Agenda packet, first session — Los Altos City Council, February 25, 2025

Agenda
MEET-AGENDA 2-25-25.PDF
Meeting Materials
MEET-PACKET 2-25-25.PDF
CITY COUNCIL QA FEBRUARY 25, 2025.PDF
CITY COUNCIL SUMMARY FEBRUARY 25, 2025.PDF

1. Documents:

2. Documents:

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
7:00 PM - Tuesday, February 25, 2025
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/83613651214?pwd=A0hWkYYViadn00b7OVnSjq5xbka78R.1 Telephone: 1-669-444-9171 / Webinar ID: 836 1365 1214 / Passcode: 955245 SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS: Prior to the meeting, comments on matters listed on the agenda may be emailed to [email protected]. Emailed public comments sent directly to the City Council, either as a group, or individually, 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.

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. 2/25/2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Page 2 of 4
The Mayor will open public comment and will announce the length of time provided for comments during each item.

AGENDA

CALL MEETING TO ORDER

ESTABLISH QUORUM

PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION

CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA

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.
02-25-2025 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. Approval of Meeting Minutes
Approval of Draft Meeting Minutes for the Special and Regular Meeting Minutes for the Meeting of February 11, 2025

2. Amendment of Meeting Minutes
Approve the amendments to the previously approved meeting minutes of June 25, 2024

3. Award of Contract - Hillview Dog Park Design
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a design contract with Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. in an amount not-to-exceed $137,314.00, and up to 15% contingency not-to-exceed $20,597.00, for a total amount not-to-exceed $157,911.00, to complete the design plans for the Hillview Dog Park

4. Adoption of Resolution - Agreement Amendment
2/25/2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Page 3 of 4
Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Amendment No. 2 with Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc. (EEC) in the amount of $ $155,865 for inspection, education, and enforcement services for the Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) Program, Project WW-01006, and find that the proposed amendments are exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15308 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines

5. City Council Accountability Policy
Adopt the revised City Council Accountability Policy

DISCUSSION ITEMS

6. Introduction of Ordinance - Underground Utilities
Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Adding Chapter 11.25 Underground Utilities to Title 11 Miscellaneous Property Regulations of the Los Altos Municipal Code and find that this action is Exempt from Environmental Review Pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State Guidelines Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970

7. Parking Restrictions around Los Altos High School
Adopt the following parking policy around Los Altos High School:

1. All existing parking restrictions around Los Altos High School will be modified to 2-hour parking from 8:00 am to 12:00 pm, Monday through Friday. Almond Avenue is to remain as no parking at all times

3. Staff is granted permission to install a 2-hour parking restriction from 8:00 am to 12:00 pm, Monday through Friday at other locations deemed necessary to address parking issue around Los Altos High School

8. City Council Strategic Goals
Review the City’s Strategic Goals and provide modifications as needed

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

9. Tentative Council Calendar and Housing Element Implementation Update Calendar

COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS AND DIRECTIONS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

ADJOURNMENT
2/25/2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Page 4 of 4
(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.

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

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 2/25/2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Page 2 of 4
The Mayor will open public comment and will announce the length of time provided for comments during each item.

AGENDA

CALL MEETING TO ORDER

ESTABLISH QUORUM

PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION

CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA

1. Approval of Meeting Minutes
Approval of Draft Meeting Minutes for the Special and Regular Meeting Minutes for the Meeting of February 11, 2025

2. Amendment of Meeting Minutes
Approve the amendments to the previously approved meeting minutes of June 25, 2024

4. Adoption of Resolution - Agreement Amendment
2 2/25/2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Page 3 of 4
Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Amendment No. 2 with Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc. (EEC) in the amount of $ $155,865 for inspection, education, and enforcement services for the Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) Program, Project WW-01006, and find that the proposed amendments are exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15308 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines

5. City Council Accountability Policy
Adopt the revised City Council Accountability Policy

DISCUSSION ITEMS

7. Parking Restrictions around Los Altos High School
Adopt the following parking policy around Los Altos High School:

8. City Council Strategic Goals
Review the City’s Strategic Goals and provide modifications as needed

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

9. Tentative Council Calendar and Housing Element Implementation Update Calendar

COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS AND DIRECTIONS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

ADJOURNMENT
3 2/25/2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Page 4 of 4
(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.)

If you wish to provide written materials, please provide the City Clerk with 10 copies of any document that you would like to submit to the City Council for the public record. 4 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Bin Hu <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2025 11:30 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Discard "No Parking" Restriction in the Neighborhood around Los Altos High School Hello City Council,
I am a resident in the neighborhood of Los Altos High School. I have more opinions regarding the “No Parking” restriction in the neighborhood surrounding Los Altos High School, and the “Safety Issue” reason behind it. The stakeholders’ controversial comments in the City Council meeting on January 14th, 2025 certainly means the immaturity of “No Parking” restriction.

There are 3 different concepts here:
 Safety Issue,
 Solutions to a Safety Issue, and
 Right of Voting by Stakeholders.

Those three different concepts are NOT mutually exclusive, especially addressing a safety issue does NOT exclude the Right of Voting by Stakeholders.

The first is the Safety Issue. On behalf of the majority of my neighbors, we want to know what specifically and exactly is the Safety Issue that the City means in my neighborhood. For example:
 What are the criteria the City has used to determine a Safety Issue?  What data has shown that the Safety Issue indeed has existed according to the criteria?  For example, what data has shown:
 The number of incidents / accidents of Safety Issue according to the criteria?  What property damages (e.g $$$) has the Safety Issue caused?  What personal injuries has the Safety Issue caused?
 Any other data that can qualify and quantify the safety issue? Secondly, the Solution to the Safety Issue is a different concept from the Safety Issue itself. We want to know:
 What are the possible Solutions the City has considered and discussed?  What are the criteria in the decision process the City has used to make a decision among all possible solutions?
 Based on the criteria, why did the City decide to adopt the “No Parking” restriction on our neighborhood? Last but not least, whatever the Safety Issue is, it certainly concerns all stakeholders in the neighborhood. Why did the City decide NOT to have a stakeholder vote for a best Solution? While Safety experts involvement is important, certainly there are multiple Solutions to a Safety Issue. Safety experts' involvement does NOT exclude stakeholder voting for a most acceptable solution. Thus the stakeholder voting is the most reasonable way to choose the most acceptable Solution by the majority of stakeholders. Please note that the neighborhood voting process has always been used in the past to determine a Solution to other similar issues in the neighborhood, including other Safety Issues. Why NOT this time? Thus we hereby request again:
 The City immediately dismisses all parking tickets issued during this period.  The City immediately removes the “No Parking” signs in our neighborhood  The City immediately engages all stakeholders, including neighborhoods, high school community and Safety experts to
 identify the criteria of a Safety Issue
5 2
 determine the exact Safety Issue
 identify all possible solutions to addressing the Safety Issue  allow stakeholders to vote for the best solution that can be accepted by the majority of stakeholders.

I am looking forward to your answers to my questions.
6 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Andi Barnett <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2025 2:03 PM
To: Public Comment; City Council
Subject: Parking near LAHS | comment for 2/25 meeting
Dear Council members,
I would like to address the poorly planned implementation of the ‘no parking’ zone near LAHS. My hope is that alternative solutions can be found that will benefit the entire community, which absolutely includes LAHS students.

I have read and heard comments from the City that this is simply LAHS’s problem to deal with. Keep in mind that many, or most, LAHS students are part of the Los Altos community, are your constituents, and do not exist in a vacuum. This also affects teachers many of whom travel from far outside of the community, and volunteers. Additionally, it’s a huge inconvenience for residents of the neighborhood and their visitors.

There are many factors that should have been considered, and this issue cannot be looked at solely on the basis of traffic in the neighborhood. To be honest, the argument that safety is the biggest concern is specious. I urge you to drive on Jardin on a rainy day at 8:25 and observe the increased chaos caused by multiple additional parents dropping kids off in their rush to their next destination, making dangerous uturns and other maneuvers. Determine how safe that feels.

Keep in mind that only a minority of LAHS students even have a drivers license, and you can assume that if a student needs to drive they have a good reason to do so. Why punish all driving students because of a few who disrespect parking regulations?
There are many possible solutions that balance the needs of residents and their visitors as well as LAHS students, and without considering reasonable options and without even consulting this group of stakeholders, ‘no parking‘ signs were put up with no warning to those affected.

Feasible solutions include:
-Permit parking on some parts of the affected blocks and unrestricted parking in other parts -alternating sides for allowed parking (ie M/W/F allowed on one side and T/Th on the other) -permit parking for residents with limited permits issued to students or staff on a case by case basis -more aggressive ticketing of those people violating parking regulations It’s not reasonable to compare the situation to MVHS which has substantially more parking spaces and places to park in front of the school. When talking about LAHS, it is not a private school renting space, it’s literally a government entity with which you should be coordinating neighborhood solutions together.

You have not talked to a single student or family to determine why on a given day, they might need to drive.

Thank you,
Andrea Barnett
7 2
146 Pasa Robles Ave
Parent of LAHS student who bikes 90% of the time but would like the option to drive when needed 8 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Lawrence Cofield <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2025 4:07 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Los Altos High School parking gong show
Importance: High
The parking restrictions negatively impact over one hundred students who must drive to school in the morning. These students live miles away in Los Altos Hills, or have to cross dangerous roads like El Camino, Shoreline, and Rengstorff. The restrictions also impact students with outside extracurriculars: they're at risk of being late to their jobs or sports because they have to walk at least 10 minutes to get to their car.

Many students are unable to find parking within a quarter mile of school and have to arrive at least 30 minutes before classes start. Many homeowners are also proposing expanding parking restrictions and having resident-only parking permits.

The restrictions are inequitable towards the students and were made without consulting them and how it would impact their lives. We need to show the Los Altos City Council the immense impact this decision has had on LAHS students.

Lawrence Cofield (voter in Los Altos)
650.789.3243
9 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Alicia Larsen Dabney <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2025 6:49 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment - LAHS Parking Issue
To Whom it May Concern,
I am a voter and local resident whose child attends Los Altos High School, and am writing to register a public comment regarding the parking issues that were created with the new No Parking signs. I have been following this issue since it first came to the school community's attention and have seen several egregious safety issues that did not exist before the new signs were placed. I have two points to make around this:

1. There was already a scarcity of available parking for LAHS students, staff, and volunteers compared to other school campuses in the area, including MVHS. This is significant because LAHS has already had a strong push for biking, walking, and carpooling for several years as part of regular communications from school leadership.

Given the school communications around walking and biking, please consider that the balance of students, staff, and volunteers who drive to school must do so, and have valid reasons for such. It is problematic to hear that your overall responses to this have been dismissive. It indicates that assumptions are being made about student/family needs, rather than respecting that each family's situation informs their decisions to walk, bike, or drive. The new signs heighten issues of access and equity that were already present with the scarce parking.

2. In my observation, I strongly feel that the new No Parking signs have created a safety issue that did not exist before, most notably because so many streets in Los Altos do not have proper sidewalks. I have observed far more egregious safety issues for cyclists and pedestrians, and several near-misses of accidents since the signs went up than I have in the previous two school years combined. The placement of the signs did little to change the percentage of students who walk, bike, or drive to school (see my point above). Rather, it only displaced parking to nearby streets and leaves more students walking longer distances in the streets amidst traffic.

I strongly urge you to reconsider your position and return to the drawing board. Please revisit this with a fresh plan and collaborate with the school community to make changes that better serve—and keep safe—the students and overall school community.

Thank you,
Alicia Dabney
Alicia Larsen Dabney, LMFT, LPCC, ATR-BC
Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist #136816
Licensed Professional Clinical Counselor #14483
Board Certified Art Therapist #20-261
10 2
IFS Certified Therapist #CSL-0877
IFS Level 3 trained at IFS Institute
verdantpsychotherapy.com | 408 438-5013
11 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Laura Larghi <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2025 10:40 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Please reconsider the parking restrictions around LAHS Hi,
I am a LAHS parent, and I am writing to ask you to please reconsider the parking restrictions around the school.

The new restrictions are making life more difficult for everybody:
 Students need to park far away and have to walk to the school on roads without sidewalks  Neighbors cannot park in front of their houses and their visitors have to park far away  The traffic has not improved only the chaos has expanded to more roads Los Altos is a highly populated town and parking is necessary. Why don't we focus on ticketing who parks illegally and remove the restrictions?
I believe that the long term goal is to have better public transport and more people biking and walking but this does not happen overnight.

I really hope you can reconsider the parking restrictions.

Thank you and best regards
Laura
LAHS parent
12 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Tootoo Thomson <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2025 12:50 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Los Altos high school parking headache
Dear honorable city council members
Wish you and the family are having a great day.

Please allow me to share my concerns of limited parkingspace at Los Altos High school My student actually rides bike to school every day, so it should not have bothered us.

But recently, I realized I cannot even find parking for myself when I try to volunteer at school or go to school Site Council meetings
I have to drive around the block many times to find a parking that’s quite far. To the point, I don’t volunteer now.

The school is a community and it needs support of the whole village And they cannot run well without the volunteers. Eventually, everyone will suffer.

The recent parking restriction really is unfortunate, and it has caused so much petition and safety concerns.

There has to be something would work better. please work with the school and the parents and the kids and of course, the neighbors to come up with something agreeable.

Humbly yours
Tootoo Thomson
13 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Melissa <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2025 9:21 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Parking around Los Altos High School
Hello,
I am writing to express my concern and disappointment with the no parking ordinance around Los Altos High School.

First, this was decided with no notice to the school community and no opportunity for negotiation or compromise. There was no outreach to the school, only a poorly communicated meeting. This seems deliberate to obfuscate the ordinance from the LAHS community. Then the signs were put up during the winter break, again hiding this from the LAHS community.

Second, it sends a message to the students and school volunteers that they are unwelcome in the neighborhood surrounding their school. And many of the students and volunteers who drive and park around the school are from lower income neighborhoods in Mountain View. They often drive because they have other responsibilities (jobs, caregiving, etc). Unfortunately there is a clear perception that some element of students and volunteers are not welcome in the neighborhood surrounding their school.

Third, I understand that the argument from includes the concept of safety. Was any sort of safety study undertaken? How did the council determine this? Were bicycle and pedestrian safety taken into consideration? Again, this seems discriminatory towards students and volunteers who are driving and parking. Would the council please share the evidence that those who are parking are endangering the safety of the neighborhood(but not those on bicycles or foot)? Generally, this seems to me a statement of how the neighborhood feels about the LAHS community. It’s truly unfortunate that the residents and city council did not take the opportunity to work with the school, volunteers, and students to find a solution and instead chose to build a wall around the neighborhood. A true opportunity to show that the city council wants to encourage community participation was missed.

Thank you for considering an alternative point of view.

Melissa McVicker
432 Baywood Ct, Mountain View, CA 94040
408-582-3117
[email protected]
14 1
Melissa Thurman
From: Eugene Jhong <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 9:17 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Fwd: Parking at 467 Alicia Way during School Hours Hi - I understand this is a difficult issue. My main request is that you implement a resident permit program for the residents if you add parking restrictions or for the current parking restrictions. I’m happy to pay a small fee for the permit.

Thank you
Eugene Jhong - 467 Alicia Way
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Larry Lang <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Feb 17, 2025 at 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: Parking at 467 Alicia Way during School Hours To: Eugene Jhong <[email protected]>
Dear Mr. Jhong,

I’m reaching out because the Los Altos City Council plans to take up the issue of parking around Los Altos High School again during our meeting on Tuesday, February 25. You’ve previously provided thoughtful feedback about this issue, and I wanted to keep you informed.

Information about the meeting itself will be posted here:
https://www.losaltosca.gov/citycouncil/page/city-council-meeting-203 Nothing much there yet, but the agenda will be forthcoming, as will Q&A and public comments.

Speaking of public comments, if you have further thoughts, please share them with the council:
https://www.losaltosca.gov/citycouncil/page/public-comments Advance written comments are particularly useful, because they give us and staff time to research real answers.

15 2
A challenge with the high school parking issue is that it crosses the jurisdictional boundary between the city and the high school district. To bridge that divide, Mayor Dailey and I have arranged a 2x2 meeting with our colleagues serving on the district board. That meeting will take place this Friday afternoon, and of course your participation would be welcome:
https://www.losaltosca.gov/csic/page/mvla-and-los-altos-city-council-2x2-0

My colleagues and I on the city council hold regular office hours, to make ourselves available to residents who have thoughts and ideas to share, on this or other issues. Between now and the meeting next Tuesday, here are the office hours scheduled:

Councilmember Larry Lang
https://www.losaltosca.gov/citycouncil/page/councilmember-larry-langs-office-hours Vice Mayor Neysa Fligor
https://www.losaltosca.gov/citycouncil/page/vice-mayor-neysa-fligors-office-hours-0 Mayor Pete Dailey
https://www.losaltosca.gov/citycouncil/page/mayor-pete-daileys-office-hours-1

I’ll be straight with you. The issue of how best to accommodate parking around the high school involves differing priorities and points of view. No silver bullet answer that delights everyone is going to emerge.

But I’m confident that sharing ideas and listening to each other carefully will yield the best possible outcome for our community. Thank you for investing your thoughtful time and energy in helping us find the best path forward.

Kind regards,
Larry

16 3
Larry Lang
City Councilmember, City of Los Altos
(650) 947-2764 | www.losaltosca.gov
1 N. San Antonio Road, Los Altos, CA 94022

17 From: Mike Emrick
To: Public Comment
Subject: No Parking North of Jardin
Date: Friday, February 21, 2025 8:52:48 AM
Council Members,
I realize that the no parking is a very difficult issue. Some residents would like to see the new parking signs gone and many believe the signs should stay in place.

However, our limited experience with this new parking signage has been very positive. We have noticed that there is a certain calming effect that has occurred. We don’t have the same problems as before with parking, dropping off students, walking and bicyclists, trying to get to the same area on Jardin. Also, I would like to point out that the streets north of Jardin are quite narrow when compared to other streets and this has a big impact on the student safety issue.

We don’t have the same number of students, leaving trash parking in front of mailboxes and blocking driveways. Although it is inconvenient not to park on the street. I’d much rather deal with no parking than the constant dodging of cars. I can even back out of my driveway and we received our mail timely.

As you’re aware in 2019 the citizens of Los Altos passed a bond measure. This included massive improvements to the campus, but no mention of any improvements with respect to the student parking. The cost of the Los Altos High School project is over $100 million. Although many of us attended 2 by 2 meetings and spoke at several district meetings, we have not received any outreach from the district or the superintendent with respect to the citizens being affected most by the student traffic.

We were either misled or they failed to calculate that this would be a future problem. It is hard to believe the school board didn’t know this would be a problem when they reviewed the bond measure. Now, they’re asking us to subsidize the district for the lack of student parking. It’s interesting that when the school ran out of space, they added two story buildings which they never had previously but didn’t come up with a plan to add additional parking. Previously the school’s website specifically directed students to park on the streets north of Jardin, thus unilaterally deciding our streets were their solution to their lack of student parking. I would like to see Los Altos high school and the district come up with a feasible plan for improving the parking situation for the students. I realize that they have limited space, however there are some items that we have brought up before that could improve student parking.

The current construction area (staging area) on Jardin could be utilized for staff parking. Additionally, they should open up the parking to the staff along the softball field. I’ve heard the argument that this would impede students and bicyclists’ safety.

My understanding is that the staff arrives before 8 am (per bell schedule) plenty of time before students arrive and should not impact their safety. This could potentially add 50 to 70 parking spaces and add more student parking in the main parking lot.

The second option is to utilize the space where the portables are being removed and 18 make that into staff parking.

We need the school district to be held accountable for this parking mess! Thank you,
Mike Emrick
437 Los Ninos Way
19 From: Eric Chiu
To: City Council; Jonathan Weinberg; Pete Dailey; Neysa Fligor; Sally Meadows; Public Comment; Larry Lang Subject: Feedback on Parking Restrictions (462 Los Ninos Way) Date: Friday, February 21, 2025 9:50:48 AM
Dear Los Altos City Council,
My name is Eric Chiu and I live at 462 Los Ninos Way. I am writing to provide feedback on the parking issue ahead of next week’s city council meeting.

The new parking signs have really helped with 3 aspects: safety, our residential rights, and nuisance issues.

Safety
When we moved to Los Altos 20 years ago, the high school enrollment was around 1,400 students and it is now 2,400 (a 70% increase) with no end in sight given the demands for high-density housing. In addition, drop off used to only be on Almond Avenue, but now 50% of the students are dropped off on Jardin. This creates a huge safety issue, especially for streets like Los Ninos Way which are direct routes to drop off when cars are parked on both sides of the street and parents/students are racing to get to school. I have been close to being hit multiple times while walking my dog during school drop off hours when I have to walk around the parked cars into traffic while students and parents are rushing to get to school.

The new parking signs have pushed student parking further out and has made the drop off traffic a lot safer since the roads aren’t so narrow with parked cars and hurried drivers. In addition, the parking signs have helped to reduce the “Fast and Furious” students racing down our street hitting 60 mph during lunchtime and after school.

Residential Rights
Before the parking signs, on a regular basis, I would have students block my driveway (sometimes sticking 5-6 feet into my driveway). I have tried calling the Los Altos police department to ticket, but they will only act if we can’t get out of our driveway altogether. In addition, I have had multiple times where students would move our garbage cans onto our lawn so they can park their car which means that my garbage doesn’t get picked up.

Lastly, students regularly block the mailboxes so the postal worker can’t deliver mail.

I believe these are rights that we have as residents (driveway access, garbage pickup and mail delivery) that are regularly impacted by students that want to park closer to school and do not care about the neighborhood they are parking in.

