No on Measure D Deep Dive
Los Altos Measure D: NO
I’m Peipei. I’m a parent here, and I’m a long-time and dedicated volunteer in Los Altos. I love Los Altos. I’m planning to live here for the long term. I'm raising my children here, and I hope to see my grandkids grow up here.
That’s why I’m voting no on Measure D, along with:
- The League of Women Voters
- The Los Altos Chamber of Commerce
- The Los Altos Town Crier
- The Los Altos Mountain View Community Foundation
- The Los Altos Village Association
- Many trusted local residents
See a partial list of individuals and organizations opposed to Measure D.
I understand the appeal of protecting our downtown and giving residents a voice. I want those things, too. But when I look at how this measure actually works, I see expensive legal battles, risks to our neighborhoods, and potentially less local control. The consequences of the measure contradict the intentions.
Context: Measure D Puts Our Housing Compliance At Risk
Every California city is required to have a housing plan—called a housing element—that complies with state law. Los Altos currently has one. But the state has told us that if Measure D passes, we must amend that plan and re-evaluate the downtown parking plazas as housing sites.
If Measure D passes the City will have to amend our Housing Element. This means rezoning throughout Los Altos with taller and denser projects, including the possibility of some single-family neighborhoods adjoining commercial areas being rezoned to multi-family (apartments and duplexes).
In city staff's analysis of Measure D as well as a letter from the state, they warn us that if the state or a judge declares that we are out of compliance we can lose access to certain state funding, suffer financial penalties, and have Builder’s Remedy imposed. If Builder's Remedy is imposed our zoning and design guidelines will be ignored for the far more lenient State guidelines. Additionally, our land use authority could be delegated to a court-ordered agent, which would take control out of our hands.
Those are serious risks for a measure promoted as protecting local control. Those risks and other unintended consequences make up my top 5 reasons why I'm opposed to Measure D:
My first concern is what this could cost taxpayers in legal disputes. YIMBY Law has already told the city it is prepared to sue immediately if Measure D is adopted. The city attorney says defense costs would come from our General Fund, which is the money that supports city services.
And there could be additional disputes if developers claim Builder’s Remedy protections and the city challenges those claims.
We don’t know the final bill. But even winning a lawsuit costs money.
Section 10, or the indemnification provision, says that if the city does not defend the measure, or does not appeal an adverse judgment, the proponents can step in as agents of the people.
It then requires the city to reimburse their reasonable defense expenses and losses, with the reimbursement rate limited to what the city’s own defense would cost.
Think about what that means: Even if city leaders, advised by staff and attorneys, decide that continuing a case is a poor use of public money, the few (un-elected, unaccountable) private citizens who filed this measure could continue its defense or appeal and seek reimbursement from taxpayers.
These are not elected positions. The measure establishes no term, removal process, or City Council oversight for that role.
To me, that is a serious accountability problem: private citizens deciding to keep fighting, with the public responsible for the bill.
I want our city to defend our interests. I also want it to recognize when a legal fight is unwinnable and stop spending. My concern is that Measure D creates a mechanism for continuing those fights—even after the city decides it should stop.
My third concern is where housing could go.
Our current housing plan credits the downtown parking plazas with capacity for 124 homes. That is planned capacity, not a promise that the city itself will build them.
YIMBY Law is making a separate argument: Under state law, the zoning capacity affected by Measure D could be roughly 1,000 units.
That claim has not been accepted by a court, and the state has not ordered us to replace 1,000 units. But if that argument succeeds, we could face pressure to accommodate substantially more housing capacity elsewhere. This could mean that R1 areas (single family homes) would be changed to R3 (multifamily homes) to accommdate this housing capacity.
The City is even looking at potential sites to accommodate this displacement of obligations in areas around Rancho and Lucky's for instance.
We don’t yet know how much replacement capacity would be required or where it would go. I want those choices made thoughtfully, with residents involved, not under the pressure of litigation and deadlines.
Restricting downtown housing does not make our housing obligations disappear.
My fourth concern is Builder’s Remedy.
If Los Altos falls out of housing-plan compliance, qualifying developers gain protections that sharply limit our ability to reject housing projects because they conflict with local zoning or our general plan.
Projects still have to meet applicable state requirements. But our ability to enforce our own land-use choices becomes substantially weaker.
That could mean projects with a scale or location our community would not otherwise choose. This has already happened in cities around us, such as 10 projects in Palo Alto, 21 in Saratoga, 7 in Cupertino, 1 in Los Altos and more.
This is the contradiction that bothers me most: A measure promising more local control could help create the conditions for us to lose it.
Finally, I don’t believe freezing downtown protects its future.
Measure D allows routine maintenance when its purpose is to retain or improve parking spaces. But the city’s analysis warns that its additional approval requirements could delay or prevent improvements. The city also warns that even routine permits or emergency repairs for utility work could be affected due to unclear language and unresolved questions. I don’t want confusion about access when a repair is urgent, or jump through expensive legal hurdles for maintenance that is currently routine.
A downtown is a living place. Businesses need customers. Families need reasons to visit and stay. Our kids need places to gather. If downtown is in disrepair or stops meeting people’s needs, they spend their time and money elsewhere. Shops can struggle, restaurants can cut hours, and empty storefronts can make the next visit less appealing.
That’s my concern: What looks like preservation today can become decline over time.
I want residents to judge actual proposals with parking, trees, costs, and community benefits clearly explained and help improve them.
Measure D would require relevant proposals to go through a citywide election with a very binary choice of "yes" or "no." This format is not conducive to complicated proposals with some parts good and some parts not so good.
We should use the current public review process with City Council to keep the good and revise the not so good, or even throw out an idea wholly and replace it with another one. And we can do that without costly elections that Measure D would likely require. City Council has, for instance, thrown out the idea of underground parking in the downtown because the public review process concluded that people don't want that.
I’m voting no on Measure D because I want Los Altos to stay financially responsible and able to shape its own future. And, as the Los Altos Town Crier Editorial Team describes Measure D after an in-depth review: Measure D is a mistake.
Resources:
- 9212 Report and Impact Analysis Documents
- YIMBY Law Threat of Lawsuit
- Coverage