Los Altos City Council
June 25, 2024

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
7:00 PM - Tuesday, June 25, 2024
via Videoconference and In Person
PARTICIPATION: Members of the public may participate by being present at the Los Altos Council Chamber at Los Altos City Hall located at 1 N. San Antonio Rd, Los Altos, CA during the meeting.

Public comment is accepted in person at the physical meeting location, or via email to [email protected].

RULES FOR CONDUCT: Pursuant to Los Altos Municipal Code, Section 2.05.010 "Interruptions and rules for conduct": Understanding that the purpose of the city council meetings is to conduct the people's business for the benefit of all the people, in the event that any meeting of the city council is willfully interrupted by a person or group of persons so as to render the orderly conduct of the meeting impossible, the mayor, mayor pro tem, or any other member of the city council acting as the chair may order the removal of the person or persons responsible for the disruption and bar them from further attendance at the council meeting, or otherwise proceed pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.0 or any applicable penal statute or city ordinance.

REMOTE MEETING OBSERVATION: Members of the public may view the meeting via the link below, but will not be permitted to provide public comment via Zoom or telephone. Public comment will be taken in-person, and members of the public may provide written public comment by following the instructions below.
https://losaltosca-gov.zoom.us/j/85228840582?pwd=PI7bma3yKhNAt2BF5zXr2N88jKb4Hn.1 Telephone: 1-669-444-9171 / Webinar ID: 852 2884 0582
Passcode: 869760
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. Emails sent directly to the City Council as a whole or individually, and not sent to [email protected] will not be included as a public comment in the Council packet.

Please note: Personal information, such as e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, home addresses, and other contact information are not required to be included with your comments. If this information is included in your written comments, they will become part of the public record. Redactions and/or edits will not be made to public comments, and the comments will be posted as they are submitted. Please do not include any information in your communication that you do not want to be made public.
1 6/25/2024 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Page 2 of 4
Correspondence submitted in hard copy/paper format must be received by 2:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting to ensure distribution prior to the meeting. Comments provided in hard copy/paper format after 2:00 p.m. will be distributed the following day and included with public comment in the Council packet.

The Mayor will open public comment and will announce the length of time provided for comments during each item.

AGENDA

CALL MEETING TO ORDER

ESTABLISH QUORUM

PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION

CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA

SPECIAL ITEMS
Issue Proclamation Recognizing June as Pride Month
Issue Proclamation Recognizing July as Parks Make Life Better Month

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. The Mayor will announce the time speakers will be granted before comments begin. 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.
06-25-24 Written Public Comments

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. Approve the Special and Regular Meeting Minutes of June 11, 2024

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with O’Grady Paving Inc. of the base bid and add alternative #1 for the 2024 Street Resurfacing Project in the amount of $1,362,666.40, and authorize the City Manager to execute a change order not to exceed 15% ($204,400) of the total contract amount on behalf of the City, and find the Council’s action exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15301(c), and that one of the circumstance in the CEQA Guideline
2 6/25/2024 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Page 3 of 4

3. Award the Total Bid for the On-Call Sanitary Sewer Spot Repairs and CCTV Inspection Services FY 2024-2025 to C2R Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $125,000.00 and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract in the amount not-to-exceed of $125,000.00 on behalf of the City, and find the action exempt from review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15301, and finding that none of the circumstances in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies

4. Adopt a resolution that identifies a list of projects that will be funded by Senate Bill 1 in the FY 24-25 budget and find the Council’s action exempt from review under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), and that one of the circumstances in the CEQA Guideline

5. Adopt a City Council Policy Regarding Foreign Affairs

PUBLIC HEARINGS

6. Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Adding Chapter 3.60 to Title 3 Revenue and Finance of the Los Altos Municipal Code Enacting Regulations for Development Impact and In-Lieu Fees and find that this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15378(b)(4) and 15273(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970; and
Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Adopting Development Impact and In-Lieu Fees Based on the Adopted Nexus Study and find that this Resolution is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15378(b)(4) and 15273(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970

7. Consideration of Modification Request of Approved Design Review Permit D22-0002 and Conditional Use Permit CUP22-0001 for the property located at 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA. The Modification Request is to eliminate automated parking stackers in the parking facilities and balconies that face the interior courtyard from the approved project. This project has already been approved and consideration of this item is limited to the requested modification for the below market rate unit mix. The proposed project modification request is exempt from environmental review pursuant to 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

DISCUSSION ITEMS

8. Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Repealing in its Entirety the Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance, Chapter 3.48 of the Los Altos Municipal Code and find that this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15378(b)(4) and 15273(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970; and
Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Amending Chapter 3.49 to Title 3 Revenue and Finance of the Los Altos Municipal Code for Affordable Housing Fees and find that this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15378(b)(4) 3 6/25/2024 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Page 4 of 4
and 15273(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970

9. Review and authorize the City Manager to Issue Request for Proposals for Design Services for Los Altos Main Library Improvements

10. Weed Abatement-City Participation in County Program

11. Discuss and provide direction to staff on how to move forward with the repairs and maintenance of the three City of Los Altos owned properties that public safety occupies

12. Discuss and Provide Direction Regarding a Potential Childcare Subsidy Program

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS ONLY
There will be no discussion or action on Informational Items

13. Tentative Council Calendar and Housing Element Update Implementation Calendar

14. Receive the FY24-25 Operating & FY24-29 Capital Improvement and Major Maintenance Program Budget Book
COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS, REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS & AB1234

REPORTS
Reports by staff and/or Council Members on items of general interest. Brief questions for clarification may be posed and answered, and Council Members may request that items be placed on a future agenda.

Except under certain circumstances, the Brown Act prohibits any other discussion or action by the City Council.

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.

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. 4 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Susan Bassi <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2024 5:34 PM
To: City Council; Public Comment; Jolie Houston; Melissa Thurman Subject: Furhter Production and add to Public Comment for Next Council Meeting Attachments: PDF Los Altos Public Comment and Further Production 6.13.2024.pdf Attached please find our 24 hour further production demand. Please let me know if you have further questions. We request this document be placed in public comment in response to the public statements made by Councilmembers Meadows, Dailey and Weinberg.

Our investigation is open source and these records and meetings are being monitored by the public you are paid and elected to serve.

Further, I remind all city council members, city clerk and city manager of their obligations under the Brown Act and caution you on further disparagement of our reporting, sources who came forward , and those who did not.

We intend to speak to this document at the next City council meeting, please add this email and the attachment to the public record for both the next scheduled council meeting as well as the next public meeting on the city's voting districts.

Respectfully,
Susan Bassi
Publisher, Investigative Journalist
Public Records & Local News Advocate
P.O. Box 2220
Los Gatos, CA 95031
LinkedIn: Susan Bassi | LinkedIn
5 Susan Bassi
P.O. Box 2220 Los Gatos, CA 95031 Email: [email protected] June 13, 2024
Via Email Only
City of Los Altos
Re: Further Production/ Government Code 6200
Noncompliance California’s Public Records Act
Dear Custodian of Records, City Council and Los Altos Contract City Attorney Jolie Houston:

Please post this communication as a public comment for the next city council meeting and any public meetings related to the mapping of the city’s voting districts.

This is a demand for further production of records omitted from the production of 6/12/2024. Additionally, an objection made by Ms. Houston is improper and we object to any withholding of records related to WOMENSV and the Los Altos Police or elected officials under the Disentitlement Doctrine. If the records are not considered public records, but I would be legally entitled to them (police reports) , I am requesting them here.

The following sets forth the records the city did not produce and evidence of previous noncompliance with former records requests related to the Los Altos Town Crier, WomenSV and individuals known as Ruth Patrick Darlene, Dennis Young and Liz Nyberg.

We stand behind our reporting. The public has a right to receive this information under protections provided by the First Amendment. The failure to produce records interfered with our unpublished work, which is a crime under Penal Code Section 1524(g). The city failed to produce records responsive which is also a crime under Government Code Section 1170 ( h).

Most recently the city blocked our right to access and inspect records related to WomenSV donations, a violation of California’s Public Records Act. The conduct of city employees and elected officials interfered with our reporting in the Davis Vanguard’s Tainted Trials, Tarnished Headlines, Stolen Justice series.

Since the publication of that series, city officials have flagrantly violated the Brown Act, and engaged in First Amendment retaliation, which we have fully documented and continue to ask for outside investigation. Here we are requesting further production and that the city comply with the letter and spirit of California’s Public Records Act for purposes of our newsgathering activities related to the appearance that a nonprofit the city funded appears to be acting not just as a divorce attorney and private judge referral service for kickbacks, but also as a Honey Pot recruitment vehicle for women in the Los Altos and Santa Clara County communities.

Delaying, Obstructing, Destroying, Altering, Concealing, or Destroying Public Records is a crime that the city needs to be addressing more urgently than it appears to be.

Request Independent Investigation Not Santa Clara County DA Referral We expect the city will make it a priority to comply with the further production as noted below and investigate the appearance of public corruption in connection with WomenSV records which is also spelled out below. 6 Page2
The Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office, and County Counsel are disqualified from any investigation based on the material fact that Mr. Rosen is a Los Altos resident and he and his top prosecutors James Gibbons Shapiro and Jay Boyarsky attended events for WomenSV fundraising and additionally used WomenSV to lobby clients and donors to support Mr.

Rosen’s political campaign in 2022 when he faced his first opposed election in the county in over a decade, and was supported by James Gibbons Shapiro and Jay Boyarsky. Mr. Boyarsky and Nicole Ford ( a WomenSV referred attorney and DV Council member both ran political campaigns for judge in Santa Clara County in 2024).

These top prosecutors attended the 2019 WomenSV Gilded fundraiser, sponsored by divorce lawyers including Jim Hoover and Sean Onderick, philanthropists Ed and Pamela Taft, public officials and a number of politicians. The event highlighted the presentation of a city payment for a $20,000 payment that was not publicly approved according to the records the city produced on June 12, 2024.

Therefore Mr. Rosen and his top staffers are either witnesses to alleged public corruption, or part of it. Nonetheless disqualified. Just as they were disqualified from the WomenSV investigation Joe Simitian referred to them as he was funding the political campaign of council member Sally Meadows and others.

Further, historically the city funded the Domestic Violence Intervention Coalition, (DVIC) in secret, as Steve Preminger and Ruth Patrick were board members. This now shuttered nonprofit connects city funding not only of WomenSV but to family court and federal funding and appears political in nature given Steve Preminger’s position as head of the local Democrat Club.

The city is not allowed to engage in political activities with taxpayer funds much less fund WomenSV when they reasonably know what was known in these records. Nor is the city allowed to obstruct, delay, conceal, secret, alter or destroy public records, as it appears to have consistently done as it relates to the nonprofit WomenSV, the Los Altos Crier and their agents, Ruth Patrick Darlene, Dennis Young as well as Paul and Liz Nyberg. And as it relates to our reporting on public corruption and politics in connection with the county’s BBMP which was co – chaired by Judge James Towery whom Ms. 7 Page3
Patrick Darlene addresses in her communications to the city and Los Altos police, along with communications related to Judge Cindy Hendrickson whom she claims to have had support.

Nor is the city allowed to ship money to nonprofit WomenSV out of the public eye, which appears to have been done at least in 2016, as omitted from the June 12, 2024 production.

Further Production:

The following records were identified in the production, but not produced:

1. Records related to the 2016 payment to WomenSV in the amount of $15,000. 8 Page4
City Agendas from May 2016 to July 2016 show the city council approved a payment to WomenSV for $15,000, but that payment was not reflected in the financial records produced by the city on June 12, 2024.

2. Attachment to initial Susan Bassi email of January 23, 2023 requesting records for the Vanguard’s Tainted Trial Tarnished Headlines, Stolen Justice Series and any records and any records prior 2022 or 2020 requests related to WomenSV, Ruth Patrick Darlene or the Los Altos Crier and its publishers Liz Nyberg , Paul Nyberg and Dennis Young.

Production should include all records related to all requests not previously produced. Including who in the city the request was sent to and anyone who had access to the request such that they could have alerted Ruth Patrick to the request such that she forwarded the email we sent to Pamela Taft the same day, February 2, 2023.

As produced, the chain of public records custody gives an appearance that Ruth Patrick Darlene had either already been complaining about our newsgathering activities, was filing false police reports about our newsgathering activities or has close associates in the city altering her to our public records requests in a manner protective of criminal activity and seemingly First Amendment retaliation. Otherwise known as a government “Lookout” acting improperly to protect WomenSV and its founder, Ruth Patrick. 9 Page5
WomenSV records for Tainted Trials series requested on January 27, 2023. On January 30, 2023, city staff acknowledges the request due by 2/6 and no response given. On February 2, 2023 Tabitha Jackson at 10:13am to Cameron Shearer and Kathryn Krauss. In later records these names appear and note they had conducted investigations of Ruth Patrick’s similar complaints, including with DDA James Gibbons Shapiro, no records related to such investigations ever were produced.

On February 2, 2023, Ruth Patrick Darlene sent an email forwarding Susan Bassi’s email to Pamela Taft, setting forth reporting and providing her an opportunity to comment. We want all records that would show how the January 27, 2023, request was handled and if Ruth Patrick Darlene was alerted by an elected official or city staff as to the request. 10 Page6

3. All records, not previously produced, and if produced , provide the date and method of delivery, related to Ruth Patrick Darlene and WomenSV agents in connection with invitations, calendars, payments, presentations for the WomenSV Gilded Fundraisers in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 attended by city officials and where the mayor presented a check from taxpayer funds. (Production should include records that evidence how those funds got to hand delivery, and who approved the payment and when such records were not in the June 12, 2024 production). 11 Page7
This statement about Los Altos City Council Funding appears on the WomenSV.org website, on a secreted page not visible to the public. No records have been produced to show how the funding was approved and delivered at the September 26, 2019, WomenSV Gilded Cage Fundraiser where city officials, Santa Clara DA Jeff Rosen, James Gibbons Shapiro and Jay Boyarsky attended and were photographed with elected officials, Ruth Patrick Darlene as well as Paul and Liz Nyberg.

4. The records from Ruth Patick Darlene’s February 3, 2023 email, not produced. The produced records show she attaches screenshots , which are not contained in the June 12, 2024 , or any other production. 12 Page8
Further, the record references a “smear campaign” , which was repeated by Councilmember Sally Meadows on May 28, 2024. Further production should include all records related to or referencing the “ Smear Campaign “ and other related statements about “coming to my office “ or “ going through my trash”.

5. All records related to meetings city officials had with WomenSV, their board members and individuals they claimed they were persons assisted by WomenSV, such that it could be discerned if those were the same as those referenced in records created through emails published by Ruth Patrick Darlene. These might be meeting notes which could be largely redacted, but as a matter of public interest, must be produced, not objected to by a contract city attorney as a risk management policy.

6. All records related WomenSV inviting guest speakers to support groups and specifically Jim Hoover, Jeff Rosen (and records that would show Jeff Rosen was a witness against Susan Bassi in a case his office prosecuted against her), BJ Fadem, Sean Onderick, Nicole Ford and Kasey Halcon, who are members of the Santa Clara County Domestic Violence Council and any related restraining orders as referenced). 13 Page9

7. All records from the February 3, 2023 7:35 pm email sent by Patrick Darlene to Angela Averiett, Aimee Major and Cameron Shearer that were not provided in the June 12, 2024 production including the screenshots attached to the email, records that show city Pamela Taft being WomenSV’s main benefactor and Guardian Angel and records related to Taft’s support of the Los Altos History Museum and Town Crier Holiday Fund.

8. All records of prior meetings Ruth Patrick Darlene had with police chiefs and police employees prior to 2022, as Ms. Patrick Darlene continues to represent on YouTube.
14 Page10

9. Further production revealed by 6.12.2024 production:

A. All formal and informal policies and trainings that would permit a Los Altos police employee to refer to any nonprofit, and WomenSV specifically, as “our local DV non- profit”. These records may be formal employee trainings, informal policies, memos or direction from the city manager or attorney.

Noncompliance:

In advance of our reporting on WomenSV, the Bench- Bar – Media – Police Committee (BBMP) , the Santa Clara County District Attorney and the Los Altos Crier, for the 2023 Tainted Trials, Tarnished Headlines, Stolen Justice Series, a records request was made on January 3, 2023. A prior request was made in 2022. Another request made January 27, 2023, according to our records.

The production of records on June 12, 2024 shows the city was not in compliance with prior requests.

The records produced on June 12, 2024 show:

1. The city had knowledge in January 2023 of our reporting on WomenSV in the Tainted Trials, Tarnished Headlines, Stolen Justice series and someone in the city alerted WomenSV to our request. Records sent in and around that time were not produced and were in fact concealed until a 2024 request was made, and another 2024 request for access was blocked.

2. The city had an informal policy and procedure of allowing employees in the Los Altos Police Department to represent WomenSV as the city’s “Local DV “organization. Records of that informal or formal policy , or employee training with respect to public records handling were not produced.

3. Elected officials including specifically Sally Meadows, Pete Dailey and Jonathan Weinberg were influenced to fund WomenSV in 2023 based on political contributions and were derelict in their duty to taxpayers when they did, ignoring complaints, our reporting, and showing they are failures as investigators of persons who have managed to dupe an entire community while allegedly operating Honey Pot Operation in plain sight as the Los Altos Town Crier Newspapers assists in bringing vulnerable residents into the WomenSV scheme.

4. The Los Altos police were influenced by their relationship with Ruth Patrick Darlene and repeatedly tolerated false police reports that should have required investigation of her. Further, the police worked on criminal investigations 15 Page11
with DDA James Gibbons Shapiro who was disqualified from participating in any investigation of WomenSV or Ruth Patrick, given his appearance at the 2019 WomenSV Gilded Cage Fundraiser.

5. In produced records, Cameron Shearer noted prior investigations of my newsgathering activities and that Shearer worked with James Gibbons Shapiro at the DA’s office on those prior investigations. In a time when the DA unlawfully obtained the contents of my Google accounts back to 2010.

Therefore, I am asking for further production on all records related to those investigations and if they are not produced, the legal reason why.

6. As the target of those unwarranted investigations, I am requesting production of all related police reports generated by the Los Altos police as a result of a complain lodged by Ruth Patrick Darlene or any board member , agent or so called client of WomenSV.

7. James Gibbons Shapiro (left), Ruth Patrick Darlene, Jay Boyarsky (right) – September 26, 2016 Los Altos Golf and Country Club Troubling Records and Clarification of Further Production Request:

1. On May 28, 2024, Councilmember Sally Meadows referred to our reporting, public comment and statements of members of the public opposing Women’s funding as a “Smear Campaign”. The records produced show the first time that term was used in connection with our reporting was by Ruth Patrick Darlene in an email dated February 2, 2023. Our first reporting on WomenSV was published on February 23, 2024. The city has not produced records that show how Ms. Meadows would have come to know of that term in reference to our work. Therefore, if such records exist , this serves as a demand for production.

2. In September 2022 through November 2022, Ruth Patrick Darlene had excessive communications with Alyssa Yeargin related to a meeting with the Los Altos Police Chief. In her communications to the chief, Ms. Yeargin referred to WomenSV as “our local DV non-profit WomenSV”. She also references a personal relationship with Patrick Darlene. This statement suggest undue influence Ms. Patrick and the nonprofit had on the Los Altos Police after the council had blindly funded the organization which at the time claimed that only 7% of their so- called 16 Page12
clients were members of the Los Altos Community. There appear to be other records created between WomenSV, Patrick Darlene and city officials that were not produced and that evidence this cozy relationship. We are therefore demanding further production of such records.

Less than six months later, the council funded WomenSV with another $30,000 in taxpayer money and WomenSV represented they had a partnership with the Los Altos Police as controversial chief Andy Galea sat on the WomenSV board. We are therefore requesting all complaints and records related to Andy Galea. 17 Page13
On the backdoor of the WomenSV.org website, are the photos of the 2019 Gilded Cage Fundraisers, with images of the persons Ms. Meadows appeared to imply are the persons being “smeared” by our reporting.

We stand behind the reporting, and note that in the public view, these photos are of Los Altans either duped by WomenSV’s alleged Honey Pot vicitms, or funding and benefiting from WomenSV’s activities that have been funded by Los Altos taxpayers since at least 2016.

Therefore as further production, we are requesting any and all records of complaints, meetings, emails or phone calls of any resident or business owner or employee who considered our reporting and request for comment part of a “smear campaign” as referenced by Councilmember Sally Meadows in a public meeting on 5/28/2024.

Attached are photos taken from the WomenSV website to assist further in this clarification:

Jeff Rosen and Liz Nyberg at the 2019 WomenSV Gilded Cage Fundraiser 18 Page14
“Jennifer” of Go Pro , Facebook and Meta With Roy Lave at 2019 WomenSV Gilded Cage Fundraiser 19 Page15
Emy Thurber and Price Duffy 2019 WomenSV Gilded Cage Fundraiser 20 Page16
Joe and Guy from CTI Protections Sponsored the WomenSV 2019 Fundraiser and allegedly took WomenSV Client’s electronic data and equipment and tried to recruit a client from Gilroy for Texas and Florida Honey Pot Operations.

Dennis Young Attends 2019 WomenSV Fundraiser (far right) 21 Page17
Jim Hoover (center ) and his wife Michelle Hoover attend, sponsor and donate at the 2019 WomenSV Fundraiser Our team continues to process the records produced on June 12, 2024, and will send further production demands on a rolling basis. Therefore, the request may not be closed by the city as the city stated on June 12, 2024. We also object to Jolie Houston’s rote recital objections that appear designed to withhold public records that are a matter of public interest.

If you have any questions or need further information, I can be reached by phone at 831-320-6421 or by email at [email protected]. Thank you for your assistance.

Respectfully Submitted,
Susan Bassi
Publisher/ Producer/ Investigative Reporter/ Documentary Filmmaker 22 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Susan Bassi <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, June 14, 2024 3:51 PM
To: Public Comment; City Council; Neysa Fligor; Sally Meadows; Pete Dailey; Jonathan Weinberg; Melissa Thurman; Gabriel Engeland; Jolie Houston Subject: Cupertino Memo on WomenSV - Request for comment Attachments: Cuptertino WomenSV cupertino funding.pdf
Good Afternoon, our reporting on Los Altos funding and support for WomenSV continues. We are aware that Patricia spoke at both the Los Altos and Cupertino city council meetings about her experience with WomenSV. She also asked for access to records for WomenSV from both cities. Cupertino complied with the CPRA access laws, Los Altos didn't.

Los Altos city council has repeatedly disparaged our reporting on WomenSV and me personally consistent with attacks first lodged by Ruth Patrick directly. Ms. Meadows and Ms. Fligor, your rude treatment of me last evening , compared to other city officials has been well documented. I am aware there are videos WomenSV victims are moving on social media in connection with Ms.

Meadows's 2024 political campaign. Therefore, if you would like to comment on that, or on the attached record we obtained from Cupertino, this is your opportunity to do so.

Additionally, Ms. Fligor, we have been alerted that despite the robust and very public debate about funding nonprofits on 5/28/2024, you waited until the next meeting to request funding of $30,000 for CASSY. A pet project of Los Gatos council member and former mayor Marico Sayoc, which we have been investigating similarly as we have WomenSV in connection with a restraining order matter brought against her husband, Jeff Scott, who was represented by WomenSV referred attorney and DVC council appointee Nicole Ford .

So if you would like to make a comment on the appearance that AFTER the city tried to put in place a nonprofit funding procedure, which took tremendous public resources, you believed a nonprofit you are indirectly connected to based on your board appointment, didn't need to undergo the same process and should get $30,000 from the city , despite additionally being funded by the Los Atlos - Mt. View school district in 2024, this is your opportunity to do so.

Attached is the Cupertino record produced in response to our reporting and public comment by Patricia on WomenSV. We did not find a similar memo or action taken by the Los Altos city council so if there is one, or such inquiry, and you would like that mentioned in our reporting, please let me know by noon on Saturday. Or once again will put you down for " no comment".

Respectfully,
Susan Bassi
Publisher, Investigative Journalist
Public Records & Local News Advocate
P.O. Box 2220
Los Gatos, CA 95031
LinkedIn: Susan Bassi | LinkedIn
23 24
25 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Susan Bassi <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 4:47 PM
To: Public Comment; City Council
Cc: Jolie Houston
Subject: [External Sender]Public Comment : Vicarious Libality- Violation of Public Records and Tax Laws Related to WomenSV
Attachments: NDA WomenSV redacted.pdf; WOmenSV 2016 Tax returns no CB donation no Los Altos Payment.pdf
Dear City Council and City Attorney Julie Houston,
This communication is intended for public comment in advance of the next council meeting.

It additionally offers a public warning of the an appearance of the vicarious liability taxpayers seemingly face in connection with the conduct of the present city attorney, city clerk, city manager, city council members Sally Meadows and Pete Dailey , and Mayor Jonathan Weinberg with respect to the city's public records and the funding of nonprofit WomenSV.

History of Effort to Obtain Public Records and Payment Information for WomenSV:

As early as October 2020 we began asking for public records related to WomenSV, Ruth Patrick Darlene and the Los Altos Town Crier. Our requests were met with repeated bogus requests for clarification, and phone calls from staff intended to deflect our efforts and other conduct that obstructed our right to obtain records we now know to exist. The conduct from the city continued in December 2020. Records now known to exist were never produced.

In January 2023, we again made requests, informing the city of the records needed for our reporting in the Tainted Trials, Tarnished Headlines, Stolen Justice Series published in the Davis 26 2
Vanguard. The city processed the request, but did not produce records responsive to our request that we now know to exist. ( The law makes that a crime)
On May 28, 2024 we submitted public comment in opposition of the city further funding WomenSV, as did others who have contributed to our reporting.

On May 28, 2024 I and others who have supported our reporting provided public comment in opposition of further funding of WomenSV. During the meeting , Sally Meadows, Jonathan Wienberg and Pete Dailey, acted in a manner consistent with victim shaming, gaslighting and First Amendment retaliation consistent with outrageous government conduct.

We noted that at the end of that meeting councilmember Lynette Lee Eng asked for a review of the city manager and attorney, which was opposed by the other council members in a manner similar to how I, my reporting partners, and other members of the public were treated by the council. Conduct consistent with discrimination and inciting hate and violence against Women.

NOTE: We are aware that in advance of the May 28, 2024 meeting, city attorney Jolie Houston was singling me out and improperly discussing our newsgathering 27 3
activities consistent with First Amendment retaliation, economic interference and blacklisting. We also believe she aided and abetted in violating the Brown Act, and the city manager and city clerk/ PIO are witnesses to that conduct.

On May 31, 2024 I formally submitted a request for records pursuant to California's Public Records Act ( CPRA ) for records related to WomenSV , Ruth Partick Darlene as well as records related to city business dealings with the Los Altos Police and local newspaper, the Los Altos Town Crier and its own, Dennis Young and Liz Nyberg. The request was for the time period of January 1, 2016 to production.
28 4
We were informed the records would be produced on June 13, 2024, which is not the 10 day production date according to the law.

On June 3, 2024 I informed the city that we intended to seek to access and inspect records related to payments the city made to WomenSV from 2016 to production as the records were needed for our accurate reporting due to irregularities in the information published on the city website about the payments and the relationship with WomenSV. We were informed by city attorney Julie Houston that the city would not comply with the law about access to public records , despite our objections.

On June 4, 2024 we showed up to access and inspect payment records and were repeatedly obstructed by the city manager and city clerk, which we reported on my YouTube channel as we also reported on Cupertino, a city that did comply with public records access laws.

Here are the videos:

Los Altos - (55) Dirty Los Altos City Attorney Cop Blocking Access to Public Records- 1A FAIL ! - YouTube
Cupertino- (55) Better Public Records Down the Road Thanks Cupertino ! - YouTube On June 12, 2024 after being reminded the city was violating public records laws, the city produced records that should have been produced in earlier requests , but still did not report payments the city made to WomenSV in 2016, according to the city website:
29 5
The Website shows the Los Altos Police Chief, Tuck Younis ( A BBMP Member) producing the check. Yet the city did not provide the financial records associated with that payment. The city did produce records from 2017, showing WomenSV getting money from taxpayers for counseling services, when the group never provided such services as Ruth Patrick Darlene is not a therapist and had no therapist on her staff, but referred therapy business to her board member Paul Marcielle, her personal therapist financially benefiting from his position on the board and the money the city gave WomenSV so he could get that business.

What the city did do in 2016 is fund the Domestic Violence Intervention Coalition ( DVIC) where Ruth Patrick, Steve Preminger, Steve Baron, Kathy Schlepphorst ( attorney for Hoge Fenton) and Constance Carpenter ( now with Hoover Krepelka ) had all been board members.

The DVIC is also the nonprofit we know WomenSV deceptively shipped private donations to from 2016 to 2019 by switching out EIN numbers after soliciting the funds and having them sent via US Mail to WomenSV's PO Box in Los Altos.

We also know that Ruth Patrick was noticed as a witness in a court filing on September 23, 2019 in connection with a lawsuit involving Santa Clara County Victim Services Director Kasey Halcon and 30 6
DVC appointee Nicole Ford ( both referenced in records recently produced by the city). The WomenSV Gilded Fundraiser was on September 26, 2019- the city directed mayor Lee Eng to present a check at that fundraiser. The city produced no record of the public approval for that payment, or of the payment itself which is promoted on the city website as of the time of this communication.

City Payment and Private Donations NOT on WOMENSV Tax
Returns in 2016
The tax returns for WomenSV, July 1, 2016 to June 2017, prepared by CPA and Los Altos Town Crier Publisher Dennis Young, show $0 revenue when we know the city reported paying $15,000 to WomenSV in August 2016 and WomenSV agent Judith Bragg had solicited at least $30,000 for the nonprofit ( confirmed in K1s as we reported) in private donations by December 2016.

Those two payments should have been reported on the WOMENSV tax return, but weren't.

Judith Bragg ( far right) attended the September 26, 2019 WomenSV Gilded Cage Fundraiser where mayor Lynette Lee Eng presented Ruth Patrick with a $20,000 check the city has failed to produce records of public approval. Bragg solicited at least $80,000 in private donations for WOmenSV in from 2016 to 2019 that were sent to DVIC and also recruited so-called Honey Pot clients and media attention for the organization during this same time. The event was also attended by the Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen and his top prosecutors, James Gibbons Shapiro and Jay Boyarsky.
31 7
WomenSV 2016 tax returns omit the city and private donation payment in the reporting. 32 8
This communication seeks immediate access to the financial records of payments the city made to WomenSV and the DVIC in 2016 , which were not produced despite repeated prior requests and where Ruth Patrick was a board member.

Attachments to this email include the relevant WomenSV tax returns and the NDA agreement WOMENSV pressures clients to sign in order to access services provided with taxpayer funding as discussed at the May 28, 2024 public meeting oral comment by Los Altos resident Margaret Petros.

Secret Los Altos Police Training by Domestic Violence
by WomenSV
The city still has not produced records of the so-called training WomenSV provided the Los Altos Police Department as the city's first murder in 25 years was being investigated and Ruth Patrick claimed she was training police officers who would file police reports in that matter as they did for the 2012 suicide of Audrie Pott. Ruth Patrick has also repeatedly claimed to have served on the county's Death Review Panel.

NOTE: Lisa Pott sits on the board of CASSY, a nonprofit Ms. Fligor recently noted she would like Los Altans to give $30,000 as
33 9
raised after the other nonprofit grant applications had been publicly debated at the May 28, 2024.

This suggests the city continues to have no plan for funding nonprofits and just gives money to nonprofits that are pet projects of elected officials.

The public has a right to see any training provided by a person who is not a licensed therapist or attorney to police officers who respond to domestic violence calls, write reports and stand as witnesses in civil and criminal domestic violence matters.

ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS
The Davis Vanguard needs access to inspect these records due to the public interest in our ongoing reporting. There is more than an appearance of public corruption that seemingly resulted in discrimination, blacklisting and concealment of public records that has been observed in the news gathering process, which stands to pose a vicarious liability to taxpayers. The success of our ability to access these records will be updated at public comment at the next meeting for which this communication is submitted.

SALLY MEADOWS APOLOGY DEMAND
Finally, Council member Sally Meadows openly disparaged our reporting and falsely stated it was defamatory during the May 28, 2024 city council meeting. She was repeatedly asked to apologize for publicly criticizing our reporting in a manner that seemingly violates the Brown Act, is defamatory for those on our reporting team and victim shames those who have spoken out to make our reporting possible. She has elected not to do so .

Therefore this email is sent both in response to our records requests, and as public comment so the public is altered as to the conduct of the individuals acting in their local government.

This written public comment will be followed by oral comment at the next city council meeting.

Respectfully,
Susan Bassi
Publisher, Investigative Journalist
Public Records & Local News Advocate
P.O. Box 2220
Los Gatos, CA 95031
LinkedIn: Susan Bassi | LinkedIn
34 35
36 37
38 39
40 41
42 43
44 45
46 47
48 49
50 51
1 Melissa Thurman
From: Bill Hough <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2024 10:01 AM
To: City Council; Public Comment
Subject: public comment regarding item #5 on 5/25/2024 agenda I support this consent item to adopt a policy that Council should not involve themselves in foreign policy.

The Los Altos City Council's job is to manage the affairs of the city. It is not to be confused with the US State Department.

The City Council has no business taking any action or holding any discussion on a matter of foreign affairs, or concerning any foreign policies enacted by other jurisdictions or the federal government of the United States.

Council must stay in its lane and stick to City matters.

Bill Hough
Los Altos
52 1
Melissa Thurman
From: The Veritable Bugeater <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2024 1:15 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Home Alarm System Fee
Hi,
I am a Los Altos resident who just recently discovered that there is a city fee for having a security alarm on my home. I believe this to be a very bad idea! It seems to me that it can discourage residents from having a security system. Sure, I do understand that there are false alarms. I strongly believe that is when there should be a fee, not a fee for having a security system alone. I have never had a false alarm at my home. I have had security alarm systems on my homes in Sunnyvale, Santa Clara and now in Los Altos. I have never had a false alarm. In fact, in Sunnyvale, a neighbor called 911 when my alarm was sounding and was told it must be a false alarm by the 911 operator. My neighbor looked outside at my house and said, Oh no, there's a big van driving away from my house! I lost a few thousand dollars worth of audio equipment and other things that time. That's why I moved to Santa Clara shortly thereafter.

Again, the idea of a fee for simply having a security system seems very counter productive! I strongly suggest it be ended. The only benefit I can see is the company monitoring the payments is making money off of the city and residents.

Terry V Bush N6IFX
The Veritable Bugeater
650-279-0773
53 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Ellen Dolich <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2024 6:28 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: 330 Distel Circle Proposed Parking Modification Dear Council Members,
My name is Ellen Dolich, and I am the HOA President at 5100 El Camino Real, a condominium complex. I’ve written individually to each of you about my concerns about this parking modification.

I understand that the developer at 330 Distel wants to eliminate 50 parking spaces out of total 90 originally planned for a 90-unit development, Not sure where 50+ cars plus the additional cars from two-car residents of this complex will park in our small community. In addition, there will be an increased need for street parking from those at the 5150 ECR project since parking was reduced in its final design. Additionally, there will be no parking on El Camino Real in the coming months. Overflow parking from 330 Distel and 5150 El Camino residents will be along residential side streets, in the PAMF (Palo Alto Medical Foundation) two parking lots and along Distel Dr and Distel Circle.

Over the years, my concerns have grown about congestion and the dangers for walkers and bikers along Distel Drive and Distel Circle and surrounding side streets especially during commute times and when school is in session. The increased need for more parking will increase traffic dangers in our small neighborhood posing more risks to children, adults and the elderly.

The meeting agenda #7 at the city council meeting this Tuesday cites the public the transit system (bus) on El Camino as an alternate transportation option. This is total fantasy especially if 330 Distel residents work in lower paid jobs as teachers, police, firefighters or as service workers in Los Altos downtown locations. Public transportation goes up and down El Camino, not the side streets or to downtown Los Altos and beyond. And what about kids being transported throughout the area to various activities? Bus service is not available to the inner areas of Los Altos and Mountain View.

I urge you and the other council members to study this parking modification request in more detail before making any final decisions. Please listen to the residents who live in this area. Take into consideration quality of life, increased traffic, lack of green space and more new units being built across El Camino Real on the Mountain View side (along with 5150 ECR and 330 Distel Circle). Please consider other options instead of eliminating more than half of the 90 parking spaces originally approved by the City Council. One option is not to approve this modification. The other is to seek out additional funding.

Thank you for your help with my concerns and follow 5100 owners.

Ellen Dolich
5100 El Camino Real
510-967-6576
54 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Anne Paulson <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2024 8:42 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public comment, Item 6, City Council Meeting of June 25, 2024 Attachments: LAAHA impact fee letter (1).pdf
Please see attached letter from the Los Altos Affordable Housing Alliance. 55 22 June, 2024
Dear Mayor Weinberg, Council Members and City Staff,
The Los Altos Affordable Housing Alliance thanks the City Council for pausing briefly on imposing new impact fees to make the fees fair to all. We know you share our concerns about incentivizing multi-family housing to meet our housing goals, and not putting more of a burden on our new multi-family neighbors than new single family home neighbors. Fees are also an important component that determines whether housing development happens, so being mindful of our fees directly impacts the growth in our city. We urge Council to adjust the fees as follows:

Reduce multi-family impact fees to encourage more housing The impact fees as proposed are applied unequally. The proposed impact fees would charge more to a modest two bedroom condo than a four bedroom house over three times its size 1 ,
excluding the Public Arts fee, which we believe should be eliminated for all development. The City should reduce impact fees by 25% on multi-family housing, to better reflect Los Altos’ priority of encourage more multi-family housing and particularly smaller, more affordable housing units.
2 Some of our neighboring cities are reducing their park fees. Mountain View, which is currently charging $48K-$81K in park in-lieu fees per multi-family unit, depending on density, has pledged in its housing element to reduce its parkland in-lieu fee payment by at least 20%. San Jose reduced park fees on large multi-family projects by 50%. We can reduce our fees too.

