2011030712 - Attachment 3, Part 1 - 381 Pennsylvania Avenuecoa`evno� TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
t
Meeting Date: January 12, 2011
PREPARED BY: Mami F. Moseley, AICP, Associate Planner
mmoselevna losgatosca gov
ITEM NO: 3
ADDENDUM 2
APPLICATION NO.: Subdivision Application M -10 -007
LOCATION: 381 Pennsylvania Avenue (Southeast corner of Pennsylvania
Avenue at Wissahickon Avenue)
APPLICANT: Chris Spaulding, AIA
PROPERTY OWNER: 381 Pennsylvania Avenue, LLC
CONTACT PERSON: Gregory Howell
APPELLANT: Matthew Haberkom
APPLICATION SUMMARY: Consider an appeal of a decision of the Development Review
Committee approving a two -lot subdivision on property zoned R-
1:8. APN 510 -41 -057
EXHIBITS: 1 -12. Previously received
13. Letter from Ms. Lawson, received January 7, 2011 (71 pages)
14. Letters of support (five pages)
15. Correspondence between staff, appellant, and Commissioners
(20 pages)
REMARKS
After the packets were completed staff received additional materials from the Appellant (Exhibit
13). All items addressed in Ms. Lawson's letter were previously addressed by staff verbally during
the Development Review Committee of November 16, 2010. These items are also addressed in the
analysis section of the staff report previously received. Staff would like to make one correction to
Ms. Lawson's letter. The staff members present at the DRC on November 16, 2010, were: Joel
Paulson (Chair), Mami Moseley (Project Planner), Shane Adrian (Engineering), Michael Machado
(Building), and Wayne Hokanson (Fire); additionally Judith Propp (Town Attorney) and John
Gaylord (Engineering) were also present to provide additional support if needed.
Due to the nature of the correspondence between staff, the appellant, and the Planning Commission,
and the fact that not all Commissioners received the documents emailed by the appellant, staff has
included them for your review.
Staff also notes that in regards to the correspondence from Ms. Lawson dated January 10, 2011,
regarding CEQA compliance; Ms. Lawson is correct, the CEQA section listed in the staff report is a
typo. The correct section is 15315 and is accurately shown in the attached findings provided in
ATTAC@fM 3
Planning Commission Staff Report (Addendum 2) - Page 2 of 2
381 Pennsylvania Avenue/M -10 -007
January 12, 2011
Exhibit 2. Also in response to the same email from Ms. Lawson; the existing non - conforming
detached garage at 381 Pennsylvania Avenue is not an exception to the Town Code. Chapter 29
Article 1 Division 5 of the Town Code allows existing non - conforming residential structures to
remain indefinitely, or to be expanded, modified, or rebuilt upon certain findings or conditions. No
modification is being made to this structure, and no exception is required in order for it to remain.
Prepared by:
Marni F. Moseley, AICP
Associate Planner
WRR:MM:cgt
NADEVUtEPORTS2011\381 Pennsylvania addendum 2.doc
0 D
App oved by:
die R. Ro n y
Director of Community Developmen
W
�_
I ._
k L
MILLER STARR
REGALIA
January 7, 2011
VIA EMAIL, FACSIMILE AND MAIL
Honorable Chair and Members
of the Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
P.O. Box 949
Los Gatos, CA 95031
1331 N. California Blvd. T 925 935 9400
Fifth Floor F 925 933 4126
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 www.msdegal.com
Kristine D. Lawson
kristina.lawson@msriegal.com
925 941 3283
RECEIVED
TOVM OF LOS CWTi GGiS;9
PLANNENG DIVIS104
Re: Subdivision Proposal: 381 Pennsylvania Avenue Los Gatos CA
Dear Honorable Chair and Members of the Town Planning Commission:
This office represents Matt and Katherine Haberkorn in connection with their appeal
of the Development Review Committee's November 16, 2010 decision to approve a
proposed subdivision at 381 Pennsylvania Avenue. We have previously
corresponded with the Town on numerous occasions regarding the legal infirmities
inherent in the subdivision proposal, which correspondence we incorporate herein
by this reference. Our primary legal arguments are included in letters dated
November 15, 2010 and August 31, 2010, both of which are attached herein and
incorporated herein by reference. Notably, as of the date of this letter we have
received no response from the Town to these letters or the issues raised therein.
The purpose of this letter is not to recite the arguments included in our previous
correspondence, but to respond to additional information we have received since
November 15, 2010. We look forward to discussing these matters with you in more
detail next Wednesday, January 12.
Relevant Factual Background
The project site includes a unique, historic home that was originally constructed
some time in the 1880s. The home was purchased by Frank McCullough for his
"maiden lady" sister, Mary McCullough, who worked for an organization for the blind.
It was sold in 1939 as part of the McCullough estate and purchased by Bill Balch,
who kept it until 1962. The house was then sold to Dr. Morton and Margaret
Manson. Ms. Manson resided there until her death in 2009. In 1987, the house was
awarded a Bellringer plaque. Project Bellringer was a community wide project
designed for all historic homes within Town limits as part of the Town's Bicentennial
celebration.
Offices: Walnut Creek /Palo Alto HKNMW8921 \829392.1
I_XHIStY 1 3
Honorable Chair and Members of the Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission
January 7, 2011
Page 2
In 2010, the applicant acquired the home and property with the intent to perfect what
he believed to be two separate lots. However, upon review of the original map, it
was clear that the pre -1893 map did not create separate legal parcels. (See July
26, 2010 Correspondence from Kristina D. Lawson to Community Development
Director and Town Engineer; see also August 11, 2010 Town of Los Gatos Public
Works Comments, Staff Technical Review.)
As the applicant and Town are aware, for over 130 years, the property has always
been treated as a single parcel. In fact, the existing home, and various other
improvements span the width of both "lots." This is not unusual for this area of
Town, as the lots depicted in the 1892 map were extremely narrow and deep. Many
of the lots in the neighborhood are described in legal descriptions as two lots from
the original map. Notably, if the full intent of that map had been realized, the creek
running behind the subject property would have been filled in completely and used
as a roadway. For obvious reasons, including clear legal precedent, recognition of a
"parcel" nearly 120 years old makes no practical sense.
Once the applicant was advised that the Town could not process his original request
to perfect the two lots, he reframed his application as a subdivision proposal.
2. Unique Glenridge Neighborhood Character
The Glenridge neighborhood in which the proposed subdivision is located has been
described as one of the prime areas in the Town of Los Gatos. It is characterized
by large lots, historic homes, and parkland. It is located within walking proximity to
Los Gatos' historic downtown, yet it retains a rural charm that continues to draw new
interest, and delights long -time residents.
The DRC received testimony regarding the character of the over -100 year old
neighborhood from a resident that has lived there for over 52 years. Regarding the
pending subdivision application, the resident noted that the subdivision (and
accompanying development) would destroy what the Glenridge residents have all
enjoyed for so many years — the neighborhood character. Other residents noted
that a subdivision in this location was "not historically appropriate" and would have
significant "emotional impacts" on the historic neighborhood.
3. Unusual and Legally Unsupported Decision of the Development Review
Committee
In our opinion, the decision of the DRC was highly unusual. No formal application
was presented to the DRC for review; rather, the DRC reviewed what was
apparently a modification of a former application by Mr. Howell for certificates of
compliance. Further, no staff report was prepared for the DRC meeting to explain or
analyze the application. Significant decisions relating to applicable law, including
the project's purported compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
HKNM'4892M29392.1
Honorable Chair and Members of the Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission
January 7, 2011
Page 3
( "CEQA "; Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq.) were only confirmed in emails to
the undersigned, and were not supported by any evidence in the record. The public
was left to review a very technical proposed subdivision map with no staff report or
applicant submittal to serve as a roadmap.'
Additionally, despite the very complex nature of the subdivision of any property - let
alone the subdivision of a property that was originally developed in the late 1800s
and is part of a fully built -out, and well - established neighborhood — the proposed
project conditions of approval were presented to the public (including the applicant)
for the first time at the DRC meeting. We therefore had no opportunity to properly
review the impact of those conditions on our clients' property or the neighborhood in
general before the DRC made its determination.
We were also advised that, notwithstanding the controversial nature of this
application, the DRC meeting was not recorded, nor was any evidence or
substantiation provided for the boilerplate findings adopted by the DRC. The
California Supreme Court has made clear that findings must be supported by
substantial evidence, and must bridge "the analytical gap between evidence and
ultimate decision or order." (Topanga Assn for a Scenic Community v. County of
Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 513 -17.) Boilerplate or conclusory findings that
do not recite the specific facts upon which the findings are based are not legally
sufficient. (Village Laguna, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d
1022, 1033 - 1034.) Certain specific questions were not answered by the DRC or the
applicant, including:
• Had a survey been prepared to confirm the accuracy of the disputed
boundary lines?
• What buildings and structures were proposed to remain on -site
following the subdivision?
• Why was the Town waiving certain application requirements, including
the requirement to provide a soils report?
• How did the Town propose to resolve the identified inconsistencies
with its own planning documents, including the proposal for two curb
cuts along Pennsylvania?
• On what basis did the Town arrive at the CEQA determination for the
project?
'We note that the "tentative map" appears not to have been fully revised following the
withdrawal of an application for certificates of compliance and lot line adjustment. For
example, the tentative map currently indicates an "existing boundary to be removed,"
notwithstanding that the Town has already determined that such lot line does not exist,
HKNM1489211829392.1
Honorable Chair and Members of the Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission
January 7, 2011
Paae 4
1 �
We remain unaware of the DRC's reasons or basis for approval of the subdivision,
and we have not been informed as to the reasons the DRC rejected the arguments
we presented, which arguments were and are fully supported by substantial
evidence in the record.
