1 City Council Special Meeting Agenda
May 16, 2024
LAH Agenda
September 28.docx j
NOTICE TO PUBLIC
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on the open session portion of this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s office located at 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, California during normal business hours. These materials will also be made available on the City website at www.losaltoshills.ca.gov subject to Staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
LOS ALTOS HILLS CITY COUNCIL WILL BE HELD ON
THURSDAY, MAY 16, 2024, AT 1:00 P.M.
Meetings of the City Council are held in-person. As a courtesy, and in compliance with applicable state law, staff and members of the public may participate in the meeting in person at Town Hall or virtually via Zoom Video Conference. Members of the City Council may participate remotely from time to time in accordance with the provisions of Government Code section 54953.
To attend the meeting in person:
City Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 To provide Public Comment in person:
Members of the public wishing to speak are requested to complete a speaker card and submit it to the City Clerk at the meeting.
To participate in the meeting via Zoom Video Conference, please follow the instructions below:
Public comment will also be accepted via email at [email protected] prior to the start of the meeting. Written comments will be posted on the website and distributed to the Council.
If you choose to email your comments, please indicate in the subject line “FOR PUBLIC COMMENT” and indicate the item number.
If you wish to submit a public comment during the meeting, please use the following information.
Before speaking, please identify yourself by name and where you reside. The City Council meeting will be live-streamed on the Town’s website and via zoom at the following location:
https://bit.ly/May16LAHCCStudySession
Webinar ID: 897 2844 2581
Passcode: 94022
Town of Los Altos Hills
City Council Special Meeting Agenda
STUDY SESSION
Thursday, May 16, 2024 at 1:00 P.M.
Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, California
2 City Council Special Meeting Agenda
May 16, 2024
Public testimony will be taken at the direction of the mayor and members of the public may only comment during times allotted for public comments. This meeting will be broadcast via livestream service at http://www.losaltoshills.ca.gov.
CALL TO ORDER (1:00 PM)
1. Roll Call
2. PUBLIC COMMENT (Public Comment is Limited to Items which are the Subject of the Special Meeting)
3. STUDY SESSION
A. Study Session to Discuss the Potential Formation of a Charter and Potential Ballot Measure to Approve the Charter and Consider Adoption of a Real Property Transfer Tax for the November 2024 Ballot.
4. ADJOURN
ASSISTANCE FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in the meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 650-941-7222. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
Copies of all agenda reports and supporting data are available for inspection at Town Hall, 26379 Fremont Road 72 hours in advance of the meeting.
A complete agenda can be found on the Town’s webpage: http://www.losaltoshills.ca.gov. A complete packet of information is available for inspection during the meeting at the table to the back of the Council Chambers and online. Council may take action on any agendized matter in any manner deemed appropriate by Council.
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS May 16, 2024
Staff Report to the City Council
SUBJECT: DISCUSS THE POTENTIAL FORMATION OF A CHARTER AND A
POTENTIAL BALLOT MEASURE TO APPROVE THE CHARTER
AND CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER
TAX FOR THE NOVEMBER 2024 BALLOT
FROM: Peter Pirnejad, City Manager
Steve Mattas, City Attorney
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
Consider and direct staff to either:
A. Commence the process for the City Council to consider all necessary actions for the Town to propose a charter for the Town for consideration by Los Altos Hills voters and to also propose a real property transfer tax for consideration by Los Altos Hills voters as part of the 2024 general election in November 2024, OR
B. Commence the process for the City Council to consider all necessary actions for the Town to propose a charter for the Town for consideration by Los Altos Hills voters and to also propose a real property transfer tax for consideration by Los Altos Hills voters as part of the 2026 general election in November 2026.
C. Take no action at this time.
And if the council were to take action on option A then:
D. Adopt a resolution appropriating $150,000 for the purposes of retaining a public education strategic consultant, polling firm, and for related legal expenses.
BACKGROUND:
In recent years, the Town of Los Altos Hills has become aware of the potential of forming a Town Charter for the preservation of local land use control. In addition, the Town has seen an increase in residential burglaries which the City Council has addressed, in part, by approving significant additional funding for public safety. In addition, the Town has continued to prioritize the need to invest and enhance emergency preparedness efforts to prepare for and respond to a natural disasters such as wildfires and earthquakes. In order to support these safety and emergency preparedness priorities, the Town would need to consider a new revenue stream that could be used to support public safety measures and enhance community disaster preparedness and resilience.
