|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
If a tree branch falls on Louise Street, someone will be there to hear it, watch it and photograph it, as the conflict between neighborhood residents and a Menlo Park developer heats up.
To recap: Developer Sam Sinnott and investment partner Mircea Voskerician want to build a driveway exiting on Louise Street from a property at 1825 Santa Cruz Ave. that they purchased for redevelopment. The exit would partially pave over a bit of greenery in the public right-of-way, and possibly bolster the developer’s case for switching the address from Santa Cruz Avenue to Louise Street, which city staff doesn’t support.
But staff did initially issue the permit for the driveway. Shortly thereafter, a group of neighbors asked the council to revoke it, partly on grounds that the driveway never existed, saying that 35 current and former Louise Street residents don’t remember any vehicle ever accessing the lot from the back. The man who sold the property to Mr. Sinnott contests that, saying work trucks had. City staff noted that yet another previous owner also had a permit, but never followed through.
The council voted 3-1 to nix Mr. Sinnott’s permit after hearing from both sides.
The neighbors then asked the city to turn over the public right-of-way to adjoining homeowners — a process called abandonment — with plans to preserve it as green space in perpetuity with easements for pedestrian access. The council is scheduled to vote on the abandonment July 16. Planning commissioners determined on a 4-2 vote last month that the request follows the city’s general plan, but noted that they were not voting on whether abandonment should proceed.
Confrontation
Tempers have not cooled while everyone waits for the council’s decision. Police responded to a complaint of possible heritage tree damage on Louise Street on June 13. Officers, after consulting the city’s arborist, determined that construction needed to stop until protection was put up around a heritage tree trunk, according to spokeswoman Nicole Acker. Police also told residents who had blocked the work crew’s trucks with their own cars to move, and they complied, Ms. Acker said. No one was cited.
Both sides called the other out for behaving rudely during the confrontation.
To hear the residents tell it, Mr. Sinnott’s work crew showed up and tore down foliage, in the process damaging a heritage redwood tree growing on the right-of-way. The crew stripped away a screen of greenery that used to keep the neighbors from seeing Santa Cruz Avenue, they said, visibly changing the character of the street and upsetting residents.
To hear developer Sam Sinnott and his attorney, Bill Garrett, tell it, the yard work thinned the backyard as a fire precaution and a strategy to save a heritage oak tree choked by overgrowth; the work was authorized by the city’s arborist. Protective fencing was installed as soon as the yard work cleared enough space, they said, and three to four redwood tree branches that crossed the property line were trimmed to avoid breakage as the crew’s truck pulled into the yard.
Mr. Sinnott had informed the city about the work in advance. City Attorney Bill McClure told the Almanac that he suggested the developer wait until after the council votes on the abandonment “to avoid creating or escalating a conflict with the Louise Street neighbors.”
The city attorney also said that no permit is required for the developer to access his property from Louise Street and that no laws would be violated by doing so “provided he does not remove any vegetation or trees from the public right-of-way, perform any work in the public right-of-way, or cause damage to the public right-of-way” without city approval.
The long and the short of this situation is that the developers want to change the property address from Santa Cruz Ave to the quieter, more desirable Louise Street address. They pre-emptively removed plants and other greenery and “accidentally’ destroyed an oak tree, and now want their neighbors to knuckle under.
I had a developer neighbor who removed beautiful bushes on my property boundary, and then planted huge trees that robbed my plants and trees of sunlight. Consequently, I lost a tree and more shrubbery. My only recourse would have been through the civil courts, which was cost prohibitive. I absolutely sympathize with the Louise Street residents and i really hope these developers do not get a Louise Street address.
Note to self: never puchase property on Louise Street. I wouldn’t want that mob of angry neighbors working against me! Now I know why there are so many outdated ramshackles for sale in this area.
Note: The council voted 3-1 to revoke the driveway permit, not 4-1. Councilman Ray Mueller was recused from the vote.
Sandy
Note to Redonkulous: Sinnott did not purchase property on Louise Street. The “mob of angry neighbors” are actually law-abiding citizens working to protect their street. We are not aware of any “outdated ramshackles for sale” on our street. You must be referring to Sinnott’s house at 1825 Santa Cruz Avenue.
