Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.1Minutes of a Regular Meeting DRAFT Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Thursday, February 10, 2005, 7:00 p.m. Bullis School Multi -Purpose Room, 25890 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes (3) 92-05 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission regular meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Bullis School Multi -Purpose Room. Present: Chairman Kerns, Commissioners Collins, Carey, Cottrell & Clow S ta ff.. Carl Cahill, Planning Director; John Chao, Associate Engineer; Lani Smith, Planning Secretary Others: John Bakker, City Attorney; Chris Vargas, Chair -Pathway Committee 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR -none 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 A PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE 1981 MASTER PATH PLAN INCLUDING CERTAIN REVISIONS TO THE OFF-ROAD PATHWAYS SYSTEM, AND PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY. PASSED BY CONSENSUS: To limit the length of time for public comments to three minutes The Planning Director introduced this item by referring to the staff report and the map which they will be trying to amend this evening. Also present is John Bakker with the City Attorney's office who will be available for my legal or procedural questions. Chairman Kerns requested keeping the "Offroad Pathway Recommendations" spread sheet as a part of the motion as it is very important information. The Planning Director stated that the spreadsheet document is a part of the map exhibit and can be updated as a part of the amendment. Chairman Kerns provided a brief summary of the General Plan amendment to the 1981 Master Path Plan. He stated that there is a map that the engineering department keeps which has a list of all the easements in Town where they presently exist. There is also a map which is given out to the public which indicates only the walkable pathways. The map that will be reviewed this Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT February 10, 2005 Page 2 evening is a visionary map of where all the pathways in Town should be; where they are now and where they we envisioned to be, There will be a published pathway map that will only be. the walkable pathways. This hearing is an update to the 1981 Master Pathway Plan. There have been guidelines given by the City Council to the Pathway Committee that basically talks about where and when a pathway should be taken. This is purely an update to the Pathway Element to the General Plan. He read to the public a one page document entitled "Guideline Policy for the Update Process". An important keynote is that they are not making my recommendations to remove my easements at all. This is purely an update to the Master Pathway Plan which is a concept for where pathways should be throughout the Town. These are the guidelines that the Pathway Committee uses to establish a set of paths. There is also the "Pathway Element" that has various goals within it as well as Town ordinances that deal with pathways. All these together are used by the Pathway Committee as a rational for creating a pathway. The pathways are organized in Cluster areas. There we 17 Clusters. By a show of hands, it will be determine how many people me present for discussion of any particular Cluster. In this way, the Commission can start the review of areas with the most people present for the discussion. CLUSTER 914 Chairman Kerns stepped down from the hearing on Cluster #14 due to the proximity of his residence to the Cluster site. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Nancy Benjamin, 11969 Murietta Lane, spoke to the Marietta Ridge path topo issues noting the hill is extremely steep. Having people walk on the path really endangers the houses below by causing a mudslide. She requested removal of this path. Melanie Bums, 11987 Murietta Lane, felt the proposed pathway poses a significant threat to the neighborhood in areas by Adobe Creek Lodge Road and Francemont Road which seem to encourage people to wander in an unauthorized fashion offthe road. There is also a fire danger involved. She requested removal. Sherri Emling, 11853 Marietta Lane, stated there is 100% support from all the neighbors regarding removal of this path. She read a letter from Hidden Villa stating opposition to my pathway except from Moody Road. Them is a safety issue. Les Ernest felt the remarks about instability of the path we not accurate. The trail was built 50 years ago and the treads we still there. He felt this was an important part ofthe Town plan. This area has been planned for a path Betty Kerns, 11888 Francemont Road, stated what they we talking about is an existing trail which is .9 miles long going from Rhos Ridge to approximately Windmill Pasture. What is being proposed is mother hookup which will start a quarter mile away, going to exactly the same spot. She referred to the City Council pathway guidelines regarding a second trail. Why do they Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT February 10, 2005 Page 3 need this path? She asked why the 51 homeowners needed to be inconvenienced and their safety be jeopardized. Stan Young, 11913 Murietta Lane, opposed the pathway stating that everyone is 100% against it. Dr. David Bums, 11987 Murietta Lane, read from the Los Altos Hill Open Space Initiative adopted by the current Town Council listing the Murietta Ridge as a protected area. He referred to fire danger with allowing more people into the area. Bob Wayman, 26220 Moody Road, agreed with the previous neighborhood speakers objecting to the pathway plan relating to B3.28, B3.30 and C4.4. His property contains approximately 42 acres of privately owned land. Access and safety issues we a concern. He further discussed instability in the area referring to a report from Geologist Jo Crosby. Chris Vargas, Templeton Place, stated the design goal is to get into Rancho San Antonio although there we two main issues: erosion and puking issues with trailheads. