Los Altos City Council
June 23, 2026

2026 Ballot Measure Impact Analysis – 9212 Report |5. Business Impacts, Page 61 and delayed payment. Over the same period, Santa Clara County as a whole posted a 2.8 percent year-over-year increase, and the Bay Area was up 2.5 percent.50 The City’s largest sales tax category, restaurants and hotels (approximately 30 percent of receipts), declined nearly 9 percent in Q3 2025, with the report attributing the drop to losses in the casual-dining sector and reduced consumer spending on dining out. Other categories also declined, including general consumer goods (16 percent of receipts), food and drugs (15 percent), fuel and service stations (12 percent), business and industry (down

44.5 percent quarter-over-quarter due to several taxpayers closing operations), building and construction, and autos and transportation. The City’s allocation from the countywide use tax pool (20 percent of receipts) also slipped lower as other agencies in the county outpaced Los Altos.51
The top non-confidential business types for Q3 2025 in Los Altos include the following:
• Casual dining receipts of $149,248 declined 7.9 percent year-over-year in Los Altos while the comparable category grew 5.2 percent at the county level and 2.0 percent statewide.
• Service stations ($84,689) declined 1.7 percent, grocery stores ($81,768) grew 2.0 percent, and home furnishings ($26,945) declined 1.9 percent. • Fast-casual restaurants ($8,163) declined 25.9 percent in Los Altos while growing 5.8 percent at the county level.52
These data do not capture non-taxable spending, which includes most grocery store purchases, prescription drugs, and personal services such as dry cleaning, haircuts, and professional services. Taxable-sales data therefore understate the full extent of economic activity occurring in Downtown Los Altos.

Parking Structures in Nearby Downtown Districts
Downtown Los Altos is the only major commercial district of comparable scale in southern San Mateo and northern Santa Clara County that meets its off-street public parking demand entirely through surface lots. Downtown Palo Alto, San Carlos, Redwood City, San Mateo, Mountain View, and Sunnyvale each provide public parking through a combination of on-street spaces, surface lots, and one or more parking structures, typically integrated with mixed-use or housing development. Bay Area downtown revitalization practice over the past two decades has generally entailed the conversion of underutilized surface parking lots into housing and mixed-use development with structured replacement parking. The City’s continued reliance on surface-lot parking in its Downtown represents a 50HdL Companies, Sales Tax Update, City of Los Altos, 3Q 2025 (July–September), published Winter 2026, available at https://www.losaltosca.gov/513/Sales-Tax-Information. 51Ibid.
52Ibid.

2026 Ballot Measure Impact Analysis – 9212 Report |5. Business Impacts, Page 62 different land-use pattern than its peer districts. The following section presents a case study from San Carlos in which a public surface parking lot was replaced with a housing development that includes structured replacement parking.

Case Study – San Carlos Wheeler Plaza Parking Lot Replacement In 2017, developers broke ground on a new mixed-use infill development at Wheeler Plaza to replace one of San Carlos’s largest public parking lots and an adjacent underutilized parcel. The mixed-use development includes a new replacement public parking structure beneath a 109-unit condominium development and 10,000 square feet of new groundfloor retail.53 As part of the proposal, 185-space surface parking lot at Wheeler Plaza was replaced by a 254-space public parking structure, a net increase of 69 publicly available spaces. Parking in the structure is free, limited in a similar manner to portions of the existing Downtown Los Altos public parking inventory. During the construction process, the City and developer opened the replacement public parking structure ahead of the full mixed-use development to minimize the duration of net parking loss. The Wheeler Plaza development also includes a separate underground parking structure with 192 parking spaces reserved for residents (a ratio of 1.76 spaces per unit), so that resident parking demand does not draw from the public parking supply on the site.54
Although retail surrounding Wheeler Plaza was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, business vacancy rates returned to pre-development and pre-pandemic levels in 2023, four years after opening.55 The typology transition from a surface parking lot to a structuredparking, housing, and ground-floor retail development produced no measurable adverse effect on the surrounding retail district. The combined record of a structured-parking replacement, a residential addition, ground-floor retail expansion, and an on-street parking reduction is consistent with the broader Bay Area pattern in which downtowns have remained healthy or strengthened through transitions away from surface-lot parking toward mixed-use development.56
Potential Impacts from New Household Expenditures
If the Ballot Measure is adopted, redevelopment of the Downtown Parking Plazas would generally require voter approval. The Ballot Measure expressly exempts Plazas 7 and 8 from the voter-approval requirement where the proposed project provides affordable housing.57 For the other eight Plazas, the introduction of new households to Downtown 53City of Menlo Park, Ballot Measure Impact Analysis Pursuant to Election Code 9212, November 25, 2025, pp. 58–

61. 54Ibid.
55Ibid.
56Ibid.
57"Downtown Parking Plazas Ordinance," proposed Los Altos Municipal Code Chapter 14.92, §14.92.050(3) (affordable housing exemption for Plazas 7 and 8). APN 167-39-032 (Plaza 7) and APN 167-39-007 (Plaza 8).

2026 Ballot Measure Impact Analysis – 9212 Report |5. Business Impacts, Page 63 through redevelopment would be delayed or prevented absent a subsequent successful ballot measure.

New households on the Downtown Parking Plazas would generate incremental retail, restaurant, and service expenditures at Downtown businesses. The magnitude of that spending depends on the number of units ultimately built, the income mixes of those units, and the share of new household spending that occurs at Downtown Los Altos businesses (rather than elsewhere in the city or outside Los Altos altogether). A comparable analysis prepared for the City of Menlo Park estimated that 345 new affordable housing units would generate approximately $1.9 million per year in new spending at Downtown Menlo Park businesses, based on an estimated average annual household income of $83,250 (50 percent of San Mateo County AMI for a 2.5-person household), an estimated 22.2 percent of household income spent in categories represented by Downtown businesses, a 50.5 percent citywide capture rate, and a 60 percent Downtown capture rate—yielding approximately $5,604 per household per year in Downtown spending.58 In addition to direct expenditures, the introduction of a residential population in or adjacent to a downtown commercial district produces an evening and weekend customer base that surface-parking-adjacent retail does not generate. Mixed-use development with ground-floor retail produces higher pedestrian volumes along storefront frontages than dispersed surface-lot configurations, with corresponding effects on business performance.

Potential Impacts on Downtown Businesses from Parking Changes This section addresses how the Ballot Measure could affect Downtown parking and, in turn, Downtown businesses, customers, and economic activity.

Potential Impacts on Ministerial Permitting
Private property owners, as well as utility providers and other third-party users of the Cityowned parking plazas, typically apply for encroachment permits for repairs, construction, trenching, or even privately held festivals. The City routinely approves permits to conduct these activities in the plazas.

If the Ballot Measure were to be adopted, such approvals could be subject to the initiative if the activity would diminish the availability, access, or convenience of public parking. The Ballot Measure’s limited exception for maintenance and repair is vague, but focuses on work intended to preserve or improve public parking within the Parking Plazas. A separate exception allows short-term community activities.

However, the scope of these exceptions is limited and fact‑specific. As a result, the Ballot Measure could create uncertainty regarding whether the City may issue permits or authorize non‑City uses administratively without voter approval. As such approvals are typically routine and time-sensitive, putting approval to the voters would greatly complicate the ability of property owners to invest in and maintain the safety and attractiveness of their properties.
58Ibid., Table 12, p. 64.

2026 Ballot Measure Impact Analysis – 9212 Report |5. Business Impacts, Page 64 Potential Impacts on the Number of Parking Spaces
If the Ballot Measure is adopted, redevelopment of the Plazas would require voter approval, and the total number of parking spaces in the Plazas would remain at approximately current levels. It is unclear whether incremental changes that reduce the stall count by small amounts—such as the addition of accessible parking stalls, the installation of EV chargers, or the addition of trash and recycling enclosures required by stormwater regulations—would be permitted without voter approval.

If the Ballot Measure is not adopted, redevelopment of the Plazas could proceed without voter approval. The City’s adopted 2025 Downtown Parking Strategy59 and the City’s current planning work contemplate replacement of public parking at or near a one-for-one ratio through one or more consolidated parking structures. Some temporary loss of parking during the construction of any individual project would be unavoidable.

The 2024 occupancy data described above 54 to 60 percent peak occupancy in the Plazas during the highest-demand period of the year—indicate that the Downtown’s public parking supply substantially exceeds demand under current conditions. A reduction in the total stall count to accommodate accessibility improvements, EV charging, or stormwater compliance would not constrain customer access at current demand levels, nor would a typology change that consolidates dispersed surface parking into one or more structures.

The Ballot Measure expressly exempts certain actions from the voter-approval requirement. Maintenance, repairs, renovations, and capital improvements to the Parking Plazas do not require voter approval as long as they are intended to preserve, improve, or expand the availability, access, or convenience of public parking. Temporary events, such as the weekly farmers market, are also permitted without voter approval as long as the activity does not last more than three consecutive days.60 The text of the Ballot Measure is vague as to whether routine improvements that incidentally reduce the total stall count by small amounts would be considered to “diminish” parking and therefore require voter approval; if such improvements were so interpreted, each would require a separate ballot measure before implementation.

The Ballot Measure also exempts Plazas 7 and 8 from voter-approval requirements where the proposed project provides affordable housing.61 Development on those two Plazas could potentially proceed without the additional procedural step that would apply to the remaining eight Plazas, since affordable housing is not defined by the Ballot Measure, it is uncertain a potential development would align with Ballot Measure language. 59City of Los Altos Resolution No. 2025-07, adopting the Downtown Parking Strategy. 60"Downtown Parking Plazas Ordinance," proposed Los Altos Municipal Code Chapter 14.92, §14.92.040 (Exceptions).
61"Downtown Parking Plazas Ordinance," proposed Los Altos Municipal Code Chapter 14.92, §14.92.050(3) (affordable housing exemption for Plazas 7 and 8). APN 167-39-032 (Plaza 7) and APN 167-39-007 (Plaza 8).

2026 Ballot Measure Impact Analysis – 9212 Report |5. Business Impacts, Page 65 Potential Impacts Based on Changes in Parking Typology
If the Ballot Measure is adopted, the existing dispersed surface-lot configuration of the Plazas would be preserved unless voters approve a change.

If the Ballot Measure is not adopted, the Plazas identified for redevelopment in the Housing Element and the 2025 Downtown Parking Strategy62 could be redeveloped with residential and other uses, with parking replacement occurring in structured form rather than in surface lots.

The Wheeler Plaza case study presented above documents one Bay Area example in which this typology transition produced no measurable adverse effect on retail performance in the surrounding area.

Potential Impacts on Downtown Visitation Due to Parking Changes If the Ballot Measure is adopted, the existing surface-lot configuration of the Plazas would remain in place unless voters approve a change. Parking-related conditions affecting Downtown visitation would remain at approximately current levels.

If the Ballot Measure is not adopted, redevelopment of one or more Plazas could proceed, introducing residential uses, ground-floor retail, and structured replacement parking.

During the construction process associated with any individual project, the available parking supply on the affected Plaza could potentially be temporarily reduced. However, temporary parking efficiency measures such as valet parking or temporary parking lots could be used to mitigate this temporary reduction in parking.

The Wheeler Plaza case study documents the trajectory of retail vacancy rates near a comparable Bay Area project before, during, and after construction; vacancy rates remained low during construction and returned to pre-development and pre-pandemic levels after completion. The longer-term effect of redevelopment on Downtown visitation depends on the number of new residents added Downtown and, on the ground-floor retail and activated public-space programming included in any future project.

Potential Workforce Housing Impacts and Worker Attraction and Retention Downtown Los Altos businesses, particularly restaurants, retail, and personal-service establishments—employ workers in occupations whose typical wages do not support residence in market-rate housing in Los Altos or its immediate neighboring jurisdictions. A substantial share of the Downtown workforce commutes from lower-cost communities.

The availability of affordable housing within or near the Downtown effects employers’ ability to attract and retain workers.

If the Ballot Measure is adopted, affordable housing on Plazas 7 and 8 could proceed under the §14.92.050(3) exemption.63 Affordable housing on Plazas 1 through 6, 9, and 10 would require voter approval and would be delayed or prevented absent a subsequent successful 62City of Los Altos Resolution No. 2025-07, adopting the Downtown Parking Strategy. 63"Downtown Parking Plazas Ordinance," proposed Los Altos Municipal Code Chapter 14.92, §14.92.050(3) (affordable housing exemption for Plazas 7 and 8). APN 167-39-032 (Plaza 7) and APN 167-39-007 (Plaza 8).

2026 Ballot Measure Impact Analysis – 9212 Report |5. Business Impacts, Page 66 ballot measure. The Ballot Measure’s net effect on the Downtown affordable-housing pipeline depends on whether the development capacity of Plazas 7 and 8 alone is sufficient to deliver the affordable-housing program contemplated for Downtown in the Housing Element, as well as whether such development is viable without a market-rate component.

This question is addressed in the Housing Impacts section of this Report.

Workforce housing pressure on local employers is documented within Los Altos itself. The Los Altos School District surveyed 250 teachers and found that staff commute 30 minutes to an hour each way and have expressed interest in living closer to where they work.64 In response, LASD established a local-resident rental matching program to connect teachers with in-law units and other accommodations in Los Altos,65 and joined a $500,000 downpayment-assistance investor pool with the home-finance firm Landed.66 The Mountain View–Los Altos Union High School District established a parallel Landed pool.67 LASD also acquired 24 units of access at the 110-unit educator housing project at 231 Grant Avenue in Palo Alto—a Santa Clara County-led project developed in response to the inability of educator and school-staff salaries to support market-rate housing in the Los Altos area.68
These actions taken by employers in the immediate Los Altos area illustrate the workforcehousing pressures facing employers throughout the local labor market, including Downtown Los Altos businesses. Limiting affordable-housing production on the Plazas would constrain the supply of workforce-affordable units near Downtown employers.

Summary
The existing land-use pattern in Downtown Los Altos allocates a substantial share of the Downtown’s developable land to ten City-owned surface Parking Plazas. The 2024 parking study found peak public parking occupancy of 54 to 60 percent during the December 2023 holiday season, with a high of 71 percent—indicating that the existing public parking supply substantially exceeds demand under current conditions. Over the same period in which the Plazas have been operating well below capacity, the City’s sales tax receipts have declined while Santa Clara County’s have grown, and the Downtown District’s largest sales tax category (casual dining) has declined while the comparable county category has grown. 64Kevin Forestieri "Seeking spare rooms to house teachers" (Mountain View Voice: August 11, 2016), reporting Los Altos School District survey of 250 teachers.
65Los Altos School District, "Local Teacher Housing Needed" (April 16, 2018), available at https://www.lasdschools.org/.
66Kevin Forestieri, "Teacher housing at Cooper Park?" (Mountain View Voice: October 13, 2017), reporting LASD and MVLA each established Landed down-payment investor pools of approximately $500,000. 67Ibid.
68 Zoe Morgan "Palo Alto school board approves 29-units of subsidized staff housing" (Palo Alto Online: January 18, 2023); Lisa Moreno "Take a look inside Palo Alto’s teacher housing" (Mountain View Voice: October 25, 2024).

