Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1Item 3.1 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS August 4, 2011 Staff Report to the Planning Commission SUBJECT: APPEAL OF A FAST TRACK APPROVAL FOR A TWO STORY NEW RESIDENCE WITH A BASEMENT; LANDS OF PREYSMAN; 24202 HILLVIEW ROAD; FILE # 73-11-ZP-SD FROM: Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner4;�%� APPROVED: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director 3,P RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: Approve the requested Site Development Permit for a new residence with a basement subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval in Attachment 1. BACKGROUND The subject property is a 1.179 acre parcel located on the west side of Hillview Road. There is currently a 4,170 square foot single story residence and swimming pool on the property. Surrounding uses include one and two story single-family homes on adjacent parcels to the west, north, south, and to the east across Hillview Road. DISCUSSION The new two story residence was approved at the July 19, 2011 Fast Track hearing with amended conditions of approval. The neighbors at 24220 Hillview Road (Lands of Shuman) were present at the hearing and had concerns regarding impacts on their privacy from the new second story exercise room and office/bedroom #2. In addition, privacy impacts from the new second story deck with access from the office/bedroom #2, along the rear of the residence. The conditions of approval were amended to include the relocation of the second story window in the office/bedroom #2, addition of a 6' tall lattice along the northern portion of the new deck, and to immediately install a 10'-14' tall evergreen tree along the northern property line to help mitigate the privacy impacts for the neighbors (Attachment 1 -conditions #6-8). The applicant agreed to install the lattice as a temporary means of privacy mitigation until the new tree between the property line and new residence has matured and will provide greater screening for the neighbor. On July 21, 2011 the applicant appealed the Planning Director's approval of the new residence (Attachment 5). Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Preysman 24202 Hillview Road August 4, 2011 Page 2 of 12 CODE REQUIREMENTS As required by Section 10-2.1305.1 (13) of the Municipal(Code, this application for a new residence has been forwarded to the Planning Commission for review. "Any interested party may appeal a decision of the Planning Director to the Planning Commission by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within twenty-two (22) days of the Planning Director's decision." Site Data Net Lot Area: 1.179 acres Average Slope: 14.5% Lot Unit Factor: 1.065 Floor and Development Area (sauare footaae): Area Type Maximum Existing Proposed Increase Remaining Development 14,178 12,360 9,401 -2,959 4,777 Floor 6,150 4,170 4,773 - 603 1,377 (Basement 622) Site and Architecture The request for Site Development Permit is to construct a 4,773 square foot two story residence with a 622 square foot basement. The proposed new residence is sited on a .flat portion of the lot in the same vicinity as the existing residence. The new residence meets the setback, height, floor area and development area requirements established in Title 10, Zoning and Site Development, of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. The new residence is located a minimum of 55' from the east (front) property line, 35' from the north property line (side), 33' from the south (side) property line, and 250' from the west (rear) property line. The maximum building height on a vertical plane is 27' and the maximum overall height of the building (including chimneys and appurtenances) from the lowest point to the highest point is 28'. Proposed exterior materials consist of stucco siding, fiber glass windows and doors, and a tile roof. The basement level of the new residence is a wine cellar which is 622 square feet. The main level has 2,987 square feet of living space with a foyer, dining room, family room, kitchen, breakfast nook, guest room with bathroom, pool laundry and bath, and a two (2) car garage with a workshop. The second level has 1,638 square feet of living space with a master bedroom with master bathroom, office, exercise room, and a bedroom/office #2. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Preysman 24202 Hillview Road August 4, 2011 Page 3 of 12 There is an existing 880 square foot swimming pool at the rear of the residence which is proposed to remain. Driveway & Parking The applicant is retaining the existing circular driveway with minor modifications. Two (2) new parking spaces are located in front of the residence, outside of the property line setbacks. Outdoor Li ting The applicant is proposing nine (9) lights located on the exterior of the main residence (shown on the elevations, sheet A-5). Staff has included condition #12 for outdoor lighting, requiring that fixtures be down shielded or frosted glass, low wattage, and shall not encroach or reflect on adjacent properties. The applicant has indicated that all proposed fixtures will be shielded, downlights, or have frosted glass. Trees & Landscaping No trees are proposed to be removed with this application. A landscape screening and erosion control plan will be required after framing of the new residence (Condition of approval #3). Furthermore, any landscaping required for screening or erosion control will be required to be planted prior to final inspection, and a maintenance deposit to ensure viability of plantings will be collected prior to final inspection. Drainage Water runoff generated from the new development will be collected in a drainage swale around the new residence. The sub -drain for the basement is daylighted towards the rear of the property. Pursuant to Section 10-2.503, Drainage Facilities Standards, of the Municipal Code, the Engineering Department has reviewed and determined that the proposed drainage design complies with Town requirements. The Engineering Department will review and approve the final drainage plan prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Final "as -built" grading and drainage will be inspected by the Engineering Department, and any deficiencies will be required to be corrected prior to final inspection. Neighbor Concerns Included in attachment 2 are emails from the neighbor at 24220 Hillview Road (Lands of Shuman) expressing concerns regarding their privacy and the response from the applicant to those emails. The Shuman's requested the following changes be made in order to maintain their privacy for their master bathroom and side and rear yard areas: 1. Views from the second story deck with access from the master bedroom and office/bedroom #2: Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Preysman 24202 Hillview Road August 4, 2011 Page 4 of 12 o Install lattice or a wall along the northern portion of deck; or o Shorten the deck so it is for the master bedroom only 2. The three 2'6" W x 4'6" H second: story windows on the northern faeade of the.building for the exercise room and office/bedroom #2: o Windows removed completely; or o Utilize obscured glass; or o Reduce the size of the windows and place them higher on the wall View from the Shuman's rear/side yard looking at the northern faeade- of the new residence. At the. July 19, 2011 Fast Track Hearing, the applicant agreed to relocate the window in the officelbedroom #2 to the center of the wall, immediately install a 10-14'' evergreen tree, and install a temporary lattice along the northern side of the second story deck until the tree has matured. to provide screening between the two properties. Fire Department Review The Santa Clara County Fire Department has reviewed the proposal and is requiring a sprinkler system throughout all portions of the new residence (Attachment 3). Committee Review The Pathways Committee recommends construction of a type IIB pathway along Hillview Road . .(Condition of approval #32). The Environmental Design and Protection Committee had requested to include the .Town's standard skylight condition (Attachment 4). Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Preysman 24202 Hillview Road August 4, 2011 Page 5 of 12 The Open Space Committee commented that an open space easement should be placed over Hale Creek along the rear of the property (Condition of approval #18). Green Building Ordinance This project is required to comply with the Town's Green Building Ordinance. The new residence is designed to achieve 134 points (minimum of 50 points required) in Build it Green's GreenPoint Rated program. Fast Track Point This project received seven (7) points on the Town's Fast Track for New Residences checklist. Projects which score 14 points or less are eligible for the Fast Track process pursuant to Section 10-2.1305.1 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. CEQA STATUS The project is categorically exempt under CEQA per Section 15303 (a). ATTACHMENTS 1. Conditions of Approval 2. Emails from neighbors at 24220 Hillview koad and response emails from the applicant 3. Recommendations from Santa Clara County Fire.Department dated April 19, 2011 4. Comments from Environmental Design and Protection Committee dated May 13, 2011 5. Email from applicant appealing the project dated July 21, 2011 6. Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Section 10-2.1305.1 7. Worksheet #2 8. Development plans Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Preysman 24202 Hillview Road August 4, 2011 Page 6 of 12 ATTACHMENT 1 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE WITH A BASEMENT LANDS OF PREYSMAN, 24202 HILLVIEW ROAD File # 73-11-ZP-SD PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 1. No other modifications to the approved plans are allowed except as otherwise first reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission, depending on the scope of the changes. 2. All existing Blue Gum (E. globulus), Pink Ironbark (E. sideroxylon rosea), River Red Gum (E. camaldulensis), Swamp Gum (E. rudis), Honey Gum (E. melliodora), or Manna Gum (E. viminalis) eucalyptus trees on the property located within 150' of any structures or roadways shall be removed prior to final inspection of the new residence. Removal of eucalyptus trees shall take place between the beginning of August and the end of January to avoid disturbance of nesting birds protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Department of Fish and Game Code Section 3500 et seq unless a nesting bird survey is first conducted and there is a determination that there are no active nests within the tree. 3. After completion of rough framing or at least six (6) months prior to scheduling a final inspection, the applicant shall submit landscape screening and erosion control plans for review by the Site Development Committee. The application for landscape screening and erosion control shall be accompanied by the applicable fee and deposit. The plans shall be reviewed at a noticed public hearing. Attention shall be given to plantings which will be adequate to break up the view of the new residence from surrounding properties and streets. All landscaping required for screening purposes and for erosion control (as determined by the City Engineer) must be installed prior to final inspection of the new residence 4. A landscape maintenance deposit in the amount of $5,000 shall be posted prior to final inspection. An inspection of the landscape to ensure adequate establishment and maintenance shall be made two years after the installation. The deposit will be released at that time if the plantings remain viable. 