The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutJuly 18 2016 FINAL_PWC_Min_16-0718.doc 7/26/16 1 Los Altos Hills Pathway Committee FINAL Minutes of Special Meeting of Monday, July 18, 2016 1. ADMINISTRATIVE A. Call to Order. Chairman Ann Duwe called the meeting to order at 7:02 PM B. Members/Associates present: Jim Basiji, Alisa Bredo (7:11 pm), Weegie Caughlan, Ann Duwe, Eileen Gibbons, Bridget Morgan, Sue Welch, Denise Williams Members/Associates absent: Nick Dunckel, Vic Hesterman, Breene Kerr (Member); Bob Stutz, Rachelle Mirkin, Tim Warner (Associates) Council Liaison present: John Radford Members of public present: Andrew Chang (Via Feliz) Mimi Chang (Via Feliz) Yong Ping Duan (Via Feliz) Les Earnest (Dianne Drive) Gilda Foss (Dianne Drive) Naoe Giallello (Sunset Drive) Carol Gottlieb (Summerhill) Denise Incerpi (Voorhees Drive) Ron Incerpi (Voorhees Drive) Daisy Itty (Magdalena) Kieturakis (Page Mill Road) Joe Rizzi (Miraloma) Mike Sego (Avila Court) Jim Steinmetz (Voorhees Drive) Bill Owen (Voorhees Drive) Jay Sutaria (Wildcrest Drive) Traficanti (Voorhees Drive) Stan and Kitty Weiss (Sunset Drive) Bruce X (Magdalena) C. Approval of Agenda. The agenda was approved as posted. WC moved, EG seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor (JB, WC, AD, EG, BM, SW, DW); AB not yet arrived. D. Ex Parte communications. AB, AD, EG, SW reported meeting with owners of 12580 Miraloma Way. BM reported meeting with owner of 24635 Voorhees Drive. 2. NEW BUSINESS A. Pathway information for residents. AD presented a slide show with information about the Town pathway system (Attachment A), including history of Town pathway system, how the system is developed and maintained; how PWC decisions are made; components of the Master Path Plan (MPP); and the process for updating the MPP. AD opened the floor to questions. B. Resolution of routes for areas left undecided during the 2005 off-road Master Path Plan Update. Comment on procedure: Council Liaison John Radford reported that Mayor Harpootlian requested the PWC to change their planned schedule for addressing the unresolved areas. The PWC plan was to make tonight’s meeting a study session to gather information from residents and defer the recommendations until the July 25 meeting. This would allow time for PWC to revisit potential routes and receive additional public input. However, the Mayor has requested that PWC propose and vote on recommendations for all the unresolved areas at tonight’s meeting. In deference to the Mayor, the PWC worked within those constraints. In 2005 Council directed the PWC to review six areas that were not resolved during the Master Path update, propose future routes through the areas, and forward their recommendations to the Planning Commission for review. Since these unresolved areas had not been addressed since that time, in Jan 2015, Council asked PWC to do this as part of the 2016 MPP update. Descriptions and maps of the unresolved areas were presented at earlier PWC meetings. New maps prepared by the planning department were distributed (Attachment B). The maps include various routes proposed by past PWCs, but these are NOT routes proposed by the current PWC or MPP subcommittee, and PWC recommendations are not limited to only the routes suggested FINAL_PWC_Min_16-0718.doc 7/26/16 2 previously. Areas were addressed one at a time, with public comment heard first, followed by PWC deliberation and voting. For each area, PWC considered public input, connectivity issues, topography and proximity to residences. a. Pathway from 28140 Story Hill through 12345 Page Mill to Page Mill Rd. The following public  comments were given:   Mr. Kieturakia (12345 Page Mill Road) asked for clarification of the routes marked on the map and  asked whether the route would run behind his fence parallel to Page Mill. [AD explained that the routes  on the map are from past PWCs and are not routes proposed by the current PWC, which has not yet  made any recommendations.]   Les Earnest (12769 Dianne Drive) reported that a path along one of the routes shown existed in the  past but was not kept up. Pathway easements also exist in the area. [SW clarified the location of  existing paths and known easements in the area. See below.]   PWC reviewed the maps (including topo maps) and discussed options. An off‐road path on an  easement (maintained by Town at homeowners request) exists along the western border of 28138  Story Hill Road. A pathway easement exists along the western border of 28140 Story Hill (CR 32‐00),  but the path is no longer passable and an existing arrow to the west indicates a future connection from  here into Foothills Park. The west side of Page Mill Road along most of this area has a narrow shoulder  and then drops off steeply and could accommodate only a narrow roadside path. The steep slope also  makes it difficult to run a path up to the road from the creek area on 12345 Page Mill. Altamont Circle  is not currently in LAH. BM moved PWC recommend leaving route in this area the same as it was  in 2005. WC seconded. The vote was 4 in favor (WC, JB, BM, DW) and 4 opposed (AB, AD, EG,  SW). The motion failed. Council Liaison John Radford said he would allow PWC to make only one  more motion for this area. EG moved that PWC recommend a future offroad path continuing on  the existing pathway easement along the western border of 28140 Story Hill Road to the  southwest corner of the property; and then running east along the border between 28140 Story  Hill and 12345 Page Mill Road. AD seconded and the vote was 5 in favor (JB, AB, AD, EG, SW); 3  opposed (WC, BM, DW).   