Los Altos City Council
November 12, 2024

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
7:00 PM - Tuesday, November 12, 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/83590789169?pwd=ayDUfNjFpfJgdL15etq6D9ZH8b4G7w.1 Telephone: 1-669-444-9171 / Webinar ID: 835 9078 9169 / Passcode: 329031 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 11/12/2024 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Page 2 of 5
The Mayor will open public comment and will announce the length of time provided for comments during each item.

AGENDA

CALL MEETING TO ORDER

ESTABLISH QUORUM

PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION

CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA

SPECIAL ITEMS
Receive Presentation from Los Altos Mountain View Community Foundation

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.
11-12-2024 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 October 22, 2024

2. Adopt the 2025 City Council Meeting Schedule

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Sun Ridge Systems for a computer aided dispatch system for the Tri-Cities Consortium in the amount not to exceed $257,182.43 for the City of Los Altos’ portion. This will include implementation plus Year 1 of support/maintenance ($182,201.77) and 4 more years of maintenance/support for a term of five (5) years; 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

4. Approve a Resolution adopting a materiality Threshold for GASB No. 87 Leases and GASB No. 96 SBITAS.
2 11/12/2024 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Page 3 of 5

5. Approve the updated Conflict of Interest Code and Adopt a Resolution updating the Los Altos Conflict of Interest Code for staff and commissioners pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 1974

6. The City Council to reject all bids and terminate the contract awarded to APS Environmental, Inc. for the Sanitary Sewer Video Inspection, Project WW-01011, in the amount of $303,396.76, and direct City staff to rebid the project, and find the Council’s action exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15301(b), and that none of the circumstances stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies

7. Authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 3 on behalf of the City with AIM Engineering Consultants, Inc. in the amount of $13,740 for professional consulting services for various transportation engineering tasks to the original contract on behalf of the city and find the Council’s action categorically exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c) and none of the circumstances in CEQA guidance Section 15300.2 applies.

8. Adopt an ordinance to amend the Los Altos Municipal Code by adding Sections 2.04.070 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, the election order of each district, and establishing a residency requirement to seek a Council seat from each district, and related actions

9. Four (4) separate actions for City Council consideration:

Adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Amending Chapter 6.40, to Title 6 Health and Safety of the Los Altos Municipal Code for Regulations on Reusable Bags and find that this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15308 of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.

Adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Repealing in its Entirety the Polystyrene Foam Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance, Chapter 6.44 of the Los Altos Municipal Code and find that this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15308 of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.

Adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Repealing in its Entirety the Single-use Foodware Accessories and Condiments Ordinance, Chapter 6.45 of the Los Altos Municipal Code and find that this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15308 of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.

Adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Amending the Los Altos Municipal Code, by Adding Chapter 6.42 Titled Regulations on Disposable Foodware and find that this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15308 of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.

10. Three (3) separate City Council actions:
3 11/12/2024 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Page 4 of 5
Adopt a Resolution approving an Amended CHAC Joint Powers Agreement and authorizing the City Manager to execute the Amended CHAC Joint Powers Authority Agreement; and Designate signature authority for the Agency to provide written consent to dissolve the JPA once its remaining obligations are satisfied and provide written notice to CHAC of the designated representative; and
Appoint Assistant City Manager Jon Maginot as the Los Altos Representative to the CHAC Board for the wind up, dissolution, and maintenance of on-going obligations

11. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Subdivision Improvement Agreement and approve Parcel Map of 440 1st Street and find that the proposed amendments are exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15183 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines since it is consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code.

12. Adopt a Resolution approving Contract Amendment 1 with Beauchaine Consulting Group, LLC in the amount of $250,000 for the Tyler ERP Implementation Project for a total contract not to exceed $340,000

13. Adopt a Resolution allocating additional funding in the amount of $100,000 into the Executive Department of FY2024-25 Operating Budget for fire protection services review.

14. Approve the resolution to adopt the Los Altos age friendly action plan that will be submitted to the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) and the World Health Organization (WHO) for final approval.

15. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Declaring Weeds, Brush and/or Rubbish on Certain Described Properties to be a Public Nuisance and find that this action is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15301(h) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

16. Adopt a Resolution entering into a Side Letter Agreement with the Los Altos Peace Officer Association to extend the existing Memorandum of Understanding for an an additional two years.

17. Adopt a Resolution Amending the FY2024-25 CIMMP Budget increasing Capital Improvement and Major Maintenance Program Project expenditures by $2,676,752.

18. Receive and file the City's Treasurer's Report for the month ending September 30, 2024

PUBLIC HEARINGS

19. Introduce and waive second reading considering the Los Altos Planning Commission October 17, 2024, unanimous recommendation on the proposed ordinance which includes the addition of Chapter 14.01 and 14.81 and amending Chapter 14.02 of the Los Altos Municipal Code and find that the proposed amendments are exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines 4 11/12/2024 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Page 5 of 5

DISCUSSION ITEMS

20. Discuss Theater Capital Campaign Analysis Update and Request for Funding from City

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

21. Woodland Library Patio Update

22. Tentative Council Calendar and Housing Element Update Implementation Calendar

23. New California Attorney General Opinion Regarding Brown Act and Remote Meetings

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. 5 From: Bill Hough
To: City Council; Public Comment
Subject: public comment regarding item #20 on 11/12/2024 agenda Date: Thursday, November 7, 2024 3:05:19 PM
I oppose the use of any public money on the project building a new theater downtown.

Previously, the Los Altos City Council signed an MOU stating that the city will not spend any money or time on the project building a new theater downtown on a public parking lot. The Los Altos Stage Company now requests two $2.5 million requests with one as the lead gift for the project and another at the $10 million goal mark and a campaign fundraising consultant that will cost roughly $300,000 over 3 years.

Any funds to be spent on a new theater should be raised privately.NO city funding for this theater. 6 From: Robert Mayo
To: Public Comment
Subject: public comment for the City Council meeting
Date: Friday, November 8, 2024 1:03:31 PM
Dear City Council,
Did you know that the City of Los Altos prohibits the use of a shared-circuit 120 volt heat pump water heater in a shared-circuit configuration? This is a primary tool for electrifying houses with small electrical panels. This prohibition will impact the city's emissions reduction goals.

As you may know, these water heaters are the result of several years of collaboration between NGOs, advocates, and manufacturers, and were specifically designed to enable retrofits of homes with smaller electrical panels. They are designed to be plugged into an existing outlet circuit, eliminating the need for electrical wiring. Or, if a new outlet is required, the wiring is minimal as the outlet can be added to an existing outlet circuit. However, the City of Los Altos building department requires a dedicated circuit and disconnect for these water heaters, effectively prohibiting their use in the intended manner, and neutralizing their benefits.

Because of this, decarbonizing Los Altos houses with small electrical panels is substantially harder than in other cities. Furthermore, for all Los Altos houses, emergency replacement of water heaters when they break is also complicated, as shared-circuit water heaters are a primary means of providing temporary hot water. They are used because they require little to no electrical wiring and can be installed quickly. Requiring a dedicated circuit and disconnect makes their use in an emergency situation difficult. In Los Altos, as long as this requirement remains in place, the best solution for temporary hot water would probably be a gas loaner water heater.

I ask that the city reconsider this decision.

Furthermore, regardless of the outcome of the review, and in the interest of transparency, I ask that the city put their decision and requirements in writing. The building department already provides clear written guidelines for the electrical requirements for kitchen remodels. I would like to request similar written guidelines be provided for heat pump water heaters, for both the shared-circuit types discussed in this email as well as for other types.

Thank you for your consideration,
--Bob
Robert "Bob" Mayo
7 From: Marlon Lara
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - AGENDA ITEM #9 - NOV 12, 2024 Date: Friday, November 8, 2024 5:00:55 PM
Attachments: image001.png

24.10.24 Los Altos OPPOSE Foodware Ordinance.pdf
Dear City of Los Altos,
Please find the attached letter for public comment.

Thank you,
Marlon Lara
Legislative Director
California Restaurant Association
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 2000
Sacramento, CA 95814
C: 916.370.3386
[email protected]
While all information released by the California Restaurant Association (CRA) is intended to provide accurate information on the subject covered, the CRA does not provide legal advice and any information provided by the CRA shall not constitute legal advice. You are encouraged to consult your attorney, accountant, or other appropriate professional, as needed.

Confidentiality note:

This electronic message transmission contains information from the California Restaurant Association which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above.

If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited.

If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at 800.765.4842.
8 November 8, 2024
Honorable Mayor Weinberg
City of Los Altos
1 North San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
RE: OPPOSE: Single-Use Plastic Foodware and Reusable Bag Ordinances.

Dear Honorable Mayor Weinberg and City Council,
On behalf of the California Restaurant Association (CRA), we write in strong opposition to the SingleUse Plastic Foodware and Reusable Bag Ordinance as heard in council on October 22, 2024.

This ordinance would disproportionately affect small family-owned restaurants by increasing operational costs, circumvents existing state regulatory bodies, and expands the state’s plastic bag ban law to now include neighborhood restaurants.

As an industry we share your concern with reducing plastic waste and increasing recycling efforts. The CRA has been at the forefront of most of the state’s recent efforts and law changes to address unnecessary distribution of single-use products. We also work diligently with local governments to compliment those efforts- while objecting to the creation of a patchwork quilt of differing laws. We ask that you consider aligning this proposed ordinance with the spirit of these recent state law changes that were carefully crafted in collaboration with neighborhood restaurants.to avoid any unintended consequences.

Restaurant Dining Mandate: Reusable Foodware
Repealing in its Entirety the Single-use Foodware Accessories and Condiments Ordinance, Chapter 6.45 of the Los Altos Municipal Code and Adding Chapter 6.42 Titled Regulations on Disposable Foodware We must strongly object to the proposal to force restaurants to stop the use of disposable foodware for all dine-in customers and require reusables dishware inside the restaurant space. Requiring re-usable foodware for all in-store dining increases costs and imposes additional obstacles given the physical space limitations in restaurants, increased costs of accommodating additional storage and dishwashing capacity.

More recently, on April 17, 2024, SB 1167 (Blakespear) was rejected in the state Senate as it would have undermined SB 54 by sidestepping the rigorous review process and instead proposed a one-off ban of single-use cups at restaurants. While that proposal was far more limited than the proposed ordinance before you, the example illustrates the importance of the state’s robust regulatory framework set up to address these very issues you are legislating on. In that committee hearing Senator Allen, who authored SB 54, reiterated that SB 54 was a multi-year effort that brought environmentalists, industry stakeholders, 9 neighborhood restaurants, and local governments to the table to develop a comprehensive framework to address single-use packaging materials, instead of one-off measures like that before you. We agree that these issues are best addressed on a statewide level - and the fact that SB 54 is now law and that the regulatory process is underway- real action is occurring.

Forcing restaurants to only use reusable dishware may seem easy- but it can be incredibly difficult and expensive- and sometimes impossible. Restaurants generally occupy leased space that they have no control over in terms of the physical footprint of that space, yet the proposals here would require additional space to accommodate these new mandates. Such construction-related changes to the leased restaurant space are often not possible or allowed.

For smaller restaurants who currently do not have dishwashing machines or are unable to add additional machines or cannot physically accommodate them due to space limitations out of their control, this dramatic business operation change will force restaurants to increase their operational costs by either adding additional labor in-house or contracting with an expensive third-party vendor for the service.

Parting with the restaurant community’s good work over the years on this topic on a more comprehensive level for statewide consistency, as this Ordinance proposes to do, is misguided and adds additional costs and hurdles for neighborhood restaurants. And for what gain? Eliminating Reusable Plastic Bag Exemption for Restaurants Amending Chapter 6.40, to Title 6 Health and Safety of the Los Altos Municipal Code for Regulations on Reusable Bags
State law currently allows restaurants to offer plastic bags. This ordinance would repeal the exemption for restaurants. However, restaurants were exempted from the state law and numerous local government Ordinances for practical and safety reasons. Neighborhood restaurants should have the freedom of choosing what type of bag works best to maintain the integrity of their products. Paper bags are not always the most practical choice for restaurants. For example, paper bags cannot protect against accidental spills because they leak as opposed to reusable plastic bags that can be tightly packaged to conform to the shape of to-go containers while preventing leaks. Preserving the reusable plastic bag exemption gives restaurants the ability to use what works best for them while protecting their customers.

Lastly, Los Altos city staff have stated that the recent passage of SB 1053 (Blakespear) is being used as the impetus for this proposed code change, but SB 1053 only applies to retail stores with space larger than 10,000 square feet. It is understandable to see why the legislature aimed this new law at retailers who can achieve the greatest reduction of reusable plastic bags. Therefore, the CRA finds that it is unreasonable to extend the application of this law to restaurants who have a negligible bag footprint and have very real needs for a variety of bag types to accommodate their guests. 10 Take-out Tax
Finally, the Ordinance proposes a regressive tax of 25 cents for each paper bag offered at a restaurant.

Restaurants have never seen the endless escalator of cost increases underway from wages to insurance to the cost of goods across the board, and so many other forces working against neighborhood restaurants these days and since the pandemic.

Guest prices have been forced upwards due to these and other policy decisions- now is certainly not the time for the City to add costs to that guest receipt. The notion that restaurant operators should be fine with this take-out tax because they get to keep the revenue provides little comfort, as local governments have proven prone to coming back and hijacking those funds to prop up components of city budgets.

In conclusion, we have a long track-record of productive participation in some of the largest environmental discussions around single- use food ware and believe that enormous strides have been proactively taken on this front- and would ask that you align your efforts with those as well.

Thank you,
Marlon Lara
Legislative Director
CC: City of Los Altos Councilmembers
11 From: Roberta Phillips
To: Public Comment; City Council
Subject: Council meeting Nov.12,2024 Public Comment Item #20 Theater Date: Saturday, November 9, 2024 1:41:51 PM
Dear Council Members
I read the MOU that was agreed to between the City of losAltos and the Los Altos Stage Company . It states " not require the City to contribute any financial or staff resources ..." I now see the Los Altos Stage Company asking for five million dollars. Please do not grant their request. Please consider our payments to CALPERS,the deferred maintenance in the City , and basic services that have priority. If the Los Altos Stage Company is responsible to raise the money to build a new theater downtown then that is what they should do, not come to the City.Please. Also consider the ongoing upkeep of a theater.The Theaters in this area are struggling or closing.

The Police Station, the roof on the fire department, and the upgrade to the Grant Park facility are projects that I support before public funds are given to a non profit private organization.

I understand that funds are kept in different buckets, but if Park-in-Lieu fees are spent it should be for a park near El Camino, where the funds are derived from at 5150 El Camino.

The Bus Barn Theater already is using city land and building . There is adequate parking at that location and the city would not have to spend funds to replace lost parking spaces. If improvements are needed to upgrade that building then that is where their fundraising efforts should focus.

The Downtown Vision was and is aspirational . The goal was to get more feet on the street, which is now a reality with all the new condos downtown and the Parklet Program allowing outside dining on public land.

I have degrees in Art Education from Buffalo State University and Masters from Hunter College. I appreciate the arts,but public safety has to be a higher priority.

Remember the Woody Guthrie song " This land is your land, this land is my land..." I would like my land to be filled with trees and green space.

Sincerely
Roberta Phillips
12 From: Los Altos Residents
To: Public Comment
Cc: City Council; Gabriel Engeland
Subject: [External Sender]Item #20 Theater Capital Campaign Analysis Update and Request for Funding from City Date: Sunday, November 10, 2024 3:57:58 PM
Attachments: Theater Survey - Blank - FINAL 10.19.2021 12pm.pdf THEATER SURVEY RESULTS November 1, 2021.pdf
End of Cuttingball Theater.pdf
12-27-22 theater attendance down.pdf
articles about SF Theaters.pdf
CalShakes and other local theater troupes closing down October 2024.pdf Dear Mayor Weinberg, Vice Mayor Dailey, and Councilmembers Meadows, Fligor, and Lee Eng,
The Los Altos Stage Company (LASC) is coming before you on Tuesday, November 12, 2024 to ask you to vote to award them $2.5 Million now, another $2.5 Million in the future, an additional $300,000 to pay for a fundraising campaign manager and to extend the term of the MOU reserving Parking Plaza II for the theater. Ms. Vicki Reeder, president of LASC, was very frank in her recent presentation to the Los Altos Community Coalition audience when she advised that LASC has been unsuccessful in its fund raising campaign to date, that no big donor has come forth with any sizable donation, and that they hope that a “big” donation from the city will serve as seed money to entice the wealthy citizens of Los Altos and Los Altos Hills to follow suit with big donations of their own. Ms. Reeder continues to emphasize that she was originally asked by Councilmember Fligor to head up this project and that she has been continually encouraged by Councilmember Fligor to pursue new requests for funds and support for the theater including this latest request before you on November 12, 2024.

Councilmember Fligor originally asked that the Council vote just to provide “encouragement" to LASC that Council was in favor of LASC’s private fundraising effort to build a new theater. However at that meeting, Councilmember Fligor assured her fellow councilmembers and the public, her constituents, that NO city money and NO city staff time would be expended on the theater project. In spite of those promises, Council voted to provide LASC with $38,000 for a feasibility study and then voted to reserve Parking Plaza II for the new theater for a period of 5 years.

Now LASC comes before this Council and the residents of Los Altos and asks for a $5 Million donation towards the projected $25 Million cost of a new theater and an additional $300,000 to hire a fundraising campaign manager because they have been unsuccessful over the past 2+ years in raising money for their new theater. Perhaps they have been unsuccessful because the residents of Los Altos do not share LASC’s desire to build a new theater building on the most heavily used parking plaza in downtown Los Altos. Perhaps their lack of success in fundraising validates the results of the LAR Survey undertaken in November 2021, the results of which are attached to this email.

The results of the LAR Survey show that 444 respondents of which 98% were residents of Los Altos:
52% disagree (12%) or strongly disagree (40%) with the city replacing a downtown parking plaza with a theater
51% disagree (11%) or strongly disagree (40%) with city funds paying for the construction of a downtown theater
13 53% disagree (13%) or strongly disagree (40%) with city funds paying for the ongoing maintenance and operating expenses of a downtown theater 60% strongly agree (52%) or agree (18%) that they want to vote in a citywide election on using city owned land for a downtown theater
We attach the blank survey so that you can judge for yourself if there is any bias. And we attach the results so that you can have the opinion of 444 of your constituents on the topic of a new theater in downtown Los Altos. Should you question whether the results are still valid because the survey was conducted in November of 2021, then fairness would dictate that you should have the same concerns about the results of the 2018 Downtown Vision results which are three years more "out of date" than the results of the LAR Survey. We hope you will review the survey results and, if nothing else, just accept them as the opinion of 444 of your constituents. The city sent out its own survey at the same time. We would ask you to review the results of that survey as well.

Finally, we request that Council survey the Los Altos community again and ask whether in light of all the new parklets and condominiums downtown today, do residents want a new theater built on Parking Plaza II. If the city would benefit from a new theater on Parking Plaza II and the majority of residents want this theater and would support Council voting to give LASC $5 Million to build it and $300,000 for a fundraising campaign manager, then there should be no reservations hiring a professional non-biased survey company to conduct such a survey.

We would also bring the numerous closings/bankruptcies of local theater groups to the attention of Council. Is LASC believe immune to these pressures? Local theater groups have been struggling for years. Are circumstances are getting worse, not better? Please consider a few of the attached articles about local theater failures.

Respectfully submitted for your consideration,
Freddie Wheeler
Chair
Los Altos Residents (LAR)
www.LosAltosResidents.org
14 A New Theater Working Group -- members of the Los Altos Stage Company and a small group of local residents -- is seeking approval from the Los Altos City Council to build a new live performance theater replacing one of the downtown parking plazas. The cost estimate for the theater could exceed $25 million. The value of downtown parking plaza land is at least $12 million/acre. The proposal contemplates funding from Los Altos's city budget for construction and operating expenses.

The purpose of this anonymous survey is to solicit input from Los Altos residents on this topic so the City Council will have an understanding of residents' views. The aggregated data from this survey will be provided to the City Council when this topic is scheduled to go before them.

Survey of Los Altos Residents on a Theater in Downtown Los Altos If you answered "No," please tell us your connection to Los Altos:
* 1. I am a Los Altos resident.

Yes No
* 2. How long have you lived in Los Altos?
< 1 year
1-5 years
6-10 years
11-15 years
16-20 years
> 20 years
* 3. My zip code is:
94022
94024
Other (please specify)
* 4. My age group is:
18 and under
19-30 years
31-49 years
50-59 years
60-69 years
70+ years
115
Please feel free to elaborate on your response here:

5. I visit downtown Los Altos
1-2 times/week
3-4 times/week
5 or more times/week
Rarely or never
Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority 5 Priority 6 Priority 7 Priority 8 New police building
Housing required by the
state to meet regional
mandates
Refurbishing Halsey
House
Performing arts theater
Parks
Grant Park Community
Center improvements
New Library
Other
Please feel free to elaborate on your response here:

6. Please rate the following in terms of where the city should spend city funds and resources:
216
Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority 5
More parklets/outdoor
eating
Theater
Housing required by the
state to meet regional
mandates
More parking spaces
Other
Please feel free to elaborate on your response here:

7. Please rate the following in terms of land use in downtown Los Altos:

Please feel free to elaborate on your response here:

8. PRE-COVID, I attended live performances at Bus Barn Theater. 1-2 times/year
3-4 times/year
5 or more times/year
Not at all
317
Please feel free to elaborate on your response here:

9. PRE-COVID, I attended live performances at live theaters such as Mountain View Center, Oshman Jewish Community Center, Hillbarn, Lucie Stern, etc.
1-2 times/year
3-4 times/year
5 or more times/year
Never
Please feel free to elaborate on your response here:

10. I would attend live performances at a theater in downtown Los Altos.

Frequently
Occasionally
Rarely
Never
Unsure
Please feel free to elaborate on your response here:

11. I would like to have a live performance theater downtown.

Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
418
Please feel free to elaborate on your response here:

12. I want the city to allow a theater to replace a downtown parking plaza (for example, Plaza #2 behind the Main Street Post Office).

Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Please feel free to elaborate on your response here:

13. I want the city to provide funding from the city budget toward the cost of construction of a downtown theater.

Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
519
Please feel free to elaborate on your response here:

14. I want the city to provide funding from the city budget toward the ongoing maintenance and operating expenses of a downtown theater.

Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Please feel free to elaborate on your response here:

15. I want to vote in a citywide election on whether to use city-owned land (for example, Parking Plaza #2 behind the Main Street Post Office) for a theater.

Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
620
Please feel free to elaborate on your response here:

16. I want to vote in a citywide election on whether the city should provide any funding from the city budget toward the cost of construction of a downtown theater.

Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Please feel free to elaborate on your response here:

17. I want to vote in a citywide election on whether to provide any funding from the city budget for the ongoing maintenance and operating expenses of a downtown theater.

Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree nor disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree

18. May we contact you for further input? If so, please provide your name and email address here:

Thank you for sharing your valuable input!
721
November 1, 2021
Survey of Residents of Los Altos
Regarding Downtown Theater
22 Executive Summary
2 — 444 Los Altos residents responded
— 43% would like a theater downtown; 39% would not
— 52% do not want a theater to replace a parking plaza
— 51% do not want city to contribute to construction
— 53% do not want city to contribute to operations & maintenance — 50% want to vote on whether city land is used for a theater — 53% want to vote on whether city contributes to construction — 53% want to vote on whether city contributes to operations & maintenance 23 Objective & Methodology
3 — Objective
— Gather resident opinions to present to Council for consideration during discussion of downtown theatre proposal
— Methodology
— Survey link posted on Nextdoor, emailed to approximately1500 fellow residents — Duration
— Two weeks
24 Survey email from Los Altos Residents
4 C A L L TO AC T I O N :

P L E A S E TA K E T H I S D OW N TOW N THEATER SURVEY
The purpose of this anonymous survey is to solicit your thoughts about a live performance theater in downtown Los Altos. As you may have read in the Town Crier, a New Theater Working Group has been formed and will soon seek approval from the City Council to build the theater on one of the downtown parking plazas.

The aggregated data from this survey will be provided to the City Council when this topic is scheduled to go before them.

We welcome your thoughts and opinions.To make your voice heard, please click on this link.

THANK YOU!
25 Aggregated data for respondents who identified as residents Resident Responses
26 Demographics
6 — Q2: How long have you lived in Los Altos? — Q4: My age group is:

Q3: My zip code is?
27 Q5: I visit downtown Los Altos
7 28
Q6: Please rate the following in terms of where the
city should spend city funds and resources:
8 29
Q6: Tallying priorities 1, 2, 3 tells us residents want to spend money on
9 #1 Parks 59%
#2 New police building 52%
#3 Housing 49%
#4 Grant Park 44%
#5 Theater 43%
#6 Library 39%
Other* 39%
#7 Halsey House 23%
* Includes 152 random comments, e.g., pool, parks, more parking. See attachment. 30 Q7: Please rate the following in terms of land use
in downtown Los Altos:
10 31
Q7: Tallying priorities 1, 2, 3 tells us residents
prioritize land use as follows:
11 #1 More parklets 84%
#2 Housing 64%
#3 More parking 61%
#4 Theater 56%
#5 Other* 55%
* Includes 112 random comments, e.g., pool, dog parks, more parking. See attachment. 32 Q8: Pre-COVID, I attended live performances at Bus
Barn Theater
ive performances at Bus Barn Theater.
12 33
Q9. Pre-COVID, I attended live performances at live
theaters such as Mt. View Center, Oshman JCC,
Hillbarn, Lucie Stern, etc.
13 34
Q10: I would attend live performances at a theater in
downtown Los Altos.
14 35
Q11: I would like to have a live performance theater
downtown.
15 36
Q12: I want the city to allow a theater to replace a
downtown parking plaza (for example, Plaza #2
behind the Main Street Post Office).
16 37
Q13: I want the city to provide funding from the city
budget toward the cost of construction of a
downtown theater.
17 38
Q14: I want the city to provide funding from the city
budget toward the ongoing maintenance and
operating expenses of a downtown theater.
18 39
Q15: I want to vote in a citywide election on whether to use city-owned land (for example, Parking Plaza #2
behind the Main Street Post Office) for a theater.
19 40
Q16: I want to vote in a citywide election on whether the city should provide any funding from the city budget
toward the cost of construction of a downtown theater.
20 41
Q17: I want to vote in a citywide election on whether to provide any funding from the city budget for the ongoing maintenance and operating expenses of a downtown
theater.
21 42
View this email in your browser
Dear Cutting Ball Community,
These past years have been a struggle for many and we are no different.

With the increasing costs of creating theater in San Francisco coupled with the difficulties of producing shows in a covid-sensitive world and then combined with shrinking support for the Arts overall it has been TOUGH. Through it all we have strived to prioritize artists. We always wanted our artists to have the space to create, the freedom to do so without an inordinate amount of distraction, and the safety of a livable wage.

We worked hard as I know everyone in our community has, we tried new things, and pushed ourselves. This summer though the board came to the difficult decision to wrap up our theater’s operations.

On behalf of the board, I want to express our deep and profound Thank You to all of our friends, supporters, artists, collaborators, and especially the dedicated staff from over the years. This work requires an immense amount of cooperation and collaboration. We thank you all for your contributions to make our shows delight audiences for so many years.
43 We are finalizing our San Francisco operations right now. We will miss you all.

But we treasure so many incredible memories that we all share to look back on fondly and drive us to do more, in different ways, to bring our communities together through Theater.

Finally, we want to acknowledge and thank our theater/performance home at 277 Taylor St. We love this space and we know Exit theater is seeking occupants.

With gratitude to everyone, we wish you well.

Cutting Ball Theater Board of Directors
From The Exit Theatre
EXIT Theatre’s 30-year-old black box theater at 277 Taylor Street in San Francisco has been re-named the Taylor Street Theatre. EXIT Theatre will produce the 2025 SF Fringe Festival and select performances at the Taylor Street Theatre. We are seeking other indie theater companies to lease the theater throughout the year. Please contact at [email protected] for more details.

Follow Us
44 Copyright (C) 2024 Cutting Ball Theater. All rights reserved.

You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website.