In reviewing the options for a revenue measure the staff considered a number of options.
Considering the Town has limited revenue sources based on the function of being an exclusively residential town with very little commercial activity that is subject to sales tax and given that the
revenue that would be needed would be ongoing and not one-time, staff focused on tax revenue options that relate to aspects of property ownership. The tax measure that would affect the least number of people while likely still generating the necessary annual revenue is a form of Real Property Transfer Tax (RPTT). The RPTT could be structured so that it would only be collected upon sale of a real property and would not apply to the transfer of real property through a trust when property is transferred to a beneficiary of the trust.
The process for approval of both a Town charter and a RPTT will require a series of public meetings and hearings to consider the proposed ballot measures, a decision by the City Council to place the ballot measure on either November 2024 or November 2026 general election ballots and ultimately voter approval for both items. There are some urgencies as well as some risks in placing the charter and RPTT on the 2024 ballot. With regards to urgencies, the Town is currently supporting the additional public safety costs through partial use of reserves and that is not likely to be sustainable in the long term. In addition, as the City Council is aware the state continues to enact housing laws that preempt local land use authority of general law cities such as the Town. While the state has attempted to apply some of those new housing laws to charter cities, a recent trial court decision in Southern California determined that SB9 interferes with local land use authority that charter cities have as it related to local land use authority.1 This trial
court is not binding case law authority throughout California and may, in fact, be appealed.
On the other hand, given the limited time the Town has to conduct a poll to better understand the level of public support for both a proposed charter and a proposed RPTT, a step that most often occurs when cities and Town propose ballot measures, there is risk that the proposed ballot measures may not be successful or as successful as they may been if there was a longer period of 1 On April 22, 2024, a trial court in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles considered a challenge brought by five charter cities – Torrance, Del Mar, Carson, Redondo Beach, and Whittier – against the application of SB 9 for violating the California Constitution.
The lawsuit, City of Redondo Beach, et al. v. Rob Bonta, et al., was filed against the California Attorney General and the State. The court ruled that SB 9 violated the California Constitution and, therefore, did not apply to these cities because SB 9 was not reasonably related to its stated purpose of ensuring affordable housing and not narrowly tailored to avoid interference with local government.
Charter cities have their own local constitution, or charter. The California Constitution permits charter cities to have authority over their own “municipal affairs” and bars the State from intervening in these affairs unless the issue is a “statewide concern.” This is known as the “Home Rule Doctrine.” The rest of the cities in California are “general law” cities, which operate under the general laws of the State.
California courts have articulated a four-step inquiry to determine whether a State law violates the Home Rule Doctrine. First, courts determine whether the law regulates a municipal affair. Second, courts examine whether State and local law conflict. Third, courts decide whether the State law addresses a matter of “statewide concern.” Fourth, courts decide whether the law is reasonably related to the resolution of the statewide concern and whether the law is narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessary interference in local government. Both the charter cities and the State agreed that municipal land use and zoning regulations are a municipal affair and that SB 9 regulates land use and zoning, satisfying the first two prongs of the test. The court then ruled that the “statewide concern” that the State was interested in addressing with SB 9 was in providing affordable housing. While courts have ruled that providing affordable housing and increasing the housing supply in California are matters of statewide concern, the court here rejected the idea that SB 9 was intended to address the shortage of housing in California, because it was not explicitly stated in SB 9.
The State argued that “affordable housing” meant housing affordability at all income levels, while the charter cities argued that it meant below market-rate housing. The court sided with the carter cities’ argument, noting that SB 9 prohibited the demolition of units that are legally protected as affordable to low income persons. The court then rules that SB 9 violated the California Constitution because it has an attenuated connection to its purpose of promoting affordable housing because it received no evidence from the State that SB 9 would increase the supply of affordable housing.
It should be noted that this is a trial court decision, so it is only binding on the charter cities that challenged SB 9 as part of the litigation.
Although the court has ruled in this case, it has not entered the ruling as its judgment. The State has 60 days to appeal the court’s decision from entry of the judgment and the State is likely to appeal the ruling once judgment has been entered, given the significance of the trial court’s ruling.
time for community engagement and discussion on the proposed measures. Also, if the Town were to proceed with ballot measures this year, the ballot measure approving formation of a charter and approval of charter city status would likely be narrowly tailored to the issues of local land use authority and authority to propose for voter approval a RPTT. To that end, the Town could propose a narrowly tailored charter at this time and then consider further modifications at a subsequent election. The purpose of this study session in limited to introducing these concepts to the City Council and the public and then seeking direction from the Council as to whether the Council desires to further consider the matters. There will be no final action at this study session unless the Council provides direction to stop any further consideration of either the charter city concept or the RPTT.
