Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3.1 Supplemental DocumentationRECEIVED FEB PC 2008 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS uW em.e o1 DhsMo,ND B. TUCK Del. a.lvo: eyUip (65019,41. , February 20, 2008 John Chau Dnen Fmelich Debbie Pedro CITY OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Formant Road Los Altos Hills CA 94022-2624 RE: 25706 ELENA ROAD, IAS ALTOS HILLS Ladies and Gentlemen: In sight of the wntcnts of Aaomcy Siegel's February 14, 20087etter asserting, among other tliloge, that his eliuvs believe they can oppose the widening of Vinedo Lane, my clients, the Applicants, respectfully advise as follows. They request modificaGen of some of the conditions contained in the Conditions of Approval, Attachment Ito the February 21, 2008 Staff Reportto the Planning Commission. These items arc: V WIDENING OF THE ROAD Item 14, Conditions of Approval, should add the following language: "ff,he neighbors muse del -I'm cyruirw1wo work by any means, this condition will net beiudb of sa .stop+'s'e'rf the Applicantsfrom proceeding with subdlvislon and coon ruction, including but not limlled to the recordation of the deeds creating the resulting parcels. in the even, of any such delay, and nofwithaanding any such opposition, a, the option offhe Town of Los Altos Hills d a, Applic inh shall b. permitted ro proceed with subdivision and construction provided that ,hey guoran,ee Plinio' ofd a, coal o/widening ehe relevam portion of Vinedo Lane. John Chau Brian Froelich Debbie Pedro CITY OF LOS All HILLS February 20, 2008 Page two RE: 25706 ELENA ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS It is anticipated that Attorney Siegel's clients will continue to oppose the subdivision based, in part, on the points mentioned in his letter. In light ofthe City Attorney's Memorandum dated January 30, 2008, with which the Applicants completely agree, the Applicants do not wish to have their subdivision process become bogged dawn by capricious action ofthe neighbors. They are willing to assume financial responsibility for completion of the work required by the Town notwithstanding my such apposition. It should also be noted that: (A) Attorney Siegel', letter specifically misrepresents the contents ofthe traffic study and Ore requirement to widen the road. The traffic study specifically does not state "l6m du, ..d In Ear rumenr configuration is noeraffioienl to handle the added tr,Ejuq(rom no three nee, hm., the dcodu, r lnopnses to access Vinedo Lan," (B) The road widening requirement by the Town is based solely on the currently substandard width thereof as dictated by health and safety issues. This has no hearing whatsoever on the memer of lots bring created by the Applicants. (C) Both Attorney Siegel', letter and the Staff Repan erroneously refer to the "requirement for widening' The Amirante respectfully submit that die traffic study specifizally stares, in pertinent for: "To summarize, the addition ofthe awn driveways firm Pardo Lane] will not signi�mndy intpoct the t,q#', aperorinn gffli.do Lune." The above illustrates, in pan. the misleading recce of fife neighbors' opposition to the subdivision, There is in fact no requirearwart form a buff ti , that Vinedo Lane be widened. John Chau Brien Froelich Debbie Pedro CITY OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Fehromy 70, 2008 Page three RV: 25706 ELENA ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS 2. SPWERLMF5 Item 10, Conditions for Approval, contains language which regwms the Applicants to be financially responsible for'yutare lanesfrom otherfeasible lots." In effect, this neun es the Applicants to solely bear pre substantial financial burden of paying for future development by other property owners. This is a speculative and unfair requirement and constitutes unjust enrichment of the neighborhood at The sole expense of the ATI canto. The Applicants respectfully request that this language be delated from the Conditions of Approval. 3. NFW PROPOS ED CONDI'I ION Also in light of the contentions made by Attomey Siegel's clients, the Applicants request the addition of the fallowing new condition' "Irony time, work performed by Applieorns incompliance with he conditions of approval is absvnc ed by the neighbors, at the optfan lthe Town o%Los Alto, Hill, the Applicants ..hall be permitted In complete .inch work provided that they guarantee paymem r frhe cos, ofe.mplime, with he r,ho a, aondrime, ofapproval, !n the event that sued a6d s,aon....... Poe relevant condaon ofapproval will not be a freed ea as m prevent the Applimne, front proceeding nint sphdlvision and crectructlon, whaling bar,,, limited mrear-etc n. ofthe deeds ,,all, the rerulrfng pan els" 4. OTHER POINTS WORTHY OF VOTE' The Town Staff Report refers to "than new driveways" to be "exrendedfrom Onedo Lane to the new residences" This is an inaeemaee statement and is misleading since there are already two John Chau Brien Froehclh Debbie Pedro CITY OF LOS ALTOS HILLS February 20, 2008 Page four RE: 257M ELENA ROAD, LOS AL FOS HILLS existing driveways. Therefore there will not be two new (additional) driveways, as the Report suggests. Eleewbore the Report refers to the existing driveways form