5. Prior to beginning any grading operation, all significant trees, particularly the heritage oak trees, are to be fenced at the drip line. The fencing shall be of a material and structure (chain- link) to clearly delineate the drip line. Town staff must inspect the fencing and the trees to be fenced prior to commencement of grading. The property owner shall call for said inspection at least three days in advance of the inspection. The fencing must remain throughout the course of construction. No storage of equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed within Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Preysman 24202 Hillview Road August 4, 2011 Page 7 of 12 the drip lines of these trees. Existing perimeter plantings shall be fenced and retained throughout the entire construction period. 6. The applicant shall relocate the second story window in the offrce/bedroom (north,facade) of the residence, to the center of the 1•rall (the centerline of'2'6'' wide tirindow shall be 6'6" from the outside 1•vall, as highlighted on .sheet A-4), the revision shall be reflected on the building plans for review and approval by the Planning Director, prior to issuance of' building permit. 7, The applicant shall install a 10'-14' tall evergreen tree along the northern property line (as highlighted on sheet C-2) to riritigate privacy issues ,for the abutting neighbor at 24220 Hillvietiti- Road. The species of tree shall be .submitted to the Planning .Director for review and approval, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The tree shall be installed prior to issuance of plans for building plan check. 8. The applicant shall install a 6' tall lattice along the northern corner of'the second story deck (as highlighted on sheet <4-4) abutting the office bedroom to mitigate privacy issues for the abutting neighbor at 24220 Hillview Road. The revised floor plan shall be reflected on the building plans ,for revietiv and. approval by the Planning Director, prior to issuance of' building permit. 9. Prior to requesting the final inspection, a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that "the location of the new residence and roof eaves are no less than 40' from the front property line and 30' from the side and rear property lines." The elevation of the new residence shall be similarly certified in writing to state that "the elevation of the new residence matches the elevation and location shown on the Site Development plan." The applicant shall submit the stamped and signed letter(s) to the Planning Department prior to requesting a final inspection. 10. Prior to requesting the final inspection, a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that "the height of the new residence complies with the 27'-0" maximum structure height, measured as the vertical distance at any point from the bottom of the crawl space or basement ceiling if excavated below natural grade, to the highest part of the structure directly above (including roof materials)." The overall structure height shall be similarly certified in writing and state that "all points of the building (including chimneys and appurtenances) lie within a thirty-five (35) foot horizontal band based, measured from the lowest visible natural or finished grade topographical elevation of the structure along the building line and the highest topographical elevation of the roof of the structure." The applicant shall submit the stamped and signed letter(s) to the Planning Department prior to requesting a final inspection. 11. No new fences are approved. Any new fencing or gates shall require review and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Preysman 24202 Hillview Road August 4, 2011 Page 8 of 12 12. Outdoor lighting is approved as shown on the plans. There shall be one light per door or two for double doors. Light fixtures shall have frosted glass or be down lights. No lighting may be placed within setbacks except two entry or driveway lights. Any additional outdoor lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to installation. 13. Skylights, if utilized, shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light (tinted or colored glass, or other material). No lighting may be placed within skylight. wells. 14. The AC units along the north property line shall not encroach within the property line setbacks. 15. Fire retardant roofing (Class A) is required for all new construction. 16. At time of submittal of plans for building plan check, the applicant shall submit one of the following checklists to demonstrate compliance with the Town's Green Building Ordinance: a. A GreenPoint Rated checklist with the building permit application to indicate that the project will achieve a minimum of fifty (50) points. The . checklist shall be completed by a qualified green building professional and shall be attached to the front of the construction plans. The construction plans shall include general notes or individual detail drawings, where feasible, showing the green building measure to be used to attain the required points. b. A LEED for Homes checklist with the building permit application to indicate that the project will achieve a minimum of forty-five (45) points or LEED certification. The checklist shall be completed by a qualified green building professional and shall be attached to the front of the construction plans. The construction plans shall include general notes or individual detail drawings, where feasible, showing the green building measure to be used to attain the required points. 17. Prior to final inspection and occupancy, a qualified green building professional shall provide documentation verifying that the building was constructed in compliance with GreenPoint Rated or LEED® certification. 18. The property owner shall.grant an Open Space Easement to the Town on the rear portion of the property (encompassing Hale Creek and oak trees) along contour line 252 (as highlighted on sheet C-2). No structures are permitted and no grading or fill shall be permitted. Native vegetation may be planted within the easement but no irrigation or sprinkler systems are permitted. The property owner shall provide legal description and plat exhibits that are prepared by a licensed land surveyor and the Town shall prepare the grant document. The grant document shall be signed and Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Preysman 24202 Hillview Road August 4, 2011 Page 10 of 12 The first 100 feet of the driveway shall be rocked during construction and all cut and fill slopes shall be protected from erosion. All areas on the site that have the native soil disturbed shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy season and shall be replanted prior to final inspection. 27. Two copies of a grading and construction operation plan shall be submitted by the property owner for review and approval by the City Engineer and Planning Director prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The grading/construction operation plan shall address truck traffic issues regarding dust, noise, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety on Hillview Road and surrounding roadways, storage of construction materials, placement of sanitary facilities, parking for construction vehicles, clean-up area, and parking for construction personnel. A debris box (trash dumpster) shall be placed on site for collection of construction debris. Arrangements must be made with the GreenWaste Recovery, Inc. for the debris box, since they have a franchise with the Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town limits. 28. The property owner shall inform the Town of any damage and shall repair any damage caused by the construction of the project to pathways, private driveways, and public and private roadways, prior to final inspection and release of occupancy permits and shall provide the Town with photographs of the existing conditions of the roadways and pathways prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 29. The property owner shall dedicate additional right-of-way to create a 30' wide half -width public right of way to the Town over Hillview Road. The property owner shall provide legal description and plat exhibits that are prepared by a registered civil engineer or a licensed land surveyor and the Town shall prepare the dedication document. The dedication document, including the approved exhibits, shall be signed and notarized by the property owner and returned to the Town prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 30. The driveway shall be required to be fully constructed and to be roughened where the pathway intersects, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to final inspection. An encroachment permit is required for all work in the public right-of-way prior to start work. 31. The property owner shall be required to connect to the public sanitary sewer prior- to final inspection. A sewer hookup permit shall be required by the Town's Public Works Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work proposed within the public right-of-way prior to start work. 32. The property owner shall construct a type 2B pathway along Hillview Road to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final inspection. An encroachment permit shall be required by the Town's Public Works Department for all work proposed within the public right-of-way prior to start work. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Preysman 24202 Hillview Road August 4, 2011 Page 9 of 12 notarized by the property owner and returned to the Town prior to acceptance of plans for building permit. 19. All properties shall pay School District fees to either the Los Altos School District or the Palo Alto Unified School District, as applicable, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The applicant must take a copy of worksheet #2 to school district offices (both elementary and high school in the Los Altos School District), pay the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a copy of the receipts. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 20. Two sets of a final grading and drainage plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Final drainage and grading shall be inspected by the Engineering Department and any deficiencies corrected to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final inspection. 21. The Engineer of Record shall observe the installation of the drainage system, construction of the energy dissipaters, and completion of the grading activities and state that items have been installed and constructed per the approved plans. A stamped and signed letter shall be prepared and submitted to the Town prior to final inspection. 22. Any, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage plan shall be submitted as revisions from the project engineer and shall first be approved by the Town Engineering Department. No grading shall take place during the grading moratorium (October 15 to April 15) except with prior approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line except to allow for the construction of the driveway access. 23. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed underground. The applicant should contact PG&E immediately after issuance of building permit to start the application process for undergrounding utilities which can take up to 6-8 months. 24. The property owner shall submit an elevation certificate for the Construction Drawings of the new residence to the Town that indicates the new residence meets F.E.M.A. requirements for the new construction prior to acceptance of building permit plan check. . 25. The property owner shall submit elevation certificates for the new residence to the Town that indicates the new residence meets F.E.M.A. requirements for the new construction during Building under Construction and at Finished Construction prior to final inspection. 26. Two copies of an erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The contractor and the property owner shall comply with all appropriate requirements of the Town's NPDES permit relative to grading and erosion/sediment control. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Preysman 24202 Hillview Road August 4, 2011 Page 11 of 12 FIRE DEPARTMENT: 33. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system approved by the Santa Clara County Fire Department shall be included in all portions of the building. Three sets of plans prepared by a sprinkler contractor shall be submitted to the Santa Clara County Fire Department (14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032) for review and approval. The sprinklers shall be inspected and approved by the Fire Department, prior to final inspection and occupancy of the new residence. 34. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such _a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background 35. Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination cause by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. CONDITION NUMBERS 7, 18, 19, 20, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 31 SHALL BE COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. Project approval may be appealed if done so in writing within 22 days of the date of this notice. The building permit cannot be issued until the appeal period has lapsed. The applicant may submit construction plans to the Building Department after August 26, 2011 provided the applicant has completed all conditions of approval required prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Upon completion of the construction, a final inspection shall be required to be set with the Planning and Engineering Departments two weeks prior to final building inspection approval. NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until August 4, 2012). All required building permits must be obtained within that year and work on items not requiring a building permit shall be commenced within one year and completed within two years. Attachment 2 Nicole Horvitz From: Beth Shuman [bethshuman@sbcglobal.net] JUL 18 2011 Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 8:45 AM To: Nicole Horvitz TOWN Of LOS ALTOS HILLS Cc: Vladimir Preysman Subject: Preysman plans for New 2 Story home at -24202 Hillview Rd., File #73-11-ZP-SD Dear Nicole, Thank you very much for meeting with me and my daughter briefly this last Friday, when we came in to review the Preysman's file. It was helpful to talk with you about some of our concerns with the Preysman's plans that are currently on file at the Town. I am submitting this e-mail to you as you requested, to state my family's concerns with a few aspects of the Preysman's plans. I am copying this message to the Preysmans so that they may also be aware .of our concerns, and I understand that you will make this part of the record for the hearing on Tuesday July 19, 2011. Byway of background, my husband Bob and I bought our parcel and moved into Los Altos Hills 9 years ago this month. We moved from a home we loved very much in Palo Alto, but came to Los Altos Hills, this street, and this lot in particular because of the larger lot, the trees and the views, the greater amount of privacy, and our lovely and completely private backyard and pool area. Our one-story ranch house has been remodeled several times, and the previous owners built a new wing at one end, the end closest to the Preysman's lot. It is our master suite, master bathroom and closets, and master retreat area. All of our bedrooms are at this end of our house. Each room opens out to the private backyard, and we have doors out to 3 small brick and tile private. patios at the master bedroom, the den, and the guest room. Our living room and family room open onto our larger patio and pool area. Prior to the story poles going up next door, from our backyard and these patios, we could see no one next door at the Preysman's lot, and no one else behind or to the other side of us, from our backyard or pool area. We could see a little rooftop, and only a bit of the top of a chimney at the Preysman's lot (on the current one-story home there). It is what everyone comments on when they first come into our home and then out into the backyard, the complete privacy of our outdoor area. We are out in our backyard and the back patio areas whenever we can be, and are avid year-round gardeners. We use our pool 6+ months out of the year for swimming. Our privacy at the bedroom end of the house and in our backyard and patio areas is highly important to us, and it certainly contributes to the value of our home. Last, we do not have fences in our yard, this lot and several others in this area have never had them. Mr. Preysman has indicated to me in the past that he is not interested in fencing more than he has to either. The openness is part of the beauty of this area, we are .treated to a lot of wildlife because of it, and the -trees and vegetation are used for defining the lots and for privacy. We understand that many things will change upon the Preysmans building their new home. From our backyard and patios, we will see some bf the structure. At night we will see lights on the outside of the house and from windows. And, we will have,a view from our backyard and pool area of their 2nd story roof and solar panels. Obviously, all of this blocks what used to be our unobstructed view out and light coming in. From our bedroom windows and bathroom windows (over a private tub, and in our shower and toilet closet) we will see some part of the structure of the building and lights: We have a fair amount of trees planted on our property, and there are several trees on their property as well in between our 2 lots in this area; however, they do not block out entirely the structure, the lights and all that comes with a 2nd story rising next door. All of this leads to our two particular areas of concern. We have tried to keep the concerns expressed here as minimal as possible, considering that there are many things about a 2nd story going up next door that are not optimal for us. In fact, no 2nd story is a positive development for us; but because the 2nd story seems to be a 1 foregone conclusion, we are raising the following few matters as matters. o.L appeal, the resolution of which would greatly help in addressing our concerns about our reduced privacy and obstructed views. (1) Views from the 2nd story outdoor deck, which runs 34'4"long, along the back of the 2nd story, from the very edge of the house closest to us, past the Preysman's master bedroom suite: This deck provides views directly into our backyard and private patios, from one end (the end closest to our property). We understand that the Preysman's main goal is to look southwest at the hills and mountains and trees, just as we enjoy doing on a daily basis. Unfortunately, from that deck, there are also unobstructed views into our backyard and patios; we do not feel that this is fair. We have two suggestions: build latticework or a wall at the end of the deck closest to us, to block -that view towards us, including reducing the width of the deck to a consistent 5'8" width (eliminating the bump out to 79"); or, alternatively, shorten the deck so that it is just off the master suite and it doesn't come all the way to the end of the building closest to us. This last alternative may still require some latticework at the end of the deck closest to us, to eliminate views into our yard. Nicole, you mentioned and we understand that the Preysmans will be required to submit a landscaping plan, and you suggested that perhaps additional trees or plantings could help with some of the privacy issues. First, we do not feel that it is right to force us to live behind a wall of trees and vegetation so thick it would further block our views out and light coming in, simply to allow the Preysmans the right to build whatever they want on their 2nd story. We have enough trees and plants between us now; further, we can't imagine how long --it would take (if ever) to grow a tree higher than the 2nd story deck, and then have it fill out such that it fully obscures their view into our yard. We don't think that this is an acceptable solution to our privacy concerns with the deck. (2) The three 2nd story windows on�the northeast side of he proposed home (two in the "exercise room" and r. • wFh , one in the "guest room/office"): There are three windows of the same size on the 2nd story northeast end of the Preysman's proposed home (the end which directly faces our bedroom wing and yard), two in the exercise room and one in the guest room/office. Each of these 3 windows is 2'6" wide and 4'6" tall. Each of these windows provides the Preysmans some type of view into our yard, patios and master bedroom/bathroom area. Since both of these two 2nd story rooms have large windows on adjacent walls that seem more than adequate for light, air, and views, we don't understand why the 3 windows on the northeast end are needed at all. The exercise room has 2 windows facing the street that are each 4'6" wide and 4'6" tall. The guest room/den has double sliding - glass doors on to the aforementioned deck. In addition, it is not only about the views out of these windows; on a day or night when we all have our windows open, which is often in this area, we don't feel private in our own master bath and shower if the sounds carry next door. Equally, if one of us is quietly reading or working in our master suite, we don't wish to be subjected to the sounds emitted from an exercise room or an office, if possible. We must also look out into the future; it is possible, as it always is, that the Preysmans may sell to another family while we still live here. We know the Preysmans to be quiet and cooperative people, and we appreciate that and look forward to living next to them. However, we have no guarantees about future owners, and therefore need to raise these concerns now. Our first request is that these 3 windows on the northeast end of the 2nd story be removed entirely; this would remove our concerns entirely, and help the most with view, light and sound issues. If this is not done, our less preferred request is the following: we feel that (a) the glass could be obscured, (b) the size of the windows should be reduced, and (c) the windows should be placed higher on the wall (so that they are not eye -level windows looking into our home and yard). Finally, on a completely separate issue, part of the story poles and orange material came down several days ago (in the right, front of the house), from wind or something else, and the