Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.1 & 4.2 ITEM 4.1 ITEM 4.2 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS February 4, 2016 Staff Report to the Planning Commission SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION TO DISCUSS CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMITS FOR TWO NEW RESIDENCES AND VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACKS OF 10 AND 15 FEET, UNCOVERED PARKING IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK, HARDSCAPE AND BASEMENT LIGHTWELLS WITHIN THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS, AND GRADING WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE; LANDS OF LINEBARGER; 10730 MORA DRIVE—LOTS 1 AND 3; FILES #413-14-ZP-SD-GD-CDP-VAR and 415-14- ZP-SD-GD-CDP-VAR. FROM: Steve Padovan, Consultant Planner APPROVED: Suzanne Avila, AICP, Planning Director SA RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: Review the information provided in the staff report, take public comment, and provide direction to staff and the applicant related to the calculation of the basement perimeter, justifiable setback variances, and building design and compatibility of the structures to the surrounding neighborhood. BACKGROUND In 1932, Tract No. 10 of the Jo Mora Ranch was recorded. This map created approximately 40 lots that range in size from about one half of an acre to one and one half acres. In the 1940s, the property owners of the original Lots 1, 2 and 3 split off portions of their properties by deed to create three current parcels identified by Assessor Parcel Numbers 331-15-060, 061 and 062 (see Attachment 1). The current property owner,Forrest Linebarger,acquired the property in 2006 and received County approval for Certificates of Compliance, however, it is not clear if Certificates were officially recorded on the two smaller lots (APN 331-15-061 and APN 331-15-062). Town staff is in the process of determining if the three assessor parcels are separate legal lots and the legal parcel issue will be resolved prior to the formal review of any new residences by the Planning Commission. The purpose of this study session is to review the proposed projects based on the lots as they are currently configured and provide guidance to staff and the owner in order to move forward with the review process once the assessor parcels are deemed legal parcels. Parcel Merger Requirements The issue of merging the three assessor parcels has been a topic of discussion for several years. State laws governing parcel mergers are listed under Article 1.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, with the criteria for merging nonconforming parcels listed under Section 66451.11. Under that section, the Town must adopt a parcel merger ordinance which implements the procedures listed in Section 66451.11 and the parcels must meet a specific list of requirements before the Town can require the parcels to be merged. Planning Commission Study Session Lands of Linebarger February 4,2016 Page 2 The Town currently does not have an adopted parcel merger ordinance complying with Section 66451.11 of the State Subdivision Map Act nor do the parcels in question meet the parcel merger requirements in that section. Therefore, the Town's code section related to lot mergers is not applicable to this project and an update of the Town's subdivision ordinance is recommended to bring the Municipal Code into compliance with state law. It should be noted that no proposal has been submitted by the owner to modify the parcel lines between the three assessor parcels in order to create more conforming lots. DISCUSSION Subject Assessor Parcels The two assessor parcels under discussion at this study session are identified as APN 331-15-061 (.374 acres and known as 10730 Mora Drive, Lot 1) and APN 331-15-062 (.397 acres and known as 10730 Mora Drive, Lot 3). Both parcels are substandard lots and any development requires a Conditional Development Permit (CDP). The findings for a CDP are included under Attachment 2. In addition,the two lots are 68 feet and 62.5 feet in width, so any proposal for a new residence on either lot would require variances for the building,parking and grading. There is a third parcel, identified as APN 331-15-060 (.828 acres and known as 10730 Mora Drive, Lot 2), that is located between the two smaller lots. This lot contains a single family residence and redevelopment of this lot can be done without a CDP. The owner has placed development of this lot on hold and the lot is now in escrow to be sold. Proposed New Residences The applicant is requesting Conditional Development and Site Development Permits to construct a 2,696 square foot dwelling on Lot 1 and a 2,520 square foot dwelling on Lot 3. Both structures will have extensive basement areas and variances are requested for building setbacks, parking and grading. The following table summarizes the proposed development on each lot: LUF Proposed Basement Floor Proposed MFA/MDA Floor Area Area Development Area Ratio Area Lot 1 .264 2,696 sq.ft. 2,677 sq.ft. .165 5,111 sq.ft. .374 acres 2,640 sq.ft./4,740 sq.ft. (5,240 with solar on roof) Lot 3 .291 2,520 sq.ft. 2,583 sq.ft. .146 5,484 sq.ft. .397 acres 2,910 sq.ft/5,010 sq.ft. (5,510 with solar on roof) Maximum Floor Area and Development Area—Basement Defined The applicant's goal is to design the new homes to comply with the current maximum floor area and development area requirements. In addition, the proposed floor area ratio for both houses would be below the future FAR threshold of.18 as recommended by the Planning Commission to the City Council. Planning Commission Study Session Lands of Linebarger February 4,2016 Page 3 However, staff and the applicant are not in agreement on the amount of floor area that is designated as basement. The code section involving basements was last modified in July 2011 to address concerns with daylighted basements and three story facades. The previous code stated that, "at least three sides or at least 75% of its perimeter length be wholly underground." The language regarding three sides was removed and the current language is as follows: Basement means a floor level, or portions thereof which has: (a) All portions directly below a building; and (b) The finished floor elevation of the building level above shall not be greater than twenty-eight (28) inches above the adjoining natural or finished grade, whichever is lower; and (c) At least seventy-five (75)percent of its perimeter length wholly underground,. Daylighted basements shall comply with all height and setback requirements of this title. Basements, including cellars and bunkers, which are not located within the footprint of the building above, may be permitted by the Planning Commission when it finds that such structures do not encroach in setbacks, are a minimum of eighteen (18) inches below natural grade, are wholly underground except for required exiting, lighting and ventilation and are counted as development area except when placed under a surface already counted as development area. Bunker area exceeding one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet shall be counted as floor area. Daylight Basement Structure Height Setback For basement floor levels, any floor area portion and the first twenty (20)feet of a daylighted basement shall be limited in structure height per Section 10-1.504. The code states that 75%of the perimeter length must be wholly underground for basements under buildings. Staff has consistently not counted lightwells as daylighted openings when required by the Building Code for exiting, lighting and ventilation. However, department policy is that all garage openings and the entire length of wall that is open to the downslope on a daylighted basement is subtracted from the total perimeter to calculate the percentage that is wholly underground. Using this method, only the lowest basement level on both dwellings would comply with the definition, thereby resulting in a project that exceeds the maximum permitted floor area and development area. The applicant disagrees with staff's interpretation and has provided a letter with two examples of projects with daylighted basements that were approved by the Planning Director after 2011 (see Attachment 3). Based on an initial review by staff, it appears that the basement areas on the two projects may not have been calculated in a consistent manner. Staff acknowledges this discrepancy and is requesting clarification from the Planning Commission on developing a consistent method to calculate the basement area perimeter. Planning Commission Study Session Lands of Linebarger February 4,2016 Page 4 Site Design and Setback Variances Due to each lot's narrow width and the Town's 30 foot side yard setback requirement, it is not feasible to develop a residence on either parcel unless a variance is granted to allow for the encroachment of the building into one or both side yard setbacks. The surrounding neighborhood was developed under the County of Santa Clara zoning code regulations which requires 20 foot side yard setbacks. A windshield survey of the neighborhood showed that many of the homes appear to meet the minimum 20 foot setback but there are some exceptions for garages attached to main residences and for detached garages and other accessory buildings. Overall, the request for a 10 foot side yard setback for the entire main residence structure on both properties does not appear to be consistent with the development pattern in the neighborhood. The Planning Commission recently approved substantially reduced side yard setbacks(12 feet)for a remodel/addition to an existing residence on a substandard parcel on Fremont Road and for front and rear yard setback variances (approx. 14 feet) for a replacement dwelling on a .7 acre lot on Moody Road. However, in these cases, both properties contained existing dwellings that were already substantially nonconforming with regard to setbacks and the new structures/additions did not increase the degree of nonconformity. The projects as proposed appear to be inconsistent with existing development patterns in the surrounding neighborhood and are not consistent with the variance requests that have been previously approved by the Planning Commission on other CDP projects(see Attachment 4).Also, a review of CDP and Variance projects over the last 10 years found no precedents for the development of a new residence on a narrow parcel of land. Therefore, staff is requesting that the Planning Commission review the location of the structure and provide input on the minimum side yard setback necessary to make the compatibility finding in the CDP regulations. Driveway, Parking, Grading The proposals each include a new driveway access off Mora Drive that drops below grade and turns into a garage that is oriented 90 degrees to the side property line. This design is preferable to one where the garage faces the street from a design perspective. However, it also results in additional side yard encroachments for the driveway and parking and requires a variance for grading within 10 feet of the property. This proposed designs essentially disregard the existing topography of the site, the General Plan Land Use and Conservation Element Policies related to development, and the guidelines for development outlined in the Town's Fast Track Guide for New Residences (Goal II: Design Your Home to Fit the Site and to be Unobtrusive with the Neighborhood). As for General Plan consistency, Policy 1.1 of the General Plan Land Use Element states, "Uses of land shall be consistent with the semi-rural atmosphere of the community,minimize disturbance to natural terrain, minimize removal of natural vegetation, and create the maximum compatibility of development with the natural environment through site design and landscaping. In addition, Policy 2.1 in the Conservation Element states, "Minimize disturbance of natural terrain and vegetation. These policies tie in to the "step-down" approach to development encouraged by the General Plan and the Fast Track guidelines. Planning Commission Study Session Lands of Linebarger February 4,2016 Page 5 A more compatible design might incorporate the retaining walls into the structure to limit grading near the property line and include dropping the lower level of the house several feet below the garage level resulting in a structure that steps down the slope to a greater extent. PUBLIC COMMENTS Staff received a letter from David Kehlet with information related to Variance and CDP findings including general information on setbacks in the surrounding neighborhood (Attachment 5). A neighborhood petition from March 2015 has been included under Attachment 6 and public comments received in 2015 are included under Attachment 7. In addition, the applicant has provided responses to the Variance findings for Lots 1 and 3 under Attachment 8. ATTACHMENTS 1. Assessor Parcel Map of Neighborhood and Enlarged Map of Subject Parcels 2. Conditional Development Permit Findings 3. Applicant's Letter and Examples of Basements Approved by the Town and Letter Addressing the Inconsistent Interpretation of the Basement Ordinance 4. Previously Approved CDP and Variance Projects 5. Letter from David Kehlet 6. Petition from Surrounding Residents dated March 2015 7. Public Comments Received in 2015 8. Applicants Response to Variance Findings for Lots 1 and 3 9. Proposed Plans—Planning Commission only OFFICE OF COUNTY ASSESSOR SANTA CLARA COUNTY. CALIFORNIA BOOK PAGE 17A '6�.\ 331 15 • 51 • } vt` -.1.°'1. • ` 16 TRACT NO. 765 \ �, °?� 6o' ,r ' VALLEY VIEW ESTATES r��1)) °$ 47 ,; 1 31 - M - 24 1s/V� • -z>T \ aR • `°\ \ 90• a : j � •.''.4,1J, s A- j>' R,\\(� `\ T9 1S 1 160 72.31 '♦ 222.31 74.19 I• 311.02 ••• • 119.79 9 Ea 1j` ''o\ -60' 1 , I 1`70 1 !•. �C61414 o c 0 '4.1,1\ Cod. `4j. /' 28 27 5 4 1.110AC. I �� 18 ° e ',s �/qA 46 `\ti� �� `1pp1 L I 11 10 p. 4' I X 2)S•o P t • 6 �o�\` W 4, ' 0 _\�� 1��/ `, uIl :E3! 1 i 6 99 9 ,, 49 1101 C�, �1 cl otl 44 -x I �6 R� 10990 Z� �... 14 �' SER / �� O�' 15 1 12 `09� 7350 7}p6 62.27 `� PCL.A h P.M. 303-M-39 21 R.O.S. 776/21 $ ,�^� ` r `oa yo 1.007AC. , 17 96... .. ! ^ 47.36 • 486.-- 740 (`Fi4 +-JJ N 1846; 1f ' o,:- - J I -., 7 -01�'O- 32 c\E; ` 30 .3-`..z; ,j 48 166••' a7 m �7j t71-,a 10931 R --"\ Iso• \ R.O.S. 876/7 V� ` 3`5' eJ = 16 ` 10915 10970 r R� 1 \ PCL.B G- S• 0.45 9296 ,24 S') 303 __ \\l 212 ... 'I ... ,10 9 ...10„....9 1 66.07 1 7TJ 65 170.07- 140 140 140 21199 15.44 -'y4 ., 36 : 1.00Ac Calc. 1086 166tib 1 1 k b /1s4 ‘� in ,076° t06'3619 1 i $ 25 24 23 22 21 20 58 io ` 1.02 AC. u o 45 t 7a . 9 1 59 60 J `. 49 ,0145'1010640 1 t 42 �, 6 �� O 4 229.69 ._>MZ 1101 1 7 m ,OWNERS REQUEST ,P ^y ,S 7012 GL• p66 1 • I 1O .t• 1997-98 kti ,� 5.61 ,0 1155` `, • 43 'I ‘.aj $ 4 53 52 �F cn co VI 0 ` bSry e 1 `7 O\ I , ''O F 5 1 rn 57 n 59-8._�w 00 `�0 I - `� 1 �O I . A. OWNER19 '8 REQUEST of Z P ..- 'm0 1997-98 tad 016 e 6`? 55 `-+,N '\ moi ' `� ,� 99.37 99.02 140 139.31 74.68 729.3, ot, 194.28 Q ss , `4-, ,. 12 'oil \`�s 11`7 0.79 AC. ` y'' 41 ,'''s 770.5577055 11091 11111 DRIVE 7175/ Fv� 18 ` • `O ` 0 `3`.11 78.20 53.29 9 17060 11090 77720 11740 07 38 b \ ,V391 9� + 63.94 99.10 140 139.19 74.72 7027 1 9 23 ` c',>1... .-••• /n5 2lot '}1`S + 9 �JJ L2 f p' OS so ,,, I Y 06, ��0 53.497 sf Calc.```�`,' 0•S• 736 573 �� • 27 m+++ "AJRI +�48p h O ��' opo JJ ta . ' 12 '+ ^ . C' 1}!L Q 15596 rv+ p (' --'--' Ql` O/O 1 sQ 1 28 I 69 36.084 9f Cala '62 4) �5.' 0' 00 r13J r 29 30 'e 33 I lsd VO • 918g,++ n .11 �, .., �' TRACT N0. 10 •+!089 13 '°' s� JO MORA RANCH L 54 �3s c% 50 Y - M - 53 7o/.0r 14 15 \21 7 61 '� S T e . 16 1 1"] ...,, N. g9 C.C. 19090844 177'21•• yo9y t 9 a 119.10 , rz, • 2008-09 LAWRENCE E. 4Cadosbal mop for Compiled under Effective Roll t y ti COI"- \O' p 1 b h° 23 . \\ 120. 44 4yo . t 53,497 sf Calc. `� hi `� ns • • �;. sic. •u,, �� R. cote • aZdt34 1r06, Ocy • 36,084 sf Calc. 62 �•• `L1 7�.,% e•-- 40) 60 c,. ,\/\ '' °)► % —vv . ck• 0 . oie • ass 0Cic �' CP \21 � C. C. 19090844 -P° A OWNER S REQ. 2008-09 10-1.1007(3) Conditional development permits—Approval—Condition. Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT 2 Los Altos Hills Municipal Code j lip I Previous I Next I Main .. I I Search I Print Title 10 ZONING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT Chapter 1 ZONING :l. - 1 :me' ,1 - 11• •1m. .'1. 0- - •111-1 11. .1. 111-1111-1 10-1.1007(3) Conditional development permits—Approval—Condition. (a) On substandard lots, due to the difficulty of accommodating development which meets the objectives and standards of the Town, any lot which has a lot unit factor of.50 or less shall require a Conditional Development Permit from the Planning Commission. In addition, any lot significantly constrained by a human habitation setback for geologic hazard areas or a nonhuman habitation setback for noise shall require a Conditional Development Permit from the Planning Commission, unless the Zoning Administrator finds that the lot is not significantly constrained by such setback or zone. Prior to the granting of any permit,the Planning Commission must find that: (1) The site for the proposed development is adequate in size, shape and topography to accommodate the proposed intensity of development, including all structures, yards, open spaces, parking, landscaping, walls and fences, and such other features as may be required by this chapter. (2) The size and design of the proposed structures create a proper balance, unity and harmonious appearance in relation to the size, shape and topography of the site and in relation to the surrounding neighborhood; (3) The rural character of the site has been preserved as much as feasible by minimizing vegetation and tree removal, excessive and unsightly grading and alteration of natural land forms. (4) The proposed development is in compliance with all regulations and policies set forth in the Site Development ordinance. (b) Every Conditional Development Permit granted may be subject to such conditions as are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare and to secure the objectives set forth in the findings above. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to,reduction in Maximum Development Area allowed, reduction in Maximum Floor Area allowed, installation of landscaping, and resisting of structures. (§ 1, Ord. 305, eff. October 3, 1986; § 6, Ord. 314, eff. November 6, 1987; § 1, Ord. 337, eff. September 14, 1990; Ord. 338, eff. September 19, 1990; § 1, Ord. 341, eff. January 4, 1991) View the mobile version. http://gcode.us/codes/losaltoshills/view.php?topic=;10-1-10-10_1_1007_3&frames=off 1/29/2016 . . ATTACHMENT 3 M atteoni S I ' , . ciO'Laugh6 N.,,, n . . . Hechtrnan' LAWYE2 S . October 14, 2015 Norman'E. Mattooni - . , Peggy M. O'Lauglilin , , Bradley M. Mattenni Barton G. Herlitman Advance Copy via Email to smattasmeyersnave.com Gerry Houlihan Steven T. Mattes, Esq. . . . . Meyers Nave, et al. . . 575 Market Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94105 Re: Lineberger Plan Check; Mora Drive Lot1 (APN 331-15-061) - • • , . ' • . Dear Steve, . - • , I wanted to bring your attention to an issue that appears to have arisen in the development application process regarding Forest Linebargers application for Lot 1 on Mora Drive. The issue regards calculation of the basement area pursuant to Section 10-1.202 of the Los Altos Hills Code. Pursuant to that ordinanCe, to qualify as a"basement,"at.least • 75% of the structure's perimeter length must be wholly underground. . . Mr. Linebarger made his first submittal on December 16 of last year. The submittal included his calculation that the proposed basement • , area met the 75% requirement. The staff responded with written comments on January 15, and asserted in point 7 that according to staff's calculation, only 73.8% of the perimeter length was wholly underground. In a meeting Town staff showed their calculation method, with was a minor difference in length measurements of a less than two feet For purposes of this letter, we are not taking issue with that. However,.of relevance later in this letter, when staff performed its calculation to reach 73.8%, it inducted in its perimeter measurement the invisible line crossing the interior of the structure where the structure goes from wholly underground to exposed (I'll call it the S . . • "interior perimeter line"). • , • , . • 8848 The Alameda San Joeie, CA 95126 .. . ph. 408.2934300 FAfat' • •408 293 4004 ie'l tvwsv.matteoni.com • Steven I. Mattas, Esq. October 14, 2015 Page 2 Mr. Linebarger resubmitted;on May 22nd, with revisions made to the design so that it would meet the 75% requirement. Staffs written comments in response on June 18 again concluded:that the basement did not meet the 75% requirement. Mr. _ Linebarget met with staff-on July 14th to discusstheir comments and at that meeting 'he was informed by staff-that in calculating the basement perimeter for purposes of -•- Section 10-1.202,you do not include the interior perimeter.:line. That position by staff is thesubjectof this letter. It is not supported by any language- in theordinance, is inconsistent with the manner in which staff has applied the - ordinance to other approved homes,_and it defies logic. "Perimeter" is defined as'"a path that surrounds a two-dimensional shape." Important for our purposes is the. word "surround"which essentially indicates closed loop. Applying that definition to the ordinance is simple. Using the attached enlarged example from the ordinance, the perimeter ofthe entire basement level is A + B + C + D + E + F, and the shaded area (A + G + E+ F) must equal or exceed 75% of the entire perimeter in order to qualify as a basement. The key is G, which I defined above as the interior perimeter line. According to staff, G does not get included irr the calculation. • • Nowhere in the ordinance does it state that when calculating the perimeter, you exclude G, the interior perimeter line. Any attempt to calculate the perimeter that way would be inconsistent with the definition of perimeter, because.the calculation would be based Gn only three sides of a four-sided area and-hence definitionally not a perimeter. • Excluding the interior perimeter line is making the basement calculation would be inconsistent with the way that the Town has historically made this calculation. For example, a home at 26727 Taffe Road was approved by the Town.on July 7th of this year. The basement perimeter calculation is approximately"88% if the interior perimeter line is included,but only 61% if it is excluded, so it is clear that the interior perimeter line must have been included in the calculation,.since the house was • approved. Similarly, the home at 13769 Wildflower Lane.was approved by the.Town • on March 13 of 2012. Its basement perimeter calculation including the interior perimeter line is 78%, and without it 55%. Again, the Town must have included the. interior perimeter line in the calculation in order to approve the house. A third example is at.26063 Todd Lane, approved by the town on September 7th, 2006. The calculation with the interior line is'77% and without, 55%.1 . • Consequently, there is no basis to support a staff position that the interior perimeter line is not included in the calculation:called for by the ordinance, and we are While the basement ordinance was modified by the Town in 2011, the modification did not affect this analysis as the same"at least 75%of its perimeter length wholly underground" language appears.in both the former and current versions of the ordinance. • Steven.T. Mattes,'Esq. October 14, 2015 Page 3 • concerned that staffs assertion of this unwritten change in the way the ordinance is _ applied is being accomplished for the purpose of delaying processing to completion of Mr. Linebarger's application. A tangential Issue raised by staff in the June 18th'letter is that the proposed basement"daylights"at both ends, referring to the garage door openings on the side ' of the home toward the front. There:is.no prohibition in the ordinance of a basement daylighting on°'rimultiple sides (in fact, virtually all "daylighted:basements"daylight on multiple sides), and the ordinance provides that"required-exiting, lighting and ventilation" are excluded from the "wholly underground" requirement. The approved home on Todd;Lane had a similar basement garage design toward the front of the house on a lot'that sloped away from the street, as Linebarger's Lot 1 does. So-. again, staffs position seems at odds with the ordinance and with the Town's prior application of it. Mr. Linebarger resubmitted on October 7. He made furtheradjustmentsto the design:so that it meets the.75% requirement, but only if the interior perimeter line is included in the calculation, as it must be by definition and by reference to the ordinance, and-it has been by reference to other homes with basements previously • approved by the:Town. It is noteworthy that in performing the calculation, Mr. Linebarger reached the 75%while excluding from the perimeter thelengthof the , garage doors—had he included that length, the percentage would have been even higher. I bring this to your attention at this time because pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act.staff needs to•respond to the current resubmittal during the first.week of November. We want to make sure that in that response, staff properly applies. Section 10-1.202. If they do, they will,recognize that the current design meets the requirement of that code section. Very truly yours, BARTON G. HECHTMAN Aft. BGH:jm • cc: Forrest Linebarger F 1ClientstUneba,ge C ortesponddncelMaRas 1.0132015.docx u;-,'-?,...'