b. Route from Zappettini to Central Drive. The following public comment was given:   Les Earnest (12769 Dianne Drive) reported that a path had existed here in the past but was no longer  open.   PWC reviewed the maps (including topo maps) and discussed options. Existing off‐road paths exit from  the end of Zappettini and run to the west along the south border of 12581 Zappettini and to the east  along the south border of 12620 Zappettini. An off‐road pathway and open space easement exists  between 12581 Zappettini and Central Drive (part of 11641 Buena Vista; CR 9‐12) that could  accommodate a short connecting native path up to Central with a few switchbacks similar to the ones  on the Taaffe path. Further to the east the slope up to Central is much steeper. Connecting the existing  path on the south border of 12620 east to Westwind Barn land along the border between 27464  Altamont and 27555 Central was discussed. These paths would provide loop routes from the heavily  used Byrne Preserve and Westwind Barn. Some considered two loops redundant. JB moved that PWC  recommend a future offroad connecting the existing IIB offroad path off the end of Zappettini  to Central Drive using the existing offroad pathway and open space easement on the north side  of Central; and continuing the existing IIB path on the southern border of 12620 Zappettini east  to Townowned Westwind Barn property. DW seconded and the vote was 6 in favor (AB, JB, AD,  EG, SW, DW); 2 opposed (WC, BM).    c. Connection from Via Feliz to Maple Leaf Court and Elena Road. The following public comments  were given:   Mike Sego (13140 Avila Court) spoke in opposition to a path on his property for privacy reasons.   Les Earnest (12769 Dianne Drive) suggested a route extending diagonally along the creek swale from  the end of Via Feliz (SW corner of 27801 Via Feliz) up the eastern part of 13466 North Fork Lane to  connect with properties on Maple Leaf Court. A route along the boundary would be too steep.   Mimi Chang (27801 Via Feliz) questioned what areas the routes are trying to connect. [AD described  the Pathways Element goals to connect neighborhoods and cul‐de‐sacs.]   Jong Ping Duan (27800 Via Feliz) said he was at the meeting for information.   Unidentified resident questioned the objective of the meeting, noting that each property already has  access to a pathway, so no more pathways are needed. He said he has not seen a creek in the area.   PWC reviewed the maps (including topo map) and discussed options. An off‐road path and easement  exist along the southern border of 13115 Maple Leaf Court (CR‐46‐03) and part of the northern border  of 13114 Maple Leaf Court (CR‐62‐08). 13644 North Fork Lane is a large property that may be  FINAL_PWC_Min_16-0718.doc 7/26/16 3 subdivided in the future. Discussion included topography of a route through 13466 North Fork,  location of the creek/swale, and whether the connection was redundant. Off‐road path connections in  this area would provide a safer route than Elena Road, which is a busy road and especially dangerous  for equestrians. EG moved that PWC recommend 1) a future offroad path from the end of Via  Feliz south along the border between 27827 and 27801 Via Feliz, and from there an arrow  indicating a future connection through 13466 North Fork Lane; 2) removal from the map of the  routes shown along the north and east border of 27801 Via Feliz; 3) placing an arrow indicating  a future connection across the southwest corner of 13115 Maple Leaf Court from the existing  easement off Maple Leaf Court and into 13466 North Fork Lane. JS seconded and the vote was 7  in favor (AB, JB, WC, AD, EG, SW, DW) and one opposed (BM).  d. 1. Connection from end of path that starts on 13198 La Paloma to Atherton Court. The following  public comments were given.   Jay Sutaria (13581 Wildcrest) said his family enjoys Town paths and uses them frequently. His  property is along the route shown along the creek. He would appreciate having access to an off‐road  path without driving or walking down their narrow private road. He asked about the cost of the route  the creek crossing, vegetation and conservation easements in that area, and privacy screening along  paths. He also asked what happened to the route along the straight line behind the parcels on the west  side of Atherton.    Les Earnest (12769 Dianne Drive) said the straight‐line route behind the parcels on the west side of  Atherton was on the map in the past, but was no longer possible. He recommended dropping this  connection.   