Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Kevin Wun
Land Management
San Jose, CA 95113
February 14, 2022
Peter Carlino
Principal Engineer
Lea & Braze Engineering, INC.
3017 Douglas Blvd. Ste. 300
Roseville, CA 95661
Re: Request for Approval of the Vacation of Public Utility Easement & Proposed / Relocated Public Utility Easement
26070 Newbridge Drive, Los Altos Hills
L&B Job No. 2210088 CI
Dear Peter Carlino:
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to review the proposed 5’public utility easement (“PUE”) vacation. This is in response to your letter, dated 01/24/2022, informing PG&E of the proposed PUE vacation of 26070 Newbridge Drive in the City of Los Altos Hills, County of Santa Clara and the dedication of the new 10’ PUE. An investigation indicates that PG&E currently has no utility facilities within the proposed PUE vacation area. Therefore, PG&E has no request or objections to the proposed PUE vacation per the attached map.
If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact me at (408) 569-5361 or [email protected]
Sincerely,
Kevin Wun
Land Management
Attachment 6
PG&E Gas and Electric Facilities Page 2
From: Anthony Stoloski
To: Pete Carlino
Cc: Teresa Brosius; John Halbom; Mousavi, Nader A.
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Mousavi Residence - Newbridge Drive, Los Altos HIlls (LB# 2210088) - request for relocation of pue (Purrissuma Water)
Date: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 1:31:30 PM
Attachments: image001.png
We will be ok with moving it. I will get something over to you by the end of the week, I hope.
Thanks
Anthony Stoloski
Purissima Hills Water District
[email protected]
Phone: 650-948-1217
Cell: 650-823-0101
26375 Fremont Rd. Los Altos Hills, CA. 94022
www.purissimawater.org [purissimawater.org]
From: Pete Carlino <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 1:22 PM
To: Anthony Stoloski <[email protected]>
Cc: Teresa Brosius <[email protected]>; John Halbom <[email protected]>; Mousavi, Nader A. <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Mousavi Residence - Newbridge Drive, Los Altos HIlls (LB# 2210088) - request for relocation of pue (Purrissuma Water)
Thank you for the email.
To date Comcast and at&t have approved.
Pg&e are under review, but expect to be ok.
Based on initial conversations with town staff, john chau and jersey said they are ok at face value as we are completing the easement on the edge, but sent it over the Daniel who will be the person
giving the review. I have a call into him for an updated but as of this email have not heard back.
Pete
Peter Carlino, P.E. QSD/QSP, Principal Engineer
Lea & Braze Engineering, Inc
Civil Engineers | Land Surveyors
HAYWARD - ROSEVILLE - DUBLIN - SAN JOSE
WWW.LEABRAZE.COM [leabraze.com]
Phone: 510-887-4086 x.117 mobile: 510-760-8727
Email: [email protected]
LinkedIn [linkedin.com] | Instagram [instagram.com] | Facebook [facebook.com] IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the addressee and may contain confidential, privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or disclose any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. ü Please consider the environment before printing this email.
From: Anthony Stoloski <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 1, 2022 1:17 PM
To: Pete Carlino <[email protected]>
Cc: Teresa Brosius <[email protected]>; John Halbom <[email protected]>; Mousavi, Nader A. <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Mousavi Residence - Newbridge Drive, Los Altos HIlls (LB# 2210088) - request for relocation of pue (Purrissuma Water)
Hello Pete,
I will take a look at this easement. Have you heard if the Town is ok with giving it up or moving it? Most of the time we give permission to encroach into an easement, not move it. Will you be doing all the surveying and recording with the county?
Thanks
Anthony Stoloski
Purissima Hills Water District
[email protected]
Phone: 650-948-1217
Cell: 650-823-0101
26375 Fremont Rd. Los Altos Hills, CA. 94022
www.purissimawater.org
From: Pete Carlino <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022 2:10 PM
To: Anthony Stoloski <[email protected]>
Cc: Teresa Brosius <[email protected]>; John Halbom <[email protected]>; Mousavi, Nader A. <[email protected]>
Subject: Mousavi Residence - Newbridge Drive, Los Altos HIlls (LB# 2210088) - request for relocation of pue (Purrissuma Water)
Good afternoon Anthony, I wanted to reach out as I have a property located in los altos hills that has a remnant pue that was not replicated as part of a lot line adjustment in 2006 and runs through the middle of the property.
The property owner would like to move it the edge of the property so he can use the area.
I am not sure you are the correct person for this requests, so i wanted to reach out to see if I can sent he formal request to you or is there another dept that this gets routed to.
Thank you in advance for getting back to me with a confirmation or introduction to the correct contact.
Pete
Peter Carlino, P.E. QSD/QSP, Principal Engineer
Lea & Braze Engineering, Inc
Civil Engineers | Land Surveyors
HAYWARD - ROSEVILLE - DUBLIN - SAN JOSE
WWW.LEABRAZE.COM [leabraze.com]
Phone: 510-887-4086 x.117 mobile: 510-760-8727
Email: [email protected]
LinkedIn | Instagram | Facebook
IMPORTANT NOTICE:
This message is intended only for the addressee and may contain confidential, privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or disclose any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. ü Please consider the environment before printing this email. **This is an external message from: [email protected] **
From: Pete Carlino
To: "Diputado, Cameron"; Wilson, Timothy (Business Partner); Lorenz, Karl Cc: Teresa Brosius; John Halbom; Mousavi, Nader A.
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Mousavi Residence - Newbridge Drive, Los Altos HIlls (LB# 2210088) - request for relocation of pue (Comcast)
Date: Thursday, January 27, 2022 11:13:33 AM
Thank you for your confirmation, we will let you know if we need anything else.
Pete
Peter Carlino, P.E. QSD/QSP, Principal Engineer
Lea & Braze Engineering, Inc
Civil Engineers | Land Surveyors
HAYWARD - ROSEVILLE - DUBLIN - SAN JOSE
WWW.LEABRAZE.COM [leabraze.com]
Phone: 510-887-4086 x.117 mobile: 510-760-8727
Email: [email protected]
LinkedIn [linkedin.com] | Instagram [instagram.com] | Facebook [facebook.com] IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the addressee and may contain confidential, privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or disclose any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. ü Please consider the environment before printing this email.
From: Diputado, Cameron
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022 10:45 AM
To: Wilson, Timothy (Business Partner) ; Pete Carlino ; Lorenz, Karl Cc: Teresa Brosius ; John Halbom
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] RE: Mousavi Residence - Newbridge Drive, Los Altos HIlls (LB# 2210088) - request for relocation of pue (Comcast)
Hi Pete,
I have reviewed this and am confirming the requested easement vacation is approved. This does not impact existing Comcast utilities.
Cameron Diputado
Comcast Construction Specialist
Mobile: (925) 204-0488
From: Timothy Wilson <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022 9:56 AM
To: Pete Carlino <[email protected]>; Diputado, Cameron <[email protected]>; Lorenz, Karl <[email protected]> Cc: Teresa Brosius <[email protected]>; John Halbom <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Mousavi Residence - Newbridge Drive, Los Altos HIlls (LB# 2210088) - request for relocation of pue (Comcast)
Adding Comcast Construction Specialists
+ Karl
+ Cameron
PUE request Cameron
Tim Wilson
West Bay OSP Engineer
CableCom Contractor for Comcast
137 Utah Ave
South San Francisco, Ca. 94080
(cell) 650.468.6115
[email protected]
From: Pete Carlino <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 9:13 PM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Cc: Teresa Brosius <[email protected]>; John Halbom <[email protected]> Subject: Mousavi Residence - Newbridge Drive, Los Altos HIlls (LB# 2210088) - request for relocation of pue (Comcast)
CAUTION: External
Good evening, I wanted to reach out as I have a property located in los altos hills that has a remnant pue that was not replicated as part of a lot line adjustment in 2006 and runs through the middle of the property
The property owner would like to move it the edge of the property so he can use the area.
I am not sure you are the correct person for this requests, so i wanted to reach out to see if I can sent he formal request to you or is there another dept that this gets routed to.
Thank you in advance for getting back to me with a confirmation or introduction to the correct contact.
Pete
Peter Carlino, P.E. QSD/QSP, Principal Engineer
Lea & Braze Engineering, Inc
Civil Engineers | Land Surveyors
HAYWARD - ROSEVILLE - DUBLIN - SAN JOSE
WWW.LEABRAZE.COM
Phone: 510-887-4086 x.117 mobile: 510-760-8727
Email: [email protected]
LinkedIn | Instagram | Facebook
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the addressee and may contain confidential, privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy or disclose any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. ü Please consider the environment before printing this email.
This email message, and any documents which may accompany it, contain information which is intended for use only by the intended recipient(s), and may contain information that is privileged and/or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copy or other use of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by reply email, delete the email from your computer and destroy all copies of the communication and any attachments.
**This is an external message from: [email protected] **
G:\Correspondence\2021 JOBS\2210088 CI\Easements\PUE\EXH A (PUE).docx Page
1 of 2
EXHIBIT “A”
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT
LANDS OF MOUSAVI
26070 NEW BRIDGE DRIVE
LOS ALTOS HILLS, CALIFORNIA
An easement over that certain real property, situate in the City of Los Altos Hills, County of Santa Clara, State of California, being a portion of Lands of Mousavi, as shown on the certain Record of Survey filed in the office of the County Recorder of Santa Clara County on January 17, 2013 in Book 858 of Maps at Page 46, as shown on Exhibit “B” attached hereto and made a part hereof, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Lands of Mousavi; thence along the Easterly line of said lands North 14°24’39” West, 10.80 feet to the Point of Beginning, said point being a non-tangent curve to the left from which the center bears North 07°12’18” East; thence along said curve with a radius of 220.00 feet, through a central angle of 02°46’33”, an arc length of
10.66 feet; thence North 14°24’39” West, 15.78 feet; thence South 87°10’00” East, 10.47 feet to said easterly line; thence along said easterly line South 14°24’39” East, 16.36 feet to the Point of Beginning
Containing 160 square feet, more or less.
The bearings described are based on the North line of said Lands of Mousavi being North 76°45’21” East as shown on said Record of Survey.
END OF DESCRIPTION
PREPARED BY OR UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF:
_____________________________
PATRICK C. WEBER, LS 8162
Attachment 7
Closure Calculation
Public Utility Easement
26070 New Bridge Road, Los Altos Hills, California
End North: 8591.2434' East: 11708.7510'
Segment #1 : Curve
Length: 10.66' Radius: 220.00'
Delta: 2°46'33" Tangent: 5.33'
Chord: 10.66' Course: N84° 10' 58"W
Course In: S07° 12' 18"W Course Out: N04° 25' 45"E
RP North: 8372.9806' East: 11681.1586'
End North: 8592.3239' East: 11698.1459'
Segment #2 : Line
Course: N14° 24' 39"W Length: 15.78'
North: 8607.6074' East: 11694.2186'
Segment #3 : Line
Course: S87° 10' 00"E Length: 10.47'
North: 8607.0900' East: 11704.6759'
Segment #4 : Line
Course: S14° 24' 39"E Length: 16.36'
North: 8591.2448' East: 11708.7474'
Perimeter: 53.27' Area: 160.24 Sq. Ft.
Error Closure: 0.0038 Course: N69° 02' 14"W
Error North: 0.00136 East: -0.00355
Precision 1: 14018.42
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS April 21, 2022
Staff Report to the City Council
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IMPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR A ZONING PERMIT FOR NEW FENCING AT 28001
ELENA ROAD
FROM: Jeremy Loh, Associate Planner
Sofia Mangalam, Planning Director
APPROVED: Peter Pirnejad, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council conduct a hearing on the appeal, consider all evidence and testimony, and deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.
This public hearing is to consider an appeal from a Planning Commission decision dated March 3, 2022, approving a Zoning Permit application for perimeter fencing at 28001 Elena Road, Los Altos Hills. The appeal was timely filed on March 14, 2022, and now scheduled for City Council consideration under the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code.
As described in further detail below, the Planning Commission approved the Zoning Permit with certain conditions of approval and modified fencing design pursuant to several noticed public hearings. The appellant and permit applicant, Sea Landing LP, filed the March 14 appeal stating that they support the Planning Commission’s approval of the Zoning Permit for fencing but now appeals the fencing design modifications and conditions of approval imposed by the Commission (see Attachment 3). As a part of the appeal, the applicant has also proposed certain modifications to the conditions of approval that were recommended by staff at the March 3, 2022, Planning Commission hearing.
Staff recommends the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision. The record below shows that during public hearings conducted for the project and on March 3, 2022, the Planning Commission, based on the information and testimonies presented at the hearing(s) and in the absence of repeated requests to provide accurate plans and wildlife friendly fence, the Commission rendered its decision to approve the Zoning Permit for proposed fence at 28001 Elena Road with certain conditions of approval as included in Fig. 2. The record for the proceedings below shows that these design conditions are reasonable and does not preclude the applicant from carrying out agricultural activities on the site based on the information they furnished to the Commission. Thus, staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision.
Alternatively, staff notes that the City Council does have the authority to grant the appeal and revise the conditions of approval imposed by the Commission. The Council has authority to make this decision by reviewing the record below, the testimony received during the April 21, 2022, public hearing, and other relevant issues. Staff has prepared two (2) separate resolutions for this purpose, which are included as Attachments 1 and 2 to this report. If the City Council grants the applicant’s appeal, it may accept the applicant’s proposed revisions to the conditions of approval in whole or in part, or it may include additional or modified conditions of approval separate from AGENDA ITEM #11.B
P.P.
City Council Page 2
April 21, 2022
what the applicant has proposed. If the City Council denies the appeal, the Zoning Permit approval and conditions of approval including the modified fencing design imposed on March 3, 2022, would become final.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is approximately 41.23-acre remainder parcel created in 1985 with the recordation of Parcel Map 547. Access to the site is provided by a driveway off Elena Road and the driveway provides access to an existing residence at 28001 Elena Road (see Fig. 1). The entire property is encompassed within a Williamson Act contract, which restricts the property to certain agricultural and related compatible uses as specified in the contract document. The contract was executed between the prior property owner and the Town in February 1985, and it was intended by the owner back then to use the property for grazing purposes. Attachment 6, the August 5, 2021, Planning Commission staff report, contains additional background of this site.
Fig 1: Location Map Source: Google Maps
On May 27, 2021, a Zoning Permit Application was submitted by Sea Landing LP (the applicant) for installing perimeter fencing at 28001 Elena Road to engage in agricultural activities at the subject property (#ZP21-0047). The permit application was then reviewed at a Site Development public hearing and subsequently referred to the Planning Commission for review pursuant to Sections 10-1.507(e)(3) and 10-2.1305(b) of the Municipal Code.
The Planning Commission first reviewed the Zoning Permit application on August 5, 2021, and requested additional information and revised plans from the applicant to clarify its fencing proposal, as further described in the next section below. As explained during the meeting, the Commission asked for the additional information in order to clarify a number of questions, such as: better depicting the proposed fencing and areas to be enclosed; understanding how wildlife activities and natural sceneries would need to be preserved; and clarifying how the proposed fencing may need to avoid interference with existing easements and private property interests. The
City Council Page 3
April 21, 2022
information was repeatedly requested by the Commission at two (2) subsequent public hearing meetings held on October 7, 2021, and January 13, 2022. In response, the applicant provided a few minor items but did not provide the majority of the items requested to support the application.
Finally, on March 3, 2022, the fourth public hearing held for this Zoning Permit application, in the absence of the requested information the Planning Commission rendered its decision to approve the Zoning Permit for proposed fence at 28001 Elena Road with certain conditions of approval including revised fence design as shown below. For the Planning Commission Resolution of Approval and a complete list of conditions of approval, please see Attachment 4.
In particular, the fencing design modified by the Commission as a condition of approving the Zoning Permit is shown on Figure 2 below.
Fig. 2: Approved Fencing Design during Planning Commission March 3, 2022 Hearing The Commission conditioned approval of the Zoning Permit on the fencing design to be revised and to conform to the following:
• “A” must be a 4.5-foot-high, split-rail, wildlife-friendly fence • "B3" is a wire mesh with 6-foothigh wood posts
• "B2" is a proposed black chain link fence around Lot 1 • "B1" is an existing black chain link fence, which will remain unchanged • "C" is a 6-foot wire mesh fence with wood posts
City Council Page 4
April 21, 2022
• "D" is proposed to match "C", which is a 6-foot wire mesh fence with wood posts; no fences or gates are to block the ingress or egress of the existing driveway of Parcel 1 • “D1” must be a 4.5-foot-high, split-rail, wildlife-friendly fence, which starts from the driveway to the pathway easement along the CalTrans fence (shown in “E”) • "E" n/a (existing CalTrans fencing which will remain unchanged) • "F" n/a (existing and permitted fencing that will remain unchanged) • "G" must be a 4.5-foot-high, split-rail, wildlife-friendly fence • "H" and "I" and "J" are existing chain link fences
• "K" and "L" must be a 4.5-foot-high, split rail, wildlife-friendly fence, where “K” is along the southern driveway easement of 60 feet, and where “L” is along the northern 30-footwide driveway easement Subsequent to Planning Commissions’ approval of the Zoning Permit, on March 14, 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk (Attachment 3) regarding the conditions of approval imposed by the Commission. Thus, this project is being presented to the City Council in accordance with the Section 10-1.1009 Appeals of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code.
NOTICING/PUBLIC COMMENTS
The public was advised of this Public Hearing in the following ways:
• Mailing to property owners who own property within a 500-foot radius – April 8, 2021 • Town Website: www.losaltoshills.ca.gov – April 8, 2022 • Public Posting Places – April 8, 2022
• Posted at the project site – April 8, 2022
To date, staff has received one (1) email requesting to view the plans. No public comments have been received.
Code Requirements
I. Application Review
This application for a new fence was originally forwarded to the Planning Commission for review pursuant to Sections 10-1.507(e)(3) and 10-2.1305(b) of the Municipal Code. Under Section 10-
1.507, otherwise known as the Town’s Fence Ordinance, either a Zoning Permit or a Site Development Permit would be required in order to erect fences. Specifically, Section 10-
1.507(e)(3) of the Municipal Code states that Zoning Permit requests for certain types of fences are to be reviewed by the Planning Director with notice to adjacent neighbors and pursuant to a public hearing with such notice. This includes, among other things, any fence proposal “deemed appropriate by the Planning Director for a noticed hearing.” Such proposals may include “solid fences, walls or vinyl coated chain-link fences along any road right-of-way, and fences or walls longer than one thousand (1,000) linear feet.” The Planning Director is to provide public notice and conduct the permit review hearing pursuant to Section 10-2.1305(b), except that public notice is only required to be provided to adjacent neighbors.
Section 10-2.1305(b) then provides the Planning Director the authority to either deny the permit; to review and issue the permit with reasonable conditions of approval; or to refer such fence Zoning
City Council Page 5
April 21, 2022
Permit applications to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 10-2.1305(c), may also issue the permit with reasonable conditions or disapprove the application.
II. Fence Compliance
In addition, Sections 10-1.507(a) and (b) of the Municipal Code set forth the purpose and parameters of fencing projects in Los Altos Hills.
