitigation must be evaluated 81 Agenda Item # 6.
28 | Page
December 2018
on a project-specific basis. (California Native Plant Society v. County of El Dorado (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1026.) That CEQA evaluation could be part of a larger program, such as a regional transportation plan, analyzed in a Program EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15168.)
Examples of project alternatives that may reduce vehicle miles traveled include, but are not limited to:
• Locate the project in an area of the region that already exhibits low VMT. • Locate the project near transit.
• Increase project density.
• Increase the mix of uses within the project or within the project’s surroundings. • Increase connectivity and/or intersection density on the project site. • Deploy management strategies (e.g., pricing, vehicle occupancy requirements) on roadways or roadway lanes.
82 Agenda Item # 6.
29 | Page
December 2018
Appendix 1. Considerations About Which VMT to Count
Consistent with the obligation to make a good faith effort to disclose the environmental consequences of a project, lead agencies have discretion to choose the most appropriate methodology to evaluate project impacts.38 A lead agency can evaluate a project’s effect on VMT in numerous ways. The purpose of this document is to provide technical considerations in determining which methodology may be most useful for various project types.

Background on Estimating Vehicle Miles Traveled
Before discussing specific methodological recommendations, this section provides a brief overview of modeling and counting VMT, including some key terminology.

Here is an illustrative example of some methods of estimating vehicle miles traveled. Consider the following hypothetical travel day (all by automobile):

1. Residence to Coffee Shop

2. Coffee Shop to Work

3. Work to Sandwich Shop

4. Sandwich Shop to Work

5. Work to Residence

6. Residence to Store

7. Store to Residence
Trip-based assessment of a project’s effect on travel behavior counts VMT from individual trips to and from the project. It is the most basic, and traditionally the most common, method of counting VMT. A trip-based VMT assessment of the residence in the above example would consider segments 1, 5, 6 and

7. For residential projects, the sum of home-based trips is called home-based VMT.

A tour-based assessment counts the entire home-back-to-home tour that includes the project. A tourbased VMT assessment of the residence in the above example would consider segments 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 in one tour, and 6 and 7 in a second tour. A tour-based assessment of the workplace would include segments 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Together, all tours comprise household VMT.

38 The California Supreme Court has explained that when an agency has prepared an environmental impact report:
[T]he issue is not whether the [lead agency’s] studies are irrefutable or whether they could have been better. The relevant issue is only whether the studies are sufficiently credible to be considered as part of the total evidence that supports the [lead agency’s] finding[.]
(Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 409; see also Eureka Citizens for Responsible Gov’t v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357, 372.) 83 Agenda Item # 6.
30 | Page
December 2018
Both trip- and tour-based assessments can be used as measures of transportation efficiency, using denominators such as per capita, per employee, or per person-trip.

Trip- and Tour-based Assessment of VMT
As illustrated above, a tour-based assessment of VMT is a more complete characterization of a project’s effect on VMT. In many cases, a project affects travel behavior beyond the first destination. The location and characteristics of the home and workplace will often be the main drivers of VMT. For example, a residential or office development located near high quality transit will likely lead to some commute trips utilizing transit, affecting mode choice on the rest of the tour.

Characteristics of an office project can also affect an employee’s VMT beyond the work tour. For example, a workplace located at the urban periphery, far from transit, can require an employee to own a car, which in turn affects the entirety of an employee’s travel behavior and VMT. For this reason, when estimating the effect of an office development on VMT, it may be appropriate to consider total employee VMT if data and tools, such as tour-based models, are available. This is consistent with CEQA’s requirement to evaluate both direct and indirect effects of a project. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15064, subd. (d)(2).)
Assessing Change in Total VMT
A third method, estimating the change in total VMT with and without the project, can evaluate whether a project is likely to divert existing trips, and what the effect of those diversions will be on total VMT.

This method answers the question, “What is the net effect of the project on area VMT?” As an illustration, assessing the total change in VMT for a grocery store built in a food desert that diverts trips from more distant stores could reveal a net VMT reduction. The analysis should address the full area over which the project affects travel behavior, even if the effect on travel behavior crosses political boundaries.

Using Models to Estimate VMT
Travel demand models, sketch models, spreadsheet models, research, and data can all be used to calculate and estimate VMT (see Appendix F of the preliminary discussion draft). To the extent possible, lead agencies should choose models that have sensitivity to features of the project that affect VMT.

Those tools and resources can also assist in establishing thresholds of significance and estimating VMT reduction attributable to mitigation measures and project alternatives. When using models and tools for those various purposes, agencies should use comparable data and methods, in order to set up an “apples-to-apples” comparison between thresholds, VMT estimates, and VMT mitigation estimates.

Models can work together. For example, agencies can use travel demand models or survey data to estimate existing trip lengths and input those into sketch models such as CalEEMod to achieve more 84 Agenda Item # 6.
31 | Page
December 2018
accurate results. Whenever possible, agencies should input localized trip lengths into a sketch model to tailor the analysis to the project location. However, in doing so, agencies should be careful to avoid double counting if the sketch model includes other inputs or toggles that are proxies for trip length (e.g., distance to city center). Generally, if an agency changes any sketch model defaults, it should record and report those changes for transparency of analysis. Again, trip length data should come from the same source as data used to calculate thresholds to be sure of an “apples-to-apples” comparison.

Additional background information regarding travel demand models is available in the California Transportation Commission’s “2010 Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines,” beginning at page 35. 85 Agenda Item # 6.
32 | Page
December 2018
Appendix 2. Induced Travel: Mechanisms, Research, and Additional Assessment Approaches Induced travel occurs where roadway capacity is expanded in an area of present or projected future congestion. The effect typically manifests over several years. Lower travel times make the modified facility more attractive to travelers, resulting in the following trip-making changes:
● Longer trips. The ability to travel a long distance in a shorter time increases the attractiveness of destinations that are farther away, increasing trip length and vehicle travel. ● Changes in mode choice. When transportation investments are devoted to reducing automobile travel time, travelers tend to shift toward automobile use from other modes, which increases vehicle travel.
● Route changes. Faster travel times on a route attract more drivers to that route from other routes, which can increase or decrease vehicle travel depending on whether it shortens or lengthens trips.
● Newly generated trips. Increasing travel speeds can induce additional trips, which increases vehicle travel. For example, an individual who previously telecommuted or purchased goods on the internet might choose to accomplish those tasks via automobile trips as a result of increased speeds.
● Land Use Changes. Faster travel times along a corridor lead to land development farther along that corridor; that new development generates and attracts longer trips, which increases vehicle travel. Over several years, this induced growth component of induced vehicle travel can be substantial, making it critical to include in analyses.

Each of these effects has implications for the total amount of vehicle travel. These effects operate over different time scales. For example, changes in mode choice might occur immediately, while land use changes typically take a few years or longer. CEQA requires lead agencies to analyze both short-term and long-term effects.

Evidence of Induced Vehicle Travel. A large number of peer reviewed studies39 have demonstrated a causal link between highway capacity increases and VMT increases. Many provide quantitative estimates of the magnitude of the induced VMT phenomenon. Collectively, they provide high quality evidence of the existence and magnitude of the induced travel effect.

39 See, e.g., Boarnet and Handy (Sept. 2014) Impact of Highway Capacity and Induced Travel on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, California Air Resources Board Policy Brief, available at https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/hwycapacity/highway_capacity_brief.pdf; National Center for Sustainable Transportation (Oct. 2015) Increasing Highway Capacity Unlikely to Relieve Traffic Congestion, available at
http://www.dot.ca.gov/research/researchreports/reports/2015/10-12-2015- NCST_Brief_InducedTravel_CS6_v3.pdf.
86 Agenda Item # 6.
33 | Page
December 2018
Most of these studies express the amount of induced vehicle travel as an “elasticity,” which is a multiplier that describes the additional vehicle travel resulting from an additional lane mile of roadway capacity added. For example, an elasticity of 0.6 would signify an 0.6 percent increase in vehicle travel for every 1.0 percent increase in lane miles. Many of these studies distinguish “short run elasticity” (increase in vehicle travel in the first few years) from “long run elasticity” (increase in vehicle travel beyond the first few years). Long run elasticity is larger than short run elasticity, because as time passes, more of the components of induced vehicle travel materialize. Generally, short run elasticity can be thought of as excluding the effects of land use change, while long run elasticity includes them. Most studies find a long run elasticity between 0.6 and just over 1.0, 40 meaning that every increase in lanes
miles of one percent leads to an increase in vehicle travel of 0.6 to 1.0 percent. The most recent major study finds the elasticity of vehicle travel by lanes miles added to be 1.03; in other words, each percent increase in lane miles results in a 1.03 percent increase in vehicle travel. 41 (An elasticity greater than 1.0
can occur because new lanes induce vehicle travel that spills beyond the project location.) In CEQA analysis, the long-run elasticity should be used, as it captures the full effect of the project rather than just the early-stage effect.

