Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal Minutes August 31TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS PATHWAYS COMMITTEE MEETING AUGUST 31, 2004 The Pathways Committee Meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m. by Chairman Chris Vargas. Committee Members Present: Committee Members Absent: Chris Vargas, Chairman Nancy Ewald Richard Cassam Fred Fallah Nancy Ginzton Jorge Fernandez Mahmoud Kamangar Charlene Geers DuBose Montgomery Bob Stutz Ginger Summit Ad Hoc Map Committee Members Present Dot Shriner Les Ernest Sector 2 (all off-road paths west of I-280 and north of Moody Road and El Monte) Chairman Vargas provided background information on the Pathways Committees direction for updating the Map. At the direction of the City Council, the Pathways Committee has been studying the Town’s off-road pathway system for the past eight months. Three public meetings will be held by the Pathways Committee. Input will be received, and a second version of the 2004 Master Path Map will go to the Planning Commission and then to the Town Council. The Council instructed the Pathways Committee to focus on off-road paths, to not remove any easements, and to not remove existing paths. Public input was requested on retaining, adjusting, and removing paths. Bob Stutz provided background information on the formation of Los Altos Hills which did not include sidewalks and street lights and information on the formation of the pathway system. Ed Radlo, 28040 Elena Road, opposed the pathway marked B2-13B. Ariel photos were distributed which showed the area as unsafe because of steep terrain, necessity for cutting down trees, and invasion or privacy. Steve Grimes, 28010 Elena Road, spoke in support of pathways, but mentioned having items stolen from his property and dogs hit by cars. He expressed concern about privacy. He said existing Purissima and Elena roadside paths were adequate for the area. Debra Butler-Grimes, 28010 Elena Road, said the path B2.13b was intrusive, and the existing driveway is narrow with a blind corner that poses a safety concern for pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians. She said the existing pathway on Elena is front of her home is acceptable. Patty Radlo, 28040 Elena Road, opposed the path at B2-13B because it is not safe, it invades privacy and does not serve any purpose. The terrain is steep, and the blind curve presents a safety issue. Resident, 14305 Saddle Mountain Road, spoke in opposition to path A1.2 because of privacy issues and the steep slope and suggested A1.3 as an alternative. Resident, 27830 Elena Road, spoke in opposition to B2.13B because of the blind driveway and steep terrain. Pearl Chan, 27864 Via Corita Way, objected to path B2.22A because it is intrusive and very close to her bedroom and bathroom. She explained that the Town gave up the opportunity to build part of the path when it did not require the Monastery to build the path. She said several neighbors agreed with her. Chairman Vargas said a resident suggested using Yuba Lane rather than B2.22A which accomplished the same goal. Pearl Chan agreed that Yuba Lane was existing, was parallel to the existing path, and there were very few cars that went in and out. Marla, 12998 Vista del Valle Court, referred to B3.1 and said to her knowledge there was no easements on the private road. She asked what it would take for the Town to acquire such an easement. Chris Vargas responded that it requires a major redevelopment of every property along the potential path. Easements would be required on the off-road portions and permission would be needed from the owners for access rights. John Caffey, 27133 Adonna Court, supported paths B2.21, 2.22A and B3.22. Charlene Kilgore, 13027 La Barranca Road, said she was opposed B2.19B because of steepness. She expressed concerned about incidents involving people falling on paths and liability. She noted there were other pathways going up La Barranca and coming down Elena which provided access to the entire area. Barbara Lombard, 13027 La Barranca, expressed concern about liability if someone is hurt on an easement on her property. Chairman Vargas said the Town was liable and pathway maintenance is the town’s responsibility. Todd Wagner, 27891 Black Mountain Road, supported B2.21 becoming a pathway because it provides easy access down to Elena. He also supported 2.22A and B3.22. Maria Caffey, 27133 Adonna Court, supported three pathways: B2.21, B2.22A, and B3.22. She said off-road pathways are a very precious commodity. Martha Bowden, 27833 Saddle Court, referred to A1.6 and said it was unclear as to whether the pathway is on her property or Town-owned land. She supports removing path because it goes through a forest and there is another existing pathway below it. Les Ernest said the path is on private property. Chairman Vargas agreed that having two pathways was not necessary. Les Ernest spoke in favor of retaining A1.11. He said the path is next to the freeway and nonobtrusive and is a potential connection to Stanford Lands and potentially valuable to the County S1 trail. Terrie Masuda, 14313 Saddle Mountain Drive, talked about A1.2, A1.3, A1.3C and A1.3A. She said her property is bordered by two easements: A1.2 and A1.3B. She requested that A1.2 be eliminated because it is very steep and close to her house. She commented that A1.3C is a shorter pathway that impacts only two properties. Chairman Vargas agreed that one pathway was sufficient. The idea was to get from Saddle Mountain eastwards. Terrie Masuda said she preferred to see the removal of A13 and, A1.3C, as recommended. Dot Shriner agrees that the cross easement going into the Fenwick Property is not the best and the A1.3 was a better connection. The easement coming up from Arastradero is slated to not be used because it is extremely intrusive to the residents. Sophia Huang, 27580 Arastradero Road, asked that the privacy and safety of the residents of lot 6 be protected. The pathway A1.3 is in a high elevation that would infringe on the property owners’ homes. Eric Clow, 27660 Central Drive, referred to B1.A on lot 6. He said the Planning Commission and Council decided the easement was not suitable and not necessary. He explained there is an existing residence on lot 6 and within 20 feet of the edge of the property. The path would be between the existing house and the California State Land. He requested B1.A be removed. Terrie Masuda asked why A1.31A, A1.3C, and A1.3B were needed. Nancy Yewell, 26885 Taaffe Road, agreed with the deletion of B3.20 because there is a creek that is dry in the summer but rushes with water in