HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 14 2016
FINAL_PWC_Min_Special16-0414.doc 5/2/16 1
Los Altos Hills Pathway Committee FINAL
Minutes of Special Meeting of Thursday, April 14, 2016
1. ADMINISTRATIVE
A. Call to Order. Chairman Ann Duwe called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM
B. Members/Associates present: Alisa Bredo, Weegie Caughlan, Nick Dunckel, Ann Duwe, Vic
Hesterman, Eileen Gibbons, Breen Kerr, Bridget Morgan, Sue Welch, Denise Williams
Members/Associates absent: Jim Basiji (Member); Bob Stutz, Rachelle Mirkin, Tim Warner
(Associates)
Council Liaison present: John Radford
Council Members Present: Mayor John Harpootlian
LAH Staff Present: Carl Cahill (City Manager)
Members of Public Present: Kjell Karlsson (Traffic Safety Committee, Finance Committee)
Steve Schmidt (LAH Environmental Initiative Committee)
C. Bodine
Eloise Bodine
Susan Chappell (Terry Way)
Bud Cristal
Gerda Cristal
Esther John
Marge Seymor
H. Feeney
C. Approval of Agenda. The agenda was approved as published. AD moved, EG seconded and the vote
was unanimously in favor (AB, WC, ND, AD, EG, VH, BK, BM, SW, DW).
D. Ex Parte communications. AD reported discussion of Brown Act and conflict of interest laws with City
Attorney Steve Mattas.
E. Meeting Purpose and Procedure. PWC Council Liaison John Radford addressed the purpose of the
meeting (a report from the Master Path Plan Map Update Subcommittee) and procedures to be followed.
Two PWC members who live within 500 feet of the WL area under discussion in West Loyola (WC and
BM) were asked to recuse themselves for discussion of these items. They will leave the table during
discussion of this area, but can speak during the public comment time as private citizens, restricting
their comments to how their individual property may be affected. They will then return to the table and
fully participate in PWC discussions on all other areas.
PWC Chair AD reminded attendees that the purpose of tonight’s meeting is to present the proposed
draft “Strawman” Master Path Plan (MPP) map the subcommittee has prepared. The PWC will not vote
or make any decisions about the proposed map update at tonight’s meeting. PWC members will review
the maps and visit the proposed path sites and be prepared to discuss and vote on the draft map at the
regular PWC meeting on April 25, 2016. The PWC-approved map will then go to Planning Commission
(PC) and City Council (CC) for further review and public comment before approval.
2. NEW BUSINESS
A. Question and Answer Session for Residents of Mora Drive Annexation. The Mora Drive neighborhood
informational meeting was held on April 8 because of an error in the Town postcard that notified
residents of the earlier meeting scheduled in March. The Mora neighborhood walk was held on April 9.
Because some residents may not have been able to attend the April 8 or 9 meetings, they were given the
opportunity tonight to speak and to ask any questions about the pathway system and the map update
process. The following public comments were heard:
B. Cristal spoke about traffic and parking problems in the Mora neighborhood related to the entrance to
MROSD lands at the south end of Mora Drive. He showed a slide indicating 6,000 visitors each year
enter MROSD lands via the Mora Drive entrance and a slide with five suggestions to address the
problem (e.g., signs to direct MROSD visitor to the entrance on Cristo Ray Drive; closing the Mora
Drive entrance to MROSD) (See Attachment C.)
G. Cristal (Mora Drive) continued the list of suggestions from XY Cristal (See Attachment C).
E. Bodine (Mora Drive) reported that in 1965 she requested the County to install a raised 3-ft wide
asphalt path adjacent to the pavement along the west side of Mora Drive. The path was asphalt, raised
above the pavement surface by several inches, was demarcated from the driving lane by a white line,
FINAL_PWC_Min_Special16-0414.doc 5/2/16 2
and extended only up to Terry Way. The segment of this path in front of their property still exists
because of diligence in telling the county when maintenance is needed. She does not support a roadside
path along the full length of Mora Drive.
C. Bodine (Mora Drive) said residents of Mora Drive asked the County in 1965 to install a roadside path
path on Mora to provide a safe route for children walking to school (“because there was no way anyone
could walk safely”). The County required property owners to cut vegetation back from the roadside;
however, the county gradually encroached on the asphalt path by widening the paved roadway. The
county has maintained parts of the path at residents’ request, but it now exists only in the vicinity of
Terry Way. He does not want a 6-foot wide roadside path along Mora, but only a path “just wide
enough to get us off the road”. He said Mora is too steep for horses and is frequently used by bicyclists,
who sometimes come down the road at high speed.
M. Seymor (Mora Drive) reported she lives at the bottom of Mora Drive where visitors to MROSD
often park. She asked that the path “not be made too comfortable” to avoid an additional “deluge of
cars” parking in the area.
3. OLD BUSINESS
A. Report from Master Path Plan Map Update Subcommittee and Presentation of “Strawman” Draft
Pathway Map. MPP Map Subcommittee Chair EG distributed hard copies of the subcommittee report
(Attachment D) and two “strawman” draft maps prepared by the subcommittee dated 04/14/16. One
“strawman” draft map (Attachment E) indicates in orange the parts of Town annexed since the last map
update (Ravensbury, La Loma, Olive Tree, West Loyola, and Mora Drive) and shows the following: 1)
roads proposed to have roadside paths (i.e., in the road right-of way, over the pavement, or on easements
on private land); and 2) arrows indicating the general location for proposed future off-road paths in the
newly annexed areas. After PWC review and voting, a version of this map will be presented to the
Planning Commission and City Council for public comment and review. The final version will be
approved by Council as an amendment to the General plan. The second map (Attachment F) is a more
detailed “Strawman” draft Working Reference Map for use by the PWC. This map shows streets with
paths proposed over the pavement, streets with proposed preferred side(s) of the road for roadside paths
in the ROW, and general locations for proposed future off-road routes.