Lastly, the composition of the DRC was itself questionable. The DRC on November
16, 2010 included: Joel Paulson, Senior Planner, Marni Moseley, Project Planner,
Judith Propp, Town Attorney, and two representatives from the Town's Engineering
Department. During the DRC meeting, Town staff advocated in favor of the project,
and summarily rejected contrary arguments without any evidentiary basis.
4. Response to December 15, 2010 Letter from Gregory Howell
On December 15, 2010, the applicant submitted a "Letter of Justification" in support
of the proposed subdivision. This letter purports to justify that the property already
consists of two separate lots because the property description includes two separate
lots and because an ancient subdivision map included two lots. The Town has
previously rejected this claim. On August 11, 2010, during a technical review of a
previous application, the Public Works Department provided the following written
comment in support of its decision to "not move forward with processing the
application for a Lot Line Adjustment":
Pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, valid
subdivisions prior to 1893 must have been prepared
under and reviewed against an applicable subdivision
ordinance or standard. We have no record of any
ordinance, or applicable standard circa 1892 in this
area. While the Glen Ridge Park Map, referenced in
the Legal Description, identifies 2 lots — the map in
itself did not constitute the creation of legal parcels.
Maps in themselves prior to 1893 can only be used as
reference to the property being described and not
legal subdivisions.
(See also Letter from Kristina D. Lawson to Community Development Director and
Town Engineer dated July 26, 2010.) Further, the letter suggests that the proposed
subdivision fully complies with all applicable Town standards. As set forth in our
November 15, 2010 correspondence (which is attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference), the proposed subdivision does not comply with applicable
Town requirements for the following reasons:
The proposed subdivision does not comply with applicable setback
and yard requirements.
WNMW8921 \829392.1
Honorable Chair and Members of the Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission
January 7, 2011
Page 5
• The accessory buildings located on parcel 1 do not conform to
applicable zoning requirements.
• The additional proposed curb cut and driveway are inconsistent with
the Town's General Plan.
• The applicant has not demonstrated that the project has the required
"strong community benefit."
• The project is inconsistent with numerous provisions of the Town's
General Plan, including those related to preservation of neighborhood
character.
The applicant's letter does not provide any evidence in support of its legal
conclusion that the project is fully compliant, nor have we received any substantial
evidence whatsoever from the applicant or Town staff regarding the project's
compliance.
5. The Town Must Conduct Proper CEQA Review of the Impact of the
Proiect on a Historic Resource
As noted in our previous correspondence to the Town, the Town can not use
CEQA's minor land divisions categorical exemption if a project may cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
The definition of a "historical resource" in CEQA includes properties that are not
formally included in a national, state, or local register. (Pub Res Code 21084.1;
Valley Advocates v. City of Fresno (2008) 160 CA4th 1039, 1066; League for
Protection of Oakland's Architectural & Historic Resources v. City of Oakland (1997)
52 CA4th 896.) Based on the documents included in the administrative record,
including, but not limited to (1) a Historic Preservation Committee Data Sheet
requiring a heightened standard of review for any project at 381 Pennsylvania Ave.,
(2) an Architectural /Cultural Survey conducted by Ann Bloomfield, and referencing a
previous survey; and (3) an evaluation sheet which makes clear the property is
eligible for local designation, the subject property clearly qualifies as a "historical
resource" under CEQA requiring an evaluation of potential impacts and mitigation
should that evaluation identify potentially significant adverse impacts.
In League for Protection of Oakland's Architectural & Historic Resources the court
declined "to adopt the position suggested by respondents that nothing less than
official designation of a building as historic in a recognized register suffices to trigger
CEQA requirements. The language of sections 21084.1 and 5020.1 does not
demand formal listing of a resource in a national, state or local register as a
prerequisite to'historical' status. The statutory language is more expansive than
that." (Id. at 52 Cal.AppAth 907.)
HKNMW8921 \829392.7
Honorable Chair and Members of the Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission
January 7, 2011
Page 6
Because the subject property is clearly historic, the Town cannot rely on a CEQA
exemption, and must proceed to conduct the proper level of environmental review
and analysis.
Because no CEQA review has been conducted for the proposed subdivision, and
because so many significant questions remain unanswered, we respectfully request
the Planning Commission to grant the appeal. We look forward to discussing this
matter with you in more detail next Wednesday, January 12.
Very truly yours,
MI ER STARR REGALIA
Kristina D. Lawson
KDL:KDL /vse
Attachments
cc: Clients
Town Manager
Judith Propp, Town Attorney
Wendie Rooney, Community Development Director
Kevin Rohani, Town Engineer
Marni Moseley, Project Planner
Greg Howell
F- -< MILLER STARR
REGALIA
November 15, 2010
VIA FACSIMILE AND MAIL
Marni Moseley
Associate Planner
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
P.O. Box 949
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Re: 381 Pennsylvania Avenue Los Gatos CA
Dear Ms. Moseley:
1331 N. California Blvd. T 925 935 9400
Fifth Floor F 925 933 4126
Walnut Creek, CA 94596 www.msrlegal.com
Kristina D. Lawson
Ifistina.lawson@msrlegal.com
925 941 3283
We are in receipt of your November 10, 2010 correspondence regarding a proposal
to subdivide the above - referenced property (the "Property"). As you know, this
office represents Matt and Katherine Haberkorn, the owners of the immediately
adjacent property (371 Pennsylvania). In addition, our clients own a permanent
easement for ingress and egress over the over the southeastern 20 feet of the
Property. From your letter, and from our review of the most recent map submittal,
we understand that the owner of the Property has submitted a proposal to subdivide
the Property into two separate legal parcels'. We further understand that the Town
will hold a meeting of its Development Review Committee tomorrow, Tuesday,
November 16, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. to review the subdivision proposal. Based on our
review of the Town's Code, we understand that this meeting will include the
Planning Director, Town Engineer, Building Official, and Director of Parks, Forestry
and Maintenance Services. (L.G.M.C., § 29.20.455 [mandatory attendees].) We
have not been advised as to whether the Fire Chief, Police Chief, Town Attorney, or
Health Officer will be present. Together with our clients, we plan to be in attendance
at that meeting to present our concerns to the Committee.
As we indicated in our August 31, 2010 correspondence to the Town (which is
attached hereto as Attachment A and incorporated herein by this reference), the
subdivision proposal fails to comply with numerous legal requirements, and cannot
' We understand that the applicant for the proposed subdivision is Gregory Howell
and /or 381 Pennsylvania Ave., LLC. We also understand that an application by
Chris Spaulding, an architect, for Minor Residential Development may still be
pending. We note that the tentative map includes a reference to a "New 2nd Floor
Addition" and a "Proposed Kitchen Expansion!
Offices: Walnut Creek / Palo Alto nKNIA189211925028.2
Marni Moseley
November 15, 2010
Page 2
be approved at this time. The purpose of this correspondence is to provide the
entire Development Review Committee with our legal analysis in anticipation of
tomorrow's meeting. We look forward to discussing these matters with you and the
Committee in more detail during the meeting.
1.
In August, we provided information to the Town indicating that the boundary lines
depicted on the proposed tentative map were incomplete and therefore incorrect.
Specifically, we noted that the boundary line (referred to as the "exterior boundary of
the project" on the tentative map) was not accurately represented because 381
Pennsylvania Avenue does not include all of the former Laurel Avenue, and does
not extend toward the creek from the former Laurel Avenue, despite representations
to the contrary on the face of the map. Your letter indicates that "[e]ngineering has
verified that the property boundary lines are depicted accurately on the tentative
map as verified in a recent title report." We are unclear as to how "engineering" was
able to verify the boundaries based on the submittal, given that the submittal does
not plot the location of the former Laurel Avenue or the adjacent creek, and does not
include the location of our clients' easement.
Your letter references reliance on a preliminary title report submitted to the Town by
the applicant as the basis for the verification of the property boundaries. A
preliminary report is a document issued by a title company and serves only as an
offer to issue the type of title insurance policy described in the report subject to the
exceptions contained therein. (Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate 3d., § 7.25.)
Preliminary title reports are not abstracts of title and are not a representation of the
condition of title. (Ins. Code, § 12340.11
Our firm's title team and independent title experts have reviewed the documents
described in the preliminary title report. From this review, it is not clear that the
documents within the chain of title serve as the basis for the location of the southern
boundary of the project depicted on the map. In the preliminary report dated May 4,
2010 (attached hereto as Attachment B) , the property is described as consisting of
two parcels: Parcel One and Parcel Two. "Parcel One" is described as:
Lots Sixteen (16) and Seventeen (17) in Block One (1)
as laid down, designated and delineated upon that
certain map entitled "Map of the Subdivision of Block
No. 1 of Glen Ridge Park in and Adjoining the Town of
Los Gatos, Cala" which map was filed for record in the
The vesting deed for 381 Pennsylvania contains an Identical description of the Property.
The vesting deed is attached hereto as Attachment D .
MKN%48921%25028.2
Mami Moseley
November 15, 2010
Page 3
Office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa
Clara, State of California, on August 15, 1892, in Book
"G" of Maps, at Page 13.
Attached to this letter as Attachment C is a copy of the referenced map, with the
relevant lots highlighted in yellow. You will note from this map that the lots do not
include any portion of Laurel Avenue. Laurel Avenue is highlighted in = on the
attached map. However, the tentative map appears to intend to include all of Laurel
Avenue within the four corners of the Property.
