The Culvert of Brush Road
The culvert at the junction of the private Brush Road and
California State Highway 17 failed during the winter of 2005.
The culvert consists of a vertical structure rising from a concrete
box (see picture at the top right of this web page) which collects
water that has drained down the mountain and then directs the water
out of the side of the concrete box into a horizontal, 100 foot long
pipe which runs underneath Brush Road and drains the the water on the
downhill side, towards the state highway (see picture). The concrete box holding the vertical
part of the culvert is located on private land that is enclosed in the
small yellow box on the Culvert Aerial
Views page of this web site. The large yellow box shows the
property borders of the parcel in which the culvert is located.
The failure occurred where the horizontal pipe used to emerge from
the side of the concrete box. As can be seen in the picture, the pipe no longer
connects to the box, and instead has started to slide underneath the
road. As a result, in a rainstorm, water pools up & flows through and
around the horizontal pipe and is eroding underneath Brush Road, and
eventually will lead to the collapse of the road.
The State of California has been maintaining this culvert
since 1939, without an easement to do so.
The various landowners of the parcel (including the current) have
allowed this maintenance to occur, they have apparently refrained from
performing any maintenance themselves, while remaining liable for any
damage the faliure to maintain may cause to the road, or that the
resulting hole may present to unsuspecting motorists driving on Brush
After consultation with legal representation of the State of
California, council to the Brush Road corporation, council for the
current land owner, and a search of the County of Santa Clara
property records, the parties have entered into the Agreement and
Release below which governs this land going forward, and to allow
repairs on the culvert to proceed.
Timeline of Communications
- 02/11/1941 Steinbeck - Foster easement (1941) (photcopy)
- 02/11/1941 Steinbeck - Foster easement (1941) (retyped). John Ernst
Steinbeck apparently paid to realign the road in the late 1930s as
Highway 17 was being created. Later he executed this agreement with
Foster, across whose lands the road runs, making it clear that
Steinbeck and his assignees have an ingress and egress right,
including the right to repair.
- 5:04 pm, 10/17/1989
Magnitude 7.0 earthquake strikes at Loma Preita, 9 miles south of the
Culvert, on the San Andreas Fault, which runs along State Highway 17,
The fault is located 700 feet from the culvert. State Highway 17 is
closed for one month due to a landslide. Most homes on Brush Road
suffer minor to major damage; Two homes are destroyed. All wells are
severed by the earth movement. The road suffers serious surface
damage, and many of the existing culverts are compromised.
- 10/21/1991 Brush Road hires DSS Construction to repave the road, and
remove and replace all of the existing culverts. The plan of work
shows all of the culverts which Brush Road has today existed in
1991, had been damaged in the 1989 earthquake, and were replaced in
1991. This clearly shows these culverts have been in place for more
than 25 years. Sal alledges that the culverts designated C3 and C4
on the last page are new development created in 2004; in truth,
these culverts have been in place for decades.
- 12/06/1993 Brush & Old Well Mutual Water Company is established to bring
San Jose Water city water to the road, (replacing the many wells
which were destroyed by the earthquake) and the BOWMWC builds a
water main down the road. Their AsBuilt blueprints document these
same culverts C3 and C4, which are circled in the as built diagram
in the link; at this time Danais owned what is today owned by Sal. The
original AsBuilt is also available.
Rainfall 110% of normal (June 1,2004 - May 30, 2005)
- 03/01/2005 Letter
from the State to Brush Road first informing us of the failure of
- 05/01/2005 Caltrans draws up a plan that suggests inserting a
platic pipe inside the failed 25 inch horizontal pipe, and reattaching
this to the vertical upright. This plan would need no permits, as it
would restore the original structure. Brush engages a contractor to
send a camera down the horizontal pipe to access its integrity. We
quickly discover that the pipe is rotted out almost immediately, and
partially collapsed, such that the water runs straight out the bottom
and has carved a big cave under the pipe. As such we have no
confidence that we will be able to insert a large diameter pipe inside
the 25 inch pipe.
- 08/25/2005 Brush Road Annual meeting minutes. Discusses the Culvert, and
accepts report from a member (Michael Hunt) who has been investigating
the situation. Brush elects a new Board of Directors. Plan of action
is laid out to raise money, learn our options and get a fix done as
soon as possible.
- 08/31/2005 Brush Road hires Mark Strombotne to advise the
Board on dealing with the State on the Culvert matter.
