Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/26/2002`,, Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved 10/24/02 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION Thursday, September 26, 2002, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road cc: Cassettes (3) #08-02 ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Planning Commission regular meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Vitu, Commissioners Clow, Cottrell, Kerns & Wong Staff: Carl Cahill, Planning Director; Min-tze Cheng, City Engineer; Steve Mattas, City Attorney; Suzanne Davis, Acting Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR -none 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 AMENDMENT TO THE PATHWAY ELEMENT OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS' GENERAL PLAN FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED 2002 MASTER PATH PLAN (A REVISION OF THE 1981 MASTER PATH PLAN). REVIEW OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Carl Cahill gave the staff report on this item, noting that the current Pathway Map is 21 years old. He briefly described the process that was gone through for the Master Path Plan update. The Town Council held two study sessions on this. Those sessions and tonight's meeting were noticed Town -wide. There are three pathway types: Class 1, 2 and 3. Class 1 paths are off road paths that have easements granted for a complete route. Class 2 paths are off road paths where easements have been granted for less than the complete route. Class 3 are those pathways that are planned but not yet constructed. There are some Class 1 and 2 paths that are not necessary due to proximity of other paths in the area, steep terrain or because the area where a path was originally planned is inaccessible. Two tables have been provided in the staff report contrasting the 1981 and 2002 Master Path Plan Inventory. The result of the proposed plan is a reduction in the overall planned pathways. Eight miles of off road paths are planned. Regarding the section of the De Anza trail that will be within the Town, numerous paths are planned that will ensure the completion of the trail. The De Anza would be a regional trail and should be handled as a separate General Plan amendment. I LJ Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/24/02 September 26, 2002 Page 2 Jody Starbird, David Powers & Associates, environmental consultant, stated that the letters that have been received have been reviewed, and no significant impacts have been identified. She explained what constitutes a significant impact and discussed thresholds of significance. The greatest potential for environmental impacts are proposed off road paths. Conservation easements and Town regulations would prohibit paths along property lines. Removal of off road pathways from the Master Plan would not affect any emergency access routes. Since there is no specific construction proposed, there are not any recommended mitigation measures at this time. Technical studies would be prepared at such time that any of the four major projects move forward. Chair Vitu explained that the public hearing will be divided into three categories due to conflicts of interest for two Commissioners. 1. Discussion of pathways in Commissioner Cottrell's conflict of interest area (Commissioner Cottrell stepped down for this discussion). North Fork Lane, Sections 2A and 2B: Public Hearing opened. John Dukes, 27283 Lupine Road, said this path is closed to the area where he lives. He does not want to see the path removed. Chris Vargas, 13825 Templeton Place, said there does not seem to be an environmental reason to remove the path. Carl Cottrell, 14480 Three Forks Lane, said the proposed path does not follow the topography at all, and is not a practical path. Steve Bristow, 12355 Hilltop Drive, clarified that the red lines are paths that have easements. He does not understand why paths need to be removed when they are not costing the Town anything Nancy Ewald, 26131 Altadena Drive, Pathway Committee member, wondered if the path is currently accessible. Brian Robinson did an inventory of all paths in the Town. His assessment of whether a path is blocked was based on whether he could get through or not; he did not go beyond gates or fences. The Pathway Committee did not go out and look at all of the paths in question, so in some ways they voted on this blindly. Several members were not present when the vote was taken. She suggested walking some of the proposed easements to see if they are indeed inaccessible before giving up the easements that are already in place to accommodate future pathways. Twinkie Lyman, 13770 Wildflower, protested the process. She said the pathway connects three cul-de-sacs. She does not understand the rush to get this done. 4 Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/24/02 September 26, 2002 Page 3 Ginger Summit, 13110 Lenox Way, reiterated what Nancy Ewald said. Many people did not understand what they were voting on. The Planning Commission should not get rid of Town owned easements without physically viewing them. She urged the Commission to be responsible. DuBose Montgomery, Pathway Committee Chair, said that they have been at this for over a year. The "paths" being considered for deletion are not actual paths. Denise Williams, 25462 Altamont Road, asked why, if there is not a path, are we getting rid of the easement? Richard Lampartner, 12864 Viscaino Road, said