Los Altos City Council
September 8, 2026

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














  !!"#$%&'$!()*"+,

-- 

./
0
.
10
23
45 
0


46
078

980:;
5
7

10/
0
<
=>?@A
B
A
CD
C E0.5//
5E0./C19
0/
31D1A0 CC./0DA0.CC1900159CF190D3

@//
5E0.
5/
0

.9A0C10DAE0 A3
0C0
5.A5C190DCDDC. 5G0A9C195A

903
/CG005DG /

500D
00.C

0H15
B15
F19 0D0320.5CF190DAB00.DA0C19 C0CG A
1ID5
5G0AD3/ B0:5105
J1

0D5F190D00/
D
 C190G9C.5
B5C
D3

2C0
00
5
DA9A1D1
CE00C 105A
G5G0AD5A

90
5
9
0HF19 0D1/DA01EK9C.C105 H4D5.3
./B0 105E/
5D5CF190D5B5DD5 4F2 005D1C55C19105
D1@5G0A55 E0/
.
3
F
7C0
5.IA05C59
D0
A31

C5
A
9
D/
C19.@5A

903LC
5
105E00 GA
GC/
DCAA9F
7B5C.C59105

0F190D8
9
D
375?3
5595CG
.3

ATTACHMENT 2

 





 
   





  !

" 

 



  
 
#$%
&!''(

  )
 




"'

* 

 +

,

 

 



 

-,

"

 



&
+


 -

 




 


 - 


-

-


&!''(

  




,

 
!
 



   





 

" 
  -


.


"


 

  
 
 





&!''(
"
 -

 

 



 


 )
-


"








 



"

  )/ -

 





0


" 

.  


"
 



'12  " "



- +

0  



 


 


 3
 "
  "
" 

 



 
" 

+


-
 
 


 

2  " 

 


- 




.

 


.

" 


 



+


-- 
  



 





/

-





 



 
" 

 

4 

56



&









",/
 - 
"



"
-


 +


 - " 
"
 - 


" 
 


 

 

3



"   

  "
-


-


/ 
"



   

 

"






3
 


 



789:;<=>?;9@AB9>CDA?C=<E=FG;?HI8=DDF?;CJ@AKA:=BDA?CLMNOPQRSTNUVWUNTNSTNXYZ[OS\SRR[T]YS^QOY SU_`[Q^NUVaRYbYUTM[bcRNSUPYdeYTTYO[ZfYPgUNPSRh^^N^TSUPYijABCADkA>lmLnonpq rCCBGsttuuuvrwxvw9vH=KtG;CAGtxA<9F:Ct<;:AGtx=wGtB:9??;?Hy9?xyw=DDF?;CJtEz{t?AuB=>CykA9wryr9Fyno7lyC9 yo|lmnpvBx<
n89:;<=>?;9@AB9>CDA?C=<E=FG;?HI8=DDF?;CJ@AKA:=BDA?CLh_[cTY_`[Q^NUVaRYbYUT}YXN^N[U ~O[PY^^deYTTYO[ZfYPgUNPSRh^^N^TSUPYLiwC=kA>|Lnon€qv
rCCBGsttuuuvrwxvw9vH=KtG;CAGtxA<9F:Ct<;:AGtx=wGtB:9??;?Hy9?xyw=DDF?;CJtEz{tAF>A9yC9yrAyw=DB:;9?wAylo o|n€vBx<
‚ƒ„
‚†‡ˆ‰ŠŠ‹Œ„‡Ž‘‘’“Œ”•Œ‹‰‘‡–—‡–˜™š˜›‰œž•ŒŒ•
Š
















 

 








 














!
"#
$% &&'
()**+,
)#,!

-

.
/



/






01223
 




/
 
-




 /
/






 /







/4.












5 6 












//









01223


/ 









 


7



/
.

 









 



 /8

9








 


 /
















/ 
 







:

;
<=

-

>
4

 





/





 


 

/








.


?


@/




 

23AB3/C




>
DE











/





 















/ 


. F

G 


 / 








  ?





 
HI3/



 





 


/







5 6 
4J7K

7 



















G

L




8

M-

//
 /



G
 









 B
M-

//
 /









A







N
OPQRSTPSUVWXXYZZ[\][^][P]_
XPQRSTPSUVWX`aZ`_`[b]c[\]_
`PQRSTPSUVWX``da_`_[e][f][Q][g]c[gg]_
hPQRSTPSUVWX``da_`_[S][^]_
ijk il)mnoopqk)r
#%#

#%stq'uqpn%)!v)!
,

nwxyuqqu
&


















 
 













 
 !"#$"


%

 





 



 

 







 


&

'

 



  





(
)








*



  
+,






















 
 



 








-%.."#




'




 

)
-%.."#



/ 


 




*


 






'0
1
-
  )

  
















2
$3











 0
 
 
 




4


 



56789:;<7=7>?:@ABB<7C?D7E>78>EDF=B<7C?D;GH@A:D7C<;IJ

1
 
-%.."#










K 

).L


4


 
4 






 


   
 




 0






#


M
#




 N



N
4O




N 
 N
N


N


'O
 



P


).L







# 

 
'N 






KN


Q)44
 

 




-%.."#







)P
  
 4

2
 4
 

-
2 



N


N











'O 


$") -%.."#








 

/ 
 
  











'


4






4













# 

 
'
 ).L

M
RSTUUVWWVXYUZT[\U]^_]`_[]WZUX^a^_bYU]Uc
YWW\acddZ]^eUfg__ghUfX_idj^hUdZdRUklhmVnol^p^qrZstk^ugsvwxXmyvzakde^U{f |`Vh^j_]b^V`_baW^W[W^_b}~]W^XhU€w}TUXW^_bRf
`~‚_e`_ZUƒ„
|R†fRS‡Vˆf
‰FŠ‹‰Œ?Ž‘Š?:’;D“D:;;D“5”‘•J‘Ž“?>–:?>C78CEŽ—A˜J‘‘J
J








  

 



  














 


  





 

!
 


 
 




 
 
 
 
"

"  # $% 
 
 &

 
 

 






 






  


 
 


 


 

 


'
    


# $%


 (# 
 

"

""


" 
) # $%


 
"  



" 






 
 



 


* +
'  



 





 
+
 
 
 




  ,-
+



 
 
 


 
 


 
 




  
) 


 

 


   


   
 





.





 
 ,-

 

 

 
"

""


" 



) /
 +


0(1&#2
) 










 
 
 

 
 "  



"  # $% 
 

) 




 






 


(#  




  
1 







 




 

 



 
  


&
 




   

 
#

 

 

 # $%


+
* 
/
+3$4556
"- 



  
 
 








"


 

 



 


 

 +
1 

 



 







 
 




  



 
# $%
7 
  


 

 




(# 

89:;<=>?9:

(# 
 


  

  







 


 


 



1 
@ABC@DEFGHHIJBEKLMNONKMMNOPQJRSJIGOE:TKE:;?>;9G8UVSJJS
W





 
 






























 












! 
" 




"












#$%%&










 




'






#$%%& 











"
 


















(
 























)*+





,

-
.



 


 

/
 0

0














 



#




#
. ( 
1

2


3 4$35 
667889:;<=>;<=?@ABC=D?E@F@GHC=C>C@>CI8J@>
K>>LGMNN<<<OP;AE;G@E>;GQ=;<OR;SNTPCE8GNUDVNWXV6YZTRX[PY6\]\^V@YWY@^_\@PV\\X_Z`\[`\OLVPO abcdaefghiijkcflmnopolnnopqrkstkjhpfuvlfuwxywzh{|}tkkt
j














  !!"#$%&'$!()*"+,

-
.- 

/0
1
/
21
34
56 
1


57
189

:91;<
6
8

/
210
1
.
=>?@A
B
A
CD
C E1/600
6E1/0C2:
10
42D2A1 CC/01DA1/CC2:1126:CF2:1D4 51/1B6
C
1
/
21E2D1:16B CC::A

:1G45G:
A
E/CGH A
A
DA116
A6C
61E
D
A
0C 140
1011C6GC/11A110DD6 
0 1:F2:1D8
B62EIC
/C216
H 5D6/4
6A1/A1DE:2/
A
A
62
1CC
D2
6A64C1:216
AC216
H5D6/6C6 6A

B6F2:1D60/0
6/4
J*K"++ LM%N,O%P%NQ"+&(M%"N

R2 
E1 CA7--64::14D-62D-6-

@S

8F6T3FU:<VCG
WST:XY2ZY-6[2A\C
 :]26\


T.?^

T
.^
]
A0\
2]6\
24

ATTACHMENT 3

 

























 





















 



!"#$%&'$()*+,-./,0 //,01234$5,67+-8+79-67234$

 



:

;<=
:
>?
:
@







:
:



"#$A2B*#+7+7102/*$1C*#$+-+*+2*+D$A,641-,*2E*6244B$'$()*F20G+-8F42H27IJK! 












