The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About4.2 Supplemental (2)Odette Harris & Edward Sharp 26958 Dezahara Way Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 History of Objections to Our Home Significant Contention, concerns unabated. • Actions have included: — Unsuccessful attempts to purchase Lot — Survey commissioned to deem Lot "unbuildable" — Procedural efforts to block permission — Injunctions to Block Construction — Failed Mediation — Unsuccessful Lawsuit and appeal 7/10/2014 History • Neighborhood interest in preventing development of last open lot in sub -division We planned with neighborhood and Town in mind O Architect and Contractor with Town (LAH) experience 4 Surveyed neighborhood. Variety of ► Styfes ► Storles (half of houses have 2 story elements( ► Screening (some open, u,me ri—cl, some fenced) 4 Input from neighbors, received ACC permission ► Neighbor concern. views and Privacy History • Planning Dept. approved design through Fast Track process (which had no variances), though appealed • Compromised by lowering roofline, removing the chimney and offering to screen • Planning Commission gave unanimous approval with permission for berm in the set back, up to 5, with final landscape design to be approved by Planning Commission • Sued by neighbors to prevent building, ruled in our favor — development delayed from 2012 to 2013 • Landscape plan without berm approved by neighborhood ACC, now under consideration by Planning Commission { Home can be screened adequately without berm. 5' berm will detract .gym neighborhood 1 Planning Commission Motion on 26958 Dezahara Way — Passed 2012 MOTION MASH, AMtNQLD, SECONDED, AND PASSED 11Y MOLL CALL VOTE. • Commissioner Abraham moved to approve the plans as presented with the following changes: reduce the roof pitch to 3.12, the chimney component be removed in its entirety and replaced with an appropriate roof vent, and a grading Policy *.option be granted for the landscaping plans to locale a five foot berm within ten feet of the property line facing Desahara Way • Commissioner Harpoothan suggested that the rooflin* be lowered by two feet, instead of specifying Is roof pitch, and that the landscape plans be brought back to the Planning Commission for review • Commissioner Abraham amended the motion to include the suggestions presented by Commissioner Harpoothan • The motion was seconded by Commissioner Clow. • AYES. NOES. ABSENT. ABSTAIN 33 Commissioners. Abraham, Clow, Harpoothan, and Partridge None Chairman Collins Non* Concerns Raised with Berm • Accentuates the steep cut bank in an unnatural way • Requires unnecessary grading and movement of massive amount of dirt • Requires variances that are inconsistent with the Town's mission and inconsistent with our neighborhood's history • Obscures light into the front rooms of our Home, establishing Large Dirt Wall of view from Dining and Living Rooms • Taller shrubs and other natural mitigation can achieve adequate screening without un -natural grading of the site • ACC Agreed History It interim since approval 1 urther adjustments made that positively impact lan+, ,w, • Driveway has been relocated • This has served to improve the natural appearance of the i,indscape and will assist with mitigation. ACC Approval- Landscaping 7/10/2014 2 History • The Roadways on either side of the property have addrtiunn challenges -)To provide an unobstructed view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roads, we must additionally be within 80 feet of the corners. !w' �i s e•,t tsgn Ma. .,� n •gin ,�. •�y Ahv 7/10/2014 Concerns Raised with Berm .,ue to 80from street intersection setbacks and opening for gate, a be - would be 30' long on either side of the gate • With a 21 slope for soil stability, the berm would take 10' to go from 0 to 5 a: would be at the .S' height for 10' and then go from 5' to 0' in another 10' • So it would look more like a pyramid with 4 sides sloping up to a peak that is 1 - wide • To construct the Berm, there will be. 250-300 cubic yards of d,n_. Dirt will have to be moved into the front yard. • It will appear to be 11' tall from the front door and would occupy over SU, of the front setback. (Obstructing all light from all Rooms in the front of the Home and rendering front yard minimally accessible for use( 3 I � l 3 Concerns Raised with Berm View of the Berm from the strr- Concerns Raised with Berm Aerial View of the Berm AL wa `IA �r■ 7/10/2014 Concerns Raised with Berm View of the Berm from the street 11NII11111 ��r � �� rd History—Changing Objections • The History further supports: The issues change depending on what will have maximum negative impact on us/our family/our Home: --Initial complaint was Views, r� •---" Later Privacy, then contracts. — - --Initially against a berm- at the Hearing in 2012. In late 2013 on initial review, the — = proposed plans were deemed "ok" w/o a berm. --Now wishes a berm. �9P --Initially in full support of ACC Participation (Letters, etc.. On File) --Now wish to ignore the ACC approval of the landscape plans 7/10/2014 Rendering without Berm View of the Home from the street looking directly at the Home— No Berm History Please allow me to address the letters/emails submitted In the context of the History of this project. History • The same neighbors who opposed initial building of the How, Letters submitted in 2012 as well. Fki.r, M sr %• ..wn. w •� �. b.e.Y .,.......sem.., .....ta....,........ m.J rF..Jrp lel RFmi. Y..n nmya «nrV-..n. Yrbs rR. rvn�.w �.vn w.r r.. rcrk rqr N.We..r .w+,w«n.JN F•.r. M M1... xrrnsu • w . I •• iY4� •:••• ..rd M. F.V r.� Fen. w History • In 2014. the Serventis now request the ACC be ianoreil n�f A�.Wvnr ��tiMt�Verrgfs.rrrt:.rYr MArq,el .a..R WWrewkY. y>or mrs-ayn ars,yowrwy,rt.r.•+aar»wr.a .e��wn. ro�^we.. aao�wrw.w �w'•�. e� 4F. rrl Mekp .+rtr 7/10/2014 History • The same neighbors who opposed initial building of the Nome. Letters submitted in 2012 as well. Two Letters submitted by Serventi- 2014 • Below: 2012 letter. you have 2014 Letters Please note that in 2012, ThSkryjgA f,AnvgSd_j�G.I�L� �.4�1� �v rt✓.e qw .MWr:y . V.., k :..e . n ,k q�M` r� . M1r.re�y •"F'o0M v..mr History • In 2014, an additional issue by the 2"d letter submitted by the Serventis—Primary view of neighbor, Pfefferbaum. This was disproved on several occasions. NV ww r'aJ Ke 4vD:1Y» I.Maoq N.n n Uxq verr nc fY:MM:JFIN G M l s We Y.uw error A rtFre M 6'be, wrorn lw+x.w «rent>r e' er htr. Mvf, �Yaq rRr �.esM fr a'.w p • ler tnM1 rr • osaN. el eo Vv.p Lonr.recn rae yDrwY o' Ya W tl ro pv-< H f• Yrvnro Ce+ww. MYry S'»T-I..mY.YrW +1R ar ♦ voMW r •..mba+M eCowY o.rr�u N. wrs n..-ro �» w,.., cant. r.�rr.ro xr.4r r..h tl n. e. rcerM .�a�roye•�un�".y^ar+�. era-. re�rwF�w•wr..�•+� Mw>s..w. twn "lh rNr •A !IreIMG'rra-�YrYc4eYY«�,1rv: Ue Myr!rM veFro,.r.. yr I .a wwnry ul.eJ eaa sa..re ma. Ir:tnn Nw 9•.A rLF NGe rV, History • The Scheibles have submitted 2 Letters 2014. • In 2012, they submitted numerous letters, emails and held/attended numerous neighborhood meetings purporting their opposition. • in 2012, The Scheibles were participatory to the suit against Harris& Sharp, despite Mrs. Scheible being an ACC representative. • Despite demonstrated bias, she remains on the ACC. • The requests of the Scheibles' again holds us to a standard to which no other Dezahara Way Family has been held 7/10/2014 History • Pfefferbaums claim of primary view obstruction-- claim disproved in 2012 litigation, again. • Upheld on appeal x 2 � 3�+ert'•r f�Y��wr�r ��r�wY�M: v3�`�y �rrYrrr�r,��,YN r•. �YM��rYw�Y.rr ti' YO•u �4•�nv�.Mrw•,r �w 4NiYW,+Y+Ytr �' uarrYarvn r��ari ur wYr•�w++ tt Y,r (v�iY�• r rr ` �Yr wrr�►�� History • The Pfefferbaums have expectedly submitted letters in opposition to our submitted plans. • Their opposition to anything we propose is longstanding • Dr. Pfefferbaum's main wish is well established: To build a bunker underground or to half the house, so it cannot be seen at all from any view. • This has been established, through litigation, as unreasonable 7 History --Summary • Those objecting to our land, (apc (aptplans have been objecting to our Home since day NI. These Objections are NOT to the landscaping plans --they are to Us, Our Home, • They have lost all efforts, 4 including legal action and now wish to request --~ impact via landscapingl I offer that this is not the role of the Landscaping screen. Our Plans adequately screen the Home aid SWI al"M naaaw4 Vail try ft test Wlias s v4W WIN _....,. mrsEWW N m %xxs srox be sredster MWO to to olomm Summary • We are confident that this process will NOT be used as an alternate route to further negatively impact us in lieu of other failed attempts • We are confident that the process will offer appropriate screening for a Home that is natural and in keeping with tho Town Our Plans adequately screen the Home! Makes the profile lower and resembles one-story home 7/10/2014 Summary Issues of views/privacy have been addressed at PC and by our efforts ro.•F, x .. mar.mnY kyAt R M issues of mitigation enhanced with relocation of the driveway • Issues of mitigation enhanced by Input of Environmental Review Committee- agree to suggestions • Issues related to the Berm now demonstrate a difficult, if not unfeasiblt,. unnatural appearing structure requiring procedures that are inconsistent with the Towns policies on grading and movement of dirt (estimated 300 cubic yards) Issues regarding mitigation are addressed with a combination of a relocated driveway and input from the Environmental Review Committee and landscaping plans submitted. Our Home design incorporates neighbors privacy, views, environmental considerations and fit of the neighborhood. Home adequately screr ned A ALI I