For clarification purposes, all the dense undergrowth removed was on my property. It was choking a heritage oak which we are saving and protecting. I have been working with the arborist for over a year. We finally had our access to the property directly from the Louise Street right of way restored because the parking that was blocking the driveway and existing gates was illegally installed by neighbors, without the necessary encroachment permits,and they were forced to remove it.
My workers were not sited by the police, who were warned in advance of eroneous neighbor calls and charges, because I have the same legal rights to access my property with vehicles from the street as any one of my neighbors. In state law they are called abutter’s rights. Fortunately we have a system of laws to protect individual property owners from neighbors deciding who can and who cannot live on ‘their street’.
I have been monitoring this issue through the last year and I guess will be finally decided on July 16th. Mr. Sinnott and his partner definitely stepped up their game by hiring Mr. Garrett which is a well-known land litigation attorney. City attorney better have his legal arguments and title research together since in multiple ocassions misinformed council members and provided “opinions” and this will not fly on July 16th. That is why Mr. McClure could not stop Mr. Sinnott to access his property from Louise on June 13th before and after then. I applaud Mr. Sinnott by exercising his rights. That act alone would clear the path for a law suit against the city. Unfortunately the voice of all neighbors at this meeting cannot change this outcome based on a perception and it will be based on legal facts. Mr. Garrett clearly presented at the council meeting in May that rear vehicular and pedestrian access from Louise Street to the Mr. Sinnott’s property has always existed and also California Streets&Highways Code also prohibits the proposed abandonment by Mr. McClure.
To make it less painful for everybody if I was Mr. Sinnott I would present all title search findings to the city attorney’s office way before the July 16th meeting, inform all city council members in writing on the title search findings and also draft the actions with demands against the city and make them part of the staff report. Based on current property values and lost time, opportunity, market timing, I would expect that Mr. Sinnott’s demands to exceed $2M plus attorney fees. And the neighbors could sue too if the city votes against them if they have a substantive action. Considering that their property value will go up with a new development next door this action will be dead on arrival.
Lastly, Mr. McClure should be asked by Mr. Garrett to sign a non-conflict of interest agreement that he does not have any relationship with any Louise St residents with whom I know he currently socializes or he needs to excuse himself from this case since he can become a huge liability for tax payer’s money.
From my experience I believe that if the honorable city council members will really understand the Mr. Sinnott’s property rights they will have to decide if they want to expose the city to this liability to satisfy the voice and non-factual/legal demands of 100 neighbours.
In conclusion, I believe that based on what was presented to planning comission in May and if Mr. Sinnott and his partner will continue with his current due diligence and also have the backing of a well known land use expert that could testify on July 16th they will get their votes.
I am a Louise street resident and was there on June 13th not sure where Sandy was. The article has misleading statements : “Officers, after consulting the city’s arborist, determined that construction needed to stop” There was no “construction” the entire plan to clear brush around the oak tree (that is called gardening maintenance) and Mr. Sinnott was cleared by the city attorney, OKed by MP PD that were informed in advance. It is outrages at what extend Mr. Sinnott went to avoid any conflicts with Louise St residents. I disagree with my neighbors that made Mr. Sinnott look like “Ivan the terrible” and they (Schwartz and Kiki) “pumped up” everybody in the neighborhood with their concept and even more getting fraudulent signatures to find out later that they had illegal parking in front of their house. I leaved long enough on the street and I remember Mr. Tate getting trucks through his Louise St gates. I had enough of this and I am planning to testify on July 16th on all those counts.
Peter, interesting information on Mr. McClure. Sandy, have you spoke with Mr. McClure on his conflict of interest and potential liability to our city? As a resident I would be interested what is Mr. McClure social relationship with my neighbours.
As far as outdated ramshackles they are many mine is one of them but not for sale yet.
Once again, Mr. Sinnott’s version of the truth is incomplete, misleading and disingenuous. Let’s start with two simple facts: first, Mr. Sinnott bought a house that is on Santa Cruz Avenue, not Louise Street (as he would have everyone believe). The house is in a completely separate sub-division from Louise Street. Second, there has NEVER been a driveway from Sinnott’s property to Louise Street, as dozens of past and former residents are prepared to testify under oath. Mr. Sinnott’s only “evidence” of a driveway or any previous vehicular access is a letter written by the previous owner two days before close of escrow stating that there once was a rutted dirt track—which again, none of the neighbors who have lived on Louise Street since 1947 ever saw.