*,-,1••--;-!. :-..."-„r•--..1--, -,-..'--, ,-• — ' . : ' — ,',„. • - .,•2... -,:. ",,I. — '...",.. l• , . ', • i'.. .•,,. . -,..• . ' , , *- t , ..,‘ f ,PLES • i./.•.3. ‘,,... •.,t, -\'.4 --4. ..- - 7." I.- %. " •. • E E • ( \ • SAS .1V1 -NTEXAM ' — -' . . — .P .,,.•, . -,--, . : — .. . . i . _ Staridard Basement ') 0 " , Daylight Base*. ent 1 ...p.. , .. . .,....:,....:.:, Natural ,..d:,„_:(1,:jillili".8,12Mliii_liEtijiltirjj ., .._• •.• • • • a .a.1 8„,...1..0....n.....4-1.....,A..4-0,.-.....o-a.s...a-..6-1-....j....,.., 1 . Grade il i .vt ral 1 Story 1" Story le i q r--- ''- ,......... 4t......, v „„.•. ,,, ,-,4”,r-i,-i.,7i-.-A4i,i1 i — - cr.,_ _ e -- 1m.1Y-.-..-.-.T..41-e.,-s.,r,.,.,yp,..,i;If„,.,FT4-7p'5-..1‘.3,7„,•1,f4,-i..‘,'.,,,.,,-i,-,,t7p.l-.0&`-,.F-o.,-,.k.-''',•'•.i;i.1••V-4... K-'Z„-k,-,b•,..v.,-..1,..--,-„,,,=-. .. E - nFinish Grade Floor Fl '441-'1,--...*.lt-,,,-c.CiaSeTetitA4i--n!??•,-'41-1-';.c, -A%1/4-4.Basetrgent43,-,A5 ‘, i ...,, ,--.7-5,-'1',1 r.41%....*-..%,..- n'o•Prei.)".... ...%-4.1,.. .",' 1 litr.4......i•-4,1 - , ,,. A-,„ 0",747.:f-;.'.,,!;t1.7154-jrk-.)rhf•-2d--,-1:-.tq,.76',.:,'V,.0 i'''Sr.fj iur.,r,--iittig..1p,.-„,a-7,..,-.„,,w5,--„?„,,,,ti rti v.:04 .1 C”. -... t-•F.I.'...7alii..4:,'IN.-c.,,:gt--Nit--).4:--Vii'uti--,t, -,,'1207Y2Z=,Ii ii, e'AC:P4'444et•F'*tP-r-e't-j4: ,,5",if*-4,-,;',''--•;t:11- :-.12-;1:—,•:.kkr.:".,=.0.43. -'.vo..40;4-:'.1z? ,,,,,3 .1=1,14 ,1..... . ., r 1 C;:s.-7 1,10 rE.,-;, t=-1.:71 :3V .-"e`liZ:11 ...37LCLI" i ..'iL.:;(?Scii.t.uogliGiter:::4-1.-LG10.-.-) = mm ti......... -.,.... ..... ......., i ! Finish . SECT)0Kir . Grade i , At least 7.5: of I iiasement 'L'Ketaiirting Wall and . basement perimeter Topography line at 28' loor Frame Detail whoily 4.i.711erground below the F?-• devation T-Y f 1 \...., E1, .7.,„ .1 .;;;;;;') , q i ,,... • 4‘ Max 4 foot tall ,/retaining 1. . , 0C.C.,.4.LD:SST , ,.., ,....... 4 . ......„ , .-.- . -=-- ,,,-.....,. ,fr . till\i IitratiS F ,,/, : ,,,,,--,,,,,,,,,r tf...? ,...,4? ...1 e OWN 1 I, 7 I i.: Basdmenta.-Y'. .o:NitArea ' I'L. .11.1..r 4 0. -- .1; ." 7,7-,------- %,-, ' •/, — -- — 2:1 — — , ,,„,,,, ,,..c:' ..'41;...'•-tc.,•'..0.1 % .,4.:- .7',, '''N. N'', r• MARV,2131-CZ. P s,v.e,ie L,,,p - kizir'' ,‘,„•-,,"\-...,,,,,,,,,, c,19.2111.11:17 C.4.1:211 1 (112,111 - XI ' EL 252° .;/••-.-'- ,,-• •••• "•••••......<;„„v/-/-s-N---/\;"/:" r. ___ r'ird.C..4Ciatal 61.L,L.t. t A •... .......:,-.,,„......;, -p LAN '8 ,N....4V'" .. Daylt• tt Basement Structure Height Setback 1 I Sot.* -raD L-, - - A, A-A-- .4• bliSS Coe lb xNr TZM * z t ..t(L" T0044MWIEL - -- *.:?;1#6; -.. sitvIst.Yr QcLLvutincr) exc wt,tc)C LINE A .-- • ! . . . Ili 9 Nn t),v1c1r1,1_)N1 Pi I'L = Lbyncni ) Avvv eacAgi 4 _ _____ 1 ----------Win 77--------m'tan11,:a VcqiNln-vlse) ...t.trayvagig — 11„,...leir C -9c) 'z '32.-.1, rvIII.e z2 -g1:22),/irv=z-J, -- -treo-c:fri/J-L\r- seg (44.9rva-r-i) --663- Put- -ta sm ..7-... a\e‘cY-69-7;eCINcl Artlartf`n TPZ1.104VIZej 14-raiME545, .= . — I( 1---- "Clitiiler)Asti —1---- _Iivaplzv—q„ ie t/'. *-0'en -Daviml (.-2) ..,.. sii iv6i. . ' ymewe Arlrl-s1 . . . . — _J --- — — — ir 2 1/1444.37 I I -313*.V j_cv---4ytis.qict-lkw)r1A-Nicjg. ____ _ __________ -- ,Nwero( v tft --prierlcnr/91-1,a4T-- 2&77 Z 7 7-AAFFE gc?NC> 44sik) 7J7J15 1.2sviit . 4 7:Ni1JeNvk 112W.AVAT .1441f/R41-,- sSfl - rscrt- 217g 44 eq. 0}V,ezAte•ert- otspoLrag.i....v... ., Pett-vitGre--4-- LeAiGs-ti+ Nssentia,lc- = 3 4n. Z a" ar1 `F;P . • • CA;i4Ortisit114E-A Fhiss5s..-.MWOT 644,--C, 1 t4 — gg OCT -72015 Los Altos Hills TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Department of Planning & Development Planning, Land Development and Survey 26379 Fremont Road. Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 10/5/2015 FROM: INHABITURE DESIGN 3630 El Camino Rd, 2nd Floor Palo Alto, CA 94306 Tel: 650.324.0688 Email: flinebarger@inhabiture FILE NUMBER: #413-14-ZP-SD-GD-CDP-VAR/#413-14-ZP-SD-GD-CDP-VAR SUBJECT: Basement Ordinance§10-1.202 LOCATION: Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills (Lot 1 APN#331-15-061 Lot 3 APN#331-15-62) - This letter will address the Town of Los Altos Hills Planning Department's inconsistent interpretation of the Basement Ordinance as it pertains to the Mora Projects, Lot 1 &Lot 3, and the research Inhabitures Design gathered to illustrate this discrepancy. On December 17, 2014 Inhabiture Design submitted two new single family residences with daylight basements into the Town of Los Altos Hills for Developmental Permits. In our first round of comments dated January.15, 2015 we were told that our basement did not meet item (3) of the Basement Ordinance Sec. 10-1.202; as stated in LAH's comment letter,"The Basement Ordinance indicates that a basement must have 75% of its perimeter wholly underground. Your basement is only 73.8%. Modify the design to meet this requirement". On 1/22/15 we met with the Town to clarify how the basement ordinance was being interpreted and if our design was following there calculation formula to meet the 75%. The length of the natural grade section line at 28" F.F. above grade was calculated as the basement length; this included the daylight length. We adjusted the 73.8% basement line to over 75% and resubmitted on 5/22/15. . We received our second round of comments on June 18, 2015 and were told that our basement was not in compliance with the Basement Ordinance,"After review of your plans it appears that the middle floor does not qualify for a basement floor area exemption because it is not wholly underground and it daylights on both ends of the structure". On 7/14/15 we met with the Town to clarify this comment and were told our design does not meet the basement ordinance because: first, we have two daylight ends at the east side and at the garage entrance side: second, the sides that daylight are not wholly underground therefore we cannot include these lengths in our basement calculation formula. We proceeded to redesign our floor plans and separate the basement finish floor with the lower level finish floor by dropping the lower level 3 feet at where the daylight line separates these two areas, in order to calculate separately. After meeting with the Town, they conclude that even though the two areas are separated in elevation, they will not be treated separately for calculation purposes and the design is still not wholly underground at the daylight line.. After research of similar Daylight Basement projects approved after 2012 in the Town of Los Altos Hills for Building/Developmental permits weuncovered a discrepancy in the Town's interpretation of the Basement Ordinance as it was being applied on our project. We followed the same basement calculation approach the Town used on our project to 13769 Wild Floor Lane and 26727 Taaffe Road; each project was below the required.75% basement perimeter length;Wild Flour Lane had only 55%of its perimeter length wholly underground and Taaffe Road had 61% of the required length. This would conclude that these projects, as well, were not in compliance with the Towns Basement Ordinance therefore not qualified for a basement floor area exemption. The 27798 Via Ventana project illustrated that there are two daylighted areas: at the north elevation where the 28" natural grade line separates counted and none counted floor area and at the west/north end where there is a garage entrance. This project was also approved and not deemed non compliant in having two daylight ends. LAH interpretation of.the Basement Ordinance as it pertains to the Mora Projects has been inconsistent. We havespent hours upon hoursanalyzing and redesigning the Mora Projects to meet the LAH Basement Ordinance requirements._ Similar basement project that have been recently approved for Building/Developmental Permits in LAH would not meet the current LAH Basement Ordinance if given the same requirements as found for the Mora Projects. Sincerely, • INHABITURE DESIGN Summary of CDP Approvals and Variances in LAH since 2004 Address Date Net Lot Type of MFA/ Dwelling Developed Area Floor Variance Granted? Approved Size/LUF Project MDA Area incl. Area Sq.ft. garage Ratio 10435 July 2004 .766 acres Addition 4,820 3,411 sq.ft. 7,876 sq.ft. Variance for 2 parking spaces in Berkshire .482 LUF 6,920 71% of MFA (nonconforming) .102 setback 114% of MDA 13341 August .981 acres New 4,550 4,468 sq.ft. 6,621 sq.ft. .105 No variance Wildcrest 2004 .455 LUF residence 6,650 98% of MFA 99% of MDA 25701 March .381 acres New 3,300 3,267 sq.ft. 5,356 sq.ft. Variance for parking in the side Deerfield 2005/ .33 LUF Residence/ 5,400 99% of MFA 99% of MDA .197 yard setback February Pool 2014 13303 August 1.817 Addition 3,690 3,570 sq.ft. 6,896 sq.ft. Variance for 2 reduced size Wildcrest 2005 acres 5,790 97% of MFA (nonconforming) .045 garage spaces and to exceed .369 LUF 119% of MDA MDA 12380 February .491 acres New 4,910 4,360 sq.ft. 7,010 sq.ft. Variance for chimney in setback Hilltop 2006 .491 LUF residence 7,010 89% of MFA 100% of MDA .204 and pool 12390 June 2006 .498 acres New 4,980 4,978 sq.ft. 7,080 sq.ft. .229 Variance for 1 parking space,bay Hilltop .498 LUF residence 7,080 100% of MFA 100% of MDA windows and chimney in setback 24624 March 2007 .482 acres Major 4,250 4,060 sq.ft. 7,576 sq.ft. Variance for 2 parking spaces and Summerhill .425 LUF remodel 6,350 95% of MFA (nonconforming) trash enclosure in setback resulting in 119% of MDA .193 new residence 25875 June 2007 .461 acres Major 4,490 4,100 sq.ft. 6,399 sq.ft. .204 Variance for 2 reduced size Estacada .449 LUF addition 6,590 91% of MFA 97% of MDA parking spaces in setback 14555 September .462 acres Addition and 4,550 4,542 sq.ft. 5,582 sq.ft. .226 Variance for 1 parking space in De Bell 2008 .455 acres remodel 6,650 100% of MFA 84% of MDA setback 13310 November .79 acres New 3,973 3,950 sq.ft. 6,008 sq.ft. .115 No variance ,y East Sunset 2009 .4 LUF residence 6,073 99% of MFA 99% of MDA 1-3 27361 February .4275 New 4,830 3,450 sq.ft. 6,927 sq.ft. No variance '"'3 Moody 2011 acres residence 6,930 71% of MFA 100% of MDA .185 .4275 LUF x 4 rii Summary of CDP Approvals and Variances in LAH since 2004 — Page 2 Address Date Net Lot Type of MFA/ Dwelling Developed Area Floor Variance Granted? Approved Size/LUF Project MDA Area incl. Area Sq.ft. garage Ratio 13500 June 2011 .4275 Sunroom 4,275 3,462 sq.ft. 5,222 sq.ft. No variance Fremont acres 6,375 81% of MFA 82% of MDA .186 .4275 LUF 27911 June 2014 1.007 Addition 4,560 4,144 sq.ft. 9,647 sq.ft. No variance Via acres 6,660 91% of MFA (nonconforming) .094 Ventana .456 LUF 145% of MDA 27299 November 1.239 Addition 4,000 3,899 sq.ft. 6,539 sq.ft. Variance to allow for 20 foot side Byrne Park 2014 acres 6,600 97% of MFA 99% of MDA .072 yard setback for addition .40 LUF 14696 November .471 acres Addition 4,530 4,343 sq.ft. 6,469 sq.ft. Variance for up to 12 foot Manuella 2014 .453 LUF 6,630 96% of MFA 97% of MDA .212 encroachment into side yard setback for addition 25608 May 2015 .359 acres New 3,590 3,000 sq.ft. 5,280 sq.ft. .192 Variance for open parking in side Deerfield .359 LUF residence 5,690 84% of MFA 93% of MDA yard setback 25711 July 2015 .498 acres Addition 4,510 4,464 sq.ft. 6,437 sq.ft. .206 Variance for open parking in the Deerfield .451 LUF 6,610 99% of MFA 97% of MDA front setback 25531 August .273 acres Addition 2,730 2,728 sq.ft. 3,423 sq.ft. Variances for 29 foot front yard Fremont 2015 .273 LUF 4,830 100% of MFA 71% of MDA .229 and 12 foot side yard building setbacks, open parking in the front and side yard and obstructed parking Most Recent Variance Approved by the Planning Commission 26691 October .528 acres New 5,000 3,420 sq.ft. 5,101 sq.ft. Variances for 14 foot front and Moody 2015 .514 LUF residence 7,500 68% of MFA 68% of MDA .149 rear yard building setbacks, open (replaced parking in the front yard and existing obstructed parking home) Steve Padovan From: Suzanne Avila Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 8:01 AM To: Steve Padovan Cc: Tuck, Patrick Subject: FW: Los altos hills substandard lots Please include as an attachment to the Planning Commission report. Original Message From:Jean Gordon [mailto:gordonskin@sbcglobal.net] Sent:Tuesday, May 24, 2016 11:01 PM To:Suzanne Avila <savila@losaltoshills.ca.gov>;jitze.couperus@gmail.com; kavitat@comcast.net Subject: Los altos hills substandard lots Dear members of the LAH Planning Commission and Planning Department: I am a resident of Los Altos Hills and urge you to disapprove the two CDP applications by Mr. Forrest Linebarger on Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills.The proposed development of two new homes on two substandard lots(each less thai 0.4 acre) would create a pocket of high-density development right at the entrance to Rancho San Antonio.The small size of the lots is not consistent with the general plan of Los Altos Hills and its one acre zoning.The requested side setbacks of 10 and 15 ft are far below the 30 ft side setback requirements of Los Altos Hills.The granting of such excessive variances violates the rural character of Los Altos Hills. Thank you for preserving the rural character of our town. Let's keep the beautiful semi-rural character of our neighborhood and of Los Altos Hills intact for future generations! Sent by Jean Gordon MD PhD Sent from my iPhone ATTACHMENT 5 Variance Findings for Side Yard Building Setback Variance Applications at Mora Drive APN 331-15-061 and APN 331-15-062 David C. Kehlet January 26, 2016 Los Altos Hills zoning ordinances require 30 foot side setbacks. An applicant is requesting variances at each of APN 331-15-061 and APN 331-15-062 to permit building encroachment into the side setbacks, 10'encroachment on one side and 20' encroachment on the other side of each property. Neither property has been previously developed. 1. Because of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the ordinance is found to deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classifications: The subject properties are exceptional because of their small size and most importantly their narrow width. APN 331-15-061 is approximately 0.38 acres and from 68'to 59'wide. APN 331-15-062 is approximately 0.40 acres and 62.5'wide. Without extreme side setback variances, building on these parcels is not possible due to the Zoning Ordinance's required 30'side setbacks. Setbacks in the Vicinity Neighboring properties were developed in the 1940s and later when 30 foot setbacks were not required. Several neighboring properties are nonconforming with the modern 30'setback ordinance. Appendix 1, "Setbacks on Mora Drive,"lists the side setbacks of the twelve residences at the south end of Mora Drive that are facing Mora Drive. The average side setback of these residences, in comparison with the residences as proposed by the applicant, is shown in Table 1. Table 1, Average Residence Side Setbacks Residence. Average Side Setback Twelve Mora Drive Residences of Appendix 1 40 feet(+1-) APN 331-15-061 (application pending) 15 feet(+/-) APN 331-15-062 (application pending) 15 feet(+1-) Table 1 shows that the applications for the subject properties are proposing side setbacks that are on average much smaller than those of the neighboring properties. With an average side setback of 15 feet(+/-)for the proposed developments, approval of the applicant's requested variances would grant him privileges not enjoyed by owners of other properties in the vicinity. Nature and Record of Variances Granted by Los Altos Hills The applicant is required to seek Conditional Development Permits (CDPs)for development on the subject properties because the Lot Unit Factor of each is less than 0.5. Appendix 2, "Summary of CDP Approvals in LAH since 2004,"lists variances granted in conjunction with CDPs. Of the 18 CDPs for new residences, only two were granted building variances as shown in Table 2. Table 2, Summary of Approved CDPs and Building Variances Total CDP Approvals in LAH CDPs for new residences with since 2004 Building Setback Variances 18 2 (12380 Hilltop, 12390 Hilltop) Table 3 shows that building setback variances for these two CDPs in Table 2 are minor, while the Mora Drive applications are proposing encroachments of extreme size. Table 3, CDPs for New Residences and Building Variances CDP Property Building Variance 12380 Hilltop Chimney in setback 12390 Hilltop Bay windows and chimney in setback Mora Drive APN 331-15-061 (CDP Setback encroachments on both sides. Total area in pending) excess of 2200 square feet(variance application pending) Mora Drive APN 331-15-062 (CDP Setback encroachments on both sides. Total area in pending) excess of 2200 square feet(variance application pending) With only two building variances granted for new residences on CDPs since 2004, and with those two variances minor in character, the City has established a consistent track record of enforcing setbacks and granting only minor variances for over a decade. With the large area intended for building within the setbacks, approval of the applicant's requested variances would grant him privileges not enjoyed by owners of other properties in the vicinity, and also not enjoyed by property owners across all of Los Altos Hills. Difficulty and Hardship of the Applicant's Own Making Los Altos Hills Municipal Code 10-1.1007(2) regarding variances states, "The purpose of the variance is to resolve practical difficulties or undue hardships, not of the applicant's own making, which may result from the exceptional size, shape, topography, location, or other physical site conditions, or the use or development of property in the immediate vicinity." In 2006 the applicant for development subdivided the original property into 331-15-060, 331-15-061 and 331-15-062 in 2006. At that time the applicant knew or should have known of the Los Altos Hills General Plan policy to continue annexation of lands within the Town's Sphere of Influence. This annexation did in fact occur in 2012. The applicant's own subdivision, creating lots 331-15-061 and 331-15-062 that are unbuildable by Los Altos Hills zoning ordinance, is a difficulty of the applicant's own making and therefore makes him ineligible for the requested setback variances. Furthermore, the applicant had opportunities to merge and re-subdivide his three adjacent properties into two lots which would allow building without setback variances. As evidenced by these variance applications, the applicant did not take an opportunity to remedy the difficulties he earlier created. 2. That upon granting of the Variance, the intent and purpose of the ordinance will still be served and the recipient of the Variance will not be granted special privileges not enjoyed by other surrounding property owners: Because of the extremely narrow width of the subject properties, it is not possible to develop these properties and serve the intent of the setbacks in the zoning ordinance. The variances requested encroach as much as 67% (20 foot variance into the 30'setback) into the intended buffer space between homes. 3. That granting the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and within the same zoning district: Material Detriment Due to Increased Development Density The close home spacing that would result from the granting of the requested variances negatively impacts the open space look and semi-rural character of Los Altos Hills. The impacted parties include surrounding neighbors and the pedestrian visitors that use Mora Drive as access to Rancho San Antonio Park. Immediately to the north of 331-15-062 is 10776 Mora Drive with 120 feet(+/-)between the home on this property and the home existing on 10730 Mora Drive(331-15-60). This spacing would drop to 57 feet(+/-) with the requested 20' encroachment, thus negatively impacting those living at the adjacent property. Material Detriment Due to Harm of Mature Trees At the property line with 10776 Mora Drive are at least three mature trees with branches extending 25 feet(+/-)over 331-15-062 as shown Figure 1. Figure 1, Mature Trees with South Overhang of 331-15-062(View from Mora Drive looking east) �It o a b. -h i 1 �$ ;It aIt�•A• .. 1 c °i i*H i• tC lay') sof x'pi x �,e r.., St+`'ar 6 -.� k 'r .t!1 ''`ext +� f�, '1 '� 41. ' 'it �. ,te t h ,it,) r, +'. `� S^ fit' ;r t7 ) i 9 ��'�,�� 2� 1t ,-. art x4., `•17'.•It ` .• Y I ,t` ��l • •n.+cyf�., rt VC`dr+i[l��r "rr'��'�,r t.›,4,dr 9' 0 4:;de. r.. fi 1 M 3` ! k,i` t 0.vl Jr; , � / 7� '''' ] y r gi ii + r i rY"',0... -ay..-M d '• 4 r' �'.'' y1rt t , Si,_�r Zn�Pr }t it , r t 1.41. ``'v' 6'4 ' r ! 4.'"4;4.04'''r::-.1.-? -. ,� , ill3t +j ib +'S0.` ilS� :. a� fr. k� `^`�-'. �� �A r,-- tlC IW 4.. .z....:r'L '. Y rf »e�tlrt r'f tt '.`,+�i1. • -,---:� 5.T 11*+ r�i i - 'dl VIM it r, ,"-.i.,-A.C..;.-,N.1.4_,T, ,t k$'S b qY' , >. n ^'rib f �[ •(� • r•.r ` • c.4.4 Nr{ s ,k1.ny' r t - r `'t' Ci' A .4, Asa 4-4,0y a� Ad ,rt -. " ry'• r ' `r� ! i� �y1 its lex *`.At �,,,� "NA.r' h��ry. ,)-,_ , . " G� t. 1 2i iA; '" ;. r P `4 ,. 1NF W •a>,Ise'r P€T.45,1' =..1 A," Zf,56, pp ,fit ." �.,r.' 1. -7 t ��/..,;10..: 1Sr %�(/d[yill�,*y� }r � ,421,:ft:!..,,,c,.. !�, r r r�� `t!,- rtF' �'��'6>�?�Itr� k -� i1 '';"4 ih,G X1-415 �1 ki �,.$�2R i{' ,;mst ,ift.m.,7 Wey Sa` 1 } Yr9,7 r^ �F > v [b}:1;ft.' ri f's-W rr2x 3 ti k4,�., #-,..'7...r'' pi rk "St•�.14.-447:6g-: _;41 ,:>y -• 'ti . , ,,. ,{ r f ? .y4S" r. v Pr r 1ti �9 .Z*41'��t4. '' .. r r ! i . r. r vc itiM,, , J. .sa ,f R mt' rt' ''i S a aQ�k�~ " ..:.,,,.;,.,.,..2..„.„.:,:t....: ,it,'i rr. F(-,�.+r t'=•:;- }<�1' sir f- 0,, , '-'�.. ,q4A� '.1.. r , n4 3' t, ,1r 144, 0;1,Zi. t�`Nl.r d ...„,4, 1. `-'"V-4. ..--,7:4':',0:-.:', '"i..1 L Lei, x 4µ..c :; y , yt+�T ..Y.> •.,sj./� �•' T~ , `p li v'• ., [fr ��:att- J:-. v- ,„.3 ,may' .. ' t . T� `( .,L yf. 'Y !'.,.9 Ki tr.. 3. 04 '�'xi { t; t a't �,�., :1 . a+3 rt �x "1. r;'� _ " A •' Cx51�h-- _ �F� -A" Aa � irsar' .f � ,h- '"Y -t - Y r ., „- .',- tt9r. r •r .e „�r a -"P� ` -,Y -,35} •Ir7-r.1.-4,:i.-,- fr'''---1•Orzrlottry,;.....,. hrJ .its • With proposed 331-15-062 development 10 feet from the property line with 10776 Mora Drive, these trees will have to be severely trimmed or removed to allow for the proposed building. Santa Clara County fire safety regulations about tree limb overhang and pine needle removal may require further trimming away from the new building.The 25% maximum canopy reduction recommended for tree trimming (Source: William Elmendorf, assistant professor of community forestry and Henry Gerhold, professor of forest resources, Pennsylvania State University) may be exceeded which could lead to loss of these trees. The negative impact to and possible loss of these trees is a material detriment to the neighborhood. 4. That the Variance will not allow a use or activity which is not expressly authorized by the Zoning Ordinance: [Intentionally blank] Appendix 1, Setbacks on Mora Drive. Measurements made from aerial photograph and overlaid parcel map (see Figure 2). Table 4, Mora Drive Residence Side Setbacks Address on South side North side North+South Mora Drive setback in feet setback in feet Setbacks in (+/-) (+/-) feet(+/-) 10701 21 71 91 10755 47 148 195 10730 59 71 130 10776 47 18 65 10810 12 47 59 10831 12 9 21 10869 35 53 89 10840 30 21 50 10868 18 6 24 10898 18 24 41 10915 18 59 77 10931 35 83 118 Average North+South Setbacks in feet(+/-) 80 Average Setback per Side in feet(+/-) 40 ....--i"----ik—*-77::irr17.-"---Z-42•3:----? 74•::.ffi .. 1.*" 1 28 I ...:' • ,,,-Al.:. 5 /1 1 ...--...-z.:-;.. -t..„.. .....lci.7. IS ..!"::**ti•,',.:,,.!,11.:::::; '.. I ' • NI t .,e.?ti.N.• ,:*.......''''";;:trVZ',-...'''6,,tr:%!> ./..- . . -..'-,,.e..›.p.... - 2--....-,..1,-.A1, -, r.,''cr,,,.....,'..-•,,4,e, , ---.7,4 -,...." .• W .*.•FaV ?"''. ,,:14/1:.. ;--:"..,`"'...., .."'..!- t' .:7,,Vri,,,,,,,,:,..,...,'. ..,:,: „,. .t 1::-.1.ity, .. .0 R.O.S. 775/21 \ 11,',-;.'%----,44401-- ..* 14--• 1 '..--°t%. .7p --_-.1, - ••••:.-•42,..c 9A.- '• .99 .---""" ..-‘••o•-•%•• • •••-•-•1,- 1,4,-0.; -.•,. kA,--..---0,1•,••••••:,-1-,,,,,...., .e.....? --+••••••:••,..,_-.--1, ;.....•. •..„2.,,,,,..- C) 09 49 ccA .-.------ "9 --).,/*e.,:."1...A-9, •,-:.0.7 - . -.-4...tit.,:- •;•,-. r_4:390,14•-••••1•,:;-)-.- . -.•.:,-•-•il•r_- ,....,.. -,-4-, , -- ,.-, -...",•cr,41., :: cV".". .. 4;'.,.'11.,17‘,.1.-3b 0:: ' -..-j,-„,'07:4!-,,4t1; . '`,1*" ,.",-.‘• %i - ',' .- ,VP., . ' 4..t, ....c.07.ia .,..,..„...-ire?....7.4:(--,!„..,... ...7,,,%.. ....iwtta cr.'-,'..,,e,ye„ .... 0;e:4, ' ? Ai'. vt.i.-3:--,,---' i .'-.4.),-•i':,•-•-:-, •-. '•4, p.••••.2.r..k • ,egP1')•-•••••4.:, ''''''..%.,-.1.,...-vf :F•7•;.',,,..z.;:•--.34.):',., -: ,c, ....!...%.r:•,•••• ••;,•:.::,t',.•,;....i.!..-u,Af.,(;;Ti:.:0. ...4y: ,.:•'• 7--.. '6•&..,-:,,-.: ,_,..2:•••,.-: ,,, 1. -' '7. 51.5.4V:/7•'---r- ..1-2,vg,n,p• ...,...4,\•:; ;.-:„.„ :•,..., •,,,....,...4t.:Fra..,:mrt,- ,.;....:...„,--ve,:is., ..y.,.:;sg••••!...,., -- .vv, ,.: .. i ,,....- „,....4c,8.4,h,t,,,:,,,•[• . ,...,..•..)„:., ,.1,1 •,j_2r --,.?,:„......n..,,,,,:-..-,.1,,z.,, ..,:;?.1.....:,:.,,,,ott_.n.n)g-i,-4-wiL ,....4;.„.„. ...,....:,p.;.e.,-;,7,‘„,,,L .• ;...., „..,-,,,,' --,r.,:,,L...--; -.,,t4,,..04m, - L.:. -u?. ,...J.:k5-„,"A1,-,,,,,:...?',-.,'-,:-•.t.--,,,,,t7,,,-0.- sg'''':41-:4--.7it-lt\-Y,•1.)qr:''.--- -,:,:,j gt, .-24, .. ' .S-r-t.;4.:.+' -.:. A -% "*'''''''...1V\ ',•--,‘"'-1 tikt—'"'1".. • Ff6, 41')-AiA,iz,,4, --• •:,:,:.'1,,i;;--•- --;-iccur) , 9,-, -- 66.0O2.9 ...:'''''1-4.*°.,..,.....:1,) .9>-.4t,).: : , '-'—DE(7.- .-f.r:..:S.---ift-,.......,...f>•,'..rir....; C''''.1711L4C '' .."''',.l." ts,VW'''k''':X.4÷4...' '',1,-.'%, ,,,9,-,lica:C,,,.1.„1......., , 1,•00,),,..,-, -.0 3;„, AS,..i.