Waive park fees on below market units
The City should waive park fees on all below market rate (BMR) units 3 , and waive all impact
fees on all-affordable projects. Every BMR housing unit is a large net cost to a developer.

Charging impact fees makes it even more expensive to provide the affordable housing we need, and means some projects will simply not be feasible and will not be built. Los Altos already waived impact fees on our all-affordable project at 330 Distel Circle, and staff is recommending that impact fees be waived on future all-affordable projects. Mountain View and Sunnyvale have waived park fees on below market units, and Los Altos should follow their lead. 3 The benefit of waiving impact fees on below market units will be unequal. Projects of 2-4 units will see no benefit, because they have no BMR units. Projects of 5-12 units will see a 17-29% reduction in fees, because our policy of rounding up the number of inclusionary units required means they must have more than 15% BMR in their projects. Projects that use the state density bonus for extra density will see a smaller benefit, because they have fewer BMR units.
2 Cf. Housing Element Program 3.D, “encourage the development of higher densities and smaller, more affordable housing units.”
1Based on the maximum allowable per square foot impact fees proposed, a 1120 square foot 2 bedroom condo would pay $57,411.20 in impact fees; a 4100 square foot house would pay $56,949. That is, a typical multi-family unit pays more than a typical new house. 56 Eliminate the Public Arts fee
As Mayor Weinberg and Assistant City Manager Zornes pointed out, the Public Arts fee does not affect the day to day operation of our City. In addition, it is unclear why new residents and new businesses should bear the entire cost of our public art, while existing businesses and existing residents have paid nothing. We recommend eliminating the Public Arts Fee, and funding public art in a more equitable way.

Begin charging impact fees on single family homes, including scrape/rebuilds To share the cost burden more equally, we endorse staff’s plan of charging impact fees on new houses on vacant lots, and charging impact fees on the increase in size for new single family houses replacing demolished houses. As the City sees two to three dozen new replacement houses every year, this would be a significant revenue source. If we expect residents of new multi-family homes to pay impact fees, residents of new single family homes should also pay them.

We urge the City to implement our suggestions as a pilot program for two years and then revisit the fee schedule to evaluate whether the goal of incentivizing multi-family housing has been realized in concert with collecting sufficient fees for the City’s budget.

We appreciate the City’s commitment to building more housing for all of us.

Sincerely,
The Los Altos Affordable Housing Alliance
57 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Manisha Jain <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2024 12:08 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Parking at 330 Distel Circle
Dear City Council Members,
After the completion of both new housing developments at 330 Distel Circle and 5150 El Camino Real, overflow parking from new residents could force drivers to use our side streets as well as Distel Drive, Distel Circle and the PAMF parking lots. This could increase traffic congestion, noise and safety concerns for pedestrians and students.

Additionally, there will be no parking on El Camino Real in the coming months since the City of Los Altos approved adding bike lanes to El Camino compounding parking and congestion issues in our neighborhood.

Please study the 330 Distel Circle parking modification request in more detail before making any final decision. Please do listen to residents who live in this area and take into consideration quality of life, increased traffic, lack of green space/parks and the new housing developments that will be built in the coming months on the Mountain View side of El Camino Real opposite our building.

Manisha
5100 El Camino Real #201, Los Altos
58 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Roberta Phillips <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2024 6:18 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: City Council meeting June 25,2024 Item #6
Dear Council
I read the report for item #6 and it is proposed to eliminate or reduce the Public Arts Fee.

I have a strong objection to this proposal.

Public Art is an investment in the city.

There does not seem to be a plan to determine how much money is needed to repair and maintain the current art in Los Altos. There is no plan or analysis to determine how much money can be used to invest in new art.

Also the report asks Council to exempt the collection of Development Impact and In-Lieu Fees for Below Market Rate (BMR) Units. The developers are already getting a reduced rate as they do not need to pay for lobbies or parking spots any longer. They already benefit from the California Density Bonus laws.

The purpose of these fees are to have cost recovery. The cost recovery is necessary and should not fall below 80%.

Roberta Phillips
59 1
Melissa Thurman
From: K Z <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 8:18 AM
To: City Council
Cc: Gabriel Engeland; Public Comment; Nick Zornes; Melissa Thurman; Jon Maginot; [email protected]
Subject: Agenda item number 7 (Modification of Design for 330 Distel Circle) Attachments: 6-25-24 LACC 330 Distel Circle.pdf
Dear Mayor Weinberg and Members of the City Council:

Attached is a letter from the League of Women Voters regarding item number 7 (Modification of Design for 330 Distel Circle) on the agenda for the Council meeting on June 25, 2024.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Katie Zoglin
President
Los Altos-Mountain View Area
League of Women Voters
60 61
1 Melissa Thurman
From: K Z <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 9:35 AM
To: City Council
Cc: Gabriel Engeland; Melissa Thurman; Nick Zornes; Jon Maginot; Public Comment; [email protected]
Subject: Item number 6 (Development Impact and In-Lieu Fees) Attachments: 6-25-24 LACC Impact Fees.pdf
Dear Mayor Weinberg and Members of the City Council:

Attached is a letter from the League of Women Voters regarding item number 6 (Development Impact and In-Lieu Fees) on the agenda for the Council meeting on June 25, 2024.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Katie Zoglin
President
Los Altos-Mountain View Area
League of Women Voters
62 63
64 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Anne Paulson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 3:38 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Agenda Item Number 7 (330 Distel), City Council meeting 6/25/2024

24 June 2024
Dear Mayor Weinberg and Councilmembers,
The Los Altos Affordable Housing Alliance is delighted the County of Santa Clara has allocated another $10 million to the 330 Distel project. We know our City Council supports this project and wants to move it forward, as we do. We enthusiastically support the Council approving minor changes to in the entitlement to make this project financially feasible, and hope to see construction beginning as soon as possible.

Sincerely,
Los Altos Affordable Housing Alliance
65 1
Melissa Thurman
From: c mn2 <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 4:24 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Jonathan Weinberg
Subject: 330 Distel Circle - Modification request to reduce parking spaces Dear Council members,
I strongly urge the City Council to NOT approve the EAH Housing's Project Modification Request submitted for 330 Distel Circle.

Due to budget constraints due to failure to obtain a SuperNOFA grant, they propose to reduce on-site parking spaces from 90 to 40 and to remove 24 balconies from the building. Their rationale for the reduction of parking spaces is that BMR owners do not need cars given that they have access to public transportation.

Our experience with the BMR owners in our building is that each have at least 1 car, some 2 cars. None use the bus station directly across the street. This is the reality of the situation…BMR owners depend on their cars to get to work, appointments, and shopping…similar to non-BMR owners.

Given that each BMR owner will have at least 1 car, the elimination of 50 parking spaces will result in their parking in the neighborhood, causing severe overcrowding, resulting in potential conflicts with the current residents. Where, exactly, will 50 cars be parked? Distel Circle and Distel Drive are small streets. Parking on El Camino Real will not be an option due to the proposed bike lane. In addition, the construction of the units at 5150 El Camino Real will further reduce parking in the immediate area. It is unrealistic to expect BMR residents, who depend on their car(s) for their livelihood, to park far from their residence.

If EAH housing is having budget constraints, I suggest they go back to the drawing board to come up with a fiscally responsible proposal that does not impact the current residents. I understand that Los Altos needs more affordable housing, and many of us were in favor of EAH Housing's original proposal and their coming into the neighborhood. But any modification to the proposal should not negatively impact the current residents. Please do NOT approve this modification request.

Claude Nagamine
5100 El Camino Real, #301
66 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Cathy Walz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 5:06 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: raking modification for 330 Distel Circle
Los Altos City Council -
I live on Marich Way in Los Altos, near Distel Drive and El Camino. It has come to my attention that the developer for 330 Distel Circle has requested a reduction of 50 parking spaces, leaving only 40 parking spaces for 90 units. This is completely inadequate for this housing project. My neighborhood will be impacted with more traffic and street parking issues not only from this project but also the new construction on El Camino as well as the loss of parking on El Camino due to repaving, bike lanes, etc. Pedestrians, including students walking to Almond and LAHS, already have safety issues with traffic, and the lack of parking for a large housing project will add to this.

I urge you to study the 330 Distel Circle parking modification request in more detail before making any final decision on allowing reduced parking.

Thank you,
Cathy Walz
67 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Omar Dajani <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 6:43 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: [Oppose] Modification Request to reduce 90 parking stalls to 40 parking stalls for 330 Distel Circle
Mayor Jonathan D. Weinberg
Vice Mayor Pete Dailey
Councilmembers Neysa Fligor, Sally Meadows, Lynette Lee Eng I would like to register my strong opposition to the modification request to reduce the 90 parking stalls to 40 parking stalls for the 330 Distel Circle property.

Even with 90 parking stalls, there will be significant congestion across all of Distel Circle, overflowing onto Distel Drive. Reducing down to 40 parking stalls will result in cars parked on both sides of the road on Distel Circle and Distel Drive causing an already bad situation to get exponentially worse.

Attached is a photo taken from Marich Way as I was turning onto Distel Drive. This is what it looks like on a typical school morning: cars mixed with bikes (there's no bike lane on Distel Drive).

I am deeply concerned for the safety of the students weaving their bikes and scooters between cars on a road that's already quite dangerous. Creating a situation where Distel Drive becomes the overflow parking for 330 Distel Circle is a safety disaster in the making.

I urge you all to oppose this measure. Please think of our safety as first and foremost.

Sincerely,
Omar Dajani
5100 El Camino Real, Apt 102
Los Altos, CA 94022
68 2
69 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Deena D <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 8:40 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Fwd: PUBLIC COMMENT - AGENDA ITEM 7 - 06-25-2024 Please use this version of my comment below. I have removed my home address as I do not want it to be published on the website.

Best,
Deena
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Deena D <[email protected]>
Date: June 24, 2024 at 8:35:55 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - AGENDA ITEM 7 - 06-25-2024
I’m resending my comment with the updated subject line.

Best,
Deena
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Deena Dajani <[email protected]>
Date: June 24, 2024 at 8:24:43 PM PDT
To: [email protected]
Subject: Comment on 330 Distel Circle - Modification Request Dear City Council Members,
I strongly oppose the modification request to reduce the parking spaces at 330 Distel Circle from 90 to 40, decreasing parking by 55%.

My two reasons are:
70 2

1. This reduction in parking spaces will lead to more cars being parked on Distel Circle and Distel Drive, stressing the tenants of 330 Distel, who will have limited parking options both in their building and on the street.

It is unreasonable to expect people to live in a complex with minimal parking.

In California, reliable public transportation is lacking, so people need cars to commute to work. The idea that people in the complex won't own cars is unrealistic.

In addition, parking on El Camino Real will be prohibited in the near future, as a new bike lane will be installed this summer, further reducing parking options for the tenants.

2. Distel Drive will be filled with parked vehicles, worsening the critical situation.

The current situation on Distel Drive is a safety hazard. There is no designated bike lane, and the limited sidewalk space leads to congestion and safety risks for cyclists, pedestrians, and school children from Bullis Charter School and Los Altos High School. Due to these safety concerns, I don't allow my children to walk or bike to school.

There will soon be more traffic from the new housing developments that will be built in the coming months on the Mountain View side of El Camino Real opposite our building and 5150 El Camino Drive.

And because there are no sidewalks on Distel Drive between Distel Circle and Marich Way, adding more parked cars will further endanger our community since people will walk and bike on the street, adjacent to the parked cars on the side of the road. I fear the day a child gets hurt.

I urge the City Council members to oppose the 330 Distel Circle parking modification and consider the safety and well-being of our community before making any decisions.

Best,
Deena Dajani
71 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Omar Dajani <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 8:41 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - AGENDA ITEM 7 - 06-25-2024
Mayor Jonathan D. Weinberg
Vice Mayor Pete Dailey
Councilmembers Neysa Fligor, Sally Meadows, Lynette Lee Eng I would like to register my strong opposition to the modification request to reduce the 90 parking stalls to 40 parking stalls for the 330 Distel Circle property.

Even with 90 parking stalls, there will be significant congestion across all of Distel Circle, overflowing onto Distel Drive. Reducing down to 40 parking stalls will result in cars parked on both sides of the road on Distel Circle and Distel Drive causing an already bad situation to get exponentially worse.

Attached is a photo taken from Marich Way as I was turning onto Distel Drive. This is what it looks like on a typical school morning: cars mixed with bikes (there's no bike lane on Distel Drive).

I am deeply concerned for the safety of the students weaving their bikes and scooters between cars on a road that's already quite dangerous. Creating a situation where Distel Drive becomes the overflow parking for 330 Distel Circle is a safety disaster in the making.

I urge you all to oppose this measure. Please think of our safety as first and foremost.

Sincerely,
Omar Dajani
72 2
73 1
Melissa Thurman
From: barbara harriman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2024 8:59 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Re: Meeting 6/25/2024 7:00 PM - Consideration of Modification Request of Approval Design Review Permit D22-0002
Honorable Los Altos City Council,
While I’m in favor of the affordable housing project at 330 Distel Circle in Los Altos, I’m very much against approving the request by the developer to lower the originally approved number of required parking spaces for this project. Please deny a request of ANY reduction of parking spaces.

1.) You already approved the required number of parking spaces for this project.

2.) The justification of the bus system meeting all the transportation needs of our new neighbors is unrealistic. I encourage each of you to go to the bus stop nearest to this project and ride the bus to your office. Bring your children and drop them off at school before going to your office. Continue this exercise with picking your children up and returning to 330 Ditsel Circle. Add stopping at the grocery store on your way “home” (330 Distel Circle). Then take into consideration that all the residents of 330 Distel Circle who don’t work in Los Altos.

3.) This lowering of parking spaces is not a friendly way to welcome the new residents of this affordable housing place they will call home.

4.) Now take into consideration the residents of homes and other living units near 330 Disel Circle with all the additional parking in these neighborhoods nearby. You will probably be asked by these neighbors to do something to control the parking situation as a result of this decision.

5.) I believe you will be causing more problems for the city, than solving.

Please deny this request from the developer. Stick to the approved plan.

Respectfully,
Barbara
74 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Pierre Bedard <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 8:26 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Agenda Item #7 - 330 Distel Circle
I am on the Los Altos Library Commission but I am submitting this comment as a resident of Los Altos. The following is my personal opinion.

Please study the 330 Distel Circle modification request in more detail before making any final decision. Listen to residents who live in this area and take into consideration quality of life, increased traffic, and the lack of green space or a park. Everyone wants to save money, but is this necessary?
I believe it is to the detriment of Los Altos residents here today, and soon to be in the future.

Pierre Bedard, Los Altos resident
75 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Ellen Dolich <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 8:37 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Traffic along Marich & Distel Drive. Dated 9/21/21 Attachments: IMG_1121.MOV
Dear Council Members & Mayor Weinberg,
This is my second email in response to the 330 Distel modification request being discussed tonight.

Below is a video taken Sept. 22, 2021, almost 3 years ago showing the amount of congestion & traffic endangering our neighborhood & surrounding areas during commute hours, school openings & closings, and other times.

Can you imagine what will happen when 330 Distel Circle, 5150 ECR & the Mountain View developments on the opposite side of 5100 ECR are completed?
Reducing parking accommodations & outdoor balcony space is untenable, harming the mental & physical health of the residents you wish to serve with affordable housing as well your other constituents who have lived in this area for many years.

I urge you NOT to pass this modification. Look instead to solutions such as additional private & public funding options or other solutions that do not harm people.

Thank you,
Ellen Dolich
5100 El Camino Real #208
Los Altos
Video attachment below:
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
76 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Monica Waldman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 9:28 AM
To: Public Comment; Jonathan Weinberg; Pete Dailey; Sally Meadows; Neysa Fligor; Lynette Lee Eng
Subject: [External Sender]Public Comment Agenda Item 6
Dear Council Members,
I am a 24 year Los Altos resident and a past Commissioner and Chair of the Los Altos Public Arts Commission. In years prior to enacting a Public Art Fee, the Commission was sometimes allocated $10,000/year from the General Fund and in some years allocated $0. The current Public Art Fund is used to acquire, provide stipends for loans and maintain art as well as provide funding for cultural activities as Council's wishes.

During a recent City Council meeting Councilman Pete Dailey said he would like Los Altos to become an Arts destination, which I wholeheartedly agree with. Imagine my dismay when I saw Agenda Item 6 Option #2 from the Development Impact Fee and In-Lieu Fee Ordinance & Resolution suggesting reducing or eliminating the Public Art Fee, which goes against Councilman Dailey’s Art positive comment. Many cities in the Bay Area, including Alameda, Belmont, Berkeley, Capitola, Cupertino, Emeryville, Fairfield, Fremont, Los Gatos, Palo Alto, Napa, Oakland, Redwood CIty, Richmond, Sebastopol, San Bruno, San Francisco, San Jose, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, South San Francisco, Sunnyvale, Walnut Creek, Watsonville and Yountville as well as cities all over California have similar Art Fees without feeling the need to cut them for opaque reasons.

I ask that the Public Art Fee be left as is. With eventual higher density of housing within the City, the monies can be used to provide artistic and interactive elements in parks, and create cultural events for our future residents. I hope the Council is not so short sighted that they cannot see the future benefit that the Fund can provide. I understand the Hillview Dog Park budget has increased to over seven figures. A City that can afford that kind of expenditure for its dogs as well as the staff time required to “make it happen” can surely support the Arts.

Monica
77 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Clarence C <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 10:07 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Agenda # 7 June 25, 2024 council meeting
I'm writing to request that the motion to decide on a deviation from submitted plans for the reduction of parking at 330 Distel be evaluated alongside the planned green space/park at 745 Distel.

Originally the developers of 330 proposed 90 parking spaces for this complex, which was approved by the City of Los Altos. The developers now propose eliminating 50 parking spaces. This leaves 40 spaces for a residential housing complex of 90 units. At a standard 23' feet length per parking space, this equals 1,150 linear feet of street parking.

In a parallel situation with 5150 El Camino, a park was planned for 745 Distel as part of that development permit. There are rumors that a park is no longer part of the plan. A green space is desperately needed in this high density corridor -- the only area that Los Altos is able to build to high density housing.

City Council -- please evaluate the totality of the decisions including the services and green space required to support existing and incoming residents.

The burden of incorrect planning should not fall on existing residents in the neighborhood that have supported high density and affordable housing.

Regards, Clarence Chen
743 Casita Way, Los Altos
--
Regards, Clarence
M: 650-743-5149
--
Regards, Clarence
M: 650-743-5149
78 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Peter Robertson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 9:09 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: 330 Distel Circle
TWIMC:

I am a Los Altos resident living near the proposed development at 330 Distel Circle. I am opposed to allowing a reduction in the number of parking spaces. This reduction would shortchange the future residents of the housing project, as well as negatively impact the neighborhood.

Yours truly,
Peter Robertson
79 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Mike Proffit <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 11:04 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Council agenda item #7 6/25/24 comment
Hi. I've been a homeowner and resident of Los Altos since 2015.

I'm writing to express my concern about Agenda item #7 for tonight's City Council meeting (June 25, 2024). The council is considering modifications to an approved design for construction at 330 Distel Circle for a 90 unit apartment building. My understanding is that after budget cuts at the State level the subsidies expected for this project have been decreased, reducing the financial feasibility of the project for the builder. Cost cuts proposed include reducing the number of on-site parking spaces from 1 per unit to less than .5 per unit.

The council's agenda report on this proposed modification discusses cost savings to the developer and compliance with (recently relaxed) State regulations. But I'm not able to find a discussion of this proposed change on the surrounding community, especially the anticipated effect on street parking.

I ask that the council not rush this decision without adequate review of how parking and traffic will be affected. Have there been similar residences built in the area with these parking ratios and what was the effect? What is the expected number of cars per unit for this construction? Does Distel Circle have adequate space for these cars and/or will neighboring businesses allow residential parking in their lots? How might this parking issue affect the desirability of the property for prospective residents? Please continue to take seriously the quality of life concerns for existing and future Los Altos citizens as you grapple with the challenges of insufficient housing in our community.

Thanks for your consideration.

Michael Proffit
5100 El Camino Real #310 Los Altos
80 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Manuel Salazar <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 1:41 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Gabriel Engeland; Melissa Thurman; Nick Zornes; Jon Maginot; Public Comment; [email protected]
Subject: Agenda Item 6 - Development Impact and In-Lieu Fees Attachments: SVH #6 Development Impact Fee Reductions 6_25_24.pdf Dear Mayor Weinberg and Members of the Los Altos City Council, We are writing to express our support for the measures proposed under Agenda Item No. 6, focusing on Development Impact and In-Lieu Fees. The adoption of this resolution is crucial for supporting the development of affordable housing projects and Below Market Rate (BMR) inclusionary units within Los Altos.

A number of neighboring cities have already implemented similar measures with great success:
 Mountain View: 100% reduction in impact fees for 100% affordable projects and all BMR inclusionary units.  Palo Alto: 100% reduction in impact fees for 100% affordable projects and public art fee exemptions for inclusionary BMR units.
 Sunnyvale: 100% reduction in park fees for 100% affordable projects and all BMR inclusionary units, with further fee reductions under consideration.
 San Jose: 50% reduction in park fees for 100% affordable projects and all BMR inclusionary units, with further fee reductions under consideration.

These policies have been effective in reducing financial burdens on developers and encouraging the construction of both market-rate and affordable housing. We strongly recommend the Council consider a significant reduction of at least 50% in all fees for BMR inclusionary units, and a complete exemption for 100% affordable housing projects and BMR inclusionary units.

These measures will significantly promote affordable housing development, address the housing crisis, and enhance economic growth in Los Altos.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,
Regina Celestin Williams
Executive Director
Manuel Salazar
Housing Planning and Production Associate
SV@Home
Pronouns: He/Him
t.(669)245-6028
[email protected]
81 2
Silicon Valley Is Home. Join our Houser Movement. Become a member! 350 W Julian St. #5, San Jose, CA 95110
Website I Facebook I Twitter I LinkedIn
82 350 W. Julian Street, Building 5, San José, CA 95110 www.svathome.org • [email protected]
Via Email
June 25, 2024
Los Altos City Hall
1 North San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
RE: Item 6 Development Impact and In-Lieu Fee Reductions Dear Mayor Weinberg and Members of the Los Altos City Council, We are writing to express our support for the measures proposed under Agenda Item No. 6, focusing on Development Impact and In-Lieu Fees. The adoption of this resolution is crucial for supporting the development of affordable housing projects and Below Market Rate (BMR) inclusionary units within Los Altos.

A number of neighboring cities have already implemented similar measures with great success:
• Mountain View: 100% reduction in impact fees for 100% affordable projects and all BMR inclusionary units.
• Palo Alto: 100% reduction in impact fees for 100% affordable projects and public art fee exemptions for inclusionary BMR units.
• Sunnyvale: 100% reduction in park fees for 100% affordable projects and all BMR inclusionary units, with further fee reductions under consideration. • San Jose: 50% reduction in park fees for 100% affordable projects and all BMR inclusionary units, with further fee reductions under consideration.

These policies have been effective in reducing financial burdens on developers and encouraging the construction of both market-rate and affordable housing. We strongly recommend the Council consider a significant reduction of at least 50% in all fees for BMR inclusionary units, and a complete exemption for 100% affordable housing projects and BMR inclusionary units.

These measures will significantly promote affordable housing development, address the housing crisis, and enhance economic growth in Los Altos.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Sincerely,
Regina Celestin Williams
Executive Director
Board of Directors
Shiloh Ballard, Chair
Aubrey Merriman, Vice Chair
LifeMoves
Andrea Osgood, Treasurer
Eden Housing
Nevada Merriman, Secretary
MidPen Housing Corporation
Bob Brownstein
Working Partnerships USA
Candice Gonzalez
Sand Hill Property Company
Amie Fishman
Non-Profit Housing
Association of Northern CA
Randy Tsuda
Alta Housing
Steven Yang
Northern CA LIIF
Javier Gonzalez
Google
Julie Mahowald
Housing Trust Silicon Valley
Maria Noel Fernandez
Working Partnerships USA
Pilar Lorenzana
Silicon Valley Community
Foundation
Poncho Guevara
Sacred Heart Community
Service
Chris Neale
The Core Companies
Victor Vasquez
SOMOS Mayfair
Staff
Regina Celestin Williams
Executive Director
83 County of Santa Clara
Office of Supportive Housing
150 W. Tasman Street, San Jose, CA 95134
(408) 278-6400 Main
(669) 220-1444 Fax
Board of Supervisors: Sylvia Arenas, Cindy Chavez, Otto Lee, Susan Ellenberg, S. Joseph Simitian County Executive: James R. Williams
June 25, 2024
Nick Zornes
Assistant City Manager
City of Los Altos
1 North San Antonio Road,
Los Altos, CA 94022
Re: Development Modification Request – 330 Distel Circle Dear Mr. Zornes:

Please accept this letter regarding EAH Housing’s Modification Request of Approved Design Review Permit (D22-0002) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP22-001) for the proposed affordable housing development at 330 Distel Circle (Modification Request).

The County of Santa Clara Office of Supportive Housing’s (OSH)’s mission is to increase the supply of housing and supportive housing that is affordable and available to extremely low income and/or special needs households. In furtherance of this mission, OSH partners with cities, other local agencies, residents, and the affordable and supportive housing community to significantly address the housing needs of the community’s poorest and most vulnerable residents.

The County is working with the City of Los Altos (City) to support the development of affordable housing at 330 Distel Circle, as described in our joint Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), dated January 28, 2021.

Through this MOU, the Los Altos City Council and the County Board of Supervisors approved a framework for a City and County collaboration to develop an affordable housing project with a minimum of 90 units.

Since the project’s approval, EAH Housing has been actively applying for various funding sources, however, the project still has a significant funding gap. On May 21, 2024, the County’s Board of Supervisors approved an additional $10 million towards the project, bringing the County’s total contribution to ±$16 million (including land). EAH Housing is proposing the Modification Request to further reduce the project’s financing gap.

The County recognizes the impact this project will have, and we are committed to supporting the City of Los Altos to further our shared goals of creating much needed affordable housing.

Sincerely,
Natalie Monk
Housing and Community Development Division Manager
84 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Debra Peterson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 11:41 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: City Council Meeting (6/25/24) Agenda Item #7
City Council Members,
Please examine further the request to modify parking at 330 Distel Circle before making another decision. It is my understanding that the developers originally proposed 90 parking spaces for this complex, which was approved by the City of Los Altos. As a result of funding cuts and to make up the difference in construction and operational costs, the developers now propose eliminating 50 parking spaces. This leaves 40 spaces for a residential housing complex of 90 units. This seems excessive to me.

The residents and businesses in the area should not have to accept excessive overflow parking from future residents of this complex. Also, the immediate area has heavy traffic due to students walking/biking/driving to the local high school. The safety of all should be considered. Many residents support the high density and affordable housing law, but adequate parking for each unit (in this case 1 per) is necessary.

Debra Peterson
Casita & Marich Way
85 1
Melissa Thurman
From: carol little <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 12:09 PM
To: Public Comment; City Council
Subject: Item 7
June 25, 2024
Item 7
Dear City Council,
I am writing this email as a resident, not as a PARC commissioner.

I have followed the 330 Distal Lane project.

I am opposed to the requested changes. If the project needs more money, the City needs to step up and provide it.

Removing parking places is a mistake. People who may have been formerly unhoused and living in their vehicles need their vehicles nearby.

Also, people need their cars for work and other basic needs. I know the goal is to have folks use more public transportation. I also recognize that the El Camino corridor is one of the main areas in the South Bay where public transportation is more effective. However, if a parent or caregiver is managing grocery shopping and children, they need to have the convenience many of the rest of us have, of being near their homes when they park.

This is common courtesy when planning a project for people to enjoy a high quality of life.

It is wrong that more often than not, poor folks get the short end of amenities such as parks, balconies, parking, and so on.

Please, do not approve these changes. Instead, find a better solution that helps to improve the quality of life for those who will live in the building.

Let’s be the leaders when trying to be of service to others.

Thank you for considering this request.

Teresa Morris
86 1
Melissa Thurman
From: carol little <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 11:53 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Item 6
June 25, 2024,
Dear City Council,
Re: Item 6
I am writing this email as a resident, not as a commissioner.

A quick email, as I cannot be there in person, to ask that you keep the dollars flowing into our City.

We do not need to incentivize developers, at the cost of residents getting much needed art and parks.

The paltry amount of money the developer would save is insignificant to them, but means much to our City.

As Council Member Daily noted, he’d like Los Altos to be an arts destination. That cannot happen if we lack the funds to make it happen.

Also, we need more parks. Many more. As denser developments go in, we will need someplace to children, adults, and even dogs, to go out for a breath of fresh air.

Los Altos is known for beautiful parks and beautiful art. We need to not only maintain that image, but grow it.

Just say no to incentivizing while likely diminishing quality of life in Los Altos.

Thank you.

Teresa Morris
87 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Pietra Buelow <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 4:04 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Pete Dailey; Jonathan Weinberg; Neysa Fligor; Sally Meadows; Lynette Lee Eng Subject: Jardin drive
Dear council members,
I am writing to express my concerns over the Jardin redesign project and neighboring street parking issue. These are two issues that have not been adequately addressed.

1. Jardin drive - while there have been many meetings and outreach, the general consensus is that the redesign proposed by the complete street commission is not the best solution, however due to time constraints this proposed design was pushed through. This design is unsafe, based on incomplete road studies and observations, and not in line with the neighborhood aesthetic or the safe streets mandates. Please don’t spend MORE money on another poor design and reconsider approving the proposed repaving. It would be more appropriate to return Jardin Drive to its previous state (2020) while in-depth safety and usage studies can be made, including a parking solution. Also note, there have been red cones along Jardin for nearly a full year, BFIGHT RED CONES. Very unsightly and they don’t seem to serve any purpose. Please have these removed.

2. Parking — the side streets that feed into Jardin drive are heavily impacted by student parking during the school year (Panchita, Los Ninos, Distel, Casita). This is partly due to construction on the LAHS campus that reduced the on campus parking, but also a result of no parking zones on several other neighboring streets. The parking issue MUST be corrected and be equitable for all neighboring streets. Either add “no parking” for all side streets, or remove it from existing areas.

Please don’t assume the problem has been properly addressed, as far as I’m aware the issues exist today and the proposed changes will not do anything to correct the traffic and safety issues along Jardin and the neighboring streets.

Do not approve the paving project for Jardin and address the parking issue ASAP.

Thank you,
Pietra Buelow
Los Ninos Way
88 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Pedro Sobrino <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 4:11 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: 330 Distel Parking Modification
Dear City Council Members, I’m a Los Altos resident of living on 323 Marich Way very close to the 330 Distel proposed low income housing development. I am very concerned about the developers proposal for 330 Distel requesting they eliminate 50 parking spaces from the 90 spaces already approved. I do not like the idea of using our streets for parking for this large complex. They should proceed with the approved plans or scale back to only 40 units so the parking available will match the number of units being built. Even the 90 parking spaces in the original plan will not suffice, as these units will have multiple residents in each living quarters.

There is no space for visitors staying in the complex. Parking should be added not taken away. In addition, garbage pick up will be hindered by having the streets filled with cars. Safe school routes will be impacted with cars parked on the street hindering visibility for children walking or biking to school. Street sweeping will also be affected by having cars parked on the street and we will have more noise on our streets. Please consider these facts as you contemplate the developer’s proposal.

Thank you,
Pedro Sobrino
89 CITY OF LOS ALTOS

CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 2024
6:00 p.m.
1 N. San Antonio Rd. ~ Los Altos, CA
Jonathan D. Weinberg, Mayor
Pete Dailey, Vice Mayor
Neysa Fligor, Councilmember
Lynette Lee Eng, Councilmember
Sally Meadows, Councilmember

SPECIAL MEETING
CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Mayor Weinberg called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.

ESTABLISH QUORUM:

All Councilmembers were present and in person during the meeting.

DISCUSSION ITEM(S)

1. Hold a Public Hearing and receive public input and a presentation from the City’s consulting Demographer, Redistricting Partners, regarding the process and criteria for establishing boundaries for district elections of the City Council.

Kimon Manolius, Outside Counsel and Paul Mitchell, City Demographer, presented the report.

The following members of the public spoke regarding the item:
 Steve Chessin
 Sarah Macaluso
 Allison Aldrich
 Lou Cartalano
Informational item only. No motion taken.

ADJOURNMENT – The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m.

The meeting minutes were prepared by Melissa Thurman, City Clerk, for approval at the regular meeting of June 25, 2024.
_____________________________________ __________________________________ Jonathan D. Weinberg Melissa Thurman, MMC
Mayor City Clerk
The June 11, 2024 City Council Special Meeting recording may be viewed via the following external website: https://www.youtube.com/@CityofLosAltosCA The City of Los Altos does not own or operate YouTube. The video referenced on these minutes were live at the time the minutes were published.
90 Agenda Item # 1.

CITY OF LOS ALTOS

CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 2024
7:00 p.m.
1 N. San Antonio Rd. ~ Los Altos, CA
Jonathan D. Weinberg, Mayor
Pete Dailey, Vice Mayor
Neysa Fligor, Councilmember
Lynette Lee Eng, Councilmember
Sally Meadows, Councilmember
CALL MEETING TO ORDER – Jonathan D. Weinberg, Mayor, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

ESTABLISH QUORUM – All Councilmembers were present.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Sally Meadows, Councilmember, led the Pledge of Allegiance.

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
The following members of the public spoke regarding Item No. 1 on the Closed Session agenda:
 Steve Chessin
 Sarah Macaluso
There was no reportable action taken for the Closed Session meeting of June 11, 2024 at 4:45 p.m.

CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
There were no changes to the order of the agenda.

SPECIAL ITEM
Introduction of Police Chief Saskia Lagergren
Saskia Lagergren, Police Chief, introduced herself to the City Council and public.

Issue Proclamation Recognizing June 19, 2024 as Juneteenth Jonathan D. Weinberg, Mayor, issued a proclamation recognizing Juneteenth to Keenan Moos, Founder of Justice Vanguard.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
The following members of the public spoke during Public Comment:
 Terri Couture

CONSENT CALENDAR
Lynette Lee Eng, Councilmember, requested to pull Item 5 from the Consent Calendar for further discussion.

Jonathan D. Weinberg, Mayor, moved Item 5 of the Consent Calendar to after Item 17 of the agenda.
91 Agenda Item # 1.

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 11, 2024

Motion by Fligor and Second by Meadows to approve the Consent Calendar, excluding Item 5.

Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

1. Approve the Special and Regular Meeting Minutes of May 28, 2024

2. Award the Base Bid and Add Alternate Bid No. 1 for the Sanitary Sewer Video Inspection, Project WW-01011 to APS Environmental, Inc. in the amount of $303,396.76 and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract in the amount of $303,396.76 and up to 15% contingency funds not-to-exceed $45,509.51 on behalf of the City and find the Council’s action exempt from review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15301, and that none of the circumstances in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies

3. Award the Total Bid for the Structural Reach Replacement, Project WW-01002 to C2R Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $658,760.00 and authorize the City Manager to execute a contract in the amount of $658,760.00 and up to 15% contingency in the amount not-to-exceed $98,814 on behalf of the City, and find the action exempt from review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15301, and that none of the circumstances in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies

4. Authorize City Manager to execute Amendment No. 2 to Professional Services Agreement for Sewer Rate Structure Analysis with NBS Government Finance Group, dba NBS; find that the approval of Amendment No. 2 is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption), 15273 (Rates, Tolls, Fares, and Charges), and 15306 (Information Collection)

6. Enter into a maintenance agreement with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to maintain Class IIB bicycle lane along El Camino Real within the City limits, and find that the Council’s action exempt from review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 and that none of the circumstances under Section 15300.2 apply

7. Approve a five-year agreement for Animal Control and Sheltering Services with the City of Palo Alto

8. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Memorandum of Understanding between the Santa Clara County Recycling and Waste Reduction Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) member jurisdictions establishing ongoing management and operation of the edible food recovery program to comply with the requirements of SB 1383 (California’s Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy) and finding it exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15273(a)

9. Approve Resolution Authorizing Application to and Participation in the HCD Prohousing Designation Program
92 Agenda Item # 1.

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 11, 2024

10. Appoint the Senior Commission recommended representative to be on the Sourcewise advisory council

11. Approve the formation of a Subcommittee of the City Council for the City Manager’s Performance Review

12. Approve the 2024 Youth Commission Interview Subcommittee’s appointment recommendations to the Los Altos Youth Commission for FY2024/25

13. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the application to the Director of Industrial Relations for a Certificate of Consent to self-insure Workers’ Compensation liabilities

PUBLIC HEARINGS

14. Conduct a Public Hearing regarding the Report of Sewer Charges to be collected on the Fiscal Year 2024/25 Tax Roll; waive all objections and protests; adopt a Resolution approving the Report of Sewer Service Charge for the Fiscal Year 2024/25 and directing the Filing of Charges for Collection by the County Tax Collector; and find that the adoption of the resolution is exempt from review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15273
Aida Fairman, Public Works Director, presented the report.

Jonathan D. Weinberg, Mayor, opened the Public Hearing.

