Hearing officer approves replacement house at 27890 Via Feliz with open‑space dedication and revised ADU plan

The hearing officer approved a site development permit for 27890 Via Feliz on a staff recommendation that the project qualify for a categorical CEQA exemption and be subject to project‑specific conditions.

Jonathan Fox, the town planner presenting the project, described the lot at the corner of Via Feliz and Page Mill Road as having a creek and an existing conservation easement that covers roughly half the parcel. Fox told the hearing that the proposal would demolish a 3,351‑square‑foot single‑story house and replace it with a 6,690‑square‑foot two‑story residence, an attached three‑car garage, a 798‑square‑foot detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and a new recreation court. Fox said the application included removal of 20 trees, two of which are heritage oaks, and that staff recommended a categorical exemption under CEQA (section 15303(a)) and approval with conditions.

The project team said they revised the ADU location and some hardscape to retain two trees (identified as trees 12 and 13). "My name is Isabel Gallamo, and I'm gonna be discussing the proposed residence at 27890 Via Feliz," architect Isabel Gallamo said during the presentation, describing larger‑than‑required setbacks intended to reduce privacy impacts on neighbors.

Neighbors and committee members asked about pathways, plantings and drainage along the Page Mill frontage and through the conservation easement. Staff clarified that a 15‑foot pathway easement already exists on Page Mill and that Via Feliz has a 60‑foot right‑of‑way that could accommodate a future pathway in the road; the Pathways Committee subsequently withdrew its recommendation to require a new private pathway easement on Via Feliz.

Committee comments from the Environmental Design and Planning Committee (EDPC) and the Open Space Committee led staff to recommend several project conditions: (1) submit a landscape screening plan after framing (deferring review of fences, gates, planting and landscape lighting to that subsequent application); (2) dedicate open space for the two small triangular areas where the creek setback extends beyond the existing conservation easement; (3) reduce front‑entry illumination to two fixtures; and (4) revise the ADU patio so that it is outside the 30‑foot setback except for the minimal landing required by the building code. Fox confirmed no written public comments had been received from neighbors within 500 feet prior to the hearing.

James, who identified himself as a family member of the property owner, told the hearing his family has owned the property for about 35 years and that the design aims to be drought‑resistant and to respect neighborhood privacy. During questioning, staff and committee members also advised the applicant to coordinate early with PG&E and electrical engineers about service upgrades and potential transformer locations because those utility decisions can affect project timing and may require additional review.

On the record, the hearing officer approved the permit as described and imposed the staff‑recommended conditions; a 21‑day appeal period begins from the date of the decision.