%:;:,,,„1,`,:,',.,,,:,f.., ..f.it*s•i.,.,' -,z.,,. .....?.rc.'-'7'-..1-,L,. ... :;':..'5":::‘,.-...-.C.5A.e..1 • „it-62Vid 4 rt„,-x... ; ..7...715.:T.7„v„. •,., ,r0,,,c,E..-......„.;..,., ,_.. ..,,,.... 4.„,,„,,,t,lk ...v.,,za,...„.,,,:-.,,,,,.-c,y.,,,,,,•:,;,„1;,:,.!..... .11..,...L..... '4,,k 25 ..e. ,,... •••f••''''dig"-:•-',-''''',.:J.--$'4!(--‘.•;,-•::',-'-'-'...•,'"'• .:.`4?=,-.0.`•••••;:f4t.• 'iz-- -: .', ...•\\-,=-0.`e-4:1-,4"-'.°1- ••••;-tV--...-'9'''°,145kb*P-13\-----.-•4416. •,.. A,-; .-t.--.....,:rin,s;\,i.....:,,,,,:,.., ,,.•,:.,%x,,,,,,A,6 \t„...,...,. „,,,,,,,,,„,t,,,, ..„..,,„ ...„,.-‘,...:,...p.k I..,,, 4,.,11.,,,,,V•c!-A•14 4:41,:ti,`„)., c; .- 2:29,9:•,-4...,g,,,,F.,,...,S,,,,.....,,,,..:„.:4' ..,-,. ,x,e4.14.,?„,....,., .,,,X,t.,,A,. „,,,,,,,It„, , , le,t.,24.,,re,,,,,,,4;,„,„,„ ,s,s ts.;17/1.11,,,%:;:t---_,Poz,.r,,,.;,,,s ‘, isi :1•1: '44%' ",..."',Nsk.,....'i 6* ••• ' ...W.r"1-.Y.,i,',.•. h),„;:t;i•V",-1.....,,'.' '''',Ptt,tt'?- .4i...,..f,4, .... .,- , .., • .,\y-„,,.:,T.., ;-VA),' ,,...5:*• .7.q.,^414,1i.;q4-4,.....f.,1,",,,,,Z.-1:,,IN.rs.,-, ...,4„.. ...y.0,-,,c,...,‘:„- -1.1.-,..-b. 4. , ....1.,,j,; -I :,,..,54'%.h,,:.'le..., ,..,-; •:'. •.' .e. ,.P.,.:.-!,,-...,-.. '-4*..t," 3,`,......:1 LA- it,-...., 'itt,:-..'• vo• • .,:.1,4'...,./1 .=•,'1,_.1:::-v,::;•yr„,...* c-,..v..,:,••• _,44 yr,,..i.Q.•;,:s„.•-tike-.,,.V,\ ‘,,e,,,.?.. --,,-"-%.4..:,,,...17,::..• ....-itr.,•- ,1,4 :.-„..:;..:10,,:,..,7".1„re..4.--4::t.,,',,. „,„tm,,,_:„.efi.:',,A.':..)..x..:-: -.-.4.-,qx,tr.-.4z-Avicit,:-... ,:(1.°6• .,i.).......1/4. ..''''.0')17,eA 1.,bik•.:..:kv•.'''''''''.'3...ti4... ''' '''''''''r-`;:.1,4*;:`r'?:::::: -*\-?'-',.'j":.-.-.*,..5"::L5'/;?';t1''','.:;S# -:: ::-','"::!.;-.g‹. C''..."::°,-..:•...t.i:C''.41'Y'?0- -gi.>:-N..4.'-'''' ,:g.V2.•;0./ .•.7'1',.,‘",e'.* s,';;..q.,ZZe..711,1,'.. ...'W4...AZ,'-'....7:2.1%‘,L':,113-V,„„r",*'''''.4Z.::Y:1,447r.'<,:k. „-tt.'"-,:*?:f.\*.A..,..-_,„2.'\...„.f;*.tr0-4,,,t""_-„,0,4., ,,,:..r.,7."..\..."...4,,,,...2.64,A.,,,,, ‘, tw.;..i.....,,,,..,,le:9,,04...--.,7::4......ecr.5.4,. 41 r.,!,:,...i.;C,:.1,-,?,,,.-.„.:<,--9,..,,c,„:V.,!,-,•,,; , , ,se,-;;;;-•:.----,,,--"t,..-...",,- e--.7....1...:.41::--,..1;.k-,e`r".,•-•.r.s\-,-,.---,k.-,.;411.i„.4,,-.,,,..te -..k . . ''.1:.4:j 1 qC111*,.t.;511'''''.Pity 1.:,'"'";,;:6'V.V..:,.''.2,'. ..“il'.'''''' ''''W ' "r." 4..',..111 s ,.;..C.7.",I)./iIr ,/frO:k. ., ,7.,,,,.. V-.7....`..',..\ .t,..,.. A.1.--,r1vs:4-4 er,V- . .0-, .._f, -:', *.-. -.• ., .',..-‘„,,:',4..:•-'...-,,`";..,‘;',,--'.e.'„- )M,-',,-S:.-5e.dr.e,, ., ,,, .c,„ '..'''‘. '''',6.,=.,-;-e,•rir . 'if, -.a 4...' Y.,,,.,4.4 , i ,,,..........., -.,.. —.., . ,....,,,,,,,,, ..„4.. ..1.'' VV.IJCP....itN'e,-(,,gic, '..:. +.";.+,:"......e4 ,.11 "':..`,,,/,','0,-,7.".'..:',..;„•-,',..., ii..."; t,..;.. ...t, ,11,..1 •!,?. ilk ,,`,..::.::::, . ,.,,, $,, o...P ' "-,i-•-,'7„,..4".470 4 0...Q. 1,t,,,An V\ ..."-:'/..1')fis„„.;K 'erlle'''t.,.5t` 4..1\4:,A''''^"..5,',„S''.:147,.....2,......'.\% % 1:1:'.', l'':•./..-q-;''''' .1-",n/s;n5'7•'44 .7.';','r4:1'''1:..s!'1.'s-A4"---.1°-‘c:::-.4 eiT'" . -',•4;c:.."..".;,,,I,.. . -,F;;,.,,)-.,,,,'4:7,..e ..,,...sltiQ.1,,,„:‘,'::;''',-pri:ip, ' ,.,.r. Act, .'•,„!.„,i. ....„".;.:";:,, ..-7,..v,s,... ..30.;;;,,,:%-z....tt,".,, ,s,:,z....s:'7...,,.. ..14,',1,„,,,,tf.,,,..&7„:,,..:, ,',.:,.;„,'•,::.....q.ct..%•1.':...i...;7„:,‘:":";,;.-' , i.',,,6,,..,,, s..;,,:,,,..e,ir A. '8i4.1:•,''...:::*t 540C-4"11:G_.,_,•Rt:A .''''''''...."C''):'.•1:j..:*:::' ''AI-7 '' V"IL''q,*•os.,‘4'.' 7:''' -Clie-Ao.t.'',i?4 .1':••••*:.-;4••• •..:.:1'r• -1. ;-''•'''''''::•1.: -.I-r; _ is* k%'..' :',''...•:•;';',?-S .-' %,..q. •••17- ' ' ';,,;.: .%,'".' „•"1:,,4,-„1`?4,' •, Jr,'••.,,l'AV. .,W,.,!.`4,,,.,1,,,,,i,,,,. ,...,,i;'',.:'.,',.!.,-,,‘-'-`' 1.'T-7,-',_.r .. -,' .:-.e.,,,...‘.-,-;.1 .1).,_..,,,,c,..„:„.,..33,54.,,t}., . ,, ,, ,s..).:,-...,r„,-...,:,:...,/. •.‘ ,,, -.,, / ^C''.. :-Wt,i,:i.r-.-,3_.,---c--,:-...? ••,,,.2' \:'n,r3.09,......,...e._..,,,,.....,,...- -,....-' 1,. -..-------.'e .---',.:;/ '"Ai •A''''''t....'''-.;\-.,‘" .",,'"'•••':'`,5" ".......; A ,-4•,.4..`Y..„crz„--Z,`-'s,":,,,-,-..”.,,....-,„...e•N.‘..43‘1."3k.feoeft;-.„l;‘e,'.i.,-%-.-,i-w.:.'t..t,.•.;'•'t,.-,i.0"s-...-4;-1:".e.....-.0..p.-.-,";.';;-;4:0•,.0---,,,,',,...,.Cr..''•':-::§,'11•1••-.:.N..;a.v,c)-1;,.;.S.-•••,•-..0•.!I...•..'l...,i-f.•..,11A,-, :.4.,'".9.:.Y.,.. i`;:.„6.„;-adS1 ,'”.rs-, -..- 1-,'-4'.-;-.,6/-.2`.•:,,'g.-,,„;'•••''.'%''''."„'''''-,.-z•,•::-•:--1.;:-.--..,-..c.'.":-..'..---''•‘;..--s'-•:,<,•-,i.:,.-r•2•al:'")„!V-..;.4..'r..:.%,-.,:......:.`44".1:::%1'.-:,.,.'..s,i"`'.i..--,./',:','",....,.,-,,,n--v:y".;;•„;”,1,"..".5„e".,,-,iz13,:",,5-.c..;.:40--?."e'-.,.;(7a,i„."..4'.- Fe...4,11k' '•`..',..-=.,'' i: "':".•''':•.' '••::''''...,:..,'';'-': ;:r"A',51‘,..":-` . , ' 4 . 444 6*C.L ..1s.-'14• , ,..,. .*/ '‘..,...J. 4'c.„\.7.:„., .t,Odori: ,/...",Z. ,',..„4.:ARrAck!--;r.. .‘ ''. ..., ',1 =1, ' -, - • ...r.' ..y....,-•.- .•-. . • 4 0, 447 .,.." tge".e/k9,,, 4....,......*-.0,,,NO, 11„., .,. .,,ii.,, ,. ,...,..., ,.,,,.,..„...., ,,..... , .. ..st.,. , ,:.'.. *C. .:„. .1'4..6 '• .1,t...?r, ..3‘..N., ,•• ,1..,(2:•L!,..,As-'.,.• 4- % ...,,". ‘,.t,,...‘,4!..-4.1:-..v...,11;IA::1,..." ,.,,'", ,,, ,6)304‘!;17'...,,•.,;(-,47- ,.,L.:..o•Vi.f.Y, ' a . -... V..,'?1°'.J.;: • 1,':.i.'-''.'f,`'r'''C',se i;,-:-, ..6,Zv. ''r.; P"';,:'.`::',.••••'...,'E',r.',''.,V12,V5'''''''.".7,t':-'-i/- 2,'.•:.':\''''. -' An_ • as ' , - 9e1;-,:. 4-,-.-i.,crv''.••, .-119-•q-?1•• 'ef,-"'*"..-EQ• , ,- •-'',- `", •• •'.. " ,1.1- , :31',---,`'"- -fr-4i-•'•,.,,•`--,'•;4••::-,0A9"`r- --„,z3, .... - - r••--:-,-,',4•-•*,.-- ,. -1•• • •...:-,.. -.4-.\\0„_:'itl .....,•.f.. - .,••;--, ---, .--- 0 ,•,.. - .--- -- ••, t t -....- 4.; •,..,, • '''''''. 1,..' ....r '5 "*""•S•'+',. .i,,r. 41..1",' '• * - ,, - .....,;-,A1••• ,.,.--',..`..:-.:,, "..''''':::;';' •.....t.',..:t;:,=A::;:.;Y.?'' '---ri.:4 4- ,. • ..".&..Y,i.„... ,..,..s. 0__..... ,',- .471\1,11...:...,-a.f.1,..),2',.,___...--,. 1.... .., 111A,-. t,,4LI.iiVer....>. +". ..7.",;'.•t.'-:.1t9.."...? +ti.:Otts., ,..".0,. "-ttrgt.:.7.i.'s '7i:2:4V.tp ...t.--,,:4-4,-,-,,e ,,.j5'...--*??4,,,,V,,,c.-' v 0 '''''4 -.,z'.°-",,-' ,', .,'e.-'.'PkV.I.,.z.:-.••' '''.-.247-4*.v,••L 6,0 4....,., ••P-.••••1:0.v.1/4,-1--RILL'ir ,,,,i'•.,,".:"., ' (....) t ..t.1., -, ...=,,...i ....,.‘0,.....--3,,••••,,,,, •4,-.........,-,,r• 7....,...---7:.•...i,...,: . 1.<!,..r-, ,,...1 P'' 17 , , „:,.',/ .,-, , .,....ze,,,,s7,?,7,-....sqt..,,,...,--4,_-...--,,,,„,•9,-.... 0".,,,•,,,,a.x••+A., ' C , ' ., ',„, C,-„N ..,- :.,0 's,':' ''',-- ' ''N., ' t. • %.,104.9.. 19u9084:4 L.L.1 '.. ..7 r4e'''. ,``rt-.',.. -4,,t,,44• '',,,I,,„`T4.`e.!OA>1Sr..;,';;Iti4? .,0' fi.v. ,--• - „ -1,/•:14'Atk'',',,;', V.,-.;.(..,X‘42'*',.....„.'. 4,..t....4,.. .-Wril,...A ... . t_-.. . .:,...t.,...,,,i, 4..... ...-..•• ,..,..s,,,..,....,,,,K.,,--- . = .-,--- ..,-,;...-,..-,.., „,., ,= - , ,-,,-.. ,\I-:,;.2.;••••,.r 4 0 •••,,,--•- •-• z:1-, ---,,El P'•-••••:.v.;:^‘,-,*"`'. 2COD-09 U) ;". •`•••-•., . .. ..:a, • I.., .. --... .. Inset of 46,47,51 C\Irelocated for visual a) clarity.DK " -- = _ • c)) U-.--- Appendix 2, Summary of CDP Approvals in LAH since 2004. Source: Los Altos Hills Planning Department. Summary of CDP Approvals in LAH since 2004 Address Date Net Lot Type of MFA/ Dwelling Developed Area Floor Variance Granted? Approved SizelLUF Project MDA Area incl. Area Sq.ft. garage Ratio 10435 July 2004 .766 acres Addition 4,520 3,411 sq.ft 7,576 sq_ft. Variance for 2 parking spaces in Berkshire _432 LUF 6,920 71%of MFA (nonconforming) .102 setback 114%of MDA 13341 August _931 acres New 4,550 4,465 sq_ft 6,621 sq ft_ .105 No variance Wildcrest 2004 .455 LUF residence 6,650 93%of MFA 99%ofMDA 25701 March .331 acres New 3,300 3,267 sq.ft 5,356 sq.ft. Variance for parking in the side Deerfield 2005/ .33 LUF Residence! 5,400 99%of MFA 99%ofAIDA .197 yard setback February Pool 2014 13303 August LS17 Addition 3,690 3,570 sq.ft. 6,396 sq.ft. Variance for 2 reduced size Wldcre t 2005 acres 5,790 97%of MFA (nonconforming) .045 garage spaces and to exceed 369 LUF 119%of AIDA MDA 123S0 February .491 acres New 4,910 4,360 sq.ft 7,010 sq.ft. Variance for ehimrey in setback Hilltop 2006 .491 LUF residence 7,010 39%of ALFA 100%of MDA .204 and pool 12390 June 2006 .493 acres New 4,980 4,97S sq.ft 7,030 sq.ft. .229 Variance for 1 parking space,bay Hilltop .498 LUF residence 7,030 100%of MFA 100%of MDA windows and chimney in setback 24624 March 2007 _432 acres Major 4,250 4,060 sq.ft. 7,576 sq.ft. Variance for 2 parking spaces and Summerhill .425 LUF remodel 6,350 95%of MFA (nonconforming) trash Pnrlosure in setback resulting in 119%of AIDA .193 new residence 25375 Jane 2007 .461 acres Major 4,490 4,100 sq.ft 6,399 sq.ft. .204 Variance for 2 reduced size Estacada .449 LUF addition 6,590 91%of MFA 97%of MDA parking spaces in setback 14555 September .462 acres Addition and 4,550 4,542 sq.ft. 5,532 sq.ft_ .226 Variance for 1 parking space in De Bell 200S _455 acres remodel 6,650 100%of MFA 84%ofMDA setback 13310 November .79 acres New 3,973 3,950 sq.ft 6,005 sq.ft._ .115 No variance East Sunset 2009 .4 LUF residence 6.073 99%of MFA 99%ofA•IDA 27361 February .4275 New 4,330 3,450 sq_ft 6,927 sq.ft. No variance Moody 2011 acres residence 6,930 71%of MFA 100%of MDA .155 .4275 LUF Summary of CDP Approvals in LAH since 2004—Page 2 Address Date Net Lot Type of MFA' Dwelling Developed Area Floor Variance Granted? Approved Size/LTiF Project MDA Area incl. Area Sq.ft. garage Ratio 13500 June 2011 .4275 Sunroom 4,275 3,462 sq.ft. 5,222 sq_ft. No variance Freemont acres 6,375 31%of MFA S2%ofMDA .136 .4275 LUF 27911 June 2014 1.007 Addition 4,560 4,144 sq.ft. 9,647 sq_ft. No variance Via acres 6,660 91%of MFA (nonconforming) .094 Ventana .456 LUF 145%of MDA 27299 November 1239 Addition 4,000 3,399 sq_fr. 6,539 sq.ft_ Variance to allow for 20 foot side Byzne Park 2014 acres 6,600 97%of MFA 99%of MDA .072 yard setback for addition .40 LUF 14696 November .471 acres Addition 4,530 4,343 sq.ft. 6,469 sq.ft. Variance for up to 12 foot Manuella 2014 .453 LUF 6,630 96%of MM 97%ofAIDA .212 encroachment into side yard setback for addition 2560S May 2015. .359 acres New 3,590 3,000 sq.ft. 5,230 sq.ft. .192 Variance for open parkin_in side Deerfield 359 LUF residence 5.690 34%of MFA 93%of MDA yard setback 25711 July 2015 .49S acres Addition 4,510 4,464 sq.ft. 6,437 sq.ft. .206 Variance for open parking in the Deerfield .451 LUF 6,610 99%of MM 97%of MDA front setback 25531 August .273 acres Addition 2,730 2,723 sq.ft 3,423 sq.ft. Variance for building setbacks, Fremont 2015 .273 LUF 4,S30 100%of MFA 71%of AIDA .229 parking in the side yard and obstructed parking ATTACHMENT 6 Esther M. John 10701 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills, CA 94024 650-948-6076 March 5, 2015 • RECEIVED To the Los Altos Hills Planning Department' Suzanne Avila, Planning Director Cynthia Richardson, Consulting Planner MAR 0 5 2015 • To the Los Altos Hills Planning Commission : Susan Mandle, Chair . TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Jitze Couperus, Vice Chair . James Abraham, Member Richard Partridge, Member . Kavita Tankha, Member • Re: Proposed high-density development at 10730 Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills Honored members of the Los Altos Hills Planning Department and Planning Commission: On behalf of concerned neighbors in the Greater Mora neighborhood, I am submitting a neighborhood petition signed by 97 neighbors who oppose the proposed high-density development on three sub-standard lots at 10730 Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills. As some neighbors are currently traveling, I will submit a second batch of signatures as soon as they become available. Sincerely, --;r111C----"--7 Esther M. oh RECEIVED . Petition Summary H. Petitioning the Town of Los Altos Hills to deny • ,. non-conforming development on Mora Drive. :� t � . MAR 0 5 2015 tiro t: + Background 'San$d;'} r ` , We, the undersigned, oppose the proposed ` • : r s{. Petition .t , development on three substandard lots at l b ' I' . • 1 , k,-' x ' ' `.. ',' Los Altos Hills. We hereby petition the Planning Department .',c it „�+, ':-.'„,,....•1:1.. :. ., f, j:,,�t n �� and the Planning Commission of Los Altos Hills to deny the til i+3l > ',`,411., ; ; ` CDP application by Commercial Developer, Forrest Linebarger, .r".: 4 and his Company, Inhabiture. The proposed development does not preserve the Town's rural character and is contrary : to the Town's General Plan and zoning ordinances. Page ,`. f 3 Printed Name Signature 'Address/City Date Count ES e t il, N70b PC/, fC'17°/ /L7 °/7 2/20r fill-RT.-Dec z/d - 2 Lc.F f-�T-csS (-{-t cis E'ftp Q-At 1-i } ✓�1( ._ e-os -s (' � `� , 4 �4 �/ } ( Dct7 7q Te.(r., \iJ u. j e °iI D M c lZ tsr D 2► [ \J i v eetk-i TS Pri-TFri- . \i-P C\,,,,t to. 0_(7 /ifai`C/ lir(c-7e___ .L-\- o i �e c . C � `r��. 0%eco i_A,, �Q (4., 0. 9qc -zE-I.r 6 to o 2_1.1 Motu ' -4/z_VL 7 Q t 'lt.x.0 c)---a--) . -R1 at . .- ,p, -0 1-ni , )25 , C-17 i � 00 10706 1424 - r' //)(r7e j02,4 D.e, 9 4kilin CC 0l' A ,-,/e-f,, h,,4,-,h/,,,..., (4-fr.,. ....2,40--r eit , le///1',h ,..2r Ales-7i /,- irj4/ // 4' • /4 • -) ,� Z41/ 0. c15/ rf-/ ; 10 1a— ar(roh �?��` , �� ;�, �� ,,,,,,, - i4//c• , � , 2 / 4"2 /vim ./1,,,,----.1-1— I 1,,5� I0/Or/ / rnoYn- Drcrne . K.re )< kiefr Le5 Al. . M51/s , (i4 74:72 -f1�2-r/s 12 /i..,71 6 PI '-',---c:_. 0_ ,/i ,,‘,./ Page 1 Petition Summary Petitioning the Town of Los Altos Hills to deny non-conforming development on Mora Drive. MAR 6 5 2015 Background' . ;and; We, the undersigned, oppose the proposed • `. Petition ' development on three substandard lots at 1 " 8� 1 ILLS x r i, ' ik'.g+`� ;; Los Altos Hills. We hereby petition the Planning Department 1' Y ! ' , ,r , and the Planning Commission of Los Altos Hills to deny the ':i ` O''".':''',.:.:.:',''', ".4 ;';'''''','?',::.:'.:-%' s,` ;s; ' h...= CDP application by Commercial Developer, Forrest Linebarger, ' u` - and his Company, Inhabiture. The proposed development does not preserve the Town's rural character and is contrary 4 to the Town's General Plan and zoning ordinances. Pag4 r off i Printed Name Signature Address/City Date Count A- ,ht 1i c &,Vd[ /a Fta a ,�°�04, %20. - 14 (-�.7: c L•i I '�' '"`� G.4 61- 9411' `/1-2/W 15 010.1 •-o`, .._A.....IL C-.)... % L^lt-1 l.2 1\---0., Or; r.� Q h (( 16 Lti4 : tL-t. I- A Mikrir" CL1� 41 ----5C.--) -r` Z( E 5 18 Re44 lo lily 7 43 1!0 ! itf✓ret 1Jrive-. 1.2-Fir 19 t J ( , �J .x`5— /Mares /3Aygi I 20 t�ekt✓c�.✓`Lt Cit S i-4-I fNt,,,. G'h �s�Y`L r*� 1,1 top,. FA-(4,E") - l064 0 11,04 1X.IN )12,y/ti 2 1/f 21 v-t,ta CR.,.)Girt t G`,,(, (( ,,,,r le I /0S 'g /(.4 C �� D Z/ f...5'22 Wi23 fil4 als./,),1/4 ; -• �L G��/ /67-F6'-3--- O `34 Vie''/ `" i 24 Ati -1o. f -� // kJ* /C�.30 M06 `Jr�, z- /4- 25 / ie / ) 26 CS.,[Gr/►in e, .,= zr'� /f*&j„/„.„n. /M 6 /V ord Dr. LA '-',4 //,5 Page Page 2 • I ECENED Petition Summary Petitioning the Town of Los Altos Hills to deny r non-conforming development on Mora Drive. MAR 0 5 2015 Background r t}and We, the undersigned, oppose the proposed ' -OejOS HILLS rPetitionf , development on three substandard lots at 10730 Mora Drive, ° ' ,a Los.Altos HillsWe hereby petition the Planning Department `�. ,jir�' rr.and the Planning Commission of Los Altos Hills-to deny the 2%rY;,yr rte VM `• CDP application by Commercial Developer, Forrest Linebarger, and his Company, Inhabiture. The proposed development does not preserve the Town's rural character and is contrary .. > L. -r to the Town's General Plan and zoning ordinances. Paige, to f ±s Printed Name Signature Address/City Date Count '.6 /109. f G•of�. ►rs . 4_,10. 27 •/17ut- IA)01 ' : - „, -• ; • - • Pa a, �=L (el- ,..._., i.--,-; ;9/1-- /069l PLan- y205 28 An '. t4 l f+m19-1,1 .47 - z — (0 ?N /,,,,,,, to,r feet :P ./$- 29 _ 30 n -ke41 r.-! ,x0,e--- - No00 -7:iv v. „.z: .,,,,/, low -r j him, -zm 31 5J:6 ,A Tigi 32 6� l( 4/- 7' (Aqo 144 .`2(2 46 f/��"/,/ dr , # r /i - / 1,147 ; (®z? 1 2/moil i(f 33 . /11X� � /0 -�1 �arta k. f er , 81P R,e 3/,„7g/rr 34 r 35 A ri N ' 6 fa:mss • s- .ra- t cr )-715— IL 4 4 2) 2')-S- 1•1 51 ffr:1-0741 _ ------- . %' lc)'7(0 110.-RALY, 7- 2e7/6-36 --krA3 . -P__•" -rvo_7_-_,v/ atoay . 10T5157VAitutrf 151-14,sp ' 38 V;47L"C------ t h/C/-c e.,,,,--, iD4-715(')A>Hizis 2/4yet:,-- 40/ s •. . — / a Page 3 _Kam _ :Petition Summary- . Petitioning the Town of Los Altos Hills to deny g rnon-conforming development on Mora Drive. • MAR Off. 2015 Bank ourid ` ', .and �,t� We, the undersigned, oppose the proposed h'n1tj � nya17 �ILL� t' !;Petition development on three substandard lots at 10 0 b i _--e-44,,,,--.".;;.-,,4._-,. .-.-; Los Altos Hills. We hereby petition the Planning Department • .:..,i,,,,.1.,,,.. �Ptis..'"4.L.7".37 .4.:-..-7:4'� •- :'' and the Planning Commission of.Los Altos Hills to deny the a ? t ,,ti'fit r z ,' „°'�' '� � ;'''.-" '-...-‘:..:'1.:.,!'..::,',‘'t : +'' i ��;�Y; .. CDP application by Commercial Developer, Forrest Linebarger, " and his Company, Inhabiture. The proposed development does it:; , not preserve the Town's rural character and is contraryto the Town's General Plan and zoning ordinances. Page` '.f ' Printed Name Signature Address/City Date Count cSOIRPE 1J1441 c Io.CO Ill cr-iti. 14 31 40 .6.: ::) 61 'Warr-. Dlv� ( 36 41 - �ClI� G� �t � � I 9 N� A/1 4-i- 3A i 42 D �.�' Ne-re, �Y. etc-Am-0v4 6 (co Ii u(a r ` o g is. /14�a -.4,, 3 C/ 43 zsiirc, (2.5 Quz iv " %9Q1eAl 16M0.Kot-a i)ic 1 v�- . 3/ t. 44 . (coca 1,14o(2-1. D(2-14� Ro E c RoD.R.G.*Zot a,0-2P-A---jt L A-(-4 q 4 o zc-(- /3/5 45 ( l Doo iM0 CLA DANE, 32 46 (bocci &PR.(Gu&z ,1 ' i ..,✓ C . Lk Q4-oz4- A5' Le:/(3t 4Y1s� Dr\f—e. y (13,i(iii . a r 14 071 � � LA(.-( 9 240-0,1 3/1;.---47 ElR'dal (/Ito ti rf / I, r i t i t -2,t9 1\1 0(2,4A 0 1?-, V Ir 48 49 • • 50 51 52 Page 4 RECEIVED Petitioning the Town of Los Altos Hills to deny Aet�tior�Summary MAR 05 2095 non-conforming development on Mora Drive. =Ba_ckgroun :4 44:�, G IAI4r. 01L:,3�� ; , ,•,. We, the undersigned, oppose the proposed higi iicS ALTOS HILLS ' ° s PetIt of J+=ff, , development on three substandard lots at 10730 Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills. We hereby petition the Planning Department and the Planning Commission of Los Altos Hills to deny the y ' l ' ;:,�3 ,� r iF� CDP application byCommercial Developer, Forrest Linebarger, � pP P . 9 , and his Company, Inhabiture. The proposed development does .It ! not preserve the Town's rural character and is contrary t ! tto the Town's General Plan and zoning ordinances. Printed Name Signature Address/City . Date Count 0. i ✓ V , 5 )O rct.A-� 1` ) 6).5 �� r CA 53 I //tLJ " 1 NR'', Gt ✓�%L a4 -� �l X 51 i%�-�I • 3/1/2v/5 54 NA Cy i /// / j t 55O 56 • 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 Page 5 RECEIVED Petition_Surrima. Petitioning the Town of Los Altos Hills to deny ry... non-conforming development on Mora Drive. MAR 0 5 2015 Background:.:- :` ::and:;:`:_: :.: We, the undersigned, oppose the propose d hi� l�ir�.TOSHILLS Petition '°: ` '; development on three substandard lots at 10730 Mora Drive, "MVP: Los Altos Hills. We hereby petition the Planning Department •yhv _.._._.,'' and the PlanningCommission of Los Altos Hills to denythe 4 ti ;1:4 tA��j: .r;; , }` CDP application by Commercial Developer, Forrest Linebarger, .,.;._... .:; ,k and his Company, Inhabiture. The proposed development does `` _ not preserve the Town's rural character and is contrary i'''' - : '-: s'-` to the Town's General Plan and zoning ordinances. • . Page= :`.of -' Printed Name `Signature : Address&'City'_> Date Count.0 Li. _ NGUY�' r O i� Rte- , }, �, . 1 Dc.DS A- Lac Jesi Kov)f01 • —(6 do•i- rark_-Dr 1/3fyj 2 TT/ vci?-6 ,A-cMd/ 6 A1or Xr: L A. , J/� /1-5" 3 ll 9704�o.0,p Hot—.0( /o6'9c//".,r4 0,-- e.4 3/3/1,5- 4 lice, Ober p4& /0696 A i-a.,A.: 4i -�3/ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 , , RECEIVED • MAR 0 5 2n19 ,40.-etrityr:otincime Petitioning the Town of Los Altos Hills to deny Aggszeitionzza non-conforming development on Mora Driv Ili is F LOS ALTOS rut. Irtitiklarigrig avad.pm.:,„31,A0..,AA We, the undersigned, oppose the proposed high-density Vagtb,titte00 development on three substandard lots at 10730 Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills. We hereby petition the Planning Department and the Planning Commission of Los Altos Hills to deny the CDP application by Commercial Developer, Forrest Lineberger, and his Company, Inhablture. The proposed development does not preserve the Town's rural character and Is contrary W'c'4'4igiggaNatail"tmg to the Town's General, Plan and zoning ordinances. IgRageon4q) t -fg eg;!,, ,,,,rkf&r. t,igmtttAditd.11 Printed Name Signature Address/City Date Count John Sell 11111 Mora Drive,Los Altos 3/2/2015 • 2 . 3 , 4 5 . , 6 7 8 . 9 10 11 12 • 13 Page 7 • qI.l •y,'t �� xh Petitioning the Town of Los Altos Hills to deny IOiaftlE® n' x. , 4,114k L .a non-conforming development on Mora Drive. %' 0-4;::` � ;o " ARS 2015 t0,1,49;a,. : :;1 We, the undersigned, oppose the proposed high-aliens' y ; 0� Ao ;wt development on three substandard lots at 10730 Mora Drive 14:*-',:: 35,4411,12,t-T-412 Los Altos Hills. We hereby petition the PlaniNNEWO� O� IL�,S ger kitt j-;--,,,,f; and the Planning Commission of Los Altos Hills to deny the ':; ' `` ;,, CDP application by Commercial Developer, Forrest Linebarger, ; r:6=14,,. and his Company, Inhabiture. The proposed development does . not preserve the Town's rural character and is contrary 1 &.7-10,..i:,. , .se, to the Town's General Plan and zoning ordinances. Printed Name Signature Address/City Date Count '' -37 /OGS/ l tae--1 f ; ,)— 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Page g „,s,„,„, .E. :';.... 1 Petitioning the Town of Los Altos Hills to deny e rionP m '�J; 'M ;q d .s F non-conformingdevelopment on Mora Drive. VAR 0b 2015 �'103'G a, '-. ° �"-'� We, the undersigned, oppose the proposed hig sity ,„&,,,,,,4-.1„..„ ^ ,kt-A development on three substandard lots at 1073 i oS Hail' Y'.,t ,.M , , *- ked,. Los Altos Hills. We hereby petition the Planning Department ;. ,x.Uz . and the PlanningCommission of Los Altos Hills to denythe ,E , 'f <<' CDP application by Commercial Developer, Forrest Linebarger, t and his Company, Inhabiture. The proposed development does . . : . ° :. not preserve the Town's rural character and is contrary `r - Y x sF to the Town's General Plan and zoning ordinances. Printed Name Signature Address/City Date Count ,_ 2 E'E-CU. vwf,R, IOyO\ sUt`1mi.t.S 17r_ 3/oi 1 ,54,,,t, r\ ,,A-'‘L__ o i ,/, 7// 2 beC d1e_. Nd cts (OE-3/ Dili '''' 5/4 is- 3 J b►'1 M a Asw, _A„........___ 10F31 Mb rzkY 3/61/s- 4 5 . 6 7 I 8 9 10 11 12 13 Page 9 • a2�C:Gly e:.i } Petitioning the Town of Los Altos Hills to eny non-conforming developmentd on Mora Drive. Petition Summary MAR 05 2015 :::;.,.,,__;.,,,,,_!•. ,..,•;._,, ;,;.,L:: t , Background r 4ar�d� 1, We, the undersigned, oppose the proposed1 6 t OSHILLS petit�on � rnt. development on three substandard lots at 10730 Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills. We hereby petition the Planning Department ;t, E and the Planning Commission of Los Altos Hills to deny the CDP application by Commercial Developer, Forrest Linebarger, and his Company, Inhabiture. The proposed development does ' j not preserve the Town's rural character and is contrary to the Town's General Plan and zoning ordinances. Printed Name Signature • Address/City Date Count 'Ke'(,e le-t,Al/4. 10941 T f UJ M 05led/5 105 2_05 i t i"os G v_i kEF: Ipi'1 ! ---e 031oZ 5 , 106 1l QVPAO/r(u 11�r�atr� TAIL Enudrr�-�- 10 W:) 4arirlR. 3/1.11 S- 107 • ./AN‘ G / (,,k(1«.:, • 1 I �S TIB/? OK_ .-5),//►s 108 c1, /AC 6) - // SA-frk 109 110 111 112 113 114 • 115 • 116 117 Page $m RECEIVED Petition Summary. : Petitioning the Town of Los Altos Hills to deny , non-conforming development on Mora Drive. MAR 05 2015 c Bakground , t,3and :r ,` 'M We, the undersigned, oppose the proposed higOWIMNALTOSHILLS P,etit'iori " ., development on three substandard lots at 10730 Mora Drive, ''V i` Los Altos Hills. We hereby petition the Planning Department ,, ; ,, �-�W and the Planning Commission of Los Altos Hills to deny the `'' ' ;' ` CDP application by Commercial Developer, Forrest Linebar er s. . and his Company, Inhabiture. The proposed development does not preserve the Town's rural character and is contrary :v„ to the Town's General Plan and zoning ordinances. Page �l of L3' Printed Name Signature / Address/City Date Count 1 Aw(r-Se, t-Cq �3p o11010,)g.,( 1 66 k y-c-(4-ekit 65 C�3 : l ova �ti M X14\ �� 11 : �s c�" �� � 3I� ��5� 67 r ro.,-35- uuLort, 0� ;vi t-cLd lltdv►21. & , 0 ( I - Los A-II ?Or Cee �///, 68 A /0 6-1}6' CO AO Yocii id-( 11(ja 0 A0. aS c �o• 0 69 civ I. A Lec,ve_rE..__ (..(2,v," L/ 06o A-11- .1 CA 9.40 3l[ 1is 70 A4 �l r� � _ , 1,-/-, 3/7-- itPX15 71 / ' ' , �057Q��2 °�6 7zRi/-unndiC 4u10 `. , LOrio. ",, 4.t.cs .Pz 010.(2,54*of Lei r A 5 .14(,0 3,/t/L 73 POLI,tI • ICD° -SLLrl h Ek .Dr- . 1 Jf�0t'1S 111 e Y eb-ti i)1 j.-L ' L'i,(-' Ltst'l-I -' iLLs C& /f - /Qi/i5 74 47--- / Az,,,____ / til /,,4,-, ,_ ,4./s-- 75 V �Jti !�5� � /6 / Y 7 logo Ro is r/6 76 � �� , 1 ., L.os A-- 's ,(foal loangi Anon VA 7 T /P2O i. oP, 77 di gr AO 78 Page U RECEIVED 'Petition Summary. Petitioning the Town of Los Altos Hills to deny . non-conforming development on Mora Drive. MAR 0 5 2015 Ba*roound, }. A•'; 4`"rkl'�d�, a i , : : We, thee undersigned, o oppose the proposed hic, } �J .J ATOS HILLS PP P P y bwk "' %Pretiti itO ` .V development on three substandard lots at 10 ora urive, 44W?N Los Altos Hills: 'We hereby petition the Planning Department ,� �� #�. and the Planning Commission of Los Altos Hills to deny the .r.. Y r :i9J, ms s CDP application by Commercial Developer, Forrest Lineberger, i ..:,':,,,-.:.!"::,,,'.