director~ approved: carl cahill, city manager c..e
TRANSCRIPT
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLSStaff Report to the City Council
AGENDA ITEM #6.A
October 18,2012
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION TO ANNEX THEUNINCORPORATED MORA DRIVE AREA, CONSISTING OF 24 PARCELSOF RESIDENTIALLY DEVELOPED LAND IN UNINCORPORATED SANTACLARA COUNTY. #186-12-MISC.
FROM: Debbie Pedro, Planning Director~
APPROVED: Carl Cahill, City Manager c..e..
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
Adopt a resolution, (Attachment #1) to annex the Mora Drive Area and set a date for a protesthearing no sooner than November 19,2012.
BACKGROUND
On September 20,2012 the City Council adopted a resolution to initiate the annexation of the 24parcels on Mora Drive in the San Antonio Hills Area at the request of the Mora Drive neighbors.The neighbors submitted the annexation request in order to protect and preserve theirneighborhood character.
ANNEXATION PROCESS
The subject annexation is not considered a 100% consent annexation because not all of thelandowners or registered voters in the annexation area have agreed to the annexation proposal. Aprotest hearing date of November 19, 2012 has been tentatively set for the Council to considerany protests to the annexation and to decide"ifit meets the threshold to approve.
Property owners who do not consent to the annexation may file a protest prior to, or at the protesthearing. A flow chart outlining the protest threshold is attached (Attachment #2). If less than25% of the voters or 25% of the landowners owning less than 25% of the assessed land valuesubmit a written protest, the annexation can be ordered without the need for an election.
DISCUSSION
Statistical Summary
Number of ParcelsTotal Land AreaAverage Lot SizeResidential Homes
2427.51.0119
Staff RepOli to the City CouncilMora Drive AnnexationOctober 18,2012Page 2 of5
Vacant Lots 5Population 56*Total Street Length (Public) ±1,940 LFTotal Street Length (Private) +200 LFTotal Assessed Valuation $30,887,032*Census 2010 (based on average household size)
Land Use and Planning Analysis
The annexation area is adjacent to the south-eastern boundary of the Town. It consists of parcelslocated on Mora Drive, Kenbar Road and Sunhills Drive. A spreadsheet with detailedinformation on each lot is included as Attachment #3. County records indicate that there are fourminor active building permits within the annexation area. The County will continue managingthe inspection process for these permits until construction is complete. In addition, the Countywill continue planning and building site reviews and building permit review of any newapplications until LAFCO records the annexation. We expect the fInal approval by LAFCO to bearound the end ofNovember.
The existing County Zoning of RI-E allows single-family residential development with aminimum lot size of one acre. Parcels in the annexation area, range from 0.37 to 1.94 acres, withthe majority of the parcels exceeding one acre in size. There are several parcels that maintainunderlying lots that are smaller than one acre. Once annexed, as a condition of futuredevelopment, these parcels may be merged if they are in the same ownership, are contiguous andthey do not conform to standards for minimum parcel size (Municipal Code Section 9-1.310)(Attachment #4).
The development standards of the Town's Residential -Agricultural designation are similar to,but generally a bit more restrictive than the County standards.
Land Use Single-Family Residential Single-Family ResidentialMinimum Lot Size 1 Acre* 1 AcreMin. Front Yard Setback 30' 40'Min. Side Yard Setback 20' 30'Min. Rear Yard Setback 25' 30'Maximum Height 35' 27'
*Legal non-conforming lots exist within the annexation area. Two parcels owned by Mr.Linebarger have been granted a Certificate of Compliance by Santa Clara County to legalize theparcels.
Structures built legally according to County standards that do not conform to Town standardswould be recognized as "legal non-conforming" and allowed to continue as they currently exist.
StaffReport to the City CouncilMora Drive AnnexationOctober 18,2012Page 3 of5
Redevelopment of legal non-conforming structures or additions to them would be required tocomply with Section 10-1.401 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code (Attached #5).
Protest Issues
Staff met with Mr. FOlTest Linebarger on October 4, 2012 to discuss his concerns with theannexation. Mr. Linebarger owns three parcels (APN 331-15-060, 331-15-061 and 331-15-062)which are .83, .37 and .40 acres in size. Mr. Linebarger has been in the process of applying toSanta Clara County for Building Site Approval and ultimately building permits for the twosmaller parcels he owns. The County has not approved the Building Site Approval based on theneed for the applicant to supply either sewer hook-up or septic systems design for the lots. TheTown has informed Mr. Linebarger of the process he would need to follow in order to obtainadditional hook-ups beyond the one he is entitled to while still in the County.
Once annexed the current configuration of the lots would allow floor areas of 2,800, 3,100 and5,000 square feet. Two of the parcels would require Conditional Development Permit approvaland setback variances due to the size and narrowness of the parcels (Municipal Code Section 101.1007(3) and Municipal Code Section 10-1.1007(2) Attached #6). If an application is submittedfor development with the Town, the Planning Commission must make specific findings toapprove the project and may decide to place specific conditions on the project.
If Mr. Linebarger's three parcels remain in the same ownership, then future development mayrequire that the parcels are merged if they are contiguous and do not conform to standards forminimum parcel size (Municipal Code Section 9-1.301) (Attachment #4).
Staff discussed the possibility of reconfiguring his three properties by merging the three parcelsinto two parcels to make more conforming lot sizes. One lot would need to stay at the existing.85 acre size and the second would be .77 acres. If this were accomplished then the lots wouldnot require Conditional Development Permits or setback variances. Mr. Linebarger wanted tostudy the project costs and benefits to this solution before he would decide how to proceed.
The Town received three letters objecting to the development of the three parcels owned by Mr.Linebarger.
The San Antonio Hills Homeowners Association, objects to the County's approval of the threeunderlying lots as legal (Attachment #7). They would like to be on record in support of theannexation provided that Mr. Linebarger's lot remains one single building site.
Mr. Harold Feeney, neighbor to the annexation (11030 Mora Drive) objects to the Linebargerparcels having more than one sewer connection available to the three parcels (Attachment #8).
Mr. Aart de Geus, Dr. Esther John, Mr. Enrique and Judy Klein, Mr. Tae Hea and Ms. RosemarieNahn, Mr. Edward and Gerda Cristal and Mrs. Ruth Winchell submitted a letter objecting to the
Staff RepOlt to the City CouncilMora Drive AnnexationOctober 18, 2012Page 4 of5
Town granting one sewer connection to Mr. Linebarger to be used on either of the twounderlying parcels (Attachment #9).
StreetsThe Town's Engineering Consultant conducted a street survey and found the streets within theannexation area to have a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of 76 for Mora Drive, 46 for SunhillsDrive and 80 for the portion of Kenbar (Attachment #10). It was observed that most of thestreets in the annexation area seem to be well maintained however in need of some upgrade to theTown standards. Town standards, for newly constructed roads, are a PCI of 75. Mora Drive andKenbar Road currently meet the Town's PCI standards. Sunhills Drive however, falls short witha PCI of 46. To complete an asphalt overlay and improve the existing drainage system on thisstreet (no street widening) it is estimated that it would cost $52,000. To bring this street up toTown Standards for width and the cost would be $226,800. The Town Engineer isrecommending that the street not be widened because the Fire Department has indicated that thestreet provides adequate access for emergency response vehicles (Attachment #11).
Staff recommends that the Council, as a condition of annexation approval, require the County todeposit funds with the Town in the amount of $52,000 for street repairs to Sunhills Drive to thesatisfaction of the City Engineer.
Taxes and Fees
It is anticipated that there will be no increase in taxes to the new residents.
FISCAL IMPACT
The additional cost of serving the annexed properties will be offset by additional property taxrevenue. The total net value of assessed parcels is $30,887,032 (includes land andimprovements). This assessed value will result in additional tax revenue to the Town ofapproximately $9,640 for the 2014-2015 tax year. The final numbers will be calculated by theBoard of Equalization and the County Finance Agency when the final annexation is recorded byLAFCO.
CEQASTATUS
In accordance with Section 15319(a), of the California Environmental Quality Act this project iscategorically exempt.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS
No additional comment letters have been received at this time.
Staff RepOlt to the City CouncilMora Drive AnnexationOctober 18,2012Page 5 of5
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution with Attachments2. LAFCO Protest Threshold Flow Chart3. List of Parcels within Mora Drive Annexation Area4. Municipal Code Section 9-1.310 Merging of parcels5. Municipal Code Section 10-1.401 Nonconforming structures6. Municipal Code Sections 10-1.1007(3) conditional Development Permits and 10-1.1007(2)
Variances7. Letter from San Antonio Hills dated October 18,20128. Letter from Harold Feeney dated October 9,20129. Letter and brief primer of history from neighbors dated October 8, 201210. Mora Drive Annexation Study - Field Assessment and Estimated Cost dated 10/2/1211. Fire Department letter dated 9/20/1212. City Council staff report 9/20/12
RepOli prepared by: Cynthia Richardson, Planning Consultant
Attacmnent 1
DRAFTRESOLUTION No.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THETOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS MAKING DETERMINATIONS AND APPROVING
THE ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS "MORA DRIVE"CONSISTING OF 24 PARCELS, ENCOMPASSING ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS:
331-14-063,331-15-014,331-15015,331-15-016,331-15-023,331-15-036~331-15-043,
331-15-044,331-15-046,331-15-047,331-15-050,331-15-051,331-15-055,331-15-056,331-15-057,331-15-060,331-15-061, 331-15-062, 331-15-021, 331-16-101, 331-17-043,
331-17-056,331-17-057 and 331-17-085), LOCATED ON THESOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF LOS ALTOS fiLLS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills ("Town") has received arequest for annexation of territory designated as Mora Drive from propelty owners in the MoraDrive neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, on September 20, 2012, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 53-12initiating proceedings for annexation of the area designated as Mora Drive; and
WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code Section 56757, the City Council of theTown of Los Altos Hills shall be the conducting authority for a reorganization includingannexation to the Town; and
WHEREAS, the following findings are made by the City Council of the Town of LosAltos Hills:
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
That said terrirory is inhabited and comprises approximately 27.5acres.
That the annexation is categorically exempt in· accordance withSection 15319(a), of the California Environmental Quality Act.
The City Council on August 2, 2001 enacted an ordinance prezoning the subject territory with R-A zoning designation.
That the territory is within the city urban service area as adoptedby the Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa ClaraCounty.
That the County Surveyor of Santa Clara County has found thelegal description and map (attached Exhibits A and B) to be inaccordance with Government Code Section 56757, the boundariesto be definite and celtain, and the proposal to be in compliancewith LAFCO's road annexation policies.
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
That the proposal does not split lines of assessment or ownership.
That the proposal does not create islands or areas in which it wouldbe difficult to provide municipal services.
That the proposal is consistent with the adopted general plan of thecity.
That the telTitory is contiguous to existing city limits.
That the city has complied with all conditions imposed by theCouncil for inclusion of the telTitory in the urban service area.
WHEREAS, said telTitory is inhabited and all owners of land included in proposal havenot consented to this annexation.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 57025 and Section 57026,the City Clerk of the Town of Los Altos Hills has provided mailed notice of the hearing on thereorganization and notification of their eligibility to protest this annexation proceeding withinstructions on how to prepare a valid, written protest; and .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the Town of Los AltosHills does RESOLVE as follows:
1. The County of Santa Clara shall provide the Town of Los Altos Hills with aRoad Repair Agreement and deposit funds with the Town in the amount of $52,000 for roadimprovement work within the Mora Drive annexation area.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon completion of these reorganizationproceedings the annexed area will be detached from Santa Clara County.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town of Los Altos Hills is the conductingauthority pursuant to Section 57000 of the government Code for the protest proceedings for thereorganization ofthe property designated as Mora Drive and sets November 19,2012 as the datefor the City to conduct said protest proceedings.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon completion of these reorganizationproceedings the telTitory reorganized will be taxed on the regular county assessment roll,including taxes for existing bond indebtness.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the Town of Los AltosHills on this __ day of 2012, by the following vote:
AYES:
2
NAYS:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Rich Larsen, MayorBy: ----:p;::~:=-~----
ATTEST:
City Clerk
3
EXHIBIT"A"GEOGRAPIDC DESCRIPTION
ANNEXATION TO THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HlLLSMORA DRIVE ANNEXATION
All that certain real property being a portion of San Antonio Rancho, situated in theCounty of Santa Clara, State of California, more particularly described as follows:
BegilUuug at a point on the Southerly right of way line of Chardonnay Lane and comer of the
al1l1exation to the Town afLos Altos Hills entitled "West Loyola Annexation" and recorded asDoc. # 19623318 on October 18, 2007, Santa Clara County Records, said point being the most
Westerly corner ofParcel A as shown on the Parcel Map recorded in Book 350 ofMaps at Page36, Santa Clara County Records;Thence along said town limit (1) South 46 Degrees 10 Minutes 15 Seconds East a length of141.75 feet;Thence (2) North 44 Degrees 03 Minutes 10 Seconds East a length of 74.96 feet;Thence leaving said town limit (3) South 45 Degrees 56 Minutes 50 Seconds East a length of348.03 feet to the Westerly right ofway line ofMora Drive (right of way varies);Thence (4) 166.93 feet along a non-tangent curve to the right and along Westerly right of wayline, said curve having a radius of230.00 feet, a delta 41 Degree 35 Minutes 03 Seconds and aradial bearing South 49 Degrees 34 Minutes 36 Seconds East;
Thence (5) leaving said right of way South 07 Degrees 59 Minutes 33 Seconds East a length of55.00 feet to the Easterly right of way line ofMora Drive;Thence along said right of way (6) 132.29 feet along a non-tangent curve to the left, said curvehaving radius of 175.00 feet a delta 43 Degrees 18 Minutes 47 Seconds and radial bearing South07 Degrees 59 Minutes 33 Seconds East;Thence (7) South 38 Degrees 41 Minutes 40 Seconds West a length of 116.96 feet;Thence (8) 63.71 feet alonga tangent curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 975.00 and·delta 3 Degrees 44 Minutes 38 Seconds; .