:L

MN
O


 


PL
M


 QL
? 

@
 






O
RST
RN





:UO

VWU





 









QL

O

:


XYY


ZY[>
YY=QWV[\\:;:];W\:\:;=V];

^_`a^b2ACccde`20G$*f*0$$*f"&eghedCf2-i02-E+7E,Cj kheeh
c








 


!"#!$%&!# !$'"( '))*("+#,-+(.%!()* &/%""#/(01 )# ( !("+#('(%&)*/ ( #! 2 (%+(/#"( 3#45%+! &67)#.#&(!'"#!+-8#/((%(#9+ )4#":!;#.#4*,(#"#'"#.'&* .#/'& !.!-*2 /'&7)#.#&(/'&-#4#/#"( 3#4)'(#" &(#$"%/#!!05<='! ')"#'4*"#>%?#4/#"( 3/'( %&@%"A%"2')?B'&4C%"(%)'D'))#*E@%"('? &6'/( %&! &/%&! !(#&(2 ((# "5%+! &67)#.#&(0

<') @%"& ':!=#$'"(.#&(%@5%+! &6'&4<%..+& (*=#>#)%$.#&("#(' &!'&%&6% &6 !('(+(%"*4+(*(%"#> #2/ (*'/( %&!'@(#"(# "5%+! &67)#.#&('!-##&/#"( 3#40 F&4#"<G!('(+(#,HIJ


K



L












  

K


M
 N

%"!#/( %&OPPQB
6#&#"'))*,'&4 (.+!( !!+#2" ((#&3&4 &6!(%(#/ (*'//%"4 &6)*0P

5<=.+!(6 >#(#/ (*'"#'!%&'-)#( .#,&%)%&6#"('&BR4'*!,(%"#!$%&4(%(#!# 3&4 &6!0OS@5<=4%#!&%("#/# >#'2" ((#&"#!$%&!#@"%.(#/ (*2 ( &BR4'*!,%"(# "#!$%&!#4%#!&%(4#.%&!("'(#('((#$"%6"'.'/( %&'!-##& .$)#.#&(#4,(#& 5<=.'*"#>%?# (!3&4 &6!('((#/ (*:!%+! &6#)#.#&(!+-!('&( '))*/%.$) #!2 ( 5%+! &67)#.#&(T'20U

UV%>0<%4#,WOPPQP,!+-40X YXZYX9Y0
OV%>0<%4#,WOPPQP,!+-40X YXZYXGY0Y
PV%>0<%4#,WOPPQP,!+-40X YXZY0
E<') @%"& '=#$'"(.#&(%@5%+! &6[<%..+& (*=#>#)%$.#&(,\]^_`abc_d_ef_ghcdijk]l]db m_lnkcad`]ocdpcdiqr_sd_et_ub_kavakk]wXx'"/yO,yRyEY0
(($!z{{4" >#06%%6)#0/%.{3)#{4{ZQRF(;A'.!V&|}xG
D~".1R4CA@4V(G{> #2
B<') @%"& '=#$'"(.#&(%@5%+! &6[<%..+& (*=#>#)%$.#&(,mcbw_e€_usakq\]^_`abc_d_e f_ghcdijk]l]dbm_lnkcad`]ocdpcdi,X‚/(0y,yRyEY
(($!z{{2220/40/'06%>{! (#!{4#@'+)({3)#!{4%/!{$)'&& &6ƒ'&4ƒ/%..+& (*{5GF{&%"2')?ƒ"#>%/'( %&ƒ#ƒ/%.$) '&/#ƒZRRyyE0$4@
„
„
K†‡‡ˆ‰

Š


‹‰Œ‰ˆ†
Ž
 †I‰‰







 
 



 


 !" #$

 %!

 

 



 
%
&




'
%(

) 







*



& 


 %#+

,-





& 
 ./0 
1-""2 

3

%$2,-


 )


 4



& 
 *


 %$$

5
4




& 
$%

 
 



 
 %


& 
)
)
 
   



 

%$6 

)3

 )




 %78
9:;<=>:?@;ABC=;AD;EC:F>;E=;8G;H<CI9JG>EJ=ICI=K;>A=LM;EKL=L>>J=IM><M;G>AA ;8:M98=IJK9N;EAIJKOC>H>J=9H>J:H>J=9J:M>G>IPIJKG>M=IQG9=I;J8M;HNRST

5 
 

)
)3



&  





 4%
  


3




)





U
VWX-VY%$"

$"
%
Z !#%

)%[\[$\[\[\%
$6
%
Z !"[\[ \'[\[\][\%
$$

^__`a/bcdb/ba.ef`/_../0gbhi`j^0jk/ki_a._k`/lbebma._b
gbhn`a_fb.opqk/^ee`hk/r_pblk_c_`l`jnechk_ps_._bt`uik/rv.h [w
6#
626 \
xyy
%%

yy' y
'
 ')''''
)'')'%
$2
 


]



 
lkaoue._k/rz/k_k._k{b|`a.f.ee`_
}b.iuab./0t`uik/r~ebjb/_l`jnek./obvb__ba`|€bop/ko.e^iiki_./ob[1)$! 626 \
xyy%%%

yy
y yy 
''

y
y')'

'62"$''2#$!6 %%
#
 


]



 
^0`n_b0t`uik/r~ebjb/_
‚b{kik`/ƒa`obiivb__ba`|€bop/ko.e^iiki_./ob
[)#
626„\%
xyy%%%

yy
y yy 
''

y
y
'''
 '$22#6„%
!
%

Z !

)%[3\%

7†‡
@9D?ˆˆ‰Š†9M‹>=Œ=M>>=ŒOŠŽŠ‰?Œ9JM9JGIAG;?RB‘ŠŠ















!"#""$"
%$&$' ($(" )#! $(
#$*+,-
#(!$"# .$++
-$ ($. #(",
/0 !

%$(" 12$+"/
!#"$3(4
4 5
((!)+ 6!

". (%$7

8*98:94
-",;-
)#,;
!-",$#.-
)#,(%$++;*,$.&"#"(!$"
;<)$("=>)."-"$+;
+ ?"(+$"
;
!
% !$-"
#;! .)- ;
!! <)"!
!6 !&"% ! .)-"
#
/;%
! (". #"$+. #(",/
!$#,6$!- +". #"@ .
& "(-)!! #(%$!
/%
! ?"
#$+%
)("#?# .
!$#,)#$--
&&
.$ .6
!"
#
/% ! ?"
#$+%
)("#?
# ./!
&% 6!"
!6+$##"#?6 !"
.
;
!$++
A.
+
6& #
/$#,6$!- +$;$
+
A !! (". #"$+. #(",;$(. @# ."#6$!$?!$6%(8:9$#.8B9
/()*."
"("
#8?9;
)#+ ((% -",;-
)#,;
!-",$#.-
)#,&$' (A!" #@#."#?(()66
! .*,
()*($#"$+
". #-
/*
%
/% /
++
A"#?7

8 9C% ! .)-"
#"(-
#("( #A"%% $.
6 .? # !$+6+$#;"#-+)."#?
% %
)("#? + & #1

8D9C% ! &$"#"#?(" (". #"@ ."#% %
)("#? + & #$! $. <)$

& % ! <)"! & #(
/E -"
#FGGHI1B$#.
$--
&&
.$ %
>)!"(."-"
#3((%$!
/% ! ?"
#$+%
)("#?# .6)!()$#
E -"
#
FGGHJ1C% @#."#?(%$++"#-+). $<)$#"@-$"
#
/% ! &$"#"#?)#&
# ./
!% >)!"(."-"
#3((%$!
/% ! ?"
#$+%
)("#?# .$ $-%
"#-
& +
+$#.% ! &$"#"#?-$6$-",
/(" (". #"@ ."#% %
)("#?
+ & #
$--
&&
.$ %$# .*,"#-
& +
+1