Under current California law, only a charter city may propose and adopt with voter approval a RPTT. In addition, consideration of general tax such as a RPTT must occur at the same time as Council elections (i.e November 2024 or November 2026, except in very limited circumstances of financial crisis which likely does not apply to the current Town situation. Based on the last two years of public safety spending in response to the unprecedented and disturbing trend of residential burglaries and the anticipated sheriff’s contract increases, the Town has and is expecting to experience well over a million dollars of additional public safety spending each year. These additional fiscal impacts include the expense for additional overtime sheriff deputies, higher calls for services in response to unprecedented calls for service, additional private security spending, automatic license plate readers, and consulting efforts to study and support council priorities in addressing this troubling trend. In the future the Town may want to consider additional tech, communication and related safety enhancements that would prove to protect the Town further.
In discussions with the Council during the last goal setting session in January 2024, disaster preparedness and response has been stressed. Given the fire prone characteristics of the Town and the potential for earthquakes, the council has prioritized the need for a more robust mass communication tool, emergency evacuation and preparedness planning tools and more focused staff attention on both preparation and response to a Town wide emergency. Additional funding would be used for both additional staff, vendors, solutions, and equipment that would support this priority as well as leveraging both the Sheriff and the County Fire District.
Given the magnitude of the expense the Town has been and is expecting to continue to need to use General Fund reserves to cover the additional financial burden associated with public safety and disaster preparedness and response. Although the Town has a robust General Fund reserve the long-term viability of using one time savings for continuous and ongoing expense is not conducive. It is just a matter of time before the Town would need to pursue additional revenue measure(s) or approve cuts to city services.
Under normal circumstances the formation of a Charter and new RPTT would take well over a year before placing the measures on the ballot. In that time the staff would pursue polling, engage the community, conduct multiple community workshops and public hearings as well as possibly commission a more comprehensive analysis to consider all the options. However, given the perceived urgency for the formation of the charter and the significant and lasting fiscal
implications of additional public safety and disaster preparedness and response, staff would recommend the council consider a 2024 Ballot measure.
It should be noted that a ballot measure in 2024 under these circumstances is not ideal and could come with inherent risks and uncertainties. For that reason, if the council chooses to pursue the Charter and PRTT in for the November 2024 general election, the timeline would be extremely aggressive, and the community would need to be supportive of such action. On the pros side a 2024 ballot would be faster, cheaper and have the potential to protect the Town local land use control as well as introduce a new funding source at a time when we need it the most. On the other hand, targeting 2024 would mean that we do not have the polling data, necessary community engagement, and needed outreach to gain the support that would normally be done in advance of a charter and RPTT ballot measure.
DISCUSSION:
Staff is recommending that the Town Council and community consider proposing a real property transfer tax and transitioning to a Charter City status as prudent courses of action to address these pressing needs. However, we would suggest that at any point between now and the filing deadline of August 9th if the council and staff feel that the residents would be better served pushing the effort to 2026 we should reserve the option to do so.
GENERAL LAW VS. CHARTER CITY
Currently, Los Altos Hills is what is known as a General Law city. A General Law City has the authority to act locally but its acts must be consistent with the California Constitution, state statutes, and state administrative regulations. A Charter City adopts a Charter, which is a document that outlines how a city is governed. A Charter City has the additional authority to adopt laws regarding "municipal affairs" that are different from state statutes, while still being consistent with the US and California Constitutions. Municipal affairs may include the form of city government, elections, some aspects of zoning and land use, the process of contracting for public works, and the scope of authority related to taxes and assessments. A city may only become a Charter City with voter approval. In our area, local charter cities include Mountain View, Palo Alto, Redwood City, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Albany, Emeryville, Berkeley, Richmond, Oakland, Alameda, Piedmont, San Francisco, San Leandro, and San Rafael.
WHY A CHARTER CITY
The City of Los Altos Hills was incorporated as a general law city in 1956 by residents seeking the right to manage local affairs. Since then, the authority of general law cities over local affairs has diminished. Furthermore, the State has continually added mandates for cities that require local resources to address State concerns, increased its control over local matters, and redirected much needed local revenue for its own purposes.