EG reviewed the process required by the Town for updating the Master Path Plan, which includes
reviews and public hearings at Planning Commission (PC) and City Council (CC). PWC Council
Liaison John Radford reported that a joint study session with PC and CC would be held on May 23,
2016 for public comment and review of the draft maps. The subcommittee held 8 neighborhood
meetings to provide information about the pathways system and gather input from residents and kept
CC updated on subcommittee progress with frequent reports. EG reviewed the 2005 off-road path map
approved by CC in 2005 and the two “strawman” draft maps presented to the PWC tonight. Each street
in each annexation area was reviewed. EG reported an error on the maps showing an arrow indicating a
future off-road route into 10836 West Loyola Drive. This arrow should have been placed along the
border of 10840 and 10850 West Loyola.
1) Annexed Areas. The brief summary of each area included:
a. West Loyola Annexation. . WC and BM recused themselves and left the committee table during
discussion of the West Loyola and Mora Drive annexation areas. Strawman draft proposal includes
roadside paths (over the pavement or in road ROW) along West Loyola, Berkshire, Sunhills,
Eloise, and the short sections of Rolly and Kenbar that are in LAH. Arrows indicating proposed
future off-road paths are shown from Eloise to Arroyo Oaks; across the “thumb” of land south of
the sharp curve on West Loyola (between 10855 and 10811 West Loyola); and along the border of
10840 and 10850 West Loyola.
b. Mora Drive Annexation. Strawman draft proposal includes roadside paths along Mora Drive from
the south end to the current northern border of LAH at 10970 Mora. An arrow indicating the
general location of a proposed future off-road path is shown from the end of Terry Way towards
the east side of the West Loyola annexation area in the event that lower Mora Drive is annexed to
LAH. This area is in the LAH Sphere of Influence and likely to be annexed. It was suggested that a
path on Mora should consider the full length of the road down to Eastbrook and that the Town
work with the county in planning and financing a path.
The following public comments were made on the West Loyola and Mora Drive maps.
FINAL_PWC_Min_Special16-0414.doc 5/2/16 3
W. Caughlin (PWC member residing on West Loyola Drive speaking as a private citizen) asked for
clarification of the correct location of the arrow indicating general location of a proposed future off-
road path through her properties (10836 and 10840 West Loyola). She said the parcels were not
subdividable and the location would be over a utility private ingress/egress easement that did not
confer public access and the entrance off W. Loyola was too steep for a path.
E. John (Mora Drive) expressed concern that a relatively new stone wall on the west side of Mora
might have to be removed. [EG indicated that the wall she referred to was in the ROW on West
Loyola.]
B. Cristal (Mora Drive) Mora Drive has a 50-foot ROW, not 60-foot. He is concerned that the
proposed path route on Mora Drive did not take into consideration the density of foot traffic. Mora
Drive has 6,000 people, mostly non-residents, using the road to enter and exit MROSD lands every
year.
H. Pheeny Feeney (Mora Drive) noted he walks on Mora almost every day. People have made a case
that Mora is a safety issue for getting up and down the hill, especially at the dangerous curve at the
border of LAH. He is concerned that the incremental method the Town uses for pathways (at time of
major development) means it may take many years before a safe route is built. He suggested the
PWC and the Town explore alternative ways to develop the path on Mora so it can be done more
quickly to provide a safe path up Mora. Or to do something at the curve so there is some safety at
that area.
S. Chappell (Terry Way) asked for clarification about PWC recommendations made for roadside
paths on parcels near the MROSD entrance and about arrows indicating proposed future off-road
paths routes. She also requested that the PWC and the Town coordinate with the County to construct
a continuous path on Mora rather than build the path in segments as per the usual LAH process. [EG
and BK reported that the PWC is interested in working with the Town and the County.]
Unidentified resident complained that the maps showed “arbitrary pathways that don’t reflect
conditions”.
EG resumed review of “strawman” draft maps for the remaining annexed areas.
c. Ravensbury Annexation. Strawman draft proposal includes roadside paths over the pavement on
Crestridge, Old Ranch Road, Old Ranch Lane, Hillpark Lane, and Arroyo Oaks; addition of
Ravensbury Road to the list of streets requiring roadside paths on both sides; conversion of
existing off-road subdivision private equestrian easements in the Old Ranch subdivision area to
standard LAH off-road path easements. Also proposed is an off-road path off the end of Arroyo
Oaks connecting to Eloise.
d. La Loma Annexations. Strawman draft proposal includes roadside paths on the south side of La
Loma Road; an off-road path along the shared drive connecting to Rhus Ridge Road; arrows
indicating future off-road connections through 25355 La Loma Road when the site is developed. In
addition, an arrow indicating a future off-road connection from the end of Laura Court through
24840 Prospect (at time of subdivision) to connect the newly annexed La Loma areas to Prospect
Road.
e. Olive Tree Annexation. Strawman draft proposal includes adding an off-road pathway easement
over the existing emergency access road along Northcrest to connect Olive Tree Lane to
Stonebrook. This is consistent with the Town ordinance requirement to establish pathway
easements over emergency access roads. Neighbors in the area support this. Also proposed are
roadside path either over the pavement or on the south side in the ROW of Olive Tree Lane.
PWC members were asked to review the maps and visit the proposed path location sites and be
prepared to discuss and vote on them at the regular PWC meeting on April 25, 2016. EG reminded
PWC members that road right-of-ways in many locations will likely be increased (Town standard is
60 feet) and some existing fencing and shrubbery will likely be removed.