that where no easements exist, there are only ideas on paths that are not yet there. The Town has a network and a concept on how to put together a pathway system. To destroy this infrastructure is an obstructive objective of a few people in Town. The Sheriffs Department says there is no evidence of security issues related to pathways. Privacy issues have also been raised as a concern. Purchaser's of property knew what they were buying when they came into Town. Jolon Wagner, 26786 Robleda Court, said that as elected officials, the Commission has the responsibility to represent the residents. The pathways are a community asset and should be preserved. She asked that these treasures not be taken away. Kay Sasaki, 12922 Tripoli Court, said that Brian Robinson was hired by the Town. He doesn't have a stake in this like the residents do. She has felt corralled and maneuvered during the process. She wants to slow the process down and allow the Town voices to be heard. Dan Alexander, 27200 Elena Road, feels very strongly that if a show of hands was taken, a great majority of the people here would not be in favor of losing pathways. Thirty years of effort has gone into this and it is a shame to throw away all of that time and effort by closing paths and giving back easements. Sandy Humphries, 26238 Fremont Road, feels that Commissioners should not be voting on paths they have not seen. Mike Wagner, 26786 Robleda Court, is a runner who likes to explore all parts of the community. He lives on a cul-de-sac and has an off road path on his property. He sees his neighbors walking it and supports connection of cul-de sacs. Paul Weiss, 13130 Byrd Lane, said the proposed path at end of Byrd Lane has an extremely steep grade and a pathway could not be built there. The slope is at least 45 degrees in that location. Nobuko Cleary, 26410 Silent Hills Lane, said some people feel that personal property rights 4 outweigh the good of the community. She feels this is wrong. Paths are used by children and Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/24/02 September 26, 2002 Page 4 others. Pathways are also good for emergency purposes. The Pathway Element should remain as it is. Carol Gottlieb, 24290 Summerhill Road, provided some history on the recent lands of Mendez application. Part of the path from Byrd Lane may not be buildable, but the lower section can definitely be constructed. It is a beautiful path and should be maintained. Deiter Ewald, 26131 Altadena Lane, said he would like to get the nuts and bolts. If the Town has suffered on a tax basis and is going to give land back, it should get something back. There ought to be some money coming back for grants that were made in the past. Public Hearing Closed. Commissioner Clow said he believes the Pathway Committee spent considerable time on the plan. He did not hear many comments on the pathways in this area specifically. He can support the recommendation to forward this to the Council. Commissioner Wong said the mission today is to discuss specific pathways. He supports what Commissioner Clow said. Commissioner Kerns concurred. Three of these pathway segments are not within easements. They did go through a thorough evaluation. Janet Vitu concurred. Three paths do not have easements, there is already a connector between cul-de-sacs. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Kerns, seconded by Commissioner Clow, to support the recommendations of the Pathway Committee for Sections 2A and 2B. AYES: Chairman Vim, Commissioners Wong, Clow & Kerns ABSTAIN: Commissioner Cottrell NOES: None 2. Discussion of pathways in Commissioner Kerns' conflict of interest area (Commissioner Kerns stepped down for this item) Francemont Road, Section B-4: Carl Cahill stated that the green line remains an emergency access easement as proposed Dot Schreiner, 14301 Saddle Mountain Drive, referred to the 19 page letter sent to the Commissioners by the attorney for the Committee for the Preservation of Los Altos Hills. The environmental review process was not adequate. She read the conclusions of the letter; that the Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/24/02 September 26, 2002 Page 5 4 proposed amendments are in conflict with CEQA. There was a very clear nexus when the Kerns pathway was required. Bob Stutz, 25310 Elena Road, commented on the Gaither property. One domicile was permitted on that property at the time of the subdivision. If no house was built on the upper site, the dirt road was to be used to connect to Windmill Meadows. If a house was not built on the upper site, there could still be a connection through the lower part of the property. The Town has been looking for connections through this area. Precluding pathway access through there is cutting off access. Scott Vanderlip, 13151 Fremont Pines Lane, was on the Pathway Committee at the time the Kerns application came through and they were very supportive of the pathways at that time. A great solution was worked out and the Kerns indicated that they liked to pathway so much that they planned to put in a bench. It is unfortunate that they have changed their minds. The alternate is unbuildable, Patty Cieslo, 11900 Page Mill Road and County Parks Commissioner, stated that the pictures she submitted are of existing trails. They are passable; she just walked them on Saturday. She came in from Adobe Creek Lodge Road. The home on Adobe Creek Lodge Road traded an easement for the original