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Collins has hiked this area. It is a beautiful area. and a good place for habitat preservation. She asked if they have to have access into every bit of open space in Town? Also she asked how many accesses into Mid Pen do they need? She would not support putting this on a pathway map but would not want to loose the easements on it as them may be a time in the future when it works out for everyone. Commissioner Clow was very convinced by the presentations and a petition of 49 neighbors making it very clear that the people who would use the path do not want the path. Trailheads we a problem and the impact on the neighborhood. He would recommend removing the segments 4.1, 4.2. 4.4, 3.20a and 3.31 (turn to red). Commissioner Carey is also very sensitive to the neighbors. However, if they make decisions only on neighborhood concerns they me likely not to have not much in the way of pathways in Town. They have a General Plan which specifies that they will have pathways with guidelines in terms of requesting, maintaining, etc. He is in agreement with Chris Vargas'personal comments. They should not be quick to give up something tonight because of all the concerns. They may lose something that is otherwise very valuable years down the road. Rather than turning all these pathways to red they should only turn the pathways to red that are coming directly off of a cut - de -sac, maintain the majority of the loop to see how it could be used in the future, keeping them fu from neighbors. Also, maintaining the blue lines in the areas behind the residences and maintaining the blue arrows that are going to Rancho San Antonio and Hidden Villa. Commissioner Cottrell indicated he had been up to this area and felt the topography was not suitable for a trail. He felt it was good to have a space for the animals on public property. They already have the Rhus Ridge trail. There is no need for this particular loop trail. Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT February 10, 2005 Page 4 MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND: Motion by Commissioner Clow to remove segments B41, b42, B44, 3.20a, B3.30 and recommend that B3.31 remain red and otherwise pass a recommendation of the Pathway Committee for Cluster #14. MOTION FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND: Motion by Commissioner Carey, turn B4.3 to red as recommended by the Pathway Committee, turn B3.28 to red, turn B3.30 to red, leave B3.31 red, maintain B 4.1, B4.2, B4.4 in blue but also stipulate that future use of the blue lines once the pathway is built should be built as far away from existing residences as possible. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Collins and seconded by Commissioner Clow to tam the loop B4.1, B4.2, B4.4 and the associated B3.28, B3.30 to red, creating an mow in this group that points toward Hidden Villa and that arrow originates somewhere above the Town open space. AYES: Commissioners Cottrell, Collins & Clow NOES: Commissioner Carey ABSTAIN: Chairman Kems (stepped down) CLUSTER #2 OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Mr. and Mrs. Logan, 14250 Berry Hill Lane, requesting removal and possible relocation of the pathway around the back and side perimeter of their property. He has 40 signatures from their neighbors who also feel they we negatively impacted by this path. He sited privacy and safety issues. The users on the path are non residents. He felt the path could be relocated on the other side of Page Mill Road with a cross over at Arastradem Road. The Planning Director noted that they are not here tonight to remove existing pathways with existing easements as this would need a separate General Plan amendment. This should be taken directly to the Pathway Committee for review. Nancy Ewald, Pathway Committee, stated the Logans were allowed to have the pathway moved over to accommodate their fence. The public hearing is for off-road paths. This should be discussed at another time as this is not an off-road path. Michael Schoendorf, 13145 Byrd Lane, discussed moving fences and the possible legal issues. Terrie Masuda, 14313 Saddle Mountain Drive, has a pathway on three sides of her property which are not all needed or necessary. The path also encourages parking on her street. She suggested removing A1.2 (steep) and A1.3b (their driveway). Les Earnest, Dianne Drive, stated A1.2 should be either red or blue, suggesting red as it is not a good route. Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT February 10, 2005 Page 5 Dot Schreiner, Saddle Mountain Drive, provided information regarding the goal of the pathway suggesting having the pathway CD the north and the back side of the property. Paul Huang, 27580 Arastradem Road, felt the proposed paths were not necessary and are redundant. Nancy Ewald felt it was very important to have an access from Arastradem to the edge of the Fenwick property and 1-280. It was important to keep this connection to get to an off-road path (safety issues). Younan Lu, 27510 Arastradero Road (Lot 6), was concerned with privacy and safety issues regarding BIX Mike O'Malley, Edgerton Place, was on the City Council at the time they brought this parcel in. At that time they fell the off-road pathway was too obtrusive on Lot 6 and there was an adequate pathway on Purissima Road on both sides. Building a pathway along 1-280, although pretty, would be very expense. Jolon Wagner, Pathway Committee, referred to access to Al. I and petitions from neighborhoods. May Ip, 27520 Arastradem Road (lot 4), discussed B1.8 noting two points: no need; and the pathway would cause concern for the Lu family. John Garman, 27742 Stirrup Way, discussed Al.4 noting he did not feel it was safe or private. He was opposed to the use as a pathway. If the use is from an easement to a pathway there will be great concern for his retaining wall. Chris Vargas answered, stating since the pathway was down the hill, there would not be a privacy issue. Les Earnest stated the map shows the path but an easement has never been taken. Mrs. Lu, 275 10 Arastradem Road, opposed B 1.8 due to safety issues. Sophia Huang, 27580 Arastradem Road, voiced opposition to BI.8 and Al. I as they could have an environmental impact on her property. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Collins asked Chris Vargas what was the design goal for BI.8 and ALI. Chris Vargas responded. Commissioner Clow felt it was clear that BI.8 should not be recommended as mentioned by Mike O'Malley. It is also clear that they should not recommend A1.2 as it does not look like a viable path. He would opt not to do my of the four recommendations. Commissioner Carey would recommend deletion of B1.8 due to the property owner at 14313 Saddle Mountain Drive with the three pathways on her property. He would eliminate A1.2 but Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT February 10, 2005 Page 6 retain the rest. It is important to remember that the Pathway Committee has spent years reviewing the map in multiple sessions. Their recommendations are important. He would adopt Cluster #2 as is with the exception of BI.8 and A1.2. Commissioner Cottrell would eliminate B1.8. He does sympathize Arith 14313 Saddle Mountain Drive with pathways on three sides of their property. Definitely AI.2 should be eliminated. He felt AI.3b and A1.2 as well as BL8 should be eliminated, keeping Al.l. Commissioner Collins felt a connection from one side of the ridge down through the Fenwick property would be a fmmstic community route. She would support one of those paths, either AI.3b or A1.2 to make that connection. A1.2 red; AI.3b blue; B1.8 red; AIA remain blue. Chairman Kerns agreed that 131.8 be eliminated and A1.1 isredundant. He would be in support of removing ALI but if it was the consensus to keep it he would rather have Al.3b moved to the north side of 14321 Saddle Mountain Drive as you do not want pathways going down driveways. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Carey and seconded by Commissioner Collins to adopt Cluster #2 as is with the exception of B1.8 and A1.2 turning them red. AYES: Commissioners Clow, Collins & Carey NOES: Chairman Kems, Commissioner Cottrell CLUSTER#17 OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Doug Norby, 12169 Hilltop Drive, also speaking for his wife regarding D3.3a and D3.3b noting that D3.b is the Stewart's and his private driveway. They oppose the proposed pathways. Michael D'Amour, 11839 Hilltop Drive, addressed the green path that connects the end of Hilltop Drive to the lower Hilltop Drive below, has pathways on the front and back of his property which is 10 yards from his daughter's window. The easement is steep and really unusable. Hilltop Drive has a pathway all along it. At a previous City Council meeting the pathway in question was to be removed. He asked that this pathway be removed from the draft pathway map. Carol Gottieb stated she uses this path (riding and walking) and there is no problem using it. It was suggested that Mr. D'Amour contact the Pathway Committee as they are not discussing the "green" pathways tonight. Les Earnest commented on 3.3b (red) stating it was a link that would complete a north/south route. It is less steep with less elevation change. There has been an easement granted. Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT February 10, 2005 Page 7 Bill Owen, 24601 Voorhees Drive, opposed D3.3a and D3.2b as there is a very steep dirt bank up from a ravine at the bottom that would require switchbacks and costly maintenance. Also, there would be a liability issue. Emily Cheng, 24595 Voorhees Drive, opposed pathways D3.1, D3.2a, D3.3a and D3.3 b. She noted that the entrance to Voorhees Drive is a private road with no public access. The proposed pathways will bring people onto the private section of Voorhees Drive. She found no purpose of these off-road paths which would effect 10 properties. She provided a signed petition from all the neighbors on the private drive. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Cottrell, considering the topography, did not see the purpose of D3.3a, D3.2a, D3.1 as there we already connectors. He felt that D3.3a, D3.2a and D3.1 should be made red. Commissioner Collins stated that there are no off-road paths that serve this neighborhood better than the proposed links. She felt that the number of people who sign a letter should not have a significant influence on their decision. This effort is for the benefit of the community. The question is does this link rely on paths along Voorhees Drive which is private. She felt it does not. These links can make a loop within the community and do not have to have access on Voorhees Drive. She did not feel D3.2a path was steep. Her concern was that there are three different paths going to the same place. She could support two of the recommendations, but not all three. She suggested making D3.3b blue and D3.3a red, keeping D3.2a. Commissioner Carey felt some off-road paths are reasonable and necessary in this area and consistent with the principles of the General Plan. He agreed that having three pathways coming to one point is unnecessary. He would convert D3.3b to blue, eliminating D3.3a to red, maintaining D3.1 in blue. Commissioner Clow agreed with Commissioner Cottrell as he was impressed with a large number of residents in the neighborhood who are opposed to the path. He felt the paths are for the local neighbors to me. He would be in favor of making D3.3a red, D3.2a red and D3.1 red. Chairman Kerns concurred. D3.3a is very steep. He was concerned with D3.1 as there is a high privacy issue. He disagreed that they should not pay attention to the petitions with many signatures as the pathways are for the neighbors in the local area. He would eliminate D3.1, D3.2a and D3.3a as they are redundant. Commissioner Carey agreed that petitions from neighbors are important, however the General Plan should be considered more important. The sentiment of a neighborhood is important but these pathways me not only for the neighbors who are here but for the neighbors who will be here 50 yews from now. They need to look out for not only the present but also for the future. They should not be making a decision only on a petition from a neighborhood. Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT February 10, 2005 Page 8 MOTION SECONDED AND FAILED: Motion by Commissioner Carey and seconded by Commissioner Collins adopting the pathways in Cluster #17 as recommended except for changing D3.3a to red and changing D3.3b to blue. AYES: Commissioners Collins & Carey NOES: Chairman Kerns, Commissioners Cottrell & Clow MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Cottrell to turn segments D3.3a, D3.2a and D3.1 to red accepting the remainder of the recommendations. AYES: Chairman Kerns, Commissioners Cottrell & Clow NOES: Commissioners Collins & Carey Brief break at 9:50 p.m. CLUSTER #6 Ernest Solomon, 27500 Elena Road, questioned the green section that does not have a number. He stated the section does nothing and it is not in public use as it is on his property. Dot Schreiner asked the Commissioners to refer to their casement maps as the easement runs from 13201 with an extension to the path at 27850. It was not included on the maps sent to residents as it was considered an adjacent path to the road right-of-way. She requested that these easements be shown as they were not put on the map. In addition, it was also shown on the 1994 walking map. She agreed that it may be on the wrong property, however, they have the easement documentations. Chainnan Kerns suggested that Mr. Solomon contact the Pathway Chair to discuss this situation. Nancy Ewald, 26131 Altadena Drive, touched on neighborhood petitions and looking at the overall review of paths. She further touched on steep paths. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Clow recommended turning B3.2b (orange segment) to red with the remainder of the Pathway Committee recommendation. Chairman Kerns discussed B2.22a as there were several letters recommending that it be moved up to Yuba Lane (no privacy issues). Nancy Ginzton, 28012 Natoma Road, stated Yuba Lane was actually a private driveway Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT February 10, 2005 Page 9 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Cottrell to change B3.2b from gold to red and accepting the remainder of the Pathway Committee recommendations. CLUSTER#9 OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Linda Giudice, 13434 Mandoli Court, discussed 131.2a. This is her driveway with a private property entrance to the path. There are safety issues around the cul-de-sac. Gloria Pellegren, 13439 Mandoli Court, agreed with the previous speaker adding that the blue on the map is a private driveway with no space for any kind of a path. She has had lost people coming down her driveway because it is a flag lot. Subodh Toprani, 26618 Ascension