K

12 . LFGHFI1

C% 6!
6 # #($! !,"#?
($ %$% ,(%
)+.* $++
A .
( $-$ ?
!"-$+*$!
#
.
+
6"#?% ( (" (;*)%$%"((%
)+.#
* "&6) .
-%$#? % . #(",
/%
(
(" ("#$#,A$,1D ,
#.%$;4
4 5
(("(#
%
#+,+$A%$A
)+.* "&6+"-$ .*,
%"(-%$#? 1

MNOPM
QQRSOTUUVSWXSRUY
Z[XSSX
\







 















  














!"#$%#&&!'!&#%(#$)*%'+, "(!" -!"#).+#,(/#%!"$*
&*)$#0 ,$',!&%#&!"1!&%*,$#)2+ )&#)-34!%&!) &*)*5#&!""(6 &*)$%,+&% 0#)!)!, ! 789- ) ,!""(&*)$#0 ,$"*3 ,5#)#5+50 )$#%# $!'',*',#!% 1*,, $#0 )%#!" 0 : "*'5 )%
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

789!0:#$ $%4!%%4#$#).+#,(#$$' &#?&!""(%*#)&"+0 %4 "#= "#4**01*,, $#0 )%#!" 0 : "*'5 )%B5!,= %0 5!)0B"*&!"%,!&=, &*,0$B'!$%',*0+&%#*)%, )0$B!)0) 3 5!,= %&*)0#%#*)$
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
A4 %4 ,%4 <*)#)-" -!""(!""*3$1*,&*)$%,+&%#*)#$#)$+1?&# )%#1%4!%&*)$%,+&%#*)#$ &*)*5#&!""(+):#!6" ;4#$0* $)*%4!: %*6 !%*%!"6!,/!$+1?&# )%"($+6$%!)%#!" , $%,#&%#*)*)1 !$#6#"#%(B0 $'#% <*)#)-B#5'"#&!% $0 : "*'5 )%&!'!&#%(E"" -*: ,)5 )%$!, ',*!&%#: "(, .+#, 0%*#0 )%#1(!)05#%#-!% &*)$%,!#)%$*) 0 : "*'5 )%T*) 0&!'!&#%(!"*) B#)&"+0#)-0 )$#%(!""*3!)& $B#$)*%$+1?&# )%%* 5 %7UE, .+#, 5 )%$34 , *%4 ,&*)$%,!#)%$ >#$%%*"#5#%, $#0 )%#!"&!'!&#%(B 34 %4 ,%4*$ "#5#%!%#*)$!, " -!"*,1!&%+!"

V*:8*0 WWXYYZ[\]&^BXYYZ[]!^][^
_`ab_cdeefgahijgklgfd
m

dnoplggl
f
































!"#$

#"%&'(&)&*

+,

-

"'.&/&*0
"/&#&"1&#))
2')"13$)&!)
4 "1#

56789:9


















;

























<=





>
?





?

>



>


@A


B
A

?


C


"'.&/
D"1&12"
E&1'1.
.'$#
##$(#'1&')&1F$
*'1E
!
"
&(&
E($#&1
##&#1"1$&#'1.

G"
E&1'1.
&#"
'

1$1

'#"1'()

.&#

"H!")&.
!"I

5J




AA
@












A


KL





A













>



KM
N

A
B
>


A








A

OAA
A




P










A

@











Q

A
R












S



?



M




@TUVVW#!
.&X.'))*!

.)$E
#


"'.&/
"
E&1'1.
#H"

'!!)&.'()
!
"F
.# A

>


>












>


@





A
YZZ9
>





O
















>



>



[

5J\]^_`abcd]efghfij`k^l^im57Z5n87JL8Z@855Qoopqrs]t^_gf_uabcd]efghfij`k^l^im57Z5n87JL 8Z@855Qoooqvd]]wx`abcd]efghfij`k^l^im57Z5n87JL88@855Qoopqyf`^iabcd]efghfij`k^l^i m57Z5n87JL56@855QZ96
z3Uz%'IG{{|}3'
~
T

T,}W}|GT'14
'1.&#."G€+}}
‚







 


  













   



  





!
" 



 
  






 





 

#




$



 












 %&''(
) 





  

*



%&''(
) # 










+



  






,

%
 
*

 










 





-
.




  
 





 

 






 



/ 

%&''(
 





 
 

)









0 



  1*


 







 






234567689:;6<6=>?@;AB9CD:EF@>6GA==@><66>HII@;BJIJ>A=KA;KL3


M
* *




 

N

 


*


 
#

NN














&O MP

Q*R 








N



 


 








 

 









*

 

N





 
N  N




 




 




N









 

S






 






Q&R 

 














N

 
Q
R
 

0/*T
/

U'((QRQ
RQ/R

/*T
/

U..VW
.

QRQ
R

XYZ2X[A\]^^_`ZA;a6>J>;66>J4b`cd`_]JA=e;A=E:LE@]GIfd``d
g

 



 




 










 






 


! "! #! $!

# 



%
&'
(

 %
 
)



*&&





 







*




+




,-#
*




.








 

/






 
!0"

'
+


 



)
















 


1 

 





-##)

 







2
3 
#
'
23#
45












)+
56"75"


1(8
&




  
 
75'


+




 











999:;<=>?@AB<=

'


 





 

C#

,-1

)







$
,8


2"-

D

-1




E

FG


2%2
HI


6







7574D
F8
+


J7574D








 "!




 J757
!

'
8G2+

 


)+



8G2K






757
)









&
'



)



)




%


IL

75 

M"" ! "!) ! "!
"J










"
 )

455) ! "! $!
N9OPNQRSTUUVWORXYZ[\[XZZ[\]^W_`WVT\R=aXR=>BA><T;bc`WW`
c








  




 









!"# #! $!#%
&#' ($)*
#+#$

,-.
' ($)
 $
,"(
(
/

.0#%+(
1 %#,+
($($)

.,$!2
#$
(,

/3*4
(5,$/5
&#
%#+#!(#5%
&#6(
,
($%#7 (%##$6(%$+#$
,
%#6(#-89&#,

#%$,
(6#(
2%##!
-(
&
&#++(
+#$

&,


&,,
%#,!/+,!#.,$!5

-
&% )&-(
&
2%)%,+:8'8

1($#%#
/.

1$;,9%, 
*<#
(6#=(%#
%
>?@A>,-
BCDBE
FFGHCIJJKLHMNHG
JO


PQRNHHN
HM

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - CALIFORNIA HOUSING AND HOMELESSNESS AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
651 Bannon Street, Suite. 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
August 28, 2026
Stephanie Williams, Development Services Director
City of Los Altos
1 N San Antonio Rd
Los Altos, CA 94022
RE: City of Los Altos – Downtown Parking Plazas Ordinance – Letter of Technical Assistance
Dear Stephanie Williams:

The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) understands that the Los Altos City Council has placed the Downtown Parking Plazas Ordinance (Ordinance), a citizen initiative, on the November 3, 2026 ballot. 1 This letter
provides technical assistance regarding implications for City of Los Altos (City) compliance with Housing Element Law2 should the Ordinance be adopted by voters.

Background
HCD understands that, if adopted, the Ordinance would prohibit the City 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.

Analysis
The City’s sixth cycle housing element,3 which has been adopted and certified by HCD as substantially compliant with Housing Element Law, includes all ten downtown parking plazas in its site inventory. Collectively, the downtown parking plazas account for 124 housing units: 63 moderate-income units and 61 above-moderate-income units.

In addition, the City’s housing element contains multiple programs that would be impacted should the Ordinance be adopted by voters. These programs include:
1 https://www.losaltosca.gov/781/Citizen-Initiative-Downtown-Parking-Plaz. 2 Gov. Code § 65580 et. seq. 3 Available at https://www.losaltosca.gov/214/Housing-Element.

ATTACHMENT 4

Stephanie Williams, Development Services Director

- Program 1.H: Facilitate housing on City-owned sites
- Program 1.I: Incentivize Downtown lot consolidation
- Program 6.C: Target housing development in highest resource areas - Program 6.G: Housing Mobility
If voters adopt the Ordinance, the City will be required to amend its housing element to analyze the Ordinance as a potential governmental constraint on housing development,4 including, but not limited to, whether the parking plazas are still appropriate to include in the site inventory.

