Final Minutes April 26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FinalPWC_Min_10-0524 2/12/20 2 Construction of the pathway by the homeowner was made a condition of approval of development. The following materials from the Malavallis were provided to PWC members: 1) a letter from the Malavallis’ architect, Kartik Patel to LAH Project Planner, Leslie Hopper, dated Nov 7, 2005; 2) a report from Live Oak Associates, an ecological consulting firm, evaluating the conservation easement on the property; 3) a letter from a construction firm assessing the feasibility of building the proposed pathway along the creek. Brian Macknick, who has lived at 27608 Vogue Court (directly across Deer Creek from the Malavallis) for 27 years spoke to the PWC opposing the proposed pathway. He has concerns about the feasibility of building a path within the narrow easement because of potential erosion and landslides, high cost, loss of valuable wildlife habitat, and safety of the egress of the path out onto a blind hairpin turn on Natoma Road. He thought town money could be better spent on other pathways. He provided a letter from the LAH Open Space Committee Chair, Roger Spreen to the LAH City Council, dated Dec 18, 2005, describing his visit to the site and expressing concerns about building a path on the “steep, treacherous banks” where the easement lies. He also showed photos showing of the steep area near the creek. Mr. Kartik Patel, the architect for the Malavallis, reviewed the history of the project, including the Live Oak ecological study of the riparian area and the owners’ intent in establishing conservation easements in order to conserve the area in its natural state free of any development (also stated in their letter). He noted that building the pathway along the creek would be in conflict with the goals of the conservation easement and said that the owners had “reluctantly agreed” to build it to meet conditions of approval for development. They had said in December 2005 that they prefer to pay a pathway in lieu fee and leave the open space easements completely undeveloped. Mr. Patel said that if a pathway must be built, the owners are willing to build it only within the 20-foot pathway easement and do not want to move it further up the hill within the conservation easement. (Town staff has said that the owners are not required to move the path outside the agreed-upon pathway easement.) The PWC discussed the issue at length. The general consensus was that although this path is desirable in many respects, limiting it to the narrow easement along the creek poses serious problems. The property line and pathway easement lie along the creek at the bottom of a steep, narrow, heavily wooded ravine for nearly the full length of the proposed path. A path through this steep ravine would disturb a sensitive wildlife area and requiring it so close to the creek would almost certainly degrade the creek banks and adjacent riparian vegetation. Retaining walls and bridges will likely be required; some large oaks would likely have to be cut. Construction would be costly and would likely require input and approval from outside agencies, including the CA Department of Fish and Game, the Regional Water Quality Board, and possibly the Army Corp of Engineers. Maintenance of a path in this area would also be difficult because of the terrain and proximity to the creek. A path further up from the creek where the slope is less steep would be more feasible, but the owners are not willing to consider this. It was noted that the conditions in the area have changed since the initial recommendation was made—the new Taaffe path constructed by the Town during 2009 now offers an alternate route up from the creek and forms a loop connecting this area to Byrne Preserve. Thus, there is less need for the route up Deer Creek on the Malavalli property. Concerns about removing the requirement for a path that had been a condition