HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal Minutes October 25LOS ALTOS HILLS PATHWAY COMMITTEE
Minutes, October 25, 2004, 6:00 p.m.
1. The meeting was called to order at 6:16 by Chairperson Chris Vargas.
Members present: Nick Dunkel (ND), Nancy Ewald (NE), Nancy Ginzton (NG), Mike
Kamangar (MK), Ginger Summit (GS), Chris Vargas (CV), Jolon Wagner (JW)
Absent: Dick Cassam, Dubose Montgomery, Bob Stutz
Pathway AdHoc Committee: Carol Gottlieb
C. The agenda was approved, with changes in presentation to accommodate members of the
audience.
2. Approval of minutes.
The minutes of the meetings of August 23, September 20 and October 11 were approved. The
minutes of public hearings held August 30, 31 and Sept 1 were approved unanimously.
3. Next meetings.
Next Master Path Plan walk: Nov. 13, 8:30 a.m.
Master Path Plan meeting: Nov. 15, 6:00 p.m.
Next regular pathway inspection walk: November 20, 8:30 a.m.
Next regular meeting: November 22, 6:00
4. New Business
A. Recommendations on properties
- 27361 Altamont Road (JFLP Partnership, 2 lot subdivision)Committee recommends the owner
construct a 5' wide IIB path separated from the road by a minimum of 5 feet.
- 24910 La Loma Court: This property is on a cul-de-sac which does not require pathway along
La Loma Court. However, property does have an existing pathway along the bottom edge of the
property which connects with Laura Court. This pathway is tentatively recommended for removal
from the new Master Pathway Plan, and no pathway construction is required. *Committee wants
to know if the town can require an in-lieu fee in this situation.
B. Administrative Support
Committee agrees that the task of taking and transcribing minutes is very difficult and time
consuming. CV asked town staff if a support person could be hired for this task.
Recommendation: It would be very expensive for an outside professional secretary to assume
this task, especially since s/he would not be familiar with the town or policies. Because Patty
Ciesla is familiar both with the town and the committee functioning, she would be an ideal
candidate. CV will inquire if she can be contacted for this job.
6. Unfinished business
NE brought up the question of property at corner of Mandoli Court and Arastradero. She
contacted the owner who had planted landscaping in the pathway and road right-of-way
easement. Owner indicated willingness to change landscaping and put in pathway, if town would
return the in-lieu fee.
7. Regular Business
No items listed on the agenda under 'Regular Business' were discussed at this meeting.
Recommendations for the Master Pathway Plan, Map Version 2
l. Complete discussion and recommendation for D4.2:
a. Resident: 24011 Jabil Lane: concerned about safety issue. Several years ago a pathway was
used as get-away in a theft of a home on Jabil Lane
b. Mrs. Nguyen, 23505 Fernhill: She is a single woman living at end of Fernhill. She has been
stalked by a laborer once in her employ, and is very concerned about public access in this
area. Also concerned about fire issue, since kids often light fires on empty lot at end of Jabil.
c. Resident, 24011 Jabil: Kids have used the lot at end of Jabil for parties and carousing. Fire
and safety issues.
d. Robin Joy, 25599 Fernhill. Likes existing path at end of Fernhill to Frampton Court. Does not
want to increase accessibility with extension to Magdalena (D4.2)
e. Bill Jarvis: 23923 Jabil Lane: Residents overwhelmingly want proposed path removed. Safety
and security main issues. Want to get Foothill and high school kids out of area.
Committee discussion:
a. NE: don't like position of current D4.2. However, would like to see a different route to provide
connection with Magdalena.
b. MK: this connector is not a major connector between cul-de-sacs or other assets. Not
necessary
c. ND: major objection by neighbors who would be the ones to benefit from this path. Therefore,
not necessary
d. JW: another alternative would be more desirable, but should locate alternative before
removing D4.2
e. CV: this connector opens onto Magdalena in a dangerous spot. Doesn't connect cul-de-
sacs, nor does it lead to parks, open space or schools. Therefore, with major objection from
neighbors, does not fit our protocol for new pathways.
Recommendation: Remove D4.2, and replace with arrows pointing from Fernhill to Magdalena,
indicating that an alternative route in this area is desirable.