°x and his Company, Inhabiture. The proposed development does not preserve.the Town's rural character and is contrary 4•',,,,,,I,;,;;:•..:.,•-•m,•,,,,,,,,{•° f-4.41' to the Town's General Plan and zoning ordinances. 446§ • Printed Name Signature Address/City Date Count t"EC 4--)-7--664/ /AV/ CO. kcycf,a_ 310,5— 79 i n rA OnAt119.S LAAA.aiuouvlAct,A l 0 q 0 L ,) Lai D le 311115 80 , ' ' CAW(1 ._, n. f 6`r A+ Bt'_r�C'S - . n•. 3111115 81 L . 2 • •1 / `'r 3 / f ,� 82 " t t,(,. c:g.iii-c° lir, )7 i 16 b-- % d.l I d U � C�+' •tiK ��l�S 83 Al(i_4/4011-67 s'e l i G C 1 cb","'�` i (uf j f ozyk:4 1,-;1,e_. 4 I I/ /f— 84 /2 ;`/' r.2 (674 bl(i2/' ---/2(4,:>// / /. / 62 l/1� �JJ°E'L5/,/, r. 85 y'f,;:b• c iUc tA c>Jv 'V)t,q1.-('ll.G1 %('•- -•b; 1.6' tu, LAID LA 1)2._ t— 86 f �Ir- /5/4- 1e i . 77! /06 CiXs eg, j L 51//ir 87 V Vnrne`t'n� \\19u(\iC 1OlvDr7l�Iy(kA/4' oYmqLn, 3_1-'r 88 ROtYi ii /�J I teLz� /4-6\jft--2.--,- I k.,, i .1.-,,y.,1,. DR."' ( 3f) 3 15 89 h / AigX1zl, ✓.� �� . , r. /1 tG ,/ JJ 90 91 Page./ 12 RECEIVE — Petitioning the Town of Los Altos Hills to deny `Petition Summary. MAR 0 5 2095 ,. ; . . _, non-conforming development on Mora Drive. r,Back9round { aj i We the undersi ned j1asI. SALTOS HILLS 4 1 ;4*. ',antl;;Ail , : g oppose the proposed hi ' ' Petit,on , t development on three substandard lots at 10730 Mora Drive, 1,,LY "'4�-� �,,:; Los Altos Hills. We hereby petition the Planning Department r — r t ` ,` and the Planning Commission of Los Altos Hills to deny the r z.`*4Ka° : CDP application by Commercial Developer, Forrest Linebarger, "'x- `- and his Company, Inhabiture. The proposed development does ..;, : not preserve the Town's rural character and is contrary +e` -ray >a k to the Town's General Plan and zoning ordinances. pagd ofgu , a r 4.. ,:, r Printed Name Signature Address/City Date Count Pio 0 l' E7, 1 •e.._ r" I 93 Vii ?d�Gy 1/Y �� • CP 94021 /2 /6 i11 ( 1676-45 ( (tai S-e.. 4•vi, 3) / _ 94 16 C�Yli.-ems q-1-As- 95 1112ID 6 / 106 66 � ) 1-10/2..b/2- 96 990,2y, 041' TN°M i-c' 1&6661i, .-, ,,,k___y jbm,b g6ie, ZA-0- q‘-/024 *6• 98 99 100 • 101 102 ! 103 104 Page'' I2 • Suzanne Avila ATTACHMENT 7 From: Ray Ho <rychho@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 12:53 PM To: Suzanne Avila Cc: Cynthia Richardson; Ms. Susan Mandle;Jitze Couperus; Ms. Kavita Tankha; Mr.James Abraham; Mr. Richard Partridge Subject: The development proposed by Mr. Linebarger at Mora Drive Dear Ms.Suzanne Avila, The proposed homes by Mr. Linebarger,which in aggregate look like a tight subdivision in an otherwise very well balanced neighborhood. We would like to strongly voice our opposition to these plans and request that not be approved. We are counting on our LAH Planning Department and Planning Commission to forcefully reject Mr. Linebarger's variance requests. Sincerely yours, Raymond and Betty Ho 10690 Mora Drive, Los Altos, CA 94024 1 Cynthia Richardson From: Ray Ho <rychho@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 12:53 PM To: Suzanne Avila Cc: Cynthia Richardson; Ms. Susan Mandle;Jitze Couperus; Ms. Kavita Tankha; Mr.James Abraham; Mr. Richard Partridge Subject: The development proposed by Mr. Linebarger at Mora Drive Dear Ms.Suzanne Avila, The proposed homes by Mr. Linebarger, which in aggregate look like a tight subdivision in an otherwise very well balanced neighborhood. We would like to strongly voice our opposition to these plans and request that not be approved. We are counting on our LAH Planning Department and Planning Commission to forcefully reject Mr. Linebarger's variance requests. Sincerely yours, Raymond and Betty Ho 10690 Mora Drive, Los Altos, CA 94024 1 Cynthia Richardson From: Hal Feeney <hal@feeney.us.com> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2015 9:12 PM To: Cynthia Richardson Subject: Mora Drive Development Proposal Opposition March 29, 2015 Ms. Cynthia Richardson Consulting Planner Town Hall Office 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 RE: Mora Drive Proposed Project by Forrest Linebarger Dear Ms. Richardson: We are opposed to the project currently proposed by Forrest Linebarger to be located at 10730 Mora Drive. The proposed development of three substandard lots does not preserve the Town's rural character and is contrary to the Town's General Plan and zoning ordinances. We have been property owners and residents of Mora Drive for almost 40 years. Although we are not residents of Los Altos Hills, we are two homes away from the LAH boundary and are in the Sphere of Influence of LAH. In 2012, the Planning Department, as part of an outreach program, invited the Mora Drive neighborhood residents to a meeting to discuss the benefits of annexing and becoming part of Los Altos Hills. Subsequently, the southern portion of Mora Drive was annexed to LAH. We respectfully urge Los Altos Hills to demand changes to the Linebarger development proposal such that it conforms to the Town's General Plan and zoning ordinances. We urge Los Altos Hills to demonstrate to all homeowners in the Sphere of Influence of LAH that there is value in becoming part of the LAH community. Sincerely, Harold V. Feeney & Mary Jo Feeney 1 Hal &Jo Feeney 11030 Mora Dr. Los Altos, CA 94024 650-941-6085 Home 650-391-7207 Mobile hal(afeeney.us.corn mj@feeney.us.com 2 Lorraine and Vincent R. Baxter 10970 Mora Drive Loyola, CA 94024 RECEM March 10, 2015 fAF? 22015 Ms. Cynthia Richardson, Consulting Planner TOWN® 1®$�r �JLt� Town Hall Office 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 RE: 10730 Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills Dear Ms. Richardson, We would like to express our opposition to the proposed development of 10730 Mora Drive in Los Altos Hills as submitted. Because of the limited space available, the plan for three homes is not in keeping with the general norms of the neighborhood, and we feel, if approved, this development would create a dangerous precedent that other developers could use in arguing for similar developments throughout Los Altos Hills. We join our neighbors in strongly urging you to reject the application for development of 10730 Mora Drive in its present form. Sincerely, r VINCENT R. BAXTER LORRAINE A. BAXTER Suzanne Avila From: Chuck Bratton <cwbratton@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 6:23 PM To: Courtenay Corrigan;John Harpootlian; Rich Larsen;jradford2011@yahoo.com; Gary C. Waldeck;Suzanne Avila;Cynthia Richardson;Susan Mandel;Jitze Couperus;James Abraham; Richard partridge; Kavita Tankha Cc: Ester John; marjgreen@mindspring.com Subject: Property at 10730 Mora Drive In keeping with the rural and beautiful character the 1-acre minimum is meant to provide for the hills we find it very disconcerting that 3-separate homes could be built on 1.6-acres. Charles &Takako Bratton 10795 W. Loyola Dr. Los Altos Hills This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com 1 Lorraine and Vincent R. Baxter 10970 Mora Drive Loyola, CA 94024 March 10, 2015 MAmete) 5 Ms. Suzanne Avila, Planning Director Town Hall Office TOWN��LOS ALT }ells 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 RE: 10730 Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills Dear Ms. Avila, We would like to express our opposition to the proposed development of 10730 Mora Drive in Los Altos Hills as submitted. Because of the limited space available, the plan for three homes is not in keeping with the general norms of the neighborhood, and we feel, if approved, this development would create a dangerous precedent that other developers could use in arguing for similar developments throughout Los Altos Hills. We join our neighbors in strongly urging you to reject the application for development of 10730 Mora Drive in its present form. Sincerely, 1142m4P\t//411 VINCENT R. BAXTER • LORRAINE A. BAXTER Suzanne Avila From: Clydene Bultman <clydeneb@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 9:22 PM To: Courtenay Corrigan;John Harpootlian; Rich Larsen; Suzanne Avila;jradford2011 @yahoo.com;Gary C.Waldeck;jitze@couperus.org; kavitat@comcast.net; richard.partridge@comcast.net;jsmandle@hotmail.com;jima.pc@gmail.com;Cynthia Richardson Cc: Esther John Subject: Concerns over 10730 Mora Drive Proposal Dear LAH Planning Committee and Town Council, I am writing to you to express my deep concern for the proposed projects at 10730 Mora Drive. Firstly, I would like to thank you for your leadership in preserving this very special area. My family feels quite fortunate each and every day to have the privilege to enjoy living in such a unique environment. We purchased our property,10274 Kenbar Rd, in the mid-90s and scrapped together every penny to live in this specific area. San Antonio Hills provided us with an environment much like our humble beginnings. Our children have been able to experience a rural setting; complete with chickens, dogs, cats, coyotes, kite hawks and the plethora of wild animals and, of course, our dear neighbors. Secondly, I urge you to deny the 10730 Mora Drive proposal and ask Mr. Linebarger to reapply conforming to the LAH ordinances. If a consensus to deny the proposal cannot be reached at this time, then please consider the proposal by Mr. Klein for a moratorium on the development of substandard lots until the Town can update, strengthen, and complete its subdivision/merger ordinance so that it conforms to State law as well as the General Plan of Los Altos Hills. The ordinances are critical as LAH continues to annex County properties into LAH community. The push to over-develop only accelerates as property values increase and the underlying ordinances are weakened-please remain true and firm to the LAH ordinances. The aforementioned proposal, if approved, will be a precedent-setting event and will have a lightning-rod, negative impact on the neighborhood. How will you stop further lot size deterioration within LAH if you approve this sub-standard proposal? How many current non-conforming lots could potentially be re-evaluated and proposed based upon approval of this project? Does the strong outcry from the surrounding neighborhood not give you pause as to the controversy this will ignite? We all understand that the high real estate prices are a key driver for under-sized lot development but when is enough, enough? Please do not sell-out our LAH neighborhood under your leadership tenure. It is clear from the large number of opposing letters and petitions that this decision will not only impact the beauty and rural character of the area but, equally important, this proposal strikes at the heart of what this neighborhood has been for many years. It will bring a contentious environment into the neighborhood that will have a lasting impact both at a personal level as well as a legal level. Please, leaders of our community, take into account both the non-conforming ordinance issues and the overall health of the community as you make this extremely important decision. Below are several points I'd like to emphasis in my request for denial or at the very least, a moratorium due to a con-conforming project: i Sphere of influence: What does this mean? In the recent annexation, I believe that the LAH planning department mentioned that all projects within the County areas were under the LAH- Sphere of Influence. Building permits would be viewed with the LAH ordinances in mind as it was just a matter of time before all properties would be annexed. What does this mean relative to this project, clearly there is a disconnect between the County and LAH. Since, the property clearly resides within the recently annexed area, the LAH ordinance should take precedent. Just because the 1.6 acre property has been questionably returned to it's original but non-conforming 3 lot sizes does by the County, it does not mean that LAH should allow non-conforming projects to be built-out in sub-standard way. It is hard to admit a mistake at times,but clearly the 3-lot size was not approved under the"Sphere of Influence". Let's not perpetuate this mistake. Lot sizes: 10730 Mora Drive was purchased as a single 1.6 acre lot. As an entire unit it conforms to the density requirements for LAH. While the County approved separating this property back out to 3 lots, it does not mean that these lots can be built upon within the LAH requirements. If approved, does this mean that every existing substandard lot within LAH can be built on and that a variance request will be allowed? Do we have enough septic systems/community services to support this high-density development? It is clear that Mr. Linebarger is laser-focused on optimizing the revenue potential of this 1.6 single parcel by aggressively pushing the "ordinance envelope." Again, this unprecedented development proposal is not a sustainable model and will have negative repercussions for all of LAH. Variance Requests- a variance request should not be allowed for a project that is 100% creating the need for the variance. There are many ways to develop this 1.6 acre lot and the community should not be asked to live with additional requests to optimize a sub-standard proposal. The property has more than enough space to build without asking for more"special"treatment. Again, if the proposed project design cannot support the look, feel and space requirements of the LAH ordinance then Mr. Linebarger should be asked to reconvene and build something more appropriate and within the ordinances. Why would LAH give additional special treatment to an already substandard project. Is there any respect for the LAH leadership and LAH property ordinances? Lastly, I will close by again asking the Committee to deny the current 10740 Mora Drive project or at the very least support the moratorium. I, again;thank you for your leadership and all the hard work and foresight of the LAH team. My family and I benefit greatly from your stewardship and we feel privileged and fortunate to live in this community. Best Clydene R. Bultman Steward of Land and Life 2 Suzanne Avila From: Gregory Fretz <thumper@skysport.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 9:59 AM To: Suzanne Avila Subject: Fw:to LAH from Fretz re Linebarger Mora Drive development Dear Suzanne Avila Regarding Mr Linebarger's proposed development at 10730 Mora Drive, I urge you to support the most important characteristic of the Town of Los Altos Hills and that is the one acre minimum.This is a significant issue and gives the Town and its neighborhoods a unique and special character. Mr. Linebarger also asks for variance on the set back rules. It is true that there are many older homes that do not conform to present rules but new building must conform to rules that exist today. Thirdly, Mr. Linebarger ask for sewer hook up for three homes. The group that put forth the annexation of this part of Mora drive expressly states in their agreement that there is to be only one sewer hook up per existing or replacement residence.This was a condition of annexation and cannot be overlooked. His permit should be denied on this point alone because without proper sanitation he cannot build. Fourth, This permit issue only comes up because it is of Mr. Linebarger's own making when he split his lot of his own accord. His requests should be denied. There is a dangerous precedent to be set here if the rules are overturned. I would venture to say that every lot in Los Altos Hills sooner or later could be subject to this sort of development request; it is time for the Town of Los Altos Hills to take a stand. I respectfully ask that the Town of Los Altos Hills defend its principles as the building plans submitted by Mr, Linebarger stand in stark contrast to the quality objectives set by the town and desired by most of us who live here. Sincerely yours, Gregory&Anne Fretz 10275 Kenbar Road. P.S. Even though where we reside at the end of Kenbar Road is still in the County, we are in the"sphere of influence of Los Altos Hills"and we will eventually be annexed to the Town.We all aim to preserve the value of our homes and we join with the others in this matter. 1 Suzanne Avila From: Gregory Fretz <thumper@skysport.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 9:59 AM To: Suzanne Avila Subject: Fw:to LAH from Fretz re Linebarger Mora Drive development Dear Suzanne Avila Regarding Mr Linebarger's proposed development at 10730 Mora Drive, I urge you to support the most important characteristic of the Town of Los Altos Hills and that is the one acre minimum.This is a significant issue and gives the Town and its neighborhoods a unique and special character. Mr. Linebarger also asks for variance on the set back rules. It is true that there are many older homes that do not conform to present rules but new building must conform to rules that exist today. Thirdly, Mr. Linebarger ask for sewer hook up for three homes. The group that put forth the annexation of this part of Mora drive expressly states in their agreement that there is to be only one sewer hook up per existing or replacement residence.This was a condition of annexation and cannot be overlooked. His permit should be denied on this point alone because without proper sanitation he cannot build. Fourth,This permit issue only comes up because it is of Mr. Linebarger's own making when he split his lot of his own accord. His requests should be denied. There is a dangerous precedent to be set here if the rules are overturned. I would venture to say that every lot in Los Altos Hills sooner or later could be subject to this sort of development request; it is time for the Town of Los Altos Hills to take a stand. I respectfully ask that the Town of Los Altos Hills defend its principles as the building plans submitted by Mr, Linebarger stand in stark contrast to the quality objectives set by the town and desired by most of us who live here. Sincerely yours, Gregory&Anne Fretz 10275 Kenbar Road. P.S. Even though where we reside at the end of Kenbar Road is still in the County, we are in the"sphere of influence of Los Altos Hills"and we will eventually be annexed to the Town. We all aim to preserve the value of our homes and we join with the others in this matter. 1 Suzanne Avila From: Irina Stegner <Irina@stegnerdevelopment.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 12:34 PM To: Suzanne Avila Subject: Mora Drive This is to confirm that both Chuck&I are voting no to the proposal of 3 houses! We have a code on this....1 acre! Thanks, Irina &Chuck Stegner 10580 Chardonnay Lane Los Altos Hills, Calif. 1 Suzanne Avila From: bodine-cne@sbcglobal.net Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 11:54 PM To: Suzanne Avila; Cynthia Richardson;jsmandle@hotmail.com;jitze@couperus.org; jima.pc@gmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; kavitat@comcast.net;Courtenay Corrigan;John Harpootlian; Rich Larsen;jradford2011@yahoo.com; Gary C.Waldeck Subject: PROTEST TO THE LINEBARGER DEVELOPMENT ON MORA DRIVE, Los Altos Hills Attention: Ms. Suzanne Avila, Planning Director Ms. Cynthia Richardson, Consulting Planner Mr. Susan Mandle, Chair of the Planning Commission Mr. Jitze Couperus, Vice Chair of the Planning Commission Mr. James Abraham, Member of the Planning Commission Mr. Richard Partridge, Member of the Planning Commission Ms. Kavita Tankha, Member of the Planning Commission Copy to: Ms. Courtenay C. Corrigan, Mayor Mr. John Harpootlian Mr. Rich Larsen Mr. John Radford Mr. Gary Waldeck Dear Members of the Los Altos Hills Planning Department and Planning Commission: My wife and I have been Mora Drive residents for over 50 years. We chose to build in this area because of the beauty and consistency of the neighborhood with regard to lot sizes and the rural atmosphere. We are now very concerned about a request by Mr. Forest Linebarger to build 3 houses (where 1 exists now) on 1 standard lot and on 2 adjacent sub- standard lots. SUB-STANDARD LOT SIZES Mr. Linebarger purchased this property from the estate of Judge and Mrs. Malovos, the original purchasers. This property was NEVER intended to have 3 houses built on 3 lots. The history: All of the properties on Mora Drive were originally formed in 1932 as a subdivision identified as "Tract No. 10, Map of Jo Mora Ranch, Santa Clara County, California." All properties in this subdivision range in size from 0.8 acre to 1.7 acre. 1 In 1940, the original Malovos property (identified as Lot #2 of the original subdivision) was purchased. Lot #2 contained 0.83 acre. This property was bordered to the south by Lot #1 of the original subdivision and to the north by Lot #3. Over the years, a number of area property owners enlarged their holdings. This resulted in larger lots but not necessarily in pieces big enough for another house according to restrictions on the property by the CCR's and zoning rules. The original Malovos property has had 2 additions over the years, one on the south, and another on the north. In 1941, Lot #3, (125 feet wide) was split into 2 unbuildable pieces, each 62.5 feet wide with the northern neighbor (Lot #4). Malovos purchased 1 piece of this lot split, thereby enlarging his property on the north side by -0.37 acres. In 1948, Lot #1 was split into 2 unbuildable pieces, with the most southern piece being used as a private drive to access adjacent properties behind and to the east of the Malovos property. After this split, Malovos purchased the remaining piece of Lot 1, thereby enlarging his property on the south side by -0.4 acres. From 1948 until sold to Mr. Linebarger in 2006, Malovos owned 1 buildable lot, and 2 smaller unbuildable lots (totaling -1.6 acres). The smaller unbuildable lots never conformed to the CCR's for the area and the county zoning. Mr. Linebarger had access to all lot size information, CCR's, and county zoning rules at the time of his purchase. Mr. Linebarger should never be given approval to build 3 homes on this property. If approval is granted, it would require special treatment be given to Mr. Linebarger that would allow him to build without following the same rules others have had to follow for 75 years. SETBACK DISTANCES In 2012, Mr. Linebarger presented a proposal for building on the sub-standard lots which would require reducing the sid yard setbacks from 30 feet to 10 feet. If granted, this reduction in side yard setback is a direct affront to the privacy of the northern neighbor. This neighbor, who has abided by all rules of the neighborhood for over 60 years would then be penalized for no reason other than to satisfy Mr. Linebarger's desire to build additional houses no matter what it does to the neighbors and the neighborhood. This neighbor owns the other half of Lot 3. Mr. Linebarger had access to these setback requirements at the time of purchase. SEWER CONNECTION In 1999 a neighborhood sewer line was approved for Mora Drive by LAFCO which allowed 1 connection for each of the 28 developed residential properties that participated in the project. Mrs. Malavos participated in this project and was approved for 1 connection to the sewer line for her property. Mr. Linebarger had access to this sewer information at the time of his purchase. 2 Now Mr. Linebarger asks that LAH grant him 3 sewer connections for this property with it's sub-standard lots. This constitutes a request for special treatment. CONCLUSION We depend on our local government to set fair, reasonable, and consistent rules for land use and building requirements. This neighborhood has followed the rules and building requirements of local government for over 70 years. Since annexation, this neighborhood now depends on LAH to set fair, reasonable, and consistent rules for land use and building requirements. Granting Mr. Linebarger's blatant request for 3 houses on this property would require that LAH change the rules that others in the neighborhood have had to follow. Agreeing to Mr. Linebarger"s request would establish a precedent for new development throughout LAH. We ask that Mr. Linebarger's request to build 3 houses on his property be denied. Sincerely, Charles M. Bodine Eloise G. Bodine 11055 Mora Drive 3 Suzanne Avila From: Mary Vantamelen <vantamelen@aol.com> Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 10:45 PM To: Suzanne Avila Subject: Mora Drive To: Planning Staff and Planning Commissioners From: Mary van Tamelen Date: March 9, 2015 Having worked for 13 years on the Planning Commission and Council,trying to maintain the integrity and beauty of our town, I am distressed indeed to hear about the planned development of 1.6 acres of Mora Drive into three lots. Our town was founded upon the principle of one-acre lots,and it would be a shame to allow more density in certain areas. i know there are a a few anomalies in town, but this new addition to the town should certainly adhere to the basic rules. If by mischance or some legal finagling some small parcel is allowed to be a building site, it would be very important to limit the size of the building proportionately; a lot one third normal size should be allowed only one third of the size of a normal-sized house. It's the proportion of building to lot size that maintains the character of our town as outlined in the General Plan. It's far better to insist upon our town-wide standards at this point. Thank you for your consideration. Mary van Tamelen 1 Suzanne Avila From: hooperpete@gmail.com on behalf of Pete Hooper <pete@hooperconstructionco.com> Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 7:40 PM To: Suzanne Avila; Cynthia Richardson;jsmandle@hotmail.com;jitze@couperus.org; jima.pc@gmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; kavitat@comcast.net;Courtenay Corrigan;John Harpootlian; Rich Larsen;jradford2011@yahoo.com;Gary C.Waldeck Subject: Proposed development at 10730 Mora Drive Madame Mayor, City Council Persons, Planning Commission and Planing Department of Los Altos Hills: We are writing this email regarding the proposed for-profit, high-density development at 10730 Mora Drive as concerned citizens and incredulous neighbors. (We live at 10401 Sunhills Dr,just around the corner from the subject property.) I won't repeat all of the details here but in summary: the owner of the subject parcel, contrary to Santa Clara County's stated policy,managed to split the parcel into three sub-standard, non-conforming lots and now wants to erect speculative houses on each of the three lots in direct opposition to the area CC&Rs, zoning requirements and neighborhood consensus. We are concerned about the negative impacts which will effect the neighborhood and we are incredulous that any thinking person without a financial interest in the development could think the development is a good idea. Here are the specifics: 1)If the subject for-profit development is allowed to proceed, it will produce a negative financial impact on the neighborhood. The local CC&Rs explicitly state that all lots in the subject area must be a minimum of 1 acre. In addition, it is my understanding that the zoning of the subject area also requires lot sizes to be a minimum of 1 acre. We, along with everyone else in the area,purchased our property at a time when all lots in the area conformed to these requirements and everyone's purchase prices reflected that. If the subject development is allowed to proceed, the value of all the other property in the area likely will be adversely effected. It is our very strong position that a developer should not be allowed to profit at the direct expense of the area's other property owners. 