Changes in State law have limited the ability of Los Altos Hills to decide how to decide local land use decisions. The power of home rule, granted by the California Constitution, makes available to charter cities a variety of tools to use to construct local policy and address local concerns. The voters of each charter city get to decide which tools to put in their tool box. With this Charter, Los Altos Hills will reclaim more local autonomy and expand the economic and fiscal independence of our City government to promote the health, safety, and welfare of all its residents.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT CHARTER CITIES AND RPPT Charter City formation and RPTT are not uncommon among cities to take steps to protect local rule and secure a funding source that does not impact property owners until they sell their home.
As stated earlier there are a number of cities in the Bay Area and a larger number state wide that have formed charters and passed RPPTs. Some of the most recent include El Cerrito formed in early 2019 and St. Helena that is scheduled for the ballot in 2024.
1. What is a Charter City
A Charter City adopts a Charter, which is a document that outlines how a city is governed.
Becoming a charter city allows voters to determine how their city government is organized and, with respect to municipal affairs, enact legislation different than that adopted by the state.
2.Why is Los Altos Hills considering becoming a charter city? The Town of Los Altos Hills was incorporated as a general law city in 1956 by residents seeking the right to manage local affairs. Since then, the authority of general law cities over local affairs has diminished. Furthermore, the State has continually added mandates for cities that require local resources to address State concerns, increased its control over local matters, and redirected much needed local revenue and land use authority for its own purposes. Changes in State law have limited the ability of Los Altos Hills to decide how to use local dollars for local needs as well as control local land use decisions.
The power of home rule, granted by the California Constitution, makes available to charter cities a variety of tools to use to construct local policy and address local concerns. The voters of each charter city get to decide which tools to put in their tool box. With this Charter, Los Altos Hills will reclaim more local autonomy and expand the economic and fiscal independence of our City government to promote the health, safety, and welfare of all its residents.
3.How will Los Altos Hills become a charter city?
To become a charter city, a city must adopt a charter. There are two ways to adopt a charter:
The city’s voters elect a charter commission.21 The commission has the responsibility of drafting and debating the charter.
The governing board of the city, on its own motion, drafts the charter.22 In either case, the charter is not adopted by the city until it is ratified by a majority vote of the city's voters.23
League of California Cities. http://www.cacities.org/Resources-Documents/ResourcesSection/Charter-Cities/Charter-Cities-A-Quick-Summary-for-the-Press-and-R. 21Cal. Gov’t Code § 34451.
22Cal. Gov’t Code § 34458.
23Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 34457, 34462.
4.When will residents vote on this measure?
On November 3, 2024.
The City Council will hold public hearings on the Charter at the June 20th and July 18th Council meetings and file the ballot measure before the August 9th deadline for the November 3rd 2024, ballot.
5.What is a Real Property Transfer Tax or RPPT?
A RPTT is a tax that is only paid upon the sale of property and is traditionally split between the buyer and seller. Charter cities may adopt—with voter approval—a Real Property Transfer Tax at any rate.2
The revenue could be used for: the primary and intended use of the funds is for public safety and disaster preparedness / response. As a general and not a special tax the Town is not obligated to use the money for that sole purpose in perpetuity if council and community priorities change in the future.
2 Please note that there are two potential two statewide ballot measures that will potentially appear in the November 2024 election. One measure, if approved, would remove the authority of charter cities to adopt real property transfer taxes. The second measure, if approved, could potentially invalidate the first measure depending on how many votes the first measure receives, and as such may negate the first measure’s prohibition on real property transfer taxes adopted by charter cities.
6.Are there other charter cities in the Bay Area?
In our area, local charter cities include Mountain View, Palo Alto, Redwood City, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale. In the greater Bay Area they include Albany, Emeryville, Berkeley, Richmond, Oakland, Alameda, Piedmont, San Francisco, San Leandro, and San Rafael.
7.As a homeowner, will I have to pay the RPTT every year? No. The RPTT is a one-time tax paid when property is sold or otherwise transferred in return for a payment to the owner. It’s not an ongoing, annual tax. If you own a home and don’t sell it, you won’t pay the tax. If you sell your home, the tax measure allows you and the buyer to decide who should pay the tax.
