Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/23/2016Town of Los Altos Hills Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes Monday, May 23, 2016 Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road, Los Altos Hills, California NOTICE TO PUBLIC Mayor Harpootlian called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER (5:00 P.M.) A. Roll Call of the City Council and Planning Commission Present: City Council Members Mayor Harpootlian, Vice Mayor Waldeck, Councilmember Corrigan, Councilmember Radford, Councilmember Spre�n Planning Commissioners Chair Couperus, Vice Chair Tankha, Commissioner Abraham, Commissioner Mandle, Commissioner Partridge Absent: None Staff. City Manager Carl Cahill, City Attorney Steve Mattas, Planning Director Suzanne Avila, Public Works Director/City Engineer Richard Chiu, City Clerk Deborah Padovan B. Pledge of Allegiance 1. PUBLIC COMMENT (PUBLIC COMMENT IS LIMITED TO ITEMS WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE SPECIAL MEETING) There was no public comment. 2. STUDY SESSION ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION/ACTION: A. Discussion Regarding Proposed Development Regulations for Substandard Lots in the Town of Los Altos Hills and Direction by the City Council Mayor Harpootlian thanked the Planning Commission for all of their hard work. Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting May 23, 2016 Commissioner Mandle presented the proposed development regulation for substandard lots. The Commission responded to questions from the Council. Council discussion ensued. Chair Couperus summarized by saying, if we look at Deerfield as an example, we ended up with the same result we would have by either path, but the expense and grief in getting there is double what we would have had. This doesn't change the target acceptable house that the individual ends up with, the new rules would change how the process works. Commissioner Mandle continued the presentation relating to grandfathering. City Attorney Mattas explained that grandfathering rights run with the land. Further Council and Commission discussion ensued regarding grandfathering. City Attorney Mattas informed the Council that direction could be given tonight. However, any change to the zoning code to implement rules would have to go through a public hearing process, through the Planning Commission and back to the • City Council. In addition, he stated that if the Council wants the Planning Commission to package up their recommendation to the Council and send it back, then the Commission can direct that with the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) that they are recommending to the Council. If the Council want to change the FAR, or have another standard other than a FAR, direction would need to be provided. Further, institution of an FAR of .18 and the variance findings aspects, more specification behind what will allow a setback variance Councilmember Corrigan asked if there is any interest in taking the model and use either or as it makes sense. There was Council consensus to allow the Planning Commission the latitude to decide as projects are brought before the Commission. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Councilmember Radford moved to direct that the recommendations of the Planning Commission be presented to the City Council, at a minimum, at a City Council noticed public hearing, and that if necessary, in consultation with the City Attorney's office, they need to hold another hearing of the Planning Commission to accomplish that, then they will need to do that first. The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Waldeck. Motion Carried 5 to 0: • AYES: Ma.. o�rpootlian, Vice Mayor Waldeck, Councilmember Corrigan, Councilmember Radford, Councilmember Spreen Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting May 23, 2016 0 NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None B. History and Background of Los Altos Hills Pathways; General Policy Discussion on Master Path Map Update and Direction by the City Council (No map recommendations will be presented) Mayor Harpootlian asked the City Attorney to outline the ground rules for public comment. City Attorney Steve Mattas stated that the Council did provide an opportunity for public comment on items on the Council agenda at the beginning of the meeting, so there has been an opportunity provided for public comment. The Council is not required to allow for further public input, but if the Council wishes to have further public input they may do so. Ann Duwe, Chair of the Pathways Committee, presented the report by outlining the basics and the history of the master path plan update. She said that pathways • are a distinctive feature of the community, a legacy for the future and they are legally required by Town's ordinances. Like setback requirements, height limits and other regulations, the pathway system contributes to the open look of the community. The Town has had 60 years of experience with pathways and they have become more important and more popular with residents every year. The pathway system is a work in progress and are designed to complement the roads. Their use is intended primarily for residents, and at the present time the Town has about 94 miles of paths. It takes a long time, 60 years, to develop 94 miles of paths; things did not happen overnight. Once the pathways are built, it is the Town's responsibility to maintain them. The chief motivation for having a pathway system was to connect neighborhoods. to connect residents with nearby towns, and to create alternatives to roads in the event of an emergency. The paths provide safe routes to school, they offer a means of outdoor recreation, and they contribute to the rural and open character of the Town. Each time the pathway system has been