|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Tri-Valley may be in the midst of dry summer months, but issues resulting from the record rainy season still linger.
Zone 7 Water Agency has launched an eminent domain case against the property owners of 3 Verona Way, a vacant 5.9-acre parcel within Pleasanton’s Verona Reach — the neighborhood between the Castlewood Drive and Verona Road bridges. The area, punctuated by the Arroyo De la Laguna, was among many sites within Zone 7’s service area to see significant erosion this past winter.
Meanwhile, Zone 7, the city of Pleasanton and Alameda County have also been named in a separate claim filed by Eddie and Ginger Belshe, a husband and wife who own a home within the Verona Reach.
The claim, which was filed at the end of May, seeks unspecified damages for loss of property, home value and access; incidental expenses and emotional distress resulting from significant erosion that impacted the Belshes’ property in the 7800 block of Foothill Road earlier this year.
“This is something they saw coming — it was preventable,” Eddie Belshe said in a recent interview. “I asked for help. I reached out and got no response each time … when you don’t get a response, (filing a claim) is the last resort but it’s the necessary one.”
This all comes nearly four months after Zone 7’s Board of Directors authorized spending $1.7 million for emergency repairs to an eroding slope fronting the properties owned by the Belshes and Dave and Lori Raun next door.
They were among several families in the Verona Reach neighborhood who appealed to Zone 7 to step in and address the creekside erosion threatening properties.
A gradual change in the configuration of the Arroyo de la Laguna — which the homeowners contend is a result of development upstream — has created an s-turn that has propelled water toward the Belshe and Raun properties instead of going past them. That combined with heavy rains throughout the winter caused significant chunks of their yards to fall away, leaving the affected families scrambling for outside assistance.
Staff from Zone 7 and the city of Pleasanton stepped in, with the water agency filing an emergency permit with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for repair work Feb. 28. They also brought in consultants to do surveying and design work needed to obtain the permit.
Before then, Zone 7 had never undertaken any projects in that area. The water agency holds an easement along the arroyo and across nine Foothill Road parcels, including the Belshe and Raun properties, which gives them the right to “construct, maintain, operate, inspect, and repair flood control facilities and appurtenances.” The creek within the Verona Reach is owned by the residents themselves.
With approval from their board, Zone 7 officials proceeded with work on a repair design for the eroding slope. At that time in March, an engineer with the firm working on the design estimated the work would be completed within two to four months. Sandbags and a makeshift dam were put in place and protected the slope well enough to stave off more significant erosion through the last of the rainy season.
But little has changed since then, according to Eddie Belshe.
“For me, this is a situation that should have been prevented a long time ago,” Belshe said. “Four months and yet still nothing is a much different time frame than what was presented at the (March Zone 7 board) meeting.”
Zone 7 general manager Jill Duerig said the Army Corps of Engineers sent Zone 7 staff back to the drawing board on the initial repair design proposal, delaying the anticipated start of work.
But last week, the water agency was able to file permit applications with the final design, according to Duerig. It’s not known how long it could take for permits to be granted.
“Construction only takes three to four weeks, and usually we can keep working (in the creek) until Oct. 15,” Duerig said. “We’re still in pretty good position to get everything done during this dry period.”
The new design calls for the use of the vacant property at 3 Verona Way in order to make repairs to the Belshe and Raun properties across the creek.
The property was purchased by Bhupinder Singh and Rajinder Randhawa last year for just under $400,000 with the intent of building a home there.
Singh spoke at a Zone 7 board meeting in May when directors took up the issue of using eminent domain to acquire the property after the landowners rejected the agency’s offer to buy the parcel. Zone 7 offered more than what Singh and Randhawa had purchased it for, but they thought the offer was too low, according to Duerig.
The property has since been listed for $1.5 million. It has also been impacted by erosion in recent years, Zone 7 staff said.
Singh told the board that he and his 12-year-old son live in Fremont and had been searching for a property in the area for years so his son could attend Foothill High School. They borrowed money from friends, family and his business in order to purchase the land to build their dream home, Singh said.
“We need that property,” he said. “Do you have any other option I can work on with you guys to save my property and at least build a house?”
Zone 7 staff contended the property was needed to help stabilize the west bank along the damaged middle reach of the Arroyo de la Laguna to lower the risk of further damage from future storms. They said this work amounts to an emergency project in that it needs to be completed before the rainy season returns.
“If this work is not completed before the beginning of the next rainy season beginning in the fall of 2017, there is a serious risk of further damage to the banks of the Arroyo de la Laguna and the surrounding property,” Zone 7 staff wrote in a memo to Duerig.
The board ultimately voted 6-1 to move forward with the eminent domain process, with director Angela Ramirez Holmes dissenting.