Nuisance
When we moved to Los Altos, we would have 3 or 4 cars park on Los Ninos Way, but that has grown to most of the block as the school has increased its enrollment by 70%. These students leave trash on the ground next to their cars on a regular basis and sometimes 20 park on our lawn/landscaping. We’ve also witnessed students yelling at neighbors that ask them to slow down. All of these issues have gone away with the No Parking signs.

One more thing
Given the size of Los Altos High School, I don’t see many students riding bikes or walking to school as opposed to driving cars. Plus, the students that drive are 95% single drivers and not carpooling with others. The school has grown by 70% with no end in sight given the demands for high density housing. The school needs to help come up with a solution for student parking. This cannot be dumped on the neighborhood to bear the brunt of this growth.

Every person that I know in our neighborhood loves the No Parking signs and we do not want to go back to feeling unsafe on our own streets and having to deal with the chaos and havoc of high school parking that has gotten way out of hand. 21 From: Yura Wang
To: City Council; Jonathan Weinberg; Pete Dailey; Neysa Fligor; Sally Meadows; Public Comment; Larry Lang Subject: Please Don"t Change Parking Restrictions (462 Los Ninos Way) Date: Friday, February 21, 2025 2:41:23 PM
Dear Los Altos City Council,
My name is Yura Wang and I live at 462 Los Ninos Way, Los Altos, CA 94022. I would like to provide feedback on the parking issue surrounding Los Altos High School ahead of next week's City Council meeting.

Please do not change the current parking restrictions that are in place on Los Ninos Way and the surrounding area.

The City Council must lead the community into our new reality. Our new reality is a lot of high density housing has been built and Los Altos High School enrollment has increased by 70% since we moved into our home. This is just the beginning given more high density housing will be built due to bay area housing shortage.

The godfather of parking, UCLA Professor Donald Shoup, has said, “free parking is a fertility drug for cars.” Studies show that more parking results in more driving. We as a community have to change our expectations that parking anywhere is an entitlement and each licensed driver can drive a car to school. Changing the current parking restrictions to provide more parking hours is enabling an outdated mindset, while endangering the people who live near Los Altos High School.

When we moved to Los Altos 20 years ago, the high school enrollment was around 1,400 students and it is now 2,400 (a 70% increase) with no end in sight given more high-density housing will be built. In addition, drop off used to only be on Almond Avenue, but now 50% of the students are dropped off on Jardin. This creates a huge safety issue, especially for streets like Los Ninos Way which are direct routes to drop off when cars are parked on both sides of the street and parents/students are racing to get to school. I have been close to being hit multiple times while walking my dog during school drop off hours when I have to walk around the parked cars into traffic while students and parents are rushing to get to school. My elderly parents live at 507 Los Ninos Way. Before the current parking restrictions were in place, they were afraid to go out for walks because with cars on both sides, the street is so narrow they have to push the wheelchair close to the middle of the street.

In short, Please do not change the current parking restrictions that are in place on Los Ninos Way and the surrounding area. It is working and it is a big step towards solving for our future.

Sincerely,
Yura Wang
650-520-9386
22 From: Maria Bautista
To: City Council; Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment: City Council Meeting Feb 25, 2025 Item # 3 Hillview Dog Park Date: Friday, February 21, 2025 9:49:21 PM
Dear Councilmembers,
Please pull Agenda Item #3 from the Consent Calendar on February 25, 2025 for future consideration as a Discussion item. Item #3 awards a contract for Design Services for the Hillview Dog Park.

Here, the budget for Hillview Dog Park has increased by over $1 million dollars to $2,075,000.00. The published 2024-25 CIP for the Hillview Dog Park is $1,000,002.50. The recent RFP for Hillview Dog Park design services has a project budget estimate of $875,000. Please explain.

The Hillview Dog Park presentation/conceptual plan chosen and approved by City Council on July 9, 2024 is not attached to the July 9, 2024 meeting agenda, and no minutes from the July 9, 2024 City Council Meeting have been posted. The public has no idea what was approved.

The scope of project hints at, but does not detail the reconfiguration of parking that impacts a different location within the Civic Center. No Environmental Impact Report has been completed to determine impacts, including cumulative impacts.

Also, please speak to the deferred submittal of the EOC Standby Emergency Generator and the Fuel System; specifications have not been made public. The immediate adjacency of this system and fuel storage to the Hillview Dog Park should be addressed.

Please clarify details and discuss the Hillview Dog Park project at a future meeting.

Best regards,
Maria Bautista
23 From: Mike Emrick
To: Public Comment
Subject: No Parking North of Jardin
Date: Friday, February 21, 2025 8:52:48 AM
Council Members,
I realize that the no parking is a very difficult issue. Some residents would like to see the new parking signs gone and many believe the signs should stay in place.

The second option is to utilize the space where the portables are being removed and 24 make that into staff parking.

We need the school district to be held accountable for this parking mess! Thank you,
Mike Emrick
437 Los Ninos Way
25 From: Eric Chiu
To: City Council; Jonathan Weinberg; Pete Dailey; Neysa Fligor; Sally Meadows; Public Comment; Larry Lang Subject: Feedback on Parking Restrictions (462 Los Ninos Way) Date: Friday, February 21, 2025 9:50:48 AM
Dear Los Altos City Council,
My name is Eric Chiu and I live at 462 Los Ninos Way. I am writing to provide feedback on the parking issue ahead of next week’s city council meeting.

The new parking signs have really helped with 3 aspects: safety, our residential rights, and nuisance issues.

Lastly, students regularly block the mailboxes so the postal worker can’t deliver mail.

Nuisance
When we moved to Los Altos, we would have 3 or 4 cars park on Los Ninos Way, but that has grown to most of the block as the school has increased its enrollment by 70%. These students leave trash on the ground next to their cars on a regular basis and sometimes 26 park on our lawn/landscaping. We’ve also witnessed students yelling at neighbors that ask them to slow down. All of these issues have gone away with the No Parking signs.

Every person that I know in our neighborhood loves the No Parking signs and we do not want to go back to feeling unsafe on our own streets and having to deal with the chaos and havoc of high school parking that has gotten way out of hand. 27 From: Yura Wang
To: City Council; Jonathan Weinberg; Pete Dailey; Neysa Fligor; Sally Meadows; Public Comment; Larry Lang Subject: Please Don"t Change Parking Restrictions (462 Los Ninos Way) Date: Friday, February 21, 2025 2:41:23 PM
Dear Los Altos City Council,
My name is Yura Wang and I live at 462 Los Ninos Way, Los Altos, CA 94022. I would like to provide feedback on the parking issue surrounding Los Altos High School ahead of next week's City Council meeting.

Please do not change the current parking restrictions that are in place on Los Ninos Way and the surrounding area.

In short, Please do not change the current parking restrictions that are in place on Los Ninos Way and the surrounding area. It is working and it is a big step towards solving for our future.

Sincerely,
Yura Wang
650-520-9386
28 From: Maria Bautista
To: City Council; Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment: City Council Meeting Feb 25, 2025 Item # 3 Hillview Dog Park Date: Friday, February 21, 2025 9:49:21 PM
Dear Councilmembers,
Please pull Agenda Item #3 from the Consent Calendar on February 25, 2025 for future consideration as a Discussion item. Item #3 awards a contract for Design Services for the Hillview Dog Park.

Please clarify details and discuss the Hillview Dog Park project at a future meeting.

Best regards,
Maria Bautista
29 From: Les Poltrack
To: City Council; Public Comment
Subject: Item 6, February 25th Council Meeting - Underground Utilities Date: Saturday, February 22, 2025 10:26:31 AM
Attachments: ResidentialUtilityLinePoleRemoval.pdf
Dear Mayor Dailey, Vice Mayor Fligor and members
of the City Council,
My family and I moved to Los Altos in 1999. I am
writing to address Item 6 on the February 25th
agenda regarding underground utilities.

I am not a fan of overhead utility lines, and support
existing requirements to underground utilities between
the street and new construction. I have built two
single family homes (on the street where I live) and
a small condominium project in Los Altos, where we
eliminated overhead lines and replaced them with
underground lines from the residences to the utility
pole.

Unfortunately, I believe part of what is being
considered in Item 6 on the February 25, agenda is
ill-conceived and unrealistic for residential
construction.

Specifically in the Analysis portion of
"Underground Utilities - Chapter 11.25"
(page 46 of the packet):
"Frontage lines and poles. Existing utility poles
... and lines located along a street abutting the
frontage(s) of a development site seal be removed
and ... replaced underground..."
for new construction and major remodels.

Such a requirement could impose an onerous burden on
neighbors who are not involved in the construction, as
well as turning residential projects into complex
projects requiring coordination with multiple
utilities, neighbors, and General Engineering
contractors.

At the end of this note, I would like to propose a
compromise solution to make street utilities
"Underground Ready", analogous to City electrical
construction requirements in the Reach Codes to make
homes "All-Electric Ready." I believe this deliberate
approach is the best, and least disruptive, way for
neighborhoods to eliminate overhead utility lines in
the long run.
30 Attached is a schematic diagram of a realistic
(not worst case) scenario in which one neighbor
(Homeowner 4) builds a new home or does a major
remodel. Multiple neighbors could be adversely
affected through no fault of their own. Also,
there would need to be extensive street and utility
construction, a project not generally within the
scope of a homeowner or most residential contractors.

In this scenario, Homeowners 3, 5, 7, 8 and 10 are
original owners, with overhead utilities that may
need to be replaced due to a neighbor's construction.

Neighbors 3, 8 and 10 (possibly others) may need to:
* Get a new underground electrical meter panel,
likely requiring new wiring within the homes
- Underground and provide new connections for AT&T
and Comcast services
- Excavate and provide new conduits for all of the
above
- Very expensive and disruptive
Neighbors, Homeowners 2,3,5 will have to:
- Have the right-of-way in front of their homes
excavated for the new utility conduits, possibly
disrupting sewer, water, other underground services
PG&E will have to:
- Provide a new underground vault, and new
transformer at the former location of Pole 2
- Provide a new underground vault and pole riser at
the locations of Pole 1 and Pole 3
- Provide new conduit for both PRIMARY ("high voltage") and secondary (residential voltage) power lines
between (Pole 1 and Pole 2) and(Pole 2 and Pole3)
AT&T will have to:
- Provide new junction boxes at Pole 1, 2, 3
- Provide new conduit and fiber between the poles,
as well as new electronics
Comcast will have to:
- Provide new conduit and lines between the poles,
as well as new electronics
PROPOSAL:
1) Continue to require (new construction / major
remodel) underground utilities on site
2) Make the installation "Street Underground Ready"
31 and require running new underground lines to a "PG&E ready" vault and communications junction boxes at
the location of the Pole. This will enable overhead
line removal, and the pole transformer to be replaced,
when all neighbors are ready.
3) Underground street utilities when all affected
neighbors agree. [The only similar situation of which
I am aware is Palo Alto (which has the advantage of a
municipal utility under City control).] Palo Alto
municipal code states:
"Every resident in a neighborhood must agree to
participate in an underground district for it to be
implemented."
All neighbors will benefit from placing street
utilities underground, and need to be involved.

The details of the above need to be fleshed out, but in my opinion this is the most practical and realistic way to proceed with undergrounding street utilities.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,
Les Poltrack
Doud Drive
Los Altos
32 Pole
1 Pole
2 Pole
3 Homeowner 7
Homeowner 8
Homeowner 9
Homeowner 10
Homeowner 11
Homeowner 12
S
T
R
E
E
T
Homeowner 1
Homeowner 2
Homeowner 3
Homeowner 4
New Construction
500 sq ft, etc.

Homeowner 5
Homeowner 6
Pole
1 Pole
2 Pole
3 X
X
X
X
X
X
33 From: Roberta Phillips
To: Public Comment; City Council
Subject: Feb 25,2025 Study Session Public Comment Complete Streets Commission Date: Saturday, February 22, 2025 1:02:55 PM
Attachments: Final OBAG3 Application - N San Antonio.docx (1).pdf Dear Council
On the Work Plan for the Complete Streets Commission meeting with City Council Item # 3 is the San Antonio Rd Improvements. I ask that this item be removed from the work plan. I have attached the OBAG application below. San Antonio Rd is the main Evacuation Route in the event of a disaster such as a Fire in Los Altos Hills or earthquake. In addition it is the main road for emergency vehicles such as fire trucks and ambulances. The road also has bus and truck traffic along with cars. The OBAG Application aims to put in protected bike lanes by reducing traffic lanes in order to reduce traffic speed. It is extremely unwise to reduce speeds as it will result in longer response times to residents who need emergency vehicles to come to their homes or if they need to be taken to the hospital. This is just common sense.

I have lived on San Antonio Rd for over thirty years and would urge the City to look at other streets for bike lane improvements. San Antonio Rd is not a safe route for bikers and never will be, especially for our children.

This project certainly cannot be achieved in 2025 and the Commission might consider working on goals that are achievable this year.

Thank You
Roberta Phillips
34 One Bay Area Grant (OBAG 3) – County & Local Program Santa Clara County Template Application Form (v1)
Project Information
Project Name: N San Antonio Road Protected Bikeway and Complete Streets Project Project Sponsor: City of Los Altos, CA
Sponsor Single Point
of Contact:

Marisa Lee
650-947-2626
[email protected]
Project Location: N San Antonio Road
Brief Project
Description:

This project consists of protected bikeways along N San Antonio Rd connecting key commercial areas, residential areas, Civic spaces, schools, Community Center, Library, Downtown Los Altos, new high-density housing, Caltrain, and El Camino Real transit lines. This project seeks to create safer, more comfortable streets for all users by implementing complete streets best practices including protected bikeways, better integration between transit and bicycles, enhanced crosswalks, preservation of existing sidewalks, and narrowed vehicle lanes. This corridor is a suggested route to school for two public schools in Los Altos. It is one of the few north-south corridors that traverses the entire city. This project also includes pavement rehabilitation in order to restore and maintain the existing roadway network, as well as streetscape improvements such as streetlights.

Program Eligibility
Federal Fund
Eligibility
Is the project eligible
for federal
transportation funds?
Select the OBAG 3 federal fund source(s) for which the project is eligible:
☒ Surface Transportation Block Grant (STP) Program (See FHWA fact sheet) ☒ Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Program (See FHWA fact sheet)
Note: projects eligible for CMAQ funding must provide inputs for air quality improvement calculations, using templates provided on the OBAG 3 webpage.

Eligible Project Type
Is the project an
eligible project type?
Select the eligible project type(s) (refer to MTC Resolution No. 4505 for detailed eligibility guidelines):

Growth Framework Implementation
☐ PDA Planning Grant
☐ Local Planning Grant (for other Plan
Bay Area 2050 Growth Geographies)
Complete Streets & Community Choice
☒ Bicycle/Pedestrian Infrastructure
☐ Bicycle/Pedestrian Program
☐ Safe Routes to School (SRTS)
Non-Infrastructure program
☒ SRTS Infrastructure
☐ Safety project
☐ Safety Planning efforts
☒ Complete Streets improvements
☒ Streetscape improvements
☒ Local Streets and Roads Preservation
☐ Rural Roadway Improvement
☐ Community-Based Transportation Plan
(CBTP) or Participatory Budgeting (PB)
Process in an Equity Priority
Community (EPC)
☐ CBTP/PB Project Implementation
Climate, Conservation, & Resilience
☐ Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) Program
☐ Mobility Hub
☐ Parking/Curb Management
☐ Car/Bike Share Capital
☐ Open Space Preservation and
Enhancement
☐ Bicycle/Pedestrian Access to Open
Space/Parkland
☐ Regional Advance Mitigation Planning
(RAMP)
Multimodal Systems Operations &
Performance
☐ Transit Capital Improvement
☐ Transit Station Improvement
☐ Transit Transformation Action Plan
Project Implementation
☐ Active Operational Management
☐ Mobility Management and coordination
1 35
One Bay Area Grant (OBAG 3) – County & Local Program
Santa Clara County Template Application Form (v1)
Policy Alignment
Federal Performance
Goals
How does the
project support
federal
performance
measures?
Select the federal performance measures that are supported by the project:
☒ Safety: Significantly reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries for all users on all public roads and improve the safety of all public transportation systems. ☒ Infrastructure Condition: Improve the pavement condition on the Interstate and National Highway System (NHS) and NHS bridges and maintain the condition of public transit assets in a state of good repair.
☐ Congestion Reduction: Significantly reduce congestion on the NHS in urbanized areas. ☐ System Reliability: Improve the reliability of the Interstate system and NHS. ☐ Freight Movement and Economic Vitality: Improve the reliability of the Interstate system for truck travel.
☐ Environmental Sustainability: Maximize emission reductions from CMAQ-funded projects.

Describe how the project supports the selected federal performance measure(s):

Please describe
Plan Bay Area 2050
Strategies
How does the project
align with Plan Bay
Area 2050?
Describe how the project supports Plan Bay Area 2050 Strategies and/or Implementation Plan:

This project supports the following Plan Bay Area 2050 strategies: T1) Restore, operate and maintain the existing system, T8) Build a Complete Streets network and T9) Advance regional Vision Zero policy through street design and reduced speeds.

Complete Streets projects strive to make roads safe and comfortable for all roadway users, of all travel modes. This project will enhance a key corridor in Los Altos to promote walking, biking, and other micro-mobility through the construction of safe, comfortable bikeways and intersections. Because of the specific countermeasures selected for this project, it will also improve the safety of community members, particularly vulnerable users walking or riding bicycles by providing protected bike facilities and more space between travel lanes and sidewalks. The project advances MTC strategies from the Implementation Plan by creating infrastructure towards advancing regional Vision Zero policy through design. Implementing protected bikeways that traverse busy thoroughfares, such as broad avenues, is a proven strategy to reduce cyclist fatalities and encourage more community members to use active modes to access local destinations and transit.

This project maintains the existing corridor along N. San Antonio Road, which currently consists of two vehicle lanes in each direction, a bicycle lane in each direction, and a planted median. This project rehabilitates the pavement along the corridor, which is in need of repair. The route is home to a transit corridor. This project optimizes the route by adding protective buffers and vertical separation to the existing bike lane, while maintaining the other elements. This project would better integrate the bike facility with the transit operations by providing conflict markings and better-designed delineation where the two modes interact. Vehicles are fast-moving on this corridor and although an unprotected bike lane currently exists, it is not utilized to its full potential. The addition of protection for the bike lane is likely to lead to an increase in ridership as this corridor is a major connector between El Camino Real, other adjacent cities, several schools, civic spaces, downtown Los Altos, and Foothill Expressway.

The project contributes to healthy and safe streets. It protects a lane for bicyclists, which would greatly enhance bicycle safety on this corridor. The addition of the vertical element would slow cars by visually narrowing the roadway, and one or both vehicle lanes would be narrowed slightly from the existing width of 11 feet, further reducing vehicle speeds and making the corridor safer for all roadway users. 3 36
One Bay Area Grant (OBAG 3) – County & Local Program
Santa Clara County Template Application Form (v1)
Regional Policy
Alignment
How does the project
align with other
regional policies and
plans?
Select the regional plans and policies with which the project is aligned:
☒ Regional Safety/Vision Zero Policy
☒ MTC’s Equity Platform
☒ Regional Active Transportation Plan
☒ Transit Oriented Communities Policy
☐ Blue Ribbon Transit Transformation
Action Plan
Describe how the project aligns with the selected regional plans and/or policies:

This project aligns with the Regional Safety/Vision Zero Policy, MTC’s Equity Platform, the Regional Active Transportation Plan, and Transit Oriented Communities Policy.

Pedestrian and bicyclist safety and transit access are they key components of this project. The proposed protected bikeways would facilitate access from key neighborhoods and new high-density housing developments to Caltrain stations and transit lines along El Camino Real. The project would also vastly improve connectivity for people walking and biking between important commercial and Civic areas, local businesses, neighborhoods, high-density housing, schools, and workplaces.

This project aligns with the Regional Active Transportation Plan by creating and maintaining a safe environment for people walking, rolling, and bike riding. It provides connections to key destinations and corridors such as El Camino Real, downtown Los Altos, Foothill Expressway, several schools, Los Altos City Hall, Community Center, and Library. It would connect with the protected bike lanes along El Camino Real, approved by City Council earlier this year and planned for construction by Caltrans in Summer 2023.

The project aligns with the Vision Zero Policy by creating a space for biking that enhances safety along a major corridor that connects multiple communities, schools, commercial areas, residential areas, and work places. By installing these improvements, Los Altos is actively using a proven, data-driven approach to reduce fatalities and injuries. This aligns with regional vision zero goals to protect all roadway users, particularly vulnerable users such as children and seniors walking or biking, and to engage and incentivize local jurisdictions in prioritizing safety and aligning funding investments with safety goals. This project is evidence-based and equity-focused in alignment with the Regional Safety/Vision Zero Policy.

This project connects isolated communities with the region through human-scale transportation improvements, a huge part of the equity focus of MTC. The project will provide improved bicycle/pedestrian crossings better connecting to additional bicycle/pedestrian facilities across and along El Camino Real. This project centers the most vulnerable road users with the least mobility autonomy, giving access to low- to medium- income community members who may not be able to drive or afford a vehicle.

It aligns with local planning efforts including the Los Altos Complete Streets Master Plan (CSMP), and ranked #1 priority project for bike improvements in the CSMP. It aligns with Los Altos’ Climate Action Plan as well. The project contributes to the regional planning framework by connecting people to areas that will have future growth in housing, jobs and transit.