- 09/14/2005 Brush Road engages California Asphalt & Paving
to resurface parts of Brush Road, as well as to rebuild the intake to
culverts C1, C3 and C8
- 09/16/2005 Brush sends letter to State demanding that they
fix the Culvert structure which (we thought at the time) they had
built on the land of one of our members.
- 10/07/2005 Brush sends letter to State offering the Brush
Road Corporation would contribute $15,000 towards the repair, if the
State performed the repair promptly, and recorded an agreement
affirming their further obligation to repair and maintain the
structure, as they had been doing for 70 years.
- 10/17/2005 California Asphalt & Paving completes its work
repaving and redoing the culvert intakes.
- 10/20/2005 State counters with an offer to contribute
$20,000 to Brush if it will perform the repair, and recorded an
agreement having Brush take the future obligation to repair and
maintain the structure.
- 10/20/2005 Brush counters with a offer to pay for the
complete fix if the State continues to maintain the structure.
- 11/01/2005 State responds, saying it has no interest or
ability to maintain a structure which is not on their land.
- 11/23/2005 Letter summarizing the above communications, and noting that
rains have commenced making performing any repairs that year
difficult, and increases the offer to pay $25k towards a repair, if
the State continues to perform maintenance
- 12/13/2005 A series of emails and phone calls between Brush
and the State; Brush communicating that they are interested in the
settlement proposal, and given the time of year wish to examine doing
a temporary fix right away, followed by a more permanent fix after the
rains are over. The State that Brush hire an engineer to study the
water flow, and suggest a temporary & permanent repair; Brush shall
present this to the State for its approval, and then when obtained put
the proposal out to bid
Rainfall 90% of normal (June 1,2005 - May 30, 2006)
- 1/16/2006 - 4/16/2006 Contractors and engineers refuse to
bid on the job, or even postulate a possible fix, as conditions at the
site are too dangerouus even to approach the edge of the ravine.
Brush Road installs reflective Caution tape on sawhorses to warn away
drivers from the hazard.
- 6/7/2006 Brush Road engages a number of contractors (Messa
& Sons, Top Down, Porter Construction) to look at the job, and offer
ideas. We then take the ideas to an engineer to write up as a plan.
This engineer never gets around to it, and so we fire him and...
- 10/3/2006 Brush Road hires Roy Nelson to perform an Engineering Study of
the complete flow that could be generated by the mountain, and draw up
the consensus design of a structure that can handle this flow.
- 12/18/2006 Minutes of the Winter 2006 Members meeting - State verbally
agreed to pay for some repair work, but Brush must get engineering
plans drawn up, and obtain bids from two contractors for the
approval of the State. The State suggests some of its favored
contractors; we contact them and none of them are interested in a
job this small. We have obtained engineering plans, and are seeking
bids. Members authorize Brush to continue down this path; and also
to urge all of our guests to take notice of the hazard posed by the
Rainfall 54% of normal (June 1,2006 - May 30, 2007)
- 1/18/2007 We get one bid, from Messa, for $102k. We need a second bid.
- 2/14/2007 We get a second bid, from UpGrade Construction, for $123,480k.
- 02/20/2007 Brush meets with its engineer to discuss the bids. Consensus is
that because we have not done a full engineering study (cost
estimate is about $15k to do this), the contractors do not know how
much fill will be needed, so are inflating their estimates to cover
themselves. We decided to present the bids we have to CalTrans and
have an open dicussion on what to do, how much of the cost will they
pay, what do they suggest we do.
- 07/10/2007 Letter from Brush to the State with the bids we have been able to
obtain, and seeking their approval and funding.
- 7/11/2007 K. Kim tells us she has moved on to other
responsibilies, and passes us on to someone else. We also contact our
State Senator (Able Maldanado), asking him to help call attention to
- 8/20/2007 CalTrans assigns Frank Valentini as the new
attorney, and we bring him up to speed on the matter.
- 08/27/2007 Letter from
the State outlining that while they have maintained the culvert for
70 years, they will cease doing this, and checking to see if the
offer of $20,000 to help us get the culvert fixed is still valid.
- 09/2/2007 Brush Board
brings Sal Giovando up to speed on the matter, and asking for his
help. At this time we all still believe that the State built this
structure on land that was later purchased by Sal; and that the State
was obligated to continue to maintain the structure.
- 09/5/2007 Brush calls Sal to discuss the letter. Sal says he
does not care about this culvert, and for Brush to do what ever we
think is right to fix it ourselves. Sal states that he does not know
any engineers or politicians, that he is a real estate landlord
(http://www.vrent.com) , and he can not spend any time helping
- 09/09/2007 CalTrans tells us they will not renew
their offer to pay $20k to help fix the culvert. They take the
position it is not their problem.
