SR 05:069B - Laserfiche WebLink

February 1.2005 To: City of Pleasanton Planning Department From: Earl and Karen Bach, Property. Owners 446 Sycamore Road Pleasanton, CA 94566 It has come to our attention that the Bozorgzads, owners of a property adjacent to our pending PUD minor subdivision, have retained an attorney to dispute the facts regarding a required public sidewalk to adjoin Sycamore Terrace and San Carlos Way. We write this letter and attach the supporting documents in the interest of clarifying the history of the issues at hand. The North Sycamore Specific Plan (NSSP) adopted by the City of Pleasanton in 1992 indicates that our property at 446 Sycamore Road may be subdivided into four lots. The NSSP also showed that the VanWegan property (now the Bozorgzad property) was also sub-divisible into four lots. In 1999 the Bozorgzads approached us about cooperating on our adjacent future subdivisions. Because the NSSP stipulated that the future lots should conform to LDR (low- density residential) standards regulating the minimum size of the lots, we agreed with the Bozorgzads that the most sensible way to access at least five of the future lots would be by a shared private road/driveway. The City of Pleasanton informed the Bozorgzads that in addition to building the necessary roadway/driveway they would also need to build the required pathway in order for them to develop their parcels. The pathway was to be solely the Bozorgzad's responsibility and entirely on their land as they were wanting to develop right away. We (Bachs) felt that the proposed pathway was an unfair imposition on both properties. We were rather shocked (ha'i've, I guess) to learn that the City expected to take the land without any compensation of any kind. My wife and I felt that since we were sharing the land for the roadway that we would offer to share also in the loss of land for the unwanted pathway. This was something purely out of the goodness of our hearts with no strings attached. The Bozorgzads then came to us then asking if we would consider putting the pathway on our property at the top of the hill and they would put it on their side at the bottom oftbe hill. My wife and I realized that the land at the top of the hill was by far the more valuable land than that at the bottom but once again we agreed to be good neighbors. My wife and I did agree to allow the northern portion (just under 1/2) of the public sidewalk to be located primarily on the future Bach subdivision (see attachment A). This would allow the Bozorgzads to build a larger primary residence on the northern portion oftbeir property. My wife and I also agreed to assume the entire cost of the northern portion oftbe pathway. On September 29, 1999 my wife and I were surprised to find that once again Greenbriar had pulled a fast one. At the end of our previously agreed contract they added hand written language informing us that they were withholding $27,300.00 in order to build a driveway and/or creek crossing on our property. We were assured that the money would be deposited in an interest bearing account and that they would need our authorization to touch these funds. We were also assured that this amount should cover the cost of oar half of the private roadway, and so we agreed (see attachment B). In our dealings with Mr. Bozorgzad it was agreed that we needed to create a legal document in order to lawfully create a shared road. The documented record of this cooperation is the Reciprocal Road Easement Agreement dated August 11, 2000, signed by the Bachs, Bozorgzads, and a representative of the City of Pleasanton. This same document records the location oftbe sidewalk as agreed. Attorney, Peter MacDonald, who billed us as well as the Bozorgzads for his