Los Altos City Council
October 8, 2024

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
7:00 PM - Tuesday, October 08, 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/87554786040?pwd=g6wUsEEGHHT2SS2jXLnloH7KNIH1sW.1 Telephone: 1-669-444-9171 / Webinar ID: 875 5478 6040 / Passcode: 242017 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 10/8/2024 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Page 2 of 3
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

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.
10-08-2024 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 September 24, 2024

2. Approve the confirmation of the City Council appointments to various City Commissions

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Harris & Associates for the 2024-2025 Downtown Parking Lot Resurfacing Project in the amount of $243,222.00; and authorize the City Manager to execute a change order not to exceed 10% ($24,300) of the total contract amount on behalf of the City and find the Council’s action categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Section 15301(c) consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures or facilities, such as parking plazas, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. It can be seen with certainty that the contract will not pose a significant effect on the physical environment, and none of the circumstances in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies

PUBLIC HEARINGS
2 10/8/2024 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Page 3 of 3

4. Hold Public Hearing No. 5 to receive a presentation from the City's consulting demographer, Redistricting Partners, solicit public input on draft district maps and the order of elections of the five new districts including whether candidates for City Council must be residents and electors of the district in which they seek election for any period of time prior to filing their nomination papers and declaring their intent to run; reach agreement on the map to become the City's final district elections map; and to consider an ordinance adopting district-based elections and approving the final district map for the City of Los Altos

DISCUSSION ITEMS

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

5. Tentative Council Calendar and Housing Element Implementation Update 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. 3 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Derek Pitcher <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 6, 2024 1:11 PM
To: Districts; City Council; Public Comment
Subject: Council Meeting Oct 8,2024, Item 4: District map boundary comment - specifically between districts 3 and 4
Los Altos City Council Members:

Major communities in Los Altos are formed in our elementary schools. These are communities where parents and children create lifelong friendships.

It would serve the City well if the district boundaries are drawn to encompass school boundaries within a district.

As such, the boundary between Districts 3 and 4 in the current scenario should be changed so that Loyola school is contained
within district 4, which aligns better with the elementary school boundary.

This can be achieved by including including the area between South Springer Road and Covington Road into District 4, which is currently in District 3.

This change would contain the Loyola community in the same district.

Thank you,
Derek and Anne Pitcher
886 Clinton Road
4 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Debby Meredith <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 6, 2024 2:40 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Fwd: Input on redistricting maps
Honorable Council Members,
I've been a resident of the wonderful city of Los Altos for over 36 years and during that time have lived in three different homes in two very distinct and terrific neighborhoods.

We are fortunate to live in such a great city with many vibrant and different communities! The past 22 years, I have lived with my family on Van Buren Street and love our current long term neighborhood.

In considering the difficult task of drawing district lines for future representation, I feel, on Van Buren Street, we have a very strong identification with Downtown Los Altos, and hence believe it is important to be represented by an official in this same area. My family and I intentionally shop for food, products, and dine downtown because we feel part of that community and wish to continually and in a meaningful way support that community. When we look beyond our street, we view Downtown Los Altos as our extended home.

In looking at the potential redistricting maps, assuming I'm reading things correctly, it seems that four of the five maps proposed by the demographer for the City has Van Buren Street as part of the same district as Downtown Los Altos, while one map proposed by the demographer for the City and some of those submitted by the public has our neighborhood and Downtown Los Altos in separate districts.

As a long term and involved resident, I would respectfully ask that you consider my input in your redistricting decision and have Van Buren Street in the same district as Downtown Los Altos.

Thank you!
Debby Meredith
Van Buren Street, Los Altos, CA 94022
5 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Brenda <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, October 6, 2024 8:09 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Districting feedback
Dear Councilmembers,
Thank you for tackling the difficult task of dividing Los Altos into election districts.

I live near Santa Rita School in north Los Altos, north of Los Altos Ave. I urge you to choose a map which keeps our neighborhood in the same district as downtown Los Altos. (MapF1 and MapF3 make the most sense to me, with the worst choice being F2)
Walking distance proximity to downtown is the primary reason we bought our house in our north Los Altos neighborhood.

We patronize downtown restaurants, stores and community buildings nearly every day. Downtown IS our neighborhood and our civic interests align with that section of the city. It should be part of our election district.

Thank you for your consideration,
Brenda Taussig
Van Buren Street, Los Altos
6 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Bruce W Tolley <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 1:09 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Melissa Thurman
Subject: Re: Comment about proposed districts (edited to remove info not for disclosure) Hello City Council,
I live in the Grant Park neighborhood. My kids attended Montclaire School, Cupertino USD, Cupertino Middle School, CUSD, and Homestead High, Fremont USD. The public schools and the friendships made through children and adult fellowship and activities define our sense of a true community of interest.

I have perused the maps of the various proposals and all of them split the Grant Park neighborhood into two parts, violating any reasonable definition of community of interest.

Most of the maps join my area of Grant Park with the Oak School neighborhood. Since those folks sent their kids to Oak School, LASD, they are outside my community of interest.

And why so many districts? The number of districts seems to over constrain the problem.

Why not a smaller number?
Regards,
Bruce Tolley
Grant Park Neighborhood
Los Altos, CA
[email protected]
7 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Anne Paulson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 11:00 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: October 8, 2024 Council meeting, Item 4
Dear Mayor Weinberg and City Council,
Please do not accept redistricting maps D or E. They chop up my little neighborhood, the Highlands/Woodland Acres (South Los Altos southeast of Foothill). It makes no sense that our little enclave, which is separated from the rest of Los Altos by Foothill Expressway, be split into two. The initial five maps from Redistricting Partners had my neighborhood kept together, for good reason, because that's the only choice that makes sense. My neighborhood already tends to get ignored, and we are not a pawn to be chopped up and distributed for the benefit of a different part of the city.

School issues affect the city, but all too often, Councilmembers and city officials tend to forget that a good chunk of the city is in the Cupertino Union and Fremont Union districts. For example, until recently, when affordable housing units became available, units that were available to teachers of our children, the city told the Los Altos/Mountain View districts but neglected to inform the Cupertino teachers who would also have been eligible. If we'd had our own representative, that might not have happened.

Although it's not possible to have one district that includes all of Los Altos that's served by Cupertino schools, it is possible to have a district that includes most of that area and no area not served by Cupertino schools. We need a district like that, a district that would be formed by Maps A, B, or C. Maps D and E cut out my area (served by Cupertino schools) in order to add an area on the far side of Fremont Avenue (not served by Cupertino schools).

Don't chop up my neighborhood. Don't cut me off from the Councilmember who would be most concerned about Los Altos children in Cupertino Schools. Pick Map A, B, or C. --
-- Anne Paulson
8 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Carolyn Berkoz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 12:16 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Redistricting
I’m in the Cupertino school district and don’t want your latest map C Berkoz 1266 Windimer drive
Sent from Carolyn’s iPhone
9 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Diane Guinta <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 12:17 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Paul Goldstein
Subject: Please do NOT approve City Council district maps D and E Dear City Council Members,
Please do not approve the proposed City Council Maps D or E. Doing so would divide our Los Altos community that is in the Cupertino School District. As you are well-aware, school communities build very strong, life-long relationships of working together for the public good. These two options, D and E, would also divide many of us who have the same steep hillside home environments which are similarly impacted by building and planning rules and school time traffic concerns.

Thank you for considering our perspective.

Sincerely yours,
Diane Guinta and Paul Goldstein
Highlands neighborhood
2173 Sierra Ventura Dr.

Los Altos, CA 94024
Sent from my iPad
10 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Marlene Zimmerman <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 1:06 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Item 4 October 8, 2024 City Council Agenda
With respect to Item 4 of the October 8, 2024 City Council Agenda:

I would like to encourage the City Council to keep the Highlands and Woodland Acres together in one district for representation on the City Council. Among other things, this area is part of the Cupertino Union School District and not the Los Altos School District. The Council, over the years, has often forgotten this fact in favoring the LASD and neglecting the CUSD. In general, residents of the southern part of Los Altos feel that the Council tends to overlook them and their needs.
11 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Paul B Van Buren <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 1:08 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: District elections
Please keep our Highlands in one district. Do not split it. Thanks.

Paul B Van Buren, JD
CA cell: 650-575-4398
Sent from my iPhone 15 Pro Max
12 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Lynne Baldwin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 1:18 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Keep the Highlands as One Voting District
I live in the Highlands area and we are community-wise and geographically-wise one unified area as it makes little if any sense to split the area in two.

Indeed I think we will be lucky if we are able to get candidates to step up and run for city council in one district, whereas lining up candidates to
run in two 'mini-districts' based on a chopped up Highlands area is highly unlikely. Please plan to have the Highlands as one unified voting district. Lynne Baldwin 13 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Mary Ann Poulos <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 1:32 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: PLEASE DO NOT SPLIT OUR VOTING DISTRICT
As 40 year residents of Los Altos - we respectfully ask that you do NOT split up our Highlands voting district.

1. We are geographically separated by Foothill Expy

2. There are only two transit ways into our area

3. We have Montclaire Elementary School

4. We have worked diligently in the past to protect our area.

LAROAR - access to Rancho San Antonio.

5. Please do not let one council member (Lynette Lee Eng) who lives in the Grant park area be able to lobby/push her agenda through.

Mary Ann and Bob Poulos
2059 Kent Dr, Los Altos, CA 94024
--
Mary Ann Poulos
"Think Globally, Act Locally"
14 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Susanne Tagder <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 1:56 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Council Meeting Oct 8th, Item #4, Redistricting To the Council Members
Re: Council Meeting, Oct. 8th 2024, Redistricting, Item #4 Keep Highlands Woodland Acres in one voting district / Do not vote for maps D and E As a longtime resident of the Los Altos Highlands Woodland Acres Neighborhood, it has come to my attention that there has been a significant lobbying effort by a loud minority to split the Highlands Woodland Acres neighborhood into two separate voting districts. This has not been made public in the way it should have and residents of this neighborhood have not had a fair chance to counter these attempts.

My family and I strongly oppose splitting the Highlands Neighborhood into two districts. This entire neighborhood, Highlands Woodland Acres, is part of the Montclaire Elementary School community and we are all feeding into Cupertino Schools. I consider the council's discussion of now dividing this neighborhood into two voting districts as arbitrary and as a direct and willful violation of my right to vote.

My entire family, all my neighbors, everyone here has always, on election day, voted at Montclaire Elementary School.

As one of our neighbors put it in an email today: Do not forget that this entire area is Cupertino schools. Therefore, we need a district that is ONLY Cupertino schools, not Los Altos schools. Yet, Maps D and E whack our neighborhood, and indeed Montclaire School itself, out of the mostlyCupertino-schools district in order to shoehorn in some neighborhoods on the other side of Fremont that are in the Los Altos school district.