The 110-unit project at 231 Grant Avenue, Palo Alto, was developed by Mercy Housing and Abode Communities on Santa Clara County land. LASD acquired access to 24 units.

2026 Ballot Measure Impact Analysis – 9212 Report |5. Business Impacts, Page 67 If the Ballot Measure is adopted, the existing surface-lot configuration of the Plazas would be preserved unless voters approve a change. Redevelopment of Plazas 1 through 6, 9, and 10 would require voter approval for any change, including affordable housing. Affordable housing on Plazas 7 and 8 would remain available under the §14.92.050(3) exemption.

If the Ballot Measure is not adopted, the City could proceed with the redevelopment program contemplated in the Housing Element and the 2025 Downtown Parking Strategy, including the introduction of housing, ground-floor retail, structured replacement parking, and other uses on one or more Plazas. The Wheeler Plaza case study documents one comparable Bay Area project in which a transition from surface parking to a mixed-use development with structured replacement parking produced no measurable adverse effect on retail performance in the surrounding area. Bay Area downtown revitalization practice over the past two decades has generally followed this pattern.

The Measure’s effect on Downtown business attraction and retention depends primarily on whether the Downtown remains in its current land-use configuration or transitions to a mixed-use pattern with structured parking, housing, and additional ground-floor retail. The available evidence on comparable Bay Area transitions, the W-Trans finding of substantial slack in the existing public parking supply, and the recent decline in Downtown sales tax performance are factors the City Council and voters may consider in evaluating the Measure.

2026 Ballot Measure Impact Analysis – 9212 Report |6. Vacant Land Impacts, Page 68

6. Vacant Land Impacts
The Ballot Measure would not directly affect vacant lots, as the City-owned Downtown Parking Plazas are not classified as vacant sites in the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element.

The Parking Plazas are treated in the Housing Element as non-vacant, underutilized sites, and Plazas 7 and 8 (APNs 167-39-032 and 167-39-007) are exempted under §14.92.050(3) of the Ordinance for affordable housing development.69 The Housing Element identifies few vacant parcels in Los Altos, and the Ballot Measure does not regulate the use of privately owned vacant or underutilized parcels elsewhere in the Downtown.70 69 1 City of Los Altos, 2023-2031 Housing Element, Site Inventory (Appendix B); proposed Los Altos Municipal Code Chapter 14.92, §14.92.050(3).
70 2 City of Los Altos, 2023-2031 Housing Element, Site Inventory (Appendix B). A current count of vacant parcels within the area defined as “Downtown” in §14.92.020 of the Ordinance (the area generally bounded by Foothill Expressway, San Antonio Road, and Edith Avenue) should be confirmed against the most recent Housing Element Annual Progress Report and County Assessor data prior to publication.

2026 Ballot Measure Impact Analysis – 9212 Report |7. Other Impacts, Page 69

7. Other Impacts
Impacts on Agricultural Lands and Open Space
The City of Los Altos contains no agricultural lands within its incorporated boundaries, and the Downtown area defined in the Ballot Measure—bounded by Foothill Expressway, San Antonio Road, and Edith Avenue—is fully developed with commercial, civic, and publicparking uses.71 The Ballot Measure would have no direct impact on agricultural land use.

To the extent that the Ballot Measure reduces or eliminates new, higher-density forms of housing on the Parking Plazas, it could place increasing pressure on the City to identify additional housing sites elsewhere to meet future State housing requirements; some of those alternative sites could implicate the City's limited open space resources. In addition, the Ballot Measure could affect the implementation of new public open space as contemplated by the 2018 Downtown Vision Plan and the 2024 Downtown Parking Strategy, including the proposed Downtown Park currently under design on Plazas 1 and

2.72 Impacts on Traffic Congestion
In order to identify potential traffic impacts, a range of evaluation alternatives was developed. These alternatives were developed to capture the range of potential effects of the Ballot Measure. In all the alternatives described below, the passage of the Ballot Measure would not necessarily prevent future changes to the Parking Plazas. However, due to the added cost, increased time for a final decision, and the uncertainty of the ballotmeasure process or outcome, the Ballot Measure may result in improvement projects being delayed or cancelled. Because the City is currently advancing the design of a Downtown Park with replacement parking on Plazas 1 and 2, and because Plazas 7 and 8 are expressly exempted by the Ballot Measure for affordable-housing use, the trafficanalysis alternatives focus on the contemplated public-realm improvements and the potential range of future housing on the Plazas.73 Other non-residential development on the remaining Plazas was not part of any current City solicitation and would be too speculative to evaluate at this time.
71City of Los Altos, "Downtown Parking Strategy" (2024); proposed Los Altos Municipal Code Section 14.92.020 (defining "Downtown").
72City of Los Altos, "Downtown Vision Plan" (2018); City of Los Altos, "Downtown Park" project page, available at losaltosdowntownpark.org. As of the date of this Report, the City has authorized design work for a Downtown Park with associated replacement parking on Plazas 1 and 2. 73"Downtown Parking Plazas Ordinance," proposed Los Altos Municipal Code Chapter 14.92, §14.92.050(3) (affordable-housing exemption for Plazas 7 and 8). APN 167-39-032 (Plaza 7) and APN 167-39-007 (Plaza 8).

2026 Ballot Measure Impact Analysis – 9212 Report |7. Other Impacts, Page 70 Overall, the following qualitative conclusions can be determined if the Ballot Measure passes:
• There could be a slight increase to the citywide average residential VMT per capita if Downtown units are not built or are moved to other parts of the city. • There would be slight improvements to traffic congestion on roadways within the immediate vicinity of the Parking Plazas. However, the City's major thoroughfares such as San Antonio Road, Foothill Expressway, and El Camino Real would not experience noticeable changes to traffic volumes.
• If the Ballot Measure resulted in less citywide residential development in the long term, there would be a negative effect on regional VMT due to resulting longer trip lengths.

Alternative 1 Analysis
Alternative 1 assumes that the Ballot Measure passes and that no future redevelopment of any non-exempt City-owned Downtown Parking Plaza is approved by voters. This assumption forecloses any future redevelopment of Plazas 1 through 6, 9, and 10, including the contemplated Downtown Park on Plazas 1 and 2, the contemplated performing arts venue on Plaza 2, and any future housing, mixed-use, or structuredparking project that the City might pursue on the remaining non-exempt Plazas. Plazas 7 and 8, which the Ballot Measure expressly exempts for affordable housing, would remain available for that purpose.74 Alternative 1 further assumes that no other Housing Element opportunity sites in Los Altos can absorb the housing units that might otherwise have been developed on non-exempt Plazas.

VMT Effect
The City's 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Housing Element and supporting environmental analysis identify the Downtown area as a low-VMT location relative to the rest of the city, owing to its mix of complementary land uses, walkability, and proximity to transit along El Camino Real and San Antonio Road. Residential developments within Downtown would thus exhibit lower VMT per capita compared to residential developments elsewhere in Los Altos.75 75City of Los Altos 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Housing Element and supporting environmental documentation. [BAE/Hexagon to confirm specific VMT figures and citations from the Los Altos Housing Element environmental analysis.]

2026 Ballot Measure Impact Analysis – 9212 Report |7. Other Impacts, Page 71 Under Alternative 1, the absence of Downtown units would mean that the citywide residential VMT per capita would increase slightly because there would be fewer low-VMT units in the housing mix.

Under Alternative 1, the city's residential VMT per capita would increase slightly relative to a scenario in which Downtown Plazas redevelop with housing but would not invalidate the Housing Element's environmental conclusions regarding VMT.

Traffic Operations
Under Alternative 1, the reduction of development in Downtown would slightly reduce traffic volumes in the immediate vicinity of the Parking Plazas. However, Los Altos is part of a broader subregional jobs market that includes Mountain View, Palo Alto, and Sunnyvale, and the absence of additional Downtown housing units in Los Altos would shift the corresponding housing demand to other locations in the region. Housing built further from these subregional employment centers would generally result in longer commute trips and a greater share of trips occurring on the regional roadway network and on the City's major thoroughfares (San Antonio Road, Foothill Expressway, and El Camino Real). The localized traffic-operations improvement from the reduction of Downtown developments would therefore be offset, at the regional level, by longer trips made by households housed elsewhere. Longer trip lengths would also provide fewer options for alternative modes of transportation, such as cycling, walking, or local transit.76 Parking
Section 14.92.040 of the proposed Ordinance provides that voter approval is not required for maintaining, repairing, renovating, or improving the Parking Plazas if those actions are intended to preserve, improve, or expand availability, access, or convenience of public parking.77
Alternative 1 would preserve the existing Parking Plazas as-is and would thus result in no loss of public parking supply in Downtown, subject to the uncertainty described elsewhere in this Report regarding whether routine improvements (ADA restriping, EV charger installation, trash and recycling enclosures, drainage upgrades, etc.) would themselves require voter approval.
77"Downtown Parking Plazas Ordinance," proposed Los Altos Municipal Code Chapter 14.92, §§14.92.030,

14.92.040.

2026 Ballot Measure Impact Analysis – 9212 Report |7. Other Impacts, Page 72 Alternative 2 Analysis
Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative 1, except that Alternative 2 assumes that the foregone Downtown housing units can be absorbed by other Housing Element sites elsewhere in the city, to maintain Housing Element compliance.

VMT Effect
As discussed in Alternative 1, the City's lowest residential VMT area is in and around Downtown. Shifting residential units away from this low-VMT area to higher-VMT locations elsewhere in Los Altos would slightly increase the citywide average residential VMT per capita.

Traffic Operations
Unlike Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would shift the residential units away from Downtown to other locations within the city. A more dispersed distribution of the residential units would slightly reduce traffic volumes in the immediate vicinity of the Plazas and along streets such as Main Street and State Street, while modestly increasing volumes elsewhere.

The areas absorbing these units would experience slight increases in traffic volumes, depending on how many units each site would absorb.

It should also be noted that units located in Downtown can support more walking, biking, and transit trips because of their proximity to alternative transportation services and complementary land uses. Farther away from Downtown, the reliance on cars increases, and auto-ownership rates increase. Therefore, from a citywide perspective, Alternative 2 would result in an overall slight increase in vehicle-trip making in the city.

Parking
The parking analysis for Alternative 2 is the same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 3 Analysis
Unlike Alternatives 1 and 2, Alternative 3 assumes that the Ballot Measure does not pass. In this Alternative, redevelopment of non-exempt Plazas with housing, replacement parking, public open space (including the proposed Downtown Park), and the contemplated performing arts venue on Plaza 2 could proceed without a separate Ballot Measure for each action.

Because Alternative 3 would not modify the City's adopted Housing Element programs or General Plan land uses, there would be no changes to VMT or traffic operations compared to the buildout assumptions in those plans.

2026 Ballot Measure Impact Analysis – 9212 Report |7. Other Impacts, Page 73 Parking
The 2024 Downtown Parking Strategy identifies a total Downtown parking supply of approximately 2,504 spaces, including 1,305 public off-street spaces within the Parking Plazas and 395 on-street spaces.78 Under Alternative 3, the City would be able to advance the consolidation and replacement-parking strategies recommended in the 2024 Strategy and the 2018 Downtown Vision Plan, which contemplate replacing dispersed surface parking on selected Plazas with structured parking on the same or another Plaza. However, the actual replacement ratio that would be achieved on any given Plaza is unknown, would depend on the final design of any future project, and could result in either a net increase or a net decrease in publicly accessible spaces at the Plaza affected, even if Downtown-wide capacity is preserved or increased.

It should be recognized that during construction, some amount of the existing parking supply could potentially be made temporarily unavailable, and mitigating parking solutions could be temporarily adopted. Any subsequent City solicitation for redevelopment of the Plazas would be expected to require respondents to propose solutions to minimize shortterm parking loss for the public.

Other Issues
Some other potential transportation issues related to the Ballot Measure include construction impacts, loading, and emergency-vehicle access. The City has standard requirements for these issues, and it is expected that any future development, regardless of location, will be required to comply with City requirements.

Impacts on Adoption of Modern Parking and Transportation Management Strategies
The City adopted the Downtown Los Altos Parking Strategy in 2024 to identify a coordinated toolkit of short- and long-term improvements—including curb-management changes, wayfinding, shared-parking arrangements, time-limit adjustments, and consolidation of surface lots—intended to operationalize the vision for Downtown growth, multimodal access, and economic vitality.79 It is unclear whether, if the Ballot Measure is adopted, the City's future implementation of the Parking Strategy's recommendations would require voter approval. To the extent that individual recommended actions could be characterized as "modifying" or "altering" a Plaza in a way that "diminishes" the availability, access, or convenience of parking—even when such actions are designed to improve 78City of Los Altos, "Downtown Parking Strategy" (2024).

2026 Ballot Measure Impact Analysis – 9212 Report |7. Other Impacts, Page 74 overall parking efficiency or system performance—those actions could trigger the voterapproval requirement under Section 14.92.030 of the proposed Ordinance.80 Fire Safety and Emergency Evacuation
Future development on any non-exempt Plaza would be required to comply with applicable Fire Code requirements, including provisions for emergency-vehicle access, hydrant spacing, and on-site circulation. Setback and access requirements would be evaluated as part of the entitlement and building-permit review for any specific project. The Ballot Measure would not directly alter these standards but could delay or prevent implementation of projects that would otherwise bring older surface lots into closer alignment with current Fire Code expectations.

ADA Accessibility
Under Alternatives 1 and 2, any restriping to incorporate additional ADA-compliant spaces would require voter approval, as the inclusion of any larger ADA-compliant spaces would necessarily reduce the number of standard parking spaces in the finite space of the Parking Plazas. The City's 2025 capital work on Main Street and State Street included the installation of five new ADA-compliant parking stalls while maintaining the net number of available parking spaces, and standardization of parking-stall widths to nine feet consistent with Caltrans design standards.81 Comparable future work within the Plazas could be subject to voter approval, which would not be in compliance with state law and make the City vulnerable to ADA legal challenges.

Under Alternative 3, the potential construction of a parking garage that could include ADAcompliant spaces alongside standard spaces would be permitted without going to a vote of the public.

Impacts on Developed Areas Designated for Revitalization "Revitalization Areas" are designated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under provisions of the National Housing Act and are intended to promote "revitalization through expanded homeownership opportunities."82 There are no such areas in Los Altos.
81City of Los Altos, "Downtown Park" and Downtown street-improvement project descriptions, available at losaltosdowntownpark.org.
82"Revitalization Areas" (US Dept. of Housing and Urban Development), available at https://hudgishud.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/HUD::revitalization-areas/about.

