Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
3.1 & 3.2 Attachments
ATTACHMENT 5 Variance Findings for Side Yard Building Setback Variance Applications at Mora Drive APN 331-15-061 and APN 331-15-062 David C. Kehlet January 26, 2016 Los Altos Hills zoning ordinances require 30 foot side setbacks. An applicant is requesting variances at each of APN 331-15-061 and APN 331-15-062 to permit building encroachment into the side setbacks, 10'encroachment on one side and 20'encroachment on the other side of each property. Neither property has been previously developed. 1. Because of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the ordinance is found to deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classifications: The subject properties are exceptional because of their small size and most importantly their narrow width. APN 331-15-061 is approximately 0.38 acres and from 68'to 59'wide. APN 331-15-062 is approximately 0.40 acres and 62.5'Wide. Without extreme side setback variances, building on these parcels is not possible due to the Zoning Ordinance's required 30'side setbacks. Setbacks in the Vicinity Neighboring properties were developed in the 1940s and later when 30 foot setbacks were not required. Several neighboring properties are nonconforming with the modern 30'setback ordinance. Appendix 1, "Setbacks on Mora Drive,"lists the side setbacks of the twelve residences at the south end of Mora Drive that are facing Mora Drive. The average side setback of these residences, in comparison with the residences as proposed by the applicant, is shown in Table 1. Table 1, Average Residence Side Setbacks Residence. Average Side Setback Twelve Mora Drive Residences of Appendix 1 40 feet(+/-) APN 331-15-061 (application pending) 15 feet(+/-) APN 331-15-062 (application pending) 15 feet(+/-) Table 1 shows that the applications for the subject properties are proposing side setbacks that are on average much smaller than those of the neighboring properties. With an average side setback of 15 feet(+/-)for the proposed developments, approval of the applicant's requested variances would grant him privileges not enjoyed by owners of other properties in the vicinity. Nature and Record of Variances Granted by Los Altos Hills The applicant is required to seek Conditional Development Permits (CDPs)for development on the subject properties because the Lot Unit Factor of each is less than 0.5. Appendix 2, "Summary of CDP Approvals in LAH since 2004," lists variances granted in conjunction with CDPs. Of the 18 CDPs for new residences, only two were granted building variances as shown in Table 2. Table 2, Summary of Approved CDPs and Building Variances Total CDP Approvals in LAH CDPs for new residences with since 2004 Building Setback Variances 18 2 (12380 Hilltop, 12390 Hilltop) Table 3 shows that building setback variances for these two CDPs in Table 2 are minor,while the Mora Drive applications are proposing encroachments of extreme size. Table 3, CDPs for New Residences and Building Variances CDP Property Building Variance 12380 Hilltop Chimney in setback 12390 Hilltop Bay windows and chimney in setback Mora Drive APN 331-15-061 (CDP Setback encroachments on both sides. Total area in pending) excess of 2200 square feet(variance application pending) Mora Drive APN 331-15-062(CDP Setback encroachments on both sides. Total area in pending) excess of 2200 square feet(variance application pending) With only two building variances granted for new residences on CDPs since 2004, and with those two variances minor in character, the City has established a consistent track record of enforcing setbacks and granting only minor variances for over a decade. With the large area intended for building within the setbacks, approval of the applicant's requested variances would grant him privileges not enjoyed by owners of other properties in the vicinity, and also not enjoyed by property owners across all of Los Altos Hills. Difficulty and Hardship of the Applicant's Own Making Los Altos Hills Municipal Code 10-1.1007(2) regarding variances states, "The purpose of the variance is to resolve practical difficulties or undue hardships, not of the applicant's own making, which may result from the exceptional size, shape, topography, location, or other physical site conditions, or the use or development of property in the immediate vicinity." In 2006 the applicant for development subdivided the original property into 331-15-060, 331-15-061 and 331-15-062 in 2006. At that time the applicant knew or should have known of the Los Altos Hills General Plan policy to continue annexation of lands within the Town's Sphere of Influence. This annexation did in fact occur in 2012. The applicant's own subdivision, creating lots 331-15-061 and 331-15-062 that are unbuildable by Los Altos Hills zoning ordinance, is a difficulty of the applicant's own making and therefore makes him ineligible for the requested setback variances. Furthermore, the applicant had opportunities to merge and re-subdivide his three adjacent properties into two lots which would allow building without setback variances. As evidenced by these variance applications, the applicant did not take an opportunity to remedy the difficulties he earlier created. 2. That upon granting of the Variance, the intent and purpose of the ordinance will still be served and the recipient of the Variance will not be granted special privileges not enjoyed by other surrounding property owners: Because of the extremely narrow width of the subject properties, it is not possible to develop these properties and serve the intent of the setbacks in the zoning ordinance. The variances requested encroach as much as 67% (20 foot variance into the 30'setback) into the intended buffer space between homes. 3. That granting the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and within the same zoning district: Material Detriment Due to Increased Development Density The close home spacing that would result from the granting of the requested variances negatively impacts the open space look and semi-rural character of Los Altos Hills. The impacted parties include surrounding neighbors and the pedestrian visitors that use Mora Drive as access to Rancho San Antonio Park. Immediately to the north of 331-15-062 is 10776 Mora Drive with 120 feet(+/-) between the home on this property and the home existing on 10730 Mora Drive(331-15-60). This spacing would drop to 57 feet(+/-) with the requested 20'encroachment, thus negatively impacting those living at the adjacent property. Material Detriment Due to Harm of Mature Trees At the property line with 10776 Mora Drive are at least three mature trees with branches extending 25 feet(+/-)over 331-15-062 as shown Figure 1. Figure 1, Mature Trees with South Overhang of 331-15-062 (View from Mora Drive looking east) �: „ .,-,.,14 ,r.11,4-- ..,...-..e”" V iii :,-,,,°4!:7,1?� �r'4,� a 4. ,,1 . $e, fi" . .. r I - r ` t �k ` ° ' , »1` ts3» ..e.... may «t Viy4 - 5 (r tY .' M�r 41- - ..- ✓•d; ''` . 3`- 1 �. rJ 4.3 w"1 5% ` ,, Hi d ',-?.'44.7 ` •xrs, ^„ �"1. ° "M 1-t. 4 ,,-d �~"- ria., ' ',4 `'f..� ...,, --44. f} 1 yam, ''t•', :{ 7S,g IS '(,i 4 ' '',...v.:". '1 ' Y y� y s Y �� -r ei -A.• - •i'f's. ars j,r�' ',;�, s t cJ "7'11 ,, x> t',-.'" { •I 1 t 4'''"..."":.+.:^'�4 ...y""Vc ^.< r - a,-'W r r"'.',y "+a+o,,Y' 'C 1,Y. f } --7,-.: -.",', .--7-2,"i- .O k t ' . c. 4',-'$'.;,.''.1. ' ✓ spa-.-, -�__,x.'a--,-• •-t ."'� .. With proposed 331-15-062 development 10 feet from the property line with 10776 Mora Drive, these trees will have to be severelytrimmed or removed to allow for the proposed building. Santa Clara County fire safety regulations about tree limb overhang and pine needle removal may require further trimming away from the new building. The 25% maximum canopy reduction recommended for tree trimming(Source: William Elmendorf, assistant professor of community forestry and Henry Gerhold, professor of forest resources, Pennsylvania State University) may be exceeded which could lead to loss of these trees. The negative impact to and possible loss of these trees is a material detriment to the neighborhood. 4. That the Variance will not allow a use or activity which is not expressly authorized by the Zoning Ordinance: [Intentionally blank] Appendix 1, Setbacks on Mora Drive. Measurements made from aerial photograph and overlaid parcel map(see Figure 2). Table 4, Mora Drive Residence Side Setbacks Address on South side North side North+South Mora Drive setback in feet setback in feet Setbacks in (+/-) (+/-) feet(+/-) 10701 21 71 91 10755 47 148 195 10730 59 71 130 10776 47 18 65 10810 12 47 59 10831 12 9 21 10869 35 53 89 10840 30 21 50 10868 18 6 24 10898 18 24 41 10915 18 59 77 10931 35 83 118 Average North+South Setbacks in feet(+/-) 80 Average Setback per Side in feet(+/-) 40 ......-----y IGC T-it5 ..ALJ:- 74.:C• T- - 1 28 . � 5. I 2 1 I= /l I r i 6 3t ^ f AV. TT 17,41 I f s. -f R.O.S. 776/21 f.' 1#. -r •c" J.� ` ate: s ,-:12 ° .�^ �,f 4_yw ! 1.i -1 ��^` r ,1 '''-,f7.7„,n,� X09 aQ 17 Qj•.. \t ' ti:+ 7%l'�47.», rC`�-"S'� L.j o C ,nI c,�...4144' O�, 4 f t1.,�30 ` >li- Arm `41 I ,G6_ .it vr 1 �}S yr,t • „m � ±� .� C f nu+M�Y %bG � (j� ' fi' \ '/• \ n tI - t 1 1,' -LY ,t 4G 4 rlao_, R_�30,14- raro� a_ ,'R,O f' . ' `rt I v . .,; ', 59 :-.,---)P--,.- �`Y - - - s'S/B, "•.�' ----DEO a # ;j i t,'sf• ,,0 ,0 66.0.92- .-, 4 \`\-. .,' . 1 _1 ns �o �, .fib 1 .y' '7 a_r ro f r' zoo . °r P'°� ._ "1,02 tAC ?l 6 2 s 0,i g0 ..- -RAC 8e,, �t lz9 �t 1i- x ., ,, r: 25 t .gf r';\1 ••" _ -^i r'b r ,4 1,,'t}. w ?r: `• es, a '5a4b*I_„ :I'', ✓ .i • fli w' L1 , , IL Y .Z ii r.'i b'y 4?';�; a; 7 htlty.� f '+`f d''112d ,, �0'1. o 1 `' '� ,, -^ o" ' • • s � �7 i ,i i .., 1• Vii ' ,I -•. ?`. 0 \ 56` V!,;6 ' - 4: - 7`-•4 '..' t ' .c .,r'fr , 1 A .....'1," r ;/`. 1 s•`k,., Vi,..-- �'."�''S , r w V '4 -ri'v �3, 'T. . , //, iy la'C .'..."4 `nom,, . ,; ,�,, `•IP y`, 0.79 AC- ,j1 „O�e J�-- - .41 s 9dd 1 e . co wt _ .�' '�. � :_.: e•✓1 ' 111r4+ �3 '', ',l'Zo39 z5 l\. °T., / `. 1 t`" jai.7'4:cT 18 .�,� k 1. ..1� 1�4, 5.3,497'Id calc. -,, .;` 6 S'a) . ' ,•r -I fes, .. r �\,r•,,�k 'K•. u cw z •` ��S ^J ��, tom/ �' . ! C �_ •� 1�,0 o9\e ' "v o r� .,c, 4 f et Calc. 0 •y `hk 072°' Go a) fir" / Y6,.:✓ , 2 .: ` .'moi eP A 4 .—, o 2r, ,� •' t f J 14 o ; 2;;6-09. Inset of 46,47,51 N relocated for visual clarity.OK a_ • 7 -- 0) LL Appendix 2, Summary of CDP Approvals in LAH since 2004. Source: Los Altos Hills Planning Department. Summary of CDP Approvals in LAH since 2004 Address Date Net Lot Type of ASPM Dwelling Developed Area Floor Variance Granted? Approved Size&LUF Project MDA Area incl. Area Sq.ft. garage • Ratio 10435 • July 2004 .766 acres Addition 4,320 3,411 sq.ft 7,376 sq.ft. Variance for 2 parking spaces in Berkshire : A32LUF 6,920 71%ofMF4 :(nonconforming) .102 setback • 114%of ismA . • 13341 August _931 acres New 4,550 4,463sq.ft 6,621 sq.ft. .105 No variance Wildcre;t 2004 .455 LUF residence 6,650 93%of MFA 99%of MDA 25701 March 331 acres .New 3,300 3,267 sq.ft .5,356 sq ft_ Variance for parking in the side Deerfield ' 2005! .33 LUF ltesidencef 5,400 99%of MFA • 99%ofMDA .197 yard setback February Pool 2014 • 13303 August 1_S17 Addition 3,690 3,570 sq.ft. 6,396 sq.ft. Variance for 2 reduced size Widcrest 2005 acre; 5,790 97%of MFA (nonconforming .045 garage spaces and to exceed . .369 LUF 119%of LDA MDA 123S0 . February .491 acres New 4,910 4,360 sq ft. 7,010 sq.ft. Variance for chimney in setback Hilltop 2006 _491 LU? residence 7,010 S9%of MFA . 100%of MDA 304 - • and pool _ 12390 Tune 2096 _493 acres New 4,930 ' 4,973 sq_ft. 7,080 sq.ft. . .229 Variance for 1 parking.space,bay Hilltop .493 LUQ' residence 7.030 100%of LFA 100%of MDA . windows and chimney in setback 24624 March 2007 .432 acres Major 4,250 4,060 sq.tL 7,576 sq_ft. Variance for 2 parking spaces and Summerhill .425 LUF remodel 6,350 95%of MFA (nonconforming) trash enclosure in setback resulting in 119%of MDA .193 new residence • 25S75 June 2007 •.461 acres Major 4,490 4,100 sq.ft 6,399 sq.ft. .204 Variance for 2 reduced size Estacada .449 LU? addition 6,590 91%of MFA 97%of MDA • parking spaces in setback 14555 September .462 acres Addition and 4,550 4,542 sq_ft. 5,582 sq.ft. 326 Variance for 1 parking space in De Bell . 2003 .455 acres remodel 6,650 100%of LFA 34%of MDA setback 13310 November .79 acres Net 3,973 3,950 sq.ft 6,003 sq.ft. .115 No variance East Sunset 2009 4 LUF residence 6.073 99%of MFA 99%of MDA 27361 February .4275 New 4,330 3,450 sq_ft 6,927 sq.ft. No variance Moody 2011 acres residence 6,930 71%of MFA 100%of MDA _135 .4275 LUF Summary of CDP Approvals in LAH since 2004-Page 2 Address Date Net Lot Type of MFA/ Dwelling Developed Area Floor Variance Granted? Approved SizeILUF Project MDA Area inch Area Sq.ft. garage Ratio 13500 June 2011 .4275 Sunroom 4,275 3,462 sq.ft 5,222 sq_ft_ No variance Fremont .acres 6,375 31%of MFA 82%of MDA .136 .4275 LUF 27911 June2014 '1.007 Addition 4,560 4,144sq.ft 9,647sq.ft. No variance Via acres 6,660 91%of MFA (nonconforming) .094 Ventana - .456 LUF 145%of MDA 27299 November 1.239 Addition 4,000 3,399 sq..ft. 6,539 sq.ft. Variance to allow for 20 foot side ' Byrne Park 2014 acres 6,600 97%of MFA 99%of MDA .072 yard setback for addition .40 LUF 14696 November .471 acres Addition 4,530 ' 4,343 sq.ft. 6,469 sq.ft. Variance for up to 12 foot Manuella 2014 .453 LU? 6,630 96%of MFA 97%of MDA .212 encroachment into side yard setback for addition 25603 'Lar 2015. .359 acres Net 3,590 3,000 sq_ft. - 5,230 sq.ft. .192 Variance for open parking in side Deerfield 359 LUF reridence 5,690 34%of MFA 93%of MDA . yard setback 25711 July 2015 _498 acres Addition 4,510 4,464 sq_fi. 6,437 sq.ft. .206 Variance for open parking in the Deerfield .451 LYJF 6,610 99%of MFA 97%of MDA ' front setback 25531 August .273 acres Addition 2,730 2,728 sq.ft. "3,423 sq.ft. 'Variance for building setbacks, • Fremont 2015 .273 LUT 4,830 100%of MFA 71%ofMDA 329 parking in the side yard and obstructed parking ATTACHMENT 6 Esther M. John 10701 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills, CA 94024 650-948-6076 March 5, 2015 RECEIVED To the Los Altos Hills Planning Department' Suzanne Avila, Planning Director Cynthia Richardson, Consulting Planner MAR 0 5 2015 To the Los Altos Hills Planning Commission Susan Mandle, Chair TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Jitze Couperus, Vice Chair James Abraham, Member Richard Partridge, Member Kavita Tankha, Member • Re: Proposed high-density development at 10730 Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills Honored members of the Los Altos Hills Planning Department and Planning Commission: On behalf of concerned neighbors in the Greater Mora neighborhood, I am submitting a neighborhood petition signed by 97 neighbors who oppose the proposed high-density development on three sub-standard lots at 10730 Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills. As some neighbors are currently traveling, I will submit a second batch of signatures as soon as they become available. Sincerely, Esther M. ohn Petition Summary Petitioning the Town of Los Altos Hills to deny non-conforming development on Mora Drive. MAR 0 5 2015 Background sand ` We, the undersigned, oppose the proposed '. 1(1 : r l . S uI 13 Petition development on three substandard lots at 1► ' ' I • - or , ::t r gra '.t Los Altos Hills. We hereby petition the Planning Department g3 n and the Planning Commission of Los Altos Hills to deny the :,,p�fij�a}; F'�- { CDP application byCommercial Developer, Forrest Linebarger, r and his 'Company, Inhabiture. The proposed development does not preserve the Town's rural character and is contrary -� fi to the Town's General Plan and zoning ordinances. Page '.... of,(3..:.,.., Printed Name Signature Address/City Date Count / 0 70/ ° l'q 2/2,0 1 Esi(er h \70k ra ,t_ /gig ra'i`mac L 1 o'7-c�1 Ek-t 0 2.l- `b ai vt� -z/24.,,,As. 2 t'CvS A-4.-rc,s 14r(LS /097 � :7 ., ,)..11 1 a?//-*/:-4- - 3 De.:_b13 Lock.k- \440-( Poslt Art:,/ ti_os /7-64 -5 "iwuj-L."1 sI C:V77 ie. r‘..i. ljIq aw) \I 149 ceiNr‘ 7Shi---fc-ii- 111 \'-. t'. 1\011 (Nrtil f0?d-% /atc. 4yyr)'e_ ' _, ..e...) 4 d e c - CSI 4/4„, c�� 9c(ci t3— '2./Z:V:g 7„),,A ilt.,...[„1 .R....g.-1 -c - ao,,,a,.) t,o 2 aLi r� 0" V pp, ■ 'f.Ii' _4_ � 1..e bill : ,` M 11)erp& a.e� '.?,e, 9 k . I deg/ i r f•eex---' h,s4;7‘25 ,,i_ts i, . .2 dr/ , . - ire 4"IaM.4. a —z . , 4A6. 10 4— 4/i, /'1i,,-. 4 /- PAI---- rG 0/ILE*<dfir' -2. ;, - VtC",-F .6 1 -- 1—_ l06 Ti /710rct Oru -7..,/x" Kar 'i k'cAId // 12 R u-kl- cv"; ''cc,�.1� - 1't --LJ r Iii L \ /0-7-7 0/. r a— 7' .- 13 41 47-z Page 1 Petition Summa Petitioning the Town of Los Altos Hills to deny non-conforming development on Mora Drive. MAR 0 5 2015 Background apdt . We, the undersigned, oppose the proposedt ' Petition development on three substandard lots at 1v°0 � W«S G „ P� Los Altos Hills. We hereby petition the Planning Department ^eey , and the Planning Commission of Los Altos Hills to deny the CDP application by Commercial Developer, Forrest Linebarger, and his Company, Inhabiture. The proposed development does • .• not preserve the Town's rural character and is contrary p , to the Town's General Plan and zoning ordinances. •Page . Printed Name Signature Address/City Date Count rp1e. i,e1 /aaI4 %/,r 14 von c Vfree;e2eci L/ / ?re 'g 7741 1 d-c1(°-- (dt '2-71-9/0, 15 444 9417417 V1110.' •,CL �. C - tea +t Ln-1 r: 5/.2 ( 16 /4-CriV' VH-C-1( ' 44* • (C; 641 Akocrk t,47/e-- ' 1LL���i `CLL=�'��" �' � _•�j 4 �>,�J .�1�'�\^� l • � � ��� ��il n G;my • / , .7. 13-- 19 relGt,Leivyll g - �0'`,� 5' No- n ygiff20 tor , g- Imo M )12,4g 21 24 epi rtTG�tif� •��, ,/ r d�j C 4�,4 t�/� 2 4efi. 22 erg" /0, 24 . '46, V-)7,4,4..Q. kA©&- tyki 1614,_` /izstts° pfrp,k(-1-0T--eriz-7 L (1-9/fro- goo/06 1 6 k 25 f 26 f e /5C 6-. 6ekti . i( ) ; ,,. PO 65 INl+rd Dr. „L,g Page 2 • RECEIVED Petition Summa Petitioning the Town of Los Altos Hills to deny i . .... 4; non-conforming development on Mora Drive. MAR 05 205 Background and..' We, the undersigned, oppose the proposed a ®S HILLS Petition development on three substandard lots at 10730 Mora Drive, 2, t .ri44i t �f Los Altos Hills. We hereby petition the Planning Department q r j " ' and the Planning Commission of Los Altos Hills to deny the .':'' } n,r i ` e"..r s CDP application byCommercial Developer, Forrest Linebarger, �J•''''''':'/-'1:"(-4:44:.::' t r45t�a� P P P 9 '' :' and his Company, Inhabiture. The proposed development does . '' ''' not preserve the Town's rural character and is contrary x =-, ; ' ,° ' to the Town's General Plan and zoning ordinances. `Page 3 of. Printed Name Signature Address/City Date Count 6riLtit fral ' . . 4.,,,, f- , J1t1 ( oil 27 PC.:evid 4-4 (e G' ,�, ;z,/ l06. l e li rfze//5, 28 CiAil a1-'-m►�v+ L — ( 74 � b{ /Qt.r �oa�cp `7 /$- 29 30 e•••._ •(; ,el..vm,,ige,' .€6- e677.-/i4i----- - ' N000 -74-bir ii, SI ..c, NI)P,'-)-Ckridllift .....- ,,,,..- -,mk. 31 '17 1J.-G11\ 1 ', i' Ii f Alio Teif t/14,. 2/6246- 32 . r. /,.//' /' , E (') 33 0 ,414 /®z_ diet`bit k. (Raz . 7,, . .. / --2 /° .�'k6v Ree 3/A3/15- 1 34 r ,._ 35 (I N* 6 I 'Z: '2., r: i,,,,o a 0 ')-Z:S 1L ed$4& R. 2• I) 5 4 ------ /01 tfr--/: / /44 _ /0 7/0 it R,4 , :17-A--;)/(_736 t -7/ -r' ' , T. PAL, . 4 1 _ 1 o't5-t 75)1')Ali/I-es' ..18-1e-tiP ,. /20;e3/ 38 vii4yz...t„ byce.,,.,„ iD4--/....c•,(:,),A,,H, /Lis z‘ z__ ......3.9_ t , . A t ..i. Ai ` _ _ 4. a • ii PI 4 i -4g4 _ 7 / Page 3 Petition Summary Petitioning the Town of Los Altos Hills to deny non-conforming development on Mora Drive. MAR 05.2015 Background �% Y S i - 1 t-A � and ; t . We, the undersigned, oppose the proposed h'(til i AgrYi I ILLS , Petition _. development on three substandard lots at 10 I l 1 1 , '--q,..;:.,,,-.- „'.ffi , Los Altos Hills. We hereby petition the Planning Department �_M74,27- n > `� and the Planning Commission of Los Altos Hills to deny the • ''1g "� ft 4,,',�,�,- CDP application by Commercial Developer, Forrest Linebarger, ” 61. and his Company, Inhabiture. The proposed development does * not preserve the Town's rural character and is contrary wr ,.-}. to the Town's General Plan and zoning ordinances. Pager of f& Printed Name Signature Address/City Date Count (deer E i�04/k _--c----- %o.C' 9 (`1 vik. 1-41--14 3 40 �r The ('ems c,‘^w• I v i m Ntiar,- J'`-`f L' 37 41 PAT N'6.4 a ir_ allWa ni.„...„, ( op,- gerre, 42 ete_i4 ►y��,, 1 0 q'f nitocet(mac-44., f C/ 43 JRrnke17 1\ k -*-- lqA°.(V\Ctit-a�Q��.l 3/ 1 44 �. t� 1 1( 000 1,140(2-A ))12-14€- 3/ 45 RoE4' 141).8.1 2_ �oJre. r � L A-t-E q' 4o2-c- �j S ` 'Ooo rVt.o (L-A pg-t\i 1 ail �bO cc P.ppRtC�ubZ ,i i/ LA-4-4 ��oz `� �a' 46 t., it. �i �� 40 \T LA t-( q 0 % 3/i 47 . ./ !, d 6 Z l7 No L�4 of?... , 48 49 50 51 52 Page 4 REC IVEi • Petition Summary Petitioning the Town of Los Altos Hills to deny non-conforming development on Mora Drive. MAR 05 2015 Background We, the undersigned, oppose the proposed higIQUaltcSALTOSHILLS Pe ition 3 development on three substandard lots at 10730 Mora Drive, n4 Los Altos Hills. We hereby petition the Planning Department , � 4 Commission of the Planning Commissioof Los Altos Hills to deny the CDP application by Commercial Developer Forrest Linebarger, , and his Company, Inhabiture. The proposed development does a not preserve the Town's rural character and is contrary to the Town's General Plan and zoning ordinances. Printed Name Signature Address/City . Date Count & s),,,,,A,,;,0 ,: vv) ce) , Si,\4%1A.701AA,G- ) e)-5 M a 53 1tL jy N Mi Nraw A ✓� �('� /1151 AP') Ok. 3/f/28/5 54 /VM//cy 41//vroom ///,57 ���� �r 3100/5- 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 Page 5 RECEIVED Petition Summary Petitioning the Town of Los Altos Hills to deny non-conforming development on Mora Drive. MAR 05 2015 Background • :.and :><:,.< : :< We, the undersigned, oppose the proposed hiWINIgarALTOS HILLS Petition development on three substandard lots at 10730 Mora Drive, • :ri,.g� :. F , :�, Los Altos Hills. We hereby petition the Planning Department �� ,,, �.a},,t' and the Planning Commission of Los Altos Hills to deny the ,0,-M) 0,:$,. CDP application by Commercial Developer, Forrest Lineberger, e% and his Company, Inhabiture. The proposed development does not preserve the Town's rural character and is contrary to the Town's General Plan and zoning ordinances. page,s2_ of;1+3 Printed Name SignatureAddress&:City Date Count Jesti ViprA # A . r - '1460 24,4 1 o a"-A yr 1/3 16 2 - �o s ta„Po.S 3 T� - tela Alm. L A Jl� /�_" 497"-".0 Jhoit --.0( me ye A/d?fr a £L i,4 3/3/(S— 4 jAdi e. okerrwu) 10696 /fora,�r. 411 -.r3h r 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 . RECEIVED MAR 0 5 2119 Re pion ur iry ' Petitioning the Town of Los Altos Hills to denylia7 non-conforming development on Mora Drive, OWN-OF LOS ALTOS HILLS r� i 17a�i lc6. n��3� b , rohtfvWe, the undersigned, oppose the proposed high-density i PeUtlona; €0-10, development on three substandard lots at 10730 Mora Drive, r�Y ` �• g; l Los Altos Hills. We hereby petition the Planning Department and the Planning Commission of Los Altos Hills to deny the CDP application by Commercial Developer, Forrest Linebarger, and his Company, Inhabiture. The proposed development does A ,:r.inrt, s_1-,1 '` not preserve the Town's rural character and Is contrary qws to the Town's General Plan and zoning ordinances. Page `7 ,:off f t Printed Name Signature Address/City Date Count John Sell ` ` /,/" 11111 Mora Drive,Los Altos 3/2/2015 2 . 3 , 4 5 • 6 7 8 . 9 10 11 12 13 Page•4' 7 ice ` -"4ti @°�}" *. . #, ;Mf°. �i: r n Petitioning the Town of Los Altos Hills to deny RECEIVED - . r non-conforming development on Mora Drive. l�0 a .,i p A A a 2015 ogiti, �r4 ";© We, the undersigned, oppose the proposed high-ae siiy -0.491010 development on three substandard lots at 10730 Mora Drive >�� ¢�" ` ��;"��} Los Altos Hills. We herebypetition the Plan ri Nr kk1 MLI I I� �� S ft$::..t.,1:',,r:qjl,140:c'r;e:.,* and the Planning Commission of Los Altos Hills to deny the La : a,z<a` , � CDP application by Commercial Developer, Forrest Lineberger, and his Company, Inhabiture. The proposed development does } not preserve the Town's rural character and is contrary TM '• to the Town's General Plan and zoningordinances. • Printed Name Signature Address/City Date Count /O?G [/ / e-7ti.ti - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Page k. too 0� , t = 4 Petitioning the Town of Los Altos Hills to deny a ,,a I, �� ,k4_ non-conforming development on Mora Drive. ,t ��g :,� Al MAR 0 b 2015 -4 '. ,0 We, the undersigned, oppose the proposed hig -• sit t- HILL :�� �r�° o = development on three substandard lots at 1073 # ' a .c► ., (' r>:Aso:'. ' r4`'` 4 Los Altos Hills, We hereby petition the Planning Department t°' ti x r.r b sy wt ,� .- r ',,:,0 and the Planning Commission of Los Altos Hills to deny the fix ' � ,� � „t �`ir . ,''' '' 4 CDP application by Commercial Developer, Forrest Linebarger, and his Company, Inhabiture. The proposed development does not preserve the Town's rural character and is contrary ,,. : 4�4".. to the Town's General Plan and zoning ordinances. u © tee . : °„, Printed Name Signature Address/City Date Count 6'Ef. 0$'E,{z.. 10lk4\ Su \-ktt�S iar<_ 3/01 1 hymt<iikrAt. 1040t ,4444/4 ,/ X11/ 2 be-ed?,,�, f'”�a s (bk3/ Plow,- h 6/6- 3 �51'1 M d (?r,--1/4-__..._ icg3i pilbrt 3/s116- 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Page 9 :n::, - Petition Summary Petitioning the Town of Los Altos Hills to deny _: , ,, ,, .. , non-conforming development on Mora Drive. MAR 915 2015 Background £ g aid We, the undersigned, oppose the proposed ®5 ®S HILLS P,etitlonV .n development on three substandard lots at 10730 Mora Drive, n '40 ', Los Altos Hills. We hereby petition the Planning Department eft, ;'0 ,;; tf , i- p` ; and the Planning Commission of Los Altos Hills to deny the ,,��,�-� 1.x CDP application by Commercial Developer, Forrest Linebarger, f.: and his Company, Inhabiture. The proposed development does . , =s not preserve the Town's rural character and is contrary !.` 'v 1} to the Town's General Plan and. zoning ordinances. Page; c�, of f3 Printed Name Signature - Address/City Date Count fe,61A k-L Igkl•l, 10941 TeR9 14/951 03ke/AS 105 ------------/ 2.D5 At 1.'05 w1 5t1rFF" t'9 / Te �P� 1/sP5\I 0312 , 106 • t�Sr(H1'/�rPa Wy�e�e�¢rIL-G- e)vs_uofoFi. .:. eirlR• 01,, 107 5* 6, / GJ'lI .Gc-,., • . ____ I I 6;5---Fra-crisit4 10 K. •-•17)4/1:s- 108 6/nL q ,/ `'\ //4,93 A-/dS7-67Qook 3/4-05- 109 • 110 111 112 113 114 115 • • 116 117 Page 1 RECEIVED Petition Summa Petitioning the Town of Los Altos Hills to deny ry non-conforming development on Mora Drive. MAR 05 2015 Background :and,.' We, the undersigned, oppose the proposed higOALT®SHILLS Petition development on three substandard lots at 10730 Mora Drive, , ,-.gsL Los Altos Hills. We hereby petition the Planning Department r :ie... , > -f and the Planning Commission of Los Altos Hills to deny the ,1. *, CDP application by Commercial Developer, Forrest Linebarger, :':(;.,,,,•,::,;:.-.:..::',:r ` and his Company, Inhabiture. The proposed development does not preserve the Town's rural character and is contrary ' . (3 ,, to the Town's General Plan and zoning ordinances. Page.) of, Printed Name Signature Address/City Date Count A 3p/le �jJc, 4ii, , c ,ol5'�-)kt J` 66 . . r 10-36 1N` Lti 67 \\.P,It �4 kjt. �s I\111551 Ca A L 1 `'� 3 I ``5 vt I V113.'012:11/4 r ,� ' ` , 10:,-35- to c,o. sty �� p j'VItc a t v /)1t, ` 16 Los 411 ervc4 3,,fl, 68 /"116- CO ,'o 'oc rd.( OA // 69 Lill O A 4 Lil uEd c _ A O.S ✓tf oWS c L.4 ?1.Vovt/' `3// ,(s j� 14,--) 1--') A I l--.) CA 9./02.4 3(111s- 70 /-4f /Q6 20 16&d'f45lY"� k 71 Ajk 1�cel ( ilk it �/ s 3 r i1— 3/ �'r fit N O v<'� ' % /0575-efiS i� �e • 72 s ..•.5,, U 10 L 7j2, t05"0°. s��,-(t.Lc- ..Pre- 6/10 fa t S-Ftt G (ID 1 ALr p S .14 c0 :31116- 73 Ilt.t4 - t �0 219-il In i l l5 Jb1- I 74 jV ori S 'iiOG ei -c�a�,c ) Ltskiitstlicts Cleftvl 01115 Ak, / rSA, /vs'7A.,h /...5____ 75 V Z �Sa, � �' Y /� Qv go aa-al16- 76 / L.os Ales/ tfooz loanS-NAnon �., -��, /Pa91� f� 77 78 Page (o I RECEIVED Petition Summary Petitioning the Town of Los Altos Hills to deny i.-;LF„,,?,.;,....-,,,z::,1.,:,::.,.. non-conforming development on Mora Drive. MAR 0 5 2019 Background yc '<,4 g, , 0ii, ,.. f x We, theundersigned, oppose the proposed hi i AIT®5 HILLS r ` Petition " y development ment on three substandard lots at 10 ora rive, . r Los Altos Hills. We hereby petition the Planning Department a`�1� 1` K ,� !. and the Planning Commission of Los Altos Hills to deny the �1�I�FY��S�i•�t `5�4 S .�s�� 5'. >» ,vas; ��7.=', CDP application by Commercial Developer, Forrest Linebarger, ,:., ,; :s...:i:'716'1: his Company, Inhabiture. The proposed development does '''''''.51.i: not preserve.the Town's rural character and is contrary a 3 to the Town's General Plan and zoning ordinances. Page of,.� . Printed Name Signature Address/City Date Count p k1 0 ; r'(,C, f . ,1e/L.) ; ,`7-10-1 /0'/27/ 0. �..c' cf/ct ��� ��//J �s l in • n c. 1� ' U L�C�{,ltily l'vW�'1/Vc,a/A 1 o l� GQ,S (✓ oc o 1 t 3,I + 15 80 t 1 ';tt i 81 -\)NIA 11 to :..(;'1l�v c \ c`' L(14 eff6 Slnti-A.. e. l 1 ,? �,;...� .i ______Lr(,>,-:-z ..._ ,,,,a a e) 1.,,,,L).,(1.,, /r 4 iri 744 82 41 la r:3( ".A e...,/k,),-( ,--<. ,y/ 83 J Ai P---4/4Big17 .5-e/i'd.f k iletlUevi I /1- 84 3 7_ rg4pi iA c4r7t / :, /.� / i ) lam /ytp,� 3//,/,/' fr 85 fA,;r�; Ask;lel tr,J )/ Y)1, 3 ,i`.Ll.ifi c<'& . _. 4,91 o#;; -c t,, toy() LAUAL C-- 86 /3/4(4e-7 .r.,y4 My A- r--7 itiSiei /06 Pa eired,(Ativ 41, .3///ir 87 11 88 crn vn �1►'nP . u(�, e D 6. 1DOn 0_9.6..n.F p�nnq n�3_/_'�5 Y L l-Wive i V ,s, it.ze, /^/ D�J,l�7ir i �i. 1 o .1_,No. D J2.t V e. 3I 1 J /5 89 ' 1 l ,lil V��, ! di / 1 GS G1 t1ii, LCJ Cita U K :� /)- " 71 91 Page 4 12 ECEiV D petition Summa Petitioning the Town of Los Altos Hills to deny ry non-conforming development on Mora Drive. MAR 0 5 2015 k, tri Ba40round I� ALTOS HILLS jr �santl ok We, the undersigned, oppose the proposed hi s`�'Ci $' Petptio�n ' development on three substandard lots at 10730 Mora Drive, ` 4 '' +, Los Altos Hills. We hereby petition the Planning Department .; J x 1 t3 �; ✓j and the Planning Commission of Los Altos Hills to deny the CDP application by Commercial Developer, Forrest Linebarger, ` •f°" and his Company, Inhabiture. The proposed development does not preserve the Town's rural character and is contrary r = to the Town's General Plan and zoning ordinances. s*Page r solf Printed Name Signature Address/City Date Count S '�.. % et i •�►,�,',�� * - � 92 Ask r o D el i Cyt"* • P402- 0, r- I � 4 '77 Ci77 9407-3/2/5 93 y)A 1�o^^ / / ��1�}%J,�.., 1 d(7j'4-/SE (0/� s C;u-)- 4.^j`r 3i 94 44 e.A4 e 9�s1- '� L4// 9 }46�Se x/7/3 4-2-1o12.,E f l0666 ccs La/01/9.22 96 Or2ccio f,71° Mil GTz � J*Mtb_4497 98 99 100 101 102 ! 103 104 Page'" 13 Suzanne Avila ATTACHMENT 7 From: Ray Ho <rychho@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 30,2015 12:53 PM To: Suzanne Avila Cc: Cynthia Richardson; Ms. Susan Mandle;Jitze Couperus; Ms. Kavita Tankha; Mr.James Abraham; Mr. Richard Partridge Subject: The development proposed by Mr. Linebarger at Mora Drive Dear Ms.Suzanne Avila, The proposed homes by Mr. Linebarger,which in aggregate look like a tight subdivision in an otherwise very well balanced neighborhood. We would like to strongly voice our opposition to these plans and request that not be approved. We are counting on our LAH Planning Department and Planning Commission to forcefully reject Mr. Linebarger's variance requests. Sincerely yours, Raymond and Betty Ho 10690 Mora Drive, Los Altos, CA 94024 1 Cynthia Richardson From: Hal Feeney <hal@feeney.us.com> Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2015 9:12 PM To: Cynthia Richardson Subject: Mora Drive Development Proposal Opposition March 29, 2015 Ms. Cynthia Richardson Consulting Planner Town Hall Office 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 RE: Mora Drive Proposed Project by Forrest Linebarger Dear Ms. Richardson: We are opposed to the project currently proposed by Forrest Linebarger to be located at 10730 Mora Drive. The proposed development of three substandard lots does not preserve the Town's rural character and is contrary to the Town's General Plan and zoning ordinances. We have been property owners and residents of Mora Drive for almost 40 years. Although we are not residents of Los Altos Hills, we are two homes away from the LAH boundary and are in the Sphere of Influence of LAH. In 2012, the Planning Department, as part of an outreach program, invited the Mora Drive neighborhood residents to a meeting to discuss the benefits of annexing and becoming part of Los Altos Hills. Subsequently, the southern portion of Mora Drive was annexed to LAH. We respectfully urge Los Altos Hills to demand changes to the Linebarger development proposal such that it conforms to the Town's General Plan and zoning ordinances. We urge Los Altos Hills to demonstrate to all homeowners in the Sphere of Influence of LAH that there is value in becoming part of the LAH community. Sincerely, Harold V. Feeney & Mary Jo Feeney 1 Hal & Jo Feeney 11030 Mora Dr. Los Altos, CA 94024 650-941-6085 Home 650-391-7207 Mobile hal(c�feeney.us.com mj@feeney.us.com 2 Suzanne Avila From: Chuck Bratton <cwbratton@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2015 6:23 PM To: Courtenay Corrigan;John Harpootlian; Rich Larsen;jradford2011@yahoo.com; Gary C. Waldeck; Suzanne Avila; Cynthia Richardson;Susan Mandel;Jitze Couperus;James Abraham; Richard partridge; Kavita Tankha Cc: Ester John; marjgreen@mindspring.com Subject: Property at 10730 Mora Drive In keeping with the rural and beautiful character the 1-acre minimum is meant to provide for the hills we find it very disconcerting that 3-separate homes could be built on 1.6-acres. Charles &Takako Bratton 10795 W. Loyola Dr. Los Altos Hills This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com 1 Lorraine and Vincent R. Baxter 10970 Mora Drive Loyola, CA 94024 March 10, 2015M �' MAR .122015 Ms. Suzanne Avila, Planning Director Town Hall Office ®�����105 ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 RE: 10730 Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills Dear Ms. Avila, We would like to express our opposition to the proposed development of 10730 Mora Drive in Los Altos Hills as submitted. Because of the limited space available, the plan for three homes is not in keeping with the general norms of the neighborhood, and we feel, if approved, this development would create a dangerous precedent that other developers could use in arguing for similar developments throughout Los Altos Hills. We join our neighbors in strongly urging you to reject the application for development of 10730 Mora Drive in its present form. Sincerely, VINCENT R. BAXTER / Or 7 LORRAINE A. BAXTER Suzanne Avila From: Clydene Bultman <clydeneb@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 9:22 PM To: Courtenay Corrigan;John Harpootlian; Rich Larsen; Suzanne Avila;jradford2011 @yahoo.com; Gary C.Waldeck;jitze@couperus.org; kavitat@comcast.net; richard.partridge@comcast.net;jsmandle@hotmail.com;jima.pc@gmail.com; Cynthia Richardson Cc: Esther John Subject: Concerns over 10730 Mora Drive Proposal Dear LAH Planning Committee and Town Council, I am writing to you to express my deep concern for the proposed projects at 10730 Mora Drive. Firstly, I would like to thank you for your leadership in preserving this very special area. My family feels quite fortunate each and every day to have the privilege to enjoy living in such a unique environment. We purchased our property,10274 Kenbar Rd, in the mid-90s and scrapped together every penny to live in this specific area. San Antonio Hills provided us with an environment much like our humble beginnings. Our children have been able to experience a rural setting; complete with chickens, dogs, cats, coyotes, kite hawks and the plethora of wild animals and, of course, our dear neighbors. Secondly, I urge you to deny the 10730 Mora Drive proposal and ask Mr. Linebarger to reapply conforming to the LAH ordinances. If a consensus to deny the proposal cannot be reached at this time, then please consider the proposal by Mr. Klein for a moratorium on the development of substandard lots until the Town can update, strengthen, and complete its subdivision/merger ordinance so that it conforms to State law as well as the General Plan of Los Altos Hills. The ordinances are critical as LAH continues to annex County properties into LAH community. The push to over-develop only accelerates as property values increase and the underlying ordinances are weakened-please remain true and firm to the LAH ordinances. The aforementioned proposal, if approved, will be a precedent-setting event and will have a lightning-rod, negative impact on the neighborhood. How will you stop further lot size deterioration within LAH if you approve this sub-standard proposal? How many current non-conforming lots could potentially be re-evaluated and proposed based upon approval of this project? Does the strong outcry from the surrounding neighborhood not give you pause as to the controversy this will ignite? We all understand that the high real estate prices are a key driver for under-sized lot development but when is enough, enough? Please do not sell-out our LAH neighborhood under your leadership tenure. It is clear from the large number of opposing letters and petitions that this decision will not only impact the beauty and rural character of the area but, equally important, this proposal strikes at the heart of what this neighborhood has been for many years. It will bring a contentious environment into the neighborhood that will have a lasting impact both at a personal level as well as a legal level. Please, leaders of our community, take into account both the non-conforming ordinance issues and the overall health of the community as you make this extremely important decision. Below are several points I'd like to emphasis in my request for denial or at the very least, a moratorium due to a con-conforming project: i Sphere of influence: What does this mean? In the recent annexation, I believe that the LAH planning department mentioned that all projects within the County areas were under the LAH- Sphere of Influence. Building permits would be viewed with the LAH ordinances in mind as it was just a matter of time before all properties would be annexed. What does this mean relative to this project, clearly there is a disconnect between the County and LAH. Since, the property clearly resides within the recently annexed area, the LAH ordinance should take precedent. Just because the 1.6 acre property has been questionably returned to it's original but non-conforming 3 lot sizes does by the County, it does not mean that LAH should allow non-conforming projects to be built-out in sub-standard way. It is hard to admit a mistake at times,but clearly the 3-lot size was not approved under the"Sphere of Influence". Let's not perpetuate this mistake. Lot sizes: 10730 Mora Drive was purchased as a single 1.6 acre lot. As an entire unit it conforms to the density requirements for LAH. While the County approved separating this property back out to 3 lots, it does not mean that these lots can be built upon within the LAH requirements. If approved, does this mean that every existing substandard lot within LAH can be built on and that a variance request will be allowed? Do we have enough septic systems/community services to support this high-density development? It is clear that Mr. Linebarger is laser-focused on optimizing the revenue potential of this 1.6 single parcel by aggressively pushing the "ordinance envelope." Again, this unprecedented development proposal is not a sustainable model and will have negative repercussions for all of LAH. Variance Requests- a variance request should not be allowed for a project that is 100% creating the need for the variance. There are many ways to develop this 1.6 acre lot and the community should not be asked to live with additional requests to optimize a sub-standard proposal. The property has more than enough space to build without asking for more"special"treatment. Again, if the proposed project design cannot support the look, feel and space requirements of the LAH ordinance then Mr. Linebarger should be asked to reconvene and build something more appropriate and within the ordinances. Why would LAH give additional special treatment to an already substandard project. Is there any respect for the LAH leadership and LAH property ordinances? Lastly, I will close by again asking the Committee to deny the current 10740 Mora Drive project or at the very least support the moratorium. I, again, thank you for your leadership and all the hard work and foresight of the LAH team. My family and I benefit greatly from your stewardship and we feel privileged and fortunate to live in this community. Best Clydene R. Bultman Steward of Land and Life 2 Suzanne Avila From: Gregory Fretz <thumper@skysport.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 9:59 AM To: Suzanne Avila Subject: Fw:to LAN from Fretz re Lineberger Mora Drive development Dear Suzanne Avila Regarding Mr Linebarger's proposed development at 10730 Mora Drive, I urge you to support the most important characteristic of the Town of Los Altos Hills and that is the one acre minimum.This is a significant issue and gives the Town and its neighborhoods a unique and special character. Mr. Linebarger also asks for variance on the set back rules. It is true that there are many older homes that do not conform to present rules but new building must conform to rules that exist today. Thirdly, Mr. Linebarger ask for sewer hook up for three homes. The group that put forth the annexation of this part of Mora drive expressly states in their agreement that there is to be only one sewer hook up per existing or replacement residence.This was a condition of annexation and cannot be overlooked. His permit should be denied on this point alone because without proper sanitation he cannot build. Fourth, This permit issue only comes up because it is of Mr. Linebarger's own making when he split his lot of his own accord. His requests should be denied. There is a dangerous precedent to be set here if the rules are overturned. I would venture to say that every lot in Los Altos Hills sooner or later could be subject to this sort of development request; it is time for the Town of Los Altos Hills to take a stand. I respectfully ask that the Town of Los Altos Hills defend its principles as the building plans submitted by Mr, Linebarger stand in stark contrast to the quality objectives set by the town and desired by most of us who live here. Sincerely yours, Gregory&Anne Fretz 10275 Kenbar Road. P.S. Even though where we reside at the end of Kenbar Road is still in the County, we are in the "sphere of influence of Los Altos Hills"and we will eventually be annexed to the Town.We all aim to preserve the value of our homes and we join with the others in this matter. 1 Suzanne Avila From: Irina Stegner <Irina@stegnerdevelopment.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 12:34 PM To: Suzanne Avila Subject: Mora Drive This is to confirm that both Chuck& I are voting no to the proposal of 3 houses! We have a code on this....1 acre! Thanks, Irina &Chuck Stegner 10580 Chardonnay Lane Los Altos Hills, Calif. 1 Suzanne Avila From: bodine-cne@sbcglobal.net Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 11:54 PM To: Suzanne Avila; Cynthia Richardson;jsmandle@hotmail.com;jitze@couperus.org; jima.pc@gmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; kavitat@comcast.net; Courtenay Corrigan;John Harpootlian; Rich Larsen;jradford2011@yahoo.com; Gary C.Waldeck Subject: PROTEST TO THE UNEBARGER DEVELOPMENT ON MORA DRIVE, Los Altos Hills Attention: Ms. Suzanne Avila, Planning Director Ms. Cynthia Richardson, Consulting Planner Mr. Susan Mandle, Chair of the Planning Commission Mr. Jitze Couperus, Vice Chair of the Planning Commission Mr. James Abraham, Member of the Planning Commission Mr. Richard Partridge, Member of the Planning Commission Ms. Kavita Tankha, Member of the Planning Commission Copy to: Ms. Courtenay C. Corrigan, Mayor Mr. John Harpootlian Mr. Rich Larsen Mr. John Radford Mr. Gary Waldeck Dear Members of the Los Altos Hills Planning Department and Planning Commission: My wife and I have been Mora Drive residents for over 50 years. We chose to build in this area because of the beauty and consistency of the neighborhood with regard to lot sizes and the rural atmosphere. We are now very concerned about a request by Mr. Forest Linebarger to build 3 houses (where 1 exists now) on 1 standard lot and on 2 adjacent sub- standard lots. SUB-STANDARD LOT SIZES Mr. Linebarger purchased this property from the estate of Judge and Mrs. Malovos, the original purchasers. This property was NEVER intended to have 3 houses built on 3 lots. The history: All of the properties on Mora Drive were originally formed in 1932 as a subdivision identified as "Tract No. 10, Map of Jo Mora Ranch, Santa Clara County, California." All properties in this subdivision range in size from 0.8 acre to 1.7 acre. 1 In 1940, the original Malovos property (identified as Lot #2 of the original subdivision) was purchased. Lot #2 contained 0.83 acre. This property was bordered to the south by Lot #1 of the original subdivision and to the north by Lot #3. Over the years, a number of area property owners enlarged their holdings. This resulted in larger lots but not necessarily in pieces big enough for another house according to restrictions on the property by the CCR's and zoning rules. The original Malovos property has had 2 additions over the years, one on the south, and another on the north. In 1941, Lot #3, (125 feet wide) was split into 2 unbuildable pieces, each 62.5 feet wide with the northern neighbor (Lot #4). Malovos purchased 1 piece of this lot split, thereby enlarging his property on the north side by -0.37 acres. In 1948, Lot #1 was split into 2 unbuildable pieces, with the most southern piece being used as a private drive to access adjacent properties behind and to the east of the Malovos property. After this split, Malovos purchased the remaining piece of Lot 1, thereby enlarging his property on the south side by -0.4 acres. From 1948 until sold to Mr. Linebarger in 2006, Malovos owned 1 buildable lot, and 2 smaller unbuildable lots (totaling -1.6 acres). The smaller unbuildable lots never conformed to the CCR's for the area and the county zoning. Mr. Linebarger had access to all lot size information, CCR's, and county zoning rules at the time of his purchase. Mr. Linebarger should never be given approval to build 3 homes on this property. If approval is granted, it would require special treatment be given to Mr. Linebarger that would allow him to build without following the same rules others have had to follow for 75 years. SETBACK DISTANCES In 2012, Mr. Linebarger presented a proposal for building on the sub-standard lots which would require reducing the sid yard setbacks from 30 feet to 10 feet. If granted, this reduction in side yard setback is a direct affront to the privacy of the northern neighbor. This neighbor, who has abided by all rules of the neighborhood for over 60 years would then be penalized for no reason other than to satisfy Mr. Linebarger's desire to build additional houses no matter what it does to the neighbors and the neighborhood. This neighbor owns the other half of Lot 3. Mr. Linebarger had access to these setback requirements at the time of purchase. SEWER CONNECTION In 1999 a neighborhood sewer line was approved for Mora Drive by LAFCO which allowed 1 connection for each of the 28 developed residential properties that participated in the project. Mrs. Malavos participated in this project and was approved for 1 connection to the sewer line for her property. Mr. Linebarger had access to this sewer information at the time of his purchase. 2 Now Mr. Linebarger asks that LAH grant him 3 sewer connections for this property with it's sub-standard lots. This constitutes a request for special treatment. CONCLUSION We depend on our local government to set fair, reasonable, and consistent rules for land use and building requirements. This neighborhood has followed the rules and building requirements of local government for over 70 years. Since annexation, this neighborhood now depends on LAH to set fair, reasonable, and consistent rules for land use and building requirements. Granting Mr. Linebarger's blatant request for 3 houses on this property would require that LAH change the rules that others in the neighborhood have had to follow. Agreeing to Mr. Linebarger"s request would establish a precedent for new development throughout LAH. We ask that Mr. Linebarger's request to build 3 houses on his property be denied. Sincerely, Charles M. Bodine Eloise G. Bodine 11055 Mora Drive 3 Suzanne Avila From: Mary Vantamelen <vantamelen@aol.com> Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 10:45 PM To: Suzanne Avila Subject: Mora Drive To: Planning Staff and Planning Commissioners From: Mary van Tamelen Date: March 9,2015 Having worked for 13 years on the Planning Commission and Council,trying to maintain the integrity and beauty of our town, I am distressed indeed to hear about the planned development of 1.6 acres of Mora Drive into three lots. Our town was founded upon the principle of one-acre lots,and it would be a shame to allow more density in certain areas. i know there are a a few anomalies in town, but this new addition to the town should certainly adhere to the basic rules. If by mischance or some legal finagling some small parcel is allowed to be a building site, it would be very important to limit the size of the building proportionately; a lot one third normal size should be allowed only one third of the size of a normal-sized house. It's the proportion of building to lot size that maintains the character of our town as outlined in the General Plan. It's far better to insist upon our town-wide standards at this point. Thank you for your consideration. Mary van Tamelen 1 Suzanne Avila From: hooperpete@gmail.com on behalf of Pete Hooper <pete@hooperconstructionco.com> Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 7:40 PM To: Suzanne Avila;Cynthia Richardson;jsmandle@hotmail.com;jitze@couperus.org; jima.pc@gmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; kavitat@comcast.net;Courtenay Corrigan;John Harpootlian; Rich Larsen;jradford2011@yahoo.com; Gary C.Waldeck Subject: Proposed development at 10730 Mora Drive Madame Mayor, City Council Persons, Planning Commission and Planing Department of Los Altos Hills: We are writing this email regarding the proposed for-profit, high-density development at 10730 Mora Drive as concerned citizens and incredulous neighbors. (We live at 10401 Sunhills Dr,just around the corner from the subject property.) I won't repeat all of the details here but in summary: the owner of the subject parcel, contrary to Santa Clara County's stated policy,managed to split the parcel into three sub-standard, non-conforming lots and now wants to erect speculative houses on each of the three lots in direct opposition to the area CC&Rs, zoning requirements and neighborhood consensus. We are concerned about the negative impacts which will effect the neighborhood and we are incredulous that any thinking person without a financial interest in the development could think the development is a good idea. Here are the specifics: 1) If the subject for-profit development is allowed to proceed, it will produce a negative financial impact on the neighborhood. The local CC&Rs explicitly state that all lots in the subject area must be a minimum of 1 acre. In addition, it is my understanding that the zoning of the subject area also requires lot sizes to be a minimum of 1 acre. We, along with everyone else in the area,purchased our property at a time when all lots in the area conformed to these requirements and everyone's purchase prices reflected that. If the subject development is allowed to proceed, the value of all the other property in the area likely will be adversely effected. It is our very strong position that a developer should not be allowed to profit at the direct expense of the area's other property owners. 2) If the subject for-profit development is allowed to proceed, it will produce a negative aesthetic impact on the neighborhood. Our neighborhood is quiet and leafy: houses are spaced sufficiently apart to allow many varieties of trees to flourish and to maximize the privacy of the residents. These benefits are some of the primary reasons we chose to purchase our property and we have heard this sentiment echoed by many of our neighbors. If the subject development is allowed to proceed, the amount of space for trees will be reduced and the space between houses will be reduced significantly, directly and adversely influencing the aesthetic value of our neighborhood. 3) If the subject development is allowed to proceed, it will indicate to us that the Town values the profits of a developer over the property values of its residents. The developer, Mr. Linebarger, has stated in at least 2 public forums that he believes he should be able to profit from the development of the three sub-standard parcels. My impression based on Mr. Linebarger's public statements, is that he has made an investment and he now believes he is owed a return on that investment. (In one statement at a Town Council meeting, Mr. Linebarger threatened to sue the Town over his "lost" profits should his development plans be thwarted.) This is wishful thinking at best as I am unaware of any investment where the investor is guaranteed a return. In this case, any return on Mr. Linebarger's investment would come at the expense of the other neighborhood property owners. 4) If the subject development is allowed to proceed, it would put the Town's stamp of approval on a lot subdivision which appears to have been accomplished under shady or fishy circumstances. We do not know what process the developer used to split his parcel into three sub-standard lots but the whole idea does not pass a simple "sniff' test. We, as property owners of 10401 Sunhills Dr(which at the time was in unincorporated SC 1 County) applied in 2003 for a building permit to remodel our home. As a condition of obtaining our permit, we were required to eliminate all the underlying lot lines on our property by filing an official survey with the County. Because filing a survey is an expensive and time consuming undertaking, we tried and ultimately failed to get the County to waive this requirement. We were told that it was the County's policy to remove all the "ancient" underlying lot lines from all the properties in our neighborhood. How the developer managed to circumvent this policy is a mystery to us. It was stated in a Town Council meeting regarding the subject property that the Town of LAH had reviewed the process used to create the substandard lots and the town had determined that it had been done "legally". Because of our own experience with the County and underlying lot lines, we find this very hard to believe and wonder what it is that made the transaction "legal"? Was a loophole exploited by aggressive and/or intimidating lawyers? Was a mistake made which resulted in the subdivision being approved when it should not have been? The subdivision of the subject parcel does not correlate with our direct experience with the County and therefore seems fishy. In addition, the logic behind allowing the subdivision of a piece of property using ancient underlying lot lines is also a mystery to us. The underlying lot lines in our neighborhood were originally created when the Moraquita Rancho was subdivided into lots many years ago (early 1900's?). The subdivision was then subsequently redefined into it's present configuration(mid 1900's?)but apparently someone never officially removed the old lot lines. In researching this with respect to our own underlying lot lines, our impression is that the ancient lot lines remain as the result of a bureaucratic blunder. What has happened with the subject property is that the County allowed the developer to subdivide the property based on a combination of modern property lines and old property lines. Because the old property lines defined properties which extended well beyond the modern property boundaries, it is illogical to allow property to be defined by selectively choosing various property lines in order to suit one specific user. The lines used to define a particular piece of property should be either all new, or all old. If an owner wants to use the old property lines, then they should have to use the entirety of the old property lines. This, of course, would be nearly impossible,but that's the whole idea. 5) If the subject for-profit development is allowed to proceed, it will set a disturbing precedent for future development in our neighborhood. In 2003 when we filed our survey to remove the underlying lot lines, we discovered an underlying lot line on a neighboring property which, if subdivided like the subject property has been,would result in a parcel of less than 3000 square feet. If the subject development is allowed to proceed, what would keep a future developer from coming in, subdividing the neighboring property and then using the subject development as precedent to build a house on 3000 sf of land? 6) If the proposed for-profit development is allowed to proceed, the sewer system which serves our neighborhood will become oversubscribed. This sewer system was designed to accommodate only the property parcels that were in existence when the sewer was designed. This means that the sewer was designed only to accommodate a single home at 10730 Mora Dr. It is my understanding that there is no room for a septic system on 2 of the proposed properties at 10730 Mora Dr and there is some question whether or not there is enough room on the third proposed property. (The soils in our neighborhood have high clay content and as a result have very poor percolation properties. This means that leach fields must be very large in order to accommodate modern design parameters. In most cases, new leach fields would themselves be larger than the two smaller sub-standard lots at 10730 Mora Dr.) This means that the subject development would require a minimum of 2 and possibly as many as 3 sewer connections to a system which was designed to accommodate only one. It is our strong position that no development which overtaxes the sewer system should be allowed unless mitigating measures are put in place by the developer. As a result of all of the above points, it is our strong position that the proposed development not be allowed to proceed. