Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal Minutes October 11LOS ALTOS HILLS PATHWAY COMMITTEE MEETING Minutes of October 11, 2004 Meeting 1A. MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER at 7:05 pm, 25890 Fremont Road, Multi-purpose Room B. Present: Chris Vargas (CV) Chairman, Nick Dunkel, (NK), Nancy Ewald (NE), Nancy Ginzton (NG), Mike Kamangar (MK), DuBose Montgomery (DM), Bob Stutz (BS), Jolon Wagner (JW) Absent: Ginger Summit (GS) Vice Chairman, Richard Cassam (DC) Also present: Ad-hoc Committee Member: Les Earnest, also Patti Ciesla Residents: Several present, names, below. C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Nancy E. asked to add an item to the Agenda regarding construction of pathway at 13481Mandoli Court. Chris V. suggests adding to end of agenda. Nancy G. wants to discuss the letter that went out to residents versus the e-mail version. CV suggested that this also be added to the agenda. Motion: To approve these two additions to the agenda at the end of the meeting (Items 4.D. and 4.E.); Second: Bob Stutz. Unanimous approval. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion made to move this item to end of meeting, seconded, and approved by all present. 3. Communications / 3.A. Presentations from the floor and 4. New Business / 4.B. Public Input appear to have been combined for this meeting. Chris V. asked all residents who planned to speak to only offer new comments or suggestions rather than to repeat what has already been submitted in letter or e-mail form to the Pathways Committee. He said that each speaker would be limited to 3 minutes in fairness to all. • Cluster 17: Emily Cheng 24595 Voorhees Drive read an e-mail to the committee concerning recommendations in the Vorhees area. • Al Stewart from 12165 Hilltop Lane said that he had built his home 29 years ago and built homes for others in the area. He wanted to know what the purpose of the path (D3.3) from Barley Hills road to Voorhees was supposed to accomplish. • Edward Munyak of 12184 Clausen Court spoke on road safety issues. Supported another route to see the beauty of LAH and for kids to walk to St. Nicholas School. Believes D3.1, D3.2 and D3.3 would be the only way to get all the way to Summerhill for a walking loop. • Cluster 18: Bill Jarvis, 23923 Jabil Lane, explained that he was recently new to this process and was surprised to get a map/letter that showed proposed pathways on all sides of his property. Spoke against D4.1 and 4.2. • Cluster 17: Mr. Traficante, 24615 Voorhees Dr. spoke against the need for children to walk to St. Nicholas school. • Cluster 18: Jean Chandler, 10571 Magdalena Road, is concerned about fire safety issues around D4.2. Also concerned that her property borders with a property where kids can congregate and the Sheriff can’t easily patrol. • Ursula Chan 10669 Magdalena Road, commented that while she does like pathways, in general, she did not want one near her property. • Anthony Chan, 10669 Magdalena Road, spoke, addressing concerns with D4.2. He saw no reason to have it. CV explained that paths are not being added and that the committee is mainly working with existing easements that link neighborhoods and other paths. • Cluster 17: Bill Silvers, 12580 Miraloma Way. States it was not disclosed to him that pathways were a possibility. He thinks that D3.2a is too steep, while D3.2b is viable and not too steep. He preferred D3.2b. He said that lot 24500 would be cut in half, if D3.2a were built and that wouldn’t be fair. • D. Schmickrath (sp?) 12510 Barley Hill spoke in support of D3.1. He said kids do go through the area, already, using the fire road at the end of Barley Hill. He said that the kids don’t like using El Monte and that they use an opening in the fence of St. Nicholas school to get there. • Jim Cantelli from 24098 Princess Elena Court commented on D3.6a that would run along his property. He is not interested in connecting their court to this trail and believes several neighbors agree. He suggested going down Magdalena to Dawnridge, instead. • Les Ernest said that D3.6 would provide a connector to the Hilltop path. He also recommended D3.3 and reminded the committee that some of the best paths are along off-road paths. He said that D3.2b is not as plausible because it is steep. • Emily Cheng, 24595 Voorhees Drive, spoke. This time about her property and the proposed pathways in the Voorhees area. She asked the St Nicholas parish positionon pathways; JW answered that they made it clear in a letter to LAH Council that they would remain neutral, and were not opposed to paths that would allow children to walk to school. Ms. Cheng reiterated that trails in the area may need environmental studies. She said that in 1978 when the subdivision was created the Council didn’t want a pathway along Vorhees. 