8.Will I have to pay the Real Property Transfer Tax if I gift my home to a family member, place it in a Family Trust, or leave it to my children as inheritance? A RPTT can be structured to plainly state that the tax is calculated based on the amount paid as part of a sale or other transfer. Depending on how the RPTT is structured, if your home is transferred without any payment by the person or trust receiving it, there is no tax to pay.
9.What can the revenue be used for? Why is it not guaranteed for specific services or improvements?
There are two ways to structure the RPTT, general or special. A special tax, which requires a majority vote of the Council to place the measure on the ballot and a 2/3 voter approval can only be used for the purposes specified in the tax measure. A general tax, which takes a higher percentage of council to place the measure on the ballot but only requires simple majority of voters to approve can be used for general purposes as determined by the City Council. Like most of the City’s revenues, funds from the proposed RPTT, are intended to be general in nature and can be used for all the services the City provides. Each year, during the public budget process, the City Council adopts a budget based on the priorities of the community, which regularly change. As part of the City’s general funds, RPTT revenues can be allocated based on changing needs and priorities. The purpose that we see now and the foreseeable future is public safety and disaster preparedness and response.
10.Will we get any additional or increased services if the RPTT passes? Yes. Additional funds will be available for increased public safety and disaster preparedness and response and potentially other council priorities in amounts determined annually and publicly by the City Council to reflect community priorities and needs.
11.Will the Real Property Transfer Tax directly impact property values?
Although the RPTT will affect the total cost of a new property purchase in Los Altos Hills it is unclear if this one tax will affect property values. There are many factors at play that affect property values and costs including realtor commissions, mortgage rates, and other costs that affect ultimate home affordability.
What is clear, however, is that the revenue generated from the RPTT will be invested in public safety, disaster preparedness, response, and other Town amenities that enhance the overall quality of life in the community, it could bolster property values over the long term.
12.Will the Real Property Transfer Tax negatively impact the proceeds from a sale of a home in Los Altos Hills?
Real Property Transfer Tax measured can be structured to allow buyers and sellers of property to decide who will pay the tax. Traditionally, it is split between the buyer and the seller.
13.Will being a Charter City increase the chances the City will go bankrupt? There is no documented causal connection between charter city status and bankruptcy. There are very few instances of California cities filing for bankruptcy. Both charter cities and general law cities have used bankruptcy proceedings. The proposed Los Altos Hills Charter authorizes the City to use additional tools to raise revenue for important services but makes no changes to existing local law that would alter how the City spends its funds. The City is audited annually by an independent auditor and has a Financial and Investment Committee made up of volunteers that looks at the City’s budget, audits, and financial policies.
In 2014, voters in the City of Emeryville, El Cerrito and most recently St. Helena (in the process) similarly approved a limited charter that expanded their ability to raise revenue, including a RPTT. The proposed Los Altos Hills Charter leaves in place local law, other than to give the City more options for raising revenue and authorizing a RPTT.
TIMELINE AND NEXT STEPS
In order to post the RPPT and charter on the 2024 ballot we need to file our ballot language by August 9, 2024. In that time, we need two public hearings spaced 30 days apart.
The tentative Los Altos Hills – Charter Adoption Timeline Pursuant to Gov. Code Section 34458 • May 29, 2024 – Deadline to provide notice of first of two public hearings o Notice of hearing must be provided at least 21 days before hearing by (1) posting a notice in three public places within the City and (2) Publishing a notice in a newspaper published once a week or oftener designated by city council and
circulated throughout the city. Notice must be published twice once a week or more, with at least five days intervening between respective publication dates. (Gov.
Code Sections 34458(b), 6066.)
• June 19, 2024 – Last possible date to hold first of two public hearings o The two public hearings must be held at least 30 days apart (Gov. Code Section 34458(b).)
• June 28, 2024 – Deadline to provide notice of second public hearing o Notice of hearing must be provided at least 21 days before hearing by (1) posting a notice in three public places within the City and (2) Publishing a notice in a newspaper published once a week or oftener designated by city council and circulated throughout the city. Notice must be published twice once a week or more, with at least five days intervening between respective publication dates. (Gov.
Code Sections 34458(b), 6066.)
• July 19, 2024 -– Last possible date to hold second public hearing o Second public hearing must be held at least 30 days after the first public hearing and at least 21 days before city council votes on whether to submit a proposal to adopt the charter to voters (Gov. Code Section 34458(b).) • August 9, 2024 – Deadline for city council to vote on whether to submit a proposal to adopt the charter to voters
o City council vote must occur at least 88 days before the statewide general election (Gov. Code Section 34458(a).)