Thence (9) leaving said right of way line South 55 Degrees 18 Minutes 20 Seconds East a lengthof307.27 feet to the Easterly boundary ofTract No. 10,'recorded in Book Y ofMaps at Page 53,Santa Clara County Records;Thence (10) along said boundary South 18 Degrees 41 Minutes 00 Seconds West a length of
61.38 feet;Thence (11) South 38 degrees 36 Minutes 00 Seconds West a length of 131.93 feet;
Thence (12) South 26 Degrees 37 Minutes 19 Seconds West a length of 151.61 feet;
1
Thence (13) South 06 Degrees 17 Minutes 52 Seconds West a length of 183.89 to theNOlihwesterly comer of Parcell as shown on the Parcel Map recorded in Book 656 ofMaps atPage 1 Santa Clara County Records;Thence (14) leaving said boundary ofTract No.1 0 and following said Parcell South 78 Degrees56 Minutes 02 Seconds East a length of 132.84 feet;Thence (15) South 45 Degrees 28 Minutes 09 Seconds East a length of 55.50 feet;Thence (16) South 21 Degrees 31 Minutes 30 Seconds West a length of 105.76·feet;Thence (17) South 36 Degrees 04 Minutes 12 Seconds East a length of 58.00 feet;Thence (18) South 13 Degrees 48 Minutes 31 Seconds West a length of 172.33 feet;Thence (19) along said Southerly boundary said Parcell and of said Tract No. 10 South 87Degrees 08 Minutes 00 Seconds West a length of 931.42 feet;Thence (20) NOlih 16 Degrees 55 Minutes 00 Seconds East a length of249.25 feet;Thence (21) North 73 Degrees 05 Minutes 00 Seconds West a length of 274.38 feet to theEasterly right ofway line ofKenbar Drive (40 feet wide);Thence (22) along said right of way line NOlih 19 Degrees 13 Minutes 00 Seconds East a lengthof 340.31 feet;Thence (23) North 38 Degrees 11 Minutes 00 Seconds East a length of 194.64 feet;Thence (24) leaving said right of way line N0l1h 27 Degrees 37 Minutes 00 Seconds West alength of 148.80 feet to the existing Town limit established by mmexation to the Town of LosAltos Hills entitled "West Loyola Annexation" recorded as Doc." #19623318 011 October 18,2007, Santa Clara County Records;Thence (25) along said annexation NOlih 27 Degrees 37 Minutes 00 Seconds West a length of93.87 feet;Thence (26) North 62 Degrees 23 Minutes 00 Seconds East a length of318.19 feet to theWesterly right of way line of Sunhills Drive (40 feet wide);Thence (27) along said right of way line South 12 Degrees 44 Minutes 15 Seconds East a lengthof74.75 feet;Thence (28) across Sunhills Drive North 77 Degrees 15 Minutes 45 Seconds East "a length of40.18 feet to the Easterly right of way line ofSunnhills Drive (40 feet wide);Thence (29) along said lights of way line North 12 Degrees 44 Minutes 15 Seconds West alength of l04.25 feet;Thence (30) NOlth 36 "Degrees 44 Minutes 15 Seconds West a length of 48.82 feet;Thence (31) leaving said right ofway and continuing along said town limit North 62 Degrees 56Minutes 50 Seconds East a length of 80.05 feet;Thence (32) North 32 Degrees 08 Minutes 35 Seconds East a length of 148.00 feet;
"Thence (33) N0l1li 16 Degrees 35 minutes 49 Seconds East a length of 66.40 feet;Thence (34) NOlth 44 Degrees 13 Minutes 16 Seconds West a length of 109.73 feet to theSoutherly right ofway line of Chardonnay Lane;Thence (35) along said right of way line North 84 Degrees 15 Minutes 45 Seconds East a lengthof 104.60 feet to the point ofbeginning. "
2
Containing 27.5 acres more or less.
SEPTEMBER 24, 2012
REVISED: October 3, 2012
Disclaimer:
"For assessment purposes only. This description of land is not a legalproperty description as defined in the Subdivision Map Act and may not beused as the basis for an offer for sale of the land described."
3
VICINITY MAP
SITE
EXHIBIT BPROPOSED ANNEXATION TOTOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
ENTITLED MORA DRIVEANNEXATION
BEING A PORTION OF SAN ANTONIO RANCHO
(R)
_,,1_111_..._.,._.11_
EXISTINGCITY LIMIT
LEGEND"PROPERTY LINE
. CENTERLINE ,EXISTING TOWN LIMIT.LIMIT OF ANNEXAnONRADIAL BEARING
Disclaimer:"For assessment purposes only. this description ofland is not a legal property description as defined inthe Subdivision Map Act and may not be used asthe basis for an offer for sale of the landdescribed,"
DATE:SEPT.20, 2012 JOB. NO, 2012-102
BY: HARRY BABICKA REVISED 10-3-2012SHEET 1 OF 2
WESTFALL ENGINEERS, INC,SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA
(17)S36'04'12"E
58,00'
o 10 RANCHO
(15)S45'28'09"E
55,50'
APN 331-15-061
APN 331-15-060
POINT OFBEGINNING
::::E APN 331-15-062
APN331-15-050
t;;j!1fij'. .{;SC
APN 331-15-021 .-:J""'-!~_..--_......---
~)S87'08iOO'''W931. 2Disclaimer;"For assessment purposes only, this descriptIon of land Isnot a legol property description as defined In theSubdivisIon Mop Act and may not be used as the basisfor on offer for sale of the land described."
qt.J0'
&,0 APNCVil)
-";'!f) ~:331-15-047
~l----Areo wIthin annexation Is 27.5 ocres, more or less.
EX. LIMIT OFTOWN OF LOSALTOS HILLSPER "WEST LOYOLA (31)ANNEXATION" N62'56'SO"E 8005'DOC. #19623318 .
LEGENDPROPERTY LINECENTERLINEEXISTING TOWN LIMIT _ ..._ ...- ...- ...- ...-LIMIT OF ANNEXATIONRADIAL BEARING (R) NNAY
CHARe~N~_---(34) N44'13'16"W109.73' ------ ~04.60'
N16'35'49"E 66040' ~,,(35)(33)
(30) N36'44'15"W 48.8 '
(27)512'44'15"E 74.75'
(28)N77'15'45"E 40(18:\C3 "
\..'),~ -;>,>y.~d'~'
~1'2.-"?~PN I~ , 331-17-085 I I
.~~ ~'!I~:.:.. ~O; I
, ~ ~ "; /1, Q ~I
SCALE' /1"-200' D~~ I APN,- I 331-17-057
~<VII ,~ ~~
<) / ~or':S\/ .... \Y
(Q:/~I
0/~~
// .
//
/I
Mora Drive Annexation
13 Proposed Annexation Area
Ir£~1 Town of los Altos Hills~Feelo 40 80 160 240
Attachment 2
PROTEST THRESHOLDSGC §57075
For change of organizations or reorganizations InvolVing annexations and/or detachments
Inhabited'" Proposals (GC §57075[aJ)*Areas in which 12 or more registered voters reside (GC §56046)
If written protest is submitted by:
1 lMajority of Voters
Less than 25% of VotersAt least 25% but less than 50%
(GC §57078)OR
of Voters within the affected
l -Less than 25% of number ofterritory
landowners owning less thanOR
25% of the assessed value ofAt least 25% of number of
Terminate Pro·ceedihgs land within the affectedlandowners who also ownat least 25% of assessed
territoryland value within the affected
territory
1Order Proposal without Election 1
Order ProposalSubject to Voter Election
Uninhabited Proposals (GC §57075[bJ)
I Ifwritten protest is submitted by: II
1 1!
landowners owning 50%Landowners owning lessor more of assessed value of
totaf land within the territory than 50% oftotal value of land
(GC §57078) within the affected territory.
1 1Terminate Proceedings Order Proposal without Election
LAFCO of Santa Clara CountyFebruary 2012
Mora Drive Neighborhood Initiated AnnexationList of Parcels for Annexation
Attachment 3
I"" .~ -ffi', 'APN#",~·Jf'·: Ir" ''', ~";Jipiijreti"iY O~er'~i, ot~: "I,;' ....'iI"·' L\~d~t;ss '-:;;x ""'~~i; ,liFA~t:ei'ge*'" I" As,sessed ~NumberOfI'e ' '";ii"" .'it". 7" ' .. :'l'1 ' _, 'iii , ,,"~' ,': ,c'ill ~.. "" ~' i.'Fl . - " ." ',., "" 'i'e. ' ,;:~~,o bll '" ,if.,. '-:!.,-;~. I'" ..:,Valqe~", ~ Voters '*
,.... I'''' ,." 331'14'063 ' K1eiii, ,EPrlque'ang ipqith" 10710 Mora Drive", ,1;0' g'" '" 1.07 2,392,000 2·-'c' 0" .c'.
2' 33L150Hf'" I~GilRJ.an",Ricliaf'dand-Patricia '10915 MoraDrive!&" ,';'~ , - 1.15 > 208,233 2.'. 3~" " '; ~3J i5O:l5 J~Nalinr,FihnilyT'mst ~ 10869 Mor~Orive, ''', -!' :-i
I~ 1.62 ;.4,055,150 5'4ill' ~.. 331't5 0)9.':: . Madser,., Jonathan'a4d Deidre ' 10g31~Manibrive !!i,,, 'i: ·,r.:-; -~, '
1.QO 2 .. :f . ",~",,,,. ,
2, 2,076,720 ·"~f·~
$"" 33t'l,t-02l:£ I'Windfili~Rutn'~1.\ ":'.~.
10776 Mora DJive 'V'-"''';"'" lor."1~~2" 158;873 .. 2.,. '.; '''-
~ ',6 'I~ 33i 16)}36' I'; Hooper~ SllZiii~ll~ 'ana P¢ter 10401 Sliphi11.s Drive, -~'.,:: '
, ~ 1.02 2,196,325"
1.c, ~. ~
i ~,; , ,33,lr;f15.04,3 i;:;€rockett;'E b andAnn 10898 MQra prive _. "'<"," ',,~,",;
~9,9 3.87,178 " , 2III-,,~ i'l!
. '3'.3r1$'044$ ~ 1,,~8l)H~:B:r:ian baQramco,
1093J Mora Drive ',I~! 'f.'~; or 2"l64,791..
,48, . "e 1.72 " '(,.";. 9, ",' I'~ 3.31" lS""e)46'" " "'["" "'I!"~' . ". " 10701 M,ora Urlv~ 1.09' 2,020,752 : 1' De(}euf>~ f\.igt and Esth,:ei:Jofuj. . ~
,10 331;lSA:>47 ' <DeGeus '1-\&1 and Esther JoIm Vl;lcant ,''C '.' .-;"b02 690,132 0~. .' , .' ~
t11 33 t'lS,O$O" Qnstai, Edward' and Gerda \i', !', l()755 Mora'Drive ,n¥~',
.93 178,364.~,
212 ' 331 150sf • ' Bratfbp IT'imptijy"'and Susan,' l0691 Moranrive~' .'"
.. ,~.93, 1,409,155 /" 013 ,1 ' 33ll56~5 '," ,WYIDe]enpe~g, Jo~eph B'V 108JQ Mora Drive ~ .65 1,893~.oOO 314 ,~'33115056 Giibert, JeIlJ').1fer . "'~ :,-;'0 1Og40 Mora Drive""" ~ ~;~' -', '. ~: .79." 2,682,446 2,
~I' 15'> ,,<, 3'31.t'5~D5j~' "H9mby, Grace .,'" "- '" 10868'Mora'J)ri-ve ' ~'" m' :, ~ .78 164,744 1
16 331 15060 Linebarger, Forrest 10730 Mora Drive .85 1,743,000 117 331 15061 Linebarger, Forrest Vacant .37 719,437 018 331 15062 Linebarger, Forrest Vacant .40 781,996 019 ,331~r5~021 :W, KI ~:, "'''' gfui 1'''h d ~ 'vacant, access eas.emenf '~ '",43 . 78~398 ,,-1:. 0."': ',em, \';ou, B ,ane,' ar ~; , •",e
"".,,20"" ~3 r~l&-1-01') Yuen.Roben''''and Vanifa ',' 10451 Sunh'ills:Dnve' 'j!! ~.
, "1.15 191,982 'r'. ,;.; 2e", ~' " .
, 21" .'Cassin; Brel1dart&· Is~bel .~ . - .~"- .. , " ...' ";' 1.11 832,.p47 >0,,: f O', ,.. ~ 10364 KeJ;J:bar Road (~e:Qnis ct. , <;,
3~I~F7".043 '.' .,
" ;; , ,~'!!' & poolno residence) . ,~
"f. ,,. .j
~2 ',t' .. 33111v-056 ,"'; . '" .. .-'" " 10364 Kenbar'Road ~l "'.. . 1':"
3,199,824 3'{~assi~, BFend~ &, I&ab~l ~., 1; ii,' 1.9423 '.. ;"331'::17-057' - Taketa, Or~yson & Marilyn" ' 104~0 Kenbar Road
.-1.13 ~ "277359 2.: ",,'," " ,,0 . , ,
:24', . ~31-i7'-08$ ~ :Sliimi, Jo1u;J.' & piaHlcj~'~ , 10451 K~nbar Road ;; ..... ,;y;, " .92" 385,126 2TOT~ ."
,-.~ ~24.28 30,881,03J
",. ,1 39: ... "'. .. 'l".:c "L
* Infonnation obtained from Santa Clara County Assessor and Registrar ofVoters offices.Parcels highlighted in blue are property owners who have submitted petitions agreeing to the annexation.
9-1.310 Merging of parcels not conforming to minimum parcel or lot size standarcAttachment 4
Los Altos Hills Municipal Code
Up Previous Next Main
Title 9 SUBDIVISIONS AND PLAN LINESChapter 1 SUBDIVISIONSArticle 3. General Provisions
Search Print No Frames
9-1.310 Merging of parcels not conforming to minimum parcel or lot size standards.
If one of two or more contiguous parcels or units of land in the City owned by the same owner does notconform to standards for minimum parcel or lot size to permit its use or development under the zoning law oftheCity or this chapter or any other provision ofthe Municipal Code or any uncodified ordinance of the City, and atleast one of such contiguous parcels or units is not developed with a building for which a permit has been issuedby the City or which was built prior to the time such permits were required by the City, then such parcels shall bemerged for the purpose of the Subdivision Map Act of the State, and specifically Section 66424.2 of theGovermnent Code of California. (§ 1, Ord. 250)
http://qcode.uslcodes/losaltoshills/view.php?topic=9-1-3-9_1_31 O&frames=on 10/11/2012
10-1.401 Nonconforming structures.Attachment 5
Los Altos Hills Municipal Code
Up Previous Next Main
Title 10 ZONING AND SITE DEVELOPMENTChapter 1 ZONINGArticle 4. Nonconforming Uses and Structures
10-1.401 Nonconforming structures.
Search Print No Frames
(a) Damaged or Destroyed Structures. The provisions of this chapter shall not prevent the reconstruction,repairing, or rebuilding of any legal nonconforming structure which has been damaged or destroyed bynatural disaster, including but not limited to earthquake, fire and flood, so long as the reconstruction, repairor rebuilding does not result in an increase in the nonconformity or change of use that existed prior to thedamage or reconstruction.
(b) Less Than Substantially Rebuilt Structures. The provisions of this chapter shall not prevent thereconstruction, repairing, or rebuilding of any legal nonconforming structure which will be voluntarilyaltered such that not more than fifty (50) percent of the nonconforming pOltion of the structure's floor areaand not more than fifty (50) percent of the nonconforming exterior walls are rebuilt, either as a singleproject or cumulatively over time, so long as the reconstruction, repair or rebuilding does not result in anincrease in the nonconformity or change of use that existed prior to the reconstruction. The structuredimensions, square footage and use prior to demolition must be submitted to and verified by the PlanningDirector at the time of issuance of a demolition permit or site development permit, whichever occurs first.
