HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1 Supplemental No. 2 Page 1 of 1 �. .
From: Debbie Pedro
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 3:26 PM
To: 'Bart Carey; 'John Harpootlian; 'Eric Clow; Ray Collins; 'Carljcottr@aol.com'
Cc: Victoria Ortland; Brian Froelich
Subject: Additional Emails from Neighbors regarding Lands of Los Altos LLC, 26462 Purissima Road
Attachments: RE: Lot 166-07-ZZP-SD-GD; Lot 166-07-ZZP-SD-GD hearing on Jan 17, 20.08; Lot 166-07-
ZP-SD-GD; RE: Lands of Los ALtos Homes; RE: Lands of Los ALtos Homes; RE: Lands of
Los Altos Homes
Dear Commissioners,
Please find attached 6 emails from neighbors that were not included in the staff report because they arrived after
the Planning Commission packet was released last Friday.
1 from Kuei-Wu-Tsai, 26510 Purissima Rd.
1 from Samuel and Lina Broydo, 26496 Purissima Rd.
4 from Bob Kirkpatrick, 26470 Purissima Rd.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
-----------------------------------
Debbie Pedro,AICP
Planning Director
Town of Los Altos Hills
Phone: (650) 947-2517
Fax: (650) 941-3160
1/16/2008
Page 1 of 3
f
From: Tsai, Kuei-wu [tsaik@wit.edu]
Sent: Sunday, January 13,2008:6:28 PM
To: Debbie Pedro
Cc: Brian Froelich; John Chau; Bob Kirkpatrick; Broydo; Paul Hickman
Subject: RE: Lot 166-07-ZZP-SD-GD
Attachments: Document.pdf
Dear Debbie:
Attached please find a letter that.I submitted to you through my neighbor Mr. Sam-Broydo last
October to express my concern related to the proposed new construction at 26462 Purissima
Road in Los Altos Hills (Lot 166-07-ZP-SD-GD)which may cause negative impact on our existing
neighborhood.
From the email below from my neighbor Mr. Bob Kirkpatrick, I noticed that no thought has been.given to
noise impact on my property at 26510 Purissima Road. I am therefore resubmitting my attached letter
to you to.reiterate my serious concerns. I respectfully request that my concerns be addressed by the
developer of the proposed new construction. Your kind consideration would be most appreciated.
Thank you very much.
Dr. Kuei-wu Tsai
From: Bob Kirkpatrick[mailto:grkpjk@pacbell.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 11:41 PM
To: Debbie Pedro
Cc: Brian Froelich; John Chau
Subject: Lot 166-07-ZZP-SD-GD
Debbie Pedro,AICP Purissima Neighbors
Planning Director January 9,2008
Town of Los Altos Hills
Re: Proposed new construction
26462 Purissima Road
Lot 166-07=ZP-SD-GD
Dear Ms. Pedro:
This document is in response to the Mei Wu noise study the Town received on 12/28/07.
A study was requested by the neighbors. Specifically the request was to compare the 1280 noise at report sites 2
and 4 to evaluate reflected noise. Since freeway noise is quite variable,I expected the measurements to be made
simultaneously. Since the acoustics experts had only one Norsonic— 118 Type I sound level meter,the -
measurements were made serially.-Therefore,the data represents general noise level not accurate comparative
noise levels.
-�1/16/2008
Page 2 of 3
-Below are comments on the report but first are some paragraphs from the Town noise ordinance I noted as
reference
720. Compatibility of land uses in Los Altos Hills is best achieved through analysis of each
proposed use on a case-by-case basis through the site development review process. To
ensure that new development is not adversely impacted by noise sources, or is itself a
source of noise,the Town uses land use compatibility guidelines as part of planning and
site development review.
