Agenda packet — Los Altos City Council, September 10, 2024 (part 1 of 2)

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
7:00 PM - Tuesday, September 10, 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/83563109379?pwd=XmHX1QaaIah7qDUvTZObbV3pYoB4Rs.1 Telephone: 1-669-444-9171 / Webinar ID: 835 6310 9379 / Passcode: 487487 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.

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. 1 9/10/2024 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Page 2 of 4
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 September 17 - 23, 2024 as Constitution Week Issue Proclamation Recognizing September as Emergency Preparedness Month Receive Presentation from Resilient Los Altos on Emergency Preparedness

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.
09-10-2024 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 August 27 and August 28, 2024

2. Move to adopt a Resolution accepting completion of the On-Call Sanitary Sewer Spot Repairs and CCTV Inspection Services for FY 23/24 and authorize the Public Works Director to record a Notice of Completion as required by law, and find that this action is Exempt from Environmental Review pursuant to Section 15300.2 of the State Guidelines Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970

3. Adopt 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 2 9/10/2024 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Page 3 of 4
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.

4. Two separate actions for City Council consideration:
-Adopt 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
-Adopt 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

5. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Subdivision Improvement Agreement and approve the Final Map for the project located at 5150 El Camino Real.

6. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Los Altos suspending enforcement of the City of Los Altos Municipal Code, local laws and regulations imposing all-electric requirements for new construction or otherwise prohibiting use or installation of gas appliances contained within City of Los Altos Municipal Code Title 12 and find that this action is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061 of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.

7. Two separate actions for City Council consideration:
-Allocation additional funding in the amount of $131,000 into fiscal year 2024/25 Parks & Recreation operating budget for the median and roadway shoulder maintenance agreement; and -Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Del Conte's Landscaping in the amount not to exceed $208.116 annually for median and roadway shoulder maintenance

8. Re-adopt a Resolution accepting the Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP), including Volume 1 and the Los Altos Annex

9. Adopt a Resolution awarding the construction contract for the Lincoln Park Drinking Fountains Project CF-01030 to EPS, Inc. of San Mateo, California as the lowest responsible bidder submitting a responsive bid with a Base Bid amount not-to-exceed $98,000, and up to 15% contingency, if needed, in the amount not-to-exceed $14,700, for a total construction amount not-to-exceed $112,700

PUBLIC HEARINGS
3 9/10/2024 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Page 4 of 4

10. Appeal the Approval of Tree Removal Permit (24-0062) for twenty-five (25) Apricot Trees located behind the Los Altos Police Department at 1 N. San Antonio Road

DISCUSSION ITEMS

11. Accept Environmental Commission Recommendations #1, #2, and #5 for Accelerating Building Electrification.

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

12. Update on RFP for community engagement and design services for downtown park with underground parking

13. Tentative Council Calendar and Housing Element Update Implementation Calendar

COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS AND DIRECTIONS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

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

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

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: Randy Rhody <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 7, 2024 1:48 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9/10/24 - ITEM #7 PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL

I SUPPORT THE HISTORIC LOS ALTOS HERITAGE (CIVIC CENTER)

ORCHARD

AND WANT TO
STOP THE "DEATH BY A THOUSAND CUTS."
Randy Rhody
Linden Avenue, Los Altos
5 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Chi Buckley <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2024 8:07 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Motorized scooters and bikes need regulation
Greetings,
Can the city please address the use of motorized scooters and bikes and put some policy around this asap? Kids are blasting down sidewalks in them, I see e-bikes on the wrong side of the street, it feels like chaos driving in some neighborhoods bc there are no rules for the road with these things. E-bikes especially are traveling 30mph +, kids are not wearing helmets on regular bikes or e-bikes, instead they dangle on the side of the handlebars. City should require a minimum age limit or some kind of license to operate these things + take a class just like drivers training. On that topic, maybe a city wide offering to teach kids how to ride bikes in general is good. The 2way bike lane in almond sure is confusing maybe kids think they can ride 2 ways on any street. Thanks for considering! Best,
Chi Buckley 94022
6 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Pat Marriott <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 7, 2024 4:53 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM #10 SEPTEMBER 10,2024
Council Members:

I've been inundated with information about our Historic Orchard for years and we, as a city, still cannot agree on anything. It's disappointing and distressing.

Are there boundaries? Some say yes, some say no, seemingly dependent on what's convenient at the moment.

Many residents have done major work over the years to get the orchard designated as an Historic Resource, get signage and finally get funding to take care of the trees. The Town Crier poll indicates residents care about the orchard, yet it's still subject to what some consider land grabs and others consider legitimate use.

We have Orchard vs. Library, Orchard vs. LACY conversion. Orchard vs. Police Building. Orchard vs.

Community Garden. Also Library vs. Dog Park. Everybody wants a piece of a very small pie and, because the city could never implement a Civic Center Master Plan, the battle could go on forever.

I've slogged through the old documents and can't help wondering why no one has digitized them after all these years so we could at least search through them. How hard can that be? I ask for the following:
- Respect for the orchard as an Historic Resource and as a very small and very rare bit remaining of the Valley of Heart's Delight.
- Serious consideration of what will happen if the city continues the "build, baby, build" philosophy at the expense of the orchard. We're all up in arms over Sacramento forcing us to cover every square inch of land with dense housing. We should be equally concerned about building on the orchard. - Agreement on orchard boundaries, which I think/hope we have in this map:
7 2
- Finally, PLEASE get a surveyor and an objective, reliable historical consultant to research the orchard.

Please put an end to the ongoing battles that are pitting residents against one another.

Thank you,
Pat Marriott
8 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Ken Hake <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, September 7, 2024 7:35 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: save the cots!!
please don’t tear out the apricot trees. it is a sustainable and unique part of our community. in fact, you should add to them and create community events around harvest time.
respectfully,
Ken Hake
445 Monroe Dr
Sent from my iPhone
9 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Jane Holt <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, September 8, 2024 11:06 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: parking
I think developers should plan and pay for replacement parking and parking for tenets.

One concern is they took out handicap parking on main street at store owners request.(Lost 1/2 parking space per block)
so we need handicap parking.
sincerely
Jane Holt
1960 Churton Ave.

Los Altos, CA 94024-6907
650-964-0228 H
650-996-2530 C
866-828-0431 H Fax
10 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Juno Szalay <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 8:37 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9/10/24 - ITEM #7 PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL
Hi,
I am speaking up to save the Los Altos Heritage Orchard. Please do NOT remove the remaining apricot trees in the area defined as the “northeast sector” of the Los Altos Heritage Orchard, Concerned resident,
Juno Szalay
Juno Szalay
[email protected]
(650) 796-9165
11 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Couture, Terri <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 8:49 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: City council meeting Sept 10, agenda item 10
Dear City council and public
I am a Parc commissioner, but these thoughts below are my own thoughts and are not to be reflected as a message from me as a commissioner.

Los Altos was a farming & ranching community and the Heritage Orchard is testament to our history. Ask the buyers who purchase homes in Los Altos what attracted them. You will find answers like open space, big yards, peace, quiet and friendly environment. They have chosen Los Altos instead of the concrete jungle they were from.

The Los Altos residents have spoken to save the orchard. There are so many different records that show the history of the Orchard and people who have strived to restore and keep the orchard. Why isn't this a high priority?
There are so many infrastructures in the town that have badly needed repairing over the years, and we need to prioritize these goals. The orchard is part of Los Altos.

Inch by inch, the trees and large yards are disappearing. The creep is very noticeable to people who have been here for a long time. The feel is not the same.

With all this new hardscape of pavements, solar panels, and more residences we losing the very soul of the town and itsit is getting hotter. In town it may be 80 degrees, but in my back yard its a pleasant 75 degrees because of the trees and vegetation that my neighbors and I cherish, and work hard to keep alive.

PLEASE do more homework on saving the Orchard before you condemn it forever.

Thank you
Terri Couture
*Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication. 12 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Anne Schmidt <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 9:03 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9/10/24 - ITEM #7 PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL
Dear Los Altos City Council
Unfortunately I am out of town this week, but I’d like my comments to be noted.

My family has been living in Los Altos for 3 generations. We cherish our towns history and roots and take pride in the little farming town that it once was. The apricot orchard that you are suggesting to remove reminds us every day as we pass by, of our connection to the past. It is also so beautiful and picturesque and a breath of fresh air among the urban sprawl, busy roads and higher and higher buildings being built downtown. Even more importantly are the numerous benefits to our community by having a “green space” ( improved health and cognitive function of its residents, reduced air pollution, reduced surface temperature, reduced crime, increased property values, increased biodiversity and more).

I believe the removal of these trees would be a big mistake that you could never undo. I am disheartened that the people I have elected do not have the same love for Los Altos and cherish it the way that I do by protecting it. Please vote to appeal the decision to remove our beloved apricot trees.

Respectfully,
Anne Schmidt
Sent from my iPhone
13 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Julie Bly DeVere <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 11:16 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: LAHM Heritage Orchard
Dear Los Altos City Council,
Since matters related to the heritage orchard are on the meeting agenda for Tuesday 9/10, the City Council and public might find it helpful to review this statement of facts and background as shared in the Los Altos Town Crier, on July 9, 2024. https://www.losaltosonline.com/opinion/city-museum-committed-to-maintainingtrees/article_f13be192-3e25-11ef-87c1-e7c1b4570010.html Many Thanks,
Julie Bly DeVere (she/her)
Interim Executive Director
Los Altos History Museum
51 South San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
650.948.9427
650.468.3616 cell
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

The information transmitted by this email is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed. This email may contain proprietary, business-confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended 14 2
recipient of this message, be aware that any use, review, retransmission, distribution, reproduction or any action taken in reliance upon this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all computers.
15 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Deb Skelton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 1:21 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment - City Council Meeting, 9/10/24, Item 7 Public Hearing for Appeal Dear City Council Members,
I am opposed to the permanent removal of 25 of the Heritage Apricot Trees. The removal of these trees is not in compliance with the City’s planning, environmental and preservation processes. Along with many of my neighbors, I am against the permanent removal of 30% of the Los Altos Heritage Orchard. My understanding is that the City is required to maintain the trees, and to replace them as needed. Any other action is not permissible. Please, save the trees, and maintain the Los Altos Heritage Orchard.

Sincerely,
Debbie Skelton
Los Altos Resident
16 1
Melissa Thurman
From: durga kalavagunta <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 1:51 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9/10/24 - ITEM #7 PUBLIC HEARING

FOR APPEAL
Hello,
We have been residents of Los Altos for the last 24 years and have two kids that graduated from local public schools. I run a small business supporting creativity and hands-on learning experiences for youth in the community.

We are writing to show support for preserving the Heritage Orchard spanning the space behind our public library and surrounding the City Hall and in close proximity to the Los Altos History Museum.

The orchard is a big part of Los Altos History. Students in local grade schools study about their local community, Los Altos, through the lens of apricots and the agricultural land that Los Altos was during its beginnings. Almond School, where my kids went (and possibly other local schools) frequently has field trips to this area to make the learning 'real' for young learners. The museum that has on permanent display the tools and processes used for apricot harvesting, drying, packaging etc from the agricultural era of Los Altos is a beautiful reminder of our connection to the land, the growth since and the land's evolution. At a time when we are all collectively longing to connect with our lands, a field trip to the museum and the connected orchard is a rich and rare experience for the kids in our community and for future generations. In addition, when in full bloom the orchard is a beautiful breath of fresh air -- an unusual gem in the center of busy silicon valley -- AND a mental health haven for passersby. We have shot many a photos of the picturesque orchard over the years and have witnessed tourists doing the same.

We have unfortunately seen neglect in recent seasons and hoping it was part of a restoration effort and transition to newer plantings, instead of a complete removal.

We understand the permit in question is for removal of only the few trees that are by the police station. There has been no clarity on the plan for the rest of orchard. We are requesting that the city engage the public in the plans so we may collectively find a solution that both preserves the history and agricultural roots of the land and simultaneously maintains the rich pocket of green among our built spaces.

Thank you,
Durga K
17 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Kathy Lera <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 1:53 PM
To: Public Comment; City Council
Cc: Lee Lera; Kathleen Lera
Subject: Apricot Orchard at City Hall - Opposition to Tree Removal We would like to go on record as being COMPLETELY OPPOSED to the removal of ANY apricot trees in our beautiful orchard, located at City Hall.

We both grew up in Los Altos, a time when it was full or orchards. Those orchards have almost completely disappeared. We know from experience, that once the trees are removed in our protected Historic Orchard, they will never come back. We want to make sure future generations can enjoy our Historic Orchard and realize what our beautiful town originally included.

Actually, we are shocked that this process is even taking place, without proper public notice and hearings.

Thank you,
Kathy & Lee Lera
Kathy Lera
Cell (650) 823-7391
Email [email protected]
18 1
Melissa Thurman
From: durga kalavagunta <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 2:01 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Re: PUBLIC COMMENT - CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9/10/24 - ITEM #7 PUBLIC HEARING

FOR APPEAL
Also would like to add that progress is important but learning to do so in the context of our history keeps us all humble and grateful. The orchard is one such gem and we are grateful for the Smith Family to have donated this to the city for responsible upkeep and passing down to future generations.

Durga
650 l 823 l 7548
On Monday, September 9, 2024 at 01:51:14 PM PDT, durga kalavagunta <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello,
We have been residents of Los Altos for the last 24 years and have two kids that graduated from local public schools. I run a small business supporting creativity and hands-on learning experiences for youth in the community.

We are writing to show support for preserving the Heritage Orchard spanning the space behind our public library and surrounding the City Hall and in close proximity to the Los Altos History Museum.

We have unfortunately seen neglect in recent seasons and hoping it was part of a restoration effort and transition to newer plantings, instead of a complete removal.

We understand the permit in question is for removal of only the few trees that are by the police station. There has been no clarity on the plan for the rest of orchard. We are requesting that the city engage the public in the plans so we may collectively find a solution that both preserves the history 19 2
and agricultural roots of the land and simultaneously maintains the rich pocket of green among our built spaces.

Thank you,
Durga K
20 1
Melissa Thurman
From: runipg <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 11:14 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - CITY COUNCIL MEETING 9/10/24 - ITEM #7 PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL
Please don’t reduce the orchard size
--
Runip
21 1
Melissa Thurman
From: carol little <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 11:31 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Item 10
Dear City Council,

I am writing this email as a resident, not as a PARC commissioner.

My email is in regard to item 10.

Please deny the permit for the removal of 25 apricot trees to the side of the police station, otherwise referred to as the northeast portion of the historic orchard.

Here are some of my reasons for asking that the permit be denied:

1. The public needs to be informed as to why the area needs to be cleared of the apricot trees. In fact, as a taxpayer, I think we have the right to know. Even if they are diseased, replant healthy ones.

2. The boundaries of the orchard seem to have become fluid. They need to be defined.

3. There needs to be a Historic Resource Evaluation. It needs to be done by a

4. The orchard is shrinking and be attacked from all sides.

5. There is documentation to support replacing the trees exactly where they are removed, not in some other location in the city, and not with other types of trees.

6. There have been numerous attempts to save the orchard and to keep it intact. Meaning, residents have spent much time and money over many generations to stand up for preserving the orchard. That shows it is of value. The residents love the orchard and want it to remain an asset to all.

7. There are many wise people who are making it clear that the attempt to cut yet more of the orchard down is not only a bad idea, but vey likely an illegal one. Do we really want another lawsuit? I think not.

8. Removing the trees does not align with the will of the people. The current town Crier poll makes this clear.

It is my opinion that we need to expand, not shrink this asset values by so many residents and visitors.

I have included links to two sites. One shows how the Packard family has t valued the orchards and why. I suggest we take a cue from them and begin to value our orchard enough to save it from further demolition.
22 2
The other is an older Talon article. It shows how the orchard was valued by the youth way back in 2008. Saving this orchard is an ongoing battle. It is a beloved asset.

People want this orchard. It brings them joy and comfort. Please deny the permit request, work on saving the trees we have and do not shrink the orchard any further.

Thank you for your time reading my email and for considering my input.

Respectfully,
Teresa Morris
23 1
Melissa Thurman
From: carol little <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 11:33 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Missing links for item 10
Dear City Council,
Again, I am writing this email as a resident, not as a PARC commissioner. Here are the links I referred to in my email.

Kind regards,
Teresa Morris
http://robinchapmannews.blogspot.com/2012/06/packards-usecomputer-to-save-orchard.html (June 30, 2012) https://lahstalon.org/orchard-teardown-demolishes-town-history/ November 24, 2008 24 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Monica Waldman <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2024 11:28 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item 12
Dear Los Altos City Council Members,
I suggest the Red Hot Chili Peppers 1991 hit "Give It Away" become the official anthem of the current Los Altos City Council. For those of you unfamiliar with the song's lyrics, they include:
"Give it away, give it away, give it away, now
Give it away, give it away, give it away, now
Give it away, give it away, give it away, now"
It seems a majority of Council has no issue giving away public land for pet vanity projects such as a new theater, and prides themselves in raiding public funds that should be used to build parks elsewhere. Shame on those on Council pushing for this project.

Monica Waldman
24 1/2 year Los Altos Resident
25 1
Melissa Thurman
From: LaDon Detro <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2024 11:56 AM
To: Anthony Carnesecca; Kim Cranston; Public Comment
Subject: Re:

Anthony and Kim,
I just want to thank whoever was involved in selecting the new look of our downtown parklets. I am so glad you chose a very sophisticated look that also seems to be so much safer for traffic and the people of Los Altos frequenting the downtown restaurants.

Thank you,
LaDon Detro
On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 9:59 AM LaDon Detro <[email protected]> wrote:

Gentlemen/Women,
I am not sure I am sending my comment to the right place, so please redirect this email if you would.

I have attended a zoom meeting regarding the parkettes previously, and I would like to comment on the different directions it seems to be moving toward. I follow this matter closely but am not able to attend the meetings because of a business conflict.

It appears to me that the people with the most pull are the popular businesses and I find it very unfair that you should hold your meetings in their establishments. It seems like there is a bias towards certain business requirements to suit the businesses that are already taking up such a large portion of the streets/parking for their parklets.

I took a few pictures along downtown Los Gatos, which I am passing along to you. I found that their parklets blended in with the downtown buildings and didn't stand out like a sore thumb. When you drive down our main street, it sort of feels like you are driving through a flea market. The barrels have served their purpose and now we need to move onto something other than a wood structure that can weather and show age. The amount of dead plants in some of our parkletts is appalling.

The Los Gatos parklets are extremely safe because of the concrete and metal structure. They also don't take up more than the parking space themselves and blend in with the parked cars perfectly. There is no need to extend our parklets beyond the parking spaces. It presents a possible hazard for both automobiles and emergency vehicles. It shouldn't take an accident or injury to point that out to you.

Let's keep our downtown streets clear and wide to showcase our beautiful city. Presently it feels like a bit of a rat's maze to navigate and locate our businesses. The extended parklets also make the logistics of our downtown parades impossible to coordinate and enjoy.

The Los Gatos parkletts are built on concrete which extends straight off the curb to make it ADA compliant, no makeshift ramps necessary. Please don't leave this feat up to the individual businesses, you can see how poorly they have failed at it already.

The parkletts look beautiful and permanent. There is nothing any business will have to add other than an umbrella if necessary. The amount of garbage that has been added to our parkletts contributes to the unkempt look of our city.

The look of the Los Gatos parklets is so sophisticated and ageless. Something along those lines would be such an improvement to our downtown community.
26 2
Greed has no place in our community, the city belongs to all of us. There is no need to feel obligated to build a parkett to accomodate a restaurant full of people outside. We aren't trying to build their business, but rather build harmony and equality in our community.

Thank you for your time,
LaDon Detro
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: LaDon Detro <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, May 25, 2023 at 9:08 AM
Subject:

To: LaDon Detro <[email protected]>
Sent from my iPhone
27 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Catherine Nunes <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 2:00 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Item #7 City Council Meeting Sept 20 2024 Public Hearing Appeal of Orchard Tree Removal
Attachments: PRR 24-27 List Tree Health Los Altos Police Station Apricot.pdf; PRR 24-27 General_application - Tree Removal.pdf; PRR 24-27 LA Police Station Apricot Report TW.pdf; PRR 24-27 Orchard Map Civic Center - Source City of Los Altos Title Orchard Sections Provided via Public Request re Appeal July82024.png; City Orchard 25 Tree Removal Permit Approved .pdf
Dear City of Los Altos
These attachments were received by the City of Los Altos through a Public Record Request PRR 24-27 regarding matters of Heritage Orchard and the Tree Permit Removal of Orchard (Apricot) Trees surrounding the Police Station Area. Also attaching the City published final permit as posted.

They provide specific information related to our Appeal Letter and Submission to the City.

These City documents are made available here in public comment.

Catherine Nunes
representing citizens of the Preservation Action League Los Altos (PALLA) 28 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
One North San Antonio Road ♦ Los Altos, California 94022 Telephone: (650) 947-2750

TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
REMOVAL OF (25) APRICOT TREES IN THE REAR
YARD OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AT 1 SAN

ANTONIO RD
Date Approved: 6/25/2024 – Date Posted: 6/26/2024
Applicant: Ken Buscho, Los Altos History Museum
Permit #: TREE24-0062
Basis for Approval (Pursuant to Section 11.08.090 LAMC):

The condition of the tree with respect to disease, and the potential to cause further disease to other trees within the orchard and immediately adjacent; in general, poses a danger of falling; and proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services.

Replacement Tree(s) & Required Conditions (Pursuant to Section

11.08.090 LAMC):

Yes – 2 to 1 street tree (or other tree species as approved by the City Manager), each replacement tree shall be a minimum 24-inch box tree.

The location of the replacement trees shall be approved by the City Manager.

Project Planner:

Xiomara Aguirre, (650) 947-2741, [email protected] Appeals (Pursuant to Section 11.08.110 LAMC)
The findings or conditions of this tree removal permit may be appealed by the applicant or any interested party within 10 calendar days from the date posted. 29 Revised: December 2022

CITY OF LOS ALTOS

GENERAL PLANNING APPLICATION
Type of Review Requested: (Check all boxes that apply)
Project Address/Location:

Assessor Parcel Number(s): Zoning District(s):

Project Description: ________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Applicant’s Name:

Telephone No.: Email Address:

Mailing Address:

City/State/Zip Code:

Property Owner’s Name:

Telephone No.: Email Address:

Mailing Address:

City/State/Zip Code:

Architect/Designer’s Name:

Telephone No.: Email Address:

Mailing Address:

City/State/Zip Code:

Design Review - One-Story Lot-Line Adjustment Tentative Map/Division of Land Design Review - Two-Story Outdoor Display Permit Tree Removal Permit Design Review-Comm/Multi-Fam PC Study Session Use Permit Accessory Dwelling Unit Preliminary Project Review Variance/Extension General Plan/Code Amendment SB9 Zoning Verification Letter Historic Review Sign Permit Other:
x
Los Altos Police Department back lot
Removal of distressed/diseased trees behind Los Altos Police Department that are a fungi reservoir that impacts the Heritage Orchard
Ken Buscho, Los ALtos History Museum
408-728-6542 [email protected]
51 S San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
30 Revised: December 2022

HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT
For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, applicant hereby expressly agrees to indemnify, defend, protect, and hold the City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of the City in connection with the City’s defense of its actions in any proceedings brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging any of the City’s action with respect to the applicant’s project. The City may withhold final maps and/or permits, including temporary or final occupancy permits, for failure to pay all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City in connection with the City's defense of its actions.

REQUIRED SIGNATURES
I (we) declare, under penalty of perjury, that in securing this permit, I am (we are) the owner of this property(ies) and the information stated on forms, plans, and other materials submitted herewith in support of the application is true and correct to the best of my (our) knowledge. It is my (our) responsibility to inform the City, through the assigned project planner, of any changes to information represented in these submittals.

If an authorized agent is signing on behalf of the property owner, written documentation evidencing authority to sign on behalf of the property owner must be provided with this form.
____________________________________________________ ________________________ Signature of Property Owner Date
____________________________________________________ ________________________ Signature of Property Owner Date
____________________________________________________ ________________________ Signature of Applicant (If different from the Property Owner) Date 31 June 6, 2024
Terence Welch
Backyard Orchards
P.O. Box 2
Aptos, CA 95001
ISA Certified Arborist WE-0153A
On May 31, 2024, I inspected the apricots behind the locked gate at the Los Altos Police Station. These apricots are beyond the age where they are commercially viable, and have had both major limbs and twigs killed by Brown Rot. They are not being pruned or maintained in any way.

The attached spreadsheet lists the trees, shows their size, and rates their both their health and structure (scale of 1-5, with 1 being the best). These old trees generally had plenty of Brown Rot killed twigs, and decayed wood down the middle of the trunks, which was the result of large diameter limbs dying and being pruned out of the tree.

These trees are a source of fungal spores of Brown Rot, Monilinia laxa. Spore masses form on twig cankers, and on flower parts which have become infected. Because they can spread through the air, they increase the chance that healthy, maintained trees nearby will become infected with Brown Rott. Symptoms of Brown Rot on stone fruit trees (apricot, plum, peach, cherry, etc) are dead twigs, dead flowers, mummified fruits, and often larger dead limbs and leaders. Blenheim apricot is particularly susceptible to Brown Rot.

There is no effective organic treatment for Brown Rot at this time. In an orchard in Portola Valley, I have tried different organic sprays purported to help reduce Brown Rot, with no apparent success. Conventional farmers utilize chemical sprays to control Brown Rot.

To reduce Brown Rot infections, Infected shoots and branches should be pruned out as soon as possible, infected fruits should be picked up from the ground, and should be removed from the tree. All this infected material should be removed from the orchard, as it can be a source of new airborne spores. Rain and insects can also move the fungal spores throughout the orchard.