Process for Amending the Adopted, Substantially Compliant Housing Element Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, prior to making any amendments to the housing element (including amending the sites inventory, or amending program commitments), the City must submit a draft of those changes to HCD at least 60 days prior to adoption.5 HCD must then review those amendments to ensure substantial compliance with housing element requirements and report its findings to the City.6 The City must then consider those findings prior to adoption. If HCD finds that the amendments do not substantially comply with housing element requirements, the City can either (1) change the draft amendments to substantially comply or (2) adopt the amendments without changes and include in the adopting resolution “written findings that explain the reasons [the City] believes that the … amendment[s]” substantially comply with housing element requirements despite HCD’s findings.7 After readopting the housing element, the City is required to resubmit it to HCD.8 HCD is then required to review the amended housing element and determine if the amended element continues to substantially comply with Housing Element Law.9 Please be aware, the City is also responsible for providing adequate opportunity for public participation and review, no less than seven days prior to submittal of a draft to HCD.10 As part of this review, HCD will review any changes to the housing element to ensure that sites are suitable and available for housing development within the planning period and meet all the requirements of Government Code sections 65583, subdivision (c) and 65583.2.
4 Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).
5 Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (b)(1).
6 Gov. Code, § 65585, subds. (b)(3), (d).
7 Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (f).
8 Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (g). 9 Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (h). 10 Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (b)(1).

Stephanie Williams, Development Services Director

Consequences for Housing Element Noncompliance
As a reminder, per Housing Element Law, HCD “shall review any action or failure to act by [the City] that it determines is inconsistent with an adopted housing element…, including any failure to implement any program actions included in the housing element….”11 If HCD “finds that the action or failure to act by [the City] does not substantially comply with this article,” HCD may revoke its finding that the City’s housing element is in compliance with Housing Element Law until it determines that the City has come into compliance with state law.12
Various consequences may apply when a city does not have a housing element in compliance with Housing Element Law, including ineligibility or delay in receiving certain state funds, referral to the California Office of the Attorney General (AGO), courtimposed financial penalties, the loss of local land use authority to a court-appointed agent, and the application of the “builder’s remedy.”13 The builder’s remedy strictly limits a jurisdiction’s ability to deny housing development projects that include a certain amount of affordable housing, even if those projects do not comply with the jurisdiction’s zoning or general plan.

In addition, pursuant to SB 1037 (Statutes of 2024), further penalties such as a minimum of $10,000 per month and associated attorney costs are now authorized for any action brought by the AGO or HCD to enforce the adoption of housing element revisions, among other statutes.14
As you are aware, the City received a Prohousing Designation on January 23, 2025. In order to achieve this designation, the City met certain threshold requirements, including housing element compliance, and demonstrated how the City is accelerating the production of housing. This designation allows for the City to access certain funding as well as be more competitive for other funding sources, including housing, community development, and infrastructure funding programs. To maintain the City’s Prohousing Designation and benefits therein, it must maintain housing element compliance.15 11 Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (i)(1)(A).
12 Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (i)(1)(B).
13 Gov. Code, §§ 65585, subds. (j), (l); 65589.5, subd. (d)(5). 14 Gov. Code, § 65009.1, subds. (a)(1), (a)(2).
15 CCR § 6607 (a)(1)(E).

Stephanie Williams, Development Services Director

Conclusion
HCD appreciates the opportunity to provide technical assistance to implement the provisions of Housing Element Law. We look forward to continued cooperation with City staff as the City continues to implement its housing element. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact Stephanie Reyes at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Brian Heaton
Section Chief, Land Use Policy
Housing Accountability Unit

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: September 8, 2026
Prepared By: Melissa Thurman
Approved By:

Subject: Provide Direction - 2026 CalCities Resolution

COUNCIL PRIORITY AREA
General Government

RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction to Vice Mayor Lang, Primary Voting Delegate, and Councilmember Weinberg (Alternate Voting Delegate) on the 2026 Resolution packet for the CalCities Annual Conference

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
N/A

FISCAL IMPACT
N/A

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
At the meeting of July 14, 2026, the City Council designated Vice Mayor Larry Lang as the Primary Voting Delegate and Councilmember Jonathan D. Weinberg as the Alternate Voting Delegate for the CalCities Annual Conference, which will be held on September 23 - 25 in Anaheim, CA.

BACKGROUND
CalCities representatives have provided all member agencies a resolution packet, which will be voted on during the General Assembly portion of the conference. The proposed resolution is Attachment 1 to this report.

ANALYSIS
N/A

DISCUSSION
N/A

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - 2026 CalCities Resolution Packet

2026
Resolution
Packet
ATTACHMENT 1

2026 Resolution Packet
Information on 2026 Resolutions Process
Consideration by Policy Committee (pre-conference)
Per the Cal Cities bylaws, Cal Cities President Gabe Quinto has referred the submitted resolution to the Housing, Community, and Economic Development Committee. The committee will meet on Thursday, Sept. 17, at 10 a.m. via Zoom to review the resolution and make a recommendation that will be sent to the Resolutions Committee. A public comment period will be held during the meeting. Register for the meeting here.

A list of recommendations the policy committee may make during its meeting is on page two of this packet.

Consideration by Resolutions Committee (during conference) On Thursday, Sept. 24, at 1:00 p.m. the Resolutions Committee will meet to review the resolution and the recommendation of the policy committee.

The Resolutions Committee consist of one representative from each of Cal Cities caucuses, departments, divisions, and policy committees, as well as up to ten additional appointments made by the Cal Cities President. A public comment period will be held during the meeting. Refer to the onsite conference program for the location.

A list of recommendations the Resolutions Committee may make during its meeting is on page two of this packet.

Consideration by the General Assembly (during conference) The General Assembly will convene on Friday, Sept. 25, at 8:30 a.m. to consider any resolutions the Resolutions Committee has forwarded. To vote during the General Assembly, voting delegates must have checked in at the voting delegate booth.

Conference attendees will receive materials for the General Assembly on the evening of Thursday, Sept. 24. For more information on voting and discussion procedures during the General Assembly, see page three of this packet.

Petitioned Resolutions (during conference)
The petitioned resolution is an alternate method to introduce policy proposals during the annual conference. To initiate a petitioned resolution, voting delegates from 10% of member cities must sign the petition. The resolution and signatures are due at least 24 hours before the beginning of the General Assembly. Voting delegates who have checked in at the voting delegate booth can receive more information on petitioned resolutions at the booth onsite. 1

2026 Resolution Packet
Policy Committee and Resolutions Committee Actions
The submitted resolution will be heard by the policy committee to which it was assigned, and the Resolutions Committee. The table below shows what recommendations these bodies may make on the resolution.

Policy Committee Actions Resolutions Committee Actions
Approve Approve
Disapprove* Disapprove*
No Action No Action
Amend and approve Amend and approve
Refer to appropriate policy committee
for further study*
Approve as amended
Refer as amended to appropriate
policy committee for further study*
Refer to appropriate policy committee
for further study*
Refer as amended to appropriate
policy committee for further study*
Approve with additional
amendment(s)
Additional amendments and refer to
appropriate policy committee for
further study*
*If a resolution is disapproved or referred for further study by all policy committees to which it is assigned and the Resolutions Committee, it will not proceed to the General Assembly. 2

2026 Resolution Packet
General Assembly Voting and Discussion Procedures
Discussion Procedures:

Discussion procedures during the General Assembly are guided by two calendars:
the Consent Calendar and the Regular Calendar. As seen below, resolutions are calendared by the recommendations they receive from policy committees and the Resolutions Committee.

For General Resolutions:

Policy Committee
Recommendation
Resolutions Committee
Recommendation Calendar
Approve Approve Consent Calendar
Approve Disapprove or refer Regular Calendar
Disapprove or refer Approve Regular Calendar
Disapprove or refer Disapprove or refer Does not proceed to General Assembly
For Petitioned Resolutions:

Policy Committee
Recommendation Resolutions Committee Action Calendar
N/A
Approve Regular Calendar
Disapprove or Refer Regular Calendar
Disqualified Does not proceed to General
Assembly
Items on the Consent Calendar will be presented as one motion during the General Assembly from the Resolutions Committee chair. Unless an item on the Consent Calendar is set aside by the majority of the General Assembly, a vote will be taken on the whole calendar. If an item is set aside, it will be opened for discussion, followed by a vote.

Items on the Regular Calendar will be presented individually by the Resolutions Committee chair. After a recommendation is presented by the Resolutions Committee chair, the resolution will be opened for discussion by the General Assembly. A vote will take place following discussion.