- 09/10/2007 - 09/24/2007 Brush road does extensive research
to understand options. Again, Highway 17 was built in 1937, during
great depression, and there was a spirit of "build it now, get the
rights later" at that time. We compared the style of construction of
the culvert with similar culverts on Caltrans land, and found them to
be identical. We learned that Caltrans did acquire the land under part
of Brush Road in 1940, but not the land under this culvert. We
obtained Title Reports. We searched easement agreements. We
documented our observations of Caltrans maintaining the culvert over
the past 50 years. We prepared a litigation plan for if we needed to
sue Caltrans to compell them to fix their culvert.
- 09/24/2007 Brush communicates to Caltrans that we feel that
"They built it, they broke it, and they must fix it". At minimum,
even if they can show that they did not build it, they have already
admitted that they have been exclusively maintaining it for the past
70 years, and so it is clear that it was them that broke it, so they
must fix it. We make it clear that we feel the liability for a
catastrophic failure is theirs, and so if such a failure blocks
Highway 17, it is their fault.
- 10/10/2007 Caltrans digs out the lower culvert, which is on their land, and
which accepts the water from the failed culvert, and builds a large
berm to protect Highway 17 if that lower culvert should fail.
- 10/18/2007 - 11/05/2007 Brush meets with the chief of staff
for Abel Maldanado, our State Senator, at the site. We show her the
various communications, and she agrees to present this to the senator.
The senator works to get Caltrans to take another look at the matter,
and to put Kimberley Kim back on the issue. Brush files a claim to
recover its engineering costs incured following the original agreement
where the State would fund a repair if Brush Road developed a repair
plan, as a statue of limitations looms.
- 12/7/2007 Caltrans agrees to have its engineers and
department staff meet with the Brush Road board, with out lawyers
present, to see if a workable solution can be achieved outside of the
court system. (Seems like an excellent idea! - Editor).
- 12/14/2007 Caltrans and Brush meet in their Oakland
headquarters, discuss the issues as we each understand them, explore
various options, and agree to continue to work together.
Rainfall 68% of normal (June 1,2007 - May 30, 2008)
- 1/2008 - 2/2008 Caltrans and Brush have a series of meetings, their staff inspects the site jointly with us.
- 03/31/2008 Caltrans
discovers the 1941
Foster - Steinbeck agreement, and forwards a copy to Brush Road.
Basically, this clearly shows the culvert was built by Steinbeck,
not by the State, and further has Steinbeck retaining the rights to
use & repair the entire road and all of its culverts.
- 1/2008 - 4/2008
Caltrans and Brush have further face to face discussions and phone
negotiations, and finally agree in principle that Caltrans will pay
$42,000 to Brush if we fix the culvert, and take recorded ongoing
responsibility for this section of road. State drafts up an
agreement between Brush Road, Sal (as the owner of the land even
though he is also a member of Brush Road), and the owner of three
additional parcels on Ridge Road, which is not a part of the Brush
Road corporation, but rely who rely on this road for access to their
- 05/28/2008 Minutes of the Spring 2008 Members meeting. Motion is made and passed
to direct the Brush Road Corporation to sign the Agreement and
Release with the State, and accept the State money, and also to
proceed with work towards getting the culvert repaired
- 06/10/2008 Brush Road obtains signatures of the 3 Ridge Road Owners
- 06/20/2008 Brush Road informs Sal that the Brush Road Corporation has reached
agreement where the State will pay $42,000 to help repair the road,
in exchange for the signing of an Agreement and Release document.
All of the Brush Road members and the Ridge Road owners have signed
this, and we just need Sal's signature to get the money from the
- 06/29/2008 Letter from Brush Road to Sal, 1) pleading that he sign the
agreement as he promised, 2) pleading that he contribute $1,500 to
the repair, and 3) seeking to learn if there is some issue with the
agreement causing him to refuse to sign as he promised
In a face to face meeting at the site, Sal outlines 4 conditions
he requires for Brush Road to perform in order for him to sign the
agreement and allow the repair to take place.