Quantifying Induced Vehicle Travel Using Models. Lead agencies can generally achieve the most accurate assessment of induced vehicle travel resulting from roadway capacity increasing projects by applying elasticities from the academic literature, because those estimates include vehicle travel resulting from induced land use. If a lead agency chooses to use a travel demand model, additional analysis would be needed to account for induced land use. This section describes some approaches to undertaking that additional analysis.

Proper use of a travel demand model can capture the following components of induced VMT:
• Trip length (generally increases VMT)
• Mode shift (generally shifts from other modes toward automobile use, increasing VMT) • Route changes (can act to increase or decrease VMT)
• Newly generated trips (generally increases VMT)
o Note that not all travel demand models have sensitivity to this factor, so an off-model estimate may be necessary if this effect could be substantial.

However, estimating long-run induced VMT also requires an estimate of the project’s effects on land use. This component of the analysis is important because it has the potential to be a large component of

40 See Boarnet and Handy (Sept. 2014) Impact of Highway Capacity and Induced Travel on Passenger Vehicle Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, California Air Resources Board Policy Brief, p. 2, available at https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/policies/hwycapacity/highway_capacity_brief.pdf. 41 Duranton and Turner (2011) The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion: Evidence from US cities, available at http://www.nber.org/papers/w15376.
87 Agenda Item # 6.
34 | Page
December 2018
the overall induced travel effect. Options for estimating and incorporating the VMT effects that are caused by the subsequent land use changes include:

1. Employ an expert panel. An expert panel could assess changes to land use development that would likely result from the project. This assessment could then be analyzed by the travel demand model to assess effects on vehicle travel. Induced vehicle travel assessed via this approach should be verified using elasticities found in the academic literature.

2. Adjust model results to align with the empirical research. If the travel demand model analysis is performed without incorporating projected land use changes resulting from the project, the assessed vehicle travel should be adjusted upward to account for those land use changes. The assessed VMT after adjustment should fall within the range found in the academic literature.

3. Employ a land use model, running it iteratively with a travel demand model. A land use model can be used to estimate the land use effects of a roadway capacity increase, and the traffic patterns that result from the land use change can then be fed back into the travel demand model. The land use model and travel demand model can be iterated to produce an accurate result.

A project which provides new connectivity across a barrier, such as a new bridge across a river, may provide a shortened path between existing origins and destinations, thereby shortening existing trips. In rare cases, this trip-shortening effect might be substantial enough to reduce the amount of vehicle travel resulting from the project below the range found in the elasticities in the academic literature, or even lead a net reduction in vehicle travel overall. In such cases, the trip-shortening effect could be examined explicitly.

Whenever employing a travel demand model to assess induced vehicle travel, any limitation or known lack of sensitivity in the analysis that might cause substantial errors in the VMT estimate (for example, model insensitivity to one of the components of induced VMT described above) should be disclosed and characterized, and a description should be provided on how it could influence the analysis results. A discussion of the potential error or bias should be carried into analyses that rely on the VMT analysis, such as greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, energy, and noise. 88 Agenda Item # 6.
89 Agenda Item # 6.
90 Agenda Item # 6.
91 Agenda Item # 6.
92 Agenda Item # 6.
93 Agenda Item # 6.
94 Agenda Item # 6.
95 Agenda Item # 6.
96 Agenda Item # 6.
97 Agenda Item # 6.
98 Agenda Item # 6.
99 Agenda Item # 6.
100
Agenda Item # 6.
101
Agenda Item # 6.
102
Agenda Item # 6.
103
Agenda Item # 6.
104
Agenda Item # 6.
105
Agenda Item # 6.
106
Agenda Item # 6.
107
Agenda Item # 6.
108
Agenda Item # 6.
109
Agenda Item # 6.
110
Agenda Item # 6.
111
Agenda Item # 6.
112
Agenda Item # 6.
113
Agenda Item # 6.
114
Agenda Item # 6.
115
Agenda Item # 6.
116
Agenda Item # 6.
117
Agenda Item # 6.
118
Agenda Item # 6.
119
Agenda Item # 6.
120
Agenda Item # 6.
121
Agenda Item # 6.
122
Agenda Item # 6.
123
Agenda Item # 6.
124
Agenda Item # 6.
125
Agenda Item # 6.
126
Agenda Item # 6.
127
Agenda Item # 6.
128
Agenda Item # 6.

Reviewed By:

City Manager City Attorney
GE
Finance Director
JH JD

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY
Meeting Date: February 14, 2023
Subject Approve and Adopt a Resolution for Adjustments to FY22/23 Budget Appropriations
Prepared by: June Du, Finance Director
Approved by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachment(s):

1. Attachment 1- General Fund Summary, Revenues, Expenditures, and Transfers

2. Attachment 2- Other Funds Summary, Revenues, Expenditures, and Transfers

3. Resolution
Initiated by:

Staff
Previous Council Consideration:

June 1, 2021; June 14, 2022
Fiscal Impact:

Budget revisions detail
Environmental Review:

Not applicable
Policy Question(s) for Council Consideration:
 Does the City Council wish to approve the proposed adjustments to the FY22/23 Budget as presented?
 Does the City Council wish to adopt the recommendation of staff to complete reconciliation and corrections of the current fiscal year budget, including direct and indirect appropriations to the Enterprise funds for services received and correctly reflecting fund balances?
Summary:
129
Agenda Item # 7.

Subject: Approve and adopt a resolution for Final Adjustments to FY22/23 Budget Appropriations
Date Page 2
On June 14, 2022, City Council approved the FY22-23 Mid-Term operating budget and FY22-26 capital improvement budget. Throughout the past six months, staff has actively monitored actual revenues and expenditures. This report provides an update to the City Council on the General Fund operating budget for the remainder of FY22-23 and outlines proposed budget adjustments to all City Funds.

Staff Recommendation:

Approved the recommended adjustments to the FY22/23 budget appropriations as presented. 130
Agenda Item # 7.

Subject: Approve and adopt a resolution for Final Adjustments to FY22/23 Budget Appropriations
Date Page 3
Discussion/Analysis
At the December 2021 Council retreat, City staff notified the City Council of an in-year budget deficit of $2M as well as known but unbudgeted expenditures of $2.6M. The budget errors were in addition to underfunding of Employee Benefit, Workers’ Compensation, Dental, General Liability, and Fleet and Equipment. The underfunding of these expenditures needed to be corrected by the close of the budget. Since this meeting staff has worked to provide the expected level of government service to residents, as well as implement Council goals and priorities, while also making the corrections to the operating budget.

At the direction of the Council, staff has restored funding in benefits, Workers’ Compensation, General Liability, Fleet and Equipment Replacement, and increased the General Fund reserve to 20% (from 15.6%). In addition to restoring the above listed funds, staff has corrected nearly $2.6M in actual expenditures that were unbudgeted. This was completed while reducing the operating deficit from $2M to the current projected deficit of $422,000.

Staff will continue to provide exceptional services to the public, and implement the Council goals, while eliminating the current projected in-year deficit of $422,000 by June 30, 2023, bringing the final recommended changes to the City Council for approval.

Subsequent events:

On June 14, 2022, City Council adopted changes to the Mid-Term FY22/23 budget. Since this date, the City Council further approved $340,000 in additional appropriations to the general fund and changed the grant reimbursement appropriation policy, which resulted in an additional $40,000 in appropriated funds.

Please see the summary of changes below.

Corrections:
 American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) revenue recognition: The City received ARPA funding in an amount total to $7M in July of 2021 and August of 2022, in payments of approximately $3.5M each. The current biennial budget included revenues of $7M in ARPA funding; however, due to a substantial shortfall in funding from the FY20/21 budget, the initial ARPA payment of $3.5M, received in July of 2021 the City cost to recognize those revenues in the previous fiscal year to complete the audit and close the books. Because of this action, the current biennial budget needs to have revenues reduced by a corresponding amount of approximately $3.5M.
131
Agenda Item # 7.

