Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3.13.1 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS February 21, 2008 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TENTATIVE MAP FOR A THREE -LOT SUBDIVISION: LANDS OF ISAAC AGAM ET AL, 25706 ELENA ROAD. FILE #148 -07 -TM -IS -ND. FROM: Brian Froelich, AICP, Associate Planner_'M� APPROVED BY: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director" RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: 1. Review, make comments, and forward a recommendation that, based on the Initial Study, the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program in Attachment #3; and 2. Forward a recommendation that the City Council approve the requested Tentative Map, based on the findings in Attachment #2 and subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment #1. DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS The following discretionary actions by the City Council are required for approval of the subdivision: 1. Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program 2. Approval of the Tentative Map The Planning Commission's actions are recommendations to the City Council. TENTATIVE MAP REVIEW In order to approve a subdivision, the Planning Commission must determine that the project is consistent with the General Plan, Subdivision and Zoning Regulations, and that none of the findings for denial can be made, as specified in Section 66474 of the State Subdivision Map Act. Staff has prepared findings for approval of the project (Attachment #2). Comments on the Tentative Map have been received from the Town Geotechnical Consultant, the Town Engineer, Santa Clara County Fire Department, the Environmental Design Committee, and the Pathways Committee; and are attached for the Planning Commission's review. Neighboring property owners within 500 feet of the site have been notified of the public hearing. Planning Commission Vinedo Estates 3-1ot Subdivision February 21, 2008 Page 2 of 10 i:�uyrz•�u�i�e�r•�s:?t���v In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program have been prepared for the project. A Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was published in the Town Crier on February 13, 2008. The notice was also submitted to the Santa Clara County Clerks Office for a 20 day public review period which began on February 13, 2008 and will ended on March 5, 2008. The Planning Commission may make comments on both the Environmental Documents and the Tentative Map. The Mitigated Negative Declaration must be adopted by the City Council before approving the Tentative Map. In order to recommend adoption, the Commission must find that all potentially significant environmental effects are addressed through the proposed mitigation measures. Recommended mitigation measures include geotechnical review of site development plans, site-specific drainage improvements, adherence to the project arborist's recommendations and tree protection during construction, tree mitigation plantings, and observation of State and County requirements for handling archaeological remains and artifacts if found. 7Zi�iTii7I.Y '7N._�illC•L`I The applicant is requesting approval of a three -lot subdivision on a 3.38 gross acres parcel located at the northwest comer of Elena Road and Vinedo Lane. The existing parcel is not currently developed because the primary residence and accessory structures were demolished in 1998. At that time, a new residence was proposed but the application expired prior to approval. The site contains over 100 trees and has an average slope of 12.7%. Surrounding land uses include one and two story single family residences on 1+ acre parcels. The site is located at approximately 400 to 460 feet above sea level and is approximately one half mile from Interstate 280. Existing Development Table Planning Commission Vinedo Estates 3 -lot Subdivision February 21, 2008 Page 3 of 10 Proposed Development Table —%77s P j "r},�. - ar.. i?iz'' { 7 lJ A 1 1, ®®®® of ®® ©®®® of ®® Lot Desien and Building Sites Parcel 1 is 1.11 net acres with a slope of 13.5% and has site frontage on both Elena Road and Vinedo Lane. This is the largest lot but it will grant access to Parcels 2 and 3 via an ingress/egress easement and will grant a utility easement for sewer connections to Parcels 2 and 3. Parcel 1 has a separate driveway. The driveway location is proposed approximately 320 feet west of Elena Road accessing Vinedo Lane at a right angle. Parcel 2 is 1.04 net acres with a slope of 11.8%. The lot does not have frontage on any public or private road but will gain access to Vinedo Lane via the proposed ingress/egress easement over Parcel 1. The ingress/egress easement access point is approximately 160 feet west of Elena Road. Parcel 3 is 1.07 net acres with a slope of 12.9%. The lot does not have frontage on any public or private road but will gain access to Vinedo Lane via the proposed ingress/egress easement over Parcel 1. A total of six (6) trees are proposed for removal within Parcel 3. The tentative map shows a 160 -foot diameter building circle on each lot, showing that each contains a viable building site. All parcels are moderately sloped with a down sloping trend from northwest to southeast. Plan sheet 2 shows conceptual building sites and location for a possible storm drain detention systems on each lot. All parcels will be subject to the Site Development Review process when new residences are proposed. Property History County records indicate that the previously existing dwelling was built in 1937. The Town's records indicate that from 1970-1987, several maintenance and minor development projects received permit approval including: swimming pool, deck, several re -roofs, and a shed. Other permit history of the property shows a two -lot Tentative Map that was approved by the City Council December 16, 1992 but the Final Map was never recorded and the approval expired. An application also exists for a new residence in 1998 that stalled in the process and expired in 2000. Planning Commission Vinedo Estates 3 -lot Subdivision February 21, 2008 Page 4 of 10 A Deed of Easement and Road Maintenance Agreement established Vinedo Lane, a private road, in 1953. Originally, five (5) property owners filed this agreement. The subject lot is a subdivided piece of one of those original five (5) lots and is a successor lot to the original Road Maintenance Agreement. (Attachment #16) Access and Traffic Circulation Vinedo Lane is a private road that serves approximately 20 residences. The existing pavement adjacent to the subject property is substandard (approximately 14 feet wide) and should be widened to 20 feet to meet Town and Fire Department standards. Only that portion of Vinedo Lane adjacent to the subject property will be required to be widened pursuant to the subdivision application. Access to the project site currently is provided via a driveway entrance off of Elena Road. The existing driveway to Elena Road will be abandoned and two new driveways will be extended from Vinedo Lane to the new residences. Parcel 41 contains an ingress/egress easement for the benefit of Parcels #2 and #3. The Santa Clara County Fire Department requires a minimum 20 -foot -wide paved roadway from Elena Road along the Vinedo Lane frontage and within the proposed ingress/egress easement inside the subdivision. Additional study of the proposed driveways will be undertaken at the time of site development plan review when design specific requirements will be determined. The Town commissioned a Traffic Study for the proposal prepared by Fehr and Peers, Transportation Consultants (Attachment #10). The report concludes that the additional traffic created by a net increase in two residential properties will not have an impact on traffic operation of Vinedo Lane, considering the requirement for widening. Also, the removal of the Elena Road driveway will improve the operation of the Vinedo Lane and Elena Road intersection. Sanitary Sewer The proposed method of sewer service is to construct private gravity lines, within utility easements on Parcel 1, from each of the three parcels to individual sewer pumps located near the old driveway entrance off of Elena Road. The pumps would discharge the sewage into three separate pressure lines routed along Elena Road, entering the Town's sewer system at an existing manhole approximately 300 feet southeast of the subject property. To minimize future impacts to the roadway, pressure lines along Elena Road will be installed inside a sleeve of sufficient size to accommodate the addition of future pressure lines. As a result, town staff has required the developer to increase the size of the proposed sleeve from 6" to approximately 15" diameter. The developer has the option to execute a reimbursement agreement with the Town for the construction of the sleeve. Upon completion and approval of the sewer improvements, the sleeve will be accepted by the Town and the pressure lines inside the sleeve will remain private. Planning Commission Vinedo Estates 3 -lot Subdivision February 21, 2008 Page 5 of 10 Other Utilities Water supply will be provided by Purissima Hills Water District. PG&E will provide gas and electric services underground. Geotechnical Review The Town's Geotechnical Consultant, Cotton, Shires and Associates have reviewed the proposed Tentative Map and Geotechnical Investigation provided by the applicant and prepared by IF Consulting, Inc. dated July 11, 2007. Cotton, Shires and Associates concurred with the project geotechnical consultant that adequate site investigation has been completed to support the geotechnical feasibility of the proposed subdivision. Site constraints exist such as potential for strong seismic ground shaking and existing undocumented fills. The existing constraints will be explored further and mitigated in conjunction with site specific designs. Cotton, Shires and Associates recommend approval of the Tentative Map with requirements for additional investigation related to future residential development of all Parcels. (Conditions #1, 2, 3) Drainage The property is currently vacant. All proposed parcels naturally drain southeasterly over the site and will be required to maintain the existing flow patterns, using surface flow designs whenever possible. No construction is proposed at this time, other than utility improvements, installation of the pathway and widening of the roadway along the property frontage. The applicant has provided a conceptual development plan showing the tentative location of new residences and areas reserved for storm drain retention systems to capture water runoff from future development on each parcel. The detention systems will be required not to increase peak predevelopment runoff. The Town Engineer will require a drainage improvement plan to be submitted prior to construction of any future site development. Drainage improvements must be designed to mitigate drainage impacts based on 10 -year storm flow calculations. (Condition #7) Tree Removal The Town's Subdivision Code section 9-1.607 stipulates that trees greater than 20" in circumference should not be removed unless they are diseased, dead, or the removal is to facilitate the locating of public and/or private roadways, the placement of structures within the proposed rights-of-way, or for the rough grading of driveways and/or parking areas. The applicant proposes to remove 24 trees in total including Planning Commission Vinedo Estates 3 -lot Subdivision February 21, 2008 Page 6 of 10 • Two (2) heritage oak trees with diameters of 14" and 18". The trees are noted as #54 and 57 in the arborist's report. Tree # 54 is located on Parcel 1 and is located near the proposed driveway location. Tree #57 would be removed for the proposed access roadway within the ingress/egress easement over Parcel 1. Recommended conditions require that the oak trees be replaced at a 2:1 ratio with 36" box oak trees prior to recordation of the Final Map. (Condition 925) • Twenty-two (22) other trees larger than 20" circumference are proposed for removal. These trees are in proximity to the proposed ingress/egress easement, proposed private driveways, surface parking, or garage parking areas of the proposed lots and trees #85, 88, and 89 are in an area of undocumented fill that will likely be removed per the Geotechnical consultant's recommendations. Per the above noted code section, replacement is required at a 2:1 ratio with specimens not smaller than 5 gallon. (Condition #25) COMMITTEE REVIEW Subdivision Committee The Subdivision Committee comprised of Commissioner Collins, the Planning Director, the Town Engineer, and Planning and Engineering staff convened on January 4, 2008 to review and discuss the subdivision proposal. Pursuant to Section 9-1.509 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code, property owners within 500 feet of the site were notified of the hearing. A summary of the discussion at the Subdivision Committee meeting is provided on the fact sheet and hearing report (Attachments #6 and 7). Twelve neighbors were present at the Committee Meeting and raised the issues noted below. Town staff and the City Attorney have researched the issues. Please find the responses in italics below. 1. The Road Maintenance Agreement Members believe that they have the authority to approve or deny new members, vehicular access points, and road widening along Vinedo Lane, not the Town or Fire Department. The current width of the Vinedo Lane roadway is approximately 14 feet. The Town's Engineering Department and the Fire Department have both required that the portion of Vinedo Lane along the subject property's frontage be widened to a minimum width of 20 feet consistent with State law (Streets & Highways Code Section 1805). Road widening is a general requirement for any major project including subdivisions, new residences, and major additions. Pursuant to Sections 9-1.102(g) and 6) of the Municipal Cade, the Subdivision Law of the Town of Los Altos Hills is enacted for the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, convenience and general welfare in the Town and is adopted to regulate the subdivision of land to require the provision of certain prescribed improvements which Planning Commission Vinedo Estates 3-lot Subdivision February 21, 2008 Page 7 of 10 are needed in consequence of the subdivision of land in order to achieve the following purposes: ­(g) To facilitate law enforcement and fire protection through orderly design and development and the provision of adequate facilities and improvements; c) To provide for streets of adequate capacity, with appropriate improvements to provide access to abutting property, to carry the anticipated traffic, and to insure that streets are designed to minimize potential safety hazards to vehicles and their occupants, pedestrians, and equestrians; " In addition, the California Streets and Highways Code 1805 requires that 'the width of all private highways and by-roads, except bridges, shall be at least 20 feet. " The recommendation that the eastern-most portion of the road be widened to the standard 20 foot minimum is also consistent with current and past practice on private roads. Town records show a New Residence and Swimming Pool permit granted in 1995 for 25901 Vinedo Lane where road widening was a condition ofproject approval. (Lands of Bilger, February 22, 1995) Review of the meeting minutes do not indicate that the Road Maintenance Agreement was ever discussed or road widening was an issue at that time. In addition, the City Attorney has addressed this issue in two letters. (Attachment #14) The City Attorney believes that the Town has the authority to require road widening as a condition of this Tentative Map approval. Further, the Town does not regulate or enforce private contracts. The applicant has the sole responsibility to meet the requirements of the Deed of Easement and Road Maintenance Agreement dated 1953, to gain approvals or permissions from any private party that may have rights to the road, maintenance, or authority over construction. 2. Association Members brought forward new Road Maintenance Agreement amendments dating 1955, 1956, and 1970. The City Attorney has reviewed the amendments and determined that the amendments added new lots to the agreement that were not part (or portion) of the original five (5) lots that created the Road Maintenance Agreement. Further, the original five (5) lots have been subdivided and are now (14) fourteen lots. None of the Road Maintenance Agreement amendments indicate that the Members have formally accepted or rejected any of the subdivided parcels of the original five (5) lots. These subdivided parcels are "successors" to the original Road Maintenance Agreement and are therefore automatically members of the Road Maintenance Association. The applicant has provided an exhibit showing the original lots and subsequent lots added to the agreement per the amendments. (Attachment #15) Planning Commission Vinedo Estates 3 -lot Subdivision February 21, 2008 Page 8 of 10 3. Neighbors request immediate tree removal mitigation. Landscape plan for subdivision. This issue has been included in the recommended conditions of approval (Condition #25). The applicant is required to install 5 -gallon specimens for trees to be removed with a 20" circumference and 36" box specimens for oak tree removal at a 2:1 ratio. Planting shall be completed prior to recordation of a Final Map for the Subdivision. 4. Some neighbors want all lots to access Elena and have the Town allow an exception to the LUF minimum to allow three lots. The applicant has proposed to access all three lots from Vinedo Lane. If the proposed access easement for Lots 2 and 3 were to extend to Elena Road, the net area of Lot I would be reduced and result in a LUF of less than I.O. Creating new lots with LUF less than 1.0 is not consistent with the General Plan and does not meet the minimum slope density standards in Section 9-1.604 of the Subdivision Code. 5. Neighbors do not want construction vehicles to block Vinedo Lane. They want the Town to enforce penalties if the Lane is blocked with this or future proposals. The applicant has offered to use the Elena Road entrance for all construction activity and deliveries. Condition # 12 formalizes a requirement that Vinedo Lane shall not be used for any construction related trips for the subdivision. Neighbor Concerns On February 14, 2008, the Town received a letter from attorney Dan Siegel (Attachment #13) detailing concerns around two issues about the subdivision proposal listed below: 1. No right to unilaterally expand the road Town staff and the City Attorney have researched this issue and believe that the Town has the right to require, as a condition of subdivision approval, widening of the portion of the road that fronts the subject property. The project applicant has the responsibility to provide compliant access to the proposed new lots, just as they have the responsibility to provide water, sewer, and utility service. The property is subject to the 1953 Road Maintenance Agreement. The Agreement does not require the Association's approval for widening of the road, unless such widening exceeds the sixty foot easement. As the required 6 -foot widening (to a total width of 20 feet) will be constructed entirely within the existing easement, and entirely on the Applicants' property, approval from the Association is not required. Further, pursuant to the Road Maintenance Agreement, property owners of the subdivided parcels will be proportionally responsible for maintenance costs of the private road. To the extent there is disagreement about the approvals required from Planning Commission Vinedo Estates Mot Subdivision February 21, 2008 Page 9 of 10 the Road Maintenance Association, the dispute is a private matter that should be addressed by the Applicants and the Association. 2. Proposed Conditions (differ from 1992 Two -Lot Subdivision Approval) The 1992 Subdivision staff report and conditions are attached to this report. (Attachment # 17) A. Sanitary Sewer -The Town has recommended Condition #10, which addresses this issue. B. Off site culvert -The Town's current drainage requirements are more restrictive and require that there be no increase in peak runoff with proposed development projects. Runoff is generally stored onsite in underground detention basis large enough to accommodate the proposed development. The culvert requirement was likely included as a condition of the previous subdivision because there were no onsite detention requirements. (See Condition #7) C. Drainage system requirements for proposed development -This condition has been included. (See Condition #7) D. Repair failed pavement -Town staff performed an inspection of Vinedo Lane roadway adjacent to the subject property on February Il, 2008 and has determined that there is no failed pavement at this time. The Town's current Site Development Permit procedure requires developers to photograph existing damage in roadways, prior to start of work. The photographs and roadway are inspected and required to be repaired, if damaged, prior to final inspection. E. Construction access and parking -The applicant has agreed to take all construction and delivery access from Elena Road for all subdivision improvements and future construction of new residences. (See Condition#12) Environmental Design Committee No comments. Pathway Committee The Pathway Committee recommends dedication of a 10 foot Pathway Easement and construction of a Type II -B path along Vinedo Lane. The path should be separated from the road by a minimum of five feet and meander around the existing Italian Cypress trees. (Condition #5) Planning Commission Vinedo Estates 3 -lot Subdivision February 21, 2008 Page 10 of 10 CONCLUSIONS Based on the Initial Study, staff has concluded that the proposed project, as mitigated, will not have a significant effect on the environment. The Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies specific mitigation measures and establishes a Mitigation Monitoring Program to ensure that any potential significant environmental impacts identified in the Initial Study are mitigated. Staff has also concluded that, as documented in the recommended findings of approval, the proposed subdivision is in compliance with the General Plan and Subdivision Ordinance, and would allow development to occur that meets the provisions of the Zoning and Site Development Ordinances. The proposed Tentative Map complies with all Town Codes and Policies. ATTACHMENTS 1. Recommended Conditions of Approval 2. Recommended Findings for Subdivision Approval 3. Initial Study, Negative Declaration & Mitigation Monitoring Program 4. Cotton, Shires and Associates report, July 30, 2007 5. Santa Clara County Fire Department comments, January 4, 2008 6. Subdivision Committee hearing fact sheet, January 4, 2008 7. Subdivision Committee hearing report, January 4, 2008 8. Environmental Design Committee comments, July 23, 2008 9. Pathways Committee recommendation, December 18, 2007 10. Traffic Study prepared by Fehr and Peers, December 5, 2007 11. Arborist report prepared by Joe Bathurst, August 19, 2007 12. Letters from Desmond Tuck, applicant's attorney, October 23, 2207 and January 25, 2008 13. Letter from Dan Siegel, neighbors' attorney, February 14, 2008 14. City Attorney letters, November 9, 2007 and January 30, 2008 15. Map of Road Association Amendments prepared by Guiliani and Kull dated January 30,2008 16. Deed of Easement and Road Maintenance Agreement dated May 15, 1953 and Amendments dated 1955, 1956, and 1970 17. Staff reports and conditions for the Tentative Map approval, December 16, 1992 18. Tentative Map plan set (Commission only) cc: Isaac Agam and Eran Cohen 789 Sutter Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ATTACHMENT RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR THE TENTATIVE MAP -THREE LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 3.38 -ACRE PARCEL LANDS OF ISAAC AGAM ET AL, 25706 ELENA ROAD FILE #148 -07 -IS -ND -TM 1. Lot Specific Geotechnical Evaluations - The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall evaluate lot -specific development plans, update and supplement geotechnical recommendations for proposed improvements (as needed) and consider additional subsurface investigation, if warranted to address specific development plans. The consultant shall prepare geotechnical design criteria specific to the proposed construction of improvements on individual lots. The results of these investigations shall be presented in a report and submitted to the Town for technical review prior to acceptance of documents for building permit plan -check. 2. Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the geotechnical plan review shall be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer along with documents for building permit plan -check. 3. Geotechnical Field Inspection - The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to final (granting of occupancy) project approval. Recommended Conditions of Approval February 21, 2008 Page 2 of 6 LAND AND EASEMENT DEDICATION 4. The applicant shall relocate or abandon existing public utility easements and grant new public utility easements where needed to all utility companies for utility construction and maintenance, including but not limited to: SBC Telephone Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Comcast Cable Television, and Purissima Hills Water District. The dedications shall all be completed in conjunction with Final Map approval, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 5. The applicant shall dedicate a 10' wide pathway easement adjacent to Vinedo Lane to the Town of Los Altos Hills in conjunction with the Final Map approval, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer 6. A grading plan which includes an erosion control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer as part of the subdivision improvement plans. This plan shall conform to all standards adopted by the Town of Los Altos Hills and shall comply with all appropriate requirements of the Town's NPDES Permit relative to grading and sediment erosion control including but not limited to: a) restricting grading during the moratorium from October 15 to April 15 except with prior written approval from the Town Engineer; b) protecting all finished .graded slopes from erosion using such techniques as hillside benching, erosion control matting and/or hydroseeding; c) protecting downstream storm drainage inlets from sedimentation; d) appropriate use of sediment rolls to retain sediment on the project site; e) any other suitable measures outlined in the ABAG Manual of Standards. 7. At such time as development on the new parcels is proposed, the applicant shall submit a detailed drainage improvement plan for review and approval by the Engineering Department. The drainage improvements must be designed to mitigate drainage impacts based on 10 -year storm flow calculations. Peak discharge shall not exceed the existing pre -development peak discharge value of the property. Detention storage must be incorporated into the project to reduce the predicted peak discharge to the pre -development value. The applicant's engineer shall provide data and peak discharge hydrologic model(s) utilized, as well as, the calculations of the peak discharge value prior and post development. 8. All lots within the subdivision shall be connected to the public water system to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Purissima Hills Water District. Services shall be installed to the property lines or be bonded for prior to Recommended Conditions of Approval February 21, 2008 Page 3 of 6 recordation of the Final Map. An encroachment permit shall be required to be issued by the Public Works Department for all work proposed within the public right of way. Any necessary fees shall be paid prior to the recordation of the Final Map. 9. All existing and proposed utilities located within the subdivision that serve the subdivision shall be placed underground, in accordance with Subdivision Ordinance, Sec. 9-1.1105. Cable television, gas, electric, and telephone services, to the property lines are included in this requirement. Plans for the location of all such utilities are to be included in the improvement plans for the subdivision. Improvements shall be installed or bonded for prior to recordation of the Final Map. 10. All lots within the subdivision shall be connected to the public sanitary sewer system. An encroachment permit must be obtained from the Public Works Department for all work proposed within the public right of way. Services shall be installed to the property lines or bonded for prior to the recordation of the Final Map. A sleeve of sufficient size to accommodate pressure lines from the subdivision and future lines from other feasible lots shall be installed in Elena Road. The size of the sleeve will be determined by the City Engineer as part of the subdivision improvement plan review and approval. The subdivider has the option of entering into a reimbursement agreement with the Town for the construction of the sleeve. 11. A Type IID pathway shall be constructed along Vinedo Lane. The path shall meander around trees and power pole as necessary. Driveway shall be roughened or treated with a non -slip surface where they cross the path and no irrigation may be placed closer then five feet to the path. Improvements shall be bonded for or constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to recordation of the Final Map. 12. All construction related traffic and trips for the Subdivision improvements and anticipated construction of new residences shall not use Vinedo Lane. Access shall be solely taken from the existing driveway to Elena Road. A grading and construction operation plan shall be submitted by the subdivider for review and approval by the City Engineer and Planning Director prior to issuance of any permits for subdivision improvements. The grading/construction operation plan shall address truck traffic issues regarding dust, noise, and vehicular and pedestrian safety on Elena Road and shall not use Vinedo Lane; storage of construction materials; placement of sanitary facilities; parking for construction vehicles; and parking for construction personnel. A debris box (trash dumpster) shall be placed on site for collection of construction debris. Arrangements must be made with the Los Altos Garbage Company for the debris box, since they have a franchise with the Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town limits. Recommended Conditions of Approval February 21, 2008 Page 4 or6 13. Improvement plans for the subdivision shall be submitted for review and approval by the Town Engineer prior to commencement of improvement work. These plans shall conform to all standards adopted by the Town of Los Altos Hills. 14. Vinedo Lane shall be widened to 20 feet on the north side along the length of the subject site's Vinedo Lane frontage. The improvements shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer or bonded for prior to recordation of the Final Map. 15. All subdivision conditions of approval and subdivision improvements shall be constructed and approved by the Town Engineer prior to issuance of any site development or building permits. 16. Any, and all, wells on the property shall be shown on the Improvement Plans shall be properly registered with Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCV WD) or shall be abandoned, capped in accordance with the SCV WD standards. PLANNING AND ZONING 17. Payment of park and recreation dedication fees and all other applicable fees shall be required prior to recordation of the Final Map. The park and recreation dedication fees shall be provided in accordance with sections 9.1.1403 and 9.1.1404 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. 18. The applicant shall inform the Town of any damage and shall repair any damage caused by construction of the subdivision improvements to pathways, private driveways and public and private roadways prior to final acceptance of the subdivision by the Town. The applicant shall provide the Town with photographs of the existing conditions of the roadways and pathways prior to recordation of the Final Map. 19. Prior to beginning any grading or construction operations, all heritage trees and trees deemed significant by the Site Development Authority shall be fenced at the dripline; and shall be of material and structure to clearly delineate that dripline. Town staff must inspect the fencing and trees to be fenced prior to starting grading or construction. The fence must remain in place throughout the course of construction. No storage of equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the driplines. All large and heritage trees shall be retained to the greatest extent feasible. Any proposed removal of heritage trees is subject to public hearing. 