2) If the subject for-profit development is allowed to proceed, it will produce a negative aesthetic impact on the neighborhood. Our neighborhood is quiet and leafy: houses are spaced sufficiently apart to allow many varieties of trees to flourish and to maximize the privacy of the residents. These benefits are some of the primary reasons we chose to purchase our property and we have heard this sentiment echoed by many of our neighbors. If the subject development is allowed to proceed, the amount of space for trees will be reduced and the space between houses will be reduced significantly, directly and adversely influencing the aesthetic value of our neighborhood. 3) If the subject development is allowed to proceed, it will indicate to us that the Town values the profits of a developer over the property values of its residents. The developer, Mr. Linebarger, has stated in at least 2 public forums that he believes he should be able to profit from the development of the three sub-standard parcels. My impression based on Mr. Linebarger's public statements, is that he has made an investment and he now believes he is owed a return on that investment. (In one statement at a Town Council meeting, Mr. Linebarger threatened to sue the Town over his "lost" profits should his development plans be thwarted.) This is wishful thinking at best as I am unaware of any investment where the investor is guaranteed a return. In this case, any return on Mr. Linebarger's investment would come at the expense of the other neighborhood property owners. 4)If the subject development is allowed to proceed, it would put the Town's stamp of approval on a lot subdivision which appears to have been accomplished under shady or fishy circumstances. We do not know what process the developer used to split his parcel into three sub-standard lots but the whole idea does not pass a simple "sniff' test. We, as property owners of 10401 Sunhills Dr(which at the time was in unincorporated SC 1 County) applied in 2003 for a building permit to remodel our home. As a condition of obtaining our permit, we were required to eliminate all the underlying lot lines on our property by filing an official survey with the County. Because filing a survey is an expensive and time consuming undertaking, we tried and ultimately failed to get the County to waive this requirement. We were told that it was the County's policy to remove all the "ancient" underlying lot lines from all the properties in our neighborhood. How the developer managed to circumvent this policy is a mystery to us. It was stated in a Town Council meeting regarding the subject property that the Town of LAH had reviewed the process used to create the substandard lots and the town had determined that it had been done "legally". Because of our own experience with the County and underlying lot lines,we find this very hard to believe and wonder what it is that made the transaction "legal"? Was a loophole exploited by aggressive and/or intimidating lawyers? Was a mistake made which resulted in the subdivision being approved when it should not have been? The subdivision of the subject parcel does not correlate with our direct experience with the County and therefore seems fishy. In addition, the logic behind allowing the subdivision of a piece of property using ancient underlying lot lines is also a mystery to us. The underlying lot lines in our neighborhood were originally created when the Moraquita Rancho was subdivided into lots many years ago (early 1900's?). The subdivision was then subsequently redefined into it's present configuration(mid 1900's?)but apparently someone never officially removed the old lot lines. In researching this with respect to our own underlying lot lines, our impression is that the ancient lot lines remain as the result of a bureaucratic blunder. What has happened with the subject property is that the County allowed the developer to subdivide the property based on a combination of modern property lines and old property lines. Because the old property lines defined properties which extended well beyond the modem property boundaries, it is illogical to allow property to be defined by selectively choosing various property lines in order to suit one specific user. The lines used to define a particular piece of property should be either all new, or all old. If an owner wants to use the old property lines, then they should have to use the entirety of the old property lines. This, of course, would be nearly impossible,but that's the whole idea. 5) If the subject for-profit development is allowed to proceed, it will set a disturbing precedent for future development in our neighborhood. In 2003 when we filed our survey to remove the underlying lot lines,we discovered an underlying lot line on a neighboring property which, if subdivided like the subject property has been,would result in a parcel of less than 3000 square feet. If the subject development is allowed to proceed, what would keep a future developer from coming in, subdividing the neighboring property and then using the subject development as precedent to build a house on 3000 sf of land? 6) If the proposed for-profit development is allowed to proceed, the sewer system which serves our neighborhood will become oversubscribed. This sewer system was designed to accommodate only the property parcels that were in existence when the sewer was designed. This means that the sewer was designed only to accommodate a single home at 10730 Mora Dr. It is my understanding that there is no room for a septic system on 2 of the proposed properties at 10730 Mora Dr and there is some question whether or not there is enough room on the third proposed property. (The soils in our neighborhood have high clay content and as a result have very poor percolation properties. This means that leach fields must be very large in order to accommodate modem design parameters. In most cases, new leach fields would themselves be larger than the two smaller sub-standard lots at 10730 Mora Dr.) This means that the subject development would require a minimum of 2 and possibly as many as 3 sewer connections to a system which was designed to accommodate only one. It is our strong position that no development which overtaxes the sewer system should be allowed unless mitigating measures are put in place by the developer. As a result of all of the above points, it is our strong position that the proposed development not be allowed to proceed. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Pete& Suzanne Hooper 10401 Sunhills Drive 2 Suzanne Avila From: Ursula van Kempen <ursulavankempen@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2015 2:16 PM To: Suzanne Avila Subject: Property development Hello Ms.Savila, My name is Ursula van Kempen and I been living on Eloise Circle since 1962.A lot has changed since my moving here, not everything for the best. Los Altos and the Hills, Rancho San Antonio are my favorite spots and every day I am grateful for the beauty that surrounds me. I am not for a dense development let the hills stay beautiful. Thank you Ursula van Kempen 10685 Eloise Circle i 1 Suzanne Avila From: RUTH G WINCHELL <rgwinchell@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2015 1:29 PM To: Suzanne Avila; Cynthia Richardson;jsmandle@hotmail.com;jitze@couperus.org; jima.pc@gmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; kavitat@comcast.net Cc: Courtenay Corrigan;john.harpootian@gmail.com; Rich Larsen;jradford2011 @yahoo.com Subject: Forrest Linebarger We moved to California in 1964 and bought the property at 10776 Mora Drive. It was chosen because of the environment and the space between houses away from the density of other areas. Three children were raised here and still return. Thank you for trying to maintain the character of Los Altos Hills. I know it is not easy. There has been so much turmoil in the last nine years brought on by this man. Please do not change the character of the neighborhood in spite of a developer who will not live here but enjoy his profits elsewhere. Thank you, Ruth Winchell Suzanne Avila From: Robert Yuen <bobyuenjr@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 7:29 PM To: Suzanne Avila Commercial developer, Mr. Forrest Linebarger has built 7 homes in Los Altos on small sub-standard lots on Par Avenue and Putter Way. Now he is attempting to build 3 homes on a 1.6 acres property on Mora Drive in LAH. Each home will be on a sub-standard lot of 0.37, 0.85, 0.40 acres, respectively. Cynthia Richardson in the LAH Planning Department relates that he has NOT sent in RE-VISIONS as of last THURSDAY,FEBRUARY 26, 2015. To comply with LAH CODE, Mr. Linebarger must observe the 1 ACRE PER HOME rule like everyone else. I would sincerely appreciate your help in solving this existing problem. Respectfully submitted, Robert Yuen Suzanne Avila From: E Williston <cronele@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2015 8:20 AM To: Suzanne Avila; Cynthia Richardson;Susan Mandle;Jitze Couperus;James Abraham; Richard Partridge; Kavita Tankha Subject: Linebarger property proposal Members of the Planning Commission, I doubt any resident of Los Altos Hills is in favor of this blatant attempt to skirt around the 1-acre zoning of the Town for this development which will have a serious and lasting negative affect on the neighbors living at the end of Mora Drive as well as other neighbors in the area. Serious setback variances are proposed for this project.This is brought about not by hardship on the part of Mr. Llnebarger,but simply reflects a hard headed developer absolutely bent on getting his own way, no matter what the adverse affects to the neighborhood or what the high soft costs may be. Please deny any proposed variances for these properties. This developer can get his money out of his property with the building of one high-end estate on the 1.6 acres,probably more than the development of 3 substandard lots,when one considers all the incurring soft costs and time spent. Even a 2-lot split might be considered as a compromise, although certainly not preferred as it still is a violation of the R lE LAH zoning. Regards, Weegie Caughlan West Loyola Dr. 1 Suzanne Avila From: David Kehlet <dkehlet@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2015 6:13 PM To: Suzanne Avila; Cynthia Richardson;jitze@couperus.org;jima.pc@gmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; kavitat@comcast.net;jsmandle@hotmail.com Subject: Support for setback requirements and density limit on Mora Drive 10691 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills, CA 94024 March 7, 2015 Dear Members of the Los Altos Hills Planning Department and Planning Commission: To preserve our town's rural character we need to maintain our minimum lot size and setback requirements for building. Mr. Forrest Linebarger's proposed development on Mora Drive must observe the setbacks required by the Town of Los Altos Hills. Mr. Linebarger argues that because some nearby homes have non-conforming setbacks, he should not be required to observe today's rules. Yet his neighbors' homes, including ours, from the 1940s and 1950s were built to standards that existed at that time. Mr. Linebarger should simply build in compliance with rules that exist today. If we do not hold builders to our modern setback standards, we have no chance at ever improving. Mr. Linebarger subdivided his parcel, and by his own actions created unbuildable lots that are undeserving of setback relief. He could enjoy the privileges of developing his property if he simply observed the required setbacks. On Mora Drive there are several parcels with substandard underlying lots, including our own. Mr. Linebarger's intended development would open up our street and many others in Los Altos Hills to high density development. We incorporated into Los Altos Hills in 2012 for the purpose of enjoying the benefits and protection of the Town of Los Altos Hills, along with sharing the responsibilities of town citizenship. Ninety-nine percent of the time, being a good neighbor is enough to live in peace with the other members of our town. The remaining one percent of the time needs the support of local government. We urge you to reject Mr. Linebarger's requests for variances. Sincerely, David C. Kehlet Karen S. Kehlet Suzanne Avila From: Karen Bailey <karendbailey@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2015 1:07 PM To: Courtenay Corrigan;John Harpootlian; Rich Larsen;jradford2011@yahoo.com; Suzanne Avila; Cynthia Richardson;jsmandle@hotmail.com;jitze@couperus.org; jima.pc@gmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; kavitat@comcast.net Cc: Tracie Southerland; Esther.John@cpic.org Subject: Proposed high density construction on Mora Drive Dear Town Council and Planning Committee, As relatively new residents of LAH,We are concerned about the proposed construction in our Rancho San Antonio OSP area. A key factor in our decision to move to LAH from Los Altos was the beautiful, uncrowded, rural atmosphere.The one- acre minimum lot size makes this possible. Our understanding of Mr. Linebarger's development proposal is that it violates the town's zoning laws for lot size and setbacks.Approval of his plan will establish a precedent that will potentially destroy the beauty and unique character of our town. My family, neighbors, and I request that you do not approve this,or any proposals that threaten to 'suburbanize'our bucolic neighborhood. Mr. Linebarger's plan is simply not in the best interest of the homeowners of LAH. Respectfully, Karen Bailey and Tracie Southerland 23480 Ravensbury Ave. LAH, CA 94024 Karen D. Bailey 650-224-9697 • 1 Suzanne Avila From: Karen Bailey <karendbailey@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday,March 08, 2015 1:07 PM To: Courtenay Corrigan;John Harpootlian; Rich Larsen;jradford2011@yahoo.com; Suzanne Avila; Cynthia Richardson;jsmandle@hotmail.com;jitze@couperus.org; jima.pc@gmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; kavitat@comcast.net Cc: Tracie Southerland; Esther.John@cpic.org Subject: Proposed high density construction on Mora Drive Dear Town Council and Planning Committee, As relatively new residents of LAH,We are concerned about the proposed construction in our Rancho San Antonio OSP area. A key factor in our decision to move to LAH from Los Altos was the beautiful, uncrowded, rural atmosphere.The one- acre minimum lot size makes this possible. Our understanding of Mr. Linebarger's development proposal is that it violates the town's zoning laws for lot size and setbacks.Approval of his plan will establish a precedent that will potentially destroy the beauty and unique character of our town. My family, neighbors,and I request that you do not approve this, or any proposals that threaten to 'suburbanize' our bucolic neighborhood. Mr. Linebarger's plan is simply not in the best interest of the homeowners of LAH. Respectfully, Karen Bailey and Tracie Southerland 23480 Ravensbury Ave. LAH, CA 94024 Karen D. Bailey 650-224-9697 1 Suzanne Avila From: Aart de Geus <Aart.deGeus@synopsys.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 11:59 AM To: Suzanne Avila; Cynthia Richardson;jsmandle@hotmail.com;jitze@couperus.org; jima.pc@gmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; kavitat@comcast.net Subject: Letter to LAH Planning Department and Planning Commission To the attention of: Ms.Susanne Avila, Planning Director Ms. Cynthia Richardson, Consulting Planner Ms.Susan Mandle, Chair of Planning Commission Mr.Jitze Couperus,Vice Chair of Planning Commission Mr.James Abraham, Member of Planning Commission Mr. Richard Partridge, Member of Planning Commission Ms. Kavita Tankha, Member of Planning Commission Dear Members of the LAH Planning Department and Planning Commission, My name is Aart de Geus; I have lived at 10701 Mora Drive in Los Altos Hills since 1993, and have been an active proponent and supporter of the Annexation of the upper part of Mora Drive into Los Altos Hills in 2012. The reason for this message is to communicate my strong opposition to proposed construction directly across from our home by Mr. Forrest Linebarger. The reasons for my opposition are straight forward and obvious: - Mr. Linebarger is proposing to build three houses on one parcel that he has subdivided into three significantly substandard lots of.40 acres, .85 acres, and .37 acres, respectively. These are lot sizes that are not only well under the "one acre minimum lot size" prescribed by the LAH General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, but two of these lots are by far the smallest lots in the entire neighborhood, period. (The average lot size in the annexed Mora neighborhood is 1.08 acres). In other words,the proposed building density is anathema to both the character and the actual density of our neighborhood and of Los Altos Hills. - Further evidence of the unacceptable density being proposed are the extreme variances on the side-setbacks requested by Mr. Linebarger on two of his proposed constructions. The external (facing land of neighbors)side set-backs for these lots are planned to be 10'versus the building code mandated 30'! The internal (facing his own middle property) side set-backs for these lots are to be 20'versus the building code mandated 30'. It is useful to remember the reason variances are sometimes part of reasonable negotiations with the Planning Commission and neighbors: o "A variance is an exemption to a law or standard granted to resolve a difficulty or inequity(not of the applicant's own making)which may result from exceptional circumstances of a property." (LAH Municipal Code) o Mr. Linebarger's extreme variance needs are entirely self-inflicted as he is converting one parcel with one house into thee substandard lot slices to be maximally overbuilt with three houses. Such extremes violate both the spirit and the letter of the building code and should be rejected out of hand. - Further evidence of the density overreach of Mr. Linebarger's plans becomes visible through the sanitation planning: More than a decade ago (prior to annexation),the neighborhood took it upon itself to finance and 1 construct a sewer system. A large number of neighbors participated and a examplary economic contract was set up to allow people to either connect to the sewer immediately, or connect at a later date best suited for their individual needs. For example,this contract, "the sewer contract" foresaw that parcels may connect over the years as their septic systems fall in disrepair. The Malavos property, one parcel with one house, at that time acquired rights for one (1)sewer access. The sewer connection count was a direct reflection of the neighborhood density, and the sewer contract spells this out quite precisely. Subsequently, Mr. Linebarger acquired the Malavos property in 2006 and immediately proceeded to split it in three lots for the purpose of building three houses. The overall 1.6 acres property has rights to only one sewer connection,though, and thus is not suited for the building of three homes. - The submission of Mr. Linebarger's plans is not a new event as he proposed building essentially the same three houses in 2013. At that time the Planning Department,which was sensitized to the high level of concern in the neighborhood,suggested that Mr. Linebarger meet with the neighbors to hear their concerns and potentially consider alternative approaches that would meet both his and the neighbors' needs. Meeting space was made available in the LAH Town Hall and on August 6th, 2013, Mr. Linebarger met with about 25 close neighbors. Having personally attended this meeting, I can attest that the communication with Mr. Linebarger was both very direct and completely unanimous: his proposed plans to build three houses were completely unacceptable to all the direct and further-away neighbors as their execution would grossly change the character and density of the neighborhood. The meeting was a charade! While Mr. Linebarger kept trying to move the discussion to the "look and feel" of the homes, he categorically refused to engage in any form of dialogue on the central issue of density violation. Even suggestions to consider alternative high value building options were rejected out of hand and clearly he considered the "meeting with the neighbors" a checkmark item he needed to pass in the permitting process rather than a constructive problem solving engagement. The bottom line is simple: I am opposed to granting permits to build three houses on lots that are in every dimension severely substandard to the density of both the neighborhood and the Town of Los Altos Hills. When going through the process of annexation,we were impressed by the strong commitment of the town leadership to defend the very characteristics that have made LAH unique. If this kind of building is approved,the floodgates will open to aggressive substandard lot building all over Los Altos Hills. Thus for our particular neighborhood AND for the entire Town of Los Altos Hills, I urge you to put a stop to the building proposals discussed above.Thank You for caring for our Town! Kind Regards, Aart de Geus 10701 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills, 94024 2 Suzanne Avila From: Marj Green <marjgreen@mindspring.com> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 5:02 PM To: Suzanne Avila;Jitze Couperus; Kavita Tankha;Jim Abraham; Susan Mandle; Richard Partridge;Cynthia Richardson Cc: Courtenay Corrigan;Ann Duwe; Rich Larsen;John Radford;Gary C.Waldeck;John Harpootlian Subject: Proposed high density construction on Mora Drive To the Planning Commission and Planning Department: We strongly oppose the proposal by Mr. Forrest Linebarger to build 3 large homes on 3 small non-conforming lots on what was once a single parcel at 10730 Mora Dr. The only purpose in dividing the single parcel into 3 non-conforming lots was to maximize the profit that Mr. Linebarger, a developer, would gain from the single property he bought,regardless of the effect on the surrounding neighborhood and neighbors. The buildings proposed require multiple exemptions and variances to the building and sanitary codes of Los Altos Hills in order to densely pack the 3 houses into an area that does not conform to 1-acre minimum zoning. Mr Linebarger may try to justify the need for these variances by claiming a hardship in fitting houses on the lots,but he was the one who created the hardship in the first place. In the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code, section 10.1.1007(3): "The Planning Commission must find that: ...The size and design of the proposed structures create a proper balance, unity and harmonious appearance in relation to the size, shape and topography of the site and in relation to the surrounding neighborhood", and that ... "The rural character of the site has been preserved." We have heard that Mr. Linebarger might threaten to sue the Town if his proposal is denied. Any threat, however, should not be a factor in making this decision. Mr. Linebarger's proposed plans and his request for variances and exceptions should be denied. His proposal would create 3 structures that would not meet the requirements of the Town Municipal Code, and would be totally out of place with the rural feel and look of the surrounding properties. Marj and Tom Green 10666 W Loyola Dr Los Altos Hills, CA 94024 650-949-4536 marjgreen@mindspring.com 1 To: Ms.Suzanne Avila Planning Director Los Altos Hills From: Richard A. Blanchard 10724 Mora Drive Los Altos, CA 94024 Date: March 5, 2015 Subj: Possible Construction of 3 houses on 1.6 acres at 10730 Mora Drive Dear Ms. Avila: As a resident of the County, but living in the Los Altos Hills Sphere of Influence, I have been following the events concerning 10730 Mora Drive with great interest. This property,owned by a commercial developer, is large enough for only one house according to my understanding of the Los Altos Hills zoning. Apparently,the commercial developer decided to take advantage of underlying lot lines to obtain 3 lots, and now believes that his decision to do so also means that he is entitled to variances that allow the construction of oversized houses, based on required setbacks. The possible granting of these variances is of great interest to me,since I was denied the right to subdivide a 2.07 acre parcel at 10702 that I own into 2 buildable lots. This denial was based on the requirement for large setbacks from a private drive that provides access to this lot and to other lots further along the private drive. Needless to say, it would seem to be a great injustice for the lot at 10730 to have 3 houses,when the larger lot at 10702 is allowed only 1 house. Sincerely yours, Richard A. Blanchard Suzanne Avila From: Marilyn Taketa <mtaketa2@earthlink.