721. The potential impacts of traffic noise and other unwanted sound should be identified and
mitigation measures required as needed to meet the Town's noise standards. The most
effective measures for noise attenuation include the following:
❑Site planning that is sensitive to potential noise impacts -
[i Careful orientation of buildings and placement of windows
❑Increased setbacks
723. In many communities, sound walls are used to reduce freeway noise impacts on adjacent
residences.In Los Altos Hills,however, sound walls are prohibited on private property
adjacent to Interstate 280,primarily because they block views of surrounding countryside
and tend to bounce sound to other locations.
Program 2.1 Evaluate noise impacts on surrounding land uses during the site
development review and permitting process.
Program 2.2 Utilize the Land Use and Noise Compatibility Guidelines as a basis for
determining the compatibility of land uses.
Program 2.3 To determine noise exposure,use the noise contour maps or more
detailed noise analysis if appropriate.
Program 2.4 Require the mitigation of all significant noise impacts as a condition of
project approval.
In the last line of the report introductory paragraph; "or if there is a predicted increase in the neighbors' yards
exceeding 5 dB."I found no reference to 5 dB in the Town document.
(Incidentally,by the information in figure 5,the 500 should be 278, and the 200 should be 135.)
Paragraph 1 and 2 are of interest to the architect but of no particular interest to the neighbors.
Paragraph 3 again would be of interest to the architect but the data was not taken as simultaneous measurements
as expected. However,it is the only data available and the developers went to a lot of trouble to provide it.
Paragraph 4 indicates the calculations are worst case for the reflecting surface.
Paragraph 5 uses a value of 1998 sq ft of a perfect reflecting surface.
To determine the effect of reflected noise on location 2 from location 4,the existing level at 2 (51.5)is modified
by adding a calculated noise power reflected from location 4.
This was done by taking the 51.5 dB (relative value) and finding the absolute value:
10 raised to the power 51.5110,
The same was done to the 38 value shown at the bottom of page 6.
The 2 resulting values were added and returned to dB. That is: 10 log(sum)or 51.7 dB
There is no indication of where the 38 came from. This is the basis of the report conclusions.
The Town should not accept this value without supporting information.
Please consider this as a sanity check for the unexplained number, 38.
Consider the 1998 sq ft perfect reflecting surface as a 20 foot high by 100 foot long wall. (Similar to the proposed
1/16/2008
Page 3 of 3
7
house wall)
Double the wall length to 200 feet. The sound power would double and the 38 would become 41.
For reflected noise to be just noticeable on the Kirkpatrick patio, (a 3 dB noise increase)the reflected noise would
have to increase from 38 to 51.5.
For this change to happen,how long wood the 20 foot high wall have to be? 2240 feet!
This is a gross simplification but if the 38 has solid basis,the Town may be able to substantially reduce
restrictions on sound walls because any home 135 feet away, and on the receiving side, of a 20 foot high sound
wall could not detect a noise level difference. .
Paragraph 6. The acoustic engineers may not have seen the development layout. They may not have known that
much of the grass between the Broydo back yard and 280 will be replaced with concrete and asphalt. Since 3 of
the 8 octave noise bands show the Broydo backyard measurements as the highest noise power,reevaluation of this
situation is important.
In addition,no thought has been given to noise at the Tsai property.
Paragraph 8.Again,only the architect needs this number.
Very Truly Yours,
G.R.Kirkpatrick
1/16/2008
Date:October 18, 2007
To:Debbie Pedro, AICD,Planning Director, Town of Los Altos Hills
From:Dr. Rues-wu and Leslie Tsai, Owners of 26510 Purissima Road.,Los Altos Hills
(Mailing address:60 Manor Avenue,Wellesley, MA 02482)
Subject:Public Hearing on October 23,2007 Re:Site Development Permit
for Lands of Los Altos Homes,LLC,26462 Purissima Rd., File 166-07 ZP-SD-GD
Dear Debbie,
We are the owners of the house located at 26510 Purissima Road,Los Altos Hills. Due
to job relocation to Massachusetts,we are not residing,but still ovum the house. vole were
informed recently by our neighbors about the proposed development at 26462 Purissima
Road which is adjacent to our house. We are very concerned about the potential negative
impact on our house caused by the new development. Some of the impacts are listed as
follows:
Noise: The proposed new structure will reflect the traffec noise from adjacent freeway
280 to our house. A possible mitigation is the developer to build a sound barrier wall
along and immediately adjacent to freeway 280. This is the most effective way for
freeway noise abatement for all houses including the new development..