4. NEW BUSINESS C. Recommendation on properties: (Action) Chairman reminded Committee and Residents that the Town Council provided basic questions to guide the Pathways Committee when making recommendations regarding Pathways. He read from those suggestions. Guidelines to keep or add a path: • The Pathway provides a connection to other pathways or roads. • The Pathway provides better/safer routes to public places than on road paths. • Safety: The Pathway provides access for Fire or Emergency services. Guidelines to remove a path: • Topography is too difficult to implement. • Pathway is redundant b/c another one exists in area to same destination. • Future path or an existing one would be superior to existing. However, existing path should remain until the future path is completed. • Pathway has become obsolete over time. CV concluded that the Committee needs to follow the guidelines. He suggested that we start with the changes and asked that if the committee’s position isn’t clear, that a committee member should ask for a straw poll. Notes on discussions: • Cluster 18: (D4.1 and D4.2) DM: Recommended removal because residents overwhelmingly don’t want it. MK: Residents are not happy and it’s not a major link. It is intrusive for 10669. BS: Prefers the ‘railroad track’ path. It is steep but switchbacks can be put in and it would be less intrusive to the lot at the end of Jabil. NG: Believes that D4.2 (railroad track section) would come very close to property #11210. D4.2 is a beautiful path that could connect to Fernhill. NE: Suggested that the Committee consider a variation on D4.2, which would follow the creek between Fernhill Dr. and Magdalena Rd. She thinks it would come out on Magdalena at about 10511. She does not want to lose proposed pathways (D4.2) without an alternate route on the map, though. NG: Would prefer to shift the path over closer to Fernhill. It makes more sense because it is wooded and offers more open area. Les: Reminder that lines can be drawn to either side of properties. JW: Not as concerned about which path is used and appreciates residents’ concerns and requests but wants to be sure there is still an off-road connector between these courts/roads (Frampton, Hooper, Jabil and/or Fernhill) to offer an alternative to using Magdalena. CV: Initially wanted a Frampton to Magdalena connection but after re-visiting believes D4.2 can be too steep & narrow to allow switchbacks. Also where it would come out on Magdalena isn’t safe. Doesn’t favor the ‘Jabil extension’. NE: Wants to remind us that these pathways are for our town and that the natural elements are worthwhile, too. NG: This trail (D4.2) is a very nice off-road section and that there aren’t very many in that area of town. DM: Wants to know what the reason for 1,2,3…? NG: Reminds us that not everyone is here that would like to support this connection. (Emily Cheng chimed in that “the Committee should respect the residents’ wishes”. CV: Asked that people please respect the process.) NG: Generally, when trails are finished and finally in use they are more appreciated. ND: Thinks the trail could be an effective link. CV: Would a straw poll help to consider whether to eliminate? Straw poll: For keeping D4.2 - DM, MK and CV ‘No’ NE: Wants a motion to keep D4.2 to connect to D4.1. DM: For what reasons, according to the guidelines? NE & JW: Reasons A & C (or 1 & 3 according to the way CV read it to us). “Provides a connection” and “Safety: Fire/Emergency Access” DM: Offers reason to remove: Redundant Path from Frampton. (?) CV: “ “ “ “ Privacy issue. (Was that one of the criteria?) Straw poll taken again: Results 4 votes in Favor - 4 Against Motion on ‘Jabil Extention’ (end of Jabil to D4.2) to be removed. BS: Seconds the Motion Vote results: 4 in favor, 2 opposed, 2 abstentions • Cluster 17: CV: Residents have asked what we are trying to accomplish with pathways in this area. There is no East/West conductivity but adequate pathways for North/South. The design goal is to create an East/West pathway. ND: There seems to be no way to connect using the proposed pathways. DM: There are reasonable roadside loops and he makes and argument that there is no need for any trails in this area. (He seemed to be referring to D3.1, D3.2, and D3.3.) MK: D3.3 and D3.2b would make a loop, if there are easements. NG: We do have the easements. CV: Since screening may not be possible, taking D3.1 off of Emily’s property and putting it onto 24500 Voorhees would be better. Patti C. showed the topography map perspective. NG: Perhaps removing the purple arrows would lessen the opposition to D3.1, d3.2b and D3.3? DM: 24700 Voorhees is where the ‘private’ portion of Voorhees begins. He suggested that maybe a pathway could go behind St. Nicholas School and then through the narrow lot, 12595 Miraloma Way, as a link from Voorhees to Miraloma Way. (Resident Al Traficanti agrees with this idea.) Patti C. shows us an aerial photograph of that lot and there appears to be a house on that lot so there is no way to add a pathway to an already small lot. JW: Doesn’t think St. Nicholas would agree to have a pathway going through school property. CV: Seems that we can’t resolve this tonight. NE: St. Nicholas would never allow public access onto school property. She thinks a path easement should be a possibility in the future on the larger lot, 24500 when it might be further developed or subdivided. Motion to recommend keeping Miraloma link (D3.1) to Voorhees using 24500 Voorhees property by shifting the proposed path along that property’s edge and have it link to 3.2b. (3.2b would be retained instead of shown as red.) For the southern portion, use 24602 Voorhees rather than 12169 Voorhees to continue to Barley Hill between 12468 and 12410 Barley