2) Unresolved Areas. EG distributed documents showing six off-road path routes that were unresolved
during the 2005 MPP map update (Attachment G). At that time, no decision was made for specific
routes for these areas and Council directed PWC to review and resolve these path routes. Original or
or alternative routes proposed by the PWC in 2005-2006 are shown. PWC members were asked to
review the maps and visit the unresolved off-road path sites and be prepared to discuss and vote at
the regular PWC meeting on April 25, 2016. The unresolved areas are:
FINAL_PWC_Min_Special16-0414.doc 5/2/16 4
a. Zappettini Court to Central Drive (. This route would provide a loop near Byrne Preserve. In
2009, the Town Engineer determined that a route up from the creek to Central was possible. The
best location needs to be determined.
b. Page Mill Road at Story Hill. This route would allow walkers to stay off a dangerous section of
Page Mill road. The previous owner of 28140 Story Hill had offered to donate an easement along
the creek where a path already exists but sold the parcel before this was done.
c. Via Feliz to Elena. This route would complete an important connection between Page Mill Road
and Elena Road. The proposed alternative route runs on the south and west boundary of 27801
Via Feliz instead of on the east and north boundary. This route is less steep and further from the
house. Some easements and/or paths already exist from Maple Leaf Court to 27801 Via Feliz.
d. Miraloma to Voorhees and Barley Hill to Hillview. The Miraloma-Voorhees route will provide a
path to school for students at St. Nicholas. The alternative route runs along a paved driveway off
Miraloma and across the southern boundary of St Nicholas School property. In the past the school
has not objected to this route. The route between Hilltop and Barley Hill would make use of a
long shared driveway off Hilltop. A resident of the area reported that the Town may hold
easements for these routes.
e. Magdalena to Fernhill. This off-road connection would create a neighborhood loop that would
keep path users off busy Magdalena Road. The proposed alternative route runs through a shallow
ravine with a small creek.
f. La Paloma to Atherton Court to Robleda. This route will connect La Paloma to Robleda. The off-
road path has already been built from La Paloma to the SE corner of 13310 La Paloma. An illegal
structure was built in the originally proposed route necessitating an alternative route. The route
along the creek on the north border of 12940 Atherton Court down to Robleda was evaluated but
determined to be too expensive. The route north of 12933 Atherton Court and on the shared drive
between 12933 and 12940 Atherton would allow use of Atherton Court rather than off-road paths.
B. Five-Year Plan for PWC CIP Projects. Chair AD asked PWC members to submit their CIP lists. PWC
will discuss these at the April 25, 2016 meeting.
4. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR. None
5. NEXT SCHEDULED MEETINGS.
Next Pathway Walk: Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 9:00 AM at Town Hall
Next Regular Meeting: Monday, April 25, 2016 at 6:00 PM at Town Hall
NOTE EARLY START TIME
6. ADJOURNMENT. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 pm.
Attachment A: Email 1 from resident of Mora Drive (Cristal)
Attachment B: Email 2 from resident of Mora Drive (Cristal)
Attachment C: Slides from resident of Mora Drive (Cristal)
Attachment D: Master Path Plan Map Update Subcommittee Report (available from City Clerk)
Attachment E: “Strawman” Draft Map for PWC Review for Council Review (available from City Clerk)
Attachment F: “Strawman” Draft Working Reference Map for PWC Use (available from City Clerk)
Attachment G: Documents for six off-road path routes unresolved in 2005 MPP Update
Final minutes were approved with minor amendments (shown in red) at the Regular Pathways Meeting of April
25, 2016
Eileen Gibbons <e.gibbons@gmail.com>
Mora Dr. walk
gerda Cristal <gbcristal@sbcglobal.net>Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 11:48 PM
Reply-To: gerda Cristal <gbcristal@sbcglobal.net>
To: Ann Duwe <ann.duwe@sbcglobal.net>, Eileen Gibbons <e.gibbons@gmail.com>
Hi Ann and Eileen!
Thank you for holding the meeting tonight and answering our questions. The committee has done a tremendous job, and I do not envy you the task.
Please relay this message to the others on the committee. I am sorry that I do not have all the emails.
I will not be on the walk tomorrow morning, and I doubt that my husband will make it either. We are both 81, and it is not an easy walk even in good weather. Downhill
is very hard on old knees.
I would appreciate your noticing how our property, 10755, has easier access for disposing of trash and also for people coming to the front door. Our neighbor across
the street is disturbed almost every morning. Her bedrooms face the street. All the other houses have the bedrooms at the back or are very far from the street. Our
bedrooms are at the far side, so the noise is not an issue for us.
I am hoping that your committee will find that the street from Sunhills to the park will serve as the final path. This part of the street receives very little traffic. If signs
were placed at Mora and Eastbrook, there would be even less. Most people walk on the left and middle going up the street and on the opposite and middle going
down. I do not know why. In the morning our side gets more walkers. Again, I do not know why.
We have a very long front, as does our neighbor across the street. For both of us building pathways would be very expensive. Also, the rural look is something we
have enjoyed for over 34 years.
Thank you again for all your work. I hope the weather will be mild and your walk pleasant!
Gerda Cristal
Gmail - Mora Dr. walk https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=1b5ed94aad&view=pt&q=gbcristal@sbcglob...
1 of 1 4/13/16, 11:21 AM
Eileen Gibbons <e.gibbons@gmail.com>
Pathways
gerda Cristal <gbcristal@sbcglobal.net>Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 4:04 PM
Reply-To: gerda Cristal <gbcristal@sbcglobal.net>
To: John Radford <jradford2011@yahoo.com>, Courtenay Corrigan <cccorrigan@losaltoshills.ca.gov>, "john.harpootlian@gmail.com"
<john.harpootlian@gmail.com>, "gcwaldeck@losaltoshills.ca.gov" <gcwaldeck@losaltoshills.ca.gov>, Ann Duwe <ann.duwe@sbcglobal.net>, Eileen Gibbons
<e.gibbons@gmail.com>, "Mr. Jitze Couperus" <jitze@couperus.org>, Richard Partridge <richard.partridge@comcast.net>, Susan Mandle
<jsmandle@hotmail.com>, Kavita Tankha <kavitat@comcast.net>, Jim Abraham <jima.pc@gmail.com>, Bridget Morgan <dmmb25@aol.com>
Dear members of the councils and pathways committee,
Thank you all again for listening to my comments and concern at the past two meetings.
The pathways committee answered many questions and gave out several pieces of information. One of these is titled "Pathways Element". In this document it states
that a main goal of the pathways is to be primarily for resident use, and on page P-3 it states that connections to the Preserve from the Town are intended for local
residents. Please keep this in mind as people from all over the area are using Mora Dr.
One item that may be of interest is the amount of water that runs down Mora Dr. every year. The runoff is very strong and happens even in drought years. One runoff
path enters our property at the top of our back garden, crosses the driveway and fans out to the street. It is strong enough to cut a deep gully along the side of the road
and deep enough to endanger the mail truck.