amended, the system has been challenged, and it has been controversial every single time. But in the end, the pathway system has been upheld. In the current pathway update, the Committee is looking at 200 parcels within the existing boundaries of the Town. In the past, decisions to recommend access over the pavement have been very sparingly used. They have only been used in instances where it was a very small private road 3 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting May 23, 2016 or in a cul-de-sac with the terrain being very challenging and perhaps there was just no other option. She then outlined the Pathway Recommendation Process. The Planning Department asks the Pathway Committee to review all projects that may require a contribution to the pathway system. When the Committee reviews the map, they look at documentation, make a visit to the site, and then hold a public meeting. At that time the Committee makes a recommendation. That recommendation is returned to the planning staff. The planning staff reviews the recommendations. Staff may modify before adding it to the conditions of approval, and eventually the Planning Commission reviews the conditions of approval at a public meeting and the Commission may support, deny or modify whatever recommendations the Pathway Committee has made. There are many levels of review before any recommendation of the Pathway Committee becomes an actual requirement of the homeowner. So then the question may arise, "How do homeowners contribute to the pathways system?" The ordinances require a contribution from each parcel, and that contribution may come when land is subdivided. It may come when someone wants to build a new residence or a second unit. It may come when someone wants an addition, a barn or some other building that is less than 900 sq. ft. It has also been true in the past that landowners have voluntarily given pathway easements or actually built the path. Homeowners have a responsibility to contribute in one way or another. They may restore an existing path, dedicate a pathway easement, build a new path on a new or existing easement, or pay an in -lieu fee. This concludes part one of the Pathways Committee presentation. She requested that fellow Committee member Sue Welch provide a detailed description of how the Committee makes a decision and how those decisions are motivated by the Pathway Element and some related provisions within the Town's General Plan. Sue Welch, Member of the Pathways Committee, said that there is a perception that the Pathways Committee just sits down as a group and says, "Well should we put a path here? Or should we put a path there?" When in fact pathway recommendations are based on very well established policies and ordinances that describe what the parts of the infrastructure of the Town is supposed to be developed and maintained. It is not based on personal preferences of Pathway Committee members or who can yell the loudest at the meeting. The basis for the pathway recommendations come from the General Plan. It comes from 10 pages of dense text in the Pathway Element as well as a couple of pages of code. Consistency is a major goal for the Committee as they make their recommendations. The goal in making recommendations is to rigorously apply the same set of general rules to all projects under review. Part of the difficulty in the perception of how these decisions are made is that these policies and ordinances are scattered among 10 pages. There may be eight or 12 actual policies that affect the 4 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting May 23, 2016 recommendations, but they're all scattered through the 10 pages of dense text in the Pathway Element. Not many people have the patience to dig and read them and the result is that people do not understand that these policies exist and are actually being used and they interpret these decisions as being arbitrary. To assist in making it more understandable of how these decisions are made, the Committee has organized these policies in the form of a decision tree. The tree has a series of decision points, each of which is based on a specific written policy. At each decision point committee members look at a parcel or frontage and say, "is this true or is it not true?" An answer can be a simple yes or no. The decision tree may look complicated but it is based on a simple set of policies. She then outlined different scenarios explaining how the tree functioned. In summary, she said that this chart is an illustration that the recommendations made by the Pathways Committee are not based on personal preferences but on a clear, very well defined set of rules. Ms. Duwe continued and said that the Committee's decisions are not arbitrary. The decisions are based on a very careful reading of the Pathway Element and the ordinances in the General Plan that relate to pathways. She now discussed the Master Path Plan Update. The Master Path Plan is described in the General Plan. The goal of the Master Plan No. 4 is, "maintain and implement the Master Path Plan to ensure the development of the Town's pathway system." The map of 1981 laid the framework for this path plan. There was one update in 2005 that handled off-road paths, and then in January 2016 the Council directed the Pathways Committee to do an update because it had not been done, or no portion of it had been done since 2005. The Master Path Plan is a set of documents which can be either regular documents, lists, or maps. Essentially, they have to show streets, clear paths, roadside paths, if planned on both sides; they have to show streets where roadside paths are planned on just one side, and there has to be maps showing existing and planned off-road paths of three different classes. The process has been to take a look at all the documents that