Subject: Approve and adopt a resolution for Final Adjustments to FY22/23 Budget Appropriations
Date Page 4
 Purchasing commitment budget carryover: Per the City’s financial policy, “… Operating expenditure appropriations not spent during the fiscal year lapse at year-end except for encumbrance or commitment, as in the form of finalized purchase orders, made during the fiscal year that has not been completed as year-end…”, staff identified $955,964 such purchase orders in General Fund, $174,896 in Wastewater Fund and $15,396 in Solid Waste Fund during the review, those purchase commitments were not included in the budget carryover during the June 14 budget review process.

Enterprise Administrative Fee Study:

On June 14, 2022, during the Mid-Term Budget review, staff presented the CPI and other corrections to the City’s Enterprise Fund administrative fees. Furthermore, the City hired the NBS to conduct the indirect cost allocation study in conjunction with the city’s direct cost allocation study. Per the results of these studies, the net changes are $644,405 to the Wastewater Fund, and $511,649 to the Solid Waste Fund, respectively.

Below is the summary of the General Fund summary before any departmental requests.

Table 1 General Fund Budget Summary (In Million) _Part 1 6/14 CC
meeting
budget
(1)
CC
subsequent
Event
(2)
Error
Corrections
(3)
Enterprise
Admin Fee
Study (4)
Revised GF Budget
(5)=(1)+(2)+(3)+(4)
Budgeted Revenues 53.43 0.04 -3.60 0.85 50.72
Budgeted Expenditures -48.26 -0.38 -0.96 0.31 -49.29
Net 5.18 -0.34 -4.55 1.16 1.44
Transfer In 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.23
Transfer Out -2.88 0.00 0.00 -2.88
Surplus/ (Shortfall) 2.53 -0.34 -4.55 1.16 -1.21
Departmental Budget Changes
 Community Development ($287K in net revenues):

For the past six months, the City has collected $4.26M in community development fees, $58.7K above the annual budget of $4.2M. Staff is anticipating an additional $ 1.05M by the end of the fiscal year. Meanwhile, the department is requesting an additional $750,000 professional services 132
Agenda Item # 7.

Subject: Approve and adopt a resolution for Final Adjustments to FY22/23 Budget Appropriations
Date Page 5
fee and $13,000 in another operating expenditure budget to provide the services to the permitting and staff developments. Overall, the department anticipates an additional $287,000 in net revenue to the General Fund.
 Police Department ($155K in net expenditures):

The police department is requesting an additional $155,000 expenditure appropriation.

The request includes $65,000 in crossing guard services and $ 90,000 to cover the utility costs.

The crossing guard services were discussed and approved by the City Council prior to the adoption of the current budget but were not included in error.

The $90,000 in utility costs is an annual item but was not included in the current budget in error.
 Engineering Department ($92.4K net expenditures):

The engineering division is requesting $92,400 to hire Heydari consulting group to manage ongoing projects. The City is contracting services with Heydari in place of filling two open vacancies that would manage these projects.
 Park and Recreation ($11K in net revenues)
1) The community center rental budget to actual is currently at 92%, $68,455. The department is anticipating an additional $75,000 in revenue by the end of the fiscal year.
2) The department will also expand facility hours for the community center and senior program; the part-time staff cost is approximately $20,000, and the increasing senior membership and future rentals will cover it.
3) To re-certify the City of Los Altos as an age-friendly city, the department requests $30,000 in funding for the program. No revenue is anticipated from this request. 4) Summer Concerts. Additional $36,000 for the contract services. The requests include sound services and live band costs based on six concert schedules. Staff also anticipate $7,000 in revenue through concert sponsorships.
5) 4
th of July and Spring Family Fun Series. The division is requesting $8,000 to cover the event supplies. A $3,000 sponsorship for the events is anticipated. 133
Agenda Item # 7.

Subject: Approve and adopt a resolution for Final Adjustments to FY22/23 Budget Appropriations
Date Page 6
 City Administrative ($111K in net expenditures)
1) The Finance Department has experienced critical personnel loss for the first part of the fiscal year. Due to the staffing issue, City hired Eide Bailly to assist with the FY22 Audit; the cost of the contract is $35,000.
2) In conjunction with Prop 218 Sewer Rate Study, City hired the NBS to conduct the citywide indirect cost allocation plan. The cost of the contract is $15,000. 3) To implement upcoming FY24 budget preparation, the Finance department contracted with OpenGov to provide zero-based budget planning software. The department is requesting $25,000 from this budget appropriation.
4) Additional $20,000 citywide office supplies expenditure budget is requested due to the typo of $2,000 from original budget.
5) The City Clerk’s office requests $16,000 to cover the cost of KMVT contract for the remainder of the fiscal year.
 Other Budget Adjustments ($850K in net revenues/transfers ) 1) Transient Occupancy Tax/ Hotel Tax. As of November 2022, the City has collected $767K, 47.6% of the TOT tax. Staff anticipates an additional $50,000 in tax revenue by the end of the fiscal year.
2) To balance the General Fund budget, the staff proposes not to transfer the $1M as planned to fund additional CalPERS unfunded accrued liability, which was a planned expenditure from the City’s “Covid Stabilization Fund” approved by the City Council for the current fiscal year.
3) Staff is estimating increases in the insurance claims by the end of FY23 and requesting $200,000 appropriation to replenish the fund balance.
134
Agenda Item # 7.

Subject: Approve and adopt a resolution for Final Adjustments to FY22/23 Budget Appropriations
Date Page 7
Table 2 General Fund Budget Operating Requests
Department Descriptions Expenditures Revenues Net
Community Plan Check Fee

1,050,000
Development Professional Services for Plan Checks

750,000
Cost for Amend Municode

4,000
Staff training and development

3,000
Advertising/Office Supplies

6,000
Subtotal

763,000

1,050,000

287,000
Police
Department Crossing Guard Services

65,000
Utility Cost

90,000
Subtotal

155,000

(155,000)
Engineering Project Manager-Heydari Consulting

92,400
Subtotal

92,400

(92,400)
Park and
Recreation Community Center Rental

75,000
Expanding Facility Hours

20,000

20,000
Funding to re-Certify the City as an Age-Friendly City

30,000
Summer Concerts

36,000

7,000
July 4th and Spring Family Fun Events

8,000

3,000
Subtotal

94,000

105,000

11,000
City
Administration FY22 Audit Services- Eide Bailly

35,000
Indirect Cost Allocation Study_ NBS

15,000
FY24 Zero-Based Budget Software- OpenGov

25,000
Citywide office supplies 20,000
KMVT

16,000
Subtotal

111,000

(111,000)
135
Agenda Item # 7.

Subject: Approve and adopt a resolution for Final Adjustments to FY22/23 Budget Appropriations
Date Page 8
Other Budget Increase TOT Tax revenue projection

50,000
Transfer to Liability Fund 200,000
Adjustments Reduce the transfer to CALPERS UAL

(1,000,000)
Subtotal

(800,000)

50,000 850,000
Surplus/
(Shortfall)

$789,600
Conclusion
$422K will be reduced from the City’s General Fund balance. The proposed budget changes are summarized in the tables below. Staff will continue to review the financial records and will bring forward the changes if it is needed on a case-by-case basis. At this time, staff recommends that the City Council approve the final cleanup changes requested to the FY22-23 budget as presented in this report.

Table 1 General Fund Budget Summary (In Million) _Part One 6/14 CC
meeting
budget
(1)
CC
subsequent
Event
(2)
Error
Corrections
(3)
Enterprise
Admin Fee
Study (4)
Revised GF Budget
(5)=(1)+(2)+(3)+(4)
Budgeted Revenues 53.43 0.04 -3.60 0.85 50.72
Budgeted Expenditures -48.26 -0.38 -0.96 0.31 -49.29
Net 5.18 -0.34 -4.55 1.16 1.44
Transfer In 0.23 0.23
Transfer Out -2.88 -2.88
Surplus/ (Shortfall) 2.53 -0.34 -4.55 1.16 -1.21
Table 1 General Fund Budget Summary (In Million)- Part Two Revised GF Budget
(5)=(1)+(2)+(3)+(4)
Operating
Request
(6)
Final Revised Budget
(7)=(5)+(6)
Budgeted Revenues 50.72 1.21 51.93
Budgeted Expenditures -49.29 -1.20 -50.50
Net 1.44 -0.01 1.43
Transfer In 0.23 0.00 0.23
Transfer Out -2.88 0.80 -2.08
Surplus/ (Shortfall) -1.21 0.79 -0.42
136
Agenda Item # 7.