This project supports Transit-Oriented Development Policy by creating a viable means of traveling from neighborhoods along the corridor, and from many new housing developments planned or under construction in downtown Los Altos, along N San Antonio Rd to the Caltrain Station (connecting to Mountain View’s green bike lanes along the final short stretch of N San Antonio). It would also provide a safe route for these residents to travel to the transit lines along El Camino Real.

Regional Growth
Geographies
Does the project
support PBA
2050 Growth
Geographies?
Indicate the project’s relationship to Plan Bay Area 2050 Growth Geographies:
4 37
One Bay Area Grant (OBAG 3) – County & Local Program
Santa Clara County Template Application Form (v1)
Priority Development Area (PDA)
☐ Meets the uniform definition of a PDA-supportive project (within one mile or less of a PDA boundary)
☒ Does not meet the uniform definition of a PDA-supportive project, but otherwise has a clear and direct connection to PDA implementation
While this project does not fall in the regional PDA, it does meet those same standards for the City of Los Altos. This is a corridor where the city would like to see increased density and foot traffic, creating a clear network and linking key destinations. This corridor within the city connects retail, residential, downtown, the Community Center, the library, City Hall, restaurants, post office, banks, medical facilities, utilities, schools, gyms, fitness studios, salons, real estate, local markets.

Dense, walkable corridors at the city-scale serve to improve MTC’s broader regional development goals and address the transportation, development, and service issues that have driven this process for the region.
☐ Included in a locally-adopted PDA plan (e.g. Specific Plan, PDA Investment and Growth Strategy)
Locally-adopted PDA plan reference
Transit Rich Area (TRA)
☒ Within a TRA or otherwise supportive of a TRA (see Growth Geographies map) This project corridor is located entirely within the most prominent Growth Geography area in Los Altos, designated a High-Resource Area. It connects the community in the foothills, isolated by the Foothill Expressway with limited crossings, to the transit-rich corridors along El Camino Real and Mountain View with improved bicycle access.

What previously would have been a two-mile drive can be a relatively flat bicycle ride to access local bus routes and regional transportation hubs, like the Mountain View Caltrain stations. This project would provide a last-mile solution for all the neighborhoods along North San Antonio Rd who are trying to access transit on El Camino Real and at the Caltrain stations.

Priority Production Area (PPA)
☐ Supports the preservation of a PPA (see Growth Geographies map) Please describe
Equity Priority
Communities
Does the
project
invest in
historically
underserved
communities?
Indicate how the project invests in historically underserved communities, including Plan Bay Area 2050 Equity Priority Communities (EPCs):
☐ Located within and supportive of an EPC (see Equity Priority Communities map) ☒ Not located within an EPC, but is otherwise supportive of an EPC or other historically underserved community
In Los Altos, much of the workforce does not live in the City. These teachers, artists, retailers, construction workers, medical technicians, food service workers, etc., are still a part of the community. By creating bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure that connects to these broader networks, Los Altos provides access for its workforce commuters, many of whom may not be able to afford a personal vehicle. By opening up transportation opportunities for low- and moderate-income members of the community who travel from all over the Bay Area to participate in the regional economy, Los Altos hopes to give many alternatives to personal vehicle purchases and single-occupancy trips. Additionally, this project serves the public schools in this region of Los Altos, which are attended by elementary and high school students from Mountain View and other Adjacent cities.

Local Housing
Policies
Is the project located in
a jurisdiction with
policies that
support
affordable
housing?
Indicate if the project is locate in a jurisdiction that has adopted policies which support the “3Ps” approach to affordable housing by listing the relevant adopted policies for each element of the 3Ps. Additional guidance and resources on affordable housing policies are provided on the OBAG 3 webpage.
5 38
One Bay Area Grant (OBAG 3) – County & Local Program
Santa Clara County Template Application Form (v1)
☒ Protect current residents from displacement (with emphasis on policies that have demonstrated effectiveness in community stabilization and anti-displacement).

The City of Los Altos follows all State laws regarding protecting residents from displacement. The current Housing Element of the General Plan includes policy on “Preservation, Conservation, Rehabilitation, and New Construction.” The updated/new Housing Element is currently being drafted with extensive community input and is scheduled for adoption in 2023. It provides more up-to-date and thorough policy on the 3 P’s, including but not limited to: policy on the diversity and density of housing types, rezoning for RHNA shortfall, higher density housing in commercial and office districts, new affordable housing units, inclusionary zoning, affordable housing in-lieu fees, funding assistance, and compliance with current State Law.

City of Los Altos Housing Element 2015-2023:
- Program 1.1.2 – Help secure funding for housing assistance programs. - Program 3.1.1 – Support efforts to fund homeless services. - Program 6.1.1 – Discourage senior-only housing from converting to other uses. - Program 6.1.2 – Assist seniors to maintain and rehabilitate their homes. ☒ Preserve existing affordable housing (with emphasis on policies that have demonstrated effectiveness in community stabilization and anti-displacement).

City of Los Altos Housing Element 2015-2023:
- Program 3.2.2 – Recognize the statutory requirements for transitional and supportive housing.
- Program 3.2.3 – Provide incentives and amend the City’s Zoning Ordinance for compliance with statutory requirements for single-room occupancy residences to address the needs of extremely low-income households.
- Program 4.1.1 – Monitor condominium conversion.
- Program 4.1.2 – Conserve small houses in areas of small lot sizes. ☒ Produce new housing at all income levels.

City of Los Altos Housing Element 2015-2023:
- Program 1.2.1 – Support rezoning from office to medium-density multifamily. - Program 2.1.1 – Encourage diversity of housing.
- Program 2.1.2 – Implement multifamily district development standards. - Program 2.2.1 – Provide development incentives for mixed-use projects in commercial districts.
- Program 2.3.1 – Implement density bonuses.
- Program 4.2.1 – Facilitate new construction of second dwelling units. - Program 4.3.1 – Assist in the development of affordable housing. Includes the following actions:
+ Transfer the City’s annual CDBG allocation to the County for projects that serve the Los Altos community.
+ Provide funding to participate in a multi-jurisdictional housing finance program (such as a Mortgage Revenue Bond or Mortgage Credit Certification Program). + Apply for state and federal funding on behalf of a nonprofit, under a specific program to construct affordable housing including persons with physical disabilities or developmental disabilities.
- Program 4.3.4 – Continue to encourage maximum densities. - Program 6.2.1 – Provide senior housing density bonuses and development incentives.

Community Support
6 39
One Bay Area Grant (OBAG 3) – County & Local Program
Santa Clara County Template Application Form (v1)
Community Support
Does the
project have
community support,
particularly if it is
located in a historically
underserved
community?
_________________
___
Indicate if the project has demonstrated community support through one or more of the following:
☒ Public outreach responses specific to this project, including comments received at public meetings or hearings, feedback from community workshops, or survey responses.

This project ranks as the #1 prioritized project in the Complete Streets Master Plan, scheduled for adoption this fall. The 2022 Los Altos Complete Streets Master Plan process included a community survey, interactive map, and conceptual design review. Additionally, there were four Complete Streets Master Plan Task Force meetings, eleven Complete Streets Commission meetings, three City Council Study Sessions, and three community workshops.

Specific to this corridor, the City received many requests and wishes to be able to more safely bike and walk to the destinations along N San Antonio Rd, including the library, community center, and local businesses and restaurants. Some comments from residents included:
"The existing Class II bike lanes north and south on high-speed San Antonio Road are inadequate and discourage bicycle commuting.”
“Need safer biking path to / from Caltrain Station alongside San Antonio Rd.” ☒ Project is consistent with an adopted local transportation plan.

This project ranks as the #1 prioritized bicycle infrastructure project in Los Altos’ Complete Street Master Plan, scheduled for adoption this fall. Prioritization was based on the vision and ranking criteria developed through months of community outreach, stakeholder outreach, and Complete Streets Commission discussion. San Antonio Rd is also called out as a priority corridor for bicycle improvements in the Los Altos Bicycle Transportation Plan, adopted in 2012.

Indicate if the project has demonstrated support from communities disproportionately impacted by past discriminatory practices, including redlining, racial covenants, urban renewal, and highway construction that divided low income and communities of color.

Resources for identifying impacted communities are available on the OBAG 3 webpage.

Community support may be demonstrated through one or more of the following:
☒ Prioritization of the project in a Community Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) or Participatory Budgeting (PB) process, or a local plan that includes the proposed project.

The City of Los Altos utilizes a Pavement Management Program (PMP) to maintain its 112 miles of streets. The Los Altos Complete Streets Master Plan recommends the implementation of miles of bicycle improvements and infrastructure recommendations. This project ranked #1 among hundreds of bicycle improvements.

This project would create a safe route for all residents of the community, including residents, workers, and students, to reach key destinations in Los Altos by bicycle. ☐ Endorsements from a Community-Based Organizations representing historically underserved and potentially impacted communities.

Description of CBO endorsement
Deliverability & Readiness
Project Readiness
Is the project ready to
be delivered?
Describe the readiness of the project, including right-of-way impacts and the type of environmental document/clearance required:

The project is ready to move forward and be delivered. All the improvements will be implemented within the public right-of way, therefore there will not be any right-of-way impacts, and there are no anticipated environmental clearance issues.

If the project touches Caltrans right-of-way, include the status and timeline of the necessary Caltrans approvals and documents, the status and timeline of Caltrans requirements, and approvals such as planning documents (PSR or equivalent) environmental approval, encroachment permit.
7 40
One Bay Area Grant (OBAG 3) – County & Local Program
Santa Clara County Template Application Form (v1)
n/a
Deliverability
Are there any barriers to
on-time delivery?
Describe the project’s timeline and status, as well as the sponsor’s ability to meet the January 31, 2027 obligation deadline:

The City of Los Altos will be able to meet the January 31, 2027 obligation deadline, and it is anticipated that upon design finalization, construction can commence rapidly.

Identify any known risks to the project schedule, and how the CTA and project sponsor will mitigate and respond to those risks:

This project does not anticipate any additional risks, aside from possible COVID or supply chain setbacks that are generally affecting the broader construction industry, and will be working closely with construction contractors and county public health guidance to mitigate that risk. Material and labor sourcing will be included in the timeline, and public health orders will be followed as mandated by the county and state.

Project Cost & Funding
Grant Minimum
Does the project meet
the minimum grant size
requirements?
☒ Project meets the minimum grant size requirements. Projects must be a minimum of $500,000 for counties with a population over 1 million (Alameda, Contra Costa, and Santa Clara counties) and $250,000 for counties with a population under one million (Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Solano, and Sonoma counties).

Exception request to minimum grant size
Local Match
Does the project meet
local match
requirements?
☒ Project sponsor will provide a local match of at least 11.47% of the total project cost.

Los Altos will provide at least a 20% match of the total project cost using a combination of CIP funds, including Annual Bike and Pedestrian Access Improvements, Annual Concrete Repair, Annual ADA Improvements, Annual Street Striping, Annual Transportation Enhancements, and Annual Street Resurfacing.

Additional Criteria
Fix-It First Road
Preservation
Preservation of the local
streets and roads on
federally eligible
arterials and collectors
☐ Project meets the requirements for federal-aid eligible system. Confirmation is required through the Highway Performance Monitoring System and attached to the application prior to award of funds.

Please describe and include location map(s) indicating segment(s).

Project Benefits
What are the merits of
the project beyond
adherence to PBA 2050
policies?
Describe the project’s benefits, such as addressing safety, gap closure or connectivity, VMT reduction, planned housing density with a transportation nexus, transportation to housing and/or jobs.

The Los Altos N. San Antonio Complete Streets project will address safety, gap closure/connectivity, and VMT reduction through the construction of safe, comfortable bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. The N. San Antonio corridor currently represents a significant barrier to safe travel by people walking, biking, or rolling from one end of the City to the other, including to key commercial destinations, residential areas, downtown, the library, the community center, city hall, and countless local businesses, restaurants, and stores. The improvements will create defined space, separating pedestrians and cyclists from motor vehicle traffic, eliminating conflicts due to speed differentials, and reducing chances of vulnerable road users being hit. This corridor will be safer for these vulnerable roadways users and will provide a connection where a gap currently exists. Additionally, because these improvements are specifically engineered for people walking or riding bicycles, this creates a new connection currently viewed by the public as not safe for people biking. This new connection could further incentivize travel and time spent without a personal vehicle. The area along the N. San Antonio corridor is currently seeing an influx of high-density housing development, and residents in these new developments may create additional demand for the car-free lifestyle that is convenient and attractive when living near downtown and along a corridor that is well-designed for bike and transit use. 8 41
One Bay Area Grant (OBAG 3) – County & Local Program
Santa Clara County Template Application Form (v1)
The narrowing of existing vehicle lanes along N. San Antonio is also designed to reduce the speed of motor vehicles in the project area. This project will reduce the frequency and potential severity of injury collisions within the project area by reducing speeding.

The effect of reducing vehicle lane widths from 12+ feet wide to 10 feet can reduce vehicle speeds by 6.6 mph (FHWA-SA-07-011, 2007).

The Complete Streets project will also reduce congestion, as these improvements will likely increase the number of people walking and biking along this corridor between neighborhoods, commercial destinations, transit stops, and civic spaces. More families walking and rolling will reduce the amount of car traffic, thereby reducing related congestion on collectors, arterials, and local streets.

Finally, this project will facilitate Los Altos community members and residents to be more sustainable by making different transportation modes more appealing, which plays a significant role in reducing congestion and encouraging walking/biking. All of these will reduce measured pollutants, including PM2.5, PM10, CO, VOC, and NOx, most notably those associated with on-road mobile source emissions.

Program Category(ies) Sponsors: please indicate in which program category(ies) you are applying. □ Fix-it-First ⌧ Complete Streets ⌧ Safe Routes to School □ Planning 9 42
One Bay Area Grant (OBAG 3) – County & Local Program
Santa Clara County Template Application Form (v1)
Project Cost & Funding
OBAG 3 Grant Request:

Total Grant Request $ 7,298,096
Project Cost & Schedule:

Project Phases Total Cost
Secured Funds Unsecured Funds Schedule
(Start dates: Planned,
Actual)
Amount Fund Sources
OBAG 3 Grant
Request
Remaining Funding
Needed
Planning/
Conceptual
$0 $0 Secured fund sources, notes $ $ Month/Year
Environmental
Studies (PA&ED)
$0 $0 Secured fund sources, notes $ $ September 2022
Design
Engineering
(PS&E)
$ 1,403,480 $280,696 Local City Funds $1,122,784 $ March 2023 Right-of-way $0 $0 Secured fund sources, notes $ $ Month/Year Construction $7,719,140 $1,543,828 Local City Funds $6,175,312 $ July 2024 Total $9,122,620 $1,824,524 $7,298,096 $
Project Investment by Mode:

Mode
Share of project
investment
Auto 35%
Transit 15%
Bicycle/Pedestrian 50%
Other %
Total 100%
10 43
From: Helen Wang
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public comment regarding parking enforcement on Panchita Way Date: Saturday, February 22, 2025 5:15:52 PM
Dear City Council,
I wanted to provide a public comment regarding the parking situation on Panchita Way specifically.

The sign posts have been very effective at keeping the streets much more clear.

In fact, I am hoping the parking restrictions can be extended from 8am to 12pm on weekdays to 8am to 5pm. The reason for this is that LAHS has sporting events often, specifically during baseball seasons that creates a significant amount of afternoon congestion and at times, litter in our yards. In the afternoons, it seems there is ample parking at LAHS, but parking on Panchita is preferred due to proximity to the fields.

I know it could have a significant fiscal impact to enforce a permit plan, however it sounds like it is doable via the police department. In light of this, I would appreciate this being considered again.

Thank you for hearing my thoughts on this matter and for your hard work.

Best,
Helen Wang
h
44 From: Jessica Shambora
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - AGENDA ITEM 7 - Tuesday, February 25, 2025 Date: Saturday, February 22, 2025 10:48:32 PM
Hello, I live at the corner of Alvarado Ave and Distel Dr and I wrote to the city several weeks ago to say that the new "no parking" signs have resulted in multiple cars parked in front of our home daily during the morning hours. This is especially dangerous because my husband and I drive our sons to separate schools in the morning and our visibility when backing out of our driveway is significantly impaired by the parked cars. Given that we live on the designated route to several local schools, many bicyclists ride down our street in the morning and we often can't see them as they approach our driveway because of the parked cars. I've attached a photo for reference taken on Wednesday Feb 5 at 8:30am. Our driveway is to the left of the black car in the photo (which has a sign identifying it as a cleaning service).

I have reviewed the agenda for the meeting on Tuesday 2/25 and I see the proposal to modify the no parking restrictions on Distel Drive etc. to 2-hour parking from 8:00 am to 12:00 pm, Monday through Friday. This sounds like a reasonable adjustment but it's unclear if it will resolve the situation in front of our home since it seems to be mostly contractors and vendors for homes on Distel Drive who may not want to move their cars during day. Will they be able to re-park on the same street again after two hours as long as they move to a different spot? How will this be explained?
Thank you
Jessica Shambora
45 46
From: Ameeta Mukherjee
To: Ameeta Mukherjee
Subject: Parking Issue around LAHS
Date: Monday, February 24, 2025 9:00:53 AM
Hi,
I am writing to express my support of the restricted parking signs around LAHS. As a resident of this neighborhood for over 20 years and a parent of two children that have gone through the system (one is still in LAHS), I have observed the negative impact of student parking on the streets.

Parents and students driving and parking are creating chaos at Jardin and the cross streets (Panchita, Los Ninos, Distel and Casita). It is an unsafe environment for the students who are walking and biking to school. I have witnessed on a daily basis, cars rushing through, honking, and creating unnecessary stress. Many of these drivers have narrowly missed hitting a pedestrian. Moreover, when myself and others have called out to this poor behavior, the students' attitudes are of entitlement and do not bother moving their vehicles which are blocking driveways and mailboxes.

I do believe there are methods to help our school be more green and sustainable. Here are some of my suggestions:

Carpool - this is not a novel idea, but I am certain kids in the same area are all driving their separate cars to school and home. Why not incentivize ride shares like corporations do? Perhaps allow students who carpool to get parking spots instead of Seniors and Juniors who can drive.

Pedestrians and BIkers get special privileges for not clogging the streets with cars Utilize all these empty church parking lots for school parking and have kids bike or walk. It's a 12 min walk or 5 min bike from the Lutheran Church on Jordan (I know because I do this daily walking my dog)
Use some of the baseball field for parking rather than taking up tennis court real estate.

Tennis is played year round while baseball is seasonal and the majority of the year, the field sits empty. It's bad enough that the courts have been used as a dumping ground for construction for the entirety of my children's years at LAHS (and they are both tennis players).

Many schools have managed to run a smooth system for students to get back and forth to school. As a premier school in the heart of Silicon Valley, it is high time LAHS set itself as an example.
47 From: Gaurav Jain
To: Public Comment
Subject: City Council Meeting Public Comments - Parking Restrictions around Los Altos High School Date: Monday, February 24, 2025 10:57:45 AM
Dear City Officials,
I am writing in regards to the recently implemented parking restrictions around Los Altos High School. Specifically, I am asking the city to consider an approach of giving resident passes, leading to simpler enforcement as well as allowing flexibility to residents.

While I understand the need to address parking and traffic congestion, the current restrictions have created significant challenges for residents. For example, I recently received a citation for briefly parking in front of my home while unloading an item. Due to an ongoing renovation, I had no other option at the time but to park in front of my home. My contractor also received a ticket during a brief site visit. These restrictions place an undue burden on residents, hindering our ability to carry out daily activities.

While I appreciate the updated proposal's attempt to address these concerns by adding 2-hour parking zones. However, this solution seems problematic for the following reasons:
1) Enforcing the 2-hour limit requires significant resources either from the Police Department or another enforcement agency. This adds unnecessary cost and complication. 2) The proposal unfairly treats residents closer to the school, whereby they continue to face issues that we currently face.
3) The proposal leaves room for city staff to add further 2-hour restrictions wherever necessary which might lead to a cat and mouse game, leading to more confusion and hassle for residents.

During the initial presentation to the Complete Streets Commission, residents voiced the hassle the restrictions would place on residents. A resident proposed a solution of providing resident passes. This would simplify enforcement and provide residents with the flexibility to manage occasional parking needs for their visitors and service providers without having to worry about receiving a ticket. I believe this would be the most effective solution that addresses residents' needs.

I understand the complexity of this issue and appreciate your efforts. However, I respectfully request that you consider voiding and refunding all parking citations issued during this period.

This would demonstrate the city's commitment to addressing residents' concerns and help restore public trust.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Gaurav Jain
48 From: Lynn Kostow
To: Public Comment; [email protected]; City Council; [email protected] Cc: Michael Kostow; Lynn Kostow
Subject: Ongoing Concerns and Proposed Solutions for LAHS Parking Date: Monday, February 24, 2025 11:52:42 AM
Dear City Council Members, MVLA Trustees, and Superintendent Volta, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express ongoing concerns about the parking issues surrounding Los Altos High School, particularly as they impact our neighborhood. These challenges have persisted for years, and it is becoming increasingly urgent to find concrete solutions as the safely for all involved is paramount.

We believe it is essential to continue advocating for meaningful actions from Los Altos High School to address this issue. In addition to previous suggestions, which are included below for your reference, I would like to propose the following recommendations to help alleviate the parking situation and improve safety around the school:

1.Reevaluation of Student Parking Needs: The LAHS
Eagle Talon article published on February 14th states there are 316 parking spaces on campus. Given the current class size and the fact that not every eligible student driver requires a parking space every day, it’s important to establish a realistic target for the number of spaces needed. According to a 2022 Walk Audit by LAHS' Green Team, 50% of students are either driving or being dropped off. Of that group, only seniors and some juniors are even eligible to drive, and many of them either don’t drive every day or get rides instead.