Hill Road. This motion would also include removal of the two ‘stubs’ that are shown off of D3.3 and D3.2a (purple arrows). Motion was seconded and passed with 6 votes for 2 against and no abstentions. D3.6a Princess Elena Court CV: Does anyone disagree with keeping the path? MK: There is clearly a privacy issue. NG: 24140 (Between Princess Elena and Dawnridge) is better, if it is already an ‘in use’ path. (Apparently a doctor who owns this property allows neighbors to walk through.) BS: There needs to be a path on our (LAH) side of Magdalena. DM: 11891 and 24100 Magdalena will eventually have development, that’s when to put pathways in along Magdalena. NG: That could take years. JW: Checked the roadside path that is supposed to exist along Dawnridge and found none. While it is a fairly wide street, there were gardener’s trucks, construction trucks… parked on both sides and there was only asphalt, no pathway. She would prefer not to eliminate D3.6a unless there is assurance that the pathway along Dawnridge will be developed. NG: Residents along that street also have parking by permit only because of the church across Magdalena. She thinks the road could be roughened. BS: Agrees. NE: Motion to recommend eliminating D3.6a and the railroad track at the end, which would connect it to Dawnridge. Motion was seconded and passed with 7 votes for, none against, and 1 abstention. CV: What guideline are we using then to recommend this removal? DM: That D3.6A is a redundant trail w/ Dawnridge and that there are privacy issues. Same thing for the removal of D3.6b. CV: What guideline did we use for D3.1 Miraloma to Voorhees? Reasons A/B & C. No one spoke against D3.7, so it will remain on the map but we should be clear that there needs to be a wide easement (b/c of steepness?). D3.12 should be put on the property of 12135 Hilltop. Cluster 18: CV: D4.5 is where we lost part of our group for a while. Les: It is an old road right of way and can be kept. (Agreed) JW: This was where the attack geese got upset with us being there. D4.4 - Les: It is shown on the map as a road but it is a dirt road (with curbing). DM: Said he was surprised to find himself agreeing with Les about D4.4 easement. CV: Regarding D4.3, there was a letter from the Public Utility Easement that seemed to be against the easement being used as a trail. NG: It would serve as a good alternative to Magdalena and she offered to walk it to check it out. NE: Agreed to walk it with her on Friday Oct. 15th to verify that it connects. JW: Will join them because she isn’t familiar with this trail. It is agreed that they will all report back to the Committee at the next meeting. Cluster 5: CV: What about A2.15? NG: Has walked it. It is steep and there is a driveway with a drop-off. DM: It is a redundant path; it should be eliminated. (Not clear what other one was.) NG: Motion to eliminate A2.15. Seconded by NE. Six votes in favor, none opposed, two abstentions (not familiar w/ A2.15). CV: A2.2 was not opposed during public meetings. Les: B2.23 should not be eliminated. CV: B2.8, B2.9 and B2.10 are all redundant with A2.2, so we can recommend removal as shown. Proposal for B2.8 to be shown as arrows for future easement instead of red line. NG: Concerned about connecting to B2.6A. She also said that the realtors can’t disclose easements for potential paths if they aren’t designated on the map. CV: It would be possible for A2.2 to go between 13480 & 13466 North Fork Lane. B2.6A could be retained to continue a connection to Bird Lane and Natoma (B2.11?). DM: Left the meeting at 10:05 PM. CV: B2.6b and B2.11 should be kept. B2.23 is redundant with B2.24. (?) D. Clarification on spreadsheet. NG: The spreadsheet that was prepared went out in the mail on September 30th but the e-mail version was different because Cluster 2 and Cluster 8’s leaders were reversed. E. 13481 Mandoli Drive Pathway NE: Would like to see La Cresta linked in this way. Mr. Yang paid an in lieu fee. Trees were planted in the road right of way. He has agreed to move them but he doesn’t want the Town to damage his landscaping when putting in a path. She said that that the committee should act to encourage good faith agreements especially when an in lieu fee was already paid. It should be worked on before the rainy season. His property backs with a neighbor’s up to Arastradero Road. He was offended by how he was treated by the Town when told to take out the trees. NE believes it is necessary to act now to build this path. It would be 45 feet up on a bank and would follow the contour lines. The end of Mandoli Drive has an easement (B1.2) that connects with Palo Hills Drive and on to Fremont. CV: The capital improvement list is long and there are a lot of projects ahead that need action, too. Maybe someone should talk to Dave Ross to refresh the Top 5 or Top 10 projects on the list. NE: Either we need to build this trail or return Mr. Yang’s in lieu fee so that he can build it. Can we recommend that his in lieu fee be returned? CV: We can request that the in lieu fee to be refunded. All committee members agreed to this. CV said that NE is authorized to ask Dave (in writing) to attend to this and to give copies to Maureen and Chris, as chairman. Motion to adjourn. Passes, unanimously. 6. Meeting adjourned at 10:35 PM