Fwd: Hal and Jo Feeney letter of August 15, 2016 Regarding Mora Glen Drive No.1 Annexation Attachments: Letter to LAH pdf

Transcription

1 Deborah Padovan Supplemental No. 4 AGENDA ITEM #5.A Distributed 8/18/16 From: David Crockett < > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, :42 PM To: Deborah Padovan Subject: Fwd: Hal and Jo Feeney letter of August 15, 2016 Regarding Mora Glen Drive No.1 Annexation Attachments: Letter to LAH pdf Deborah Padovan, I m sorry I forgot to copy you on this to the Council: David Crockett Begin forwarded message: From: David Crockett < > Subject: Hal and Jo Feeney letter of August 15, 2016 Regarding Mora Glen Drive No.1 Annexation Date: August 16, 2016 at 1:52:42 PM PDT To: john.harpootlian@gmail.com, gcwaldeck@losaltoshills.ca.gov, lah.spreen@gmail.com,, Courtenay Corrigan <cccorrigan@losaltoshills.ca.gov>, John Radford <jradford2011@yahoo.com> Mr. John Harpootlian, Mayor Mr. Gary Waldeck, Vice Mayor Ms. Courtenay C. Carrigan Mr. John Radford Mr. Roger Spreen We support Hal and Jo s letter regarding the Mora Glen Drive No. 1 Annexation. (See attached Letter) The letter states the case well for delay in the Annexation. What we, as near by neighbors are concerned about, is the preservation of the rural character of the area. We believe that being part of Los Altos Hills is the best way to do that and are happy that we recently became part of the Town. However, others should be convinced of this. We feel that can best be done by a more comprehensive plan of annexation including resolution of building lot size, pathways, and preservation of Mora Drive Sewer Project right and restrictions. Sincerely, David And Ann Crockett Los Altos Hills 1

2 Harold V. Feeney Mary Jo Feeney 6 August 15, 2016 Los Altos Hills City Council: Mr. John Harpootlian, Mayor Mr. Gary Waldeck, Vice Mayor Ms. Courtenay C. Corrigan Mr. John Radford Mr. Roger Spreen RE: Mora Glen Drive No. 1 Annexation Dear Mayor Harpootlian and Council Members, Spreen, Corrigan, Waldeck, & Radford: We respectfully request that the Town either cancel or postpone the Mora Glen Drive No. 1 Annexation. This request is based on reasons explained in this letter including why our written protest should be considered valid due to the precedent already set by the Town. While we agree with the necessity of resolving the ongoing sanitation problem faced by the Burch family, we do not agree with the proposed token-annexation as a solution. This proposed annexation has dragged out the time during which a sewer connection could have been resolved. Months ago, with the sponsorship of Los Altos Hills, the Burch family could have requested an out of agency connection to a sewer similarly, the Town could have planned a meaningful annexation of the entire area. Instead, the Burch family and the Town are pursuing a token annexation proposal where, no matter what the outcome, many property owners (including those outside of the proposed annexation area) will be very disappointed. The objective of government should be to solve real problems and to promote the development of the community. Honor the MDSP Agreement Please implement an annexation plan that unifies the community and honors the intent of the Mora Drive Sewer Project (MDSP) Agreement (December, 2000). This 7-page agreement (between certain Mora Drive property owners and the Town) has a waiver paragraph that is 79 words in past Council meetings, many have attempted to shorten the meaning of the paragraph to a single word: waiver. Those 79 words describe the intent of the waiver paragraph. As we have pointed out in previous letters, the WAIVER paragraph specifies agreement to annexation under certain conditions: Initiation of an annexation by the Town, the County, or those parcel owners who are part of the agreement. In this case, NONE of those parties are initiating the current process; the Burch family petitioned the Town for annexation and the Burch family has paid the fees required for the process. An annexation of the AREA of the MDSP Agreement is clearly stated again, this in not the case for this current token annexation proposal. In the course of discussions regarding the proposed annexation, there have been a number of incorrect statements made that are not consistent with other paragraphs of