- 07/29/2008 Letter to Sal stating that Brush Road has completed his four
1) Plot out a drainage easement covering the land needed
for the repair;
2) Brush Road Corporation get Liability Insurance;
3) Easements be prepared for the Ridge Road people you have just
prescriptive easement over the culvert road;
4) Brush Road
contractor get insurance for the repair;
- 08/01/2008 Letter to Sal asking him to please sign the agreement
- 08/03/2008 Letter to Sal pleading again that he sign the agreement, and reminding
him that we agreed and implemented all of his conditions, and
further reminding him that his payments of the Brush Road Dues are
- 08/07/2008 Letter from Sal's Attorney, Matthew Hurley, who states that Sal has engaged him to handle the matter for Sal going forward, and asking for background information.
- 08/08/2008 Letter from Brush to Matt Hurley, thanking him for his
involvement, and supplying him preliminary background
- 08/11/2008 Follow up letter from Brush to Matt suppling additional backgroung data
- 08/12/2008 Letter from Matt to Brush asking for additional information, as his client had assumed the culvert was not on the client's property
- 08/12/2008 Letter from Brush to Matt answering his additional questions, and forwarding various pictures of the site
- 08/12/2008 Letter from Brush to Sal, thanking him for paying his past due balance
- 08/14/2008 Letter from Matt to Brush, thanking for all of the data and the
pictures. Matt states he has been on the site numerous times, and
certainly has noticed the drainage structure. He again asks if
there has been a survey to determine if the structure is on his
client's land, as well as a number of additional questions about other drainage culverts.
- 08/14/2008 Letter from Brush to Matt, assuring him that the State had
shown us property corners that clearly show the culvert is on Sal's land. Futher Brush addresses his questions about other drainage
- 08/19/2008 Letter from Brush to Matt, stating that Brush feels it has
answered all the questions, and fuly breifed Matt on the matter, and
asking for his client's signature on the Agreement and Release so that work could begin before the winter rains
- 08/21/2008 Letter from MAtt to Brush threatening litigation, claiming that
Brush Road has not shown him any indication that its members have
the right to use Brush Road (despite the recorded bylaws attached to
his client's parcel, and the Steinnbeck - Foster agreement, also attached to his client's property
- 08/21/2008 Letter from Brush to Matt, citing his client's title report, which show the Steinbeck - Foster agreement as item 5
and the bylaws of the Brush Road Associated as item 10. Brush
further states it has not wish to litiget; it simply wishes to do its
part to insure its members (including Sal's tenants) continue to have ingress and egress capability to their lands.
- 08/22/2008 Letter from Brush to Sal, asking him to bring some business sense to the matter.
The letter reminds him that his lawyer
whether the Brush Road members have a right to cross the
- states he does not like the easement;
- claims that other people broke the culvert, and they should fix
- that its members very clearly
have ingress and egress rights, as shown in the public
- states that it is willing to eliminate the
easement, and let Sal repair and maintain the structure, or work
within a smaller easement, should Sal have one drawn up; and
- reminds Sal that no one is asking him to contribute any
mony towards a fix; that the State of California and Brush Road
coporation have been offering since July, 2008 to perform the fix
using their own money at no cost to him.
- 08/25/2008 Letter from Matt to Brush where he restates what Sal told him was the agreement worked out verbally between Sal and Brush Road corporation. Matt cites 5 points:
- Sal would grant temporay permission for Brush contractors to enter his property and make a temporary repair;
- Access is to just a reasonable area;
- Workers will be licensed and insured;
- Other culverts (which have been in place for more than thirty years, yet he asserts are new) will be removed from the property;
- Easements will be negotiated later passing responsibility for future repairs and maintenance to Brush from Sal.
- 08/25/2008 Letter from Brush to Matt agreeing that indeed, a lot of progress was made in the on site discussion;
however clarifing that
- the company can not do work outside its easement, so needs the
easement established first, and then work will begin; or is willing
to refer the contractors Brush Road has identifed to Sal, and he can
engage them, and after the work is completed, investigate
transfering the completed structure to Brush Road for its future
repair & maintenance; and
- stating that the maintenance performed on the uphill culvert is
not related to the failure, that the uphill culvert itself is not
new, but further recognizing that this is a topic that will need
deeper discussion, and suggesting fixing the failed culvert now, and
talking about the uphill culvert later
- 08/28/2008 Letter from Brush to Matt, asking that he reply, and further sharing documents showing the context of the various easements (large and small) discussed during the month
- 08/29/2008 Letter from Matt to Brush expressing surprise that the Brush Road corporation would not be willing to do some temporary patch work outside its easement, and accusing us of bullying his client. The matter of the uphill drainage culvert is cited as a brand new non negotiable condition imposed by Sal.