Section 10-1.507(a) states that the fencing regulations contained in that section “were created to preserve the beauty and open rural quality of the Town while acknowledging that residents have the right to fence their properties in order to protect their children, contain their animals, and maintain privacy.”
Section 10-1.507(b) states that “No fence, wall, gate, or column structure shall be erected or replaced without the prior issuance of a Zoning or Site Development Permit from the Town.” Thus, the Municipal Code takes into account a property owner’s right to fence their land and make use of the property, as well as the public concerns of open rural quality and beauty preservation for the Town, in considering a fencing permit application. As set forth above, in reviewing a fencing proposal, both the Planning Director and the Planning Commission, if the matter is referred to it by the Director, may exercise discretion and impose “reasonable conditions as it deems necessary” in issuing the requested Zoning Permit (Sections 10-1.507(e), 10-2.1305(b)&(c)).
III. Appeals
Section 10-1.1009 of the Municipal Code states that any interested party may appeal a decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within twenty-one (21) days of the decision prior to it becoming final under Section 10-
1.1008. The Zoning Permit was approved by the Planning Commission on March 3, 2022, and the applicant timely filed a Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk on March 14, 2022.
Under Section 10-1.1009, the City Council is required to hold a public hearing on the appeal no later than 45 days after the date of filing. Thus, staff has scheduled the appeal for the April 21, 2022 agenda for City Council’s review.
DISCUSSION
I. Project Background and Fencing Proposal
A. Initial Project Description
The applicant originally requested a Zoning Permit to install the following fencing:
• A 6-foot wire fence with metal posts and gate around Parcel 1 (27965 Elena Road); and • A 6-foot wire fence with metal posts at the easterly and northerly boundaries of Lot 1 (28001 Elena Road) and a 6-foot, black vinyl coated chain-link fence at the southerly boundary of Lot 1; and
City Council Page 6
April 21, 2022
• A 6-foot wire fence with metal posts along the southerly property line and at the northwest corner of the property; and
• A 6-foot wire fence with metal posts from the existing fencing in the middle of the property to the easterly property boundary; and
• A 6-foot wire fence with metal posts on either side of the driveway/access easements for Lot 1 and Parcel 1; and
• A 6-foot black vinyl coated chain-link fence at the remaining westerly property line of the property; and
• A 6-foot black wrought-iron type metal gate and fence at the driveway entrance on Elena Road.
The applicant’s initial proposal and plans are shown on Page 1 of Attachment 5.
Based on the applicant’s project statement, the purpose of the fencing is to engage in agricultural use of the property; no development is proposed. Proposed agricultural uses include vineyards and winery applications, tea trees, orchards, and herbal medicine. The fencing is intended to protect the plantings. Agricultural operations are consistent with the Williamson Act contract on the property.
B. Latest Submittal as presented to the Planning Commission (See Attachment 5) On February 14, 2022, after repeated requests by the Planning Commission, the applicant provided supplemental submittals showing certain site plan revisions. As shown in the above list of proposed fencing, property line fencing along the pathway easements adjacent to the Caltrans I-280 rightof-way and northerly property line is no longer proposed. The proposal is seeking to legalize the previously installed wire fencing in the middle of the property and connect to the Caltrans chainlink fence at the easterly property boundary. The applicant is proposing 3-foot-wide pedestrian gates where proposed fences cross pathway easements; however, no fencing would be proposed (nor would any fencing be allowed) within pathway easements and emergency access easements.
The applicant is proposing two (2) kinds of fencing detail, including (1) welded wire fencing with metal posts and (2) black vinyl coated chain-link fencing.
The revised February 14, 2022 plans are shown in Attachment 5.
As described above, the applicant continued to represent that the purpose of the fencing is to engage the property in agricultural use.
II. Prior Public Hearings and Planning Commission Requests A. Planning Commission’s request for information during prior public hearings and applicant’s response
As explained on the record during public hearings, the Planning Commission requested the applicant to provide the following information in order to better understand certain aspects of the fencing proposal and surrounding environment, in order to make an informed decision on the Zoning Permit application for the proposed fence.
City Council Page 7
April 21, 2022
The Commission’s requests at the August 2021, October 2021, and January 2022 hearings, and the applicant’s responses to such requests, are summarized below:
• PC request - Submit a revised site plan that accurately depicts the proposed fencing and gates, existing fencing, easements encumbering the subject property, contour lines/topography, and neighboring property lines. The Commission specifically explained the reasons it found the current site plan inadequate, such as being unable to understand parcel and easement boundaries and to confirm the proposed area to be fenced.
Applicant’s response - The applicant submitted two (2) drawings/plans on February 14, 2022, including a revised site plan and a topographical map. However, based on staff’s review, the map submitted was still inaccurate in that it showed the existing fence in wrong locations and the topographical map was from a previous subdivision dated 10-17-14. The applicant has otherwise stated that the request for topographical information and related depictions is excessive for a zoning permit application, and is more appropriate for a site development permit review.
• PC request - Provide further details on the proposed fencing plan, including clarification regarding fencing at the northern boundaries of the project site, as well as the agricultural use(s) and area(s) necessitating the proposed fencing. The Commission also requested the applicant to consider only fence those necessary areas.
Applicant’s response – To this request, the applicant added a note on the site plan including 100% of 42.74 acres are for flower/vegetable gardens, vineyards, orchards, herbal medicines, edible bamboos, and existing trees. The applicant did not provide other details or note the specific areas where crops would be or would not be located. • PC request - Utilize wildlife friendly and wooden fences and use fencing configurations consistent with other similarly large properties with open space or agricultural uses. The Planning Commission discussed several alternative configurations, including those used for the properties located at Natoma Road and Robleda Road.
Applicant’s response – The applicant in the last submittal continued to include two (2) proposed fence details including 6-foot welded wire fencing with metal posts and black vinyl coated chain-link fencing and did not revise the fencing designs to include wooden posts or wildlife friendly fencing. The applicant has otherwise stated that this request is excessive for a zoning permit application and is more appropriate for a site development permit review.
• PC request - Confirm the proposed fences would not bisect pathway easements, waterways, or across any swales, and that new fencing would not preclude the dedication of future open space easements or pathway easements. The Commission also requested to provide a map of waterways on the property.
Applicant’s response – The applicant in the last submittal did not confirm location of existing easements, or existing waterways/swales on the site. The Planning Commission also requested to provide a map of waterways on the property, which was not included in
City Council Page 8
April 21, 2022
the last submittal. The applicant stated that this request is excessive for a zoning permit application, and is more appropriate for a site development permit review. • PC request - Remove prior fencing that were installed without permits or appropriate authorization from the Town.
Applicant’s response – The unpermitted fence has not been removed from the site. A Code Enforcement case was opened on November 10, 2021, but was put on hold due to the continued public hearings and the pending application review by the Commission. • PC request - Allow members of the Open Space Committee to visit the project site to determine wildlife presence.
Applicant’s response – The request was denied by the applicant, and the Open Space Committee could not visit the site. The applicant stated that this request is excessive for a zoning permit application, and is more appropriate for a site development permit review.
B. Summary of Prior Public Hearings and Communications
July 6, 2021, Site Development Hearing: At the meeting, the proposed fence was presented with the intent to inform the public of the proposal, gather public comments, and clarify that the project will be heard by the Planning Commission given the amount of public concern. Residents in attendance voiced concerns about respecting property lines and allowing the movement of animals throughout the property. They added that portions of the northwesterly part of the property features slopes in excess of 30%, which could qualify for an open space easement dedication and potential restrictions on new fencing. There were also concerns about proposed chain-link fencing. The application was referred to the Planning Commission due to these concerns and the complexity of the issues raised.
August 5, 2021, Planning Commission Public Hearing: The proposed fence was first reviewed by the Planning Commission on August 5, 2021. At the meeting, a number of questions were raised by the Commission, Town Committees, and neighbors resulting in the item being continued to a date uncertain. The Commission asked for clarification on the proposed agricultural uses, the types of fencing, the presence of wildlife activities, along with other issues raised by the Commission and public comments during the meeting. The Commission also asked for potential changes to the fence design. The Planning Commission directed the applicant to consider changes to the plans and provide additional clarifications and information. See Attachment 6 for staff report and meeting minutes.
October 7, 2021, Planning Commission Public Hearing: The proposed fence then returned to the Planning Commission on October 7, 2021. The concerns raised by the Commission at the August 5 meeting were not adequately addressed by the applicant. There was increased discussion about wildlife usage of the subject property and the Commission reiterated its previous requests for clarifications and additional information. Furthermore, the Commission requested that the Open Space Committee (OSC) be allowed to visit the site to provide an assessment of the wildlife uses on the property. The agenda item was again continued to a future public hearing. See Attachment 7 for staff report and meeting minutes.
City Council Page 9
April 21, 2022
January 13, 2022, Planning Commission Public Hearing: At the meeting, the Planning Commission expressed their concern again that the applicant has not provided the requested information from previous two (2) meetings, including a revised site plan that accurately depicts the proposed fencing and gates, existing fencing, easements encumbering the subject property, contour lines/topography, and neighboring property lines. In addition, the request for the OSC to visit the site was also declined by the applicant. The Planning Commission specifically noted for the record that the requested items and information are necessary to facilitate its review and deliver a decision on the proposed fence. See Attachment 8 for staff report and meeting minutes.
January 18, 2022, Applicant’s letter to the City Council: On January 18, 2022, the applicant submitted a letter to the City Council requesting the Council hold a public hearing on the Zoning Permit application and approve the permit. See Attachment 9.
February 1, 2022, Response to Applicant’s request: On February 1, 2022, the City Attorney’s office provided a response to the applicant’s correspondence explaining that the City Council does not have authority to independently call up a matter pending before the Planning Commission prior to a decision being made. The letter also reiterated Planning Commission’s request for the information and the reasons for such requests. See Attachment 10.
III. Planning Commission March 3, 2022 Decision
At the March 3, 2022 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed its prior requests for additional information, considered the applicant’s supplemental submittals, and stated on the record that it provided the applicant with several opportunities to provide the requested information but the applicant has refused to do so. The Commission also explained why it found the initial submittals and plans inadequate. Finally, the Planning Commission rendered its decision to approve the Zoning Permit application but with certain conditions of approval and detailed fencing design modifications as discussed above.
The design modifications were imposed as a condition of approval based on evidence and testimony in the record, such as issues relating to allowing wildlife movement, avoiding existing easements, and protecting existing waterways. The Commission explained on the record the basis of its decision and the reasons for requiring design modifications, in light of the evidence presented in the record and the purposes described in the Fence Ordinance. See Attachment 11 for staff report and draft Meeting minutes.
IV. The March 14, 2022 Appeal
Subsequent to Planning Commission’s approval with detailed fence design conditions, the applicant filed a Notice of Appeal in letter form with the City Clerk. This Notice of Appeal and accompanying appeal letter are included as Attachment 3 to this staff report. The applicant’s appeal letter statesthat they support the Planning Commission’s approval of the Zoning Permit for fencing but disagrees with the fencing design modifications and conditions of approval imposed by the Commission, and is appealing them (see page 1 of letter in Attachment 3).
The applicant raises the following arguments and issues on appeal:
City Council Page 10
April 21, 2022
1) The Planning Commission treated the project as a Site Development Permit rather than a Zoning Permit for fencing. It imposed a number of conditions that would only be appropriate in the context of a development application, rather than an application for a perimeter fence;
2) Under the conditions of approval, the subject parcel could not be used for commercial farming, which is a legally entitled purpose. Specifically, the applicant stated that by requiring wildlife friendly fence and prohibiting fence at certain locations, the Planning Commission exceeded its authority because the conditions of approval would prohibit the applicant from using the property for commercial farming and frustrate the anticipated and desired use of the land; and
3) The applicant proposed modifications to certain conditions of approval that were contained in the March 3, 2022, Planning Commission staff report and recommended to the Planning Commission by Town staff. These proposed modifications are shown below, with the applicant’s proposed deletions in strikethrough and additions in double underline:
• COA #2: All wire new fencing approved by this permit with metal posts shall be welded wire with either wood posts or metal posts painted dark green to match the rural/agricultural character of the Town.
• COA #5: The new fencing and gates shall not obstruct or encroach within any easements on the property. Specifically, no fencing is allowed within pedestrian/equestrian easements, emergency access easements, driveway or ingress and egress easements, and water district easement. This condition is intended to prohibit fencing in the interior of the parcel that obstruct easements; it doesn’t prohibit fencing or gates around the perimeter of the parcel that run along the edge of an easement. *It is worth noting that the at the March 3, 2022, public hearing, the Planning Commission added “swales” to the list of areas where fence would be prohibited under this Condition No. 5. The applicant did not include that change when it proposed the above edits.
• COA #6: Any installed nonpermitted fencing, existing barbed wire fencing, and electrified fencing shall be removed prior to concurrently with installation of new replacement fencing. Staff will identify for the permit holder all installed nonpermitted fencing that is not approved by this permit and must be removed.
V. Additional Discussion
Compliance with Fence Regulations
Open and solid fences are generally permitted along all property lines as long as they do not block access, pathway, utility or other easements. However, if there is an open space or conservation easement recorded on a property, then additional restrictions can be imposed on the type of fence or banned altogether.
The proposed fencing for this Zoning Permit generally complies with the requirements of the Municipal Code. The Fence Ordinance allows for 6-foot tall open or solid fencing along property
City Council Page 11
April 21, 2022
lines that are not adjacent to a public or private road right-of-way. 6-foot-tall open fences along a public or private road are required to be set back a minimum of 45 feet from the centerline of the road right-of-way. The fence plan indicates that the new gate on Elena Road will be set back 45 feet, but portions of the fence along the road appears to be closer. However, as fencing must also keep pedestrian/equestrian easements and emergency access easements clear, the fencing will be set back more than 45 feet from the centerline of Elena Road. Per the Town Fence Ordinance, the new open fencing shall be a minimum of 45 feet from the centerline of the right-of-way. All other proposed 6-foot fencing appears to meet the height regulations based on the location of the fences on the property.
Regarding fence materials, solid fences are not encouraged where views may be affected. In this case, the proposed fencing is open style, chain-link, welded wire and wrought iron fencing.
Although all these types of fencing materials are allowed, chain-link fencing is not a preferred fencing material, especially in highly visible locations along public roads.
Wildlife Fencing Discussion
The Fence Ordinance requires fencing along the perimeter of Open Space or Conservation Easements to provide “openings sufficient to accommodate the free passage of wildlife through the easement.” The Ordinance states that a split-rail wood fence or equivalent design shall be required. Additionally, the Ordinance states that fencing “crossing or intersecting an officially designated wildlife corridor” to conform to the Open Space or Conservation Easement requirements.
Although the Project site does not have any open space or conservation easements or an officially designated wildlife corridor adopted by the Town, in 2006 a potential wildlife movement corridor study was conducted by Live Oak Associates and shows the presence of wildlife movement at the subject site. Additionally, multiple neighboring residents, Town committee members, and the Commission have provided testimony or voiced concerns about the proposed fencing restricting or preventing wildlife movement on the property due to sighting of deer. A point of discussion for the project has been appropriateness of chain link or wire mesh fencing on a large property known to be used by wildlife. The Commission also discussed configurations of fencing that could both protect potential crops to be planted and allow wildlife to move through the perimeters of the subject parcel. Ultimately, the Commission made modifications to the fencing design to incorporate wildlife-friendly fences at various points of the subject property to allow wildlife to pass through the site.
It is worth noting that there is no requirement for Open Space Committee review or easement dedication under the Municipal Code for this Project parcel. As shown on the Town’s Land Use Diagram, the northwesterly corner of the property is within an Open Space Conservation Area.
However, the Town only requires Open Space Committee review, and potentially the dedication of an Open Space Easement depending on the circumstances, for applications for site development permits on properties within such areas. As the application is for fencing and a Zoning Permit only, the above requirements are not applicable. The foregoing information was also presented in the March 3, 2022 staff report, which the Commission took into consideration.
City Council Page 12
April 21, 2022
2022 CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
The Planning Department is responsible for the administration of the Town’s Zoning and Site Development Codes, which involves the review and processing of all site development and zoning applications, including appeals. This application is “below the water line” projects of the Planning Department.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Notice of Appeal includes a fee $900 and a deposit of $2,000. Staff time including planning staff and City Attorney for preparation of staff report and City Council meeting will be paid from the deposit. However, there may be a small fiscal impact if the staff time exceeds the fee and deposit amount.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed fencing is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303(e), which allows for accessory structures such as fences.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft resolution to Grant the appeal
2. Draft resolution to Deny the appeal
3. Notice of Appeal by the Applicant
4. Planning Commission Resolution with Conditions of Approval
5. Initial and Revised Project Plans
6. August 5, 2021, Planning Commission Staff Report and meeting minutes
7. October 7, 2021, Planning Commission Staff Report and meeting minutes
8. January 13, 2022, Planning Commission Staff Report and meeting minutes
9. Applicant’s letter to the City Council
10. Town Response to the Applicant’s request
11. March 3, 2022, Planning Commission Staff Report and draft meeting minutes
12. Compilation of public comments received to date
5092483.1
Resolution __-22 Page 1
RESOLUTION -22
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS GRANTING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE A ZONING PERMIT FOR NEW FENCING AT 28001 ELENA ROAD AND
IMPOSE CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
WHEREAS, The Town of Los Altos Hills received an application for a Zoning Permit (ZP21- 0047) from Sea Landing LP (“Applicant”) for new fencing at 28001 Elena Road (“Project”); and WHEREAS, based on the record presented before it, the Project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303(e) since the project involves new fencing; and
WHEREAS, the Project application was processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Site Development Committee held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project on July 6, 2021 and considered all written documentation and public comments and remanded the project to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project on August 5, 2021 and considered all written documentation and public comments and continued the Project to a date uncertain; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project on October 7, 2021 and considered all written documentation and public comments and continued the Project to a date uncertain; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project on January 13, 2022 and considered all written documentation and public comments and continued the Project to a date uncertain; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project on March 3, 2022 and considered all written documentation and public comments; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to adopt the resolution to approve the Zoning Permit for the proposed fence at 28001 Elena Road with conditions; and WHEREAS, on March 14, 2022, the Applicant submitted a Notice of Appeal to the City Clerk to appeal the Planning Commission’s conditions of approval to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal on April 21, 2022, and considered all evidence, testimony, written documentation and public comments; and
Attachment 1
Resolution __-22 Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills hereby grants the appeal. The conditions of approval for Zoning Permit (ZP21-0047) for fencing at 28001 Elena Road shall be revised as set forth in the record of the April 21, 2022 public hearing. Town staff is hereby directed to prepare an updated list of the revised conditions of approval in accordance with the hearing records.