2026 Ballot Measure Impact Analysis – 9212 Report |7. Other Impacts, Page 75 Impacts on Business Viability and Vacancy Rates
Many jurisdictions in San Mateo and Santa Clara County have made land-use changes that increase housing density and modernize parking and transportation management in their downtowns. Nationally, downtown housing has been linked to increased vitality and connectivity in even smaller suburban downtowns, as the people who live in these units are more likely to "go downstairs" to shop than others are to drive.83 International studies examining commercial corridors in Berlin,84 Toronto,85 and Washington, DC86 have identified patterns indicating that business owners tend to overestimate the number of customers who drive to their businesses relative to those who walk or bike (more customers are likely to drive to their shopping destinations in suburban locations such as Los Altos).

Locally, Redwood City is notable for how increased residential density and revised parking standards led to downtown business growth. In 2005, before the adoption of the 2011 Downtown Precise Plan, there were 12 restaurants in Downtown Redwood City; by 2024, there were 87 restaurants—a 725-percent increase.87 In Sunnyvale, downtown residential and commercial growth has supported a retail core. This has included new development, such as Whole Foods that opened in 2020, but also the maintenance of businesses on and around Murphy Avenue.88
Retail is facing headwinds on a global level.89 Before the COVID-19 pandemic, there was an established correlation between density of retail establishments and the amount of housing nearby.90 This trend has been complicated post-pandemic, with increasing densities in suburban areas (such as much of Santa Clara County, including Los Altos).91 83Corianne Rice, "Why Housing is a Key to Main Street Success" (National League of Cities: 2025), available at https://www.nlc.org/article/2025/01/21/why-housing-is-key-to-main-street-success/. 84Dirk von Schneidemesser and Jody Betzien, "Local Business Perception vs. Mobility Behavior of Shoppers: A Survey from Berlin" (Findings: June 2021).
85Maxine Chan, et al., "Bike Lanes, On-Street Parking and Business" (The Centre for Active Transportation: Dec. 2016).
86Pete Rodrigue, "Survey: Most shopkeepers, shoppers overestimate car use" (Greater Washington: August 2024).
87Anh-Minh Lee, "A sleepy Bay Area suburb is seeing a restaurant boom" (SF Gate: Feb. 16, 2025). 88Kevin V. Nguyen, "The Silicon Valley boomtown where it feels like the pandemic never happened" (San Francisco Standard: Sept. 18, 2025).
89"Downtown Downturn: The COVID Shock to Brick-and-Mortar Retail" (JPMorgan Chase: January 2023). 90"Is Retail Development Success Related to Housing Density?" (Cushman & Wakefield: April 2019). 91Amir Forouhar, et al., "Assessing downtown recovery rates and determinants in North American cities after the COVID-19 pandemic" (Urban Studies: Sep. 12, 2024).

2026 Ballot Measure Impact Analysis – 9212 Report |7. Other Impacts, Page 76 Although academic experts are still researching the post-COVID relationship between retail success and housing density, recent research has demonstrated that land-use decisions that promote residential uses over commercial uses may better support existing retail businesses.92
92Leah Brooks and Rachel Meltzer, "Retail on the Ground and on the Books: Vacancies and the (mis)Match Between Retail Activity and Regulated Land Uses" (JAPA: January 2024).

2026 Ballot Measure Impact Analysis – 9212 Report |8. Urban Greenery Impacts, Page 77

8. Urban Greenery Impacts
This section addresses topics directed by the City Council for inclusion in the 9212 Report beyond those enumerated in Elections Code section 9212(a), specifically the Ballot Measure's potential impacts on urban greenery and on local urban heat island conditions in Downtown Los Altos.

Tree Canopy and Heritage Trees
Background
The City's Tree Protection Ordinance (Ordinance) (Los Altos Municipal Code Chapter 11.08) was established to protect and promote the growth of a healthy and sustainable tree canopy in Los Altos. The Ordinance applies to both publicly and privately owned trees and was updated in 2024 to lower the general protection threshold from 15 to 12 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH), with a 10-inch threshold for native species such as coast live oak and California buckeye. The Ordinance recognizes that trees provide shade and climate resilience, habitat for wildlife, carbon sequestration and improved air quality, protection against wind and flood hazards, and aesthetic quality. Removal of a protected tree requires a Tree Removal Permit issued by either the Planning Division or Parks Department depending on their location. 93 The Parking Plazas are landscaped with mature trees that contribute to the Downtown tree canopy with a majority being Chinese Pistache (Pistacia chinensis) trees.

Provisions of the Ballot Measure Relevant to Tree Canopy The Ballot Measure includes an express provision specific to trees and the Downtown tree canopy. Proposed Section 14.92.030(6) of the Los Altos Municipal Code would prohibit, without voter approval, any change to a Parking Plaza that would "negatively affect protected trees or the [downtown] tree canopy."94 This provision is in addition to, and operates independently of, the Ballot Measure's other voter-approval triggers governing conveyance, surplus-land designation, and physical modification of the Plazas.

Potential Effects under the Ballot Measure
If the Ballot Measure passes, the existing surface configuration of the non-exempt Plazas— including the mature trees within and along the perimeter of those Plazas—would be more likely to remain as-is. Routine maintenance of existing trees, including pruning consistent with ISA standards and removal of dead or hazardous trees, would continue under the 93Los Altos Municipal Code Chapter 11.08 (Tree Protection Regulations), as amended 2024; City of Los Altos Tree Removal Permit Process.
94"Downtown Parking Plazas Ordinance," proposed Los Altos Municipal Code §14.92.030(6).

2026 Ballot Measure Impact Analysis – 9212 Report |8. Urban Greenery Impacts, Page 78 existing Ordinance framework and would not be expected to require voter approval.

However, the Ballot Measure introduces a separate voter-approval requirement keyed specifically to effects on protected trees and the canopy, the scope of which is not defined in the Ballot Measure. It is unclear, for example, whether the removal of a single protected tree to accommodate an ADA-compliant accessible parking stall, an EV charger, a new trash and recycling enclosure, or a utility improvement would be considered to "negatively affect" the tree canopy for purposes of the Ballot Measure, even where such removal would be otherwise permitted under Ordinance with replacement plantings.

If the Ballot Measure does not pass, redevelopment of one or more Plazas could occur, including conversion of surface lots to a Downtown Park (on Plazas 1 and 2), structured replacement parking, affordable housing (on Plazas 7 and 8 and potentially elsewhere), and the contemplated performing arts venue on Plaza 2. The effect of such redevelopment on canopy coverage would depend on project-specific design. Redevelopment scenarios that consolidate parking into structures and free surface footprints for park, plaza, or landscaped uses can support a net increase in canopy area over the long term, although individual mature trees lost during construction cannot be replaced in-kind on the same horizon as replacement plantings. Conversely, redevelopment scenarios that preserve surface parking on a Plaza while adding above-grade structures over portions of the lot could result in net canopy loss, particularly where mature interior-lot trees would be displaced by building footprints.

Any future redevelopment of a Parking Plaza would remain subject to Chapter 11.08, including Tree Removal Permit procedures, and to any tree-related conditions applied through the entitlement process.

Urban Heat Island Effects
Background
The urban heat island (UHI) effect refers to the tendency of urbanized and impervious surfaces, including asphalt parking lots, roadways, and dark roofs—to absorb and reradiate solar energy at higher rates than vegetated or shaded surfaces, producing locally elevated air and surface temperatures. UHI conditions are associated with increased energy demand for cooling, elevated heat-related health risks during extreme-heat events, and increased stress on vegetation. Mitigation strategies generally include increased tree canopy and shading, cool or reflective paving and roofing, vegetated open space, and permeable surfaces.

2026 Ballot Measure Impact Analysis – 9212 Report |8. Urban Greenery Impacts, Page 79 Existing Conditions in Downtown Los Altos
The ten Parking Plazas together represent a substantial concentration of asphalt-paved, low-albedo surface area within Downtown Los Altos. The 2024 Downtown Parking Strategy identifies approximately 1,305 public off-street parking spaces distributed across the Plazas, in addition to approximately 395 on-street spaces.95 Although the Plazas contain interspersed landscape islands and perimeter trees that provide partial shading, the predominant surface character of the Plazas is paved and exposed to direct solar gain during daytime hours, contributing to localized heat absorption relative to nearby vegetated or shaded areas.

Applicable Climate and Sustainability Goals
The City's Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP), adopted in March 2022, sets a target of carbon neutrality by 2035, with an interim goal of an 80-percent reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions below 2005 levels by 2030. The CAAP identifies 15 strategies and 68 actions across eight focus areas. Because approximately 96 percent of the City's GHG emissions are attributable to fossil-fuel use in transportation and buildings, the CAAP emphasizes electrification of buildings and transport, reduction in vehicle miles traveled, and increases in active and shared transportation.96 The CAAP also includes an adaptation component intended to prepare the city for the local impacts of climate change, including extreme-heat events.

Potential Effects under the Ballot Measure
If the Ballot Measure passes, the Plazas would be more likely to remain in their existing surface configuration, preserving the present pattern of large continuous asphalt areas with intermittent landscape islands. Routine resurfacing and restriping under the maintenance exception in proposed Section 14.92.040 would be expected to continue, but it is unclear whether substitution of higher-albedo paving materials, expansion of permeable-pavement sections, or other cool-surface treatments would be considered "modifications" subject to the voter-approval requirement if they involve any change in stall count, layout, or configuration. Improvements designed to mitigate UHI effects but that incidentally reduce parking capacity could be delayed, deferred, or foreclosed.

If the Ballot Measure does not pass, redevelopment of one or more non-exempt Plazas with a mix of structured parking, housing, and public open space (including the proposed Downtown Park on Plazas 1 and 2) would generally introduce additional shading, landscaping, and—depending on project design—permeable or vegetated surfaces that 96City of Los Altos, "Climate Action and Adaptation Plan" (March 2022).

2026 Ballot Measure Impact Analysis – 9212 Report |8. Urban Greenery Impacts, Page 80 would reduce the impervious-surface footprint and associated heat absorption at the affected Plazas. Building shadows, planted trees within new open space, and shaded ground-floor frontages would each contribute incrementally to reduced surface temperatures. The net UHI effect of any redevelopment scenario would depend on projectspecific design choices regarding building massing, roof materials, surface paving, and the size and composition of any preserved or newly planted canopy.

These outcomes are generally consistent with the direction set by the CAAP, including its emphasis on adaptation to extreme-heat conditions and on reducing transportationrelated emissions through land-use patterns that support active and shared transportation.

ATTACHMENT A

1 Los Altos Downtown Parking Plazas Ordinance
The people of the City of Los Altos do ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. Title.

This Ordinance may be cited as the “Los Altos Downtown Parking Plazas Ordinance.” SECTION 2. Los Altos Downtown Parking Plazas Ordinance.

The City of Los Altos Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding Chapter 14.92 to Title 14.

Chapter 14.92. Downtown Parking Plazas.

14.92.010 Findings and Purpose.

The people of the City of Los Altos find and declare that:

1. The City of Los Altos has a unique arrangement of land uses that require regulations and standards that are important to preserve the character of Los Altos and provide for compatibility of adjacent uses;

2. The General Plan Community Design and Historic Resources Element provides for a Downtown core with a village atmosphere reflective of traditional historic commercial development with parking plazas, and for the preservation of trees, especially heritage and protected trees;

3. The General Plan Land Use Element provides for downtown public parking in order to maintain vitality by ensuring adequate shared parking to serve businesses and visitors;

4. In 1957, the property commonly known as the Downtown Parking Plazas – designed as critical infrastructure to provide common use and distributed, accessible, open, surface public parking – was acquired and developed through assessment funding from Downtown property owners who continue to receive benefits from their investment;

5. The now City-owned Parking Plazas are central to how Downtown functions, and development decisions made by the City may affect the limited supply of public parking and the quality of environmental and scenic resources;

6. Any decision to sell, lease, convey, declare surplus, or re-purpose the Downtown Parking Plazas for any use other than for surface parking and vehicular access should first be approved by a majority vote to ensure that the proposed change is consistent

2 with the purpose of the Downtown core and does not negatively impact businesses or visitors;

7. At the same time, the City should have the flexibility to maintain and repair the Downtown Parking Plazas, and to use Parking Plazas for short-term special community events and farmers markets; and

8. This measure is intended to balance mandated statewide affordable housing goals with preserving the character of Downtown Los Altos and the availability, access, and convenience of public parking for Downtown workers, customers, and visitors.

14.92.020 Definitions.
“City” means the City of Los Altos, California, and shall collectively refer to the Mayor, City Council, all City departments, and all City employees. “Downtown” shall refer in general terms to the area generally bound by Foothill Expressway, San Antonio Road, and Edith Avenue, and as also referred to on page 17 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan as “Downtown.”
“Parking Plazas” shall refer to the following publicly-accessible, open and surface parking lots located in the Downtown area which are owned by the City:

Common Designation APN Number
Plaza 1, South Plazas, First Street 16740039
Plaza 2, South Plazas, Second Street 16740072
Plaza 3, South Plazas, Third Street 16738002
Plaza 4, Central Plazas, First Street 16739057
Plaza 5, Central Plazas, Second Street 16739069
Plaza 6, Central Plazas, State Street 16738028
Plaza 7, North Plazas, First Street 16739032
Plaza 8, North Plazas, Second Street 16739007
Plaza 9, North Plazas, Fourth Street 16738049
Plaza 10, North Plazas, Fourth Street 16738029

14.92.030 Preservation of Parking Plazas.

3 Notwithstanding any other provision in the City’s Municipal Code, General Plan, or other City statutes or policies, the City may not take any of the following actions with respect to a Parking Plaza unless and until the action is approved by a majority vote of the City’s voters:

1. Sell, trade, lease, donate, dispose or otherwise convey any Parking Plaza, or any portion thereof, for any reason.

2. Designate or change the use of any Parking Plaza in any way which would affect the use of the Parking Plazas for parking or which would diminish the availability, access or convenience of public parking.

3. Declare any Parking Plaza “surplus land” or “exempt surplus land” under the California Surplus Land Act (Government Code sections 54220 et seq.).

4. Modify, alter or construct any capital project or other physical alteration on any of the Parking Plazas which permanently diminishes the availability, access or convenience of public parking.

5. Modify or physically alter any Parking Plaza by adding additional levels or floors.

6. Modify or physically alter any Parking Plaza in a way which would negatively affect protected trees or the tree canopy.

14.92.040 Third Party Agreements.

The City shall not enter into any development agreement, public-private partnership, ground lease, joint powers agreement, or similar arrangement that would enable a third party to undertake actions prohibited by this measure without voter approval.

14.92.050 Exceptions.

Notwithstanding section 14.92.030, the City may take the following actions with respect to the Parking Plazas without a vote of the People:

1. Maintain and repair the Parking Plazas, even if these activities temporarily affect parking availability, access, or convenience, if they are intended to preserve or improve the access or convenience of public parking.

2. Host community activities, such as the farmers market or similar events, which use the Parking Plazas on a short-term and temporary basis.

