HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal Minutes August 4TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
PATHWAYS COMMITTEE MEETING
AUGUST 30, 2004
The Pathways Committee Meeting was called to order at 6:05 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
Carol Gottlieb
Les Ernest
SECTOR 1 (all off-road paths east of I-280 and north of El Monte Avenue)
Chairman Vargas explained that the Pathways Committee was responsible for updating the
Master Path Map which shows the location of planned off-road and roadside paths throughout
the Town. 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. The Council’s direction was to focus
on off-road paths only; to not remove easements; to not remove existing paths; and to use the
Map Committee’s input. The Pathways Committee is holding three Public Informational
Meetings to gather input from residents. A Special Pathways Committee meeting will be held to
consider input received, and then the updated Map will go to the Planning Commission for
review, and finally to the Council for approval. 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.
Charles Beaver, 12800 West Sunset Drive, referenced paths C2.8, C2.3, and C3.4B and said the
map was not clear, distribution to the City was unfair, and action should be postponed until
people have a better grasp at the maps. He said West Summit is a private, narrow road that could
not accommodate extra traffic and people. He had a petition signed by most of the residents on
West Sunset who opposed the three connectors.
Robin Katsaros, 12900 Atherton Court, expressed concern that the pathways concept was never
voted on by the homeowners.
Howard Lee, 12933 Atherton Court, presented three photographs showing area C2.11.A. He
expressed concern about the narrowness of Atherton Court which was a safety issue and said the
property was very for steep walkers. He questioned who will maintain the pathway. He is
opposed to C2.11.A, including the proposed addition to the path.
Larry Russell, 13331 Lenox Way, spoke in opposition to C2.15. He said the topography does not
lend itself to a path, and there would be environmental impacts. He added that Lenox Way is a
private road and the some of the properties would be surrounded by pathways on multiple sides.
He suggested that adverse impact studies should be done relating to wildlife and erosion.
Pete McCloskey, 501 Portola Road, Portola Valley, spoke about 700 feet on Mr. Beaver’s
property, which he believed to be a private road. He explained that when the property was
subdivided in 1967, the road was shown as a private road, and the City turned down dedication
of the road. He asked that prior to the segment that joined West Sunset and East Sunset being
declared a pathway, there should be a declaration by a City Attorney’s indicating that the road is
public.
Hamilton Helmer, 12995 W. Sunset Road, said West Sunset is a private road and there is no
ability to put paths on either side because of a steep embankment on one side or a dropoff on the
other side. He opposed to C2.3, C2.8, and C3.4B for safety issues and congestion.
Ken Olcott, 12950 Brendel Drive, said the Planning Commission and City Council opposed
C3.4B, and the Tentative Map was approved with no pathways on the subdivision. He was
opposed because of privacy issues.
Pam Scott, 12950 Robleda Road, spoke in opposition to C3.4B and C2.8. She felt the City is
more concerned with serving a 20 year old plan than it is with serving the homeowners of Los
Altos Hills.
Tim Koogle, 12950 Robleda Road, expressed concern about no due process. He said he is
opposed to C3.4B because of safety, security and privacy issues.
Craig Kennedy, 12780 Dianne Drive, said he was opposed to C2.15.because there was no current
easement. He said people purchase property on cul-de-sacs hopeful there will not be a lot of foot
traffic and drive by traffic.
Jean Danver, 13474 Robleda Road, said she supported C2.8. She said there were very few areas
where people drove their cars to Los Altos Hills to walk.
John Swan, 13201 Brook Road, said he was in favor of pathways, but suggested that the
Pathways Committee meet with homeowners in areas that are contentious. He supported C2.3 as
a path but not as a fire road.
Lalia Helmer, 12995 W. Sunset Drive, referred to C3.4B, C2.8, and C2.3 and talked about
instances where strangers came up the road and parked their cars. Her objection is with putting
paths on a map that is public.
Les Ernest, 12769 Dianne Drive, supported C2.8 and C2.15. He said there is an informal path on
C2.8 very little traffic. Regarding C2.15, he observed that most of the route goes along the
bottom of a canyon, well below the residences. He said the path has a big advantage for people in
the Dianne Drive area to get to the town.
Resident, 25102 O’Keefe Street, supported C2.8 because O’Keefe Street is secluded from the
rest of Los Altos Hills and C2.8 made it easier to get to Town. He supported the concept of
C2.15.
John Mordow (???) Planning Commissioner, said the town has the right to build a pathway on
the side of any public road. He said showing pathways connecting to private roads was
misleading, and paths should not show on a map until the Town had a pathway easement on the
private roads.
Resident, 12804 Clauson Court, supported C2.3, C2.8, and C3.4B and other connections between
two cul-de-sacs.
Cindy McCall, 13151 West Sunset Drive, supported the idea of pathways such as C2.8 but did
not support the idea of publishing paths on private roads on a Town pathway map.
Dot Shriner, Saddle Mountain Drive, said the walking map would only show completed routes.
Gerald Scher, 25280 Contata Way, referred to C2.8A and expressed concern about the old
swimming pool along the pathway that is a hazard. He supported pathways. He supported the
concept of connecting Contata to O’Keefe without people walking across his property.
Chairman Vargas asked Mr. Scher to ask his neighbors whether or not they would like to see the
connection happen and if so how.
Ronald Chwang, 12800 Camino Medio Lane, referred to B2.5 A and B. He said when he
purchased his property in 1991, he was aware of the future pathway plan at the back of his
property. He said his property was developed with privacy and security in mind. His concern was
that the new alternate route gave a clear view to his kitchen, bedrooms, and swimming pool. He
opposed B2.5B because of privacy. He noted that the four residents wrote a letter objecting to the
current pathway coming to the Camino Medio cul-de-sac because of the short severe slope and
blind corner.