Drainage and Septic: The proposed,development can cause flooding of the low level
areas to the north, including a part of my driveway. In addition, it can impact the
effectiveness of existing septic systems. These problems need to be addressed by the
developer.
Landscaping: The proposed large house will drastically change the rural nature of the
neighborhood. Mature trees surrounding the new house should be a part of the proposed
development.
Lighting: Proper design of the outdoor lighting to avoid negative impact on neighbors
should be required.
Respectfully,
f
4 _
Kuei-wu and Leslie Tsai
Page 1 of 1
From:' Broydo [samuel.broydo@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Sunday, January, 13, 2008 7:03 PM_
To: Debbie Pedro
Cc: Brian Froelich; John Chau;.Linda Yee
Subject: Lot 166-07-=P-SD-GD hearing on Jan 17, 2008
Dear Debbie,
With respect to the Jan 17 PublicHearing, the Lot 166-07-ZZP-SD-GD plans approval has to be
contingent on inclusion of a document specifically stating that the following already agreed upon items
are part of the plans:
1. Drainage:
a) A water storage gravel pit capable of storing 2000 gallons of water.
b) A pump emptying the water storage pit at the rate of about 5 gallons per minute (not much slower and
not much faster) and capable of emptying the pit completely when there is no rain.
c) A driveway higher than Kirkpatrick's driveway.
d) A drainage pipe under the driveway having a diameter of 12 inches.
2. Noise:
a) Mature and dense trees planted along the perimeter of the property-from the beginning, to alleviate
highway noise.
b) Those trees should not be considered simply as a part of landscaping,but as a noise blocking barrier
which has to be a part of the home building plan and subject to the construction-related permit and
inspection.
3. Sewer:
a) The main sewer line along the Purissima Rd. to.include the T-hook-ups for those neighbors who will
declare their desire to connect.
b) The builder to cooperate with those planning to connect at the time of the line construction.
Samuel and Lina Broydo
26496 Purissima Rd.
Los Altos Hills
(cell) 408-666-2573
(home) 650-948-7481
1/16/2008
From: Bob Kirkpatrick [mailto:grkpjk@pacbel[.net]
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 7:13 AM
To: Steven Garcia
Cc: Debbie Pedro; Brian Froelich
Subject: Lot 166-07-ZP-SD-GD
Steven Garcia Purissima Neighbors
Public Safety Officer January 14, 2008
Town of Los Altos Hills
Re: Proposed new construction
26462 Purissima Road
Lot 166-07-ZP-SD-GD
Dear Mr. Garcia:
The proposed development on Purissima between Conception and La Paloma is
scheduled for review by the planning commission on Thursday the 17 th. The developers
plan dated 12/18/07 shows an excess rain runoff control system that the neighbors believe
would be inadequate One that would result in down stream flooding for residents
between the proposed development and where this water runs into deer creek on the far
side of La Baranca.
This picture was taken on January 5h looking toward Purissima Road showing the
developers' lot.
With over 29,000 square feet of impervious surface added to the lot,runoff water could
create a safety hazard.
/ r a
O
a
Aso
The down stream neighbors may not all be aware of this potential problem.
I believe the Public Safety Officer might contact these people to let them know
about the situation.
Along this straight section of Purissima Road shown,the speed limit is 35 MPH and the
limit is often exceeded. Purissima is heavily used by joggers, some with baby
perambulators,walkers, some with dogs, cyclists, and equestrians. The layout of this
proposed development has a pond and a path to purposefully lead the eye to the imposing
columned building. This will distract the large number of motorists that pass by creating
a life threatening situation.
