Open-space committee asks staff to draw smaller, connected easement for Maria Lane property after legal challenge

The Los Altos Hills Open Space Committee on a routine meeting reviewed a site development application at 11778 Maria Lane and directed staff to return within the 60‑day condition period with a revised, smaller open‑space easement designed to protect riparian connectivity while avoiding the proposed garage footprint.

Planning staff told the committee the current application proposes a two‑story structure with a garage at the lower level and an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) above. The garage footprint of about 1,500 square feet triggered routing to the committee; staff noted the committee’s standard recommendation is an easement on slopes steeper than 30 percent. The applicant raised constitutional challenges at the public hearing, and the project was approved with a condition that the open‑space easement be resolved within 60 days.

"The trigger for a public hearing and for routing to the committees is 900 square feet. So the garage is about 1,500. One of the proposals from the applicant was to introduce a JADU, and all of a sudden the discretionary action that the town takes falls below the 900," a planning staff member said, explaining why changing unit type could remove the committee’s formal ability to ask for an easement.

Committee members debated proportionality — how much land the town should reasonably ask for given a relatively small new development area — and discussed alternatives. Staff presented three options: keep the 30%‑slope easement request; create a new, smaller easement focused on connectivity to the creek corridor; or negotiate a settlement with the property owner that would preserve connectivity without applying the committee’s usual slope metric. The planning staff proposed a sliver along the southern property line that would connect to an existing creek dedicated open‑space area as a compromise.

Members asked staff to produce overlay exhibits with contour lines and estimated areas so the committee could assess proportionality and respond if the applicant’s team disputed the size of any proposed easement. Staff agreed to provide mapped dimensions and a counterproposal for the committee’s consideration within the 60‑day period.

The committee did not adopt a final easement at the meeting; it instructed staff to draft the revised recommendation, including contour‑based or distance‑based options (for example, a 25‑foot riparian buffer where applicable), and to return with the graphic and recommended language. The committee also asked staff to note potential geologic and fault‑line constraints in any recommendation where maps show such hazards.