May Seto, 12800 Camino Medio Lane, referred to B2.5A and B and asked about liability in the
event of an accident on an easement.
Chairman Vargas said the Town is responsible for maintaining pathways.
May Seto referred to B2.5B and noted that on the eastside of her property the drainage created a
muddy area which was a safety issue. She was opposed to B2.5B because of privacy, topography
and safety issues.
Bert Rayfield (?), 12820 Viscaino Road, said he is a strong supporter of the idea of pathways and
agreed that B2.4A is very steep, close to two homes and should be removed. He supported the
B2.5B connection from Esperanza to Camino Medio.
Mary Lewis, 26427 Anacapa, referred to B1.6 and said there were no easements on the property
at the current time. Her concerns had to do with privacy and safety to people walking on the
pathway. The path was steep and muddy near the creek.
Alexander Wilson, 26875 Nina Place, spoke in opposition to B1.6 because of the steep terrain
which would be dangerous for humans and animals.
Duffy Price, 26435 Anacapa Drive, said the access was on a private road, and all the residents
opposed having the pathway initiated at that location. She added that the terrain was very steep
and the area was a natural habitat. Parking, safety, and security were concerns.
Chairman Vargas said the concept was to connect La Cresta to Anacapa and asked the residents
if there was a better way to make the connection. Residents were asked to email him with their
comments.
John Harpootlian, 26435 Anacapa, referred to B1.6 and expressed concern with the steepness of
the proposed pathway. He added that the residents wanted the wildlife habitat retained.
C. N. Pow, 26351 Esperanza Drive, said there was a utilities path behind his property that was
used by many people, and his concern was that his property would be surrounded on all sides by
paths. He suggested the Pathways Committee take that into account when placing paths so that
all the burden of paths is not put on one property.
Les Ernest clarified that pathway easements can be taken on private roads – the same as off road
paths at the time of development. He said the policy on getting the easements is established in
the Pathway Element of the General Plan.
Robert Beese, 12827 La Cresta Drive, said the proposed path, B2.27, runs down his driveway
about 10 feet from his house. He opposed B2.27 due to privacy and security issues.
Ruth Buneman, 12655 La Cresta Drive, referred to B2.7 and said there was a path marked that
follows her neighbor’s driveway. She said the pathway would involve steep hillside cutting, a lot
of earth removal and would cross the neighbor’s driveway. She opposed the B2.7 on the northern
side because of topography reasons but felt the southern side could work because of an existing
concrete ditch. She added that the path could be walked but was unsuitable for horses and
bicycles.
David J. Pilling, 12849 Canaria Way, opposed B2.2B and B2.2C because of the steep incline,
heavy foliage, and ability to put his car in his garage.
Mary Davie, 12645 La Cresta Drive, supported the path, B2.2B, concept for Los Altos Hills. She
supported the easement along her property and the potential of an easement or path and
supported the concrete path that children used to get down the hill to the former bus stop.
Parviti Dutta, 12600 Roble Ladera Road, said she had no problem with people using paths on
both sides of her property. The southern culvert was located on the private side of her property.
The proposed B2.27 did not impact her privacy but was very steep. She agreed that publishing
the paths on maps brought people to the paths.
Robert Nelson, 26005 Todd Lane, spoke in support of the pathway at the back of his property.
Stan Jensen, 13830 Campo Vista Lane, said the map showed a developed path but it was not a
path. He supported the C2.2 path.
Jean Danver, 13474 Robleda Road, supported C2.5 because Deerfield Drive needs the path for
children to get the school.
Chairman Vargas said the Committee’s goal was to get from Burke to Robleda and provide
access to the School. He said the Committee felt it might be redundant to have both C2.6 and
C2.5.
Ms. Danver said both paths could be useful for people on Deerfield.
Sonja Jensen, 13830 Campo Vista Lane, thanked the Pathways Committee for holding these
meetings and listening to the concerns of the community.
Resident said she was glad to see the restoration of C2.16. She said the path was steep but well
used.
Les Ernest spoke about the need for a connection across the freeway in the area around El
Monte. He said the problem was that El Monte provided an atrocious pathway connection
between both sides of the freeway. Pedestrians and equestrians have the choice of going along
the concrete median strip or along the side of the road where on/off ramps were hazardous to
cross. He noted there is a culvert under the freeway at the tip of the Town Open Space that
connects to Foothill College and has been used as a pathway for decades.
Patty Ciesla, 11990 Page Mill Road, said the culvert mentioned by Mr. Ernest connects O’Keefe
open space with Josepha. She said an effort to getting the connection useable for bicyclists and
walkers was a good idea.
Jolon Wagner, 26786 Robleda Court, thanked the Pathways Committee for the openness of the
meetings. She said off road connectors were essential to the pathway plan. She voiced concern
about the removal of C3.9.
Randy Harr, 14341 Miranda Way, said Miranda was a heavily walked street and questioned the
need for C.6.
Resident, 27580 Arastradero, spoke in opposition to B1.8 because of topography, steep ditch,
and existing pump station.
May Seto, 12800 Camino Medio Lane referred to B2.5A which was proposed for removal. The
residents preferred to keep B2.5A and not have the two alternate trails put in.
Jolon Wagner asked whether there was a way to offer homeowners an incentive for having
pathways on their property. She added that Real Estates agents have to take responsibility for
disclosing pathway possibilities.
Ginger Summit said she would like residents to suggest routes that might or might not make
sense.
The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.