The following member of the public spoke during the Public Hearing:
 Eric Steinle
Jonathan D. Weinberg, Mayor, closed the Public Hearing.

Motion by Meadows and Second by Dailey to adopt a Resolution approving the Report of Sewer Service Charge for the Fiscal Year 2024/25 and directing the Filing of Charges for Collection by the County Tax Collector; and find that the adoption of the resolution is exempt from review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15273. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

15. Hold a Public Hearing and adopt Resolutions approving the Appropriations Limit; FY24-25 Fee Schedule; FY24-25 Salary Schedule; FY24-25 Utility User Tax; FY24-25 Transient Occupancy Tax; FY24-25 Operating Budget; and, FY24-29 CIMPP Gabriel Engeland, City Manager, presented the report.

Jonathan D. Weinberg, Mayor, opened the Public Hearing.

There were no speakers during the Public Hearing.
93 Agenda Item # 1.

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 11, 2024

Jonathan D. Weinberg, Mayor, closed the Public Hearing.

Motion by Meadows and Second by Fligor to adopt a resolution establishing the FY24/25 Appropriations Limit. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

Motion by Meadows and Second by Fligor to adopt a resolution setting certain fees and charges to be collected in FY24-25. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

Motion by Meadows and Second by Fligor to adopt a resolution approving the updated FY24/25 pay schedule to comply with California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CALPERS) statutory and regulatory requirements for compensation earnable and publicly available pay schedules. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

Motion by Meadows and Second by Fligor to adopt a resolution reaffirming the FY24-25 Utility Users Tax Rate. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

Motion by Meadows and Second by Fligor to adopt a resolution reaffirming the FY24-25 Transient Occupancy Tax Rate. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

Motion by Meadows and Second by Fligor to adopt a resolution adopting the FY24-25 Operating Budget. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

Motion by Meadows and Second by Fligor to adopt a resolution adopting the FY24-29 Five-Year Capital Improvement and Major Maintenance Program (CIMMP). Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

The City Council took a recess at 9:27 p.m.

The City Council reconvened at 9:40 p.m.

16. Hold a Public hearing and Introduce an Ordinance for Development Impact Fee and InLieu Fee Regulations and Resolution setting the Development Impact Fee and In-Lieu Fees for FY2024/2025
Nick Zornes, Assistant City Manager of Land Use, presented the report.

Jonathan D. Weinberg, Mayor, opened the Public Hearing.

The following member of the public spoke during the Public Hearing:
 Anne Paulson
Jonathan D. Weinberg, Mayor, closed the Public Hearing.

Motion by Weinberg and Second by Dailey to continue the Public Hearing to a date certain of June 25, 2024.
94 Agenda Item # 1.

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 11, 2024

DISCUSSION ITEMS

17. Implement measures that would support parklet applicants as they transition to the permanent program
Anthony Carnesecca, Assistant to the City Manager, presented the report.

The following member of the public spoke regarding the item:
 Kim Mosley
 Freddie Wheeler
 Jeanine Valadez
Discussion item only. No motion taken.

5. Adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos adding Chapter 14.64 to Title 14 (Zoning) of the Los Altos Municipal Code enacting regulations for dual opportunity developments (SB9) and find the Ordinance exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Lynette Lee Eng, Councilmember, explained why she requested to pull the item from the Consent Calendar.

Motion by Weinberg and Second by Dailey to adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos adding Chapter 14.64 to Title 14 (Zoning) of the Los Altos Municipal Code enacting regulations for dual opportunity developments (SB9) and find the Ordinance exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Motion carried 4-1 with Councilmember Lee Eng opposed.

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS ONLY
There will be no discussion or action on Informational Items

18. Tentative Council Calendar and Housing Element Update Implementation Calendar

COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS AND DIRECTIONS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS  Lynette Lee Eng, Councilmember – Requested future agenda items:
 City Attorney Annual Review (No support)
 Discussion item on Transitional Housing (No support)
ADJOURNMENT – The regular meeting adjourned at 11:29 p.m.

The meeting minutes were prepared by Melissa Thurman, City Clerk, for approval at the regular meeting of June 25, 2024.
95 Agenda Item # 1.

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 11, 2024

_________________________________ __________________________________ Jonathan D. Weinberg Melissa Thurman, MMC
Mayor City Clerk
The June 11, 2024 City Council meeting recording may be viewed via the following external website: https://www.youtube.com/@CityofLosAltosCA
The City of Los Altos does not own or operate YouTube. The video referenced on these minutes were live at the time the minutes were published.
96 Agenda Item # 1.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: June 25, 2024
Initiated By: Staff
Prepared By: Public Works Department
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: Contract Award: 2024 Street Resurfacing Project to O’Grady Paving Inc. in the amount of $1,362,666.40.

COUNCIL PRIORITY AREA
☐Business Communities
☒Circulation Safety and Efficiency
☐Environmental Sustainability
☐Housing
☒Neighborhood Safety Infrastructure
☒General Government

RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with O’Grady Paving Inc. of the base bid and add alternative #1 for the 2024 Street Resurfacing Project in the amount of $1,362,666.40, and authorize the City Manager to execute a change order not to exceed 15% ($204,400) of the total contract amount on behalf of the City, and find the Council’s action exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15301(c), and that one of the circumstance in the CEQA Guideline

POLICY QUDSTION(S) FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
None

FISCAL IMPACT
In the FY 23/24 annual budget, the source of the project funding is as follows:
2024 Street Resurfacing Project Funding Source
Project Funding Source Project Budget
TS-01001)
Project Budget
(TS-01004)
Gas Tax $ 400,000
Measure B $ 675,000 $ 350,000
Vehicle Registration Fee (VRF) $ 400,000
97 Agenda Item # 2.

SB1 $ 758,000
Total Project Funding $ 1,833,000 $ 750,000
Total Project Funding $ 2,583,000
Based on the lowest responsive and responsible bid by O’Grady Paving Inc., the anticipated budget impact is as follows:

Annual Resurfacing Project, TS-01001, TS-01004, & TS-01009 Project Item Project Budget
O’Grady Paving Inc. Construction bid $ 1,362,666.40
15% Construction Contingency Amount $ 204,400.00
Material Testing $ 10,000.00
Printing/Advertising/Mailing/Misc. $ 905.86
Estimated Total Cost $ 1,577,572.26
Construction Inspection $ 79,860.00
Total Project Cost $ 1,657,432.26
Based on the cost breakdown, the total anticipated project cost is in the amount not to exceed $1,657,432.26. The project is sufficiently funded, and no additional funding is anticipated currently.

SUMMARY
 The city advertised the Annual Street Resurfacing Project. on May 15, 2024, and May 22, 2024, on the Town Crier and the City website
 On June 12, 2024, the City received one (1) of bid and opened in a public session.  The lowest responsive and responsible bidder is O’Grady Paving Inc. with a base bid in the amount of $1,259,206.40. The add alternative for the project is in the amount of $103,460.00. The total bid award will be $1,362,666.40 for base bid plus add alternative #1.
 The project plans and specifications are available in the City Clerk’s office for review.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to CEQA Section 15301(c). The project scope is considered maintenance of existing streets which are exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Not Applicable
98 Agenda Item # 2.

BACKGROUND
The annual street resurfacing project is dedicated to repairing and maintaining existing asphalt concrete (AC) roadways in the city. The project will consist of either removing 0.25’ of existing AC and placing 0.25’ of new AC when warranted or micro-surface the road to extend its life.

The scope of work consists of grinding and overlaying 0.25’ of AC of Jardin Drive from Valencia Drive to the City of Mountain View city limits; Avalon Drive from Almond Avenue to Jardin Drive; Damian Way from Covington Road to the end of the cul-de-sac; Loma Prieta Court from Miramonte Ave to end of the cul-de-sac; Santa Rita Court from Los Altos Avenue to end; and Mercedes Avenue from Loucks Avenue to Pasa Robles Avenue.

The project will mico-surface Amador Avenue from San Luis Avenue to Benvenue Avenue; Fallen Leaf Lane from Louise Avenue/Fallen Leave Lane to Jones Lane; Mercedes Avenue from Pasa Robles Avenue to West Portola Avenue. Micro-surfacing consists of the application of a mixture of water, asphalt emulsion (AC binder), very small, crushed rock, and - additives. This application is commonly applied to sections where the road has aged, minimal cracking, and fine aggregates (small rocks) have flacked off through the years. By applying micro-surfacing, the road will have a new layer of road binder and aggregate that will extend its life. At all locations, the project will include adjusting existing utility cover to grade, placing new signage, and thermoplastic striping installed as a part of the project.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
The city advertised the 2024 Annual Street Resurfacing Project on May 15, and May 22, 2024, in the Town Crier. On June 12, 2024, one (1) bid was received and opened in a public bid setting. (The bid result summary is attached). Based on the bid, staff determined that the lowest responsive and responsible bidder is O’Grady Paving, Inc. in the amount of $1,362,666.40. The contractor has an active contractor’s license, is registered with the DIR, and does not have any OSHA violations in the past 14 years.

This project included a base bid, and one add alternate bid. Based on the total bid received from O’Grady Paving Inc., the project budget will have a surplus of $925,567.74, which will roll over to the next fiscal year Street Resurfacing project. For this reason, staff is recommending the council to award the 2024 Annual Street Resurfacing Project with base bid plus add alternate in the total amount of $1,362,666.40. The project is funded by Gas tax, Measure B, SB1, and VRF.

If approved by Council, the pre-construction meeting will be scheduled and the notice to proceed will be issued to the contractor as soon as possible. Advance public notices that will provide project details, schedule, and emergency contact will be sent to the residents, police, fire, and ambulance. The contractor will also be required to distribute notification letters to affected residents and post no-street parking signs at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of work. To facilitate Los Altos High School summer break, the contractor is required to complete all construction activity on Jardin Drive during the summer. 99 Agenda Item # 2.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Vicinity Map

2. Bid Result

3. Resolution 2024 –XXXX
100
Agenda Item # 2.

Attachment #1
101
Agenda Item # 2.

Attachment #2
Public Works Department
1 North San Antonio Road
Los Altos, California 94022-3087
Tel: (650) 947-2780
Fax (650) 947-2732

BID RESULTS
Project Name:

Annual Street Resurfacing Project (TS-01001, TS-01004 & TS-01009) Bid Opening Date:

June 12, 2024 at 2:00 pm in City Hall

CONTRACTOR TOTAL BASE BID TOTAL ADD
ALT NO. 1 TOTAL BID
O’ Grady Paving Inc $1,259,206.40 $103,460.00 $1,362,666.40 102
Agenda Item # 2.

Attachment #3
Resolution No. 2024 - Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS TO AWARD ANNUAL STREET RESURFACING PROJECT (TS-01001, TS-01004, & TS-01009
WHEREAS, the Annual Street Resurfacing and City Alley Resurfacing Project includes the annual scope of work to resurface Los Altos streets and integrates mobility enhancements to improve safety for all modes of transport, with an emphasis on safer routes to schools.

WHEREAS, City advertised the Annual Street Resurfacing Project. and received one (1) of bid and opened in a public session on June 12, 2024. Contractor O’ Grady Paving Inc. is the only responsive and responsible bidder
WHEREAS, the FY 24/25 Council-approved CIP budget has adequate funding to fund the project.

WHEREAS, Council to award the base bid plus add alternative #1 bid for the 2024 Street Resurfacing Project to O’Grady Paving Inc. and authorize the City Manager to execute a total contract amount of $1,362,666.40 and execute change order not to exceed 15% of the total contract amount ($204,400).

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

1. Award the base bid plus add alternative #1 bid for the 2024 Street Resurfacing Project to O’Grady Paving Inc. and authorize the City Manager to execute a total contract amount of $1,362,666.40.

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute change order not to exceed 15% of the total contract amount ($204,400) on behalf of the City.

3. Authorize the City Manager to take such further actions as may be necessary to implement the foregoing agreement, 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 25th day of June 2024 by the following vote:

Council Members
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
103
Agenda Item # 2.

Attachment #3
Resolution No. 2024 - Page 1
___________________________
Jonathan D. Weinberg, MAYOR
Attest:
_____________________________
Melissa Thurman, CITY CLERK
104
Agenda Item # 2.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: June 25, 2024
Initiated By: Staff
Prepared By: Public Works Department
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject Contract Award: On-Call Sanitary Sewer Spot Repairs and CCTV Inspection Services FY 2024-2025 Project

COUNCIL PRIORITY AREA
☐Business Communities
☒Circulation Safety and Efficiency
☐Environmental Sustainability
☐Housing
☒Neighborhood Safety Infrastructure
☒General Government

RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with C2R Engineering, Inc. of the Total Bid for the On-Call Sanitary Sewer Spot Repairs and CCTV Inspection Services FY 2024-2025 Project in the amount of $125,000.00 on behalf of the City, and find the action exempt from review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15301.

FISCAL IMPACT
The lowest responsible bid was $108,700.00. However, repairs will be done on an as-needed basis and per the contract will have a not-to-exceed cost of $125,00.00, as budgeted in FY 2024/25 budget.
- Breakdown of funds to be used:
o $125,000.00 from the Sewer Fund account 8210-5280, per the approved sewer maintenance budget
- Amount already included in the approved budget: Y
- Amount above budget requested: 0

SUMMARY
 The city advertised the On-Call Spot Repairs and CCTV Inspection Services FY24-25 Project on April 17, 2024 on the City website and on the Town Crier on May 1, 2024 and May 8, 2024.
 On May 21, 2024, the City received five (5) of bids and opened in a public session.  The lowest responsive and responsible bidder is C2R Engineering, Inc. with the Total Base Bid in the amount of $108,700.00.
105
Agenda Item # 3.

BACKGROUND
The City’s Sewer Maintenance Division in Public Works Department maintains a long list of sewer system deficiencies that require spot repairs. In order to make progress on those repairs and plan for emergency repairs, the City requested bids for On-Call Sanitary Sewer Spot Repairs and CCTV Inspection Services.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The acceptance of the work is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(b), involving the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public sewerage involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use, and none of the circumstances stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
None

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
On May 21, 2024, the City opened five bids for the On-Call Sanitary Sewer Spot Repairs and CCTV Inspection Services FY 2024-2025. The bid results are included in Attachment 1.

It is recommended that the not-to-exceed $125,000.00 contract be awarded to C2R Engineering, Inc., which was determined to be the apparent responsive bidder. C2R Engineering, Inc. has been in business since 2014 and has satisfactorily completed similar projects for the City of Los Altos, the City of Mountain View, the Town of Los Altos Hills, and other local agencies. C2R Engineering Inc. has previously completed On-Call Sanitary Sewer Spot Repairs and CCTV Inspections Services FY 2023-2024 for the City of Los Altos in a satisfactory and timely manner.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution 2024-

2. Bid Summary for the On-Call Sanitary Sewer Spot Repairs and CCTV Inspection Services FY 2024-2025
106
Agenda Item # 3.

ATTACHMENT 1

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-___

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

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACT WITH APS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. FOR SANITARY SEWER VIDEO INSPECTION, PROJECT WW-01011 IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TOEXCEED $303,396.76 AND UP TO 15% CONTINGENCY FUNDS NOT-TOEXCEED $45,509.51 WHEREAS, the project, which consists of performing cleaning and television inspection of an approximate total quantity of 116,964 linear feet of various sanitary sewer lines ranging in size from 6 inches to 24 inches; and
WHEREAS, APS Environmental, Inc. was the lowest responsible, responsive bidder for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the project is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(b), involving the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public sewerage involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use, and none of the circumstances stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies.

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

1. Authorizes the City Manager to execute a Construction Contract in an amount not-to-exceed $303,936.76 and up to 15% contingency funds not-to-exceed $45,509.51 to perform the Sanitary Sewer Video Inspection, Project WW-01011.

2. Authorizes the City Manager to take such further actions as may be necessary to implement the foregoing agreement.

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 11th day of June, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Johnathan D. Weinberg, MAYOR
Attest:
___________________________________
Melissa Thurman, MMC CITY CLERK
107
Agenda Item # 3.

ATTACHMENT 2
Public Works Department
One North San Antonio Road
Los Altos, California 94022-3087
Tel: (650) 947-2780
Fax (650) 947-2732

BID RESULTS
Project Name:

On-Call Sanitary Sewer Spot Repairs and CCTV Inspection Services FY 2024-2025 Bid Opening Date:

April 25, 2024

CONTRACTOR

TOTAL BASE

BID TOTAL BID
C2R Engineering, Inc. $108,700.00 $108,700.00
Smelly Mels Plumbing $114,600.00 $114,600.00
Express Plumbing, Inc. $140,175.00 $140,175.00
A3 Pipeline $208,560.00 $208,560.00
Able Construction Group, Inc. $238,738.12 $238,738.12
108
Agenda Item # 3.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: June 25, 2024
Initiated By: Staff
Prepared By: Public Works Department
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: Adopt a resolution that identifies list of projects that will be funded by SB1

COUNCIL PRIORITY AREA
☐Business Communities
☒Circulation Safety and Efficiency
☐Environmental Sustainability
☐Housing
☒Neighborhood Safety Infrastructure
☒General Government

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution that identifies a list of projects that will be funded by Senate Bill 1 in the FY 24-25 budget and find the Council’s action exempt from review under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), and that one of the circumstances in the CEQA Guideline.

POLICY QUESTION(S) FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
None

FISCAL IMPACT
The Senate Bill 1 (SB1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act, provides a revenue for funding projects in the City of Los Altos to improve local streets, roads, and bridges and increase mobility options through walking, biking, and transit infrastructure. These funds are allocated to the City of Los Altos for a local transportation project. The current projected amount for the City of Los Altos apportionment of SB1 for FY 24-25 is estimated at $820,161.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The adoption of the resolution is exempt pursuant to CEQA Section 15061(b)(3)

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
On June 11, 2024, the Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-XX FY 254-29 Capital Improvement and Major Maintenance Program (CIMMP). The adoption of this resolution allocated SB1 to various projects.
109
Agenda Item # 4.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
SB 1 was passed in early 2017 by the state legislature to provide funding to fix and maintain our local streets, roads, and bridges. This legislation requires local agencies, prior to receiving funds, to annually submit a list of projects proposed to be funded with Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) funds to the California Transportation Commission (CTC). July 1, 2024, is the due date for agencies to submit a report on planned expenditures in Fiscal year 24-

25. The CTC will review the project lists to ensure they include statutorily required information to establish eligibility for funding.

In the FY 24-25 budget, the following project will be utilized the SB1 funding:

Project # Project Name Project Scope Location Schedule
Completion Useful life
TS-01001 Annual Street
Resurfacing
Design for
annual street
resurfacing
project includes
milling and an
overlay of
asphalt concrete
(AC) on existing
street surfaces
that are
approaching the
end of their
useful life, as
evidenced by
cracking and
minor pavement
failures.

Various
locations
in the
City
June 2025
Street
resurfacing
usually
has a
useful life
of 10-15
years
TS-01006 Traffic Sign
Replacement
Design and
upgrade existing
street signs to
meet current
signing traffic
sign and
reflectivity
requirements,
and maintain
existing traffic
signals, street
lights, and
pedestrian
crossing
apparatus.

Various
locations
in the
City
June 2025
New sign
usually
has a
useful life
of 10 years
110
Agenda Item # 4.

TS-01008
ADA
Improvements
(Streets and
Roadways)
Design and
upgrade existing
ADA ramps at
various locations
to meet current
ADA standards
Various
locations
in the
City
June 2025
Usually
have a
useful life
of 50 years

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution 2024-

2. Local Streets and Road Revenue Estimate 24-25
111
Agenda Item # 4.

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-_______
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A LIST OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025 FUNDED BY SB 1: THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the Legislature and Signed into law by the Governor in April 2017 to address the significant multi-modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide; and WHEREAS, SB 1 includes accountability and transparency provisions that will ensure the residents of our City of Los Altos are aware of the projects proposed for funding in our community and which projects have been completed each fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the City of Los Altos must adopt by resolution a list of projects proposed to receive fiscal year funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB 1, which must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project’s completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement; and WHEREAS, the City of Los Altos, will receive an estimated $820,161 in RMRA funding in Fiscal Year 2024-2025 from SB 1; and
WHEREAS, this is the seventh year in which the City of Los Altos is receiving SB 1 funding and will enable the City of Los Altos to continue essential road maintenance and rehabilitation projects, safety improvements, repairing and replacing aging bridges, and increasing access and mobility options for the traveling public that would not have otherwise been possible without SB 1; and WHEREAS, the City of Los Altos has undergone a robust public process to ensure public input into our community’s transportation priorities/the project list; and WHEREAS, the City of Los Altos used a Pavement Management System to develop the SB 1 project list to ensure revenues are being used on the most high-priority and cost-effective projects that also meet the communities priorities for transportation investment; and WHEREAS, the funding from SB 1 will help the City of Los Altos maintain and rehabilitate 44 roads throughout the City of Los Altos this year and hundreds of similar projects into the future; and WHEREAS, the 2023 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment found that the City of Los Altos’ streets and roads are in an at-risk condition and this revenue will help us increase the overall quality of our road system and over the next decade will bring our streets and roads into a “excellent” condition; and
112
Agenda Item # 4.

ATTACHMENT 1
WHEREAS, the SB 1 project list and overall investment in our local streets and roads infrastructure with a focus on basic maintenance and safety, investing in complete streets infrastructure, and using cutting-edge technology, materials and practices, will have significant positive co-benefits statewide.

NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, ORDERED AND FOUND by the City Council of the City of Los Altos, State of California, as follows:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

2. The following list of newly proposed projects will be funded in-part or solely with Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues:

Project # Project Name Project Scope Location Schedule
Completion Useful life
TS-01001 Annual Street
Resurfacing
Design for
annual street
resurfacing
project includes
milling and an
overlay of
asphalt concrete
(AC) on existing
street surfaces
that are
approaching the
end of their
useful life, as
evidenced by
cracking and
minor pavement
failures.

Various
locations
in the
City
June 2025
Street
resurfacing
usually
has a
useful life
of 10-15
years
TS-01006 Traffic Sign
Replacement
Design and
upgrade existing
street signs to
meet current
signing traffic
sign and
reflectivity
requirements,
and maintain
existing traffic
signals, street
lights, and
pedestrian
crossing
apparatus.

Various
locations
in the
City
June 2025
New sign
usually
has a
useful life
of 10 years
113
Agenda Item # 4.

ATTACHMENT 1
TS-01008
ADA
Improvements
(Streets and
Roadways)
Design and
upgrade existing
ADA ramps at
various locations
to meet current
ADA standards
Various
locations
in the
City
June 2025
Usually
have a
useful life
of 50 years
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 11th day of June 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Jonathan D. Weinberg, MAYOR
Attest:
__________________________________
Melissa Thurman, MMC

CITY CLERK
114
Agenda Item # 4.

ATTACHMENT 2
Local Streets and Roads - Projected FY2024-25 Revenues
Based on State Dept of Finance statewide revenue projections Estimated May 2024 TOTAL Road Mntnc
Sec2103 (5) Sec2105 (3) Sec2106 (3) Sec2107 (3) Sec2107.5 (4) HUTA Rehab Acct TOTAL Highway Users Tax Acct (HUTA)(1) Streets & Highways Code

SANTA CLARA COUNTY
CAMPBELL 277,019 414,019 167,424 377,782 6,000 1,242,245 1,136,628 2,378,873 CUPERTINO 382,251 571,293 229,200 521,291 7,500 1,711,535 1,568,399 3,279,934 GILROY 566,774 379,227 227,425 517,167 7,500 1,698,094 1,555,993 3,254,088 LOS ALTOS 298,746 199,890 122,145 272,598 6,000 899,379 820,161 1,719,540 LOS ALTOS HILLS 80,217 53,673 36,309 73,196 2,000 245,395 220,224 465,619 LOS GATOS 316,661 211,877 129,182 288,945 6,000 952,665 869,344 1,822,009 MILPITAS 773,718 517,693 308,712 705,998 7,500 2,313,620 2,124,126 4,437,746 MONTE SERENO 33,198 22,213 17,840 30,292 1,000 104,543 91,141 195,684 MORGAN HILL 289,682 432,944 174,858 395,051 6,000 1,298,534 1,188,582 2,487,116 MOUNTAIN VIEW 527,710 788,690 314,592 719,660 7,500 2,358,152 2,165,229 4,523,380 PALO ALTO 646,227 432,389 258,634 589,666 7,500 1,934,416 1,774,119 3,708,536 SAN JOSE 9,583,275 6,412,144 3,769,051 8,744,501 20,000 28,528,970 26,309,440 54,838,410 SANTA CLARA 836,221 1,249,775 495,704 1,140,389 10,000 3,732,089 3,431,069 7,163,158 SARATOGA 196,967 294,378 120,430 268,612 6,000 886,387 808,170 1,694,557 SUNNYVALE 986,711 1,474,690 584,049 1,345,618 10,000 4,401,069 4,048,540 8,449,610

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY
CAPITOLA 62,195 92,953 39,148 84,817 2,000 281,112 255,188 536,301 SANTA CRUZ 610,670 408,598 230,453 557,222 7,500 1,814,443 1,676,504 3,490,947 SCOTTS VALLEY 115,925 77,565 47,636 105,778 3,000 349,904 318,254 668,158 WATSONVILLE 488,453 326,823 185,291 445,702 7,500 1,453,769 1,340,975 2,794,744

SHASTA COUNTY
ANDERSON 70,470 105,321 58,638 96,103 3,000 333,532 289,143 622,674 REDDING 592,316 885,246 457,322 807,765 7,500 2,750,149 2,430,310 5,180,460 SHASTA LAKE 65,243 97,510 54,645 88,975 3,000 309,373 267,698 577,071

SIERRA COUNTY
LOYALTON 7,019 4,696 6,442 7,839 1,000 26,996 19,269 46,266

SISKIYOU COUNTY
DORRIS 8,104 5,422 8,853 7,395 1,000 30,773 22,248 53,021 DUNSMUIR 16,085 10,762 12,845 43,206 1,000 83,898 44,159 128,056 ETNA 6,453 4,318 8,027 5,888 1,000 25,686 17,715 43,401 FORT JONES 6,547 4,381 8,074 5,974 1,000 25,976 17,974 43,951 MONTAGUE 11,604 7,764 10,603 10,588 1,000 41,559 31,856 73,416 MOUNT SHASTA 20,477 30,604 20,106 101,093 1,000 173,280 84,018 257,298 TULELAKE 8,500 5,687 9,051 7,756 1,000 31,994 23,335 55,330 WEED 27,377 18,318 18,492 69,470 1,000 134,658 75,161 209,818 YREKA 49,393 73,821 41,720 74,753 2,000 241,687 202,664 444,351 20 May 2024 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Page 14 of 16 115 Agenda Item # 4.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: June 25, 2024
Prepared By: Melissa Thurman, City Clerk
Initiated By: Fligor, Lee Eng, Weinberg
Approved By: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Subject: Adopt a City Council Policy Regarding Foreign Affairs

COUNCIL PRIORITY AREA
☐Business Communities
☐Circulation Safety and Efficiency
☐Environmental Sustainability
☐Housing
☐Neighborhood Safety Infrastructure
☒General Government

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a City Council Policy Regarding Foreign Affairs

FISCAL IMPACT
Not applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not applicable.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
During the regular meeting of May 28, 2024, Councilmember Neysa Fligor requested a future agenda item:
“Consent item to adopt a policy that Council should not involve themselves in foreign policy” This request was supported by Councilmember Lee Eng and Mayor Weinberg.

POLICY QUESTION(S) FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
 Are there further revisions to the Foreign Affairs Policy the Council wishes to consider?  Does the City Council wish to add language to the policy for potential future Sister Cities’ of Los Altos?:
o The City Council may decide to take formal action or positions on matters relating to any Sister Cities they may have in foreign countries, provided those actions support educational, commercial, cultural or other positive collaborations with those Cities.
 Does the City Council wish to adopt the Foreign Affairs Policy?

ATTACHMENTS

1. Foreign Affairs Policy
116
Agenda Item # 5.

CITY OF LOS ALTOS POLICY ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this policy is to set guidelines for the City Council’s consideration of a request for action upon a matter over which the City lacks jurisdiction or substantial influence, and to preserve public time, resources, and deliberation for those matters upon which the City Council’s decisions have direct and concrete consequence for the City.

This policy is not intended to limit the prerogative or opinion of members of the City Council to place items before the City Council with any question and/or topic that they deem to be appropriate for consideration, nor is it intended to limit debate.

POLICY
 The City Council shall refrain from taking any action or holding any discussion on a matter of foreign affairs, or concerning any foreign policies enacted by other jurisdictions or the federal government of the United States
 The City Council shall adopt resolutions, ordinances and issue proclamations and/or official letters or statements that are within the scope of their local governance.  Requests for consideration or discussion of a scope outside the local governance must be approved by a majority vote of the City Council for placement on a future agenda item, with discussion and/or direction to staff occurring at the future meeting date.  Proclamations and/or official letters or statements issued by the City Council shall not degrade or ridicule any segment of humanity, or advocate for the overthrowing of any level of the United States government.
117
Agenda Item # 5.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: June 25, 2024
Prepared By: Nick Zornes
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: Development Impact Fee and In-Lieu Fee Ordinance & Resolution

COUNCIL PRIORITY AREA
☒Business Communities
☒Circulation Safety and Efficiency
☒Environmental Sustainability
☒Housing
☒Neighborhood Safety Infrastructure
☒General Government

RECOMMENDATION
Two (2) separate actions for City Council consideration:

Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Adding Chapter 3.60 to Title 3 Revenue and Finance of the Los Altos Municipal Code Enacting Regulations for Development Impact and In-Lieu Fees and find that this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15378(b)(4) and 15273(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.

Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Adopting Development Impact and In-Lieu Fees Based on the Adopted Nexus Study and find that this Resolution is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15378(b)(4) and 15273(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.

FISCAL IMPACT
Not Applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4) and 15273(a)(1) and (a)(2) this item is exempt from environmental review. CEQA does not apply to the establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval of rates, tolls, fares, and other charges by public agencies.

BACKGROUND
On May 28, 2024, the Los Altos City Council adopted a Development Impact Fee Nexus Study to provide a comprehensive review and support for the establishment of Impact Fees within the City. 118
Agenda Item # 6.

Development Impact Fees in California are governed by the Mitigation Fee Act, which includes AB1600 and AB602.

AB1600 specifies that there needs to be reasonable relationship or “nexus” between the fees collected and the services provided. To establish nexus the following must be analyzed:
 Purpose of Fee
 Impact Relationship
 Proportionality
 Benefit Relationship
 Use of Fee Revenue
On January 1, 2022, AB602 went into effect. The bill is applicable to all impact fees adopted or implemented after the effective date. The following are the main criteria of AB602:
 Prior to adoption of any new impact fee, the Nexus Study needs to be adopted (independently) at a Public Hearing with a 30-day notice.  Nexus Study shall demonstrate and explain the service level accomplished by the fee.  Impact Fees shall be proportionate and calculated on a square footage basis.

Additional key provisions and changes apart of AB602:
 Impact Fee schedule and Adopted Nexus Study shall be posted online.  Impact Fees must be collected by the time of final inspection or certificate of occupancy.  Members of the public or developer can contest the impact fee compliance with AB602 and AB1600.
 Impact Fee Nexus Studies are only valid for 8 years maximum.

Program 3.D: Evaluate and adjust impact fees.

The City will evaluate applying the park in-lieu and traffic impact fees on a per square foot basis rather than per unit to encourage the development of higher densities and smaller, more affordable housing units. Based on this evaluation, the City will modify impact fees in accordance with Assembly Bill 602 (AB 602) with completion of the comprehensive fee evaluation.

Responsible Body: Development Services Department, City Council Funding Source: General Fund
Time Frame: Initiate comprehensive fee evaluation August 2023; complete comprehensive fee evaluation and modify fees December 2024 Maximum Justifiable Fee
It is important to note that the Nexus Study, dated May 2024 establishes the Maximum Justifiable Fee allowed to be collected by the City of Los Altos.
119
Agenda Item # 6.

The Nexus Study calculates the maximum justifiable Development Impact Fees that can be charged on new development, and therefore, the City Council may adopt reduced Development Impact Fees below the maximum justifiable amount identified within the Nexus Study if doing so effectuates a policy of the City. Additionally, although the City of Los Altos could reduce one (or more) Development Impact Fee the City cannot then in turn raise another Development Impact Fee as each Fee is independently calculated based on the associated impact. All Development Impact Fees contained within the Final Report establish the Maximum Fees allowed.

June 11, 2024 – City Council Public Hearing
On June 11, 2024, the Los Altos City Council held a Public Hearing for the consideration of the proposed Development Impact and In-Lieu Fees based on the adopted nexus study. At the hearing the City Council received a presentation from the Assistant City Manager, asked clarifying questions, received public testimony, and discussed the item under consideration. The item was continued to a date certain of June 25, 2024, to allow additional time for the City Council to review the proposed changes to Development Impact and In-Lieu Fees.

Attached to this report are development impact fee comparisons to nearby cities within Silicon Valley. It is important to note that comparisons of fees are not the basis for any fees established under the mitigation fee act, fees are to be established and supported by independent nexus for each jurisdiction which considers the level of service, the cost of providing services and the cost of facilities and land as those differ greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

Following the comments received at the June 11, 2024, City Council meeting the Assistant City Manager requested special review and analysis of the proposed development impact and in-lieu fees for four (4) distinct projects that may be considered for Plaza 7 & 8 (Attachment #4). Analysis of the feasibility of development on Plaza 7 & 8 has been underway since January 2024; the analysis is being completed separately by BAE Urban Economics who previously completed the city’s Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee Study. As can be seen in Attachment #4 of the completed Financial Modeling by BAE there is a general increase to the amount of Development Impact and In-Lieu Fees that would be anticipated for future projects proposed within the City, however the increases would be considered roughly proportional and not a hindrance to future development.

After reviewing the completed financial modeling, one will notice that the per unit cost for impact and in-lieu fees will vary, and this was expected and intentional with the conversion of a per unit to per square foot multiplier. In simple terms, the bigger the units the more each will pay in impact fees, which results in a fair and equitable application of governmental exactions. The City of Los Altos has been under collecting significantly for Traffic Impact Fees and has been on par historically for Park Impact Fees. The establishment of new fees for Public Safety and General Government are necessary and prudent to basic city operations and are nominal additional cost per unit and overall project cost.
120
Agenda Item # 6.

ANALYSIS
Through the course of this analysis, the project team evaluated impact fees based upon the current projected population impacts between 2024 and 2040. Based on the results, the maximum justifiable impact fees were calculated for Parks and Recreation, Police, General Government, Fire, Library, Transportation, and Commercial Linkage. As outlined in the Mitigation Fee Act, proportional costs associated with future infrastructure impacts, along with administrative overhead, were used to calculate the full cost of the impact fees presented.

It is important to note that AB602 states that residential (single-family and multi-family) should be calculated based upon proportional square footage, rather than per dwelling unit. For compliance with this regulation, all residential fees have been converted to a per square footage calculation.

RECOMMENDATION
OPTION #1:

Based on the Comprehensive Nexus Study conducted by Matrix Consulting Group, City staff proposes establishing all Development Impact Fees at the Full Cost identified for each impact fee except for the Commercial Linkage Fee. Full implementation of this recommendation does necessitate modification to existing Municipal Code chapters, which are included as a part of this recommendation.

The following table identifies the recommended Development Impact Fees:

Parks and Recreation Impact Fee
Category Full Cost
Single-Family $12.12/sqft.

Multi-Family $44.15/sqft.

Public Art Development Fee
All Development 1% of Construction Cost
Public Safety Impact Fee
Single-Family $0.09/sqft.

Multi-Family $0.34/sqft.

Commercial/Retail $1.22/sqft.

Office $1.62/sqft.

General Government Impact Fee
Single-Family $0.13/sqft.

Multi-Family $0.48/sqft.

Commercial/Retail $2.14/sqft.

Office $2.86/sqft.

Transportation Impact Fee
Single-Family $1.55/sqft.

Multi-Family $6.29/sqft.

Commercial/Retail $10.71/sqft.
121
Agenda Item # 6.

Office $9.45/sqft.

Commercial Linkage Fee
Commercial/Retail $35.10/sqft.

Office $12.25/sqft.

OPTION #2:

1. Reduce or Eliminate the Public Art Fee. The City Council could reduce or eliminate the collection of the Public Art Fee as this fee is not necessary for basic city operations.

Additionally, in future years the City Council could support annual allocation from the General Fund to support Public Art installations. Specific Options Include:
a. Eliminate Public Art Fee collection in its Entirety and Repeal the Adopted Ordinance.
b. Reduce the maximum total dollar amount allowed to be collected from $200,000 to $50,000.
c. Reduce the percentage collected from 1% to 0.5% and leave the maximum collected at $200,000.

2. Set all fees at a reduced percentage. For example, the City Council could authorize that all Development Impact and In-Lieu Fees be set at a Maximum threshold of 80%.