Maps D and E are not a reasonable plan. Do not vote for these.

It seems that there has been a lot of unfair lobbying going on by one of the council members, Lynette Lee Eng, against Highlands Woodland Acres to make sure her own neighborhood doesn’t get split. What she tries to accomplish here, shows how little she knows about the history of the Highlands and how this entire area has been developed in the 1950s and 60s. The Highlands Woodland Acres area has been designed as a whole, with Montclaire Elementary in the center. The history of this is well documented in an exhibit at the Los Altos History Museum. Residents here feel and have always felt like an afterthought in the City Council’s decisions, as if there was no interest in this part of Los Altos that is home to so many engaged and highly skilled people. Please show us that you care and that the minority opinion of one loud (and in my opinion clearly biased) council member does not get to rule over the wishes of an entire neighborhood.
15 2
Thank you for your consideration.

Susanne Meier
2130 Via Escalera
Los Altos
16 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Debbie Crouse <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 2:10 PM
To: Public Comment; [email protected]
Subject: Redistricting - keep neighbors together.

Hello -
I’ve been made aware that you are considering redistricting and have set up Highlands vs. Grant Park as possible split neighborhoods.

Please please please do not split these neighborhoods. You have a small chunk of Grant Park split off. We are in the same school district with common interests that are unique from the rest of Los Altos.

And please do not put Grant Park back together at the sacrifice of Highlands. We are a very cohesive neighborhood with parties, only 2 ways in and out (thus emergency response considerations). We are also very close knit where neighbors know neighbors.

To Lynette - We voted for you to represent us, please don’t throw us under the bus in favor of Grant Park.

Best,
Debbie Crouse
1273 Windimer Dr
17 1
Melissa Thurman
From: CHRIS DAVIS <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 2:20 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Voting districts in South Los Altos
Dear Council members.

Our home is in the Highlands, and we feel strongly that we should not be separated from our other Highland community regarding district voting.

Please consider maps that keep us as one integrated voting group. Splitting us up and combining us with other distinct areas will make issues of importance to this geographically distinct area between 280 and Foothill much more difficult to resolve. It will make future voting on issues that affect the Highlands differently than other groups more challenging.

Also intricate dividing lines give the appearence of distict layouts that were defined with special intent, Perhaps the most straightforward boundaries are the best.

Thank you
John Davis
1060 Nottingham Way
Los Altos Ca
6502243677
18 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Jo Estill <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 2:52 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Voting Districts
Please keep the Highlands and Grant Park in one district.

JoAnne Estill
1972 Deodara Drive
19 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Heather Kellogg Marklein <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 3:15 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Highlands Should be ONE Voting District
Dear Council Members:

Please keep the Highlands in one voting district. We are geographically separated by Foothill Expressway from the rest of South Los Altos. We have neighborhood parties, a neighborhood newsletter, only two ways to transit in and out of the Highlands (per Capt. Katie Krauss of the Los Altos Police Dept), and our own Monclaire Elementary school. Based on all these assets and geographical separation, I believe we are a true community of interest deserving to stay united - not separated.

Thank you for your consideration.

Heather Marklein
Highlands Resident
2271 Via Maderos, Los Altos, CA 94024

20 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Evelyn Merritt <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 3:38 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Voting Districts
Hello,
I would like to ask the City Council not to divide The Highlands community in Los Altos.

I believe that Lynette Lee Eng is showing favoritism toward Grant Park since she lives nearby. This is a violation of public trust as Council members are supposed to look at all matters objectively, and not what benefits themselves or their friends.

If you do keep Grant Park intact while dividing the Highlands, I would like to know the reasoning behind it from all member's point of view.

Thanks for listening!
Evelyn Merritt
1062 Yorkshire Dr,
LA, 94024
21 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Nancy Calhoun <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 4:34 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Highlands Voting Block
Vote to keep the Highlands as one cohesive voting block Nancy Calhoun
[email protected]
22 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Betty Burch <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 5:31 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: HIghlands voting unit
ABSOLUTELY -- HIGHLANDS MUST BE KEPT AS ONE "ADHESIVE" UNIT - NOt SPlit as is possibly suggested
ABSOLUTELY -- HIGHLANDS MUST BE KEPT AS ONE "ADHESIVE" UNIT - NOt SPlit as is possibly suggested
THANK YOU!! Elisabeth Burch
Nottingham Way
23 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Sarah Darby <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 6:03 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Keep the Highlands in one voting district
We strongly feel the Highlands should not be split. It should be one voting district. The Highlands is geographically distinct and our children attend Cupertino schools.

Sarah and Jim Darby
1200 Via Huerta
Los Altos
Sent from my iPhone
24 1
Melissa Thurman
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 6:47 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Create a WiN-WIN for election districting
Hello Council,
One might reasonably expect that that both Grant Park and Highlands would like to remain whole in the election districting process.
- Districting should NOT become an adversarial contest between neighboring communities. - Naturally, neither neighborhood would want to have segments of their community amputated in the districting process. Both can understand this, because neither would want it to happen to their community. Each community can generate ample reasons to stay whole. But they should not have to do so in order to remain whole.

A WIN-WIN solution, would be to keep BOTH communities whole AND attached. I recognize that this would create a fairly large election district. But, that large size should be able to meet districting criteria, by adjusting other districts such that the total deviation is under 10% per districting guidelines.

Please work in harmony to achieve our common goals to remain as whole communities. If council needs more time to achieve this, then please take the time.

Thank you,
Richard Kane
1709 Newcastle Drive, Los Altos
25 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Cori Mehring <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 8:19 AM
To: Public Comment; Districts
Subject: Election District Maps - Keep Grant Park Neighborhood together! Dear Los Altos City Council,
As a member of the “Grant Park Neighborhood” (delineated by Grant Rd, Fremont Ave, Stevens Creek, and Homestead Rd./Foothill Expwy), I support keeping the voting district as the entire community surrounding Grant Park.

Our day to day life centers on living in this great neighborhood of wonderful neighbors - strengthened by common interests such as schools, parks, churches, grocery stores. We are a tight-knit area, where we know our neighbors *because* we spend time doing activities with them and talking to them on a regular basis. Daily dog walks and school carpools, weekly bike group rides, and monthly book group meetings are the core of this cohesiveness, and our shared interests would be reflected in voting and council representation.

Thank you for your time in getting the mapping fair and appropriate for all in our great city.

Respectfully,
-Cori Mehring, 29 year resident
26 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Reena Kapoor <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 8:40 AM
To: Public Comment; Districts; City Council
Subject: Please keep GRANT PARK area as one voting district Hello All --
I support keeping Grant Park neighbourhood together (roughly Grant Rd/Fremont Ave/the creek/Homestead) as a voting district. We have common concerns, geographic factors and interests and it makes no sense to split up this area.

Moreover, I strongly encourage all council members to work along with the Mayor to achieve keeping Grant Park whole, even if it means that they might need to put forth renewed effort so that this goal is possible before finalizing election districts.

Thanks!
Reena Kapoor
1927 Annette Ln
Los Altos 94024
~*~*~*~

REENA KAPOOR
Subscribe to my blog | About me | Executive Mentor
[email protected] | [email protected]
27 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Megan Allen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 8:48 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Districts
Keep Grant Park neighborhood together as delineated by Grant Rd. Fremont. The Creek, Homestead Regards Megan allen Newcastle Dr Sent from my iPhone
28 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Eric Muller <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 9:10 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public comment - December 8, 2024 City Council meeting - item not on the agenda - Parks and underground parking
Dear City Council,
A few observations on the proposed downtown parks with underground parking:

1. I think that deciding to convert parking plazas to parks does not necessarily imply the construction of underground parking. There is of course synergy between the two projects, but the parking part should be decided on its own merits. Also, plazas #3, 4, 5 and 6 have been eliminated from consideration only because of the parking part of the project; should the underground parking be abandoned, those should be considered again for conversion to park(s).

2. There is general agreement that mitigation of climate change requires fewer cars on the roads, and consequently less demand for non-residential parking. While the reduction in demand will not happen overnight, I do hope that we will have made significant progress by 2030, which is about the earliest the underground parking could become available. Is it wise to build something we may not need? Wouldn't it be better to work more aggressively on reducing the need for parking?

3. Even if we decide that we need parking spaces in 2030, it is far less obvious that we will still need them in 2050. With that in mind, I would encourage the incorporation of adaptative reuse considerations from the start, such as: what other uses could the parking structure have and what would facilitate, in the initial construction, the eventual conversion to those uses? can the parking be built such that it is easier to dismantle, and the components (e.g. walls) can be reused in other buildings (rather than recycled)? There may be no good answer because of the underground location, but it is still worth investigating.

4. The underground parking, besides a dollar cost, also has a CO2 cost. Surely, excavating and hauling away the soil is not going to happen with electric excavators and trucks; there will be a significant amount of concrete and steel, the production of which is known to be CO2-intensive. Then there is probably an operating cost (lights? ventilation?). I wish that these CO2 costs be evaluated on an equal footing to the dollar costs, right from the start. May be we cannot afford those costs? Of course, we probably have less experience with CO2 costs than with dollar costs, so their estimation will be less precise, but still, that is the kind of thinking than one may expect from one of the richest cities in the one of the most innovative regions.

5. The previous three points, reducing as the preferred strategy, anticipating adaptation, and incorporating CO2 accounting from the start, are applicable to any project, not just this underground parking.

6. Please incorporate bicycle parking in the plans. Bicycles deserve "to remain protected from the elements" just as much, if not more, than cars. And "downtown employees" who may consider commuting by bicycle would further appreciate enclosed, locked, nominative bike cages or boxes (much 29 2
as there used to be at the Mountain View Caltrain station), so that they don't have to worry about theft of their bicycles or accessories. A few non-nominative boxes (as there is now at the Mountain View Caltrain station) would also be welcome. Also desirable are accommodations for trailers, and charging of electric bikes. And of course, the access ramps have to be practical for cyclists.

7. There is no question that parks would help with "Environmental Sustainability – Enhance from the existing asphalt parking to green space". However, it is worth remembering that with underground parking, a park is just a glorified rooftop garden, and in particular is an impervious surface.

8. It is clear that the Los Altos community needs to be well informed. To that effect, it would have been nice to have a recording of the April 9, 2024 City Council Study Session, and to see public meetings in the City calendar (I see no entries for the February 27 and March 22 meetings mentioned in the Staff Report for the Study Session). I would even go further and suggest that the decision-making process should be more open than is usual for city business.