By factoring in these realities, we can come to a more reasonable estimate for the number of students who drive to school. A targeted, research-backed approach will help guide future parking plans for those students who truly need parking spaces.

Furthermore, the area where the portable classrooms currently stand could be converted into student parking once those structures are removed after construction is completed.There are also some offcampus parking ideas listed below that could help provide further relief to the overcrowding and dangerous scenarios on residential streets.

3.Consideration of Residential Impact: It is important to recognize that many residents, including myself, did not anticipate 49 the influx of student parking when we moved to the neighborhood.

Most have lived here for 20+ years, and when we purchased our homes, there was no student parking on our street. While we understand the need for student parking, the resulting safety concerns—such as reckless driving, blocked driveways, and property damage—have become unacceptable. The argument that residents should have "expected" this parking situation is unreasonable and dismissive of the challenges our community is facing. It is essential that the well-being and safety of the neighborhood are prioritized, and we believe that further planning and thoughtful action are needed.

I trust that these suggestions will be carefully considered as part of the ongoing discussions about LAHS parking. Thank you for your attention to this important issue. I look forward to your response and am happy to provide any further details or clarification as needed.

Sincerely,
Lynn and Mike Kostow
271 Valencia Drive, Los Altos
[email protected] / [email protected]
50 From: Michelle Le
To: City Council; [email protected]; Public Comment; [email protected] Subject: Ongoing Concerns and Proposed Solutions for LAHS Parking Date: Monday, February 24, 2025 12:15:45 PM
Dear City Council Members, MVLA Trustees, and Superintendent Volta, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express ongoing concerns about the parking issues surrounding Los Altos High School, particularly as they impact our neighborhood. These challenges have persisted for years, and it is becoming increasingly urgent to find concrete solutions as the safely for all involved is paramount.

1. Reevaluation of Student Parking Needs: The LAHS Eagle Talon article published on February 14th states there are 316 parking spaces on campus. Given the current class size and the fact that not every eligible student driver requires a parking space every day, it’s important to establish a realistic target for the number of spaces needed. According to a 2022 Walk Audit by LAHS' Green Team, 50% of students are either driving or being dropped off. Of that group, only seniors and some juniors are even eligible to drive, and many of them either don’t drive every day or get rides instead. By factoring in these realities, we can come to a more reasonable estimate for the number of students who drive to school. A targeted, research-backed approach will help guide future parking plans for those students who truly need parking spaces.

2. Expansion of Parking Areas: As construction nears completion, some parking spaces will become available, but additional planning is needed. I suggest exploring the possibility of adding more parking along the east side of the campus, on the road that parallels Alicia Way. And the area used currently for construction staging by the tennis courts could be utilized. Furthermore, the area where the portable classrooms currently stand could be converted into student parking once those structures are removed after construction is completed.There are also some off-campus parking ideas listed below that could help provide further relief to the overcrowding and dangerous scenarios on residential streets.

3. Consideration of Residential Impact: It is important to recognize that many residents, including myself, did not anticipate the influx of student parking when we moved to the neighborhood. Most have lived here for 20+ years, and when we purchased our homes, there was no student parking on our street. While we understand the need for student parking, the resulting 51 safety concerns—such as reckless driving, blocked driveways, and property damage—have become unacceptable. The argument that residents should have "expected" this parking situation is unreasonable and dismissive of the challenges our community is facing. It is essential that the well-being and safety of the neighborhood are prioritized, and we believe that further planning and thoughtful action are needed.

I trust that these suggestions will be carefully considered as part of the ongoing discussions about LAHS parking. Thank you for your attention to this important issue.

I look forward to your response and am happy to provide any further details or clarification as needed.

Sincerely,
Michelle Le
230 Chateau Drive
Los Altos, CA 94022
52 From: Tamara Fagin
To: Public Comment; City Council
Subject: Re: Support for Restricted Parking Around Los Altos High School & Thank You Date: Monday, February 24, 2025 1:00:26 PM
Dear Mayor Dailey and Los Altos City Council Members,
I'm writing to express my *continued* support for restricted parking around Los Altos High School.

For me, safety is our community's number one priority.

The area immediately around the high school feels dramatically safer and the traffic is calmer since the implementation of these parking restrictions. This is extremely important given the many drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians that must share the limited, narrow streets before and after school.

To address resident complaints regarding the parking restrictions, I would encourage you to please consider a residential permit parking solution.

I also think that a joint Los Altos City Council/MVLA town hall on Los Altos High School campus on the parking issue would be beneficial. It seems that the students have leadership groups, the Green Team, etc. who might have many good ideas on how to reduce student car trips to the school and how to create a fairer, more equitable student permit allocation system (perhaps students who live the farthest from campus and/or in areas with limited public transportation options have better shot in the lottery). It would be wonderful if Los Altos police could also attend and if there were some way to relay basic parking and safety etiquette to the students.

Thanks!
Tamara
On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 4:09 PM Tamara Fagin <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mayor Dailey and Los Altos City Council Members,
I am writing to express my support for the restricted parking signs around Los Altos High School.

My family and I have lived on Alicia Way adjacent to Los Altos High School for over 20 years. When our kids were in elementary school, we walked, biked or scooted to school every day. Our street is in fact designated a “Safe Route to School,” with many children - with and without their parents - biking to Almond School, Bullis Charter School and Egan Junior High School.

Restricting parking around heavily used streets, such as Alicia Way, near the high school is important for visibility and the safety of pedestrians and cyclists.

Thank you for the new restricted parking signs that were recently installed on the Jardin Street side of the high school. It feels much safer and less chaotic with less cars parked 53 in the block closest to the tennis courts.

Thanks,
Tamara Fagin
Los Altos Resident
54 From: Peter, Theodore
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT - AGENDA ITEM 7 - 02/25/25 MEETING Date: Monday, February 24, 2025 1:09:45 PM
Dear Los Altos City Council,
The parking restrictions around Los Altos High School have made traffic conditions on streets surrounding the school more dangerous. This public safety issue impacts every single LAHS student and staff member, whether they bike, walk, or drive to school. Here are some photos and videos that depict the extreme congestion and safety concerns that LAHS students and staff experience daily:

Photo: Merritt Rd, January 29th, 11:14 a.m.

Photo: Angela Dr, February 5th, 12:56 p.m.

Students are now parking on other streets with no restrictions, including Merritt and Angela, which are completely parked up every day. The parking restrictions only move parked cars to other streets, but have not created a more even or equitable distribution of parked cars throughout the neighborhood surrounding the school.

Photo: Jardin Dr & Los Ninos Way intersection, January 10th, 3:06 p.m.

Jardin Drive is now significantly more congested. Cars are stopped in the eastbound bike lane and in the middle of the street, trapping cars in parking spaces. With no space to turn, cars are stopped at irregular angles, making the traffic jam worse. Several students walk through the traffic jam.

Photo: Jardin Dr, February 5th, 3:05 p.m.

The entire length of the eastbound bike lane on Jardin is filled with idling cars waiting to pick up students.

Many of these cars arrive before school ends and wait in the bike lane for 10, 15, 20 minutes or even longer. Students who parked in the parking spots near the curb now cannot leave because their cars are trapped.

Photo: Jardin Dr & Casita Way intersection, February 6th, 8:23 a.m.

Some students park farther from campus now due to the parking restrictions, so there are more pedestrians on the streets now compared to before the restrictions. The buildup of cars near intersections like Casita & Jardin reaches the edge of the road, and since there are no sidewalks on Casita (or Panchita, Los Ninos, Distel), pedestrians are forced to weave through traffic jams and into the middle of the street, as shown in the photo. These traffic jams also force me into the middle of the road while I’m biking to school, and I often have to avoid pedestrians while we are both in the opposite lane facing oncoming traffic.

Video: Casita Way, January 31st, 8:23 a.m.

Because of traffic on Jardin, cars must wait to turn from Casita onto Jardin, and other cars stop in the middle of the road on Casita to drop off students (0:02). This creates a buildup of cars which takes up the entire right half of Casita near the Jardin intersection. While biking to school on Casita, I can’t get around this buildup of cars, so I have to move to the left side of the road (0:06), where I have to avoid oncoming traffic turning from Jardin (0:12, 0:17) and a student walking (0:13). Similar situations occur at the Panchita-Jardin, Los Ninos-Jardin, and Distel-Jardin intersections as well.

Video: Jardin Dr, February 4th, 8:25 a.m.

While biking to school in the eastbound bike lane on Jardin, a car pulls into the bike lane in front of me (0:02) and stops, while another car turns into the lane of traffic and slows down significantly (0:08). A student walks across the road (0:09). I have to move into traffic to avoid the first car and wait behind the second car until it pulls into the bike lane (0:18) and I can pass.

Video: Jardin Dr, February 5th, 8:24 a.m.

The next day, I was biking in the bike lane on Jardin again, when a car stopped in the lane of traffic (0:03), causing the car behind it to also stop. Up ahead, a car pulls out from the bike lane into the lane of traffic (0:09), but another car in front of it stops in the lane of traffic to drop off a student (0:14), and I have to come to a complete stop to wait for both cars to move. Once the cars move, I move into the lane of 55 traffic to get around two cars in the bike lane. Near the Casita intersection, a truck pulls out of a parking space, across the bike lane, and into traffic (0:42), worsening the buildup of cars at the Casita intersection, and I have to wait for it to clear up to get on campus.

During the fall, traffic around the school was much easier for bikers to navigate, but now, I have to bike through extreme congestion and unsafe situations daily. Safety should be the city’s top priority regarding the parking issues around the school, and I hope you can find a way to mitigate the public safety issues exacerbated by the current parking restrictions.

Thank you for your time,
Theodore Peter
Los Altos Resident and Los Altos High School Student
56 From: Lisa Bourgeault
To: Public Comment
Subject: new parking restrictions north of Jardin at LAHS Date: Monday, February 24, 2025 1:18:02 PM
I have several questions, one pressing request, and a great solution regarding this issue.

First, the request: please immediately provide a parking permit program for residents of the affected streets. This should not require a months-long feasibility study and implementation plan.

Next, the questions:
1) What is the data that shows that there were safety issues caused by the street parking near the school? How many accidents--cars/bikes/pedestrians--have happened in the last 10-20 years behind the high school? What were the causes of those (if there were any)? Did it have anything to do with parking? If so, how?
2) If students parking in front of mailboxes is a problem, why not make an ordinance that there may not be parking in front of mailboxes? If there were an ordinance like that (there isn't one in Los Altos), aggressive ticketing would end that problem quickly. 3) Is it illegal to park in a manner that blocks a driveway? If so, let's educate students and residents about what that means and then give tickets when appropriate and respond firmly to those residents who think there needs to be a wide open road in order to back out.

Finally, I recognize that parking at the high school is a contentious issue because there are no perfect solutions to the imbalance in supply and demand. I also appreciate that the Council is trying to respond to residents' concerns. I believe that all sides are trotting out concepts of safety and concern to cover up the fact that we are all talking about convenience. The students would like to park close to school without arriving early. The people who bought houses close to the high school would like to have no students parking near their houses. And the people who bought houses down the street from the ones that are close to the high school would like to be able to park on the street.

Here's the solution:
1) If it's not already, make it illegal to park in front of driveways. Remind homeowners that no one needs 5 or 10 feet clearance on either side of their driveway in order to back out. 2) Make it illegal to park in front of mailboxes.
3) Try ticketing those two types of infractions aggressively for a while, and then repeat at the beginning of each school year.
4) See if that solves the problem well enough for everyone. 5) If not, work out a restriction/permit system for the residents and students that allows everyone to have a fair shot at using our public streets for appropriate public uses.

Sincerely,
Lisa Bourgeault
57 From: Juno Szalay
To: City Council; Public Comment; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Ongoing Concerns and Proposed Solutions for LAHS Parking Date: Monday, February 24, 2025 1:45:35 PM
Dear City Council Members, MVLA Trustees, Superintendent Volta, Principal Runeare, and Mr Miyahara,
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express ongoing concerns about the parking issues surrounding Los Altos High School, particularly as they impact our neighborhood. These challenges have persisted for years, and it is becoming increasingly urgent to find concrete solutions as the safely for all involved is paramount.

1. Reevaluation of Student Parking Needs: The LAHS Eagle Talon article published on February 14th states there are 316 parking spaces on campus.

Given the current class size and the fact that not every eligible student driver requires a parking space every day, it’s important to establish a realistic target for the number of spaces needed. According to a 2022 Walk Audit by LAHS' Green Team, 50% of students are either driving or being dropped off. Of that group, only seniors and some juniors are even eligible to drive, and many of them either don’t drive every day or get rides instead. By factoring in these realities, we can come to a more reasonable estimate for the number of students who drive to school. A targeted, research-backed approach will help guide future parking plans for those students who truly need parking spaces.

3. Consideration of Residential Impact: It is important to recognize that many residents, including myself, did not anticipate the influx of student parking when we moved to the neighborhood. Most have lived here for 20+ years, and when we purchased our homes, there was no student parking on our street. While we understand the need for student parking, the resulting safety concerns—such as reckless driving, blocked driveways, and property damage—have become unacceptable. The argument that residents should have "expected" this parking situation is unreasonable and dismissive of the challenges our community is 58 facing. It is essential that the well-being and safety of the neighborhood are prioritized, and we believe that further planning and thoughtful action are needed.

I trust that these suggestions will be carefully considered as part of the ongoing discussions about LAHS parking. Thank you for your attention to this important issue.

I look forward to your response and am happy to provide any further details or clarification as needed.

Sincerely,
Juno Szalay
201 Alicia Way
Los Altos
[email protected]
650-796-9165
Subject: Traffic and Parking Safety Concerns Near Los Altos High School Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to follow up on the ongoing parking and traffic issues around Los Altos High School, which have raised significant safety concerns for residents in the surrounding neighborhoods. As a neighbor, I have witnessed firsthand the traffic violations and congestion that continue to pose a danger to pedestrians, particularly students, and local residents.

While I understand the complexities of this issue, it is clear that the current situation is unsustainable. The burden of managing parking and traffic should not fall solely on the surrounding neighborhoods. It is critical that the city and the school work together to find a long-term solution that prioritizes safety and accessibility.

I would like to suggest a few measures that could help alleviate these concerns:

1. Designate Residential Permit Areas: Introducing residential parking permits would help reduce the impact of school-related parking on local streets. This would ensure that residents can park safely near their homes without the added burden of non-residential parking.

2. Create Additional Parking Options: I encourage the city to explore the possibility of utilizing nearby facilities, such as the Hillview Community Center, as additional parking for students. A partnership with the city could provide a shuttle service to and from the high school, easing traffic congestion around the campus.

3. Rework Traffic Flow Around the School: Consider adjusting the roads near the high school to improve traffic flow. For example, making the road between Alicia and the high school one-way and adding parking on one side could reduce congestion and provide safer drop-off and pick-up options for parents.

4. Enforce Parking Restrictions Based on Resident Complaints: I suggest that parking restrictions be enforced only when a resident files a formal complaint, ensuring that the measures are applied fairly and efficiently without imposing unnecessary burdens on those not directly affected.
59 Students continue to park their vehicles in the red zones at the corners, block fire hydrants, and obstruct mailbox and walkways.

I also wanted to address concerns about restricting parking only in the immediate vicinity of the high school. Several people have pointed out that this only pushes the problem further out. However, the primary reason for restricting parking near the school is to improve safety and efficiency during pick-up and drop-off times.

That process is already chaotic - adding student parking to the mix further complicates it, blocking areas where parents need to pull over and leading to students rushing to secure spots. By relocating student parking farther away, we can help reduce congestion in this critical zone.

Additionally, on Wednesdays, students biking to Egan frequently ride down Alicia Way. With parked cars, parents stopping in the middle of the road to drop off students, car doors suddenly opening, and bikes speeding past, the current situation creates a serious safety hazard. Addressing the parking situation significantly reduce the risks in this area.

Parking restrictions combined with these suggested changes would help improve safety and quality of life for everyone in the neighborhood while ensuring that Los Altos High School continues to thrive as an educational institution.

I remain hopeful that Los Altos High School will take responsibility and work towards a permanent solution to this issue. In the meantime, we must continue to advocate for measures that protect the safety and well-being of our community.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to hearing from you and working together on a resolution.

Sincerely,
Local Resident - Juno Szalay
Juno Szalay
[email protected]
(650) 796-9165
60 From: Sundeep Vig
To: City Council; Public Comment; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Ongoing Concerns and Proposed Solutions for LAHS Parking Date: Monday, February 24, 2025 2:04:29 PM
Dear City Council Members, MVLA Trustees, and Superintendent Volta, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to express ongoing concerns about the parking issues surrounding Los Altos High School, particularly as they impact our neighborhood. These challenges have persisted for years, and it is becoming increasingly urgent to find concrete solutions as the safely for all involved is paramount.

In addition to the points below, I believe that adding parking will create additional hazards for the parents who use Alicia Way as a dropoff and pickup point for their kids. Adding parking here would reduce the space available for this and lead to hazardous conditions for kids walking and getting dropped off.

We are creating a hazardous situation for the kids, parents and the community by adding parking on Alicia Way. 25 additional parking spots is just not worth the risk and pain you will inflict. Encourage greener and safer transportation rather than kids driving themself to school!
We believe it is essential to continue advocating for meaningful actions from Los Altos High School to address this issue. In addition to previous suggestions, which are included below for your reference, I would like to propose the following recommendations to help alleviate the parking situation and improve safety around the school:

1. Reevaluation of Student Parking Needs: The LAHS Eagle Talon article published on February 14th states there are 316 parking spaces on campus. Given the current class size and the fact that not every eligible student driver requires a parking space every day, it’s important to establish a realistic target for the number of spaces needed. According to a 2022 Walk Audit by LAHS' Green Team, 50% of students are either driving or being dropped off. Of that group, only seniors and some juniors are even eligible to drive, and many of them either don’t drive every day or get rides instead. By factoring in these realities, we can come to a more reasonable estimate for the number of students who drive to school. A targeted, research-backed approach will help guide future parking plans for those students who truly need parking spaces.

2. Expansion of Parking Areas: As construction nears completion, some parking spaces will become available, but additional planning is needed. I suggest exploring the possibility of adding more parking along the east side of the campus, on the road that parallels Alicia Way. And the area used currently for construction staging by the tennis courts could be utilized. Furthermore, the area where the portable classrooms currently stand could be converted into 61 student parking once those structures are removed after construction is completed.There are also some off-campus parking ideas listed below that could help provide further relief to the overcrowding and dangerous scenarios on residential streets.

3. Consideration of Residential Impact: It is important to recognize that many residents, including myself, did not anticipate the influx of student parking when we moved to the neighborhood. Most have lived here for 20+ years, and when we purchased our homes, there was no student parking on our street. While we understand the need for student parking, the resulting safety concerns—such as reckless driving, blocked driveways, and property damage—have become unacceptable. The argument that residents should have "expected" this parking situation is unreasonable and dismissive of the challenges our community is facing. It is essential that the well-being and safety of the neighborhood are prioritized, and we believe that further planning and thoughtful action are needed.

I trust that these suggestions will be carefully considered as part of the ongoing discussions about LAHS parking. Thank you for your attention to this important issue.

I look forward to your response and am happy to provide any further details or clarification as needed.

Sincerely,
Purnima Vig and Sundeep Vig
245 Alicia Way
408.394.1601
62 CITY OF LOS ALTOS

CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2025
6:00 p.m.
1 N. San Antonio Rd. ~ Los Altos, CA
Pete Dailey, Mayor
Neysa Fligor, Vice Mayor
Larry Lang, Councilmember
Sally Meadows, Councilmember
Jonathan D. Weinberg, Councilmember

SPECIAL MEETING
CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Pete Dailey, Mayor, called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m.

ESTABLISH QUORUM: All Councilmembers were present.

STUDY SESSION

1. The City Council will meet with the following Commissions to discuss 2025 Commission work plans:
-Environmental Commission
-Library Commission
-Historical Commission
There were no public speakers during this item.

Discussion item only. No motion taken.

ADJOURNMENT – The meeting adjourned at 7:02 p.m.

The meeting minutes were prepared by Melissa Thurman, City Clerk, for approval at the regular meeting of February 25, 2025.
_____________________________________ __________________________________ Pete Dailey Melissa Thurman, MMC
Mayor City Clerk
The February 11, 2025 City Council Special Meeting recording may be viewed via the following external website: https://www.youtube.com/@CityofLosAltosCA The City of Los Altos does not own or operate YouTube. The video referenced on these minutes were live at the time the minutes were published.
63 Agenda Item # 1.

CITY OF LOS ALTOS

CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2025
7:00 p.m.
1 N. San Antonio Rd. ~ Los Altos, CA
Pete Dailey, Mayor
Neysa Fligor, Vice Mayor
Larry Lang, Councilmember
Sally Meadows, Councilmember
Jonathan D. Weinberg, Councilmember
CALL MEETING TO ORDER – Pete Dailey, Mayor, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

ESTABLISH QUORUM – All Councilmember were present.

PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG – Pete Dailey, Mayor, led the Pledge of Allegiance.

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
No reportable action was taken during the Closed Session meeting of February 11, 2025, at 5:00 p.m.

CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
Sally Meadows, Councilmember, requested that the Mayor conduct a 9:00 p.m. check-in regarding the status of pending agenda items.

Motion by Dailey Second by Lang to move Number 7 as the first order of business, following the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

There were no changes to the order of the agenda.