3. Develop Parking Plaza 7 (APN: 16739032) and Parking Plaza 8 (APN:16739007) for affordable housing.

4 14.92.060 Reenactment Required for City Actions Prior to Effective Date.

If the City takes any action listed in section 14.92.030 on or after the date of publication of the notice of intention to circulate the initiative petition adding this Chapter to the Municipal Code, as required by the Elections Code, but prior to the effective date of this Chapter, which was not adopted in compliance with the requirements of this Chapter, that action shall be deemed null, void and of no further force or effect unless and until the action is reenacted in compliance with the requirements of this Chapter.

Any action listed in section 14.92.030 taken by the City on or after the date of publication of the notice of intention to circulate the initiative petition adding this Chapter to the Municipal Code, as required by the Elections Code, shall be subject to the requirements of this Chapter.

14.92.070 Required Election.

1. If the City wishes to take any action listed in section 14.92.030, the City Council must place such action on the next regularly-scheduled election ballot following the final City approval of the action.

2. The City Council shall not place such action on the ballot unless and until the City has taken all steps necessary under the law to approve the action.

3. Such action shall not become effective unless and until it is first approved by the City pursuant to all legal requirements and thereafter approved by the voters pursuant to this Chapter.

4. Placing an action listed in sections 14.92.030 on the ballot shall not affect other legal requirements for such action, including environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act and consistency with the General Plan.

5. All materials which the City prepares for distribution to voters in connection with the election referenced herein, including the voter information pamphlet, shall describe with particularity the proposed action, the impact of the proposed action on the Parking Plazas, the change, if any, in the number or location of parking spaces, and the cost to the City.

14.92.080 Citizen Initiative.

An action listed in section 14.92.030 may be placed on the ballot via citizens’ initiative and will take effect based on approval by a majority of the City’s voters.

SECTION 3. Earliest Possible Election.

The people of Los Altos hereby expressly request that this measure be submitted to the voters of Los Altos at the earliest time allowable by law.

SECTION 4. Effective Date.

5 This measure shall become effective upon its approval by a simple majority of electors voting on the measure, but shall become operative as of the date of publication of the notice of intention to circulate the initiative petition adding this Chapter to the Municipal Code, as required by the Elections Code.

SECTION 5. Conflicting Measures.

A. Any other measure concerning or affecting the availability, access, or convenience of public parking for Downtown customers, workers and visitors which appears on the same ballot shall be deemed to conflict with this measure.

B. In the event that this measure and one or more conflicting measures appear on the same ballot, the provisions of the measure which receives the greater number of affirmative votes shall prevail in their entirety, and the other measure or measures shall be null and void.

C. If this measure is approved by the voters but superseded by any other conflicting measure approved by voters at the same election, and the conflicting ballot measure is later held invalid, this measure shall be self-executing and given full force and effect.

SECTION 6. Severability.

Should any provision of this measure, or its application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, voidable, or invalid, that determination shall have no effect on any other provision, or the application of this measure to any other person or circumstance and, to that end, the provisions hereof are severable. By approving this measure, the voters express their intent that each section and subsection would have been adopted irrespective of whether any one or more sections or subsections are found to be invalid or unconstitutional, and that each section and subsection is therefore explicitly severable, part-by-part, phrase-by-phrase, and word-by-word, and that if any portion is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, voidable or invalid, that the least amount of language be severed from the measure.

SECTION 7. Amendments.

No provision of this measure shall be amended or repealed except by a vote of the people.

SECTION 8. Liberal Construction.

This measure shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes.

SECTION 9. Municipal Affairs.

6 A. The people of the City of Los Altos declare that preserving the availability, access and convenience of public parking for Downtown customers, workers and visitors by requiring voter approval of any change in use of the Parking Plazas constitutes a municipal affair.

B. The people of the City of Los Altos declare their intent that this citizen initiative be enacted, and voter approval be required for changes to the Parking Plazas, if this measure is approved by a simple majority of voters.

SECTION 10. Legal Defense.

The people of the City of Los Altos desire that this measure, if approved by the voters and thereafter challenged in court, be defended by the City. The people, by approving this measure, hereby declare that the proponents of this measure have a direct and personal stake in defending this measure from constitutional or statutory challenges to the measure’s validity or implementation. In the event the City fails to defend this measure, or the City fails to appeal an adverse judgment against the constitutionality, statutory permissibility, or implementation of this measure, in whole or in part, in any court of law, the measure’s proponents shall be entitled to assert their direct personal stake by defending the measure’s validity and implementation in any court of law and shall be empowered by the people through this measure to act as agents of the people. The City shall indemnify the proponents for reasonable expenses and any losses incurred by the proponents, as agents, in defending the validity and/or implementation of the challenged measure. The rate of indemnification shall be no more than the amount it would cost the City to perform the defense itself.

ATTACHMENT B

YIMBY Law
2261 Market Street STE 10416
San Francisco, CA 94114
[email protected]
6/04/2026
City of Los Altos
City Council
1 N. San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
Re: Los Altos Downtown Parking Plazas Ordinance
Dear Town Council of Los Altos
YIMBY Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. YIMBY Law sues municipalities when they fail to comply with state housing laws, including the Housing Element Law.

Anti-affordability residents of Los Altos are trying to place this council in an impossible position. Los Altos has already passed a housing element that commits the city to developing housing on downtown parking lots.
1 If this initiative is allowed to move
forward, it will materially threaten Los Altos’ continued certification under Housing Element law. Not only does the Housing Element specifically contemplate housing on those lots, the initiative represents an unexamined constraint on development. If finalized, it would require Los Altos to amend its Housing Element to allow for more housing, leaving the city decertified in the interim.

Nonetheless, certain local residents are attempting to put a measure on the ballot that would prevent development on downtown parking lots, rendering Los Altos’ Housing Element out of compliance, subjecting the city to the Builder’s Remedy. City officials would be forced to amend the Housing Element and find new sites to accommodate its RHNA allocation, and much needed housing would remain un-developed and inaccessible for years.

HCD has already explained the dangers similar actions pose to cities. Eureka had a program for housing on city-owned parking lots. When residents circulated a ballot initiative to prevent this from happening, HCD notified the city that doing so would 1 Los Altos Housing Element, Programs 1.D and 3.Aand as designated in the Sites Inventory. 1

require a Housing Element Amendment or render the city out of compliance. 2 Recently,
HCD notified Newport Beach that an initiative would render its Housing Element out of compliance and that preliminary SB 330 applications would protect projects from the effects of such an initiative.
3 We recommend the City of Los Altos take steps immediately to implement its Housing Element commitments by taking advantage of state legislation. Specifically, Los Altos should begin the process of entitling the proposed downtown affordable housing by submitting an SB 330 preliminary application for housing on downtown parking lots. By doing this, the city can comply with Housing Element requirements, protect these development from obstructionist citizens initiatives, and speed the process forward towards completion.

A preliminary application under SB 330 solves multiple problems at once, through the protection it grants to the underlying project. Establishing vesting rights will ensure that new regulations or initiatives do not apply to the project. It will begin the process of entitlement that the City’s chosen developer can finalize, without creating an avenue for challenge under Article 34. Moreover, it will alleviate any questions about Los Altos’s seriousness with complying with state housing law. This proactive measure will prove to developers, California HCD, and potential developments that Los Altos is a reliable city which follows through on its commitments. Moreover, it will insulate the city from lawsuits by housing organizations who closely scrutinize city actions over housing proposals.

Los Altos will not be bound to complete any construction or locate any financing. It can begin the application and sell the land, with any entitlements, to any developer selected through the in-process RFP respondents. Selling entitled land is already a normal mechanism in the private market. It is allowable from a government as much as a private party, but such a transfer from Los Altos itself would be more attractive to prospective affordable housing developers, with stages of the process already complete.

This preliminary step is a relatively low effort process which will provide substantial benefits. It will save city staff time and resources that could otherwise go towards oversight and legal challenges. Those potential lawsuits would accomplish nothing 3 California Department of Housing & Community Development, Circulating Initiative for a Ballot Measure and Housing Element Compliance – Letter of Technical Assistance (September 18, 2025) https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/newport-beach-hau-2031-ta -091825.pdf
2 California Department of Housing & Community Development, Adopted Housing Element Revision Process – Letter of Technical Assistance, (October 9, 2024). https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/eureka-ta-he-compliance-10 0924.pdf
YIMBY Law, 2261 Market Street STE 10416, San Francisco, CA 94114 2

substantial other than reiterating state law, while the preapplication would grant projects considerable legal protections and save time for future entitlements.

Process & Benefits of SB 330 Pre-application
The key to this strategy is the vesting rights under SB 330, established via a preliminary application. This provision is normally used by developers who apply to cities, but there is no reason that a city can’t make such a submission to itself, via the same procedure.

Los Altos can sell or transfer the land to an appropriate party at any time during the entitlement process.

SB 330 preliminary applications entitle related projects to a few crucial protections. First, they lock in regulations that are in effect as soon as the application is submitted to a municipality:
“a housing development project shall be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application including all of the
information required … was submitted.”
4 The citizen’s initiative would be such an ordinance, policy, or standard which would not be applicable to any projects submitted before the initiative takes effect. Once the City receives such an application, it has 30 - 60 days (depending on project size) 5 to
determine if it contains the minimum necessary criteria, i.e. the application form, processing fee, and information in the preliminary application checklist. Your officials have succinctly laid this criteria out for potential applicants. Once that occurs, the applicant has 180 days to submit a complete application, which in this case would be submitted by the successful respondent to Los Altos’s RFP.

Following that completeness determination, projects receive other benefits to expedite processing:
● They may only be subjected to five public hearings before receiving automatic approval.
6 ● They may only be reviewed in accordance with pre-written objective design standards.
7 7 CA Gov Code § 66300 (b)(1)(C).
6 CA Gov Code § 65905.5 (a)-(b).
5 CA Gov Code § 65589.5. (j)(2)(A)(i)-(ii).
4 CA Gov Code § 65589.5. (o)(1).

YIMBY Law, 2261 Market Street STE 10416, San Francisco, CA 94114 3

● Determination of historic status is made at the time the application is deemed complete.
8 ● Following any necessary EIR certification, the application must be approved or denied within 60-180 days.

Beyond protecting the affordable housing from obstruction by residents, completing this preliminary process would allow a developer to finalize the project while helping accelerate the underlying approvals and procedural steps. Los Altos can transfer the land before November to its chosen developer(s), along with all protections granted by a preliminary or final application.

Despite the fact that the initiative states that it is effective between as of its date of circulation, SB 330 pre-applications protect projects from such retroactive ordinances. A vested SB 330 pre-application locks in standards that were in effect at the time it is submitted. No retroactive ordinances may be applied to such projects. The Permit Streamlining Act would grant vesting rights regardless of whether the application was submitted before or after May 15, provided the ordinance has not been adopted by that point. The initiative stating otherwise does not override California law.

This Preliminary Application is not Implicated by Article 34 Proceeding with an SB 330 pre-application would not trigger the voter approval requirements of Article 34 of the California Constitution, which allows legal challenges to governments developing affordable housing. This conclusion is supported by a three-part analysis: the pre-application is not a triggering "proposal," the City's role does not constitute "development" by a "state public body," and the project's structure aligns with statutory exclusions.

Article 34 is triggered by a proposal for a low-rent housing project "developed, constructed, or acquired" by a state public body.
9 A City Council resolution directing staff
to file an SB 330 pre-application is not such a proposal. As explained in the recent City of Millbrae v. County of San Mateo case, a "proposal" must be a specific, final action that commits to a project's essential characteristics.
10 An SB 330 pre-application is a
preliminary, procedural step designed to lock in the development rules in effect at the time of submission. It is not a final project approval. Crucially, at this stage, the City has made no final determination on critical details that define a low-rent housing project under Article 34, such as:
10 See attached Superior Court decision here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eFBlTaP4Bi2i_qdUJFibgUDVKcT-DjsF/view. 9 California Constitution, Article XXXIV, Section 1.
8 CA Gov Code § 65913.10 (a).

YIMBY Law, 2261 Market Street STE 10416, San Francisco, CA 94114 4

● The exact number and mix of affordable versus market-rate units. ● Final income targets, rent schedules, or occupancy requirements. ● The specific financing structure, and whether public funds are implicated.

Because the pre-application lacks this binding specificity, it does not constitute the "proposal" that Article 34 was designed to regulate. The Millbrae court explicitly distinguished such preliminary steps from a final resolution of approval, which would be a trigger. Filing the pre-application remains a safe way to preserve the development's vested rights without invoking Article 34.

Further, Los Altos is not the entity "developing" or "acquiring" the project. Article 34 applies when a "state public body" is directly involved in the development, construction, or acquisition of housing. Here, the City's role is that of a land disposer and entitlement authority, not a developer. The City will lease or sell the land to a private developer through a competitive RFP process. The City will not finance the construction or operation of the housing. The private developer will own, build, and operate the project.

The application does not change any of these facts, it only initiates the process for later development.

Disposing of real property, such as through this RFP process, does not, by itself, constitute "developing" or "acquiring" a low-rent housing project. Since the City is not the ULTIMATE project sponsor and is not using public funds for construction, it is not acting as the "state public body" that Article 34 seeks to constrain. The project sponsor is the entity that will actually finance, build, and sell the development. Los Altos will be doing none of these things. It will only be preparing one phase of the development and letting a separate party complete every other step.

Moreover, a pre-existing exception applies to this stage of application. Among the explicit exclusions to Article 34 outlined in California Health and Safety Code § 37001 are "Privately owned housing with no direct long-term financing from a public body." The completed housing will be owned and operated by a private developer, not the City. Its methods of financing are not discussed in the preliminary application stage, providing none of the criteria necessary to support an Article 34 challenge. Nothing at this stage requests or signals long term financing from Los Altos.

Conclusion
Los Altos and its officials should do everything within their power to fully implement the decisions they already made when they passed their housing element. If the YIMBY Law, 2261 Market Street STE 10416, San Francisco, CA 94114 5

proposed ballot initiative passes, the measure will obligate the city to untold, needless expenses, requiring it to indemnify any “proponents of th[e] measure” 11 for defending it
from legal challenges. It’s absurd, unworkable policy, and taking the wind out of its sails with SB 330 protections will help prevent it from moving forward at the ballot. As a preliminary step, an SB 330 application would require relatively little work to draft while providing meaningful protection from future obstruction. This application would start the entitlement process while providing time to decide upon an RFP recipient who can finalize the project and move it forward in a timely fashion. We encourage City Council to consider submitting such an application as soon as feasible.

Sincerely,
Sonja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY Law
11 See “Downtown Parking Plazas” initiative, at
https://www.forlosaltos-now.com/_files/ugd/28d143_c87f415059da424a9b5afd558b365765.pdf.