General Fund Revenue Summary
Revenues FY 22 Actual FY 23 Revised Budget 6/14/22 FY 23 Corrected Budget FY 23 Revised Budget Mid Year Budget Change Business License Tax 612,218 520,000 520,000 ‐ 520,000Community Development 4,685,269 4,202,300 4,202,300 5,252,300 1,050,000 Documentary Transfer Tax 996,702 600,000 600,000 ‐ 600,000 Franchise Fees 2,339,195 2,340,225 2,340,225 ‐ 2,340,225Motor Vehicle Tax 35,247 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Property Tax 30,086,155 32,000,000 32,000,000 32,000,000 (0) Sales Tax 3,738,113 3,500,000 3,500,000 ‐ 3,500,000 Transient Occupancy Tax 1,778,966 1,610,000 1,610,000 1,660,000 50,000Utility Users Tax 3,093,784 2,811,385 2,811,385 ‐ 2,811,385 Admin Fees‐Enterprise ‐ ‐ ‐ 849,118 849,118 Construction Tax 121,242 110,000 110,000 ‐ 110,000Interest Income (923,056) 382,300 382,300 ‐ 382,300 Miscellaneous Revenue 48,198 99,000 99,000 ‐ 99,000 One Time Revenue 3,598,964 ‐ 3,598,964 ‐ (3,598,964)Police Fees 232,740 283,200 283,200 ‐ 283,200 Recreation 1,133,955 1,352,000 1,352,000 1,457,000 105,000 Rental Income 77,085 24,000 24,000 ‐ 24,000 Grants 10,630 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐Other Revenue 187,431 ‐ 40,000 40,000 40,000 Grand Total 51,852,836 53,433,374 49,874,410 51,928,528 (1,504,846) 137
Agenda Item # 7.

General Fund Expenses Summary
Expenditure FY 22 Actual FY 23 Revised Budget 6/14/22 FY 23 Corrected Budget FY 23 Revised Budget Mid Year Budget Change Executive 7,419,026 6,617,469 6,803,081 6,819,081 201,612 Legislative 451,763 394,875 443,875 443,875 49,000Finance 953,424 1,707,699 1,707,699 1,782,699 75,000Non Departmental (1,305,862) (898,165) (648,165) 579,000 1,477,165 Community Dev 3,727,035 4,218,019 4,748,580 5,382,456 1,164,437 Engineering 3,363,203 4,097,312 4,187,678 3,555,828 (541,484)Maintenance 5,664,787 6,296,811 6,475,967 5,855,546 (441,265)Public Safety 21,067,055 23,039,670 23,043,009 23,194,203 154,533 Recreation 2,540,415 2,784,446 2,793,926 2,887,926 103,480City Wide Salary Savings ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Grand Total 43,880,845 48,258,136 49,555,650 50,500,614 2,242,478 138
Agenda Item # 7.

Details of Transfers
Transfers Out
Transfers Out FY 22 Actual FY 23 Revised Budget 6/14/22 FY 23 Corrected Budget FY 23 Revised Budget Mid Year Budget Change Transfer to Debt Service ‐ COP 2004 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Transfer to Debt Service ‐ Community Center ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Transfer to ARPA Fund ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Transfer to CIP Fund 3,074,033 103,068 103,068 ‐ 103,068 Transfer to Raymundo Debt Service 13 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Transfer to CAPERS UAL 6,500,000 1,000,000 ‐ 1,000,000 (1,000,000) Transfer to OPEB ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Transfer to Technology Fund 1,458,582 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Transfer to Dental Fund 100,000 20,000 20,000 ‐ 20,000 Transfer to Workers Compensation Fund 126,000 857,000 857,000 ‐ 857,000 Transfer to General Liability Fund 158,000 600,000 600,000 800,000 200,000 Transfer to Traffic Congestion Fund 3,013 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Transfer to Real Prop Fund 23,652 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Transfer to Equipment Replacement fund 900,000 300,000 300,000 ‐ 300,000 Transfer to Storm Drain Fund 23,939 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Totals 12,367,232 2,880,068 2,880,068 2,080,068 (800,000) Transfers In
Transfers IN FY 22 Actual FY 23 Revised Budget 6/14/22 FY 23 Corrected Budget FY 23 Revised Budget Mid Year Budget Change Transfer from Downtown Parking Fund 40,000 40,000 40,000 ‐ 40,000 Transfer from Supplemental Law enforcement Fund 100,000 100,000 100,000 ‐ 100,000 Transfer from Vehicle Impound Fund 20,000 20,000 20,000 ‐ 20,000 Transfer from CIP Fund ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Transfer from PEG Fund 70,000 70,000 70,000 ‐ 70,000 Totals 230,000 230,000 230,000 230,000 ‐ 139
Agenda Item # 7.

FUND
Unaudited Beginning
Balance 7/1/2022 Revenue Expenditures
Capital
Expenditures Transfer In/(Out)
Ending Balance
6/30/2023 @
6/14/2022 Meeing Revenue Expenditures Transfer In/(Out) Revised Estimated
Ending Balance
6/30/2023

RESERVE FUND
PERS & OPEB Reserve 292,614 - (1,058,700) - 1,058,700 292,614 - 1,000,000 (1,000,000) 292,614 Technology Reserve 1,278,768 - - (700,000) - 578,768 - - - 578,768 Total General Fund: 1,571,381 - (1,058,700) (700,000) 1,058,700 871,381 - 1,000,000 (1,000,000) 871,381

ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Sewer Fund 25,811,666 8,570,000 (6,638,182) (4,256,000) (201,000) 23,286,484 - (819,301) - 22,467,182 Solid Waste Fund 5,460,985 914,828 (1,174,599) - (57,700) 5,143,514 - (592,045) - 4,551,468 Storm Drain Fund - - - - - - - - - -
Total Enterprise Funds: 31,272,650 9,484,828 (7,812,781) (4,256,000) (258,700) 28,429,997 - (1,411,347) - 27,018,651

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS
Grant Reimbusement Fund 290,145 35,000 - - - 325,145 - - - 325,145 Capital Projects Fund 11,850,959 - - - - 11,850,959 - - - 11,850,959 Equipment Replacement Fund 683,947 - - (376,500) 300,000 607,447 - - - 607,447 Total Capital Improvement Funds: 12,825,052 35,000 - (376,500) 300,000 12,783,552 - - - 12,783,552

INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Dental/Vision Fund 5,253 277,695 (297,695) - 20,000 5,253 - - - 5,253 Unemployment Fund 96,698 - (15,000) - - 81,698 - - - 81,698 Workers Compensation Fund 1,256,027 - (809,582) - 857,000 1,303,445 - - - 1,303,445 Liability Fund (427,721) 809,582 (1,200,000) - 800,000 (18,139) - - 200,000 181,861 Total Internal Service Funds: 930,258 1,087,277 (2,322,277) - 1,677,000 1,372,258 - - 200,000 1,572,258

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
Road Maintenance (SB1) 347,841 615,000 - (500,000) - 462,841 - - - 462,841 CDBG Fund - - - - - - - - - -
Grants Fund-ARP Act - - - - - - - - - -
Downtown Parking Fund 931,916 40,000 - - (40,000) 931,916 - - - 931,916 Estate Donation Fund 18,191 - - - - 18,191 - - - 18,191 Gas Tax Fund 1,899,176 840,057 - (800,000) - 1,939,233 - - - 1,939,233 Prop 1B Road Maintenance 130 - - - - 130 - - - 130
Measure B 436,933 550,000 - (550,000) - 436,933 - - - 436,933 In Lieu Park Fund 8,671,789 927,200 - (1,715,000) (793,965) 7,090,024 - - - 7,090,024 Supplemental Law Enforcement Fund 207,292 100,000 - - (100,000) 207,292 - - - 207,292 TDA Fund 88,358 50,000 - (50,000) - 88,358 - - - 88,358 Traffic Impact Fee Fund (218,523) 812,055 - (450,000) - 143,532 - - - 143,532 Vehicle Registration Fund 1,192,389 195,000 - - - 1,387,389 - - - 1,387,389 PEG Fees 251,951 100,000 - - (70,000) 281,951 - - - 281,951 Public Art Fund 498,290 - - (130,000) - 368,290 - - - 368,290 Storm Drain Deposits 56,086 - - - - 56,086 - - - 56,086 Vehicle Impound Fund - 20,000 - - (20,000) - - - - -
Total Special Revenue Funds: 14,381,820 4,249,312 - (4,195,000) (1,023,965) 13,412,167 - - - 13,412,167