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

CONSENT CALENDAR
The following member of the public spoke regarding an item on the Consent Calendar:
 Maria Bautista (Item 4)
Motion by Weinberg and Second by Meadows to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

1. Approval of Meeting Minutes
Approve the Draft Regular Meeting Minutes of January 28, 2025 64 Agenda Item # 1.

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 11, 2025

Page 2 of 5 ends

2. Downtown Parking Strategy
Adopt a Resolution approving the Downtown Parking Strategy and find the project exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

3. Weed Abatement Final Reports
Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Los Altos instructing the Santa Clara County Consumer and Environmental Protection Agency to abate nuisances arising out of hazardous vegetation growing on property in the City of Los Altos as required by Chapter 11.10 of the Los Altos Municipal Code and find that this action is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15301(h) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines

4. Adoption of Resolution - Easement for Public Utilities Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to grant an easement to Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) for public utilities associated with the City Hall expansion project located at 1 North San Antonio Road, APN 170-42-029

5. Approval of License Agreement
Approve the license agreement with New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC for the construction and placement of an 80-foot-tall wireless telecommunications facility (monopine) and associated equipment

DISCUSSION ITEMS

7. PARC Commissioner Attendance
Discuss and take possible action on the attendance record and appointment of Parks, Arts, Recreation & Cultural Commissioner Yong Yeh
The City Council discussed the item.

The following members of the public spoke regarding the item:
 Teresa Morris
 Janet Corrigan
 Yong Yeh
Motion by Meadows and Second by Lang to remove Yong Yeh from the position of Commissioner for the Parks, Arts, Recreation & Cultural Commission. Motion carried 4-1 by roll call vote with Councilmember Weinberg opposed.
65 Agenda Item # 1.

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 11, 2025

Page 3 of 5 ends

PUBLIC HEARING

6. Authorize Park Impact Fee Expenditure for Downtown Park with Parking Two actions for consideration:
a. Hold a Public Hearing Adopt a Resolution to Use Park Impact Fee Funds for Community Engagement and Design Services for Downtown Park with Parking; and b. Adopt a Resolution to award contract to Watry Design, Inc. for Community Engagement and Design Services for Downtown Park with Parking in the amount of $2,288,500
Anthony Carnesecca, Assistant to the City Manager, presented the report.

Pete Dailey, Mayor, opened the Public Hearing.

The following members of the public spoke during the Public Hearing:
 Roberta Phillips
 Jon Baer
 Maria Bautista
Pete Dailey, Mayor, closed the Public Hearing.

Motion by Dailey and Second by Weinberg to Adopt a Resolution to Use Park Impact Fee Funds for Community Engagement and Design Services for Downtown Park with Parking. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

Motion by Dailey and Second by Weinberg to Adopt a Resolution to award contract to Watry Design, Inc. for Community Engagement and Design Services for Downtown Park with Parking in the amount of $2,288,500. Motion carried 4-1 by roll call vote with Vice Mayor Fligor opposed.

DISCUSSION ITEMS

8. City Council Accountability Policy
Review the City Council Accountability Policy and provide direction on modifications as needed
Jon Maginot, Assistant City Manager, presented the report.

There were no speakers regarding the item.

Discussion item only. No motion taken.
66 Agenda Item # 1.

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 11, 2025

Page 4 of 5 ends

The City Council took a recess at 8:55 p.m.

The City Council reconvened at 9:08 p.m.

9. City Council Term Limit Considerations
Provide direction on City Council Term Limits
Nick Zornes, Assistant City Manager of Land Use, presented the report.

The following members of the public spoke regarding the item:
 Roberta Phillips
 King Lear
Discussion item only. No motion taken.

10. Childcare Subsidy Program Discussion
Direct staff to adopt and implement a childcare subsidy program in support of the Santa Clara County initiative for affordable childcare
Jaime Chew, Deputy Director of Parks & Recreation, presented the report.

There were no speakers regarding the item.

Motion by Weinberg and Second by Fligor to adopt and implement a childcare subsidy program in support of the Santa Clara County initiative for affordable childcare. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

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

11. Tentative Council Calendar and Housing Element Implementation Update Calendar

COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS AND DIRECTIONS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Pete Dailey, Mayor – Requested a future agenda item:
 Discuss the enforcement process of the gas leaf blower ban (Supported by Fligor and Lang)
ADJOURNMENT – The regular meeting adjourned at 10:23 p.m.

The meeting minutes were prepared by Melissa Thurman, City Clerk, for approval at the regular meeting on February 25, 2025.
67 Agenda Item # 1.

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
February 11, 2025

Page 5 of 5 ends

_________________________________ __________________________________ Pete Dailey Melissa Thurman, MMC
Mayor City Clerk
The February 11, 2025, 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 in these minutes was live at the time the minutes were published.
68 Agenda Item # 1.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: February 25, 2025
Prepared By: Melissa Thurman
Approved By: Gabriel Engeland
Subject: Amendment of Previously Approved Meeting Minutes for the Regular Meeting of June 25, 2024

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

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the amendments to the previously approved meeting minutes of June 25, 2024

FISCAL IMPACT
Not Applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not Applicable.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Not Applicable.

BACKGROUND
At the regular meeting on June 25, 2024, an item on the meeting minutes contained an incorrect motion. Item 6 on the agenda: “Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Adopting Development Impact and In-Lieu Fees Based on the Adopted Nexus Study and find that this Resolution is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15378(b)(4) and 15273(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970”, previously had a motion recorded as “Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.” After reviewing the meeting’s video recording for a timestamp on another item, it was discovered that Former Councilmember Lynette Lee Eng voted in opposition. The correct motion should be recorded: “Motion carried 4-1 by roll call vote with Councilmember Lee Eng opposed.” The timestamp of the motion for Item 6 is contained at 2:34:19 in the video. 69 Agenda Item # 2.

During the video review, it was also noted that Item 8 of the agenda was heard out of order, directly before the City Council took a brief recess. The amended minutes have been updated to reflect the motion to continue Item 8 to a date certain for accuracy. The timestamp for the motion on Item 8 is contained at 2:36:17 in the video.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Amended Meeting Minutes for June 25, 2024

2. Video Recording of the June 25, 2024 Meeting -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQc1PR8EWBI
70 Agenda Item # 2.

CITY OF LOS ALTOS

CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY, JUNE 25, 2024
7:00 p.m.
1 N. San Antonio Rd. ~ Los Altos, CA
Jonathan D. Weinberg, Mayor
Pete Dailey, Vice Mayor
Neysa Fligor, Councilmember
Lynette Lee Eng, Councilmember
Sally Meadows, Councilmember
CALL MEETING TO ORDER – Jonathan D. Weinberg, Mayor, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

ESTABLISH QUORUM – All Councilmembers were present.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Jonathan D. Weinberg, Mayor, led the Pledge of Allegiance.

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
The following members of the public spoke regarding the Closed Session item on the June 25, 2024 agenda:
 Jon Baer  Steve Chessin
 Sharon Fingold  Chris Roat
 Geoff Davis  Rosalind Bardo
 Jan Pepper
There was no reportable action taken for the Closed Session meeting of June 25, 2024 at 6:00 p.m.

CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
Lynette Lee Eng, Councilmember, requested to move Item 11 to after Item 8 on the agenda.

Vote failed 1-4 by roll call vote with Councilmembers Fligor, Meadows, Vice Mayor Dailey and Mayor Weinberg opposed.

SPECIAL ITEM
Issue Proclamation Recognizing June as Pride Month
Jonathan D. Weinberg, Mayor, presented the proclamation to Drew Bertrand, Board Member of the Billy DeFrank LGBTQ+ Community Center.

Issue Proclamation Recognizing July as Parks Make Life Better Month Jonathan D. Weinberg, Mayor, presented the proclamation to Kris Olson and Chris Nagao, Senior Commission Members.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
The following members of the public spoke during Public Comment:
 Mary Lou Varni
 Lynn Emrick
71 Agenda Item # 2.

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 25, 2024

Page 2 of 6 ends

 Scott Spielman

CONSENT CALENDAR
Lynette Lee Eng, Councilmember, requested to pull Item 2 from the Consent Calendar for further discussion.

Jonathan D. Weinberg, Mayor, moved Item 2 of the Consent Calendar to after Item 5 of the agenda.

The following members of the public spoke regarding items on the Consent Calendar:
 Bill Bassett (Item 2)  John Wagner (Item 2)
 Camilla McCrea (Item 2)  Corinne Finegan (Item 2)
 Michael Emrick (Item 2)  Scott Spielman (Item 2)
 David Sauerhaft (Item 2)  Barbara Harriman (Item 2)
 Jeff Cuppett (Item 2)
Motion by Dailey and Second by Fligor to approve the Consent Calendar, excluding Item 2.

Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

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

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

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

5. Adopt a City Council Policy Regarding Foreign Affairs

DISCUSSION ITEM

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

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 25, 2024

Page 3 of 6 ends

Lynette Lee Eng, Councilmember, explained why she requested to pull the item for further discussion.

Motion by Fligor and Second by Meadows to authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with O’Grady Paving Inc. of the base bid and add alternative #1 for the 2024 Street Resurfacing Project in the amount of $1,362,666.40, and authorize the City Manager to execute a change order not to exceed 15% ($204,400) of the total contract amount on behalf of the City, and find the Council’s action exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15301(c), and that none of the circumstance in the CEQA Guideline. Motion carried 4-0-1 by roll call vote with Councilmember Lee Eng abstained.

Lynette Lee Eng, Councilmember, requested a Friendly Amendment to ask O’Grady Paving, Inc. to not begin the Jardin Dr. paving project first and to allow for possible future change orders.

Neysa Fligor, Councilmember, rejected the Friendly Amendment.

This item was moved from the Consent Calendar.

PUBLIC HEARING

6. Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Adding Chapter

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

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

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

Motion by Dailey and Second by Fligor to adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Adopting Development Impact and In-Lieu Fees Based on the Adopted Nexus Study and find that this Resolution is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15378(b)(4) and 15273(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the State Guidelines implementing the California 73 Agenda Item # 2.

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 25, 2024

Page 4 of 6 ends

Environmental Quality Act of 1970. Motion carried 4-1 by roll call vote with Councilmember Lee Eng opposed.

Motion by Weinberg and Second by Dailey to continue the ordinance to a date certain of August 27, 2024. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

DISCUSSION ITEM

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

3.49 to Title 3 Revenue and Finance of the Los Altos Municipal Code for Affordable Housing Fees and find that this Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15378(b)(4) and 15273(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970
Motion by Weinberg and Second by Dailey to continue the item to the regular meeting of August 27, 2024. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

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

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

PUBLIC HEARING

7. Consideration of Modification Request of Approved Design Review Permit D22-0002 and Conditional Use Permit CUP22-0001 for the property located at 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA. The Modification Request is to eliminate automated parking stackers in the parking facilities and balconies that face the interior courtyard from the approved project. This project has already been approved and consideration of this item is limited to the requested modification for the below market rate unit mix. The proposed project modification request is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines since there would be no possibility of a significant effect on the environment Nick Zornes, Assistant City Manager of Land Use, presented the report.

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

The following members of the public spoke during the Public Hearing:
 Anne Paulson  Barbara Harriman
 Omar Dajani  Daphne Ross
 Alex Kobayashi  Pierre Bedard
 Ellen Dolich  Jon Baer
74 Agenda Item # 2.

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 25, 2024

Page 5 of 6 ends

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

Motion by Dailey and Second by Meadows to approve Modification Request of Approved Design Review Permit D22-0002 and Conditional Use Permit CUP22-0001 for the property located at 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, CA to eliminate automated parking stackers in the parking facilities and balconies that face the interior courtyard from the approved project and find that this project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines since there would be no possibility of a significant effect on the environment. Motion carried 3-2 by roll call vote with Councilmembers Fligor and Lee Eng opposed.

DISCUSSION ITEMS

9. Review and authorize the City Manager to Issue Request for Proposals for Design Services for Los Altos Main Library Improvements
Anthony Carnesecca, Assistant to the City Manager, presented the report.

There were no speakers for the item.

Motion by Meadows and Second by Dailey to authorize the City Manager to issue a Request for Proposals for Design Services for Los Altos Main Library Improvements. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

10. Weed Abatement-City Participation in County Program Edgar Nolasco, CEPA Director and Moe Kumre, Weed Abatement Manager with Santa Clara County, presented the report.

The following member of the public spoke regarding the item:
 Eric Steinle
Motion by Lee Eng and Second by Meadows to provide authorization to City Manager to enter into an agreement for program participation in the County of Santa Clara Weed Abatement Program. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

The City Council took a recess at 12:10 a.m.

The City Council reconvened at 12:19 a.m.

11. Discuss and provide direction to staff on how to move forward with the repairs and maintenance of the three City of Los Altos owned properties that public safety occupies Manny Hernandez, Parks & Recreation Director, presented the report.

There were no speakers regarding the item.

Discussion item only. No motion taken.
75 Agenda Item # 2.

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 25, 2024

Page 6 of 6 ends

12. Discuss and Provide Direction Regarding a Potential Childcare Subsidy Program Neysa Fligor, Councilmember, presented the item for Council discussion.

There were no speakers regarding the item.

Motion by Fligor and Second by Weinberg to direct staff to bring the item back to a future meeting date to recommend a Subcommittee formation of Councilmember Fligor and Mayor Weinberg to research the topic further. Motion carried 4-0-1 by roll call vote with Councilmember Meadows abstained.

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

13. Tentative Council Calendar and Housing Element Update Implementation Calendar

14. Receive the FY24-25 Operating & FY24-29 Capital Improvement and Major Maintenance Program Budget Book

COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS AND DIRECTIONS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS  Lynette Lee Eng, Councilmember – Requested future agenda items:
 Parking Permit Program (Supported by Fligor and Meadows) ADJOURNMENT – The regular meeting adjourned at 1:13 a.m. on July 26, 2024 The meeting minutes were prepared by Melissa Thurman, City Clerk, for approval at the regular meeting of July 9, 2024.
_________________________________ __________________________________ Jonathan D. Weinberg Melissa Thurman, MMC
Mayor City Clerk
The June 25, 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.
76 Agenda Item # 2.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: February 25, 2025
Prepared By: Scott Reeves
Approved By: Gabriel Engeland
Subject: Adopt a Resolution to Award a Contract for the Hillview Dog Park Design Plans (CF-01032) in the amount of $137,314

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

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a design contract with Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. of Burlingame, California in an amount not-to-exceed $137,314.00, and up to 15% contingency not-to-exceed $20,597.00, for a total amount not-toexceed $157,911.00, to complete the design plans for the Hillview Dog Park.

POLICY QUESTION(S) FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
None.

FISCAL IMPACT
The design contract will be in the amount not-to-exceed $137,314.00, and up to 15% contingency, if needed, in the amount not-to-exceed $20,597.00 for a total amount not-to-exceed $157,911.00.

The funding sources for the construction contract include:
 $2,075,000 approved budget for CF-01032 from funding source In-Lieu Park Fund.

Funds already encumbered to the project:
 Verde Design, Inc. (Conceptual design and community engagement services) $75,000.00

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This resolution is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. 77 Agenda Item # 3.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
February 28, 2023 and July 09, 2024

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
The adopted FY24-25 Capital Improvement and Major Maintenance Program includes Project CF01032 which intends to provide a permanent fenced dog park at Hillview Park.

On February 28, 2023, City Council directed staff to begin the community engagement and conceptual design effort for the 15,000 square foot dog park. On July 09, 2024, City Council received a presentation on the Hillview Dog Park community engagement and preferred design alternative and provided direction to complete the design development and prepare the associated construction documents.

The City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) on our Bids and Requests for Proposals website on November 13, 2024. The RFP closed on December 18, 2024, after receiving six proposals. The proposals were reviewed and scored by a panel of City staff. The highest-ranking firms were invited to participate in a virtual interview. Callander Associates was deemed most-qualified during the RFP evaluation process.

Callander Associates, Inc. will fully develop the design and prepare a Construction Document package based on the preferred design. They will assist the City in bidding the design publicly, and provide construction administration services during the implementation.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 2025-xxx
78 Agenda Item # 3.

Resolution No. 2025-__ Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-__

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

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A DESIGN CONTRACT WITH CALLANDER ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR THE HILLVIEW DOG PARK CF-01032 IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $137,314 AND UP TO 15% CONTINGENCY FUNDS NOT-TO-EXCEED $20,597
WHEREAS, City Council has directed staff to prepare construction documents for the permanent dog park at Hillview Park; and
WHEREAS, Callander Associates, Inc. is the preferred design consultant to finish the design development, prepare the construction documents, and provide ongoing administrative services to the City; and
WHEREAS, this resolution is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.

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

1. Authorizes the City Manager to execute a Design Contract in an amount not-to-exceed $137,314 and up to 15% contingency funds not-to-exceed $20,597 for the Hillview Dog Park.

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

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos at a meeting thereof on the 25th day of February 2025 by the following vote:
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
79 Agenda Item # 3.

Resolution No. 2025-__ Page 2
ABSTAIN: None
___________________________
Pete Dailey, MAYOR
Attest:
__________________________________
Melissa Thurman, MMC
City Clerk
80 Agenda Item # 3.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: February 25, 2025
Prepared By: Public Works Department
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: Amendment No. 2 for the Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) Program, Project WW01006

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

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Amendment No. 2 with Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc. (EEC) in the amount of $ $155,865 for inspection, education, and enforcement services for the Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) Program, Project WW01006, and find that the proposed amendments are exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15308 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

FISCAL IMPACT
Amendment No. 2 is in the amount not-to-exceed $155,865 with a total contract in the amount not-to-exceed $252,205.

The following action will cost $155,865 for the consultant’s services for the inspection, education and enforcement services for the Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG) Program, Project WW-01006, from FY 2024-25 through FY 2026-27.
- Breakdown of funds to be used:
 $49,865.00 from Sewer Fund (amount already included in the approved budget for FY 2024-25)
 $52,000 from the Sewer Fund will be budgeted as part of the FY 2025-26 budget
 $54,000 from the Sewer Fund will be budgeted as part of the FY 2026-27 budget
- Total budget requested is $0
81 Agenda Item # 4.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The agreement amendment is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15308 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment).

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Not Applicable.

BACKGROUND
The Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) Program is necessary to fulfill the requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) as reflected in the Sanitary Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP). Over 120 food service facilities are located within City limits and discharge to the City sewers. The FOG Program helps to keep grease out of the sewer mains, which provides operational benefits to the system.

The FOG program is intended to minimize FOG entering the sewer system by educating food service establishments (FSEs) staff in the City of Los Altos on best management practices to prevent sewer back-ups and ensure compliance with the Los Altos Municipal Code. The project involves an inspection program to ensure plumbing, grease traps and interceptors and operational practices are in place to keep grease out of the sewer system. The City does not have the resources to carry out this work internally.

ANALYSIS
On December 7, 2022, the City entered into a 5-Year Professional Services Agreement with EEC for inspection, education, and enforcement services for the Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG) Program.

The agreement in the amount of $48,170.00 was executed for FY 2022-23.

On February 22, 2024, the City executed Amendment No. 1 in the amount of $48,170 with EEC for additional scope of work to cover the services for the FOG Program for FY 2023-24, which brings the total agreement amount to $96,340.00.

The original Professional Services Agreement and Amendment No. 1 with EEC, executed in 2022 and 2024, did not require City Council approval, as the total agreement amount remained within the City Manager’s signatory authority limit of $100,000.00. Amendment No. 2 is for Years 3, 4, and 5 (FY2024-25 through FY 2026-27) of the current 5-Year agreement with EEC. This amendment is requested to provide additional funds to cover the annual inspection, education and enforcement services for the Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG) Program for each fiscal year through FY 2026-27. The amount of Amendment No. 2 is a not-to-exceed amount of $155,865, which brings the final total contract amount to $252,205.

DISCUSSION
The FOG Program is an ongoing expense. Amendment No. 2 extends the existing agreement with EEC to cover Years 3, 4, and 5 (FY 2024-25 through FY 2026-27) of the City's 5-Year Professional Services Agreement for the Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) Program. This amendment provides additional funding to ensure the continuation of essential inspection, education, and enforcement 82 Agenda Item # 4.
services for the program. With a not-to-exceed amount of $155,865, Amendment No. 2 increases the total contract value to $252,205. The funding for this amendment has already been included in the approved budget for FY 2024-25 and will be incorporated into the budgets for the subsequent fiscal years. As the total agreement amount exceeds the City Manager’s signatory limit of $100,000.00, City Council approval is required to proceed with the amendment.

ATTACHMENT

1. Resolution for Authorization
83 Agenda Item # 4.

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR INSPECTION, EDUCATION, AND

ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FOR THE FATS, OILS AND GREASE (FOG) PROGRAM WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING & CONTRACTING, INC. (EEC) IN THE AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $155,865
WHEREAS, the Professional Services Agreement was executed with EEC, who was the consultant that provides the services to the City of Los Altos for the project; and WHEREAS, the project, which consists of inspection, education, and enforcement services for the Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG) Program, Project WW-01006 for FY 2024-25 through FY 2026- 27; and
WHEREAS, the project is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15308 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment); and WHEREAS, there are sufficient funds available in the Sewer Fund.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Los Altos does hereby (list action):

1. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement Between the City of Los Altos and EEC for inspection, education, and enforcement services for the Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG) Program, Project WW-01006 in the amount of $155,865 for FY 2024-25 through FY 2026-27.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos at a meeting thereof on the 25th day of February, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
84 Agenda Item # 4.
__________________________
Pete Dailey
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Melissa Thurman, MMC
City Clerk
85 Agenda Item # 4.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: February 25, 2025
Prepared By: Jon Maginot
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: City Council Accountability Policy

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

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the revised City Council Accountability Policy

FISCAL IMPACT
None

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not Applicable

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
October 12, 2021; February 11, 2025

BACKGROUND
The City Council adopted the Accountability Policy of the Los Altos City Council on October 12, 2021. It has not been revised since its original adoption.