relate to pathway easements that have been dedicated, and committee members actually performed the research back to 2004. Part of the Committee's task also was to make recommendations to resolve six areas that were left undecided during the off-road map updates of 2005. Finally, the Committee's task included recommending future paths, both roadside and off-road in the neighborhoods that were not previously mapped. In other words, the annexed areas. The Pathways Committee formed a subcommittee of five members with Eileen Gibbons as the Chair. The other members are Nick Dunckel, Bridget Morgan, Sue Welch, and Ann Duwe. The subcommittee did the leg work to uncover documentation and the subcommittee had a number of meetings with the • Planning staff, Engineering staff, the City Manager. They discussed what would be the best mapping technology; what would be the best database to use to capture this E Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting May 23, 2016 information electronically, since in the past that is only been kept in paper records. The subcommittee provided regular updates to the City Council to keep them informed of the process. The subcommittee, comprised of five members, represents less than a quarter of the Pathway Committee and is not in violation of the Brown Act. The subcommittee held nine neighborhood meetings, six public walks to solicit feedback from the residents, and drew up draft maps for proposed future roadside and off-road paths. The subcommittee presented those draft maps to the public and the Pathways Committee as a whole. The Committee heard a lot of public comments and discussed the comments. The Committee vote_ d on the draft maps at a public meeting on the 25th of April. In the near future, the Committee will forward the draft maps and the other update documents to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will review those recommendations, hold their own public hearings before making recommendations to the City Council. The City Council will hold public hearings before making a decision to either accept, deny, or send it back down the line for modifications. Not everything in the Master Path Plan needs Council approval, but there are certain things that absolutely do need Council approval. Those items that need approval are, the list of streets with paths on both sides, the map of streets on which roadside paths are planned, and the map of planned future off-road paths. There are also some parts of the Master Path Plan update that do not need additional Council approval. The final thing or another thing that really doesn't need approval is the working reference map, this is affectionately known as the "bubble map", which suggests which side of the road the committee favored as they reviewed the roads. Finally, the Committee made an updated, printed walking map and that too did not receive Council approval. In one respect this was just an interim printing or small batch printing. The Committee wanted to correct mistakes that were shown up in walking maps, and hoped to create a final version of the walking map after the Master Path Plan for this year has been approved. Ms. Duwe expressed that she believed the Council now has had an introduction to the way the committee has worked in the past. They used the same set of rules for making recommendations within the Master Path Plan update process that the Pathways Committee considers all policies in the pathway elements. They considered the related ordinances in the General Plan, and those are ,the elements that guide their recommendations. Their chief objective is to be consistent. There is a good deal of input from both the public and the governing bodies of the Town, before the Pathway Committee recommendations become a fact. In conclusion, she said that, "we are one community of just a little more than 8,000 residents. We have well -tested ordinances which the Pathways Committee applies Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting May 23, 2016 • with as much consistency as possible, to all parts of the Town. As we move forward with the Master Path Plan Update, it is imperative that we apply the same rules to the annexed areas that we apply to parcels in the original partof the Town. Applying the pathway basics will help integrate the new neighborhoods with the older ones. This is part of the process of assimilation of those new parcels. In the best case, the pathway system would be something that unites all the parts of town. The pathway elements, like the setback ordinances, the height limits, the acre minimums, all those ordinances apply equally to all parts of town. By remaining consistent we will give all residents the benefits of the pathway system and all residents will have equal responsibility for the beauty and the maintenance of our pathway system." Mayor Harpootlian thanked Ann Duwe and Sue Welch for presenting the information. He said that he appreciated her comment with regard to "we are a community. We are not the same as the unincorporated area. We're here focusing on pathways. The way that things were computed for annexed areas was different. But all these things were different when you looked at whether or not you joined this community. That's important. Los Altos Hills was formed in 1956 and the first attempt to unincorporate was 1957. This has not necessarily been a homogenous and easily reconciled community. But we are a community. I will do everything in my power to keep us a community. I would rather see you look towards unincorporating your area and joining the unincorporated area or asking Los Altos to take it in rather than see you destroy the community of Los Altos Hills. I would rather see that. I would even be interested in what the possibilities are of converting your streets to private streets. If that meant