As your article reports, two weeks ago Mr. Sinnott accessed his property from the Louise Street public right of way despite the advice and request of the city attorney that he not do so while the City Council is still considering the neighbors’ request for abandonment. Since Mr. Sinnott is planning to demolish the existing house on his Santa Cruz Avenue lot, there is of course no conceivable reason he could not have cleared the underbrush on his property using its historical access from Santa Cruz Avenue. The only reason he instructed his crew to drive a truck onto the Louise Street green space—with his attorney present to oversee their work—was to bully and intimidate his neighbors, a pattern he has consistently followed since the Louise Street homeowners first united in opposition to his plans to build a new driveway. No doubt he also plans to use this incursion as evidence of his “historical access” in the lawsuit he has been threatening against the city should it rule in favor of the neighbors.
Furthermore, Mr. Sinnott fails to acknowledge that on at least two other occasions his crews have without any authorization from the city previously cleared from the Louise Street green space numerous trees–including a fruit-bearing plum tree–and much other vegetation. On those occasions he issued insincere apologies after the fact and stated he did not know he needed a permit. Most recently, Sinnott’s workers removed the lower limbs of a heritage redwood tree in the public right of way despite clear instructions from the city attorney not to do any work there. The cumulative damage to the historical character of Louise Street is incalculable; where once there was a protective green barrier at the end of the cul-de-sac, now Sinnott has opened a clear view to Santa Cruz Avenue for the first time in 75 years.
Mr. Sinnott’s claim that the neighbors “were forced to remove” the gravel parking spaces is also false. They did so voluntarily. After the City Council voted in March to deny Mr. Sinnott his driveway permit, the neighbors removed the parking spaces in order restore the green space to its previous state, in accordance with the wishes of all of the homeowners who actually live on Louise Street–unlike Mr. Sinnott.
Finally, Mr. Sinnott’s assertion of his abutter’s rights is also unfounded—a thinly-veiled rationale for his naked attempt to flip his property from its historical Santa Cruz Avenue frontage to Louise Street simply in order to increase his profits, at the expense of the rest of the neighborhood. The Planning Department has twice denied this frontage change but this remains Mr. Sinnott’s end game, and indeed his latest plans still show the house facing Louise Street, not Santa Cruz Avenue. We can and will refute all of the arguments presented by Sinnott’s attorney, and parroted in the above comments and implied threats by “Peter,” whose diction bears a distinct resemblance to Mr. Sinnott’s partner, Mr. Mircea, and who seems woefully and willfully ignorant of the true facts of this dispute. It is curious too that “Peter” calls into question Mr. McClure’s fairness because “I know he currently socializes” with Louise Street residents but is not at all concerned about that fact that Mr. McClure has known Mr. Sinnott since they were about eight years old and that Mr. Sinnott’s father-in-law is Mr. McClure’s law partner. And of course none of this matters, because Mr. McClure has been the Menlo Park City Attorney for many years so of course he will know many people in the community.
As residents of Louise Street for 20 years, we believe it is indeed unfortunate that Mr. Sinnott and his colleagues have so little respect not only for all of the people who live on Louise Street, but also for the processes the City has established to resolve our dispute with him. Instead, he seems to think and act as though might makes right, money talks, and he can do whatever he pleases—now backed by an expensive attorney.
This is the same man who once introduced himself to us as “your good neighbor,” promised he would only build a driveway if it was “win-win,” and subsequently taunted us when we challenged his encroachment permit by saying he hoped we would be more willing to live with the City Council’s decision than with staff’s. That was before the 3-1 City Council vote in our favor, and before the Planning Commission’s 4-2 vote in our favor–votes of course which seem to have had little to no impact on Mr. Sinnott’s own hostile and aggressive behavior.