tenants have just left some of the poles down and rolled up a portion of the orange material; we would like to have this put back up, as they were not up 2 weeks, and we are still trying to envision the structure and how it impacts our property and privacy. Thank you. Thank you very much for considering our concerns. We are hopeful that you and the Town's Planning Commissioners can assist us in addressing these concerns. Please feel free to contact me by e-mail or phone if you have any questions. Best regards, Beth and Bob Shuman 24220 Hillview Road, LAH (650) 559-5824 (home phone) bethshuman@sbcglobal.net RECEIVED Nicole Horvitz From: createdspace@comcast.net Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 4:01 PM To: Nicole Horvitz TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Cc: Vladimir Preysman Subject: Re: Preysman plans for New 2 Story home at 24202 Hillview Rd., File #73-11-ZP-SD Dear Nicole, I am responding to the email from Beth & Bob Shuman dated 7/18/11 (8:45am) that you received regarding the proposed home construction for Vladimir & Irene Preysman at 24202 Hillview Ave, Please add this email to the official records. Reading the email, I'm very clear that M/M Shuman have a concern that there .life style will be somewhat exposed and somewhat altered when Vladimir & Irene complete their new home. I understand their concern from the point that when the surrounding: environment is altered there is a change in what a person sees. I also understand that most homeowners think that they are entitled to keep the views "what they see" that existed when they bought their home. I also know that it can be upsetting and scary for a homeowner when they think that the views they like will change. Addressing M/M Shuman's specific concerns'regarding the design of Vladimir & Irene' s_home as submitted to the town. I have a couple of observations to point out: First,'sound travels with the wind and around structures. It is not possible in a residential neighborhood to control all sound. And as pointed out by M/M Shuman, Vladimir & Irene are very quiet people who appreciate the calm environment of Los Altos Hills and don't wont to force themselves onto anyone. Addressing the point of a future homeowner making noise, as with Vladimir & Irene there is no guarantee that M/M Shuman will not sell their home and that the new home owner will not be noisy. Vladimir. & Irene know that they have no right to dictate to a neighbor what they can and can't do as long as that neighbor is within their rights. After working with Vladimir & Irene for: more than a year, I can't imagine.a more quiet & more reserved neighbor..I think that M/M Shuman are very lucky the have them as neighbor with regards to noise. Second, the existing view from Vladimir & Irene's new house on to M/M Shuman's property is minimal at best due to the existing trees. If you consider the Town's requirements for additional planting, no revision to the proposed design is necessary.to protect M/M Shuman's privacy. I am certain that the Town will consider M/M Shuman privacy when determining the addition of planting between the two homes. Another point to consider, as observed on Goggle maps, it appears that M/M Shuman's..-: house extends over the setback line for Town of Los Altos Hills. Looking at M/M Shuman site on the satellite photo, it appears that M/M Shuman house may be as much as 15' into the setback. If M/M Shuman home were incompliance with the setback requirements then the two houses would be at least 60 feet apart. As both of us know, if M/M Shuman chose to do an extensive remodel, they would have to comply with the required setbacks of the Town: If M/M Shuman wereto have to comply with the setbacks the possibility of view from Vladimir & Irene's on to M/M Shuman's would be significantly lessened. If you compare the pad elevations between Vladimir & Irene's home and the pad elevation of M/M Shuman home you will notice that M/M Shuman=pad is 6 to 8 feet higher then Vladimir & Irene's pad. If M/M Shuman were ever to build a two-story house that complied with the town's ordnance, they will be looking down on Vladimir & Irene's house having an impact on:their privacy. Vladimir & Irene know and understand that M/M Shuman are with in there rights to do this and would not consider imposing there opinions on to M/M Shuman,. .One last thing, the Town required us to. breakup that long or expansive wall area windows or other elements. i'he windows on that wall achieve that goal. Understanding all this, we have conformed to all of Los Altos Hills planning requirements for the construction of a new house. We know that the Town will evaluate the house after construction and have Vladimir & Irene plant trees & vegetation on their property to screen the neighbors. We are also clear that M/M Shuman are in their rights to develop their property in any manner they like as long as it conforms to the planning guidelines. Thank for your attention. Created Space Monty Lucas 421 N. Central Ave. Campbell CA. 95008 408-370-1526 From: "Nicole Horvitz" <nhorvitz@losaltoshills.ca.gov> To: "Vladimir Preysman" <vpreysman@gmail.com>, createdspace@comcast.net Cc: "Debbie Pedro" <dped ro@losaltoshills. ca. gov> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 8:46:16 AM. Subject: FW: Preysman plans for New 2 Story home at 24202 Hillview Rd., File #73-11-ZP-SD Vladimir, As I mentioned, below is the email from the abutting neighbor. Thanks, Nicole From: Beth Shuman[mailto:bethshuman@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, July 18, 20118:45 AM To: Nicole Horvitz Cc: Vladimir Preysman Subject: Preysman plans for New 2 Story home at 24202 Hillview Rd., File #73-11-ZP-SD Dear'Nicole, Thank you very much for meeting with me and my daughter briefly this last Friday, when we came in to review the Preysman's file. It was helpful to talk with you about some of our concerns with the Preysman's plans that are currently on file at the Town. I am submitting this e-mail to you as you requested, to state my family's concerns with a few aspects of the Preysman's plans. I am copying this message to the Preysmans so that they may also be aware of our concerns, and I understand that you will make this part of the record for the hearing on Tuesday July 19, 2011. By way of background, my husband Bob and I bought our parcel and mov`u into Los Altos Hills 9 years ago this month. We moved from a home we loved very much in Palo Alto, but came to Los Altos Hills, this street, and this lot in particular because of the larger lot, the trees and the views, the greater amount of privacy, and our lovely and completely private backyard and pool area. Our one-story ranch house has been remodeled several times, and the previous owners built a new wing at one end, the end closest to the Preysman's lot. It is our master suite, master bathroom and closets, and master retreat area. All of our bedrooms are at this end of our house. Each room opens out to the private backyard, and we have doors out to 3 small brick and tile private patios at the master bedroom, the den, and the guest room. Our living room and family room open onto our larger patio and pool area. Prior to the story poles going up next door, from our backyard and these patios, we could see no one next door at the Preysman's lot, and no one else behind or to the other side of us, from our backyard or pool area. We could see a little rooftop, and only a bit of the top of a chimney at the Preysman's lot (on the current one-story home there). It is what everyone comments on when they first come into our home and then out into the backyard, the complete privacy of our outdoor area. We are out in our backyard and the back patio areas whenever we can be, and are avid year-round gardeners. We use our pool 6+ months out of the year for swimming. Our privacy at the bedroom end of the house and in our backyard and patio areas is highly important to us, and it certainly contributes to the value of our home. Last, we do not have fences in our yard, this lot and several others in this area have never had them. Mr. Preysman has indicated to me in the past that he is not interested in fencing more than he has to either. The openness is part of the beauty of this area, we are treated to a lot of wildlife because of it, and the trees and vegetation are used for defining the lots and for privacy. We understand that many things will change upon the Preysmans building their new home. From our backyard and patios, we will see some of the structure. At night .we will see lights on the outside of the house and from windows. And, we will have a view from our backyard and pool area of their 2nd story roof and solar panels. Obviously, all of this blocks what used to be our unobstructed view out and light coming in. From our bedroom windows and bathroom windows (over a private tub, and in our shower and toilet closet) we will see some part of the structure of the building and lights. We have a fair amount of trees planted on our property, and there are several trees on their property as well in between our 2 lots in this area; however, they do not block out entirely the structure, the lights and all that comes with a 2nd story rising next door. All of this leads to our two particular areas of concern. We have tried to keep the concerns expressed here as minimal as possible, considering that there are many things about a 2nd story going up next door that are not optimal for us. In fact, no 2nd story is a positive development for us; but because the 2nd story seems to be a foregone conclusion, we are raising the following few matters as matters of appeal, the resolution of which would greatly help in addressing our concerns about our reduced privacy and obstructed views. (1) Views from the 2nd story outdoor deck, which runs 34'4"long, along the back of the 2nd story, from the very edge of the house closest to us, past the Preysman's master bedroom suite: This deck provides views directly into our backyard and private patios, from one end (the end closest to our property).. We understand that the Preysman's main goal is to look southwest at the hills and mountains and trees, just as we enjoy doing on a daily basis. Unfortunately, from that deck, there are also unobstructed views into our backyard and patios; we do not feel that this is fair. We have two suggestions: build latticework or a wall at the end of the deck closest to us, to block that view towards us, including reducing the width of the deck to a consistent 5'8" width (eliminating the bump out to 79"); or, alternatively, shorten the deck so that it is just off the master suite and it doesn't come all the way to the end of the building closest to us. This last alternative may still require some latticework at the end of the deck closest to us, to eliminate views into our yard. Nicole, you mentioned and we understand that the Preysmans will be required to submit a landscaping plan, and you suggested that perhaps additional trees or plantings could help with some of the privacy issues. First, we do not feel that it is right to force us to live behind a wall of trees and vegetation so thick it would further block our views out and light coming in, simply to allow the Preysmans the right to build whatever they want on their 2nd story. We have enough trees and plants between us now; further, we can't imagine how long it would take (if ever) to grow a tree higher