Sincerely,
Eric Muller
[email protected]
30 1
Melissa Thurman
From: JAMES HENNESSY <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 9:41 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Fw: Redistricting
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: JAMES HENNESSY <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 at 09:39:12 AM PDT
Subject: Redistricting
I firmly believe this redistricting of Los Altos is a complete farce and utter waste of time for the Council and the public. Having said that, I have reviewed the proposed maps and strongly urge you to keep our Grant Park neighborhood intact.

Splitting the Grant Park community into two districts makes no sense to me given our common interests.

Thank You for your consideration.

Jim and Pam Hennessy
31 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Robin Livengood <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 10:57 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: South Los Altos Redistricting
To whom it may concern:

I live on Richardson Avenue in South Los Altos. We are the small minority of residents who sent our children to Montclaire Elementary School, Cupertino Middle School, and Homestead High School. We are consistently under represented in Los Altos and for this, among other reasons, I feel it is very important that we stay together as one district so that we can advocate for ourselves when necessary. If we are not kept together, our already undersized voice will be further diluted.

Sincerely,
Robin Livengood
1326 Richardson Ave
Los Altos
Sent from Robin's iPhone
32 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Janet Lorenzin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 12:25 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Los Altos voting district proposals
Dear City Council members,
I would like to encourage you to choose an option that keeps the Highlands area of Los Altos as a single district. This area is geographically separated by Foothill Expressway from the rest of South Los Altos and is therefore a natural community. There are only two ways to transit in and out of the Highlands so its traffic needs are quite specific (routes to schools, emergency access etc). Furthermore, this area’s children go to Montclaire Elementary school which is in the Cupertino Union school district. Ideally, for this reason, both the Grant Park area that uses Montclaire Elementary and the Highlands would be in a single voting district.

Thank you,
Janet Lorenzin
Windimer Drive
Los Altos
33 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Stacey Hiraoka <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 1:21 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Dad
Subject: Re/ support- keep grant park neighborhood together I live only 2 blocks away from Grant park and would not like the city to separate our neighborhood.

Thank you,
Stacey Hiraoka
1922 Kay Drive
Los Altos
Sent from my iPhone
34 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Thomas Smith Jr. <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 1:48 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Redistricting
I oppose redistricting the current Highlands area.

Thomas S. Smith Jr
2196 Sierra Ventura Drive
Los Altos
35 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Thushitha R. Deepak <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 4:58 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Keep Grant Park Together
Respected Council Members,
I am a resident and homeowner in the Grant Park area of Los Altos, and I am writing to you to please keep our neighborhood together.

I'm specifically referring to the Grant Park neighborhood together as delineated by Fremont Ave, Grant Rd. to Foothill expressway, and then Grant continuing to Homestead at Stevens Creek and then Stevens Creek completing the circumscription back at Fremont Ave.

We are a strong community and would like to remain this way without any districting changes that would affect us severely. As a council I request you to please redouble your efforts to keep our community whole.

Regards,
Thushitha Deepak
36 1
Melissa Thurman
From: AnnaTasha <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 5:22 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Please do Not split up highlands
Attention: to whom it concerns
This will affect many families including but more serious is safety.

Respectfully, Ms. AnnaTasha Birch
37 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Laynette Blackfield <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 10:29 PM
To: Melissa Thurman
Subject: Re: My comment
Thank you for your help. Please delete my original comments and identifying information and replace with the following.

Thank you very much..My comment should read as follows:
“Please do not separate the houses in the Cupertino School Districy into two ( or more) separate districts. This would be patently u fair to all people who live in the Cupertino School District in Los Altos.

It is definitely important that all houses in the Cupertino School Disrict be placed in one voting area. “ Sent from my iPad
> On Oct 8, 2024, at 9:54 AM, Melissa Thurman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> The City does not retract information provided in written public comments. However, if you would like to re-submit your comment, without your personal information, you are welcome to do so. Once that message is received, it will replace the previous version.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> Melissa Thurman, MMC
> City Clerk
> City of Los Altos
> www.losaltosca.gov
> 1 N. San Antonio Road | Los Altos, CA 94022 Confidentiality Notice:
> This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and protected information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. >
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Laynette Blackfield <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 6:59 PM
> To: Melissa Thurman <[email protected]>
> Subject: My comment
>
> Can you please delete my name and my address from my comment asking to > keep Cupertino School District homes in the same voting district. I > did not know they would become part of the public record. Thank you >
> Sent from my iPad
38 CITY OF LOS ALTOS

CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2024
2:00 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 2:00 p.m.

ESTABLISH QUORUM:

Pursuant to AB2449, Sally Meadows, Councilmember, requested to attend the meeting remotely due to illness.

Motion by Fligor and Second by Lee Eng to approve the remote attendance of Councilmember Meadows. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

PUBLIC HEARING

1. Conduct Interviews with Applicants to Various City Commissions and Appoint Members to City Commissions
Melissa Thurman, City Clerk, provided the report.

There were no speakers regarding the item.

The City Council conducted interview sessions with applicants to various City Commissions.

At the conclusion of the interview sessions, the City Council voted to appoint applicants to various City Commissions. The appointments were as follows:
 Complete Streets Commission – Three (3) Vacancies, Four-Year Terms:
 Steven Katz
 Suresh Venkatraman
 Tony Li
 Environmental Commission – Three (3) Vacancies, Four-Year Terms:
 Raashina Humayan
 Colm Nee
 David Recht
 Financial Commission – One (1) Vacancy, Four-Year Term:
 Ken Fowler
 Historical Commission – Three (3) Vacancies, Four-Year Terms:
 Gina Atkinson
 Suzanne Maguire-Negus
39 Agenda Item # 1.

City of Los Altos
City Council Special Meeting Minutes
September 24, 2024

 Parks, Arts, Recreation & Cultural Commission – One (1) Vacancy, Short-Term Expiring in September 2027:
 David Young
 Planning Commission – Four (4) Vacancies, Four-Year Terms:
 Susan Mensinger
 Richard Roche
 Eric Steinle
 Senior Commission – Three (3) Vacancies, Four-Year Terms:
 Jayne M. Cohen
 Dolores Gallagher-Thompson
 Nomi Trapnell
The appointments will be confirmed during the meeting of October 8, 2024.

ADJOURNMENT – The meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m.

The meeting minutes were prepared by Melissa Thurman, City Clerk, for approval at the regular meeting of October 8, 2024.
_____________________________________ __________________________________ Jonathan D. Weinberg Melissa Thurman, MMC
Mayor City Clerk
The September 24, 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.
40 Agenda Item # 1.

CITY OF LOS ALTOS

CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 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 – Pursuant to AB2449, Sally Meadows, Councilmember, requested to attend the meeting remotely due to a medical issue.

During the Special Meeting of September 24, 2024 at 2:00 p.m., there was a motion by Fligor and Second by Lee Eng to approve the remote attendance of Councilmember Meadows. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Neysa Fligor, Councilmember, led the Pledge of Allegiance.

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

During the Closed Session meetings of September 17 and September 24, 2024, the only reportable action was the unanimous approval of the remote attendance request of Councilmember Meadows.

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

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
The following members of the public spoke during public comment:
 Laura Teksler
 Dianne Connelly
 Pierre Bedard

CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no public speakers for the Consent Calendar.

Motion by Dailey and Second by Fligor to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

1. Approve the Special and Regular Meeting Minutes of September 10, 2024 41 Agenda Item # 1.

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
September 24, 2024

PUBLIC HEARINGS

2. Hold Public Hearing No. 4 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 additional draft district maps for consideration for the City of Los Altos; solicit public input on the maps and on the order of elections of the five new districts, and whether candidates for City Council must be residents and electors of the district in which they seek election for any period of time prior to filing their nomination papers and declaring their intent to run Jon Maginot, Assistant City Manager and Elizabeth Stitt, Redistricting Partners, presented the report.

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

The following members of the public spoke during the Public Hearing:
 Freddie Wheeler
 Jon Baer
 Pierre Bedard
 Sharon Fingold
Jonathan D. Weinberg, Mayor, closed the Public Hearing.

The City Council recessed at 9:07 p.m.

The City Council reconvened at 9:19 p.m.

The City Council directed Redistricting Partners to draft five maps and present them on October 8, 2024 for final consideration.

No formal action taken.

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

3. Tentative Council Calendar and Housing Element Update Implementation Calendar

COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS AND DIRECTIONS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS  Jonathan D. Weinberg, Mayor – Requested a future agenda item:
 Report on the status of Below Market Rate (BMR) units (Supported by Dailey and Meadows)
ADJOURNMENT – The regular meeting adjourned at 10:08 p.m. 42 Agenda Item # 1.

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
September 24, 2024

SPECIAL MEETING UPDATE
Melissa Thurman, City Clerk, provided an update that at the conclusion of the September 24, 2024 Special Meeting, the City Council voted to appoint applicants to various City Commissions. The appointments were as follows:
 Complete Streets Commission – Three (3) Vacancies, Four-Year Terms:
 Steven Katz
 Suresh Venkatraman
 Tony Li
 Environmental Commission – Three (3) Vacancies, Four-Year Terms:
 Raashina Humayan
 Colm Nee
 David Recht
 Financial Commission – One (1) Vacancy, Four-Year Term:
 Ken Fowler
 Historical Commission – Three (3) Vacancies, Four-Year Terms:
 Gina Atkinson
 Suzanne Maguire-Negus
 Parks, Arts, Recreation & Cultural Commission – One (1) Vacancy, Short-Term Expiring in September 2027:
 David Young
 Planning Commission – Four (4) Vacancies, Four-Year Terms:
 Susan Mensinger
 Richard Roche
 Eric Steinle
 Senior Commission – Three (3) Vacancies, Four-Year Terms:
 Jayne M. Cohen
 Dolores Gallagher-Thompson
 Nomi Trapnell
The appointments will be confirmed during the meeting of October 8, 2024.

The meeting minutes were prepared by Melissa Thurman, City Clerk, for approval at the regular meeting of October 8, 2024.
43 Agenda Item # 1.

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
September 24, 2024

_________________________________ __________________________________ Jonathan D. Weinberg Melissa Thurman, MMC
Mayor City Clerk
The September 24, 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.
44 Agenda Item # 1.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: October 8, 2024
Prepared By: Melissa Thurman
Approved By: Gabriel Engeland
Subject: Confirmation of City Council Appointments to City Commissions

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

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the confirmation of the City Council appointments to various City Commissions.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not applicable.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
September 24, 2024 – City Council Interview Sessions with Applicants to City Commissions

BACKGROUND
From early July – September 6, 2024, the City Clerk’s Office conducted recruitment for vacancies on various city commissions. The recruitment was successful, with the City Clerk’s Office receiving 32 qualified applications for consideration for appointment.

During a special meeting on September 24, 2024, the City Council conducted interviews with applicants for various city commissions.

