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