Wet weather during bloom creates the ideal conditions for Brown Rot infections Removing these non-maintained trees would reduce the amount of airborne spores, and reduce the total amount of infections in nearby, maintained trees. 32 List of Blenheim Apricot Trees at Los Altos Police Station 5/31/2024
Tree Numbe Diameter Health Structure Comment
1 5 1 2 Newer tree
2 20 2 5
3 18 2 5
4 12 1 5
5 15 4 4
6 20 3 5
7 2 5 5 Rootstock only
8 15 1 5
9 6 5 5
10 11 5 5
11 18 5 5
12 8 4 5
13 6 5 5
14 10 3 5
15 12 3 5
16 12 4 5
17 12 2 5
18 16 2 5
19 18 4 5
20 12 4 5
21 21 4 3
22 8 2 5
23 7 3 5
24 16 4 3
25 13 5 5
See Measured at Best=1, Best=1
Satelite approx 2' Worst=5 Worst=5
Photo above grade.

DBH not
applicable
as the trees
were branched
low to the
ground
33 34
1 Melissa Thurman
From: Catherine Nunes <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 1:42 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment and Attachments: Item#7 City Council Meeting Sept 10 2024 Public Hearing
Attachments: State DPR HR 15 Heritage Orchard Historic Record 2011, org 1987 affirmed 2019 History Commission.pdf; 2019 City of Los Altos Hist Commission item_3 _-_civic_center_apricot_orchard_staff_report_with_partial attachments.pdf; Certified Local Government Historic Preservation Requirments Source CA OHP .pdf Dear City of Los Altos,
These attachments are in support of the Public Hearing and Appeal Item#7 in matters related to the Los Altos
Heritage Orchard.

Kind regards,
Catherine Nunes
representing citizens of Preservation Action League Los Altos (PALLA) 35 AGENDA REPORT
DATE: June 24, 2019
AGENDA ITEM # 3
TO: Historical Commission
FROM: Margo Horn, Historical Commissioner
SUBJECT: Civic Center Apricot Orchard
RECOMMENDATIONS:

A. Recommend the City fund the cost of final signage approved by the Historical Commission.

B. Recommend the City install the historical plaques and interpretive signage for the Apricot Orchard.

C. Recommend the City Council authorize staff from the Department of Public Works to maintain the orchard to ensure that it is beautiful and a point of pride for the City of Los Altos.

D. Recommend the City allocate $3,600 from the 2019/2020 budget for graphic design expenditures for three interpretive signs.

BACKGROUND
On October 8, 1991, the City Council designated the apricot orchard site located at 1 North San Antonio Road a Historic Landmark. The 2.84-acre heritage apricot orchard site is in the Civic Center Grounds. It surrounds the City Hall buildings, and parts of the Library, Youth Center and Police Department.

The Civic Center Orchard represents a portion of the apricot orchard planted by Mr. and Mrs. J.

Gilbert Smith, early Los Altos settlers, and is related to the nearby Smith farm house. The residence sits near the southeast corner of the Civic Center complex. Portions of the Smith orchard lands within the Civic Center remain along N. San Antonio Road, north of the Los Altos Library, and in the northeast sector of the complex. The resolution designating the apricot orchard a Historic Landmark and Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Primary Record are provided as Attachment A and B respectively.

At its April 24, 2017 meeting, the Historical Commission considered ways to protect the landmark status of the Civic Center Apricot Orchard and increase public awareness of this city treasure. The Commission recommended further research on the installation of the City Historic Plaque and interpretive signage for the Orchard, leading to recommendations to City Council.

Commissioner Horn consulted with Susanna Chan of the Department of Department of Public Works on maintenance of the orchard. Ms. Chan stated that 100 new apricot trees have been ordered for planting in late 2017 or early 2018. In addition, the Department of Public Works is currently conducting a citywide tree inventory, including the apricot orchard trees, to assess current conditions and make recommendations for future tree maintenance.

IL_______.I
36 June 24, 2019
Civic Center Apricot Orchard Page 2
Commissioners Margo Horn and Larry Lang met with Elisabeth Ward, Executive Director of the Los Altos History Museum to discuss ideas for the design, content and installation of interpretive signage for the orchard. Commissioners Horn, Lang and Ms. Ward also walked through the orchard to make recommendations for the placement of the City of Los Altos Historic Plaque, and the interpretive signage throughout the orchard.

Elisabeth Ward offered to provide the Museum’s expertise and project management to design signage of the orchard, using the text of interpretive signage written by her predecessor at the Museum. Ms. Ward proposes installing interactive signage throughout the orchard with QR Codes for iPhones.

On February 26, 2018, the Los Altos History Museum Executive Director, Elisabeth Ward, and staff provided a report outlining the proposed signage program for the historic landmark orchard. The commission supported the proposed signage, and the Los Altos Historic Sign Program reviewed by the Historical Commission is provided as Attachment C.

In October 2018, the Council at their annual joint meeting with the Historical Commission reviewed and supported the Historical Commissions sign program to install one wood framed sign with the text “Los Altos Heritage Orchard,” a Historic Landmark bronze plaque, a State Historical Point of Interest plaque, and five interpretive signs. The Los Altos Historic Sign Program reviewed by the City Council is provided as Attachment C.

DISCUSSION
Orchard Signage
The Commission shall provide comment and direction regarding the three interpretive signs to be designed by Davis Design. A description of the proposed graphic design proposal for three new signs is provided as Attachment D.

The Historical Commission Orchard Sign subcommittee recommends:

1. Recommend the City fund the cost of final signage approved by the Historical Commission.

2. Recommend the City promptly install the historical plaques and interpretive signage for the Apricot Orchard.

3. Recommend the City Council authorize staff from the Department of Public Works to maintain the orchard to ensure that it is beautiful and a point of pride for the City of Los Altos.

Purchasing
The City of Los Altos has a formal policy and process of procuring goods and services, including a purchase order system, provides several key benefits. It supports clear purchase specifications, avoids dispute with vendors, builds an audit trail, allows level competition to set prices, controls spending limits, creates a system of checks and balances, and enhances public trust. Purchases under $5,000 for one-time purchases can be submitted for payment using original vendor receipts/invoices.
37 June 24, 2019
Civic Center Apricot Orchard Page 3
The proposed scope of work, including cost of work is provided as attachment E.

The Historical Commission Orchard Sign subcommittee recommends:

1. Recommend the City allocate $3,600 from the 2019/2020 budget for graphic design expenditures for three interpretive signs.

Attachments
A. Apricot Orchard Historic Landmark Designation Resolution No. 91-31 B. Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Primary Record C. Sign Program, October 2017
D. Orchard Sign Proposal, Davis Design
E. Graphic Design Proposal, Davis Designs
38 RESOLUTION NO. 91- 31

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

MODIFYING AN APRICOT ORCHARD AS A HISTORICAL LANDMARK
WHEREAS, by virtue of its adoption of Ordinance No. 78-16 and 90-225, the City Council of the City of Los Altos did establish a procedure for the designation and preservation of historical landmarks within the City of Los Altos; and
WHEREAS, by virtue of its adoption of Resolution 81-23, the City Council of the City of Los Altos did designate a portion of APN 170-42-029 known as the Civic Center Apricot Orchard a historical landmark; and
WHEREAS, by designation of this property as a historical landmark it is subject to the terms and conditions outlined in Ordinance 90-225; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with that Ordinance Section 2-8.404, the Historical Commission has reviewed and recommends modifying the limits of the Civic Center Apricot Orchard as shown on Exhibit A, as located on APN Nos. 170-42-029 and 170-43-001; and WHEREAS, the City Council concurs with the recommendation of the Historical Commission in this regard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Los Altos does hereby determine that the subject property is designated as a historical landmark and is subject to the terms and conditions outlined in Ordinance 90-225;
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos on the 8th day of October, 1991, by the following roll call vote:
* * * * * * *
AYES: Mayor Spangler, Councilmembers Bruno, Laliotis, Lave, & Reeder NOES: None
ABSENT: None

ATTACHMENT A
39 ..
' -
)
-------------
---
) C
. "EXHIBIT A"

SAN ANTONIO ROAD
LEGEND
rzza :HISTORIC ORCHARD
40 DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
Page of *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder)
P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: __ Not for Publication __ Unrestricted
*a. County and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad Date T ; R ; of of Sec ; B.M.
c. Address City Zip
d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone , mE/ mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes)
*P4.Resources Present: __ Building __ Structure __ Object __ Site __ District __ Element of District __Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo:
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Source: __ Historic __ Prehistoric
__ Both
*P7. Owner and Address:
*P8. Recorded by:
*P9. Date Recorded:
*P10. Survey Type:
*P11. Report Citation:
*Attachments: __NONE __Location Map __Continuation Sheet __Building, Structure, and Object Record __Archaeological Record __District Record __Linear Feature Record __Milling Station Record __Rock Art Record __Artifact Record __Photograph Record __ Other (List):

State of California The Resources Agency Primary # ___________________________________ DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ___________________________________ PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial ___________________________________ NRHP Status Code
Other Listings ____________________________________________________________ Review Code __________________ Reviewer ________________ Date _____________ P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.) 1 1 N. San Antonio Road
HRI #:15; Civic Center Orchard
Santa Clara
1 N. San Antonio Road Los Altos 94022
Looking SE
Los Altos History Museum
City of Los Altos
1 N. San Antonio Road Los Altos,
CA 94022
Circa: Historic Property Development
582 Market Street, Suite 1800
July 2011
Intensive
Los Altos Historic Resources Inventory Update Report (Circa: Historic Property Development, March 2012).

The Civic Center Orchard represents a portion of the apricot orchard planted by Mr. and Mrs. J. Gilbert Smith, early Los Altos settlers, and is related to the nearby Smith farm house. The residence,which currently serves the community as the History House, sits near the southeast corner of the Civic Center complex. Portions of the Smith orchard lands within the Civic Center remain along N. San Antonio Road, north of the Los Altos Library, and in the northeast sector of the complex. A number of trees dating to the period of Smith's residence appear to remain. As the City replaces dead or diseased trees as needed, a number of younger trees are also apparent within the orchard tracts. 2 170 42 029
✔
✔
✔
✔
July 2011
HP39. Other Orchard
San Francisco, CA 94104
Planted 1902
-~ ~-

ATTACHMENT B
41 DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
*NRHP Status Code
Page of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
B1. Historic Name:

B2. Common Name:

B3. Original Use: B4. Present Use:
*B5. Architectural Style:
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) *B7. Moved" _No _Yes _UnNnown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features:

B9a. Architect: b. Builder:
*B10. Significance: Theme Area
Period of Significance Property Type Applicable Criteria (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References:

B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: ___________________________________
*Date of Evaluation:

State of California & The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATIONHRI#
BUILDING STRUCTURE AND OB-ECT RECORD
(This space reserved for official comments.)
(Sketch Map with north arrow required.)
22 CA Reg: 5S1
1 N. San Antonio Road
Civic Center Orchard
Agricultural Mixed
n/a
n/a n/a
Early Development/Agriculture Los Altos
c.1900191 (50 year mark) Orchard NR/CR/Local
Circa: Historic Property Development
July 2011
✔
Established c.1900.

J. Gilbert Smith House
In approximately 1901, J. Gilbert Smith purchased 10 acres of farmland to grow apricots and establish a home site. Living in a tent on his land during construction, Smith completed the house in 1905. He later married Margaret Hill Smith and the couple developed a sizeable apricot orchard on the property. The Smiths sold their property to the city of Los Altos in 1954, two years after incorporation, for the construction of the City's Civic Center complex. A stipulation of the sale was that the couple would be allowed to reside in the house and surrounding acre until their passing, at which point the house would become the city's history museum. Upon Mrs. Smith's death in 1973, the property reverted to the city. Another stipulation was that the remaining apricot trees not be removed; the city maintains and replaces the trees as needed today. The house and orchard are now City of Los Altos Historical Landmarks and the house itself is a is a California Point of Historical Interest. On September 8, 1991 the City Council unanimously passed and adopted a resolution adding the Civic Center's apricot orchard along San Antonio Road to the :est, the Library to the South, the <outh Center to the East, the Civic Center parking lot to the North, as a Historical Landmark.

Evaluation: The Civic Center orchard is one of the last active apricot orchards remaining in Los Altos and was first planted by early Los Altos resident, J. Gilbert Smith. Despite the orchard's decrease in size and adjacent new construction, the site retains a fair degree of integrity.

Therefore, it is listed on the Los Altos Historic Resources Inventory as a Historic Resource and is assigned the California Register Status Code 5S1: Individual property that is listed or designated locally. Los Altos Historical Commission: Los Altos HRI (9.28.1997); McAlester, 9irginia and Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses.

New <ork: Alfred A. .nopf, 2002; DPR series forms by G. Laffey (1997); Sanborn Maps; Los Altos HRI (February 2011). 9icinity map provided by the City of Los Altos and amended by Circa:

Historic Property Development.

HRI#
42 A
-
1 A3
1 B4
1 B5
1 B2
1 B3
1 B1
1 A
-
2 A3
1 B1
1 A1
31 “Sign“Los Altos Heritage Orchard Wood Framed Sign with text A
-
2 A3
1 Bronze City andWood Beveled Post with text
Wood Framed
State Point Interest Plaques
Heritage Orchard “SignSign with text “Los Altos
B2
1 discussing History of Orchard Interpretive Sign with text Powder Coated Pedestal regarding spring season. Interpretive Sign with text Powder Coated Pedestal regarding summer season. Interpretive Sign with text “Sign Powder Coated Pedestal “Sign
regarding winter season. Interpretive Sign with text Powder Coated Pedestal “Signregarding fall season. Interpretive Sign with text Powder Coated Pedestal “Sign B3
1 B4
1 B5
1 Los Altos Heritage Orchard - Sign Program

ATTACHMENT C
43 Requirements
(Excerpt from Appendix G, Certified Local Government Application and Procedures, August 1999, pp 41-47.)
Local governments may be certified to participate in the CLG program by complying with the following requirements:

I Enforce appropriate state or local legislation for the designation and protection of historic properties:

A. State enabling legislation provides for local jurisdictions to enact appropriate historic preservation legislation. California Government Code Sections 65850, 25373, and 37361 enable city and county legislative bodies to provide for “the protection, enhancement; perpetuation, or use of places, sites, buildings, structures, works of art, and other objects having a special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value.” B. Local governments must adopt local historic preservation ordinances with provisions to enforce the designation and protection of historic and archeological resources.

C. The local legislation shall be consistent with the intent and purpose of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470).

D. The CLG will adopt a historic preservation plan or a historic preservation element for the local jurisdiction's General Plan, as authorized by the California Government Code, prior to or upon applying for a CLG grant.

E. The CLG commission will participate in the environmental review of specific federally sponsored projects, such as community development programs involving HUD Block Grant funds unless it is determined by OHP that the necessary expertise is not available to the local government. The CLG will establish programmatic agreements with the state agreeing to ensure compliance with Section 106 provisions of the NHPA.

F. The CLG commission will participate in the environment review of local projects in accordance with the requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The commission may review and comment on permit actions affecting significant listed historic properties and other resources eligible for listing, in accordance with local ordinance requirements and with CEQA. Procedural guidelines should include standards for demolition stays, design review criteria, anti-neglect requirements, and appeal strategies.

II Establish an adequate and qualified historic preservation review commission by local law:

A. The commission shall include a minimum membership of five (5) individuals with all members having demonstrated interest, competence, or knowledge in historic preservation.

B. At least two (2) Commission members are encouraged to be appointed from among professionals in the disciplines of history, architecture, architectural Certified Local Government Requirements, 2024 enforce
State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP)
Source Document
https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1072/files/clgrequirements.pdf 44 history, planning, pre-historic and historic archeology, folklore, cultural anthropology, curation, conservation, and landscape architecture or related disciplines, such as urban planning, American studies, American civilization, or cultural geography, to the extent that such professionals are available in the community. Commission membership may also include lay members who have demonstrated special interests, competence, experience, or knowledge in historic preservation.

C. A local government may be certified without the minimum number or types of disciplines established in state procedures if it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the state that it has made a reasonable effort to fill those positions, or that some alternative composition of the commission best meets the needs of the protection of historic properties in the local community.

D. Commission members shall be appointed by the chief elected local official, city council, or board of supervisors consistent with the provisions of the preservation ordinance. The appointing authority shall make interim appointments to fill unexpired terms in the event of vacancies occurring during the term of members of the commission. The appointing authority shall also act within sixty (60) days to fill a vacancy. Terms of office of the commission members shall be according to the local preservation ordinance.

E. The commission shall meet at least four times a year, with meetings held in a public place, advertised in advance, and open to the public, pursuant to the Ralph M. Brown Act (G.C. Section 54950 et seq.) for open meetings.

Written minutes of commission meetings shall be kept on file, available for public inspection, and submitted to the state as a part of the CLG Annual Report.

F. Each commission member is required to attend at least one informational or educational meeting, seminar, workshop, or conference per year that pertains directly to the work and functions of the commission and would be approvable by the state. The CLG Regional Workshops sponsored by the OHP are important sources of information. The annual State Historic Preservation Conference generally provides special sessions devoted to the issues, objectives, and responsibilities of commissions. Commissions may also bring in professionals to provide training on site.

G. An annual report of the activities of the commission shall be submitted to the state at the end of each calendar year. The reports shall include, but not be limited to, such information as narrative summary of accomplishments, summaries of new and corrected survey activities, number of properties designated under local ordinance in relation to inventory for community, summaries of National Register applications reviewed, summaries of historical contexts prepared, number of federal tax certifications reviewed, number of properties on which design review was held, number of properties on which environmental project reviews were conducted, property owners of Mills Act contracts approved, summarization of local preservation activities, list of local landmark designations, description of public education activities, lists of commission members and resumes, list of staff and resumes, detailed listing of commission and staff training received, commission attendance 2 45
records, summary of changes in preservation laws, summary of adoption or updates of historic preservation plan or historic preservation element of your community's General Plan, commission meeting minutes and agendas, and other pertinent activities performed by the commission.

III Maintain a system for the survey and inventory of historic properties:

The CLG shall be responsible for organizing, developing, and administering an inventory of cultural resources within the entire spatial jurisdiction of the CLG.

A. The commission shall develop procedures for conducting an inventory of culture resources. Survey activities shall be coordinated with and complementary to the state program to ensure that survey results produced by the CLG will be readily integrated into the statewide comprehensive historic preservation planning process.

1. The CLG shall be responsible for overseeing the compiling, recording, and updating of inventory information on cultural resources within its jurisdiction. The information shall be based on comprehensive surveys conducted in conformance with state survey standards and procedures.

Surveys completed prior to the certification of a local government may be re-evaluated in accordance with state standards and may be submitted for inclusion in the State database.

2. As part of any ongoing survey effort, procedural requirements must allow for periodic update of survey results as buildings gain maturity and as new areas are incorporated or annexed by the CLG.

3. The commission must adopt state guidelines for conducting its inventory of historic properties. State-approved inventory forms (DPR-523, A-L) and the OHP's Instructions For Recording Historical Resources shall be used to facilitate integration into the state electronic data system and for statewide comprehensive historic preservation planning purposes. Dimitri software is available for the DPR 523 forms.

4. Standards for the evaluation of properties must be consistent with the National Register of Historic Places criteria.

A. The commission shall establish internal procedures to facilitate the use of survey results in the planning process by the CLG officials and departments.

The commission shall submit survey results to the local government for adoption, then forward to OHP. Copies of the survey should be on deposit at the local planning department, building and safety office, public works department, and redevelopment agency. Libraries, colleges, and historical societies should also receive copies. OHP will make copies available for the appropriate “California Historical Resources Information System” regional center. See IV(A)(2) below for public access requirements.

IV Provide for adequate public participation in the local historic preservation program:

A The CLG shall provide opportunities for public participation in all responsibilities delegated to the CLG, in accordance with appropriate regulations, standards, and guidelines.
3 46

1. Public participation shall be fully encouraged at local commission meetings. Commission meetings shall be open to the public, with published agenda and minutes in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act (G.C. Section 54950 et seq.) for open meetings. The published agenda shall be mailed in advance of meetings to individuals and citizen organizations interested in the commission’s activities.

2. Public participation shall be fully encouraged in the performance of the historic survey program at all levels of responsibility to identify and inventory significant cultural resources in the jurisdiction of the CLG. The public can serve as volunteers to assist in the survey effort. Survey results shall be of public record and on file at a public institution, except in the case of sensitive resources, e.g., archeological sites subject to vandalism.

3. Public participation shall be fully encouraged in the nomination process for the National Register of Historic Places program. The CLG shall invite comments from the general public regarding National Register nominations.

4. Public participation shall be fully encouraged in all public hearings on projects related to CEQA and Section 106 processes.

V Satisfactorily perform the responsibilities delegated to the CLG:

A. The CLG shall prepare a comprehensive local historic preservation plan which would identify preservation missions, goals, and priorities. The plan would also establish preservation strategies, programs, and time schedules.

B. The CLG will participate in the review and comment on historic preservation certification applications for tax incentives. The CLG and state may establish procedures for implementation of the investment tax credit program at the local level in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation.

C. Each CLG must have a local historic preservation plan prior to or upon becoming a CLG before any additional grant applications will be considered.

The state shall monitor and evaluate the performance of the CLG for consistency with the identification, evaluation, and preservation priorities of the comprehensive state historic preservation planning process.

1. Annual Review of CLGs:

The State shall conduct an annual review of CLGs to assure that each government continues to meet the minimal requirements and is satisfactorily performing its responsibilities. As part of this review, the state shall examine the annual reports submitted by the CLGs, records of the administration of funds allocated from the HPF, and other documents as necessary. The CLG shall make these records available to the state.

A more thorough review and site visit to the Certified Local Government will occur at least once every three (3) years.

2. Procedures for Decertification:

If the state evaluation indicates that the CLG no longer meets the minimal requirements or that in any other way a CLG's performance is not 4 47
satisfactory, the state shall document that assessment and recommend to the local government steps to bring its performance up to a satisfactory level. The CLG shall have a period of not less than 30 nor more than 180 days to implement improvements; If the state determines that sufficient improvement has not occurred, the state shall decertify the local government, citing specific reasons for the decertification. Performance shall be deemed unsatisfactory if one or more of the following conditions exist or is applicable: a) the commission fails to perform its delegated responsibilities within established time periods; b) the CLG fails to coordinate its responsibilities with the state; c) the commission substantially fails to maintain consistency of its design review decisions with the Secretary's Standards for Historic Preservation; d) the CLG fails to maintain a qualified historic preservation review commission membership; e) the CLG fails to enforce the provisions of the local preservation ordinance; f) the CLG fails to enforce its CEQA and Section 106 responsibilities; g) the CLG fails to adequately survey historical resources in its jurisdiction; and h) the CLG fails to comply adequately with proper fiscal management of HPF grants in accordance with the National Register Programs Guideline, OMB Circular A-128, and 43 CFR 12.

3. Decertification Appeal:

If the state recommends decertification, the local government may appeal to the NPS. The NPS has 45 days to respond to the appeal.

4. Decertification Without Prejudice:

CLGs may petition the OHP to be decertified voluntarily and without prejudice.

5. Financial Assistance Close-out:

The state shall conduct financial assistance close-out procedures pursuant to the National Register Program Guideline when a local government is decertified.

VI The CLG shall assume certain responsibilities for reviewing and recommending properties within its jurisdiction to the National Register of Historic Places.

A. The SHPO shall have the sole responsibility of nominating National Register properties directly to the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary).

B. The CLG shall establish local procedures for the National Register nomination process consistent with the requirements in the NHPA, Section 101(c)(2).

1. Before a property within the jurisdiction of a CLG may be considered by the state to be nominated to the National Register, the state shall notify the owner, the applicable chief elected local official, and the local historic preservation commission. The commission, after reasonable opportunity for public comment, shall prepare a report as to whether or not such property, in its opinion, meets the criteria of the National Register. Within sixty (60) days of notice from the state, the chief elected local official shall transmit the report of the commission and his/her recommendation to the state. After receipt of such report and recommendation, or if no such report and recommendation are received within sixty (60) days, the state 5 48
shall process the National Register nomination. The state may expedite such process with the concurrence of the CLG.

2. If both the commission and the chief elected local official recommend that a property not be nominated to the National Register, the state shall take no further action, unless within thirty (30) days of the receipt of such recommendation by the state, an appeal is filed with the state. If such an appeal is filed, the state shall follow the procedure for making a nomination pursuant to Section 101(a). Any report and recommendations made under this section shall be included with any nomination submitted by the state to the Secretary.

VII By mutual written agreement with the local governing body, the state may delegate additional responsibilities to the CLG. Local governments may be certified to participate in specific program activities under Programmatic Agreements.

A. The CLG may develop educational programs promoting historic preservation at the local level such as, but not limited to, sponsorship of preservation workshops, publication of preservation information, organizing preservation fairs, conducting walking tours, preparing preservation curricula for schools, etc.

B. Commission members may act in an advisory capacity to other officials and departments within the local government and act as a liaison on behalf of the CLG to individuals and organizations concerned with historic preservation issues at the local level.

C. The CLG may participate in the Mills Act program or other economic incentive programs to provide property-tax relief for owners of historic properties.

D. The CLG may participate in the Marks Historical Rehabilitation Act for issuance of tax-exempt industrial development bonds, providing that the commission shall serve as a part of the required citizen advisory board.

E. The CLG may assume certain responsibilities of recommending National Register of Historic Places properties, identified in the CLG jurisdiction, directly to the State Historical Resources Commission.