3 RE: Mora Glen Drive No. 1 Annexation Page 2 the MDSP Agreement. If Los Altos Hills chooses not to honor the intent of the waiver paragraph of the agreement, we are concerned that the Town may choose not to honor other conditions of the agreement. Precedent Has Already Been Set In the prior resident-initiated annexation of the 24 parcels of upper Mora Drive, a property owner who was subject to the MDSP Agreement was permitted to protest the annexation and his votes were recorded and counted in the final results of the protest meeting (see attachment). With this practice of allowing ALL parcel owners to protest already having been accepted in the prior annexation, the Town MUST be consistent in honoring protests by any or ALL parcel owners during the current proposed annexation process. Faulty Findings in Resolution of July 21, Council Meeting Clearly in 1.1, this 6 parcel proposed annexation territory does not exceed 150 acres, but the territory is NOT substantially surrounded by the Town of Los Altos Hills. The area is surrounded by properties in Santa Clara County. This is a daisy chain token annexation that barely touches Los Altos Hills. While the Town claims in 1.4 That the proposal does not create islands or areas in which it would be difficult to provide municipal services, the Mora Glen Drive property effectively is an island. This property is separated from the Mora Drive properties by a seasonal stream and has no direct access to a Los Altos Hills street it is 5 parcels away from a Town street. Similarly, it would be the only home on the entirety of Mora Glen Drive receiving garbage service from the Los Altos Hills designated garbage company. This parcel effectively is an island surrounded on three and a half sides by County of Santa Clara properties only 140 feet, less than 50% of the northern property line joins this property to the Mora Drive properties. Surrounding properties would be subject to different development and building regulations. Claiming in 1.6, That the territory is contiguous to existing town limits, is little more than a technicality where the Baxter property borders the Crockett property for 307 feet. The other properties in the proposed token annexation on Mora Drive are bordered on two sides by County properties. On a map, this proposed annexation looks like an exclamation point! A Crisis of Confidence No matter what the outcome from this proposed annexation, the Town does not benefit from the outcome. In either outcome, the residents of Mora Drive (including those not part of this annexation proposal) lose confidence in the ability of the Town to act in the best interest of its residents. Either outcome may make it far more difficult to make successful annexations in the future. This crisis of confidence includes unresolved annexation issues with LAFCO (reference 5.A Supplemental #1 in the Agenda), pathways issues, substandard lot issues, and the apparent disregard for the concerns of the property owners affected. LAFCO is pressing for annexation because the Town has shown little progress since LAFCO s demand for annexations in 2007 and on promises for island annexations made Mora Drive Los Altos, CA 94024

4 by the Town in This current token annexation proposal for only 6 parcels is questionable progress. At the same time, property owners in the recently annexed areas (West Loyola and upper Mora Drive) are uncomfortable with the Town s pathway proposals, particularly when the Pathways Committee has neglected to listen to the comments of our Los Altos Hills neighbors. We are quite concerned because pedestrian traffic volume on Mora Drive may be even greater than the pedestrian volume on other Town pathways. The crown jewel of participation in the Los Altos Hills community is the preservation of the rural character of the area provided by the Town s General Plan and its zoning and planning ordinances. The Town has not yet demonstrated to our Los Altos Hills neighbors that substandard lots can be managed in a way that supports the preservation of the rural character of the area. As property owners pointed out in prior Council Meetings, they were informed by letter that they WOULD be annexed to the Town. There was no invitation to join the Town; there was no discussion of the benefits of joining the Town; and there was no attempt to resolve the above issues that are part of this crisis of confidence. Property owners on Mora Drive are being mis-characterized and demonized by some Council members because they are requesting a realistic interpretation of the waiver paragraph in the MDSP Agreement. The waiver paragraph in the MDSP Agreement sets an expectation of an annexation process that meets intent of the waiver paragraph. Each annexation is an expansion of the Town s community, and is similar to a marriage, perhaps more permanent. However, one Council Member explained that this annexation proposal is not a marriage we (LAH) do not want you (proposed annexation properties). This instills little confidence that we might ever be able to participate more fully in city government and gain a greater degree of control over decisions affecting our neighborhood. Suggestion Either cancel or delay Mora Glen Drive No. 1 Annexation until the Town implements a comprehensive annexation plan that unifies the annexed community. Making difficult decisions is the role of governance and elected officials. Please do annexation right! Sincerely, Harold V. Feeney Mary Jo Feeney Attachment cc: Suzanne Avila Deborah Padovan

5 Excerpt from Town of Los Altos Hills City Council Regular Meeting Minutes Attachment Friday, November 30, 2012 Council Chambers, Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, California 3. PUBLIC HEARING A. MORA DRIVE ANNEXATION; Hearing to Consider Protests Against Annexation of Territory Designated as Mora Drive, Consisting of 24 Parcels on 27.5 Acres of Residential Land in Unincorporated Santa Clara County Encompassing (Assessor Parcel Numbers: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and ); and Consider Resolution in Relation to Protests. (File No # MISC) (Staff: D. Pedro) Vice Mayor Waldeck opened the PUBLIC HEARING and called for written protests. Forrest Linebarger, Unincorporated Santa Clara County, delivered written protests. Consultant Planner Cynthia Richardson presented the staff report. Vice Mayor Waldeck again called for written protests to be presented. Vice Mayor Waldeck closed the PUBLIC HEARING. While the results were being tabulated, the Council considered the CONSENT CALENDAR. The Council now returned to Item 3.A. Planning Director Debbie Pedro read the results of the protest. 7.5% of the voters and 8.33% of the land owners owning 4.86% of the assessed land value submitted protests. The protests fell below the 25% threshold. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Council Member Mordo moved Resolution Ordering the Reorganization of Territory Designated Mora Drive Without Election, as amended in Section 1 to include, that five (5) written protests to the reorganization proceedings were received and the value of those protest(s) submitted prior to the close of the protest hearing constitute 7.5% of the registered voters and 8.33% of the property owners, owning 4.86% of the assessed value in the affected territory. The motion was seconded by Council Member Summit. AYES: Vice Mayor Waldeck, Council Member Mordo, Council Member Radford, Council Member Summit NOES: None ABSENT/RECUSE: Mayor Larsen ABSTAIN: None MOTION CARRIED.