that you would eliminate the need for pathways." Councilmember Corrigan inquired if the Planning Commissioners were going to have an opportunity to weigh in. Mayor Harpootlian responded that any map changes will come before the Planning Commission prior to coming before the Council. The Council wants to comment and hear from the Planning Commission. Councilmember Corrigan said with that in mind though, the Council needs to be very careful taking a specific position on any pathways that could potentially come in front of ,either body. There was agreement not to discuss any specific pathways but rather provide direction to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Radford said that he requested a study session on this topic because it was so controversial and there was so much misinformation that he thought it would be beneficial if we were all on the same page before we embarked on the process that was laid out. He said that he asked the . City Attorney to attend Pathways Committee meetings and asked whether or not the Pathway Committee could make decisions on properties in any annexed area without an approved Master Path Plan. 7 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting May 23, 2016 City Attorney Mattas said that the Committee needs to follow the Town ordinances which reference the placement of pathways where they have been designated on the Master Pathways Plan. Councilmember Radford continued that the next step was whether or not the Town would accept in -lieu fees or delay decisions until a Master Path Plan has been brought forward. Now we are at the point where the issue is, can we proceed and recommend a new Master Path Plan that is in complete conflict with what certain annexed areas in Town want? City Attorney Mattas replied that the City Council can adopt a Master Path Plan that it deems appropriate for the area that is part of the Town. Councilmember Radford said that we are now in a position where we have to decide whether to move through the process. The Council is in a position to make a decision on how to go forward. The Master Path Plan has not been adopted yet. It now rests with the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has not yet reviewed and held a public hearing on this matter. Nor has the Council. There will be multiple opportunities for the public to be heard. He continued saying that the annexed areas need to be reviewed, "do we want to follow what we've always followed in all other areas of Town? Or do we find that one or two areas may require a different approach as we have in other areas of Town? Or do we find that one or two areas may require a different approach than we have in other areas in town. And I'm not giving an answer to that. I'm just simply saying that really is the position that we face. Not talking about any one individual path, just in concept. And so, I'm not sure where I come out on that. But I want to frame the issue as being really clear. There is a large group of neighbors that believe that they do not want our pathway systems in their areas. They know no reason why that should be forced on them. And, we're going to have to decide whether we're going to do that or not." Councilmember Corrigan clarified that it was her understanding from the neighbors that she has talked to, it's not that they don't want pathways in their community, in their part of town, it's just that they don't want off-road or side of the road constructed pathways. They are perfectly happy with over the road access which has existed for 60 years. She thought the crux of this entire discussion comes down to the reason there's so much conflict is because the annexed areas have not been added to the Master Path Plan. In fact to act as if the residents in the annexed have said they want special treatment is not fair. They have said they are perfectly happy with over the road access which has existed up here for 60 years with no fatalities and no issues. Councilmember Radford said that all Californians legally have a right to walk on • any road they want. That's the law. 8 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting May 23, 2016 n U Councilmember Corrigan replied that was true, except when they're privately owned. She previously made this presentation to the Council in October of 2013. The problem exists because the current ordinance says that in Town, every resident will have access to a pathway, on or across the street, or adjacent. That is not what our Master Path Plan looks like when you open it up and look at the green line. There's already a problem with what one document says, and another one says. Ignoring the annexed area for just a minute, that problem exists in the meeting several weeks ago and we are still talking about building an off-road path from East Sunset, which isn't on the Master Path Plan at all, down to a Catholic retreat outside of our city. That is a discussion that is so far beyond the current Master Path Plan, it doesn't belong in committee. There may have to be a philosophical difference that needs to be addressed before the Pathways Committee continues to make recommendations. Councilmember Radford said that the neighbors feel perfectly safe walking on the road and we shouldn't get in their way. Let's take a step further. What if the Town says that though we believe there are safety concerns and regardless of whether individuals feel it is safe to walk on the road, we ask along with some neighbors that it is not safe? Does the Town ask all those neighbors on that road to indemnify the Town if any person gets hit on that road because they were walking in the middle of it rather than on a path? Or if a child gets run over? Councilmember Corrigan asked "if someone gets hurt on that path who are they going to sue? There's going to be lawsuits no matter