(c) Substantially Rebuilt Structures. The provisions of this chapter shall not prevent the reconstruction,repairing, or rebuilding of any legal nonconforming structure which will be voluntarily altered such thatmore than fifty (50) percent of the nonconforming portion of the structure's floor area or more than fifty(50) percent of the nonconforming exterior walls are rebuilt, subject to the limitations outlined insubsection (b), unless the Planning Commission finds that: (l) the structure could be relocated elsewhere onthe site, accommodating the same square footage and development area existing previously withoutsubstantial environmental damage, and (2) relocation of the structure would substantially reduce adversevisual or privacy impacts to neighbors or to the general public.
(d) Development Area and Floor Area. The provisions of this chapter shall not prevent the reconstruction,repair or rebuilding of the amount of legal nonconforming development area or floor area (in excess of thearea allowed by Sections 10-1.502 and 10-1.503, respectively, of the Zoning Code), provided that thereconstruction, repair or rebuilding does not result in an increase in the nonconformity or change of use thatexisted prior to the reconstruction. Development area and floor area location, square footage and use priorto demolition must be submitted to and verified by the Planning Director at the time of issuance of ademolition pennit or site development pennit, whichever occurs first.
(e) Time limit for approval. If pursuant to reconstruction, repair or rebuilding under subsections (b)through (d) above, a complete application for a site development permit or building permit is not submittedprior to one year after the date the structure or pOltion thereof was demolished, or not later than two (2)years after demolition in the case of damaged or destroyed structures addressed in subsection (a), any newconstruction must meet all of the then current Zoning Code provisions. The City Council may, at itsdiscretion, authorize an extension of time for submittal of an application, upon written request by theapplicant prior to the expiration of the prescribed time limit.
(±) Height. Notwithstanding the above provisions (b), (c) and (d), no legal nonconforming structure orportion thereof shall be voluntarily demolished and/or altered to result in a building height in excess of thatpermitted by this chapter, unless the Planning Commission finds that such height is appropriate due to thehistoric nature of the structure.
http://qcode.us/codes/losaltoshills/view.php?topic=10-1-4-10_1_401 &frames=on 10/1112012
10-1.401 Nonconforming structures. Page 2 of2
(g) Additions to nonconforming structures. Any addition to a legal nonconforming structure shall complywith all provisions of this chapter, except that the Planning Director may approve additions not to exceedone hundred fifty (150) square feet in area to be located within a setback, if the Director finds that: (1) theencroachment would be a continuation of an existing encroaching building edge, (2) the addition wouldencroach no closer to the propeliy line than the adjacent building edge, (3) the addition would be limited toone story, not to exceed nineteen (19) feet in height, (4) the addition is desirable in order to providearchitectural consistency with the remainder of the structure, (5) the addition would have no adverse visualor privacy impacts on neighbors or the general public; and (6) the addition would be consistent with floorarea and development area limitations of the Zoning Code.
(h) Legal Nonconforming Structure. For the purposes of this section, a legal nonconforming structure isone which was legally permitted at the time it was constructed, or legally permitted by an approvedvariance but which does not comply with one or more of the Town's current Zoning Code provisions.
(i) Increase in Nonconformity. An increase in nonconformity will occur when any nonconformingstructure or portion thereof is altered to increase the footprint, volume or height, or to further exceedmaximum development area or floor area, or to increase the extent of encroachment into a setback or topropose an encroachment or excess development area in a different location than previously existed.
G) Change of Use. A change of use means conversion of a non-habitable structure (such as garages,cal'pOlis, barns/stables, or storage) to residential uses (main residence, secondary dwelling, pool house,etc.), or the conversion of an outdoor use area (walkway, patio) to a more intensive use (swimming pool,tennis comi). Change of use is only relevant to setback nonconfonnities. Change of use to a less intensiveuse may be permitted by the Planning Director.
(k) Variances. Nothing in this section is intended to prohibit a propelty owner from seeking, or thePlanning Commission and City Council from granting, a variance pursuant to the appropriate provisions ofthe Zoning Code. (§ 1, Ord. 305, eff. October 3, 1986; § 1, Ord. 344, eff. May 17, 1991; § 1, Ord. 345, eff.April 17, 1991; § 1, Ord. 387, eff. August 1, 1997)
http://qcode.us/codes/losaltoshills/view.php?topic=10-1-4-10_1_401 &frames=on 10111/2012
10-1.1007(3) Conditional development permits-Approval-Condition.Attachment 6
Los Altos Hills Municipal CodeUp Previous Next Main Search Print No Frames
Title 10 ZONING AND SITE DEVELOPMENTChapter 1 ZONINGArticle 10. Appeals, Variances, Conditional Use Permits, Conditional Development Permits and Amendments
10-1.1007(~ Conditional development permits-Al?cp:...:ro:...:v:..::a:.:.I--=C:..::0c:..:n:.=d:.:..:it:.:..io::..:nc::.~ _
(a) On substandard lots, due to the difficulty of accommodating development which meets the objectivesand standards of the Town, any lot which has a lot unit factor of .50 or less shall require a ConditionalDevelopment Permit from the Planning Commission. In addition, any lot significantly constrained by ahuman habitation setback for geologic hazard areas or a nonhuman habitation setback for noise shallrequire a Conditional Development Pertnit from the Planning Commission, unless the ZoningAdministrator finds that the lot is not significantly constrained by such setback or zone. Prior to thegranting of any permit, the Planning Commission must find that:
(l) The site for the proposed development is adequate in size, shape and topography toaccommodate the proposed intensity of development, including all structures, yards, open spaces,parking, landscaping, walls and fences, and such other features as may be required by this chapter.
(2) The size and design of the proposed structures create a proper balance, unity and harmoniousappearance in relation to the size, shape and topography of the site and in relation to the surroundingneighborhood;
(3) The rural character of the site has been preserved as much as feasible by minimizing vegetationand tree removal, excessive and unsightly grading and alteration of natural land forms.
(4) The proposed development is in compliance with all regulations and policies set forth in the SiteDevelopment ordinance.
(b) Every Conditional Development Permit granted may be subject to such conditions as are deemednecessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare and to secure the objectives set forth inthe findings above. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, reduction in MaximumDevelopment Area allowed, reduction in Maximum Floor Area allowed, installation of landscaping, andresisting of structures. (§ 1, Ord. 305, eff. October 3,1986; § 6, Ord. 314, eff. November 6,1987; § 1, Ord.337, eff. September 14, 1990; Ord. 338, eff. September 19, 1990; § 1, Ord. 341, eff. January 4, 1991)
http://qcode.uslcodes/losaltoshills/view.php?topic=10-1-10-10_1_1007_3 &frames=on 10111/2012
10-1.1007(2) Variances-Approval-Conditions. Page 1 of2
Los Altos Hills Municipal CodeUp Previous Next Main Search Print No Frames
Title 10 ZONING AND SITE DEVELOPMENTChapter 1 ZONINGArticle 10. Appeals. Variances, Conditional Use Permits. Conditional Development Permits and Amendments
10-1.1007~)Variances-Ap~roval-Conditions.
The Staff Committee comprised of the Zoning Administrator and City Manager or designee (herein called the"Staff Committee") and Planning Commission are empowered to grant variances from the requirements of thistitle. The Staff Committee or Planning Commission shall act as the authority to grant variances as specified insubsections (d) and (e) below.
(a) Purpose. The purpose of the variance is to resolve practical difficulties or undue hardships, not of theapplicant's own making, which may result from the exceptional size, shape, topography, location, or otherphysical site conditions, or the use or development ofproperty in the immediate vicinity. In this context,personal, family, or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are notpractical difficulties or hardships justifYing a variance. In some cases, the location of existing structuresmay result in a practical difficulty or hardship.
(b) Findings. The Staff Committee or Planning Commission may grant the requested variance in whole orin part only if, from the application or the facts presented at the public hearing, it can affirmatively find thatall of the following four (4) requirements have been met:
(1) That, because of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject property,including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the provisions ofthis title is found to deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity andunder identical zoning classification;
(2) That upon the granting of the variance, the intent and purpose of the applicable sections of thistitle will still be served and the recipient of the variance will not be granted special privileges notenjoyed by other surrounding property owners;
(3) That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare orinjurious to the property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and within the samezoning district;
(4) That the variance will not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorizedby the zoning district regulations governing the parcel or property.
(c) Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the adjustment therebyauthorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations on otherproperties in the vicinity within the same zoning district.
(d) The Staff Committee shall act as the permitting body for all applications involving the following:
(1) Maximum Development Area (MDA). Requests to exceed MDA by five hundred (500) squarefeet or less;
(2) Maximum Floor Area (MFA). Requests to exceed MFA by one hundred fifty (150) square feetor less;
(3) Setbacks. Requests for encroachments into any setback of two (2) feet or less and measuring onehundred fifty (150) square feet of floor area or less;
(4) Fences and Walls. Requests to locate fences on the roadway side of the "reference line" defmedin Section 10-1.504(d)(1).
http://qcode.uslcodes/losaltoshills/view.php?topic=10-1-10-10_1_1007_2&frames=on 10/11/2012
10-1.1007(2) Variances-Approval-Conditions. Page 2 of2
(e) The Planning Commission shall act as the permitting body for all variance applications involving thefollowing:
(1) Maximum Development Area (MDA). Requests to exceed MDA by more than two hundred fifty(250) square feet;
(2) Maximum Floor Area (MFA). Requests to exceed MFA by more than one hundred fifty (150)square feet;
(3) Setbacks. Requests for encroachment into any setback of more than two (2) feet and measuringless than one hundred fifty (150) square feet of floor area;
(4) Height. All requests for height envelope encroachments, to exceed maximum height of twentyseven (27) feet and/or to exceed special height limitation of thirty-five (35) feet;
(5) Others. All other variance applications not specified above, and any applications referred to thePlanning Commission by the Zoning Administrator.
(§ 1, Ord. 305, eff. October 3, 1986; § 5, Ord. 314, eff. November 6, 1987; § 3, Ord. 326, eff. September 16,1988)
http://qcode.us/codes/losaltoshills/view.php?topic=10-1-10-10_1_1007_2&frames=on 10/11/2012
Attachment 7SAN ANTONIO HILLS, Il\
P. O. BOX 54 LOS ALTOS (LOYOLA). CALIFORNIA 94022
October 18, 2012
Los Altos Hills, City Council.
RE: Mora Drive, Annexati<;m:
Peter Mc Sweeney speaking on behalf of San Antonio Hills Inc. The homeownersassociation that represehts the' upper Mora Drive area in matters of mutual concern, andsponsors the Approval Committee that is named in the CC&R's that are contained. in ALLthe deeds of the noted parcels SUbject to this annexation.
The parcel under discussion is a improved PARCEL made up of a single whole nonconforming lot of Jo Mora Ranch, a.k.a. Lot #2, containing .83 acre. The PARCEL alsocontains a MINORITY portion of adjacent Lot #1, and a MINORITY portion of adjacent Lot#3, making up a single building site, conforming whole PARCEL of 1.6 acres :- 1.378 acresNET. (Lots shown on maps are to center of Mora Drive and are subject to a 20' roadeasement.) Please note Mr. Linebarger repeatedly refers to these two remnant portions oflots 1& 3 as underlying lots. Underlying lot is defined as " parcel that includes not less thanone ENTIRE lot as shown on any subdivision map which was recorded in the Office of theCounty Recorder PRIOR to the adoption of this ordinance" These two (2) minorityremnants are PORTIONS of lots, and NOT underlying lots.
These CC&R's are locked in as written and NOT as amended from time to time, SantaClara County Zoning, ORO. 167/120, as of May 1941. They preserve this area as REB4 1 Acre, OR any WHOLE parcel* at the writing of the ordinance, and "the owner thereofowns NO adjoining land".( *Parcel defined, "All contiguous property in the position of the owner.")
These CC&R's have been judged to be existing and enforceable as recently as 1996 byThe California Supreme Court. It is the opinion of the Board of Directors of San AntonioHills Inc. that this improved parcel is a Single building site. and accordingly Los Altos Hills
. zoning or CC&R's whichever is more restrictive, should apply to any improvement andANY deviation to lesser restrictions is illegal and should be pursued in civil court.
The San Antonio Hills Board of Directors would like to be on the record as in support of thiscomplete as proposed annexation of this area to the Town of Los Altos Hills, provided thezing , forcement remains as discussed here, and results in status quo density.
!F r tl;}e irectors
Parcel descriptionJO MORA RANCH Tract #10 Santa Clara County CA 1932Lot #1 .80 acre. Minority portion 14,951 sq. ft. NET, Lot #2 .83 acre, Whole Lot33,455 sq. ft. NET, Lot #3 .80 acre Minority portion 16,058 . ft.Parcel Gross area 1.6 Acre, less right of way, NET DEVELOPABLE 1.378 Acre
Inc. p.m., g.b., I.h., tt., Lc.,r.b.,l.s.
RECEIVED
REPRESENTING HOME OWNERS IN THE UNINCORPORATED 1.05 AI.TOS AREATOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
ESTABLISHED 1941 INCORPORATE:D 1947
Attachment 8Harold V. Feeney
11030 Mora Drive. Los Altos. CA 94024_____-,----- Mobile
October 9, 2012
Hon. Rich Larsen, Mayor26379 Fremont RoadLos Altos Hills, CA 94022
RE: Sewer Connection on Mora Drive
Dear Mayor Larsen:
This letter is a follow-up to our recent conversation about sewer connections onMora Drive. You made the point that any new hook-up to the sewer line on MoraDrive should be consistent with the process that has historically been in place forthe neighbors. You were concerned that Mr. Linebarger should be treated the sameas other neighbors. I agree that all neighbors should be treated equally. However,Mr. Linebarger is requesting special treatment that has not been available to hisMora Drive neighbors.
When LAFCO approved the sewer project on Mora Drive, it only approved a singlesewer connection for each of 28 properties, all properties with existing homes andseptic systems or with existing County-approved building sites. This is an importantdistinction because building sites on Mora Drive were approved before the sewerbecame available. Building sites on Mora Drive were not approved because of theavailability of the sewer. In the case of Mr. Linebarger, he is requesting that abuilding site be approved BECAUSE he would have access to a sewer provided byLos Altos Hills. Mr. Linebarger is asking for special treatment that was not affordedto any other resident of Mora Drive. This special treatment should not bepermitted. An excerpt from LAFCO's Staff Report of February 12, 2001 is attached.
As I understand the current situation, Mr. Linebarger purchased a 1.6 "acre propertyon Mora Drive-in 2006, the County accepted underlying lot lines to form 3 parcelson this property. One of these parcels has a home. According to County records,the other two parcels are not yet approved as building sites. It is not appropriate togrant Mr. Linebarger special treatment of separating his LAFCO-approved sewerconnection away from the parcel with the existing home. He should not beallowed to use the approved sewer connection on a parcel that is not yet Countyapproved as a building site. Like all other neighbors on Mora Drive, Mr. Linebargershould only be allowed to connect to the sewer AFTER his building site is approved.This is not an isolated situation. There may be more than 6 other properties onMora Drive with underlying lot lines. It is critical that Los Altos Hills set the properprecedent in dealing with sewer access.
