• In §1(d) of the amendment, ¶2 refers to Mountain View’s obligations and ¶3 refers to Los Altos’ obligations. With respect to Mountain View, the language reads “the City of Mountain View shall be excluded from participation in the line of credit and shall have no obligations or liabilities related to any line of credit entered into by Palo Alto.” Why is there no similar language for Los Altos? We should receive the same treatment as our sister agencies.
Answer: Mountain View elected not to participate in the LOC and instead will pay its project costs in cash, including an initial $2 million payment. For that reason, the agreement specifically excludes Mountain View from any LOC obligations or liabilities.
Los Altos is participating in the LOC as a financing mechanism for its share of project costs. Therefore, the exclusion language applicable to Mountain View does not apply to Los Altos. The LOC changes how Los Altos finances its share, not the proportional share allocated to the City.
• Did we consider doing what Mountain View is doing, which is paying cash vs. participating in the Line of Credit funding mechanism, and what would that scenario look like costwise? Or was that not an option? Answer: Paying cash is an option, and Finance reviewed the two approaches. Los Altos’ current estimated share is approximately $2.94 million. Under a cash option, the City would use Sewer Fund cash to fund its share of project costs. Mountain View chose this approach and will make an initial $2 million payment, followed by additional payments as project costs are incurred and billed.
Under the LOC, the City would initially pay interest and fees as funds are drawn, while keeping the corresponding Sewer Fund cash available and invested. Based on current investment yields and LOC pricing, Finance’s preliminary analysis indicates that the additional net cost of the LOC is expected to be relatively modest after considering investment earnings on retained cash.
The LOC gives the City more flexibility and preserves liquidity as the Sewer Fund faces other capital and operating needs. Finance will continue to compare borrowing costs with investment earnings as actual project draws occur. • The Resolution is dated July 14, 2026 so it should be corrected to Sept 22, 2026.
Answer: The date has been corrected. An updated resolution with the correct date of September 22, 2026 is attached.
• The web page for the headworks project (assuming it’s the same project) indicates that:
This project is still seeking additional funding. Financing through the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) administered Water Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act (WIFIA) and the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program loans will be pursued for the detailed design and construction of this project. If these lowerinterest loans cannot be obtained, bond financing will be considered. Partner agencies’ approval to repay the loans is required.
If it is the same project, what impact will this have on Los Altos’ ongoing financial participation?
Answer: Yes, this is the same Headworks Facility Replacement Project referenced on the Palo Alto website. The Line of Credit (LOC) authorized under Addendum No. 14 is intended to fund $18 million design phase of the project.
The RWQCP partners, including Los Altos, have long anticipated that the Headworks Project would ultimately require longer-term financing for construction. As a result, the project has already been incorporated into the partners' long-range financial planning as a future debt obligation.
The LOC serves as a low-cost interim financing tool that allows design work to proceed while incurring only interest and financing costs on amounts drawn. Any amounts borrowed through the LOC for the design phase are expected to be incorporated into the long-term financing mechanism, which may include Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) and the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program loans, or a utility bond.
Accordingly, this approach does not change Los Altos' overall financial responsibility for the project. Los Altos will continue to be responsible for its proportional share of project costs under the existing cost-allocation methodology. The LOC affects the timing and method of financing, but not the City's underlying share of project costs.
In practical terms, Los Altos' proportional share does not change, and the project's anticipated costs have already been incorporated into the City's long-range financial planning as a future debt obligation.
Agenda Item 3 (VTA Board Member Nomination):
• The staff report says, “Councilmember Weinberg currently serves as the Los Altos representative on the VTA Board.” To clarify, it is more accurate to say that “Councilmember Weinberg currently serves as the VTA Board Member from Group 2, consisting of agencies of Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View and Palo Alto. Vice Mayor Lang serves as Los Altos’ representative to the VTA Policy Action Committee.” Answer: Noted.
Agenda Item 4 (Urgency Ordinance – Detention and Processing Facilities):
• What are the Constitutional implications of such zoning and related actions? Seems like they raise supremacy clause questions.
Answer: In the City’s capacity as a regulator, the California Constitution grants cities broad police powers to enact ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its residents. Cal. Const. art XI, § 7.
This includes local land use authority, an area where localities have been constitutionally endowed with wide-ranging discretion in how to best serve the general welfare. For this reason, the City could not regulate property owned by the state or its agencies when the state is performing a governmental function. Similarly, the Supremacy Clause prevents states including its subdivisions (cities and counties) from directly regulating or discriminating against the federal government.
In balancing the above considerations, the proposed moratorium is generally applicable and does not directly regulate or discriminate against property owned or operated by the state or federal government. The moratorium is not a ban but a legitimate exercise of the City’s police power to pause and assess how potential detention and custodial facilities use on private properties may impact public health, safety and welfare, how these impacts should be mitigated, and where such facilities should be sited.