3. Exempt the collection of Development Impact and In-Lieu Fees for Below Market Rate (BMR) Units. Specific Options Include:
a. Standard Exemption by Ordinance for Below Market Rate (BMR) Units on the collection General Government and Public Safety Impact Fees; or b. Standard Exemption by Ordinance for Below Market Rate (BMR) Units on the collection of all Development Impact and In-Lieu Fees.
i. This option would effectively reduce the overall project fee collection by 15% as the City requires a minimum of all units built to be Affordable to Below Market Rates.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Ordinance – Adopting Chapter 3.60

2. Appendix A – Chapter 3.60 Text

3. Draft Resolution – Adopting Development Impact & In-Lieu Fees

4. Proposed Fees Application – Four Prototype Developments

5. Existing Development Impact Fees Nearby Jurisdictions 122
Agenda Item # 6.
1 ORDINANCE NO. 2024-XX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS ADDING CHAPTER 3.60 TO TITLE 3 REVENUE AND FINANCE OF THE LOS ALTOS

MUNICIPAL CODE ENACTING REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT IMPACT

AND IN-LIEU FEES
WHEREAS, the mitigation Fee Act contained in Government Code Section 66000 permits the City to impose development impact fees on new development for the purposes of funding public facilities necessary to serve that new development; and WHEREAS, the City of Los Altos has existing Development Impact Fees; and WHEREAS, new development projects attract new residents and employees to the City, generating an increased demand for park, transportation, public safety and general government facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City of Los Altos has determined that City parks, transportation, public safety and general government facilities are reaching capacity, and that the city requires a costeffective and efficient way of serving future residents and employees while maintain existing levels of service; and
WHEREAS, the City of Los Altos wishes to update existing Development Impact fees, and establish new Development Impact Fees in direct relationship to associated development within the City; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to adopt a Park Impact Fee on new development to fund the costs associated with increased demand for community parks and recreational facilities created by new development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined additional funds are necessary for maintain and operating the City’s Public Safety Infrastructure; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to acquire vehicles and transportation-related equipment and improve, replace and/or construct one or more public safety facilities to serve new development in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the creation of a Public Safety Impact Fee on new development within the City would provide the necessary funding for police and fire services related to new development; and
WHEREAS, the City’s General Plan and Complete Streets Master Plan calls for strategies to provide an efficient, reliable, and convenient transit system; improved bicycle routes; and a balanced street system to serve automobiles, pedestrians, bicycles, and transit; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate for new development to pay for improvements and development to the transportation network proportionate to the demands the new development places on the City’s transportation infrastructure; and 123
Agenda Item # 6.
2 WHEREAS, the City desires to impose a Transportation Impact Fee on new development to fund the costs associated with maintaining adequate street and transportation facilities related to new development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined additional funds are necessary for maintain and operating the City’s General Government Infrastructure related to Municipal Operations; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to replace and/or construct new municipal facilities to serve new development in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the creation of a General Government Impact Fee on new development within the City would provide the necessary funding for municipal operations related to new development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined the physical development or funding of public art within the community is necessary; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the creation of a Public Art Development Fee on new development within the City would provide the necessary funding for public art within the community related to new development; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined funds are necessary for mitigating the impacts associated with non-residential development with the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the creation of a Commercial Linkage Fee on new development within the City would provide the necessary funding for the creation of affordable housing related to new development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined funding the creation of affordable housing is necessary to further the City’s Housing related goals; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the creation of an Affordable Housing Fee on new development within the City in-lieu of construction of affordable units onsite would provide the necessary alternatives in helping to construct more housing within the City; and WHEREAS, on January 24, 2023, the City Council approved the City’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element Update; and
WHEREAS, Program 2.B of the Housing Element calls for the establishment of an affordable housing in-lieu fee; and
WHEREAS, Program 2.B of the Housing Element requires the City of Los Altos to conduct a feasibility analysis to support the establishment of an affordable housing in-lieu fee for residential development; and
WHEREAS, Program 2.B of the Housing Element requires the City of Los Altos to adopt an affordable housing in-lieu fee based on the feasibility study prepared; and 124
Agenda Item # 6.
3 WHEREAS, on January 23, 2024, the City Council adopted an Inclusionary Housing InLieu Fee based on the results of the Inclusionary Housing Economic Feasibility Study completed by Bae Urban Economics; and
WHEREAS, Program 3.D of the Housing Element calls for the City of Los Altos to Evaluate and Adjust Impact Fees; and
WHEREAS, Program 3.D of the Housing Element expressly requires the modification of Development Impact Fees to be charged on a per square foot basis rather than per unit to encourage the development of higher densities and smaller, more affordable housing units; and WHEREAS, Program 3.D of the Housing Element expressly requires the modification of Development Impact Fees to be completed no later than December 2024; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 66016 requires the City of Los Altos adopt a Nexus Study to support modifications to existing Development Impact Fees, and the establishment of new Development Impact Fees; and
WHEREAS, consultant Matrix Consulting Group, and subconsultants DKS Associates, and Strategic Economics on behalf of the City of Los Altos prepared the Development Impact Fee Nexus Study dated May 2024 (the “Nexus Study”); and
WHEREAS, the Nexus Study substantiates a methodology that will charge each new development project only for the costs necessary to mitigate the impacts expected to be caused by that development project; and
WHEREAS, there is a reasonable relationship between the Development Impact Fees and the development projects on which the Fees will be imposed because the Fees will only fund costs necessitated by each new development; and
WHEREAS, the Development Impact Fees will not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the land and facilities for which the Fees are imposed; and WHEREAS, the Development Impact Fees will not be levied, collected, or imposed for general revenue purposes, but are levied specifically to fund facilities of the types set forth in the Nexus Study; and
WHEREAS, the Nexus Study establishes proposed amounts and provides an evaluation of the need for new Development Impact Fees and establishes the nexus between the imposition of the new Fees and the estimated reasonable costs of providing the services for which the Fees are charged; and
WHEREAS, the Nexus Study identifies the City’s existing level of parks, transportation, public safety and general government services, identifies the level of service, and includes an explanation of why the level of service is appropriate; and WHEREAS, the Nexus Study includes information that supports the City’s actions, as required by Government Code Section 66001(a); and
125
Agenda Item # 6.
4 WHEREAS, the Nexus Study calculates the maximum justifiable Development Impact Fees that can be charged on new development, and therefore, the City Council may adopt reduced Development Impact Fees below the maximum justifiable amount identified within the Nexus Study if doing so effectuates a policy of the City; and WHEREAS, on May 28, 2024, the City Council adopted a Nexus Study for Development Impact Fees in Compliance with Assembly Bill 602 (AB602) following a thirty-day public notice and review period; and
WHEREAS, the amendments were processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the Los Altos Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on June 11, 2024, and June 25, 2024; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15378(b)(4) and 15273(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Los Altos does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF TITLE 3 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. Chapter 3.60 is hereby added to the Los Altos Municipal Code as set forth in Appendix A to this Ordinance, underline indicates addition, strikethrough indicates deletion.

SECTION 2. CONSTITUTIONALITY; AMBIGUITIES. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof. Any ambiguities in the Los Altos Municipal Code created by this Ordinance shall be resolved by the Development Services Director, in their reasonable discretion, after consulting the City Attorney.

SECTION 3. PUBLICATION. This Ordinance shall be published as provided in Government Code Section 36933.

SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be effective upon the commencement of the thirty-first day following the adoption hereof.

The foregoing Ordinance was duly and properly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Altos held on June 11, 2024, and continued to a date certain of June 25, 2024, and was thereafter, at a regular meeting held on July 9, 2024, passed and adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
126
Agenda Item # 6.
5 ___________________________________
Jonathan D. Weinberg, MAYOR
Attest:
____________________________
Melissa Thurman MMC, City Clerk
127
Agenda Item # 6.

APPENDIX A
AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 3.60
128
Agenda Item # 6.

APPENDIX A

Chapter 3.60 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT AND IN-LIEU FEES

3.60.010 Purpose.

Development Impact and In-Lieu Fees are fees imposed on specific development projects to defray the cost of new or additional public facilities that are needed to serve those developments. Common types of impact and in-lieu fees include traffic mitigation, multi-modal transportation facilities fees, park facilities fees, sewer facilities fees, library facilities fees, public art fees, public safety facilities fees, general government facilities fees, and commercial linkage fees. For purposes of this chapter the term “fee” shall be used to refer to any such development impact or in-lieu fee, regardless of how denominated elsewhere in this code.

3.60.015 Applicability.

A. This Chapter applies to any development impact and in-lieu fee payment imposed under any provision of this code.

B. The following fees are hereby established and shall be imposed as a condition of the approval of, or permit for, any development, whether residential or nonresidential, except as otherwise exempted by this chapter:
i. A fee, known as a “Park Impact Fee,” to fund acquisition of land and improvements for parks within the City of Los Altos, in an amount as set forth in the municipal fee schedule. ii. A fee, known as a “Transportation Impact Fee,” to expand the citywide multimodal transportation network to accommodate increased demand from new development within the City of Los Altos, in an amount as set forth in the municipal fee schedule. iii. A fee, known as a “Public Safety Impact Fee,” to upgrade existing Police and Fire stations, relocate, and reconstruct existing stations, as well as replace outdated public safety equipment within the City of Los Altos, in an amount as set forth in the municipal fee schedule. iv. A fee, known as a “General Government Impact Fee,” to upgrade existing City Hall, Public Works Facilities, Library Branches and City equipment within the City of Los Altos, in an amount as set forth in the municipal fee schedule.
v. A fee, known as a “Public Art Development Fee,” to either place public art on private property or contribute to the public art fund within the City of Los Altos, in an amount as set forth in the municipal fee schedule and implementing ordinance.
vi. A fee, known as a “Commercial Linkage Fee,” to impose a fee on new development for its impact on creating the need for affordable housing in the community within the City of Los Altos, in an amount as set forth in the municipal fee schedule.
vii. A fee, known as a “Affordable Housing Fee,” to either construct inclusionary housing units onsite as a part of new development or contribute to the affordable housing fund within the City of Los Altos, in an amount as set forth in the municipal fee schedule.

3.60.020 Exemptions.

The provision of this chapter shall not apply to the following:

A. Any city-owned buildings, structures or parcels;
B. Public school buildings or structures for the use of education facilities; C. Residential housing units, either for sale or rental, which, by recordable means, is permanently obligated to be 100% affordable;
D. Accessory dwelling units (ADU) less than 750 square feet in size. Any impact fees to be charged for an accessory dwelling unit of 750 square feet or more shall be proportional to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit;
129
Agenda Item # 6.

E. Junior accessory dwelling units (JADU).

3.60.025 Establishment of Fees.

The establishment of any fee shall be supported by an adopted Nexus Study consistent with all provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act. To establish a nexus between new development and the need for new facilities or infrastructure each fee shall determine the following the purpose of the fee, impact relationship, proportionality, benefit relationship and the use of fee revenue.

3.60.030 Annual Adoption of Fees.

All fees shall be adopted annually during the City of Los Altos annual budget process unless modification of fees prior is necessary to meet the intent or legal requirement of the fee.

3.60.035 Creation of Separate Fund Accounts.

The Finance Director is hereby directed to establish and maintain the following funds, into which all fees of each type described in this chapter, and any interest thereon, shall be deposited. Each fund shall be maintained as a separate account in a manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues, funds or accounts of the city. The separate funds established by this Chapter are:

A. Park Development Fund;
B. Transportation Improvement Fund;
C. Public Safety Fund;
D. General Government Fund;
E. Public Art Development Fund;
F. Affordable Housing Fund.

3.60.040 Payment of Fees.

A fee shall be paid on or before the issuance of the first building permit for the project. For a phased project, payments may be made for each portion of a phased project prior to issuance of the first building permit for that phase. If there is no building permit for the project, the fee shall be paid upon issuance of the first city permit or other approval. If no city permit(s) or other approval is required, and the obligation to pay the fee is triggered by a change in use, payment of the fee must be made before the change in use occurs.

3.60.045 Deferred Payment of Fees.

For housing developments only as defined by the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), payment of a development impact fee (excluding any in-lieu fee) may be deferred to the date of final building inspection approval of the development, provided the owner of the real property for which the fees are required enters into a recordable agreement with the city prior to issuance of the building permit for the development, which from the date of recordation, shall constitute a lien on the property and shall be enforceable against successors in interest to the property owner. The agreement shall provide that final occupancy approval shall not be given until the fees are paid. The Development Services Director or their designee may execute the agreement on behalf of the city in a form acceptable to the city attorney.

3.60.050 Calculation of Fees.

A fee shall be payable at the rate specified in the City Council adopted municipal fee schedule. When the Calculation of Fees is determined based upon a square footage basis for a housing development the fee shall take into account only habitable square footage as defined by the California Building Code.

3.60.055 Credit of Existing Habitable Square Footage.

Credit of existing habitable square footage shall only be given for existing square footage that is known and provided on the latest County of Santa Clara Assessors Office Tax Roll. No credit shall be provided for nonhabitable square footage. Any proposed development shall pay the net new habitable square footage above the existing assessed square footage.
130
Agenda Item # 6.

3.60.060 Notice of Protest Rights.

A. Each applicant is hereby notified that, in order to protest the imposition of any impact fee required by this chapter, the protest must be filed in accordance with the requirements of this chapter and the Mitigation Fee Act. Failure of any person to comply with the protest requirements of this chapter or the Mitigation Fee Act shall bar that person from any action or proceeding or any defense of invalidity or unreasonableness of the imposition.

B. On or before the date on which payment of the fee is due, the applicant shall pay the full amount required by the city and serve a written notice to the Development Services Director with all of the following information:

1. a statement that the required payment is tendered, or will be tendered when due, under protest; and

2. a statement informing the city of the factual elements of the dispute and the legal theory forming the basis for the protest.

3. The applicant shall bear the burden of proving, to the satisfaction of the director, entitlement to a fee adjustment.

3.60.065 Informal Hearing.

A. The director shall schedule an informal hearing regarding the protest, to be held no later than sixty days after the imposition of the impact fees upon the development project, and with at least ten days' prior notice to the applicant (unless either date are otherwise agreed by the director and the applicant).

B. During the informal hearing, the director shall consider the applicant's protest, relevant evidence assembled as a result of the protest, and any additional relevant evidence provided during the informal hearing by the applicant and the city. The director shall provide an opportunity for the applicant to present additional evidence at the hearing in support of the protest.

C. The director shall issue a written determination regarding the protest. The director's determination shall support the fee imposed upon the development project unless the applicant establishes, to the satisfaction of the director, entitlement to an adjustment to the fee.

D. The director may elect to appoint a designee to hear and decide a protest under this section.

3.60.070 Appeal of Director Determination.

A. Any applicant who desires to appeal a determination issued by the director shall submit a written appeal to the director and the city manager. A complete written appeal shall include a complete description of the factual elements of the dispute and the legal theory forming the basis for the appeal of the director's determination. An appeal received by the city manager more than ten calendar days after the director's determination may be rejected as late. Upon receipt of a complete and timely appeal, the city manager shall appoint an independent hearing officer to consider and rule on the appeal.

B. The independent hearing officer shall, in coordination with the applicant and the director, set the time and place for the appeal hearing, and provide written notice thereof. The independent hearing officer shall consider relevant evidence, provide an opportunity for the applicant and the city to present additional noncumulative evidence at the hearing, and preserve the complete administrative record of the proceeding.

C. Within thirty days after the independent hearing officer closes the hearing and receives post-hearing briefs (if any), the independent hearing officer shall issue a written decision on the appeal hearing which shall include a statement of findings of fact in support of the decision. The independent hearing officer's discretion shall be limited to a determination that either supports the director's determination or orders the city to refund all or a portion of the impact fees to the applicant. The applicant shall bear the burden of proving entitlement to a fee adjustment. The decision of the hearing officer is final and conclusive and is subject to judicial review.

3.60.075 Cost of Appeal/Protest.
131
Agenda Item # 6.

The applicant shall pay all city costs related to any protest or appeal pursuant to this chapter, in accordance with the fee schedule adopted by the city. At the time of the applicant's protest, and at the time of the applicant's appeal, the applicant shall pay a deposit in an amount established by the city to cover the estimated reasonable cost of processing the protest and appeal. If the deposit is not adequate to cover all the city costs, the applicant shall pay the difference within twenty days after receipt of written notice from the director.

3.60.080 Administration.

The city manager or their designee is authorized to adopt administrative regulations or guidelines that are consistent with and that further the terms and requirements set forth in this code. All such administrative regulations or guidelines must be in writing. Such regulations or guidelines may interpret any provision of this chapter, as well as any provision of this code relating to the calculation of a fee.

3.60.085 Annual Adjustments.

Annual adjustments will provide the ability to increase any fee covered by this chapter based upon the Construction Code Index (CCI). Annual increase based upon CCI shall only be allowed for eight (8) years post adoption of the Nexus Study. The City of Los Altos shall reevaluate its development impact and in-lieu fees no later than every eight (8) years.

3.60.090 Annual Reporting.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 66006 within 180-days of the close of the fiscal year, the City of Los Altos must make available to the public detailed information regarding impact fees. The annual reporting required as a part of this chapter must be submitted and reviewed by the City Council within 15 days of being posted publicly.

The detailed information shall include but is not limited to:

1. Impact Fee Description and Fund Number;

2. Impact Fee Amount;

3. Beginning and Ending balance of the account or fund;

4. Amount of the fees collected in the fiscal year and the total interest earned;

5. Identification of project(s) one which the funds are being earmarked for;

6. Identification of the approximate date on which the projects would commence;

7. Identification of any interfund loans or transfers related to capital projects, and the amount of the transfer;

8. Amount of any refunds or allocations made on behalf of the impact fee funds.

3.60.095 Severability.

If any portion of this chapter is held to be invalid, unconstitutional, or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, that decision will not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this code. The city council declares that this chapter and each portion would have been adopted without regard to whether any portion of this chapter would be later declared invalid, unconstitutional, or unenforceable. 132
Agenda Item # 6.
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2024-XX

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

ADOPTING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT AND IN-LIEU FEES BASED ON THE

ADOPTED NEXUS STUDY
WHEREAS, the Los Altos Municipal Code specifies that certain fees and charges shall be set by Resolution of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the mitigation Fee Act contained in Government Code Section 66000 permits the City to impose development impact fees on new development for the purposes of funding public facilities necessary to serve that new development; and WHEREAS, the City of Los Altos has existing Development Impact Fees; and WHEREAS, new development projects attract new residents and employees to the City, generating an increased demand for park, transportation, public safety and general government facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City of Los Altos has determined that City parks, transportation, public safety and general government facilities are reaching capacity, and that the city requires a costeffective and efficient way of serving future residents and employees while maintain existing levels of service; and
WHEREAS, the City of Los Altos wishes to update existing Development Impact fees, and establish new Development Impact Fees in direct relationship to associated development within the City; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to adopt a Park Impact Fee on new development to fund the costs associated with increased demand for community parks and recreational facilities created by new development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined additional funds are necessary for maintain and operating the City’s Public Safety Infrastructure; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to acquire vehicles and transportation-related equipment and improve, replace and/or construct one or more public safety facilities to serve new development in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the creation of a Public Safety Impact Fee on new development within the City would provide the necessary funding for police and fire services related to new development; and
WHEREAS, the City’s General Plan and Complete Streets Master Plan calls for strategies to provide an efficient, reliable, and convenient transit system; improved bicycle routes; and a balanced street system to serve automobiles, pedestrians, bicycles, and transit; and WHEREAS, it is appropriate for new development to pay for improvements and development to the transportation network proportionate to the demands the new development places on the City’s transportation infrastructure; and 133
Agenda Item # 6.
2 WHEREAS, the City desires to impose a Transportation Impact Fee on new development to fund the costs associated with maintaining adequate street and transportation facilities related to new development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined additional funds are necessary for maintain and operating the City’s General Government Infrastructure related to Municipal Operations; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to replace and/or construct new municipal facilities to serve new development in the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the creation of a General Government Impact Fee on new development within the City would provide the necessary funding for municipal operations related to new development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined the physical development or funding of public art within the community is necessary; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the creation of a Public Art Development Fee on new development within the City would provide the necessary funding for public art within the community related to new development; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined funds are necessary for mitigating the impacts associated with non-residential development with the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the creation of a Commercial Linkage Fee on new development within the City would provide the necessary funding for the creation of affordable housing related to new development; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined funding the creation of affordable housing is necessary to further the City’s Housing related goals; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the creation of an Affordable Housing Fee on new development within the City in-lieu of construction of affordable units onsite would provide the necessary alternatives in helping to construct more housing within the City; and WHEREAS, on January 24, 2023, the City Council approved the City’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element Update; and
WHEREAS, Program 2.B of the Housing Element calls for the establishment of an affordable housing in-lieu fee; and
WHEREAS, Program 2.B of the Housing Element requires the City of Los Altos to conduct a feasibility analysis to support the establishment of an affordable housing in-lieu fee for residential development; and
WHEREAS, Program 2.B of the Housing Element requires the City of Los Altos to adopt an affordable housing in-lieu fee based on the feasibility study prepared; and WHEREAS, on January 23, 2024, the City Council adopted an Inclusionary Housing InLieu Fee based on the results of the Inclusionary Housing Economic Feasibility Study completed by Bae Urban Economics; and
134
Agenda Item # 6.
3 WHEREAS, Program 3.D of the Housing Element calls for the City of Los Altos to Evaluate and Adjust Impact Fees; and
WHEREAS, Program 3.D of the Housing Element expressly requires the modification of Development Impact Fees to be charged on a per square foot basis rather than per unit to encourage the development of higher densities and smaller, more affordable housing units; and WHEREAS, Program 3.D of the Housing Element expressly requires the modification of Development Impact Fees to be completed no later than December 2024; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 66016 requires the City of Los Altos adopt a Nexus Study to support modifications to existing Development Impact Fees, and the establishment of new Development Impact Fees; and
WHEREAS, consultant Matrix Consulting Group, and subconsultants DKS Associates, and Strategic Economics on behalf of the City of Los Altos prepared the Development Impact Fee Nexus Study dated May 2024 (the “Nexus Study”); and
WHEREAS, the Nexus Study substantiates a methodology that will charge each new development project only for the costs necessary to mitigate the impacts expected to be caused by that development project; and
WHEREAS, there is a reasonable relationship between the Development Impact Fees and the development projects on which the Fees will be imposed because the Fees will only fund costs necessitated by each new development; and
WHEREAS, the Development Impact Fees will not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the land and facilities for which the Fees are imposed; and WHEREAS, the Development Impact Fees will not be levied, collected, or imposed for general revenue purposes, but are levied specifically to fund facilities of the types set forth in the Nexus Study; and
WHEREAS, the Nexus Study establishes proposed amounts and provides an evaluation of the need for new Development Impact Fees and establishes the nexus between the imposition of the new Fees and the estimated reasonable costs of providing the services for which the Fees are charged; and
WHEREAS, the Nexus Study identifies the City’s existing level of parks, transportation, public safety and general government services, identifies the level of service, and includes an explanation of why the level of service is appropriate; and WHEREAS, the Nexus Study includes information that supports the City’s actions, as required by Government Code Section 66001(a); and
WHEREAS, the Nexus Study calculates the maximum justifiable Development Impact Fees that can be charged on new development, and therefore, the City Council may adopt reduced Development Impact Fees below the maximum justifiable amount identified within the Nexus Study if doing so effectuates a policy of the City; and 135
Agenda Item # 6.
4 WHEREAS, on May 28, 2024, the City Council adopted a Nexus Study for Development Impact Fees in Compliance with Assembly Bill 602 (AB602) following a thirty-day public notice and review period; and
WHEREAS, the amendments were processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the Los Altos Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on June 11, 2024 and continued to a date certain of June 25, 2024; and
WHEREAS, this Resolution is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15378(b)(4) and 15273(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended; and NOW THEREFORE, that the City Council of the City of Los Altos hereby adopts the following development impact and in-lieu fees:

Parks and Recreation Impact Fee
Category Full Cost
Single-Family $12.12/sqft.

Multi-Family $44.15/sqft.

Public Art Development Fee
All Development 1% of Construction Cost
Public Safety Impact Fee
Single-Family $0.09/sqft.

Multi-Family $0.34/sqft.

Commercial/Retail $1.22/sqft.

Office $1.62/sqft.

General Government Impact Fee
Single-Family $0.13/sqft.

Multi-Family $0.48/sqft.

Commercial/Retail $2.14/sqft.

Office $2.86/sqft.

Transportation Impact Fee
Single-Family $1.55/sqft.

Multi-Family $6.29/sqft.

Commercial/Retail $10.71/sqft.

Office $9.45/sqft.

Commercial Linkage Fee
Commercial/Retail $35.10/sqft.

Office $12.25/sqft.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the resolution shall be effective upon the commencement of the sixty-first day post adoption and shall remain in effect until a new Resolution amending the same is adopted by the City Council.

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 25th day of June 2024 by the following vote:
136
Agenda Item # 6.
5 AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Jonathan D. Weinberg, MAYOR
Attest:
_____________________________
Melissa Thurman, CITY CLERK
137
Agenda Item # 6.

Proposed Impact Fees for Downtown Parking Sites
Prototype 1:

High- Prototype 2:

Density HighMultifamily Density Prototype 3: Prototype 4:

Rental Condominium Townhouse 100% Affordable
Development Program
Site Size (acres) 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
Total Units 76 62 12 78
du/acre 105 86 17 108
Total Project Size (SF) 78,537 87,866 19,000 55,281
Estimated Construction Cost $46,705,816 $60,047,494 $13,189,938 $50,830,424 City Impact Fees Old New Old New Old New Old New
Traffic/Transportation Impact Fee $316,084 $493,995 $257,858 $552,676 $49,908 $119,510 $324,402 $347,719 Park In-Lieu Fee $3,708,800 $3,467,390 $3,025,600 $3,879,277 $585,600 $838,850 $3,806,400 $2,440,667 Public Safety Fee n.a. $26,702 n.a. $29,874 n.a. $6,460 n.a. $18,796 General Government n.a. $37,698 n.a. $42,176 n.a. $9,120 n.a. $26,535 Public Art $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $131,899 $131,899 $200,000 $200,000 Total Fees $4,224,884 $4,225,785 $3,483,458 $4,704,004 $767,407 $1,105,839 $4,330,802 $3,033,717 Fees per Unit $55,591 $55,602 $56,185 $75,871 $63,951 $92,153 $55,523 $38,894 Assumptions:

OLD (per unit) New (per SF)
Multifamily Single-Family Multifamily Single-Family
Traffic/Transportation Impact Fee 4,159 6,774 $6.29 $1.55 Park In-Lieu Fee 48,800 77,500 $44.15 $12.12
Public Safety Fee n.a. n.a. $0.34 $0.09
Public Art (% of construction cost) 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% General Government n.a. n.a. $0.48 $0.13
138
Agenda Item # 6.

PALO ALTO
SCENARIO: 25 Unit, Multi-Family Housing Development.

PROJECT VALUATION: $19,667,500.00
TOTAL
SQUARE FOOTAGE: (HABITABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE ONLY) 38979

PER UNIT
PARK & RECREATION IMPACT FEE 56,185.00 $1,404,625.00
PUBLIC ART DEVELOPMENT FEE 1.00% $196,675.00
PUBLIC SAFETY IMPACT FEE 1,070.00 $26,750.00
GENERAL GOVERNMENT IMPACT FEE 1,279.00 $33,650.00
COMMUNITY CENTER IMPACT FEE 3,547.13 $88,678.25
LIBRARY IMPACT FEE 2,113.37 $52,834.25
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE 9,754.23 $243,855.75
TOTAL
(DIF) $2,047,068.25
SCENARIO: 50 Unit, Multi-Family Housing Development.

PROJECT VALUATION: $46,502,727.00
TOTAL
SQUARE FOOTAGE: (HABITABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE ONLY) 79011
PARK & RECREATION IMPACT FEE 56,185.00 $2,809,250.00
PUBLIC ART DEVELOPMENT FEE 1.00% $393,350.00
PUBLIC SAFETY IMPACT FEE 1,070.00 $53,500.00
GENERAL GOVERNMENT IMPACT FEE 1,279.00 $67,300.00
COMMUNITY CENTER IMPACT FEE 3,547.13 $177,356.50
LIBRARY IMPACT FEE 2,113.37 $105,668.50
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE 9,754.23 $487,711.50
TOTAL
(DIF) $4,094,136.50
139
Agenda Item # 6.

MOUNTAIN VIEW
SCENARIO: 25 Unit, Multi-Family Housing Development.

PROJECT VALUATION: $19,667,500.00
TOTAL
SQUARE FOOTAGE: (HABITABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE ONLY) 38979
PER
UNIT/SQ.

FT.

PARK & RECREATION IMPACT FEE 150.00 $5,846,850.00
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE (2018) 3,428.00 $85,700.00
TOTAL
(DIF) $5,932,550.00
SCENARIO: 50 Unit, Multi-Family Housing Development.

PROJECT VALUATION: $46,502,727.00
TOTAL
SQUARE FOOTAGE: (HABITABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE ONLY) 79011
PARK & RECREATION IMPACT FEE 150.00 $11,851,650.00
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE 3,428.00 $171,400.00
TOTAL
(DIF) $12,023,050.00
140
Agenda Item # 6.

SUNNYVALE
SCENARIO: 25 Unit, Multi-Family Housing Development.

PROJECT VALUATION: $19,667,500.00
TOTAL
SQUARE FOOTAGE: (HABITABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE ONLY) 38979

PER UNIT
PARK & RECREATION IMPACT FEE 70,567.20 $1,764,180.00
SENSE OF PLACE FEE 1,737.00 $43,425.00
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE 2,669.00 $66,725.00
TOTAL
(DIF) $1,874,330.00
SCENARIO: 50 Unit, Multi-Family Housing Development.

PROJECT VALUATION: $46,502,727.00
TOTAL
SQUARE FOOTAGE: (HABITABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE ONLY) 79011
PARK & RECREATION IMPACT FEE 70,567.20 $3,528,360.00
SENSE OF PLACE FEE 1,737.00 $86,850.00
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE 2,669.00 $133,450.00
TOTAL
(DIF) $3,748,660.00
141
Agenda Item # 6.

MENLO PARK
SCENARIO: 25 Unit, Multi-Family Housing Development.

PROJECT VALUATION: $19,667,500.00
TOTAL
SQUARE FOOTAGE: (HABITABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE ONLY) 38979

PER UNIT
RECREATION IMPACT FEE (0.008XUNITSXACREAGE OF LAND) $1,800,000.00 STORM SRAINAGE FEES 150.00 $3,750.00
CONSTRUCTION IMPACT FEE (CONSTRUCTION COST) 0.58% $1,140,715.00 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE 6,358.18 $158,954.50
TOTAL
(DIF) $3,103,419.50
SCENARIO: 50 Unit, Multi-Family Housing Development.

PROJECT VALUATION: $46,502,727.00
TOTAL
SQUARE FOOTAGE: (HABITABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE ONLY) 79011
RECREATION IMPACT FEE (0.008XUNITSXACREAGE OF LAND) $3,600,000.00 STORM SRAINAGE FEES 150.00 $7,500.00
CONSTRUCTION IMPACT FEE (CONSTRUCTION COST) 0.58% $2,697,158.17 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE 6,358.18 $317,909.00
TOTAL
(DIF) $6,622,567.17
142
Agenda Item # 6.

SANTA CLARA (CITY)
SCENARIO: 25 Unit, Multi-Family Housing Development.

PROJECT VALUATION: $19,667,500.00
TOTAL
SQUARE FOOTAGE: (HABITABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE ONLY) 38979

PER UNIT
PARK & RECREATION IMPACT FEE 49,738.00 $1,243,450.00
SPECIFIC PLAN AREA DEV. IMPACT FEE 8,159.83 $407,991.50 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE 671.19 $16,779.75
TOTAL
(DIF) $1,668,221.25
SCENARIO: 50 Unit, Multi-Family Housing Development.

PROJECT VALUATION: $46,502,727.00
TOTAL
SQUARE FOOTAGE: (HABITABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE ONLY) 79011
PARK & RECREATION IMPACT FEE 49,738.00 $2,486,900.00
SPECIFIC PLAN AREA DEV. IMPACT FEE 8,159.83 $815,983.00 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE 671.19 $33,559.50
TOTAL
(DIF) $3,336,442.50
143
Agenda Item # 6.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: June 25, 2024
Prepared By: Nick Zornes
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: 330 Distel Circle – Project Modification Request – 100% Affordable Project

COUNCIL PRIORITY AREA
☐Business Communities
☐Circulation Safety and Efficiency
☐Environmental Sustainability
☒Housing
☐Neighborhood Safety Infrastructure
☒General Government

RECOMMENDATION
Approve Modification Request of Approved Design Review Permit D22-0002 and Conditional Use Permit CUP22-0001 for the property located at 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA to eliminate automated parking stackers in the parking facilities and balconies that face the interior courtyard from the approved project and find that this project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to 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.

FISCAL IMPACT
Not Applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project modification request is exempt from environmental review pursuant to 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.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
 October 27, 2020 – Memorandum of Understanding with the County of Santa Clara for an Affordable Housing Project at 330 Distel Circle
 April 27, 2021 – Affordable Housing Update and Introduction of the Affordable Housing Developer
 January 11, 2022 – City Council/Planning Commission Joint Study Session with Planning Commission – Project Pre-Application
 March 22, 2022 – Story Pole Exemption Hearing
 August 18, 2022 – Complete Streets Commission and Planning Commission Joint Meeting Recommendation for Approval of Project.
144
Agenda Item # 7.
 September 20, 2024 – Los Altos City Council Approved of Design Review Permit and Conditional Use Permit for the Construction of 90-unit Affordable Housing Project at 330 Distel Circle.
 January 9th, 2024 – City Council Strategic Goals requested staff to return with Informational Item regarding how the City of Los Altos can support the construction of 330 Distel Circle.
 January 23rd, 2024 – City Council Informational Item provided to City Council.

BACKGROUND
On September 20, 2024, the Los Altos City Council took final action in approving the Design Review Permit and Conditional Use Permit for a Project at 330 Distel Circle. The approved project includes the demolition of the existing one-story, 12,120 square-foot., single-story office building, to construct a new five-story residential building on a 0.87-acre lot containing 90 residential rental units with 88 below market rate (BMR) units and two market rate manager units.

On December 12, 2022, the project applicant (EAH Housing) submitted Construction Drawings for review. Since that time 330 Distel Circle has undergone three (3) full rounds of plan check review for the various disciplines of Building & Safety, Planning & Zoning, Land Development Engineering, and County Fire.

In Spring 2024, project applicants from EAH Housing contacted the Assistant City Manager to discuss the project status of the proposed project at 330 Distel Circle. At that time, it was discussed that project funding had become increasingly challenging after the project was not awarded funds at the beginning of the year from the most recent SuperNOFA. The project is now seeking additional ways to close the funding gap which includes various methods such as additional financial contributions from the County, additional Tax Credits (State and Federal), and project modifications as requested with this application consideration.

ANALYSIS
To close this gap and advance the project in a timely manner, EAH Housing is requesting the following modifications which will significantly reduce both construction costs as well as operating costs:

1. Elimination of automated parking stackers:
a. Hard cost construction savings of $3,884,317
b. Onsite parking will be reduced from (90) total spaces to a total of (40) spaces. c. Increases the Net Operating Income by over $45k/year, allowing the project to support a larger permanent loan
d. Project is in a Mass Transit Corridor (MTC) and entitled to (0) onsite parking

2. Elimination of balconies located at the interior Courtyard:
a. Hard cost construction savings of $528,480.
b. (24) balconies will be removed, leaving (16) exterior facing balconies c. Overall design visible from the public ROW remains unchanged The above modifications result in hard cost savings of over $4.4M, with additional savings in relation to construction loan interest, contingencies, and operating expenses. Additionally, the overall construction costs were reduced by $3.2M due to improved pricing from subcontractors 145
Agenda Item # 7.
and the modular factory. In conjunction with an additional funding commitment from the County of Santa Clara for $10M, approval of these modifications will allow the project to apply for 4% Federal Tax Credits and Tax-Exempt Bonds during Round 2 in August 2024. The remaining gap of approximately $10M is balanced by a request for additional state tax credits. This project scores well and will be highly competitive in the upcoming application, with awards announced December 11, 2024. If awarded the project will be able to close and commence construction in Q2 of 2025, with completion by the end of 2026.

DISCUSSION
The Development Services Department finds the project modification request appropriate and prudent for the creation of additional housing within the City of Los Altos. City Council Priority #4 states, “The City of Los Altos will implement the Housing Element, programs, and policies to facilitate, incentivize and administer the availability of housing that is safe, diverse and affordable for all income levels to meet the needs of the Community and seek to increase and protect its green space.”
If approved, the modification request will facilitate the creation of housing by ensuring the existing funding gap of the City’s first 100% Affordable Project is closed.  The proposed project construction valuation is $53,172,986.  The requested modification reduces the construction cost by $4,412,797 or 8.2%.

Elimination of Parking Stackers
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(p) the approved project is not required to provide any onsite parking as it is located within ½ mile of a major transit stop. On September 20, 2022, the City of Los Altos received Technical Assistance from MTC – Metropolitan Transportation Commission; the Technical Assistance received was documented for the City Council and is provided as an attachment to this report (Attachment #3).

The approved project includes (90) total parking stalls, most of which are provided by parking mechanical stackers within the garage. By the elimination of the parking stackers the resulting parking stalls will include a total of (40) spaces onsite. If the City Council approves the project modification the overall project cost will be reduced by almost $4million.

