1 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
January 15, 2026
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, JANUARY 15, 2026, AT 4:30 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/January15ClosedSessionCCLAH
Webinar ID: 863 5967 6341
Passcode:94022
Town of Los Altos Hills
City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
Thursday, January 15, 2026 at 4:30 PM
Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, California
&
2800 I-10 Frontage Road, Port Allen, LA 70767
2 City Council Regular Meeting Agenda
January 15, 2026
CALL TO ORDER (4:30 P.M.)
ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. PUBLIC COMMENT (PUBLIC COMMENT IS LIMITED TO ITEMS WHICH
ARE SUBJECT OF THE SPECIAL MEETING)
2. CLOSED SESSION
A. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2)
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Govt. Code Section 54956.9– Two cases
3. OPEN SESSION OF SPECIAL MEETING
A. Consideration and Issuance of Brown Act Unconditional Commitment pursuant to Government Code Section 54960.2
4. ADJOURN
Pursuant to Ordinance No. 506, the Council Meeting shall adjourn no later than 10:00 p.m., unless otherwise approved by a majority of the Councilmembers present.
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 and the Los Altos Main Library 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.
The Council may take action on any agendized matter in any manner deemed appropriate by Council.
ITEM 3A
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS January 15, 2026
Staff Report to the City Council
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION AND ISSUANCE OF BROWN ACT
UNCONDITIONAL COMMITMENT PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 54960.2.
FROM: Steve Mattas, City Attorney
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council, by motion, issue a Brown Act Unconditional Commitment described below and as set forth in Attachment A to this staff report.
BACKGROUND
On December 16, 2025, the Town received a correspondence from Safran Law, PC alleging that the Town violated the Brown Act. In summary, the letter asserts (1) the Town created the alternative sites ad hoc committee without properly agendizing the item; (2) the ad hoc committee has three members, and also has continuing jurisdiction over recurring matters, both of which mean that the committee is subject to the Brown Act and its meetings should have been agendized; and (3) the City Council discussed potential alternative site and voter initiative issues for the O’Keefe open space preserve property without sufficiently noticing or agendizing these discussions. The letter demands that the Town respond to the alleged violations pursuant to Government Code sections 54960.1 and 54960.2.
Item 5L on the consent agenda for tonight’s regular meeting addresses the Town’s response to the demand letter under Government Code Section 54960.1. This item and staff report relate to the Town’s response separately under Section 54960.2. This section allows any interested person to file an action to “determine the applicability” of Brown Act provisions to past legislative body actions. Before commencing litigation, the person alleging the violation must provide a “cease and desist” demand letter to the Town within nine (9) months of the alleged violation. 1
DISCUSSION
The Town disagrees with the demand letter’s allegations that Brown Act violations have occurred.
As noted in the staff report for Item 5L, the City Council agendized and considered a study session on alternate multi-family housing sites at the October 16, 2025 City Council meeting. The alternative sites ad hoc committee was formed, with a single purpose of limited duration, during and within the scope of that item. The ad hoc committee was appointed with two councilmembers and, after one of the members resigned from the committee, another councilmember was appointed in replacement. Thus, the committee has two members, not three. Advisory committees composed solely of less than a quorum of City Council members are not subject to the Brown Act.
Likewise, the City Council agendized Item 3A at its October 29, 2025 meeting to discuss options to respond to state Department of Housing and Community Development comments on the proposed housing element amendment, and one of the options described in the agenda staff report 1 Gov. Code section 54960.2(a).
City Council Staff Report
Brown Act Unconditional Commitment
January 15, 2026
specifically includes consideration of alternative sites and input from the ad hoc committee.
Several properties, including the O’Keefe site and its voter-approved land use restrictions, came up during the discussion on potential candidate sites. The Council asked for further information on the applicable election timelines and potential language that might be used as a part of an initiative if O’Keefe were to be considered as an alternative housing site. Subsequently at the November 17, 2025 meeting, the City Council agendized an informational item to review this initiative previously requested. The Council’s discussions were properly agendized at both meetings, and it took no action at either meeting to select O’Keefe as an alternative housing site or to pursue an initiative measure to change its land use designation. As such, we disagree with the demand letter’s assertions that the Town violated the Brown Act in any manner.