• A public comment claims the interim urgency ordinance is unconstitutional, is there a basis for that claim?
Answer: See answer to previous question.
• The staff report says that “[t]he moratorium would not apply to routine law-enforcement activities. . . .” What is defined as “routine?” Wouldn’t the federal government argue that ICE’s detention and/or processing of persons are “routine law enforcement activities?” Answer: The Interim Urgency Ordinance defines this exclusion as the " temporary restraint or custody by the Los Altos Police Department incidental to an arrest, investigation, emergency response, transportation, or transfer when the premises are not established or operated as a covered use."
• Would federal preemption nullify this ordinance if ICE wants to construct a facility within the City of Los Altos?
Answer: Federal preemption depends on the specific circumstances and the nature of the facility being proposed. If a federal agency were to propose a facility in the future, questions regarding federal preemption and the extent of the City's land use authority
would need to be evaluated based on the specific proposal, the applicable legal framework, and the ordinance ultimately in effect at that time. Those determinations are highly fact-specific and cannot be made in the abstract. • Have federal authorities made any indication that they will take action against agencies that enact ordinances to hamper federal law enforcement? Answer: The purpose of the interim urgency ordinance is not to interfere with federal law enforcement or federal operations. The ordinance is a temporary land use measure that allows the City time to evaluate whether updates to its zoning regulations are warranted to address the potential establishment or operation of detention or custodial processing facilities. It is intended to preserve the status quo while the City conducts that analysis and considers any future regulations through the normal public process.
Agenda Item 5 (Police Station Redevelopment):
• Does the satellite station at Loyola Corners affect the City’s analysis of department needs and/or anticipated costs of a potential project?
Answer: The facility at Loyola Corners does not affect the analysis of what is needed for the main Police headquarters. The space at Loyola Corners will be in addition to the space that is needed at the existing police building.
• Has the POA been consulted? If so, what was their input? Answer: Yes, POA has been consulted and will continue to be consulted as part of the project. They are generally supportive of an option that provides an upgraded and modernized facility. They generally recognize that adjustments may be needed to ensure the City can build a fiscally sound project that provides the services needed by the community.
• Aren’t Options 2 and 3 similar depending on how you stage it? If you construct a new building that is designed to be connected to the existing building after it is renovated, isn’t that just a version of Option 2, renovation and expansion? Answer: There are additional costs for Option 3 when constructing a new building that are not a part of expanding the existing building (site work, additional utility connections, moving of parking, etc.).
• The space needs are based on comparison with similar-sized departments and discussions with Los Altos Police staff. Perhaps the staff report will include more detail, but is a highlevel summary of space needs by function available?
Answer: The staff presentation will include more details on the space needs of the department. The needs are based on current staffing and best practices for departments the size of Los Altos.
Agenda Item 7 (Legal Services Agreement):
• The CPI shall be adjusted by a three percent (3%) minimum increase, and any other increases shall only be by mutual agreement of the Parties as expressed in writing.
Please clarify “any other increases.” Does this mean increases above 3%, or increases beyond the CPI formula?
Answer: “Any other increases” refers to increases beyond the CPI adjustment provided for in the agreement. The annual adjustment is based on CPI, with a minimum increase of 3%. Any additional increase outside of the calculated CPI adjustment would require mutual written agreement of both parties.
CITY OF LOS ALTOS
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2026
7:00 p.m.
1 N. San Antonio Rd. ~ Los Altos, CA
Sally Meadows, Mayor
Larry Lang, Vice Mayor
Pete Dailey, Councilmember
Jonathan D. Weinberg, Councilmember
CALL MEETING TO ORDER – Sally Meadows, Mayor, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ESTABLISH QUORUM – All Councilmembers were present.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Jonathan D. Weinberg Pete Dailey, Councilmember, led the Pledge of Allegiance.
REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
There was no Closed Session meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
The following members of the public spoke during Public Comment:
Steve Larson Laura Fay
Andrea Wald Laura Fay
Edward Keller Nyssa Kansal
Anky van Deursen
CONSENT CALENDAR
Jonathan D. Weinberg, Councilmember, requested to pull Item 4 from the Consent Calendar.
Sally Meadows, Mayor, moved the item to be considered as the first Discussion Item of the agenda.
Motion by Lang and Second by Meadows to approve the Consent Calendar, excluding Item 4.
Motion carried unanimously by electronic vote.