Voting Procedures:

Per Cal Cities Bylaws Article XII, Sec. 2, all votes will be conducted by voice vote first. If the presiding official cannot determine the outcome, a vote will be taken by an alternative method, typically a raise of voting cards by voting delegates. A roll call vote may be called for by delegates of ten percent or more of the General Assembly.
3

2026 Resolution Packet
2026 Resolution

1. Resolution No. 1 submitted by City of Murrieta
• Letters of concurrence submitted by:
i. City of Banning;
ii. City of Calimesa;
iii. City of Canyon Lake;
iv. City of Moreno Valley;
v. City of Norco;
vi. City of Torrance;
vii. Crystal Ruiz, Mayor, City of San Jacinto;
viii. Jessica Alexander, Mayor, City of Temecula
• Referred to Housing, Community, and Economic Development Committee
• Policy Committee Recommendation:
• Resolutions Committee Recommendation:
4

2026 Resolution Packet
Resolution No. 1
Submitted by City of Murietta
5

2026 Resolution Packet

1. A RESOLUTION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES

CALLING FOR A WORKING GROUP TO CONSIDER A STATE CONSTITUTIONAL

AMENDMENT OR OTHER FORM OF INITIATIVE TO ENSURE FINAL LOCAL AUTHORITY OVER

HOUSING AND LAND USE DECISIONS
Source: City of Murrieta
Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials
Cities/city officials: City of Banning; City of Calimesa; City of Canyon Lake; City of Moreno Valley; City of Norco; City of Torrance; Crystal Ruiz, Mayor, City of San Jacinto; Jessica Alexander, Mayor, City of Temecula
Referred to: Housing, Community, and Economic Development Policy Committee WHEREAS, California cities have historically been responsible for adopting general plans and zoning regulations, reviewing housing development proposals, and providing or coordinating the streets, water, wastewater, public safety, parks, transportation, and other infrastructure and services necessary to support responsible, environmentally sound, and well-planned residential growth; and
WHEREAS, the League of California Cities is dedicated to protecting and expanding local control for municipalities across the state to ensure their orderly growth and development; and
WHEREAS, the League of California Cities recognizes that local zoning is a primary function of cities and an essential component of home rule, and that a city’s general plan should guide its land use planning and strategic decision-making free from pre-emption by the state; and
WHEREAS, increasingly prescriptive statewide housing mandates and development approval requirements can override locally adopted plans, zoning standards, and public review procedures without adequately accounting for differences that exist in each unique jurisdiction in infrastructure capacity, water availability, wildfire and evacuation risks, environmental constraints, fiscal impacts, public service needs, and community priorities; and
WHEREAS, California’s housing goals can be more effectively advanced through state funding, streamlined environmental requirements, and voluntary partnerships that support housing production while preserving the authority of locally elected officials to determine how and where housing is best planned and approved; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled during the Annual Conference in Anaheim, California, on September 25, 2026, that the League of California Cities support the development and advancement of a state constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballotbased strategies that restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters within municipal boundaries, including general plans, housing elements, zoning, density, design and development standards, project siting, and the approval or denial of housing development applications; and
6

2026 Resolution Packet
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any constitutional amendment or alternative strategy should preserve the State’s authority to establish broad statewide housing goals and enforce constitutional and civil rights, fair housing requirements, building and life-safety standards, and generally applicable environmental protections, while protecting cities from state actions that compel, through funding conditions or state law, the approval of housing developments that are inconsistent with locally adopted requirements; override local zoning or density standards; or invalidate locally adopted housing or land use decisions when a city has planned in good faith to accommodate its regional housing needs allocation and maintains adequate capacity for housing at all income levels; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the League of California Cities consider establishing a statewide working group or other appropriate committee(s) to evaluate and develop a proposed constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters including but limited to: conducting appropriate legal, fiscal, and policy analyses; engaging cities and other stakeholders; and building a statewide coalition of proponent supporters in preparation for; the November 2030 General Election, or within another reasonable time frame as determined by the working group.
7

2026 Resolution Packet
Resolution No. 1: Background
Information
8

2026 Resolution Packet
Background Information for Resolution
Source: City of Murrieta
Background:

California cities are responsible for planning residential growth, adopting general plans and zoning regulations, reviewing development proposals, and providing or coordinating the infrastructure and public services necessary to support new housing. Since 2010, the State has enacted more than 500 housing-related laws that have increasingly shifted housing and land use authority away from local governments. These laws have expanded by-right development, limited locally adopted standards and review processes, and established enforcement mechanisms, including the builder’s remedy, that may override local plans and zoning. Although these measures are frequently presented as solutions to housing affordability, many increase development capacity or restrict local review without delivering the meaningful production of housing needed to address the housing crisis.

At the same time, the State has continued to prioritize increased development capacity without adequately accounting for the infrastructure, public services, economic realities, and safety measures necessary to support housing growth.

State mandates often fail to reflect local conditions, including roadway and utility capacity, water availability, wildfire exposure, environmental limitations, fiscal impacts, and the availability of essential services. Cities are consequently required to accommodate additional housing while receiving no funding or assistance to address the resulting infrastructure and service demands.

Local elected officials are directly accountable to the residents who experience the effects of development decisions and are responsible for balancing housing production with infrastructure capacity, public safety, environmental protection, fiscal sustainability, and community needs. Cities of all types in California have been grappling with this dynamic, ranging from urban to rural, coastal to inland, small to large, northern to southern, voicing concerns to legislative representatives with minimal responsiveness. This is an issue of statewide concern that needs the strength and diversity of the League of California Cities to pursue a long-term solution.

The proposed resolution directs the League of California Cities to establish a statewide working group to evaluate a constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use decisions. The working group would be tasked with developing a more balanced framework that preserves the State’s role in establishing broad housing goals and enforcing constitutional, civil rights, fair housing, building, life-safety, and environmental requirements, while restoring meaningful local authority to allow cities to determine how statewide housing 9

2026 Resolution Packet
objectives should be implemented in a manner that reflects local conditions and community priorities while continuing to support responsible housing production.

As the primary statewide organization representing California cities, the League is uniquely positioned to lead this effort. Its established policy, legal, legislative, communications, and advocacy networks enable it to convene municipalities, evaluate potential strategies, conduct legal and fiscal analyses, build consensus, engage stakeholders, and coordinate with statewide decision-makers. League leadership would help ensure that any recommendation reflects the collective interests of California municipalities and would provide the credibility, organizational capacity, and statewide reach necessary to advance a viable strategy.
10

2026 Resolution Packet
Resolution No. 1: Letters of
Concurrence
11

12

13

July 23, 2026
President Gabe Quinto
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Support for a Resolution Establishing a Working Group to Evaluate a State Constitutional Amendment or Other Initiative to Restore Local Housing and Land Use Authority Dear President Quinto,
The City of Murrieta is sponsoring a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities to establish a statewide working group to evaluate a constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use decisions.

The proposed resolution, together with the required background materials, will be submitted to Cal Cities for consideration at the 2026 Annual Conference in Orange County on September 24 and

25. The resolution would direct the League to convene a working group to evaluate potential approaches for addressing the increasingly broad and prescriptive state mandates affecting local housing, zoning, development standards, and project approval authority.

On behalf of the City of Canyon Lake, this letter confirms our support for the City of Murrieta’s submission of the proposed resolution and its consideration by the League of California Cities General Assembly at the 2026 Annual Conference.

Sincerely,
Arron Brown
City Manager
City of Canyon Lake
14

July 23, 2026
President Gabe Quinto
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Support for a Resolution Establishing a Working Group to Evaluate a State Constitutional Amendment or Other Initiative to Restore Local Housing and Land Use Authority Dear President Quinto,
The City of Murrieta is sponsoring a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities to establish a statewide working group to evaluate a constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use decisions.

The proposed resolution, together with the required background materials, will be submitted to Cal Cities for consideration at the 2026 Annual Conference in Orange County on September 24 and 25. The resolution would direct the League to convene a working group to evaluate potential approaches to address increasingly broad and prescriptive state mandates affecting local housing, zoning, development standards, and project approval authority.

On behalf of the City of Moreno Valley, this letter confirms our support for the City of Murrieta’s submission of the proposed resolution and its consideration by the League of California Cities General Assembly at the 2026 Annual Conference.

Sincerely,
Brian Mohan
City Manager
City of Moreno Valley

15

July 22, 2026
President Gabe Quinto
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Support for a Resolution Establishing a Working Group to Evaluate a State Constitutional Amendment or Other Initiative to Restore Local Housing and Land Use Authority
Dear President Quinto,
The City of Murrieta is sponsoring a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities to establish a statewide working group to evaluate a constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use decisions.