At the same time, however, Government Code section 54960.2 provides a response process to foreclose potential lawsuits stemming from Brown Act violation allegations. Specifically, Section 54960.2 provides that a legislative body may elect to respond to a cease and desist demand letter within 30 days of receipt “with an ‘unconditional commitment’ to cease, desist from, and not repeat the past action that is alleged to violate [the Brown Act.]”2 If a lawsuit is filed by the person alleging the violation and the court finds that the legislative body has provided this unconditional commitment, the lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice (i.e. cannot be refiled).3 The fact that a legislative body decides to issue an unconditional commitment is, by law, not an admission or evidence that a violation has occurred.4
This item requests the City Council consider issuing an unconditional commitment regarding the Brown Act allegations raised in the Safran Law demand letter. Section 54960.2(c)(1) provides specific language that must be adopted in substantially the same form if the Council elects to issue a commitment. This language is contained in Attachment A to this report; if the Council decides to issue the commitment, the language in Attachment A will be provided to Safran Law. To be clear, this unconditional commitment option is only being presented to the City Council for consideration as an option to foreclose unnecessary litigation. It does not reflect the Town’s agreement or admission that a prior Brown Act violation occurred. As provided in state law, a court will not consider an unconditional commitment as evidence or admission of prior violation.
As noted in the staff report for Item 5L, the issuance of an unconditional commitment to comply with the Brown Act remains consistent with the Town and City Council’s practice and continued commitment to promoting public participation and transparency.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
Issuance of an unconditional commitment is not a project subject to CEQA, and thus no environmental analysis is required.
FISCAL IMPACT
No impact.
Attachment: Draft Unconditional Commitment under Gov. Code Section 54960.2 2 Gov. Code section 54960.2(b), (c).
3 Gov. Code section 54960.2(c)(3)
4 Gov. Code section 54960.1(c)(4).
ITEM 3A, Attachment
Attachment A to City Council January 15, 2026 Staff Report Unconditional Commitment Pursuant to Government Code section 54960.2 To Joshua Safran, Esq./Safran Law, PC:
The City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills has received your cease and desist letter dated December 16, 2025 on behalf of the Sustainable Housing Initiative for Environmental & Land Defense Coalition (SHIELD) alleging on pages 11-15 of the letter that the following described past action of the Town violates the Ralph M. Brown Act:
1. The City Council created the Alternative Sites ad hoc committee on October 16, 2025, without properly agendizing the item (page 11, Section A);
2. The ad hoc committee has continuing jurisdiction over recurring subject matters which renders it a “standing” committee. Thus, its meetings are subject to the Brown Act and should have been agendized (page 12, Section B);
3. The ad hoc committee has 3 members and thus its meetings are subject to the Brown Act and should have been agendized (page 13, Section C); and
4. The City Council discussed rezoning the O’Keefe property and a potential voter initiative to remove its Open Space Preserve designation at its meetings on October 29 and November 17, 2025, without sufficiently noticing or agendizing these discussions (pages 13-14, Sections D and E).
In order to avoid unnecessary litigation and without admitting any violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills hereby unconditionally commits that it will cease, desist from, and not repeat the challenged past action as described above as follows:
1. The City Council will continue to take action only on items placed on an agenda;
2. The City Council will not form an ad hoc committee consisting of three councilmembers;
3. The City Council will continue to agendize all meetings of standing committees with continuing jurisdiction over recurring subject matters consistent with the Brown Act; and
4. The City Council, when convened in its role as the City Council, will continue to agendize all discussions about alternative housing sites, housing element amendment, the O’Keefe property, removal of any Open Space Preserve designations, and any voter initiative process, in accordance with the Brown Act.
The City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills may rescind this commitment only by a majority vote of its membership taken in open session at a regular meeting and noticed on its posted agenda as “Rescission of Brown Act Commitment.” You will be provided with written notice, sent by any means or media you provide in response to this message, to whatever address or addresses you specify, of any intention to consider rescinding this commitment at least 30 days before any such regular meeting. In the event that this commitment is rescinded, you will have the right to
ITEM 3A, Attachment
commence legal action pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 54960 of the Government Code.
That notice will be delivered to you by the same means as this commitment, or may be mailed to an address that you have designated in writing.
Very truly yours,
________________________________________________
Rajiv Bhateja, Mayor
pursuant to Government Code Section 54960.2.
s SAFRAN LAW, PC
Joshua Safran, Esq.
1101 Marina Village Pkwy
Ste. 201
Alameda, CA 94501
Direct: (510) 384-7627 [email protected]
www.SafranLawPC.com
January 15, 2026
City Clerk Arika Miller
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
By Email ([email protected])
Legal Insufficiency of Proposed “Unconditional Commitment” Under Government Code § 54960.2
Dear City Clerk Miller and Members of the City Council:
This letter is submitted on behalf of the Sustainable Housing Initiative for Environmental & Land Defense Coalition (“SHIELD Coalition”) in advance of the City Council’s January 15, 2026 special meeting. It addresses a dispositive legal issue: the proposed “Unconditional Commitment” included in Item 3A is illusory as a matter of law and ineffective to shield the Town from liability under the Brown Act.
