Attachment Suzanne Avila Cc: Enrique J. Klein < t> Wednesday, March 25, 205 2:36 PM Courtenay Corrigan Steven Mattas; Suzanne Avila; Carl Cahill Building Permit Application for new construction on 25608 Deerfield Drive by KOCI Development To Mayor Corrigan, City Council of Los Altos Hills. Dear Mayor Corrigan: We are now witnessing an attempt by Commercial Developer Kalbali to have the City Council of Los Altos Hills to review an appeal to the denial of his application through the Planning Commission for a building permit on new construction [denied on March 9th, 205]. This, makes the project ineligible to building in Los Altos Hills under the current application. I understand that Commercial Developer Kalbali has now submitted a revised set of plans to better conform to the CDP rules for permitting on grossly substandard lots. I also understand that the Los Altos Hills City Council has a number of options for dealing with Commercial Developer Kalbali's appeal, including granting approval. What I fail to understand is how the City Council can be asked to reverse the denial of the Original Application by the Planning Commission, now using as a basis a Modified Application that may have been reviewed by the Planning Department but not by the Planning Commission. In my mind, this represents a disenfranchisement of the authority vested in the Planning Commission by the City Council. I see no reason to grant Commercial Developer Kalbali special treatment that others in the Town have no recourse to. I urge the City Council to remand this revised application directly to the Planning Department, to be dealt with as a new application. Best Regards, <Enrique J. \fein Los Altos Hills, CA 94024 Phone/Fax
Thursday, March 26, 205 8:29 AM FW: Building Permit Application: 25608 Deerfield Drive Ray Strimaitis > "cccorrigan@losaltoshi$_.ca.gov" <cccorrigan@losaltoshills.ca.gol[>; "john.harpootlian@gmail.conl" <john. harpootlian@gmail.com>; "findrichlarsen@gmail.com" <findrichlarsen@gmail.com>; "jradford20@yahoo.com" <jradford20@yahoo.com>; "gcwaldeck@losaltoshills.ca.gov" <gcwaldeck@.losaltoshills.ca.gov> Cc: "jsmandle@hotmail.com" <jsmancjje@hotmail.com>; "jitze@couperus.or.g" <jitze@.couperus.org>; "kavitat@comcast.net" <kavitat@comcast.net>; "jima.pc@gmail.com" <jima.pc@gmail.com>; "richard. partridge@comcast.net" <richard. partridge@comcast.ne\> Wednesday, March 25, 205 9:22 PM Building Permit Application: 25608 Deerfield Drive Dear Mayor Corrigan and Council members, My wife and I are residents of Los Altos Hills and live on Deerfield Drive. During your meeting on March 3st, you will be considering an appeal to a Conditional Development Permit for a proposed development for 25608 Deerfield Drive that was denied by the Planning Commission. In denying that submittal, the Planning Commission expressed concerns over a number of objective and subjective criteria. Those concerns included the number of variances being sought, the "bulk" in the proposed plan and the fact that the proposed plan did not result in a structure consistent with the "semi-rural character" called for in our town's building guidelines. Careful consideration is particularly warranted in this case - as the proposed development is for a substandard (approximately /3 acre) lot. Although framed as an "appeal" - the plans you will be reviewing on March 3st is, in fact, a request to approve a new/modified design. The plan that was reviewed and denied by the Planning Commission has changed. Accordingly, the Planning Commission is best equipped to address these sorts of assessments and judgment calls. These are among the Planning Commission's primary functions. Approving modified plans via an appeal by the town Council would only encourage other applicant's to "forum shop" in future instances and circumvent the town's own Planning Commission. For the above reasons, we respectfully request that you remand the developer's appeal/submittal to the Planning Commission for further review. Respectfully, Ray & Vita Strimaitis
Mayor Courtenay C. Corrigan Dear Mayor Corrigan, Thank you for listening to our concerns. And thank you to the Staff at the Planning and Building Department. We are writing to you in regards to the pending APPEAL hearing on March 3, 205, for 25608 Deerfield Drive, formerly 353 Burke Road. We have been homeowners on Deerfield Drive for 8 years and chose to live in Los Altos Hills for rural character. We did a lot of research including viewing the Los Altos Hills Guidelines before we chose to purchase our home. We are hoping that you will uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny the Conditional Development Permit on the 0.369 acre lot. We believe the Findings for the Conditional Development Permit were not met. Specifically, The site for the proposed development is adequate in size, shape and topography to accommodate the proposed intensity of the development, including all structure, yards, open spaces, parking, landscaping, walls and fences, and such other features as may be required by this chapter". The developer has revised his plans and eliminated 300 square feet of the project and eliminated the variances for the eaves, fireplace, and patio. The result is a house without a patio or outdoor living space. Also, in the revision, the developer is asking for an increase in the garage backup area into the setback which requires a variance. The garage could have been pushed further into the house. Again, this is an attempt to increase square footage of the structure. We are concerned with the bulk and mass of this project. After all, this intersection represents one of the Gateways to Los Altos Hills. Also, in the