Vlnedo Lou,, and they are therefore known to not be new. The opposition to this subdivision is unprrcedented in this neighborhood. During previous subdivisions, there has been no opposition by neighbors who insisted their approval was needed to widen the road, nor was there any restriction for access to Vinedo Lane. My clients are beginning to wonder if this is arbitrary or discriminatory because they have done their best to make the subdivision compatible with the needs and wishes ofbo0t the neighbors and the Town. They intend to continue to do so, and would appreciate consideration of these legitimate points. Sincerely, DESMOND B. TUCK cc: Clients RECEIVED FEB 2 0 2008 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS NO February 20, 2008 Reference: Vinedo Lane Road (meeting Feb. 216) Dear Members of the Planning Commission, We have lived on Vinedo Lane for 30 years. During the 30 years, with the exception of the last 5 or 6 years, the beginning of the road, at the bottom of the hill, has been a major problem requiring constant repairs at great expense. It finally got to the point where everyone decided to make a large financial commitment as the problem was getting worse. The road has been in fairly good condition since but is starting to show some problems at this time. As far as we know, there are not only drainage problems but possibly a spring which continually erodes the area. Since we will be responsible for the maintenance of the changes in the road, we want to be assured that there will be attention to the existing water/drainage problems and that there will be care exercised in any development Sincerely, Robert and Joan McFadden February 21, 2008 Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Los Altos Hills Planning Commission Town of Los Altos Hills 26739 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Re: Proposed Subdivision of 25706 Elena Road Dew Los Altos Planning Commissioners, My wife, Lisa, and I have been residents of Los Altos Hills for four years and reside adjacent to the property proposed to be subdivided. We decided to purchase this home in Los Altos Hills because of its view of the valley as well as its natural beauty of towering trees within close vicinity to the home. We sincerely hope these two elements will be preserved from the proposed subdivision Ever since we purchased this home, we expected that homes would be built on the adjacent lot and respect the owners' rights to develop the property. Even before the official process of public hearings, the applicant has been very combative in listening and responding to our feedback. As an example, in a letter sent on October 23, 2007 to the Town by the applicant's lawyer Desmond Tuck, he writes in his summary, "Opposition by any neighbor can only deemed to be malicious, which of course, could have serious legal consequences for all concerned should they persist." For some reason, this letter was not made public until February 15, 2008. If we had known sooner, we would have requested to have legal representation present at the previous sub- committee public hearing. In reviewing the 155 page document provided on February 15, 2008, we have included our initial feedback and request. However, due to the short timeframe including school holiday schedule, we need more time to examine every document. Included is our feedback so far to the subdivision proposal. 1. On condition #14 to widen Vinedo Lane to 20 feet, we want to get detailed plans for such expansion as the Town has expressed concern in the past regarding drainage and safety concerns that may arise if the road is widened. In addition, any construction needs approval from the Road Association as stipulated in the Road Maintenance agreement. Although this may be a private matter, we request that this issue be resolved before the City Council meeting on this matter. We believe that the first City Council meeting in Much is too soon to resolve these issues as they are complicated. We believe if given sufficient time the neighbors and developers can work through these issues. In the event that the road is widened without the Road Association approval, we request to receive indemnification of liabilities from the Town or the applicant as the current proposal to extend along the north side makes the road off -centered and dead ends abruptly into our property. If constructed, this may cause dangerous driving conditions at night as illustrated by pictures provided. In addition, the expansion on the north side will need to remove additional trees. These issues were discussed in the 1992 subdivision condition of subdivision approval. / 2. On condition #25 on tree installation, how was the replacement ratio of 2:1 determined? In reference to file #131-05-ZP-SD-GD, the replacement ratio for that application is 3:1 and was approved by the planning commission in 2007. Thus we request the replacement ratio to be set to 3:1. We also would like to review the planting plan once available to provide feedback prior to plant installation. We request the planning committee to take a closer look at preserving nee 461 in that the proposed road easement and garage site may be slightly modified to bypass the tree structure. In