F. By mutual written agreement with the local governing body, the state may delegate additional responsibilities to the CLG.
6 49
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
Page of *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder)
P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: __ Not for Publication __ Unrestricted
*a. County and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad Date T ; R ; of of Sec ; B.M.
c. Address City Zip
d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone , mE/ mN e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes)
*P4.Resources Present: __ Building __ Structure __ Object __ Site __ District __ Element of District __Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo:
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Source: __ Historic __ Prehistoric
__ Both
*P7. Owner and Address:
*P8. Recorded by:
*P9. Date Recorded:
*P10. Survey Type:
*P11. Report Citation:
*Attachments: __NONE __Location Map __Continuation Sheet __Building, Structure, and Object Record __Archaeological Record __District Record __Linear Feature Record __Milling Station Record __Rock Art Record __Artifact Record __Photograph Record __ Other (List):

ATTACHMENT B
50 DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
*NRHP Status Code
Page of *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder)
B1. Historic Name:

B2. Common Name:

B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: ___________________________________
*Date of Evaluation:

New <ork: Alfred A. .nopf, 2002; DPR series forms by G. Laffey (1997); Sanborn Maps; Los Altos HRI (February 2011). 9icinity map provided by the City of Los Altos and amended by Circa:

Historic Property Development.

HRI#
51 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Alice Mansell <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2024 2:00 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Fwd: Public Comment Los Altos City Council meeting 9/10/2024 - Tree Removal appeal The Big Picture
Since 2020, the City has been allowing piecemeal destruction of our Heritage apricot Orchard. Few to no public discussions of each building proposal and plan led by City staff using their discretionary authority and blanket exemptions to avoid any meaningful environmental and historic reviews.

Right now there is $6,000,000+ of Civic Center work underway with all CEQA determined exempt from review without study for historical, environmental harms, including trees being removed. No review, no mitigation, no alternate options weighed. The result? Permanent changes to land use, public facilities and a valuable historic resource among the casualties.

Projects big and small leaving tree sites unirrigated, heritage trees and paving over orchard land for patios, walkways and fenced exteriors.

Now we are considering permanent apricot tree removal of all remaining trees in the unmaintained part of the historic resource near the Police Station, with permit rationale for "potential and future" development. For the Police Department? Ifg there a plan, the public should know and be part of the discussion.

Many want to believe that a $75,000 a year contract with the Los Altos History Museum protects the Orchard. That is far from true. Yes, it gets sorely needed maintenance back for some part of the Orchard. But the City is deciding what parts, capriciously in an ever escalating and piecemeal destruction of this historic resource. How do they do it? They just don't review it. Armed with exemptions and discretion - plans can go forward without review, public input or oversight at all.

Just take a close look at the $4.5 million LACY Office Conversion project, right in the center of it all. No oversight, no review of plans, add-ons of additional land use in Orchard space for walkways, gated private patios, new parking and boring utility lines under the Heritage Orchard. The City says no harm, we see the roots in the digging of holes, and see it differently.

For the record below are attachments and links for 2019-2024 building plans and proposals encroaching on or impacting the City's historic apricot orchard. There has been no coordinated public environmental and historic oversight on how all these plans and proposals interact and impact together the historic orchard thanks to, for many of these encroachments and impacts, City staff misusing their discretionary design and planning processes.

Alice Mansell
Los Altos, California
52 2
Attachments:

Dog Park proposals for lost library parking spaces mitigation plans (mid-June 2024 PRA&C Commission) During that meeting, the Park & Recreation Department's lead staffer orally declared some of the land for the staffs' "preferred" proposed new paved parking spaces to be just "dirt" despite there being on that land 3 surviving old apricot trees by the Friends of the Library storage sheds and several apricot tree planting sites in LAHM's contracted orchard acreage, all deliberately left unirrigated in Fall 2023 to leave space for the then publicly undisclosed City Hall staff's building and paving plans.

LAYC permitted plans (2023 and 2024)
Obtained by a public records request in July 2024. Plans were deemed by staff in June 2024 to be "copyrighted" and "exempt" from all public design review or view. Plans include LAYC expansion at least 20' into the orchard and required removal in Spring 2024 of healthy apricot trees and permanent removal of two rows of tree planting spaces, as well as new paving and concrete pads into the orchard and playground lawn lands. In March 2024, the plans got an "add-on" for a second underground utility line on one side of LAYC to add to the project's new underground line on the other side of that building. A $4.5M project.

EOC permitted plans (2023)
> Obtained by a public records request in July 2024. The plans include new underground utility lines, remodeling the interior of the Los Altos Community Center, and a fenced generator and fuel tank by the Bus Barn Theater with a large drainage field next to the generator. About half of the newly proposed synthetic grass Dog Park will sit on top of that drainage field. Ground was broken for the EOC plans by Spring 2024 by removing deep and large oak tree roots of trees (both trunks had been over 50" diameter) removed for an "emergency" in March 2023 and not replaced. An $800K project.

Links:

LALE Courtyard proposed plans (Nov 28, 2023, agenda item #7) Minutes - 3:2 vote allowing LALE to construct a courtyard on orchard land https://www.losaltosca.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/city_council/meeting/84983/11-28- 23_regular_meeting_minutes_approved-signed.pdf
Agenda - with LALE's first proposed plan in links:
https://meetings.municode.com/adaHtmlDocument/index?cc=LOSALTOSCA&me=ecd5ca43997c4d62 8c4b84413c491b4b&ip=True
"2020" EOC proposed plans (October 2020)
Instead of this proposed permanent new EOC building on NE Grove orchard land the City allowed placement of a police trailer.
https://www.losaltosca.gov/development-services/page/d20-0001-eoc-emergency-operation-center-1- n-san-antonio-road
https://www.losaltosca.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/community_development/page/55441/ agenda_packet_d20-0001_1_san_antonio_rd_eoc_pc.rpt_revised.pdf Friends of the Library (FoL) "Temporary" storage sheds on orchard land (2019) https://www.losaltosca.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/city_council/meeting/480 32/7.friends_of_the_library.pdf
Two FoL sheds were placed along with a newly compacted dirt and gravel vehicle access road installed 53 3
on top of living and old apricot trees' root lines. The sheds are still there and the three old apricot trees which are not allowed to be irrigated by the City. No CEQA filing has been found to date.

To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet. EOC Approved Plan Set (1).pdf
To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet. LAYC Approved Plan set (1)2024.pdf
54 sf-6132719
Comments in Support of the Appellants Request to Deny, Revoke and Withdrawal of the Tree Removal Permit approved on June 25, 2024, for the Removal of 25 Apricot Trees within the historic orchard
My name is Chip Lion, a 33 year resident of Los Altos, a member of the Preservation Action League of Los Altos, and husband of one of the appellants (a resident of Los Altos Hills and Los Altos for over 65 years). I rise in support of the Appellants request for the withdrawal of the permit filed on June 25, 2024, to remove 25 apricot trees from the northeast corner of the Heritage Orchard.

I addressed this Council late last year and was told then by City Staff and the Council that the Historical Orchard has no defined boundaries. Such a claim is not only absurd but dangerously misguided. If there are truly no boundaries, it implies the City and its Staff have carte blanche to exploit the Historical Orchard as they see fit, issuing notices of exemption to justify any project regardless of its detrimental impact on the orchard’s historical significance. In fact, this is exactly what has happened with both the Lacy project and the proposed Library project. Does the Council genuinely believe that your predecessors envisioned this as the outcome when the working orchard was designated as a historical resource? This reckless interpretation undermines the very purpose of preserving our historical assets and allows for unchecked and potentially devastating actions. Certain council members now claim that the orchard around the police station is not even an historical resource.

The administrative record is clear. The 2011 State Department of Parks and Records HR#15 established the historic orchard site as orchard lands at the Civic Center, including both the area now a Landmark AND the northeast sector of the property (Police Station), comprising 2.84 acres and 444 tree sites. In subsequent City recorded documentation from the Historic 55 sf-6132719
Commission (2019) and the City Orchard Maintenance plan (2006) documentation, the “northeast sector” was clarified to include the Police Station orchard area and be part of the 2.84 acres. Any attempts to reduce the size of the historic resource site or environs, would be considered an alteration to a historic resource that may result in environmental impacts and, therefore must be accompanied by a full environmental analysis.

The city must evaluate a project’s likely secondary or indirect impacts along with its direct impacts. CEQA therefore requires the analysis of all secondary or indirect impacts. Even if the City treats the tree removal as not within the boundaries of the historic site, all of the apricot trees proposed for removal are a part of the historic orchard and would be considered a part of the historic setting that contributes to the integrity of the resource. Any alteration or demolition would need to be analyzed and reviewed in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prior to their removal.

Conclusion
My ask is simple. I urge you to heed the request of several past mayors in their capacity as board members of the Friends of Los Altos: prioritize a thorough and transparent historic resource evaluation before proceeding with any tree removals. It is essential to engage an independent, qualified historic preservation expert to conduct a comprehensive historic resource evaluation, and ensure that any projects affecting these resources undergo a detailed EIR and design review.

Given the current gaps in the City’s historic documentation and the resulting misinformation, transparency and public involvement are paramount. The Historic Commission’s inclusion will bolster public trust and ensure the process is perceived as fair and not merely a formality to meet predetermined outcomes. Removing the trees amidst such uncertainty will only exacerbate conflict and undermine the City’s credibility. Let's commit to a careful, transparent process that 56 sf-6132719
honors our historical assets and fosters community trust. Removing the trees when there is so much confusion and debate over the historical record will only invite further conflict.

Respectfully,
Paul ‘Chip’ L. Lion III
57 CITY OF LOS ALTOS

CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY, AUGUST 27, 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 – Jonathan D. Weinberg, Mayor, led the Pledge of Allegiance.

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
There were no public comments during the Closed Session meeting:

There was no reportable action taken for the Closed Session meeting of August 27, 2024 at 5:00 p.m.

CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
Motion by Lee Eng to table Item 10 and to have a study session on the same item. Failed due to lack of a second.

SPECIAL ITEM
Issue Proclamation Recognizing September as Childhood Cancer Awareness Month Jonathan D. Weinberg, Mayor, read the proclamation recognizing September as Childhood Cancer Awareness Month.

PUBLIC COMMENT
The following members of the public spoke during Public Comment:
 Paul Horsager  Eric Matthews
 Sue  Alice Mansell
 Jean R.  Roberta Phillips
 Alicia Schoolcraft

CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion by Fligor and Second by Dailey to approve the Consent Calendar, with Councilmember Lee Eng opposed on Item 4. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote for Items 1, 2, 3 and 5 and Item 4 carried 4-1 with Councilmember Lee opposed by roll call vote.

1. Approve the Special and Regular Meeting Minutes for July 9 and July 13, 2024

2. Adopt a Resolution Amending the FY 2024-25 CIP budget increasing TDA Revenues by $129,725 to fund the Intersection Access Barrier Removal Project (TS-01058); and to 58 Agenda Item # 1.

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 27, 2024

Page 2 of 5 ends

program $129,725 in Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds for the Intersection Access Barrier Removal Project (TS-01058) to fund the construction of the Hetch Hetchy Pathway Enhancements and Access Improvement Project and find that this action is Exempt from Environmental Review Pursuant to Section 15301(c) of the State Guidelines Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970

3. Adopt a Resolution accepting the Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP), including Volume 1 and the Los Altos Annex

4. Approve the use of electronic voting during City Council meetings

5. Review and accept the Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional Program for Public Information Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2024 (Year 3)

PUBLIC HEARINGS

6. Hold a Public Hearing and Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Los Altos declaring certain property surplus land located within city limits and finding that such declaration is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) Nick Zornes, Assistant City Manager of Land Use, presented the report.

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

The following members of the public spoke during the Public Hearing:
 Nancy Strom  Roberta Phillips
 Alice Mansell  Anne Paulson
 Willem De Lange  Eric Steinle
 Jon Baer  Maria Bautista
 Bill Bassett
Jonathan D. Weinberg, Mayor, closed the Public Hearing.

The City Council took a recess at 9:02 p.m.

The City Council reconvened at 9:15 p.m.

Motion by Dailey and Second by Meadows to adopt a resolution declaring certain property surplus land located within city limits and finding that such declaration is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). Motion carried 4-1 with Councilmember Lee Eng opposed, by roll call vote.

7. Hold a Public Hearing and Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Los Altos declaring the building located at 4898 El Camino Real, Los Altos, CA, 94022, a 59 Agenda Item # 1.

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 27, 2024

Page 3 of 5 ends

Public Nuisance Pursuant to Chapter 11.10 of the Los Altos Municipal Code and Directing the City Manager to abate the nuisance
Nick Zornes, Assistant City Manager of Land Use, presented the report.

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

There were no speakers during the Public Hearing.

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

Motion by Lee Eng and Second by Meadows to adopt a resolution declaring the building located at 4898 El Camino Real, Los Altos, CA, 94022, a Public Nuisance Pursuant to Chapter 11.10 of the Los Altos Municipal Code and Directing the City Manager to abate the nuisance. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

8. Hold a Public Hearing and 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
Nick Zornes, Assistant City Manager of Land Use, presented the report.

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

There were no speakers regarding the item.

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

Neysa Fligor, Councilmember, requested to add language to Section 3.60.040 to include:
 To the extent allowed by applicable law
Motion by Weinberg and Second by Fligor to Introduce an Ordinance, as amended and by title only, 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 InLieu 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. Motion carried 4-1 with Councilmember Lee Eng opposed, by roll call vote.

DISCUSSION ITEMS

9. 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 60 Agenda Item # 1.

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 27, 2024

Page 4 of 5 ends

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) and 15273(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 Nick Zornes, Assistant City Manager of Land Use, presented the report.

There were no speakers regarding the item.

Motion by Weinberg and Second by Fligor to Introduce an Ordinance, by title only, 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. Motion carried by roll call vote.

Motion by Weinberg and Second by Fligor to Introduce an Ordinance, by title only, 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. Motion carried by roll call vote.

10. Direct staff to explore private sector parking enforcement services, make parking restrictions uniform in similarly situated neighborhoods, and discuss other options for parking control measures as necessary
Gabriel Engeland, City Manager, presented the report.

The following members of the public spoke regarding the item:
 Corinne Finegan  Michael Emrick
 Camilla McCrea  Bonnie Whalen
 Nadim Maluf  Reza Safai
 Lynn Emrick  David Williams
 Larry Lang  Eric Volta
Directional item only. No motion taken.

11. Designate a Voting Representative Delegate and Alternate to Vote on Proposed Resolutions at the CalCities 2024 Annual Conference in Long Beach, CA on October 16-18, 2024
61 Agenda Item # 1.

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
August 27, 2024

Page 5 of 5 ends

Melissa Thurman, City Clerk, presented the report.

There were no public comments regarding the item.

Motion by Weinberg and Second by Meadows to appoint Neysa Fligor to serve as the Voting Representative Delegate and Jonathan D. Weinberg as the Voting Representative Alternate to vote at the CalCities 2024 Annual Conference in Long Beach, CA on October 16-18, 2024.

Motion carried 4-0-1 with Councilmember Lee Eng abstained by roll call vote.

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

12. Tentative Council Calendar and Housing Element Implementation Update Calendar

COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS AND DIRECTIONS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS  Lynette Lee Eng, Councilmember – Requested future agenda items:
 Parket Re-Evaluation and Discussion (No Support)
 Election Resolution presented by public commenters (No Support) ADJOURNMENT – The regular meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m.

The meeting minutes were prepared by Melissa Thurman, City Clerk, for approval at the regular meeting of September 10, 2024.
_________________________________ __________________________________ Jonathan D. Weinberg Melissa Thurman, MMC
Mayor City Clerk
The August 27, 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.
62 Agenda Item # 1.

CITY OF LOS ALTOS

CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 28, 2024
4:00 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 4:00 p.m.

ESTABLISH QUORUM:

All Councilmembers were present and in person during the meeting.

PUBLIC HEARING

1. Hold Public Hearing No. 3 to receive a presentation from the City's consulting demographer, Redistricting Partners, to discuss and provide further directions as to the development of district boundaries and the presentation of the first draft district maps for the City of Los Altos; solicit public input on the maps and on the order of elections of the five new districts
Jon Maginot, Assistant City Clerk, provided the report.

Elizabeth Stitt, Redistricting Partners, presented the draft maps.

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

The following members of the public spoke during the Public Hearing:
 Allison Aldrich  Eric Steinle
 Myra Orta  Lindsey P.
 Steve Chessin  Freddie Wheeler
 Jeanine Valadez  Larry Lang
Jonathan D. Weinberg, Mayor, closed the Public Hearing.

Informational item only. No motion taken.

ADJOURNMENT – The meeting adjourned at 6:06 p.m.

City of Los Altos
City Council Special Meeting Minutes
December 11, 2023

Page 2 of 2 ends

The August 28, 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.
64 Agenda Item # 1.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: September 10, 2024
Prepared By: Public Works Department
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: Resolution No. 2024-___: On-Call Sanitary Sewer Spot Repairs and CCTV Inspection Services FY 2023-2024 Project Acceptance

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

RECOMMENDATION
Move to adopt Resolution No. 2024-___ accepting completion of the On-Call Sanitary Sewer Spot Repairs and CCTV Inspection Services for FY 23/24 and authorize the Public Works Director to record a Notice of Completion as required by law, and find that this action is Exempt from Environmental Review pursuant to Section 15300.2 of the State Guidelines Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970

FISCAL IMPACT
The final cost of this project is $97,597.36 for the On-Call Sanitary Sewer Spot Repairs and CCTV Inspection Services for FY 23/24 from account 8210-5280; any remaining expenditure budget will be returned to the Sewer Fund for future allocation. The following table summarizes the final cost of this project.

Project Item Original Project Budget Final Cost
Construction (Spot Repair and CCTV
Inspections) $100,000.00 $96,778.60
Printing/Environmental Doc/Misc. $1,500.00 $818.76
Total Cost $101,500.00 $97,597.36
65 Agenda Item # 2.

SUMMARY
 Adopt Resolution No. 2024-___ accepting completion of the On-Call Sanitary Sewer Spot Repairs and CCTV Inspection Services for FY 23/24
 Authorize the Public Works Director to record a Notice of Completion as required by law

BACKGROUND
The City’s Sewer Maintenance Division in the 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.

On October 31, 2023, the City Manager executed a contract with C2R Engineering, Inc. for OnCall Sanitary Sewer Spot Repairs and CCTV Inspection Services for the not-to-exceed amount of $100,000.

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
September 12, 2023

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
C2R Engineering, Inc. completed the repairs and CCTV inspection of On-Call Sanitary Sewer Spot Repairs and CCTV Inspection Services per the project plans and specifications. This project consisted of the repair or replacement of five sewer laterals using the pipe bursting method or open trench method, the completion of four mainline repairs using the open trench method, televising 573 feet of 6-inch sewer mainlines, and televising 314 feet of 8-inch sewer mainlines.

ATTACHMENT

1. Resolution 2024-____
66 Agenda Item # 2.

ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 2024-__ Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-__

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

ACCEPTING COMPLETION AND DIRECTING THE PUBLIC WORKS

DIRECTOR TO FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF THE ON-CALL

SANITARY SEWER SPOT REPAIRS AND CCTV INSPECTION SERVICES FY 2023-2024
WHEREAS, the Los Altos Public Works Director has filed with the City Clerk of Los Altos an Engineer's Certificate for the completion of all work provided within and pursuant to the contract between said City and C2R Engineering, Inc., dated October 31, 2023; and WHEREAS, it appears to the satisfaction of this City Council that work under said contract has been fully installed and completed as provided in said contract and the plans and specifications therein referred to.

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

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

2. That the Public Works Director is directed to execute and file for recording with the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, Notice of Acceptance of Completion thereof, as required by law; and

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

4. All remaining budget expenditures will be returned to the Sewer Fund.

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 10th day of September 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

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

CITY CLERK
67 Agenda Item # 2.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: September 10, 2024
Prepared By: Nick Zornes
Approved By: Gabriel Engeland
Subject: Development Impact Fee and In-Lieu Fee Ordinance

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

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt 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.

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.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
June 11, 2024, June 25, 2024, August 27, 2024.

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.

Development Impact Fees in California are governed by the Mitigation Fee Act, which includes AB1600 and AB602.
68 Agenda Item # 3.

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.

On June 25, 2024, the Los Altos City Council held a Public Hearing and adopted the Development Impact and In-Lieu Fees Resolution based on the adopted nexus study. The City Council however, continued to a date certain of August 27, 2024, the proposed Ordinance (Chapter 3.60) for the administrative component of the Development Impact and In-Lieu Fees. The City Council also gave direction to exempt all Below Market Rate (BMR) units from the payment of Development Impact and In-Lieu Fees in the administrative ordinance (Chapter 3.60) and to return with an update to the Art in Public Places Ordinance to create more of an equitable requirement throughout the city.

On August 27, 2024, the Los Altos City Council considered the ordinance, and introduced it for adoption to be heard at the following meeting.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Ordinance – Adopting Chapter 3.60

2. Appendix A – Chapter 3.60 Text
69 Agenda Item # 3.
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 70 Agenda Item # 3.
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 71 Agenda Item # 3.
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
72 Agenda Item # 3.
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 August 27, 2024, and was thereafter, at a regular meeting held on September 10, 2024, passed and adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Jonathan D. Weinberg, MAYOR
73 Agenda Item # 3.
5 Attest:
____________________________
Melissa Thurman MMC, City Clerk
74 Agenda Item # 3.

APPENDIX A
AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 3.60
75 Agenda Item # 3.

APPENDIX A

Page 1 of 4 ends

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;
76 Agenda Item # 3.

Page 2 of 4 ends

E. Junior accessory dwelling units (JADU).

F. Any Below Market Rate (BMR) unit which, by recordable means, is obligated to be affordable for a minimum of 55-years.

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, to the extent allowed by applicable law. 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.
77 Agenda Item # 3.

Page 3 of 4 ends

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.

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 78 Agenda Item # 3.

Page 4 of 4 ends

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.

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. 79 Agenda Item # 3.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: September 10, 2024
Prepared By: Nick Zornes
Approved By: Gabriel 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:

Adopt 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.

Adopt 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.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
June 11, 2024, June 25, 2024, August 27, 2024.
80 Agenda Item # 4.

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 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.

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:

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
81 Agenda Item # 4.
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.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Jonathan D. Weinberg, MAYOR
82 Agenda Item # 4.
2 Attest:
____________________________
Melissa Thurman, MMC, CITY CLERK
83 Agenda Item # 4.

APPENDIX A
AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 3.48
84 Agenda Item # 4.

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)

Page 1 of 4 ends

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 85 Agenda Item # 4.

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

Page 2 of 4 ends

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))
86 Agenda Item # 4.

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

Page 3 of 4 ends

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))
87 Agenda Item # 4.

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

Page 4 of 4 ends

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))
88 Agenda Item # 4.
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 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.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Jonathan D. Weinberg, MAYOR
89 Agenda Item # 4.
2 Attest:
____________________________
Melissa Thurman MMC, City Clerk
90 Agenda Item # 4.

APPENDIX A
AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 3.49
91 Agenda Item # 4.

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

Page 1 of 5 ends

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.
92 Agenda Item # 4.

Page 2 of 5 ends

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. 93 Agenda Item # 4.

Page 3 of 5 ends

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).

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.

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. 94 Agenda Item # 4.

Page 4 of 5 ends

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.

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.

Page 5 of 5 ends

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. 96 Agenda Item # 4.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: September 10, 2024
Prepared By: Oscar Olais
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: Authorize City Manager to execute the Subdivision Improvement Agreement and move to approve the Final Map for 5150 El Camino Real.

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

RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager to execute the Subdivision Improvement Agreement and move to approve the Final Map of 5150 El Camino Real

FISCAL IMPACT
None

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not Applicable.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
August 23, 2022

BACKGROUND
On August 23, 2022, Council approved the multi-family design review application and the associated Tentative Map for the new development at 5150 El Camino Real. The recommended action will finalize the tentative map for the project.

A Tentative Map (AKA, Tentative Parcel Map or Tentative Tract Map) is a map showing the layout of a proposed Subdivision, including the general description of the associated infrastructure.

The approved Tentative Map also sets conditions such as access, frontage, grading improvements, stormwater protection, and so forth which must be met before the final Parcel Map or Tract Map can be filed. An approved Tentative Map does not divide the property, rather it sets the conditions under which the division can occur. To divide the property, one must file a final Parcel Map or Tract Map (i.e., Final Map).
97 Agenda Item # 5.

The attached Final Map is the instrument that divides the property. It must conform to and incorporate all the Tentative Map conditions and must also comply with the standards for Tract Maps or Parcel Maps as set forth in the State Subdivision Map Act. It must also include plans describing the various improvements to the project site and to all other affected properties, including public roadways and public and private utilities.

ANALYSIS
Final Map for the development at 5150 El Camino Real conforms to the Tentative Map approved on August 23, 2022. The map and survey have been checked and found satisfactory. All conditions of approval have been complied with and appropriate controls to ensure compliance have been established. All required fees and deposits have been received. The Final Map is available in the Engineering Services Department office for inspection.

DISCUSSION
1) Do not authorize the City Manager to execute the subdivision improvement agreement and move to not approve Parcel Map
Advantages: None
Disadvantages: Developer will not be able to continue construction. Council must provide reasons for disapproval.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Final Map

2. Subdivision agreement
98 Agenda Item # 5.
99 Agenda Item # 5.
100
Agenda Item # 5.
101
Agenda Item # 5.
102
Agenda Item # 5.
1 Improvement(2024-X)
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

City of Los Altos
WHEN RECORDED, MAIL TO:

City Clerk, City of Los Altos
1 North San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022

RECORD WITHOUT FEE UNDER
§§ 27383 & 27388.1 GOVERNMENT CODE
Improvement Agreement No.

PROJECT TITLE
APN: 170-04-066
5150 ECR LLC, A California Limited Partnership
103
Agenda Item # 5.
2 Improvement(2024-X)

IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
5150 El Camino Real
This Improvement Agreement (this “Agreement”) is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF Los Altos, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City"), and 5150 ECR, LLC (hereinafter "Developer”).

City and Developer may be collectively referred to herein as the “parties.”

