By Elizabeth Cloutman

The Los Altos Hills City Council postponed voting on a major revision to a city zoning ordinance that increases the allowable development area of residential lots until its May 17 meeting.

City Attorney Sandy Sloan requested a postponement last Thursday, so she and Planning Director Carl Cahill would have adequate time to prepare a new negative environmental impact statement that more accurately reflects the scope of the proposed project. The delay was also necessary to fulfill the legal requirement for posting a new declaration for public review before the revised ordinance returns to the council.

The California Environmental Equality Act requires an environmental impact declaration that accurately describes a proposed project.

In a memorandum sent to Mayor Steve Finn and city councilmembers, Sloan wrote that after listening to concerns voiced during the public hearing at the March 15 council meeting, she and Cahill, in a lengthy discussion, concluded the original negative declaration did not accurately describe the ordinance as currently proposed. The city council had revised the planning commission’s original proposal, increasing allowable floor and development area.

Sloan said in the memorandum that the original negative declaration stated that the ordinance change was minor and affected fewer than 10 percent of Los Altos Hills lots. The original also refers to only two subsections of the zoning code that deal with minimum floor and development areas on very constrained lots.

In actuality, Sloan wrote, the proposed ordinance, with the new lot utility factor formula developed by council member Bob Fenwick, applies to all land parcels where the slope is greater than 10 percent. Cahill estimates that the new ordinance would affect at least 50 percent of the town’s lots, and that with the new formula applied, the allowable maximum development area on most lots would be 50 percent greater than what is allowed under the present ordinance. Maximum development area involves additional features around the home such as driveways, pools, tennis courts and lawns.

Opponents are worried about the potential for run-off and erosion of the hillsides.

Sloan’s memorandum also stated that the revised ordinance should be reviewed by the city’s planning commission, which would make a recommendation to the council on the advisability of adopting it.