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Pete & Suzanne Hooper 10401 Sunhills Drive 2 Suzanne Avila From: Ursula van Kempen <ursulavankempen@yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2015 2:16 PM To: Suzanne Avila Subject: Property development Hello Ms.Savila, My name is Ursula van Kempen and I been living on Eloise Circle since 1962.A lot has changed since my moving here, not everything for the best. Los Altos and the Hills, Rancho San Antonio are my favorite spots and every day I am grateful for the beauty that surrounds me. I am not for a dense development let the hills stay beautiful. Thank you Ursula van Kempen 10685 Eloise Circle 1 Suzanne Avila From: RUTH G WINCHELL <rgwinchell@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2015 1:29 PM To: Suzanne Avila; Cynthia Richardson;jsmandle@hotmail.com;jitze@couperus.org; jima.pc@gmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; kavitat@comcast.net Cc: Courtenay Corrigan;john.harpootian@gmail.com; Rich Larsen;jradford2011 @yahoo.com Subject: Forrest Linebarger We moved to California in 1964 and bought the property at 10776 Mora Drive. It was chosen because of the environment and the space between houses away from the density of other areas. Three children were raised here and still return. Thank you for trying to maintain the character of Los Altos Hills. I know it is not easy. There has been so much turmoil in the last nine years brought on by this man. Please do not change the character of the neighborhood in spite of a developer who will not live here but enjoy his profits elsewhere. Thank you, Ruth Winchell 1 Suzanne Avila From: Robert Yuen <bobyuenjr@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 7:29 PM To: Suzanne Avila Commercial developer, Mr. Forrest Linebarger has built 7 homes in Los Altos on small sub-standard lots on Par Avenue and Putter Way. Now he is attempting to build 3 homes on a 1.6 acres property on Mora Drive in LAH. Each home will be on a sub-standard lot of 0.37, 0.85, 0.40 acres, respectively. Cynthia Richardson in the LAH Planning Department relates that he has NOT sent in RE-VISIONS as of last THURSDAY,FEBRUARY 26, 2015. To comply with LAH CODE, Mr. Linebarger must observe the 1 ACRE PER HOME rule like everyone else. I would sincerely appreciate your help in solving this existing problem. Respectfully submitted, Robert Yuen 1 Suzanne Avila From: E Williston <cronele@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2015 8:20 AM To: Suzanne Avila;Cynthia Richardson;Susan Mandle;Jitze Couperus;James Abraham; Richard Partridge; Kavita Tankha Subject: Linebarger property proposal Members of the Planning Commission, I doubt any resident of Los Altos Hills is in favor of this blatant attempt to skirt around the 1-acre zoning of the Town for this development which will have a serious and lasting negative affect on the neighbors living at the end of Mora Drive as well as other neighbors in the area. Serious setback variances are proposed for this project. This is brought about not by hardship on the part of Mr. Llnebarger,but simply reflects a hard headed developer absolutely bent on getting his own way, no matter what the adverse affects to the neighborhood or what the high soft costs may be. Please deny any proposed variances for these properties. This developer can get his money out of his property with the building of one high-end estate on the 1.6 acres, probably more than the development of 3 substandard lots,when one considers all the incurring soft costs and time spent. Even a 2-lot split might be considered as a compromise, although certainly not preferred as it still is a violation of the R lE LAH zoning. Regards, Weegie Caughlan West Loyola Dr. 1 Suzanne Avila From: David Kehlet <dkehlet@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2015 6:13 PM To: Suzanne Avila;Cynthia Richardson;jitze@couperus.org;jima.pc@gmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; kavitat@comcast.net;jsmandle@hotmail.com Subject: Support for setback requirements and density limit on Mora Drive 10691 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills, CA 94024 March 7, 2015 Dear Members of the Los Altos Hills Planning Department and Planning Commission: To preserve our town's rural character we need to maintain our minimum lot size and setback requirements for building. Mr. Forrest Linebarger's proposed development on Mora Drive must observe the setbacks required by the Town of Los Altos Hills. Mr. Linebarger argues that because some nearby homes have non-conforming setbacks, he should not be required to observe today's rules. Yet his neighbors' homes, including ours, from the 1940s and 1950s were built to standards that existed at that time. Mr. Linebarger should simply build in compliance with rules that exist today. If we do not hold builders to our modern setback standards, we have no chance at ever improving. Mr. Linebarger subdivided his parcel, and by his own actions created unbuildable lots that are undeserving of setback relief. He could enjoy the privileges of developing his property if he simply observed the required setbacks. On Mora Drive there are several parcels with substandard underlying lots, including our own. Mr. Linebarger's intended development would open up our street and many others in Los Altos Hills to high density development. We incorporated into Los Altos Hills in 2012 for the purpose of enjoying the benefits and protection of the Town of Los Altos Hills, along with sharing the responsibilities of town citizenship. Ninety-nine percent of the time, being a good neighbor is enough to live in peace with the other members of our town. The remaining one percent of the time needs the support of local government. We urge you to reject Mr. Linebarger's requests for variances. Sincerely, David C. Kehlet Karen S. Kehlet 1 Suzanne Avila From: Karen Bailey <karendbailey@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2015 1:07 PM To: Courtenay Corrigan;John Harpootlian; Rich Larsen;jradford2011@yahoo.com; Suzanne Avila; Cynthia Richardson;jsmandle@hotmail.com;jitze@couperus.org; jima.pc@gmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; kavitat@comcast.net Cc: Tracie Southerland; Esther.John@cpic.org Subject: Proposed high density construction on Mora Drive Dear Town Council and Planning Committee, As relatively new residents of LAH,We are concerned about the proposed construction in our Rancho San Antonio OSP area. A key factor in our decision to move to LAH from Los Altos was the beautiful, uncrowded, rural atmosphere.The one- acre minimum lot size makes this possible. Our understanding of Mr. Linebarger's development proposal is that it violates the town's zoning laws for lot size and setbacks.Approval of his plan will establish a precedent that will potentially destroy the beauty and unique character of our town. My family, neighbors, and I request that you do not approve this, or any proposals that threaten to 'suburbanize' our bucolic neighborhood. Mr. Linebarger's plan is simply not in the best interest of the homeowners of LAH. Respectfully, Karen Bailey and Tracie Southerland 23480 Ravensbury Ave. LAH, CA 94024 Karen D. Bailey 650-224-9697 1 Suzanne Avila From: Aart de Geus <Aart.deGeus@synopsys.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 11:59 AM To: Suzanne Avila; Cynthia Richardson;jsmandle@hotmail.com;jitze@couperus.org; jima.pc@gmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; kavitat@comcast.net Subject: Letter to LAH Planning Department and Planning Commission To the attention of: Ms. Susanne Avila, Planning Director Ms. Cynthia Richardson,Consulting Planner Ms.Susan Mandle, Chair of Planning Commission Mr.Jitze Couperus,Vice Chair of Planning Commission Mr.James Abraham, Member of Planning Commission Mr. Richard Partridge, Member of Planning Commission Ms. Kavita Tankha, Member of Planning Commission Dear Members of the LAH Planning Department and Planning Commission, My name is Aart de Geus; I have lived at 10701 Mora Drive in Los Altos Hills since 1993,and have been an active proponent and supporter of the Annexation of the upper part of Mora Drive into Los Altos Hills in 2012. The reason for this message is to communicate my strong opposition to proposed construction directly across from our home by Mr. Forrest Linebarger. The reasons for my opposition are straight forward and obvious: - Mr. Linebarger is proposing to build three houses on one parcel that he has subdivided into three significantly substandard lots of.40 acres, .85 acres, and .37 acres, respectively. These are lot sizes that are not only well under the "one acre minimum lot size" prescribed by the LAH General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, but two of these lots are by far the smallest lots in the entire neighborhood, period. (The average lot size in the annexed Mora neighborhood is 1.08 acres). In other words,the proposed building density is anathema to both the character and the actual density of our neighborhood and of Los Altos Hills. - Further evidence of the unacceptable density being proposed are the extreme variances on the side-setbacks requested by Mr. Linebarger on two of his proposed constructions. The external (facing land of neighbors)side set-backs for these lots are planned to be 10'versus the building code mandated 30'! The internal (facing his own middle property) side set-backs for these lots are to be 20'versus the building code mandated 30'. It is useful to remember the reason variances are sometimes part of reasonable negotiations with the Planning Commission and neighbors: o "A variance is an exemption to a law or standard granted to resolve a difficulty or inequity(not of the applicant's own making)which may result from exceptional circumstances of a property." (LAH Municipal Code) o Mr. Linebarger's extreme variance needs are entirely self-inflicted as he is converting one parcel with one house into thee substandard lot slices to be maximally overbuilt with three houses. Such extremes violate both the spirit and the letter of the building code and should be rejected out of hand. - Further evidence of the density overreach of Mr. Linebarger's plans becomes visible through the sanitation planning: More than a decade ago (prior to annexation),the neighborhood took it upon itself to finance and 1 construct a sewer system. A large number of neighbors participated and a examplary economic contract was set up to allow people to either connect to the sewer immediately, or connect at a later date best suited for their individual needs. For example,this contract, "the sewer contract" foresaw that parcels may connect over the years as their septic systems fall in disrepair. The Malavos property,one parcel with one house,at that time acquired rights for one (1)sewer access. The sewer connection count was a direct reflection of the neighborhood density, and the sewer contract spells this out quite precisely. Subsequently, Mr. Linebarger acquired the Malavos property in 2006 and immediately proceeded to split it in three lots for the purpose of building three houses. The overall 1.6 acres property has rights to only one sewer connection,though, and thus is not suited for the building of three homes. - The submission of Mr. Linebarger's plans is not a new event as he proposed building essentially the same three houses in 2013. At that time the Planning Department,which was sensitized to the high level of concern in the neighborhood,suggested that Mr. Linebarger meet with the neighbors to hear their concerns and potentially consider alternative approaches that would meet both his and the neighbors' needs. Meeting space was made available in the LAH Town Hall and on August 6th, 2013, Mr. Linebarger met with about 25 close neighbors. Having personally attended this meeting, I can attest that the communication with Mr. Linebarger was both very direct and completely unanimous: his proposed plans to build three houses were completely unacceptable to all the direct and further-away neighbors as their execution would grossly change the character and density of the neighborhood. The meeting was a charade! While Mr. Linebarger kept trying to move the discussion to the "look and feel" of the homes, he categorically refused to engage in any form of dialogue on the central issue of density violation. Even suggestions to consider alternative high value building options were rejected out of hand and clearly he considered the "meeting with the neighbors" a checkmark item he needed to pass in the permitting process rather than a constructive problem solving engagement. The bottom line is simple: I am opposed to granting permits to build three houses on lots that are in every dimension severely substandard to the density of both the neighborhood and the Town of Los Altos Hills. When going through the process of annexation,we were impressed by the strong commitment of the town leadership to defend the very characteristics that have made LAH unique. If this kind of building is approved,the floodgates will open to aggressive substandard lot building all over Los Altos Hills. Thus for our particular neighborhood AND for the entire Town of Los Altos Hills, I urge you to put a stop to the building proposals discussed above.Thank You for caring for our Town! Kind Regards, Aart de Geus 10701 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills, 94024 2 Suzanne Avila From: Marj Green <marjgreen@mindspring.com> Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 5:02 PM To: Suzanne Avila;Jitze Couperus; Kavita Tankha;Jim Abraham; Susan Mandle; Richard Partridge;Cynthia Richardson Cc: Courtenay Corrigan;Ann Duwe; Rich Larsen;John Radford; Gary C.Waldeck;John Harpootlian Subject: Proposed high density construction on Mora Drive To the Planning Commission and Planning Department: We strongly oppose the proposal by Mr. Forrest Linebarger to build 3 large homes on 3 small non-conforming lots on what was once a single parcel at 10730 Mora Dr. The only purpose in dividing the single parcel into 3 non-conforming lots was to maximize the profit that Mr. Linebarger, a developer, would gain from the single property he bought, regardless of the effect on the surrounding neighborhood and neighbors. The buildings proposed require multiple exemptions and variances to the building and sanitary codes of Los Altos Hills in order to densely pack the 3 houses into an area that does not conform to 1-acre minimum zoning. Mr Linebarger may try to justify the need for these variances by claiming a hardship in fitting houses on the lots,but he was the one who created the hardship in the first place. In the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code, section 10.1.1007(3): "The Planning Commission must find that: ...The size and design of the proposed structures create a proper balance,unity and harmonious appearance in relation to the size, shape and topography of the site and in relation to the surrounding neighborhood", and that ... "The rural character of the site has been preserved." We have heard that Mr. Linebarger might threaten to sue the Town if his proposal is denied. Any threat, however, should not be a factor in making this decision. Mr. Linebarger's proposed plans and his request for variances and exceptions should be denied. His proposal would create 3 structures that would not meet the requirements of the Town Municipal Code, and would be totally out of place with the rural feel and look of the surrounding properties. Marj and Tom Green 10666 W Loyola Dr Los Altos Hills, CA 94024 650-949-4536 marigreen@mindspring.com 1 To: Ms.Suzanne Avila Planning Director Los Altos Hills From: Richard A. Blanchard 10724 Mora Drive Los Altos, CA 94024 Date: March 5, 2015 Subj: Possible Construction of 3 houses on 1.6 acres at 10730 Mora Drive Dear Ms. Avila: As a resident of the County, but living in the Los Altos Hills Sphere of Influence, I have been following the events concerning 10730 Mora Drive with great interest. This property, owned by a commercial developer, is large enough for only one house according to my understanding of the Los Altos Hills zoning. Apparently,the commercial developer decided to take advantage of underlying lot lines to obtain 3 lots, and now believes that his decision to do so also means that he is entitled to variances that allow the construction of oversized houses, based on required setbacks. The possible granting of these variances is of great interest to me,since I was denied the right to subdivide a 2.07 acre parcel at 10702 that I own into 2 buildable lots. This denial was based on the requirement for large setbacks from a private drive that provides access to this lot and to other lots further along the private drive. Needless to say, it would seem to be a great injustice for the lot at 10730 to have 3 houses,when the larger lot at 10702 is allowed only 1 house. Sincerely yours, Richard A. Blanchard Suzanne Avila From: Marilyn Taketa <mtaketa2@earthlink.net> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 11:42 AM To: Suzanne Avila;Cynthia Richardson;jsmandle@losaltoshills.ca.gov; jitze@losaltoshills.ca.gov;jima.pc@losaltoshills.ca.gov; richard.partridge@losaltoshills.ca.gov; kavitat@losaltoshills.ca.gov Subject: Linebarger Application -- 10730 Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills, CA 94024 Dear Members of the LAH Planning Commission and Department: We live at the corner of Sunhills and Kenbar. Last Sunday we saw for the first time Mr. Linebarger's building proposal for three substandard lots at 10730 Mora Drive. We were appalled. LAH's setback and one-acre minimum rules preserve our rural atmosphere, and we collectively have put our trust in you to aggressively enforce them. Mr. Linebarger opted to create long skinny lots,so let him either build long skinny homes with greater setbacks or propose reasonable lot line adjustments. Thank you, Marilyn and Grayson Taketa 10450 Kenbar Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94024 1 D1 KAdra Dives Suzanne Avila From: Klein Enrique J. <ejklein94@comcast.net> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2015 9:47 AM To: Suzanne Avila Subject: Fwd: Updated Merger Ordinance for the Town of Los Altos Hills. Dear Planning Director Avila: At the suggestion of Commissioner Partridge, I am forwarding to you an email I wrote to Commissioner Partridge yesterday, as well as his response. I just shared this correspondence with Commissioner Mandle. [please see below] I am prepared to send an electronic copy of the study on the Updated Merger Ordinance that we, the neighbors at the Southern end of Mora Drive privately commissioned. You may request a copy anytime. Also, I have asked Commissioner Mandle if the subject might be preliminarily agendized for the upcoming meeting of the Planning Commission on March 5th, 2015. Thank you very much for your favorable consideration. Enrique Enrique I. 7(Cein 10710 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills, CA 94024 Phone/Fax 650-559-7477 On Feb 21, 2015, at 3:42 PM, Partridge, Richard<richp@slac.stanford.edu>slac.stanford.edu>wrote: Enrique, Thank you for your thoughtful email. I share your concern that the lot merger ordinance is apparently no longer enforceable and hasn't been revised to be consistent with California statutes. Towards the end of our Feb 5 Planning Commission meeting,there seemed to be a consensus that we should get this on a future agenda and come back to this issue, perhaps as part of a broader look at the subdivision part of our zoning ordinance (this is by no means the only problem that needs fixing!). I believe the Planning Director was going to get input from the Town Council to make sure they were OK with staff spending time on this, and I look forward to hearing from staff at our March meeting where things stand. I suspect this process is going to move forward, but usually these changes take some time. If I were to make a guess based on past experience, I suspect there will be an ad hoc committee formed to draft revisions to our zoning ordinance and that would then have one or more public hearings at the Planning Commission followed by a public hearing at the Town Council...but this is entirely speculation! It would be good to make sure that the Planning Director and chair of the Planning Commission are aware of your study and interest in this issue (if you haven't already done so). Richard 1 From: Klein Enrique J. [mailto:ejklein94@ comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2015 11:47 AM To: richard.partridge©comcast.net Subject: Fwd: Updated Merger Ordinance for the Town of Los Altos Hills. Dear Commissioner Partridge: I reside at 10710 Mora Drive in Los Altos Hills. Our pocket of parcels was annexed to Los Altos Hills on December 17th, 2012. We have observed with grave concern how a number of developers are attempting to profit from the scarcity and high value of the land that surrounds us,here and in other parts of Los Altos Hills. We share your objective to preserve the established character of the Town's neighborhoods, and exclude high density development, that is contrary to the The General Plan and the zoning ordinances that underpin it. It has come to the attention of a small group of LAH property owners at the Southern end of Mora Drive next to the Mid Peninsula Open Space, that the Town is currently handicapped in dealing with building permit applications on non conforming lots by the absence of a legally enforceable Merger Ordinance. We therefore commissioned a land-use attorney to study this situation so as to develop a revised Town Merger Ordinance that conforms to State Law. This study was commissioned in late 2013 but was not submitted to the Town at the time. Since the LAH Planning Commission meeting of February 5th, we have become aware that the Planning Department staff as well as members of the Planning Commission would welcome the enactment of such a revised Merger Ordinance for Los Altos Hills. Our study could save the Town much of the initial cost and, if pursued vigorously, get such a revised Merger Ordinance on the books expeditiously. We are therefore offering this study to the Town, at no cost, as the basis for a new Town Merger Ordinance. Please contact me to advise whom to send this information to. Sincerely, Enrique Enrique I. RCein 10710 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills, CA 94024 Phone/Fax 650-559-7477 2 Suzanne Avila From: Gary Bultman <garybultman@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 9:47 PM To: Suzanne Avila; Cynthia Richardson;jsmandle@hotmail.com;jitze@couperus.org; jima.pc@gmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; kavitat@comcast.net Subject: Development submission for 10730 Mora Drive Planning and Commission members, I am a 20 year resident of 10274 Kenbar Road and want to express my opposition to the development and variance request submitted for 10730 Mora Drive. The development plan for this parcel is completely out of character with Los Altos Hills and if this type of development is permitted, it will unalterably change that character. Placing 3 homes on 1.6 acres, averaging 0.5 acres per lot, is suitable for Los Altos, Mountain View, Cupertino, etc,but is not the intention of LAH. The residents of this town have chosen it for its rural, private, elegant nature. Allowing development of 0.4 acre lots will be a major and unalterable change to the nature and character of LAH. I realize those living here are fortunate and feel that way myself. We have,however, paid dearly for the character of this community and it would be a sad and unfortunate day for all in LAH when the planning commission begins approving development on 0.4 acre lots with 10 foot setbacks. I urge the planning department and commission to continue on the well established path of preserving the nature and character of LAH and reject this development and variance submission. I applaud the previous work of the planning depaitment and commission, I can only guess the challenges you face. I appreciate you taking the time to understand the input from the neighborhood and hope this is received in the positive nature it's intended. My wife and I raised our two daughters in this home on Kenbar Road and everyday I appreciate our home, the beauty of Rancho San Antonio, the variety of animals and our neighbors. Please help us keep what is special and unique about this town and don't allow profit eager developers to forever change what we have so diligently fought to hold dear. Best Regards, Gary Bultman 1 Suzanne Avila From: Enrique J. Klein <ejklein64@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 7:21 PM To: Suzanne Avila Subject: Re: Building Permit Application for 3 houses on 107130 Mora Dr. To Ms. Suzanne Avila, Planning Director, Los Altos Hills. Dear Ms Avila: Los Altos Hills is a balanced community including well established neighborhoods that enjoy the benefits of living in a well governed geographical area in the San Francisco Peninsula. The Town was incorporated in 1956 to counteract the trend to over-burden the natural environment through higher density and smaller lots. The Los Altos Hills Community's desire is to preserve and maintain the rural atmosphere associated with its established residential areas. [Quoted in part from the "Housing Element" of the Los Altos Hills General Plan adopted by the City Council in 2010]. Today we are witnessing the attempt by Commercial Developer Linebarger to have the Planning Department of Los Altos Hills grant him Building Permits for three lots. Two of these lots, of 0.37 acres and 0.4 acres in size, respectively, were legalized by the County of Santa Clara, when this area was not yet annexed by Los Altos Hills. However, no building permits were ever issued. This, coupled with the variances requested from the Building Department,by Commercial Developer Linebarger make them essentially inelligible as buildable lots in an area Zoned R-A in Los Altos Hills. The beautiful, 1.6 acre, originally heavily wooded and now denuded property, purchased by commercial Developer Linebarger is in full compliance with the Los Altos Hills zoning and would lend itself to the construction of a fully compliant new home. Commercial Developer Linebarger has been offered by the Town to modify his plans and build a single house in compliance with R-A Zoning. Mr. Linebarger has refused this offer. The Town then offered to allow the construction of two new residences on 0.8 acres each,by allowing the necessary lot line adjustment. Commercial Developer Linebarger refused this offer also. He will only accept permitting for three houses because this would allow him to maximize his profits. This situation is unacceptable to us the neighbors and residents of Los Altos Hills. I urge the Planing Department and the Planning Commission to deny any permitting that violates the Town's Zoning Standards in any way. We see no reason to grant Commercial Developer Linebarger special treatment that others in the Town have no recourse to. Enrique Enrique 1. 7(1 in 10710 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills, CA 94024 Phone/Fax 650-559-7477 1 Suzanne Avila From: Ronni Haderle <rhaderle@earthlink.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 4:00 PM To: Suzanne Avila Subject: Mora Project Hello Ms. Avila, We are 40+year residents on 10605 Berkshire Drive, LAH. We strongly object the the< 1 acre minimum, that the rest of us are are subject to, and hope you vote against it. It goes against current zoning laws. There is no logical reason for this person to get a variance that was not grandfathered in in the first place. Please vote against this! Ronni and Jack Haderle 650-949-5345 1 Suzanne Avila From: Judy A. Klein <judykleene@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:07 PM To: Suzanne Avila Subject: Regarding the application Submitted by Mr. Linebarger Dear Director Suzanne, I am writing to you as a concerned Los Altos Hills resident who lives on Mora Dr. Like my neighbors I find Mr. Linebargers intentions to build 3 non compliant homes on substandard lots distressing and unacceptable. His property abuts the beautiful Rancho San Antonio Preserve. I encourage you to drive by his recent homes on Par, a street off of Eastbrook near Magdelena. Although these homes are in the County of Santa Clara and have less stringent building codes they will give you an impression of what are in his plans for Mora Dr. Then consider driving up to Mora Dr. and see his present home,the last house on the left at the top of hill before the nature preserve. Imagine how those three homes on Par would appear in the setting near the park. It's not pretty. We are members of the group that was recently annexed to Los Altos Hills. We requested annexation because we respected the strict standards and building codes of the town which maintain the rural atmosphere that we so enjoy. It is devastating to see our beautiful community of Los Altos Hill sabotaged by a greedy developer. I appreciate that you are being confronted by a threatening although charming tiger. This puts you in a difficult position. I hope your decisions protect us loyal citizens who live here because we love our neighborhood, and do not buy into the town to make millions of dollars. Director Suzanne please defend us and our community. We need your help. Sincerely, Judy Klein 1 Cynthia Richardson From: Matthew Chappell <matthew.chappell©gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 8:34 AM To: Cynthia Richardson Subject: Proposed construction surrounding 10730 Mora Drive Dear Cynthia, I want to voice my concern about the proposed development of the two sub one acre lots neighboring 10730 Mora Drive. Developing these lots would irreparably alter the look and feel of a neighborhood that otherwise embodies the town of Los Altos Hills' dedication to the "preservation of the rural atmosphere of the foothills." Other developments like this will undoubtedly follow and further degrade the beauty of Los Altos Hills should these lots abutting Rancho San Antonio Open Space be developed. Please feel free to contact me at any time to discuss this matter in depth. Best, Matt Chappell 917-836-9867 10990 Terry Way Los Altos, CA 94024 1 Suzanne Avila From: Rob Fagen <rob.fagen@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 9:56 PM To: Suzanne Avila;Cynthia Richardson;jsmandle@hotmail.com;jitze@couperus.org; jima.pc@gmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; kavitat@comcast.net Subject: Regarding 10730 Mora Drive (Forrest Linebarger's development proposal) Dear Members of the Los Altos Hills Planning Department and Planning Commission: I'm writing you all to express my concerns about the proposed development plans for this property. I understand that this property consists of three parcels, and Mr. Linebarger is requesting permission to build three homes. However,he is also requesting significant variances from existing setback and other land use requirements such as the trails ordinance. The character of our neighborhood, and of Los Altos Hills in general, is of larger lots with houses set back from the street and from each other. This is a distinctive characteristic sought out by those who choose to invest the resources necessary to live here. I strongly urge you all to defend that character and require significant changes in density and plan from Mr. Linebarger before granting him any kind of permit. I understand the importance of variances, living in a home that I'm certain has setback issues due to some easements and lot adjustments predating its construction. However, if I understand the principles behind variances in Los Altos Hills, they are meant to mitigate problems that are beyond the landowner's control. Mr. Linebarger put himself in this situation when he petitioned the county to break out three individual parcels from his current 1.6 acre site with a single home. Thank you for your consideration regarding my concerns. Rob Fagen 10840 Mora Drive, LAH Rob Fagen rob.fagen@gmail.com gmail.com 1 Suzanne Avila From: Bud Cristal <bcristal@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 4:11 PM To: Suzanne Avila;Cynthia Richardson; Susan Mandle; Mr.Jitze Couperus;James Abraham; Richard Partridge; Kavita Tankha Subject: Linebarger Mora Dr. Proposed Development My wife and I own the property directly across the street from the proposed development site of Mr. Linebarger. We have lived here since August 1973 and have been truly fortunate to enjoy the beauty and serenity of the area. But now, a non- resident developer, Mr. Linebarger, with ill consideration for the neighborhood, seeks to compromise the one-acre minimum lot size rule and construct 3 houses on substandard lots that will greatly abrogate the character of the neighborhood. To do this he seeks variances of the LAH minimum 30 ft mandatory setbacks. His proposed houses are in stark contrast to others in the neighborhood and are in fact simply squeezed in to produce 3 products for him to sell. This mini-subdivision development, and that is exactly what it is, goes far beyond the LAH density norms. We respectfully appeal to the LAH Planning Department and Planning Commission to reject the sought after variances and stop the proposed high-density development. Sincerely, Edward Cristal 10755 Mora Dr. Los Altos Hills 94024 650-941-6551 Email: bcristal@ieee.org Suzanne Avila From: David Crockett <edcrockett@me.com> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 2:34 PM To: Susan Mandle;Jitze Couperus Cc: Suzanne Avila;Cynthia Richardson;Jim Abraham; Richard Partridge; Kavita Tankha Subject: Mr. Forrest Linebarger's plan for 10730 Mora Drive Ms. Susan Mandle, Chair of Planning Commission Mr. Jitze Couperus, Vice Chair of Planning Commission We have long looked forward to becoming part of Los Altos Hills. We wanted to become part of a community and join the common goal of protect the reural feel of the beautiful space. We are distressed with plans of Mr. Linebarger in creating 3 dwelling where there was only one. It is especially sad in that it will spoil the approach to San Antonio Open Space Park and the view from inside. We are confident that you will also find the violations in minimum size lots, density, and setbacks to be a worrisome precedent. We urge you to reject Mr. Linebarger's numerous variance requests. Others have learned to meet and appreciate the wisdom of the Los Altos Hills building codes. Thank you, David and Ann Crockett 10898 Mora Drive We have appreciated the beautiful surroundings for 39 years 1 Suzanne Avila From: Matthew Chappell <matthew.chappell@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 8:29 AM To: Suzanne Avila Subject: Proposed construction surrounding 10730 Mora Drive Dear Suzanne I want to voice my concern about the proposed development of the two sub one acre lots neighboring 10730 Mora Drive. Developing these lots would irreparably alter the look and feel of a neighborhood that otherwise embodies the town of Los Altos Hills' dedication to the "preservation of the rural atmosphere of the foothills." Other developments like this will undoubtedly follow and further degrade the beauty of Los Altos Hills should these lots abutting Rancho San Antonio Open Space be developed. Please feel free to contact me at any time to discuss this matter in depth. Best, Matt Chappell 917-836-9867 10990 Terry Way Los Altos, CA 94024 1 Suzanne Avila From: gerda Cristal <gbcristal@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, March 02,2015 3:54 PM To: Suzanne Avila;jitze@couperus.org;jima.pc@gmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; kavitat@comcast.net; Cynthia Richardson Subject: Forrest Linebarger's future plans for 10730 Mora Dr., Los Altos Hills Dear Members of the Los Altos Hills Planning Department and Planning Commission, The plans that Mr. Linebarger has submitted show three buildings on a lot less than two acres! Part of the beauty of this area is the low density,rural look. The space between homes,the gardens,the trees,all that brings a beauty to the area that would be lost forever. It would be forever, because it will not stop with these three buildings,and once built,there is no turning back. The rural look and feel cannot be recreated. Forever seems like an exaggeration, but it will be forever. It will be the start of more and more lots being divided. Everywhere there are pockets waiting to be redrawn by developers for higher density. I hope you will not allow that to happen but will continue to impose the building standards that will help keep the area beautiful. Sincerely, Gerda Cristal 1 Ruth and Melinda Winchell 10776 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills,CA 94024 MEMO April 16,2015 APR 1 7 2015 The Town of Los Altos Hills TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills,CA 94022 Attention: City Council: Ms.Courtenay Corrigan, Mayor Mr.John Harpootlian Mr. Rich Larsen Mr.John Radford Mr.Gary Waldeck Planning Department: Ms.Suzanne Avila, Planning Director Ms. Cynthia Richardson,Consulting Planner Planning Commission: Ms.Susan Mandle,Chair of Planning Commission Mr.Jitze Couperus,Vice Chair Mr.James Abraham, Member Mr. Richard Partridge, Member Ms. Kavita Tankha, Member Re: 10730 Mora Drive Dear Members of the City Council, Planning Department and Planning Commission, My mother and I have had the misfortune of sharing a property line with Mr. Linebarger for the past nine years. There are six trees right next to the property line,three of which were the original owner's Christmas trees, planted back in the 1940's. We are very concerned about what the impact to these trees would be if Mr. Linebarger were given permission to build ten feet from the property line. Attached is a report from Mr. Michael Bench,Consulting Arborist,and two pictures of the trees. We ask that you take this report and these trees into consideration when making your decision regarding any set back variances. Thank you, Ruth and Melinda Winchell Enc. Michael L.Bench i\i''''—'6 Consulting Arborist (8311) 594-5151 q 7327 Langley Canyon Road Prunedale,California 93907 ) An Inspection of Selected Trees Property of Mindy and Ruth Winchell 10776 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills, California Assignment I was asked by Mindy and Ruth Winchell to inspect the trees near the south side property boundary. Mindy reported that the neighbor to the south has proposed to construct new buildings,which would include a basement,within 10 feet of this property boundary. Mindy asked about the impacts to the existing trees. Methods The trunks of trees were measured using a standard measuring tape at 4 %2 feet above soil grade(referred to as DBH or Diameter at Breast Height), except those specimens whose form does not allow for a representative measurement at this height. The measurement for multi-stem specimens is taken below the lowest fork on the trunk in accordance with the International Society of Arboriculture standards. The canopy height and spread were estimated using visual references only. The condition of each tree was observed by visual assessment only from a standing position without climbing or using aerial equipment.No invasive equipment was used. Consequently, it is possible that individual tree(s) may have internal defects,which are not detectable by visual inspection. Invasive exploratory inspection and analysis is beyond the scope of this evaluation. Observations I inspected the subject trees on March 31, 2015. There are 8 trees near the south side property boundary in the area of proposed new construction. I have made a sketch of the approximate site relationships,which is included in the attachments. The trees are identified and are listed by number on the attached List of Trees,which follows this text. This Data Sheet provides the basic data about each tree,including the species,the trunk diameter(s),height, spread, health, structural integrity. The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1-5: (1)Excellent, (2) Good, (3)Fair, (4) Poor, (5)Extremely Poor. The numbers assigned to the trees correspond the Tree Map and to comments included in this report. Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Site Observations: 1 Consulting Arborist March 31,2015 10776 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills, CA With the exception of Tree#2, all of the other seven trees are in are in excellent health. This assessment is based on the density of canopy(an indication of the quantity of photosynthesis production), the color of the leaves (an indicator of nutrient availability and usage,the annual branch tip growth(an indicator of vigor and vascular function), and the presence or absence of insect infestation. Trees in excellent health exhibit a very high level in each category. Tree#2, a Monterey pine (Pinus radiata),has been topped for line clearing. This forces the lower limbs to grow longer and usually longer and more dense than they normally would, because energy that would have been used to grow in height becomes diverted to the side branches. This occasionally causes the extended lower limbs to break. I observed no old structures or old footings near the trees located on either of the two properties (this property and the neipJiboring property to the south). The area consists essentially of open space. Thus,there is no reason to expect that the root systems of these trees has been inhibited. The roots of all of these 8 trees are expected to exist primarily in the top 2 feet of soil and are expected to extend outside the canopies by 10-20 feet. The construction of new building with a basement within 10 feet of the property boundary would certainly impact the root zones of some of the trees. The question is not whether or not roots would be severed and lost,the question is how severe would be the root damage. Tree# 1, a European Olive (Olea europea) is located approximately 30 feet from the property boundary.No damage to this tree would be expected. Tree#3, a Coast Live Oak(Quercus agrifolia), is located 21 feet from the wire fence. Should there be trenching or excavation adjacent to the property boundary,Tree#2 would be expected to suffer only minor root damage. Concerning Trees#2,4, 5, 6, 7, and 8,the risks to these trees would depend on the following factors. The location of the building is not the only consideration. The fact that a basement is proposed, the actual soil cut required to construct a basement is typically a minimum of 3 feet but often 6-8 feet outside the basement wall in order to construct the wall and to seal the basement wall from leaking. The actual soil cut would no doubt be closer to the trees than 10 feet from the property boundary. Thus, it is the exact location of the actual soil cut must be determined prior to approving the project plan. Also,buildings require drainage and utilities (usually underground). If drainage and utilities would be installed between the new building and the property boundary, additional the trees may suffer additional root losses. In recent years, it appears that all sites require a storm water retention system. If this system or portions of it would be constructed between the building and the property boundary, these trees may be adversely damaged,possibly severely. Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Site Observations: 2 Consulting Arborist March 31, 2015 10776 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills, CA If construction equipment(skid steer or other type of tractor, a Skyelift or some other lift, trucks)were to be driven over the root zones of these trees,this equipment compacts the soil, which kills tree roots. The usage of equipment must not be done inside a radius distance from the trunks of these trees. Landscape features (concrete walkways, landscape irrigation, or other landscape features) within the root zones of these trees may also be damaging depending on the plan design. Without the benefit of the knowledge of any of the aforementioned features, I recommend the following safe distances concerning Trees#2,4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Concerning Trees#2, 4, 5, and 6 there must be no soil cuts, excavation,trenching(as previously described) or equipment usage within 20 feet of the trunks of these trees. Concerning Trees#7 and 8, which are relatively small trees, the construction activity must be no closer than 8 feet from their trunks. Respectfully submitted, Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist International Society of Arboriculture Certification#WE 1897A American Society of Consulting Arborists Member Attachments: List of Trees Tree Map (A sketch of Site Relationships)—No Scale Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Site Observations: 3 Consulting Arborist March 31, 2015 Winch ell Residence List of Trees Los Altos Hills,California 10776 Mora Drive Near South Side Property Bountary .. s :'s�.`nr*�n .x-++ .y�5a,..„71,14.,;,:„^:,«� . 'L`k $?�'y 4f65-.Iz '', 'e1g"�?l'.. t"£:'',`Yr.`-'a w �, 4 r+,'�` r A k''a:y^ ..._ "�' ,Eire t -a , d `-. '',.3 '!P.F�'.vE' ,t;t FieldtData S ieet� runfk a anopy• ;C'anopy Healt�;I Structurelf,. , c, s,, iDBH= .' ,.;�"^.w al ''''� ;y a_-r, a��,5;`»'wk:" '44 . �':yP:v4 f .i:(+.vr{a .,e.t A,alt . sofi..'9�iy Ir��a�. md#�1"�� ,, `� ��r., ax.. I„.,-,:,...,„44;,46...v. t t A �:` x .Diameter fiV Ifeightr 'sDiameter rhe ; , 1 5 , ;;,,; ;° •� =Diametertat � ea.d't igh, a;; - ah 4 n +'trees.• •�;.. + 1 1tn� r� �fi+.-''.3J4' 4 fir¢-' 8 `�-fit rze�' .. � ', -:�,. d k� .., nY �'i '^€z� � pqcfehe.LAPPAL,: w } '. -eta �� , � In I deli In Feet In FQeY;P, 5 Good to �i%r ,- G ad'e �"S epi' 7:[,v.+A,,,�r,&::`h.ae t "+`'"`F6 ,,t :- :,G•..."F } '_A,,�`!?t'” �' ^ih'�z'd :k {E, '.,, ' +Aa,,y1 t� 4.'1n ,z .;' ''I v :.1 r i§Yqx q:,:ij`M r ,reo.: ,�nr eP_F=d:.rt+ "y f.'In ' .t1t,4 s,' ','o 5a + vt e `V',1m .'t t .:'moi i`... ` a, ' A- a, 'Cs x �!,.'- ,,,,c 4} � H y > z :: w� fin.. ,' 7�� ,..„ ',^t ,'4?i.@va 4.'. ' s O s 0 i� 4 , - $tlmated ' � ist ' :W� n ,{.F` .nn M ' H k.,:',3 .Y�'rr 4yy Pi .N.;, r{�- Wx4%tN�',F�;i{.;` ,r' ,VQ.,,d '*�,-. r, %'"a^`.�yy'�,? a� cwi"' r �p.. .:Pyr f',.. s:'.,.r�'' j,)y .' k1 A�'1''TTk. f,(..'{32.P �: 5. .. , t ,1"4 k"` 9yb.-0 .. .., ',y Nk:e'dH',r ^MrfiY ,C.. k, iY, ti� ti EW' �.�. �� r ",e .1 4 .l.��ns.3 �,'„3 3..�`r� a�"F" 4...><} 'fit .. ;�,� s.,� r -r J rart.n. ��..f�a, P9. Ya-,.i'? '�"�'"�' ,:t#k.�,.c „ `"FS Sx� :. ..$.1�"."�a.°�,Yrh [ �" :`.�It,rP[ye:. '''14°''''" �.,rtf'"t" x j1:�Kv d,�'i;�� t: w :x.�r'r+t aw'"`" •l k s, .,'-A.i}, ^, ru 0- 1„x,+t n. + , k�»" J D w zr< E�_p,.y� r. •,,,1; 4 '''''V,-m,:, =s e , - .;t?� Y+�,,,. '� ti k' :r a' 4 y r ..kl, o7 ,f, k,' ' , c ; � -. c tr WW V',O OITYl 3 ..,.- "„<t'3,'�,�" v4t r ,,,�...�,, r`x. ,�,,•5 _t t ri f, w =3 .a ~,t a 1 u f„:: ;� - i #' °„'rtw�W.: +a. s�r"�.r ;:i :1 +.:�„ 4°,,,,4 ¢ 0� �r . e .� � , �` R” ' :or rl;, ?, ,�,k,,f, T eadhns w th M„.4....,,...,..,0,4,-,..„..,b `d ed B a;^ ,:..tip ''F w'Yebt7 � ..�k'"�t°i +2,�' '� �'�Si"°�7,a r t'�tCr' :?. � ,: e4x��'p0,.. m: * �� �'�;+ �• .!$.,.� Sm:Lam` 4 `tpfd'- ttt I1 y1 a` .1 � 0 �� P1.',+ {�1t. 4 t `_'c tZ 'wi - .., e' 'x ^'16.�lw'h 9» ,4.''t'' Yt' i:a$N+N s.. �^-0�,Fi "�r3''...�[L"t t;. �Y, ,� �.L "` T ',ry c^�:`,;.'�: a t' , },, 4.1 y 4 ,. .; ° ;. x3..rax StrRuctu al•Weaknes u",., e x m "� �` ;�� w��yy'v�+` D ''���� �y„ ���. Fv '�' xii". �s. YC� f at 16:::,A� tiS-vt t.,, g. F,t'�t,. .fid' `,.#4 X k Y h fer. 4` -"'.y,,,,4-4,5 „zo,:y a ;' +.t'u M -r°' ,t. y a .70: ,.0 r ,� e^ k '���' tg "� e''3 w w"�Ibc�::�.::�r-1�..�5 ;s*'- �'��"-di-t' ,,•g y ='F� 1x r'-s �A^'s -,�+„� ie�„�'fa. 3 - e [ -`'�` -.' .A,r �''i h:*,,rr�r ..„t: t it- r S',..: }J k"t sih;':, ,Lk. %,�W .„r,u,x .& ;a,2 ., e �- !�y ,.,.,e a e 1 ,.,,�; � 3DBH ,} 4 grCano Cano Health Structure Overall ;;” � ' ,Notes � ` Y°,; , a�.�,Tr e N m �:�a LL,� .�er�,„.,., � ='; ,�� ,. RY��! �,., P.,Y`,,§�. r. ,. >~ .�,,, � .« ,� �., , ��� � ,� �,; M�,4 ,r �..�" ... .. c t .,,.- 4^ ,}.x»., ,: i �...,,,..aPc.-.�r ;:`r .,.,, �a :XP,,w S�.j+ .t ..�S^ !m4 r,.,,x J�t A. m .�fi4.c s ,1.,,a. �-ra �- �,.,.y .t ,,.; �`f;�v; :�-r?,� :::i "'�,»� ,,�, h..t.nt... ,:.g ;�.,tw"r y.. '4 .� .'``..st. r;u n„ .t.,.,.M hY )r2 J.! l '^,. +.w.,., a �i, $ s.,rot ::"+f^y. f-.n>c; . .?; ,o qYr-. t.,.t.„ rs rib, ... �':`_ _ ,saa�': u+a 4. �.. ,��5'..t k r. e ..�r�.��^^di t - 4�5+.,, .Y .S?rF:i to si yF9'-ry'. t ,KS e y .,..m .+Y,sr kw s Y.4 ; S Y u,x, . •k 11-','„§:P „' ;i lu.r r {7 P h R T 4 w. d/,.k iii' sf 1,z ,m`',7$,:r' i..:: r E r i . ; r Heightreadt 1 a y xx .I Condationg x>.u`<�„ � r,., 4wr, r.a. P A ',:''S�G t n,- <'l”..a,04''''''4'' s.•. .;.5,�IAk".d� .a. . %. � 'm't5�. k #re4,,�M,'.w17.hcex7 � .C�� �e �.G,a '1'.` I European Olive ! 22 ! 15 25 1 1 Excellent (Olea europea) I �2 Monterey Pine 1 30 ! 50 35 2 3 Fair Partially"Topped"for Line (Pinus radiata) Clearing; Extended Lower Limbs l3':.-1-Coast Live Oak 20 35 45 1 1 LExcellent ! . . 1(Quercus agrifolia) j 4 Canary Island Pine 29 50 35 I 1 1 Excellent ;5 (Pinus canariensis) I _ Canary Island Pine 22 I 70 30 1 T 2 Good (Pinus canariensis) Ib ,Canary Island Pine I 22 60 25 1 2 Good �i Pinus canariensis) i7 Coast Live Oak 7 20 15 1 1 Excellent (Quercus agrifolia) 8. Coast Live Oak 7 15 15 1 1 Excellent (Quercus agrifolia) ( , Site Observations Prepared by Michael Bench, Consulting Arborist March 31,201: Michael Bench - 6 - Consulting Arborist ISA#WE 1897A, ASCA Member (831) 594-5151 michaelbench@sbcglobal.net 7327 Langley Canyon Rd.,Prunedale,CA 93907 March 31,2015 Subject: Winchell Residence 10776 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills,California Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 1. Any description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct.Any titles and ownerships to any property are assumed to be good and marketable.No responsibility is assumed for legal matters in character nor is any opinion rendered as to the quality of any title. 2. It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes,ordinances,statutes,or other governmental regulations. 3. Care has been taken to obtain information from reliable sources.All data has been verified insofar as reasonably possible.However,the appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. 4. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this appraisal unless written arrangements are made,including payment of additional fees for services. 5. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation. 6. Possession of this report,or any copy thereof,does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any person other than to whom this report is addressed without written consent of this appraiser/consultant. 7. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report,nor copy thereof,shall be used for any purpose by anyone but the client to whom this report is addressed,without the prior written consent of the appraiser/consultant;nor shall it be conveyed by anyone,including the client,to the public through advertizing,public relations,news,sales,or other media,without the written consent and approval of the author;particularly as to value considerations,identity of the appraiser/consultant to any professional society or institute or to any designation conferred upon by the appraiser/consultant as stated in his/her qualifications. 8. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the appraiser/consultant. Further,the appraiser/consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value nor upon any finding or recommendation reported. 9. Sketches,diagrams,graphs,photos,etc.,in this report are intended as visual aides and are not done necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering information or specifications. 10. This report has been made in conformity with generally acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic reporting methods and procedures and is consistent with practices recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture and the American Society of Consulting Arborists. 11. The appraiser/consultant takes no responsibility for any defects in any tree's structure. No tree described in this report/evaluation has been climbed,unless otherwise stated,and,as such, structural defects that could only have been discovered by climbing are not reported. Likewise,a root collar inspection,consisting of excavation of soil around the tree for the purpose of uncovering major root defects/weaknesses, has not been performed,unless otherwise stated. V l-'.-?-: 1,-...;fi.ef,.., -- ,7,z„,....?,_-,..,--. .c-i.::' t - „,,, -. -‘1,1v.v,.-"--';'`L'-?P,'_.. .1. -----,t-A- -1:L•,:. --,.;.---.-41,..-",,..--'''.•.;.--_% ,.-...,.T.. :..--, - - . 1 (1.13 .-..-;;;44.-fi-:;:, , -...,,-.,;-•-•-;-,..,:t-,2:,;ti,it,Z..-?,-:',-,'X'71p.,,.?.,4,-,;.._,,.,. ..,. -e--;:::-," -1\- -..••---7Y.------..2-74,1,-.7'; '‘-'-;•:,---,-1,...-,;.- ':- •-:-- •:--``:- 4-‘ii:•• 'q>,- A ' %,-7•--kr U7 -- -•• '''''' ..••=--;-,:"'t.--'Jft'F rJ' ''''• -4--'..ii'`',!?:'-•-•.'1-'-'• .- .* :.-,; Alp'--:, :- .-r_'•::--;,---:'''•', (7.,:7.--: .,„-: ,,,....;- • •-k,‘, •,.•--::-- --:',.-!;•,.. -,1,--_ ..• -6-§,i... :;.-_-.:',:::: :=,-;-:,:;;,,-„-...... , '-'-'-'-:-•;;:=;:',':::•-•:'2.-f--::. ,i-ri:,,,,,,...:-„:f:1::-.':•;-:- '•'':::.7'"iTZlirt;-:'\- , ••-:::--"-' --:' •..-,,,t` :-1"- -';'-274i A\ - -;.-':•..-.".:--. .--!,'::,--',-*/---,.'4'.'::::':';,*-;71:7::-...--.._ .. „ •:._- : -•- -.*'..--._''' -'•-',.,•:--'-1.--:r..•:: :'-''t- ..2,1rW. -:-Ir-,:--Trr•- -•:-, ---- ' , „_... -4:-,V°-1,,-• .:jr.,_,....:-...:'•::::,1"'°5: --_,,,--,-,r : '-',7,'--.:- ..., ---:--,- -7,-'.--:•;-,i,,:-,7.7:,:._ .,,, ... ''' --<,..„-- ,;.„..->-_, ” ,-_-_,. z, --:,y,,-,. . --. -,---' --- .- -.. .--,-,,_ ------:. •- ,-.-f,--.--:n, ,,- . . ,_: )-„.„,,z,,, ''',-.„:„:,, .',411,."C'-,A ,''''''Ye"- -..'. -•::."--;::;-:- :::• --, 4-=••••:,::::•••f,---- ,- - `„'.- ".''; '..-„,,,t',..,,i,,,,, ' ;_.,,,,..'',7:-'1:. ",7'.;,7?..',, _.-- ,r.-...... , ' I,,-,: if'.,,,,, ,/;:45 ,'''' -'4Aik .' ...1,-'.....-;1'''' ''''''.--;11i.'',...„-;:-'' ''Ts:'-'4:71''''Z'I'''':^':...:-4 7'*:'..'-'$''fr''''S ' '' -- ... ,,, ;•-' :_,;:t, :-,:.:,_:'-":":'''%tif.-A17.,4 '' ,. '' - '''--.. ''':'''7..::. ' ,-,..-- L-ixy-11 • ' - 1-- :'[.:: :;,:::::•"1:.':r.:, '1., ,,,.7;:, ';',.'.:•;',7,- . # Lr:.;',A1 ;. '''';';'"'''::::•:::,'!Irit•ti'r142f'*-" 2 ..- DEA ::::7'.3::;•'''':;4r.5.14;•:.:2'.1:'-'!"..;.: ':',;-'1`'::-'''-_''.--'-•''','.-.-";'-';':'-'.'''''',.;'-'-;'...--.-.,.?:-:'7;if'''.1*-Zi7:7,,,' . -•Z...,',.`,- ."":" .-e3..I•t,-.''• , 1:,:,1 , .......-' . -°•,-. = *--_m ;;;;...:.;-"!:,'•'r:7',':-' 1:•=2:.'..:7;:5.•,-;:::-.....,_ j::-., :-. -', ---,-- , 0 -17..;--, „--:?..11,-. ,: -'"*"-i-.'--,--,:,.:., _,._..... --„,..- s1-74.rWf.4. "rfi... : ,. .,..---:. _., ,_zt ;1•;- ,---,,:-. 'f::-..e;-:-:', -•-;.„_ ,W-, , -.,,,,..:-.,5_ ,,,7;-.;-...Z.A•7'..4<511,- --.:-.-:,,-,;'4,:.:;,,t-' r..-,-;,-,1!/,:.-4::',,,,,:„.•:,.--4...„:::;-.-:,--‘..:.',-,-,-%-,..':::,:t;',!t::',:-.-.,..;:.--..?_:.:-::,-,-; ',...,!.-:;_,J..-..,-: 5"44,4_,,,,titew,-.,-:-,,,:.4e.,,-,---,,-;_,,,,...,;_::::.-±:-.,:-. ...4,,,,,-.,r:,, /, , e,..,:?. _ - f;. .-- - T-:::43': ,.--, .. ..1%. . .-_,..„,;--&.,, J---:---s41‘-.-''---,-,--",i ,...:.:....,-.,,--„ , .:2_,‘,.. ,-_ - .;:;..,._‘,„, .-, ,_ - - • .;;-*4Ittle. ,-fdrd--- ......\-41'r5r:t '''•-•-•-'- .- .;.=:,,t•v04,,,p-,......„. -..-7 .5.-....„-_ .,`47=-.-4:?..•j,-,-,••••=jt:',1•••e i,-%--o,,a r,,,',.,,:•. _. , ,--e..;-'',' "-, !,•:'',.':'.,:e';', :. : :_. .r.4..ifil,,44;1; ..e.•'..''''...‘ -.•:-- 11_,,,Wtgi-7-:_:jsi:.:,:144`2,-,:e,--.1:1, -1-12# r::, ':::,,, ,,A:-','-'7if.X4'''','-','-:.,'-',e..',:::-::.'',•f.sr- ;.:".;.:t !:c,'..;1'7,-''':','-:: - r -, ' . ''' A.-i:,... .,gef---7-;.4.-*—•,:'4,44:,,,__,-V'i '44 J.4•:= 4"1,:tc4V-riz',-.,.,I.-: __,,1-,w:.0--- ---, r,: -,,-:5,-;:-;.„,,,,:i.,.,...-=-T-I-..-.,-....-;-.,--...-••--..•-,;:-.'.,-=•-,,',:'•-•;--'-'--•• • `..-.',--:'•-..;':•1!-;,.'-','-,.7,' -- ''''' '""teh. .,..‘4•--i," 4--.--:;-....., .7' i‘44* . ,-- ..r .,--x;-7.7.,,..•„ ,--. t•-:-,-4'_:,.._:"..,:.5-:',,,-.,.,.-J;;-..,:.,-.:.;:7-,A,---....'::,,,,J--..,-...;:;., ,.'-'. -...;,,.? -.--, ' - r., .. - .:' .r.47.i v,:-'•.'• ,.-- ,tf.,- isoilv,-„ . . ., lt,,,,.,-- i4,4;;;.--,2,,'., :„._-,..- --',:-.;-;;f:i-,-,_ii,- ;',_,-..,-...,_,.,,f.r--_'',.,..;,,,,-.;,-.;:. ,:-.._, -r,;'.-5 2'-:;:'.-=-'' ' : -t-W - - - --.* '-'•- - 6"'& 51'1;tc.l•-':V*k.itl.i.,`kftg:', 'r:..--'-."--','---s"-i"r:.-,,..'-'!.- --c.:,..--''--...,..,::'7;ji'.•,'".,-„,,_-;', „:.-;..,,';',`.-,..-15-r:..;,--,,:- 13, . --;.4.. ., ,r.,X.; :r, '' • -,1'-',. ..'f. .-,_,-5;-'. .",;;;;; 4- ',.f.',';,-;-,!-,'-,"1-,--.--- ....-:: -- .',..'. .•4('-- '' 7,7'. .10-:- _ . .7.'4 .---`, r -'f * -4'.4 Ws'S?..i.-15r.:11.: 7-1i'''.11?*-= --'4:k,•:'- " r!',.. ‘..•=4,---4:4===ig. ....k. , . I.,ti-N '..4-...• _ A ..._ .,. ,..,,,,J, ,.,, ,,, ,4,, , ,. , , , L, L,,,..4,,t*,. , 1.4.. : . :'‘\.V.:.• .7'...' ,, ' Vdi,{ )4. .L...: 1,,...V.P5'. ..ZA1.1( ..4......P.Ai r'-.-1 a'. .'0,',.,e.!,, .' . [..5'...-,:„:.;,:., `,,,::;;:f1V-..,f,--'.:.-;:,...:---4_---':"rf..,,,-',-..,:,'-',,_ .• `.',-,..,'-''... 'iv--t"..,._: %--; eillfrr .'*.--:4-7-4.-44,i,'-.--1'.,.. .•-•„-..7,F, '...'v,-., . ;. -,-1t,._ ....z.' s,`-4,44..,,,A,00-4N.-:!;',,•,..K.si-='''-'7. 114'-'• :•.---.:4v----`-c'-‘tz.,---.• ----'-.fr•I-,-,-.--;--,;',;',„:', 4,::.,-;',..•.-.:-, •.--;'-.e'e!'"--';,.--:...i: :-._!:::--1.:7;'..--,j' -V't• -,-. :--', •'" --r-A"!..:,.:4,4-W,-3-1,44-,:-- ' :',.. ,a,'•.:.:-...-.0--,,,e-',.141,1t,....=w-4.. 1% --(';','-•a."- -,T4c.f.i l':.,.: -, " .'..,.3."., f:::',.::,:,_-..:,-.- -;-•,;:,r,,-- ---,-,'-•::,1---- r • •••.--:"',7:. '--.,-i :.-.--.i --c•i•: *.-- - '-f ,. -.. 'tr,'i:.:•-;-,...,,.. -• ' -•••,,1"7,7t -At,. 'Sr • ' 1:r ••-•,4_.•-• ,"" ;lel.i7M.te4r-,...tle,N 73..•••• -•g ! s-r.7% f3,•:?:.-'', c.• :.. -i-,-.•.,•,:„.•--...-.• .- :.,_:".;- :_r,t.-2,•;..--:' ' ;' `.k,f.-: '„-,....,', .,-V.''4,;-; -''..,<,...'''.,'„,=.`e,"-", '''. ,,,' ' .1Nr".**,_, , ''' ;. ,"%. --''' - 4' 17-7t-`,-.i.` • ,i' .,'4.7. t‘2:---;:t''';C:,:•-,:.-;:::, ::',..';',,',., ''',.:-.,,, ."'''''...> '' .,--,''' '., N.';'*"' It -•' ;iit: ',i••'-4,:•_'..---":"--..t -'-1'.:7;:--.:".•'-- '•-A 4.*.t. -• ..."--- --- --,4,0i.-r: ------..--...ii r.c..--- :]:,._--J,,.,-,.. —.„..e. • ,.' ,.. ,i.. ,,,..41_,,,:- . !,:t:17$7,-- ..... ',.!;re-1-..,,tt/5 -, l'.. -4.,-,ffiC4.: ...ir,L ,;t.. i, .,- ,,:t4"',.? '"-'11.t. "..17.---. .=;:1, ,. . z*-'-i,..--,. -t4r,... „.. -,..ipl_,I, 7 :‘„v„„,- 1::.:-.,:'-::-. .-.,.::',,,-.-,,,...---. 1-J: _.'-:,. ,%-..-•'..:-:,:`.i.:. :•-• '•-re•,.,....' .-; .-1----;%.•".5 ,- - = r- - 4,,,_,,_;.x---7-..,:.--.-_:,-"K-*zr,;5,---,--,,,„. .414-,-t--4:4-i .- .- ..idaa,=:: .'"'..=-:"..i..,-."- •,::::'::.''1.7,-,7<,-.','..:7'.?,';-,..":-,-'--,:''..";...."2,,ili---.; ;--4...",1-kii4 -1*,.,„,..4-„, syt,;.:173.1 le..rfta.'21 i.r.1,_.,,r,a....p-4,7.-'."'-7F.---___,-'-‘21-"--2.- -`-••=s,li-.,,'....,,v. -...rio ',, "-, :„ ..- rx=_ g••-•-'7.-1--,-----_--r.r-!. .L'.,:r.. '7.;-•'''?•:?';:::".-11,,''.:''::t31/6-:li;•1"=;.-c-;A71:.c:".`•'.`&11"k7'..1 r-Iff;o1 .,z,,._r.-_r, ,ti_-.7.---------Ao- 7 . ---74:Y.V.; :-.---V.,,‘ 1.- ..:":1'.''..'r-'- '....,'::=-''7.:-,:-.:.:' ..,:,..;.iN''..,K,T„,.66;3',..•-,:-!;"0.-. , . i. .,.._.,_-'4 -:'_-'--_7, _-r- --,, -:----" . ' '',. '41% lz,,.,•,-;-:_i-e4,- --' ---..-...i-:-:-.7--.1i -f-•:•4`e, ''fft- - 43C-,43e..-?.-„,_, , ,- -:_. ,_ -_:-.2'-f,:--zr...-;-‘4"4-7Ze:2---1---..,:;-* 4, --..-E--, .-:,:---:-:-:.:--4-,:'-•:-:-_----- -_-_,!....',.-17 ''-'''''.-, .f ',4a.4,,v.,..*g4;,...-. --,-,.•.,4, ,baki_. . 1:tv--*.s, k,,,..,:,-., ------- .-.,--:. .- ,-. .4....-3„...,,,, --:..- _-.1,-.N.Iv•-4A4:.-,:w„ -,- '- ---:---- ' •flv:7",:.?7'.. .',';')--.1.'!.."4 :1*-4141:F174;-70.--k-%k:- . .-' z'z.- 1/4vii:<=•:.--O :- :-•••.-....,_, :tr•- • • :•--WIst-. '-'5%4--Vik---• -`-".74.-W::74.."4-4-z:f.`,.. ----44.:' .-, •.•_-_--:„. , -..,,--,;:.,-'-.:`:--- :--_,..,---.•;,4.--.1,:ri-it„,:..',;,-,. .,.14..._,'---- -,-.414:7-'-,--',;:f- - - ;..,•;-:`-%kl-A,--"-le•-•••-,4._•:•. .>.•••••.4-:, •-,,.fft .8. .r.-t,-,:-.,,,e--•.,:_--',-,--:•-•,,,...,*•---;;-:•"''.1-‘_;..:4-•1.;•.,...4!. --.:-,--- ::•-:. -'- -••=-4:- ''''•".7.1•'-`;.::A4. -.` ,, -4... ,---. 1-2-- '14,,-Nr.:-=-.-C',r.r•-t,C,,f,r------.,_41—•-•,'„=:strilt-,,,v-••,-,,,.7 • " ' a' .•-rn,,---'4.,:al•-•'-'-'• .4i ----.__3. ,.‘c4---.._,•,,,:r-'-'-.- r._ ..•.,_,,--;•;,-.:, •'..„,,, ..._, ,:-.-,•-•:!,•-'":-:. "•%;•::.•., -,Ii .••••=:,,,111,•" r.,7 ----.„. ° .,-...7,• "..-?7,-.71-.,--.:,--,..•4: -.- .„e,,-`9,",..,-',;,-4::-?;-.464•.-,....,,, .‘.....- -_ .4.7 ,_.'r:...-_-`.. -r.'----'-g.'47th.",,n,.'74=---,114,.,7 -Nrs'''''''''T'' --'-''''';',.''.-..,--1,=1;',r -'': '.'-''•':,'fi'''fr''',"'k-•Jt--.-r. '.7.4'•• ,,, : ,----....:24,,-,L,„-ty.fq- ,v- A„,. ,:.-,;J,,,. ..::,,,-;;;, ,.0,-;,,,,..-_ -,.--, ..... ;.__fy,-ilvi,,%,-,.%,,, -,Ac..1.-f i-,:-.w!,-.7..„;:;-0./.,...-....,..:, ,. :„-: -0. ii-,4'x.'4,-,,,-;-.!.,,. ..-;- ----: s..-c,,,.•, - -,-,------„.- .-. .V -i-.,--'.: ..!:, ..:- --,:.70, ."-,-:',••••' ---, -s-- , - „-' -,.:1-- .. . .• ' . ,7,,,,;---",• ,•-,-'r-- :,,,i1:&--,•--k_s-,r-_ -..1!;:4.,,,_„`*-. e'.:`.';`-ffis ,,---,0 4 '--, --,--- -r-,;,,k• -4' ". -ri .. -‘•-•?. ., z.,a,.. ...4, $ sis;Z. .z-.;:17,'., V. 1 ;- -,.--,, -,:". . -- , • ,-;., -, . .-1,-;. -1-.?7,x?..;,i,,,c.... ..--•?.4:-:,-----.. ,..,• - - -..; -(.'„,-- ,...g1 :,2.--.. •._ ,,-.-. '., T, „.,A.,,... .1.z- ;,. .', k ---:: .•. .,.'„,.:',.--. :- . - -,-..-.'--1„--r„.v...p,-,--,*,--,..:--.1,1,- 77:-.. fflyr.. -0e,.01 4.14,-7 A I -,..•F':‘,..,. 4r..=q'',..0:-frr`::z.ta-P/'Vr..ri-'' .r-7 ' . -=' • •••••A.-•!'',„,..,5-c,TV,47•'f,..,.2.t_•,-:-. .i...'''et.- r, .,,,,..t..,41,••er.. ,t-.1-- , '. ' .r '. •• , - . -.. '' .• ; r,...47•1g.-1...1.• i..... „4,-1.:,,i4.„..,-,,,,,,- 4:--„..;-;-`: - • ,;4,1,...----,-.-----•'--.47r--r•-,,,,..8-t-,,o-,,c•,,-. .z,-.:. --,.----7 tovi-,',A.-...------4-7-,:,..;-_..-.1:-,3%.,44.,o4. •-•., , L. - 'i ..i. : ' : ., ••0- ,--'- •,. '..,07:- --6.-,0k,--461-111 ., '• . .. - -- , -,.,. .• -_' _ - -,,.4A ve.:-'7.;,n,,*,-..7,--,,,,,,t; .-seArf4.5t.,41' ,.,. vf474.:',.4, .' kti:.5", .%-N-i. -.1'7. i,..-:.---.4-1,,,..:..f?,-,-.'*...;..„,--",-- -.7 .1 '-_,.`,4:--,,.-..;,_,w....". 1 . ;. -,- ' -' -'. . -' -• ',. ' -_ '.'''.., ,,.:.'..‹`;''.;t4._".T.". :.-',-...,“':--' .t.,'-': ....!1*..el 1.';.='=',-'&,,'-`-`-.a,7--,,,_4', . .,...r.:-''';t---•-•-=.--;'•tA-4.-,',- ,,-,..';i8.--i. .,.-1-;'="te?-;:-- - ',-.. .----,4";=-.35-'4 .-.7/.4.4r'-:- " -•ii- 4k."'..qir-r-M4-ti, 4-ts.--',-..•• ,:r-:-',,, 4--- ..f;,4•_:.,,..74r,:•,, ..-., . ,‘•*1.-,-- •;-.7,r;•.-TA---,7.%-1 t•-,-1;7' 1' -- -: . :'L---'• - - - :':::'• . • - • :7*e.-- .. ,::-.7.:'..---;;:f'-1'c,--:-t,.:47 ---ff. .'-7.1a -1.- 4..U,0-1---'-'''....--- :-.. ,'.&-..p.i,;,--..7-.tSk.zw-. "' ' '-s .,-,...t.'..":4-.N.,'--.!: °W'111,',!-,1.:"'.,-.:".'...-'7"-',r,"-.' *•'''' 1 ._•_„, a.,a''' .., , .. ;' _ - ' 1_ : ,'' -15er--..T,44,0'ArWt' r. 11*,"AC ,.*i'. ;'.Z" Tz4.:',-R:-:-kV,"-.‘.V11-5-4,7,'a'..