Our mailing address is:

Cutting Ball Theater P.O. Box 427358 San Francisco, CA 94142 USA Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe
45 https://datebook.sfchronicle.com/theater/s-f-theater-attendance-is-still-down-heres-howbad-it-is-and-why S.F. theater attendance is still down. Here’s how bad it is, and why "It's not sustainable," said Rob Ready of PianoFight, where attendance and bar sales are down 65% compared to 2019.

Lily Janiak December 22, 2022Updated: December 27, 2022, 11:13 pm For Rob Ready, one of the bleakest days at PianoFight came in September, when he’d booked Colorado jam band the Runaway Grooms.

Since reopening PianoFight’s doors on a regular basis in February, he had long struggled to find enough theater, comedy and music acts to keep his three-stage Tenderloin venue open three or four nights a week, in contrast to a pre-pandemic six nights. But the Runaway Grooms were special — by Ready’s estimation one of the most talented groups ever to play PianoFight, with their campfire soundscapes, comfy-blanket vocals, probing guitar solos and virtuoso fingerpicking. He also booked an opener, the Golden Plates, to sweeten the deal.

But in the end, “I don’t think they sold one ticket,” Ready recalled ruefully. “They were so good, and nobody came to see it.”
The only people who showed up that night were staff, some audiences to another PianoFight show and the opening band.
“If I could just get somebody walking by to hear the crazy-good music that was coming out of our place, maybe they’d come in,” Ready recalled thinking as the team opened the venue’s front doors. “And literally nobody walked by for 90 minutes.” Throughout the country, performing arts producers are struggling to lure audiences back in preCOVID-19 numbers. Consulting firm TRG Arts has been surveying the attendance of more than 140 arts theaters, orchestras, performing arts centers, ballets and operas in the U.S. and Canada since the early days of the pandemic.

Comparing July 2018 to June 2019 to the same period in 2021-22 for theater specifically, attendance was down 51% and revenue down 50%. But those figures are improving over time, TRG Client Engagement Officer Eric Nelson said. Comparing the first nine months of 2019 and 2022, TRG found that attendance at arts venues as a whole is down 26% and revenue is down 18%.
46 “The trend is we’re getting closer and closer,” Nelson said, of pre-pandemic attendance levels.

If numbers continue improving at the same rate, he predicts that arts attendance will fully recover in 2024.

But such a timeline might not work for Ready, who reports that PianoFight’s bar and ticket sales are down 65% compared to pre-pandemic levels.
“It’s not sustainable,” he said.

In the Bay Area, theaters report a mix of attendance numbers. American Conservatory Theater’s subscriptions are down 35%, according to Executive Director Jennifer Bielstein. At TheatreWorks Silicon Valley, they are down 30%, said Executive Director Debbie Chinn.

Yet some small companies report seeing stabilization or even growth. In San Francisco, Golden Thread Productions Executive Artistic Director Sahar Assaf reports that attendance has returned to pre-pandemic levels. In the East Bay, Bay Area Children’s Theatre Artistic Director Khalia Davis says ticket sales have increased by 9%. Colin Mandlin, managing director of Oakland Theater Project, said his company’s attendance is 10% higher now than it was in 2019.

These 2022 shows helped make the Bay Area a top U.S. destination for theater One likely reason these small companies have bucked industry-wide trends is that they each cater to an underserved niche. For instance, Assaf, of Golden Thread, which produces shows about the Middle East, said her audiences don’t have many other local spaces where they can consistently find content about themselves.
47 In Oakland Theater Project’s case, Mandlin said, “The ratio of theater companies to residents in Oakland is much lower than in Berkeley and San Francisco.” Davis pointed out that her audiences — families — were the last who could come back to theater, since children’s COVID-19 vaccines were approved after adults’. She credits her organization’s increased attendance partly to a summer outdoor production at Cal Shakes’ Bruns Amphitheater, which helped ease families back into crowds. “They felt like, ‘OK, this is fine because it’s outside,’ ” she said.

She also acknowledged it’s possible that parents see theatergoing as more of a necessity for their children but as more of a luxury for themselves.

Since May 2020, the arts research firm WolfBrown has been surveying attitudes of audiences who before the pandemic regularly attended theater, opera and other art forms about returning to venues. Among those who haven’t come back as much or at all, costs are an increasing concern, especially for younger cohorts.
“COVID now is less of a concern than the economy, and much less of a concern than people not finding the programs they want to attend,” Alan Brown, WolfBrown’s managing principal, told The Chronicle. “I don’t know that the remaining people who are COVID-concerned are ever going to have this psychological epiphany that, ‘OK, it’s safe to go out now.’ The people who are coming back are back. The real issue is the frequency of people who have come back; it’s lower than it was.”
Audiences, he added, are more risk-averse now; they want to spend money on artists and titles they already know they’ll like.
48 The trend of declining subscriptions at large institutions such as ACT and TheatreWorks long predates the pandemic. Theatre Communications Group’s annual report Theatre Facts shows that from 2016 to 2020, the most recent year for which figures are available, subscription revenue at 152 theaters across the country steadily decreased as a percentage of overall expenses, from 12% to 9.1%. And in-person performance faced stiff competition before the pandemic forced theatergoers to become couch potatoes.

Report at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/16kuqmWZ3SxiBzDYSvBgg5vub6d-1h_CR/view 49 In 2017, the research organization Culture Track published a report showing that consumers count a range of activities under the umbrella of “culture”; food and drink are no longer just pre-entertainment sustenance but can be the entertainment itself.

Food is one of the ways PianoFight is trying to attract audiences. In early December, the company began hosting taco pop-up Mi Morena in its kitchen.

It also hopes to find government funding to support rental subsidies for small outfits hoping to use its space. In early 2023, Ready plans to start a weekly Open Wednesdays program, where musicians, improv performers and sketch comedy writers can walk in to jam or workshop material.

Brown believes the industry can make more sweeping changes to draw audiences, especially with subscriptions, which some Bay Area theaters, notably Magic Theatre, have already nixed. “Loyalty does not accrue to an organization but to the art form or to an artist or an instrument,” he said. “And we’re asking everyone to be loyal to an organization.” He pointed out that most ticket purchases assume a “bilateral relationship” between organization and spectator, but in reality, many spectators want to consult with friends in buying tickets. “We don’t facilitate the coordination,” he said.

One other promising model is ClassicCard, an app in Berlin that is marketed to audiences under 30 to help them find companions with similar arts interests. Another one is a late buyers’ club; WolfBrown’s data shows that audiences increasingly want the option to purchase seats at the last minute — which makes sense in a world of COVID symptom tracking and test taking — and not just rear-balcony seats, but good seats.

The ClassicCard idea suggests umbrella organizations and local governments could play a much larger role in incentivizing and facilitating theatergoing. Ralph Remington, director of 50 cultural affairs at the San Francisco Arts Commission, said, “We’re going to have to figure something out with bringing people back downtown.” In the longer term, he said, rezoning could help attract more foot traffic by encouraging more residences and grocery stores mixed in with downtown offices and commercial buildings.

Ready worries that process might take too long for PianoFight.

The venue’s location in the Tenderloin used to make it part of an arts ecosystem: Audiences to nearby venues such as the Exit Theatre, the Warfield, the Curran or Cutting Ball might pregame or postgame at PianoFight. But now the Exit has closed, and many other venues are responding to reduced demand by producing fewer shows, which means fewer feeder shows for PianoFight.

Ready said he’s scraping by thanks to understaffing, including by regularly picking up bar shifts himself.
“Something that we’re wrestling with right now is: How much of your reserve money do you keep burning before you just say, ‘This is just not going to work anymore’?” 51 https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/bayarea/heatherknight/article/4-star-theater-movie17851717.php S.F. cinema lovers gambled on bringing back a neighborhood movie house. It’s not going well Heather Knight March 22, 2023Updated: March 22, 2023 7:24 a.m.

On a recent day, the 4 Star Theater’s blue marquee advertised the 2005 romantic comedydrama, “Me and You and Everyone We Know.” The choice was unintentionally ironic considering how few people are frequenting the theater since its reopening three months ago.

Not me. Not you. And certainly not everyone we know.

Adam Bergeron of CinemaSF, which runs the 4 Star Theater, knew committing time and money to lovingly restore the 1913 independent movie house on Clement Street in San Francisco’s Outer Richmond neighborhood was a gamble in the best of times. But opening it during a pandemic that drove people to avoid cinemas in favor of watching movies on their couches was an even bigger risk.

So far, it hasn’t paid off. Some screenings have been downright dismal. “We showed ‘Wonder Woman’ three times last weekend to a total of six people,” Bergeron said with a sigh. A recent showing of “Love and Basketball” saw one person turn up. More popular films, like a Jackie Chan festival, have seen crowds, if you can call them that, numbering in the teens.

You could look at Bergeron’s predicament and shrug. Times change, and you can’t force people to buy tickets to repertory theaters.

But I see it another way: We can’t expect San Francisco’s quirky small businesses — its movie houses, its bookstores, its galleries and bars — to survive if we don’t support them. We can’t lament the legions of commercial vacancies dotting our neighborhoods and not patronize the small businesses that are toughing it out. We can’t revel in knowing that Green Apple Books and the 4 Star exist in our city, but spend all our cash on Amazon and Netflix.

To that end, Bergeron, who also operates the Balboa and Vogue theaters, hopes the community will rally around the 4 Star by donating to a new GoFundMe drive to help the fledgling theater survive its rocky beginning.

And I’ll join The Chronicle’s culture critic Peter Hartlaub and arts and culture columnist Tony Bravo to host three screenings of movies filmed in San Francisco next month, one apiece at the 4 Star, Balboa and Vogue. (With drag queens, costume contests and a bagpiper, naturally, because it doesn’t get more San Francisco than that.)
The theater’s woes come at a difficult time for movie theaters in general. They seem to be a big casualty of the pandemic with far fewer customers than before and Hollywood making fewer films to lure people inside. Even the iconic Castro Theater struggled to make a profit on films before the pandemic, and its fate remains uncertain.

Alfonso Felder, an executive vice president for the San Francisco Giants, founded the San Francisco Neighborhood Theater Foundation to save old movie houses. The nonprofit owns the Vogue, maintains the leases on the Balboa and Opera Plaza Cinemas and was instrumental in 52 preserving a host of other cinemas around the city. He said theaters are facing a challenging time, but he’s hopeful they’ll survive.
“The public still cares,” he said. “There’s still a real passion for them.” Even non-movie buffs should care about the 4 Star surviving. It could be an anchor of its neighborhood that provides jobs and tax revenue for a struggling city — or it could be yet one more empty building boarded up with plywood. The outcome is up to us. “When this goes away, it won’t come back,” said Kyle Griffin, a manager at the Balboa. He and other CinemaSF staff met with Bergeron at the 4 Star Monday morning to discuss the theaters’ financial travails and how to fix them.

Called La Bonita when it opened 110 years ago, the 4 Star was run by Frank and Lida Lee from 1992 until they sold it to an anonymous buyer in September 2021. The new owner hired Bergeron to operate it. Bergeron said he and his wife, Jaimi Holker, who co-owns CinemaSF, sunk $200,000 into the restoration and the building’s owner spent twice that much. “It took longer and cost way more than expected,” Bergeron told me. “It’s amazing how much money you can lose in a short amount of time. You know what I mean? It’s incredible. It just became this free-fall.”
They installed a new screen, new seats, new carpeting, new surround sound and new kitchen appliances in addition to rehabbing the bathrooms and projection booth, installing an HVAC system and restoring the ceiling and lights.
“We also fixed the neon sign, which is now broken again,” Bergeron said. “Neon is a fickle mistress.”
They planned to open last summer, but didn’t complete the construction and inspections until early December. By the time they finally did open, the cost of popcorn had increased 50% from before the pandemic, and even the cost of the oil for popping the popcorn and the soda to wash it down had spiked.

Really, the 4 Star is far more than a place to see an old film. There’s an art gallery inside that’s currently showing “More is More,” an exhibit featuring 259 Bay Area artists. There’s bagels and espresso in the mornings and pizza on Friday nights. There’s beer and wine. And there’s awesome merchandise including new T-shirts with the theaters’ names written in the famous Muni worm font.

Bergeron, who’s always been creative in the way he runs his theaters, is brainstorming ideas to bring people back. He’s talking about renting the theater out for birthday parties, live comedy shows, music events, corporate groups’ meetings with their Power Point presentations shown on the big screen and video game days in which people play their favorite games on the screen.

Plus, he’s not giving up on movies, but trying to enhance them when he can. Recent screenings of “Twilight” accompanied by live drag shows drew crowds. Tyler Butler, who moved from Bend, Ore., to manage the 4 Star, said he thinks of independent movie houses as community hubs where people can make memories.
53 “There’s something irreplaceable about being in a room with a group of people experiencing a movie together,” he said. “I’ll remember a movie that I watched in a packed house far better than the hundreds of movies I’ve watched in my bed or on the couch.” Or, as Balboa manager Jody Washington put it, “Date nights still happen.” https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/bay-area-businesses-pandemic-closing17789239.php Bay Area businesses are still in survival mode.

EXCERPT:

The pandemic has changed not just the ways that Bay Area residents shop and work, but also how they play.

That is evident in the planned closure of San Jose’s Tabard Theatre Company, which after mounting its final show this month will close its doors on April 2. The cause is a combination of factors, said the live theater’s Executive Artistic Director Jonathan Rhys Williams, ranging from theatergoers not fully returning, to pandemic aid programs winding down, to the persistently high cost of living in the region.
“We, as arts organizations, have survived on emergency COVID funding pretty much the last three years,” Williams said, referencing Paycheck Protection Program loans and other state and federal money. As of this year “it's pretty much over,” he added.

And it’s not just emergency funding drying up. Community donations have slowed and with attendance only hovering around 40% of 2019 levels, the math no longer works. “We need people back in the theaters. We need butts in seats,” Williams said.

He also noted that friends and colleagues in the performing arts across the country are dealing with similar problems. “Everybody that I’m talking to is white knuckling it and going, ‘It’s going to come back, it’s going to come back, it’s going to come back,’ ” Williams said. So far, it hasn’t.

Still, he is planning to keep the space, but refocus it on music and comedy instead of full-blown theater productions, especially as COVID has made it much more difficult to put on a play with a sizable cast.
“The reality is, as soon as a single member of a cast tests positive for COVID, that person would have to isolate and can no longer be part of that cast,” Williams said. “That could mean we have to shut down a whole show for a week or 10 days,” as opposed to swapping out a single musician or rebooking a comedy act to another night.
54 https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/10/10/financially-strapped-cal-shakes-troupe-says-it-willshut-down-for-good/ Struggling California Shakespeare Theater announced Thursday it had hit an “insurmountable financial impasse” and would close for good.

In a brief announcement attributed to executive director Clive Worsley, the 50- year-old Orinda-based company said it had “no alternative but to suspend operations, begin layoffs, and take steps towards what will be the ultimate closure of the company.”
The news — the latest jolt in a troubled performing arts landscape — comes not quite a month after Cal Shakes staged its sole production of 2024, the Bard’s popular comedy “As You Like It,” at the Bruns Amphitheater. But the company needed to stage an emergency $350,000 fund drive to make that production possible, and has been teetering financially since 2020, when the pandemic shut down its entire season. Cal Shakes staged shortened seasons in 2021 and 2022, then was dark in 2023 as it geared up for its 50th anniversary season this year.

Despite the successful fund drive this year — buoyed by a $100,000 gift from Oakland native and Cal Shakes alum Zendaya and donations from some 700 people — and a well-received production of “As You Like It,” the company could not overcome its financial hardships.

Many theater troupes and other arts companies have been struggling since the pandemic, which shut down live performances across the country and exacerbated a trend toward smaller audiences, reduced subscription sales and government support, and fewer donations.

Palo Alto-based TheatreWorks Silicon Valley, which this week opened a production of the basketball-themed play “King James,” nearly closed down in late 2023 but was rescued by a $3 million fund drive.

Other companies have not been as fortunate. Cal Shakes joins such Bay Area troupes as TheatreFIRST, Bay Area Children’s Theatre, Dragon Theater, foolsFURY, Ragged Wing Ensemble, Main Stage West, Perspective Theatre Company, Those Women Productions, Bay Area Musicals and PianoFight in succumbing to financial woes.
•
55 Worsley said in an interview Friday that the financial problems at Cal Shakes represented “a much bigger picture” than post-pandemic malaise, and that arts groups began experiencing a shift in the financial landscape as far back as the global economic crash of 2008-’09, which affected ticket sales, subscriptions and donations. As a result, he said, “we might be one of the canaries in the cold mine,” and that other companies could follow suit.
“When a 50-year-old venerable theater company closes, it is terribly sad for all involved,” Worsley added, noting that in addition to theater lovers, actors, artists, technicians, “even the people who take your ticket and pour your glass of wine” feel the loss. He estimated that at its peak, Cal Shakes employed some 200 or so people in a variety of jobs.

Cal Shakes’ closing was mourned on social media and other avenues on Thursday.
“Cal Shakes was an organization that brought people together in a special way,” said Marin Theatre artistic director Lance Gardner. “It felt magical to commune under the stars with good friends and strangers. … It makes me wonder if theatre is still enough to bring people together. I worry that Marin Theatre will find itself in the non-profit graveyard if people don’t start speaking with their words and with their wallets about how important local, professional theatres are to the future of art and culture in their communities.” Cal Shakes began in 1974 as the Emeryville Shakespeare Company, which produced free shows in Berkeley’s John Hinkel Park. The company, then known as the California Shakespeare Festival, moved to the Bruns Amphitheater in 1991. In its peak years, from the 1990s to the mid-2010s, Cal Shakes typically staged four productions during the summer and fall months, featuring a mix of Shakespeare works, as well as comedies and dramas from other classic and contemporary playwrights.

The company and its scenic amphitheater — nestled on 4½ acres of East Bay Municipal Utility District property in the Orinda hills, with a picnic area and restaurant/snack bar — were popular mainstays of the summer outdoor theater season.

Worsley, who took over leadership of Cal Shakes following the departures of artistic director Eric Ting and managing director Sarah Williams, said in his brief 56 announcement, “We are grateful to you for everything you have done to make Cal Shakes the venerable institution it has been for the past 50 years. More news will come in the following weeks as the process gets underway.” The company in recent years has rented out the amphitheater and its stage for occasional comedy and music shows. It was not immediately known if EBMUD is entertaining queries for other possible uses of the property and facilities. 57 From: M Satterlee
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External Sender]Item #20
Date: Sunday, November 10, 2024 4:58:07 PM
Dear Council,
The theater is once again before you, this time with a request for $5.3M dollars.

I was struck by the fact that the Fundraising Feasibility study sees a 60% success rate and only that with $10M in lead donations while stating that there had been zero feedback from any of the largest donors. Where will these donors come from?
In order to respond to the request, I think the City needs to first have answers to questions raised about parking and ongoing operations and maintenance to ensure a clear understanding of all the expenses the City will bear in relation to a new theater.
1) Parking
How will parking demand for the theater be met?
Will the parking lost due the building footprint be replaced? The fundraising proposes to build a building only so will any cost of needed parking be borne by the City? 2) Ongoing maintenance and operations
LASC has said they will fund ongoing operation and maintenance. The City helped fund a feasible study. The study opined as to the funding needs and the normal split for theaters between earned revenue and contributed revenue. The study posits that contributed revenue will need to grow from $150k in FY19 to $882K. The closest the study comes to addressing the source for this contributed revenue is the statement "Strong donor potential in existing nearby market with high household incomes and housing value".

A more than 4x increase in donations is needed and we are relying on the fact that we live in a wealthy area? The executive summary, which is the only thing I had access to, provides no analysis of the breakdown of how those contributed funds would be achieved. It provides no analysis of how nearby theaters are funded. Lucile Stern has government funding. Mountain View Performing Arts has government funding. The study fails to answer the question as to why a Los Altos Theater would be unique in its ability to not need any government subsidy.

I believe the above needs to be addressed before any investment should be made. The City may need those funds to address parking and ongoing operations.

If those issues are answered to the Council's satisfaction and made clear to the public, then the questions become:
1) Does Los Altos have $5M?
A review of the Park in Lieu fund suggests the answer is yes, but the City recently went out for RFP on a new downtown park. There does not seem to be funds for that park and this investment based on current balance, existing CIPs and revenue projections.

CIP 24-25 25-26 26-27
CD-01030 Downtown Park 500,000
Pathways 200,000 250,000 250,000
CF-01028 Picnic Areas 70,000
CF-01030 Drainage and Drinking Fountains 163,000
58 CF-01032 Dog Park 1,000,000
CF-01-34 Grant Park Facility 578,000
CF-01038 Shoup Playground 242,000 828,000
CF-01039 Marymeade Playground 110,000 440,000
CF-01041 Hillview Fitness 145,000
CF-01042 Garden House 285,000
CF-01043 San Antonio Club - On Hold
CF-01049 Caretaker House Demo 60,000 402,000
3,243,000 1,590,000 690,000
Starting balance 6/30/24 7,600,219
Budgeted Revenue 3,585,000 1,188,000 690,000
Available Funds 11,185,219 9,130,219 8,230,219
Net 7,942,219 7,540,219 7,540,219
2) Is this the highest and best use for those funds?
I would have expected that question to go first before the Parks and Rec commission. My priorities for Park in Lieu Funds would be:
1) Maintenance of existing parks, eg the Grant Park pathway replaced to eliminate the severe trip hazards, the Grant Park basketball court refurbished, etc
2) Buying land for a North Los Altos Park. Los Altos has less parkland per resident than most adjacent cities and that deficit is growing as our population grows.
3) Upgrading of existing park facilities. With the dog park being installed at Hillview, it would be a great time to replace the Hillview soccer field with artificial turf to allow year round play. There is a huge demand for soccer fields, especially in the winter when grass fields are unusable.

Spending 66% of existing Park in Lieu funds for a downtown theater I do not believe is the highest and best use.

If the Council feels it needs to show continued interest in the downtown theater with funding, I would propose the investment be capped at $2M. Any fund committed should remain in the City's possession until a building is actually approved, with interest accruing to the City. Those funds should not be used for fundraising, staff or building design, but only for actual construction.

Sincerely,
Megan Satterlee
59 From: Pat Marriott
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM #20 NOVEMBER 12, 2024
Date: Sunday, November 10, 2024 8:04:01 PM
Attachments: PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM #20 NOVEMBER 12, 2024.pdf Please see attached.
60 PUBLIC COMMENT ITEM #20 NOVEMBER 12, 2024
Council Members:

When you consider the LASC request for $5.3M funding, please think of yourselves as VCs evaluating their pitch.

ECONOMICS
The last economic analysis was done in March 2017 as part of the Downtown Visioning. That was before COVID, restaurant parklets, new housing construction, state housing laws raising height limits and reducing parking requirements, and the Housing Element Update. It’s outdated. Conditions have changed dramatically.

Is a theater (with adjoining park) still the best land use option to increase economic vitality? Without a current economic analysis, how will we know?

FINANCIALS
LASC consultant: "The theater has a 60% chance of success with large gifts at the beginning and a 25% chance without."
▪ Those are terrible odds. Why even consider this proposal? ▪ GOBanking ranks Los Altos as the No. 1 city where the rich are getting richer. After three years, LASC was unable to raise even $5M from a “prospective donor list with over 200 names.” Their presentation says, “Most funders were in mid-range level of interest in donating.” In other words, they didn’t open their wallets. "Council said we have the intellectual and financial resources that we can have it all." LASC Board Chair Vicki Reeder, October 18, 2024
▪ Then-Mayor Jean Mordo made a similar statement when Council approved a $40M budget for the Community Center instead of the $25M residents said they would support. A $10M loan was required to complete the deal.

In May 2023, LASC estimated construction cost was $23M. Now it says $25M would be enough for construction, even in three or four years, which is the estimated time of groundbreaking. ▪ That ignores cost creep. Palo Alto High Center for the Performing Arts was completed in 2016 at a cost of $29M for 25,100 sf = $1,155/sf.

LASC admits theater won’t be self-sustaining.
▪ “Operating budget for the building would normalize at around $1.7 million in operating costs year 5 with revenue evenly split between earned sources, such as ticket sales, rents, tuitions and concessions and contributed support.” The city would be on the hook to support the theater in perpetuity.
▪ LASC is unable to assess staff time required during fund-raising, construction or ongoing operations.
61 MARKET CONDITIONS
Bay Area live theaters that have closed their doors:
▪ CalShakes, Berkeley (50 years)
▪ Exit Theater, SF (40 years)
▪ San Jose Rep (34 years)
▪ TheaterFirst, Berkeley (30 years)
▪ Cutting Ball Theater, SF (25 years)
▪ Dragon Theater, Redwood City (24 years)
▪ Bay Area Children’s Theater, Berkeley (19 years)
▪ PianoFight, SF (16 years)
"I think it's a problem across the industry with so many other things competing for people's attention. It used to be just film and TV. Now there is so much digital and online entertainment for people to choose from without having to leave the house and go somewhere." San Jose Rep Board Vice President Paul Resch.

TRACK RECORD
LASC has a track record of overpromising and underdelivering. ▪ January 30, 2021: Then-Mayor Fligor convinced a reluctant Council to “Support the creation of a Citizen’s Group to explore possibility of developing a Los Altos Theater. The citizen’s group would fund and support this process.”
▪ November 40, 2021: MOU set aside a parking plaza for three years to “allow LASC sufficient time to raise funding for a downtown theater” and “not require the City to contribute any financial or staff resources.”
▪ November 12, 2024: After three years, LASC Board President Vicki Reeder claims “widespread support,” but has not been able to raise even $5M seed money.

CITY PRIORITIES
"Can’t really compare needs of police station. Different pot of funds that could be used." LASC Board Chair Vicki Reeder, October 18, 2024
▪ All pots and all funds belong to all residents.
▪ How much underground parking (at a cost of ~$80,000/stall) can legally be paid for out of the park-in-lieu fund?
▪ Is it legal to use park-in-lieu funds for a building where people must pay to attend performances? How Is that considered a recreation facility? ▪ Does staff time split into different pots?
▪ If Council spends unwisely from any pot, residents are unlikely to trust Council on big expenditures like a public safety building. Remember the defeat of Measure A in 2015. 62 “The truism is that great communities are looked at so by the type of cultural and civic institutions that it cultivates. The police is [sic] incredibly important but history doesn't look back on societies and measure them by the greatness of their police station. It measures them by the greatness of their civic and cultural institutions.” LASC Board Chair Vicki Reeder, October 18, 2024
▪ Is San Francisco a “great community”? It has theater, dance, museums, symphony (struggling for money) plus crime, homelessness, traffic problems and a drug crisis. ▪ Are Los Altans concerned about how history will judge their cultural institutions if their home has been robbed or they’ve been in a traffic accident or their roads need paving or they can’t find parking or e-bikes are knocking them over on downtown sidewalks – or if they’re ashamed that their police officers work in a 56-year old building that floods? “We will place youth at the center of the building's programming and operations. With more space and a new complex, we will be able to provide expanded and improved educational programs benefiting local youth and aspiring young Artists.” LASC Executive Artistic Director Gary Landis, October 18, 2024
▪ Is LASC proposing a performing arts center or a youth theater? Are they putting “youth at the center” to increase the odds of getting funding? ▪ How many Los Altos youths are involved in theater as compared to STEM projects, clubs, sports, and other activities? We just built a community center with plenty of space for all kinds of youth programs.
▪ Park-in-lieu funds should be used to benefit all pursuits for residents of all ages.

As council members, you all claim to be fiscally responsible. Would you put your own money into this project?
If not, then JUST SAY NO when LASC asks for city money – from any pot – that should rightfully benefit all residents. Do you agree, Mayor Weinberg?
“You have a right to know that your elected representatives are setting priorities and making decisions through a fair process that is data-driven, tempered by empathy, respects the law, and takes into account the needs and desires of our entire community.” ~ Jonathan Weinberg in his 2024 campaign mailer
Respectfully,
Pat Marriott
63 From: [email protected]
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External Sender]11/12 council meeting agenda item 20 Date: Monday, November 11, 2024 12:05:14 PM
I support Bus Barn’s endeavor to build a new facility to meet their needs. I question the decision to site a building in downtown when the existing Bus Barn site could be used. A large enough footprint could be provided by eliminating the dozen or so parking spots that run parallel to the building.