'Parcel Two' is described as:
The Northerly % of Laurel Avenue, as shown upon the
Map of Glen Ridge Park, herein referred to, as said
avenue was vacated by Resolution No. 1980 -75 of the
Town of Los Gatos, a copy of which was recorded on
March 6, 1981, in Book F946 of Official Records, Page
44. Bounded on the West by the Southerly
prolongation of the West boundary of Lot 17 and on
the East by the Southerly prolongation of the East
Boundary of Lot 16, Block 1, of Glen Ridge Park which
was filed for record in Book G of Maps, Page 13.
This description clearly and unequivocally indicates that only the northerly Y of
Laurel Avenue became part of the Property when the Town vacated the street in
1980. This description is also supported by applicable law, which provides that an
abandonment or street vacation results in a reversion to the abutting property
owners, one -half to the owner on each side, subject to any private easements that
may have survived the termination of the public easements. (Miller & Starr, Cal.
Real Estate 3d., § 15.81 [citing Machado v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co. (1940) 15
Cal. 2d 180,185; Harman v. City and County of San Francisco (1972) 7 Cal. 3d
150, 166; Baker v. Ramirez (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1123, 1132; Satwenberg v.
Marquez (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 301, 306; Pilkington v. Fausone (1970) 11
Cal.App.3d 349, 351.) Again, the tentative map appears intend to include all of
Laurel Avenue within the four comers of the Property notwithstanding the legal
description of Parcel Two.
One of the primary problems with the tentative map is that Laurel Avenue, as
described in the grant deeds, and originally proposed in 1892 is not represented on
the face of the map. It is therefore unclear from the proposed tentative map what
interest is claimed by the owner of the Property in Laurel Avenue. Note that Laurel
HKNMl48921V825028 2
Marni Moseley
November 15, 2010
Page 4
Moreover, because the map fails to accurately depict Laurel Avenue, the location of
our clients' 20 foot permanent ingress and egress easement is not accurately
reflected. A copy of the vesting deed for the easement was previously provided to
the Town in August, and is attached hereto as Attachment E . It is a mandatory
requirement of the Town's Municipal Code that the widths and approximate
locations of all existing easements be provided on a tentative subdivision map.
(See L.G.M.C., § 24.20.030 (6), attached hereto as Attachment F .) It is not enough
that at one fixed location on the map there is a reference to the easement. The
location of the entirety of the easement must be shown on the face of the tentative
map.' Again, this requirement is mandatory, and is not waivable or otherwise
subject to the discretion of City staff. Before the subdivision is considered for
approval, the boundary issues must be resolved.
According to your November 10, 2010 letter, the Town's Parcel Map Checking
Application requirements are not universally applied to all applicants, and apparently
the Town did not require various items to be provided in connection with this
subdivision. Considering the pending application, if approved, would result in the
subdivision of the property, we are curious as to the reasons (1) the Town did not
require that its standard subdivision application be submitted or executed by the
subdivider, and (2) the Town waived the requirements to provide a soils report and
drainage/hydraulic calculations.
The subdivision of an infill parcel in an existing residential neighborhood should not
be taken lightly. The Property is located immediately adjacent to a creek, and is
downstream from a water supply reservoir. The Property is known to drain to the
east, causing flooding and drainage problems for downslope properties. By failing
to require the applicant to provide relevant soils and drainage related information,
neither the Town nor our clients have any ability to determine the extent of the
subdivision's potential environmental impacts.
3.
Thank you for your reference to section 29.40.015 of the Town's Code regarding the
setback requirements applicable to the existing cottage. Unfortunately,_ your
correspondence fails to address how the applicant intends to satisfy the setback
requirements for the proposed second parcel, given the location of the pool
' The omission of the easement location from the face of the map is particularly conceming
here, because of the applicable setback requirements from the structure identified as
'BARN' on the tentative map. In order to properly measure and determine compliance with
the applicable setback requirements, the location of the easement must be disclosed.
I -1\
i
HKNMYi8 9 2118 2 5 0 28.2
Marni Moseley
November 15, 2010
Page 5
equipment and barn. As noted in our August 31 correspondence, the mandatory 8
foot side yard setback requirement cannot be satisfied because of the location of the
existing barn structure. (L.G.M.C., § 20.40.405.) Does the applicant plan to
demolish the barn in connection with the subdivision?
4.
Two separate accessory buildings are located on the proposed Parcel 1. (See
L.G.M.C., §§ 29.10.020, 29.40.015.) The garage building is located immediately on
the front property line of the parcel, within the required setback. This building does
not conform to the requirements of section 29.40.015 of the Town's Code, which
section does not allow accessory buildings to be located on the property line in the
front yard setback.
Further, the tentative map fails to provide the dimensions of both the cottage and
garage, making it impossible to determine whether the structures occupy less than
fifteen percent (15 %) of the proposed Parcel 1. This information must be provided
to the Town in order to determine zoning compliance.
5. The Additional Proposed Curb Cut and Driveway Are Inconsistent With
the Town's General Plan
As set forth on the proposed tentative map, a new driveway and necessary curb cut
is planned in connection with the subdivision. This curb cut will result in two
separate curb cuts being located within approximately 20 feet of each other. No
other property in the vicinity of the proposed subdivision as two curb cuts (see
photographs attached as Attachment G ), and the second curb cut is inconsistent
with applicable provisions of the Town's General Plan.'
Specifically, Goal CD.G.1.1 provides that it is the goal of the Community Design
Element of the General Plan: "[t]o preserve and enhance the Town's character
through exceptional community design." A "detail policy° of this goal requires the
Town to "[m]inimize the number of driveway openings, or curb cuts in new
development." (Town of Los Gatos General Plan, page CD -2, policy CD.P.1.22.)
Attachment G provides evidence of this policy in practice. The photographs depict
the following properties:
371 Pennsylvania Ave
381 Pennsylvania Ave
' It appears the curb cut is necessary in order to provide one additional parking space. We
note that the September 1, 2010 comments from the planning department indicate that two
additional parking spaces are necessary in order to comply with applicable zoning
requirements. Where is the second space located?
HKNAA48921%B25028.2
Mami Moseley
November 15, 2010
Page 6
• Wissahickon Ave (showing no driveway cuts except for the entrance to
600 Pennsylvania)
• 600 Pennsylvania Ave
• 369 Pennsylvania Ave
• 365 Pennsylvania Ave
• 363 Pennsylvania Ave
• 361 Pennsylvania Ave
• 349 Pennsylvania Ave
• 347 Pennsylvania Ave
• 345 Pennsylvania Ave
• 371 Pennsylvania Ave
Each of these properties has only one curb cut/driveway. The homes on the other
side of Pennsylvania do not have curb cuts as each has a gravel walk/parking area
adjacent to the street. The subdivision proposal makes no effort whatsoever to
comply with 'detail policy" policy CD. P.1.22.
5. The Applicant Has Not Demonstrated That The Project Has The
Required "Strong Community Benefit"
The Town of Los Gatos has numerous goals, policies, and implementing strategies
that relate to infill development. "infill Development' is defined as "(djevelopment of
vacant land (usually individual lots or left -over properties) within areas that are
already largely developed." (Town of Los Gatos General Plan, page G -5.)
Development is generally understood by planners to include the subdivision of land.
With respect to infill development, the Town's General Plan includes the following
policies:
L.P.1.7. In -fill projects shall contribute to the further development of the
surrounding neighborhood (e.g. improve circulation, contribute to or provide
neighborhood unity, eliminate a blighted area, not detract from the existing
quality of life).
• L.P.1.8. In -fill projects shall be designed in context with the neighborhood
and surrounding zoning with respect to the existing scale and character of
HKNMK89211825028.2
Marni Moseley
November 15, 2010
Page 7
surrounding structures, and should blend rather than compete with the
established character of the area.
• L.1.1.3. In -fill project/Community Benefit: Applicants for in -fill projects shall
demonstrate that the project has a strong community benefit.
• L.H.4. In -fill project/Community Benefit: The deciding body shall make
speck findings of community benefit before approving any in -fill
development.
The proposed subdivision is inconsistent with each of these four policies. First, the
project does not improve circulation, contribute to or provide neighborhood unity, or
improve the existing quality of life. To the contrary, the project has already created
a tremendous deal of controversy in the neighborhood, and has been met with great
resistance. Second, the project does not respect the existing scale, character, or
layout of surrounding structures, and any structure built on the proposed second
parcel would loom over the adjacent property. Third, the applicant has not
submitted any statement to the Town purporting to demonstrate that the project has
any community benefit, let alone the strong community benefit required by the
Town's General Plan. And fourth, the Committee will be unable to make the
requisite findings, given that the applicant has made no demonstration of strong
community benefit.
6.
In addition to the above - referenced provisions, the proposed subdivision is also
inconsistent with the following provisions of the Town's General Plan:
• L.P.1.1. Development shall be of high quality design and construction,
a positive addition to and compatible with the Town's ambiance.
Development shall enhance the character and unique identity of
existing commercial and /or residential neighborhoods.
• L.P.1.2. Encourage developers to engage in early discussions
regarding the nature and scope of the project and possible impacts
and mitigation requirements. These discussions should occur as early
as possible in the project planning stage, preferably preceding land
acquisition.
• L.G.2.1. To limit the intensity of new development to a level consistent
with surrounding development and with the Town at large.
• L.G.3.1. To maintain the existing character of residential
neighborhoods by controlling development.
HKNMw892"25028.2
Mami Moseley
November 15, 2010
Page 8
• L.G.4.1. To preserve and enhance existing community and
neighborhood character and sense of place.
• L.P.4.2. Ensure that new development is a positive addition to the
Town's environment and does not detract from the nature and
character of appropriate nearby established development.
+ L.P.4.3. Maintain the character and identify of existing neighborhoods.
New construction, remodels, and additions shall be compatible and
blend with the existing neighborhood.