RECITALS
A. In accordance with the Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code Sections 66410, et seq.), and the Subdivision Ordinance (Los Altos Municipal Code, Title 13), and the Street Ordinance (Los Altos Municipal Code, Title 9), the Developer has submitted to the City a Tract Map (hereinafter “Tract Map”) for the project known as 5150 ECR (hereinafter “Project”).

B. The Project is geographically located within the boundaries of the Tentative Subdivision Map known as 5150 ECR Tentative Map (hereinafter “Tentative Map”). The Tentative Map is on file with the City Engineer and is incorporated herein by reference. The area within the boundaries of the Tentative Map is described in Exhibit A hereto (the “Property”).

C. The City’s approval of the Tentative Map was subject to specified conditions of approval (hereinafter “Conditions”). The Conditions are attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference.

D. As required by the Conditions, the Tentative and Tract Maps, and the other Project entitlements, Developer shall construct public improvements in connection with the Project along El Camino Real, including but not limited to the following: installation of approximately 580 linear feet of concrete vertical curb and gutter, 3500 square feet of concrete sidewalk, 700 square feet of valley gutter, 320 square feet of concrete driveway approach, one (1) square feet of median curb and landscape replacement, installation of 6 accessible ramp, 43 feet of sewer lateral, one (1) of sewer manhole, , two (2) of abandon existing sewer lateral in place (fill with slurry), two (2) of storm drain manhole, 24 linear feet of 12 inch storm drain pipe, 15 linear feet of 15 inch storm drain pipe, 250 linear feet of 18” storm Drain pipe, 560 linear feet of abandon existing storm drain pipe in place (fill with slurry), 32 linear feet of removing existing storm drain pipe, eight (8) street signs, 580 linear feet of striping, one (1) VTA Bus Shelter, 1,580 square feet of landscape along El Camino Real, and installation of all appurtenances associated with above listed improvements (collectively, the “Work”).

NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THE MUTUAL COVENANTS AND CONDITIONS IDENTIFIED HEREIN, THE PARTIES HEREBY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. SCOPE OF WORK. The Developer shall perform, or cause to be performed, the Work described in the Plans and Specifications and the Conditions (hereinafter “Work”), to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The Work shall be performed, and all materials and labor shall be provided, at the Developer’s sole cost and expense. No change shall be made to the Scope of Work unless authorized in writing by the City Engineer.

2. PERMITS, LICENSES, AND COMPLIANCE WITH LAW. The Developer shall, at the Developer’s expense, obtain and maintain all necessary permits and licenses for the performance of the Work. The Developer shall comply with all local, state, and federal laws, whether or not said laws are expressly stated in this Agreement. WITHOUT LIMITING THE GENERALITY OF 104
Agenda Item # 5.

CITY OF LOS ALTOS – IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
5150 ECR
3 Improvement (2024)

THE FOREGOING, DEVELOPER HEREBY AGREES TO BE BOUND BY THE LABOR CODE PROVISIONS ATTACHED HERETO AT EXHIBIT C.

3. DEVELOPER’S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. At all times during the progress of the Work, Developer shall have a competent foreperson or superintendent (hereinafter “Authorized Representative”) on site with authority to act on behalf of the Developer. The Developer shall, at all times, keep the City Engineer informed in writing of the name and telephone number of the Authorized Representative. The Developer shall, at all times, keep the City Engineer informed in writing of the names and telephone numbers of all contractors and subcontractors performing the Work.

4. IMPROVEMENT SECURITY. The Developer shall furnish faithful performance and labor and material security concurrently with the execution of this Agreement by the Developer, and prior to the commencement of any Work. The Developer shall furnish warranty security prior to the City's acceptance of the Work. The form of the security shall be as authorized by the Subdivision Map Act (including Government Code Sections 66499, et seq.) and Section 13.20.210 the Los Altos Municipal Code, and as set forth below:
4(a). Faithful Performance security in the amount of $1,724,494.10 (which amount is equal to the estimated cost to construct the Work in accordance with the Plans and Specifications) to secure faithful performance of this Agreement (until the date on which the City Council accepts the Work as complete) pursuant to Government Code Sections 66499.1, 66499.4, and 66499.9.
4(b). Labor and Material security in the amount of $862,247.05 (which amount is equal to fifty (50) percent of the estimated cost to construct the Work in accordance with the Plans and Specifications) to secure payment by the Developer to laborers and materialmen pursuant to Government Code Sections 66499.2, 66499.3, and 66499.4. 4(c). Warranty security in the amount of $172,449.41 (which amount is equal to ten (10) percent of the estimated cost to construct the Work in accordance with the Plans and Specifications) to secure faithful performance of this Agreement (from the date on which the City accepts the Work as complete until one year thereafter) pursuant to Government Code Sections 66499.1, 66499.4, and 66499.9.

5. BUSINESS TAX. The Developer shall apply for and pay the business license tax for a business license, in accordance with Los Altos Municipal Code Chapter 4.04.

6. INSURANCE. Developer shall, throughout the duration of this Agreement, maintain insurance to cover Developer (including its agents, representatives, contractors, subcontractors, and employees) in connection with the performance of services under this Agreement. Exhibit D of this Agreement identifies the minimum insurance levels with which Developer shall comply; however, the minimum insurance levels shall not relieve Developer of any other performance responsibilities under this Agreement (including the indemnity requirements), and Developer may carry, at its own expense, any additional insurance it deems necessary or prudent. The general liability and automobile policies required under Exhibit D shall contain, or be endorsed to contain, provision for the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers, to be covered as additional insureds as respects alleged liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Developer under this Agreement.

Concurrently with the execution of this Agreement by the Developer, and prior to the commencement of any services, the Developer shall furnish written proof of insurance (certificates and endorsements), in a form acceptable to the City. Developer shall provide substitute written proof of insurance no later than 30 days prior to the expiration date of any insurance policy required by this Agreement.
105
Agenda Item # 5.

CITY OF LOS ALTOS – IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
5150 ECR
4 Improvement (2024)

7. REPORTING DAMAGES. If any damage (including death, personal injury or property damage) occurs in connection with the performance of this Agreement, Developer shall immediately notify the City Risk Manager’s office by telephone at, and Developer shall promptly submit to the City’s Risk Manager and the City Manager or desingee, a written report (in a form acceptable to the City) with the following information: (a) a detailed description of the damage (including the name and address of the injured or deceased person(s), and a description of the damaged property), (b) name and address of witnesses, and (c) name and address of any potential insurance companies.

8. INDEMNIFICATION. Developer shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend (with counsel reasonably acceptable to the City) the City and its elected officials, officers, agents and employees from and against any and all claims (including all litigation, demands, damages, liabilities, costs, and expenses, and including court costs and attorneys’ fees) resulting or arising from performance, or failure to perform, under this Agreement (with the exception of the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the City).

9. TIME OF PERFORMANCE. Time is of the essence in the performance of the Work, and the timing requirements set forth herein shall be strictly adhered to unless otherwise modified in writing in accordance with this Agreement. The Developer shall submit all requests for extensions of time to the City, in writing, no later than ten (10) days after the start of the condition which purportedly caused the delay, and not later than the date on which performance is due. 9(a). Commencement of Work. No later than fifteen (15) days prior to the commencement of Work, the Developer shall provide written notice to the City Engineer of the date on which the Developer shall commence Work. The Developer shall not commence Work until after the notice required by this section is properly provided, and the Developer shall not commence Work prior to the date specified in the written notice.
9(b). Schedule of Work. Concurrently with the written notice of commencement of Work, the Developer shall provide the City with a written schedule of Work, which shall be updated in writing as necessary to accurately reflect the Developer’s prosecution of the Work. 9(c). Completion of Work. The Developer shall complete all Work by no later than three hundred sixty-five (365) days after the City’s execution of this Agreement.

10. INSPECTION BY THE CITY. In order to permit the City to inspect the Work, the Developer shall, at all times, provide to the City proper and safe access to the Project site, and all portions of the Work, and to all shops wherein portions of the Work are in preparation. Developer shall reimburse the City for the costs of the City Engineer’s inspections of the Work, as required by Los Altos Municipal Code Section 13.20.190.

11. DEFAULT. If either party (“demanding party”) has a good faith belief that the other party (“defaulting party”) is not complying with the terms of this Agreement, the demanding party shall give written notice of the default (with reasonable specificity) to the defaulting party, and demand the default to be cured within ten days of the notice. If: (a) the defaulting party fails to cure the default within ten (10) days of the notice, or, (b) if more than ten (10) days are reasonably required to cure the default and the defaulting party fails to give adequate written assurance of due performance within ten (10) days of the notice, then (c) the demanding party may terminate this Agreement upon written notice to the defaulting party.
106
Agenda Item # 5.

CITY OF LOS ALTOS – IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
5150 ECR
5 Improvement (2024)
11(a). The Developer shall be in default of this Agreement if the City Engineer determines that any one of the following conditions exist:
11(a)(1). The Developer is insolvent, bankrupt, or makes a general assignment for the benefit of its creditors.
11(a)(2). The Developer abandons the Project site.
11(a)(3). The Developer fails to perform one or more requirements of this Agreement. 11(a)(4). The Developer fails to replace or repair any damage caused by Developer or its agents, representatives, contractors, subcontractors, or employees in connection with performance of the Work.
11(a)(5). The Developer violates any legal requirement related to the Work. 11(b). In the event that the Developer fails to cure the default, the City may, in the discretion of the City Engineer, take any or all of the following actions:
11(b)(1). Cure the default and charge the Developer for the costs therefore, including administrative costs and interest in an amount equal to seven percent (7%) per annum from the date of default.
11(b)(2). Demand the Developer to complete performance of the Work. 11(b)(3). Demand the Developer’s surety (if any) to complete performance of the Work.

12. ACCEPTANCE OF WORK. Prior to acceptance of the Work by the City Engineer, the Developer shall be solely responsible for maintaining the quality of the Work, and maintaining safety at the Project site. Neither the final certificate of payment, nor any provision in this Agreement, nor partial or entire use or occupancy of the improvements by the City shall constitute an acceptance of the Work not done in accordance with this Agreement or relieve Developer of liability pursuant to Section 13, below. The Developer’s obligation to perform the Work shall not be satisfied until after the City Engineer has made a written determination that all obligations of the Agreement have been satisfied and all outstanding fees and charges have been paid, the City Engineer has accepted the Work as complete, and the City Council has authorized the release of the security for faithful performance as described in Government Code Section 66499.7.

13. WARRANTY PERIOD. The Developer shall warrant the quality of the Work, in accordance with the terms of the Plans and Specifications, for a period of one year after acceptance of the Work by the City. In the event that (during the one year warranty period) any portion of the Work is determined by the City Engineer to be defective as a result of an obligation of the Developer under this Agreement, the Developer shall be in default.

14. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE PARTIES. Developer is, and at all times shall remain, an independent contractor solely responsible for all acts of its employees, agents, contractors, or subcontractors, including any negligent acts or omissions. Developer is not City’s agent, and 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 Developer.

15. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST PROHIBITED. Developer (including its employees, agents, contractors, and subcontractors) shall not maintain or acquire any direct or indirect interest that conflicts with the performance of this Agreement. If Developer maintains or acquires a conflicting interest, any contract with the City (including this Agreement) involving Developer’s conflicting interest may be terminated by the City.

16. NONDISCRIMINATION. Developer shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws regarding nondiscriminatory employment practices, whether or not said laws are expressly 107
Agenda Item # 5.

CITY OF LOS ALTOS – IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
5150 ECR
6 Improvement (2024)
stated in this Agreement. Developer shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant because of race, color, ancestry, ethnicity, religious creed, national origin, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital or family status, sexual orientation, gender or gender identification, age (over 40), veteran status, or sex.

17. NOTICES. All notices required or contemplated by this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered to the respective party as set forth in this section. Communications shall be deemed to be effective upon the first to occur of: (a) actual receipt (or refusal) by a party, or (b) actual receipt (or refusal) at the address designated below, or (c) three (3) working days following deposit in the United States Mail of registered or certified mail sent to the address designated below. Either party may modify their respective contact information identified in this section by providing notice to the other party.

TO: City To: Developer
Attn: City Clerk’s Office Attn: 5150 ECR LLC,
City of Los Altos A California Limited
1 N. San Antonio Road Liability Company
Los Altos, CA 94022 1900 S. Norfolk Street, Suite 150
San Mateo, CA 94403

18. HEADINGS. The heading titles for each paragraph of this Agreement are included only as a guide to the contents and are not to be considered as controlling, enlarging, or restricting the interpretation of the Agreement.

19. SEVERABILITY. If any term of this Agreement (including any phrase, provision, covenant, or condition) is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the Agreement shall be construed as not containing that term, and the remainder of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect; provided, however, this paragraph shall not be applied to the extent that it would result in a frustration of the parties’ intent under this Agreement.

20. GOVERNING LAW, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE. The interpretation, validity, and enforcement of this Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any suit, claim, or legal proceeding of any kind related to this Agreement shall be filed and heard in a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Santa Clara.

21. ATTORNEYS’ FEES. In the event any legal action is commenced to enforce this Agreement, the prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses incurred.

22. ASSIGNMENT AND DELEGATION. This Agreement, and any portion thereof, shall not be assigned or transferred, nor shall any of the Developer’s duties be delegated, without the written consent of the City. Any attempt to assign or delegate this Agreement without the written consent of the City shall be void and of no force or effect. A consent by the City to one assignment shall not be deemed to be a consent to any subsequent assignment. 108
Agenda Item # 5.

CITY OF LOS ALTOS – IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
5150 ECR
7 Improvement (2024)

23. MODIFICATIONS. This Agreement may not be modified orally or in any manner other than by an agreement in writing signed by both parties.

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

25. CONFLICTS. If any conflicts arise between the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the terms and conditions of the attached exhibits or any documents expressly incorporated, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall control.

26. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement, including all documents incorporated herein by reference, comprises the entire integrated understanding between the parties concerning the Work described herein. This Agreement supersedes all prior negotiations, agreements, and understandings regarding this matter, whether written or oral. The documents incorporated by reference into this Agreement are complementary; what is called for in one is binding as if called for in all.

27. COVENANT RUNNING WITH THE LAND. This Agreement is entered into as a condition of the Tentative Map, is an instrument affecting the title or possession of the real property, and is intended to run with the land. All the terms, covenants and conditions herein imposed shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of City, Developer, the successors in interest of Developer, their respective successors and permitted assigns, and all subsequent owners of a fee interest in the Property or of a beneficial interest substantially equivalent to a fee interest. The obligations of the Developer under this Agreement shall be the joint and several obligations of each and all of the parties comprising Developer, if Developer consists of more than one individual and/or entity.

Upon the sale or division of the Property, the terms of this Agreement shall apply separately to each parcel and the fee owners of each parcel shall succeed to the obligations imposed on Developer by this Agreement.

28. MISCELLANEOUS. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original. There are no third-party intended beneficiaries of this Agreement. This Agreement represents the contributions of both parties, each of whom has had the opportunity to be represented by competent counsel, and the rule stated in Civil Code Section 1654 that ambiguities in a contract be construed against the drafter shall have no application hereto.

29. SIGNATURES. The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the right, power, legal capacity, and authority to enter into and to execute this Agreement on behalf of the respective legal entities of the Developer and the City. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Developer do hereby agree to the full performance of the terms set forth herein.
109
Agenda Item # 5.

CITY OF LOS ALTOS – IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
5150 ECR
8 Improvement (2024)

CITY OF LOS ALTOS LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
5150 ECR, LLC
_______________________ __________________________
By: Gabe Engeland By: Don Peterson
Title: City Manager Title: Vice President
Date: ________________ Date: _________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_______________________
By: Jolie Houston
Title: City Attorney
110
Agenda Item # 5.

CITY OF LOS ALTOS – IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
5150 ECR
9 Improvement (2024)

EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
The land referred to is situated in the County of Santa Clara, City of Los Altos, State of California, and is described as follows:

Lot 18 in Block 4, as shown on that certain Map entitled, “Map No. 1 of the Town of Los Altos”, which Map was filed for record in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, on October 25, 1907, in Book “L” of Maps, at Page(s) 99.

EXCEPTING THEREFROM: that portion granted to The City of Los Altos, a Municipal Corporation, recorded on November 19, 1970 in Book 9127 of Official Records, at Page 563, under Recorder’s Series Number 3907414.

APN: 167-38-061
111
Agenda Item # 5.

CITY OF LOS ALTOS – IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
5150 ECR
10 Improvement (2024)

EXHIBIT B

CONDITIONS OF APPORVAL
112
Agenda Item # 5.

CITY OF LOS ALTOS – IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
5150 ECR
11 Improvement (2024) 113
Agenda Item # 5.

CITY OF LOS ALTOS – IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
5150 ECR
12 Improvement (2024) 114
Agenda Item # 5.

CITY OF LOS ALTOS – IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
5150 ECR
13 Improvement (2024) 115
Agenda Item # 5.

CITY OF LOS ALTOS – IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
5150 ECR
14 Improvement (2024) 116
Agenda Item # 5.

CITY OF LOS ALTOS – IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
5150 ECR
15 Improvement (2024) 117
Agenda Item # 5.

CITY OF LOS ALTOS – IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
5150 ECR
16 Improvement (2024) 118
Agenda Item # 5.

CITY OF LOS ALTOS – IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
5150 ECR
17 Improvement (2024) 119
Agenda Item # 5.

CITY OF LOS ALTOS – IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
5150 ECR
18 Improvement (2024) 120
Agenda Item # 5.

CITY OF LOS ALTOS – IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
5150 ECR
19 Improvement (2024) 121
Agenda Item # 5.
20 Improvement(2024-X)

EXHIBIT C

LABOR CODE PROVISONS

1. This Agreement is subject to all applicable requirements of Chapter 1 of Part 7 of Division 2 of the Labor Code, including requirements pertaining to wages, working hours and workers’ compensation insurance.

2. The Work is subject to the prevailing wage requirements applicable to the locality in which the Work is to be performed for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to perform the Work, including employer payments for health and welfare, pension, vacation, apprenticeship and similar purposes. Copies of these prevailing rates are available online at http://www.dir.ca.gov/DLSR.

3. Developer shall not enter into a contract with a contractor for the performance of the Work unless the contractor and its subcontractors are registered with the California Department of Industrial Relations to perform public work under Labor Code Section 1725.5, subject to limited legal exceptions.
122
Agenda Item # 5.
21 Improvement(2024-X)

EXHIBIT D

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Developer’s performance of Work under this agreement shall not commence until Developer shall have obtained all insurance required under this Exhibit and such insurance shall have been reviewed and approved by the Risk Manager. All requirements herein provided shall appear either in the body of the insurance policies or as endorsements and shall specifically bind the insurance carrier.

Developer shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract all necessary insurance against claims now and in the future for alleged injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Work by the Developer, the Contractor it’s agents, representatives, employees and contractors.

INSURANCE COVERAGE AND LIMITS RESTRICTIONS

1. It shall be a requirement under this agreement that any available insurance proceeds broader than or in excess of the specified minimum insurance coverage requirements and/or limits shall be available to the additional insured. Furthermore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this agreement; or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured; whichever is greater.

2. The limits of insurance required in this agreement may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-contributory basis for the benefit of the City before the City’s own insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured.

A. MINIMUM SCOPE OF INSURANCE
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:

1. Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage:
a. Blanket contractual liability
b. Broad form property coverage
c. Personal injury

2. Insurance Services Office form covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto).

3. Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer’s Liability insurance.

4. Such other insurance coverages and limits as may be required by the City.

B. MINIMUM LIMITS OF INSURANCE
Developer shall maintain limits no less than:

1. General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage and a $2,000,000 aggregate. If Commercial General Liability insurance or other form with a general aggregate liability is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this agreement or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.

2. Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.

3. Employer’s Liability:

Bodily Injury by Accident - $1,000,000 each accident.

Bodily Injury by Disease - $1,000,000 policy limit.

Bodily Injury by Disease - $1,000,000 each employee.
123
Agenda Item # 5.

CITY OF LOS ALTOS – IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
5150 ECR
22 Improvement (2024)

4. Such other insurance coverages and limits as may be required by the City of.

C. DEDUCTIBLES AND SELF-INSURED RETENTIONS

1. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City of.

At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City of **CITY**, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers; or the Developer shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claims administration and defense expenses.

2. Policies containing any self-insured retention (SIR) provision shall provide or be endorsed to provide that the SIR may be satisfied by either the named insured or the City.

3. The City reserves the right to obtain a full certified copy of any insurance policy and endorsement. Failure to exercise this right shall not constitute a waiver of the right to exercise later.

D. ADDITIONAL INSURED REQUIREMENTS:

The required general liability and automobile policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain the following provisions:
a. The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds as respects alleged: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Developer; products and completed operations of the Developer; premises owned, occupied or used by the Developer; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Developer. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers.
b. Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers.
c. The Developer’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom a claim is made or suit is brought except, with respect to the limits of the insurer’s liability.
d. Developer shall furnish properly executed Certificates of Insurance from insurance companies acceptable to the City and signed copies of the specified endorsements for each policy prior to commencement of work under this agreement. Such documentation shall clearly evidence all coverages required above including specific evidence of separate endorsements naming the City and shall provide that such insurance shall not be materially changed, terminated or allowed to expire except after 30 days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been filed with the City Clerk.

Such insurance shall be maintained from the time work first commences until completion of the work under this agreement. Developer shall replace such certificates for policies expiring prior to completion of work under this agreement.

E. ACCEPTABILITY OF INSURERS
Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A: VII.

F. COMPLETED OPERATIONS
Developer shall maintain insurance as required by this contract to the fullest amount allowed by law and shall maintain insurance for a minimum of five years following the completion of this project. In the event the Developer fails to obtain or maintain completed operations coverage as required by this 124
Agenda Item # 5.

CITY OF LOS ALTOS – IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
5150 ECR
23 Improvement (2024)
agreement, the City at its sole discretion may purchase the coverage required and the cost will be paid by the Developer.

G. CROSS-LIABILITY
The Liability policy shall include a cross-liability or severability of interest endorsement.

H. FAILURE TO MAINTAIN INSURANCE COVERAGE
If Developer, for any reason, fails to maintain insurance coverage, which is required pursuant to this Agreement, the same shall be deemed a material breach of contract. The City, at its sole option, may terminate this agreement and obtain damages from the Developer resulting from said breach.

Alternatively, the City may purchase such required insurance coverage, and Developer shall reimburse the City for any premium costs advanced by the City for such insurance.

I. PRIMARY AND NON-CONTRIBUTORY
For any claims related to this project, the Developer’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or selfinsurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers shall be in excess of the Developer’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.

The additional insured coverage under the Developer’s policy shall be primary and non-contributory” and will not seek contribution from the City’s insurance or self-insurance and shall be at least as broad as CG 20 01 04 13.

J. SUBCONTRACTORS
Developer shall require its contractors to maintain the same levels of insurance and provide the same indemnity that the Developer is required to provide under this Agreement. A contractor is anyone who is under contract with the Developer or any of its contractors to perform work contemplated by this Agreement. The Developer shall require all contractors to provide evidence of valid insurance and the required endorsements prior to the commencement of any work.

K. SUBROGATION WAIVER
Developer agrees to waive subrogation rights against City regardless of the applicability of any insurance proceeds, and to require all Contractors, subcontractors or others involved in any way with the services to do likewise.

L. VERIFICATION OF COVERAGE
Developer shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before the services commence.
125
Agenda Item # 5.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: September 10, 2024
Prepared By: Nick Zornes
Approved By: Jolie Houston
Subject: Resolution Suspending Enforcement of Los Altos Reach Codes

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

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Los Altos suspending enforcement of the City of Los Altos Municipal Code, local laws and regulations imposing all-electric requirements for new construction or otherwise prohibiting use or installation of gas appliances contained within City of Los Altos Municipal Code Title 12 and find that this action is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061 of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City of Los Altos for the preparation of this report and resolution.

However, should the City of Los Altos not suspend the enforcement of Reach Codes as described within the Draft Resolution the City is susceptible to legal challenge given the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit conclusion in the California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkley, 89 F.4th 1094 (9th Cir. 2024) case.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061 of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
November 29, 2022, City Council adoption of the existing Title 12 regulations.

BACKGROUND
On November 29, 2022, the City Council adopted the existing Title 12 regulations which, among other things, established the City’s Reach Codes with various requirements for electrification of development within the City. In general, the enactment of Title 12, the exiting building code 126
Agenda Item # 6.
regulations within the City go above and beyond in various areas to further require additional electrification greater than the standard requirements established in the 2022 California Building Codes (CBC 2022).

The City Council adopted these all-electric building requirements in accordance with the City’s sustainability goals and policy plans, and by recommendation of the Los Altos Environmental Commission. The City drafted the existing regulations contained within Title 12, based on the 2020 Los Altos Reach Codes which were previously in effect, and the new 2022 California Building Codes. Initially the City planned to go beyond the existing regulations in place today dependent upon a comprehensive Cost Effectiveness Analysis from Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) however, the comprehensive Analysis was never produced and subsequently the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded Reach Codes to prohibit the use of gas fuel is preempted under the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA).

LEGAL CHALLENGE TO REACH CODES
In July 2019, the City of Berkeley City Council adopted Ordinance No. 7,672—Prohibition of Natural Gas Infrastructure in New Buildings, which, subject to some exceptions, prohibited natural gas infrastructure in newly constructed buildings in the City of Berkeley. By its own terms, the ordinance sought to “eliminate obsolete natural gas infrastructure and associated greenhouse gas emissions in new buildings thereby reducing the environmental and health hazards produced by the consumption and transportation of natural gas.” In November 2019, the California Restaurant Association (CRA), an association of restaurant owners and chefs, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (“District Court”) against the City of Berkeley alleging that Berkeley’s ordinance banning natural gas infrastructure in new buildings is unenforceable because it is preempted by EPCA.