There is plenty of parking in the Community Center for performances. Attendees would have only a short walk to downtown for pre- and post-performance libations.

I do not support the changes being proposed to the original MOU. The city should NOT fund a person to raise money for this effort and should not contribute funds for the facilities construction, particularly at this point in time. As others have indicated, this is a fundraising effort that has been going for 3 years and has a low probability of success given results to date. Nor should the city pay for the parking that will be lost due to construction of the new building in one of the parking plazas.

The requested changes by the group run counter to the MOU agreement and are to the detriment of the City and the community.

There is a reason that movie theaters and performing arts theaters are struggling locally; there simply isn’t sufficient demand to cover the costs of these venues. The city dodged the bullet once when a downtown movie theater was proposed by many of the same advocates for this project. The City Council nixed that proposal; constructing it would have been a financial disaster. If the group who is most enthusiastic about a performing arts theater cannot raise money from its core group of supporters, isn’t that telling? And turning over a white elephant to the city, to cover the cost of maintenance and operations which can only be met if there are sufficient donations, will only put further strains on the city’s limited resources.

The city has a responsibility to use the park in lieu money for improving and adding to existing parks.

It also needs to spend those funds in the districts where the money has been generated. Our new district maps can provide a guide for such allocation. Additionally, the City already has failed to meet its legal obligation to use PIL money for repairing and renovating existing park facilities, including Grant Park multiuse building, Halsey House, Garden House, etc. By spending park in lieu funds in inappropriate places, the City Council leaves our community open to lawsuits. It is ironic given that several on council campaigned that they would ensure the city was not subject to further lawsuits.

The supporters of the downtown theater need to do this on their own. They have already been given money by the City when they originally told Council and the community they could and would do this by themselves. Either they need to find a way to move forward or look at a different plan for achieving their goal. The city council has a responsibility to the greater community to simply say no to the group’s request for money and resources.
64 From: Taylor Soleno
To: Public Comment
Subject: FW: Agenda Item #20
Date: Monday, November 11, 2024 12:20:04 PM
Respectfully,
From: Jeannie Bruins <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 11, 2024 11:04 AM
To: Public Comment <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item #20
Honorable Council Members,
While I appreciate Council’s enthusiasm regarding the possibility of a theatre in downtown and the hope that it might bring a sense of vibrancy, I feel there is more work to be done before committing millions of dollars.

This is a decision that should not be taken lightly. Nor is it a decision that should be taken piecemeal.

Facility Planning and Development
Capital = Construction
Theatre Building -- is a private endeavor therefore it is imperative that there is a high degree of confidence in LASC’s ability to raise the funds. The fundraising planning and a feasibility study conducted by BuildingBlox clearly indicates there is NOT a high degree of confidence. A contribution from the City may, at first blush, not seem unreasonable, however that part of the decision needs to be taken in light of the other City priorities/desires competing for the dollars. LASC and Council should take BuildingBlox recommendation to heart: “Therefore, we strongly recommend that the initial focus of your campaign be on securing those lead gifts from individuals, foundations, local businesses, corporations, or government sources.”
Parking – is a public endeavor (for this potential project as well as for the potential Downtown Park project). The time to understand and really get a handle on the cost of (at minimum) replacement parking is before committing dollars to the theatre. Key 65 questions: # of stalls, cost/stall, and source of revenue.

The cost of replacing parking
plus any dollars contributed to the capital campaign should be the price tag Council considers as it weighs in on Tuesday’s request.

Before committing City dollars (whether it be $5M or $2.5M), it is critical to look beyond the capital investments the City and LASC are contemplating and into the Business and Operations Feasibility. This is not only prudent, it should be considered essential in light of the findings from the capital feasibility study presented.

Business and Operations Planning
Operation = Long-term viability
Theatre – It is in the City’s and the LASC’s best interest for the Theatre to be a selffunding operation. LASC’s on-going success should not hinge upon a sizable on-going subsidy from the City. It is incumbent on all parties to examine this component of the overall plan and not move forward with blinders on. A key question here is, how must LASC be positioned to achieve long-term sustainability? That, after all, is the goal, right? Business and operations feasibility needs to be understood. Sources of revenue for the productions and overhead, understanding of ongoing costs, need for on-going subsidies & the form of such subsidies, need for uses beyond LASC current scope, benchmarks of neighboring communities, etc. What are the creative ideas, partnerships, etc. that help to make this a gem in our community for years to come?
City – Is the City willing to provide ongoing subsidies? If so, what might that look like? How would it be rationalized vs. other entities request the same. Should the on-going success of the theatre be reliant on a City subsidy, it is only fair to let LASC know the risks since this Council cannot encumber future Councils. Let’s be fair to LASC (and the public) and at least size up the subsidy that could be sustained should the success hinge upon it.

As was clearly stated when City Council adopted the Downtown Vision, it is aspirational not a foregone conclusion. Every element of the vision needs to be assessed individually and in context of the greater whole. The theatre is the first opportunity to ensure we do our diligence and ensure mutual success: a theatre, that based on evidenced feasibility and a clear understanding of critical success factors, can achieve long-term sustainability.

Bottom line: I am not advocating to kill the project, I am asking for Council to broaden their lens beyond just the capital need to build a facility and gain a better understanding of the Business and Operations requirements to achieve sustainable success!
66 Sincerely,
Jeannie
67 From: K Z
To: City Council; Gabriel Engeland; Melissa Thurman; Nick Zornes; Stephanie Williams; Jon Maginot; Public Comment Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Study Session re Downtown Parking--November 12, 2024 Date: Monday, November 11, 2024 12:41:19 PM
Attachments: LACC 11_12_24 Downtown Parking Study Session.pdf Dear Mayor Weinberg and Members of the City Council:

Attached is a letter regarding the study session discussing the draft downtown parking strategy set for November 12, 2024.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Katie Zoglin
President, Los Altos-Mountain View Area
League of Women Voters
68 69
From: Eric Muller
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public comment - November 12, 2024 City Council Study Session Date: Monday, November 11, 2024 4:22:43 PM
Dear City Council,
---
It is disconcerting that the Downtown Los Altos Parking Strategy report does not include any consideration of climate change.

Outside the transcript of written comments, the words "climate", "warming", "fossil", "carbon", "green house", "adaptation", "resilience", "flood" do not appear at all.

There is also no reference to the Los Altos Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP). Yet the CAAP recommends to address climate change in City projects:
- Strategy 4 Integrate Climate Action and Adaptation into City Functions - Action 4.6A Account for climage change in all new City projects - Action 4.6B Incorporate climate preparedness into City programs, operations and maintenance protocols
- Action 4.6C Integrate CAAP goals into City projects as an order of business
Nor any indication that the goals and recommended actions of the CAAP have been taken into account, in particular:
- Strategy 1 : Reduce city-wide VMT by 25% by 2035
- Action 1.1C: Develop and implement a new Parking Management Plan that supports strategic VMT reduction
- Action 1.3A: Develop an electric shuttle program as an alternative to SOV travel
would presumably reduce the need for parking, and affect the parking strategy.
---
The report suggests that community members find parking "easy" or "somewhat easy", and the actual parking patterns collected indicate that there is indeed no problem today. I am almost tempted to conclude that it is urgent to do nothing. More precisely:

At least in first approximation, Short-Term Actions 1, 2, 4, and Mid-Term Actions 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 sound like busy work.

Mid-Term Action 5 (safety improvements) becomes actionable only when underground or structured parking is contemplated.

I hope the city of aware that "maintaining and upgrading parking facilities" (Mid-Term Action 8) is a good idea.
70 Short-Term Actions 3 (parklet pricing) and 6 (bicycle parking improvement), and Mid-Term Action 7 (Require accessible on-street parking) are worthy of consideration.

Short-Term Action 5 (introduce in lieu fee) warrants a lot more discussion from the community. One could argue that an in-lieu fee is essentially a long term allocation of public parking spaces to private developments, and that this allocation is difficult to undo (as it is difficult to add parking spaces to existing developments). ---
Sincerely,
Eric Muller
Los Altos resident
71 From: Monica Waldman
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item 20 - Discuss Theater Capital Campaign Analysis Update and Request for Funding from Cit
Date: Monday, November 11, 2024 5:05:40 PM
Dear Council Members,
As a previous member of the Los Altos Public Arts Commission I enjoy many forms of art, including live theater. In my 25 years as a Los Altos resident I have attended multiple performances at the Bus Barn Theater and greatly enjoyed all of them. At all of those performances, I was surprised by the sparse attendance.

On October 10, 2024, I received emails announcing the closure of California Shakespeare Theater and Cutting Ball Theater. This year, I have received multiple emails from theater groups, pleading with patrons to help save them. Despite a strong stock market, live theater in the Bay Area is struggling due to a lack of good sponsorship and backing from wealthy patrons.

Three years ago, when entering an MOU agreement with the City of Los Altos, the Los Altos Stage Company (LASC) claimed they could raise the necessary funds through donations to build a new theater. However, after three years, it seems they have not been able to raise the estimated $24 million (with an additional $1 million in escalation costs) and are now asking the City to commit over $5 million to this project
Any Council "yes" vote promising any funds from any source for the Theater is sheer insanity. Page 12 of Tuesday's packet mentions Council Priority Areas as:
o "Business Communities
o Circulation Safety and Efficiency
o Environmental Sustainability
o Housing
o Neighborhood Safety Infrastructure
o General Government"
A vanity project masquerading as a theater does not fit into any of these categories. LASC might argue that the outdated 2018 "Downtown Visioning" plan justifies this project, but that plan was created before COVID. Downtown restaurants are thriving without a theater, and the $5 million in question belongs to the people of Los Altos for other projects.

Monica Waldman
72 From: carol little
To: Public Comment
Subject: Item # 20
Date: Monday, November 11, 2024 6:09:43 PM
November 11, 2024
Re: Item Number 20
Dear Council Members,
I am writing this email as a tax paying resident, not as PARC commissioner.

Please reject the request for tax payer funds from the Los Altos Stage Company (LASC) to further their quest to find more funding for the proposed theater. A clear message is being sent, via two surveys, that residents do not have the desire for a downtown theater. This is shown in the following ways:
·
Thus far, no one - not even those pushing for the theater - are stepping up to provide the needed funds. ·
There have been two surveys regarding the proposed downtown theater and neither showed a majority of support. The City’s Downtown Vision Survey results showed that ‘Live Theatre’ ranked only 10th highest out of 16 choices to entice people to go downtown more often. Additionally, a survey by LAR (Los Altos Residents) showed the majority of respondents were opposed to supporting a theater with tax payer funds. ·
Additionally, according to the LASC’s own consultant, if the money is not available up front, it isn’t going to be there later and the theater is likely going to fail. Note: I am paraphrasing the consultant’s statement.

The ongoing trend is that many live theaters are closing and many more (ACT and Mountain View Center for the Performing Arts) are begging for money in order to stay afloat. It has even been reported that the current Bus Barn Theater cannot fill the current 80 seats. If this is accurate, how will they fill almost 200 seats? The National Endowment for the Arts, published data that shows that live theatre attendance has been declining for more than 20 years. That decline accelerated during the COVID period and has not recovered (see Figure 1, https://url.avanan.click/v2/r01/___https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/NASERC-Theater-Resilience-during-COVID082024.pdf).The___.YXAzOmxvc2FsdG9zY2E6YTpvOmVhZTkzMTFjMTk1NzFmODJhNzg0MzNjMTRmNTdjMmQxOjc6MzEzNDo5OTllMDlmNmUxYWRjOTlkMzA2MmRmMjJkYzkxYWE2YTA5ZDQ0MDEwMmNjYWI5ODhmMmZjZTU3Njc5NmUxMjY3OnQ6VDpO idea of renting the space to other entities to make ends meet was presented to me by a staunch supporter of the proposed theater. It has been tried by many local movie theaters and failed as a way to generate significant income.

Please, do not mistake my lack of support for tax payer funding as being anti-theater. I am a huge fan of live theater and often support local theaters. I oppose providing tax payer funding simply because it is a fool hardy way to spend tax payer dollars. It is bound to be an albatross around the neck of Los Altos tax payers.

Some alternatives to the proposed theater idea:
·
Spend our tax dollars on far more important things, such as the police department. ·
Encourage LASC to form a collaborative alliance with a struggling theater space. Such an alliance could help keep live theater going in this area. ·
Additionally, LASC could rent the Eagle Theater for any blockbuster shows they produce.

What of the need to generate more dollars in downtown?
In order to bring more foot traffic into downtown, create a collaborative relationship between the theater and restaurants in Los Altos. This can be accomplished by encouraging people to dine before attending the theater, via specials and early dinners on theater performance nights. This is a common practice in Cities all over, including those in the Bay Area.

Finally, the use of Park In-Lieu fees should not be considered as an option for a park on top of a parking lot that is proposed only because without it park in-Lieu fees cannot be spent for a parking lot that is needed for the theater. Real parks are needed elsewhere in our City, such as on El Camino Real corridor. There are parks all around downtown, including the Community Center space, with playgrounds, ball fields and more. This is not an area in need of a park, at least not when there are none for the incoming El Camino Real residents.

I hope Council will consider the above facts and ideas and deny the request for funds for the proposed theater. Let’s get creative and find solutions that provide the live theater that is already supported in Los Altos, while supporting the wishes of the residents to not spend tax payer dollars on a new theater.

Kind regards,
Teresa Morris
73 From: Los Altos Affordable Housing Alliance
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment 11/12 - Study Session on Draft Downtown Parking Strategy Date: Monday, November 11, 2024 10:05:31 PM
Attachments: LAAHA Letter to CC 11.12.24.pdf
Hello Mayor Weinberg and Councilmembers,
Please find our public comment attached.

Thank you,
LAAHA Steering Committee
--
Los Altos Affordable Housing Alliance
To educate and inspire the Los Altos community to build housing that is affordable for our workforce.
74 November 12, 2024
Dear Mayor Weinberg and Councilmembers,
If the City is aiming to fulfill Housing Element Program 1.H: Facilitate housing on City-owned sites, there will need to be concessions or compromises regarding replacement parking and land dedication.

The recent feasibility study conducted by Strategic Economics makes clear that potential developers of market-rate housing projects on downtown parking plazas have “very limited ability” to replace the parking that currently exists there. An affordable housing developer would not be able to afford replacement parking, but also “may be reluctant to pursue [any] affordable housing projects Downtown” because they cannot afford the parking required for the residents themselves. Due to high land costs, affordable housing developers would also need the land to be dedicated to them in order to build a project.

One area of particular interest in the report is the idea of shared parking agreements with private, off-street lot owners. According to the consultant, there are a significant number of parking spaces in private off-street lots that could be available during weekdays before 5pm. This presents an opportunity the city should pursue.

Given that the downtown parking occupancy is estimated at 60%, it is clear that there is currently plenty of parking for our existing uses. Looking ahead to the future, since the City is considering housing on parking plazas, new parks, as well as a theater, we encourage the exploration of an above ground parking structure on one of the parking plazas. Although we currently have sufficient parking, that may not be the case later on given new development. A parking structure would alleviate the parking anxiety that arises when discussing any new downtown project. By anticipating future growth and perhaps building more parking than what is needed now with a structure, we can turn our conversation towards how we want our downtown to function and what amenities we most like and want. In this way, resolving to build a structure will untether our minds from a discussion about parking, allowing us to unlock our creativity around other ideas for our downtown, including placemaking, quality of life, and civic engagement.

Respectfully,
Los Altos Affordable Housing Alliance
Los Altos Affordable Housing Alliance
Committed to educating and inspiring the Los Altos community to build housing that is affordable for those who live and work in Los Altos https://losaltosaffordablehousing.org/
75 From: Maria Bautista
To: Public Comment; City Council
Subject: Study Session 11.12.24 Item #1: Draft Downtown Parking Strategy Date: Tuesday, November 12, 2024 11:02:33 AM
Dear Councilmembers:

With respect tonight’s downtown parking strategy report, please provide justification and clarification to the public for the Aug 27, 2024 deeming of Parking Plazas 7 and 8 “surplus land.”
According to guidelines provided by the Housing and Community Development (HCD) together with tonight’s presentation, the Downtown Parking Plazas cannot be defined as “surplus land.”
Please ask staff to walk the public through the HCD report and their written justification for classifying what appears to be very necessary lands that provide a great public benefit.

Thank you,
Maria Bautista
76 From: Marlene Zimmerman
To: Public Comment
Subject: [External Sender]Comment for Los Altos City Council Meeting Nov 12, 2024 Date: Tuesday, November 12, 2024 1:12:52 PM
With respect to any requests by The Los Altos Stage Company for Los Altos government donations or funds to be put toward the design and/or construction of a new downtown performing arts theater:

I am strongly opposed to any government funding to the design, construction, or donation to a capital fundraising campaign for The Los Altos Stage Company. The city does not need a fine arts theater when similar options are located in neighboring communities. A far greater need for city funding is the construction of a new police department. Meeting the needs of our first responders should be the city’s highest priority at this time. Please put our first responders first! If there are people of Los Altos who really desire a theater, then let them fund it through private donations.
77 From: [email protected]
To: Public Comment
Subject: study session 11/12 comments-updated
Date: Tuesday, November 12, 2024 2:40:31 PM
It is unfortunate that the study, while completed end of July, was not shared with the community and City Council earlier than in November. Given the requirement to complete it by year end, it put an undue (and unnecessary burden) on everyone to read, react and revise this very important document. It is an issue given its importance and the limited time to address issues and concerns raised during a thoughtful review of the document. It is also unfortunate that there appear to be no conversations with many of the people who were involved in the prior parking studies, which might have mitigated some of the below .

This document should provide accurate information on both supply and demand so that good long term policy can be formulated and implemented. Unfortunately, the work done by the consultant is inadequate to meet that need. The result is we have a report which provides short term solutions that have long term consequences.

While the report suggests more development can be added downtown without additional parkingand meeting that need thru private parking lots, it provides no analysis of demand. We already have numerous permitted projects that will likely add to the parking burden that have not been factored in. We have rezoned numerous areas of our downtown for BMR housing, which by the consultant’s own analysis, is unlikely to build much, if any, parking without major subsidy. We have rezoned the east side of San Antonio Road and those buildings have few if any good places to park overflow demand.

There are huge holes in the work, including a failure to understand why employees are parking in non- white dot areas, how on street versus parking plazas are being used and how much parking is actually being used by downtown residents. How many cars do studios, one bedroom and two bedroom residents own in the downtown? How many cars do they park onsite, where are those other cars parked. When do they need to park those cars during the week and on weekends? We have no idea. That data is essential to formulating parking policy and addressing the actual parking requirements.

If as a community we expect to see our downtown with more restaurants and housing, the need for adequate parking is critical, in the short, medium and long term. Do we even know when peak demand will happen in the future?. Resident parking and restaurants will both need and compete for parking in the evenings and on weekends. While that may fit with private lot availability, it isn’t clear if we will have enough parking to meet peak demand, during the day or at night.

The report recommends giving property owners development incentives if they provide more parking onsite, but that is unlikely to reduce the parking deficit and may actually increase it because of the new units added to a project.

The consultants recommend costly, capital-intensive solutions such as meters to solve an employee parking issue which may be addressed through simpler means. It is far cheaper to just give employees parking permits for free, but institute high fines for those who don’t park in the correct area, rather than put in expensive meters and the bureaucracy to run that operation. It assumes that private parking, (which is transient at best as it will go away as the property owners’ needs and plans change over time) can provide an effective medium- and long-term solution. What happens when the building owners decides to terminate the agreement? The report is clear that adjacency of parking is important for residential and proximity important for commercial units. There simply may not be any when an existing contract is cancelled. Then what happens? The report clearly states that developers can afford to pay market (or slightly below market rates) for onsite parking, yet the parking in lieu fee is ½ to 2/3 less than the actual cost. Why are we subsidizing these developers when there is no need? On the other hand, the report makes clear that BMR housing cannot afford to pay for parking when the building is in downtown. It raises the question as to how realistic it is to construct much, if any BMR housing (particularly all BMR housing) in downtown unless the city is willing and able to fully subsidize that need. Can we really afford to spend $20-30M to provide this parking. Or will we simply insist that those living in BMR housing don’t need to own one (or two) car(s)? Hard to tell since we don’t know what the actual parking 78 requirements are for BMR units.

There are a range of other issues with the report as drafted. A more complete summary is included in the attached appendix.

Appendix
A. Factual issues

1. Large community survey-155 participated in the online survey, more than the other studies and those residents were largely (60%) against meters compare to other, much smaller sample sizes which favored meters. Yet the final recommendation still was for the use of meters to address what appears to be an employee parking issue.

2. Failed to note that Edith and 3rd street parking both have 2 spots each

3. Failed to note that on street parking greatest where no time limits-along Whitney and Lyell

4. Map on page 24 is wrong re parking West Edith, 3rd between Whitney and Main, Lyell near 1st and State Street between 1st and 2nd.

B. Methodology issues

1. Outreach meetings-not well publicized, never talked with residents directly surround downtown- View, Lyell, Pepper, Hawthorne, Edith and Oak, etc.

2. Problem of more than 3 hour parking is likely almost exclusively employee parking-why else would anyone, except perhaps someone getting a perm, need to spend more than 3 hours in the downtown???

3. Needed to do anonymous survey of employees to understand why not get parking permit and/or not parking in white zone areas

4. No analysis of why people park on street versus plazas to understand issues, including the usefulness of 20 minute limited parking etc.
79 5. If future of downtown is housing and restaurants, then need parking for the peak-also need to look at demand 5-10 pm throughout the week. This is because the downtown will need to attract more than just local residents to support the restaurants and out of towners will not take alternate transportation.

6. Study timing done when new condos under development-which likely accounted for low parking usage on First street and Lyell at First

7. Not realistic about parking demand by housing type. Reality is most downtown housing units need minimum of two spots not 1, even for bmr-should be tested against actual conditions in downtown as part of study

8. Failed to look at what current parking demand is by those who live in the downtown core

9. Did not address future need based on new housing already permitted as well as likely sites to be converted to housing

10. Did not address likely changes in supply and demand for parking from construction of downtown theater or the downtown park

11. Did not look at zoning change approved by City Council on the east side San Antonio Road that will have to be met by downtown parking-there simply will not be enough provided parking and there aren’t enough other places for overflow park without seriously endangering pedestrians and bicyclists.

C. Approach to solution issues

1. Solutions proposed have high reliance on tech-parking meters, flashing signs etc. This approach is expensive to install, costly to maintain. We are a small town with limited number of parking spots.

2. The plan takes the approach of building a significant bureaucracy and infrastructure. As an example, for private lot owners who agree to provide parking-credit flat fee, perhaps based on business license tax, which is based on employees and presumably proportional to parking spaces available instead of trying to measure usage. There is a reliance on parking meters to solve what appears to be an employee parking issue on streets and to an extend in the parking plazas.

3. PBD-some of the proposed work already being done by city, by lava D. Recommendations

1. Substituting bureaucracy for simpler solutions. As an example, would giving employees free parking passes get better compliance? The trade off would be larger fine to employee/employer if violate. This would be far cheaper than build staff, process and install meters.

2. Good that set price of parklet to market. Bad that did not do likewise for parking in lieu feewhy are we subsidizing developers who provide market rate housing?????

3. Page 47 recommendation to add more lighting in downtown and on side streets to deter crime-I believe this is a non-issue. Real issue is underground parking lots-both real and perceived fears.

4. Premise that developers would be able to provide enough parking if development granted increase FAR/height (page 3 of report). But that is false argument as likely just add to parking deficit.

5. Plan proposes shared parking at Draeger’s after 5 pm-when do people go grocery shopping???

6. Walgreen proposed as shared parking possibility-already is. Furthermore likely same issue as Draeger’s-peak demand likely not at noon, so providing it at 5 pm onward may not work.

7. Kicking parking can down the road-proposing short and medium term strategies with long term consequences. As an example, the Parking in Lieu does not represent cost of build parking. This means the City (and residents) will subsidize market rate housing and office construction. Also addressing long term parking needs by renting space in private lots is likely not to work longer term. Those contracts can cancel contract within a year; when there is redevelopment of those properties the parking also goes away. Then what? 80 81
From: Marlon Lara
To: Public Comment; Melissa Thurman; Taylor Soleno
Subject: Re: PUBLIC COMMENT - AGENDA ITEM #9 - NOV 12, 2024 Date: Tuesday, November 12, 2024 2:33:53 PM
Hi Melissa,
I'm reaching out to see if I can request a confirmation that a letter submitted by the California Restaurant Association on Agenda #9. I reviewed the agenda and materials, and I also received an immediate confirmation email on Friday as well.

Thank you,
Marlon Lara
From: Public Comment <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 8, 2024 5:00:56 PM
To: Marlon Lara <[email protected]>
Subject: Automatic reply: PUBLIC COMMENT - AGENDA ITEM #9 - NOV 12, 2024 CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.

Hello,
Thank you for submitting your public comment. The city follows a schedule for posting public comments which may be viewed on the city's website:
https://www.losaltosca.gov/cityclerk/page/public-comments As a general reminder, if you have emailed your comment to the City Council, either as a group, or individually, the comment will not be included in the agenda packet but may be disclosable as part of a public records request. Emails sent to [email protected] will be included in the appropriate agenda packet and are also disclosable as part of a public records request. Emails submitted to [email protected] are received by the City Council, the City Manager and the City Clerk's office.

Please note: Personal information, such as telephone numbers, home addresses, and other contact information are not required to be included with your comments. If this information is included in your email, 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.

This response will be automatically sent to incoming email addresses one time only. If you have questions regarding your comment, or would like to cancel or make changes, please email the City Clerk, Melissa Thurman at [email protected] or Deputy City Clerk, Taylor Soleno at [email protected].

Thank you.
82 CITY OF LOS ALTOS

CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 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 October 22, 2024 at 6:30 p.m., there was a motion by Dailey and Second by Fligor to approve the remote attendance of Councilmember Meadows. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

Sally Meadows, Councilmember, read a brief statement regarding her remote attendance and medical issue.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Pete Dailey, Vice Mayor, 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 October 22, 2024, the only reportable action was the unanimous approval of the remote attendance request of Councilmember Meadows.

CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
Motion by Meadows and Second by Weinberg to move Item 8 before Item 7 on the agenda.

Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

SPECIAL ITEMS
Issue Proclamation Recognizing Hindu-American Awareness Appreciation Month Jonathan D. Weinberg, Mayor, presented the proclamation to Pawan Deshpande, member of the National Leadership Council of the Hindu-American Foundation.

Introduction of Andrea Dorado, Emergency Preparedness Coordinator for the City of Los Altos
Jon Maginot, Assistant City Manager, introduced Andrea Dorado to the City Council and members of the public.

The City Council took a brief recess at 7:13 p.m. due to technical issues.

The City Council reconvened at 7:20 p.m.
83 Agenda Item # 1.

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
October 22, 2024

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
There were no speakers during Public Comment.

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

1. Approve the Regular Meeting Minutes of October 8, 2024

2. Receive and file the City’s Treasurer’s Report for the month ending July 31, 2024

3. Receive and file the City’s Treasurer’s Report for the month ending August 31, 2024

4. Authorize the Police Department to purchase two electric Chevrolet Blazers, pursuitrated, in the amount of $127,218

5. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to approve the purchase of the Streets Division Altec AT 37G Aerial Truck as part of the vehicle replacement program for City owned fleet vehicles

PUBLIC HEARING

6. Hold Public Hearing No. 7 to receive a presentation from the City of Los Altos' ("City") 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
Paul Mitchell, Redistricting Partners, presented the report.

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

The following members of the public spoke during the Public Hearing:
 Maria Bautista
 Laura Teksler
 Eric Steinle
 Larry Lang
Jonathan D. Weinberg, Mayor, closed the Public Hearing.

Motion by Dailey to draw a new map and title it “F2”. Motion failed due to lack of a second. 84 Agenda Item # 1.

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
October 22, 2024

The City Council took a recess at 8:56 p.m.

The City Council reconvened at 9:04 p.m.

Motion by Lee Eng to adopt map “F2A”.

Substitute Motion by Dailey and Second by Fligor to adopt map “F2”. Motion failed 2-3 with Councilmembers Lee Eng, Meadows and Weinberg opposed.