• CD.G.1.1. To preserve and enhance the Town's character through
exceptional community design.
e CD.P.1.1. Promote and protect the physical and other distinctive
qualities of residential neighborhoods.
• CD.P.1.5. Avoid abrupt changes in scale and density.
• CD.P.1.7. New structures, remodels, landscapes and hardscapes
shall be designed to harmonize and blend with the scale and rhythm of
the neighborhood and natural features in the area.
The proposed subdivision will conflict with the long - established character of the
neighborhood, which has developed as a single family neighborhood with homes
fronting on Pennsylvania Avenue. The neighborhood is characterized by deep lots,
and largely follows the mapping completed prior to the Town's incorporation in 1892
This proposal would signify an adverse and abrupt change in the density of the
neighborhood, and would result in the potential for a structure to be constructed in
such a manner that it would loom over the downslope adjacent properties.
We note that the project applicant did not engage in any discussions with the
neighborhood prior to his acquisition of the property, and that it has been very
difficult to obtain information about the project from both the applicant and the Town
7. The Town Has Fatted To Comoiv With The Mandatory Reeuiremnnfs of
Contrary to the requirements of applicable law, the Town has wholly disregarded its
role as lead agency by failing to require any environmental documentation to be
prepared in connection with the proposed subdivision. Just this morning, we
received an email from you indicating that no staff report was prepared for this
matter, but that the Town apparently claims that the subdivision is exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA"; Pub. Resources
Code, §§ 21000 et seq; 14 Cal. Code Regs., §§ 15000 et seq.) pursuant to section
HKNMw892IW5028.2
Mami Moseley
November 15, 2010
Page 9
15315 of the CEQA Guidelines. Because the Town has prepared no documentation
whatsoever for the proposal, and because the Town's file contains only minimal
evidence of review by Town staff, we are not clear as to the purported basis for use
of the referenced categorical exemption. However, based on our comprehensive
analysis of the facts and law applicable to this matter, in our opinion, reliance on
section 15315's exemption is erroneous and in derogation of the Town's
responsibilities under CEQA.
CEQA Guidelines section 15315 provides a categorical exemption for minor land
divisions that satisfy the following requirements:
...the division of property in urbanized areas zoned for
residential, commercial, or industrial use into four or
fewer parcels when the division is in conformance with
the General Plan and zoning, no variances or
exceptions are required, all services and access to the
proposed parcels to local standards are available, the
parcel was not involved in a division of a larger parcel
within the previous 2 years, and the parcel does not
have an average slope greater than 20 percent.
The proposed subdivision does not satisfy the requirements of section 15135
because it is not in conformance with the General Plan and zoning (see analysis set
forth in Sections 1 -6 hereof). (See also Attachment A , section 4.)
The purposes of CEQA are to:
(1) Inform governmental decision- makers and the
public about the potential significant environmental
effects of proposed activities.
(2) Identify the ways that environmental damage
can be avoided or significantly reduced.
(3) Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the
environment by requiring changes in projects through
the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when
the governmental agency finds the changes to be
feasible.
(4) Disclose to the public the reasons why a
governmental agency approved the project in the
manner the agency chose if significant environmental
effects are involved.
KKNMb8921%25028.2
Marni Moseley
November 15, 2010
Page 10
(14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15002(a).) It is the responsibility of the Town of Los Gatos to
ensure that the environment is protected by conducting an adequate and fully
compliant environmental review pursuant to CEQA. "CEQA places the burden of
environmental investigation on government rather than the public." (Sundstrom v.
County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311.)
Even if the proposed subdivision could satisfy all the requirements of section 15315
(which it cannot), the project is subject to an exception to the exemption, requiring
preparation of an initial study. Notably, not all minor land divisions are
automatically exempt from CEQA under section 15315 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Because Public Resources Code section 21084(a) only authorizes the Resources
Agency to exempt projects from CEQA if those projects have been determined not
to have a significant effect on the environment, it necessarily follows that an activity
that may have a significant effect on the environment cannot be exempt from CEQA.
(Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish and Game Commission (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105,
124.) Moreover, CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2, set forth below, specifically lists
a number of exceptions to the categorical exceptions, including two exceptions
applicable here:
...(c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall
not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable
possibility that the activity will have a significant effect
on the environment due to unusual circumstances.
(f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption
shall not be used for a project which may cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource.
(14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15300.2.) For the reasons set forth below, the exceptions in
subsections (c) and (f) of CEQA Guideline 15300.2 (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15300.2)
specifically apply to the proposed subdivision, and the project is therefore not
exempt from CEQA's environmental review requirements. The Town must
undertake at least an initial study (see 14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15063) to determine
whether any significant environmental impacts may result from the project.
r
HKNMW8521M50282
Marni Moseley
November 15, 2010
Page 11
CEQA Guideline 15300.2(c) provides that "[a] categorical exemption shall not be
used where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant
effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances." (14 Cal. Code Regs., §
15300.2(c).) Our review of the Town's file documents, together with the
observations and opinions of our clients and surrounding area residents
conclusively establishes that there is a reasonable possibility the project will have a
significant adverse effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. In light
of this evidence, the City may not lawfully conclude, with certainty, that there is no
reasonable possibility that this project will have significant environmental impacts.
"Significant effect on the environment" is defined as "a substantial, or potentially
substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area
affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient
noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance.' (14 Cal. Code Regs., §
15382; see also Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21060.5 [defining `environment "], 21068
[defining 'significant effect on the environment"].) CEQA Guidelines section
15300.2(c)'s exception applies where there is a reasonable possibility the activity
will have any significant effect on the environment ( "...the physical conditions which
exist within the area which will be affected by a proposed project..." (14 Cal. Code
Regs., § 15360)), and is not limited only to circumstances where a significant effect
on wildlife, water resources, or some other natural resource may occur.
The Guidelines set forth a detailed procedure for determining whether a project may
have a significant effect on the environment. (See 14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15064.)
Notably, "there is no 'gold standard' for determining whether a given impact may be
significant" and "[a]n ironclad definition of significant effect is not always possible
because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting." (Protect the
Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador WaterAgency (2004) 116 Cal.AppAth 1099,
1107; 14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15064(b).) °The determination of whether a project
may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the
part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and
factual data." (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15064(b).) In exercising this discretion, a
public agency must 'consider any fair argument that a certain environmental effect
may be significant." (Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water
Agency, supra, 116 Cal.App_4th at 1109.)
In evaluating whether a particular impact is significant, a local agency must consider
both direct and indirect physical changes in the environment that may be caused by
the project. (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15064(d).) "A direct physical change in the
environment is a physical change in the environment which is caused by and
immediately related to the project." (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15064(d)(1).) Dust,
HKNWB821W2502&2
Mami Moseley
November 15, 2010
Page 12
noise and traffic are examples of direct physical changes in the environment. (14
Cal. Code Regs., § 15064(d)(1).)
"An indirect physical change in the environment is a physical change in the
environment which is not immediately related to the project, but which is caused
indirectly by the project. If a direct physical change in the environment in turn
causes another change in the environment, then the other change is an indirect
physical change in the environment." (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15064(d)(2).) Air
pollution caused by population growth facilitated by construction of a new sewage
plant is an example of an indirect impact. (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15064(d)(2).)
The Resources Agency, in Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines, has identified a
non - exhaustive list of 17 categories of impacts that should be analyzed because
they commonly occur in projects subject to CEQA's environmental review
requirements: (1) aesthetic; (2) agricultural resources; (3) air quality; (4) biological
resources; (5) cultural resources; (6) geology and soils; (7) hazards and hazardous
materials; (8) hydrology and water quality; (9) land use and planning; (10) mineral
resources; (11) noise; (12) population and housing; (13) public services; (14)
recreation; (1 51 transportation/traffic; (16) utilities and service systems; and (17)
mandatory findings of significance. Most local agencies use Appendix G's
Environmental Checklist form to conduct an initial study to determine whether any
significant effect on the environment may result from a proposed project.
As noted in your email of this morning, the Town has made no effort whatsoever to
evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed subdivision, and there
exists no staff report, determination, memorandum, or other document supporting
the apparent determination that the project is exempt from CEQA. We have
identified significant land use and planning conflicts, potential aesthetic impacts, a
known drainage /hydrology problem, the project's creekside location, as potentially
significant impacts that must be analyzed. (See Sections 1 -6 hereof, and
Attachment A.)
CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2(f) provides that "[a] categorical exemption shall
not be used for an activity which may cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource." (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15300.2(0,) As set
forth in detail in section 4 of Attachment A , the residence located on proposed
Parcel 1 has been deemed eligible for a local historic designation, and the historic
nature of the property has been well documented by the Town. In addition, the
residence across the street from the proposed subdivision is also of historical
significance, and may be adversely affected by the proposed subdivision.
HKNW489211825028 2
Marini Moseley
November 15, 2010
Page 13
Accordingly, an initial study must be prepared in order to identify and mitigate any
significant environmental impacts.
In light of the above - identified issues, we believe that consideration of the proposed
subdivision by the Town's Development Review Committee is premature.
Accordingly, we request that tomorrows meeting be postponed until such time as all
legally- required information has been provided or prepared.
We appreciate the Town's consideration of our correspondence, and look forward to
discussing these issues with you in more detail.