than the 2nd story deck, and then have it fill out such that it fully obscures their view into our yard. We don't think that this is an acceptable solution to our privacy concerns with the deck. (2){Thee three 2nd story windows on the northeast side of he proposed home (two in the "exercise room" and one in the "guest room/office"): There are three windows of the same size on the 2nd story northeast end of the Preysman's proposed home (the end which directly faces our bedroom wing and yard), two in the exercise room and one in the guest room/office. Each of these 3 windows is 2'6" wide and 4'6" tall. Each of these windows provides the Preysmans some type of view into our yard, patios and master bedroom/bathroom area. Since both of these two 2nd story rooms have large windows on adjacent walls that seem more than adequate for light, air, and views, we don't understand why the 3 windows on the northeast end are needed at all. The exercise room has 2 windows facing the street that are each 4'6" wide and 4'6" tall. The guest room/den has double sliding - glass doors on to the aforementioned deck. In addition, it is not only about the views out of these windows; on a day or night when we all have our windows open, which is often in this area, we don't feel private in our own master bath and shower if the sounds carry next door. Equally, if one of us is quietly reading or working in our master suite, we don't wish to be subjected to the sounds emitted from an exercise room or an office, if possible. We must also look out into the future; it is possible, as it always is, that the Preysmans may sell to another family while we still live here. We know the Preysmans to be quiet and cooperative people, and we appreciate that and look forward to living next to them. However, we have no guarantees about future owners, and therefore need to raise these concerns now. Our first request is that these 3 windows on the northeast end of the 2nd story be removed entirely; this would remove our concerns entirely, and help the most with view, light and sound issues. If this is not done, our less preferred request is the following: we feel that (a) the glass could be obscured, (b) the size of the windows should be reduced, and (c) the windows should be placed higher on the wall (so that they are not eye -level windows looking into our home and yard). Finally, on a completely separate issue, part of the story poles and orange material came down several days ago (in the right, front of the house), from wind or something else, and the tenants have just left some of the poles down and rolled up a portion of the orange material; we would like to have this put back up, as they were not up 2 weeks, and we are still trying to envision the structure and how it impacts our property and privacy. Thank you. Thank you very much for considering our concerns. We are hopeful that you and the Town's Planning Commissioners can assist us in addressing these concerns. Please feel free to contact me by e-mail or phone if you have any questions. Best regards, Beth and Bob Shuman 24220 Hillview Road, LAH (650) 559-5824 (home phone) bethshuman@sbcglobal.net Nicole Horvitz RECEIVED From: Beth Shuman [bethshuman@sbcglobal.net] JUL 18 2011 Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 7:18 PM To: Nicole Horvitz Cc: Debbie Pedro.. - TOWN OF LOS ALTOS�3�5 Subject: Re: Preysman plans for New 2 Story home at 24202 Hillview Rd., File #73-11-ZP-SD Hello Nicole, Thank you for sending this section of the Code. Bob and I hope that it's a profitable discussion tomorrow, and of course hope that we can come to some agreement with the Preysmans on the issues we've raised in our e -mail -today about views and privacy. We would very much appreciate your assistance in those discussions, as well as the assistance of Debbie Pedro. As you are aware, we are not having fruitful discussions at this time with Mr. Preysman, and that is quite discouraging to both my husband and me. We appreciate that you and Debbie both made the effort to come by today, to take a look at the views of the proposed project that we see from many parts of our backyard and our bedroom wing. As I said in my e-mail to you earlier, and as I think you can appreciate after being here, many of our unobstructed views will be obstructed due to the 2nd story that is proposed. Early on, we chose not to object to the 2nd story, in hopes that through the planning process with the Town of LAH, we could have our concerns addressed about privacy and views. I definitely raised with Mr. Preysman last fall that I.had concerns about our reduced privacy due to his 2nd story, and in particular.regarding any windows that might face our home, so this is definitelymot "new news" to him. We were unaware of the deck and its location until we reviewed the latest plans last Friday. In fairness to us and the sizable investment we have made in our property, reduced privacy and obstruction of views ought to be concerns that the Town of Los Altos Hills takes quite seriously. We see that this is an important Town goal right in the Fast -Track guide, which states that the applicant is to "Design to be Neighbor Friendly -- Respect your neighbor's privacy and -views." (Goal IV., C.1.) We have raised legitimate, substantive concerns about very few parts of the plans-- 3 windows at the northeast end and the views that are available into our yard and private patios from the 2nd story deck. We hope that everyone at the table tomorrow understands these 'things. As current homeowners, taxpayers and citizens of Los Altos Hills for over 9 years, we expect the Town of Los Altos Hills to treat our concerns with the same detailed attention and seriousness as the proposed plans for new construction of new homeowners. We are happy to be able to take part in the hearing process and any further hearings that might be required, and thank you for.your time and efforts to help resolve our concerns. Regards, Beth & Bob Shuman From: Nicole Horvitz <nhorvitz@losaltoshills.ca.gov> To: Beth Shuman <bethshuman@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Mon, July 18, 20114:27:.17 PM Subject: RE: Preysman plans for New 2 Story home at 24202 Hillview Rd., File #73-11-ZP-SD Hi Beth, Below is the code section I mentioned regarding the appeal process. Thanks, Nicole 10-2.1305.1 (13) Appeals. Any interested party may appeal a decision of the Planning Director to the Planning Commission by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within twenty-two (22) days of the Planning Director's decision. A nonrefundable filing fee and deposit for services shall accompany each appeal, except that any member of the Council or any two (2) members of the Planning Commission, whichever is applicable, shall hold a public hearing, in accordance with the provisions of Section 10-10.1005. From: Beth Shuman [mailto:bethshuman@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 8:45 AM To: Nicole Horvitz Cc: Vladimir Preysman Subject: Preysman plans for New 2 Story home at 24202 Hillview Rd., File #73-11-ZP-SD Dear Nicole, Thank you very much for meeting with me and my daughter briefly this last Friday, when we came in to review the Preysman's file. It was helpful to talk with you about some of our concerns with the Preysman's plans that are currently on file at the Town.' I am submitting this e-mail to you as you requested, to state my family's concerns with a few aspects of the Preysman's plans. I am copying this message to the Preysmans so that they may also be aware of our concerns, and I understand that you will make this part of the record for the hearing on Tuesday July 19, 2011. By way of background, my husband Bob and I bought our parcel and. moved into Los Altos Hills 9 years ago this month. We moved from a home we loved' very much in Palo Alto, but came to Los Altos Hills, this street, and this lot in particular because of the larger lot, the trees and the views, the greater amount of privacy, and our lovely and completely private backyard and pool area. Our one-story ranch house has been remodeled several times, and the previous owners built a new wing at one end, the end closest to the Preysman's lot. It is our master suite, master -bathroom -and closets, and master...retreat.area. All of our bedrooms are at this end.of our house. Each room opens out to the private backyard, and we have doors out to 3 small brick and tile private patios at the master bedroom, the den, and the guest room. Our living room and family room open onto our larger patio and pool area. Prior to the story poles going up next door, from our backyard and these patios, we could see no one next door at the Preysman's lot, and no one else behind or to the other side of us, from our backyard or pool area. We -could see a little rooftop, and only a bit of the top of a chimney at the Preysman's lot (on the current one-story home there). It is what everyone comments on when they first come into our home and then out into the backyard, the complete privacy of our outdoor area. We are out in our backyard and the back patio areas whenever we can be, and are avid year-round gardeners. We use our pool 6+ months out of the year for swimming. Our privacy at the bedroom end of the house and in our backyard and patio areas is highly important to us, and it certainly contributes to the value of our home. Last, we do not have fences in our yard, this lot and several others in this area have never had them. Mr. Preysman has indicated to me in the past that he is not interested in fencing more than he has to either. The openness is part of the beauty of this area, we are treated to a lot of wildlife because of it, and the trees and vegetation are used for defining the lots and for privacy. We understand that many things will change upon the Preysmans building their new home. From our backyard and patios, we will see some of the structure. At night we will see lights on the outside of the house and from windows. And, we will have a view from our backyard and pool area of their 2nd story roof and solar panels. Obviously, all of this blocks what used to be our unobstructed view out and light coming in. From our bedroom windows and bathroom windows (over a private tub, and in our shower and toilet closet) we will see some part of the structure of the building and lights. We have a fair amount of trees planted on our property, and there are several trees on their property as well in between our 2 lots in this area; however, they do not block out entirely the structure, the lights and all that comes with a 2nd story rising next door. All of this leads to our two particular areas of concern. We have tried to keep the concerns expressed here as minimal as possible, considering that there are many things about a 2nd story going up next door that are not optimal for us. In fact, no 2nd story is a positive development for us; but because the 2nd story seems to be a foregone conclusion, we are raising the following few matters as matters of appeal, the resolution of which would greatly help in addressing our concerns about our reduced privacy and obstructed views. (1) Views from the 2nd story outdoor deck, which runs 34'4"long, along the back.of the 2nd story, from the very edge of the house closest to us, past the Preysman's master bedroom suite: This deck provides views directly into our backyard and private patios, from one end (the end closest to our property). We