one that was in the location of the house. This is a possible location for the De Anza Trail. She noted that the map she provided shows the disconnect between the two existing 4L portions of pathway. With a minor encroachment, it would be a reasonable to provide a W connection. An easement is needed to complete the trail. She would like to see the paths remain on the plan. If the easements aren't needed for the De Anza Trail, they can be given back at a later time. Nancy Ewald, 26131 Altadena Lane, provided some background and said that if the green line trail is eliminated, there will not be access to the adjacent equestrian and pedestrian area. Steve Bristow, 12355 Hilltop Drive, said anything that gives better access to the open space preserve should be maintained. The process has not allowed for adequate public input. He recalls that Brian Robinson only walked pathways that he could see, that he did not go where there were fences or blocked paths. Denise Williams, 25462 Altamont Road, has a pathway that goes through her yard. Regarding the pathway that goes through the Kerns property, she walks her dog and cannot go into Mid - Peninsula open space, and that path provides an alternative route that is usable. Karen Chung, 13800 Robleda Road, said the only access to Rancho San Antonio is via Rhus Ridge Road and it is very narrow and really unsafe. If the trail must be eliminated, the Rhus Ridge access should be improved. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/24/02 September 26, 2002 4 Page 6 Bill Kerns, 11888 Francemont Drive, said the path that goes down through Rhus Ridge does connect to Windmill Ridge and Rancho San Antonio. His property is only the area shown with a red line, not the green line. The path would go within 10 feet of the master bedroom. He is in support of the Pathway Committee's recommendation to eliminate the pathway. Liz Goodman, 11989 Rhus Ridge Road, said the easement belongs to the Town. It is an access, and should not be disposed of without actual due process. Richard Lamparter, 12864 Viscaino Road, noted that he is hearing conflicting comments. He knows how steep the trail on Rhus Ridge is, and is able to go up it. He questioned how the Commission can even vote on this when there are not facts based on personal experience before it. He feels that there is a railroad going through. Chris Vargas, 13138 Templeton Place, noted that most people are saying that these pathways should be maintained. He finds it hard to understand why anyone would build their master bedroom right next to a known pathway easement. Residents are saying that they want this path to stay. Please listen to that and make the appropriate decision. Carol Gottlieb, 24290 Summerhill Drive, supports keeping easements. She asked that the Commission not vote to give it up until the best location for the trail is determined. Please keep the easements until it is known how pathway connections can be made. The trails are treasures and they should be maintained. Mont Williamson, 12012 Adobe Creek Lodge Road, said he moved here because of the attitude here in this room. People sincerely care about this Town. He bought his property with the understanding that there would not be a trail on his land. Pat Cieslo came to his property with the attitude of trying to put in a trail with the least amount of impact. It is important that there are different views and due process is important. Commissioner Clow stated that he is very upset about the clearcutting that was done on the Williamson property. It was contrary to what was approved by the Commission. He said he would like to discuss this with Mr. Williamson after the meeting. Beverly Wohlfort, 27060 Appaloosa, said that some people who testified during the Temple Beth -Am hearing aren't here tonight as they though their comments were made then. The pathways are a whole system and it should be kept intact. She asked for clarification on the green line (it is not on the Kerns property). Cut Cahill showed the paths in question on the map and answered questions from the Commission. Ginger Summitt, 13390 Lenox Way, said it looks like that area is landlocked and there is not potential for connection. The Marietta path was previously eliminated. The Kerns pathway was 4W eliminated at the request of the Kerns. There needs to be access to the open space area. She asked that the Commission not vote on it until they have seen it. That would mean blocking Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/24/02 September 26, 2002 Page 7 access to 75 acres of Town owned open space. She urged the Commissioners not to rush to judgment until they have physically seen the area. DuBose Montgomery, Pathway Committee Chair, said that there are very good reasons for eliminating the path on the Kerns property including privacy and security. Steve Kelem, 26323 Esperanza Drive, said the Commission and Council has this attitude of listening to what we (residents) say, then smile and ignore us. This is going against the will of the majority of residents who support pathways. This clearly needs further study. Need to keep the lines on the map until a full study is done and you have the consensus of the residents, property owners. Scott Vanderlip, 13851 Fremont Pines Lane, said the one thing looked at with the Pathway Committee was a compromise that eliminates security and privacy issues while still providing access to the open space. Patty Cieslo, 11900 Page Mill