PWC reviewed the maps (including topo map) and discussed options. AD noted that one of the goals of  the pathway system (as specified in the Pathway Element) is to connect cul‐de‐sacs. Several PWC  members said they could not assess the feasibility of a path without a site visit, which they were unable  to make without permission from owners. Other members reported they were able to assess the  terrain from the end of the off‐road path on 13310 La Paloma and/or had walked the area in the past.  LAH engineering staff assessed the route along the creek and PWC considered it too expensive. The  short segment up from Atherton between 12933 and 12940 Atherton Ct. is gently sloped and not  visible from either home. An off‐road path runs from La Paloma to the southern tip of 13310 La  Paloma. Pathway easements exist along the east border of 13060 Alta Lane S. (CR‐61‐93; map  incorrectly shows this address as 13080); along the south border of 13643 Wildcrest (CR‐ 27‐06);  along the north border of 12933 Atherton Court (CR‐161‐93); and along the north border of 12940  Atherton Ct. (CR‐160‐93). EG moved the PWC recommend a future path continuing the existing  offroad path on 13310 La Paloma southward onto the existing easements along the east border  of 13060 Alta Lane S [map incorrectly shows this address as 13080] and eastward along the  northern border of 12399 Atherton; then connect south to the bulb of Atherton Court along the  border between 12399 and 12940 Atherton Court. Remove the proposed route along the creek  north of 12940 Atherton Court. JB seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor.  d. 2. Investigate a connection from East Sunset to Dianne Drive. The following public comments were  given:   Giallello (13040 E. Sunset) opposed a route along the western border of her property because the yard  is narrow and steep and a path would have views into their house. She opposes that route because of  privacy and security concerns.   Gilda Foss (12799 Dianne Drive) spoke in opposition to a route along the border of her property, citing  privacy and security concerns. The route is a very steep and treacherous and PWC should seek an  alternate route.   Les Earnest (12769 Dianne Drive) said he proposed two routes in 2004 from the end of Dianne to  downtown Los Altos, one from E. Sunset to La Rena and a better route along the eastern border of  Town, which is shorter, flatter, away from homes, and more scenic. Although it would take years to get  all the 8‐10 easements, he recommends this route and removing from the short steep connection from  E. Sunset to La Rena.    PWC reviewed the maps (including topo map) and discussed options. PWC discussed the route from  Dianne to the village suggested by Les Earnest, but this extends beyond the unresolved area under  discussion and PWC does not have authority to add it to the MPP map at this time. Several members  considered the route from East Sunset down to the end of Dianne along the borders between 13040  and 13101 East Sunset and 12799 and 12800 Dianne Drive too steep and intrusive. A route along the  east border of 13210 E. Sunset to the Town border, along the borders of 13208 and 13040 E. Sunset  and then between 12800 and 12780 Dianne Drive was proposed. This is less steep and not close to  FINAL_PWC_Min_16-0718.doc 7/26/16 4 homes. Many PWC members recently walked part of this route. The old Fremont Road roadbed runs  along the border of the Town in this area. PWC discussed avoiding disturbance to the El Retiro  property. EG moved that the PWC recommend a future offroad path running from E. Sunset  along the border between 13210 and 13254 E. Sunset south to the Town boundary; then  following along the LAH side of the Town boundary to the southwest over 13210, 13208, and  13040 E. Sunset. From that point the path would connect to Dianne Drive between 12800 and  12780 Dianne Drive. JB seconded and the vote was 5 in favor (AB, JB, AD, EG, SW), 2 opposed  (WC, BM) and one abstaining (DW).     e. Route connecting Voorhees, Barley Hill, St Nicholas School and/or Miraloma. The following public  comments were given.   Les Earnest (12769 Dianne Drive) said the original plan was for a short, direct connecting route  between Miraloma and Voorhees across two lots (12585 Miraloma and 24595 Voorhees).   Joe Rizzi (12615 Miraloma) spoke in opposition to a path from Miraloma to the school because it would  encourage increased traffic as parents drop off students on Miraloma and encourage students cutting  through Miraloma. He is concerned about vandalism and said his barn was burned down in the 1970s.   Tina Patel (24595 Voorhees) is opposed to a path on Voorhees because it is private road maintained at  the Voorhees homeowners’ expense. She said it does not make sense to have paths on or connecting to  private roads. She said the path on her property was removed from the MPP and the PWC cannot put it  back on. Also, the Town approved the driveway on their neighbor’s property four feet from their  property line, leaving no room for screening from the neighbors if a path is put in.   