The District Court dismissed the lawsuit based on its finding that the EPCA did not preempt Berkeley’s ordinance banning natural gas infrastructure in new buildings because the ordinance did not directly regulate or mandate any particular type of product or appliance and its impact on consumer products was at best indirect. The CRA appealed the District Court’s ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s ruling and held that Berkeley’s ordinance is preempted by the EPCA.

In its decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the EPCA expressly preempts state and local regulations, including building codes, concerning the energy use of covered natural gas appliances, and that the EPCA preemption applies to regulations addressing the appliances themselves and building codes that concern the use of natural gas. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stated further that “by enacting [the] EPCA, Congress ensured that states and localities could not prevent consumers from using covered products in their homes, kitchens, and businesses.”
As a result of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision, the City of Berkeley settled the lawsuit, has repealed their gas ban ordinance, and decided not to seek further review of the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court due to the potential effects that could be rendered by the high court which would extend beyond the Ninth Circuit.
127
Agenda Item # 6.

ANALYSIS
The Los Altos Municipal Code sections 12.22.010 and 12.22.020 expressly regulate or impose all-electric requirements on new construction of single-family residences, multi-family residences, with exceptions for cooking and fireplaces, and for non-profit restaurants. Therefore, under the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the Berkeley case, these code sections as adopted today are preempted by the EPCA.

DISCUSSION
As mentioned above, the existing Los Altos Municipal Code Title 12 leaves the City of Los Altos susceptible to legal challenge given the conclusion of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On July 29, 2024, the City of Los Altos received a letter from the law firm which represents the California Restaurant Association which is the group who formally challenged the City of Berkeley gas ban ordinance. Upon review of the Los Altos Municipal Code Title 12 it was found that the City of Los Altos ordinance is functionally indistinguishable from Berkeley’s Ordinance and is therefore preempted. The letter further requests the City of Los Altos to informally and amicably resolve this issue, which is why the draft resolution to suspend the all-electric requirements is before the City Council.

On August 14, 2024, the Los Altos Environmental Commission Electrification Sub-Committee presented recommendations to the Commission on methods to accelerate building electrification.

Among other recommendations, the Environmental Commission Sub-Committee recognized that the 2022 Reach Codes are not enforceable due to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals conclusion.

Furthermore, beyond other methods of accelerating electrification which will be covered in another item before the City Council the Environmental Commission unanimously recommends waiting for the New California Building Codes in 2025 before making further regulatory changes at the local level. By virtue of the Environmental Commission recommendations a formal suspension of the 2022 Reach Codes is consistent with local electrification policy recommendations of the community representatives.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Resolution
128
Agenda Item # 6.
-1-

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

SUSPENDING ENFORCEMENT OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS MUNICIPAL CODE,

LOCAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS IMPOSING ALL-ELECTRIC REQUIREMENTS

FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION OR OTHERWISE PROHIBITING USE OR

INSTALLATION OF GAS APPLIANCES CONTAINED WITHIN CITY OF LOS ALTOS MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 12
WHEREAS, on November 29, 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2022-487 which, among other things, established the City’s first all-electric requirements for new construction; and
WHEREAS, subject to few exceptions, Los Altos Municipal Code (LAMC) Sections

12.22.010 and 12.22.020, enacted by and through Ordinance No. 2022-487, impose all-electric requirements on new construction of single-family residences, multi-family residences, with exceptions for cooking and fireplaces, and for non-profit restaurants. Opportunities to apply for exceptions were also available for non-residential buildings, laboratories and public buildings; and WHEREAS, since the enactment of LAMC Sections 12.22.010 and 12.22.020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded in California Restaurant Association v. City of Berkley, 89 F.4th 1094 (9th Cir. 2024) that the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. §6297(c)), expressly preempts State and local regulations, including building codes, concerning the energy use of covered natural gas appliances and stated that the Energy Policy and Conservation Act preemption applies to regulations addressing the appliances themselves and building codes that concern the use of natural gas; and
WHEREAS, because LAMC Sections 12.22.010 and 12.22.020 expressly regulate the use of gas appliances covered by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, the City Council finds that suspending enforcement of these LAMC Sections and any local regulations implementing these LAMC Sections or otherwise prohibiting use or installation of gas appliances contained within Title 12 is necessary in light of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the California Restaurant Association case.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Los Altos does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF CERTAIN LAMC SECTIONS. The City Council suspends enforcement of the LAMC Title 12 and any local laws and regulations imposing all-electric requirements or otherwise prohibiting use or installation of gas appliances, including, but not limited to, LAMC Sections 12.22.010 and 12.22.020.

This suspension shall apply to all applications for building permits or other development project entitlements including, without limitation, pending applications, new applications, requests for modification of pending applications, and requests for modification of previously issued permits or entitlements.

SECTION 2. CONSTITUTIONALITY; AMBIGUITIES. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Resolution is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, 129
Agenda Item # 6.
-2-
such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof. Any ambiguities in the Los Altos Municipal Code created by this Resolution shall be resolved by the Director of Development Services, in their reasonable discretion, after consulting the City Attorney.

SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Jonathan D. Weinberg, MAYOR
Attest:
_____________________________
Melissa Thurman, CITY CLERK
130
Agenda Item # 6.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: September 10, 2024
Prepared By: Manny A. Hernandez
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: Operating Budget Increase for Fiscal Year 2024/25 for Maintenance Services and Agreement Award: Roadway Median and Shoulder Maintenance Services

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

RECOMMENDATION
1) Allocate additional funding in the amount of $131,000 into fiscal year 2024/25 Parks & Recreation operating budget for the median and roadway shoulder maintenance agreement.
2) Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Del Conte’s Landscaping in the amount not to exceed $208,116 annually for median and roadway shoulder maintenance.

FISCAL IMPACT
The following action will increase the general fund operating budget for median maintenance in fiscal year 2024/25 an additional $131,000. The median maintenance agreement will not exceed $208,116.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Categorically Exempt pursuant to CEQA section 15301 – Existing Facilities consisting of the operation, or minor alteration of existing public structures and facilities involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
None
131
Agenda Item # 7.

BACKGROUND
City Maintenance staff maintains roadway medians and shoulders on Los Altos roadways and County of Santa Clara owned Foothill Expressway. The Parks Maintenance Division deploys a four-person crew to handle landscape on medians, shoulders, pathways, easements and all downtown landscaping. Maintaining road adjacent landscaping is time consuming and challenging with the limited hours allowed for lane closures, proper lane closure procedure and the precautions that need to be adhered to when working adjacent to vehicular traffic.

Evaluating the workload of the 4-person Boulevard Crew, staff concluded that some of the locations they oversee would be better maintained under contracted maintenance services. This would allow the boulevard crew to focus on areas that have a more intricate planting schedule such as downtown and San Antonio Road. It would also give the crew more opportunity to stay on top of the maintenance of the many resident-adjacent easements that see rapid weed growth and require non-chemical abatement.

ANALYSIS
Using a combination of staff and professional contracts to maintain City landscape is common among public agencies. City of Los Altos Parks & Recreation staff evaluated the roadway median and shoulders that have proved to be challenging to keep at a high level of maintenance and selected five (5) areas to maintain under a maintenance contract. The roadway median and shoulder areas that are being proposed for contracted maintenance are the following.  Foothill Expressway (Blue Oak Lane to Cristo Rey Drive)  Medians and City of Los Altos side shoulder on Homestead Rd and Grant Rd  Medians on South El Monte Ave. (Viola Place and Voorhees Dr.)  Hetch Hetchy pedestrian path shoulders (Via Del Pozo to Adobe Creek bridge)  Medians and shoulders on Fremont Ave. (Grant Rd. to Stevens Creek crossing) Foothill expressway is County of Santa Clara property that is City maintained under an ongoing Landscape Agreement between the City of Los Altos and the County. With the pesticide restrictions set forth by the County on the expressway, it is very time consuming and takes a large number of man-hours to control the weeds, maintain irrigation and prune the oleanders and trees in a regular manner with the current staffing numbers. Being a large and highly visible area, staff feels that having a contractor maintain Foothill will keep the medians and shoulders better maintained year-round due to the attention it would receive.

The Homestead median area is a high traffic location where crews spend a lot of time repairing and re-planting as vehicles regularly damage the landscape. Landscaping repairs are needed in that location due to gopher damage as well. South El Monte medians also see a lot of crew hours for weed control, trash pick-up and plant maintenance.

Hetch Hetchy pedestrian pathway is at the far north end of Los Altos and has ample open space for weeds to grow quickly, many times encroaching on the pathway before crews are scheduled to deploy to that area. Foxtail weeds are prevalent on the Hetch Hetchy pathway and are troublesome to pathway users and their pets. Non-chemical control of these weeds is important in this welltraveled pathway through Los Altos. 132
Agenda Item # 7.

Fremont Avenue is a two-lane road between Grant and the 85 highway that sees high traffic at times. There are trees, irrigation and mixed landscaping to maintain in that area.

DISCUSSION
In the budget submitted by Parks & Recreation for contracted maintenance of roadway medians and shoulders for fiscal year 2024/25, staff was planning contracted maintenance only on Foothill Expressway and estimated $78,000 for that agreement. After further consideration of maintenance efficiencies, expectation of maintenance levels and changes in Park Maintenance staffing levels in 2024/25, staff is proposing including the above areas for contracted maintenance at and additional cost of $131,000. The use of contracted landscape maintenance in the proposed areas is expected to provide a higher level of maintenance in those areas and allow the Boulevard Crew to continue to maintain downtown and all other medians, shoulders and easements in Los Altos at the highest levels without the need to hire additional maintenance staff or purchase additional vehicles and equipment.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution Authorizing 2024/25 Operating Budget Increase and Award of Maintenance Services Agreement.
133
Agenda Item # 7.

Resolution No. 2024- Page 1
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS INCREASING THE 2024/25 PARKS AND RECREATION GENERAL FUND OPERATING BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $131,000 FOR CONTRACTED

MAINTENANCE SERVICES

AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY WITH DEL CONTE’S LANDSCAPING IN THE
AMOUNT OF $208,116 ANNUALLY FOR ROADWAY MEDIAN AND

SHOULDER MAINTENANCE
WHEREAS, the City utilizes contract services as part of the city-wide maintenance plan for parks, trees, easements and roadway medians; and
WHEREAS, proper roadway median and shoulder landscape maintenance is important for vehicular safety and general aesthetics of the City; and WHEREAS, the medians and shoulder areas recommended for contractual maintenance are areas that staff feels will have the most positive impact on overall city maintenance and maintenance crews; and
WHEREAS, the Del Conte’s Landscaping has provided good quality landscape maintenance services for other public agencies and private companies under similar agreements; and
WHEREAS, On August 8, 2024, five (5) proposals were received for the Median and Shoulder Maintenance Services Request for Bids and Del Conte’s Landscaping submitted the low and responsive bid to provide these services.

WHEREAS, the proposed work is exempt from environmental review pursuant to section 15301 of the state guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as the proposed Existing Facilities consisting of the operation, or minor alteration of existing public structures and facilities involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Los Altos hereby authorizes the increase in the Parks & Recreation operating budget in the amount of $131,000 for contracted maintenance services AND authorizes the City Manager to execute an agreement, on behalf of the City, with Del Conte’s Landscaping for roadway median and shoulder maintenance services totaling $208,116 annually for a full agreement term of up to 5 years.

Resolution No. 2024- Page 2
ATTACHMENT 1
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Jonathan Weinberg, MAYOR
Attest:
_____________________________
Melissa Thurman, CITY CLERK
135
Agenda Item # 7.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: September 10, 2024
Prepared By: Kathryn Krauss
Approved By: Gabriel Engeland
Subject: Re-adoption of the Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP), including Volume 1 and the Los Altos Annex

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

RECOMMENDATION
Re-adopt a Resolution accepting the Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP), including Volume 1 and the Los Altos Annex. The resolution for this item was not included in the 08.27.24 packet and is attached to this report.

FISCAL IMPACT
Not Applicable

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not Applicable

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
January 9, 2018
August 27, 2024

DISCUSSION
Hazard mitigation involves the use of long-term and short-term policies, programs, projects, and other activities to alleviate the death, injury, and property damage that can result from a disaster.

Santa Clara County and a partnership of local governments and special districts within the county have developed a Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) to reduce risks from natural disasters in the Santa Clara County Operational Area (OA)—defined as the unincorporated county and incorporated jurisdictions within the geographical boundaries of the county. The plan reaffirms the planning partners commitment to implementing cost-effective, environmentally sound, technically feasible mitigation actions. It also complies with federal and 136
Agenda Item # 8.
state hazard mitigation planning requirements to establish eligibility for funding under Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grant programs.

The whole community of the Santa Clara County OA—including individual and families, businesses, community and nonprofit organizations, schools and academia, and all levels of government—is the ultimate beneficiary of this MJHMP. Implementing the plan will reduce risk for those who live in, work in, and visit the OA. The plan provides a viable planning framework for natural hazards of concern for the area. Participation in development of the plan by key stakeholders helped ensure outcomes will be mutually beneficial. The resources and background information in the plan are applicable across the OA, and the plan’s goals and recommendations can lay the groundwork for the development and implementation of local mitigation activities and partnerships for years to come.

Hazard mitigation plans are updated on a five-year cycle. A jurisdiction or special district covered by a plan that has expired is not able to pursue elements of federal funding under the Robert T. Stafford Act for which a current hazard mitigation plan is a prerequisite. Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR) stipulates that hazard mitigation plans must present a schedule for monitoring, evaluating, and updating the plan. This provides an opportunity to reevaluate recommendations, monitor the impacts of actions that have been completed, and determine if there is a need to change the focus of mitigation strategies. This update meets the requirements for hazard mitigation plans in order to maintain the eligibility for federal grant funding for Planning Participants.

Additionally, on April 19, 2022, FEMA updated the Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide. This means that all plans updated and approved after April 19, 2023, must adhere to the new mitigation planning policy requirements. The 2023 update of the Santa Clara MJHMP has incorporated all changes and is in compliance with all elements of the updated Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide. The Santa Clara County Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan is one of the only MJHMPs in the state to incorporate the updated guidance.

In 2022, Santa Clara County reconvened the planning team and a consultant was hired to support the planning process. This allowed participants to focus on ongoing hazard events including multiple atmospheric rivers and a winter storm while ensuring that mitigation planning effort continued moving forward. The Core Planning Team invited stakeholders from each jurisdiction to participate in a series of planning meetings on each of the components of the planning process. After each meeting, planning partners had the opportunity to add their input through forms such as Capability Assessment, Risk Assessment and Mitigation Project Worksheet. The Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Planning Team for Los Altos was made up of the following personnel:
 Kathryn Krauss, City of Los Altos, Captain of Operations, Police Department  Vency Woo, City of Los Altos, Management Analyst
 Irene Silipin, City of Los Altos, HR Manager
 Marisa Lee, City of Los Altos, Transportation Services Manager  Veronica Tinoco, City of Los Altos, Building Official 137
Agenda Item # 8.
 Stephanie Williams, City of Los Altos, Planning Services Manager/ Floodplain Manager  Franklin Wong, City of Los Altos, Public Works. CIP Manager  Vivian Chu, City of Los Altos, Finance Manager
 Manny Hernandez, City of Los Altos, Parks and Rec Director  Jon Maginot, City of Los Altos, Assistant City Manager  Angela Averiett, City of Los Altos, Police Chief
 June DU, City of Los Altos, Finance Director
 Sonia Lee, City of Los Altos, Public Information Officer  Nick Zornes, City of Los Altos, Development Services Director  Brian Glass, City of Los Altos, Assistant Fire Chief
The opportunity for public participation was an important step of the hazard mitigation planning process. For this plan update, the Core Planning Team developed and implemented a whole community, multi-lingual, in-person, and virtual approach to public outreach. Since the County was already working on updating the County’s Safety Element, which includes different but similar hazard risk and disaster response and recovery considerations, the two planning teams collaborated to share information on this Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP).

Two in-person listening sessions were held and one virtual town hall meeting was held to inform the public about the Safety Element and MJHMP update and to garner feedback about hazards of concern and levels of preparedness in the community.

The Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) was also being updated simultaneously with the MJHMP, and the two project teams collaborated to share information.

Four in- person meetings were held to share information about the CWPP and MJHMP and solicit feedback from the public about the plans.

The County and planning partners also requested public participation through a digital survey posted on the Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Management’s website available in English, Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Tagalog. This survey received almost 600 responses. Finally, the public was provided the opportunity to review and provide input on the draft MJHMP.

Once the MJHMP is adopted by all the jurisdictional partners and approved by FEMA, the partnership will collectively and individually become eligible to apply for hazard mitigation project funding from both the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program (PDM) and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). Upon adoption of Volume 1 and the City of Los Altos Annex of the MJHMP and subsequent approval of said plan by CALOES and FEMA, the City will be eligible to apply to apply for specified grants mentioned above. The grant funds are made available to states and local governments and can be used to implement the long-term hazard mitigation measures specified within the City of Los Altos annex of the MJHMP before and after a major disaster declaration. The MJPMP is considered a living document such that, as awareness of additional hazards develops and new strategies and projects are conceived to offset or prevent 138
Agenda Item # 8.
losses due to natural disasters, the MJHMP will be evaluated and revised on a continual 5-year time frame.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution Adopting Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
The Final Draft Volume I Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (MJHMP) and City of Los Altos Annex Draft Volume II MJHMP were included in the 08.27.24 meeting packet and can be accessed at:
https://www.losaltosca.gov/citycouncil/page/city-council-meeting-192 139
Agenda Item # 8.

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS

ADOPTING VOLUME I AND THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS ANNEX WITHIN VOLUME II OF THE 2023 SANTA CLARA COUNTY MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN AS THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS’ LOCAL HAZARD

MITIGATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the Bay Area is subject to various earthquake-related hazards such as ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, fault surface rupture, and tsunamis; and WHEREAS, the Bay Area is subject to various weather-related hazards including wildfires, floods, and landslides; and
WHEREAS, the City of Los Altos recognizes that disasters do not recognize city, county, or special district boundaries; and
WHEREAS, the City of Los Altos seeks to maintain and enhance a disaster-resilient region by reducing the potential loss of life, property damage, and environmental degradation from natural disasters, while accelerating economic recovery from those disasters; and WHEREAS, the City of Los Altos is committed to increasing the disaster resilience of the infrastructure, health, housing, economy, government services, education, environment, and land use systems in the Santa Clara County as a whole; and WHEREAS, the federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires all cities, counties, and special districts to have adopted a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan to receive disaster mitigation funding from FEMA; and
WHEREAS, in June 2022, the Santa Clara County Emergency Operational Area Council initiated a hazard mitigation planning process that was guided by a 19-member coalition of partner agencies, including Santa Clara County, 15 city and town governments, the Santa Clara County Fire District, Valley Water, and the Valley Transportation Authority; and WHEREAS, the result of this effort is a two-volume Santa Clara County MultiJurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Plan (“SCC MJHMP”), a multi-hazard mitigation plan; and WHEREAS, upon adoption of the SCC MJHMP Volume I and City of Los Altos Annex within Volume II and the subsequent approval of said plan by FEMA and Cal OES, the City of Los Altos will be eligible to apply for and potentially receive specified grants; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Los Altos adopts Volume I and the City of Los Altos’ Annex to the 2023 Santa Clara County Multijurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan as the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. 140
Agenda Item # 8.

Page 2 of 2 ends

The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Los altos City Council held on the 10th day of September 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
______________________________
Jonathan D. Weinberg
Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Melissa Thurman, MMC
City Clerk
141
Agenda Item # 8.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: September 10, 2024
Prepared By: Manny A. Hernandez
Approved By: Gabriel Engeland
Subject: Adopt a Resolution awarding the construction contract for the Lincoln Park Drinking Fountains Project CF-01030 to EPS, Inc. of San Mateo, California as the lowest responsible bidder submitting a responsive bid with a Base Bid amount not-to-exceed $98,000, and up to 15% contingency, if needed, in the amount not-to-exceed $14,700, for a total construction amount notto-exceed $112,700.

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

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a construction contract with EPS, Inc. dba Express Plumbing of San Mateo, California in an amount not-to-exceed $98,000, and up to 15% contingency not-to-exceed $14,700, for a total amount not-to-exceed $112,700, to complete the Lincoln Park Drinking Fountains project.

FISCAL IMPACT
The construction will be the Base Bid in the amount not-to-exceed $98,000, and up to 15% contingency, if needed, in the amount not-to-exceed $14,700 for a total amount not-to-exceed $112,700.

The funding sources for the construction contract include:
 $180,000 approved budget for CF-01030 from funding source In-Lieu Park Fund.  $40,000 Grant from Los Altos Rotary Endowment Fund
Funds already encumbered to the project:
 BKF Engineers (Design services) $16,816
 Ferguson, Inc. (Drinking fountains) $20,538.68
142
Agenda Item # 9.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to section 15301 of the state guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as the proposed project is consisting of exterior alterations involving such things as plumbing conveyances.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
None

BACKGROUND
The FY 23/24 Capital Improvement and Major Maintenance Program included Project CF-01030 which intends to provide new drinking fountains at various park locations throughout the City that include bottle fillers and dog bowl fountains. Lincoln Park was identified to receive two new drinking fountains based on programmed uses and a $40,000 funding grant from the Rotary Club of Los Altos. Staff worked with the Rotary Club of Los Altos to select drinking fountain products that would meet the needs of Rotarians, City staff and the community. Staff and Rotary Club members also worked together to identify suitable locations for the new drinking fountains.

ANALYSIS
The construction contract includes the sewer and water utilities and connections. It also includes installing the drinking fountains, which were purchased by the City. Engineered plans were completed and permitted by BKF Engineers in Summer of 2024. Staff released the construction documents for public bidding on July 18, 2024, posting the project to the City of Los Altos Request for Bids webpage. A Notice to Contractors was published in the Los Altos Town Crier on July 24 and July 31, 2024. A pre-bid conference was held on August 07, 2024 at the project site with two (2) contractors in attendance. Nine (9) sealed bids were received on August 14, 2024 and read aloud in the Los Altos Council Chambers. The Engineer’s Estimate was $110,000. The Base Bid includes all critical improvements necessary to complete the project. The EPS, Inc. bid was 89% of the Engineer’s Estimate.

DISCUSSION
EPS, Inc. dba Express Plumbing of San Mateo submitted the lowest responsive proposal in the amount of $98,000 for the specified plumbing and installation of the drinking fountains at Lincoln Park. With a $14,700 construction contingency, the full cost of plumbing and installation will not exceed $112,700.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. ####

2. Los Altos Rotary Endowment Fund Letter dated June 22, 2023 143
Agenda Item # 9.

Resolution No. 2024-__ Page 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 EPS, INC. FOR LINCOLN PARK DRINKING FOUNTAINS PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $98,000 AND UP TO 15% CONTINGENCY FUNDS NOT-TO-EXCEED $14,700
WHEREAS, the proposed project, which consists of providing sewer and water utilities and installing two drinking fountains (furnished by the City); and WHEREAS, EPS, Inc. was the lowest responsible, responsive bidder for the Project; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to section 15301 of the state guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as the proposed project is consisting of exterior alterations involving such things as plumbing conveyances.

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 $98,000 and up to 15% contingency funds not-toexceed $14,700 to perform the Lincoln Park Drinking Fountains Project.

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

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Jonathan D. Weinberg, MAYOR
Attest:
__________________________________
Melissa Thurman, MMC
City Clerk
144
Agenda Item # 9.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: September 10, 2024
Prepared By: Nick Zornes
Approved By: Gabriel Engeland
Subject: Appeal the Approval of Tree Removal Permit (24-0062) for twenty-five (25) Apricot Trees located behind the Los Altos Police Department at 1 N. San Antonio Road.

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

RECOMMENDATION
Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Development Services Department to allow the removal of twenty-five (25) apricot trees in the secured rear yard of the Los Altos Police Department at 1 N. San Antonio Road.

FISCAL IMPACT
Not Applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
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.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Not Applicable.

BACKGROUND
On June 25, 2024, the Los Altos History Museum requested a Tree Removal Permit for twentyfive (25) apricot trees in the secured rear yard area of the Los Altos Police Department located at 1 N. San Antonio Road. The Permit was granted as requested with no modifications. As a part of the request a 2:1 ratio for replacement of trees was required by the Development Services Director.

On June 28, 2024, Mary Lion filed an Appeal of Administrative Decision, which was completed and accompanied by additional documentation (Attachment 5) by Catherine Nunes, Mary Cunneen 145
Agenda Item # 10.

Lion, and Alice Mansell. The basis of appeal was outlined with five (5) main points which are documented in Attachment 5 of this Agenda Item.

APPLICANTS APPEAL – REASON FOR APPEAL

1. Permit applicant, History Museum without legal authority to pull permits on this property.

2. Permit failure to provide adequate justification for removal of trees and loss of tree sites in this location.

3. Failure of permit and approval process to recognize the historical standing of the property, tree and tree sites.

4. Permit review process and decision not compliant with the City’s planning, environmental and preservation process.

5. Permit and entitlement approval for removal of both trees and tree sites by the City constitutes “demolition by neglect”.

ANALYSIS
The Los Altos Municipal Code Chapter 11.08, Tree Protection Regulations, establishes standards for proper tree removal and replacement, preservation and protection during construction.

Pursuant to the Los Altos Municipal Code (LAMC) Section 11.08.100 – Determination on permit:

A. Criteria. Each application for a tree removal permit shall be reviewed and determined based on the following tree removal criteria:

1. The tree is dead, in poor health (as defined in the most recent edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal), or has a risk rating of moderate, high, or extreme which cannot be mitigated through sound arboricultural practices to a low-risk rating.

2. The tree species is identified as an invasive or undesirable species (as defined by list on file with the development services department).

3. The tree is interfering or will interfere with a utility, public transportation, waterway, or other public infrastructure system.