RECEIVED
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
RE: Sewer Connection on Mora Drive Page 2
Please note that over the past 80 years 00 Mora Ranch subdivision was created June2, 1932), residents of Mora Drive have enhanced their property holdings bypurchasing PORTIONS of various lots (when available) and adding these portions totheir land holdings. In all cases (prior to 2006 when Mr. Linebarger purchasedproperty in the neighborhood), the addition of these portions of original subdivisionlots created parcels that became larger than the original 0.8 ac. to 1 ac. lots of theoriginal subdivision map. Since 1941, the neighborhood has been zoned as oneacre minimum. Currently, the County Zoning is R1 E-1Ac.
Please help assure residents of Mora Drive that the zoning in the neighborhood willbe protected and ALL residents will be treated in a uniform manner.
Sincerely,
Harold V. Feeney
cc: City Council MembersCarl CahillRichard ChiuDebbie PedroCynthia Richardson
~-"<;;.-... .. '.'"
Gmwthlnd~C:lnglmpa(;f$ -'"The Cclitm:ty zonilngf():rt1JJ~flJ~ah;R1B"LAc (singl¢,,:familyresidentialcstale~Wi1th aOlle:..atire JnhJi~t)tlnlJt)t' size). :I3fl.'ied CH1 tl::lls:i;'\011ing,tw0pRT'Cels out of the 28pl1f1'~liil~htcl\.lde,l wifhilJdwis[lrqjeCtllave the pot{mtial for ;Ll,lrtnel"suh-<1iVisielJ,). [cl{)\~'pvc:t:;;, ft J~flotClt;~iil iftlil~ f+ubdh/i!i~iJ;)llwQuld()i'i1ytJepossible i.vithseweig:vailablU.tY(J£•i:f it 'C:O'tll\~t Qf'i\';Ul' :
",tith '~A septi~ $ystell~.·rlli~ptop(}saI is fi1J~~llic t~. the.;2.8w:~Pe~tl~~111dml~di itt t~e .. . ~~grel;lnetltl:md flJ1yfl.littte enrul;)ctionsJD additional suM!vidt}(l1ot£l, wuuldl'tI\l'ou;e LAFCe~" -~app:roYsl •,. .• ,-
Out ofth~~ 28 pareel~tt twt1 Hf(} Vtlcl'1tttnnd the remai.ning are dev~k}p~d v,~ihsuJgle4am:i1y ~homes. OJ1!;:"oItbe V~KmJ1t xmrc\;lIh {aP:N: :!)Sl-1-4..0€3)is approved aSi~l;lrt1ttldingtsite bytheiCt)Ul'lty htlt the other V!M~atnt ]Jarcf11 (AP'N":.331-14--003) dO~B J10t hav~ab-~uldina site. '. !mprn~v.al. Based OIl. this infbrula.ti:01l., staffbelieves that thef!rtiJeet itself:'wouldno-thaV'8 ~
any major~dke¢t .~wth induclllg-l.mI.tl:lots. I.... . I
Excerpt LAFCO Staff Report of February 72, 200 7: Out ofAgency Contract for Sewer Service (T~EIVEDof Los Altos Hills) Mora Drive Sewer Project Agenda Item #7.2 - .
Pf'T O~:,; lOil )'.,.'L' •
11030 Mora Drive· Los Altos, CA • 94024 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
Attachment 9
October 8, 2012
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Council Members
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Re: Upper Mora Neighborhood Annexation I Neighbor Response
Dear Council Members:
We the undersigned are homeowners in the above-described annexation area
and we applaud your unanimous decision on September 20, 2012 to go forward with
the annexation proceedings.
In particular, we applaud your decision to reject Mr. Forrest Linebarger's 11th
hour arguments to delay or carve out his property from the annexation. His
arguments and threat of litigation have no legal basis whatsoever as evidenced by
the facts set forth below.!
Before going into those facts, we would like to bring to your attention a
disturbing new development between the Town and Mr. Linebarger. We just heard
last week that the City Attorney commented to Mr. Linebarger that he can use the
one sewer connection he is entitled to at his property for one of the two
nonconforming, County-recognized underlying lots on his property. Note: All
reference to Mr. Linebarger's property in this letter refers to the property commonly
known as 10730 Mora Drive.
1 We are concurrently submitting for your reference a brief primer on the history of
this neighborhood, together with copies of all relevant documents, inciudin~E'd~N%Dthat are specifically mentioned in this letter.
nrT 0 c: '1[11)',., • "r•.l.
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
We vehemently object to the City Attorney's comment on two grounds. First
and foremost the City Attorney is barred from giving such permission as it is directly
contradictory to the requirements Mr. Richard Chiu, the Town Engineer and Public
Works Director, laid out in his letter to Mr. Linebarger dated July 13, 2012. In that
letter, Mr. Chiu expressly stated, ", .. your two other County-recognized underlying
lots (APN #s: 331-15-061 and 331-15-062) may receive sewer connections from the
Town, provided that ..." and laid out the four conditions as follows: 1) obtain LAFCO
approval, 2) obtain amendment to sewer reimbursement agreement, 3) pay the
necessary reimbursement agreement fees, and 4) pay any applicable Town fees.
These requirements were express conditions to obtaining two additional sewer
connections for his "two other County-recognized underlying lots". The Town cannot
now change those requirements and say that Mr. Linebarger can use the one sewer
connection to which he is entitled to one of these underlying lots.
Second, the City Attorney is simply misinterpreting the Sewer Agreement if he
believes the sewer connection allotted to each property owner can be moved and
used anywhere on that property. To the contrary, as explained in greater detail in
Paragraph I, below, the sewer connection allotted to each property was intended to
be used for the main structure existing at the property as of the execution of the
'Sewer Agreement. Thus it is completely inconsistent with the purpose and intent of
the governing agreement to allow the sewer connection to be used for a brand new
structure on an undeveloped portion of Mr. Linebarger's property.
The remainder of this letter shows with preponderance of evidence that Mr.
Linebarger has no legal basis to delay or carve out his property from the annexation:
1. THAT MR. UNEBARGER'S PROPERTY AT 10730 MORA DRIVE IS
ALLOTTED JUST ONE SEWER CONNECTION IS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR FROM THE
TERMS OF THE MORA DRIVE SEWER PROJECT SANITARY SEWER EXTENSION
AGREEMENT RECORDED DEC. 7, 2000 ("SEWER AGREEMENT") AND THE
SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT - MORA DRIVE SEWER
PROJECT DATED NOV. 20, 2003 ("REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT").
Section 2.08 of the Sewer Agreement expressly states that the Town will
provide sewer services "to the Property Owners as shown on Exhibit A ..." (emphasis
2
added). The last page of Exhibit A lists 29 properties with corresponding property
owner(s) and APNs. Note: One property owner withdrew from the program after
signing this agreement and therefore the Reimbursement Agreement is based on 28
property owners. By the words of the Sewer Agreement themselves, sewer
connection was to be allotted to the "Property Owner" and not to the property or to
any underlying lots. The fact that sewer allotment was per property owner is clearly
exemplified by the treatment of De Geus jJohn (in line 20 of the last page of Exhibit
A), whose two parcels, APN 331-15-046 and 331-15-047, were combined to
constitute one parcel for purposes of sewer connection.
Not only that, the sewer connection was intended to be used for the main
structure existing at the time of the Sewer Agreement. This fact is not expressly
stated in the agreement, but we are certain that many of the meeting notes and
underlying discussions will confirm this fact. It is critical to note that this was not a
sewer service agreement for a new, undeveloped subdivision. To the contrary, the
Mora neighborhood had existed since the 1930's with homes built on most of the
lots when the sewer service agreement was initiated. All of the homes were serviced
by septic tanks prior to that time and the need for a city serviced sewer line came up
to address a substandard health condition that had developed. According to Mr. Hal
Feeney, one of the neighbors who led this effort, the Sewer Agreement was intended
to address the health hazards presented by septic tanks by providing the signatory
property owners an option to connect their existing structures to the sewer line.
Exhibit A to the Sewer Agreement clearly shows that Mr. Linebarger's property,
then owned by Madeleine Malovos, was one parcel identified as APN 331-15-022.
Therefore, like every other property owner who signed the Sewer Agreement, Ms.
Malovos was allocated one sewer connection for the main structure then existing at
this property.
Furthermore, as the Town Engineer and Public Works Director clearly explained
to Mr. Linebarger in his letter dated July 13, 2012, the Reimbursement Agreement
expressly provides for a procedure to be followed for additional sewer connections.
This shows that sewer connection under the Reimbursement Agreement was strictly
limited. If additional connections were to be automatically allowed for "underlying
lots", then either the parties would have expressly said so in the agreement or new
3
approval procedure would not have been expressly required for additional
connections.
2. LAFCO RESOLUTION NO. 01-4 DATED APRIL 11, 2001 ("LAFCO
RESOLUTION"), APPROVED LAH TO PROVIDE "OUT OF AGENCY" CONTRACT TO
PROVIDE SEWER SERVICE SPECIFICALLY TO TWENTY EIGHT (28) PROPERTIES AS
SHOWN ON A MAP ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT A THERETO.
The fact that the LAFCO Resolution specifically refers to "twenty eight (28)
properties on Mora Drive" is significant. If, as Mr. Linebarger argues, LAFCO had any
intention of including the "underlying lots" as part of its resolution, it would have said
so. Instead, in both the recital as well as paragraph 1, the LAFCO Resolution
unequivocally states that its approval is for "twenty eight (28) properties on Mora
Drive." Paragraph 2 of the LAFCO Resolution provides that, "any future additional
connections to the sewer line will require LAFCO review and approval."
The existence and treatment of "underlying lots" were never discussed or
considered a part of the LAFCO Resolution or the Mora Drive sewer project. Mr.
Linebarger has provided no evidence whatsoever to show that the LAFCO Resolution
meant something different from what it actually says.
Arguments relating to the "underlying lots" as presented by Mr. Linebarger's
attorney, Gregory Klingsporn, in a letter dated May 11, 2012, do not make sense. At
the bottom of page 2, he writes, "it is true that the Exhibit A map (to the Sewer
Agreement) does not show the precise lines of the Properties; rather they were
included within the single APN that at that time was used for all three underlying lots
owned by Ms. Malovo. This makes no substantive difference ..." How does the
manner in which Mr. Linebarger's property is identified in Exhibit A not make a
substantive difference? To the contrary, it makes all the difference. The map in
Exhibit A was a clear and unambiguous method to identify each of the 28 parcels that
were to be served by the Sewer Agreement. To say that the map does not make a
difference is to undermine the very purpose of the Sewer Agreement itself, which was
to provide sewer service to a specific set of properties then existing within a defined
area.
4
3. MR. UNEBARGERIS A SOPHISTICATED DEVELOPER WHO PURCHASED
THE PROPERTY WITH FULL NOTICE OF THE SEWER AGREEMENT AND THE
REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT AND THE POTENTIAL RISKS THEY POSED FOR
ANY ADDITIONAL SUBDMSION OF THE PROPERTY.
It is no small fact that Mr. Linebarger is a professional developer who
developed another large lot into four smaller "County-recognized underlying lots" in
another part of this neighborhood at Putter Way. Our understanding is that he
originally purchased a .75 acre property at 11685 Putter Way then subdivided the
property into four undersized lots ranging from .17 acres to .24 acres and recently
sold them at a significant profit. Clearly, this is Mr. Linebarger's "specialty": taking
advantage of large parcels with "underlying lots" in the unincorporated area to
multiply his profit. There is no doubt that when Mr. Linebarger purchased the
property at 10730 Mora Drive from the Malovos estate in 2006, he studied and
understood both the potential benefits as well as the risks involved in developing this
land. Risks are inherent in all developments. In fact, in his September 20, 2012 letter,
Mr. Linebarger revealed himself that he "carefully researched the Sewer Agreement
with the Town and the rules for building under the County's ordinances." Given this
fact, he has no right to complain that he has not been able to obtain the sewer
connections he needs to develop his property. He had more than six years since
purchasing the property to sort through these issues. Yet he didn't submit his
applications for the two additional sewer connections to the Town until April 12,
2012, the day after the Town sent out a notice on April 11, 2012, stating that it was
exploring the annexation of this neighborhood.
4. ANNEXATION OF THE UPPER MORA NEIGHBORHOOD DOES NOT
PREVENT MR. UNEBARGER FROM DEVELOPING HIS PROPERTY AND THUS HE
HAS NO LEGAL RIGHT TO CHALLENGE OR DELAY THE ANNEXATION.
It is important to note that Mr. Linebarger is not prevented from developing
his property but rather he just has to satisfy the specific approval requirements laid
out by the Town before he can develop the smaller nonconforming underlying lots
on his property. With or without the annexation, Mr. Linebarger retains his
development options:
5
- He can obtain the additional sewer permits by complying with the Town's
conditions as set forth in the July 13 letter; OR
- He can develop his property as a single parcel. His property is 1.6 acres.
This meets the minimum lot size under both County and Town zoning laws.
Despite all his complaints, Mr. Linebarger is not damaged at all. The price he
paid for his property and the expenses he has incurred in planning his development,
including his legal fees, are all part of the normal costs and risks of development,
especially for a professional developer like himself. He had more than six years to
develop this property. He cannot complain now that he doesn't have enough time to
obtain the necessary permits and therefore the annexation must be delayed. He has
every opportunity to develop this property, with or without annexation. Like
everyone else, he just has to comply with the applicable zoning laws and permit
requirements.
5. ANNEXATION MUST PROCEED WITHOUT DELAY LEST OTHER
PROPERTY OWNERS WITH "UNDERLYING LOTS" ATTEMPT TO DEVELOP THEM
UKE MR. UNEBARGER.
The determined insistence of Mr. Linebarger to develop his property into three
undersized, nonconforming lots has made the need for annexation of this
neighborhood absolutely essential and urgent. This kind of development possibilities
threatens to destroy the low density, rural character of this neighborhood.
We know that there are five or six properties other than Mr. Linebarger's in this
neighborhood with "underlying lot lines" that may be recognized by the County
under an arcane rule. The validity of the County rule remains questionable.
Regardless, this practice must be stopped in order to preserve the rural character of
this neighborhood. We believe the best way to do this is to complete the annexation
process as soon as possible.
For all of the above reasons, we request that you continue to reject Mr.
Linebarger's arguments to delay or carve out his property from the annexation and
proceed with the annexation as scheduled.
Very truly yours,
6
J7 tAart de Geus and Esther John
10701 Mora Drive
-'--;-----.-.--------~Tak Hea and RosPmarie Nahm
10869 Mora Drive
I ,
~""'.....----""'"......~-----~--Edward and Gerda Cristal
10755 Mora Drive
IIiiii'· ~ ""'"""'"
Ruth Winchell
10776 Mora Drive
(~--
cc: Carl Cahill, City Manager
Cynthia Richardson, Consultant Planner
Richard Chiu, City Engineer/Public Works Director
Debbie Pedro, Planning Director
7
Mora Drive Sewer Project
A Brief Primer on its History and Implications
LOS ALTOS, CALIFORNIAOctober 5, 2012
Table of Contents
Page 2 Brief Mora Drive Neighborhood History
Page 2 Need for a Sewer But Neighborhood is not Part of Town of Los Altos Hills ..... Yet
Page 2 The Pro-Active Alignment of a Neighborhood to Build Sewer
Page 3 Success: "The Mora Drive Sewer Agreement"
Page 3 Practical and Fair: "The Reimbursement Agreement"
Page 4 Annexation is Initiated
Appendix 1 Tract NO.1 O. Map of Jo Mora Ranch, Santa Clara County, Calif.