Attorneys for Zone 7 then filed a complaint in eminent domain against the property owners in Alameda County Superior Court, seeking immediate possession of the parcel and asking the court to determine its fair market value so the water agency can pay the landowners as required by law.
Judge Paul Herbert awarded the water agency possession of the property June 16. That effectively means the parcel is theirs, according to Duerig, absent a title transfer that won’t occur until the property value is determined in court.
“We always have sympathy for these people, and we don’t (proceed with eminent domain) unless we think the public benefits outweigh it,” Duerig said. “But really to do anything with this creek, you needed more space.”
Michael Babitzke, the attorney representing Singh and Randhawa, did not return requests for comment.
Eddie Belshe, meanwhile says he is not confident his property will be restored, and that he and his wife filed the claim after getting no response to a demand letter asking the agencies to purchase their home.
The claim states the shape and flow of the Arroyo de la Laguna have changed “proximately caused by the development of land in Pleasanton and by design or lack of design by controlling governmental agencies.” Those changes, the Belshes’ attorneys argue, led to the erosion that significantly impacted their Foothill Road property.
“Zone 7, the county and the city were aware that the erosion and incision caused by the arroyo would be problematic and would pose a threat to private backyards,” an excerpt from the claim reads. “The Belshes have called Zone 7 numerous times to ask about the erosion, and Zone 7’s only reply was that they were ‘monitoring’ the situation.”
“Zone 7 has the responsibility to maintain the arroyo and they failed to do so through inaction even though they were aware of the risks of failing to act,” it continues. “As a proximate result of that inaction the Belshe property was destroyed.”
Besides the city of Pleasanton, Alameda County and Zone 7, the claim also names Duerig; Zone 7 integrated water resources manager Carol Mahoney, associate water resources planner Elke Rank, Pleasanton City Manager Nelson Fialho and city engineer Steve Kirkpatrick.
Duerig declined to comment on the claim, saying it had just been discussed in closed session at the June 21 board meeting. No reportable action was taken during closed session.
Eddie Belshe says the continuing uncertainty about his family’s home has made for “a long four months.”
“We never quit living the nightmare,” he said.
-
Zone 7 logo. -
Zone 7 Water Agency contends the highlighted property at 3 Verona Way is needed to perform Arroyo de la Laguna bank restoration work after the area experienced significant erosion this past winter. (Zone 7) -
The property (highlighted in red) at 3 Verona Way, which Zone 7 gained possession of through eminent domain last month, is across the creek from homes on Foothill Road that were significantly impacted by erosion this past winter. (Zone 7) -
Eddie and Ginger Belshe, owners of this home in the 7800 block of Foothill Road, have filed a claim against Zone 7, Alameda County and the city of Pleasanton for damages resulting from erosion that significantly impacted their property earlier this year. (Julia Reis)
Boo hoo
You bought a house next to a river/creek… there was heavy rainfall…. and now you want a government bailout? Really? Anything else I’d say would get flagged, so I’ll leave it at that. I agree with the first comment.. boo hoo.
A similar erosion on our bank at Lake Tahoe has caused much grief. We have talked to soil engineers, tree companies, of course, TRPA, the governing body for the five counties, with no coverage under insurance policies, we as a family have had to foot the bill. No Government help there. Bo Ho !!
When these people moved in. Wasn’t the risk detailed as part of the process? A geologist should have seen this coming a mile away.
According to the article…”The creek within the Verona Reach is owned by the residents themselves.” So why are we going to foot the bill? Once it’s fixed they’ll sell and walk away with millions thanks to our dollars that saved it.
And the individuals that bought the vacant lot – they purchased it a year ago for $400K and now want $1.5 million? Everyone is out for the quick buck and take no responsibility for their decisions.
You purchase by a stream, you risk flooding and erosion…common sense!
Some facts that might help….Actually a little more complicated than that as these homes have an easement that was granted to Zone 7 to repair and maintain. The issue is the result of no maintenance which is why the easement is there and constant development upstream over an area of 700 square miles. Zone 7 actually receives money by every new development upstream to maintain and repair the waterways impacted. These lots were approved and annexed by the City of Pleasanton over 20 years ago and they recognized the need for the maintenance. The buyers of these homes were assured that these easements were to take care of this matter. Hundreds of disclosures but nothing on any risk like this….some inquired and were told….that is why the easement is there. The homeowners are just asking Zone 7 to do what they are supposed to do and the board of Zone 7 approved. Zone 7 is not suggesting this is not their responsibility. Nothing more than that.
Contrary to the above posts, I personally attended the Zone 7 Board Meeting March 15 as a concerned Pleasanton resident, and the Board did unanimously admit their negligence and voted for immediate emergency repair on the slopes of those homes. It’s been almost 4 months with no work on the Arroyo De La Laguna and I couldn’t imagine what these families are continuing to go through as the clock keeps ticking towards the Fall and another projected season of rain. Let’s not be insensitive or at least get your facts straight concerning their properties. Their deeds clearly stated that their land/home had mandated easements which Zone 7 would regularly access to “protect, monitor and maintain.” I empathize with the Belshe family and again could not imagine how they have suffered this past winter. Be kind, Pleasanton…or at least, be educated.
