Los Altos Hills council issues Brown Act unconditional commitment over residents' objections

The Town of Los Altos Hills City Council voted unanimously Jan. 15 to issue an unconditional commitment under Government Code §54960.2 related to alleged Brown Act violations, despite public commenters who urged the council to acknowledge wrongdoing and warned of litigation.

Residents Susan Stark and a commenter who identified himself as Matish told the council the commitment as drafted does not protect the town from liability. "It simply promises that you'll continue to follow the law while denying any violation occurred," Susan Stark said, adding that attorney Joshua Saffron's letter alleges serial communications, formation of an alternate‑sites committee without notice, site walks and use of staff and the city attorney to build consensus outside public meetings.

Matish urged a more substantive cure and warned of legal and administrative consequences. "We are asking not for perfection. We're asking for honesty, openness, accountability before decisions are locked in," he said, and later warned that if the town does not change course the group would pursue litigation and raise the possibility of action by HCD or a builder's‑remedy.

City Attorney Claire told the council staff does not believe the facts show a Brown Act violation and described an unconditional commitment as an option under state law. "Any unconditional commitment is not considered an admission or evidence of any violation," she said, adding that staff suggested two edits the council could adopt if it approves issuance.

Claire read the suggested edits into the record: a clarification that the council will not form an ad hoc committee consisting of more than two council members, and adding language that the council will continue to comply with applicable open‑meeting law provisions for the items listed in the staff report.

Vice Mayor Tyson moved to issue the unconditional commitment as modified per the attorney's edits; the clerk called the roll and the motion passed unanimously. The council recorded a vote of all members present in favor of issuance. No second was clearly recorded in the public transcript.

The meeting recessed into closed session earlier in the agenda for legal discussion of the same item; Claire had indicated she would address detailed legal points as part of that closed‑session item before the council returned to open session and took the vote.

The council adjourned immediately after the vote. The content of Saffron Law's letter, the specific photographic evidence referenced by commenters, and any further edits adopted to the commitment were not detailed in the public portion of the record and were therefore not specified in the transcript.