The county solution was to fill the gully with gravel. Every year in summer the gully would be filled, every year in winter the runoff would be strong enough to wash the
gravel down to our lower gate. Late spring, to open the gate, our sons would have to shovel out all the gravel. (They were not happy, but I suggested that they look at
it as body building.)
This went on for years. The last time the road was resurfaced the county ran a berm along the road meeting the rocks that edge our driveways. They also filled the
area in front of the mailbox. This solved the problem. The water is now spread out to the road. No more gravel!
If a pathway is built along this side of the road, it will require a lot of upkeep. The runoff was strong enough to move a lot of gravel, and it would pool at the corner. On
Sunhills there may be another problem. The runoff there sometimes requires sandbags.
This will probably not be an issue for us. My husband and I are 81. Our goal is to live our remaining time in our home, no remodeling, no new building, no selling.
That will be left to our sons. This is just a comment on what may not be seen by driving or walking the street. There are probably other sites in the hills were this
problem could cost the town a lot of expense. At the meeting Friday night the committee stated that the maintenance was the obligation of the town. This is something
not due to the homeowner but to an act of nature.
Thank you again for your attention,
Gmail - Pathways https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=1b5ed94aad&view=pt&search=inbox&msg...
1 of 2 4/13/16, 11:14 AM
Gerda Cristal
Gmail - Pathways https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=1b5ed94aad&view=pt&search=inbox&msg...
2 of 2 4/13/16, 11:14 AM
Jq
\
\)
^ci
S\
-nr
\s)
sIo-
fiE&l:il&
E8r!-a
oUg
ose
L.LT-r[oluL' L' L'\r\\rul vt thl- l- L-orooo- 6- o-l\|ft1 r+
frr
alt
eEr,58
E FE8EEoJEb ETEO F
E HE
fE€
.Ex dgnsTB8g
_$stNs+
s
\
N
N\?>
$,
$-o
qc,
.x
a.Js/
E
\)
=\
to
J-*
e
€s
:*:>
,,ffi
Attachments D, E, & F are available from the Clerk’s Office at:
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Hours: Monday – Friday: 8:00AM – Noon; 1:00 – 5:00PM
!"!
Unresolved Areas on Master Path Plan Map
07/18/15
Quad 2005 MPP
Study Zone
Segments Description and Council Directive (in italics)
1 A2 Zone 3 A2.3c Page Mill Road south of Story Hill thru 12345 Page Mill
Appears to have been rejected by CC?
To accept the Planning Commission’s recommendation for the
remainder of Section (Study Zone) 3 with the exception of
removing A2.7 from the Master Path Plan
2 B2 Zone 5 B2.9,
B2.10
Via Feliz to Elena Road
To investigate realigning B2.9, B2.6b and B2.10 consistent with
the existing conditions in the area and the creek.
3 C2 Zone 12 C2.11a,
C2.11b
End of Atherton Ct. Segment of route connecting La Paloma to
Robleda
To investigate: 1) an alternative to C2.11b to Atherton Court and
2) a connection from East Sunset Drive to Dianne Drive.
4 D3 Zone 17 D3.1,
D3.2,
D3.3b
Route connecting Voorhees, Barley Hill, St Nicholas, and/or
Miraloma
To review connector route between Hilltop and D3.1 as identified
in the previous motion and send a recommendation to the PC as a
General Plan Amendment
5 D4 Zone 18 D4.1,
D4.2a
Magdalena to Fernhill
To investigate the most advisable route between Fernhill and
Magdalena and to forward their recommendation to the Planning
Commission.
6 A3 Zone 4 A3.9 Zappettini Court to Central Drive. Council directive to study this
area further.
To direct the Pathways Committee to revisit A3.9.
Below are excerpts for each unresolved areas from minutes of the March 8, 2005 City Council meeting at
which the MPP was formally approved. These include specific Council directives requesting further study
of the areas.
The City Attorney recommendation for how to deal with the unresolved map area is in the excerpt for
discussion of Study Zone 17 (Unresolved Area D3 near Voorhees):
Chris Vargas, Pathways Chair noted that the most reviewed path in this Section was the D3.1, D3.2, D3.3.
The design goal for the path was to serve as a connection from Miraloma to Hilltop and evidentially to
Barley Hill. The Pathways Committee had voted to retain D3.1, D3.2 and D3.3 in the belief that all three
could be useful and valuable. The Planning Commission had not agreed and did not believe that they were
not necessary connections. Vargas added that the Committee still believed that a connection was needed
between Miraloma and Hilltop. Vargas identified an alternative route through Miraloma to Hilltop that
could be used as a connection that would be less obtrusive.
City Attorney Mattas explained that the Council could act on the rest of the map tonight and direct that
segment back to the Pathways Committee and Planning Commission for study. It would then return to
Council for consideration and approval as a further amendment to the Master Path Plan.
!#!
1. PAGE MILL ROAD SW OF STORY HILL
Quad A2
A2.3c
Study Zone 3
______________________________________
City Council Special Meeting Minutes
March 8, 2005
SECTION (Study Zone) 3 - Remainder
Pathways Chair Chris Vargas explained that there had been few issues with this segment. He advised
Council that the resident at A2.3d had indicated a willingness to donate his private pathway and that this
was currently being explored by Town staff.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Les Earnest, Dianne Drive, suggested that it would be appropriate to delete the paths that were identified in
the unincorporated areas.
Patty Ciesla, Moody Court, recommended that the Council consider placing an arrow on A2.3c.
Carol Gottlieb, Summerhill Avenue, explained that there was a proposed trail on A2.3c but that no
easement was accepted. She suggested arrows be placed through the property and that the property
be retained for a path along Page Mill.
Connie Frenzel, 13311 Country Way, thanked the Council for their efforts. Her property was bordered on
three sides by paths and requested that Council consider removing A2.7 because of it’s redundancy to a
neighboring path and privacy issues. She noted that her property is also bordered by a fire road that
drawsmotorcyclists and cars and she was concerned that if the path was identified on a map it would bring
additional traffic.
