Loading...
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.