what." Councilmember Radford said, "my point is do we have a right to say, "Okay, we buy into some of these arguments." But in certain cases we're going to exercise judgment where we believe safety is at a premium, and the Town because of the risks we incur taking you into the Town, we want more safety provided in that area regardless of what you tell us, and what you think, because you're not going to be the one getting sued if someone gets hit." Councilmember Corrigan said that using the word, arbitrary, is a very good example of what the problem is with the existing Pathway Model. What has happened over the years, is the Town has been arbitrarily building those paths, that hopscotch from one side of the road to another, instead of taking a continuous line. In some cases the paths meander back and forth as necessary, but in other cases the Town has taken the path when offered due to opportunity. Part of the motivation she had in asking for this when she made this presentation, was to get a Master Path Plan updated and approved once and for all that says what we plan to build. The Town has an obligation to direct where it intends to put paths. Ultimately the Town, as a community, needs to make decisions and state the long range plan. 9 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting May 23, 2016 It should be straightforward, the Town has a Master Path Plan, a project comes in, it is reviewed; you aren't on the plan, you are on the plan, we need a path, we don't need a path; it should be black and white at that point. Further, Councilmember Corrigan said, "we shouldn't have so much discussion about going up streets that aren't on these maps. Having said that, I think there's a number of other issues that I alluded to in that original document including setting limits, to what we're asking for in terms of cost, a reasonable standard about where we're asking paths to be built, the liabilities and what we're asking somebody to construct and then hand over. Who bears responsibility at that point? Now we're going to maintain a path that may go to somewhere or nowhere, for how long, and why? It's a very complicated issue that I think this is a great opportunity in our town history to sit down and get our arms around this once and for all. I'll just close by saying this, for years that I served on the Pathway Committee we always said, the pathways are designed for the use of their immediate neighbors and for our fellow residents. We didn't want the maps published. The intent was to have it for the ability for our neighbors to use them, so they could walk around and wave at each other, get fresh air, ride their horses, ride their bikes, get the kids out on the street, be safe, off the road away from vehicles. I'm not opposed to any of that. I love our paths. I use them. I walked today down to Los Altos. I love them. But, I also believe that the intent is to build them for the immediate neighbors who are going to use them. I sat through that exact same meeting, two hours of testimony from neighbors, saying, "I'm opposed, I'm opposed, I'm opposed." And for the whole rest of the hour, the dialogue that went along amongst the rest of the committee, not one single acknowledgement of any one of the neighbor's comments. It is absolutely, and Ann just said it, when she closes her comments and she said. "Here's what we look at. The ordinances, the policies and this." And on the second to the last slide she pulled up, nowhere on there is there room to hear what the neighbors want. What do the homeowners want here? When we look at a property, we look at singularly. We go out to notice you, we go out and walk your property. We don't notice everyone else around you and say, "Hey, we're coming." We assume everybody knows that. This is the opportunity to sit down and ask, "What do you want?" And now we're talking about a region that, a single entity, we need a pathway literally, no pun intended, to help these newly annexed areas understand what their rights and obligations are. And I think we have mishandled this for now going on seven years, and have an opportunity to clarify once and for all what we intend to do. So that's what I hope our end game is here. When this is all finished, we are clear about where we intend to build a path, on what side of the road, and who supports it and who doesn't." Vice Mayor Waldeck said it sounds like both Councilmembers Radford and Corrigan made interesting points. In thinking about it, the fact is living with it for the past five or six years, it's always been a thorny issue and the easiest thing to do is let the Pathways Committee make their recommendation and then decide if it's a good one or not. Based on the previous comments, he said he sees a slightly different side of things, and it occurs to him that maybe the Council needs to decide 10 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting May 23, 2016 just exactly what the process should be. He believed the process was a good one, but questioned whether it went far enough. He said would support going back and looking at the process to see if it needs to be modified. Councilmember Spreen said that he attended the recent Planning Commission meeting, and read every single letter directed to him and he takes them all very seriously. It's a very high level problem for the Town. First, the things that have been mentioned as arbitrary all went through Planning Staff, Planning Commission, City Council, and were approved. The Council is ultimately the blaming body for letting these problems happen. Second, he agreed that there should have been more details about which the side of the road a pathway will be placed. He said we are not planning these pathways for the current neighbors. These things are generational. The Town is planning this for the next generation as sometimes