Elimination of Interior Courtyard Balconies
The approved project has a total of (40) balconies on various sides of the building. The modification requested removes (24) balconies from the interior courtyard which overlooks common community open space and leaves the remaining (16) balconies. If approved the elimination of (24) balconies will result in just over $500k in construction cost savings.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Resolution

2. Project Plans

3. Major Transit Stop Memorandum (9-20-2022)
146
Agenda Item # 7.

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS APPROVING A MODIFICATION REQUEST FOR 330 DISTEL CIRCLE
WHEREAS, the City of Los Altos received an application from EAH Housing (Applicant), for a Modification of approved Design Review Permit (D22-0002) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP22-0001) for the property located at 330 Distel Circle. The Modification Request is to eliminate the requirement of parking stackers within the garage and reducing the required parking from (90) parking stalls to a total of (40) parking stalls, and eliminate (24) balconies from the exterior of the building with (16) to remain; and
WHEREAS, said project is located within (1/2) mile of a public transit stop and pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(p) no parking is required for a 100% Affordable Project; and WHEREAS, said Project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to 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; and
WHEREAS, said Project has been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the Los Altos Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of the Public Resources Code, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the regulations and policies of the City of Los Altos have been satisfied or complied with by the City in connection with the Project; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Los Altos does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution will become effective upon adoption.

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 25th day of June 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Jonathan D. Weinberg, MAYOR
Attest:
_____________________________
Melissa Thurman, CMC, CITY CLERK
147
Agenda Item # 7.
330 DISTEL CIRCLE
LOS ALTOS # 2021-0042
Architecture + Planning
1814 Franklin St., Ste. 400
Oakland, CA 94612
510.272.2910
ktgy.com
A0.0

COVER SHEET
330 DISTEL CIRCLE
SUBMITTAL #3R OCTOBER 13, 2022
148
Agenda Item # 7.

DISTEL CIRCLE

EL CAMINO REAL

SHEET INDEX
330 DISTEL CIRCLE
LOS ALTOS # 2021-0042
Architecture + Planning
1814 Franklin St., Ste. 400
Oakland, CA 94612
510.272.2910
ktgy.com
SUBMITTAL #3R
MAY 21, 2024 A0.1

PROJECT DATA

SHEET INDEX AND PROJECT SUMMARY
VICINITY MAP (N.T.S.)
330 DISTEL CIRCLE, LOS ALTOS

PROJECT SITE

PROJECT DATA PROJECT TEAM
149
Agenda Item # 7.
330 DISTEL CIRCLE
LOS ALTOS # 2021-0042
SUBMITTAL #3
JUNE 3, 2022
Architecture + Planning
1814 Franklin St., Ste. 400
Oakland, CA 94612
510.272.2910
ktgy.com
A0.2
SUBMITTAL #3R

SITE CONTEXT
OCTOBER 13, 2022
150
Agenda Item # 7.
330 DISTEL CIRCLE
LOS ALTOS # 2021-0042
SUBMITTAL #3
JUNE 3, 2022
Architecture + Planning
1814 Franklin St., Ste. 400
Oakland, CA 94612
510.272.2910
ktgy.com
A0.3

SOLAR STUDY
March + September: 9 am
March + September: 12 pm
March + September: 3 pm
June: 9 am
June: 12 pm
June: 3 pm
December: 9 am
December: 12 pm
December: 3 pm
SUBMITTAL #3R OCTOBER 13, 2022
151
Agenda Item # 7.

UP
UP
UP
A
B
Residential
Parking
±10'-0" ±11'-8" ±11'-2"±222'-5" 125'-8"FR
300 ft
Entry Drive 3'-5" ±29'-9" 10'-0"
10ft easement
Distel Circle
Aerial Apparatus Access Road
300 ft
A

5. apparatus access units above for aerial 30' max. from road to Between 15' min.to A0.4

FIRE ACCESS DIAGRAM
0 8 16 24 LEVEL 1
330 DISTEL CIRCLE
LOS ALTOS # 2021-0042
Architecture + Planning
1814 Franklin St., Ste. 400
Oakland, CA 94612
510.272.2910
ktgy.com
SUBMITTAL #3R
MAY 21, 2024
Project Summary
Site Area .87 acres
Dwelling Units 90 Units
Proposed Use Multifamily Residential
Construction Type Type IIIA 5 stories
Parking Surface + Mechanized Parking
Fire Access Plan
26' aerial apparatus access road
300' maximum. See request below per
Exception 1 of 503.1.1 of Santa Clara County
code.

Stair Fire Riser
Wet Standpipe
Stair with roof access
Ladder: Maximum 75 degree laddering angle to
meet 15-30ft requirement from building to fire
staging area.

Red curbed area and/or fire lane signage to be
installed
Knox box for garage gate
Project is requesting for 300ft hose reach from Distel
per Exception 1 of 503.1.1 Santa Clara County code
below.
-NFPA 13 Fire sprinkler system proposed.
-4ft gravel path around the building for fire access.
-3 sides are surrounded on the other side of our
property line with parking so access from adjacent
parcels are available.
-Main frontage has aerial apparatus access.
-A narrow canopied variety of tree proposed on the
West, North, East sides. See Landscape Drawings.
-Western stair goes to the roof.
-Western stair has standpipe connection at ground
level from exterior.
-Wet standpipe proposed on the Courtyard - Level 2
NOTES

1. NFPA 13 Sprinkler system proposed. To be
deferred submittal.

2. Fire alarm system to be submitted as a deferred
submittal.

3. A two-way communication system shall be
provided as a deferred submittal.

4. Emergency responder radio coverage shall be
provided as a deferred submittal.

5. Knox key for automatic gates per section CFC
Sec. 503.6 and 506.
152
Agenda Item # 7.
75 ft
75 ft
±224'-10" 127'-10" 29'-6"
Distel Circle
Aerial Apparatus Access Road
65°
75 degree
max.

A
± 72 ft (100ft ladder max.)
29'-6" ±64'-6"
59°
Fire Ladder
Distel Circle
See note 1
PL
75° max
A0.5

FIRE ACCESS DIAGRAM
0 8 16 24 LEVEL 2
330 DISTEL CIRCLE
LOS ALTOS # 2021-0042
Architecture + Planning
1814 Franklin St., Ste. 400
Oakland, CA 94612
510.272.2910
ktgy.com
Section A
Note:

1. Tree shown as ±20' height x ±15' width. See Landscape drawings for more information. Regquirement is for trees to be clear of 75 degree max. laddering angle.

SUBMITTAL #3R OCTOBER 13, 2022
153
Agenda Item # 7.

ADA D

ADADADADADADADADADADADAD
ADA WADA WADA WADA WADA W COM. W
COM. D

ADAD ADA W ADA W ADA W ADA W ADA W ADA W ADA W
FD LEVEL 1
GROSS AREA =
27,690 SF
LEVEL 2
GROSS AREA =
22,350 SF
Courtyard
LEVEL 3
GROSS AREA =
22,350 SF
LEVEL 4
GROSS AREA =
22,350 SF
Roof
LEVEL 5
GROSS AREA =
21,130 SF
A0.6
F.A.R. DIAGRAM
0 8 16 24
330 DISTEL CIRCLE
LOS ALTOS # 2021-0042
Architecture + Planning
1814 Franklin St., Ste. 400
Oakland, CA 94612
510.272.2910
ktgy.com
LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3
LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5
DEFINITIONS: (as per Los Altos Municipal Code Secn 14.02.070) · Floor Area Ratio means the maximum ratio of gross floor area on a site to the total site area. · Gross Floor Area means the total floor space under roof of all floors of a building measured to the outside surfaces of exterior walls, including halls, stairways, elevator shafts, ducts, service and mechanical equipment rooms, interior courts, garages, enclosed accessory structures, and carports.
· Total Site Area means the total horizontal area included within the property lines of a single site.

LEVEL 1
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 3
LEVEL 4
LEVEL 5
___________________________ TOTAL
TOTAL SITE AREA = 38,050 SF
FAR = 115,870 / 38,050 = 3
= 27,690 SF
= 22,350 SF
= 22,350 SF
= 22,350 SF
= 21,130 SF
= 115,870 SF
SUBMITTAL #3R OCTOBER 13, 2022
154
Agenda Item # 7.
330 DISTEL CIRCLE
LOS ALTOS # 2021-0042
Architecture + Planning
1814 Franklin St., Ste. 400
Oakland, CA 94612
510.272.2910
ktgy.com
SUBMITTAL #3R
MAY 21, 2024 A1.0

CONCEPTS

DISTEL CIRCLE AERIAL
330 DISTEL CIRCLE
We propose an innovative solution
to the housing and parking needs
for today and the future through four
design concepts while providing an
inclusionary and healthy community:

1. Mass Timber

2. Modular Units

3. Sustainabilty
155
Agenda Item # 7.

UP UP UP
A
B 22'-8" 24'-0"
9'-0" 18'-0"125'-8"
222'-5" 18'-0"
10'-0" 11'-8"
8'-11"
9'-0" 6'-5" 7'-4" 6'-5" 7'-4" UPDN ELECTRICAL RM
RR
BREAK
ROOM

MULTI-PURPOSE
ROOM

CO-WORK
LOBBY/
LOUNGE
TRASH

COMPUTER
ROOM
STOR. R.R.

BIKE RM
OFFICE
GATE

DISTEL CIRCLE
OFFICE
OFFICE

UTILITY

DRIVELANE

LOADING
MPOE MAINT. R.R.

OFFICE
BIKE
ROOM
MAIL
FIRE
PUMP

EVR EVCS EVR EVR
330 DISTEL CIRCLE
LOS ALTOS # 2021-0042
Architecture + Planning
1814 Franklin St., Ste. 400
Oakland, CA 94612
510.272.2910
ktgy.com
SUBMITTAL #3R
MAY 21, 2024
330 DISTEL CIRCLE
LOS ALTOS # 2021-0042
Architecture + Planning
1814 Franklin St., Ste. 400
Oakland, CA 94612
510.272.2910
ktgy.com
SUBMITTAL #3R
MAY 21, 2024 A1.1

SITE PLAN
0 8 16 32 GROUND LEVEL
156
Agenda Item # 7.
330 DISTEL CIRCLE
LOS ALTOS # 2021-0042
SUBMITTAL #3
JUNE 3, 2022
Architecture + Planning
1814 Franklin St., Ste. 400
Oakland, CA 94612
510.272.2910
ktgy.com
A1.2

PROPOSED DESIGN

MASS TIMBER

MASS TIMBER
Our project team anticipates several
key benefits from utilizing mass timber
as opposed to concrete to construct
the ground level of the project.
· Renewable Resource
· Reduced Carbon Footprint
· Faster Construction
· Less disruptive construction
process
· Natural warm wood aesthetic

DISTEL CIRCLE BUILDING ENTRY
SUBMITTAL #3R OCTOBER 13, 2022
157
Agenda Item # 7.
330 DISTEL CIRCLE
LOS ALTOS # 2021-0042
SUBMITTAL #3
JUNE 3, 2022
Architecture + Planning
1814 Franklin St., Ste. 400
Oakland, CA 94612
510.272.2910
ktgy.com
A1.3

PROPOSED DESIGN

MODULAR UNITS

MODULAR UNITS
90 Residential units located at level 2-5
are envisioned to be built of modular
manufactured units. Modular units
allow for:

DISTEL CIRCLE STREETSCAPE
· Reduced construction noise and
disruption
· Minimal material waste
· Faster construction
SUBMITTAL #3R OCTOBER 13, 2022
158
Agenda Item # 7.
330 DISTEL CIRCLE
LOS ALTOS # 2021-0042
SUBMITTAL #3
JUNE 3, 2022
Architecture + Planning
1814 Franklin St., Ste. 400
Oakland, CA 94612
510.272.2910
ktgy.com
A1.4

SUSTAINABLE STRATEGIES

DISTEL CIRCLE PROPOSED ELEVATION
SUBMITTAL #3R OCTOBER 13, 2022
159
Agenda Item # 7.
22'-8" 24'-0"
9'-0" 18'-0"125'-8"
222'-5" 18'-0"
10'-0" 11'-8"
8'-11"
9'-0"
UP
UP
UP
A
B 6'-5" 7'-4" 6'-5" 7'-4" UPDN

ELECTRICAL RM
RR
BREAK
ROOM

MULTI-PURPOSE
ROOM

CO-WORK
LOBBY/
LOUNGE
TRASH

COMPUTER
ROOM
STOR. R.R.

BIKE RM
OFFICE
GATE

DISTEL CIRCLE
OFFICE
OFFICE

UTILITY

DRIVELANE

LOADING
MPOE MAINT. R.R.

OFFICE
BIKE
ROOM
MAIL
FIRE
PUMP

EVR EVCS EVR EVR
330 DISTEL CIRCLE
LOS ALTOS # 2021-0042
Architecture + Planning
1814 Franklin St., Ste. 400
Oakland, CA 94612
510.272.2910
ktgy.com
SUBMITTAL #3R
MAY 21, 2024 A2.0

BUILDING PLAN
0 8 16 24 LEVEL 1
160
Agenda Item # 7.
127'-10"
70'-0" 84'-10" 70'-0"
224'-10"
8'-11" 10'-3"
UP
UP
UP
Courtyard
- see landscape
drawings
Laundry
(Single Height)
P3-1 P3-0
P1-0
P1-0
P1-0
P2-0
P3-0 P3-1
P3-0 P3-0
P1-0 P1-0 P2-0 P2-0 P2-0
P2-0
P0-1
P0-1
P0-1
P0-1
P0-1
P0-1 6'-5" 7'-4" 6'-5" 7'-4"
A2.1

BUILDING PLAN
0 8 16 24 LEVEL 2
330 DISTEL CIRCLE
LOS ALTOS # 2021-0042
Architecture + Planning
1814 Franklin St., Ste. 400
Oakland, CA 94612
510.272.2910
ktgy.com
SUBMITTAL #3R
MAY 21, 2024
161
Agenda Item # 7.

FEC
FEC
P3-1 P3-0
P1-0
P1-0
P1-0
P2-0
P3-0 P3-1
P3-0 P3-0
P1-0 P1-0 P2-0 P2-0 P2-0
P2-0
P0-1
P0-1
P0-1
P0-1
P0-1
P0-1
P2-0 127'-10"
70'-0" 84'-10" 70'-0"
224'-10" 6'-5" 7'-4" 6'-5" 7'-4"
330 DISTEL CIRCLE
LOS ALTOS # 2021-0042
Architecture + Planning
1814 Franklin St., Ste. 400
Oakland, CA 94612
510.272.2910
ktgy.com
SUBMITTAL #3R
MAY 21, 2024 A2.2

BUILDING PLAN
0 8 16 24 LEVELS 3-4
162
Agenda Item # 7.

FEC
P3-1 P3-0
P1-0
P1-0
P1-0
P2-0
P3-1
P3-0 P3-0
P1-0 P1-0 P2-0 P2-0 P2-0
P2-0
P0-1
P0-1
P0-1
P0-1
P0-1
P0-1
P2-0
Roof 127'-10"
70'-0" 84'-10" 70'-0"
224'-10" 6'-5" 7'-4" 6'-5" 7'-4"
330 DISTEL CIRCLE
LOS ALTOS # 2021-0042
Architecture + Planning
1814 Franklin St., Ste. 400
Oakland, CA 94612
510.272.2910
ktgy.com
SUBMITTAL #3R
MAY 21, 2024 A2.3

BUILDING PLAN
0 8 16 24 LEVEL 5
163
Agenda Item # 7.

STAIR 2
RS2

ELEVATORS
RE 1/4" / 12"
1/4" / 12" 1/4" / 12"
1/4" / 12" 1/2" / 12" 1/4" / 12"
1/4" / 12"
1/4" / 12" 1/4" / 12"
1/4" / 12" 1/4" / 12"
1/4" / 12" 1/4" / 12" 1/4" / 12" 1/2" / 12"
1/4" / 12"
RS2 1/4" / 12" 1/4" / 12"
4'-0"

NO PENETRATION ZONE
4'-0"
4'-0"

NO PENETRATION ZONE
4'-0"
1/4" / 12" 1/4" / 12" 1/2" / 12" 1/2" / 12" 3/4" / 12" 3/4" / 12" 1/4" / 12" 1/4" / 12" 1/4" / 12"
1/4" / 12" 1/4" / 12"
1/4" / 12"
Roof Below AC Condensers
Elevator
Overrun
Stair 128'-4"
225'-4"
(PV)
Panels
(PV)
Panels
(PV)
Panels AC Condensers (PV)
Panels
330 DISTEL CIRCLE
LOS ALTOS # 2021-0042
Architecture + Planning
1814 Franklin St., Ste. 400
Oakland, CA 94612
510.272.2910
ktgy.com
SUBMITTAL #3R
MAY 21, 2024 A2.4

ROOF PLAN
0 8 16 24
164
Agenda Item # 7.

SUBMITTAL #3R OCTOBER 13, 2022 MAY 16, 2024
165
Agenda Item # 7.
1 1 5 9 3 6 2 7 ± 60'-5" ± 65'-5" ± 70'-5"
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
T.O. Roof Sheathing 17'-9" 10'-11"
T.O. Parapet
Level 4
Level 5 5'-0" 10'-11" 10'-11" 9'-11"
T.O. Stair 5'-0"
3 P.L. P.L. ± 60'-5" ± 65'-5" ± 70'-5"
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
T.O. Roof Sheathing 17'-9" 10'-11"
T.O. Parapet
Level 4
Level 5 5'-0" 10'-11" 10'-11" 9'-11"
T.O. Stair 5'-0"
5 7 1 1 4 1 8 2 6
P.L. P.L.
330 DISTEL CIRCLE
LOS ALTOS # 2021-0042
Architecture + Planning
1814 Franklin St., Ste. 400
Oakland, CA 94612
510.272.2910
ktgy.com
0 8 16 24
Key Map n.t.s
1 2

1. Distel Drive Elevation

2. Side Elevation
Material Legend:

1. Stucco

2. Wood

3. Non-vinyl Window

4. Wood Composite Railing

5. Metal Solar Shade

6. Metal Awning

7. Metal Screen

8. Vinyl Window

9. Wood Composite Panel
A4.0

BUILDING ELEVATIONS
*Reference landscape sheets L1.1 - L3.1 for fencing details.

SUBMITTAL #3R OCTOBER 13, 2022
166
Agenda Item # 7.
1 5 8 1 7 5
± 60'-5"
± 65'-5"
± 70'-5" Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 T.O. Roof Sheathing
17'-9" 10'-11" T.O. Parapet Level 4 Level 5
5'-0" 10'-11" 10'-11" 9'-11" T.O. Stair5'-0" P.L. P.L. 1 1 5 4 1 6 7 8 ± 60'-5"
± 65'-5"
± 70'-5" Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 T.O. Roof Sheathing
17'-9" 10'-11" T.O. Parapet Level 4 Level 5
5'-0" 10'-11" 10'-11" 9'-11" T.O. Stair5'-0" P.L. P.L. 330 DISTEL CIRCLE LOS ALTOS # 2021-0042 Architecture + Planning 1814 Franklin St., Ste. 400 Oakland, CA 94612 510.272.2910 ktgy.com 0 8 16 24 Key Map n.t.s 1. Rear Elevation 2. Side Elevation Material Legend: 1. Stucco 2. Wood 3. Non-vinyl Window 4. Wood Composite Railing 5. Metal Solar Shade 6. Metal Awning 7. Metal Screen 8. Vinyl Window 9. Wood Composite Panel 2 1 A4.1 BUILDING ELEVATIONS *Reference landscape sheets L1.1 - L3.1 for fencing details.

SUBMITTAL #3R
OCTOBER 13, 2022 MAY 16, 2024 167
Agenda Item # 7.
1 6 2 7 10 9 6 11 5 12 1 10 13 4 2 3 9 8 7 5 11 330 DISTEL CIRCLE LOS ALTOS # 2021-0042 Architecture + Planning 1814 Franklin St., Ste. 400 Oakland, CA 94612 510.272.2910 ktgy.com 0 8 16 24 Key Map n.t.s 1 2 1. Distel Drive Elevation 2. Side Elevation A5.0 COLOR AND MATERIALS BOARD *Reference the Los Altos Objective Design Standards 1. Stucco 2. Stucco 6. Non-Vinyl Window - White 8. Vinyl Window - White 7. Storefront 9. Wood Composite Railing / Panel 10. Metal Solar Shade 11. Metal Awning 4. Stucco 12. Metal Screen 3. Stucco 5. Wood 13. Metal Screen SUBMITTAL #3R OCTOBER 13, 2022 168 Agenda Item # 7.
1 North San Antonio Road
Los Altos, California 94022-3087

MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 20, 2022
TO: City Council
FROM: Nick Zornes, Development Services Director
SUBJECT: MAJOR TRANSIT STOP – EL CAMINO REAL & SHOWERS DRIVE The memorandum provided here is based upon Technical Assistance provided from MTCMetropolitan Transportation Commission, received today via virtual meeting and is provided as late correspondence to the Los Altos City Council.

During a meeting with MTC this afternoon it was confirmed that the Bus Stop/Station located at El Camino Real & Showers Drive does meet the requirements of a Major Transit Stop. MTC informed staff that the agency is currently working on a guidance document regarding Major Transit Stops which should be available later this year.

MTC further explained that earlier this year they sought guidance from OPR-Office of Planning & Research regarding the multiple definitions contained throughout the Government and Public Resources Code for Major Transit Stop. OPR confirmed to MTC that the term “intersection” which is used in Public Resources Code Section 21064.3 does not mean that bus routes themselves must physically cross perpendicular with each other in the path of travel, rather it is that two or more bus routes must intersect or stop at the same location. Effectively this means that at one Bus Stop/Station when two or more bus routes are present and each stop at the bus stop/station with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods then the stop is determined to be a Major Transit Stop as defined.

Additionally, it was confirmed by MTC that Bus Route 522 is considered a Rapid Bus Route. The presence of a Rapid Bus by itself meets the definition of a Major Transit Stop.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21064.3:
“Major transit stop” means a site containing any of the following:
a. An existing rail or bus rapid transit station.
b. A ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service. 169
Agenda Item # 7.
c. 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.

Furthermore, MTC weighed in on that the project site of 330 Distel falls within a Transit Priority Area, and that this would further constitute that any Housing Development within the Transit Priority Area as mapped may request the parking provisions contained within State law. MTC provides an open resource mapping tool on their website; the following link illustrates that 330 Distel and the majority of properties on El Camino Real in the City of Los Altos are within the Transit Priority Area:
https://opendata.mtc.ca.gov/datasets/transit-priority-areas-2021- 1/explore?location=37.414835%2C-122.128334%2C17.35
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21155:
(a) This chapter applies only to a transit priority project that is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity, and applicable policies specified for the project area in either a sustainable communities strategy or an alternative planning strategy, for which the State Air Resources Board, pursuant to subparagraph (H) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 65080 of the Government Code, has accepted a metropolitan planning organization’s determination that the sustainable communities strategy or the alternative planning strategy would, if implemented, achieve the greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.
(b) For purposes of this chapter, a transit priority project shall (1) contain at least 50 percent residential use, based on total building square footage and, if the project contains between 26 percent and 50 percent nonresidential uses, a floor area ratio of not less than 0.75; (2) provide a minimum net density of at least 20 dwelling units per acre; and (3) be within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor included in a regional transportation plan.

A major transit stop is as defined in Section 21064.3, except that, for purposes of this section, it also includes major transit stops that are included in the applicable regional transportation plan. 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. A project shall be considered to be within one-half mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor if all parcels within the project have no more than 25 percent of their area farther than one-half mile from the stop or corridor and if not more than 10 percent of the residential units or 100 units, whichever is less, in the project are farther than one-half mile from the stop or corridor.

Lastly, MTC acknowledged that multiple definitions between State law, regional agencies and each city differ greatly and are not consistent within themselves. The guidance that was sought by MTC from OPR provided much needed information that will be included in MTC’s guidance. The forthcoming guidance document will look to further explain how, why and when a Major Transit Stop is determined.

As of today, the City of Los Altos relies on this for the determination of a Major Transit Stop, and concludes that the Bus Stop/Station located at El Camino Real and Showers Drive does meet the criteria to be considered a Major Transit Stop.
170
Agenda Item # 7.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: June 25, 2024
Prepared By: Nick Zornes
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: Amendments to Municipal Code Chapters 3.48 and 3.49

COUNCIL PRIORITY AREA
☒Business Communities
☒Circulation Safety and Efficiency
☒Environmental Sustainability
☒Housing
☒Neighborhood Safety Infrastructure
☒General Government

RECOMMENDATION
Two (2) separate actions for City Council consideration:

Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Repealing in its Entirety the Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance, Chapter 3.48 of the Los Altos Municipal Code and find that this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15378(b)(4) and 15273(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.

Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Amending Chapter 3.49 to Title 3 Revenue and Finance of the Los Altos Municipal Code for Affordable Housing Fees and find that this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15378(b)(4) and 15273(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.

FISCAL IMPACT
Not Applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4) and 15273(a)(1) and (a)(2) this item is exempt from environmental review. CEQA does not apply to the establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval of rates, tolls, fares, and other charges by public agencies.

BACKGROUND
On June 11, 2024, the Los Altos City Council considered an item for Development Impact and InLieu Fees. The item was continued to a date certain of June 25, 2024, to provide the City Council 171
Agenda Item # 8.
with additional time to consider the subsequent action. At that time the Assistant City Manager informed the City Council that this includes amendments to Chapter 3.48 and 3.49 of the Los Altos Municipal Code would need to be agendized separately as there was insufficient information provided in the agenda to meet the statutory requirements.

This item is in tandem with the consideration of Development Impact and In-Lieu Fees also under consideration on the June 25, 2024, agenda.

ANALYSIS
The proposed amendments to Chapter 3.48 and 3.49 of the Los Altos Municipal Code are to further implement the Development Impact and In-Lieu Fees under consideration tonight. The proposed amendment to Chapter 3.48 repeals in its entirety the existing ordinance as the new Chapter 3.60 covers all necessary provisions for the collection of Development Impact and In-Lieu Fees associated with Traffic Impact Fees (TIF). The proposed amendment to Chapter 3.49 amends the city’s Affordable Housing Fee Ordinance which covers the legal framework for the collection of such fees. As previously noted, the proposed amendments are in tandem to the consideration of Development Impact and In-Lieu Fees also under consideration on the June 25, 2024, agenda.

RECOMMENDATION
Two (2) separate actions for City Council consideration:

Introduce and Waive Further Reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Repealing in its Entirety the Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance, Chapter 3.48 of the Los Altos Municipal Code and find that this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15378(b)(4) and 15273(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.

Introduce and Waive Further Reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Amending Chapter 3.49 to Title 3 Revenue and Finance of the Los Altos Municipal Code for Affordable Housing Fees and find that this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15378(b)(4) and 15273(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Ordinance – Repealing Chapter 3.48

2. Appendix A – Chapter 3.48 Text

3. Draft Ordinance – Amending Chapter 3.49

4. Appendix A – Chapter 3.49 Text
172
Agenda Item # 8.
1 ORDINANCE NO. 2024-XX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS

REPEALING IN ITS ENTIRETY THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 3.48 OF THE LOS ALTOS MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, the City Council is empowered pursuant to Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution to make and enforce within the City all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws; and
WHEREAS, the City Council repeals in its entirety the Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance, Chapter

3.48 of the Los Altos Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15378(b)(4) and 15273(a)(1) and 15273(a)(2) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Los Altos does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER 3.48 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. Chapter

3.48 of the Los Altos Municipal Code is hereby amended as set forth in Appendix A to this Ordinance, underline indicating addition, and strikethrough indicating deletion.

SECTION 2. CONSTITUTIONALITY; AMBIGUITIES. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof. Any ambiguities in the Los Altos Municipal Code created by this Ordinance shall be resolved by the Director of Development Services, in their reasonable discretion, after consulting the City Attorney.

SECTION 3. PUBLICATION. This Ordinance shall be published as provided in Government Code Section 36933.

SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be effective upon the commencement of the sixty-first day following the adoption hereof.

The foregoing Ordinance was duly and properly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Altos held on __, 2024, and was thereafter, at a regular meeting held on ___, 2024, passed and adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Jonathan D. Weinberg, MAYOR
173
Agenda Item # 8.
2 Attest:
____________________________
Melissa Thurman, MMC, CITY CLERK
174
Agenda Item # 8.

APPENDIX A
AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 3.48
175
Agenda Item # 8.

APPENDIX A
Title 3 - REVENUE AND FINANCE
Chapter 3.48 RESERVED TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
Los Altos, California, Code of Ordinances Created: 2024-04-02 13:07:39 [EST] (Supp. No. 41, Update 1)

Chapter 3.48 RESERVED TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
Sections:

3.48.010 RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE Authority.

This chapter is enacted pursuant to Sections 66000 through 66008 of the California Government Code. The fees established are based on an analysis of potential future growth and its impact on the city's transportation system as identified in the 2005 city of Los Altos traffic impact fee program report, herein referred to as the traffic impact fee report.
(Ord. 05-286 § 1 (part))

3.48.020 Application.

This chapter applies to fees charged as a condition of development approval to defray the cost of certain transportation improvements required to serve new development within the city. This chapter does not replace other subdivision map exactions or other measures required to mitigate site-specific impacts of a development project including, but not limited to, mitigations pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, regulatory and processing fees, fees required pursuant to a development agreement, or assessment district proceedings, benefit assessments, or taxes.
(Ord. 05-286 § 1 (part))

3.48.030 Intent and purpose.

A. Adequate transportation improvements are needed to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens, to facilitate transportation, and to promote economic well-being within the city. Transportation improvements are provided for residents, businesses, and employees within the city. Individual traffic improvements are part of an integrated transportation system serving and providing benefits to the entire city. New development within the city will create an additional burden on the existing street system.

Improvements to the existing street system in the city are needed both to mitigate the cumulative impacts of new development and to accommodate future development by maintaining the appropriate level of service on streets and intersections, or providing offsetting sidewalk and bicycle improvements to meet the goals and policies of the city's general plan and the county of Santa Clara's congestion management program requirements.

B. All types of development require and use the street system. There are no adequate public funds available to maintain designated levels of service at all intersections in the city. In order to ensure that the appropriate level of service is maintained and to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the community, it is necessary that new development pay a fee representing its share of costs of the necessary improvements.

The traffic impact fee is based upon the evidence that new development generates additional residents, employees, and structures, which in turn place an additional cumulative burden upon the local street system, and should be expected to pay a share of the new facilities.

C. The purpose of this fee is to help provide adequate transportation-related improvements to serve cumulative development within the city. However, the fee does not replace the need for all site-specific 176
Agenda Item # 8.

Created: 2024-04-02 13:07:39 [EST]
(Supp. No. 41, Update 1)

traffic improvements that may be needed to mitigate the impact of specific projects upon the city's street system. The transportation improvements for which the fee will be used are identified in the city's capital improvement program and/or in the traffic impact fee report in effect at the time this chapter is enacted or as subsequently amended.
(Ord. 05-286 § 1 (part))

3.48.040 Fee requirement.

A. A traffic impact fee is hereby imposed on new development which generates traffic and meets the requirements of this section. The amount of the fee shall be established periodically by the city council. The fee shall be based on the percentage of the cost of the new improvements attributable to new development as determined in the traffic impact fee program report in effect at the time this chapter is enacted or as subsequently amended.

B. The fee shall be applicable to development projects throughout the city as follows:

1. Single-family housing— per residential unit;

2. Multiple-family housing—per residential unit;

3. Senior housing—per residential unit;

4. Commercial—per one thousand (1,000) gross square feet;

5. Office—per one thousand (1,000) gross square feet.

C. Residential units and nonresidential uses shall only be charged for net increases. No fee shall be charged for the remodeling, restoration or replacement of an existing residential unit or the remodeling, restoration or replacement of existing gross floor area for a nonresidential use.

D. When a multiple-family or senior housing project replaces a nonresidential project the traffic impact fee shall either be the unit cost for every one thousand (1,000) square feet of net new building area, or the unit cost for the total number of residential units, whichever is less.

E. The city engineer shall determine the appropriate traffic impact fee for projects that do not fall into one of the categories defined herein based on the number of additional p.m. peak hour trips the project generates in excess of any current p.m. peak hour trips generated by current site uses, as indicated in the most current edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual and based on the traffic impact fee program report in effect at the time this chapter is enacted or as subsequently amended. Any determination made by the city engineer pursuant to this subsection may be appealed to the city council. (Ord. 08-325 § 1: Ord. 05-286 § 1 (part))

3.48.050 Fee adjustment.

A. The traffic impact fee shall be adjusted automatically each July 1st by the increase or decrease in the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area for the period ending December 31st of the preceding calendar year.

B. In addition to the automatic adjustment of subsection A of this section, the city council may periodically adjust the traffic impact fee to reflect revisions in the transportation improvement projects, increases in land values or other factors.
(Ord. 08-325 § 2: Ord. 05-286 § 1 (part))
177
Agenda Item # 8.

Created: 2024-04-02 13:07:39 [EST]
(Supp. No. 41, Update 1)

3.48.060 Fee payment.

The fee shall be paid in full to the city before any building permit is issued or any final subdivision map is recorded, whichever is applicable or occurs first.
(Ord. 05-286 § 1 (part))

3.48.070 Authority for additional mitigation.

Fees collected pursuant to this chapter are not intended to replace or limit requirements to provide mitigation of traffic impacts not mitigated by the fee, created by a specific project, and imposed upon development projects as part of the development review process. (Ord. 05-286 § 1 (part))

3.48.080 Exemptions.

Public park facilities, city buildings, and those government facilities entitled to an exemption under law are exempt from the traffic impact fee.
(Ord. 05-286 § 1 (part))

3.48.090 Fee credit.

The city engineer may adjust the fee imposed pursuant to this chapter in consideration for certain on-site and off-site facilities or improvements constructed or paid for by the developer. In determining an adjustment, the director shall consider a credit for the value of improvements if the improvements are identified in the city's capital improvement program and/or the traffic impact fee report in effect at the time this chapter is enacted or as subsequently amended. Credit shall not be given for subdivision map exactions or other measures required to mitigate site-specific impacts of a development project. (Ord. 05-286 § 1 (part))

3.48.100 Accumulation and use of funds.

A. The city shall deposit the fees collected under this chapter in a special fund designated solely for transportation improvements.

B. The fees and interest earned on accumulated funds shall be used only to:

1. Complete the traffic improvement projects specified in the city's capital improvement program and/or the traffic impact fee report in effect at the time this chapter is enacted or as subsequently amended; or

2. Pay costs required for the administration of this chapter. (Ord. 05-286 § 1 (part))
178
Agenda Item # 8.

Created: 2024-04-02 13:07:39 [EST]
(Supp. No. 41, Update 1)

3.48.110 Periodic review.

The fee authorized by this chapter, and as established by the traffic impact fee report, shall be reviewed every five years in order to make findings required by the California Government Code. (Ord. 05-286 § 1 (part))
179
Agenda Item # 8.
1 ORDINANCE NO. 2024-__

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS AMENDING CHAPTER 3.49 OF TITLE 3 REVENUE AND FINANCE OF THE LOS

ALTOS MUNICIPAL CODE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING FEES
WHEREAS, the amendments was processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the Los Altos Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public meeting on June 11, 2024, and June 25, 2024; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Los Altos does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF TITLE 3 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. Chapter 3.49 is hereby amended of the Los Altos Municipal Code as set forth in Appendix A to this Ordinance.

SECTION 2. CONSTITUTIONALITY; AMBIGUITIES. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof. Any ambiguities in the Los Altos Municipal Code created by this Ordinance shall be resolved by the Development Services Director, in their reasonable discretion, after consulting the City Attorney.

SECTION 3. PUBLICATION. This Ordinance shall be published as provided in Government Code Section 36933.

SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be effective upon the commencement of the sixty-first day following the adoption hereof.

The foregoing Ordinance was duly and properly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Altos held on June 11, 2024, and was thereafter, at a regular meeting held on June 25, 2024, passed and adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Jonathan D. Weinberg, MAYOR
180
Agenda Item # 8.
2 Attest:
____________________________
Melissa Thurman MMC, City Clerk
181
Agenda Item # 8.

APPENDIX A
AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 3.49
182
Agenda Item # 8.

APPENDIX A
Title 3 - REVENUE AND FINANCE
Chapter 3.4962 AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACT FEES

Chapter 3.49 3.62 AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACT FEES

3.4962.010 Purpose.

This chapter requires the payment of housing impact fees for the impact of residential and non-residential development on the need for affordable housing in the City of Los Altos and to implement the housing element of the city's general plan and California Government Code Section 65583(c), which expresses the state housing policy that requires cities to assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of lower income households.

3.4962.020 Affordable Housing Fund. Housing mitigation fund.

All housing impact fees associated with the creation or retention of affordable housing shall be placed in the city's affordable housing mitigation fund and used to support the development and retention of affordable housing within the city and the region.

3.4962.030 Applicability.

A. New Construction. Projects that include, single-family parcels, new market rate multiple-family dwelling ownership units, new market rate rental housing units and non-residential construction shall be subject to the affordable housing impact fees required in this chapter. Payment of the affordable housing impact fees shall be a condition of approval for all development projects subject to this chapter.

B. Pipeline Projects. The following development projects shall be exempt from payment of the affordable housing impact fees required in this chapter:

1. Projects for which a development application pursuant to this title has been filed and deemed complete by July 13, 2018; and

2. Projects that have received final approval pursuant to this title by July 13, 2018, and which are subsequently the subject of a pending application for modifications to the approved plans or permit, except that any increase in floor area from the amount already approved shall be subject to the housing impact fees required by this chapter.

3.4962.040 Affordable Housing impact fFee.

A. Adoption of Affordable Housing Impact Fees. Affordable Housing impact fFees amounts for each applicable use shall be established by city council resolution, which may be amended from time to time by council. The fee amounts shall be adjusted annually based on the provisions set forth in Chapter 3.60 of the Los Altos Municipal Code. on the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose area unless otherwise modified by council. Such fees shall not exceed the cost of mitigating the impact of developments on the need for housing for lower-income households in the city.