Brian Frenzel, 13311 Country Way, explained that he had attended numerous pathways meetings and
hearings and that the residents in his neighborhood supported his request to remove A2.7.
Pathways Committee Chair Vargas explained that retention of A2.6 and A2.7 were not required as
segments for a design goal for this Section.
CLOSED PUBIC HEARING
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Jones, seconded by Mordo and passed by the
following roll call vote to accept the Planning Commission’s recommendation for the remainder of
Section (Study Zone) 3 with the exception of removing A2.7 from the Master Path Plan.
AYES: Mayor O’Malley, Mayor Pro Tem Kerr, Councilmember Jones, Councilmember Mordo and
Councilmember Warshawsky
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Jones, seconded by Mordo and passed by the
following roll call vote to direct staff to investigate the fence as a code enforcement issue that is reported to
block the path near A2.8.
AYES: Mayor O’Malley, Mayor Pro Tem Kerr, Councilmember Jones, Councilmember Mordo and
Councilmember Warshawsky
NOES: None
!$!
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
2. CONNECTION FROM VIA FELIZ TO ELENA ROAD
Quad B2
B2.9 and B2.10
Study Zone 5
______________________________________
City Council Special Meeting Minutes
March 8, 2005
SECTION (Study Zone) 5
Pathways Committee Chair Vargas explained that the key design goal for this section was a connection
between Via Felice to Elena Road or Byrd Lane. Vargas noted that the initial Committee recommendation
had been to use the combination of A2.2 and B2.6a but subsequent to their recommendation, they learned
that B2.6a would bisect a property that was in the process of a lot merger. The Planning Commission
selected B2.9, B2.10 with B2.6a as an alternative to the Pathways Committee’s route. Vargas explained
that the property owner of the parcels that are being merged was supportive of the path and was granting a
path easement along his portion of B2.10. He was swapping B2.6a for B2.10. Vargas added that the
Pathways Committee had voted to keep B2.11 but that the Planning Commission was recommending
removal of B2.11.
Planning Commission Chair Kerns explained the Commission had felt that it was unfair for the property
owner at B2.11 to have paths on four sides of his property. They also believed their were privacy issues
and the topography of the site was very steep.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Pete Foley, 13124 Byrd Lane, opposed B2.11 explaining that the average slope on the proposed site was
45%. He noted that the path was very intrusive and redundant to the paths on Middle Fork.
Carol Gottlieb, 24290 Summerhill, explained that she was speaking on behalf of the path group that had
walked the area. She concurred that this was a beautiful walk (B2.10) but that it was very invasive if it was
continued as shown on the map and would eventually pass through a resident’s carport.
Tom Cave, 1614 Shirley Avenue, Los Altos, addressed Council on behalf of the property owners at 13432
Middle Fork and 13466 North Fork which was the property being bisected by B2.6a. He confirmed that the
property owners had agreed to swap easements from the west side of the property to the east side (B2.10).
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Kerr, seconded by Warshawsky and passed by the
following roll call vote to accept the Planning Commission’s recommendations for Section (Study Zone) 5.
AYES: Mayor O’Malley, Mayor Pro Tem Kerr, Councilmember Jones, Councilmember Mordo and
Councilmember Warshawsky
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Kerr, seconded by Mordo and passed by the
following roll call vote was to direct the Pathway Committee to investigate realigning B2.9, B2.6b and
B2.10 consistent with the existing conditions in the area and the creek.
AYES: Mayor O’Malley, Mayor Pro Tem Kerr, Councilmember Jones,
Councilmember Mordo and Councilmember Warshawsky
!%!
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
3. END OF ATHERTON COURT (SE SEGMENT CONNECTING LA PALOMA
TO ROBLEDA)
Quad C2
C2.11a, C 2.11b
Study Zone 12
______________________________________
City Council Special Meeting Minutes
March 8, 2005
SECTION (Study Zone) 12
Chris Vargas, Pathways Chair, introduced this Section. Two areas in this segment had generated the most
discussion:
1) East/West Sunset connection and West Sunset to La Rena connection (C2.3 and C2.8). Vargas noted
that the design goal was to allow a downtown access to Dianne Drive and La Rena. Both C2.3 and C2.8
currently exist as foot paths and were deemed walkable and practical by the Pathways Committee. They
recommended retaining the informal paths for future paths but because West Sunset was a private road
without public access, the paths would not be published nor identified as walking paths on any map until
such time as it West Sunset became a public road. Vargas added that West Sunset, because of it’s curvy,
winding topography, should be marked as a pedestrian only path
2) C2.11a and C2.11b with the design goal to connect La Paloma to Robleda. The Pathways Committee
had recommended to remove the path (shown in red) that bisected the property and to relocate it to the
boundary of the property (shown in purple). Vargas noted that the Planning Commission had concurred
with the Committees recommendation.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Les Earnest, Dianne Drive, suggested that C2.12b was a better route to connect Atherton Court with
Brendell Drive. He did not believe the path between two driveways was two obtrusive.
Charles Bieber, 12800 W. Sunset, stated that the issue of public access on Sunset was complicated. He
explained that an action of the Town in 1963 designated a section of West Sunset as a private road and he
had obtained supporting legal opinions. He noted that East Sunset was a public road and as such is
maintained by the Town.
Lalia Helmer, 12995 W. Sunset Drive, supported the red arrows (removal) on C3.4 and objected to the
recommendation to retain C2.3 and C2.8 because they were located on a private drive. She voiced her
concern that people walking this route would not stop when they reached West Sunset which was private
with no public access.
Chris Vargas explained that the path would not be identified on any walking path map.
Judy Anderson, 13021 W. Sunset Drive, opposed any published path on West Sunset. She spoke to the
dangerous size of the road and did not want to encourage people to use
it as a pathway.
Gina Bertolino, 12851 W. Sunset, spoke in opposition to retaining C2.3 and C2.8 and requested Council
consider removing them due to their invasive nature to her property and the narrow, steep road. She did not
believe it was safe for pedestrians, equestrians or kids on bikes. Bertolino suggested that the release of the
draft path map for review had created an increase in foot traffic in her area.