the winter. The steepness made the path unsuitable for walking. She noted there is a proposed path that runs between B3.20 and to the left of B3.18, and the portion behind her property is buffered between two creeks. She suggested that the proposed pathway, B3.21B at the back of her property be deleted because of the impassability, fragile soil, and the protection of the conservation area. Al Whaley, 26925 Taaffe Road, said 3B.18 was marked for deletion because of impassability. He noted that B3.21B was too steep to walk on. He said there is a path on Taaffe in front of his property that is used by many people. Chairman Vargas said the goal of the Pathways Committee was meant to help the residents on Almaden Court to get back to Elena rather than making a path on Taaffe. Al Whaley said the proposed pathway was in an inhospitable area. He invited the Pathways Committee to visit the property. Eric Clow said A3.2B touched on his property and was very steep. He said the neighbors were not interested in a path that connected their cul-de-sac somewhere else. He opposed A3.2B. Radoje Drmanac, 27635 Red Rock Road, referred to A3.2B and said the left side of his property is very steep and not functional as a pathway. He said he is not opposed to A3.3. Patty Ciesla, 27150 Moody Court, supported A3.3 and A3.4 and said the property line was up on the slope to the north of the bottom of the drainage. She recommended trying to acquire easements on both sides of the drainage to make flexibility for where to route the trail. She supported a connection to Buena Vista and Sherlock. She agreed that A3.2B, connection to Red Rock, was not necessary because it is too steep. Referring to B3.11, she said that if the red line on the map could be flipped 90 degrees to go north/south, flexibility would be allowed for a new pathway inside Bern Preserve. She wanted to see an additional green line added to the map at the bottom of 27305/27385 Moody Court. She said she supported the deletion of B3.12. Les Ernest concurred with Patty’s suggestion of utilizing the existing old Farm Road coming off Sherlock Court around 27490. He agreed that the link A3.2B is too steep, but noted there is an existing path connecting Red Rock Road to Buena Vista that would make a fine neighborhood connection. Ana Drmanac, 27635 Red Rock Road, opposed A3.2B because it is very steep and narrow. She said 3.5 sides of her property would be surrounded by paths. Frank Dietrich, 12541 Zappettini Court, said he uses the pathways system. He referred to A.3.6 and said it was incorrectly shown as an existing pathway. He added there is an easement but a pathway was never built. He said he was in the process of merging 12541 Zappetini with the Central Drive property and the portion of the easement would cut through the middle of the merged property. The pathways in place are seldom used and are not favored by the neighbors. He said the neighboring parcel at 27570 Altamont that needed to be part of the pathway did not have an easement. His suggestion was to remove the current easement on the property and switch it to an easement he was willing to grant along Central Drive. Suzanna Molnar, 12541 Zappetini Court, strongly supported the connection mentioned by Frank Dietrich to get around Bern Preserve without having to go on Page Mill. Eric Clow said the residents did not want A3.2B and the area was landscaped and blocked. Mike Kuranoff, 13440 South Fork Lane, referred to A2.15 which was shown as proposed on a private driveway. He said the area was extremely steep and very narrow, and the only way to get a path was to put it on the private driveway. He noted there was a usable path on private property and along Middle Fork, which was one lot away. He added that the area was dark and secluded. He objected to A2.15 because of terrain and security reasons. Chairman Vargas said the idea behind A2.15 was to allow the people on South Fork Lane to not have to go down South Fork and up Middle Fork. Mike Kuranoff said he never had a problem using the neighbor’s driveway to walk up the hill. He did not see the need for A2.15. Heinz Furthmayr, 13500 South Fork Lane, spoke in opposition to A2.15 because the path was very steep and was used by few people. He added there is an existing on-road path up Middle Fork that turns into an off-road path. Connie Frenzel, 13311 Country Way, thanked the Pathways Committee for the speedy process. She agreed that A2.6 should be eliminated because it was too close to both houses and very steep. She explained that her property currently had two paths: one at the base of the house and another on the hillside next to her property. She said A2.8 gives access to Matadero Creek and Country Way in the Three Forks trails and was a five minute walk between A2.7. She said A2.7 was redundant and would result in three trails around her house. Les Ernest said there was an error on the map on A2.1 where the lower right leg is too steep and the north south segment is essential to the continuation of the green line on the map. Linda Whitehouse. 12345 Page Mill Road, referred to A2.3 and said it was problematic and unsuitable because the topography is very steep. She said the area was heavily wooded and muddy in the winter. She explained that privacy was necessary in light of a burglary at her home. Chairman Vargas said the goal of A2.3 was to get people off Page Mill Road and asked if there was another way to accomplish getting people off Page Mill Road. Linda Whitehouse said a portion of a path could be built but the topography was very steep. Ginger Summit said she was anxious to give people an alternative to walking on Page Mill Road but understands how difficult it would be. Patty Ciesla suggested there might be an alternate near two lots on Altamont. She said the property line was in the drainage and it was possible to walk down the drainage, across a driveway and then connect to the trail at A2.3. She supported A2.13 but wished the line could be continued all the way along Page Mill Road to Paseo Del Roble. She referenced A2.9B and A2.9C and suggested that A2.9B might be better off if it was moved between lots 27330 and 27751. She noted thatA2.10B paralleled an existing trail in Matadero Creek and suggested moving the trail to one side of the creek. She said the easements should be retained whether or not they are used in the future. Les Ernest said A1.13 is unbuildable because of steepness and should not be shown on the map. Ann Duwe, 25900 Elena Road, thanked the Pathways Committee for the time they spent putting together the map and for the efficient process. The meeting adjourned at 8:56 p.m.