Appendix 2 Mora Drive Sewer Project General Area Map
Appendix 3 Sewer Agreement, December 7, 2000
Appendix 4 LAFCO Resolution 01-4, April ii, 2001
Appendix 5 Sewer Reimbursement Agreement, November 20, 2003
RECEIVED
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
Brief Mora Drive Neighborhood History
The Subdivision of Tract NO.1 0, map of Jo Mora Ranch, Santa Clara County, was recorded onJune 2, 1932. The parcels were of roughly 0.8 to 1.0 acre size and were offered up for sale forresidential building (please see Appendix 1). The area is now known as Mora Drive and issituated uphill from highway 280 and reaches all the way to Rancho San Antonio Open SpacePreserve.
Over the years, a number of the original properties were enlarged by their owners. For example,the Malovos family purchased the entire Parcel 2 in 1939/1940, a portion of Parcel 3 (0.37acres) in 1941, and a portion of Parcel 1 (0040 acres) in 1948. CCRs of that time stipUlated thatthe resulting properties should not be smaller than any of the initial parcels (0.8 to 1.0 acre) inorder to create and maintain a residential neighborhood with a pleasant open and rural feel.
Therefore, the character and density of the neighborhood has remained intact over the yearsand a substantial number of owners have lived there for many years or even several decades.County zoning for the area is R1 E-1Ac (single family residential estates with a one-acreminimum).
Need for a Sewer But Neighborhood is Not Part of Town of Los Altos Hills..• Yet...
At the time, all properties on Mora Drive had installed their own septic systems. In the late1990's, however, a number of septic systems began to fail. The looming health hazards clearlyrequired a modern sewer system. Although annexation of these Santa Clara County propertiesto the Town of Los Altos Hills (LAH) and access to the LAH sewer system was already beingcontemplated at that time, the boundaries of LAH were not adjacent to the Mora Driveneighborhood and annexation was thus not yet an option. This left the neighborhood to take theinitiative and deal with the sewer issue.
The Pro-Active Alignment of a Neighborhood to Build Sewer
Led by four motivated neighbors, a plan was developed in 1999 to build a sewer system withone connection per developed residential property. The cost of nearly $500,000 was to beshared by the property owners who chose to participate (this was voluntary participation, not asewer district). The sewer was built for 28 developed properties (please see Appendix 2).
The project was approved by the Santa Clara County Local Agency Formation Commission(LAFCO). Once built, LAH would take over the administration of the Mora Drive sewer systemwhich was then deeded to the town of LAH.
Participation in the project was proposed to all neighbors on Mora Drive, with an option to either:
Pay for your share of sewer cost and get one connection (18 property owners chose thisoption);
orTo not participate and apply through LAFCO for a connection at a later time and pay theshare of cost of sewer at that time (10 property owners chose the option to pay andconnect later)
2
This resulted in a plan for a total of 18+10 =28 potential sewer connections.
Those neighbors not participating in the project were notified that additional sewer connectionsafter completion of the project would be required to go through the LAFCO approval process aslong as annexation to LAH had not yet occurred.
Success: "The Mora Drive Sewer Agreement"
For things to get started, LAFCO required sponsorship by LAH as annexation into the Town wasalready contemplated because the Mora Drive area has been under the Sphere of Influence of.LAH since 1969. LAH was supportive and sponsored the project and signed the SewerAgreement on December 7,2000 (please see Appendix 3).
LAFCO Commissioners also expressed great concern that the sewer extension may lead togreater housing density, but approved the extension after a search of the parcels by theAssessor's Office determined that all properties were built on - it was confirmed that only twoproperties on Mora Drive exceeded two acres. LAFCO's Resolution 01-4 clearly stated: "Anyfuture additional connections to the Mora Drive sewer line will require LAFCO review andapproval" (please see Appendix 4).
LAFCO also stipulated that all property owners would have to sign a pledge to not object toannexation once the project was completed. LAFCO's Resolution 01-4 specifically required thatparticipating property owners submitted an application to the Town of Los Altos Hills for the prezoning of the area (please see Appendix 2, Exhibit 8 in LAFCO Resolution 01-4) and the 28property owners to be served by the Mora Drive Sewer Project Sanitary Sewer Extension didagree not to oppose annexation to the Town of LAH once annexation proceedings are initiated,said agreement being a term of the Mora Drive Sewer Project Sanitary Sewer ExtensionAgreement between the Town and the property owners. All 28 property owners agreed to thiswith their signature.
Practical and Fair: "The Reimbursement Agreement"
After the completion of the Mora Drive Sewer Project construction, the sanitary sewer extensionwas deeded to LAH and a reimbursement agreement was incorporated into the Agreement onNovember 20, 2003 with the 18 property owners that funded the construction of the sewer lineon Mora Drive (please see Appendix 5). For the remaining 10 approved sewer connections tobe completed, the property owners must pay a reimbursement fee to the 18 sewer line installerswhen they request a connection.
Notice that the terms "connections" and "properties" are used interchangeably and used in thecalculation of the denominator for the reimbursements calculation, thus making clear that therewas only one connection per property for a total of 28.
It is also agreed upon that all parties desiring to get any sewer connection would be required toutilize the process prescribed by the LAFCO Resolution 01-4 or wait until the annexation of theMora Drive neighborhood to LAH is completed.
3
Annexation is Initiated
Since the annexation of West Loyola to LAH created a contiguous connection to the Mora Driveproperties, annexation has become a possibility. Indeed, at the City Council Meeting onSeptember 22, 2011, staff was authorized to move forward with the overall annexation plan forall 5 remaining County of Santa Clara islands, including LAH05 which includes the Upper MoraDrive Neighborhood. Following an owner-initiated application for annexation submitted to LAHon August 9,2012, the City Council of the Town of LAH initiated formal annexation proceedingsat the September 20,2012 City Council meeting.
The annexation is warmly welcomed by the great majority of the property owners (21 of 22owners!) because LAH is not only a wonderful community to become part of, but LAH also hasadopted and enforced a set of building codes and zoning ordinances that will maintain the verycharacter and low construction density that has made the Mora Drive neighborhood great to livein.
It is the expressed wish of the overwhelming majority of the property owners in the annexationarea for a rapid conclusion of the annexation process, rigorous adherence to the LAFCOprocess for further connections to the sewer and an immediate moratorium on further buildingoutside the LAH 1-acre zoning rules and regulations.
4
Appendix 1
Tract NO.1 O. Map of Jo Mora Ranch
Santa Clara County, California
TRACTNo. 10 MRPOF
/0 #Oh'dlln'NCHSIII'!TRCMh'11 CQVH7J:C/ILIE
RSVlJQIyq/"KaFH~Q' LiJr4'4 H/1~£KHNCHSVB~"Y/S/ON. IKS ~£<:QlYDLi1 /IVBm7K~-(;' .M'''~ ./h'I7EJ 48. ~ ~C4A'.cuoFS,tfNTd U,fHR aot4VTr,R NA'T/QN GV" SRN/1,{1"'&:JIY/Q&q~S(MY£".F4.d~h~Y.I.9~Z. /yEQVEJr QI'./O...,..~.
JYJ."",,/~N~~.L,~._~h-J.n.,...,~ SCHLL'..·;"'R~·
· .'
Appendix 2
Mora Drive Sewer Project General Area Map
I
Exhibit B
MORA DRIVE SEWER PROJECT GENERAL AREA MAP
LOCATION MAPN.1.5.
Area iocJulEsJo IOOIa Raoch, I.o!s 1·18,2t-38olTraaNtmr 1~ Vd~ IIe'II E9ales,1.oIs 1-6ofToo Number765; APorli1noflol41,~ofThe tilRaochAs RecordedinBookT01 Maps. Pages48, 49, Records 01 Sam Clara CounIy; andReavdolSlJvey, Booi201 oIMapsatPage53.
GENERAL AREA MAP
Appendix 3
Sewer Agreement, December 7,2000
,BBCOJlDING BBQUBSTBDBY
~ DUVE SaD. PIOJ'EC'f. LU:
ANDWBEN ItBCOBDBD JMJLTO
N... EnrLque neb
Stl'MtAc1cheau 1686 Chdse1ae Drive
Clt7.Sta. Loa neoa. CA 94024
______________ SPACBABOVBFOIt Uc()RDER'S USB ONLY_
MOM DlUVE SBWBIt PROJECT ,SANITARYSEWER EUENSIONAGREEMENT
This Mora Drive Sewer Project SanitarySewer Extension Agreement <-,Agreement~)is entered into between the Town ofLos Altos Hills. a municipal corporatioD of theState ofCalifornia ("Town") and PnpertyOwner8on and adjacent to Mora Drive inan unincorporated pocket ofthe County ofSanta Clara. who have executed thisAgreement C'Propeny Owners"). The parties to this Agreement agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1. GENERAL
1.01 Samtary Sewer Extension
Property Owners. who own propertym an UDiDcorporated area ofthe CountyofSanta Clara <-,CountY? and within the sphere ofinfluence and urbanservice area ofthe Town. are in the process ofpbmniDI an extension ofasanitary sewer main and appurtenances tobe installedwithin Mora Driveand more particularly as shown in the Mora Drive Sewer Project rMDSP")General Area Map attached hereto as EXHIBIT A rExtension,?
1.02 Sewer Service
The pmpose ofthis Agreement is for the Town to provide for public sewerservice to Property Owners pursuant to the SEWERAGREEMENTBETWEENTHE CITY OF LOS ALTOS AND THE CITY OF THE TOWN OFLOS ALTOS BJIJrS ('Master Agreement") adopted March 26. 1985. and theFIRST AMENDMENTTO THE AGREEMENT adopted by the Town ofLosAltos Hills Resolution No. 26-93 on April 7. 1993. which are attached here toas EXHIBIT B and EXHIBIT C. Town shaD provide public sewer services toProperty Owners in accordaDce with the Master Agreement as ifPropertyOwners were situated within the city limits ofTowa. All references in theMaster Agreement referriDl to ToWll and Town residents will apply ~qua1ly
I
and~ to-Prop8ltiea andPlopedJ OwneD and l'e8idents in the Mora DriveSewer Project I1lbIcrihiDr to this Apeem81lt.
1.03 Ownerabip ofSewerExteDaion
Upon completion ofthe ExteDaion in ac:cordance with Town Standards, andits acceptance by Town and the granting ofeasements to the Town from theCounty fOl" the ExtensiOD, Town wm assume ownership of the sewer main,appurtenances.latel'a1s and manholes in the public richt Ofway and assumeresponsibility for the maintenance, repair and insurance ofsame under theterms ofthe Master Agreement.
1.04 PropertyOwners
Ptop.my~ in the UDiItmrpomted ue-a ofthe C.ounty arSenta Clarashown in the MoraDriveSewer ProjectAreaMap Exhibit A. their successors,heirs and assips whoown propert)' in the Ptoject&ea, who voluntarilychoose to join in the Mora Drive sewerProject aud are signatories to thisAgreement, are subject to the term2J oftbis Agreement and the correspondingMora Driv't Sewer Project S&Ditary Sewer Extension ReimbursementAgreement ("Reimbursement Agreement-> to be executedby the Town andthe Property Owners.
1.05 Waiver ofAnnexatiou Protest Rights
All puties to be servedby the Mora Drive Sewer Project Sanitary SewerExtension airee not to oppose annexation should the Town or the PropertyOwners or the County initiate annexation proceedings. Property Ownerswho sign this agieement hereby waive their protest rights when annexationis proposed for the area. This Agreement is intended to and shRlJ run withthe land ofeach Property Owner who signs this Agreement. This Agh:e..llentshall be recorded.
. 1.06 Other Property Ownera
Other Property Owners ('Others") on or adjacent to Mora Drive anditsvicinity, who are Dotsipa~es to this Agreement, will cmJy be entitled toconnect to an, portion ofthe sewer extension at a later elate, as10Dg as suchOthers apply to the County ofSanta Clara Lood Agency FormationCommission ('LAFCO-) andbecome subject to the LAFCO review andapproval process and abide by the applicable statutes or the Town. the City of
Los Altos, ("'CitT? and the County ofSanta Clara, prior to annexation ofsaidproperties to Town. Furthermore, such Others must satisfy in full theReimbursement Agreement executed by the Town and the Property Ownersregardless ofwhether the connection to the sewer extension occurs prior to orfollowing annexation ofsai~properties to Town.
1.07 Effective Date and Validity
The efrecti.ve date ("'Effective Date' ofthis Agreement shall be the date of thelast signature herein below. This Agreement shall become null and void ifnot approved by LAFCO ~itbin one year of the Effective Date.
ARTICLE I. SEWER SERVICE
.2.01 Installation ofSewer Extension and Appurtenances
Property Owners aTe responsible for the installation ofthe Extensionincluding design, bidding and construction and acquiSition ofencroachmentpermit in accordance with local, state and federal requirements. Prior toawarding a construction contract those Property OWl'lers who provide iriitialfunding will place in an escrow account sufficient funds to pay the contractor,including a 10% contingency amount.
2.02 Inspection and Acceptance ofSewer Extension and Appurtenances
Town will have the primary responsibility for the inspection and acceptanceofthe Mora Drive Sewer Project Sanitary Sewer Extension. Inspection andacceptance will follow the crite...-ia outlined in the Master Agreement.
2.03 Sewer Fees. Plan Checking. Permits
a. The Mora Drive Sewer Project. LLC. a California limited liabilitycompany ("MDSP") will pay for the construction ofa sewer main on and inpublic rights orway and will pay fees in advance to applicable responsibleagency for reviewing construction plans and related documents consistentwith all applicable agency requirements.
b. Each Property Owner upon connecting to the Extension will advise theTown in advance and pay to the City ofLos Altos ("City") a capacity rights fee
3
and connection fee as set forth in the Master Agreement. and other fees asapplicable.
2.04 Reimbursements
Property Owners will provide the initial funding to pay for the entire cost ofthe Extension. Property Owners shall subsequently receive reimbun~ent inaccordance with the provisions of the Town's Municipal Code and thereimbursement agreement referenced in 1.04 above from any and all futureusers of the Extension, rOtherati) regardless ofthe connection site along theentire length ofthe Extension. Consistent with existing practices, collectionofreimbursement monies paidby Others will be made by Town to the MDSPor designated distribution agent by one check on December 81st ofeachcalendar year. Distribution to Property Owners shall notbe theresponsibility ofthe Town. The reimbursement terms shall remainunchanged at such time that the area is annexed to Town.
