Los Altos Hills hearing approves site-development permit for West Loyola Drive addition, with conditions

The Town of Los Altos Hills hearing officer approved a site development permit on March 3 for 10225 West Loyola Drive (file SD25-34), clearing the way for a three‑story addition to an existing single‑family residence plus a detached garage, pool and related hardscape, subject to standard construction conditions and several project‑specific requirements.

Jonathan Fox, the town's project planner, told the hearing the nearly 3‑acre property meets applicable setbacks and that the proposed vertical‑plane roofline would remain below the town’s allowable 32‑foot limit for projects meeting additional design requirements. "Staff is recommending that the hearing officer make a categorical exemption under CEQA and approve the site development permit subject to conditions," Fox said, summarizing the staff recommendation and the project review findings.

The application calls for an addition that planners described as a 2,413‑square‑foot three‑story expansion to an existing 4,905‑square‑foot multi‑level residence; staff described the project as complying with the town’s development‑area and floor‑area calculations and height limits based on the property’s legal nonconforming status. Planner materials also identified the construction of a detached garage, a pool and pool deck; some project descriptions in the transcript contained inconsistent figures for those accessory structures, which are recorded as "not specified" in official staff paperwork pending final plan clearance.

Fox also said the application originally noted removal of three oak trees but was corrected during the presentation: the project would remove four trees in total — two non‑heritage oak trees and two heritage oak trees — and the arborist recommended removal of one heritage oak that was affecting the existing structure. As a condition of approval, staff and the hearing officer required a 5:1 replacement ratio for the two heritage oaks and additional arborist monitoring and protections for a significant live oak near the addition.

The town routed the application to several advisory committees. The Open Space Committee recommended dedicating an easement in the northeastern portion of the parcel to connect two riparian areas; the property owner agreed to the easement, and the dedication is included among the project conditions. The History Committee requested the owner share historical photos of the house as a nonbinding suggestion; the Pathways Committee offered no comment. The Environmental Design and Protection Committee noted potential incompatibilities related to the expanded three‑story element and flagged a few site observations that staff translated into project conditions.

Neighbors and applicants asked questions about fire safety, existing patio work, railings, and whether rooftop planters or artificial turf would be permitted. Staff confirmed the property lies in a very high fire‑severity zone and that the town has applied new wildland‑urban‑interface standards across the municipality; staff advised the project would need to comply with higher fire‑resistant construction and landscape standards during building‑permit review. "Certainly turf, it does does combust," one staff speaker said during the fire‑safety exchange, and staff recommended removing the artificial turf within the 40‑foot front setback. Where turf falls partially within that setback, staff said applicants may remove only the portion that encroaches and replace it with bark, decomposed granite or other appropriate materials, or pursue a variance to the planning commission (staff said it would likely recommend denial of such a variance).

The hearing also addressed an existing perimeter fence that included barbed wire. Planning staff noted barbed wire is a prohibited fence type and placed compliance with fence standards into the landscape‑screening condition; the applicant said they would work with staff on a post‑construction landscape‑screening application, which the town agreed should be submitted following the framing inspection to allow proper visualization of screening needs.

At the close of the hearing the hearing officer summarized the conditions of approval — standard construction conditions plus project‑specific items: submit a landscape screening plan following framing (deferring plant review to that application), apply for a zoning permit for the unpermitted fence or remove/replace the prohibited barbed‑wire portion, target a 5:1 replacement ratio for the two heritage oaks removed, remove artificial turf from the 40‑foot front setback, require additional arborist monitoring and tree‑protection fencing for the live oak adjacent to the addition, and dedicate the open‑space easement as illustrated in the Open Space Committee report. The permit was approved subject to those conditions and a 21‑day appeal period.

The project team said it has done neighbor outreach beyond municipal notice requirements and received a letter of support from the nearest neighbor at 23503 Ravensbury; the owner described the design intent as retaining the character of the older house while adding a modern, complementary addition. The hearing record shows no formal roll‑call vote; the hearing officer issued the approval order and closed the hearing.

Next steps: the applicant must complete required permits, comply with the listed conditions (including the landscape‑screening application after framing and any required tree‑protection measures), and observe the 21‑day appeal window before the decision becomes final.