The impact of this situation could be reduced by rotating and moving the house toward
the south corner of the lot.
Very Truly Yours,
G.R. Kirkpatrick
Page 1 of 3
From: Bob Kirkpatrick,[grkpjk@pacbell.net]
Sent: Tuesday,January 15, 2008 6:51 AM
To: 'John Harpootlian'
cc: Debbie Pedro; Brian Froelich
Subject: RE: Lands of Los ALtos Homes
Re: Proposed new construction
26462 Purissima Road
Lot 166-07-ZP-SD-GD
The following paragraphs are taken from the neighbors first notes to the Town.
This letter is from the neighbors of the currently empty lot located at 26462 Purissima Road
("the Lot")which was recently purchased by speculative builders operating under the names of
Shashi Corporation and Los Altos Home LLC (collectively"the Developers"). At the initiation
of the Developers, a meeting was-held with some of the neighbors at our home at 26470
Purissima Road,which is directly behind the Lot, on Saturday, October 13, 2007 during which
the Developers shared their plans for the Lot. While the neighbors respect the right of the
Developers to profitably develop the lot for resale ("the Proposed Project"), there is concern that
the Developers' desire to maximize such profits comes at the expense of an adverse impact on
the adjacent properties and upon the general character of the neighborhood.
Magnitude of the Proposed Project.
The homes surrounding the Lot are relatively modest by Los Altos Hills standards,ranging from
approximately 2000-4000 square feet. The Proposed Project includes a two-story mansion(the
main house) of approximately 10,000 square feet, a two-bedroom guesthouse of approximately
1,000 and other structures such as a horse barn. Also included in the plan are a swimming pool,
a tennis court, a sunken barbeque pit, a gazebo and a reflecting pool. The total Proposed Project,
in fact, comes within a few hundred feet of the maximum development permitted on a two acre
lot of this type in Los Alto Hills.
The Proposed Project is clearly the desire of a"spec builder" to maximize its profits upon the
sale of the developed property. The design does not reflect a"dream home"by a new neighbor
and, in fact, the Developers indicated they haven't even begun to think of how they will market
the property. This is unfortunate because the intangible benefits of owning a home in which you
will live such as becoming an integral part of a close-knit neighborhood along with preserving
some open space and privacy do not show up on the balance sheet of the Developers.
It is the recommendation of the neighbors that the size of the Proposed Project be scaled back to
preserve additional open space and privacy with respect to the neighbors. It is the further
recommendation of the neighbors that the main house be redesigned as a one-story structure.
_ Location of the Main house
The Lot is a flag lot located between Purissima Road and the 280 freeway. The main portion of
the Lot, which is the location of all of the Proposed Project other than the reflecting pool and part
1/16/2008
Page 2 of 3
of the driveway, is roughly rectangular. However, the main house in the Developers' proposal is
not located centrally with respect to the Lot but,rather, is located in the northwest corner of the
Lot directly adjacent to its neighbors at 26470 and 26500 Purissima Road. Due to the two-story
design of the main house,the privacy of the neighbors is greatly reduced since the new
occupants of the main house would be able to look into the yards and through the windows of its
neighbors.
The only apparent reason for locating the main house in this corner of the Lot is to make it
maximally visible from Purissima road thereby increasing its `.`curb appeal." The location of the
main house is, therefore, designed to stand-out, rather than to blend in, with the surrounding
environment.
Drainage
The
neighbors pointed out that the Lot is on the beginning of a watershed which runs generally
g
northwardly towards Palo Alto. In consequence, the swale at about the location of the proposed
reflecting pool turns into a swamp during the rainy season, and drains though conduits provided
under the driveways of the neighbors to the north. It has been the experience of the neighbors
that conduits leading under the 4 driveways to the north (and the Proposed Project calls for a 5th
driveway) are not always sufficient to accommodate the runoff from the Lot, causing a partial
flooding of their driveways. With the much greater ground coverage contemplated by the
Proposed Project,this condition is sure to get worse as water that would normally be absorbed
into the ground is, instead, collected in the swale.