Motion by Lee Eng and Second by Meadows to approve map “F2A”. Motion carried 3-2 with Councilmembers Dailey and Fligor opposed.

Motion by Meadows and Second by Lee Eng to adopt a 30-day residency requirement for candidates in each district to run for a seat on the City Council. Motion carried 4-1 with Councilmember Dailey opposed.

Motion by Lee Eng and Second by Dailey to assign District 2 (grey color on approved map) and District 4 (yellow color on approved map) to be up for election in 2026. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

Motion by Weinberg and Second by Dailey to assign the following numbering system to the approved map:

District 1: Purple color – includes Highlands, Blach Intermediate School, Loyola Corners District 2: Grey color – includes Grant Park and Oak Avenue District 3: Red color – includes Rancho Shopping Center up to Almond Elementary District 4: Orange color – includes Downtown and Los Altos High School District 5: Green color – includes El Camino Real and Egan Jr. High School Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

Motion by Weinberg and Second by Dailey to waive first reading and introduce an ordinance, by title only, to amend the Los Altos Municipal Code by adding Sections 2.04.070 through 2.04.100 to Chapter 2.04, which provides for the election of members of the City Council by five districts, establishes the boundaries, identification numbers, and the election order of each district, establishes a residency requirement to seek a Council seat from each district and related actions.

Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

DISCUSSION ITEMS

8. Approve the restated employment agreement for City Manager which includes a base salary of $298,825
Jonathan D. Weinberg, Mayor, announced the recommended upgrade to the City Manager base salary.

There were no public speakers regarding the item.
85 Agenda Item # 1.

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
October 22, 2024

Motion by Weinberg and Second by Dailey to approve the restated employment agreement for the City Manager which includes a base salary of $298,825. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

7. Four (4) separate actions for City Council consideration:

Introduce and waive first reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Amending Chapter 6.40, to Title 6 Health and Safety of the Los Altos Municipal Code for Regulations on Reusable Bags and find that this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15308 of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970;
Introduce and waive first reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Repealing in its Entirety the Polystyrene Foam Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance, Chapter 6.44 of the Los Altos Municipal Code and find that this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15308 of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970; Introduce and waive first reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Repealing in its Entirety the Single-use Foodware Accessories and Condiments Ordinance, Chapter 6.45 of the Los Altos Municipal Code and find that this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15308 of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970; Introduce and waive first reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Amending the Los Altos Municipal Code, by Adding Chapter 6.42 Titled Regulations on Disposable Foodware and find that this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15308 of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970
Nick Zornes, Assistant City Manager of Land Use and Tania Katbi, Sustainability Management Analyst II, presented the report.

There were no public speakers regarding the item.

The City Council recommended the following amendments to the ordinances:
 To modify the second whereas in Chapter 6.40 to eliminate the phrase “Single-Use” - Correct
 Modifying Section 6.40.030 Fee to charge $.25 rather than $.10 per bag - Correct  Modifying Chapter 6.42 6.40 to include changes addressed in the Council Q&A document:
o Amend section 6.40.10 to remove the word “plastic” at the end of the section o Amend Section 6.40.020 to remove duplicate subsection “G”. o Amend Section 6.40.020 definition of “Carry out bag”
Motion by Weinberg and Second by Dailey to introduce and waive first reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Amending Chapter 6.40, to Title 6 Health and Safety 86 Agenda Item # 1.

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
October 22, 2024

of the Los Altos Municipal Code for Regulations on Reusable Bags and find that this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15308 of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. Motion carried 4-1 with Councilmember Lee Eng opposed.

Motion by Weinberg and Second by Dailey to introduce and waive first reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Repealing in its Entirety the Polystyrene Foam Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance, Chapter 6.44 of the Los Altos Municipal Code and find that this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15308 of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

Motion by Weinberg and Second by Dailey to introduce and waive first reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Repealing in its Entirety the Single-use Foodware Accessories and Condiments Ordinance, Chapter 6.45 of the Los Altos Municipal Code and find that this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15308 of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

Motion by Weinberg and Second by Dailey to introduce and waive first reading of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Amending the Los Altos Municipal Code, by Adding Chapter 6.42 Titled Regulations on Disposable Foodware and find that this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15308 of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

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

9. Update on the Electronic Bike (E-Bike) Ordinance

10. Tentative Council Calendar and Housing Element Implementation Update Calendar

COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS AND DIRECTIONS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Pete Dailey, Vice Mayor, requested the following future agenda item:
 Discussion on City Council term limits (Seconded by Meadows and Weinberg) Sally Meadows, Councilmember, requested the following future agenda item:
 Discussion on Charter City (Supported by Dailey and Weinberg) ADJOURNMENT – The regular meeting adjourned at 10:36 p.m.

The meeting minutes were prepared by Melissa Thurman, City Clerk, for approval at the regular meeting of November 12, 2024.
87 Agenda Item # 1.

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
October 22, 2024

_________________________________ __________________________________ Jonathan D. Weinberg Melissa Thurman, MMC
Mayor City Clerk
The October 22, 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.
88 Agenda Item # 1.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: November 12, 2024
Prepared By: Melissa Thurman
Approved By: Gabriel Engeland
Subject: Adopt the 2025 City Council Meeting Schedule

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

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the 2025 City Council Meeting Schedule

FISCAL IMPACT
Not Applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not Applicable.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
The City Council approves their meeting schedule on an annual basis.

DISCUSSION
The City Council conducts regular meetings on the second and fourth Tuesday of each month in the Los Altos Council Chambers. Towards the end of each year, the City Council adopts a regular meeting schedule for the following year.

The 2025 meeting dates are listed below and in Attachment 1:

January 14, 2025 May 13, 2025 October 14, 2025
January 28, 2025 May 27, 2025 October 28, 2025
February 11, 2025 June 10, 2025 November 18, 2025
February 25, 2025 June 24, 2025 December 2, 2025
March 11, 2025 July 8, 2025 December 9, 2025
March 25, 2025 August 26, 2025
April 8, 2025 September 9, 2025
April 22, 2025 September 23, 2025
89 Agenda Item # 2.

The City Council meeting schedule includes cancelling the second regular meeting in July and the first regular meeting in August for a summer break. The following amendments were also made to the 2025 City Council meeting calendar:
 The regular meeting of November 11, 2025 falls on a Federal Holiday (Veteran’s Day).

A special meeting will replace this meeting on November 18, 2025  A special meeting will be held on December 2, 2025 to consider final city business items for 2025
 The regular meeting of December 9, 2025 will be the City Council Reorganization meeting

ATTACHMENTS

1. 2025 City Council Meeting Schedule
90 Agenda Item # 2.
2025
City Council Meeting Calendar
Regular Meeting Dates Special Meeting Dates City Meeting Cancellation Dates Recognized City Holidays are denoted in Red
Jan. 1 – New Year’s Day April 1 – Cesar Chavez Day July 4 – Independence Day Nov. 11 – Veterans Day Observed Jan. 20 – Martin Luther King’s Day May 26 – Memorial Day Sept. 1 – Labor Day Nov. 27/28 – Thanksgiving/Day After Feb. 17 – President’s Day June 19 – Juneteenth Day Oct. 13 – Indigenous Peoples’ Day Dec. 24/25 – Christmas Eve/Day * Nov. 11th council meeting is still being determined
January February March

S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 1 1
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 26 27 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 April May June

S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
30 31 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 27 28 29 30 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 29 30
July August September

S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 31 1 2 3 4 5 6
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 29 30
October November December

S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 1 30 1 2 3 4 5 6
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 15 16 17 18 19 20 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 26 27 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 28 29 30 31
91 Agenda Item # 2.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: November 12, 2024
Prepared By: Katie Krauss, Police
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: Agreement Award: Tri-Cities Consortium Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) Acquisition

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 Sun Ridge Systems for a computer aided dispatch system for the Tri-Cities Consortium in the amount not to exceed $257,182.43 for the City of Los Altos’ portion. This will include implementation plus Year 1 of support/maintenance ($182,201.77) and 4 more years of maintenance/support for a term of five (5) years; 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.

FISCAL IMPACT
Los Altos’ fees for this project are shared by the Consortium and are allocated according to the City’s population statistics from 2020, as agreed in the Tri-Cities Consortium Memorandum of Understanding.

Over the 5-year term, the City of Los Altos’ portion will be $257,182.43 in total. This will include implementation plus Year 1 of support/maintenance ($182,201.77) and 4 more years of maintenance/support.

The FY 2025 Adopted Budget includes the full funding necessary for the implementation for this project under CIP CD-01006. There is currently $246,779 remaining in the Police Records Management and Dispatch System Capital Improvement Project Fund (CIP CD-01006). This will cover year one costs for software and implementation. Ongoing support costs are anticipated beginning in FY 2026 at an annual cost of approximately $16,568 with maintenance costs increasing 5% annually. Years 1-5 support costs will be incorporated in future budget cycles, subject to City Council approval.

The Consortium has included a payment schedule, both in the RFP and the attached Sun Ridge contract.

Mountain View is the Fiscal Agent for this project and will submit invoices to Los Altos as the project progresses through to completion.
92 Agenda Item # 3.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This Ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonable foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to environment, directly or indirectly).

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Not Applicable.

BACKGROUND
In 2008, the City Managers of Los Altos, Mountain View, and Palo Alto agreed to a broad initiative of sharing public safety technology as a method to conserve resources, improve response times, increase the resiliency and the redundancy of these critical systems, and to enhance interoperable communications between first responders in the three cities. This initiative presented the “virtual consolidation” concept and the framework to share public safety technology and communication systems. In 2012, the Tri-Cities Consortium was formed by agreement.

The Consortium collaborated to cost share the purchase of Communications systems, jointly procured a Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) and Records Management System (RMS) through Intergraph Corporation. The CAD system was implemented in 2013. In 2020, the Consortium purchased Sun Ridge’s Police Records Management System (RMS).

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Procurement Process
In July 2023, the City of Los Altos, acting as the Contractual Agent of the Consortium, issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a new Computer Aided Dispatch system. Three proposals were received in response to the RFP. Los Altos Police and Information Technology staff carefully reviewed each firm’s qualifications and submittal in response to the criteria identified in the RFP.

The Consortium created a committee consisting of employees at all levels and positions within the three city’s police and fire departments. The committee was tasked with carefully reviewing each firm’s qualifications and submittals in response to the criteria identified in the RFP. The committee assessed each proposal via an assessment point rating scale based on quality and completeness of the proposal, functionality and performance of the solution, methodology and proposed approach to project management, implementation and training, experience, financial stability, record of performance, customer support, and compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies. The committee also assessed the following:
compliance to essential features and interface needs, level of service and responsiveness, cost of implementation and maintenance, and proposer’s willingness and ability to negotiate a contract acceptable to each city. Sun Ridge Systems, Inc. (Sun Ridge) was recommended by the committee as the preferred solution due to the quality of their services, the experience of their staff, and their ability to provide future services. The cities of Los Altos, Palo Alto, and Mountain View’s executives and legal counsels have approved the content of the agreement.

The total agreement with Sun Ridge Systems for a computer aided dispatch system for the Tri-Cities Consortium will be $1,251,975.08 for the full implementation and ongoing support/maintenance for all three cities (Los Altos, Mountain View and Palo Alto) for a term of five (5) years. As mentioned above, the City of Los Altos’ portion of the cost will not exceed $257,182.43 over the five-year term, including the implementation and ongoing support/maintenance.
93 Agenda Item # 3.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution 24-____

2. Sun Ridge Systems, Inc. Software and Services Agreement

3. RIMS CAD Price Breakdown by Agency
94 Agenda Item # 3.

Reso No. 2024-
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT ON

BEHALF OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS WITH SUN RIDGE SYSTEMS INC FOR THE

TRI-CITIES CONSORTIUM COMPUTER AIDED DISPATCH (CAD) ACQUISITION (CD01006)
WHEREAS, the Tri-City Consortium has selected Sun Ridge Systems to provide Computer Aided Dispatch software and support services; and WHEREAS, the FY 24/25 Council-adopted Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) budget has adequate funding to fund the City of Los Altos’ portion of the purchase; and WHEREAS, Sun Ridge Systems Inc has negotiated an agreement for this software and services that requires the City Council approval pursuant to the Los Altos Purchasing Policy.

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

1. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement with Sun Ridge Systems Inc in the amount of $257,182.43 (Los Altos’ contribution) on behalf of the City for the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) acquisition.

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 at a regular meeting of the Los altos City Council held on the 12 th day of November
2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
______________________________
Jonathan D. Weinberg
Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Melissa Thurman, MMC
City Clerk
95 Agenda Item # 3.

Sun Ridge Systems, Inc. – TriCities CAD Consortium v4a Page 1 SUN RIDGE SYSTEMS, INC.

SOFTWARE AND SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Software and Services Agreement (“Agreement”) is executed in duplicate as of __________, 2024, between Sun Ridge Systems, Inc., a California corporation (“Sun Ridge”), and City of Los Altos, a political subdivision of the State of California (“the City”) located at 1 North San Antonio Road, Los Altos, 94022.

Section 1. Agreement. That for and in consideration of payments and agreements hereinafter mentioned to be made and performed by the City, and under the conditions set forth in this Agreement, Sun Ridge agrees to provide computer software (“Software”) and services (“Services”) to the City as described in Exhibit A, Scope of Work, attached hereto and incorporated herein. The Software support and maintenance services to be provided by Sun Ridge as part of the Services are more specifically described in Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein (“Software Support Services Agreement”).

Section 2. City Project Manager. Sun Ridge shall work under the general direction of Sneh Kukreja (City of Palo Alto) in fulfilling this Agreement.

Section 3. Scope of Work. The project that is the subject of this Agreement shall consist of the delivery by Sun Ridge to the City of the Software and Services (the “Project”) described in Exhibit A.

Section 4. Payment Schedule. In consideration for the Software and Services to be provided by Sun Ridge under this Agreement, the City agrees to pay Sun Ridge the Total Contract Amount (“Contract Amount”) given in Exhibit B according to the following schedule (“Payment Schedule”):

Milestone Amount of Payment
Contract Signing 25% of Contract Amount
Software Installation Complete 25% of Contract Amount
Training Complete 25% of Contract Amount
Final Acceptance 25% of Contract Amount
The City shall not be entitled to withhold or delay payments due to Sun Ridge pursuant to the above Payment Schedule due to delay in the delivery, installation, or testing of Software items described in Exhibit A where the delay is the result of action or inaction or breach of this Agreement by the City, its agents or employees or the action or inaction of a third party which is not within Sun Ridge's reasonable control.

Section 5. Invoices. Invoices shall be sent to:

Chandra Kooner
Mountain View Police Department
1000 Villa Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
650-903-6700
Upon receipt of the invoice, the City shall verify that the invoice has been properly prepared and that the conditions of payment have been fulfilled. If the payment conditions have been fulfilled, the invoice shall be processed and paid by the City within thirty (30) days after the City’s receipt thereof.
96 Agenda Item # 3.

Sun Ridge Systems, Inc. – TriCities CAD Consortium v4a Page 2 In addition to any other amounts for which the City is liable under this Agreement, the City agrees to pay to Sun Ridge a late charge equal to one percent (1%) of the amount due if the City fails to pay Sun Ridge any amount that is due and owing pursuant to this Agreement within sixty (60) days after the City’s receipt of an invoice from Sun Ridge. Any invoiced amounts that are due and owing under this Agreement which the City fails to pay to Sun Ridge within ninety (90) days after the City’s receipt of an invoice from Sun Ridge shall thereafter bear interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum or the highest interest rate allowed by applicable law, whichever is less.

Section 6. Term of Agreement. Unless terminated earlier in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement or applicable law, the term of this Agreement (“Term”) shall be from the date shown on the first page of this Agreement through completion of the Project. Completion of the Project means the installation by Sun Ridge of all of the Software, the completion by Sun Ridge of all training and other Services and the payment by the City to Sun Ridge of the entire Contract Amount. The Project schedule is to be separately generated and agreed to between the parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the License described in Section 9 below will remain in effect until it is terminated pursuant to Section 9.

Section 7. Warranty/Disclaimer of Liability.
a. Sun Ridge warrants that upon delivery the Software substantially conforms to its Documentation and is free from defects that will materially impair its use. The City’s sole and exclusive remedy for breach of this warranty will be repair or replacement of the Software. Sun Ridge will make reasonable efforts to correct errors in the Software, but does not warrant that the Software is error-free or will perform without interruption. The City has relied solely upon its own investigation and judgment in selecting the Software and not upon any representations or promises of Sun Ridge except as may be expressly stated in this Agreement. b. THE FOREGOING WARRANTY IS IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER

WARRANTIES PERTAINING TO THE SOFTWARE, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AND SUN RIDGE

SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
c. IN NO EVENT WILL SUN RIDGE BE LIABLE FOR LOST

BUSINESS, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES,

HOWEVER CAUSED, WHETHER FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY, CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, OR OTHERWISE) ARISING OUT OF THE

QUALITY, CONDITION OR USE OF THE SOFTWARE OR ANY OTHER PART OF THE PRODUCT. IN NO EVENT WILL SUN RIDGE BE LIABLE FOR ANY AMOUNT WHICH EXCEEDS THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE CITY FOR THE PRODUCT.

Section 8. Final Acceptance. For thirty (30) days from the beginning of Agency’s Operational Use of the Software or forty (40) days after the completion of installation and training by Sun Ridge, whichever comes first (the “Test Period”), Agency shall test the system for defects and anomalies. “Operational Use” is defined as the Agency’s use of the Sun Ridge Software in the course of the Agency’s daily business activities. During the Test Period, Sun Ridge shall address and attempt to resolve issues with the Software identified by Agency under the Software Support Services Agreement (Exhibit C). At the end of the Test Period, Agency shall accept or reject the Software as follows:
a. If the City determines that the Software is performing to its satisfaction it shall immediately provide written notice to Sun Ridge of final acceptance of the Software (“Final Acceptance Notice”), and upon receipt of a valid invoice from Sun Ridge, shall process and pay the final milestone of the Contract Amount including any additional outstanding 97 Agenda Item # 3.

Sun Ridge Systems, Inc. – TriCities CAD Consortium v4a Page 3 milestone Payment Amounts. Any remaining issues with the Software shall be covered as part of the original cost of the system and handled as maintenance items under the Software Support Services Agreement (Exhibit C).
b. If the City decides to not accept the Software, then it must so notify Sun Ridge in writing within five (5) calendar days after the end of the Test Period (a “Rejection Notice”). If a Rejection Notice is given, this Agreement shall be automatically terminated and all payments already made by the City to Sun Ridge, less the cost of project management, installation, data conversion, and training services provided up to the date of termination shall be returned to the City by Sun Ridge within thirty (30) days after receipt of the notice. The terms of Section 11 and all other provisions of this Agreement that expressly survive such termination shall apply.
c. If the City fails to provide a Final Acceptance Notice or a Rejection Notice within five (5) calendar days after the end of the Test Period, then the City’s final acceptance of the Software shall be considered to have occurred and the City and Sun Ridge shall proceed as described in section 8.a above.

Section 9. Software License. Subject to the terms, conditions, limitations and restrictions set forth in this Agreement, Sun Ridge grants to the City a nonexclusive and nontransferable license, effective upon the City’s Final Acceptance of the Software pursuant to Section 8 above, to use the Software in connection with the City’s normal and customary daily operations substantially as they exist as of the date of commencement of the Term as described below (the “License”). The City shall acquire no ownership or other rights in or to the Software except for the License granted hereunder, and title to the Software shall at all times remain with Sun Ridge.
a. The following additional terms, conditions and limitations apply to the License:
i. The City may use the Software on all computers in the City’s agency. Software may not be used at any other agencies unless explicitly agreed to in writing by Sun Ridge;
ii. The City may make a copy of the Software for backup or modification purposes only in support of the City’s authorized use of the Software hereunder as Sun Ridge has expressly authorized; and
iii. No one using the Software, and no one for whose benefit the Software is being used, shall sublicense, resell, distribute, market, provide or otherwise make available the Software or any part or copies thereof to any third party. iv. The City shall not transfer, use, or export the Software in violation of any applicable laws, rules, or regulations of any government or governmental agency. v. The City shall not use the Software to disrupt, disable, or otherwise harm the operations, software, hardware, equipment, and/or systems of a business, institution, or other entity, including, without limitation, exposing the business, institution, or other entity to any computer virus, trojan horse, or other harmful, disruptive, or unauthorized component.
vi. The City shall not embed the Software in any third-party applications, unless expressly permitted under this Agreement or otherwise authorized in writing in advance by an authorized officer of Sun Ridge.
98 Agenda Item # 3.

Sun Ridge Systems, Inc. – TriCities CAD Consortium v4a Page 4 vii. The License granted under this Agreement shall apply only to the object code for the Software. No one using the Software, and no one for whose benefit the Software is being used, shall have the right to use or have access to the source code for the Software, and neither the City nor anyone using the Software pursuant to this License will modify, change, merge, adapt, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble or prepare derivative works based upon the Software.
viii. The City acknowledges that the Software and the
Documentation constitute trade secrets of Sun Ridge. The City agrees to maintain the confidentiality of the Software and the Documentation, and shall take commercially reasonable steps to preserve that confidentiality pursuant to Section 12 of this Agreement. b. The term of the License shall commence upon Final Acceptance of the Software by the City, and shall continue until the License is terminated as provided below. i. Sun Ridge may immediately terminate the License in the event of any failure by the City to comply with the terms or conditions of this Agreement by giving written notice of such termination to the City. In the event the City has leased the Software from Sun Ridge, the License will terminate automatically upon termination of the lease. Upon such termination, the City shall immediately cease further use of the Software and will cause all copies of the Software to be destroyed or returned to Sun Ridge. ii. The City may terminate the License at any time by giving written notice thereof to Sun Ridge and by destroying or returning to Sun Ridge all copies of the Software. The City acknowledges and agrees that any election by the City to terminate the License hereunder will not entitle the City to any refund of amounts paid or compensation of any kind from Sun Ridge.
iii. Upon any termination or expiration of the License, an authorized representative of the City shall certify in writing to Sun Ridge that all copies of the Software and the Documentation which were the subject of the License have either been destroyed or returned to Sun Ridge as required above.
iv. The provisions of Sections 7 and 11 through 13, inclusive, shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. c. Sun Ridge may, at its option, release updates to or new versions of the Software. If the City elects to obtain any update or new version of the Software, the use of such update or new version will be subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. d. Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, Sun Ridge retains all intellectual property rights and other rights to the Software, Documentation (as defined below), and the source code for the Software.

Section 10. Indemnity and Insurance.
a. Sun Ridge agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City and its officers, directors, shareholders, employees, and agents (the “City Indemnified Parties”) from any and all claims, demands, liabilities, and costs, including attorney’s fees (“Claims”), arising out of or relating to (i) any actual infringement of a third-party’s intellectual property rights or (ii) the negligence or willful misconduct of any employee or agent of Sun Ridge occurring during or as a result of Sun Ridge’s performance of its obligations hereunder, provided that Sun Ridge shall have no indemnity or other obligations to the City hereunder to the extent any such Claims arise from or are the result of the negligence or other fault of the City or its employees, agents or 99 Agenda Item # 3.

Sun Ridge Systems, Inc. – TriCities CAD Consortium v4a Page 5 other contractors nor shall the foregoing indemnity and hold harmless obligations of Sun Ridge extend to or cover any Claims arising from or relating to claims of defects or errors in the Software or the City’s use or inability to use the Software. This indemnity obligation shall survive the expiration, cancellation or termination of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City expressly waives, releases, and agrees that neither Sun Ridge nor Sun Ridge’s officers, directors, shareholders, employees, agents and affiliates shall have any liability for any individual’s or entity’s lost business, direct damages, incidental or consequential damages, or any other Claims arising out of or related to the use or implementation of the Software. b. During the term of this Agreement, Sun Ridge shall comply with the following insurance requirements:
i. Workers’ Compensation. Sun Ridge shall fully comply with the terms of the law of California concerning workers’ compensation. Said compliance shall include, but not be limited to, maintaining in full force and effect one or more policies of insurance insuring against any liability Sun Ridge may have for workers’ compensation. Said policy shall also include employer’s liability coverage of $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. ii. General Liability Insurance. Sun Ridge shall obtain at its sole cost and keep in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement commercial general liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, and property damage personal injury; coverage includes products and completed operations,. Said insurance shall provide (1) that the City, its officers, and employees shall be included as additional insureds under the policy, and (2) that the policy shall operate as primary insurance, and non-contributory. iii. Automobile Liability Insurance. Sun Ridge shall obtain at its sole cost and keep in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement business automobile liability insurance in the amount of $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage. Said insurance operate as primary insurance, and non-contributory. iv. Certificates of Insurance. Sun Ridge shall file with City upon the execution of this Agreement, certificates of insurance which shall provide that no cancellation, major change in coverage, expiration, or nonrenewal will be made during the term of this agreement, without thirty (30) days written notice to the City prior to the effective date of such cancellation, or change in coverage.

Section 11. Termination Rights. Either party may terminate this Agreement upon material breach of any of the terms of this Agreement by the other Party, after first giving the other party written notice of such breach and thirty (30) days to cure. If the breaching party does not cure the breach within the allotted time, the Agreement will be terminated. Upon Termination, each party will return, delete, or destroy any copies, whether tangible or electronic, of Confidential Information obtained from the other party pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to any Documentation and any Confidential Information stored on any equipment that may be returned, and certify to the other party in writing within five (5) business days of the termination date that it has done so.

Section 12. Confidential Information. “Confidential Information” means any and all confidential information of a party to this Agreement that is not generally known to or by members of the public, including but not limited to businesses that compete with such a party, including but not limited to the Software and the Documentation pertaining thereto. Confidential Information shall not include information that is now or becomes part of the public domain, is required by applicable law to be disclosed, was already known by the receiving party at the time of disclosure, is independently developed by the receiving party without any use of Confidential Information, or is lawfully obtained from a third party. “Documentation” means those visually readable materials 100
Agenda Item # 3.

Sun Ridge Systems, Inc. – TriCities CAD Consortium v4a Page 6 developed by or for Sun Ridge for use in connection with the Software, in either written or electronic form.

Each party agrees to protect the other party’s Confidential Information. Confidential Information will not be used or disclosed except as authorized by the providing party. Confidential Information will be disclosed to employees of the receiving party only on a “need to know” basis and only after such employees are informed of the confidential nature of the information and obligated to maintain confidentiality.

If a party or any party acting on its behalf is required to disclose by order of a court of competent jurisdiction, administrative agency or governmental body, or by subpoena, summons or other legal process, or by law, rule or regulation, or by applicable regulatory or professional standards to produce Confidential Information, that party shall promptly (and prior to such disclosure) notify the other party in writing of such demand or requirement whereupon the parties shall cooperate and take all reasonable acts (without significant cost or expense to the notifying party) to exhaust the legal avenues available to maintain the confidentiality of such Confidential Information, unless the party whose Confidential Information is at issue consents to the production and disclosure of such Confidential Information. In all events, only that portion of the Confidential Information specifically requested by the tribunal or person compelling such disclosure shall be provided and no interpretation or analysis of such data prepared for the purpose of such disclosure shall be disclosed unless approved the party whose Confidential Information is at issue or required by law.

Section 13. General Terms.
a. Governing Law. This Agreement will be construed by and enforced in accordance with the laws of the state of California. b. Arbitration. If a dispute arises from or related to this Agreement or the breach of this Agreement and if such dispute cannot be settled through direct discussions, the parties agree to first endeavor to settle the dispute in an amicable manner by mediation to be held in Sacramento, California, under the Commercial Mediation Rules of the American Arbitration Association before resorting to arbitration. Thereafter, any unresolved controversy or claim arising from or relating to this Agreement, or breach of this Agreement, shall be settled in arbitration to be held in Sacramento, California. The arbitration will be governed by the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association, and the parties shall be allowed discovery in accordance with the California Code of Civil Procedure. If Sun Ridge and the City cannot jointly select a single arbitrator to determine the matter, one arbitrator shall be chosen by each of Sun Ridge and the City (or, if a party fails to make a choice, by the American Arbitration Association on behalf of such party) and the two arbitrators so chosen will select one additional arbitrator.