2.Cluster 14: (access to Murietta Ridge Town Open Space)
CV explained that the goal is to provide access to trail system in Town Owned Open Space along
Murietta Ridge, between County parklands and homes along Moody Road. This area can be
reached through Rancho San Antonio pathway system, or by way of three access points from
Murietta (B4.3), Adobe Creek Lodge Road (B3.28), or Francemont (B3.30). Task is to find
appropriate routes.
a. Betty Kerns: 11888 Francemont: Four ways to get to lands through Rancho San Antonio,
which are all currently being maintained by the county. If access provided through town owned
lands, would be expensive to construct and maintain. By approaching area through Rancho,
route is relatively easy descent. Approach from Moody is very steep and unstable. Safety and
privacy are major issues with residents. Access from Moody is redundant with county access
routes through Rhus Ridge. Petitions signed by neighbors substantiate objection to routes from
Moody Road.
b. CV noted that committee walked this area led by Bill Kerns in May, and that everyone agreed
routes from Moody provided a good safe route to fire trails within town owned lands.
c. Art Benjamin, 11969 Murietta: provided handout, which illustrated several drainage
gulleys. Argued that soil is fragile, and erosion occurs regularly. Traffic would increase soil
disturbances.
d. Donna Young: 11913 Murietta: Former board member, Hidden Villa. Urge committee not to
consider this a possible potential access to Hidden Villa. Provided a letter from current director,
reiterating objection to entering Hidden Villa lands via this route. Raised question about best use
of the land: she thought this was designated a wildlife refuse, not a recreation area, and
therefore should not have path access.
e. CV: noted that the general plan states that Pathways Committee must provide access to open
spaces. Planning Commission can consider policy on making open space accessible.
f. Shari Emling, 11853 Murietta: She has talked with Hidden Villa, and they are against access
through proposed pathway on Murietta. No path on town-owned land may link to Hidden
Villa. When Murietta Ridge was established, it was proposed as a wildlife refuge only with no
public access. All accesses were eliminated in 196l.
g. Nancy Benjamin, 11969 Murietta: Pathway members are acting on personal wishes. It is more
important to respect views of the neighbors.
h. Melanie Burns, 119 Murietta: People walking on town owned lands are now using
unauthorized access. Paths are often not followed by walkers, who wander off looking for other
ingress/egress routes. Major parking issues on all three cul-de-sacs. Town should work to
improve Rhus Ridge access, not open new areas.
Committee recommendations:
NG: Murietta is not a good access point, because of drainage channel and steepness. Feels
Adobe Creek Lodge Road access is most desirable.
NE: Eliminate Murietta Road (B4.3) access, because of steepness and drainage issue. (Agreed
unanimously by committee) Retain access through B3.28. B3.30
CV: Of the four possible access points to town-owned lands, route from San Antonio is best.
NG: Retain B3.28, B3.30 subject to studies by civil engineering and environmental report for
erosion, parking and safety issues. Approved by committee, 6 approve, 1 against.
MK: Add access from Rhus Ridge path to Town Owned lands. (B4.4) Approved by committee: 4
approve, 1 against, two abstain.
Also recommend adjusting the line of path to more nearly reflect the existing fire road/path within
town owned land.
3. Complete recommendation for D4.3 (public utility easement off
Ravensbury): Unanimous approval of recommendation to add pathway easement along utility
easement.
4. Complete recommendations on proposed paths within Cluster 14
a. C3.7. Eliminate all proposed paths along 24990 La Loma-too intrusive to home. Unanimous
vote of committee.
b. C4.1. (La Loma to Laura Court, around southern edge of 25400 La Loma). Town already
holds easements for this pathway, and it is easy to construct. Land is not developed at this
time. Unanimous approval to keep.
c. C4.1b, C4.1d. These paths are alternative connection between La Loma and Laura
Court. With C4.1 in place, these are redundant. Unanimous approval to remove.
5.Cluster 2
a. A1.3a, A1.3c. Keep red (eliminate). These are intrusive on neighbors along Saddle Mountain.
b. In seeking the optimum connection between Saddle Mountain and A1.1, would like to move
path between properties 14321 and 14313 Saddle Mountain. This route is over a sewer access
line, does not impact neighbors' privacy (goes between garages, with plenty of space for
landscaping for privacy mitigation). Is a much shorter and less steep route than proposed A1.2
and A1.3c.
*Need to contact property owners of possible change.
d. B1.8: committee members expressed interest in reviewing this property again before voting for
final recommendation
e. A1.9. Retain easements (unanimous committee vote).
6. Cluster 8
a. B3.4b: recommendation to keep this route as best possible access to Packard lands if they are
developed. This route has less impact on neighbors than other possible routes. Unanimous vote
by committee.
b. Clarification of designations of pathways B3.26, B3.6b, B3.6c. Newest map version (10/11/04)
indicates changes from other maps. Should read: B3.26 is indicator of arrows from Altamont and
Old Snakey; B3.6b is lower half of diagonal property line going from Moody to Altamont. B3.6c is
upper half of diagonal property line, connecting to Altamont. B3.6a is arrows which indicate a
connection desired between Chapparral Road and the potential pathways B3.6b, c.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:00.
Respectfully submitted,
Ginger Summit, acting recorder