Planning commission approves variance and design review for 1276 Montclair Way over neighbor objections

The Los Altos Planning Commission voted 5–1 on March 19 to approve a design‑review permit (DR25‑0062) and a variance (V25‑0001) for a single‑family home at 1276 Montclair Way, finding the application met the required findings and that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review under CEQA §15303.

Planning staff opened the public hearing by reviewing the variance standard and the commission’s earlier split vote on Feb. 19. Staff said the applicant responded to concerns raised at the prior hearing by shrinking the home by 441 square feet (to about 3,028 square feet), increasing the left‑side setback to a code‑compliant 15 feet, adding 68 screening shrubs and proposing a 6‑foot redwood fence with 2 feet of lattice to improve privacy and neighborhood compatibility. Staff recommended approval subject to the findings and conditions in the draft resolution.

The applicant told commissioners they held neighborhood outreach, including an on‑site meeting with about 15 neighbors, and that the revised plans reduced the building footprint and added screening. The applicant summarized the changes and said, “We’re doing our very best to comply and make everybody happy.” (Applicant representative)

An adjacent neighbor, Anjali Sadar, said the reduced setback would open the house to her courtyard and bedroom area and urged the commission to preserve the protected coast live oak. “We open our front door, and there is a 4.5‑foot setback side. That’s what we’re going to see… It impacts our privacy, safety and our neighborhood character,” she said, adding that a compliant 2,200‑square‑foot home could be built instead.

Commissioners debated whether the variance would confer a special privilege or was the proper relief for site‑specific physical constraints such as the Permanente Creek setback and lot shape. The city attorney and staff explained that, under the local code and state practice, a variance may be granted if the strict application of zoning would deny the same privileges enjoyed by others in the district and if the necessary findings can be made. Commissioner Eric said he believed the application satisfied the required findings and that after listening to outreach he was prepared to approve the project: “I am prepared to make that finding. I am prepared to approve this project.”

Commissioner concerns centered on the potential loss of a protected coast live oak and the effect on privacy. Commissioners encouraged the applicant to pursue careful, arborist‑approved pruning where possible and to pursue additional landscaping to reduce impacts to immediate neighbors. Staff noted the applicant submitted an arborist’s report and that one large branch had already been responsibly pruned; the arborist concluded cutting the problematic branch could be fatal to the tree.

Commissioner Eric moved to approve the design review and variance based on the findings and conditions in the resolution and to adopt the staff’s CEQA determination; Richard seconded the motion. The roll call showed five votes in favor and one opposed (Commissioner Mensinger), and the motion passed. The resolution includes the project findings and the conditions of approval.

Because the vote approved the entitlement and found the project categorically exempt under CEQA §15303, no additional environmental review was required at this stage. The commission’s action allows the applicant to proceed to final plan checks and building permits subject to the conditions in the approval.

What’s next: The applicant will work with staff to finalize the conditions of approval and to address remaining tree‑protection or replacement requirements and any building‑permit level arborist recommendations.