DEBT SERVICE FUND
General Obligation Bond 370,388 - (171,875) - 171,875 370,388 - - - 370,388 Community Center Lease 0 - (622,089) - 622,089 0 - - - 0 Total Debt Service Fund: 370,389 - (793,964) - 793,964 370,389 - - - 370,389

AGENCY FUND
Blue Oaks Line Sewer 84,676 48,000 (41,185) - - 91,491 - - - 91,491 Total Debt Service Fund: 84,676 48,000 (41,185) - - 91,491 - - - 91,491 ALL OTHER FUNDS TOTAL 61,436,226 14,904,417 (12,028,907) (9,527,500) 2,546,999 57,331,235 - (411,347) (800,000) 56,119,888 FY23 Adopted FY23 Mid-Year Changes
140
Agenda Item # 7.

Resolution No. 2021-XX Page 1
ATTACHMENT 3
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS ADOPTING THE FY2022/23 FINAL OPERATING BUDGET
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted FY2021/22-2022/23 Operating budget on June 22, 2021;and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the FY22/23 Mid Term Operating budget at a public hearing held on June 14th, 2022 and
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the additional $340,000 budget appropriation to the FY22/23 operating budget at October 25, 2022.

WHEREAS, The Finance Committee review the proposed FY22/23 operating budget adjustment on January 30, 2023.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Los Altos hereby: determines that

1. The City of Los Altos FY22-23 Final Operating Budget has been presented and reviewed by City Council with regard to the approval of adjustments to estimated revenues, appropriations, and transfers for all City Funds in accordance with adopted Financial and Investment Policies; and

2. City programs, services, and activities will be provided and maintained within the confines of this Financial Plan/Biennial Operating Budget in a manner consistent with adopted Financial Policies; and

3. Funds are deemed appropriate for those purposes and in amounts contained in said Financial Plan/ Operating Budget, and the City Manager is authorized to approve appropriations and transfers of these funds to the extent allowed by law and Financial Policies in implementing the work programs incorporated within the adopted budget; and
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos at a meeting thereof on the ___ day of ____, 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
141
Agenda Item # 7.

Resolution No. 2021-XX Page 2
ATTACHMENT 3
___________________________
Sally Meadows, MAYOR
Attest:
_____________________________
Angel Rodriquez, INTERIM CITY CLERK
142
Agenda Item # 7.

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY

Prepared By:

City Manager
GE
City Attorney
JH
Meeting Date: February 14, 2023
Subject: Housing Element Implementing Resolutions. Elimination of Third Party Independent Architectural Review and Elimination of Story Pole Requirement.

Prepared by: Nick Zornes, Development Services Director Approved by: Gabe Engeland, City Manager
Attachment(s): 1. Draft Resolution - Elimination of Third Party Independent Architectural Review

2. Draft Resolution - Elimination of Story Pole Requirement Initiated by: City Council.

Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impacts to the City of Los Altos are associated with the two draft resolutions.

Environmental Review
The proposed resolutions are exempt from environmental review pursuant to General Rule, Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines since there would be no possibility of a significant effect on the environment. The resolutions being considered implements Program 3.H & 3.L of the City’s adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element (2023-2031) which has already undergone environmental review.

Staff Recommendation

1. Adopt City Council Resolution No. CC-2023-XX Eliminating Third Party Independent Architectural Review.

2. Adopt City Council Resolution No. CC-2023-XX Eliminating Story Pole Requirement.

Summary and Key Considerations
The draft resolutions before the City Council are implementing adopted programs from the City’s 6 th Cycle Housing Element 2023-2031. Both actions are explicitly called out in the adopted 143
Agenda Item # 8.

Subject: Housing Element Implementing Resolutions. Elimination of Third Party Independent Architectural Review and Elimination of Story Pole Requirement.

February 14, 2023 Page 2
housing element and were designed to remove any barriers or impediments to the creation of new housing within Los Altos.

Background
On January 24, 2023, the Los Altos City Council adopted the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element 2023-2031. As required by law the adopted housing element has several housing programs contained within. The City of Los Altos identified specific programs in its housing element that will allow it to implement the stated policies and achieve the stated goals and objectives.

Programs must include specific action steps the City will take to implement its policies and achieve its goals and objectives. Programs must also include a specific timeframe for implementation, identify the agencies or officials responsible for implementation, describe the city’s specific role in implementation, and (whenever possible) identify specific, measurable outcomes.

Analysis
The City’s adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element 2023-2031, included Program 3.H. The housing program contains several deliverables one of which the elimination of third-party architectural reviews (this has been highlighted in yellow below). The draft resolution included in this agenda packet effectively completes this deliverable as explicitly called out within the housing program.

Program 3.H: Amend design review process and requirements.

The City’s Design Review Commission and Planning Commission had previously been one commission with a Design Review Committee comprised of two assigned Planning Commissioners. In recent years the purview of land use and design review was split into two separate commissions, currently the Planning Commission and Design Review Commission. The current structure of the Design Review Commission is a five-person body appointed by the City Council, while the Planning Commission is a seven-person body.

Recent changes in State law drastically reduced the Design Review Commission’s purview, and the City’s well-developed objective design standards for a variety of development types (adopted in 2021) effectively created an Administrative Design Review that has been well implemented by City staff. In order to remove constraints arising from design review, the City will:
144
Agenda Item # 8.

Subject: Housing Element Implementing Resolutions. Elimination of Third Party Independent Architectural Review and Elimination of Story Pole Requirement.

February 14, 2023 Page 3
 Consolidate the Design Review Commission and Planning Commission into one body comprised of a maximum of seven appointed residents which will review mixed-use, multi-family and commercial developments, consistent with the majority of jurisdictions throughout the County of Santa Clara;
 Eliminate 3rd party independent architect review (which applies to projects in the downtown);
 Amend its Zoning Code to allow any design review and discretionary approvals for a project of five or fewer units to be approved by the Development Services Director;  When hearings are required, limit the number of hearings for solely design review approval (i.e., not including subdivision maps or other applications that may be involved) to no more than three hearings;
 Develop standard conditions of approval to provide consistency and certainty to applicants and approving bodies;
 Modify its design review process and applicability thresholds so that City Council serves only as the decision-making authority for appeal of design review and land use decisions, consistent with the majority of jurisdictions throughout the County of Santa Clara;
 Clarify that decisions on appeals of housing developments must be based on objective standards consistent with State law and any appeal filed with the City shall be done within 14 calendar days post project approval; and
 Amend its Zoning Code to ensure that housing developments and emergency shelters are only subject to objective design standards consistent with State law.

Responsible Body: Development Services Department, Planning Commission, City Council
Funding Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Any code amendments required to be completed by December 2023; Design Review Commission to be dismissed and duties reassigned to Development Services Director upon local adoption of the 6th Cycle Los Altos Housing Element or sooner.

Evaluate progress and take additional action if improvements in the design review process have not resulted by January 2027.

Objective: The time for City review of and action on residential, mixed-use and multifamily developments will be shortened compared to typical processing times (see Appendix C, Table C-8) with the reduction of discretionary reviews and commissions. 145
Agenda Item # 8.

Subject: Housing Element Implementing Resolutions. Elimination of Third Party Independent Architectural Review and Elimination of Story Pole Requirement.

February 14, 2023 Page 4
The City’s adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element 2023-2031, included Program 3.L. The housing program contains one specific deliverable which is the elimination of the city’s story pole requirement (this has been highlighted in yellow below). The draft resolution included in this agenda packet effectively completes this deliverable as explicitly called out within the housing program.

Program 3.L: Eliminate the requirement of story poles.

The requirement of story poles adds subjectivity, extends the review process of all development, and adds to the additional cost of a project. Existing submittal requirements include, renderings and 3D Modeling which effectively provide the same information story poles would (the relationship of the proposed building heights). The requirement of story poles installations will be eliminated for all development applications.

