The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3.4 Supplement #5 b SUPPLEMENT Jaime McAvoy AGENDA ITEM# 3 "� Distributed: )24f)5 From: Suzanne Avila Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 10:00 AM To: Jaime McAvoy Subject: FW: Concern about the new CDP Proposal From:Abbie Bourgan [mailto:abbie@bourgan.net] Sent:Thursday, December 03,2015 9:51 AM To:Suzanne Avila <savila@losaltoshills.ca.gov> Cc: 'Susan Bourgan'<susan@bourgan.net> Subject:Concern about the new CDP Proposal Dear Ms. Avila and Planning Commission members We just became aware of the proposed changes to the CDP. We find it quite disturbing, as it is unfair, drastic, capricious, and arbitrary. It takes property rights away from a subgroup of the Town's residents, while others with larger lots remain unaffected. In an attempt to solve one or two isolated situations,this proposal penalizes everyone with a substandard lot. The proposed limitations will have a dramatic financial impact on the affected properties that will be real,tangible, and immediate. For instance, the MFA for a 0.5 acre property will go from 5000sf to 3485sf, depending on the FAR ratio adopted. That's a reduction of 1515sf in living space. At the current real estate market rate of$1100/sf, such a reduction in living space translates to a property-value loss of $1.26M (after adjusting for the incremental construction cost of$400K). This reduction in value will be immediately reflected in the price of affected properties. Inflicting such a financial loss on a select number of property owners is reckless and unconscionable. Furthermore, it exposes the Town to expensive legal action by the affected class and tears apart our community. There will also be a loss of tax revenue for the Town as a consequence of erosion in property values. We implore the Commission to reject this sweeping and unnecessary proposal. The facts is, most substandard lots are already challenged by the existing setback and parking requirements. They often require a variance in order to build the maximum allowable floor area. The Commission should use the variance process on a case- by case basis to decide whether a contentious development project should be permitted, and not change the zoning rules for all substandard lots. Thank you for your consideration and service, Susan &Abbie Bourgan 25875 Estacada Way Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 1 Jaime McAvoy From: Suzanne Avila Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 11:24 AM To: Jaime McAvoy Subject: FW: Proposal for LAH Development Rules Original Message From: William Bachalo [mailto:wbachaloPartium.com] Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 11:25 AM To: Suzanne Avila <savilaPlosaltoshills.ca.Rov> Subject: Proposal for LAH Development Rules Dear Ms. Aliva, I want to express my concern about the proposed change in building size on lots under 0.8 acre. As an owner of a 0.5 acre lot and home in LAH, I find this proposal to be somewhat arbitrary and troubling. Based on my brief investigation, it appears to be an ad hoc solution to a couple of permit issues that is now being expanded at the expense of other "substandard" lot sizes in the range of 0.5 acre. Hopefully, we will have a better understanding of this proposal after the meeting this evening. William D. Bachalo, Ph.D. President and CEO Artium Technologies, Inc. 470 Lakeside Drive, Unit C Sunnyvale, California 94085 Office: (408) 737-2364 Ext. 1 Cell: (415) 999-2679 1 Jaime McAvoy From: Susan [jsmandle@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 12:40 PM To: Suzanne Avila; Jaime McAvoy Subject: Fw: December 3, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting, Item 3.4 (Amendment to Title 10 of the LAHMC) From:Allen Minton<aminton1021@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, December 3, 2015 10:51 AM To:jitze@couperus.org; kavitat@comcast.net; jima.pc@gmail.com; ismandle@hotmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net Subject: December 3, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting, Item 3.4(Amendment to Title 10 of the LAHMC) My wife and I have lived on Mora Drive since 1979. We urge you to approve the zoning ordinance amendments prepared by Suzanne Avila reducing the allowable floor area for substandard lots as well as her recommendation against reduced setbacks for substandard lots. While developers are driven by increased property value and terms such as "highest and best use",there are also property owners who value the peace and tranquility associated with a low density setting such as found on the portion of Mora Drive West of 1280. Thanks very much, Allen and Nancy Minton 11151 Mora Drive Los Altos, CA 94024 1 Jaime McAvoy From: Suzanne Avila Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 2:24 PM To: Jaime McAvoy Subject: FW: development on substandard lots From: Bart Carey [mailto:bcarey@careyvision.com] Sent:Thursday, December 03, 2015 2:18 PM To:Jitze Couperus<jitze@couperus.org>; Kavita Tankha <kavitat@comcast.net>;Susan Mandle <jsmandle@hotmail.com>;Jim Abraham <jima.pc@gmail.com>; Rich Partridge<richard.partridge@comcast.net> Cc:Suzanne Avila <savila@losaltoshills.ca.gov>;Jamie McAvoy<jmcavoy@losaltoshils.ca.gov> Subject:development on substandard lots Dear LAH