B. Timing of Payment. Housing impact fFees shall be paid in accordance with the provisions set forth in Chapter

3.60 of the Los Altos Municipal Code. prior to issuance of the first building permit for the project. A developer may pay all or a portion of the fee owed at any time prior to issuance of the building permit, at the rate in effect at the time payment is made. For phased projects, the amount due shall be paid on a pro rata basis across the entire square footage of the approved development, and each portion shall be paid prior to the issuance of any building permit for each phase.
183
Agenda Item # 8.

3.4962.050 Affordable Housing impact fFees for residential ownership development.

A. Applicability. Affordable housing impact fees shall be imposed on all new residential ownership developments that result in a net increase of one unit or more, excluding accessory dwelling units, regardless of zoning designation of the project site, unless the applicant elects to provide one of the alternatives listed in subsection (D).

B. Calculation of Fee. The amount of the fee, as further described in the fee resolution, is imposed on a per square foot basis for new gross habitable floor area commensurate with the building type (e.g., townhome or condominium). The following formula shall be used in calculating the required affordable housing impact fee for new residential housing developments: (New gross habitable square foot area of all units) minus (existing gross habitable square foot area of all units) multiplied by (per square foot fee) equals (total affordable housing impact fee).

C. Gross habitable Square Foot Area. Gross habitable square foot area means the total living area of each dwelling unit within a project measured to the outside of the exterior walls and does not include areas outside of the dwelling units such as common areas, corridors, parking facilities, outside storage lockers and shared laundry facilities.

D. Alternatives in-Lieu of an Affordable Housing Impact Fee. As an alternative to paying the affordable housing impact fee for residential ownership developments, a developer may request to provide affordable ownership units on the project site, dedicate land for affordable housing, or provide affordable units off-site, as detailed in this section.

1. On-site units. A developer may request to mitigate the housing impacts through construction of affordable residential ownership units on the subject development site consistent with the requirements outlined in Chapter 14.28. However, payment of the in-lieu impact fee does not preclude a developer from meeting the inclusionary housing requirements specified in Chapter 14.28.

2. Off-site units or dedication of land. As an additional alternative, a developer may request to designate affordable units in an off-site location or dedicate land for the construction of affordable units within the Los Altos City Limits. The city priority shall be for a location that is accessible to public transit. Any off-site units shall be either new or renovated to near-new conditions. Such requests shall be granted in the sole discretion of the city council if the city council determines that the proposed alternative will mitigate the impact of the project on the need for affordable housing. When off-site units or dedication of land is proposed as an alternative to on-site construction of affordable units, the developer shall demonstrate how the alternative will Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH).

3. In calculating the number of required affordable units either on-site or off-site, any fraction of a whole unit shall be satisfied by either developing one additional affordable unit or by paying the remaining fee amount as further described in the fee resolution.

4. All affordable units developed either on-site or off-site shall be subject to the city's standard affordable housing agreement and deed restriction.

5. The applicant must enter into an affordable housing developer agreement with the city to be recorded against the property prior to recordation of a final or parcel map or issuance of any building permit, acknowledging that the affordable units or land dedication are provided in consideration for a direct financial contribution from the city in the form of a waiver of the affordable housing impact fee.

6. The city council may approve this request if the proposed alternative forms of affordable housing opportunities in the city are equal to or greater than the payment of the affordable housing fee.

E. The city council may approve this request if the proposed alternative forms of affordable housing opportunities in the city are equal to or greater than the payment of the housing impact fee. 184
Agenda Item # 8.

3.4962.060 Affordable Housing impact fFees for multiple-family residential rental development.

A. Applicability. Affordable housing impact fee shall be imposed on all new residential rental developments that result in a net increase of one unit or more, excluding accessory dwelling units, regardless of zoning designation of the project site, unless the applicant elects to provide one of the alternatives listed in subsection (D). For purposes of this section, new market-rate rental housing developments shall include developments that have recorded a condominium map, but the developer intends to initially rent the units.

B. Calculation of Fee. The amount of the fee, as further described in the fee resolution, is imposed on a per square foot basis for new gross habitable floor area commensurate with the building type (e.g., townhome or condominium). The following formula below shall be used in calculating the required affordable housing impact fee for new residential rental housing developments: (New gross habitable square foot area of all units) minus (existing gross habitable square foot area of all units) multiplied by (per square foot fee) equals (total affordable housing impact fee).

C. Gross habitable Square Foot Area. Gross habitable square foot area means the total living area of each dwelling unit within a project measured to the outside of the exterior walls and does not include areas outside of the dwelling units such as common areas, corridors, parking facilities, outside storage lockers and shared laundry facilities.

D. Alternatives in-Lieu of an Affordable Housing Impact Fee. As an alternative to paying the affordable housing impact fee for residential rental developments, a developer may request to provide affordable units on the project site, dedicate land for affordable housing, or provide affordable units off-site, as detailed in this section.

1. On-site units. A developer may request to mitigate the housing impacts through construction of affordable residential rental units on the subject development site consistent with the requirements outlined in Chapter 14.28. However, payment of the in-lieu impact fee does not preclude a developer from meeting the inclusionary housing requirements specified in Chapter 14.28.

2. Off-site units or dedication of land. As an additional alternative, a developer may request to designate affordable units in an off-site location or to dedicate land for the construction of affordable units within the Los Altos City Limits. The city priority shall be for a location that is accessible to public transit. Any off-site units shall be either new or renovated to near-new conditions. Such requests shall be granted in the sole discretion of the city council if the city council determines that the proposed alternative will mitigate the impact of the project on the need for affordable housing. When off-site units or dedication of land is proposed as an alternative to on-site construction of affordable units, the developer shall demonstrate how the alternative will Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH).

3. In calculating the number of required affordable rental units either on-site or off-site, any fraction of a whole unit shall be satisfied by either developing one additional affordable unit or by paying the remaining fee amount as further described in the fee resolution.

4. All affordable units developed either on-site or off-site shall be subject to the city's standard affordable housing agreement and deed restriction.

5. The applicant must enter into an affordable housing developer agreement with the city to be recorded against the property prior to recordation of a final or parcel map or issuance of any building permit, acknowledging that the affordable units or land dedication are provided in consideration for a direct financial contribution from the city in the form of a waiver of the affordable housing impact fee.

6. The city council may approve this request if the proposed alternative forms of affordable housing opportunities in the city are equal to or greater than the payment of the affordable housing fee. 185
Agenda Item # 8.

E. The city council may approve this request if the proposed alternative forms of affordable housing opportunities in the city are equal to or greater than the payment of the housing impact fee.

3.4962.070 Affordable Housing impact fFees for non-residential development.

A. Applicability. A non-residential affordable housing impact fee and commercial linkage fee shall be imposed on all new construction of commercial, office, retail and hotel/motel development projects, as defined by Chapter 14.02.070 of the Zoning Code, that result in any net increase of square footage five hundred (500) square feet or greater of new floor area, regardless of zoning designation of the project site, unless the applicant elects to provide one of the alternatives listed in subsection (D).

B. Calculation of Fee. The amount of the affordable housing impact fee and commercial linkage fee, as further described in the fee resolution, is imposed on a per square foot basis for new gross floor area. The following formula below shall be used in calculating the amount of the affordable housing impact fee: (Gross square feet non-residential floor area) minus (existing square feet floor area) multiplied by (per square foot fee) equals (total affordable housing impact fee).

C. Exemptions to New Gross Floor Area. The following areas are exempt from the new gross floor area used in affordable housing impact fee and commercial linkage fee calculations for non-residential developments:

1. Any incidental and accessory storage, structures or appurtenances, such as sheds, trash enclosures, ground-mounted equipment enclosures, garden features, trellises or shade structures;

2. Architectural design features not utilized for occupancy or storage; and

3. Existing floor area square footage of structures that were vacated or demolished no more than twelve (12) months prior to the filing date of the development application.

D. Alternatives in-Lieu of an Affordable Housing Impact Fee. As an alternative to paying the affordable housing impact fee, a developer may request the following:

1. On-site units. A developer may request to mitigate the housing impacts through construction of affordable residential units on the subject development site. If applicable, the number of affordable units shall be those indicated atin Chapter 14.28.

2. Off-site units or dedication of land. As an additional alternative, a developer may request to designate affordable units in an off-site location or to dedicate land for the construction of affordable units within the Los Altos City Limits. The city priority shall be for a location that is accessible to public transit. Any off-site units shall be either new or renovated to near-new conditions. Such requests shall be granted in the sole discretion of the city council if the city council determines that the proposed alternative will mitigate the impact of the project on the need for affordable housing. When off-site units or dedication of land is proposed as an alternative to on-site construction of affordable units, the developer shall demonstrate how the alternative will Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH).

3. In calculating the number of required affordable units either on-site or off-site, any fraction of a whole unit shall be satisfied by either developing one additional affordable unit or by paying the remaining fee amount as further described in the fee resolution.

4. All affordable units developed either on-site or off-site shall be subject to the city's standard affordable housing agreement and deed restriction.

5. The applicant must enter into an affordable housing developer agreement with the city to be recorded against the property prior to recordation of a final or parcel map or issuance of any building permit, acknowledging that the affordable units or land dedication are provided in consideration for a direct financial contribution from the city in the form of a waiver of the affordable housing impact fee.

6. The city council may approve this request if the proposed alternative forms of affordable housing opportunities in the city are equal to or greater than the payment of the affordable housing fee. 186
Agenda Item # 8.

E. The city council may approve this request if the proposed alternative forms of affordable housing opportunities in the city are equal to or greater than the payment of the affordable housing impact fee.

3.4962.080 Exception to Municipal Code Section 14.28.

Those projects that pay an affordable housing impact fee in compliance with this chapter shall not be required to comply with the affordable housing requirements (inclusionary units) found at Section 14.28.030 of the Municipal Code.

3.4962.090 Waiver.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the requirement to pay the affordable housing impact fee may be waived, adjusted or reduced by the city council if an applicant shows, based on substantial evidence, that there is no reasonable relationship between the impact of the proposed development and the requirement to pay the affordable housing impact fee, or that applying the requirements of this chapter would take property in violation of the United States Constitution or California Constitution or would result in any other unconstitutional result.

3.4962.100 Enforcement.

The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all agents, successors and assigns of an applicant proposing or constructing a development governed by this chapter. The city may institute any appropriate legal actions or proceedings necessary to ensure compliance herewith, including but not limited to, actions to revoke, deny or suspend any permit, including a development approval, building permit or certificate of occupancy. The city shall be entitled to costs and expenses for enforcement of the provisions of this chapter, or any agreement pursuant thereto, as awarded by the court, including reasonable attorneys' fees.

3.4962.110 Severability.

If any portion of this chapter is held to be invalid, unconstitutional, or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, that decision will not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this zoning code. The city council declares that this chapter and each portion would have been adopted without regard to whether any portion of this chapter would be later declared invalid, unconstitutional, or unenforceable. 187
Agenda Item # 8.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: June 25, 2024
Initiated By: City Staff
Prepared By: Anthony Carnesecca
Approved By: Gabriel Engeland
Subject:

Review and authorize the City Manager to Issue Request for Proposals for Design Services for Los Altos Main Library Improvements

COUNCIL PRIORITY AREA
☐Business Communities
☐Circulation Safety and Efficiency
☐Environmental Sustainability
☐Housing
☐Neighborhood Safety Infrastructure
☒General Government

RECOMMENDATION
Review and authorize the City Manager to issue Request for Proposals for Design Services for Los Altos Main Library Improvements.

POLICY QUESTION(S) FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
 Would the City Council wish to authorize the City Manager to issue Request for Proposals for Design Services for Los Altos Main Library Improvements

FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed costs associated with the design services would be reimbursed by the North County Library Authority.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
January 23, 2024

SUMMARY
 The Potential Improvements to Library Ad-Hoc Subcommittee received approval for their proposed presentation and associated recommendations.
 City Council directed the subcommittee to continue with the process by presenting the information to the North County Library Authority (NCLA) in request for funding.  After a presentation from the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee, the NCLA authorized the City of Los Altos to issue a Request for Proposal with NCLA to cover the costs associated with the issuance of the RFP.
188
Agenda Item # 9.

BACKGROUND
During the Future Agenda Items Discussion section of the Los Altos City Council meeting on September 26, 2023, Councilmember Dailey requested the Library Commission to bring forward to Council at a Study Session the status of the library and options they have considered for improving the library for consideration of Council, including, but not limited to the potential use of parcel tax funds. Mayor Meadows and Vice Mayor Weinberg supported the future agenda topic.

During the October 5, 2023 Library Commission meeting, Chair Fawcett moved that the Commission form an Ad Hoc Committee consisting of Vice Chair Bedard and Commissioner Crane to work on documents in preparation for the Study Session with City Council focused on possible library improvements as directed at the September 26. 2023 City Council meeting that will terminate upon receipt of the Final Report to the Commission. Commissioner Crane seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0.

During the January 4, 2024 Library Commission meeting, the final proposal was unanimously approved by the Commission to move onto the City Council.

During the January 23, 2024 City Council Study Session, the Potential Improvements to Library Ad-Hoc Subcommittee presented their recommendations for improvements to the City Council.

City Council directed the ad-hoc subcommittee to continue with the process by presenting the information to the North County Library Authority and requesting that the NCLA approve funding an RFP to be issued by the City of Los Altos based on their recommendations.

During the January 29, 2024 NCLA Meeting, the ad-hoc subcommittee presented the same information as presented to the City Council one week prior. NCLA board member Dailey made a motion to authorize the City of Los Altos to issue an RFP, jointly by the City and the County Library System with NCLA to cover the costs associated with the issuance of the RFP. Secretary Hill seconded the motion. The motion passed in a unanimous vote.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Once the direction was given, City staff has been diligently working to complete the Request for Proposals document in preparation to receive proposals. City staff has worked with the Ad-Hoc Subcommittee to confirm that the attached RFP meets all the desired goals of Library Commission, City Council, and NCLA.

The goal of this process is to receive proposals from qualified consultants that will develop a minimum of two viable and feasible concept design alternatives for improvements to the Library based on information provided by the Potential Improvements to Library Ad-Hoc Subcommittee, previous Needs Assessment studies, publicly available meeting information, and conversations with relevant stakeholders
The attached RFP incorporates the language from the Potential Improvements to Library Ad-Hoc Subcommittee that will allow the consultant to complete the following as part of their scope of work:
 Investigate the existing conditions
 Design two viable and feasible building concept design alternatives 189
Agenda Item # 9.
 Estimate the costs of the alternatives
 Identify the preferred concept and garner consensus from relevant stakeholders  Present to necessary agencies through process
 Complete 65% design documents
 Provide 100% bid-ready construction documents for next steps After the preferred vendor has been identified through the RFP process, City staff will return to Library Commission, North County Library Authority, and City Council for review and approval.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Request for Proposals for Design Services for Los Altos Main Library Improvements 190
Agenda Item # 9.
1 CITY OF LOS ALTOS REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR

DESIGN SERVICES FOR LOS ALTOS MAIN LIBRARY

IMPROVEMENTS
Issue Date: June 27, 2024
Proposal Due Date: August 1, 2024 at 3 pm
Contact:

Anthony Carnesecca, Assistant to the City Manager
City of Los Altos
City Managers Office
One North San Antonio Road
Los Altos, California 94022
[email protected]
650-947-2620
191
Agenda Item # 9.
2 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR DESIGN SERVICES FOR

LOS ALTOS MAIN LIBRARY IMPROVEMENTS
I. BACKGOUND
Just 40 miles south of San Francisco, Los Altos is in Santa Clara County and is bordered by Los Altos Hills to the west, Palo Alto to the west and northwest, Mountain View to the northwest and northeast, Sunnyvale to the east, and Cupertino to the southeast. Incorporated in 1952, the City was originally an agricultural town with many summer cottages and apricot orchards, and now is a predominately residential community with tree-lined streets and a small-village atmosphere. The approximately seven-square mile community is developed with various businesses, schools, libraries, churches, and residences and has a population of approximately 30,000 people.

The mission of the City Council, staff, commissions, committees and volunteers is to be a sustainable, vibrant, and inclusive community in which to live, work, visit, and play.

This mission statement guides the regulations and policy that make it possible for residents and businesses to enjoy the charm of a small town in close proximity to the innovation of Silicon Valley.

Los Altos, with its beautiful neighborhoods, award-winning schools, 40+ acres of parks and open space and friendly commercial areas, is an exceptional place to call home and conduct business.

II. OVERVIEW OF REQUEST
The Los Altos Library is housed in a 28,050 sq. ft. building, built on the current site in the Civic Center in 1964. The original building includes the reference desk area, teen area, and the bulk of the collection. The building was expanded in the early 1990s, including the southern portion of the library (the circulation area, program room, and staff areas). Santa Clara County (SCCLD) has leased the Library (and site) from the City and is responsible for its operations and maintenance.

There have been two Needs Assessments completed, the first in 2008 and the second in 2018. In addition, there was an Architectural Feasibility Study completed in 2018. A City Council Study Session regarding the Main Library Remodel was held on January 23, 2024. Materials (presentation and FAQ), public comment, and video are available on the City website. Presentation and FAQ have been attached to this RFP.

The consultant shall work with the City and SCCLD to review existing documents and conditions and confirm programming and space needs enumerated in the January 23, 2024, Los Altos City Council Study Session. The Council Study Session presentation identified the following recommendations for a main library improvement project:

Recommendation Need Identified Priority
192
Agenda Item # 9.
3 Reconfigure and enlarge the lobby (2008 #31), Strategic Plan Proposal 1 Install family bathrooms (2008 #28) Proposal 1
Address circulation and reference desk service (2008 #32) Proposal 1 Move children’s area entrance to enable direct
access
(2008 #36) Proposal 1
Find suitable alternative for holds (2008 #34) Proposal 1 Improve Friends’ sales space (2008 #46-#47) Proposal 1
Remediate inadequate wiring (2008 #25) Proposal 1
Address any accessibility concerns as
discovered Strategic Plan Proposal 1
Remodel to support limited Extended Hours
space
Strategic Plan Proposal 2
Evaluate and consolidate staff areas and Friends’
space to improve efficiency (2008 #42) Proposal 2
Create acoustic quiet zone (2008 #29) Proposal 2
Evaluate and redeploy library digital needs in
computing, printing, and scanning (2008 #22) Proposal 2 Remodel to support full Extended Hours space Strategic Plan Proposal 3 Create opening between children’s space and
Orchard Room to expand useable space (2008 #29) Proposal 3 The consultant shall develop a minimum of two (2) viable and feasible concept design alternatives for improvements to the Library based on the recommendations with this physical limitation in mind.

The purpose of this RFP is to solicit qualifications and proposals from licensed professional architects and engineers (“design team” or “consultant”) who demonstrate that they possess the knowledge, organizational, functional and technical capabilities to understand the needs and provide design and engineering services for the improvements to the Los Altos Main Library facility.

III. SCOPE OF WORK
The proposal should consist of the following tasks.

Phase 1 – Design Alternatives Analysis
A. Investigate Existing Condition
193
Agenda Item # 9.
4 a) Consultant shall provide a draft schedule detailing meeting dates, length of meetings, type of personnel who should attend and topics to be covered. Meet with City staff to enhance and refine plan prior to beginning design alternatives analysis. b) Meet with a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to define the scope of services based upon the meetings with stakeholders and meet once monthly with TAC through design process to provide updates.
c) Review all background documentation, including existing drawings, previous Needs Assessments and Library Commission Ad-Hoc Subcommittee Report and Presentation.

Ensure that all recommendations outlined in General Description of Services above are included in this evaluation process.
d) Meet with City and Library staff to identify current initiatives (e.g., planned roof replacement) and proposed site elements, rooms, assigned staff, functions, and space requirements. Employ strategies and innovation to identify effective and efficient program spaces.
e) Meet with members from various Library stakeholder groups to garner feedback on elements outlined in the Los Altos Library Commission Ad-Hoc Subcommittee recommendations and other potential improvements.
f) Identify adjacency requisites for programmed spaces. g) Inspect site, as-built conditions, and other due diligence to insure the design covers the program need.
h) Note and summarize observations of the current space and potential project requirements.

B. Design 35% Documents (35% drawings)
a) Meet with TAC to refine project requirements and fully develop the scope of work based upon the summarized observations.
b) Confirm all assumptions from the investigations phase. c) Develop a minimum of two (2) viable and feasible building concept design alternatives with associated site work, incorporating the work of the City Council Library Remodel Study Session of January 23, 2024. Building concept designs should reflect architectural styles, building envelops, building heights, etc., and should include perspective sketches, elevation views, and layout plans showing ingress/egress and position relative to the site layout.

1. Assess the pros and cons of each concept design proposed.

2. Design alternatives shall be workable and feasible within the Project/Construction Budget. Prepare ROM cost estimates for all options to confirm feasibility in a format agreed upon by the City. ROM cost estimates shall factor in market conditions, preconstruction, mitigation work, temporary library facilities, hazardous materials abatement, construction, contingencies, and escalation to the midpoint of construction.

3. Concept designs shall comply with zoning and building requirements as applicable at this stage.

4. Submit concept design alternatives and ROM cost estimates to the City’s Project Manager for review.

5. Address City’s comments and assist City staff in presenting the updated building and site concept alternatives to the City Council.
194
Agenda Item # 9.
5 6. Must address all recommended actions from the January 23, 2024 Study Session mentioned above.
d) Provide two building concept design alternatives to TAC for review.

C. Estimate Costs
a) Provide cost estimates for building concept design alternatives. b) City’s soft costs shall be incorporated into this budget. c) Design shall be modified to fall within City’s requirements and target budget of roughly $10 million.
d) Provide cost estimates to TAC for review and approval.

D. Garner Consensus
a) Meet with members of Los Altos library stakeholder groups to garner feedback on the design alternatives.
b) Create informational report and presentation for City staff and relevant agencies with update after completion of Design Alternatives Analysis that establishes budget, program, and style for project moving forward. Consultant will be available to provide any other information required for update.
c) Present building concept design alternatives and cost estimates to North County Library Authority at a public meeting.
d) Meet with TAC after presentation to North County Library Authority. e) Present building concept design alternatives and cost estimates to Los Altos City Council and Los Altos Hills City Council at public meetings.
f) Return to North County Library Authority for approval to move forward with preferred design and new appropriated budget.

Phase 2 – Design Documents
A. Design 65% Documents (65% drawings)
a) Identify the proposed viable and feasible building concept design with associated site work.
b) Meet with TAC regularly to refine project requirements and fully develop the scope of work.
c) Provide full descriptions for each of the architectural, civil/structural, mechanical and electrical systems in accordance with City requirements and all applicable Federal, State and local codes and ordinances.
d) Assist City staff with the presentation of the Design Documents to the North County Library Authority, Los Altos City Council and Los Altos Hills City Council at public meetings.
e) Identify the final building concept design based upon feedback from the TAC, North County Library Authority, Los Altos City Council and Los Altos Hills City Council.

Phase 3 – Construction Documents
A. Design 100% Bid-Ready Construction Documents
a) Create full construction documents including the following at a minimum:
a. Title Sheet
195
Agenda Item # 9.
6 b. Construction Notes
c. Building Code analysis and calculations
d. Bid alternates
e. Demolition Plan
f. Stormwater Management Plan as required
g. Architectural, Civil, Structural, MEP, and Landscape Plans h. Floor Plans with at minimum the following plans and details:
i. Enlarged Plans - Detail lobby, entries, major corridors, special spaces, etc. Typical to provide interior elevations of enlarged plan areas with surfaces delineated j. Exterior Elevations with at minimum following plans and details:
k. Sections with at minimum the following plans and details:
b) Develop Project Details
a. Logistic plans with construction staging and parking locations b. Erosion Control Plan
c. Pollution prevention and storm water control measures d. Bid Schedule
e. City’s General Provisions and Construction Contract template for the specifications
f. Any other contract document required for construction g. Detailed construction cost estimate
c) Submit 100% construction documents for building plan check. Address Building Division comments to secure building permits. The City will be responsible for other City Department reviews and permit fees
d) Assist the City with the preparation construction bid package for public bid process e) Create informational report and presentation for City staff and relevant agencies with update after completion of Construction Documents. Consultant will be available to provide any other information required for update.
f) Assist City staff with the presentation of the construction bid package to the City Council for approval.

IV. PROPOSAL SPECIFICATIONS AND SELECTION
Consultants are asked to submit concise proposals describing their capacity to manage projects, their experience with similar projects, and their approach to the proposed project. The proposal shall include the following information:

1. Business Organization – This section shall include the firm’s name, areas of expertise, and a brief history of the firm, size, office locations, and business addresses. The name, address, and telephone number of a contact person and/or prospective project manager regarding the proposal shall be included. If sub-consultants are being utilized, similar information should be included for all subcontracted firms.

2. Experience and Capabilities - The consultant shall describe relevant qualifications of the firm and experience with similar projects. Qualification summary and list of staff intended for the project.

Provide a description of similar projects along with a list of references for each applicable project. 196
Agenda Item # 9.
7 3. Project Approach – The consultant shall describe the approach to the proposed project, the method of conducting the work, and how the final deliverables will be developed.

4. Stakeholder Input – The consultant shall describe the method or methods used to obtain stakeholder input.

5. Cost – The consultant shall provide an hourly rate schedule and an estimated number of hours to complete the proposed project. Estimated hours to be spent on specific tasks should be broken out to the greatest extent practicable. If hours are to be billed at different rates, a breakdown of hours per wage rate shall be provided.

A review committee will judge the merit of proposals received in accordance with the general criteria defined herein. Failure of proposers to provide in their proposal any information requested in this RFP may result in disqualification of the proposal. The sole objective of the review committee will be to select proposals that are most responsive to the City’s needs.

V. GENERAL CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS
The City reserves the right to:

1. Reject any responses.

2. Negotiate with more than one consultant.

3. Waive minor irregularities in a response.

4. Cancel, revise, or extend this solicitation.

5. Request additional information on any response beyond that required by this RFP.

6. Modify the selection process set forth in this RFP upon written notification to all respondents who have not been rejected at the time of modification.

7. The contract award will not be based solely on price, but on a combination of factors as determined to be in the best interest of the City.

8. After evaluating the proposals and discussing them further with the finalists the City reserves the right to further negotiate the proposed work and/or method and amount of compensation.

VI. SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS
Please submit five (5) printed copies and one (1) digital PDF copy on a USB of your full proposal at your earliest convenience, but no later than August 1, 2024, by 3:00 p.m. to:

Anthony Carnesecca, Assistant to the City Manager
City of Los Altos
City Managers Office
One North San Antonio Road
Los Altos, California 94022
Attachment 1: Standard Agreement for Professional Services 197
Agenda Item # 9.

ATTACHMENT 1
Los Altos Standard Agreement for Professional Services
198
Agenda Item # 9.

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN

THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CALIFORNIA

AND XXXXXX

FOR XXXXXXX SERVICES FOR XXXXXXX
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the ______day of _____________, ____, by and between the CITY OF LOS ALTOS, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as “CITY,” and XXXXXXXX, a xxx, hereinafter referred to as “CONSULTANT.”

RECITALS
WHEREAS, CITY desires to retain a qualified consulting firm to perform xxxxxx and xxxxxx to produce a xxxxxxx; and
WHEREAS, CITY has determined that CONSULTANT possesses the skills, experience and certifications required to provide the services required by the CITY; and WHEREAS, CONSULTANT is an independent consultant providing similar professional services to numerous other cities; and
WHEREAS, CITY desires to retain CONSULTANT to provide professional services under the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions and promises identified herein, the parties mutually agree as follow:

1. SCOPE OF SERVICES.

A. CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT shall assist the CITY by executing the following scope of services in a satisfactory and proper manner in accordance with requirements provided by the City Manager, or designee. Services will include, but not be limited to, the items noted in CONSULTANT’s proposal attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A.

2. SCHEDULE. Services of CONSULTANT are to commence upon the execution of this Agreement and shall continue in full force and effect until it is terminated. It is intended that the termination of this Agreement be contemporaneous with final acceptance of all services described in Exhibit A by the Los Altos City Manager, or designee. CONSULTANT shall meet the completion date as indicated on Exhibit A.

3. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect for FY2022/23 through FY20XX/XX. Changes in Scope of Services and Payment Schedule, Exhibit A, can be amended, as needed, thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of each fiscal year. If the Agreement is terminated, it is intended that the termination of the Agreement be contemporaneous with final acceptance of all services by CITY.
199
Agenda Item # 9.

4. COMPENSATION. CONSULTANT will perform the work outlined above and will invoice CITY upon completion of the project. CONSULTANT’s total compensation, including reimbursed expenses, for the services set forth for the Contract shall not exceed $x,xxx as outlined in Exhibit A.

A. Compensation. The compensation shall be paid to CONSULTANT based on the following hourly rates guide:

Consultant $xxx/hour
Partner $xxx/hour
Xxx process $xx,x00 flat fee
Yyy process $x,x00
The total contract value shall not to exceed $xx,x00.

B. Method of Payment. As a condition precedent to any payment to CONSULTANT under this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall submit monthly to the CITY a statement of account which clearly sets forth the designated items of work for which the billing is submitted. Each statement of account shall also include a detailed record of the month’s actual reimbursable expenditures.

CITY shall review CONSULTANT’s monthly statement and pay CONSULTANT for services rendered hereunder at the rates if acceptable and in the amounts provided hereunder on a monthly basis in accordance with the approved monthly statements.

Payment will be made according to the CITY’s standard Payment Schedule and Terms.

5. OWNERSHIP OF WORK. All documents furnished to CONSULTANT by CITY and all reports and supportive data prepared by CONSULTANT by this Agreement are CITY’s property, for the exclusive use of the CITY, shall be given to CITY at the completion of CONSULTANT services. CITY shall be granted xxx.

CONSULTANT may contract with others to provide xxxx.

6. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW. CONSULTANT shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, codes, ordinances and regulations, including Cal/OSHA requirements.

CONSULTANT represents to CITY that it has, and will maintain through the term of the Agreement, all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatsoever nature, which are legally required for CONSULTANT to practice its profession. CONSULTANT shall maintain a City of Los Altos Business License.

7. STANDARD OF CARE. CONSULTANT’s services will be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and principles and in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions.

8. INSURANCE. CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance as described in Exhibit B against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property 200
Agenda Item # 9.
which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder and the results of that work by the CONSULTANT, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors.

9. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PARTIES. CONSULTANT is, and at all times shall remain, an independent contractor, not an agent or employee of the CITY. CONSULTANT shall be solely responsible for all acts of its employees, agents or sub-consultants, including any negligent acts or omissions. CONSULTANT shall have no authority to act on behalf of the CITY or to bind the CITY to any obligation whatsoever, unless the CITY provides prior written authorization to CONSULTANT. As an independent contractor, CONSULTANT shall not be entitled to any benefit, right or compensation from the CITY other than those provided for in this Agreement.

10. INDEMNIFICATION. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall defend (with counsel reasonably approved by CITY), indemnify and hold CITY, the City Council, members of the City Council, its employees, representatives, agents and volunteers harmless from any and all suits, damages, costs, fees, claims, demands, causes of action, liabilities, losses expenses, damage or injury of any kind, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death and financial losses (collectively, “Claims”) in any manner arising out of, pertaining to, or incident to any alleged acts, errors or omissions, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT or CONSULTANT’S officers, assistants, subcontractors, employees or agents in connection with the performance of CONSULTANT’s services or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all consequential damages, expert witness fees and attorneys’ fees and other related costs and expenses.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent CONSULTANT’s services are subject to Civil Code Section 2782.8, (Design Professionals) the above indemnity shall be limited, to the extent required by Civil Code Section 2782.8, to Claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT’s obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by CITY, the City Council, members of the City Council, its employees, or authorized volunteers.

11. CALIFORNIA LABOR CODE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq., which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain “public works” or “maintenance” projects. If the services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, CONSULTANT agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws, if applicable. CONSULTANT shall defend, indemnify and hold the CITY, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. It shall be mandatory upon the CONSULTANT and all sub-consultants to comply with all California Labor Code provisions, which include but are not limited to prevailing wages (Labor Code Sections 1771, 1774 and 1775), employment of apprentices (Labor Code Section 1777.5), certified payroll records (Labor Code Section 1776), hours of labor (Labor Code Sections 1813 and 1815) and debarment of contractors and subcontractors (Labor Code Section 1777.1). 201
Agenda Item # 9.

If the services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, then pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, CONSULTANT and all subconsultants performing such services must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations. CONSULTANT shall maintain registration for the duration of the Project and require the same of any sub-consultants, as applicable. This Project may also be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. It shall be CONSULTANT’s sole responsibility to comply with all applicable registration and labor compliance requirements.

12. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the CITY may terminate this Agreement without cause at any time upon giving ten days written notice to CONSULTANT. In the event of such a termination, CONSULTANT shall be entitled to any compensation owed for services rendered up to the effective date of termination.

13. MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS. Books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to costs incurred shall be maintained by CONSULTANT and made available at all reasonable times during the contract period and for four (4) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement for inspection by CITY.

14. ORGANIZATION. CONSULTANT shall assign ___________________ as Project Manager.

The Project Manager shall not be removed from the Project or reassigned without the prior written consent of CITY.

15. WRITTEN NOTIFICATION. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, or communications that either party desires or is required to give to the other party shall be in writing and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first class mail. Any such notice, demand, etc., shall be addressed to the other part at the address set forth herein below. Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of address. Notice shall be deemed communicated within 48 hours from the time of mailing it mailed as provided in this section.

CITY: City of Los Altos
Gabriel Engeland, City Manager (or Project Manager)
1 N. San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
CONSULTANT: XXX
Contact
Address
Address

16. PARTIAL INVALIDITY. If any provision of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will nevertheless continue in full force without being impaired or invalidated in any way.

17. WAIVER. Waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of the Agreement.

18. NO IMPLIED WAIVERS. The failure of either party at any time to require performance by the other party of any provisions hereof shall not affect in any way the full right to require such 202
Agenda Item # 9.
performance at any time thereafter. Nor shall the waiver by either party of a breach of any provision hereof be taken or held to be a waiver of the provision itself.

19. ASSIGNMENT. The parties recognize that a substantial inducement to CITY for entering into this Agreement is the professional reputation, experience and competence of CONSULTANT.

CONSULTANT, therefore, shall not assign, delegate, nor transfer any rights or obligations pursuant to this Agreement, except as specified in this Agreement, without the prior written consent of CITY. Any assignment of any right or obligation or subcontracting of any work without CITY consent shall be void and of no effect.

20. TAXES. CONSULTANT agrees to file tax returns and pay all applicable taxes on amounts paid pursuant to this Agreement, and shall be solely liable and responsible to pay such taxes and other obligations, including, but not limited to, state and federal income and FICA taxes.

CONSULTANT agrees to indemnify and hold CITY harmless from any liability which it may incur to the United States of America or the State of California as a consequence of CONSULTANT’s failure to pay, when due, all such taxes and obligations. In the event CITY is audited for compliance regarding withholding or other applicable taxes, CONSULTANT agrees to furnish CITY with proof of payment of taxes on these earnings.

21. NONDISCRIMINATION. CONSULTANT shall not discriminate against any person related to the performance under this Agreement (including any employee or applicant) or the basis of race, color, religious creed, national origin, gender, physical or mental disability, marital status, or sexual orientation.

22. DEFAULT. In the event CONSULTANT fails to provide the services set forth in this Agreement due to the fault of CONSULTANT, CITY shall have the right to either do the work itself or hire an outside contractor to perform those services.

23. TIME OF ESSENCE. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement.

24. CITY’S RIGHT TO EMPLOY OTHER CONSULTANTS. CITY reserves its right to employ other consultants in connection with this Project or other projects.

25. VENUE. In the event that suit shall be brought by either party hereunder, the parties agree that trial of such action shall be held exclusively in a state court in the County of Santa Clara, San Jose, California.

26. CONSTRUCTION. To the fullest extent allowed by law, the provisions of this Agreement shall be construed and given effect in the manner that avoids any violation of statute, ordinance, regulation or law.

27. AMENDMENT. This Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of the Agreement to CITY and CONSULTANT. It may be amended or extended from time-to-time by written agreement of the parties hereto.

28. INTEGRATION. This Agreement supersedes any and all agreements, either oral or written, between the parties hereto with respect to the rendering of services by CONSULTANT for CITY, and contains all the covenants and agreements between the parties with respect to the rendering of such services in any manner whatsoever. Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no 203
Agenda Item # 9.
representations, inducements, promises or agreements, orally or otherwise, have been made by any party or anyone acting on behalf of any party, which is not embodied herein, and that no other agreement, statement, or promise not contained in this Agreement shall be valid or binding. Any modification of this Agreement shall be effective only if it is in writing, signed by the party to be charged. If there is any conflict in the terms of this Agreement with the exhibits or attachments, then the provisions of this Agreement shall control.

29. EXECUTION. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument and shall become binding upon the parties when at least one copy hereof shall have been signed by both parties hereto. In approving this Agreement it shall not be necessary to produce or account for more than one such counterpart.

30. IN WITNESS. WHEREOF, the CITY and CONSULTANT have executed this Agreement as of the date first above written.

APPROVED AS TO CONTENT:

Director/Project Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Jolie Houston
City Attorney
AGREED:

Gabriel Engeland Date
City Manager
CONSULTANT:

XXX Date
Title
204
Agenda Item # 9.