Road and County Parks Commissioner, explained that a trail behind the Williamson house could be uphill from the home. It might require a small part of the Kerns property. The Town needs to keep the options open. John Dukes, 27783 Lupine Road, noted that Mr. Kerns is running for Council, and he thinks it would be a wonderful gesture if he would agree to try to work out a solution to provide a pathway. Jolon Wagner, 26280 Robleda Road concurs with Mr. Dukes said. She disagrees with what Mr. Montgomery has said. It is contrary to what the Pathway Committee is all about — to protect and maintain the pathway system. Bill Kerns, 11880 Francemont Drive, commented that what Scott Vanderlip was proposing, to have a path at the lower curve, would be very hard to due to steep slopes and numerous trees. Many of his neighbors would not be happy if he agreed to allowing a pathway in this location. Portions of the asphalt driveway get up to 25% and it is dangerous for horses. Public Hearing Closed. Commissioner Cottrell is hearing that there is room for compromise here. Parks Commissioner Pat Cieslo sees an area for an alternative path. We're heating different testimony about where paths are located. The easement on the Kerns road is on a private road. He would like to recommend that the Council look for a compromise. Commissioner Wong asked about the statement that paths need to be walked before a decision is made on whether to keep it, delete it or modify it. 4W City Attomey Steve Mattas said that it is not required that the Commissioners walk all of the pathways before making a decision on the General Plan Amendment. 4 Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/24/02 September 26, 2002 Page 8 Commissioner Wong said that the people who really care about the paths are homeowners. This is a biased situation. When he makes a decision it will be based on facts. Comments on whether you like the pathway system or not is not relevant. The Commission is being asked to make a judgment based on input from staff and Town Committees. If he didn't care about what people are saying he wouldn't be here tonight. The path on the Kems property is not relevant and should not be there. Commissioner Clow commented on the statements about rushing to make a decision. The process has taken months to go through. He has walked many of the paths and trails in this area. There is existing access back there. The comments on a CEQA violation does not make sense to him. There is not an environmental impact when paths have not yet been built. He confirmed what Mr. Kems said, that the upper part of the path is not on the 1981 map. The alignment is also not shown on the County map. He sees no reason not to accept the recommendations from the Council study session. The Rhus Ridge alignment is quite adequate to access outlying trails and open space areas. Commissioner Cottrell said it doesn't appear that much of an easement would be needed to provide access to the open space preserve. Chair Vitu said that the 1986 Pathway Element called for an update to the Master Path Plan. f Regarding the Kems pathway, she has hiked it, it is very steep and she believes that it is obtrusive to the Kems. MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: by Commissioner Clow to include in the final recommendation to eliminate the red line pathway on the Kems property. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Wong. AYES: Chair Vita, Commissioners Cottrell, Wong & Clow ABSTAIN: Commissioner Kerns NOES: None MOTION (FAILED DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND): by Commissioner Cottrell to recommend to the City Council that a means be found to connect to the open space easement utilizing the existing pathway easements and possibly adding easements for short connectors. (10 minute break) Public Re -opened. Chair Vitu said that the public may speak on any aspect of the plan at this time Liz Goodman, 11989 Rhus Ridge Road, said that her neighbor at 25000 Bassett spoke against having the path eliminated at the Council study session. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1024/02 September 26, 2002 Page 9 Connie Frenzel, 13311 Country Way, said there are two pathways by her property. One looks directly into her daughter's bedroom and their kitchen, and they are fine with that. She does object to the green line shown on her property as it is would be very obtrusive (about four feet from the deck) and would be a third pathway. She submitted a petition signed by her neighbors in support of the removal of this path. She pointed our that there is another access to the pathway system at Country Way and Three Forks. The blue line path is also unneeded. It is on a narrow, private road and is redundant. Chris Vargas, 13138 Templeton Place, said his family has two pathways on their property. He feels he has a right to comment on a situation that is the same as his. There are some pathways that can be eliminated because they are redundant and aren't needed. However, shutting down paths for a few biased property owners is not right. Roadside paths are basically sidewalks. To remove 80% of the off road paths is detrimental to the community. He resubmitted a letter he gave to the Town Council supporting pathways. Pathways do not belong only to those whose properties they touch. The current recommendation is based on what a few people want. The Town needs to come up with a more balanced proposal. Steve Bristow, 