The decision of the single arbitrator jointly selected by Sun Ridge and the City, or, if three arbitrators are selected, the decision of any two of them will be final and binding on the parties and the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction may be entered on such decision. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable fees and expenses resulting from any arbitration proceeding.
c. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement shall be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, such finding shall not affect the validity, legality, or enforceability of the remaining provisions.
d. Assignment. Parties may not transfer, assign, or sublicense this Agreement, any license hereunder, or any of its rights or duties hereunder to any other person, site or corporation without the prior written consent of the other party. Any attempted transfer, assignment, or sublicense made without prior written consent shall be completely void. 101
Agenda Item # 3.

Sun Ridge Systems, Inc. – TriCities CAD Consortium v4a Page 7 e. Notice. Any notice requested or permitted to be given hereunder shall be sent prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested, and shall be deemed to have been given on the third (3rd) business day after mailing to the other party as follows: to the City at the address indicated in the initial paragraph of this Agreement or to electronic mail address ______________________; to Sun Ridge Systems at P.O. Box 5071, El Dorado Hills, CA 95762, or electronic mail address [email protected]. Notices may be given by electronic mail transmission to such address as may be specified by the party for such purpose and shall be deemed to have been given when transmitted to such address with confirmation of a successful transmission.
f. Independent Contractors. The parties to this Agreement shall constitute independent contractors. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as establishing any employment, partnership, joint venture or similar arrangement between the parties, and no party has any authority to commit any other party to any obligation to any other person or entity, unless expressly agreed to in writing signed by such party. g. Force Majeure. Sun Ridge shall not be responsible for interruption of, interference with, diminution of, or suspension of any of its products or services, including performance failure, which are caused by strike, lockout, riot, epidemics, war, government regulation, fire, flood, natural disaster, acts of God, utility failures, losses or injuries arising directly or indirectly from criminal acts, negligent acts of others, malfunctions or inadequacies of equipment or service not directly within the control of Sun Ridge. h. Authorization/Entire Agreement/Modification. This Agreement will be effective upon signing by the City and Sun Ridge. This Agreement is the complete and final Agreement of the parties relating to the subject of this Agreement and it replaces and supersedes any prior or contemporaneous oral or written understandings or agreements. No alteration or variation to the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties hereto.

This Agreement has been executed by the parties hereto, from the date shown on the first page.

SUN RIDGE SYSTEMS, INC.

By:
__________________________________
Carol Gomes Jackson
Its: President
City of Los Altos
By:
__________________________________
Its:
102
Agenda Item # 3.

Sun Ridge Systems, Inc. – TriCities CAD Consortium v4a Page 8 Exhibit A Scope of Work
Section 1 – Software Licenses
The City has purchased the following software licenses:
 RIMS Computer Aided Dispatch Software (LA/MV)
 iRIMS Fire Mobile App Software (MV/PA)
 RIMS Mobile Mapping Software
 RIMS2Txt
The City has purchased the following RIMS interface software:
 RIMS ProQA (Priority Dispatch) Link Software (MV/PA)
 RIMS Fire RMS Link Software (ImageTrend) (MV)
 RIMS Fire RMS Link Software (ESO) (PA)
 RIMS Alameda County AWS Link Software
 RIMS PulsePoint Link Software (MV/PA)
 RIMS Fire Station Alerting Link Software – USDD (MV/PA)  RIMS Tablet Command Link Software (MV/PA)
 RIMS E911 Link Software
 RIMS Body Worn Camera Link Software (LA/MV)
 RIMS Cry Wolf Link Software (MV Only)
 RIMS Alarm Program Systems (APS) Link Software (LA/PA)  First Watch Fire RMS Link (MV)
The City has purchased the following software enhancement:
 Geo-Fencing Functionality: Auto-Status Change to Enroute - For fire units, the unit's status is automatically changed after it is more than X (configurable feet) from the currently assigned fire station. The station's Latitude/Longitude can be set using the Data Validation Table-Fire Stations. - Using the GPS from the fire unit reported via Mobile RIMS or Cradlepoint type modem via our Mobile Computer Controller, the Unit will automatically update the status from DISP (Dispatch) to ENRT (Enroute).
 Auto-Status Change on Arrival
- For fire units or police units, the unit's status is automatically changed after it is within X (configurable feet) from the current unit's location to the assigned incident's location. For example, you could set this to be within 75 feet of the destination to automatically change the unit status from ENRT to ONSCENE. The distance, in feet, is configurable by fire or police agency records.
- Note that this may not work 100% since the incident and the unit's arrival locations may be outside the agency setting. This is true if the unit stages somewhere else - in these cases, the Unit will need to change their own status. 103
Agenda Item # 3.

Sun Ridge Systems, Inc. – TriCities CAD Consortium v4a Page 9 Section 2 - Project Schedule
Upon execution of the Agreement, Sun Ridge and the City shall define a mutually agreed on project schedule.

Section 3 – Hardware/Equipment
Sun Ridge is providing no hardware/equipment.

Section 4 – Third-Party Software
Sun Ridge is providing no Third-Party software.

Section 5 - Installation
Sun Ridge will install all Sun Ridge provided Software on the Consortium’s servers which are currently running RIMS RMS. Sun Ridge will provide instruction to the City staff on how to install the client workstation Software and Mobile/App Software. The City’s servers and workstations (including desktop and laptop computers as well as Android and/or iOS devices) shall meet the minimum specifications set forth in Section 10. Access to the City supplied servers shall be via unattended remote access using a product called Bomgar by Beyond Trust, provided by Sun Ridge. As part of installation, Sun Ridge will set up a basic system backup process to local disks, if the City does not currently have a backup process already running on these servers.

Section 6 – Configuration
Sun Ridge will provide the following sessions to the City’s designated RIMS Administrators:

RIMS Configuration and Setup: Consists of up to 16 hours for CAD configuration and setup training, conducted via phone and/or remote access. The City’s “RIMS Administrators” will be instructed on how to configure RIMS to most closely meet the desired operational procedures of the City. In some cases, the RIMS Administrators may find that modifying existing procedures may be desired in order to take full advantage of RIMS functionality. Discussions will include:
 Customization of drop-down menu choices
 The City’s dispatch operational decisions
Section 7 - Integration.
104
Agenda Item # 3.

Sun Ridge Systems, Inc. – TriCities CAD Consortium v4a Page 10 Sun Ridge will provide RIMS sided interfaces for all third-party software applications listed in Section 1 above. The City must coordinate with third-party vendors to complete and test their portion of the interface.

Section 8 - Training
Sun Ridge is providing “end user” training all of which shall be conducted on-site at a City provided location(s). Training days are contiguous, including weekends. Class times are 0800 to no later than 1700. Sun Ridge will provide a training plan at least 30 days prior to the first training session, generally following the parameters and total number of classes set forth in the chart below but with the specifics mutually agreed upon by the Parties.

Sun Ridge will provide course materials/handouts in electronic format in advance of the training.

A “session” is a repeat of the same class/material.

Training
Subject
Sessions
Offered
Days Per
Session
Total
Days Class Size
CAD/Dispatcher
3 2 6
End-User Training
Format - No more than 1
student per
workstation/10 students
per session max
Officers/Mobile
Refresher for
CAD 1 1 1
Train the Trainer Format
Admin Review 1 1 1 TBD
Section 9 - Go Live Support
Three (3) Sun Ridge staff will be on site on the day of and two (2) Sun Ridge staff will be onsite the day after go live. Staff will be onsite to answer questions and to address any system problems.

Section 10 - The City’s Responsibilities
The City is responsible for the following:
- Installation of all remaining client workstations
- Installation of all remaining mobile computers
- Installation of all remaining smartphone/tablet devices - Coordinate and schedule resources of the City to include IT staff - Identify RIMS Administrators
105
Agenda Item # 3.

Sun Ridge Systems, Inc. – TriCities CAD Consortium v4a Page 11 - Provide data communications infrastructure (network, wireless, internet, intranet) - Complete, submit and gain approval of updated DOJ CLETS application - Coordinate testing of the CLETS Message Switch
- Contact third party vendors, and any other required third-parties, and coordinate their schedules and costs they may charge the City to provide, install and test their portion of the interface to RIMS.
- Ensure accuracy of the geofile
- Ensure all user-maintained configuration and data validation tables are completed prior to the start of training
- Provide training facilities and workstations (meeting minimum workstations requirements) and ensure access to RIMS training database from the training location(s)
- Training facilities must meet current Federal, State and local guidelines for health and safety, including those that may affect class size and physical configuration - Make paper copies of class materials and handouts provided by Sun Ridge - Schedule the City’s staff into requisite classes
- Assume any costs for staff overtime or other expenses incurred to support training schedule
- The City will allow unattended remote access (during implementation) to Sun Ridge allowing the use of Bomgar by BeyondTrust remote access software so that Sun Ridge may meet its responsibilities under this Agreement - The City will provide the following hardware meeting the following minimum specifications:
 Database Software: Purchase additional cores of Microsoft SQL Server software (Standard Edition) required to run the RIMS database if needed.  Servers: Ensure existing RIMS servers have sufficient disk space for the addition of the CAD databases.
 Monitor Resolution: 1920 x 1080
 Minimum Specifications (If using existing PCs and servers)

Office Workstations Database Servers
Microsoft Windows 10+ Microsoft Windows Server 2016+
2+ Ghz Processor / i5+ Microsoft SQL Server 2016+
8 GB+ RAM Intel 2 GHz+ Processor
Any Size Disk Space 16 GB+ RAM
3x Current System Database Size for Conversion
106
Agenda Item # 3.

Sun Ridge Systems, Inc. – TriCities CAD Consortium v4a Page 12  Minimum Specifications (If purchasing new PCs and servers)  Mobile Computer Specifications: RIMS Mobile Computer Software/OFR Software and RIMS Mobile Mapping run on Windows laptops or Windows tablets per the following minimum specifications:
 Recommended Specifications (If purchasing new Laptops/Tablets) Android Devices iOS Devices
Android v13+ iOS v16+
Optional features for Mobile RIMS: include support for touchscreens, locally connected GPS devices (COM-port Serial or network connection to the modem), NFC readers for YubiKeys (MFA), and Driver’s License barcode scanning using enabled Getac tablets or DL scanners (Com-port Serial – AAMVA format – purchased separately by the City).
 FBI CJIS Requirements: All workstations must comply with FBI CJIS policies, including Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA). MFA can be provided within the Sun Ridge Systems products, or the City can use its own solution.

Sun Ridge Systems only offers two MFA possession solutions: Time- Based One-Time Password (TOTP) Authenticator and physical YubiKeys (purchased by the City). For mobile devices using Mobile RIMS or iRIMS, a Mobile Data Management (MDM) software product may be required, which Sun Ridge Systems does not provide nor sell. The City is responsible for other FBI CJIS requirements, including virus protection, local firewalls, and VPNs.
 *Effective October 1, 2024, Multi-factor Authentication will be required for all workstations, except for Dispatch workstations.

Office Workstations Database Servers
Microsoft Windows 10+ Microsoft Windows Server 2022+
i7/i9 Processor Microsoft SQL Server 2022+
16 GB+ RAM i7, Xeon, or AMD Equivalent Processor
Any Size Disk Space 32 GB+ RAM
3x Current System Database Size for Conversion
107
Agenda Item # 3.

Sun Ridge Systems, Inc. – TriCities CAD Consortium v4a Page 13 Exhibit B – Contract Amount
CL = Currently Licensed
NP = Not Provided
TABLE 1 - Application
Software
Component Los Altos
Los
Altos
Annual
Support
Mountai
n View
Mountai
n View
Annual
Support
Palo
Alto
Palo
Alto
Annual
Suppor
t

TOTAL COSTS
- SOFTWARE
TOTAL

COSTS -

SUPPORT
Web Query Clients
Not Proposed
Not Proposed
Not Proposed
Full Dispatch Capable Workstations
RIMS CAD $70,900 $9,700 $163,00
0 $22,325 CL CL $233,900 $32,025
RIMS2Txt $1,955 $270 $5,290 $725 $4,255 $585 $11,500 $1,580 TOTAL CAD APPLICATION COST $245,400 $33,605
108
Agenda Item # 3.

Sun Ridge Systems, Inc. – TriCities CAD Consortium v4a Page 14 TABLE 2 - Mobile
Application
Component Los Altos
Los
Altos
Annual
Support
Mountain
View
Mountai
n View
Annual
Support
Palo
Alto
Palo
Alto
Annual
Support
TOTAL

COSTS -

SOFTWARE
TOTAL

COSTS -

SUPPORT
Vehicular Mobile/MDT License
CL CL CL CL CL CL $0 $0
Tablet License (iRIMS Fire)
NP NP $33,350 $4,570 $33,350
$4,570 $66,700 $9,140
SmartPhone License (iRIMS Fire)
See Tablet License NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

TOTAL MOBILE APPLICATION
COSTS $66,700.00 $9,140.00
109
Agenda Item # 3.

Sun Ridge Systems, Inc. – TriCities CAD Consortium v4a Page 15 TABLE 3 - Interfaces
Component Los Altos
Los
Altos
Annual
Suppor
t
Mountai
n View
Mountai
n View
Annual
Support
Palo
Alto
Palo
Alto
Annual
Suppor
t
TOTAL

COSTS -

SOFTWARE
TOTAL

COSTS -

SUPPORT
Interfaces
ESInet NP NP NP NP NP NP $0 $0
Mass Notification (Everbridge) NP NP NP NP NP NP $0 $0
Motorola Astro 25 PTT NP NP NP NP NP NP $0 $0
Priority Dispatch NP NP $6,900 $945 $6,900 $945 $13,800 $1,890 CLETS CL CL CL CL CL CL $0 $0
Santa Clara CJIS CL CL CL CL CL CL $0 $0
Fire RMS - ImageTrend NP NP $12,650 $1,735 NP NP $12,650 $1,735 Fire RMS - ESO NP NP NP NP
$12,65
0 $1,735 $12,650 $1,735
Police RMS - RIMS CL CL CL CL CL CL $0 $0
Animal Control - Chameleon NP NP NP NP NP NP $0 $0
Trafficware NP NP NP NP NP NP $0 $0
AWS $11,500 $1,575 $11,500 $1,575 $11,500
$1,575 $34,500 $4,725
PulsePoint NP NP $11,500 $1,575 $11,500
$1,575 $23,000 $3,150
Fire Station Alerting (USDD) NP NP $10,350 $1,418 $10,350 $1,418 $20,700 $2,836
Tablet Command NP NP $14,950 $2,050 $14,950
$2,050 $29,900 $4,100
VESTA E911 $11,300 $1,500 $17,350 $2,400 $17,350
$2,400 $46,000 $6,300
Reddinet NP NP NP NP NP NP $0 $0
BWC - AXON $3,450 $473 $3,450 $473 NP NP $6,900 $946
110
Agenda Item # 3.

Sun Ridge Systems, Inc. – TriCities CAD Consortium v4a Page 16 BWC - Motorola NP NP NP NP NP NP $0 $0
Digital Evidence Management -
AXON NP NP NP NP NP NP $0 $0
Digital Evidence Management -
Veripic NP NP NP NP NP NP $0 $0
Netclock NP NP NP NP NP NP $0 $0
False Alarm Program – CryWolf 5,750 $800 $5,750 $800
False Alarm Program – APS
(CitySupport) $5,175 $700 NP NP $5,750 $800 $10,925 $1,500 Hexagon CAD-to-CAD (legacy Data) NP NP NP NP NP NP $0 $0 HRMS Telestaff NP NP NP NP NP NP $0 $0
GIS (Arc/ESRI) NP NP NP NP NP NP $0 $0
First Watch Fire RMS Link NP NP $12,650 $1,650 NP NP $12,650 $1,650 TOTAL INTERFACE COSTS $229,425 $31,367
111
Agenda Item # 3.

Sun Ridge Systems, Inc. – TriCities CAD Consortium v4a Page 17 TABLE 4 - Other
Module/Components
Component Los Altos
Los
Altos
Annual
Suppor
t
Mountai
n View
Mountai
n View
Annual
Support
Palo
Alto
Palo
Alto
Annua
l
Suppo
rt
TOTAL

COSTS -

SOFTWARE
TOTAL

COSTS -

SUPPORT
Other Modules
RIMS Mobile Mapping Software $10,350 $1,550 $20,700 $2,775 $20,700 $2,775 $51,750 $7,100
Geo-Fencing Functionality $9,800 $800 $9,800 $800 $9,800 $800 $29,400 $2,400 TOTAL OTHER COSTS $81,150 $9,500
112
Agenda Item # 3.

Sun Ridge Systems, Inc. – TriCities CAD Consortium v4a Page 18 TABLE 5 - Total
Application Software
Costs
Component
TOTAL

COSTS -

SOFTWARE
TOTAL

COSTS -

SUPPORT
Other Modules
TOTAL CAD APPLICATION COST $245,400 $33,605

TOTAL MOBILE APPLICATION
COSTS $66,700 $9,140
TOTAL INTERFACE COSTS $229,425 $31,367
TOTAL OTHER COSTS $81,150 $9,500

TOTAL APPLICATION
SOFTWARE COSTS $622,675 $83,612
113
Agenda Item # 3.

Sun Ridge Systems, Inc.
– TriCities CAD Consortium v4a Page 19
Attachment E - Form 5 -
Implementation Cost
CL = Currently Licensed
NP = Not Proposed
Item
Total
Implementa
tion Costs
CAD Installation
$38,125
MDC Installation Included
Smartphone/Tablet Installation $1,800
System Interfaces Integration
$49,200
System Hardware, Platforms and
OS Integration NP
Site Development and System
Inegration NP
GIS and Mapping Integration Included
System Reporting and Analytics
Integration NP
Project Management $48,936
Business Process Reegineering and
Organizational Change Mgmt
See System
Configuration
Documentation Creation and
Support Services NP
Legacy Data Access Services NP
System Configuration
Included in
Training
End-User and Administrator Training $18,875
System Testing NP
Testing Included
114
Agenda Item # 3.

Sun Ridge Systems, Inc. – TriCities CAD Consortium v4a Page 20 Go-Live On-Site Support
Included in
Training
Travel $10,355
Escrow NP
Other (describe)

TOTAL SYSTEM
IMPLEMENTATION COSTS $167,291
115
Agenda Item # 3.

Sun Ridge Systems, Inc. – TriCities CAD Consortium v4a Page 21 Attachment E - Form 7 Total One
Time Costs
Item
One-Time
Cost
Total Annual
Maintenance
Cost
Annual
Yearly
Maintenance
Cost
Increase (%)
System Software NP
Application Software $622,675 $83,612 5%
Implementation $167,291
Total Contract Amount $789,966
Optional Costs NP
116
Agenda Item # 3.

Sun Ridge Systems, Inc. – TriCities CAD Consortium v4a Page 22 Exhibit C – Support Services Agreement
This is a description of the software support, maintenance, and update/upgrade services to be provided by Sun Ridge to the City (“Licensee”) as part of a Software Support Services Agreement (“Agreement”).

This Agreement covers all RIMS public safety software (Software) licensed by the Licensee.

Under this agreement Sun Ridge agrees to provide the following services to Licensee:

1. Coverage Hours. Sun Ridge will provide a toll-free phone number and dedicated email address for support purposes during normal service hours. Normal service hours are defined as MondayFriday, 8AM-5PM PST, except for New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King Day, Presidents Day, Memorial Day, July 4th, Labor Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving Day, Day after Thanksgiving, and Christmas Day (“common holidays”).

However, for instances where the Licensee’s system is completely inoperable due to a Sun Ridge software problem (“critical problems”) preventing basic system operation, service will be available 24 hours, 7 days a week, common holidays included. Examples of critical problems include:
- RIMS is down/not responding on multiple workstations
- Cannot create a call for service (CAD Incident)
- Cannot issue a case number
- Unable to access NCIC
- Other issues that will not allow the user to complete critical tasks Licensee will have taken reasonable measures prior to contacting Sun Ridge’s support during non-service hours including:
- Verified that the issue is not related to just 1 workstation - Restarted the workstation in question
- Contacted in-house IT support if the issue is related to network or server errors - Verified the issue is critical enough that it cannot wait until normal support hours

2. Sun Ridge’s Response to reported problems. Sun Ridge agrees to provide service and assistance as expeditiously as possible as follows:
a. Most problems will be resolved with the initial phone call or email. b. For problems that cannot be immediately resolved, Sun Ridge will work to resolve the problem based on the severity of the problem and the urgency reported by Licensee. 117
Agenda Item # 3.

Sun Ridge Systems, Inc. – TriCities CAD Consortium v4a Page 23 ● For critical problems, Sun Ridge personnel will work with Licensee until the situation is resolved.
● For problems that are not critical problems that have a lesser though continuing impact on operations of Licensee, Sun Ridge will endeavor to provide a solution or workaround within 72 hours of the problem being reported to Sun Ridge by the Licensee. ● For other problems Sun Ridge may, at its discretion, either issue a near term "fix release" of the product or include the fix in the next scheduled product update.

3. Licensee equipment and software responsibilities. Licensee agrees to allow Sun Ridge to remotely connect to Licensee’s system when a problem is reported. Sun Ridge uses BeyondTrust remote access software for secure installation and follow-on support services. BeyondTrust software provides superior security and does so over an ordinary internet connection via a Sun Ridge server that hosts a BeyondTrust security hardware device.

If Licensee does not allow unattended access, the Sun Ridge response to a service request may be delayed until a responsible party of the Licensee allows access. Once remote access is obtained, Sun Ridge will examine data files, investigate reported problems, and provide updates and corrections as necessary.

4. Provision of software updates. Sun Ridge will provide all new enhanced and updated versions of software licensed to Licensee at no additional cost. This software will be provided with detailed installation instructions for installation by Licensee. If desired, Licensee may retain Sun Ridge to perform any installation at additional cost to be determined on a per case basis. Updates are distributed via download from the Sun Ridge’s ftp web site. Sun Ridge will not be obligated to provide service for release versions that are more than two annual release versions older than the current release.

5. Term. The term of support services shall be one year shall be annually renewed for another year upon payment of invoice. Payment for the year is due in advance the day the services begin. Nonpayment of the support invoice within 60 days shall be cause for terminating or suspending the support services at the discretion of Sun Ridge.

6. Termination. Licensee may terminate support services with or without cause upon ninety (90) days written notice to Sun Ridge. If terminated, Licensee is entitled to a prorated refund for the service days not consumed beginning on the last day of the month the written notice is received by Sun Ridge to the end of the remaining term of the Agreement.

7. Limitations. Sun Ridge agrees to provide support only for public safety application software provided by Sun Ridge. Other software used by Licensee (word processing, spreadsheet, etc.) is not included in this Agreement. PC and network operating system software and Microsoft SQL Server database system software is similarly not included, although Sun Ridge may assist Licensee in isolating problems to this software. (Sun Ridge reserves the right to charge for diagnostic services in the event it is determined that the reported issue is not attributable to RIMS.) Also 118
Agenda Item # 3.

Sun Ridge Systems, Inc. – TriCities CAD Consortium v4a Page 24 specifically excluded is responsibility for administration, support, or maintenance of Licensee’ server, computer network, operating systems, or database (Microsoft SQL Server).

Licensee may request that Sun Ridge provide support services outside the limitations of this Support Services Agreement. If Sun Ridge agrees to provide any requested additional support services, such support services will be provided at Sun Ridge’s current rate and under terms and conditions that Sun Ridge may require.

This Agreement does not include equipment maintenance or assistance in diagnosing hardware problems including but not limited to PCs, printers, network, scanners, and other computer peripheral devices with the exception that Sun Ridge will assist Licensee in determining whether a problem is RIMS application software in nature.
119
Agenda Item # 3.

COST BY TABLE LOS ALTOS MOUNTAIN VIEW PALO ALTO
TABLE 1 - APPLICATION SOFTWARE $ 72,855.00 $ 168,290.00 $ 4,255.00 TABLE 2 - MOBILE APPLICATION $ - $ 33,350.00 $ 33,350.00 TABLE 3 - INTERFACES $ 31,425.00 $ 107,050.00 $ 90,950.00 TABLE 4 - OTHER COMPONENTS $ 20,150.00 $ 30,500.00 $ 30,500.00 IMPLEMENTATION $ 41,203.77 $ 62,583.57 $ 63,503.66
IMPLEMENTATION TOTAL $ 165,633.77 $ 401,773.57 $ 222,558.66 YEAR 1 MAINTENANCE

COST BY TABLE LOS ALTOS MOUNTAIN VIEW PALO ALTO
TABLE 1 - APPLICATION SOFTWARE $ 9,970.00 $ 23,050.00 $ 585.00 TABLE 2 - MOBILE APPLICATION $ - $ 4,570.00 $ 4,570.00
TABLE 3 - INTERFACES $ 4,248.00 $ 14,621.00 $ 12,498.00 TABLE 4 - OTHER COMPONENTS $ 2,350.00 $ 3,575.00 $ 3,575.00 IMPLEMENTATION $ - $ - $ -
YEAR 1 MAINTENANCE TOTAL $ 16,568.00 $ 45,816.00 $ 21,228.00 CONTRACT TOTAL - YEAR 1 $ 182,201.77 $ 447,589.57 $ 243,786.66 YEAR 2 MAINTENANCE $ 17,396.40 $ 48,106.80 $ 22,289.40
YEAR 3 MAINTENANCE $ 18,266.22 $ 50,512.14 $ 23,403.87
YEAR 4 MAINTENANCE $ 19,179.53 $ 53,037.75 $ 24,574.06
YEAR 5 MAINTENANCE $ 20,138.51 $ 55,689.63 $ 25,802.77
TOTAL 5 YEAR COST $ 257,182.43 $ 654,935.89 $ 339,856.76 120
Agenda Item # 3.
$167,291.00
$789,966.00
121
Agenda Item # 3.
122
Agenda Item # 3.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: November 12, 2024
Prepared By: Stephanie Beauchaine
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: Approve Resolution adopting a materiality Threshold for GASB No. 87 Leases and GASB No. 96 SBITAS

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

RECOMMENDATION
Approve a Resolution adopting a materiality threshold for reporting leases in accordance with GASB No. 87 Leases and GASB No. 96 SBITAS.

FISCAL IMPACT
None. Approval changes the way Leases and Subscription Based Information Technology Arrangements (SBITAS) are reported in the City’s Financial Statements.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not Applicable.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
None.

SUMMARY
By establishing a minimum threshold for reporting for GASB No. 87 and No. 96, the City will eliminate the need to account for and report on any Lease or SBITA that is immaterial to the financial position of the City, increasing efficiency in the Finance Department.

BACKGROUND
GASB 87 Leases increases the usefulness of governments’ financial statements by requiring recognition of certain lease assets and liabilities for leases that previously were classified as operating leases and recognized as inflows of resources or outflows of resources based on the payment provisions of the contract. It establishes a single model for lease accounting based on the 123
Agenda Item # 4.
foundational principle that leases are financings of the right to use an underlying asset. Under this Statement, a lessee is required to recognize a lease liability and an intangible right-to-use lease asset, and a lessor is required to recognize a lease receivable and a deferred inflow of resources, thereby enhancing the relevance and consistency of information about governments’ leasing activities.

The requirements of this Statement are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019 [extended to June 15, 2021], and all reporting periods thereafter. The City will be subject to GASB 87 reporting standards beginning Fiscal year-end 2022.

GASB 96 provides guidance on the accounting and financial reporting for subscription-based information technology arrangements (SBITAs) for government end users (governments). This Statement (1) defines a SBITA; (2) establishes that a SBITA results in a right-to-use subscription asset—an intangible asset—and a corresponding subscription liability; (3) provides the capitalization criteria for outlays other than subscription payments, including implementation costs of a SBITA; and (4) requires note disclosures regarding a SBITA. To the extent relevant, the standards for SBITAs are based on the standards established in Statement No. 87, Leases, as amended.

The requirements of this Statement are effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2022, and all reporting periods thereafter. The City will be subject to GASB 96 reporting standards beginning Fiscal year-end 2022.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Staff have reviewed both GASB Statements 87 Leases and 96 Subscription-Based Information Technology Arrangements (SBITAS) and recommends that the City establish a minimum threshold for reporting Leases and SBITA’s to a Net Present Value (NPV) of less than >1% of Fund Balance for the applicable fund.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution 2024-XXX

2. Attachment I. GASB Summary Statement No. 87 Leases

3. Attachment II. Title-GASB Summary Statement No. 96 Subscription-Based Information Technology Arrangements (SBITAS)
124
Agenda Item # 4.