DISCUSSION
At the February 11, 2025 Council meeting, Council reviewed the Accountability Policy and provided direction to staff on changes to the Policy. Staff has proposed the attached revisions based on Council direction

ATTACHMENTS

1. Revised Accountability Policy of the Los Altos City Council 86 Agenda Item # 5.
4831-0084-6333v2
JH\27697001

ACCOUNTABILITY POLICY OF THE LOS ALTOS CITY COUNCIL
Adopted October 12, 2021

PURPOSE
The Los Altos City Council adopts this policy for members of the City Council to assure public confidence in the integrity of local governance, to hold itself accountable to each other and the public, and to foster trust from the public.

This policy applies only to the City of Los Altos Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Councilmembers elected or appointed to serve on the Los Altos City Council (“Council”) for improper conduct that could result in admonition or censure.

This policy shall be effective on the date of adoption by the Council (“Effective Date”) and shall not be applied retroactively to any conduct occurring before the Effective Date.

Any disciplinary action taken by the Council under this policy shall be a final action and is not subject to an appeal or reconsideration.

POLICY
It is the policy of the Council that all its members shall abide by federal and state law, City ordinances, and City policies, including the Council Norms and Procedures (hereinafter referred to as Law or Policy). Violations of such Law or Policy tend to undermine the effectiveness of the Council as a whole and foster distrust from the public.

Depending on the circumstances of alleged violations of Law or Policy, the Council may initiate an investigation of the allegations prior to the filing of a request for any of the actions described in this policy. An investigation is not required, but any Councilmember may request and may be granted an investigation of the alleged violation in consultation with the City Manager and City Attorney OR upon approval by the Council. A request for an investigation may not be used to delay action by the City Council. OR The City Council may elect to issue an admonition or censure prior to finalization of an investigation.

Nothing in this policy shall preclude individual Councilmembers from making public statements regarding such alleged conduct. While the Council has broad discretion in deciding certain actions it may choose to take in response to violations of Law or Policy, which would not require the Council to adopt policy, including but not limited to voting to remove a Councilmember from a Committee or Board, or a vote of no confidence in a particular Councilmember, this policy provides definitions and procedures related to two types of actions: admonition and censure. 87 Agenda Item # 5.
4831-0084-6333v2
JH\27697001
The Council shall only admonish or censure a Councilmember pursuant to this policy if a Councilmember has violated the a Law or Policy more than two times and the Councilmember has been publicly warned about such violations by another Councilmember or the Council at a City Council meeting and the Councilmember that received the warning continues to violate the Law or Policy. A supermajority of the City Council may admonish or censure a Councilmember after one violation of Law or Policy should the Council deem the violation to warrant such action.

Admonition
An admonition may be informal or formal and is typically directed to a member or members of the Council. An admonition may be issued in response to a particular alleged action or actions in violation of a Law or Policy. An informal admonition may be issued by the Council prior to any findings of fact regarding allegations, and because it is a warning or reminder, it would not require an investigation or separate hearings to determine whether the allegation is true. A formal admonition would follow a public hearing, as further described below. The Council recognizes the right to criticize is protected by the First Amendment, and may be done by an individual Councilmember, or by a Council motion and vote. A Mayor may from time to time remind Councilmembers to comply with any Law or Policy in order to conduct an orderly meeting.

Such reminders by the Mayor are not an admonition.

Censure
Censure is an official reprimand or condemnation made by Council in response to specified conduct by one of its own members. Censure is disciplinary in nature and requires the formal adoption of a resolution setting forth the Councilmember’s alleged violations of Law or Policy.

Although not required, censure could involve an investigation and it must protect the due process rights of the Councilmember being investigated. Censure carries no fine or suspension of the rights of the Councilmember as an elected official, but a censure is a punitive action for a Councilmember’s violations of Law or Policy.

PROCEDURE
Informal Admonition
An individual Councilmember can make an informal admonition at any Council meeting during the Public Presentations or Reports of Councilmembers portion of the meeting. The Councilmember making the informal admonition must first ask the Mayor to make the informal admonition and state on the record the basis for the informal admonition, including the previous two or more times that the Councilmember, who would be subject to the informal admonition, had been warned. After doing so, the Mayor must allow the Councilmember to make the informal admonition. If the Mayor would like to make an informal admonition, the Mayor is also required to state on the record the basis for the informal admonition.

Formal Admonition or Censure Public Hearing
88 Agenda Item # 5.
4831-0084-6333v2
JH\27697001
At a public City Council Meeting, three (3) Councilmembers may request a discussion of a formal censure and/or formal admonition action be placed on a future regular meeting Council agenda. At the future meeting that the discussion is heard, a vote by three (3) or more Councilmembers is required to agendize a formal public hearing. The City Clerk shall provide a formal notice of the hearing to the Councilmember who is the subject of the action. The notice shall contain the specific allegations and/or charges on which the proposed action is based and the date and time that the matter will be heard. At the hearing, the Councilmembers who requested the hearing shall have a cumulative total time of no more than 10 minutes to state the reason(s) they are requesting the formal admonition or censure, and the Councilmember who is the subject of the action shall have up to 10 minutes to respond. Upon hearing the testimony, the Council may take action setting forth its findings and stating the terms of the disciplinary action.

Disciplinary Action.

If, at the close of the hearing, a majority of the entire membership of the Council finds that the subject member’s conduct violates any Law or Policy, the Council may take one or more of the following measures:
(1) Formal Admonition. A Formal Admonition can be in the form of a motion and vote, or an adopted Resolution, and can take any or all of the following forms:
(a) The admonition is directed to one or all members of the Council, reminding them that a particular type of behavior is in violation of law or City policy; and/or (b) Direction is given to the subject Councilmember to correct the result of the particular behavior that violated Law or Policy; and/or
(c) A reprimand is directed to the subject member of the Council based on a particular action (or set of actions) that is determined to be in violation of Law or Policy but is considered by the Council to be not sufficiently serious to require formal censure. (2) Resolution of Censure. The Council may adopt a resolution of censure that clearly sets forth the facts supporting the allegations of misconduct giving rise to the censure. A resolution of censure requires a majority vote of the entire membership of the Council. A resolution of censure may include the imposition of certain actions against the Councilmember such as removal from a committee or Board.
89 Agenda Item # 5.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: February 25, 2025
Prepared By: Nick Zornes
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: Underground Utilities – Chapter 11.25

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

RECOMMENDATION
Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Los Altos Adding Chapter 11.25 Underground Utilities to Title 11 Miscellaneous Property Regulations of the Los Altos Municipal Code and find that this action is Exempt from Environmental Review Pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State Guidelines Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.

FISCAL IMPACT
Not Applicable.

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

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Not Applicable.

BACKGROUND
The Los Altos Municipal Code reflects Underground Utility requirements in various Chapters and Titles. The intent of all pertinent code sections is to apply universally to all applicable projects and permits which require the undergrounding of utilities within the City of Los Altos. The proposed Chapter 11.25 will further enable and reinforce the requirement(s) of underground utilities within the City of Los Altos when applicable.
90 Agenda Item # 6.

DISCUSSION
The purpose and intent of this chapter is to clarify when undergrounding of utilities is required in connection with a development project within the City of Los Altos. All development identified in the applicability section of the draft ordinance would provide for the undergrounding of existing and proposed utility facilities in compliance with the chapter, unless expressly exempted.

The draft ordinance helps to ensure that when applicable undergrounding of utilities is accomplished. The existing Los Altos Municipal Code contains provisions for underground utilities in various areas of the code (Chapter 11.20, Title 12, and Title 13). The draft ordinance will be in addition or in conjunction with the undergrounding provisions throughout the code.

ANALYSIS
The proposed underground requirements are as follows:

Service lines. All new and existing overhead utility lines, serving property located along a public or private street or alley shall be installed underground with:
 Construction of a single-family dwelling.
 Construction of a residential development with two or more dwelling units.  Construction of a non-residential development which results in new gross floor area of (500) square feet or more of conditioned space in the aggregate over the preceding five (5) year period.
 An addition to an existing residential development that within a five (5) year period adds and/or replaces (500) square feet or more to the developments existing habitable square footage that is known and provided on the latest County of Santa Clara Assessors Office Tax Roll.

Frontage lines and poles. Existing utility poles and associated overhead utility lines located along a street abutting the frontage(s) of a development site shall be removed and the utilities replaced underground in association with the site improvements set forth below:
 Construction of a new single-family dwelling.
 Construction of a new residential development with two or more dwelling units.  An addition to an existing residential development that within a five (5) year period adds and/or replaces fifty (50%) percent or more to the developments existing habitable square footage that is known and provided on the latest County of Santa Clara Assessors Office Tax Roll.
 Construction of a new non-residential development.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Ordinance

2. Appendix A – Chapter 11.25
91 Agenda Item # 6.
1 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS ADDING CHAPTER 11.25 TO TITLE 11 MISCELLANEOUS PROPERTY REGULATIONS OF

THE LOS ALTOS MUNICIPAL CODE ENACTING REGULATIONS FOR

UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
WHEREAS, enactment of Underground Utility regulations provides consistent and practical improvements that supports neighborhood aesthetics and community resiliency through the City of Los Altos; and
WHEREAS, the amendments were processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the Los Altos Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on February 25, 2025, and March 11, 2025; 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 11 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE. Chapter 11.25 are hereby added of the Los Altos Municipal Code as set forth in Appendix A to this Ordinance, underline indicates addition, strikethrough indicates deletion.

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

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

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

The foregoing Ordinance was duly and properly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Altos held on February 25, 2025, and was thereafter, at a regular meeting held on March 11, 2025, passed and adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
92 Agenda Item # 6.
2 ___________________________________
Pete Dailey, MAYOR
Attest:
____________________________
Melissa Thurman MMC, City Clerk
93 Agenda Item # 6.

APPENDIX A
AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 11.25
94 Agenda Item # 6.

CHAPTER 11.25 – UNDERGROUND UTILITIES

11.25.010 – Purpose and Intent.

The purpose and intent of this chapter is to clarify when undergrounding of utilities is required in connection with a development project within the City of Los Altos. All development shall provide for the undergrounding of existing and proposed utility facilities in compliance with this section, unless expressly exempted.

11.25.020 – Applicability.

The applicability of Chapter 11.25 shall be in addition or in conjunction with undergrounding provisions contained within Chapter 11.20, Title 12, and Title 13 of the Los Altos Municipal Code.

A. The following site improvements require the undergrounding of utility services as set forth below:

1. Service lines. All new and existing overhead utility lines, serving property located along a public or private street or alley shall be installed underground with:
a) Construction of a single-family dwelling.
b) Construction of a residential development with two or more dwelling units. c) Construction of a non-residential development which results in new gross floor area of (500) square feet or more of conditioned space in the aggregate over the preceding five (5) year period.
d) An addition to an existing residential development that within a five (5) year period adds and/or replaces (500) square feet or more to the developments existing habitable square footage that is known and provided on the latest County of Santa Clara Assessors Office Tax Roll.
e) All residential or non-residential subdivision(s) that are subject to the provisions of Title 12 (Buildings and Construction), Title 13 (Subdivisions), and Chapter

11.20 (Street Improvements) of the Los Altos Municipal Code.

2. Frontage lines and poles. Existing utility poles and associated overhead utility lines located along a street abutting the frontage(s) of a development site shall be removed and the utilities replaced underground in association with the site improvements set forth below:
a) Construction of a new single-family dwelling.
b) Construction of a new residential development with two or more dwelling units. c) An addition to an existing residential development that within a five (5) year period adds and/or replaces fifty (50%) percent or more to the developments existing habitable square footage that is known and provided on the latest County of Santa Clara Assessors Office Tax Roll.
d) Construction of a new non-residential development.
e) All residential or non-residential subdivision(s) that are subject to the provisions of Title 12 (Buildings and Construction), Title 13 (Subdivisions), and Chapter

11.20 (Street Improvements) of the Los Altos Municipal Code.

11.25.030 – Development Requirements.

A. As required by this section, all new and existing electric, telecommunications, and cable television lines to be installed on the site to serve a proposed development shall be 95 Agenda Item # 6.
installed underground at the time of development except for surface mounted transformers, pedestal-mounted terminal boxes and meter cabinets, and concealed ducts and other similar equipment appurtenant to underground facilities. All utilities shall be taken from the nearest aboveground utility service or as directed by the utility provider. No new poles or overhead lines shall be allowed, except as determined necessary by the city engineer to accomplish the removal of frontage lines and poles required by this chapter.

1. Screening requirements for aboveground equipment (e.g., utility control boxes and similar cabinets) shall be screened from public view by using a combination of landscaping and screen walls.

11.25.040 – Exemptions
A. The requirements of this section do not apply to:

1. Existing or proposed major electrical transmission lines.

2. A service upgrade, modification, or relocation of an existing electrical panel that is unrelated to site improvements that would otherwise require undergrounding of utilities in compliance with this section, and which would not result in an increase in overhead utility line length, additional lines, or new poles.

3. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADU).

4. Underground installations precluded by a topographical, soil, or other environmental condition as conferred by the city engineer.
96 Agenda Item # 6.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: February 25, 2025
Prepared By: Steven Son
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: Parking Restrictions around Los Altos High School

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

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following parking policy around Los Altos High School:

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended changes.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The agreement amendment is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption), 15273 (Rates, Tolls, Fares, and Charges), and 15306 (Information Collection).

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
On August 27, 2024, the City Council directed staff to implement parking restrictions north of Los Altos High School and return with several parking options. The parking restriction is from 8 am to 12 pm between Jardin Drive and Alvarado Avenue along Panchita Way, Los Ninos Way, Distel Drive, 97 Agenda Item # 7.

Casita Way, and Alicia Way. The signs necessary to implement parking restrictions were installed in December 2024 and are currently being enforced by the Los Altos Police Department.

BACKGROUND
Based on research on the Public-School Review web page, in 1995, the number of students enrolled at Los Altos High School was approximately 1,600, with approximately 60 teachers and an unknown number of support staff. According to the latest demographic information from the California Department of Education Data Quest, as of the 2023-2024 academic school year, Los Altos High School has 2,141 students enrolled, with 114 teachers and an unknown number of support staff. Based on the research, the impact on the school represents a 30% increase in population, while the school's footprint has remained constant.

In fiscal year 2017-18, Mountain View Los Altos High School District (MVLA) completed a comprehensive Facilities Master Plan to address future facility needs and sustain growth. For this reason, on June 5, 2018, MVLA placed on the ballot for Measure E to fund additional classrooms; provide facilities to expand programs in science, technology, engineering, arts, and math; update aging classrooms and replace old roofs, plumbing, and electronics; expanding libraries, cafeterias, and other student support facilities to accommodate growing student enrollments. Based on the Master Plan layout for Los Altos High School (LAHS), the improvement will occur within the existing building footprint. By utilizing the existing building footprint and adding a second story, the school can significantly increase the number of classrooms to accommodate increased enrollment. The Master Plan layout does not show the number of parking stalls being reduced within the school property after the construction.

Shortly after the passing of the Measure E bond, the MVLA proceeded with multiple-phase construction at Los Altos High School. According to the Measure E construction update, Phase I consisted of constructing new classrooms and a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) laboratory to accommodate additional enrollment and making necessary repairs to existing facilities. This project was completed in the Summer of 2021. Phase II consisted of constructing a student services building (completed) and auxiliary gymnasium (completed), as well as replacing existing grass fields with synthetic turf (completed). Phase III of the project consists of modernizing the existing library (to be determined), upgrading the existing cafeteria (estimated completion of fall 2025), improving the existing gymnasium (to be determined, currently in discussion), and increasing capacity for music and arts programs to support a well-rounded education (estimated completion, Fall 2025)
To support ongoing construction at Los Altos High School, given limited space on campus, the contractor and sub-contractors are currently utilizing four (4) of the existing 12 tennis courts for construction and material staging. The contractor and sub-contractors are presently utilizing all of the existing parking stalls along the softball field. The drive aisle along the eastern portion of the school property that used to provide connectivity between Jardin Drive and Almond Avenue is currently blocked because of construction activities. Since the drive aisle located along the eastern portion of the school property is blocked, all construction materials and access to the construction site must be done off Jardin Drive.

The construction activity at Los Altos High School significantly impacts on the school and the community around it, both in terms of traffic circulation and how the school can utilize its current 98 Agenda Item # 7.
property. The school dedicated parking stalls along the softball field for the contractors to use while working on site. Once the construction is completed, the school can use these parking stalls to help alleviate street parking. At the conclusion of all construction activity, the parking stalls along the softball field can be utilized to address long-term parking issues.

DISCUSSION
Based on the information that is available by MVLA High School District, it does not appear the conclusion of the construction activity at Los Altos High School will address long-term parking. In 1995, Los Altos High School had 1,600 students enrolled, with 60 teachers and an unknown number of support staff. By the 2023-24 academic school year, the school had 2,141 students with 114 teachers and an unknown number of support staff. The number of people utilizing the school represents a 30% increase over 29 years without the ability to increase the size of the school property or the number of available parking spaces. Also, with the school expansion in anticipation of an increased number of students attending Los Altos High School, it is safe to assume the school cannot address additional demand for parking permits. Since the request for parking permits has exceeded the number of parking stalls available on campus, the residents around the high school will be directly impacted well into the future.

Currently, the parking restrictions around Los Altos High School have been inconsistent. The inconsistent parking restrictions have made it a challenge for staff to apply a uniform parking policy and provide parking enforcement, and it has been an inconvenience for the residents. To ensure uniformity, all existing parking restrictions around the high school should be modified to be a maximum three (3) hours. The purpose of parking restrictions is to change public behavior rather than being punitive. Based on field observations, it appears that most street parking occurs at the beginning of the day when the high school is starting. By restricting street parking between 8:00 am – 12:00 am, the students must find alternative means of coming to school. Even though the school has an open campus policy, the school schedule would not provide adequate time for students to go home and drive their vehicles back to school. Based on a new parking restriction north of Jardin Drive, the restriction has deterred approximately 85% of the students from parking in the surrounding neighborhood. Since the installation of the parking restriction in December 2024, based on field observations, the benefit of parking restriction has created safer traffic circulation on Jardin Drive and adjoining streets. Since students are no longer racing to park as close to the school as possible, it reduced the number of vehicles speeding through the neighborhood. The parking restriction works as intended, improving public safety and alleviating traffic congestion.

Hybrid Parking Restriction
The current parking restriction north of Jardin Drive is from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. The feedback from the residents regarding the parking restriction has been mixed. The residents' comments depend on where their property is located. The residents close to the high school would like to keep the new parking restriction. These residents have stated that the new parking restriction finally addressed the “nightmare they have been living for years” and the resident finally feel like they have been heard by the Council.

The residents furthest from Jardin Drive stated that the new parking restriction has been inconvenient and unnecessary since they had never experienced parking issues like those who lived close to the high school. These residents also stated that the parking restriction is too restrictive and that it does not allow relatives to visit, in-home healthcare providers or another domestic service from conducting business on the property without receiving a parking ticket. The residents also stated that when they 99 Agenda Item # 7.
have more than two (2) vehicles, they must juggle and preplan how the cars will be parked in the driveway. For this reason, they would like all parking restrictions to be removed immediately.

The new parking restriction north of Jardin Drive has been very effective in improving public safety and reducing the number of speeding vehicles. The new parking restriction meets the Council’s objective of providing circulation safety and efficiency and neighborhood safety infrastructure. To remove existing parking restrictions would be contrary to the goals set by the Council. Based on the comments received, staff can modify the existing parking restrictions as shown below.

1. The existing no-parking restriction from 8:00 am to 12:00 pm within 500 feet of Jardin Drive will remain.

2. The restriction for properties that are 500 feet or greater from Jardin Drive will be modified to allow 2-hour parking Monday through Friday from 8:00 am to 12:00 pm. The timed parking would be in line with other parts of the city.

Advantage/Disadvantage of timed parking
The advantage of the hybrid parking restriction provides flexibility to address the concerns of the residents who rely on home healthcare or other domestic services. This option also allows residents flexibility if they have multiple vehicles without the need to remove their vehicle(s) off the street by 8:00 am. This option also provides the strict parking restriction that is being requested by the residents closest to Jardin Drive.

The disadvantage of this option may be confusion for the general public without very clear signage.

Timed parking may not address all of the residents' concerns about parking in the public right-ofway. The timed parking restriction would require the residents to move their vehicles at a minimum of 15 feet every 2 hours.

Resident Parking Permit
Staff researched other alternatives to the current parking regulations and researched how other cities administer exemptions to parking restrictions. Staff researched jurisdictions that surround the City of Los Altos to determine if a resident parking permit program is a viable option. Based on the research, the City of Mountain View, Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, San Jose, San Mateo, and the County of Santa Clara has a resident parking permit program. The purpose of the residential parking permit program is for residents to be exempt from parking restrictions whose parking is impacted by traffic generators such as hospitals, businesses, and schools. The parking permit is to discourage overflow parking onto residential streets and enhance the quality of life of the residential neighborhoods. To obtain a residential parking permit for vehicles, each city requires proof of residency. The standard method of showing proof of residency is to provide a valid DMV license or vehicle registration, and proof of residency, such as a utility bill, lease agreement, car insurance policy, or printed personal check with the applicant’s name and address. The number of residential parking permits issued varies depending on the city.
100
Agenda Item # 7.