these paths take 30 to 60 years to come together. Further, he said "this is kind of a weird argument, I picture in 30 years from now, I'd hate to have a whole bunch of families with kids here saying, "Hey, we're Los Altos Hills. How come we don't we have paths in our neighborhood?" So we really do have to look past just what we think about our particular house, our particular neighborhood and say, "This takes vision. This takes long term vision." The pathway system, one of the few things that required long term vision beyond its original founders, reaches way beyond all of us here. So we have to be careful whiplashing through the, "Hey, we don't like this." There's a lot of things we don't like about the town. I'm not trying to force anything on anyone, I'm just saying we do have to raise our vision to say, "This is a 30 year intention." I think it could help that another 30 years from now, that's the side of the road we want to have it on, and these are the ones that are going to be impacted. We can do the work to say, how wide is the road easement? Where everything is going to go? And so forth. And there's certain details that have to be left to develop over time. Some have to be done upfront. And when we're going to make it happen. But, I really feel like this is something that requires that sense of, this is what we're leaving for our future residents, not just for ourselves. So, I want to bear that in mind." Mayor Harpootlian said he has never served on the Pathways Committee, but wanted to reflect a story that Councilmember Spreen's comments has brought to mind. He said, "A friend of mine who did a subdivision with an open space that ran along the properties, and he had every member of that subdivision say, "I want a fence off that open space from my property." And he said, "Okay." And so, there's this continuous fence all the way along all the properties. But he said the funny thing was that he came back five years later and every single house along that easement, they put a gate in that fence, because every single one wanted access to that pathway. That's five years, not 30 years. That's just long enough for you to buy a dog, or have a kid. So, it's something that we try to consider over the long term here." 0 He then asked the Planning Commissioners for their comments. 11 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting May 23, 2016 Planning Commissioner Couperus said that he appreciated what Councilmember Spreen just said. He further commented, "I recognize flowcharts as I am a former programmer. I looked at the chart provided by the Pathways Committee with a programmer's eye and said, "there's a decision missing." What happens if there is no opportunity to build a path there? I'll give you a very good example. There's a section of road where there is a, one of those metal things they put along the freeway, a crash guard to stop you from going down a ravine. And there's an 80 degree slope on the other side, and this is just wide enough for two cars. You come down here and you say, "Son of a gun, where am I going to put that bloody path?" There is no exit which says halting and catch fire. At least I couldn't find it. Sometimes you have to use human thought. Having said that, there's this other thing which I think is a communication problem. About two years ago, we had a bunch of angry neighbors in here, who heard the Pathway Committee tell them, "My God, we're going to take 30 feet of your property from you and we're going to put a path in." That's what they heard. It's not what was said. And you hear it even now in annexed areas. The nuances of well the path could be just along the road, and it could be just a native path, and it could be just two feet wide. But we'd like to if possible separate it from the, what Americans call the pavement, I'll clarify that in a moment, with some growth in between so that the cyclists don't run down the horses. Very true case, we had a homeowner come in here who actually came from the Indian Sub -continent. He spoke English and was American. And we talked about the pavement. It confused the hell out of the guy. He thought we were talking about the sidewalk. You have to be very careful about these things. What that man heard and I had to clarify it for him. It completely sent him off in the wrong direction. But bottom line, what I'm getting to is almost all roads in town are amenable to some kind of better than minimum place for somebody to walk. The question what is better than minimum? To me that minimum is the blacktop with the white stripe down it, and the only protection you've got is that white stripe. There are places where we don't even have that white stripe. But at a minimum we'd like to know where to make that white strip wider on this side or the road or that side of the road. That's the minimum. That's where you want to say, "As you get a chance over the next 30 years, if you're walking, even if we can't put in a dirt pathway, at least paint the white stripes to encourage people to walk this side rather than that side." That's the ground minimum. We'd like to do more. The ultimate is as you go down Fremont here, you see a nice path. Its five feet wide. It's got header boards, and it's off the road by three, four, five feet, may even be raised up. That's what we'd really like but we're not going to get that everywhere. How do we get there from here? This is the really good stuff for the flowchart. Where I think some human element has to come into it, and some communication skills that when we annex an area, there isn't this immediate Pavlov reaction of, "Oh my God. The Russians are coming. They're going to take 30 feet off the front of my yard." That's just some of my wisdom on that." Commissioner Mandle said she is a pathway user and a pathway supporter and believed a Master Path