Very truly yours,
MILLER STARR REGALIA
Kristina D. Lawson
KDL:KDUvse
Attachments
cc: Clients
Town Manager
Judith Propp, Town Attorney
Wendie Rooney, Community Development Director
Kevin Rohani, Town Engineer
Greg Howell
KKNM4892V825028.2
t
• -- —•- MILLER STARR
REGALIA
August 31, 2010
VIA FACSIMILE AND MAIL (408) 354 -7593
Marrs F. Moseley
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
P.O. Box 949
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Re: 381 Pennsylvania Avenue Los Gatos CA
Dear Ms. Moseley:
1331 N. Calilomia Blvtl. T 925 935 9400
R" Floor F 925 933 4126
walnut Creek, CA 94596 w .msrlegal.00m
Kristina 0. Larson
kr lstlna.laY,so,, gms rle g a Isom
925 941 3293
As you know, this office represents Matt and Katherine Haberkorn, the owners of
371 Pennsylvania Avenue in Los Gatos. Our clients' property is located
immediately adjacent to the above-referenced property (the 'Properly'). and our
clients own a permanent easement for ingress and easement over the southeastern
20 feet of the Property. On behalf of our clients we have reviewed the application
submitted by Mr Greg Howell to the Town on August 15, 2010. Although the
application does not include the proper forms and items, we believe the application
requests to subdivide 381 Pennsylvania Avenue Into two separate lots.
We note that just last month the owner of the Property filed an application for two
certi9cates of compliance and a lot line adjustment. Consistent with our legal
analysis, which was submitted to the Town by letter on July 26, 2010, the Town
confirmed that it could not move forward with the application because it failed to
satisfy applicable legal requirements. As a result, the owner modified the
application to its current form. Based on our preliminary legal analysis, for the
reasons set forth below a subdivision of 381 Pennsylvania is not possible under the
Town's Municipal Code.
1. The Boundary Lines Depleted In Photographs Of The Application Are
Not Accurate
As you know, this office and our clients have requested a copy of the maps/plats
submitted in connection with the proposed subdivision. To date, we have not
received a copy of the maps /plats, and our analysis is based primarily upon our
review of a photograph of a map in the project file. From this photograph, we note
DHiees: Walnut Gm? . / Palo Alto NKNAM9911g11ae12 1
Mami F. Moseley
August 31, 2010
Page 2
that the boundary line of 381 Pennsylvania Avenue does not appear to be
accurately represented. 381 Pennsylvania Avenue does not include all of the
former Laurel Avenue, and does not extend toward the creek from the former Laurel
Avenue. In 1980, the Town of Los Gatos vacated a portion of Laurel Avenue
located adjacent to 381 Pennsylvania Avenue (and also adjacent to our clients'
property at 371 Pennsylvania Avenue). As a result of this vacation, the northwest
20 feet of Laurel Avenue was transferred in fee to the then owners of 381
Pennsylvania Avenue. We are currently researching the ownership of the
remainder of Laurel Avenue (the creekside portion), but it is dear it is not owned by
Mr. Howell.
In addition, the map faits to indicate that our clients and other area property owners
own a permanent ingress and egress easement over the northwest 20 feet of the
former Laurel Avenue. This easement was granted to our clients' predecessor -in-
interest in 1980, following the vacation of Laurel Avenue. A copy of the easement
grant deed is attached hereto.
Until such time as the owner of 381 Pennsylvania Avenue can provide a true and
correct map indicating the boundaries of the property, and all applicable easements,
we respectfully request that Town review of the proposed subdivision application be
suspended.
2. The Owner Of 381 Pennsylvania Avenue Has Not Submitted A
Complete Subdivision Application
Pursuant to section 24.10.055 of the Town's Municipal Code, a parcel map is
required in order to subdivide the Property into two separate lots. This parcel map
must meet all of the requirements for tentative maps. (L.G.T.C., § 24.20.010.)
Attached is a copy of the 'Parcel Map Checking Application' required by the Town's
Engineering Division. As set forth on this application form, various items are
required in connection with a parcel map application, including, but not limited to, a
parcel map, improvement plans, soils report, and drainagethydraulic calculations.
Our clients have reviewed the file and have not located these items.
Moreover, as we noted in our correspondence to the Town yesterday, the Town has
not provided us with a copy of the map/plat included in the file. As a result, we have
been unable to fully analyze the proposed subdivision's compliance with the
applicable law.
In addition, as set forth above, the application fails to disclose the location of private
easements on the Property as required by sections 24.20.030(6) and 24.40.010 of
the Town's Municipal Code. Our clients are the owners of a permanent easement
for ingress and egress over the southeast portion of the Property. This easement
was granted to our clients in 1980, shortly after the Town vacated the former Laurel
Avenue.
H"WA89211818012 1
Mami F. Moseley
August 31, 2010
Page 3
KI
Notwithstanding that we have been unable to fully review the submitted maps /plats,
vie have identified inconsistencies between the proposed subdivision and the
Town's zoning ordinance which preclude approval of a subdivision at 381
Pennsylvania Avenue. Section 24.20.020(b) of the Town's Code requires any
subdivision to comply with all applicable zoning requirements. According to the
project file, 381 Pennsylvania is located in the Town's R -1 -8 zoning district. In that
district, a 20 foot rear yard setback is required. (L.G.T.C., § 29.40.405(a).) Such a
setback Is not possible for proposed Parcel 1 because of the location of the
existing cottage located on the Property (which is located approximately 6
feet from the fence Mr. Howell erected on the Property). Moreover, the
proposed Parcel 1 cannot satisfy the required 25 foot front yard setback (L.G.T.C., §
29.40.405) due to the location of the existing garage, which is nonconforming as it is
located very close to (if not on) the front property line.
With respect to the proposed Parcel 2, the mandatory 8 foot side yard setback
requirement cannot be satisfied because of the location of the existing bam
structure. (L.G.T.C., § 29.40.405.)
We also note that swimming pools are not permitted to be located within 5 feet of a
property line. (L.G.T.C., § 29.10.09020.) While we have not been able to review
the measurements showing the existing pool's location within the proposed
subdivision, because of its location we believe it will be difficult, if not impossible, to
configure the subdivision in such a way that this requirement will be satisfied.
4. Because Of The Historic Nature of Tho P.. io.a crfe e., o....:
381 Pennsylvania Avenue has been deemed eligible for a local historic designation,
and the historic nature of the property has been well documented by the Town. The
residence at 381 Pennsylvania Avenue was constructed sometime in the 1880s.
The home was purchased by Frank McCullough for his 'maiden lady' sister, Mary
McCullough, who worked for an organization for the blind. It was sold in 1939 as
part of the McCullough estate and purchased by Bill Batch who kept it until 1962.
The house was then sold to Dr. Morton and Margaret Manson. Ms. Manson resided
there until her death in 2009. The house was awarded a Bellringer plaque in 1987.
In 1987, the property existed as it does today with the exception that in 1990^ Ms.
Manson reconstructed the detached, nonconforming garage at the front of the
property.
Across from 381 is 380 Pennsylvania Avenue. The history of 380 Pennsylvania
Avenue is relevant to its sister property across the street This house is situated on
Mami F. Moseley
August 31, 2010
Page 4
the comer of Pennsylvania Ave and Wissahickon Ave, the names of the streets
being assigned by the Frank McCuiloughs, who were homesick for Pennsylvania.
The house was adjacent to the Glen Ridge Park area, built probably in the 1890s.
Mr. McCullogh's "maiden sister" who lived across the street at 381, used this house
as a gardener's cottage. In 1976, when the house was owned by Luther and Eloise
Ospina, it received a Bellringer award. Significant damage was done to this house
in the 1989 earthquake, and the original turret, as well as the upstairs, were
completely demolished. In 1993, the house was bought by Sabena and Maury
Austin who restored it in the classical Queen Anne tradition.
The Califomia Environmental Quality Act requires a heightened level of
environmental review for any project that has the potential to significantly impact
historical resources such as 381 and 380 Pennsylvania Avenue. Any project that
may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
— such as the proposed subdivision — is a project that may have a significant effect
on the environment. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21084.1) Accordingly, an EIR must
be prepared to determine the potential environmental impacts of the propose
subdivision, and to ensure that all such impacts are fully and properly mitigated.
We note that the CEQA Guidelines defines a %ubstantiai adverse change in the
significance of an historical resource' to include 'physical demolition, destruction,
relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the
significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.' (CEQA
Guidelines, § 15064.5(b)(1).) The significance of an historical resource is materially
impaired when a project, such as the proposed subdivision:
(1) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse
manner those physical characteristics of an historical
resource that convey its historical significance and that
justify its inclusion in, or eiigibl;iiy for, inclusion in the
California Register of Historical Resources; or
(2) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse
manner those physical characteristics that account for
its inclusion in a local register of historical resources
pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources
Code or its identification in an historical resources
survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g)
of the Public Resources Code, unless the public
agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes
by a preponderance of the evidence that the resource
is not historically or culturally significant; or
(3) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse
manner those physical characteristics of a historical
Mami F. Moseley
August 31, 2010
Page 5
resource that convey its historical significance and that
justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California
Register of Historical Resources as determined by a
lead agency for purposes of CEQA.
(CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.5(b)(2).) As indicated in the Town's records, this
Property. and the structures located thereon, have been held in common ownership
since their development In the 18005. To now separate the parcel into two separate
parcels would materially alter In an adverse manner the physical characteristics of
the property, including the relationship of the main residence to its surroundings.
Because of this potentially significant impact, an E1R must be prepared before any
subdivision can be approved.
S.
Pursuant to section 24.50.085 of the Town's Code, in order to ensure that a
proposed subdivision does not adversely Impact drainage in the surrounding area,
culverts, storm drains, or other drainage structures are required to be installed in
connection with any subdivision. As you know, our clients' property is located
"downstream" from 381 Pennsylvania Avenue, and drainage from the site has been
a problem in the past. We respectfully request that the Town require the applicable
drainage plan to be provided, with detail as to how the subdivider proposes to
mitigate the effects of the additional impervious surface that will be created on the
property.