20. Upon discovering or unearthing any possible burial site as evidenced by human skeletal remains or artifacts, the person making such discovery shall Recommended Conditions of Approval Febmary21, 2008 Page 5 of 6 immediately notify the County of Santa Clara Coroner and no further disturbance of the site may be made except as authorized by the County Coordinator of Indian Affairs. This shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the County Coroner's Office and the Planning Director, as may be necessary during the construction of the subdivision improvements or individual lot development. 21. The addresses for the two additional parcels shall be assigned and approved by the Town as required by the Santa Clara County Fire Department and in accordance with Town policies. 22. The new residences on Parcels 1, 2, & 3 shown on the Tentative Map Conceptual Development Plan are conceptual only, and no approval of any residence is indicated by approval of the Tentative Map. Site development applications for the new residences shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. 23. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Town of Los Altos Hills and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the Town of Los Altos Hills or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul an approval of the project to the extent such actions are brought within the time period required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable law; provided, however, that the Applicant's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold harmless shall be subject to the Town's promptly notifying the Applicant of any said claim, action, or proceeding and the Town's full cooperation in the defense of such actions or proceedings. 24. The applicant shall implement tree protection measures including tree protection fencing and mulching as recommended by arborist Joseph Bathurst in his report dated August 19, 2007. 25. The applicant shall install four (4) 36" box oak trees and forty-four (44) 5 gallon trees to replace the twenty-four trees to be removed as part of the subdivision proposal. A planting plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval, prior to plant installation. All planting shall be complete, prior to recordation of Final Map. FIRE DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS 26. Fire protection improvements, including installation of any required hydrants, shall be constructed as requested by Santa Clara County Fire Department. Improvements shall be constructed and ready for use prior to the recordation of the Final Map, or shall be bonded for. Approved access to each parcel shall be installed prior to commencement of any construction on that lot. Recommended Conditions of Approval February 21, 2008 Page 6 to 27. The applicant shall install an approved fire apparatus roadway with a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside and a maximum slope of 15%. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications A-1. 28. Plans for new residences shall be reviewed and approved by the Santa Clara County Fire Department at the time of site development permit application. Conditions that may be applied at that time include, but are not limited to, providing an acceptable water supply based on the size of the new residences, providing an emergency vehicle turnaround, placement of property address signs that are clearly visible from the right-of-way, and providing an approved access system if the lots are fenced and gated. ATTACHMENT RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR THE TENTATIVE MAP -THREE LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 3.38 -ACRE PARCEL LANDS OF ISAAC AGAM ET AL, 25706 ELENA ROAD FILE 9148 -07 -IS -ND -TM 1. The subdivision as proposed would create three (3) lots: Parcel 1 is 1.11 net acres with a slope of 13.5%, Parcel 2 is 1.04 net acres with a slope of 11.8%, and Parcel 3 is 1.07 net acres with a slope of 12.9%. Each parcel would provide a viable building site. In this and all other respects, the lots conform to the Los Altos Hills Subdivision Ordinance. 2. The proposed subdivision would create three lots that would meet the General Plan guidelines for land with an average slope between 10 and 30 percent, and in all other respects will be consistent with the General Plan. 3. Access to the proposed lots will be provided from Vinedo Lane, a private road. Adequate services including water, gas and electric, telephone, fire protection and police protection are available to serve the subdivision as described in the staff report and the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. The City Attorney has determined that the Town has the authority to require Vinedo Lane to be widened as a condition of Tentative Map approval. 4. All lots as proposed on the Tentative Map are physically suitable for the proposed future development. The Town Geotechnical Consultant has commented that concerns can be addressed by adherence to the Project Geotechnical Report and conditions of approval for the project. It has been determined that each of the proposed lots contains a suitable building site, and that the proposed density is consistent with the General Plan. 5. All potentially significant environmental effects can be reduced to a level of insignificance as mitigated in the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or to substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6. The Town Engineer has reviewed the project and has determined that the design of the subdivision and the improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. ATTACHMENT INITIAL STUDY Initial Study Checklist & References Tentative Subdivision Map Application Lands of Isaac Agam Et Al 148 -07 -IS -ND -TM Prepared By: Town of Los Altos Hills -Planning Department 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project Title: Vinedo Estates 3 -lot Subdivision, (File # 148 -07 -IS -ND -TM) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Town of Los Altos Hills, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, California 94022 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director (650) 941-7222 Initial Study prepared by: Brian Froelich, AICP, Associate Planner (650) 941-7222 4. Project Location: The project is located at the northwest comer of Elena Road and Vinedo Lane, 25706 Elena Road, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022, APN#182-15-025 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Isaac Agam and Eran Cohen, 6. General Plan Designation: R (V -L) -Residential low to very low density 7. Zoning: R -A (Residential -Agricultural) 8. Description of Project:The project sponsor is requesting approval of a tentative subdivision map to subdivide one parcel totaling 3.376 gross acres to create three (3) parcels for development of single-family residential homes: Parcel 1: 1.114 acres; Parcel 2: 1.042 acres; Parcel 3: 1.066 acres - (net acreage). Access to the parcels is proposed from Vinedo Lane via two driveways (one driveway serving Parcel 1 and one shared driveway serving Parcels 2 and 3). All Parcels will be connected to sanitary sewer. Water service will be provided by Purissima Hills Water District. All existing and new power and utility lines within the subdivision will be placed underground. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Surrounding land uses include one and two story single family residences on 1+ acre parcels. The site is located at approximately 400 to 460 feet above sea level and is approximately one half mile from Interstate 280. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Santa Clara County Fire Department ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTL4LLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality 0 Biological Resources Cultural Resources 0 Geology /Soils ❑ Hazards & Hazardous 0 Hydrology / Water Quality ❑ Land Use / Planning Materials ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transponation/Traffic ❑ Utilities / Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance This Initial study has been prepared in accordance with the California Ern4ronmenral Quality Act. Information and conclusions in the Initial Study are based upon staffresearch and the Town's General Plan and Municipal Code. On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE ❑ DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a ❑ "potentially significant impact" or " potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately LJ an eartier ELF, pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EM including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signature: ��"'-"� Date: February 13. 2008 Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director 2 I. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a ❑ ❑ ❑ scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock ❑ ❑ ❑ outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial fight ❑ ❑ ❑ or glaze which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? IMPACT: The proposed project is not situated on a scenic vista or within the vicinity of a state scenic highway. The Los Altos Hills General Plan identifies important vistas, historic sites, and scenic highways within the Town. None of these resources listed in the General Plan will be negatively impacted by the proposal. Aesthetic impacts due to site grading and residential buildings are expected to be mitigable when new residences are built. At the time of any proposed development all projects will be evaluated for aesthetic impacts such as structure height, size, setbacks, grading, fencing, tree preservation, and landscaping. Furthermore, the Town has established standards for screening and lighting of all new residential dwelling projects and their associated landscaping and lighting plans are reviewed at publicly noticed hearings. MITIGATION: None Sources: 1,2,5,6 3 � ��ri�` D.1"}•, .: ���r 1. r4 IRSSTb Il. �a �fi i PuteohaYl t Less Thao 5i Cntenou.arIssueand f sigad;eaatwrth, #. < S�gmBciut '" 3�igadieeatp No Impact $D Oral Y4l'rtigat�ao p rt* '* "n Impad4 z Iacorporatton Impact > ^ �,4 r i�i �)I1 ;.,je, `�a, a xs. IL AGRICULTURE RESOURCES— Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the ❑ ❑ ❑ maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for ❑ ❑ ❑ agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or ❑ ❑ ❑ nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? Discussion: The proposed subdivision will have no foreseeable impact on Agricultural Resources. The site is not and has not been used as agricultural land. Source: S 4 F Cri entjn or Issue and ;F ` a°tonnal!X ss Thin = Less Than W il t Sgo(tieant wrth SrgmficanC � Sr mfinM , Im act Supporting Data ., I Impact ?. MiEggiront, g p ass p'-+ Inco.Pbratioo Impafer a• �''_; ,d III. AIR QUALITY — Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of ❑ ❑ ❑ the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any au quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected an ❑ ❑ L)quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality ❑ ❑ ❑ Q standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q substantial number of people? Discussion: Santa Clam. County is currently a non -attainment basin for ozone thresholds but achieves an attainment level for carbon monoxide emissions. The net increase of two developable properties is not a considerable cumulative impact. Source: 9 5 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special stams species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vemal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tee preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Normal Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 6 ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 1.ess Than ?f mai f."nfenOROI'I86'lle BIId s P" idly Sigullicaut with a ( .,Les, Than 3 Significant st , No Impact r , . , SII[IffO['tlIIg D3f3 4t Srgnm6cant , Ira act Mitigation 'Tm�aft �, ri . x P 7= Incorporation' yyvkyt„.' k IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special stams species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vemal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tee preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Normal Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 6 ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 IMPACT: There are no riparian areas or creeks on the site. The applicant has provided an Arborist's Report prepared by certified arborist Joseph S. Bathurst dated August 19, 2007 which includes an inventory of all trees on the subject property. The site contains one hundred and nine (109) trees of which fifteen (15) are heritage oak trees. Per Section 12-2.502 of the Los Altos. Hills Municipal Code, "subdivision lot design and development plans shall accommodate existing trees whenever possible". The applicant is proposing to remove a total of twenty-four (24) trees including two (2) heritage oak trees to accommodate installation of the driveway that serves Lots 2 and 3. The remaining twenty-two (22) trees to be removed include pines, cedars, cypress, and redwoods. Nineteen (19) of these trees will be removed to accommodate the proposed driveway while three (3) are in the location of anticipated building sites. MITIGATION: Recommended conditions of approval for the proposed subdivision will require that the applicant plant four (4) 36" box oaks to replace the two heritage oak trees to be removed. In addition, the remaining twenty-two (22) trees shall be replaced at a 2:1 ratio. The size of the replacement trees shall not be smaller than the standard five (5) gallon size per Section 9-1.607 of the LAHMC. Furthermore, the applicant will be required to implement tree preservation measures including protective fencing and mulching for the remaining trees on the property as recommended by Arborist Joseph Bathurst in his report dated August 19, 2007. Additional landscape mitigation will occur at the time of site development of the individual lots. The Town's Site Development Process requires that all new residences be screened. The proposed screening for any new residence must be reviewed at a publicly noticed hearing after buildings are flamed. Neighborhood and Volunteer Committee input is heard during this process and if issues are not resolved, screening plans will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Sources: 1,6,10 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES— Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 in '15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource ❑ Q ❑ ❑ pursuant to' 15064.5? c) Duectly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique ❑ ❑ ❑ geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ those interred outside of formal cemeteries? IMPACT: The proposed subdivision and anticipated residential development will have no foreseeable impact on Cultural Resources as defined in Title 14; Chapter 3; Article 5; Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act. The site does not contain a listed historical building and no known archeological resources exist on the subject property. However, if any artifacts or human remains are discovered during any future grading or construction onsite, work in the vicinity of the find shall stop immediately until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the site and determine the significance of the find per the mitigation measure described below. MITIGATION: Conditions of project approval require that upon discovering or unearthing any possible burial site as evidenced by human skeletal remains or artifacts, the person making such discovery shall immediately notify the County of Santa Clara Coroner and no further disturbance of the site may be made except as authorized by the County Coordinator of Indian Affairs. Sources: 3,5,16,20 1" g, x,q may. CItk0190II Or ISSU¢ and `t; m �" *"� Potenfi5lty a d Less Th"a'b Sigmficaht wtth b Lass Thea No lmpaR':^ npporhng Data s .,, Srgmficant -t5lgmfieent� Im an ^ ifi et on g t.x, Impad aaorpato V. CULTURAL RESOURCES— Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 in '15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource ❑ Q ❑ ❑ pursuant to' 15064.5? c) Duectly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique ❑ ❑ ❑ geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ those interred outside of formal cemeteries? IMPACT: The proposed subdivision and anticipated residential development will have no foreseeable impact on Cultural Resources as defined in Title 14; Chapter 3; Article 5; Section 15064.5 of the California Environmental Quality Act. The site does not contain a listed historical building and no known archeological resources exist on the subject property. However, if any artifacts or human remains are discovered during any future grading or construction onsite, work in the vicinity of the find shall stop immediately until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the site and determine the significance of the find per the mitigation measure described below. MITIGATION: Conditions of project approval require that upon discovering or unearthing any possible burial site as evidenced by human skeletal remains or artifacts, the person making such discovery shall immediately notify the County of Santa Clara Coroner and no further disturbance of the site may be made except as authorized by the County Coordinator of Indian Affairs. Sources: 3,5,16,20 0 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential El 4 r C19teil0U OI' tS$Ue 9UfI x^ �. Po ptiallpv„t s Thav C3 ` SUtI[101'hUg])3tfl k Sigmfirant a Sigvifwavt with Mitigahov S�gmficavf rr"4 't N'oImpact i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as Im acts IncorPoratiao ImPa 4 y4'{ delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo se'x VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential El El substantial adverse effects, including the risk C3 ❑ of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other ❑ ❑ ❑ Q substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ wl ❑ ❑ iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including C3 liquefaction? Ll Ll iv) Landslides? ❑ Cl ❑ Q b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? - ❑ ❑ ❑ z c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in ❑ ❑ 21 ❑ on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems ❑ ❑ ❑ where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? IMPACT: According to the geotechnical investigations prepared by IF Consulting dated July It, 2007, mitigable geological hoards on the property include seismic ground shaking and uncompacted fills. The Town's Geotechnical Engineer has reviewed the JF Consulting report and concurs with the findings therein. MITIGATION: Proposed residential development will be subject to additional, more design specific geotechnical evaluation as follows: 9 I . Lot Specific Geotechnical Evaluations - The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall evaluate lot -specific development plans, update and supplement geotechnical recommendations for proposed improvements (as needed) and consider additional subsurface investigation, if warranted to address specific development plans. The consultant shall prepare geotechnical design criteria specific to the proposed construction of improvements on individual lots. The results of these investigations shall be presented in a report and submitted to the Town for technical review with the Site Development Plan submittal. 2. The applicant will be required to submit a site specific grading and drainage plan with the Site Development review showing proposed grading and addressing the proposal to deal with the undocumented fills. Sources: 12, 17, 18 to VH. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS— 7 rk Would the project: R5 �L'I'ItBiIOa or Issue and' Potentially CY aLes ��� 1i M1 aN+^ak Su ortiit Data psi PP g SigaJeaat x . SrgetSraut ;Ne Impact^'= - ,: ,yq Impact 'sr. I�itearyonhe Tmpact �•r�r4 b) Create a significant hazard to the public or a ,a , VH. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS— Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or ❑ ❑ the environment through the routine transport, ❑ Q use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, ❑ ❑ ❑ (z substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section ❑ ❑ ❑ Q 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety ❑ ❑ ❑ Q hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response ❑ ❑ ❑ 9 plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent ❑ ❑ ❑ 21 to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Discussion: The proposed subdivision and anticipated residential development does not produce a hazard or hazardous waste and will have no foreseeable impact related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The site is not located in an identified location according to CA Government Code 65962.5. Sources: _ 13 11 Y'Potentially &itCl-IUD Less Than ' Less Than N% OC ISSDC' 8Dd t nT t Significant Significant with Sign>Ecent .. , No Impact SUOThD 8{e t< pp Impact " Mitigating Impact c , ;y b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or Cncorporatson interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer VDI HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY— Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ❑ Q discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- ❑ ❑ ❑ existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a ❑ ❑ ❑ Q manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned ❑ ❑ Q ❑ stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ z g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazazd area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard ❑ ❑ ❑ Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100 -year flood heard area structures which would impede or redirect flood ❑ ❑ ❑ Q flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, ❑ ❑ ❑ El including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ 12 IMPACT: The proposed subdivision and anticipated residential development will have no immitigable impact on Hydrology and Water Quality as defined in this section. All proposed parcels naturally drain southeasterly over the site and will be required to maintain the existing flow patterns, using surface flow designs whenever possible. No construction is proposed at this time, other than utility improvements, installation of the pathway and widening of the roadway along the property frontage. The Town Engineer will require a drainage improvement plan to be submitted prior to construction of any future site development. Drainage improvements must be designed to mitigate drainage impacts based on 10 -year storm flow calculations. MITIGATION: At such time as development on the new parcels is proposed, the applicant shall submit a detailed drainage improvement plan for review and approval by the Engineering Department. The drainage improvements most be designed to mitigate drainage impacts based on 10 -year storm flow calculations. Peak discharge shall not exceed the existing pre - development peak discharge value of the property. Detention storage must be incorporated into the project to reduce the predicted peak discharge to the pre -development value. The applicant's engineer shall provide data and peak discharge hydrologic model(s) utilized, as well as, the calculations of the peak discharge value prior and post development. Sources: 2, 11, 14 13 n ,j}Leas'I(ian. C'i[4ei4ok4w Issue r`� Pateotiaay Less Than and ks t "Suppo,�ltlDg 'Srgmfieant 1Significant Ssgnifiuut with au,alio', No Impact Data ''rx t n i Impaact Incorporation Impact 8 , ,`i x„ k � f V xr„ IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING— Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, ❑ ❑ ❑ Q local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community ❑ ❑ ❑ Q conservation plan? Discussion: The proposed subdivision and anticipated residential development will not physically divide a community. The project complies with the Los Altos Hills General Plan and Subdivision Code. The project is not located in an area denoted as Open Space Conservation Area on the General Plan Map. Sources: 4,5,6 14 X. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the ❑ ❑ ❑ Q region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery ❑ ❑ ❑ z site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Discussion: The proposed subdivision and anticipated residential development will not result in a loss of mineral resources. The project is not located in an area known for valued minerals. Sources: 5,6,17,18 15 -L-Less �r Y Crtif`erion„or Issn¢ and: Potenha�y 5*'r `" Tun Y i41 r Th,Q°-� n �'. sx ?Fxt �gnlficant S+gal ficsut wit xj "$tg"uScant No Impart Supporting Data ' tidi r +a ImpaR ,. a Mitis & IIICa[parahaa r4• X. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the ❑ ❑ ❑ Q region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery ❑ ❑ ❑ z site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Discussion: The proposed subdivision and anticipated residential development will not result in a loss of mineral resources. The project is not located in an area known for valued minerals. Sources: 5,6,17,18 15 t inti Yt�. k !4 - vfy„ ryk i noise levels in excess of standards established ❑ Less ❑ (Y� CntenonOrIssue and ^ y Significant I 1 fi Siynirtenntwith Less Than significant No Impact at u Impact Mitigation Impact " r+ > I., corporation excessive groundbome vibration or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 XL NOISE—Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in 0 ambient noise levels in the project vicinity ❑ ❑ ❑ above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project ❑ ❑ 2 ❑ vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project men to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people ❑ ❑ ❑ residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Discussion: The proposed subdivision and anticipated residential development will be regulated by the Town's established noise standards. Interim construction noise levels associated with subdivision improvements and future site development will likely periodically exceed 60dB(A) but can. be held to less than significant by adherence to Town standards for hours of construction. Once development is complete, day to day living will produce noises such as vehicles and as conditioning units. These types of noises are typical of a residential neighborhood. Further, the Town requires new residences, swimming pools, pool equipment, and air conditioners to demonstrate compliance with Town Noise standards. No immitigable or new types of noise impacts are anticipated. Sources: 6 16 XH. POPULATION AND HOUSING— Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or ❑ ❑ ❑ indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ❑ ❑ Q housing elsewhere? Discussion: The proposed subdivision and anticipated residential development will not have a significant impact on population or housing. Sources: 2,3 17 tF+t.v it r 6 } 'J. Cntenon o;Issue and ,, ~"' °t`°"'lly s. firaatwrtli Less't'ha°"` +tt :, ; Supporttrig Data u 5�gmficaat g° Mifigahoa .S�g i csat Nt 'Fmpact .r ' µ Im acts! P' s' tncorQorah°° Pact v y, e s„ XH. POPULATION AND HOUSING— Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or ❑ ❑ ❑ indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ❑ ❑ Q housing elsewhere? Discussion: The proposed subdivision and anticipated residential development will not have a significant impact on population or housing. Sources: 2,3 17 XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES- Would the project: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the ❑ construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ Police protection? ❑ Schools? ❑ r ❑ Other public facilities? (,'19tC011n or sue and `j- Pk[enLally'. Less Than Srgvificant With ' Less Than '' ? ft + Nolmpaet. SupportmgData 0 Mitlgatioh ❑ Q j!, arw + rr 16paticant Idrpact` ;1i,;e Incorporation Impaccaut Impact p . XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES- Would the project: a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the ❑ construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ Police protection? ❑ Schools? ❑ Parks? ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ El ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ Q ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ Q Discussion: The proposed subdivision and anticipated residential development will not have a foreseeable impact on any public service or facility. Sources: 2,3 18 XIV. RECREATION — Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that ❑ ❑ ❑ Q substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which ❑ ❑ ❑ Q might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion: The proposed subdivision and anticipated residential development will not have a foreseeable impact on recreation facilities. The Town's Parks and Recreation Department will collect an in lieu fee prior to recordation of the Final Map. Sources: 5,6 19 �Rtef10R 0[ Issue and `"'Y'� Ppteatially'sfi *, aot pith LessThan 't y Su orcin Data vMi PP g M�7 $tgmfieant Impactj' a �ga4O° Slgmficant„lt' Impact No Impact, ~l „ . Imcor orato p r�vkii "`ry" st XIV. RECREATION — Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that ❑ ❑ ❑ Q substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which ❑ ❑ ❑ Q might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Discussion: The proposed subdivision and anticipated residential development will not have a foreseeable impact on recreation facilities. The Town's Parks and Recreation Department will collect an in lieu fee prior to recordation of the Final Map. Sources: 5,6 19 •M Fss sI;vaaTlcs x.'^� ..., v a �`rlleriUnOr rSSUe a71d ' Potentially SiguJcant with 1y Less Thav $ •. SII ortin Data Supporting Ygnl�aut= ` Mitigation " Significant Nolmpact 4 a ; -tr, Impact i Incorpocshov Impact , t .. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the ❑ ❑ Q ❑ number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the ❑ ❑ ❑ Q county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or ❑ ❑ ❑ Uj a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous (j ❑ ❑ Q intersections) or incompatible was (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ Q g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation ❑ ❑ ❑ Q (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle mcks)? Discussion: The Town commissioned a Traffic Study prepared by Fete and Peers Transportation Consultants. The subdivision will create two additional new dwellings and thereby generate an additional 19 vehicle trips per day. The minor increase in traffic is not anticipated to create traffic congestion on existing local roadways. The applicant is required to widen the existing roadway along the subject property's frontage on Vinedo Lane to 20 feet to meet Town and Santa Clara County Fire Department standards. The Traffic Study concludes that the widening will improve the traffic flow and vehicle maneuverability through the Vinedo Lane and Elena Road intersection. Sources: 1,2,3,5,19 20 "ate, of the applicable Regional Water Quality ❑ ❑ LesG.Tban k1 ka .3,k Control Board? Criterion or Issue and Pntensally- Significantwttb Less Than i' + $n ort1D Data PP g S Significant 2 Impact- Mrtgsti Signdlcant.. lmpa }+ Impae t r j Incerp`tion ❑ ❑ (21 construction of which could cause significant 11 tll fvii,k"•. environmental effects? in 1rl XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS— Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality ❑ ❑ ❑ Q Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the ❑ ❑ ❑ (21 construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of ❑ ❑ ❑ M existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the ❑ ❑ ❑ M project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local ❑ ❑ ❑ 2 statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Discussion: The proposed subdivision and anticipated residential development will not have a foreseeable impact on utility and service systems. Water supply will be provided by Purissima Hills Water District. All parcels will be connected to the sanitary sewer system. Sources: 1,2,3,15 21 XVIL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- Would the project: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining ❑ ❑ ❑ levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project ❑ ❑ ❑ are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on ❑ ❑ ❑ 171 human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion: he proposed project, as mitigated, will not result in a negative impact to the environment, wildlife, plant or historical resource. The project does not have any foreseeable cumulative or unmitigated impacts as defined in this Initial Study. Sources: 1-21 22 x Criterion or Issue and rl " ' p�teo°ailyasr" ' Significant wtth "�i Less Than Significant -. •Significant No Impact Supporting Data y Impact Mitigation Impact 2 Incorporation t� XVIL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- Would the project: a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining ❑ ❑ ❑ levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project ❑ ❑ ❑ are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on ❑ ❑ ❑ 171 human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion: he proposed project, as mitigated, will not result in a negative impact to the environment, wildlife, plant or historical resource. The project does not have any foreseeable cumulative or unmitigated impacts as defined in this Initial Study. Sources: 1-21 22 MITIGATION MEASURES INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT TO AVOID POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS: 1. Supplemental geotechnical investigation reports shall be submitted for review and approval by the Town's geotechnical consultant at the time of site development review for the new residences with emphasis on foundation and other structural designs. The Town Geologist shall also review and approve the subdivision improvement plans prior to issuance of any building permits for construction of the improvements. 