Responsible Body: Development Services Department, City Council Funding Source: General Fund
Time Frame: March 2023
Discussion
The actions included within the attached resolutions are requirements pursuant to the City’s adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element. Once a jurisdiction takes final action by adopting its housing element this requires immediate action in order to remain compliant with State housing law. The City of Los Altos Housing Element contains 26 major action items or milestones that must be completed within the first 12-months post adoption. The two resolutions will effectively accomplish 2 of the 26 items or milestones to be achieved in the first 12-months.

Should the Los Altos City Council vote not to proceed with the implementing actions discussed in this report the City will be vulnerable to penalties and consequences of housing element noncompliance. HCD is authorized to review any action or failure to act by a local government that it determines is inconsistent with an adopted housing element or housing element law. This includes failure to implement program actions included in the housing element. HCD may revoke housing element compliance if the local governments actions do not comply with state law.

Examples of penalties and consequence of housing element noncompliance:
146
Agenda Item # 8.

Subject: Housing Element Implementing Resolutions. Elimination of Third Party Independent Architectural Review and Elimination of Story Pole Requirement.

February 14, 2023 Page 5
 General Plan Inadequacy: the housing element is a mandatory element of the General Plan.

When a jurisdictions housing element is found to be out of compliance, its General Plan could be found inadequate, and therefore invalid. Local governments with an invalid General Plan can no longer make permitting decisions.
 Legal Suites and Attorney Fees: local governments with noncompliant housing elements are vulnerable to litigation from housing rights’ organization, developers, and HCD. If a jurisdiction faces a court action stemming from its lack of compliance and either loses or settles the case, it often must pay substantial attorney fees to the plaintiff’s attorneys in addition to the fees paid by its own attorneys. Potential consequences of lawsuits include:
mandatory compliance within 120 days, suspension of local control on building matters, and court approval of housing developments.
 Loss of Permitting Authority: courts have authority to take local government residential and nonresidential permit authority to bring the jurisdiction’s General Plan and housing element into substantial compliance with State law. The court may suspend the locality’s authority to issue building permits or grant zoning changes, variances, or subdivision map approvals – giving local governments a strong incentive to bring its housing element into compliance.
 Financial Penalties: court-issued judgement directing the jurisdictions to bring its housing element into substantial compliance with state housing element law. If a jurisdictions housing element continues to be found out of compliance, courts can multiply financial penalties by a factor of six.
 Court Receivership: courts may appoint an agent with all powers necessary to remedy identified housing element deficiencies and bring the jurisdiction’s housing element into substantial compliance with housing element law.

Next Steps
Once adopted the two resolutions will be reported to HCD on the City’s 2023 Annual Progress Report for Housing Element Implementation.
147
Agenda Item # 8.

Resolution No. 2023-XX
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS

ELIMINATING THE REQUIREMENT FOR THIRD PARTY INDEPENDENT

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR PROJECTS IN THE DOWNTOWN

AND FINDING THAT THE ADOPTION OF THIS RESOLUTION IS EXEMPT FROM

REVIEW UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, in November 2014, the City Council formed the ad hoc Downtown Building Committee (the “Committee”), which was an 11-member citizen committee charged with recommending policies to ensure that development in the Downtown aligns to community expectations; and
WHEREAS, the Committee reported its recommendations to the City Council on May 24, 2016, including Recommendation No. 3.D, which called for “early-stage design review for new commercial and multifamily projects and major remodels in the downtown triangle,” to be conducted by a consulting professional paid for by the project applicant; and WHEREAS, at its May 24, 2016 meeting, the City Council provided staff direction to implement most of the Committee’s recommendations, including Recommendation No. 3.D; and WHEREAS, in response to a historic statewide housing crisis, in recent years the Legislature has significantly limited the power of local agencies to deny or condition housing development projects; and
WHEREAS, because of these recent changes in state law, local agencies are now encouraged, and in many if not most cases required, to apply only objective design review standards to housing development projects to minimize the time and effort it takes to obtain entitlements and to provide developers and real estate investors with clearer direction and greater certainty; and WHEREAS, on September 14, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2021-478, which imposed objective design standards on multifamily housing development projects in Los Altos, to address in an objective manner, and consistent with state law, many of the same goals and policies that the Committee sought to address through the recommendations in its report to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, because the City has implemented objective design standards, and because state law now substantially limits the City’s ability to impose or enforce subjective design standards, the need for third-party independent architectural review, as recommended by the Committee in its Recommendation No. 3.D, is essentially obviated; and
WHEREAS, third-party independent architectural review is costly and time consuming, and therefore is a constraint on housing development in the City of Los Altos; and 148
Agenda Item # 8.

G, Item No. I(c)); and (4) none of the circumstances in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Los Altos as follows:

1. The City Council hereby finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct; and

2. The City Council hereby directs staff that it shall no longer implement Recommendation No.

3.D of the Committee, which required third-party independent architectural review for Downtown Projects.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

PRESENT:
____________________________________
Sally Meadows, MAYOR
Attest:
___________________________________
Angel Rodriguez, INTERIM CITY CLERK
149
Agenda Item # 8.

Resolution No. 2023-XX
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS

AMENDING THE OPEN GOVERNMENT POLICY AND

FINDING THAT THE ADOPTION OF THIS RESOLUTION IS EXEMPT FROM

REVIEW UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2015-02 establishing an Open Government Policy; and
WHEREAS, the City Council subsequently adopted Resolution Nos. 2015-12, 2017-33, 2018-33, and 2019-30 amending the Open Government Policy; and
WHEREAS, Section 3 of the Open Government Policy, as adopted and amended by the above resolutions, requires applicants for certain development projects, including housing development projects, to post story poles at their properties prior to consideration of their applications by the City Council and other legislative bodies; and
WHEREAS, the requirement to post story poles is intended to give the public notice of the dimensions of a development project so that the public can meaningfully comment on the project; and
WHEREAS, in response to a historic statewide housing crisis, in recent years the Legislature has significantly limited the power of local agencies to deny or condition housing development project applications; and
WHEREAS, because of these recent changes in state law, the City has minimal discretion to deny or condition a housing development project application at the density proposed if the project is consistent with applicable objective standards; and
WHEREAS, the Density Bonus Law, Government Code Section 65915, et seq., further limits the City’s discretion to deny or condition housing development project applications by entitling applicants to density bonuses, concessions, waivers, and parking reductions if applicants agree to make units available for lower- and moderate-income households, including when required pursuant to the City’s inclusionary zoning rules; and
WHEREAS, by limiting the City’s authority to control the dimensions of proposed development projects, the Density Bonus Law and other state laws substantially limit the utility of the City’s story pole requirement; and
WHEREAS, erecting story poles is burdensome and expensive, and therefore may chill development within the City; and
WHEREAS, although story poles provide meaningful information about development projects, the public has access to meaningful information from other sources, including site plans, elevations, 3D modelling, and materials boards; and
150
Agenda Item # 8.

Resolution No. 2023-XX
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65583, local agencies are required to identify all governmental and nongovernmental constraints to housing production in their jurisdictions and to propose programs to eliminate those constraints; and WHEREAS, the City’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element (the “Housing Element”), adopted by the City Council in January 2023, identified the City’s story pole requirement as a governmental constraint to housing production, and Program No. 3.L in the Housing Element commits the City to eliminating this requirement for all development projects, including housing development projects; and
WHEREAS, as stated in Program No. 3.L:
“The requirement of story poles adds subjectivity, extends the review process of all development, and adds to the additional cost of a project. Existing submittal requirements include renderings and 3D Modeling, which effectively provide the same information story poles would (the relationship of the proposed building heights). The requirement of story poles installations will be eliminated for all development applications.”; and
WHEREAS, having committed itself to doing so, the City Council now desires to implement Program No. 3.L; and
WHEREAS, the City Council’s action in implementing Program No. 3.L is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) in that: (1) the environmental impacts of the Housing Element (including Program 3.L) have already undergone environmental review; (2) the story pole requirement is a procedural requirement rather than a substantive one, so that its elimination will not have any foreseeable direct impact on the environment; (3) any indirect impacts of eliminating the story pole requirement would be wholly speculative, and CEQA does not require a lead agency to analyze speculative impacts; and (4) none of the circumstances in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Los Altos as follows:

1. The City Council hereby finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct; and

2. The City Council hereby adopts the “Policy of the City of Los Altos Regarding Openness in City Government” attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference, as amended, to eliminate the story pole requirement, underline indicating additions and strikeout indicating deletions.
151
Agenda Item # 8.