%.kr''':''':3:.cti': I ir_:. , .,.,... ., .: . ,. .. J,.. : ... : , ......„.,,,:.=,......:.„,..-.,,,,,p- s:--=,--_,,----,A-T4, ;TAA.,:-.- ,_,,,4„:-.71-..,.-,7,-..3/4.k., :,; -,-7:,_,:,1-•;:, 4,3,:-±4,--,, .-,-.4 .: ....:•,-,.„ ---__,...ci.),.7..F' ,:._.4-.54-# : ,,,-, .44,, .T., .., 1,-,„ 1--: 1---, -' '---•-•--:,.-'•-•- , -, ' ---•- : - .„'- :"•::• ':-. . 1..._-- •-- . :--.--4.4-4---. , - ,r-`7.- ,4 --.44.40:-':-.fr:_::::::','*---4,$):,...;',,'-ett_77' ,-V.11".--f--:---t.":1-',; -_,.-:,t.;,,7-,,-".. .f--.,,, --„jt-",-..4- A: -*'.....--,--; r;r:•-• ' - :4e.,..'?•4t...- voz,-,-------',-:---,-...-7.-',‘34:--5-- --; -.,. ,-..'.,,:.Ik...„,-yr. -sv -...,-- -..-_:-...----__.' ,-----,_:,,.- -,- -30-1:2-,, v.- - , ,., , . .,-, , . „ - .- ,--- . %. ,,,,, _.,-•,:::•,,,..=- ,,-_ ,-,.s.: ,,-.' -..,,,.,L 1,-,-, ff .-:- -c,,-A.:,!•,,z:,,,..„,,,,,,,!..1-7. --- -..,' . .-----_-:,-.F.::::41. --- ,1_,,,-.."'*„ .--,Tkittvoliv-tts-lf. i• . ' - '- ,. ' ' - -: .-' - ,,-;- --- L - --'- ----.----' ----':- .,' ' -.'-----.---- -- -r., - -- '.,-,;ft'--;,,, ,,-_:---)1&•,c,,.-*k-_,-,,2_,.v---'. -ts.4L--:.,.-:----;-,,--': 1.,-,'-'k, ',-• --- -.,.:85*-,4.`--- le- 1, '.. .f..• ,' - . .- ... •-,-,.'.,. ' - '..-..•- '------'... ',.,--;‘, 4. '' .;1..--,`, 7Arpi:-.-',: '., ',„,..:'it- '. ,--;-:.-:.---:t-',:_,-:::,...--..--',:---Lli),-,:r.,:f,k,". ,-,r-7: . . ''.$7t,"'Ll-s1:::-,•-'4:::::4-%*---7:4:-;' '''' ---- '''' - •. - • - '' • '-- ' ;:-- '' •::'•--'r•,..• i'-'• ''f.'.--7.-.A--. ..i.',,.,;:.--__='-.3-.1- ,--;'..---.`!-447-::--,-- r„.f_'-w'',-T--4-.,--.4k.:,: -. -4'4;14 t,. 7-t044. ..62-0-2(--,4P:7-::;:: i- -. , -• ;' - . ..-.-- ‘.-',...,:-.-..-,- - '-...-......- --,.v.,, -'1:..,_ -:„.----,,,-*-----....s* -'.---:. 4c. .;:p\-. 7-:',--71*,7,---,,-- ---...'-ii,,.:-;',-$M..,-, -4. A ii--t-',--:,---,- -.--,,,'.----_, ..,i,,,„,.. ,ttg.,,v,fr-:...-, _..„,-_- 4 --.?.. .etz-vi----7-•:-',.:, r . .... _- • - , . ,... , " -- ,-: . • .---.,-',......N.,-:447,-..,-,rc-....v., -,..i.4,-,:--„_. ., ,-,14,r,„.„.:„.., ..r., 4,,,,,-7-,, -v,r r-v-r*,. -, ..i.-$,..z..'-lfzeok...0**:-,..-•-•:':`,.' ':-A; I. -• - -. '•• - r - - • ' '-. -."*.'••,.-z-Z1-e-::?-71-'v-.Trr N..".--. •••:• ••• ••' -..-1-?':--‘7,01•-•*- .-4.1e.p.-_:::-'_ .4--•- e'•,•••I;e--- --T,411- ,-4..-tl,,,-,rri •-i'•-•-f "--•*-.•- v-•' •‘-'•-• tr. -..- : ' ; '`,- - -• • ----:-- •-•• ''r-r''- '' ; ---!rit-e-r.,-4"-;.;•,--*'--7'-, _ ---"----#- •`-,-,,-.-ei':••,-,. vl.g,•-*Iat.,4::-4. -!--,-..,--..,,, -.,-.0 .-1, -..,-;:-!,,,,v-_-;:-.-• s .„; i--- -;-'•- .:• '- •- ."-- -. -- --', '-'-' -•---'511'-.‘L. 04Y•'''_:.., '''',,,.,,,.-• . ,'-'-;•,-*•'1. '' .-,-, •'.-A--i,--'4,,, ,Z,,,'''-''S,04.144,::'''4**k.,‘ ;_...,,--4...:4„,e.-:,-,':•.: -.,,,,,;:;.k. , ,,.;- -....%•=c,..,,..,,t'-_ rratI4,114.‘: ;-Ni.. ..A..-%-ir...: 1.041.01,-... ..--.1;„.,..„,,i-,n`..- - • ,-, - ' .- -• - - ._•:,.,-:,-.r,:,, , , • .- v,i-,,,:,:_..--.4.-r,i.,:::„.4. ,.,A..-,;,,, -.7. .4". ...... ,..„ • t.• - ,_,, • . , -.-.:.. , : •. . „- .-,:. ., .--. ---..71-7,:=,:,,:::._,:-% vfrir: :__ ie.---..:,..--_,,_,,-W-2x17-1,;--4 ./1-$7._.:k--..-.4.:,',,,I.-1,--,-,-. --.it,IK,IL-L-.7.,•k-4,41'n'..`et. 41 ,,. , ..: --, . - -,,-- p-7 __ ,i4A--%Iv.-- -..`--.-,.%v7.72 .,.,..._-...d.- ---- - ...-.,-. 3--. -- . . R4,1-.-t-yr,-4p4)- ---_-, -.ai.',..r-'''-r''-.;-'•'-': 1 -- - ‘-- -•zi`4,:-)----:• ,3,.- ,----1-;.--.;.2-' . -r. --- :1 . :-T--, ----•:-- _-- -7,3,yr•-., ..----,,i:t.%tow.Ait.:-1--.I.. -i4-‘.-..-al - = .,--..-,-,..,-•;.•e4 ---,.§1:- t,riTT-- ,....."-...4.-4W--.-.°P.- rir''''441--,..,,•• -- -'" '•' : '-- --••- ''' ;-:'-'-.10 1.11",:;,•,`.. .,`,4'.i•zg• .- . ".14.,°.- s;;:krei\'•-•• thViti, ''.:-'-.F.;:r •1-..,4.&..4-<;__-, --k„--1 , ''''„,.z.- • ..;,441, i',,,,, ;-.1.X.,,'"•;-/."7-;?-, 6'e.- -:. i''''-'-:::----- .,- . - -: .,,,- i! -41,..,, ,,,;1.4 -.?4-3,-w0;?-7,,A, :z•. f.. .'-.7.44,.* ,:t_it:; toK-A,Azo',1 '',L..-`4.,q--74,:k7:-';:s4S-•'PW-,",---,,,,',`-..--. •--.----•. ,,.-, - r-:,-,1 .. '"-_1`.- li tr;--,-..-.'. --.fr- .2t*'1.:1,0,, ', i,ri-A'k.q.7' - '.z :Ar • ' Weo.,,,,kt',";,'.t.::•_'.'r4-. • . ' 1--.);:,:_t-„_• ,_„.,„.,'•-•`--4-,,--,,,;,5m---;,t,.-'-- ••••":.-- --- -,1-2. .,,,':.)-,-'0°-,''':"4.6"-g,lt,,,_.:Ail ' '''-'4-1. IX) ;Pi-:-.';k.',•;:Aiti..... ' ,,,4.0-.:'.• '41*,1'",. t..VA41.74J ,' 1 r*,--,', '. 4, ..jrf- • `.'',.:, '. ‘Nt ; .--,,,,-41-i-04-4i,, ,.,stit."14.1,..ilkiik .-,1!7:-".A...-r-...T: fie..,"„i .v4--.I.- , -., j-.- -=:::-.'-',„,.,' v>,'!V. ''-' I att, .\.,-- w.i. 0'1-•,'-_,,C-11--Z..,-.-::" , -7,-...,',,--,-,-;,,,-„'--1,'--:-,--;-,4•--,,..' •.:. S,. l'000•%e N.'''•-r....-...r.z.444 e.A.44,..'S.r-. - ;\,,a,t,•1'.. vfrii.'14t 4,,,,fa•4461.-: A •r",,,,44-ifr,2-,',I.L0-0,il'W;...:4•f;7"Sk...-.i., ;;- • M.. VArt=r44 fk"-,f:(A • -- -:-3-fr:f:-"*.‘t 4 v •lit,'/-- -4‘,;,.,40.4,,qivi,,P.,:;`-:.,:tmv,A,:44.--`tNi•;-;...1'4*14,-45..,:1W-4.1*-7*71:,-- -' 1.040 t.1 ' * ,„..„-,,-Vt t741':k. --,.,•':-.--'0? 41',:4`12T7Oli,4-!":.;4- 1);*,.:‘''':.) '..:.. .":----;111 ..1,4. ::::'`:g'";?•.'4-`,-,-r%71Z1*-•::, '1':-.k-I's:-".::::.`iftilt7.44. 2• N.,::'''' 1..k.'•11 -r.t ..-c':ff:1,-.SIT.t.' ,-- --• 7-1:',.1.-.4,,r.-.:.;,' "''-'- .'' ';tom,' It, z'--414. 1,-,iii;iir0,;-14. "----'-+I--,`.0,,z.2-,',.‘6.•--4‘-itiA- f-,.:'.`--'1•14`-'-,Ly"---'-'-•r4,-;4'-,-1../4'''..r:-1---0‘'.-'• ' •:--.-./.-f------•-•-eil.,.--,-----t.,. . i.-- i''' „1 0 r',' ''',. Affklo‘'pl 'V( ", A.,.,-84.!:, ., :." : '--''-;,"*..*it, ,r r ,f,',.--"4..,-','7"-,;.,'..il 0-,-..,-,-,* .,\-..0•-;',..5.,f-- 'z' - 2%r4.7''':41-it 4:-,,,,4-PP4,r,0_,-'*--,,: ''-' -, .4.:.,;-_,%.411-*.iir..:,.,14..-,-,-:Op flit4.-:.,--,--,. .„4 .,-,,,,s!,:-•:,_47,-. ..!4. 4._=z-;-t-;, -'tl,---.--,A----‘ -, ---- ' ..,lf 107_',.-:‘,,e...0<!le-g.,,,,,,-Y.L.-qq- -4-/:,;„:-,-.. .,..--,-10*.,.:..-flg,. .41-,:1,.-,---,-,1541,.--,-,!„-'t:ik. w4iA-4,....--',,--;:- rrrrIzkr '•-• '-'" ,,,....;;At3-r".'•*-1.-.4psyga:,4,,f,•••=;;,,4,.,,,...'....'s.,,rir:-.'r.:C.kr:,i Z---,... 1 ,.t.,-.- - i" L, _ -.7- -‘,:--,--i• '7". !,,k,'iI•3.`, • • .•••-•••••• •••• ,-• ,„,„04,414.4,4•4•-••••• '-- • • • - *..,.,...i': ....,"4"*••• '1 , .,ittioe..„ ., ,-. . ,,,f ., . t,„.., . . • - ....-;,,„f 1i, ., • • .1•' '41-.`"V`''' '.-4111111.1111b3 - , '''''...7.- -I.; '' . • "'".........,••••-----, ''' , -,. . • ' , . , 'pit.:7 ' ' ''''''.;:;.'',,'''' -, ... . ,„,. , ' •-". i .., -.7S. .3 -' '`.. '' '''' A". '-';',44!.^ :::',..''.. '''' ,• 46.'"T-'-''' '•-•'''''',...'442,.•.........f.......1.•.'...;::•,;:a•-•:.,.....4 ,„„-, - ". " • '.1 -: - '' , '" ''•-„ ( ' •:-..%''.i.- --'',.-': • 4 „, ' - ' "lit r - ' I, I - ' '•Ar • . • ' '•. . r ,• „,' • . , „ . - ; ,y4. - •,-,' .,64,'‘', ••••,e,,,i ,,,ii4,,,,-,,,, ,..:,,,,..„,„:_,,..,!...,1,,:,,f, V...-i...,?.,3:•_, ;. , , ,.,-',.,;-- '...,i ...`-- ',04:03440----;0.._,...... , 1,-/..,1;_4 5....-,---, ", „••••.-2 • - , "'1'' -v - J - • ••• ,,• - , ' ... , ° , • - -. ,, . ,,;(1. \'' 4, , _,1 slit,44' 0Acgi„.ti -.•,, .,t,,,1,.:f7-•.:',' .- .,.1.2,7-1/4\4.,:,.s.N4-..,,.,?,-_f2..-....... ..., -...:„...................---------.., , . ',,,----' . --..,,,- 'i" 4; '-•,P' '4_,-i:-,••-••-'- . --_,-- -, ., -,.-‘,.,..-.. ./',•,, ',:,,/,.....l'• ' '!;.., - -0.1k- - '--y, IF'A' '... . •, -,$ .••.2. IL14 ..;. • ,;' ;• x• ,.• I. -. • ':.4..V,',i- lit " .. ,...,----- --.'-'. —•:' ..•-;.e P.-4 1.,,At,•'''J1.-1-• 7..-.-tq•zgriie. •1' ', 44, -,4,1 1 - .- .' ' . _. IF' fr' '7 • -., • •.'•"r. • ' --",l;I ! .."---4' ' 8,r . ,,I.''''t,,,,',.'"'11 :,‘,... ., i.', --:cit,04, oil. ,` .••• ,.. , ' "' '.1"'''L.'lr ' • ..."' i4 'i.7.-7'1 •''' . .,,,7'1r21?-, '''.'44.,T,..", '''. -'4'' -' , ,,-.,•....„.•...)• .,....6.• _• ,...--,,,, Jr•,1,1,,i,/4 1.-.4,-„ •-....1-..,. %c.o.,' ,-4., ' , •- ,„, e. — „e f,i,• •,...m,,, „.t:.,si•rityp':4'.'z, 3:1:f:l'124;," ,,!';.2.--,„:.:-. . 4:.\`'•=;:% P P'• •••41$7":1t-',1-;I.4.'••'-,'.4.-.•-e' ,„ - • ,. .,,..,..,:,,,,,,.,-,_,...,‘„,..,,,,.,„. .,,,,,...,,„:,,,,,..)4.•-c-4_ ,, ' ' ' 4t, ,‘,7444,,,rvA-Nr1 ,,,,,,,,,,,...„,-_„ ,,., .. ,,.: • , ., . .1, . --,,,,,,N.,,,.,:t , ,,,, . . ---P... , • ;... : A.:•,- . .k: .4,,,...,,,.-- , ...: . . . , j,,. 1- ,3.f,., ...•. , 3, 4,. • ,„ 4kff, •, . , 7; '' " - 1'. 4' .-1 ;1,.t.-:.•16:,,tf.r.r':.1.1*4 2-1„....4:1::*..i:', 13 •,.. ,STI'V-P:X4Yrik.::::-.‘,Vre,j'ity.P. .•Id(.7'',."•;3-4--.-. ',;.' ,,,- V• 4.' '''4.- •'',",itri-,..e. , ,,, ',.,-,,,z,i... ...•,',1"h.)'. .„....A.,. , • I-4 I- -''‘', , I , 3 .. \ ''4••• ''''''"Wf-T4i'',-4t:' ;1''',71.'''''Ice• ;'„ .,q.114.,rt". •',. .. ' ,.' r . -, --r.40.„.4 • ,, - ,-- ..4,„ .. -.4.,.-'.,. .0,1, . .....,....... _ , ,,,•._,,,..0.,-?,,,, ,,,,._,N.,,,„4.,.4,„..., •,,. ,_ • .„,.„...,. ..,...„, . .. ,., . • . • ..,, ., ., ,.., ; •ar,.441,-i-*••‘' ..-44,-,, • ?..,,,?:,•„ ?..',.:, .r.1 ,",u,•,_•..0,,. •4,14;,..,,,i. •-,,, „ :,•• , ... 44. ' "... - .. ,,,06,1,, , , • :A* k*""-.4" .5"'`.:,.•". *•:' le"4; . . ' . ' .,. .' .• . 1,;si.t.,, ,NS•• 14.1,r,;.,. tp,..,,,,,-, ,„.-s-..1,..:.. , ,.. •'t-•.1,,',,,,,,..,„4-,.. ..,-P.,,).,.......p.,1,-1---.-...., /111/4/i:-.11"...P..,71.1...:;.;„ .. i- ,i44. 4, 44. . • ,,,i r • , ... '•411..'..0"..0,:e ' .. ifi, '. . , ' , ', 4-f•,',.'• - il:N,:;- \oli-ii;-• '4i1,,Y,..11P4t: I - ., '''•-,•:-• ,.. -''4/(4)-`- t•44,r.v).4,:•:',::•'-'•••/-.1(0'"--;;-,*-.,:- ,..-`4,4'44•4;t : .,'' i, ta4 +•• ; .v". ' ' ' -, , : Sp -.4-r „.,-, .g,e: . ' ' `'• ',.- • - • ; '''' ,/.`.1:4"tAr.r.' "- 7*1, '""-::_!,_ , 5'-" - . .., ..,,,,....,..,..,. „,..„,,.4 f- •••-• -,-:,'","--,,,-.4.",•iy,--- , ' ' .f. . +• V- -5 ,-,‘ , '• i.- $if.4... .• ,' ',. -'--; ••4-...7.1, _.,!,-...„,,,;-,.•' ' ,,,-.•' -0:',,`I. ,, •- 43, , ., , 1,- •=-'1 ' ,,,),. ' •s . LQ.,-fr.". 1•••• 4',..Yh''-,'..e.44.4 • •- . • ‘‘ . ' •,.,,,,„ji,:z. ,-..,, ..,•,!)--;,,,417,_.,'ry s:•.' ,• . ,..,,-, ,•rt, • ..1„,- , ..,••,‘ - , - ••.:, - - '%4r . , ,..,.. ,,.- . ,4.- . . ....,,... : ,. ,..4, , ,, 40- .. - - • , • 4 1-1 0 ,..„,,, ,i!, .89,.• • ..,,,,,,..1... ,, '. 4W-• ' ' • ' ' t.' :..t't • _ 44. 1. • , '' 4'„ ,;V: ' ql-p',,t-'.-. - . •7_, , ::-.•:...A.-4;-•?4-1 ,,-;,..,,,,jr,.,......,,,c,,,T,,p.4,,4. ,;',1 ...,itv ,....v4L 1 . '‘ ,4 . • '''r 4.4„. " , ' vti44 ',Ivir' ..4.-. • ., : c ,,,i ,ti ,-• 4-A- .,\441,,,,$y*,5,46,.. 1,k, i„,:,..,.,, .,. 0 , ,„-,,•• ,-,•,,,, - ' '1 • 4 .V, 4 :r;,..1.,1,3i , 'Yl`ii'44#, 'ir.;• „;•,,i11-••?,'L,'„f„,', ..s!, ;. 1.-i'i,'• .'i•''.ti.,'‘7,4,-/••...'•4.. ; 1:4 • 1 0 /..,, .....‘ . 2)krii,7 • ,. _ ,..6, . , . .,K, , . .1. 4. / '4"ar . r* . . 7 • .. ' 1•‘.- . '-'' . . ' „.7. lticS. "-,' r.,, ';:,° , -4 '!'?.''\ ''.'•'.1- I'''.•' ''' % ',.1' ' (44 " 'W`...A• -!:•,-•-:•4r- :,,...:51.-...,•,, f.k..,2,--1.-..-.1,..J 1.,v.;;•..;,,,,•-,,:,, ,•,,r,,,1,;/..I•,, •;7;14.,..,,,,f,t ri,.rt,. •.‘4..„.,..,.0,..,--r4-t,4,.. ......,,. .,j ..'',•z•4.4*.14. . , ,,t...L.,., -,/ _ ,. .., ..w_„..z., ...„.-1.,,1,,,,,:,,..,,.., ....„. .l't..ii „•,A., 1.4 7, 4K.',.,,•;,1 fr i .1.--.,,,i,:v-,`0,,',.:;14.- "r:-•*';', •I"1'Cil".2'14-''''' l''''' -IV'" • '' •••,-/IN;:44/*kW •, ."" Ar . ii,,, 4 4111111i 4 04 vio,„ 'P' .. t"m'its, ,••.., ', - •'•z, •J 1 .. " 1, "lit , .4-i-. ,h-,0;'..,-.:))'"• . c,i-4,..,9 LT.i.1:..:,.;.,••,,J,.141,,4,. . • '-,.1,,, ''/(jr:i'r.‘'''‘'':-...-r '.',Iiq J.: .Arr,.,•-,yrn.i.,;;$: , 1 {-,• , ' _. ... 4, -- v ,:-,-.' ,Z• -•'' -- • . '7 .4,7144- A ,-' ira.. ,. ,..,-,., -,,,,.,.--r i.,,,, k i '. ;-,,' '''4 '4 I:1 • • •I'-' .1- ,i1;'- iii,,,I, ''.;(o._7.i;,.,',.,,•-,.. - i-,-,,.41,1,,, la -al" - .,.'. .:.- • '.":11-•,,.•44• • -.• 1 k • . '4 1 .401 is - • • iiiitle;e0'••i"• -•••'- ' • lf,•, -' ';241't' ',':`5 ,,,,, . .-4-t. ,-,--Ott t„. ..,, p.L , 4" . ':',14,..114 . , . - ..-I . . T ,• , ,...,, p . ,,.,., , . . „.1.,,, ,4 1 ,.,i; .1!',;:r\;-,,,4,;•.-,,,),,.y..,,..1,F,,'-ft,‘• ;•u?i,1 ',-,,,,I,0,1-0,.7,,,••,! v. _t ",•!..tr", -...x, ,,,c . .- ,,,,,s0_‘•7, , es%,) .--0, - • ,i,..t4., „.., „It -; '4 ,. ,,; 4A'.3n1.-,'•.:7-',''N'iiV:-...'i' v-i0J;-:•.Y.. r,•:-.:IV,,) --'40 .4i, '''). ,'z''''A'-'. ' plilti•v:9:' ., . 'IP it. r, , , -„*.i,•,. ,. ,, , '..-. . ,v,... ,., - -,, .„,-., 4, 1, ,.,$).,..,c,„,,.., i,,,,.,.-„,-,,..,...,...,..„,,,,i,,,,, .i..., ,y.,..t.,.. , If , , .),,,,,:.,,J;•,./..• . .. ,..,,, , ,...,.., .,,,„, . - , .., 1,11;„. ., ,,j,,,,, ,i, „.1 ,... ,. „, ;„..„4,,• ,,, .,,,,,:.„ , „,,,,„,, k p , . ; lib ,g;',.."•• ki ,T..,, 1‘'..-',r:, ',.:,`i„W,1,I.A..`„3.'7.,14,,,,11'J.4:-, ..,,,,the T,e,.,•q... 4.'1.1,.-'', .t,, '• .- '''. ',,ei' .., it . 104001 ''' '', ;". \' '' P 1,,, 4.14c 410, ; ...i",„, ' ,' • it,=, ,..-1 '?,W7P IA 4P*104.'4 ZA ltit S'l',17;,fl Pk Lt tiii'c',7141.V‘l''''' 44.4'•.1".'.... .'. ''' ''''' ''''' _ ' tiF , '',,.# • . . -" ' , • .,, ,-, • ..t t. :. r- ...'': ,.'.4,,k' :4, 4i... • ',4,7,' i-li-'•,..,„44:4. .4 5-?.'.\ •-•.4. 4.',11 ',:•,1';‘,71•2''.:.,,i'k4..,„.-':444.'1'5,;•1'.",'•,•• '''''1-',..•4.7.1.‘ 4....;;,4,_`''‘ ,:-Z.: :ft-1;4 •- -'''' ...., '0/41010r lot! t ' ; --';4* il'r +a,..''' ' :, •,. •;.--.I . ', -r • , ,. .,..?:* . , a ; IT . r; - • , :,..-;•,!:,fisi,:t,'!I71,-.e.,kirjs;ii''';',.C.I'..-1:14,4'P,‘„,',4-,j,',.. .ifdii•4i't''' 11V4I•'1-•..,,,,,,4, : ,,,,..„,t,, ,11:4,,:, . .,,, ., .41,--.. . • -.. , . •: • ar , . i 0-•,--'-';',':',- '41,, ,c,icf,,,,,' „',^,1- flii,eftb,),.'n'At,'!„,,:.,.'i',!;','.',r,4,'''' ",- ,' V.‘,.."14•1‘.;.J..,' l• I A, '11:11."' ' • ii,..,. • ,,,N, ',.. ' -,.. / t iNC-- ;..• -• ,- '--'L-.• •',40.• , ,. 44 .,", '''‘i 03. , ... ,..?,t)42f.P.,1',, e gq:•,,,i,C;'i,.,41A3i:, •- ' kih1,14,4 ,•,„,.` :-'" i'',.'• ._ s,.4 46, - t, . ' .,--',;„, .. - ..„. • ,'',r7:.,.. .",• '''-:r‘. ,,, ' ,.. •' ,..44.•.".,, ,,-.',,•-,.,-,., ,:i',.:,,, -.., !„,:.1 , ' ..4* ,.-• . ''it-71`;.i -4-1;;:z'' ''.;.471 'ill-•', . '1 .i'...',‘q4-21.., ,1:161. '7:,iiii114$Z7,r;.• •', ."!;44:•., ,,,,,,re e„;,,. . .. ,..L. Aiig.-$0,., . „ ,-,.,‘,.. .1 ,... : .._, ,_,.. t... .,,.-, 4,. ,,-,),:v ,,,t4.,,46,*.., ,,o..\ .cpb.,,,,01. 4,.11... .. ,,,,,tiy . ,,e',41,-..: • . -, .34 ,,.- ,.; i lvq. ,.. , . ... ir.it,t e",•‘,. , '',, ,,' o' ; ''',', - .- , • 4 .•, . f ..1,• ;it.' : '''''''f`sir.*. '. 0.,N(.441,:•'•.,•/ ::',':,*•-•,:..C•,,N - -' :47, ''''' 4•.. Ffi -lie • ' • 'i'•-,,, '' ' '- - .4 • ''. -‘).'; •--;42.-, • f_ „.; ' ,.,,..--4 ,.- • -0: ,..."5- . ''' ',4 T*,--, ow.i1•0-y,-;., ••., 2-4 ,0 i,p,li,,,•• :c,-)ii,e' -1.1;',.\::•.N,:-.-.„11..:-..,. ..,1, ' .- .'' - .- ,4 ; ; ,....._,- ' ,-., :- -...;,,,-:. ' . - •,., ,- ' Fir t- t, .- t . -. `'. ' , * ., 4 • *t .i'-',P ••444 #a s• 4 ..y.-,A;,,,.,,,,,-.••-•-•..ii,,•.,:,:',4„•.-•, •,jjs'„Vt. 4,1 •.}.r./•,•,;:i".,'":',7;':',.,..r.. 4 .tr, Ii4; "''..", • r A',. Al.3FE ' ' , . kl0P3-.1'.3.51'.'114 c.., I .., , v- 4 0 •-4.•-,-.‘77-----,o-,. 0 • ;446-4.., • '-., • .. - 't'.. - . .. ,, 4',,,04.r.,, '-i Aylte.'..,,Y,. ..„•. 47:4414, . ' ''''- ••• 1,,i 4pli.• 4 1, . .. ,•• : . 4(-44„ , ...., 4 . , • , 4 ..* '''‘q `4.(, '‘.. 4". ,'i-; ',, •••i JAL--;. '. 4; :...,*;,,*4 4...NI•'. ti• tts.:" '... :I.\0 .., '. LI ,•••,, r 4 ' r 4 ; ,,, 4 , 4 44;,, 'I triF.4,,4,4rA V Wa" 'r.•• . •- .- • i, . • • ' 41 4:1:1'4 .E iT" '': ' '''5'ii.'--.-.: ••. ••-::''' - - .- i.:i,':..•-'''.;I'. .1 '..',... - ' -....:A •-•,44 6., ,.- ...'': ... 4- ...... .7,,..;. „ ,..r',1;.•,,16',41,110 9, l' y, ‘ 4 'e,, 1 ,k: ... . . 104.1.,- '4.. •, , , ; A • . •,,, , - , .,,,, c'• . ' • L • 14.• '' l''''" b k f'"'''' ., . . „ , ••4%,.,lititit,k,.1.4P ti il.i ' 4• 11 It "11 i„i'V ..i.;V tot '' ''?.' * , '',1 ',4'. .•lf 4,.n. ';r•-,2,4-:..11 ' . ' 2I_-...44,,...Q... .4. .i 4 t II. 44.; '.,,,,.•I •,-,:•'• ,•••'• ..••• .‘Appp.•,... • . ,,sak.,..i.,,,..r., ?.. • ,:eil',; %I pa 44 it• ,/ii‘.0 - '4 I- 4 -4E.'• ' "'"''., ` -I lir rr. . .c. . r _ • - .- . 4 . . %. _ , e ,. A 14 f' le . ..'',,, .'. . ' ... 4..i' ,'. .1$1.. f Av. v•',. • ,,, x4, . • ' 71‘. r• ,'". ' l.4. .:00' .f.1.-jo- A.;.• .. ' 7. -11,, , ., ' t.,• ,,,' - -...'.' , ,,,i t r a,. ,,„,-, .,,,... . .• . .. . - , -44,',...' ' '-..1,,,.- ',. ,,* -`4: "- '. " •,,t," ,,, . _.,„i.2., ,.., ...,,,,,,,ji j ,,..t 0,1:'' •• '.,'..-4;;;;''' 401 ' ' .• , .4 '•1•1•,,ki 4.1-'' '. "' . .,.4,, .. .• ; I, ... tl4i 40,4', f'It 1..,,, ,'t , '•'A": ,,' r . . , . . -....".VI . r--.. • ,,.qi„.0)!t,-........•••• , .... - . . .; • " ,. :0'.,"T-s 't .41e IA -* ,' ,,,, . ,.- - ;..,‘,. ,,,,..,,..... ..44 Ir.. it•,,,,.., . ;I)?' • . • t .iif 'i't " :1:' '‘(, 4 - .;.,' 'k 1., ,‘ .'''' .1 ._'_,I 4e..', "..:*•.;` .4,•'''. ...,,,.,:,•v;'.-, — , ,, •„ .. . . , , . ••,.`1,,,',41yi'.':!. • ,..„' , ...•A'. e. -- . ' . ' 't ,h4, 1.,,, vitip tui, '• :.• Alt.1 . ., 4. , , ,,4._.rt .. * S - • * ..4.. t .. ,‘ '''. ' . .-.. 7' ' '44t.-1-' 3 '' .. 4 ., sr 1 ,--,- ,.. ,•:,.... , y-P -'''. :'.'444 '''' W '.. t • .t,irk i tt-1 , • - ;,--.41'"..- . . • .„.!4:-;,;-!•,r:•,,,n,'., 1 .4, :',4*,•;''' .1'+.14.i.lc.iy,)„.4 . p IV . ' ... i 3 ,11,,,.. 1 i • „i .. J t,,,,, ., . . ', ' . - , • 4 ' ..,,r----• (;•:1-",'I'Vtr 1111L' :'1144 3/4,--4,,•-•f,.,L,., Itip",...AZ "-•• svv4 ••• 4.1.• i;;;•1/1,...-;',,;t,.:f T, .- s-- . . Iv-'..i.4'••,...;/,„. r' ' 4 ••• ..14,. ' Al- .' ' '1•C-d'..' ' ,k, ..„. 1...:-..s% , ,, —--• , .... ; -''.• --:';.:3i,7. , ,.? • ..,, .„.,.., ,, a, , 4 1 -4'7'.;•:44'.•••', -•-••=\)•••• 11'i • .;‹, _,•----,..,,,,,,..-:-,-:,,,_-,,.1.,,,,-.. - . .,. ' .- J.:L..% -s -, 1 1,10,1 ., - ,,,6.;:.,,,:, r''', ' -f- '',' jii,..\..- , -- It....--,.../d. tz,._ .... . . • I... ..-...., .4. ' ....44w-,Law• .--::44 t .1 iri i 1.4,,I. ,, iii,, , • •'1 ,-,. •'',-LAC IF • ' _.-.....- .I.5.-',I4tr.,.. - 1-- .:2--_;2 , ''-'-'.:' .--.'-r 7.- Z'‘:- "'''5:It fi'''t" ' ' .'.''' ' '. : '.'tIMIO 111.1.11111t4tUlt3 1LU ottWaL\41"% l'•%-- '•''-'!' . • . - ' . -,--_..,':4 -',":„-,L.:,-,.;_•,;'‘ r.s.1, (41. . -,. ;ill' .I. ' (! ' -'. . ,.. , , • `-. -4:, • -•"fijt _,,. • . ;4-_:411‘•-1-•r.''''':?-X5'•••\1,4( ' gittk(111•- P. :'-•'4"' •••.•'`' .:, 44; .' ,, ,. , ,p., , - . • : . • - I, •'-•••••' • ..' ' '•-• •••• - '.... r: - ' XI', I ---(NW* Nileg4•44, I ''r,-- ',i-•-•.. --;..;..;' T.ii , .44,•-!: ', ' -,.‘,.. ''.'. -•.!'').4•:`'.-r-',:,.. -L.: .- .,. . ... .-: ... , ' . L . -. -. ; ..-, - •;.', _ ....'- ."..' ',..' \ • * . . f ; 7;pr7:,,,J.: ei:1;,,,.1;41':"4.,:l...4:: 1,. ,"•-. ..'...--, ....`):7:: 14'.',.- s .;,,.1 :. : '' .4 74'. - le ' ',.' ' .- -..41 1,•.' '-'- . — t w Ilk' '4,1 v.. A •.- '.4 -:•." IT* .'4'; ",_ . _ - ' -"-------. ,,,,,......41.;:c...,.,,,..,..,...,____,., ,,y.„z., ..,...„..... ., .A.. . _p. . . _..„, . • - - Members of the Planning Commission Planning Director ' (, l _WI Town Hall Office 26379 Fremont Road FEB-\\ FEB 3 2016 Los Altos Hills CA 94022 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS RE: Planning Commission—Lands of Linebarger Dear Los Altos Hills Planning Commission and Planning Director: We respectfully request that existing setbacks be enforced for any new construction on the lands of Linebarger. No variances should be granted. In an attachment to the recently available Staff Report to the planning Commission regarding the Lands of Linebarger,Attachment#8, Applicants Response to Variance Findings for Lots 1 and 3,uses photographs and data to misrepresent reality in the neighborhood. The document claims: "Most homes in the neighborhood do not meet the setback standards set by the town, including many with side yards setbacks of 10' or less." • It may be true that some "homes in the neighborhood do not meet the setback standards set by the town."Most were constructed prior to the founding and existence of Los Altos Hills. Our home on a 1-acre lot, was built in 1966 met the Planning Department in Santa Clara County. Using selective data comparing homes built 50 years ago to argue for a variance for reduced setbacks for new construction activity in 2016 intentionally distorts the typical make-up of this Mora Drive neighborhood. The Attachment makes an assumption by claiming: "There is no indication that any of the occupants of those homes suffer any ill-effects from having their homes a substantially smaller distance from each other:"But our Mora Drive home has suffered and continue to suffer ill-effects from the limited side-yard setbacks due to the difficulty of getting material and equipment to the rear yard of our home. Ten years ago we obtained permit to make an extension and remodel. Only to fmd that the cost was too prohibitive due to lack of access to the back. We were told that the only safe way was to use a helicopter to bring in the necessary equipment for drilling new pillars. So we have definitely suffered for lack of proper side setbacks. (Incidentally, Linebarger document is not carefully prepared. The photos showing our house 10898 Mora Drive are not photos of our house.) The Los Altos Hills Planning Department regulations, including side setback regulations, have evolved over many years. In the case of our Mora Drive property,the side yard setbacks are quite limited,but reflect the regulations at the time of construction—a home built sometime in the past with limited setbacks is not a valid reason that new construction in LAH in 2016 should have a variance. No setback variances should be granted for new construction on the lands of Linebarger. Sincerely, A9,4,Cta4‘ IS"David and Ann Crockett 10898 Mora Drive Loa Altos Hills, CA 94024 Jaime McAvoy . • From: Suzanne Avila Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2016 8:06 AM • To: Jaime McAvoy Cc: Steve Padovan Subject: FW: Thursday's study session • 'From: Donna Leong [mailto:dleongdds@hotmail.comj Sent:Tuesday, February 02, 2016 8:26 PM To:Suzanne Avila <savila@losaltoshills.ca.gov> Subject:Thursday's study session To Whom it May Concern, I am against the high density building development on the top of Mora. I live a few blocks below and would like to maintain the one house/one acre appeal of this area. Thank you, Dawvicv Leon . 1 Esther M. John 10701 Mora Drive • Los Altos Hills, CA 94024 650-948-6076 February 2, 2016 To the Los Altos Hills Planning Department Ms. Suzanne Avila, Planning Director To the Los Altos Hills Planning Commission Mr. Jitze Couperus, Chair Ms. Kavita Tankha,Vice Chair Mr. James Abraham, Member Mr. Susan Mandle, Member Mr. Richard Partridge, Member Re: CDP applications for 10730 Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills, Lands of Lineberger, Lot 1 and Lot 3 Dear Ms. Avila, Chair Couperus and members of the Planning Commission: I urge the Planning Commission and the City Council to deny the above CDP applications which request extreme variances for side setbacks for the construction of two new homes on two substandard lots that previously were never developed. For both Lot 1 and Lot 3, side setback of 10 ft and 15 ft are requested.According to Los Altos Hills development code, the minimum side setbacks of 30 ft on both sides are required. Granting these variance requests for Lot 1 and Lot 3 will severely impact on the semi-rural character of Los Altos Hills and will result in high- density development on upper Mora Drive,just steps away from the entrance to the Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve. The neighbors do not support such a high-density development which is not consistent with the semi-rural character of our neighborhood. Historical Background Both Lot 1 and Lot 3 have never been developed; they were always maintained as open space by the original property owner. Both lots are part of the 1.6 acre property (with a single family home built in 1939/1940 by the original owner, the Malovos family) purchased by Mr. Linebarger in 2006, and subdivided by Mr. Linebarger into 3 lots (0.37 acre, 0.8 acre, 0.40 acre)within a few months of purchase on the basis of partial underlying parcel lines. At that time, our neighborhood was already under the Sphere of Influence of Los Altos Hills. Furthermore, the Mora Drive neighborhood was part of the Mora Drive Sewer Project which stipulated that property owners who participated in the Mora Drive Sewer Project could not refuse future annexation to Los Altos Hills. In spite of the not to oppose annexation agreement signed by Ms. Malovos, Mr. Linebarger opposed annexation. The neighborhood anticipated and welcomed - annexation to Los Altos Hills which took place in 2012. Being a commercial developer, Mr. Linebarger surely was aware of the building code in Los Altos Hills when he purchased the property in 2006, but nonetheless shortly thereafter created substandard lots of 0.37 acre, 0.8 acre, and 0.40 acre. He surely was aware that the small lots did not meet Los Altos Hills' lot size requirements, yet he subdivided his 1.6 acre property nevertheless. He surely was aware of the eventual annexation of our neighborhood because his property of 1.6 acre came with one single sewer connection, as the late Ms. Malovos participated in the Mora Sewer Project. Interestingly, before the Malovos property went on sale in 2006, the Malovos family did attempt to subdivide the property into two lots; the County refused such a subdivision. Yet, some months later, in June 2006, the County did approve the subdivision into three lots. Shortly after purchasing the 1.6 acre property from the Malovos family, in March 2006, Mr. Lineberger submitted to Santa Clara County a development application for the construction of three new homes. The application was never completed and the County did not approve the application. 2015 CDP applications to the Los Altos Hills Planning Department • The attachments to the Staff Report provided for the February 4th Study Session raise a number of concerns: 1) The Los Altos Hills Development code clearly states "The purpose of the Variance is to resolve practical difficulties or undue hardships, not of the applicant's own making."Yet the subdivision of the original 1.6 acre property into substandard lots is of the applicant's own making (see above under Historical Background).That does not justify the granting of the requested variances. 2) Comparisons are made between small setbacks requested for the construction of 2 new homes on lots that were never developed and existing setbacks of homes that were for the most part built before 1956 when Los Altos Hills was founded, and as much as 70 years ago.When many of the original homes on Mora Drive were built, there were no building regulations that required 30 ft side setbacks. The comparison of the requested side setbacks for the construction of two new homes to those seen in our old neighborhood is flawed. The existing setbacks of homes built before 1956 do not justify the granting of the requested variances for new home construction. 3) Several irrelevant comparisons are made in the exhibits provided by Mr. Lineberger. In the Exhibit "Building Setback Analysis", a home on Kenbar Road is presented. Such a setback comparison is not relevant. That particular home is in the unincorporated Santa Clara County area and was newly constructed a couple of years ago under Santa Clara County development code, not under Los Altos Hills' development code. In the same exhibit, a photo is shown for 10898 Mora Drive. The photo shown goes with a different address. In the Exhibit"Parking Setback Analysis", the highlighted homes on Kenbar Road and Roily Road are part of the unincorporated Santa Clara County area. 4) There is concern about the impact of the proposed home construction on the natural environment.There are a number of large and old trees along the property line of Lot 3, located on the Winchell property. Construction of Lot 3 will most likely lead to the eventual death of these trees due to the disturbance of the tree roots associated with construction and the building of a deep basement. Furthermore, the former Malovos property looks very different now compared to 2005 just prior to the acquisition by Mr. Linebarger. Since then, and subsequent to active grading of part of the property, many trees, including large trees, have gradually"disappeared" over the years. 5) The CDP application demonstrates no support by the neighbors. I am not aware of any property owners in the area supporting Mr. Linebarger's development proposals. In fact, 202 neighbors (I) have signed a petition opposing the proposed high-density development. Numerous neighbors, many with multiple decades of residence in the neighborhood, have submitted letters to the Town, strongly opposing the proposed development.These materials are included in Attachment 7 of the Staff Report. Los Altos Hills' residents greatly care about the unique and special semi-rural character of Los Altos Hills and wish to preserve it for future generations. 6) There are many other properties in Los Altos Hills that have portions of underlying parcel lines, including several properties on Mora Drive. The approval of the requested variances would set a dangerous precedent for future high-density development on many more small substandard lots. In conclusion, the CDP application with its extreme setback variances for the construction of two new homes on two substandard lots of 0.37 and 0.40 acres should not be approved. The special environment on Mora Drive is the reason why our family moved to Los Altos Hills 23 years ago.Thank you for your leadership in preserving the unique semi-rural character of Los Altos Hills. Sincerely, Esther M. J hn Jaime McAvoy From: Suzanne Avila Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 8:46 AM To: Jaime McAvoy Cc: Steve Padovan Subject: FW: Sticking to the Rules! From: Margo Seymour [mailto:margosevmour@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 8:47 PM To:Suzanne Avila <savila@losaltoshills.ca.gov> Subject:Sticking to the Rules! We hope you will not allow anything less than 1 acre in Los Altos Hills. Although we are not yet a part of your town, we adhere to the one acre minimum lot size standard and abhor the precedent that will be set if Mr Linebarger is allowed to go thru with his plans. Margo and Dale Seymour, 11170 Mora Dr. Los Altos (Hills). i Harold V. Feeney Mary Jo Feeney 11030 Mora Drive,Los Altos,CA 94024 650.941.6085 Tel•650.391.7207 Mobile haafeenev.us.com miefeenev.us.com January 31, 2016 Members of the Planning Commission Planning Director Town of Los Altos Hills Town Hall Office 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills CA 94022 RE: Planning Commission—Lands of Linebarger Dear Los Altos Hills Planning Commission and Planning Director: We respectfully request that existing setbacks be enforced for any new construction on the lands of Linebarger and that no variances be granted. In an attachment to the recently available Staff Report to the planning Commission regarding the Lands of Linebarger, Attachment#8, Applicants Response to Variance Findings for Lots 1 and 3, uses photographs and data to misrepresent reality in the neighborhood. The document claims: "Most homes in the neighborhood do not meet the setback standards set by the town, including many with side yards setbacks of 10' or less." It may be true that some "homes in the neighborhood do not meet the setback standards set by the town," but that may be for a very good reason. Some of the homes in the exhibit were constructed prior to the founding and existence of Los Altos Hills, and some, like our own single story home on a 1-acre lot, were built prior to the establishment of a Planning Department in Santa Clara County. Seventy five years ago, Santa Clara County's Ordinance No. 167 stated, "BUILDING PERMITS are issued at the office of the County Planning Commission, Court House, San Jose. There is no charge for a building permit." Using selective data comparing homes built 50 to 75 years ago to argue for a variance for reduced setbacks for new construction activity in 2016 intentionally distorts the typical make-up of this Mora Drive neighborhood (in the same manner as comparing the charge for a building permit today to that of another era). Attachment#8 makes an assumption by claiming: "There is no indication that any of the occupants of those homes suffer any ill-effects from having their homes a substantially smaller distance from each other." In our case at our Mora Drive home, the answer is YES, we have suffered and continue to suffer ill-effects from the limited side-yard setbacks due to the difficulty of getting material and equipment to the rear yard of our home. As an example, our home was seriously damaged in the Loma RE: Planning Commission—Lands of Linebarger Page 2 Prieta earthquake—significant restoration was required and there was great difficulty in accessing the rear of the property. Did the preparer of the document survey the property owners selected for the photo illustration to determine if property owners experienced ill-effects from limited side yard setbacks? The Los Altos Hills Planning Department regulations, including setback regulations, have evolved over many years. They exist for a reason. In the case of our Mora Drive property, the side yard setbacks are quite limited, but reflect the regulations at the time of construction—a home built sometime in the past with limited setbacks is not a valid reason that new construction in LAH in 2016 should be built in such a manner—no setback variances should be granted for new construction on the lands of Linebarger. Sincerely, Harold V, Feeney, Jr. Mary Jo Feeney P.S. The photograph of property labeled as 10898 Mora Dr. in Attachment#8 is incorrectly located and labeled. The property owner of the home pictured required an easement access through a neighboring property for access to the rear of the referenced property. 11030 Mora Drive•Los Altos,CA•94024 . . • . PROTECTIVE .. C., L , *. L . ., ,.. , 4: 7 .:,. :. .. . . . . . REGULATIONS . .: SIXTH UNIT :OF THE ZONING PLAN . . , SANTA cLkkA,COUNT( CALIARIA- - ',44 i-A CLARA COUNTY MAY 1941 r , .._ .. . . . 1. . . . . .. . . PLANNINq COMMISSION. , .... The zoning plan was prepared by the County Plannieg,Cernmission at the request of, and with,Tho active esti-stencil of the property owners of the:district. It was adopted by the Board of SiAttrY1*04 tO promote'thot'oot,tol.welfare..by,tiroviclIng a.guide.for the orderly and sound economic development of the zoned'area, The zoning plan is administered.by-the Planning Commission. Apply to Commission- - .. .. . , . . . .., 'for-building permit which is required before construction of any building or the-eifab- ... fishreerit of any commercial use other than crop and free farming. .. . , BUILDING PERMITS are issued at the office of the County Planning Commission, .... - .., Court House,.San Joie. There'is no:charge for a building permit. . 1. . — ....,_.... • DISTRICT IPSES'FESLSOTTEP HEIGHT LOT ARE.A. IFKON'T.Y,•Alli)•I SIDE YAOS It EAX•.TAA0 ' . R-E:.,.B-Co i 6.11/ •.Iy.411•cie 3511.- CtOI4t.-tr. lir.:4.-, s 4.4,- ,isttih-hcilioti, vee—rETC--ir -2 1.iiiini-.'i4eiuli4,.. ls ft. • 1*.E40-4f;1*: .2i:w icil.,f7. : to%Iii-44i41,- ,Elf-,rr.dr'1"' i•r:- 4,-...doi;ii Is it: . 1:4.64) sa4:1-• - la riit.:- 701'.'44 4444' A.2t 14 .•. All lypit.'ilrillittipt . '71 ft. • I a.,., SEE 0101NANCI 410; 12O.FOIE ._ . ,.._... ....._ ... , c.—I ._ I Abe.. tlidittP!Wai.ipti ..15 Et: . :SPECIFIC'itteLIEAT10FIS . .. . . . ., 4x.-3;.,,T--7:qY:;•1•4P....'"7-•,•:-.'.',,..Z-.if,P4.,-F.,777::,..7-11ttO -='•••-!.,-;OADINAP'.iCif40':isiz,:.-1 ctrainii:i.‘r:e..c....4 if latex nat..,itai: :szarlom -3 ,nu ...1........ if..e 1.1. en-cieetiTANcl„ce TIO,cor.ThrrtoF .0.., ,--iiia,km 4,F.#4.* *.6'14 '44 41,.4 j.4 I. !.' l!elFe:4,114'.:(3,0),Zig..1. SANTAcifAiii..trxts oit::am.atiiG .44:!•.it....ri...tiiid:FLi4t',is''ik ,-Ii.E;:i,it. *i'd..i.'4t44-64 -.‘,4.4.4..i; 01 ,,..4Ittrni46.:-daDii(4)4e.1.•-•iia, O.d'*"",',AY D. 1117. •!-'4'4- `i4e'4.•, : =0414:iiAos44;44fr•,*‘..)•iti if . no Ot SAIDtatlittl':i6iscli altit- 59 IS.::.44f4j4'.ta'bk‘..."ti. 114°;3i'.! .1";Ei4'4.°4." ''4 f*4.C";;" .... ..., • • ..,-- ,.,.. 5c Juirkilij siii6"i 44, ii. -t-,a;,;;-ii. At lit, 4, iii mi. NAN.aa.41.1q01/71 AS-TNE.,r;u1DriO' ''•', - • . ,• --,',-:•••*. ,•. • :, ' .? „i . f. lilt, •DiaNNANCE 0'THe rcoti}trtH,ce ,"j4d:,;n4,.1.''4`!tu!..47'14,.!' 4.•:!4'4.• 5T 5i 1,161 if "It 7.4.1.4.Plii:' us- .• - ' w.,,t,c.a.- ps.iik SANTA C,1.41.A.,:om WAS',PASSED' .7.,-.L.771' .7 ,7 1 . .fr' •"4 ..t.I.IP!.ft.g4'.9 - 7, • D.-Anonsa.iiir tie;00AP.O...cr: -1'4.14,---C4-1:C°9°!"-:66 t.cfm,.._ ...,:a:43,..141, Ptic4.!iusl)itaili.,,i;... 4 litetirr laattrsitid tad nada e-pia:el is Su;„.... aupesvitr.04,.ipt-SAID,.CDIJNYT ON •:-L.,, •,•• •• • ..- •. NO :. • tvinettt'Hint. DAY int.ism• 'ucusr It. 0. .k.Drd'it".(' . , • . - . .. . . • I Neer.. 1917.BY ADeru.a-Thes,rroS.icnoP4 -SIAT-10)4'1• 11.14.. '0,"4.1.'‘, In4T' - ' - 9-1:-.0i0 SECTIONS"10.14-• Ip.s AND .t.,..1....,-.,..a.a b...A. *I,. 6...Ad 1 IGT. . • . ., . . . -, . .. . . , , • — • • • ' 4tritri: Ary alq.. .- ,a i„. ..u.d &.e, AA.04:11.i Superrharo essiiiun ei.,41;3iird.od 344Pe‘elliel el u. •Citatere el 1414'Caere:'ttica I - . 1*D.iii.#1 8.041.4iii if is.C..44 if 'itii• 164.,.'144.)4.1o•T's•V•41,oie,tr."...! d Ciinii; .: u.k.: C..,. N.4..a Car:4er•ii, 4. .3.;. c:4,14:f.4.4:44':'"sici:4A.1 E:::::{6-,f.tili la: Agyai4 kkoLiNt V. SPTGAN.• . .lat... ,,;,;.r7-.7,'7t:-,-•--.- .1e,i'llic'E•_iti Vali if it.ziAmd.pt..0-.ii4*" c- 7'C44".".i'l."44r3°'.4" th.ca...it-,..t.14::•44,••:. C•04•47•94. SECTION I. 64,iii4,cir4,.jiti:-.;4i At Cl.,, Pease; Carefeeita:. leifd *4,le &Ma Chas. 344 a C4111.14.• • . q0.47 d 3eta-difi."*.rite`74 ttiThatiota. 1.'.S,146-A,0.i.j.sej cmie•pert Pr Wit 37,ei.:Criii-5.1..6.tht.. .5.111 prthetece I. Itrigiee Pi lir Z...1entienstri. . DiP••••i C....' .- . . .. . .. ' • • .. . • - . ...... Harold V. Feeney 11030 Mora Drive,Los Altos,CA 94024 650.941.6085 Tel•650.391.7207 Mobile hal(afeenev.us.com February 1, 2016 Ms. Suzanne Avila, Planning Director Mr. Steve Padovan, Consultant Planner Town of Los Altos Hills Town Hall Office 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills CA 94022 RE: Planning Commission—Lands of Linebarger—Background on Tract No. 10 of the Jo Mora Ranch Dear Ms. Avila and Mr. Padovan: Eighty two percent of the parcels in the Jo Mora Ranch are greater than 3/4 acre. The background paragraph of the Staff Report states that "this map [Tract No 10 of the Jo Mora Ranch] created approximately 40 lots that range in size from about one half of an acre to one and one half acres." It should be noted that 82% of the recorded parcels are 3A acre or larger. The average parcel size was 0.95 acre. There was never an intent to emphasize small lots as part of this subdivision (only 7 of the 38 lots were below 3A acre—of these 7 parcels, the two smallest were never developed as stand-alone parcels, they were combined with other parcels). In the 1940s, some property owners purchased parts of parcels so that their land ownership would approach or exceed 1 acre (for example the Malovos family purchased the entire Parcel 2 in 1939/1940, a portion of Parcel 3 (0.37 acres) in 1941, and a portion of Parcel 1 (0.40 acres) in 1948. Parcel 4 and the other portion of Parcel 3 were purchased by the Roberts family, the neighbor to the north. Similarly, a portion of the 0.53 acre Parcel 36 across the street is under the same ownership as the larger Parcel 34). In 1941, the Santa Clara County zoning for the area became 1-acre minimum under Ordinance No. 167. This zoning predated the creation of the substandard lots referred to as the Lands of Linebarger. Please characterize Tract No. 10 of the Jo Mora Ranch as having most parcels greater than 3A acres. Sincerely, Harold V. Feeney RE: Planning Commission-Lands of Linebarger-Background on Tract No. 10 of the Jo Mora RanchPage 2 Jo Mora Ranch Lot Size Analysis • 1932 17=>1.25 Acres ®<0.75 Acre 13% 18% ❑1.0-1.24 Acres 210/0 ,a 0.75-0.99 Acre 48% 0<0.75 Acre 0 0.75-0.99 Acre ❑1.0-1.24 Acres 0=>1.25 Acres Jo Mora Ranch Lot Size Data • 1932 Lot# Area Lot# Area Lot# Area Lot# Area 1 0.8 11 1.64 21 1.43 31 0.83 2 0.83 12 1.03 22 0.91 32 0.77 3 0.8 13 0.91 23 0.91 33 1.04 4 0.83 14 1.01 24 0.98 34 0.91 5 0.73 15 0.97 25 0.63 35 0.82 6 0.78 16 1.66 26 1.39 36 0.53 7 0.77 17 1.03 27 1.2 37 0.78 8 1.01 18 0.6 28 1.13 38 1.23 9 0.97 19 0.64 29 1.57 10 0.84 20 0.64 30 0.62 Count 38 Parcels Max 1.66 Acres Min 0.53 Acres Ave 0.95 Acres Median 0.94 Acres 11030 Mora Drive•Los Altos,CA•94024 • :e . Q � s� 4�+ • -',S,44",,,..1.: ,it %; o\, ,�rg.G 0 • . .Yrri'- t '.fr. $I / s y' Ii iV H/r}� ;+ 1' as IAA 1i `a ; „ C ` 11 J// 3 i ' 1 r' C. ' /6I •d 'r 4o t.-0•I 10,m z! •,. , 40 p \' /itN }sti r Cc.-ids.r 1'•10 t1.7;k e, '' '1.-... i •l e'• 41•,-i 49 \SJlA 1, ,I' F 1t lr i, _ vT , f { #r 4 lsgwt:; i ►•:�'f'° i5 t:n trr.eftr�rS'(�,'(r,} t'.'{ a +\ t'.r •,,, r 6`� i A 't . •4'•,.1t 'f:,..3, cYA+�•,, ..��g f Y ,.- s. �:, ,, �4 . N �'• Y /0i, iiu.arc i }• /3 ,Z\ iu�Yf,` 'a. `, lsisiA > g. ' r ,`_` •Z4.' /1 ',t-, •/° IL • .e ;4• ,•''.'w',' 1•^A' �. p PIA 't /!* . ':' ' ill .5 '1. •„, 4.,-!,'I . '•-rte b 'i:. - of N 9 e A ,pc-,0 �. r�.Mtt4'X;'.'y-i•. ti. 7 . "rI} %,- .y,H• o+,• �� 11.f 1u.ar' tt � • . r� •'.- ti . et, aA. ` f f 4. : ^ k / R CT J�o. JQ r?fl1A Of, ri f u�elt..) 4 -:v- sre ;C .x r- • ✓o 1/o ,q ,qVc !iA , ` ,5 //Tf�.-CZO cOz//YTrOgiler \ +-.�\ jai:01 ?-: ... i7 r ? _ .. , Z ofJUBDivii/Ov dE•NJz�JAv o/.eOT,•4 H9L£/PawCHY '' c .z„ d.`RC!' JUBIiY/.f/4N 'AJ,FGi4POf0/ii%B.?e.Y.% OF'iH?PJ,Orr%-'o ,e - • - • .... .� fNGFJ fdf9, >fYCOALtfClfJgiYTA�GCA,PA_LO!/flX 38 ' '''''13.1,--..' t 3T# 1 ,1/ ' 'O4'4.-i!/Y4'V r /o,ffYNG/iq SU. :-FP10 i1P'P- /7JiR r i kA. t o ..iF ft” AfAY>91j ,?FQu.Jr scv.lO MOR4 •• !• ... _: " '.f: JCI}1olavii.f, 1 , .71i...rJiv:ry..e- 3GA!!/'4'eve. .*,4,,1 ..Jl' -•;,:„.:•:,77.-•,:,',' r4 JJ"• r.;..:r/i,--✓41.4!4.x.;.-.4 Grin! • RE: Planning Commission-Lands of Linebarger-Background on Tract No. 10 of the Jo Mora RanchPage 4 .,.,..‘7,0•'' A ' .. P. '''". att- :.e7i1' e,.4 PROTECTIVE . • , --- , • ,. L ,..:'''.•.!.:f til - , .. . .1,.4•.; . ,, REGULATIONS • • •. SIXTH UNIT OF THE ZONING PLAN . SANTA CLARA COUNTY CAU9P &A O fARA COUNTY MAY, „9„. FI . r0PY • PLANNING COMMISSION The-zoning plan was prepared by-the CountfPlanning,COrensiSSIOn If the-reqUest.:Of, . - .- and ieltli -t4i active assistance of the property:Owners:A:I:P.1h*'district. li..was adopted .. . .. . by the Board of Supervisors to promote 4.1e.general welfare tiT'PeOY-iding a guide.f.-Qe the orderly and sound economic development of the zoned area. 1 The zoning plan is administered by the Planning Commission. Applyio.Corninission ... . for building permit which is required before construction of any building or the*Stab- Bihment of any commercial land Site other than crop and tree.farming. . BUILDING PERMITS are. issued at the office of the. County Planning -Commission, Court House, San Jose. There isno charge for a building permit. .._ • 1 - .............- . • DI$Titiet: USES ;34.*11TED - 171E10.0 r tor AsEA.lpsom.YARD SIDE Y.i.uARS REAR Y,N'ito. • lt.gi-,B-P. .....:Lsii,,,14.0 .25 11. .:4;000)01+.'. -ss F,:;t sili-i4._ - .ria%Uiliirk lialy44.11i.-ii ,354f. • -10,.600k.-ff, rts Wit to,'F.:ii 20%.E.ii %V R...E.-z1r-47"-- i Ei,..y1,.4..1r,,qi .. ,isk i as . 1644- . ."Id c..f' P 70%41 4:01.- A2:-..9.4 ,.-An type,.dwaings ' '71ff.' I it,, ' SEE OIDIRANCt.1413. 120 tOil: :,.. ,...._ ,......„. ... . i ., . .. 1;.-4 _. I At4v•'Oki,iitiil irairmAt ._ 75 ft. . SPECIFIC ttebtAnON$ . . . , .,-;.i.:N.,..:,,,,,?,...=;..-.2.,%-,,,--,:-...,,•,,,,,,.......,,,,,,,.1-1,, ,,;;.. titectm:2itzir(9.;isiRg'd Orelleeefac ci.iic tereeFi4 llama.Clas.-esel :sicTiqN ). Thi ariteada AO-nit etgibEt0,1*}141C1rAf TStis:C.DUI4rt SF "4.'- -4 " ."*".bf th‘ lk."4 a 4,0‘4,li h.44'147'llt.) ,4r•4••.i *Abere,1:GWA.2*i-krt 00.CALLrOi., ..$:0.P ...4.0,...f!ii..1,4.C1';,;.±,-,- ,''. .-3.4 4.!i. 'Al 44'1/14 •."4,ii ii.4 t IA. :404aipik40 60.6110044)iti. " tvg`l ^.P,;:i 1137' 'mk? . 4 r!?!4:44,:idOrii4'ki!'e44.344 61. Cl-Sititif&AN*.liiiiICK Civsi, bi-.. j""•..' '17'!"! .•61 -*-6!`a(41'.F*14-vor*""c4"'•'3`*"4 • .. -.. . - :. •----- 65 Oarim &Mat IF. rbitli Italigl.at -esus,:iiis-is tbt 14 iei at 24-i. life. 17l6T.i..C.,C IS'7..sto.VH As vie•voriatc. • • -.,- . .- ' ,• .-...-. .•:., -,. .4,44 ...at,...4 aarntai...p. by uht Adam.leg,mgt. oxiltrAnct Crlug COUNTY •!...- „"?.. . ,- ,.., • LII • -, -- slaw ebt iretele Vate of Ott Zak Km. • a.',# 144 ' 'SANTA;e:LAX.k. krp:.WAS PASSED ...: ' -, -, • '. .. ' -..-. AVT-U!Poef. . Caarn N.B., AND ArOnzij or ilik-ioAxp ce: m!". C..,.,CP.FHT- eTaltiFILL fri,,,a-ILO Heci4c R.4 ,.. strppo;q4-ljts.0 inirr:,cctacry.ON 1-.114.-'47--*! 1`11 b.4 i,"'4 P.Y.' Iir *tit.S13,ii. p.i.g.eg.; Th..1: lint DAY'Cf.-AUGUST. A. D. i"'11`"4"•.' 1917.21 AODINC.THEIATO SECTION .... , .. r C9i,016-tECTIbLYS.3c-R. t0.7s.X246 ii,lt6:°74 r.,;.itiila'1,71.2.1i6'11.11t*I'a;1 ibmial‘ "7.4 4s3144*4.-iluvr-ri' Itgi"...:14'.rii161• . . , . Ctainui.d 1.%•:30.kl'd 6...ver' '' '. I 10.7. ' . Otesjiii eee'r tietteat:•tie Si 4eje4eue.4*ie ci et:Cain)it auoi'aim:-km:. -id:Cilifiriia. .Tsulkoirt al&.'.,n .1.Lt•CaeaJe.'al I.... 114. i0.11.:..,J IA•T abefli'Jatiat:o4 la:is 61e.a..-ietet ti-,eititili.,.6-.4.4, .-.N -1!4ifoi••is,,ii.i.,1 qiiisi.: )40 Si. "444.1 .-"Wit 14 HCCAN•.. . go(talk 14 il iirg7. -;,,,,,,i,,,,,,... Pill di&OE U.J."ar Lk imin4 Ptaxt,'UAW C4414 i Cleet ta.1.ta.a/ctea,iherk d ahi'-`244ed'a 644(*.kir.: CWainr el- .liOlbg.1,,liti,,tai;u;4464'.1i6''t IL, ctf_Fa. c......, r..:ur.,..r..- ...tro. :4, 2.. .3..A.,o.m.34al..arCi flrie.da:•-.. Ceitir JJ Sejaidrie:VISCali"il'CW0.44. !415y tnearpeie.aei-it4 settle e pori 4-.in ay tr..to4e 14. 1:45)4:- ale;j1s atelaaaet t. !mane et i.e tuning ortlinowni. , s.,...,P...k, •- •- . .. . . . . , .. .. . ., ! ,.. • . .. - ..._ • 11030 Mora Drive•Los Altos,CA•94024 Jaime McAvoy To: Deborah Padovan Subject: RE: Application by Forrest Linebarger at 10730 Mora Drive From: John Harpootlian [mailto:john.harpootlian(agmail.com] Sent:Tuesday, February 02, 2016 10:51 AM To: Deborah Padovan Subject: Fwd: Application by Forrest Linebarger at 10730 Mora Drive Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: ROBERT<robtlou13@comcast.net> Date: February 1, 2016 at 6:54:53 PM PST To: jitze@couperus.org, kavitat@comcast.net,jima pc<jima.pc@gmail.com>,jsmandle@hotmail.com,richard partridge<richard.partridge@comcast.net>,john harpootlian<john.harpootlian(a,gmail.com>, gcwaldeck@losaltoshills.ca.gov, cccorriganlosaltoshills.ca.gov, jradford2011@yahoo.com, lah spreen <lah.spreen@gmail.com> Subject: Application by Forrest Linebarger at 10730 Mora Drive To whom this may concern- We are against the project (to build two homes on 1/3 acre lots, with less than 30' setbacks on each side, as required by the LAH development code.) on Mora Drive and request that the Planning Commission protect the semi-rural character of Los Altos Hills by rejecting this high-density housing project. Robert & Louise Rodriguez 11000 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills 1 SUPPLEMENTAL NO.1 DISTRIBUTED 2/1/2016 From: Suzanne Avila To: Jaime McAvov Subject: FW: 10730 Mora Drive,Lots 1 and 3 Date: Friday,January 29,2016 4:21:01 PM From: Rob Fagen [mailto:rob.fagen@gmail.com] Sent: Friday,January 29, 2016 11:24 AM To:Suzanne Avila<savila@losaltoshills.ca.gov> Subject: 10730 Mora Drive, Lots 1 and 3 Dear Ms.Avila, I live at 10840 Mora Drive, a neighbor of the planned developments at 10730 Mora due to be introduced to the Planning Commission on February 4th. I am not able to attend the meeting, but can you please share my concerns with the commissioners? In reading the descriptions provided by the notice dated January 22, I immediately noted the following items: 1.The lot sizes of less than 4/10ths of an acre each are excessively out of character with every other property in the area, especially in the light of each proposed home comprising more than 5,000 square feet.This is given that the noted sub-basements are habitable.Even if sub- basements are not habitable space, the two floors and a basement are 4,000 square feet for each. 2.Because of the large residence sizes and small lot sizes, setback variances are being requested that are also grossly out of character for the neighborhood in general. 3. My understanding of a setback is that the built structure is at least that far away from the property line. However, the notice requests light wells for the basement(and sub-basement?) and other home features within the setbacks.More evidence of trying to put too much house on too small of a lot. 4.Finally,the larger of the two houses is being planned for the smaller of the two lots.This seems like poor or sloppy planning that exemplifies the whole project. I urge the commissioners to deny any requested permits for either of these projects or any other projects proposed for these grossly undersized lots. I urge Mr. Linebarger to consider a course of action that accommodates the character of the neighborhood instead of flouting it. Respectfully, Rob Fagen 10840 Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills Rob Fagen rob.fagen@gmail.com SUPPLEMENTAL NO. 2 DISTRIBUTED 2/1/2016 Jaime McAvoy From: Suzanne Avila Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 10:56 AM To: Jaime McAvoy Cc: Steve Padovan Subject: FW:We oppose the proposed high-density development on upper Mora Drive. From:jane van Tamelen Imailto:jvantamelen@gmail.com] Sent:Sunday,January 31,2016 10:25 PM To:Suzanne Avila<savila@losaltoshills.ca.gov>; iitze@couperus.org Subject:We oppose the proposed high-density development on upper Mora Drive. Suzanne and Jitze, We oppose the proposed high-density development on upper Mora Drive. Jane van Tamelen Mary van Tamelen 23570 Camino Hermoso Los Alts Hills, CA 94024 Ms. Suzanne Avila, Planning Director savila@losaltoshills.ca.gov Mr. Jitze Couperus, Chair of the Planning Commission jitzer7u.couperus.org SUPPLEMENTAL NO. 3 From: Suzanne Avila DISTRIBUTED 2/2/2016 To: Jaime McAvoy Cc: Steve Padovan Subject: FW:Request to reject the CDP application by Mr.Forrest Lineberger at 10730 Mora Drive Date: Monday,February 01,2016 4:00:22 PM From: B Mahbod [mailto:bmahbod@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 01,2016 4:01 PM To:Suzanne Avila<savila@losaltoshills.ca.gov> Subject: Request to reject the CDP application by Mr. Forrest Linebarger at 10730 Mora Drive Dear Ms. Avila, I am writing this email since I will not be available to attend the Feb 4, 2016 meeting of the Planning Commission. I am writing to request that the requested variances by Mr. Linebarger NOT be granted. A while back Mr. Linebarger was offered the opportunity to discuss the creation of two lots of roughly 0.8 acres each from the existing 10730 Mora Drive. But he chose to sell the middle lot, in an attempt to force the hand of the Town with the remaining non-adjoining lots. I live at 10931 Mora Drive, the last house that was incorporated into Los Altos Hills, so I am directly affected by this decision. If he is granted his request, that will set a precedent, and other cases will come up. Thank you for your kind consideration. Regards, Brian Mahbod 10931 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills, CA 94024 SUPPLEMENTAL NO. 4 • DISTRIBUTED. 2/2/2016 Esther M. John 10701 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills,CA 94024 650-948-6076 February 1, 2016 . • To the Los Altos Hills Planning Department Suzanne Avila, Planning Director To the Los.Altos Hills Planning Commission Jitze.Couperus, Chair Kavita Tankha, Vice Chair James Abraham, Member Susan Mandle, Member Richard Partridge, Member • Re: CDP applications for 10730 Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills Study Session scheduled for February 4th, 2016 Dear Ms. Avila: I reviewed the materials posted on the LAH website regarding the Planning Commission Study Session scheduled for February 4th, 2016. I noticed the materials include the neighborhood petition signed by 97 neighbors who oppose the proposed high-density development on substandard lots at 10730 Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills, submitted to you on 3/5/215.Additionally, I submitted to you on 6/21105 the neighborhood petition signed by an additional 91 neighbors. The originals are in your office and I am attaching a copy;of the signed petition sheets (Attachment 1). Today, I am also sending a copy of petition sheets signed by an additional 12 neighbors (Attachment 2), and will give you the original signed petition sheets at the meeting on February 4th. • Thus, a total of 20. 0 neighbors do not support the proposed development of two homes on two substandard lots'of less than 0.4 acres each. I would appreciate it if you would forward this letter and the attachments to the Planning Commission and post the materials as part of the agenda along with the other materials. Thank ou, Esther M. Jo 11/23115,4:12 PM Back tO1VieSsage PetitIOn_1 page:doc 1 /1 x Petitioning the Town of Los Altos Hills.to deny ,Peutionrzumirriaryttp non-conforming development on Mora Drive. t-r•W-,-10,P551,^41!MiltP ilt,:vsBacitgro,,,,pncy-44 We, the undersigned, oppose the proposed high-density it4t4ilRgiftiah,M*4 development on three substandard lots at 10730 Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills: We hereby petition the Planning Department and the Planning Commission of Los Altos Hills to deny the CDP application by Commercial Developer, Forrest Lineberger, and his Company, Ihhabiture. The proposed development does not preserve the Town's rural character and is contrary to the Town's General Plan and zoning ordinances. Printed Name Signature Address/City Date Count to Sle2G4aise,- /(/2 f Acr • I I/0 CI,orddivr_s• (A, 11/47q 2 ; J ' 453 6 8 9 • 10 11 12 Page 1 tbout:blank Page 1 of 1 l "'s T` F'' r Petitioning the Town of Los Altos Hills to••deny r Reti.9,0 Summary` . , - y ,, ,K ..r; non-:conforming development--on Mora Drive. Background We, .the undersigned:- oppose the proposed high density hn Petition , ;�. development CO, three substandard lots at 10730 Mora Drive, rcs 'T. 7.J M F�� ,4 Los A1tbs Hilis -We.'.hereby petition the Planning Department.. .Y �it .J' ; :and the Planning Commission.:of Los Altos Hills to deny the CDPa lication` b C p , x 41..• pp y ommercial Dev'elo er Forrest Unebarger, 'f..:10,,,,,.- `"' ti s Tt and his Comp an Inhabiture. The, ro osed develo ment does O' yA1 X44 .1.,A1,, 3l P Y. P P P 4,--,..:,,,, 4 ,F -T,st x� . .,not:preserve the Town's-°rural ,character and is contrary :.; , r �` 3 to the Town's General Plan and zoning ordinances.,, Printed.Name. Signature Address/City Date Count cf%kI,IQ\ C�!JVL_ I' �"` -- t..._d j A. f S 41‘1),.( erfoxk r'l``s 1 I t t 1l 2 ; o' G- Via\A - 3 4 • 5 6 7 8 • 9 10 11 12 Page 1 Petition,Summary, Petitioning the Town of Los. Altos Hills to•deny, non-corxlorming development on Mora Drive. Backg.rouid :' . anal:';; ';:'; :::': We, the undersigned, oppose the proposed high= density Petition development on three substandard .lots at 10730'Mora Drive, rri *y Los Altos Hills. We hereby petition;•the Planning Department and the Planning Commission of Los Altos Hills to:deny the • f•s._,..;,, ; CDP applicationby . Developer, 9 .f .����.� .: . CDP . Commercia9 > Forrest'•Linebar er, • and his•Com'pany,:Inhabiture. The proposed development does not preserve the Town's rural character and is contrary • to the Town's General Plan and zoning ordinances. • Page _ Printed Name Signatur Address/City Date Count 4011111 eCNd lia// //96s �s�9ieY . inks (,0-im4l1l5 �[111yj hVJt6d ia1) 1lt 'Ui4A1i&L /0 6 1' i�0.4* 2 3 • 4 5 • 6 • 7 8 9 • 10 11 12 • Page 1 •- • . Petitioning the Town, of Los Altos:Hills:to deny :Petition Summary.. , non-conforming development on Mora Drive. .;Backgroun.: ••••••••••..466...:,;,..?:::, We, ,the undersigned, oppose the proposed high-density :Petition development on three substandard lots at 10730 Mora Drive, Los Altos HillsWe hereby petition the Planning Department and:the Planning Commission.-of Los Altos Hills to deny the • •� 'r ti� :,.,� . !1"/L. CDP application by Commercial Developer, Forrest Linebarger, "n .: and his Company, Inhabiture,�;:,The_proposed development does ' • _' not preserve the Town's rural,character and is contrary • to the Town's General Plan and zoning ordinances." Page _ of Printed Name Signature Address/City Date Count 7 75 �QY�t'iSOur yi4V� vu '.. (uev\•lvi`� eR .Cu:� n. r, :, Q� t�osls yti IS" 1 • 3S7S R ' e ve hsbur / U, ►� ,�..-- i- s A li-os �� s 2 ,� U� � h rt -� 3 4 • 5 • 6 • 7 8 9 10 11 12 Page 1 Petition Summary Petitioning the Town of Los Altos Hills to deny non-conforming development on Mora Drive. Background and We, the undersigned, oppose the proposed high-density Petition development on three substandard lots at 10730 Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills. We hereby petition the Planning Department and the Planning Commission of Los Altos Hills to deny the . . -'3}••:;! CDP application by Commercial Developer, Forrest Linebarger, ' �!.. ' and his Company, Inhabiture. The proposed development does a" not preserve the Town's rural character and is contrary to the Town's General Plan and zoning ordinances. Page of Printed Name Signature Address/City Date Count 44:114.1/a--/K371/ 1.1w � 4 ;au* �3�25 /fitv�NSf3� 11 1415 ttv� V.A ZW. tOttlil) • 2 3 - i 4 5 61 • 7 8 9 10 11 12 Page 1 Petitioning the Town of Los Altos Hills to deny PettonSumm ry non-conforming development.on Mora Drive. W14:-'9,R.,-41461,140 . i. We; the undersigned, oppose the proposed high density . , P,etition�s � . development on three substandard lots at 10730 Mora Drive, �•r'.t " ` x '*t Los.Altos Hills. We hereby petition the Planning Department �,� -�`.,� ..rte - '" `%t- '� j and the .Planning Commission of Los Altos Hills to deny the 4 CDP'app.lication by Commercial Developer, Forrest Linebarger, wa %�•L;;, '1 $ and :his .Company,. .Inhabiture. The proposed development does �$ not preserve.the Town's rural character and, is contrary to the Town s General Plan and zoning or"dinances. Printed Name Signature Address/City Date Count 5-170/ ,e._&24,1-x;n1),U/P-k 61)6X4 067 11,11_s 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 • 10 11 12 par . SUPPLEMENTAL NO. 5 From: Suzanne Avila DISTRIBUTED 2/2/2016 To: Jaime McAvov;Steve Padovan Subject: FW:project at top of mora drve Date: Tuesday,February 02,2016 7:55:11 AM Original Message From:barbarba shahinian[mailto:bshahinian7@gmail.com] Sent:Monday,February 01,2016 7:17 PM To:Suzanne Avila<savila@Iosaltoshills.ca.gov> Subject:project at top of mora drve i am against the project and wish the planning commission to preserve the semi-rural character of los altos hills by voting against the subdivision of land at the top of mora drive barbara shahinian SUPPLEMENTAL NO. 6 February 1, 2016 DISTRIBUTED 2/2/2016 Town of Los Altos Hills Planning Commission 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA Regarding: Lands of Linebarger Dear Commission Members, We reside next door to the Linebarger property at 10776 Mora Drive and are vehemently opposed to any easement to the setbacks required for new construction. Our family has owned this property for more than 50 years and we purchased our home from the original owners. We are unable to attend the meeting but wish to add our voices to the neighborhood concerns. Original Purpose of the Split Lots In the early 1940's,when this area was initially developed,the original builders were the Malavos and Roberts families.The lot between the two properties was purchased and split in half by the two families at 10776 and 10730 Mora Drive. The purpose was to avoid an additional house between the two homes and to safeguard the rural environment. It has been kept in a natural state ever since. It was never the intent of the original owners to exploit this property with the construction of an additional home.Safeguard, not exploit! Impact to Heritage Trees Planted along the inside of our property line are four pine trees that were planted in the 1940's and were originally live Christmas Trees. These trees should be classified as Heritage Trees as outlined in the Los Altos Hills "Conservation Element"adopted in April 2007. We have previously engaged an arborist and have submitted his report which outlines the potential tree damage from building construction on the substandard lot. Mr. Linebarger's construction plans include a basement that would most likely damage the roots and result in the removal of these trees. Any easement to the 30 foot setback would severely exacerbate this issue and damage the trees that have stood for more than 70 years. Our trees were planted prior to the outbreak of WWII,the space age and the Internet explosion that has resulted in our area being threatened by avaricious developers. Impact to the Environment As noted above,the two split lots have been kept in a natural state. Deer use this area as a thoroughfare and are seen on a daily basis. Fawn can be spotted in the springtime and a great horned owl has been a regular visitor to the topmost branches of the pine trees.Turkey, California quail, hawk,vulture, raccoon,skunk, bobcat and coyote are some of the regular inhabitants and visitors to this unspoiled lot. The proposed construction plan and requested easement can only have a negative impact upon this natural habitat.A habitat that will be compromised or destroyed for profit. SUPPLEMENTAL 7 Members of the Planning Commission DISTRIBUTED 2/3/2016 Planning Director 'r ;;�:,,�J; Town Hall Office +_ ;:...