ANALYSIS
At the conclusion of the September 24, 2024 special meeting, the City Council voted to appoint applicants to various City Commissions. The appointments were as follows:
45 Agenda Item # 2.
 Complete Streets Commission – Three (3) Vacancies, Four-Year Terms:
 Steven Katz
 Suresh Venkatraman
 Tony Li
 Environmental Commission – Three (3) Vacancies, Four-Year Terms:
 Raashina Humayan
 Colm Nee
 David Recht
 Financial Commission – One (1) Vacancy, Four-Year Term:
 Ken Fowler
 Historical Commission – Three (3) Vacancies, Four-Year Terms:
 Gina Atkinson
 Suzanne Maguire-Negus
One vacancy remaining
 Parks, Arts, Recreation & Cultural Commission – One (1) Vacancy, Short-Term Expiring in September 2027:
 David Young
 Planning Commission – Four (4) Vacancies, Four-Year Terms:
 Susan Mensinger
 Richard Roche
 Eric Steinle
One vacancy remaining
 Senior Commission – Three (3) Vacancies, Four-Year Terms:
 Jayne M. Cohen
 Dolores Gallagher Thompson
 Nomi Trapnell

ATTACHMENTS
None
46 Agenda Item # 2.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: October 8, 2024
Prepared By: Public Works Department
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: Agreement Award: 2024-2025 Downtown Parking Lot Resurfacing Project

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

RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Harris & Associates for the 2024-2025 Downtown Parking Lot Resurfacing Project in the amount of $243,222.00; and authorize the City Manager to execute a change order not to exceed 10% ($24,300) of the total contract amount on behalf of the City and find the Council’s action exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15301(c), and that none of the circumstances in the CEQA guidelines.

POLICY QUESTION(S) FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
None

FISCAL IMPACT
In the FY24/25 annual budget, the City Council adopted a budget of $750,000 (CF-01056) for the Downtown Parking Lot Resurfacing for Parking Lots 4, 5, and 6. The awarding of the project to Harris & Associates will impact the project as shown below.

Downtown Parking Lot Resurfacing Project, CF-01056
Project Tasks Project Budget
Surveying $123,712.00
Grading Project $102,450.00
Construction Engineering Support $15,060.00
Reimbursables (Direct Expenses) $2,000.00
Total Project Cost $243,222.00
47 Agenda Item # 3.

Based on the cost breakdown, the total anticipated project cost is in the amount of $243,222.00.

The project is sufficiently funded, and no additional funding is currently anticipated.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Categorically Exempt pursuant to CEQA Section 15301(c) consisting of the operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures or facilities, such as parking plazas, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. It can be seen with certainty that the contract will not pose a significant effect on the physical environment, and none of the circumstances in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Not Applicable

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
On July 31, 2024, the City released a request for proposal (RFP) to provide a topographic survey of the City-owned downtown parking lots (Parking Lots 1-10) and prepare resurfacing plans for Parking Lots 4, 5, and 6. The topographic survey will locate all building faces, building openings, downspouts, and changes in elevation, direction, and slope, as well as locate all existing utilities and vegetation within the limits of the project. Based on the topographic survey, Harris & Associates will prepare grading plans to resurface Parking Lots 4, 5, and 6. The topographic survey for Parking Lots 1, 2, and 3 will be utilized for the Downtown Park Space with Parking study. The topographic survey of Parking Lots 7, 8, 9, and 10 will be utilized to analyze possible future developments.

The reconstruction plans for Parking Lots 4, 5, and 6 may be broken down into several phases based on the final design and available project funding. The anticipated construction schedule is the second quarter of 2025, but it may be adjusted to minimize any planned activity in the downtown area. The intent of the parking lot's resurfacing is to address current drainage issues and comply with current ADA standards.

Staff recommend awarding the contract to Harris & Associates based on their experience and understanding of the project scope and challenges. Harris & Associates is located in Concord, CA.

ATTACHMENT

1. Resolution 2024-___
48 Agenda Item # 3.

ATTACHMENT 1
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 AN AGREEMENT ON

BEHALF OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS WITH HARRIS & ASSOCIATES FOR THE FY2024-2025 DOWNTOWN PARKING LOT RESURFACING PROJECT (CF-01056)
WHEREAS, the City has selected Harris & Associates to provide professional engineering design services; and
WHEREAS, the FY 24/25 Council-adopted Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) budget has adequate funding to fund the project; and
WHEREAS, Harris & Associates has negotiated an agreement for these services that requires the City Council approval pursuant to the Los Altos Purchasing Policy.

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

1. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement with Harris & Associates in the amount of $243,222.00 and authorize the City Manager to execute a change order not to exceed 10% ($24,300) of the total contract amount on behalf of the City for the FY2024-2025 Downtown Parking Lot Resurfacing Project.

2. Authorize the City Manager to take such further actions as may be necessary to implement the foregoing agreement, and
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos at a meeting thereof on the 8 th
day of October 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

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

CITY CLERK
49 Agenda Item # 3.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: October 8, 2024
Prepared By: Jon Maginot
Approved By: Gabriel Engeland
Subject: Hold Public Hearing No. 5 to receive a presentation from the City's consulting demographer, Redistricting Partners, solicit public input on draft district maps and the order of elections of the five new districts including whether candidates for City Council must be residents and electors of the district in which they seek election for any period of time prior to filing their nomination papers and declaring their intent to run; reach agreement on the map to become the City's final district elections map; and to consider an ordinance adopting district-based elections and approving the final district map for the City of Los Altos.

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

RECOMMENDATION
Hold Public Hearing No. 5 to receive a presentation from the City's consulting demographer, Redistricting Partners, regarding additional draft maps developed by the public and Redistricting Partners, and reach agreement on the map to become the City's final district elections map; open, hold, and close the public hearing on draft maps, including approving the final district map for the City of Los Altos and determining which specific districts will constitute the two (2) districts on the ballot in November 2026 and the three (3) on the ballot in November 2028; introduce and adopt an urgency ordinance establishing five (5) districts for the election of City Councilmembers, establishing the boundaries and the identification number of each district, establishing the election order of each district, and adding Sections 2.04.070 through 2.04.100 to Chapter 2.04 of the City of Los Altos Municipal Code; and determine whether candidates for City Council must be residents and electors of the district in which they seek election for any period of time prior to filing their nomination papers and declaring their intent to run.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to hold this meeting as the City has already retained the services of outside legal counsel and a demographer to assist in the transition to district-based elections. 50 Agenda Item # 4.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This item is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review under CEQA Guidelines, § 15061(b)(3) in that it can be seen with certainty that the adoption of this Urgency Ordinance implementing the California Voting Rights Act would not result in a significant environmental effect.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
On April 18, 2024, the City received a Notice of Violation of the California Voting Rights Act ("CVRA"). The letter asserts that the City is in violation of the CVRA because the City's councilmember elections are at-large as opposed to by district and there exist racial polarization and vote dilution. On May 28, 2024, the City Council adopted a resolution declaring its intent to transition to a district-based electoral system commencing in November of 2026.

Currently, voters across the City vote "at-large" for all five (5) City Councilmembers. A “bydistrict” election is one in which the City is divided into separate districts, each represented by one City Councilmember who resides in that district and is chosen only by that district's voters. The first by-district City Council election will occur in the November 2026 general municipal election, when two (2) districts will select Councilmembers, with the transition to district-based elections fully completed in the November 2028 general election, when the final three (3) districts will select Councilmembers.

The City Council has held five (5) public hearings for the City’s transition to by-district elections.

At these hearings, the City's demographer made presentations regarding the requirements for bydistrict elections, and the process for taking public input to help determine how the City Council districts might be constructed. The City Council then heard from the public on the various communities of interest that exist in the City, and how the districts might be drawn to recognize these communities of interest. The City Council and City staff also sponsored several community workshops and outreach at community events in September 2024.

On June 11 and July 13, 2024, the City Council held the first and second of five public hearings required for the City’s transition to by-district elections. Public hearings nos. 1 and 2 were held prior to any draft maps being drawn. Redistricting Partners, the City’s retained demographer, made presentations at both public hearings regarding the CVRA. Those presentations covered the composition and number of districts, as well as the public input process. Members of the public provided input at both hearings regarding various communities of interest in and the various attributes of the City of Los Altos. At its July 13th hearing, the City Council, with public input, provided direction to begin drawing draft maps for a by-district election system comprised of five districts and a rotational mayor.

At the August 28, 2024 public hearing, the City Council received a presentation on the first set of three draft maps (Maps A-C) and began a robust community outreach process. At the August 28th hearing, the City’s consulting demographer, Redistricting Partners, presented three draft maps as a way for the City Council and community to visualize proposed district boundaries. The City Council also provided further direction on the additional information the City should examine when forming the district boundaries, such as the distribution and of information regarding socioeconomic status, age, school boundaries, shopping districts, and parks. 51 Agenda Item # 4.

At the September 24, 2024 public hearing, the City Council reviewed two additional draft maps prepared by Redistricting Partners (Maps D-E) and received an update on the community outreach efforts conducted by the City. The City Council also provided direction on the final map including keeping El Camino Real in one district, keeping the Downtown and Civic Center in one district, placing Rancho Shopping Center and Loyola Corners into separate districts and keeping the Highlands in one district.

For the October 8, 2024 public hearing, the fifth and final public hearing, based on the direction of City Council received at the September 24th public hearing, Redistricting Partners has prepared five additional draft maps for Council consideration (Maps F-F5). In addition, the City Council can also consider any of the maps drawn and submitted by members of the public, provided they were published on the City’s website at least seven days prior to the hearing.

On October 8, 2024, the City Council is scheduled to adopt the final City Council district map. By law, the City Council has until October 31, 2024 as the final legal deadline to adopt the City Council district boundary map and determine the order of election for the five (5) City Council districts, that is – which two (2) districts will select a Councilmember in the November 2026 general election, and which three (3) districts will do so in November of 2028.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Public Input Received
Over several months, the City Council oversaw an extensive community outreach process and received substantial comments related to district boundaries in the City and draft maps. In response to this input, the City's demographer developed revised maps to address the public's concerns and the direction provided by the City Council, all the while ensuring that the City complied with the criteria mandated by the California Voting Rights Act and the Federal Voting Rights Act.

District Formation Criteria
In creating the district boundaries, the City must ensure compliance with the following criteria mandated by the CVRA and the Federal Voting Rights Act:
 Each district must contain a nearly equal population (no more than a 10% variance but best practices encourage no more than a 5% population deviation);  The districting plan must be drawn in a manner that complies with the Federal Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution; and,  The districts must not be drawn with race as the predominant factor because the overall population balance between districts is the highest priority.

