Los Altos Hills council introduces ordinance to revise multifamily standards, asks state to consider larger minimum lot

Mayor Battaglia opened a special meeting April 29 and the Los Altos Hills City Council introduced an ordinance to revise multifamily development standards and amend the land-use element, then voted unanimously to direct staff to ask the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) whether it would accept a 0.75-acre minimum lot size.

The proposed zoning changes, presented by Dan Wherry of Michael Baker & Associates, replace a maximum average unit-size approach with a 0.45 floor-area ratio (FAR), add a 0.05 FAR bonus for senior and assisted-living projects and retain incentives for inclusionary affordable units. The draft ordinance also reduces certain setbacks (from 60 feet in the original standard to 35 feet adjacent to single-family zones and, within multifamily zones, to a 30-foot front, 10-foot side and 20-foot rear) and lowers the minimum multifamily site size from 3.5 acres to as small as 0.5 acres in the staff proposal.

Why it matters: HCD has signaled that its ‘default density’ guidance views 0.5-to-10-acre sites as the most suitable range for affordable housing, and Government Code section 65913 can require cities to allow up to a 1.25 FAR for small multifamily projects that meet narrow criteria. Council members pressed staff and the city attorney for clarity on those interactions, and on whether raising the town’s proposed minimum to 0.75 acres could be seen by HCD as an added constraint that jeopardizes state sign-off or the town’s June deadline.

City Attorney (role) and staff said the 0.5-acre minimum is what HCD has indicated is acceptable; they cautioned that requesting 0.75 could prompt HCD to test whether the change is constraining, which might delay approval. "HCD has told us 0.5 is what they want," the city attorney said, summarizing the agency’s view shared with staff. In response, several planning commissioners and council members argued 0.75 would affect only a small number of parcels and might better align local goals to avoid later conflicts with state FAR rules.

Public commenters included planning commissioners Jim Washura and Rajiv Patel and resident John O'Connell. Washura recommended moving the lower limit to 0.75 acres to avoid unintended interactions with state FAR calculations and stressed the need to coordinate further with HCD; Patel agreed and urged the council to task the standing housing-element committee with testing a variable-setback approach. O'Connell urged clearer explanation of existing local development rights and urged a planning commissioner be present for future HCD conversations.

After extended questions about FAR math, applicability of Government Code 65913, fire-department access for reduced side setbacks and the risk of a delayed HCD decision, Mayor Battaglia moved to introduce the ordinance "as presented and direct staff to contact HCD to request an increase of the 0.5-acre minimum lot size to 0.75 acres." The motion was seconded, and the council voted unanimously to introduce the ordinance and direct staff to pursue HCD concurrence while preserving 0.5 acres as the known acceptable fallback to keep the town on schedule.

The council then went into closed session on existing litigation (Housing California Housing Defense Fund v. Town of Los Altos Hills, Gov. Code §54956.9(d)(1)). After the closed session the city attorney reported no reportable action, and the meeting was adjourned.

The next procedural step noted by staff: if HCD signals acceptance of 0.75, the council would need to reintroduce and adopt the ordinance on a regular meeting schedule; if HCD does not accept 0.75, the council can proceed with 0.5 to meet the town’s current timeline.