- `'�; 26379 Fremont Road FEB 3 2016 !- Los Altos Hills CA 94022 TOWN Of- WS ALICC HiL 1..S RE:Planning Commission—Lands of Linebarger Dear Los Altos Hills Planning Commission and Planning Director: We respectfully request that existing setbacks be enforced for any new construction on the lands of Linebarger. No variances should be granted. In an attachment to the recently available Staff Report to the planning Commission regarding the Lands of Linebarger,Attachment#8,Applicants Response to Variance Findings for Lots 1 and 3,uses photographs and data to misrepresent reality in the neighborhood. The document claims: "Most homes in the neighborhood do not meet the setback standards set by the town, including many with side yards setbacks of 10'or less." It may be true that some "homes in the neighborhood do not meet the setback standards set by the town."Most were constructed prior to the founding and existence of Los Altos Hills. Our home on a 1-acre lot,was built in 1966 met the Planning Depatnient in Santa Clara County. Using selective data comparing homes built 50 years ago to argue for a variance for reduced setbacks for new construction activity in 2016 intentionally distorts the typical make-up of this Mora Drive neighborhood. The Attachment makes an assumption by claiming: "There is no indication that any of the occupants of those homes suffer any ill-effects from having their homes a substantially smaller distance from each other."But our Mora Drive home has suffered and continue to suffer ill-effects from the limited side-yard setbacks due to the difficulty of getting material and equipment to the rear yard of our home. Ten years ago we obtained permit to make an extension and remodel. Only to find that the cost was too prohibitive due to lack of access to the back. We were told that the only safe way was to use a helicopter to bring in the necessary equipment for drilling new pillars. So we have definitely suffered for lack of proper side setbacks. (Incidentally,Linebarger document is not carefully prepared. The photos showing our house 10898 Mora Drive are,not photos of our house.) The Los Altos Hills Planning Department regulations, including side setback regulations, have evolved over many years. In the case of our Mora Drive property,the side yard setbacks are quite limited,but reflect the regulations at the time of construction—a home built sometime in the past with limited setbacks is not a valid reason that new construction in LAH in 2016 should have a variance. No setback variances should be granted for new construction on the lands of Linebarger. Sincerely, /442-7c-ki / 4 rejed- --- David and Ann Crockett 10898 Mora Drive Loa Altos Hills, CA 94024 • Jaime McAvoy From: • Suzanne Avila . . . Sent: Wednesday, February 03,2016 8:06 AM . • . . To: Jaime McAvoy• • - .• ; • • • Cc: Steve Padovan - • •• Subject: FW:Thursday's study session . • 'From: Donna Leong Imailto:dleongdds@hotmail.coml ' Sent:Tuesday, February 02,2016 8:26 PM • To:Suzanne Avila<savila@losaltoshills.ca.gov> Subject:Thursday's study session • To Whom it May Concern, . I am against the high density building development on the top of Mora. I Live a few blocks below and would like to maintain the one house/one acre appeal of this area. • Thank you, Do-vutat Leone • • • Esther M. John 10703.Mora Drive • Los Altos Hills,CA 94024 650-948-6076 February 2, 2016 To the Los Altos Hills Planning Department Ms. Suzanne Avila, Planning Director To the Los Altos Hills Planning Commission Mr. Jitze Couperus, Chair Ms. Kavita Tankha,Vice Chair Mr. James Abraham, Member Mr. Susan Mandle, Member Mr. Richard Partridge, Member Re: CDP applications for 10730 Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills, Lands of Linebarger, Lot 1 and Lot 3 Dear Ms.Avila, Chair Couperus and members of the Planning Commission: I urge the Planning Commission and the City Council to deny the above CDP applications which request extreme variances for side setbacks for the construction of two new homes on two substandard lots that previously were never developed. For both Lot 1 and Lot 3,side setback of 10 ft and 15 ft are requested.According to Los Altos Hills development code,the minimum side setbacks of 30 ft on both sides are required. Granting these variance requests for Lot 1 and Lot 3 will severely impact on the semi-rural character of Los Altos Hills and will result in high- density development on upper Mora Drive,just steps away from the entrance to the Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve. The neighbors do not support such a high-density development which is not consistent with the semi-rural character of our neighborhood. Historical Background Both Lot 1 and Lot 3 have never been developed: they were always maintained as open space by the original property owner. Both lots are part of the 1.6 acre property(with a single family home built in /939/1940 by the original owner,the Malovos family) purchased by Mr. Lineberger in 2006, and subdivided by Mr. Lineberger into 3 lots (0.37 acre, 0.8 acre, 0,40 acre)within a few months of purchase on the basis of partial underlying parcel lines.At that time, our neighborhood was already under the Sphere of Influence of Los Altos Hills. Furthermore, the Mora Drive neighborhood was part of the Mora Drive Sewer Project which stipulated that property owners who participated in the Mora Drive Sewer Project could not refuse future annexation to Los Altos Hills. In spite of the not to oppose annexation agreement signed by Ms. Malovos, Mr. Lineberger opposed annexation. The neighborhood anticipated and welcomed • annexation to Los Altos Hills which took place In 2012. Being a commercial developer, Mr. Lineberger surely was aware of the building code in Los Altos Hills when he purchased the property in 2006, but nonetheless shortly thereafter created substandard lots of 0.37 acre, 0.8 acre, and 0.40 acre. He surely was aware that the small lots did not meet Los Altos Hills'lot size requirements, yet he subdivided his 1.6 acre property nevertheless. He surely was aware of the eventual annexation of our neighborhood because his property of 1.6 acre came with one single sewer connection, as the late Ms. Malovos participated in the Mora Sewer Project. Interestingly,before the Malovos property went on sale in 2006,the Malovos family did attempt to subdivide the property into two lots;the County refused such a subdivision.Yet, some months later, in June 2006,the County did approve the subdivision into three lots. Shortly after purchasing the 1.6 acre property from the Malovos family, in March 2006, Mr. Linebarger submitted to Santa Clara County a development application for the construction of three new homes. The application was never completed and the County did not approve the application. 2015 CDP applications to the Los Altos Hills Planning Department The attachments to the Staff Report provided for the February 4th Study Session raise a number of concerns: 1) The Los Altos Hills Development code clearly states "The purpose of the Variance is to resolve practical difficulties or undue hardships, not of the applicant's own making."Yet the subdivision of the original 1.6 acre property into substandard lots is of the applicant's own making(see above under Historical Background).That does not justify the granting of the requested variances. 2) Comparisons are made between small setbacks requested for the construction of 2 new homes on lots that were never developed and existing setbacks of homes that were for the most part built before 1956 when Los Altos Hills was founded, and as much as 70 years ago.When many of the original homes on Mora Drive were built,there were no building regulations that required 30 ft side setbacks. The comparison of the requested side setbacks for the construction of two new homes to those seen in our old neighborhood is flawed. The existing setbacks of homes built before 1956 do not justify the granting of the requested variances for new home construction. 3) Several irrelevant comparisons are made in the exhibits provided by Mr. Linebarger. In the Exhibit"Building Setback Analysis", a home on Kenbar Road is presented. Such a setback comparison is not relevant. That particular home is In the unincorporated Santa Clara County area and was newly constructed a couple of years ago under Santa Clara County development code, not under Los Altos Hills' development code. In the same exhibit, a photo Is shown for 10898 Mora Drive. The photo shown goes with a different address. In the Exhibit"Parking Setback Analysis",the highlighted homes on Kenbar Road and Roily Road are part of the unincorporated Santa Clara County area. 4) There is concern about the impact of the proposed home construction on the natural environment. There are a number of large and old trees along the property line of Lot 3, located on the Winchell property. Construction of Lot 3 will most likely lead to the eventual death of these trees due to the disturbance of the tree roots associated with construction and the building of a deep basement. Furthermore, the former Malovos property looks very different now compared to 2005 just prior to the acquisition by Mr. Lineberger. Since then, and subsequent to active grading of part of the property, many trees, including large trees, have gradually"disappeared" over the years. 5) The CDP application demonstrates no support by the neighbors. I am not aware of any property owners in the area supporting Mr. Linebarger's development proposals. In fact, 202 neighbors(I) have signed a petition opposing the proposed high-density development. Numerous neighbors, many with multiple decades of residence in the neighborhood, have submitted letters to the Town, strongly opposing the proposed development.These materials are included in Attachment 7 of the Staff Report. Los Altos Hills' residents greatly care about the unique and special semi-rural character of Los Altos Hills and wish to preserve it for future generations, 6) There are many other properties in Los Altos Hills that have portions of underlying parcel lines, including several properties on Mora Drive. The approval of the requested variances would set a dangerous precedent for future high-density development on many more small substandard lots, In conclusion,the CDP application with its extreme setback variances for the construction of two new homes on two substandard lots of 0.37 and 0.40 acres should not be approved. The special environment on Mora Drive is the reason why our family moved to Los Altos Hills 23 years ago.Thank you for your leadership in preserving the unique semi-rural character of Los Altos Hills. Sincerely, Esther M. J hn Jaime McAvoy From: Suzanne Avila Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2016 8:46 AM To: Jaime McAvoy Cc: Steve Padovan Subject: FW: Sticking to the Rules' From: Margo Seymour rmailto:margosevmour@gmail.com] Sent:Monday, February 01,2016 8:47 PM To:Suzanne Avila<savila@Iosaltoshills.ca.gov> Subject:Sticking to the Rules! We hope you will not allow anything less than 1 acre in Los Altos Hills. Although we are not yet a part of your town,we adhere to the one acre minimum lot size standard and abhor the precedent that will be set if Mr Linebarger is allowed to go thru with his plans. Margo and Dale Seymour, 11170 Mora Dr. Los Altos (Hills). • • 1 Harold V. Feeney Mary Jo Feeney 11030 Mora Drive,Los Altos,CA 94024 650.941.6085 Tel•650.391.7207 Mobile hak feenev.us:com mlefeenev.us.com January 31, 2016 Members of the Planning Commission Planning Director Town of Los Altos Hills Town Hall Office 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills CA 94022 RE: Planning Commission—Lands of Linebarger Dear Los Altos Hills Planning Commission and Planning Director: We respectfully request that existing setbacks be enforced for any new construction on the lands of Linebarger and that no variances be granted. In an attachment to the recently available Staff Report to the planning Commission regarding the Lands of Linebarger, Attachment#8, Applicants Response to Variance Findings for Lots 1 and 3, uses.photographs and data to misrepresent reality in the neighborhood. The document claims: "Most homes in the neighborhood do not meet the setback standards set by the town, including many with side yards setbacks of 10' or less." It may be true that some"homes in the neighborhood do not meet the setback standards set by the town," but that may be for a very good reason, Some of the homes in the exhibit were constructed prior to the founding and existence of Los Altos Hills, and some, like our own single story home on a 1-acre lot, were built prior to the establishment of a Planning Department in Santa Clara County. Seventy five years ago, Santa Clara County's Ordinance No. 167 stated, "BUILDING PERMITS are issued at the office of the County Planning Commission, Court House, San Jose. There is no charge for a building permit." Using selective data comparing homes built 50 to 75 years ago to argue for a variance for reduced setbacks for new construction activity in 2016 intentionally distorts the typical make-up of this Mora Drive neighborhood (in the same manner as comparing the charge for a building permit today to that of another era). Attachment#8 makes an assumption by claiming: "There is no indication that any of the occupants of those homes suffer any ill-effects from having their homes a substantially smaller distance from each other." In our case at our Mora Drive home, the answer is YES, we have suffered and continue to suffer ill-effects from the limited , side-yard setbacks due to the difficulty of getting material and equipment to the rear yard of our home. As an example, our home was seriously damaged in the Loma RE: Planning Commission—Lands of Linebarger Page 2 Prieta earthquake—significant restoration was required and there was great difficulty in accessing the rear of the property. Did the preparer of the document survey the property owners selected for the photo illustration to determine if property owners experienced ill-effects from limited side yard setbacks? The Los Altos Hills Planning Department regulations, including setback regulations, have evolved over many years. They exist for a reason. In the case of our Mora Drive property, the side yard setbacks are quite limited, but reflect the regulations at the time of construction—a home built sometime in the past with limited setbacks is not a valid reason that new construction in LAH in 2016 should be built in such a manner—no setback variances should be granted for new construction on the lands of Linebarger. Sincerely, Harold V, Feeney, Jr. Mary Jo Feeney P.S. The photograph of property labeled as 10898 Mora Dr. in Attachment#8 is incorrectly located and labeled. The property owner of the home pictured required an easement access through a neighboring property for access to the rear of the referenced property. 11030 Mora Drive•Los Altos,CA•94024 • • 4 . 0 0 . PROTEcriVE- LAND u sE . . REGULATIONS ' . • . . . ••: . • SIXTH UNIT OF THE ZONING PLAN k tANTA CAA COUNTY CALM PAU bATil A CLARACOUNTY • . . tilitY1 101 r 1 1 r fl 13 ..,1...."'...WMP•litKetair......j.., L PLANNING COMMI.$SION The zoning plan was prepared by the County Flanning'Commisitan,at the request of,. and witii fhb active assistance of fie property-owners.of the elided. it was.adoptecl by the taarti at Supervisors to promote the go nate,114006--by proyidinl a Tao.for the orderly-earl sound economic.daveropment of the.r.Oned area, I The zoning plan is. a/subsist ered lay th'i Planning Conunission. Apply to Cammiasien. -for lading parmtf*hick ti•required before uonstruotion.of any bolding cr,r the.1iitab. Itshment-ef anyttimmeterartini uie..bitgle than;crop and tree farming:: . BUILDING PEWITS are !sped at the office of the County Planning Commistion, Court-House, Sao Jose, 'There is no:charge for. a•builtittig..philit • • - . - . --:. . _ . . I Miler WES:-1,004111X0 1-164HT titl'f.44EA 1 00Nyiymtp.- *ICE YARDS: • 'PleAlt YAW -. .... -- _ it.E:.4-DLfrLL,41. 41.p.,...itnia, 4s ft• 006 iv*, •21.1401:_ . _. 6 Jost .......toy;ser-60, it?Eg.IP2V ,.. iisirg Ft..4.011xqs_ Sift. ' ittA0*.i.cft. stri.s " ia,641. Ny04-44,1];it.Eif Pr 1_444 lidintiqr i'"711.17. .awnse-1.4i 'trowtifAifiii A-7t-44 f..All km kris16w . 31•6. ' i mai "SEE ii3113119AROI'NO;116 fcig ----V.4 I 45,40..444 r4ugi.:4mimpti 751,. 2FIO•WitILA.11.tiin ..• - 1 ,..., _,,,':-.,,:'7e.r.,p,2"'37'.7,-'1,7:•?'",Y,,7i -A-14P41M1.#.114-01iWP 'CinValeA,Z4..A11.0,*eit teicr elin.-ii.ir1 :SiGrfiCitt 1 .td. ...litu. IAA" ui /01.6iitititAftezce iiOteirkr.co...-.. Pgma 1.tt Lk.'1444:i4: K(k.1•4-1!I.x...,ilirtr Pa)iaii,"16r 11/411A C:044...4Thlrk 0:.1."00i.' ..ra9A 4.41d c,1441:4'!•!lii$'44' 04.4*it AP p..mr:io4 Iltril. ;NIA. A MPIPnic.:bitAINANCi 166-. l'"'"TT.,..,,_.A•:°'..,IT!"/471116"1". .- 4' ,r.ii.i tg.A6c1,44 Si Iii 1404.it A,,cpri! "liq Or.IM6-e.1396".rr;likipi CktiP#111 it 7;:r`..r.at 7::,.ta! , cyi....:; ti.,t.it 0*Co-. ii ty114.cy!,-;‘,..,41 rtiwt IS moor.41 It%ititilacc i..v.44ZZ 9`",„..a,oi Lei...iu.o,4NA'.•1,7,1143-.7611,:9:4 )07 g 441/. II", okmanstcs..-4, ml COUNTY OF 1 a... AND,ADOPTED tt tit•10.6•tti..0e. $.4 .ri11:44111Win"aiW f'411,44 14:'".11-ati Hi ifr ailaaat SANTA. [LAU,.AND-11/.At.PAIV-6 !YU.446uve-,m.-"itgibat Mot Clair.Nutt. NUPaAVIOica.Ot MID'COOM ON•I I*liftt4 ‘f ljud5.66.". "°*44*Mn it VOril tilpinflatil Hied. tit mit.bisx zr AVCUFT.A.-1:1# paii.4.4. teis tY AnoillaTHEUTp SZL'Itot4, rient:64 i-, lid•artiliirtoi-.0 ludi 44 exa.$604(646.3e,x, 16.6 AND 4.4.,.„,„41,4 bj.ag%ow*.0,040..4:' Mat.th ir'jPirCkg11.71fr.)4611,4Nciu, I'WTI. IP p6._ jitivi, et4lifi bri•*OW.14 IN-,1k41,4141 in- 1 gEirs 4'1344‘cdify:"taw . .. I Tif Ulla Sq•aau.:a A.0441,a it.4 WI. 04 id"161".N4 th.s.4r la* elm.1.4-1...C44tiqi,4.stAtam ,ii.liur anktpii'lkcii9p1 6twitia 6,11s.44. -04," ."A11.4.r.• Il 101h . 41 iii.alitii!hit tills Zonittg Vas,5als Co4lir tit&kr.c...c.Itsci..auk a =noir 1,....-ateGana,:**,:,:115.a Ile er4i Cats% edi6401.. w.fires it!p 4 8.4 C141,.544..a-041174-4/6 . . Cow?a Zlinit 1:14i• tiiiii aCa.1744434W - i . .51 oevanoidl.4:3 1.44ti i Tad ifiLit • -• • xt rl.'aanfl.r.vox.. vtikti *.A...4. . I. I ri...na ie A. t...ps • . . . . . . . . .1.... ' . • • Harold V. Feeney 11030 Mora Drive,Los Altos,CA 94024 650.941.6085 Tel•650.391.7207 Mobile halefeenev.us.com February 1, 2016 Ms. Suzanne Avila, Planning Director Mr. Steve Padovan, Consultant Planner Town of Los Altos Hills Town Hall Office 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills CA 94022 RE: Planning Commission-Lands of Linebarger—Background on Tract No. 10 of the Jo Mora Ranch Dear Ms. Avila and Mr. Padovan: Eighty two percent of the parcels in the Jo Mora Ranch are greater than 3A acre. The background paragraph of the Staff Report states that"this map [Tract No 10 of the Jo Mora Ranch] created approximately 40 lots that range in size from about one half of an acre to one and one half acres." It should be noted that 82% of the recorded parcels are 3/4 acre or larger. The average parcel size was 0.95 acre. There was never an intent to emphasize small lots as part of this subdivision (only 7 of the 38 lots were below 3A acre—of these 7 parcels, the two smallest were never developed as stand-alone parcels, they Were combined with other parcels). In the 1940s, some property owners purchased parts of parcels so that their land ownership would approach or exceed 1 acre (for example the Malovos family purchased the entire Parcel 2 in 1939/1940, a portion of Parcel 3 (0.37 acres) in 1941, and a portion of Parcel 1 (0.40 acres) in 1948. Parcel 4 and the other portion of Parcel 3 were purchased by the Roberts family, the neighbor to the north. Similarly, a portion of the 0.53 acre Parcel 36 across the street is under the same ownership as the larger Parcel 34). In 1941, the Santa Clara County zoning for the area became 1-acre minimum under Ordinance No. 167. This zoning predated the creation of the substandard lots referred to as the Lands of Linebarger. Please characterize Tract No. 10 of the Jo Mora Ranch as having most parcels greater than 3A acres. Sincerely, Harold V. Feeney RE: Planning Commission-Lands of Linebarger-Background on Tract No. 10 of the Jo MoraRanchPage 2 Jo Mora Ranch Lot Size Analysis • 1932 ❑=>1.25 Acres El<0.75 Acre 13% 18% ❑1.0-1.24 Acres `"= -� - 21% .� y1( 0.75-0.99 Acre 48% O<0.75 Acre 4 0.75-0.99 Acre❑1.0-1.24 Acres 0=>l.25 Acres Jo Mora Ranch Lot Size Data • 1932 Lot# Area Lot# Area Lot# Area Lot# Area 1 0.8 11 1.64 21 1.43 31 0.83 2 0.83 12 1.03 22 0.91 32 0.77 3 0.8 13 0.91 23 0.91 33 1.04 4 0.83 14 1.01 24 0.98 34 0.91 5 0.73 15 0.97 25 0.63 35 0.82 6 0.78 16 1.66 26 1.39 36 0.53 7 0.77 17 1.03 27 1.2 37 0.78 8 1.01 18 0.6 28 1.13 38 1.23 9 0.97 19. 0.64 29 1.57 10 0.84 20 0.64 30 0.62 Count 38 Parcels Max 1.66 Acres Min 0.53 Acres Ave 0.95 Acres Median 0.94 Acres 11030 Mora Drive•Los Altos,CA•94024 -c..; rt-4.•!, sts. '4 "'.. .°"k..‘' e •1-l'.... 4,ar ......, C t.). • ''..... .,...:.' - Or .•.,„ /1 .•ts-r-r... .:• ,-. iF. i ...... ,,.. '. .1°'SI *• • ‘.1.0! 1; El -Al _ ,,,,‘;,,,..,,,...,:,-.t.,: i & 1!' .kill ' t; .:- et,1,••$'' '%.... I • 41' ' • ..4 .7:11'. .:. -.4 • ..d - ..,4 -N i; -3 ; .•••• . I.A, ... 6 ,„,. ' ' ..0.9 .• .. '''.$ ill ti.;I'd .. ‘Z 4. i GI . \rt..",a ' . ;.'.. 1 '''."4 14;"4.../7 .•:,,C.i' ' AV 1 . a4C 1•. ".10k1..?A. sa p4-.- ' , xi r . . , f • . ;• .,„1:._ 'VA .. i• i • /et . • ?' si,r';,•°..1, . a % . • .,.• • •••, . . ..v, l`v 4. Ay•f ••:-....u;.,.. JIM ''..q 3 0 • '. a N'• I Itv t. • ..t.' ...,.....11 ' 1-,:,. • t .•. „la ..;, 111 . ill at'•••,1-,,,, .,- .• , 1-4;-:.-ret vAll g 7'1. l' -f• 23- 1 .4 '1'4' "ry.`":VI i' ', •SPelP , ik to4i• k. iiaA A ii,- .- " J.,•1% ..; 4,i • ••;,:!7--.\\iv--..• ,,- °.4c jr e„.. • ,,, '-`...A- . • -:;r: .,, • . 1- c 1, •;. 11 ..‘4.,..., ..,./fi.04 :.;,,\,..,,..y,.i,‘,4 .,..,k. OrT.: : N.,.... 7,50 're...k. ‘,.''.. , ,! r....,.I .r .., ".. ‘°Y .' ' .<1'. .i/IA . . '.1!'!•,011. ' 1'4%:,•;,'J •-':. . P, '+'4,0..•1. .. I.. /..?4,/4/ ". a• 4riii.,.: f . -% • .. -,,,ea- - ZY ' .,' --.A...; 'A i ,•"4::. ' " ' - /-•fii# 4.. •-,-,:;•: s.,1 .try .,, fl....0 N f.,,:i74.-i- "...1' ..i. -••• . - '"' .*:.•/' , r :s Agm ., 110 if4 i t. ,;7.. ',...._ r.isl.. j4, '; `,.....11 ' •-..4. h. ...... . 4 . .....U4...IN*4-tr,,,, PI %; " in do + - ,E1 ••• 4, . .. , 1 • . ...,,,, • -. , --.a,,-- v-. 7r....= , . ...,. . .4 • f 4,...."4" .L. , ,,, ..,-.• 4, 1- .,. -:. 7'114‘1.r... .. ? IM ,'_'..my.iv,? ai -.1i -•'''IP:: i: '24??...,••,. 4- • '' t .. _./1q .. •.• „e t.ot a ,: • r• ." *6. ......._ - •7401 ,....4 re,' , , ..: i'a. '.0 . •Z--trp:..., ' eit.;. ri,''' "S:',9,i, •••••:,' . . .11. „9. „, -,;', • ..:7-ii 9 4 tgl . ?41.:.: : . gc•:. " t - • • TRA7C7-111.0, /0 ,' q 'op • is 4, r o'lii, .. V'"`"' , ;I; p , . -6 I-• 4: 1, ..itf 4% , ,Itt i . •• . ; .. Z 4 ',1.1" P '... 10...NO. idINC/i , .•.- ,. t 3 t' V i' '" • tf,l' d 6 .e. • .1 .4 Sli ill"/M:eigli IR CO 174r Celle ' "14,0-4 A 4'• • 'fl,'7.•r-.••• ffJ : , . ,)..., . •71:•%-11%::•,, .10,•t; ,i , -' ;;j1: • .O1r..17111D4%,1147,4 r alf,e1.•9$00EVAIP OP ifig 114£/71,4'.CN . ‘`..e.t4 iN- N, .... 4.t 1. .4. .., siwt .. ..rktaikhtiat 4.1r:p.mit:o.htri.iiie...ir.M.ie Pt oe:ore.% ....,4-. *II''P .: ...;.• — 4 .make-r 4; 4*74rc.1,frostet..tar*r4r eteR•s.eiv4Prx 1'.P:-78 '-' ajP t i ,; i -1 ..t it-e17.04*.ifir-,i44,4074yro Alivaret.,e-e0k/ne-4.0V- • 1- w -1 s::i.At,f s : t ;OM' . 'f-fr ' eOfitirill.t et,E4e.te'ireto•-,/b-isita;reff, ' . i „.. ':-•-; •.• - ..(• iv.:4•64riatisoc...t.;li;e•or*dr,e1.4..;".flierraw- :5442411,2tie. 10.144 .•, - . " .S 01.-Ail. "I.°. • • • . . RE: Planning Commission—Lands of Linebarger—Background on Tract No. 10 of the Jo Mora RanchPake 4 . - PROTECTIVE- _ LÀN • ULSE- . , • • REGULATIONS SIXTH UNIT OF THE ZONING.PLAN I . .. . • SAWA CLARA.dOtiNri-CALLOa KRtili ..A N I CLARA COUNTY MY19:41 . . • •. • ..- -- - • 1 1 pli p y . . . • • . • . • .0.--,e30.0.tr....---3.. ptAtigt.N.:a-.COMMISSION . . tie zart419 plan-wai.prapared by the County,Flanning:cornmitiion at Molar:mit oft . . and.Oh the active essistancs.of the property owners,of..the.atiitat, ft was adoited - - - - by the Board-Of%Apar/her4 fo orOeiCAS Tit *airet.-hi,Pi''Prkling a 43t1144 for .- the orderly-and lound economic.diieropment a the'sorted ti'rea: ' i .. 1 The zoning plan is administerati by The Planning.Commission. Aofy f ci CammissiPri for building permit which is required before tonttruction of any beiOng or The eitab- . . lamentof any commercial.Una tita other than crisp apd frae7fe artang . • , , BUILDING RAflS are.flood at this office of the county ,Pleinning Commission, CouiF Hause,San dose. There-is no. Ohatge for a building perinit, . .v. .., • • . . 1 171STMCTSUEZ P.OPqtt0• HEI4R1';'WT'ARM 1 PPM'?ARP SIDEAMECAIV•YAR .4 .__O • . . ... ,..,k.,..,,..,.....,..........e.-...=.i......... _ . - . ........... - . RTE't-B-D. 4,figvalt kfill! i 314.. ,Ati):Vii.ft. ...._L21fia, .• •cia 40%W•.eit,t1, 1r077 -!-(iiii1iL444111xli _ •3ili: .10.40 l'ii;It .nt 6;4 =to ft a ' Zar/i Fri 4.06 ' 1.11..iny iwatriqi ',viz i.., lar.o. .__,40-fiet •114i -,o'S '.1Lj' ;,...,........S.ht sii-Alit-II '71 ft; :1 Aide• SEE DIDDIANCS,NO.;120:.F.PIC . . C=1, .. 44-riffsilIsiiiitoits .:75ft.:..-4 . .11.Kine:-IttaurAbeit*._ -:'flOtWi;i41.:*iiw r.trattuag of At to.,sti d VACS.ttif4.orj ltd110ii.1 nil.'armlets'itimii hit An Viimi ..e.et rnctkrrr.r..cr:••••• s4Aws 461. sa'by L. $c444 a .441,0 4.4 li...10,:c6ini.n.o. .u.krrA•;;W, *TAU bi-tAiVimr '.4f.4r,14.07:f•1:'NH Pi"tr.!,'*Al4 4o Skil 44 of i fa pgie.o4 pitiT:g.., ,-.N1,4 :;04224PIHA. tArrinAtica.00. LI.4!ri:•_4•3','.'?".li:ligivi-Ii•c6k. .; , t.‘i.g.4, mk.04,11:).0 Iiit testi ki4tattri AO Or..3;k16,C.Othitt,WUICK cm* "7-*,--•-!---.!•,!lvil“,.t Lht. . .ar.,.. .ia.415,'nr.yerStt4w-C1410.1441 4 ---- - lc&kited Bad=14.ski&watiu el .-4411maki iii, d,...,,,,,44 0•14), 9,f, ..}16ntn..:K.4orni ii5'310 ZOKNO 1.a1ii. li :- --;.-- - •-' --• oacmAncr a•Ins tower./Ice .„..„_,P. ..-„',nr H!" :„..,..,...,..- Dr_ 'T.I'vkaia'orog.'°4' I pan% CLAXA, A.14ti:was. mssre .77'-z.---,- ----,,,,,,:- ---,:•-• .A.Sr4U.,topriiprik MA&dor.Nada, • ,,C1JU Acort6 BY,'rim ifrikx6 Cr--"I?'14fA-L°4°'7_' 1-A*41W' surOtynnm..cf sAie.cotners..Ox 'r. 7 fgemPki--."..i4.ris w .xors, 4veriipara.kee. T* ;Int DAY CC Almon..A. D: 11,1 1464%u, ' i 4iiiaftr lkialcieRr MM. glt BY Attamc...eno.niciutalon kvill.q.)!t 1., All ortiAku U UsiVt: " • • • . $4 ARO'BEC7.10r45- 30.pi AND .5.. f 11.t.iii by.lit.4.iptc4 ektotN X AR el I..iii:mizomou,t),T. Irieliti Sly'410414 tio"te-diaiiadid.&a. IC162•114i4i.1 at'LONtii•orl sla.=7 Alf'4.4"edit...kata I AU.3.64 si eviee*Uspv'.d d.Covioi+.4 116,1 Ili'lL 30.1,.d td.T'44...faik 41 Lutz.Cone Utiii of MN:orally ki smt.h. !1./.4.444i,"SectIpal Nark*Ntip ii,' Asea .ritMIC 1V.liCCAS.• • i'fr•Ik•••:T. . ,.':-.:-f'-:- .i.•..... .Ing.tia.tigh Llarl of 11,t tiding Rue,Uapt. tte irsul.-14.1*Tifc4::i1pk-14 :nergiu s.315'46.,;ci.;;k-ii.,...!.iiii.4 J.: Clan eausel, r..,idoseh,„u ..vai i,..F 4. .Soltif a liffilfifeeen,Coiyom.et '.''Pal,'tweed edirienta.-.,. ...i,4/4 ...7a v14.kri vain.** I. linv.na i.c dr-2....ri• ..dir...soN -:. -prim,PiA. •- •- ' '' • ' ! ,... . ........ . . • • 11030 Mora Drive•Los Altos,CA•94024 Jaime McAvoy To: Deborah Padovan Subject: RE:Application by Forrest Linebarger at 10730 Mora Drive From: John Harpootlian [mailto:john.harpootliancagmail.com] Sent:Tuesday, February 02, 2016 10:51 AM To: Deborah Padovan Subject: Fwd: Application by Forrest Linebarger at 10730 Mora Drive Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: ROBERT<robtloul3@comcast.net> Date: February 1,2016 at 6:54:53 PM PST To:jitze@couperus.org,kavitat@comcast.net,jima pc<jima.pc@gmail.com>,jsmandle@hotmail.com,richard partridge<richard.partridge@comcast.net>,johnharpootlian<iohn.harpootlian@gmail.com>, gcwaldeck@losaltoshills.ca.gov, cccorrigan@losaltoshills.ca.gov,jradford2011@yahoo.com, lah spreen <lah.spreen@gmail.com> Subject: Application by Forrest Linebarger at 10730 Mora Drive To whom this may concern- �We are against the project (to build two homes on 1/3 acre lots, with less than 30' setbacks on each side, as required by the LAH development code.) on Mora Drive and request that the Planning Commission protect the semi-rural character of Los Altos Hills by rejecting this high-density housing project. Robert & Louise Rodriguez 11000 Mora Drive Los Altos Hills 1 a I LAW PARTNERS LLP SUPPLEMENTAL 8 DISTRIBUTED 2/3/2016 February 3,2016 Planning Director Avila, Chair Couperus and Members of the Planning Commission The Town of Los Altos Hills, 23679 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 savila@losaltoshills.ca.gov j itze.coupeius@gmail.com kavitat@comcast.net jima.pc@gmail.com i smandle@hotmail.com richard.partridge@com cast.net Re: Undersized Lot Development in Los Altos Hills Request for Conditional Development Permit for 10730 Mora Drive, Lots 1 and3 Dear Ms. Avila, Chair Couperus and Members of the Los Altos Hills Planning Commission: This firm represents certain residents on Mora Drive in Los Altos Hills("LAH")who are very concerned about the development of undersized lots and specifically the request for two Conditional Development Permit (CDP) applications for 10730 Mora Drive, Lots 1 and 3. See attached, plot map of property showing Lots 1, 2 and 3. We understand that there will be a study session on February 4, 2016 to discuss this application. We request that this letter be included in the packet of documents considered. There was an earlier City Council meeting on May 21, 2015, to discuss a potential moratorium on the development of substandard lots in LAH. At that meeting, the Town decided to form an ad-hoc committee of the Planning Commission to review the current regulations governing the development of substandard lots and to make recommendations on how to handle CDPs for substandard lots going forward. The development of substandard lots has become a sore issue for many town residents concerned about their irreversible impact on the rural character of the town. The ad-hoc committee has had numerous meetings, both private and with public input, and the Planning Commission decided on a final set of recommendations to be voted by the Town Council. See Agenda of the Planning Commission Meeting on Dec. 5, 2015. However, the Town Council has yet to vote on those recommendations. 2570 W. EL CAMINO REAL, SUITE 510 • • MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA 94040 TEL 650.428.3900 FAX 650.428.3901 www.gcalaw,com Los Altos Hills City Council February 3, 2016 Page 2 • Another major fact is that the applicant has recently sold Lot 2, thereby creating a situation where he has two substandard lots that are no longer adjacent. He could have, and should have,. merged the three lots and requested a lot line adjustment from the Town to make a single standard lot or two lots of about 0.8 acres each. By creating two grossly substandard lots of 0.37 and 0.4 acres in 2006 and recently selling the middle Lot 2,the applicant created a major problem by his own making which requires a CDP and requests for substantial variances. The applicant should not be rewarded for his actions by getting approval. That is, he should not be allowed to procure all the economic benefits of creating substandard lots but at the same time not bear the burdens of zoning regulations that limit the development of substandard lots. As stated in Civil Code section 3521 "He who takes the benefit must bear the burden." Civil Code section 3515 states "He who consents to an act is not wronged by it." The sewer connection for this property also remains unresolved. According to all applicable legal documents, there is only one sewer line allotted to the entire property consisting of Lots 1, 2 and 3, yet he is proposing to build two new homes on Lots 1 and 3in addition to the existing home on Lot 2. In order to obtain a CDP, the Planning Commission must make certain findings pursuant to Los Altos Hills Municipal Code section 10-1.1007(3). The Staff Report shows that this is not possible. Specifically, the report shows that none of the conditions of this code section are met as the report states the setback and main residence structure "does not appear to be consistent with the development pattern in the neighborhood." Further, the report states "The projects as proposed appear to be inconsistent with existing development patterns in the surrounding neighborhood and are not consistent with the variance requests that have been • previously approved by the Planning Commission on other CDP projects." (Staff report,page 4) The overwhelming -objection of the neighborhood and statements of the neighbors regarding the irreversible impact of the projects on the rural character of the neighborhood are further proof that this required standard can never be met. Though this is a hearing regarding a CDP, the application alludes to the fact that there might be a taking if such a permit is not approved. • I attach my earlier letter from May 20,2015, and will not go through the entire analysis again. However,I do want to emphasize some issues. Law Supporting LAH Regulating the Development of Substandard Lots The California Constitution, Article XI, Section 7 states that "A county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws" This rule of law has been upheld for many years. (See Miller v. • Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 477 (1925)) Courts have traditionally construed the police Los Altos Hills City Council February 3, 2016 Page 3 power to authorize local land use regulation. (See Candid Enterprises, Inc. v. Grossmont Union High School Dist., 39 Cal. 3d 878, 886 (1985) There are several United States Supreme Court cases that have reviewed regulations to determine ifthere is a taking. The first question is whether the regulation deprives the property owner of all economic interest in the property. If there is still value, it is probably not a taking. Examples of cases where the Court found no taking include: t. • Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002) where there was only a 32 month moratorium of any development and the Court held there was no taking. If the property retains some value,there will not be a categorical taking o Penn Central Trans. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) where the Court confirmed the City could deny the construction of an office building on top of Penn Central station and this was not a taking. ® Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001) where the Court confirmed the government agency could deny development of property which loss was claimed to be $3.1 million because there was still$200,000 in value in the property. 6 Penn Central Trans. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, (1978) is the seminal case on the issue of partial taking. Though there is no test for taking, there are factors to be considered which include the magnitude of the regulation's impacts, the investment backed expectations of the property owner and the timing and fairness of the regulation. In LAH, the minimum lot size and 30' side setbacks have been the law for a very long time. Anyone who purchased undersized lots or subdivided a property into undersized lots should have been aware of these requirements. LAH Municipal Code and General Plan . LAH's General Plan includes the following: 1. The Los Altos Hills planning area is characterized by its natural beauty, extensive open spaces, and semi-rural lifestyle. The rolling hills and rugged mountains of the planning area provide a natural backdrop for the more intensively developed urban areas around San Francisco Bay. The topography also provides significant constraints to development such as steep slopes, unstable soils, seismic faults and other natural hazards. Preservation of the natural setting is important for maintaining and enhancing the quality of life for residents of the Town, as well as the Mid- Peninsula and Bay Area region. This General Plan provides a policy Los Altos Hills City Council February 3,2016 Page 4 • framework within which Los Altos Hills can develop in-a safe, orderly manner while preserving its semi-rural,residential character.' • 23. The primary uses of land in Los Altos Hills are single-family residences including secondary dwelling units and :other accessory structures; small-scale agricultural activities; and recreation and open space. A minimum of one acre of land is required per primary residence. In general, however, the density of dwelling units decreases as the steepness of land increases, due to Town regulations and physical constraints. In addition, uses within the planning area include public and • private facilities necessary to serve the residents on a continuing basis. Municipal Code section 10-1.103 states the purpose of the zoning and building requirements are "to protect and guide the growth and expansion of the Town in an orderly manner" and to preserve the environment of the Town. • There are multiple code sections that relate to the required size of lots, setbacks and requirements for allowing a variance which include 10-1.501, 10.1-505, 10-1.1003, and 10.1.1007(1) and (2) which show a uniform and fair approach to regulation of all property within LAH. Interestingly, in Ybarra v. Town Of Los Altos Hills (1973) 370 F.Supp.742; affirmed (1974) . 503 F.2d 250, the Town's General Plan requirement of one acre was upheld as a legitimate government interest. The Town was sued over the one acre requirement saying it discriminated against poor people. The Court held that the LAH General plan had a rational relationship to a legitimate government interest,i.e.,preserving the town's rural environment. These two CDP applications should not be approved. The land still has value. To allow the construction of these two homes with minimal setbacks is not proper for Los Altos Hills. • • If we can assist in any manner,please let me know. Very truly yours, GCA LAW PARTNERS,LLP • David Marks Enclosure Cc: stevem@meyersna.ve.com meyersnave.com stangri@meyersnave.com Clients (via email) 'o 23 1 ,��o.. roti .� <0 1 L� Y a o I} 4e 53,497 sf Calc. ` .A�� 'CraKb c';. s,� -16 N d' Adb R �� 36,084 sf Calc. o�v tT oe .._. "5>z ... ,\'\ 'c-riz 6)1 Q6,0 ,,,,,z— ckP. ,. ,s,,.. _4. •kt.D '14- 1. �s6' a/c el, 6� \\, 21 o,. C.C. 19090844 1;\° . OWNER S REQ. 2008-09 -,eii LAW PARTNERS LLP • ti • May 20,2015 • Mayor Corrigan and Members of the Town Council The Town of Los Altos Hills, • • 23679 Fremont Road Los Altos Mills, CA 94022 • cccorrigan@losaltoshills.ca.gov john.haipootlian@gmail.com findrichlarsen®gmail.com • jradford2011 @yahoo.com gewaldeck@losaltoshills.ca.gov Re: Undersized Lot Development in Los Altos Hills Dear Mayor Corrigan and Members of the City Council: This firm represents certain residents on Mora Drive in Los Altos Hills ("LAH")who are very concerned about the development of undersized lots. We understand that there will be a meeting on May 21, 2015 to discuss this issue. We request that this letter he included in the •• packet of documents considered. • • • At the City Council meeting on April 20, 2015,the City Attorney stated that the LAH needed • to be careful it was not "taking" property rights in response to requests for development of these undersized lots. This letter addresses the issue of takings. • • I attach an article Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: A Primer for Public Agency Staff which is an excellent overview of the talcings issue. • As stated in this article,LAH is entitled to make regulations of the use of land and development so long as it is for a legitimate purpose. As stated by the City Attorney on April 20,2015, if there is still value to the property, it probably will not be a taking. As shown below, LAM is within its rights.to require certain sizes for lots and setbacks and this will not be a taking. Law Supporting LAH Regulating the Development of Substandard Lots •The California Constitution,Article XI, Section 7 states that"A county or city may make and 1 enforce within its limits all local, police,sanitary,and other ordinances and regulations not in i . 2670 W. EL CAMIMO REAL.SUITE 510 MOUNTAIN VIEW,CA 94040 TEL 500.•128.3000 FAX 660.428.3001 •www.1Jculaw.cc m • Los Altos Hills City Council May 20,2015 • Page 2 - conflict with general laws" This rule of law has been upheld for many years. (See Miller v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal.477(1925)) Courts have traditionally construed the police power to authorize local land use regulation. (See Candid Enterprises, Inc. v. Grossmont Union High School Dist., 39 Cal. 3d 878, 886(1985) • There are several United States Supreme Court cases that have reviewed regulations to • determine if there is a taking. The first question is whether the regulation deprives the property owner of all economic interest in the property. If there is still value,it is probably not a taking. • Examples of cases where the Court found no taking include: • Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002)where there was only a 32 month moratorium of any development and the Court held there was no taking. If the property retains some value,there will not be a categorical taking o Penn Central Trans. Co. v. City ofNew,York, 438 U.S. 104(1978)where the Court confirmed the City could deny the construction of an office building on top of Penn Central station and this was not a taking. a Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606(2001)where the Court confirmed the government agency could deny development of property which loss was claimed to be $3.1 million because there was still$200,000 in value in the property. • Penn Central Trans. Co. v. City of New York,438 U.S. 104, (1978) is the seminal case on the issue of partial taking. Though there is no test for taking, there are factors to be considered which include the magnitude of the regulation's impacts, the investment backed expectations •' of the property owner and the timing and fairness of the regulation. • In LAH, the minimum lot size and setbacks have been the law for a very long time, Anyone who purchased small lots should have been aware of these requirements. • In determining if there is a taking,the Court will also look at the entire property and not just part of it. In many instances,the undersized lots are from annexed land where there are more than one lot at one address. Because of the problem with LAN's merger law,LAH cannot • • force merger. However,these lots can be combined and still have significant value. In turn, there is no taking if LAH requires the proper setbacks and acreage. LAH Municipal Code and General Plan • LAN's General Plan includes the following: • 1.The Los Altos Hills planning area is characterized by its natural beauty, extensive open spaces,and semi-rural lifestyle. The rolling hills and • Los Altos Hills City Council May 20, 2015 • Page 3 • rugged mountains of the planning area provide a natural backdrop for the more intensively developed urban areas around San Francisco Bay.The topography also provides significant constraints to development such as steep slopes,unstable soils, seismic faults and other natural hazards. Preservation of the natural setting is important for maintaining and enhancing the quality of life for residents of the Town,as well as the Mid- Peninsula and Bay Area region.This General Plan provides a policy framework within which Los Altos Hills can develop in a safe, orderly • manner while preserving its semi-rural,residential character. 23. The primary uses of land in Los Altos Hills are single-family, residences including secondary dwelling units and other accessory • structures; small-scale agricultural activities;and recreation and open • space. A minimum of one acre of land is required per primary residence. In general,however,the density of dwelling units decreases as the steepness of land increases,due to Town regulations and physical constraints. In addition,uses within the planning area include public and private facilities.necessary to serve the residents on a continuing basis. • Municipal Code section 10-1.103 states the purpose of the zoning and building requirements are"to protect and guide the growth and expansion of the Town in an orderly manner"and to preserve the environment of the Town. There are multiple code sections that relate to the required size of lots,setbacks and requirements for allowing a variance which include 10-1.501, 10.1-505, 10-1.1003,and 10.1.1007(1)and(2)which show a uniformed and fair approach to regulation of all property within LAH. Interestingly, in Ybarra v. Town Of Los Altos Hills (1973) 370 F.Supp.742; affirmed (1974) 503 F.2d 250, the Town's General Plan requirement of one acre was upheld as a legitimate government interest. The Town was sued over the one acre requirement saying it discriminated against poor people. The Court held that the LAH General plan had a rational relationship to.a legitimate government interest, i.e.preserving the town's rural environment. • LAH has Been Consistent in not Approving Sub Standard Lots for Development In looking at the historical data for approval of undersized lots (5.B-Attachment 4 to the Agenda), LAH has not approved many undersized lots. The last time a lot under .4 acres was approved for development was 1978. There are only three undersized lots that have been approved since 2000(of which two were .49 acres and the other.43 acres). Historically,these lots have not been developed because they should not be developed. Los Altos Hills City Council • May 20, 2015 • Page 4 • At a minimum, our clients agree with Ms. Steinmetz's letter dated March 20, 2015, in which she requests a moratorium on development of substandard lots. As stated above, such a moratorium is perfectly legal and will not be a taking. If we can assist in any manner,please let me know. Very truly yours, GCA LAW PARTNERS LLP • sd E. avid Marks • Cc: stevem@meyersnave•com stangri@meyersnave.com savila@losaltoshills.ca.gov cricharclson@losaltoshills.ca.gov j smandl e@hotma i l,corn j itze@couperus.org • jima.pc@gmail.com • • richard.partridge@comcast.net • kavitat@comcast.net C�r INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT FiXINDIDnfs LAND USE AND ENVIRONMENT • Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: A Primer for Public Agency Staff • July 2006 By • Bill Higgins Land Use Program Director Institute for Local Government • www.ca-ilg.org/takings • • Contributors: Andrew Schwartz Shute, Mihaly&Weinberger www.smwlaw.com Barbara E,Kautz • Goldfarb&Lipman www.goldfarblipman.com 1400 K Street,Suite 301 • Sacramento,CA 95814 • 916.658,8208 • F 916.444.7535 • www.ca-Ilg.org Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 It I • Generous Support for this publication provided by McDonough Holland&Allan PC Attorneys at Law and The,Resources Legacy Fund About the Institute and the Development of this Document: The mission of the Institute for Local Government is to develop resources for local officials in California, For the past six years,the Institute has been tracking developments in takings law as one of its primary focus areas. This document is an updated version of an earlier publication entitled the Basics of Takings Law published by the Institute in 2000,written by Andrew Schwartz(Shute, Mihaly& Weinberger)with the assistance ofAnthony Saul Alperin(former Assistant City Attorney, City of Los Angeles), Fran Layton(Shute,Mihaly&Weinberger), Katherine Stone(Myers, Widders,Gibson,Jones& Schneider),Rochelle Browne (Richards, Watson&Gershon)and Bill Higgins(Land Use Program Director, Institute for Local Government) Copyright©2006 by the Institute for Local Government 1400 K Street,Suite 205 • Sacramento,CA 95814 (916)658-8208 www.ca-ilg.org Institute for Local Government 2 Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 i IN MEMORY OF ANTHONY SAUL ALPERIN 1946-2003 • This primer is dedicated to the memory of Anthony Saul Alperin,an outstanding legal scholar and advocate for local government. Tony served notably for more than 29 years in the Office of the City Attorney for the city of Los Angeles,where he spent 21 years in the land use division and became a recognized expert in takings law. in 1999, he was named assistant in charge of the ethics and elections divisions. He also served as lead counsel to the City Ethics Commission. His numerous achievements in the practice of public law include material contributions to both the League of California Cities and the institute for Local Government. He was quick to provide a scholarly analysis of the most difficult municipal law issues. Tony's generosity in sharing his knowledge and his contributions to his profession were formally recognized in 1995,when he was named the California State Bar Association's Public Lawyer of the Year. • Tony was a founding member of the institute's;land use project. He was a tireless contributor to the substance of the project's work,serving as a peer reviewer for virtually every publication in the early years of the project. He also authored several articles, including The "Takings"clause: When Does Regulation "Go Too Far"?in the • Southwestern University Law Review(2002). When the Institute launched its ethics and public confidence project,Tony stepped forward to help with that effort as well. In appreciation for Tony's many contributions to the institute for Local Government,the • Institute's board of directors voted to dedicate this publication in Tony's honor. Benjamin Disraeli,who was also a lawyer committed to the advancement of public policy, observed that the"secret of success is constancy to purpose."Tony left a legacy that was very successful indeed and the world is a better place because of it. • • Institute for Local Government 3 Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS • I FIRST PRINCIPLES 5 A. Overview and About this Publication 5 B. The Police Power:The Authority to Regulate 5 • • C. What is a Regulatory Taking? 6 • D, The Public Use Requirement and Regulatory Takings 9 E.. Risk Assessment Tool and Flow Chart 10 • II STEP ONE:IS THERE A COMPENSABLE PROPERTY INTEREST? 12 A. Principles of State Property Law 12 B. Related Contract Rights That Do Not Constitute Property 15 C. Permits and Vested Rights • 16 D. Agency Action Must"Proximately Cause"Owner's Harm 17 III STEP TWO PROCEDURAL ISSUES:IS THE CLAIM RIPE FOR REVIEW AND TIMELY FILED? 18 A. Agency Must Have Reached A Final Decision 18 B, Statute of Limitations:The Lawsuit Must Be Filed in Time 21 • • IV. STEPS THREE THROUGH SIX:THE THREE TYPES OF REGULATORY TAKINGS CLAIMS,THEIR TESTS AND RISK FACTORS 22 A. Physical Taking Claims 23 B. Economic Loss and Diminution of Value 26 I. Total Regulatory Claims— 100 Percent Reduction in Value 26 • 2. Partial Takings—Diminution in Value Less Than 100 Percent 27 3. Exceptions: Background Principals and Public Safety 11 • 4. Exception;The Whole Parcel Rule 31 5. Normal (and"Abnormal")Delays in Permit Processing 33 C. Unconstitutional Exaction Claims 34 I, Development of the Heightened Scrutiny Standard 35 2. Fees and Conditions on Development 38 • • • 3. Dedications of Property 39 • • • V. STEP 7 AND INTERESTS OF"FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE":REMEMBER THE • FAIRNESS FACTOR 40 • VI. CONCLUSION 43 Appendix: Eleven Tips for Avoiding Takings Claims 44 • Institute for Local Government 4 • Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 I FIRST PRINCIPLES A. OVERVIEW AND ABOUT THIS PUBLICATION • • The scene is familiar: local residents become concerned about the accelerated pace of • • development in an area.At first,not much comes of it.Then,a proposed new subdivision • galvanizes the community to action. The planning department updates its planning documents to more effectively manage growth. But then several property owners claim that the policies unlawfully interfere with their constitutionally protected property rights. They threaten to sue for compensation if restrictions are placed on their property. • Now what? This scenario has perplexed more than one group of local officials. But to what extent does land use regulation really amount to an unconstitutional taking of • property? That is the subject of this primer. • The short answer is that in most circumstances,a land use regulation does not amount to a regulatory taking. Indeed, most regulations share two general characteristics that make • it difficult to mount a successful challenge: • Regulated Land Nearly Always Retains Economic Uses. As long as land can be put to productive economic use, it retains value and the regulation will not"deny all • economic use"of the land. Landowners do not have a right to the most profitable use of land.• • o Regulations are Generally Enacted Legislatively. Courts give greater deference to actions that apply broadly to a class of landowners than to unique regulations imposed on individual landowners. • But these factors are not guarantees.The possibility remains that a land use regulation • • may be implemented in a way that causes a taking.A solid understanding of takings law and property rights,therefore,is essential for those involved in drafting and implementing any land use regulation. B. THE POLICE POWER:THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE • The authority for local agencies to regulateland arises from the"police power"to protect • the public's health,safety and welfare.' In'California, the constitution gives this power to cities and counties. These agencies have authority to make and enforce laws,to protect The police power is inherent in a sovereign government. This power is reserved for states in the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See also Euclid v.Ambler Realty Company,272 U.S.365 (1926)(holding that local governments may protect the general welfare through enactment of residential zoning ordinances). Institute for Local Government 5 Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 •4 public health and safety to the extent that they do not conflict with the state laws?Courts have traditionally construed the police power to authorize local land use regulation.3 • The police power is also elastic,meaning that it is flexible enough to meet the changing conditions of society.' Efforts that might not have been thought of as promoting the general welfare a century ago(like regulations to improve air quality, perhaps)are well • within notions of the general welfare today.Courts have found that a wide variety of local concerns legitimately fall within the general welfare, including growth • management.' • • As explained below,this authority is subject to certain limits. Constitutional protections, such as those concerning takings,due process,and equal protection,restrict the police • power. C. WHAT ISA REGULATORY TAKING? • 'l'he term"taking"derives from the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S.Constitution,which states"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."6 Thus,the Just Compensation Clause provides a check against the police power not by prohibiting public agency action,but by requiring • • payment of just compensation.• ' i . The clearest sort of taking occurs when a public agency takes,occupies,or encroaches upon private land for its own proposed use,such as to build roads,create parks,or develop other public-uses.8 These actions—called eminent domain or condemnation • actions-are-premised upon the payment of just.compensation or fair market value,for.. the property: Challenges to these types of takings usually involve the straightforward j application ofperse-rules9 • A regulatory taking is different. A regulatory taking occurs when a regulation becomes • so onerous that it has the practical effect of a direct appropriation,'° An extreme example • .would be zoning private land as a public park. Such a regulation does two things: I) it • prevents the owner from putting the land to any economic use,and 2) it prevents the • owner from exercising one of the most fundamental characteristics of property 2 Cal.Const.art,XI,§7. Miller v.Board of Public Works,195 Cal.477(1925). 1 Candid Enterprises,Inc.v.Grossnionl Union High School Dist.,39 Cal.3d 878,886(1985). 4 Euclid v.Ambler Realty Company,272 U.S.365,387(1926),Agins v.City of Tiburon,447 U.S.255,260- 63(1980),and Penn Central Transp.Co.v.City of Mew York,438 U.S. 104, 124(1978). S Denta v. County of iVapa,9 Cal.4th 763(1995). 6 To the same effect is Article I,Section 19 of the California Constitution:"Private property may be taken or damaged for public use only when just compensation,ascertained by a jury unless waived,has first been paid to,or into court for,the owner." ?aid English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles,482 U.S.304,314(1987). 8 See Palaacolo v.Rhode Island,533 U.S,606,617(2001). 9 Penn Central Transp. Co. v.City of New York,438 U.S. 104,124(1978). 10 See Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A.,544 U.S.528(2005). Institute for Local Government 6 • Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 ownership: the right to exclude others, Thus,the regulation would have a similar effect as if the public agency had condemned the land and built a park. The Just Compensation Clause is often misconstrued as a prohibition against any regulation that either decreases property value or prevents owners from doing what they l want with their land. But the clause merely requires that land may be put to some. economic use,not the most profitable or speculative use. As'one court said,the Just • Compensation Clause"is not a panacea for less-than-perfect investment or business • opportunities.s11 What makes takings law very difficult is that the courts have not articulated an easy-to-understand set of rules that help planners,the public and • • • landowners recognize when a regulation crosses the line.The following two oft-cited passages from U.S.Supreme Court jurisprudence help illustrate the challenge: • • "The Fifth Amendment. . . was designed to bar Government from forcing • • some people alone to hear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, • should be borne by the public as a who/e."12 • • "Government hardly could go on if to some extent values incident to property could not be diminished without paying for every such change in the general law."13 • • • How can these two statements be reconciled? Land use planning,by its very nature,adjusts rights for the public good by imposing benefits and burdens • unequally among landowners.14 Pu ETlll{ G�S'1'oREAwl/BER.AHou1 R_h..'CruL4rom T11A11 ' : : : : : : : • A Takings Challenge Generally Falls When Economic Uses of Property Remain. Claims that a regulation denies economic uses of property will fail when the property retains economically viable uses. Zoning land for agriculture,fel- example, orexample,allows for an economic use and will generally preclude a successful takings claim even when the owner argues the regulation is costing millions in lost development value. The Takings Clause does not guarantee that owners will be compensated for the most speculative use of land,15 • • • Reasonable and Proportional Conditions on Development are Permitted. • Conditions on develo,ment re'uirin:that the develoler :ive land as an Casement • "Long Beach Equities,Inc.v.County of Ventura,231 Cal.App.3d 1016, 1040(1991). 12 Armstrong v. United Stales,364 U.S.40,49(1960). "Pennsylvania Coal v.Mahon,260 U.S.393,413(1922). 14 Andrus v.Allard,444 U.S.51,65(1979). 15 Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,535 U.S.302(2002). Institute for Local Government 7 • • Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: i A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 1 to the public will not cause a taking when they are reasonably related and proportional to the harm or impact caused by the development.' Conditions that • are imposed by ordinance—instead of on a case-by-case basis—and do not involve the dedication of land to the public—are even less likely to be found to be a taking." • Landowners Must Seek a Less Intensive Development Before Suing. Courts are reluctant to require compensation unless they are absolutely sure that a regulation or condition will be applied in a way that amounts to a taking. Thus, landowners • • must usually file two applications and seek a scaled down development before courts will even entertain a claim.This two-application procedure allows the local agency to take corrective action when a regulation unfairly affects a particular parcel.' "Automatic"or Per Se Takings are Rare. Regulations that cause 100 percent devaluation or a permanent physical presence on property will almost always be found to be a taking,but such regulations are rare. It might seem like a condition on development—like a requirement to create a park or bike path—amounts to a • permanent physical occupation.The reason why this is not the case is that the condition is imposed in response to the development application,which is voluntarily sought by the developer." • • Fairness Matters. Courts are often concerned that the landowner was treated fairly by the agency.Thus, it is always good to design efficient,straightforward processes that arc consistent with the general plan in order to set appropriate development • expectations z0 • As a'result,courts have not articulated a set formula to determine when a specific burden is a mere incident of property ownership or unfairly burdens select owners.'