Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the ADU topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing officer approves two-story accessory structure and ADU at 11778 Maria Lane with open-space easement to be finalized
Summary
The hearing officer approved a site-development permit and categorical CEQA exemption for a two-story accessory structure with an ADU above an attached garage at 11778 Maria Lane. Staff required that the garage be included in the landscape screening application and that the applicant dedicate an open-space easement on slopes greater than 30% on the western portion of the lot, with the easement area to be determined in collaboration with staff within 60 days and recorded prior to final inspection.
A Los Altos Hills hearing officer granted approval Feb. 3 for a two-story accessory structure with an attached garage and an upstairs accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at 11778 Maria Lane, finding the project categorically exempt under CEQA section 15.303(e) and imposing project-specific conditions, including terms for an open-space easement.
Town planner Jonathan Fox said the project site is a 3.1-acre lot adjacent to Highway 280 with a creek and existing open-space and pathway easements. The proposed first-floor garage/workshop is about 1,485 square feet and supports a second-floor ADU; the proposed building height is 26 feet 8 inches, which complies with the RA district maximum of 27 feet because the structure is attached to the primary residence.
Volunteer committees routed comments recommending riparian restoration along Hale Creek, that an open-space easement be dedicated for slopes greater than 30 percent on the western portion of the lot, and that site plans accurately show existing pathways. Fox said the pathway fee had been paid at subdivision and that the pathway-mapping requirement could be satisfied by revising site plans to show the actual constructed path.
Attorney Joshua Safran, representing the applicant (Mr. Hyder), urged the hearing officer to approve the permit without conditioning it on dedication of additional open-space easement. Safran argued that ADU approvals are ministerial under California ADU law and may not be subjected to unrelated discretionary exactions; he said a condition requiring dedication of permanent property interest "lacks nexus and is quite frankly an unconstitutional taking," citing Dolan v. City of Tigard.
The applicant, who said the ADU began as housing for an ailing parent and includes parking to meet municipal ADU incentives, expressed frustration at the time the application has taken and requested a date-certain process for resolving any open-space dedication request. Staff and the applicant agreed to collaborate: staff proposed slope calculations and a 60-day window for the applicant’s surveyor to provide slope data so the parties can identify the area to be dedicated, with any dedication to be executed prior to final inspection.
Staff recommended and the hearing officer adopted project-specific conditions: require the garage be included in the landscape-screening application for the major addition (file SD19-0039); require the owner to dedicate an open-space easement on slopes greater than 30 percent on the western portion of the property, with the applicant and staff to determine the exact area in writing within 60 days of approval and dedication to be required before final inspection; and require revised plans showing attachment of the structure to the primary residence to enable the permitted height. The hearing officer approved the permit under CEQA section 15.303(e) and set a 14-day appeal period.
The hearing officer also noted that questions about creek maintenance, potential unauthorized clearing and habitat restoration are separate matters that might be handled outside this permit process and that the town would not presume causation without evidence.
