Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Initiative topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Los Altos Hills planners say proposed 'green sheets' ballot measure is consistent with general plan, urge tweaks
Summary
The planning commission found a council‑sponsored initiative that would list permitted domestic animals and bar new large‑scale industrial, commercial or retail uses to be consistent with the town’s general plan, but commissioners and residents urged adding more substantive protections such as pathways before it goes to voters.
The Los Altos Hills Planning Commission reviewed a council‑sponsored initiative June 8 that would insert two changes into the town’s general plan: an enumerated policy listing permitted domestic animal‑keeping uses, and an express prohibition on new industrial, large‑scale commercial or retail land uses, with limited exceptions for small home‑based businesses and town‑owned uses.
Steve Mattis, the town attorney, told the commission the measure was reduced from an earlier, more expansive draft and was intended to lock those policies into the land‑use element so they could not be changed without voter approval. Mattis said implementation of the policies would occur through subsequent zoning and municipal code changes if voters approve the initiative.
Public speakers voiced a mix of support and reservation. “Grab it while you can,” resident Yitzi said, urging protections for the town’s traditional rural character. Eric Bridal and others argued the measure would help prevent abrupt policy reversals by small majorities of the council. By contrast, resident John O’Connell cautioned about unintended consequences, saying voter‑approval requirements could tie the hands of the town on issues such as use of town‑owned lands for housing needs.
Commissioners discussed practical effects and asked staff to clarify whether adopting the language would freeze existing easements or preclude later zoning flexibility. Multiple commissioners said they supported the initiative’s two measures as drafted but urged that the council consider adding a more substantive item — for example, pathways or other open‑space protections — to make the ballot measure more meaningful to voters.
The commission did not formally endorse or oppose the initiative. Under state law, its role was to report on whether the proposed general‑plan changes are consistent with the general plan. The planning commission voted to report that the measure, as written, would be consistent with the general plan and to forward the range of commissioner feedback to the city council for consideration.
Next steps: the council will receive the commission’s report and decide whether to place the initiative on the ballot and whether to modify its scope before final action.