-' Instead, courts have carved out a few narrow per se rules that apply in extreme cases and have opted for a case-by-case analysis in cases when the economic impact of the regulation is less severe. • This approach is not one that necessarily lends itself to effective land use planning—and the absence of certainty affects landowner and public agency alike. 'Nollan v. California Coastal Commission,483 U.S.825(1987);Dolan v. City of Tigard,512 U.S.374 (1994);Ehrlich v.City of Culver Ci(v, 12 Cal.4th 854(1996). • 17 San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco,27 Cal.4th 643(2002). • • Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v.Hamilton Bank,473 U.S. 172(1985). 19 Sec Lucas v.South Carolina Coastal Council,505 U.S. 1003(1992);Loretto v.Teleprompter Manhattan • CAT!'Corporation,458 U.S.419(1982); Tee v. City of Escondido,503 U.S.519(1992). 20 Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,535 U.S.302(2002);City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dimes at Monterey,Ltd,526 U.S.687(1999). • ?' Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,535 U.S.302,326(2002). • Institute for Local Government 8 Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 D. THEPUBLiC USE REQUIREMENT AND REGULATORY TAKINGS • Before going further,one more distinction should be drawn between regulatory takings • and eminent domain. How and when eminent domain should be used has received a great deal of attention after the U.S.Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London.22 The use of eminent domain is premised on two conditions:(i)the action furthers a public purpose or use;and (2)the payment of just compensation, • • In Kelo,a public agency acquired land through eminent domain to further a • comprehensive economic revitalization plan that included hotels,office buildings,a • service area for a historic park,a marina,parks, and a riverwalk. A group of property • • owners challenged the property acquisition,because the ultimate result was to take land from one private owner(a home owner)and turn it over to another(a developer). Thus, . the owners argued,the transaction was essentially private,not public, • • The United States Supreme Court rejected this argument in a 5 to 4 decision. The Court said that an eminent domain action could be challenged for failing to further a public use, • but in this instance the subsequent private ownership—on its own—did not mean that the property acquisition did not achieve public purposes. The Court deferred to the city's determination that the overall objective of rejuvenating the downtown was a sufficient public purpose to justify acquiring the property. • i:. The public use issue,however,plays out quite differently within the context of regulatory takings. Because the Just Compensation Clause expressly requires compensation when a public agency takes private property for public use, it presumes that regulations are valid (and therefore further a public interest)at the time they are adopted. • Thus,the Just Compensation Clause does not prevent public agencies from regulating property uses. Instead, it requires compensation in the event that an otherwise proper • • regulation amounts to a taking. 'In other words,the Just Compensation Clause merely provides a remedy(fair compensation)for otherwise legitimate public action. • • • Challenges to the validity of a regulation may not occur under the Just Compensation Clause. Instead challengers must show that a regulation is impermissible under some • other constitutional or statutory requirement. If a regulation is determined to be invalid on _' such grounds,that is the end of the inquiry 24 No amount of compensation can authorize • such action. 22 Kelo v. City of New London, U.S._,125 S.Ct.2655(2005), 23 Lingle v.Chevron U.S.A.,544 U.S..528(2005)(emphasis in original)(citing First English Evangelical • Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles.482 U.S.304,315(1987)). 24 Lingle v.Chevron U.S.A.,544 U.S,528(2005). Institute for Local Government • 9 •• • Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: A Primer for Public Agency Staff J, July 2000 E. RISK ASSESSMENT TOOL AND FLOW CHART A goal of this primer is`to provide policymakers,planners and other officials with a practical way to analyze and evaluate takings issues. This will help determine whether a particular course of action may pose too many legal and financial risks. One such method is the Risk Assessment Flowchart on the next page. The Flowchart proposes an eight-step analysis. First it asks.two threshold questions and then divides takings claims.into four basic,categories.For each category, it identifies the key issues • that must be considered in determining whether the action amounts to a compensable •• taking of property. Although the situation-specific nature of the inquiry makes absolute conclusions inadvisable,asking the questions posed in the Flowchart will help agency officials assess the risk that a given action could constitute a compensable taking, • • • i:. >l • • • • • Institute for Local Government 10 Regulatory• Takings and Land Use Regulation: APr)mar r PuA hlir nnr pv SraJuly 2006 i` �e'gu a Tal ii`• gs Clai�'is'''',= c ::II Ai�_g yz rigt•egl._.„,.!y..ii.:'-...,:...:.;:..........,..i: _ ?•:i.iyi �;: Is 1 ITeT•e A . ;.•::s:An Eight-Step Risk;Assessment Tool``:=- :.Trtkili ?:__:.._:--:-{.- foite j PROPERTY THRESHOLD• a 3 STEP 1: • Is there a (I)Recognized property interest com• pensable defined by background principles of TNTtBSHOLD property Interest? state law(2)must be harmed by Tssuis: agency action. - (PAGE 13) ,l -P-a."irnu'ss R9.1':d .P .1;Ci:we �_ Noriskwhen – �± claim does not 9 •• STEP 2: • TIMING THItE.STTULD satisfy all • Is the claim ripe • (I)Agency.decisioii must be final threshold issues • for reviewlyI and i and(2)claim must be timely filed. u_ • timely filed, (PAGE 19) – - • • ,:,.•;:`•.s'T'.EP 3 ;:.;: ::.. D Ti N . :. ,. PHXSIGCAI,.; DIl1f1NU:LIQ.NTNECQI�p1YtG:�VA1<(JECLAINS;:. 15E IGA O ; PAcC.a • c., ~-.t'llda �Is'c4aiine �.,., �:;:��� - - - d'i;.. .:s �:;.L ;J - • ,--lis: - :�To ill �'�::; `��`' • i• �-`i•. `-li>I'�`ss,: '.:fir • '`bt► l�a�° �'�`� - :�-j � r. R fia U 9t':C0111tn C[f0 S:(t (��P,tlia" R l - - _ t _ - �'i1�1%01 U a: UC, icilir n'n. :fit _ _ � (:i. =A 11 -- •tiotG �� e'f� b • .,., .... .- _...-..:<.at,: •:.,•1. ::_..:,.. o �:ii:�.: ▪ �I�(�.-.,-,- t►a:.�r.:S:U,��.:n .:1.., - - - 1 sleet.:: A9 dl :c__:•::.. t; `ja :al 'latrtl i° ��'r"e. till.iarJri - 'f,-'f t u�tianiif=��� .:,. -rt:• ''t'`eiiizs'� :ecu a ian;af��,_ =rezi e`. _���-- .;:x-•..;�.._.:: :���._.:o `a n 'e.t i'.:....__. ...._..:. -:...:_�.,....._..... :::�-:r...:::::�--:_,,:r:•:_ =': {las' - i'a'•': ->�.�. - .:}�:�'- es„ o' __ -.; 0 Isi ei:_; r @: :Y eori ttil Elia 1 tf:•.:::_-'-. r-- a. - JI; a c� -▪- - _ ;ail "i 1 •... pp .L., "3�i lir-e-v ;T- _ - �_g;�z:;° - _ t2 r:� il�f f`='�tl'..�Sf t1lP�i1111:;s`-: l r e' t� -a_irh .d: -. - • S- vpcc • ▪ Y. ;c ., I F,_ 'l :+ STEP s: • cr d i Apply other 'l erm"physical I The claim must be based on the use and value of the entire or Agbea • test-specific occupation"is whole parcel, ofpencyroofifheightenalrsburden • wnsldcnttiutuunarrowly Q�µw'�`aa� WNyM scrutiny applies construed J 9 STEP 6: Assess other test Occupation must Per se test applies Severe economic impact(far Dues not apply to specific risk be involuntary only when tlw example,greater than 70%) legislative conditions factors parcel has no value generally required applied to a broad class of owners • • 1 • RAFairness and justi e Fairness and Jsticememberhe "fairness factor" • :Di u_ rrr,cr>a� •._ DEDICATION&;�; ti"ne.PStrs FEE CWrns:PARTIAL TAKINGS 0 �`,t * ? �K ry CLAIMS: _ gat! ' l > «ei.:,'zaa'a� Low risk for valid• id.Ps„ l F ,3Gk •- a'r- _ . legislative fees ;high 1t'IYr = Low risk eyis' - : when ro er tyretains oils to -_yhi-?, j e , oirkhocconcditions I App = 1 [Pplicy� r if af41'"`''''-- with no proportional f111-.1 y,ren) !r-r value eeconomicallyUte fr Locrvaru o-ii# •i.Y _ r u1IP' viable use • ;CP_� n _i ; 4•25,• ILII • Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation; A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 • II, STEP ONE: IS THERE A COMPENSABLE PROPERTY • INTEREST? • in order to claim that property has been taken,the person making the claim must show ownership of a valid property interest at the time of the claimed taking25 Thus, it is • important to identify the underlying ownership interest that serves as the basis for the claim.The"bundle of sticks"metaphor is typically used to describe property rights,when each stick represents a discrete property right.The owner's right to use the property is the most obvious stick in the bundle. Another important property right is the right to exclucle others 2°Property owners also have the right to sell or lease or otherwise transfer their property, and to decide the rent and the selling price. These property rights can be bundled into a single ownership interest or divided among different property owners. For example,when a property owner leases a property to another,the bundle of sticksis divided between the owner and the lessee, To,assert a claim a compensable taking has occurred,the owner must demonstrate ownership of all or part of the sticks in the bundle, This ownership interest is often most easily established when a property is wholly owned by a single person. However, partial interests in property may also be sufficient to make a claim for compensation under the Just Compensation Clause. Easements(including conservation easements),mineral rights,covenants,leases,and air rights are all recognized as valid(and thus compensable) interests in property. A. PRINCIPLES OF STATE PROPiiRTY LAW I The background principles of a state's property law further define the nature of the property interest. Background principles are restrictions on property(and the use of property)recognized by state law. While not precisely defined,these restrictions derive • from nuisance law,public safety needs, preservation of navigable waterways,and other important public interests. • The logic of the"background principles"doctrine is that property owners cannot lose a • property right that they never had. Property ownership is confined by limitations on the use of land that"inhere in the title itself."Z'Such uses(like a use that constitutes a public nuisance)are not considered to be part of the owner's"bundle of sticks."Thus, even a regulation that seemingly destroys all market value is not a compensable taking if a • 25 Wyatt v. United Stales,271 F.3d 1090,1096(Fed.Cir.2001). 26 Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A.,544 U.S.528(2005). 27 Lucas.V.South Carolina Coastal Council,505 U.S. I003, 1029(1992);•Palazsolo v. Rhode Island,533 U.S.606,629(2001). Institute for Local Government 12 ! i � I i i . I • Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: A Primer for Public Agency Staff • July 2006 • • "background principle"of state property law supports it 28 The most,common types of , • background principles are: . • • Nuisances.A nuisance is any harmful or offensive use of property that interferes with the"comfortable enjoyment"of the property of others,29 Public agencies'right to prohibit nuisances,regardless of the cost to the owners,has been recognized since at least 1887,when the U,S. Supreme Court upheld a local ordinance stopping a local • distillery from producing'alcoholic beverages."Similarly, in 1915 the Court upheld'a •• city ordinance prohibiting the operation of brickyards in residential areas,because a brickyard was-considered a traditional nuisance.' •• A more modern example might include limiting building on steep,unstable hillsides or in an area prone to flooding,'2 in determining whether a use is a nuisance,courts consider how much harm is being caused to public land and adjacent private property, the value of the use,and the ease with which harm can be avoided. The loss of value • by itself is nota factor. An agency might even.be able to force the removal of a nuclear power plant as a nuisance if it were found to be sited on an active earthquake • • fault" • • o Public Safely and Emergency. Physical invasion and even destruction of property may not be a compensable taking if needed to"avert impending peril."Police actions damaging private property in an emergency do not constitute a compensable taking.' Other actions needed to avert economic disaster might also not be a compensable taking. For example, after floods and mudslides killed several people and wiped out buildings,a temporary prohibition on construction within the flood zone to study how to prevent future damage did not amount to a compensable taking because the public • • • benefits of avoiding further death or injury far exceeded the cost to the individual • property owner.JS • • In addition,destroying infected red cedar trees to protect apple orchards from a ruinous pest is not a compensable taking;the state was faced with the imminent • • • 28 Lucas. v.South Carolina°Coastal Council, 505 U.S.1003;1030(1992). 29 See Cal.Civ.Code§§3479,3480, • 3°A4uglerV.Kansas, 123 U.S.623,675(1887). 31 fladacheck v.Sebastian,239 U.S.394,411 (1915). • 32 First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v.County of Los Angeles,210 Cal.App.3d 1353(1989). 3'Lucas. v.South Carolina Coastal Council,505 U.S.1003, 1029-31 (1992), 34 Customer Co.v. City of Sacramento, to Cal.4th 368,384(1995)(holding that property damage caused,by }police firing tear gas into a 7-Eleven store to apprehend a felon is not a taking). s First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Las Angeles,210 cal.App.3d 1353, 1371 (1989). • • Institute for Local Government 13 • • Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 II destruction of its apple industry,and could decide that the public interest was served in protecting the more valuable apple trees.' • Y Custom. Most states have developed certain customs about land uses. These customs may shape the scope of property rights, In one Oregon case, for example,a property owner unsuccessfully sought compensation for a coastal public access requirement. The claim was rejected because of Oregon's customs relating to public ownership of beaches. Herzberg vs. County ofPlutnas provides an example of a custom of California law" • Early on in California;cattle could lawfully roam from one property to another. The duty was on the property owners to fence cattle out rather than on cattle owners to fence cattle in. Though this law has changed in much of the state, it remains in effect in certain range areas in Northern California. As a result,property owners in these defined areas may not bring a claim for compensation under the Just Compensation Clause for trespass and property damage caused by cattle wandering onto their property. • o Public Trust, The public trust doctrine provides that tidelands,the beds of navigable waterways and other natural resources are held in trust for the public by the state.30 Land in California located beneath navigable and tidal waterways are subject to certain public access and navigation rights.The state holds these rights in trust for the public. Thus,private property restrictions relating to these public trust rights cannot • constitute a compensable taking;the owner never had the right to use the property for non-public trust uses" The burden of establishing that a background principle exists falls on the public agency." The U.S. Supreme Court has described background principles as"common,shared understandings of permissible limitations.. .derived from a state's legal tradition."41 Not • all state laws are"background traditions,"but the limits are not certain.However,there are no California cases illuminating the concepts. Courts in other states have ruled that • certain long-standing statutes do constitute background principles 42 • 76 Miller v.Schoen,276 U,S.272(1928).A Washington state court recently reached a similar conclusion in Properly Locaied at/4255 53r1 Ave.,S. 7'rr/nvila,King County, Washington v. Warhingion State Dept. of Agriculture, 120 Wash.App.737,739(2004)(finding compensation was not required for the destruction of trees within a one-eighth mile radius of five escaped citrus long horned beetles). "Herzberg v.County of Phrnras, 133 Cal.App,4th 1 (2005), The court ultimately analyzed this tradition • under the Penn Central test. However,the discussion centers on the customary use of range properties under California law, 38 Illinois Central Railroad Co.v. Illinois, 146 U.S.387,452-4(1892). 39 See Notional,1 udubon Society v.Superior Court.33 Cal.3d 419,440(1983). 40 Lucas. v.Souih Carolina Coastal Council,505 U.S. 1003, 1029-31 (1992). . n Palazzolo v.Rhode Island.533 U.S.606,630(2001). 42 See Kim v.City of New York,90 N.Y.2(11,5-9(1997)(finding that a common law and City Charter provision requiring properties to provide lateral support for a public'roadway constituted a background principle). Institute for Local Government 14 • Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation; A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 . B. RELATED CONTRACT RIGHTS THAT DO NOT CONSTITUTE PROPERTY • Not all interests in property rise to the level of a recognized property right. For example, options to purchase'or rights of'first refusal4A are not usually considered interests in the property. Instead,they are contract rights. Likewise,a lender with a'mortgage or deed of • trust may own a contract Obligation secured by the property,but this does not usually • equate to an interest in the property itself(Or"stick in'the bundle")." Nor can a person who owns shares in a corporation that owns property assert a property interest in land • owned by the corporation." • • The status of contract deliveries of water to farmers and irrigation districts through state and federal water projects is an example. Some deliveries have had to be curtailed to assure that adequate flows remain for endangered fish species,such as salmon. Do • farmers have a property right inthose water deliveries?One decision said yes 47 As a • result,a reduction in deliveries constituted a compensable taking. Later decisions have disagreed, instead characterizing the issue as a contract dispute and examining the extent • to which the original contracts allowed for limited deliveries when circumstances changed." • • • • • • • • • 4? See San Jose Parking,Inc. v.Superior Court,110 cal.App.4th 1321, 1327(2003)(holding that a purchase option is not an interest in land and may not be condemned by eminent domain):But see County of San Diego v. Miller, 13 Cal.3d 684(1975)(finding that a purchase option must be compensated in eminent domain). • 44 Kaiser Development Co.v. Ci/y and County of Honolulu,649 F.Supp.926,937(D.Hawaii 1986)(under Hawaiian law,a right of first refusal is a contract,not a property interest). • 4S VLX Properties, Inc.r.Southern States Utilities,inc.,701_So.2d 391,•395(1997), • 46 Eastern Minerals Intern..Inc. v. United States.36 Fed.Cl.541,547(Fed.Cl.1996), 47 Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District v. United States,49 Fed.CI,313(Fed.Cl.2001). �a Klamath Irrigation Dist.v. United States,67 Fed,Cl.504(Fed.CI.2005). Institute for Local Government 15 • Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation; A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 C. PERMITS AND VESTED RIGHTS • • • Generally, the grant of a permit—in and of itself—is not considered property. In the land use context,however,a permit may create a vested right to develop a property' The right to develop land generally vests when`abuilding permit has been issued or the • • property owner has performed substantial work and incurred substantial liability in good faith reliance on the permit. In.addition,the.Subdivision Map.Act(vesting maps)and development agreement law allow for rights to vest earlier.in the development process. • Can a property owner claim a compensable taking when a public agency interferes with a vested right?The answer is not entirely clear.50 California courts have not addressed this • issue directly. In other states,some courts have found that such interference is a takings' Others have found that the owner,may be entitled to equitable relief on some theory, but the interference with a vested right does not necessarily amount to a compensable • taking.52 Outside of the land use context,the grant of a permit does not necessarily create a • compensable property right--particularly if the permit is associated with a heavily regulated industry when there is an expectation that the conditions imposed on the permit will change over time. • A California case involved a challenge to a state law that barred the use of the name "Napa"on a brand or wine label unless at least 75 percent of the grapes used to make the wine came from Napa County; A wine producer who possessed federally-approved certificates for the"Napa Ridge!'and"Napa Creek Winery"labels challenged the law. • The producer,among other things,sought compensation for the lost value of the label. It argued that law created a compensable taking of the federal certificates because it eliminated the value of the Napa-related brand names. The court of appeal rejected the claim,concluding that the federal permits,standing alone,were not property subject to Fifth Amendment protection. The court also • 'concluded that the statute did not destroy the economic value of the brand names, because the producer could still use them on wines made with grapes grown in Napa.ss • 49,4 VCO Community Developers, Inc.v South Coast Regional Commission, 17 Cal.3d 785,791 (1976). 50 See Douglas T.KcndO,Timothy J.Dowling&Andrew W.Schwartz,Takings Litigation Handbook 158 (American Legal Publishing,2000). 51 See Hemmers v. City of Dubuque,716 F.2d 1194,1197-1201 (8th Cir. 1983). 52 Corn v.City of Lauderdale Lakes,95 F.3d 1066,1073-75(1 Ith Cir, 1996). 53 Bronco Wine Co. v.Jolly, 129 Cal,App.4th 988(2005). Institute for Local Government 16 • • Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: ii A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 " 4 For more on vested rights in the land use context,see Chapter 5,Curtin's California • • Land Use and Planning Law and the Institute for Local Government's Development Agreement Manual(v_wm.c:a-illotgtcievtaymt). D. AGENCY ACTION MUS'r"PROXIMATELY CAUSE"OWNER'S HARM • To create the risk of a compensable taking,the public agency action must be the director • "proximate"cause of the claimed harm to the property 54 When some other tactor causes • • the harm,the property owner is not entitled to recover from the public agency. This issue typically arises either when the landowner's voluntary actions caused the harm or when • some other intervening natural factor was involved in damaging the property. • • In one case,developers claimed an eight-year delay in receiving project permits created a compensable taking. The court concluded that the developers were responsible for the lion's share of the delay,because they had not completed their application to the Army Corps of Engineers for a fill permit and had not obtained other required state permits." • In another case,the buyer and seller cancelled a land sales contract after the Corps designated part of the property as wetlands.The court found that the parties themselves caused any losses due to the cancellation,not the Corps' wetlands designation 96 • The courts have also determined that state and federal laws protecting wildlife do not "cause"a compensable taking when protected•species enter private property,57 Many of • these claims were based on the argument that the endangered species laws were creating a physical invasion of their properties by limiting the extent to which landowners can prevent endangered species from entering their land. Physical invasions of property are • • considered per se•takings(see page 24). • • The courts concluded that the endangered species laws are not directly responsible for the • presence of the endangered species on private property. The courts noted that public • agencies do not own or control the animals,nor do the laws somehow convert the animals •• into"government agents." • • • • 54 Penn Central Tramp. C:'o. r.City of New York,,438 U.S. 104, 124(1978)(making reference to losses "proximately caused"by government). • 55 11'alcek v. United Stales,44 Fed,CI.462,467-68(Fed.CI, 1999). 56 Robbins v. United States,40 Fed.Cl.381,385(Fed.CI, 1998). • - S7 Christy v.lladel. 857 F.2d 1324, 1334-5(9th Cir. 1988). • •• Institute for Local Government 17 Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 III. STEP TWO PROCEDURAL ISSUES: IS THE CLAIM RIPE FOR REVIEW AND TIMELY FILED? In many cases,takings claims are threatened prematurely. A valid claim must meet two timing conditions before a court will allow the claim to proceed. First,the agency's • decision must be afnal determination,meaning that there is no other way that the regulation at issue will be applied that will not result in a compensable taking, Second, the claim must have been timely filed within the limits imposed by the statute of limitations. A. AGENCY MUST HAVE REACHED A FINAL DECISION The threat of a takings claim is often first raised after a public agency denies a permit. But such claims are often premature. Takings claims are not"ripe"for a court action until the local agency has reached afinal decision about what level of development will be permitted on the property50 A denial of one development application,on its own, does not necessarily mean that all applications will be denied. • This rule assures that a taking may not occur before a public agency can use its own procedures to decide the full extent of the challenged regulation.The landowner must allow the agency to exercise its full discretion in considering development plans for the property, including the opportunity to grant any variances or waivers allowed by law.As a general rule,until these ordinary processes have been followed,the extent of the restriction on property is not known and a compensable regulatory taking has not yet been established.' For example, in MacDonald, Sommer&Frales v. Yolo County,b0 developers applied for permission to subdivide their farm into 159 lots for single-family homes,The board of supervisors denied the project as inconsistent with the county's general plan.Although the property was zoned for residences, it had no public sewer,water,or street access. Nor had the developer applied to the proper agencies for utility service.The developers claimed that they had exhausted all administrative remedies and that any application for development would be futile. 58 Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v.Hamilton Bank,473 U.S. 172, 173(1985). 5'See Sulium v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,520 U.S.725,736,and n.10(1997)(noting difficulty of demonstrating that"'mere enactment"'of regulations restricting land use effects a taking). b0 MacDonald,Sommer&Frales v. Yolo County,477 U.S.340,342(1986). Institute for Local Government 18 Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 The Court disagreed. Since the possibility remained that some development would be. permitted on the property,the Board's denial did not represented the Board's"final, definitive position." As such,the Court could not reach a decision on whether the property had been taken and compensation was due. • This reflects a practical reality:just because an agency does not approve one proposal does not mean that it will disapprove all proposals. Indeed,some owners initially propose grandiose plans that are unlikely to be approved. It would be premature for a court to jump in and determine whether a compensable taking has occurred under such circumstances when an agency is likely to approve a more modest development proposal, On the other hand,courts do assess the fairness of the agency's actions. Courts will not allow a public agency to avoid the ripening of a takings claim by denying one application after another on various pretexts.The courts will act once they believe that the extent of permitted development is clear, While decisions about finality are made on a case-by-case basis,here are some guidelines: • • Administrative Remedies Must Be Exhausted,The landowner must file at least one complete application for use of the property and exhaust all administrative remedies. The owner must have followed all reasonable and necessary steps to allow regulatory agencies to exercise their full discretion in considering development plans for the property, including the opportunity to grant any variances or waivers allowed by law. Until these ordinary processes have been followed,the extent of the restriction on property is not known and a compensable regulatory taking has not yet been established.6' Thus, applications that are abandoned or withdrawn before any decision is made are not considered meaningful for purposes of deciding if there has been a final decision`''-The owner must also exhaust all available administrative • appeals,such appealing a planning commission's decision to the governing body. • Additional Applications(and a Variance)May Be Necessary. Additional applications must be submitted as long as there is uncertainty about the permitted,use of the property. In most cases, at least one application and a variance application may be needed before the agency's decision can be considered final.The issue, however, is not the number of applications; it is whether the application history makes it clear how much development will be permitted on the site. • 61 Suilum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,520 U.S.725,736,and n.10(1997). ez K1n:11 v.City of Santa Cr,,:,818 F.2d 1449,1455(9th Cir. 1987). Institute for Local Government 19 Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation; A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 • Reasonable Effort to Comply With Existing Regulations Must Be Made, The owner must make some reasonable effort to comply with existing regulations. Successively more grandiose applications cannot be used to demonstrate finality. ' For example,in Toigo v. Town of Ross,a second application to subdivide a hillside lot into five parcels was before the council. The staff report found that the second application was in many ways more environmentally damaging than the first.This placed the town in a difficult position. A second denial could result in a viable takings claim. In response,the town drafted a set of findings that was 38 pages long—hardly typical for a denial of a five-unit subdivision—that detailed how the second proposal was still inconsistent with six subdivision standards,two zoning provisions,eleven roadway and driveway design standards,eight hillside lot criteria,and ten design review standards. Ultimately,the takings claim was dismissed.The court said that the owners had failed to submit a"meaningful application"and had"made no attempt to alter their vision" from the first to the second application 6' • Futile Applications Need Not Be Filed. An application is not necessary when filing would be futile because the extent of permitted development has been clearly established.fl5"Futility" is an extremely narrow exception, It applies only if it is nearly certain that future applications will be denied,"or if the agency's position is so clear that it would be a waste of time to submit more applications. For example,Hoehne v. Safi Benito County involved a 60-acre parcel characterized by steep hillsides and i; • zoned for single-family homes with a five-acre minimum lot size.The application to • subdivide the property into four lots was denied by both the planning commission and board of supervisors,Subsequently the board changed the general plan to require 40- acre minimum lot sizes,The landowner claimed that filing any additional applications would be futile.The court agreed because no general plan variance was possible and the board's actions in downzoning the property showed clearly that it was opposed to any subdivision. The court found that the applicant and county had reached"the end of the road,"and the county's decision was final 67 Finally,most regulatory actions provide for a certain degree of flexibility to fit the needs of individual property owners and avoid legal problems.An ordinance will not create a compensable taking if there is any way the ordinance can be applied to make it constitutional,such as by allowing variances68 63 The final decision requirement is not satisfied when a developer submits,and a land use authority denies, a grandiose development proposal,leaving open the possibility that lesser uses of the property might be permitted..S'ee A4acDonald,Sommer&Rates v. Vole County,477 U,S.340,353,n.9(1986). o 4 Taiga v.Town of Ross, 70 Cal.App.4th 309,326(1998). 65 Palazzolo v.Rhode Island,533 U.S,606,625-6(2001). 66 Gilbert v. City of Cambridge,932 F.2d 51,61 (1st Cir. 1991). • G7Haehne v.County of San Benito,870 F,2d 529,535(9th Cir. 1989). See also Palazzolo v.Rhode Island, 533 U.S.606,613-6,618-26(2001)(finding case ripe when government provides clear indication that development will not be permitted in coastal wetland areas). b8 See,for example,Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Napa,90 Cal.App.4th l 88, 199(2001). Institute for Local Government 20 RegulatoryTakings and Land Use Regulation: A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 However,if there is no way that an ordinance can be applied to property in a constitutional way,then the takings claim is"ripe"as soon as the ordinance is adopted. • As a result, one way to limit a local agency's exposure to claims that an ordinance"on its face"creates a compensable taking of property is to include a variance procedure that gives the agency the opportunity to avoid an unconstitutional result.A sample of a variance procedure designed for takings claims is posted on the Institute's online Takings Resource Center(www.ca-ilg.org/takings). • B. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS:THE LAWSUIT MUST BE FILED iN TIME A takings claim cannot succeed unless it is filed in time—within the time limits established by state or federal law(known as the statute of limitations). In California,the time limit for takings claims filed under thefederal civil rights laws is two years.'Claims filed under,state law protections of property rights must be tiled more quickly. In most cases, the lawsuit must be filed and served on the local legislative body within 90 days after a decision on a project is made or within 90 days after an ordinance becomes effective.70 In some cases,the statute of limitations is even shorter, For example, all challenges to decisions made by the California Coastal Commission must be brought within 60 days.'' Some cases involving state agencies,or local agencies acting on behalf ofstate.agencies, must be filed within 30 days.' There are some interesting wrinkles relating to the timing of claims. If a property owner challenges the disapproval or approval with conditions of a project within 90 days after the decision, the owner may also challenge the facial constitutionality of any ordinance applied to the property. For example, a Santa Cruz County homeowner challenged the conditions on his second unit permit,arguing that they constituted a compensable taking "as applied."The conditions were required by the County's second unit ordinance,which had been adopted twelve years before. However, by coupling the facial challenge with a timely as-applied challenge,the court found the homeowner could still mount a facial challenge to the underlying ordinance,even though the statute of limitations had long • since expired for challenging the ordinance on its face." 69 In federal court,takings claims must be brought under 42 U.S.C.section 1983.Azul-Pacifico,Inc. v.City of Los Angeles,973 F.2d 704,705(9th Cir. 1992). The statute of limitations for a section 1983 claim in California is two years. See Cal.Civ.Proc Code§335.1. 70 Cal.Gov't Code§65009;Hensler v.City of Glendale,8 Cal.4th I,22(1994). 7'Cal.Pub.Res.Code§30801. 72 Cal.Gov't Code§ 11523(claim must be filed within 30 days of the last date on which reconsideration could have been sought).See detailed discussion of California statutes of limitation in Daniel J.Curtin,Jr. &Cecily T.Talbert,Curtin'r California Land Use&Planning Lair 442(Solano Press,2004 ed.). • • 73 Travis v.County of Santa Cruz.33 Cul.4th 757(2004). Institute for Local Government 21 • • Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 ti IV. STEPS THREE THROUGH SIX: THE THREE TYPES OF REGULATORY TAKINGS CLAIMS, THEIR TESTS AND RISK FACTORS Regulatory takings claims fall into three basic categories. Each category has its own test and analysis, Understanding these three basic classifications will help local officials understand how takings law affects their land use planning: • Physical Takings. Regulations that require a permanent physical occupation of property, no matter how small. • Diminution in Value Takings. The most common type of compensable taking is based on the claim that a regulation diminishes.the value of property. Here there are two applicable tests,depending on the degree to which claim asserts that the property value has.diminished. APerse taking occurs in the rare case when a regulation wipes out all (100 percent of)economic value. Less than total loss claims,on the other hand,are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. • Unconstitutional Exactions. Individual conditions on property that are functionally equivalent to the eminent domain actions in which a public agency directly appropriates private property or ousts the owner from the property.74 For the most part, the inquiries relating to each classification share a common theme: each aims to identify regulatory actions that are functionally equivalent to the classic compensable taking in which a public agency directly appropriates or ousts the owner from private property, The tests focus on the severity of the burden that a public agency imposes upon private property rights.75 Until recently,there was an additional theory that a compensable taking could occur if a regulation failed to substantially advance a legitimate state interest.76 In essence,this theory required that a regulation be designed in a manner to accomplish its goals(known in legal circles as a means-ends requirement and the"substantially advance"test). In 2005, the U.S.Supreme Court rejected this theory in Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. The Court noted that the Just Compensation Clause merely provides a remedy(compensation) for when public agency action rises to the level of a taking." The Just Compensation Clause is not vehicle through which to evaluate public agency's goals and the means chosen to achieve those goals. 74 Lingle v.Chevron U.S.A.,544 U.S.528(2005). 75• 1rf • • 76 Agins v.CUy of Tiburon,447 U.S.255,260(1980), 77 Lingle v.Chevron U.S.A.,544 U.S.528(2005). institute for Local Government 22 Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 California courts have not yet signaled whether the"substantial advance"test has any traction under state constitutional property rights protections. However,California courts have generally interpreted the property rights protections of the California Constitution as being equivalent to those in federal law? A. PHYSICAL TAKING CLAIMS • A physical taking occurs when a public agency regulation requires a physical presence on a property,no matter how small,The reason for this per se rule is that permanent physical takings impose a unique burden, Even a minimal invasion"eviscerates the owner's right to exclude others from entering and using her property--perhaps the most fundamental of all property interests.s79 Property may be physically occupied by an object,such as a small cable television box, or by people,such as hikers using a trail. In deciding whether a compensable taking has occurred, the size of the area occupied,the economic impact,and the public purpose are almost always irrelevant: if the public agency required the physical invasion, it is a • compensable taking. The leading U.S. Supreme Court case on this point is Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp."There,New York City required landlords to permit cable television companies to install cable equipment on their buildings to ensure that cable television was generally available to renters.Some of the equipment served the tenants;other equipment was part Of the citywide cable network,which, in densely populated New York City,ran across buildings and rooftops. 'S San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco,27 Cal.4th 643,664(2002);Herzberg v. County of Plums,133 Cal.App.4th 1 (2005). 79 Lingle v. Chevron U.S..4.,544 U.S.528,539(2005);See Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 384 (1994); Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825, 831-832 (1987); Loretto V. Teleprompter Manhattan GATI"Corp.,458 U.S.419, 433 (1982); Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 176 (1979). 8°Loretto v.Teleprompter Manhattan CAW Corp.,458 U.S.419(1982). Institute for Local Government 23 Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: A Primer for Public Agency Staff July2006 The owner of an apartment building asked the cable company to ▪ k,;;,.�:,.-_ • remove plates, boxes,wires, bolts, screws and two small boxes. ;T, The cable company refused,citing the city ordinance. The owner NWS • L 4'r5 • claimed that the ordinance required the forced physical .•=r i -:::..r4.YIt2 occupation of her apartment building. ° i�eL,(' :a 3r, The U.S.Supreme Court agreed.It found that any permanent • 4 ;?_;4 physical occupation authorized by a public agency—even If"n° <�3'; bigger than a breadbox"—is a compensable taking, without , sr, regard to the public interests beeing sared 81 But the ultimate result of this case was probably not what the owner was hoping for.The New York Court of Appeals found that the statutory in payment of$l was sufficient compensation for the intrusion B' �� `l , : S Since a permanent physical invasion is a per se taking, property owners have sought to classify more and more regulations as :1= ' tin ; r•_•.-�t'z. physical invasions. What seems to be a simple rule has become more complex in practice. Physical invasions are at issue Ms.-Loretto's primarily in the following types of regulations: townhouse in New York City. The cable box was Fo Allowing the public agency or a third party to use private installed on the property. Even the smallest physical occupation by the public oof,After the U.S. agency itself,or by a third party authorized by the public uprerne Court agency to use,the property,can be considered a compensable tpheld her taking taking.One case found a compensable taking when the Army laim, a lower court Corps of Engineers drilled monitoring wells drilled on private ' 'circled damages • property to track groundwater pollutants.$' • one dollar. In another case,the Corps required a marina owner to allow public boat access into a newly dredged, privately-owned marina. A court found that the Corps' action constituted a compensable taking, because the private owner was required to allow members of the public onto his property.84 (A California court may have reached a different result because the right of access to all navigable waterways and the Pacific coast below the high tide line belongs to the state. A court, therefore,also would have to determine whether such a claim asserted an actual property right under the background principles doctrine.) (See page 13). o Controlling Tenant Evictions. Rent control ordinances occasionally limit a landlord's ability to evict tenants or to increase rents when tenants vacate their units.Landlords have claimed that these provisions allow a physical invasion of their property because 81 M at 421-24,426,436-38 and n.16(1982), • 82 I.or•etto v.Croup W Cable,522 N.Y.S.2d 543(N.Y.App.Div. 1987). 83'Headier v. United Slates, 175 F.3d 1374(Fed.Cir. 1999). 84 Kaiser Aetna v. United Stales,444 U.S. 164, 180(1979).Note,however,that a requirement to dedicate a • public access easement does not necessarily constitute a taking. Institute for Local Government 24 • Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 the landlords are compelled to permit renters to permanently occupy their property or = to'pass'on controlled rents to new tenants. . Generally;there is no forced physical occupation'in this situation so long as two conditions are met 1)the owner must have voluntarily invited renters onto the property,.and2)the owner must be able to end the tenancy by changing the property's use.B5 For example,a San Francisco law provided that even if a group,of owners purchased an apartment building,only one tenant could be evicted to allow an owner to move in.The court found that this could have the effect of denying landlords the right to exclude.others from their property and might,be a physical invasion.86 • • `Physical Interference wish Use and Enjoyment of Properly. There is also a narrow • set of cases when publicly-authorized uses may have such serious and unique effects on nearby property that they are considered to create a physical invasion.One case involved World War 11 bombers flying only 67 feet above a chicken farm, blowing leaves off.the trees and causing at least 150 chickens to die from fright.The airplanes created a compensable taking because the flights were so low and so frequent that they made the property uninhabitable,$'Similar cases exist for extremely pungent odors and smoke emanated from neighboring public uses that were so invasive they • i were deemed to amount to a physical occupation of property88 In addition,it's important to keep in mind that there are exceptions to the extent that the physical invasion is necessary to protect public health and safety or is otherwise consistent with background principles of state property law. (See pages 13 to 16). • •85 Yee v. City of Escondido,503 U.S.519,526-29(1992);see also Dawson v.Higgins,610 N,Y.S.2d 200 (N.Y.App.Div. 1994),appeal dism'don other grounds,616 N.Y.S.2d 476(1994.),cerl.denied sub nom. Dawson v.Halperin,513 U.S. 1077(1995)(ban on landlords'evictions of 20-year tenants for owner move- in did not effect physical or regulatory taking of landlords'property). 86 Cwynar P. City and County of San Francisco,90 Cal.App.4th 637,659(2001). 87 United Slates.v.Causby,328 U.S.256(1946).However,as a rule,any airplane flying higher than 1,000 feet in an urban area or 500 feet in a rural area will not be considered to cause a physical invasion. See • • Argent v. United States, 124 F.3d 1277(Fed Cir.1997). ss Richards v. Washington Terminal Company,233 U.S.546(1914). Institute for Local Government 25 • Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 B. ECONOMIC LOSS AND DIMINUTION OF VALUE The most common type of takings claim—and the one most likely to be threatened upon a project denial—are claims base on economic loss or the diminution in a property's value that results from an action or denial. Here there are two different types of claims: 1)those that claim that the regulation causes a total economic loss and 2)those that claim J that the loss is less than total. 1 1. Total Regulatory Claims—100 Percent Reduction in Value • In the rare circumstance that a regulation wipes out all of a property's value,the public agency's action is usually a compensable taking,regardless of the public purpose it serves.s9 It is difficult,however, for an owner to show that a regulation has left a property with no value whatsoever, If the property retains some value,there will not be a categorical taking(and the case should be evaluated as a partial taking)?° The leading case for this proposition is Lucas v.South Carolina Coastal Council.' There,David Lucas purchased two beachfront lots on a barrier island for$975,000.The properties were unstable and had been under water for roughly half of the previous 40 years.However, beachfront homes had already been built on nearly every other lot in the area. r nY ° s t fl t Z; ti `y' ' :,t, .+" J to S Ji- r+, 7P�-yi ru'ti�e F;j�}.J'W� ']}.. ,,,..� h..:'"',•�. ` .=�1',Y! r�`7�•`t'J,�i�'}aa .f;S_• .Tar; ` �-u.6-,�,I r-,-roti ...r 1 .: �'�'-�,I Y - a"u"�-y-s,.- �y- z ' i�:��.,.•" - •E .r�r'.�j,:'. t,.;, r,.4,� r yyr• tea r r4 e • .6��;��J -->.�(-FS.` 1 �r 9k<-'�:�!i'.,, S�..,�i.t'<F� %-� •',L';; •" �'S-•�� .,, 'Wa e i1, '�[` . ;zl> t1qt. s� � t 3 u € f=kms '' „ '` r � rpt•,�- ^- r 4 4� .;; ;Si:.-_ �,�• ;;,;� N . . •.a_r 4 .-4 ,- • -;::,�;n?.1:.1s; - �'�' ' �< tft: .:• � C;..ins+�:•xi.�y:�-� , 'NV - 4:;74111V4�l '�s/ t! fix-: °y •y�• r r �� t �_ i-3, P6 i4 $ i l']-1%:tcr{•,j_u<".L>;.r:I��tr:i�~s...7rrJJS:a.;$,.,J_�t:Lnt};:U..I':.E,_�ra,'�t�(L}I'�i°�a�rt�•-,�9�t�1.F�^••ap?}Jn^�-a fi-..7,.�yr_?'l'.,fLLcrt.<3,-?SiF•y!ilj_:s.M,�3.T.z�7::,'.2.E,_-tCi.:.-N�L�c.,c,.1.r-_+•:.',i'�.:7f.aii,.;)v;o-ir:i.'._r•.C':�T._,'«rr^.'=r:-"E-;H` rF=`'``=••••}' `%5 �n9 r`fr f'c:4.'v:-.`:_-..._i:.•�?f' f•k.'C`i.�rs•r--•.cY_rV..02008.',41:011W4,. •.,Y1r...�. `c p2•-s; }�.•tac �i :�r'> ta^. ni kr4.w.r�.?S-`<,.' _ '-q..�iso _tf �43';%omt�4l�t( J •gu1J�•i, ;r•'-:: 't- s=r':*Tf, � Pk-?;141.04%77.4:112'earah 5,0�4:_ $` tF ;�-�tis`t.`JAI YWiLlAJ0_1 ��:�: .ir=,- -I j .itZZ �r r3 .,. "<371rff.a1.f.,'v.S-tiif=<.i, Before and After. David Lucas owned two undeveloped properties in a predominantly developed coastal community. Alter the case, the lots were developed. Two years after Mr. Lucas purchased his property, South Carolina adopted the Beachfront Management Act to limit damages associated with hurricanes(debris from t. 89 See Tahoe Sierra Preservation Council v.Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,535 U.S.302,332(2002) (stating that the categorical test is reserved for the"'extraordinary case' in which a regulation permanently deprives property of all value.,..") '0 Id. at 331 ("The starting point for the court's analysis should have been to ask whether there was a total taking of the entire parcel;if not,then Penn Central was the proper framework.");See n.26. 91 Lucas v.South Carolina Coaxial Council,505 U.S. 1003(1992). Institute for Local Government 26 Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 buildings on barrier islands can be blown inland during violent hurricane winds). The Act had the effect of prohibiting any structures on Mr.Lucas' property. Mr.Lucas argued that the regulation destroyed the entire value of his property.The U.S. Supreme Court agreed and articulated the rule that a per se taking occurs whenever a 1 • regulation wipes out all value and leaves"no economically viable use.i92 There are two qualifiers to this rule,which are discussed in more detail at other parts of • this primer. • I. No compensable taking occurs if the state can demonstrate that preexisting background principles of nuisance and state property law would otherwise prohibit the intended use of the property.Lucas referred to the background • principles as the"logically antecedent inquiry.s93 Thus,the background principle analysis is part of the threshold inquiry related to whether there is a property • interest at stake(see pages 13-16). When such a condition exists,the owners' proposed use is not part of the owner's title to begin with. 2. The total taking must occur on the whole parcel. A landowner cannot claim that a regulation wipes out all value of a portion of a parcel (such as a wetland)when the remainder can be put to some economic use. (See pages 27 to 35). However, in the absence of any nuisance or background principle,a regulation that wipes out all de property's value remains aper se, compensable taking. 2. Partial Takings—Diminution in Value Less Than 100 Percent The issue of lost economic value becomes more complicatedwhen a regulation reduces property value but does not wipe it out entirely. These cases usually involve"complex factual assessments of the purposes and economic effects of government actions.'" .. • Indeed,partial takings can be thoughe of in at least three ways: � 1. Economically(straightforward diminishment of property value); :. 2, Spatially(prohibiting or limiting all development on a portion of the property, such as a wetland);and 3. Temporally(limiting development for a period of time,such as a moratorium). j .. 92 Id.at 1020. 93 lcf.at 1027. 94 Yee v.Escondido, 503 U.S.519,523(1992). Institute for Local Government 27 i I Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: „ A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 • Given this complexity,courts resist the temptation to adopt `: fiv 's„_ 2f tl per se rules in either direction. Instead,courts analyze �Gu�.. �,� �,_a.�'-��=a„ • • • threeagate factors--often �� 1''4{xr�..': • partial takings claims using sep �0` 'sF� ;•fi« Ti called the Penn Central test—to determine whether a 1:10P--:':, N:4g . 4 h t a `-� • compensable taking occurred;96 _ 0„;41.04-1-0,,C : ,j? The economic impact of the regulation. Typically this r:-;a-lit,,:..•,..p,'• • is the amount that the roe has been devalued, The :' '::.:-;' '-'.T%`�-.� `z'" economic loss to the property as a whole must be ..:,1.:.:/:•:. R 4 4.1'*. • . extreme, Takings have not been found even when thei.i _..--z3::, t„:„.--,7,..2...:w3 , „ .i • • diminution of value is more.than 90 percent. In recent ;:.:.: .p: ti .,;,...77.!:-;.,...% •:••aid: w'*""',.•„". 31 :' ro years,however,a handful of conservative courts outside • .:. ; , :, California have found a compensable taking with losses :_. •-:, '�' .,,. .`=.. • • of only 70 to 75 percent of value 98 1.:.L1•.:.4-,- .___., :.: r -...::•.:,: ''' `'' ye r Par ,472 The investment-bucked expectations"of the property l --- moi,, owner. This test could be rephrased as,"What did the ':r,]lid�. ,iJ� property owners expect when they purchased the .,. . uU' property?Should the owners have anticipated the Grdnd Proposal? A • agency's actions?"It might also be a"fairness"factor: depiction of the 50 story has the public agency acted fairly,given what the office tower proposed to • owners could reasonably have anticipated and the be built over Grand inherent risk of property ownership? There are no Central Station. The city detailed guidelines explaining how to apply this test. denied the application, However,ofen9courts will consider the purchase price but permitted the owner of the property, how typical the regulation is for the o develop other nearby type of property,and whether the existing use of the buildings above the 50 property may be continued. story limit imposed for o The"character"of the regulation. In Penn Central,the he area under the zoning "character of the governmental action"was described as ode. "the degree to which the challenged regulation • 95 Palazzolo v. Rhode Island,533 U.S.606,636(2001)(O'Connor,J.,concurring). • %Penn Central Trans. Co.v. City of New York,438 U.S. 104, 124(1978), .• 97 See,for example, Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council,Inc. v.Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,535 U.S. 302,319 n.15(2002)(citing examples of large diminution in value found not to be a taking);Village of • Euclid v.Ambler Realty Co.,272 U.S,365,384(1926)(loss in value of more than 75 percent not a taking); Hadachceck v,Sebastian,239 U.S.394,405(1915)(loss in value of more than 90 percent not a taking); William C Haas&Cu. v. City&County of San Francisco, 605 F.2d 1117, 1120(9th Cir, 1979)(95 . eercent reduction in value not a taking). s See,for example,Florida Rock Industries,Inc. v, United States, 18 F,3d 1560, 1567(Fed.Cir. 1994) (value loss of 62.3 percent might create a taking),on remand,45 Fed.Cl.21 (Fed.Cl.1999)(73.1 percent loss of value was a taking). • 9"Palazzolo v. Rhode Island,533 U.S.606,633(2001)(O'Connor,J.,concurring). The timing of the regulation's enactment relative to the acquisition of title is not"immaterial to the Penn Central analysis. • indeed,it would be Just as much error to expunge this consideration from the takings inquiry as it would be to accord it exclusive significance." Id, Institute for Local Government 28 • Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: `i A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 . ,, approaches a physical invasion"instead of"some program adjusting the benefits and 1 ' burdens of economic life to promote the common good.s10° In other words,the more ' the public agen;cy's action was like a physical invasion of property,the more likely it .. 'was to be considered a compensable taking, However,several courts have misconstrued the"character"factor to refer to the importance of the public agency's • " goals as opposed to the burden on the property owner.101 This emphasizes the • significance`.of findings and statements of purpose in ordinances to demonstrate the importance of the public agency's goals. . If a regulation "goes_too far"with respect to one or more of these factors,the action will be found a compensable taking.102 These factors are not"balanced"by mathematical formula;but instead serve as important guideposts.1°' Courts must engage in"ad hoc, • factual inquiries"that examine the particular circumstances of the case. ,The most important factors are the first two:the magnitude of the regulation's economic impact and the:degree:to which it interferes with investment-backed expectations of the . . property owner.104 The:third factor,the regulation's character,does not usually determine whether a compensable taking has occurred,but to the extent that there is a degree of - subjectivity In this test,may influence how the court ultimately interprets the other two.1°5 It is often difficult to predict the outcome of some cases. Historically,however, landowners have had significant challenges in establishing a compensable taking under the Penn Central test;only in a few instances'has the test been applied in a way that found a compensable taking. For example,courts have rejected,takings claims when the regulation has effectively diminished value by as much as 95 percent. However,this should not be interpreted by agencies as immunizing them from all liability for regulatory takings...Courts will look at the regulation in its entirety and are likely to scrutinize carefully those that push the envelope of fairness. ' Indeed, the Penn Central factors provide courts with the flexibility to find a compensable taking when the courts believe that a public agency has treated a property owner unfairly. . Agencies should always take care to implement a carefully crafted regulation. When it roe Penn Central Trans..Co. v.City ofNew York,438 U.S. 104, 124(1978). See also Lingle v.Chevron • U.S.A.,544 U.S.528(2005): , 1°1 See,for example,Action Apartment Assn v.Santa Monica Rent Control Bd.;94 Cal.App.4th 587,606 1 (2001). 102 Pennsylvania Coal v.Mahon,260 U.S.393,413(1922). Tahoe-Sierra Pivservation Council, Inc.v. • Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,535 U.S.302,326(2002). 1°3 Palazzolo v. Rhode Island,533 U.S.606,634(2001)(O'Connor,J.,concurring). See also,Anthony Saul Alperin,The "Takings"Clause; When Does,4 Regulation"Go Too Par"?,31 Southwestern • University Law Review 169(2002). I 104 Lingle v.Chevron U.S.A.-,r544 U.S.528(2005). • 1°5 See City of'Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey,Ltd„526 U.S.687(1999);Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council,Inc. v.Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,535 U.S.302(2002). . Institute for Local Government 29 { Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 'i :s comes to taking considerations,they should be doubly prepared if the regulation will have the effect of diminishing the value of property by more than 70 percent. ;THC VALUE Or d%TIML.SLr1RC11 Important issues in takings cases include the economic impact of the regulation,the • owner's expectations at purchase,any background restrictions on land use,and whether the claimant has a property interest.A title search—a review of the deeds and other ownership records—can provide important information about all of these issues. Property Interest.A title report will show if the claimant now owns or ever owned the property.A person who does not actually own an interest in the property does not have standing to bring suit. Title Exceptions.The title search will show what exceptions to title were listed at purchase.Exceptions can include easements,public trust exclusions,private restrictions on use,and other limitations on the property.The claimant cannot claim a compensable taking for interests that are not part of the title. • Economic Impact. In California,the purchase price is available from the county assessor because it serves as the basis for property taxes under Proposition 13. If the owner purchased at a low price,claims of high economic losses might be defeated. Whole Parcel, if there is any question about the ownership,consider doing title searches of all contiguous properties.if the plaintiff or a related entity owns adjacent property, the agency may be able to argue that the"whole parcel"includes all contiguous property,not just the parcel that is the subject of the lawsuit.Consequently, the economic impact of the regulation will be substantially diminished. Investment-Backed Expectations.The claimant's investment-backed expectations depend in part on the regulations in effect when the claimant purchased the property. The title report will show the purchase date, allowing the agency to determine the regulations in effect at the time of purchase.A low purchase price may also provide evidence that the claimant did not have a reasonable expectation of significant development potential. • Institute for Local Government 30 Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: • A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 j 3. Exceptions:Background Principals and Public Safety • There are three exceptions to keep in mind when examining a diminution in value claim. Two have already been discussed: background principles of state property law(which is •• actually antecedent to this inquiry)and public safety(see pages 13-16). 4. Exception:The Whole Parcel Rule Under the whole parcel rule,a claimant must claim a taking of the entire parcel,not just a • portion of the parcel. When faced with a diminution in value claim,one of the first questions that should be asked is:"What is the property?"Is it all of the property in a single ownership?Or is it only the part of the property affected by the regulation? For example, if one acre of a hundred-acre parcel is reserved for wetlands, is the"property" • the one-acre that has lost one hundred percent of its value or the entire hundred-acre • • parcel that has lost only one percent of its value? • • This is the"whole parcel"problem.Generally,courts must consider the entire parcel, not just the part that is most affected by the regulation. Or put in a way that relates to the bundle of sticks metaphor:when an owner possesses a full bundle of property rights,the destruction of one strand of the bundle is not a compensable taking,'" The U.S. Supreme Court considered this issue in two recent cases. The first concerned a 20-acre parcel in Rhode Island,107 Eighteen acres were salt marsh;two acres were dry • upland. The state denied an application to fill_1 i wetland acres for a beach club. The owner claimed that the denial deprived him of all economically viable use of his property and created a total regulatory taking. Invoking the"parcel-as-a-whole"rule,however, the U.S.Supreme Court found that there was no per.re taking.The uplands could be developed and had a value of at least $200,000,The Court sent the case back to the Rhode Island courts for an inquiry under the Penn Central factors, Ultimately,courts in Rhode Island said that no partial taking had occurred.108 In the second case,the U.S. Supreme Court applied the parcel-as-a-whole rule to a challenge to a temporary moratorium imposed on property owners in the Lake Tahoe basin.109 The moratorium was necessary for the governing agency to adopt regulations to • 106 See City of Monterey v.Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, h►rf,526 U.S.687(1999);Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council,Inc.v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,535 U.S.302(2002), 10'Pula==oto v. Rhode Island,533 U.S.606(2001). 108 Palazzolo 1'.State ex rel. Tavares,785 A,2d 561(8.1.2001), 109 Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council. Inc.v. Tahoe Reg'!Planning Agency,535 U.S.302(2002). Institute for Local Government 31 Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 t. } .�� may,: .n1,'.. N'•;u .�;vy {n�K.irs .�� s ` protect Lake Tahoe's pristine clarity,The • M ` ' t 3-O crA• n property owners sought compensation rfViii x: 1!?_ r rJ .y'� for a 32-month period in which P ` �"(�' j � 7N� 'y`�"' >'',jy development was entirely rohibited. "4 •Wf- ``'=_� .2 The Court declined to view the property r � n. 1� S t " interest in temporal segments. { 1nr 'F a`= t �"E"Ft Ultimately,the Court found that takings 4:%';'-, ,S1-41,1 , •� challenges to moratoria merely involve a temporary reduction in property value, The property where Mr.Palazzolo proposed not a permanent,total destruction of is beach resort was mostly coastal wetland value,and should be evaluated on a case- arsh. All but one of the upland portions of by-case basis using the Penn Central he property had been sold in the 1960's, factors. esulling in the property's "panhandle" An important factor in deciding the shape. The Rhode Island courts determined boundaries of the"whole parcel"is hat since he could still build a home on the whether the owner has treated the roperty, the coastal restrictions did not mount to a compensable taking. properties as one economic unit for purposes of financing and development. ] The"whole parcel"may include non- • contiguous parcels if the owner treats them as a single parcel for purposes of development.10 Generally,the"whole parcel"for purposes of a takings claim includes all contiguous parcels under the same ownership. Separate parcels are more likely to be treated as a"unified whole"when the parcels are contiguous,under single ownership, purchased at the same time(or close in time),subject to the seine zoning,treated by the owner as one economic unit,treated by the public agency as one unit,financed together, interdependent for planning purposes,or in the same jurisdiction) • The whole parcel issue often arises when an owner develops contiguous parcels piecemeal,when a separate parcel is created on an undevelopable piece of land,or when parcels have different zoning.California courts have looked at the actions of the local agency in deciding what is the"whole parcel:"for example,whether the local agency • 110 See,for example, Forest Properties,Inc.v. United Stales, 177 F.3d 1360, 1365(Fed.Cir. 1999)("whole parcel"includes all parcels included in development plan);Ciampi!!!v, United States,22 Cl.Ct.310,320 (1991)(value of non-contiguous lots that purchaser treated as a single parcel for purposes of purchase and financing was to be considered In determining whether denial of permits for filling wetland portion deprived owner of all economically viable use of the property). See,for example.East Cape May Associates v.Slate of New Jersey,693 A.2d 114,128-9(N.J.App. 1997)(describing factors);Vulcan Materials v.City of Tehuacana,369 F.3d 882(5th Cir.2004)(finding that parcels in different jurisdictions should be treated separately). Institute for Local Government 32 Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 i ii planned the property as a whole,or allowed increased densities on the developable part,of the site in return for limited development on the sensitive part of the site.112 • Agencies can avoid the issue by requiring a master plan-for all contiguous parcels under .• one ownership,applying the same zoning to the entire site, and refusing to create undevelopable parcels. • • 5. Normal(and"Abnormal")Delays in Permit Processing • In Tahoe-Sierra,the Court noted that delays involving routine public agency processes to obtain building permits,variances,and zoning changes area normal part of the development process. As such,they are not generally compensable."3 But one • unanswered question after the U.S.Supreme Court's invalidation of the"substantially • advance"test in Lingle v. Chevron USA, is the extent to which"abnormal"permit • processing delays will be considered a compensable taking. Prior to the invalidation in Lingle, normal processing delays were acceptable unless the i public agency acted unreasonably or in bad faith. For example, in Landgate v. California Coastal Commission,a delay caused by the Commission's incorrect assertion of jurisdiction over a lot line adjustment was a"normal"delay because the Commission's assertion was plausible(even if ultimately judged incorrect).'14 However, in Ali v. Los • Angeles,the city delayed issuinga demolition permit for a formei'single room occupancy hotel,seeking assurance that replacement housing would be built. The court said that such a condition was in clear violation of the Ellis Act,a state statute,and therefore was not a normal delay."' This line of cases, however, may no longer conform to federal constitutional law. The • Lingle case says that the Just Compensation Clause may not be used to invalidate or determine the legitimacy of a public agency action.16 When this conclusion is applied to • abnormal permitting delays,it suggests owners would have to establish elements such as "bad faith"by some other constitutional or statutory means(such as procedural due process). • "'Twain Harte Assocs.,Ltd v.County of Tuolumne,217 Cal,App,3d 71,86-8(1990)(listing factors used i in determining the"whole parcel");Aptos Seascape Corp.v.County of Santa Cruz,138 Cal.App.3d 484, 499-500(1982)("whole parcel"includes all parcels when increased density allowed on part.of site); • American Say.&Loan Ass'n v.County of Marin,653 F,2d 364,371 (9th Cir. 1981)(county's review of development'tipplication would determine if property treated as one parcel'or two) . 113 Tahoe-Sierra Preservation,Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,535 U.S.302,335(2002); First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles,482 U.S,304(1987);Penn Central Transp.Co. v.City of New York,438 U.S, 104(1978). 114 Landgate lnc.'v. California Coastal Canin'n,17 Cal.4th 1006, 1025(1998). t lsAli v.City of Los Angeles,77 Cal.App.4th 246,256(1999). 116 Lingle v.Chevron U.S.A.,544 U.S,528(2005). Institute for Local Government 33 • • Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 I I • On the other hand, it is not entirely clear that the U.S.Supreme Court would not still be • • willing to consider processing delays under the Just Compensation Clause. Three arguments could be made in support of continued application of the clause, 1. Because an improper delay is similar in effect to a temporary taking, it is relatively easy to determine damages,Thus,the typical case will be different from the case presented in Lingle v. Chevron U.S./1;,when the challenger was seeking to invalidate a public agency action when no economic damages existed. 2. Under Penn Central;s•second prong,the owner's reasonable investment-hacked expectations,developers should reasonably expect only normal delays in the • permit process: Abnormal delays therefore,could be compensable. 3. Del Monte Dunes(when the court considered whether a jury•trial was appropriate to establish liability for five successive denials of a development project)stands for the proposition that the court is interested in allowing courts to consider basic fairness in reviewing regulations.1" In many ways, this point is merely academic, Whether or not brought under the Just Compensation Clause,Due Process Clause,or some other standard,courts remain concerned about fairness, Put another way,property owners have a reasonable expectation that local agencies,vile seek to enforce their laws in good faith. The lesson for public agencies Is to design and implementfair processes that appropriately balance the benefits and burdens of land use regulation. C, UNCONSTITUTIONAL EXACTION CLAIMS • • Imposing conditions on development can also be a source of takings challenges.Local • agencies are usually on solid footing here,particularly if they have adopted the condition by an ordinance that is applicable to a broad class of landowners)18 • In contrast,adjudicative land use exactions—specifically;project-by-project-demands for easements allowing public access as a condition of obtaining a development permitl l'are subject to"heightened scrutiny."120 This test has nothing to do with the reduction in property value caused by a regulation. Rather, it examines whether the condition is 1 • I I'City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey,Ltd.,526 U.S.687(1999). 118 See San Reno Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco,27 Cal.4th 643(2002). 119 Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A.,544 U.S.528(2005).This Is also commonly referred to as the Nollan-Dolan standard. See Nollan v.CaliJarnla Coastal Commission,483 U.S.825(1987);Dolan v.City of Tigard,512 U.S.374(1994);Ehrlich V.City of Culver City, 12 Cal.4th 854(1996). I 2 0 Lingle v. Chevron U.S..4.,544 U.S.528(2005). • institute for Local Government 34 Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 closely related and proportional to the harm associated with the development.The agency must demonstrate that there is an essential nexus(a direct relationship)and rough proportionality between the condition imposed and the impact of the development. The reason for applying heightened scrutiny is that courts are concerned that public agencies might unfairly"leverage"their permit approval authority to obtain excessive conditions from a single property owner.The heightened•scrutiny standard,is not an impossible obstacle for public agencies to overcome.The amount of the dedication need • not exactly balance the impact of the.developtnent;the local agency need only show an approximate mathematical justification for the requirement."' 1. Development of the Heightened Scrutiny Standard A more exacting(or"heightened") scrutiny occurs when a public agency creates ad hoc exactions. The standard was developed under two U.S. Supreme Court decisions:Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard. The standard is therefore referred to as the"Nollan/Dolan test." In Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, the Nollans wanted to build a new home on a beachfront lot in Ventura County.122 When they applied to the California Coastal kj Commission for a construction permit, the Commission determined that the house would block views from Highway 1 to the ocean.The Commission required a public access easement across the beach at the front of the Nollans' lot to mitigate this impact. The U.S.Supreme Court found that there was no connection between the impact of the 11 house—blocking views from Highway I—and the required dedication of-public access ;I on the back side of the property along the beach.The Commission could have attached conditions to preserve the views from the highway,such as reducing the height of the house or even providing a viewing area for the public.But the requirement for beachfront access had nothing to do with the blockage of views. Without an"essential nexus" between the condition and the impact,the Court concluded the condition was unconstitutional. • In Dolan v. City of Tigard, Florence Dolan asked for permission to expand her hardware • store by 8,000 square feet.'23 The city of Tigard approved the store but required her to dedicate land•to,the city for a floodplain,easement and for bicycle and pedestrian paths. • The purpose was to:mitigate the,effect of the additional runoff and traffic created by the project. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed that there was an"essential nexus"between the • dedications and the project's impact;the floodplain easement would mitigate the effects 121 See"Fees and Dedications,"an overview of fees and dedications•that includes a practical 12-step guide • to creating a well-tailored development fee,available at www.ca-ilg.org/fees. 122 Nollan v. California Coastal Commission,483 U.S.825(1987). 123 Dolan v.City of Tigard,512 U.S.374(1994). Institute for Local Government 35 Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 ? of additional runoff, and the bicycle path could reduce automobile traffic.However,the dedications were not proportional to the actual impact of Mrs.Dolan's hardware store. There was no finding that explained why the floodplain had to be dedicated to the public to prevent flooding;and the city simply found that the bicycle path"could"reduce traffic, rather than providing any data explaining how trips would be reduced. The implications of the Court's ruling was to required agencies make individualized findings showing that } their conditions are"roughly proportional"to the impact of the project. Nollan and Dolanhave probably had more impact on the„practice of planning in California than any,other court decisions.Their impact has been particularly severe on local efforts to obtain dedications of land for streets,trails,and utilities Before the decisions,many California agencies required'dedications'•when their general plans showed that.streets would be widened,trails created,or utility lines placed'on property". where development;was planned The requirements were generally upheld so long as they were related to the project and did not have a'serious economic impact on the property. The"essential nexus"and."rough proportionality"test alsoplaces the burden of proof on public agencies,but most can meet it.Agencies can require the developer pay for impact studies as a processing cost or the analyses can occur as part of the environmental review process. Established methods exist for quantifying impacts on capital facilities such as sewer,water,roads,and parks, ii When California courts have invalidated a dedication,it is because the agencies did not conduct any individualized study of the project itself to justify the dedication.' • • 124 Surfside Colony Lid tv. California Coastal Comm'n.226 Cal.App.3d 1260, 1269(1991)(invalidating an easement dedication to prevent erosion,because no study of the property justified the dedication);Rohn v.City of Visalia,214 Cal,App.3d 1463,1475(1989)(finding a dedication for street widening unconstitutional because there was no evidence it was needed for traffic generated by theyroject). Institute for Local Government 36 1 • Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: i. I• A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 >1 Lit� F' 1- _....t....._,,,,_{'{ . -d�-'-r'1tf I .42 'fit` }. L x • 6 11:` r5: 4 , ?r r �- •I'1 (I,• "Wri4.3 ay ' r n '! 11 -.F,• t G 1 ;�an. 1 zi.m F. 1•• •rsjij - _.>i ' :. `.",: Y'',''q• tF,l1 d G& L�1E1 .{ 7, - I;,'1 r• .'. .It1 './_.� - .� 1151 { try - .2 dl -4 -i' -.-7..1 Jfn�l'I M7.rii • y 1 f 4 ,,,.:,,,,,,,,-.4,...,.:.••••1..,...•••,r.„.•:::iyila '"� yn. i; li 1 rr 1,,til., ,, �a` rF7. y _ ..� . • �,�F r ,.s 4 e `,1, .,• n , 1.. t-�1 kA 1 5t ;ci. 1 b y ag ,n k ! �• 11ti..•f� t-. d-r.4t .17.;;;•1.:-.:0.-!.-` i t r -L < -1 .moi •3K+/ki1 i' r _ y$� • T,:::.:-.; L )1 },,, .mss`.,' ry.^."...,:.',1.1,...17-6,f..45)._ I -- ;1,, • .. - t ',,J t The Nollan Property. 1. The original structure•on the Nollan property as viewed from the road. 2. The propertybuilt out as viewed from the beach, 3. A view of the beach, presumably from below the mean high tide line. r: y , `t`2 7 h IS f ' :1 " !" '. p i ii? �. r./1 I 7 S '- i 1 .d s. - r ;t • r-• 7 i - • 111 t--."• UJ .p1': 43'41/. Ea "cads •.. .-..r..,. .... ... .._. ,•. .,. r 11 2.1nt�ktlj' ,--•: i. The Dolan Property. 1. The original hardware store, 2, How the property looks today. Note that several additional businesses are now located on the property, an issue that wqs not addressed in the Dolan case. 3. The bike path along Fanno Creek, The back of the A-Boy Hardware store is to the right. Institute for Local Government 37 Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 2. Fees and Conditions on Development • The relevant law with respect to fees may well be statutory,as opposed to constitutional. • The California Mitigation Fee Act requires that fees imposed to mitigate a development should be reasonably related and proportional to the stated impacts.123 Courts are generally more deferential to fees that have the following characteristics:'26 • Are the result of legislative action • • • • Applicable to a class of development or property owners,and • imposed by a fixed formula(thereby eliminating the discretion to apply the fee differently to different developments) Local agencies commonly meet this standard by imposing area-wide fees justified by "nexus studies"that define long-term infrastructure needs,calculate the cost of the • infrastructure, and allocate a fair portion of the costs among all development.However, • case law does not require a nexus study,127though the Mitigation Fee Act requires local agencies to make certain findings when imposing such fees. What about ad hoc fees that are not the result of legislative actions but are imposed on individual developments?Experts disagree. The Ehrlich case is the last word on the issue from California courts, which suggests that heightened scrutiny applies,120 Subsequent decisions have distinguished between fees and dedications,however.'2' Moreover,the heightened scrutiny standard was tied to earlier cases applying the now • repudiated "substantially advance"test,130 although some point to verbiage in the Lingle • decision repudiating the substantially advance test which also indicates that the Lingle • decision did not disturb these earlier cases."' 125 Cal.Gov't Code§§66000 and following;see also Ehrlich v. City of Culver City, 12 Cal.4th 854(1996), 126 San Remo Hotel v.,City and County ofSan Francisco,27 Cal,4th 643,668-72(2002). 1�7 See San Remo Hotel,27 Cal.4th at 668-9(holding that there need only be a"reasonable relationship" between the impact of the project and the intended use and amount of the fee). • 120"Ehrlich v.Cif y of Culver City, 12 Cal.4th 854,876(1996)(regulatory takings challenge to recreational facilities and public art fees). 129.City of Monterey v.Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd,526 U.S.687(1999). See also Kilt v. United Slates,277 F.3d 1330, 1336(Fed.Cir.2002)(finding that regulation requiring the payment of money is not subject to Just Compensation Clause),modified on other grounds 288 F.3d 1355(Fed.Cir.2002), Commonwealth Edison Co.v. United States,271 F.3d 1327, 1339(Fed,Cir.2001)(finding that regulation requiring payment of money cannot be deemed a taking). See also Timothy J.Dowling,Douglas T. • Kendall&Jennifer Bradley,The Good News about Takings(American Planning Association:2006) (interpreting Lingle as clarifying that Nollan and Dolan are limited to dedications of land). 130 See Nollan v.California Coastal Commission,483 U.S.825(1987);Dolan v.City of Tigard,512 U.S.. 374(1994). 131 See Lingle v.Chevron U.S.A.,544 U.S.528(2005). Institute for Local Government 38 • • RegulatoryTakings and Land Use Regulation; • A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 • f. • At this point the issue is unresolved. Given the rarity of ad hoc developer fees, it is unclear if and when California courts will address this issue. • For more information about imposing fees on development,see www.ca-ilg.org/fees. 3. Dedications of Property • • Heightened scrutiny arose from cases when public agencies required dedications of public access as a condition of approval.The test applies not only to outright dedications • of property,but also to dedications of easements and rights of entry.As a consequence, public agencies cannot require that property be dedicated for trails,coastal access,road widening,or any other purpose unless the project itself created the need. • An issue that has not been resolved in California is whether heightened scrutiny applies • when dedications are required by ordinance, rather than on a project-by-project basis, in particular, it is not clear if heightened scrutiny applies to parkland dedications required by • local ordinances adopted in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act."' Most probably, heightened scrutiny does apply;the Calitornia Supreme Court has said that requirements • to dedicate property receive"the highest scrutiny.s13 Local agencies should adopt specific findings showing nexus and rough proportionality whenever they require land to be dedicated. is • • • • • • • • • , . • "'Cal.Gov't Code§66477. 133 Sanla,Llonica Beach,Ltd.P.Superior Corot, 19 Cal.4th 952(1999). Also note that in Dolan v.City of Tigard, 512 U.S.374,379-80(1994),the dedications at issue were imposed pursuant to a local development ordinance.This strict rule exists in part because easements and dedications are much like physical invasions;they take away the owner's right to exclude others. Institute for Local Government 39 Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 V. STEP 7 AND INTERESTS OF "FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE": REMEMBER THE FAIRNESS FACTOR The Fifth Amendment of the U,S,Constitution does not mention regulatory takings. Even strict constructionist Justice Antonin Scalia admits that the concept of a regulatory taking was not thought of when the constitution was drafted."" Then the question is: Where does the doctrine of takings come from?How have the rules and tests discussed here emerged? The answer is from underlying concepts of fairness and justice that underlie the Just Compensation.Clause.i35 lndeed,.as the oft-,quoted passage states, the Just Compensation Clause bars"Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice,should be borne by the public as a whole,"136 Equally important, however, is the principle of reciprocity of advantage:177 "Government hardly • could goon if to some extent values incident to.pro 3erty,could not be diminished without paying for every such change in the general law."!a in other'words,fairness and justice cuts both ways. • When read in this light,the three separate taking tests,make more sense—at least from • thepoint of view of a decidingjudge. Two narrow] :carved per se rules(physical j � Y, P (p Y invasion and total regulatory taking)protect against the most onerous outcomes one • narrow heightened scrutiny test(unconstitutional exactions)offsets an unfair bargaining position when ad hoc dedications are concerned. If Finally a broad,multi-factored catch-all(partial takings)governs the vast majority of cases,allowing"complex factual assessments of the purposes and economic effects of government actions." 39 Thus, it is important for public agency staff to remember that the takings analysis is ultimately concerned about fairness. This is particularly important because courts have mostly eschewed any"set formula"for determining when"justice and fairness" require 4• 134 Lucas v.South Carolina Coastal Council,505 U.S. 1003,1028 n.15(1992). 135 See Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council,Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,535 U.S.302,304 (2002). '36 Armstrong v.United Stales, 364 U.S,40,49(1960)(emphasis added). • 13 7•Pennsyivanla Coal Co. v Mahon,260 U.S.393,415(1922). • '36 lci dt 413.See also Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council.Inc.v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,535 • U.S.302,338 n.3 I (2002)("Moreover,under petitioners modified categorical rule,there would be no per .se taking if TRPA simply delayed action on all permits pending a regional plan. Fairness and justice do not • require that TRPA be penalized for achieving the same result,but with full'disclosure."). •• 139 Yee v,Escondido,503 U.S.519,523(1992). Institute for Local Government 40 Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 that economic injuries•be compensated.14° This is bath good and bad news for public • agencies. • It is good news when local agencies have adopted a regulation that furthers a well- developed plan and balances the benefits and burdens of a regulation. Thus,in Tahoe- Sierra,the Court upheld a strict moratorium that presented clear reciprocity of advantage: all affected landowners would ultimately enjoy their proximity to a well protected natural resource,and property values would continue to increase as a result,'' • Another"good fact"was present in a case challenging the city of Napa'sinclusionary • housing ordinance. The court wrote approvingly of the broadly representative Napa • Affordable Housing Task Force that proposed the ordinance. It also noted the"significant • benefits"available to developersin exchange for inclusionary units and the city's ability • to waive the requirements to avoid unfair results•142 "M�.'a++arC £• Kll ¢rti�t Giiy t Ys 4 +v4 Yn ti 4 On the other hand, it can be bad news s r_ x ,j when procedures seem unduly r , , - f ��g burdensome or unintentionally yield harsh results. In City of Monterey v. Del !f47#17yz� Monte Dunes at Monterey,Ltd.,143 the • /� . f; :•11: 3 developer filed five successive applications,each for less density than E•_ �:�.� X. 'W.: .v • the last.Even though the city could cite 7�r<��= good reasons for each denial,Supremereme - • -„- ” _ t <w__r Court Justice Scalia stated in oral I The Del Monte property(outlined above) argument that after the fifth denial,one sits along the beach at one of the main begins"to smell a rat," entry points to the city off the Pacific Coast Highway. • The lesson is that local agencies should be sensitive to the appearance of their actions. When a public agency repeatedly denies applications for development, it should make it clear that the developer repeatedly failed to comply with a consistent standard and avoid the appearance that the agency was changing the rules. • • 14°Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council,lnc.v.Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,535 U.S.302,336(2002) (citing Penn Central T ransp,Co.v.City of New York,438 U.S. 104,124(1978)(quoting Goldhlati v. Hempstead,369 U.S,590,594(1962)). • 141•Tahoe Sierra Preservation Council,Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,535 U.S.302,341 (2002) citing Growth Properties, Inc.v.Klinghell Holding Co,,419 F.Supp.212,218(D.Md. 1976). '42 Home Builders Association v.City of Napa,90 Cal,App.4th 188,194(2001).The challenge to this test was made under the substantial advance test. California courts have yet to test the validity of this test under •i the California Constitution. 143 City of Monterey v.Del Monte Danes at Monterey, Lid.,526 U.S,687(1999). Institute for Local Government • 41 • • Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: • A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 • The takings tests--and the partial taking test in particular—allow for a degree of court • interpretation and discretion.As a result,a court's philosophical beliefs concerning property rights may influence a decision in a takings case.Because takings law allows for flexibility,a court's perception of public agency fairness or unfairness to the property owner can strongly influence the final outcome. Regulations imposed us part of an overall plan are more likely to be viewed as fair and equitable.Ad hoc regulations are likely to be judged with more scrutiny. • • • • • • •• • • • • • Institute for Local Government 42 1 . • Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 VI. Conclusion The scope of the Just Compensation Clause touches on issues of affordable housing, smart growth,historic preservation, local government finance and myriad other issues. • This primer has only scratched the surface of the law of regulatory takings.Given the case-by-case balancing approach that is currently favored by the courts, it is difficult to predict how courts may treat individual cases. Courts are often sympathetic to the benefits of long term planning,but they also want programs that will be implemented in a way that is fair to landowners. More information about this issue is available on the Institute's online Takings Resource Center(www.ca-ilg.org/takings). . • • Institute for Local Government A3 • • • RegulatoryTakings and Land Use Regulation: A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 Appendix: Eleven Tips for Avoiding Takings Claims 1. PLAN IN ADVANCE. { An up-to-date and comprehensive general plan supported by the community lays a solid foundation for all land use regulation. It is the"constitution for all future development" in California.'"A regulation supported by a comprehensive plan is more likely to be • supported by the courts.All property owners can participate in community-wide planning • efforts,and the courts believe that, as a result,there is less chance that small groups of property owners will be singled out for harsh treatment.14S Up-to-date plans also create more realistic expectations among landowners. If a plan has • community support,landowners are more likely to propose new land uses that are consistent with the general plan. Adopt Area Wide Impact Fees. A general plan gives a basis for adopting fees on a citywide or countywide basis, because the impacts of growth can be quantified and .area wide solutions adopted. Legislatively adopted fees will be upheld so long as • there is a"reasonable relationship"between the fee and the impacts being • mitigated.144 o Limit General Plan Amendments. Denials based on lack of conformance with the general plan may be hard to justify if the community has no history of requiring projects to conform to the plan.Communities may only process plan amendments up to four times each year.147 2. REQUIRE DEVELOPERS TO SUBMIT A MASTER PLAN FOR ALL OF THEIR PROPERTY California courts give great weight to the agency's treatment of the property in deciding the boundaries of the"whole parcel."'" If a public agency approved one plan for the entire property,the courts are likely to agree that the"whole parcel"includes the entire property.Agencies can then preserve the most ecologically sensitive parts of the site without being liable for a compensable taking. 3. DON'T CREATE UNDEVELOPABLE LOTS • • 144 Leslie!.Communications Inc.v. City of Walnut Creek,52 Cal.3d 531,540(1990). '''s Tahoe Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,535 U.S.302,340-1 (2002);San Reno Hotel v. City&County ofSan Francisco,27 Cal.4th 643(2002). 146 San Remo Hotel v.City&County of San Francisco,27 Cal.4th 643,671 (2002). '47 Cal.Gov't Code§65358(b). 148 7ivain forte Assocs., Ltd.v.Country of Tuolumne,217 Cal.App.3d 71,86-8(1990)(listing factors used • in determining the"whole parcel");Aptos Seascape Corp. r.County o/Santa Cruz, 138 Cal.App.3(1484, • 499-500(1982)("whole parcel"Includes all parcels where increased density allowed on part of site); American Say. &Loan Assn v. County of Marin,653 F,2d 364,371 (9th Cir. 1981)(county's review of development application would determine if property treated as one parcel or tw), Institute for Local Government 44 Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation; A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 If a city or county allows a landowner to sever sensitive environmental areas(such as hillsides,wetlands,or buffer areas)from an otherwise usable parcel,the agency may be exposed to a takings claim from subsequent owners based on the limitations on use imposed at the time of the severance.149 4. BE CONSISTENT AND FAiR interests of fairness and justice inform much of takings law, Though local agencies generally enjoy the benefit of the doubt in terms of burden of proof,the case-by-case balancing test provides courts with a great deal of discretion when the facts suggest that landowners are being treated unfairly. • Send Clear Signals. Avoid encouraging projects that have little chance to be approved. • Treat All Applicants Alike, Don't play favorites and don't punish even unpleasant applicants. Personal"animus" is not a"legitimate state interest."'" • Don't Change Reasons for Denials. Courts become suspicious when agencies deny successive applications for the same property,Apply the same standards to each • application to demonstrate that it is the developer who is not following the rules, not the agency.151 5. EXPLAIN AND JUSTIFY DECISIONS IN WRITING In a lawsuit,the court will second-guess every decision made by the local agency. Written justification for every disputed issue,even during the administrative process,can help convince the court that the decision was made in good faith and to advance the public interest.15'- • Avoid Conclusory Findings. Findings must"bridge the analytical gap"between the public goals and the agency's decision.1S3 Often findings simply repeat the goals. ("The setback will improve stream quality.") To"bridge the gap,"simply provide reasons.("The setback will protect the water quality in Smith Creek because, according to the environmental study, the presence of natural vegetation in the buffer will reduce sedimentation in the runoff by 42 percent.") Loveladies Harbor. Inc.v. United States,28 F.3d 1171, 1181 (Fed.Cir. 1994)(excluding previously developed land from relevant parcel). iso Squaw Valley Development Co.v.Goldberg,375 F.3d 936(9th Cir.2004). 151 Compare Togo v. Town of Ross,70 Cal.App.4th 309,331-2(1998)(finding case not ripe when applicant submitted successive applications not conforming with city's consistent direction)with Del Monte Dunes,Ltd v. City of Monterey,920 F.2d 1496,1506(1990)(finding additional applications would be futile after city denied five successively smaller applications). • 152 See,for example,Landgate, inc.v.California Coastal Comm'n, 17 Cal,4th 1008,1024-5(1998) (finding that Commission's good faith reliance on Attorney General's erroneous,but plausible,legal opiniopinion was not the basis for a taking). 1 on Assoc.for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, 11 Cal.3d 506,515(1974). Institute for Local Government 45 • Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 • Explain How Regulations Further a Public Purpose.Findings are not usually required for legislative acts,such as adoption of general plans and zoning ordinances. However, it is good practice to include statements of legislative intent in land use ordinances. 6. CONSIDER ALLOWING ECONOMIC VARIANCES. State law permits variances when zoning would create a hardship because of unusual physical characteristic of the property(For example,an odd shape or steep slopes). Agencies may choose to allow variances when a regulation causes economic hardship or causes a compensable taking. Providing for an economic variance has two advantages. 1. If the property owner intends to claim a compensable taking in court,the owner will first need to file an application for the economic variance(to exhaust all available remedies),The agency can then adjust its position if the ordinance would indeed cause a hardship. 2. Economic variances protect against"facial"takings claims,when a landowner claims that the mere adoption of a regulation constitutes a compensable taking. If the owner can apply for an exception,the ordinance is not unconstitutional on its face.'54 • Be Careful About Economic Variances for Exactlons.,l f a court concludes that a fee ordinance allows the public agency to bargain with landowners over payment of the fee, it is more likely to conclude that the fees are in actuality imposed on a case-by- case basis and impose heightened scrutiny. The criteria upon which a variance would be granted should be firmly established, • 15.1 Home Builders v. City of Napa,90 Cal,App.4th 188,194-5(2001). Courtly of Alameda v.Superior Cowl, 133 Cal,App.4th 558(2005), Institute for Local Government 46 Ii • • • • Regulatory Takings and Land Use Regulation: A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 • • 7. DON'T'FORBID ALL USE OF THE PROPERTY • In highly sensitive areas subject to extensive regulation, identify permissible low impact, • economically viable uses. Examples include agriculture, horticulture,and forestry in • rural areas and low-density residences in urban areas. o Consider Purchasing Key Properties. If the agency simply does not want • development on the property,it should attempt to purchase either the property itself • or development right rather than adopt regulations that seem a disguised method of acquiring the land for public use.Nonprofit land trusts,such as the Nature • Conservancy and Trust for Public Land,are experienced in raising'funds and negotiating with property owners. For more information,see Funding Open Space • Acquisition Programs:A Guide for Local Agencies in California(www.ca- ilg.org/openspace). 8. DON'T SAY ANYTHING THAT SHOULD NOT APPEAR IN THE RECORD Charges of bias and bad faith can serve as the basis for a claim that the agency's actions were not based on a legitimate state interest.One takings claim was based in part on allegations that an agency head folded his arms and looked at the ceiling in disgust while an applicant was speaking.1"Assume that all e-mails will find their way into any lawsuit. 'o Don't Mahe Predictions. Elected officials and staff should avoid ad hoc statements— either positive or negative—that predict the final agency action. All applicants should be apprised that the ultimate authority to act on a project rests with the final decision-making body, usually the governing body. • 9. CONSIDER USING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS • A development agreement is a contract between a developer and a city or county that • "locks in"certain development standards as of an agreed-upon date in exchange for benefits to the agency.1S6 As long as the agreement is in effect,the agency's development standards cannot be changed. In return,developers usually provide extensive public • • benefits. Because development agreements are not required to build a project, communities can negotiate for benefits beyond what/Voile/pi/Do/an would permit. See • Development Agreement Manual:Collaboration in Pursuit of Community interests(+y,v.ca. ice.orcvcievtagmt). • 10. BE ALERT TO RISKY SITUATIONS • Some types of agency actions seem to attract more takings claims. e Protection of Wetlands and Endangered Species. Agencies cannot simply require properties to remain entirely in open space to protect wetlands and endangered • 155 Spm,Valley Development Co.v.Goldberg,375 F.3d 936,946(9th Cir.2004). 156 See Cal.Gov't Code§§65864 and following. • • Institute for Local Government 47 RegulatoryTakings and Land Use Regulation: A Primer for Public Agency Staff July 2006 • species. Wetlands and habitat areas can be preserved if they are part of a large development site. However,protecting these valuable resources is best done on a regional basis. Agencies can designate large wetlands and habitat areas that will be purchased or dedicated(a mitigation bank)and require mitigation fees from those allowed to develop in sensitive areas.Transferable development rights(I'URs)can also he used to provide compensation (allowing an owner to sell development rights to another property),but the courts have not yet decided if TDRs can be used to avoid a takings claim.' • 0 Test Cases and Applicants Raising Constitutional Claims. Be alert to • correspondence raising constitutional claims,particularly when property rights legal foundations are representing a property owner.Cities and counties are so frequently threatened with lawsuits that they may ignore the issues raised.Groups such as the Pacific Legal Foundation have brought many takings cases. If an agency is faced • with a novel takings claim,groups such as the Institute for Local Government in Sacramento and Community Rights Counsel in Washington, D.C.can provide assistance. 11. DON'T BE INTIMIDATED Successful regulatory takings are relatively rare, The courts recognize that public agencies must achieve a fair balance between private property rights and community needs. The courts have squarely endorsed land use regulation in general and permit • public agencies broad latitude in balancing individual property rights and community interests. g:+inAliltil Jmd rno and aaira mnMRiblaaionillm,in of tokingslam•nam publienticnU006 odrIinntini.ngs prima•21XM•f p J.doc 157 See Surhun v. Tahoe Reg?Planning Agency, 520 U.S.725,728(I 997).("we do not decide whether or • not these'TDR's may be considered in deciding the issue whether there has been a taking in this case"). Institute for Local Government 48 SUPPLEMENTAL NO. 9 DISTRIBUTED 2/3/2016 February 3, 2016 VIA EMAIL TO MS. SUZANNE AVILA AT jmcavoy@losaltoshills.ca.gov To the Los Altos Hills Planning Department Ms. Suzanne Avila, Planning Director To the Los Altos Hills Planning Commission Mr. Jitze Couperus, Chair Ms. Kavita Tankha, Vice Chair Mr. James Abraham, Member Mr. Susan Mandle, Member Mr. Richard Partridge, Member Re: CDP applications for 10730 Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills (LAH), Lands of Linebarger, Lot 1 and Lot 3 Dear Ms. Avila, Chair Couperus and members of the Planning Commission: I am writing to encourage both the Planning Commission and the City Council to reiect the above CDP applications as they are fraught with problems: 1. Gross variance from the standard 30' side setback requirement requested by these applications is unacceptable. For both Lot 1 and Lot 3, the applications request side setbacks of 10 ft and 15 ft. Not only that, the applications require uncovered parking space, hardscape and basement lightwells within the grossly narrow setback areas. As is well-established in LAH, the minimum side setback requirement is 30 ft on both sides. As the staff report for this study session dated Feb. 4, points out, "The projects as proposed appear to be inconsistent with existing development patterns in the surrounding neighborhood and are not consistent with the variance requests that have been previously approved by the Planning Commission on other CDP projects." 2. Lots 1 and 3 are simply too narrow to be developable. The two lots are 68 feet and 62.5 feet in width. Clearly, given the standard 30' side setback requirement, nothing can be built. Even if you apply the 20' setback that was the development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood under the County of Santa Clara zoning codes, very little can be built. If these lots contain existing structures that are already nonconforming with regard to setbacks, that would be another matter. However, that is not the case here. Mr. Linebarger created these narrow lots by"reviving" some old underlying lot lines on the property and is trying to profit from them by squeezing in a house on each lot by asking for gross variances that have never been approved before. And by the way, there are no existing nonconforming structures on Lots 1 and 3. The Town has no obligation whatsoever to allow for the development of Lots 1 and 3. In fact, the Town has the obligation to prevent the development of lots that are simply too narrow to develop. 3. There is only one sewer connection allotted to 10730 Mora Dr. According to all applicable legal documents, there is only one sewer connection allotted to 10730 Mora Drive, which was a single, 1.6 acres lot until Mr. Linebarger revived the old lot lines on the property to create three substandard lots on it. The CDP applications propose to build two more homes on Lots 1 and 3 in addition to the existing home on Lot 2. I don't see how this is possible given that there is only one sewer connection. 4. Approval conditions for CDP under LAH Municipal Code Section 10-1.1007(3) are not met. The "size and design of the proposed structures" proposed by these applicatioris'are NOT in proper balance, unity and harmonious appearance vis a vis the site nor in relation to the surrounding neighborhood, as required by subsection (2) of this Code Section. Furthermore, these application do NOT preserve the "rural character of the site" as required by subsection (3) of this Code Section. The subject CDP applications must be rejected outright. In addition, I urge both the Planning Commission and the City Council make it absolutely clear;byway of a resolutionor an amendment to Code Section 10-1.1007(3) mentioned above, that property owners'cannot create just any substandard lots by reviving old lot lines, in disregard of their size, dimension and surrounding neighborhood, and expect to develop them relying on CDP applications. I understand that there are many other properties in LAH that have old underlying lot lines that have not been active for along time but are "revivable" as in the case of 10730 Mora Drive. It is highly likely that many of the substandard lots created out of these old underlying lot lines have flawed size and/or dimension that make them undevelopable like Lots 1 and 3 in this case. Neighboring residents to these properties should not have to fight against CDP'applications for each of these potential substandard lots on an ad-hoc basis, expending months if not years of time, money and valuable resources. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Thank you. Very truly yours, Rosemarie Nahm ' 10869 Mora Dr. Los Altos Hills, CA 94024 Email: rynahm@gmail.com Cc: All members of the Los Altos Hills City Council '' SUPPLEMENTAL NO. 10 DISTRIBUTED 2/4/2016 From: Jean Gordon To: Jaime McAvov Cc: Esther John Subject: Linebarger permits Date: Wednesday,February 03,2016 10:16:55 PM To Suzanne Avila We are totally opposed to this construction which will ruin the bucolic nature of our beautiful neighborhood.Many of us walk to the top of Mora daily and hike in the park We admire the rural nature of our area and wish to see it maintained. Jean Gordon and Ronald Greenwald 23801 Camino Hermoso Drive Thanks so much Jean Sent from my iPhone From: Gregory Fretz To: Jaime McAvov Cc: )itze Couaerus Planning;Kavita Tankha;jima.pccaomail.com;Suan Mandle Planning;Richard Partridge Planning; Gary C Waldeck;Courtenav Corrigan;)ohn Radford;Roger Soreen;)ohn Har000tlian LAI{ Subject: to Los Altos Hills Planning Commission re Linebarger from Fretz Kenbar Road. Date: Wednesday,February 03,2016 11:41:36 PM Dear Planning Commission Members, With regard to the Linebarger proposed development,it is my feeling that there should under no circumstances be any deviation from the standard set back limits for sub one acre lots, especially those that have recently been created in spite of and to thwart the one acre minimum requirement of Los altos Hills. There are exceptions of course for small lots that have existing structures on them and that have been in existence for many years before the incorporation of Los Altos Hills and for those that have been in existence long before they were annexed into Los Altos Hills. Now is the time for Los altos Hills to take a stand or risk the area becoming a high density suburban development area. If you give one permit or variance,you will have to give another. If you allow one sub acre lot to be formed based on outdated property lines that have to no right to be reapplied in the first place, you will have to allow anyone to split their lot into sub acres at some time in the future.That is fact and it is only a matter of time. If you give an inch,they will take a mile. Now is the time to take a stand and listen to the people whom you serve. Yours truly, Gregory Fretz, Kenbar Road, From: Suzanne Avila To: Jaime McAvov Cc: Steve Padovarl Subject: FW:Lines of Linebarger Date: Thursday,February 04,2016 9:01:03 AM From: E Williston [mailto:cronele@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday, February 04, 2016 8:00 AM To:Suzanne Avila<savila@losaltoshills.ca.gov>;Jitze Couperus<jitze@couperus.org>; Kavita Tankha <kavitat@comcast.net>;jima.pc@gmail.com; Susan Mandle<jsmandle@hotmail.com>; Richard Partridge<richard.partridge@comcast.net>;John Harpootlian<john.harpootlian@gmail.com>;Gary C.Waldeck<gcwaldeck@gmail.com>; Courtenay Corrigan<cccorrigan@losaltoshills.ca.gov>;John Radford<jradford2011@yahoo.com>; Roger Spreen<lah.spreen@gmail.com> Subject: Lines of Linebarger Ms. Suzanne Avila Planning Director Los Altos Hills CA Dear Ms Avila, I regret I will be unable to attend the study session of the Planning Commission to be held February 4,but I wish to reconfirm my strong objection to the proposals of Mr. Linebarger to build on his seriously substandard lots on Mora Drive by requesting seriously substandard setbacks.When he was offered the the opportunity to establish two slightly larger but still substandard lots,he instead chose to deliberately force the hand-of the planning department by selling off the middle lot. This deliberate move to blackmail the Planning Commission should not allow him to now get the substandard setbacks he wanted in the first place. All permits for substandard building on these two lots, in Mr Linebarger's bid to flaunt the building codes of Los Altos Hills for his own stubborn greed, should be denied. Respectively submitted, Weegie Caughlan West Loyola Drive, Los Altos Hills From: Bud Cristal To: )aime McAvov;Suzanne Avila Subject: Properties of Linebarger,Lots 1 and 3 on Mora Dr. Date: Thursday,February 04,2016 11:37:13 AM My wife and I are the homeowners directly across the street from Lot 1 of Lineberger. We respectfully request that existing setbacks be enforced against any new construction on the lands of Linebarger. No variances should be granted. The• development of properties on these sub-standard lots would be in violation of the standards of LAH rules, which have been established to sustain the semi-rural environment of the. community. The very narrow frontage of any home developments on 'Lineberger Lots 1 and 3 would be in stark contrast with the majority of homes in the area and would be in truth eyesores. It is probable that the property values of the homes adjacent, across and nearby would be impacted negatively. In a larger context approval of the variances would give encouragement to developers to accelerate their efforts for more sub-standard lot developments and further diminish LAH's unique position in the Bay Area. A very large number of homeowners have signed petitions against development. Seldom has such a large and expansive neighborhood uniformly opposed such a development. This should also be a factor in your considerations. Yours truly, Edward and Gerda Cristal 10755 Mora Dr. SUPPLEMENTAL NO. 11 DISTRIBUTED 2/4/2016 From: Irina Stegner To: Jaime McAvov Subject: Houses on substandard lots Date: Thursday,February 04,2016 3:44:41 PM I want my vote to be a no! You as a city have set laws&they must be followed! Building a house or two that does not have an acre should not be allowed. Thank you! Irina stegner • From: Suzanne Avila To: Jaime McAvov Cc: Steve Padovan Subject: FW:Agenda Items 4.1 and 4.2,Lands of Linebarger,Planning Commission Meeting February 4,2016 Date: Thursday,February 04,2016 4:45:26 PM From:hooperpete@gmail.com [mailto:hooperpete@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Pete Hooper Sent:Thursday, February 04, 2016 4:31 PM To:Suzanne Avila <savila@losaltoshills.ca.gov> Cc: Esther John<Esther.John@cpic.org>;jitze@couperus.org Subject:Agenda Items 4.1 and 4.2, Lands of Linebarger, Planning Commission Meeting February 4, 2016 Ms.Avila- Unfortunately, I am out of town and unable to attend tonight's Planning Commission Meeting. However, I would like to formally express to the Commission my views regarding the Lands of Linebarger. It is my strong position that the Commission should not grant variances which allow a commercial developer to profit at the expense of neighboring property owners. If the commission grants variances which reduce the required side setbacks, and the subject homes are built, it will directly and negatively impact the character of our neighborhood. By forcing large houses onto substandard lots,Mr.Linebarger will make the neighborhood feel and appear more crowded and less natural.These are the attributes which led many of us to purchase homes in our neighborhood and these attributes have a direct influence on our property values. I would hope that the Planning Commission's first priority would be to keep a real estate developer from profiting by degrading the character of the neighborhood and causing neighboring property values to diminish. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Best Regards, Pete Hooper 10401 Sunhills Dr. Jaime McAvoy From: Esther John [Esther.John@cpic.org] Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2016 8:55 PM To: Jaime McAvoy Subject: FW: Planning Commission Meeting re: Linebarger project Hello Jaime: I was copied on this email, but not the Planning Dept. So I am forwarding to you for your records. Best, Esther From:The Loiaconos Finailto:theloiaconos@comcast.net] Sent:Wednesday, February 03, 2016 8:24 PM To: jitze@couperus.org; kavitat@comcast.net; jima.pc@gmail.com; jsmandle@hotmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net Cc:The Loiaconos; Karen Kehlet; Esther John Subject: Planning Commission Meeting re: Linebarger project To LAH Planning Commission: We are not able to attend the Planning Commission meeting Thursday February 4, but want to express our views. We are opposed to Mr. Linebarger's project and request that the Planning Commission protect the semi= rural character of Los Altos Hills by rejecting this high-density housing project. Regards, John and Kara Loiacono 11001 Mora Drive 650-941-2528 1 ATTACHMENT 10 Steve Padovan From: Suzanne Avila Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 8:01 AM To: Steve Padovan Cc: Tuck, Patrick Subject: FW: Los altos hills substandard lots Please include as an attachment to the Planning Commission report. Original Message From:Jean Gordon [mailto:gordonskin@sbcglobal.net] Sent:Tuesday, May 24, 2016 11:01 PM To: Suzanne Avila <savila@losaltoshills.ca.gov>;jitze.couperus@gmail.com; kavitat@comcast.net Subject: Los altos hills substandard lots Dear members of the LAH Planning Commission and Planning Department: I am a resident of Los Altos Hills and urge you to disapprove the two CDP applications by Mr. Forrest Linebarger on Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills.The proposed development of two new homes on two substandard lots (each less thai 0.4 acre) would create a pocket of high-density development right at the entrance to Rancho San Antonio.The small size of the lots is not consistent with the general plan of Los Altos Hills and its one acre zoning.The requested side setbacks of 10 and 15 ft are far below the 30 ft side setback requirements of Los Altos Hills.The granting of such excessive variances violates the rural character of Los Altos Hills. Thank you for preserving the rural character of our town. Let's keep the beautiful semi-rural character of our neighborhood and of Los Altos Hills intact for future generations! Sent by Jean Gordon MD PhD Sent from my iPhone 1 0 ATTACHMENT 11 ROBERT J.LANZONE LAW OFFICES JEANB.SAVAREE AARONSON, DICKERSON, COHN &LANZONE MICHAEL AARONSON GREGORY J.RUBENS (CKERS9N CAMAS J.STEINMETZ A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION KENNETH M. SON (1926-2008) 1001 LAUREL STREET,SUITE A MELVIN E.COHN KAI RUESS SAN CARLOS,CALIFORNIA 94070 (1917-2014) KIMBERLY L CHU PHONE:650-593-3117 FAX:650-453-3911 CAMAS J.STEINMETZ,Ext.225 www.adcl.com Email: csteinmetz@adcl.com May 16, 2016 RECEIVED 1AY 19 2016 Steve Mattas, City Attorney TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Town of Los Altos Hills stevem@meyersnave.com • Re: Lands of Linebarger, Mora Drive—Certificates of Compliance Dear Mr. Mattas, This law firm represents certain residents on Mora Drive in the Town of Los Altos Hills (the "Town")who strongly oppose the pending Conditional Development Permit applications and variance requests to construct two residences on the two undeveloped lots on Mora Drive, depicted on Attachment 1 as the"subject properties" and currently identified by Assessor Parcel Numbers 331-15-061 and 062, respectively. The primary reason for their opposition is that these lots are severely substandard and did not meet the minimum lot size that applied back in the 1940s when these lots were created, and as a result they should be deemed unbuildable unless and until they each are brought into conformance with the minimum lot size that applied when they were purchased by the applicant in 2006. We understand that these applications were deemed complete by the Town on December 19, 2016, and that the applications are scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission on June 2, 2016. We also understand from the staff report for the February 4, 2016 Planning Commission study session ("Staff Report")that"Town staff is in the process of determining if [these] are separate legal lots and the legal parcel issue will be resolved prior to formal review of any new residences by the Planning Commission." (Staff Report, p. 1.) Pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act"[n]o agency shall issue any permit or grant any approval necessary to develop any real property which has been divided, or which has resulted from a division, in violation of the provisions of[the Subdivision Map Act] if it finds that development of such real property is contrary to the public health or the public safety." Gov. Code Section 66499.34. Furthermore, owners of parcels of land created prior to March 4, 1972 "shall be required to obtain a certificate of compliance or a conditional certificate of compliance pursuant to Section 66499.35 prior to obtaining a permit or other grant of approval for development of the parcel..." May 16, 2016 Page 2 The certificate of compliance application process allows a local agency to determine if the division of land that created a parcel was completed in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act and/or local ordinances enacted pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act in effect at the time of the parcel's creation. If the determination is in the affirmative, a certificate of compliance is issued and recorded and the agency may authorize development of the subject parcel without violating Section 66499.34(a). If the determination is in the negative, then the local agency must issue and record a notice of violation pursuant to Section 66499.36. It must also record a conditional certificate of compliance pursuant to Section 66499.35 and "impose any conditions that would have been applicable to the division of the property at the time the applicant acquired his or her interest therein...The fulfillment of these conditions shall be required prior to subsequent issuance of a permit or other grant of approval for development of the property." Gov. Code Section 66499.35(b). As explained in the staff report for the February 4, 2016 Planning Commission study session, Mr. Linebarger's two undeveloped lots were not created by an approved subdivision or parcel map in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act requirements; instead, they were created by deeds in the 1940s. The lots were acquired in 2006 by the current property owner, Mr. Forrest Linebarger, along with the parcel in between the subject lots which is currently identified by Assessor Parcel Number 331-15-060 and is developed with a single family residence that was constructed decades ago. As a pre-requisite to developing the two smaller parcels, Mr. Linebarger obtained Santa Clara County ("County") approval for certificates of compliance for these parcels despite the objections of my clients and evidence in the record showing that the issuance of such certificates would be contrary to the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. See Attachment 2. All three parcels were subsequently annexed to the Town in 2012. Section 66499.35 requires the local agency approving the certificates of compliance"to cause the certificates of compliance to be filed for record with the recorder of the county in which the real property is located." Based on a search conducted by First American Title Company, while a certificate of compliance was recorded against the middle, previously developed lot which Mr. Linebarger recently sold off in January of 2016 ("Lot 2"), certificates of compliance were never recorded on the two smaller lots(APN 331-15-061 and APN 331-15-062)that have pending applications for development before the Town. See letter and preliminary title report prepared by First American Title Company in Attachment 3. Therefore, the County's approval of the certificates of compliance is now void and of no further effect. The reason for this is two-fold. First, the County's approval is void on its terms which state that"[t]his approval is valid for 12 months and will expire on June 7, 2007." Second, the approval is void because the parcels are now within the Town's jurisdiction, not the County's, and therefore the Town is the local agency that now has the burden of determining lot legality via the certificate of compliance process set forth in Sections 66499.34-36. Therefore, Mr. Linebarger is required to obtain a certificate of compliance or a conditional certificate of compliance from the Town pursuant to Sections 66412.6 and 66499.35, prior to the Planning Commission's consideration of Mr. Linebarger's Conditional Development Permit applications and variance requests. Based on our review, certificates of compliance cannot be issued for the subject parcels because they were not created in compliance with the minimum May 16, 2016 Page 3 parcel size set forth in County Ordinance No. 167 (Attachment 4), adopted in May of 1941. Ordinance No. 167 represents a local ordinance enacted pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (and within the meaning of Sections 66499.34 and 35) because it was properly adopted as an ordinance, and the ordinance was clearly intended to regulate the division of land by requiring minimum parcel sizes. Ordinance No. 167 amends Ordinance 120 to add a sixth unit of the zoning plan. This document states that in any R-1 District which also is under a combining B district, each one family dwelling shall be located on a building site in one ownership having an area not less than that specified for such "B" district. As evidenced by the 1941 County land use map (Attachment 5), all three of Mr. Linebarger's parcels at the time were zoned B-4 combining district. The B-4 regulations call for a minimum one acre build site area, subject to the following provision: "Any parcel of land in any"B" district, (I)which parcel was under one ownership at the time of the adoption of this ordinance, when the owner thereof owns no adjoining land, or(II)which parcel includes not less than one entire lot as shown on any subdivision map which was recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the County prior to the adoption of this ordinance and which parcel has an area of not less than 3750 square feet or(III)which parcel is shown as a lot on any subdivision map which is recorded in the office of said County Recorder after approval of said map by the Board of Supervisors in the manner provided by law, may be used as a building site for a dwelling..." Because none of the Mr. Linebarger's parcels met the standard one acre minimum parcel size set forth in the 1941 County Zoning Ordinance, they must comply with either the aforementioned criteria I, II or III listed above in order to meet the County's minimum lot size requirements at the time they were created. Based on our review, while Lot 2 met criteria II because it was an entire lot as shown on a subdivision map recorded in the office of the County Recorder', Mr. Linebarger's remaining two parcels proposed for development met—and continue to meet- none of these criteria. Therefore, the two subject parcels were created in violation of County Ordinance No. 167 and: 1. The presumption of legality set forth in Section 66412.6 does not apply(and even if it did, it does not require certificates of compliance to be issued per Sections 66499.34 and 35); 2. A notice of violation must be issued and recorded in compliance with Section 66499.36; 3. If the applicant wishes to pursue his development of these parcels, conditional certificates of compliance must be obtained and recorded pursuant to Sections 66499.34 and 35; 4. Conditions to the conditional certificate of compliance should be imposed requiring the applicant to file a tentative map and subsequent final/parcel map creating parcels in 1 Lot 2 of Tract No. 10 Map of Jo Mora Ranch, Santa Clara County California,A Subdivision of a Portion of Lot 40 Hale Ranch Subdivision as Recorded in Book 1 or Maps, Pages 48 and 49, Santa Clara County Records, a Portion of San Antonio Rancho and which said map was filed for record in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California on June 2, 1932 in Book Y of Maps, Page 53. May 16, 2016 Page 4 compliance with the minimum lot size applicable to the creation of the parcels when the applicant acquired the property in 2006 (which would require him to obtain ownership of contiguous property); 5. Fulfillment of the aforementioned conditions must be required prior to issuance of any land use, zoning or development permits or other grants of approval for development of the property pursuant to Section 66499.35(b). Moreover, we believe there is evidence in the record suggesting that these parcels were never created in the first place, and instead, the 1940s deeds operated as a boundary adjustment to expand the boundaries of Lot 2. Supporting this determination is the chain of title report documenting that until the transfer of Lot 2 in January of 2016, these parcels never functioned as separate stand-alone parcels and were always transferred together. See San Mateo County Staff report dated April 26, 2016 (Attachment 6) analyzing a similar situation and recommending denial of a certificate of compliance on grounds that there was no substantial evidence supporting that there was ever a "division" of land under the Subdivision Map Act and therefore there is no parcel which would form the basis to grant a certificate of compliance. As such, we expect, and respectfully request, that Town staff recommend that the Planning Commission deny the pending Conditional Development Permits and variance requests. For ease of reference, all of the referenced Subdivision Map Act provisions are set forth in Attachment 7. Many thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, Camas J. Steinmetz cc: Steve Padovan, Consultant Planner Suzanne Avila, Planning Director Carl Cahill, Town Manager OFFICE OF C0.UNTT . ASSESSOR S:ANT*A. CLARA :C`OU,NT.'Y 'CALIFOR"NIA .— BOOK PACE 17 ..4 • 331 .1,5. • 51 �~ � • ;.o'' f� 16 TRACT'.'N.O: 765" ` _/ off ' fah.. O VALLEY.VIEW ESTATES ��y-1 ago 47 y r , 31 M. --24 (t/�c�} .O. 4. .1. RrN. 9.$s - - ,, ..1GD , 7 31.` / '727:.1, +_,9 ;0 - bl°7• „9.7a j. QiP� / �00C' M` %.g "o-r° . \ '28 I 27 5. 4: R,/ I.110AC: 18 $ '��' 46 >`; �•io•.a •19 i' ,`,\ 10' �` X50.. qq O 1,1 I m o rt' • Tse • OSP ,y"' �` 7a9 •:--1. m /S r,t2` ;, I, ,,44- :v. I6 rag , K49; /� L5 •� I 12 ' ; ,�1 naso . b7•27AT PCL.A P.N. 303-M-39 :0 R O,S, 776/27` ,, ; �og�P: t 007AC. 'N • Ifo' '-.6. ',v va+b ?' , I •$ +o- 32. . ��` 30 ''.',� I'-' r r66 9 7: \ -48-' ,� 61'y ` �"m , , - .3,� �+ 109sr 3t ``� �' $;' `R 0.S"'876/7 5%7.. ,16 I ;y3,a 13 R: 1 l PCL.B' • I ,��� w _. SI,. o +' t peo7 '�9 11+ O,S�8> 07aoiT... ,w ,arra I 1w 7iiov iia. 9a 1 yy� ��.� 36 � i-ODAe Cale. `� ,0�9 - ,as'4 ,j ' ' � 25 24• . 23 ' 22 •21 i 58 0 /7 '.R1" .111.I. .,d 9 • .. -g,' X°58 s'+•y9 '. ' "I 1 , ! 20 :6. -•-,‘ 1.02.AC. 3 '\D w''° st-D5g.,a. ' 80+% , ,• ,r , r/C/�,`r' • `'2267 .-�'2s5T-,w° , �, 1i .42 m 5 B I , : _""'y-� `n I �y�y. _ GLH 4p FA t, i -1 10 $ s e .� I- --,39/_73 m. �Oi m ,° "• 7,,?'+ 43 , �o 's_� 5 m 4 53 g -52 m ,' 1 .... 4, .no., 1. k ,,\ , yo 6 50 <9,,, I S ' % br ") ^p. _ �, 56 ��$ I 1.0 . - ', `, , osnvr's+fora ,.S `Z .b ` is le.'I '11 y��~` p0 , , 1997-96 W a` .61 55 1° , k.Ot" + r 7h 99 07 ua ,s9sr xsa ,h 5+29 Q ,�,! ..,0 �'� 0.7 AC: I 'l zs rros5 nmr rr,rr . g � may,-'� 41' , s rns, 18 '. ,' z� DRIVE �� +' 11 i \0.3 7820' 6.1.19 IrOdO. naso nno mw• .1.... 38 0 13 ' ti� 23 y ij1a9 5 ?(Q- >:' 65.97 7577 ,w sa,s- 7 72 Icz,a t. • w e v, s'..,,,,;/1'.----0- 362. sT,, 27 , ; ; - O .53,01'sr Coir. - 'S• 7 _ ! l n tt. ya `' •1" .' • iy, . aR.O. �; i 1, 0' i•a �%'04 J. Q S.a6 12 •ti qR nl - j ��+y. 'nC O/O .1)V11...,I ` � 2' ml ,. P. 4'. 35.084 sr.Cale-N '62' ..,� '.S' t'L/, a r,{i ; ,^.r 29 r 30 33 I 1@ J as't?J r V n� • 60 �r,. Jo N0: 10 .m 13 54 '••3„,q,,, , 1.4 . , ' -s : 0 MORA.RANCH jug sono, I • 14 i,. a�21 . 61 > it 15 `• r ' ?r i �+s2 o ffi' 16 1 7I 1:1 C.C. 19090844" �. . SaP] a..7,„.. 719.,0' �9- 14 •� ‘......0.-........V...".<1,63 dl� ComPledander ATTACHMENT 2 • County of Santa Clara Department of Planning and Development • Planning Office • County Government Center,East,Wing,7th Floor1� jf 70 West Redding Street San Jose.California 95110-1705 -1114PAICt'V (408)299-5770 FAX(408)28&9198 www.sccplanning.org • June 9, 2006 • • Forrest Linebarger - - ' 421 Castro Street • Mountain View, CA 94041 FILE NUMBER: 9183 - 14 - 68 - 06CC SUBJECT: Certificate of Compliance SITE LOCATION: Mora Drive , . DATE RECEIVED: 5/10/2"006''x' • Dear Mr. Linebarger: • This letter is written to inform you that - the application for -a Certificate of Compliance is approved.. lois approval A@ va tint 110. e -fire Cts oTfoa 90 2'e T/a T-is °approva_ is su. 'e- : ."o -omp -- 'ng- . _ 'o "owing: 1. Prepare anew legal .description and a plat for the. subject lot. The legal description is to be labeled Exhibit A. The plat should be labeled Exhibit B. The new legal description will be part of a recorded document, and- must be signed and - stamped by a licensed land surveyor, or a registered engineer licensed to practice ' land surveying. Therefore, you should obtain professional assistance in the preparation of the above-mentioned exhibits. Submit the exhibits- to the County Planning Office at least one week prior to recording, to allow sufficient time to review the exhibits and prepare the Certificate of Compliance ("Certificate") . This office will then prepare a Certificate and record it and the exhibits simultaneously. Please let me know if there is a specific date by which the Certificate must -be recorded.. - • 2. Submit a check to pay for the cost of recording the documents. Cash will not be • accepted. The check should be made payable to "Santa Clara County Clerk/Recorder. " Since the exact recording fee is not known at this time, you can include a notation on the check in small print, "not to exceed thirty dollars" on or below the line used to write out the amount. At the time the documents: are recorded and the fee is determined, the check will be completed with the fee written in. Then, a copy of the • documents and a receipt will be mailed to you. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (408) 299-5782. • Sincerely, / --( i ael Dolan • • Engineering Technician III cc: Turkey Doganer 421 Castro Street Mountain View, CA 94041 Board of.Supervisors:Donald F.Gage.Blanca Alvarado.Pete McHugh.James T.Beall,Jr..Liz Kniss County Executive:Peter Kutras,Jr. - �, . i Checklist for Certificate of Compliance • Date: 9/z°P(P File # 9/Y3 - D� Deed in effect prior t6/9,n June 25, 1969: / ` 1 S 2 Q - 5-0 ( Next rec rded deed: yDoc._ I S� ; S (� Z '/G1. 20 /Ws / 4- , a-q T /0 Current D ed: z-S'94/9 ._Vs/ _0* Other deedsor information: 1 Ts the lot on a recorded tract or parcel map or ROS? - Is.lot legal?. No Reasons: v- . _ ' /2-.4 %/ / 1 cc checklist 1125102 ATTACHMENT 3A FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY 4750 Willow Rd, No. 100. Pleasanton,CA 94588 04/27/2016 To whom it may concern, In a search of the public records regarding the property located in Los Altos Hills California under Assessor's parcel numbers 331-15-061 and 062 we find only one Certificate of Compliance recorded on September 1,2006 in Instrument Number 19090844 Santa Clara County official records.The document singles or separates APN 331-15-060 from 331-15-061 and 062. This Letter is not a statement or a guaranty of the condition of title and should only be relied upon for informational purposes only. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding the above statement. Sincerely, cott Heisey Underwriter First American Title Company Phone :925-225-2645 email:dheisey@firstam.com ATTACHMENT 3B 'DOCUMENT: 19090844 Pages: 3 RECORDING REQUESTED BY: County of Santa Clara C:::s. : s . 13 13 00 RETURN T0: Copies . Santa Clara County Planning Office AMT PAID 0 7th Floor, East Wing 70 West Heddingg -Street BRENDA DAVIS RDE # 006 San Jose, CA 95110 SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDER 9/01/2006 (408) 299-5770 Recorded at the request of 4; 12 PM County Agency CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE For One Parcel of Land Owner(s) of Property: Forrest Linebarger Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 66499.35 of the Government Code of the • State of California that the real. property described in "Exhibit A" attached hereto and made a part hereof, complies•with the provisions of Division 2 of Title 7 of said . Government Code, cited as the. Subdivision Map Act, and all local ordinances enacted pursuant thereto. This certificate relates only to issues, of compliance :or noncompliance with the . Subdivision Map Act and local ordinances enacted pursuant -thereto. The parcel described herein may be sold, leased or financed without further compliance with the • Subdivision Map-Act or any local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto. Development of the parcel may require issuance of a permit or- -permits or other grant or grants of approval. County File Number: 9352-14-68-06CC Assessor Parcel Number: 'Portion of APN 331-15-022 • • Date: September 1, 2006 . Approved By: - 444-, • Carolyn T. alsh, Principal Planner County of Santa Clara State of California ) County of Santa Clara ) • On September 1, 2006, , before me, Michael Dolan, the undersigned Notary Public, personally. appeared Carolyn T. Walsh, personally knownto me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that she executed the .same in her authorized capacity., and that by her signature- on the instrument the person(s) or the entity ;upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the -instrument. WITNESS myhand and official seal. . - MIT.A.416 "ma CHPELP sami • / dd cam! Michael Dolan EXHIBIT 'A' DESCRIPTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ALL THAT REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOT 2 OF TRACT NO. 10 AS SHOWN ON THAT MAP OF JO.MORA RANCH, FILED FOR RECORD IN BOOK'Y' OF MAPS AT PAGE 53, SANTA CLARA COUNTY. t2# . pGE' E. DODGE, LICENS • ND SURVEYOR, N+. 3295 10 tAND,8i/ STATE OF CALIFORNIA vSt ty,�E• DOS `�c►� * Exp...6V220 vQ y' � � No.32 CALF 4%11/4 0VND svR i t co 13 iNo.329 �r Exp.�, �-Z �' �j lk.OFCALS ',, . --f _ G 5 89° i9' E 2s.- •3_, Coco' Qt b a w ip Z s \, vs 2tDossz r\/ 9 • I0 Q a Al Q a I zf 2S II 1 i = SO PLAT Tü ArnpA1\t ( LE & L £ ESLr�WTiD • Fio2 Roger E. !Dodge C E 2.i 1 F--i C A i E C i Co M PL 1 A kk l Land Surveyor 20652 Chaparral Circle S A nI Yh C L a 2 A c o U nJ 7 I, C A L t F a-r2.-2-00Z4 2-ZOOLo Penn Valley, CA 95946 ATTACHMENT 3C CLTA Preliminary Report Form Order Number: 4332-5156787 (Rev. 11/06) Page Number: 1 cy "-ti. "" ' • FirstAmerica'n tle First American Title Company 4991-A Cherry Avenue San Jose, CA 95118 California Department of Insurance License No. 151 Camas J. Steinmetz Aaronson, Dickerson, Cohn &Lanzone 939 Laurel Street, Suite D • San Carlos, CA 94070 Customer Reference: Order Number: 4332-5156787 (AP) Title Officer: Angie Park Phone: (408)226-3278 Fax No.: (866)481-1488 E-Mail: apark@firstam.com Property: Vacant Land Los Altos Hills, CA PRELIMINARY REPORT In response to the above referenced application for a policy of title insurance,this company hereby reports that it is prepared to issue,or cause to be issued,as of the date hereof,a Policy or Policies of Title Insurance describing the land and the estate or interest therein hereinafter set forth,insuring against loss which may be sustained by reason of any defect,lien or encumbrance not shown or referred to as an Exception below or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed Schedules,Conditions and Stipulations of said Policy forms. The printed Exceptions and Exclusions from the coverage and Limitations on Covered Risks of said policy or policies are set forth in Exhibit A attached. Thepolicy to be issued may contain an arbitration clause. When the Amount of Insurance is less than that set forth in the arbitration clause,a//arbitrable matters shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties.Limitations on Covered Risks applicable to the CLTA and ALTA Homeowner's Policies of Title Insurance which establish a Deductible Amount and a Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability for certain coverages are also set forth in Exhibit A.Copies of the policy forms should be read.They are available from the office which issued this report. Please read the exceptions shown or referred to below and the exceptions and exclusions set forth in Exhibit A of this report carefully.The exceptions and exclusions are meant to provide you with notice of matters which are not covered under the terms of the title insurance policy and should be carefully considered. It is important to note that this preliminary report is not a written representation as to the condition of title and may not list all liens,defects,and encumbrances affecting title to the land. This report(and any supplements or amendments hereto)is issued solely for the purpose of facilitating the issuance of a policy of title insurance and no liability is assumed hereby.If it is desired that liability be assumed prior to the issuance of a policy of title insurance,a Binder or Commitment should be requested. First American Title Page 1 of 15 Order Number: 4332-5156787 Page Number: 2 Dated as of April 12, 2016 at 7:30 A.M. The form of Policy of title insurance contemplated by this report is: To Be Determined A specific request should be made if another form or additional coverage is desired. Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in: FORREST LINEBARGER,AN UNMARRIED MAN The estate or interest in the land hereinafter described or referred to covered by this Report is: FEE The Land referred to herein is described as follows: (See attached Legal Description) At the date hereof exceptions to coverage in addition to the printed Exceptions and Exclusions in said policy form would be as follows: 1. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2016-2017, a lien not yet due or payable. 2. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2015-2016. First Installment: $4,761.48, PAID Penalty: $0.00 Second Installment: $4,761.48, DELINQUENT Penalty: $496.15 Tax Rate Area: 14-002 A. P. No.: 331-15-061 3. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2015-2016. First Installment: $5,138.65, PAID Penalty: $0.00 Second Installment: • $5,138.65, DELINQUENT Penalty: $533.87 Tax Rate Area: 14-.002 A. P. No.: 331-15-062 4. The lien of supplemental taxes, if any, assessed pursuant to Chapter.3.5 commencing with Section 75 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code. First American Title Page 2 of 15 Order Number: 4332-5156787 Page Number: 3 5. Any and all offers of dedications, conditions, restrictions, easements, notes and/or provisions shown or disclosed by the filed or recorded map referred to in the legal description. 6. Covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements in the document recorded April 03, 1935 as BOOK 726, PAGE 226 of Official Records, which provide that a violation thereof shall not defeat or render invalid the lien of any first mortgage or deed of trust made in good faith and for value, but deleting anycovenant, condition, or restriction indicating a preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, disability, handicap, national origin, genetic information, gender, gender identity, gender expression, source of income (as defined in California Government Code § 12955(p)) or ancestry,to the extent such covenants, conditions or restrictions violation 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c)or California Government Code § 12955. Lawful restrictions under state and federal law on the age of occupants in senior housing or housing for older persons shall not be construed as restrictions based on familial status. Document(s) declaring modifications thereof recorded December 30, 1949 as BOOK 1901, PAGE 241 of Official Records. 7. Covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements in the document recorded June 24, 1948 as BOOK 1619, PAGE 347 of Official Records, which provide that a violation thereof shall not defeat or render invalid the lien of any first mortgage or deed of trust made in good faith and for value, but deleting any covenant, condition, or restriction indicating a preference, limitation or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, disability, handicap, national origin, genetic information, gender, gender identity, gender expression, source of income (as defined in California Government Code § 12955(p)) or ancestry, to the extent such covenants, conditions or restrictions violation 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c) or California Government Code § 12955. Lawful restrictions under state and federal law on the age of occupants in senior housing or housing for older persons shall not be construed as restrictions based on familial status. 8. A deed of trust to secure an original indebtedness of$2,156,000.00 recorded March 03, 2006 as DOCUMENT NO. 18828950 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. Dated: February 22, 2006 Trustor: FORREST LINEBARGER,AN:UNMARRIED MAN Trustee: VERDUGO TRUSTEE SERVICE CORPORATION Beneficiary: MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. Lender: CITIMORTGAGE, INC. Affects: The land and other property. The effect of a document entitled "FULL RECONVEYANCE",recorded February 23, 2016 as DOCUMENT NO. 23225286 of Official Records. Note: The Company will require satisfactory proof of full payment of the debt secured by said mortgage or deed of trust prior to removing this exception or insuring the contemplated transaction. First American Title Page 3 of 15 Order Number: 4332-5156787 Page Number: 4 9. A deed of trust to secure an original indebtedness of$143,000.00 recorded March 15, 2006 as DOCUMENT NO. 18844218 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. Dated: March 07, 2006 Trustor: FORREST LINEBARGER AN UNMARRIED.MAN Trustee: NATIONAL CITY BANK Beneficiary: NATIONAL CITY BANK The above deed of trust states that it secures an equity line/revolving line of credit. Prior to the payment and suspension of the equity line/revolving line of credit, an instruction to suspend and close the equity line/revolving line of credit pursuant to CA Civil Code Section 2943.1 must be executed by the borrower. Affects: The land and other property. The effect of a document entitled"FULL RECONVEYANCE", recorded March 29, 2016 as DOCUMENT NO. 23258391 of Official Records. Note: The Company will require satisfactory proof of full payment of the debt secured by said mortgage or deed of trust prior to removing this exception or insuring the contemplated transaction. 10. Water rights, claims or title to water,whether or not shown by the public records. First American Title Page 4of15 Order Number: 4332-5156787 Page Number: 5 INFORMATIONAL NOTES Note: The policy to be issued may contain an arbitration clause. When the.Amount.of Insurance is less than the certain dollar amount set forth in any applicable arbitration clause, all arbitrable matters shall be arbitrated at the option of either the.Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. If you desire to review the terms of the policy, including any arbitration clause that may be included, contact the office that issued this Commitment or Report to obtain a sample of the policy jacket for the policy that is to be issued in connection with your transaction. 1. The property covered by this report is vacant land. 2. According to the public records, there has been no conveyance of the land within a period of twenty-four months prior to the date of this report, except as follows: None NOTE to proposed insured lender only: No Private transfer fee covenant, as defined in Federal Housing Finance Agency Final Rule 12 CFR Part 1228, that was created and first appears in the Public Records on or after February 8, 2011, encumbers the Title except as follows: None The map attached, if any, may or may not be a survey of the land depicted hereon. First American expressly disclaims any liability for loss or damage which may result from reliance on this map except to the extent coverage for such loss or damage is expressly provided by the terms and provisions of the title insurance policy, if any,to which this map is attached. First American Title Page 5 of 15 Order Number: 4332-5156787 Page Number: 6 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Real property in.the Town of Los Altos Hills, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: BEGINNING ATA 3/4 INCH PIPE IN THE EASTERLY LINE OF MORA DRIVE, DISTANT THEREON N. 0° 41'E. 77 FEET FROM THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 1 AS SHOWN ON THE MAP HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF MORA DRIVE N. 0° 41' E. 265.60 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE OF MORA DRIVE, S. 89° 19'E. 280.33 FEET TO A POINT IN THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 3;THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOTS 3, 2 AND 1 AS SHOWN ON THE MAP HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO, S. 6° 24'40"W. 257.495 FEET TO A 3/4 INCH PIPE;THENCE S. 88° 36'W. 255.12 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING AND BEING A PORTION OF LOTS 1 AND 3 AND ALL OF LOT 2 AS SHOWN UPON THE MAP OF TRACT NO. 10 MAP OF JO MORA RANCH, SANTA CLARA COUNTY CALIFORNIA, A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION.OF LOT 40 HALE RANCH SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN BOOK "I" OF MAPS, PAGES 48 AND 49, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS,A PORTION OF SAN ANTONIO RANCHO,AND WHICH SAID MAP WAS FILED FOR RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON JUNE 2, 1932 IN BOOK"Y" OF MAPS, PAGE 53. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE UNDERGROUND WATER, AS GRANTED IN THE DEED FROM ROBERT L. REES AND ESTHER J. REES, HUSBAND AND WIFE,TO CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY,A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, DATED MARCH 4, 1953 AND RECORDED MARCH 20, 1953 IN BOOK 2603 OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 137. ALSO EXCEPTING THERE FROM THE PORTION OF THE LAND CONVEYED BY FORREST LINBEBARGER,AN UNMARRIED MAN TO RICHARD A. MINTON,A SINGLE PERSON IN GRANT DEED RECORDED ON JANUARY 28, 2016 AS DOCUMENT NO. 23207659 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOT 2, AS SHOWN UPON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED; "TRACT NO. 10, MAP OF JO MORA RANCH", WHICH MAP WAS FILEDFOR RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON JUNE 2, 1932 IN,BOOK Y OF MAPS, AT PAGE 53. THIS LEGAL IS PURSUANT TO THAT CERTAIN CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE RECORDED SEPTEMBER 1, 2006 AS DOCUMENT NO. 19090844 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. APN: 331-15-061 and 331-15-062 First American Title Page 6 of 15 • OFFICE OF COUNTY ASSESSOR SANTA CLARA COUNTY. CALIFORNIA BOOK PACE n / 331 15 - ; v 51 / } 1C 7 16 TRACT NO. 765 \_ ' • to,.,I :' VALLEY VIEW ESTATES {4. Qev 47 1 31 - M - 24 sXF , • +.9• , / * Z �� ,♦.Viq..Asa .. .. ... A. y , , 160 72]1 I-22231 71.19 10 ]1102 118.79 1c 9.90 •/ 1,••14. r P s.\\ 6`� /;b. '1 28 : •271 • .`` ... 5 I 4 Li1OAC. 18 +qd \9 4s \,1; p?' \10.1 1y9 , 11 10 .6F i.1` 6` 2�S.;a P t I 'cy�, ,� , �S •,11, "a S ul 44 1 I s 299 s .48 6 VI I 10999 ' .5\ 01 ,a`6�RR� WY.,099a . Q`, 14 p ( 7].96 621]'`. R.O.S. 776/21 bQ /P. 15 `\ ,I I^ 12 ,o, 7as9 PCLA P.M. 303-M-39 21 Oit • 1.007AC. 17 ?€\:).7,;;;....< '^O ^a7.3B a eog� \ t--,-..2.4.0 �'�G. `84,6'+ I �' j32 ��, 30 o`m, I' • leek `& ] 79 48 11 al06 '1 s,9.a COel \• '�I, n2.1. m931 5S ...� so m 1 PCLB _-: -1. M '_ - 16 43 WI, 10903 `�R,0. k 303 \ -y r'ry, (iV 5•\ \19 69,4 Ij ,69.97 9296 `21 2'.‘.,,49.),, 170..0]-�" 140 1 140712 140 211j.. --r13...14 1 I -1 1 14: 36 1.00Ae CaID "\6839 q 25 24 23 22 21 58 5 to �`P� �N `; .00 .q, to o,,,z9 i -i 20 n'oma 70 V r • 1.02 AC ' 09°10031]165080 ,ase 1 42 61:2- f \ 0 i ' 729.69 .. 4.0- 1° \ 1 Yo 0,n' '�9 Aj0) A, Ci- ♦080 9 1 10 - 5OWN 199 RE01/ESr •N 43 II �0'� a' 5 997-998 4/1 Eli .4,-.i4� ,- s.st,y `mj0,, .17 3\, 5 4 53 iti 52 �F •a V „° °y °. \ \` 57 \ t m 59.,0) \I �� .yH ♦ 50 $ ',� 56 m`\: p� li �0�9 II ,4b °:� o' a(9cau[3-r$V ZW `6 4^ m\,� 'env I l' '' $ 1997-90 lb ♦�o'�d--p. y 55 Vt. '\\ 6_0 ' 89.37 99.02 140 139.31 74.88 l5 R 194.28 Q '•t A` , .I', 4d `♦`o, �\, 0.79 AC. ', 1 y 41 yZJD9 Hass veer nnr DRIVE Iasi 1 ,I 18 61 ,\9 .♦ `\ (7 \, 11 78.20 5329 ' 11060 11090 r 1120 11140 X02 38 0 1.3 6ry� 23 (� `\, `119.+•.9 S �, X19 5' /83.91 88.10 110 139.19 71.71 IOZIe .T., 5 • : 0 O • '''../06. 53,497 80 cola. `♦`♦9' S. 1352 �7s �� :• 27 4 ,4. $ Y 10 a sa4 . R•0• L °p " o f0rD .3141�d'M \7`, 10 �/ lavas 12 g, 118 ('.o��'� Z Z 7 °9i 11 i 29 n 30 g 33 1 R` P Q v 40 36.084 s1 Cala 462 �,' �B fi,U f s'�,op �� BO . 'x.05 TRACT NO. 10 la, 13 F ,a w `u .'� y JO MORA RANCH ~\,.7oial 15 54 N I A 7Arq.c '66 Y- M - 53 14 W \. � 61 \` » `43.62 16 17 szs9 A • N C.C. 19090844 �h 43 119.19 I ' 411 .9 'D .0 5750 \ 14 �o P '°60.0 / N DRIVE la OBin 2008 RED-09 ........0.... a6 Itlo 074073 LAWRENCE E.STONE-ASSESSOR CO Coloshd map 1a assessment pumas only. Ni Complied ender R.&T.Code,Sec 327. E110c0,,Roll Year 2014-2019 Order Number: 4332-5156787 Page Number: 8 NOTICE Section 12413.1 of the California Insurance Code, effective January 1, 1990, requires that any title insurance company, underwritten title company,or controlled escrow company handling funds in an escrow or sub-escrow capacity, wait a specified number of days after depositing funds, before recording any documents in connection with the transaction or disbursing funds. This statute allows for funds deposited by wire transfer to be disbursed the same day as deposit. In the case of cashier's checks or certified checks, funds maybe disbursed the next day after deposit. In order to avoid unnecessary delays of three to seven days, or more, please use wire transfer, cashier's checks, or certified checks whenever possible. First American Title Page 8 of 15 Order Number: 4332-5156787 Page Number: 9 First American Title Company 4991-A Cherry Avenue San Jose,CA 95118 �:'' First American Title (408)226-3278 First American Title Page 9 of 15 Order Number: 4332-5156787 Page Number: 10 WIRE INSTRUCTIONS for First American Title Company, Demand/Draft Sub-Escrow Deposits Santa Clara County, California PAYABLE TO: First American Title Company BANK: First American Trust, FSB ADDRESS: 5 First American Way, Santa Ana, CA 92707 ACCOUNT NO: . 3064780000 ROUTING NUMBER: 122241255 PLEASE REFERENCE THE FOLLOWING: PROPERTY: Vacant Land, Los Altos Hills, CA FILE NUMBER: 4332-5156787 (AP) PLEASE USE THE ABOVE INFORMATION WHEN WIRING FUNDS TO First American Title Company. FUNDS MUST BE WIRED FROM ABANK WITHIN THE UNITED STATES. PLEASE NOTIFY Angie Park AT (408)226- 3278 OR apark@firstam.com WHEN YOU HAVE TRANSMITTED YOUR WIRE. IF YOUR FUNDS ARE BEING WIRED FROM A NON-U.S. BANK,ADDITIONAL CHARGES MAY APPLY. PLEASE CONTACT YOUR ESCROW OFFICER/CLOSER FOR INTERNATIONAL WIRING INSTRUCTIONS. AN ACH TRANSFER CANNOT BE ACCEPTED FOR CLOSING, BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE SAME AS A WIRE AND REQUIRES ADDITIONAL TIME FOR CLEARANCE. FIRST AMERICAN TRUST CONTACT INFO: Banking Services 1-877-600-9473 ALL WIRES WILL BE RETURNED IF THE FILE NUMBER AND/OR PROPERTY REFERENCE ARE NOT INCLUDED With cyber crimes on the increase, it is important to be ever vigilant: If you receive an e-mail or any other communication that appears to be generated from a First American employee that contains new, revised or altered bank wire instructions, consider;it suspect and call our office at a number you trust. Our bank-wire instructions seldom change. First American Title Page 10 of 15 Order Number: 4332-5156787 Page Number: 11 EXHIBIT A LIST OF PRINTED EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS(BY POLICY TYPE) CLTA/ALTA HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE(02-03-10) EXCLUSIONS In addition to the Exceptions in Schedule B,You are not insured against loss,costs,attorneys'fees,and expenses resulting from: 1. Governmental police power,and the existence or violation of those portions of any law or government regulation concerning: (a)building; (d)improvements on the Land; (b)zoning; (e)land division;and (c)land use; (f)environmental protection. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 8.a.,14, 15,16, 18,19,20,23 or 27. 2. The failure of Your existing structures;or any part of them,to be constructed in accordance with applicable building codes. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 14 or 15. 3. The right to take the Land by condemning it. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 17. 4. Risks: (a)that are created,allowed,or agreed to by You,whether or not they are recorded in the Public Records; (b)that are Known to You at the Policy Date,but not to Us,unless they are recorded in the Public Recordsat the Policy Date; (c)that result inno loss to You;or (d)that first occur after the Policy Date-this does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 7,8.e.,25,26,27 or 28. 5. Failure to pay value for Your Title. 6. Lack of a right: (a)to any land outside the area specifically described and referred to in paragraph 3 of Schedule A;and (b)in streets,alleys,or waterways that touch the Land. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 11 or 21. 7. The transfer of the Title to You is invalid as a preferential transfer or as a fraudulent transfer or conveyance under federal bankruptcy,state insolvency,or similar creditors'rights laws. LIMITATIONS ON COVERED RISKS Your insurance for the following Covered Risks is limited on the Owner's Coverage Statement as follows: For Covered Risk 16,18,19,and 21 Your Deductible Amount and Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability shown in Schedule A. Your Deductible Amount Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability Covered Risk 16: 1%of Policy Amount or$2,500.00(whichever is less) $10,000.00 Covered Risk 18: 1%of Policy Amount or$5,000.00(whichever is less) $25,000.00 Covered Risk 19: 1%of Policy Amount or$5,000.00(whichever is less) $25,000.00 Covered Risk 21: 1%of Policy Amount or$2,500.00.(whichever is less) $5,000.00 ALTA RESIDENTIAL TITLE INSURANCE POLICY(6-1-87) EXCLUSIONS In addition to the Exceptions in Schedule B,you are not insured against loss,costs,attorneys'fees,and expenses resulting from: 1. Governmental police power, and the existence or violation of any law or government regulation. This includes building and zoning ordinances and also laws and regulations concerning: (a)and use (b)improvements on the land (c)and division (d)environmental protection This exclusion does not apply to violations or the enforcement of these matters which appear in the public records at Policy Date. This exclusion does not limit the zoning coverage described in Items 12 and 13 of Covered Title Risks. 2. The right to take the land by condemning it,unless: First American Title Page 11 of 15 Order Number: 4332-5156787 Page Number: 12 (a)a notice of exercising the right appears in the public records on the Policy Date (b)the taking happened prior to the Policy Date and is binding on you if you bought the land without knowing of the taking 3. Title Risks: (a)that are created,allowed,or agreed to by you (b)that are known to you,but not to us,on the Policy Date--unless they appeared in the public records (c)that result in no loss to you (d)that first affect your title after the Policy Date--this does not limit the labor and material lien coverage in Item 8 of Covered Title Risks 4. Failure to pay value for your title. 5. Lack of a right: (a)to any land outside the area specifically described and referred to in Item 3 of Schedule A OR (b)in streets,alleys,or waterways that touch your land This exclusion does not limit the access coverage in Item 5 of Covered Title Risks. 2006 ALTA LOAN POLICY(06-17-06) EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy,and the Company will not pay loss or damage,costs,attorneys' fees,or expenses that arise by reason of: 1. (a)Any law,ordinance,permit,or governmental regulation(including those relating to building and zoning)restricting,regulating, prohibiting,or relating to (i)the occupancy,use,or enjoyment of the Land; (ii)the character,dimensions,or location of any improvement erected on the Land; (iii)the subdivision of land;or (iv)environmental protection; or the effect of any violation of these laws,ordinances,or governmental regulations.This Exclusion 1(a)does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5. (b)Any governmental police power.This Exclusion 1(b)does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 6. 2. Rights of eminent domain.This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk-7-or 8. 3. Defects,liens,encumbrances,adverse claims,or other matters (a)created,suffered,assumed,or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; (b)not Known to the Company,not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy,but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writingto the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c)resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; (d)attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy(however,this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11, 13,or 14);or (e)resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Insured Mortgage. 4. Unenforceability of the lien of the Insured Mortgage because of the inability or failure of an Insured to comply with applicable doing- business laws of the state where the Land is situated. 5. Invalidity or unenforceability in whole or in part of the lien of the Insured Mortgage that arises out of the transaction evidenced by the Insured Mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth-in-lending law. 6. Any claim,by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy,state insolvency,or similar creditors'rights laws,that the transaction creating the lien of the Insured Mortgage,is (a)a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer,or (b)a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 13(b)of this policy. 7. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching between Date of Policy and the date of recording of the Insured Mortgage in the Public Records.This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11(b). The above policy form may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from Coverage,the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following Exceptions from Coverage: EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE This policy does not insure against loss or damage(and the Company will not pay costs,attorneys'fees or expenses)that arise by reason of: 1. (a)Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records;(b)proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments,or notices of such proceedings,whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records. 2. Any facts,rights;interests,or claims that are not shown by the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land. 3. Easements,liens or encumbrances,or claims thereof,not shown by the Public Records. First American Title Page 12 of 15 Order Number: 4332-5156787 Page Number: 13 4. Any encroachment,encumbrance,violation,variation,or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public Records. 5. (a)Unpatented mining claims;(b)reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof;(c)water rights,claims or title to water,whether or not the matters excepted under(a),(b),or(c)are shown by the Public Records. 6. Any lien or right to a lien for services,labor or material not shown by the public records. 2006 ALTA OWNER'S POLICY(06-17-06) EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy,and the Company will not pay loss or damage,costs,attorneys' fees,or expenses that arise by reason of: 1. (a)Any law,ordinance,permit,or governmental regulation(including those relating to building and zoning)restricting,regulating, prohibiting,or relating to (i)the occupancy,use,or enjoyment of the Land; (ii)the character,dimensions,or location of any improvement erected on the Land; (iii)the subdivision of land;or (iv)environmental protection; or the effect of any violation of these laws,ordinances,or governmental regulations.This Exclusion 1(a)does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5. (b)Any governmental police power.This Exclusion 1(b)does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 6. 2. Rights of eminent domain.This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under CoveredRisk7 or 8. 3. Defects,liens,encumbrances,adverse claims,or other matters (a)created,suffered,assumed,or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; (b)not Known to the Company,not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy,but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c)resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; (d)attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy(however,this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 9 or 10);or (e)resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Title. 4. Any claim,by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy,state insolvency,or similar creditors'rights laws,that the transaction vesting the Title as shown in Schedule A,is (a)a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer,or (b)a preferential transfer-for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 9o this policy. 5. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching between Date of Policy and the date of recording of the deed or other instrument of transfer in the Public Records that vests Title as shown in Schedule A. The above policy form may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from Coverage,the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following Exceptions from Coverage: EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE This policy does not insure against loss or damage(and the Company will not pay costs,attorneys'fees or expenses)that arise by reason of: 1. (a)Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records;(b)proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments,or notices of such proceedings,whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records. 2. Any facts,rights,interests,or claims that are not shown by the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land. 3. Easements,liens or encumbrances,or claims thereof,not shown by the Public Records. 4. Any encroachment,encumbrance,violation,variation,or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public Records. 5. _ (a)Unpatented mining claims;(b)reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof;(c)water rights,claims or title to water;whether or.not the matters excepted under(a),(b),or(c)are shown by the Public Records. 6. Any lien or right to a lien for services,labor or material not shown by the public records. • ALTA EXPANDED COVERAGE RESIDENTIAL LOAN POLICY(07-26-10) EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy,and the Company will not pay loss or damage,costs,attorneys' fees,or expenses that arise by reason of: First American Title Page13of15 Order Number: 4332-5156787 Page Number: 14 1. (a)Any law,ordinance,permit,or governmental regulation(including those relating to building and zoning)restricting,regulating, prohibiting,or relating to (i)the occupancy,use,or enjoyment of the Land; (ii)the character,dimensions,or location of any improvement erected on the Land; (iii)the subdivision of land;or (iv)environmental protection; or the effect of any violation of these laws,ordinances,or governmental regulations. This Exclusion 1(a)does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5,6,13(c), 13(d), 14 or 16. (b)Any governmental police power.This Exclusion 1(b)does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5,6,13(c), 13(d),14 or 16. 2. Rights of eminent domain.This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8. 3. Defects,liens,encumbrances,adverse claims,or other matters (a)created,suffered,assumed,or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; (b)not Known to the Company,not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy,but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c)resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; (d)attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy(however,this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11, 16,17,18,19,20;21,22,23,24,27 or 28);or (e)resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid valuefor the Insured Mortgage. 4. Unenforceability of the lien of the Insured Mortgage because of the inability or failure of an Insured to comply with applicable doing- business lawsof the state where the Land is situated. 5. •Invalidity or unenforceability in whole or in part of the lien of the Insured Mortgage that arises out of the transaction evidenced by the Insured Mortgage and is based upon usury or.any consumer credit protection or truth-in-lending law.This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 26. - - 6. Any claim of invalidity,unenforceability or lack of priority of the lien of the Insured Mortgage as to Advances or modifications made after the Insured has Knowledge that the vestee shown in Schedule A is no longer the owner of the estate or interest covered by this policy.This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 11. 7. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching subsequent to Date of Policy.This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 11(b)or 25. 8. The failure of the residential structure,or any portion of it,to have been constructed before,on or after Date of Policy in accordance with applicable building codes. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 5 or 6. 9. Any claim,by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy,state insolvency,or similar creditors'rights laws,that the transaction creating the lien of the Insured Mortgage,is (a)a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer,or (b)a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 27(b)of this policy. • • • First American Title Page 14of15 • Order Number: 4332-5156787 Page Number: 15 " rslArnerilsan True : •,' Com'. Privacy Information - We Are Committed to Safeguarding Customer Information In order to better serve your needs now and in the future,we may ask you to provide us with certain information.We understand that you may be concerned about what we will do with such information-particularly any personal or financial information.We agree that you have a right to know how we will utilize the personal.information you provide to us.Therefore,together with our subsidiaries we have adopted this Privacy Policy to govern the use and handling of your personal information. Applicability . This Privacy Policy governs our use of the information that you provide to us.It does not govern the manner in which we may use information we have obtained from any other source,such as information obtained from a public record or from another person or entity.First American has also adopted broader guidelines that govern our use of personal information regardless of its source. First American calls these guidelines its Fair Information Values. - . Types of Information Depending upon which of our services you are utilizing,the types of nonpublic personal information that we may collect include: • : Information we receive from you on applications,forms and in other communications to us,whether in writing,in person,by telephone or any other means; . . - • Information about your transactions with us,our affiliated companies,or others;and - • • Information we receive from a consumer reporting agency. . Use of Information . ' We request information from you for our own legitimate business purposes and not for the benefit of any nonaffiliated party.Therefore,we will not release your information to nonaffiliated parties except:(1)as necessary for us to provide the product or service you have requested of us;or(2)as permitted by law.We may,however,store such information indefinitely,including the period • after which any customer relationship has ceased.Such information may be used for any internal purpose,such as quality control efforts or customer.analysis.We may also provide all of the types of nonpublic personal information listed above to one or more of our affiliated companies.Such affiliated companies include financial service providers,such as title insurers,property and casualty insurers,and trust and investment advisory companies,or companies involved in real estate services,such as appraisal companies,home warranty companies and escrow companies.Furthermore, ' we may also provide all the information we collect,as described above,to companies that perform marketing services on our behalf,on behalf of our affiliated companies or to other financial Institutions with whom we or our affiliated companies have joint marketing agreements. Former Customers- - - - Even if you are no longer our customer,our Privacy Policy will continue to apply to you. . Confidentiality.and Security . . - -We will use our best efforts to ensure that no unauthorized parties have access to any of your information.We restrict access to nonpublic personal information about you to those individuals and entities who need to know that information to provide products or services to you.We will use our best efforts to train and oversee our employees and agents to ensure that-your information will be handled responsibly and in accordance with this Privacy Policy and First American's Fair Information Values.We currently maintain physical,electronic,and procedural safeguards that comply with federal regulations to guard your nonpublic personal information. . Information Obtained Through Our Web Site - ' First American Financial Corporation is sensitive to privacy issues on the Internet.We believe it is important you know how we treat the information about you we receive on the Internet. In general,you can visit First American or its affiliates'Web sites on the World Wide Web without telling us who you are or revealing any information about yourself.Our-Web servers collect the domain names,not:the e-mail addresses,of visitors:This information is aggregated to measure the number of visits,average time spent on the site,pages viewed and similar information.First American uses this information to measure the use of our site and to develop ideas to improve the content of our site. ' There are times,however,-when we may need information from you,such as your name and email address.When information is needed,we will use our best efforts to let you know at the time of collection how we will use the personal information.Usually,the personal information we collect is used only by us to respond to your inquiry,process an order or allow you to access specific - account/profile information.If you choose to share any personal information with us,we will Only use it in accordance with the policies outlined above. Business Relationships - - . - First American Financial Corporation's site and its affiliates'sites may contain links to other Web sites.While we try to link only to sites that share our high standards and respect for privacy,we'are - - not responsible for the content or the privacy practices employed by other sites. -- Cookies . - • - Some of First American's Websites may make use of"cookie"technology to measure site activity and to customize information to your personal tastes.A cookie is an element of data that a Web site . -can send to your browser,which may then stare the cookie on your hard drive. 'FirstAm.com uses stored cookies.The goal of this technology is to better serve you when visiting our site,save you time when you are here and to provide you with a more meaningful and • - productive Web site experience. - . - Fair Information Values - - - - - -- - - Fairness-We consider consumer expectations about their privacy in all our businesses.We only offer products and services that assure a favorable-balance between consumer benefits and consumer privacy. - - Public Record We believe that an open public record creates significant value for society,enhances consumer choice and creates consumer'opportunity.We actively support an open public record . and emphasize its importance and contribution to our economy. - Use We believe we should behave responsibly when we use information about a consumer in our business.We will obey the laws governing the collection,use and dissemination of data. . Accuracy We will take reasonable steps to help assure the accuracy of the data we collect,•use and disseminate.Where possible,we will take reasonable steps to correct inaccurate information. When,as with the public record,we cannot correct inaccurate information,we will take all reasonable steps to assist consumers in identifying the source of the erroneous data so that the consumer - -- can secure the required corrections. : - - - - - - - - Education We endeavor to educate the users of our products and services,our employees and others in our industry about the importance of consumer privacy.We will instruct our employees on our fair information values and on the responsible collection and use of data.We will encourage others in our industry to collect and use information in a responsible manner. -- - Security We will maintain appropriate facilities and systems to protect against unauthorized access to and corruption of.the data we maintain. . . Form 50-PRIVACY(9/1/10) Page 1 of 1 Privacy Information(2001-2010 First American Financial Corporation) • First American Title - Page15of15 - - - ATTACHMENT 4 _- . p., a `• iPRO ) .;.^ TECTI 7 . _ LA r .„,„._r: ,iv . z.: Oa 4 REGULATIONS ' • SIXTH UNIT 'fitF THE ZONING PLAN . SANTA CL RA COUNTY C�l.I1-6A-, . A CELARA COUNTY j MAY, 1948 i ....4„›....<;.....__ ... I . I PLANNII W COMMISSION I. The zoning plan was prepared by the County Planning Commission at the request of, and with the active assistance of the property owners of the district. If wasadopted 1 by the Board of Supervisors to promote the general welfare byproviding a guide for • the orderly and sound economic development of the zoned area. F: The zoning plan is administered by the Planning Commission. Apply to Commission for building permit which is required before construction of any building or the es-tab- r x lishrnent of any commercial land use other than crop and tree farming. i BUILDING PERMITS are issued at the office of the County Planning Commission, s• Court House, San Jose. There is no charge fora building permit. i ' 1 DISTRICT USES PERMITTED HEIGHT LOT AREA I FRONT YARD SIDE YAWS REA -R-E: a-O 1:family dwellings ]5 ft. _tawsq.ft. 55 feel 5 fsef 20%Urf death ,rr.:: li ig if R-E: $-2 I-family dwellings 35 ff. 10.000 sq.ft. ZS feet 19 feet 50%rat dov+ls - . .•` ve Ei.. f ramify dwellings 15ff; — feery39fe5O ef Feat: `•F0%fsfrlspifs A 2 � I`. An ()fps' dwellings 75ft. I acro SEE ORDINANCE NO. 120 ma •i C-I i Above and retail lousiness 75 ff. - SPECIFIC REGULATIONS ri ______._,_. .....__ ' -.....t,r' a .-i7.µ= Ordinance of tat Caoxuy d Santa Clan, std 2ECr1ON 2. Thai c�im[ier man rake /I' AN ORDINANCE Of THE COUNTY OF "°a Pim" aid adapted by tlae Rud of c5tci lI ad Iii kg= AA<Irey 00) dare alcor' SANTA CLARA.STATE OF CAL/POR- uperyko i of nld Canty ES' ;RL dal A. Isla of In poIDt=t apd t 9fs'ali. - ttNIA, AMENDING CRDINANCE NO. el Ausu.t. A.D. 1917..h Sag. 1/* stai�td ?aimed aid,.Az award at tea• 120 OF SAID COUNTY.WHICH CRDI- l>s [Se sdditka d a acv arc[ian blae: m Tsaon df dt C2[nt9 d"na Clue•.sat of NANCE IS XNOWN AS THE ZONING `.A..`°[ed 8=5.22 zctlm 9•P. mhtA taesi�, d r i•r . *I, Ae td Say d May, 1941. _ ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY Ci' •ae locks cop sri caeiaio diurica mag w� ..57 ASt f°41714 t tort, ErSANTA CLARA. AND WAS PASSED °Ip �c SOLA u nil ai A Z"iNI .fit. x Santa Clara.Carat C[li(orai:. AYES: pC[Y(mn: Wood Cealay. P�i(te, �E,' AND ADOPTED ST THE" BOARD OF 7 °rte -tap 11""and Wir _ 6 SUPERVISORS OF SAID COUNTY ON rs m1.7 -' +kd as6e s port_ THE 71TH DAY OP AUGUST. A. D. ?tea oedutaas. NOES:ABSENT: - •+ors:Nene. t 19IT. BY ADDING THERETO SECTION SCION 2. 3aIJ =Lama Si lc r 9.1' AND SECTIONS 3S-R, 10.3 AND bract 3enctdtd n Bl ).teIC12(NON, ge; ` ..' 1 far. b7 [as D3dir(cm f5cizta d Cu(rsue d tae $aArd ri certain new ase:ionr. to 4 dsutna:ed a'ts.e. e1 the'Comfy d Sarna Cara. Sure 7 Board cf Supctr^(ion s[ tha County d tion IU•R. 10.5 and 10•T which want,cf r�t�c� Y ', Sonia Llan. goats d California. do ^ldiio asap eailtkd: "&wioml Diatricsa )dao he Atrix 71tAMR e'Y. HOGAN,- + .T•+/ - al(Olken: '�' 3,--„,7;-- , Ina she Siata Ws of foe Zoning Plan. Santa I;rwrnt7 C'i[1-and savF ;Jeri of 3+3CrJOH I. u r I g`;” the Clara' saz laird of Supaniaora: County of x4 Goin Oali(anla,' vSicS sup b. Sanaa Clary. Saone California. �$! • Ctvar7,d .4.at, Clara, ac • 04: -.a. hereby Inns oramd and made s gars d An 4:1' vilIch o allow,c la non as A. 2auog ordinance_ ?HL`C�*l:rpl. CON. tie _. _ • _ Dorcas.tri. _3_11/41.,.5 a - =JJ• --- FI:--, ^, . ` •-•:•.7,..