The above and foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills at a regular meeting held on the 21st day of April, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
By: _____________________________
George Tyson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deborah Padovan, City Clerk
Resolution __-22 Page 1
RESOLUTION -22
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE A ZONING PERMIT FOR NEW FENCING AT 28001 ELENA ROAD AND
IMPOSE CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
WHEREAS, The Town of Los Altos Hills received an application for a Zoning Permit (ZP21- 0047) from Sea Landing LP (“Applicant”) for new fencing at 28001 Elena Road (“Project”); and WHEREAS, based on the record presented before it, the Project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303(e) since the project involves new fencing; and
WHEREAS, the Project application was processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Site Development Committee held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project on July 6, 2021 and considered all written documentation and public comments and remanded the project to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project on August 5, 2021 and considered all written documentation and public comments and continued the Project to a date uncertain; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project on October 7, 2021 and considered all written documentation and public comments and continued the Project to a date uncertain; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project on January 13, 2022 and considered all written documentation and public comments and continued the Project to a date uncertain; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Project on March 3, 2022 and considered all written documentation and public comments; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to adopt the resolution to approve the Zoning Permit for the proposed fence at 28001 Elena Road with conditions; and WHEREAS, on March 14, 2022, the Applicant submitted a Notice of Appeal to the City Clerk to appeal the Planning Commission’s conditions of approval to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the appeal on April 21, 2022, and considered all evidence, testimony, written documentation and public comments; and
Attachment 2
Resolution __-22 Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills hereby denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission’s decision dated March 3, 2022 to approve a Zoning Permit application (ZP21-0047) for fencing at 28001 Elena Road with conditions of approval issued on March 3, 2022.
The above and foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills at a regular meeting held on the 21st day of April, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
By: _____________________________
George Tyson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deborah Padovan, City Clerk
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Attachment 5
Attachment 6
Attachment 7
Attachment 8
Matteoni
(§CH'Leacuhgt'm'an LAWYERS
'tui+nan E. MaNeoni
P e ggi M. 0'la t.i (slili n
13ibicllri l'l. llallrnni
l'icirliui (y. Heclilin:in
li-ril Htiuliliar+
January 18, 2022
Advance Copy via Email
Mayor George Tyson and
Members of the Los Altos Hills Town Council
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Re: Sea Landing, LP Zoning Permit Application
28001 Elena Road - File # ZP21 -0047;
Request for Town Council Hearing
Dear Mayor Tyson and Members of the Town Council:
This office serves as litigation counsel for Sea Landing, LP, the applicant for a zoning permit for the installation of a fence around it's parcel located at 28001 Elena Road, which application has been assigned to the Planning Commission pursuant to Section 10-
1.507(e)(3) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. By this letter Sea Landing formally requests that pursuant to Section 10-1.1009(b) of the LAHMC the Town Council elevate the decision on that fence permit application to the Town Council for hearing and final decision. While technically not an approval or a denial of the fence permit, the Planning Commission's non-decision we believe constitutes a finding upon which an appeal should be found.
The fence permit application was submitted on May 25, 2021.
Pursuant to the Zoning Permit application process set forth in in the LAHMC, that application was heard by the Site Development Committee on July 6, 2021, at which hearing the Committee determined to elevate the application without decision to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission held hearings on the application on August 5, which was continued to October 7, agenized and then cancelled for a hearing on December 9, and finally held a fourth hearing on January 13, 2022.
848 Tlie Alameda
I San Jose, CA 95126
I pli. 408.293.4300
7 [ 2 fax. 408.293.4004
ffl l J www.matteorn.com
Attachment 9
Mayor Tyson and
Members of the Los Altos Hills Town Council
January 18, 2022
At each hearing, an outline of the issues was prepared and presented with Planning Staffs recommendation, with recommended conditions of approval.
Notwithstanding that Planning Staff correctly noted that this was a request for a fence permit and not a site development application, the Planning Commission refused to approve the application, and refused to make a final decision despite Sea Landing's request that it render a decision, seeking further information which may be appropriate to a site development application but was neither required for nor relevant to a fence permit. At each hearing, the Planning Commission refused to limit its analysis to the narrow requirements of the Zoning Permit process described in the LAHMC and instead attempted to expand the analysis to the requirements of a Site Development Permit. Such requested items included, but were not limited to, a topographical map, determination of whether there exist any streams and waterways affecting the property, and other items relevant to a site development analysis.
Sea Landing applied for a Zoning Permit to construct a perimeter fence surrounding its property, and its sole request is for a permit to construct such perimeter fencing so that it can effectively farm its 42+ acre parcel in compliance with its Williamson Act contract which requires commercial agricultural production (see attached letters explaining the necessity of adequate fencing for commercial agricultural production). Sea Landing has not applied for a Site Development Permit and has no desire at present to seek or obtain a Site Development Permit.
Based upon substantial evidence in the administrative record, it is clear that it would be futile to continue pursuit of a decision from the Planning Commission that could be either accepted by Sea Landing or appealed to the Town Council, as the Planning Commission has made clear through its actions that its intention is to delay without end its processing of the application in furtherance of neighbors' desires to keep Sea Landing's parcel accessible to them and wildlife, which matters are irrelevant to the Zoning Permit sought by the application and the right of every property owner to secure the boundaries of its property.
Based on these reasons, Sea Landing requests that the Town Council elevate this application to the Town Council on its own initiative pursuant to Section 10-1.1 009(b) of the LAHMC, and agenize it for hearing as soon as reasonably practicable. Should the Town Council decline this request under these circumstances, it is Sea Landing's position that it will have exhausted its administrative remedies. Our sincere hope is that the Town Council will promptly
Mayor Tyson and
Members of the Los Altos Hills Town Council
January 18, 2022
conduct a hearing on the application and grant it, allowing Sea Landing to effectively fence its land for commercial farming purposes.
Respectfully submitted,
Matteoni, O'Laughlin & Hechtman
BY:
&r,
BARTON G. HECHTMAN
BGH:cab
CC: Sea Landing, LP
Steve Mattas
Deborah Padovan
Town Clerk
Steve Padovan
Stephan Pahl
Att.
Z:'iCljentsSSea Landing, LPSCorrespondencelLT Mayor 1-18-22.docx
November 4, 2021
Los Altos Hills Planning Commission
Attn: Birgitta Indaco, Chair
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Dear Honorable Planning and Other Officials of the Town of Los Altos Hills:
We write to support the efforts of Sea Landing, LP (Property Owner) to fence its approximately 42 acres of Williamson Act farmland ("Farmland") in the Town of Los Altos Hills so that it may commercially farm the land.
We understand the Property Owner desires to plant and farm vineyards and perhaps other agricultural crops on its 42 acres, and to protect its farming operations and its Farmland by fencing off the property. As you may know, deer, other wildlife and people being able to freely enter the property will pose insurmountable challenges to farming. The Property Owner should be allowed to appropriately and rightly address in its discretion to fulfill its Williamson Act obligations under state law in order to avoid damage to its vines and other crops, and to limit exposure to liability and nuisance claims against its farming operations.
The Williamson Act places an affirmative obligation on the Property Owner to commercially produce agricultural commodities on the Farmland. Accordingly, all local authorities such as County and City governments should not thwart or impede the Property Owner's efforts to fence the Farmland so it can successfully farm the land by keeping out wildlife and people. For example, deer severely damage vines and disrupt grape farming by eating the leaves and the grapes voraciously. Fencing is the only appropriate way to keep out deer from the Property Owner's planned vineyards.
Humans bring another set of issues if allowed to freely wander on the property. The vineyards has trellis and drip irrigation systems that risk damage by trespassers. Tractors and tractor attachments are dangerous to children if used for amusement and horseplay. Rodent burrows and weeds pose trip hazards. In our county, the historical use of organic sulfur as a fungicide has also invited needless objections from uninformed passers-by.
In conclusion, fencing off the Farmland is essential for the Property Owner to farm the 42-acres. We write to support the Property Owner's efforts to fence off the Farmland and are disappointed in the permit process delay by the Town of Los Altos Hills.
Sincerely,
Erin Gil
President
605 Tennant Ave., Suite H, Morgan Hill, CA 95037
(408) 776-1684
[email protected]
www.sccfarmbureau.org
Attachment 10
Attachment 11
Attachment 12
From: Michael Grady
To: City Council
Subject: Fwd: Objection to perimeter fence plan of Sea Landing LP & Opposition to its appeal of the Planning Commission"s decision
Date: Sunday, April 17, 2022 6:55:40 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Michael Grady
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Michael Grady < >
Date: April 16, 2022 at 4:27:29 PM PDT
To: Jeremy Loh <[email protected]>
Subject: Objection to perimeter fence plan of Sea Landing LP & Opposition to its appeal of the Planning Commission's decision
Dear Mr Loh,
Please forward this email to the City Council and include it in the public record.
Once again, the Sea Landing owners and/or their attorney, Stephen Pahl, have demonstrated their complete disregard for the Town's ordinances and policies, including its wildlife friendly ambiance. Furthermore, their appeal from the Planning Commission's decision is based upon an obvious falsehood. Sea Landing and Mr. Pahl have falsely asserted that they intend to farm "100%" of the property, and their request for an impermeable 6 foot perimeter fence is based entirely on this falsehood.
Large portions of the Sea Landing property, particularly on the northwest portion, are heavily wooded, and have steep slopes and ravines. While cattle might have once roamed parts of these areas, no farming is possible there. In addition, as the Planning Commission recognized, longstanding and heavily used wildlife corridors (even if not yet "officially designated") transit these portions of the property and connect to the open spaces on the western side of Saddle Mountain Drive. It is for this reason that the Planning Commission refused to allow an impermeable 6 foot perimeter fence around the entire property. As the Planning Commissioners noted in previous hearings, to the extent that Sea Landing has a bona fide intent to farm the portions of the property on which agriculture is possible, the crops on those portions can easily and adequately be protected by interior fencing around those crops, while continuing to allow wildlife to utilize their existing wildlife corridors.
Supplemental No. 1
AGENDA ITEM #11.B
Distributed 4/18/22
Based upon the record below, and the Town's previously commissioned survey of wildlife corridors in LAH, I would request that the Town Council now "officially designate" the existing and longstanding wildlife corridors which transit the Sea Landing property.
The Town Council should not indulge Sea Landing's dishonest and repeated disregard for the Town's ordinances and policies. Let me briefly provide the Council with a chronicle of their misconduct regarding this matter. When I first discovered that the Sea Landing owners were constructing an unpermitted, illegal uncoated chain link fence (a substantial portion of which encroached upon my property), their attorney, Stephen Pahl, falsely asserted to me that "no permit is required" for his clients to install the fence. Fortunately, I did not take Mr. Pahl at his word, and consulted the Town's ordinances, in which it is very clearly states that a fence permit is required (in addition to stating that the kind of uncoated chain link fence that the Sea Landing people had installed is not allowed under any circumstances). When I further communicated with Mr. Pahl regarding the illegal fence, the Sea Landing owners first attempted to simply paint their uncoated chain link fence, rather than abide by the ordinance requiring vinyl coated chain link.
Ultimately, Sea Landing did remove the illegal and unpermitted chain link fence from along my property line (though I am informed that they have not removed other sections of illegal and unpermitted chain link fencing despite being directed to do so by the Planning Commission and the Town's Code Enforcement Officer), but they replaced the chain link with different illegal fencing. Specifically, they erected a different illegal and unpermitted fence along my property line and the other Saddle Mountain Drive properties adjoining the Sea Landing property.
They replaced the chain link with very thin gauge, hazardous to wildlife, uncoated metal wire on metal posts along the property line. Paragraph (d) of the Town's Fence Ordinance expressly states "The following fences are prohibited: (1) . . . any fence with bare lengths of wire stretched between metal poles . . . ." Despite this clear prohibition, but perhaps not surprisingly, given the Sea Landing representatives' repeated flagrant disregard of the Town's policies, ordinances, and directives, this is exactly what Sea Landing erected after they removed the illegal uncoated chain link fencing.
Similarly dishonest was Sea Landing's assertion to the Planning Commission in its Proposed Perimeter Fence and Gate Plan, in the upper right-hand portion: " (Permitted existing barbed wire fences were cut and broken by encroachers)".
Once again, there is no basis in fact for this assertion by Sea Landing and Mr.
Pahl. My property, at 14313 Saddle Mountain Drive, adjoins the northwesterly portion of the Sea Landing property (although their inaccurate submission inaccurately depicted the far northwest corner of the Sea Landing property as adjoining only 14305 Saddle Mountain), and I have lived at 14313 Saddle Mountain since 2004. No fencing in this area was "cut" or broken by "encroachers." Rather, the remnants of deteriorated and fallen wooden fence posts and rusted and broken barbed wire fencing from what presumably was a ranching operation many decades ago were laying on the ground in this area when I moved in some 18 years ago. No "encroachers" (other than wildlife, who don't usually carry wire cutters) "cut" any wire in this area, and there was absolutely no
basis for Sea Landing to assert that this occurred.
Further, at the initial hearing on Sea Landing's fence permit application almost a year ago, Mr. Pahl also represented to the Planning Commission that there were no easements along the perimeter of the property where Sea Landing sought to install fencing. We now know that this assertion by Mr. Pahl was not true.
At another Planning Commission hearing last year, the Commission directed that Sea Landing immediately remove all of the illegal, unpermitted fencing that they had improperly installed.They still have not done so.
Yet another reason why Sea Landing's appeal should be denied is that the impermeable perimeter fence which it seeks to install would completely obstruct existing, well established, and longstanding wildlife corridors. As the Planning Commissioners noted, the express purpose of the Town's Fence Ordinance, as stated in paragraph (a), is "to preserve the beauty and open rural quality of the Town while acknowledging that residents have the right to fence their properties in order to protect their children, contain their animals, and maintain privacy." Even setting aside their consistent and repeated disregard for the Town's ordinances, policies and directives, Sea Landing has demonstrated no need for a perimeter fence to protect children, contain animals, or to maintain privacy. No children, animals, or persons occupy the property in question. Nor, as noted above, is a perimeter fence required to protect any crops which Sea Landing may ultimately plant.
Sea Landing's assertion that "100% of 42.74 acres are for flowers/vegetable gardens, vineyard, orchard, herbal medicines, edible bamboos, and existing trees (Christmas trees and crops have been destroyed by deer)" is no more credible than any of Mr. Pahl's previous falsehoods. There is no evidence that deer have ever destroyed any Christmas trees or other crops on the land in question. But even if that were true, it is clearly false for Sea Landing to assert that "100% of 42.74 acres" will be cultivated. As the Commission has been able to observe, much of the 42.74 acres is heavily wooded, with steep slopes and deep ravines, and is not suitable for cultivation. Insofar as Sea Landing truly wishes to cultivate portions of the property, it can protect any crops it actually plants by means other than a perimeter fence.
Sincerely,
Michael Grady
Los Altos Hills
From: George Perlegos
To: City Council
Subject: Re: 28001 ELENA ROAD (APN 182-02-016) - FILE #APL22-0001; ZP21-0047 lands - of Sea Landing LP Permit for Fences and Gates
Date: Monday, April 18, 2022 11:36:07 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
To the City Council:
I am a Homeowner of Elena Rd and referred in this Appeal as the owner of LOT 1 .
I saw posted today at the Elena property the CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE for April 21, 2022at 7:00 PM to consider the Appeal the Planning Commission decisions, Dated March 3, 2022.
We want to state our opposition to the Sea Landing LP appeal of the Planning Commission's decision for the following reasons.
1. First of all it is not clear which of the 15 sections of the Commission's decision the Applicant wants to Appeal. Is it map section A, B1, B2, B3, C, D,, D1, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, or L?
2. The Applicant INSTALLED FENCEs WITHOUT A PERMIT AT SECTIONS B2, B3, A, and G
AROUND OUR PROPERTY AND MANY OTHER NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
THE FENCE THEY INSALLED WAS A CHAIN LINK FENCE.
The fence is very DANGEROUS to Animals and people. It is not allowed by the Town.
ATTACHMENT 12 of the STAFF report has many complaints and comments of many, many people that everyone wants them removed but the Applicant has refused to do so.
3. THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT EVERY MEETING HAS REQUESTED THE
APPLICANT
REMOVE THE CHAIN LINK FENCES THEY INSTALLED WITHOIUT A PERMIT BUT THEY CONTINUISLY REFUSE TO DO SO.
NOW IN THE APPEAL THEY ASK THE STAFF TO TELL THEM WHICH FENCES WERE
INSTALLED UNPERMITTED. It is map sections B2, B3, A, and G.
4. The property is in the Williamson act and they pay no taxfor at least 37 years.
New fences have been installed for about a year on SECTION G that block all animal paths from the property. The property can no longer get the Open space exemption.
Therefore the applicant is in violation of the Williamson Act and the property needs to be removed
from the WILLIAMSON ACT and start PAYING TAX like everyone.
5. The permit asks for a periphery fence to convert the property to agricultural but they had established an
OPEN SPACE EXCEPTION for 37 years and well established ANIMAL PATHWAYS for 37 years
Supplemental No. 2
AGENDA ITEM #11.B
Distributed 4/19/22
that they can't erase because the animal pathways are well established.
Furthermore Sea Landing LP can't do farming in the property. The property was not a Farm Land for 37
years it was OPEN SPACE to get the TAX CREDIT.
THEY HAVE NO WATER , NO ELECTRICITY , NO BARNS, NO ROADS. THEY
HAVE NOTHING
HOW ARE THEY GOING TO FARM?
6 . Now specifically, on their first request to use Green Metal Posts vs. Wood Posts they are trying to
by-pass the order and leave the chain link fence they have already installed which every neighbor
has complained.
What they are calling "Green Metal Posts" are really iron metal stakes with spikes.
THIS FENCE SHOULD BE REMOVED AS REQUESTED BY ALL THE
NEIGHBORS,
THE STAFF, THE PLANNING COMISSION
and the < APPEAL SHOULD BE REJECTED>
7. Their second request for Appeal (SECTION 5) is to put gates on the EASEMENTS in Section G
to block the Animal Pathways and block Pedestrian pathways.
THIS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED . You have a well established EASEMENT going all around
the property SECTIONS E, F, A donated by the previous owner THE FENWICKS had done so to build his home at LOT 1.
<THE APPEAL SECTION 5 SHOULD BE REJECTED>
8. The last Section 6 of the Applicants APPEAL SHOULD ALSO BE REJECTED
BECAUSE
The commission has being asking since LAST AUGUST 2021 for the fences to be removed.
The Fences are falling down , They were put up without cement and the wind has bent them
and makes them more dangerous.
THIS EMAIL SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE PUBLIC COMMENTS
Thank you
George Perlegos
Property Owner
LOS ALTOS HILLS
From: Denise ***
To: City Council
Subject: Re. The fencing on the 40 acre parcel
Date: Sunday, April 17, 2022 8:23:25 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Supplemental No. 3
AGENDA ITEM #11.B
Distributed 4/19/22
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important From: Jeremy Loh
To: Deborah Padovan
Subject: FW: Please deny the Sea Landing Appeal
Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 9:51:52 AM
Attachments: image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
Deborah,
Please include below email as public comment on Item 11B.
Jeremy Loh
Associate Planner
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, CA
94022
P: 650-947-2544 | F: 650-941-3160
E: [email protected]
Subscribe to the Town Newsletter.
From: lu
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 6:45 AM
To: Jeremy Loh <[email protected]>
Cc: Michael Grady <[email protected]>
Subject: Please deny the Sea Landing Appeal
Hello Jeremy,
I live on Saddle Mountain Drive near the property purchased by Sea Landing. I'd like to ask that, based on their ignoring our fencing code, the untrustworthy behavior in attempting to paint it, and the fact that they have refused to remove the fencing, despite being ordered to do so by the town, their appeal should be denied.