Resolution No. 2023-XX
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos at a meeting thereof on the XXth day of ____, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

PRESENT:
____________________________________
Sally Meadows, MAYOR
Attest:
___________________________________
Angel Rodriguez, CITY CLERK
152
Agenda Item # 8.

Resolution No. 2023-XX
Exhibit A
Amended Open Government Policy
153
Agenda Item # 8.

Resolution No. 2023-XX
A Policy of the City of Los Altos Regarding Openness in City Government Section 1: The Brown Act
All meetings of city policy bodies (City Council, Commissions, and Committees) shall be open and public, and governed by the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code Sections 54950 et. seq.). The Brown Act serves as a floor, not a ceiling, for transparency and openness. Policies are provided here that go beyond the minimum requirements of law to instill public confidence and increase transparency.

The City will maintain an “Open Government” page on the City website. This policy will be available on that site as well as a brief summary of the Brown Act.

Section 2: Posting of Agendas
At least eight (8) calendar days before a regular City Council meeting, a final agenda and accompanying materials shall be posted on the City’s website. The agenda will be provided to the media. This final agenda shall contain a meaningful description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting and all related items, including staff reports, proposals and contracts that will be considered for action. Agendas shall specify for each item of business the proposed action or a statement the item is for discussion only. The agenda shall also be made available for public inspection and copying at both public libraries and City Hall during normal business hours.

Agendas for Special Meetings, including Study Sessions and Closed Sessions, shall be posted in accordance with the Brown Act.

Section 3: Public Noticing
Notices for single-family residential design reviews shall be provided in accordance with Los Altos Municipal Code SectionChapter 14.76. In addition, notices posted on the project site shall be no smaller than 11” x 17” and shall include a graphic representing the proposed project as well as allowed construction hours.

Notices for multiple-family, public and community facilities, office and administrative, commercial and mixed-use design reviews shall be provided in accordance with Los Altos Municipal Code SectionChapter 14.78 and shall be sent to all properties within 1,000 feet of the proposed development and sent to the media 14 days in advance of the meeting. Notices shall be mailed for Pre-application study session design review (14.78.040), if held, as well as the first public hearing of the Planning Commission and the first public hearing of the City Council (14.78.030). In addition, notices posted on the project site shall be no smaller than 4’ x 6’ and shall include a graphic representing the proposed project as well as allowed construction hours.

Multiple-story multiple-family, commercial and mixed-use projects, and public facilities shall erect story poles which reflect the outline of the proposed building on the site. Story poles complying with the City's specifications must be erected at least 20 days in advance of the first public hearing for the project. No project shall have a hearing until proper story 154
Agenda Item # 8.

Resolution No. 2023-XX
poles are installed. Story poles shall be removed within 30 days of the first public hearing of the City Council. If the project is withdrawn by the applicant for substantial revision, the poles shall be removed immediately and re-installed 20 days prior to the public hearing on the revised proposal.

Section 4: Recording of Meetings and Retention of Recordings All Regular and Special Meetings of the City Council and Planning Commission that are held in the Community Chambers shall be video recorded. All regular meetings of Commissions and Committees shall be audio recorded. All other public meetings of the City Council and other Commissions and Committees meetings shall be audio recorded as practical. Each such video and audio recording shall be a public record subject to inspection pursuant to the California Public Records Act. The video recording of meetings of the City Council and Planning Commission shall be made available within one week of the meeting by webcast on the City’s website and shall remain on the City’s website permanently. The audio and video record of all meetings under this section shall be kept permanently.

Section 5: Index of City Records
The City shall maintain a public records index that identifies the types of information and documents maintained by the City and its departments, agencies, task forces, commissions and elected officers. The index shall be for the use of City officials, staff and the general public, and shall be organized to permit a general understanding of the types of information maintained, by which officials and departments, for which purposes and for what periods of retention. The City Clerk shall be responsible for the preparation and maintenance of this records index. The index shall be continuously maintained on the City’s website and the two Los Altos libraries.

Section 6: Public Records Requests
Requests for public records, including a brief description of the request, identification of the requester, the date requested, whether the request was granted, partially granted or denied, and the date the request was fulfilled, shall be posted on the City’s website. This list shall be updated at least quarterly.

Section 7: Open Government Standing Committee
The Mayor shall appoint two City Council members to serve on an ad hoc Open Government Committee during the piloting of this Open Government policy. Upon adoption of a final policy or an ordinance, the Mayor shall appoint two City Council members to serve on a standing Open Government Committee. The term of each appointed member shall be two years. The Committee shall advise the City Council and provide information to the City Manager on potential ways in which to implement the Open Government Policy. The Committee shall develop appropriate goals to ensure practical and timely implementation of this Policy. The Committee shall propose to the City Council amendments to this Policy. The Committee shall report to the City Council at least once annually on any practical or policy problems encountered in the administration of this Policy. 155
Agenda Item # 8.

Resolution No. 2023-XX
Section 8: Open Government Policy Annual Review
This Open Government Policy will be reviewed by the City Council at the first meeting in May each year. The review may also be called earlier at the request of the Open Government Committee. The review will include discussion about the cost and impact on City staff of implementing this policy, consideration of additional open government and transparency sections to the policy, and a determination as to when it might be appropriate to adopt the policy as a City ordinance.
156
Agenda Item # 8.

PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE

To send correspondence to the City Council, on matters listed on the agenda please email [email protected]
157
Agenda Item # 8.

February 13, 2023
Dear Mayor Meadows and Councilmembers,
The Los Altos Affordable Alliance urges passage of the resolutions removing the story pole requirement and eliminating outside architectural review. We are pleased to see programs from the Housing Element being brought forward so promptly, and look forward to more Housing Element programs being implemented in the near future.

Respectfully,
LAAHA Steering Committee
Los Altos Affordable Housing Alliance
Committed to educating and inspiring the Los Altos community to build housing that is affordable for those who live and work in Los Altos
https://losaltosaffordablehousing.org/
158
Agenda Item # 8.

February 12, 2023
Mayor Meadows and Members of the City Council
City of Los Altos
Re: Council Meeting February 14, 2023, Item #8 – Housing Element Implementing Resolutions Dear Mayor Meadows and Members of the City Council:

The League of Women Voters supports the resolution rescinding the third-party independent architectural review and the resolution rescinding the story pole policy. As the Staff Report points out these resolutions are implementing programs adopted by the Council as part of the City’s 6 th Cycle Housing Element. The LWV previously
recommended rescinding these policies identified in the Housing Element as constraints to the development of housing. We are pleased to see Staff bringing these recommendations so promptly to the Council.

Thank you for your consideration.
(Please send comments related to this letter to Sue Russell at [email protected]) Karin Bricker, President LWV of Los Altos Mountain View cc: Gabriel Engeland Nick Zornes Jolie Houston Angel Rodriguez 159
Agenda Item # 8.

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY

Reviewed By:

City Manager City Attorney
GE
Finance Director
JH JD
Meeting Date: February 14, 2023
Subject: Los Altos Commission Appointment Process
Prepared by: Anthony Carnesecca, Economic Development Administrator Reviewed by: Jon Maginot, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Attachment(s):

None
Initiated by:

City Council
Previous Council Consideration:

None
Fiscal Impact:

None
Environmental Review:

Not applicable
Policy Question(s) for Council Consideration:
 Does the Council wish to provide direction on the commission appointment process?  How does the Council wish to appointment individuals to serve on commissions? Summary:
 City Council directed city staff to come back with an analysis of the commission appointment policy.
 City staff has incorporated feedback from the January 10, 2023 Study Session.

Staff Recommendation:

City staff recommends amending the “Membership on City Commissions” section from the Los Altos Commission Handbook.
160
Agenda Item # 9.

Subject: Los Altos Commission Appointment Process
February 14, 2023 Page 2
Purpose
Provide direction on the commission appointment process that governs the process for individuals to be appointed to serve on a City of Los Altos Commission so staff can return with an updated policy.

Background
The City of Los Altos has guidelines on the procedures for the appointment process. These procedures for commissions have changed at the direction of the City Council to improve the appointment process for Council, commissioners, applicants, and staff.