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 11:42 AM To: Suzanne Avila; Cynthia Richardson;jsmandle@losaltoshills.ca.gov; jitze@losaltoshills.ca.gov;jima.pc@losaltoshills.ca.gov; richard.partridge@losaltoshills.ca.gov; kavitat@losaltoshills.ca.gov Subject: Linebarger Application -- 10730 Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills,CA 94024 Dear Members of the LAH Planning Commission and Department: We live at the corner of Sunhills and Kenbar. Last Sunday we saw for the first time Mr. Linebarger's building proposal for three substandard lots at 10730 Mora Drive. We were appalled. LAH's setback and one-acre minimum rules preserve our rural atmosphere, and we collectively have put our trust in you to aggressively enforce them. Mr. Linebarger opted to create long skinny lots,so let him either build long skinny homes with greater setbacks or propose reasonable lot line adjustments. Thank you, Marilyn and Grayson Taketa 10450 Kenbar Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94024 1 K/ om Dri v- Suzanne Avila From: Klein Enrique J. <ejklein94@comcast.net> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 9:47 AM To: Suzanne Avila Subject: Fwd: Updated Merger Ordinance for the Town of Los Altos Hills. Dear Planning Director Avila: At the suggestion of Commissioner Partridge, I am forwarding to you an email I wrote to Commissioner Partridge yesterday, as well as his response. I just shared this correspondence with Commissioner Mandle. [please see below] I am prepared to send an electronic copy of the study on the Updated Merger Ordinance that we, the neighbors at the Southern end of Mora Drive privately commissioned. You may request a copy anytime. Also,I have asked Commissioner Mandle if the subject might be preliminarily agendized for the upcoming meeting of the Planning Commission on March 5th, 2015. Thank you very much for your favorable consideration. Enrique Enrique I. R(zin 10710 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills,CA 94024 Phone/Fax 650-559-7477 On Feb 21, 2015, at 3:42 PM, Partridge, Richard<richp@slac.stanford.edu>wrote: Enrique, Thank you for your thoughtful email. I share your concern that the lot merger ordinance is apparently no longer enforceable and hasn't been revised to be consistent with California statutes. Towards the end of our Feb 5 Planning Commission meeting, there seemed to be a consensus that we should get this on a future agenda and come back to this issue, perhaps as part of a broader look at the subdivision part of our zoning ordinance (this is by no means the only problem that needs fixing!). I believe the Planning Director was going to get input from the Town Council to make sure they were OK with staff spending time on this, and I look forward to hearing from staff at our March meeting where things stand. I suspect this process is going to move forward, but usually these changes take some time. If I were to make a guess based on past experience, I suspect there will be an ad hoc committee formed to draft revisions to our zoning ordinance and that would then have one or more public hearings at the Planning Commission followed by a public hearing at the Town Council...but this is entirely speculation! It would be good to make sure that the Planning Director and chair of the Planning Commission are aware of your study and interest in this issue (if you haven't already done so). Richard 1 From: Klein Enrique J. [mailto:ejklein94©comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 11:47 AM To: richard.partridge@comcast.net Subject: Fwd: Updated Merger Ordinance for the Town of Los Altos Hills. Dear Commissioner Partridge: I reside at 10710 Mora Drive in Los Altos Hills. Our pocket of parcels was annexed to Los Altos Hills on December 17th, 2012. We have observed with grave concern how a number of developers are attempting to profit from the scarcity and high value of the land that surrounds us,here and in other parts of Los Altos Hills. We share your objective to preserve the established character of the Town's neighborhoods, and exclude high density development, that is contrary to the The General Plan and the zoning ordinances that underpin it. It has come to the attention of a small group of LAH property owners at the Southern end of Mora Drive next to the Mid Peninsula Open Space, that the Town is currently handicapped in dealing with building permit applications on non conforming lots by the absence of a legally enforceable Merger Ordinance. We therefore commissioned a land-use attorney to study this situation so as to develop a revised Town Merger Ordinance that conforms to State Law. This study was commissioned in late 2013 but was not submitted to the Town at the time. Since the LAH Planning Commission meeting of February 5th, we have become aware that the Planning Department staff as well as members of the Planning Commission would welcome the enactment of such a revised Merger Ordinance for Los Altos Hills. Our study could save the Town much of the initial cost and, if pursued vigorously, get such a revised Merger Ordinance on the books expeditiously. We are therefore offering this study to the Town, at no cost, as the basis for a new Town Merger Ordinance. Please contact me to advise whom to send this information to. Sincerely, Enrique Enrique 1. Oin 10710 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills,CA 94024 Phone/Fax 650-559-7477 2 Suzanne Avila From: Gary Bultman <garybultman@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 9:47 PM To: Suzanne Avila;Cynthia Richardson;jsmandle@hotmail.com;jitze@couperus.org; jima.pc@gmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; kavitat@comcast.net Subject: Development submission for 10730 Mora Drive Planning and Commission members, I am a 20 year resident of 10274 Kenbar Road and want to express my opposition to the development and variance request submitted for 10730 Mora Drive. The development plan for this parcel is completely out of character with Los Altos Hills and if this type of development is permitted, it will unalterably change that character. Placing 3 homes on 1.6 acres, averaging 0.5 acres per lot, is suitable for Los Altos, Mountain View, Cupertino, etc,but is not the intention of LAH. The residents of this town have chosen it for its rural, private, elegant nature. Allowing development of 0.4 acre lots will be a major and unalterable change to the nature and character of LAH. I realize those living here are fortunate and feel that way myself. We have,however,paid dearly for the character of this community and it would be a sad and unfortunate day for all in LAH when the planning commission begins approving development on 0.4 acre lots with 10 foot setbacks. I urge the planning department and commission to continue on the well established path of preserving the nature and character of LAH and reject this development and variance submission. I applaud the previous work of the planning depai luuent and commission, I can only guess the challenges you face. I appreciate you taking the time to understand the input from the neighborhood and hope this is received in the positive nature it's intended. My wife and I raised our two daughters in this home on Kenbar Road and everyday I appreciate our home, the beauty of Rancho San Antonio, the variety of animals and our neighbors. Please help us keep what is special and unique about this town and don't allow profit eager developers to forever change what we have so diligently fought to hold dear. Best Regards, Gary Bultman 1 Suzanne Avila From: Enrique J. Klein <ejklein64@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 7:21 PM To: Suzanne Avila Subject: Re: Building Permit Application for 3 houses on 107130 Mora Dr. To Ms. Suzanne Avila, Planning Director, Los Altos Hills. Dear Ms Avila: Los Altos Hills is a balanced community including well established neighborhoods that enjoy the benefits of living in a well governed geographical area in the San Francisco Peninsula. The Town was incorporated in 1956 to counteract the trend to over-burden the natural environment through higher density and smaller lots. The Los Altos Hills Community's desire is to preserve and maintain the rural atmosphere associated with its established residential areas. [Quoted in part from the "Housing Element" of the Los Altos Hills General Plan adopted by the City Council in 2010]. Today we are witnessing the attempt by Commercial Developer Linebarger to have the Planning Department of Los Altos Hills grant him Building Permits for three lots. Two of these lots, of 0.37 acres and 0.4 acres in size, respectively, were legalized by the County of Santa Clara, when this area was not yet annexed by Los Altos Hills. However, no building permits were ever issued. This, coupled with the variances requested from the Building Department,by Commercial Developer Linebarger make them essentially inelligible as buildable lots in an area Zoned R-A in Los Altos Hills. The beautiful, 1.6 acre, originally heavily wooded and now denuded property, purchased by commercial Developer Linebarger is in full compliance with the Los Altos Hills zoning and would lend itself to the construction of a fully compliant new home. Commercial Developer Linebarger has been offered by the Town to modify his plans and build a single house in compliance with R-A Zoning. Mr. Linebarger has refused this offer. The Town then offered to allow the construction of two new residences on 0.8 acres each, by allowing the necessary lot line adjustment. Commercial Developer Linebarger refused this offer also. He will only accept permitting for three houses because this would allow him to maximize his profits. This situation is unacceptable to us the neighbors and residents of Los Altos Hills. I urge the Planing Department and the Planning Commission to deny any permitting that violates the Town's Zoning Standards in any way. We see no reason to grant Commercial Developer Linebarger special treatment that others in the Town have no recourse to. Enrique Enrique 9 Oin 10710 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills,CA 94024 Phone/Fax 650-559-7477 1 Suzanne Avila From: Ronni Haderle <rhaderle@earthlink.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 4:00 PM To: Suzanne Avila Subject: Mora Project Hello Ms. Avila, We are 40+year residents on 10605 Berkshire Drive, LAH. We strongly object the the< 1 acre minimum, that the rest of us are are subject to, and hope you vote against it. It goes against current zoning laws. There is no logical reason for this person to get a variance that was not grandfathered in in the first place. Please vote against this! Ronni and Jack Haderle 650-949-5345 1 Suzanne Avila From: Judy A. Klein <judykleene@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 03,2015 10:07 PM To: Suzanne Avila Subject: Regarding the application Submitted by Mr. Linebarger Dear Director Suzanne, I am writing to you as a concerned Los Altos Hills resident who lives on Mora Dr. Like my neighbors I find Mr. Linebargers intentions to build 3 non compliant homes on substandard lots distressing and unacceptable. His property abuts the beautiful Rancho San Antonio Preserve. I encourage you to drive by his recent homes on Par,a street off of Eastbrook near Magdelena. Although these homes are in the County of Santa Clara and have less stringent building codes they will give you an impression of what are in his plans for Mora Dr. Then consider driving up to Mora Dr. and see his present home,the last house on the left at the top of hill before the nature preserve. Imagine how those three homes on Par would appear in the setting near the park. It's not pretty. We are members of the group that was recently annexed to Los Altos Hills. We requested annexation because we respected the strict standards and building codes of the town which maintain the rural atmosphere that we so enjoy. It is devastating to see our beautiful community of Los Altos Hill sabotaged by a greedy developer. I appreciate that you are being confronted by a threatening although charming tiger. This puts you in a difficult position. I hope your decisions protect us loyal citizens who live here because we love our neighborhood, and do not buy into the town to make millions of dollars. Director Suzanne please defend us and our community. We need your help. Sincerely, Judy Klein 1 Cynthia Richardson From: Matthew Chappell <matthew.chappell@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 8:34 AM To: Cynthia Richardson Subject: Proposed construction surrounding 10730 Mora Drive Dear Cynthia, I want to voice my concern about the proposed development of the two sub one acre lots neighboring 10730 Mora Drive. Developing these lots would irreparably alter the look and feel of a neighborhood that otherwise embodies the town of Los Altos Hills' dedication to the "preservation of the rural atmosphere of the foothills." Other developments like this will undoubtedly follow and further degrade the beauty of Los Altos Hills should these lots abutting Rancho San Antonio Open Space be developed. Please feel free to contact me at any time to discuss this matter in depth. Best, Matt Chappell 917-836-9867 10990 Terry Way Los Altos, CA 94024 i Suzanne Avila From: Rob Fagen <rob.fagen@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 9:56 PM To: Suzanne Avila;Cynthia Richardson;jsmandle@hotmail.com;jitze@couperus.org; jima.pc@gmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; kavitat@comcast.net Subject: Regarding 10730 Mora Drive (Forrest Linebarger's development proposal) Dear Members of the Los Altos Hills Planning Department and Planning Commission: I'm writing you all to express my concerns about the proposed development plans for this property. I understand that this property consists of three parcels, and Mr. Linebarger is requesting permission to build three homes. However,he is also requesting significant variances from existing setback and other land use requirements such as the trails ordinance. The character of our neighborhood, and of Los Altos Hills in general, is of larger lots with houses set back from the street and from each other. This is a distinctive characteristic sought out by those who choose to invest the resources necessary to live here. I strongly urge you all to defend that character and require significant changes in density and plan from Mr. Linebarger before granting him any kind of permit. I understand the importance of variances, living in a home that I'm certain has setback issues due to some easements and lot adjustments predating its construction. However, if I understand the principles behind variances in Los Altos Hills, they are meant to mitigate problems that are beyond the landowner's control. Mr. Linebarger put himself in this situation when he petitioned the county to break out three individual parcels from his current 1.6 acre site with a single home. Thank you for your consideration regarding my concerns. Rob Fagen 10840 Mora Drive, LAH Rob Fagen rob.fagen@gmail.com 1 Suzanne Avila From: Bud Cristal <bcristal@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 4:11 PM To: Suzanne Avila; Cynthia Richardson; Susan Mandle; Mr.Jitze Couperus;James Abraham; Richard Partridge; Kavita Tankha Subject: Linebarger Mora Dr. Proposed Development My wife and I own the property directly across the street from the proposed development site of Mr. Linebarger. We have lived here since August 1973 and have been truly fortunate to enjoy the beauty and serenity of the area. But now, a non- resident developer, Mr. Linebarger, with ill consideration for the neighborhood, seeks to compromise the one-acre minimum lot size rule and construct 3 houses on substandard lots that will greatly abrogate the character of the neighborhood. To do this he seeks variances of the LAH minimum 30 ft mandatory setbacks. His proposed houses are in stark contrast to others in the neighborhood and are in fact simply squeezed in to produce 3 products for him to sell. This mini-subdivision development, and that is exactly what it is, goes far beyond the LAH density norms. We respectfully appeal to the LAH Planning Department and Planning Commission to reject the sought after variances and stop the proposed high-density development. Sincerely, Edward Cristal 10755 Mora Dr. Los Altos Hills 94024 650-941-6551 Email: bcristal@ieee.org Suzanne Avila From: David Crockett <edcrockett@me.com> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 2:34 PM To: Susan Mandle;Jitze Couperus Cc: Suzanne Avila; Cynthia Richardson;Jim Abraham; Richard Partridge; Kavita Tankha Subject: Mr. Forrest Linebarger's plan for 10730 Mora Drive Ms. Susan Mandle, Chair of Planning Commission Mr. Jitze Couperus, Vice Chair of Planning Commission We have long looked forward to becoming part of Los Altos Hills. We wanted to become part of a community and join the common goal of protect the reural feel of the beautiful space. We are distressed with plans of Mr. Linebarger in creating 3 dwelling where there was only one. It is especially sad in that it will spoil the approach to San Antonio Open Space Park and the view from inside. We are confident that you will also find the violations in minimum size lots, density, and setbacks to be a worrisome precedent. We urge you to reject Mr. Linebarger's numerous variance requests. Others have learned to meet and appreciate the wisdom of the Los Altos Hills building codes. Thank you, David and Ann Crockett 10898 Mora Drive We have appreciated the beautiful surroundings for 39 years 1 Suzanne Avila From: Matthew Chappell <matthew.chappell@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 8:29 AM To: Suzanne Avila Subject: Proposed construction surrounding 10730 Mora Drive Dear Suzanne I want to voice my concern about the proposed development of the two sub one acre lots neighboring 10730 Mora Drive. Developing these lots would irreparably alter the look and feel of a neighborhood that otherwise embodies the town of Los Altos Hills' dedication to the "preservation of the rural atmosphere of the foothills." Other developments like this will undoubtedly follow and further degrade the beauty of Los Altos Hills should these lots abutting Rancho San Antonio Open Space be developed. Please feel free to contact me at any time to discuss this matter in depth. Best, Matt Chappell 917-836-9867 10990 Terry Way Los Altos, CA 94024 1 Suzanne Avila From: gerda Cristal <gbcristal@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, March 02,2015 3:54 PM To: Suzanne Avila;jitze@couperus.org;jima.pc@gmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; kavitat@comcast.net; Cynthia Richardson Subject: Forrest Linebarger's future plans for 10730 Mora Dr., Los Altos Hills Dear Members of the Los Altos Hills Planning Department and Planning Commission, The plans that Mr.Linebarger has submitted show three buildings on a lot less than two acres! Part of the beauty of this area is the low density,rural look. The space between homes,the gardens,the trees,all that brings a beauty to the area that would be lost forever. It would be forever,because it will not stop with these three buildings,and once built,there is no turning back. The rural look and feel cannot be recreated. Forever seems like an exaggeration, but it will be forever. It will be the start of more and more lots being divided. Everywhere there are pockets waiting to be redrawn by developers for higher density. I hope you will not allow that to happen but will continue to impose the building standards that will help keep the area beautiful. Sincerely, Gerda Cristal 1 Ruth and Melinda Winchell 10776 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills,CA 94024 April 16,2015 APR 1 7 2015 The Town of Los Altos Hills TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Attention: City Council: Ms. Courtenay Corrigan, Mayor Mr.John Harpootlian Mr. Rich Larsen Mr.John Radford Mr. Gary Waldeck Planning Department: Ms.Suzanne Avila, Planning Director Ms. Cynthia Richardson, Consulting Planner Planning Commission: Ms.Susan Mandle,Chair of Planning Commission Mr.Jitze Couperus,Vice Chair Mr.James Abraham, Member Mr. Richard Partridge, Member Ms. Kavita Tankha, Member Re: 10730 Mora Drive Dear Members of the City Council, Planning Department and Planning Commission, My mother and I have had the misfortune of sharing a property line with Mr. Linebarger for the past nine years. There are six trees right next to the property line,three of which were the original owner's Christmas trees, planted back in the 1940's. We are very concerned about what the impact to these trees would be if Mr. Linebarger were given permission to build ten feet from the property line. Attached is a report from Mr. Michael Bench,Consulting Arborist, and two pictures of the trees. We ask that you take this report and these trees into consideration when making your decision regarding any set back variances. Thank you, Ruth and Melinda Winchell Enc. Michael L.Bench i\t''''—y— Consulting Arborist (831) 594-5151 7327 Langley Canyon Road Prunedale,California 93907 An Inspection of Selected Trees Property of Mindy and Ruth Winchell 10776 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills, California Assignment I was asked by Mindy and Ruth Winchell to inspect the trees near the south side property boundary. Mindy reported that the neighbor to the south has proposed to construct new buildings,which would include a basement,within 10 feet of this property boundary. Mindy asked about the impacts to the existing trees. Methods The trunks of trees were measured using a standard measuring tape at 4 1/2 feet above soil grade (referred to as DBH or Diameter at Breast Height), except those specimens whose form does not allow for a representative measurement at this height. The measurement for multi-stem specimens is taken below the lowest fork on the trunk in accordance with the International Society of Arboriculture standards. The canopy height and spread were estimated using visual references only. The condition of each tree was observed by visual assessment only from a standing position without climbing or using aerial equipment.No invasive equipment was used. Consequently, it is possible that individual tree(s) may have internal defects, which are not detectable by visual inspection. Invasive exploratory inspection and analysis is beyond the scope of this evaluation. Observations I inspected the subject trees on March 31, 2015. There are 8 trees near the south side property boundary in the area of proposed new construction. I have made a sketch of the approximate site relationships,which is included in the attachments. The trees are identified and are listed by number on the attached List of Trees, which follows this text. This Data Sheet provides the basic data about each tree, including the species,the trunk diameter(s), height, spread,health, structural integrity. The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1-5: (1)Excellent, (2) Good, (3) Fair, (4) Poor, (5)Extremely Poor. The numbers assigned to the trees correspond the Tree Map and to comments included in this report. Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Site Observations: 1 Consulting Arborist March 31,2015 10776 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills, CA With the exception of Tree#2, all of the other seven trees are in are in excellent health. This assessment is based on the density of canopy(an indication of the quantity of photosynthesis production), the color of the leaves (an indicator of nutrient availability and usage,the annual branch tip growth(an indicator of vigor and vascular function), and the presence or absence of insect infestation. Trees in excellent health exhibit a very high level in each category. Tree#2, a Monterey pine (Pinus radiata),has been topped for line clearing. This forces the lower limbs to grow longer and usually longer and more dense than they normally would,because energy that would have been used to grow in height becomes diverted to the side branches. This occasionally causes the extended lower limbs to break. I observed no old structures or old footings near the trees located on either of the two properties (this property and the neighboring property to the south). The area consists essentially of open space. Thus,there is no reason to expect that the root systems of these trees has been inhibited. The roots of all of these 8 trees are expected to exist primarily in the top 2 feet of soil and are expected to extend outside the canopies by 10-20 feet. The construction of new building with a basement within 10 feet of the property boundary would certainly impact the root zones of some of the trees. The question is not whether or not roots would be severed and lost,the question is how severe would be the root damage. Tree# 1, a European Olive (Olea europea) is located approximately 30 feet from the property boundary.No damage to this tree would be expected. Tree#3, a Coast Live Oak(Quercus agrifolia), is located 21 feet from the wire fence. Should there be trenching or excavation adjacent to the property boundary, Tree#2 would be expected to suffer only minor root damage. Concerning Trees#2,4, 5, 6, 7, and 8,the risks to these trees would depend on the following factors. The location of the building is not the only consideration. The fact that a basement is proposed,the actual soil cut required to construct a basement is typically a minimum of 3 feet but often 6-8 feet outside the basement wall in order to construct the wall and to seal the basement wall from leaking. The actual soil cut would no doubt be closer to the trees than 10 feet from the property boundary. Thus, it is the exact location of the actual soil cut must be determined prior to approving the project plan. Also,buildings require drainage and utilities (usually underground). If drainage and utilities would be installed between the new building and the property boundary, additional the trees may suffer additional root losses. In recent years, it appears that all sites require a storm water retention system. If this system or portions of it would be constructed between the building and the property boundary, these trees may be adversely damaged,possibly severely. Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Site Observations: 2 Consulting Arborist March 31, 2015 10776 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills, CA If construction equipment(skid steer or other type of tractor, a Skyelift or some other lift, trucks )were to be driven over the root zones of these trees,this equipment compacts the soil, which kills tree roots. The usage of equipment must not be done inside a radius distance from the trunks of these trees. Landscape features (concrete walkways, landscape irrigation, or other landscape features) within the root zones of these trees may also be damaging depending on the plan design. Without the benefit of the knowledge of any of the aforementioned features, I recommend the following safe distances concerning Trees#2,4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Concerning Trees#2, 4, 5, and 6 there must be no soil cuts, excavation,trenching(as previously described) or equipment usage within 20 feet of the trunks of these trees. Concerning Trees#7 and 8, which are relatively small trees,the construction activity must be no closer than 8 feet from their trunks. Respectfully submitted, Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist International Society of Arboriculture Certification#WE 1897A American Society of Consulting Arborists Member Attachments: List of Trees Tree Map (A sketch of Site Relationships)—No Scale Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Site Observations: 3 Consulting Arborist March 31, 2015 Winchell Residence List of Trees Los Altos Hills,California 10776 Mora Drive Near South Side Property Bountary , ,;„1ritt—,V(;1ZZpWf,-iVqrllVitlrt-9gt,-wooAP,-,'"Irlog;KV VA1 trvirvprr Wirfila",tr:.'afilliffilrigW4 d:1714 Alatilltre :,,,,if wiv NC ..,p,,r Whi. 4 • At v,„A 0.,„1 ra vi,c, ic) ''4Fgarfigfrigi,-,,,,i'415,4.66"i,Trt ! ,,..,;'0,14,,;.' .4agetill t.,,1 IN 4. FA4,4 qwnilisr.e44tf,,ittp.(i4ogpv,4,ii..,:,4.%,44:0,110",trealhaftliallite.loplatierptuo.r,0 „;), eviipc1., ^ liqt.i.:v1-4;-,,i,-,,t •ambie° ;Val"eigiikl lia cikilAt,4 li';'"t AktrAc'440124,•";,t"th 0814 4 4%tkee04." y*petty. 411+6f*,-tGoolajto. .0v101,,,os. _411,1F,T,4,,,.44.): ,.,.. , -7041 _,.. , ,.r.',4,4,c,,A***W, :)1:i,v1/V4,,,C?AtActrOF otsr,ro pv7pwititl'io,G6ottAirekir ,*,v-viv,kit, 24,77 ,,.0,31n,,,,_,,p,!7,,PM,..;,:;'',h41:11060,7 KigNitlealcilfg''W'I:,"if,,C Aphyfratiter.460 101 011ittNS,' PiliVC*RefiWilat*::::' Oc, 4-0:;`:414404441:313'inge04440;4'4:01::V lzilki,4r. 1),"74,;./AiN 4*,,,',,,0,; if,4,0,1:'ottrali*vow), ,latettioir ;iv tvw.groAppe.,400N,F;.:Pa t,-11,0tt'IN, kodkffog , Wproy,Q04,6 0,40 tg4,4400,00,s.;: Flookt,m,0 ,, v.,404,3*0-,:,,, go. rigia-pg-ettitt",litity„„..Vala V'0,i9i,4F,W*44iregip00;44iO4?1,A#6"40104,04.10144'4,100# v-,,'4.! .,,,,) t'', #4-1',., •..,i-1.! At Jo 4 i iirltallig4tAelt}FAITA4rjpregatillitA01.40„1,82,17,4,10„hAqtallealb407 0,1,05,061,t,6**-004AVA*L11**44040; — 1 15 i 1 European Olive 1 22 25 1 1 Excellent (Olea europea) I i 1 FaiPartially"Topped"for Line +L. ---1.MontereY Pine 30 ! 50 1 35 Clearing; Extended Lower Limbs . (Pinus radiata) , : : ii 1 Coast Live Oak 20 ' 35 1 45 1 1 Excellent , (Quercus agrifolia) I . , . 1 1 ! 1 1 Excellent 4 !Canary Island Pine 29 50 35 1 i 1 -I l(Pinus canariensis) 1 I i5 !Canary Island Pine : 22 + 70 ' 30 1 2 Good i ' (Pinus canariensis) i 6 Canary Island Pine , I 22 ! -i ; 60 25 1 2 Good ; ; l(Pinus canariensis) 7 'Coast Live Oak : 7 ! 20 ; 15 1 1 1 Excellent I(Quercus agrifolia) ! 1 ---i- ,-— _.-- i _ !--u- ;IL:oast Live Oak 1 7 15 15 1 1 lExcellent . I(Quercus agrifolia) 1 i 1 ._ _______ Site Observations 1 Prepared by Michael Bench, Consulting Arborist March 31,201 Michael L. Bench - 6 - Consulting Arborist ISA#WE 1897A, ASCA Member (831) 594-5151 michaelbench@sbcglobal.net 7327 Langley Canyon Rd.,Prunedale,CA 93907 March 31,2015 Subject: Winchell Residence 10776 Mom Drive Los Altos Hills,California Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 1. Any description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct.Any titles and ownerships to any property are assumed to be good and marketable.No responsibility is assumed for legal matters in character nor is any opinion rendered as to the quality of any title. 2. It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes,ordinances,statutes,or other governmental regulations. 3. Care has been taken to obtain information from reliable sources.All data has been verified insofar as reasonably possible.However,the appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. 4. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this appraisal unless written arrangements are made,including payment of additional fees for services. 5. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation. 6. Possession of this report,or any copy thereof,does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any person other than to whom this report is addressed without written consent of this appraiser/consultant. 7. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report,nor copy thereof,shall be used for any purpose by anyone but the client to whom this report is addressed,without the prior written consent of the appraiser/consultant;nor shall it be conveyed by anyone,including the client,to the public through advertizing,public relations,news,sales,or other media,without the written consent and approval of the author;particularly as to value considerations,identity of the appraiser/consultant to any professional society or institute or to any designation conferred upon by the appraiser/consultant as stated in his/her qualifications. 8. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the appraiser/consultant. Further,the appraiser/consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value nor upon any finding or recommendation reported. 9. Sketches,diagrams,graphs,photos,etc., in this report are intended as visual aides and are not done necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering information or specifications. 10. This report has been made in conformity with generally acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic reporting methods and procedures and is consistent with practices recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture and the American Society of Consulting Arborists. 11. The appraiser/consultant takes no responsibility for any defects in any tree's structure. No tree described in this report/evaluation has been climbed,unless otherwise stated,and,as such, structural defects that could only have been discovered by climbing are not reported. Likewise, a root collar inspection,consisting of excavation of soil around the tree for the purpose of uncovering major root defects/weaknesses, has not been performed,unless otherwise stated. 1,^ , .°�� 'i 2cyT�iy,_ i_..(N,,,,,,- 7..,.,.3...7r7•`•?-4.i ".:4.-z;,.57, \p X,n t: -'�- - } .•`.�`'�,7•�'f•\''^ \ '»,.�'�„^'�"-4' ''7'gi, 'dt �.I' ef'"... of �sy.,Ii�1 rl � •t , //. ., ,,,�,•'}��x,1 / , -}?'4,f.,J ^ -�,; i � ",.r.. . rr^'y s r^ -�. .--' ; �, _' i''',-1 ' C 1` ` ,'(,�5�,. :r ,. ,,.... .i...„7;.,.7;;-:• .2c- �lG�•n'�,'r ( {'! ^as.� r�� .0 r ^ 'k'r -,,,,,4., :r•-..„-•-`,'.}:11,4 5'1rk 1 d ha '!\ k.' a. 1,,r �_ . ,rr ' 'pa^te =; fxr. �;�' /�,?�r`r x r 5! - 11,-A 3' s,r;4,-,."—" w,.,drA 1'e. ;� ) a,� „ r. I r<' r� r y W f.. .`,,-.4,,,,,,,,,,,..i.,:•,10,...4,.. ?,?,...,,,,.Ts" "' r..'f dN*'"�s ti,Nl -�y r �t7' ...,-;-';;;;;-,;;;.4,k9-;?.._.. '/:%.;:k.'4.:,'!';. y"kx. rL 5 ? ��� b4d+'r }P(ri u1�Gi}/ R fg�'' �• ,�f, r„,:, <$•nV }{,:; 4R i.,!- J;spy`,� m > ,,, x ,F �3•"4 r:- ,c. 1�•L,�,,-,r,,. • C r :.a' lrc�f . .,,, ,---•,,,,„.... -'r -i `?° i. C v,'°, ,i'4. b• G '@}.' Jam' 3i .•t ? 1 ti �� r I¢r_... r .. ...0,;,.,6',1;...,..- . 'ar a ti i.,}±- - Nx�,':r• ;.,:\;,,1 •,r�:�y �•� .. ,;Ay „-,. ,rs_ f, .I�•; ,�h S.,f ••,�. �5. 1}, •'i•• -�. ,-L, w t.i' ,i':' , 't : i.:,-. ,�-.- .}-jy_ ----,,,--'.‘,-1, ,t. 'C�r!rr.. - - 1~:•rrul..,. ;YT�r !' r..:u _, . , t `4 r ._ f�Ct ;;;.:i:...; ,, •A.• ., a .4. J":,, r*,c. ;; ':�%'",:„' r•}- `+.r'' ,J..: Jx •,, .1".tl, j:X,tit4-. 'sy 1., ^"l .3'. 't, ''1, f4 .1 ▪ �`': 'i �' '''S'.' . ra_-„..e.'- ,r s.-�,•^`. • .:t., :r�_ f' + >w '' ,1` '',e '2.,--46:11n31,-!:3' r+ a; F a • ,, v.' _vp 1 4 5+r ,r-. 1�r.!>°k_7:y '�'. e` -r,' �.�a�. -c.. ;,� r,. .� 'Yt. 4�C },.-:. . .; pp 1 �''*�."..iF ' '^y 1 '°'¢x �^\r�ry .�... 'a>7:,- •`..� :�.�Itis+�.ww„ •%_, SL,�. :N+�.p,r,.f ,,y�,a� .a1 � �y'4 •y• � �dt �''c� '4 G ^�a�.may. }_y+' - • ' r r, ... r' ti. / Cra .r �' a ,,rix," kT;r ,{r Q ,' €,.2', ,,,ten%+`?'' 2,�..#, t ��. ,+•. (j• �,k�;"i�, ^�,,'•S Y .,�:♦ :.n. dl Ix.r.• t•.'i. }..� � 1,i � kt. a.� Ir . �•'�Y3,>,'. ', :Qit +Y%' • �,"� %;' ,ll•'-,r •f. •� ;•4, ..� 4.1r ,.A'' 7•,t a F3�.,., .TF ) a� ,...;.rte •1 1. {�'. V :x'�a � TJ 7.w�.f. ';'a'd - .,tier d-�„�YA „t'f ,J.�+•i�,'?•.- ,"t• rl ,!.-! �y� it , Z• e,', ,- L ,,, ,i�, 7' a r '4, .PJ 3t: .44.5 ":e l+ %F _:,Y.,''''''''°'",« v -. •i'.• Ix- _.i L'�..—••• J? asrt, �. P- ,y� :1,..�*,F2 Y „ ,;i,, F '_ar,-'' Y L -}.'{'�,J ��,q�jy/,', .,(,,, .,, a: ,.. rii' s+.d: ,�' 1 • - =:„, ✓' :Y'• ,;F • t ,a�`fr, \.-�5.�'� 5.r• 1 11,, h. >rb!' � 0.'f• `� '''.4.,,,X.'1,1,3_,,, Yl � .7 1 CFp� .N'S'i`d ,•al��1 r•n a, t• 1' "i/ .% i� •} 1. .. J, L 'R ` U4 - I i; ./•r•}, �CR - `'•Y ,(, 1 FJ- Yrs” J•' J 2? Y ,,•,rx i:{ r,St '�, _-,1; "�,u rC, a- 1��+ :`� �i1�,.. ly ' '�' -rfa[ i . ` •:} ' s.., 4h,. ^ -+c�''ir'�I;h�rI�` v1 fX�...•� �•`,�Li Yi s , it � if ,a rg.rt; 'Ssr' kkk dam, v'�+.. .tv i�'<"!� �,-T h ' �4..44.5 --.. s '' '4"' i q1)--. a.. "�` 4' ®,. ,'•�! - .ti hy��r��.,,.r�,; '�»�. <[4 1•.�, �f': �!�r, '�?. '(-1,- g .�?`. � � nr..�'f'!'• �c'75� ..",�i �T` r��` -..y,./.':,:::•,(:`,t '�4�. yy a t^. J� ", a y.e. ,r`��'.i ,! 1!` ,�111 r,� ,. � i a`� ^r•,Y }'I� -se4 )�••�,� .� '. lb" .5.. -,-,,-'--v--..,',711,„ - ' a ,ryf.afr•"�J •'1`z�.,i orL-i ,,ya-..,::i`:.'_ .+isdt 7,..W. g R :� :.'fir,.c.t F- •�44.'-g&,,..;.,..,?..:.--1-* .r- .,.� Sr i<s �f .s5^<'°r� ,Y i' d!*�y{y'R tet;Tf.,rS , `� s.. is°1... t: y ra _,, �j.,. �rf]4. r t e l y ;e..r ,1.+, n 5.:r L, �P F., 4 7 :1 ( 1 v,?=p [;, ?n..C• 9-4.i• 1' '..'S ''' y a t' `t .'-','. ,,, `;�...•r C,.N, i:�?(� wr..,tf }.�riJa�, a iJ .n l'F .,".. d. -" c, 'a ra•'9r 0til - + :`-*5 s ;^i 'r. .-,4): 'tY'-i.'4 .N ''' ,S' .y, ` `.w, ,. '.'r -f.` NP ;-.f, 1•a W > sf` ,��?cl.;'{T[ ii-t, ,laFc'1.L.4!iL r° t' w.. ,�. \'F . 1. _. ,+'Mv. t.. 1 7 _. _ ''i. -tr { ,� .�". p1•,�' -at i„r,*., .�,' rp c � , �� \4,. r'i';,vr,.t44�,., p,�J�rttr,'r �'i'I "�, ;g��,` ! � 'r�•l' '�7ac: �&: `,�-.>'/�•'� d ' •\ 'C \' ;r.. ,a' � 9)w,\,,V"� „xy,-�:?�: . 4} --!! J ti^,1 ',- frtr<'c h lr_!. <' G „, ,f.' `, '.! �?'�•A,4' 'L5. .�i+ J.` }M 'Rt :ra\'i,o? ;' �`Yr y�'' I L {, ::! �'�. , '$' ''1 sdl..i �t�iY�p� �M'..,.1.� 4r 7 y.. t`-',. T J C (,... {fr3 a.•w.,„•-• ri-a t '4 'rt -044',y J7 4,. ' yta+,,�,.tt �,. "I''' ' dw,,p�i'1. y z 7. a„,;a ,:.I J'i t:...I/ ,5 y`s. ret ::,y' 'S.5 S.'i't,.',:$,N.,, ...r, tIfik*,,orit5;',0 y •zl • $. .. '.A`' 4 "1 ^• ` "•„^.'tea,., •`. �'Y• ' r :, ,.,:�JN@, 'Sr^ � !,"Zi1?r�}j�'}'f l':- I .,�'1,.1.�a,.l�.y.�,�_ �irt!:. �.,t'�.:sy� i ]„i',`µY�j`'�a. ,�,.. . ,6 }, � .J^ �:J.�F, �'tt�- �,-,t4 ••��{m' ., •,t e4�. f' ;a �,>�L ;f,4' w« s x + w,*rf57 fi�t '' �. z" r ,}; 1 'X �7Y -, r7: '1.:r ;Y- 1I L, a P f 64't l• ,r, _F 7,, h7,�•1�Cf�"''- j' ^- T•t;-rr I '�:•�•••• pl:,.' �C!-P1 )'•;tl_;e r, '.r 1\I �° y^$"..i,'. " I,. �,:� ,r'n�' �' r r �-c+ f'.`'.]] h !',' a a7`f= ' •`l, <fC. '€;: ,r� ` r r- S •"v,..,,,,- ? ..,,, '0." P` l •,•a ``V-"rMc�.. �, `+$_ A�."°V4rt.}�:S ..��ii„ff.,p�}y",Nr a, tr.T;' J,. ., -a• �;. :r3:".z ! 5o '�� � f ��* + �'C � t.. •�n 'f'1'-,, ¢c Y' R,�• 5„rt' ,Yl' r-�•Slrr•I r. ^a. "G•• r u•,�..''w1 G } ° r 'R4 R� .. s,. .. f ? y", '} ^. { •�f'= ,' r j iF �.',. "J � 1, ' jf1,.rj'T' • ., ratdJ• r r• _},, '(` 'J•+if,•.j, rt. '•".' r,Y: [ �i{.. ;.'z 4' ,r ,nl,- +. . ,. ,rjl” ,y.. , ' '. la -�G E,, r, "L{ �1 r1. .V 'I � i 7" :.t.y ��E�- :� • �A :01.00.-:47 I>b:•n ,i �i ,('" v o(l'. _;r,.. ,.. ''i^, t �, l .f�`cSit �•.rr.2� p�-1}j :���ca`�,7 ,`IL - •, ` ' ,`' ...�.p,� '''.nv 7.+!_ ,r<' ! ''.., ,• l{- wS;_ .7.. `,' Iq ,I :v.•• J 1,' i rr,. r x y_'"i b y.?,;'••, T ,°Aj , ,. '..., ' . i.;,., ,\ A 14 r,',r �i"l�-',a..-.--,y ,r • G 4 ..ez, .r r ,•= •;.. ,t Fir" ':,^ 117.J'..i i ., 8 'uk} ,., ,; ".%teki :d p 1 �`�C•i, r.•nl�' ,"r : ,,. 6 1 J.._ ,n,, 5 1.. _t •�ti 7{ '. (.r:J'Y '+•' ?s q;{[ •N",11 r�.l:Sn1>•` 1}t .:�u , f - n.,' ,'rb...P+{ ;;[„ , " •+,..1$ ,• h� ' .i { r . Jry_ .... ,�,?, n '• 4+P - ':ar:.'`,,; 'l o,. a`-t. ''r FG. iL c!L.;, yr,'8- ..t 1 dFi`4,�. ,6t �'r 'd r' .� :S f,' ''t rr,. ,y`.” o , I ''9 7• !$� ';-' ;F:u4, •i< r7rty),!.,^Ib:l'f;(,, Yk:r,_.� ,.,r;j ',r '1 ti:,:frY!^'•. '((r. d,�i'.r�. A.T'r};r, < ai ^,7�y! f. � tl .4'.!-.,,k,1!., r'�; ,tr ,t.e.. r•}��:',Ll , ;W' .'r.di V' , f"f'. •�r,},� -,,,$",,V4-'-''','''''' �Y+ ri'. 3�i...+tx.�•' r_X'krdIrf .'f. r•- . 's ,it,,J, 1,' ft,.. }. r'+}:4, f.. '1"-',,,,i,--..,. .!;!i,- -n' ],ry•` a e`r",if! } `.'�w t.t• i1 ;f, :,_ r{ A• hi•. .,- .T ,:k.' r c 4., .,t' ary� ,�.`((}}'��1F',.�,. ' q 6 ; h,;,o .V 7; p ���;Ca '�'� -��;;� kr. �i.H , L1F �r� �_::P"• ? %.F `ttiF.'c�;'��'- ''i} .ti :t-el, >.. `3, '!t\ i ��tY Y''�.{ }'6�; - •�•�r�,�f• �Ty, �''f,J; .lf"'a,.r�7's�;t. ,�f t� ,' ',�EirS)'�� '� ; •.,' '+�rp r ;k ',�qS`'.' ;` �•yx'"� `�,', ��•''� ��I���w�4Y'S•� ' ' �h.. .'''-.1,0.,-..T/..,,,,,,16, •51., s• "�':,.: F'',•Q,' si.- r !.-rt:,l s.^4}e1LCl,r-,,,'{,,<,t-.D. �,a';f�t , :�...;��•` .t'R`'"q•'1-' • nmc Y ,vCEw- a +Jrra•. , ,Ji.!•:. 6F ::„,,...!:„,...1. n. yZa,t'�ti'!#. R.•. 't•a. 'h'1. y,_,}' .- . ,- n -;!a.(.�Jt.M ,.,t.{, fr- �. A,•i'._ -'�3'h1',r'�. �^<�•l..r il-` 'J..7"v---•,<n,• tf (_:}N.cl:a� ;� �� 17l. :fir•{<. ..+`�7e i _ ..�+ a �''r' :�`+,�`, t. .,{n �,i,. kms',,,_., l ��. •„'� cf�,••tii ,,FF,,Ys•, J y "+S�•r<r�,,,L:',,; ,; r' �;` 1;/, '`S •,:ye. :'i , ,.'.`E4;'t ,f4 -«i�_°x' ' t '`yf i, ^ :9�Aut 1v :,�F 7 i. �• •.. .,, -�Kri .'�-`n' `;, •, A, ,.1y.,h ,} ?, C'7 i,,��'�r{�` {'9Y'�riF'r i�:,r,� '1,• A T. 1 r �, T t, },: y: r�Ai f i .l .5, y, � r--; _ry ` -,--o• l '-•'„,k"`-1.�'' .;".r•.,L''J, J � ,�•y.i!nr• .t •'r ;rid ;;"4 rte. r: K" � '*�,.•.z�. < ,, • '�,:.•'�-,n' +k'f,,;.it;;:•� � .,,� �1'""r' :J- "•`,N",f,� • ...- w: u? p� r• 5'4 f i`Y`aTJ"'...''� IGp.„,1/44':..l'.:471;•7.64.„\,-':-'''''ti:: ;: r'•' :+�y ,•'_1"h ..114.k ' ,. - .a-•i" irt, t • F tirr ; 'k-'.' p•.Y, , y u1:�i}'•. {f.( S3�`'S:A � iii. r .1. ' .••,r'a.�.� a v H.�d,J w fir:..) rr�T'r y&�fi' ' �,, ry � .Z-v" �.,.. }^9�"'� 11. .r r.r 'tI rr,,'� •i `•�1'A`e Te t�r:�'y;� ,.k..�•�, ;,,.�1. 'tom t-,,, .� , ',s' i�Mq: �.,r R,�t ,,a�rp', �,{>T �rW.l ia'} �r'S .:,'L�.;' 4 nKK �jfJ� d,: �. r:Q'�'iV'�.a'%t,( h � x', r� J,i-i�S'�":,r :� t". ����i 'G47.74-4,,,,„,N , lar 'II'-I.' r ,�,t"tl; )yk{}' ,U~���..,�*:... ;i''4:� .4 . t •'..)'r) �'« ,1'`t' 4 r t,,•,,-t"':' `+ Y !1 ,i•'iR •I. ",n' , 9., , ;. f - .r v a ., ,5,. }�: , ' ;. (. 1 ,'..': .. J.. ry• jj � r {`J _ y ��q,l ltC 1.J '. {:117,Ln�r, 1X y'. a '} .•y} t Jt y.•:Y [ �JrF j la ,.,,,,-,444104,•,'04,i1 } ''a \,.' ], r ,,n :-A ,a k?;¢^•9 i .1, ,r V, ` 1r,4 i ']'": .i,t• . , i' 0 .i,,-;c`d'.. R i,. " , J ; r. i. ,V #� rr s, o4; ). i r -1., ,C.�:a',ri.. ti,•"y. ' ''''r l i,, y )•:rl:t 1;b �1 -4-..,,...,E ,,, � T 1 I : `'It.. A�," ; �,,, { y U gy rro; i;`^b'"'.h"Y s•'(i.; t , "•'.Ita,{`/ ))r., t r, .7 ! "'J�a v�1 t r kr4'�i7',r r �15<1'.4t/' ",u,- { �, `�71':.. - k;.�� n�'k fes, _.�, tr� �'''� '�,`ay,.;i,.`�r.: - .;y. \ ,.1 . ,� !1. i. f0.: 1S,•,y 1 j r'N i S_,,, t ' 'a ci o t; .,.. 'fe ^ ,i, ;. 1:s4.,....-5,.:.,..V41. ', . -'-• u 1 r d; .l¢� 1 / i� a( •�: 1.: 4CI,.";Y SY • N .;.{Y; tl • :r¢` 1 { TO -�.+- a . . ,f- , y.: x ,.a_`i ''Y. .x. 5• ?r3. 'j'• rtt'Sa ,;.,--;,-p-..-,-- 4,- .. ,=j .... ) w, .. ,• .":L `•>,^, .M1, 1,, •.7••, i" f• ^ir}f ,{. 1 arf). i •,TO _. ?Oit. i -{?- • R-k'• d'•.M,' L:4''4 �r` '�.i1. ,l y:y z""r..y ,.vrr' �',=�r�,(`or- L �, 1,11I t1,. ')- l '..e:' ',r; i,:rt - J J,l: r v a ,s,� \,"t: x'11#!..^," .y,, ''.: Y. ,i ,�, ' t- J FL - ',i, �,•-,a ,.: '�•;�;, +,.•7� y' `)r. 1 � r5 /, lr 1�`�0 `` ''r[1,},,�,�'~ r' ., ,�r'�.'�r �`${J,t,L�. ,,., - •� ,i � ,.+ :�: fr �s:� �•t�°,.� "_�•l! _ ...�,r , i'L• }.,.•?r I •{•�fj'� J'f, , Q.C f., ` <�:` k - i,i:/.��r>, r1ia, �'i �z ; �:� ^ 'S 1. :,fy ``II� t'�,. � _ "s i ..J '�i l 4-. ;, "'•:'ar f'f ,.tr a t.Y.L. rl. -•,.rpi• • :F `f.' 1's1.,rsr l4- :,5.. J^ •� y=. Y•f,i: ., nt� .A f ,f;,, 7•�. .,.1 � •+` r t A' »: ' ' .r:. .s, 1 +�^, r : ',r• ,4' 'e s, cfi �..7,v,. . i''''',11'7,,;r\ --.'t� A�1Yi, •,;r'��{1fa." YtGSf,' �G�j �f; , �Ir, .: ,_,• ,,, s91, t{{' 7! d�. .�f:y ' -,..,0,‘,37...,-, � '•, TLS, ,,i f'r� � a5t'a e!t, ''..4'e,'4-'. r,�h 3 '2'.:'''.-... .y cf'iC- }�M� y f' �.y ..h ��, i ,� :i:� �,,, ni,,,, ,..-4,,, s.. {.., •r.0.124,71,.<.,_ 2.:ti .L a ;;{,,,L} ' R. J .i H ,,{;'1,,. r f'; ' i�,f. ,•t.„.,., ° h 'gr . I” ,;, 1,40','4 . ,•r-4 . t� t �: Jr��fltti{rl°i.t,, ��}'~' ":'.'-‘''.?,-,1_';,...-:,..,,,',, .l.rt •.ts.'SYf�l��.�.u.r, d !A• �6,.7�. •�5-_ - 4, .�i,!�'ti ,-11,.•'-',,-;',,,, _ �: y If 'yl' .<l, � a '�•.• ; I'31 t1lxl } J ,14.,:.�A '`� �h'+:a S!,'; {y ,'...}t, i . ' ..r<r YID! ,;-_'' •.,1"lrt,r�,�yxAA .'.`�...0-, )t•. r...„7 ,� x•', ..,' �t,, J ' 'yf,.1 Yf 1,,,..... ,•:-:,,L,,.:0,, `YP Y�--,,.G-"ti'rs �.�,� ^1.y� ...l''n f'C5. r_..:_I•l:t "�t. .r. 'r ., �,y'11FF`�AYi°, ;•s;Sl.. )+ -:IF-r ai �`7$',,,� _ li,•1..- r., I: :',� F Y., -.,1'. '"'1: vY•ja,r.;L. 1''',;t,•�iY }`t! ''Y•ay . ten,(• - .r`i•y' M{...,,i,.,,,,,,(1.-.,. , 4 'Ps„'s F -i-., •.n?„ :"^ ,r E`.''r:r.+j .fl: ,YJ,r. ; ,r. Y, „,J,i'4:, ! p !, I•.c'a61t..t1+iJY: ,R. i!:)?kil' .,T t k' ' k.; ,», - 1.`,,y�,y''C4 a"'.ply,.,-,,f„«' '11 111,,,r .i, t M, ,P K `'•l;-.-.1,,,-.,.%._'r1,l � •jr.y,a5- W1�7.-,14 h ,.6 a 'e l�a.,.1 4 •...�.. , { 'y ,,,- +R;n�°l. ,4,-,,f6._..--.....3.----0,,,,,-:-77---, ,TC„• -,k,'-',L.,;,11_,.,,',.1.,!,!.:,(:.4,--4,'”, ;+"f '. 5','f',; �;J.Se Ci � .y.,' i 'Tj ,ry<•' S /^'S 1:,r .' Itt, 151 ` ••5�i„`i,.(' r�. r.'3lr,��, , },. _,..1r5ra,s-` "k• - 4..,E 6' ?a ,I .2'7i , P{. ) .s`D�i: + 'J -..•i r ,, L,. .b-, • •, ,q', 'YR .G. t",,"v, n ili'•i.Pt \" t ,ft: tr,. ,{!.,'r' F' "Y... _9°i`�^ k4 ',s:, ,iX rr.r r'y+,ii•;,4..r ..g' 0-',;',, , h '• .... i. � 4: �, r.r...�.��d{',{;6l�}� '}�' �• � ��., r� r Tl: ,., ;? I' ,a,:. a v.'Y•• �'•'� ';, < fryS?•'• i, ,q �° +;:i{k�•':?!� ! 'fir YF•;•• • ,� 1 r�,,v+i},L r'\ aY a•:+F lf F'"Yl}.a ^t�riltl:t, .t' qr:y.,,L"',., aJ" , �` ad„ ;'sh rL. 1 x:.: e�+”" •:'.ra 5�.;. .r � f t: t 1 ,.r ��_.�,1 Ir:•.7' .1{,•,'�; 4 � '�.• �.�.�,,J. S.J{t '1:r�* - :' aT •. :',` a ,�c �' .J, Jr �,.�}}¢,'P._. „ ���; rr..Qt, � }'. M 4v= '.�^ r ,1�at 1,: u,5y' �ir�i'; r , Y. '', i a y. � 2b ,.-..r..::,..--. x y) ¢� x. a ,r i„ , ; r::, 1 ys7f.•.•1� 4, J� Ji v�•��n.,.� -?:�<,,, ki -;''''1.•.1.” .t =i ....A>'"' •y 'A` !r.o.Y., J S. N,l'•, Y.•,, y ^'PAa.. .;:.-3.4'' hr, '" 3'�i`,''', 'N,a,�`y�s :.Jy. 'f, r :Y`s•. c„l-,Yi ,.t,t r• rF �T y �R .r '-r 5 f.•"': \' 6 ! Y #w., e'3 YYv: '},>r rj•. / ' tik, 1: i{ "t.'r,{,� ••T},0, '`�•.i' n.k. :, T :Y .r,,-,. `` f.._ {� �x ,.:0r L.r,F-vi' '�, d'a• :r ....' C+-„.1".,r. :1. `.::. 1,i,.'.43:2,..`, i w5� R, 'r7- •, ,�' 1 ,i , �IZ cwt•",j iH�, I`+,,+c•T { I 3.�'r •,d., .r 7 �'..'N• •r, r, ,kL-�5 ,_ktie ,•.•:ti. - qq ',-r. ,7'{tt •S n m •, a ,•r_. .,j i,t,y .,,.1 ara �'y�( Y_.. orp."1-5; « 5 r e, }p -1x1.-M.� '',r,: 'r15.�(( f '�,r.: :,;?`,'J> .C �eP� :" t 'a ,J ..Frf -i.7y t L , � .'S 1 .\.l .'i M• ! "}' G "5:tt.a4-: .i �`..t". ","`. ,:f - tt, ^W`tfi ���yq „c'...orft:. O.. 'd ,!�d+'•,an.. ` ' ; 'ri. A. °f' 'ri-r. '"J•'"-4ji'•- " .IV iR.: j �� �,� � .��. � n *,.• .: i.�t•..j, is , • S=” •� nr •t.4 f�''r, .�' r - I�;,z •r• i S4' 1 e�' a :;r€tt xx r�,�+ �'y� f,;!, ,G.� i r✓!q '1 1 �r a4 7` '� ,!) _ •'6rr.:, <:_,+, 1 :,, .l. >';�d'- r' r�` . y4� �! �` Yn: .7'`R Yl"�•) '. si s :w/ �r,,t�..•t'r h. y f .I-•5' 'S. - f1'. A.,�,� •N`• #!.' -,Y q, ''T Mry .D ,q '�' 1„;I.,.:,/`. �' ,';',. 1 'slv,,,.,..J 1'+ ..�t{EJ 'f�{ R„5,�t 'Q�{r.1� '�1 ,•'�,� .. {h,,}., rl #, ,�a k,.ti. ,�,�• ,�, � y„�,• •'�`t, s �q%: .`t'r- r.,,y� , _ �r',e��•f ', ,�' i'/. r,•,K, V .41,-,f' j �,• .1.:. , .r .,G ila', dJ• te` ,l ,Y•, ,q !” � a,. 1F '.,.'L 1" sK / �wa'� ..,fir” 1'!r •� _�ji 11`� ,Y('�1 y_e JJ' �):•rY ��7 1,,.,'T 1 r �Yy1�'!'Y ,.�, y:r.Y 1 ..;I'.r ' Jy �.p �{�'� } r ,.`ft 7 ••t'!1 f� J'''1 I7�})y,ia• `a),jt� t :Ar.1i _',R,,�t• „'v J.,•�'. 4 `'1. •�',r� ,W,•-:1'< p�,'dp ' F n� -z4.,15r.rt<,y._ 'S`�..�Y'. r4'j.v `,! ,r t. .'JL' ,i !} _ '-r lJt `)) t,;�. � rt ',i. II,,i fiy-, •I ,+�j4��L `',� r j,�F l�,��p ���.:,,y: �1�'� �l ,.t, �i!ir t-� .�{/ ,,J, .� c: „;��}p>:•,�,f1 t7,',�_1� x D.�; (yr�„ J,� rf �tltl .,4' ,r 1^ 'S. .„,,;:':�; 1;'4' �;iY ,, ,::,34...-, i A_:^ <' ' b- t. ..4' •5•. ./�`..'.*,•p�,/, .l” �, KJ{. r .1s. ':�1 .•,. +,',R'�r -`-, 'Iti i ,4� �;.+,!°,;n „}� .. , ayJ] xr�Ji� .1. t' "�'r, v, ,tom r.�.= Kt'''. T'i,� 'S�c- �j,^.. ,sr1 -r ::,,...1•Yi„,... -.T../PZ,. •ir,.. „1t,F6•:i1`4'`• , �' ,�� 1•v• ,i r :,�; r\'CAL �' .l+ io'ri» ! J�iS._ r' .�. �r . . +s' ,e?.: ^i, `}• %}'' -� '� r a � r.<,, ,u,ea,. s' > 'i 5: y, i.•,• '+. _;;3r .i: {�' �+•x+r :r `` :.i a' , h, _'`:tii7 -�.. rf. 1'• ;, ?/:;if t 4 :in,:.-4'-'70":11-;'': i. .ae";7 .,V±:,t $Z:r, 0. 4,..:s,,..:.�' �",.., ,t�{y, y'-: ,d/r , r �'`�+�). r Y :i.� •y:..•Jt - ,4�. M !l ,• t:-:>a .itx' t r `- 4>.iti'}` ,; i ,d,. �i 4 :.r.. .,A .5; z..;,,�,P• `^a.-.•_'S;,•t• •k w ,•.• r�„Asa,' , ...,t `ti's r4 y: .$"5,4�rtr�',• �' a r, r "dLr r '14 1.°-,; ct;ti V + 1 i I, .L1 f:,.}•,!v'I�Y 1i' .f:• �' "'t'"R +,Y{i•�fSi� C', �'SS; "�,. �•1 '.>,.. ,- ?, . t : ,,,• •x�9.. •,(,'h 1 4'' �, •i.' - +.7.r`c' "cam k k ' tiE4• Y .'4 ,'4, S, IJ, t.,. t „ -t: .. 4,,,7,,t. `w‹-V,-'1'..- Q ai ,N' i >•. -'/-:-%r :ff, r„ ,_;p,'au r ..,.".fie a in:: .:t '� lIii,VAIT.4:^t''-'‘g-q ••7} �•F' �'°'e� ,,y. �'+ ;W;. 11V, .,,, � `5";'i� t a �,{� * r ,-+,.C;. x ,-y d 3 :,, J ,�' '��''.°x,. t�j. ,ter .r: '„yn ,Y. , :i ,,�fcA'S :i- :+ vd.t i, ., eh:: . ,!r P, ( 1`,-�• r. -, ” 'r' ,+$¢� `'t . 9r. '•,3 „rn a . '+P 4' < , :,arr •G.v.s�.md. ,'( Y ,h :'Y.tr 'e,f .r 'rah'' ri}}:I+r 'r', 'S" ,ic •G t '�ppo'„,` J.., d '.1, r .�: $'t.�3'` . 7+ 'S i atw'.',4,; �k •i`S re), 1,r 4`'. +' '�'1. 'C3G. G( r, F l#'��t ', . .,.�'.4+)'1�' ,.l,S .�.: .., ,'`',i"'. y�� na'� w' ,s r o .r? •...•'�' µ 1`'� `�t.+T9,a �,:t:;1ra ,,,ry, .� ,�rl�,rrJ, ft1 - .. (,.{J ..<r,L t,4 ,:. . a<_ �g'k�r:..,8•,f.jy 1,rr _�4,,,,',,_,4.- . 7� �1 ;..�''. :•` •�,(1, 4� A"''_g J 5•`�?�`]�pry .,fa�� +,a��" r rrr 'k1� b 4" 11 ,,h\ 'r:fk rS.. §`�T� ,�� •a.y�'',:"r!t'`" }:.'!,(. 11 'b',,,: 1'.+„I..`1.• .5 ' �1,5, '�k1” 'M1 'b" i�.fl.�"�.[ .J>/� '+V�r- i ���[7':.-, � �` d,� eis '� ,�� .3 . F+'� r,�.Y�y r'.z� :"�i..t,r�.•`•;�r-e.., t, .�'. r• _yy,,, �: ' nl�' .`I�S�, �).,•.+�d�rd,'N�•� �.. f' �Mi I �rq.,.� .Y „,;e1 V '`-•-r l' ', •ir:I. S .- 50,11}$'�: i,r, q. r - .;P• Z •T,� •�t, ?•�,ij'.1. ''.14',.'-'+: ,1 y0.7. ^-�.,1-.S_ A.2• -7t,G;' •1 "✓€q t` .F1;:{ '4,;�i1,a ,,r a ,'.<. t ”.,. ^�r rf�'....,54"• txl�,.^tea s �:`t�. Lt ,�_�•,t '>, �• 'tS'�i�i r,/ f, 1: .i J:`� "1�;"4, r ''�.°f-i q r.t 'R.� .1 � `�. $. �1 J• _ by. .,;. 'k r�3,.,;, ,� 7+,,-.� ','•-••';'11.';,.q .a �. �'' a.� .r. y� , � " ,�.} �R"`a• t^_ ftf' q AE �.�h ^+ 7:.' •^.`t �y . .,� ,Y.l6.a .�tT'..r$�. { y,,} .:;y{ l�� .�• •Y..°4•-„, -Mir' rf.+� J�,.}yvN':- '1.�.. '�. tt� .� !, .'L .. ..7, •t,Dr ...s",ye •fit ti' !L:�- r :`!� as ^.;�Tt' -: :.,,,, y r. ;aY .'-• o,,.tlr, j:'I1., r;t..,... 'yS �y 1 .., _rY� .yi �.,i 5 , '`Jt •�W: �K`,�` _ 4 q .�„ •,'---„' tl+r{ ,J,� �f., F t'{c`�' '9sK „r�:,i„�+.r�` :�f ai 7 r. r�,'yf$ 'Y,. ,:•2.,[� v,�,. t • .a+x•) - r,, „ > .., r. fy�� � ,.p�,�, `� ...� :' . , •.. .,h�,.•2 'K d: � "f.. ,. . r ,gay. --'S-5-.,+,t .� �lF�t� '�Y iC'�4�, (C `4.� ���w. ,W T... ..d r�' .v„"F v ->,ik h,�,,__, ;'r yi '.1 ,'j�•_1� �. `�r¢ v Y., --'i'rl. fir!° .{ .-,l`^6.;.�, :i ilia'f". - \'a`4 ,Y' r7J', ),'e, a.•.r, i'',„r, r. ;wr d .) 1::t.AA,?,..- h r .'�+, .'�,t g',1'''� Jr .Y•• .Y -... _ 'nrt\ �,[,Jy{5t} v�Yi�a y. + �]5, 1 '�7<,� *,.