Bill Owen (24601 Voorhees) said residents are opposed to public access on the private part of  Voorhees because proximity to freeway exits has led to problems with trespassing, stolen cars, cars  turning around in driveways. Posting a No Trespassing sign helped, but they do not want a public path  on this private road. He is also opposed to paths on private property for liability reasons.   Jim Steinmetz (24635 Voorhees) spoke with the principal of St Nicholas who said they want to increase  school security. Mr. Steinmetz said the school is unfenced and paths would increase public access and  reduce security for students. He also complained about student vandalism (climbing his fence,  breaking into his pump house, stealing grapes) and teens congregating behind the school.   Ron Incerpi (24500 Voorhees) spoke in opposition to paths on private roads in this area and said the  Barley Hill route was very steep and ran along a creek.   Carol Gottlieb (Summerhill) supported off‐road connecting routes in the area, which currently has no  loops. Pedestrians must walk along Summerhill, Magdalena, or El Monte, which lack paths in many  locations. A route from Miraloma to Voorhees would allow students to walk to the school.   Bill Silver (Miraloma) sent an email to be added to the public record (Attachment D).   PWC reviewed the maps (including topo map) and discussed options. There are few paths connecting  neighborhoods in this area and both El Monte and Summerhill are busy roads lacking paths in many  locations. Four PWC members walked the proposed route on 12581 Miraloma and considered it  feasible, but somewhat intrusive to this residence. Drainage may also be a problem. PWC discussed  residents concerns about trespassing, vandalism, and potential security risks to students at the nearby  school. LAH policies and ordinances allow pathways on private roads. Providing walkable routes to  local schools has been a priority for the Town and there are off‐road and roadside paths around the  other two schools in LAH. A pathway easement exists along the south border of 12585 Miraloma (CR‐ 53‐93). Records indicate a pathway easement existed in 2000 along the south border of 24595  Voorhees (LAH Council meeting 10/05/00) and along Voorhees on 24595 and 24601 (PM‐499M16).  Residents disagree these easements exist. AD moved the PWC recommend a future offroad route  connecting Miraloma Way to Voorhees using the existing pathway easement on 12585  Miraloma and continuing across 24595 Voorhees; and 2) connecting Voorhees to Hilltop along  the border between 26402 and 24500 Voorhees to the end of the shared driveway on 12169  Hilltop. DW seconded and the vote was 6 in favor (AB, JB, AD, EG, SW, DW) and 2 opposed (WC,  BM).  f. Route from Magdalena to Fernhill. The following public comments were given:    Bruce (10551 Magdalena) said the route shown on the map runs along a creek, is steep and wooded  and would be costly to build. He is strongly opposed to any path for any reason.   Daisy Itty (10511 Magdalena) reported several burglaries in the areas and is concerned paths will  impact security and privacy. She does not see the point of paths connecting different roads.   Mr. Itty (10511 Magdalena) said the route shown on the map is too steep to walk, has poison oak and a  beehive, and would be too close to his house.   FINAL_PWC_Min_16-0718.doc 7/26/16 5   Les Earnest (12769 Dianne Drive) said he and others have walked the route shown on the map many  times and it is a good route connecting Magdalena to Fernhill.   PWC reviewed the maps (including topo map) and discussed the utility of the connection, topography  of the route shown on the map, other route options, traffic on Magdalena, and the Pathways Element  goal to develop connections from cul‐de‐sacs. This connection would get pedestrians off sections of  Magdalena Road, which lacks paths in many locations. Several PWC members walked the route  between 10531 and 10511 Magdalena during a recent site review and considered topography suitable  for a path. However, few have walked the Fernhill end of this route, and members were reluctant to  approve a route they had not walked. Because this item could not be continued to the next meeting (to  allow for a site visit), PWC discussed deferring any recommendation and having the Planning  Department assess the area.    BM moved the PWC recommend taking no action on this area and asking the Planning  Department to assess the feasibility of the terrain for a path. JB amended the motion to add the  recommendation that Planning Department also look for alternative routes in this area  connecting Magdalena to Fernhill. WC seconded and the vote was 7 in favor (AB, JB, WC, EG, BM,  SW, DW) and one opposed (AD).    5. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR. 6. NEXT SCHEDULED MEETINGS. Next Pathway Walk: Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 9:00 am at Town Hall Next PWC Meeting: Regular Meeting; Monday, July 25, 2016 at 7:00 pm at Town Hall 7. REQUEST FOR TOPICS FOR NEXT AGENDA 8. ADJOURNMENT. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 pm. Attachment A: Presentation on Pathway System Attachment B: Maps of Six Unresolved Areas for Master Path Plan Map Update (07/18/16) Attachment C: Document from Les Earnest Attachment D: Public comment from Bill Silver Final minutes were approved as amended (red text) at the Regular Pathways Committee meeting of July 25. 2016. 1 I Our pathway system is a vital part of the Town’s infrastructure •!Required by the Town’s ordinances •!Designed to complement our roads •!Intended primarily for residents •!Consists of roadside and off-road segments, totalling 94 miles 2 LAH pathway system is a work in progress •!All property owners share responsibility for the beauty and functionality of our pathway system. •!Paths are added incrementally as parcels are developed or redeveloped. •!Town is responsible for maintenance. 3 Benefits of Pathways •!Facilitate non-motorized circulation between neighborhoods •!Connect us with nearby towns and open space preserves •!Create emergency access routes •!Provide safe routes to schools •!Offer a means of outdoor recreation •!Contribute to the open, rural character of our Town 4 History •!1956: Paths pre-dated Town’s founding •!1981: Pathway Element added to General Plan Master Path Plan map becomes part of Pathway Element •!2005: Update Master Path Plan off-road map •!2002-2012: Expansion of Town boundaries •!2016: Master Path Plan update to extend pathway system to unmapped parts of Town and resolve areas left undecided in 2005 5 Types of Paths •!Roadside paths are within or near the road right-of-way –!May be adjacent to pavement –!Preferably separated from pavement –!In very limited cases, access may be over the pavement •!Off-road paths generally run along property boundaries 6 Pathway locations 7 Pathway Construction •!Design standards –!IIB path (5-ft. wide, crushed gravel with header boards) - Native path (width varies; surface is roughly graded dirt or gravel) •!Generally, construction must be completed before the Town signs a certificate of occupancy for a completed project •!LAH Public Works Department offers guidance 8 II Pathway Recommendation Process •!Development or redevelopment triggers review of how an individual property fits into the pathway system. –!Pathways Committee reviews maps, makes site visit and makes a recommendation during a regular, public meeting. –!Planning Staff reviews recommendation, may modify it before adding it to Conditions of Approval for development permit. –!Planning Commission reviews Conditions of Approval at a public meeting and may support, deny or modify them. –!City Council has final authority. 9 How do LAH landowners contribute to the pathways system? •!LAH ordinances require a contribution to pathway system as a condition of approval for major development projects, including: –!Subdivisions –!New residences or second units –!Major house additions, barns, stables >900 sq ft –!Certain variances and conditional use permits •!Landowners can voluntarily donate pathway easements and/or build paths 10 Homeowner Responsibility •!Contributions to the pathway system can be one or more of following: –!Restore an existing path –!Dedicate a pathway easement –!Build a new path on a new or existing easement –!Pay pathway in-lieu fee 11 Basis for Pathway Recommendations •!Recommendations rely on established policies and ordinances that describe how this part of the Town infrastructure is to be developed and maintained. •!NOT based on personal preference of PWC members. 12 Basis for Pathway Recommendations •!Consistency is a major goal for recommendations –!Consistent with Town policies and ordinances –!Consistent with what is/was required for similar properties •!Goal is to rigorously apply the same set of general rules to all projects under review •!PROBLEM: Policies and ordinances not easy to find –!Scattered in Pathways Element and Municipal Code –!Few people take time to read them carefully •!RESULT: Basis for PWC recommendations is not understood and decisions are interpreted as arbitrary 13 Roadside Path Recommendation Decision Tree •!To make PWC recommendations easier to follow, the PWC drew a decision tree. •!Tree has a series of decision points, each determined by specific written policies/ ordinances. •!Chart looks complicated, but each decision point can be answered with a simple YES or NO based on: –!Established pathway policies/ordinances –!Characteristics of the parcel under review 14 !"#$%"&’()*+,,)-."