2. At such time as development on the new parcels is proposed, the applicant shall submit a detailed drainage improvement plan for review and approval by the Engineering Department. The drainage improvements must be designed to mitigate drainage impacts based on 10 -year storm flow calculations. Peak discharge shall not exceed the existing pre -development peak discharge value of the property. Detention storage most be incorporated into the project to reduce the predicted peak discharge to the pre -development value. The applicant's engineer shall provide data and peak discharge hydrologic model(s) utilized, as well as, the calculations of the peak discharge value prior and post development. 3. The applicant shall install four (4) 36" box oak trees and forty-four (44) 5 gallon trees to replace the twenty-four trees to be removed as part of the subdivision proposal. 4. The applicant shall implement tree protection measures including tree protection fencing and mulching as recommended by arborist Joseph Bathurst in his report dated August 19, 2007. 5. If any archaeological artifacts or human remains are discovered during grading or construction, work in the vicinity of the find shall stop immediately until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the site and determine the significance of the find. Project personnel shall not collect or alter cultural resources. Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on form DPR 422 (Archaeological Site) and/or form DPR 523 (Historic Resources). If human remains are found, the County Coroner shall be contacted immediately. 23 Responsible Must Be Mifisafron Measure Department Completed BY: Done 1. Geotechnical Reports Engineering Site Development Review/ (Supplemental) Town Geologist Final Inspection 2. Drainage Improvement Plan Engineering Site Development Review 3. Tree Installation Planning Final Inspection 4. Tree Preservation Planning Final Inspection 5. Archaeological Findings Planning Ongoing Source List: 1. Field Inspection 2. Project Plans 3. Planner's Knowledge of the Area 4. Los Altos Hills Land Use and Zoning Map 5. Los Altos Hills General Plan 6. Los Altos Hills Municipal Code 7. Assessor's Maps, Office of County Assessor, Santa Clara County, 2006-2007 8. State Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program 9. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines: Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, December 1999 10. State Department Fish and Game CNDDP Map 11. Santa Clara Valley Water District Map 12. Geotechnical and Seismic Hazard Zones Map of Los Altos Hills, Cotton Shires and Associates, Dec 2004 13. DTSC Hazardous Waste and Substance Sites List, California Environmental Protection Agency 14. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Los Altos Hills, January 2, 1980 15. Sanitary Sewer Map, Town of Los Altos Hills Engineering Department 16. Santa Clara County Municipal Code Chapter II Indian Burial Grounds (Title B Division B-6) 17. JF Consulting, INC. Geotechnical Investigation, July 11, 2007 18. Cotton & Shires Assoc. Peer Review Letter July 30, 2007 19. Fehr and Peers Traffic Consultants Report, December 5, 2007 20. CEQA Guidelines, 2007 21. Google Earth Exhibit List: 1. Project plans 24 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROJECT TITLE: Vinedo Estates 3 -lot Subdivision at 25706 Elena Road PREPARED BY: Brian Froelich, AICP, Associate Planner NAME AND ADDRESS OF PROJECT SPONSOR: Isaac Agam and Eran Cohen LOCATION OF PROJECT: The project is located at the northwest comer of Elena Road and Vinedo Lane, 25706 Elena Road, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022, APN#182-15-025 PROJECT DESCRIPTION:The project sponsor is requesting approval of a tentative subdivision map to subdivide one parcel totaling 3.376 gross acres to create three (3) parcels for development of single-family residential homes: Parcel 1: 1.114 acres; Parcel 2: 1.042 acres; Parcel 3: 1.066 acres (net acreage). Access to the parcels is proposed from Vinedo Lane via two driveways (one driveway serving Parcel 1 and one shared driveway serving Parcels 2 and 3). All Parcels will be connected to sanitary sewer. Water service will be provided by Purissima Hills Water District All existing and new power and utility lines within the subdivision will be placed underground. FINDING: The Town of Los Altos Hills has completed a review of the proposed project, and on the basis of the attached Initial Study, has determined that the project, as mitigated, will reduce impacts to a less than significant level. MITIGATION MEASURES INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT TO AVOID POTENTIALLY SIGNICIANT EFFECTS: 1. Supplemental geotechnical investigation reports shall be submitted for review and approval by the Town's geotechnical consultant at the time of site development review for the new residences with emphasis on foundation and other structural designs. The Town Geologist shall also review and approve the subdivision improvement plans prior to issuance of any building permits for construction of the improvements. 2. At such time as development on the new parcels is proposed, the applicant shall submit a detailed drainage improvement plan for review and approval by the Engineering Department. The drainage improvements must be designed to mitigate drainage impacts based on 10 -year storm flow calculations. Peak discharge shall not exceed the existing pre -development peak discharge value of the property. Detention storage must be incorporated into the project to reduce the predicted peak discharge to the pre -development value. The applicant's engineer shall provide data and peak discharge hydrologic model(s) utilized, as well as, the calculations of the peak discharge value prior and post development. 3. The applicant shall install four (4) 36" box oak trees and forty-four (44) 5 gallon trees to replace the twenty-four trees to be removed as part of the subdivision proposal. 4. The applicant shall implement tree protection measures including tree protection fencing and mulching as recommended by arborist Joseph Bathurst in his report dated August 19, 2007. 5. If any archaeological artifacts or human remains are discovered during grading or construction, work in the vicinity of the find shall stop immediately until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the site and determine the significance of the find. Project personnel shall not collect or alter cultural resources. Identified cultural resources shall be recorded on form DPR 422 (Archaeological Site) and/or form DPR 523 (Historic Resources). If human remains are found, the County Coroner shall be contacted immediately. Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director Date TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Circulated on: February 13, 2008 Adopted 2 COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. ATTACHMENT 4 CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS July 30, 2007 L0227 RECEIVED JUL 31 2007 TO: Brian Froelich TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Assistant Planner TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 SUBJECT: Geotechnical Peer Review RE: Agam & Cohen, New 3 -Lot Subdivision 148-07-ZP-LS-ND-TM 25706 Elena Road At your request, we have completed a geotechnical peer review of the subject application for the proposed new 3 -lot subdivision using: Tentative Map and Conceptual Development Plans (4 sheets, 30 - scale), prepared by Giuliani & Kull, Inc., dated June 26, 2007; and Geotechnical Investigation (report) prepared by JF Consulting, Inc., dated July 11, 2007. In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office files, including two previous reviews of different projects on the same property in 1992 (Wang, L3382) and 1998 (Driscoll, L3278), and completed a recent site inspection. DISCUSSION Based on our review of the referenced plans, the applicant proposes to subdivide the approximately 3.7 acre property into three lots. At the time of our recent site inspection, the previous residence and improvements had been removed and only a portion of the old asphalt driveway remained in the southeastern portion of the site. Access to the property is via a private driveway off of Elena Road in the southeastern comer of the property. The subject property is characterized by gentle to steep (5 to 35 percent inclination) southeast -facing hillside topography. Previous grading activities at the site Northern California Office central Califoa da Office 330 Village Lane 6417 Dogtown Road Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218 San Andreas, CA 952949(A0 (908) 3545542 • Fax (4108) 3541852 (209)736-4252 • Fax(209)736-1212 s -mail: losgatoAcottonshhes oom www. c o t t a n5 hit a 5. corn e-mail'. ooeonshaes@starbandnet Brian Froelich Page 2 0, 2007 have resulted in a relatively level cut/fill pad in the southwestern portion of the site. There is a steep (35 to 50 percent inclination) cut slope along the western edge of the property. A steep to very steep (30 to 75 percent inclinations) fill slope is located on the downslope side of the old building pad. A shallow natural drainage swale runs through the site from the northwest to the southeast, and is partially disrupted by the existing fill materials. The majority of the runoff at the site is captured by this Swale and directed to the southeast. According to the Town Geologic Map, the subject property is underlain, at depth, by weathered greenstone bedrock of the Franciscan Complex. According to exploratory borings presented in the referenced investigation, bedrock materials are locally overlain by up to 10 feet of colluvium near the centerline of the drainage swale. In the topographically higher portions of the site, colluvium thickness is limited to 1 to 3 feet. In the vicinity of the old swimming pool excavation, undocumented fill materials were found to be as much as 10 feet thick. All seven of the exploratory borings encountered weathered greenstone bedrock at depth. According to the Town Geotechnical Hazards Map, the northern portion of the site hes within a "D" zone, which '...encompasses all land located within 660 feet of a recognized trace of a potentially active fault." The nearest traces of the potentially active Monta Vista, Altamont, and Berrocal faults are mapped approximately 450 feet northwest, 675 feet southwest, and 2,250 feet southwest, respectively, of the subject property. Additionally, the active San Andreas fault is located approximately 3.1 miles southwest of the site. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION Future site development is constrained by anticipated strong seismic ground shaking, settlement or compression of undocumented fill materials, and potentially expansive fill and colluvium. The Project Geotechnical Consultant has conducted a recent investigation of the subdivision property and provided geotechnical design recommendations that generally appear appropriate for identified site conditions. We concur with the consultant's recommendation that the unducumented Ra materials be removed and replaced with properly keyed and benched engineered fill. We also concur with the consultant's recommendation to support all future residences on a reinforced pier and grade beam foundations. Our approval is contingent on both of those recommendations being implemented in the final design. We do not have geotechnical objections to the proposed layout of site building envelopes or improvements. We recommend that the following Item 1 be addressed prior to acceptance of documents for building permit plan -check on individual lots: COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. Brian Froelich July 30, 2007 Page3 L0227 Lot Specific Geotechnical Evaluations - The applicant's geotechnical consultant should evaluate lot -specific development plans, update and supplement geotechnical recommendations for proposed improvements (as needed) and consider additional subsurface investigation, if warranted to address specific development plans. The consultant should prepare geotechnical design criteria specific to the proposed construction of improvements on individual lots. The results of these investigations should be presented in a report and submitted to the Town for technical review prior to acceptance of documents for building permit plan -check. Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the geotechnical plan review should be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer along with documents for building permit plan - check. 3. Geotechnical Field Inspection - The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement df steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project should be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to final (granting of occupancy) project approval. LIMITATIONS This peer review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the Town with discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to review of the documents previously identified, and a visual review of the property. Our opinions and conclusions are made in accordance with generally accepted principles and COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. Brian Froelich Page 4 July 30, 2007 L0227 practices of the geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. TS:DTS:JS:kd Respectfully submitted, COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT Ted Sayre Associate Engineering Geologist CEG 1795 David T. Scihrier Associate Geotechnical Engineer GE 2334 COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC. �POLAN.A o00 m '� FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • L vwsccfd.org DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS COPMEC. UFC 902.2.4.1 UFC 902.2.2.4 UFC 901.3 UFC 901-3 SNEET REQUIREMENT ATTACHMENTS .. Intnnalicnaly Ac�eMlvl As�v PLANREsnew NUMBER 08 0032 BLDG PENMR NUMBER FILE NUMBER of a proposed Tentative Map to create a three -lot subdivision. ,e Apparatus (Engine) Access Roads Required: Provide access roadways with a ved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet, vertical ,arance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 36 feet outside d 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 1570. For installations guild lines refer Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet A-1. e Department (Engine) Roadway Tum -around Required: Provide an proved fire department engine roadway turnaround with a minimum radius of feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform with Fire Department mdard Details and Specification sheet A-1. Cul -De -Sac Diameters shall be no less to 72 feet. Turn-arounds have been noted for two proposed residences, but do t meet County Fire Department Standard as shown on plans. .ming of Required Roadway Installations: Required access roads, up through A lift of asphalt, shall be installed and accepted by the Fire Department prior to start of combustible construction. During construction, emergency access roads all be maintained clear and unimpeded. Note that building permit issuance may withheld until installations are completed. Temporary access roads may be proved on a case by case basis. ing of Required Water Su 1 Installations: Installations of required fire ice(s) and fire hydrant(s) s all be tested and accepted by the Fire Department, r to the start of framing or delivery of bulk combustible materials. Building nit issuance may be withheld until required installations are completed, tested, accepted. CM PLANS SPECS NEWRMOL A4 OCCUPWICY CONSL. TYPE RppllptnName DATE PAGE LAH ® ❑ El❑ ❑ GIULIANI & KULL, I NC 1/4/2008 1 2 OF SEChLOOR AREA LMO DFSCRWTION BY Residential Development Harding, Doug NAME OF PROJECT' OCATION SUBDIVISION 25706 Elena Rd as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Serving Santa Clam County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Alms, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Somtoga ,SPOL�R4 poo FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (tax) • — sccfd.org DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS COOESEC. I SHEET I NO.I REOUIREMEM LAH ® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ mle.am��siy n<c�murd A9encY PIAN REVI NUMBER 08 0032 BLDG PERMR NUMBER FMENUMBER 148 -071S -ND -TM ent plan review and inspection delays, the above noted Developmental Conditions shall be addressed as "notes" on all pending and future plan als and any referenced diagrams to be reproduced onto the future plan SUBDIVISION GIULIANI & KULL, I NC Residential Development 25706 Elena Rd Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District $eruing Santa Clam County and the commumtles of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills. Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga 1/4/2008 I 2 GR 2 Harding, Doug ATTACHMENT Town Of Los Altos Hills January 4, 2008 Subdivision Committee Hearing Fact Sheet Project Description: Three Lot Subdivision File Number: 148 -07 -IS -ND -TM Site Address: 25706 Elena Road Owner(s): Isaac Agam & Eran Cohen Staff Planner: Brian Froelich, AICP, Associate Planner Site Data Gross Lot Area: 3.38 acres Average Slope: 12.7% Lot Unit Factor: 3.18 1 13.5 1.11 1.030 14,098 6,000 2 11.8 1.04 1.002 14,354 5,922 3 12.9 1.07 1.000 13,913 5,855 Grading: None proposed at this time. Sewer/Septic: Extend main line along Elena Road and connect to all three (3) parcels to Los Altos Sewer Basin. Environmental Design Committee Comments: None. Pathway Committee Comments: Dedicate 10 foot easement and construct n -B path along the Vinedo Lane frontage. Fire Department Comments: Provide minimum 20 foot wide access roads per Fire Department Standard Detail sheet A-1. Geotechnical Comments: Recommends approval with conditions. Utility Company Comments: None ATTACHMENT Town Of Los Altos Hills January 4, 2008 Subdivision Committee Hearing Report Attendance: Debbie Pedro, Brian Froelich, John Chau, Richard Chiu, Ray Collins, Craig Miller, Robert McFadde, Geri Macomber, Steven Wang, Lisa Wang, Lisa Blair, David Blair, Isaac Agent, John Trayer, Tony Moreland, Debbie A. Gualtieri, Monica Giacomini Environmental Design Committee Comments: None. Neighbor Comments: • Neighbors do not want construction vehicles to block Vinedo Lane during construction. They want the Town to enforce penalties if the Lane is blocked with this or future proposals. • Some neighbors do not want the road widened preferring a rural road. • Steve Wang brought forward new Road Maintenance association agreement amendments that need to be reviewed by the City Attorney. • The Road Maintenance Members believe that they have the authority to approve or deny new members, access points, and road widening. • Applicant believes that all subdivided lots are automatically part of the association. • Neighbors request immediate tree removal mitigation. Landscape plan for subdivision. • Some neighbors want all lots to access Elena and have the Town allow an exception to LUF to allow three lost still. Further action: The City Attorney will review the Amendments to the Maintenance Agreement to determine if they have any effect on the analysis and recomendatiom to date. ( /('5 i Date �K'j Rpt � � {f i✓n/ �• l..P, .;, �; �. ATTACHMENT8 Subdivision Evaluation 3 Environmental Design and Protection Committee Date: -714!27 Applicants name and address: Af26 M d CACK 452?(, t2-tr4 Reviewed by: �4 Grading: b� Creeks, drainage, easements: Existing Vegetation: Significant issuesrP ,/comments: -�f T-z.G6 f�+ Brian Froelich From: John Chau Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 1:04 PM To: Brian Froelich Cc: 'Cyrus'; Debbie Pedro Subject: FW: Brian, Here is the latest recommendation from the pathway committee. John From: Ginger Summit [mailto: Sentc,Tuesday, December 18, 2007 10:53 AM To: John Chau Subject: ATTACHMENT Hi John-- This is a ropy tribe recommendations that were made by the Pathways Committee at aur meeting in August, 2007. It was our intention that the pathway along Vinedo meander behind the large trees, so that the pedestrians are nm exposed to hatEc on Vinedo. Therefore, as you have mentioned, it is appropdme that a 10 foot easement along Vinedo be granted so as to .1 few for minimum disruption of existing mature trees. there this is sufficient information so that you can proceed with this project. Ginger Summit, Chair, Pathways Committee 25706 Elena Road (Lands of Again and Cohen), The reason for pathway review is a 3-1ot subdivision. Property owner was not present. The property is con the west side of Etetn and also has frorti on Vinedo Lane. The only frontage on Elena Road is a driveway. Although LAH Resolution 38-96 (May 1996) does not specify that Elena Road should have imuside pathways on both sides, the consensus is that pathways are desirable on Sam sides of this heavily used road. Vinedo Lane provides access m pathways on EdgewoW Lane and (in the furore) m the Packard property.. Chris Virgin moved that the PWC request that the owners of 25706 Elena Road emstruet a IIB roadside pathway along Vinede Lane and assure that sufficient access for a roadside pathway across the driveway an Elena is provided. Bill Silver seconded The vote was unanimously in favor. 2/14/2008 ATTACHMENT 10 fp FEHP, & PEERS seausvvRszeive ivvsunyn; MEMORANDUM Date: December 5, 2007 To: John Chau, Town of Los Altos Hills From: Frank Aochi Subject., P14807—Vinedo Estates The Vinedo Estates project is located at 25706 Elena Road. The project will subdivide the existing lot into three parcels and each parcel will have a new single family home. The project site is located on the northwest comer of Elena Road and Vinedc Lane. There have been some concems expressed to the Town by the surrounding residents about the impact this project will have on Vinedo Lane. Elena Road is a two lane public street and Vinedo Lane is a paved 16 -foot wide private street with 22 residences. The project will close the existing driveway onto Elena Road and add two driveways on Vinedo lane. I conducted a field review of the project site and used the site plan provided by the Town for reference. I located the proposed location of the joint driveway for Parcels 2 and 3 based on the location of the existing speed bump. The driveway will be approximately 165 -feet from Elena Road. I located the single driveway for Parcel 1 based on the location of the existing driveway across the street. The proposed driveway appears to be located on an existing access to the property. Drivers exiting the new driveway will have limited sight distance of oncoming vehicles due to the existing Cyprus shrubs on either sides and the proposed widening of Vinedo Lane. We would recommend removing several of these shrubs to improve the driver's view of Vinedo Lane. Drivers exiting the shared driveway have an unobstructed sight distance. According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), 7`n Edition of the Trip Generation Table a single family home produces an average of 9.5 vehicle trips per weekday and 1.0 vehide trip during the weekday peak hour. So based on these figures the project will add 3 vehicles during the peak hours and 29 trips per day on Vinedo Lane. Typically this small amount of traffic would be insignificant on any public street but on a private street with only 22 homes it would seem to be significant Fortunately this increase will be limited to the first 325 -feet of the road due to the location of the project site and the proposed driveways. The project is required to widen Vinedo Lane from 16 -feet to 20 -feet along the site's frontage. The Town is also considering installing a sidewalk with the street widening. The widening of Vinedo Lane at Elena Road will improve the operation of the intersection. Vehicles entering Vinedo Lane will have more room to maneuver when there's a vehicle stopped in the opposite direction waiting to enter Elena Road. The current driveway to the site is located on Elena Road adjacent to Vinedo Lane and the centerlines are approximately 40 -feet apart. There's a second driveway located just on the other side of the current driveway to the project site. Their centerlines are approximately 45 -feet apart. As a result there are three vehicular conflict points within 100 -feet and they are located on a curved section of Elena Road. Eliminating the middle driveway as proposed would reduce the number of conflict points on Elena Road and as a result increase the distance between the yr fiehrandoeers.com John Chau December 5, 2007 Page 2 of 2 Fuift & PrERS remaining conflict points to 85 -feet improving the operation on Elena Road. For example, a vehicle making a right tum out of the driveway now has additional distance and time to react to a vehicle making a left turn into Vnedo Lane. To summarize, the addition of the two driveways will not significantly impact the traffic operation of Unedo Lane. The elimination of the driveway on Elena Road and the widening of Unedo Lane will improve the operation of the intersection. We would suggest not installing a sidewalk on Unedo Lane. The rural characteristic of the neighborhood would be compromised since there are no other sidewalks or concrete curb and gutters in the area. We recommend removing the Cyprus shrubs along the north side of Vnedo Lane to improve the sight distance. We've attached a couple of drawings to help illustrate our comments. Please let me know if you have any questions. ATTACHMENT 11 Joe Bathurst Complete Tree Care Certified Arborist WC.ISA #5191A 408423-0018 Joe Bathurst' 1241 Sanfilippo Ct' San Jose, California' 95128' (408) 423 - 0018 August 19, 2007 Attention: Issac Agam or Eran Cohen ( Re: Tree Inventory/Arborist Report Site: 25706 Elena Road Los Altos Hills, Ca. Issac Here is the tree inventory/arborist report you have requested for 25706 Elena Road. I have paid a site visit to locate and document each tree in question. Each tree has been assigned a number "01-109" for reference on the conceptual blueprint. The inventory begins at the foot of the existing driveway and proceeds counter clockwise around or near the perimeter of the property. Most of the 109 trees on the property are non-native species. Many of these are in a state of decline due to the extreme and conditions on a southwestem slope. Obviously the trees were strategically selected for their tolerance to drought. But more often than not owners do not differentiate between drought tolerance and drought resistance. These trees have bean sitting here for more than a decade drinking up the little bit of water --alum has ri..Iimd up. We are at present entering a third year of below average rain fall. ..:v: r,•;,r,� ,n:r; war, limited organic material and nutrients in the soil, it is no wonder the trees are failing. hand watering during the dry season until sufficient rainfall returns. ,....... are ,� ::oasr Live vaxs on me propery wan an average us;ft or -;q.n- .-..... remaining 1,5 are ser oacrc enough rrom actrvrry rear trr`.rnars vri¢i r, m:n!:r'�ra . Page 2 There are 2 multi -stem Coast Redwoods, #59 & #60 located at or near the convergence of the proposed split driveway. Unless the drive way is moved to the right at least 10 feet the Redwoods will not survive. Keep in mind the appearance of these trees is deceiving due to the fact that they are actually sprouts of a host tree that expired several years ago Of the 105 remaining trees 17 will need removed to accommodate mainly the proposed driveway. An additional 03 trees will need removed to accommodate the new home located at the upper right corner of the property. There are no Eucalyptus trees on the property. Preservation tips: 1 would strongly suggest installing protective fencing to the right and parallel with the proposed driveway up to the split to include all remaining trees. This area should be designated and posted as a tree preservation zone. This zone would also include the trees to the left and the right of the existing driveway. Outside of the installation of the sewer lines, this area should be free of activity. I would also like to see the installation of protective fencing around the 6 trees located at the upper left comer of the property. These trees should be fenced in as one unit. Although there appears to be no activity planned for this area, l want to minimize the temptation to stockpile, washout, or hang out if you will. This group of trees are tt:r =- -` the lot. As mentioned earlier, mulch is a must. This can be accomplished during the -mr-ro s! :-f other trees. Simply spread the free chippings (mulch) below the canopies of the remaining trees. The mulch should be no more than 12inches and no less than 6 inches rip rP Mulching helps retain moisture, amends the soil during breakdown, invites benenciai r -� ^ rmn�iit'n+p fj�ra '.hirh +n tum *,^ri.�ceg thr. rigk, of fire Please ref. -r'.- the ecce ie'e'rce "Vi y i.. ahect igr Specifies. J athumtCertifiedArbonst#5191A ISA member#86463 Tree# DBH Species Page 3 Tree inventory for 25706 Elena Road Los Altos Ca. By Joe Bathurst Certff dArborist#5191A 8107 Tree# DBH Species Health Stability Comments 01 18" Casuarina stdcta Fair Fair Drought stressed, install protective fencing. 02 19" Casuarina stricta Fair Fair Drought stressed, install protective fencing. 03 16" Schinus molle Fair Fair Crowded out, stunted, install protective fencing. 04 10" Cedrus deodara Poor Poor Crowded out, stunted, install protective fencing. 05 14" Cupressus sempervirensPoor Poor In decline,REMOVE. 06 21 Quercus agrifolia Good Good Install protective fencing. 07 18" Quercus agrifolia Good Good Install protective fencing. 08 15' Casuarina stricta Fair Fair Drought stressed, install protective fencing. 09 17" Casuarina stricta Fair Fair Drought stressed, install protective fencing. 10 6" Cupressus sempervirensPoor Poor Tree is dead,REMOVE. 11 18" Casuarina stricta Fair Fair Drought stressed, install protective fencing. 12 22" Casuarina stricta Fair Fair Drought stressed, install protective fencing. 13 16" Casuarina stride Poor Pon Severe decline, REMOVE. 14 21" Pinus radiate Fair Fair Bark beetles present, Monitor, install protective fencing. 15 11" Cedrus deodara Fair Fair Crowded out, stunted, install prolective fencing. 16 11" Quercus agifolia Good Good Install protective fencing. 17 15" Cedrus deodara Fair Poor Proposed driveway, REMOVE. 18 12" Cedms deodara Fair Fair Drought stressed, Install protective fencing. 19 6' Quercus agrifolia Good Good Install protective fencing. 20 12" Cedrus deodara Fair Fair Drought stressed, install protective ening. 21 17' Cedrus deodara Fair Fair Proposed driveway, REMOVE. Page 4 Tree# DBH Species Health Stability Comments 22 18" Casuarina stricta Fair Poor Driveway, trenching, REMOVE. 23 15" Grevillea robusta Fair Poor Driveway, trenching, REMOVE. 24 10" Cedrus de xlara Fair Poor Driveway, trenching, REMOVE. 25 11" grevillea robusta Fair Poor Driveway, trenching, REMOVE. 26 23" Casuarina stricta Fair Poor Driveway, trenching, REMOVE. 27 15' Casuarina stricta Fair Fair Competing with stone pines, install protective fencing. 28 10" Cedrus deodara Fair Fair Crowded out, stunted by stone pines, install protective fencing. 29 13" Casuarina shicta Fair Fair Competing with stone pines, install protective fencing. 30 11" Cedrus deodara Fair Fair Crowded out, stunted by stone pines, Install protective fencing. 31 12" Pinus pines Fair Fair Phototropism, install protective fencing. 32 18" Pinus pines Fair Fair Phototropism, install protective fencing. 33 9" Cedrus deodara Fair Fair Crowded out, stunted by stone pines, install protective fencing. 