addition, trees 62, 63 and 81 are proposed for removal in anticipation of proposed house sites. However, the house sites have not yet been proposed nor approved. It may also be possible to adjust the house site to preserve these trees. As a result, we request the three listed trees to be preserved for now. On condition 49 on underground utilities, we assume that the utility pole on the north border of the property line will be underground as well. A picture illustrating the location of such pole is provided. In addition, a number of conversations with John Chau have recently taken place for detailed plans on how utilities will be served to the proposed subdivision. However, John indicated that they are still working on the details. We believe that the details need to be determined before any approval is issued. 4. In response to 1992 subdivision conditions for repair of failed pavement, a town staff apparently determined that there is no failed pavement on February 12, 2008. We have photographs taken on February 20, 2008 showing tree roots buckling the side of the road, water erosion damage and potholes that need to be repaired adjacent to the subject's property. 5. In order to understand the full impact of this subdivision, we like to get more details on the site development for each individual home especially if the homes are going to obstruct our view. We thank you for your time into these matters and look forward to your favorable response on our requests. Steven Wang Lisa Wang Los Altos Hills 25706 Elena Road — Subdivision into 3 lots Summary of Items for Public Hearing -2/21/08 In [parenthesis]: The reference document attached herein. In order to save space and paper, most of the attached documents provide summaries only. 1 - General The Subdivision itself is a simple and straight forward Subdivision of a lot that is greater than 3.00 acres into three LO acre or greater (LUF) lots meeting all Town guidelines and with no exceptions. Applicants fully cooperated the Town and agreed to all the conditions so far. 2 - Vinedo Lane Vinedo Lane, from where the Applicants access their Property and the future subdivided lots, is a private road. Applicants, through owning the Property, we legal and legitimate members to the Road Maintenance Agreement with full access rights to Vinedo Lane as expressly provided in the Deed of Easement and Road Maintenance Agreement. However, it is a Road Maintenance Agreement only. Nothing more. Nothing less. This has been twice confirmed by the Town Attorney. [City Attorney's Opinion Letters] 3 - Problems and Issues. Therefore, most of the problems and delays regarding the Subdivision are related to actions and positions by the neighbors. Most of these actions and positions have been proven to be without merit or legal basis as will be demonstrated below. 4 -Traffic Impact Neighbors have been arguing that adding two lots to Vinedo Lane creates an unreasonable impact on the traffic of Vinedo Lane. This argument is contradicted by: 4.1 - The Traffic Study which states that "the additional of the two driveways (from Vinedo Lane) will NOT significantly impact the traffic operation of Vinedo Lane". [Summary of Traffic Study]. In addition, a simple calculation shows that the Applicant will add 2 lots to the current 22 lots using Vinedo Lane. That's an additional 9% load. However, the two additional lots will only use 165' of the total 2,300' of the Vinedo roads, which is about 7% of the roads. This yields a total impact of 0.63% on Vinedo Lane. A negligible impact indeed. 5) Denvina Applicants' access from Vinedo Lane Neighbors assert that Applicants don't have a legal access to Vinedo Lane. This is in contrast to the following: 5.1 — The Deed of the Applicants' Property indicating that it is part of the Vinedo Lane Road Maintenance Agreement. 5.2 —The City Attorney Opinion Letters of 11/9/07 and 1/20/08 stating that Applicants have full access right from Vinedo Lane to all the lot that will be created by the Subdivision. [City Attomey s Opinion Letters] 5.3 — A map drawn by Surveyor Giuliani & Kull showing the Subject Property as a part of the original signatories to the Road Maintenance Agreement [Map]. 5.4— The history of accessing to the Property from Vinedo Lane [Excerpts from Former Owner's Testimony]. The attempt to deny Applicants access from Vinedo Lane took additional 5 months to approve the Subdivision and created substantial expenses to the Applicants and the Town. 6) Access from Elena Road only. Neighbors demand that Applicants access their Properties via Elena Road only. 6.1 — The Elena access is dangerously unsafe. Three driveways are converging to Elena Road at a curved area that is dangerous on its own, at a distance of about 40' from each other. [Traffic Study] 6.2 — Applicants have an undeniable long term right to access their properties from Vinedo Lane. In fact, Applicant Property was one of the original parcels that created Vinedo Lane. A change in those rights can only be applied with full consent of Applicants and not by force. 6.3 —'There is no reason to mandate such change as the only reason for it might be the traffic impact on Vinedo which has been proved to be negligible. See item 4 above. 