4. The tree is causing damage to an enclosed structure which cannot be mitigated in another way.

5. Preservation of the tree will impede the use of real property and no reasonable or feasible alternative (as determined by the development services director) exists to preserve the tree in the current location.

B. Additional recommendations. The approval authority may refer the application to another department, commission or person for a report and recommendation. The approval authority may also require the applicant to furnish a written report from an independent certified arborist acceptable to the approval authority; such report shall be obtained at the expense of the applicant.

C. Action. Based on the criteria outlined in subsection A of this section, the approval authority shall either approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application. Conditions of approval may require any of the following:

1. One or more replacement trees be planted as outlined in section 11.08.120 Tree Replacement Criteria;

2. Payment of an in-lieu fee in compliance with section 11.08.120; 146
Agenda Item # 10.

3. A combination of replacement trees and in-lieu fees that in total provide for the number of replacement trees as outlined in section 11.08.110.

The Tree Removal Permit was granted Pursuant to Section 11.08.100(A)(1) and (3) as all twentyfive (25) trees are infected with Brown Rot, and twenty-four (24) trees are rated to be in poor health or structure based on the most recent edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal.

DISCUSSION
The Appeal of Administrative Determination, Reason for Appeal asserts several issues that will be addressed in the following:

1. Permit applicant, History Museum without legal authority to pull permits on this property.
 The request was made initially by the History Museum in January 2024 when it was discovered that the trees in the secured area of the Los Altos Police Department are covered by fungal diseases which can be airborne spores and bacteria and risk the overall health of the nearby apricot trees that were planted in the historic orchard. Attachment 4.
 Since the trees were outside the Historic Landmark boundary and also outside of the scope of the Los Altos History Museum’s contract with the City, it was directed by the City Manager to submit a Tree Removal Permit and follow the standard process as all applicants within the City.
 Pursuant to LAMC 11.08.030, Chapter 11.08 shall apply to every owner of real property within the city and to every person responsible for removing a tree regardless of whether such person is engaged in a tree removal business.

The Association of the Los Altos Historical Museum, DBA Los Altos History Museum is an active California nonprofit public benefit corporation and is a legal entity with the authority to apply for a City permit.

2. Permit failure to provide adequate justification for removal of trees and loss of tree sites in this location.
 The request to remove trees is adequate Pursuant to Section 11.08.100 of the LAMC because it met the tree removal criteria as follows:
 All twenty-five (25) trees are infected with Brown Rot, and twenty-four (24) trees are rated to be in poor health or structure based on the most recent edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal. (Attachment 2 and 3)
o On January 22, 2007, Brown Rot and various other plant diseases were identified to be present in the Civic Center Orchard. (Attachment 7)  Based on this historic information it was determined that diseases have been present within the orchard for several years which make it increasingly more challenging to combat.

3. Failure of permit and approval process to recognize the historical standing of the property, tree and tree sites.
 Pursuant to Resolution No. 91-31, which was adopted on October 8, 1991 (Attachment 10) the Historical Landmark boundary was modified to what exists 147
Agenda Item # 10.
today which expressly excludes the secured area behind the Los Altos Police Department.
 The assertion that the permit and approval process did not recognize the historical standing of the property is incorrect and inapplicable since the tree permit was granted for an area outside of the Historic Landmark boundary.  The appellants interpretation of the Historic Orchard boundaries is incorrect. The Historic Landmark boundaries are clearly depicted in Exhibit A of Resolution No. 91-31.

4. Permit review process and decision not compliant with the City’s planning, environmental and preservation process.
 The appellants are incorrect in their assertion that the process and decision are not compliant with the City’s planning, environmental and preservation processes.  The permit review and determination were rendered in accordance with LAMC Chapter 11.08. (Attachment 6) Specifically, the tree removal permit was reviewed and approved pursuant to the criteria contained in LAMC 11.08.100.  Pursuant to LAMC Section 11.08.080(B)(1) – Approval Authority, the approval authority for tree removal shall be the Development Services Director. o Because the Tree Removal Permit request is for twenty-five (25) trees to be removed outside of the Historical Landmark boundary, the removal authority is designated to the Development Services Director.

5. Permit and entitlement approval for removal of both trees and tree sites by the City constitutes “demolition by neglect”.
 No evidence of “demolition by neglect” has been provided as a part of this appeal. (Attachment 5)

CONCLUSION
Based on the above-mentioned responses to the appellants’ Reason for Appeal and lack of substantial evidence, it is recommended that the City Council Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Development Services Department to allow the removal of twenty-five (25) apricot trees in the secured rear yard of the Police Station at 1 N. San Antonio Road.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Tree Removal Application

2. Arborist Letter

3. Plant Appraisal (Pursuant to Section 11.08.100(A)(1))

4. History Museum – January 2024 Removal Request

5. Appeal of Administrative Decision – Received June 28, 2024

6. Los Altos Municipal Code Chapter 11.08 – Tree Protection Regulations

7. January 22, 2007, Memo – Civic Center Orchard Condition

8. Resolution No. 81-23 – Designating a Historical Landmark

9. Ordinance No. 90-225 – Historic Preservation Ordinance

10. Resolution No. 91.31 – Modifying an Apricot Orchard as a Historical Landmark 148
Agenda Item # 10.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
One North San Antonio Road ♦ Los Altos, California 94022 Telephone: (650) 947-2750

TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
REMOVAL OF (25) APRICOT TREES IN THE REAR
YARD OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AT 1 SAN

ANTONIO RD
Date Approved: 6/25/2024 – Date Posted: 6/26/2024
Applicant: Ken Buscho, Los Altos History Museum
Permit #: TREE24-0062
Basis for Approval (Pursuant to Section 11.08.090 LAMC):

Replacement Tree(s) & Required Conditions (Pursuant to Section

11.08.090 LAMC):

Yes – 2 to 1 street tree (or other tree species as approved by the City Manager), each replacement tree shall be a minimum 24-inch box tree.

The location of the replacement trees shall be approved by the City Manager.

Project Planner:

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ON-SITE POSTING
The standards for posting a notice of tree removal
on the site are as follows:

 The notice shall be posted between four (4) feet and six (6) feet off the ground;
 The notice shall be posted as follows:
o For trees visible from a public street, the notice shall be hung on the tree trunk in a location that is fully visible from the front or exterior side property line;
o For trees behind a fence, hedge or otherwise obscured from view from the adjacent street, the notice shall be posted on a stake, fence post or similar fixture within three (3) feet of the front or exterior side property line;
 The notice shall be posted in a way that is readily viewable from the adjacent public right of way, sidewalk, and/or street;
 The notice shall be posted for at least 10 days prior to the removal of the tree;
 The applicant must maintain the notice in a weatherproof and clearly legible manner for the 10-day appeal period.
 To document the start date of the posting, take a photo of the posted notice and email it to [email protected] with “Proof of Tree Removal Permit Posting for 1 SAN ANTONIO RD” in the subject line.

June 6, 2024
Terence Welch
Backyard Orchards
P.O. Box 2
Aptos, CA 95001
ISA Certified Arborist WE-0153A
On May 31, 2024, I inspected the apricots behind the locked gate at the Los Altos Police Station. These apricots are beyond the age where they are commercially viable, and have had both major limbs and twigs killed by Brown Rot. They are not being pruned or maintained in any way.

List of Blenheim Apricot Trees at Los Altos Police Station 5/31/2024
Tree Numbe Diameter Health Structure Comment
1 5 1 2 Newer tree
2 20 2 5
3 18 2 5
4 12 1 5
5 15 4 4
6 20 3 5
7 2 5 5 Rootstock only
8 15 1 5
9 6 5 5
10 11 5 5
11 18 5 5
12 8 4 5
13 6 5 5
14 10 3 5
15 12 3 5
16 12 4 5
17 12 2 5
18 16 2 5
19 18 4 5
20 12 4 5
21 21 4 3
22 8 2 5
23 7 3 5
24 16 4 3
25 13 5 5
See Measured at Best=1, Best=1
Satelite approx 2' Worst=5 Worst=5
Photo above grade.

DBH not
applicable
as the trees
were branched
low to the
ground
152
Agenda Item # 10.

Office of the City Manager
1 S. San Antonio Road
Los Altos CA 94022
January 26, 2024
Dear Gabe,
Los Altos History Museum is excited that we are partnering with the City to bring the Heritage Orchard back to life. It has come to our attention that the apricot trees in the locked compound behind the Police Station have been unpruned for several years. This is a concern for us in as much as it contributes to the prevalence of fungal diseases in the Heritage Orchard.

We are hereby asking the City to remove the unpruned apricot trees in the Police Compound. This recommendation is made in concert with the expert opinion of Terence Welch, the professional orchardist working with the Museum.

Because these trees are outside of the Historical Landmark, and outside of the Museum’s contract to maintain the orchard, complete removal of the trees will be a better and longer lasting solution than just a one-time pruning. Airborne spores and bacteria can spread at any time from trees in adjacent properties. The trees in the Heritage Orchard are being actively pruned and monitored repeatedly for indications of eutypa, canker and brown rot. With the recent investment by the City in new trees, we are especially anxious to provide as fungal-free of an environment as possible.

Assuming the City concurs, and makes a plan for removing those untended trees, we would like to emphasize that it is essential that woody debris from the old trees should be disposed off-site.

This recommendation is consistent with the plan for coordinated Integrated Pest Management in properties surrounding the Heritage Orchard in the Orchard Maintenance Plan.

The three apricot trees adjacent to the Friends of the Library sheds are under the care of Museum Volunteers, who are responsible for their pruning and hand watering. We do not include those three trees in our recommendation for removal.

With thanks,
Dr. Elisabeth I. Ward
Executive Director
51 South San Antonio Road
Los Altos, California 94022
www.LosAltosHistory.org
650.948.9427
The Los Altos History Museum
gathers and presents compelling
stories and artifacts that bridge the
past and the present by fostering
the creative energy of staff and
volunteers to challenge established
narratives and produce engaging
educational programs and exhibits
for the community.

Board of Directors
Larry Lang, President
Vicki Holman, 1st Vice President
Kuljeet Kalkat, 2nd Vice President
Wayne Hooper, Treasurer
Jay Thomas, Secretary
Gary Hedden, Past President
Gerri Acers Allison Aldrich
Wynn Belton Kelly Davis
Christopher Fling Tyler Furuichi
Margo Horn Janet Klinke
Kuljeet Kalkat Alex Wang
Staff
Dr. Elisabeth Ward, Executive Director
Sophia Abarca, Curator of Collections
Diane Holcomb, Director of Communications
Jordan Grealish, Exhibits Specialist
Ken Buscho, Operations Manager
Lisa Porter, Events Manager
Lillie Moore, Museum Educator
Barbara Klein, Bookkeeper
Faustino Carillo, Gardener
The Los Altos History Museum’s
legal name is the Association of
the Los Altos Historical Museum;
tax i.d. number 94-2542813. We are a
501(c)(3) organization and your gifts are tax
deductible.
153
Agenda Item # 10.
154
Agenda Item # 10.
155
Agenda Item # 10.
156
Agenda Item # 10.
157
Agenda Item # 10.
158
Agenda Item # 10.
159
Agenda Item # 10.
160
Agenda Item # 10.
161
Agenda Item # 10.

Title 11 - MISCELLANEOUS PROPERTY REGULATIONS
Chapter 11.08 TREE PROTECTION REGULATIONS
Los Altos, California, Code of Ordinances Created: 2024-07-09 13:50:52 [EST] (Supp. No. 42, Update 1)

Page 1 of 7 ends

Chapter 11.08 TREE PROTECTION REGULATIONS1

11.08.010 Purpose and intent.

The purpose of this chapter is to protect and promote the growth of a healthy and sustainable tree canopy in Los Altos. Trees in Los Altos are highly valued by the community and provide several benefits, including shade and climate resilience, habitat for wildlife, carbon sequestration and improved air quality, protection against wind and flood hazards, and aesthetic quality.

This chapter establishes standards for proper tree removal and replacement, preservation, and protection during construction.
(Ord. No. 2024-506, § 1(App. A), 2-13-2024)

11.08.020 Definitions.

The following words and phrases when used in this article shall have the meaning set forth herein, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
"Damage" means any intentional action or negligence which causes injury, death or disfigurement of a tree.

Actions include, but are not limited to, cutting, girdling, poisoning, overwatering, unauthorized relocation or transportation of a tree or trenching, excavating, altering the grade or paving within the dripline of a tree. "Certified arborist" means a person having expertise in the care and maintenance of trees, who is certified by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) or the American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA). "Development review application" means application for land alteration or development, including but not limited to tentative subdivision map, design review, variance, use permit, rezoning, planned unit development and tree removal.
"Dripline" means the outermost line of the tree's canopy projected straight down to the ground surface. As depicted in a plan view, the dripline generally appears as an irregularly shaped circle. "Heritage tree" means any tree so designated by the historical commission, based on the finding that the tree has character, interest, or value as part of the development of, and/or exemplification of, the cultural, educational, economic, agricultural, social, indigenous, or historical heritage of the city. "Native species" as defined by list on file with the development services department. "Protected tree" (See Section 11.08.040).
"Significant pruning" means the cutting or taking away of more than thirty-three (33) percent of the living foliage material (including branches) of a tree in any twelve (12) month period such that it damages a tree as determined by a certified arborist or as otherwise determined by the development services director. (See the definition for tree removal in this section.)
1 Ord. No. 2024-506, § 1(App. A), adopted Feb. 13, 2024, amended Chapter 11.08 in its entirety to read as set out herein. Former Chapter 11.08, §§ 11.08.010—11.08.140 pertained to similar subject matter, and derived from Prior code §§ 10-2.26501—10-2.26515 and Ord. 07-314 § 2 (part). 162
Agenda Item # 10.

Created: 2024-07-09 13:50:52 [EST]
(Supp. No. 42, Update 1)

Page 2 of 7 ends

"Tree" including protected tree, means a woody perennial plant characterized by having a main stem or trunk or a multi-stemmed trunk system with a more or less definitely formed crown and is usually over ten (10) feet high at maturity.
"Tree removal" means the removal of a tree, including significant pruning. (See the definition for significant pruning in this section.)
"Undesirable/invasive species" as defined by list on file with the development services department. (Ord. No. 2024-506, § 1(App. A), 2-13-2024)

11.08.030 Application of chapter.

This chapter shall apply to every owner of real property within the city and to every person responsible for removing a tree regardless of whether such person is engaged in a tree removal business. (Ord. No. 2024-506, § 1(App. A), 2-13-2024)

11.08.040 Actions prohibited.

A. It is unlawful to damage or kill any protected tree.

B. It is unlawful to remove any protected tree from private or public property in any zoning district without first obtaining a tree removal permit.
(See Section 11.08.160 for violation/penalties.)
(Ord. No. 2024-506, § 1(App. A), 2-13-2024)

11.08.050 Protected trees.

A protected tree is any of the following:

A. Any tree that is thirty-eight (38) inches in circumference (twelve (12) inches in diameter) measured at forty-eight (48) inches (four-feet) above grade;
B. Any tree of a native species that is ten (10) inches in diameter or greater measured at forty-eight (48) inches above grade;
C. Any tree designated by the historical commission as a heritage tree or any tree under official consideration by the historical commission for heritage tree designation; D. Any tree which was required by the city to be either saved or planted in conjunction with a development review application.
(Ord. No. 2024-506, § 1(App. A), 2-13-2024)

11.08.060 Heritage tree designations.

A. Applications. Applications for designation of a heritage tree may be filed by the owner of the property on which the tree is located. The city council or planning commission or zoning administrator may also, by resolution or motion, refer a proposed designation to the historical commission, or the historical commission may also consider a proposed designation upon its own initiative. Applications by property owners shall be prepared in accordance with instructions provided by the development services director. 163
Agenda Item # 10.

Created: 2024-07-09 13:50:52 [EST]
(Supp. No. 42, Update 1)

Page 3 of 7 ends

B. Study. The historical commission shall conduct a study of the proposed heritage tree, based upon such information or documentation as it may require from the applicant, the commission staff, or from other available sources.

C. Property owner notification. The historical commission shall notify the owner of the property on which the tree is located of the meeting at which the commission will consider the tree for designation. The notice shall be mailed to the recorded owner(s) as shown on the last equalized assessment roll and shall be mailed at least thirty (30) days prior to the meeting unless the property owner(s) agree in writing to a lesser notification period. Failure to receive notice shall not invalidate any proceedings under this chapter.

D. Action on designation. The historical commission may either recommend denial or approval of designation based on the criteria outlined in Section 12.44.030 of this code. (Ord. No. 2024-506, § 1(App. A), 2-13-2024)

11.08.070 Tree removal permits required.

In order to remove any protected tree, a tree removal permit must be obtained. All applications for a tree removal permit shall be prepared in accordance with instructions provided by the development services director. (Ord. No. 2024-506, § 1(App. A), 2-13-2024)

11.08.080 Approval authority.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 11.08.100 of this chapter, the approval authority for tree removal requests shall be as follows:

A. For heritage trees: the approval authority shall be the historical commission.

B. For all other protected trees:

1. The approval authority for tree removal shall be the development services director. (Ord. No. 2024-506, § 1(App. A), 2-13-2024)

11.08.090 Notification.

Once the city issues a tree removal permit, city staff or, at their discretion, the applicant, shall post notice of the decision on the application for such permit on the subject property and [it] shall be legible and visible from the public right-of-way. Such notice shall state the decision on the application and shall provide information on the appeal process pursuant to this chapter.
(Ord. No. 2024-506, § 1(App. A), 2-13-2024)

11.08.100 Determination on permit.

A. Criteria. Each application for a tree removal permit shall be reviewed and determined based on the following tree removal criteria:

Created: 2024-07-09 13:50:52 [EST]
(Supp. No. 42, Update 1)

Page 4 of 7 ends

2. The tree species is identified as an invasive or undesirable species (as defined by list on file with the development services department).

3. The tree is interfering or will interfere with a utility, public transportation, waterway, or other public infrastructure system.

4. The tree is causing damage to an enclosed structure which cannot be mitigated in another way.

1. One or more replacement trees be planted as outlined in section 11.08.120 Tree Replacement Criteria;

2. Payment of an in-lieu fee in compliance with section 11.08.120;

3. A combination of replacement trees and in-lieu fees that in total provide for the number of replacement trees as outlined in section 11.08.110.
(Ord. No. 2024-506, § 1(App. A), 2-13-2024)

11.08.110 Waivers and exemptions.

A. Hazardous or dangerous condition of a tree requiring immediate action for the safety of life or property, a tree may be removed upon the order of the development services director, the public works director or any member of the police or fire department without the necessity of applying for a tree removal permit.

1. In the event that a protected tree is thought to be dead or diseased and warrants the removal, a property owner can submit photographs of the subject tree to the development service department for review and consideration of an exemption from the requirement of a tree removal permit. a. Trees removed pursuant to the provisions of section 11.08.110(A)(1) are subject to field verification and on-site inspection by the development services department.

B. Employees of the city may take such action with regard to trees on city-owned property as may be necessary to maintain the safety of city operations and/or the safe conditions on city property, without the necessity of applying for a tree removal permit.

C. Public utilities subject to the jurisdiction of the public utilities commission of the State of California may also take such action as may be necessary to comply with the safety regulations of said commission and as may be necessary to maintain a safe operation of their facilities without the necessity of applying for a tree removal permit.
(Ord. No. 2024-506, § 1(App. A), 2-13-2024)
165
Agenda Item # 10.

Created: 2024-07-09 13:50:52 [EST]
(Supp. No. 42, Update 1)

Page 5 of 7 ends

11.08.120 Tree replacement.

A. Trees approved for removal (including dead trees) shall be replaced based on the number and size of trees approved for removal as follows:

1. Replace the tree 1:1 with a tree of a similar size canopy at maturity.

2. Where 1:1 replacement in kind is not feasible, replace the tree with two (2) or more trees, such that the replacement trees (combined) provide a similar size canopy at maturity.

3. Replacement tree shall be a minimum of 24-inch box size container unless a smaller container is recommended by the certified arborist based on tree species or planting location.

B. The development services director shall have the authority to approve an increase in the number of the onsite replacement trees and reduce the required size of the trees, when appropriate.

C. Replacement Plan. A tree replacement plan prepared by a certified arborist shall be made a requirement of the tree removal permit and be provided with the tree removal application. It shall include and adhere to the following:

1. The number, species and site plan of the proposed location of replacement trees;

2. Replacement trees shall be planted within thirty (30) days from removal of the tree when the site is ready for planting and area is suitable for new planting, unless accepted arboricultural practices dictate a preferential planting period based on the species chosen as the replacement tree and seasonal factors;

3. Any person who is required to plant replacement trees as a condition of a tree removal permit shall maintain such trees in a healthy condition to ensure their long-term survival;

4. Replacement trees shall be obtained and planted at the expense of the applicant.

D. No replacement tree shall be required when it is determined that the existing tree is or has caused direct damage to an existing structure or property.

1. When a replacement tree is not required pursuant to section 11.08.120(D), a field inspection shall be completed by the development services department to verify any damage onsite.

E. Where replacement is not possible on-site as determined by the certified arborist, the applicant shall pay an in-lieu fee in an amount set forth by the city council and shall be paid to the street tree fund. (Ord. No. 2024-506, § 1(App. A), 2-13-2024)

11.08.130 Appeals.

Any action of the approval authority may be appealed by the applicant or any interested party to the city council. Said appeal shall be in writing, shall state the reasons for the appeal, shall be accompanied by a fee which shall be set by city council resolution and shall be filed with the city clerk within ten (10) calendar days of the decision.
(Ord. No. 2024-506, § 1(App. A), 2-13-2024)

11.08.140 Tree protection during construction.

Protected trees designated for preservation shall be protected during development of a property by compliance with the following, which may be modified by the development services director:
166
Agenda Item # 10.

Created: 2024-07-09 13:50:52 [EST]
(Supp. No. 42, Update 1)

Page 6 of 7 ends

A. Protective fencing shall be installed no closer to the trunk than the dripline, and far enough from the trunk to protect the integrity of the tree. The fence shall be a minimum of five feet in height and shall be set securely in place. The fence shall be of a sturdy but open material (i.e., chain link), to allow visibility to the trunk for inspections and safety. There shall be no storage of any kind within the protective fencing. The fence shall be in place until construction has been completed.

B. The existing grade level around a tree shall normally be maintained out to the dripline of the tree.

Alternate grade levels may be approved by the development services director.

C. Drain wells shall be installed whenever impervious surfaces will be placed over the root system of a tree (the root system generally extends to the outermost edges of the branches).

D. Trees that have been damaged by construction shall be repaired in accordance with accepted arboriculture methods. If a tree is damaged beyond repair, damage shall be categorized as a violation in accordance with Section 11.08.160 and shall require replacement tree(s) in accordance with Section

11.08.120.

E. No signs, wires, or any other object shall be attached to the tree. (Ord. No. 2024-506, § 1(App. A), 2-13-2024)

11.08.150 Delegation of functions.

The development services director may delegate any or all of the administrative duties authorized by this chapter to one or more staff members. All requests for tree removal(s) shall provide all appropriate documentation as identified by this chapter, including any waivers or exceptions granted. (Ord. No. 2024-506, § 1(App. A), 2-13-2024)

11.08.160 Violations—Penalties.

The violation of any provision contained in this chapter is hereby declared to be a misdemeanor and shall be punishable as prescribed in Chapter 1.20 of this code. Violations pursuant to this section of the code shall incur a penalty fine for each tree removed without proper authorization. In addition thereto, any person unlawfully removing or destroying any protected tree without a permit shall be penalized as follows:

A. Replacing the unlawfully removed tree with one or more new trees in accordance with section

11.08.120 or in the opinion of the development services director, will provide equivalent aesthetic quality in terms of size, height, location, appearance and other characteristics of the unlawfully removed tree.

B. Where replacement trees will not provide equivalent aesthetic quality because of the size, age or other characteristics of the unlawfully removed tree, the development services director shall calculate the value of the removed tree in accordance with the latest edition of the Guide for Establishing Values of Trees and Other Plants, as prepared by the council of tree and landscape appraisers. Upon the determination of such value, the development services director may require either a cash payment to the city to be added to the street tree fund, or the planting of replacement trees as designated by the development services director, or any combination thereof, in accordance with the following:

1. To the extent that a cash payment is required for any portion or all of the value of the removed tree, such payment shall be doubled to reflect the estimated installation costs that would be incurred if replacement trees are planted; and
167
Agenda Item # 10.

Created: 2024-07-09 13:50:52 [EST]
(Supp. No. 42, Update 1)

Page 7 of 7 ends

2. To the extent that the planting of replacement trees is required, the retail cost of such trees, as shown by documentary evidence satisfactory to the development services director, shall be given for transportation, installation, maintenance and other costs incidental to the planting and care of the replacement trees.

C. Any person who is required to plant replacement trees pursuant to subsection A or B of this section shall maintain such trees in a good and healthy condition, as determined by the development services director. The development services director may require a maintenance bond or other security deposit approved by the city finance department which shall be provided to the city by the person required to plant replacement trees. The bond shall be in an amount of money and for a period of time determined by the development services director.
(Ord. No. 2024-506, § 1(App. A), 2-13-2024)
168
Agenda Item # 10.
169
Agenda Item # 10.

RESOLUTION NO. 81-23

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

DESIGNATING A HISTORICAL LANDMARK
WHEREAS, by virtue of its adoption of Ordinance No. 78-16, the City Council of the City of Los Altos did establish a procedure for the designation and preservation of historical landmarks within the City of Los Altos; and WHEREAS, in accordance with that Ordinance, the Historical Commission has made positive findings under Section 2-8.104(c) with regard to a portion of the property at One North San Antonio Road known as the Civic Center Apricot Orchard (a portion of APN 170-42-29), as described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the City Council concurs with the decision of the Historical Commission in this regard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Los Altos does hereby determine that the subject property is designated as a historical landmark and is subject to the terms and conditions outlined in Ordinance No. 78-16; I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos on the 12th day of May, 1981, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Mayor pro tern Reed, Councilmen Kallshian and Lave NOES: None
ABSENT: Mayor Eng and Councilman Grimm
d~AL (~~~r <7
170
Agenda Item # 10.
. ···J· ... ,.· ... ······
·· .. · .. · ..