Additionally, Election Code section 21130 requires general law cities like the City to adopt districts using the following criteria, which are set forth in order of priority:
 Districts shall be geographically contiguous.
 To the extent practicable, the geographic integrity of any local neighborhood or local community of interest must be respected and maintained. A “community of interest” is a 52 Agenda Item # 4.
population that shares common social, economic and geographic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation.  District boundaries should be easily identifiable and understandable. To the extent practicable, districts shall be bounded by natural and artificial barriers, by streets, or by the boundaries of the jurisdiction.
 To the extent practicable, and where it does not conflict with the preceding criteria, districts shall be drawn to encourage geographical compactness.

Drawing and Considering Draft Maps
At the October 8, 2024 meeting, the City Council will again hear public feedback on the draft maps and be asked to approve the final map as well as the sequence of elections. The draft maps comply with the district formation criteria required under California and Federal law and will come before the City Council at the final public hearing on October 8th. The City is using the latest 2020 Census data provided by the Statewide Database with the state prison population reallocated, as required under the Fair Maps Act. These maps will use the underlying Census tract geography to establish the boundaries of individual City Council districts. In drawing these maps, the utmost care will be taken to honor neighborhoods and communities of interest and the public input received.

Along with any draft maps proposed by the public at least seven (7) days in advance of the October 8th meeting, draft Maps F-F5 will be considered by the City Council. One map will ultimately be selected for adoption as the five-district electoral map for City Council elections.

The public is again invited to provide their input on these draft maps before the City Council selects one of the maps.

Regarding the sequence of elections, the City Council will consider which two (2) districts will select a Councilmember in the November 2026 general election and which three (3) districts will do so in November of 2028, As required by law, the City Council will make this decision "in the spirit of the California Voting Rights Act" and will give "special consideration" to community input.

At the October 8th meeting, the City Council will also determine whether candidates for City Council must be residents of the district in which they seek election for any period of time prior to filing their nomination papers. Pursuant to Government Code section 34882, a candidate running for a city councilmember position is not eligible to hold that office unless they reside in the geographical area making up the district from which they are elected at the time their nomination papers are issued. There is no requirement related to a minimum residency period, and the City is not required to impose such a requirement. In fact, neighboring cities have taken different positions on this issue – some have imposed a 30-day residency requirement while others have imposed no minimum residency requirement. The City Council invites the public to provide their input on this topic.

Should Council approve the urgency ordinance at the October 8th meeting, the ordinance will go into effect immediately and the City will begin holding district elections in 2026. This ordinance will require a 4/5th vote for approval. The proposed ordinance for City Council consideration is 53 Agenda Item # 4.

Attachment 1 to this staff report. Should the City Council not be able to make urgency findings, a regular ordinance is included as Attachment 2. This ordinance would require two readings and would be required to be adopted at a regular City Council meeting (October 22).

Alternatively, the City Council might also decide that more work is necessary and provide additional direction for revised maps at an additional future hearing, which again will be posted at least seven (7) days prior to that next hearing.1

ATTACHMENTS

1. Urgency Ordinance No. 2024-xxx

2. Ordinance No. 2024-xxx

3. Draft Maps F-F5

4. Draft Map F Detail

5. Draft Map F2 Detail

6. Draft Map F3 Detail

7. Draft Map F4 Detail

8. Draft Map F5 Detail

9. Maps submitted by members of the public

1 The requirement that there be five (5) hearings is a minimum and not a maximum. 54 Agenda Item # 4.

Ordinance No. ___
ORDINANCE NO. ___

AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS TO AMEND THE LOS ALTOS MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SECTIONS 2.05.070 THROUGH 2.04.100 TO CHAPTER 2.04, WHICH PROVIDE FOR THE ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF THE

CITY COUNCIL BY FIVE DISTRICTS, ESTABLISH THE BOUNDARIES,

IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS, AND THE ELECTION ORDER OF EACH DISTRICT,

ESTABLISH A RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT TO SEEK A COUNCIL SEAT FROM

EACH DISTRICT, AND RELATED ACTIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Los Altos has historically used an at-large method of election, which is consistent with the guarantees of Section 7 of Article 1 and of Section 2 of Article II of the California Constitution; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 34886 permits the City Council to change the method of election by ordinance to a “by-district” system in which each member of the City Council is elected only by the voters in the district in which the candidate resides, in accordance with California Government Code Section 34871; and WHEREAS, a by-district system can also be consistent with the guarantees of Section 7 of Article I and of Section 2 of Article II of the California Constitution; and WHEREAS, on May 28, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-71 which initiated the process of establishing a by-district election system; and WHEREAS, under the provisions of California Elections Code Section 10010, a city that changes from an at-large city council method of election to a by-district city council method of election must hold a total of five public hearings, which includes at least two (2) public hearings regarding potential voting district boundaries prior to the release and consideration of any draft voting district maps, and two (2) public hearings following the release of draft voting district maps; and
WHEREAS, on June 11 and July 13, 2024, pursuant to California Elections Code Section 10010(a)(1), the City Council held public hearings where the public was invited to provide input regarding the composition of the City’s voting districts before any draft maps were drawn, and the City Council of the City of Los Altos considered and discussed the same; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing of the City Council on July 13, 2024, the City Council also invited input on whether to have four (4) districts and an at-large directly-elected Mayor, or five (5) districts with the Mayor selected by the City Council on a rotating basis, and voted to proceed with a five-district system with the mayoral rotation, directing its demographer to draft maps that divide the City into five (5) districts in preparation for the August 28, 2024 public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on August 28, September 24, and October 8, 2024, pursuant to California Elections Code Section 10010(a)(2), the City Council held public hearings where the public was invited to provide input regarding the content of the draft maps that had been released and 55 Agenda Item # 4.

Ordinance No. ___
published at least seven (7) days before each public hearing and the proposed sequence of the elections, and the City Council of the City of Los Altos considered and discussed the same; and WHEREAS, at its public hearing on September 24, 2028, the City Council directed staff to prepare a proposed ordinance adopting a voting district map for the City Council’s consideration and determining the sequence of elections in each district; and WHEREAS, on October 8, 2024, the City Council held its fifth and final public hearing on the proposal to establish district boundaries, reviewed and considered additional public input, formally selected the voting district map and the election sequence attached to, incorporated in, and set forth, in this Ordinance as Exhibit A, which was introduced for a first reading at the same public hearing; and
WHEREAS, throughout the foregoing process, the City engaged in a significant amount of public outreach and engagement above and beyond the public hearings and other procedures required by California Elections Code Section 10010, including hosting a webpage dedicated to districting; inviting the submission of community of interest forms to allow the public to provide input on keeping communities of interest in single districts to the extent possible; inviting the submission of draft maps by the public using an interactive mapping tool; and providing districting information to local and to good government, civic engagement, and minority groups active within the City; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this Ordinance is to enact, pursuant to California Government Code Section 34886, an ordinance providing for the election of members of the City Council of the City of Los Altos by district in five (5) single-member districts as reflected in the voting district map referred to as Map ___ and attached as Exhibit A to this Ordinance, in furtherance of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (Chapter 1.5 [commencing with Section 14025] of Division 14 of the Elections Code) to encourage by-district elections as one method to implement the guarantees of Section 7 of Article I and of Section 2 of Article II of the California Constitution; and
WHEREAS, this Urgency Ordinance, pursuant to Government Code section 36937, is hereby declared to be necessary as an urgency measure for the preservation of the public peace, health, safety and welfare of the City, and as such shall take effect immediately and be in full force and effect after its adoption after publication at least once in an official newspaper of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this ordinance must be adopted as an Urgency Ordinance to comply with the California Voting Rights Act and any alleged violations of the California Voting Right Act by attorney Kevin Shenkman representing the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council further finds that it is necessary that this ordinance be adopted as an Urgency Ordinance for the preservation of the public peace, health, safety, and welfare of the City by complying with the October 31, 2024, deadline granted by the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project to create five (5) legally permissible voting districts within 56 Agenda Item # 4.

Ordinance No. ___
the City. If this ordinance is not adopted by October 31, 2024, then the City would be exposed to litigation and attorneys’ fees.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CALIFORNIA ORDAINS THAT:

Section 1: INCORPORATION OF RECITALS. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are hereby incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth in their entirety.

Section 2: URGENCY ORDINANCE.

This Urgency Ordinance, pursuant to Government Code Section 36937, is hereby declared to be necessary as an urgency measure for the preservation of the public peace, health, safety and welfare of the City of Los Altos, and as such shall take effect immediately and be in full force and effect after its adoption after publication at least once in an official newspaper of the City for the following reasons:

The City Council finds that this ordinance must be adopted as an Urgency Ordinance to comply with the California Voting Rights Act and any alleged violations of same by attorney Kevin Shenkman representing the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project.

Section 3: SECTIONS 2.04.070 THROUGH 2.04.100 OF CHAPTER 2.04 OF THE LOS ALTOS MUNICIPAL CODE ARE ADDED AS FOLLOWS:

2.04.070 - Declaration of Purpose
The City Council hereby declares that the change of method of electing members of this City Council hereby enacted is being made in furtherance of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001.

02.04.080 - City Council Districts Established
Five (5) City Council districts are hereby established in the City of Los Altos. The boundaries and identifying number of each district shall be as described on the City Council District Map ___ attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein.

02.04.090 - Election of Members of the City Council By-District (a) Following the effective date of this Ordinance and upon the commencement of “bydistrict” elections in the order established in Section 2.04.100 of this Chapter, City Councilmembers shall be elected “by-district” as defined in California Government Code Section 34871 or any successor statute. Any candidate for City Council must have been a resident and elector of the district in which they seek election for at least 30 days before the time they file nominating papers or an equivalent declaration of candidacy for the City Council, or such person’s appointment to fill a vacancy therein. No term of any City Councilmember that commenced prior to the effective date of this Ordinance shall be affected by the adoption of this Ordinance.
57 Agenda Item # 4.

Ordinance No. ___
(b) Registered voters signing nominating papers or voting for a City Councilmember shall be residents of the geographical area making up the district from which the City Councilmember is to be elected.
(c) The terms of the office of each City Councilmember elected shall remain four (4) years.

Pursuant to Section 2.04.020 of the Los Altos Municipal Code, no person shall be eligible to serve as a City Councilmember for more than two consecutive four (4) year terms.

02.04.100 - Commencement of District Elections
(a) Commencing on the general municipal election in 2026, and every four (4) years thereafter, the voters in Districts ___ and ___ shall elect City Councilmembers by-district for full four (4) year terms. At the general municipal election in 2028, and every four (4) years thereafter, the voters in Districts ___, ___, and ___ shall elect City Councilmembers by-district for full four (4) year terms.
(b) The term of office of any City Councilmember who has been elected and whose term of office has not expired shall not be affected by any change in the boundaries of the district from which he or she was elected.