/+-’0)*121+-’34))’ 15 III Master Path Plan (MPP) •!Pathways Element of LAH General Plan defines policies and documents required for MPP •!GOAL 4: Maintain and implement the Master Path Plan to ensure development of the Town’s pathways system. •!MPP of 1981 laid the framework •!MPP update of 2005 established maps for future off-road paths •!Counsel directed the 2016 update to include new areas of Town and areas left undecided in 2005 16 Master Path Plan = Set of Maps 1.!Map showing streets with roadside paths planned on both sides 2.!Map showing streets with roadside paths planned on one side 3.!Map showing existing and planned off-road paths –!Class 1 = Easement + built path –!Class 2 = Easement + no built path –!Class 3 = Future planned path (no easement, no built path) 17 III MPP Map Update Process •!Began January 2015, at direction of Council, as required by the General Plan •!Subcommittee of five PWC volunteers are doing the groundwork –!Chair: Eileen Gibbons –!Members: Nick Dunckel, Ann Duwe, Bridget Morgan, Sue Welch –!Discussed project with Planning and Engineering staff, including objectives, priorities methods, and available resources (e.g., consultants, databases and GIS mapping systems) –!Chair provided regular progress reports to Council and PWC 18 MPP Update Major Tasks •!Update all Master Path Plan maps •!Document new pathway infrastructure –!Pathway easements dedicated since 2004 –!Pathway segments built since 2004 •!Revise list of streets to have roadside paths on both sides (“two-sided streets”) •!Make recommendations to resolve areas left undecided during 2005 off-road map update •!Recommend future paths, roadside and off-road, in neighborhoods not previously mapped (i.e., annexed areas) 19 Specific tasks •!Subcommittee tasks: –!Walked annexed areas several times –!Held 9 neighborhood meetings and 6 public walks to solicit feedback from residents –!Drew up draft maps for proposed future roadside and off-road paths –!Presented draft maps to the public and PWC •!Full eleven-member PWC reviewed draft maps and made site visits •!Full PWC heard public comment, discussed and voted on draft maps at a public meeting (4/25/16) 20 Map Update Agenda (ongoing) •!Pathways Committee will forward draft maps and other update documents to Planning Commission. •!Planning Commission will review PWC recommendations and hold public hearings before making recommendations to City Council. •!City Council will hold public hearings before making a decision to accept, deny or modify the Master Path Plan update of 2016. 21 Parts of the MPP update needing Council approval •!List of streets with paths planned on both sides •!Map of streets on which roadside paths are planned •!Map of planned future off-road paths 22 Parts of the MPP not needing Council approval •!Documentation for pathway easements dedicated since 2004 •!Documentation for pathway segments built since 2004 •!“Working reference map,” which shows the suggested side of the road for roadside paths, as of May 2016 •!Printed walking map 23 24 Pathway Committee agenda for July 18 7118116, 6:31 PM Pathway Committee agenda for July 18 i t" Lester D Earnest I I neply all I v MonT/18/2A16 2:53 PM To: Deborah Padovan <dpadovan@losaltoshills.ca.gov> Cc: Ann Duwe <ann.duwe@sbcglobal.net> Sent ltems path2004.pdf v 140 KB Download Save to OneDrive - Leland Stanford Junior University $ Reply all I v 6 oelete Junk I v ... X members and can bring hard copies to the meeting. Item B is titled "Resolution of routes left undecided during the 2005 off-road Master Path Plan Update." Having been a member of the Pathways Committee during most of the 1990s and serving as Chair most of that time, I see that the current agenda is filled with the same matters we were discussing 20 years ago. Based on ancient reviews I offer here some suggestions. "(a) Pathway from 28L40 Story Hill through t2345 Page Mill to Page Mill Rd." I am told that path has somehow disappeared. Twenty years ago there was a very clear and open path, which I gather was not maintained. I possibly could recall where it went by doing a walkthrough but inasmuch as there are pathway easements, they should be used as a reference, specifically map CR-32-00 for 28L40 Story Hill Lane and the 1981 Master Path Plan (MPP) for 12345 Page Mill Road, or whatever map on which that easement was eventually recorded. "(b) Route from Zappettini Court to Central Drive." That route has been in use for decades by cars, horse people, cyclists and pedestrians. lf the easement does not go through, I suggest putting it where the existing road is. "(c) Connection between the end of Via Feliz and continuing through Maple Leaf Court to Elena Road." The Pathways Committee reviewed that in the 1990s and we found a great old trail down in the canyon, paralleling the creek, and recommended that it be put on the Master Path Plan even though it did not conform to the property boundaries, since that deep canyon is unusable for any developmental purposes. However for some reason the proposed path along the property boundaries, parts of which are unwalkable. I recommend making a connection from Maple Leaf Court downhill to the old path, kilrr.JnyuerTt C', PIN L o7fuxl1tp http s://outloo k.off ice.comi owai p rojection.aspx Page 1 of 3 Pathway Committee agenda for July 18 7118116,6:31 PM then down the canyon, all on 13115 Maple Leaf Court and possibly a bit of 13486 North Fork Lane. Approaching2TS0t Via Feliz the best route is shown on the current MPP as a dashed green line. "(d) Connect the end of the path that