34 6" Pinus pines Fair Fair Crowded out, stunted by sister stone pines, install protective fencing. 35 26" Pinus pinea Fair Fair Phototropism, install protective fencing. 36 17" Pinus pines Fair Fair Phototropism, install protective fencing. 37 12" Cedrus deodara Fair Fair Competing with stone pines, install protective fencing. 38 23" Pinus pines Fair Fair Phototropism, install protective fencing. 39 21" Pinus pines Fair Fair Phototropism, install protective fencing. 40 30' Casuarina stricta Fair Fair Competing with stone pines, install protective fencing. The preceding pages #3 & #4 are focused on the tree preservation zone within the existing and proposed driveway area as mentioned in the preservation tips paragraph of the report. Page 5 Tree# DISH Species Health Stability Comments 41 U. Phoenix canariensis Good Good Tree is distorted by adjacent trees, Mondor, may need removed later. 42 10" Quercus agrifolia Good Good Install protective fencing. 43 11' Pistacia chinensis Good Good Install protective fencing. 44 17x11x9' Cedrus deodare Good Good Install protective fencing. 45 28" Cedrus deodare Fair Fair Install protective fencing. 46 23" Quecus agrifolia Good Good Install protective fencing. 47 27" Cedrus deodara Fair Fair Install protective fencing. 48 10" Quecus agrifolia Good Good Install protective fencing. 49 11" Quercus agrifolia Good Good Install protective fencing. 50 26" Cedrus deodara Fair Fair Install protective fencing. 51 28" Cedrus decdara Fair Fair Install protective fencing. 52 8" Quercus agrifolia Good Good Install protective fencing. The preceding trees #41 through #52 are part of the tree preservation zone within the existing and proposed driveway area as mentioned in the tree preservation tips paragraph of the report. Exceptions do apply as with the recommended removals. 53 12' Cedrus deodare Fair Poor Driveway, REMOVE. 54 18" Quercus agrifolia Good Poor Driveway, REMOVE. 55 23" Cedrus deodara Fair Poor Driveway, REMOVE. 56 16" Cedrus deodara Fair Poor Driveway, REMOVE. 57 14" Quercus agrifolia Good Poor Driveway, REMOVE. 58 12" Cedrus deodara Fair Poor Driveway, REMOVE. 59 1gx17x17' Sequioa sempervirens Fair Poor Driveway, REMOVE, see report. 60 18x21x21" Sequioa sempervirens Fair Poor Driveway, REMOVE, see report. 61 27" Pinus canariensts Good Poor Garage, REMOVE. 62 26" Cedrus deodare Fair Poor Proposed house, REMOVE. 63 29' Cedrus deodare Fair Poor Proposed house, REMOVE. 64 29" Thuja plicata Fair Fair Sufficient set back from activity. 65 21" Cedrus atlantice Good Good Sufficient set back from activity. Page 6 Tree# DBH Species Health Stability Comments 66 21" Cedrus atlantica Good Good Sufficient set back from activity. 67 14" Cedrus atlantica Good Good Sufficient setback from activity. 68 11" Cedrus atlantica Good Good Sufficient setback from avbvity. 69 NA Cedrus atlantica NA NA Tree is missing, stump remains. 70 13' Cedrus atlantica Good Good Sufficient setback from activity. 71 28" Phoenix dactylifera? Good Good Sufficient setback from activity. The following trees #72 through #78 are part of the preservation zone located at the upper left portion of the property. This is mentioned in the preservation tips paragraph of the report Mulching of the trees in this area is strongly recommended. Tree is dead. 80 16" 72 15" Julgans californica Good Good Install protective fencing and mulch. 73 16"x17' Ulmus pumila Good Good Install protective fencing and mulch. 74 18" Catalpa speciosa Good Good Install protective fencing and mulch. 75 13"02' Quercus agrifolia Good Good Install protective fencing and mulch. 76 16" Quecus agrifolia Good Good Install protective fencing and mulch. 77 31" Quercus agrifolia Good Good Install protective fencing and mulch. 78 11" Julganscalifomica Good Good Install protectice fencing and mulch. The following trees #79 through #109 do not qualify as protected candidates for preservation. Most of them except for the Italian cypress are in poor health due to neglect or lack of water and nutrients. As for the 16 Italian cypress, they may not fit in with the landscape design or taste of a future owner. However, these trees are addressed to maintain a thorough report. 79 9" Prunus cerasifera Poor Poor Tree is dead. 80 16" Julgans ralifornica Good Good Volunteer from seed 81 40' high Cupressus sempervirens Good Good No action 82 40' high Cupressus sempervirens Good Good No action 83 40' high Cupressus sempervirens Good Good No action Page 7 Tree# DBH Species Health Stability Comments 84 40' high Cupressus sempervirens Good Good May become an obstruction. 85 40' high Cupressus sempervirens Good Poor Grade change, REMOVE. 86 8" Albizia julibrissin Fair Fair Drought stressed, No action. 87 4" Quercus agrifolia Good Good No action. 88 40' high Washingtonia fiiifera Good Poor Grade change, REMOVE. 89 40' high Washingtonia filifera Good Poor Grade change, REMOVE. 90 6" Apricot Fair Fair In decline 91 8" Pinus pines Good Good Short tree, no action. 92 5" Eriobotrya japonica Fair Fair Drought stressed, no action 93 5" Eriobotrya japonica Fair Fair Drought stressed, no action. 94 5" Quercus agrifolia Good Good No action. 95 4" Magnolia spp. Poor Poor Drought stressed, no action. 96 5" Prunus cerasifera Fair Fair Drought stressed, no action 97 6" Magnolia spp. Poor Poor Drought stressed, no action. 98 7" Prunus cerasifera Fair Fair Drought stressed, no action. 99 through 109 Cupressus sempervirens Good Good May become an obstruction. Nice row if trees for now. No action. I am available for further consultation whether by phone or additional site Visits. Joe Bathurst August 20, 2007 Some tree preservation guidelines. #1. Consult your local municipal planning department as to their specific guidelines in reference to tree preservation- Each city differs #2. Always obtain proper permits if required before cutting or trimming any trees. #3. Consult a certified arborist to answer any tree questions you may have. A certified arborist can do the legwork and docmmemation of your treescape as required by the city planning depaimietlt An arborist esti help ereare a Ifea preservation plan to be presented to the city as required #4. Design your plans strategically to mirom;treescape impact #5. Express to all contractors your commitment to tree preservation #6 hrstall protective fencing around all trees to be preserved This fencing should be placed at the drip line of the trees or at least 5 feet out from the ties trunk which ever is greater. Refer to the planningdepartment guidelines for speeAfics. V. Do not stockpile any material within the drip line of the tree. This includes lumber mortar, bricks, liquids, autos, earth movers, etc. #8. Delineate zones for parking washouts, stock piling and storage prior to construction #9. Report any sadden changes in the trees appearance or any damage to the trees due to construction activity. # 10. Have your site arborist do. a walk through at least twice a month depending on the close proximity of trees to construction activity. #11_ Have trees manually watered where previous irrigation is disrupted or in and situations. Consult you site arborist He may recommend mulching to conserve water. #12. Any root cutting or pruning should be supervised or executed by your site arborist. Ultimately, it is the owners responsibility to set forth and maintain a tree preservation plan. The owner must be willing to work in concert with developers and persuade them to operate sensitively around the trees. I.S.A. Pruning Standards The following is a list of pruning standards and practices created by The International Society of Arboriculture. It is a simplified universal explanation to help you understand what sort of pruning we are recommending . *The finest compliment an arborist can receive after materially reducing the size or density of a tree is when observers fail to notice that the tree has been pruned. 1. Crown Cleaning, (CC.) Selective removal of dead, dying, or diseased branches, Weakly attached branches and water sprouts. 2. Crown Thinning, (CT.) Selective removal of branches to increase light penetration, Air movement, and to lighten heavy branching. 3. Crown Raising, (CRZ) Selective removal of lowest branches to provide clearance. 4. * Crown Redaction, (CR.) To decrease the height and/or spread of a trees crown. 5. Vista Pruning, (VP.) Selective thinning of specific areas of tree crown to allow a view of a Predetermined point. 6. Crown Restoration, (CRST.) To improve structure, form and appearance of trees which have been severely or incorrectly trimmed, * or have simply been neglected. 7. Hazard Reduction, (JUL) Addresses parts of a tree that are likely to fail, or pose a liability threat To persons or property * from k#. Atbmicdoae mid edbloo, H=,i Cbidc, r lmhem. *Considaali= shm M be em m ro me species ability m amain dm type ofp =& *ie v Mism, old broken brmcks, tree bouse, rope swing bake tae, e Terminology. Words and phrases usedinthis report woformto the Tree Prwmg Gild *Y=pet fnrthby the (International Society of Arbcriculrne, 1995) and a ANSI A30o Pruning Standards (America wadonal Standard Inerrant) Following we a few de5nitums of the Dim commonly used words or phrases mthe report Co -dominant shams "milli' (Cod X #) When two or more stems (trunks) am growing vatically from the same point of attache, err witbin the same caoopywbae nmmady there gwdd be ooa # reptesmts - number of Co -dominent stems. EwWk, Cod X 3 Included Barka Status: (1B) Smalar to Cods. Except that the branches are actually touching orlock to be Rising together . As the stems radial growth increases they apply force an one another causing the weaker stem to split out. Ila also happens with branches growing at extremely sharp angles. The sena sign of this is a swelling a wiling in of the be& at the point of allaa mem hence, Included Barak. Taper. As a branch, at= or trunk grows to length the diameter should gradually lessen $ora the point of a ,chm:.a to the tip. Simply pu4 a come is stronger than a pole. Add the weight of the canopy above with the force of a brisk wind the pole can map. Fail: In this report the word fad pertains to the hltelihood of abranch m stem (=A) to crack, break, split out and fall to the ground. Heavy Laterad Braochivg When a hor'izomal branch is so heavy with foliage that it seems to be growing on of the pan= of the rest of the branches. It may appear twisted m banging dower These branches have a potential tofisl Some trey are mom pane to this type offlbre than other uses. _ Branch Attachment and Angle: Abmmch growing a less than 45 degrees is mdesrtable. Abranch growing at 90 degrees is dangerous. A branch growing at 45 degrees, give a take a degree a two either way is a strong branch Wind Saul: During alrisk 15 mph wird an avenge branch sways back and froth. Abranch with deme foliage will hold or ride the wind, cansmg m aior cracks which weaken the branch for the next gale. Repeated gusts over time will eventual rause the branch to fad DBH: Diameter @ Breast Height. The diameter of a tree measured 4& up fromthe ground Most tree preservation programs require this as a systematic way of determining which trees can stay or which trees can go. Health: Relates, to the general physiological condition of the tree. Stability: Relates to stucmral'mtegrity ofthe mcrhanical pmts of tree These parts incl deBranrhes, their attachment point, their sme and taper. Other mechanical parts include the stem (murk), ire taper, alas of decay and its ably to maimain the tme vertically. Please refer to the LSA. Pruning Standards page for additional defvition oftaminology. INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM P.O. Box 3129 • Ch.p6,, B 61826-3129 • (2T7)3559411 • Far @771 355-9516 email: cengisoarborcom • Internet: http;-z'www.isoarbor.com Tuesday, June 06, 2006 Joseph S. aathuro UNRED STATES Dear Joseph, Certification # WE -5191A The Certification Board of the International Society of Arboriculture is pleased to inform you that you have been recertified. The ISA Certification Board commends you on your Efforts. You are encouraged to maintain the level of professional competency that you demonstrated in the last three years. Please examine the recertification materials included in this packet for information about obtaining Continuing Education Units (CEUs). Your Certification will expire on 6/30/2009. once ana'n ratulationc nn n rr re edff of _ f yn ha y q pt acr - __ _ ---.�—�--.-CDn9 y l YE2n tretinnc don't hesitate to contact the Certification Department at the ISA office. Sincerely, Lisa Ward Grant, Chairman Certification Board of Directors International Societv of Arboriculture Enclosures -OW -ms) -025) -026 ;E ;ESERVAT )NE 1T I I I I I JD' DA 73— creouxo PROPOSED /\ HOUSE i �n � SEAR IJ I F �CI:AF.D FOUpiDATi G� Ia?_�5-019, RA DpC=iS9904 _..4F9 CROUND c�'2'4]'�5'E 3Ys is x o NoF- - - —� I /- I1—f M' 6A 1 12- 12 1 1 yx � io c � ` " I W C 7 ll I I i�' cco�re I 6 �m v 24'ICEDAR 165 I ;I LAU TEnEF p '.az-is-r r�Ev C0 944 C TREE ��PRESERVAT ZONE ATTACHMENT 12 LAW OFFICES OF DmoxD B. TucK DESMOND B. TUCK 6501345.9651 CALIFORNIA 94402 E.M U. ( January 25, 2008 John Chau Brian Froelich RECEIVED Debbie Pedro CITY OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road to 281008 Los Altos Hills LOS pLTOSHILLS CA 94022-2624 TOWN OF RE: 25706 ELENA ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS Ladies and Gentlemen: Further to my letter dated October 23, 2007, I have reviewed three Amendments to Deed of Easement and Road Maintenance Agreement dated 9/7/55, 12/27/56, and 11/30/70, respectively, pertaining to the above captioned property. The purpose of my review was to analyze any impact these Amendments might possibly have on the proposed subdivision of the above captioned property owned by Agam, Cohen, and Gavra. These three prior Amendments added new parcels to the Agreement. The owners of the new parcels are consistently referred to as the "Parties of the second part" in each case. The additional property descriptions are also provided in each instance. It is important to note that in the past, when parcels whose original owners were already signatories to the Deed of Easement and Road "Maintenance Agreement, were subdivided or transferred to new owners, no Amendments were ever signed or required. This is logical because the instrument and its consequence tuns with the land. Only when additional new parcels were added, not created by subdivision, were Amendments signed and recorded. In other words, the clear purpose of these Amendments was to bind new properties not previously subject to the Deed of Easement and Road Maintenance Agreement at all, to its provisions. Where the land is already subject to the Agreement, a further amendment would be a vain act. Accordingly, since the Applicants now own a parcel which was already part of, and subject to, the original Deed of Easement and Road Maintenance Agreement, no Amendment is John Chau Brian Froelich Debbie Pedro CITY OF LOS ALTOS HILLS January 25, 2009 Page two RE: 25706 ELENA ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS required in their case. Even if their property is subdivided, the process of subdivision does not sever the newly designated parcels from the obligation to be bound by the original Deed of Easement and Road Maintenance Agreement. This is so because their land was bound at the original time of execution thereof. The obvious conclusion is that no new Amendment is required in order to accommodate the proposed subdivision by Agam, Cohen and Gavra, because their property is already bound by the provisions of the Deed of Easement and Road Maintenance Agreement. Any suggestion by the exisfing members of the Association that such an Amendment might now be required, is inconsistent with the precedent already set by the 1955, 1956 and 1970 Amendments, and is without merit. Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions or comments. Sincerely, • DESMOND B. TUCK cc: Clients NW 0EI9CES OF DESMOND B. TUCK DEMOND B. TUCK 117 BOVEr ROAD, SUITE 600 PACSndnE — SAN MATED 650/345-9651 CAUM MA 94402 — E.MAM. DESTUCK48AOL.COM (650) 341-1895 October 23, 2007 John Chau Brian Froelich Debbie Pedro CITY OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills CA 94022-2624 RE: 25706 ELENA ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS Ladies and Gentlemen: At the request of the owners of the subject properly, I am providing a legal opinion to you concerning their efforts to complete the subdivision process in connection with their development plans for the site. In particular, I have reviewed the issue of driveway access to Vinedo Lane from the three proposed residences on their property. As part of that review, I have personally visited the site and have inspected the material documents of record. These documents of record include, but are not limited to, the recorded Deed of Easement which comprises Vinedo Lane, and the recorded Road Maintenance Agreement pertaining thereto. I understand that a few surrounding residents and/or members of the Vinedo Lane Road Maintenance Association have strenuously asserted that driveway access to Vinedo Lane from the subject property is prohibited or should be disallowed or limited in some fashion. The current owners have spoken to the previous owner of the property about his access to his property when he owned it. He stated unambiguously that he had openly used Vinedo Lane as his main access to the subject property without objection from anyone. John Chau Brian Froelich Debbie Pedro CITY OF LOS ALTOS HILLS October 23, 2007 Page two RE: 25706 ELENA ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS The owners have full rights of access guaranteed by a recorded Grant of Easement that has existed for over fifty years. Moreover these rights were freely exercised in the past and cannot now be arbitrarily denied. The objecting owners currently seek to impose an arbitrary denial under cover of the City's request for their acknowledgment, which has now proved to have been ill-considered and without legal precedent. In effect, the requirement that the owners obtain an acknowledgment from the neighbors forces the owners to prove a `negative' without there being any legal basis for doing so. The position of the neighbors, on the one hand, and the request by the City for their acknowledgment of the owners' recorded rights on the other, are in fact legally and logically inconsistent. My purpose in writing this letter is to clarify, using the documents of record, that any opposition by neighboring owners to the proposed driveways access for the subject property lacks any merit whatsoever. In part, this is because the subdivision plan does not propose any new access point to Vinedo Lane that was not already in use for years during prior ownerships. Because the neighbors' objections lack merit, they can be deemed to be malicious and deliberately intended to seriously hama the owners' legitimate property rights and prospective economic advantage. At the moment, this is not the main issue, but it is troubling that it is occurring at all. All the owners want to do is develop the property expeditiously, in accordance with their legal right and with the City guidelines. RECORDED GRANT OF EASEMENT The specific portion of the easement in question on Vinedo Lane consists of land which forms pari of the subject property itself The recorded grant actually creates an easement over the subject property in favor of uphill and adjacent neighbors. The subject easement was recorded in 1953 and includes the following language, in part: [the item numbers correspond to the item on the said Deed of Easement]. 111. WHEREAS, owners are desirous of effecting an equitable plan for assuring the maintenance of the private road herein described, which is contiguous to their real property, and constitutes the principal means of ingress and egress from their respective parcels to the public road system; John Chau Brian Froelich Debbie Pedro CITY OF LOS ALTOS HILLS October 23, 2007 Page three RE: 25706 ELENA ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS 2. That owners of the real properties described in Exhibits "A", "B", "C", "D^, and "E" hereto attached and by reference incorporated herein, hereby declare, establish, and convey the following described real property as a private right of way for residential ingress and egress and jar installation and maintenance ofpublic utilities for the benefit and use of all parcels herein specified, said easement to be appurtenant to said respective parcels of realproperty and to continue forever." 10. The breach of any of the covenants herein contained shall give the respective non - defaulting parties, their heirs or assigns, individually or collectively, all remedies provided by law or equity except re-entry and forfeiture." It. These covenants are being imposed upon said respective parcels of real property for the express mutual benefit of saidparcels, each requiring adequate ingress and egress and public utilities facilities.." [Emphasis supplied.] Most significantly, there is no mention anywhere in the documents of record of any restriction concerning the number of driveways or subdivisions that can be created on Vinedo Lane. The clear purpose of the Road Maintenance Agreement was to insure the maintenance of Vinedo Lane road only, without affecting the rights of the property owners to access Vinedo Lane in any fashion whatsoever. In fact Vinedo Lane was created, in part, by burdening the subject property with the subject easement to allow interior neighbors to access their own properties. Logically, it makes no sense to prevent the party who granted the easement from using it themselves, or even to place any conditions on that use other than as set forth in the Road Maintenance Agreement. There is indeed an item in the Association Agreement pertaining to use of the easement which might physically affect the road, including construction activities. That item would require the John Chau Brian Froelich Debbie Pedro CITY OF LOS ALTOS HILLS October 23, 2007 Page four RE: 25706 ELENA ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS party doing so to pay for any damage caused. It made no provision for restriction of the number of driveways allowed to access Vinedo Lane because that was never the purpose of the Road Maintenance Agreement. In fact, when language unambiguously declares that the easement "... constitutes the principal means of ingress and egress from their respective parcels to the public road system" that is appurtenant and continues forever, there is no room for interpretation about what that means. Consequently, any interference with the principal means of ingress and egress would be a clear violation of the grant and of the owners' rights. It is therefore not surprising that there is no language which even mentions any such restriction of access, let alone refers to authorization thereof. Indeed, paragraph 10 expressly states that "forfeiture" is not even an available remedy for breach of any of the covenants contained in the grant of easement. Therefore the City's request for acknowledgment by the other members of the Road Maintenance Association is without any legal or factual foundation, and is without precedent. Finally, it should be noted that the Chief Title Officer of Cornerstone Title Company concurs with the view that the recorded maps set forth no restriction of access onto Vinedo Lane. ACTUAL INTENDED USE VS. PRIOR USE There were already two previously existing driveways accessing Vinedo Lane from the subject property. These are clearly visible on the site. At some point in time, a fence was constructed along the Vinedo Lane side of the property. The former owner of the property has stated that the fence was constructed to exclude vehicular trespassers from driving onto the lot after the buildings on the site were demolished. Under no viable theory could the fact that a fence constructed on their own property by its prior owner across both of their own prior driveways, have led to the abandonment of the right to access Vinedo Lane. 1 John Chan Brian Froelich Debbie Pedro CITY OF LOS ALTOS HILLS October 23, 2007 Page five RE: 25706 ELENA ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS It should also be noted that the current owners intend to have two of the three residences utilize only one access point on Vinedo Lane, and the third one would utilize a point at the higher end of their property. Therefore, the intent is to re-create the same number of driveway access points which existed there before. The notion that this might somehow impermissibly burden traffic on Vinedo Lane is far-fetched, to put it mildly. According to the approved subdivision plans, all ultimate access roads to the subject property would join Vinedo Lane at the very beginning of Vinedo Lane, without interference with any traffic pattern of the Association members except for one member across the street. These driveways would only be created at the very end of the construction process and would have no effect whatsoever on traffic after construction is completed. There happens to also be a safety-related reason for using Vinedo Lane as the principal means of egress and ingress. That arises from the configuration of driveways on Elena Road near the comer of Vinedo Lane. If the owners of the subject property were to use the Elena Road access, there would be a dangerous traffic condition on Elena arising from the convergence of three driveways at that location. PRIOR USAGE The current owners consulted the prior owner, Mr. Driscoll, who sold them the property. Mr. Driscoll had the following to say about prior usage, in confirming the above: The Driscolls, who were dues -paying members of the Road Maintenance Association and who attended their meetings, used to use both Vinedo Lane and Elena Road accesses, but mainly used Vinedo Lane. The access at the uphill side of the property was the upper end of a circular driveway. 2. Vinedo Lane access was specifically used for trucks involved in the demolition process when the houses formerly on the property, were removed. 3. After the previously -existing houses were demolished, the fence on Vinedo Lane was erected in order to minimize liability issues when trucks and motorcycles were observed driving onto the property for recreational purposes; t John Chau Brian Froelich Debbie Pedro CITY OF LOS ALTOS HILLS October 23, 2007 Page six RE: 25706 ELENA ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS 4. All accesses to Vinedo Lane were pre-existing and were not built by the Driscolls. The Driscolls had planned to build on the property in 1999-2000 but never pursued the obtaining of building permits; and 5. The subject property used to belong to a high-ranking military officer who previously had five buildings on the property, all of which were demolished. These facts indicate that nothing contained in the current subdivision plan is in substantive conflict with prior usage of the property vis-a-vis access to Vinedo Lane. FACTS ON THE GROUND AND IN THE RECORD Facts on the ground which support the owners' position were created long ago. The original agreement was between and among five property owners. After the creation of numerous subdivisions authorized by the City of Los Altos Hills, there are now more than 22 property owners. To my knowledge, no restrictions were placed on their access to Vinedo Lane during prior subdivision processes. It is my understanding that the owners' proposed subdivision has been approved in principle, and meets all legal City guidelines. There can therefore be no good faith argument from neighbors that the owners should be prevented from developing their property as proposed based on a frivolous objection concerning access to Vinedo Lane, CONCLUSION Based on the above, it is my considered opinion that to expect the owners of the subject property to include neighbors and Association members as part of the subdivision approval process when there is no legal basis for doing so, simply serves to create ill feeling in the area, and could even generate litigation if the neighbors continue to perceive they have rights which clearly do not exist, based on the uncontradicted record. In summary, the neighbors have no legal right to oppose the owners' subdivision plans, either based on recorded documents or prior legal usage of the property. To expect the owners to get the John Chau Brian Froelich Debbie Pedro CITY OF LOS ALTOS HILLS October 23, 2007 Page seven RE: 25706 ELENA ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS acknowledgment the City has asked for, serves no constructive purpose at all. The neighbors have no authority to object to the owners' proposed access to Vinedo Lane. For the purpose of completeness, I also note that the fact that the property has a designated Elena Road address is irrelevant to any right of access to Vinedo Lane because of the rights granted in the easement of record. It should also be noted that one member of the Association does have an Elena Road address, 25698 Elena Road, but is using Vinedo Lane as their access point. I would therefore urge you to withdraw your request for this Acknowledgment forthwith, and to proceed through the subdivision approval process without further delay. Opposition by any neighbor can only be deemed to be malicious, which of course, could have serious legal consequences for all concerned should they persist. Please confirm that in view of the above, you will withdraw your request to the owners to obtain the acknowledgment you asked them to obtain, and that the Subdivision approval will not be delayed any further. DESMOND B. TUCK cc: Clients VIA E-MAIL dpedro(&Iosaltoshills.ca.4ov AND U.S. MAIL Debbie Pedro, AICP Planning Director Town of Los Altos Hills 26739 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Re: Proposed Subdivision of 25706 Elena Road Dear Ms. Pedro: ATTACHMENT 13 .....L MARVIN S SIEGEL ETIgEO IONN R COSGROVE Thank you forarranging the February 12, 2008, telephone conference regarding the proposed subdivision for 25706 Elena Road, Los Altos Hills ("Subdivision Proposal'). As we discussed, I represent private homeowners who live on Vinedo Lane. These homeowners have serious concerns about the Subdivision Proposal. These concerns center around two distinct issues. The first is whether or not the developers have the legal right to expand Vinedo Lane without the approval of the Vinedo Lane Road Association. The second, concerns the conditions for any subdivision approval. No Right to Unilaterally Expand the Road The bulk of our discussion centered around what rights, if any, the developer has to use and expand Vinedo Lane. Vinedo Lane is a private lane, of approximately fourteen (14) feet in width that serves twenty (20) or so households. As Vinedo Lane is a private lane, the property owners, and not the Town, are responsible for the costs of maintenance and are legally liable for its use. Furthermore, it is the property owners, and not the Town, who make the decisions regarding when and what repairs or modifications should be made to the road. The Vinedo Lane property owners understand that the Town Staff is recommending a condition of approval to the proposed subdivision that Vinedo Lane be widened to twenty (20) feet where Vinedo Lane is contiguous to the land that is proposed to be subdivided. N\DATA1CkeYWW\Wang, 5\Gorres\PetlDd In,wptl JORGENSON. SIEGEL, MCCLURE S FLEGEL, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW WILLIAM LLUR E I... IfG N NDIE S ROMANOWSNY NICOLAS 0. REGEL LEIGH F. PRINCE NRISTINA 6 P....... February 14, 2008 VIA E-MAIL dpedro(&Iosaltoshills.ca.4ov AND U.S. MAIL Debbie Pedro, AICP Planning Director Town of Los Altos Hills 26739 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Re: Proposed Subdivision of 25706 Elena Road Dear Ms. Pedro: ATTACHMENT 13 .....L MARVIN S SIEGEL ETIgEO IONN R COSGROVE Thank you forarranging the February 12, 2008, telephone conference regarding the proposed subdivision for 25706 Elena Road, Los Altos Hills ("Subdivision Proposal'). As we discussed, I represent private homeowners who live on Vinedo Lane. These homeowners have serious concerns about the Subdivision Proposal. These concerns center around two distinct issues. The first is whether or not the developers have the legal right to expand Vinedo Lane without the approval of the Vinedo Lane Road Association. The second, concerns the conditions for any subdivision approval. No Right to Unilaterally Expand the Road The bulk of our discussion centered around what rights, if any, the developer has to use and expand Vinedo Lane. Vinedo Lane is a private lane, of approximately fourteen (14) feet in width that serves twenty (20) or so households. As Vinedo Lane is a private lane, the property owners, and not the Town, are responsible for the costs of