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

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

ADOPTING A MATERIALITY THRESHOLD FOR REPORTING LEASES IN ACCORDANCE WITH GASB STATEMENT NO. 87 AND FOR REPORTING

SUBSCRIPTION-BASED INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ARRANGEMENTS
(SBITA’S) ACCORDANCE WITH GASB STATEMENT NO. 96.

WHEREAS, GASB 87 Leases increases the usefulness of governments’ financial statements by requiring recognition of certain lease assets and liabilities for leases that previously were classified as operating leases and recognized as inflows of resources or outflows of resources based on the payment provisions of the contract. It establishes a single model for lease accounting based on the foundational principle that leases are financings of the right to use an underlying asset. Under this Statement, a lessee is required to recognize a lease liability and an intangible right-to-use lease asset, and a lessor is required to recognize a lease receivable and a deferred inflow of resources, thereby enhancing the relevance and consistency of information about governments’ leasing activities; and
WHEREAS, The requirements of this Statement are effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019 [extended to June 15, 2021], and all reporting periods thereafter; and
WHEREAS, The City was subject to GASB 87 reporting standards beginning for the FY 2022; and
WHEREAS, GASB 96 provides guidance on the accounting and financial reporting for subscription-based information technology arrangements (SBITAs) for government end users (governments). This Statement (1) defines a SBITA; (2) establishes that a SBITA results in a right-to-use subscription asset—an intangible asset—and a corresponding subscription liability; (3) provides the capitalization criteria for outlays other than subscription payments, including implementation costs of a SBITA; and (4) requires note disclosures regarding a SBITA. To the extent relevant, the standards for SBITAs are based on the standards established in Statement No. 87, Leases, as amended; and WHEREAS, The requirements of this Statement are effective for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2022, and all reporting periods thereafter; and WHEREAS, The City was subject to GASB 96 reporting standards in the FY2023; and WHEREAS, By establishing a minimum threshold for reporting, the City will eliminate the need to account for and report on any Lease or SBITA that is immaterial to the financial position of the City, increasing efficiency in the Finance Department; and 125
Agenda Item # 4.

Resolution No. 2024-XX Page 2
ATTACHMENT 1
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Los Altos hereby stablishes the minimum threshold for reporting Leases pursuant to GASB 87 and SBITA’s pursuant to GASB 96 to a Net Present Value (NPV) of less than >1% of Fixed Assets for the applicable fund.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos at a meeting thereof on the ___ day of ____, 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Jonathan D. Weinberg, MAYOR
Attest:
_____________________________
Melissa Thurman, MMC, CITY CLERK
126
Agenda Item # 4.
 












 !

"#$
##


%#&

&



'(%

%&

$
(%

%)%*$
+
,-./01.2345./63-478393.:.;3473/0.33.<:..33-.4;6/<:934/;;..=7/6>;9;249?7393.:.;3@7.<70A 4:B</54;C922/@;34;C9;=>;9;249?<.B/<34;C6/<?.97.70AC/5.<;:.;37D,-478393.:.;34;2<.97.73-. @7.6@?;.77/6C/5.<;:.;37E>;9;249?7393.:.;370A<.F@4<4;C<.2/C;434/;/62.<394;?.97.977.379;= ?4904?434.76/<?.97.73-93B<.54/@7?AG.<.2?9774>.=97/B.<934;C?.97.79;=<.2/C;4H.=974;I/G7/6 <.7/@<2.7/</@3I/G7/6<.7/@<2.7097.=/;3-.B9A:.;3B</5474/;7/63-.2/;3<923DJ3.7390?47-.79 74;C?.:/=.?6/<?.97.922/@;34;C097.=/;3-.6/@;=934/;9?B<4;24B?.3-93?.97.79<.>;9;24;C7/63-. <4C-33/@7.9;@;=.<?A4;C977.3DK;=.<3-478393.:.;3L9?.77..47<.F@4<.=3/<.2/C;4H.9?.97.?4904?43A 9;=9;4;39;C40?.<4C-3M3/M@7.?.97.977.3L9;=9?.77/<47<.F@4<.=3/<.2/C;4H.9?.97.<.2.4590?.9;=9 =.6.<<.=4;I/G/6<.7/@<2.7L3-.<.0A.;-9;24;C3-.<.?.59;2.9;=2/;7473.;2A/64;6/<:934/;90/@3 C/5.<;:.;37E?.974;C92345434.7D
N?.97.47=.>;.=9792/;3<9233-932/;5.A72/;3</?/63-.<4C-33/@7.9;/3-.<.;343AE7;/;>;9;249?977.3 O3-.@;=.<?A4;C977.3P977B.24>.=4;3-.2/;3<9236/<9B.<4/=/634:.4;9;.Q2-9;C./<.Q2-9;C.M?4R. 3<9;79234/;DSQ9:B?.7/6;/;>;9;249?977.374;2?@=.0@4?=4;C7L?9;=L5.-42?.7L9;=.F@4B:.;3DN;A 2/;3<9233-93:..373-47=.>;434/;7-/@?=0.922/@;3.=6/<@;=.<3-.?.97.7C@4=9;2.L@;?.777B.24>29??A .Q2?@=.=4;3-478393.:.;3D
,-.?.97.3.<:47=.>;.=973-.B.<4/==@<4;CG-42-9?.77..-979;/;29;2.?90?.<4C-33/@7.9; @;=.<?A4;C977.3LB?@73-.6/??/G4;CB.<4/=7L469BB?4290?.T 9DU.<4/=72/5.<.=0A9?.77..E7/B34/;3/.Q3.;=3-.?.97.464347<.97/;90?A2.<394;L097.=/;9?? <.?.59;36923/<7L3-933-.?.77..G4??.Q.<247.3-93/B34/; 0DU.<4/=72/5.<.=0A9?.77..E7/B34/;3/3.<:4;93.3-.?.97.464347<.97/;90?A2.<394;L097.=/;9?? <.?.59;36923/<7L3-933-.?.77..G4??;/3.Q.<247.3-93/B34/; 2DU.<4/=72/5.<.=0A9?.77/<E7/B34/;3/.Q3.;=3-.?.97.464347<.97/;90?A2.<394;L097.=/;9?? <.?.59;36923/<7L3-933-.?.77/<G4??.Q.<247.3-93/B34/; =DU.<4/=72/5.<.=0A9?.77/<E7/B34/;3/3.<:4;93.3-.?.97.464347<.97/;90?A2.<394;L097.=/;9?? <.?.59;36923/<7L3-933-.?.77/<G4??;/3.Q.<247.3-93/B34/;D N>729?6@;=4;C/<29;2.??934/;2?9@7.7-/@?=966.233-.?.97.3.<:/;?AG-.;4347<.97/;90?A2.<394;3-93 3-.2?9@7.G4??0..Q.<247.=D
V.77..79;=?.77/<77-/@?=<.977.773-.?.97.3.<:/;?A46/;./<:/<./63-.6/??/G4;C/22@<T 9D,-.?.77../<?.77/<.?.2373/.Q.<247.9;/B34/;.5.;3-/@C-43G97B<.54/@7?A=.3.<:4;.=3-9343 G97<.97/;90?A2.<394;3-933-.?.77../<?.77/<G/@?=;/3.Q.<247.3-93/B34/;D 0D,-.?.77../<?.77/<.?.237;/33/.Q.<247.9;/B34/;.5.;3-/@C-43G97B<.54/@7?A=.3.<:4;.=3-93 43G97<.97/;90?A2.<394;3-933-.?.77../<?.77/<G/@?=.Q.<247.3-93/B34/;D 2DN;.5.;37B.24>.=4;3-.?.97.2/;3<9233-93<.F@4<.79;.Q3.;74/;/<3.<:4;934/;/63-.?.97.39R.7 B?92.D
N7-/<3M3.<:?.97.47=.>;.=979?.97.3-93L933-.2/::.;2.:.;3/63-.?.97.3.<:L-979:9Q4:@:

B/7740?.3.<:@;=.<3-.?.97.2/;3<923/6WX:/;3-7O/<?.77PL4;2?@=4;C9;A/B34/;73/.Q3.;=L<.C9<=?.77 /63-.4<B</0904?43A/60.4;C.Q.<247.=DV.77..79;=?.77/<77-/@?=<.2/C;4H.7-/<3M3.<:?.97.B9A:.;37 97/@3I/G7/6<.7/@<2.7/<4;I/G7/6<.7/@<2.7L<.7B.2345.?AL097.=/;3-.B9A:.;3B</5474/;7/63-. ?.97.2/;3<923D
127
Agenda Item # 4.
 












 !

"#$
##


%#&

&



'(%

%&

$
(%

%)%*$

+,-..--./01,23-405678-9,-9.-,79:7,7;<9629,-9.-9..-;9;;/-40==-64-=-6;0>;/-,-9.-;-3=? 16,-..;/-,-9.-7.9./03;@;-3=,-9.-037;;396.>-3.0A6-3./7B0>;/-162-3,<7659..-;CD/-,-9.-,79:7,7;< ./01,2:-=-9.13-29;;/-B3-.-6;E9,1-0>B9<=-6;.-FB-4;-2;0:-=92-213765;/-,-9.-;-3=G,-.. 96<,-9.-764-6;7E-.HCD/-,-9.-9..-;./01,2:-=-9.13-29;;/-9=016;0>;/-767;79,=-9.13-=-6;0> ;/-,-9.-,79:7,7;<?B,1.96<B9<=-6;.=92-;0;/-,-..039;03:->03-;/-40==-64-=-6;0>;/-,-9.- ;-3=9624-3;976273-4;40.;.C
+,-..--./01,23-214-;/-,-9.-,79:7,7;<9.B9<=-6;.93-=92-9623-405678-9601;I0A0>3-.0134-.

G>03-F9=B,-?-FB-6.-H>0376;-3-.;06;/-,79:7,7;<CD/-,-..--./01,29=03;78-;/-,-9.-9..-;769 .<.;-=9;7496239;7069,=966-30E-3;/-./03;-30>;/-,-9.-;-3=03;/-1.->1,,7>-0>;/-162-3,<765

9..-;CD/-60;-.;0J696479,.;9;-=-6;../01,2764,12-92-.437B;7060>,-9.765933965-=-6;.?;/- 9=016;0>,-9.-9..-;.3-405678-2?9629.4/-21,-0>>1;13-,-9.-B9<=-6;.;0:-=92-C +,-..03./01,23-405678-9,-9.-3-4-7E9:,-96292->-33-276I0A0>3-.0134-.9;;/-40==-64-=-6;0> ;/-,-9.-;-3=?A7;/4-3;976-F4-B;706.>03,-9.-.0>9..-;./-,29.76E-.;=-6;.?4-3;9763-51,9;-2 ,-9.-.?./03;@;-3=,-9.-.?962,-9.-.;/9;;396.>-30A6-3./7B0>;/-162-3,<7659..-;C+,-..03./01,2 60;2-3-405678-;/-9..-;162-3,<765;/-,-9.-CD/-,-9.-3-4-7E9:,-./01,2:-=-9.13-29;;/-B3-.-6; E9,1-0>,-9.-B9<=-6;.-FB-4;-2;0:-3-4-7E-2213765;/-,-9.-;-3=CD/-2->-33-276I0A0>3-.0134-. ./01,2:-=-9.13-29;;/-E9,1-0>;/-,-9.-3-4-7E9:,-B,1.96<B9<=-6;.3-4-7E-29;03:->03-;/- 40==-64-=-6;0>;/-,-9.-;-3=;/9;3-,9;-;0>1;13-B-3702.C +,-..03./01,23-405678-76;-3-.;3-E-61-06;/-,-9.-3-4-7E9:,-9629676I0A0>3-.0134-.G>03 -F9=B,-?3-E-61-H>30=;/-2->-33-276I0A.0>3-.0134-.769.<.;-=9;7496239;7069,=966-30E-3;/- ;-3=0>;/-,-9.-CD/-60;-.;0J696479,.;9;-=-6;../01,2764,12-92-.437B;7060>,-9.765 933965-=-6;.962;/-;0;9,9=016;0>76I0A.0>3-.0134-.3-405678-2>30=,-9.-.C K-6-39,,<?950E-36=-6;./01,2944016;>03;/-,-9.-962606,-9.-40=B06-6;.0>9,-9.-9..-B939;- 406;394;.CL>9,-9.-76E0,E-.=1,;7B,-162-3,<7659..-;.?,-..--.962,-..03.764-3;97649.-../01,2 944016;>03-94/162-3,<7659..-;9.9.-B939;-,-9.-406;394;CD09,,049;-;/-406;394;B374-;027>>-3-6; 40=B06-6;.?,-..--.962,-..03../01,21.-406;394;B374-.>037627E7219,40=B06-6;.9.,0659.;/-< 2060;9BB-93;0:-163-9.069:,-:9.-206B30>-..7069,M125=-6;?031.-B30>-..7069,M125=-6;;0 2-;-3=76-;/-73:-.;-.;7=9;-7>;/-3-93-60.;9;-2B374-.037>.;9;-2B374-.9BB-93;0:-163-9.069:,-C L>2-;-3=767659:-.;-.;7=9;-7.60;B394;749:,-?=1,;7B,-40=B06-6;.769,-9.-406;394;./01,2:- 944016;-2>039.9.765,-,-9.-167;CN06;394;.;/9;93--6;-3-276;09;036-93;/-.9=-;7=-A7;/;/- .9=-4016;-3B93;<962;/9;=--;4-3;976437;-379./01,2:-406.72-3-2B93;0>;/-.9=-,-9.-406;394; 962./01,2:--E9,19;-276944032964-A7;/;/-5172964->03406;394;.A7;/=1,;7B,-40=B06-6;.C +69=-62=-6;;09,-9.-406;394;./01,2:-406.72-3-29,-9.-=027J49;706?16,-..;/-,-..--O.375/; ;01.-;/-162-3,<7659..-;2-43-9.-.?76A/74/49.-7;A01,2:-9B93;79,03>1,,,-9.-;-3=769;706C+ ,-9.-;-3=769;706./01,2:-944016;-2>03:<3-214765;/-4933<765E9,1-.0>;/-,-9.-,79:7,7;<962,-9.-

9..-;:<9,-..--?03;/-,-9.-3-4-7E9:,-9622->-33-276I0A.0>3-.0134-.:<;/-,-..03?A7;/96< 27>>-3-64-:-7653-405678-29.9597603,0..C+,-9.-=027J49;706;/9;20-.60;P19,7><9.9.-B939;- ,-9.-./01,2:-944016;-2>03:<3-=-9.13765;/-,-9.-,79:7,7;<96292M1.;765;/-3-,9;-2,-9.-9..-;:< 9,-..--9623-=-9.13765;/-,-9.-3-4-7E9:,-96292M1.;765;/-3-,9;-22->-33-276I0A.0>3-.0134-.:< 9,-..03C
Q1:,-9.-../01,2:-;3-9;-29.;396.94;706..-B939;->30=;/-0375769,,-9.-CD/-0375769,,-..--;/9; :-40=-.;/-,-..03769.1:,-9.-./01,2944016;>03;/-0375769,,-9.-962;/-.1:,-9.-9..-B939;- ;396.94;706.?9.9,-..--962,-..03?3-.B-4;7E-,<C
+;396.94;706P19,7J-.>03.9,-@,-9.-:94R944016;76506,<7>7;764,12-.9.9,-CS;/-3A7.-?7;7.9 :0330A765CD/-.9,-962,-9.-B03;706.0>9;396.94;706./01,2:-944016;-2>039..-B939;-.9,-962 ,-9.-;396.94;706.?-F4-B;;/9;96<27>>-3-64-:-;A--6;/-4933<765E9,1-0>;/-49B7;9,9..-;;/9;A9. .0,2962;/-6-;B304--2.>30=;/-.9,-./01,2:-3-B03;-29.92->-33-276I0A0>3-.0134-.039 128
Agenda Item # 4.
 












 !

"#$
##


%#&

&



'(%

%&

$
(%

%)%*$

+,-,..,+/012/3/-.,4/0.5,467+.,5/879:,+/;,.1<,1,.=/-1<,>,64,? @>,64,A>,64,B65C1.6746519/74</0>+B,655/071,+-/.6467,11.6746519/7?D<,8./446=/0714/-,65< E/.19/7/-1<,1.6746519/74</0>+B,+945>/4,+?
D<,.,F09.,=,714/-1<94G161,=,716.,,--,519;,-/.H456>I,6.4B,89779786-1,.J,5,=B,.KLMNOKP QR07,KLMNONKSM67+6>>.,E/.1978E,.9/+41<,.,6-1,.?T6.>9,.6EE>95619/794,75/0.68,+? U,64,44</0>+B,.,5/879:,+67+=,640.,+049781<,-651467+59.50=41675,41<61,V941611<, B,8977978/-1<,E,.9/+/-9=E>,=,71619/7W/.M9-6EE>9,+1/,6.>9,.E,.9/+4M1<,B,8977978/-1<,,6.>9,41 E,.9/+.,4161,+X?Y/3,;,.M>,44/.44</0>+7/1.,4161,1<,644,1407+,.>I9781<,9.,V94197846>,4A1IE,/. +9.,51H7675978>,64,4?@7I.,49+06>644,14-/.1</4,>,64,4B,5/=,1<,56..I978;6>0,4/-1<,07+,.>I978 644,14?
D<94G161,=,7139>>975.,64,1<,04,-0>7,44/-8/;,.7=,714ZH767596>4161,=,714BI.,F09.978.,E/.1978 /-5,.1697>,64,>96B9>919,41<6150..,71>I6.,7/1.,E/.1,+?[139>>,7<675,5/=E6.6B9>91I/-H767596> 4161,=,7146=/788/;,.7=,714BI.,F09.978>,44,,467+>,44/.41/.,E/.1>,64,407+,.64978>,=/+,>? D<94G161,=,716>4/39>>,7<675,1<,+,5949/7A04,-0>7,44/-1<,97-/.=619/7E./;9+,+1/H767596> 4161,=,7104,.4BI.,F09.9787/1,41/H767596>4161,=,714.,>61,+1/1<,19=978M49879H5675,M67+ E0.E/4,/-68/;,.7=,71Z4>,649786..678,=,714?
\7,/-1<,E.9759E>,4809+9781<,]/6.+Z44,11978/-4167+6.+4-/.655/07197867+H767596>.,E/.1978941<, 644,44=,71/-,VE,51,+B,7,H1467+E,.5,9;,+5/414?D<,]/6.+41.9;,41/+,1,.=97,1<619144167+6.+4 6++.,4449879H567104,.7,,+467+1<611<,5/4149750..,+1<./08<1<,6EE>95619/7/-9144167+6.+4M 5/=E6.,+391<E/449B>,6>1,.7619;,4M6.,^0419H,+3<,75/=E6.,+1/1<,,VE,51,+/;,.6>>E0B>95B,7,H1? D<,]/6.+5/749+,.,+1<,5/414/-B/1<1<,97+9;9+06>E./;949/74971<94G161,=,7167+1<,G161,=,7164 63</>,?D<,]/6.+945/879:6711<611<,5/414/-9=E>,=,719781<,5<678,4.,F09.,+BI1<94G161,=,71 =6IB,49879H5671?Y/3,;,.M1<,]/6.+B,>9,;,41<611<,,VE,51,+B,7,H141<6139>>.,40>1-./=1<, 97-/.=619/7E./;9+,+1<./08<9=E>,=,71619/7/-1<94G161,=,71MB/1<979196>>I67+/767/78/978B6494M

6.,49879H5671?
D/.,+05,1<,5/41/-9=E>,=,71619/7M1<94G161,=,71975>0+,467,V5,E19/7-/.4</.1A1,.=>,64,4M64 +,45.9B,+6B/;,M67+,V5,E19/74-/.5/71.65141<611.674-,./37,.4<9EM>,64,4/-644,141<616., 97;,41=,714M67+5,.1697.,80>61,+>,64,4?[7.,4E/74,1/416C,</>+,.-,,+B65CM1<94G161,=,71,V5>0+,4 40EE>I5/71.651467+>,64,4/-97;,71/.I?[76++919/7M1<94G161,=,71975>0+,45/41A.,+05978E./;949/74 .,86.+978.,644,44=,71/-1<,>,64,1,.=M.,F09.9788/;,.7=,7141/.,E/.1=0>19E>,A5/=E/7,715/71.6514 6464978>,>,64,07913<,7+,1,.=979786B,41,419=61,-/.6>>/5619781<,5/71.651E.95,1/97+9;9+06> 5/=E/7,714947/1E.651956B>,M67+7/1.,F09.978>,44/.41/+,.,5/879:,07+,.>I978644,14M6=/78/1<,.

E./;949/74?

_7>,44/1<,.394,4E,59H,+ME./7/075,=,714/-1<,`@G]6EE>I1/H767596>.,E/.14/-6>>4161,67+>/56> 8/;,.7=,716>,71919,4M975>0+9788,7,.6>E0.E/4,8/;,.7=,714aE0B>95B,7,H15/.E/.619/7467+ 601</.919,4aE0B>95,=E>/I,,.,19.,=,714I41,=4a67+E0B>95019>919,4M</4E916>467+/1<,.<,6>1<56., E./;9+,.4M67+5/>>,8,467+079;,.4919,4?b6.68.6E<c+945044,41<,6EE>956B9>91I/-1<94G161,=,71? 129
Agenda Item # 4.








 
! 
 
 "#
 $%&
%%
 '%(
(



)*'

'+'& 
,-./0121343516789.:3/;<.:25=3851-32==8<51.5;25:>525=.2?736871.5;@87/<A/=7.61.85BA2/3: [email protected]13=-58?8;C27725;34351/D0EF,G/H@87;89375435135:</37/D;893754351/HI,-./012134351 DJH:3>53/20EF,GKDLH3/12A?./-3/1-2120EF,G73/<?1/.527.;-1B18B</3/<A/=7.61.852//31M25 .5125;.A?32//31M25:2=8773/685:.5;/<A/=7.61.85?.2A.?.1CKDNH6789.:3/1-3=26.12?.O21.85=7.137.2@87 8<1?2C/81-371-25/<A/=7.61.8562C4351/P.5=?<:.5;.46?3435121.85=8/1/8@20EF,GK25:DQH73R<.73/ 5813:./=?8/<73/73;27:.5;20EF,GI,81-33S135173?39251P1-3/125:27:/@870EF,G/273A2/3:851-3 /125:27:/3/12A?./-3:.5012134351T8IUVPW32/3/P2/2435:3:I G0EF,G./:3>53:2/2=85172=11-21=8593C/=85178?8@1-37.;-118</32581-376271CX/D20EF,G935:87X/H [email protected]13=-58?8;CDF,H/8@1Y273P2?85387.5=84A.521.85Y.1-125;.A?3=26.12?2//31/D1-3<5:37?C.5; F,2//31/HP2//63=.>3:.51-3=85172=1@872637.8:8@1.43.5253S=-25;3873S=-25;3B?.Z31725/2=1.85I ,-3/<A/=7.61.851374.5=?<:3/1-3637.8::<7.5;Y-.=-2;893754351-2/2585=25=3??2A?37.;-118</3 1-3<5:37?C.5;F,2//31/I,-3/<A/=7.61.8513742?/8.5=?<:3/637.8:/=89373:AC25861.85183S135:D.@.1 ./732/852A?C=3712.51-211-3;893754351870EF,G935:87Y.??3S37=./31-21861.85H87181374.5213D.@.1./ 732/852A?C=3712.51-211-3;893754351870EF,G935:87Y.??5813S37=./31-21861.85HI [5:371-./012134351P2;893754351;35372??C/-8<?:73=8;5.O327.;-1B18B</3/<A/=7.61.852//31M25 .5125;.A?32//31M25:2=8773/685:.5;/<A/=7.61.85?.2A.?.1CIG;893754351/-8<?:73=8;5.O31-3 /<A/=7.61.85?.2A.?.1C211-3=84435=343518@1-3/<A/=7.61.851374PMY-.=-./Y-351-3/<A/=7.61.85 2//31./6?2=3:.518/379.=3I,-3/<A/=7.61.85?.2A.?.1C/-8<?:A3.5.1.2??C432/<73:211-3673/35192?<38@ /<A/=7.61.8562C4351/3S63=13:18A342:3:<7.5;1-3/<A/=7.61.851374I\<1<73/<A/=7.61.8562C4351/ /-8<?:A3:./=8<513:</.5;1-3.51373/172131-30EF,G935:87=-27;3/1-3;893754351PY-.=-42CA3 .46?.=.1P871-3;893754351X/.5=7343512?A8778Y.5;7213.@1-3.51373/17213./581732:.?C:31374.52A?3IG ;893754351/-8<?:73=8;5.O324871.O21.858@1-3:./=8<51851-3/<A/=7.61.85?.2A.?.1C2/258<1]8Y8@ 73/8<7=3/D@873S246?3P.51373/13S635/3H.5/<A/3R<351>525=.2?736871.5;637.8:/I ,-3/<A/=7.61.852//31/-8<?:A3.5.1.2??C432/<73:2/1-3/<48@DJH1-3.5.1.2?/<A/=7.61.85?.2A.?.1C 248<51PDLH62C4351/42:3181-30EF,G935:87A3@873=84435=343518@1-3/<A/=7.61.851374P25:DNH =26.12?.O2A?3.46?3435121.85=8/1/P?3//25C.5=351.93/73=3.93:@7841-30EF,G935:872187A3@8731-3 =84435=343518@1-3/<A/=7.61.851374IG;893754351/-8<?:73=8;5.O324871.O21.858@1-3/<A/=7.61.85 2//312/258<1]8Y8@73/8<7=3/89371-3/<A/=7.61.851374I G=1.9.1.3/2//8=.213:Y.1-20EF,GP81-371-2542Z.5;/<A/=7.61.8562C4351/P/-8<?:A3;78<63:.5181-3 @8??8Y.5;1-733/12;3/P25:1-3.7=8/1//-8<?:A32==8<513:@872==87:.5;?C^ F5=?2//[email protected];=3712.58<1?2C/.5181-32667867.213/12;3P1-3521<738@1-32=1.9.1C/-8<?:A31-3 :31374.5.5;@2=187I,72.5.5;=8/1//-8<?:A33S635/3:2/.5=<773:P73;27:?3//8@1-3/12;3.5Y-.=-1-3C 273.5=<773:I F@20EF,G=85172=1=8512.5/4<?1.6?3=84685351/P2;893754351/-8<?:2==8<51@8732=-=846853512/2 /36272130EF,G87585/<A/=7.61.85=8468535125:2??8=2131-3=85172=167.=3181-3:.@@37351 =84685351/IF@.1./581672=1.=2A?318:31374.532A3/13/1.4213@8767.=32??8=21.85@87/843872?? _73?.4.527C_78`3=1012;3P.5=?<:.5;2=1.9.1.3//<=-2/392?<21.5;2?137521.93/P:31374.5.5;533:3: 13=-58?8;CP25:/3?3=1.5;20EF,G935:87Ia<1?2C/.51-.//12;3/-8<?:A33S635/3:2/.5=<773:I F5.1.2?F46?3435121.85012;3P.5=?<:.5;2??25=.??27C=-27;3/53=3//27C186?2=31-3/<A/=7.61.852//31 .518/379.=3Ia<1?2C/.51-.//12;3;35372??C/-8<?:A3=26.12?.O3:2/252::.1.85181-3/<A/=7.61.85 2//31I a63721.8525:G::.1.852?F46?3435121.85012;3P.5=?<:.5;2=1.9.1.3//<=-2//<A/3R<351 .46?3435121.852=1.9.1.3/P42.513525=3P25:81-372=1.9.1.3/@872;893754351X/85;8.5;863721.85/ 73?213:1820EF,GIa<1?2C/.51-.//12;3/-8<?:A33S635/3:2/.5=<773:<5?3//1-3C4331/63=.>= =26.12?.O21.85=7.137.2I 130
Agenda Item # 4.








 
! 
 