• November 5, 2024 – Statewide general election - Voters vote on whether to adopt the charter (Gov. Code Section 34458(a).)
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The preparation of a Charter and RPTT ballot measure is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. 2024-25 CITY COUNCIL WORK PLAN:
This work is not on the Work Plan and would require focused effort from the City Manager and City Attorney’s Office and as such we would need to engage consultants to minimize the time that would distract us from other council goals. This work would be less impactful on the rest of the staff as the majority of work is involved between the council, City Manager, City Attorney, and contractors. The nature of this work is largely dependent on how supportive the council and community are. The more supportive the council and community the easier this will be impacting less of the workload. If it is determined that a lot of work is necessary to advance this to the 2024 election, then the City Manager will appraise the council of other priorities that may need to be de-prioritized. At this time, however, we do not see the need to formally reprioritize any work.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fiscal impact associated with pursuing this for the 2024 election is directly related to three areas. The city attorney’s time would in our estimate be approximately $60K to get us through the end of the election. This effort would be billed as a special project, and it is intended that we would use a variety of specialists for this work. Secondly, we would need to engage a campaign and communications strategists at approximately $50K that would help develop the charter, ballot language and associated public information and education outreach efforts. Finally, we have the pollster at approximately $40K that we would use to poll the community various aspects of both the RPTT and Charter City formation. The total is estimated to be $150K. If the council were to target 2026 the cost would be substantially more given the run time and the additional public outreach, polling and public meetings that would need to be scheduled.
RESOLUTION NO. ____________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
DIRECTING STAFF TO COMMENCE THE MEETING AND HEARING PROCESS
AND TO PREPARE FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION AT SUBSEQUENT
MEETINGS A PROPOSED BALLOT MEASURE APPROVING A CHARTER AND
ESTABLISHING CHARTER CITY STATUS FOR LOS ALTOS HILLS AND APPROVING A REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX FOR THE NOVEMBER 2024 GENERAL ELECTION AND APPROPRIATING $150,000 TO RETAIN A PUBLIC
EDUCATION STRATEGIC CONSULTANT, A POLLING FIRM, AND FOR RELATED
LEGAL EXPENSES
WHEREAS, in recent years, the Town of Los Altos Hills (“Town”) has become aware of the potential of forming a Town Charter for the preservation of local land use control; and WHEREAS, the Town has also seen an increase in residential burglaries which the City Council has addressed, in part, by approving significant additional funding for public safety; and WHEREAS, the Town has continued to prioritize the need to invest and enhance emergency preparedness efforts to prepare for and respond to natural disasters such as wildfire and earthquakes; and
WHEREAS, in order to support these safety and emergency preparedness priorities, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills wishes to commence the process to consider all necessary actions for the Town to propose a charter for the Town for consideration by Los Altos Hills voters and to also propose a real property transfer tax for consideration by Los Altos Hills voters as part of the November 5, 2024 general election; and WHEREAS, in furtherance of this process, the City Council wishes to appropriate funding in the amount of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) from the undesignated reserve account to the City Manager’s and City Attorney’s department budgets for the purposes of retaining a public education strategic consultant, a polling firm, and for related legal expenses.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills that:
1. Staff is hereby authorized and directed to commence the process including setting meetings, providing public notice, retaining a public education strategic consultant, a polling firm and incurring legal expenses to prepare for City Council consideration at public meetings of a proposed ballot measure approving a proposed charter for the Town of Los Altos Hills and a real property transfer tax for either the November 5, 2024 general election or the November 2026 general election.
2. The City Council hereby further approves appropriation of $150,000 from the undesignated general fund reserve to the City Manager and City Attorney budgets for the purposes of retaining a public education strategic consultant, a polling firm, and for related legal expenses. The division of funds between the two departments shall be as determined by the City Manager.
The above and foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills at a Special Meeting held on the 16th day of May 2024 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
BY: ______________________________
Stanley Mok, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Arika Miller, City Clerk
2 our
current situation of annual rotation of mayor from among five Council
members and other things which would keep the Town generally as it is
and not add any Town staff or contribute to overall Town bureaucracy,
but give us more control over our local zoning situation.