YIMBY Law, 2261 Market Street STE 10416, San Francisco, CA 94114 6

ATTACHMENT C

YIMBY Law
2261 Market Street STE 10416
San Francisco, CA 94114
[email protected]
6/15/2026
City of Los Altos
City Council
1 N. San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
Re: Los Altos Downtown Parking Plazas Ordinance
Dear City Council of Los Altos
YIMBY Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. YIMBY Law sues municipalities when they fail to comply with state housing laws, including the Housing Element Law.

Recently, YIMBY law notified
1 the Los Altos City Council about some legal deficiencies with the ongoing parking lots initiative. Reviewing representations by the initiative’s proponents, we are compelled to respond to theirdeliberate misrepresentations of the law. If Los Altos follows this advice, the city will place itself at immediate risk of litigation, Housing Element Decertification, and subject the entire city to the Builder’s Remedy.

To dispel any potential ambiguity, we are prepared to sue Los Altos the instant this measure is adopted. That litigation would rest atop the Builder’s Remedy and the need to adopt a new Certified Housing Element to identify new sites for density.

I. Correcting Misinformation
1 Sent June 4, 2026, accessible at
https://docs.google.com/document/d/19-MG1CDYHnd8NH_gOWhvkUtG8gxquVsq/edit?usp=sharin g&ouid=100060418537962895721&rtpof=true&sd=true.
1

The initiative’s proponents responded to a series of frequently asked questions with inaccurate or misleading conclusions.
2 We wish to respond to several of these points
directly. Below are excerpts of that document, and details on its misrepresentations to potential voters.

A. The “Exemption” for Affordable Housing is Unusable
The document and initiative state that it would exempt affordable housing on lots 7 & 8, but does not define “affordable housing” for this purpose, or the mechanism by which it would be exempted.

The way this is drafted, the initiative would not actually exempt Parking Plazas 7 & 8.

The exception is unrelated to the actual process at issue, as described in the Housing Element. Los Altos’s plan was not to develop housing itself; Housing Element program

1.H commits to “facilitate the development of housing on” relevant parking lots, along with other streamlining. As laid out in YIMBY Law’s prior letter on this subject, Article 34 jurisprudence distinguishes development from the kinds of land disposition that are at issue in 1.H.
2 Accessible at
https://www.forlosaltos-now.com/_files/ugd/28d143_00ceb27b6fc74e0dbf2c0b78cc23f6e7.pdf YIMBY Law, 2261 Market Street STE 10416, San Francisco, CA 94114 2

B. The Initiative Will Subject Los Altos to the Builder’s Remedy This response is partially true, but mostly incorrect. While it is true that only cities without certified Housing Elements are subject to the Builder’s Remedy, there are many mechanisms by which an Element can be decertified later in the process. HCD has already revoked certification for Norwalk
3 and Portola Valley4
for taking actions
inconsistent with their Housing Element.

California’s Department of Housing and Community Development retains an ongoing statutory duty to review city actions after their Housing Element has been certified.

Under CA statute, HCD must review any action or failure to act by a city that it determines to be inconsistent with an adopted housing element or section 65583 generally, and it must issue written findings to the city accordingly. 5 HCD must give the city a reasonable time, no longer than 30 days, to respond to these findings.
6 If HCD does not receive a written response from the city within 30 days, or the response does not demonstrate that the program action has been implemented, then HCD may revoke its findings that the city’s housing element substantially complies with Housing Element Law.
7 7 Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (i)(1)(B).
6 Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (i)(1)(A).)
5 Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (i)(1).
4 California Department of Housing & Community Development, Revocation of Housing Element Compliance Finding – Town of Portola Valley (March 26, 2024). https://drive.google.com/file/d/180UtRNamsGnz9MATVxrhmW0dQPNfdGtA/view 3 California Department of Housing & Community Development, City of Norwalk – Revocation of Housing Element Compliance Finding, (Oct. 2, 2024)
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/norwalk-revocati on-he-compliance-100224.pdf
YIMBY Law, 2261 Market Street STE 10416, San Francisco, CA 94114 3

Additionally, HCD may notify the California Office of the Attorney General when a city takes actions that are inconsistent with an adopted housing element or Government Code sections 65583 and 65915, among other laws.
8 HCD has already notified California cities of this risk, under very similar circumstances.

Eureka had a program for housing on city-owned parking lots. When residents circulated a ballot initiative to prevent this from happening, HCD notified the city that doing so would require a Housing Element Amendment or render the city out of compliance.
9 Recently, HCD notified Newport Beach that an initiative would render its Housing Element out of compliance and that preliminary SB 330 applications would protect projects from the effects of such an initiative. 10Newport Beach specifically lost a
lawsuit filed by HCD and the Attorney General’s office over Housing Element implementation which required voter approval.
11 The initiative’s restriction would directly contradict Housing Element program 1.H, while also instituting a new governmental constraint on development. A Housing Element cannot be considered substantially compliant unless it identifies local constraints to housing development and sets specific strategies to reduce those constraints. 12 A new
initiative subject to voter approval by design constrains housing development. If adopted, Los Altos would be out of compliance until it goes through the entire process of drafting a Housing Element amendment and receiving certification from HCD.

This illegal initiative would be subject to attack under Housing Element law from many sources other than HCD and the Attorney General’s office. Developers with illegitimately denied projects would have standing to sue, but so too would interested housing organizations such as YIMBY Law.
13 13 Gov. Code § 65589.5, subd. (k)(1)(A)(i).
12 Gov. Code § 65583(a)(5)-(a)(6) & (c).
11 Office of the Attorney General, Attorney General Bonta and Newsom Administration Celebrate Newport Beach Win Allowing the City to Comply with State Housing Law, (June 29, 2025) https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-and-newsom-administration-cel ebrate-newport-beach-win.
10 California Department of Housing & Community Development, Circulating Initiative for a Ballot Measure and Housing Element Compliance – Letter of Technical Assistance (September 18, 2025) https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/newport-beach-h au-2031-ta-091825.pdf.
9 California Department of Housing & Community Development, Adopted Housing Element Revision Process – Letter of Technical Assistance, (October 9, 2024). https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/eureka-ta-he-co mpliance-100924.pdf
8 Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (j).

YIMBY Law, 2261 Market Street STE 10416, San Francisco, CA 94114 4

C. No Net Loss will be implicated, along with other Housing Element requirements A voter initiative that makes a site unreasonably constrained allocates a density of zero to that site. California’s No Net Loss rule provides that:
(b) (1) No city, county, or city and county shall, by administrative, quasi-judicial, legislative, or other action, reduce, or require or permit the reduction of, the residential density for any parcel identified to meet its current share of the regional housing need or any unaccommodated portion of the regional housing need from the prior planning period to, or allow development of any parcel at, a lower residential density, as defined in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subdivision (g), unless the city, county, or city and county makes written findings supported by substantial evidence of both of the following:
(A) The reduction is consistent with the adopted general plan, including the housing element.
(B) The remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to meet the requirements of Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584. The finding shall include a quantification of the remaining unmet need for the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need at each income level and the remaining capacity of sites identified in the housing element to accommodate that need by income level.

Gov. Code § 65863.

The proponents are trying to state that they should be allowed to set a categorical bar on developing these sites, but that this should not be imputed to change the density of those sites in any way. Beyond that, No Net Loss is not the only law that would be implicated by this change.

YIMBY Law, 2261 Market Street STE 10416, San Francisco, CA 94114 5

State housing element law requires jurisdictions to demonstrate "realistic development capacity" and maintain sites that are "suitable and available for residential development."
14 Realistic capacity is not purely a legal inquiry; it also considers practical factors influencing what can economically be constructed in an area.

HCD generally considers lower minimum densities appropriate for residential development.

The underlying zoned capacity of a parcel is only one element of this consideration; HCD guidelines advise that realistic capacity is a combination of the new units that would be developed on a given site and the likelihood that those units could be developed. The maximum zoned capacity is irrelevant if other regulations and factors render that capacity infeasible to develop. HCD specifically advises analyzing:
the imposition of any development standards that impact the residential development capacity of the sites identified in the inventory. When establishing realistic unit capacity calculations, the jurisdiction must consider existing development trends of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction, as well as the cumulative impact of standards such as maximum lot coverage, height, open space, parking, and FARs.

HCD advises that this inquiry is specifically to include the likelihood for residential development, market demand, local track records, past production trends, and new market conditions.

The recent New Commune DTLA held that a city’s housing plan fails to meet state law if its underlying zoning or overlay permits projects with zero residential units. While that case related to parcels which allowed commercial uses, the court discussed the legislature’s intent behind the realistic capacity analysis; specifically, the court was concerned with local governments circumventing their housing responsibility by including residential sites that were not truly feasible for multi-family residential development. The court ruled against the city, finding a difference in legal availability and the practical requirements of building.

Whether the zoning legally allows for construction is insufficient if that construction is economically unviable. This does not have to be a total bar; a sufficiently substantial restriction on feasibility, despite zoning, implicates development capacity. All governments are proactively required to identify and mitigate constraints on development. Zoned capacity alone, including density allowances, is not sufficient to meet RHNA requirements where other constraints exist to limit residential capacity, whether those limitations are legal or factual.
14 Gov. Code §§ 65583.2(c), 65583(a)(3).

YIMBY Law, 2261 Market Street STE 10416, San Francisco, CA 94114 6

See above. It is disingenuous to state that the initiative does not affect buildable density for the parcels.

II. Other Exposures to Liability
A. The Retroactivity Provision is Illegal on Multiple Fronts

14.92.060 of the initiative purports to invalidate any inconsistent actions “on or after the date of publication of the notice of intention to circulate the initiative petition”. This is outright bedlam. It’s absurd policy that’s impossible to administer, which is exactly why it’s already illegal. Where retroactive zoning ordinance causes substantial injury and prohibited business is not nuisance, ordinance is to that extent unreasonable exercise of police power.
15 If this were allowed, any petition drafter could publish a notice to circulate and then what happens? Planners and city council have to wait until an election for an initiative that may not pass at all? Los Altos would experience months of delay while developers and city staff would not know what law is actually in control. Much though the drafters of this petition would disagree, residential housing is not a nuisance under California law.

Notice of an initiative does not change the underlying zoning of a parcel or the city’s general plan.

Leaving all of that aside, SB 330 specifically precludes retroactive ordinances for applicable projects. If anyone were to submit a preliminary application before the initiative is formally adopted, the initiative would have no force. SB 330 preliminary applications lock in regulations that are in effect as soon as the application is submitted to a municipality:
15 Stern v. City of Los Angeles (1931) 295 P. 23, 211 Cal. 778; Rutherford v. City of Los Angeles (1931) 295 P. 23, 211 Cal. 777; Wittman v. City of Los Angeles (1931) 295 P. 22, 211 Cal. 778; Jones v. City of Los Angeles (1931) 295 P. 14, 211 Cal. 304.

YIMBY Law, 2261 Market Street STE 10416, San Francisco, CA 94114 7

“a housing development project shall be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application including all of the
information required … was submitted.”
16 The citizen’s initiative would be such an ordinance, policy, or standard which would not be applicable to any projects submitted before the initiative takes effect.

Despite the fact that the initiative states that it is effective between as of its date of circulation, SB 330 pre-applications protect projects from such retroactive ordinances. A vested SB 330 pre-application locks in standards that were in effect at the time it is submitted. No retroactive ordinances may be applied to such projects. The Permit Streamlining Act would grant vesting rights regardless of whether the application was submitted before or after May 15, provided the ordinance has not been adopted by that point. The initiative stating otherwise does not override California law.

SB 330 projects may only be reviewed in accordance with pre-written objective design standards.
17 The subjective opinion of Los Altos voters do not meet these standards, and may not be applied to applicable projects.

B. The Requirement for a Public Vote Cannot meet HAA or PSA Standards.

The Housing Accountability Act protects qualifying projects from denial unless specific conditions are met. A local government must make specific findings or the denial will be illegitimate. They must determine BOTH that:
(A) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.
(B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the 17 CA Gov Code § 66300 (b)(1)(C).
16 CA Gov Code § 65589.5. (o)(1).

YIMBY Law, 2261 Market Street STE 10416, San Francisco, CA 94114 8

disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.

Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(1)(A)(B).

A vote of the public can make no such findings. The Initiative asks for a vote, but the complex and specific findings necessary for a lawful denial cannot conceivably be contained within the text of a ballot question.

California’s Housing Crisis Act explicitly prohibits “a moratorium or similar restriction or limitation on housing development… within all or a portion of the (City).” 18 The requirement for a public vote creates such a moratorium, or creates the possibility that the public could institute one through successive denials.

Even if the vote was lawful under the HAA, it could never meet the timelines set by the Permit Streamlining Act. The PSA sets a 30 day period upon the receipt of an application to determine if it is complete, and requires 60-120 days 19 following EIR certification
application to receive approval or disapproval.
20 The elections required under this
initiative would almost certainly be unable to meet those deadlines.

III. Conclusion
This initiative threatens many methods of invalidating Los Altos’ Housing Element, which would open the town up to Builder’s Remedy projects.

Program 1.H is already running behind; the Housing Element committed to:
● Financial analysis for Parking Plaza 7 and 8 by independent third-party consultant by the end of 2023;
● Release request for proposals by December 2023; complete entitlements within one (1) year of application if not sooner (by December 2026) The RFP in question did not receive satisfactory responses, and requires the issuance of a new RFP. Nearly half way through 2026, the city is already under threat of decertification. The city should, and is legally bound to, facilitate housing on parking lots 7 & 8.
20Gov Code § 65941.1 (b)(1), (e)(1).
19 Depending on project type and the proportion of affordable units. 18 Gov. Code, § 66300, subd. (b)(1)(B).

YIMBY Law, 2261 Market Street STE 10416, San Francisco, CA 94114 9

If enacted, the initiative would mean drastic, immediate, and ongoing legal implications for the city. Los Altos could be sued under the Housing Elements law, Housing Accountability Act, Permit Streamlining Act, and potentially CEQA if any of the remedies for those violations require environmental review. The alternative is to proceed with the commitments that Los Altos has already made, and follow through with program 1.H.

Sincerely,
Sonja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY Law
YIMBY Law, 2261 Market Street STE 10416, San Francisco, CA 94114 10

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: June 23, 2026
Prepared By: Melissa Thurman
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: Determination of Action - Proposed Initiative Measure

COUNCIL PRIORITY AREA
General Government

RECOMMENDATION
Select one of the following actions, pursuant to Elections Code Section 9215:
• Adopt the proposed "Los Altos Downtown Parking Plaza Ordinance" without alteration at the June 23, 2026 meeting (or within 10 days); or
• Submit the proposed "Los Altos Downtown Parking Plaza Ordinance" without alteration to the voters at the next general municipal and statewide election of November 3, 2026

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The proposed actions are not projects under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §15378(b)(3). A project under CEQA does not include "[t]he submittal of proposals to a vote of the people of the state or a particular community that does not involve a public agency sponsored initiative." (Stein v. City of Santa Monica (1980) 110 Cal. App.3d 458; Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 165).

