Item 3.1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the Town's pathways system"..." on a property which is designated on the Master Path Plan for an off-road pathway...". 4) MPP notes recommending that the easement on the existing P.U.E. be retained on the MPP because it is safer than the roadside along Magdalena. Nothing pertaining to the Old Ranch Road easements is included in these MPP notes. These materials show that the Foothill Ranch subdivision was created in 1953 prior to the incorporation of LAH and that the "Equestrian Rights of Way" in the subdivision are intended for use by people living in the subdivision. These easements have not been formally dedicated to the Town. The property owners, John and Catherine Burger, said that they had understood that these Equestrian Rights of Way were only for use of subdivision owners and were not for general public access. They want to keep the easements private. Dave Namyst, a resident of Putter Way (just east of the subdivison in the unincorporated part of Santa Clara County) asked the PWC to reconsider its recommendation and not require these easements. He said the paths are not very useful, are not walkable now and are unlikely to be used. Les Eamest, secretary of the LAH Historical Committee and former PWC member suggested a "top down" approach beginning with a decision about whether or not to amend the MPP for this part of Town and if so, whether or not to include these specific routes. Carol Gottlieb, former PWC member, said that off-road pathways through this area would provide valuable emergency access routes. She further noted that the pathway along the PUE has been is use for years. The PWC discussed the new information presented and the pros and cons of changing the committee's previous recommendation. Issues discussed included: 1) The potential value of the proposed pathways through this area and whether they meet the criteria used to select paths to be included in the MPP (e.g., the proposed pathway should provide connectivity, or complete a loop, or have scenic value, or provide emergency access, and should not be redundant). 2) Whether this recently annexed part of Town was adequately considered during the 2005 MPP process. Opinions by MPP participants and others differed on this. Mike O'Malley pointed out that this part of Town was annexed in 2002, well before the MPP was completed. 3) The need for off-road pathways in this part of LAH, especially to help get pedestrians and riders off Ravensbury, which is a busy narrow road 4) Balancing privacy issues and the needs of the community 5) Whether to reevaluate this area to try to determine if it warrants amending the MPP Some members of the PWC thought it would be helpful to visit the area again during the Saturday August 23 pathway walk before making a final decision. Chairman Summit suggested possible alternatives that could be brought to a vote: 1) Withdraw the committee's previous recommendation requiring that the owners dedicate the pathway easements 2) Review the area and consider a possible amendment to the MPP 3) Re-visit the site on Saturday and make a final decision on Monday A vote was taken on whether to revisit the area and make a final decision at the PWC meeting on Monday, August 25, 2008. The vote was 6 in favor, 2 opposed, and one abstention. The PWC will revisit the site and make a final decision on Monday, August 25. The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 PM DraftPWC_Min_081908 (2).doc 8/28/08 2