There is no “AJ” on Louise Street. The entire posting by AJ is nonsensical gibberish. Once again this appears to be Mr. Mircea. The only neighborhood residents who were present on June 13th were Brad Taylor, John Brock, Michael Schwarz (you would know the correct spelling if you lived on the street), Alex Schelberg (who lives at 1833 Santa Cruz Avenue, and Michael Yantos. Moreover, Michael and I have no illegal parking in front of our home. In fact all of the residents of Louise Street remain united in opposition to Mr. Sinnott’s and Mr. Mircea’s plans. If you really lived on this street you would reveal your real name and not hide behind phony initials.
My name is Peter and I am a firm supporter of property rights.
Schwartz and Kiki believe that Mr. Sinnott does not have supporters because they do not act like stated by another writer “a mob of angry neighbors” and your quick attempt to suppress and deflect the readers by calling other writers names is not really working. Kiki, after I read about you I think you should be hiding from CBA..not “Mr. Mircea” which looks that is Mr. Sinnott’s partner but not mentioned on title. From what I read is that you admitted in the Daily Post that you did collect (in charge and organizing this referendum) those +200 signatures from which you had about 20 fraudulent signatures and only when Mr. Sinnott discovered you scrambled to fix this issue. Mr. Sinnott should have reported you swiftly to California Bar Association, maybe he did. CBA has to decide if you deserve to have a license in this state.
Schwartz is into the weeds with his historical and sales justification of Mr. Sinnott purchase of 1825 Santa Cruz. If Mr. McClure is involved and/or has a relationship with Mr. Sinnott that is a clear reason that he should detach himself from this case. Mr. Sinnott is factual and neighbors are emotional and that is the main issue here.
By just doing some title research the title and estate acquired by the County of San Mateo in Louise Street, dedication to public use, now owned by the city of MP, is indeed a fee, not an easement and that is a fact Schwartz.
What matters are title rights and City of MP did not do their homework claiming that the city has the right to abandon the land to the neighbors…oops they forgot that Mr. Sinnott’s property abuts and he has the same adjoining rights as his other two owners if city wants to abandon this land for purposes of vehicular and pedestrian ingress to and egress from their lands.
Moreover, city council cannot vote on abandonment unless city pays all the adjoining owners a fee.
I applaud Mr. Sinnott and Mr. Mircea for exercising their property rights and use of their existing driveway but next time do not inform the city or MPPD, it is not necessary. You always had that right, enforce it.
Kiki, not all your neighbors want to be part of Mr. Swartz personal battle and you still do not get it. I did my own detailed research and homework after getting burned by Mr. Swartz’s and your propaganda. Now I received another long misleading email (see below) through Nextdoor from Mr. Swartz… and here are my answers:
The fundamental reason being used to get support is the loss of green space. Until April the area in question was an illegal parking area in the right of way for the private use of one neighbor. That parking was finally removed because it lacked the necessary encroachment permit.Mr. Swartz never told us (the neighbors) that he has illegal parking on his property while chasing us for signatures against Mr. Sinnott. Double standards…
Mr. Swartz is angry because it is now clear Mr. Sinnott has legal access rights and the council can’t break the law to vote emotional over factual. Mr. Schwartz is misleading readers by stating that Mr. McClure did not approve Mr.Sinnott’s June 13th yard work accessing from Louise. That is a big fat lie Mr. Swartz. Readers and Almanac editor can contact Mr. McClure and MP Police Chief and they can confirm that both city attorney and police chief have been informed in writing two days in advance and agreed that Mr.Sinnott can access his property from Louise. I checked it myself. Even more, Mr. Swartz forgot to mention that Mr. Sinnott accessed his property from Louise a week before June 13th and picture of tire tracks have been sent to city council members and Mr. McClure and Mr. McClure did not find that the incident was illegal since Mr.Sinnot is exercising his existing property rights.
Mr. Swartz states that Mr. Sinnott needs a permit to access his property from Louise. Obviously Mr. Sinnott doesn’t since otherwise city attorney would have asked Mr. Sinnott to pull a permit for the June 13th yard work when he was informed in writing. Again, Mr. Swartz take your personal battle some place else.
To date city council voted emotional (3-1 and misguided by Mr. McClure and that vote was not on the agenda item which was the encroachment; 4-2 in May by planning that stated that they have to defer on a decision to city council again misguided by city attorney representative which was clueless to advice council members) and not factual and if I was in the same situation I would have to protect my rights.