Larry Anderson, 13021 W. Sunset Drive, relayed to Council his background as a safety engineer and stated
!’!
that the proposed path design was a potential for disaster. He suggested that it was ill advised to have paths
end on roads that were not safe for pedestrians.
Chris Vargas, Pathways Chair, noted that he understood the concerns of the residents and he did not
support publishing the paths or blue arrows on any walking map that would identify this as a path and he
concurred with the residents that the any future path should be limited to pedestrians only.
Jolon Wagner, Pathways Committee, read from several letters that supported keeping paths in the area.
!
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
Councilmember Jones supported the Pathways and Planning Commission’s recommendations for Section
(Study Zone) 12 and would not publicly identify the Sunset path until such time as the road became public
and then as a “pedestrian only” path.
Councilmember Mordo concurred with the Planning Commission’s recommendations with two exceptions:
1) he would retain the two blue arrows to preserve the right for a path if there was a future subdivision and
2) he would direct the Pathways Committee to seek a connection to Atherton Court in-lieu of C2.11b.
Mayor Pro Tem Kerr spoke in favor of directing the Pathways Committee to study a connection between
Dianne and East Sunset.
Mayor O’Malley supported the Pathways Committee and Planning Commission’s recommendations for
Section (Study Zone) 12. He concurred with the suggestion that the Pathways Committee investigate a
possible “swap” of easements with the property owner on C2.11b.
Councilmember Warshawsky supported the Pathways Committee and Planning
Commission’s recommendations for this segment and directing the Pathways Committee to review the
connection from East Sunset to Dianne Drive and the potential connection through Atherton Court versus
C2.11b
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Jones, seconded by Warshawsky and passed by the
following roll call vote to accept the Planning Commission’s recommendation for Section (Study Zone) 12.
AYES: Mayor O’Malley, Mayor Pro Tem Kerr, Councilmember Jones, Councilmember Mordo and
Councilmember Warshawsky
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Mordo, seconded by Kerr and passed by the
following roll call vote to direct the Pathways Committee to investigate: 1) an alternative to C2.11b to
Atherton Court and 2) a connection from East Sunset Drive to Dianne Drive.
AYES: Mayor O’Malley, Mayor Pro Tem Kerr, Councilmember Jones,
Councilmember Mordo and Councilmember Warshawsky
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
_________________________________________________________________________________
4. VOORHEES, BARLEY HILL, MIRALOMA, ST NICHOLAS
Quad D3
D3.1, D3.2, D3.3a and D 3.3b
Study Zone 17
!(!
______________________________________
City Council Special Meeting Minutes
March 8, 2005
SECTION (Study Zone) 17
Chris Vargas, Pathways Chair noted that the most reviewed path in this Section was the
D3.1, D3.2, D3.3. The design goal for the path was to serve as a connection from Miraloma to Hilltop and
evidentially to Barley Hill. The Pathways Committee had voted to retain D3.1, D3.2 and D3.3 in the belief
that all three could be useful and valuable.
The Planning Commission had not agreed and did not believe that they were not necessary connections.
Vargas added that the Committee still believed that a connection was needed between Miraloma and
Hilltop. Vargas identified an alternative route through Miraloma to Hilltop that could be used as a
connection that would be less obtrusive.
City Attorney Mattas explained that the Council could act on the rest of the map tonight and direct
that segment back to the Pathways Committee and Planning Commission for study. It would then
return to Council for consideration and approval as a further amendment to the Master Path Plan.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Susan Anderson-Norby, 12169 Hilltop Drive, concurred with the Planning Commission’s recommendation
and supported the deletion of D3.1, D3.2a, D3.3a and D3.3b noting that they were intrusive and redundant
paths and the area was an animal refuge.
Emily Cheng, 25495Voorhees Drive, explained that the Planning Commission had voted to remove the
path on Voorhees Drive and encouraged the Council to honor their recommendation. She noted that the
Pathways Committee had recommended a path on the private section of Voorhees Drive and she questioned
the legality of this decision and expressed her belief that the path review process was too subjective. Cheng
offered that the Pathways Committee’s proposed off-road path was parallel to the existing on-road path and
affected fifteen neighborhood properties that were in opposition to the path.
She hoped the Council would give value to the neighbors’ objections when making their decision.
Nancy Ewald, 26131 Altadena, Pathways Committee, explained that this Section had very few circulation
routes. She understood that the neighbors were in opposition of the paths but supported the Council
thinking to the future.
Carol Gottlieb, 24290 Summerhill Avenue, suggested that the Council consider the Circulation Element
during this review process. She offered that there was not an off-road path connecting her neighborhood to
Saint Nicholas School and believed that the Voorhees/Mira Loma route was a good connecting path to the
school. Gottlieb distributed a document to Council that she believed was part of the Clausen subdivision
agreement and related to the private section of Voorhees Drive and the proposed path.
Chris Vargas, Pathways Chair, explained that it was important for Council to have an understanding of the
philosophy the Committee had applied to the review process. They had felt it was critical to be consistent,
reasonable and practical. Vargas explained that when the Committee reviewed this area, they found that it
was probably the largest area in Town with limited connections and isolated cul-de-sacs. The Pathways
Element specifies that cul-de-sacs “shall” be connected with pathways and they were interpreting the
Element and attempting to be practical with their recommendation. He suggested that Council should first
determine if they want to connect the seven cul-de-sacs along Miraloma, Hilltop and Barley Hill and then
select a route that was the least invasive. Vargas favored his alternate route through Miraloma to Hilltop.
Planning Commission Chair Bill Kerns, summarized the Planning Commission’s recommendation for this
Section noting that it had been a split vote to remove D3.1,
D3.2a and D3.3a. Privacy issues and the steepness of the site had been key factors in their decision. Kerns
added that Voorhees was a private road without public access and there were concerns that people would
continue on Voorhees once they came to the end of the public path. Kerns added that they had not
reviewed the alternate route suggested by Vargas, but that it appeared to be a good solution to the problem
!)!
with a less invasive path.
Al Trafficant, resident, stated that the position of the Saint Nicholas School Board was that they did not
want anyone entering from the back of the School. Father Geary’s most recent statement was that the
Pathways Committee was the Town’s business and he has never stated whether he wanted or did not want a
path to the School.