To be clear, I understand how the pathways and corridors can inconvenience property owners. There's a pathway that goes literally through my front yard. This is what it means to be part Supplemental No. 4
AGENDA ITEM #11.B
Distributed 4/19/22
of Los Altos Hills. We make space for the wildlife. If they don't like it, please please move to Atherton. There you can fence every inch of your property (as everyone there has).
Let's get those fences down. They are in violation. If we don't enforce our code, their violations will grow as they discover our unwillingness to stand our ground as a town.
Best regards,
Luanne Dauber
Saddle Mountain Drive
Law Offices Of
Charles S. Bronitsky
Telephone 533 Airport Blvd Fax
(650) 918-5760 Burlingame, California 94010 (650) 649-2316 www.bronitskylaw.com
April 20, 2022
Via Email
City Council
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Action
Los Altos Hills Municipal Code §10-1-1009
File # ZP21-0047 – Lands of Sea Landing, LP
Hearing Date: April 21, 2022
Interested Parties: Susanna and Joe Huang – Owners of 27965 Elena Road Dear Members of the City Council:
On behalf of Susanna and Joe Huang, owners of 27965 Elena Road, and residents of Los Altos Hills for over thirty-eight years, we are hereby sending you our comments on the appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission of March 3, 2022 granting a Zoning Permit to Lands of Sea Landing, LP (“Applicant”) for new fencing on the property boundary between the Applicant and the Huangs and new fencing on the 60’ Right of Way on the Applicant’s property but benefiting the Huangs and used to access their property, which would otherwise be landlocked.
PROPERTY HISTORY
In 1974 a parcel map was recorded creating what is now the Huangs’ Property (1974 Parcel Map). A copy of the 1974 parcel map is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The 1974 Parcel Map also created an ingress and egress easement through what was the Fenwicks’ Property and is now the Applicant’s Property for access to the Huangs’s Property. In the 1974 Parcel Map, the easement is shown as connecting to the Northeast corner of The Huangs’ Property.
For reasons unknown, the legal description of the easement differs from the location as shown in the 1974 Parcel Map as the legal description does not connect the easement to the driveway on the Huangs’ Property.
In 1985, Robert and Janet Fenwick, the prior owners of the Applicant’s Property, recorded another parcel map which, among other things, expanded the easement into a sixty-foot (60’) Right of Way for the benefit of the Huangs’ Property and another parcel. The Right of Way is the Huangs only method of ingress and egress to their property as it connects their property Supplemental No. 5
AGENDA ITEM #11.B
Distributed 4/20/22
Los Altos Hills City Council
April 20, 2022
to Elena Road. A copy of the recorded 1985 Parcel Map is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
The Right of Way is again shown in the 1985 Parcel Map as connecting to the Northeast corner of The Huangs’ Property. Once again, however, the legal description of the Right of Way differs from the location as shown in the 1985 Parcel Map in that the legal description does not connect the Right of Way to the driveway on the Huangs’ Property.
It also appears, and the Planning Staff stated during the Planning Commission hearings that this is their understanding as well, that the 1985 Parcel Map that was recorded was the tentative map and that a final map showing the 60’ Right of Way as existing rather than proposed should have been recorded as it was the intent of the Fenwicks to complete the changes shown in the 1985 Parcel Map. Thus, it is readily clear, both the 1974 and the 1985 Parcel Maps were drawn incorrectly and as a result there is an ambiguity in the boundaries between the Parties’ Parcels.
Between 1985 and 2020, there were some low-rise wire fences with wooden posts on what the Huangs and the Fenwicks considered the East and West property lines between their properties. At no time during this period, or likely ever, was the northern part of the Huangs’ Property boundary fenced in any way, nor was there any fencing on or adjacent to the Right of Way. The Huangs and the Fenwicks agreed that the fences to the east and west of The Huangs’ Property established the East and West property lines. The Huangs used this area as their own property for recreation and for pedestrian ingress and egress. It was not until sometime in mid-2021 when the Applicant gave notice of a survey, that the Huangs learned that these fence locations were not the actual property boundaries as stated in what is now believed to be the erroneous legal descriptions accompanying the 1974 and 1985 Parcel Maps. It was also shortly after that the the Huangs learned for the first time that the Parcel Maps were drawn in a manner inconsistent with those legal descriptions such that the Right of Way, according to the legal descriptions, did not actually connect to their driveway. A copy of a survey map showing this problem is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
Exhibit C shows that the Right of Way does not connect to the Huangs’ driveway and shows a proposed easement that would extend the right of way to do so. This proposal was submitted to the Applicant’s counsel and rejected by the Applicant and is now a portion of the property that is subject to a quiet title action by the Huangs against the Applicant to sort out the parties’ rights to the various segment of land. A copy of the pending lawsuit (without exhibits) is attached as Exhibit D. The lawsuit was filed only after efforts at resolving the disputes with the Applicant were unsuccessful.
Also starting in mid-2021 the Applicant, through its agents and attorney, began a pattern of harassing the Huangs with threats to fence in their driveway. The Applicant’s agents and attorney posted notice about the Huangs’ parking on areas which the notice falsely claimed was not owned by the Huangs and had police tape placed across the Huangs’ driveway while
Los Altos Hills City Council
April 20, 2022
falsely claiming that a portion of the driveway was also not owned by the Huangs.
In 2021, the Applicant also began erecting illegal fencing around the area and when they were caught by the Town they began the process to try to fence the Huangs entirely within the property lines shown in the erroneously legal descriptions, including the placement of six-foot high black chain link fencing surrounding three sides of the Huangs’ Property, six foot-high black chain link fencing on the edges of the Right of Way and at least two gates that the Huangs would have to go past simply to get into or out of their home. All of this was in violation of the Huangs’ express rights to the use of the Right of Way free and clear from any encumbrance and their historic rights to the property up to the fences that they and the Fenwicks had agreed were the actual East and West property boundaries.
APPLICATION HISTORY
There were four Planning Commission hearings on this matter due to the Applicant’s repeated failure to provide the documentation necessary for the Planning Commission to properly render a decision. At the end of each of the first three hearings, the Planning Commission made it clear to the Applicant what the Commissioners wanted (which is also what is legally required) but again and again the Applicant simply refused to comply.
At the August 5, 2021 Planning Commission meeting, the Commissioners had a number of significant concerns with what the Applicant was proposing. Fence height, location, type, lack of access for wildlife, erection of a gate, water availability for the proposed “agricultural use,” the lack of specificity in the actual location of the proposed fencing are among the most significant issues that were raised. In fact, Associate Planner Jeremy Loh, sent an email to the Applicant’s attorney back on August 25 outlining the Commissioners’ concerns.
Unfortunately, the Applicant refused to provide any of the requested material or information for the October hearing and continues again to refuse to do as asked.
Mr. Loh’s August email outlined the following:
“Provide more clear and accurate plan drawings showing existing and proposed fencing.” The Applicant provided a more detailed drawing, but the drawing is inaccurate showing existing fencing where none exists, permitted fencing where there were no permits, fencing at locations inconsistent with the property lines and easements and so on. “The [Commissioners] would like to see topography/contours and more accurate depiction of property boundaries and clarification of all easements.” At the fourth hearing the Applicant finally provided a topographical map from 2014 but the map does not address any of the other issues requested by the Commission.
“Resolve all easements for ingress and egress for lot 1 and parcel 1.”
Los Altos Hills City Council
April 20, 2022
Nothing submitted by the Applicant ever addressed the correct location of the boundaries or the easements.
“Consider more wildlife friendly fencing types and not complete enclosure of the subject property so as to allow movement of wildlife.” The Applicant repeatedly made no changes to its fence application to address this issue.
“Only fence specific agricultural areas. Consider an approach similar to that on the Packard property, Robleda property, and Natoma property. The Packard approach features
4.5’ tall wildlife friendly perimeter fencing with taller interior fencing around protected areas.
The Robleda approach features perimeter fencing punctuated by wildlife permeable fencing.
The Natoma approach has clearly defined wildlife corridors.” The Applicant repeatedly made no changes to its fence application to address this issue. “No fences should bisect pathway easements or cross any swales.” The changes made by the Applicant prior to the fourth Planning Commission only exacerbated the problem by adding more gates that bisect the easement, which would clearly violate the easement holders rights.
“Any new fence should not preclude the dedication of future open space easements or pathway easements.” The Applicant made no changes to its fence application to address this issue.
In fact, almost none of the issues raised in first three hearings were ever appropriately addressed by the Applicant. However, instead of sending the Applicant back again to provide the necessary information, the Planning Commission, out of a well-intentioned desire to bring this matter to conclusion, redesigned the entire application, moving fence lines, limiting fence locations, and altering fencing types and heights. Unfortunately, in doing that, the problems of fencing in the Huangs and the 60’ Right of Way were not adequately addressed and the problems of the fencing, even as approved, impacts significantly on the Huangs’ property rights.
ISSUES
THE APPLICATION WAS INSUFFICIENT AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED As discussed above, the Planning Commission repeatedly told the Applicant that its application was insufficient, and both the Commissioners and Planning Staff provided specific information that needed to be provided. The Applicant refused repeatedly to provide any of the information to the great frustration of not only the Commissioners but to the neighboring property owners as well.
Los Altos Hills City Council
April 20, 2022
The Applicant’s failure should not have resulted in the Planning Commission completely redesigning the fence application but should have resulted in a denial of that application since it was clear that not only was the information requested from the Applicant not provided, but what was provided was clearly incorrect, perhaps purposely so. Thus, the proper outcome should have been to deny the application.
THERE IS NO RIGHT TO BUILD FENCES AND THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A
FENCE PERMIT APPLICATION
Since the beginning of this process the Applicant continued to incorrectly assert its application was merely as fence permit application and not a Zoning application. That is simply incorrect. Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Section 10-1.507(b) provides as follows:
“Permits Required. No fence, wall, gate, or column structure shall be erected or replaced without the prior issuance of a Zoning or Site Development Permit from the Town.” Thus, it is readily clear that the Applicant must first apply for a Site Development permit or a Zoning permit prior to being able to apply for, let alone erect a fence of any kind! Since the Applicant has repeatedly asserted that it is not applying for a Zoning Permit, the application for a fence permit should have been summarily denied because no Zoning Permit has been obtained.
In addition, even if this were a Zoning Application, portions of the fence applied for do not meet the applicable standards. For example, a fence must be set back 45’ from the “centerline of adjacent public or private road right-of-way.” Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Section 10-1.507(f)(4)(iii). Since any fence 45’ from the centerline of the 60’ right of way into the Huangs’ driveway would have to be built on the Huangs’ property, the Applicant has no right to build any such fence in that location!
The Applicant also does not have the right to build any fence it wants to the maximum heights legally available. Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Section 10-1.507(a) states:
“Purpose. The following regulations were created to preserve the beauty and open rural quality of the Town while acknowledging that residents have the right to fence their properties in order to protect their children, contain their animals, and maintain privacy.” Since the Applicant’s property is undeveloped, there are no children, animals, or privacy to protect.
Additionally, six-foot-high fences are allowed as maximum heights but that does not give anyone the right to build a six-foot fence if the circumstances are not warranted, and they are not warranted here. That is the very purpose of requiring a Zoning or Site Development Plan, so that the Town retains the ability to develop a site in a way suitable for the community and to comply with policies such as the preservation of the beauty and open rural quality of the Town.
Los Altos Hills City Council
April 20, 2022
THE PLANNING COMMISSION WENT BEYOND ITS AUTHORITY BY
REDESIGNING THE FENCE APPLICATION SO THAT THEY COULD APPROVE
IT, THEY SHOULD HAVE SIMPLY DENIED IT
None of the issues raised by the Planning Commission at the three prior hearings were ever addressed by the Applicant. At each Planning Commission meeting, the Commissioners had several significant concerns with what the Applicant was proposing. Fence height, location, type, lack of access for wildlife, erection of a gate, water availability for the proposed “agricultural use,” the lack of specificity in the actual location of the proposed fencing are among the most significant issues that were raised. Despite coming back for a fourth time, the Applicant never addressed any of these issues, a fact stated by the Planning Commission Members in the comments repeatedly.
Instead of denying the application due to the Applicant’s failure to submit proper documentation, the Planning Commission, in its fourth hearing, chose instead to redesign the application in a way that they felt it could be approved. Such action is simply not within the purview of the Planning Commission and violated the Huangs’ and other affected parties rights to comment on the Application.
It is beyond argument that public notice is required in order for the Planning Commission to take action and the application and related material must be publicly available prior to the hearing. When, in this instance, the Planning Commission, after taking public comment, completely redesigned the application, the denied the Huangs and other interested parties of the right to review what was being considered prior to the hearing and the right to comment on it. What was ultimately approved by the Planning Commission was never part of any actual application and no notice of such major changes were ever given to the public. Thus, the Planning Commission acted in excess of its legal authority and its approval of its own plan cannot stand
THE FENCES AS APPROVED WOULD ENCROACH ON THE HUANGS’
PROPERTY RIGHTS OR FORCE THEM TO BUILD AN ENTIRELY NEW
DRIVEWAY OR LAND LOCK THEM INTO THEIR PROPERTY
Following the August 5 hearing, the Huangs commissioned a full survey of their property.
As that survey shows, the Applicant was claiming ownership of property that actually belonged to the Huangs. As the photo below shows, prior to the August hearing someone on behalf of the Applicant left some yellow tape across the Huangs’ driveway indicating that everything on the near side of that tape was the Applicant’s property.
Los Altos Hills City Council
April 20, 2022
In addition, the Applicant’s counsel also posted the following notice, demanding that the vehicles and boats parked on the Huangs’ driveway be removed.
Los Altos Hills City Council
April 20, 2022
The survey undertaken by the Huangs shows that only one of the vehicles that the Applicant claimed were on its property are actually on the Applicant’s property. The Applicant does not dispute the Huangs’ survey. In fact, only reason the one car is on the Applicant’s property is because as legally described, the 60’ easement does not actually connect to the Huangs’ property and driveway! Thus, if allowed to put up fences as
Los Altos Hills City Council
April 20, 2022
proposed, the Huangs would be landlocked, unable to access their home. A copy of the Huangs’ survey with red lines added to show the actual edges of the 60’ right of way not attaching to the driveway is attached.
The survey also shows that the Huangs’ driveway is not actually on the easement, but it is beyond dispute that they have been using the driveway since they bought their home decades ago. The vague “fence plan” submitted by the Applicant is clearly designed to hide these facts from the Commission and should not be tolerated. Moreover, addressing such issues in “conditions of approval” would simply not work since it is highly unlikely that the Town will survey to the property to see where the easements are located or that the Town will address any equitable rights the Huangs have to prevent this type of development.
The problem that this situation presents here, is that the “drawings” presented by the Applicant for its fence do not seem to consider the need to connect to the driveway and would appear instead to allow for the erection of a fence in the driveway itself. The Commission X X
X
X
X X
Exp._____
L.S. 6766
Red Lines show edges of
existing easement
Los Altos Hills City Council
April 20, 2022
has asked the Applicant several times to provide documents that show the location of structures and existing easements. The Applicant has failed to do that and has instead submitted drawings that address the issue only partially and mostly incorrectly. That could have possibly been remedied by the Applicant had it provided the additional drawings and information requested at the prior hearing, but yet again the Applicant chose not to do that.
Further, to the extent that the Applicant now takes the position that there is no 60’ right of way, we note that in prior communication between the Applicant’s counsel and the Huangs’ counsel, the Applicant’s counsel said: “I agree with you that the 20’ ROW which was abandoned in 1985 in favor of the 60’ ROW for ingress and egress does not ‘touch’ your clients’ property at its Northeast corner and is even farther away at the western side of the driveway. I am sure an amendment to the ROW can be prepare and filed on this issue.” The Applicant’s counsel, in another email, also said: “there IS a 60’ ROW to gain access.” (Emphasis in the original). The Parcel Map that contains the 60’ right of way was recorded by the Applicant’s predecessor in interest and is the one the Applicant submitted with this current application. Thus, to try to argue that there is no 60’ right of way would be highly disingenuous.
Similarly, there is a small strip of property in the northwest corner of the survey map, between the property line and the 4’ barbed wire fence, that had been treated by the Huangs and the Applicant’s predecessor in interest as the Huangs’ property. The Huangs reached out to the Applicants’ property manager to discuss this small strip of land but their questions went unanswered. Legally, the Huangs have a valid claim to ownership or at least use of this property and the Applicant intends to fence them out of it.
As the Applicant’s counsel was advised back in August there is a relatively strong case for the Huangs to be the owners of at least some of the property that the Applicant now seeks to fence in as its own. Since this issue has consistently been ignored by the Applicant, the Huangs have now filed suit and in that lawsuit have made claims to rights that would be violated should any fence plan be approved at this time.
For example, the Huangs have a colorable claim to establish ownership of the property to the historical fence line based on adverse possession.
The elements of adverse possession are well established. "To establish title by adverse possession, the claimant must establish five elements in connection with his occupancy of the property. [Citations.] (1) Possession must be by actual occupation under such circumstances as to constitute reasonable notice to the owner. [Citations.] (2) Possession must be hostile to the owner's title. [Citations.] (3) The holder must claim the property as his own, either under color of title, or claim of right. [Citations.] (4) Possession must be continuous and uninterrupted for five years. [Citations.] (5) The possessor must pay all of the taxes levied and
Los Altos Hills City Council
April 20, 2022
assessed upon the property during the period. [Citations.] Unless each one of these elements is established by the evidence, the plaintiff has not acquired title by adverse possession." (West v. Evans (1946) 29 Cal.2d 414, 417 [ 175 P.2d 219]; see Estate of Seifert (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 64, 67-68 [ 26 Cal.Rptr.3d 560] [following West]; see also Civ. Code, § 1007; Code Civ. Proc, § 322.
Nielsen v. Gibson (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 318, 325.
While it might seem that the payment of taxes would be fatal to such a claim, in the inverse situation where an easement is extinguished by adverse possession court have long held that the payment of taxes on the owners property as a whole is sufficient were the easement is not separately assessed. See, e.g. Glatts v. Henson (1948) 31 Cal.2d 368. We believe that such an exception would be applied in this case as well.
However, even if the payment of taxes is required, there is also the doctrine of agreed boundary which we believe will apply in this case.
“The elements required to prove title by agreed boundary are: (1) uncertainty as to the true boundary line; (2) an express or implied agreement between adjoining owners to accept a line as the boundary; and (3) acceptance and acquiescence in the line for a period equal to the statute of limitations or until action is taken in reliance on the agreement which would result in substantial loss if the boundary were altered.” Humphrey v. Futter (1985) 169 Cal.App.3d 333, 338.
The elements of uncertainty as to the true line and agreement to fix a boundary may be inferred from evidence of many years of acceptance of a fence as a boundary. Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran Church, (1951) 51 Cal.2d 702, 708. Under the doctrine, once an agreed boundary is established it becomes, in legal effect, the true line regardless of its accuracy. Id. We believe that there is a strong case to support this outcome as well.
Even if ownership cannot be established, there is not only the existing express easement there are also facts that will support a claim of prescriptive easement, equitable easement or easement by estoppel.