 "#
 $%&
%%
 '%(
(



)*'

'+'&
,-./-0102340251,-0267,2879-:160.10235-;<=7,,-;02>-625-31,-./-010237373409<1?@ABCD B543?2721.102/6-:4=13701E,1/24-0>-635-62F216.?@ABC3D?5-62F216.?@ABC357:17.7E4.;./-334G<1 216.;0=16251?@ABC,-0267,2->HI.-0253J-6<133K840,<;=40970L-/24-032-1E210=861976=<133->25146 /6-G7G4<42L->G14091E16,431=D?;G3,64/24-0/7L.1023>-635-62F216.?@ABC335-;<=G161,-904M1=73 -;2N-O3->613-;6,13D
B543?2721.10261P;461379-:160.1022-=43,<-31=13,64/24:140>-6.724-07G-;2423?@ABC3-25162570 35-62F216.?@ABC383;,5732517.-;02->2513;G3,64/24-07331287,,;.;<721=7.-624M724-08-2516 /7L.10230-240,<;=1=40251.173;61.102->73;G3,64/24-0<47G4<42L8/640,4/7<70=4021613261P;461.1023 >-62513;G3,64/24-0<47G4<42L870=-251613310247<40>-6.724-0D 
B5161P;461.1023->2543?2721.1027611>>1,24:1>-6Q3,7<L1763G194004097>216 R;01HS8ITII870=7<<61/-62409/164-=3251617>216DU76<4167//<4,724-04310,-;6791=D C3312370=<47G4<42413613;<2409>6-.?@ABC335-;<=G161,-904M1=70=.173;61=;3409251>7,2370= ,46,;.3270,1325721E4321=72251G19400409->251Q3,7<L17640O54,52543?2721.102434./<1.1021=D V-:160.1023761/16.4221=8G;27610-261P;461=82-40,<;=140251.173;61.102->2513;G3,64/24-0 73312,7/427<4M7G<1-;2<7L3733-,4721=O425251404247<4./<1.102724-03279170=251-/16724-070= 7==424-07<4./<1.102724-03279140,;661=/64-62-2514./<1.102724-0->2543?2721.102D 
B5161P;461.1023->2543?2721.102O4<<4./6-:1Q070,47<61/-62409GL1327G<4354097=1Q0424-0>-6?@ABC3 70=/6-:4=409;04>-6.9;4=70,1>-67,,-;0240970=Q070,47<61/-62409>-6267037,24-032572.1122572 =1Q0424-0DB572=1Q0424-070=;04>-6.9;4=70,1O4<<613;<2409617216,-0343210,L40/67,24,1DU327G<435409 251,7/427<4M724-0,6421647>-64./<1.102724-0,-3237<3-O4<<61=;,1=4:16342L70=4./6-:1,-./767G4<42L40 Q070,47<61/-62409GL9-:160.1023DB543?2721.1027<3-O4<<10570,125161<1:70,170=61<47G4<42L->7 9-:160.102W3Q070,47<32721.1023GL61P;4640979-:160.1022-61/-6273;G3,64/24-07331270= 3;G3,64/24-0<47G4<42L>-67?@ABC70=2-=43,<-3113310247<40>-6.724-07G-;22517667091.102DB51 =43,<-3;613O4<<7<<-O;31632-;0=163270=2513,7<170=4./-6270273/1,23->79-:160.102W3?@ABC 7,24:4241370=1:7<;72179-:160.102W3-G<49724-0370=733123613;<2409>6-.?@ABC3D 
X01->251/640,4/<139;4=409251@-76=W33122409->3270=76=3>-67,,-;0240970=Q070,47<61/-6240943251 733133.102->1E/1,21=G101Q2370=/16,14:1=,-323DB51@-76=3264:132-=1216.40125724233270=76=3 7==613334904Q,702;316011=370=2572251,-32340,;661=256-;952517//<4,724-0->4233270=76=38 ,-./761=O425/-334G<17<2160724:138761Y;324Q1=O510,-./761=2-2511E/1,21=-:167<</;G<4,G101Q2D B51@-76=G1<41:1325722511E/1,21=G101Q232572O4<<613;<2>6-.25140>-6.724-0/6-:4=1=256-;95

4./<1.102724-0->2543?2721.102Z.-61,-034321027,,-;0240970=Q070,47<61/-62409870=.-61 ,-./767G<140>-6.724-07G-;2?@ABC3Z76134904Q,70270=Y;324>L251/16,14:1=,-323->4./<1.102724-0 70=-09-409,-./<470,1D
[162740=1,434-03.7=1GL251@-76=O16140210=1=2-/6-:4=1,-3261<41>D\-61E7./<182513,-/1->2543 ?2721.1021E,<;=13,-0267,23O4253270=F7<-0127094G<1,7/427<73312370=,-0267,23O4257,-.G40724-0 ->727094G<1,7/427<7331270=704034904Q,7023->2O761,-./-0102DA07==424-082543?2721.10240,<;=13 701E,1/24-0>-635-62F216.?@ABC3DB543?2721.1027<3-61P;46139-:160.10232-61/-6270102461 .;<24/<1F,-./-0102,-0267,27373409<1?@ABCO510=1216.4040925727G1321324.7212-7<<-,721251 ,-0267,2/64,12-.;<24/<1,-./-01023430-2/67,24,7G<1DC==424-07<<L82543?2721.102/16.4238G;2=-13 0-261P;46189-:160.10232-40,<;=1,7/427<4M7G<1-;2<7L3733-,4721=O425251404247<4./<1.102724-032791 70=251-/16724-070=7==424-07<4./<1.102724-03279140251.173;61.102->2513;G3,64/24-073312 61,-904M1=7226703424-0D

]0<133-2516O4313/1,4Q1=8/6-0-;0,1.1023->251VC?@7//<L2-Q070,47<61/-623->7<<3272170=<-,7< 9-:160.1027<10242413840,<;=409910167</;6/-319-:160.1023^/;G<4,G101Q2,-6/-6724-0370= 7;25-642413^/;G<4,1./<-L11612461.1023L321.3^70=/;G<4,;24<4241385-3/427<370=-2516517<25,761 /6-:4=163870=,-<<191370=;04:16342413D_767967/5`=43,;33132517//<4,7G4<42L->2543?2721.102D 131
Agenda Item # 4.








 
! 
 
 "#
 $%&
%%
 '%(
(



)*'

'+'&
132
Agenda Item # 4.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: November 12, 2024
Prepared By: Melissa Thurman
Approved By: Gabriel Engeland
Subject: Approve the updated Conflict of Interest Code and Adopt a Resolution updating the Los Altos Conflict of Interest Code for staff and commissioners pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 1974

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

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the updated Conflict of Interest Code and Adopt a Resolution updating the Los Altos Conflict of Interest Code for staff and commissioners pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 1974

FISCAL IMPACT
Not Applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not Applicable.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
This is a bi-annual Council item which was last considered and updated on November 29, 2022

BACKGROUND
Pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 1974, every local governmental agency is required to review and update its Conflict of Interest code, which determines what financial interests must be disclosed on their annual Statement of Economic Interest forms (Form 700).

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution with Conflict of Interest code
133
Agenda Item # 5.

Resolution No. 2024- Page 1 of 9
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-

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

APPROVING AND ADOPTING AN AMENDED CONFLICT OF INTEREST
CODE PURSUANT TO THE POLITICAL REFORM ACT OF 1974
WHEREAS, the State of California enacted the Political Reform Act of 1974, Government Code Section 81000, et seq. (the “Act”), which contains provisions relating to conflicts of interest which potentially affect all officers, employees and consultants of the City of Los Altos (the “City”), and which requires all public agencies to adopt and promulgate a conflict of interest code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a Conflict of Interest Code (the “Code”), which was amended by Resolution No. 2022-83 in compliance with the Act; and WHEREAS, subsequent changed circumstances within the City have made it advisable and necessary pursuant to Sections 87306 and 87307 of the Act to amend and update the City’s Code; and
WHEREAS, the potential penalties for violation of the provisions of the Act are substantial and may include criminal and civil liability, as well as equitable relief which could result in the City being restrained or prevented from acting in cases where the provisions of the Act may have been violated; and
WHEREAS, the last update to the Conflict of Interest code occurred at a regular meeting of the City Council on November 29, 2022 at which all present were given an opportunity to be heard on the proposed amended Code.

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

1. The City Council does hereby approve and adopt the proposed amended Conflict of Interest Code, a copy of which is attached hereto and shall be on file with the City Clerk and available to the public for inspection and copying during regular business hours;

2. The said amended Conflict of Interest Code shall become effective immediately upon its adoption and approval; and

3. All previous conflict of interest codes of the City of Los Altos shall be rescinded upon effective date of said amended Code as approved by the City Council. 134
Agenda Item # 5.

Resolution No. 2024- Page 2 of 9
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 12th day of November 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

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

CITY CLERK
135
Agenda Item # 5.

Resolution No. 2024- Page 3 of 9

CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
OF THE

CITY OF LOS ALTOS

CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
OF THE

CITY OF LOS ALTOS
(Proposed November 12, 2024)
The Political Reform Act (Gov. Code § 81000, et seq.) requires state and local government agencies to adopt and promulgate conflict of interest codes. The Fair Political Practices Commission has adopted a regulation (2 Cal. Code of Regs. § 18730) that contains the terms of a standard conflict of interest code which can be incorporated by reference in an agency’s code. After public notice and hearing Regulation 18730 may be amended by the Fair Political Practices Commission to conform to amendments in the Political Reform Act. Therefore, the terms of 2 California Code of Regulations section 18730 and any amendments to it duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission are hereby incorporated by reference. This incorporation page, Regulation 18730 and the attached Appendix designating positions and establishing disclosure categories, shall constitute the conflict of interest code of the City of Los Altos (the "City").

All officials and designated positions required to submit a statement of economic interests shall file their statements with the City Clerk as the City’s Filing Officer. The City Clerk shall make and retain a copy of all statements filed by the Mayor, Members of the City Council and Planning Commission, the City Manager, the City Attorney and the City Treasurer, and forward the originals of such statements to the Fair Political Practices Commission. The City Clerk shall retain the original statements filed 136
Agenda Item # 5.

Resolution No. 2024- Page 4 of 9
by all other officials and designated positions and will make all retained statements available for public inspection and reproduction during regular business hours. (Gov. Code § 81008.)
All officials and designated positions required to submit a statement of economic interests shall receive ethics training as required pursuant to Government Code section 53235 (AB 1234). The City’s Filing Officer shall annually provide all filers with information on training available to meet the requirements of Section 53235, and maintain required records indicating the dates that filers satisfied the training requirements and the entity that provided the training. These records shall be retained for five years after the date of training and are public records subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act. (Gov. Code § 53235.2.)
137
Agenda Item # 5.

App. A-1

APPENDIX

CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
OF THE

CITY OF LOS ALTOS
(Proposed November 12, 2024)
PART “A”
The Mayor, Members of the City Council and Planning Commission, the City Manager, the City Attorney, the City Treasurer, and All Other City Officials who manage public investments, as defined by 2 Cal. Code of Regs. §18700.3(b), are NOT subject to the City’s Code but must file disclosure statements under Government Code section 87200 et seq. [Regs. § 18730(b)(3)]

OFFICIALS WHO MANAGE PUBLIC INVESTMENTS
It has been determined that the positions listed below are Other City Officials who manage public investments1. These positions are listed here for informational purposes only.

Finance Director
Investment Advisor
Investment Consultant

1 Individuals holding one of the above-listed positions may contact the Fair Political Practices Commission for assistance or written advice regarding their filing obligations if they believe that their position has been categorized incorrectly. The Fair Political Practices Commission makes the final determination whether a position is covered by § 87200. 138
Agenda Item # 5.

DESIGNATED POSITIONS’ DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES

TITLE OR FUNCTION ASSIGNED

DESIGNATED POSITIONS

GOVERNED BY THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
DESIGNATED POSITIONS’ DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES

TITLE OR FUNCTION ASSIGNED
Assistant City Manager 1, 2
Senior Planner 2, 3, 5
Building Official 2, 3, 5, 6
City Attorney (not filing under GC § 87200, incl. deputy/assistant) 1, 2 City Clerk 1, 2
Development Services Director 1, 2
Deputy City Clerk 5
Economic Development Manager/Coordinator 1, 2
Public Works Director/City Engineer 1, 2
Engineering Services Manager 2, 3, 5
Environmental Services and Utilities Director 1, 2
Financial Services Manager 1, 2
Human Resources Director 1, 2
Human Resources Manager 5
Information Technology Manager 5
Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director 1, 2
Maintenance Supervisor 5
Management Analyst I/II 5
Planning Services Manager 1, 2
Police Captain 5
Police Chief 5
Police Services Manager 5
Project Manager 2, 3, 5
Public Information Officer 1, 2
139
Agenda Item # 5.

DESIGNATED POSITIONS’ DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES

TITLE OR FUNCTION ASSIGNED
Recreation Manager 5
Senior Accountant 4
Senior Human Resources Analyst 5
Special Projects Manager 2, 3, 5
Sustainability Coordinator 2, 3, 5, 6
Transportation Services Manager 2, 3, 5
140
Agenda Item # 5.

DESIGNATED POSITIONS’ DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES

TITLE OR FUNCTION ASSIGNED

MEMBERS OF COMMITTEES,

BOARDS & COMMISSIONS
Complete Streets Commission 1, 2
Environmental Commission 1, 2
Financial Commission 1, 2
Historical Commission 5
Parks, Arts, Recreation and Cultural Commission 2, 3, 5 Consultants and New Positions2

2 Individuals serving as a consultant as defined in FPPC Reg 18700.3(a) or in a new position created since this Code was last approved that makes or participates in making decisions must file under the broadest disclosure set forth in this Code subject to the following limitation:

The City Manager may determine that, due to the range of duties or contractual obligations, it is more appropriate to assign a limited disclosure requirement. A clear explanation of the duties and a statement of the extent of the disclosure requirements must be in a written document. (Gov. Code Sec. 82019; FPPC Regulations 18219 and 18734.). The City Manger’s determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same manner and location as this Conflict of Interest Code. (Gov.

Code Sec. 81008.)
141
Agenda Item # 5.

DESIGNATED POSITIONS’ DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES

TITLE OR FUNCTION ASSIGNED
Resolution No. 2024 Page 5
PART “B"

DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
The disclosure categories listed below identify the types of economic interests that the designated position must disclose for each disclosure category to which he or she is assigned.3 “Investment” means financial interest in any business entity (including a consulting business or other independent contracting business) and are reportable if they are either located in, doing business in, planning to do business in, or have done business during the previous two years in the jurisdiction of the City.

Category 1: .All investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income, including gifts, loans and travel payments.

Category 2: All interests in real property which is located in whole or in part within, or not more than two (2) miles outside, the boundaries of the City.

Category 3: All investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income, including gifts, loans and travel payments, that are engaged in land development, construction or the acquisition or sale of real property within the jurisdiction of the City.

Category 4: All investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income, including gifts, loans and travel payments, that provide services, products, materials, machinery, vehicles or equipment of a type purchased or leased by the City.

Category 5: All investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income, including gifts, loans and travel payments, that provide services, products, materials, machinery, vehicles or equipment of a type purchased or leased by the designated position’s department, unit or division.

Category 6: All investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income, including gifts, loans and travel payments, subject to the regulatory, permit, or licensing authority of the designated employee's department, unit or division.

3 This Conflict of Interest Code does not require the reporting of gifts from outside this agency’s jurisdiction if the source does not have some connection with or bearing upon the functions or duties of the position. (Reg. 18730.1)
142
Agenda Item # 5.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: November 12, 2024
Prepared By: Public Works Department
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: Terminate Contract and Reject Bids for the Sanitary Sewer Video Inspection, Project WW01011

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

RECOMMENDATION
The City Council to reject all bids and terminate the contract awarded to APS Environmental, Inc. for the Sanitary Sewer Video Inspection, Project WW-01011, in the amount of $303,396.76, and direct City staff to rebid the project, and find the Council’s action exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15301(b), and that none of the circumstances stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies.

FISCAL IMPACT
None. The remaining project funds will remain in CIP WW01011 since the project will be rebid.

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

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
June 11, 2024

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
On April 25, 2024, a total of six (6) bids were opened for CIP Project WW01011. The bid results are included as Attachment 2. The project consists of performing cleaning and television inspection of an approximate total quantity of 116,964 linear feet of various sanitary sewer lines 143
Agenda Item # 6.
ranging in size from 6 inches to 24 inches. The scope of work includes cleaning and television inspection of approximate 108,242 linear feet from the Base Bid and approximate 8,722 linear feet from the Add Alternate Bid No. 1. The locations of these inspections are at various locations throughout the central part of Los Altos.

It was recommended to award the Base Bid and Add Alternate Bid No. 1 to APS Environmental, Inc., which was determined to be the lowest responsible, responsive bid in the amount of $303,396.76 for the total bid. The determination of the lowest bid was based upon the total bid, which includes the Base Bid and Add Alternate Bid No. 1. The contract with APS Environmental, Inc. was executed on August 8, 2024.

On August 12, 2024, the project engineer managing CIP Project WW01011, reviewed sample videos provided by the contractor and determined there is no audio record of the information shown in the video as described in the Technical Provision 23-03.02.05.01. Lack of audio record was communicated with the contractor and the contractor’s response on August 20, 2024, confirmed that audio records of inspections cannot be provided. The project engineer actively managing the project departed the City on September 13, 2024, and the remaining City staff contacted the contractor again on September 24, 2024, to confirm the lack of audio record.

Contractor’s response dated September 24, 2024, confirmed once again that audio recording of inspections cannot be provided.

Due to lack of audio recordings and inability to comply with Technical Provision 23-03.02.05.01 City staff determined that APS Environmental, Inc. is a non-responsive bidder. For this reason, the contract with APS Environmental, Inc. in the amount of $303,396.76 shall be canceled. In addition to canceling the contract, all bids, valid for sixty (60) days, submitted on April 25, 2024, shall be rejected. City staff will revise specifications and advertise the Sanitary Sewer Video Inspection, Project WW01011, as soon as possible.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution 2024-_______

2. Bid Summary for Sanitary Sewer Video Inspection, Project WW-01011 144
Agenda Item # 6.

ATTACHMENT 1

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-___

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

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO TERMINATE A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH APS ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. FOR SANITARY SEWER VIDEO INSPECTION, PROJECT WW-01011 IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TOEXCEED $303,396.76 AND TO REJECT ALL BIDS SUBMITTED FOR THE SANITARY SEWER VIDEO INSPECTION, PROJECT WW-01011
WHEREAS, the City bid the project, which consists of performing cleaning and television inspection of an approximate total quantity of 116,964 linear feet of various sanitary sewer lines ranging in size from 6 inches to 24 inches; and
WHEREAS, APS Environmental, Inc. appeared to be the lowest responsible, responsive bidder for the Project among a total of six (6) bids that were opened; and WHEREAS, the contract in an amount of $303,396.76 was awarded to APS Environmental, Inc. on June 11, 2024 and executed on August 8, 2024; and WHEREAS, APS Environmental notified the City on August 20, 2024, and again on September 24, 2024, that the equipment used for the video inspection cannot provide audio recording of the information contained in the inspection logs as noted in Technical Provision 23-03.02.05.01; and
WHEREAS, the City determined that APS Environmental is a non-responsive bidder due to the inability to comply with Technical Provision 23-03.02.05.01; and WHEREAS, the project is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(b), involving the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public sewerage involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use, and none of the circumstances stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies.

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

1. Authorizes the City Manager to terminate a Construction Contract in an amount not-to-exceed $303,936.76 to perform the Sanitary Sewer Video Inspection, Project WW-01011.

2. Authorizes the City Manager to reject all bids submitted for the Sanitary Sewer Video Inspection, Project WW-01011.

3. Directs staff to rebid project.
145
Agenda Item # 6.

ATTACHMENT 1

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 12th day of November , 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Jonathan D. Weinberg, MAYOR
Attest:
___________________________________
Melissa Thurman, MMC CITY CLERK
146
Agenda Item # 6.

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

BID RESULTS
Project Name:

Sanitary Sewer Video Inspection Project, WW01011
Bid Opening Date:

April 25, 2024

CONTRACTOR

TOTAL BASE
BID

TOTAL ADD
ALT NO. 1 TOTAL BID
APS Environmental, Inc. $281,346.78 $22,589.98 $303,936.76 Able Construction $360,962.30 $27,474.30 $388,426.60
99 North Construction & Plumbing $393,197.00 $31,776.00 $424,973.00 MBR Plumbing, LLC. $408,508.45 $31,797.77 $440,306.22
CCSI $449,660.79 $31,969.32 $481,630.11
PPSI $841,073.00 $56,693.00 $897,766.00
147
Agenda Item # 6.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: November 12, 2024
Prepared By: Public Works Department
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: Contract Amendment: Amendment No. 3 with AIM Engineering Consultants, Inc. in the amount of $13,740.

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

RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 3 on behalf of the City with AIM Engineering Consultants, Inc. in the amount of $13,740 for professional consulting services for various transportation engineering tasks to the original contract on behalf of the city and find the Council’s action categorically exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c) and none of the circumstances in CEQA guidance Section 15300.2 applies.

POLICY QUESTION(S) FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
None

FISCAL IMPACT
The $13,740 funds for Amendment No. 3 will be appropriated from the Capital Improvement and Major Maintenance Program, Annual Street Resurfacing, Project No. TS01001.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Categorically Exempt pursuant to CEQA Section 15301(c). It can be seen with certainty that the contract amendment will not pose a significant effect on the physical environment, and none of the circumstances in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 applies.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
On November 13, 2023, the City of Los Altos entered into an agreement in the amount of $50,000 with AIM Engineering Consultants, Inc. to provide professional consulting services for various transportation engineering tasks. AIM Engineering Consultants, Inc. provided training and support for new Transportation Division staff; attended in-person and virtual staff meetings; 148
Agenda Item # 7.
conducted site visits with staff for various locations in need of improvements; provided support and guidance to transportation electrical maintenance and repair with the City of Los Altos’ electrical consultant Bear Electrical; attended Complete Streets Commission (CSC) meetings and prepared the 2024 CSC Work Plan; and prepared concept plans for the Jardin Drive Redesign Project.

Amendment No. 1 was executed on January 30, 2024, in the amount of $48,000 and Amendment No. 2 was executed on August 12, 2024, in the amount of $16,200 with AIM Engineering Consultants, Inc. to continue providing professional consulting services for various transportation engineering tasks. AIM Engineering Consultants, Inc. continued attending staff and Complete Street Commission/Community meetings; prepared new concept plans for Jardin Drive Redesign Project; attended meetings with staff to discuss projects with VTA, County of Santa Clara, and Caltrans; subcontracted Quality Counts, Inc. to provide traffic counts around Los Altos High School as requested by the community; provided transportation support for new development plan reviews; and provided service for design, drafting, and the Engineer’s cost estimate for the 2024 Annual Street Resurfacing Project.

Because of the sensitive nature of Jardin Drive to the residents, AIM Engineering was instrumental to assist Staff in the 2024 Annual Street Resurfacing Project. The design was very extensive and required several iterations of the plans to meet the request of the residents at the Complete Street Commission. For this reason, AIM Engineering provided additional support during the design and construction. The additional support exhausted the budget allocation provided by the Council. Amendment No. 3 in the amount of $13,740 is for the additional service rendered to support staff to ensure Jardin Drive is constructed as promised to the residents of the neighborhood. Amendment No. 3 will conclude AIM Engineering Consultant, Inc. contract with the City. No additional amendment will be necessary in the future.

ATTACHMENT

1. Resolution 2024-___
149
Agenda Item # 7.

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 AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE AGREEMENT WITH AIM ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $13,740 FOR PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES

FOR VARIOUS TRANSPORTATION TASKS
WHEREAS the City of Los Altos hired AIM Engineering Consultants, Inc. to provide professional consulting services for various transportation tasks; and WHEREAS, AIM Engineering Consultants, Inc. was awarded a contract in the amount of $50,000 on November 13, 2023, awarded Amendment No. 1 in the amount of $48,000 on January 30, 2024, and awarded Amendment No. 2 in the amount of $16,200 on August 12, 2024; and
WHEREAS, Amendment No. 3 to AIM Engineering Consultants, Inc.’s contract will carry forth professional consulting services; and
WHEREAS, there are sufficient funds available in the Annual Street Resurfacing project budget.

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 Amendment No. 3 with AIM Engineering Consultants, Inc. on behalf of the city for professional consulting services for various transportation tasks

2. The $13,740 funds for Amendment No. 3 will be appropriated from the Capital Improvement and Major Maintenance Program, Annual Street Resurfacing, Project No, TS01001.

3. Authorize the City Manager to take such further actions as may be necessary to implement the foregoing amendment, 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 12th day of November, 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Jonathan D. Weinberg, MAYOR
150
Agenda Item # 7.

Resolution No. 2024- Page 2
Attest:
_____________________________
Melissa Thurman, MMC,

CITY CLERK
151
Agenda Item # 7.
21292368.1
City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: November 12, 2024
Prepared By: Jon Maginot
Approved By: Gabriel Engeland
Subject: Adopt an ordinance of the City to amend the Los Altos Municipal Code by adding Sections 2.04.070 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.

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

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt an ordinance of the City to amend the Los Altos Municipal Code by adding Sections

2.04.070 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.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to this action. There may be fiscal impacts related to future elections held by the City.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
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.

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 152
Agenda Item # 8.
21292368.1
Councilmember elections are at-large and there is racial polarization and vote dilution within the jurisdiction. 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 Districts 2 and 4 will select Councilmembers, with the transition to district-based elections fully completed in the November 2028 general election, when Districts 1, 3, and 5 will select Councilmembers.

Although only five (5) public hearings are required by the CVRA, the City held a total of seven (7) public hearings on the following dates: June 11, July 13, August 28, September 24, October 8, October 21, and October 22, 2024. The City also engaged in a robust outreach campaign to encourage public participation and inclusivity as a part of the districting process. The City has:
• Hosted a webpage dedicated to districting, which includes an explanation of the districting process, relevant demographic data, the process for obtaining public input, a calendar of public hearings, meetings, and/or workshop dates, the notice and agenda for each hearing/meeting/workshop, audio/video records of the hearings/meetings/workshops, and copies of the draft map(s) to be considered;
• Invited 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, and invited the submission of draft maps using an interactive mapping tool to allow the public to weighin on how the actual district lines might be drawn; and • Provided the above referenced information to local newspapers and to good government and civic engagement groups within the City to ensure active community engagement and outreach to a wide cross section of the community,
City Staff also have hosted community workshops and solicited community input at additional workshops. In these ways, the City has provided multiple ways for the public to submit feedback at formal hearings, City-sponsored workshops, and via on-line submissions of community of interest forms, draft maps, and other input.

At public 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 numerous 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 required public hearings required for the City’s transition to by-district elections. These first two (2) hearings were held prior to any draft maps being drawn. Redistricting Partners made presentations at both public hearings regarding the requirements of the CVRA. Those presentations covered the composition 153
Agenda Item # 8.
21292368.1
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 remaining five meetings, the City Council reviewed a total of twelve (12) maps drawn by the City’s demographer, Redistricting Partners. At the August 28th hearing, 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 socio-economic status, age, school boundaries, shopping districts, and parks.

At the September 24, 2024 public hearing, the City Council reviewed two additional draft maps prepared by Redistricting Partners and received an update on the community outreach efforts conducted by the City. The City Council also provided direction on draft maps.

At the October 8, 2024 public hearing, the City Council reviewed five additional draft maps prepared by Redistricting Partners based on direction received at the September 24th meeting and provided direction to create two new versions of existing draft maps.

At the October 21, 2024 public hearing, the City Council reviewed draft maps that had previously been submitted by the pubic and created by Redistricting Partners, and provided further direction on changes to the boundaries in these draft maps and also drew additional draft maps for consideration.

At the October 22, 2024 public hearing, the City Council selected Map F2A as the final map.

Additionally, the City Council determined the identification numbers for the districts (starting with District 1 as the southern-most portion of the City and continuing northward), identified Districts 2 and 4 as those districts to hold elections in 2026, and determined that residents must have dwelled in a specific district for at least thirty (30) days prior to filing nominations papers for election to the City Council.