7) Widening Vinedo 7.1 —Applicants agreed to widen Vinedo Lane to 20'. 7.2 — However, neighbors believe that they have the authority to oppose such widening. In fact, they have no such authority. There is no such authority in the Deed of Easement or anywhere else. 7.3 — One the other hand, widening Vinedo Lane will ease traffic operation on Vinedo Lane, which neighbors have been complaining is too busy regardless of the Subdivision. 7.4 — Therefore, it seems that the neighbors view the opposition to widening Vinedo Lane as an opportunity to obstruct the Subdivision and the entire Project. Indeed their Attomey stated in his letter that "in light of the constrictions on the ability to widen the road (Vinedo Lane), we believe that there are two alternatives. Either access to the Proposed Subdivision from Elena or the number of houses on the Proposed Subdivision must be reduced...". It should be noticed that mandating an access from Elena Road means that the Property can only be divided into two lots. This is not a type of decision that can be mandated by neighbors. 7.5 — It should noted that the sole reason for the Town to require the widening of Vinedo Lane is the development of the Property regardless of the number of lots or the impact on the traffic. In other words, even if there was only one lot developed with one house, the Town would have required the widening on Vinedo Lane. 7.6 — Neighbors' assertion that the Road Maintenance Agreement authorizes them to oppose a widening of Vinedo Lane within the 60' easement is erroneous. Item 3 of page 2 of the Agreement states that widening or re -location of the road requires a majority vote of the Members if it reaches bevond the 60' easement. 7.8 — However, because the neighbors and their attorney believe that they have the authority to oppose the widening of V inedo Lane, Applicants request a change in the language of this Road Widening condition that will allow them to proceed with the subdivision and the construction even if neighbors cause delays to the widening. See Requested Changes to Conditions attached. 8 Trees A few trees will be removed in order to make room for the driveway. Additional trees are marked to be removed because of poor conditions as per the Arborist report. 8.1 - Applicants will make every effort to minimize tree cutting. 8.2 —Applicants will comply with the Town requirement to plant greater number of trees. 8.3 — The proposed removal of trees is in an area that is overcrowded with trees and will require tree thinning anyway. 8.4 - At the end of the process, there will be many more tress, better spread over the Property, than currently exist. 9) New lots to be members of the Road Maintenance Aereement. The new lots will automatically become members of the Road Maintenance Agreement by being successors to the original parcel as per the Deed and the City Attorney's Letter of Opinion. [See attached]. Neighbors may misunderstand this situation and think that some kind of acceptance process by the neighbors is required. This is wrong. See City Attorney's Opinion Letters. 10 Sewer 10.1 - Applicants volunteered to create sewer lines for all 3 parcels instead of using septic tanks. A plan has been submitted and approved by the Town accordingly. Following the Town recommendation, the Sewer Plan included one pressurized sewer line along Elena Road for all three parcels. The Town now changed the condition to include three pressurized lines instead of one This is excessive conditions that create undue expenses and work. Applicants request to bring the plan back to have only one pressurized line. 10.2- The Town introduced a new condition requiring the Applicants to construct a large sleeve along Elena Road and to "be responsible for future lines from other possible lots". This is an unquantifiable, speculative, and unfair condition which constitutes unjust enrichment of the neighbors at the sole expense of the Applicants. Instead, Applicants have written letters to all the neighbors inviting them to join the new sewer line if they wish, and share the cost. This seems to be a fair approach. Applicants request that this new condition be deleted from the conditions of the Approval. [Request for Changes in Conditions] 11) Other Conditions In anticipation that some neighbors will continue to obstruct the subdivision or the construction, add a condition to reads: "If the neighbors cause delays in construction work by any means, the items affected will not be forced so as to prevent the Applicants from proceeding with the subdivision and construction, including but no limited to recordation of the deeds creating the resulting parcels, In the event of such delay, at the option of the Town of Los Altos Hills, the Applicants shall guarantee payment of the cost of the affected item to the Town". 