The elements of a prescriptive easement claim are nearly identical to those required for adverse possession, namely, "open and notorious use or possession that is continuous and uninterrupted, hostile to the true owner, and under a claim of right. Taormino v. Denny (1970) 1 Cal.3d 679, 686. The adverse use must be for a continuous period of not less than five years. (Civ. Code, § 1007.) Unlike adverse possession, if taxes are not separately assessed to the area of property affected by the easement, the claimant need not show payment of taxes to establish a prescriptive easement. Gilardi v. Hallam (1981) 30 Cal.3d 317, 322.
Los Altos Hills City Council
April 20, 2022
A court in equity is empowered, under appropriate circumstances, to create an equitable easement. Tashakori v. Lakis (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1003, 1006. An easement can also be created by estoppel. Elliott v. McCombs (1941) 17 Cal.2d 23, 41.) “The decisions that have created an easement based on estoppel involve varying circumstances, but they all involve reliance by the owner of the dominant tenement on the representations and conduct of the owner of the servient tenement of such a character that equity establishes an easement in order to prevent an injustice." 6 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate (4th ed. 2017) § 15:45, p. 15- 170.
We believe that under the facts herein, at least one of these doctrines will support the Huangs having additional rights to the property which the Applicant now seeks to exclude them from. The Huangs tried to resolve this by agreement, but their efforts have been thwarted by the Applicant’s refusal to compromise with them or apparently, with the Town.
As to the Town, all the Huangs are asking of the Town is to deny the fence application based on the Applicant’s failure to provide the previously required documentation and information and due to the existence of a dispute over the rights to some of the property in which the fencing is proposed to be built.
Thank you,
Charles S. Bronitsky
Attorney at Law
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
X
X
X
X
X
X
Exp._____
L.S. 6766
Red Lines show edges of existing easement
EXHIBIT D
1 Complaint
Huang v. Sea Landing, LP, et al.
Case No.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
CHARLES S. BRONITSKY
Law Office of Charles S. Bronitsky
533 Airport Blvd., Suite 326
Burlingame, CA 94010
650-918-5760
Charles S. Bronitsky/Bar No. 124332
Law Office of Charles S. Bronitsky
533 Airport Blvd., Suite 326
Burlingame, CA 94010
Tel: (650) 918-5760
Fax: (650) 649-2316
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
JOE HUANG and
SUSANNA HUANG
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
JOE HUANG, an individual; and
SUSANNA HUANG, an individual,
Plaintiffs,
v.
SEA LANDING LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a Nevada limited
partnership; ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN
CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR
EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE,
LIEN OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY
RIGHTS DESCRIBED IN THE
COMPLAINT ADVERSE TO
PLAINTIFF’S TITLE THERETO and DOES
1-25,
Defendants.
Case No.:
COMPLAINT FOR QUIET TITLE BY
EXPRESS EASEMENT, QUIET TITLE BY
PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT;
EASEMENT BY NECESSITY; QUIET
TITLE BY AGREED BOUNDARY;
DECLARATORY RELIEF; INJUNCTION
Plaintiffs, JOE HUANG, and SUSANNA HUANG, for causes of action against Defendants, SEA LANDING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Nevada limited partnership;
ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT,
E-FILED
4/5/2022 11:18 AM
Clerk of Court
Superior Court of CA,
County of Santa Clara
22CV396664
Reviewed By: R. Cachux
22CV396664
2 Complaint
Huang v. Sea Landing, LP, et al.
Case No.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
CHARLES S. BRONITSKY
Law Office of Charles S. Bronitsky
533 Airport Blvd., Suite 326
Burlingame, CA 94010
650-918-5760
TITLE, ESTATE, LIEN OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY RIGHTS DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT ADVERSE TO PLAINTIFF’S TITLE THERETO and DOES 1-25, allege and complain as follows:
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
1. Plaintiffs JOE HUANG, and SUSANNA HUANG, are the owners of that certain real property located in the County of Santa Clara commonly known as 27965 Elena Road, Los Altos Hills, California, APN 182-02-013, and more particularly described in the legal description attached hereto as Exhibit A (“Plaintiffs’ Property”). Included in the ownership of Plaintiffs’ Property is a Right of Way for ingress and egress as described herein.
2. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and upon such information and belief allege that Defendants, SEA LANDING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Nevada limited partnership, is registered to do business in the State of California as Sea Landing, LP and as such, is the owner of that certain parcel of vacant real property located adjacent to the Huang Property and also located in the County of Santa Clara and known as 28001 Elena Road, Los Altos Hills, California, APN 182-02-016 (“Defendant’s Property”). Defendant’s Property is burdened by the right of way benefitting Plaintiffs’ Property as described above. Defendant became the owner of Defendant’s Property on December 22, 2020.
3. Plaintiffs do not know the true names of defendants ALL PERSONS
UNKNOWN, CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE,
LIEN, OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY RIGHTS DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT ADVERSE TO PLAINTIFF’S TITLE or any cloud on Plaintiffs’ title thereto or DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, and therefore sues them by those fictitious names. The names, capacities and relationships of said Defendants and of DOES 1 through 25 will be alleged by amendment to this Complaint when they are known.
4. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and upon such information and belief allege that each of the DOE defendants and each of the UNKNOWN defendants’ claims, or may claim, some interest in the real property described in paragraph 1 of this Complaint.
3 Complaint
Huang v. Sea Landing, LP, et al.
Case No.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
CHARLES S. BRONITSKY
Law Office of Charles S. Bronitsky
533 Airport Blvd., Suite 326
Burlingame, CA 94010
650-918-5760
5. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and upon such information and belief allege that at all times mentioned in this Complaint Defendants were the agents and employees of their Codefendants, and in doing the things alleged in this complaint were acting within the course and scope of such agency and employment.
6. In 1974 a parcel map was recorded creating what is now Plaintiffs’ Parcel. A true and correct copy of the 1974 parcel map is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The 1974 parcel map also created an ingress and egress easement through what is now Defendant’s Property for access to Plaintiffs’ Property. In the 1974 Parcel Map, the easement is shown as connecting to the Northeast corner of Plaintiffs’ Property. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the legal description of the easement differs from the location as shown in the 1974 Parcel Map as the legal description does not connect the easement to the driveway on Plaintiffs’ Property.
7. In 1985, Robert and Janet Fenwick, the prior owners of Defendant’s Property, recorded a parcel map which, among other things, expanded the easement into a sixty-foot (60’) Right of Way for the benefit of Plaintiffs’ Property and another parcel. The Right of Way is Plaintiffs only method of ingress and egress to their property as it connects their property to Elena Road. A true and correct copy of the recorded 1985 Parcel Map is attached hereto as Exhibit C. The Right of Way is again shown as connecting to the Northeast corner of Plaintiffs’ Property. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the legal description of the right of way differs from the location as shown in the 1985 Parcel Map as the legal description does not connect the easement to the driveway on Plaintiffs’ Property. Plaintiffs are also informed and believe that the 1985 Parcel Map that was recorded, was the tentative map and that a final map showing the 60’ Right of Way as existing rather than proposed should have been recorded as it was the intent of the Fenwicks to complete the changes shown in the 1985 Parcel Map and would have been consistent with California law. Thus, it is readily clear, both the 1974 and the 1985 Parcel Maps were drawn incorrectly and as a result there is an ambiguity in the boundaries between the Parties’ Parcels.
8. Beginning sometime prior to 1985 and through the present, including during the time Plaintiffs and the Fenwicks were neighbors, there were some low-rise wire fences with
4 Complaint
Huang v. Sea Landing, LP, et al.
Case No.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
CHARLES S. BRONITSKY
Law Office of Charles S. Bronitsky
533 Airport Blvd., Suite 326
Burlingame, CA 94010
650-918-5760
wooden posts on what Plaintiffs and the Fenwicks considered the East and West property lines between their properties. At no time during this period, or likely ever, was the northern part of Plaintiffs’ Property boundary fenced in any way, nor was there any fencing on or adjacent to the Right of Way. Plaintiffs and the Fenwicks agreed that the fences to the east and west of Plaintiffs’ Property established the East and West property. Plaintiffs’ predecessors in interests installed sprinklers in this area and oleander trees along the east side of the property for privacy.
The oleander parallel to the east wire fence extends all the way to the main driveway. As part of the process of installing sprinklers and planting oleander trees in their front yard, Plaintiffs’ predecessors in interest indicated their belief as well, that the area was their property. Plaintiffs used this area as their own property for recreation, for pedestrian ingress and egress, for maintenance vehicles to clear dry grass and fire prevention and for routine maintenance on the septic tank, leach field and propane tank which also requires heavy equipment in and out of the property. It was not until sometime in mid-2021 when Defendant gave notice of a survey, that Plaintiffs learned that these fence locations were not the actual property boundaries as shown in the erroneously drawn 1985 Parcel Map. It was also shortly after that the Plaintiffs learned for the first time that the Parcel Map was drawn incorrectly such that the Right of Way did not actually connect to the driveway on their property. A true and correct copy of a survey map showing this problem is attached hereto as Exhibit D. Exhibit D shows that the Right of Way does not connect to Plaintiffs’ driveway and shows a proposed easement that would extend the right of way to do so. This proposal was submitted to Defendant and rejected by Defendant and is now a portion of the property against which Plaintiffs seek quiet title by prescriptive easement based on their use of the driveway and the Right of Way to access their driveway for the past thirty-eight (38) years.
9. Also starting in mid-2021 Defendant, through its agents and attorney, began a pattern of harassing Plaintiffs with threats to fence in their driveway. Defendant’s agents and attorney posted notice about Plaintiffs’ parking on areas which the notice falsely claimed was not owned by Plaintiffs and had police tape placed across Plaintiffs’ driveway while falsely claiming that a portion of the driveway was also not owned by Plaintiffs.
5 Complaint
Huang v. Sea Landing, LP, et al.
Case No.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
CHARLES S. BRONITSKY
Law Office of Charles S. Bronitsky
533 Airport Blvd., Suite 326
Burlingame, CA 94010
650-918-5760
10. In 2021, Defendant also began erecting illegal fencing around the area and when they were caught by the Town of Los Also Hills began the process to try to fence Plaintiffs entirely within the property lines shown in the erroneously drawn 1985 parcel map, including the placement of six-foot high black chain link fencing surrounding three sides of Plaintiffs’ Property, six foot-high black chain link fencing on the edges of the Right of Way and at least two gates that Plaintiffs would have to go past simply to get into or out of their home. All of this was in violation of Plaintiffs’ express rights to the use of the Right of Way free and clear from any encumbrance and historic rights to the property up to the fences that they and the Fenwicks had agreed were the actual East and West property boundaries.
11. Plaintiffs are informed and believes and upon such information and belief alleges that prior to mid-2021, none of the owners of Defendant’s Property objected to the use of the 60’ Right of Way or of the use of the land inside the historic fences on the East and West boundaries of Plaintiffs’ Property by the owners of Plaintiffs’ Property, including the Plaintiffs.
12. In about mid-2021 Defendants began to dispute the existence of the 60’ Right of Way and of the use of the land inside the historic fences on the East and West boundaries of Plaintiffs’ Property. However, at no time prior to May of 2021 did Defendant take any action to prevent the ongoing use of the 60’ Right of Way or to assert that Plaintiffs did not have the right to use the land inside the historic fences on the East and West boundaries of Plaintiffs’ Property. Thus, there has been continued open use of the 60’ Right of Way and the land inside the historic fences on the East and West boundaries of Plaintiffs’ Property easement since 1985 until May of 2021 when Defendants posted a sign on Plaintiffs’ Property. However, the 60’ Right of Way itself is an express encumbrance on Defendant’s Property and the scope of the use of the land inside the historic fences on the East and West boundaries of Plaintiffs’ Property has been defined by its use and fully ripened into an existing right by 1990.
13. Plaintiff’s use of the 60’ Right of Way and the land inside the historic fences on the East and West boundaries of Plaintiffs’ Property has been open and notorious in that it is impossible for Plaintiffs to access their home without travelling over the Right of Way and the
6 Complaint
Huang v. Sea Landing, LP, et al.
Case No.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
CHARLES S. BRONITSKY
Law Office of Charles S. Bronitsky
533 Airport Blvd., Suite 326
Burlingame, CA 94010
650-918-5760
land inside the fences has been treated as belonging to Plaintiffs and used by Plaintiffs without objection by Defendant’s predecessor in interest for thirty-eight (38) years.
14. Plaintiff’s use of the 60’ Right of Way and the land inside the historic fences on the East and West boundaries of Plaintiffs’ Property has been continuous and uninterrupted as the easement has been in use by Plaintiffs since 1985.
15. Plaintiff’s use of the 60’ Right of Way and the land inside the historic fences on the East and West boundaries of Plaintiffs’ Property has been hostile to Defendant and its predecessor in interest since 1985.
16. Plaintiff’s and Plaintiff’s predecessors-in-interest’s use of the 60’ Right of Way and the land inside the historic fences on the East and West boundaries of Plaintiffs’ Property has been under claim of right since the Right of Way arises out of the recording of the 1985 Parcel Map and the land up to the historic fencing has been used exclusively by Plaintiffs since 1985.
17. Defendants, and each of them, have, however, threatened to and have interfered with Plaintiff’s use of the 60’ Right of Way and the land inside the historic fences on the East and West boundaries of Plaintiffs’ Property by refusing to allow Plaintiffs to access their driveway, by threatening to fence Plaintiffs in behind 6’ high black chain link fences, by fencing in the borders of the Right of Way and by gating in Plaintiffs’ access to their home. Unless Defendant’s interference is prevented, Plaintiff stands to suffer irreparable and continuing injury in accessing their home and in the value of their property.
18. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and upon such information and belief allege that Defendant, directly or through its agent(s) are threatening to prevent Plaintiffs from using the Right of Way and the land up to the historic fences by interfering with Plaintiffs’ use of that property as described herein. Defendant is without legal right to so interfere with the use of the land and should be ordered to cease all future interference with the use, including the erection of the fences around Plaintiffs Property and around the Right of Way and the erection of gates on the Right of Way.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Quiet Title – Express Easement – 60’ Right of Way
7 Complaint
Huang v. Sea Landing, LP, et al.
Case No.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
CHARLES S. BRONITSKY
Law Office of Charles S. Bronitsky
533 Airport Blvd., Suite 326
Burlingame, CA 94010
650-918-5760
19. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations stated in paragraphs 1 through 18, above, as though fully set forth herein.
20. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs seeks to quiet title to the 60’ Right of way as shown in the recorded 1985 Parcel Map in favor of Plaintiffs’ Property and against Defendants’ Property against Defendants SEA LANDING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Nevada limited partnership; ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE
RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE, LIEN OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY RIGHTS DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT ADVERSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ TITLE THERETO and DOES 1-25.
21. The claims of Defendants SEA LANDING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Nevada limited partnership; ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR
EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE, LIEN OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY RIGHTS DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT ADVERSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ TITLE THERETO and DOES 1-25 and the uncertainty resulting therefrom, depreciate the market value of Plaintiffs’ Property.
22. Unless Defendants and each of them are restrained by order of this Court from interfering with Plaintiffs’ use of the Right of Way, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury and waste to Plaintiffs’ Property in that the use and economic value of Plaintiffs’ Property will be substantially diminished, and Plaintiffs will be deprived of the valuable property rights and comfortable enjoyment of their property.
23. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law for the injuries sustained and to be sustained by Plaintiffs in that the ongoing and threatened injury constitutes a loss of interest in real property, which is unique. Consequently, this is an appropriate action for imposition of injunctive relief by order of this Court, enforcing Plaintiff’s right to the 60’ Right of Way benefiting Plaintiffs’ Property.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray judgment as set forth below:
8 Complaint
Huang v. Sea Landing, LP, et al.
Case No.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
CHARLES S. BRONITSKY
Law Office of Charles S. Bronitsky
533 Airport Blvd., Suite 326
Burlingame, CA 94010
650-918-5760
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Quiet Title – Prescriptive Easement – Land Connecting Right of Way to Driveway
24. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations stated in paragraphs 1 through 23, above, as though fully set forth herein.
25. As alleged above, Plaintiffs have used the Right of Way and the portion of land which would allow them to access the Right of Way from their driveway in a manner which is (1) open and notorious; (2) continuous and uninterrupted; (3) hostile to the true owner; and (4) under claim of right for more than the five-year required period.
26. Unless Defendants and each of them are restrained by order of this Court from interfering with Plaintiffs’ use of the Right of Way and of the land connecting the Right of Way to Plaintiffs’ driveway, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury and waste to Plaintiffs’ Property in that the use and economic value of Plaintiffs’ Property will be substantially diminished, and Plaintiffs will be deprived of the valuable property rights and comfortable enjoyment of their property.
27. Plaintiffs have no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law for the injuries sustained and to be sustained by Plaintiffs in that the ongoing and threatened injury constitutes a loss of interest in real property, which is unique. Consequently, this is an appropriate action for imposition of injunctive relief by order of this Court, enforcing Plaintiff’s right to the Rights of Way and to the land connecting the Right of Way to Plaintiffs’ driveway.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray judgment as set forth below:
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Easement by Necessity – Land Connecting Right of Way to Driveway
28. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations stated in paragraphs 1 through 27, above, as though fully set forth herein.
29. As alleged above, both the 1974 and 1985 Parcel Maps show the Right of Way through which Plaintiffs access their property in the wrong location. The actual location, as
9 Complaint
Huang v. Sea Landing, LP, et al.
Case No.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
CHARLES S. BRONITSKY
Law Office of Charles S. Bronitsky
533 Airport Blvd., Suite 326
Burlingame, CA 94010
650-918-5760
shown in Exhibit D does not connect to Plaintiffs’ Property and thus if enforced would leave Plaintiffs’ landlocked with no access to their home.
30. When Parcel 1 was created what is now Defendant’s Property and what is now Plaintiffs Property were under common ownership. Without establishing either a prescriptive easement or an easement by necessity, Plaintiffs will be landlocked and unable to access their property. Thus, an easement by necessity should be granted in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant in this action
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray judgment as set forth below:
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Agreed Boundary – East and West Property Lines
31. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations stated in paragraphs 1 through 30, above, as though fully set forth herein.
32. Plaintiffs and Defendant’s Predecessor in Interest, the Fenwicks, were, since at least 1985, uncertain of the true position of the common boundary described in their respective deeds, as shown by the errors in the property and Easement/Right of Way locations shown on the Parcel Maps and therefore agreed upon the boundaries were at the location of the erected fences. In doing such the landowners acquiesced in such location for a period equal to the statute of limitations and under such circumstances substantial loss would be caused to Plaintiffs by a change of Defendant’s position.
33. Based on the foregoing the agreed boundary became, in law, the true line called for by the respective descriptions, regardless of the accuracy of the agreed location as it may appear by subsequent measurements.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment as set forth below:
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Declaratory Relief
10 Complaint
Huang v. Sea Landing, LP, et al.
Case No.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
CHARLES S. BRONITSKY
Law Office of Charles S. Bronitsky
533 Airport Blvd., Suite 326
Burlingame, CA 94010
650-918-5760
34. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations stated in paragraphs 1 through 33, above, as though fully set forth herein.
35. An actual and justiciable controversy exists between Plaintiff and Defendants SEA LANDING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Nevada limited partnership; ALL PERSONS
UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE,
LIEN OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY RIGHTS DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT ADVERSE TO PLAINTIFF’S TITLE THERETO and DOES 1-25 concerning their respective rights, title and interest to the 60’ Foot Right of Way, to the land connecting Plaintiffs Property to the Right of Way as shown in Exhibit D and to the land to the East and West of Plaintiffs’ Property.