FISCAL IMPACT
At this time, staff estimates the cost of the November 3, 2026 election, including the initiative measure and two City Council seats (Districts 2 and 4) would be approximately $164,000. This total is subject to change, based on the Registrar of Voters final invoicing.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
• April 28, 2026 - City Council directed staff to prepare a report pursuant to Elections Code Section 9212
• June 9, 2026 - City Council accepted the City Clerk's Certificate of Sufficiency of Initiative Petition and reaffirmed the order of a report pursuant to Elections Code Section 9212

BACKGROUND
The timeline below details the steps taken for the initiative petition.

• March 18, 2026 - Proponents of the initiative petition filed a Notice of Intent to Circulate a Petition with the City Clerk's Office
• April 2, 2026 -The City Attorney prepared the Ballot Title and Summary • April 4, 2026 - The proponents published the Notice of Intent to Circulate and the Ballot Title and Summary in the Daily Post newspaper
• April 28, 2026 - The City Council directed staff to prepare a report pursuant to Elections Code Section 9212
• May 5, 2026 - The proponents filed petition sections containing signatures for the proposed "Los Altos Downtown Parking Plaza Ordinance" with the City Clerk's Office • May 5, 2026 - The City Clerk performed a preliminary review of the signatures and filed the signatures with the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters Office for signature verification and official determination of sufficiency
• May 21, 2026 - The Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters signed the Certificate of Results for the "Los Altos Downtown Parking Plaza Ordinance" • May 26, 2026 - The City Clerk prepared a Certificate of Sufficiency of Initiative Petition and placed the item on the June 9, 2026 City Council regular meeting agenda for Council action
• June 9, 2026 - The City Council accepted the City Clerk's Certificate of Sufficiency of Initiative Petition and reaffirmed the order of a report pursuant to Elections Code Section 9212

ANALYSIS
Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9215, after the Elections Code Section 9212 report is presented, the City Council has two options:

1.) Adopt the ordinance after the presentation of the Elections Code 9212 report, or within 10 days

2.) Call the election for the proposed Ordinance and place it on the ballot of either a special election (between 88-103 days afterward) or on the next statewide election (November 3, 2026)

DISCUSSION
If the City Council decides to adopt the ordinance, the adoption must be done without altering the ordinance as it was submitted. The ordinance would be considered adopted, and would become effective within 30 days. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9215, the City Council may adopt the ordinance, without alteration, within 10 days after the Elections Code Section 9212 report is received. Pursuant to Elections Code 9217: "No ordinance that is either proposed by initiative petition and adopted by the vote of the legislative body of the city without submission to the voters, or adopted by the voters, shall be repealed or amended except by a vote of the people, unless provision is otherwise made in the original ordinance." If the proposed Ordinance is adopted, the City would generally be prohibited from selling, leasing, conveying, or declaring as surplus land ten City-owned Downtown Parking Plazas for any reason, or from authorizing new uses or physical alterations that would diminish protected trees or parking availability, access, or convenience, without voter approval.

If the City Council places the initiative on the November 3, 2026 ballot, they are further asked to adopt a resolution directing the City Attorney to prepare the Impartial Analysis; and establishing the schedule for submission of ballot arguments; and authorizing and requesting that the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters (ROV) conduct the election. The City of Los Altos historically has consolidated their elections with other agencies in Santa Clara County through the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters (ROV).

The ballot language submitted to the voters will be as follows:

Shall the Ordinance, which prohibits the City of Los Altos from selling, leasing, YES conveying, or declaring as surplus land the ten City-owned Downtown Parking Plazas for any reason, or from authorizing new uses or physical alterations that would diminish protected trees or parking availability, access, or convenience, unless separately approved by a majority of voters, except that two Parking Plazas may be developed for affordable housing without a vote, be adopted? NO
This measure would require the approval of a majority vote of registered voters in the City of Los Altos to become effective. If approved, the measure will take effect 10 days following the date the vote is declared by the City Council, pursuant to Elections Code Section 9217.

The City Council is also asked to adopt a resolution directing the City Attorney to prepare an Impartial Analysis pursuant to Elections Code Section 9160. The analysis should be printed preceding the arguments for and against the measure.

The resolution calling the election would specify that the filing of ballot arguments and rebuttal arguments would need to comply with Election Code sections 9280-9287. The Santa Clara ROV's deadline for primary arguments is August 11, 2026 at 5:00 pm and the deadline for rebuttal arguments and the impartial summary is August 18, 2026 at 5 pm. The word limits for primary arguments, rebuttal arguments, and the impartial summary are 300, 250, and 500, respectively.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Resolution

Attachment 1 - Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY A CITIZENSPONSORED INITIATIVE MEASURE PROHIBITING THE CITY FROM SELLING, LEASING, CONVEYING, OR DECLARING AS SURPLUS LAND THE TEN CITYOWNED DOWNTOWN PARKING PLAZAS WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL;

CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION FOR THAT PURPOSE TO BE CONSOLIDATED WITH THE NOVEMBER 3, 2026 GENERAL ELECTION; SETTING THE RULES FOR BALLOT ARGUMENTS; AND AUTHORIZING AND REQUESTING THE SANTA

CLARA COUNTY REGISTRAR OF VOTERS TO CONDUCT THE ELECTION WHEREAS, on March 18, 2026, a Notice of Intent to Circulate a Petition was filed with the City Clerk with a request that a title and summary be prepared for the Los Altos Downtown Parking Plaza Ordinance (“Ordinance”); and
WHEREAS, on April 2, 2026, the City Attorney provided a title and summary for the proposed Ordinance to the proponents; and
WHEREAS, the Petition regarding the Ordinance was filed with the City Clerk on May 5, 2026, bearing 3,097 unverified signatures; and
WHEREAS, to qualify for the ballot, proponents were required to obtain 2,279 valid signatures on the Petition, which represents 10% of the registered voters in the City of Los Altos; and WHEREAS, the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters examined the records of voter registration and certified that the Petition contained more than the requisite number of valid signatures to qualify for election; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk certified the sufficiency of the signatures on May 26, 2026; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Sections 9212 and 9215, the City Council requested a report on the proposed Ordinance to be submitted to Council at the June 23, 2026 meeting; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received and considered the report, and having been presented with that analysis during the June 23, 2026 meeting, the City Council is proceeding in accordance with Elections Code Section 9215; and
WHEREAS, by adoption of Resolution No. 2026-36, on June 9, 2026, the City Council has called a General Municipal Election to elect two members to the City Council and requested that election be consolidated with the Statewide General Election to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Elections Code Sections 9215, 1405 and 10403, the City Council desires to request that the election for this proposed Ordinance be consolidated with the November 3, 2026, Statewide General Election; and

Attachment 1 - Resolution

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Call for Election. Pursuant to California Elections Code Sections 306, 9215, 1405, 9222 and 10403, the City of Los Altos calls an election for the purpose of submitting to the voters of the City a citizen-sponsored initiative entitled “Los Altos Downtown Parking Plaza Ordinance.” The City Council further requests that the election shall be consolidated with the Statewide General Election on November 3, 2026.

2. Ballot Language. The following question shall be submitted to the voters on the ballot:

Shall the Ordinance, which prohibits the City of Los Altos from selling, leasing, conveying, or declaring as surplus land the ten City-owned Downtown Parking Plazas for any reason, or from authorizing new uses or physical alterations that would diminish protected trees or parking availability, access, or convenience, unless separately approved by a majority of voters, except that two Parking Plazas may be developed for affordable housing without a vote, be adopted?
YES
NO
This question requires the approval of a majority vote of the registered voters of the City of Los Altos voting on the measure at the election to become effective. If the Ordinance is so approved by the voters, then the Ordinance attached hereto as Exhibit A shall become effective ten (10) days following the date the vote is declared by the City Council in accordance with Elections Code Section 9217.

3. Text of Measure. The complete text of the Ordinance to be submitted to the voters for approval is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. The text of the measure shall be printed in the ballot materials and be available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office and on the City of Los Altos website at www.losaltosca.gov.

4. Publication of Measure. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause notice of the measure to be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Los Altos, in accordance with the California Elections Code Section 12111 and California Government Code Section 6061.

5. Request to Conduct Elections and Canvass Returns.
(a) Pursuant to Elections Code commencing with Section 10400, the City Council hereby requests, consents, and agrees that the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters shall take all actions which are necessary or appropriate in connection with the election,

Attachment 1 - Resolution
including, but not limited to, printing and mailing sample ballots, arguments and applications for absentee ballots, canvassing election returns and certifying the results of the election to the City Council. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 10002, the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara County is requested to permit the Registrar of Voters to render all services specified by Elections Code Section 10418 relating to the election. The City of Los Altos hereby agrees to reimburse the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters in full for any services performed by each for the City upon presentation of an invoice to the City.
(b) The election on the Ordinance shall be held and conducted, the voters canvassed and the returns made, and the results ascertained and determined as provided herein. (c) The election shall be held in accordance with the Elections Code of the State of California.
(d) At the next regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Altos occurring after the returns of the election for the Ordinance have been canvassed and the results have been certified to the City Council, or at a special meeting called for such purpose if required by law, the City Council shall cause to be entered in its minutes a statement of the results of the election.

6. Submission of Ballot Arguments. The City Council hereby adopts provisions governing the filing of ballot arguments and rebuttal arguments for the proposed Ordinance as set forth in California Elections Code commencing with Section 9282. All ballot arguments and rebuttal arguments for and against the measure shall be filed with the City Clerk pursuant to the timelines set forth in the Election Calendar of the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters for the November 3, 2026 Statewide General Election. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9282(a), the City Council authorizes the City Council to draft an argument against the Ordinance.

7. Submission of Supporters and Opponents. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 9170 and the timelines set forth in the Election Calendar of the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters for the November 3, 2026 Statewide General Election, proponents and opponents of the Ordinance may submit, to the City Clerk, a list of supporters and opponents, with the necessary supporting documents, to be printed after the ballot label.

8. Impartial Analysis. In accordance with California Elections Code Section 9280, the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the Ordinance to the City Attorney, who shall prepare an Impartial Analysis showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure, by August 18, 2026, at 5 p.m. The City Attorney’s Impartial Analysis may not exceed 500 words.

9. Services of the City Clerk. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to place the measure on the ballot, including giving further or additional notice of the election as required by law, and to cause the Ordinance to be printed. The City Clerk, after conferring with the City Attorney, is hereby authorized and directed to

Attachment 1 - Resolution
make any minor changes to the ballot question or provisions of this Resolution, if such changes are required by law or necessary to ensure the election proceeds.

10. Canvass Returns of the Election. The Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters is hereby authorized to canvass the returns of the election, including this ballot measure.

11. Filing of Copy of Resolution. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters.

12. Election Held Pursuant to Law. In all particulars not recited in this Resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.

13. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption.

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 23rd day of June 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
__________________________
Sally Meadows
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Melissa Thurman, MMC
City Clerk
Exhibits:

A. Text of Measure

Exhibit A - Text of Measure

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: June 23, 2026
Prepared By: Gabe Engeland
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: Consideration of an Advisory Ballot Measure Regarding the Los Altos Downtown Parking Plaza Ordinance

COUNCIL PRIORITY AREA
Business Communities
Circulation Safety and Efficiency
Housing
General Government

RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction to staff on whether to draft a resolution placing an advisory measure or measures on the upcoming municipal ballot

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The placement of an advisory, non-binding measure on the ballot does not constitute a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), as it is an organizational or administrative activity of government that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
Placing a measure on the ballot will incur a fiscal impact. The Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters charges the City for the marginal costs of adding the measure to the ballot and printing the associated materials (impartial analysis and arguments) in the county Voter Information Guide. The exact cost is variable and depends on the final word count of the submitted materials, the number of submitted materials, and the total number of items sharing the ballot.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
None

BACKGROUND
A citizen initiative, the Los Altos Downtown Parking Plaza Ordinance, has qualified for the upcoming ballot. The City Council has the option to place a separate, non-binding advisory measure or measures on the ballot to formally gauge public opinion and receive community guidance on the City's housing policies and response to state mandates should the initiative be approved by voters.

ANALYSIS

State Law on Advisory Measures
California Elections Code Section 9603(a) authorizes a city to hold an advisory election on any date on which the jurisdiction is permitted to hold a regular or special election. The statute permits the City to place a question on the ballot "for the purpose of allowing voters within the respective jurisdiction, or a portion thereof, to voice their opinions on substantive issues, or to indicate to the local legislative body approval or disapproval of the ballot proposal." Purpose of Advisory Measures
Advisory measures are strictly non-binding polling tools used by local governments to gather broad, formal public input on policy directions or community priorities.

Under Elections Code Section 9603(c), an advisory vote is defined as "an indication of general voter opinion regarding the ballot proposal." The statute explicitly notes that "the results of the advisory vote will in no manner be controlling on the sponsoring legislative body." To ensure voters understand the nature of the question, Elections Code Section 9603(b) requires that the ballot heading immediately above the proposal read: “Advisory Vote Only.” Process for Placing an Advisory Measure on the Ballot
If the City Council chooses to place an advisory measure, or advisory measures, on the ballot the following statutory steps must be completed:

1. Drafting the Question: The Council must formulate and approve the specific language of the advisory question. By law, the ballot question is limited to 75 words. Each of the optional advisory measures attached to this report are compliant with law. The City Council may place one or more advisory measures.

2. Adoption of a Resolution: The City Council must adopt a resolution calling for the advisory measure to be placed on the ballot and requesting consolidation with the scheduled election. This resolution must be submitted to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters no later than 88 days prior to the election date. If directed by Council, staff will return with a resolution at the next meeting.

3. Impartial Analysis and Arguments: Upon adoption of the resolution, the City Attorney is required to prepare an impartial analysis of the measure (not to exceed 500 words).

The Council may also designate members to draft the official ballot argument in favor of the measure, and a rebuttal argument if necessary.

DISCUSSION
Not Applicable.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Consideration of Advisory Ballot Measure

Attachment 1: Consideration of Advisory Ballot Measure(s) Question 1
ADVISORY VOTE ONLY: If voters approve the Los Altos Downtown Parking Plaza Ordinance, shall the City Council adopt zoning changes that allow increased housing density and height in single-family residential areas to maintain compliance with current and future State housing mandates and reduce the risk of Housing Element decertification?
Question 2
ADVISORY VOTE ONLY: If voters approve the Los Altos Downtown Parking Plaza Ordinance, shall the City Council permit increased building heights and more intensive development in areas not currently zoned for such development, including downtown Los Altos and single-family neighborhoods, to maintain compliance with current and future State housing mandates? Question 3
ADVISORY VOTE ONLY: If voters approve the Los Altos Downtown Parking Plaza Ordinance, shall the City Council maintain compliance with current State housing laws, and future State mandates, by increasing housing density in single-family neighborhoods, allowing greater height and density of developments in all business districts, including downtown, and reduce downtown parking by approximately 250 spaces? Question 4
ADVISORY VOTE ONLY: If voters approve the Los Altos Downtown Parking Plaza Ordinance, shall the City Council take all necessary actions to avoid threatened litigation, maintain compliance with current and future housing mandates, reduce the risk of housing element decertification, and prevent the possibility of the Builder’s Remedy which allows developments without local zoning control, by taking actions to include rezoning single-family neighborhoods, downtown, business districts, and other areas for increased building height and density?
Question 5
ADVISORY VOTE ONLY: If voters approve the Los Altos Downtown Parking Plaza Ordinance, shall the City Council be advised to maintain compliance with current and future State housing laws, to reduce the risk of Housing Element decertification, the potential application of the Builder’s Remedy, and avoid threatened litigation, even if doing so requires allowing increased building height and density downtown, reducing downtown parking, rezoning single-family zoning, and allowing more dense mixed-use developments downtown and in business districts?