maintenance and are legally liable for its use. Furthermore, it is the property owners, and not the Town, who make the decisions regarding when and what repairs or modifications should be made to the road. The Vinedo Lane property owners understand that the Town Staff is recommending a condition of approval to the proposed subdivision that Vinedo Lane be widened to twenty (20) feet where Vinedo Lane is contiguous to the land that is proposed to be subdivided. N\DATA1CkeYWW\Wang, 5\Gorres\PetlDd In,wptl Debbie Pedro February 14, 2008 - Page 2 The Vinedo Lane property owners further understand that the reason that Staff has recommended this condition is that the traffic study done for this project states that the road in its current configuration is not sufficient to handle the added traffic from the three new houses the developer proposes to access Vinedo Lane. While the condition appears to be simple and straightforward, the condition makes a crucial assumption which happens not to be correct. The assumption is that the project applicant has the unfettered right to comply with the condition of making the road six (6) feet wider. This assumption is inaccurate for two reasons. The first is that the Vinedo Lane Road Association, and not the developer, decides what work may and may not be done to the road. As you are aware, paragraph 4 of the Deed of Easement and Road Maintenance Agreement states: The owners hereby agree and declare that effective July 1, 1953, and until terminated as herein provided, any matters relative to the management, maintenance, repair, construction and re -construction, financing thereof, and incidental items may be determined by a majority affirmative vote of said owners ... Should a majority of said owners determine certain works are to be undertaken, then said majority may arrange by public or private bids and the execution of contracts pursuant thereto for the work to be accomplished in the names of all owners; Without this majority vote, the developer cannot widen the road. To date, the developer has not requested the Vinedo Lane Road Association to approve the widening. While it is premature to predict the outcome of a vote, if one were requested, if there is not a vote the road cannot be widened. Nor could the road be widened if the Road Association does not vote by majority vote to widen the road. However, I understand that the City Attorney currently believes that the language of the agreement requiring approval is "permissive" and not mandatory. However, such an interpretation of the Vinedo Lane Road Association agreement would negate the power of the other members of the Road Association to control their road. It does not make sense that the members of the Road Association would agree to an agreement that any member could do whatever they pleased to the road without the approval of the other members. Let me set forth an extreme example of why the approval of a majority of the Road Association is required. Let's assume that instead of the road being made out of asphalt, an individual paved a section of the road in handmade bricks and then told the Road Association it needed to maintain this handmade brick road. Everyone would agree that this is not reasonable. While the example may be extreme, the legal reality of the handmade brick road situation and the current situation is the same; the developer does not have the power to pave the road and force the Road Association to accept future maintenance and liability of an unauthorized addition to the road. The second reason is that even if the developer had the legal ability to widen the road, the developer could not do so because it would unduly burden the easement. This undue burden would arise because the other properly owners on Vinedo Lane would now be responsible for maintaining a wider road and for any liability that arose from the widened N ZATA1CIianlslWlWang. S%COnes\PotlO4 M wN Debbie Pedro February 14, 2008 - Page 3 road. Again, the Road Association agreement was entered into so the members of the Road Association, in a democratic manner, would have control over the cost and liability of the road. It would not be legal or fair for the Town to impose the cost and duty to maintain the expanded road on twenty Los Altos Hills households who have not requested nor approved the road widening. In light of the constrictions on the ability to widen the road, we believe that there are two alternatives. Either access to the Proposed Subdivision must be from Elena or the number of houses in the Proposed Subdivision must be reduced to the point where the traffic from the new houses could be absorbed by the existing Vinedo Lane. It should be noted in 1992 the City Council approved a two -lot subdivision for this property. It is my understanding that the two -lot subdivision was approved unanimously and the City Council voted to have one parcel be accessed off of Elena and for Vinedo Lane not to be widened. On behalf of my clients, I request Staff and the Planning Commission to carefully analyze and understand what rights the Vinedo Road Association has to prevent the widening of the road to twenty (20) feet and to consider that a two -lot subdivision as proposed in 1992 is a more appropriate subdivision for thissitegiven the constraints of the topography and the private road. 2. Proposed Conditions: Even if a two -lot subdivision is approved for this site, my clients have concerns regarding the conditions of approval. During our conversation, I suggested that a number of the conditions that were included in the 1992 approval should be included as conditions for the Subdivision Proposal. These conditions include: A. That a sanitary sewer force main system shall be installed to serve the lots of the proposed subdivision as well as other feasible lots on Vinedo Lane and Elena Road. We are not aware of any reason why the Town would not require the developer to put in this improvement as it comports with the Town policy of extending the sanitary sewer system. The hydraulic capacity of the culvert under Elena shall be verified and if it does not have enough capacity, it will be replaced with one with adequate capacity. Even though no specific site application(s) has been filed at this time, I believe that this calculation can be performed now based on maximum impervious surface allowed and the work should be done as part of the subdivision, and not site application, as the work benefits the entire property and notjust one parcel. The developer should be responsible for this condition, not a future homeowner. C. A drainage system shall be designed to not increase the rate of peak run-off due to the improvements and the maximum run-off leaving the subdivision shall not exceed the peak run-off rate from the undeveloped site based on a 10 -year storm. Even if the specific plans need to be designed once site application(s) are filed, this N'\DATA\DlienlsMWang, S%Corresl edD-IA wpd Debbie Pedro February 14, 2008 - Page 4 drainage requirement should apply to the subdivision as a whole in addition to applying parcel by parcel. D. Filed vement areas of Vinedo Lane shall ha l g4r and repaired. I understand that the Public orks Department is not certain whether or not there is failed pavement at this time. But whether the pavement has or has not failed is irrelevant as to whether the condition makes sense. If there is failed pavement this condition is necessary; if the pavement has not failed, the condition has not placed any burden on the developer. E. All construction access and parking for the subdivision improvements and any later site improvements shall be via Elena. I understand that the developer has already volunteered to do this. However, unless this requirement is a condition, the Town has no ability to enforce the access and parking requirements and the neighbors have no assurance this will be done. I look forward to the opportunity to review the Initial Study and the Staff Report and hope that Staff and the Planning Commission will recognize the significant difficulties with the Subdivision Proposal and act accordingly. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions regarding the above or if I can provide any additional information. Lastly, I respectfully request that you include this letter with the Staff Report for this item. DanK. Siegel DKS:rr cc: Clients Brian Froelich (via e-mail only bfroelich@losaltoshills.ca.gov) N:WATA%CJienWWWan9, S OrresrPedD-1 In wpd 11 Ji , Ay �'�a f � ATTACHMENT 14 Brian Froelich From: Crossman, Brian [ Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 12:51 PM To: Brian Froelich Cc: Mattas, Steve; Wang, Cynthia; Gallardo-Reyes, Alicia Subject: Vinedo Lane Subdivision Hi Brian, I have had a chance to review the documents you sent and I agree that the property owners' have a valid easement to use Vinedo Lane for access to their residential properties. Their easement is an express easement, established by the 1953 grant deed. The deed, which was recorded with the County Recorder (see page 48 of the deed), expresses its intent to establish an easement "appurtenant" for property which has since been subdivided to include the parcel at 25706 Elena Road. The deed indicates that it is intended for "residential ingress and egress," to benefit "all parcels ... and to continue forever." (Page 37.) Therefore, the rights of residential access to Vinedo Lane has passed to the current owners of 25706 Elena Road. I foresee two potential arguments that could be raised by the neighbors. While I don't think either argument has much merit, you should be aware of them. First, the neighbors may argue that the owners' proposed use is an expansion of the easement, since the owners are subdividing the property and creating two driveways accessing Vinedo Lane. I think this argument fails however, because the deed does not restrict the scope of the easement to prohibit subdivision, and in fact contemplates that the large parcels to which the easement originally applied may someday be divided and sold. (See page 41, paragraph 14.) Furthermore, if subdivided portions of the original properties were not permitted to access the private road, then presumably at least some of the neighbors would not be able to use the road either, since they are on subdivided lots. Additionally, even if the scope of the easement did exclude the owners' proposal, there may be an argument that the owners have a prescriptive easement to access Vinedo Lane, given that the property has been accessed from Vinedo Lane in the past. We would need to explore the factual circumstances a bit more, however, to substantiate this argument. The second argument that the neighbors might raise is that the owners' easement has been terminated by abandonment or nonuse. The only evidence of potential abandonment here is the fence that has been erected along the Vinedo Lane side of the property. The documents you have supplied imply that the fence was erected to keep trespassers out, but does not prevent authorized access to property from Vinedo Lane. (See Letter from Desmond Tuck, October 23, 2007.) Assuming this is true, a claim of abandonment could not be sustained, since the erection of the fence does not manifest an intent to forfeit access to and from Vinedo Lane. As for nonuse of the easement, generally nonuse of an express easement is insufficient to terminate the easement, however, there is some authority to suggest that nonuse may terminate an express easement. (See 6 Miller & Starr 3d., § 15:78.) In any case, the documents also suggest that the prior owners did access Vinedo Lane from their property from time to time, which would likely refute any claim of nonuse. Finally, even if the neighbors were to find that the owners' had violated any of the covenants contained in the deed, the deed expressly states that "re-entry and forfeiture" are not among the remedies available to the neighbors. Therefore, I think that the owners continue to have a valid easement to access Vinedo Lane from their property. Assuming their proposal is otherwise compliant with state and local subdivision requirements, and the Town Engineer approves the driveways, I see no reason why they would not be able to use Vinedo Lane for access to their residential, subdivided properties. I hope this helps. Please feel free to call with any questions or if you need anything further on this matter. Thanks, Brian Brian F. Crossman Attorney at Law MEYERS NAVE Steven T. Mattas Attorney at Law MEMORANDUM Confidential Attorney- Client Communication DATE: January 30, 2008 TO: Debbie Pedro, Planning Director Brian Froelich, Associate Planner FROM: Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney By: Brian F. Crossman, Attorney SUBJECT: 25706 Elena Road — Proposed Access to Vinedo Lane Issue Does the 1953 "Deed of Easement and Road Maintenance Agreemenf' (Deed) prohibit the current owners of 25706 Elena Road from constructing two driveways on their property to access Vinedo Lane? Brief Answer No. The owners of 25706 Elena Road may use their property, including property within the easement, in any manner not inconsistent with the neighbors' use of Vinedo Lane. As the express terms of the Deed do not prohibit the property owners' proposal or require the neighbors' approval, and the construction of the two driveways would not unreasonably interfere with the neighbors' use of Vinedo Lane, the 25706 Elena Road owners may build two driveways on their property to access Vinedo Lane. Background In 1953 property owners along Elena Road (formally Purissima Avenue) in the Town of Los Altos Hills executed a deed creating an easement for residential access and public utilities. The easement, validly created and recorded, crosses the parcel located at 25706 Elena Road (known as the servient tenement) to allow access to the neighboring properties (known as the dominant tenements). The parties to the Deed also accepted responsibility for maintaining the private right-of-way that would be constructed in the easement, which is currently known as Vinedo Lane. In the time since 1953, many of the property owners that were original parties to the Deed have subdivided their property, and the Deed has also been amended to include new property that was not originally described in the Deed. To our knowledge, there is no record any amendments to the Deed for subdivision of any of the original property described in the Deed. The current owners of 25706 Elena Road are proposing to subdivide their 3.7 -acre lot into three parcels. They are also proposing to construct two driveways off of Vinedo Lane, such that the three subdivided parcels could be accessed from Vinedo Lane. Discussion The Deed language establishing the easement states that the property owners and parties to the Deed, "hereby declare, establish, and convey the following described real property as a private right of way for residential ingress and egress and for installation and maintenance of public utilities for the benefit and use of all parcels herein specified, said easement to be appurtenant to said respective parcels of real property and to continue forever." (Deed of Easement and Road Maintenance Agreement, recorded May 20, 1953.) The Deed, therefore, creates a valid easement; it does not however, create an exclusive easement. Courts have found that creation of an exclusive easement is rare, and that "[n]o intention to convey such a complete interest can be imputed to the owner of the servient tenement in the absence of a clear indication of such an intention." (City of Pasadena v. California -Michigan Land and Water Co. (1941) 17 Cal.2d 576, 578-579.) In other words, for an easement to be deemed "exclusive," the language by which the easement is created must expressly identify it as such. (See ibid. (finding no exclusive easement where "there is not language in this grant which indicates any intention to make the easement held by the City of Pasadena an exclusive one."); see also 6 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate (3d ed. 2007) § 15:65 ("An easement is nonexclusive unless it has been made exclusive by the express terms of the instrument creating it or the parties have evidenced their intent that it is exclusive.").) Nothing in the language creating the easement or otherwise in the Deed indicates that the parties intended to create an exclusive easement. In fact, both the Deed and the parties' actions indicate just the opposite. Paragraph 14 of the Deed states that "[i]n the event any of the owners named herein causes any portion of their said lands to be conveyed to other persons, then said grantees will become proportionally liable for the cost of the maintenance [of the easement] as provided in paragraph four (4) herein." Therefore, subdivision of the properties, and inclusion of future owners in the Road Maintenance Association, was expressly contemplated by the parties to the Deed. Amendments to the Deed have even incorporated new property and property owners, further demonstrating the non-exclusive nature of the easement. Therefore, both the language of the Deed and the actions of the parties indicate that the easement was not intended to be an exclusive easement. Rather, it was intended to allow future purchasers of subdivided property to use the easement and access their property via the private road. Given the fact that the easement is not an exclusive easement, the owners of 25706 Elena Road may use their property within the easement in any manner that does not unreasonably interfere with the neighbors' use of Vinedo Lane. (City of Pasadena, supra, 17 Cal.2d at 579.) Courts have been clear that a servient tenement here, the 25706 Elena Road property—"may make any use of the land that does not interfere unreasonably with the easement." (Ibid.; see also Blackmore v. Powell (2007) 150 Cal.AppAth 1593 ("Appellants [servient tenement] retain every incident of ownership not inconsistent with the easement and the enjoyment of the same."); Scruby v. Vintage Grapevine, Inc. (1995) 37 Ca1.App.4th 697, 702 ("Every incident of ownership not inconsistent with the easement and the enjoyment of the same is reserved to the owner of the servient estate."); 6 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate (3d ed. 2007) § 15:65 ("when an easement is nonexclusive, the servient owner has the right to use the easement as long as the use does not interfere with or impede the superior right of enjoyment of the easement owner.") Rights retained by a servient owner may also be transferred to third parties, via a subdivision or other means. (City of Pasadena, supra, 17 Cal.2d at 579; 6 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate (3d ed. 2007) § 15:65.) A use "unreasonably interferes" with an easement when it prevents the easement- holder from exercising and enjoying the rights granted by the easement. (See ibid.) Generally, where an easement-holder is able to continue to use an easement—that is, the servient owner has not physically blocked or impeded access to the easement–courts have not found unreasonable interference. (See, e.g., Scruby, supra, 37 Ca1.AppAth at 706; Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Hacienda Mobile Home Park (1975) 45 Ca1.App.3d 519, 528-529; City of Pasadena, supra, 17 Cal.2d at 579.) Here, construction of two driveways to access the three parcels proposed in the subdivision would not prevent the neighbors from continuing to use the easement for residential ingress and egress. The 25706 Elena Road property has always been accessible from Vinedo Lane, and at certain times has been accessible via two driveways. The proposed driveways to access the three subdivided residential parcels will not unreasonably increase traffic on Vinedo Lane. Given that nearly all of the neighbors' properties are farther down Vinedo Lane than the 25706 Elena Road property, traffic to the three subdivided parcels will not cross in front of any of the neighbors' properties, with the exception of the two parcels directly across the street. The proposed driveways, therefore, do not block or otherwise impede the neighbors' access to the their easement. Nor is the proposal inconsistent with any terms of the Deed. Therefore, the proposed driveways do not unreasonably interfere with the neighbors' rights. Accordingly, provided the property owners comply with all other laws and regulations, including the Subdivision Map Act, the owners of 25706 Elena Road may construct the two proposed driveways to access Vinedo Lane. Finally, nothing in the Deed requires the Road Maintenance Association's approval for subdivision of the 25706 Elena Road property or access to Vinedo Lane. While an amendment to the Deed would require majority approval of the Association, subdivision of property already subject to the Deed is not the kind of action that requires an amendment to the Deed. This appears to be consistent with the Association's practice as well. Recorded amendments to the Deed have subjected new properties to its provisions, but have not incorporated purchasers of subdivided property already subject to the Deed—presumably because such purchasers would already be subject to the Deed under the express provisions of the Deed. Furthermore, as discussed above, subdivision and improvement of the property, including the property within the easement, is within the 25706 Elena Road owners' rights as the servient owners to the easement. Conclusion As the servient tenement, the owners of 25706 Elena Road retain all property rights over the easement that are not inconsistent with the neighbors' use and enjoyment of Vinedo Lane. The servient owners' proposal to construct two driveways from Vinedo Lane to three subdivided parcels on their property is not inconsistent with the terms of the Deed, nor does it unreasonably interfere with the neighbors' use of the Lane. Therefore, the 25706 Elena Road owners are not prohibited from constructing the proposed driveways. 1053482.1 r ATTACHMENT 15 Giuliani & Kull, Inc Engineers 0 Planners a Surveyors San Jose - Oakdale - Auburn January 30, 2008 Brian Froelich Planning Dept. Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Subject: Job # 07172 - 25706 Elena Road Los Altos Hills Dear Brian: This letter is to state that Giuliani and Kull, Inc. has reviewed the Vinedo Road Maintenance Agreement (dated 5-15-53), and the three amendments (dated 9-7-55,12-27- 56 and 11-30-70). We have plotted the five parcels referenced in the original agreement, as well as the parcels reference on the three amendments, on the attached plat. It is therefore our opinion that all three of the amendments to the original Vinedo Lane agreement, that we reviewed, were prepared to add parcels to the Maintenance Association, and that the intent of said amendments was not to grant approvals for subdivisions. If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, 4Nf1 GIULIANI & KULL, INC. y A- fJFP� / fill 7073 �� LP 310 Mark A. Hello , E, PLS f11�OfGAI� ATTACHMENT 16 DEM EIIL OF EASJC..El. end Ii�AD ' A,rx. _x. 37 IMS FEI h6fl�tlT 1 EASID.EIT and ACPEIiM-17T made this /5_ day of 1'.iGG 2 between tba undersigned 'LOCUST J. RURW and AGlES C. !III::C!I, As 3 wire, 4APDLD P. SIIERCAU and LIARJORIE U.'CUHIIIIAII, his tire I':i1.LI dC 4 . Si.XRIWI and LDdtY S• 5U10IIdld1, his wire, nl.l.VR R. =S-L:i ural 6 ?PANC'l0 E. STEEL:, hie wire, and DRR.T,V:UR R. 5)tIT)I and 6 5G::Tll, his alfa., herolnarter referred to as "owners," n!1 o*+ncr. T of record of .real property contiguous to the private road 1:areir. 6 described situate in Los Altos, county or Gants Clurn, Gelll'urnla, 9 RIx IT"ES: 10 TWR6 , owners are desirous of orfoatlnU un cq•ItubL; 11 pian for angering tho nmintaMnaa of thu prlvnto road humin 12 described, 'which is contiguous to their real property, and 11 conetl Lutes the princl poi ,means of SnRross and er.,ress .^rnr: t!:o!r 14 respective parcala to the public road system; 15 NOW, THEREFORE, IT I9 A!)R3!M between tbo Rar¢Illt, In 16 ..Idnrution of their outeol egrea:.vnb horaln, as roi.ne.n: 17 1. That owners ora reapoctivu ly oenera u;rgnn rd u, i 18 the soul property described id Ezhibitn "A" (fur tho !. ... , 19 a'JiiR l'G), ":1^ Icor the IllutJLD It, ::III:P!vV 1'n), "C^ Ifnr ;o. 20 NILLIA''.1. Sit&1WAWSI, "D" (for the RALWI 11. "T�:;::;':;I, ural 21 1.'o- the R;"idAl,:VI R. 5117Tli'SI, which exhibit. urs im re :o lit t:m heC 22 by-afttreneu incorporated horodn, 23 _, Thbt ornery of the real properties des(iYlOuJ is 24 Enihi[s "A", "W', "C", "D", lied "E" hoots uttuched and h.- 25 raferenoo Incorporated heroin, hnrobv declare, ontnh:lsh, and i 2C c,an:c;r the toll uelh r, decolbud real property as a prlvt.w. rl;:ht rer residential Sngresb and ogrcns 27 of we,/Jne 1'0, Inct"llntlon anj nn.ntanenae or I+uhlia 28 fcr the benefit and use of all parole herein opecif Y:d, said 29 n inrolt to be appurtouutt to nuld ruttIntive portals of ::+) 30 1, r,,p;rty gad to cuntlnue rorover. 02 IFi ,Ll that ger U+lo real p: wpv'L;l ei:auLa SO t!,u L a , 1 2 3 4 6 e 7 e 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 l0 17 is 19 20 21 22 as 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 J2 su4:'irI x ,3b' o, Call: ornla, county of Santa Clara, and bcinU u u. strip of land of varying •Sdth. Iron SD to u0 rest' i herein doecri ad and lylsg upon Lots 69, 69, Ind 10 as said lots are shown upon :the may entitled ".:up or the Subdivision or Lot 2 and part of Lot 1 of the Te offs Partition In the Rancho L. Pnrissl:nu Concepcion". said step being riled In hook 11 of (daps on pages 7G unit 77 in the office of the Recorder of 'Sunt. UL.ro Cc•'nn t;•, California and being mora particularly described Its follows; Heglnning with a strip of land 30 rust In oldla the southeasterly line a: which le deocrlbnE ao .n.,00n. Beginning at the point of intcrscealon or the .alaaon boundary to Lots 67 and 60 and the contcrline of Purieelm. Avenue, ae said lot. and contortion tiro ' shown upon the above mentioned map, bntl running then cn an untl ulbng the said common boundary to Lot Go and 69, S 5Be 36' 10 "A-048.20 rest to u point; tit .an:d lust roved polnt•thaes ri7plaucesns G0 foot In n% dth nr, it rollows it curve to the right, its pert til' aha bnrnln dnonr$Ihad strip of land lying un Um ubovalvntlonod j l.ot d7. also sold last nomad point hent.,•:: t!:v. cc;itor- line o. said 60 foot strip; thenen and u curvy to the rSrpt, tnfoont to the lost rimed source with o tadiaa or 110.00 teat; thry a central rm 1;ffi or 90nUD' for It ' distance of 17L,70 feet to u point; from Auld Lust honed point the co;aean corner to lots 67 6J and 70 ' batiro on unit nlonn tits cotvaon hoossnry of Lute '1" and 40, ne said lots urn shown upon the alcove Alun t 1in':d a'Ibdivi.11m map U 23o::9'l10"Ct-llu.0u fust,'i ,.ca •ry running -an and O one the na Id ..,,.a bo'unda to sold � ' •ii] mrA 7o and Lots an unit 711 ;:::ln::o':,u" n-71 .-:it I root to chs northerly zorminue of the do fo• . oLrll, n land; Ifni. cold last rimed point Wn Mr! 1, 1' l,'.1 r. r. 30 rent wide the lout mond cnntnrlinu no arrnb••r.:,:y,.;l the soothw.starly line prod,,.., thereon, tho:mn ,.'. 53'll"H_1 ti.,11 feet to the northerly G; rc kora o` Lie :'cot strip. Po: tions of the above described r1.;htn of - .,i on Inc, ora shoo. untl ,aliens tad upvo Linn-- SIJ' .nl ^t A,rvcv filed 1n Uto;. < l' 7 tiingm no Duras •, L.: y fund In Heol: au or 4npe on 1.oyo,f;.- b:,:!,'.: .. u,n,of,^lee of t!m nceorder e." Uanto L, c. C�.-, C .lira rn ta. manorn herobldoctors u'„1 1.7 so Uoln;' Inrul:d '. lint. th.Jf nCf ra, owlet .east ra, utxl sa, pal nnraL. ,nd cronnrorec. that arcaot -it), tis upprn•c: J:I v... _., • .. Jorliy or owners of all yurcals harem, afarironf9 ♦ : :i.:. !I!. net ha re-Lnoolcd or widnnetl Depend nal:! :a ..'• 'y'dv. ^^^ r: . to to 1,1 Inhod I, o rel a. I L. T!,n coo rn !, o rn by .frac and Isc_. L:aM1 ,ani:..: v and ant 11 cenaluo ted an .ern in , y rell,tive to the m.n ....t, ;minclinenca, twpuir, construction and 2 re-eonstructlu , financing thereof, and in.ldontul items,�x v bg 3 E dotar...lnod by (I on]orlty, affiro,clvs vote of sold owners. Any 4 ! clear, on fifteen 115) days eritten notico, re all venins. .n_ 5 ; cull a meeting for the purpose of oscerininlnn the dunlres or ell s i owners may problecas relativo to said private =no. Or 7 nwnes y be polled infonmlly. Shnuld a majority of mild ovine':n e determine certain works a to be ladertuh0n. then n,Sd rm Jtrity 9 may ".-mere by publlo or privnte bide and the exec. tion of can- 30 tracts pursuant thereto for the work to be acoovPllshad in -.hu 11 numes or all owners: to assess and collect ftou once v.mer of 12 proporty one-fifth I1/5� of the out of said work tither ht Corn 13 or after complotion of slid work; to cause lithe to b. r11aH 14 e,,tinat property whceo owner is dtlineucnt in dn1'rny!nr; his 15 proportionate share of the coot thereof. 15 S. This ngroemvn: and any :iodlriulclon timrnnf r y an 17 rneo.ded in tile Office of the Haeorder or the Cnuoty ur meta is Clurn and chilli constitute notice of the resnonslbility of CT-urs 19 of .-cull pronnrcy puroin described and chs posslbill LY or limin 20 buing imooaed upon Hold propomttes 1-or nun-puyoent of rnud rl,L:- 21 tenanoe an.13tagats. 22 e. ..ny or Pill or these emCnanto any be CLU OguJ ur 23 nbolis:md in Piny or all purticulurs us to v.!d rpul prc;r rt ins - 24 tC.aoeai the i:RCJhp —nil of a nmjclity of the r. ,heti:•c p .vas 25 ::1' ;aid mill property unite In vL;nin;; and exccutln; Pill q;r^. e::•nit 29 to teat ,..,at, wllieh , nmunt ahull th capon an wearied In 27 Lao ;,rJpar .-..Urdu in the Jl'rlat ur" aotll C'U]'a 20 ,;.,, i:,ty. Stuta or Galifuraln, and be valid and hindlni•, upu.:.I: 29 zlurgoag. For nurnonus 07 taps ,.,rmnavnt a .f]GIIIIC ,rrcnai :.., ,.. 30 Jee::Jd to be til a:nur of the Lnnei Sclal interest Pic thesis 31 rerun no halJing na2ed tl tlu 1'nr accv:ity purpuonn a:J;' 32 v, ..!1 Cavpuunta herein ,.ntuined-and 11:7,1s hernny -'Cbrc u- a 1 granted respecting the parties nh all extend to and be btu dlnf : 2 upon or anforaee➢le by the hairs, ..sign-, legal re pre r. c:a:C vas 3 and .ecce. cors of sold war ti en. i q B. Those co"onants are to rail With tho land. Tile;: vIl"' e are .to constitute equltnblo sorvltudea binding open sold real G Pr.portf cs. y g. Should any soar comtompluco any wase. It,. n.ul or g said road, 1.e. heavy truck traffic 1n camtruc:lon of lmtld't' B oa property or the like, than such owner shall uPPly. to all "wo'!1: 10 and obtain permission of a majority thoreot to .a use bind ou,h, 11 and If said majority of owner. require such owner aholl pent tooth 12 deposit with them to repair any dunar.•a tneroby done to sold rind, is 1.u. Tits, branch of any of the ocvennnto Lorain vont+lu, el 1; she 11 glvo, the rnepeative non-defuulting parties, their hale, It- 1, r15 ssi gna, dodlvldually or eollactivoly, ell am-dlit- provld^d Lp 16 low or equity ..cost rs-ontry and forfeiture. 17 11. These covanunts are being Imposed upon ouid ...v'1 -18 put-cols or tool PT^Potty far the ox preen rnrtual. ➢onafit ur cold 19 p:Irnale, such requiring adeq unto ingress and agoras nod puhiir. 20 :+ell tion Rm111tios, and a plan for an .gnstubla on 21 the coat o. maintaining some in benaficlul to each and ell p:rt, 11] 22 12. Forbauranco by non-defaulting parties to tale 23 ndvan tore of any breach of those covenants :hull not cim:::ltu'.r: 2; or be ganh:ruad us a waiver o: tLe rights of the sold a rtl a:, I 25 by rY.. apo of such or any subn.quant breech 0r default. 2G 1S. n ➢snail of toy of the covenants eont,ll timl haroln 27 sboll out defout or render invalid tbo lien of .any 28 dead of trust anode In goad tulth and for value us to suld _ 29 P: c:nl sea, or any part thereof, but au1d covunun._ a1u.Li tan 30 bl::dlnr• l;)Os and effoc :ivc n,u Jh3% any o*ver of snld 31 vrhosn title thereto in acquired by purchase, for.closu:o, trnatoo'c oW e, dovloo, of ut.arwlaa, and .hill.b. anterceablo aGnlntL -rear- 1 I 3 4 6 0 7 ft 9 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 STATE OF CALIFOFHIA ) 99 County of Sv nto Clara 1 ' On 'r2" !S 1053, before me, ll. GORDO!; Lt ICT L^.h, a f: stn r•/ Pabllo In and for said County and State, p.,.n:ally appeared AUIUST J. EUHCH and nCNES C. UIIACHt his t'lfe, ilAnOLD it. SHHHLiell and IYOJ011nh' 1.1. SHE111.1A11, his if., VILL1,V1 X. aM:C-MJ,:i,und ;U01Y D. :WEPIM, his Its, IUrLI'i! H. UTEELd and his wife, and 9EIUMAII1 B. S:.:ITII and EVELYII O. S:IiTli, hln known to me to be the persons chose names are oubsaPlbtd to the within lnstr.... t and oclaonledped that they so verally, azoc ucnd the some. notary Pu Tr. In and Io2-F Su C pup ty of In C10 T. s' stave r c to rale i' lvo- H+,.nw.ry N V`�Y3va EXHIBIT "A" M fi4fi'AGE 42 1 All that certain rani property situate In the State 2 or California, County of Santa Clare and being a portion of Lot. 3 69 and 90 as said Lots are shorn upon the map entitled -!lop of 4 the Subdivision or Lot 2 and part of Lot 1 of the Taeffe Pnftltlan 6 In the Rancho Le Purisnlme Concepcion", sold map baln+; filed For a record in Bock "It" Or ItOps on pages 96 and 99 in the office of 9 the Recordsr of Sueto'Clarn County, Callrornia, and bning at B particularly described as Follows: 9 Beginning at it point upon the coamon boundary llue 10 boteeun Lots 09 and 90 from whish point the common corner to Lots 11 00, 60 and 90 an said Leto aro shown upon ilia abcvn oxintlubr,d uW 12 :Aup of the Toa Fra Subdivision bears S 21a"p• i0'•u-C0'+,1❑ :'[. 