36. Plaintiffs desire that the Court make a judicial determination of their rights, title and interest in, the 60’ Foot Right of Way, to the land connecting Plaintiffs Property to the Right of Way as shown in Exhibit D and to the land to the East and West of Plaintiffs’ Property and a declaration of Plaintiffs rights in those section of real property.
37. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time in order that the parties may ascertain their rights, title and interest in Plaintiffs’ Property WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment as set forth below:
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Injunctive Relief
38. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations stated in paragraphs 1 through 37, above, as though fully set forth herein.
39. Unless Defendants and each of them are restrained by order of this Court from interfering with Plaintiffs’ interest in, the 60’ Foot Right of Way, to the land connecting Plaintiffs Property to the Right of Way as shown in Exhibit D and to the land to the East and West of Plaintiffs’ Property, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury and waste to Plaintiffs’ Property in that the use and economic value of Plaintiffs’ Property will be substantially
11 Complaint
Huang v. Sea Landing, LP, et al.
Case No.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
CHARLES S. BRONITSKY
Law Office of Charles S. Bronitsky
533 Airport Blvd., Suite 326
Burlingame, CA 94010
650-918-5760
diminished, and Plaintiffs will be deprived of the valuable property rights and comfortable enjoyment of its property.
40. As a result of the foregoing, a temporary and permanent injunction, preventing Defendants, SEA LANDING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Nevada limited partnership;
ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT,
TITLE, ESTATE, LIEN OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY RIGHTS DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT ADVERSE TO PLAINTIFF’S TITLE THERETO and DOES 1-25, from coming onto Plaintiffs’ Property or interfering with Plaintiff’s use of the Right of Way is necessary and appropriate in this situation.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment as follows:
1. For a judgment quieting title in Plaintiffs’ Property, including Plaintiffs’ interest in, the 60’ Foot Right of Way, to the land connecting Plaintiffs Property to the Right of Way as shown in Exhibit D and to the land to the East and West of Plaintiffs’ Property;
2. For an injunction, prohibiting any further trespass and further interference with the use of said property by Defendants SEA LANDING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Nevada limited partnership; ALL PERSONS
UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE,
ESTATE, LIEN OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY RIGHTS
DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT ADVERSE TO PLAINTIFF’S TITLE THERETO and DOES 1-25;
3. For damages to be determined;
4. For interest as allowed by law;
5. Costs of suit;
6. Such other and further relief that the Court considers just and proper. ///
12 Complaint
Huang v. Sea Landing, LP, et al.
Case No.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
CHARLES S. BRONITSKY
Law Office of Charles S. Bronitsky
533 Airport Blvd., Suite 326
Burlingame, CA 94010
650-918-5760
Dated: April 5, 2022 LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES S. BRONITSKY By: __________________________
Charles S. Bronitsky
13 Complaint
Huang v. Sea Landing, LP, et al.
Case No.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
CHARLES S. BRONITSKY
Law Office of Charles S. Bronitsky
533 Airport Blvd., Suite 326
Burlingame, CA 94010
650-918-5760
VERIFICATION
I, Susanna Huang, declare:
I am one of the Plaintiffs in the above-entitled action or proceeding. I have read the foregoing Complaint and know the contents thereof and I certify that the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated upon my information and belief and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.
I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct
Executed on April __, 2022, at _______________________, California.
By: __________________________
Susanna Huang
3 27965 Elena Rd, Los Altos Hills, CA
From: Kit Gordon
To: George Tyson; Lisa Schmidt; Linda Swan; Kavita Tankha; Stan Mok Cc: Deborah Padovan; BCC - George Clifford; BCC - Richard Contreras Subject: Open Space Committee report on Elena Fence Permit Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 9:27:22 AM
Attachments: OSC Review 28001 Elena Fence - April 2022.pdf Good Morning Council,
Attached is a memo from the Open Space Committee on agenda item 11B, 28001 Elena Road.
A note about Williamson Act. My previous 2.3 acre property in Los Altos Hills had a Williamson Act designation. In planning commission hearings, confusing statements have been made about this designation being a “right” to agriculture. Every property in Los Altos Hills has the “right” to agriculture. Williamson Act is a property tax discount to encourage low impact land uses such as open space, grazing and agriculture. It is not a property right to avoid local, state or federal land use policies.
Kit
Supplemental No. 6
AGENDA ITEM #11.B
Distributed 4/20/22
To: Los Altos Hills Planning Commission
From: Open Space Committee members
Date: October 20, 2021
Property address: 28001 Elena Road
Date of Site Visit: September 14, 2021
Lands of Sea Landing LP APN 182-02-0196
Town
Planner
Jeremy Loh Project
Number
ZP21-0047
Lot Size 41.2 ac Ave Slope ~30%
Reason for review: The Planning Department requested review of fence impermeable to wildlife installed without permit; fence length greater than 1000 feet; assess areas that may be designated as open space easements (OSE). The Open Space Committee will provide formal review during the Oct 20, 2021 Open Space Committee meeting. As stated in staff report, “Any new fencing should not preclude the dedication of future open space easements or pathway easements.“ Town ordinance requires Planning Commission review of fences greater than 1000 feet to assess impacts to community. There are environmental impacts from the fence requested and installed.
The property attributes include steep slopes, existing landslide, established oak woodlands, headwater streams and several wildlife corridors. Neither agriculture nor wildlife impermeable fences are recommended in these sensitive areas.
The following resources for this property are noted on attached diagrams. • Figure 1: California Aquatic Resource Inventory; www.ecoatlas.org • Figure 2: Geotechnical and Seismic Hazard Zones of Los Altos Hills, 2004 • Figure 3: Wildlife Corridor Map of Los Altos Hills by Live Oak Associates, dated June 2007 • Figure 4: Open Space Conservation Area Map (Land Use Element, General Plan) • Figure 5: Google map
• Figure 6: Geologic Map of Los Altos Hills, 2005
• Figure 7: Recommended area to restrict type of fencing as these areas meet Town’s open space easement policy (Land Use Element Policy 2.5)
Fences: Existing around developed site; unpermitted fences in environmentally sensitive areas Trees: Dense groupings of established oak woodlands in central/northern portion of lot.
Creeks: Swales drain to the north, feeding into Deer Creek.
Wildlife Corridors: Evidence noted. Wildlife corridor traverse property on northern and eastern portion.
Geology: Slopes greater than 30% on northern and eastern portion. Section of slope instability.
Open Space Conservation Area: Northern area within Open Space Conservation Area. See definition of Open Space Conservation Area below.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Recommend only wildlife friendly fences and limited or no agriculture activities in the northern and eastern portion of the property as marked in black hatched area on Figure
6. These areas meet the Town’s open space easement as defined in Land Use Element Policy 2.5 and in additional policies noted below.
2. Cooperate with resource agencies (CA Dept of Fish & Wildlife, Regional Water Quality Control Board, USDA Natural Resource Conservation Services, etc.) and CEQA regulations for major land modifications.
General Plan Policies:
Open Space Conservation Area (OSCA): The overlay is generally applied to areas of steep slopes, canyons and ravines associated with major creeks or their tributaries, as well as creek corridors and other areas of heavy vegetation that should be protected. Within these areas, special measures should be taken to conserve the natural quality of the area and to avoid environmental degradation. Residences should be placed on the most buildable portions of lands designated OSCA and carefully sited so as to preserve existing trees, vegetation and wildlife habitat.
Land Use Element Policy 2.5 Steep slopes, canyons and ravines generally in excess of 30% slope, as well as natural swales and drainage channels, and geologic hazard areas within areas designated for residential development shall be left undisturbed and preserved in their natural condition to the maximum extent feasible.
Land Use Element Policy 2.6 Limits on the development of individual residential lots shall be determined based on evaluation of such factors as natural vegetation, topographic characteristics, soils and geology.
Safety Element Policy 1.1 Open space easements, zoning and other land use regulations shall be used to limit and, in some cases, prohibit development in areas of unstable terrain, active fault traces, water channels, flood plains, excessively steep slopes and other areas determined to be hazardous to public welfare and safety.
Safety Element Policy 1.2 Unstable terrain, active fault traces, water channels, flood plains, excessively steep slopes and other areas determined hazardous to public welfare and safety shall not be developed unless unobtrusive corrective measures can assure public safety.
Safety Element Policy 2.2 Locate development so as to avoid geologic hazards, including slope instability, to the maximum extent feasible.
Safety Element Policy 3.1 Leave natural channels and flood plains in a natural state, unencumbered by development to the maximum extent feasible. Exceptions shall be made only in situations where it is essential to protect established property values or for public safety.
Conservation Element Policy 11.1 Develop and implement programs by which the natural environmental features of the planning area can be conserved to the maximum extent feasible and by which areas already unduly disturbed by man can be returned to a more natural condition.
Conservation Policy 2.2: Minimize disturbance of the natural terrain and vegetation. Preserve and protect native and naturalized plants, with special attention to preservation of unique, rare or endangered species and plant communities such as oak woodlands.
Conservation Policy 2.3: Preserve and protect Heritage Trees, including native oaks and other significant trees, on public and private property
Conservation Element Program 2.5 Encourage the dedication of conservation/open space easements or the public acquisition of areas that are rich in wildlife or of a fragile ecological nature to ensure their protection.
Conservation Policy 2.7: Avoid the development of environmentally sensitive areas that are rich in wildlife or of a fragile ecological nature, such as areas of rare or endangered species of plants, or riparian areas.
Conservation Goal 3: Maintain and enhance the integrity of wildlife habitat.
Conservation Section 315: Planning for natural movement of wildlife can help avoid, minimize and compensate for serious negative impacts on wildlife and humans. Areas that link wildlife habitat have become vital because native animals such as deer, fox, bobcat, and coyote are prevented by roads, fences, homes and other development from moving freely as they once did.
Figure 1. Aquatic Inventory
Feeder streams to Deer Creek
Figure 2. Geotech Hazard Map
Figure 3. Wildlife corridor shown in
yellow as per Live Oak Associate
Wildlife Corridor Map, June 2007.
Figure 4. Open Space Conservation
Area shown in green hatched.
Figure 5. Google Map view of property
Figure 6: Geologic Map of Los Altos Hills, 2005
Figure 7. Wildlife friendly fences only in black hatched area. Area qualifies for OSE.
Figure 8. County Map & Old Topo Map Showing Swales (in red)
Site Photos
Figure 9: Evidence of wildlife corridor
From: Patricia Knight
To: City Council
Subject: Wild life corridor
Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 2:32:21 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Please continue to advocate for wild life corridors on all properties, especially in view of the higher density of housing legislated by the State of California.
I ask the council on April 21, 2022 to vote against the application to install a 6 foot high perimeter fence on Elena Rd.
Patricia D. Knight
Sent from Mail for Windows
Supplemental No. 7
AGENDA ITEM #11.B
Distributed 4/20/22
From: Stephen Chan
To: City Council
Subject: City Council hearing Apr 21 Lands of Sea Landing Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 2:45:24 PM
We live on Saddle Mountain Drive for 25 years, next to the property currently proposing an extensive fencing scheme. In all these years we observed wildlife roaming on that land in all directions. The proposed fences will create a restrictive corridor for wildlife, denying them their “freedom of navigation”. We do not support this application.
The property purportedly is for agricultural usage. Will the Town have oversight and reviews on what are actually being used for? How much separation from other properties? Environmental impacts such as water availability and usage, chemical and other wastes runoffs, fire hazards? This is a large parcel at close proximity and steeply sloping to existing houses on three sides. Drought and fire dangers attributable to climate change are much more severe through these years, and will continue to get worse.
Stephen Chan
Supplemental No. 8
AGENDA ITEM #11.B
Distributed 4/20/22
From: Bridget Morgan
To: Deborah Padovan
Cc: Lisa Schmidt; Kavita Tankha; George Tyson; Linda Swan; Stan Mok; Stephen D. Pahl Subject: Agenda Item 11 B Fencing
Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 9:59:50 PM
Dear Town Council Members,
I am writing to encourage you five to approve the appeal of the property owner to preserve his rights. I do not believe Los Altos Hills powers that be extend to preventing a private property owner — intent on utilizing his parcel for agricultural use — from fencing his duly owned property. From my own 1.5 acre parcel owner perspective, perimeter fencing is the only solution to prevent deer from eating up everything planted and harvested without deer munching.
Best regards,
Bridget Morgan
Sent from my iPad
Supplemental No. 9
AGENDA ITEM #11.B
Distributed 4/21/22
From: Bobby Chao
To: Lisa Schmidt; Kavita Tankha; George Tyson; Linda Swan; Stan Mok Cc: ; Deborah Padovan
Subject: Property fences for the “Sea Landing LP”
Date: Thursday, April 21, 2022 9:20:54 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from .
Learn why this is important
Dear Town Council,
Please disregard the last draft, as Huang is the representative of the property management, not the ownership. It is “Sea Landing LP” instead.
Please use the attached corrected version.
Thank you!
Bobby
From: Bobby Chao
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 8:20 AM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 'Kavita Tankha' <[email protected]>; 'George Tyson' <[email protected]>; 'Linda Swan' <[email protected]>; 'Stanley Mok' <[email protected]> Cc: ' >; '[email protected]'
<[email protected]>
Subject: Property fences for the Huang's
Dear Town Council,
I am Bobby Chao, a life time resident in LAH. My wife and I have raised our children here on Fawn Creek Court. The Huang’s are family friends and I have been informed all the details of this project. I urge you all to immediately approve their appeal.
Per the municipal codes, all LAH residents are allowed to construct any 6’ foot fences, whether it is chain link, metal post wire, or solid wood fences, as long as they apply for a zoning permit. Normally it is an over-countered zoning permit process.
The Town has treated this fence application with discrimination due to the size of the farm land under Williamson Act contract and has placed this fence zoning permit on the prior five-time public hearing into a site development review. The planning commissioners have intended to breach the signed Williamson contract by not allowing the farming under the Williamson act contract. After almost one year of delay, last month, they just motioned to approve the farm land into a wild zoo type of wood post fence, which has violated the Williamson contract and town’s municipal codes.
Especially the town has no right to remove the existing prior permitted metal posts intending to Supplemental No. 10
AGENDA ITEM #11.B
Distributed 4/21/22
modify it into wood posts fencing. The town can not invade the private property rights as it has been during the last five public hearings.
We strongly recommend that the city council acts tonight per the municipal codes and approve the applicant’s appeal as submitted.
Best Regards,
K. Bobby Chao
Resident of Los Altos Hills
From: Sue Welch
To: City Council
Subject: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT Council Meeting 04/21/22 Item 11B (Public Hearing Elena fence) Date: Thursday, April 21, 2022 9:32:54 AM
Attachments: Welch Comment 28001 Elena fence 22-0421.pdf [Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] Mayor Tyson and Council Members Mok, Schmidt, Swan, and Tankha, Please find attached my public comment on the 28001 ELena fence appeal (Public Hearing item 11B) at tonight’s Council meeting.
I have reviewed the Planning Commission’s fence plan design and conditions and have devised an alternative plan that I believe is an improvement that will meet the intent of the Planning Commission (and the Town residents who provided input at multiple meetings) and at the same tme will more fully accommodate the applicants’ desire for agricultural operations.
Compared to the PC plan, my alternative provides more area for agricultural operations and is consistent with Town policies recognizing wildlife corridors by ensuring that wildlife can continue to move through larger properties.
Thank you for your consideration and for your service to the Town.
Best regards,
Sue Welch
Attachment: Welch Comment 28001 Elena fence 22-0421.pdf Supplemental No. 11
AGENDA ITEM #11.B
Distributed 4/21/22
Welch Comment 28001 Elena fence 22-0421.docx 1
TO Mayor Tyson and Council Members Mok, Schmidt, Swan, and Tankha FROM: Sue Welch
SUBJECT: CC Meeting 4/21/2022: Item 11B: Proposed perimeter fence at 28001 Elena DATE: April 20, 2022
________________________________________________________________________________ I am writing as an LAH resident concerned about the fencing plans for 28001 Elena Road. I closely followed all Planning Commission (PC) meetings for the project and submitted comments. Through five PC meetings, the applicants failed to provide necessary information and refused modifications to their proposal for a perimeter fence. The stated reason for perimeter fencing is to allow agricultural uses on the property, which has been in Williamson Act contract (for grazing) since 1985. On Mar 3, 2022, the PC devised a fencing plan consistent with constraints on the property and Town policies and General Plan. The plan includes a network of wildlife–permeable and wildlife–impermeable fences that provide areas for agriculture and areas where wildlife (WL) can move through the property. The applicants will accept the PC plan only with certain modifications.
I reviewed the PC’s fence plan design and conditions and have devised an alternative plan that I believe is an improvement that will meet the intent of the PC (and the Town residents who provided input at multiple meetings) and at the same time will more fully accommodate the applicants’ stated desire for agriculture operations. Compared to the PC’s plan my alternative provides more area for agricultural operations and is consistent with Town policies recognizing wildlife (WL) corridors by ensuring that WL can continue to move through larger properties.
My alternative plan (Figure 1) is based the following:
1. Areas most suitable for agriculture (e.g., open fields, gentle to moderate slopes) are enclosed with fencing that excludes WL.
The alternative plan would allow existing fence segment G to remain WL–impermeable, thereby protecting all the area south of fences G, H, B2 for ag use (assuming a driveway gate). The PC fence plan requires fence G to be WL–permeable and protects a smaller portion of the southern area from WL encroachment.
The alternative plan would also create an additional area for ag use that is not included in the PC plan —3 to 4 acres surrounded by WL-impermeable fencing on the moderately-sloped open field near the I-280 border. Thus, the alternative plan provides more area for ag use.
2. Areas not suitable for agriculture (e.g., with steep slopes, swales, waterways, trees, shrubs, chaparral) would allow WL passage. (Northern slopes and steep central slopes) A Williamson Act contract does not confer the right to plant or graze on every square foot of a property. In planning ag use, owners must consider topography, soils, tree cover, existing vegetation, creek tributaries, wildlife, and other natural resources on their land. The northern third of 28001 Elena has steep slopes (>30%), swales, and many mature oaks, shrubs, and other vegetation (Figure 1). The San Francisco Estuary Institute EcoAtlas shows creek swales that drain directly down these swales to Deer Creek along Purissima Road (Figure 2).
Additional steep slopes (≥40%) with mature oaks and other vegetation drop down from the central ridge further to the south (below fences G and H). Given northern slopes and the steep central slopes are not suitable for ag use, the could be left as open space for WL passage. This would preserve the natural and scenic value of the land, add significant conservation value, and be compatible with Williamson Act Contract “open space uses”.
The property has an active wildlife corridor as shown by:
–– Wildlife sightings reported by neighbors
Welch Comment 28001 Elena fence 22-0421.docx 2
— Well-established game trails visible on the ground and in Google Earth views (Figure 1) — Identification of this much of this parcel as a wildlife corridor on the wildlife corridor map prepared for the Town in 2007 by Live Oak Associates (Figure 3).