which starts at L3198 La Paloma with the bulb at the end of Atherton Court and on to Robleda Road." That connection was on the MPP for years, but when the La Paloma property can in for development in the 1990s some kind of political manipulation happened that allowed the owners to evade granting the needed easement. As things stand, given that there is an existing parallel road route not far away (Alta Tierra Road), I suggest giving up on this one. "Also investigate a connection from East Sunset to Dianne Drive." Back in 2004 when the Master Path Plan was being reviewed, I proposed two alternative pathways that would connect the Dianne Drive cut- de-sac to the Los Altos Village with a walking distance of less than one mile compared with the existing two mile walk along existing roads. One was the link shown on the current Master Path Plan and the other is shown on the 2004 draft plan (attached) as planned route C2.15. I recommended the latter; even though it would require the acquisition of at least 8 pathways easements, which would likely take on the order of a hundred years unless homeowners voluntarily donated them, which would qualify as tax-deductible donations. The reason I recommended C2.I5 was that it would involve a lot less steep climbing than the other route and mostly follows a scenic creek area, well downhill from the houses up by East Sunset. However when I presented those proposals to the Council they didn't bother going to look at the terrain and, because it looked simpler on paper, they chose the very short and steep uphill route between Dianne and East Sunset. I recommend that the Pathways Committee push for the creek route to be placed on the Master Path Plan instead. I happen to live at the end of Dianne Drive but neither plan is likely to happen in my lifetime even though I plan to live until 2043. "(e) Route connecting Voorhees, Barley Hill, St. Nicholas School and/or Miraloma." Earlier MPPs called for making the connection between Miraloma and Voorhees along the south sides of 12585 Miraloma and 24585 Voorhies. the first of those easements was acquired in the 1990s and the Voorhees one should have been but that property belonged to a Council Member who happened to be a member of the corrupt Toni Casey gang who were doing their best to dismantle the off-road path system, so it got removed from the MPP. Given that we managed to get rid of the Casey gang in the early 2000s (at considerable expense), I recommend that this easement be restored to the MPP. "(f) Route from Magdalena to Fernhill." What is the issue here? ln the 1990s we got a fine trail built from the end of Frampton Court to Fernhill in spite of strong resistance from a Casey gang member who lived at the end of Frampton. ls someone again messing with it? "5. Presentations from the floor (discussion)" I plan to bring up the following things. We need not discuss any of this unless and until it gets agendized but if anyone has questions about the basis of these suggestions I will be happy to respond. 1. Why was the trail from the end of La Rena Lane to West Sunset Drive, which has been in use since at least the 1970s, changed on the map from being an "Existing Path With Easements" (which it was) to a "Future Path" and by whose authority was that done around 2005? I note that this path https://outloo k.off ice.co m/owa/p roiection.as px Page 2 of 3 tl''* '&' l h :' *'*,,** % -3*li_ rsarc r$a rJ& rrc$ trr& rroct aoo +.; , .-. ra- rs - tilst a& ;-; 6=ffi *,F;%:;=3T-,,:[ :- 13atr "f , e- Surtarr ls'o %,ryi * ,"- itJ.$t q r331g arur ercr r;; 'esrtr- '&d6 ta6i &"{'*'Tu '*,;$,F .g"d- -Je&u t&d6 - '+ 'aqa: fl{ -33:c !tr?"4 '4 } ?-.g' /eEo tae6 '*@,:a r2'rt t?etf , 'Hsb- rrtso r$or '* {F i*J# j # ra,* t.-, tq*-}*ql st& -et.'o * Et #.Rt ?*tt rssa riry' s lot * '*t' rr*$r *'*n** s1- &trr r*tn *r,*-, ,ss6 r3D.D t**'ot** o*o tn zsccr ,;=t*t :*& ' * l$oo.6 rr& g rri&- Briq*'**gr t &n r'rro &6* A_ ,* * gu o ,*r, E ,* ?&. 'FF ; +4r & -% A--.if,fr Rsflc '.fl& i.ry *i?€ ss{s & &t 256o. 'tn t .rr '-- 3 T? ! '*T- ti\- t sERF+ -s- # <F =] ir f ir.r*r& ,zeso ..._i;::", R.9 r&o .*, S rzrs n ,r**- tt ,t o, '$tc rbt) *"--'"1;lS) -t*_ ,.-{.-ir':ist'' \Jtt& ,ro, 'stc r'b$ ,G\ j'-(qFI . '& -r rerr ( *o Yfu rttre T rab \-+ 1& 280 G :{lts .' .,;:,,:::. slBILL COLLE.GE @ %%-, t*5il8 Pathway Committee agenda for July 18 7118116, 6:31 PM has now been partly blocked even though the Town has easements. That needs to be fixed. 2. A couple of existing paths were blocked back in the 1990s, specifically one at L42tO Baleri Ranch Road and another at 11678 Dawson Drive. I repeatedly asked the Town staff to get them reopened but their response was that they would not do that unless the Council told them to and, since the Council was under the corrupt control of the Casey gang that never happened. I believe it is time to try again and am willing to be the lead troublemaker. 