The proposed resolution, together with the required background materials, will be submitted to Cal Cities for consideration at the 2026 Annual Conference in Orange County on September 24 and 25. The resolution would direct the League to convene a working group to evaluate potential approaches for addressing the increasingly broad and prescriptive state mandates affecting local housing, zoning, development standards, and project approval authority.

On behalf of the City of the Norco, this letter confirms our support for the City of Murrieta’s submission of the proposed resolution and its consideration by the League of California Cities General Assembly at the 2026 Annual Conference.

Sincerely,
Kevin Bash
City Council Member
(951) 768-8981
16

17

18

19

20

July 23, 2026
Mr. Gabe Quinto, President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Subject: Support for the City of Murrieta's Resolution Establishing a Working Group to Evaluate a State Constitutional Amendment or Other Initiative to Restore Local Housing and Land Use Authority Dear President Quinto:

I am writing in my individual capacity as Mayor of the City of Temecula to express my strong support for the City of Murrieta's proposed resolution for consideration by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities at the 2026 Annual Conference.

The proposed resolution presents an important opportunity to thoughtfully evaluate the appropriate balance between California's statewide housing objectives and the constitutional principle of local governance. Establishing a statewide working group to examine a potential constitutional amendment, legislative reforms, or other policy initiatives will provide a meaningful forum to assess how local authority over housing and land use decisions can be strengthened while continuing to address the State's housing challenges.

Cities are uniquely positioned to understand the needs, opportunities, and constraints of their communities. Local elected officials are accountable to the residents they serve and are best equipped to make land use decisions that reflect a community's character, infrastructure capacity, economic development goals, environmental stewardship, and long-term vision. Equally important, local governments bear the primary responsibility for protecting public safety. Decisions regarding housing density, transportation, emergency access, wildfire preparedness, evacuation routes, police and fire service capacity, water availability, and critical infrastructure are inherently local matters that require the knowledge and judgment of those who serve their communities every day.

While the State has an important role in addressing California's housing needs, a collaborative approach that respects local expertise and preserves meaningful local discretion will produce stronger, safer, and more sustainable communities. The proposed working group offers an opportunity to evaluate policies that achieve these shared objectives while restoring an appropriate balance between state direction and local authority.
21

Mr. Gabe Quinto, President
League of California Cities
July 23, 2026

Although this letter reflects my personal position and is not an official action or policy of the City of Temecula or the Temecula City Council, I respectfully endorse the City of Murrieta's submission of this resolution and encourage its favorable consideration by the League of California Cities General Assembly.

Thank you for your leadership and your thoughtful consideration of this important issue.

Respectfully,
Jessica Alexander
Mayor, City of Temecula
Signing in her individual capacity
and not on behalf of the City of Temecula
or the Temecula City Council.
22

2026 Resolution Packet
Resolution No. 1: Staff Analysis
23

League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 1 Staff: Brady Guertin, Legislative Advocate
Committee: Housing, Community, and Economic Development Summary:

Resolution No.1 states that the League of California Cities (Cal Cities) will:

1. Support the development and advancement of a state constitutional amendment or legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategy that restores and strengthens local authority over housing and land use matters, including general plans, housing elements, zoning, density, design and development standards, project siting, and the approval or denial of housing development applications.

Pursuant to the resolution, the strategy should preserve the state’s authority to set broad, statewide housing goals and enforce civil rights, fair housing, building safety, and environmental standards while protecting local control by preventing the state from compelling the approval of developments that conflict with local requirements, override local zoning or density standards, or overturn local land use decisions where a city has planned for and maintained sufficient capacity to meet its housing obligations.

2. Consider establishing a statewide working group or other appropriate committee(s) to evaluate and develop a proposed constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters.

The resolution states: “conducting legal, fiscal, and policy analyses; engaging cities and other stakeholders; and building a statewide coalition of proponent supporters in preparation for the November 2030 General Election, or within another reasonable time period.” Background:

As provided in the background information, the city of Murrieta is sponsoring this resolution in response to concerns over state laws that have increasingly reduced city discretion over housing and land use decisions, including legislation that requires ministerial or by-right approvals for housing projects, limits the application of local development standards, and strengthens state enforcement mechanisms against local governments.

Additionally, the city of Murrieta, in its background information, maintains that these legislative efforts have not resulted in sufficient housing production to address California's housing shortage and have not adequately accounted for 24

local infrastructure, public service needs, public safety, market, and fiscal considerations.

The resolution states that California’s housing goals are better advanced through state funding, streamlined environmental requirements, and voluntary partnerships, while preserving local authority over how and where housing is best planned and approved.

Consideration of the resolution may be informed by a brief examination of how the California Constitution allocates authority between the state and cities with respect to land use decisions.

The constitution grants cities the power to adopt local laws to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare. This grant is called the “police power,” which is the basis for local land use regulation. The constitution grants charter cities the additional power to adopt local laws affecting “municipal affairs.” This power, commonly referred to as “home rule,” is based on the principle that a city, rather than the state, is in the best position to identify and satisfy the needs of the local community.

The constitution’s broad grant of police power contains a significant limitation.

Local law adopted under the police power is not valid if it “conflicts” with state law. A local law “conflicts” with state law when it regulates the same “field” in which the Legislature has stated its intent to occupy. In that case, state law is said to “preempt” the local law and it cannot be enforced.

An ordinance adopted by a charter city under the municipal affairs power cannot be enforced if it affects a “matter of statewide concern.” The subjects that have been identified as “matters of statewide concern” have changed over the years due to economic, social, and political circumstances.

Since the 1960s, the state has enacted numerous laws that limit or preempt aspects of local land use and zoning authority. These laws include the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Housing Element Law, Housing Accountability Act, Density Bonus Law, Permit Streamlining Act, accessory dwelling unit laws, California Environmental Quality Act, and others. In recent years, the state has enacted several laws that Cal Cities was the leading opposition force against, as many of the proposals pre-empted local land use authority, limited public review, and constrained local flexibility. In support of its housing and land use legislation, the Legislature has cited a statewide housing crisis and the need for increased housing production at all income levels while asserting that a uniform approach to local land use decision-making is required. 25

Discussion:

The resolution does not prescribe a specific policy mechanism. The eight letters in support recommend creating a working group or committee to evaluate potential approaches, including legislative proposals, constitutional amendments, or ballot initiatives to strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters.

A discussion of a strategy to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters will need to consider the California Constitution’s framework for both preemption of police power enactments and municipal affairs, discussed above. It will also need to determine whether changes to the California Constitution will be proposed, and whether they constitute an amendment or a revision, which require different processes.

A constitutional revision is a multistep process blending legislative consensus, voter support, and on occasion, a constitutional convention. It requires significant public engagement.

A constitutional amendment would require a ballot initiative, which includes gathering enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot, building large coalitions to support election efforts, and campaigning to voters to support the initiative. This process can involve significant costs. In the last major election for ballot initiatives in 2024, proponents spent $8-$18 million to qualify for the ballot and spent nearly $700 million for the full election cycle, averaging out to about $100 million per ballot initiative.

Cal Cities has been engaged in ballot advocacy for over 20 years. In the early 2000s, Cal Cities developed a ballot advocacy infrastructure that included forming an issue political action committee, fundraising, establishing a network of regional managers, and building a coalition with other organizations to ultimately advocate on a ballot measure. Ballot advocacy requires the approval of the Board of Directors with a supermajority vote.

In the Legislature, Cal Cities plays an active and influential role to ensure that local flexibility and autonomy in the land use and housing space is maintained by engaging on dozens of bills every legislative session to ensure that cities' voices are heard at the state Capitol. Below, you will find Cal Cities “Existing Policy” on local control, housing, and land use policies.

Fiscal Impact
The resolution itself would not have a significant direct fiscal impact. However, depending on what actions follow, the fiscal costs could be significant. 26

Existing Cal Cities Policy
Vision
To be recognized and respected as the leading advocate for the common interests of California's cities.

Mission Statement
To expand and protect local control for cities through education and advocacy to enhance the quality of life for all Californians.

We Believe
• Local self-governance is the cornerstone of democracy. • Our strength lies in the unity of our diverse communities of interest. • In the involvement of all stakeholders in establishing goals and in solving problems.
• In conducting the business of government with transparency, openness, respect, and civility.
• The spirit of honest public service is what builds communities. • Open decision-making that is of the highest ethical standards honors the public trust.
• Cities are vital to the strength of the California economy. • The vitality of cities is dependent upon their fiscal stability and local autonomy.
• The active participation of all city officials increases the League's effectiveness.
• Partnerships and collaborations are essential elements of focused advocacy and lobbying.
• Ethical and well-informed city officials are essential for responsive, visionary leadership and effective and efficient city operations.