Additionally, section 24.50.095 of the Town's Code requires the undergrounding of
all utilities upon subdivision. As you are aware, because of the age of the
subdivision, the utilities in the vicinity of the proposed subdivision are not currently
undergrounded. While the undergrounding of utilities will certainly add aesthetic
value to the surrounding area, we would appreciate it K we could review a copy of
the subdivider's proposal to comply with this requirement.
At the present time, this subdivision application contains more questions than
answers, and it should not be further processed unfit the owner of 381 Pennsylvania
Avenue has filed a complete application that satisfies the requirements of the Town
and provides surrounding property owners with the information needed to properly
understand the proposal. While we appreciate the owner's desire to increase the
value of 381 Pennsylvania Avenue, the subdivision of property within an existing,
well - established, and historic neighborhood is not to be taken lightly or without
deference to the many applicable regulations and requirements.
IffitM M118f80121
Maori F. Moseley
August 31, 2010
Page 6
We look forward to receiving and reviewing copies of the relevant maps/plats,
environmental studies, and infrastructure plans.
Please feel free to contact the undersigned should you have any questions,
comments, or if you would like additional information.
Very truly yours,
MILLER STARR REGALIA
Kristine D. Lawson
KDLXDUvse
EnclosJre
cc: Clients
Town Manager
Town Attorney
Wendie Rooney, Community Development Director
Kevin Roha7i, Town Engineer
Greg Howell
Jeff Barnett
wK_NMdAO9fuvn,e ,
o wls o TOWN OF Los GATos
PARKS & PCBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SERVICE CI NTLR
ENGINEERING DIVISION
� ) J 41 Mugs AVliNtIE
); PHONE (408) 399 -5771 P.O. Box 949
Cd R s FAx 408 399 -5763
S 6 h(0 ( � Los Gnros, CA 95031
PARCEL MAP CHECKING APPLICATION
Project Address: A,p N :
Description of
OwnwiDevelopeC
No. of Lots:
..,,� t_ try: Zip:
ADDITIONAL. INFORMATION
I. Licensed Surveyor respunsiblc for preparing map:
Registration No.: Reg. Exp.
Phone: Fax:
E-mail:
L Civil engineer responsible for preparing public improvem cut plans:
Registration No.: Reg. Exp. Date:
Phone: Fax:
E-mail:
State: zip:_
2. Soils engineer and/or geotechnical engineer responsible for inspections at the site:
Registration
Phone: I
E -mail:
Reg. Exp. Date:
3. General Contractor in charge of work at the site (if known):
Name:
License No.:
Phone:
- Lip:
Class:_ Exp.
Town Business License No:
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT
Print
NV B6E •ENGINEEriINGNPq,ICgTInN9PlrCel Ma,w 1NCORPoaA1ev Avcusr 10. 1887 Ror smna
btate: Zip:
TILE ITEMS LISTED BELOW MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH THIS APPLICATION. AS APPLICABLE:
Parcel Map (2 Sets)
Improvement Plans (2 Sets)
Copies of all maps referenced
Closure Calculations
Soils Report (1 copy)
Drainage/Hydraulic Calculations
Itemized Cost Estimate
Title Repor, , if required
SW PPP, if required
Map Check Fee S
_ Plan Check Fec S
_ Other:
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT
Print
NV B6E •ENGINEEriINGNPq,ICgTInN9PlrCel Ma,w 1NCORPoaA1ev Avcusr 10. 1887 Ror smna
I
S,1 460820
.. x1I,... .....ta.re e,
---
I
Iar lli'iF
t d °PJ':.:zea
WESTERN MILE INSURANCE COMPANY
•• ^••••••`°•°'••..•,"
�� RawrEeJ et me l4gltl[0,
r
WredsiWr lnsmvaxCa
•� {, R. Hasiher
JUL3119881iM
... -... P. 0. 0as 355
• We Gets.. CA 9;070
E[G000 A NNIO, 9.mde
:• L
J• 473 It:: 283
r L Ulan ..__ _licm. Mn - --
sacs uorr ,na uxs roe ucssEar un —yl
D. ®..uv nvAn uo i. R9PR.-. eaaepn }. .
.,n., ra...
p C..,W
_
a.ve as abets
fit. aN ,wenanm.+
p npW m loll row Yu x0s
.u.•n
ew
u,ubinl Wnu: n 4x eC uY
3hd WNW (Drant )Bccb
TOR VALUE RFTVFD. ROBERT MORTON HANSON and MARGARET L. HANSON. Trustees under
that Declaration of Trust dated April 18, 1975 in which Robert Norton Ms....
and Margaret L. Meson are the Treaters, GARY P. RAMIU:L and SUSAN MA.grEL, his
PJ, "fH1, wife, as Joint Tenants; JOHN P. AGCCMfO and ARLENE N. ROC.M10. his
wife, as Joint Tenants, and BAxnzy r. TUNEy and BERTHA M. TINNY, as Joint
XVRQ,V, grsnt to the parties named on Exhibit A attached hereto
Town of Lee Gatos
fm,mpa Banta Clara . Weed C+Mcmu. J,wn4ed,•Idb +r
A non- exaluslve permanent casement for ingress and "team over a portion of
the Northwest 20 feet of laurel Avenue ea shown an the Map of the subdivision
of Block 1 of Glen Ridge Park, recorded August 15, 1692. Bock G of Maps, page
Il, Santr Clara County Records, the Southwest terminus of said easement being
the Southerly prolongation of the Nesterly line of Lot 17 shown an said Map
and the easterly terminus of said easercnt being the Southerly prolongation of
the Easterly line of Wt 12 shown on said Map.
Said easement is granted as appurtenant to lands described In the Deed to
Robert Marton Manson and Margaret L. Manson, Trustees. recorded November 7.
1975, Book 0709, Official Records, page 4421 to lands described In the Deed to
Gary P. Mankel, at u:. recorded November 26, 1971, Back 9604, Official Records,
page 619: to land. described in the Deed to John P. Roechlo, at ux, recorded
May 20, 1975, Book 0417, Official Records, page 740, and to lands described
In the Deed to Barney F. Tes,ay and Bertha M. Tamey, recorded December 30,
1968, Bock 9386, Official Records, page I.
DWI Jurc 17 _ p60
I J 1
--
i
,a nF C. + •
__ rely Basta Clara b
�n,nB 29 II�.p..hbt et lY,.1„Wwrl.
Jo Ej NP �ROteglo 6 nR4BHx BID
are
.+..,wu,n •w.w.. bs,..•v w.aw.uaid . —w,
ROBERT MORTON MANS0.9
sly :1 - i IA
-- ,--L 3GSW7aMG � / --
— iSRIRU7t- 'R'4PYO e a �""r —
JGrAT HD
f w;' : �� DirIrIAL SEAL
..% 1, /.sue ,.>':, • I4 M1:: 'f
Ytlr T.i RGTryaNr, as amaGlra.00.
1
i�
1
{: 4 :::: 265
gr antee A
�GZanteesi
RoEart Marton Manson and Margaret L. Raman, Trustees under that
seelaratian of Trust dated April 18, 1975 in which Robert Morton Manson
and Margaret L. Manson are the Trusters; Gary P. Rankel and suaan Rankel,
hls wife, at joint Tenanta; and Harney T. Tasay and Bortha M. Tummy. ae
joint Tenants.
r
i �
si 464830
�wccewsw..ceuaerm av
� 6624901
�o
F 553
_
�'Ir.A. Mee•het ,va +••• .a
1
RemdlC d
.. P.O. 60: Iss
F 553 fl;; 246 wasanrf8.!
..�.. roe Gates, CA 95070
SEP - { E
E
vcc usva.w. uwc row .acowows wa
r W.. � ..., - • � ••
,
emwm,run.....k, u.fHOSe.eseement.only
....
O
- aaIDe as above-
Q- W.,V
D .'W r o rtiue.eel'W,.W mve.,una
A`
J
waste n r sr xn....... tame..
Nbibibna[ &rant Meeb
FOR VALUERECEIVED,ROBBAT RORTON Y31N60N and MARGARET L. MANSON, Trustees under
that DOAIAratmn Of Treat dated April 18, 1975 in which Robert Morton Manson
and MeirJar•t L. Manson are the TM$Wrsr GARY P. KANKEL and MEAN RANxBL, his
pBBVF//J{Y wife, as Joint Tenants, JOHN P. ROCCRIO and AALBNR R. ROCCRIO, his
wife, as Joint Teneater and SAANEY P. T0WY and BERTHA M. THMfY, ae Joint
A n ?3 .R, do h aTeby ' 0rant W Walley MORTON HANSON and MARGARET L. Mussow.
Trusts" under that Declaration of Trust dated A ypril�,}1B�. 197�5� ��nn w ffh Robert
I xe�rmn Mc NAa end N /lY'!
argaret L. Manson are the Truatorsr GARY P. AAMIRr. and
i $US" xAHIO:L, his wife, ae Joint TeosOCar J0HN P. ROC®IO and ARLENE M.
ROCCRIO, his wife. an Joint Tenants, and luR P. TOMMY and RERTMA M. TOI ,
se Joint Tenants
all that real property attests in the Town of Los Gatos, County Of Santa
Clara, State of California, described on Exhibit A attached hereto
l
This Deed Is a duplication of the used recorded July 31, 1980, Hook '473,
Official Records, page I03, and is Wing recorded to add the nmes of
Grantees previously osittod in error.