12) Pathway The city brought up a request for a 3'-5' pedestrian pathway along Vinedo Lane at last minute. However, they are now requiring an easement of 10' that fits a horse trail. Applicants were not invited to the Pathway Committee's discussion about the Pathway and in any case view the 10' easement requirement as excessive and questionable usefulness. Applicants request an approval with a 3' pedestrian pathway only. Summary It is clear that all the neighbors' concerns could have been easily solved if the neighbors answered the Applicant written request to discuss any issue with them. Such discussions would have been fruitful as long as they take the form of discussions among equals and with mutual respect. Some neighbors elected to take the "strong hand" approach and attempted to force their views and actions on the Applicants without regards to merit or legality. Examples are the attempt to deny access from Vinedo, attempt to force 2 rather than 3 lots subdivision, use of the widening of Vinedo as a tool create obstructions, make up traffic impact when there is none, demand Applicant to build the neighbors' sewer, oppose widening of Vinedo despite the relief that it provides to the traffic load on Vinedo. It seems that neighbor's actions and positions are not always motivated by issue, substance or reason, but by other personal considerations. Applicants request the Commission and the Town to consider the above in any decision they make. Thank von. Isaac Again Eran and Iris Cohen Eli and Yifah Gavra Applicants' Request for Changes in the Approval Conditions 1) Widening of Vinedo lane In light of the content of the Neighbor's Attorney asserting that the neighbors have the right to oppose the widening of Vinedo Lane, which may lead to unforeseeable obstructions and unreasonable expenses, add the following language to Item 14: "If the neighbors cause delays in construction work by any means, this condition will not be forced so as to prevent the Applicants from proceeding with the subdivision and construction, including but no limited to recordation of the deeds creating the resulting parcels, In the event of such delay, at the option of the Town of Los Altos Hills, the Applicants shall guarantee payment of the cost of widening Vinedo Lane to the Town". In addition, Applicant request that the direction to where Vinedo be widened will not be mandated and he left for the Applicant to decide. 2) Other Obstructions In anticipation that some neighbors will continue to obstruct the subdivision or the construction, add a condition to read: "If the neighbors cause delays in construction work by any means, the items affected will not be forced so as to prevent the Applicants from proceeding with the subdivision and construction, including but no limited to recordation of the deeds creating the resulting parcels, In the event of such delay, at the option of the Town of Los Altos Hills, the Applicants shall guarantee payment of the cost of the affected item to the Town". 3 Sewer 3.1 - Item 10 contain language which requires the Applicants to be responsible for "future lines from other possible lots". This is an unquantifiable, speculative, and unfair condition which constitutes unjust enrichment of the neighbors at the sole expense of the Applicants. Applicants request that this language be deleted from conditions of the Approval. 3.2 — Applicant submitted and the Town approved one pressurized sewer line along Elena Road for all three parcels. A new condition has been now added without consulting with the Applicants which requires three pressurized lines along Elena Road. This is an unnecessary and excessive expense. Applicants request that this language be deleted from conditions of the Apprm al. 4) Pathway The city brought up a request for a 3'-5' pedestrian pathway along Vinedo Lane at last minute. However, they are now requiring an easement of 10' that fits horse trail. Applicants were not invited to the Pathway Committee's discussion about the Pathway and in any case view the 10' easement requirement as excessive and questionable usefulness. Applicants request an approval with a 3' pedestrian pathway only. 25706 Elena Rd. Summary of the Traffic Study "To summarize, the additional of the two driveways [from Vinedo Lane] will not significantly impact the traffic operation of Vinedo Lane". The elimination of the driveway on Elena Road and the widening of Vinedo Lane will improve the operation of the intersection [at Elena Road]". 25706 Elena Rd. City Attorney's Opinion Letters Regarding Applicants' Access from Vinedo Lane A—An Opinion Letter dated 11/9/07 1 have had a chance to review the documents you sent and I agree that the property owners' have a valid easement to use Vinedo Lane for access to their residential properties. Therefore, I think that the owners continue to have a valid easement to access Vinedo Lane from their property. Assuming their proposal is otherwise compliant with state and local subdivision requirements, and the Town Engineer approves the driveways, I see no reason why they would not be able to use Vinedo Lane for access to their residential, subdivided properties. B — An Opinion Letter dated 1/20/08 Issue Does the 1953 "Deed of Easement and Road Maintenance Agreement" prohibit the current owners of 25706 Elena Road from constructing two driveways on their property to access Vinedo Lane? Answer No. The owners of 25706 Elena Road may use their property, including property within the easement... the Deed do not prohibit the property owners' proposal or require the neighbors' approval... owners may build two driveways on their property to access Vinedo Lane. Conclusion ... owners' proposal to construct two driveways from Vinedo Lane to three subdivided parcels on their property is not inconsistent with the terms of the Deed... Therefore, the 25706 Elena Road owners are not prohibited from constructing the proposed driveways. Excerpts from former Owner Robin Drsiscoll's Written Testimony 1. My wife and I owned the lot on 25706 Elena Rd. Los Altos Hills for approximately 9 years prior to selling it to Agam and Cohen. 