Although the Staff Report repeatedly suggests that adoption of the proposed commitment will foreclose judicial review, that assertion is incorrect. A commitment that does not actually encompass the challenged conduct, and that merely restates existing statutory obligations while expressly denying that any violation occurred, does not satisfy Government Code section 54960.2 and does not bar a Brown Act action.
I. Section 54960.2 Requires a Commitment Coextensive With the Challenged Violations
Government Code section 54960.2 permits a legislative body to avoid litigation only by providing an “unconditional commitment to cease, desist from, and not repeat the past action that is alleged to violate the Brown Act.” The statutory text is explicit: the commitment must be coextensive with the alleged violations, not a narrower or reformulated version of them.
2 Courts construe this provision strictly. A legislative body may not obtain the statute’s litigation-preclusion benefit through a commitment that selectively reframes the allegations, omits categories of challenged conduct, or substitutes general assurances of future compliance for a genuine cessation of the complained-of actions. Where a commitment fails to track the alleged violations, judicial review remains available.
II. The Proposed Commitment Is Illusory Because It Is Premised on Denial of the Alleged Violations
The Staff Report expressly states that the Town “disagrees” that any Brown Act violations occurred and that the proposed commitment is offered solely to avoid “unnecessary litigation.” That framing renders the commitment illusory.
The proposed commitment repeatedly promises that the Council will “continue” to comply with agenda requirements and transparency obligations; it states that the Council will refrain from conduct the Brown Act already prohibits; and it does so while maintaining that no violation occurred in the first place. A promise to obey the law going forward, coupled with an express rejection of the alleged past violations, is not an “unconditional commitment to cease and desist” within the meaning of section 54960.2. The statute does not authorize immunity based on symbolic assurances untethered from the alleged misconduct.
III. The Commitment Does Not Encompass the Actual Challenged Conduct
The December 16, 2025 cease-and-desist letter identified specific categories of Brown Act violations, including the creation of the Alternative Sites Committee on a nonagendized item; the operation of a committee with continuing jurisdiction without public notice; the participation of three councilmembers in committee-level deliberations; the use of serial meetings, site walks, and informal gatherings outside noticed meetings; and the use of staff and the City Attorney as intermediaries to develop collective concurrence.
The proposed commitment does not meaningfully address these allegations. It does not prohibit serial communications or non-noticed site walks; it does not restrict the use of staff or counsel as conduits for concurrence-building; it does not acknowledge or remedy the unlawful creation of the committee on October 16, 2025; and it does not commit the Town to undoing or curing any actions already taken in violation of the Act. A commitment that omits entire categories of challenged conduct cannot bar litigation predicated on those violations.
IV. The Town Cannot Use Section 54960.2 to Unilaterally Reframe the Factual Record
The Staff Report attempts to resolve disputed factual issues—committee composition, scope, duration, and function—by assertion rather than evidence, and then drafts a
3 commitment that tracks the Town’s preferred narrative rather than the allegations actually made.
Section 54960.2 does not permit a legislative body to redefine the alleged violations and then issue a commitment addressing only its chosen version of events. Where, as here, the commitment is narrower than the alleged conduct, a court retains authority to determine the applicability of the Brown Act and to grant appropriate relief.
V. Adoption of the Proposed Commitment Will Not Moot Judicial Review Because the proposed commitment is not coextensive with the alleged violations, is premised on denial rather than cessation, omits core categories of challenged conduct, and merely restates existing statutory obligations, it does not satisfy Government Code section 54960.2. Adoption of the commitment in its current form will therefore not bar a properly pleaded Brown Act action, nor will it moot judicial review.
If the Town later asserts that adoption of this commitment precludes litigation, SHIELD Coalition will contend, correctly, that the commitment is legally ineffective and illusory.
VI. Reservation of Rights
If the City Council elects to adopt the proposed commitment as drafted, SHIELD Coalition will treat it as legally insufficient and will preserve all rights to seek declaratory, injunctive, and other relief under the Brown Act. Nothing in this letter should be construed as acquiescence in the Town’s characterization of the facts, the law, or the scope of the alleged violations. All rights and remedies are expressly reserved.
The Council retains the ability to proceed lawfully by issuing a commitment that genuinely encompasses the challenged conduct or by curing and correcting the violations pursuant to Government Code section 54960.1. Absent that, judicial intervention remains appropriate.
Very truly yours,
Joshua Safran, Esq.
Enclosures for CCs [January 15, 2026 Agenda Packet]
4 cc: Steve T. Mattas, City Attorney, Town of Los Altos Hills Paul McDougall, Senior Program Manager, California Dept. of Housing and Community Development
Kendall L.D. Bonebrake, Chief of Enforcement, Fair Political Practices Commission,
Sarah E. Belton, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Civil Rights Enforcement Section