2.05 Admiriistration
Administration olthe sewer service will be provided by the Town as set forth .in the Master Agreement and shall include the collection of reimbursementsand fet'-s in accordance with the provisions ofthe Town's Municipal Code andthe Reimbursement Agreement.
2.06 Annual Sewer Service Charges
City will calculate and process the annual Sewer Service Charge forindividual parcels in conformance with the Master Agreement. This feeshall be paid through the County Tax Roll and secured by a lien against eachproperty (authorized by Section 5471 of the California Health and SafetyCode). Property Owners hereby consent to such charges and liens.
2.07 Maintenance and Repairs
Except as otherwise set forth in the Master Agreement, Property Owners willbe responsible for maintenance and repair of the sewer lateral pipes andconnections within their individual properties.
4
2.08 SewerMain Connection
The ExteDBion will provide 88W8l' service to the Property Owners as shown onExhibit A and will connect to an existing public sewer line at EastbrookAvenue and Partridge Lane.
2.09 Indemnity. Hold Harmless
Property Owners agree to indemnity. defend and hold harmless Town and itselective or appointive Boards. officers. apnts and employees from any andall claims, liabilities, expenses. or damages ofany nature. includingattomey's fees. for injury or deathofany person. or damage to properly, orinterference with use ofproperty. arising out of, or in any way connectedwith performance ofthe Agreement by Property Owners, Property Owners'agents, officers. employees, subcontractors, or independent contractors hiredby Property Owners. MDSP shall take out and maintain insurance with aminjmum limit ofone million dollars which specifically covers the provisionsoftbisparagraph 2.09 and nam.esthe Town as an additional insured fromthe start ofconstruction to acceptance ofthe Extension by Town.
ARTICLE S. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
S.OI Town Ordinances
All applicable regulations and ordinances ofTown and the Master Agreementset out in Exhibits "B" and "e" shall apply to this Agreement and to theperformances hereunder.
3.02 Town Costs
Prior to execution ofthe Agreement by Town, Property Owners shall pay allapplicable tees and cos~ including any legal fees incurred by the Town inconnection with prepar~tionand execution of this Agreement.
3.03 Assignment
This Agreement shall be binding upon the successors, heirs and assigns ofthe parties hereto.
Ii
3.04 Califorsaia Law
This Ar:reement shanbe IOverDed by the laws of the State ofCalifornia.
3.05 Arbitration
Any dispute between the parties to this Agreement concerning any of itsprovisions and/or interpretation ofits terms shall be resolved by arbitrationin accordance with the provisions oEthe Santa Clara County Bar AssociationADR program.
3.06 Attomeys Fees
In the event of any dispute concerning the terms and provisions of thisAgreement. the prevailingparty shall be entitled to its reasonable costs andattorneys' fees resulting from any arbitration-in enforcing the terms andprovisions oftbis Agreement.
3.07 Notice
Notice under this Agreement shall be deemed effective upon the deposit infirst class man. postage prepaid and ...ddressed to the parties as follows:
Town ofLos Altos Hills, c/o ofCity Clerk. Los Altos Hills Town Hall,26379 Fremont Road. Los Altos, Hills, CA 94022;
Property Owners at the addresses set out beside the names ofeachProperty Owner on Exhibit D attached.
3.08 Exhibits
All exhibits to which reference is made in this Agreement are incorporated inthis Agreement by the respective reference to them. whether or not they areactually attached.
3.09 Termination
In the event that Property Owners are unwilling or unable to proceed withthe Extension, Property Owners may terminate this Agreement by givingnotice to the Town pursuant to 3.07 above. which said notice shall berecorded.
6
8.10 .Condition for Recorclinr.
This Agreement wiD. notbe xeeOrded and wDl notbecome effective untilLAFCO approves the "Out-of.Agenc,y Contract lorServices" proposed. for thisXxten3icm. ~d..r data is set outinEXHIBITDincorporated by thisxeference. .
ATmST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
I -
City Fmey..
TOWNJ UlS ALTOS HU,T# ..
-i- ~'5 /
PROPERTY OWNERS OF-THE MORA DRIVE SEWER PROJECT (ATTACHED):
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each ofwhich shall constituteand original and all ofwhich, when taken together, shall constitute one instrument.
~o~~tqp~~~~~~OJEcrSANITARYSBWEREXTENSIONAGREEMENT. "
NO APN 'ADDRESS~.
PROPERTY OWNER(S)...
1 331·14-003 10702 MoraDIM RobJDson Russell O. & Helen L
2 331·14-015 10724Moi&DdVe BJancbald.' Rlcbald A. &EstherR.
10110MoraDri;e.
EnriQUe J. & Judith A.3 331·14-063 K'.eID ..
4 331-14-064 10696 MoiaDrive SIeberJHurwIc1: LIsa M. &.JennJfer
5 331-15-004 11091 McnDtlVe Mudn·'';~ Timothy W. & Karen B.~:?-. . ?&.
331-15-005• '_ 4..;;
BOdine ~"" ~ Charles M. & moiso O.6 I1OS5 MoraDdve ..7 331.15-006 11001 MoraDrive LoIacono John P. & Kara A.
8 331-15-014 10915 Mora Drive Gilman Richard A & Patricia L
9 331-1S015 10869 Mora DriVe Mebrlich Richard W. &BevedvT.
10 331·15-016 10831 Mora DriVe Stnookler Sam &: Miriam J.
11 331-15-022 10730Mora Drive Malovos Madeleine C.
12 33-.1-1$-023 10776 MoraDriVe Winchell • 'Ji' RuthO•
13 331-15-027 limoMOiaDriVe - . ~",:-~,~. Harold V.Ir& Mary Jo
14 331-15-028,-,,,<0. ',..~~~._;~
l'i)St ~~. '., Nash&tcm '.11060Mora1)dve.•,,,,...~.' .l.'.<>O'~. """-
Traugott15 331-1smo 11120MoraDdve BamestA.
16 331-150036 10401SUDJduSrir. Intster Michael O. & Karen L
17 331·15-041 lioooMOraDiM 1- •• RobertR. & Louise A.
18 331-15442 10970MoraDrive Oiurlani Gaetano &: Iune L.
19 331-15-043 10898 MoraDrIve Crockett B.D.&:AnnR.
20 331-15-046 10701 MoraDdw Do OcusIJohD AlIt1. & EstherM.331·15-047 ':~J~~.,l-!
21 331-15-048. '.' . " "'~', .'. '.' Debevoise ,-<-
HelenP..
10990TerrY W4Y22 331·15-049 llOooTeiiYWay RJchanfs Roy C. and Gamet L
23 331-15-051 10691 MOJiWav Bratton· Tunothv R. & Susan s.24 331-1.5-052
,. ....UISI MoraWay Minton Allen R. & Nancv O.
25 331-15-053 11111 MoraWay Sell JobnV.
26 331-15-054 11170 MoraDrive 'SeYmour Dale O. & M8I'Ro L
27 331·15-055 10810 MoraDrive Hughes Richard W. &: LarraiDe M
28 331-15-056 10840Mora Drive Rasda1 W"JlliamD.
29 331..1S0S7 10868MoraDdW Hornby Oracec.
Appendix 4
LAFCO Resolution 01-4, April 11, 2001
' ..
RESQl.lITIONNO..01-4 .
RESOLUTION OF'I".lm SANTA CL.ARA COUNTYLocALAGENCYFORMATION CQM.M1SSION AWROVlNGTliJ! REQUEST OF THE
TOWN OFLOS ALTOS BD;.LSFORAN OUT OF AGENCY CONTRACTFOR'SEWERSERVlCE TO TllEMORADlUVESEWER P.ROJ~CT
(
JmSOLVED by the Local Ageuoy.Formatian Conunfsaion (LAl"CO) of,the County Ql Sa.ntaClara. Stat6 otCalifornia, that
WHEREAS. LAFCO bll8 adoptedpoHciescforOut-of-Agency ContractForServices, and
'WIDi:REA8; tJw Town ofLQ8 Altos mIls has sublnlttcd a req.uent to LAFCO fut 6.ltUlmllQll ofsewerservice to 2S unIncorporated properties as shown in Exhibit A al;tachap.hereto which propertieaare within the Town's sphere ofinf1uenae'~nd urban service area; aJld .
WFJEREAS, LAFCOproPfjrlyno(;iced. and hdd a publio 'hearlng on the request onFebnuu:y1.4,2001, and untlnimonslydeeided to contilme the hoorlng to April 11..2001 to allow theTown oi'1.o8AI!n~ 1Tills to prov!d6 additional infonnatiol1~mtd .
. .wmmEAS. at the Aprl111.2001. publfu hearln.g.tbe Comtbiision heltrd from theintereDbfd
parties, received.all evidence presented.considered the report offbeExecutiveDirector l'Iud theattacIunerits thereto. and considered tbe: faatom detennlned by lli~ Commilf${onto berelevanttotbapiopooa~ and '.
. wmm.EA.S. the 23 pro,perty oWn6l'8 to be Dented bythcMclllDrlve8ewerProj~tSanitarySeworExtension have agreed nat tl) oppose nnnexation to theTown ot'Loa AltollliiJIs whenannexation proceedings are fuitiare~ aaid agreMl.ent being Il. 1e.I:ll) oftheMoraDnve SewerProjectSanitary Sc.werExtension Agreementbetween1Jle.Town and the prqpeJ.'f.yownera; IUld
W.llERJ5AS. tireproi;cl'f;Y bWrieXiiHave recently suinmtred iUl. appliaat!on to tllbToWn ofI.OsAltoa Hills for the pre1:onmg qf.the arM shown in ExhibitB attached hereto and tltEtTown hall indicared
_its supportfur pre-zoning ofthe area; .
WHEiuiAS. Ibis proposal i8-~~MUY'exempt from lIre provlll.1rntlJ of th& Califunti'aQUalityAct pursuant to qIass 19. s:ction I5S19ai-
NOw~~fO~. the Locai-AganeYlronnation CoiJmlis&o~ ot'tbe'CountyQfSanftl.CJ~a does hereby resolve, determine. ami oltfurmtfo]Jows:
1. BasMOUthetoWJfoffi~AittmIiiii·~~gOi~~~6nltig~cauOlr~~~.-·: :1-emdents Q~MoraPrlye.in~d faith, the CommissiOn hereby approves the- request t>ftb~To'W;ltl)!L09_ Alt.os.Im1s for an "out-of-agenoy" coiltdlcttoprovidesewer serviceto~~~jrl the~orporatedarea within the".towu's 8J>here-ofinffl1eit~~:ltttHcMdhdreto. . _ . - . _
,-.
Out ofAgency Conlfacl for f;ewet ServicoMora DriveResolutionPage 2
PASSEl}AWADOPTED by the Local Agency Formation Comn'Jissian ofthe CountyofSanta
Cllll'at State. of California. on Aprllll, 2001 bY tIlefollowing vote;
A.::t~3S;
NOES:
ABSENT:
CommisBioner{l Alvaxado, Gag~, Jacl~Bon, LeZotte, and l1:Uson
• I..,.
Donald 11. Gage, Chtd1:lira:Local. !getl.CY Famat:tuu GomwUa~
Al"J.13ST:. Deputy Clerk1 .nJl<11 Af1Annu l1nrt'n1J.tion Commission -
APPRO\1E!J AS TO FORMJrnD LBGALITY
, .
--" :-.
. ~ ':.:-:"
-.:-.
: .:".
'. _.-. -:. .
'.;, ": ~:"':. -~ -t. .-.
".. =:: ...
~; . ,. - .-..-';'-.. :. ~ .=.-".. -::: ,. .....- -
>-,
-.
SAN ,\N1'ONIO HILLS I CO\1NTIlY CLUB ISUMMI!RHILJ,.UNINCORPORA.'tltQ POCKETS
Exhi,bit A
:.
.'-, '.
..
SAN ANTONJQ HILLS [Ct)UNTRV CLUB [StJMMElUJILLUNJNCORJlORKt'ro FOeKtrrS
Area to he pre2:oned•
Exhibit B
.... ;
..Areawithsmaller
parcels may be .-prezoned
1ater/sep~te1 .
". - ...
Appendix 5
Sewer Reimbursement Agreement, November 20, 2003
SANITARY SEWER REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
MORA DRIVE SEWER PROJECT
This Sanitary Sewer Reimbursement Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into this
20th day of November, 2003, by and between the Town of Los Altos Hills, a municipal
corporation of the State of California ('Town") and the persons who have executed this
document as Installers ("Installers") and Successors ("Successors") and who are listed
on Exhibit A hereto (together, the "Parties").
RECITALS:
A. On June 14, 2002, the Installers completed construction of a sanitary
sewer extension commonly known as the Mora Drive Sanitary Sewer Extension
("Sanitary Sewer Extension") within the sphere of influence of the Town and within the
street right of way on Mora Drive and Eastbrook Avenue as more particularly shown on
Exhibit B, attached hereto ("Mora Drive Sewer Project General Area Map").
B. Section 6-4.503 of the Town's Municipal Code allows the Town to enter
into a reimbursement agreement with a property owner so that the property owner may
. be reimbursed for some of the costs of a sanitary sewer extension by future users of the
extension.
c. After due consideration of all relevant factors such as the location and
nature of the Sanitary Sewer Extension, the area to be served by the Sanitary Sewer
Extension, the developable areas potentially served by the Sanitary Sewer Extension
and the volumes of sewage, the City Engineer has found and determined, after proper
application by Installers, that the Sanitary Sewer Extension will benefit not only the lands
of the Installers, but also other lands which may be served by the Sanitary Sewer
Extension at a future date ("Benefiting Lands"). The lands of the Installers, Successors
and Benefiting Lands are more partiCUlarly set forth in Exhibit C ("Mora Drive Sewer
Project Reimbursement Agreement Service Area') and Exhibit D ("Mora Drive Sewer
Project Installers and Future Users - LAFCO Approved"), attached hereto. The
Installers are those property owners who obtained LAFCO approval to construct
Sanitary Sewer Extension and the Successors are property owners who have
purchased a property in the Mora Drive Sewer Project Reimbursement Agre~ment
Service Area from an Installer. For the purposes of this Agreement the term Installers
includes Successors. The current and future owners of Benefiting Lands other than
Installers who request a hook-up to the Sanitary Sewer Extension, or who are required
by the Town or the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health ("County
Health") to connect to the Sanitary Sewer Extension shall be hereinafter collectively
referred to as "Future Users."
D. The Town and Installers now desire to provide for reimbursement to
Installers by each Future User for that Future User's pro-rata share ("Usage Fee"). The
Town and Installers acknowledge that the total amount that Installers may be reimbursed
for the Sanitary Sewer Extension is an amount totaling one hundred ninety four thousand
three hundred thirty three dollars and eighty cents ($194,333.80), less the Town's
administrative fees as set forth. in Paragraph 2 herein, and as adjusted each year
pursuant to the provisions of Paragraph 1 below ("Reimbursement Amount").