2.... used to have 4 or 5 structures on the property. 3. During the time we owned the lot, we were part of the Vinedo Lane Road Maintenance association, and we paid our yearly fee of $200. 4. When we bought the lot, there were 3 gated accesses: One from Elena, and 2 from Vinedo Lane... 5. We used the Vinedo Lane access freely during the time we owned the property. Accessing the property from Vinedo Lane was never questioned or challenged by the neighbors, or anyone else... we never considered giving up the right to access from Vinedo Lane. 6. We used mainly the access around the middle of Vinedo Lane during the demolition of the 4 or 5 structures that were on the property. 7..... 8. At a certain point we erected a fence along Vinedo Lane to block vehicular tress passing to the property, due to safety and liability concerns. 9. The fence... at the middle of Vinedo Lane was constructed in such a way that it would be very easy to remove and install a gate. We intended to use all existing accesses during a planned construction, which we eventually did not pursue... Regards, Robin Driscoll Errors and Omissions in the City Staff Report Errors: 1) Page 4, statement that the widening of Vinedo is required because of the additional traffic created by the additional parcels. 1.1 - This is in contrast with the Traffic Report which indicates NO IMPACT of the additional two driveways off Vinedo Lane. 1.2 - The requirement for Applicants to widen substandard roads (<20') is a general policy of the City and would have been required even if only one lot and one home was built on the Subject. 2) Page 4, statement that currently there is one access from Elena Dr. and after the Subdivision there will be two new access points from Vinedo. This is an incorrect statement. There are TWO current paved access points from Vinedo and they have been there for many years. In other clauses, the Report accurately indicates the two Vinedo access points. The existing access points might be relocated, so there will not be "new" access points. Omissions: 3) Two Town Attorney's opinion letters are attached to the Report. Both stating that the Owners have legitimate access right from Vinedo Lane to all three parcels WITHOUT requiring neighbors' approval. However, these access rights are not indicated anywhere in the Report itself. The Town Attorney twice confirmed that Owners have legal right to access all their parcels, included the subdivided parcels, from Vinedo Lane. 4) The Report states that in the abovementioned City Attorney's letters, the City Attorney states that the City has the authority and power to apply the widening of Vinedo Lane and the cost thereof to the Owners as Applicants. In the above Letters, the City Attorney did not indicate such power or authority. 5) The Report does not indicate that 19 trees out of the 24 proposed to be removed are in "Poor" conditions. Citations from the Deed of Easement and Road Maintenance Agreement Date Recorded: May 15, 1953 Total Paces: Five Partes: Five - Burch, Sherman H, Sherman W., Steele, Smith. 1 - Purposes: Page 1, Line 10: Owners are desirous of affecting .. a private road... continues the principal means of ingress and egress from their perspective parcels... Page 1, line 23: That owners ... hereby declare, establish, and convey the following: described real property as a private right of way for residential ingress and egress... for the benefit and use of all parcels herein specified. Page 4, Paragraph 11: These covenants are being imposed upon said respective parcel of real property for the express mutual benefit of said parcels, each requiring adequate ingress and egress ... 2 - Widening and Relocating. Page 3, Paragraph 3: All owners hereby declare and by so doing hereby bind their heirs, successors, assignees, personal representatives and transferees that except with the approval in writing of the majority of owners of all parcels herein, aforesaid private road will not be re -located or widened beyond said sixty feet strip established herein. 3 - Succession: Page 1, line 28: said covenant to be appurtenant to said respective parcels of real property and continue forever. Page Three, Paragraph 7: All convents herein continued and [unclear] hereby granted respecting the parties shall extend to and be binding upon or enforceable by the heirs, assigns, legal representatives and successors of said parties. Page 4, Paragraph 8: These covenants are to run with the land... Page 5, Paragraph 14: In the event any owner named herein cause any portion of their said lands to be conveyed to other persons, than said grantees will become proportionally liable for the cost of the maintenance as provided in paragraph four (4) herein. 