Laserfiche WebLink
5.2 Amendment to the Pathway Element of the Town of Los Altos Hills' <br /> General Plan for the adoption of the proposed 2002 Master Path Plan <br /> (a revision of the 1981 Master Path Plan) and adoption of the project <br /> negative declaration—Resolutions# <br /> Fenwick stated that it had been a long painful process to update the 1981 Master Path <br /> Plan and create a new map. He considered the path map dated 10/15/02 to be a working <br /> drawing which could be used to create a master path plan. This master path plan would <br /> become a part of the General Plan and would also be the map used by the public to <br /> locate paths in Town. He noted that the map did not show any path easements which <br /> were not open to the public. Addressing the statements that the map was inaccurate, <br /> Fenwick stated that this map was about as accurate as possible given the available <br /> information. The existence of all easements could not be documented in Town records. <br /> Fenwick reiterated his earlier comments that if anyone had any documented information <br /> on paths they should bring it to the attention of Town staff working on this project. <br /> Concerning why Council should take any action on this issue at this meeting, Fenwick <br /> stated that it was to see that it got done at all. He noted that the Council would not be <br /> vacating any pathway easements at this meeting. He also stated that any action taken <br /> tonight could be changed by a future Council. <br /> O'Malley commended the City Engineer and her staff for the excellent work done on <br /> • this project. He expressed concerns about the proposed removal of 54 easements and <br /> urged Council to keep additional trails in as deer trails. O'Malley did agree that this <br /> map should be considered at tonight's meeting. Casey noted that the master path plan <br /> had been under discussion since 1989. At that time the Council had attempted to go <br /> through the map section by section but there was a negative response from the <br /> public regarding additional off-road pathway easements and the process was <br /> stopped by past City Councils. She noted that in 1981 there had been no public input. <br /> This Council had held public hearings, study sessions and had sent Town-wide mailings <br /> to get input. Casey commented that if the new Council wanted to start a new process <br /> that was fine but they should start with a new map. Cheng and Finn concurred that a lot <br /> of time had been spent on this project and the proposed map should be addressed at this <br /> meeting. <br /> Les Earnest, 12769 Dianne Drive, stated that Council had to open this item to public <br /> hearing as there had been changes in the last two weeks which the public had not had an <br /> opportunity to address. <br /> The City Attorney stated that Council had conducted a public hearing on this issue and <br /> they were not obligated to have another one There had been no changes in the last two <br /> weeks and responses had been made to comments received during the advertised <br /> twenty-day review period. The City Attorney further commented on the process. Each <br /> Councilmember would step down as the paths located within 500 feet of their homes <br /> were discussed. After that was accomplished Council would address the overall map. <br /> November 7, 2002 <br /> Regular City Council Meeting <br /> 4 <br />