City of Los Altos 2026 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.

July 14, 2026
Regular Meeting – 7:00 p.m.

CONSENT:
• Resolution to Amend the Joint Volunteer Awards Committee • Resolution to Execute Amendment No. 1 to the ADP Workforce Now Comprehensive Services Agreement • Contract Renewal - Orchard Maintenance Agreement
• Appropriation of funds as part of annexation into the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District DISCUSSION:
• General Plan Visioning
• Police Station Design Options
• Sales Tax Ballot Measure
The remaining 2026 City Council agenda calendar items are pending and will be published at a later date.

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
Program 4.J: Facilitate alternate modes of transportation for Manager March 31, 2023 COMPLETED residents.

Adopt VMT Policy &
Transportation Demand 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 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 COMPLETED
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 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. December 31, 2025 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 Program 4.G: Assist seniors to maintain and rehabilitate their homes. July 31, 2026 ONGOING
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 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

DATE: 06/23/2026
TO: COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
SUBJECT: COUNCIL Q&A FOR JUNE 23, 2026 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Study Session (HH EIR):
• Please explain the request for a “scoping meeting” from Friends of Historic Grove. What is a scoping meeting? What was the City’s response to the FOHG letter dated March 14, 2025 (packet page 174)?
Answer: Scoping meeting is a planning session where stakeholders define project objectives and provide input on the scope of the EIR’s analysis. According to CEQA Section 21083.9, a scoping meeting is required for a proposed project that may affect highways or other facilities under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation or for a project of statewide, regional, or areawide significance as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15206. Given the project site is not subject to Caltrans jurisdiction and the project does not meet the definition in Guidelines Section 15206, Staff determined that this comment was not relevant and that the scoping meeting was not required.
• Why did the public comment period begin on June 11 instead of the date of the study session?
Answer: The 45-day Draft EIR public comment period started with the release of the Notice of Availability on June 11, 2026. It is typical for the study session on a Draft EIR to be held during, and not at the start of, the public review period so that the public can have an opportunity to review the document and provide comments at the study session.
• Have there been prior Draft and/or Final EIR’s prepared for Halsey House, and if so when were they done?
Answer: Staff is not aware of any Draft and Final EIR’s prepared for the Halsey House.

Multiple study sessions were completed since 2013 and the Council appropriated funding for the environmental review for Halsey House in the meeting held on May 09, 2023.
• Does the Draft EIR's analysis of the Mothballing alternative (Section 8.2.2.5) incorporate the City's 2021–2026 experience mothballing this same structure? It claims that "Mothballing

typically protects historic buildings for a period of up to 10 years," while five years of mothballing have already gone by. Shouldn't that site-specific data be part of the feasibility/effectiveness analysis supporting (or countering) its "environmentally superior" designation?
Answer: Draft EIR analysis did not incorporate the 2021 – 2026 mothballing experience because the official mothballing consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards was not performed.
• Does Halsey House currently have a functional sewer connection? Would the Full Rehabilitation alternative (Section 8.2.2.3) require a new connection, potentially involving construction in the Adobe Creek bed itself? What regulatory agencies would be involved, given the potential disruption to surface or hyporheic creek flow? Answer: Halsey House currently appears to be connected to the sanitary sewer main on the southeast side of the house. Full rehabilitation would not require construction in the Adobe Creek since there is an existing sanitary sewer lateral and main approximately 120ft southeast of the Halsey House.
• Has the site-specific flood risk assessment referenced in Section 8.2.2.3 been completed? If Full Rehabilitation were found to require elevating the structure on a new foundation, how would that affect the alternative's "no impact to historic integrity" conclusion, given that foundation elevation is itself a significant physical alteration? Answer: No, the full site-specific flood risk assessment would be completed if the full rehabilitation of Historic Resource alternative is chosen; Halsey House CEQA Hydrology study is included in the Appendix F of the Draft EIR. If elevating the structure was required, the improvements would be required to adhere to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. As a result of adhering to those standards this alternative would not affect the historic integrity of the structure.

Agenda Item 2 (Structural Reach Replacement):
• Where were the sewer lines replaced?
Answer: Nandell Lane (Easement), Plateau Avenue, Country Club Drive, Whitham Avenue, Esberg Road (Easement), Mora Court (Easement), Oakridge Drive, Fairway Drive.

Agenda Item 3 (Intersection Access Barrier Removal):
• Where were the intersections upgraded?

Answer: Estrellita Way and Los Altos - Palo Alto Bike Path, Los Altos Avenue and Los Alos – Palo Alto Bike Path
Agenda Item 6 (Treasurer’s Report):
• Did the finance commission review this report? If so, did they have any comments or input? Answer: No. The Finance Commission did not review this report. • There is an entry on 2/21 for $183,473.73 paid to SCL-North. What was this payment for? Answer: The payment was for the purchase of downtown solar lights and poles as part of the Downtown Lighting Improvements Project.
• There is an entry on 3/12 for $144,053.00 to Altec, Inc. What was this payment for? Answer: The payment was for the purchase of a new aerial lift/bucket truck body and equipment package for City operations, including an Altec AT37G telescoping/articulating aerial device mounted on a Ford F-550 chassis, along with related safety, electrical, and utility accessories.
• Please provide more detail on these check register entries:
201593 01/08/2026 99996 COMCAST 282,065.63
What was the nature of the error?
Answer: Comcast erroneously submitted a $282,065.63 payment via ACH to the City of Los Altos that was intended for the Town of Los Altos Hills. Once the error was identified, the City issued a refund check.
201749 01/22/2026 10875 Flock Group Inc. 47,500.00
Which set of cameras and time period was covered by this payment? Answer: The payment covered the 2026–27 renewal, including 15 license plate recognition (LPR) cameras and associated Advanced Search software licenses. This represented Year 2 of a 24-month agreement.
201837 02/05/2026 10063 ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE 350.00 Answer: The payment was for a half-day rental of Range C (4 hours) at the Alameda County Sheriff's Office Regional Training Center for Police Department training on January 27, 2026

202290 03/19/2026 12015 PENINSULA DEMOCRATIC COALITION 551.00 Is this a normal room rental transaction?
Answer: Yes. The payment was a refund of a facility rental security deposit. 202359 03/26/2026 12037 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN 193.05
Answer: The payment was to MSC petty cash fund for routine operational expenses.

Petty cash is replenished periodically based on submitted receipts and expenditures.

Agenda Item 7 (Updated Purchasing Policy):
• Does the city have any mechanism to check whether potential vendors have had legal issues elsewhere?
Answer: The City does not have a formal process to investigate a vendor's legal history.

Vendor selection is based on the City's Purchasing Policy, including competitive bidding, qualifications, experience, references, ability to perform, licensing, insurance, and compliance with procurement requirements, as applicable.

Agenda Item 8 (Urban Forestry Assessment):
• So that Council Members can be sure they are in compliance with Government Code Section 84308, please provide the Firm Name, Contact Name, Contact’s Role, and Location of for each of the four firms that bid on this project.

Answer: The City received four submissions from:
• Dudek, Ryan Allen – Project Manager, Oakland, CA
• Arbor Pro, Oscar R. Corvera - Project Executive/Vice President, Orange, CA • Davey Resource Group, Michael Cappon - Project Manager, Kent, Ohio • Biotech Consulting, John A. Miklos - Principal-in-Charge, Orlando, Florida • Can we please get more explanation about the main deliverables for this project? Answer: The main deliverables include a public tree inventory, a citywide land cover assessment, an operations and maintenance framework for city staff, and resource guides for residents. Staff will work with the consultant to refine these items as the project goes along, allowing the final deliverables to adjust based on what best meets city and community needs. These deliverables support efforts to protect and maintain the urban forest, which the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) identifies as a key asset for carbon sequestration, heat reduction, and climate resilience, which helps the City work toward its 2035 carbon neutrality goals. This project is the direct result of the Environmental Commission’s 2025 Work Plan Urban Forest initiative approved by the City Council at the February 11, 2025, Joint Council meeting.

• Will the project assess which types of trees are best able to thrive in our changing environment and also identify ones that are ill-suited to our area in light of climate change?
Answer: Yes. The project will evaluate current tree conditions and species health across Los Altos, providing the data needed to identify which varieties are climateresilient and which are not best suited for the area. • Will the tree inventory be made available to the public? Answer: Potentially. The City may work to integrate the tree inventory into the City’s existing GIS mapping platform depending on best practice and recommendations from the consultant. Pursuant to the City’s Public Records Policy and Public Records Act, draft inventory documents will not be made available to the public.

Agenda Item 10 (SB707 Policy):
• The draft applies to “all open and public meetings of the City Council … at which remote public participation is offered or required under the Brown Act.” This policy applies to all open and public meetings of the City Council of the City of Los Altos, at which remote public participation is offered or required under the Brown Act. But SB707 contains specific exceptions for certain types of meetings, including judicial/administrative proceedings, property inspections, meetings with state/federal officials on legislative or regulatory issues, meetings in or near agency-owned facilities limited to facility-related topics, and emergency meetings under Government Code § 54956.5. Can this section be amended to read:
“This policy applies to open and public meetings of the City Council of the City of Los Altos that are subject to Government Code § 54953.4’s requirement to provide public attendance by two-way telephonic service or two-way audiovisual platform.

This policy does not apply to meetings exempted from that requirement under Government Code § 54953.4, including meetings held to attend judicial or administrative proceedings to which the City is a party, inspect real or personal property when the topic is limited to that property, meet with state or federal officials solely regarding legislative or regulatory issues within their jurisdiction, meet in or nearby a City-owned facility when the topic is limited to that facility, or meet in an emergency situation under Government Code § 54956.5.” Answer: This language has been added.
• The definition of “disruption” does not track the language of the statute. Can the definition read:
“Disruption” means a disruption of telephonic or internet service that prevents members of the public from attending or observing the meeting via the City’s twoway telephonic service or two-way audiovisual platform.

Answer: This language has been added.
• Section 5.1.3 says that after the Mayor announces the disruption, the Mayor “may then call for a recess of the open session, or convene the legislative body in closed session.” The Mayor may then call for a recess of the open session, or convene the legislative body in closed session, consistent with the Brown Act. But under SB 707, if the statutory disruption occurs, the body shall recess the open session for at least one hour and make a goodfaith attempt to restore service. The recess is mandatory, not discretionary. Should “may” be changed to “shall” in that section?
The draft says the Mayor may “convene the legislative body in closed session, consistent with the Brown Act.” The Mayor may then call for a recess of the open session, or convene the legislative body in closed session, consistent with the Brown Act. SB 707 permits the body to meet in closed session during the recess period, but it does not independently create a closed-session basis. The closed session must still be authorized by the Brown Act and properly noticed or otherwise permissible. Can sections 5.1(3) – (5) be replaced with the following language:
“Upon determining that a disruption has occurred, the Mayor shall recess the open session. During the recess, the City Council may meet in closed session only to the extent the closed session is otherwise authorized, noticed, and conducted in compliance with the Brown Act. Staff shall make good faith efforts to diagnose and restore the disrupted telephonic or internet service. The open session shall remain in recess until at least one hour following the disruption or until telephonic or internet service is restored, whichever occurs earlier.” Answer: This language has been added.
• SB 707 provides that if an eligible legislative body elects to provide a two-way audiovisual platform, it must publicly post and provide a call-in option and activate automatic captioning if the platform includes that function. The draft does not address that. It may be outside the narrow disruption-policy requirement, but because the draft defines “remote access services,” it would be prudent to add an operational cross-reference. Can we add this:
“When the City provides a two-way audiovisual platform for a covered meeting, the City shall publicly post and provide a call-in option and shall activate any automatic captioning function included with the platform, consistent with Government Code § 54953.4.”
Answer: Our agendas currently provide a call-in number for members of the public who would prefer to listen to the meeting via phone. This will not change, except after

July 1st, any member of the public listening by phone has the option to press *9 on their device to “raise their hand” to speak during public comment. Closed captioning is available on Zoom and on YouTube.

However, the suggested language has been added to the draft policy under Section 2 “Purpose”.
• GC section 54953.4 is repealed as of January 1, 2030. Can we add the following:

Effective Period:
“This policy shall become operative on July 1, 2026 and shall be repealed when Government Code § 54953.4 is repealed (currently set to be repealed on January 1, 2030).”
Answer: This language has been added.
• In the Resolution, the date in the "I Hereby Certify" clause should be updated to June 23, 2026.

Answer: This has been corrected.

The discussion states "Currently, city staff plans to meet the requirements of SB 707 by allowing public comment via Zoom,” and goes on to explain the disadvantages of allowing telephonic interaction. However, on the next page there’s a section entitled Telephonic Public Comment, which suggest that would be supported. Is staff recommending only Zoom, or Zoom and telephonic?
Answer: Our intention is to allow both telephonic and remote public comment via Zoom vs. using one exclusively over the other. Since Zoom allows for both options, we plan to continue to use Zoom, and to use both “Raise your Hand” and “*9” for members of the public who are attending by watching via Zoom, and those attending by listening over phone on Zoom. If the city were to not use Zoom and instead only provide public comment telephonically, the challenges listed in the staff report remain; hence the reasoning behind continuing to utilize Zoom for both methods of remote public comment.

Agenda Item 11 (Election Code Section 9212):
• In the Housing Element, in addition to program 1H (which is specific to housing on cityowned land), does the Report call out that the initiative would preclude implementing program 3A, "Prepare a Downtown Parking Plan and Update Citywide Parking Requirements"? Key elements of 3A are listed below, and would presumably be disallowed by the measure:
o Identify approaches to address short and long-term parking needs considering innovative parking design and strategies that support efficient use of land;

o Reflect that the City will support consolidation of City-owned parking plazas; o Prepare a Downtown parking plan and modify parking requirements.