CITY RESIDENTIAL DURATION Zone/District
Specific
GUEST
Cupertino Each vehicle is
registered to an address
1 year No 1 permit, max 24 hours
Sunnyvale Limit of 3 parking
permits
1 year No 1 permit, max 24 hours
Mountain
View
Each vehicle is
registered to an address
1 year Yes Can purchase a day
permit at the parking
vending machine
Palo Alto Each vehicle is
registered to an address
1 year No Can purchase a day
parking permit at the
parking permit vending
machine
Santa Clara
County
Each vehicle is
registered to an address
1 year No No guest parking
permit
San Jose Varies from 1 to
unlimited based on
Zone/District
1 year Yes Max 2 permits
depending on
Zone/District
San Mateo 1 permit for each
licensed driver
2 year No 1 permit good for 2
years

All cities provide parking restriction exemptions for clearly identified commercial and delivery vehicles within the parking restriction area. For home services such as gardeners, active gardening activity must be visible within the property. For the City of Sunnyvale, a parking permit is issued specifically for caregivers. The resident must show proof that a caregiver needs to be at the residence. Caregivers are defined as individuals providing medical-related care. Proof that a caregiver needs to be at a residence can be a contract for care or a doctor’s note stating medical care is required.

The city will face challenges in implementing a resident parking permit program. Currently, the city lacks the necessary resources and staffing to implement and maintain a residential parking permit.

Also, by implementing a residential parking permit program, the Council is providing an opportunity for residents at other parts of the city to request a residential parking permit around other schools, park and close to shopping center.

The City Council may elect to implement a resident parking permit that allows exemption from the parking restriction and establish a neighborhood parking program. The implementation of the parking permit would be a challenge as previously outlined.

Should the City Council direct staff to create a neighborhood permit program, staff will develop an annual fee for administration and establish regulations consistent with Council direction.

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following parking policy around Los Altos High School:

ATTACHMENT

1. Presentation slides
102
Agenda Item # 7.

Parking Restriction Around
Los Altos High School
City Council | February 25, 2025
103
Agenda Item # 7.

Staff Recommendation

1. Existing parking restrictions around Los Altos High School will be modified to 2-hour parking from 8:00 am to 12:00 pm, Monday through Friday. Almond Avenue is to remain as no parking at all times.

2. Existing no parking restriction from 8:00 am to 12:00 pm will remain north of Jardin Drive to approximately 500’ north of Jardine along Panchita Way, Los Ninos Way, Distel Drive, Casita Way and Alicia Way.

3. Staff is granted permission to install 2-hour parking from 8:00 am to 12:00 pm, Monday through Friday at other location deemed necessary to address parking issue around Los Altos High School.
2 104
Agenda Item # 7.

Parking Issues
3 105
Agenda Item # 7.

Student Parking Impact Map
4 Areas where
student parking
consistently
impacted the
residents
106
Agenda Item # 7.

Parking Issues –Before Photo
Student Parking on Panchito Way Prior to Parking Restriction 5 107
Agenda Item # 7.

Parking Issues –Before Photo
Student Parking on Los Ninos Way Prior to Parking Restriction 6 108
Agenda Item # 7.

Parking Issues –Before Photo
Student Parking on Distel Drive Prior to Parking Restriction 7 109
Agenda Item # 7.

Parking Issues –Before Photo
Student Parking on Casita Way Prior to Parking Restriction 8 110
Agenda Item # 7.

Complaints from the Residents
The neighborhood north of Los Altos High School has been impacted by students parking on the street.

Some of the comments and complaints from the residents:
• Blocking the driveways pathways to homes.
• Impact to mail and trash pick up.
• Littering in the neighborhood.
• Parking on lawns.
• Excessive speeding.
9 111
Agenda Item # 7.

Measures Residents Took to
Limit Parking
10 112
Agenda Item # 7.

Resident’s Attempt at Parking Control
11 Placement of Trash Can
Fire Hydrant
Placement of Illegal No Parking sign
113
Agenda Item # 7.

Resident’s Attempt at Parking Control
12 Roping off the front
114
Agenda Item # 7.

Background information
about Los Altos High School
impact to the neighborhood
13 115
Agenda Item # 7.

Los Altos High School

1. Los Altos High School is
approximately 31 acres.

2. The school is bound by residents
to the east and west, Almond Ave
to the south, and Jardin Drive to
the north.

3. The school is currently fully built
out with no means of expanding.
14 116
Agenda Item # 7.

Los Altos High School

1. In 1995, the school had 1,600 student enrollment, 60 teachers and unknown number of support staff.

2. In 2022-2023 academic school year, 2,141 students were enrolled with 114 teachers and unknown number of support staff.

3. This represents a 30% increase.

Source (Public-School Review web page)
15 117
Agenda Item # 7.

Los Altos High School – Current Population
16 .75 mile
radius

1.26 mile
radius

2.4 mile
radius
118
Agenda Item # 7.

Los Altos High School
• To accommodate increased enrollment, in 2017-2018, Mountain View Los Altos High School District (MVLA) conducted a comprehensive facilities master plan to address facilities’ needs and sustained enrollment growth.
• On June 5, 2018, the MVLA Board voted to place a $295-million bond measure on the ballot to expand and upgrade existing buildings for both Los Altos and Mountain View High School for the following:

1. Add additional classrooms.

2. Additional facilities to expand existing programs.

3. Update aging classrooms and replace old roofs, plumbing, and new electrical system.

4. Expand libraries, cafeteria and other student support facilities. 17 119
Agenda Item # 7.

Los Altos High School -Expansion
18 2 story
Classroom
Bldg
Student
union/Admn
Bldg
Aux. Gym
JARDIN DR. JARDIN DR.

ALMOND AVE ALMOND AVE ON CAMPUS DRIVE AISLE

ON CAMPUS DRIVE AISLE

CAMPUS BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 120
Agenda Item # 7.

Los Altos High School – On-site Staging
19 Material Storage
Area closed
Contractor Parking
JARDIN DR.

ALMOND AVE

ON CAMPUS DRIVE AISLE
121
Agenda Item # 7.

Los Altos High School -Expansion
20 Projects currently underway in Phase II include:
• Construct Student Services buildings at Mountain View and Los Altos High Schools to provide academic, college and career, and wellness support for every student - Completed • Complete auxiliary gymnasiums at Los Altos High Schools - Completed • Replace aging grass athletic fields with synthetic, drought-resistant turf - Completed Phase III projects estimated to begin Summer 2023 include:
• Modernize existing libraries to support 21st-century education - To Be Determined (Fall 2026) • Upgrade cafeterias to provide healthy meals more efficiently - Estimated Completion, Fall 2025
• Improve capacity at existing gymnasiums and fund repairs needed for long-term student safety - To Be Determined, currently in discussion
• Increase capacity for music and arts programs to support a well-rounded education - Estimated Completion, Fall 2025
122
Agenda Item # 7.

What does this have to do
with school parking?
21 123
Agenda Item # 7.

Impact to School Parking
22 • Based on information from the Facility Master Plan, there is no reduction of existing parking stalls, and there are no plans for new additional parking spaces.
• The on-site construction could potentially be ongoing till 2026 or beyond. For this reason, the school may not be able to address the need for additional parking stalls
• On-site school circulation will be impacted until the construction is completed.
• The school expansion is necessary to accommodate the increase in student enrollment.
• The footprint of the school cannot expand, and all improvements must stay within the existing property.
124
Agenda Item # 7.

Parking Restriction
23 125
Agenda Item # 7.

Before New Parking Restriction
24 126
Agenda Item # 7.

Before New Parking Restriction
25 127
Agenda Item # 7.

Current Parking Restriction
26 128
Agenda Item # 7.

Current Parking Restriction
27 129
Agenda Item # 7.

No Parking Sign Feedback Map
28 Support
Neutral
Oppose
130
Agenda Item # 7.

Impact to other neighborhood
after parking restriction
29 131
Agenda Item # 7.

Parking Restriction Impact
30 1. With the new parking restriction north of Jardin Drive, students have migrated to other areas.

2. Prior to the new parking restriction, the residents had some impact.

3. The parking on the street is not as severe, and it is disbursed over a broader area.

4. It also appears that more students are being dropped off by their parents.

Areas where students
have migrated for
street parking.
132
Agenda Item # 7.

Hybrid Parking Restriction
31 133
Agenda Item # 7.

Hybrid Parking Restriction
32 Areas where
parking restrictions
remain 8:00-12:00
Areas parking
restriction for 2-
hour parking from
8:00-12:00
134
Agenda Item # 7.

Hybrid Parking Restriction
33 Areas where
parking restrictions
remain 8:00-12:00
Areas parking
restriction for 2-
hour parking from
8:00-12:00
135
Agenda Item # 7.

Exception to Parking
Restriction
34 136
Agenda Item # 7.

Parking Restriction Impact
35 CITY RESIDENTIAL DURATION Zone/District
Specific
GUEST
Cupertino Each vehicle is registered to an address 1 year No 1 permit, max 24 hours Sunnyvale Limit of 3 parking permits 1 year No 1 permit, max 24 hours Mountain View Each vehicle is registered to an address 1 year Yes Can purchase a day permit at the parking vending machine
Palo Alto Each vehicle is registered to an address 1 year No Can purchase a day parking permit at the parking permit vending machine
Santa Clara
County
Each vehicle is registered to an address 1 year No No guest parking permit San Jose Varies from 1 to unlimited based on
Zone/District
1 year Yes Max 2 permits depending on
Zone/District
San Mateo 1 permit for each licensed driver 2 year No 1 permit good for 2 years

1. Exempts clearly identified commercial and delivery vehicles.

2. Home Services such as gardeners are exempt if active gardening can be visibly seen.

3. Sunnyvale provides an exemption to caregivers with proper documentation. 137
Agenda Item # 7.

Conclusion
36 138
Agenda Item # 7.

Conclusion
37 Los Altos High School:

1. The parking problem at Los Altos High School is not related to the current construction activity.

2. The school's enrollment has significantly increased since 1995. While the number of students will stabilize at the current rate, the need for parking will continue to exceed the number of parking stalls available.

3. The school cannot expand. To add additional parking spaces, it will need to remove some of the current school amenities. The school is landlocked, with homes and streets surrounding it.

4. The school falls under the jurisdiction of the State, and they are exempt from local zoning standards.

5. The City cannot mandate or dictate to the school that additional parking spaces must be constructed per the City’s ordinance. The school is under the jurisdiction of the State Architect, who has different requirements. 139
Agenda Item # 7.

Conclusion
38 Impact of Current Parking Restriction:

1. The traffic circulation appears to be calmer and orderly.

2. Students are no longer crossing Jardin Drive at Panchita Way, Los Ninos Way, Distel Drive, and Casita Way while dodging vehicles.

3. Students are now properly utilizing existing crosswalks, improving pedestrian safety.

4. Students racing to get the closest parking space to the school has significantly been reduced.

5. Students who are parking on the street have been “pushed” to other streets in the neighborhood. The parking issue is no longer concentrated in a small area. The street parking is dispersed over a wider area than before away from the school.
140
Agenda Item # 7.

City Council Agenda Report
Meeting Date: January 28, 2025
Prepared By: Jon Maginot
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
This item was continued from 01/28/25
Subject: City Council Strategic Goals

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

RECOMMENDATION
Review the City’s Strategic Goals and provide modifications as needed

FISCAL IMPACT
Unknown at this time as projects undertaken will depend upon the City’s Goals

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Not Applicable.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Last adopted January 23, 2024

BACKGROUND
On January 23, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-22 affirming the City Council’s 5-Year Strategic Goals. These goals guide the priorities and work of the City and help shape the annual budgeting process.

DISCUSSION
The five goals adopted by the City Council in 2024 are:

1. Business Communities: The City of Los Altos will support the different business communities including implementing specific projects and/or elements of the Housing Element Update and Downtown Vision Plan and launching initiatives to bolster the other business communities.

2. Circulation Safety and Efficiency: The City of Los Altos will continue implementing the City’s policies as expressed in the Complete Streets Master Plan and other plans which 141
Agenda Item # 8.
support improving circulation safety and efficiencies, with an emphasis on improving Safe Routes to Schools.

3. Environmental Sustainability: The City of Los Altos will be a leader in environmental sustainability through education, incentives and adaptation initiatives, and practices identified in the City’s Climate Action and Adaptation Plan.

4. Housing: The City of Los Altos will implement the Housing Element, programs and policies to facilitate, incentivize and administer the availability of housing that is safe, diverse and affordable for all income levels to meet the needs of the Community and seek to increase and protect its green space.

5. Neighborhood Safety Infrastructure: The City of Los Altos will conduct a public safety facilities condition assessment on the condition of the police station and two firehouses and based on the public safety needs of the community, develop a plan to replace, repair and/or rehabilitate the City’s public safety infrastructure.

It is recommended that Council review these Goals and provide modifications to them as needed.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 2024-22
142
Agenda Item # 8.
143
Agenda Item # 8.
144
Agenda Item # 8.

City of Los Altos 2025 Tentative Council Agenda Calendar All items and dates are tentative and subject to change unless a specific date has been noticed for a legally required Public Hearing.

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

MARCH 11, 2025
STUDY SESSION (6:00 p.m.): PARC Joint Meeting
REGULAR MEETING (7:00 p.m.):

CONSENT:
 Contract Award for Hetch Hetchy ADA Improvements Project  Independent Intake Official Report
 Housing Element Annual Progress Report
DISCUSSION:
 Introduce Ordinance Amending Council Meeting Definitions  AB481 – Military Equipment
 Parking Enforcement Contract Award and Code Change
145
Agenda Item # 9.

City of Los Altos 2025 Tentative Council Agenda Calendar All items and dates are tentative and subject to change unless a specific date has been noticed for a legally required Public Hearing.

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

MARCH 25, 2025
STUDY SESSION (6:00 p.m.): Presentation from Santa Clara County Fire Chief REGULAR MEETING (7:00 p.m.):

CONSENT:
 Adopt Ordinance Amending Council Meeting Definitions
DISCUSSION:
 Introduction of E-Bike Ordinance
 Introduction of Dark Skies Ordinance
 New Police Station
Remaining 2025 City Council agenda calendar items are pending and will be published at a later date. 146
Agenda Item # 9.

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFP-Permit Ready ADU
Plans July 31, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 1.H: Facilitate housing on City-owned sites. Financial Analysis July 1, 2023 December 31, 2023 COMPLETED Program 3.D: Evaluate and adjust impact fees. August 1, 2023 December 31, 2024 COMPLETED Program 1.H: Facilitate housing on City-owned sites. Release RFP December 31, 2023 COMPLETED Program 6.C: Target housing development in highest
resource areas. Initial Outreach September 31, 2023 COMPLETED Program 6.D: Promote Housing Choice (Section 8) rental
assistance program. September 31, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 2.A: Continue to implement and enhance
inclusionary housing requirements. December 31, 2023 ONGOING Program 2.B: Establish an affordable housing in-lieu fee and commercial linkage fee. Housing in-lieu fee. December 31, 2023 COMPLETED Program 2.F: Water and Sewer Service Providers. December 31, 2023 COMPLETED Program 3.B: Modify building height in mixed-use zoning districts. Downtown Districts December 31, 2023 COMPLETED 147
Agenda Item # 9.

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

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

Remove CSC Review of
Housing Developments December 31, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 4.C: Allow Low Barrier Navigation Centers
consistent with AB 101. December 31, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 4.D: Allow transitional and supportive housing
consistent with State law. December 31, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 4.E: Allow employee/farmworker housing
consistent with State law. December 31, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 4.F: Reasonably accommodate disabled persons’
housing needs. December 31, 2023 COMPLETED
Program 6.B: Maintain and expand an inventory of
affordable housing funding sources. Prepare Inventory. December 31, 2023 COMPLETED Program 6.E: Prepare and distribute anti-displacement
information. December 31, 2023 IN-PROGRESS
Program 1.A: Rezone for RHNA shortfall. January 31, 2024 COMPLETED Program 1.G: Rezone housing sites from previous Housing Elements. January 31, 2024 COMPLETED
Program 3.G: Amend Conditional Use Permits findings
applicable to housing developments. March 31, 2024 COMPLETED Program 3.I: Allow residential care facilities consistent with State law. January 31, 2024 COMPLETED
Program 3.J: Explicitly allow manufactured homes consistent with State law. January 31, 2024 COMPLETED
Program 3.F: Reduce Conditional Use Permit requirement for residential mixed-use and
multi-family. September 31, 2024 COMPLETED
Program 1.B: Facilitate higher density housing in the
Commercial Thoroughfare (CT) District. January 31, 2024 COMPLETED 148
Agenda Item # 9.

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

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

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

Commercial
Neighborhood (CN)
District December 31, 2024 COMPLETED
Program 3.C: Remove floor-to-area ratio (FAR) restriction at Rancho Shopping Center and
Woodland Plaza. December 31, 2024 COMPLETED
Program 3.M: Modify parking requirements for emergency
shelters consistent with State
law. December 31, 2024 COMPLETED
Program 2.B: Establish an affordable housing in-lieu fee and commercial linkage fee. Commercial linkage fee. December 31, 2025 COMPLETED Program 1.D: Allow housing on certain Public and
Community Facilities District sites and
facilitate housing on religious institution properties. December 31, 2025 IN-PROGRESS Program 6.G: Housing mobility
Allow housing on all
religious sites within the
City December 31, 2025 IN-PROGRESS
Program 1.F: Rezone Village Court parcel. January 31, 2024 COMPLETED Program 4.H: Provide additional density bonuses and
incentives for housing that accommodates special needs
groups. December 31, 2025 IN-PROGRESS
Program 4.I: Allow senior housing with extended care
facilities in multi-family and mixed-use zoning districts. December 31, 2025 IN-PROGRESS Program 1.I: Incentivize Downtown lot consolidation. July 31, 2026 149
Agenda Item # 9.

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

Capital Improvement
Project for above head
pedestrian crossing
signals on San Antonio
Road near Downtown Los
Altos December 31, 2027
Program 5.F: Incentivize the creation of play areas for multifamily housing projects. December 31, 2027 Program 1.K: Participate in regional housing needs planning efforts. Ongoing ONGOING
Program 1.L: General Plan amendments. Ongoing ONGOING
Program 1.M: SB 9 implementation. Ongoing ONGOING
Program 1.N: Facilitate and monitor pipeline housing
projects. Ongoing ONGOING
Program 2.C: Assist in securing funding for affordable
housing projects. Ongoing ONGOING
Program 2.D: Encourage and streamline Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Ongoing ONGOING
Program 2.E: Conduct annual ADU rental income surveys. Annual Survey Annually ONGOING Program 4.A: Support efforts to fund homeless services. Ongoing ONGOING Program 4.B: Continue to participate in local and regional forums for homelessness,
supportive, and transitional housing. Ongoing ONGOING
Program 5.A: Monitor condominium conversions. Ongoing ONGOING 150
Agenda Item # 9.

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

Inform, Evaluate
Apply/Submit Ongoing ONGOING
Program 6.F: Affirmatively market physically accessible units. Ongoing ONGOING Program 7.A: Promote energy and water conservation and
greenhouse gas reduction
through education and awareness campaigns. Ongoing ONGOING Program 7.B: Monitor and implement thresholds and
statutory requirements of climate change legislation. Ongoing ONGOING 151
Agenda Item # 9.

DATE: 2/25/2025
TO: COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER’SOFFICE
SUBJECT: COUNCIL Q&A FOR FEBRUARY 25, 2025 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR

MEETING
Agenda Item 3 (Contract for Dog Park Design):
• To date, we’ve spent $75K for conceptual designs for the Hillview dog park and community engagement, and this resolution authorizes an additional amount not-to-exceed $157,911 for construction-ready design plans. In addition to these costs, what is the current estimate for the total costs to achieve a completed dog park? Answer:

Budget expended to date is $75,000
Expenditure requested for construction plan design $158,000 Construction estimate is $863,000
Total estimated cost of dog park is currently $1,096,000 • Do we have an approved final design concept and who approved it? Answer: At the July 9, 2024, City Council meeting, Staff presented the preferred conceptual design plan and received Council direction to complete the design and construction documents.

Agenda Item 4 (Amendment #2 for FOG Program):
• At the bottom of the first page there is a breakdown of funds to be used and then a statement that the “[t]otal budget requested is $0.” Does that mean that zero dollars are to be allocated from the general fund? If not, please explain how the total budget requested is zero dollars when the additional amount requested in $155,865.

Answer: The FOG Program is funded through the Sewer Fund, not the General Fund.

The amount for the FOG Program for FY 2024-25 is already included in the approved budget for FY 2024-25. Funding for FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27 will be incorporated into the respective year's budget during the standard budgeting process. • Resolution: The first WHEREAS says “the Professional Services Agreement was executed….” What Profession Services Agreement? Should it read “On December 7, 2022, the City of Los Altos entered into an agreement with EEC . . .”? Answer: The resolution was revised.
• Resolution: Also, in the first WHEREAS: “the project” is not defined.” Answer: The resolution was revised.
• Resolution: The second WHEREAS is not a complete sentence.

Answer: The resolution was revised.
• Resolution: Shouldn’t the fourth WHEREAS say for what there are “sufficient funds available in the Sewer Fund?”
Answer: The resolution was revised.
• Resolution: In the NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED paragraph, remove the text “(list action)” at the end of the second line of the paragraph Answer: The resolution was revised.
• The background describes the FOG program as necessary to fulfill the requirements of the relevant boards. Hopefully, it’s also having a practical positive impact on keeping grease out of the sewers. Are any metrics kept on the effectiveness of the program Answer: There has been a notable decrease in blockages in the sewer mains, demonstrating the program’s effectiveness in reducing grease-related issues.

