Hearing officer approves site permit for new single‑story home at 26918 Dezahar Way amid debate over open‑space and pathway easements

The Town of Los Altos Hills hearing officer approved a categorical exemption under Section 15.303(a) and a site‑development permit for a new single‑story residence at 26918 Dezahar Way (file SD25‑66) while deferring detailed decisions on potential open‑space and pathway easements to follow‑up review.

Jay Bradford, the hearing officer, said staff recommended the exemption and permit and that final details about landscape screening, open‑space easements and removal of structures in pathway easements would be addressed through conditions and subsequent committee review. "With that, I, as the hearing officer, will approve this project subject to the standard conditions of approval and those project specific conditions of approval," Bradford said.

Why it matters: The project proposes a new 4,837‑square‑foot single‑story house (no basement) with an attached ADU. Staff told the hearing that the proposal generally keeps the new footprint in the same location as the existing house, uses existing tree screening along the southern property line, and meets the town's height and setback calculations subject to the conditions described below. Neighbors and committee members focused attention on whether parts of the lot near a mapped fault should be protected by an open‑space easement and whether pathway easements noted in town records have been properly abandoned.

What staff presented: Jonathan Fox, the project planner, showed aerials, site plans and elevations and described key project figures: the existing house is just over 4,000 sq ft and the proposed residence is 4,837 sq ft; the attached ADU is shown as 963 sq ft though 800 sq ft is treated as exempt in the town's floor‑area accounting. Fox reported that volunteer committees reviewed the application and that EDPC recommended: (1) no fencing or structures in pathway easements and removal of existing encroachments prior to final inspection; and (2) the Open Space Committee recommended considering an open‑space easement around a fault trace, with the project's geotechnical consultant recommending a 70‑foot setback from the mapped fault.

Debate over easement criteria: Committee members and attendees debated whether the town should base protections on the Open Space Committee's fault‑line recommendation (the 70‑foot offset called for in the geotechnical memo) or on staff's standard practice of using mapped slopes greater than 30% as the trigger for an open‑space dedication. Fox said slope mapping would be done by the project surveyor and that the precise extent of 30% slopes had not yet been delineated; the Open Space Committee's recommendation did not include exact easement dimensions.

Applicant's legal concern: The project representative objected to imposing an open‑space easement tied to the project, arguing (as in the transcript) that "my project is not impacting the slopes" and invoking the Nollan/Dolan legal tests for nexus and proportionality. Staff and Bradford said legal analysis might be required but noted that the landscape screening review at framing would provide a public forum and additional time for legal counsel and for staff to research title and record issues before any final easement or property‑encumbrance is imposed.

Pathway questions and public comments: A public commenter summarized archival research suggesting parts of a pathway associated with the Packard property were abandoned in 1999. Staff said the project survey and title research would clarify whether those abandonments were recorded; the land surveyor is to research title as part of the boundary survey. Commenters and committee members also discussed whether an unlocked gate or other nonblocking feature might be retained while preserving the pathway's future activation if subdivision or other changes occur to adjacent parcels.

Conditions and next steps: Bradford approved the permit with standard conditions and three project‑specific requirements: submit a landscape screening plan (with deferred planting to the landscape‑screening review at framing); removal of existing structures within documented pathway easements prior to final inspection (subject to further clarification if title research shows formal abandonment); and routing the matter to the Open Space and Pathways committees to evaluate potential easement dedication or pathway adjustments for slopes greater than 30%. Bradford announced a 21‑day appeal period from the date of approval. The hearing was closed.

Details and clarifications: The record lists the project lot as roughly one acre with an average slope of about 16.7% (staff said survey details would identify where slopes exceed 30%). Staff noted the proposed maximum building height would be about 21 ft by the town's lowest‑to‑highest measure and that the front setback proposed was approximately 69.8 ft where 40 ft is required. The transcript contains variant spellings of the project street name (Desajara/Desahara/Dezahar); the presenter consistently used a form similar to "Dezahar."