Les Earnest, Dianne Drive, concurred with the Pathways Chair that a connection was needed in this area.
He supported the removal of D3.2a, noting the steepness of the site.
Patty Ciesla, suggested that the Council should be considering a master path plan that could be used as the
Town builds out in the future and for the next one hundred (100) years. She believed that people wanted
choices and would enjoy a selection of different paths to use.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
Councilmember Warshawsky explained as Council Liaison to the Pathways Committee, he had extensively
reviewed the issues that were before Council tonight. He supported the Planning Commission’s
recommendation for Section (Study Zone) 17 and favored forwarding the alternate route suggested by
Pathways Chair Vargas back to the Pathways Committee and Planning Commission for review.
Councilmember Jones concurred with Warshawsky on the removal of the paths identified in red noting
their steepness and poison oak and supported forwarding the alternative path presented by Vargas to the
Pathways Committee for review.
Councilmember Mordo supported exploring the alternative route suggested by Pathways Chair Vargas but
would retain D3.1 and not use it until Voorhees became a public road.
Mayor Pro Tem Kerr favored further review of the alternative path identified by Chris Vargas and would
retain D3.1.
Mayor O’Malley concurred that he would like the alternative route suggested by Vargas reviewed. He
supported the Planning Commission’s recommendation to eliminate D3.3 and D3.2 and noted that Council
was not relinquishing any easements but they would no longer be shown as paths on the map and if in the
future Voorhees became public, Council could revisit the issue.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Kerrr, seconded by Warshawsky and passed by the
following roll call vote to accept the Planning Commission’s recommendation for Section (Study Zone) 17
with the exception of the red line beginning at Miraloma Way continuing to the bordering parcels 12585,
12580 and 12595.
AYES: Mayor O’Malley, Mayor Pro Tem Kerr, Councilmember Jones, Councilmember Mordo and
Councilmember Warshawsky
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Kerr, seconded by Jones and passed by the
following roll call vote to direct the Pathways Committee to review the connector route between
Hilltop and D3.1 as identified in the previous motion and to forward a recommendation to the
Planning Commission as a General Plan Amendment.
AYES: Mayor O’Malley, Mayor Pro Tem Kerr, Councilmember Jones, Councilmember Mordo and
Councilmember Warshawsky
NOES: None
!*!
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
________________________________________________________________________________!
5. MAGDALENA TO FERNHILL
Quad D4
D4.1, D 4.2a
Study Zone 18
______________________________________
City Council Special Meeting Minutes
March 8, 2005
SECTION (Study Zone) 18
SECTION ( Study Zone) 18
Pathways Chair Vargas reported that there was only one area in this segment that had generated discussion:
D4.1, D4.2 and D4.2a. The Pathways Committee had supportedremoval of D4.1 and D4.2 with the
condition that two arrows connecting Fernhill to Magdalena be added to the map.
Planning Commission Chair Kerns explained that the Commission had been advised by staff that arrows
represented subdivisions and since this was not a subdivision, they had voted to remove the arrows.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Bob Stutz, Pathways Committee, expressed his concern of potential fires in the area and believed that D4.1
and D4.2 should be retained as an emergency exit.
Nancy Ginzton, Pathways Committee, explained that in reviewing Cluster 18 the
Committee had sought an alternative route from Fernhill to Magdalena. She distributed a map of her
proposed path to Council. Ginzton commented that the proposed path was not, in her opinion, intrusive
and she would like it considered as an alternative to D4.1,
D4.2.
Les Earnest, Dianne Drive, stated that he believed that it was essential to make a connection here to
complete the route. He supported retaining D4.2 and returning the issue to the Pathways Committee for
further discussion.
Bill Jarvis, 23923 Jabil, explained that his neighborhood was strongly opposed to D4.1 and D4.2 and hoped
the Council would support the Planning Commission’s recommendation. He noted that he had provided a
petition to the Commission with 23 signatures. Jarvis offered safety, security and privacy concerns as his
reasons for requesting the elimination of the path.
Nancy Ewald, Pathways Committee, advised that there were very few off-road paths in the area and
believed that her Committee should look at the alternatives.
Patty Ciesla, Moody Court, favored giving residents off-road path options.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
Councilmember Jones explained that he was conflicted with this segment. He believed that the pathways
were important as connections within the Town and wanted to see all residents treated equally, however, he
wanted to be fair to the residents who had spent time in numerous meetings giving their input. Jones would
support the Planning Commission’s recommendation for Segment 18, but because of the limited number of
off-road paths in this area he recommended directing the Pathways Committee to investigate alternative
routes to connect Fernhill and Magdalena.
!+!
Councilmember Mordo, favored removing D4.1 and retaining D4.2 and directing the Pathways Committee
to find an alternative route to connect Fernhill to Magdalena.
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Jones, seconded by Kerr and passed by the following
roll call vote to accept the Planning Commission’s recommendations for Section (Study Zone) 18.
AYES: Mayor O’Malley, Mayor Pro Tem Kerr, Councilmember Jones,
Councilmember Mordo and Councilmember Warshawsky
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Jones, seconded by Kerr and passed by the
following roll call vote to direct the Pathways Committee to investigate the most advisable route
between Fernhill and Magdalena and to forward their recommendation to the Planning Commission.
AYES: Mayor O’Malley, Mayor Pro Tem Kerr, Councilmember Jones, Councilmember Mordo and
Councilmember Warshawsky
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
6. ZAPPETTINNI COURT TO CENTRAL DRIVE
Quad A3
A3.9
Study Zone 4
______________________________________
City Council Special Meeting Minutes
March 8, 2005
SECTION (Study Zone) 4 -Remainder
Pathways Chair Chris Vargas offered that there were additional areas worthy of review in this segment.
The Planning Commission had differed from the Pathways recommendation on B3.21b. The Committee
had supported identifying this path in orange/yellow as a path where there was no current plan to build a
path but should be retained as a future connection and the Planning Commission had voted to not retain
B3.21b. Vargas explained that the design goal of B3.21d was to eventually connect to Taffee Road/ Elena
and this was supported by the Planning Commission.