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
1. Usage Fee. Upon a request by a Future User to connect to the Sanitary
Sewer Extension ("Connection Request"), or upon notice to a Future User that it is
subject to a Town or County Health requirement that the Future User connect to the
Sanitary Sewer Extension ("Connection Requirement Notice"), the Town will collect a
Usage Fee from that Future User. The Town must use reasonable diligence to coUect
the Us~e Fee prior to connection to the Sanitary Sewer Extension by a Future User
who has made a Connection Request, or who has been served with a Connection
Requirement Notice by the Town or by County Health. The Usage Fee will be adjusted on
June 30 of each year based on the Construction Cost Index for the prior year as
determined by the City Engineer. The Usage Fee that would be due from a Future User
on the Effective Date of this Agreement is $19,433.38.
2. Adding Future Users. Upon mutual agreement of the Parties, this
Agreement may be amended at a future date to include owners of Benefiting Lands who
are not shown or listed on Exhibit C or Exhibit D as of the execution date of this
Agreement, but whose land has been added to the class of Benefiting Lands by County
Health or the County of Santa Clara Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO"), or
who became eligible as a result of annexation to the Town of Los Altos Hills and may
benefit from the Sanitary Sewer Extension.
3. Administrative Fee. Upon collection of the Usage Fee from a Future
User, and prior to r.emitting any funds to Installers, the Town shall deduct an
administrative fee of five percent (5%) from the Usage Fee to pay the costs incurred by
the Town in connection with the administration of this Agreement ("Administrative Fee").
4. Distribution. On December 31 of each year during which this Agreement
is in effect, the Town shall pay to Installers any and all funds collected pursuant to.
Paragraph 1 above, less the Administrative Fee. The Town shall make the check
payable to the Installers' distribution agents whose identities may be found on Exhibit F
hereto ("Distribution Agents"), and shall send such check to the Distribution Agents at the
address listed thereon. Exhibit F may be amended at any time by mutual agreement of
the Parties to reflect any change in the names or address of the Distribution Agents. The
terms and responsibilities of Installers' distribution agents may be found on Exhibit G
hereto, though Installers are solely responsible for any liability arising from the actions of
its distribution agents in connection with their responsibilities.
5. Indemnification and Hold Harmless. Installers agree to indemnify and
hold harmless the Town from any claims, costs or expenses incurred by the Town in
connection with any claim by any person or entity with respect to this Agreement, the
associated costs or the Usage Fees.
6. Applicable Law. All regulations and applicable ordinances of the Town
shall apply to this Agreement and to the performances hereunder.
7. Early Termination. If by decision of a court of competent jurisdiction or
by California law it shall be declared or become unlawful or unconstitutional to require
Future Users to reimburse Installers for the Sanitary Sewer Extension, then (a) the
Town's obligations to collect and account for any further Usage Fee(s} shall
automatically terminate; and (b) Installers and their successors or assigns shall
indemnify and hold harmless the Town from any claims or liability to Future Users for the
legally required return of any Usage Fee.
8. Collection Disputes.
(a) In the event of a dispute between any Future User and the Town
with respect to the payment of the Usage Fee, the Town shall notify the Distribution
Agents and may, at its option, and with the prior written consent of the Distribution
Agents, take any appropriate civil action against such Future User to collect the Usage
Fee; provided, however, Installers acknowledge that the Town is under no obligation to
take any legal action Whatsoever against such Future User to collect the Usage Fee.
The Town shall terminate any civil enforcement action at the request of the Installer's
Distribution Agents.
(b) The Town may, at its option, take appropriate enforcement action
against those property owners who have hooked up to the Sanitary Sewer Extension
without having paid the Usage Fee, or without receiving permission by the Town and
LAFCO.
(c) Installers shall hold the Town harmless for any failure by the Town
to collect the Usage Fee from any Future User.
(d) Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as imposing any
obligation upon the General Fund of the Town nor as imposing any obligation upon Town
to make any payments whatever to Installers, except to the extent funds are received and
collected by Town pursuant to this Agreement.
9. Termination. This Agreement and the obligations of the Town hereunder,
whether' or not all of the Reimbursement Amount or any portion thereof has been
collected, shall terminate on the fifteenth (15th) anniversary of the date of this Agreement.
10. Legal Fees and Costs. Prior to execution of this Agreement by the Town,
Installers shall pay all legal fees and costs incurred by the Town in connection with
preparing this Agreement.
11. Assignment. This Agreement shall be binding upon the successors, heirs
and assigns of the parties hereto, but Installers may not assign any of their rights under
this Agreement, apart from transferring their property, without the prior written consent of
the Town, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. If any Installer transfers
his or her specific property listed on Exhibit A hereto without having connected to the
Sanitary Sewer Extension, the future owner(s) of that specific property shall have a
perpetual right to connect to the Sanitary Sewer Extension, and the Town shall not
collect a Usage Fee from such future owner(s).
12. Exhibits. The Exhibits attached hereto are hereby incorporated into this
Agreement by this reference.
13. Merger. All negotiations and agreements previously made by the parties
and their agents with respect to this transaction are merged into this Agreement which
completely sets forth the obligations of the parties.
14. Effective Date. The parties hereto have executed this Agreement
effective as of the date written above.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
TOWN OF lOS ALTOS HillS
By:-:-M:-a-y~cir~f=rT'J'f;r""'"F==----
SIGNAlURES OF ALL INSTALLERS (1 THROUGH 18) MAY BE FOUND ON THEFOLLOWING PAGES
CerflfIl!ti 1I~ • tn,.. "n....
sAltos Hi/Is
I
Exhibit A
MORA DRIVE SEWER PROJECT INSTALLERS
Signature pages omitted from this copy
I
Exhibit B
MORA DRIVE SEWER PROJECT GENERAL AREA MAP
Area~Jo I.'iJIa RaJdl, lois 1·18,21-38ofToo Htmr 1~ Ydley VIew E9'ales, lols l~ofTOO lbnber765; APOI1i1nollot.fJ,SlMvisiJrIoiTheHa~ RardiAs Recorded in BookTofMaps, Pages 48, 49, ReoJnls 01 Saida CIaJa C4unly; and Remrd ofSIlvey, Book201 oIMapsatPage 53.
GENERAL AREA MAP
Exhibit C
MORA DRIVE SEWER-PROJECT REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT SERVICE AREA
(11" X 17")
FREEWAY
EXHIBIT C
MORA DAIVE SEWER PROJECTREIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT SERVICE AREA
Exhibit D
MORA DRIVE SEWER PROJECT INSTALLERS AND FUTURE USERS LAFCO APPROVED
No APN ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNERS
1 331-14-000 10702 MORA DR. ROBINSON HELENL2 331-14"{)15 10724 MORA DR. BLANCHARD RICHARD A. & ESTHER R.3 331-14-063 10710 MORA·DR. KLEIN ENRIQUE J. & JUDITH A.
4 331-14-064 10696 MORA DR. SIEBERlHURWlCK LISA M. & JENNIFER
5 331-15..{)05 11055 MORA DR. BODINE CHARLES M. & ELOISE G:
6 331-15-006 11001 MORA DR. LOIACONO JOHN P. & KARA A.
7 331-15..{)14 10915 MORA DR. GILMAN RICHARD A. & PATRICIA L
a 331-15-015 10869 MORA DR. MEHRLICH RICHARD W. & BEVERLY T.
9 331-15-016 10831 MORA DR. SMooKLER SAM & MIRIAM J.
10 331-15-022 10730 MORA DR. MALOVOS MADELEINE C.
11 331-15-023 10n6 MORA DR. WINCHELL RUTHG.
12 331-15..{)27 11030 MORA DR. FEENEY HAROLD V. JR. & MARY JO
13 331-15-028 11060 MORA DR. JOST NASH & KAREN
14 331-15-030 11120 MORA DR. TRAUGOTT ERNESTA.
15 331-15-036 10401 SUNHILLS DR. HOOPER PETER A. & SUZANNE S.
16 331-15-041 11000 MORA DR. RODRIGUEZ ROBERT R. & LOUISE A.
17' 331-15-042 10970 MORA DR. GIURLANI GAETANO & JUNE L
18 331-15-043 10898 MORA DR. CROCKEr E. DAVID & ANNE R.
19 331-15-0461047 10701 MORA DR. JOHN-DEGEUS ESTHER M. & MRT J.
20 331-15-048 10990 TERRY WY. DEBEVOISE HELEN F.
21 331-15-049 11000 TERRY WY. RICHARDS ROY C. & GARNET I.
22 331-15-051 10691 MORA DR. BRATTON TIMOTHY R. & SUSAN S.
23 331-15-052 11151 MORA DR. MINTON ALLEN R. & NANCY G.
~ 331-15-053 11111 MORA DR. SELL JOHNV.
25 331-15-054 11170 MORA DR. SEYMOUR DALE G. & MARGO L
26 331-15-055 10810 MORA DR. WYMELENBERG JOSEPH VANDEN & LISA
27 331-15-056 10840 MORA DR. GILBERT JENNIFER E.
28 331-15-057 10868 MORA DR. HORNBY GRACEe.
,
ExhibitE
[INTENTIONALLY OMITTED]
-------- ---------------
L
Exhibit F
AUTHORIZED MORA DRIVE SEWER PROJECT DISTRIBUTION AGENTS
Agents:
Enrique J. Klein1686 Christina DriveLos Altos,CA 94024(6.50) 964~9594
Kara A. Loiacono11001 Mora DriveLos Altos,CA 94024(650) 941-2528
Distribution Checks to be Addressed to:
Enrique J. Klein and Kara A. Loiacono11001 Mora DriveLos Altos,CA 94024
Exhibit G
MORA DRIVE SEWER PROJECTDISTRIBUTION AGENT RESPONSIBILITIES
The following defines the Mora Drive Sewer Project (MDSP) Distribution agent
responsibilities during the 15-year reimbursement period as defined in the SANITARY
SEWER EXTENSION REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT, MORA DRIVE SEWER
PROJECT dated 2003.
Each year of the reimbursement period, the MDSP Distribution Agent (Agent) will take the
following actions:
·Monthly:
1. Monitor all sewer construction activities within the MDSP reimbursement agreement
service area (See Exhibit C, MORA DRIVE SEWER PROJECT,
REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT SERVICE AREA).
2. Determine if the property owner intends to connect to the MDSP Sanitary Sewer
Extension that provides sanitary sewer services to the reimbursement area.
2.1 If the owner intends to connect, check to see if the owner is one of 18
Installers or Successors in the MDSP (see Exhibit A). If so, no additional
action is required.
2.2 If the owner connecting is not an Installer or Successor, but is listed as a
Future User (see Exhibits A & D), verify that the Town of Los Altos Hills
(''Town'') is collecting Future User fees from the property owner before
connection is permitted.
2.3 If the owner or his successor is not listed in Exhibit D, request Town
I verification that the property has been approved for connection by LAFCO or
has been served with a Connection Requirement Notice by the Town or by
County Health and has become a Future User as defined in Paragraph 2 of
this Agreement.
3. Pursuant to Section 8a of the Reimbursement Agreement, the Distribution Agents
will receive notification from the Town of intended commencement of enforcement
action and will either approve or deny the commencement of said action within 14
business days of receipt of the notice. Pursuant to that section, the Distribution
Agents will also provide direction to the Town to terminate any civil enforcement
actions.
December:
1. Confirm that the Town will provide a list of the Future Users that paid for connecting
to the MDSP during the previous reporting period and forward a reimbursement
check to the Distribution Agent on or before December 31 as stated in the
Reimbursement Agreement.
January 15:
1. Verify all connections to the MDSP made during the previous year.
2. Verify that the Town's distribution check (received by the Distribution Agent)
represents all connections made during the previous year.
3. Audit the information received from the Town to ensure that all information is
correct.
3.1 Parcel number
3.2 Property owner
3.3 Property address
3.4 Mailing address
3.5 Date connected
3.6 Amount collected
January 30:
1. Prepare a summary statement showing reimbursement monies received from the
Town of Los Altos Hills, deduct expenses and divide equally among the 18
Installers or Successors.
2. Distribute the net proceeds by sending reimbursement checks and a copy of theI
summary statement to all Installers or Successors.
3. File-all records in a safe place.
Mora Drive Annexation Study
Field Assessment and Estimated Cost toImprove Roadways to Town Standards
Prepared for
Town of los Altos Hills, CA
October 2012
Prepared by
CSG Consultants, Inc.1700 South Amphlett Blvd., 3rd FloorSan Mateo, CA 94402
Attachment 10
REPORT
Purpose of ReportCSG was asked to perform a field review of the streets being considered for annexation underthe Neighborhood Initiated Mora Drive Annexation. As part of this assessment, an estimate wasprepared to determine the probable cost of improvements to bring the roadways to TownStandards. A review of recorded documents was also performed confirming that all streetswithin the proposed annexation area were accepted into the County road system.
Condition AssessmentThe findings for each street are summarized in the table below:
Approx.Street Length
Mora Drive 1100 ft
Sunhills Drive 540 ft
Kenbar Road 300 ft
Moraquita Court 200 ft
Approx.Width
22-23 ft
17-18ft
17-18 ft
N/A
Condition
This was the only street with a centerline stripe, andthe only street with "No parking" signs leading up tothe County Park. Asphalt is in good condition, baseappears solid with no depressions, older slurry sealas top surface still performing well. PCI =76.
Roadway has a significant drop from the edge ofpavement into a drainage ditch along the south side,nearly the entire length of the road. There is also anopen pipe serving as an area drain that needs to bebrought to standard. The roadway surface is startingto crack, with consistent low to medium severityalligator cracks. Yet there are no potholes or ruts, sothe base appears solid. A thin overlay (1.5") with afew dig outs could resolve the pavement's structuralqeterioration. PCI=46.
Roadway was in good condition, fairly recentlyresurfaced. There are no cracks and the baseappears solid with no depressions or rutting.PCI =80.
This court, shown on the map, has been converted toa gated private driveway and from all appearancesappears to be private. No documentation waspresented to show otherwise. For the purposes ofthis report it is not being considered as part of theannexation.
PAGE 11
Discussion Points:
Road Widening - The City's standard roadway width for both local and collector streets is 22feet. Mora Road meets this standard, but the other streets do not and would have to bewidened 4 to 5 feet to meet standards. Given the hillside nature of the roadway, this may bechallenging without berms, retaining walls or hillside grading. This is especially true alongSunhills Drive because the roadway traverses the slope of the hillside with one side of the streethaving an uphill and the other a downhill grade. Kenbar Road could be widened more easily asit climbs the hillside at a steady grade and so it does not have significant slope issues tomitigate beyond the edge of existing roadway.
Drainage - Drainage is well managed within the roadways through the use of asphalt bermsand drainage ditches and there did not appear to be any signs of undue erosion beyond theroadway due to concentrated water. The ditch along Sunhills Drive was rather deep, however,and should be improved to prevent a car from sustaining damage should it travel beyond theedge of pavement. This could be graded and filled with a pervious material such as drain rock.
Other drainage-related costs associated with accepting the roadways might include the addedcost for obtaining drainage easements if none exist. Water from Sunhills Drive concentrates inthe adjacent roadway ditch and is then collected in an area drain, crosses under the street andgoes into a concrete swale and underground pipe system.