- 08/29/2008 Letter from Brush to Matt outlining Brush's very practical considerations:
- The State was the last to touch the structure, so doing a
temporary fix would shift that responsibility on the party who is
next to tocuh it.
- Contractors tell us the cheapest fix is the permanent fix, and
there is still time to do this.
- We have enough money to do the permanent fix, but not to do a
temporary fix and then a later permanent fix.
- The State has offered $42,000 to Brush Road if it takes over
permanent management responsibility for the culvert, but this requires
an easement for Brush Road to become that party.
- 09/30/2008 Brush Road's attorney contacts Sal's attorney
via phone, and in the discussion suggests mediation as a way to
resolve the matter. Matt agrees to contact his client to get his
views on the suggestion.
- 12/19/2008 Letter from Brush
Road Attonrey to Matt, wondering if his client has decided on
whether he would agree to mediation, and reminding him that in the
current budget crisis, the State's offer of $42,000 may disappear
- 12/29/2008 Sal's attorney states his client has no intention of working with us,
he refuses mediation, he does not like the proposed fix, and he states
that he believes we installed some new culvert higher up on Brush Road
which caused the failure. (Editor's note - we have since reailzed that
this culvert repair work was done 8 months AFTER the large culvert
We again ask that if Sal feels our proposed fixes are
inadequate, that he present alternative plans. We restate that there
was no new culvert installed; instead as a part of our regular
maintenance, we repaired the catch basin around a culvert higher up
Brush Road; and thay this neither increased nor decreased the flow of
Rainfall 77% of normal (June 1,2008 - May 30, 2009)
- 01/20/2009 Brush communicates to the State that Sal will not sign the agreement.
The State examines the Steinbeck - Foster Agreement, and takes the
position that this easement gives the holders the right and obligation
to maintain the road, and that the easement is a part of the road, and
so Brush (as the grantee of the easement) has the right to fix the
culvert, and so drafts a new agreement between the State, The Brush Road corporation, and the three Ridge Road owners
- 02/20/2009 Brush and the State complete the negotiation on the language of the revised agreement; Brush calls for a Membership meeting to approve the revised agreement. Sal notifies us that his attorney plans to attend the meeting. We remind him that it is a member only meeting, but that we are happy to have our Board and its attorney meet with Sal and his attorney before the Membership meeting.
- 02/27/2009 Brush meets with Sal (and attorneys) on site. Sal demands that all
culverts that drain any water onto his land from the road be removed,
before he will allow any repair of the failed culverts. We remind him
that these culverts have been on his land for at least thirty years;
and he has only owned the land for 5 years. The culverts were there
when he bought the land.
We also point out that all of the water draining from the road to
his land, first drained from his land onto the road. We state that we
will remove the culverts if he builds a curb that keeps all of the
water originating from his land on his land (at which point it will
enter the same ravine).
In order to end the debate, we offer to get a bid for installing a
storm sewer system that will capture the water at the various uphill
culverts, and keep the water in a pipe installed in the road, and
convey the water to the location of the failed culvert's inlet (or
perhaps outlet). After eaxmining the cost of such improvement to Sal's
land, we would consider how to pay for it. (Editor - the contractor
estimates comes out to about $120k with the cost for engineering and
- 3/4/2009 Minutes of the Spring 2009 Members meeting. All attending the meeting vote in favor of Brush signing the agreement, and accepting the State's money.
- 03/17/2009 Letter where we summerize our discussion of 2/27, and correct some
misunderstandings - Brush never committed to implement a storm sewer
project; instead we committed to get a bid for such a project, and
then discuss options for funding the improvement to Sal's property.
- 03/30/2009 We obtain a bid for $120,000k for installing the storm sewer. (this
includes the estimation of the required permits and engineering studies for such
new construction, which are estimated to be about $60k).
We get an alternative proposal to simply lay flexible plastic pipe
done the ravine to hold the water collected by the culverts, and bury
and hence anchor this pipe with drain rock. The drain rock will
further serve to improve the stability of the ravine. The bid for
this is $15,000.
- 05/15/2009 Minutes of the Membership meeting. Sal attends this meeting in
person. We inform everyone that the check from the State has been
received, and that construction season has now opened up again. Sal
states his position that he requires us to alter the culverts further
up on his land before he will allow us to repair the lower culvert.
Sal claims he has not seen our proposals so we agree to meet him again
and present them.
