HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.4 Supplement #6 *'` (p SUPPLEMENT
Jaime McAvoy AGENDA ITEM#
Distributed: 12./3/I
From: Suzanne Avila
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 3:30 PM
To: Jaime McAvoy
Subject: FW: Reduction of floor area on substandard lots
From: hsturiale [mailto:hsturiale@aol.com]
Sent:Thursday, December 03, 2015 3:20 PM
To:Suzanne Avila<savila@losaltoshills.ca.gov>
Subject: Reduction of floor area on substandard lots
If my understanding is correct that there is a present proposal to further limit the allowable floor area to be built on
substandard lot sizes then I am against this change.
Horace Sturiale at 25955 Estacada Drive
1
Suzanne Avila
From: Ling Su <lingsu@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2015 6:07 PM
To: Suzanne Avila; Steve Padovan;Jaime McAvoy
Subject: AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 10-1-503 AND 10-1.1007 OF THE LOS ALTOS HILLS
MUNICIPAL CODE MODIFYING DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR SUBSTANDARD
LOTS
Dear LAH Planning Commissioners,
We are ware of the modifications to the town's conditional development permit guidelines are being considered and
is on the agenda for the December 3rd Planning Commission meeting today. As a 4-year residents on Deerfield
Drive, we understood the challenges to find a right balance for the homeowner and preserve the semi-rural feels of
LAH . We will try to attend the meeting, and in the mean time we offer the following comments as the commission
further considers how to balance those interests:
- Overall size (FAR vs MFA): The Staff Report proposes adopting the FAR as the only alternative measure to
determine the maximum allowable size of a structure for substandard lots. The report proposes to peg the
maximum FAR at .16. The FAR at .16 will limit the house size to be 1-2000 ft for our existing lot(counting out
garage area), which will be smaller than many other towns houses allowed on a 5000 sq ft lots. Such stringent
limitation will reduce value of future sale of the property. Also we believe the root of the issue is not solely solved by
FAR, most importantly it is related the setback rule. (will elaborate more next) In the event that the FAR is adopted
to limit overall size of building,we strongly recommend a FAR of at least .20.
-Setbacks (to be more proportional to the lot size): That the current setbacks for substandard lots be relaxed to
something less than the 40/30/30/30 feet. While these setbacks are appropriate for typical, 1 acre, lots—strict
application of those same setbacks to substandard lots typically results in boxy type of building designs on
substandard lots, hence . Proportionately relaxing setbacks for substandard lots could address both objections
about aesthetic structural designs along with maintaining the semi-rural character of Los Altos Hills. In past few
years, we have tried to put in a swimming pool, and find the setback limitation essentially force the pool to be within
a few feet of the house.We felt amenities like pools should allow some relaxation on the setback rule.
- For existing structure ("grandfather allowance") : That existing Maximum Floor Area allowances, overall heights
and setbacks for existing structures be maintained. This is important for any existing home owner when considering
re-build their home due to aging.
In summary, our opinion is the sub-standard lots is very tightly scrutinized, and if any improvement on this front is
needed, then both MFA and setback rule need to be looked jointly in order to find a better balance.
Thanks for your consideration of our comments!
Thanks,
Ling Su & Qian Chen
25701 Deerfield Drive
1
7 SUPPLEMENT
Jaime McAvoy AGENDA ITEM#6 .H
Distributed: 12/—1 ! (5
To: Deborah Padovan
Subject: RE: December 3rd meeting
From: Deborah Padovan
Sent: Monday, December 07, 2015 8:46 AM
To: Jaime McAvoy
Subject: FW: December 3rd meeting
Please add this document as a supplemental
Thanks.
From: Jitze Couperus [mailto:jitze@couperus.orq]
Sent: Saturday, December 05, 2015 12:19 AM
To: Deborah Padovan; Suzanne Avila
Subject: Fw: December 3rd meeting
Copy to Deborah and Suzanne—for your records-it went to all commissioners so it is a public document (as I
understand these things)
Jitze
From: qerda Cristal
Sent: Friday, December 04, 2015 11:07 PM
To: Mr. Jitze Couperus ; Susan Mandle ; Kavita Tankha , Richard Partridge ; Jim Abraham '
Subject: December 3rd meeting
To the Planning Commission:
Last night's meeting has left a big question on the subject of fairness. We heard from developers wishing to pocket profits from their
substandard lots and walk away leaving the area less attractive then when they came. Heard from a man wanting to leave his children
a greater inheritance by building a large guest house. Another bought his house with the idea of building a larger one for himself in the
future. All claimed their dreams would be unfairly dashed.
None of these men took note of people who simply saw what they wanted in a home, in a setting of their dreams, and bought it. These
people did not expect to leave a larger inheritance, increase the house to fill the lot, or divide, sell, and run. Neither did they expect to
wake one morning and find three houses were going to be squeezed next to their property. They expected to be able to enjoy what
they worked hard for and paid for. Many of Los Altos Hills residents fall in that category. Where is the fairness for them?
A home is more than a financial investment,but it is an investment. Like all investments,there is no guarantee that the maximum
return will happen. Times change,questions arise that need new guidelines. Past expectations need to be preserved and protected.
It is my hope that future decisions will show fairness to those who liked what they saw and bought what they saw.
Sincerely,
Gerda Cristal
1