1. Approval of Meeting Minutes – Draft Special and Regular Meeting of August 25, 2026
2. Adoption of Resolution - Revised Fiscal Year 2026/27 Pay Schedules Adopt a resolution approving revised Fiscal Year 2026/27 Pay Schedules for the Los Altos Municipal Employee Association (LAMEA), Los Altos Peace Officers' Association (POA), Unrepresented Management, and Unrepresented Professional and Confidential classifications
3. Adoption of Resolution - Amendment No. 4 with Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc.
Adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 4 to the Maintenance Service Agreement with Bear Electrical Solutions, Inc. to increase the total agreement amount by $250,000
City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
September 8, 2026
4. This item was moved to a Discussion Item.
5. Acceptance Item - Investment Reports
Receive and file the City's Investment Portfolio Report for the quarter ending March 31, 2026
6. Formation of Subcommittee - City Manager Annual Performance Review Establish a subcommittee comprised of the Mayor and Vice Mayor to develop the process for the City Manager’s Annual Performance Review
7. Authorization to Vote - 2026-27 CalCities Peninsula Division Authorize the Mayor to cast a vote for the 2026-27 CalCities Peninsula Division Executive Board
8. Adoption of Resolution - Street Renaming
Adopt a resolution approving the renaming of Lee Street to Tubman Street in Los Altos
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Item 4 was moved from the Consent Calendar.
4. Adoption of Resolution - Joint Volunteer Awards Committee Changes Adopt a resolution to disband the Los Altos - Los Altos Hills Joint Volunteer Awards Committee and establish the Los Altos Volunteer Awards Committee The following members of the public spoke regarding the item:
Linda Swan Roger Burnell
Stan Mok Sandy Mingia
George Tyson Rajiv Bhateja
Jean Mordo
The City Council discussed the item and directed staff to not proceed with the December Joint Volunteer Awards Committee event.
9. Citizen Initiative - Potential Impacts to Zoning
Receive the report and presentation
Stephanie Williams, Development Services Director, opened the item.
The following members of the public spoke regarding the item:
Nancy Martin Barbara Loebner
Cindy Andrews Alice Mansell
City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
September 8, 2026
The City Council took a recess at 9:40 p.m.
The City Council reconvened at 9:50 p.m.
Discussion item only. No motion taken.
10. Provide Direction - 2026 CalCities Resolution
Provide direction to Vice Mayor Lang, Primary Voting Delegate, and Councilmember Weinberg (Alternate Voting Delegate) on the 2026 Resolution packet for the CalCities Annual Conference
Melissa Thurman, City Clerk, opened the item.
The following member of the public spoke regarding the item:
Eric Steinle
Motion by Weinberg and Second by Meadows to direct Vice Mayor Lang, Primary Voting Delegate to vote No on the Resolution during the CalCities Annual Conference. Motion carried unanimously by electronic vote.
11. Discussion Item - Environmental Commission
Discuss the Environmental Commission and create a City Council Ad-Hoc Subcommittee, if necessary
Anthony Carnesecca, Deputy City Manager, presented the report.
There were no public speakers regarding the item.
Discussion item only. No motion taken.
COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS AND DIRECTIONS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Jonathan D. Weinberg, Councilmember – Requested a future agenda item:
o Re-appointment of Jonathan D. Weinberg to serve an additional two years on the VTA Group 2 Board (Unanimous Support)
ADJOURNMENT – The regular meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
The meeting minutes were prepared by Melissa Thurman, City Clerk, for approval at the regular meeting on September 22, 2026.
_________________________________ __________________________________ Sally Meadows Melissa Thurman, MMC
Mayor City Clerk
City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
September 8, 2026
The September 8, 2026, 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.
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ADDENDUM NO. 14 TO THE
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLANT BASIC AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, AND THE CITY OF
LOS ALTOS FOR THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND MAINTENANCE OF
THE JOINT SEWER SYSTEM
WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto and the City of Los Altos have entered a Joint Sewer System Agreement and subsequent addenda No. 1 through No. 13; and WHEREAS, Addendum No. 14 to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant Basic Agreement authorizes up to approximately $31 million in capital improvement project costs, including headworks and outfall design, deferred minor capital projects, and emergency projects; and WHEREAS, Addendum No. 14 authorizes the City of Palo Alto, as owner and operator of the Regional Water Quality Control Plant, to secure and administer a Line of Credit to fund such improvements; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 14 maintains the existing cost allocation methodology among partner agencies based on their proportional ownership capacity in the Joint Sewer System; and WHEREAS, approval of Addendum No. 14 is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4), and the underlying capital improvement projects are exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, as further described in the staff report;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Los Altos does hereby:
1. Finds that the foregoing recitals are true and correct.
2. Authorizes the City Manager to execute Addendum No. 14 to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant Basic Agreement between the cities of Palo Alto, Mountain View, and Los Altos to authorize funding for capital improvements and participation in a Line of Credit to support implementation of such projects.
3. Authorizes the City Manager to take such further actions as may be necessary to implement the foregoing agreement.
ATTACHMENT 1
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos at a meeting thereof on the 22th day of September 2026, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
__________________________
Sally Meadows, MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Melissa Thurman, MMC
CITY CLERK