EXHIBIT "A"
RESOLUTION NO. 81-23
c·
.. · ..

Historical designation to include one .(1) structure referred to as History House or J. Gilbert Smith residence, the surrounding garden, and the Apricot Orchard on the land described below.

All other structures on the land, as well as a presently undefined portion of the orchard necessary to accommodate the future Council Chambers, are specifically excluded.

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PARCEL NO. 1: Beginning at a~ underground wooden monument standing in the center line of San Antonio Avenue, formerly Griffin Road, at the Southwest corner of that certain 59.75 acre parcel of land conveyed by George D. Wise to George D. Newhall by Deej dated October 2, 1894 and recorded December 28, 189~ in Book 177 of Deeds, pnge 140, Santa Clara County Records, from which monument the co~mon corner of Sections 19, 20, 29 and 30 Township 6 S.R. 2 W., M.D.M., bears N. 0° 01 1 ;·!. J9.81 chains distant; said point of beginning also being point of intersection of said center line ot San Anto~io Avenue with the Southerly line of that certain 6.75 acre parcel of land conveyed ty ~argaret Hill Smith, et al, to Margaret Hill Smith, et vir, by Deed dated July Jl, 1943 and recorded August 4, 1943 in Book 1151 of Official Records, page 526, Santa Clara County Records; running thence along said center line of-San Antonio Road, N. 0° 01 1 W. 300.00 feet to the intersection thereof with the Northerly line of said 6.75 acre parcel of land; thence leaving said center line and running along said Northerly line of the 6.75 acre parcel of land N.89° 46 1 E. 755.00 feet; thence leaving said Northerly line and running Southerly in a direct line 300.0 feet to··a point on the Southerly line of the said 59.75 acre parcel of lAnd, said point also being on the Southerly line of the said 6.75 acre parcel of land, that bears, N. 89° 46• E. 755.0 teet from the point of beginning; running thence along said Southerly line of the 59.75 acre parcel of land being also the Southerly line of the said 6.75 acre parcel or land s. 89° 46• W. 755.0 feet to . the point of beginning, and r.eing a portion of the 59.75 acre parcel of land of Gee. D. Newhall, as shown on thllt certain. Map entitled, ·~·.~~~p of .. 171 Agenda Item # 10.
.. .. .:. . ;. .. .. ::.:·
. .. -~ .... ::
. ·.·· . . ,;, .. . ..
the portion of the Newhall & Wise Tract, being a part of s. 29, T. 6 s.R. 2 W., Santa Clara Co., Cal1f., 1 filed for record December 28, 1894 in Book 11 H" of Maps, page 103, Santa Clara County Records.

PARCEL NO. 2: Beginning at the point of intersection of the center line of San Antonio Avenue I formerly Griffin Road with the Northerly line or Lot 4, as shown on the Map he.reinafter referred to; running thence Easterly along said Northerly line, 480.0 feet; thence leaving said Northerly line and running Southerly and parallel with said center line of San Antonio Avenue, JJC.O feet to a point on the Southerly line of said Let 4; running thence Westerly along said Southerly line 480.0 feet to a point in said center line of San Antonio Avenue; running thence Northerly along said center line JJO.O feet to the point of beginning, and being a portion of Lot 4, as shown on that certain Map entitled, "Map of 301.20 for 320 acres of School Land included in Certificate of Purchase No. 117 dated Sacrament June 27th, 1862 located under the Act of the Legislature of the S~ate of California, nassed Anril 22, 1861, is$ued in the na~e of Leonard S. Clark, location No. 68 in San Francisco, to wit, the fractional North West and South West quarters of Section 32 and the South West quarter of Section 29, in T. 6 S.R. 2 ~v., of Mt. Diablo ?-ieridian, 11 which said. Hap was I'iled for record in the office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, on July 28, 1864 in Book 11 A11 of tlfaps, at pages 70 and 71, and a copy the~eof was recorded in said Office on May 26, 1877 in Book 11 A11 of ~aps, at page 19, and being commonly known as the ?·fap of the Leonard S. Cla~k Subdi visio:-1.

PARCEL NO. 3:. Beginning at a point on the Northerly line of Lot 4, distant Easterly thereon 480.0 feet from t~e intersection t~ereof with the center line of San AntQnio Avenue, formerly Griffin Road, as said lot and center line are show:: en the ~!ap hereinafter referred to; running thence Easterly along said Ncrtherly line 180.0 feet to the Northeasterly corner of said Lot 4, as shown on said 14ap; running thence Southerly alon~ the Easterly line of said Lot 4 a distance of 330.0 feet to the Southeasterly corner the~eof; running thence Westerly along the Southerly line of said Lot ~. a distance of 180.0 feet; thence leaving said Southerly line and running Northerly And parallel with said center line of SAn Antonio Avenue, ))0.0 feet to the point cf beginning and "t:eing e~. po:-tion of Lot c., as sho...,-n on that certain Hap entitled, 11 ~-iap c: 301.20 for 320 acres of School Land included in Ce!"tificate of Purchase Mo. 117 dated Sacra~ent June 27th, 1862, located under the Act of the Legislature of tee State of California, passed April 22, le61, issued in the na~e cf Leona:-d s. Clark, location No. 68 in San Francisco, to wit, the fractional Korth \'lest and South West quarters of Section 32 and the South West quarter of Section 29, in T. 6 S.R. 2 vi., of Mt. Diablo !<[eridian, 11 which said Map was filed for record in the office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State .of California, on July 28, 1864 in Book "A 11 of l.faps, at pages 70 and 71, and a copy the~eof was recorded in said Office on May 26, 1877 in Book "A 11 of Maps, at page 19, and being commonly known as the Hap of the Leonard S. Clark Subdivision.
172
Agenda Item # 10.
---
I
ORDINANCE NO. 90- LL'

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS AMENDING CHAPTER 5 AND 8 OF TITLE 2 OF THE LOS ALTOS MUNICIPAL

CODE RELATING TO THE HISTORICAL COMMISSION AND DESIGNATION AND PRESERVATION OF LANDMARKS AND CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. FINDINGS: The City Council of the City of Los --------c-----------------------------------------------~---~---- Altos hereby finds: a
(a) That the City's General Plan Chapter 3 Goals 5 and 6 calls for the preservation and enhancement of the
City's historic and cultural resources;
(b) That the City Council has heard and considered evidence submitted at properly advertised joint City
Council/Historical Commission work sessions and
Historical Commission, Planning Commission and City
Council public meetings, such evidence indicating a
distinct need for adoption of an ordinance amending the Municipal Code relative to historical resources;
(c) That the city Council finds that the adoption of said amendments to the Municipal Code is in the best public
interests. )i
SECTION 2. AMENDMENT OF CODE: Section 2-5.02 and 2-5.09 of Chapter 5, of Title 2 of the Los Altos Municipal
Code are hereby amended to read as follows:

Section 2-5.02. Membership.

All voting commissioners shall be residents of the City, except that: a) three (3) voting members of the Library Commission need not be residents; and b) two (2) voting members of the Historicall Commission need not be, residents provided the criteria of Section 2-8.201 are met.

Section 2-5.09. Powers and Duties of the Historical Commission.

The Historical Commission shall have those powers and duties granted it by Section 2-8.204 of the Los Altos Municipal Code and/or as may be entrusted to it by the Council from time to time and shall submit an annual report to the Council.

SECTION 3. AMENDMENT OF CODE: Sections 2-8.101 through 2- \

8.203 of the Los Altos Municipal Code are hereby
amended, and Sections 2-8.204 through 2-8.504 are
hereby added to the Los Altos Municipal Code, as
contained in Exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference as if set forth
in full.

SECTION 4. PUBLICATION: A summary of this ordinance shall be published as required in Government Code Section
36933.
**************
The above and forgoing Ordinance was duly and regularly introduced at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Altos on the 27th day of March, and was thereafter, at a regular meeting held on the 10th day of April passed and adopted by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Mayor Reeder, Councilmembers Bruno, Lave, & Spangler NOES: None
ABSENT: Councilmosnber Laliotis

DAVID REEDER, MAYOR
173
Agenda Item # 10.
. ..
.* . EXHIBIT A .&
..
,, . -. Ordinance 90- 225 .. .. - ..

CHAPTER' 8 . DESIGNATION AND PRESERVATION
OF LANDMARKS 3LND CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
Article 1. General Provisions
Sec.2-8.101 Purpose
It is hereby declared as a matter of public policy that the recognition, preservation, enhancement and use of historic resources within the City is required in the interest of health, economic prosperity, cultural enrichment and general welfare of the people. The purpose of this Chapter is to:
(a) Safeguard the heritage of the City by providing for the protection of irreplaceable historic resources representing significant elements of its history;
(b) Enhance the visual character of the City by encouraging the compatibility of architectural styles which reflect established architectural traditions;
(c) Encourage public knowledge, understanding and
appreciation of the City's past, and foster civic and
neighborhood pride and sense of identity based upon the recognition and use of the City's historic resources;
(d) Stabilize and improve property values within the City and increase the economic and financial benefits to the City and its inhabitants derived from the preservation, rehabilitation, and"use of historic resources;
the public and private development process and identify as early as possible and resolve conflicts between the preservation of such resources and alternative land uses.
(e) Integrate the conservation of historic resources into Sec.2-8.102 Definitions
For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this Section, unless the context or the provision clearly requires otherwise:
(a) Alteration means any exterior change or modification of a designated historical landmark or any property within an historic district including, but not limited to, exterior changes to or modifications of structure, architectural details or visual characteristics, grading, surface materials, the addition of new 174
Agenda Item # 10.
-2-
structures, removal or alteration of natural features,
disturbance of archeological sites or areas, and the placement or removal of any exterior objects such as signs, plaques, light visual qualities of the property, but does not include-painting, ordinary maintenance and landscaping. '
I' fixtures, walls, fences, steps or gates affecting the exterior Y (b) Designated historic district means a distinct section of the City, specifically defined in terms of geographical boundaries, designated as an,historic resource pursuant to this Chapter.
(c) Designated historic landmark means a building,
improvement, structure, natural feature, site or area of land under single or common ownership, designated as an historic resource pursuant to this Chapter.
elements embodying style, design, general arrangement and components of all the outer surfaces of an improvement, including but not limited to, the kind, size, shape and texture of building materials and the type and style of windows, doors, lights, signs and other fixtures appurtenant to such improvement.

Historical Commission means the historical preservation commission established pursuant to this Chapter and Commissioner means a member of the Historical Commission.
(d) Exterior architectural feature means the architectural (e)
(f) Commission staff means the Planning Director and
her/his authorized representatives.

Historic resource means any public or private property
designated by the City, pursuant to this Chapter, as an historic landmark or historic district, and those properties listed on the City's Historical Resources Inventory.
(9)
(h) Historic Resources Inventory means the City's official inventory of the historic resources, as adopted and amended from time to time by resolution of the Historical Commission. A property may be listed on the Historical Resources Inventory without being designated pursuant to this Chapter as an historic landmark or historic district.
(i) Improvement means any building, structure, parking
facility, fence, gate, wall, work of art or other appurtenance or addition thereto constituting a physical betterment of real property, or any part of such betterment.
restoration, rehabilitation or enhancement of cultural resources. (j) Preservation means identification, study, protection, 175
Agenda Item # 10.
-3-
Article 2. Historical Commission r I Sec.2-8.201 Creation; qualification and residency of members \ An Historical Commission consisting of seven unpaid members, with the following qualifications, shall be appointed by the City Council :
(a) Two members who, by reason of training and experience, are (1) knowledgeable in the field of construction and structural rehabilitation, such as a licensed architect, engineer or contractor, or (2) social/architectural historian or urban planner.
business within the City; provided, however, with the approval of the City Council, any such members who do not.maintain an office within the City may reside within the geographic area covered by the 94022 and 94024 U.S. Postal Service zip code.

Y
Such members must either reside or have a place of
(b) Five members appointed at large having demonstrated interest in preservation of the historic resources within the City.
shall be as provided in Section 2-5.03.

Such members must be residents of the City.
(c) The original appointment of members of the Commission The term of office of members of the Commission shall be as provided in Section 2-5.03. 7
Sec.2-8.202 Orsanization
(a) The Commission shall elect annually, on or before
January 31st, one of its members to serve in the office of Chairman, and may elect such other officers from among its members as designated in its charter. Should a mid-year vacancy in any office occur, the Commission shall elect a replacement officer at the next regular or noticed special meeting to serve until the next annual election of officers.
(b) The Planning Director or her/his authorized
representative shall act as Secretary for the Historical Commission, shall be the custodian of its records, shall conduct official correspondence, and shall generally supervise the clerical and technical work performed at the request or on behalf of the Historical Commission.

A (c) The Historical Commission shall meet monthly, or more frequently upon call of the Chairman or Commission staff, as necessary. All meetings shall be open to the public and a public 176
Agenda Item # 10.
..
-4-
\ record shall be kept of all Commission proceedings and actions. 4 A majority of Commissioners shall constitute a quorum, with the Chairman having a vote. The City Council shall prescribe rules and regulations for the conduct of its business, thereafter, giving the powers and authority to perform the duties hereinafter enumerated.

Sec. 2-8.203 Powers and Duties
The Historical Commission shall be advisory only to the City Council, the Planning Commission and the agencies and departments of the City, and shall establish liaison and work in conjunction with such authorities to implement the purposes of this Chapter.

The Historical Commission shall have the following powers and duties:
(a) Conduct, or cause to be conducted, a comprehensive
survey of properties within the boundaries of the City for the purpose of establishing the Historic Resources Inventory. To quali€y for inclusion in the Historic Resources Inventory, a property must satisfy the criteria listed in this Chapter. The Inventory shall be publicized and periodically updated, and a copy thereof shall be kept on file in the Planning Department; (b) Recommend to the City Council specific proposals for I designation as an historic landmark or historic district. (c) Recommend to the appropriate City agencies or
departments, projects and action programs for the recognition, conservation, enhancement and use of the City's historic resources, including standards to be followed with respect to any applications for permits to construct, change, alter, remodel, remove or otherwise affect such resources.
(d) Review and comment upon existing or proposed
ordinances, plans or policies of the City as they relate to historic resources.
(e) Review and comment upon all applications for building demolition or grading permits involving work to be performed upon or within a designated historic landmark or historic district, and all applications for tentative map approval, rezoning, building site approval, use permit, variance approval, design review or other approval pertaining to or,significantly affecting any.historic,resource. The Commission's comments shall be , forwarded to the City agency or department processing the application within thirty days after receiving the request for such comments.
(f) Investigate and report to the City Council on the. . availability of federal, state, county, local or private funding' .. 177
Agenda Item # 10.
-5- ../
sources or programs for the rehabilitation and preservation of historic resources.
(4) Cooperate with county, state and federal governments and with private organizations in the pursuit of the objectives of historical preservation.
(h) Provide resource information on the restoration,
alteration, decoration, landscaping or maintenance of any cultural resource including the landmark, landmark site, historic district, or neighboring property within public view.
(i)
(j)
Participate in, promote and conduct public information
Perform such other functions as may be delegated to it
and educational programs pertaining to historic resources. by resolution or motion of the City Council.
'.
178
Agenda Item # 10.
-6-
..
\ 6ec.2-8.301 Criteria
The Historical Commission may recommend to the City Council the designation of a proposed historic landmark or historic district if it satisfies one part from each of the three criteria listed below:
(a) It should have achieved its significance more than fifty years ago. (Exceptions are made to this rule if the building(s) or site(s) is/are truly remarkable for some reason -- such as being associated with an outstanding architect, personage, usage or event. )
(b) It should fit into at least one of the following categories:
(1) It has character, interest, or value as part of the development of, and/or its exemplification of, the cultural, educational, economic, agricultural, social or historical heritage of the City;
(2)
local, State, or National history;
(3)
type, period, or method of architecture or construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship;
(4)
designer, or architect;
(5)
characteristics, whether man-made or natural, representing an established or familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community, or the City of Los Altos; or it has a
relationship to any other landmark, and its preservation is essential to the integrity of that landmark;
It is identified with persons or events significant in
It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style,
It is representative of a notable work of a builder,
It has a unique location or singular physical
(6)
archeological information.
(7)
or environment constituting a distinct area or district within the City having special character or special
historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value.

It should not be altered significantly, so that its
The property has the potential for yielding
It embodies or contributes to a unique natural setting
(c)
integrity is not compromised.
..
179
Agenda Item # 10.
-7-
Sec.2-8.302 Arwlications
(a) Applications for designation as an historic landmark or I
historic district may be submitted to the Historical Commission by any of the following:
(1) The owner or owners of a building, improvement,
structure, natural feature, site or area of land, requesting designation of their property as an historic landmark;
(2) The owners of at least twenty-five percent of the
frontage of all recorded lots abutting a specific geographic section of the City, requesting designation as an historic district;
(3) The owners of at least twenty-five percent of the area of all recorded lots within a specific geographic section of the City, requesting designation of the entire section as an historic district.
(b) The City Council or the Planning Commission may also, by resolution or motion, refer a proposed designation to the Historical Commission for its recommendation and the Historical Commission may consider a proposed designation upon its own initiative.

Sec.2-8.303 Historic Landmark Desiqnation
f
(a) The Historical Commission shall conduct a study of the proposed designation, based upon such information or
documentation as it may require from the applicant, the Commission staff, or from other available sources. The
Commission may, in its discretion, receive written or verbal comments from any persons having an interest in the proposal or any information relevant thereto.
(b) The Commission shall conduct a public hearing on the proposal. Notice of the time, place, and purpose of the hearing shall be given at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing by publication at least once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City and by mail to the applicant, to the owner or owners of the property, and to the owners of abutting properties. Such written notice shall contain a complete description of the proposed designation and shall advise the property owners that written objections to the proposal may be filed with the Historical Commission in addition to oral comments at the hearing.
(c) Based on its findings to the following issues, the
Commission shall render a written report of its recommendation to the City Council within a reasonable time:
180
Agenda Item # 10.
-a-
(1) That the proposed landmark has significant hLstorical, architectural, cultural, or aesthetic interest or value; and (2) That the approval or modified approval of the
application is consistent with the purposes and criteria of this chapter.

The report shall be accompanied by all of the relevant
information and documentation and either shall recommend the designation as originally proposed, recommend a modified designation, or recommend that the proposed designation be rejected.
the Historical Commission's decision and the information and documentation relied upon in support thereof. A copy of the report shall be sent to the property owner or owners.
(d) The City Council shall consider the report at its next available regular meeting and determine whether or not to accept the Historical Commissionls recommendations. The City Council shall by resolution either approve the proposed designation, in whole or in part or as modified, or shall, by motion, disapprove the proposal in its entirety.

The report shall set forth in detail the reasons for
(e)
owners of the date on which the City Council will consider this report. ,
(f) In the event a designating resolution is adopted by the City Council, such resolution shall become effective immediately following adoption thereof and the designated property shall thereafter be subject to the regulations set forth in this Chapter and to such further restrictions or controls as may be ' specified in the designating resolution. After approval of a designating resolution, the secretary of the Commission shall notify the property owner by mail, outlining the basis for the designation and the regulations which result from such
designation.
be recorded in the office of the County Recorder.

The City must notify the owner and all adjacent property .

The secretary shall also cause such resolution to
(9)
finding by the City Council that the designated property has special historical, cultural, archeological, scientific, architectural or aesthetic interest or value as part of the heritage or history of the City, the County, the State or the Nation, and satisfies the criteria set forth in this article. (h)
proposed designation as an historic landmark no building, alteration, grading, demolition or tree removal permit shall be issued for any work to be performed upon or within the property which is the subject of the proposed designation, unless approved by the Historical Commission or the City Council.

Adoption of a designating resolution shall be based upon a Until final action has been taken by the City Council on the This
181
Agenda Item # 10.
-9-
restriction shall become effective as of the time the study is initiated, and shall extend until the designating resolution becomes effective.

SeC. 2-8.304 Historic District Desiqnation
(a) Following the same procedures set forth in Section 2-8.303 (a), (b), and (c), the Historical Commission shall conduct a study of, and hold a public hearing on any proposed historic district and forward to the City Council and to the Planning Commission a report and recommendations, together with the information and documentation pertaining thereto.
-.
(b)
the proposed designation within sixty days after receipt of the Historical Commission's report. Notice of the public hearing shall be given in the manner provided in this chapter.

The Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing on (c) The Planning Commission either shall recommend approval of the designation as originally proposed, or approval of the designation as modified by the Historical Commission or the Planning Commission, or both, or recommend that the proposed designation be rejected.
approval or modified approval of the designation, it shall instruct the Commission staff to prepare, and shall approve, a proposed form of ordinance for adoption by the City Council, designating the historic district and establishing a zoning overlay for such district. The proposed ordinance may include such regulations or controls over the designated property as the Planning Commission deems reasonably necessary for the
conservation, enhancement and preservation thereof.
(d) The recommendations of the Planning Commission, together with the report and recommendations of the Historical Commission and the information and documentation pertaining thereto, and the proposed ordinance, if any, shall be transmitted to the City Council and considered at its next available regular meeting.

If the Planning Commission recommends
(e) The City Council shall determine whether the proposed historic district should be considered for designation as an historic resource, and adopt a resolution initiating final designation proceedings.
hearing on the proposed designation to be conducted within sixty days. Notice of the public hearing shall be given in the manner provided in this Chapter. The resolution may further provide that during the pendency of the final designation proceedings, no building, alteration, grading, demolition or tree removal permit shall be issued for any work to be performed upon or within the properties which are the subject of the proposed designation, or may be issued only upon specified conditions or under specified circumstances.

Such resolution shall schedule a public
182
Agenda Item # 10.
..
- 10 -
\ (f) At the conclusion of the public hearing, but in no event later than sixty days from the date set in the resolution for the initial public hearing, the City Council either shall adopt an ordinance designating the historic district, in whole or in part, or as modified, or shall, by motion, disapprove the proposal in its entirety.
(9)
Council, such ordinance shall become effective thirty days following adoption thereof and the designated property shall thereafter be subject to the regulations set forth in this chapter and such further regulations or controls as may be specified in the designating ordinance.'
(h)
finding by the City Council that the designated property has special historical, cultural, archeological, scientific, architectural or aesthetic interest or value as part of the heritage or.history of the City, the County, the State or the nation, and satisfies one or more of the criteria set forth in this Chapter.

Sec 2-8.305 Notice of Public Hearinqs
(a)
conducted by the City Council, the Planning Commission, and the Historical Commission pursuant to this Chapter shall be given not less than ten days nor more than thirty days prior to the date of the hearing by mailing such notice as follows:

In the event a designating ordinance is adopted by the City Adoption of a designating ordinance shall be based upon a Notice of the time, place and purpose of public hearings (1) In the case of a proposed historic landmark, notice shall be given as set forth in Section 2-8.303 (b) of this chapter.
(2) In the case of a proposed historic district, notice shall be mailed to all persons shown on the latest available equalized assessed roll of the County as owning any property within the boundaries of the proposed district. Notice of the public hearing shall also he published once in a
newspaper having general circulation in the City not later than ten days prior to the date of the hearing.
(b) Failure to send any notice by mail to any property owner whose name and address is not a matter of public record shall not invalidate any proceedings in connection with a proposed designation. The City Council, Planning Commission or Historical Commission may, but shall not be obligated to, give such other notices as they deem appropriate or desirable.
.
183
Agenda Item # 10.

I. ..
- 11 -
Sec. 2-8.306 Notice of Desianation
(a) Following adoption by the City Council of an ordinance designating a historic landmark or historic district, the Commission staff shall send notice of the designation,
with a copy of the ordinance, to the owner or owners of the designated historic landmark, or to the owners of all property within a designated historic district.
such owners that the designated property will be added to the Los Altos Historical Resources Inventory and may be eligible for certain privileges and benefits under local, state or federal law. The notice shall include a statement of the regulations and restrictions upon the designated property. The City Council also shall send notice of the designation to:
together
The notice shall inform
(11 The Historical Commission; i 2 j
(3)
(41
The Planning Commission;
Any agency or department of the City requesting
such notice or affected by the designation;
,. The Santa Clara County Historical Heritage
Commission;
The California State Historic Preservation
Officer ;
The Los Altos Town Crier
(5)
(6)
(b) Notice of the designation and the complete legal description of the designated property shall be recorded in the office of the Recorder for the County.

Sec. 2-8.307 Termination of Desisnation
I
The only legitimate reason for terminating the designation is when the resource no longer meets the criteria due to loss of integrity.

Department shall be notified, and the appropriate cancellation notice of previously recorded notice of designation shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder.

When a landmark is terminated, the Building
184
Agenda Item # 10.
- 12 -
Article 4. Permits
Sec.2-8.401 Permit required
It is unlawful for any person to alter, demolish, remove, relocate or otherwise change in any manner any exterior architectural feature or natural feature of a designated historic landmark or to construct, alter, demolish, remove or relocate any building, improvement, other structure or natural feature upon any property located within a designated historic district, or to place, erect, alter or relocate any sign upon or within a designated historic landmark or historic district, without first obtaining a written permit to do so in the manner provided in this Article. Approval shall be based upon conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Preservation Projects, the State Historic Building Code, and the designating ordinance.

Sec.2-8.402 Applications .

Applications for permits, on forms prescribed by the Historical Commission, shall be submitted to the Planning Director, who shall forward the application to the Historical Commission for review and comment.