Agenda Items 5 (Accountability Policy):
• Please provide a redlined version of the document.

Answer: Attached.
• In two places under “Disciplinary Action” the document refers to “a majority of the entire membership of the Council.” Can this be shortened to “a majority off the members of the Council?”
Answer: Staff recommend not making this change. The proposed change could be interpreted as a majority of the members currently sitting on Council, meaning if there is a vacancy (or two), then only two Councilmembers would be required to act. As currently written, action would require at least three Councilmembers to approve, even if there is a vacancy.
• I am not clear what was changed from the previous version of the accountability policy since we only see a couple highlights (on page 1 of the policy) and no red-lined version.

Answer: The redlined version has been attached.
• On the top of page 2 it says, "The Council shall only admonish or censure a Councilmember pursuant to this policy if a Councilmember has violated "the a" (should be either 'the' or ‘a’) Law or Policy more than two times and … “. I thought we gave direction that “more than two times” was excessive so it should be “more than one … “? Answer: Staff will remove the “a.” Council did discuss reducing the threshold but ultimately directed that the language remain as is with the inclusion that a supermajority could act after one violation. This language has been included in the proposed changes.

Agenda Item 6 (Underground Utilities):
• If a utility pole has a streetlight, small cell node, or other equipment as well as overhead wires to a new house, does the homeowner still have to remove the pole? If so, who is responsible for replacing the streetlight, small cell node, etc.? Answer: Streetlights differ from utility poles, if the streetlight that exists today required an upgrade, the City would require the streetlight to be upgraded to the current City Standard Specification. For a Small Cell Node, the pole may have to remain if there is lease agreement language that would prevent it from being removed or replaced. The main objective with undergrounding of utilities is to underground wires for utilities which include electrical and telecom and the poles that are necessary for those to exist above ground.
• Suppose one pole has overhead wires serving multiple homes. Is the property owner who is building a new house required to provide underground utilities to all the other houses? If not, how/when will that pole, and its overhead wiring ever be moved underground? Answer: In this example, the property owner who is seeking to build a new house which is being served by overhead utilities would be required to underground the pole and wires which are being fed from the pole it is taking power from. This is the current practice of the City in the Subdivision Ordinance.
• Resolution: In SECTION 1, please change the word “are” to “is” (first word of the second line).

Answer: Noted.
• Sections 11.25.020.A.1. refers to “new and existing overhead utility lines.” Under this ordinance, how can there be “new” overhead utility lines? Answer: This section is written to capture both existing lines, and new lines proposed in the future.
• Section 11.25.040 exempts “major electrical transmission lines.” What is the definition of a “major electrical transmission line?” Is there an objective test? Is it in the subjective opinion of the City engineer?
Answer: Major Electrical Transmission Lines (also referred to as, “high-voltage powerlines”) are currently defined by PG&E as 60kV-500kV. The majority of all utility lines within the City of Los Altos are Distribution Lines, which defer from Transmission Lines. There is not a subjective opinion in determining if a utility line is Major Electrical Transmission, PG&E will confirm the voltage of the line, which will inform the City Engineer regarding the allowance of an exemption.
• Section 11.25.040: Why are ADUs and JADUs exempt?
Answer: ADUs and JADUs were intended to be exempt from the provisions of this chapter, for when standalone ADUs or JADUs are being built on a property; they would be allowed to install utilities which mirror what the primary dwelling has for utility purposes.
• What is the anticipated cost to homeowners to comply with this section? Will the costs make remodeling or building new structures cost prohibitive? Answer: Conversion of Overhead Utility Lines to Underground Facilities can range from $350 per foot to $1150 per foot. This depends on the voltage of electrical, the number of lines (electrical and telecom), and the contractor associated with the project.

Undergrounding Utilities in the City of Los Altos would not be cost prohibitive based on the applicability of this ordinance pursuant to 11.25.020. Additional information about cost can be found here:
https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electricalenergy/infrastructure/electric-reliability/undergrounding-programdescription#:~:text=IV.,- Undergrounding%20Costs%20in&text=According%20to%20PG&E%2C%20SCE%20and ,the%20IOUs%20are%20shown%20below:
• Please respond to the concerns raised by Les Poltrack in his email of Feb. 22.

Answer: Please see the following answer to the next bullet point. • A resident has written raising practical concerns about the proposed undergrounding requirements. In particular, the rule requiring the removal of poles adjacent to a project might well impact neighboring properties also served by such a pole. If that understanding is correct, how would disruption to the neighboring properties be minimized? Who would bear the costs of all the changes to both the utility infrastructure and the service lines? Answer:
o The resident presents an interesting concept about “Underground Ready” which would mirror the requirement generally seen in new electric ready home construction. Although an interesting concept, this is not a practice, staff are familiar with and are unaware of any other city doing something similar to this.

In general, requiring undergrounding is usually one or the other, meaning you require undergrounding or not. It has been the City’s practice for several years to require undergrounding of utilities whenever possible, and generally when new development is occurring.
o Another concept or concern posed in the public comment is that the new development on property A would require new Meter Panel Upgrades on other properties such as Property B, C, and D; that is incorrect. When moving from Above Ground Utilities to Underground it is only the Service Drop that is completed for properties B, C, and D. Additionally, undergrounding of “utilities” is intended to require more than just electrical undergrounding by virtue of the term utilities which is intentionally utilized to require electrical and telecom wires to be undergrounded when required by this code. The cost burden of undergrounding wires and a pole is not borne properties A, B, C, and D, rather only property A where the new development is occurring, which is necessitating the undergrounding of utilities.
o Regarding the undergrounding of utilities in the public right-or-way; regardless of is the undergrounding work that would include other properties the property which is triggering the work to be necessitated has a right to complete the work within the right-of-way and does not require approval of neighbors.

Additionally, there would be NO disruption of any sewer, or water facilities.

Electric/communication lines are not gravity feed and can be easily installed below or above existing underground utilities to prevent conflict without disrupting services.
o Statements regarding underground vaults by PG&E are a part of the standard process for underground utilities and the City is reviewing and approving these types of improvements regularly throughout the community. Additionally, PG&E ultimately makes the final decision as the owner of the utilities with the design and specifications required to complete the undergrounding. Cities in general set the policy for undergrounding utilities or not and then allow future projects to accomplish this slowly overtime. Lastly, should the city not require the undergrounding of utilities and the associated poles that is directly related to development within the city, the cost burden to complete this will fall upon the city as a future Capital Improvement Project which would cost several millions of dollars with the amount of above ground utilities that still exist within the city.
• What overlaps are there with CPUC Rule 20 undergrounding programs? Answer: The City is responsible for Rule 20A money. Rule 20A has a requirement for General Public Interest. The use of Rule 20A money for the undergrounding of utilities which benefit a limited number of of properties or parcels is general not what jurisdictions utilize those dollars for, this is why communities have undergrounding requirements or programs which aim to underground the various utilities in neighborhoods.

Agenda Item 7 (Parking Restrictions Around LAHS):
• How many more requests for a parking permit does LAHS receive compared to the number of on-campus student parking spaces available?
Answer: According to LAHS, the school received 270 parking permit applications for 120 student parking stalls. Based on the 2x2 meeting attended by two members of the School Board and the City Council on 2/21/25, Eric Volta (MVLA Superintendent) reiterated that they deny approximately 50% of the parking permit applications • What criteria does LAHS use to determine who is entitled to receive a parking permit? Is it first come, first serve? Or are other criteria taken into consideration? Answer: According to LAHS, the parking permit is a lottery, although preference is given to freestyle students, seniors and those living outside beyond a certain boundary. A freestyle students take part in a special program that is over at the district office next to MVHS. They have classes at LAHS as well as at the district office.

Some students drive between the two (2) programs while others are shuttled between the programs. Another factor that is utilized to determine the issuance of a parking permit would be the resident location. If a student lives beyond Springer on the eastern edge, south to Cuesta, west to Foothill Expressway, northwest to Los Altos Ave, north to Portola, east to San Antonio, north to El Camino, then southeast to El Monte (which becomes Springer), then the student is eligible for priority parking permit.

The City does not have any jurisdiction over the school or the school district. Based on the 2x2 meeting, it appears the school has changed their student permit policy and placed distance from the school as a priority for parking permits then seniors and lastly, juniors.
• Please describe in detail the enforcement costs of a neighborhood parking permit program as opposed to the status quo.

Answer: It is difficult to estimate the annual enforcement costs of a neighborhood parking permit program without having specific information regarding the program in place, including number of participants in the program, permitted vehicles, and additional considerations like guest or overnight parking passes or exemptions or alternative enforcement for certain types of service vehicles.

Based on all available information, the cost to provide daily parking enforcement in this geographic area for a year will be approximately $200,000. The current practice of the City is for programs such as this to be cost neutral. This means that the cost to implement the parking permit program must be paid by the residents.

Currently, there are a total of 135 homes north of Jardin Drive (Jardin Ave to Alvarado along Panchita Way, Los Ninos Way, Distel Drive, Casita and Alicia Way), and an additional 132 homes to the south, east, and west, for a total 267.

Assuming the annual cost of the program is $200,000 and the City provided the opportunity for 2 vehicle permits per home, the annual cost per property would be $750 ($375/vehicle).

Based on comments received from the public it is safe to assume that not 100% of properties would participate, or if they did, they would not require two parking permits. Additionally, a neighborhood parking permit program would have to take into account some type of guest parking or overnight parking. Changing any of these factors would increase or decrease the cost per property based on the updated assumptions. It is also important to note that residents south of Almond have had parking restrictions in place for several years and are not requesting a neighborhood parking program. It may not be practical to assume this neighborhood would participate at high levels.

In order for a parking permit program to be cost effective for residents it would likely require a larger geographic area, limited/reduced enforcement, or an annual subsidy from the City.

Based on research, the cost for a residential parking permit is as follows. For the City of Mountain View, the residential parking permit is limited to the downtown area only. All other cities have various numbers of residential parking permit zones/districts.

City Cost Duration # permits

Guest Permit
Cupertino Cost varies 1 year Each vehicle is
registered to an
address
1 permit, 24 hr
max
Sunnyvale $25 per permit 1 year 3 permit limits 1 permit, 24 hr max
Mountain View $413 per
permit
1 year Each vehicle is
registered to an
address
Day permit
Palo Alto $51 per permit 1 year Each vehicle is
registered to an
address
Day permit
Santa Clara
County
$31.83 per
permit
1 year Each vehicle is
registered to an
address
No guest parking
permit
San Jose Fee varies from
free to $29 per
vehicle
1 year Varies from 1 to
unlimited based
on Zone/District
2 max
depending on
the
Zone/District
San Mateo Free 2 years 1 permit for each
licensed driver
1 permit good
for 2 years
• How many parking stalls along the east on-campus drive aisle were taken out of use during construction? How were these assigned for staff or students? Is the intention to return all of these to use at the end of construction?
Answer: Based on google earth from 2011 to 2019, reviewing historical aerial photos, it appears that the school had approximately 70 parking stalls (46 diagonal parking stalls and 24 parallel parking stalls). Staff were unable to determine exactly how those parking stalls were utilized by the school or who were permitted to utilize these parking stalls. According to LAHS, the parking stall will be returned at the conclusion of construction. The utilization and who will be parking in this area will be determined by LAHS.
• Would the proposed changes also bring uniformity with the parking restrictions south of LAHS (i.e. the Almond side)? It seems unnecessarily complicated to have a system with five different types of restrictions: no parking, no parking 8-4, no parking 8-2, no parking 8-12, two-hour parking 8-12.

Answer: The request from staff is to apply the same parking restrictions in all neighborhoods that are similarly situated, including those around Los Altos High School. This would mean all parking restrictions south of Almond Avenue will be changed to 2-hour parking between 8 a.m.-12 p.m. Monday through Friday. This will be uniform with the proposed parking restriction north of Jardin Drive. • Many public comments have been received about the parking restrictions, with different cases of concern raised (e.g. insufficient resident parking on property, social visitors, caregiver visitors, regular services like housecleaning and gardening, exceptional services like construction, LAHS volunteers, etc.). Has a comprehensive list of these received concerns been compiled? Such a list could be useful as a check for proposed modifications, as otherwise ideas can devolve into “Whack-a-mole.” Answer: Based on my field observation, 80% of the residential driveways are long enough to accommodate four (4) vehicles. The remaining 20% of the properties do not have the adequate setback necessary to allow more than two (2) vehicles to be parked in the driveway.

Based on all the emails received from the residents, the staff can identify only one resident who has an in-home care provider for her mother. Two (2) residents currently have active construction on their property. These residents have expressed their frustration because their contractor has received numerous parking tickets. Staff have received feedback from the residents regarding their gardener or house cleaner, but they did not leave their name or address. The 2-hour parking restriction between 8- 12 is a way to address this concern. If someone is visiting for more than 2 hours, the guest would need to move their vehicle at least 15 feet to avoid a parking ticket. • Has the city or school district ever raised the possibility of overflow parking with private entities? For example, places of worship often have parking usage patterns complementary to school schedules. While such arrangements would of course be voluntary, and might involve complicated issues, are there any fundamental issues (e.g. legal) blocking such arrangements?
Answer: This arrangement would be between an individual property owner and the school/school district. The City would not be involved in this matter since it would be a private negotiation. Any legal matter that may arise out of this negotiation would be between the school and the individual property owner only. The city has no authority on this matter.
• Please explain the rationale for why the restrictions north of Jardin are NOT the same as elsewhere around the high school as described:

1. “All existing parking restrictions around Los Altos High School will be modified to 2-hour parking from 8:00 am to 12:00 pm, Monday through Friday. Almond Avenue is to remain as no parking at all times.”
Answer: The parking restriction has been implemented over the years as issues were brought up by the residents, south of Almond Avenue. Based on available information, it appears the parking restriction was based on the request from the residents at the time. Because the hours of parking restriction vary, staff would like to provide uniformity on all parking restrictions around Los Altos High School.

2. The existing no-parking restriction from 8:00 am to 12:00 pm will remain north of Jardin Drive to 500 feet north of Jardin Drive along Panchita Way, Los Ninos Way, Distel Drive, Casita Way and Alicia Way.”
Answer: Prior to the installation of the parking restriction, most of the students were parking within the first 500 feet (approx. 6 homes) north of Jardin Drive.

The residents beyond this limit experienced limited impact of the student parking on the street. Based on resident feedback, the residents within the first 500 feet from Jardin Drive would like to maintain the new parking restriction with no modifications. The residents have expressed concerns and opposed the parking restriction beyond 500 feet from Jardin Drive. By placing a 2-hour parking restriction from 8-12, the City will be able to address the issue of any social gathering, need for gardener, house cleaner or in-home care giver to park on the street without receiving a parking ticket. Most gardeners or house cleaners can complete their task within 2 hours. If any home service provider needs to stay longer than 2 hours, they would need to move their vehicle 15 feet to avoid a parking ticket.

The closest building to Jardin Drive at LAHS is approximately 500 feet away. By allowing 2-hour parking 500 feet north of Jardin Avenue, assuming a student parks in this area, it will take on average 4 minutes to get from the nearest classroom to their vehicle. Assuming parking space is available close by, it will take approximately 2 to 3 minutes to move their vehicle and another 4 minutes to get back into class. Based on this analysis, it is safe to assume a student will need approximately 10 minutes between classes to comply with the 2-hour restriction. Based on LAHS bell schedule, a student is only allowed a 7-minute passing period between classes or 8 minutes for the brunch break. Even with an open campus, the allowed passing period would be less than what the student will need to comply with the 2-hour restriction. In the future, if the school decides to extend the passing period or brunch, the 2-hour parking restriction will need to be re-examined.

Agenda Item 8 (Council Goals):
• Goal 3: Would the acquisition or extension of open space be considered part of pursuing this goal?
Answer: Goal 3 seems to be written to focus on the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. The acquisition or extension of open space would seem to fall under Goal 4 as currently written.
• Goal 5: Would the assessment of condition of the police station include the emergency response center? In other words, not just the building itself, but also the computer and communications systems that would be the platform for real-time emergency and disaster response?
Answer: The condition assessment that was conducted last year focused on the physical structures of the police station and two fire stations. It did not focus on computer or communication systems, nor did it include information on the Emergency Operations Center.

However, any plans for a new police station would incorporate current and future needs around emergency response, continuity of operations, and disaster response.

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR INSPECTION, EDUCATION, AND

ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FOR THE FATS, OILS AND GREASE (FOG) PROGRAM WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING & CONTRACTING, INC. (EEC) IN THE AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $155,865
WHEREAS, On December 7, 2022, the Professional Services Agreement was executed with EEC, the consultant that provides professional services for the Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG) Program, Project WW-01006;; and
WHEREAS, Project WW-01006 consists of inspection, education, and enforcement services for the FOG Program for FY 2024-25 through FY 2026-27; and
WHEREAS, the project is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15308 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment); and WHEREAS, there are sufficient funds in the Sewer Fund for the FOG Program, Project WW01006.

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

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
__________________________
Pete Dailey
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Melissa Thurman, MMC
City Clerk
4831-0084-6333v2
JH\27697001

ACCOUNTABILITY POLICY OF THE LOS ALTOS CITY COUNCIL
Adopted October 12, 2021

This policy applies only to the City of Los Altos Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Councilmembers serving elected or appointed to serve on the Los Altos City Council (“Council”) for improper conduct that could result in admonition or censure.

This policy shall be effective on the date of adoption by the Council (“Effective Date”) and shall not be applied retroactively to any conduct occurring before the Effective Date.

Any disciplinary action taken by the Council under this policy shall be a final action and is not subject to an appeal or reconsideration.

Depending on the circumstances of alleged violations of Law or Policy, the Council may initiate an investigation of the allegations prior to the filing of a request for any of the actions described in this policy. An investigation is not required, but any Councilmember may request and may be granted an investigation of the alleged violation in consultation with the City Manager and City Attorney or upon approval by the Council. A request for an investigation may not be used to delay action by the City Council. The City Council may elect to issue an admonition or censure prior to finalization of an investigation.

Nothing in this policy shall preclude individual Councilmembers from making public statements regarding such alleged conduct. While the Council has broad discretion in deciding certain actions it may choose to take in response to violations of Law or Policy, which would not require the Council to adopt policy, including but not limited to voting to remove a Councilmember from a Committee or Board, or a vote of no confidence in a particular Councilmember, this policy provides definitions and procedures related to two types of actions: admonition and censure. 4831-0084-6333v2
JH\27697001
The Council shall only admonish or censure a Councilmember pursuant to this policy if a Councilmember has violated the same a Law or Policy more than two times and the Councilmember has been publicly warned about such violations by another Councilmember or the Councilmembers(s) at a City Council meeting and the Councilmember that received the warning continues to violate the Law or Policy. A supermajority of the City Council (4 of the 5 Councilmembers) may admonish or censure a Councilmember after one violation of Law or Policy should the Council deem the violation serious enough to warrant such action.

Such reminders by the Mayor are not an admonition.

Formal Admonition or Censure Public Hearing
4831-0084-6333v2
JH\27697001
At a public City Council Meeting, three (3) Councilmembers may request a discussion of a formal censure and/or formal admonition action be placed on a future regular meeting Council agenda. At the future meeting that the discussion is heard, a vote by three (3) or more Councilmembers is required to agendize a formal public hearing. The City Clerk shall provide a formal notice of the hearing to the Councilmember who is the subject of the action. The notice shall contain the specific allegations and/or charges on which the proposed action is based and the date and time that the matter will be heard. At the hearing, the Councilmembers who requested the hearing shall have a cumulative total time of no more than 10 minutes to state the reason(s) they are requesting the formal admonition or censure, and the Councilmember who is the subject of the action shall have up to 10 minutes to respond. Upon hearing the testimony, the Council may take action setting forth its findings and stating the terms of the disciplinary action.

Disciplinary Action.

The following is a Summary of Council Actions.

Minutes from the meeting will be posted once adopted by Council.

For more information, contact the City Clerk’s Office at 650-947-2720.

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2025

SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS
7:00 P.M. – REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Items for Consideration

1. The City Council approved the special and regular meeting minutes of February 11, 2025.

2. The City Council approved the amendments to the previously approved meeting minutes of June 25, 2024.

3. The City Council adopted a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a design contract with Callander Associates Landscape Architecture, Inc. in an amount not-to-exceed $137,314.00, and up to 15% contingency not-to-exceed $20,597.00, for a total amount not-toexceed $157,911.00, to complete the design plans for the Hillview Dog Park.

4. The City Council adopted a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 2 with Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc. (EEC) in the amount of $ $155,865 for inspection, education, and enforcement services for the Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) Program, Project WW-01006.

5. The City Council adopted the revised City Council Accountability Policy.

6. The City Council continued this item to a future date.

7. The City Council adopted the following parking policy around Los Altos High School: 1) All existing parking restrictions around Los Altos High School, with the exception of the streets south of Almond Avenue, will be modified to 2-hour parking from 8:00 am to 12:00 pm, Monday through Friday. Almond Avenue is to remain as no parking at all times; 2) The existing no-parking restriction from 8:00 am to 12:00 pm will remain north of Jardin Drive to 500 feet north of Jardin Drive along Panchita Way, Los Ninos Way, Distel Drive, Casita Way and Alicia Way; and 3) Staff is granted permission to install a 2-hour parking restriction from 8:00 am to 12:00 pm, Monday through Friday at other locations deemed necessary to address parking issues around Los Altos High School.

8. The City Council reviewed the City’s Strategic Goals and provide direction on modifications.

COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS AND DIRECTIONS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ADJOURNMENT 11:23 P.M.

Los Altos City CouncilFebruary 25, 2025

Los Altos City Council
February 25, 2025