�JURAT NOT COMPLMLT rILMCD�
worAet sea
SLLVZA K0MACZEK
,o:ur mxc- cuxn�u
,vaff.a enn �
su+MAttnaammr
ra....wa roam. a.. x wn
wwaua nrmswn.s v..ecvm c.eve
�o
wwaua nrmswn.s v..ecvm c.eve
�
F 553 6;:248
srRxBxa n
All that real property situate in the Tam Of Los Gatoa, County of
Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows;
A non - exclusive permanent easement for ingress and egress over a portion of
the Northwest 20 fact of Laurel Avenue as shown on the Map of the Subdivision
of _Block-I of -Glen_ Ridge .park._ recorded Auguet_15, 1892, Rook_G_of Map..
13, Santa Clara County Aaeords, the Southwest terminus of -aid eesanent being
the Southerly prolongation of the Westerly line of Lot 17 shown on said Map
and the BaftOrly terminus of Said easement being the Southerly prolongation of
the Easterly line of Lot 12 shown on said Map.
Said aacamont Ss granted as appurtenant tc lands described in the Dead to
Robert Morton Manson and Margarat L. Manson, Trustees, recorded Moveedwr 7.
1975, Book 8709, Official Records, page 442; to lands described in the Decd tt
Gary P. Raakel, at as, recorded NDVenher 26, 1971, Book 9604, official Reeordr
page 619; to lands described in the Deed to John P. Macchia, at ax, recorded
May 20, 1975, Book 5417, Official Records, page 740; and to land, described
is the Deed to Barney f. Tuaay and Berths M. Taney, recorded December 30,
1960, Bonk 8306, Official Records, page 1.
N
I
" "INV
* *x
* ( * OLD REPUBLIC
Y TITLE COMPANY
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Buyer:
ALAIN PINEL REALTORS
12772 SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE RD
SARATOGA,CA 95070
438 N. Santa Cruz Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95030
(408) 354 -9128 Fax: (406)4r4 -0143
THIRD AMENDED REPORT
Our Order dumber 0618002472 -BH
Attention: MARY ALLAN
DIANA L. HOWELL
GREGORY K. HOWELL
When Replying Please Contact:
Bill Hastings
(408) 354 -9128
Property Addressi
381 Pennsylvania Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030
in response to the above referenced application for a policy of title insurance, OLD REPUBLIC TITLE COMPANY hereby reports
that It Is prepared to issue, or cause to be issued, as of the date hereof, a Policy or Policies of Tide Insurance describing the land and
the estate or interest therein hereinafter set forth, insuring against loss which may be sustained by reason of any defect, lien or
encumbrance not shown or referred to as an Exception below or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed Schedules,
conditions and stipulations of said policy forms.
The printed Exceptions and Exclusions from the coverage and URnitations on Covered Risks of said Polity or Policies are set forth in
Exhibit A attached. The polity to be issued may contain an arbitration clause. When the Amount of Insurance is less than that set forth
in the arbitration clause, all arbitrable matters shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive
remedy of the parties. Limitations on Covered Risks applicable to the Homeowner's Policy of Tole Insurance which establish a
Deductible Amount and a Maximum Dollar Um ft of Liability for certain coverages are also set forth in Exhibit A. Copies of the Policy
forms should be read. They are available from the office which Issued this report.
Flease read the exowdons shown or referred to I/elow and Vie exceptions and exclusions set forth in Exhibit A of this
report carefully. The exceptions and occlusions are meant to provide you with notice of matters which are not covered
under the terms of the title insurance policy and should be carefully considered,
it is Important to note that this preliminary report is not a written representation as to the condition of tithe and may
not list all liens, defects, and encumbrances affecting title to the land.
This report (and any supplements or amendments hereto) Is Issued solely for the purpose of faclihating the issuance of a polity of title
Insurance and no liability Is assumed hereby. If it is desired that liability be assumed prior to the iswance o` a policy of title Insurance,
a Binder or Commitment should be requested.
Dated as of May 4, 2010, at 7:30 AM
OLD REPUBLIC TITLE COMPANY
For Exceptions Shown or Referred to, See Attached
Page 1 of 6 Pages
OLD REPUBLIC TITLE COMPANY
ORDER NO. 0618002472 -SH
THIRD AMENDED REPCRT
The form of policy of dtie Insurance contemplated by this report is:
CLTA Standard Coverage Policy -1990; AND ALTA Loan Policy - 2006. A specific request
should be made if another form or additional coverage is desired,
The estate or interest in the land hereinafter described or referred or covered by this Report Is:
Fee
Title to said esr<te or interest at be date hereof Is vested In:
Martna L Manson, Trustee of The Martha L. Manson Revocable Trust, dated October 26, 2007
and R.M, Manson and K. McDonnell - Manson Rev LT of RM and K Manson U/A DTD
10/1011998, Robert. Morton Manson III and Katherine McDonnell- Manson, Trustees
The land referred to In this Repar' is situated In the County of Santa Clara, City of Los Gatos, state of California, and Is
described as follows:
PARCEL ONE
Lots Sixteen (16) and Seventeen(17) in Black One (1) as laid dawn, designated and delineated upon that
certain Map entitled, "Map of the Subdivision of Block No. 1 of Glen Ridge Park in and Adjoining the Town of
Los Gatos, Cala" which Map was filed for record in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Santa
Clara, State of California, on August 15, 1892, in Book "G" of Maps, at Page 13.
PARCEL TWO:
The Northerly 1/2 of Laurel Avenue, as shown upon the Map of Glen Ridge Park, herein referred to, as said
avenue was vacated by Resolution No, 1980 -75 of the Town of Los Gatos, a copy of which was recorded on
March 6, 1981, in Book F946 of Official Records, Page 44.
Bounded on the West by the Southerly prolongation of the West boundary of Lot 17 and on the East by the
Southerly prolongation of the East boundary of Lot 16, Block 1, of Glen Ridge Park which was filed for record
in Book G of Maps, Page 13.
APN: 510 -41 -057
ARB: 510-41 -027
At the date hereof exceptions to coverage in addition to the Exceptions and Exdusidns In said policy form would be as follows:
1, Taxes and assessments, general and spedal, for the fiscal year 2010 - 2011, a lien, but not
yet due or payable.
of 6
OLD REPLBLIC TITLE CO�,IPALT
ORDER NO. 0618002472 -BH
THIRD AMENDED REPORT
2.
3.
4.
Taxes and assessments, general and special, for the fiscal year 2009 - 2010, as follows:
Assessor's Parcel No
510-41 -057
Code No,
03 -191
1st Installment
$1,148.68 Marked Paid
2nd Installment
$1,148.68 Marked Paid
Land Value
$59,009.00
Imp. Value
$79,324.00
The lien of supplemental taxes, if any, assessed pursuant to the provisions of Section 75, et
seq., of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California.
An easement affecting that portion of said land and for the purposes stated herein and
incidental purposes as provided in the following
Instrument
Individual Grant Deed
Granted To
Robert Morton Manson, Trustee, et al.,
For
Ingress and egress
Dated
; June 17, 1980
Recorded
July 31, 1980 in Book F473 of Of`cial Records, Page 283 under
Recorder's Serial Number 6791825
Affects
Parcel Two
And dated August 9, 1980, recorded September 4, 1980 in Book F553 of Official
Records, Page 246 under Recorder's Serial Number 6824901.
An easement affecting that portion of said land and for the purposes stated herein and
incidental purposes as provided in the following
Instrument Easement
Reserved By Town of Los Gatos
For Utilities
Recorded March 6, 1981 In Book F946 of Official Records, Page 44
Affects Parcel Two
OLD REPUBLIC TITLE CO&1P.4. \
ORDER NO. 0618002472 -BH
THIRD AMENDED REPORT
6. Redevelopment Plan, as follows:
Entitled Notice of the Town of Los Gatos regarding Adoption of Ordinance
1882 Approving the Redevelopment Plan for the Central Los Gatos
Redevelopment Project
Executed By Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos
Dated December 5, 1991
Recorded December 5, 1991 in Book L955 of Official Records, Page 1734 under
Recorder's serial Number 1/155292
Amended Redevelopment Plan, as follows:
Entitled Statement of Institution of Redevelopment Plan Amendment
By Redevelopment Agency of the Town of Los Gatos
Recorded October 28, 2003 in Official Records under Recorder's Serial Number
17444059
8. Terms and conditions contained in the Martha L. Manson Revocable Trust, dated October 26,
2007 as disclosed by Gift Deed
Dated February 2, 2008
Recorded February 13, 2008 in Official Records under Recorders Serial Number
19742554
NOTE: The requirement that:
A Certification of Trust be furnished in accordance wtth Probate Code Section 18100.5
The Company reserves the right to make additional exceptions and /or requirements.
9. Terms and conditions contained In the R. M. Manson and K. McDonnell - Manson Rev LT of R.
M. and K. Manson U/A dtd October 10, 1998 as disclosed by Gift Deed
Dated February 2, 2008
Recorded February 13, 2006 in Official Records under Recorder's Serial Number
19742554
NOTE: The requirement that:
A Certification of Trust be furnished in accordance with Probate Code Section 16100.5
The Company reserves the right to make additional exceptions and /or requirements,
10. The requirement that this company be provided with a suitable Owner's Affidavit from the
Seller (form OPT 174). The Company reserves the right to make additional exceptions and /or
requirements upon review of the Owner's Affidavit.
ITS"
OLD REPUBLIC TITLE COMPANY
ORDER NO. 0618002472 -BH
THIRD AMENDED REPORT
11, Rights and claims of parties in possession.
The affirmative coverage set forth in the Covered Risks is not being provided by the policy.
Informational Notes
A. The applicable rate(s) for the policy(s) being offered by this report or commitment appears
to be section(s) 1.1 & 2.1.