Drive, asked to make the path green as it would provide a safer access to Pinewood School. Nancy Ewald, Pathway Committee, regarding Mandoli Court, discussed their goal which was to fill in the missing links along Arastradero Road to La Cresta Road at least down to the stop sign at Deer Creek. They felt this was a safe route from Mandoli Court as it keeps people off of Arastradero Road. Dot Schreiner referred to the Pinewood School conditional use permit and the easement behind the school is to be kept open. Ronald Chuang, 12800 Camino Media Lane, discussed B2.5 stating it should be a blue line, a future path, as it is not a used path. Chris Vargas stated this needs to be resolved but not at this meeting. They can review this at a Pathway Committee meeting. Les Earnest stated it was on the 1994 map as a path although not a good path. Les Earnest discussed B2.2a near Town Hall as there is no line (a map error). It is marked public utility easement; there should be a blue line there. Carol Gottlieb, Summerhill Avenue, stated that the 1994 walking path map was developed by walking it with one Council person and approved by the Town Council in its entirety. They were not allowed to put anything on the map that did not have easements. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Carey asked if a path can exist on a private roadway. John Bakker stated the Town has many planned paths shown on private property. A planned path shown on a private roadway would be the same as a planned path on private property. Commissioner Carey would Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT February 10, 2005 Page 10 be in favor of adopting Cluster #9 as recommended making B2.2a blue, stating B 1.9 is important since it fulfills a principle element of the General Plan making easier access to schools. He would suggest B1.2a and B1.2b also be maintained as blue. Chairman Kern would have preferred removing B1.9. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Clow and passed by consensus adopting the pathways in Cluster #9 noting that Bl.2a (the public utility easement) should be a blue line. lei R 11.11 DI I D 11VT OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Al Whaley, 26925 Taaffe Road, discussed B3.21b. This was placed on the future pathway list last year for the first time although the Committee did not exactly know where the easement was. He had suggested it was impassible and invited them to come visit and they did on December 4". The Committee noted that it was impassible as well as the terrain to the west which was also marked as a future pathway at the time. There is a 100% grade at an angle to the path and not traversable by man or beast. There is a steep ravine running parallel to this, a wild life corridor, and impassible on all connections. B3.21b itself is redundant to that. He referred to Sandy Cuse's petition opposing her path. B3.21b should be red. Nancy Yewell, 26885 Taaffe Road, property on the south side of B3.21b. She referred to the steep terrain and the gushing creek water. This easement should not be maintained (privacy concerns). Les Earnest discussed B3.22 which is a creek side route, a beautiful continuation of the route that comes up Elena Road recommending making it blue. Commissioner Clow stepped down from the hearing due to the proximity of his residence to A3.9. Les Earnest continued with A3.9 (purple) indicating that section is a ravine. He discussed getting from Zappettim across to Central (very steep). He did not think it was buildable. A3.5 marked in red is a feasible route with an easement. It has not been completed as there is 5 feet of easement still missing. Residents at 12541 Zapettim Court purchased the parcel just to the south of them and therefore the green line now goes through two pieces they own. He is asking that A3.5 be added back in. Rudy, 26920 Almaden Court, spoke to B3.21b. He asked that the line be taken off of his property. Everything should be red. He also referred to a green line coming from Almaden to Lucero. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT February 10, 2005 Page I I Commissioner Collins discussed B3.21b. This area is one of those perfect areas that would make a great habitat preservation (should be red). The blue triangle above it should also be red. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell, seconded by Commissioner Clow and passed by consensus to make B3.2 I b red. Discussion ensued regarding A3.9 and B3.22. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Clow and passed by consensus to make B3.22 red. CLUSTER #5 Commissioner Cottrell stepped down from the hearing due to the proximity of his residence to the Cluster site. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Pete Foley, 13124 Byrd Lane, discussed B2.11 and the fact that he has proposed pathways on 70% of the perimeter of his property. His concern is that B2.11 is very steep on the first section, it is invasive, redundant, with erosion and privacy issues. Les Earnest agreed. The part going down hill from Byrd Lane cul-de-sac down to the first property line is very steep noting a better route to be considered is along the creek which would be below all of the residences. He recommended red for the southern half of the path retaining the northern half which runs along the creek. He further discussed B2.23, red line, requesting it to be retained on the map. Carl Cottrell, 13480 North Fork Lane, discussed B2.6a and A2.2. He felt the goal of the Committee was to go from Maple Leaf Court over to Via Feliz. He noted that there has been a change in the property lines which the map does not show. 13432 Middle Fork Lane and 13466 North Fork Lane belongs to the same owner. He noted that A2_2 runs between his property and 13466 North Fork Lane and the line runs; right past the front window, running down a very steep hill, bisecting the neighbor at 27827 (not practical). He suggested, if you want to get from Maple Leaf Court to Via Feliz, to make B2.1 0 and B2.9 blue, leave B2.8 red and make A2.2 and B2.6 red. Gwen Tran spoke on behalf of 13466 North Fork Lane and 13432 Middle Fork Lane confirming there is one owner for the two parcels. A2.2 and B2.6a does bisect her client's property. They support Mr- Cottrell's suggestions. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARrNG Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT February 10, 2005 Page 12 Chairman Kerns was in favor of deleting B2.1 I (change to red) due to the steepness. Discussion ensued regarding if the property owner of 13466 North Fork Lane would be willing to give up an easement on one side, giving an easement for B2. 10. Gwen Tran was asked if she felt the owner would be willing to the suggestion (a swap of easements). She responded yes. He requested a letter of commitment (stating prior to abandonment and/or lot merger) prior to the City Council review. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Collins and passed by consensus to recommend turning A2.2 and B2.6a to red and change B2. 10 B2.9 to blue. The recommendation is based upon the condition that the owners of 13466 North Fork Lane submit a letter to the Town Council at the time of consideration of these issues stating they would be willing to allow an easement on B2.10 in exchange for abandoning the easement on B2.6a prior to abandonment and/or lot merger. Also, turn B2.1 I to red CLUSTER0 OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Bob Morgan, 13201 La Cresta Drive, spoke against BIA. In the 2002 pathway recommendations, this particular path was recommended for removal as it is not a desirable path (steep, erosion issues). Robert Beese, 12827 La Cresta Drive, spoke against B2.27 which is an unwanted and unneeded pathway. The pathway will reduce his property value, his privacy and security. Chris Vargas discussed B2.27 CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Carey supports the map as drawn. Commissioner Collins also supports the map however she felt the purple line was drawn poorly on the map (misleading -should show it slightly to the north). Commissioner Cottrell and Clow agreed, Chairman Kerns was troubled as they should not create a privacy issue. He was very concerned with B2.27 as it creates a privacy issue. He cannot support the purple line. Chris Vargas clarified that the last part of the purple is proposed to be on 27641 Purissima Road. He would prefer arrows. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Carey and seconded by Commissioner Clow to accept Cluster #7 as drawn by the Pathway Committee with John Chan correcting the location of B2.27, showing the purple line to be slightly to the north. AYES: Commissioners Clow, Cottrell, Collins & Carey NOES: Chairman Kerns Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT February 10, 2005 Page 13 CLUSTER#12 OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Charles Bieber, 12800 West Sunset Drive, was available for questions after hearing from the Pathway Committee regarding C2.3 and C2.8 requesting both be changed to red. Les Earnest, discussed C2.1 lb noting a better route would be to go to the boundary between C2.1 I a and C2.1 I b (1293 3 and 12940). A path can go between the two driveways. Chris Vargas stated that West Sunset is not the kind of street you want to draw horses and kids on bikes to use. It is very narrow with blind curves (safety issue). As a private road, they should not be publishing these paths to draw people to a private road. The paths should be blue and not on the walking path until West Sunset becomes public. Lalia Helmer, 12995 West Sunset Drive, stated this is a dangerous area, private with a pathway that goes nowhere. She did not feel the map was drawn correctly questioning how you cross over from C2.3 to C2.8. She would agree making C2.3 red. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Collins stated C2.8 goes down to La Rem but also goes to O'Keefe Lane. These larger connections between open spaces and ultimately maybe over to the redwood grove we valuable community assets. Commissioner Carey felt making C2.3 blue fits the spirit of the compromise with the neighborhood and it will not go on a map. Chairman Kerns and Commissioner Cottrell agreed. Commissioner Clow would make C2.3 red MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Carey and seconded by Commissioner Cottrell adopting Cluster #12 as drawn making C2.3 blue. AYES: Commissioner Cottrell, Collins & Carey NOES: Chairman Kerns & Commissioner Clow CLUSTER#8 OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Mark Scheible, 26946 Dezahara Way, discussed B3.4 noting an existing red mow with a proposed purple. The new proposal is changing the path moving it down into the purple area. The first issue is the driveway. He has been in e-mail communication with Chris Vargas indicating the Committee was trying to get access to the Packard property and the pathway would only be useful if the Packard property subdivided in multiple units. It was his understanding that the Packard Foundation plans to keep the property an open space preserve and not sell it off to developers. This path is actually a large runoff (high animal traffic), no parking Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT February 10, 2005 Page 14 in area, no access, no egress, and no reason to have the path. He would suggest removing the path (make the red arrow blue and eliminate the purple). Discussion ensued between Mr. and Mrs. Scheible and the pathway committee regarding the Packard property. Sister Mary Hale, 26000 Altamont Road, discussed B3.26 (blue arrows). This is an easement and a pathway on the property from Moody Road to Altamont Road which is B3.6 b and B3.6c. Another path would be redundant. She suggested removing the two arrows by B3.6a and keeping the emergency access B3.6 b and B3.6c. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell, seconded by Commissioner Clow and passed by consensus to change B3.4 from red to blue and remove the purple arrows. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Clow, seconded by Commissioner Cottrell and passed by consensus to remove the two mows on B3.26. CLUSTER #10 OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Jack Wong, 26333 Aric Lane, representing four home owners, discussed the green line, stating there is no connection across his driveway to connect the cul-de-sac to the easement. A part of this should be blue, going to green. There is mother pathway easement that is off of his driveway that could connect to the pathway easement on his property. It was recommended to discuss this with the Pathway Committee. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell, seconded by Commissioner Clow and passed by consensus to approve Cluster # 10. CLUSTER #3 Paul Khavari, 27665 Via Cerro Gordo, discussed A2.1 Oa noting that the way the path was drawn, it appears that the current green path runs on his neighbor's yard but in fact it goes on half of his property and half on his neighbor's property. This runs down a very steep hill which is extremely difficult to use. He suggested having his path as a single path then branching (no parallel paths running down the hill). Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT February 10, 2005 Page 15 Chainnan Kerns asked why A2.11 cannot connect to the green path that is on 28625 then get rid of A2. 10 entirely. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Discussion ensued regarding A2.9c and A2.3b. Commissioner Clow spoke to the property owner regarding A2.3b stating the gold part goes down into the valley near his home which is intrusive. But the intention is to be able to access into the Palo Alto Foothills Park. The gold segment is 20-30 feet down a hillside from his property line. The property owner indicated that he would be happy to put the path right on his property line. He proposed removing the yellow line and create a blue line extending the green line along his property line where you would be able to access Foothill Park and also do a second blue line along the edge of Page Mill Road. The owner provided a signed note to Commissioner Clow requesting these changes. Copies of the letter were provided to the Commission, Assistant City Attorney and the Planning Director. Commissioner Clow proposed removing the yellow line and draw blue lines at the location of A2.3a and A2.3b. At a future time, work on the easements. This will be a good contribution. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Clow, seconded by Commissioner Carey and passed by consensus to approve Cluster #3 with the following changes: to remove the gold line and add segments a and b; change A2.3a and A2.3b to blue lines; correction to A2. I Oa per discussion by Paul Khavari. CLUSTERM OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Les Earnest commented on changing the location of Al. 14. A better route would be to come up the driveway to the boundary between 2050, heading south to the comer of 2055, following the creek to Stanford land. The Planning Director stated that they should notify the property owners of the proposed changes. Due to the time line with the City Council meeting in Much, it might be better to come back with a separate request at the time of updates. Chairman Kerns referred to a letter from residents on Christopher's Lane objecting to A1.12 AI.14 which creates links into the Stanford land creating a trail head which usually creates puking issues. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT February 10, 2005 Page 16 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Cottrell to make Al. 12 red. AYES: Chairman Kerns, Commissioner Clow, Cottrell & Collins NOES: Commissioner Carey MOTION SECONDED, AMENDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell, seconded by Commissioner Clow, arnended and passed by consensus to approve Cluster #1 by making A1.12 red and no change to A 1.14, accepting the remainder of the recommendations. CLUSTER#11 OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Chris Vargas discussed the location of C2.2 noting a resident proposed changing the blue/green combination over to purple. He felt he had the support of five of the seven neighbors along the purple strip. His interest is to prevent some of the erosion issues. This would make a better route to Bullis School rather than a muddy route. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Discussion ensued regarding changing C2.2 from blue/green to purple contingent on letters of approval from the effected neighbors. Commissioner Clow felt they should leave it as is so if you do not get the purple you still have the green. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Clow, seconded by Commission Collins and passed by consensus to approve Cluster #11 as submitted with Commissioner Carey abstaining (conflict area). CLUSTER #13 OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Les Earnest discussed D3.9b coming off of Rebecca Lane. It is a good connection and he questioned why it was marked red. Chris Vargas stated that if D3. I Ob is approved, it would be redundant with D3.9b. He felt it was a better path than D3.9b (easier to build). CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT February 10, 2005 Page 17 MOTION SECONDED, AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Cottrell and passed by consensus adopting Cluster #13 as is with the exception of correcting the map regarding D3.9 (making it all red). CLUSTER #15 OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Les Earnest discussed C2.17, a connection to Shoup Park, marked red (should be blue). He also felt there should be a connection between the cul-de-sac on Dianne Drive to either Lennox Way or East Sunset Drive. An alternative would be to go straight across from the end of Dianne Drive into the end of East Sunset cul-de-sac. Commissioner Carey was familiar with the area stating it is difficult but passable. Discussion ensued regarding the purple arrow directed towards Los Altos and moving the direction of the line to C2.16 from 13390 Lennox Way. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell, seconded by Commissioner Clow and passed by consensus with Commissioner Carey abstaining to turn the purple arrow sideways and connected to 13390 Lennox Way with the blue line changing to the eastern border of 13390 Lennox Way. CLUSTER#16 OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Les Earnest felt, technically, the blue arrows should be purple according to the Master Path Plan. He felt there should be a pathway under the freeway coming from the end of Town property to provide an equestrian and pedestrian connection to Foothill College under the freeway avoiding the El Monte/1-280 interchange (putting a purple line from the southern comer of the Town land going under the freeway to Foothill College). C3.9 should be preserved. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED BY CONSENSUS: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell, seconded by Commissioner Clow and passed by consensus to approve Cluster #16 as recommended, replacing the purple mows to blue mows. CLUSTER#18 OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes DR-AXT February 10, 2005 Page 18 Discussion ensued regarding fire escape routes relating to D4.1 and D4.2. A possible alternate route for D4.2 (purple arrows) would be from Fernhill Drive between 25882 and 25557 then going southwest ending up at 10511 and 10531 Magdalena. It was suggested to turn D4.2 blue for now. If at some point someone wants to suggest mother route, it could be considered. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Carey would recommend keeping D4.2 blue, eliminating D4.1 especially since it would create pathways on three sides of 23923. Commissioner Clow suggested leaving D4.1 and D4.2 red as recommended as he felt arrows were not appropriate and penciling in a route would not be fair to the residence (not noticed). Commissioner Collfins suggested making D4.2a blue and remove the purple arrows. Chairman Kerns suggested eliminating D4.2a and leave the D4.1 and D4.2 red. MOTION SECONDED AND FAILED: Motion by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Collins and failed by the following roll call vote to approve Cluster 418 as recommended with the following changes: D4.2 blue, and eliminate the purple mows. AYES: Commissioner Collins & Carey NOES: Chairman Kerns, Commissioners Clow & Cottrell MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Kerns adopting Cluster # 18 as recommended with the following changes: change D4. 1, D4.2 and D4.2a to red. AYES: Chairman Kerns, Commissioners Cottrell, Clow NOES: Commissioners Carey & Collins MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Cottrell, seconded by Commissioner Clow and passed by consensus to recommend that the City Council adopt the amended Master Path Plan and the Negative Declaration. 4. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 1:30 am Respectfully submitted, Lam Smith Planning Secretary