Noise
The Lot is a buffer zone between the 280 freeway and many of its neighbors. In its undeveloped
state, it serves as an absorber of freeway sound since the freeway is elevated higher than most of
the surrounding properties and, therefore, much of the sound that is heard by the neighbors is
downwardly directed. There is great concern that insufficient thought has been given to the
placement and configuration of the structures and/or any proposed sound walls to ensure that the
Proposed Project does not increase freeway noise for the neighbors by the mechanisms of
reflection and/or refraction.
The neighbors proposed that the Developers obtain the services of an acoustical engineer to
access the acoustical environment of the neighbors prior to finalizing the plans for the Proposed
Project with the assurance that after the completion of the project that the neighbors are no worse
off with respect to freeway noise than they were before.
Parkin
The Proposed Project is clearly designed as a showy entertainment home that will attract many
guests. As such, the limited parking along the street is likely to become quite congested and may
induce guests to drive down adjacent neighbor's driveways by mistake or in search of additional
parking.
In fairness to the developers, they have tried to accommodate the concerns of the neighbors. There is
one major exception: the size and location of the main house.
I believe the developers had a vision. I also believe that vision stopped at the property line.
The Town was not considered. Below is from a follow-on e-mail.
1/16/2008
Page 3 of 3
Along this straight section of Purissima Road shown, the speed limit is 35 MPH and the limit is
often exceeded. Purissima is heavily used by joggers, some with baby perambulators,walkers,
some with dogs, cyclists, and equestrians. The layout of this proposed development has a pond
and a path to purposefully lead the eye to the imposing columned building. This will distract the
large number of motorists that pass by creating a life threatening situation.
The impact of this situation could be reduced by rotating and moving the house toward the south
corner of the lot.
The neighborhood was not considered.
See the Magnitude of the Proposed Project and Drainage above_
Concerns of the neighbors will be in a follow-on e-mail.
Thank you for asking the neighbors.
Bob Kirkpatrick
-----Original Message-----
From: John Harpootlian [ma ilto:harpood ian @sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday,January 14, 2008 3:20 PM
To: grkpjk@pacbell.net
Subject: Lands of Los ALtos Homes
There will be a hearing before the Planning Commission of the Lands of Los Altos Homes on this Thursday.
As a member of the Planning Commission I would like to hear your current concerns, as well as the other
neighbors. It is my impression that you are a spokesman for the neighborhood. Perhaps you and/or some of your
neighbors could spend some time describing your concerns.
Feel free to call or email me to set up a meeting.
John Harpootlian
1/16/2008
From: Bob Kirkpatrick[mailto:grkpjk@pacbell.net]
Sent: Tuesday,January 15, 2008 8:32 AM
To: 'John Harpootlian'
Cc: Debbie Pedro; Brian Froelich
Subject: RE: Lands of Los ALtos Homes
Re: Proposed new construction
26462 Purissima Road
Lot 166-07-ZP-SD-GD
The following is taken from more subject-specific notes to the Town
This e-mail is a review of a noise study financed by the developers and is on file at Town
hall. In addition is HVAC information
Since this review another neighbor(Tsai)has become concerned.
This document is in response to the Mei Wu noise study the Town received on 12/28/07.
A study was requested by the neighbors. Specifically the request was to compare the I
280 noise at report sites 2 and 4 to evaluate reflected noise. Since freeway noise is quite
variable, I expected the measurements to be made simultaneously. Since the acoustics
experts had only one Norsonic— 118 Type I sound level meter,the measurements were
made serially. Therefore,the data represents general noise level not accurate comparative
noise levels.
Below are comments on the report but first are some paragraphs from the Town noise
ordinance I noted as reference
720. Compatibility of land uses in Los Altos Hills is best achieved through analysis of
each
proposed use on a case-by-case basis through the site development review process. To
ensure that new development is not adversely impacted by noise sources,or is itself a
source of noise,the Town uses land use compatibility guidelines as part of planning and
site development review.