13 and Feeing thence 5 680 36' 30"W-225.03 ft, to a Point fie 'tho 14 soutboastorly line of the lands of Robert 6. Miller; tiwnnu 15 on 'n oil along the sold southeasterly line of the land n. 15 "Illar R 230 23• 50" W-404,99 ft. to a Point that is to. cotanun 19 uoTnc, to tbo landu or Millar, Adele Rusk and n. S. Burch; t`.encn 16 on find along the ooathounterly line or the lend. of BuaF: ;. :.9e 19 41' 3o11E-814:93 Ft, to o paint that Is the notation cormir to the 20 londs OF Back, Birch and now or fornerly of Front,, Crit; thbnoe 21 on find along the southerly line of the londso' Crist 1; 940 411- o2 30•'5-154.45 Ft. to a point; citation S IRfa 04' 30.1-f1C.1RI ft• to 23 a Point; thence leaving the abld southerly line of the lands uow 24 or formnrly of Cr1st S 210 23' 50"C -82G.24 ft. to . p.lot en the Z5 ne:thguwparly 1}n_e_ of the _tenda now_or..formarly of Ilurold i:. I 29 Land. of Sberoon S 690 30'.10'99-299.90 ft. to u pulr.t on Life 28 yc o:maon boandurr line batwoen the said La" 49 and 90 h'cxr wiJcli 4 29 3Po1nt the cameos corn rtr to Lc:e 39, 69 and 90 bon,., =; :-1° ..o Sp '"v0"2-29.00 ft.; thence nrnnlnf, on and alone rite: catd cor..mnn 31beer dury line to Lots 50 and 90-M 210 L3' Bp"'N-1Bm.1R ft, to 32 it: point of beginning. Contolning 9.90 sterna ifrn or :nae. 1 2 5 4 8 9 7 B 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 1G 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -5- 27 i 28 29 38 31 � 32 =1151T '11- BG^t!f �r 'ori 't•i All that real property situated In the County of inntn Clara, Ltoto of California, described no follows: 3LCINNI7IC at a polnt,on the centerline of Vur15,iva nosd n% the L.atcrly coamon ...ser or Lot 68 mid Lot 119 us ahow, anon thnt certain , entitled '.dna of to. Subdivisiao of lot e nod Part of Lot 1 of the Taaffe Pnrtitlon" snd filed for ,ov 'rd In onok .li of tievo at Dugas 96 and 77, Ilaaorde of Sante CInro County, Culifornln; thenet South sea 2.' West 1218.46 :act and 'along the Northerly line of said Lot 68 to the most Nentarly o ornor of said Lot; thence North 210 30' Ylo st [ii fast 'mtl ulov; the Yluotnrly lino of said Lot 09; tlmnco North 00a ::4' 61'nt 1233.113 foe% nod Lwr.11e1 to said Northorly line of Lot GU to n point In the castor of Purieslnw nv esus, no sh ono upon said .^.nn; thenao Ucuth 98 50' West 29.95 feet and along acid eon Cor ll no to the uoint of beginning: being a nortion of sold Lot 59. I!10'P1's11iF1i011 the fallowing do.arlbad :wool to be used for ril:ht of wuy pua000es: Da Rlnn lar; of a paint an the coccrnon boundary for said Lots 5U And 69 In the Ilo1•t4naotn1ly iln• Yurlenl.,, avenue. (40 feat vide): thonoe anuth JB" 24' ]feet 30 fest, and along the N.rth.rly line or Lnt uCi; thenen :Iamb 230 43' Gest to the Hortherly lino of the nbove described Areal: chance North US- 24' cast 34.5'J fact sera or lure to Via 'denterly Ii.. o. Parlsalma nvennn: thence Southerly 1:9 feat nor. or la:a, and along the said vssterly lion of Puriscl:oo evonue to Llie noint of be glnnin g. o tont car L'in Hocord at Survey M,m filed i'or "card in iln ar. of Iinno. anga 6, Imnorde or Santo Clam Cownr. U,,lifornin. 'T[IBIT "B" (Certinuad) BOW., AG w4 44 1 All t'noae certain parable or land aitnuto In tae Count_: 2 of Sentn Clara, State of 6ollfornie, described us follows: 3 All of Lot ge, as shown upon that certain '.,!no eatltlaa_ 4 "Uap of the Subdivision of Lot 2 end part or Let 1 of the Tuuffe 5 partltlan", which kap was filed for record in the office of the 6 Recorder of The County of Santa Clara, Strata or Cmliiorniu, on 7 June 85, 1894 in Hook "ii".of Marc, at pages 76 and 79, g Excepting therefrom that portion thereof conveyed by 9 Hurold N. Sharman and Mur Jorge Id. Sherman, his wife, to VIlliva 10 H. Sbar:ann and limy B. Shares,., his wife, by Dead dutad July 11, 11 1950 and recorded Sudy 81, 1960 In Book 2(180 of Official donordn, 12 ut page 37, and being desorlbud as follows: 13 'Beginning at an Iron pipe act In the Southr!estarly lino 14 or Lot d0 na ahawn upon the Unp horeinurt9r refereed to, dLr.,,nt 15 thnroon S. R10 30' d. 111:44 rami iron un iron pipe sot at tho 16 auc-t Wastdrly corner of sold Lot tip: thence from said point of 17 beginning running along tho Southwesterly line of sold Lot 6:1, 19 I. • e 30' E. 160 feet to an Iron pine; thence 1sevin.; , said 19 uuthwaotorly lino of cold Lot 6B and running p,illal with the 26 13outheastorly line thereof 14. 690 3D' L, 359 teat to nn iron 21 plop; thence parallel with the Southwenterly line of avid Let 22 60. N. elm 30' W. 166 rest to an iron pip.; the race puroll:l elti 23 tiic Snut'nenstbrly line of cold Lot tis, S. 0110 30' W. u00 fc+:t to 24 the point of boginnlhB and being u portion of Lot 6D, us 1u1d 25 down, dOSIkoUtud and delinuutcd upon that certain C.a,, tntlt Iv.d. 2fl 'b:np of the Subdivision of Lot 8 tied part of Lot 1 or the Tranr."o 27 Partition". and which 1.9,p wus filed 1'or record in the offEvn if On enc .m v.ornnr of the cnutxy or D..n to ale ru, Lmtu or orae l rO,,.,, 29d. on .1uno :'S, 1094 1n Moak "H'• of Uuns. of pt,ga 76 and 77, 30 Eanntulatar; 1.29 ucres of ltmd, sore or less. 31 ``pl 32 {q i, ... I. LAI BTT'C^ yfy'e.�11iJ %lbi '1•�I y .All it,.. certain paroela of lend shoats in the C."ty 2 of Santo Clens, State of California, dceorlbsd an follows: 3 Beginning at an iron pipe not In the 50athwcatorly line 4 of Int 66 ad shown .,On tn. Ib1D hereinafter referred to, dlstont 6 tberson S. Flo 30' B. 111.44 feat fro. an iron pipe set nt the S most 'nestarly oarner of said Lot dB; thence from said point of 7 beginning running along the Southwesterly lino of said Lot 621 B S. 230 30'n. 160 feet to an Iron pipe; thence leaving nald 9 Southwesterly line of said Lot 00 and running parnllal with the 10 Southeasterly line thereof P. 600 30' 1. 350 fast to nn iron p1lw:;) 11 thence parallel with the Southwesterly line of sold Lot 60, 12 N. 210 30' W. 160 rout to on iron pipe: thence parallel with the 13 Southonsterly line of sold Lot 60, S. 660 30' W. 3b0 feat to the 14 point of buglnning, and being n, portion of Lot e0, -w laid down. 15 'designated and delineated upon that certain linp entitled, 16 of the Subdlvls len of Lot 2 and part of Lot 1 of the Tonffe 17 Partition", and which flop wee filed for record In the nfl'ica 18 of the Neoorder of the County of Sen t, C1nre, Otots of Collfnrnin 19 on Sane 25, 1394 1n Hoak ^il" of 1.411-, at pules 76 and 77, 20 pontalning 1.29 uorea of land, more or loan. 21 22 23 24 25 20 27 28 29 30 31 32 0 MUBIT "D" rGe1�il?I)'4ii 46 1. All %hut certain parcel of ]end si Dvato In the Cnunty 2 of Sante Clam, State of California, described as fdlloa'a: 3 8oglnning at an Iran pipe at the °onion corner !'Or !.nZn 4 67 and 60 In the aorthooatarly line or Lot 7V, e. anld lute :,rs 5 shown upon the Wen hereinafter referred to, thence, nlpn.n. too 8 dividing lino between anld Lots e,9 end 70. 11. 210 2:1' S0" 11., 7 P.13.?4 fast to an Iron pipe; thence-leuving Bald dlriding i!na, 8 S. 68° 36' 10" W., 125.83 test to an iron pine In tho Loutiewcnteriv 9 line of the 5.50 acre tract o: land dm°ribed in the 00od r:on 30 Coorgo L9ring of ux to John Dayle dated Decambor 159, 19D6 and 11 raouallod Joc°mbor 31, 190d L1 Wok 31!4 Of Janda, pyio 31, m:nb: 12Clore County Bastrop, thonoo along cold loot nontionod line, 13 S. 91° 23' 50" E., 213.94 feet to the nasi douthurly corner 14 tLeraof, thenoo along the Southeasterly line or m,id a.bi, u,..o 15 tract, N. G©° UJ' E. %25.83 font to the point of beglnn3nl; ,md i 16 boing a portion of Let 90 as shown upon the 1:•ip lf the suhd:vl.f.:,In: 17 of Lnt P. anal Port of Lot 1 of the Tnafro Partition, ohlch acid 18 M, arm filed far record in the office of tho nacorder of tho 19 County of Stints Clara, StetO of California, on Juen , !0p,; In 20 30pu "11" of 14".. pngaa 76 and 77. 21 .,11 taut cartnin parcel of land situate i:: 1ne Go p.-, 22 ..un Gn Clarn, 9L, t0 of G,lltornln, described an toll Onw: 23 Jeglnning It nn iron ➢Ips In the llnrtlwualorly line n. 24 Let 70, distant thereon Il. A.1° 23' 50" 1'1. '.18.74 foot !rola un iron I zb yl an it the caiman corner for Lots 67 and G0, as m,id '_ fit .: am � 28 �sl:own u n the 1.1" p0 y hereinafter roforretl to, thence leaving said 27 lfnu of Let 70 olid rvnaing S. ug° 3e' lU" fe+rt t....n 28 lrOn Pipe In the muthvm to rl9 line of :Im u.SV sora Ll•nc •, cl' 29 l,,nd dnacrlbed 11 tie Decd frog Oe orr,A gwlnq at ux to John iloplc 30 doted Docambar z9, 190U and recorded Docs •.,r 31, LOG In i I, 01 314 of Deeds, p:go 94, "It" Clore Cnunty Aecerdt, thenc0 v. mg oId Lmt suer it card III., a. 11° t3' SV" 1. L. .•LI fort to u 2 is �1 n I xxliBxT ^B" i w ?G;ui 48 1 411 that certain real property Situate In tho County 2 of Santa Clara, State of Cnllfornla, described as follnws: 3 7ORTIDN OF Lot' 70. as Shown upon that certain i.Y+p 4 entitled ^Nnp of the Subdivision of Lot 2 and Putt of Lnt 1 of 5 the Tauffc Pnrtltlon", which tarp was flied for record in tho ul'flc: 6 of the Recorder of the County of Sratn Clhrn, State of Callfornb: 7 on dune 25. 1B94 in Book 19p" of laps, at pages 76 and 77, and B more prirticalarly described an follows: 9 BBCINNIDC at on Iron pipe on the Northeasterly line 10 of Lot 70, distant thereon North 210 23' 50" went 43G.lD fact 11 from an iron pipe at the Southernmost comor of Lnt 6n, an nald 12 Into are shown on the Lop above referred to; running thonce douth 13 .690 36' lo" West 2'15.83 feet to an Sron pipe, on cho South - 14 an curly line of that .amain 6..50 acro trout of land cesarlbod 15 ran i'umal Two In She Doatl Srors Ylnrthu E. ala licca, of of to � 16 nuqu.rit J. Burch. at ux, doted October 9, 1944, reaordud Outnoor 17 1G.; 1944 1. Book 1%23 Official li000rd., p. o dLd, Dnntu Clens 16 County R..nrda: running then.. North 21- 23' S0" boot nlonn nu ill 19 lust ...a line 222.44 fast; running thenad North 690 9a' 10" 20 d-st 225.D3 feet to a point on the Northeasterly line of e:r,ld 21 Lnt 70; running thence South Zia 23' SO" BnsC along said last 22 nured line 222.44 fact to the point of beUlnning. 23 00117-n1ING AM(OX111%TELY 1.00 acre (.at) had 1.15 (;u-can)l 24 and bding a Portion of that certain 2.91 or. trust as shown I 25 upon that cortnin lie.ord of Surv.y Lap .....dad In the .rrlce 20 of tho ilncorder of th0 County of Snntr, Clara, Stats of Cn li fn rn La, 27 on k'ebrunry 23. 1953 In Book 39 of tiu ps, at pore 37. 2a 29 30 < 32 - blar 2D II o1 A 195? fcG... �z�0�— AGR=EADI:T This agreenent, made thisJ de or t�.:i -t, 1947, by and c- cceen 93R3LD R. SHERALN and '::I;fIE 1'. SYF-:!°t", carbo d and wife, herein called "The Shermans"; AUGUST J. RUP.CH aid aC= C. ISP: ^!i, husband and wife, herein called "rnhe =,.1 -chs" FLC1 i'. KILLER Md -IWA G. CIL'FP, bUGi:,?Lo F... e�+.." , ^rroir, . ca'ed ".ne Takers"; CLIFTON ;d. P^.0 TITE and J.!=T F. p.-C'•S'I^3, hus'-and and, wife, herein called ^The Ee=..iths"; F3ILB Lam' C?SST rid Pt`OEtffA i.. C?IST, husband and rife, herein CZ11sc "The Crests"; and AD3.L A. PACK, herein c:licd ^"rs. _.. _...'' HEREBY FF T., T. That t o Parties hereto re.SCeptiiely OCT. T. -e 'ercel and Parcels Oflreal Prom) in the County a_' C___e Clara, State of Califor +e, as 'rarcir-^`- �escr'._e6 un?e^ respective names, to -nit: Wl SI_-P;IArS• All of Lot 6E, as s::^.or+. uponh- cert,?, --, e,t't_,d "?Fay of the Su: di:lsion of Lot2 and - rt of Lot 1, of the Ta-affe Partition" -h_ch r-ao resfl-led for record i.^ the office of Lhe Lecorcin• of the Co_nl, of Sc.ic Ci2re, State of California, on Jr_c 25th, 1SQ4A, in 70ok H of maps, at Pages 76 and 77. _HE SLF-C.4S PP=rce1 Ctr_e All of Lot 69, as hors-- Poor - p - ae. t:= c^.titice Qzp of the Subdivision of not2 and s rt 'cf^:,_c l of the Taaffe Partition" .:._c!; =ap was filed -=.. reoare i the office of the Eccorde_� of �:.eC,, tr Of Sa-tz State of California. on Junc 1F9 it C.. -r- _ _a wzes 76 an& 77. I7ceptir-e therefrom: 4/1000 cares xv,- ;,s - in the Deed froti -Mary Tae.f_fe and ___-fe - .-c!-^.• Honard at -u„ datac rch 1902, �—cc neo - 1902 in Poole 253 of Leede, _099 322 Santa CI:WL ..__ Records. Ter:::: r t:` o'Of "_ _ _ John nevi. -a, .n, =;7, _. ...r__, .. .... --. :,,f ... fplle.cs: .iF!t OS''i 2' 04'•ir - -."-`y J£ 1':nd �.c[c:'.ler r:r`i! c ' y •`• r.rt eLct 6c of said sui:dSvise^.CT-. ' ip:: EE Oas: -Ain€ a' t:=_ cc^zen corner of said Lo':- 68 and 69 inthe t;ortn.�sterly line of Purissiza lve., and sur ring thence Southerly along said. B:ortuwes?erly line Or said Avenue 40 feet, thence F:orthrestO•ly 39 feet more o.• less to a point in the dividing line !-etlTeen said Lots 6S and 69 distance 19 fee. Westerly fro- said common corner; thence Easterly along said civid.- ing litre 19 feet to the point of beginning. Parcel jo Portion of Lot 70, as s'renn upon that certecn 'tap p^ - titled -Map of the S1,bcivision of Lo`_ 2 ane ^art Of 1 of the Taaffe Partition", Which rap vias filed for record in the office of the recorder o^ the County of Santa clera, State of Ca'_iforni3, on June S5, 1894 in Hook 3 of paps at pages 76 and 177, and rare p=_rticplcrly . described as fol, Ms.. Pegirning at a 2" x 3" stake at the common corner for Lots 67, 68 and 70 of the Su`_ division of Lot 2 of the Taaffe Partition as recorded in Hook H Of '.:ape at pales 76 and 77 recor6a Of Santa Clcra Co:_�t;r; and running thence Horth 21 30" Hest 20.34 chairs along the line between Lots 68, 69 and 70 o; said subdivision to a -- x 3" stake rhieb is South 29 10, Vest 0.32 chains from the conson corner of Lots 72, 75 and 6$ o'_' the above - referred -to partition; thence South 29 10* -est chairs along- the Southerly '_ire of t:,t' certain tract of land deeded b• nary and `iatilda Taeffe to John 3orard, al, dated '.`-s rc;x 17, 1902 and recorded `_r Hook 253 of Leeds page 322, records of Renta Clara Count:✓, to a 2" 3" statce, thence South 21 301 rest 17.58 ch. -:ins to 2" x 3" st^tee; thence "orth. 680 301 East 3.0 chains to .he point or beginning. COn`..a_n_rf- 6.50 acreo:. oasther -ith a Fight or ifey 40 feet ,ice for road noses over a portion. of seid Lot 70 asarted i t'e JE ed frog Conrad Lucht et '=, to - I LOY- .. GEp'•,c- �:5!�.l dated rete :Oer 12, 1>07 -'ecorded .:anuar;- 1908 in Sows 327 or Decds, pay -e ;kb,' re-'ererce to ttce� record is hereby made for furt:_er _,erticnle._s. Together ritti a night o= way '-3 feet :Tide for roze 'ur- poses over a portian of LOt 7G a1)09E fe a -- and COI-- aecting with the ?S�ht Of Z'a; i3O feet .ci Pefren`-icred. above, as granted '_r. the -.ent fro= Geo. F. to JC1n Doyle dated ' rch 7, 1908, _ecc-Lee =^c= 13, 1902 in Dopk 21 a :Ll �'.ce'__e se::nc - cosi c - 73, 7E£e_.^^.^ce to to the _ _.Tae for CFIS- S F.EEAE TIL Lot: 17 Ina . '"r Wei _ YL' or the ' r l'• C tfornlr, o: Qnunry 15 1891 in rn _ .. _ . lors on the FWM n bei ter Let: _ � -_ : .. the^ S -ffe keivisi^n o.^ Lot 4, - : iwn . the ac a boyoci:� t_^a7 - ..- tznt O.G. chains Sou.h 20- 50'�'eet frow the common or - mer fa- Lots 17, 13 and 19 -*d. 21 a- Fria. ^ h,iv0'_':r:; End rennin€ thence South 87b 10 DO 15.05 002-y .., - raint in the center line of-cblede venue; thcnrel -_ nC spid center L'r__ of ROME- RO rpuc'c-1-1m courses pa io-rit: Scuthl80, 9f:0 , chains, South L 54' ,js_ -<< M Sonth - T_' o- 71st 1.33 chUs, Southo, -crt&- ciani.^.s c.. +40 25' .B.et 1.74 aheirs, Gou7:ii °S 0 501 t.ert-= chains, South 400_20' hest 200 chains; theoc•1-. ... rapid center line of 4oWeez. !venue end i0?lawun : - play -n2, `$e follori: ccur_sc and u`_tances, 7n. -A,: Yarth c:0 L5' ... st 1.37 chef- `o^t a'0 &I ""�cct �South 843 O0f `.'e::' 1.33 c c :ie^� choirs,n^ _ _ Iso -ins, South 75, on, ..M. .�°� s, _ _ _-:es`,,o 0.?2 c _zis_ So¢Sir OO r '� t 2.21 _ .`3° _. _ +'. 59. Of 7ortc1.20c_ns, SOL'.- 770 001 E7. .^. chains, Soutf 010 30' ^.3c cheir.s, more or 1e7z, to - _ Southeasterly line of =- certain Vi-? ;cor -- ot sited in the 7e@:', - F. Orn, an, to 7weil •1420, -_ - ; man, dated 0cto%- _ areeoM7 �= _- 1-71, Zook 531,—So- Decd;, - So,-_...n_- in _ C.h^y -`ence Flon, ..id oc ":' `, ^lo. 'f ±`O-��C._ -c._= 1C.3 chains, =arc o. Mar, _.. __ C ._ _.: -. 17M nPr"E or Und. '_.._. i'!.." ._ so ^Sall the cJf %_ r .. -.: •... werry L. Goedae end Etna 7. MeCle, his wife, is 7oLl., FnvEo W2 and y nlop TrRF1 Co., con _ _ dated Sertemberl_, 1p31,Ju_,; 11, reco W Ju__, _..- in _c V: .. i `J. . 7z;e _.f�,dercrited i^ .O •_-.. -t---:N=.G at z point W the center line of :c`_1c r. nue, at ✓the ccaa Dn Varner for Lots 16 a -i 18 of the of Lot L, as s^_own upon t..= on haosinanc7o referred the esterly Wre of ver - 3' -Q lot 1008 fact: thence fro- _ _='c poi: _ alonr the dividing lire h-- es _ '-id ;.o_- 16 _ _ rt 30 451 rest S9•00 fee=-.Ci=LC3 2CJ1 t 'e Wo c' TAst 58.66 :tee o a - ! r _ .- Avenue; thence an - - ne - 1c n' T line j' rir c.. r .. _.o -:= o u into :jUrre Yet Pop 10n: r :yrtiva of 1 .1 _ :.n. - the - of th 7''M _ tett.. _... -c. Lr _.-. elle_.:., _ . - .efEr..., ____as _ is shown unonthat Ter:,: n ^ - .tinned =ivic^ Lot the fX11iltiOn -,ocho .- si1 ?urissima Contention," _ch :�tt_ c_ne for _^cord in the office of `ecor._ of We of 3rmt-s_ of C: ; "ra'_a yard 1, _.. . _. Food_of jjpsj at znUcs 70 and 71. v=rcel Two =option of Lot 75, as rho n noon that. cert--::: ::gip _ _ titled "_as of the BubdiviSion of Let 2 and part of lot 1 of the ?aaffe Partition," 'r.'_icn non :c filed for record in the office of the :.ecorder cf, the County of Sante Clara, stamte o`_ -'i`orni dune F5, 1891 Ln Boot _ of `naps, at pages 76 and 7 + = 7, and morerticularly described es -folios: egidlirc at the"ooint of intersection of the center line of Elena Avenue r'th the northeasterly line of Lot 70, as said Lot is shop upon the :'at above rcferrc� to; running thence South 2 471 lC" -- along the said Acr`he zterl-i line of Lot 75, 622.60 fee. to t Northerly lire of Lot 69, as said Lot is shown uyan the'iaa above re-eerref to; running thence along the ciai.^:ig line between said Lots o 69 and 75, the follo err, couges and distcneer: South 31 150 =et 73.92 feet, North 61 451 ":'est 66 .feet, South 00 '.'Est 99 ,feet, :'ti-, 5f: 6c1 est 11502 On, 360 151 :est 99 feet, South 750 'est 175.20 _feet; thence leaser :zip last-named line end raring Nor-;-: 26" 091 " - < -0a thence Nort:? 40 001 40" 7es9C .:ESt-J95. a: feet; rt:nni_*.� =<"q 254.93 feet y to an angle in the Southerly line of -aaffe Avenue, a., said =even a is sown upon the La? above , to; t ence lee:''=_t sE.iP. last-n�Ed line and nm- 7orta 200 561 30" East 20.01 feet to the center line of ^:free -venue; run^.',.ng thence Flo ^g said center line, the fo11GT_nj courses end Mnvnees: South 630 001 Test 260.37 feet, Sant Mo 301- 3.12 feet, Horth 44 071 East =13.09 feet Korth 1Co� v51 74st 297.7.2 feet to the intersection theseefAc :sie center _-e -- -'O= Avenue; runnino thence -icnr. the center '_,1_e of Ilene. Avenue, So 1% :70 301 - - 1 ._ 'cot and . 57Q 101 Fest 06.79 feet to .heT,oi_p of be tE SiP E' '.rC::iSI'a 2C�-: 0:930 eCr95, -S�4 bE^_n i' elle . Cn oil that y CeTM - yS.'_G =.entitled, P_: f..�...: _ __�� o C. C. —scci i!,E f.P rec-V in :a - .ecc••er of ole :Y_ - - - ClY-0-tile - - ._._-, CMece er , W"5 in 'sena- no .. , P?77w: or 10T - %1Ci- ofLOi,, anderFort ofW Y W&O Ir the Pf the of i fort n or Ti rnen25, 1S9, in County .took .. of t�. - ....:_.t. -7, nd orC p^rtlfll �.. 0�- 5Ln[ = `. ij- _.. Wj?.-,ING at a. point tn _h �. cc tor line. ..f Tpe ff`e nl^_•.�_ dictsrt .- rnon North $1 41J Fast 182.22 feet fro, m co-_cn canner of Lots 72 and 75, as scid Avenueamd _ are shown Upon the Map above referred to; thence cY.`^J'S- Or along tie center line of said T agfe FvenU0 .Corm :I- 411 Fast 263.16 feet; thence Nortb 860 22+ east 15_.90 fe=_t; thence Ecuth. 59 03' Fast 1.78.70 feet to - ^est corer of that certeir 9,930 acre trset ncso Psrcel 2 in the need from C. 0 Sar..rson, at u. 7On eca'rith, at us, dated June .:0, 1946, recon%e� _ -^ X12, 1946 in Book ' O.P. page F.ecorser+s Gariel 412848, SanteClare County Records; thence lesv_nq tl.e center line of Taaffe Avenue end running aloeaC the Zesterly line of the 9.930 acre tract, South 280 jL" West 20.01 feet to the Southerly line of said •"aa.^_e f.,,cnue; thence continuing along the F:esterly line of said 9:930 acre tract, 6outh 240 00+ 40" East 254.93 feet; thence South 2^0 09+ 30" East 595.29 feet to the Wtherly line of said Lot. 75; running thence along the Southerly lire of said Lot 75; so•+th 630 15+ -est 209.22 feet, 520 30' hest 82.50 feet and South 740 154 Test 154.0 feet; running thence 7Orth 120 10+ 50" mast 259.12 =act to e stake sacked P_.T.1 from which _T - -s o % 2n ,cnstar :narked E.T.H.T.1 tears South 250 +.S+``_st 76_' lir_-.;. running thence North 410 41' rest 'fast770.24to the point of a- gi:ning. C07T!:MNG Wror'-stely 5-S05 acres end telmr = UCTUCT of the Tzonorty =_":ey Men ef�p-cpyr �.� ofhown U;on 0.''_ - - iL'ec for record i. the office o"•. tho V- COTe^ofthe 7,.t•; of Fenta !arm, State of California on ;'ecu-}cr _; _n �__= 9 of ,o ^s, qt page 115. S. S. 2hay Beg"n" at a granite = ln-":MZ &K 4" 1 1n W, - .. U.T.J. 2 standing an ... If ` = core+... of the line -- _ lot. 1 and 2 of the Taaffe Wrt'_ticn n beinw ._ _ _ . _ _ __ . _ ner o9 :he rosters line of Lot 71 of the SSbdic:. v°s _ __ 'e and part of Let 1 o_` the _- ffe pe.rt'tic- ens on the ^_an of said Sbidivis: n, tr" - 'e5 - f fice of the Count "scorner of ___- __ .___ _ of- _ "H of Saps, -ages 76 ani 77 and n. thence :_ -_ _ C Fzale _ line between -cid lits S nE 2 of i of �'=to:: =f`• _ _f . Test 9.`.4 chs. to ?rz e`_ke-^nu.-e:: - - / marked keO - ' 0 2� a t. -? no-wnt0nap;•ccon, - 70C of a , : , 7-10c :=a Anc 500-,T- lots 71 :;,d 73 of Md 7:�wn,tnce jlo 26, Y�,. � Of 410 7. chcAs S. 390 z I n, '5071 so .21 E. 2. 72 CM-, 7, ch Won -c -Ornt­- lots 72, 7U, T W 75,_. sell above-=entioned subdivision wc, frog: zoict ate 10 18" W. marked R.T. 72.75 bca7s S, 71.1/40 2 1 ,�0,1 A -11s; thence Mlon, the line b ..... . . id I . OW 72 PA 75 R 100 CC' T. 2.57 chrlus to a 3" = 3u•'_ take MwIN 72 pw 75 "-ndi 5 in the center line of p ravi: a and from "ch a live -it 12" MISS" narked B.T. 72. G bears B. 90 ". 60 Urks; thence ctill =ton- the Me hot-, -Q nn,� lots 77 and 75 ane. ,von_ the center line of sala 71th ts WIQQM- courses ane eintonces 5, ?2-1/&o 100 gains S A510 A 1.90 S. 660 7 57 ,--S. ".20.815 chring S. 290 20T j, -ries! 39'' E. chains 7>300 & ina chains and S. tiO Z, 1,13 to 3" x 3" MME =wked 72 and 75 standing at tha conflu- ence of 2 ravines and beinC the common cormwfor spici !Its 72 ad 75 of we subdivision vzd Iron -11"04 stake a white Oak 6" in Metter acrkae I.m. 75 :ears N. 850 E. 71 2--Ocs; thence End line betrisen said lots End running S. 200 Z, 13.49 CnR_s to the dace Of Cont,7r=iag IL -35 zcr=, PW b'_..- s.1-1 W lot 72 an! 7M a -a-t of lots 6Q, d 71 of the subdivision of lot 2 e.Ad Mt Of lot I Of the Naffe Partition the Micho Me Purissime Concemcion, Ea so snOirn On, ME =On of cold Racivisian, -Ach is recorged in the O'fine of the Pay -7. Aginnow It 1 A.& TSM6 206^5t ,din- at the corner fOr 1&2 11 7� 11 -1 n" the w=Td!1jnj,, of lots 1 and 00"', ,­Wfe Purt"tion, :s so storm on the Map of sm ''lliv 03n, vhl,h is r,corycd jr tti ofY,E of thhe CcUnty 2 .... e," of SME CUM TOW coun, in , 0: Me, ,�CE 76 End 77 and froz zhic" st-- LF::'_' SKI ­ �,-dj. -:s - ­ — P, sm D28meter Norkw R.T. 72-75 bspris 9, 711' 7. A -W chains End running thence along the line :07 stic &,, 72 end 75 S. 10 1"01 9. 4.57 chains to -.3- 3 slate wrAd 72.75 stc,dlyi. I, a �V! in so r, 60 102S 4.00c, z1fl! Lion, :1 &0 z W 11-c 72 ond 75 ,1 n�. lot E. 700 Ani'' ev Inc C, 3�0 it ani 'ji Wzz, 1, 7.3S On if it 1 rov:ner 00 401 -7f cr :ry F if A: A VA W :n ULS1W M�ww 7.0. 71 1. w.15IJ "°k9 ® * , sons of cffectistin, too t___s of this agreenant. _I -,t t`he partira Iereto (ezcect t... <i,v. r-re�t their ), expenve will cos -net z cnn,e_. own; W five 15,000) ,anon tank at the property .-.-.,cribed in (lhe.'_in called the "Huss• ..1v'1), == .erp a t_?Z_tr-t •as;^.d-:-::'_1on (30,000) tank on the-ronert7 des critec in Dxliibit "B" (herein called the "taWc site") and rdll lay a Rater line from the pmap Ate in the most •:.__rest and convenient route to the tank site a pipe line .`roc the pump site to a point near the northeasterly corner of the Back property and a pine lire from the tank site to a _olit or. the Sherman property d=_sipnated b;, them. 5. That the cost of installing the rater system shell be paid one-fifth by the Shuns, one-fifth b7 the techs, one-fifth by the-Beckwiths, one-fifth b7 the ?__sts, and one-fifth 47 Mrs. lack upon tie denanc of Clifton i=. Beckwith to him. 6. -..t the ,-.ties hereto through whose I-xnc such Tater system passes and,/or upon which the t._:: site is located will, and hereb-' do front to the other arrti:.s hereto an ease- ment for such purposes, reserving to L4wwsIlvesj hoyevr, the ,joint use of such easement. ' 7. '_hat sa-h easements shall to e u. -neat to ell of the land of the parties hereto and shall pass -with the torr-_yance of such land an: seen end every part thereof. 3. That the respective patties _ crato shall pay for the cost of said '.`Eder system in _CuEi s -_.res, but after the _r.stivl:'Wti pf Faic v: ter sys C.- , the co=t of maintain- ing,repairing _:_/or r pipcin- _._ soin -101 K borne by the ti^s terCtO in an .aouht ._roc _ t_. _-.T. to tHe E O.mt GRIST S BK"E ..0 R_ WW1519 Valli) Cor ::,,_n t� Wi,g, ncFiirinn I nalor Pv; Inc in; a I a wj r :L, 1. My jor:lo" thr-e0f. 9. Maz UP res ice t lv,• i> - _y I Forties he-ew mly f... tj'' 'j'' a COUMUter cr thrie in nw, xr, whic? con"itzee, unea i ro:&cnn, still h-ve Cie r1rho from time to time to aewrnine K, nece2nzj :or jand the aEount or any ex.onnisu-e for cY;,jnjn;, cLn,t-,,,jn=, cr:7-tj,. f said pumpinS system and suchdecizion� k& race=. a" rey;j,tj,,,' when made, shall be binding upon All the Wmers Of E&MOnd, .,.ccwill, upon demand therefor, vay tis ,, ir share 0- anE_o, ?n -i e to the __son designated in said Wand as the yer,on 7D rkz,i,, the Same. Such committee shall carve unwl its authorityis revoked 1 IT a written revocation executed h the perzLns entitJ02 tv a majority of the voting righor is rro7l4al no -aim, sn' rswvin-t in Santa Clara County, California, 7ne a,nar or o. aura f -.v 21,,ve P'rcelz of r.Zl ;r,;;'r77 of such P=cels. . :u&c.T"n! OLVI: ton :0 cc "YO r:, in- crease SUN voung :9 -sr. The.. -h- C__. -:._q.. nl�­; 0, 7:1 may levy a reirsn0ja zn,rje fly 1,, j is. Takz Sal 1 27n :17, 11 in sc:71— izz auznarlmy & rorlyl, Las 1=41 re:ords; in Inc lcum. a: ISVICIOL:". n,' . FAE ,. .__dorsi=. : t %T elects to 30 torvwtr Mr .... ALM .__r . 5:.._ olnw. 15. ^-:1t ti:erortYs .__.:`.o o:c.:r :.. , c_c AYW2lwreW -ire We Wnt , to ;Fac -'_.;..._.:. ,'_, to Murch.se at 'n7 time MAN AV, 51 7 _ -„_c._. in _ r. .7 S'15 57"s-- for _:'.-_... .'. .. .. ^ cart .'... , mrorided, hc-=e,•:r, if am _: ..._:__ 74”! i- the meantime be soil,than th - M& AM 0, to _ c :._, an equal _Rte_._. ...ith Vin t7 r wh T.r - O'sk O''A to the jartium ne t1' Cost yromDrUn"Ov to 5:...:..:,:,, __ __. sed. . nwonJ consent of the _ tic£ . Mo, c. c- c_'^ -o ,--•!- a., tow=:. _....-::_:s to his - . .-_r.. cnd _ _.. z e _ : p . 7tz in .. _ _ .... zjviz it -rice _ . . not c _ 7 07 F.nta C117 ^1 ¢ 1TJ O, is Ir mil Mt in islinp-r- - _ _ Lot A of the TrAffe Fortimm in i rc chic _ acc oe<=.._i' : I. n^-.:. mi ` in Monk -,fC_ if _ _ _ __ - - z: it aro;- .'-ti crl:._.. . :pct ._- -d:- - _ ,axe dirt Fn a - rt•;_Y^`^ivi _ ' line ^O_` 'lid ROW - •:venue - p:Jr - .. on .._i!. •i_.., Teri_..'lov; refe7ral to :M , TTIC" cro::t MrId point n.' -'_an.`.: ,�th 51 cg, lis - alae -`id no-_' r:ee`-rl• lino'ol -ic ;,-rue cistmee o_"..'.!: 00 feet: thence - f_. _ ^opt , line ;;ort- 31 021 Lest, a distrreeOf 40.0^Sect: tionce perellel to frid nOrti1-.;este^1}- lir- ';or`. 5' `_," diste^ce of A0.00 et; thence. Font? 31 0?1 - -t'-:-nce of ,n.0?. feet to S'S _,Ji... n^ �i- -. ..1 fe0 square fee`.. t:'lrinI^: n.n• I✓ - iJno. _ _ ._.j,t .1 cr Joe - e -ecorl el'r,' C. .. _... _ Wifcrniz . 12 ?c -Ld 5; _ - - - on Jur� :.. lec tc ac _ Tel tl� 1 -le /X a;14786 r 84 This ABREMMT, i"ade. this day of April, 1949, by and between HAROLD.R. C"wAwdx and MARJORIE K. SRBRUAN, husband and wife, herein called "the Shermans"; AUGUST T. BURCH and AGNES C. BIRCH, husband and wife, herein called "the Burchs"; FLOYD E. WILDER and ERNA G. WILDER, husband and wife, herein called "the wilder¢"; CLIFTON R. BECKWITH and JANE F. BECKWITH, husband and wife, herein called "the Beckwlths"; FRANK LEE CRUST and EUGENIA N. CRUST, husband and wife, herein called "the Crlstsn; ADELE H. A. Oft, herein called ":Urs. Beck"; and FRANCIS B. WEBER and ALMA M. WEBER, husband and wife, herein called "the Webers," HEREBY RDCITSS: o _ That the Shermans, the Burchs, the Wilders, the Bec;ariths, the Crisis and Mrs. Back heretofore entered into a written agree- ment dated August 31, 1947, which agreement was recorded an October 23, 1947, in Volume 1519 of Official Records, at nage 322, at sec., Santa Clara County California, Records, and which agrecr.ent to hereby referred to and incorporated herein as fully as though the same were herein set forth in frill; that the Webers own the real property in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: All of Lots 40 and 58, as shorn upon that certain !.:ap entitled, "Nap of the Subdivision of Lot 2 and part.of Lot 1 oY' the Taaffe Partition in the Rancho La Purissima Concepcion, as recorded in Hook E of Maps, at page 118 and 119, Records of Santa Clzt$ County,v which Man_ nes 4filed for record in the Office of the Recorder of tae County of Santa Clara, State of California, on Tune 25, 1884 in Volume H of Maps, at pages 76 and 77; and that the Webers desire to join with the other vartics herctc In the agreement hereinabove referred to and secure nater frac Vie water systen)constranted by the other parties for thelr Property hereiabocc described. 'f'ffIiEFOin, IT IS HEREBY AGREAD as follows: R 9 17�6A�.95 1. .That the easements ,and rights given and granted in said agreement totherespective parties therein and the obligations therein Imposed upon the respective parties thereto shall be granted to and Imposed upon the Webers, and that all rights therein granted as appurtenant to the lands of the other parties to said agreement shall be and the same are hereby granted by the other parties to this agreement as appurtenant to the lands ofethe,Weberej. 2. That the Webers shall and hereby assume the obligations of the respective parties in and under said agree- ment and will perform the same in the manner and at the time therein imposed. It Is the intent and 'purpose of this agree- ment that the webers shall have the same rights and obligations under this agreement and the agreement hereinabove referred to as though they had been original parties to said former agree- ment; 3. The consideration for this agreement is that the Webers shall forthwith pay to Clifton H. Beckwith one-sixth of the total cost of installing the mater, system mentioned in said original agreement and the cost of said pump site, which sum shall be used to pay for said pump site, the balance due on the construction of said pump site and the residue, if any, prorated among the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WH]MOF, said parties have executed this agreement. - p�h1746 Mfg:96 S ,M; OF',CALIFORSIA, ) County of sent. Clare. ) . on, thin 3rd day of may , 15$—l91 b a, ore r_o, MBtK LEE 'CBUST a Notar7 Futlic Sr. and for the said C.Imty and State, residing therelr., dul-, corrission.a and sworn, personally appeared Clifton R. Beckwith and jese F. Beckwith; harold R. Sherman and. r or a H. Kerman; A Ust J. Brach and A as C. Burch• Flo d 1, Wilder and Etna G. Wilder; e e ac s er and Alma H. Veber .:nowr to =e to be the tersons whose :gimes are scbs6ri,.4 ±o the within Instrneht, and acknowledged to me that _rjey ezecoted t`.e sar_e. , IC VIT23S Wl)—VREOF, I have hereunto set my hand an l. a.^fixed my officia: Seal the ut.;' erv' e3r in this Certificate first oec-.e written. -4- 3TAlE CF CALIFORNIA, ae. Cnunty of Santa Clara. ) On this_3i'd day of - .May ', 19 49 before -me; 'COL;N M. FET"S a Rotary Public in and for the said Cnunty and State, residing therein, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared 'FA;;aK LES CRIST and SUUENIA N. GRIST , , knoon to me to be the persnn.g whose name_L are subscribed to the within Instrument, and acknowledged to me that they executed the same. IN W3 TSiP..