Vargas noted that A3.9 had also generated resident input. It was the connection between Zappetini Court
and Central Drive. The Planning Commission had supported their recommendation and concurred with
their recommendation to delete A3.5 which was redundant with A3.9 and bisected two lots.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Bob Stutz, Pathways Committee, explained that the area being discussed was previously wide open grazing
land.
Patty Ciesla, Moody Court, agreed with the red designation noting that this was an important wildlife
corridor that connected to Byrne Preserve. She encouraged Council toreview wildlife corridors as another
pathway designation when they complete dtheir review of the path map. This would prevent fencing and
provide open access for wildlife movement.
Les Earnest, Dianne Drive, believed that A3.9 was not a buildable path. He suggested that A3.5 should be
“swaped” for another easement that would work.
Patty Ciesla, Moody Court, stated that it was her belief that A3.9 was buildable and that A3.5 was a wet
!",!
marshland with numerous drains and pipes.
Carol Petty, 26932 Almaden Court, explained that she had spoken numerous times at different hearings on
the proposed pathway behind her house. The neighbors agreed with her objection to the path because of
the abundant animals in the area and would prefer a wildlife corridor.
Chris Vargas, Templeton Place, speaking as a resident, supported this area’s red designation noting the
steepness of the terrain and the preponderance of wildlife in the area. (B3.21b)
Planning Commissioner Kerns explained that the Planning Commission were unanimous in their vote to
remove this section and agreed with Vargas that the terrain was very steep and it would be better
designated as a wildlife corridor.
Al Whaley, 26925 Taffee, spoke in favor of deleting B3.21b which was located in the rear of his property
and was on a plus 100% grade and very isolated. He noted that he had a very nice path in front of his
property.
Resident, Almaden Court, explained that he had nothing to say but because he had been sitting through the
meeting all night he would speak to the large number wildlife in the area.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Kerr, seconded by Jones and passed by the following
roll call vote to accept the Planning Commission’s recommendation for the remainder of Section (Study
Zone) 4.
AYES: Mayor O’Malley, Mayor Pro Tem Kerr, Councilmember Jones, Councilmember Mordo and
Councilmember Warshawsky
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Warshawsky, seconded by Mordo and passed
unanimously to direct the Pathways Committee to revisit A3.9.
!
!
Fr Tl-E ttuJ+ (fiJryffiJr'J Ttl-
t l_l
llS(Fn@TM*1 rfF#ffii
t.fltr(f)fttrn
aN
\-RJ$r$5
NV
o-FISJ?{
$;ZP
*Fr*HffiJffi@).:, th-4ffiJ
FTq+
+f-lqf
I
f..l4
r*rqIf.tttJ
ffiffiIl\{
fistr
()
Nsa?q*
c.t qisu
c.€lu A!+ lllJ3fis
)>
hrhtSI
EOfl*{\l
{TD{illfitfh'ffiJ
il tr+ftl
-rr
IJI.'J@)$u
l!t-
_o,gF
l-#.:J
N€<r+
8e3S
$i33
Fffri
+fn
Ir4
F-
t..fr(\f-.rfl
Ilrt
UJ
LI
LJfrtr]
I|J]r-
tl rrH l"Fhs$-5 rtl)il
qs *sT\'l Tr_IJ+cg
FI
E rtD#ffnqJ (tDf tt!]ilrr
l4tffi)@)G{
!!t*
f-
FT
IUI
F.
il .'r-9ffiH tg)dtTn
F rtl-
ltlrF
!'Fff)
G-lffi
TJdfn
ItfJ
f'*
H*
drrf-f I lH -11ttr'1fia1'+V4-5ii t4"w!-YAWIv!\\^4
t tEtt
!
gEEgL
LLS-ZZ
qa@lev/l
$}€EL
s#ee-sE'8"
LggEL
6gFE L
OFLAL
ggFEL
g{ LEI
Eg}EL
ossat
,r.[ffi1-s{
ggTffi
tlE 0E-$EE
gggrE
SttrEL-$E€
!n!*lr{4L'dsD
FEtrTStrtr*nF
1,4"1*fI
L#'*
tn
t-J
fllF(trr
hl{{
lEl
,i"'ffi|
ryfinlsf,ul
t.t.-$ H(ED .;,Jb di([l'tr +'(!n ld
rrr
J
3
d
NF.
Fffi,r xliu.3cq
R17
\./
f .t-rn .LKs
tg,.-,($lJ ,r:.rff 31
tdt
F -*r
]"1 (EDI: (rr)q tEt,"" (ED
.4J
..{r*i
a'
"il11i1t.'I
ji.t
I i,t"iIF
| '".tti'ltrf --t! -:ii-rt
1..-\!
rf,$ i{[IlJ '*,'*ot,l $i
ffilrrtti
t1sii
It*lffsfinun.-ef
*i,*:ffilHrfiil {.ffi:i:
ETtl Jj
li{:J
,,iti
- I-Ll
i{r61 *t
.-lL
GD(ut
lRrull!o.!rt
6r
I&
ftrlt
t:.1
atrilfl$$
-.fA
i.l
-,,JrJ6ilDi"uh++l:+
..tLt"4t
*'1!
LJtft
rJ
q#
l=L!
!)"tTf,lt'tE$strr
'EJI,trtrt
...f&
GDJbq
'{.1
!"+ls
'nffil'llth
nfrt'a!fi
EIT
!41
...1& r;JEf'ftn l":ifiS.Ji--$|l.:
rffiqrqlqi
$z\,Rffi$s
--) l---c-*saiP
- \Js
e-:s
lfrD
'i{s'i{I.|l*t
'n {:r
-r --JIl
tE.l-r{J(m
-r{J(mtr
FJ
IhtlArr
qEl{
l\}$is
fthl---.Ir I
me) H(81 +(EDffi
-ln
Ctrhl
I
FJ
rOLr1ri!
---.tLlt}
@r
@r(trD
--ll,It$
@r
ItrD(ED
JG
hJt
t\JItrrTIq
Itsl.{Jsfin(m
rt$
-RS'lsf,Ff,ffi
f$l
-q{,1
fi.}}((El
(trD