- 07/09/2009 Brush meets with Sal at one of his resturants in Palo Alto, and we
discuss the culvert. We remind him of our proposed fixes, and state
that we believe the members would likely vote to have Brush Road pay
for the second fix (laying platic pipe in the ravine and covering it
with drainrock) as a gesture to address his concerns, as the cost
would be about $500 per parcel.
However, we feel that (in this economy, or any economy) our members
would not be in favor of paying about $10,000 each to install a storm
sewer in the road; as this is more than a gesture.
- 08/08/2009 Brush meets with Sal at the site and discusses the possible ways
forward. The construction season is rapidly closing, and we risk the
danger of another winter rains causing the feared complete collapse of the
road. Sal reviews the state of the lower culvert, and his face shows
that he sees that the risk has increased over the years.
He states that he does not want the platic pipe in the ravine; and
instead he agrees that if Brush will install a curb to block of one
culverts temporaily (the one at the top of the ravine), and further
install curbing along the lower section of Brush Road to keep the
water that would otherwise drain into that culvert on the road, so it
would drain all the way down the road (hopefully not creating a
hazard) and into the large culverts basin, that he will remove his
objection to our repairing the lower culvert.
We agree to this in priciple, and offer to mark the location of the
various curbing and have Sal come back and review this before we start
work. We make the marks, but Sal is very busy and can not visit the
- 08/12/2009 Brush signs the contract with our contractor to
begin work, with a start date of 8/17/2009, in anticipation that Sal
will indeed find time to visit the site and approve their locations as
- 08/13/2009 Brush sends notice to its members that work will
begin on 8/17/2009, it will take about 3 weeks; the road will never be
closed, and that all should drive carefully.
Index of agreements, easements, and other documents
Concerning the Repair of the Culvert
Concerning other drainage ameliorations
The current land owner is interested in the construction of
alternate drainage structures along the road upstream but in the
watershed of the culvert. We have recevied
a Bid to realign some
Drainage from Pete Messa & Sons, Inc. which proposes one
such alternate which includes installing new catch basins and drain
pipe along a portion of Brush Road to direct some surface water
around its current and long time path to instead flow around the
culvert and rejoin the flow further down the hill. The bid
consists of approximately $41k to do the pipe work, and three
options for resurfacing the road:
- $13k to perform a simple patch along the path of the new
- $25k to repave the entire lower section of the road with 2
inches of asphalt, or
- $35k to repave the entire lower section of the road with 3
inches of asphalt.
One would need to contract for the $41k plus one of the repaving options.
We have been advised that because this proposal would alter the
drainage pattern of storm water runoff from its existing path,
approvals would be required a from number of State and County
offices (including but not limited to US Fish and Game, The
Department of Natural Resources, Santa Clara Water District, Santa
Clara Building Department, as well as from the down hill property
owner (The State of California)). Nearly all of these agencies
would require a complete engineering study of the effects of this
diversion, which would provide insurance against any issues that
arise from such construction. We received a bid for such a study
from Roy A Nelson, CE in the amount of $60k. In addition various
permit fees and expert testimony fees would also be required.
As a result the minimum amount required to fund this proposal
is about $120k.
Older proposals which are here just for reference
The Bottom Line
- The State of California has offered to contribute half of
the cost to fix the culvert, with the condition that the Brush Road
Corporation take on the responsibilty & liability for maintaining
the culvert for the rest of time.
- The Brush Road Corporation has agreed to accept the
maintainence obligation, and further to fund the balance of the
- The Brush Road Corporation needs a recorded easement from the
landowner (Los Gatos Real, LLC) to permit the corporation to
repair the culvert and maintain it for the rest of time, the borders
of this easement roughly consisting of the small yellow box in the
- The landowner has not yet granted an easement; so far the progress
has been limited to the series of email querys detailed below on the
The Back and Forth
Below are a series of letters containing the back and forth
conversation as we try to convince the landowner and his attorney to
grant to the Road Corporation this easement. We remain hopeful that
the landowner sees reason before the road collapses and/or one of our
friends or neighbors is killed crashing into his canyon.
The parties communicating are:
- Matthew Hurley ("Matt"), the legal representative for Los Gatos Real, LLC. Los Gatos Real, LLC owns the property where the culvert is located.
- Salvatore Giovannotto ("Sal"), the owner of Los Gatos Real. LLC, which owns the land
- Matthew L. Goetz P.L.S. ("State"), the Chief of Right of Way for District 4 of the California Department of Transportation
- Michael McNamara ("Mac") the president of the Brush Road Corporation.