5 - Forfeiture of Access Rights Page 4, Paragraph 10: The breach of any covenants herein established shall give the respective non -defaulting parties, their heirs or assigns, individually or collectively, all remedies provided by law or equity except re-entry and forfeiture. Q! cl, o , 00 Z it .wy . \\\�\i e= :ym � \°~� � z7® a - "UO }4. % .7 \° % ��« z �® - 9° f\ .7 \° % February 21, 2008 Dear Planning Commission Members: I am unable to attend the special hearing on 25706 Elena Road scheduled for tonight- Thursday February 21". I would like my comments to be considered. We first learned about the proposed project in a letter from the applicants in July. They introduced themselves as "3 families from the Bay Area... who are planning to subdivide the lot and in the future, build homes on it." On October 1", I received an email from Eran Cohen entitled "Letter requested by the city" asking me, as the current president of the Vinedo Lane Road Maintenance Association , to sign an acknowledgment confirming that the three lots will be allowed access from Vinedo Lane. On October 14' we held our annual road association meeting and invited Again, Cohen and Gavra to attend and tell us about their plans for the property. At this meeting Isaac spoke representing the "3 families". He stated that subdivision into 3 properties had already been approved by the planning commission. He stated their intention is to live in the 3 homes they are building. He stated they were not required, just requested by the city, to widen the bottom of Vinedo and it would happen very soon. At the end of his presentation, when frustrated by questions from residents, he became angry and threatening. He pretty much said they could do what they want and really didn't need our agreement. I bring up the above so you can see why we felt manipulated from the very start of this project. There are really only two owners of this property as per the title report and they are in the business of developing properties; I don't believe they have any intention of living in these homes. A third gentleman (Gavra) was on the introductory letter and he came to our meeting to support this pretense. He has since disappeared from the scene. All of this, I know, is not pertinent to approval of the subdivision of this property but it is important background for you. It has generated mistrust between the Vinedo Lane residents and the applicants. This is only the very first step in a long process that will result in three homes on this lot and once this subdivision is approved there is no going back. Vinedo Lane residents are concerned about what this project will look like once completed. The homes will really only be visible to those driving up and down our street. The rest of the town will drive back and forth on Elena and never even know that "Vinedo Estates", a three home development, sits up above Elena. We would like to make sure this process is fair and the city is considering the neighborhood whenever possible. So far, however, it seems the process has focused on the requirements of the developers and very little attention has been given to the concerns of our neighborhood. We are a private road and have had a democratic road association in place since 1953. We elect a president, secretary and treasurer at our yearly meeting. At 22 residences, I imagine we are one of the larger private roads in Los Altos Hills. We pay dues annually as well as construction fees. We vote whenever money must be spent to seal the cracks in our road, fill potholes, install speed bumps, and every 10 years or so completely redo our road. We individually pay to put in sewer lines to our house or to underground our utilities. When a storm brings down a tree across our road we clear it. The city does not want to make our road public because it is too narrow and difficult to maintain. Yet now you are telling us that we need to widen our road for this project. This whole process seems wrong. We have seen no plans for the new road and the city has taken themselves completely out of the resolution process going forward. While the city states that widening of the road is a condition of approval, it writes it is the sole responsibility of the applicant to meet the requirements of our maintenance agreement: " The dispute is a private matter that should be addressed by the Applicant and the Association." This will almost surely require that the road association retain an attorney so we can add lawyer fees to the above list of cost we must bear. Drainage is another major area of concern to all residents. We are constantly dealing with damage to our road due to landscape irrigation runoff. It all culminates at the bottom of the hill in front of the proposed development. A look at the analysis by contractors hired to repair our road will confirm this has been a major problem. When two additional homes are added to this property what will this added runoff do to our road. Yet the drainage plan is to be submitted after, not before, approval of the subdivision! Please make sure that this process adequately protects the other 21 Los Altos Hills homeowners who live on Vinedo Lane. We are a private road but we are still tax -payers and voters in this town. Sincerely, Geri Macomber