Plan was needed. Beyond that, she did not have enough information to say much. She further stated, "I'm an information junkie as you can 12 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting May 23, 2016 tell by the presentation you saw previously. If we're talking about a specific area then I need to know more about that specific area before I say much of anything. " Mayor Harpootlian asked how she would handle having the Master Path Map come before her as a Planning Commissioner. Commissioner Mandle responded, saying "when it's available for the public to look at or me, I think I qualify as the public, I think I'd like to know as soon as possible so that I have the time to look at specifically what's being proposed. I'd like to know how it's different than the existing Master Path Plan. And I've read a lot of emails so I think I know how the neighbors feel in various areas, but there might be more neighbors out there who haven't seen a new Master Path Plan. I would like to know what people think about it in general not just one small part of Town." Commissioner Abraham recalled the rather unpleasant event in 2005 when the pathway map was examined closely in a new off-road pathway map was approved. It was quite a battle. He expressed that a few changes needed to be made to the policy. He didn't think it is realistic to say that we're going to have a pathway in front of every single house in this Town. Because there are places in this town where it's just not feasible building a pathway. If a pathway is too expensive, it shouldn't be built. He said, "I think everything needs to have a sanity check done on is it before it gets too far into the process." He further stated, "you really got to go over the General Plan and get a straight map and make it say something that really makes sense. Not only is it the anxiety that it can create with residents having to go through this process, it's 90 some odd miles of pathway. That's quite a maintenance burden and I think that's more distance than we have roads. I know it's almost twice the distance of our power lines. That's a boatload of pathway to take care of. So, I would suggest you take a good, hard look at it and do a little head scratching and a little doodling with the numbers and see, "My gosh. Is this what we want to be spending our money on?" Who knows? Maybe we can pay off some of our unfunded pension debts and other things and wiser use of our funds. And, it's not that I don't like pathways. I use them, I like them. My kids use them. My wife uses them all the time. And, my doctor says I should be using them more, but I'm too lazy. The pathway in front of my house I don't like at all, because it damn near kills me to walk up on it." Commissioner Tanka said that she thought this all came about because there's still a lot of uncertainty in the areas that have been annexed as to what will happen if the pathways ever happen. She said that the first thing is that the Town needs to do is do a better job of communicating to the newly annexed areas about if and when these pathways ever happen and come up with a long term plan. The Pathway Committee has only been doing their job and following directions. This needs to come back to Council in order to take a fresh look to see where the new pathways go with a Master Path Plan in place. 13 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting May 23, 2016 Commissioner Partridge said that pathways have not been very controversial in the past couple years and he can see the benefit of the established pathway system. He further said, "I also really hark upon a point, John, in the beginning, that we are one community. We have to have everybody consistent across that community. If there's a problem, we should address it. And I'm listening to try to understand that, but just like when a new community comes in and they get access to our sewers and they get help with forestalling over development. They're part of the community. And I said very strongly at one of our meetings about how one of the newly annexed areas is now part of Los Altos Hills. And people are talking about maybe we should go by the County rules. No, you live by the Los Altos Hills rules. And, we're all very clear on that. That with respect to the development standards, but I think that pathways are still in the same category. So, maybe some of the rules need to be changed and improved and I'm interested in learning and have an open mind and I've not dealt with these issues before. As I say, I'm just a casual pathway user myself, but I did feel strongly on John's initial point that we are all one Town, with one set of rules and so far we just have a single zoning within the Town that we may have to change at some point if we have to adopt some of these areas with small lots. I actually think that's a very good thing that we have single zoning and everybody plays by the same rules. So, I'm mostly here listening and it sounds like we'll have a lot to listen to when it comes to the Planning Commission. So, I'll look forward to that." Couneilmember Radford said that he has been the liaison for the Pathways Committee for two years and wanted to clarify some points. The committee has communicated clearly and exhaustedly over and over again and it is clear that the Loyola community does not want pathways. It's not a matter of communicating anymore. He asked that the Council that the committee has just been following the guidelines they have available to them. The Pathways Committee is not going to add any more value to this discussion that they haven't already added. He outlined his recommendation as follows, "I think it needs to go to the Planning Staff. It then needs to go to the Planning Commission. We then need to have you look at it. You need to hold public hearings. You may find out the