The City Council introduced the attached ordinance at this public hearing. Following adoption, the ordinance will go into effect in thirty (30) days and the City will be scheduled to hold its first district-based election in 2026.

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 CVRA and the Federal Voting Rights Act. 154
Agenda Item # 8.
21292368.1
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 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 22, 2024 public hearing, the City Council heard public feedback on all draft maps previously prepared by Redistricting Partners, as well as those created by the public. Each draft map considered at the October 22nd public hearing was published on the City's website at least seven (7) days in advance of the October 22nd meeting.

On October 22nd, the City Council introduced an ordinance selecting Map F2A for adoption.

Draft F2A originated from the draft Map F series, which was live-drawn during the September 24th public meeting. The City Council’s goal was to maintain communities of interest that included:
• The El Camino Real community in the northern portion of the City; • Shopping centers/commercial hubs, which were considered logical community gathering points patronized by residents on a daily basis within their neighborhoods; and • Neighborhoods, particularly the Highlands and Grant Park neighborhoods in the southern portion of the City.

As required, the City adopted a map that ensures the population is well balanced, uses the appropriate census dataset, follows the Federal Voting Rights Act, and does not discriminate or favor a political party, incumbent or candidate. The total deviation for the adopted map is 8.5%, below the 10% total deviation maximum allowed for municipalities. Additionally, the City and 155
Agenda Item # 8.
21292368.1
its consulting demographer used the required Statewide Database’s adjusted census data, which reallocated incarcerated residents throughout the state.

Related to communities of interest, the City Council discussed numerous points of interest and communities of interest. In selecting Map F2A for adoption, the City used definitions of neighborhoods and communities of interest as defined by the community and the Council Members and remained consistent in their definitions.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Ordinance No. 2024-xxx

2. Final District Map Report
156
Agenda Item # 8.

Ordinance No. ___
ORDINANCE NO. ___

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS TO AMEND THE LOS ALTOS MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING SECTIONS 2.04.070 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, October 8, 2024, October 21, 2024, and October 22, 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 157
Agenda Item # 8.

Ordinance No. ___
draft maps that had been released and 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, at its public hearing on October 8, 2024, the City Council reviewed five additional draft maps prepared by Redistricting Partners based on direction received at the September 24th meeting and provided direction to create two new versions of existing draft maps; and
WHEREAS, at its public hearing on October 21, 2024, the City Council reviewed draft maps that had previously been submitted by the public and created by Redistricting Partners, and provided further direction on changes to the boundaries in these draft maps and also drew additional draft maps for consideration; and
WHEREAS, at its public hearing on October 22, 2024, the City Council selected Map F2A as the final map, determined the identification numbers for the districts (starting with District 1 as the southern-most portion of the City and continuing northward), identified Districts 2 and 4 as those districts to hold elections in 2026, and determined that residents must have dwelled in a specific district for at least thirty (30) days prior to filing nominations papers for election to the City Council; 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 F2A 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. 158
Agenda Item # 8.

Ordinance No. ___
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.

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 F2A 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 thirty (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 2 and 4 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 1, 3, and 5 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 159
Agenda Item # 8.

Ordinance No. ___
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 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 thirty (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 22, 2024.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Altos held on November 12, , 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
___________________________________
Jonathan D. Weinberg, MAYOR
160
Agenda Item # 8.

Ordinance No. ___
Attest:
____________________________
Melissa Thurman, MMC
City Clerk
161
Agenda Item # 8.

City of Los Altos
Transition from At-Large to By-District
Elections: Adopted Map
Final Report
October 29, 2024
162
Agenda Item # 8.
2 | P a g e
Executive Summary
The City of Los Altos followed the FAIR MAPS Act and the California Voting Rights Act criteria to guide the city’s transition from at-large to by-district elections. The City hosted seven public hearings on converting to by-district elections, and the City Council voted on a final map on October 22, 2024, adopting Draft F2A. The adopted map meets all criteria required by state and federal laws, with minimal splits of communities of interest.

This report documents the specific criteria used during the districting process and describes the decisions made when communities of interest (COIs) were split. While the city did its best to maintain as many COIs as possible, splits were necessary in order to follow the higher-ranking criteria set forth by the FAIR MAPS Act. All decisions and deliberations were made by the City Councilmembers and Mayor in public meetings, and meetings and other relevant documents can be accessed here: https://www.losaltosca.gov/cityclerk/page/district-based-elections Adopted Map: Draft F2A
Draft F2A originated from F map series, which was live-drawn during the September 24th public meeting. The City Council’s goal was to maintain communities of interest that included:
• Maintaining the El Camino Real community in the northern portion of the city • Use shopping centers/commercial hubs are a logical community gathering point which residents patronize on a daily basis within their neighborhoods • Ensure neighborhoods are maintained as much as possible, particularly the Highlands and Grant Park neighborhoods in the southern portion of the city 163
Agenda Item # 8.
3 | P a g e
FAIR MAPS Act Criteria
As required, the City of Los Altos adopted a map that ensures the population is well balanced, uses the appropriate census dataset, follows the federal Voting Rights Act, and does not discriminate or favor a political party, incumbent or candidate. The total deviation for the adopted map is 8.5%, below the 10% total deviation maximum allowed for municipalities.

Additionally, the City and its demographers used the required Statewide Database’s adjusted census data, which reallocated incarcerated residents throughout the state.

Using the FAIR MAPS Act criteria was emphasized since the first day of the districting process, and the demographers presented on these requirements at every public hearing. Furthermore, the demographers provided documentation to the City Council of which publicly drawn maps did and did not fulfill the FAIR MAPS Act criteria.

Below is the ranked list of criteria as required by the FAIR MAPS Act and how the Adopted Map met these criteria.

FAIR MAPS Act Ranked Criteria Adopted Map (Draft E)
To the extent practicable, council districts shall
be geographically contiguous.

All districts are whole and do not overlap with each
other.

To the extent practicable, the geographic
integrity of any local neighborhood or local
community of interest shall be respected in a
manner that minimizes its division.

The City does not have official neighborhood
boundaries, but they do have well-established and
historic communities. The city used definitions of
neighborhoods and communities of interest as
defined by the community and the Council
Members and remained consistent in their
definitions.

Council district boundaries should be easily
identifiable and understandable by residents. To
the extent practicable, council districts shall be
bounded by natural and artificial barriers, by
streets, or by the boundaries of the city.

Main thoroughfares such as El Monte Ave,
Oakhurst Ave, and the Foothill Expressed were
used as election district boundaries when possible.

However, when main roads were not used, it was
due to higher criteria, such as creating balanced
populations and following US Census blocks, as
required.

To the maximum extent practicable, and where it
does not conflict with the preceding criteria in
this subdivision, election districts shall be drawn
to encourage geographical compactness in a
manner that nearby areas of population are not
bypassed in favor of more distant populations.

The City created compact districts and avoided
constructions that would bypass nearby
population in favor of more distant population.

Most districts are more circular/square in
appearance and any less compact portions are due
to higher ranked criteria, like ensuring the
neighborhoods of the Highlands and Grant Park
remain intact.
164
Agenda Item # 8.
4 | P a g e
Splits: Communities of Interest
Split 1: Cupertino School District
The southern portion of the City of Los Altos shares a school district with the neighboring City of Cupertino. Early in the districting process, residents recognized this group of residents as a community of interest. This population, however, is far too large to be grouped into one election district, so it was inevitable that this population of residents would need to be split due to the need to ensure equal population in each district.

There was robust discussion on the issue of
whether it was important to keep this
community together as much as possible and
how best to split this community. Even at
the last public hearing, Vice Mayor Pete
Dailey advocated to keep this community
together as much as possible due to the
community a school district innately
engenders within its boundaries.

However, by maintaining the school district
as much as possible, it split the
neighborhood of Grant Park, which is
defined as the boundaries of Fremont
Ave.(north), Grant Road (west), Foothill
Expressway (south) and the city boundaries
(east).

Additionally, as described by Mayor
Jonathan Weinberg at the meeting on
October 22nd, the neighborhood of Grant
Park shares common bonds with the
neighborhood of Oak just north of Grant Park, including city facilities such as parks and community centers that both neighborhoods use collectively. Additionally, the Highlands neighborhood shares interests with Loyola Corners, including the use of the shopping district in that part of Los Altos.

Numerous Grant Park residents emailed the City Council with testimony to keep their neighborhood together, even if that means splitting the school district. 165
Agenda Item # 8.
5 | P a g e
Split 2: Loyola Corners Neighborhood
The City of Los Altos has historical and well-established communities within their city, but the boundaries of neighborhoods have never been defined in an official manner by the City. During the districting process, the most common communities and neighborhoods discussed included:
• The El Camino Real corridor (orange)1
• Downtown (green)
• Loyola Corners (pink)
• The Highlands (red)
• Grant Park (purple)
• Oak (brown)
1 The El Camino Real corridor follows the historically significant road of El Camino Real, which also serves as a commercial hub for residents. Due to an unusually shaped census block, this community contains the northwestern portion of the city, which otherwise would not be included in the definition of this community. 166
Agenda Item # 8.
6 | P a g e
District 5 contains the El Camino Real corridor. District 4 maintains the Downtown neighborhood and commercial hub and protects the area surrounding the high school. District 2 maintains the neighborhoods of Oak and Grant Park. District 1 maintains the Highlands neighborhood and the bulk of Loyola Corners. However, due to population balance, it was necessary to split Loyola Corners. The majority of the neighborhood is in District 1, while a portion including the Loyola Elementary School is located in District 3. The Council discussed that this was not ideal, but it was unavoidable due to the requirements under the FAIR MAPS Act while maintaining the Highlands and Grant Park.

The City Council discussed numerous points of interest and communities of interest, and a map of all the considered interests is included on the following page. 167
Agenda Item # 8.

City of Los Altos
Final Map with landmarks
168
Agenda Item # 8.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: 11/12/24
Prepared By: Tania Katbi
Approved By: Nick Zornes
Subject: Single-Use Plastic Foodware and Reusable Bag Ordinances

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

RECOMMENDATION
Four (4) separate actions for City Council consideration:

Adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Amending Chapter 6.40, to Title 6 Health and Safety of the Los Altos Municipal Code for Regulations on Reusable Bags and find that this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15308 of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.

Adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Repealing in its Entirety the Polystyrene Foam Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance, Chapter 6.44 of the Los Altos Municipal Code and find that this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15308 of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.

Adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Repealing in its Entirety the Single-use Foodware Accessories and Condiments Ordinance, Chapter 6.45 of the Los Altos Municipal Code and find that this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15308 of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.

Adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Amending the Los Altos Municipal Code, by Adding Chapter 6.42 Titled Regulations on Disposable Foodware and find that this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15308 of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.

FISCAL IMPACT
169
Agenda Item # 9.

Not applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The ordinances proposed are exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
In 2020, the Los Altos City Council considered a similar Foodware Ordinance aimed at reducing plastic waste from single use foodware items. However, it was paused due to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and to avoid additional burdens on the business community.

BACKGROUND
Plastics pose a threat to the environment from origin to end-of-life. Plastic production is responsible for 3.5% of all greenhouse gas emissions—more than the entire aviation sector. To address and mitigate human caused environmental impacts like pollution, waste, and resource depletion, the City of Los Altos is proposing regulations to limit the use of single-use plastics in food and retail businesses.

The City's Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP), which aims to eliminate single-use plastics by 2035, builds upon the City Council's earlier commitment to reduce single-use plastic foodware and accessories in its 2020 Strategic Priorities Workplan. The CAAP additionally calls for regulations promoting reusable alternatives.

Current City Municipal Code regulations on single-use plastic are as follows:

1. Prohibits the use and sale of expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam foodware.

2. Prohibits the use of single-use plastic carry bags, with an exemption for restaurants bagging takeout orders. Thick plastic bags are allowed, as they are deemed “reusable.”

3. Requires restaurants to provide single-use plastic foodware accessories and standard condiments upon request only.

The Environmental Commission included a Foodware Ordinance in the 2024 Work Plan. A subcommittee formed to provide staff with guidance on policy recommendations and engage with the community. The Commission approved the proposed regulations on single-use plastic foodware and accessories at their meeting on September 11, 2024.

DISCUSSION
Building upon current Municipal Code regulations, the Disposable Foodware Ordinance will:
 Phase-out disposable plastic foodware and accessories in all food facilities that serve prepared food and drinks and require the use of fiber-based alternatives for takeout orders.
 Require reusable foodware for on-premises dining, with limited exceptions for fiberbased accessories.  Establish a process for evaluating and granting exemptions to businesses or individuals who meet specific criteria.
170
Agenda Item # 9.

Expanding local ordinances to prohibit single-use plastic foodware and mandate reusable options for dine-in, the City can significantly reduce plastic waste. Single-use plastic ordinances are becoming increasingly more common within the Bay Area and throughout California.

Consolidating the existing polystyrene and upon-request requirements with the new foodware regulations into a single ordinance will enhance code accessibility for the community.

Phased-Approach
The ordinance enacts these regulations in two phases:
 Phase 1: The use of non-compliant disposable foodware is restricted to six (6) months from ordinance adoption.
 Phase 2: Reusable foodware for dine-in is required within twelve (12) months from ordinance adoption.

Compostable Plastics, Traditional Plastic, Fiber-based Products Composable plastics, like bioplastics, require specific conditions to decompose properly, which is not met at the City’s composting facility. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards allow for up to 180 days, while California composting facilities typically have a 30 to 60-day timeframe.

Bioplastics are not recyclable and can contaminate both compost and recycling streams, causing challenges in collection and confusing residents and restaurant staff. In contrast, paper, wood, bamboo, and other fiber-based compostable foodware items are accepted in the City’s compost program. Prohibiting compostable plastics will help prevent these materials from entering the waste stream.

Furthermore, The United Nations Environment Program reports that only 9% of all plastic ever made has been recycled, demonstrating that recycling is not a working solution at this time.

To combat the issues with the above, on June 30, 2022, the Governor signed the Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer into State law. This shifts the plastic pollution burden from consumers to producers and will require the producers and manufacturers of certain plastic packaging and foodware to achieve specific targets by January 1, 2032:
 Reduce the weight and number of plastic items produced by 25% compared to 2023  All covered items must be recyclable or compostable
 All covered items must be recycled or composted at a 65% rate Neighboring Jurisdictions
The table below provides information on single-use plastic foodware ordinances that require reusable foodware requirements for dine-in and/or fiber-based compostable for take-out in jurisdictions throughout the Bay Area (not exhaustive). 171
Agenda Item # 9.

JURISDICTION
Comprehensive
Foodware Ordinance
Reusable Foodware
Required for Dine-in
Must Be
Fiber-Based
Compostable
Los Altos No No No
Alameda Yes No Yes
Atherton Yes No Yes
Belmont Yes No Yes
Berkeley Yes Yes No
Brisbane Yes No Yes
Burlingame Yes No Yes
Colma Yes No Yes
Cupertino Yes Yes Yes
Daly City Yes Yes Yes
Foster City Yes No Yes
Half Moon Bay Yes Yes Yes
Hillsborough Yes No Yes
Menlo Park No No No
Millbrae Yes No Yes
Mountain View Yes No Yes
Pacifica Yes Yes Yes
Palo Alto No No Some
Portola Valley No No No
Redwood City Yes No Yes
San Bruno Yes No Yes
San Carlos Yes No Yes
San Francisco Yes No No
San Mateo Yes No Yes
San Mateo County Yes No Yes
San Ramon No No Yes
Santa Clara County No No No
Santa Cruz Yes No Yes
Santa Rosa No Yes No
South San Francisco Yes No Yes
Truckee Yes Yes No
Watsonville Yes No No
Woodside No No No
The City's draft Disposable Foodware Ordinance is largely based on the San Mateo County SingleUse Plastic Foodware Ordinance, which was adopted county-wide in February 2020.

To inform the development of the ordinance, staff consulted with San Mateo County and other cities implementing similar regulations to gain insights into their experiences and challenges.

Sustainability Staff participate on two (2) regional foodware groups consisting of other cities to further understand and work together on tackling this complex issue. 172
Agenda Item # 9.

Outreach Efforts
To ensure broad awareness and understanding of the proposed requirements, City staff conducted a comprehensive outreach campaign targeting the business community. Key outreach methods included:

Digital Communication:
 Targeted Email Campaigns: Sent direct emails to businesses impacted by the ordinance, informing them of the proposed requirements and seeking feedback.  Newsletter Distribution: Shared information through local newsletters, such as the Weekly News and those of business associations.
 Dedicated Website Page: Created a webpage on the City website providing detailed information and resources.

Community Engagement:
 Environmental Commission Collaboration: Discussed and solicited feedback from the Environmental Commission during multiple public meetings.  Informational Zoom Sessions: Hosted two Zoom sessions with the Environmental Commission Subcommittee to address questions and concerns.  Farmers Market Engagement: Tabled at the Los Altos Farmers Market to directly engage with residents.
 Door-to-Door Outreach: Conducted in-person outreach to over 100 businesses, providing information, resources, and seeking feedback.

To assess the current situation, staff conducted a survey to gather data on the materials used for takeout and dine-in food and beverages by local businesses, including restaurants, coffee shops, grocery stores, and other food service establishments.

Due to the diverse nature of food businesses and unique product offerings, it was challenging to collect comprehensive data on every type of material. Despite this, observations revealed a wide range of materials used, with traditional plastic being the most prevalent in fast-food and fastcasual businesses. Plastic straws and cups were particularly common at most establishments.

However, compostable plastics and fiber-based products were also in use, suggesting increasing awareness of sustainability initiatives.

Observations on businesses with on-premises seating revealed:
 63% of businesses are largely compliant with the proposed regulations, needing only minor adjustments like switching to fiber-based straws or reusable condiment cups.  37% of businesses are partially or non-compliant, offering only single-use foodware items or a mix for dine-in customers. Many of these are fast-food/casual establishments with limited seating and focus on takeout orders.
173
Agenda Item # 9.

Potential Challenges and Mitigation Strategies
There would be an initial cost to purchase reusables, but studies show that business reduce costs from switching to reusables. Challenges include:
 Materials Confusion: Some businesses already use bioplastics in their efforts to be sustainable, and this change may be confusing.
 Cost implications: Some businesses may face initial costs for purchasing compliant and reusable foodware. Switching to reusables may require investment in washable items and potentially increased dishwashing capacity.
 Consumer resistance and behavior change: Some consumers may initially resist the change to fiber-based and reusable foodware.
 Presentation and Performance considerations: Food and beverages have unique aesthetic and performance requirements that can vary significantly between businesses.

Such as temperature, flavor and appearance (i.e grocery store delicatessen items) To address these challenges, the city can:
 Further support businesses by hiring a consultant to provide technical assistance to individual businesses post ordinance adoption (similarly to SB 1383).  Allow exemptions for certain items on a case-by-case basis.

Reusable Bag Ordinance Amendments
Los Altos Municipal code (Chapter 6.40) currently prohibits single-use plastic carryout bags at all retail locations, except for restaurants bagging takeout orders. Retail establishments must charge a minimum ten-cent fee for recycled or reusable bags. Reusable bags are defined as durable plastic bags that are at least 2.25 mil thick.

On September 22, 2024, Governor Newson signed SB 1053, banning the distribution of all plastic bags, including the “thicker” plastic bags, starting January 1, 2026. 174
Agenda Item # 9.

According to the United Nations Environmental Programme, up to five trillion (5,000,000,000,000) plastic bags are used worldwide every year. Furthermore, studies have demonstrated that thicker "reusable" bags are often not reused and contribute to plastic waste. The average lifespan of a plastic bag is only 12 minutes, when it was originally intended to be 125 uses.

Proposed Amendments that align with SB 1053:
 Bans all plastic carryout bags: Prohibits distribution of any carryout bags for the purpose of carrying purchased goods that is not a recycled paper.  Increase the minimum postconsumer recycled material content for recycled paper bags to 50% by 2028.

In addition to the requirements of SB 1053, City staff are proposing to remove the exemption for food establishments.

RECOMMENDATION
Four (4) separate actions for City Council consideration:

Adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Amending Chapter 6.40, to Title 6 Health and Safety of the Los Altos Municipal Code for Regulations on Reusable Bags and find that this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.

Adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Repealing in its Entirety the Polystyrene Foam Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance, Chapter 6.44 of the Los Altos Municipal Code and find that this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.

Adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Repealing in its Entirety the Single-use Foodware Accessories and Condiments Ordinance, Chapter 6.45 of the Los Altos Municipal Code and find that this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.

Adopt an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Amending the Los Altos Municipal Code, by Adding Chapter 6.42 Titled Regulations on Disposable Foodware and find that this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Ordinance – Amending Chapter 6.40

2. Appendix A – Chapter 6.40 Text

3. Draft Ordinance – Repealing Chapter 6.44

4. Draft Ordinance – Repealing Chapter 6.45

5. Draft Ordinance – Adding Chapter 6.42

6. Appendix A – Chapter 6.42 Text
175
Agenda Item # 9.
1 ORDINANCE NO. 2024-XX

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS AMENDING CHAPTER 6.40 OF TITLE 6 HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE LOS

ALTOS MUNICIPAL CODE FOR REUSABLE BAGS
WHEREAS, the use of carryout bags by consumers at retail establishments and food facilities is detrimental to the environment, public health and welfare.

WHEREAS, the manufacture and distribution of carryout bags requires utilization of natural resources and results in the generation of greenhouse gas emissions.

WHEREAS, carryout bags contribute to environmental problems, including litter in stormdrains, creeks, the bay and the ocean.

WHEREAS, carryout bags provided by retail establishments and food facilities impose unseen costs on consumers, local governments, the state and taxpayers and constitute a public nuisance.

WHEREAS, the amendments was processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the Los Altos Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Los Altos does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF TITLE 6 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. Chapter 6.40 is hereby amended of the Los Altos Municipal Code as set forth in Appendix A to this Ordinance, underline indicating addition, and strikethrough indicating deletion.

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

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

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

The foregoing Ordinance was duly and properly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Altos held on October 22, 2024, and was thereafter, at a regular meeting held on November 12, 2024, passed and adopted by the following vote:
176
Agenda Item # 9.
2 AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Jonathan D. Weinberg, MAYOR
177
Agenda Item # 9.
3 Attest:

Melissa Thurman MMC, City Clerk
178
Agenda Item # 9.

APPENDIX A
AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 6.40
179
Agenda Item # 9.

Title 6 - HEALTH AND SAFETY
Chapter 6.40 REUSABLE BAGS
Los Altos, California, Code of Ordinances Created: 2024-04-02 13:07:46 [EST] (Supp. No. 41, Update 1)

Chapter 6.40 REUSABLE BAGS

6.40.010 Findings and purpose.

The city council finds and determines that:

A. The use of single-use carryout bags by consumers at retail establishments and food facilities is detrimental to the environment, public health and welfare.

B. The manufacture and distribution of single-use carryout bags requires utilization of natural resources and results in the generation of greenhouse gas emissions.

C. Single-use Carryout bags contribute to environmental problems, including litter in stormdrains, creeks, the bay and the ocean.

D. Single-use Carryout bags provided by retail establishments and food facilities impose unseen costs on consumers, local governments, the state and taxpayers and constitute a public nuisance.

The city council does, accordingly, find and declare that it should restrict the use of single-use carryout bags.

The city has a substantial interest in protecting its residents and the environment from negative impacts from plastic carryout bags.
(Ord. No. 2013-390, § 1, 3-12-2013)

6.40.020 Definitions.

A. "Customer" means any person obtaining goods or prepared food from a retail establishment or food facility.

B. "Garment bag" means a travel bag made of pliable, durable material with or without a handle, designed to hang straight or fold double and used to carry suits, dresses, coats, or like without crushing or wrinkling the same.

C. "Nonprofit charitable reuser" means a charitable organization, as defined in Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or a distinct operating unit or division of the charitable organization, that reuses and recycles donated goods or materials and receives more than fifty (50) percent of its revenues from the handling and sale of those donated goods or materials.

D. "Person" means any natural person, firm, corporation, partnership, or other organization or group however organized.

E. "Prepared food" means foods or beverages, which require no further preparation to be consumed and are prepared on the premises by cooking, chopping, slicing, mixing, freezing, or squeezing. "Prepared food" does not include any raw, uncooked meat product or fruits or vegetables which are chopped, squeezed, or mixed.

F. “Postconsumer recycled material” means a material that would otherwise be destined for solid waste disposal, having completed its intended end use and product life cycle. Postconsumer recycled material does not include materials and byproducts generated from, and commonly reused within, an original manufacturing and fabrication process.

G. "Public eating establishment Food facility" means a restaurant, take-out food establishment, or any other business that receives ninety (90) percent or more of its revenue from the sale of prepared food to be eaten on or off its premises. an operation that stores, prepares, packages, serves, vends, or otherwise provides food to the public for human consumption, as defined by California Health and Safety Code Section 113789 or successor. "Food facility" includes, but is not limited to, restaurants, retail food establishments, caterers, cafeterias, stores, shops, sales outlets, grocery stores, pubs, coffee shops, convenience stores, liquor stores, 180
Agenda Item # 9.

Created: 2024-04-02 13:07:46 [EST]
(Supp. No. 41, Update 1)

supermarkets, delicatessens, fraternal clubs serving the public, itinerant restaurants, mobile food vendors, vehicles or carts, or roadside stands. It includes both permanent and temporary food facilities. Public schools are exempt from the provisions of this chapter.

H. "Recycled paper bag" means a paper bag provided at the check stand, cash register, point of sale, or other point of departure for the purpose of transporting food or merchandise out of the establishment that contains no old growth fiber and a minimum of forty (40) fifty (50) percent post-consumer recycled content; is one hundred (100) percent recyclable; and has printed in a highly visible manner on the outside of the bag the words "reusable" and "recyclable," the name and location of the manufacturer, and the percentage of postconsumer recycled content.

I. "Retail establishment" means any commercial establishment that sells perishable or nonperishable goods including, but not limited to, clothing, prepared food, and personal items directly to the customer; and is located within or doing business within the geographical limits of the City of Los Altos. "Retail establishment" does not include public eating establishments or nonprofit charitable reusers.

J. "Reusable bag" means either a bag made of cloth or other machine washable fabric that has handles., or a durable plastic bag with handles that is at least 2.25 mil thick and is specifically designed and manufactured for multiple reuse. A garment bag may meet the above criteria regardless of whether it has handles or not.

K. "Single-use Carryout bag" means a bag of plastic, paper, or other material that is provided by a store to a customer at the point of sale for the purpose of carrying purchased goods and that is not a recycled paper bag. other than a reusable or bag provided at the check stand, cash register, point of sale or other point of departure, including departments within a establishment for the purpose of transporting food or merchandise out of the establishment. "Single-use Carryout bags" do not include bags without handles provided to the customer:

1. To transport prepared food, produce, bulk food or meat from a department within a store to the point of sale;

2. To hold prescription medication dispensed from a pharmacy; or

3. To segregate food or merchandise that could damage or contaminate other food or merchandise when placed together in a reusable bag or recycled paper bag.

4. A nonhandled bag that is designed to be placed over articles of clothing on a hanger, such as a garment bag used in dry cleaning or laundry services.
(Ord. No. 2013-390, § 1, 3-12-2013)

6.40.030 Single-use Carryout bags.

A. No retail establishment or food facility shall provide a single-use carryout bag to a customer, at the check stand, cash register, point of sale or other point of departure for the purpose of transporting food or merchandise out of the establishment except as provided in this section.

B. A retail establishment and food facility may only make recycled paper bags or reusable bags available to customers if the retailer charges must charge a minimum of ten twenty-five cents ($0.1025) per bag.

C. Notwithstanding this section, no retail establishment or food facility may make available for sale a recycled paper bag or a reusable bag unless the amount of the sale of such bag is separately itemized in the sale receipt.

D. A retail establishment or food facility may provide one or more recycled paper bags at no cost to any of the following individuals: a customer participating in the California Special Supplement Food Program for Women, Infants, and Children pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 123275) of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code; a customer participating in the Supplemental Food Program pursuant to Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 15500) of Part 3 of Division 9 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code; and a customer participating in Calfresh pursuant to Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 18900) Part 6 of Division 9 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code. 181
Agenda Item # 9.

Created: 2024-04-02 13:07:46 [EST]
(Supp. No. 41, Update 1)