This corridor is an important route that provides wildlife access from Deer Creek just east of the parcel to the Town-owned Open Space Preserve abutting Saddle Mtn Drive, and down to Matadero Creek and Arastradero Preserve further to the west. Blocking this corridor will force wildlife onto Arastradero and Elena, both roads with heavy, high-speed traffic and poor sight-distance.
LAH includes accommodations for wildlife movement in goals, policies, and programs in its General Plan (e.g., “Ensure all development occurs in a manner that minimizes disturbance of natural terrain, vegetation, and wildlife…”—Land Use Element, Goal 2). A major objective of these accommodations is to keep WL away from roads and homes.
In my plan, WL could enter the property at the SE corner on the 20-40 ft wide pathway easement (Figure 1) and move northwards across the steep central slopes (where game trials are already visible) to the NW corner and exit through WL-permeable fencing. Alternatively, WL could move along the 20-ft pathway along the eastern border and up through the steep northern slopes and swales to exit the NE corner.
Pathway Easement Fencing
The applicant has proposed relying on the Caltrans fence as an eastern border fence for their ag operations and installing gates on the southern end of the pathway easement along the east border to block WL entry. The Town does not allow gates to block pathways (LAH General Plan Pathways Element Policy 4.18). Pathway easements must be open, which means in the PC’s or the applicants plans wildlife could enter the property via the pathways unless fencing is installed along the interior border of the pathway easements. In my alternative plan, the open ag field near the eastern border would be surrounded with WL–impermeable fencing —an island excluding WL. Neither gates on pathways nor fencing along interior pathway borders would be needed and the Caltrans fence could serve as WL-impermeable fence along the entire eastern border.
Fence Segment Specs
I have not provided detailed specs for every fence segment in this plan, except to note:
— Existing fence G would be retained as WL–impermeable (i.e., not replaced with WL– permeable fence as in the PC plan). Fence G cannot cross any pathway easement. — Existing fences H, B1, B2, B3, and C would be retained as WL–impermeable; D would also be WL-impermeable (assuming a driveway gate or WL impermeable fencing on K). — Existing and proposed segments of fence D would be WL–impermeable and cannot unless cross a pathway easement. If this 6-ft high fence is placed the required 45 ft from center of Elena, the pathway should be outside the fence (on the road side). — An additional WL-impermeable fence segment would be needed connecting the eastern end of fence G with fence D (outside the pathway easement). — Fence A is critical for WL movement and would be WL-friendly as in the PC plan.
I respectfully request you consider this alternative to the PC plan. I believe it better meets the needs of both the applicant and the Town.
Thank you as always for your service.
Regards,
Sue Welch
Figure 2: EcoAtlas map of drainages on 28001 Elena Rd
Figure 3: Wildlife Corridor map of 28001 Elena Rd
From: Laura Snable
To: City Council
Subject: FOR PUBLIC COMMENT #11B
Date: Thursday, April 21, 2022 12:58:34 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] Dear Council Members,
As a concerned citizen from across town, I have watched all of the PC meetings regarding the ring-fence application for the 40+ acre property at 28001 Elena Road. I strongly support the PC's decision to require that some of this border fencing be wildlife permeable. PC members have spent heroic amounts of time and thought on this matter and have suggested solutions that would balance the needs of the owner and the wildlife. That is why they have handed you a detailed solution instead of outright rejecting the application.
With no less than three PC meetings on this matter, it is obvious that the applicant has been reluctant to supply sufficiently helpful information to the PC and that leads to the conclusion that they may have other motives, possibly, wishing to cut off all wildlife now, so that future development plans won’t have to consider it. This, of course, does not adhere to our town’s ethos.
I hope the Council will uphold the PC’s thoughtful decision. Furthermore, I believe that any future internal fencing desired will need to be inspected so that ample wildlife movement across the property will be maintained.
Thank you.
Laura Snable
Robleda Road
Supplemental No. 12
AGENDA ITEM #11.B
Distributed 4/21/22
From: Greg Goumas
To: Deborah Padovan; [email protected]; Kavita Tankha; George Tyson; Linda Swan; Stan Mok Subject: Agenda Item 11 B Fencing
Date: Thursday, April 21, 2022 1:47:36 PM
You don't often get email from . Learn why this is important Dear Town Council -
I am writing to express my support for the fencing.
Beyond that fact that just about everyone has fencing in Los Altos Hills, there are many compelling reasons the applicant should be allowed to proceed. For example:
1. Williamson Act property requires agriculture and a fence to protect crops is reasonable, if not required.
2. Some of the existing fencing is permitted and so keeping and/or replacing is reasonable.
3. Adding addtional fencing to secure the property / crops is reasonable. Most, if not all, of us in LAH have fencing for our properties.
4. This is not a site development project. I understand that for some reason, site development along with open space and other factors have been brought into this discussion. While I support open space, we cannot apply rules or guidelines when that are not relevant to the specifics.
Thank you for your consideration.
Greg Goumas
Moody Springs Ct Los Altos Hills
Supplemental No. 13
AGENDA ITEM #11.B
Distributed 4/21/22
AGENDA ITEM #13.A
13. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES, SUB-COMMITTEES, AND
COUNCILMEMBERS ON OUTSIDE AGENCIES
A. Report by the Undergrounding Subcommittee (Vice Mayor Tyson) There is no presentation for this report.
AGENDA ITEM #13.B
13. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES, SUB-COMMITTEES, AND
COUNCILMEMBERS ON OUTSIDE AGENCIES
B. Request by Councilmember Schmidt to Sunset the Fire Taskforce Subcommittee (Councilmember Schmidt)
There is no presentation for this report.
AGENDA ITEM #13.C
13. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES, SUB-COMMITTEES, AND
COUNCILMEMBERS ON OUTSIDE AGENCIES
C. Report from the Council Subcommittee on Community Surveys (Councilmember Schmidt) There is no presentation for this report.
From:
To: City Council
Cc: Peter Pirnejad; BCC - Ying Liu
Subject: Agenda Item 13.C - Update on Community Town Surveys Date: Sunday, April 17, 2022 7:18:08 PM
Dear City Council Members,
It is surprising that a town survey on the needs for expanding community and staff space has been pursued without any efforts to reach out to the Parks and Recreation Committee and concerned residents. They were the original requestor for addressing the need for expanding community-oriented space going back to 2015+.
I suggest, to avoid the false conclusions of the past, for example the need for the Phase 2 expansion of town hall was needed to address the annual staff turnover of over 25% per year because of poor staff office space. That was blatantly false. I talked to employees who left and the reason they left was because of the quality of THEIR OFFICE CUBICLE was never stated as the reason they left.
Let’s do it right this time! Start talking with the P&R Committee, residents and staff to come up with the essence of what we are looking for.
I suggest that this Ad Hoc Committee work as partners with the Parks and Recreation Committee to look at expanding community and staff space. To date, the survey questions are very questionable. What are you trying to conclude? It makes no sense!
Regards,
John Swan
Supplemental No. 1
AGENDA ITEM #13.C
Distributed 4/18/22
From: Bridget Morgan
To: Deborah Padovan
Cc: Kavita Tankha; George Tyson; Lisa Schmidt
Subject: Agenda Item 13.C Update on Community Town Surveys Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 9:37:26 PM
Dear Town Council Members,
I applaud the efforts of your ad hoc committee to put this survey of town residents out to LAH residents. I very much appreciated the opportunity afforded by the survey to express my opposition to the town spending my tax dollars on a “community center/park” which I would not ever use.
Best regards,
Bridget Morgan
Supplemental No. 2
AGENDA ITEM #13.C
Distributed 4/21/22
AGENDA ITEM #13.D
13. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES, SUB-COMMITTEES, AND
COUNCILMEMBERS ON OUTSIDE AGENCIES
D. Status Reports from All Councilmembers on Subcommittee and Outside Agencies Activities
There is no presentation for this item.
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 21, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council
FROM: Councilmember Lisa Schmidt
RE: Request to Rename the Emergency Communications Committee to the Emergency Preparedness and Response Committee
Please consider renaming the Emergency Communications Committee to the Emergency Preparedness and Response Committee. In January 2022, I began to meet with Dru Anderson, Chair of the Emergency Communications Committee (ECC) to see if we could propose a plan to encourage the committee to include emergency preparedness in its charter.
After multiple meetings over three months, I met with Dru Anderson, Rajiv Bhateja, Jim Basiji, Dave Stewart and Neil Katin and discussed updating the committee’s name and charter.
Currently, the ECC has nine members, with five whose terms are expiring in May and June.
Some of those members are not planning to renew their memberships. Any volunteers who would like to continue on the updated committee will be grandfathered in. Attached to this memo are the proposed changes to the membership and charter.
If the Council agrees to make the proposed changes to the committee, Town staff will update the standing committee resolution and return it for approval in May. Once approved, staff will then advertise for the open positions, with the appointments expected in June. After the June City Council meeting, the meeting will begin meeting monthly.
AGENDA ITEM #14.A
(a)EEmergency Communications Committee. Emergency Preparedness and Response Committee
(i) The membership of this Committee shall consist of a minimum of five members seven (7) members and a maximum of twenty-five {25} eleven (11) members., all of whom are either licensed radio amateurs or individuals in training for said licensed status.
(ii) The charges to and duties of this Committee shall be:
(iii)Identify safety issues related to natural disasters. (iv)Research and recommend mitigation strategies to reduce the impact of emergencies
(ii)(v)Research and recommend emergency response protocols. a. Provide emergency radio Provide and recommend protocols to provide emergency communication services between the Los Altos Hills Emergency Operation Center (EOC) facility and:
1) The Santa Clara County Office of Emergency Services
(OES).
2) ECC-staffed operations located at any Town-operated
Incident Command (IC) location for the purposes of
communicating between the EOC and the Town IC.
3) Surrounding area municipal emergency communication
facilities, hospitals and emergency service groups such as the Red Cross, or other volunteer emergency response
agencies.
Communications will take place using federally-sanctioned amateur (HAM) radio operating frequencies in accordance with federally-mandated Amateur Radio operating
requirements and procedures and other radio services and frequencies a requested by the Town Director of emergency services.
Provide the Net Control Operator (NCO) function to serve amateur (HAM) radio operating frequencies in accordance with federally-mandated Amateur Radio operating
requirements and procedures and other radio services and frequencies as requested by the Town Director of
Emergency Services.
Provide the Net Control Operator (NCO) function to serve amateur radio operators throughout the Town and
surrounding areas for the purpose of EOC operations and, as needed, for support of Community Emergency Response
Team (CERT) Recon NCO operations.
Organize and implement periodic “simulated disaster” emergency communication drills and participate in similar drills organized by the Amateur Radio Emergency System (ARES) District Emergency Coordinator (DEC), the CERT organization serving the Town and appropriate others including the Disaster Council; and participate in weekly ARES communication readiness/training nets that exist in the area; b. Provide occasional non-emergency communication services for other Town sanctioned groups as requested when possible and practical; c. Develop and train according to Town requirements a group of amateur radio operators within the Town and surrounding areas who will be available in a time of need to assist the Committee in the performance of its duties;
d. Coordinate and periodically review activation, training, mutual aid, and operating procedures with appropriate other emergency groups and agencies in Santa Clara County and as requested by the Town Director of Emergency Services.
e.b.Maintain radio and related equipment that support EOC operations, update equipment and necessary by using volunteer time and skills, and management Town-budgeted acquisition of good and services f. Committee members should also be trained in the effective communication strategies and technologies. use of cell phone and other communications as necessary.
From: jim basiji
To: Deborah Padovan; Peter Pirnejad; [email protected] Subject: Concerns Regarding Agenda item 14A: Request to Rename the Emergency Communication Committee… Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 9:24:58 PM
Dear Council;
I like to express wholehearted support for item 14A on the April 21 Council agenda, namely the creation of an “Emergency Preparedness and Response Committee with an Updated Charter and Membership” which is spearheaded by Council member Schmidt. However, after reflecting on the way this is proposed is to happen, namely renaming/replacing the existing ECC in order to creat the new committee, I can’t help but be very concerned about the potential unintended consequences of this move, namely the accidental disbandment of ECC as it exist. ECC has been a part of the Town’s emergency linkage to the external world via the Ham Radio when all other modes of communication may be out knocked out of order. One could argue that satellite phone can perform a similar fuction, but that solution is quite the same.
The reason for my concern is very simple: ECC is not an ordinary committee of volunteer residents like the majority of the towns committees. It comprise a group of people with very unique skill, equipment and FCC license (Ham Radio), which requires extended training and certification. Once ECC is accidentally disband as a team that regularly trains together and communicates with their peer groups in the local communities all around, it is very hard to reconstitute that valuable resource.
One way to make sure we retain ECC while creating this new proposed committee is to acknowledge their unique value and contribution by making ECC a permanent intact subcommittee of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Committee. The other way is not to get hung up on having just one committee and let ECC exist as is. The decision on how to do this is critical enough that it should not to be rushed. I would urge you to make sure the final solution you decision upon includes a way to guarantee the existence of ECC as a recognized intact team with it’s own mission before you approve the overall solution Regards;
Jim Basiji
Supplemental No. 1
AGENDA ITEM #14.A
Distributed 4/21/22
AGENDA ITEM #14.B
14. COUNCIL INITIATED
B. Request to Direct Staff to Update the Hybrid Meeting Policy to allow Committees to hold Hybrid Meetings after AB 361 Expires (Vice Mayor Swan) There is no presentation for this item.
AGENDA ITEM #14.C
14. COUNCIL INITIATED
C. Request to Form a Council Ad Hoc Committee Focused on Broadband (Councilmember Mok)
There is no presentation for this item.
AGENDA ITEM #14.D
14. COUNCIL INITIATED
D. Request to add Three Additional ALPR Cameras to Cover all Entrances into Town (Vice Mayor Swan)
There is no presentation for this item.
From: Jennifer Basiji
To: City Council
Cc: BCC - Jim Basiji
Subject: ADDITIONAL CAMERAS PLEASE!
Date: Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:23:23 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important
Just a quick note to request that ALL (incoming) streets in Los Altos Hills be monitored by ALPRs. I am given to understand that we are not without budget to enable the installation of the remaining need.
We are hoping for a very swift approval of the cameras at your upcoming meeting.
With thanks in advance.
Jennifer and Jim Basiji
Supplemental Batch #1
AGENDA ITEM #14.D
Distributed 4/18/22
From: Don Druyanoff
To: City Council
Subject: ALPR Cameras
Date: Saturday, April 16, 2022 10:54:23 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important
We strongly support adding the additional cameras to cover all entrances to our town.
We live on Berry Hill lane and our street would be unprotected if these extra cameras aren't added. Our home has been broken into twice and our locked mailbox has been broken into 3 times.
Thank you,
Donald and Joanne Druyanoff
From: Lynn Miller
To: City Council
Subject: ALPR
Date: Friday, April 15, 2022 7:54:58 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Hello City Council,
Now that we've invested in an excellent system for protecting our community, please be sure to add the last two cameras for the minimal cost of I believe $11K. Those locations may not be busy now but that means nothing as to whether burglars will figure it out and use those entry points. Burglars really do figure these things out.
Thank you! And thanks for your continued support.
Lynn Miller
Los Altos Hills, CA
From: EDUARDO ARIAS
To: City Council
Subject: ALPRS
Date: Saturday, April 16, 2022 6:47:18 PM
Hello Mayor and Council members,
I just want to place my voice and vote to cover the last two entrances on the Los Altos Hills area. Please vote yes for them as we will have the entire Town covered. Thank you.
Eduardo Arias
Sent from my iPhone
From: Karen Patou
To: City Council
Subject: ALPRS: PLEASE GET THE LAST TWO ENTRANCES COVERED Date: Saturday, April 16, 2022 2:51:05 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] Dear City Council,
It is of utmost importance that you get the last two entrances covered. My street remains unprotected as does too many others. Every street must be protected in order to ensure the safety of us all. Please remedy this situation as soon as possible.
Many thanks.
Yours sincerely,
Karen and Gary Patou
Los Altos Hills
Sent from my iPhone
From: Vara Ramakrishnan
To: City Council
Subject: ALPR: Please get last two entrances covered
Date: Friday, April 15, 2022 8:36:30 PM
Dear city council,
My street, Via Cerro Gordo, is one of the dozens that can be accessed without passing by an ALPR due to a small gap in coverage.
As you know, my family suffered a burglary and a violation of our sense of safety on Christmas Day 2020 that still echoes through our lives.
Please don’t skimp on $11,000 to leave us exposed on an ongoing basis. Protect the last two entrances.
Thank you,
Vara
From: Perry and Deedee
To: City Council
Cc: BCC - Rajiv Bhateja
Subject: ALPRs PLEASE get the last 2 entrances covered
Date: Saturday, April 16, 2022 7:14:16 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] Dear Sir/Madam,
Thank you for approving the ALPR system permanently. The cameras have been instrumental in accomplishing felony arrests and return of stolen property.
Please get the last 2 entrances covered by ALPR’s to adopt the principle of “no leaks in the bucket”.
Sincerely,
Perry Maliuanag and Maria Meneses
Saint Francis Road
From: Michelle Bau
To: City Council
Subject: ALPRs - please have the last 2 entrances covered Date: Friday, April 15, 2022 8:51:25 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] Dear City Council -
We would like to express our support to have the last 2 entrances in town monitored by ALPR cameras. The cameras are doing a great job and we should have all entrances secured by the cameras.
Best regards,
Michelle and Kyle Yu
From: viggy mokkarala
To: City Council
Cc: Viggy Mokkarala
Subject: ALPRs and coverage for the last 2 entrances to LAH remaining Date: Saturday, April 16, 2022 10:21:48 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Dear City Council members,
I have been following with interest the ALPR matter and the positive effect so far on crime in our town. I am writing to request that you proceed to get cameras installed in the remaining two entrances to our town so that we have 100% coverage that was envisioned in the initial discussions.
As a victim of a burglary (January 19th 2022), I hope that our town takes every measure possible to reduce the incidences of this unnerving violation of our private spaces. ALPRs are a cost effective way to do so.
Thank you for listening!
Viggy Mokkarala
From: chris monahan
To: City Council
Cc: pang; ED MANCHE; Emily Manche; BCC - Rajiv Bhateja; many/bhanu/tara soma; ROB AND ANN MARANGELL Subject: ALPRs
Date: Friday, April 15, 2022 7:55:41 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important
ALPRs: Please get the last 2 entrances covered.
Chris and Mary Ann Monahan
LAH
From: Beth Guillaumin
To: City Council
Subject: ALPRs
Date: Saturday, April 16, 2022 11:12:46 AM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
Please get the last 2 entrances covered.
Beth Guillaumin Perrell
From: Emily Manche
To: City Council
Cc: Edward Manche
Subject: ALPRs: Please cover the last 2 entrances
Date: Saturday, April 16, 2022 2:50:08 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important
Hi City Council,
Please cover the last two entrances with ALPRs.
Thank you,
Emily Manche
, LAH
From: Martha DiLullo
To: City Council
Subject: ALPRs: Please get the last 2 entrances covered Date: Friday, April 15, 2022 7:56:15 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] Good evening,
We support getting the last two leaks in the bucket fixed. We understand that the cost is within the current budget and the cameras have proven beneficial to our community.