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF SERVICES
(To be attached at time of contract execution)
205
Agenda Item # 9.

EXHIBIT B

INSURANCE
CONSULTANT shall provide its insurance broker(s)/agent(s) with a copy of these requirements and request that they provide Certificates of Insurance complete with copies of all required endorsements to: Project Manager, City of Los Altos, 1 N. San Antonio Road, Los Altos, CA 94022 Minimum Scope of Insurance
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:

1. Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office Form CG 00 01 covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, with limits no less than $2,000,000 or $4,000,000 aggregate per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. CGL insurance must include coverage for the following:
a. Bodily Injury and Property Damage
b. Personal Injury/Advertising Injury
c. Premises/Operations Liability
d. Products/Completed Operations Liability
e. Aggregate Limits that Apply per Project
f. Explosion, Collapse and Underground (UCX) exclusion deleted g. Contractual Liability with respect to this Agreement h. Broad Form Property Damage
i. Independent Consultants Coverage
The policy shall contain no endorsements or provisions limiting coverage for (1) contractual liability; (2) cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one insured against another; (3) products/completed operations liability; or (4) contain any other exclusion contrary to the Agreement.

2. Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 00 01 covering, Code 1 (any auto), or if CONSULTANT has no owned autos, Code 8 (hired) and 9 (non-owned), with limit no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

3. Workers’ Compensation/Employer’s Liability: CONSULTANT certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and it will comply with such provisions before commencing work under this Agreement. To the extent CONSULTANT has employees at any time during the term of this Agreement, at all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement CONSULTANT shall maintain insurance as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.

4. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions) Insurance appropriate to the CONSULTANT’s profession, with limit no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence or claim. 206
Agenda Item # 9.

This insurance shall be endorsed to include contractual liability applicable to this Agreement and shall be written on a policy form coverage specifically designed to protect against acts, errors or omissions of the CONSULTANT. “Covered Professional Services” as designed in the policy must specifically include work performed under this Agreement.

5. Umbrella or Excess Liability: Umbrella or Excess Insurance. If umbrella or an excess liability insurance policy is used to satisfy the minimum requirements for CGL or Automobile Liability insurance coverage listed above, the umbrella or excess liability policies shall provide coverage at least as broad as specified for the underlying coverages and covering those insured in the underlying policies. Coverage shall be “pay on behalf,” with defense costs payable in addition to policy limits. CONSULTANT shall provide a “follow form” endorsement or schedule of underlying coverage satisfactory to the CITY indicating that such coverage is subject to the same terms and conditions as the underlying liability policy.

6. The CITY, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the umbrella or excess policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the CONSULTANT including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. If CONSULTANT maintains broader coverage, umbrella or excess coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above, the CITY requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage, umbrella or excess coverage and/or the higher limits maintained by CONSULTANT. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and any other coverages shall be available to the CITY.

Other Insurance Provisions. The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:

Additional Insured Status. The CITY, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds on the CGL policy and the Automobile Liability policy, with endorsements under CG 20 10 10 01 and 20 37 10 01, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage, with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the CONSULTANT including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations.

Primary Coverage. For any claims related to this contract, the CONSULTANT’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the CITY, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the CITY, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the CONSULTANT’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

Notice of Cancellation. Each insurance policy required above shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be canceled except after thirty (30) days’ prior written notice (10 days for nonpayment) has been given to the CITY.

Waiver of Subrogation. CONSULTANT hereby grants to CITY a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said CONSULTANT may acquire against the CITY by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. CONSULTANT agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the CITY has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer. 207
Agenda Item # 9.

Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the CITY. The CITY may require the CONSULTANT to provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention.

Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the CITY.

Claims Made Policies. If any of the required policies provide claims-made coverage:

7. The Retroactive Date must be shown, and must be before the date of the contract or the beginning of contract work.

8. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least three (3) years after completion of the contract work.

9. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the contract effective date, the CONSULTANT must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of three (3) years after completion of contract work.

Verification of Coverage. CONSULTANT shall furnish the CITY with original certificates and amendatory endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the CITY before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the CONSULTANT’s obligation to provide them. The CITY reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.

Special Risks or Circumstances. CITY reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances.
208
Agenda Item # 9.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: June 25, 2024
Prepared By: Nick Zornes
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: Weed Abatement – Participation in County Program

COUNCIL PRIORITY AREA
☐Business Communities
☐Circulation Safety and Efficiency
☐Environmental Sustainability
☐Housing
☐Neighborhood Safety Infrastructure
☒General Government

RECOMMENDATION
Consideration of participation in County of Santa Clara Weed Abatement Program and provide authorization to City Manager to enter into an agreement for program participation.

FISCAL IMPACT
No direct fiscal impact to the City of Los Altos is associated with participation in the Weed Abatement Program as the cost to perform the work is covered by a Property Tax Assessment to the Parcel of land where the violation occurs.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Informational Item Provided to City Council on May 28, 2024.

BACKGROUND
This item was previously provided to the City Council on May 28, 2024, as an Informational Item (Item #8) after request was made by Councilmember Lee Eng. At the close of the City Council meeting during future agenda items general interest was expressed to return with an item for consideration of participation in the County Program.

DISCUSSION
The Santa Clara County Consumer and Environmental Protection Agency works with several cities throughout Santa Clara County on the Weed Abatement Program. The purpose of the Weed 209
Agenda Item # 10.

Abatement Program is to prevent fire hazards posed by vegetative growth and the accumulation of combustible materials.

The Weed Abatement program is entirely funded from fees charged to residents. Fees will be assessed for any property in the program. This is to cover the cost of the compliance inspection for the property. Properties that fail the compliance inspection will be charged a failed inspection fee, even if the resident completes the weed abatement. If the property requires abatement by the County contractor, the property owner will be responsible for the actual cost of abatement plus an administrative fee. Properties that meet and maintain the minimum fire safety standards will not be charged other than the annual fee.

Santa Clara County program staff annually inspect parcels at the beginning of the fire season, which is typically in March or April depending on the jurisdiction. If the parcel is not in compliance at the time of inspection, the property owner will be charged a failed inspection fee, and the owner will be sent a courtesy notice as a reminder to abate the weeds. If the weeds are not abated by the property owner, the work will be completed by the County contractor. The property owner will pay the contractor’s fees plus a County administrative fee. All fees will be included in your property tax bill.

When a property is placed in the Weed Abatement Program, it will remain in the program for up to three years for ongoing monitoring, and if after three years no abatement has been required on the site the property will be removed from the program. The intention of the Weed Abatement Program is to achieve Voluntary Compliance. Vegetation must not exceed 6 inches in height any time after the compliance deadline. Maintain grasses and weeds below 6 inches for 10 feet horizontally on both sides of all roadways, including driveways and access routes.

ATTACHMENTS

1. County of Santa Clara – Weed Abatement Program Brochure

2. County of Santa Clara – Weed Abatement 2023 Parcel Notification Letter 210
Agenda Item # 10.

MINIMUM FIRE SAFETY STANDARDS (MFSS)
Fire Safety
Through
Vegetation
Management
Fire Resistant Landscaping
Santa Clara County
Consumer and Environmental
Protection Agency
Weed Abatement Program

1553 Berger Drive #1
San Jose, Ca 95112
Phone (408) 282-3145
Fax: (408) 286-2460
[email protected]

1. Vegetation must not exceed 6 inches in height any time after the compliance deadline.

2. Maintain grasses and weeds below 6 inches for 10 feet horizontally on both sides of all roadways, including driveways and access routes. Roads and driveways must maintain a clearance of 10’ W by 13’6” H for all vegetation.

3. Clear flammable vegetation a minimum of 30 feet around any structure, occupied or not. Ornamental vegetation should be kept clear of dead material. Some conditions, such as slopes, may require up to a 100 foot clearance.

4. Parcels one acre or less shall be completely abated. Parcels over one acre up to five acres require 30 foot clearance around structures and perimeter property lines. Additional 30 foot cross fuel breaks may also be required.

5. Parcels larger than five acres require 30 foot clearance around structures and perimeter property lines in addition to 30-foot cross fuel breaks as needed to separate the remaining vegetation into sections no larger than five acres.

6. Keep property clear of accumulation of combustible debris, such as trash, wood, and dead vegetation. Stacked firewood and neatly piled yard waste is not considered to be combustible debris.

7. Keep vegetation cleared from under the eaves of houses.

8. Trim tree branches to at least 10 feet away from chimneys. Trim tree branches up from the ground to provide at least 6 feet of vertical clearance.

9. Clear leaves, pine needles and debris from roof and gutters.

The following is a partial list of fire resistant plants that you may choose to use around your home to reduce the risk of fire. Contact your local nursery for selections appropriate to your area. All grasses, including those purportedly fire resistant, must be maintained below 6” in height.

Trees:

African Sumac
California Pepper
Shrubs:

Bearberry
Carmel Creeper
Carolina Cherry
Catalina Cherry
Escallonia
Hopseed Bush
Lemonade Berry
Groundcover:

Aaron’s Beard
Australian Daisy
Candytuft
Sterile Capeweed
Freeway Daisy
Rock Rose (except Gum
Variety) 211
Agenda Item # 10.

The Santa Clara County Weed
Abatement Program
The Santa Clara County Consumer and Environmental Protection Agency and your city are working together to protect your community from fire. We need your help. Please read and follow the directions provided in this brochure regarding fire prevention on your property. The purpose of the Weed Abatement Program is to prevent fire hazards posed by vegetative growth and the accumulation of combustible materials.

The Weed Abatement program is entirely funded from fees charged to residents. Fees will be assessed for any property in the program.

This is to cover the cost of the compliance inspection for the property. Properties that fail the compliance inspection will be charged a failed inspection fee, even if the resident completes the weed abatement. If the property requires abatement by the County contractor, the property owner will be responsible for the actual cost of abatement plus an administrative fee. Properties that meet and maintain the minimum fire safety standards will not be charged other than the annual fee.

Program staff annually inspect parcels at the beginning of the fire season, which is typically in March or April depending on your jurisdiction. If the parcel is not in compliance at the time of inspection, the property owner will be charged a failed inspection fee, and the owner will be sent a courtesy notice as a reminder to abate the weeds. If the weeds are not abated by the property owner, the work will be completed by the County contractor. The property owner will pay the contractor’s fees plus a County administrative fee. All fees will be included in your property tax bill.

Our Goal Is Voluntary Compliance
Property Owner’s Responsiblilities
• Do not allow a fire hazard to exist on your property. The Minimum Fire Safety Standards (MFSS) in this brochure give you guidelines to follow in order to maintain your property and protect against a fire hazard. Please contact our office if you need guidance or have any questions regarding the requirements!
• Make arrangements to have your property maintained throughout the year. Contractors can be found in the yellow pages. You may choose to have the County contractor maintain your property. A current price list is included in your packet.
• Please complete and return the Reply Form provided in your mailing packet by the date on the form. Indicate your preference regarding performance of weed abatement services.

Program Staff Responsibilities
• Weed Abatement Inspectors will perform periodic inspections on all parcels included in the Santa Clara County Weed Abatement Program. Properties that fail the compliance inspection will be charged a failed inspection fee, even if the resident completes the weed abatement.
• Inspectors will order the County contractor to perform all necessary abatement work on any parcel where the MFSS are not met. An attempt will be made to give the owner a courtesy notice prior to releasing the work order.
• The County contractor uses several methods of abatement including discing and handwork. The property owner is free to select whatever method they choose, provided the MFSS of all federal, state and local laws are met.
• The Weed Abatement Program will place inspection costs and the charges for County contractor services plus a County administrative fee on the property owner’s tax bill during the next fiscal year.

Burrowing Owls
Frequently Asked Questions Q. Why have I received an Abatement Notice? A. Typically, a property is placed on the program if a Weed Abatement Inspector identified a potential fire hazard on the property. Fire Departments and other agencies also submit complaints to the Weed Abatement Program.

Q. What is required of me now that I am in the Program? A. All property owners are required to maintain their property free of fire hazards throughout the year.

Q. The grasses planted on my property are fire resistant. Are they exempt from the Weed Abatement program?
A. No. Even grasses that possess some fire resistant qualities are not fire proof, and they can add fuel to any site that is subject to a fire. Additionally, fire resistant grasses are rarely found in a pure, homogenous stand but rather are usually found to occur mixed with other common introduced annual grasses that are highly flammable and hazardous in a fire event. Finally, many grasses occur in Santa Clara County and species identification is difficult in the field, especially after the spring when the reproductive portions required for identification have dried and dispersed. Weed Abatement Inspectors can only focus on the presence of grasses and weeds on your property and the Minimum Fire Safety Standards, and not on grass species identification. Therefore, all grasses are required to be below 6 inches in height.

Q. What is the SC County Weed Abatement Program?
A. This is a monitoring program and our primary objective is voluntary compliance. See the first two paragraphs of this brochure for further specifics.

These small owls nest in abandoned ground squirrel
burrows. Discing collapses the burrows and kills the young.

These owls are listed as a state Species of Special Concern and are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If you suspect burrowing owls on your property you must use another form of weed abatement such as mowing or weedeating. If you request the County perform abatement services, please notify program staff or your City if burrowing owls are known to exist on your property.

More FAQ:

Q. How long will I be on the Program?
A. Your property will remain on the Program for three years. If no hazards are found during that time, your property may be removed from the program.

Q. How much will this cost me?
A. There will be an annual fee to cover the cost of the compliance inspection. If the parcel does not meet the MFSS when it is first inspected in the spring, or if work is required by the County contractor, you will be charged additional fees. Our goal is to ensure that the MFSS are met at the lowest possible cost to the property owner.

Q. How will I be billed?
A. Any charges for the inspection and any abatement work performed will appear as a special assessment on your next property tax bill.

Q. Why have you performed work on my property while the vegetation is still green?
A. Grass, weeds or piles of combustible debris have been declared a public nuisance by your jurisdiction. Abating fire hazards in the spring minimizes the volume of combustible material before the hazards increase and dries out completely during the peak fire season.

Q. Will you notify me prior to beginning abatement work? A. Property owners are responsible for preventing fire hazards on their property. If the MFSS have been met, but further work is necessary, you will receive notice prior to the County contractor performing the work. If the MFSS have not been met, an attempt will be made to give the owner a courtesy notice prior to initial abatement.

Q. Where can I find someone to provide abatement
services?
A. Weed Abatement contractors can be found in the Yellow Pages under “Weed Control Services” or “Discing Services”.

You may have the County contractor perform the necessary work; see your mailing packet for a current price list as administrative costs are charged.

Q. How can I get additional information or assistance
regarding the specific requirements for my property?
A. Weed Abatement Inspectors are available to assist you and answer your questions. Please call our Customer Service line at (408) 282-3145 to schedule a consultation with program staff or to obtain additional information.

Q. I have Grazing Animals do I need to perform abatement? A. Grazing animals do not absolve you of your responsibilities to provide a fire safe condition on your property. You will need to check with our office to determine if grazing is adequate or if additional work is required. 212
Agenda Item # 10.
213
Agenda Item # 10.
214
Agenda Item # 10.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: June 25, 2024
Prepared By: Manny A. Hernandez, Parks & Recreation
Director
Approved By: Gabriel Engeland, City Manager
Subject: Property Condition Assessment – Los Altos Police Department / Almond Ave. Fire Station / Fremont Ave. Fire Station

COUNCIL PRIORITY AREA
☐Business Communities
☐Circulation Safety and Efficiency
☐Environmental Sustainability
☐Housing
☒Neighborhood Safety Infrastructure
☐General Government

RECOMMENDATION
Based on the recent property condition assessment report, it is recommended that City Council discuss and provide direction to staff on how to move forward with the repairs and maintenance of the three City of Los Altos owned properties that public safety occupies.

Recommended Options:
1) Schedule recommended repairs in the 2024 Property Condition Assessment for the three public safety properties.
2) Schedule recommended repairs in the 2024 Property Condition Assessment for the three public safety properties and begin planning for a new police administration building behind the current police facility.
3) Schedule recommended repairs in the 2024 Property Condition Assessment for the two fire station properties and begin planning to build a new Police Station facility that would replace the current one. The budget does not currently have funds necessary for this without additional revenues.

POLICY QUESTION(S) FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
 How does City Council wish to address repairs and improvements to the three public safety properties?
 Depending on Council direction, does City Council wish to include any of the recommended repairs to be funded in the 2024/25 Capital Improvement budget?

FISCAL IMPACT
Fiscal impact would depend on the direction City Council prefers. 215
Agenda Item # 11.

Option 1 - Recommended repairs and maintenance to the three public safety properties would cost at least $5.7M over the recommended 12-year cycle.

Option 2 - Recommended repairs and maintenance to the three public safety properties would cost at least $5.7M over the 12-year cycle. The cost of design and construction of a new police administration building would need to be accurately estimated.

Option 3 - Recommended repairs and maintenance to the Almond fire stations would cost at least $2.3M. Recommended repairs and maintenance to the Loyola fire station would cost at least $700,000. Complete replacement of the current police station would need to be accurately estimated.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This action does not qualify as a “Project” as defined in California Government Code Section 15378(b) of the Guidelines for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
None

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS

BACKGROUND
Staff contracted a professional consultant to do a Property Condition Assessment (PCA) for three City of Los Altos owned public safety facilities, the Police Department building and two Fire Stations. The three facilities in this assessment we last reported on in October 2016 when Faithful & Gould, Inc. was contracted to do assessments on all City owned facilities. The updated PCA report was submitted to the City on May 3, 2024 by RSB Environmental.

The function of the PCA is to identify the immediate and future needs of the three Los Altos public safety buildings. The police and fire buildings are aged facilities and in need of repairs and upgrades. Only one of the three facilities has undergone renovation since their original construction. The recent PCA identifies many of the same building needs that were identified in 2016.

This report breaks down each facility repair needs into two categories, 1) Immediate repair needs and 2) Replacement reserve needs. Immediate repairs represent material deferred maintenance, conspicuous defects, and items that require corrective work on a higher priority than routine work.

Replacement reserve needs are recommended for corrective work within the estimated schedule provided by RSB. The tables in this report are recommendations within those categories.

The items listed are attached to estimates based on professional judgement, while actual costs could not be known until proposals are received from qualified contractors/vendors. Another limitation of this report is the uncertainty of physical deficiencies and performance of building systems. No destructive or invasive testing was included in this assessment. 216
Agenda Item # 11.

Almond Fire Station
The Fire Station located at 10 Almond Avenue is a one level building that is used by the City’s contracted fire protection agency, Santa Clara County Fire Department. The facility is approximately 9,442 square feet and has a 3-bay double deep, drive through apparatus bay. The facility was built in 1968.

According to the report produced by RSB Environmental, the property is in fair overall condition, with some measurable defects. The property condition is comparable to other area properties of similar age. The table below is the breakdown of deficiencies recommended for the Almond Fire Station.

Immediate Repair Table
Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Replacement
%
Immediate
Total
Comments
Paving, Curbing and Parking
Partial full depth asphalt
repairs and overlay
6,596 SF $2.00 100% $13,192 Cracks and
alligatoring
Building plumbing
Gas fired water boiler
replacement
1 $23,000 100% $23,000 Original
boiler
Total Repair Costs $36,192
Replacement Reserve Table
Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Replacement
%
12-Year
Cycle
Total
Paving, Curbing and Parking
Patching, crack sealing,
seal coating and striping
5,670 SF $.75 300% Yr. 2,7 &
12 $12,759
Facades
Renewal of Sealants,
repainting, masonry
5,859 SF $4.00 200% Yr. 1 & 11 $46,872
Roofing
Asphalt shingle roof
replacement
4,496 SF $11.00 100% Yr. 1 $49,456
Modified bitumen roof
replacement
8,253 SF $20.00 100% Yr. 1 $165,060
Doors and Windows
Replacing aluminum
window units
1 EA $110,500 100% Yr. 1 $110,500
Interior Finishes and Components
Interior area refurbishment 12,999 SF $10.00 200% Yr. 1 & 11 $259,980 Gas fired water heater
replacement
1 EA $3,500 100% Yr. 1 $3,500
Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning
217
Agenda Item # 11.

HVAC unit replacement 2 EA $7,500 100% Year 1 $15,000
PTAC unit replacement 2 EA $1,400 100% Yr.1 $2,800
Total (Uninflated) $665,927
Inflation Factor (3.0%)
Total (Inflated) $721,280
Although it is included in this table for replacement, the Almond fire station roof was previously evaluated and designated for replacement. City staff budgeted the roof replacement in the 2024/2025 Capital Improvement 5-year budget. This project is included as part of the City’s 2024/25 budget.

Loyola Fire Station
The Fire Station located at 765 Fremont Avenue, often referred to as the Loyola Fire Station, is a one level building that is used by the City’s contracted fire protection agency, Santa Clara County Fire Department. The facility is approximately 3,014 square feet and has a 2-bay single deep, drive through apparatus bay. The facility was built in 1953 and renovated once in 1998.

Immediate Repair Table
Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Replacement
%
Immediate
Total
Comments
Paving, Curbing and Parking
Patching, crack sealing,
seal coating and striping
1,053 SF $.20 100% $200 Parking
area poor
Substructure
Inspection and report by
foundation engineer
1 EA $6,000 100% $6,000 Severe
cracks in
foundation
Total Repair Costs $6,200
Replacement Reserve Table
Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Replacement
%
12-Year
Cycle
Total
Paving, Curbing and Parking
Patching, crack sealing,
seal coating and striping
1,053 SF $.20 200% Yr. 5 & 10 $422
Facades
Renewal of Sealants,
repainting, masonry
2,824 SF $4.00 200% Yr. 2 & 12 $22,592
Roofing
Wood shake roof
replacement
3,724 SF $25.00 100% Yr. 1 $93,100
Interior Finishes and Components
Interior area refurbishment 3,014 SF $5.00 200% Yr. 1 & 11 $30,140 Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning
HVAC unit replacement 1 EA $9,500 100% Year 1 $9,500
Building Electrical
218
Agenda Item # 11.

Generator replacement 1 EA $65,000 100% Year 1 $65,000
Total (Uninflated) $220,754
Inflation Factor (3.0%)
Total (Inflated) $230,707
Police Department
The Los Altos Police Station located in the back of the government center property at 1 North San Antonio Road was built on 1968 and is used by the City of Los Altos Police Department staff. The Facility is one level with a basement and has about 9,935 square feet of usable space. Police offices, meeting space, dispatch and lockers rooms are all contained within the main building.

Immediate Repair Table
Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Replacement
%
Immediate
Total
Comments
Paving, Curbing and Parking
Partial full depth asphalt
repairs and overlay
4,900 SF $4.00 100% $19,600 Cracks in
several
locations
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility
Provide accessible parking
spaces to bring property
into compliance
1 EA $1,800 100% $1,800 RSB did not
observe
vertical pole
Total Repair Costs $21,400
Replacement Reserve Table
Item Quantity Unit Unit Cost Replacement
%
12-Year
Cycle
Total
Paving, Curbing and Parking
Patching, crack sealing,
seal coating and striping
7,371 SF $.30 300% Yr. 2,7 &
12 $6,633
Facades
Renewal of Sealants,
repainting, masonry
5,806 SF $4.00 200% Yr. 1 & 11 $46,448
Roofing
Wood shake roof
replacement
14,252 SF $25.00 100% Yr. 1 $356,300
Interior Finishes and Components
Interior area refurbishment 9,935 SF $6.00 200% Yr. 1 & 11 $119,220 Building Plumbing
Boiler overhaul/
refurbishment
1 EA $15,450 100% Yr. 1 $15,450
Heating Ventilating and Air Conditioning
HVAC unit replacement 1 EA $13,000 100% Year 1 $13,000
Chiller overhaul/
refurbishment
1 EA $87,500 100% Yr.1 $87,500
219
Agenda Item # 11.

Air handler replacement/
refurbishment
2 EA $80,000 100% Yr. 1 & 3 $160,000
Building Electrical
Generator replacement 1 EA $50,300 100% Yr. 1 $50,300
Total (Uninflated) $854,851
Inflation Factor (3.0%)
Total (Inflated) $889,556

ANALYSIS
As seen in the included tables, RSB Environmental’s breakdown of the immediate and reserve repairs is accompanied by cost estimates that represent general maintenance repairs of items that were observed in the property assessment. Understanding the limitations of this assessment (noninvasive inspections of building structure and systems) it should be interpreted that the maintenance repairs recommended in this assessment should not be considered all inclusive.

Making the recommended repairs would remedy the specific items but would not improve the aging structure and building systems within the walls and foundation of the building. Further inspections made by specialists would be recommended for a full understanding of what additional repairs might be needed. Foundation, concealed plumbing, electrical wiring and HVAC ducting are examples of what might need further evaluation by specialists.

Also, the staff’s assessment of the Property Condition Assessment estimated costs in the report are too low for the Bay Area. I have discussed the pricing with RSB Environmental and they state that their cost estimates are based on the nationwide pricing average rather than regional pricing.

The greater Bay Area is on the higher end of any nation-wide cost estimates, specifically construction, building mechanical and building materials. Consulting with the Parks and Recreation Project Manager and the Facility Maintenance Supervisor, staff feels the estimated costs would more than likely be at least three times what is listed in the report. That would increase the total estimates from $1,905,235 to around $5,715,705.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council consider the following options in moving forward with the maintenance improvements of the three properties in this PCA.

Almond Fire Station:

Staff recommends immediate repairs of items identified in the Immediate Repair table. The cost of work on the asphalt and water boiler will likely be closer to $110,000 rather than the estimate in the report. Staff also recommends scheduling and budgeting for the replacement reserve items as recommended within the 12-year cycle. The estimated costs for those items would likely be closer to $2,200,000 total (Inflated).

Loyola Fire Station:

Staff recommends immediate repairs of items identified in the Immediate Repair table. The cost of work on the paving and foundation inspection will likely be closer to $20,000 rather than the estimate in the report. Findings in the foundation inspection will have to be evaluated and costs will have to be considered at that time if there is anything to address. Staff also recommends scheduling and budgeting for the replacement reserve items as recommended within the 12-year 220
Agenda Item # 11.
cycle. The estimated costs for all listed items in the Loyola Fire Station reserve table would likely be closer to $700,000 total (Inflated).

Police Department:

For the Police Department, staff recommends City Council consider three options to make maintenance improvements on that property and in that facility. 1) Make immediate repairs of items identified in the Immediate Repair table for the Police Station. The cost of work on the asphalt and parking will likely be closer to $70,000 rather than the estimate in the report. Schedule and budget for the replacement reserve items as recommended within the 12-year cycle. The estimated costs for those items would likely be closer to $2,700,000 total (Inflated). Staff understands that repairs as recommended in this PCA are on a building that is almost 50 years old and unseen issues that are managed regularly by maintenance staff, such as HVAC and plumbing, may still be a continuing issue that will become more severe as the facility continues to age further. 2) Design and build a new Police Administration facility in the back area of the police department that would house admin office staff, Police Chief and Captains. This admin building would include the public reception area. The cost of this new building would depend on design. This option would also include replacement reserve repairs to the main building so it can be used for dispatch, briefing, break room, workout/locker rooms and other police identified uses. Depending on planned usage, additional funds may be needed for building modifications not included in the PCA.
3) Pass a tax measure to fund a new facility that would replace the current police station. This facility would need to be designed for all police admin, dispatch and operational needs.

The three options for staff discussion increase in price as option #1 is estimated to be the least costly initial investment and option #3 would require the largest initial investment. Staff feels the long-term maintenance cost to be inverse of the initial cost of each option. Option #1 will cost the most in the long-term for repairs, maintenance and low building efficiency as opposed to option #3 that would be a more efficient, less costly to maintain new facility.

ATTACHMENTS

1. PCA – 10 Almond Ave., Los Altos, CA 94022

2. PCA – 765 Fremont Ave., Los Altos, CA 94024

3. PCA – 1 North San Antonio Rd., Los Altos, CA 94022
221
Agenda Item # 11.



 



   

!"#" $
%
&
%'()&)*
)+)*
#&,'*)
-.
+-)/011 
2345678 49:;<=<>> 6?438
@86A@B=C:<:; 36?@36DE43A
39@FFBG63F@FD6H IJKLIJMNO
@7PQF2R8@S@C99 
2FTQ34FU6F8@S
222
Agenda Item # 11.
 







 



 


 







  


!"!#$%&!'(#)*+),"




















































-

!"!#$%./0')($%1,"2)+),"














































3

45*)"),"',6.#,7$7%!1,'+'














































3
8 


9 4 .:#*,'!





























































;
4 <(,*!,6=,#>
























































;








? @
<)+!

































































A
@

B:)%2)"C1,"2)+),"'




















































@
4D"+!#),#E)")'/!'$"21,F*,"!"+'








































-
@
@B:)%2)"C<0'+!F'





















































;
@
-G%!H$+,#'



























































I
@
3E)#!$"2J)6!<$6!+0



















































A


K

L 

-
<!)'F)(M,"!1%$'')6)($+),"













































N
-

E%,,2M,"!1%$'')6)($+),"















































N
-
4 =)"2M,"!1%$'')6)($+),"















































N
-
@O!#F)+!'





























































N
-
-PF!#)($"'=)+/&)'$7)%)+)!'P(+QP&PRP((!'')7)%)+0
























N
-
3<:'*!(+S,%2$"2S,)'+:#!















































-
;T!C:%$+,#01,F*%)$"(!


















































-
I5+/!#1,"')2!#$+),"'




















































U  
V

V
8 3 &,(:F!"+T!H)!W





















































4 3

D"+!#H)!W'



























































4 9 


 

  


;
&!6!##!2S$)"+!"$"(!$"2./0')($%&!6)()!"()!'





























@
;

T!*%$(!F!"+T!'!#H!P"$%0')'











































@
X 



?
L U


 

 

9 223
Agenda Item # 11.









 






 

 !




"#
$



224
Agenda Item # 11.







 









!" #$%&'()*+,-&'($.#,/&'(#$,0&12+ .3405$64 10,34$&6'.7%3,1$8 9):;9<=>?!@@"@A>"B);?*,$C/6'.1&(07,&'(D3,7-6,%.&'0534$%E3'0$'+E-3,72 17C$0&'6
!"F+&1.'(#1+E-&'(G$6H2&,3.D$03,-7&13,41$CE3'0" I17D>?B)@ !@" A>?B)@@J53D$0,-7&13,67,('$1 .$43$,607-3.C7EE&6&7'3.J70$1K34$&,*760 >B9)";?!@
#,74308*7'.&07'I63 E3'0"@I1E7'.I%3'+L76I1076)*$1&27,'$; @? "
K<F#,7M3C0N7!? @B:
225
Agenda Item # 11.
 



   
 
  



! 
! 
"#"$#"
#"%
#"&
#"'
#" (#")
#"*
#"+
#"$,#"$$#"$



-./-0123456789:3451;09<345
01=>?3456>91<@A1B3456@A1B>C=34514;@=93D45 EFGE6HIJKLMJ.IEM-6GEFFJNM-6GEFM-6GEFM-6GEFM/G6IEO -.GFL1>;A@
PA4Q1BCR@A1B4=@69AD134=56=8><DC34=5CRS1@C49T614;S3C9@DC=9AD13@ /JO / E6UEOKLM-.JJMGF6-HGJNMGF6-HMGF6-HM-H6UIG
-.G-PCR345
V@D?1B=@?345BA9CR9ADB1>SA4=
FJFJJ -6-OHKLM/.JJM-O6EH/JNM-O6EH
M-O6EH WC;3RA
:3=8SA49CR9ADB1>SA4=
GEGEJ U6GEFKLMGJ.JM/HE6JJ/JNM/HE6J
M/HE6J
-.GEXC9@14;Y3 CQ@
PADB1>3451B8S34SQ34;C @843=@
FJFJJ / ZVM/J6E .JM/J6EJ/ NM/J6E
M/J6E
-.F[4=A93CL4@?A14;7CSD4A=@
[4=A93C1A9AR8:3@?SA4=\KL
/JO / /G6OOKLM/J.JM/GO6 JGJNM/GO6 JM/GO6 JMGEO6UJ
09CDA=T7C4;3=C4V@A SA4=/JVBSC4;V2A48]C@VB=C@671B3RC941O-JG G
PK^09C_A>=`C.G-JFE
226
Agenda Item # 11.
 
















 !
"
#
$
%
&'()*+,-./01,*23+./
45607+89-:5;980<5;889=,5>29.;
(?(?@ ( ABCDEF@'@CDEF@@(@GCDEF@
CDEF@
&'HI95;+./E0J9.;+,5K.E05-B+8LK.-+;K. /IJBL0*.+;89=,5>29.; (?(?@ H ABCMEF@'@C(FE@@(@GC(FE@
C(FE@
1NBL0*.+;
89=,5>29.;
(H(H@ H ABC(E&@'@CHE?@@(@GCHE?@
CHE?@
NK;5,0OP.+7,5;9-QC&REMH'@@C&EHFD'@@C'@C'@C'@C'@C&EHFD'@@C'@C'@C'@C(FDE&HS'@@C&EHFD'@@CSFERHM'@ T. . 7,5;+K0U5>;K80OD'@GQ ('@('@D('@S(('@RD('(HS('(FR('(R&('HD('HSM('D@F('D&&('D?& NK;5,0O+.7,5;9-QC&REMH'@@C&ED?@'FRC@'@C'@C'@C'@CFE@M?'D@C@'@C'@C'@CH@SE(R'M(CFE?M'(FCMH(E R'S AV5,*;+K.0198+K-W(H
X0K76Y*58907 ;WRE&HZ968V0=86Y*58907 ;=8[5OP.+7,5;9-QCF'?Z968V0=86Y*58907 ;=8[5OT.7,5;9-QCS'DM 18K=9;[0LK.-+;K.0B69 29.;(@0B,2K.-0BV9.*\K60B,;K6E0L5,+7K8.50R&@H D
Z])018K^9>;0_K'H&@DF
227
Agenda Item # 11.

















 !"#$
%&$
% '
(
)*
%
+,,
,,


-.
&/0
$'
(
)!
$
%
12+!

%+
&
34 ,+!
,3  *!  *
&)3* !-
 56277"&/0
$'
(
)#89.
,$
(

-
:
;-
.,
(
,/ ,
%&(
.


, %$
%
, <

%(
(
, !:.=8= )>
 %
?
%+

$ 
$
)-
9
,< %=
 !,"+9=# % %721@A1B,
-
./)C,(
(
, !
%
%= $.

B3
72768

9.,
(
. ,/

(
( 
%-
.
,
!
/

-
-=8= )>
 %
? %
)
/

!
%&(
/)
)
(
,




)
:.
&
.

:

&.
? 


-




 !8

9. $

,
-.

DEFGHI 


%
%

(
,
 A%
(. $J&,
  !),,
-.
&/0
$
'
(
)3$!&%<3/&
!

%
3- $ %
,3

-3( <3

$. $ !3
!

3,(;!
3-
, -
)3
%
!
$$ !,),

,
$

(

,8+)

: <-


 /
&.
$
%

$.  $
,$,

-.
,
(
(
),),

,
$

(

,,.
&!%$
,&!.
((
(
(
-
,,
 !89. !

!
-%
!
,
/
)
%
.

,$
(

-
.,DEFGHI(
( 
%
/)DKL8
M.

J& 
,$ 
/
%



%-

-


(
%
%
(.),$ ! ;

--,3!&
(,&

,

,3
 !!
: $
, 
&,
%89.
$
,,,.
: 
/ ,
%
(
-
,,
 !0&%<

 %.
(( 


 $& !
N

-.

/,

%%
-
$3$!&%<.
$
,
%
,<3(
$&
3$
,&$3 %
 <
.


( 

(! $

8M.

(
(
)A&J&

,(
$ !)
J&(

,(
,
3DKL
!
,,
!
!)

%  
< %<

 $
%O

(! $

$
,,(
%
%/).
%
,<
%,
$
 $

A,

%%& !,
:.
-,A. %
;
:!
%<

-
.

,(
$-$

J&(

8

9.,
(
,.
&!%
/
$
,&
% ,
$.$ !!)
N. &,

89.,
(
%

,
:  )
<&  

$

(! $
:. )P
%
 !3,

!
$ !, &
3 % $


<&! 
$!&%</&
!

%
3 /&!%<$
%
,3, -
)$
%
,3



 !
<&! 
,3.
!.$
%
,
?
<
% $
,
$

(! $

:. %
O%
,<, % %,
.
, % %,%

!
(
%/).
,& $
%&,)84
$ !3,
%-
%
 !

<&! 
,3 %$
%
,$. <
,<-$ !)



-

:.
.
,&/0
$(
(
): ,%

!
(
% %
.
,&/0
$/&!%<: ,$
,&$
%89.
,&/0
$(
(
) %,&/0
$/&!%<
)

!!$&


<&! 
,3
%
$
%


J&

,
(&
-
.



!
$ !3
,
3 
-
%
 !
!

!8
Q
,,
,,

$ :.
!!)
!

.
&$
 )
< %<.
(
,
$

-(.),$ !%
-$
$
, %
(
-

$
,
-.
/&!%<,),

8+$$
%<
.
+9=<&%
!
,3 (
(
)$
%
 ,,
,,


,
%
%

%&$
.
,;
< %<(

 !/&!%<,),

%$

(

- !&

89. +9=
, % %
$
<?
,.
.

,&/0
$
 &

-.
,,
,,


< %<,&$.,,&
, ,:
;
,.(3
J& !)
-$ 
%&<, !! 
3

 $

-/&!%<,),

, %

<&,
-&!
-.
/&!%<
,),


$

(

,8

9. ,&
): ,$
%&$
%

$
,,
:..
!