12355 Hilltop Way, lives near Barley Hill. If the Commission accepts the Pathway Committee recommendation, it will have broken the pathway connection. The only way to get places is by streets. If you accept these recommendations, we are in the sidewalk business. Should not be rewarding people who have destroyed pathways. The map has errors on it. He requested that recommended removals in that quadrant not be accepted. Scott Overstreet, 22300 Encinal Court, commented on the southerly most green path on the map (Encinal Court). Encina] Court is a private road that he and two neighbors maintain and it serves only four residents. He requested that it be removed from the map as it would not serve six or more properties. Trying to construct a pathway on this road would be very difficult due to steep slopes, and it would not connect to anything. The private road is not currently used by the public. Ed Radlo, 28240 Elena Road, lives in Section 2B. There is an easement on his property. He and his wife Patty would like to have the easement removed. He stated four concerns: privacy, security, the location traverses a very steep portion of the site, and potential loss of noise abatement. There are numerous trees and bushes shielding his property from 280 and construction of a pathway would require removal of this vegetation. Nancy Ginzton, 28012 Natoma Road, provided copies of a letter she sent at the end of July. She grew up in the Hills and used a number of shortcuts. She donated a 10 foot easement about a year and a half ago in hopes that the pathway that was once along her property would be reinstated. There is also an easement on the adjacent property. She attended the first Beth -Am meeting and felt she was a lone voice. There are eight parcels involved. Four neighbors are in support including Alexander and Wang, and two are neutral. The pathway is slated for Q elimination. With the property owners being generally in support of this, she would like it the Ar. path to be on the Master Pathway Plan. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10124/02 September 26, 2002 Page 10 Terry Masada, 14313 Saddle Mountain Drive, spoke of concerns about two pathway easements that would affect her parcel. That would mean a total of three easements surrounding her property, and would pose a security problem. Sophia Huang, 27580 Arasradero Road, said she and her husband Paul Huang are requesting deletion of a path along 280 and the back of their property. She supports the path along Arastradero Road. She objects to the path along lot 6 due to its unusual shape, and because it will be intrusive. The cost to construct this pathway will be extremely high and will require extensive grading. Adequate pathways already exist in the area. Henry Ahumada, 27690 Arastradero Road echoed Mrs. Huang's comments. He objects to a pathway on the Huang property (lot 6). Anne Spencer, 24790 Sherlock Court, section 3A, is concerned about placing pathways on a private road and who will be liable in the event of an accident. City Attorney Steve Mattas explained that a pathway being shown on the map without an easement is a private liability (road owners). Once there is an easement and a path is maintained by the Town, the liability shifts to the Town. John Dukes, 27783 Lupine Road, addressed the people concerned about privacy. He said the trails are wonderful fun and they might enjoy them. He and his wife use the off road trails daily for running, walking and chatting with neighbors. His son used the paths to get to the Little League field when he was younger. He is very saddened that the majority of the Pathways Committee does not use the off road trails. He stated two concerns: (1) the map is rife with errors; and (2) two study sessions is not adequate to address the issues. The public notice says that no paths will be eliminated, and that is inaccurate. If the majority of the Town believes that the paths should remain, that should be the determining factor. Ginger Summit, 13390 Lenox Way, addressed a path in Section 3C. It goes from Ohlone Court down to the quarry. There is apparently no easement where one was supposed to have existed. The path indicated in red (`low road") would be very tricky to construct. The upper dotted line ("high road") would be much easier to construct. Don't get rid of the dotted line until you know what you have. It is essential to have a loop down to Kate Drive. This is just one example of the errors that exist on the map. Anne Raphael, 12820 Viscaino Road, would like to keep the easement down to Esperanza Drive even though it is steep. Jolon Wagner, 26786 Robleda Court, said she appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Town pathways. She spoke on the behalf of Tay Vanderlip, 13851 Fremont Pines Lane, who cannot be here tonight. She read a letter from Ms. Vanderlip stating that there are numerous paths on the 1981 map that are not on the 2002 map. This is effectively removing many miles of paths that are not addressed in the Negative Declaration. In addition, there are many errors and %W omissions on the 2002 map. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/24/02 September 26, 2002 4 Page 11 Michael Wagner, 26786 Robleda Court continued reading the letter from Tay Vanderlip, and concluded that there are enough errors in the map to make the study incomplete. Nancy Ewald, 26131 Altadena Lane, said that today she and Carol Gottlieb walked a path in Section 2B that is shown in gold for the lower part and red for the upper part. With minimal brush removal that area could be in use. She would like to see the path looked at more carefully before it is eliminated. This is just one example of a path easement that she would like to see remain. Marty Wank, 28008 Natoma Road, said he is generally for pathways, but he realizes that there are sometimes reasons to eliminate them. Nancy Ginzton spoke about this earlier. In Section 2B, there is a path that connects Natoma and Elena Roads. The people in that area are either in support of it or neutral. He walked it earlier this week and it is passable and there are no obstructions. If it is eliminated, it will encourage fencing and the deer will not have passage. He strongly recommends that this particular pathway easement be maintained. Peter Evans, 25259 Elena Road, said paths provide a number of benefits. If the Commission supports this plan, it is with the knowledge that it is not consistent with the General Plan. Jim Downey, 26000 Newbridge Road, said off road pathways are different that roadside paths or sidewalks. They are through scenic areas. Replacing off road paths with 10 miles of sidewalks is not adequate compensation. To proceed with inadequate review and being inconsistent with the General Plan is not appropriate. That would be giving away the Town assets and eliminating an important Town feature. He asked that the Commission please make the compromises that need to be made on individual segments, but within the overall spirit of the plan Steve Kelem, 26323 Esperanza Drive, talked about the blue loop that is Esperanza Drive (section 213). The yellow dotted line is there. Paths are needed for emergency evacuation and recreation. Carol Gottlieb, 24290 Summerhill Avenue, objected to discrepancies and errors on the new map. She mentioned several paths that are needed and emphasized that they should not be lost. Sandy Humphries, 26238 Fremont Road, urged the Commission to be careful with the environment and to give careful consideration to decisions on pathways. Anthony Koo, 26431 Elena Road, strongly agrees with the recommendation to remove the path in his front yard, and the other path on the steep slope. Nobuko Cleary, 26410 Silent Hills Lane, said that she and her husband own the adjacent one acre lot. Her neighbor Nancy Horton said that there is supposed to be a connection to Altamont Road. It is a beautiful space. They bought their lot from the Eshners who provided an open space/conservation easement so that it would be preserved. 4 Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/24/02 September 26, 2002 Page 12 4 Karen, 13880 Robleda Road, spoke about the paths in the O'Keefe Road area. The off road path between Natoma and Elena is really beautiful and should be kept the way it is. There are a number of paths shown on the pathway map currently being used that aren't on the 2002 map. Dan Alexander, 27200 Elena Road, said that the path Nancy Ginzton spoke about should be kept. He asked that the Town not throw away those easements as they could be used in the future. The plan as proposed is seriously flawed and should not be acted on. It should go back to the Pathway Committee for additional work and return in a form that will be more acceptable to the Town residents. Kay Sasaki, 12922 Tripoli Court, spoke about the dotted line section on Section 3B connecting to the purple line on Natoma Road, and the section from Altamont Road to Taaffe Road that ends in a solid red line. She spent several hours studying it. She was not able to get through the entire area due to gates. Traffic on Taaffe Road is dangerous and she would like consideration given to keeping the path along the lots on Taaffe. It is a lovely area and parts of it are along a creek. The dotted line that connects to Natoma Road is also a lovely area. She asked about paths being designated as scenic trails. Dot Schreiner, 14301 Saddle Mountain Drive, apologized for getting the 19 page letter from the attorney for the Committee for the Preservation of Los Altos Hills to the Commission so late. They did not get the Initial Study until two weeks ago. The 2002 map does not show what is ( remaining once the easements proposed to be eliminated are taken off. The Committee's `r+ position is that the Initial Study is invalid and an FIR should be prepared. The proposed project would contradict the Circulation Element resulting in an internal inconsistency. On road and off road paths are not interchangeable. There will be a decrease of 15 miles of off road paths with the proposed plan. That will be a circulation impact. Elimination of 89 easements is substantial. Connecting arrows shown on earlier map are not shown on the 2002 map. All issues need to be reviewed and properly addressed. Bob Stutz, 25310 Elena Road, said he and his wife have been involved in Town Pathways since the 1960's. He questioned allowing people to decide whether they want to give a path or not. He has the feeling that the current majority on the Pathway Committee is there to destroy the pathway system. Scott Vanderlip, 13851 Fremont Pines Lane, would like to see the process slowed down. The map is filled with discrepancies that have not been addressed. He noted some paths that are existing, but are not shown on the map. There are 50 connection arrows on the 1981 Master Path Plan that have been deleted. Bill Owen, 26435 Voorhees Drive, lives in Section 2B. The path