Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal Minutes April 26FinalPWC_Min_10-0524 2/12/20 1 Los Altos Hills Pathway Committee FINAL Minutes of Meeting April 26, 2010 1. ADMINISTRATIVE Anna Brunzell called the meeting to order at 7:02 PM Members present: Anna Brunzell, Ann Duwe, Courtenay Corrigan, Eileen Gibbons, Bob Stutz, Tim Warner, Sue Welch, Denise Williams Members absent: Nick Dunckel LAH Council Members present: Breene Kerr Members of the public presents: Brian Macknick, 27608 Vogue Court Rich Boyle, 26111 Mulberry Lane Kartik Patel, the architect for the Malavalli project Howard and Ruby Lee, Atherton Court Michelle Sheehan, 12871 Atherton Court Jim Scherer, 12911 Atherton Court Vaz Babayan, 12940 Atherton Court Carol Gottlieb New Pathway Committee member, Denise Williams, was welcomed to the committee. The agenda was approved as published 2. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR None 3. NEW BUSINESS A. Property Reviews. The following properties were reviewed for pathway recommendations: i. 26111 Mulberry Lane (Lands of Boyle) The reason for pathway review is a remodel. The homeowner, Rich Boyle, was present. The property is at the end of Mulberry Lane, a cul- de-sac with five properties. The lot has a narrow frontage on Mulberry, primarily driveway; the lot also has frontage on the north side of Fremont Road. Mulberry has no roadside pathways and no off-road paths connecting to it. It was pointed out that the north side of Fremont is sufficiently wide for vehicle parking as well as a path and is relatively flat and smooth. The consensus was that requiring a IIB path with header boards was not necessary. Bob Stutz moved that the Town request a pathway in lieu fee from the owners of 26111 Mulberry Lane. Tim Warner seconded. The vote was unanimously in favor. ii. 12840 and 27500 La Vida Real (Lands of Malavalli). The reason for pathway review is construction of a new residence, a 27,000 SF house on two combined lots totaling about 8.5 acres. The PWC reviewed this property in December 2005 and recommended at that time that the owner be required to construct a native off-road path within a 20-foot easement on Deer Creek along the full length of the northeastern property line. This path would connect Natoma Road to the existing off-road paths from Vogue Court and Taaffe Road at the bridge over Deer Creek (i.e., at the northeast corner of 27500 La Vida Real). FinalPWC_Min_10-0524 2/12/20 2 Construction of the pathway by the homeowner was made a condition of approval of development. The following materials from the Malavallis were provided to PWC members: 1) a letter from the Malavallis’ architect, Kartik Patel to LAH Project Planner, Leslie Hopper, dated Nov 7, 2005; 2) a report from Live Oak Associates, an ecological consulting firm, evaluating the conservation easement on the property; 3) a letter from a construction firm assessing the feasibility of building the proposed pathway along the creek. Brian Macknick, who has lived at 27608 Vogue Court (directly across Deer Creek from the Malavallis) for 27 years spoke to the PWC opposing the proposed pathway. He has concerns about the feasibility of building a path within the narrow easement because of potential erosion and landslides, high cost, loss of valuable wildlife habitat, and safety of the egress of the path out onto a blind hairpin turn on Natoma Road. He thought town money could be better spent on other pathways. He provided a letter from the LAH Open Space Committee Chair, Roger Spreen to the LAH City Council, dated Dec 18, 2005, describing his visit to the site and expressing concerns about building a path on the “steep, treacherous banks” where the easement lies. He also showed photos showing of the steep area near the creek. Mr. Kartik Patel, the architect for the Malavallis, reviewed the history of the project, including the Live Oak ecological study of the riparian area and the owners’ intent in establishing conservation easements in order to conserve the area in its natural state free of any development (also stated in their letter). He noted that building the pathway along the creek would be in conflict with the goals of the conservation easement and said that the owners had “reluctantly agreed” to build it to meet conditions of approval for development. They had said in December 2005 that they prefer to pay a pathway in lieu fee and leave the open space easements completely undeveloped. Mr. Patel said that if a pathway must be built, the owners are willing to build it only within the 20-foot pathway easement and do not want to move it further up the hill within the conservation easement. (Town staff has said that the owners are not required to move the path outside the agreed-upon pathway easement.) The PWC discussed the issue at length. The general consensus was that although this path is desirable in many respects, limiting it to the narrow easement along the creek poses serious problems. The property line and pathway easement lie along the creek at the bottom of a steep, narrow, heavily wooded ravine for nearly the full length of the proposed path. A path through this steep ravine would disturb a sensitive wildlife area and requiring it so close to the creek would almost certainly degrade the creek banks and adjacent riparian vegetation. Retaining walls and bridges will likely be required; some large oaks would likely have to be cut. Construction would be costly and would likely require input and approval from outside agencies, including the CA Department of Fish and Game, the Regional Water Quality Board, and possibly the Army Corp of Engineers. Maintenance of a path in this area would also be difficult because of the terrain and proximity to the creek. A path further up from the creek where the slope is less steep would be more feasible, but the owners are not willing to consider this. It was noted that the conditions in the area have changed since the initial recommendation was made—the new Taaffe path constructed by the Town during 