721. The potential impacts of traffic noise and other unwanted sound should be identified
and
mitigation measures required as needed to meet the Town's noise standards.The most
effective measures for noise attenuation include the following:
❑Site planning that is sensitive to potential noise impacts
❑Careful orientation of buildings and placement of windows
❑Increased setbacks
723. In many communities,sound walls are used to reduce freeway noise impacts on
adjacent
residences. In Los Altos Hills,however, sound walls are prohibited on private property
adjacent to Interstate 280, primarily because they block views of surrounding countryside
and tend to bounce sound to other locations.
Program 2.1 Evaluate noise impacts on surrounding land uses during the site
development review and permitting process.
Program 2.2 Utilize the Land Use and Noise Compatibility Guidelines as a basis for
determining the compatibility of land uses.
Program 2.3 To determine noise exposure,use the noise contour maps or more
detailed noise analysis if appropriate.
Program 2.4 Require the mitigation of all significant noise impacts as a condition of
project approval.
In the last line of the report introductory paragraph; "or if there is a predicted increase in
the neighbors' yards exceeding 5 dB."I found no reference to 5 dB in the Town
document.
(Incidentally,by the information in figure 5,the 500 should be 278,and the 200 should
be 135.)
Paragraph 1 and 2 are of interest to the architect but of no particular interest to the
neighbors.
Paragraph 3 again would be of interest to the architect but the data was not taken as
simultaneous measurements as expected.However, it is the only data available and the
developers went to a lot of trouble to provide it.
Paragraph 4 indicates the calculations are worst case for the reflecting surface.
Paragraph 5 uses a value of 1998 sq ft of a perfect reflecting surface.
To determine the effect of reflected noise on location 2 from location 4,the existing level
at 2(51.5)is modified by adding a calculated noise power reflected from location 4.
This was done by taking the 51.5 dB (relative value) and finding the absolute value:
10 raised to the power 51.5/10,
The same was done to the 38 value shown at the bottom of page 6.
The 2 resulting values were added and returned to dB. That is: 10 log(sum)or 51.7 dB
There is no indication of where the 3 8 came from. This is the basis of the report
conclusions.
The Town should not accept this value without supporting information.
Please consider this as a sanity check for the unexplained number, 38.
Consider the 1998 sq ft perfect reflecting surface as a 20 foot high by 100 foot long wall.
(Similar to the proposed house wall)
Double the wall length to 200 feet. The sound power would double and the 38 would
become 41.
For reflected noise to be just noticeable on the Kirkpatrick patio, (a 3 dB noise increase)
the reflected noise would have to increase from 38 to 51.5.
For this change to happen,how long would the 20 foot high wall have to be? 2240
feet!
This is a gross simplification but if the 38 has solid basis,the Town may be able to
substantially reduce restrictions on sound walls because any home 135 feet away,and on
the receiving side, of a 20 foot high sound wall could not detect a noise level difference. .
r
Paragraph 6. The acoustic engineers may not have seen the development layout.They
may not have known that much of the grass between the Broydo back yard and 280 will
be replaced with concrete and asphalt. Since 3 of the 8 octave noise bands show the
Broydo backyard measurements as the highest noise power,reevaluation of this situation
is important.
In addition,no thought has been given to noise at the Tsai property.
Paragraph 8.Again, only the architect needs this number
Another noise item that is a concern of the Kirkpatrick's is the very large HVAC unit
needed to cool a 10,000+square foot house
When we built our place 40 years ago, we included a
massive brick combination BBQ and living room
fireplace (far side)but no air conditioning.
s
:< After hot summer days,the peninsula is blessed with cool
• '+� nights. During these cool nights,we let air circulate
throughout the house.
•� This
cools
the
brick
and
keeps
the
living
room
temperature 20 degrees cooler
than the outside afternoon
temperature.
This picture taken from our than other units in-the
bedroom patio door shows a neighborhood and after bit of
the orange net outlining the hotswWn house.