Resurfacing - Only Sunhills Road was in need of resurfacing. A thin overlay with some dig outrepairs should be applied to prevent further deterioration and more costly repairs.
Incidental Work/Contingencies - Minor items such as faded street signs, missing or damagedroadside ditch reflectors, asphalt berms that need to be restored or built higher due todeterioration and other possible unforeseen scope items (such as tree removal due to roadwidening) should be built into the annexation improvement cost as part of an overallcontingency. At the preliminary design level, which this report represents, this should probablybe in the 20% range.
Roadway Acceptance and Maintenance Responsibility - In accordance with the Streets andHighway Code, Section 941, the County is not liable for failure to maintain a roadway until it isaccepted into the county road system. This section clarifies that acceptance of a roaddedication subject to improvements does not constitute acceptance of the road into the countyroad system. In order for a road to be accepted for maintenance, either the board ofsupervisors needs to adopt a resolution accepting it into the county road system or anordinance-designated city officer must accept the road on behalf of the Board of Supervisors.
PAGE 12
Recorded documents were provided by the Town and reviewed for each of the street segmentswithin the annexation area to determine their status as to acceptance into the County roadsystems. It was found that for each of the road segments, such acceptance had been made.
Summarized below are the pertinent conclusions from the document review.
Mora Drive
Report to Board of Supervisors
Sunhills Drive
Report to Board of Supervisors
Kenbar Road
Resolution No. 2783
1937
1937
1964
Recommendation was made to accept thestreet's formal deed of declaration anddeclare Mora Drive to be a Public CountyRoad.
Recommendation was made to accept thestreet's formal deed of declaration anddeclare Sunhills Drive to be a Public CountyRoad.
Resolution was adopted accepting KenbarRoad within the limits of the annexation(Sunhills to Rolly) into the County Roadsystem.
PAGE 13
Estimated Improvement Cost:Because road widening will involve a fairly substantial amount of work and will also drive theneed to define how edge of pavement drainage will be handled, two separate cost summariesare being presented below, one that maintains the existing road widths and another that widensthe roadways to the Town's 22-foot standard.
Option 1 - No Road Widening:
Item
Mora Drive and Kenbar Road
Cost Scope
No improvements necessary
Sunhills Drive Drainage Ditch $10,000
Sunhills Drive Drain Inlet $20,000
Sunhills Drive Thin Overlay $13,500
Regrade existing ditch including drivewayculverts that have filled in with silt, placedrainrock that will stand up to future erosion.($20/lf x 500 ft)
Drain Rock $4,000Culverts & Perf. Pipe $3,500Grading $2,500
Convert pipe opening serving as area drainto formal catch basin with curb approachesin each direction to channel water.
Excavation and forming $2,500Catch basin wi curbs $17,500
1.5 inch overlay on Sunhills Drive. Includessome dig out repairs, crack seal andrestriping. (10,000 sf =90 tons @ $150/ton)
Subtotal:Contingency (20%)Option 1 Total:
$43,500$ 8,700$52,200
PAGEI4
Option 2 - Road Widening:
Item
Mora Drive
Cost
$ 0Scope
No improvement necessary
Sunhills Drive Drainage Ditch $ o Restoring the ditch is no longer possible asit will need to become part of the newwidened roadway.
Sunhills Drive Drain Inlet
Sunhills Drive Thin Overlay
$20,000
$13,500
Convert pipe opening serving as area drainto formal catch basin with curb approachesin each direction to channel water.
1.5 inch overlay on Sunhills Drive. Includessome dig out repairs, crack seal andrestriping. (10,000 sf = 90 tons @ $150/ton)
Road Widen (Sunhills & Kenbar) $23,000 Excavation, disposal, installation of 8" baserock, 4" AC. (840 If x 4 ft = 3,360 sf)
200 tons AB @ $75/ton100 tons AC @ $125/ton
Asphalt Berms (Kenbar)
12" Retaining Curb (Sunhills)
Hillside Grading (Sunhills)
Subtotal:Contingency (20%)Option 2 Total:
$7,500
$25,000
$100,000
$189,000$ 37,800$226,800
New asphalt berms along portions ofKenbar as road widening will remove what'sthere now. (300 If @ $25/1f)
12" concrete curb and gutters serving bothfor drainage and as a retaining wall for theuphill slope (500 If @ $501lf)
Hillside grading, excavation and off-haul.Or, as an alternative (after consideringsurvey data), it might be more economicalto raise the road instead, with additional liftsof asphalt to minimize the amount of hillsidegrading and tree disturbance. Assume 12inches of AC +/- beyond the alreadyproposed 1.5 inch overlay. (10,000 sf= 800tons @ $125/ton)
PAGEI5
Photos:
PAGEI6
Sunhills Drive
Low to medium severity alligator
cracking typical along roadway.
PAGEl?
Drainage Inlet Needed on Sunhills Drive
Non-standard open pipe serving as an
area drain located in the ditch off the
edge of roadway. Takes water under
the roadway into the concrete swale
shown above.
PAGEI8
Kenbar Road
PAGEI9
Moraquita Court
PAGE 110
Exhibits:
"Project detail" of what a typical retaining curb would look under the road widening option alongSunhills Drive. Handles both drainage and controls future material sloughing from uphill slope.
AU.. alHER OIMENSIONS SIW.I. loIA1CH CURB AND GUTTER DETM.~
AU.. RElNF'OIlCDIENT SIW.I. BE IJ RmNl IIoIIHTMl J" ClENl,~ I'1IllIl EDGE Of" CONCRf:II:.
® RETAINING CU~ AND GUTIER
Unincorporated boundary line as shown in County Records.
PAGE 111
Neighborhood Initiated Mora Drive Annexation
Annexation Area: 24.28 acresNumber of Parcels: 24
Rancho San Antonio Open Space
Boundary ofannexation area
Attachment 11FIRE DEPARTMENT
/__S_A_N_T_A_C_L_A_R_A_C_O_U_N_T_y \!tJ-14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818(408) 378-4010 -(408) 378-9342 (fax) - www.scefd.org
20 September 2012
Cynthia RichardsonPlanning ConsultantTown of Los Altos Hills26379 Fremont Road,Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Ms. Richardson,
I have reviewed the area of Mora Drive under consideration for annexation. Thepublic way appears to provide adequate access for emergency response vehicles.Water supply infrastructure is present and capable of providing sufficient flow andpressure to perform fire suppression operations. Should you have any furtherconcerns'l pleas~,dJ not.~~ltate to contact me.
~~Doug Harding, DFM IISanta Clara County Fire Dept.14700 Winchester Blvd.Los Gatos, CA 95032
Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection DistrictServing Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos,
Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLSStaff Report to the City Council
Attachment 12
September 20,2012
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATIONPROCEEDINGS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED MORA DRIVE AREA,CONSISTING OF 24 PARCELS OF RESIDENTIALLY DEVELOPED LAND INUNINCORPORATED SANTA CLARA COUNTY. #186-12-MISC.
FROM: Debbie Pedro, Planning Director
APPROVED: Carl Cahill, City Manager
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
Adopt a resolution, (Attachment #1) initiating am1exation proceedings for the Mora Drive Areaand set a date for a second public hearing no sooner than October 18,2012.
BACKGROUND
On August 2, 2001 the City Council approved the prezoning of 245 parcels in the San AntonioHills Area. The current proposal for annexation is located within this area. Along with theprezoning the City Council also approved a Sewer project in the Mora Drive area which was adirective to the Mora Drive Sewer Project representatives from the Local Agency FormationCommission. See minutes from the August 2,2001 City Council hearing. (Attachment #2)
On August 9, 2012 residents from the Mora Drive area submitted an application to annex 24parcels into the Town. Along with the application the residents submitted petitions by 21 of theproperty owners who agree to the annexation. (Attachment #3)
ANNEXATION PROCESS
The subject aImexation may not be considered a 100% consent annexation because not all of thelandowners or registered voters in the annexation area have agreed to the annexation proposal. Ahearing date of October 18, 2012 has been tentatively set for the Council to adopt a resolutionapproving the annexation. A property owner who does not consent to the annexation may thenfile a protest. PurSUaI1t to Govermnent Code Section 57075, a protest hearing for the Mora Driveannexation proposal must be held. This hearing is scheduled for November 19, 2012. A flowchaIi outlining the protest threshold is attached (Attachment #4). If less than 25% of the votersor 25% of the landowners owning less than 25% of the assessed land value submit a writtenprotest, the am1exation can be ordered without the need for an election.
Staff Report to the City CouncilMora Drive AnnexationSeptember 20,2012Page 2 of5
DISCUSSION
Statistical Summary
Number of ParcelsTotal Land AreaAverage Lot SizeResidential HomesVacant LotsPopulationTotal Street Length (Public)Total Street Length (Private)Total Assessed Valuation*Census 2010 (based on average household size)
2424.281.01195
56*±2,500 LF±500 LF
$30,887,032
Land Use and Planning AnalysisThe annexation of the Mora Drive Area will transfer land use regulatory authority from SantaClara County to the Town of Los Altos Hills. The project area is within the Town of Los AltosHills Urban Service Area and Sphere of Influence and is therefore eligible for annexation into theTown. The annexation area is adjacent to the south-eastern boundary of the Town. It consists ofparcels located on Mora Drive, Kenbar Road and Sunhills Drive.
The annexation area consists of 24 parcels on 24.8 acres of primarily residential propeliies. Aspreadsheet with detailed information on each lot is included as Attachment #5. The area is ahillside residential community characterized by ru~'al hills and oak groves which is similar to theTown of Los Altos Hills. The County will continue managing the inspection process for anyissued building permits. In addition, the County will continue planning and building site reviewsand building permit review of any new applications until LAFCO records the annexation. Weexpect the final approval by LAFCO to be around the end ofNovember.
The existing County Zoning of R1-E allows single-family residential development with aminimum lot size of one acre. Parcels in the annexation area range from 0.37 to 1.94 acres, withthe majority of the parcels exceeding one acre in size. The development standards of the Town'sResidential -Agricultural designation are similar to, but generally a bit more restrictive than theCounty standards. Non-conforming provision in the Town's zoning and site development codeswill allow for legal non-conforming structures in the project area to continue as they cunentlyexist. Legal non-conforming structures can be maintained with certain limitations. Replacement,reconstruction, or remodel of legal non-conforming structures will have to comply with theTown's requirements for non-conforming uses and structures.
Staff RepOlt to the City CouncilMora Drive AnnexationSeptember 20,2012Page 3 of5
Comparison of County and Town Zoning Standards. Zoning Standard RIE-IAC . R-A
. (Santa Clara County) (Los Altos Hills)Land Use Single-Family Residential Single-Family ResidentialMinimum Lot Size 1 Acre 1 AcreMin. Front Yard Setback 30' 40'Min. Side Yard Setback 20' 30'Min. Rear Yard Setback 25' 30'Maximum Height 35' 27'
Public Services and Facilities
Community DevelopmentThe addition of 24 propeliies and 56 residents will result in a slight increase in workload forplanning, engineering, and building depmiment staff, as additional staff time will be needed toprovide general customer service for the new residents. However, this administration cost wouldbe offset by additional property tax revenues. The service cost for processing planning andbuilding permits will be recovered through application fees and deposits.
Police ServicesLaw enforcement and public safety services are provided to Town residents under contract withthe Santa Clara County Sheriff s Department which will continue to be the agency responsiblefor fire protection services to propeliies in the area.
Fire ProtectionFire protection, suppression, and safety services are provided by the Santa Clara County FireDepmiment, which will continue to be the agency responsible for fire protection services topropeliies in the area.
SchoolsThe project area is cUlTently being served by the Los Altos Elementary School and MountainView-Los Altos Unified High School Districts. Almexation to the Town does not affect schooldistrict boundaries.
Water SupplyThe project area will continue to receive water from the California Water Service. There will beno change to the water supply.
Solid Waste Collection and Street SweepingSolid waste collection in Los Altos Hills is provided under an agreement with GreenwasteRecovery, Inc. The agreement covers garbage collection and pickup of recyclable materials andyard waste.
Staff RepOlt to the City CouncilMora Drive AnnexationSeptember 20,2012Page 4 of5
Sanitary SewerIn 2001 LAFCO approved the Town's request a sanitary sewer reimbursement agreement forservice to 28 properties. The current annexation includes only a pOliion of the propeliies that arepart of this agreement. Of those in the sewer area only five properties have actually connected tothe sewer system. Propeliy owners wishing to connect to the sewer system will have to pay therequired one-time sewer connection fee, construction permit fee, and an annual sewer assessmentfee (currently $733 per year).
StreetsMora Drive, pOliions of Kenbar Road and Sunhills Drive are all maintained by the County.However, additional research is needed to confirm the publici private status of. the streets in theannexation area. Any streets determined to be public will become the responsibility of the Townonce annexed. A pavement condition evaluation report for any public streets will be preparedprior to the October 18th City Council meeting. If the evaluation indicates the need for repairs inthe near term future (less than 10 years), staff will recommend that the Council not proceed withthe annexation at this time unless the County agrees to make all necessary repairs or depositsufficient repair funds with the Town prior to completion of annexation proceedings.
Pathways, Recreational Facilities, and Open SpaceThe annexation will have negligible impacts on the recreation facilities and programs in LosAltos Hills. It is not anticipated that the addition of 24 developed properties would significantlyincrease demand on overall service levels for recreational needs. There are no existing parks orother recreation areas within the project area. Pathways and Open Space Easement requirementswill be evaluated at the time of site development of individual propeliies after the annexation iscomplete.
Taxes and Fees
Once the Board of Equalization assigns the Tax Rate Area, final tax changes can be determined.It is anticipated that the increase in taxes to the new residents will be minimal.
Taxing Ag~ncy Los Altos HillsExisting Taxes/AssessmentslFees1. Santa Clara County-base tax No change2. Santa Clara County-library No change3. Los Altos School District No change4. EI Camino Hospital 2003 No Change5. Foothill-De Anza College 1999 No Change6. Mountain View Los Altos High School Bond Nol No Change7. Foothill College 2006 No Change8. Santa Clara Valley Water District Project No change
StaffReport to the City CouncilMora Drive AnnexationSeptember 20,2012Page 5 of5
CEQASTATUS
In accordance with Section 15319(a), of the California Environmental Quality Act this project iscategorically exempt.FISCAL IMPACT
The additional costs of serving the annexed propeliies will be offset by additional property taxrevenue. There may be some fiscal impact to the Town due to the annexation of the public roadspmiicularly if repairs are required in the near term future.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS
Three comment letters have been received at this time, two in favor of the annexation and onewith questions regarding the striping of streets (Attachment #6).
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution2. Minutes from City Council Meeting 8/2/2001 for Pre-zoning of San Antonio Hills3. Mora Drive Annexation Area-Propeliy Owners Petitions4. LAFCO Protest Threshold Flow Chali5. List of Parcels within Mora Drive Annexation Area6. Neighborhood Comment Letters
RepOli prepared by: Cynthia Richardson, Planning Consultant