Condition of Approval for a Conditional Development permit "The size and design of the proposed structures create a proper balance, unity and harmonious appearance in relation to the size, shape and topography of the site and in relation to the surrounding neighborhood". This proposed development does not create a proper balance, unity and harmonious appearance. This development is on the smallest lot in the neighborhood and will be larger than most homes on Deerfield who have larger lots. ZONING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT Municipal Code 0-.503 states "The City Council AND Planning Commission have the discretion to apply stricter standards to reduce floor area where site specific constraints dictate further limitations, such that the purposes of the ordinances are complied with. Some examples of site constraints include, but are not limited to, the shape or natural features of the lot, easements which restrict development, or HIGH SITE VISIBILTY." This is clearly a High Site Visibility intersection which many of the residents use to enter our town. "The Site Development Authority may approve floor area of up to two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet for any lot without requiring a variance, so long as the findings for a CDP are made." Due to
the small lot size, a home proposed at the smaller square feet would be an improved design that is more harmonious with the typical development. The Planning Commission hearing discussion on Feb. 5, 205 was all about the variances and the neighbor's concerns and request that the parcels be merged. The Planning Commission was not able to discuss mitigating the safety, design, and landscaping needs of this project. We feel that that should have been done. Further, despite the developers' claims that he wishes to work with the neighbors, we still have not received any revised plans as promised by. Many residents leave town at this time of year, and I suspect, given past promises by the developer, that this was just a stall tactic. Also, the developer's tactic of having known tenants who have at times intimidated the all residents. No one uses this tactic if they are planning to live in this neighborhood. We believe that these projects are motivated by profit versus our property values. We believe in a right to profit, but this should not have a negative impact on our neighborhood now or in the future. Respectfully, Alice and Doug Rimer
Cc: Doug Rimer < > Thursday, March 26, 205 :0 PM Letter to CC regarding Kalbali Appeal Los Altos Hills City Council Regarding: Commercial Developer Kalbali appeal, Planning Commission rejection of Deerfield Dr CDP Dear Council Member, As a Deerfield Dr. resident I stand to be adversely affected by commercial developer Oskar Kalbali's planned development project if approved without additional mitigation to size and bulk beyond the most recent modifications. As the corner of Burke and Deerfield is a gateway to Los Altos Hills, the proportionally massive structures that he intends to build will be an eyesore, and can materially affect my property values. Mr. Ka Iba Ii has the right to construct a structure with a minimum of 2500 sf, but does not have the right to any more than that. His initial plan prior to rejection of his application by the Planning Commission was for absolute maximum square footage, strictly for profit, flying in the face of all appeals by neighbors to merge the lots or reduce the size to more reasonable proportions to the small lot sizes. He has now made the minimum concessions to concerns from the entire neighborhood in hopes that the Council will approve his revised plan without remanding to the Planning Commission for adequate review. Contrary to what we have been told, revised plans have not been provided for neighbors' review. I urge you to remand back to the Planning Commission so that the development process can work as intended, and neighbors' concerns can be fairly considered. I also think it is important that you understand the background of the situation from a LAH neighbor since he purchased the parcel. Since purchasing the parcel he has been completely unresponsive to any and all neighbors' concerns regarding his development plans. He has further been very inconsiderate by leasing the Ruth McMahon's house to tenants that have been a blight on the neighborhood. We brought to Mrs. Kalbali's attention in September that her tenants were growing approximately 40 marijuana plants on the property, and that the pasture was being used as a storage yard for multiple trailers, boats, cars, and jet skis. She responded that she was powerless to take any responsibility for this situation. Our neighbors who abut the property were very upset when we informed them we intended to call the sheriff because they were afraid of retribution by the tenants. As we have to live with our neighbors long after the tenants are gone, we were respectful of their pleas not to inform the sheriff. The tenants have been a neighborhood nuisance, partying and making noise until early in the morning, generator running all night (providing power to the person living in the trailer), doing doughnuts in the pasture with their cars when it rained, letting their pit bull run loose to wander around the neighborhood. I hope you get the picture - consistently rowdy behavior in what was a quiet, semi-rural street. Not the type of consideration one would expect from a future neighbor as Mr. Kalbali claims to be. I wonder if he made a similar claim regarding his active development project on a now subdivided lot near Los Altos Hills Country Club? Thank you for your time and consideration. Doug Rimer