---..- - _ , ,y . --aQ--rr J = f - -s.• ,,, -• .•a 2 113 I I Itsi Z31220 37 I if SUP r i a 2.a W I Vil • . • . •. • /• - SANCLARA COUNTY CALIFORNIA . INDEX IviAP / • --- .--- TA SEC TION.A.L. DISTRICTS MAP BEING TU SIXTI-I UNIT OF THE ZONING PLAN SIXTH Wilt of td of SANTA CuRA COUNTY CALIFOUNlA ID SECTIONAL DISTRICTS UM MI tloutois PLAI SAHTA CLAtti CoutiTT.CALINIIHA Sok,misr.al dlotetile Mt f udslikers idtlin•i0 Thig sap conaida Pf&of oectloo41 diotekts asp, 4r stcHom kl-f.10-6 aodIlht of OrdUat2o, Miaito!iattnalu:ViistUrearcolfel2 boom JI thc Zoning Orolloanoz of idt County.of Ude Ciro.Thr Fallow of fhb/sip toopteading Td.&up cosintohl;duke It sf tad**atm is ibt rtsprrtht poitioos of Ito Index Map teatilultoi maim 91 of uff ordinora that rads bit ............wmmirseeleamom I coostngi to be i Halosil disitkis our 0.0144 i mike of sok 1 mlioaa at doikaffi oo kkolioi. • • Thi=;..o....6.4....h4d.......... . cb, ......_.......,=..avoid i... .:Ti:::7•6.:" % - 1 • 11414. WI • LtiLtlitairs14117d4 • . 24"w • • lAmir writ hit gi&ger4 iit flog. . r.1 a a.pwids.t.n....a44 &mop am ler HI 61 of • • ilila4M Gary \ • ttaar...• 1 4"....\,.. : gi hPdi • ' • • b • * z , -„ _ . . t1/44r . -`••., • ‘, tO I. ir.AIIII:If 1::9 r . \• t ' > '- 11/4 i . ,Itzlit.4 • te . .,,• \ .e•i\ Nifk,-5 ,,, • . • 4001?- , II 7,fit - # \., - •--- —i . , . . . , • A ., .. • — .,11r\ - ' • ... ,i1.) 4040)k, ,, ; ,\ ;„, ,,,. I 6 I, _ • , 1 .,. : „ .÷.- _4-1 .. , , . 1,_,,,- -- • t- ..— - , . , . / # , • ,.. , • - ; Aratior..„ - fr. - • r _,• \\..,• . . , .• .• .• . . .. , . -• • " • • • • • . . . • • 1 • .. de• s.•\ •' \ . • • 2 0 2 erd 4. • . • - • • • . . r 1 • ', • . . , - . . • ' e e . • • - - . • • etzums Ego amteme.... Ma i D• • • . ' L. T's..f'::7•'''SV—'7.7.3,71FRetrrIlrf'1977.7sY'r*,firr;"1",rec' '7"Frrzivr-/f-:111rITT6timgvarrprgrr.•``. • • •, • •.- ". • " *.t...;t!:*fi,-' "g' • : • .' i •,::'!. ••.t•v• •frivi, '1' :. . • • •":. '.." :f.i.i.. .'.. • • , ... :•;.. i • . . • .. .• • ”. .. • - • . . 4- • aft '"� • (Noir NO., NS-1200) -- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CO DF SANTA .CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A ZONING PLAN, BEING A DISTRICTING PLAN, FOR SAID COUNTY; SPECIFYING THE PURPOSES AND THE EFFECTS OF THE ADOPTION OF SAID PLAN - IIHEREBT VARIOUS DISTRICTS ARE ESTABLISHED IN SAID C.OUNTT; SPEG1FYINO THE USES OF LAND AND OF BUILDINGS PERMITTED IN SAID DISTRICTS; E3TASa LISHIItG CERTAIN $•EIGHT LIMITS WITHIN SAID DISTRICTS; REQUIRING. CER- TAIN YARDS AND OTHER OPEN SPACES WITHIN SAID DISTRICTS; PRESCRIBING REGULATIONS FOR THE ERECTION, CONSTRUCTION, ALTERATION ANDtTI TE- NANCE OF BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES AND OTHaM IMPROVEMENTS IN SAID DIS- TRICTS; INCLUDING THE REQUIREMENT THAT CERTAIN PERMITS SHALL DE SE- CURED FOR CERTAIN OF SUCH BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS AND FOR THE USE THEREOF AND OF LAND; REQUIRING CERTAIN FEES; DEFINING THE TIRO USED HEWN; SPECIFrING THE PROCEDURE FOR THE AMENDMENT • HEREOF; REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. WC? SAID COUN . RANGES OR PARTS OF ORDINANCESINCONFLICTIT ED SCRI INGIm s. PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION OF ANT OP THE PROVISIONS�g HEREOF. Tho Board of Superviaor.o of the County of.Sana Clara, Stmt.? of California, do ordain aa follows t SECTION 1. ADOPTIL Thera is hereby adopted a Zoning Plan for the County of Santa Clara,. Ata of California, said Zoning Plan being a District 3.ag Plan as provided by law. SECTION 2. PURPOSE OF ADOPTION OF ZONING PLAN - Said_Zoning Plan is adopted to promote and protect the public health, aafbty, p-aoe, morals, comfort, convenience and general 'welfare and for the acooiapliJoh- nt thereof is adopted, Among other purposes,-for the following more particularly . Opgicified purposes, to-wits (1) To aoeist in providing a definite plan of dovaloinon•i for the County, and - to guide,' control and regulate _•the future grout of the County In accordance with . osid plan.. - (2) To protaot the ohardotr and the social and economic stability of agri' - cultural residential co aarcial,- 1 t. trial _-.d tLo_ e . v X33.. _ .... -✓•s+aea utrs+rtd within the county -m.nd to mouse the orderly and beneficial de•telopment of puoh ar011.50 (3) To ob1iata_ aa the aeoe to the public safety resulting fres thblooatiaa of buildings, _and the uses thereof and of land, adjacent to highways W4.4h art a part of the Street and Tiighhay Plan oy .the Master Plan of the County, or which are im- portant tho;oughfarem, in suoh manner as to cause interference with eziating or prospeotivv traffio movements an said highways.. SECTION 3. NATURE qFZ03 PL - . • . 1 -.. Said Zoning P2an aansimts of the oatablisi sant of various district's within ' the imincorporatod territory of eats County within somea . -1 . be La rt'a, , and r,ithiia vara, .l1 or all ll * a a fh1 *1! - v �o of �hSsb. i� shall � .ianlaa•#'�tl -root, eona•truot, alter or lratairi'oer in bLtildings or -to tarry an cerin trados ': ooOu stisnss or ° conduct or � uoaa of l e4 and er at buildings a t' ri th3Yt • 1 1 high the height and bulk of future buildings shall be 1 .' �r�3n open species ti}aI1 .ba required kited �n� a o hm of quired ab�sut a cr d1t}alaa © PPropriat , reguleatlons tine h iikdiaga rind e® l tm oot :forth in this ordira to be onforoed $ u d fltg c ,ts all as ordinance. SECTION h, DISTRICTS CC'S . The aforesaid districts are as followeg resits ecu-ETrban Qr.oai _ ' 2A.;11: Dlstrictsi All � � . .•. got included unlncoa• '4ted •territor anyother :district. Y of i County QAa2® D atriotat Suburban 4grlo.ul:tRral D 9g.-1° Distalatas Liaitad iatgi.cts. . High► erontaga. DiArLatam �'0mmunitY.0rodp ' °411,-E° Dsti.ictst Residential Batata i Diatriote9 *dal D1srictk firma q lOVFea3lq�dsldeibeetrcta,"E-.3I1 Districts; Limited Uultipie Aesidene0QRa Diatriot -r General multiple 40Eld8II00Districtit V-3a.Diatria'tae Ratail Dncina.ga DSitrista. aC- ° Districts: General Goamorcial Districts.. °�®la Districts: Light .Industrial L1etrleta. ° -2' DAetriot ; Retry Industrial Districts. SECTION • COMB' L':0 SEQUI.AgI }7S In addition to- • the toregei.ng districts certain combining established asdot �orta ia its vr3�no©s Y$ oc h 1ng regulations beinga solls, t-bitt 0.-.104 griaultural Daee. '-E°: R ighua�► ,Proofs a ! 41:'t First BuildingR+egualtiona. a� �a Seo , Site Area Regulations. - g and Buildirng Site Aran Regulations.: 32 s 3111yd But11d1.nSite Arm ` `� � �---- uta d � � R,�,gulaficu�. - �.. , lg ;d" Yrs .dry Rag , .r'D .a 'S ia 444 iT�``4i- i .area _� �gtcabs o ECTION 6. s L rsgD CS • Tho 4fOreald Aiatricta lrahrxl ares gid certain 'combinations t.tharso at i'arth .and 'h deaig ti , l:ocatioai anad '� harrba ss indicated In 5eoti:i�ta'$ � each of � in a o 8a►: Rbundao io� t this a: a Char �eotiaaS is d4.�1 a • and Other B�btio�� �£ or h b the . 1 : d :b1 th* this ordinance, c�° . ►bet, aid Ln Sections r i'h13 ed h '� litter this- crd.l�aaca9 each �p � �. �m �b lamed blah other sections ie eatoa# et athor.� �3' a 3ettar or lektara. or � 04b4 bat,W il o d�slga t tie a .� �rdY�ax�a but, �d �a $9ctivass 14, 10e or roll� c nated by the b4sr 10 .�'cl3 ci a aa04 of rhich other mactiO00 3s ® lib. �d 8hand .bag Sections �f a letter,�vr letters ai' ���� d this ordimansa. khs alphabet. tions ' :fellow-4 : Bch c� Mott other �a.vtisas a lather or letters of the aI Yaa�4�o , bots describe �. .• L, I ItMaster Plan of the C�ira y or is specified by provisions of this ordl mance, then the front yard on auoh lot X11 havt• a depth of not ?ass - than the distanee from the street lino a oified .fray Buda building d® a<sad Rear Tarda Re uireds lime.. (e) S Sams ae specified £or 77R-1E' districts, )1(_.> �� 15. Rc"'t7Ci,n3'TOIiS F'JaZ�'R-E""L'iSis'. 'S _ I .tee.." 3%l - ho i'ollvieag ra�gulQtiona shall apply scab f c�T �tc the . . pp y in afl.'"R-Ed. districts and shall by provisions of Scotian 29 of this ordinn¢ai (a) .Uses Pensittmi 1 One-family dwellings. • 2. Golf oeurses, country clubs, non-can nercji riding clubs and polo £ial:ds. i 3. Publ id parks and playgrounds, 4. crop and tree farming and truck gardening 5. Nurseries and ,greonhoueoa. 6. Private stables. 7. Any agricultural uses which is a PPurt°xa"$ttosend ace®aaoa°y to any domestic establishment in the diatriot; 8. Rome oec4pati0ni. provided that there aha of am ham. -occupation except 'a nepeta 12 be no eatel qu resaoe foot in ante.; and provided further that there t ha�cseadis>de Cl)(1sqsquare of any such name plata.. shall bo reared illumination 9. Scheele. libraries, Museums, churahasa, 2vtraata $oaventa, riding academies . .+nona►ataPles, and •awn-aommeralal clubs other than those hereinbefore in this pub--section specified, subject to the securing arse permit in each 00.3o, as proVided in Section �f a► 10. Acceaso2•y buildings and aooesso uses nc of this ordinance.. *tartarsand nd non-aonmercial .guest hours.uses, servants'' 1 l c1 .wild Site Area Re.ui 'as s•- rtes-rl i red (o) teat, Side an. 1tstbt . c` auk easpeoified for 2R-111 di a�10, • 7K- ION 16, RE^ULA ONS R o • i' S'ellos, ulations X11 s► 1• esat3,9�n to A "" thiel. .,. l _�-$ ..X inwail 'R-.1 di v a and t ,he protasIon. ar 3ooti6ri 4 of 1 31 a (a) Uses Permitted: s Cart I 1. On©-fa11y deellialgs. 2. -Golf csiuraea and country clubs, 3. Pdabl io parka and publ0P ' 4. 1 a`9uaada. Crop 4nd krae Arai 50uraarlas and s® � and truck gardening. • : cultivating m Santai' S7' houses d only for Pt-a t . . . Boma occupations; provided that �rldd .n of any . occupation t3to� .shx13 be � *sternal av ane pa..ion except a same- plate not eked gg 4 -trot is area; and provided, �'urttaer, d. 11e ination:or a nyy..such nate..pla i .*. a that there sal im 7, Accessory.buildinga and accessory uvea. .8. Schools, libraries and churchoa subject to the securing oi' a ease permit in each caaa, aa provided in Section 35 of this ordinance, 9. Pending residential development, cows, goats and fowl may b.. kept in any 21R-10 district eubjeot to the fol/owing limitations: I. There may bo kept not more thun one (1) cow or two (2) goats for each ono-half(k) acre in arca of the Parca1 of land on which the naw:e aro kept nor more than one hundred (100) fowl for eaoh ono-quarter (1) hors in area of the parcel of land on, which the same are kept. II. No r oro than twelve (12) fowl and no cows Or goats stall be kept within a distance of two hundred (200) feet: from any dwelling other than a dwelling on the parcel of land on which the same are kept nor within a distance of fifty (50) font from any dwelling. III. The conditions under which cots, goatsor fowl are kept shall be such as may be specified by the County Health Officer; provided, however, that aim permanent building or structure Shall be °rocted, conatruoted or maintained primarily for the keeping of any such cows, goa tc or fo vl. (b) :puildin Height Limit: • . Two and .one-half (2 ) stories but not ateeeding thirty-five (.33) feet in7haiohto —_,...)4'0) Buildin Site Area Re,niro4-•• dt (. : s s „0..; t8 �R°►:r. + '" s _.t. _ Ia car `4 `boi.l }"n o4 -,7 olgit tad t . `'• n 9 'l � tAtT a--of mt1l othewefive thousand X000 square feet, pro F ed - io royar,.thl t atnp }xtroel of land with an area or lass than fire thousand;(,55000) square feet, (I) which parcel was under one ownership at -. the tine of the adoption of this ordinance, :when the ager thereof ons rio adjoining land, oot (II) which . rcel includes not leas than one.: 1 entire lot as ahewa on any au vision map who was raaor 'e n, the. offio, ti the county Recorder of the County prior to the adoption-T s .or n- . ana, and' iiicol ,arcel han"an area'of not•lea's•true thar iEnaamn nevsn trail`rid" i'�g. 3a oguar® teat or (III) which pa,rco1`3s chain aa; a o 'onany subdivision map wEch ii-hereafter recorded in the office of said County Recorder after approval of amid map by the Board 'of Supervisors in the ma.nner. provided by law, .may ba used as a-building site-for ono (1) oIIe fUthily dwelling by the owner or such parcel of land or by his sucoea- sor in interest, provided that all other regulations for the dietriot as Prescribed in thitt ordinance shall bo complied with; r tVide4;Authe ,: .7271 u tf'fith'"" P e i s 3 .,��b�il�ziiarg-�si� �t"'�tt r�u lt��ti�ane �►p �z ti 131 d. st ++ �otAlitillit +a.a4� + i,plyt."I i7 5 3 8_ a it'ilOn of 3 Ay. j4 Y , s ons v this n hiririii soh P , r d,ie3s i ri c *o ry" uil i iiiWikar s` I 11lows % fin, builxdln a a arxis rin A3ne if3'in4 t i J g�.���r +'�'Mrv} .3' n#:� ,���.'►('� "����``�.�►.�ot _ 5+ �#*.����L:�.t ��'�irµ.�� B,, fliri i�'a�t.,, e 1t� o, r3vez' s i hero it s r np4 (•.: . ron _ ar`d"Req red ` Bch lot l-have a' 3'S•s►n r �N t ..:,� �crtO s t`h a rsnt ►.,rr* ( _ in d.p"tt:apt�si3 tttierx ma :ip€iaif"ia'd-=`-f'or'x fB'°' :iitrict in aihia$ , .$uoh l0t gitiq. he locatod j prodded, however, that in case a building line for the street upon tilliqh any lot fuses is established by the Street and High sy Plan of the lister Plan of the. County or is specified by the provisions of thin rdth. nee, than the front yard on .auoh lot Shall h<aVe a daptb of not last than -Ws distance from the atraat line Spocif ied Mr such building line., • -12- I • • business of tsuoh junk yard, whioh building or tonics shall be of concrete, brick or stucco oaaatruotionj provided that Sao junk yard shall be eatab, itched in any such district unless and until a use g b�beensecured therefor, as provided in Begotten of thishist otten iordinance.rSave 3. All agricultural uses except the maintenance of hog farms shall. be permitted in any °C-2' distriot with which is oomb1ned an 0.11° diatriot, 4. No dance hail, commercial olub or commercial place of siuyaement or recreation shall be established in any district with which is c bfasd an 540 district unless and until a use permit, as pro-Tided in Section 35 of this ordinaanes, still first have boon secured for the ootablishment, jn- tenanoe and operation of such use. (b) puilding Location: In oasis no building line la oatabl!shod by the Street and Highway Plan of the Hester Plan of the County or by the provisions of this ordiguince for the street on which any building will/front ilany d.istriat ,with which an Q g, diatPlat is oc zsbLned, ao,sd�loh building leaved or structurally altered so that the same will lbee loser to thebe erected, lineconstructed, ' of such street than a distance sufficient to protide adequate spade for the traffic m.^rents And standing of vehicles which will be inoidentu.1 to the rase of .such building. Such distance ill be designated by the Pte Ming Commission as a part of the actin n on plana submitted with the appli- ;• cation for a permit for such building, ae provided in Ssotion 32 of this / !ordinance. . . ,,,iii;k , ,s .,„ . 3U tAT'TOr15, R ° OsS1�iIC�S' ( A)- ut.a r distri-.a wit`s iioh is cobs d any'B' d atriot the f' 11*PP.. ulra 'cn44:c 'tor 113 ra`speot ire . r1'-s-` s at'j;Sia "..�pp- s el. . _--MP t °vo atioixrs as to biuil•ing-tsi a-ar s depths of front:yids a_nd, s o s 4 e`y 'air a re a`oz-e s ea for such district with . which is combined ouch °8' district; provided, however, that each application shall not be made in any ease in which any of the following regulations ars loss, . than the oar-rospanding ragulations hereinbefore sipeoifisd for aueh district with which is combined such ',a7 .districts Front ?ard ,.. n riis ° ;sanding Front Ta-; ;i1:41, Area Dsptb Widths 4B-1' Six thound (6040) Twenty.fi-s (as) ,Six (6) feet. sq are_fee°t. toot. e5.,2c fen thousand (10,000) Twenty-five (2S) Ten (10) f'set. square feet. „ feet. °g-3a Dronty tzeueandthirty (30) Fifteen (15) feet. (20a000) square f ot. fest. ( ,:� - --( )-er . " di `�� .-.e t oa <. 20): test.Z .��a As epee ,led n o tv `oR. asap .,s _. azty 3u• . •, s lot a (b) The foreog ins re atione shall bow s--u-b�eot to the .f,alls ri =citsio ' :i: .ro. E8r:':7'1.=-:, 'a n+.-e-- `t--.i...+. 'iii �37trl� , X�i1 dtiLl `c ■ e o r ir'0; 'Fid -i s-3 54.4W's`da;t'i` c � t a► x `'- dial+ ` nos �vhardx< € . r .8 ,-.---,.s�'”. ,—T"'-',. -9 .1_4'ttTr 1.• ,`s ff,:- .-_.,,,,,,,,6. Sill7L R' �e ®fib +.,. #IIsi ,�" �€ta.v ira'Aitk il`9$7 ` - • • r:sA. e. 't ._� d iana. L4,1 r u,•a re 'on tp ` ..94''436" teed*d4 1n .nth 'dti`1 e►LLof calci. 3a ' ore aper 31,e-or ;id map •by, the board' ri o :iu; Sti cervi �s r.ha: r peevidedley 1 vi, :t+eeUsed ar, k!lmeilid` n: f c. : g a di011ing iof the:. obareater permi • • n o �.,st. 'ot With which is combined such nay; district-6,= provided that all other reguletione for auoh dietriot, ms preeoribed by this= ordinanoe, shall be campl led-with a provided, however., that the;aide yard@ of any such parcel shall each have a width not less than that required in any .B2 district in sahioh the minimum building site area required by this ordinance is a number of square feet nearest the number of 'square feet plug one (1) square foot oonatituting the area of such parcel. 2. In any RB-Ir, district, an any parcel of land with an average width of lose than .sixty (60) feet, (I) which parcel wee under one ownership at the time of the adoption of this ordinarioe, when the turner thereof owns no adjoining land. or (II) which parcel inoi:Ida: net loos than one (1) entire lot as shown on any subdivision reap which eaa rsoordsd in the office of the County xeoordar of the County prior to the adoption of this ordinanee and which parcel ham an everage width of not lass than thirty-seven end . one-half (371) feet, or (III) which parcel is ahaan as a lot on any sub- division map which is recorded in the offioe of fetid-County Reoorderafter approval of paid map by the Board of Supervisors in the pier pro*idsd by law, the width of each aide yard nay be reduced to ten (10) per Dant of the width of suchparcel, but in no Daae :than the width.of:any ouch aides yard be leas than four (4) feet. SECTI_®______0�3 27. FUTURE WI_nT1i•.LTfES . The following specified future width lines are hereby eetabliehhed for the following streets and highways: Middlefield Road: Foryy.three• (43) feet from the avatar line thereof on each side. thereof. 2. Feabaroadaro Road: Forth-three (4-3) feet from the center line thereof on each .side thereof. 3. Stierlin Road: Forty-three (43) feet from the center line thereof on ssth lido thereof, . SECT OYT 28. )3tTILDIINQ LINES The following specified building lines are hereby ectitbiiohed, e.uch building lieu being located in each ease exterior to the right of vay of the apooifiedr street or highway and, unleae other-rise specifieed, measured frees the exterior line of each right of way on raeoh aide thereof: le 2ayshors highways Thirty (30) root. MELT a''9. 4EK rai, PSiOVISIOAS AND gXCEPIIONS • The regulations spacified in this ordinance shall be oub jeot to the fonowe lag S tsrpretttione and exei tions@ (a) U2e t 1. The fell owing odes y' egos, in addition -to tons horennbefera epeoifiod, steal). be permitted in any sRzI dintriet, provided Pshat such aereasoory ease ale not alter the eb raeter or the prel:dela in respect t • . f -22- �.. titP 1 • ter \ Rg•g0 :,.. a.E..1:12.0 41/311117‘ A: ZOO 4�0Z_ e A'E®•D J 66° 0/0///p . `, CWF2. :II . . .. �--=+� .; iib , `� ti: s\s `,4i"e yqf "I REb0 L 1 rii . ) . . 0► �� dZ. �7 -•C.St - • :6 8>)' . 1. , . r ......000.00(siiii. /.,.- Z . ip ...,, /..f.. t,,, . . 4.7 . . , . ^• \R4., 4#00 \,,,. ,.,.' / .,•-'i..- 1:, ...'' : . ,,,,''.. ^‘,.,.. - ,„•7:7-7-",!'•'''ill t ' - \p, 0 Q,.. 4 . . . . s -• SOUTMG .LIHE-LOYOLA HILLS SUBOMSION. - 0'L2 fly PI C44 f • �� •c^ �n I' • / `� ?4 • • . . . . . . . . .. . . -0�bg9j} 0. . .. . . , •\ , . . . • .. . . • • . . ... . . . . . . 1. . . \ H . .tip • MOA rM LIMr a R RrGHT . �*A ' f ATTACHMENT 5 I ; - i ATTACHMENT 6 Camas Steinmetz COUNTY OF SAN MATEO ENVIRONMENTALAGENCY PLANNING AND BUILDING DIVISION DATE: April 26,20[15 TO Planning.Commission FROM' : Matthew Seubert,_Project Planner .SUBJECT; Consideration of request for a Certificate of Compliance(Type A)pursuant to Section 7134,1 of the County Subdivision Regulations and Section 66499.35(a)of the California Government Code,to legalize a 5-acre parcel located adjacent to 113 Seaside School Road in the unincorporated San Gregorio area of San Mated County. This project is exempt from Coastal Development Permit requirements and thus is trot appealable to.the Coastal Commission. County.File Number: PLN 2092-00356(Bennie) PROPOSAL . The applicant requests the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance to legalize a 5-acre parcel. � I RECOlM MENDATlON Staff recommends that the issuance of the Certificate of Compliance be denied,by making the findings of denial in Attachment A. Alternatively,the Commiission can continue the matter to allow the applicant to submit more information. BACKGROUND Report Prepared By: Matthew:Scuibert,Project Planner,Telephone 6501363-1829 Applicant: Joe Bennie i Owner: Pete Marehi Location: 123 Seaside School Road,San Gregorio • I APN: q 1-250-030. Parcel Size: 155 acres. The requested Certificate ofCompliatige would legalize the subject 5-acre parcel within the larger parcel! The legality of the 155-acre parcel,taken nh tt'Whale,ig In 1 Camas Steinmetz T .. r• .r Existing Zoning: PAD/GD(Planned Agricultural District/Coastal Development District) General Plan Designation: Asrictilturc Existing Land Use: Agriculture Water Supply: Well water on the l55-acre parcel. Water on the 5-acre parcel couid be supplied by the stream. Sewage Disposal: Septic system on the 155-acre parcel. NO septic system on the 5-acre parcel. Flood Zone:A portion cif the parcel is in Zone A,area of 100-year flood;base flood elevations and flood hazard factors not determined: The remainder is in Zone C,area of minimal flooding. Conimunity Panel 060311-0325-C,revised August 5;1986. . Environmental Evaluation; Categorically exempt from CEQA,per Class 5,Section 15305, Minor Alterations in Land Use-Limitations. Setting: The project site is accessed via seaside School Road. There is an existing residence and other agricultural related buildings on the 150-acre parcel. Existing agricultural activities . include cultivation of approximately 90 acres With row crops such as artichokes,Brussels Omuta,leeks,and string beans. The existing adjacent 5-acre lot is vacant,heavily vegetated; and stepte stecply`down toe Creek. The western half of the"parent"parcel;including the entire 5-acre parcel,is boated within theCabiillo Highway State Scenic Corridor. DISCUSSION A. KEY,ISSUES 1. lntroditct2 This is an application for a Certificate of Compliance for five acro of property located adjacent to in Seaside School Road in unincorporated.San C3regoriti area(tile"5.acre property'). A Cer`tificateof Compliance is a'iletcrmuiatitirt whether a parcel complies with the Subdivision'Map Act(Gov Code,Section 66410,'at seq.(the"Map Act")).+tAtt esu n ilii a p p irm 1sli rl"i is illih rbtiestio iv' rate"` ,tarii: +i aehb,• -e-dffirio-20.`ugfitik5*b446'Wrh s,requiress a search of recorded deeds related to the subject proporty,its parent parcel(s)anSid surrounding parcels, piar{iaseo„f therrecord'sN soarchi iialefestablishdhatt ijz l�tik tzull,c> ateditisra Starkly tan parca thloreiiiriirlat Il i 611 int.vasA.isim le botli ttstrjegt, rvci mutdo ere 9ter stAn {,lune, 4i aiel t3iv is t n el;iii ut:stiotrwas-i 7 drat- 'cc' an+t?®Iii rsilsepaiat rdiownerslupidiff r th d .i.ntr ou to�raratts r�ulldui' fit. . lisiirdtiifithsa**41. 1141, s"Ici ltiriiipl37470 ro,�twit*tiVne tgi uteri. ` o r'fand attiOb car Oi.O ii,p4di arceli .7_ • 1 • • _Camas Steinmetz •• • • The applicant here contends that the 5-acre property in question eras created as a separate legal parcel by a grant deed recorded in 1.871,and therefore qualif es for an unconditional , Certificate of Compliance('type A). However,there arc issues related to;the infornratton provided bythe applicant,described more fully below. Marcovee,the information currently', available shows that the property in question was transferred from one neighbor to another, and Could well have been a boundary adjushnent instead of the.creation of an independent • parcel. In fact,the subsequent deed history shows that the 5-acre parcel was enclosed within and consistently transferred together withthe neighboring parcel: Due to the state of information prop ided by the applicant,staff is unable to•reach a conclusion at this dine that the transfer in gtiestiou acttially Created a separate parcel. It is therefore recommended that the Planning Commission deny he application for a Certificate of Compliancy Alter tattvely,the Conmaission can continue this matter to allow the applicant to provide-inoreinformation. 2. riotin of he al Ile ti ertte�nts cas rim ntgi 86649 pt grope • rc orris. �..' est, .1•i 11 .140'cy b"allltd rnrke 'Mather l p p,-ert aalitgttt- tit " A it ro tplr wit c, th elle rsst liner l tic�`�"*t Vfrt:t t m o rs o d' tth"tsi$e(a • aeitift ate ; ?the> .9 p does u rn�p�yy Cllr a y'isstrrs s ..tato C rfiea)ea rnph 0,-, 004,0)**)-2-411_01t,OgrOftifiWc may includeconditions that would have been app icable to the division of property.at the time the_applicant acquired his Interest in the property,unless the applicant was the owner • at the time of the violation of the Act. in that case,the agency may apply conditions - applicable under current regulations: To'requcst a Certificate of Compliance,Section 7134 ofthe County Subdivision 1teg.rlations requiresthe applicant to submit a complete application,a"Land Division History"and appropriate fees: Section 7134 specifically provides that"[t]o the extent possible;,the land division`history Must trace the history of the subject parcel and previous parcels of Which it was a part,back to the Iasi legal parcel or tmits original creation order to establish the geographic limits end date of tthe.land division in question,the land division history should include,for a ch'parcel,the following information: (1)date created; (2)deed reference;and(3)n map depicting the.parcel boundaries An early staff policy, : dated April-11,1985,also states that there must be a thorough land division lhistery that traces back the history of the subject parcel and pre'iotas parcels of which it Was a pert,back to,the last"le j al"parcel The policy notes Chat Tifliswill very likely involt a the-services of'u title company"and,possibly,a civil engineer or land;surveyor"(Attachment C?): • i A,ctAr*rl i270lh`Gllg016 ftpatttC.dt .4ie"c spi"bl sir 14 9 .411. 411 gt 3rd a nme ti hprthai o xl na to #e cia fig 44 x0pl4*1—eci "aForCofS,ut Mateo;this means parcels createdbydeed prior to August 15.194(i. Iona cr&iniuL rete aclt tlir 5; r° iitiara lh. itn raft h nsti�ft0 + i ttgmitwa's9irs, edikmcz withoat ,3T • •• 1 • Camas Steinmetz 1 therirrin' 3 s to '. �l;tii i.n. s , epatnt� gall °rofilartdtutnletititeiMaprA'ct, . ihercits Sev hi'clr id4t itOtliutl� z �' •-a e i`tri cat"' *e tsitatlipltaiQc Finally,a fi•nding supporting a Certificate Of Compliance must be based upon substantial evidence. "Substantial evidence means relevant evidence that a reasonable.mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. In assessing wliether substantial evidence exists,the decision-realer must consider all evidence presented and ntaynot isolate • evidence in a vacuum. Argument,speculation.unsubstantiated opinion or narrative,or evidence which isclearly erroneous or inaccurate isinottsubstantielfeviddettc i ;l. I3istary of Apnlicaii The applicant first applied in 2002 for„a Certificate of Compliance,Lot Line Adjusnncnt, Coastal Dcvelopment:Permit and aPAD Permit to recognize the 5 aciepropert)as a legal parcel and reconfigurethe parcel lines between that property and an adjoining 150-acre . parcel to improve their configuration and the development,potential of the 5=acre property. The Coastal Conynission wrote a letter asserting their jurisdiction over the proposed Lot • Line Adjustment(Attachment K). A Negative Declaration Wes circulated and comments Were received from Lennie Roberts(Attachment 1;),in addition to the referenced letter from the Coastal Commission: • At that point,efforts focused an whether the 5-acre property qualified fora Certificate of Compliance(Type A). The applicant initially subauticd copies of recent deeds,which trnn`sferred both the 5-acre property along with the adjacent 150 acre nicighboring parcel together: The applicant was then ilsked to provide a land division history going back to the creation of the parcels. The applicant then submitted copies of handwritten deeds going back to the 1870s: After staff again requested a land division history,the applicant's.land surveyor submitted a transcript of portions of the handwritten-deeds entitled"Abstracts of Title:' Further discussion and record requests ensued,and the applicant subsequently presented a document entillul"Chain ofTitla”from Pacific Corporate art Title Servines (Attachment I'(the`Paeifc report' ). The document,however,is essentially a list of the deeds=carded on Assessor's Parcel No.81-250-030 from Novemher-3;1862 to the present, Unlike a typical Chain of-Tide Report,"it ckn..s not describe the effect of the document on the land owtierthip for each affected parcel . • In March 2005;the Dcpzirtrnent of Poblic Wor}s concluded that a Ccrtif tate of Complianee (Type A)should be issued. However,after consultation with legal counsel,Stiitfdeterrnined that they could not issue an unconditional Certificate of Compliance for the 5-acre property based on the information provided. The applicant reduced the scope of his project to include only a request for a Certificate of Compliance(Type A). if approved,the applicant ma}i then proceed With a.Lot J_mc Adjustment as,a Separate application:: . • 4. - geed information Provided b' thcAnp icsint • According to the information provided,it appears that a forgo property known as Dale Ranch was transferred froth Hugh and Alice Hamilton to.Edward Dale and Thomas Dale on • • •A . 1 • Camas Steinmetz •November 3, 1862. There is no transcription of this deed,and the handwritten cojy is illc '►ble(Attachment G). On April 24;1871,Dale Ranc*was partitioned into four(4)lots by recordation of a map. However,the recordation of a map prior to the tarsi Map Act in 1893 does tint,in itself,create legal Iots(Gardner v.County of Sonoma(2603)29 Cal.4th 990). One must still determine whether the parcels were separately conveyed in order to establish the creation of a legal parcel. The frits in the fanner Dale Ranch that are most pertinent here are Lots 1 and 4. Both were approximately 150 acres;Lot 1 was jmmediately adjacent and north of Lot 4(Att$rohtuent B). The applicant'has not provided a full decd history for Lots 1 and 4 between 1862 and 187.1. In the history provided,it appears that on May 5,1571,I_at 1 was transferred by deed from Thomas J.Dale,William Richardson and Lewis J.Dale,to Julia Richardson(Attachment H). Julia Richardson was Willitun Richardson's wife. On the same day,May 5,1871,a portion of tot 4 was transferred from Thomas J.Dale and William Richardson to Lewis 3,Dale, The Pacific report describes this as effecting the north half of Lot 4 (Attachment F). On November 12,1887,:a deed was recorded transferring a parcel from Lewis J.Dale to William Richardson. The deed'was dated October 12,1885. The applicant contends that this deed created the 5-acre parcel in question. The deed,however,transtets a tour-and-a- half(4," 1/2)acre property described as follows: "Conmrensuig at an Alder'I'ree,blazed and narked with a cross standing on the left banker the San Gree orio Creek,Thence running in a S.Easterly direction 17 rods and :3 feet,to a redwood stake 25 feet North of a Willow_gulch or ravine,thence fallowing said Willow ravine 84 rods to where the fence crosses it,,the said ravine, Thence 24 • rods S 50 E to a redwood post.marked with,two'notches at the corni.r of a board fence following said lade of fence thence-11'3,5 l;l rod l2yi:fuet.'1 hcnco.N 56 W 118 tods 9• 172 feet to the point of beginnirig. Being a part of the,Rancho Sen 0regorio.and being a apart of the scrim;parcel and tract of land described and bounded:in a certain deed of conveyance made by Hugh Hatrulton and Alice CM.Hamilton his wife to E4w.ard Daleand Thomas J.bale,bearing date 2nd day of July 1861 and recorded in the office of the CountyRecorder of said County of San Mateo;in Book,3 of deeds on pages 320 and 321 on the 3id day of November 1862 to which deal reference to hereby made for a farther description of said practises which premises contain four and a half act*more or less"(Attachment 1). The Pacific report simply states that this"affects a portion in the north half of Lot 4.; (Atiaclinient F p.3). On O• ctober 9,1886,1Villiam and Julia Richardson sold Lot 1 to William Britton:The grant decd described tlteproperty as: _5-• 1 • Camas Steinmetz . - . • . } . "Containing I acres or land aiid being a portion of the San Grego O1rio Rancho also; • Five acres of Land More or less.adjoining the forc)oing described parcel of land on the ..r South Westerly side thereof and now€nclosed wiihia the boundaries of what is known as die Roneh of JVillionr gird Julia C Richardson at San Gregorio and bounded on the North by iiiina of Julia C.Richardson,on the Past and south by land of L:3.Dale and on the West by the San-Gregorio Creek." (Attachment J,emphasis added) - The Pacific report_de-scribes this as"Juba•Richardson granting Lot 1 .."and"William . • - Richardson graiiting.a five acre pancel.located in the north rhOilcif Lot 4. ."(Attachment IF, p.3). All.subse'quent deeds corivcycd both Lot 1 and the adjoining five aeries-for land together in same maiuter as•the iSS( decd(Attachment l'). • • - 5, Stinarnary Analysis . t • To::mythmythfy dor antunsondttioiral Certificate of Contphaatcc t�rttt � sdntial . d6r, act r I. tttti;tioi �r t ct"�i .alon wpirrc Il dl� ilei ci 9 .. a g ink The meat reliable way to Meet tlus requirement is through a . Chain of Title report from an independent Title Company. 'Unlike most Chain of'title ... X rcOM.,the Pacific report here does hot give any afiirntative opinion or indication whether theour-aua,`a h f. - ;- gene ponce,men tioned to Attachment I created a separate parcel, . or for that matter,whether it is the sante parcel that was subsequently transferred in the 1886 deed shown in Attachment J. There is an obvious diserepancy in parcel site, between the • parcels mentioned itt Attachmentt I acid I{Attachment I refers toa four-and-a-half(44i2) • acre parcel;and Attachment.1 refers to afire acre parcel). . . Wani liza ; 'lo. i'... , Raag.!tits ciao 0•PdrFt t bt" "gi it t i`n"•t'li r is s j5a'attril �si ea` e e, staridralon parvch L i. ur�cre tcJ I he history - : . shows a series of tr rtsactiorvs•between related parties,the Dates'and the Richardsons. As of • 1871,Lot 1 Was transferred to Julia Richardsons by•her husband da to,,:astobinsit.of the Date:fami ty On the same day.the north half of Lot 4 was transferred front Thomas J.male anti Williams Richardson to Lewis J.bale in 1871. Fourteen years later,in 1085,Lewis), Dale deeded back a portion of the north half of LC!4 to William Richardson.01i• art dr_. C i .d tlta i &-o ho. . uottiaautioa it, ,,r prise. • > `' OttLitfta c - �`alo l l'n tact,the subsequent,parccl history shows that Rtobnnrdsons transferred - ' tli it 1.50 acre t 1 and the 5 acre property together,describing the 5 acre property 4"now enclosed"within the boundaries of their land..This has remained the practice to'date ll - . . • 5 I. s,,a tt't .lir'. -'.. t. ti ,6,;.th MO=•• . o t .:ei Iir0. •'rppir ' diet Cc pssstblc3hatillt4,a+cr przspert 'rttt r.trdsied tsepiOldirtirccliia . . . . ... 1vas.ttttiitila3o atistrastai paratctp. `l rs`n"b' vrdenc61fat'ii i ee fttn'ctinnea d . . ala crate star on.b.;Ra • • G ven these concis and,amhignities,staff recommends that the Planning Commission . dopy the appiicatioai far a eivficate of Compliance for tack of sufficient information_ • Alternatively,the Conuntssion can continue-the matter to a date imcerta n 0:40W11.16 the . - applicant to submit a utero comprehensive Chain ofTitle Ifeport and any other missing . - . . i : infOrniatiorl that mtty he.relevant. • . -6- j • • I 1 . { t . ' motta ti with the General Plan The General Plan doe !tot add requests or set polic-:ie fbr Certificates of Compliance. 7. Compliance with Local Coaistri Policy 1,27.Parcel Legalization,oft the Local Coastal Prog atn;does not require a Coastal Development Perrint(CDP)for Type.A Certificates of ConCompliance if the land division occurred before the effective date orcoastal perrruit requirernents. while the.entire parcel has a did history that long pr os this,staff does not believe that.the 5-acre peel qualifies for a Certificate of Complimec, The Coastal Commission.wrote.a letter regarding the project dated February 7,2003 (Attachment K). The letter addresses the Lot Line Adjustment and Coastal Development Exemption proposed in the initial plication. It did not challenge the proposed Certificate of Compliance,winch is now the only element of the project,except to state that if tip.5. acre lea was not cre ted pursuant to the applicable legal standards at the time,a Conditional Certificate of Compliance world be required,whereby by a CDP would also he required, S ,Cortformance..with Zoning_Regulations The Planned Agricultural}District(PA ).zoning regulations do not address rcluests or set standards for Certificates of Compliance. ce_ hgitiall p the project included a Lot Line Adjustment as well as the Certificate of Compl m ie(i:y A). These items together constituted a disoretionery project,subject to ('EQA, As such,due to the subject parcel's slope exceeding %%, a-Negative Declaration was prepared,and the-public.comment period was from February 4 20003 to Mardi 4,2003 Comments were received gni.the Coastal Commission,in a letter dated February 7,:2003 (Attachment IQ,and from.Lennie Roberts,in a letter of February 23}2003 (Attachment L), However,the Negative Declaration is no longer necessary as the project scope has been reduced to include only a Certitaeate of Compliance,Tmlc A, Issuance of a Certificate of Coitipliance,Type A,is categorically tempt from CEA,per Class 5,Section 15305, Iw iaiQr Alterations in Land Use Limitations, C. ALTERNATIVE Should the Plann.ing Commissien decide the submitted deed information does support issuance°fa Ceniticate of Compliance(Type A or E),staff recon mends that this item be continued to allow for revised findings ofapproval. - 7 _ P. P,EV[EWING AGENCIE Department of Public Works 2, Environmental Health Division 3. Building Inspuotioa Section 4. County Fire 5 Agricultural Advisory Ccrnmince 6, Coastal Commission • A. Findings of Denial B. Map shewing division of Dale Ranch and parcel in question Ci Applicant's Survey/Plat Maps 2, Applicant's SuivoyiPlat Maps D. Vicinit.i..,Map E., Assessor's Parcel Map F. -Chain of Title by Pacific Corporate and Title Semi=(Summary) G. Deod of November 3, 1862 rOf"Dale Ranch"from High and Alice Hamilton to Edward Dale and'Thomas Dale • H. 'Transcribed Deed of May 5. 1871.for 150-acre parcel from L. Dale et al,to Julia Richardson i. ilranscribal Doect of October 12. 1875 for 4% acre parcel from L.Dale o al.,to William Richatdsori(shown as Ottober 12„ 1885 on Chain of Title) I, TfallStrib'6d Deed of October 9 1886 for 150-arc parol from Willi=and Julia C. Richardson and for 5-acre parcel from William Richardson to William Brit= K. California Coastal.Commission Leta of February 7,2003 Lennie Roberts letter dated December 11,2002 Lennie Roberts letter dated February 23. 2003 N. Letter from Dave Ilolbrook to Joe 13ennie dated Decetribet 24,2003 0. Staff poliey dated April 1 i 19S$ • MAT:kcdictin-MATQ035.5_ww.Doc • • • 8- Anachincnt A otinty of San Marco anti:Orin-Ionia'Services Agency Planning and Building Division yiNibIrNos or DENIAL Pennit or Project File-Number: PLN 202-00356 Fleng Date: April 26,2006 Prepared By: Matthew Souhert For Adepition By: Planning C'omntlision FINDINGS OF DFNIAI., Dr dm Certificate Of Compliance,Pinch 1. 14.hat the real properly descritta in Attanignevi I of the Project stafircpoilt does not comply with Sktion 0490.35 of the State of Califomia Subdivisien IVitip Act u-414mcie 2. nal ihc!mai 13ropert3,,descTibed i Attachment I of the pinjeci,8toTTepprt does not comply wi4 Section 7134.1 of San Mo COLITAy Subdivisipta Regulations,bccauso the title report do tTs net'comply with Planning clopnruncnt submittal requirementi,becall$0 the 5- aere patent was net adequat*ideptiged,an beeanse it has net bap 0...;tablished that the 5- it*parcel was ever created by deed spArately from parcok, MAT:katha Ni.AT55 WWILDOC • fy '9- ATTACHMENT 7 GOVERNMENT CODE-GOV TITLE 7. PLANNING AND LAND USE [65000 -66499.58] (Heading of Title 7 amended by Stats. 1974, Ch. 1536. ) DIVISION 2. SUBDIVISIONS [66410-66499.38] (Division 2 added by Stats. 1974, Ch. 1536.) CHAPTER 7. Enforcement and Judicial Review [66499.30-66499.38] (Chapter 7 added by Stats. 1974, Ch. 1536. ) ARTICLE 2. Remedies [66499.32-66499.36] (Article 2 added by Stats. 1974, Ch. 1536. ) 66412.6. (a) For purposes of this division or of a local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto, any parcel created prior to March 4, 1972, shall be conclusively presumed to have been lawfully created if the parcel resulted from a division of land in which fewer than five parcels were created and if at the time of the creation of the parcel,there was no local ordinance in effect which regulated divisions of land creating fewer than five parcels. (b) For purposes of this division or of a local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto, any parcel created prior to March 4, 1972, shall be conclusively presumed to have been lawfully created if any subsequent purchaser acquired that parcel for valuable consideration without actual or constructive knowledge of a violation of this division or the local ordinance. gc Owners ofparels or unfts0land affected by`the.provisions ofthis subdivision shall,3be required to-obtain a gertfficate of compliance or a conditional certificate of compliance-,pursuant to Section 664;99135 priorto obtaining,a permitior other grant of approval fpr development of;the-parcel or unit of land Fortipurposes of determining Whether the parcel or unit3of landicom�plies with th? proMisrons.of this division and:;oflocal ordinances.enacted,pursuanttheretoz�as required pursuant to subdivision (a).of Section 66499.35,the presumption declared In this subdivision shaflFnot be�operative. (c)This section shall become operative January 1, 1995. (Amended(as added by Stats. 1988, Ch. 1041, Sec. 2)by Stats. 1993, Ch. 500, Sec. 2. Effective January 1, 1994. Section operative January 1, 1995, by its own provisions.) 66499.34. No locagencyshall'issue any permit or grant any approval.;necessarvitoidevelop any rea propeWVhirchrphastibeen ivided,,or which has resulted from,,a,,division,iib�Aolat:onroftt e provisions oaf th'is divis�on,or'of the,: rovisions of local ordinances enacted p �rsu t to th' , .ap � � per '. # . on if�4�trifkriti thatsdevelo,pment of such real property►s contrary toithelpublitc healtRh�o{r tl g r3'Y5* �.^+Y �tics_ .. -- _ - �. pu1b ae�safetyr�The authority to denysuch a permit or such approval shall apply whether the applicant therefor was the owner of record at the time of such violation or whether the applicant therefor is either the current owner of record or a vendee of the current owner of record pursuant to a contract of sale of the real property with, or without, actual or constructive knowledge of the violation at the time of the acquisition of his or her interest in such real property. If afcity?or a`caunt4ssues,a ppermit orzgrants approval for the de ielopm, tof any,such real property t may�mpose onJythose conditionsshat wouldth4ve;been,«applFicable4tt the.clisii n of t� a properity at the�time the applicant_acquired his o_r�herinnterest'inxch suAreal`property and which has beenestablislned at,sucf time-by thisdivision or local;+orddinance'enactedipur'suan t:hereta,, except that where the applicant was the owner of record at thetime of the initial violation of the provisions of this division or of local ordinances enacted pursuant thereto who, by a grant of the real property created a parcel or parcels in violation ofthis division or local ordinances enacted pursuant thereto, and such person is the current owner of record of one or more of the parcels which were created as a result of the grant in violation of the division or local.ordinances enacted pursuant thereto, then the local agency may impose such conditions as would be applicable to a current division of the property, and except that if a conditional certificate of compliance has been filed for record under the provisions of subdivision (b) of Section 66499.35, only such conditions stipulated in that certificate shall be applicable. The issuance of a permit or grant of approval for development of real property, or with respect to improvements that have been completed prior to the time a permit or grant of approval for development was required by local ordinances in effect at the time of the improvement, or with respect to improvements that have been completed in reliance upon a permit or grant of approval for development, shall constitute "real property which has been approved for development,"for the purposes of subdivision (c) of Section 66499.35, and upon request by the person owning the real property ora vendee of such person pursuant to a contract of sale,the local agency shall issue a certificate of compliance for the affected real property. (Amended by Stats. 1984, Ch. 864, Sec. 1.) 66499.35. (a)Any person owning real property or a vendee of that person pursuant to a contract of sale of the real property may request, and a local agency shall determine, whether the real property complies with the provisions of this division and of local ordinances enacted pursuant to this division. If a local agency determines that the real property complies, the city or the county shall cause a certificate of compliance to be filed for record with the recorder of the county in which the real property is located.The certificate of compliance shall identify the real property and shall state that the division of the real property complies with applicable provisions of this division and of local ordinances enacted pursuant to this division.The local agency may impose a reasonable fee to cover the costof issuing and recording the certificate of compliance. (*Ira local agency determines that the real property does not comply with the provisions of this division or of local ordinances enacted Pursuant to this division, it shall issue a conditional certificate of compliance. A local agency may, as a condition to granting aconditional G@rtifiCate of compliance,impose any conditions that would have been.,applicable to the division of the property at the time the applicant acquired his or her interest therein,and that'had been established at that time by this division or local ordinance enacted pursuant to this division, except that where the applicant was the owner of record at the time of the initial violation of the provisions of this division or of the local ordinances who by a grant of the real property created a parcel or parcels in violation of this division or local ordinances enacted pursuant to this division, and the person is the current owner of record of one or more of the parcels which were created as a result of the grant in violation of this division or those local ordinances,then the local agency may impose any conditions that would be applicable to a current division of the property. Upon making the determination and establishing the;conditions,the city or county shall cause a conditional certificate of compliance to be filed for record with the recorder of the county in which the realproperty is located.rThe certificate shall serve as notice to the property owner or vendee who has applied for the certificate pu.rsuant.to this section, r grantee[of the property owner, or any subsequent transferee or assignee of the prope_r-ty that the fulfillment and implementation of these conditions shall be required prior to subsequent ls-.suance of a permit or other grant of approval for development of the,property` Compliance with these conditions shall not be required until the time that a permit or other grant of approval for development of the property is issued by the local agency. (c) A certificate of compliance shall be issued for any real property that has been approved for development pursuant to Section 66499.34. (d)A recorded final map, parcel map, official map, or an approved certificate of exception shall constitute a certificate of compliance with respect to the parcels of real property described therein. (e) An officialmap prepared pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 66499.52 shall constitute a certificate of compliance with respect to the parcels of real property described therein and may be filed for record, whether or not the parcels are contiguous, so long as the parcels are within the same section or, with the approval of the city engineer or county surveyor, within contiguous sections of land. (f) (1) Each certificate of compliance or conditional certificate of compliance shall include information the local agency deems necessary, including, but not limited to, all of the following: (A) Name or names of owners of the parcel. (B) Assessor parcel number or numbers of the parcel. (C)The number of parcels for which the certificate of compliance or conditional certificate of compliance is being issued and recorded. (D) Legal description of the parcel or parcels for which the certificate of compliance or conditional certificate of compliance is being issued and recorded. (E)A notice stating as follows: This certificate relates only to issues of compliance or noncompliance with the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinances enacted pursuant thereto.The parcel described herein may be sold, leased, or financed without further compliance with the Subdivision Map Act or any local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto. Development of the parcel may require issuance of a permit or permits, or other grant or grants of approval. (F) Any conditions to be fulfilled and implemented prior to subsequent issuance of a permit or other grant of approval for development of the property, as specified in the conditional certificate of compliance. (2) Local agencies may process applications for certificates of compliance or conditional certificates of compliance concurrently and may record a single certificate of compliance or a single conditionalcertificate of compliance for multiple parcels. Where a single certificate of compliance or conditional certificate of compliance is certifying multiple parcels, each as to compliance with the provisions of this division and with local ordinances enacted pursuant thereto, the single certificate of compliance or conditional certificate of compliance shall clearly identify, anddistinguish between,the descriptions of each parcel. (Amended by Stats. 2002, Ch. 1109, Sec. 8. Effective January 1, 2003.) 66499.36. henever e PCOldageney CitpknoWledge taitig mil property Cia§C3GGgi divided fn]violation Chi provisions Cn nS division pp@QbC (1ordinances enacted pdrsuant division,Edtd taus- aDL mauled fo ' ce nom- current owner Cff.record o r nidi- property p notice cf intention in record 8 notice Cfi violation` describing the real property in detail, naming the owners thereof, and stating that an opportunity will be given to the owner to present evidence. The notice shall specify a time, date, and place for a meeting at which the owner may present evidence to the legislative body oradvisory agency why the notice should not be recorded.The notice shall also contain a description of the violations and an explanation as to why the subject parcel isnot lawful under subdivision (a) or(b) of Section 66412.6. The meeting shall take place no sooner than 30 days and no later than 60 days from date of mailing. If, within 15 days of receipt of the notice, the owner of the real property fails to inform the local agency of his or her objection to recording the notice of violation, the legislative body or advisory agency shall record the notice of violation with the county recorder. If, after the owner has presented evidence, it is determined that there has been no violation,the local agency shall mail a clearance letter to the then current owner of record ff.,' owever� aftetift OkmI py ewoasre3n1Vted ' ye _-. th, e� ir slative body ody oradviso: ry agen, cy determines� p t 4w 4 s .* property f e ivided The' £ egislative body or advisory agency shall record notice, violation with thet,olinty rabacle,.The notice of violation, when recorded, shall be deemed to be constructive notice of the violation to all successors in interest in such property.The county recorder shall index the names of the fee owners in the general index. (Amended by Stats. 1984, Ch. 864, Sec. 2.) Existing Building Setbacks found in the Immediate Surrounding Neighborhood - from County Planning Department Site Plans Address Side Yard — Right Side Side Yard — Left Side (looking from street) (looking from street) 10691 Mora Drive — Residence with attached garage 30 feet 46 feet 10730 Mora Drive — Residence and detached garage 2 feet— Detached garage 20 feet 10810 Mora Drive — Residence with attached garage 10 feet 20 feet 10831 Mora Drive — Detached garage on corner lot 10 feet from Sunhills Drive N/A 10868 Mora Drive — Residence with attached garage 11 feet 5 feet 10898 Mora Drive — Residence with attached garage 20 feet 20 feet 11030 Mora Drive — Residence with attached garage 10 feet 5 feet , ti 1 ' ' `,..f,. ,!y Tly, kt ••s= . i' •8',Side Setb: r ti � fr• , ,, 0Pi' " . saw' Sbe •;i 'M:'' H . �' : oar \ :ct°VA* ;e•„ 44 • e roue . 9.. t- r L,1._. i ,_ ,r of . 2 Y V •. ` 2 • I 'L4� '-+ • 0.00 P'C' , .RL - '' re" �. 'I - - /.. .. , 4 7,v_ .,•c{ta w - ,a 4 10490 ° ' 10320 x 8 , w '�..,, 1 :.c t' 4 / x ` as''9�/'' • ,__„ ;. 85J� 1i "g ^4 • :�.�,n .9'± Side Setback',. p.Ylit, •• IM1. G p 1.4-. "'s,' 28 27 5 4 • 44 41 . ,•`` -..- NBAR • •• •,::ee e / • I ro , ' "� •5'± Side Setback 3 °� ems* :136Ac6Y .- 5 / 6 it • 411 14. < any • .� 61 a ,., - .... _� '' = 3\ q St 8+ RI YIY••w., "i I Li • f • w �� L {t� off, a` ,. .0. r �_ F v l�• l• to pj -� ? 32v,Y\ .VS ^I , 1 ' ' Y_" 7 \ � ~i, - -�!" ' 1, I `-- - ,B L ....> ..fie` ' ~ •.c 'm eam R.06S" 4 t lIII�I1�I1111111111111111111Hill11I1( 10831 _, a ° ' 10691 "` s.� ".,,, ' ios98 z5 24 setback t:. OS 5 457 r P 10810 q v�4 �0 6 .4 y, •0'±Side Q' '`r >� ` ` -' ,be u 10868 got i .,.., ;>.,; �• '; 8` �`�. „ 0.79 AC. ' .� 11000 '' rr.. ',Setback ,e r,• z,7 ,'�lit 'y', �:�".. `25 r ,� aoT '°it e,,""'.. ':.°: ,:: de•,. •` ',� b s�.w,.I�.,� 411/. R.0yY," J3•/ ,, 11030 e .5 • v : i 1 • �'� 1073 '' •'o J 12 .r r} !(`'Y' „ o - SUBJECT ,.m �e t Taj ,c . • y•T� r 'T,-rit 'J O J fir. t PROPERTY TRA•T NO. 10 Me,, 3 +.� . / .i.-:. P. \� �'' C.C- 19090• 8't Si dee Setb c y 7::, '''r• r" , Y r i r_ s f • 411 . ,.1.,--1,'4: NON BUILDABLE , 1 ,; , •4 I nnnu°ers:__t- r I•S+; •12'±Side Setback ACCESS ROAD LOT s ; .,z ,•, ,,,,s 1 AI , it I; 4 k. Y ' .,' • 5'± Side Setback v BUILDING SETBACK w ,N 4 ANALYSIS s "- c •5 ± i.e e sac •''''',,,'.---,,ki-',.. . !"-' °::,,,„*.7.1c.:+, -.....' ,,..V 4-w r .' . .- ••_;,.T.-,-• c La .7„.,. -.7.--. ",„ ‘.41OC.7.1.. •- ti._ . .,*,. 5:5- y oci.„i, •., . le* .2 ,..-Z 1, ... ;,,, ..••.. s ,„I,:•, '.'..1..'-' .i,. •.r. ' , 4,i.. .- ,..,W. ' .*5 .'•:14‘..,--,;:r-rz rArg.:,...-.3, ., ..„ .. • Ail oco -.- , .,.-„-i... '..:... .-, . '4 Ogit;'''.''' A.,,,,,,,,,ii •,,,,, ...,,, , . yi). z..,. i yl.i!..••,..-:: triv. ....0,.. f.,.....Li 4-'',, '' '''.' //// li- -.1:-• 00 ,:,, ._ . ,...•••,. -,',.1• • 4.,Iii;':7*.cA'.-1'" ,.....,.' '''-flj':Itmiia.. - 'r.;'--" ,.CIL Y9 ei , • -, , , ,01,%. ' -- 36 wi•• •- ..e, , ,•4,* r ... C,,,:l..,... 1,C••: ' .0' ".'. • CON, , 0 31 •,,, **•11'''!,:-.'...'...::i.. ' ' ' ,.ill, . .:-,,..';---•i •,,,,,„.-... 4 op ..... 2 n n :Ot A ;. , • . ...i...,..,J • - ,*107+1 - : i- .,-*•17..Es- '-''.'" _,•.:'•:.'•'`.;',.:, lalt' .-.;r,.•."4,*;;";11122 5 '.1..) 44:, • •J1•• • .0'Front Setback for 1 " '•-z•• a el° Alas 511.416 '' ...-....1. 0 Front Secoack i:.:N' .7.2.4. :. % . , Uncovered Parking ' --- -'--tsre. - /5 .b Pr•-: 0. .!.- • ,..0 ...I" t ' .:,.VVe d Parking ..- .......,„ . .• . .,,,; ipi --- , 01 , .0.,1 ,, ,•. 13,.\ , .. :„• e ., 47. : r i '• 7„.1. Rft .t r.,. '.• i.)... ,.••”" . .. Allibruk.5'Front Setback for 'fai°,5(:\ V,,,- ' iii''' •,:.: 0 2 • 10320 -, . ,„;.• ,r4 , 1 :. :f 4.. ..f;" .341490 pz Uncovered Parking ••• froie . * 1 t-, • 4 1 '- ..,,,, \I ,1}1 , .,, . 0 1, xi/ , ' •ts 'A v, , , oo 4' • l'' lot . .: • g .'. ,:' • - ' 1' ‘. Gs.,,,„.• + '4,.., • ...A• '4. - ''T' ''- - .- , • - :• $\ ., 10451 t -'4,,,' ...;:•• .„, .7.4, . e '4t--0 00 . . b. • • • ... • 1 1... 10290 • ,'" .0 Pg' •‘,65 :‘ ' P :-.=....,./7— •-••.-.F.,— :.2, 4'. '•°‘''' 1'k e 10315 -•., At", ' ' °' 04' ',..,4" •• 27 , 0 1 ' \ ‘10(.14' NUR • RO'.1'''''..' ' * ...;1/"...34 ,,,r- ,.. „J.",192 1 ' 10931 6 . ;1... 10977 . z 209 f-') sor,.. c #4 . • a . 10..,..,00 • -0.° ' 5 Z 1 1.1 i- •'...t• it. 12 • ...• '4,1'''' ,011/4 N• _L % , d'- . 1.007AC. ...' ?.. 43 i.. ."'....' •:' '''' ,.., ti ' 1 ••••'' , , --. .•.00 10910 i, e 1'k p.•- 7' ,.-, ..- • „,,,, GC,,A,t Ce,,, ,'1.-..„ 's'o'.0.9 %.,•: .`..,1"....t.t:. ,. ...t. _c.4, R.0•••• .'.-0,,.., -,•s- 5 7 15Side Setback for , r 10831 Covered ParkingA . , .i '-•-•-'-'24,—, . •4.- \..- 25 24 ' ''.. 10691 s , L.,.0.2..AC. ..... ,,1.0,0,, .... _ ,,,,t, 12 0 , - •cci,., c). 3'N -5- -f;i: - .---_,, N'3 •••*- -' s i I £. '-' - . . '-.'- , ''••• . lit v„L•s 1° .'"/ '' • 10868 ,,,, -----,...- _ • i a .r , • .,-.:!,_•. de-,il -4, if. 1.4.\\ . A 9 '. -- ,,,,' .'• 10810 ' s _...• Trs,. :4 `r,'' Valillilli iilii:' 1 1;1 •,.0.1,..„.0,,,...0,,...4 ',,%t-,,,,,,,s.„, . .v- , . 4: .... 4.0,-, . ..-, Ai . • ,.. 0,..i.,. Rle ' • . 4§;\ I.s.>°k't‘ -, ,.., •'P 53.49 7.f c.... '''• -...e' o'• /36/25 ...,.. ..'0- 10776 '• " '' ''' IN° -7 •••• - ----.?„L„...,..„. • r.1 ., ... 11030 i ..* *".. : '''4C'IP • ' Ilk".."st %.:-.A.7.2''''''..)7,'• :4. •.1.... .....;.,?••;,,..... 12 '& .. 2.0 ... .4"».•it.•ii. •.•,'.. SUBJECT •, 0-1 , X ,.'',.74'liti;- , ' '41'.--2. 4.,-•.:-.: • ..? TRACT NO. 10 .• 13 ;•,, Side Setback for *5 ,.., ..... .-• ••••• ,, PROP..ERTY . ii• qc ';.-• ' JO MORA RANCH Y - 14 - 53 4:0 e-0...„2........,„ , Uncovered Parking .,.,_.N....,..- _. . PARKING SETBACK itj _N , . 1••••A... • tiSIL • . - St IV 4'''A ..•7 ' •,... . --.. !.§triiit,„. ' , ' '.-...i--; •1/4 't-7''.• - ' • •-':.•: -.-i, ' .;;;'„e-:-c•Ac:: ANALYSIS s'' E !, . -k..,,,•;,..,. , .• , ii,. -;,- kor-1-1,1 ' . • -,, 1 •• tf •• .. _ i''""*"%.• , , f .., . , , .,. .., O'-5' S ET BAC K . • - ... : .• .., rio ' 1 ' .—--. .,. :. • ‘,.•:.-- :;:".e..,:. ••:I, - 4. . - ii• ' .f.- . ./. 1' - 6'-10' SETBACK WW1 ki t , _ ----'-‘,•• ,•-. --'• - r"-...N.-4,... -,-*,.• • ...de1/4...„,,,,----• •r 1 o Space for ,: 11'-20' SETBACK 4.,. .41i; • -- -., -, •','Side Setback for No Space for Uncovered Parking i Uncovered Parking .-.,7 !& .„1.., /- -'1PL' cnvered Parking • f►tq � � ' * 4-4'.. ♦ may.-. •' Er,•ti t t 1 . _ 3 +•, 1, •. •.. ' F �•, • ..AH» .`' :"i'+.1[ k�'1 L v 'Zt>•' .r. ' .. Iii, ... `ate .} .L3.. f'v = Y ¢ 1''� . `� r. .. xf, t� WEST FRONT NEIGHBOR D NORTHWEST FRONT NEIGHBOR 1 SOUTH WEST FRONT NEIGHBOR 1 �;# y• ;- r� 36 T i.00Ac cae. ?. ., ,,- r c • i vik4 �,•4 J w , Al i t,'Sy •off `-k-4:'‘ t.'1 p { 4•r Q�•. l 'h 4. ;- 1 �.. 10755 l '� :. t.pr'. S �+s e► 'i - - F I � `r�. o^�P yr.t �+ th ---3,- 1,,# .r- —r } - `APs f y� � P'• 'e' s,1 •:`.i: ` ' . �• 4 :„ Y F'v'(y 10776 , ;� �(f::D ,. Q 5‘) ,Q10701r. �ti =y ;Y� � '• b.- a,:111114bRTHSIDE NEIGHBOR -..41'4' rr \ • ;; G •SUBJECT ~� .ji•st, , �x t .< v�,r �G I�,4 ,.. .•r' PROPERTY77, 4 :s` fir. ` , SOUTH ACCESS ROAD B = >,„.„ 61 •=``; -, ..1.,,,,,,,,.„0,... ' �'' Vic t ! i . ..'. SOUTH EAST NEIGHBOR A A .n _ . �. •N7 _-`! '�: w ,, 4 t% lam}:. ' (� ;.•t•!• f, I rT,.'f j� =11°- . ` • • 't, } llk Y} "r' ;• EAST REAR NEIGHBOR `- NORTH EAST RE• ' G"NBOR t:.r 4', ::J. i ,� EAST REAR NEIGHBOR THIRD STORY VISIBILITY • • >,. i ` 1,40 �?.•,4{r ,i' :*7.`;'...,i,1 , •y , � ��; a : '` "* �•,`.• EAST REAR NEIGHBOR '` i ,, ..P ;'.:44' ' f''''-1'l' i''le. AL �` ' art �I , 71. ' 111 frqt .r 4 1 '. .•i''f 4 t - ; �,►� ''i • .vii•-.$ {E . a i is J • ; r. ♦G, rr ^--: A t ,SITE VISIBILITY ANALYSIS :..y , ` � T�\.f •-•:....0 i,-.--,:'.„ ' _ .' ti, `1 ,,.R; �. ` � N-� ..