Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Initiative topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Los Altos Hills council hears debate over effort to codify "Green Sheets" land-use protections
Summary
Council members and residents debated a proposed initiative to encode parts of the town's founding "Green Sheets" into the general plan and zoning — banning new large-scale commercial and industrial uses, protecting pathway easements and wildlife corridors — and asked staff to refine language and return in May/June for possible placement on the November ballot.
Mayor Batavia opened an informational session on a draft citizen initiative that would place elements of the town’s historic “Green Sheets” into the general plan and matching zoning changes.
City Attorney Mattis told the council the measure would be written so voters would install the policies and the council could not later overturn them without a public vote. “An initiative measure has to actually make a change,” Mattis said, adding that some provisions would require voter approval to alter.
The draft would prohibit new industrial, large-scale commercial and retail uses, codify limits on vacating pathway easements unless a comparable replacement is provided, and add protections for wildlife corridors and open-space conservation easements. Staff said conforming zoning amendments would be included so plan and code remain consistent.
Residents and council members sharply divided over the approach. Supporters said the items would create a durable firewall against sudden land-use changes. “We need to do what we can to protect this town and keep it the way we love,” a resident told the council. Opponents warned the measure could be costly, invite unnecessary litigation, or be preempted by state housing laws. One resident said the town risks creating a false sense of security if state mandates later override local limits.
Council members pressed staff on clarity and scope. Questions focused on whether agricultural uses (including wineries) would remain allowed, whether the measure would trigger California Environmental Quality Act review, and how the town would balance specificity against legal vulnerability. Mattis advised the council that placing a council-initiated measure on the ballot can be subject to CEQA review, while a citizen-initiated measure typically is not treated as a CEQA project.
Council directed staff to continue community and committee review and to return with a revised draft at the May meeting so the council could act in time to place a measure on the November ballot if it wishes. The item remains informational at this stage; no final measure language was adopted.
The council’s next procedural step is expected to be referral to the open-space and land-use committees for detailed review and to collect recommended edits before the June or (no-July) June meeting, given the August 6 deadline for ballot placement.