!
-$ 
%,;!!
% !)
N
$,
%
/)

/
,
-.
(
-
,,
3 % $$
% $
:.<

 !!) $$
(
%( $$
,
-
.
$
,&! ,
$&
!)( $$<.
,

!
$ !)&%
,
! $
%
,8Q

.

(
,
 
3
N(
,,
%


(!
%3 %
:  )
<&  

,$!&%
%

%
%89.

(
,(
;,
!) ,
-,%
3.

/,
$

-

,(
$-$
:

&(%

-
.


(
3
,<
%
%
%
!

%
/)DKL8
Q

%
,&$


 ,

,<
: ,
$!&%
%

.

,$
(

-
.,
+,,
,,

8
*
,, ,,
$
%:.
A!
,<

 
(


:
; 
,(
$&! 
% 

%%
,,
%:.
.,

(
8
'
(
)
*
%

+,,
,,


12 +!

%
+
&

4 ,
+!
,3
* !-

56277
6
'
0 $
Q
8 762R2BB
228
Agenda Item # 11.











!"#$%&'()%*+%,-./)%01/,+0-2()3+(,45)%0',')%677+77*+%,)8,9+"1:;+/,2()3+(,4.)/-,+0-,<=

6.*)%06&+%1+>?)76.,)7>"-%,-5.-(-5)1%,4>5-.'8)(%'-@A=BBC"1:;+/,2()3+(,4D-,,9+(+E1+7,)8F(G F-%%4
H+(%-%0+IG
6 71**-(4
)8
,9+
3()3+(,4
'*3()&+*+%,7
'7
3()&'0+0
'%
,9+
8)..)J'%K
,-:.+L
MNOPQRSN

PTTUVW

XVYZNOQ
[UTN\?)7

6.,)7
]'(+
",-,')%
XVY^NVQW
__VN``\<=

6.*)%0
6&+%1+>?)7

6.,)7>"-%,-

5.-(-
5)1%,4>5-.'8)(%'-@A=BB
XVY^NVQW
a
bX[c\<d=eAfe==g
XVY^NVQW
hijNV
b^NV
QUM
VNOYV_`c\
5',4
)8
?)7

6.,)7
XVY^NVQW
W^N\k+%+(-.
21:.'/
l7+
C?)7

6.,)7
]'(+
",-,')%D

RQN
OVNUmN\633()n'*-,+.4=G@=
e
-/(+7
[PToNV
Yp
qPRr_Rjm`\s%+
C<D
YQUr
qPRr_Rjm

tPUVN
uYYQUmN\633()n'*-,+.4@>AAB
C5-./1.-,+0D
e
"]
NUV
qPRrQ\<@vw
CH'7,)('/
6+('-.7D
[PToNV
Yp
urYYV`\s%+
C<D
[PToNV
Yp
jRQ`\s%+
C<D

Po`QVPOQPVN
buYPj_UQRYjc\".-:7e)%eK(-0+

P^NV`QVPOQPVN
bqPRr_Rjm
uVUTNc\
5)%/(+,+
-%0
7,++.
uUOU_N`
bMQNVRYV
xUrr`c\",1//)>
:('/y
&+%++(
-%0
J))0
7'0'%K
YYp\ 2',/9+0>
-739-.,
79'%K.+
())8
-%0
.)Je7.)3+>
*)0'8'+0>
:',1*'%)17
-739-.,
*+*:(-%+
())8
z
\ k(-0+e*)1%,+0
H{65
1%',7>
2|65
1%',7
-%0
K-7
81(%-/+
rNSUQYV`\}),
-33.'/-:.+
uRVN
Uj_
~RpN

UpNQW\]'(+
+n,'%K1'79+(7

NR`TRO
YjN\A urYY_
YjN\].))0
I)%+€
l%79-0+0
xRj_
YjN\)%+
‚
C<f=e*39D

^NORUr
xRj_
NmRYj\ƒ+7
zPVVROUjN

P`ON^QRorN
NmRYj\})
2()3+(,4
5)%0',')%
677+77*+%,
<=

6.*)%0
6&+%1+
?)7

6.,)7>
5-.'8)(%'-
@A=BB
g!"#
2();+/,
})G
BA=f=gg
229
Agenda Item # 11.
 



 





 


 !"#$%
&
'
()*"+!,,-.)/!00")#1200)"*!
3
4
51!6,!7!!8!#!"*
9:9;<=<>?@ABCDEF?@GH=IEJEH=
!K%LM!*.)N!*-"0"#)O!11/")#,"*")#P"*0)Q!Q!0%L1!,!/!*0#)*!,)!N)*!, RQN)O!Q!#*0!)/O!7!)#0*%*")##,!,!S%*!1-Q"#*"#!,R*"0+KTU#O")#Q!#*1)N"#")# ***!K%LM!*.)N!*-"0)QNL1!*))*!N)N!*"!0)/0"Q"17!"#*"0!#,0%LM!* *)"QQ!,"*!!N"0#,)#*"#%!,N)7Q)/0%0*"#!,N!O!#**"O!Q"#*!##!*!!Q"#"#7 !)#)Q"1"/!0)%1,!V!!,W6-!0
9:XYZE=EH=DH[A>H\?\@<GHDJD
9:X:]^<[<>><I_?E=J<=?=F<?=IABCDEF?@^<[EFE<=FE<D
`!/!!,Q"#*!##!#,N-0"1,!/""!#"!0/)P"*")#"0!)QQ!#,!,!N!0!#*Q*!"1 ,!/!!,Q"#*!##!)#0N"%)%0,!/!*0#,"*!Q0**!S%"!)!*"O!P)a)#"7!N")"*-*# )%*"#!P)a
T0!,%N)#)L0!O*")#0)#,%*!,,%"#7*!N)N!*-O"0"*"*!Q0!S%"!,0)!*"O!P)a*)!Q!,- "QQ!,"*!N-0"1#!!,0!0/)11)P0b
c de

f f 

c'



.*"1/%11,!N*0N1*!N"0#,
)O!1-
g6gK8hhiWi
j0k/"!,P*!L)"1!!N1!Q!#* i211)PhWhW lHJ?@GHDJmnXop]q9
9:X:9r<Z@?F<s<=Jr<D<>t<u=?@CDED
5)QN)#!#*0)0-0*!Q0**P"11!S%"!!N1!Q!#*!0!O!0,%"#7*!*!Q!"*!Q"v!,P"*)N"#")#0 )/N)LL1!)0*)#*!**!,0!,%1!*"*1!,+!N1!Q!#*+!0!O!2#1-0"0 !+!N1!Q!#*+!0!O! 2#1-0"00L!!#N)M!*!,/)*!*!Q)/i-!0N1%0*P)-!0/)*)*1)/i-!0#,"0 0%QQ"v!,0/)11)P0b
wxe

y

f  z

'y

c z

'
)*1+!0!O!0hgg6{h{i|
.!0S%!/!!*+!0!O!0}211~!0h{6gh{g
.!0S%!/!!*+!0!O!0}.!~!h6||hgW{
.)N!*-5)#,"*")#200!00Q!#*
i21Q)#,2O!#%!
€)021*)051"/)#"
g+KT.)M!*)W66
230
Agenda Item # 11.






!
"##$
%

!
&'(')
&!
*"+,
-!.

!/0 '(! '1

#
'!- '("-!
(&
!

*"+,
-!.

!/2 -$!
($!3412# '(15
'"
67 12!
6*$'!$02$
$0 "'!/60$2&
'$894::;1
$
!
&!
$

#
'!6$

!/5
!<$
- '("-!
( '=$
-:86:4:9+/=
;> !?
((/6.
&

 '$2
1 -$!

&
?*@
A'5
'#
'!$2
<!=
;

'
B"$-6
*!

0 '!$-!;

"

&!

!
! $


!!
02
'!'
5$2"$!')!
/
-$2$

-!
&!

!/$'(
 <!
- '(! '#$/$&&
-!!
02
'!C
&'$'-$2(
-
 '
5 !#
;
"


$-- #2

(+/
(

-
+')!

#$
/
/
!
#
$'(- # '
'!
&!

"+,
-!

!/6(
'!&/')- '
-" "
(
&
-!

#$!

$2(
&

(#$'!
'$'-
6$'(

'!')$' ' ' &-
!!

#
(/!
+

5 (- '(! '
;
D'$((! '6!

!(
'!&

/
!
#

- # '
'!
!$!$

$'!-$!
(!

$-!

'( &!


E
-!
("

&"22&
("
')!

-&
(
5$2"$! '

 ($'('-2"(

$' ' ' &-
!&
&"!"

-$!$2

2$-
#
'!
;
FGH
I
JK


-
&<
L&
!
.

!/0 '(! '1

#
'!
+$

(" '!
=
;=$''/M

'$'(
%N

*-
&O
L$'(!
1#

-$'* -
!/&


!')$'(=$!

$2
P1*=Q*!$'($
(A:43RS3T$'(
'-2"(

!

& 22 <')U
VW
!!
.

!/!
5$2"$!
!
)
'

$2/
-$2- '(! ' &!
+"2(')$'(
!

#
5 #
'!
6 5
<$5$2$+2
- '
!
"-! '( -"#
'!
'
(

! &$#2$
%
"

25 <!6
$'(+
$+2
! - ##
'! '6!
'S2$-
- '
!
"-! '
/
!
#
62&

$&
!/6#
-$'-$26
2 -!
-$26
$'(
2"#+')

/
!
#
6 $'(
!

)
'

$2
+"2!

'5
'#
'!;
VD(
'!&/!

- # '
'!
!$!$

E+!')(
&

(#$'!
'$'-


"

$'(
5(
-
!

!#$!

+$

( ' +

5 (- '(! '
6#$'!
'$'-

!
/$'('("
!
/
!$'($
("

&"22&

!#$!

;
V.
5(
$(

-
! ' &!
.

!/<!(

-
! '
&'S2$-

/
!
#
$'(- ##
'!$
/ '
+

5 (
- '(! '
;
V?
5
<
#$'!
'$'-

-
("

<!
!

'S2$-

#$'!
'$'-

''
2;
VX+

5 $

'!$!5

$#2
&!
'!


!
'$'!
$-

Y"'!
'
(

! )$'$-2
$

"'(

!$'(') &!

!/C
5 $22- '(! ';X!

$

$
! +
+

5 ('-2"(
!

E!



&!

!/6
$&
2/$--

+2

&
6'!


- ## '$

$
6$'(#
-$'-$26
2 -!
-$2$'(

2 5$!

Z"#
'!

#
;
V.
5(

- ##
'($! '

&

$((! '$2

!"(

6 &

Z"

(6
<!

2$!
(
+"()
!$
/
'&
#$! ';
VD'!

5
<

!/#$'$)
#
'!
!$&&$'(- (

'&
-
#
'!$)
'-

&

-&-'&
#$! '

2$!')! !
/
-$2

!/6- (
- #2$'-
6$5$2$+2
#$'!
'$'-

-
("

6$5$2$+2

(
$<')
6 $'(
!

( -"#
'!$! ';
V7#!
($

#
'! &$--

+2
$

$
&!

!/&
!

'-
&# 
!"

S$&&
-!
(
#$!

$2

$'(
- '(! '

- '("-5

!

2 5$!
(
# 
!"

;
V.

$
$! ' &!
?
2$-
#
'!?

5 *-
("2
+$

(" '$

5 !

#
5(
(+/!

02
'!;
V*!$!
#
'!
'
!

!/C

?
#$'')
[

&"2
7&
;
V\
!

#'$! '
&
]A=1
]2 (
^ '

$'(
['&
#
@"2(')
0 (

*

#-
^ '
;
.

!/
0 '(! '
1 #
'!
34 12# '(
15 '"

7 12!
6 0$2&
'$
894::
_?*@
.
,
-!
` ;
:94a4TT
231
Agenda Item # 11.









 
 





 

  



 




 









 
 







 


 




 

 



 




!
 "  

  
 


 

 





# 



 "  

 
!

$%
 





&'()*+"*,
$ 

% 

 


*)


- 
.%
/0)((
+12$ 
# (0)3),,
232
Agenda Item # 11.




 




 

 !"

#$%!&

'()*+,-.*/01234*205/36787073936*:;<2*/0=6>,?=2@7)=4*A4=2/*?B 030=?86> =4423C8D=0*?5EFGE@=/2*7F()*+,-.*/01234*20587?3/=0*A360)*73,0)*=70/326*239860*27*/083639 H?D36AHI*6,*=6AJ320)+=6H603683K3=AF()*+,-.*/01234*205878A*60898*A-50)*+=60=L?=2= L3,605M80)1=2/*?NO39;PE@QR@EESFH74*20)*TUVWXYZX[\]VX[0)*4234*20587^36*AM80)861N@1,-?8/ =6A N67080,0836=?O87028/0F()* +,-.*/0 1234*205 =44*=27 03 -* = ?*>=? /36932D86> ,7*F H6 =2*= D=4 ?3/=086> 0)* +,-.*/0 1234*205 87 86/?,A*A 86 0)* =44*6A8/*7F 

_

'()*+,-.*/01234*20587?3/=0*A86D8C*A/3DD*2/8=?=6A2*78A*608=?=2*=39L80539`37H?037B L=?893268=F
ab
&
!"&cd
#$%!&

'K*I8*M390)*e680*A+0=0*7f*3?3>8/=?+,2I*5:e+f+<PFS@D86,0*7*28*70343>2=4)8/ g,=A2=6>?*D=439h3,60=86i8*MBLH2*I*=?70)=00)**?*I=0836390)*+,-.*/01234*20587=4423C8D=0*?5 ;SS9**0=-3I*D*=67*=?*I*?F(343>2=4)5860)*I8/86805390)*+,-.*/01234*205=44*=2703A*/?86*030)* 6320)M*70F
H6*C/*240923D0)*e+f+PFS@D86,0*7*28*70343>2=4)8/g,=A2=6>?*D=439h3,60=86i8*MBLH?3/=086> 0)* +,-.*/0 1234*205B 87 86/?,A*A 86 0)* =44*6A8/*7F


_

'jI*2=??6378>6898/=60*99*/07360)*34*2=0836390)*+,-.*/01234*205/=6-*=0028-,0*A03 0343>2=4)8/4=208/,?=27=00)87?3/=0836F()*0343>2=4)587328>86=?=6A7)3,?A-*)=6A?*A=74=203923,086* D=860*6=6/*F
klmnopqn

rrpsmtlp
putmvq w

puxtkprpol
pqpvypq w
z
!{ |"! #!"
"
#$%!&

'()*7032DM=0*29?3M923D0)*780*87/36023??*AI8=36@780*702,/0,2*7A87/)=2>86>86030)* D,68/84=?7570*D=6A87A82*/0*A-50)*780*0343>2=4)5B2*7,?086>867)**09?3MA874*27=?03/,2-7*C0*6A86> =?36>0)*4*28D*0*2394=2}86>=2*==6A0)*=A.=/*6023=A92360=>*7F()*-,8?A86>860*26=?2339A2=867=2* 08*A03/=0/)-=7867860)*+,-.*/01234*2054=2}86>=2*=7F()*4=2}86>?307=2*/3698>,2*AM80)7?34*7 03M=2A /,2-7 /36023??86> 7032D M=0*2 9?3MF


_

'J3D=.32A2=86=>*423-?*D7B7,/)=7436A86>B*23783632M=0*2-*86>A82*/0*A03M=2A0)* -,8?A86>BM*2*630*A-5322*4320*A03K+~F()*7032DM=0*2A2=86=>*7)3,?A-*)=6A?*A=74=203923,086* D=860*6=6/*F
1234*205 L36A80836 H77*77D*60
;E H?D36A HI*6,*
`37 H?037B L=?893268= GQE
GK+~ 123.*/0 J3F QERESS
233
Agenda Item # 11.




 

  


 !"#


$"%

&'()"
*+
,
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
,
$
+
,
-T785;KK=>8:;76GHM<@5A6GHM;G4:;5J6GH;::8;584=0A86GE;65=0:005<0G46=60GIU5;<J9;G4 ;KK6H;=056GH/8580A9857846G=>8:;78F8G=;=G@FA850EK0<;=60G9IVFF846;=8W8:;659;5858<0FF8G484 E05:;5=6;KME@KKS48:=>58:;659;G4;9:>;K=0785K;DI
.>8:;5J6GH;58;98;K;G=;G49=56:6GH696GH004<0G46=60GM/6=>6G46<;=60G90E;785;H8/8;5IX;9840G=>8 0A985784<0G46=60G0E=>8:;5J6GH;G445678;58;9M;G4=>8;785;H88EE8<=678@98E@KK6E80E:;78F8G=;G4 :;78F8G=98;K;G=9M98;K<0;=6GHM;G49=56:6GHM58:;659=0=>8;9:>;K=M=>8;::K6<;=60G0E98;K;G=9M98;K<0;=6GHM ;G49=56:6GH0E=>8:;5J6GH;G4Y05K;G8F;5J6GH9;5858<0FF8G484;9;W8:K;<8F8G=W8985784@56GH=>8 ;G;KD969=85FI .>8<@5A9;586GH004<0G46=60GI




 

  
Z'),[['
$+
,

\ 


]^_]``a] ^_\ 
C;5=6;KE@KK48:=>;9:>;K=58:;659;G40785K;D2P2P bVFF846;=8cOdMOe2 C;=<>6GHM<5;<J98;K6GHM98;K<0;=6GH;G49=56:6GHPd 22f O2
cgM2Pd
cgM2Pd
cgM2Pd
.0=;K c2PMePO
hi
$()*

j
+'k[*",'['
+(
$j
+'l['

+
'(
&'()"
*+
,
-.>8:50:85=D>;9F0485;=8KDS48G98K;G49<;:6GH;==>8E50G=0E=>896=8M=>88G=5;G<89=0=>8 :50:85=DM;G4;50@G4=>8A@6K46GH;G46G69K;G49=>50@H>0@==>8:;5J6GH;58;9I C50:85=DU0G46=60GL99899F8G=
ObLKF0G4L78G@8
m09LK=09MU;K6E05G6;egb22
ObW?XC50B8<=n0I2gbdbPP
234
Agenda Item # 11.
 





 










 




































 



 




!"



 








 








# 





 







  




$






















%&'()*)&'+,





 










,
 












-





 



 

 












./#-


0










./#1














 ,














2























 
,














3456789:;<7
=>>:?6@5:A:B@6C; D
A:BE@4:>:85A:;:CF:; D
GHIHJKL')M)NOPQRST)MRUO'(V*)P)*)RU
WRUMS)N*)&'+./#X



 


Y
,
Z
 








 












 









/

[




\
]56E65^_C7F6?:C
X




[

`X







-
 `[

`X







/






a 







a 

/

Y
,
 
/


 %&'()*)&'+,


















/

[
























 


 0




,
 








































[






a



b"a

a


a 
  

cd"ee
bb./#[



-
ed"!"ff
235
Agenda Item # 11.








!"#$!%&
!'&
&'(!%&! )$*%
$!'$+%'

'%*
#%
*,*)&*%
&-.
'


+*$(%
&'(!%/0&' $!1203'.
'
&'
*.-4%)*$)*%-&))&*'%$&.#&'%5
!5)&#4*
!+$*# 4
#$!#*%4
+$
! &%
$!'
&!
+$$%
!"'
'
))$*%
!"
%
$& 5
&*
!"4
6%*
$*
&!

!%*
$*4
,&'
&!
#$
(!'/


7$
! &%
$!&! +$$%
!"#$!'%*
#%
$!#$
!$%
.*
+
 &%%%
($+%&''''(!%
%$

!
#$!
%
$!'/'

'%*
#%
*
&))&*'%$

'$
! &!

!"$$ #$!
%
$!/
89:;<=>?@A<
BCC?D;E:?
F?GE;H@ I
F?GJE9?C?=:

F?@?HK?@ I



'
)*'%*
#%
*
')&*%
&-
$
'#
*
+*$(
.
,

-

!%*
$*
&!
6%*
$*
+
!
''/
'
)*'%*
#%
**)$*% -#$!'
'%'$+#$!#*%,
%'%#$
(!'4'%
&('4&! '%4%*
''L$
'%'
'
))$*%
!"$)!5,
4'%4+$$*&! *$$+L$
'%'/1$$+'%*
#%
*'#$!'
'%$+
"%,
"%#$!#*%$!'%
#M
!"4
'
))$*%

-
%
$)!5,
4 '%4
*$$+
L$
'%'/


'
)*'%*
#%
*,&'$
'*. %$

!"$$ #$!
%
$!/N$)*$
(',*!$% $**)$*% /
89:;<=>?@A<
BCC?D;E:?
F?GE;H@ I
F?GJE9?C?=:

F?@?HK?@ I
OPQQ

)*
(&*-6%*
$*(&%*
&'#$!'
'%$+)&
!% 4'%
##$4
*
#M.!*&! ,$$ '

!"/
+&#& '&.%*
(
&! '$+
*
#M&! R$*,$$ %*
(&*$
! %,
! $,'4 $$*'4&! $%*+&S& 
)!%*&%
$!'/


$
'*. &*&'$+%+&#& '&))&*%$

!+&
*#$!
%
$!$.*&/$
'*. '&&!%'
&))&*%$

!"$$ #$!
%
$!/)&
!% +
!
''&))&*%$

!+&
*#$!
%
$!/T)M)$+6%*
$*'
"!*&-
!#
')*
$
#*!,&$+'&&!%'4*)&
!%
!"4%
#M)$
!%
!"$+(&'$!*-4&! (
!$*')$%
*)&
*'
&'
,&**&!% /
U!
$)
!
$!
$+
#$'%
+$*
%
'
,$*M

'

!#


!
%
1)&#(!%
1'*.
'#
/

*
#M.!*&))&*'%$

!"$$ #$!
%
$!/V%
'*#$((!  %&%& 
#&% *)&
*)*$"*&(


!'%
%
% +$*&!%
#
)&% "*& &%
$!$+%($*%&*L$
!%'&! $.*&6%*
$*,&)*+$*(&!#/W&'
'$

*$
%
!-##M +$*+*&#%
* 4')&
!"$*(
''
!"($*%&*L$
!%'4&! #&!
!"$*%
#M)$
!%
!"
$+
%

*
#M
&!
L$
!%'
'$


)*+$*(
,*
!#''&*-/
X*$)*%-
Y$!
%
$!
U''''(!%
Z[
U($!
U.!

\$'
U%$'4
Y&
+$*!
&
]^[__
Z_120
X*$L#%
N$/
_^[`[aa
236
Agenda Item # 11.




 

  



 


!"#
!$$
%! "#  
&'(')*+,-.'*+*(/.01'2*3(/3(40/5672,3(/3(4,-8*.,(190*(:
83(,1.2,/1'2*31.
;<= ; ;;;>?@0A@B
>?@0A@B
C,/*+ >AB0DE?
FGHGFIJ
KLMN
OP513(4/Q'.3/'.51R'901'21'.'(/*/3R'*1'*.,-/Q'1,,-.)'1',S.'1R':TU3/6Q':1,,-.)'1' R3.5*++9*..'..':T
CQ'V5SW'6/U1,2'1/9Q*R'23/6Q':*16Q3/'6/51*+X41*:'0*.2Q*+/.Q3(4+'.1,,-*(:+,)X.+,2'08,:3-3':0 S3/583(,5.*.2Q*+/1,,-TCQ'1,,-.*1'-+*.Q':)3/Q8'/*+-+*.Q3(4T CQ'*4',-1,,-)*.(,/21,R3:':TY*.':,(/Q',(.3/',S.'1R*/3,(.*(:Z,,4+'[*1/QQ3./,136*+*'13*+ 2Q,/,41*2Q903/*22'*1./Q*//Q'*.2Q*+/.Q3(4+'1,,-*(:S3/583(,5.*.2Q*+/1,,-*1'*221,\38*/'+9@< 9'*1.,+:TCQ'1,,-.23/6Q/,)*1:3(/'1(*+:1*3(.*(:+'*:'1.T ]

O^,6511'(/1,,-3(4+'*7.)'1'1'2,1/':*(:&VY,S.'1R':(,'R3:'(6',-1,,-+'*7.)3/Q3(/Q' S53+:3(43(/'13,1T
CQ'*.2Q*+/.Q3(4+'1,,-*22'*1./,S'3(.*/3.-*6/,196,(:3/3,(T&,,-.,-/Q3./92'/9236*++9Q*R'*( *R'1*4'0'--'6/3R'5.'-5++3-',-*221,\38*/'+9@<9'*1.0:'2'(:3(4,(/Q'21,2'1/9_.+,6*/3,(08*/'13*+/92' *(:`5*+3/90`5*+3/9,-3(./*++*/3,(01,,-8*3(/'(*(6'*(:'\2,.51'0*8,5(/,-1,,-/1*--360*(:1'43,(*+ 6+38*/366,(:3/3,(.TY*.':,(3/.6511'(/6,(:3/3,(0*(:'\2'6/':5.'-5++3-'0/Q'1,,-3.'\2'6/':/,1'*6Q 3/.+3-''\2'6/*(69:513(4/Q''R*+5*/3,(2'13,:6,R'1':S9/Q3.1'2,1/Ta66,1:3(4+90&'2+*6'8'(/&'.'1R'. *1'1'6,88'(:':-,11,,-1'2+*6'8'(/:513(4/Q'*(*+9.3./'18T CQ'S3/583(,5.*.2Q*+/1,,-*22'*1./,S'3(.*/3.-*6/,196,(:3/3,(T&,,-.,-/Q3./92'/9236*++9Q*R'*( *R'1*4'0'--'6/3R'5.'-5++3-',-*221,\38*/'+9?b9'*1.0:'2'(:3(4,(/Q'21,2'1/9_.+,6*/3,(08*/'13*+/92' *(:`5*+3/90`5*+3/9,-3(./*++*/3,(01,,-8*3(/'(*(6'*(:'\2,.51'0*8,5(/,-1,,-/1*--360*(:1'43,(*+ 6+38*/366,(:3/3,(.TY*.':,(3/.6511'(/6,(:3/3,(0*(:'\2'6/':5.'-5++3-'0/Q'1,,-3.'\2'6/':/,1'*6Q 3/.+3-''\2'6/*(69:513(4/Q''R*+5*/3,(2'13,:6,R'1':S9/Q3.1'2,1/Ta66,1:3(4+90&'2+*6'8'(/&'.'1R'. *1'1'6,88'(:':-,11,,-1'2+*6'8'(/:513(4/Q'*(*+9.3./'18T  


 

  
U1,2'1/9c,(:3/3,(a..'..8'(/
;<a+8,(:aR'(5'
d,.a+/,.0c*+3-,1(3*=A<??
;@&VYU1,W'6/^,T?A<@<bb
237
Agenda Item # 11.







 



!"#$%&!#'()%*+,,-+*"%$.*/*(&0101 123456478
9,:'-'*:;'&</*(+,,-+*"%$.*/*(&=7=7 1232876181
>,&$% 3=246728
?@A@BCDEF
GE
CED
H
I>#**J&*+',+:,,+!.,(!'!&,-$K*+$)*LM<$%'&N6.,//*+.'$%L)+$:*6$%</'(</$(:)%$!! :,,+!$..*!!'()&#*%,;;NOP*+K'.*$(:$..*!!:,,+!$+*#,%%,Q/*&$%O R'J*:Q'(:,Q!$+*%,.$&*:$&$%%-$.$:*!,-&#*;<'%:'()O>#*Q'(:,Q!$+*$%</'(</L-+$/*:6)%$!! Q'(:,Q!O
S

I>#*:,,+!$(:Q'(:,Q!Q*+*,;!*+K*:&,;*'(-$'+&,",,+.,(:'&',(Q'&#!,/*:*&*+',+$&',( ,;!*+K*:,(&#*Q'(:,Q-+$/*!$(:T,+)%$!!OU$!*:,(&#*,;!*+K*:.,(:'&',(!$(:*!&'/$&*:<!*-<%%'-* ,-&#*Q'(:,Q!6V*"%$.*/*(&V*!*+K*!$+*+*.,//*(:*:-,++*"%$.'()Q'(:,Q!:<+'()&#*$($%N!'!&*+/O 


W

XY
Z
Y[
\
Z







 



V*"%$.'()$%</'(</Q'(:,Q!<('&!0101 1232216711
>,&$% 32216711
]+,"*+&N^,(:'&',( !!*!!/*(&
21 %/,(: K*(<*
_,! %&,!6^$%'-,+('$541==
24VPU]+,`*.&a,O=410177
238
Agenda Item # 11.











 
 

 


!
"#
$%&$
%#'
()#
*)+
)

,)
#
-
)(
#

#. ,

,&/0
123456789:;<8=>?1234@A=8BCDEFG4FH
I
(
%.,
J ,)"
K

LM&

N,#&

O)%

P#.#)&(Q
R(

LSQTUVVW
LX.,",.#
-Q
YZ[ \







 


)(#
%)&%.%
.
)(#&/
)"

(#%'/.
*.-
$&

) ,
'#

$%&$
%#'"&(#."#.%
])()

-
/)#
.^
%._
`.,)#'*.#
%).,
"&(
)
#
(#/)#

)*),.%$%&$
%#'

#'$

a

])()

_
(
%.,,'"&(
)
#&]
#

*.#
%).,

,)
#
-
)(
#

#. ,

,&/0
A=8BGb>>= cBbb@d83b32e
f
"
$#)&(U

.,,/.'U
-&%*
%&&*
g+$&

-
"&("%
#
J.)(#
-
Ihi P
$
(-
-
"
),)(_
#),

j.'%&&*U
k)#"

(U
%
.k%&&*U

#&%._

%&&*U
,&"k
%
%&&*
J&,)

-
"&("%
#
J.)(#
-
Ihi P
$
(-
-
"
),)(_
#),

.(-l&%
$.)(#
-
Ihi O)#(

"
(#
%f
%
.*#
],&&%)(_J.)(#
-
Ihi P
$
(-
-
"
),)(_
#),

I.%._
g+$&

-
"&("%
#
i%)"k
/.,,
g+$&

-

#%"#%

f

#%&&*X
%.*)"
#),
J.)(#
-
Ihi
.(-l&%
"
%.*)"
#),

J.)(#
-
Ihi

 
N^)
.,)(
$
"#)&(&]#

"&**&(.%
.

U&]])"

$."

.(-
$$&%#.%
.
/
%

%^
'
-U.(-
"&**
(#

%
_.%-)(_
#

)%
"&(-)#)&(
.%

,)
#
-

,&/0
Amm=8@@>=D:348
9:;<8=582B249B;8 d>;;824@
Sn
N,*&(-
N^
(

M&

N,#&

O)%

P#.#)&(R""$)
-a
I&&-
"&(-)#)&(a


)(#
%)&%])()

.$$
.%
-#&
)(].)%"&(-)#)&(ai.

-&(#

&

%^
-"&(-)#)&(
.(-

#)*.#
-

],,)]
&]#

)(#
%)&%])()

Uf
$,."
*
(#f

%^

.%
%
"&**
(-
-]&%)(#
%)&%%
]% )

*
(#

)(",-)(_ #(&#,)*)#
-#&%
$,.")(_ %&.-,&&*
#.(-.%-U
$&+'],&&%"&.#)(_U$.)(#
-])()

U."&
#)"
"
),)(_

'
#
*
.(-

%^)")(_

)(k
],&&%
*&(#

'
#
*
-%)(_
#

.(.,'
)

#
%*a Ao43>2p8@9>
q;;8m3B48
r87B3=@ s
J%&$
%#'
X&(-)#)&(
N

*
(#
Sn
N,*&(-
N^
(

M&

N,#&
U
X.,)]&%().

TVnWW
StfPi
J%&!
"#
u&a
WVnvntt
239
Agenda Item # 11.






  




 
 !" ##$
!"
 
%&'()*+),)(,)(-.)/*012(&'345678 6 66696:8;887
96:8;887
<+',= 9:>8;8?7
@)+A()'BC+&D*'*+&E00(002(&'
67E=2+&DEF(&.(
G+0E='+0;C,=*-+)&*,8H7::
6IJ4K@)+L(M'N+O:H7P7>>
240
Agenda Item # 11.








!
"#$$%&$'$'()'*
$$
+(",
-+,
%'(
+

$
,
"%&./0+("*+,
'
(1

$%#2
'()
3'4,#

+

!',

#
*'(+
+("
*+,
'
(-',
*
2 3'4,#
1 5(
6789)+:3'
"9-+,

+,
9;<)+%%
('('=
9+(";<97>>:?@A'(
+,'()*+$+*',&+("
(
6789
)+:3'
"9-+,

'%
97>>:B?A'(
+,'()*+$+*',&+
%
*+,
"'(,

+
2 (,+("#$$%&"
2 ,'*
,
-+,

,

,

C#
D
*,
.
$
,&1
EF
$%#2
'()&,
2+("
G#'$2
(,+$$
+ ,

+"
G#+,
3 ,
"
2+("
3,'$
$
,&1
H
$%#2
'()$

%
2-

$
,
"
&2+(+)
2 (,1

,

23'('
9+("3'4,#
+

!
",

'()

"*
("','
(
+("
'(
-
I'()

"
1 
-+,

+,
'+$$
4'2+,
%&J7&
+
%"9+("
+
"
(',+!
+)
9 33
*,'!
#
3#%%'3
+("*#
(,
*
("','
(9
$%+*
2 (,
3,
-+,

+,
'+(,'*'$+,
""# '(),
+(+%&',
21K
$%+*
2 (,K

!

+

*
22 ("
"
+**
"'()%&1

-+,

'%
'
')'(+%+("+$$
+ ,

"
*
22''
(
"1L22
"'+,
K
$+' +

*
22 ("
",

$%+*

,

-+,

'%
1 M(
+%%
-+(*

'
'(*%#"
"
'(
,

*
,
,+
%
1 NOPQRSTUVWR
XYYUZQ[PU
\U][Q^V _
\U]`[OUYUSP
\UVU^aUV _
bc
dRVP
\UORYYUSZ[PQRSefgehh
Nie \fgTU[^dRVP
j+
3'
"
-+,


+,

$%+*
2 (,7k7k >7 lm9<>>
j+:3'
"
-+,

'%

$%+*
2 (, :: >L22
"'+,
lJm9>>>

,+% lJn9<>>
opc q
rcq
c
s
E

F
C#
D
*,.
$
,&'
+,
"+("*

%
"
&,
3 %%
-'()+$$
4'2+,
*
#(,+("'=

3 #(',t
gRO[PQRS u[Svw[OPv^U^ xRwfSQPV
N]]^Ryz
{RSS[|UN]]^RyzN|U
{}]U[SZ
dRYYUSPV
C#
D
*,
.
$
,&0+ '
Jm
:7>7~j +"
:2
#(,

"
A/M0
#(',
.
$
,&
0 ("','
(
M
2 (,
7>
M%2
("
M!
(#



M%,
9 0+%'3
('+
~€>JJ
7;KC?
.

D
*,
H
1 J€>m><<
241
Agenda Item # 11.
 
















!"#$"
# %&'()(* + ,-*)*$.*/012!*( 3


!"#$"
# %
#4(*5 ,-*)*$.*+,6'3!7#*'

89:;<=<9:>0?
?
' (*5'*@$$4(*5$A"$*
* 3'#
,B%
'#3$4@C0?
'D
#'5

77 (D
3
744(7
$7
$*@
*3
#3$7 ?(33(E
'*@ %"
(3,F%
'#3G/012*( (3,+%
'#3'*@5'37#*'
(3HI $HJ%
'#3CK'3
@
$* ?
(#'D
#'5

77 (D
3
744(7
G##
* $*@( ($*'*@#
"$#
@A'(*
*'*
"#$5#'AG"'# ('4
#
"4'
A
* $7 ?
LM12*( 3'*@/012*( 3'*

'* (("'
@@#(*5 ?
'*'4%3(3
#ACN
"4'
A
*
N
3 #D
3!'#
!#
$AA
*@
@C
O
P
Q

!R

 S
R
T

!R


U
 S
VWX9YYW:;Z=<9:
!R

[[\\!][ RO


LM12!*( !#
"4'
A
* ,F,F I,^,JGIII
/012!*( !#
"4'
A
* ,+,+ I,^+GFII
0$ '4 ^,_GFII
`a`abcd<e;<:f!geWX=h<XZe
iWjXh<k=<9:>l4
#('43
#D(
' ?
A'(*@(3 #(
 ($*"'*
4mn&/o(3#'
@' pII'A"3G ?#

q"?'3
G
7$#q.(#
G,+Ir+IFD$4 3G'4
#*' (*5##
* 7

@(*5(#(
#
')
#"'*
43C0?
@(3 #(
 ($*.(#(*5.( ?(*
?
!
(4@(*5.'3!#
"$#
@! $!

!$""
#C
89:;<=<9:>0?
!
4 #('4!3%3
A!.'3!$
3 #D
@! $!

!(*!5$$@!$*@( ($*C!s$!"#$
4 A3!.
#
!#
"$#
@C
6#$*@!t'4 !2(#( !u*
##"
#!m6t2uo!$ 4
!.'3!$
3 #D
@!(*! ?

#
')#$$A3C
O
P
Q

!R

 S
R
T

!R


U
 S
`avgeWwZ=9hj
iWjXh<k=<9:>0?
#
!'#
!*$!
4 D' $#3!' ! ?
!"#$"
# %C
89:;<=<9:>s$ !'""4('
4 C
/#$"
# %!2$*@( ($*!133
33A
*
,I!14A$*@!1D
*

x$3!14 $3G!2'4(7$#*('!ByI++
,FNK!/#$

!s$C!+yIHIJJ
242
Agenda Item # 11.