Thank you for your consideration,
Martha DiLullo
From: Sunil Bopardikar
To: City Council
Subject: ALPRs: Please get the last 2 entrances covered Date: Saturday, April 16, 2022 12:13:38 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
The ALPR cameras have already been instrumental in accomplishing felony arrests and the return of stolen property.
The not so good news:
When ALPRs were proposed for the town, we adopted the principle of "no leaks in the bucket", i.e., there would be no way to enter the town without crossing an ALPR.
That's why we went with 40 cameras.
But two entrances remain unmonitored.
This would allow malefactors to enter the town via those two entrances without passing an ALPR.
While the two remaining entrances are not very busy, they connect to at least 4 major arteries (see map), thus enabling access to over 141 streets in town (see street list) and over 1274 homes. (These are lower bound estimates.)
There isn't a budget issue here. Covering these two entrances would require 2 additional cameras (or 4 if we encounter solar/cellular issues) at a cost of $2750 per camera.
So no more than $11K. (We're actually under budget on the $120K initial deployment.) Thanks!
From: Jun Liang (JUNLIANG)
To: City Council
Subject: ALPRs: Please get the last 2 entrances covered Date: Saturday, April 16, 2022 9:51:21 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Dear Los Altos Hills City Council,
Our house was broken into and robbed in Jan. 2019. Fortunately, none of us was home and therefore no injury. However, it was a traumatic experience that hit my young daughter particularly hard.
As a result, I strongly urge the City Council to install ALRPs at the two last remaining entrances, so no more LAH neighbors might suffer what we went through.
Best regards, Jun
From: Maria Caffey
To: City Council
Cc: Caffey Jack
Subject: ALPRs: Please get the last 2 entrances covered Date: Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:30:33 AM
We are very happy with the entire license plate reader project so far. We need to finish the project, however, and get the last two entrances covered. Criminals will always take advantage of the weak link in any system.
Thank you for all your help to date in getting this system up, running, and successful.
Sincerely,
Jack and Maria Caffey
Adonna Court
Sent from my iPhone
From: [email protected]
To: City Council
Subject: ALPRs: Please get the last 2 entrances covered Date: Friday, April 15, 2022 8:12:51 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important
I fully support covering the remaining 2 entrances with ALPRs, don’t understand why this is even an issue. Let’s complete the job we have fought so hard for.
Thank you.
Harjit Sabharwal
LAH.
From: Tom McReynolds
To: City Council
Subject: ALPRs: Please get the last 2 entrances covered Date: Friday, April 15, 2022 7:49:58 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from m.
Learn why this is important
This is the kind of solution that will help drive back down the town's crime rate.
Please get this done; it's not expensive enough to debate.
Thanks!
-Tom McReynolds
, Los Altos Hills, Ca 94022
From: RD Melen
To: City Council
Subject: ALPRs: Please get the last 2 entrances covered Date: Saturday, April 16, 2022 3:35:39 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. The systems is working but can be made significantly better by these additions.
I support getting the last two leaks in the bucket fixed.-- Roger Melen
cell
From: John Metcalfe
To: City Council
Cc: BCC - Valerie Metcalfe
Subject: Cameras close the loop
Date: Friday, April 15, 2022 11:08:53 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important
Town council, please make it impossible to reach my house on Tripoli Ct without passing a camera. Finish the job and fund the last few cameras. Thanks, John and Val Metcalfe Get Outlook for Android
From: Subina
To: City Council
Subject: Last two entrances into town need coverage by ALPRS Date: Saturday, April 16, 2022 8:55:02 AM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] Hello council members
Thanks so much for your support of ALPRS. I am so grateful that you helped residents like me feel safer in my own home.
I’m writing to request that you support putting ALPRS on the remaining two entrances into town. It’s prudent to NOT stop here and call this done- when we have two holes to plug. It’s like securing and alarming every window and door of your house and but then….leaving two windows open.
Cheers,
Subina
From: Denise ***
To: City Council
Subject: Re: License Plate Readers
Date: Saturday, April 16, 2022 6:20:24 PM
I have heard there are a few entrance areas that do not have the Readers and I feel with what we have already installed and spent money on we may as well secure our area further. What’s the point if we have places that are not collecting information. We need to protect the residents as much as possible and with the crime exploding everywhere let’s ad the missing readers.
Larry and Denise Del Carlo
La Barranca, Los Altos Hills
Sent from my iPhone
From: T. S. Tan
To: City Council
Subject: : ALPRs: Please get the last 2 entrances covered Date: Friday, April 15, 2022 8:51:36 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Dear City Council,
Please add two more ALPRs to make our town safer.
Thank you.
Tun and Connie Tan
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
From: Nancy Bavor
To: City Council
Subject: ALPRs: Please get the last 2 entrances covered Date: Sunday, April 17, 2022 3:44:14 PM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] To: Los Altos Hills Town Council
From:
Nancy and Clayton Bavor,
Re: ALPR coverage
We have been in total support of the ALPR project but understand that there are still two entrances in Town that need cameras. We request that the Council approve the necessary expenses to complete the project.
Thank you,
Nancy and Clayton Bavor
Supplemental Batch #2
AGENDA ITEM #14.D
Distributed 4/18/22
From: Kira Hartz
To: City Council
Subject: ALPRs: Please get the last 2 entrances covered Date: Sunday, April 17, 2022 12:41:45 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Hello!
I’d like to share my request for adding two more cameras! The two remaining entrances connect to at least 4 major arteries (see map), thus enabling access to over 141 streets in town (see street list) and over 1274 homes. (These are lower bound estimates.)
Thank you,
Kira
From: Chris Carneghi
To: City Council
Subject: ALPRs: Please get the last 2 entrances covered Date: Sunday, April 17, 2022 11:09:48 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
My neighbors home was burglarized last month. ALPR can help slow down the criminals. Please cover the last 2 entrances.
Chris Carneghi
Los Altos Hills, CA 94044
From: Josh Salcman
To: City Council
Subject: ALPRs: Please get the last 2 entrances covered Date: Monday, April 18, 2022 8:01:19 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to voice my support of the measure to spend whatever additional funds are necessary to install two more ALPRs to make sure all entrances to our town are covered. I believe this is important to ensure the greatest possible deterrence of crime in our town. Thank you very much for supporting this important initiative.
Best regards,
Josh Salcman
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
From:
To: Peter Pirnejad; City Council
Cc: BCC - Rajiv Bhateja
Subject: ALPR Aditional Cameras
Date: Sunday, April 17, 2022 8:39:55 PM
Hello,
What a waste of all of our times.
Rajiv, as the champion of ALPR was notified by residents that there were weaknesses in the deployment of the cameras. He researched the issue and found the residents were correct. There were deficiencies. The additional cameras were still within the original budget.
Our city manager pushed back. Why???
Approve the additional cameras!!!! Why spend so much staff and council time to debate with residents who are trying to make our town safer/better!
In my view, this is not the type of environment you as council members want to promote moving forward.
John
From: Peter Pirnejad
To: ; City Council
Cc: BCC - Rajiv Bhateja
Subject: RE: ALPR Additional Cameras
Date: Sunday, April 17, 2022 10:00:15 PM
John,
As a reminder, the council gave clear direction last month.
Review of the Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) Pilot Program and Resolution 27-22 Accepting the Continued use of the ALPR System in Town (Staff: C. Einfalt) – Vote 5-0 - City Manager Pirnejad suggested working with the sheriff to determine if and where the last two cameras should be installed. There was Council consensus agreeing with that suggestion.
I have been in discussions with the Sheriff and Flock on this matter.
As you may recall at the Technology meeting I made the recommendation that we relocate the existing internal cameras to these "holes" in the system.
Peter Pirnejad
City Manager
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
P: 650-947-2514 | F: 650-941-3160
E: [email protected]
Stay Informed.
-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2022 8:40 PM
To: Peter Pirnejad <[email protected]>; City Council <[email protected]> Cc: BCC - Rajiv Bhateja < >
Subject: ALPR Aditional Cameras
Hello,
What a waste of all of our times.
Rajiv, as the champion of ALPR was notified by residents that there were weaknesses in the deployment of the cameras. He researched the issue and found the residents were correct. There were deficiencies. The additional cameras were still within the original budget.
Our city manager pushed back. Why???
Approve the additional cameras!!!! Why spend so much staff and council time to debate with residents who are trying to make our town safer/better!
In my view, this is not the type of environment you as council members want to promote moving forward.
John
From: Hajime Kenneth Murakami
To: City Council
Subject: Support for ALPR coverage for last 2 entries
Date: Monday, April 18, 2022 7:45:30 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important
Dear Members of the Los Altos Hills City Council,
I am writing to you to express my support for deploying the additional hardware and funds necessary to cover the remaining two entries to Los Altos Hills.
Given the community, staff, and council level support that the ALPR project has received, I believe it is a natural desire for said supporters to want the Council to go "the last mile" and cover the remaining two entrances.
From what we know about the prevalence of planned home thefts in towns like Los Altos Hills, Atherton, and Hillsborough, the criminals spend considerable amount of time on their study and reconnaissance of targets and escape routes in order to maximize their chances of escape. It would naturally be a matter of time before they would figure out these alternative routes of entry, as their rewards are too great not to conduct the research.
Thank you as always for your time and service.
Best,
Haj Murakami
--
Hajime Kenneth (Haj) Murakami
From: Wan Chan
To: City Council
Subject: ALPRs: Please get the last 2 entrances covered Date: Monday, April 18, 2022 2:52:58 PM
Dear City Council Members,
As victims of home burglaries in Los Altos Hills, we are deeply grateful for your approval to install ALPRs in our town. We enthusiastically applaud your wise decision since these ALPRs have already been instrumental in felony arrests and return of stolen properties.
Recently Dr. Rajiv Bhateja informed us that there are two entrances to our town without ALPRs, through which criminals can enter our town unmonitored. Because our town's ring of defense can only be as strong as its weakest point, we need to have ALPRs at these last two gaping holes.
Since there is sufficient funds remaining in the $120,000 ALPR budget you have already allocated, please kindly approve the installation of ALPRs at these two entrances.
With Best Regards,
Wan & Yoke Chan
From: jim basiji
To: City Council; Deborah Padovan; Cody Einfalt; [email protected] Cc: jitze Couperous; Jennifer Basiji; BCC - Rajiv Bhateja Subject: ALPRs: Please get the last 2 entrances covered Date: Monday, April 18, 2022 12:25:17 PM
Dear all,
First, I would extend a heartfelt thank the Council and the Town management for your prompt action on installing ALPRs that have already proven their value in protecting our town's residents. And, as a resident of one of the areas currently NOT COVERED by the ALPRs, I urge you to approve the installation of the last few to extend the desperately needed protection to our area.
My grateful thanks in advance for your vote of approval
From: Eric Bredo
To: City Council
Subject: License plate readers
Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 9:22:50 AM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] Dear LAH Council members,
I would like to join the others encouraging you to complete the license plate reader project so that it includes all of the major points of ingress and egress. My personal interest is in monitoring Page Mill Rd since my residence is on Moon Lane, off of Page Mill.
Thank you so much for your attention to this issue!
Eric Bredo
, LAH
Sent from my iPhone
From: Malika
To: Deborah Padovan; City Council; BCC - Rajiv Bhateja; Cody Einfalt Cc: kavita Tankha
Subject: Re: Alpr
Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 9:53:54 AM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from . Learn why this is important at http://aka ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] Hi
I believe they are close to 1300 homes that are not covered by the current ALPR’s. This seems like a major issue.
We cannot wait for an incident to occur before we act to close this breach.
This has to be addressed.
Thanks
Malika Kaul
> On Mar 17, 2022, at 11:59 AM, Malika < > wrote:
>
> Hi
> I don’t believe all the entrances and exits into the hills have been adequately covered by the ALPR’s. > Given the rise in crime and the absence of a local police force. I think this is negligent. > I have already voiced my concerns on this void with Rajiv. > I believe we have the funds to put in the cameras. I would request that this gap be addressed so ALL town residents feel safe.
> Thanks
> Malika Kaul
>
>> On Feb 16, 2021, at 10:05 PM, Malika > wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>> We live at Corbetta lane
>> And wanted to ask the town to please approve the request for license plate readers at all entry points. The current increase in robberies is unacceptable.
>> Thanks
>> Malika Kaul
Supplemental Batch #3
AGENDA ITEM #14.D
Distributed 4/19/22
From: Kim Citrino
To: City Council
Subject: ALPRs: Please help get the last 2 entrances covered / I support getting the last two leaks in the bucket fixed Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 11:06:29 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from Learn why this is important
Hello:
I would like to throw my hat in the ring to support the last two leaks in the basket.
Thank you,
Kim Citrino
W. LoyoLA Dr.
Los altos Hills, CA
THE CASE FOR
2-4 MORE
AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE READERS
by
Rajiv Bhateja
La Cresta Drive
Los Altos Hills, California
April 21, 2022
1 Supplemental No. 4
AGENDA ITEM #14.D
Distributed 4/20/22 and Updated 4/21/22
THE “BUCKET LIST”
Residents have been working to bring ALPRs into town since 2018 Council approved the deployment of 40 ALPRs in 2021
The original deployment plan for ALPRs in Los Altos Hills was based on the model of a bucket with no leaks
• A bucket with leaks is not a very good bucket
• A fence with gaps is not a very good fence
• Monitoring only some town entrances would merely lead to crooks using other entrances
• This was a resident-driven initiative with over 1000 supporters The intent was to be able to trace a stolen vehicle or vehicle of interest, no matter what route it took to get into town (residents can opt out) • So crooks would be tagged no matter how they got in
This was the reason the Council approved 40 cameras – to ensure all entrances were covered
2
THE NO-LEAKS PRINCIPLE
To ensure coverage of all entrances, cameras sometimes covered a single small street near the town border Some of these streets have been hit with multiple break-ins over the past 4 years 3 Mandoli Drive (7 homes) Dawnridge Drive (16 homes) Christopher Lane (19 homes) Horseshoe Lane
(11 homes)
Streets off
Magdalena Ave
ALPR DEPLOYMENT STATUS
It was estimated that a total of 36 cameras would be
sufficient to cover all town entrances
On April 15, 2021, the City Council approved 40 cameras During deployment, the Sheriff requested a few cameras be located within town limits to enable law enforcement to locate vehicles of interest after they entered the town Based on the Sheriff’s request ~6 cameras were installed within the town (i.e., not at entrances)
The remaining 34 cameras were installed at town
entrances
Two entrances were missed
Source: https://www.losaltoshills.ca.gov/455/Automatic-License-Plate-Readers-ALPR 4
THE HOLES IN THE BUCKET
Town Staff was already aware of one hole
Residents discovered the other hole
Town Staff was notified of residents’ concerns and responded on March 14, 2022:
“…we would first like to hear direction from the City Council on Thursday night before taking any further action on the ALPR system in Town.”
The ALPR report to the City Council at the March 17 council meeting did not discuss the holes As of today, there are at least 1274 homes that can be accessed without passing a camera – because of the two holes!!
5
STREET AND HOME ACCESSIBILITY STATISTICS
The two uncovered entrances are not principal entrances to the town However, these two entrances (“holes”) allow access (without passing an ALPR) to at least:
4 Major arteries
141 Streets
1274 Homes
These are conservative (lower bound) estimates
The locations of the holes are not being disclosed publicly (Town Staff is aware of them)
OBSERVATIONS
7 Given that we deployed cameras on several “side streets” to cover all entrances, leaving these holes feels arbitrary and inconsistent
The incremental cost of additional cameras is not very significant – the increase in coverage is significant It’s been suggested that the additional cameras may not be “necessary” Cameras were never “necessary” – they were installed due to a resident-driven initiative to deter crime Could inaction when we are aware of these holes expose the Town to liability? The cameras have worked: they were instrumental in multiple arrests and return of stolen property April 13, 2022 Technology Committee motion (passed unanimously):
“The Technology Committee recommends that Council approve up to 4 additional cameras (or move them from existing locations based on the Sheriff’s recommendation in case it decides to move them and not add them), to cover the two remaining entrances.”
REQUEST TO COUNCIL
8 Approve up to 4 additional cameras
A core tenet of this project was to cover every entrance. That’s why the Council approved 40 cameras. Please approve two cameras to plug the holes
Up to 2 more cameras if required to cover side streets (due to cellular coverage, etc. ) EXAMPLE:
Annual cost: $5K (2 cameras) or $10K (4 cameras) plus $250 per camera for initial installation Estimate: $12K including contingencies
Relocating costs $750 per camera. Relocating 2 would cost $1500. Relocating 4 would cost $3000.
Estimate: $4K including contingencies
If camera can’t work
here but works
further to the left
Additional camera to
cover this side street
9 THERE ARE HOLES IN THE BUCKET
There are holes in the bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza
10 WITH WHAT SHALL I FIX THEM, DEAR LIZA?
With what should I fix them, dear Liza, with what? With cameras, dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry
11 LET’S KEEP OUR TOWN SAFE!
Our thanks to City Council for helping keep the residents safe! Thanks to Cody Einfalt, Town Analyst, for his dedication and support of this project Thanks to Town Staff for their support
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 21, 2022
TO: City Council
FROM: Cody Einfalt, Management Analyst
APPROVED: Peter Pirnejad, City Manager
RE: The Town’s ALPR System
On March 17, 2022, the City Council approved the extended use of the Town’s ALPR system past the pilot period and gave direction to staff to work with Flock and the Sheriff’s Office to decide if and when any alterations to the Town’s system are necessary.
The action and subsequent direction provided at the March 17th meeting was as follows:
Review of the Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR) Pilot Program and Resolution 27-22 Accepting the Continued use of the ALPR System in Town (Staff: C. Einfalt) – Vote 5-0 - City Manager Pirnejad suggested working with the Sheriff to determine if and where the last two cameras should be installed.
There was Council consensus agreeing with that suggestion.
Following the March 17th City Council meeting, staff held meetings with both the Sheriff’s department and Flock Safety to understand how the current cameras operate in Town and how to adjust the system to obtain the best amount of data for the Sheriff’s Office to use. From these meetings, staff learned that the system is working efficiently, however both parties stated that increasing the number of cameras may cause an “oversaturation” of data being reported to law enforcement.
On April 13, 2022, staff attended the Technology Committee meeting where a committee member gave a presentation identifying two locations where cameras could be installed to better improve coverage of the system. These locations are both located on the perimeter boundary of Town jurisdiction. During the committee meeting, the initial request was for two additional cameras, however staff suggested that instead of adding more cameras to the system, two internal cameras can be moved to the identified locations. This recommendation would align with the advice received from Flock and the Sheriff’s Office.
Staff immediately began working with Flock and the Sheriff’s Office to research relocating two internal cameras. The two new locations are in the process of being surveyed and approved by Flock for proper sunlight, cell reception, and cleared by 811 AGENDA ITEM #14.D
Staff Memo
Posted 4/21/22
underground surveying. These three steps must happen before a technician from Flock can install the cameras.
As a reminder, the relocated cameras may only be installed within the Town’s public right-of-way. The Town is not permitted to install cameras within the right-of-way of roads maintained by the County or the City of Palo Alto as well as private streets in the Town of Los Altos Hills. Staff will work with the Town’s Public Works Department to ensure that the cameras are installed as close as can be to the proposed locations while staying within the Town’s public road jurisdiction.
Given the proposed locations can meet all the requirements listed above, the vendor is intending to have the two cameras relocated the first week of May.