same thing I found out in the hearings we held with the Pathway Committee, that there's not going to be an agreement on this. And, we're going to have to decide what our policies are, and how we want to implement it. And then you can take it up to us and we hold more hearings. But I don't want to sit here and say after all this work we're just stopping right now. We need to move this thing forward because we have two more public hearings. We've got all of your reviews to modify it and to make recommendations. And I think we need to keep moving. That says nothing about my personal feelings about what we really should do other than let's get it done. The Pathways Committee has looked at this for a year and a half. They worked so many hours, so hard, we've had numerous meetings with legal counsel. There's no more that we can do in the Pathway Committee. It's got to move up. And that would be my recommendation that I'd like to see this Council end with tonight going forward." 14 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting May 23, 2016 Mayor Harpootlian said that he wanted "to make a correction and it's what we're looking at here is the pathway recommendation process for development, redevelopment triggers review. The Master Path Map it seems a little droll to go over the entire process, but you really are at the beginning of it. What we're looking at is we've completed the first couple steps of an update to the Master Path Map. And that map will still go as it says here, Planning Staff, Planning Commission, and City Council. What happens after that is there's a line on a map. Big deal. Even Google recognizes it as sometimes a minor thing. What happens next is somebody at a residence says, "I want to build 900 sq. ft. or more. Or, I want to tear down this house and build a new house." Then this thing is what this page is all about. The Pathway Committee will review the maps, make a site visit and make a recommendation for if a path goes there, or, and this happens at a public meeting, or in -lieu fee is suggested. That goes to the Planning Staff. That then goes to the Planning Commission, and it may finally come to the Council if there's some disagreements. It's a long, long process. As Roger was indicating, this may be a 30 year process. That most of the people who are here have moved on to better places in an intervening thing or an intervening time. It's a long process that we're looking at and we're right at the beginning of it." Councilmember Corrigan believed that making two simple changes would probably solve 99% of the problem. She continued, "the first is as I suggested three and a half years ago, get this edit made. I've read you what it said. My recommendation, I don't care if you take mine, or if you want to take a sub group to work on it. My recommendation is we change it to read, "A Master Path Plan shall be adopted by the Town Council using input from residents, Town staff, the Planning Commission and of course the Pathway Committee. It will be updated periodically as needed." Eliminate any of this must adjacent, across the street from a portion of the current ordinance. It doesn't have to be, it doesn't become a hammer, with which we build pathways. And we edit it to make it a little more general. Create a threshold, or a ceiling on fees; both in -lieu and construction. The way the process works right now, the committee reviews and we would like a path there, it goes to staff and they agree; the pathway recommendation is buried in the document and the Planning Commission reviews. If you put a ceiling on the construction cost on the homeowner it now becomes the burden of the city to construct." Councilmember Radford said that the Master Path Plan needs to be updated despite the challenges in the Loyola area, there are other areas that are quite happy with the changes. He suggested moving it forward to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Corrigan said if her suggestions are implemented first, it makes the second part easier. Mayor Harpootlian suggested bringing Councilmember Corrigan's suggestions • forward at a future meeting. 15 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting May 23, 2016 City Manager Cahill asked, "that in terms of having the pathways work, are we just talking about their recommended amendments for the Master Path Map for the annexed areas?" Councilmember Radford responded and said it is for the entire project, the annexed areas and six others that were left out; take what the Pathways Committee has come up with and then decide if more outside help is needed, or just send it right to the Commission. Mayor Harpootlian suggested the City Manager work with the Chair of the Planning Commission. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Councilmember Radford moved to take the next step on the recommended pathways process to have the Pathways Committee make a recommendation to the planning staff to review and modify the conditions of the approval; the Master Path Plan shall be sent to the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing; the Planning Commission shall then make a recommendation to the City Council. The motion was seconded by Vice Mavor Waldeck. Motion Carried 5 to 0: AYES: Mayor Harpootlian, Vice Mayor Waldeck, Councilmember Corrigan, Councilmember Radford, Councilmember Spreen NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 3. ADJOURNMENT OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION The meeting adjourned at 8:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Deborah Padovan City Clerk The minutes of the May 23, 2016 special Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting were approved as presented at the October 20, 2016 regular City Council meeting. 16 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting May 23, 2016