The HVAC indicates theIts W1
approximate location of the
proposed air conditioner.
WC
Keeping our bedroom patio door
closed at night to avoid the noise of a cycling large air conditioner is not acceptable.
The air conditioner for the second unit may also be a problem, but to a lesser degree.
Bob Kirkpatrick
-----Original Message-----
From: John Harpootlian [mailto:harpootlian@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday,January 14, 2008 3:20 PM
To: grkpjk@pacbell.net
Subject: Lands of Los Altos Homes
There will be a hearing before the Planning Commission of the Lands of Los Altos Homes on this
Thursday.
As a member of the Planning Commission I would like to hear your current concerns, as well as
the other neighbors. It is my impression that you are a spokesman for the neighborhood. Perhaps
you and/or some of your neighbors could spend some time describing your concerns.
Feel free to call or email me to set up a meeting.
John Harpootlian
r
From: Bob Kirkpatrick [mailto:grkpjk@pacbell.net]
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 2:18 PM
To: 'John Harpootlian'
Cc: Brian Froelich; Debbie Pedro
Subject: RE: Lands of Los Altos Homes
Re: Proposed new construction
26462 Purissima Road
Lot 166-07-ZP-SD-GD
Additional concerns.
Parkin and li hts
The estate has 5 bedrooms and 5 parking places. Additional
cars will be around and must be parked somewhere. The first
places to be used are likely to be the fire department required
turn-around locations.
The orange strips show the driveway location. The next most
likely parking spot is along the driveway adjacent to the entry.
The white spots in the picture are intended to represent the
headlights of a vehicle.
If 10 cars are associated with the 5 bedrooms and
fill these spaces, guests may be parking on Purissima
Road as shown here.
A more
convenient location would be the Hickman
or the Kirkpatrick driveway.
This parked pickup belongs to a
►1
subcontractor.
The vehicle was there for several hours before he was requested to move to allow our
arriving guests to pass.
This e-mail also addresses an aspect of outdoor lighting encroachment that may not be
routinely considered for site development. It must be considered in this case.
The driveway of the proposed development
approaches the garage on an up hill slope.
Projecting aline following this slope intersects our
wall between our living room and dinning room.
In this picture, the projected line following the slope
is created by parking a vehicle on the proposed
driveway with the headlights turned on.
The target of the headlight is seen as the bright
rectangle at the top center of the photo. This is the
wall of our home. To the left are living room
windows. To the right is the glass door that leads
from our dinning room to our deck. An individual at
our dinning room table facing this door is subject to
the full direct impact of headlights about 100 feet away.
Since the driveway will to be used for parking and this location is near the house entry, it
will be a popular parking spot. Although this lighting situation is temporary, it will most
certainly destroy the mood at our table. Since headlights on today's vehicles remain on
after the occupants exit,the term"temporary"is stretched.
As a point of reference, the
orange netting seen at the
upper left corner of the
photo represents the corner
of the proposed garage.
There is another serious
problem.
To the left and above our
living room is our bedroom
A time honored way of
waking someone from a
sound sleep is simply to turn on the bedroom light.
This picture is a view of our bedroom wall and ceiling taken with a vehicle parked in the
proposed driveway.
It shows a snapshot of the light that would wake the occupants as it sweeps through the
room as a car enters the proposed garage.
This situation is not acceptable.
Bob Kirkpatrick
-----Original Message-----
From: John Harpootlian [mailto:harpootlian@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday,January 14, 2008 3:20 PM
To: grkpjk@pacbell.net
Subject: Lands of Los ALtos Homes
There will be a hearing before the Planning Commission of the Lands of Los Altos Homes on this
Thursday.
As a member of the Planning Commission I would like to hear your current concerns, as well as
the other neighbors. It is my impression that you are a spokesman for the neighborhood. Perhaps
you and/or some of your neighbors could spend some time describing your concerns.
Feel free to call or email me to set up a meeting.
John Harpootlian