B. The above numbered report (including any supplements or amendments thereto) is hereby
modified and /or supplemented to reflect the following additional items -elating to the
issuance of an American Land Title Association loan form policy:
NONE
NOTE: Our investigation has been completed and there Is located on said land a multi- family
residence known as 381 Pennsylvania Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030.
The ALTA loan policy, when issued, will contain the CLTA 100 Endorsement and 116 series
Endorsement.
Unless shown elsewhere in the body of this report, there appear of record no transfers or
agreements to transfer the land described herein within the last three years prior to the date
hereof, except as follows:
Gift Deed executed by Margaret L. Manson, Trustee of the Margaret L. Manson Residence
Trust Dated April 10, 2000 to Robert Morton Manson, III, a married man, as his sole and
separate property and Martha L. Manson, a married woman, as her sole and separate
property recorded June 12, 2007 in Official Records under Recorder's Serial Number
19466893.
Gift Deed executed by Robert Morton Manson, III, and Martha L. Manson to Martha
L. Mansor., Trustee of The Martha L. Manson Revocable Trust, dated October 26,
2007 and R. M. Manson and K. McDonnell- Manson Rev LT of R. M. and K. Manson
U/A dtd October 10, 1998, Robert Morton, Manson III and Katherine McDonnell-
Manson, Trustees recorded February 13, 2008 in Official Records under Recorder's
Serial Number 19742554.
OLD REPUBLIC TITLE COMPANT
ORDER N0, 0618002472•BH
THIRD AMENDED REPORT
Disclosure to Consumer of Available Discounts
Section 2355.3 in Title 10 of the California Code of Regulation necessitates that Old
Republic Title Company provide a disclosure of each discount available under the
rates that it, or its underwriter Old Republic National Title Insurance Company, have
filed with the California Department of Insurance that are applicable to transactions
involving property improved with a one to four family residential dwelling.
You may be entitled to a discount under Old Republic Title Company's escrow
charges if you are an employee or retired employee of Old Republic Title Company
including its subsidiary or affiliated companies. You may also be entitled to a
discount if you are a member in the California Public Employees Retirement System
"CaIPERS" or the California State Teachers Retirement System °CalSTRS" and are
you are obtaining a loan to purchase or refinance your principal residence from a
lender that is participating in your respective retirement system's Home loan
Program or if you are a member of either retirement system and you are selling your
principal residence.
If you are an employee or retired employee of Old Republic National Title Insurance
Company, or its subsidiary or affiliated companies, you may be entitled to a
discounted title policy premium.
Please ask your escrow or tite officer for the terms and conditions that apply to
these discounts.
A complete copy of the Schedule of Escrow Fees and Service Fees for Old Republic
Title Company and the Schedule of Fees and Charges for Old Republic National Title
Insurance Company are available for your inspection at any Old Republic Title
Company office.
O.N.
6of6
Exhibit A
CALIFORNIA LAND TSRE ASSOCIATION
STANDARD COVERAGE POLICY • 1990
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, dogs, attorneys' fees or
expenses which arise by reason of!
(a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building or zoning laws, ordnanas, or regulations)
restricting, regulating, prohlbltng or relating (p the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (it) the character, dlmensions or location of any
eltprovement now or hereafter erected on ft lend; pip a separation In ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any
Parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (IV) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or
goverrmental regulatoM, exupt to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien, or encumbrance resulting
from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded In the public records at Date of Policy:
(b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or notice of a
defect, lien or encumbrance resuntng from a violation w alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of
Policy.
1, frights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not occluding from
average any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be Ending on the tights of a Purchaser fpr value without knowledge.
3. De", hens, encumbrances, adverse cairns or other matters:
(a) whether or not recorded In the public records at Date of Polity, but created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by ft insured dairran6
(b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public retards K Date of Policy, but (mown to the Insured claimant and not disdosed in
writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the Insured claimant became an insured under this policy;.
(t) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured cialmanF
(d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Polity; or
(e) resulting In loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the insured mortgage or for
the estate or Interest Insured by this polity.
4. Unenforceabtity of the Gen of the insured mortgage because of the inability or failure of the insured at Date of Policy, or the Inability or failure of
any subsetusim owner of the Indebtedness, to comply with the applicable doing business laws of the state in which the land Is situated.
5. Invasdlry or unaoforesaWlry of the Gen of the insured mortgage, or claim thereof, whir, arises out of the transaction evidenced by the insured
mortgage and is based upon usury or any cansuner credit protection or truth in lending law.
6. Any daim, which arises out of the trarsactlon vesting in the insured the estate of interest insured by this policy or the transaction creating the
Interest of the Insured lender, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state Insolvency or similar credhore rights laws.
EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE - SCHEDULES, PART I
This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company win not pay cos0, attomeys' reel or expenses) which arse by reason of:
1. Tares or assessments Which are not shown as existing [lens by the records of any taxing autfwdty that levies taxes or assessments on real
property or by the public records.
Proceedings by a public agency which may ne na in taxes Or ossesmants, or notices Of such Proceedings, whether or not shown by the records W
such agency Or by the public records.
2. Any facts, rights, Interests, or dams Which are not shown by the Public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land
which may be asserted by persons in possession thereof,
3. Easements, hens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, which are not shown by the public records.
4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which
are not Chown by the public racceds.
S. (a) Unioatented mining dalms; (b) reservation or axicePtlons In patents or In Acts authorizing the Issuance thereof, (c) water Aghts, daims or title
W water, whether or not the matters accepted under (a), (b) or (c) are shown by the public records.
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit A
AMERICAN LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION
LOAN POLICY Of TITLE INSURANCE - 2006
EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressry excluded from the coverage of this policy, and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attomeys' fees, or
expenses that arise by reason of:
]. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those reading to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, Or
Mating to
(1) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land;
(11) the Character, dlrnerwions, or IOtatlon of any Improvement erected on the Land;
(nil) the subdivision of land; or
(N) environmental protection; or the effect of arty vloladon of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion
Ila) does not modify or limit the coverage provided urder Covered Risk S.
(b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion 1(b) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered IdSk 6.
2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or B.
3. Defects, Ilene, encum Tarim, adverse claims, or other matters
(a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Clalmanr
(b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Data of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in
writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant pnpr to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy;
(c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant;
(d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Poky (however, this does not modify or Ilmlt the coverage provided under Covered Risk It, 13,
or 14); or
(e) resulting In loss or damage t would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Insured Mortgage.
a. Unenforeeabttlty of t lien of the Insured Mortgage because of the inability or failure of an Insured to Comply with applicable doing - business laws
of the state where the land is situated.
S. Invalidity or unenforceabaity in whole or in Part Of pie lien of the Insured Mortgage that arises out of the transaction evidenced by the Insured
Mortgage and is based upon awry or any consumer credit protection or truth-in- lending law.
6. My Claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar Creditors' rights laws, that the transactor. Creating the Iler
of the Insured Mortgage, is
(a) a fravdiA lit mnveyance of fraudulent inrmfer, or
(b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 11(b) of this policy.
7. Any Gen on the Thee for real estate taxes or assessments "posed by governmental authority and created or attaching between Date of Policy and
the date of recording of the Insured Mortgage in the Public Aeconds. This Exdudun does not modify or Ilmiit the coverage provided under Covered
Risk 11(b)�
EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE — SCHEDULE 6, PART 1, SECTION ONE
This policy does not insure against loss 3r damage (and the Company will not pay cost:, atbomeyrV fees or expenses) that arise by reason of:
1. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not sham as existing Ilene by the records of any taxing authodty that levies taxes or assessments on real
property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notiam of rich proceedings,
whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records.
2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims that are not Shown by the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that
may be asserted by persons In possession of the Land.
3. Easements, Ilers of encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records.
4. Any encroachment, encumbrarim violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and
complete and survey or the Land and not shown by the Public Records.
5. (a) Unpate+ted mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions In patens or In Acta authorizing the issuance thereof; (C) water rights, claims or title
to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the Public Records.
Page 2 of 2
Old Republic Title Company
Privacy Policy Notice
PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE
Trtle v of the Gramm- Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) generally prohibits any financial institution, directly or
through its affiliates, from sharing nonpublic personal information about you with a nonaffiliated third
party unless the institution provides you with a notice of its privacy policies and practices, such as the
type of Information that it wlle_ts about you and the categories of persons or entities to whom it may
be disclosed. In compliance with the GLBA, we are providing you with this document, which notifies
you of the privacy policies and practices of Old Republic Title Company.
We may collect nonpublic personal Information about you from the following sources:
Information we receive from you such as on applications or other forms.
Information about your transactions we secure from our files, or from [our affiliates or] others.
Information we receive from a consumer reporting agency,
Information that we receive from others involved in your transaction, such as the real estate
agent or lender.
Unless it is specifically stated otherwise in an amended Privacy Policy Notice, no additional nonpublic
personal information will be collected about you.
We may disclose any of the above information that we collect about our customers or former
customers to our affiliates or to nonaffiliated third parties as permitted by law,
We also may disclose this information about our customers or former customers to the following
types of nonaffiliated companies that perform marketing services on our behalf or with whom we
have joint marketing agreements:
Financial service providers such as companies engaged Ir. banking, consumer finance,
securities and insurance.
Non - financial companies such as envelope stuffers and other fulfillment service
providers.
WE DO NOT DISCLOSE ANY NONPUBLIC PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT YOU WITH ANYONE FOR
ANY PURPOSE THAT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED By LAW.
We restrict access to nonpublic personal information about you to those employees who need to
know that informatior in order to provide products or services to you. We maintain physical,
electronic, and procedural safeguards that comply with federal regulations to guard your nonpublic
personal information.
ORT 287•C 5/07101