Answer: While Program 3A has been completed through preparation of the Downtown Los Altos Parking Strategy and parking ordinance amendments, implementation of those measures could be affected by the ballot measure. A discussion of these potential impacts is provided on pages 29 and 73 of the 9212 Report. In summary, the ballot measure may constrain implementation of the parking management strategies outlined in the Parking Strategy, including potentially delaying or limiting new improvements on parking plazas, such as electric vehicle charging stations and bicycle parking facilities. More broadly, the measure could conflict with key objectives of the Parking Strategy by restricting the City’s ability to support Downtown economic vitality, optimize use of existing parking resources, and ensure adequate parking supply. Additionally, the ballot measure introduces ambiguity regarding whether future implementation of certain Parking Strategy items would require voter approval.

To the extent that individual actions could be interpreted as “modifying” or “altering” a Plaza in a manner that “diminishes” parking availability, access, or convenience— even when intended to improve overall system efficiency—such actions could trigger the measure’s voter approval requirement.
• Does the 9212 identify that Figure B-2 in the Housing Element (titled “ … Site Inventory Map by Income Category (North-Central Portion of Los Altos)", pg 159) shows that all downtown parking plazas (not just 7&8) are identified as possible housing sites? This is also confirmed in Table B-10 where parking plazas 1-10 are listed by their APNs. What is the impact of losing the parking plazas in our Housing Element site inventory? Answer: The 9212 report identifies that all the plazas are included as housing sites in the housing element. Discussion of this starts on page 49 of the report. The Downtown Parking Plazas count towards 124 units: 63 moderate-income units and 61 above moderate-income units. Not counting Parking Plazas 7 and 8, which are addressed as an undefined exception in the Ballot Measure, the rest of the Parking Plazas still account for 32 units in the moderate-income category and 61 units in the above moderate-income category. A potential loss of the Parking Plazas as housing sites would create a RHNA shortfall in the moderate and above moderate-income categories, leading to the City having a smaller surplus of 139 moderate units and a shortfall of 16 above-moderate units. Since the above moderate category would have a shortfall, the City would be unable to meet its RHNA without additional amendments to its certified 6th Cycle Housing Element. This could lead HCD to make a finding of noncompliance for the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element unless the City can identify

and make available additional housing sites to address the above moderate shortfall within an 180-day time frame.
• The Report points out risks and uncertainties associated with the ill-defined Exception allowing development of Plazas 7 & 8 for affordable housing. The Report though doesn’t evaluate the inconsistency between that Exception and the fact that the APNs for Plazas 7&8 are included in "14.92.020 Definitions” with all the other Plazas to be covered by the measure. Please assess the risks and contradiction between the Definitions including Plazas 7 & 8 and the exceptions supposedly excluding them.

Answer: Including Plazas 7 and 8 in the definition of “Plazas” while also providing an exception for their development creates an internal inconsistency. Because the parcels are expressly identified as subject to the measure, it is uncertain whether the exception fully overrides those restrictions. This conflict introduces ambiguity as to whether the exemption would apply in practice, creating a risk that affordable housing development on these sites could still be subject to voter approval requirements or legal challenge. If development on Plazas 7& 8 were found to be precluded by the adopted Ballot Measure, it would lead to an additional reduction of the surplus of moderate units from 139 to 108 units. Additionally, because the initiative shifts project-level decisions to a voter approval process, it introduces a high degree of uncertainty and susceptibility to competing stakeholder interests in individual project outcomes, increasing the likelihood of contested decisions, delays, and project-specific legal challenges. • It seems a very real threat that we will be sued and maybe even have our Housing Element decertified on the day the ballot measure goes into effect. What, if any, actions can we consider to take effect on Day 1 to forestall being sued or decertified? In other words, can we enact contingent rezoning or other actions to make up for constraints of the Parking Plaza Ordinance?
Answer: The City has engaged in technical assistance discussions with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) regarding the ballot measure. If the measure is adopted, the City would continue coordination with HCD and work proactively to help forestall or address any potential decertification action by the State. While the City cannot eliminate litigation risk, it can take steps to demonstrate ongoing compliance with State Housing Element law, including initiating a “no net loss” analysis, rezoning and code amendments to restore or increase capacity, and coordinating with HCD to share the City’s analysis and response strategy to demonstrate good faith compliance. With regards to a lawsuit specifically, included in the packet as an attachment to the 9212 report is a letter from YIMBY Law which states “To dispel any potential ambiguity, we are prepared to sue Los Altos the instant this measure is adopted.”

• To make the affordable housing project allowed by the initiative on Plaza 7 and 8 pencil out, a developer would likely not include replacement parking onsite. With parking mitigation elsewhere impeded by the requirements for another ballot measure, how many downtown parking spaces would be lost?
Answer: Plazas 7 and 8 currently contain approximately 226 parking spaces.

Agenda Item 12 (Determination of Action):
• Why does the proposed ballot language omit and reference to or disclosure of the indemnification language and its effect?
Answer: Because the ballot question is limited to 75 words and must be fair and neutral about the Parking Plazas Ordinance. The City Attorney Impartial Analysis will address the impacts, including the indemnity requirement, that may result from the Ordinance, if passed.
• The initiative requires the city to defend it against any lawsuit, including ongoing appeals, without limit or judgement about fiscal or legal prudence. At least one party has already indicated their intent to bring such a suit if the initiative passes. Are there any comparables, either in the city’s experience or other situations, that would give some sense of how large the legal costs could become? Also, if the California's Housing Accountability Act includes a fee-shifting provision, how might that add to the legal cost burden? Answer: The City’s exposure to legal costs could be substantial, particularly given the initiative’s requirement to defend any legal challenge through all stages of litigation without regard to fiscal or legal prudence. While each case is fact-specific, in California, land use and housing litigation, especially cases involving voter initiatives, CEQA, or Housing Element compliance, can routinely cost hundreds of thousands to several million dollars in legal fees when fully litigated through trial and appeal. Cases involving Housing Element compliance and Housing Accountability Act (HAA) claims tend to be particularly complex and resource-intensive, often requiring outside counsel, expert testimony, and extended proceedings. That exposure could increase further under the HAA, which includes a fee-shifting provision that stipulates if the City were found in violation it could be required to pay not only its own defense costs, but also the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and costs.

Agenda Item 13 (Advisory Ballot Measure):
• Putting aside defending the initiative itself, would the city be required to fight the consequences in court? For example, if the HCD (perhaps prompted by YIMBY Law) revoke HE certification, can the city simply accept that outcome with Builder’s Remedy, at least until a new Housing Element could be drafted and approved?

Answer: If HCD or a court determines the City is no longer in substantial compliance, the primary consequence is that Builder’s Remedy would apply by operation of state law to qualifying projects submitted during that period. The City would not necessarily need to initiate or continue litigation to challenge that outcome; it could accept the change in status and focus on restoring compliance through an amended Housing Element and any required rezoning. However, if the City were to continue enforcing local restrictions in a manner inconsistent with Builder’s Remedy or other state housing laws, it could still face legal challenges, including potential attorney fee exposure under the HAA. In sum, the City may choose to accept the consequences of noncompliance rather than contest them in court but doing so would mean operating under Builder’s Remedy until compliance is restored.

Resolution No. 2026-
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-

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

ADOPTING A POLICY ADDRESSING DISRUPTION OF TELEPHONIC OR

INTERNET SERVICE DURING PUBLIC MEETINGS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SENATE BILL 707 (SB707)
WHEREAS, the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code § 54950 et seq.) establishes requirements for open and public meetings of local legislative bodies; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 707 (2025) amended the Brown Act to update teleconferencing and accessibility requirements, including provisions related to remote participation in public meetings; and
WHEREAS, Government Code § 54953.4(b)(1)(A) requires eligible legislative bodies, on or before July 1, 2026, to adopt at a noticed public meeting in open session, and not on the consent calendar, a policy addressing disruption of telephonic or internet service during meetings conducted with remote participation; and
WHEREAS, the required policy must address procedures for recessing and reconvening a meeting in the event of a disruption and the efforts the legislative body will make to attempt to restore service; and
WHEREAS, Government Code § 54953.4 further requires that, in the event of a disruption preventing members of the public from observing or participating in the meeting through a twoway telephonic or audiovisual platform, the legislative body shall recess the open session for at least one hour and make a good faith effort to restore service, and may not reconvene open session until at least one hour has passed or service has been restored, whichever occurs first; and WHEREAS, if telephonic or internet service has not been restored upon reconvening, the legislative body must make findings by roll call vote that good faith efforts to restore service have been made and that the public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in remote public access; and
WHEREAS, adoption of a technology disruption policy is required to ensure compliance with state law and to promote transparency and continuity of public meetings; and WHEREAS, the proposed policy addressing disruption of telephonic or internet service during meetings of the City of Los Altos has been prepared in accordance with Government Code § 54953.4 and is attached hereto as Exhibit 1; and
WHEREAS, the activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3), no environmental review is required.

Resolution No. 2026-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Los Altos as follows:

Section 1. Adoption of Policy. The City of Los Altos hereby adopts the policy entitled “Disruption of Telephonic or Internet Service During Public Meetings,” substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

Section 2. Implementation. The City Clerk and/or City Attorney is authorized and directed to implement the policy in coordination with agency staff, legal counsel, and technology support staff, as appropriate.

Section 3. Minor Modifications. The City Clerk and/or City Attorney may approve minor, nonsubstantive modifications to the policy as necessary to conform to applicable law, agency practices, or formatting requirements, provided such modifications do not materially alter the intent of the policy.

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 9th 23rd day of June, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
__________________________
Sally Meadows
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Melissa Thurman, MMC
City Clerk

City of Los Altos
1 North San Antonio Road
Los Altos, California 94022-3087

DISRUPTION POLICY OF TELEPHONIC OR INTERNET SERVICE

DURING PUBLIC MEETINGS

1. BACKGROUND
Senate Bill 707 (SB707) (2025), amended the Brown Act to require eligible legislative bodies to adopt, on or before July 1, 2026, a policy addressing how the agency will respond to disruptions in telephonic or internet service that prevent members of the public from attending or observing a meeting remotely. This policy is adopted to comply with that requirement and to ensure continuity of public participation during technical disruptions.

2. PURPOSE
This policy establishes procedures for responding to a disruption in the telephonic or internet services that provide two-way remote public access to meetings of the City of Los Altos, as required by the Brown Act (Government Code §54953.4). The policy ensures transparency, public participation, and continuity of government during technology disruptions.

When the City provides a two-way audiovisual platform for a covered meeting, the City shall publicly post and provide a call-in option and shall activate any automatic captioning function included with the platform, consistent with Government Code § 54953.4.

3. DEFINITIONS
For purposes of this policy:
• “Disruption” means a disruption of telephonic or internet service that prevents members of the public from attending or observing the meeting via the City’s twoway telephonic service or two-way audiovisual platform. • “Disruption” means any failure, outage, or other interruption that prevents members of the public from attending or observing the meeting via the available remote access services utilized by the City of Los Altos.
• “Remote access services” means the two-way telephonic service and/or two-way audiovisual platform used to provide real-time remote public attendance and observation of meetings.

4. APPLICABILITY
This policy applies to open and public meetings of the City Council of the City of Los Altos that are subject to Government Code § 54953.4’s requirement to provide public attendance by two-way telephonic service or two-way audiovisual platform. This policy does not apply to meetings exempted from that requirement under Government Code § 54953.4, including meetings held to attend judicial or administrative proceedings to which Formatted: Font: Not Italic
Formatted: Font: Not Italic
Formatted: Font: Not Italic

DISRUPTION OF TELEPHONIC OR INTERNET SERVICE

DURING PUBLIC MEETINGS
1 North San Antonio Road
Los Altos, California 94022-3087
the City is a party, inspect real or personal property when the topic is limited to that property, meet with state or federal officials solely regarding legislative or regulatory issues within their jurisdiction, meet in or nearby a City-owned facility when the topic is limited to that facility, or meet in an emergency situation under Government Code § 54956.5.This policy applies to all open and public meetings of the City Council of the City of Los Altos, at which remote public participation is offered or required under the Brown Act.

5. PROCEDURES IN THE EVENT OF A DISRUPTION OF SERVICE

5.1 RESPONSE TO SERVICE DISRUPTION
If the City Clerk, or the party responsible for managing technology providing remote public participation, becomes aware of a disruption to the agency’s remote access services that prevents members of the public from attending or observing the meeting remotely:

1. The City Clerk shall make the Mayor aware of the disruption.

2. The Mayor shall announce the disruption in service to the public.

3. Upon determining that a disruption has occurred, the Mayor shall recess the open session. During the recess, the City Council may meet in closed session only to the extent the closed session is otherwise authorized, noticed, and conducted in compliance with the Brown Act. Staff shall make good faith efforts to diagnose and restore the disrupted telephonic or internet service. The open session shall remain in recess until at least one hour following the disruption or until telephonic or internet service is restored, whichever occurs earlier.The Mayor may then call for a recess of the open session, or convene the legislative body in closed session, consistent with the Brown Act.

4. Staff shall begin a diligent effort to diagnose and restore the disrupted service.

5.3.The meeting shall remain in recess for at least one hour or until service is restored, whichever is sooner. The recess period may be extended if restoration efforts are ongoing.

5.23.2 EFFORTS TO RESTORE SERVICE
The agency shall make good faith efforts to restore remote access services, which may include:
• Troubleshooting platform or teleconferencing software • Resetting or replacing audiovisual equipment, if applicable • Contacting necessary support staff, such as IT, or other service providers or vendors for additional help
Formatted: Font: Not Italic

DISRUPTION OF TELEPHONIC OR INTERNET SERVICE

DURING PUBLIC MEETINGS
1 North San Antonio Road
Los Altos, California 94022-3087
The City Clerk shall document the restoration efforts undertaken, including the time of the recess, the attempts at reconnection, and the end time of the recess.

6.4. RECONVENING THE OPEN SESSION

6.1 TIMING
The open session may be reconvened after at least one hour has elapsed from the time of the initial disruption, or as soon as service is restored, whichever occurs earlier.

6.24.2 IF SERVICE IS RESTORED
If the remote access service is restored before or at the time the meeting reconvenes, the meeting shall continue as normal.

6.3 IF SERVICE IS NOT RESTORED
If service has not been restored after one hour of recess, the City Council may reconvene and:

1. Adjourn the meeting; or

2. Continue the meeting in open session by adopting, by roll call vote only, the following, or a substantially similar finding:
“Staff of the City of Los Altos has made good faith efforts to restore telephonic or internet service in accordance with its adopted policy, and the public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in remote public access.”
Upon adoption of the finding, the legislative body may continue the open session even if remote access has not been restored.

7.5. REVIEW AND UPDATES
This policy shall become operative on July 1, 2026 and shall be repealed when Government Code § 54953.4 is repealed (currently set to be repealed on January 1, 2030).

The City Council of the City of Los Altos may amend this policy at a noticed public meeting, but may not adopt it as a routine item on the Consent Calendar.

Formatted: Font: Not Italic

DISRUPTION OF TELEPHONIC OR INTERNET SERVICE

DURING PUBLIC MEETINGS
1 North San Antonio Road
Los Altos, California 94022-3087