Sec.2-8.403 Supportinct Data
The application shall include the following data:
(a) Documentation establishing ownership of the designated property by the applicant for the permit;
(b) A clear statement of the proposed work;
(c) A site- plan showing all existing buildings, structures, trees over six inches in diameter, property lines, easements and the proposed work;
(d) Detailed plans showing both the existing and proposed exterior elevations, materials and grading;
(e) Specifications describing all materials to be use$ and all processes that would affect the appearance or nature of the materials.
(f) Notes indicating any deviation from the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Rehabilitation.
(g)' Where'the application is for demolition, a detailed statement of the necessity for demolition together with photographs of the structure to be demolished; h
185
Agenda Item # 10.
- 13 -
(h) Such other information or documents as may be requested by the Historical Commission.

SeC.2-8.404 Historical Commission action
The Historical Commission shall complete its review and issue a recommendation to the Planning Director within forty-five days after receipt of the application and all supporting data. legally required, there shall be no notice, posting or
publication requirements for action on the application, but all decisions shall be made at regular or noticed special meetings of the Historical Commission.
recommendation shall be in writing and shall state the reasons relied upon in support thereof.

Commissionls recommendations, the Planning Director shall forward a copy thereof to the applicant.

Unless
The Historical Commission's
Upon receipt of the Historical
,-
Sec.2-8.405 Issuance of permit
If the Historical Commission recommends issuance of the permit requested in the application, or issuance of such permit subject to conditions, the Planning Director shall proceed to issue the permit in accordance with the recommendation after the expiration of ten days from the date the recommendation is delivered to the Planning Director, provided that no appeal has been filed during such time and provided further, that no other approval under this Code is required for issuance of such permit. In the event the Historical Commission recommends denial of the application, the Planning Director shall notify the applicant that the requested permit will not be granted.

Sec.2-8.406 Appeal
(a) Any recommendation issued by the Historical Commission with respect to the granting or denial of a permit may be appealed by the applicant or any interested person to the Planning
Commission.

Secretary of the Planning Commission a written notice thereof within ten days from the date the Historical Commission delivers its recommendation to the Planning Director.
appeal shall be signed by the appellant and shall set forth all the grounds for the appeal and shall be accompanied by a fee to cover the administrative cost of handling the appeal as set by the Council by resolution. Upon receipt of the notice of appeal and filing fee, the Secretary of the Planning Commission shall set the appeal for hearing at the next available regular meeting of the Planning Commission.
conduct a hearing de novo on the appeal and may adopt, reject or modify the recommendations of the Historical Commission. Only the grounds specified in the notice of appeal shall be considered.

The appeal shall be taken by filing with the
The notice of
The Planning Commission shall
186
Agenda Item # 10.
- 14 -
(b) The decision of the Planning Commission may be further appealed to the City Council by either the applicant or any. interested person, in accordance with the procedure set forth in Title 1, Section 1-4.01, of the Los Altos Municipal Code.

Sec.2-8.407 Criteria
The Planning Director, on the recommenuation of the Historical Commission, or Planning Commission or city Council on appeal, shall authorize issuance of a permit, or a conditional permit, if and only if, it is determined that:
(a) The proposed work is consistent with the purposes and objectives of this Chapter; or
(b)! The proposed work does not adversely affect the
character or integrity of the designated historic landmark or historic district; or
(c) In the case of construction of a new building,
structure or other improvement upon or within a designated historic landmark or historic district, the exterior of such improvement will not adversely affect and will be compatible with the external appearance of the existing landmark or district.

Sec.2-8.408 Hardship
Notwithstanding the criteria of Article 4 of this Chapter, the Planning Director, on the recommendation of the Historical Commission, or the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal, may approve an application for a permit to conduct any proposed work upon or within a designated historic landmark or property located within a designated historic district, if the applicant presents clear and convincing evidence demonstrating that a disapproval of the application will work immediate and
substantial hardship on the applicant because of conditions peculiar to the person seeking to carry out the proposed work or because of conditions peculiar to the particular improvement, building, structure, topography or other feature involved. If a hardship is found to exist under this Section, the Historical Commission or the Planning Commission or City Council shall make a written finding to that effect, and shall specify the facts and reasons relied upon in making such finding.
187
Agenda Item # 10.
- 15 -
Article 5. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Sec.2-8.501 Fees
(a)
noticing of any application for designation.
(b)
fees to be charged for any application for termination of a designation, for the filing and processing of applications for any permit required under this Chapter, and for appeals to the Planning Commission and City Council pursuant to this Chapter.

No fee shall be charged for the filing, processing or public The City Council shall by resolution adopt a schedule of Sec.2-8.502 Ordinary maintenance and repair
Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to prevent the ordinary maintenance, painting, landscaping or repair of any exterior feature in or upon any designated historic landmark or property located within a designated historic district that does not involve a change in design, material or the external appearance thereof, nor does this Chapter prevent the
construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, demolition or removal of any designated historic landmark or property located within any designated historic district which has been certified by the City building inspector, or fire chief, or other code enforcement officer as being in unsafe or dangerous condition which cannot be rectified through the use of the California State Historic Building Code.

Sec.2-8.503
The owner, occupant, or the person in actual charge of a designated historic landmark or property located within a designated historic district shall keep and maintain in good condition and repair all exterior portions thereof, all interior portiqns thereof when subject to special regulation or control as specified in the designating ordinance or permit, and all interior portions thereof whose maintenance is necessary to prevent deterioration and decay of any exterior architectural feature or natural feature.

Duty to keep in uood repair
It shall be the duty of the Building Official to enforce this section.

Sec.2-8.504 Enforcement
The violation of any provision contained in this Chapter is hereby declared to be unlawful and shall constitute a
misdemeanor, subject to the penalties as prescribed in Title 1, Chapter 2 of this Code.
188
Agenda Item # 10.

RESOLUTION NO. 91- 31

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

MODIFYING AN APRICOT ORCHARD AS A HISTORICAL LANDMARK
WHEREAS, by virtue of its adoption of Ordinance No. 78-16 and 90-225, the City Council of the City.of Los Altos did establish a procedure for the designation and preservation of historical landmarks within the City of Los Altos; and
WHEREAS, by virtue of its adoption of Resolution 81-23, the City Council of the City of Los Altos did designate a portion of APN 170-42-029 known as the Civic Center Apricot Orchard a historical landmark; and
WHEREAS, by designation of this property as a historical landmark it is subject to the terms and conditions outlined in Ordinance 90-225; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with that Ordinance Section 2-8.404, the Historical Commission has reviewed and recommends modifying the limits of the Civic Center Apricot Orchard as shown on Exhibit A, as located on APN Nos. 170-42-029 and 170-43-001; and WHEREAS, the City Council concurs with the recommendation of the Historical Commission in this regard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Los Altos does hereby determine that the subject property is designated as a historical landmark and is subject to the terms and conditions outlined in Ordinance 90-225;
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos on the 8th day of October, 1991, by the following roll call vote:
* * * * * * *
AYES: Mayor Spangler, Councilmembers Bruno, Laliotis, Lave, & Reeder NOES: None
ABSENT: None
189
Agenda Item # 10.
" -
-::~·iliiilii····· ... '
C?(J\a
~ L ~ 1----+---1
~~-
,_ _________________ _,-- ) c
·"EXHIBIT A"

SAN ANTONIO ROAD
LEGEND
FZZ/1 :HISTORIC ORCHARD 190
Agenda Item # 10.

September 10, 2022– Catherine Nunes, representing Residents for the Preservation Action League Los Altos (PALLA) Path to Preservation
Los Altos Heritage Orchard

OUR APPEAL
191
Agenda Item # 10.

Deny the Permit – inadequate justification, permanent
removal of trees from area without proper review, EIR
and process
Conduct immediate site-wide EIR, foundational
historic resource survey HRE, pre-study EIR project
reviews. (no exemptions)
Direct action for Historic Preservation Plan and
alignment for better City decision-making with
staffing, $, qualified review & public involvement.
192
Agenda Item # 10.

Public Support for Preservation
Los Altos Heritage Orchard Love!!!
Town Crier Poll, snapshot Sept 4, 2024
193
Agenda Item # 10.
•“A working historic orchard demonstrating
and showcasing the City’s and the region’s
historic agricultural roots and heritage that is
maintained and kept productive”
2021 City of Los Altos Ordinance 2021-477
What is the Heritage Orchard?
194
Agenda Item # 10.

City’s Commitments
• Certified Local Government 1991
• General Plan: Historical Preservation
& Tree ELEMENTS
• Preservation Ordinances
• CEQA Integration into Actions and
Planning
• Historical Commission
• Historical Resource Inventory on City
owned lands
• Public process for input and review,
transparency
üONE BIG STEP FORWARD Fund
Maintenance contract for main
landmark orchard area, connect to
the History Museum.
$75,000 year/ 3 years
CITY remains the lead and primary
planner (non maintenance) to
provision for the Orchard.

CITY arbitrary application of
boundaries, Mar 2024 public
restatement and change from 2.86
acres to < 2 acres for the Heritage
Orchard…… AND
City’s Action 2023-24
195
Agenda Item # 10.

1. LAYC Office Conversion (in
construction)

2. City Hall Patio Extensions
(complete)

3. City Patio (complete)
+Landscape Remodel (?)

4. LALE private Patio Project (in
review)

5. J Gilbert Smith Orchard Area
and FOLA sheds (future
parking?)

6. Northeast Orchard Sector
(permanent tree + orchard
removal)

7. Underground Utility Upgrade
and parking?
2023-24 City Actions in the Orchard
j New interpretation by City March 2024

2.84 acres to < 2 acres – 30% loss
196
Agenda Item # 10.

The Northeast Grove and Trees in the
Heritage Orchard (at Police Station)
• Are the trees, tree sites and land inside the “boundaries” of the Heritage Orchard? YES, one of the described orchard sections at Civic Center • Is there Historic Primary Record for the Heritage Orchard? YES. 2011 State DPR HR#15, includes multiple orchard areas along with 1991 landmark area identified.
• Is there a map and land description in the Primary Record? YES with other character defining elements and features, may benefit from add’l survey • Are there any identified restrictions? YES, and maybe others • Are there any other subsequent City descriptions /maps useful to identify the land, trees or tree sites? YES, 2.86 acres and “Police Station” reference • Are the trees and this part of Orchard maintained by LAHM/City? NO 197
Agenda Item # 10.

APPEAL - Orchard Tree Removal Permit
Applicant without authority to issue permits on this property.

Permit failure to provide adequate justification for removal of trees and permanent loss of tree sites in this location.

Failure of permit and approval process to recognize the historical standing of the property, trees and tree sites.

Failure in City action to properly study and review the application under historical protection process and environmental law. (CEQA) Permit and entitlement approval for removal of both trees and tree sites by the City constitutes "demolition by neglect"

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 198
Agenda Item # 10.

What’s in a Historical Resource? Is there a map?
199
Agenda Item # 10.

CITY’S

PRIMARY RECORD

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

DEPT OF PARKS

RECORDED

HISTORIC RESOURCE
DPR HR#15, (2011)
org 1987, restated by Historic
Commission 2019

INCLUDES A CITY

DESIGNATED

LANDMARK ORCHARD

AROUND CITY HALL
resolution 91-31(1991)
What are the elements, features, boundaries?
Northeast
Sector
200
Agenda Item # 10.

Is there a City map with
more clear
boundaries?
July 2024- provided with materials
requested on Orchard and Tree
Removal Application.

File Name:

Orchard Sections Map
Provided by City of Los Altos via
Public Records Request
PRR 24-27
201
Agenda Item # 10.

State DPR – Historic Resource HR#15, 2011
Intensive Historical Survey, Prepared by Circa Historic Properties, SF for City of Los Altos, Historic Commission P3a Description excerpt: Portions of Smith orchard lands within the Civic Center remain along N. San Antonio Road, north of the Los Altos Library, and in the northeast sector of the complex. A number of trees dating to the period of the Smith’s residence remain. As the City replaces the dead or diseased trees, a number of younger trees are also apparent within the orchard tracts.

B10 Significance
• excerpt 1 On September 8, 1991 the City Council unanimously passed and adopted a resolution adding the Civic Center’s apricot orchard along San Antonio Road to the West, the Library to the South and the Youth Center to the East, the Civic Parking lot to the North as a Historical Landmark. • Excerpt 2 Another stipulation was that the remaining apricot trees not be removed; the city maintains and replaces the trees as needed today. *2011 State DPR HR#15, prepared by Circa Properties SF, map updated by Historic Commission June 2019Original DPR HR#15 recorded 1987.
. City of Los Altos
Maintenance, Orchard
Management Plan (2006)
Description of Orchard: The heritage
orchard is located at 1 North San
Antonio Road in the Civic Center
grounds. It surrounds the City Hall
building, and parts of the Library,
Youth Center and Police Department.

Acreage: 2.84 acres
•
Historical Commission, 2019
City Center Apricot Orchard
Staff Report
Historic Resource Background excerpt:

The 2.84-acre heritage apricot orchard
site is in the Civic Center Grounds. It
surrounds the City Hall buildings, and
parts of the Library, Youth Center and
Police Department.
• June 24, 2019 Los Altos Historic Commission,
City Staff and Museum Joint Public Presentation: The Los Altos Historic Heritage Apricot Orch Pg 2 Orchard History excerpt:
(year)1954. 2.83 acres deeded to Los Altos-pledged to keep as a productive orchard in p November 2023 – March 2024 LA City Official Seal Public Presentatio Manny A. Hernandez, Parks & Recreation Director
Jane Packard, Orchard Commons Committee Chair
202
Agenda Item # 10.

History Context for the Northeast Orchard
area at Police Station
• The Golden $$ Grove - One of the most prime
producing orchard areas and trees. (The
orchardists’ favorite!)
• Gilbert Smith also used the area for drying
apricots – sunshine, soil and care.
• 45-55 apricot trees and tree sites appear in GIS
maps (1985-2007)
-2011 State DPR HR#15 map shows 38-42
mature trees
-2024 Physical Count shows 24 Trees,
unmaintained and in need *.
• Served as agricultural utility and equipment
area after Museum launch with barn in 2001
• Ties to gift parcel, fruit rights, tree replacement
policy w/ additional restrictions.
2011
DPR
HR#15
CIVIC
CENTER

ORCHARD
203
Agenda Item # 10.

History Context for the Northeast Orchard
area at Police Station
• The Golden $$ Grove - One of the most prime
producing orchard areas and trees. (The
orchardists’ favorite!)
• Gilbert Smith also used the area for drying
apricots – sunshine, soil and care.
• 45-50 apricot trees and tree sites appear in GIS
maps (1985-2007)
-2011 State DPR HR#15 map shows 35-40
mature trees
-2024 Physical Count shows 24 Trees*.
• Served as agricultural utility and equipment
area after Museum launch with barn in 2001
PHOTO TAKEN JUNE 20 2024
5 days prior to Tree Removal Permit Posting
• Ties to gift parcel, fruit rights, tree replacement
policy w/ additional restrictions.
204
Agenda Item # 10.

OTHER APPEAL ITEMS Unjustified Permit Approval
• Permit indicates “permanent” removal of apricot trees from this location without review.
• Replacement and replanting new trees in this area is not indicated. • “City approved tree” replacement anywhere in the City, not apricot • Permit indicates unsupported City Rationale added later, not part of Museum tree removal permit application
• Indicates plans for area for future development, and claiming falling trees, utility interference.
• Inadequate and inaccurate Summary of Tree Health + Solution • Inadequate arbor summary by tree, health report does not call for all trees to be removed.
• No consideration of maintenance to this area to mitigate issues. 205
Agenda Item # 10.

The Permit
206
Agenda Item # 10.

Permit Review & Approval
Inadequate & Discretionary
Constitutes Permanent Removal
j
• Applicant: Ken Buscho, Los Altos History Museum
• Basis for Approval
The condition of the tree with respect to disease
and potential to cause further disease with other
trees within orchard and immediately adjacent.

City added?: Poses a danger of falling,
Proximity to existing or proposed structures
Interference with utility lines
• Replacement Trees
YES, but appears to be NOT in this location, not apricot trees. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT One North San Antonio Road ♦ Los Altos, California 94022 Telephone: (650) 947-2750

TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
REMOVAL OF (25) APRICOT TREES IN THE REAR
YARD OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AT 1 SAN

ANTONIO RD
Date Approved: 6/25/2024 – Date Posted: 6/26/2024
Applicant: Ken Buscho, Los Altos History Museum
Permit #: TREE24-0062
Basis for Approval (Pursuant to Section 11.08.090 LAMC):

Replacement Tree(s) & Required Conditions (Pursuant to Section

11.08.090 LAMC):

Yes – 2 to 1 street tree (or other tree species as approved by the City Manager), each replacement tree shall be a minimum 24-inch box tree.

The location of the replacement trees shall be approved by the City Manager.

Project Planner:

DBH not
applicable
as the trees
were branched
low to the
ground

SEPARATE DOCUMENT
208
Agenda Item # 10.

Dispute of Health Conditions
• Staff report stays there are 24 trees in “poor” health. Not supported. • Orchardist best practices control for brown rot is maintenance, not removal –irrigation, spraying, pruning, removal of mummy fruit. • Orchardist letter suggests action for “unpruned trees” removal IF the City will not replant trees or maintain trees and grove area. • Orchardist suggests some trees may have structural problems and be beyond commercial viability – apricot trees should be replanted in tree sites.
209
Agenda Item # 10.

Photos NorthEast Grove – June 20, 2024
210
Agenda Item # 10.

Asks for Appeal Today
• Deny the Permanent Removal of ALL remaining Apricot Trees in the Northeast Sector (near Police Station) – Uphold the Appeal
• Reject the City Staff’s new unofficial and unqualified reinterpretation of historic resource– including City alteration from 2.86 acres to < 2 acres. • Provide City direction for a qualified,
• Qualified site-wide historical EIR on and
• a full Historic Resource Evaluation HRE (study+survey), • and conduct an immediate review of all Civic Center projects– in progress, planned or contemplated with– project-specific EIRs, no exemptions. • Take action to reprioritize Historical Preservation and stewardship for the Orchard in line with Certified Local Government , General Plan, and put a Historic Preservation Plan in place with public engagement, qualified staff and direct oversight. 211
Agenda Item # 10.
212
Agenda Item # 10.

Stewardship of Public & Historic Lands

1. Meet Commitments + Local, State, CEQA and Certified Local Government Requirements

2. Follow Historic Preservation Rules & Best Practices

3. Provide Study & Thoughtful Review

4. Be Transparent and Open to Public

5. Plan, Policies, Align Resources & Oversight

6. Celebrate and Share in the Civic Pride
213
Agenda Item # 10.
214
Agenda Item # 10.
215
Agenda Item # 10.
216
Agenda Item # 10.

The Heritage (Civic Center)
Orchard
A Brief Timeline
July 2024
BACKGROUND HISTORY DOCUMENT – NOT FOR PRESENTATION
217
Agenda Item # 10.
1901 - 1952 J. Gilbert Smith Orchard Grows and Thrives
1954 - 1977 City Center Designed with J.Gilbert Smith’s Orchard as the Centerpiece. 1954 J.Gilbert Smith sells property to the City, maintains fruit rights and Orchard. 1960 Design for Civic Center buildings to highlight the working Orchard architected by Ernest J. Kumpf Assoc in Palo Alto as an indoor/outdoor space connected by Orchard. 1977 J. Gilbert Smith and wife Margaret Smith transfer FINAL gift 1.36- 1.86 acre of apricots and home and barn called “The Oaks” to City. The House becomes the City’s first History Museum run by Parks Dept.
1977 - 2000 City Proudly Protects and Preserves the Orchard and its Legacy as a “historic working orchard” - Active Stewardship
1977 General Plan, Historical Resource Inventory Updated Annually, Historic Commission/Parks Rec 1981 - 1991 Landmark status, State Registration, County Registration and Awards 1997 CLG Certified Local Government Status, City Requirements Historical Commission, Public Works, Parks&Rec Commission engaged in this period 2000 20 Year General Plan: Historical Element and Ordinance, Tree Preservation & Ordinance 2011 State DPR HR#15 – Becomes City’s Historic Resource Primary Record with description, disposition, significance and map. includes landmark and all orchard areas on the Civic Center land.

HERITAGE ORCHARD TIMELINE | The Golden 100 Years
218
Agenda Item # 10.
219
Agenda Item # 10.

Historic Record
Photo of J. Gilbert Smith
Home (Los Altos) and active
Orchard land, orchard trees
and agricultural operations
operations adjacent to the J.

Gilbert Smith House.

Date mark: LA 2001.021.002.

Archival date or actual?
Undefined correlation with the 1.36 – 1.86
acre parcel Smith Family GIFT is part of this
image and subject to any title restrictions.
220
Agenda Item # 10.

Needs clear City ownership
and oversight
City’s Commitments
• Certified Local Government 1991
• General Plan: Historical
Preservation & Tree ELEMENTS
• Preservation Ordinances
• CEQA Integration into Planning
• Historical Commission
• Historical Resource Inventory
• Public process for review
üONE BIG STEP FORWARD Fund
Maintenance contract for main
landmark orchard area, connect
to the History Museum.
$75,000 year/ 3 years
CITY remains the lead and primary
planner (non maintenance) to
provision for the Orchard.

City’s Action 2023-24
Needs a Historical Preservation
Plan of Record for Orchard
221
Agenda Item # 10.
222
Agenda Item # 10.
• 2000 - 2010 New Master Civic Center Planning removes Landmark Orchard AND

RECORDS
๏ 2001 Los Altos History Museum (opens) and formally joins with J. Gilbert Smith House Landmark Orchard Records, Resources, Public Stewardship and Maintenance Dries Up. 2010 Historic Commission approves Historic Review and Hires Circa Historic Properties to update the City’s Historical Resource Record for HR#15
2011 Historical Record State DPR Published 2011, After approval of • 2010-2015 Orchard Orphaned, Dereliction by City
• Stopped Water, Maintenance and Care of Property and Trees • Negligence created perception of a vacant lot - No Signage, Trees Dying, Not Producing • (2012 Disappeared from City’s Historical Resources Inventory & Historic Commission Work Plan. • 2015 Voter Defeat of Measure A Bond Civic Center Phase 1 Resident Outcry to Defeat Sweeping Measure and Save Public Lands (inc Orchard) City Revised Plan to Focus on Community Center and Pool Complex , Funded through Bond Measure Vote: 72% NO WAY, MEASURE A. City Master Plan shelved.

Phase 2 Orchard Left without a home or any verified plan, City Entertains Other Development for the Property (School site, Parkland, Expansion of other Civic Center Buildings) HERITAGE ORCHARD TIMELINE | The Desolation of City Builders 223
Agenda Item # 10.
224
Agenda Item # 10.
• 2016 - 2019 . Citizen Preservationists Dig Up Orchard Documents, Grow Public Awareness, Call for Historic Preservation Attention
Found City Records, Deeds, Ordinances, Maps, HRIs, CLG reports, Historic Plaques Request Support & Attention from Historic Commission/History Museum 2018-2019 led by Historic Commission (Horn) with Museum and Resident Support Signs (2 of 7 requested) added to the Heritage Orchard, 100 Trees Planted, died Orchard Maintenance Plan (2006) Recovered and Requests for Enforcement – 2.86 acres and 444 active tree sites identified in record..

Maintenance lagged, water turned back on by City but selectively under “drought conditions” in 2016 City announcement
• 2019 - 2021 Historic Records and Increase in Historic Preservation Actions 2019 Historic Commission Staff Report and Review included:

Restatement of Historic Resource Record DPR#HR 15 2011 as the Primary Record.

Including specific notations of all Civic Center orchard lands including Police Station, et.al, and 2.86 acres.
2021 City Council declares Heritage Orchard historic relevance and disposition on Civic Center Land as a historic working orchard to remain productive. Ordinance 2021-477 HERITAGE ORCHARD TIMELINE | Lost and Some Things Found – No City owner 225
Agenda Item # 10.

Contract Los Altos History Museum
(contractor)
Landmark Orchard Area Primary
New Maintenance Plan (Missing, no
review by public)
Orchardist Hired (by History Museum)-
Volunteer Engagement
City maintains final authority for tree site
usage, and and select tree sites and trees.

No tree/health/maintenance montoring
support or plan
City installs drip irrigation not to all trees
City actions CEQA Exemptions on
surrounding projects.

August 2023 to present
226
Agenda Item # 10.

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-54

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

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT ON

BEHALF OF THE CITY WITH THE LOS ALTOS HISTORY MUSEUM IN THE AMOUNT OF $225,000 FOR THREE YEARS OF MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR

THE HISTORIC APRICOT ORCHARD
WHEREAS, the City utilizes contract services for maintenance of the Historic Apricot Orchard located at l North San Antonio Road in the Los Altos Government Center; and WHEREAS, maintenance services are important for the health of the apricot orchard; and WHEREAS, the Orchard Commons Committee, a committee of the Los Altos History Museum, has committed to restoring the orchard to health in addition to regular maintenance services; and WHEREAS, the Orchard Commons Committee plans to conduct educational and community building activities as part of their agreement with the City; and WHEREAS, the apricot orchard is one of only three historic orchards in the surrounding Bay Area and a valued asset to the community.

WHEREAS, The approval of this agreement with the Los Altos History Museum is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) in that the only work required under the agreement is limited to the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use, and none of the circumstances identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Los Altos hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute an agreement with the Los Altos History Museum for maintenance services in the amount of $75,000 annually between July 1, 2023 and June 30, 2026 on behalf of the City.

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 27 day of June, 2023 by the following vote:

AYES: Dailey, Fligor, Lee Eng, Meadows, Weinberg
NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Sally M · adows, MAYOR
Resolution No. 2023-54 Page 1
227
Agenda Item # 10.
________________________________________________

Page 1 of 6 ends

Los Altos City CouncilSeptember 10, 2024

Los Altos City Council
September 10, 2024