� ..a. yt' , v� ''. l ra:'�,�� r' a ,a i, ,sit, y ,• :r, ,r,�;x-•� {,:� ,. .•t, ,"\�. ,4 ,'y. .;tt }•. ,C�1, l':. ,•+�. ,f.. :" .,�.,s, ,.,. •q I a 4 '•p{ •,r, a .L_ (; "�,ic, .. �r�r icy ,. '.:i ,,, �}_, •.. {:;.. '` rY^ ,. "`< 7i 4 J :� � � - N'`.'C'rH• i,i ��"C �, ry� �, 15.. i 'p�� , w '{„ ,...y it 'ry sr ..{ :fr, t,�A•' {.f f. .[r Y:nrf'F rtI:t��'f,,( '( .3'.,.�y> ,,�a;..{�} '1'a'l, 7.t+J,/P,.• Y �. ..1 ..�,,.. v.[ ,.,, 1•, ..qT' II,Y� ."! ;Ji-i"',,, , � 1'r•�1�4' �� '� (/ rY xn +l„ 1, Vin- �"•. , r,,y'� ., . .� •7,,•.�'�SY• �t ;x�"w`. _ '- ,,,,+. .. .r rn,A:i,«.�.'i Yr tJ 1 4 rl Y^,,,r,' :^,, a„•>:. ,+ q. �4y� �+�,�,.:, �,` � .a: IGA, k�. rri. ip -}+ia- wr.!� � �1 *.�.-1 :k�� ,I � b- _..:�2�„ ���_. .t! a„+-:1�..F>rj�./ir'i41"`� �;;j4t. sl; s�� .:.siv, t l :.4 i _ '£}y ,c` ...t •:.f "4:. ,( ,, ,•r'p.. 3'�w.. _.:n - ^ ._i=:r�.. b 's:i� � "''�}_ y'. "a ,{:' t;`:li !.}7i.: l ,.�''I J,,... ,�L.E. r, i,.�nt' ,.f-;;�C ,e�.yt. .Y;i" f *.. , r.Y a., . 'n.,o-TM-,, ,ee 'ti. -,„ y ..a_,ul,w'.i '..^r R•�' .t, 3 r ';f).'>.` ,•lj':d-fa p a 'gr'f - r , 'rr ^,der}; $ � {-' _a: -Y. ':'\ :a, �y, ' '� _u 1 .(.. if •y. .y. �' ,^ >�.'+,. Y'�� a. .� ''l- �:'t ' t+' � srJ':� - .t''�Rr� -!'•lo-:,l.•y. f ,.r1 �� `v � ��y� -�•a*1. ,,. ► r�;i• r _ y :'o-'�' a ,� -f ,- r,.'a;. ••••;-'7,,,,T044•11. .. .t,'� .J�f -t,i,"+i.:-,k#F. '�. ,/ii3� -t•'_ - - `''"+r`T v . '') a\, - '�ir. , •:( A .;V! t �C:, :f, <,, - t '.r ,e•r: 77,, rr J:k a..”-,,,:%,, ,,,,,'-',-‘4",:;,g;-, h,•►? .: „:„±-:-....,,,,,,,,,,,,:,,,,,,,,,,, i.,• '''�MY,'r.t s'jd l .y '� 'y`.. ,r .'',.�... R ; :,,: •*, ,;wt* '•Yv: .1'��i,�•a t fJ)j' ! +� v t,.<^�. :,. �..« ,`$i'S y2tl• A .3, � ,.t'1 t:'h3 t- v,.. .J>” �. x"•�'+1.+q t � -. ,7 •��, �•' •a,. ,� . ;�..�.. .w „ 4ir`e _ ,�. $ •I a. •r.,.. 1,. '<-r u' ^ Y.t.. r` '-.: r ,,,�'�, ..+,�',- .1 'w.rir `�' �' �'.! - ,..t, "v. : .'.1 I`Rti `:'L a' -4:a.:.-day '.' . i,J'y . • :hi,.` -r,. t,7} e,2`• r,'',,,,, ,' .r.. y,,.r ,•f .C, . i� ••1,F �,.' �g P.,,-• .y. ,y„ y ' 8.,� , 3 •.5t .41...1 57"fri4', _% r.F .T,�-a az k .: •,, ..; aa�td .�'- .vr-!*•. ;1,- '` `. s�� w. ', . 'YC'•.J i, - a A ' p:.�•�j, r,,;_.� .ac,+ '<'',•., sLY'r it' ..YI',r ,P•I'^ ..r ,',i.. �:#1.°1"42,',,,,,,J.4 +'L... .,A Sx >1.•t..'1� :ear�:.: �,a� "�' h,• '"'6i,',_ e....*y7. yt .A f�. t 3,�y�''J'• ,/' .'•eX...'Y,•.h, di: '4a ,, �Yoyt„_. ,,� �p s'. .r, .�,-v.;-•,,A-4.N...4 v.r q S• ➢'. . r %1,. ..• Y �,� � rr,� ? i + aa: A :I: '"4 s� .avC:.c ,,T yea='� :.v r'F,.,e''r�7. �h• .JS,.!' :r.d., „r. �• {r tta. �:t f, '1,, ,i e . r ..-. =fir''R-t,3,,,041: :: : _ .•,t,. ., :,,c .,r.� .• �,k:."' •4�t �� ,:; ,� { � -,�'r�, "r". .y,-: . ,•;q. `!,: -,%(''.,,4i, ,�':;'�1';f; � ` ,,.. `,;,�:. .,,r 'rr,. � �i- _ ri,.. .t.. ;..,. ;^.l �..4�.Sa aG. '•.:'..4.=,•,..'''.'4.:-."""11; •. -.,.4 .,I:t : .. ,;u. �=1. :.. ..�_ •�,_�}.r.•r :,p:d ..GI ySIi. lt,'. �,e!. ,t r r i.- r�.r .,`r�„tj u'. , �'�3 c�:"*'-��•1� .ri '2t. .�Tt,. �e, .�:,.e � .. 4,f ]. �.!-., f .,a: ,J_.,..,Fq' lc:..-+:a0 ;� Y. ->v:-a�Td9y ,', ,%f � h'' • ,s- :5:, �✓• � ;n.' �,°y,..:+r. r #��"��, ,y . t.'. ,, ,,, !1 ". N :\',fr ,`, -.. ,. j?G" •n �''+ -r. ,, q, .:%! , ri'.'; F '1 +f . � laJ•r k.". ., "T^ I9 .F "7 I � '.-�'.i:'�h:r rJ."<� >,:#�t+'.,+r �'�;{!, j'`F'�,� ..i: :"3'�C" 1 E tt,., �� ,� "�'K}" :-,� ,r 3. 't�' v: y�/, : :e:• k, - r • ! . s ,. •;.• Air sr, �iy ';r 't q �i �Y ,. c�`y.•„ v �,:�•,,,�•-„M .'t�4•. �tr�. .,. !r +.n,4rR "�.+�-Y, ''"'.��i ,,aar" y, ��r rhe.�l i `:'• d.. • ' , t .,• •�.:y'T.:E',.,y 2,.;F .p. ,_�, '+'C'', ..r.' -1`'� l �.. . t t� , ..i. .0` 't, w-' t, .w '•'+i,,. '+,g'=3 ;jrk ^a\..'Aii xt ':L. ,n i. - •_ .. ?.r” .":.g •1.. r 3p.? .. i. • ^>rLt •s.:�4.,�, P ., � G.. }+•'j:11N' x '+a: _� ib ' "•� t}:` � 1,"',)'I'.�Fv'4' ;xr7' "� J 'y�,• < 5 'u ). t t!-✓; G ..a, . ,. r,^ '.1..3 , '+ ,, , • P . ,'J F .n rr.4 aX,yr ', �" G.- .�* -' � .•'•.. ..: ,�- �: .( �.,+.. wl • , r ,•y. ��* � .,r� +,r" ;Ir :,� t +� -r J"tj ,y !t-:;6 �C 'r.. ,•fa `, i,.; .. ,:•i-.,--4.1T. , .� �':'J ,: 1,' _:.GG 7 .� ..::. 1'fE,.... ,: .h t.T¢�' "K '7•,Y' •V ,ZA. Q �_ . i• f i',;i:i ''+ tt '✓ e '��i :��e • M r' \ �' S` . r'�c0 <.. �r: u r>. a 0'',.'"-.170','-`i° j, ): .r :'0'•;-*!;;-:;;;;;;;?---;.';'-''.- --? ''' •.5 • K r : ia , a•„+[ • , ;' !,..."..1(`-: r ,•-• . .v .1. - ,.iY t, ,x5•, e.,> ,!�.:l;.f. y ,,r S•4 '�us d'. .',., y,J,y r+. ,a.. sr ;M:. vi'i•a;e 5- q`rl".. t... rct ,y,.,^ .• r y.,''l ♦ :,' J f:SA. _„', t � s`1.. P 'l: ' +t' i,y n w ,-- - .,'t -- --..i.-,_;..,'", a:•_ .tr;:: X1.. .9 •3i' s.E.�iC�r�,� ,.$� -4 1 a. `.r. J # .J sl�, �. �::, P 7 a. , _ �v v it', ::p'�'ji, v .�' .# + t�*1a'''tc'5 i4.ae,�. ,'•1,. .7..'ti�,(.p'ir. �;� 4r. ,a[':�l a ,y,.• e ,..,., r� l��y�'�,•'r♦♦♦�';:, „a " i•, to �_ �1{ 3 ..*,-;;.. „14'..;',t,, wr. a t •tv,,.. a 1,, 'FVf•' .'a ,..i., r•_'„!- . ',Y ,rs.q,r .F ,f�• .,,, i. r< tyy i-:.. 'a•. -t;A .� y�� : �''� ��. .,+5' Q3. 'a' t'a p'��' ��� g �r ,� .r Y{r'�ilS; r .,q,r,�•• s:�. y�+ .F.: ,.Jry.�r.'f,. '`��''` W. � J '♦ ri• , •�s u. :F, �1•t�.'� '�i .� rr',�i' ."�+', i' d o4 �nlP$• - tf� '-gid" ,y a-Vi, ,,. ,.�' / ...�.'^ •t o, }• rv.V�n,' .c. �.sJ. "'-'- ';0;'-'-':1:1':1: *n rS .�, �,`$ .4i,•,'.•;-4;r:-,, y �rJ'X'7?' U ;[6 .���� :; =k (. -�•,,1 r t r y • ':.:i .4_�•�S`��, 3, g,y �i.Yyy J' 's� 'L� .. .R'a,:. ... ,.. U` .`. _,. _�:;����gg v gg :•R,'� i.i<}"• �s r.`^,.L�.. ,,+i :ytJ,r •�, ;.>+t •:t• ,• .y :-r ,�t_v `wV ,+t kR, d` i \ :.r..r,« ;i,a ., ^'1•r':': r•f3C± !ha :.,I'i: t,.. .'.e ifo-• s. :,ta ' "'''�•:ih'.v.,,�.t `'! i� 'r :.:' t5, ,, ,�.4 ,�i�- i� � ,.� -.�.wtt�., , ,rfr" -{ �- f.. ,q, �r xd�ar;. 7 �,£��a;+�. r' 1„,;,....i.• �...nt,, -„�••' ,� .J iGr f.t.j. .S!».,i�51� $, _toe,' %t~ ' ,,, , }, .:7y; {.'+'' .1 M 3,t' .4.V.1t 3.a.''�'S 3°!- •P. :,tM`..•:�k' n�rr1 ^"'W=p'ti,ry.�..x � 7„'.,r•� r •.4,:ti •:9,iY �? ,'-' -.fit, ".-4 .L. •'. `Y,a. ,. •.[ .5 ,�:;. ^. ,x. r) 1 :. ,' ...r ay. 't. ».4","r,•rFr_.--,�i�•. ;t ..a'<;,<"' -t.,r,, �t,. S + ''s,'..,60-4/,._ ..trf•d ',t "v t',''.,-".4. ..a >'' ..v'. "�['..-..i >a r:. 'r •r.> }.• , ,i.'... _ s�f ,i'.',, +.J- 'il l,,fy. M%f +�,,.: .?'",: ^i; ye" a• ;9 t • • A''8 `r;' f r. .,r,. s -,: :•:1^l•y.A a.• •, .-:.-4.41,4A.-,..--,...7. j 1 "';E}..f. �p ',..'....% �r .01-0,,,,,w1;1,,01§.-1,1''' 4' y. .,;w. ,5.+^L,rT 't - fit, ., "S -1_,' w r.,7 3,.ui.i : ' ,.0 xF•-', 1 r .n^,. '-.."....-77.-•-"L'''''''‘ `�.:.,l ' ,J.y♦ih,1' 'rr CJs"•" , � 4� "� ,.J Lq ,fi... ,,,,T tk` ,;:-. ,F•,aL*�-jf,..Jrw'e�i. iy U�.n,_( ,C'._ :r-, ,I.-„L;,--=7,'.;r:,.., '_ �i.,,_ Y - r ,.��>r_"�'r�e �i,� ,f+;. ["v' .....'4 \"�:,t� o.r,, � , 'ars-�$ �r � R 5 y---c. .� `"�rr•,,',:.r��• ,y � 4: . ,r..4h.,•,,:i`• } '! t' {• ''J. .�g'�14, �§ y'.,,A,,'• „v fi•r4; �' i. t. '7:. ,4,,,,-0:1-.r�p '[, i_ .,I ty ,y-,tot', � ,-. • y .fi ,T,y,r Z s. a i�{. ._ 1',1 :. r + w. ''N, a 1' '�'�,;9 Y '�`. 4 I .: r,V".f'�j ii PIjr3 v K, I .. c..,,.:-;,,,,:ti r .it •1 ''r-i'-"2:;" s,: W�i•:� `5 � -` r 3, • ,f[,� "figg �,T-N-ran.cl t:',U ,F L-•'y .( 'ai rtr I ,4 {q,i �;i, x ,f r. ,!:k ,t II;,!-;e9 � _'fi�',.yi*, «r• :,-,:{'� ,. '.., ,ifA ' ,,,ee_ . ¢ Vic. r rig? f 1J,, • � �r , rp�- .`$ .'rrP',y I«f�,,�,{ ',r__:_-_.3, ,f A }{tfE- .il .,+•.i �.Ll.-tt,y',.yp`- a _f,. .± '� a#.9:' .,JYM4 7"'"• r. ,a � .t ,,,,pi {fYf' 5 4��., .>',.xr'y_.�:�N .•11'•; 1+,?"� i t'� [ !(J ;,�� 1 .S'3a - `'`{ ff� CsZ �'-:•.::il{'1'l�t:i3+/J riLf f.f r /°r {' ,,----6,.'i a (i,c _a "�`' �Y' r .,�. .�` t": {vY.fa °: ���u4'S.,t 1, e Fro r.r.. ;r _ r▪•t�.�,i-.y-• ,�yi,f,-'�+. _ "'a: ,.t L L7� � � ;w• r '� ! 1, 't ._7 �*+t 2 <.,y, �i. ...s[ - _•i•�, T It R;,.y';a;i r ,r`i n .w ,!`-,1 ti r ,iJ't: ,: ' r Asa .•,-;: '^Zr' Q> _ �'v.,;. r' �:� ,�F_tl f:Y, d "�Js'•t.>•,kV;� ,.. `."•U. '�: .'rFg' a ,. ti. #., •+ar:.r'• k,_ . 1. . ..,. -r;', J,;. ,if ;F'S, - ..�1��1,',.,ua i"5ti: .a :t�.`; r1 te. ,p!`•.. > .,r:3• Tr' �.,. "k, ,r)'-.-, -•.* A�.- "---..7,--•t �.•t'r ''! .ia• ft. } ,',C>J, �vS��,..,��'•�f; �+'t' ^,�a:.1 !� .:C. w 4 :'1',�� ;�1•,� '�" ,r� • , ,, r.- � _ ._ .1. r _ ?� �` •t,. _,.•� ?.{�l '":A-'1', •""�rF' J,r '(C'S�,, „+ s sJ� ,r ,r y , L �,•�;IC�'- �g•;x- = �' �r,� y L r A" y, q4" S,,rJ"SNt. :i'i,f1... ..-41„ .. 1 r ,.'4.�- ,:,. � i '.`Y. 4, •1. - ,• ..r � ' , r . -y .r. r _..,J � �,C�' ,i'>+.,. �.? ;.:,...tri,' ,x'�3��j�;, 7,, ?�,,Y',,..�.,,d 3,� ;..,� 4 ti r. � r 1+;" v �..'�Y. •`�• ff �,•. .'b,,, �„ ' , .;,. 41.•7 r a,�..'Y`: i nT. 1 r�"�."a ,r°!r_ ,.s, r y 4` ej.. x!••�,F•`. :t .� ���t'��y k '3�: �Jt e':vw"`'1 �-:.,C-r-' 'Y }: . yyr..p; r t ``,��y�.vi'i���' c � >, 't�t�=�'..,"+ 't,tS",•r „. , «tr S v. r.,^t'� '.?�..V- ,fi•. o-� �i, � -',,,,,,r,* :,,,;,..,:,. �r .c;- .,,.,rr:',... . s. �••if>5.17'1124 `_•'ie!, � .�,'y� �. �rr•^+,:X'4r ,> w '. c a•'�c.1}��'2'�{., ^� rt4 .� `•e „sS T ,L•' .'04„,'''.4.43" laF�`.ju,^;,. /" r ti AA 4 ',`�,`tel'' Y 1 `\,# Rr y3;.)1�.6 .s14 .1 ,L .., r* f ,q� � � 7 , r.._ Y ▪r�.)"r r. /•i-!r,,ry:'f�., r, t �. t 'd@ , 1"--44f1' ,;!;:,r,..a. k1Mr';,, .P� :5° , :'Y", •.ISPs .:W. - 'n J Jri:.l7 - •+,i` 'jC" rt..;...:' ''''4' . ;=:rive^ :1/ �rIj rliir,'7 h�T t YGY ' r' ,•y c}.t.r `r;, r A. +? pJ • � rt, r a, , •-- :-...-p--1-.7-.-1.--..- ��,,f. u11.1Ur.:"�l' -!!"l7,y `J,:. ,.. Mr!t. ,,;i'. rJ 3, r LIA,• °+it}I r T'i r ,J7aq- -'•^1' "'MN r ....,:,•,,,.....,::::;:i..,:._:.: ,--;,.- r':.'�"_I"r:'i_` a 'c`�^'.Stsv T,.-v :. ..�;;+',,..0-oma, 's.y:5_._.c�N .`v. ., o-�:r.. J ...e.+,._,.3x�.., 1 y'p>t', 1,,,�"d'ut,•.•u;Iii.a1'i.S",t..:. ( y r :..,;d �Ji, _ Z_- _x Resubmittal of Variance Findings for Request a Variance for Side-yard Setbacks Los Altos Hills Municipal Code §10-1.1007(2) October 5, 2015 Mora Drive APN No. 331-15-061 Lot 1 Los Altos Hills Municipal Code §10-1.505(c)(3) - 30' side-yard setback required Los Altos Hills Municipal Code §10-2.407 - 10' grading setback Los Altos Hills Municipal Code §10-2.1102—(h)' driveway location and construction The proposed building side-yard setbacks are 15' at the north side, and 10' at the south side. Proposed grading set back is 2' at the north side and 5' at the south side. 1. That, because of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject property,including size, shape,topography, location or surroundings,the strict application of the provisions of this title is found to deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by.other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification; The subject legal parcel is exceptional compared to other parcels in the area because it smaller, approximately 0.38 acres, and narrow,.approximately 68' in width at the front 59.3'' at the rear. a. Strict application of the 30' building setback would yield a buildable area less than_4' wide,making the parcel unbuildable. The proposed building width of 38'-2" (plus 3'-0 for required basement light wells) allows for a house that is two • rooms across along with an access corridor. The garage is set at basement level accessed from the side of the house to further reduce frontagerequirements and maximize building setbacks. All other properties in the vicinity are zoned R-A, like the subject parcel, and virtually all of those properties are improved with single family homes. b. The property is gently sloped on its front portion but steepens to a canyon in the rear. The proposed residence is located on the gently sloped portion of the parcel. This steeper area is being offered by the applicant as a conservation easement to provide a community benefit. The home on thesubjectproperty also set toward the front so that it can meet the applicable fire codes, since the parcel does not have sufficient width to accommodate'a fire truck turnaround. c. Neighboring properties enjoy the benefit of reduced side setbacks as well. The majority of the homes in the neighbors have non-conforming lots in lot size or setbacks.Numerous homes have side setbacks of under 10'. The attached 1 Building Setback Neighborhood Map shows surrounding properties with visible non-conforming setbacks. Through this variance,we seek to enjoy the same privilege. d. Strict application of the grading setback would not allow for a driveway turn around on the north side, and no grading adjacent to the home on the south side. Grading on the north side is between properties in common ownership. Grading to the south side is required for light and ventilation of habitable rooms, as the home is set deep into the hillside to conform to basement regulations and minimize bulk and height. e. Neighboring properties enjoy the benefit of reduced grading setbacks as well The majority of the homes in the neighborhood have grading within the setback limitations. The attached Grading Setback Neighborhood Map shows surrounding properties with visible grading setbacks. Through this variance,we seek to enjoy the same privilege. 2. That upon the granting of the variance,the intent and purpose of the applicable sections of this title will still be served and the recipient of the variance will not be granted special privileges not enjoyed by other surrounding property owners; The intent of the 30' setback is to provide a reasonable buffer between large homes. The requested variance would satisfy the intent of the ordinance by reference to the parcels surrounding the subject parcel: a. The subject property has a right of way lot to the south of the property which serves as the private access roadway to a number of homes to the east, so there is no neighbor to the south. b. The subject property has a lot currently in common ownership to the north. c. The property has significant tree coverage that restricts visibility from surrounding parcels. d. The properties to the east and west are largely blocked from a view of a home on the subject property by a number of large trees. e. The residence has been limited to one story to minimize the visual impact on the neighboring properties. f. The proposed structure steps down to follow the grade of the lot to retain the natural contours of the terrain. g. A partially vegetated roof has been proposed on the lower roof to mitigate the density of the proposal. h. A deed restriction is proposed for the parcel to limit future development to one story in height. i. The proposed home would include 2,696 sq.ft. of floor area with a basement of 1934 sq.ft. of habitable area and 743 sq.ft. of garage. Hence,the overall size of the home is consistent with the size allowed on conforming lots,but the visible • above grade portion of the home is consistent with the MFA of older homes in 2 the neighborhood which have not yet been redeveloped,but can reasonably be expected to be redeveloped or expanded in the future to maximize square footage. 3. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and within the same zoning district; The variances sought will not be detrimental to the public welfare nor injurious to the property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity. Most homes in the neighborhood do not meet the setback standards set by the Town, including many with side yards setbacks of 10' or less. There is no indication that any of the occupants of those homessuffer any ill-effects from having their homes a substantially smaller distance from each other. Grading setbacks of less than 2' are also common. Occupants of homes in other places are separated by even less than 40' from their neighbor's homes, again with no known ill-effects. 4. That the variance will not authorize a use oractivity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning district regulations.governing the parcel or property. The use for which the variances are sought is a primary dwelling, an expressly permitted use in the R-A zone applicable to the subject property(§10-1.701(a)). 3 OCT -7 2015 Resubmittal of TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Variance Findings for Request a Variance for Side-yard.Setbacks Los Altos Hills Municipal Code §10-1.1007(2) October 5, 2015 Mora Drive APN No. 331-15-062 Lot 3 Los Altos Hills Municipal Code §10-1.505(c)(3) - 30' side-yard setback required Los Altos Hills Municipal Code §10-2.407- 10' grading setback Los Altos Hills Municipal Code §10-2.1102—(h)' driveway location and construction The proposed building side-yard setbacks are 10' at the north side, and 20' at the south side. Proposed grading set back is 5' at the north side and 2' at the south side. 1. That, because of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings,the strict application of the provisions of this title is found to deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification; The subject legal parcel is exceptional compared to other parcels in the area because it smaller and narrower, approximately 0.40 acres and 62.5' in width. a. Strict application of the 30' setback would yield a buildable area less than 2.5' wide, making the parcel unbuildable. The proposed building width of 34'-5" (plus 3'-0 for required basement light wells) allows for a house that is two rooms . across along with an access corridor. The garage is set at basement level accessed from the side of the house to further reduce frontage requirements and maximize setbacks. All other properties in the vicinity are zoned R-A, like the subject parcel, and virtually all of those properties are improved with single family homes. b. The property is gently sloped on its front portion but steepens to a canyon in the rear. The proposed residence is located on the gently sloped portion of the parcel. This steeper area is being offered by the applicant as a conservation easement to provide a community benefit. The home on the subject property is also set toward the front so that it can meet the applicable fire codes, since the parcel does not have sufficient width to accommodate a fire truck turnaround. 1 c. Neighboring properties enjoy the benefit of reduced side setbacks as well. The majority of the homes in the neighbors have non-conforming lots in lot size or setbacks.Numerous homes have side setbacks of under 10'. The attached Building Setback Neighborhood Map shows surrounding homes with visible non-conforming building setbacks. Through this variance,we seek to enjoy the same privilege. d. Strict application of the grading setback would not allow for a driveway turn around on the south side, and no grading adjacent to the home on the south side. Grading on the south side is between properties in common ownership. Grading to the south side is required for light and ventilation of habitable rooms, as,the home is set deep into the hillside to conform to basement regulations and minimize bulk and height. e. Neighboring properties enjoy the benefit of reduced grading setbacks as well The majority of the homes in the neighborhood have grading within the setback limitations. The attached Grading Setback Neighborhood Map shows surrounding properties with visible grading setbacks. Through this variance,we seek to enjoy the same privilege. 2. That upon the granting of the variance,the intent and purpose of the applicable sections of this title will still be served and the recipient of the variance will not be granted special privileges not enjoyed by other surrounding property owners; The intent of the 30' setback is to provide a reasonable buffer between large homes. The requested variance would satisfy the intent of the ordinance by reference to the parcels surrounding the subject parcel: a. The north side neighboring property is approximately 45' from the property line. It has a two story façade facing the home which consists of a garage below and what appears to be a secondary unit above. The proposed distance between the proposed structure and the garage/rental unit totals approximately 55'. b. Screening trees have been proposed on the north side to augment the screening afforded by the three large pine trees between the homes. c. The subject property has a lot in common ownership to the south. d. The property has significant tree coverage that restricts visibility from surrounding parcels. e. The properties to the east and west are largely blocked from a view of a home on the subject property by a number trees. The property to the south has the primary view of the proposed home. f. The.residence has been limited to one story to minimize the visual impact on the neighboring properties. g. The proposed structure steps down to follow the grade of the lot and to retain the, natural contours of the terrain. 2 h. A partially vegetated roof has been proposed on the lower roof to mitigate the density of the proposal. i. A deed restriction is proposed for the parcel to limit future development to one story in height. j. The proposed home would include 2,520 sq.ft. of floor area with a basement of 1,885 sq.ft. of habitable area and 698 sq.ft. of garage. Hence,the overall size of the home is consistent with the size allowed on conforming lots, but the visible abovegrade portion of the home is consistent with the MFA of older homes in the neighborhood which have not yet been redeveloped,but can reasonably be expected to be redeveloped or expanded in the future to maximize square footage. 3. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and within the same zoning district; The variances sought will not be detrimental to the public welfare nor injurious to the property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity. Most homes in the neighborhood do not meet the setback standards set by the town, including many with side yards setbacks of 10' or less. There is no indication that any of the occupants of those homes suffer any ill-effects from having their homes a substantially smaller distance from each other. Grading setbacks of less than 2' are also common. Occupants of homes in other places are separated by even less than 40' from their neighbor's homes, again with no known ill-effects. 4. That the variance will not authorize a use or activity which is-not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning district regulations governing the parcel or property. The use for which the variances are sought is a primary dwelling, an expressly permitted use in the R-A zone applicable to the subject property(§10-1.701(a)). • 3 '1.-4.771r177.44-1, , (cry' ' d Sttb C, J i PWr7 �, -' • f , ry�,•4�•.; `'4y -,.� ,. ,/. -' , jr:. •g ;SI e �+}•. 4. ;1 itF• 1 A :N ^ ' ' #1x .9. . of e>' ‘13-‘11.1".„,1 •a\- ~• ;`t , iAii 7,' ® �,.-(.-Ni-...'..t. . ;.. y. : t.. .. ». /.0,0,_ ' 3 ,r - .:;r,• ;'e°4!! `fat 1(. ..j. S „FT. r '•ti .r�R.•.2e !'W t ft.', . A '• /,.. , •'1 1(. s ,4.'•.!..'! -IX <�t '►•we': + �.r _ 4 —f u,s.+ s as" ,ass s• •' 7, - ' A 1+ .. ,. ,1 1 { • ,`' 0,3 1,6• , .1F• .,'•'• •,. 3TC• • �. je. �►r"7t�:X�1 ../C a� h� 10490'.r Y• • -7� < • • './t4` }: - x." . 10320 • • 0 , Al., -` • • `• , as •I'l 0.5 DAP : Imo. ' a' •� j, 'A '""lam ty, •9 5i'tback ... l g. 4. To r ' r • . D.01,PX03 +o a ,W"• PR►• • ,.•'. 28 27 4 ' h ` j�+,..''• Vis_. '-'4‘ • •'yP. 4i ; '•A'' N• '" = . S I1S1 �o + � { r •5'± SideSetback � • ,"''- sar ii '141. a '_ O�• �� eo' RRY "stir l '414 i ,„,&c '^ x pyo �._ i �. 6; •fit; [6 1_ , '�` I •�. •f ,.00� '}ir. r _- 11 .I 31 ,1 t ''•�_'. �,'�r,r•1/eia• 32 t07 4 \• 5° ^�•.., • • bee, a L \ psi'{•' . .',.illiliR1UTl1llillllH i1 ia .�� `�. . • _ c 16 N.<' rona WOO Sc R.0.s ; 1 m ii111 + t �� 10831 °" ,..°j _ .3 2s I ft ' ,.o: �. ,. 'Side Setbacl , 10691 :„<, ich Mp areim•l'" 10898 � ±1 a v .1 g • `",.'r 7� cam• , ° 11.7 a `pt`o a 0.S ay P" 4 `. :0P % 10810 �j, `::} 0 i ��t _, r, • 0'±Side `" fr; `' q. . �,.- a»AC. 1 , `S 9 ! ll000 [ 1,1131 •Setback 64\s' * 2.7lit y • t~'" '"5 ,tor 11030 «.< t. V0 a =y1!A ••1•4 , , 1....it Y.[T SJ SUBJECT ''S ��,� :t r '- r"' PROPERTY . IR°T NO. 10 13 A ' ---'--1.;.--:f•4:, ,i.„.1_,,,, , ` c. ,sem • 8'±Side Setb ck .• '; : c ��'• � , M • I•,.� i,. •+T-i--'' • NON BUILDABLE �-+ •, }; a. " �t1III ,N nn�� , -% - ieo• Es.;, •12'± Side Setbac~- ACCESS ROAD LOT • .t .a • :;'�9 I , --. I• ....� • =• ,..,,,,,•m,.< „ ± Side Setback t. BUILDING SETBACK 14 N z,' 4 : y. 4,•","A '4�''1,IVIgu I" ANALYSIS <1 -.. - Y•K_, ... . . �.. > ,5'± Side ett)ack s Lt a ' " •; •/ '.......• ........./.-- �/ - ., 1 ; ► i `Pj„�y ^_/ • r yr ` t. r 3k !'�.�' .^�,l G• •rY I J \ q4.1• e '�'. :41. .8: .,�Y: • .•'•IF-- N.yi 1 .rr ,. !y 151/1! •••.„,— 4 \.ZS P ' t f la Ia LQYO�q /' . .. 37 •--'. 21:10/28,. ••••.. _ f l , -. •:1'" ...'—'7.---k •Lt �M 161 • •0'Front Setback for t •ti. iws? t •+M raft,,a.�. •• ?� • �` ��i�FrontSetback(or Uncovered Parking �"'Y'J 0.- oo\.. ,` \µ. '�+, ••• as` ncoveredParking 1 8 ` Da\ `jC6+I 1 , g00� V= 1 `'''' ',.J 10320 1 ,: 2'1 as 4 2 • Q �3,d► F •5'Front Setback for X51 sipi` * r• % 2+ ;4. 6!' 10490 W 'a �: tt).-4t4:.y! ;+�, o : 'i x . i• Uncovered Parking 1 �(�*`• o s tea.. r ~�� ar o; 10451 ( 1 . 10290 • .. 11•cr`` j -�' , L-:•.•.-.•...........P-'''''' .--a;• s. ''� ,r 10315 b.. ,w' ' 0.' 014.�� r,.a,.' • a 27 i. . i.,...1:1" -•AD ;/q 10977 J- is +nb •w u;<+.wi .. c, I%9 10931 6 ��. X Zp " r S',A>,' �. t4 8 I am .r•+a ' Si O�. }•' 8 I i'``,J CRY . ~\ ' aa>- 11 L- �- 10910 y4_ Ar 007wc. •S'Side Setback forAill.e. t }3 �• `~jO ^''a r., a" -i Covered Parking +' „qa so R o-s c{ I 4;- :'8- z Ac. q 71 1 1 j; M r T., Iv: 10691 ., '.. ,, A • ;z... .,l!e. -•itt:: ' A. os!'. 10868 12 `o�No * N. £. 4�� t I I ':!' ;.• d�'41 .�,_� 10775 'ti " 1\ e ; $ r,'� • llHh1i 10610 '" mo - b, -0 r•Ui111 1!llr!rfflffluI1ifi 'es = � - 1° • 1 ��} 11 10776 a • ��y5 • .40). /•s 11030 R yr,. • / Z fi - d�R.i;•/8e: SUBJECT • ���"11+, ;. _ t`s -Mr' ?�x PROPERTY 5• TRACT No. 10 » ;w •s'Side Setback for JO MORA RANCH • V IA - as Uncovered Parking PARKING SETBACK w N 'k. I' , T - r ,g.,' •�a n.-,•-v-4••• ANALYSIS s \% i y ; r • �;� • ,. . ,,� t a • , - \ i 0'-5' SETBACK ••••,, • t•k E� '`"x�' 6'-10' SETBACK ,, i. ,� Y ;' �*► 11'-20' SETBACK • 1 • o Space for • Nn Space for r •S•Side Setback for Unrnvrmd P eking r Uncovered Parking R Covered Parking