Zoning
Cal Cities believes local zoning is a primary function of cities and is an essential component of home rule. The process of adoption, implementation and enforcement of zoning ordinances should be open and fair to the public and enhance the responsiveness of local decision-makers. State policy should leave local siting and use decisions to the city and not interfere with local prerogative beyond providing a constitutionally valid procedure for adopting local regulations. State agency siting of facilities, including campuses and office buildings, should be subject to local notice and hearing requirements in order to meet concerns of the local community. Cal Cities opposes legislation that seeks to limit local authority over parking requirements.

Housing Element
Housing issues should be addressed in the general plan as other planning issues are. The housing element should be prepared for the benefit of local 27

governments and should have equal status with the other elements of the general plan.

Encourage Full Community Participation
Foster an open and inclusive community dialogue and promote alliances and partnerships to meet community needs.

Well-Planned New Growth
Recognize and preserve open space, watersheds, environmental habitats, and agricultural lands, while accommodating new growth in compact forms, in a manner that:
• De-emphasizes automobile dependency;
• Integrates the new growth into existing communities;
• Creates a diversity of affordable housing near employment centers; • Provides job opportunities for people of all ages and income levels.

Support:

The following letters of concurrence were received:

City of Banning
City of Calimesa
City of Canyon Lake
City of Moreno Valley
City of Norco
City of Torrance
Crystal Ruiz, Mayor, City of San Jacinto
Jessica Alexander, Mayor, City of Temecula
28

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: September 8, 2026
Prepared By: Anthony Carnesecca
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: Discussion Item - Environmental Commission

COUNCIL PRIORITY AREA
Environmental Sustainability
General Government

RECOMMENDATION
Discuss the Environmental Commission and create a City Council Ad-Hoc Subcommittee, if necessary

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
This report is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.

FISCAL IMPACT

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
February 21, 2023, March 28, 2023, April 25, 2023, May 23, 2023, June 13, 2023, February 10, 2026, June 9, 2026, & June 23, 2026

BACKGROUND
The City of Los Altos has guidelines for the Environmental Commission regarding their scope of work, number of Commissioners, and frequency of Commission meetings within Los Altos Municipal Code Chapters 2.08.

At the February 10, 2026 meeting, City Council requested that City staff bring back the membership for Environmental Commission after the joint meeting with them that was scheduled for the February 24, 2026 meeting.

At the February 24, 2026 meeting, City Council directed staff to modify the Environmental Commission membership from seven members to five members.

At the June 9, 2026 meeting, City Council introduced an ordinance that would amend the Environmental Commission membership to 5 members, along with Complete Streets, Financial, and Planning, through a natural attrition process, meaning that no current Commissioners will be removed from their membership as a result of this action.

At the June 23, 2026 meeting, City Council adopted an ordinance that amended the Environmental Commission membership to 5 members, along with Complete Streets, Financial, and Planning, through a natural attrition process, meaning that no current Commissioners will be removed from their membership as a result of this action.

ANALYSIS

DISCUSSION
At the August 25, 2026 City Council meeting, the City Council requested to agendize a discussion item to "take a look at [the Environmental Commission] and potentially form a subcommittee to look at the Commission a little more closely." The Environmental Commission has a codified membership of five members with three current members so there are two vacancies. The Environmental Commission shall meet ten times annually.

Per 2.08.120, the Municipal Code defines the powers and duties of the environmental commission. It states that "The commission shall:

A. Submit an annual report to council providing an update on the implementation of the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) as well as updates on any relevant environmental policy or programs;
B. Review and provide recommendations for the implementation of the CAAP, including prioritization of CAAP action items. Make annual recommendations for changes or updates to the plan;
C. Annually provide recommendations to the council that affect the natural and built environment to inform policy, budget, and CIP prioritization; D. Serve as a forum for community input and engagement; and E. Perform other tasks and duties as assigned by the council." Attached to this staff report is the updated Environmental Commission workplan as of August 2026.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Environmental Commission Workplan

2026 Los Altos Environmental Commission Work Plan
Focus Area Goal Project Expected
Completion Priority Source Status Commissioner
Assignment
Notes
CAAP
Management Review CAAP priorities Conduct a qualitative status review of the CAAP
Q4 2026 Power & Duties
Item B In Progress De Giuli
Qualitative review framework has been established, and data gathering is currently underway.

City Council
Strategic Goal:

Building
Electrification
Accelerate electrification
in homes, businesses,
and travel
Create a list of monetary
electrification incentives to assist in
determining
future incentives
Q4 2026
Environmental
Sustainability,
Public Safety In Progress TBD
The City launched the Residential Heat Pump Rebate
program in March 2026 which provides $1,000 to replace
gas furnaces or water heaters. As of August 2026, 43 rebates ($43,000) have been claimed. Staff will monitor fund
depletion and evaluate the program alongside the EC to
determine when to bring it back to Council for further
direction.

CAAP Goals 2.3 &

2.4 Sequester carbon and
improve environmental
and human health
Provide advisory support for the
Urban Forest & Ecosystem Health
Project
Q3 2027
City Council
Strategic Goal:

Environmental
Sustainability,
Public Safety
CAAP Action 5.2
In Progress van Reis, Humayun
Dudek has been selected to complete the project, which
officially kicked off in July 2026. The initial phase focuses on updating the City’s tree inventory. Staff will collaborate with the working group and provide regular updates to the
commission throughout the project.

Green
Community
+ Climate Risk
Supporting
CAAP Actions

5.5, 6.1, 6.2
Support Public
Environmental Health
Research and develop
recommendations on
artificial/synthetic turf policy that
coversresidential, commercial, and
recreational uses.

TBD
Council Direction
CAAP Action 6.1C
In Progress TBD
Staff are currently evaluating Sunnyvale's recently released study alongside other relevant research. Staff plan to present a framework to the Commission in October 2026 to outline next steps and determine creation of an ad-hoc
subcommittee.

Community
Engagement
Support Public
Engagement
Participate in community outreach
at events Ongoing CAAP Action 1.4A Ongoing Commission In coordination with City staff, Commissioners conductoutreach at local events to promote CAAP goals.

ATTACHMENT 1

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.

September 22, 2026
Regular Meeting – 7:00 p.m.

CONSENT:
• Approval of Police Department Generator Replacement
DISCUSSION:
• Police Department Building Options
• Non-Profit and Community Funding Process
• Future Composition of Library Commission
October 13, 2026
Regular Meeting – 7:00 p.m.

DISCUSSION:
• City Council Measure and Incentive to Reduce Water Consumption • Downtown One Way Circulation
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: 09/08/2026
TO: COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
SUBJECT: COUNCIL Q&A FOR SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Study Session:
• The deed restricted period for the Purchase program is defined as a term of at least 55 years and for Rental program as at least 99 years. Why are the suggested terms different for rental vs. purchase?
Answer: These terms are established by the City's Municipal Code which require affordability restrictions of at least 55 years for ownership BMR units and at least 99 years for rental BMR units. Most communities use fixed year long-term affordability restrictions because these terms balance the goal of preserving affordable housing with the practical realities of ownership and property management. Rental housing can continue serving successive generations of income-qualified households under the same ownership, making very long affordability periods feasible. Ownership housing, by contrast, is sold to individual households that build equity, maintain the property, and eventually transfer or resell the home. A 55-year affordability term is generally viewed as providing a substantial long-term public benefit while balancing administrative, financing, and ownership considerations. • Currently, what are the enacted deed restrictions across our BMR portfolio, including by rental vs. purchase, i.e. what % of BMR rentals have what periods for deed restrictions and similar for BMR purchases? How does this vary by income level? Answer: The City's affordable housing inventory reflects an evolution in affordability requirements over time. Older affordable housing projects generally utilize 30-year deed restrictions for both ownership and rental units, with no variation based on income level. Since approximately 2010, the City's affordable housing projects have generally utilized longer affordability periods consistent with current City requirements and state law. Among existing affordable ownership units, approximately 78% are subject to 30-year affordability restrictions, and 22% are subject to 55-year restrictions. Among affordable rental units, approximately 30% are subject to 30-year affordability restrictions, and 70% are subject to 55-year restrictions.