^.S IMMEOF, I have hereunto ssi my hand and afflxod my official seal the day and year in this Certificate first above written. - Notary Public in and f of Santa Clara, State 0 0 572j6 j -Au 4,11 ' mfo tw! xEcoes N IM MAY 15 M It: 05 278 S4 CffCml R[C0.'IGi ' S,VlCI LE�0.A tellett�- — C' RE.nTUE0. -5- Bn?679W­49P 1897456 :e6a�sai,r THIS AGREEMENT, made thls .To• day of Kay, 1953, . by and between HAROLD R. OMAN. and. MARJORIE M. SHEMM, husband and wife, 'AUGUST J.IBORCH and AGNES C. BUN=, h= - band and wife, CLIFTON H. EEaKvITH and aANB g. BECH171YH, husband and wife, ALMH.I T. ORSINI and PATRICYA L. ORSINI, husband and wife, TONY ORSINI, AAELE H. A. BACK, FRANCIS B. MEB;ER and ALMA H. WEARS, husband and wife, hatein E 04- .ailed-Grzjhtorsn, and ROBERT C. LAWSON, herein called -Mr. Lawson-, HERESY RECITES. That the Sherman, the Burchs, the Beckwdths, prank Lee Crist and Eugenia M. Crist, the YebjArs, and Mrs. Back 7.3 t �7s ✓. heretofore -entered into a writtea agreement dated August 31, 1947, which agreement was recorded on October 23, 19471 in Volume 1519 of Official Records, at page 322, et sen., Santa Clara County, California, Records, and which agreement, is hereby referred to and incorporated herein as fully as though the same were herein set forth in full; that Mr. Lawson owns the real property in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as.follows: Lot 2 as designated and delineated on that certain Map entitled, -Map of the Subdivision of Lot 3 of the Taaffe partition in the Hancho La Furissima Concepcion-, which said Map was filed in the office - of the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, on August 6, 1897 in Volume nI. Of ;naps, pages 70 and 71, aad that Mr. Lawson desires to join with the other parties hereto in the agreement hereinabove referred to and secure water from said water system for his property hereinabove / described. THEEEFO:G:, IT IS HEREBY AG.REEO as follows; 1. That the easements and rights given and granted - 1 - N NA2679 iia433 in said agreement to the respective parties therein and the obligations tjAxein imposed npon the respective parties thereto. atnll be grlalad to and imposed upon Yr. Lawson, and that all rights therein granted aa. appurtenant to the lands of the other parties to said agreement shall be and the same are hereby granted by the other parties to this agreement as appurtenant to the lands of lir. Laysom; 2. That Er. Lays® §ball and hereby assumes the obligations of the respective parties in and under said agreement sad will perform the aame in the manner and at the time therein imposed; It is the intent and purpose of this agreement that. Mr. Lawson shallhave the samS.rights and Obligations under this agreement and the agreement harein- above referred to as thovgh they had been original parties to said former agreement. IN WITNESS W9ERWF, said parties have executed this agreement_. -2 - brnrz or F usvvrwWA co�:m or awul o. mm 2394 4,4 . Nn,n ww.: r m..r cemn r Ss+,a�W ,ove.a lbws 1. 6d11F .... w"tl and alfa, &M4 %w Yrdal STATE OP C WORNIA Cm .f— 8aata Chia o. br.,,.+,. W. OQiDIA 6.a.p s Yc 32—ti.ICCBB~.c�1161 STATE OFCALIFORNIA c,.,l„.f—Smta Clara o. iAu 3rd . of Sr uWy,vwlbnmr riv Aiei(,ed d flftrr-throe sT-0- Ne al PtlN : w f u, Co,.y el gaata DLA smm ycwlmy,,.vny a,..:t i W- -filt -P. yew ov lAmum�d r.r bvW,N m,d riiiy-.hraa Al bmen to weleYWgisi�vhem•m.p�LLylpe,�l(/(lo lY m:lAu wmw,.e r e,IN b b,Wl..i'Yy.,x,rjolr N lY 'i i�T _'y was fNWKN£SS WHFR£OAI.bo, A„I .ujG/(,�y upuim s I� Yn en ,u,wlAu �e fuel eA.elmrlled.ryef STATS OF CALIFORMA -� }4 Ypa60dJ C�YaFJ [o�q.J BM..tm mam A Oir =� f%d lr�� i.Y lsmvlW�lrrl.mbelwd}f �Ybwr Men w., 4. aOMYN 4Q41ID4 _ MAarmd PdF.i�!/e rf•, . O•byr iam M•. !3–.W�•IMsp�i®J. recxunr Mar/ IWB. Y V 2✓ STATE OF CALIFORNIA, t a Carom eJ Smw Cb. ( . a a:i__._.?.Gfi__�•..f a-s� _-_JM d. lfm mm deiMmd Mm hr.rd.d and fdn - LYf%<. x...._.C.-3k-YOsmL'•O�—• �r^� hNz in mrd f% Jm Owf %SRs CWa &as ej �Yi*+a qrr > 4H'r��7Aai041 R AYIN a" fneim m ms m 6s de P%mai——11—aVII°b—Sa % de yuiAi i.vrm.e[ and -,k--W Pd Ad NPPIIGSS.IYHPMF..f Fav!bq..mrc m<sY'hmd mdaf dmy OfKw S%4 m mf ofta h0. Cba dm dsy and Yao imrhv nrel m. . (rm aho.f mritta ' . (OWdI Nmq Public udbdeGmO aiEue Q.n, nol htil—+- I 94Cklain =o ?818 9"Soo 'fa l'N23low .". This AGREEMENT, a. this �.. day of 3ePtemDQ 1953, by and between HAROLD -R. SHERMAN and MARJORIE M. SHERMAN �O husband and,vife, AUGUST J. BORCH and AGNES C. 'BURCH, husband and vife, CLIFTON H. BECKWIT9'and JANE F, BECKWITH, husband and - wife, ALBERT J.-ORSINI and P)WCIA L. ORSINI, husband and, if,, TORY ORSINI, ADELE H-. A. BACK, FRANCIS B. VEBER and ALMA M. VRBER, husband and wife, FREDERICK BIGLAND and ROBERT C. LAWSON, hereinafter celled thhe Grantors, and EARL EHREE and IRENE E. PERIM, herein called "the Ehrkes," HEREBY RECITES: That the. Sherman, the Burehs, the Beckwiths, Frank Lee Crist add Eugenia M. Crist, the Vebers, and Mss. Back hereto- fore entered into a written agreement Hated August 31, 1947, which agreement was recorded on October 23, 1947, in Volume 1519 of Official Records, at "age 322, at seq., Santa Clara County, California, records, and which agreement is hereby referred to anal incorporated herein as fully as though the same were herein set forth in full; that subsequent to said time the parties hereto have granted to Albert J. Orsini and Patricia L. Orsini, husband and wife, and Tony Orsini an interest in said meter agree- ment and rater rigbts, and that thereafter the original parties, together with said Orsiris, granted to Frederick liglcnd end Robert C. Leveson a one-eighth interest each in and to said water egre.enent ani w -ter rights; that the Ehrkes own the real •-.ro;erty in the :mmt, of Sante Clar,, State of California, described in F±_hiblt f, ,-roto attached,hereby Werred to rnd nade a rart hrreof; .nd that the Lhrkes desire to join with the other o•Tties hsreto in tae agreement here[nahove referred to, and secure water from said water syster constructed by the other parties for his property i ✓ ,• erelnabove described. IX _. 1- .. l .- .. nes•! 72EREF013CE, IT IS HEREBY 9GEHED as folloms 1. That the easements and rightsgloea ma giijated..In .. said agreement to the respective parties therein and'thc.gtrligs- tions therein imposed upon the respective parties thereto shell be granted to and imposed upon the and that all, rights therein granted as appurtenant to the lands of the other, parties., to said agreement shall be and the same are hereby granted by the other parties to this agreement as appurtenant to the lands of the E_^rkes; 2. That the Ehrkes shall andhereby,assume the obilga- i tions of the respective parties in and under said agreement and u111 perform the sane in the manner and at the;time thereinimposed. It is the intent and purpose of'this agreement that the Ehrkes shall 'lave the same rights and obligations under this agreement end tae agreement hereinabove referred to as though they had been origipal parties to said former agreement; ,ereement. IN VITBESS WHEREOF, said Pzrties have executed this -2- 1-k eca28t)8 ia:�52 � ' r>A>E of runpy.RA 11__ CdMlY OF LMA QAAI(�_ c..w c...>. a....i>•.ex: + Te..r G,c:...o,?✓ 'ua L.Oes.+: a -.t Q[4+T , N.'n rte: m a.a�. SAN JOSE 3v srwrs On Ckupoerv4 a.Ia;r__R STALE OF (•,A(J XNI, 1(` N.m>R'b Qr IwW ..,.f.r°.�.^.+•+efaf..f uw-Ea.------a-�wel.W.:.aY:.,,,,, /N WITNESSWNEREOF / My Ano.I. en lC id-(k'Vunjyo.^•r�.J) /��/Y� ... .I c+4.w . __.___ . P=lc' goog2$l� 1�55J All that certain real property sit®te in the COMA7 of sesta Clara, State of California, described a fellovr. PORTION OF LOTS 67 and 70, as shown upon that eertain.Map entdiled *Hap of the 8uhdivision of Lot 2 and Part of Lot I, of the Taafte Partitlonwo which Map vv filed for record ]a the oftide of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, .on Juno 25, 1894 In Book •Hs of Naos at pages 76 and 77, and more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at an iron pipe get at the Northernmost corner.of that. certain 8.007 acre tract of land described in the Deed frog Nor, L. e...a. Ehrke, at ux, to Frederick Biglam at oz dated July 1, 1953,;_ recorded July 2, 1953 in Book 2611 Official -Records page Banta Clara County Records, in the -center line of Parleslsa Avenue as said Avenue is abowa upon the NaP above referred to; running theme from said point of begj.nudng Southerly and along the general Nesterly line of the -said 8.007 acre tract the three following courses and distames: South 170 041 Vest 6133.84 feet to a 3/4 inch inn pipe, 6 th 93- 531 30s Vest 220.00 feet to a 3/4 inti Iron pipe and south westerly corner thereeooftin the.*entteeriliinnei fnElisabem�Avenue as said Avenue Is shown upon the No above referred toj. rnmmdag Uience westerly along the said center line of Elizabeth Avenue the three following courses and distances: North 810 211 30% irate 258.02 feat ,following 850 151 300 Vest 309.66 feet and South 570 003 30s Nest. 13.86 feet to the Easternmost corner Of that certain 10.92 aero treet of land described as Parcel One in the Deed 'from Vera Soderberg, a widow, to Robert S. Miller, dated April 4, 1950 recorded April 7, 1950, In Book 1958 of Official Records_ naw. I}o., a........_� _ tract, 22.00 feet to a 3/4-- iron i ' "aa aaag au.9z ac of said Elizabeth Avenue; tInch ircontinuingSeale tbb Northerly line Ot the said 10.92 acre tract North 210 eng Easterly line et to a 2e x 3s stake at the Southernaost corner. of that acertainStract of land described in the Dead frog August J. Burch, at px,to Ralph R. Steele, at M, dated February 5, 1953, recorded March lop 1953, in Book 2595 of Official Records, page 429 Santa Clara County Records; running theme North 680 301 Rest and afong the Southeasterly line of the land so described in the Deed to no id Steele 225.95 feet to the Easternmost corner thereof said corner being also the Vesterly eoaaoa corner for Lots 67 and AN, as said Lots are shown upon the Ma above referred to; running. thence North 68e 301 East and along the dividing line between said Lots 67 and 68 for a distance of 958.35 feet to an iron pipe at the Easterly eemaon corner �thereef is the said center line of Purisslma Avenue; running thence South 620 361 East and alongthe said center line of Purlasjna Avenue for a distanceof60.82 feet to the point of beginning. inhibit -A^ q-- CONTAINING ✓ CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 14.1.35 acres (arose) and 13.832 acres (Net), as sbova uppoonn that certain Hap entitled "Record of 8arvey of land office Earl a Rks, at nx0, Which Map vas filed for record in the office of ffie Recorder of the County of gent& Clava, State of California on Jane 17, 19531 in Book 43 of Maps at page 41. EXCEPTING THERRFROM that portion tbereof conveyed by Conrad Iacht and Meta Luchtt"hhis wife, to Johe Doyle and ago. F. stingydated December 12 1967- and recorded January 13, 1908 da Book 3J7 of Deeds page 346, and sore particularly described as fol.1.3 cacidod'"C1NG at a point in the Northerly line of Elizab Point being distant 84,OD fest Westerly fres the for Lots 67 and 70 in the Subdivision No. 2 of Taaffe shOWn upon the Nap hereinabove referred to; then" run Westerly 272 feet, sore or loss to the line between h Subdlvtsioa of part of Lot 70 011 lot 2 of Taeffe part? La Pmrlaalse Concepcion; thence running southeastery line 69 feet core or leas thence running in a Sont6: rection 170 het, more or legs, to said Northerly Uhl Avenue{ theme rtmninI along said Northerly Sias of M 58 feet, acre or less to the point of eoaneacemeat. `+of land 40 feet wade 1.r the purpose of a roadway. rN as FTI h Avenue, a strip ^, r j etom'uY �i nig"MVi!A w' - i I /' TjMS IA1Y(icCl 1114 TN{I ( AMENDMENT TO DEC 10 1970 DEED OF EASEMENT and ROAD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT 6EDAGE L MWLE% RimNs iWfA =A cosaw. O" 11 M p 1 .AMENDMENT TO DEED OF EASEMENT and ROAD MAINTENANCE 2 AGREEMENT made this 30th day of November, 1970, between the 3 undersigned ROBERT L. FINKENSTAEDT and ETHEL R. FINKENSTAEDT, his 4 wife, LAWRENCE L. GILLER and HARRIETT M. GILLER, his wife, GRACE 5 D. HEISE, HEROLD R. SHERMAN and MARGORIE M. SHERMAN, his wife, e EDWARD B. SHAPKER and MARGARET V. SRAPKER, his wife, BENJAMIN E. 7 WOODMAN and RUTH L. WOODMAN, his wife, DONALD K. SMITH and EMILY' S L. SMITH, his wife, JO EN M. ?4COUTCHEON and RUTH E. MCCUTCFEON, 9 his wife, NELSON S. CULLENWARD and ANN H. CULLENAARD, his wife, 10 MELINDA A. PETRO, WILLIAM H. SHERMAN and MARY B. SHERMAN, his wif, 11 PRICILLA A. TOWNSEND, ROBERT K. Le BECK and BARBARA J. Le BECK, his 12 Wife, EVELYN SMITH (also known as MITS:'FRANK OLGIAM , FERDINAND 13 J. CHESAREK and JAYNE R. CBE3AREK,. his wife, IRENE E. EHR1�, N SYLVAN AU BIN and RAT, LIE T. ROBIN, his wife, v 14 OLIVER W. WHITBY and HORAN F. WHITBY, his wife, parties of the J - Y, 15 first part, and HOWARD W. STOKE, and SHARON L. STOKES, his wife. .\ 16 parties of the second cert, all"owne s of record of real property Y < 17 contiguous to the private road hereinafter refern.d to, all of h j � 18 the County Of Santa Clara, State of California. 3W� � 5 19 RECITES: l y T 20 1. That under date of May 20, 19 . y y $3, there was 21 recorded In the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa 22 Clara, State of California, in Book 26L6 Official Records, at 23 Page 37, a Deed of Eaaemant and Road Maintenance Agreement, and 24 also that under date of November 18, 1955 there was recorded in 25 the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of 26 California, in Book 3337 Official Records, at Page 155, an 27 A13'ND:ENT TO, DEED OF EASEVENT and ROAD 41AINTANCE AGREEMENT, and 26 it is intended by this instrument to amend said Amend^ent to 29 Dead of Easement and Food Vaintenance Agreemeut. 30 2. Parties of the first part are all of the owners 31 of the real property described in EXHIBITS "A", "B", "C", "D" 32 and "E" incorporated by ,,fere... in said Deed of Easecent and C13 S. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 11 12 15 14 15 16 17 18 19 [zm 21 22 23 24 23 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Road Maintenance Agreement. 3. Parties of the second hart are owners of the following described parsed of real property: All that certain real property situate in the County of Santa Clara, City of the Town of Los Altos Rills, State of California, more particularly described as follows: A portion of Lot 67, as shown upon the Map entitled, "Map of the Subdivision of Lot,2 and a portion of Lot 1 of the Taaffe Partition"-, which Map was filed for record In the office of the County RF"brder of the County of Santa Clara, Stats of California, on June 25, 1894 in Book R" of Maps, at pages 76 and 77 and being a'portion of land shown upon the Record of a Survey of a aubdiviaion of the property of Earl L. Ehrke, at uz.", filed for. record October 25, 1954 in aforesaid Recorder's office in Book 53 of Maps, at page 14, more , particularly descrvShed as follows: ' BE61NNINO at the point of intersection of the Northweaterly ` line of avid Lot 67 and the center line of Purlasima Avenue as shown upon aforssaid.,Records of Survey; thence South 68030100" West for a distance of 233.75 feat to a 3/4 inch ironipe; thence South 21030'00" East for a distance of 235.9 feet to a 3/4 inch iron pipe as shown upon said Survey; thence North 68030'00" test for a distance of 122.12 feet to a 3/4 inch iron pipe as shown upon said Survey; thence North 17004'00" East for a distance of 243.18 feet to a 3/4 inch iron pipe in the center of Purissima Avenue; -,thence North 62036100" Weat along the center line of saidPurisslma Avenue for a distance of 60.82 feet to the point of beginning. 4. That all parties herein, hereby declare, establish and convey the right of way described in paragraph 2 of said Deed of Easement and Road Maintenance Agreement for residential Ingress and egress and for installation and maintenance of public utilities for the benefit and use of said real property of said parties of the second part, said easement to be appurtenant to said parcel of real property and to continue forever. Said right of way shall be used !ointly by all parties as here In provided. 5. In consideration of the easement herein granted to the parties of the second part, they hereby accent the rights and obligations outlined in said Deed of Easement and Road Maintenance Agreement and covenant to be bound thereby. 6. That parties of the first part hereby jointly and savrrally agree to tie amendnerts and nodificatiens herein two 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 "s is 17 in,. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 27 28 29 30 31 32 recited and will be bound thereby IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the nartles have duly executed and acknowledged this Amendment to Deed of Easement and Road Maintenance Agreement the day and year first above written. PA IES OF THE FIRST PART - i ^ i � 1 1,3fi0Q� N _ 1ea6t37�ifi MAla ' 777 `w } 4M�NDMENT g0,r 0Q C EI{B sand 'ROAD, INTENANCE 5 AGREEMENT dade thi1s a*,q 1De �1 a, b, 1956, b Veen -the ! 4 undersigned AV UT,Q: BUR and. AGNE9:C. BURCH his Wife, HA LD R. StlERMAN an ORIF�M SH.ER.LM.kiii'his wife, WILLI0IH SHERMAN B, and, MARY B. SHE", N, his,Wife, AlLM R. STEELE and FRA.NCES 7 STEELE, his wife,NJAMIN B. SM 'Y'H and EVELYN, B. SMITH, his wi-feo, 8 ALLEN L. W06DDELL and LOUISE W, a'OOPDELL, his .wife, D. K., S"11TN,, 9 .and EMILY L. SMITE, his wife,. LOUIS N. PAPPAS 'and-PANAItIOTA- ,10 'PAPPAS, his wife, OLIVER W., WHITBY and NORAH FRANCIES %WI'TBY, his. LOUIS P. COHBETTA an'd LORNA R. CORBI,TT;1 14 11 wife,ROBERT W. HALLAM and ELLEN' A. HA'LLAM, his wife,/and ROBERT 12 M. HOPE and JEANNETTE P. HUFF, his wifcA parties of thcfirst - 3 part, and h:AR1 L.E H'WCE and IRENE..E. EH "�, his wife, JOIIS P. i 14 MEYER and 'JANET E. MEYER, his wife„ SYLVA� RUBIN and. HALLi, 1'.- 15i kU BZN, Ki e'wife, andHZj;DA-BELLE,, GUTX", riarCi es of the second i 15 part, all owners of record of real ,property contiguous to the 17 private road hereinafter referred to, all of'tthe County of canta I 18 .Clara„ State`of Califorgia" 19, '�. RECITES: _ 20 - 1. That',under date "o J May, lily 1953, there war, 21 recordedlin the Offdce'm .of the Recorder of .the County of Seis 3 22 Clara, State of California, Book264 Rrdorrls,ft jl 23 Page 37, a Deed -£;Easement Mid Road Maintenance Agreementp,i�ch ' 24 .was stu bse quently on Novsgber 11 1.1955 amended by an 'a m(.ndmrn 4' 25 filed in,said Record/e�r, 'Office in, Book. .1337 -Oft'icial Recc 26 Page 155;,`and it �s' intended by this instrument to further. fiend i ll . 27 said heed of Ee cement and Rbad Maiptenance Agreement. - 28 2. 'Parties of the first part) are all oftheoe arm / 29 of the real property described. in E%]IIBITS A"-, P8"y "C"., "1, 30 and "E" incorporated by reference in saieDeed ofi Lasi m:t a{id 31 Road Maintenance AVree—ht r�o..t �. tw n .._, --------lXyl 9, x, nnbM an4vnlnl..n,, 8' and�MARY. B. SHE N, hie,•yif Llln R. STEELE and`TRANCES El - ,-I � M r p STEELE, his wife,a. �a� CGNJAMIN B. SM N 'anA, EVELYN e. SMITH, his wi9eo, 8 ALLEN L. W06DDELL and .LOUISB W. .WQQDDE LI., his .Wife, D. K,, SDIITH , 9 ,and EMILY L. 'SMITH, his 'wife, LORIS N. PAPPA.5 'and PANAIIl OTA ,10 'PAPPAS, his wife, OLIVER'W., WHITBY and NORAH FRAN&S WHITBY, his. LOUIS P. COKBETTA an'd LORNA R. CORBET'rA hi .tth 11 wife,' ROBERT W. HALLAM and ELLEH'A..' HA'LLAM, his wife,/and 'RO91ERf 12 M. HUFF and JEANNETTE P. HUFF, his Wifepa11,,ies of 4he:first .3.Ev / f, part, and EARL L. HWCH and-IRENEGH his Wife, d01IS 'll . I. 14 MEYER and 'JANET E. ,MEYER" his wife,, SYLVA .RUBIN and IIALLd F. '1'. 15 RUBIN, His -.wife, and Hzi.9A-BELLE;,GUTMjil�, parties of the., second IS part, all owners of record of real ,property contiguous to the .17 private road hereinafter referred to.,.'all 'of�the County of Santa 18 .Clara,,State of California�. 19 i. RECITES: 20 1. That",under date "of Mayr20,_1953, there bask 21 reeorded.,in the Offico- of .the Recorder of the ,County of Santa, x 22 Clara, State of California, do Book 2646 Off-ar.ial Records at 23 .Page 37, a Deed of ,Easement/§+fid Road Maintenance Agreement, ,+pych, 24 was slubsequently on November ''e 1955ame.n.ded by an 'am rndm nt' 25 filed in said Recorde s 'Office irf: Book"3.137 Official' Records, 26' Page 155, and it ,�d intended by thi,5 instrument to further imend I 27 saidDeedofEe cement and Road Maip tenance'Agreement. 28 .. e 2. Parties of the first pa rt� are all df the owa,iers I / 29 of the real'�roperty described in EaH2 BITS A.'„ /�'B".j C , "D 30 and HE" incorporated- by re�S erence in said -Deed of ''Las -I, t d 31/ Roed Maintenance Agreement, together',vith the real propert 32 describedin are ra .N K ph' 3'pf s id Amendment re Gorged under datr, of germ, asykefused to Sign, .. Agreement of May 20, 1953 r"uirea apprpval of majority of one ••. owners to .amend, ,AmendmAnt No: " '2 executed. by ll'of 1.2 owngrs � .. so cone tutss valid a,gendTent. I 71 1 It ,�". ni "" harsb¢jdgcIa eatafkia in ?aragrapb t pf lid ➢eetl �\ � e g of Si t a -0RO �tsifa noL' [fit for real tial' ingress q and e�. and fortnstalla�£iea an intenance-of pu in uCilitie- Car the:.b4nefit an use of laid -property of -said , rtiea of 9 7 second part, siid eametient to be. appurtenant -to said'psr.Kl t I 10 oC eeai prDpsrty. and to, cows 4e; oraeMer- Said right of way . 11•shall be bend Jointly by al parts s as herein provided.. '12- 5. In ednaideribien of thegaeement heroin aranted,- 13. to the parties sof the •second'parto. they hereby.accept,the rights 14 and obligationa oup.liobd in'said p ed of Easement andRoad, ;S Maintenasee;Agro."at-agd c**emm.t- to be bound thereby.-� 16 , 6. That PartiySe-of t.` first part 'harleby Jglintly 17 and` severally farce to the a■enda to and mgdlficatigne hpceln t is , recited and,w'ill be bound the roby. 19 IN/WITNESS` VAjAl tee have duly executed Cand. 20 ..know}edged this. Amendment No. 2 ,Co'Deed. of Easement'and load 'gl Haintenance AL- ement'the day and year first above written. 22 PARTE�FIRST PART] 2�3i ` _ 22STATE OF CALIFORNIA 'Co tr�of Santa Clara-` ) { 23 On thisday of H -95b; -before me, I (ORDos 24 EUSTICE, a Notary Pu'alic in and for the said Cn,untyand State, per. ally appeared AUGUST J. BURCH and AGNEB C. BURGH his"if, , 25 HAROLD R. BHERMAN and MARJORIE M SHERDUA <s 27 28 29 30 31 32 4, hie wife, WILLIAM If. SHER)IAN dcd,MAKY B. oHEPAN,+his wife, RALPH R. S'TEELE and I-R,,NCh E. STEELE=, his wife, ._„' ALLEN L. WUOD'OELL and LOUISE W. WOODDELL, his wife, DONALD K. kTH and EMILIE L. SMITH, his wife, WUIS N. PAPPAS and PANAGIOTA PAPPAS, his wife, OLIVER W. MHITBY and NURAII' I'RA'QIP.S WIIITBY, his wife, ROBERT W. HALLAM and ELLkN A. HALLAM, his wife, ROBERT H. BUFF and.JEANNETTE P. HUFF( his wife, EARL: I.. EhkFE and IRENE E. eHRKE, his wif e,.JOHN H. {IEYER -end JANET E. HI.YER, his wife, SYLVAN RI:BIN and HALLIE-T: I{"IN, his wife-, and HILDA-13611-I; GuyMAN, knowk to me to be'the persons whose names are subscribed to .the within instrument and acknowledged that they severally executed the - same, . w ?p v ." q..,r.'rO'..a BIBIBIT -Al.., 7net pertain nal property situate !n the Town W Los Altos Hill., Count) of Santa, Clara, Stete.of Callfonia,,debcribbd as follovet" / Blain INo at an'angle corner It the w6tsr'line of Pnrieeima Avenue LO feet wide at the lost Nomtb*rly cpner A hot 67 as "id lot is shown upon that certain Map entitled, .Map of Subdivision of hot 2 and part of,Lot 1 01 theTnaffe Partition filed for record LA the office, 01' the Recmdgr. of`the-Cdunty of, Santa Clara, State of California, on lune 25,1894 in Bpd[ "He of Map6j, peltas 76 and 77; thence -.long the N wthvesterly line of Said. hot 67 South 6h' 301 .eat 920.06 feet., mare or lets, to the intereactim'of said life vita a curring linedrawn,parallel with and 50:00 feet Scuthsrly few the Northerly line of, ttoapt certain 30 foot ,rlaht of way shown upon, that -certain Map entitled "Record of Sb} -e Lot 68 enc a'paction ,of Lot. 69 Map 01 the Subdiriafon at:slat '2 am rt paof Lot 1, of the 'f.affe paititim in Book "H" c: Maps, page` en 76.d 77, filed for rebord in'the��hh'ffice"of the Pacordur.pf Santa Clara boynty, Stats of .California, m Agrll 27, 1950 in Book 27 0: Yaps„rpage B, -aaic cu % as nhown upon said ,Record of Survey Map having a radius -of EO taet'thrbuyt a_ eahtra2 angle of 90 derreee and An arc length of 126.66'feat� thence Southeasterly on'a �Qprve;ta -tqe left bavinv a radius of 170.00' feet and bslnq VgamIlel with the curving line .of aii'd 30 f.m riot of way -above -referrua,to, to'a poiot on a 11na'para11a1 with,and 20 feet Southeasterly from the Northwesterly It... of said Lot -67; thence. alonq,gaid parallel -]Sae North 6g' JO' East to the intersection, of acid line•vith.a lin$ drawn South 10' 0' east froe the point' of SeglnnYn0; thence North 10' 47' set 20,00 tb t can or lean to the pout of beginning. s i + 3/4 in iy p th'yncs'N BJ° 53' 'ilr pipe:._ nEa . 60 06 .10" E-10. 0 f2eYY1l. I' 11 mecordad, July 2, - 953 in Book.2676 of'.Official. cordal pa,Pr��'e 3' �r Sant a. Clara Count .Recotdsl thericalong the, lin of 6 ids. Lti'glan 12 p roperty,:N. 83° 31 30" Er 14'5.6 fent to a 3/A eh }rod. �i pe,I "thence N.`1'7° O4.' Bl. along said_Bjgland property 2 4 8999 fee t° 13- a 3/4 inch Bron' ipe;, then&e leaving said line of Bi,rl�pd.'s / 'property and ,ru ing. S. 68 301 W, 302:92 .feet. to 'a 3/4, in. atlop 14. pipe 'thence N. 6 06t 30"'350,32 feet to a 3/4 inch.- ! J-- .PiPL`n— I ' thence S.-66°'$0 W. 1$. 04. feet to 't he true point of be�dnninR, f 16 `. TOGETHER iV2*-tlbe right,to :cpMeet; to' the Puries na Wat r Ccpan)' - 16 seine. • '. ` � \ 1 17 ALSO TOGETHER .ii th'the right ofw y and easement for i�pdMsA 'and ,egressa to 'the Above described prq'garty and with the riglkt.. to main -1 18 tain public ut3. lities-over the 'following described propckty: i 19 Portion of.,Lot 67, as designated on the Map anti-tledi "MAI` F IHE SU�IYIVISY'QQN OFLOT2 .and PART OF LOT 1 OF. THE TAAFFE PARTI 'f N", '20 which Map1was filed in the office of the RecO-der of the Coun y' of Santa lora ,'State of California, on June 25, 1894 in Liber t 21 "N" of Maps, at pages 76 and 77, described as follows: 22 23 e4 25 26 27, 28 29 30 31 32 BEGINNING at the `point of intersection of the 6q'C•thw'c s t. line. of" Let•&7, above referred to, and 'the ceher 1 ne of Purissina Avenue, as shown upon Record of Surrey filed June I , 1,951 in 'Book 43 of .laps„ Page 41; thence 5. 68° 30' li.'428.21 feet along tin north I' line of said Lot 67 to a-3/4'inch iron .pipe; thence S. 60 06-' t0" E 20-.74 Peet, to a 3/4 Sncb-iron pipe;, th a PcIe �,r 680 0!'E, 451,17�i 'fegt parallel' to the north line of, said in67 to the center line I ' of Puriasisa. Avem:e; thence N. 62°--3�*!-.- fang-�`xi�ru to lin'. 26,54 feet to the point of beginning, -- — ------ ---`lc° Resarving;therefrom an easement for ingress and .egress with. Ch,T ,right to maintain public utilities over a 'strip,-Ofland 12.5 fcAt in width, thehtlestevly' line of which is described aa. follows: Portion of Lot7. ag desi{nated on the' ?tap entitled `IAP '',Of' .'111:' $UB6IVi'I UH OF GT 2and PART OF LOT,T .-1 OF HE TAAFFE I,R'fi TION', which Map was; filed in the office of ,Lhe Rererd Or of thr•.GOUrl'ty of Santa Ciara, State of California, on Jdne 2.5,159-0 in i.ibor "H," Of Haps, at na Sae 76 and.77, deecaibetl a5 follow.i: BEGINNING. at. the point of iOt.rs -ctiuo of. the- S>rthwrst line- of . Lot 67, above ref..rred CO„ and 't he center -:line of 1'uri45i ma. Avenin•., 1 Al} L.. z Fb 1 g' BBBDZ .Santa: pl'al -of.Maps":, , g BECINNI,DZG y B Lot 67i el -as shown _, 7- Of Mrps, I Lot, 61, 4: ,- a E.20.74`1 of the Ia. E, 45,3.49 - feet to -.a '3/4' 10 to 'a • conveyed + 3/4 in iy p th'yncs'N BJ° 53' 'ilr pipe:._ nEa . 60 06 .10" E-10. 0 f2eYY1l. I' 11 mecordad, July 2, - 953 in Book.2676 of'.Official. cordal pa,Pr��'e 3' �r Sant a. Clara Count .Recotdsl thericalong the, lin of 6 ids. Lti'glan 12 p roperty,:N. 83° 31 30" Er 14'5.6 fent to a 3/A eh }rod. �i pe,I "thence N.`1'7° O4.' Bl. along said_Bjgland property 2 4 8999 fee t° 13- a 3/4 inch Bron' ipe;, then&e leaving said line of Bi,rl�pd.'s / 'property and ,ru ing. S. 68 301 W, 302:92 .feet. to 'a 3/4, in. atlop 14. pipe 'thence N. 6 06t 30"'350,32 feet to a 3/4 inch.- ! J-- .PiPL`n— I ' thence S.-66°'$0 W. 1$. 04. feet to 't he true point of be�dnninR, f 16 `. TOGETHER iV2*-tlbe right,to :cpMeet; to' the Puries na Wat r Ccpan)' - 16 seine. • '. ` � \ 1 17 ALSO TOGETHER .ii th'the right ofw y and easement for i�pdMsA 'and ,egressa to 'the Above described prq'garty and with the riglkt.. to main -1 18 tain public ut3. lities-over the 'following described propckty: i 19 Portion of.,Lot 67, as designated on the Map anti-tledi "MAI` F IHE SU�IYIVISY'QQN OFLOT2 .and PART OF LOT 1 OF. THE TAAFFE PARTI 'f N", '20 which Map1was filed in the office of the RecO-der of the Coun y' of Santa lora ,'State of California, on June 25, 1894 in Liber t 21 "N" of Maps, at pages 76 and 77, described as follows: 22 23 e4 25 26 27, 28 29 30 31 32 BEGINNING at the `point of intersection of the 6q'C•thw'c s t. line. of" Let•&7, above referred to, and 'the ceher 1 ne of Purissina Avenue, as shown upon Record of Surrey filed June I , 1,951 in 'Book 43 of .laps„ Page 41; thence 5. 68° 30' li.'428.21 feet along tin north I' line of said Lot 67 to a-3/4'inch iron .pipe; thence S. 60 06-' t0" E 20-.74 Peet, to a 3/4 Sncb-iron pipe;, th a PcIe �,r 680 0!'E, 451,17�i 'fegt parallel' to the north line of, said in67 to the center line I ' of Puriasisa. Avem:e; thence N. 62°--3�*!-.- fang-�`xi�ru to lin'. 26,54 feet to the point of beginning, -- — ------ ---`lc° Resarving;therefrom an easement for ingress and .egress with. Ch,T ,right to maintain public utilities over a 'strip,-Ofland 12.5 fcAt in width, thehtlestevly' line of which is described aa. follows: Portion of Lot7. ag desi{nated on the' ?tap entitled `IAP '',Of' .'111:' $UB6IVi'I UH OF GT 2and PART OF LOT,T .-1 OF HE TAAFFE I,R'fi TION', which Map was; filed in the office of ,Lhe Rererd Or of thr•.GOUrl'ty of Santa Ciara, State of California, on Jdne 2.5,159-0 in i.ibor "H," Of Haps, at na Sae 76 and.77, deecaibetl a5 follow.i: BEGINNING. at. the point of iOt.rs -ctiuo of. the- S>rthwrst line- of . Lot 67, above ref..rred CO„ and 't he center -:line of 1'uri45i ma. Avenin•., i i is i -• �. 12 16 .. ,i is -7 21 i 22 :23, \ 26 26 28: -_ 29 30 31 52 \ 61J Nl KQf. OU Ex11BIT 'Cr 1 41 that real property a1 ted in the County of Santa Cl+ra, State of WWaa 2Callfornia, de}cubed as'follow,. " _ 1 3 A PWICH OF. LOT 67, a ahom upon the Map . entitled, "Nap of the Subdivision of Let "Ad•♦ poitLon of Lot 1 Of it* Iaaffe partition•, which map res 'filed tor record !n' the ggffice of the County Records, of Sent Clara County, 4 G11,fo 1a, on ,lune 251 I894 in Book '•H• of MAPS, at es 76 'bslalg a portion of.land shown upon the 'Record a Survey Of a�Subdivi77 s 6 ion - Of'the property of Earl 1, Ehrke,.et ux" filed for record October 25, 1954 In aforesaid Resorder•q office in Book 57 of Napa, at 14' m e! particUlariy described a follow, at , and i i 7 "BEGINNING at the point of intersection of the Northwesterly line of said t, Lot 67andthe centerline of PuTl64ir Avenue, as sham upon the Records of 8 Survey aforesaid; thence South 689 30' W". West along the North line of .p'a1d Lo567 for • distance of 428,21 feet to a .3/4 inch iron pipe] thence South - 8 60 W''304 Oast far a distance of 20.74 fee/t4; North 680 30' 00• East 'for a�distace ,of 15g04 fat to th" toue point of beginning] thence from ' 10 the tava point of beginning -South 66 06' 30" East for a distance of from 11 Lhencfoot aNpr3/46B°ch iron 30� 00" East as ahfWm-upon Aforesaid 350.32 Record of. Survey] ] Spa ass Eat for • dl s,tn<e of 302,92 feet.to a' 3/4 inch , a, i" 12 hown upon the aforesaid Record of Survey] thence North 170 O4' 00^ Eat.fpr:.a dlstahce of 155.77 foot to a 3/4 Inch iron pipe, as -sham upon 15 efote said Survey] thence Scou to a 3/4'Shch Sion pype ath.6Bo 30' DO• Meet for a distance of 353.54 feet - Shoran on aforesaid Survey] thence, North 60 06' 30" 1 fkst for a distnge of 224,00 feeot.to a 3/4 inch ron pipe as shown upon 14 aforesaid Suiveyi thence South 68, 30'.0, Wast f r a distance of 12.96 feet •16 to the �tupoald tnt of beyinhi� contairving approximately i.08 aIcres�gross, 18 R1aa�uuto the Grantor, h ,she cant. lands, land now L�06uxHso+i and-acslgna, for the. bene fit of - 1'i s (it "tor a lion-e)clusive aaadent ng � or formerly conj belonging to the 'rest herein dasigna,ted as wase d"'� uaetl in aonjunction with the 4ase- 118 : rnL'"A" hereinafter granted) over and across .theta portion rof,the _land hereLubove-desgrSMd as follows, - Bsy�lJ�andpy at the point of dntarsection; of the' Northwesterly -line of Said Ldp Wfy i£nd tha-cantirline., of Pug;issim Avenua, fa shown upon the', Record of / 20 s Sl%'py aforasaidy. theme South'68 deg. 30! 