Section 4: TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS AND METES-AND-BOUNDS.

If necessary to facilitate the implementation of this Ordinance, the City Clerk is authorized to make technical adjustments to the district boundaries that do not substantively affect the populations in the districts, the eligibility of candidates, or the residence of elected officials within any district. The City Clerk shall consult with the City Manager and City Attorney concerning any technical adjustments deemed necessary and shall advise the City Council of any such adjustments required in the implementation of the by-district elections. The City Clerk shall also direct the City's demographer to provide a metes-and-bounds description of each district as shown on the map attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, which shall be submitted to the City Council at its next regular meeting and kept on file in the City Clerk's office for public review.

Section 5: SEVERABILITY.

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, unconstitutional, or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance shall be deemed severable and the remaining portions of this Ordinance shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect. The City Council of the City of Los Altos hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of this Ordinance be declared invalid, unconstitutional, or unenforceable.

Section 6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION.

The City Council hereby finds and determines that this Urgency Ordinance has been assessed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.) 58 Agenda Item # 4.

Ordinance No. ___
(“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.) and is exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines, § 15061(b)(3) in that it can be seen with certainty that the adoption of this Urgency Ordinance implementing the California Voting Rights Act would not result in a significant environmental effect.

Section 7. PUBLICATION. This Urgency Ordinance shall be published as provided in Government Code section 36933.

Section 8: EFFECTIVE DATE:

The City Council finds that it is necessary that this ordinance be adopted as an Urgency Ordinance for the preservation of the public peace, health, safety, and welfare of the City by complying with the October 31, 2024, deadline granted by the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project to create five (5) legally permissible voting districts within the City. If this ordinance is not adopted by October 31, 2024, then the City would be exposed to litigation and attorneys’ fees.

In order to accomplish these goals, Ordinance No. ___ must adopted by means of an Urgency Ordinance.

The foregoing Urgency Ordinance was duly and properly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Altos held on October 8, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

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

Ordinance No. ___
ORDINANCE NO. ___

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS TO AMEND THE LOS ALTOS MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SECTIONS 2.05.070 THROUGH 2.04.100 TO CHAPTER 2.04, WHICH PROVIDE FOR THE ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF THE

CITY COUNCIL BY FIVE DISTRICTS, ESTABLISH THE BOUNDARIES,

IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS, AND THE ELECTION ORDER OF EACH DISTRICT,

ESTABLISH A RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT TO SEEK A COUNCIL SEAT FROM

EACH DISTRICT, AND RELATED ACTIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Los Altos has historically used an at-large method of election, which is consistent with the guarantees of Section 7 of Article 1 and of Section 2 of Article II of the California Constitution; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 34886 permits the City Council to change the method of election by ordinance to a “by-district” system in which each member of the City Council is elected only by the voters in the district in which the candidate resides, in accordance with California Government Code Section 34871; and WHEREAS, a by-district system can also be consistent with the guarantees of Section 7 of Article I and of Section 2 of Article II of the California Constitution; and WHEREAS, on May 28, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-71 which initiated the process of establishing a by-district election system; and WHEREAS, under the provisions of California Elections Code Section 10010, a city that changes from an at-large city council method of election to a by-district city council method of election must hold a total of five public hearings, which includes at least two (2) public hearings regarding potential voting district boundaries prior to the release and consideration of any draft voting district maps, and two (2) public hearings following the release of draft voting district maps; and
WHEREAS, on June 11 and July 13, 2024, pursuant to California Elections Code Section 10010(a)(1), the City Council held public hearings where the public was invited to provide input regarding the composition of the City’s voting districts before any draft maps were drawn, and the City Council of the City of Los Altos considered and discussed the same; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing of the City Council on July 13, 2024, the City Council also invited input on whether to have four (4) districts and an at-large directly-elected Mayor, or five (5) districts with the Mayor selected by the City Council on a rotating basis, and voted to proceed with a five-district system with the mayoral rotation, directing its demographer to draft maps that divide the City into five (5) districts in preparation for the August 28, 2024 public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on August 28, September 24, and October 8, 2024, pursuant to California Elections Code Section 10010(a)(2), the City Council held public hearings where the public was invited to provide input regarding the content of the draft maps that had been released and 60 Agenda Item # 4.

Ordinance No. ___
published at least seven (7) days before each public hearing and the proposed sequence of the elections, and the City Council of the City of Los Altos considered and discussed the same; and WHEREAS, at its public hearing on September 24, 2028, the City Council directed staff to prepare a proposed ordinance adopting a voting district map for the City Council’s consideration and determining the sequence of elections in each district; and WHEREAS, on October 8, 2024, the City Council held its fifth and final public hearing on the proposal to establish district boundaries, reviewed and considered additional public input, formally selected the voting district map and the election sequence attached to, incorporated in, and set forth, in this Ordinance as Exhibit A, which was introduced for a first reading at the same public hearing; and
WHEREAS, throughout the foregoing process, the City engaged in a significant amount of public outreach and engagement above and beyond the public hearings and other procedures required by California Elections Code Section 10010, including hosting a webpage dedicated to districting; inviting the submission of community of interest forms to allow the public to provide input on keeping communities of interest in single districts to the extent possible; inviting the submission of draft maps by the public using an interactive mapping tool; and providing districting information to local and to good government, civic engagement, and minority groups active within the City; and,
WHEREAS, the purpose of this Ordinance is to enact, pursuant to California Government Code Section 34886, an ordinance providing for the election of members of the City Council of the City of Los Altos by district in five (5) single-member districts as reflected in the voting district map referred to as Map ___ and attached as Exhibit A to this Ordinance, in furtherance of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001 (Chapter 1.5 [commencing with Section 14025] of Division 14 of the Elections Code) to encourage by-district elections as one method to implement the guarantees of Section 7 of Article I and of Section 2 of Article II of the California Constitution.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS, CALIFORNIA ORDAINS THAT:

Section 1: INCORPORATION OF RECITALS. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are hereby incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth in their entirety.

Section 2: SECTIONS 2.04.070 THROUGH 2.04.100 OF CHAPTER 2.04 OF THE LOS ALTOS MUNICIPAL CODE ARE ADDED AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 2.04.070 - Declaration of Purpose
The City Council hereby declares that the change of method of electing members of this City Council hereby enacted is being made in furtherance of the California Voting Rights Act of 2001.
61 Agenda Item # 4.

Ordinance No. ___

02.04.080 - City Council Districts Established
Five (5) City Council districts are hereby established in the City of Los Altos. The boundaries and identifying number of each district shall be as described on the City Council District Map ___ attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein.

02.04.090 - Election of Members of the City Council By-District (a) Following the effective date of this Ordinance and upon the commencement of “bydistrict” elections in the order established in Section 2.04.100 of this Chapter, City Councilmembers shall be elected “by-district” as defined in California Government Code Section 34871 or any successor statute. Any candidate for City Council must have been a resident and elector of the district in which they seek election for at least 30 days before the time they file nominating papers or an equivalent declaration of candidacy for the City Council, or such person’s appointment to fill a vacancy therein. No term of any City Councilmember that commenced prior to the effective date of this Ordinance shall be affected by the adoption of this Ordinance.
(b) Registered voters signing nominating papers or voting for a City Councilmember shall be residents of the geographical area making up the district from which the City Councilmember is to be elected.
(c) The terms of the office of each City Councilmember elected shall remain four (4) years.

Pursuant to Section 2.04.020 of the Los Altos Municipal Code, no person shall be eligible to serve as a City Councilmember for more than two consecutive four (4) year terms.

02.04.100 - Commencement of District Elections
(a) Commencing on the general municipal election in 2026, and every four (4) years thereafter, the voters in Districts ___ and ___ shall elect City Councilmembers by-district for full four (4) year terms. At the general municipal election in 2028, and every four (4) years thereafter, the voters in Districts ___, ___, and ___ shall elect City Councilmembers by-district for full four (4) year terms.
(b) The term of office of any City Councilmember who has been elected and whose term of office has not expired shall not be affected by any change in the boundaries of the district from which he or she was elected.

Section 3: TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS AND METES-AND-BOUNDS.

If necessary to facilitate the implementation of this Ordinance, the City Clerk is authorized to make technical adjustments to the district boundaries that do not substantively affect the populations in the districts, the eligibility of candidates, or the residence of elected officials within any district. The City Clerk shall consult with the City Manager and City Attorney concerning any technical adjustments deemed necessary and shall advise the City Council of any such adjustments required in the implementation of the by-district elections. The City Clerk shall also direct the City's demographer to provide a metes-and-bounds description of each district as shown on the map attached as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, which shall be submitted to the City Council at its next regular meeting and kept on file in the City Clerk's office for public review.
62 Agenda Item # 4.

Ordinance No. ___
Section 4: SEVERABILITY.

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, unconstitutional, or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance shall be deemed severable and the remaining portions of this Ordinance shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect. The City Council of the City of Los Altos hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of this Ordinance be declared invalid, unconstitutional, or unenforceable.

Section 5. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION.

Adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review as the adoption of this Ordinance does not qualify as a “project” pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), under Public Resource Code Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15320, 15378, and 15061(b)(3), as there is no possibility that such action would cause either a direct, or reasonably foreseeable indirect, physical change in the environment.

Section 6. EFFECTIVE TERM; PUBLICATION. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption. The City Clerk is directed to publish summaries of this Ordinance in the manner required by law.