Planning Commissioners, Tonight you will be considering modification of development ordinances for substandard lots. I will not be able to attend the meeting, but wanted to provide you the following feedback. I have not been involved in the recent public discussions on this issue. I do agree it is important to make development more proportional to lot size, but to be straightforward, I think you are headed off in the wrong direction by focusing on changes in MFA. I have lived on Deerfield Dr. (as you know, a neighborhood of substandard lots) for almost 18 years, and also previously served on the LAH Planning Commission. I have seen many instances, both as a neighbor and planning commissioner, where current LAH development standards force poor home design on small lots. This negatively impacts property owners/builders and their neighbors. Most importantly, it makes little sense to impose setbacks designed for one acre parcels on these smaller lots, and the situation worsens the smaller the lot. We know the result—controversial boxy and bulky structures in a constrained building area that damage neighborhood and"rural" character (which ironically were meant to be preserved by rigid setbacks). No doubt rural character is a sacred issue for LAH, and large setbacks are one of the ways we preserve this character. But not all neighborhoods in our Town are equal in their"rural"nature. For instance on Deerfield Dr. lots are smaller, homes are more densely situated, and traffic on nearby streets is greater given our proximity to downtown, Foothill Expwy, and the entrance to LAH. The appropriate balance of maintaining rural character, neighborhood character, and owner property rights can be achieved by creating building setbacks proportional to lot size, without reducing MFA. Adjusting MFA without addressing setbacks is what got us to this point when ordinances were changed years ago—It is time to correct that mistake rather than repeating it. We should not have a knee-jerk reaction that setbacks can't be adjusted for smaller lots just because they are in LAH—quite to the contrary this should be focus, and in my opinion will serve to improve both neighborhood and rural character by improving home design. I think currently allowed MFA may be reasonably built on sub-standard lots, so long as the building envelope is increased. This may be achieved with little negative impact to neighbors, but with significant positive impact and flexibility in home design. For instance if the new setbacks on a given lot were 35/25/25/25, each neighbor would be impacted by a 5 ft reduction of setback, a minimal impact, especially with mitigating measures like landscape screening and/or stepped home design. On the other hand an architect would enjoy an additional 10 ft building area in each dimension, significantly improving his or her options, both in regard to floor plan and exterior aesthetics—a win-win for the new homeowners and the neighborhood. It is also important to note that 1 many homes in our neighborhood already encroach into the standard setbacks (and I presume this also occurs in other neighborhoods with a prevalence of substandard lots)--this situation is already part of our neighborhood character, though I have never heard a complaint that we are not"rural" enough. With the above thoughts, I would like to make the following recommendations in regard to our mutual goals: 1. It makes little sense to apply 1 acre setbacks to 0.35 acre lots, as we have recently seen on Deerfield Dr. The first priority in improving building ordinances for small lots should be to make setbacks proportional to lot size, especially for lots 0.5 acres or less, and this also makes sense for lots 0.5 - 1 acre. 2. MFA should remain unchanged for now, at least until setbacks are adjusted, and we have gained some experience with home design and the planning process with adjusted setback ordinances. The PC and council still reserve the right to hold floor area below MFA where appropriate. 3. The building ordinances should be simplified, not made more complicated as with the current proposals. If a FAR is adopted, it should replace the LUF, rather than being used in addition to the LUF calculation, and it should generally preserve (rather than reduce) existing MFA's. Further any new required findings for a setback variance should replace the current required variance findings (if this is legally allowed). We should not add new required findings, making it even less likely that the true problem on these constrained lots can be reasonably addressed during the planning process. The proposed changes surprisingly make the planning process more difficult and less predictable for applicants and neighbors, rather than improving clarity and efficiency. 4. Existing legal structures on small lots should be grandfathered in for remodel. Grandfathering should not be applied for new structures—these should be subject to new ordinance requirements. With due respect for your efforts, it is time to take a step back,put the proposals regarding a new FAR on hold, and focus on proportionally adjusting setbacks, which can be modified on these parcels to everyone's benefit. Thank you for your consideration of my comments, and all your work on behalf of our Town. Bart Carey 2