Mr. Swartz, you also called Mr. Tate a liar after blocking his gates for years and taking advantage of him being elderly. How low you can go?
I agree with Mr. Swartz that neighbors should come on July 16th and express their concerns, write to the city council members but before you do that please do your own homework since Mr. Swartz dragged us in this mess including fraudulent supporting signatures collected by Kiki.
From Michael Schwartz:
We are writing to ask you to attend the July 16th City Council meeting if at all possible. Here’s why: As you may have read in the Menlo Park Almanac, on June 13, 2013 Mr. Sinnott and his colleagues significantly escalated the conflict on Louise Street. He did this by instructing his workers to drive a large demolition truck onto the Louise Street green space in order to access his property from the Louise Street public right of way. The city attorney had advised and requested him not to do so while the City Council is still considering the neighbors’ request for abandonment.
Mr. Sinnott’s attorney, Bill Garrett, was present to oversee the work and make sure that the police, who were called by the neighbors, did not put a stop to it. The ostensible reason for this action was to clear brush from 1825 Santa Cruz Avenue. Since Mr. Sinnott is planning to demolish the existing house on his lot, there is of course no conceivable reason he could not have cleared the brush on his property using its historical access from Santa Cruz Avenue. The only reason to drive a truck onto the Louise Street green space was to bully and intimidate his neighbors, a pattern he has consistently followed since the Louise Street homeowners first united in opposition to his plans to build a new driveway. No doubt he also plans to use this incursion as evidence of his so-called “historical access” in the lawsuit he has been threatening against the city should it rule in favor of the neighbors.
This is the third time Mr. Sinnott’s crews have without any authorization from the city cleared numerous trees and other vegetation from the Louise Street green space, including a fruit-bearing plum tree. On prior occasions Mr. Sinnott issued insincere apologies after the fact and stated he did not know he needed a permit. This time, his workers removed three large lower limbs of a heritage redwood tree on city property despite specific instructions from the city attorney not to do any work in the public right of way. The cumulative damage to the historical character of Louise Street is enormous; where once there was a protective green barrier at the end of the cul-de-sac, Sinnott’s unauthorized destruction of the area has opened a clear view to Santa Cruz Avenue for the first time in 75 years.
As you know, Mr. Sinnott is threatening to sue the city if it supports the neighbors’ request to abandon the land to them in order to protect it in perpetuity. He argues that abandonment would deprive him of his “abutter’s rights”—a thinly-veiled rationale for his naked attempt to flip his property from its historical Santa Cruz Avenue frontage to Louise Street simply in order to increase his profits at the expense of the rest of the neighborhood. The Planning Department has twice denied this frontage change but this remains Mr. Sinnott’s end game, and indeed his latest plans still show the house facing Louise Street, not Santa Cruz Avenue. We can and will refute all of the arguments presented by Sinnott’s attorney.
As residents of Louise Street for 20 years, we believe it is indeed unfortunate that Mr. Sinnott and his colleagues have so little respect not only for all of the people who live on Louise Street, but also for the processes the City has established to resolve our dispute with him. Instead, he seems to think and act as though might makes right, money talks, and he can do whatever he pleases—now backed by an expensive attorney.
This is the same man who once introduced himself to us as “your good neighbor,” promised he would only build a driveway if it was “win-win,” and subsequently taunted us when we challenged his encroachment permit by saying he hoped we would be more willing to live with the City Council’s decision than with staff’s. That was before the 3-1 City Council vote in our favor, and before the Planning Commission’s 4-2 vote in our favor–votes of course which seem to have had little to no impact on Mr. Sinnott’s own hostile and aggressive behavior.
The City Council meeting on July 16 will be decisive. If the Council votes for abandonment, the neighbors will be able to protect the green space. If Council votes against abandonment, city staff will grant Sinnott an encroachment permit to build a new driveway. Please come to the July 16th meeting to show your support. Please tell your friends and bring them too. A large turnout will definitely make a difference. And whether or not you cannot attend, please also email city.council@menlopark.org to tell them where you stand on this issue. Mr. Sinnott likes to mock the fact that we have broad support within our community, but we’re proud that all of you stand with us, and remain hopeful that we can still prevail in this fight to protect the historical character of our neighborhood from someone who is only interested in his own profit margin.