INTRODUCED at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Altos held on October 8, 2024.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Altos held on _______, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

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

City of Los Altos
Draft F with landmarks
64 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F2 with landmarks
65 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F3 with landmarks
66 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F4 with landmarks
67 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F5 with landmarks
68 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F with landmarks
69 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F with landmarks
1 2 3 4 5
Population 6,647 6,181 6,260 6,354 6,226
Deviation 313 -153 -74 20 -108
Deviation % 4.9% -2.4% -1.2% 0.3% -1.7%
Other 4,242 3,417 3,871 3,684 3,570
Other % 63.8% 55.3% 61.8% 58.0% 57.3%
Latino 317 310 287 325 314
Latino % 4.8% 5.0% 4.6% 5.1% 5.0%
Asian 2,057 2,408 2,067 2,310 2,305
Asian % 30.9% 39.0% 33.0% 36.4% 37.0%
Black 31 46 35 35 37
Black % 0.5% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2020 Census
1 2 3 4 5
Total CVAP 3,765 3,604 4,196 4,688 3,828
Other CVAP 2,821 2,331 2,984 3,156 2,132
Other CVAP % 74.9% 64.7% 71.1% 67.3% 55.7%
Latino CVAP 96 142 158 224 218
Latino CVAP % 2.5% 3.9% 3.8% 4.8% 5.7%
Asian CVAP 843 1,110 914 1,281 1,466
Asian CVAP % 22.4% 30.8% 21.8% 27.3% 38.3%
Black CVAP 5 21 140 27 12
Black CVAP % 0.1% 0.6% 3.3% 0.6% 0.3%
Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP)
70 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F with landmarks
District 1
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,647 313 4.9% 4,242 63.8% 317 4.8% 2,057 30.9% 31 0.5% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 3,765 2,821 74.9% 96 2.5% 843 22.4% 5 0.1%
71 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F with landmarks
District 2
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,181 -153 -2.4% 3,417 55.3% 310 5.0% 2,408 39.0% 46 0.7% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 3,604 2,331 64.7% 142 3.9% 1,110 30.8% 21 0.6%
72 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F with landmarks
District 3
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,260 -74 -1.2% 3,871 61.8% 287 4.6% 2,067 33.0% 35 0.6% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 4,196 2,984 71.1% 158 3.8% 914 21.8% 140 3.3%
73 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F with landmarks
District 4
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,354 20 0.3% 3,684 58.0% 325 5.1% 2,310 36.4% 35 0.6%
Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 4,688 3,156 67.3% 224 4.8% 1,281 27.3% 27 0.6%
74 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F with landmarks
District 5
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,226 -108 -1.7% 3,570 57.3% 314 5.0% 2,305 37.0% 37 0.6% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 3,828 2,132 55.7% 218 5.7% 1,466 38.3% 12 0.3%
75 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F2 with landmarks
76 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F2 with landmarks
1 2 3 4 5
Population 6,338 6,646 6,104 6,283 6,297
Deviation 4 312 -230 -51 -37
Deviation % 0.1% 4.9% -3.6% -0.8% -0.6%
Other 3,653 4,163 3,714 3,639 3,615
Other % 57.6% 62.6% 60.8% 57.9% 57.4%
Latino 342 333 239 324 315
Latino % 5.4% 5.0% 3.9% 5.2% 5.0%
Asian 2,290 2,126 2,116 2,285 2,330
Asian % 36.1% 32.0% 34.7% 36.4% 37.0%
Black 53 24 35 35 37
Black % 0.8% 0.4% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2020 Census
1 2 3 4 5
Total CVAP 3,640 3,841 4,084 4,639 3,877
Other CVAP 2,526 2,660 2,950 3,118 2,170
Other CVAP % 69.4% 69.3% 72.2% 67.2% 56.0%
Latino CVAP 176 109 111 220 222
Latino CVAP % 4.8% 2.8% 2.7% 4.7% 5.7%
Asian CVAP 914 1,048 905 1,274 1,473
Asian CVAP % 25.1% 27.3% 22.2% 27.5% 38.0%
Black CVAP 24 24 118 27 12
Black CVAP % 0.7% 0.6% 2.9% 0.6% 0.3%
Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP)
77 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F2 with landmarks
District 1
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,338 4 0.1% 3,653 57.6% 342 5.4% 2,290 36.1% 53 0.8%
Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 3,640 2,526 69.4% 176 4.8% 914 25.1% 24 0.7%
78 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F2 with landmarks
District 2
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,646 312 4.9% 4,163 62.6% 333 5.0% 2,126 32.0% 24 0.4% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 3,841 2,660 69.3% 109 2.8% 1,048 27.3% 24 0.6%
79 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F2 with landmarks
District 3
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,104 -230 -3.6% 3,714 60.8% 239 3.9% 2,116 34.7% 35 0.6% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 4,084 2,950 72.2% 111 2.7% 905 22.2% 118 2.9%
80 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F2 with landmarks
District 4
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,283 -51 -0.8% 3,639 57.9% 324 5.2% 2,285 36.4% 35 0.6% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 4,639 3,118 67.2% 220 4.7% 1,274 27.5% 27 0.6%
81 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F2 with landmarks
District 5
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,297 -37 -0.6% 3,615 57.4% 315 5.0% 2,330 37.0% 37 0.6% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 3,877 2,170 56.0% 222 5.7% 1,473 38.0% 12 0.3%
82 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F3 with landmarks
83 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F3 with landmarks
1 2 3 4 5
Population 6,079 6,634 6,375 6,354 6,226
Deviation -255 300 41 20 -108
Deviation % -4.0% 4.7% 0.6% 0.3% -1.7%
Other 3,960 3,730 3,840 3,684 3,570
Other % 65.1% 56.2% 60.2% 58.0% 57.3%
Latino 307 330 277 325 314
Latino % 5.1% 5.0% 4.3% 5.1% 5.0%
Asian 1,781 2,529 2,222 2,310 2,305
Asian % 29.3% 38.1% 34.9% 36.4% 37.0%
Black 31 45 36 35 37
Black % 0.5% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2020 Census
1 2 3 4 5
Total CVAP 3,422 3,863 4,280 4,688 3,828
Other CVAP 2,595 2,479 3,062 3,156 2,132
Other CVAP % 75.8% 64.2% 71.5% 67.3% 55.7%
Latino CVAP 86 157 153 224 218
Latino CVAP % 2.5% 4.1% 3.6% 4.8% 5.7%
Asian CVAP 736 1,196 935 1,281 1,466
Asian CVAP % 21.5% 31.0% 21.8% 27.3% 38.3%
Black CVAP 5 31 130 27 12
Black CVAP % 0.1% 0.8% 3.0% 0.6% 0.3%
Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP)
84 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F3 with landmarks
District 1
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,079 -255 -4.0% 3,960 65.1% 307 5.1% 1,781 29.3% 31 0.5% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 3,422 2,595 75.8% 86 2.5% 736 21.5% 5 0.1%
85 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F3 with landmarks
District 2
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,634 300 4.7% 3,730 56.2% 330 5.0% 2,529 38.1% 45 0.7% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 3,863 2,479 64.2% 157 4.1% 1,196 31.0% 31 0.8%
86 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F3 with landmarks
District 3
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,375 41 0.6% 3,840 60.2% 277 4.3% 2,222 34.9% 36 0.6%
Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 4,280 3,062 71.5% 153 3.6% 935 21.8% 130 3.0%
87 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F3 with landmarks
District 4
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,354 20 0.3% 3,684 58.0% 325 5.1% 2,310 36.4% 35 0.6%
Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 4,688 3,156 67.3% 224 4.8% 1,281 27.3% 27 0.6%
88 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F3 with landmarks
District 5
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,226 -108 -1.7% 3,570 57.3% 314 5.0% 2,305 37.0% 37 0.6% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 3,828 2,132 55.7% 218 5.7% 1,466 38.3% 12 0.3%
89 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F4 with landmarks
90 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F4 with landmarks
1 2 3 4 5
Population 6,266 6,294 6,528 6,283 6,297
Deviation -68 -40 194 -51 -37
Deviation % -1.1% -0.6% 3.1% -0.8% -0.6%
Other 4,092 3,469 3,969 3,639 3,615
Other % 65.3% 55.1% 60.8% 57.9% 57.4%
Latino 369 285 260 324 315
Latino % 5.9% 4.5% 4.0% 5.2% 5.0%
Asian 1,764 2,504 2,264 2,285 2,330
Asian % 28.2% 39.8% 34.7% 36.4% 37.0%
Black 41 36 35 35 37
Black % 0.7% 0.6% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6%
2020 Census
1 2 3 4 5
Total CVAP 3,464 3,741 4,360 4,639 3,877
Other CVAP 2,645 2,372 3,119 3,118 2,170
Other CVAP % 76.4% 63.4% 71.5% 67.2% 56.0%
Latino CVAP 117 154 125 220 222
Latino CVAP % 3.4% 4.1% 2.9% 4.7% 5.7%
Asian CVAP 683 1,195 989 1,274 1,473
Asian CVAP % 19.7% 31.9% 22.7% 27.5% 38.0%
Black CVAP 19 20 127 27 12
Black CVAP % 0.5% 0.5% 2.9% 0.6% 0.3%
Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP)
91 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F4 with landmarks
District 1
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,266 -68 -1.1% 4,092 65.3% 369 5.9% 1,764 28.2% 41 0.7% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 3,464 2,645 76.4% 117 3.4% 683 19.7% 19 0.5%
92 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F4 with landmarks
District 2
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,294 -40 -0.6% 3,469 55.1% 285 4.5% 2,504 39.8% 36 0.6% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 3,741 2,372 63.4% 154 4.1% 1,195 31.9% 20 0.5%
93 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F4 with landmarks
District 3
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,528 194 3.1% 3,969 60.8% 260 4.0% 2,264 34.7% 35 0.5% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 4,360 3,119 71.5% 125 2.9% 989 22.7% 127 2.9%
94 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F4 with landmarks
District 4
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,283 -51 -0.8% 3,639 57.9% 324 5.2% 2,285 36.4% 35 0.6% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 4,639 3,118 67.2% 220 4.7% 1,274 27.5% 27 0.6%
95 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F4 with landmarks
District 5
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,297 -37 -0.6% 3,615 57.4% 315 5.0% 2,330 37.0% 37 0.6% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 3,877 2,170 56.0% 222 5.7% 1,473 38.0% 12 0.3%
96 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F5 with landmarks
97 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F5 with landmarks
1 2 3 4 5
Population 6,365 6,214 6,509 6,283 6,297
Deviation 31 -120 175 -51 -37
Deviation % 0.5% -1.9% 2.8% -0.8% -0.6%
Other 4,174 3,429 3,927 3,639 3,615
Other % 65.6% 55.2% 60.3% 57.9% 57.4%
Latino 326 311 277 324 315
Latino % 5.1% 5.0% 4.3% 5.2% 5.0%
Asian 1,834 2,429 2,269 2,285 2,330
Asian % 28.8% 39.1% 34.9% 36.4% 37.0%
Black 31 45 36 35 37
Black % 0.5% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%
2020 Census
1 2 3 4 5
Total CVAP 3,595 3,609 4,361 4,639 3,877
Other CVAP 2,720 2,297 3,119 3,118 2,170
Other CVAP % 75.7% 63.6% 71.5% 67.2% 56.0%
Latino CVAP 87 152 157 220 222
Latino CVAP % 2.4% 4.2% 3.6% 4.7% 5.7%
Asian CVAP 783 1,130 954 1,274 1,473
Asian CVAP % 21.8% 31.3% 21.9% 27.5% 38.0%
Black CVAP 5 30 131 27 12
Black CVAP % 0.1% 0.8% 3.0% 0.6% 0.3%
Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP)
98 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F5 with landmarks
District 1
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,365 31 0.5% 4,174 65.6% 326 5.1% 1,834 28.8% 31 0.5%
Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 3,595 2,720 75.7% 87 2.4% 783 21.8% 5 0.1%
99 Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F5 with landmarks
District 2
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,214 -120 -1.9% 3,429 55.2% 311 5.0% 2,429 39.1% 45 0.7% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 3,609 2,297 63.6% 152 4.2% 1,130 31.3% 30 0.8%
100
Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F5 with landmarks
District 3
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,509 175 2.8% 3,927 60.3% 277 4.3% 2,269 34.9% 36 0.6% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 4,361 3,119 71.5% 157 3.6% 954 21.9% 131 3.0%
101
Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F5 with landmarks
District 4
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,283 -51 -0.8% 3,639 57.9% 324 5.2% 2,285 36.4% 35 0.6% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 4,639 3,118 67.2% 220 4.7% 1,274 27.5% 27 0.6%
102
Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos
Draft F5 with landmarks
District 5
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
2020 Census
Other % Latino % Asian % Black %
Citizen Voting Age Population
Population Deviation Deviation % Other Other % Latino Latino % Asian Asian % Black Black % 6,297 -37 -0.6% 3,615 57.4% 315 5.0% 2,330 37.0% 37 0.6% Total CVAP Other CVAP Other CVAP % Latino CVAP Latino CVAP % Asian CVAP Asian CVAP % Black CVAP Black CVAP % 3,877 2,170 56.0% 222 5.7% 1,473 38.0% 12 0.3%
103
Agenda Item # 4.