The current commission appointment process is the following:
 “The City Council accepts applications for Commission positions year-round. Two times per year, formal recruitments are conducted for those positions which are or will become vacant (including those for which an incumbent is eligible for reappointment). With the exception of the Youth Commission, interviews are scheduled before the entire City Council at a special meeting. Between the two formal recruitments, the City may conduct recruitments for vacant positions as they arise. Interviews for these positions may be held either immediately before or during a regular Council meeting. Appointments are made by written ballot during a regular City Council meeting.

Youth Commission applicants are interviewed by the City Council Youth Commission Interview Committee which then makes appointment recommendations to the full City Council at a regular Council meeting.”
Discussion/Analysis
City staff presented a number of proposed improvements to the above process for review by City Council at the January 10, 2023 Study Session. City staff has taken that feedback and incorporated it into the below amended section from the Los Altos Commission Handbook.

During the last discussion with City Council, there was some confusion regarding the frequency of current appointments for commissions. Under the current process, there is only one recruitment for each commission annually with half of the commissions in March and the other half of commissions in September. Previously the City had done one recruitment annually for all commissions, but shifted to two recruitments due to the large number of commissions and commissioners. This proposal aims to consolidate the two periods of recruitment into one without changing the quantity of annual recruitments for any commission.

The updated process allows flexibility for future unexpected vacancies as a commission chair or commission liaison is able to request a specific vacancy recruitment. 161
Agenda Item # 9.

Subject: Los Altos Commission Appointment Process
February 14, 2023 Page 3
City staff has added some elements to the outreach component of the recruitment process outlined below and plans to provide a FAQ on commissions for residents to easily understand what commissions do, how to apply for commissions, and how they can stay engaged in the commission process within Los Altos.

The amended process is very equitable as candidates will only be allowed the same list of questions and allotment of time.

The proposed commission appointment process is the following:
 “The City Council accepts applications for Commission positions only during the formal recruitment period. Once per year in September, formal recruitments are conducted for those positions which are or will become vacant (including those for which an incumbent is eligible for reappointment). The City may conduct a recruitment for specific vacancies between formal recruitments if there is a vacancy that causes a commission to fall below quorum or at the direction of City Council after a request from a commission chair or commission liaison.

With the exception of the Youth Commission, recruitment will follow the same process.

The City Clerk announces that formal recruitment for commissioners is currently open so interested individuals should submit their application to the City for review. The City Clerk works with other City staff, City Council, and community groups to conduct as much public outreach as possible. This public outreach will include, but is not limited to posting on the City website, City social media, local newspapers, and email notifications to previous commissioners or applicants.

City Council may only review applications for appointment once the application period ends and there have been one more application than the vacancy total on the commission.

Should the application period not yield enough applicants for a specific commission, the formal recruitment period will re-open and will remain open for another period of time until one more application than the vacancy total is received.

Interested applicants submit their complete application to City staff, where they will indicate their desired commission(s). City staff verifies that the individual lives within the City of Los Altos and may serve on the desired commission(s). 162
Agenda Item # 9.

Subject: Los Altos Commission Appointment Process
February 14, 2023 Page 4
All applicants receive a list of the same standard interview questions two weeks prior to the City Council review.

City Council holds one special meeting that will include interviews and voting on commissioners. All applicants are asked the same standard interview questions and allotted the same amount of time to ensure that all candidates are given equal treatment.

After all interviews are completed, the City Council submits a ballot with their appointees.

Incumbent applicants will have their attendance record included as part of their application packet for review by the City Council.”
Recommendation
City staff recommends amending the “Membership on City Commissions” section from the Los Altos Commission Handbook.
163
Agenda Item # 9.

City of Los Altos 2023 Tentative Council Agenda Calendar 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.

February 21, 2023 COUNCIL RETREAT – 5 PM START
February 28, 2023 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
March to be YOUTH ARTS MONTH - Proclamation Special Item Angel Housing Element Implementing Resolutions/Ordinances Public Hearing Nick Treasury Report Consent June
License Plate Readers Discussion Angela
Proposition 218/Sewer Rate Study Discussion Aida
Military Equipment Use Report Consent Katie/
Angela
Police Facility Subcommittee Gabe
Future Agenda Item Policy Update Discussion Anthony
Assembly Bill 1276 – Food ware Ordinance Public Hearing Aida March 14, 2023 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
Downtown Theater Study Update Discussion Outside
Group
Reach Codes; 1st reading Public Hearing Nick
Award the sewer system repair program project Consent Aida Adoption Housing Element Implementing Ordinance Public Hearing Nick Assembly Bill AB 1276 – Food ware Ordinance; Adoption Public Hearing Aida Acceptance of the CCTV Video Inspection; Project WW01011 Consent Aida March 28, 2023 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
164
Agenda Item # 10.

City of Los Altos Tentative Council Agenda Calendar
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 Codes; 2nd reading and adoption Public Hearing Nick Treasury Report Consent June
Design Contract for S 1st Street scape Consent Jim
Investment Policy Consent June
SCVURPPP MOA Consent Aida
Halsey House update Info Jon
Sewer Master Plans Info Aida
Restriction of Firearms on Public Property (JW/NF/AE 7/12) Discussion Angela Outdoor dining program Discussion Anthony
April 11, 2023 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
Storm Water master plan Info Aida
Housing Element Implementation ordinance; Program 4C-F Public Hearings Nick April 25, 2023 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
Treasury Report Consent June
May 9, 2023 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
3rd Quarter Report
May 23, 2023 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
Treasury Report Consent June
June 13, 2023 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
165
Agenda Item # 10.

Date Agenda Item
(Date identified by Council)
Agenda Section
(Consent,
Discussion Item -
note in red if
Public Hearing)
Dept.

Adopt Resolution No. 2022-XX approving the Report of Sewer Service Charges and directing the Filing of Charges for Collection by the Tax Collector
2 Printed Public
Hearing -
- not less than 10
days - published
once a week for
two consecutive
weeks 5/11/2022
& 5/18/2022
Adopt 2024 Budget Public Hearing June
June 27, 2023 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
Treasury Report Consent June
Adopt 2024 Budget Consent June
July 11, 2023 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
August 22, 2023 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
Treasury Report Consent June
September 12, 2023 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
September 26, 2023 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
166
Agenda Item # 10.

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….

Year End tentative report – September (if needed)
Treasury Report Consent June
October 10, 2023 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
October 24, 2023 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
Treasury Report Consent June
November 14, 2023 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
1st Quarter report FY 2021/2022
November 28, 2023 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
Treasury Report Consent June
December 5, 2023 Council Reorganization
December 12, 2023 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
CAFR and Year End – 1st meeting December
167
Agenda Item # 10.

Date Agenda Item
(Date identified by Council)
Agenda Section
(Consent,
Discussion Item -
note in red if
Public Hearing)
Dept.

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
League of California Cities – Role and Representation Presentation/Disc ussion
Council
Initiated
Subcommittee on Grants NF

03.25.20 22
Comprehensive multi-modal traffic study (analysis of recent projects projected parking, trip generation, & traffic impacts to actuals; ECR impacts should include adjacent streets) ES
PCI Report
Funding mechanisms for housing and housing programs – Nick Open Government Cmte
MWENDO – Council
Dark Skies Ordinance (LLE/AE/NF 7/12)
Update to personnel rules– HR Consent HR
Cities Association JPA – Council Discussion Angel
Compassion Training (LLE, AE) Discussion Council
Noise Ordinance Discussion Council
168
Agenda Item # 10.

Date Agenda Item
(Date identified by Council)
Agenda Section
(Consent,
Discussion Item -
note in red if
Public Hearing)
Dept.

Airplane Noise Subcommittee Discussion NF and
SM
Flag Policy Pilot, 2nd Nov Meeting 2023 Discussion Council Sewer Rate Study Discussion Aida
Ceding Time Discussion Anthony
Legislative Subcommittee Discussion
City Council Norms and Procedures Discussion
Leaf Blower Enforcement Discussion
SVCE Electrification Grant Consent Aida
HEU Implementation, Study Session Study Session
Council Accountability Policy (JW, SM, PD) Discussion
Bicycle parking ratio ordinance Discussion Nick
Acceptance of the Council Chamber AV project Consent Aida City wide parking analysis Study Session Nick
169
Agenda Item # 10.

Los Altos City CouncilFebruary 14, 2023

Los Altos City Council
February 14, 2023