understand that the Preysman's main goal is to look southwest at the hills and mountains and trees, just as we enjoy doing on a daily basis. Unfortunately, from that deck, there are also unobstructed views into our backyard and patios; we do not feel that this is fair. We have two suggestions: build latticework or a wall at the end of the deck closest to us, to block that view towards us, including reducing the width of the deck to a consistent 5'8" width (eliminating the bump out to 79"); or, alternatively, shorten the deck. so that it is just off the master suite and it doesn't come all the way to the end of the building closest to us. This last alternative may still require some latticework at the end of the deck closest to us, to eliminate views into our yard. Nicole, you mentioned and we understand that the Preysmans will be required to submit a landscaping plan, and you suggested that perhaps additional trees or plantings could help with some of the privacy issues. First, we do not feel that it is right to force us to live behind a wall of trees and vegetation so thick it would further block our views out and light coming in, simply to allow the Preysmans the right to build whatever they want on their 2nd story. We have enough trees and plants between us now; further, we can't imagine how long it would take (if ever) -to grow a tree higher than the 2nd story deck, and then have it fill out such that it fully obscures their view into our yard. We don't think that this is an acceptable solution to our privacy concerns with the deck. (2) Theithree 2ndstory wmdowson the northeast side of the'proposed home (two in the "exercise room" and one in the "guest room%office"): There are three windows of the same size on the 2nd story northeast end of the Preysman's proposed home (the end which directly faces our bedroom wing and yard), two in the exercise room and one in the guest room/office. Each of these 3 windows is 2'6" wide and 4'6" tall. Each of these windows provides the Preysmans some type of view into our yard, patios and master bedroom/bathroom area. Since both of these two 2nd story rooms have large windows on adjacent walls that seem more than adequate for light, air, and views, we don't understand why the 3 windows on the northeast end are needed at all. The exercise room has 2 windows facing the street that are each 4'6" wide and 4'6" tall. The guest room/den has double sliding - glass doors on to the aforementioned deck. In addition, it is not only about the views out of these windows; on a day or night when we all have our windows open, which is often in this area, we don't feel private in our own master bath and shower if the sounds carry next door. Equally, if one of us is quietly reading or working in our master suite, we don't wish to be subjected to the sounds emitted from an exercise room or an office, if possible. We must also look out into the future; it is possible, as it always is, that the Preysmans may sell to another family while we still live here. We know the Preysmans to be quiet and cooperative people, and we appreciate that and look forward to living next to them. However, we have no guarantees about future owners, and therefore need to raise these concerns now. Our first request is that these 3 windows on the northeast end of the 2nd story be removed entirely; this would remove.our concerns entirely, and help the most with view, light and sound issues. If this is not done, our less preferred request is the following: we feel that (a) the glass could be obscured, (b) the size of the windows should be reduced, and (c) the windows should be placed higher on the wall (so that they are not eye -level windows looking into our home and yard). Finally, on a completely separate issue, part of the story poles and orange material came down several days ago (in the right, front of the house), from wind or something else, and the tenants have just left some of the poles down and rolled up a portion of the orange material; we would like to have this put back up, as they were not up 2 weeks, and we are still trying to envision the structure and how it impacts our property and privacy. Thank you. Thank you very much for considering our concerns. We are hopeful that you and the Town's Planning Commissioners can assist us in addressing these concerns. Please feel free to contact me by e-mail or phone if you have any questions. Best regards, Beth and Bob Shuman 24220 Hillview Road, LAH (650) 559-5824 (home phone) bethshuman@sbcglobal.net RECEIVED Nicole Horvitz From: Vladimir Preysman [vpreysman@gmail.com] JUL 18 2011 Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 11:27 PM To: Nicole Horvitz TOMdl L-JSALTOSHILLS Cc: Debbie Pedro; createdspace@comcast.net Subject: Follow up on Beth Shuman's email Attachments: View of Beth's yard from high point of the balcony.jpg; View from Beth's yard.jpg; View 2 from Beth's yard.jpg Hi Nicole, Thank you for meeting with me today at such short notice. I was hoping to avoid the last minute rush by contacting and meeting with all neighbors early. In fact, I offered to Beth to meet at. any time at her convenience as early as July 6 to review the plans. First I would like to re -affirm :that we also have the utmost concern for privacy and throughout the planning process we were cognizant of the town's landscaping requirements to ensure that privacy concerns of all neighbors are mitigated. It is with that concern in mind that we selected the position for the new house. Although we have already done so in the past, upon receipt of Beth's email this morning I immediately went to the property and climbed on the roof to see if the concerns Beth expressed in her e-mail are as severe as she suggested. For the purpose of illustrating the views to and from Beth's yard I have attached several photos that I took today. It is visible from the photo titled "View of Beth's yard from high point on the balcony" that even without any additional landscaping we will not have "unobstructed views into our backyard and patios" as Beth stated in her email. I. understand that Beth has not had the opportunity to view her home from the point where the balcony will be (which is a. bit below where the current roof is), but standing at that point we can only see a tiny area of her yard through a small opening between massive trees. I am also attaching 2 photos taken from Beth's yard toward our future house (in the opposite direction). It is very clear from these photographs that the entire house will stand below the existing tree :tops behind our property and consequently the new structure will not create any additional impediments for the sunlight once the sun rises above these tree tops. Even though the gap between the trees that divide the two properties is quite small, we are fully committed to preserving our mutual privacy. Fortunately, it will not take much. Based on the topography of our yards just one 14' tree planted. on our property will completely close the gap between the existing trees and block the view to and from our balcony while remaining well below the view of the existing tree tops. Such tree will be fully.in compliance with Ordinance 427 as it will not block any views or create any sunlight obstruction. Planting one additional tree is not at all close to creating a "wall of trees" that Beth isconcerned about. Finally, I have to say that I thought Beth's email was quite unfair. Not only have we diligently followed the town's planning process, but we made a very deliberate and consistent effort to keep the Shumans and our other neighbors continuously appraised, and have demonstrated openness to constructive and reasonable discussions. To that end, if you believe that moving one of the windows will help, we will do so. We will be doing so at the last minute and will incur some costs associated with the architect's work and structural engineering. Nevertheless, we are willing to make this accommodation to allow the process to continue moving forward in an expeditious manner. Thank you for you help an guidance, Vladimir Nicole Horvitz From: Beth Shuman [bethshumah@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 6:08 PM To: Debbie Pedro; Nicole Horvitz RECEIVED Cc: Bob R. Shuman Subject: Story Poles - Preysman file JUL 19 2011 Hello Debbie & Nicole, T h v = , .!1T0S HILLS Thank you for your time today, and for assisting with our discussions about possible mitigation measures for the reduction in privacy we are concerned about. Unfortunately we are dissatisfied with the result, and are seriously considering an appeal. A question: do. the story poles stay up throughout the appeal period? We will need to discuss the structure, the windows, the deck and our privacy concerns with our consultants, and the story poles are necessary for this purpose. If you would let me know by reply e-mail, I would appreciate that. Thank you for having the story pole reconstructed in the front of the Preysman project. I couldn't fully evaluate the windows in the proposed project's 2nd story exercise room without that story pole, and now that it is back up, I realize that while I am standing in my shower, I can see into the left exercise room window in question, and the Preysmans will be able to see me in the shower. This too is just not acceptable, and argues strongly for removing the 3 windows we've discussed, or, at the very least, creating.smaller, higher, obscure glass windows. On a different issue, I did not have the opportunity to respond to some of Vladimir's comments towards the end of the hearing (as we did not want to further lengthen the long meeting when others were waiting). You should know that despite Vladimir's representations today, we have had no real opportunity to discuss with the Preysmans our concerns with their plans. The most I can say is that Vladimir showed me and another neighbor a set of preliminary plans in March, and I told him at that time that we would have issues with 2nd story windows on the northeast end. We did not talk about these concerns further at that time, and the Preysmans then left the country for'3 months. Unfortunately for all, communications broke down later in March after Vladimir refused to help us any further with continuing problems with the tenants on his property. He made it quite clear that our concerns were of no interest to him, and we were on our own to deal with the tenants. This was very disappointing to Bob and me, since Vladimir had originally insisted upon handling any and all problems with the tenants himself. Following the breakdown of communications in March, Bob and I concluded that any discussions with Vladimir as to our concerns about his plans were not likely to be reasonable or successful. We knew then that we would have to raise our concerns and talk about the reduced privacy issues :directly with Town staff at the appropriate point in the process, and that is what we are doing. Furthermore, until the story poles went up, we had no way of envisioning the structure, and until last Friday when I reviewed the plans at the Town, we had no idea about the location and length of the 2nd story deck. This week is our first opportunity to discuss our concerns with the Town. While we appreciate your efforts to evaluate our concerns yesterday and today, we feel we haven't received a full and fair hearing on these issues. As I returned to my backyard today and viewed the story poles, and