2009 now offers an alternate route up from the creek and forms a loop connecting this area to Byrne Preserve. Thus, there is less need for the route up Deer Creek on the Malavalli property. Concerns about removing the requirement for a path that had been a condition FinalPWC_Min_10-0524 2/12/20 3 for approval earlier in the development process were discussed. It was generally agreed that this situation was unique and unlikely to be encountered again. Tim Warner moved that in light of the changed conditions in the area, including construction of the new Taaffe pathway, the PWC remove the condition to build a pathway along the creek on the combined properties 12840 and 27500 La Vida Real and instead request that the owners pay a pathway in lieu fee. Eileen Gibbons seconded. The vote was 7 in favor, one opposed. B. Extension of Pathway from La Paloma to Robleda Road via Atherton Court. This public hearing was attended by five homeowners who live on Atherton Court and who had been formally noticed by the Town about the discussion. The PWC had also visited the proposed pathway sites with these homeowners on Saturday, May 23, 2010. Two routes have been proposed for connecting the La Paloma path to Robleda. One runs along the existing pathway easements on the western borders of properties at 12933, 12911, and 12871 Atherton Court. This route is not currently on the Master Path Plan. The second route would use existing pathway easements along the along the creek on the northern borders of 12933 and 12940 Atherton Court. The Town has had this route surveyed and has obtained an estimate of $440K to build this path along the creek. The purpose of the public hearing tonight is to determine whether homeowners are willing to swap existing pathway easements that lie behind their homes (i.e., on the western property lines) for pathway easements in the road on Atherton Court. Atherton Court is a private road and does not have public access at this time. This route would be less expensive and have a lesser impact on privacy. Homeowners spoke to the committee: Michele Sheehan (12871 Atherton Court) said she does not want to swap the pathway easement on the western border of her property (which is currently blocked by an illegal structure in the easement) for an easement along the northern border (i.e., at the distal end of their vineyard) or within the road on Atherton Court. She cited concerns about the safety of her children who play in the area and the lack of need for pathways in the area. Jim Scherer (12911 Atherton Court) opposes a pathway passing behind his home and through the vineyard on 12871 Atherton Court because of privacy concerns. He noted that such a path would have a direct view into their bathroom. He noted that two alternate pathway routes exist in the area (Alta Tierra and Wildflower Lane/Golden Hills). He does not want to swap the pathway easement on his western property line for an easement within the road on Atherton Court. Howard Lee (12933 Atherton Court) said this is his third PWC meeting to discuss this issue. He is opposed to any pathway in any location in the area because of privacy concerns. He does not want the path to be routed along his north property line and onto Atherton Court. He does not want to swap the pathway easement on his western property line for an easement within his driveway or in the road on Atherton Court. Vaz Babayan (12940 Atherton Court) also expressed concerns about privacy and about his dogs being disturbed by horses passing through the area. FinalPWC_Min_10-0524 2/12/20 4 Ruby Lee (12933 Atherton Court) is opposed to any pathway in any location the area because of her concerns about privacy and safety. She does not want to swap the pathway easement on their western property line for an easement within his driveway or in the road on Atherton Court. The PWC discussed the issue at length. The importance to the Town of the LAH pathway system was reviewed as well as the specific objective of completing the connection from La Paloma to Robleda. Atherton homeowners do not want to swap their existing pathway easements to allow use of the road. Thus, the options to complete the connection are: 1) to build the path in existing easements along northern borders of 12933 and 12940 Atherton Court along the creek; or 2) to revise the MPP sometime in the future so that the route behind the properties using the existing easement could be used. The route along the creek will be considered when CIP projects are reviewed and prioritized later in the year. 4. OLD BUSINESS A. Proposed Pathways Walk and Horse Ride in May. Carol Gottlieb described this joint equestrian-hiker activity scheduled for 10:00 AM Sunday May 29, 2010. Tim Warner volunteered to lead the hikers up Purissima from Fremont Hills Country Club. Sue Welch moved that the PWC sponsor the event. Tim Warner seconded. The vote was unanimously in favor. B. Horse and Pedestrian Crossing Signs. In March, Linda Swan requested that warning signs be placed along roads where the pathways cross from one side of the road to the other to alert drivers to pedestrians and equestrians. Nothing new. C. Discussions of Pathway Activities with Town Staff. Nothing to report. D. Non-Slip Driveway Surfaces for Equestrians. The PWC discussed ways to encourage residents to adhere to the Town ordinance requiring non-slip surfaces for horses where paths cross driveways. An item for the newsletter was suggested. Ann Duwe will research the issue and report to the committee next month. E. Report on VTA Meetings. Nancy Ginzton not present. F. Reports from people who attended other meetings. Nothing to report 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the April 26, 2010 meeting were approved as amended. Meeting was adjourned at 9:30 PM. 5. NEXT SCHEDULED MEETINGS Next pathway walk: Saturday, June 26, 2010 at 8:30 AM at Town Hall Next regular meeting: Monday, June 28, 2010 at 7:00 PM at Town Hall Respectfully submitted, Sue Welch May 26, 2010 FinalPWC_Min_10-0524 2/12/20 5