By Elizabeth Cloutman

A five-month public debate over zoning ordinance proposals that would increase size limits to floor space and lot development on sloped lots in Los Altos Hills has ended. Thursday night, the city council voted 3-2 to adopt the second reading of a revision initially proposed by Councilwoman Toni Casey in January.

The revised ordinance would expand the allowed floor space on constrained lots from 4,000 to 5,000 square feet and lot development from 5,000 to 7,500 square feet. A constrained lot is a lot with a lot unit factor (LUF) less than 1, but greater than .5. A flat, one-acre lot has a LUF of 1.

Whereas in past months, sometimes a dozen or more people would speak for or against the various proposals during public hearings, only one person spoke at Thursday’s council meeting.

“(A) one half-acre lot will have a floor space of 5,000 square feet. This compares to one flat acre that gets 6,000 square feet … This seems like a gross inequity,” said resident Dot Schreiner, a planning commission veteran. “It puts the burden on the lots (with a LUF) over 1 to provide open space and privacy for the town. This solution to a problem is only creating a greater problem.”

The “problem” was twofold. First, the current zoning ordinance provided only 1,000 square feet for lot development beyond the footprint of a house to build decks, patios, tennis courts or swimming pools. Second, many, including Schreiner, agreed the current slope density formula, a mathematical formula created in the 1970s to determine allowed home and lot development dimensions, penalized owners on steeply sloped lots. As little as 10 percent of the land area could be developed on some lots.

The Casey revision increased the floor and lot development area dimensions recommended by the planning commission in January. The commission proposed that allowed floor space be kept at 4,000 square feet and development area raised from 5,000 to 6,500 square feet.

Michael O’Malley and Emily Cheng were the two dissenting council members. Both said they supported the ordinance revision recommended by the planning commission.

“The majority of people who answered the town survey said they were satisfied with the way things are,” O’Malley said.