3. Why has nothing been done about the proposed link between our Town Open Space (shown as a yellow triangle south of O'Keefe Lane and next to the freeway) and the planned connection through the Adobe Creek underpass of the freeway to Foothill College? This will allow pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians to get through without transiting the dangerous l-280/El Monte interchange. Of course, it will require the consent and cooperation of Caltrans and Foothill College, so I recommend that those negotiations begin immediately. The green line shows the proposed path route making a connection to the underpass from either O'Keefe Lane or Cantata Way. ln order to be completed it will be necessary to build a small bridge on the Town side from the edge of the creek bed into the tunnel, then a slightly raised (about 2') pathway through the tunnel and a trail on the Foothill College side leading up to their roadway system. 4. Looking further ahead, Los Altos has been planning for many years to reopen an existing path along Adobe Creek from Shoup Park to Dover Court, which comes off O'Keefe Lane and is in Los Altos. They proposed to open it up about 20 years ago but the Jesuit Retreat strongly objected, since they were using that path exclusively, and Los Altos postponed that change, though I believe it is still on their long range plan and could link up nicely with our proposed path under the freeway to Foothill College. lf negotiations on the Adobe Creek underpass trail move forward, I recommend that Los Altos be informed, since the their planned opening of the Adobe Creek Trail from Shoup Park to Los Altos Hills would mesh nicely with this development. A bit of history. Most of the route of the path discussed just above was originally a dirt road called Fremont. lt connected with the existing Fremont Road, which now ends one block south of Burke Road but used to continue gently downhill along the existing boundary between Los Altos and Los Altos Hills to the south end of Redwood Grove. lt then went along the side of Adobe creek and physically still exists as a pathway but has been blocked off by a gate that is sometimes locked. lt continued through what later became the Jesuit Retreat to what is now Dover Court, again through a locked gate now, then turned left along the road now called O'Keefe Lane but was then called Fremont to what is now called El Monte Avenue but was then called Moody Road. lt eventually connected with the existing Fremont Road in Los Altos next to what became the railroad but is now Foothill Expressway. Given that this old dirt road ran all the way from southern Palo Alto to Sunnyvale, where it merged with El Camino Real, this was an important route in the era before cars came, when the quickest way to get around was by bicycle, though many people rode horses or used carriages. As late as the 1960s, when I arrived here, people in the Hills often rode their horses into town and Los Altos accommodated them by keeping hitching posts next to each parking place on upper Main Street. l-{owever they eventually removed them. Les Earnest https:i /outloo k.off ice.co m/owa/p ro jection.as px Page 3 of 3 !""#$%&’(")*+),#"%-#./)01&&2""’’)3’’"2(4)567.)89:);<8=) ) >?1&+!"#$$!%#$&’(!)*+#$,-./(0#$&’(12*+#$34-*5!! @’("+!%+,6(7+89!:6$8!;<9!=;>?!>.@>!AB! A1+!C’D-(+E!A+7-&+F!G7H+7-&+F1$-0+$,-0E#$$034+32-&I! @6BC’$"+!A+,E/+8!J-**#,,’’!B’’,#F2!:6$8!>K9!=;>? Please pass this message on to the Pathway Committee which is in response to the letter sent by Mayor Harpootlian of July 1, 2016 regarding some additions to the Master Path Plan. I will not be able to attend the meeting on July 18 nor to walk with the Committee on July 16. Having served on the Pathway Committee for six years and as the owner and resident of 12580 Miraloma Way, I am very familiar with the Voorhees, Barley Hill, St Nicholas, Miraloma area. Having been through many meetings and discussions on this area, the only reasonable way to connect Voorhees to Miraloma and serve St Nicholas is via the route shown in red on the attached Map. It extends from the public part of Voorhees (not the private part, which was a major issue with the Voorhees residents) along the southern border of the St Nicholas property, into a beautiful grove of trees and then turns Southeast to connect directly to the end of Miraloma. This is by far the least intrusive and I think only reasonable off road route to connect these two streets, if indeed it is an objective to connect them. It is not clear that in fact even this is needed as anyone living in the Hilltop area can easily get to St Nicholas and El Monte now and those living along Summerhill can as well by simply going down Summerhill and turning left on El Monte where there is a wide sidewalk along the south side of El Monte extending between Summerhill and St Nicholas. So to be clear, I am not advocating a connection but if the Town deems it advisable to put a connection into the Master Path Plan, I believe this is the best route. What is really needed is a high quality pathway all along Summerhill between Magdalena and El Monte! I know the Committee is working on that. Thank you for your consideration. Bill Silver 12580 Miraloma Way Los Altos Hills, CA 94024!