realized again how much of the proposed 2nd story we will see at all times from our backyard (where we once had unobstructed views out), I am certain that we have lost a lot in this process already. We are incredulous that future neighbors cannot seem to appreciate the impact of their proposed /-..d story on our property and our privacy, especially with respect to the 2nd story windows that they simply want for "aesthetic reasons", but do not need for light or air. Unfortunately, the result today seems to reflect that the applicant's aesthetic "wants" are deemed to take precedence over our substantially reduced privacy. None of the minor. mitigations that were made conditions of approval today really address our privacy concerns. This now looks like a win-win for the new owner and newly proposed home, and a lose -lose for the preexisting home and long term owners-- loss of privacy, loss of unobstructed views, loss of investment value. How can this be? This is just not consistent with Town goals stated expressly in the Fast Track Guide you provide to all applicants: " Goal IV, C. Design to be neighbor friendly -- Respect your neighbor's privacy and views." And, while it may be one way to get a house approved, the process and the result reached today are not ways to build either a neighborhood or a community. We have no choice but to further pursue our privacy concerns and investigate an appeal. If possible, please add this e-mail to the hearing file. Thank you again for your time and efforts, Beth & Bob Shuman Please consider the environment before printing this email. The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender and destroy all copies of the message. To contact us directly, send to postmaster@dlapiper.com. Thank you. Nicole Horvitz From: Beth Shuman [bethshuman@sbcglobal.net] RECEIVED Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 10:49 AM To: Nicole Horvitz Cc: Bob R. Shuman JUL 2 _��'� Subject: Re:' Appeal of 24202 Hillview Road ?OWP! CF L OS ALTOS BILLS Hi Nicole, Thank you for this information. In addition to the conditions that you and Debbie helped to craft, we are still wanting to work out some remaining concerns regarding privacy. We are troubled about the 2 windows in the 2nd story exercise room, one of which has a clear view into our shower.. We are hoping that the Preysmans will be able to talk with us about these issues. Thank you for keeping us in the loop here, we appreciate it very much. Beth & Bob Shuman From: -.Nicole Horvitz <nhorvitz@losaltoshills.ca.gov> To: Beth Shuman <bethshumanCgbsbcglobal.net> Sent: Tue, July 26; 20119:01:40 AM Subject: Appeal of. 24202 Hillview Road Hi Beth, Wanted to let you know, that Mr. Preysman has appealed his own project to the Planning Commission The meeting will be held August 4,.2011 at 7 pm -in the City Council Chambers. Please let me know if you have any concerns or questions, Sincerely, Nicole ............................................ Nicole Horvitz Assistant Planner Town of Los Altos=Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Phone -(650)941-7222 Fax -(650)941-3160 www.losaltoshills;ca.gov 1 Nicole Horvitz From: Vladimir Preysman [vpreysman@gmaii.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 10:17 PM To: Beth Shuman; Bob Shuman Cc: Nicole Horvitz Subject: Appeal for 24202 Hillview Rd. LAH Hello Beth and Bob, RECEIVED JUL 26 2011 TONIN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS As you already know we are scheduled for a hearing with the Planning Commission on August 4. This will be an opportunity to discuss the project with a group of people who have a lot of experience in dealing with similar situations. As I wrote to you several days ago, you are welcome to come to our property and climb on the roof of the existing house to assess the the views that we will have from the second floor balcony: and from the windows on the side wall. You may remember that during the FastTrack hearing I presented my calculations showing that a 14' tree would screen the part of your yard which may be visible from the balcony. I say "may" because comparisons of areal images taken over the last several years show steady growth of the trees between our properties. It is quite possible that by the end of construction there will not be any gap between them. Nevertheless I do want to plant a tree on our property to alleviate your concerns. To verify my calculations I installed a 14' vertical pole right where I intent to plant a tree. It confirmed that a tree of that heightwould definitely screen the currently visible part of your yard. I can show you a photograph if you. would like. We can do the same to address your recently expressed concern regarding your batliroom windows. I would be happy to take a look from your property and take some measurements in order to perform geometrical calculations. Best. regards, Vladimir 408-893-2440 cell 1 Nicole Horvitz From: Shuman, Bob [Bob.Shuman@dlapiper.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 6:02 PM To: Vladimir Preysman Cc: Nicole Horvitz; Debbie Pedro Maim. Subject: RE: Appeal for 24202 Hillview Rd. LAH JUL 2 2011 Hi Vlad: TDW,,i OF LOS ALTOS HILLS It was good to meet you and Irene at the hearing last week. Thanks for your email. As you might imagine, Beth and I have spent a great deal of time discussing and thinking about this subject. At the end of the day, we are disappointed that a two-story house will replace the one-story home that we are used to next door; that being said, we understand that you are entitled to build a two-story home on your lot. And while we wish that there was no vantage point from your new home or back deck that would give you a line of sight into our back yard, we are prepared to accept the conditions proposed by the Town in order to address those concerns. Toward that end, we thank you and Irene for your willingness to plant the tree at the end of your deck as a screen and move the window on the office/bedroom to the center of the room on the north -facing wall. At this point, our sole remaining concern is the left hand window (as we face your house) in the exercise room. While we appreciate your offer to climb on your roof and assess the view, .it is not necessary --as we stand in our shower, we have a clear view to the space that will be occupied by that window (as confirmed by the story poles). And while we. also appreciate your offer to do additional planting to obstruct that view, additional planting gives us little comfort; trees may or may riot grow as planned, trees may die or lose limbs (or leaves in the winter), and subsequent homeowners may elect to remove trees. As a result, we ask that you and Irene consider the -following modification to your plans: remove the left hand window in the exercise room on the north side of the house, and move the right hand window to the center of the wall in that room, in the same manner that the Town has required that the window in the office be moved to the center of the wall in that room. If you and Irene are amenable to such a further modification in your plans, we will be happy to waive our right to pursue this further with the Town. And at the same -time, such a modification would seem to make the appearance of that side of the house more symmetrical and aesthetically -consistent. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Regards, Bob J. Robert (Bob) Shuman, Jr. DLA Piper US LLP 2000 University Avenue East Palo Alto, California 94303 (650) 833-2309 T (650)833-2001 F bob.shuman(a)dlapiper.com www.dlapiper.com From: Vladimir Preysman [mailto:vpreysman@gmail.com] Sent:. Tuesday, July 26, 2011 10:17 PM To: Beth Shuman; Shuman, Bob Cc: Nicole Horvitz Subject: Appeal for 24202 Hillview Rd. LAH Hello Beth and Bob, As you already know we are scheduled for a hearing with the Planning Commission.on August 4. This will be an opportunity to discuss the project with a group of people who have a lot of experience in dealing with similar situations. As I wrote to you several days ago, you are welcome to come to our property and climb on the roof of the existing house to assess the the views that we will have from the second floor balcony and from the windows on the side wall. You may remember that during the FastTrack hearing I presented my calculations showing that a 14' tree would screen the part of your yard which may be visible from the balcony. I say "may" because comparisons of areal images taken over the last several years show steady growth of the trees between our properties. It is quite possible that by the end of construction there will not be any gap between them. Nevertheless I do want to plant a tree on our property to alleviate your concerns. To verify my calculations I installed a 14' vertical pole right where I intent to plant a tree. It confirmed that a tree of that height would definitely screen the currently visible part of your yard. I can show you a photograph if you would like. We can do the same to address your recently expressed concern regarding your bathroom windows. I would be happy to take a look from your property and take some measurements in order to perform geometrical calculations. Best regards, Vladimir 408-893-2440 cell Please consider the environment before printing this email. The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender and destroy all copies of the message. To contact us directly, send to postmaster@dlapiper.com. Thank you. 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 0 (408) 378-9342 (fax) 0 www.sccfd.org Attachment 3 APR 21 2011 TONIN OF LOS ALTOS BILLS PLAN REVIEW No. BLDG DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS PERMIT No 1 1 1 059 Proposed new 5,138 square -foot two-story single-family residence with wine cellar and attached garage. Comment #1: Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and water supply as they pertain to fire. department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits. Comment #2: Fire Sprinklers Required: An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all new buildings and structures exceeding one (thousand) square feet. NOTE: Covered porches, patios, balconies, and attic spaces may require fire sprinkler coverage. A State of California licensed (C-16) Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work. CFC Sec. 903.2, as adopted and amended by LAHMC Comment #3: Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection systems; and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage ` containers that may be physically connected.in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor. of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2007 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114:7 City LAH. PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS N ❑. :® ❑ ❑ OCCUPANCY SFR CONST. TYPE V -B ApplicantName DATE 4/19/2011 PAGE 1 OF 2 SEC/FLOOR 2 story AREALOAD 5138 sf PROJECT DESCRIPTION Residential Development PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM Design Review NAME OF PROJECT SFR LOCATION 24202 Hillview Rd Los Altos Hills TABULAR FIRE FLOW 2000 REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 1500 BY Harding, Doug 507o . Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Serving Santa Clara County and the. comm unities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga FIDE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 e (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org RECEIVED APR 212011 TOVIN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS PLAN REVIEW No. BLDG DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS PERMIT No. 1 1 1 059 Comment #4: Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background. CFC.Sec. 505 To prevent plan review and inspection delays, the above noted Developmental Review Conditions shall be restated as "notes" on all pending and future plan submittals and any referenced diagrams to be reproduced onto the future plan submittal. City LAH PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS ® ❑. ,N ❑ ❑ OCCUPANCY SFR CONST. TYPE V -B ApplicantName DATE 4/19/2011 PAGE 2 of 2 SEC/FLOOR 2 story AREA 5138 sf LOAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION Residential Development PROJECT TYPE OR.SYSTEM Design Review NAME OF PROJECT SFR LOCATION 24202 Hillview Rd Los Altos Hills TABULAR FIRE FLOW 2000 REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW ® 20 PSI 1500 BY Harding, Doug 50% Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos,.Mante Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga Attach,ncnt 4 Ehvironmenta resign and Protection ConMh,'. MAY 16 2011 New Residence/Remodel Evaluation Reviewed b f-. TOWN OF 1®S ALTO$ HIUS Applicant Name Address Site impact/lighting/noise: Creeks, drainage, easements: Existing Vegetation: Significant is Attachment 5 Nicole Horvitz From: Vladimir Preysman [vpreysman@gmail. com] RECEIVED Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 11:38 AM To: Nicole Horvitz JUL 2 �Q1' Cc: createdspace@comcast.net Subject: Request for an appeal TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Dear Nicole, After reviewing the situation in the follow up of the FastTrack meeting on July 19 I came to conclusion that the conditions. of the project approval are unwarranted. Consequently I am requesting an appeal with the Planning Commission. Thank you, Vladimir 1 10-2.1305.1 Fast-track process. Attachment 6 Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Up Previous Next Main Search Print No Frames Title 10 ZONING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT Chapter 2 SITE DEVELOPMENT Article 13. Administration and Enforcement 10-2.1305.1 Fast-track process. (a) The Planning Director may fast-track any site development application for a project specified for Planning Commission review under Section 10-2.1305(c), subject to the Planning Director's determination that: (1) The project conforms to the Town's General Plan, Zoning and Site Development Codes, Town policies adopted by the Council and subdivision conditions, where applicable; and (2) The project would not require approval of a variance or a conditional development permit; and (3) There is no substantive neighborhood opposition to the project ("substantive" is not based on the number of neighbors objecting); however, new residences that score fourteen (14) or fewer points on the Town's Fast Track Guide for New Residences (Fast Track Guide) checklist and meet the other requirements of subsection (a) of this section, shall be eligible for the fast track process, regardless of neighborhood opposition; and (4) The applicant agrees in writing to accept all of the proposed conditions of approval. (b) The fast-track review process shall consist of the following: (1) A complete application shall be filed pursuant to the provisions of Section 10-2.1303. (2) For a new residence project, the Planning Director or designee shall determine the project's eligibility for the fast track process using the Fast Track Guide checklist. Only projects that score fourteen. (14) points or less shall be eligible for the fast track process. The Fast Track Guide checklist, or a project's conformance with the Fast Track Guide checklist, shall not provide the basis for the Site Development Authority's approval, conditional approval, or disapproval of a project. (3) Upon the Planning Director's determination that the application is complete, the applicant shall install story poles. at the site to represent an outline of the size and height of the proposed project.. (4) Upon installation of the story poles to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, notice of a site development hearing shall be mailed to all owners of property located within five hundred (500) feet from the subject property, pursuant to the notice provisions of Section 10-2.1305(c) and to members of the Planning Commission. (5) The Planning Director shall set a site development hearing for the proposed project to be held not sooner than ten (10) days after notice is mailed. The hearing shall take place at the date and time specified in the notice, but the Director shall make every effort to accommodate the schedules of all interested parties, including continuing the day and/or time of the meeting if necessary. (6) Environmental Design Committee and Pathways Committee representatives may participate in the site development hearing, and.shall receive notice of the hearing on the same date that notice is mailed to property owners. (7) An interim staff report shall be prepared at least five (5) days prior to the hearing, and be available for public review, outlining the project characteristics (floor area, development area, height, setbacks, materials, etc.) and its compliance with the Town's General Plan, Zoning and Site Development Codes, Town policies and subdivision conditions, where applicable. (8) The hearing shall be conducted by the Planning Director, and no other person may preside over http://gcode.us/codes/losaltoshills/view.php?topic=10-2-13-10 2 1305 1&frames=on 7/29/2011 10-2.1305.1 Fast-track process. 4Page 2 of 3 the hearing unless so authorized by action of the City Council. (9) The Planning Director shall approve the project if the Director determines that the project complies with the Town's General Plan, Zoning and Site Development Codes, Town policies and subdivision conditions, if applicable. (10) A final staff report shall be prepared to supplement the interim staff report with discussion of any issues raised by neighbors, committee representatives, staff, or the applicant, and to include the final conditions of approval and the applicant's signed agreement to those conditions. If opposition to the project exists, that opposition shall be noted in the final staff report along with the Planning Director's assessment of whether the opposition is supported by facts or relevant information. (11) Written notice of the Planning Director's decision shall be provided to the applicant, all property owners notified of the site development hearing, and any other parties attending or providing written comments at the.. hearing, and to the Planning Commission, a minimum of ten (10) days prior to the end of the appeal period. , (12) Council Review of Actions. The final staff report shall be forwarded to the City Council on a consent calendar for a meeting to be held not earlier than twenty-two (22) days after the site development decision; in the event that no Council meeting is held within that period, the City Clerk will notify the Council of the Planning Director's decision and, if no appeal is made prior to twenty- two (22) days after the site development hearing, the project will be considered approved. (13) Appeals. Any interested party may appeal a decision of the Planning Director to the Planning Commission by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within twenty-two (22) days of the Planning Director's decision. A nonrefundable filing fee and deposit for services shall accompany each appeal, except that any member of the Council or any two (2) members of the Planning Commission, whichever is applicable, shall hold a public hearing, in accordance with the provisions of Section 10-10.1005. (14) Effective Date. If no appeal is made, the decision of the Planning Director shall become final on the twenty-third (23rd) day following the action. If an appeal is made, the Council shall set a public hearing to consider the appeal pursuant to the provisions of Section 10-2.1313(c). (c) The Planning Director shall submit an application for a project to the Planning Commission if the Director determines that: (1) The project does not conform to the Town's General Plan, Zoning and Site Development Codes, Town policies adopted by the Council and subdivision conditions, where applicable; or (2) The project is anew residence project that scores fifteen (15) points or greater on the Fast Track Guide checklist; or (3) The project would require approval of a variance or conditional development permit; or (4) There is substantive neighborhood opposition to the project ("substantive" is not based on the number of neighbors objecting); however, new residences that score fourteen (14) or fewer points on the Town's Fast Track Guide for New Residences (Fast Track Guide) checklist and meet the other requirements of subsection (a) of this section, shall be eligible for the fast track process, regardless of neighborhood opposition; or (5) The applicant does not agree to accept all of the proposed conditions of approval in writing; or (6) The project presents unique planning issues that need greater discussion. (d) The Planning Director's determination to fast-track or submit a project to the Planning Commission is final. (e) The City Council and no individual Councilmember(s) shall attempt to influence the Planning http://gcode.uslcodesllosaltoshillslview.php?topic=10-2-13-10 2_1305_1&frames=on 7/29/2011 10-2.1305.1 Fast-track process. Page 3 of 3 Director's determination of whether to fast-track or submit a project to the Planning Commission. (f) Councilmember(s) shall not appeal a fast-track project on the basis that the applicant objects to one or more condition(s) of approval. (§ 2, Ord. 400, eff. July 31, 1999; § 2, Ord. 448, eff. June 25, 2006; § 1, Ord. 522, eff. December 18, 2010) http://gcode.us/codes/losaltoshills/View.php?topic=10-2-13-10_2_1305.1&frames=on 7/29/2011 VISION TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS PLANNING DEPARTMENT 26379 Fremont Road • Los Altos Hills, California 94022 • (650) 941-7222 • FAX (650) 941-3160 WORKSHEET 92 EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND FLOOR AREA • TURN Iii .WITH YOUR APPLICATION • PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME VL AD l HI I� 4:-:'Y5 / /AA PROPERTY ADDRESS Z Z ZL CALCULATED BY NSC DATE TTTTT..T A 7 TT ITT X. i.rr, r a:.r:vi 11rir_.114 1 ts%r,X-& (SQUARE FOOTAGE) A. House and Garage (from Part 3. A.) B. Decking C. Driveway and Parking (Measured 100' along centerline) D. Patios and Walkways E. Tennis Court F. Pool and Decking G. Accessory Buildings (from Parr B) H. Any other coverage 1✓Y1S L111` TOTALS Maximum Development Area Allowed - NIDA (from Worksheet #1 2. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE Existing (SQUARE FOOTAGE) TOTALS f 2 ti 3 60 3. FLOOR AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE) Existing A. House and Garage a. 1 st Floor U. 2nd Floor c. Attic and Basement d. Garage B. Accessory Buildings a. 1st Floor b. 2nd Floor c. Attic and Basement 3390 ¢DO Proposed (AdditionsiD eletims) ~ S j''5 _7S fsys Attachment 7 l. otal —117147 4-5 dss } 4' /79, Proposed Total "zlis / Proposed (Additions. -Deletions) t/? 3 �L63P PC TOTALS 7 0 4 0 3�, 7 7-3 Maximum Floor Area. Allowed - MFA (from Worksheet #1) TOWN USE ONLY I CHECKED BY DATE JUN 2 8 2011 TOM OF LOS ALTOS HILLS