City of Los Altos 2024 Tentative Council Agenda Calendar All items and dates are tentative and subject to change unless a specific date has been noticed for a legally required Public Hearing.

Items may be added or removed from the shown date at any time and for any reason prior to the publication of the agenda.

OCTOBER 22, 2024
SPECIAL ITEM:
 Issue Proclamation Recognizing Hindu-American Awareness Appreciation Month CONSENT:
 Adopt the Bi-Annual Conflict of Interest List
 Approve the Treasurer’s Report for the month ending July 31, 2024  Adopt a Resolution permitting the Police Department to engage in a budgeted purchase of two electric Chevrolet Blazers, pursuit-rated in a single expenditure in excess of $100,000 NOVEMBER 12, 2024
CONSENT:
 Award contract for Hetch Hetchy ADA Improvements Project  Award contract for RIMS
 Approve parklet program propane enforcement
PUBLIC HEARING:
 Adopt the IS/MND (Initial Study/Mit. Neg. Dec.) for the Adobe Creek Sewer Main Replacement Project  1485 Fremont Avenue – Tentative parcel map to subdivide one lot into two lots  City Manager Contract Amendment
DISCUSSION:
 Receive theater update
 Neighborhood Parking Program Discussion
 Receive direction on potential e-bike ordinance
 Receive update on the Community Center Café
Remaining 2024 City Council agenda calendar items are pending and will be published at a later date. 104
Agenda Item # 5.

PROGRAM SUB PROJECT INITIATION DATE HEU COMPLETION DATE STATUS Program 2.D: Encourage and streamline Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).

Budget & Hire Planning
Technician December 31, 2022 COMPLETED
Program 2.D: Encourage and streamline Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).

Amend ADU Ordinance
based upon HCD's letter 6 months or less COMPLETED
Program 6.G: Housing mobility
Allow more than one
JADU (at least two per
site)
with ADU Ordinance
Update COMPLETED
Program 3.H: Amend design review process and
requirements.

Eliminate 3rd Party
Architectural Review February 28, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 3.H: Amend design review process and
requirements.

Dismiss Design Review
Commission February 28, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 3.L: Eliminate the requirement of story poles. March 31, 2023 COMPLETED Program 2.E: Conduct annual ADU rental income surveys.

Budget & Hire Housing
Manager March 31, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 4.J: Facilitate alternate modes of transportation for Adopt VMT Policy & June 30, 2023 COMPLETED Program 2.D: Encourage and streamline Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).

RFP-Permit Ready ADU
Plans July 31, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 1.H: Facilitate housing on City-owned sites. Financial Analysis July 1, 2023 December 31, 2023 IN-PROGRESS Program 3.D: Evaluate and adjust impact fees. August 1, 2023 December 31, 2024 COMPLETED Program 1.H: Facilitate housing on City-owned sites. Release RFP December 31, 2023 COMPLETED Program 6.C: Target housing development in highest
resource areas. Initial Outreach September 31, 2023
Program 6.D: Promote Housing Choice (Section 8) rental
assistance program. September 31, 2023
Program 2.A: Continue to implement and enhance
inclusionary housing requirements. December 31, 2023 ONGOING Program 2.B: Establish an affordable housing in-lieu fee and commercial linkage fee. Housing in-lieu fee. December 31, 2023 COMPLETED Program 2.F: Water and Sewer Service Providers. December 31, 2023 COMPLETED Program 3.B: Modify building height in mixed-use zoning districts. Downtown Districts December 31, 2023 COMPLETED 105
Agenda Item # 5.

Program 3.E: Ensure that the density bonus ordinance
remains consistent with State law. December 31, 2023 ONGOING Program 3.H: Amend design review process and
requirements. Code Amendments December 31, 2023 COMPLETED Program 3.K: Standardize multimodal transportation
requirements.

Bicycle Storage and
Charging Regulations December 31, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 3.K: Standardize multimodal transportation
requirements.

Remove CSC Review of
Housing Developments December 31, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 4.C: Allow Low Barrier Navigation Centers
consistent with AB 101. December 31, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 4.D: Allow transitional and supportive housing
consistent with State law. December 31, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 4.E: Allow employee/farmworker housing
consistent with State law. December 31, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 4.F: Reasonably accommodate disabled persons’
housing needs. December 31, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 6.B: Maintain and expand an inventory of
affordable housing funding sources. Prepare Inventory. December 31, 2023 Program 6.E: Prepare and distribute anti-displacement
information. December 31, 2023
Program 1.A: Rezone for RHNA shortfall. January 31, 2024 COMPLETED Program 1.G: Rezone housing sites from previous Housing Elements. January 31, 2024 COMPLETED
Program 3.G: Amend Conditional Use Permits findings
applicable to housing developments. March 31, 2024 COMPLETED Program 3.I: Allow residential care facilities consistent with State law. January 31, 2024 COMPLETED
Program 3.J: Explicitly allow manufactured homes consistent with State law. January 31, 2024 COMPLETED
Program 3.F: Reduce Conditional Use Permit requirement for residential mixed-use and
multi-family. September 31, 2024 COMPLETED
Program 1.B: Facilitate higher density housing in the
Commercial Thoroughfare (CT) District. January 31, 2024 COMPLETED 106
Agenda Item # 5.

Program 1.C: Allow housing in the Office Administrative (OA) District. January 31, 2024 COMPLETED
Program 1.E: Update the Loyola Corners Specific Plan. January 31, 2024 COMPLETED Program 2.D: Encourage and streamline Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).

Adopt-Permit Ready ADU
Plans December 31, 2024 IN-PROGRESS
Program 3.A: Prepare a Downtown parking plan and update citywide parking requirements. Downtown Parking Plan December 31, 2024 IN-PROGRESS Program 3.A: Prepare a Downtown parking plan and update citywide parking requirements.

Comprehensive Parking
Ordinance Update December 31, 2024 COMPLETED
Program 3.B: Modify building height in mixed-use zoning districts.

Commercial
Neighborhood (CN)
District December 31, 2024 COMPLETED
Program 3.C: Remove floor-to-area ratio (FAR) restriction at Rancho Shopping Center and
Woodland Plaza. December 31, 2024 COMPLETED
Program 3.M: Modify parking requirements for emergency
shelters consistent with State
law. December 31, 2024 COMPLETED
Program 2.B: Establish an affordable housing in-lieu fee and commercial linkage fee. Commercial linkage fee. December 31, 2025 COMPLETED Program 1.D: Allow housing on certain Public and
Community Facilities District sites and
facilitate housing on religious institution properties. December 31, 2025 Program 6.G: Housing mobility
Allow housing on all
religious sites within the
City December 31, 2025
Program 1.F: Rezone Village Court parcel. January 31, 2024 COMPLETED Program 4.H: Provide additional density bonuses and
incentives for housing that accommodates special needs
groups. December 31, 2025
Program 4.I: Allow senior housing with extended care
facilities in multi-family and mixed-use zoning districts. December 31, 2025 Program 1.I: Incentivize Downtown lot consolidation. July 31, 2026 107
Agenda Item # 5.

Program 4.G: Assist seniors to maintain and rehabilitate their homes. July 31, 2026
Program 6.C: Target housing development in highest
resource areas. Follow-up Outreach September 31, 2026
Program 1.H: Facilitate housing on City-owned sites. Entitlement Review December 31, 2026 Program 3.N: Modify standards in the R3 zoning districts. December 31, 2026 COMPLETED Program 4.J: Facilitate alternate modes of transportation for residents.

Capital Improvement
Project for above head
pedestrian crossing
signals on San Antonio
Road near Downtown Los
Altos December 31, 2027
Program 5.F: Incentivize the creation of play areas for multifamily housing projects. December 31, 2027 Program 1.K: Participate in regional housing needs planning efforts. Ongoing
Program 1.L: General Plan amendments. Ongoing
Program 1.M: SB 9 implementation. Ongoing
Program 1.N: Facilitate and monitor pipeline housing
projects. Ongoing
Program 2.C: Assist in securing funding for affordable
housing projects. Ongoing
Program 2.D: Encourage and streamline Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Ongoing
Program 2.E: Conduct annual ADU rental income surveys. Annual Survey Annually ONGOING Program 4.A: Support efforts to fund homeless services. Ongoing Program 4.B: Continue to participate in local and regional forums for homelessness,
supportive, and transitional housing. Ongoing
Program 5.A: Monitor condominium conversions. Ongoing
108
Agenda Item # 5.

Program 5.B: Continue to administer the City’s affordable housing programs. Ongoing
Program 5.C: Restrict commercial uses from displacing
residential neighborhoods. Ongoing
Program 5.D: Implement voluntary code inspection program. Ongoing Program 5.E: Help secure funding for housing rehabilitation and assistance programs. Ongoing
Program 6.A: Assist residents with housing discrimination and landlord-tenant
complaints. Ongoing
Program 6.B: Maintain and expand an inventory of
affordable housing funding sources.

Inform, Evaluate
Apply/Submit Ongoing
Program 6.F: Affirmatively market physically accessible units. Ongoing Program 7.A: Promote energy and water conservation and
greenhouse gas reduction
through education and awareness campaigns. Ongoing
Program 7.B: Monitor and implement thresholds and
statutory requirements of climate change legislation. Ongoing 109
Agenda Item # 5.