Kirk :”Some facts that might help….Actually a little more complicated than that as these homes have an easement that was granted to Zone 7 to repair and maintain.”
The question is what does “repair and maintain’ mean here? Zone 7 has an interest in maintaining streams for the purpose of flood control for the benefit of the entire community. So they’re probably interested in doing maintenance to ensure that the streams are freely flowing with no blockages or large scale overflowing of the banks. That’s what “maintenance” means from Zone 7’s point of view. On the other hand, some of the affected homeowners living by the stream seem to have a very different idea of what stream “maintenance” means here. To them it appears that “maintenance” means that Zone 7 has some sort of responsibility or obligation to prevent any of their backyards from being eroded away. I don’t think that protecting individual backyards from erosion should really be within Zone 7’s scope of responsibility since it doesn’t relate to flood control. From an affected homeowner’s perspective, losing a foot of backyard to a stream may be a disaster, but from a flood control standpoint it’s probably a non-event.
Zone 7’s easement is simply a formality that allows them to access the stream area at will. It does not in any way relieve the owners responsibilities to care for their own land. That is the difference between and easement and a dedication. A dedication involves the transfer of ownership and all associated responsibilities and assumes all liability.
Unfortunately, these homeowners are failing to mention a Zone 7 meeting approximately 4 years ago, where they were forewarned to perform preventative maintenance. Zone 7 went so far as to give them examples of how best to protect their property, but none of these folks wanted to heed the advice as they felt it would take away too much of their useable land. Its public record, look it up.
Sorry, but the bottom line is they want their cake and eat it too – at the expense of the taxpayer. Perhaps I would support red-tagging these homes and having the city buy them and turn them into public parkland. Win, win.
Thanks for everyone’s comments, emotions, and opinions …now just the facts:
1. Zone 7 does not get to define what an easement is and is not after the fact. Standards for easements do and it is included in the homeowner’s deeds.
2. The Zone 7 Board did not challenge that this was Zone 7 responsibility. They agreed….all 7 of them.
3. We are not talking about “1 foot of erosion”. We are talking 20+ in one storm and the “creek” will go through homes if not fixed this year.
4. We are not talking about a “Creek” or a natural Tahoe creek. We are talking about the tri-valley’s 700 miles of development pouring into the backyards. No different than if you keep adding bathrooms to your house…you need to eventually increase the size of the plumping pipes.
5. Zone 7 receives new development funds for this purpose.
6. The river is now 200 yards wide, a big S-Turn blasting water at homes and 40-50 feet deep. It was 20+ feet deep and 100 feet across 20 years ago before all the development
7 The claim of a formal proposal to fix matter did not take place. This was challenged at the board meeting. No proof delivered.
8. If you think the homeowners are allowed to do anything….you are very mis- informed. Zone 7 has been trying to get all the permits done for 4 months…and still nothing.
9. Assuming the home owners could get this permit (again…no way), this would not have stopped the S-Turn and the blasting like a high pressure hose on the banks. Please remember that 20 years ago, the proposed slope was already there. It did not hold because of no maintenance per the easements and significant development. So no value.
10 With all the disclosures you sign when you buy a home including some of the most insignificant ones….do you really think this would be left out if homeowners were told this was their risk. NO! This has been confirmed with each homeowner.
11. Homeowners have written documentation asking this question and a response from Zone 7 that is clear that is what the easement is for….them (Zone 7) to take care of.
12. The published statements on the Zone 7 website include flood control and protection of property….not just flood control. Is this property…? Yes!
13. There is only one home owner interested in selling. This was a decision made for personal and financial reasons before this event…not after.
If you have seen the actual site….you know it looks like a war zone and we are not talking about a natural “creek” . If you have not and would like to….I can arrange. I think your perspective will changes as it did for other non-believers (BOD members, city officials, county officials, Newscrews and many others).
If anyone would like to see the location to get a better understanding that we are not talking about a natural creek but rather a drain system for ~700 square miles of development that is out of control….please contact me at davidkraun@gmail.com.
I am one of the home owners impacted and have watched this progress.
Although we are disappointed with the pace and it is frustrating to hear still some of the statements above that are false, I have been assured by the Zone 7 staff and the board of directors that they are committed to fixing this matter.
I continue to try to support and work closely with this agency and attend every month’s board meeting.
Thanks
Dave
@Dave
At the time that you purchased your house did the house’s owner or real estate agent lie to you and lead you to believe that the water flowing past the backyard was a natural creek and not a drain system for hundreds of square miles of development? What did you think it was?