00• West along the North line ,•yy ox,644 1oL f i -,a d"Unte'of 488.21 hat to a 3/4 inch iron pipe'. -shown upon 21 afoawpid 1�•'Fdet to4a '3J4 1y }soh SSouth, 6 heg East for a distance of 20,74 22 —'upon tasiaau S p J4 sat in the easterly line of the lands shown 0rvey] thence North 68 deg, 30 .00" East for a distance of 1 . - fast to t)w truagpoint•;of, beg irgning'of this reservation 1. thence from said F 83 Lrgf to po!'nt ofi1ie ryiip, South 6.4eq. 06'n Iron,.30• East for a distance of 350.32 ,'24 `30'00, Esat4 forca. distance Ofh� uponIS , the''sald Survey] •thence North 6B deg. ? 25 oint 06' 30•'eeet"3jD.172. Eeat. to, a pointbrhich boarspNorth t8 Beg. I thence NorthO6 deg. ast t_ r -livor the:true point of b99I`"ing]. thence South 68, deg. 30' DO^ west £arse _ d ?tM1 B distance of 32a96 feeV io the true point of beg of Lh1s reservation¢ F --Y4? L '(a) iogatNp Y;,si i f 27 ^4^'e,aelus}a''r_ gpa4,Ongt (to be used in conjunction with. ,� ] r YMaaaapnt lreinabge re9erved) alright Of 'gay. -for Sngre`s and egress. wyth the right to construe maintain and operate public ujil;ltiea• ?48 in. and ender, a parcef of land descrf'bed as follcrah Beginning at•the p6jnt of Sntruction of the NDTthwaatrl lino of said Lot,67 and the-tenterldfie J ,of„pur16 1r Avenue as sham. upon the Recozds'of.Surve aforesaid; thence, 30 3/A i ;h 30'. 00•fWa�s£"aloig the North line of said. Lot,.. 429.21 feet !o a < �f4 lncht14fi-p`ipa= thence South y6_�0_�o6.'. 3o• East ,for r dictate: o€ 20 74 feeb` 31 L° a polntl thence Narth 6B0. 30, t�' 'East 15'.D4 fee} to the tru00'ofnt of �ah .of ilw. eeserntt' herein g}aptadi theljca ^South 60 of, X00" East for 0 32 •t7fi a of 350:32 feet atm a 3/4 inch iron plea Be chorn'upon Bald ,Survey; In 'South 680 30. 00• West for a distance of 15.04 feet to point on ,tU „ Al �_ R _ ,ou<3799 rtfi261 �+• of lwd • ;,Aort, th me North 6° a, 30'/IMet for a, W 1 54 350.32 fo#t to 1 3/1 m 46, 609 33 OU" ssr4t 16.04 foot fro. peh iron; y ► �t4.,6Bo `301 00' Hast 13. � po+M- int of' t!'4W°ti' b4 NoL-totruo p1odttof r"Towther vl' o °ob•yxsllniw� right of w7 �sd NswetA,Ifob Ingress y >As lAt flrst.lrroiesyyyyiys°rlLsd and wit. & r °ht to edp i �!C' ! t ths¢ss th4L PortSon'ot said Lot '67,'deoeriDed as. 1. 1 " } W above *ofssrod Lp, y�' Ofi*'iALorwopa° of the i;; Jtii.st 11M of '=the Heeotq 4f Airvsy filed Jun rllao.°f Porisslr Avenue,. as shots . 19f13 Lb'Hook'43 of MPs, ' P49e. 411 . �o s 1 SfK6 ° !"IMsk 4?8.41 .fsst,sloo➢ the North lits' of "id Lot 67, i "3hcR ,lien Pip4i. tf»sies BouLh a° 06'30•. Hest 20.74 feet to s 3/4 it. of N d Lot 6Bo �" Hsit 451..17 foAt peralls.� to North 36',Ysst al aq said esdtsrllns 26164 �h�t eta Avsnwl 41rMe, the 620 poln't of bYglMing. 4i .+'t:t Fi VI r 960(. J I'7o MOM EXHIBIT •152• . All that real property situated in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follow,, - A PfsiP20N OE Itpr,67 as shown upon the Map entitled, "Map of the Subdivision . of }.ot 2 and d portion of, Lot 1 of the Taoffe Partition', which Map,wpt Filed. for record in the office of the County. Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of Callfornle, on Jdne 25, 1894 in Book 'H• of Wps,. at pages 76 and 77 and bei/g 4 portion of land shown upon the •Record of a Survey of a subdivisionofthe property of,Earl; L, Ehrke at us,• £fled for record October 25, 1954.in afore Recorder's office, In Book 53 of Maps, at page ,I, 14, more particularly descbed_4s follows'' Beginning at the point of in arsection of the Northwesterly line saiq Lot 67 and the center line of Pur "I= Avenue as shown upon aforesaid Records of I Survey? thence South 680 30' 00• West for ,a distance. of 233.75 feet to a 3%4 lnch�lzion piper thence. South 21°-30'.00• East for a distance of 235.98 feet to 4'3/4 inch iron pipe as shown upon said Survey( thence North 686 30' 00•. East for a'dl Kance.of 122.12 feet to a �3�4 inch iron pipe as •sho�wn upon I said Survey; thence North 170 04'1-DQ' East for a distance of 2x3,18 rtat., tqq a. 3�0 inch iron pipe !n the center of Purl acini; Avenue; thence No & : 62° 36' 00- West along the center line of said Puftssima Avenue fora istancel s of 54;73 fee t'to the point of beginning,_ . y Reserving a nkn--exclusive right of way and eaaeaent for ingress �and ogre I to the property. of E61-1 L. Ehrke. end Irene E. Ehrke and his assign,, 'over and across that poiition of the'above described property. .1 ng within a strip �f. land de acrlbed as follows, toswit, Beginning at the ,point ofl Snteraettion of the North re faye?yt line of Lot 67 above referred to, and the center line-of Purissim Avenue,' as shown upon Record Of Survey,.flled June 17, 1953.in, Book -'43 of Maps, pa', 41; thence South .680 301 Weat 426.41 feet along the .North line of said Lot 67 to a 3/4 inch j irgn.pipei thence South 60 06' 30- East 20.74 feet to a'3/4 inch iron pipe { thence North 680.3o- East 451'.17 feet paralleY to the North line of said Lot 67.to the center lineofpgriasima Avenue; thedcelftrth 620 36' 'Best along $Sid center Of Purissima AYenue' 26.54.feet to the'�point of beginning. -I W(370 ae reG FILED FOR xRECORD AT 3'DU city 'Tills IRRnfRACs r, n MAY 16 'a 41 sa Kis l.cw; CIUN . : R. Aj c4 ROADD m�y6rBRDE4AA�BeNEs'f "Aib¢aceK Y' � nrA et m BEBD DP EASBMEx ya aoAn MalarexA�ee AGR66ME Y . y aGac thi dsy uf`SsDtasher, 1 5$, Y`etreeq, .the•undereig+ed A ADCOST J iBVsr�q asd A"Bg C."SW'gH, his riLYe, HAROLD A. SNERMAN -� 6 and .�IARJOfTi6.M SHERMAR 1iv rifea YILLIAM H. SHERMAx and MARY B. B �B#O*AY, hi TERLE and FRANCES E.'STEELE, his 7 BENJAMIN :'SDfITH and EVELYN B. SMITH, his vife, ".{ r ✓ ...mt- E �ILLEY.L anQ LOUISE . V. YOODDELl, hie wife, 0. I: SHI TH Y _ 9 "add SMITx, his rife, .LOVIS N. PAfpAS and PANACIOTA e ) 10 PAPJAS, hila'rif and OLIVRR W. WHITBY and x FRANCS WHIT BY 'ANOBBRT W. LAM, and ELLEN A. RALLAM, hiwPfe,'✓ l V 11 kis fife,/parts -of 'the first part, and ROBe T.M. RUFF and % 12 'deA4j8TTE: P. dPP, his rifd�-pprties of Elie se and part, a12 wgpys'Of record of Areal '''property contiguous to'thefpriv.te road 14/ ' bersidaftpr'refereed toy all of the .County of Santa Clara, State 6 of Califq�aa, - 1 " RA CTT t That t>,qlnr date of May�20, !1953, there as recordeq, uf the.Reograer of The County ofiSanta Clara, State . qg. a, 1111 Book:2646 Official,Records, 4t,Page37, + Aeed 1 Y9v�`U q -5F RdadNatgtegigee Appementy and _.SC ibkigtended by 'amand said Deed of Eaaemeat and oad Sfaiatanan' is ;'ef ,th first/'pantara all of the ow�ers 8'RIBITS,=Ae, -Bao "Ca,apr".and y'htiArr {'1 F. \, 1 ' ^�",�..; • �} • u . .P said Deed of 6 F...., t and Roagst_ v i , j�$%t, arq o eRs of thn r n >sp'm441� -aA p Rert{e� A, E t 1g I TNENCg� N,6.0 30, E', on and clone a Northerly. boundary Q4 . said 14 135 acre tract, a distance of 317.29 feet tg.f 374" 2 S�eos pipe. "'``. _ �f` 3 TUNCB.lesvatng the boundary of said 14.135 acre .tra6t" S. vd 171 10-. zWj1.. a distance of 441.51 feet to e,'3/{' irl(n pipe. k' THEgCS-8 130 14' 20'.E. a distanea of 211.10 feet to a. 5'X:X. spike', in centerline of Eliza "h Avenge (40 feet vide) „ acid osaterl,ine` being, alae, a)boua ary line of said 14.135 6 acre treat. 7 ,TNeNcB ooh"and' aloe- said cenfjtdprline of Elizabeth Avenue _ (sad igllori.g tho'boundary bf said, 14.135 acre,tract),� S. 8 Bye 1S, 30", W. a distance of 119.74 feet, to a V steel red- THENCE rod.Te CE continuing on said caeterlide of Elizabeth Avenue & the 'boundary of said 14.135 acre tract, S. 570 001 30" 10 W, 4J 3 fleet to acomer of said 14.135 acre tract, r il TI N leavink the said centerline of Elizabeth Avenue a continning on the boundary of said 14.135 aore tract, Nf 1 12 b Sr70 37' 30" W: 22.00 4set to a 3/4" iron pipe, at a corner e 'of said 14.13S\aere tract._. - '13 THENCE continuing on the boundary of said 14.135 sere 'tract 14 N.,210 161 50! W., 'a distance of 538.72 feet to the point 15 of „cos¢aacament. _ CONTAINING 3.16acree.'(gross) and being a portion of Lot 70. 10.,, :' a24 i portion of Lot '67 ae said lots are show on "Map Of go subdivision Of Lot 2'And-Part Of Lot 1 Of The Taaffe _ 1$.' Partitiop regorded,in Hook "H" of Maps ,page- 76 and 77. 1s 4. That,all parties herein, hereby declare,. establishl' 1911 and. egavay„the right of' way dozer ibed in paragraph 2 of said Deed 20 'of 1$aseggC"t�. sad d )44intemance Agreement, for residential ingread '2 1 ¢nd A sad for installation, and maintenance ofpublic utilitieM 4l f,4fi tAgd usp sof said real property of said parties o8' 114 „r Paid asgpent td be sppurtegaat to said parcel said right'of May' �(i st:ties as herein provided.. ` of the 'easement heroin -granted. �I °Qs4't�z they gerOtW accept the rigbta.-.. '+k jr��1e�4Of ass gat and, Read 'to ,poand thereby'.. ..,157' 4. jj I i,� WlrxkS *HgRBOF, the partials have dull executed and v acknowladRedl th*i..leendeent ta,�Deed of 8aseamt and "d Main- , i II , to,, 60 A 1nj ths,-day:and year first above writtep.. P AR Ut/ '2 PART: I ' T r r• _ © ATTACHMENT 17 ✓n� . TOWN OF LOS AL-TOS H1LrS U December 16,1992 5tafr ggport to the City Council RE: NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR THE LANDS OF WANG, 25706 ELENA ROAD FROM: Jeff Peterson, Director of Public Works/City Engineer —19 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Certify the Negative Declaration. 2. Approve the Tentative parcel map with the findings and conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission, witi, revisions as recommended by Staff. DISCUSSION At their meeting of November 24, 1992, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended certification of the Negative Declaration and approval of the Tentative map with the attached conditions. One key issue which was discussed was whether or not the applicant should be required to widen Vinedo Lane. The existing pavement adjacent to the subdivision is 15 feet wide. Vinedo Lane serves approximately 20 residences and should be a minimum of 20 feet wide to meet Town standards. At issue is the fact that the entire 15 feet of existing pavement is constructed on the applicant's side of the Vinedo right-of-way centerline. If widening is to occur, it should be performed on the opposite side of the right-of-way centerline. In past situations where widening was required, the applicant was required to widen on their side of the right-of-way centerline only. The Council should review this situation and make a determination on the width of Vinedo Lane and whether the applicant should be required to do the widening. Condition 83 requires that the applicant dedicate a pathway easement of 5 or 10 feet wide along the western property line between Vinedo Lane and their northern property line. Since then, Staff has made a site visit with a representative of the pathway commidee to review the feasibility of a future pathway in this area. It was agreed that by requiring a 10 foot pathway easement ( to be rejected at this time ) along this property line, a pathway could be constructed to meander between most of the trees within the easement Some of the trees appear to be dead and one or two others might need to be removed in order to construct a pathway. Staff recommends that Condition #3 be revised to require a 10 foot pathway easement along the western property line. Staff is available to answer any questions that the Council or citizens may have. Attachments: Staff report to the Planning Commission dated November 24,1992 4 TOWN OF Los ALTOS HILLS November 24, 1992 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR THE LANDS OF WANG, 25706 ELENA ROAD FROM: Jeff Peterson, Director of Public Works/City Engineer I RECOMMENDATION. That the Planning Commission 1. Recommend that the City Council Certify the Negative Declaration; and 2. Recommend that the City Council approve the Tentative Parcel Map with the findings and conditions as recommended by staff. BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting that the Town approve a Tentative Parcel map to subdivide a 3.64 acre (gross) parcel into two lots. The site is located in the northwest corner of the intersection of Elena Road and Vinedo Lane. The average slope of the parcel is 12.40/6 and has a lot unit factor (UT) of 3.02. Relevant site information of the two proposed lots is as follows: SITE DATA: PARCEL 1 Gross Lot Area: 2.21 Ac Net Lot Area: 1.79 Ac Average Slope: 11.8 % Lot Unit Factor: 1.72 Ac MFA: 10,171 S.F. MDA: 24,653 S.F. Parcel 1 contains the large existing house which is proposed to remain. The house extends into the exWxng backyard building setback line to the north by approximately 18 feet. The building in the southwest corner of Parcel 1 is proposed to be removed. The shape of Parcel 1 could be described as a "doglegged panhandle', preserving the existing driveway access to Elena Road. An existing driveway branch accesses Vinedo Lane from the main driveway. The existing house cursently is on a septic system. Tentative Map 27506 Elena Road Lands of Wang Page 2 SITE DATA: PARCEL 2 Gross Lot Area: 1.43 Ac Net Lot Area: 1.30 Ac Average Slope: 11.9 % Lot Unit Factor 1.25 Ac MFA 7364 S.F. MDA 17,817 S.F. Parcel 2 is located in the southwest corner of the subdivision, with street frontage on Vinedo Lane only. Two existing driveways access the Parcel, one entering the corral and the other entering Parcel 2 along near the western subdivision bounds y. This paved driveway along the western boundary line is proposed to remain as the access for Parcel 2. The barn within the 30 foot .at back line along the eastern property line is proposed to be removed. The existing secondary dwelling, pool and pool house are proposed to remain. DISCUSSION The Commission is requested to review the attached Initial Study and recommended Negative Declaration for Certification and recommendation to the City Council. In review of the Initial Study, it was determined that the project as conditioned (conditions attached), which includes mitigation measures set forth in the Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Review prepared by William Cotton and Associates dated November 5, 1992, and as recommended by the Towns consulting engineers, Wilsey & Ham, will not have a significant effect on the environment. Additionally, The Commission is requested to review the two lot Tentative Map for determination of appropriate conditions for recommendation to the City Council. The following is a discussion of the proposed map for the Commissions review: As discussed the proposed subdivision frorlts on two streets, Elena Road and 'Vinedo Lane. Elena Road is a public street and Vinedo Lane is a private street. Both streets have an existing half -street right-of-way width of 30 feet therefore, per Town right-of-way policy, no additional right-of-way dedication will be required. • 0 Tentative Map 27506 Elena Road Lands of Wang Page 3 Access The existing 3.64 acre lot has four existing driveways. Three secondary driveway connections access Vinedo Lane with the main driveway accessing Elena Road. The Tentative Map proposes to use the existing paved driveway access to Elena Road as the driveway for Parcel 1 and the existing paved driveway along the western subdivision boundary for the Parcel 2 driveway. The driveway extension from Parcel 1 to Vinedo Lane will be removed. A recommendation was received from the Town's consulting engineers (Wilsey 8- Ham) requesting that the existing driveway connection to Elena Road be eliminated with access to be achieved from Vinedo Lane, The reason stated is that elimination of this driveway would improve traffic safety. The basis of this statement stems from standard traffic engineering practice of providing a separation between the intersection of streets and driveway accesses. The existing driveway access to Elena Road is located between Vinedo Lane, immediately to the south and the Mina driveway, immediately to the north The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed access for Parcel 1 at the site and has made the following observations: 1. Although the driveway connects with Elena Road on a curve, it is on the convex or outside portion of the curve which allows visibility in both directions on Elena. By requiring the applicant to abandon this driveway and use Video Lane, the available sight distance would remain -virtually the same, 2. There is a relatively large paved shoulder area where Video Lane, the Parcel l driveway and the Mina driveway connect to Elena Road. This shoulder area is free of visual obstructions and allows drivers on any of these accesses to see each other when preparing to enter onto Elena Road. 3. According to the applicant's engineer, this area does not have a history of accidents. 4. This driveway is an existing condition that appears to be functioning adequately. By accessing Parcel l from Elena Road, the net increase of traffic on Vinedo Lane due to this lot split should minimal Tentative Map 27506 Elena Road Lands of Wang Page 4 Due to the foregoing observations, it is the City Engineer's opinion that the existing access onto Elena Road can remain, It is recommended that the applicant be conditioned to do some trimming of vegetation on the inside of the first corner of Elena Road to the north of the project to provide an improved sight distance line. As stated earlier the existing driveway from Parcel 1 to Vinedo Lane will be removed. The existing driveway to the corral will also no longer be needed if Parcel 2 is developed as shown on sheet 4 of the Tentative Map. The reduction of driveways is desirable from a traffic safety standpoint, Drainage The existing site generally drains in an easterly direction and currently has a system of drainage ditches and pipes to convey the drainage down to and across Elena Road to an existing drainage ditch. The Tentative Map proposes no changes in drainage patterns, and no overall increase in impervious area on the sites. Some new pipe and drainage improvements are planned to enhance the existing drainage system which will remain a private system, All existing and proposed drainage systems will be checked by the City Engineer to ensure adequacy in size and condition. This includes the 12 inch pipe which the site drainage enters into and crosses under Elena Road. If in the inial design calculations it is found that these pipes are undersized or in poor condition, the City Engineer recommends that the pipes be improved as required. A letter has been received by a concerned resident requesting that the existing, ditches which convey storm drainage from the Packard residence be retained and cliecked for capacity. This drainage pattern will be preserved as part of this subdivision and the required capacities will be provided. Sanitary Sewer The existing site and many of the surrounding properties use septic systems for disposal of sewage. A public sewer system does exist south of the subdivision on Elena Road, however, the system is uphill from the subdivision. The cnplicanes engineer has considered two alternative approaches to connect ng to a public sewer system, each requiring the sewage to be pumped. Ons alternative alignment heads southwest from the subdivision connecting to another existing system on Altamont Road. The Tentative Map 27506 Elena Road Lands of Wang Page 5 second alternative which was preferred by the City Engineer and included as part of this Tentative Map, is to follow Elena Road south to the existing gravity system which ends at the top of the hill. This system has the potential for serving more residences. The system would involve the installation of a below -ground, sanitary sewer manhole and force main pump which would receive sewage from the surrounding area by gravity lines. From this point sewage would be pumped to the existing manhole in Elena Road to the south. The sewer system would be oversized to handle all of the lots in the Vim& Lanc!Elena Road intersection area which could potentially hoof: up to the system. The force main system would be a privately owned and maintained system by the userc of the system. A maintenance agreement would be necessary as part of the improvements. A sewer reimbursement agreement would be required between the applicant and the Town for reimbursement of oversizing costs for property owners who hook up to the system at a later date. Pathways The Town's Pathway Master Plan shows a "Connector" pathway extending up Vinedo Lane from Elena Road. The applicant is being conditioned to construct a Type IIB pathway on the north side of Vinedo Lane along the south subdivision boundary. A ten foot pathway easement dedication will be required for public access within the private road right-of-way. This should be accomplished over the existing private road right-of-way if possible as this appears to be a good location for the pathway. The Pathway Master Plan also shows a "Major" pathway along Elena Road. There is an existing native pathway along the west side of Elena Road to the north of the subdivision which becomes a Type IIB south of Vinedo Lane. Although the subdivision frontage along Elena is all paved, Staff recommends that the applicant be required to roughen a 5 foot wide pathway on the existing asphalt across the Mina driveway, the Parcel 1 driveway and Vinedo Lane, all within the Elena street right-of-way. Tlds would provide a safer surface for pedestrians and equestrians. Streets The City Engineer has inspected the Elena Road and Vinedo Lane pavement along the subdivision frontage. The Elena Road pavement appears to be in Tentative Map 27506 Elena Road Lands of Wang Page 6 relatively good condition in this area. The Vinedo Lane pavement adjacent •o the subdivision has some failed areas due to trenching, tree roots or base failure. Staff recommends that since thp subdivision will have some impacts cn the area including an incremental increase in traffic, the applicant should be required to drgout and repair the failed areas and to slurry seal the subdivision frontage of Vinedo Lane matching the existing surface treatment, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1. The proposed subdivision as proposed would create 2 lots ranging in size from 1.43 acres to 2.21 acres, with Lot Unit Factom of 1.25 and 1.72. In this an all other respects, the lots conform to the Town of Los Altos Hills Subdivision Ordinance. 2. The proposed subdivision would create lots which would meet the General Plan standards of one acre to seven acres (net) for land with an average slope between 10 percent and 50 percent, and in all other respects would be consistent with the General plan. 3. Access to the proposed lots will be provided by one driveway accessing Elena Road, a public street, and one driveway accessing Vinedo Lane, a private street. These accesses and streets as conditioned to oe improved, will adequately serve the proposed lots. 4. Adequate services, including sewer, water, fire and police protection, arc available to serve the subdivision, as described in the attached information and the Negative Declaration for the project. 5. All lots are physically suitable for the proposed development. The Town Geologist has stated concerns that can be addressed through mitigation measures and conditions set forth in the Negative Declaration and conditions of approval for the project. It has been determined that the newly proposed lots contain a site stztable for building. Therefore, the site is suitable for the proposed density of development. 6. Since all significant environmental effects of the project as identified in the Initial Study for the project have been mitigated as discussed in the Negative Declaration, the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause aubetantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Tentative Map 27506 Elena Road Lands of Wang Page 7 7. All significant environmental effects of the project as identified in the Initial Study for the proledt have been mitigated as discussed in the Negative Declaration, and therefore the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 8. The City Engineer has reviewed the project and has determined that the design of the subdivision and the improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. CONCLUSION: Staff believes that, with the conditions as recommended and attached, the Map is in compliance with the General Plan, the Zoning ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance and staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend Certification of the Negative Declaration and approval of the Tentative Parcel Map for the Lands of Wang for this two lot subdivision. Staff is available to answer any questions that the Commission or citizens may have. Attachments: Proposed Tentative Parcel Map, Lot Calculations Sheets Initial and Recommended Negative Declaration Recommended Conditions of Approval William Cotton & Associates letter dated 11/5/92 Wilsey and Ham letter dated 9/24/92 Letter from Michael Liu dated 10/14/92 Pathway Committee Recommendations dated 11/20/92 cc: Stanley & Pfanny Wang Trust Michael C. Liu Tentative Map 27506 Elena Road Lands of Wang Page 8 RECOMMENDED CONDMONS OF APPROVAL LANDS OF WANG 27506 Elena Road Geotechnical 1. The applicant's ge-)technical consultant shall *eview and approve all geotechnical aspects of the subdivision plans to assure that the consultant's recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan review shall be summarized in a letter by the project geotechnical engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final approval of the subdivision plans. 2. The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: excavatiuns, grading, and trench excavation and compaction The results of these inspections shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to final project approval. Land and Easement Dedication I A 10 foot wide pathway easement shall be dedicated to tF,e public on the north side of Vinedo Lane along the subdivision frontage. The dedication shall be over the existing private road right-of-way to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The applicant shall also dedicate a 5 or 10 foot wide pathway easement along the western subdivision boundary to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and uhc Pathway Committee. This easement shall be rejected at this time and accepted in the future when access is gained to the lands of Packard. This easement shall be kept dear of ohstacles, vegetation and obstruction. 4. The sinal Map shall provide for appropriate easements to all utility companies, including but not limited to: Pac Bell, Pacific Gas & Electric Company and cable television Tentative Map 27506 EIena Road Lands of Wang Page 9 ) Public Utilities 5. Fire p tection improvements shall be provided as requested by Los Alto ue Protection District. Improvements shall he constructed prior to th recordation of the Final Map or be bonded for. 6. All lots shall be connected to the public water system as part of the subdivision improvements. Improvements shall be constructed prior to the recordation of the Final Map or be bonded for. 7. A sanitary sewer force main system shall be installed to serve both lots of `.he proposed subdivision as well as other feasible lots on Vinedo Lane and on Elena Road. The sanitary sewer system shall be a private system and shall connect to the public system in Elena Road south of the subdivision. The improvements shall be installed prior to recordation of the Final Map or bonded for. Any sewer connection fees required for connection of any property created by this subdivision are to be paid prior to recordation of the Final Map. 8. The applicant shall enter into a sanitary sewer reimbursement agreement with the Town for reimbursement of sewer system oversizing costs as allowed by the Municipal Code, and for other sewer infrastructure installed but not required for the subdivision. The reimbursement agreement shall be finalized prior to recordation of the final map. 9. A sanitary sewer maintenance agreement shall be prepared by the applicant for the private sanitary sewer force main system, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City Attorney. The agreement shall be recorded at the time of the final map recordation. 10. All utilities located within the subdivision shall be placed under ground, in accordance with Subdivision Ordinance, Sec. 9-1.1105. Cable television is included in this requirement. Plans for location of all such utilities are to be included in the improvement plans for the subdivision. Improvements shall be installed prior to recordation of the Final Map or be bonded for. Tentative Map 27506 Elena Road Lands of Wang Page 10 TIm provementa 11. The hydraulic capacity of the existing 12" RCP culvert under Elena Road receiving drainage from the subdivision shall be verified by the applicant's engineer. If the culvert does not have sufficient capacity, it shall be replaced with an adequate capacity culvert for a 10 year storm. The inlet and outlet of the culvert shall be protected from erosion. Improvements shall be constructed prior to recordation of the Final Map or be bonded for. 72 A drainage system shall be designed with the goal of not increasing the rate of peak runoff due to the improvement of these lots or in -lieu fees shall be paid. The maximum runoff rate leaving the subdivision area should not exceed the peak runoff rate from the undeveloped site, based on a 10 -year storm. Improvements shall be constructed prior to recordation of the Final Map or be bonded for. 13. A Type IIB pathway shall be constructed on the north side of Vinedo Lane along the subdivision frontage providing for maximum feasible separation of vehicular and non -vehicular traffic. The pathway shall be constructed prior to recordation of the Final Map or be bonded for. 14. Failed pavement areas of Vinedo Lane shall be dugout and repaired along the subdivision boundary to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Vinedo Lane shall be slurry sealed within these limits to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Improvements shall be constructed prior to recordation of the Final Map or be bonded for. 15. A 5 foot pathway width shall be roughened across Vinedo Lane, the Parcel I driveway and the Mina driveway within the Elena Road right- of-way to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The proposed pathway crossing of the subdivision driveways accessing Vinedo, Lane shall also be roughened to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The roughening shall be performed prior to recordation of the final map or be bonded fo.. 16. The existing asphalt driveway connection for Parcel 1 to Vinedo Lane shall be removed. The driveway shall be removed prior to recordation of the final map or be bonded for. i � S Tentative Map 27506 Elena Road Lands of Wang Page 11 17. All wells on the property shall be shown on the Final Map and shall be properly registered with Santa Clara Valley Water District and either maintained or abandoned in accordance with their standards and approval. 18. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program WNW), to include monitoring and reporting of mitigation measures set forth in the Negative Declaration, is required to be submitted prior to recordation of the final map, as a condition of this subdivision approval, for review and approval by the Town Planner and the City Engineer. Included in the MMRI' shall be a cost analysis of the potential maintenance required to assure the continued functioning of the mitigation measures in a manner consistent with its intent. 19. All structures made non -conforming by this subdivision shall be removed prior to recordation of the Final Map or a bond to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Work.; posted to ensure the completion of the required work prior to issuance of Site Development Permits. 20. Payment of Park and Recreation fees and all other fees shall be required prior to approval of the Final Map. 2'1. Fees shall be collected in accordance with AB 3159, Chapter 1706, Statutes of 1990, effective January 1, 1991 requiring that the Department of Fish and Game impose and collect filing fees as specified to defray the cost of managing and protecting fish and wildlife trust resources. Storm Drainage Street Improvement Path Improvement Park and Recreation page 3 ipetr-r �,.C� lu7, WORKSHEET Ni SLOPE DENSITY FOR ENTIRE UNSUBDIVIDED PROPERTY (for purposes of estimation for preliminary design) LANDS OF FILE N CALCULATED DATE CALCULATED /v /a 9 2 - CHECKED DATE, CHECKED �. Calculate contour length (L) within the net Area (An): S = (0.0023) (I) (L) ---------`------ CONTOUR LE1vGTH CONTOUR LENGTH An inches inches Where I = contour interval in feet L = total, length of contours A = net area of n lot 343i. G S = (0.0023) ( S ) ( ) --------------------- (3� l g0G ) Subtotal J Total x Map Scale = L 2. Calculate '4aximum Number of Lots A110-ded: 3• SAI'!PARY -¢L2 zc Easement's = a_c N=(An)(1-(0.02143(S-10)]) n C 4 f - Panhandles = G.t9 ac i N = .° % An = 3,/BOG zc Average Lot Slope (5) _ 124 Number Lots Allowed (N) = --_q-- F-, >n - s < 3o% Laf- C/,O000�371'CS-/o�, ¢2'540 sr - C4 (>174 0 Sf