• In the Rental Program, Selection Process (pg 11), it says that "A new lottery will generally be held each time a rental Affordable Unit becomes available" but then it also says elsewhere on that page that "The lottery list ranking for any rental Affordable Unit within a project will be maintained for one (1) year.” These seem to contradict each other in Year 1 of a rental BMR, does this need correcting or clarifying?
Answer: Staff can clarify the sentence on page 11 to state that after a one-year period, a new lottery will be held when a rental Affordable Unit becomes available. • With the existing priority tiers, how often are lower tiers reached before the supply of units is exhausted?
Answer: The lower-priority tiers are rarely used because available affordable units are generally allocated to households in Tiers 1 and 2.
• When a BMR unit becomes available, either through selling an owned unit or vacating a rental unit, is another lottery held to determine who is offered the unit? Answer: If the Affordable Unit becomes available within one year from when the last lottery was held for a project, then the lottery list is utilized to determine who is offered the Affordable Unit.
• Was any thought given to a lottery system triggered by a time period rather than a new unit? For example, a lottery for 2027, rather than a project completes? What are the pros and cons of that approach?
Answer: Staff considered different lottery approaches and recommends conducting lotteries as units become available rather than on a periodic basis because affordable units become available at unpredictable times due to project completion schedules, tenant turnover, and resales. A periodic lottery could delay occupancy, increase wait times for applicants, and result in units remaining vacant while awaiting the next lottery. Conducting lotteries as units become available allows eligible households to be matched with available units more quickly and helps ensure that affordable housing opportunities are occupied as soon as possible. For these reasons, many jurisdictions administer lotteries on a project-specific or unit-specific basis.

Agenda Item 1 (Minutes):
• The request for a future agenda item about the Environmental Commission would be better described as it is in the staff report for Item 10, which is that we would discuss the Commission and potentially form a subcommittee.

Answer: The minutes and the staff report both accurately reflect the request to discuss the Environmental Commission, with an option to create a council subcommittee.

Agenda Item 4 (Joint Volunteer Awards Committee Changes):
• While the JVAC changes have been under discussion, has Los Altos received any formal communications from Los Altos Hills requesting that the joint program not be discontinued?
Answer: City staff received a letter from the Los Altos Hills representatives on JVAC on Tuesday, September 8 that has been included in the agenda packet as public comment.
• LA and LAH JVAC worked together and agreed to recommend changing the committee to a non-Brown Act body and also redlined the bylaws to establish new rules reflecting those changes; those recommendations happened at the October 27, 2025 JVAC meeting. The Los Altos City Council was waiting on LAH to adopt these jointly agreed changes. In June this year, LAH voted on the recommendations from JVAC. Were there any changes from the JVAC recommendation to what Los Altos Hills adopted?
Answer: The JVAC recommendation to the LAH and LA Councils was to make various amendments to the bylaws and to adopt rules that would allow the Committee to plan the annual event without Brown Act meeting requirements. Specifically, JVAC recommended editing the bylaws by removing sections 2.1 and 3.5, which would allow the Commission to meet without Brown Act requirements.

At the June 18 meeting of the Town of Los Altos Hills Council adopted a resolution that "existing bylaws, rules, and procedures governing the committee shall remain in effect only to the extent necessary to facilitate an orderly transition to the newly reclassified advisory committees and may be revised or replaced by the committees as appropriate."

Agenda Item 5 (Investment Reports):
• Does the city generally avoid investing in municipal bonds of other state agencies, since the discount for income tax advantages, which are attractive to individual investors, are not useful to the city and erode returns?
Answer: Yes, generally. Municipal obligations are permitted under the City's Investment Policy, and as of March 31, the portfolio held none. Since the City does not benefit from the tax exemption, tax-exempt municipal securities are often less attractive than comparable taxable investment options. They may still be considered when they meet the City's investment policy requirements and offer competitive value.

Agenda Item 7 (Vote for CalCities Peninsula Division):
• For the record, please note that all candidates for the Cal Cities Peninsula Division Executive Board have been recommended by the Nominating Committee and each are unopposed for the respective positions for which they have been nominated.

Answer: Noted.

Agenda Item 9 (Impacts of Zoning):
• In their letter, HCD outlines the process we would need to follow to make changes to our Housing Element to come back into compliance if Measure D passes since the Measure would prevent us from filling our Housing obligations if we didn’t do any revision. Approximately how long would that process take given the need to do public input and have HCD review it, etc., assuming that we’d get it accepted with just one round of revisions?
Answer: Staff estimates a timeframe of approximately 6 to 12 months to prepare amendments, conduct public outreach, complete Planning Commission and City Council hearings, submit the revisions to HCD, respond to comments, and obtain HCD approval. The process could take longer if HCD requires multiple rounds of revisions. • Are there any examples of the courts allowing Builder’s Remedy applications even though HCD hasn’t (yet) decertified a Housing Element?
Answer: There is a superior court Builder's Remedy decision (600 Foothill Owner, LP v.

City of La Cañada Flintridge) where the court did not require a final HCD certification determination to evaluate whether the City was in substantial compliance with Housing Element Law. However, that case involved a Housing Element that the City was actively revising and seeking HCD approval for, but which had not yet been certified by HCD when the Builder's Remedy application was submitted.

Staff is not aware of a court decision approving a Builder's Remedy project against a city that had an active HCD-certified Housing Element that had not subsequently been challenged or formally found out of compliance.
• Imagine a scenario where Measure D passes and a developer submits a Builder's Remedy project under the premise that we are no longer in compliance with our housing element but before HCD decertifies (or recertifies) our Housing Element. If we deny the Builder’s Remedy application because we’ve not yet been formally decertified, and then the developer sues and claims that we are out of compliance because HCD is requiring us to revise our HE, how likely is it that a judge would find that our Housing Element is out of compliance even if HCD has not yet done so, and force us to accept Builder’s Remedy projects?
Answer: The outcome is uncertain because there is currently no published decision squarely holding that a court must treat an HCD-certified Housing Element as out of compliance for Builder's Remedy purposes before HCD has formally made that determination.

Agenda Item 10 (CalCities Resolution):
• What effect would this resolution actually have?
Answer from CalCities: It is unclear what effect this resolution will have as the resolved clauses provide multiple outcomes. "the League of California Cities support the development and advancement of a state constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot based strategies that restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters within municipal boundaries, including general plans, housing elements, zoning, density, design and development standards, project siting, and the approval or denial of housing development application"; and "the League of California Cities consider establishing a statewide working group or other appropriate committee(s) to evaluate and develop a proposed constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters." • Since the California Constitution can only be amended by a Legislative process, a Constitutional Convention process, or a Citizens’ Initiative, would the proposed CalCities statewide working group primarily serve as an advocacy group? Answer from CalCities: No.
• Would such a group be subject to normal oversight according to FPPC regulations?

Answer from CalCities: If a working group or policy committee is formed, it will not advocate and thus FPPC regulations would not apply. The role of a working group or policy committee would be to make recommendations to Cal Cities board of directors.

Agenda Item 11 (Environmental Commission):
• Doesn't the EC only have at most two members continuing past this month so there are at least three positions to fill in the recruitment?
Answer: The Environmental Commission currently has three members. One of the commission members' term expires in September 2026 and they did not apply for reappointment. As part of the appointment process that will be before Council later this month, there will be three vacancies to fill.
• The Environmental Commission work plan includes a project to examine artificial turf. The PARC Commission also has a subcommittee looking at related issues in parks. And the Planning Commission also could issue rules about surface coverings. What is the relationship between these efforts (and any others not mentioned)? Answer: The Environmental Commission has a project titled, "Research and develop recommendations on artificial/synthetic turf policy that covers residential, commercial, and recreational uses." This was intended to begin after the completion of the City of Sunnyvale study and incorporate relevant research and policy recommendations from the studies completed by the City of Sunnyvale and City of Palo Alto. Staff has reviewed the reports and identified preliminary considerations that are tentatively scheduled for consideration at the October 2026 Environmental Commission meeting.

The PARC Commission has an ad-hoc subcommittee focused on playground surfaces in response to community feedback on the resurfacing of Grant and Shoup Park playgrounds. This ad-hoc subcommittee has not yet presented their research and policy recommendations to the PARC Commission, but plans to do so at the September 2026 meeting.

The Planning Commission could research and provide policy recommendations regarding surface coverings if desired by the City Council.

At this point, these efforts into research and policy recommendations at the Commission level are not connected to one another.