2. I would be opposed to a RPTT unless the Charter specifically specified that any and all taxes imposed by Los Altos Hills would be subject to a vote of the people in accordance with current law which may
require a 2/3 vote for approval. The reason for making this requirement
of a vote of the residents is that in order to raise reasonable funds, an RPTT would have to be large. I recently paid one-half of $112,875 as
a RPTT in the city of Berkeley (half paid by seller and half by buyer) for an investment property I bought there, and I imagine LAH would have
a large tax that would depress local property values. So I would vote
no on any proposition for an RPTT, and I certainly hope that is not the
only reason for having a charter, but rather that we really want the greater local control that a Charter City should bring.
3. Creation of a Charter City and imposition of an RPTT are really separate issues and I would like to see them separately discussed and
voted on. Personally I would support the creation of a Charter CIty
and oppose the RPTT, and might feel forced to oppose both if they
3 are
combined into one proposition or if the charter would allow Council to
create an RPTT without a vote of the residents.
4. Rather than a RPTT, I think the Town should look at other ways to
save funds to make more funds available for public safety. The Town
spends a very large sum of money on consultants and that expense should
be reduced to essentially zero by having and retaining good staff to perform essential Town functions. I imagine that the Town's founders
would probably be turning over in their graves seeing the large bureaucracy that has been created since the Town's founding. We need to
look at this bureaucracy and find cuts to make available more funds for
public safety.
Yours very truly,
Roy B. Woolsey,
Town resident since 1975
1 Arika Miller
From: Ann Duwe
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2024 9:25 AM
To: Stanley Mok; Lisa Schmidt; Linda Swan; Kavita Tankha; George Tyson Cc: Arika Miller
Subject: Thoughts for today's study session
Attachments: Charter vs General Law.docx
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mayor Mok and members of the City Council,
I write to suggest topics that came to mind as I turned over the idea of whether Los Altos Hills should become a Charter City. While it is infinitely desirable to regain local control of land use, a situation that might result if Los Altos Hills were to become a Charter City, there are still a great many unknowns. I ask you to consider the items in the attached list as you deliberate.
Smiles,
Ann
ITEM 3A, Supplement 4
Discussion points General Law vs. Charter City
Study Session
May 13, 2024
1. The April ruling that SB 9 is unconstitutional as applied to Charter Cities may not stand.
a. Even if the final judgment is upheld, the ruling may only apply to the five cities that brought the suit
b. Though the final judgment may eventually apply to ALL Charter Cities, it may not apply retroactively to cities that were not Charter Cities at the time.
c. The Legislature may re-write SB9 so that it contains specific directives to make housing resulting from single-family lot splits “affordable.” d. If, as the April 2024 ruling suggests, there is no connection between dividing single-family lots and creating low-cost housing, why wouldn’t that failure apply to General Law Cities as well?
2. The cost of applying to become a Charter City may be larger than the cost of joining other cities to sue to bring down the RHNA system, the RHNA numbers or HCD. (Costs for the SB9 lawsuit hovered around $20,000 for each of the 5 cities involved.)
3. The citizens of LAH are completely oblivious to the 150 housing laws that have come from the State Legislature since 2017. The failure of citizens to understand the very complex issues is a fact in spite of numerous public hearings about the Housing Element and at least a smattering of articles in the local press about the loss of local control over planning, zoning and other aspects housing regulation. a. The lack of public understanding makes getting something on the ballot by November 2024, extremely difficult, and the chance of winning slim to none.
b. Maybe by 2026 a ballot measure would do better.
c. By 2026, so many California cities will have failed to meet the demands of their Housing Elements for the 6th cycle that Attorney General Bonta cannot possibly punish them all.
4. If LAH fails to meet its RHNA mandates, fines could be imposed, but the loss of state or federal monies would be marginal.
5. Of the 482 cities in California, only 120 are Charter Cities. Why? ITEM 3A, Supplement 4a
6. The issue of the Transfer Tax is a completely separate issue and need not be paired with questions about whether or not LAH should become a Charter City.
OTHER LONG-TERM HOUSING CONSIDERATIONS
1. LAH should research buying homes through bargain sales. Such homes could be made available to Town staff or local teachers. The Town should set up a mechanism by which residents could gift homes to the Town. If a single property were acquired every year or two, the Town would at least be making a contribution to local needs without abandoning its founding principles.
2. LAH should work with other nearby cities to construct low-cost housing.
Rather than building below market rate apartments in single-family zones, perhaps LAH could contribute to the building of low-cost housing in other jurisdictions, near transportation and services.