shown on Voorhees Drive is on a private road and the residents do not want to see it made public. There are such things as private property rights. The new pathways map has resulted in additional people trespassing on Voorhees Drive. Please recognize the private property rights of the residents on Voorhees Drive ♦r and eliminate the paths shown there Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/24/02 September 26, 2002 Page 13 Patty Cieslo, 11990 Page Mill Road, noted that she lives in Town as well as being the County Parks Commissioner for this area. The scenic route proposed for deletion between Natoma and Elena Roads (Section 3D) should be preserved. It is important to retain an open wildlife corridor. The trail that goes into the Matadero Creek drainage can be eliminated since there is a parallel path. There are some paths proposed for removal that should be reconsidered. She would like this taken back to the Pathway Committee so they can work directly with residents and make sure the map is accurate. She noted several errors on the map including one at the end of Ursula Lane. The route for the De Anza trail is very important. Malcolm Clark, 26135 Altadena Drive, referred to a path between Snell Court and Altadena (Section 1C). It is shown as an undeveloped path, but it is actually there. He constructed part of the path years ago as part of a project he did no his property. He urged the Commission to get the map correct before eliminating any easements. Jolon Wagner, 26786 Robleda Court, said pathways accommodate people, horses and cyclists, and the off road paths are especially important for their safety. Incorrect information on the map will invite lawsuits. This should be voted on by the Town residents. She asked that the Commission please act responsibly. DuBose Montgomery, Pathway Committee Chair, said that the new map is more accurate than the 1981 map. It was carefully reviewed. It is impossible to please everyone when it comes to pathways. He noted that there are 62 miles of paths in a Town that covers 8.4 square miles. That equates to eight miles of paths for every square mile of Town. In addition, there are paths in adjacent open spaces such as Rancho San Antonio and Arastradero Preserve. He reiterated that no existing path is recommended for removal. Pong Ng, representing the owner of 13310 La Paloma Road (Section 2C), stated that property owners are required to pay a fee for paths. There is a proposed path over very steep terrain across La Paloma. The property owner he represents supports elimination of this path as recommended by the Pathway Committee. Louis Sasaki, Jr., 12922 Tripoli Court, spoke about the use of Town pathways by cross country runners from Los Altos and Gunn High Schools. He appreciates the use of the paths and asked the Commission to please consider that. Breene Kerr, 27261 Sherlock Road, said there are still a number of inconsistencies on the map. A group walk would be good. He asked if the Commission can go out and walk these areas before voting to eliminate them. The issues that have been raised tonight should be addressed. Public hearing closed. Chair Vito asked for the City Attorney's opinion on the letter challenging the Negative Declaration. Steve Mattis answered that if the recommendation is for adoption, the letter will be 4 addressed prior to the matter being forwarded to the Council. Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/24/02 September 26, 2002 Page 14 In response to a question from Chair Vitu, Carl Cahill clarified that the scenic trail designation is found only on the 1983 map. Chair Vito asked about the numerous comments about the accuracy of the map. Min-tze Cheng, City Engineer, said that the June 2002 map was the subject of the two Council study sessions. Information from residents was researched. For example, input was received from a property owner about West Sunset (purple line) and it was taken off since there is not an easement. The path between Snell Lane and Kingsley was also researched based on input from a resident, and it was discovered that the Council approved a request to remove the easement. A path was required along Kingsley Way instead. Carl Cahill advised that an easement was required to be granted with a project at 27581 Elena Road. The portion of the trail on the Mendez property should be orange as there is not yet an easement. Min-tze Cheng said that orange line should be red on the path between Esperanza Drive and Viscaino Road. Commissioner Clow said the number of details on the map is fantastic. Requested changes all have to be researched. The City Engineer has been very responsive and the map she has created is the best we have had. He doesn't think pathways will reduce fencing; in fact they sometimes 4 encourage fencing. It's important to put a comment on the map stating that identification of an off road path does not guarantee the right to use it until appropriate easements have been granted. He proposed an addition of two path segments on Esperanza to provide emergency access between there and Town Hall. On lot 6 of the Arastradem subdivision, he recommends not taking that easement. The Voorhees Road path is not wanted by St. Nicholas School or the neighbors, and he recommends removal of the orange segment. Commissioner Wong agreed with Commissioner Clow on the accuracy of the map. There will be on-going changes. The map can be used to advise the Council in recommending adoption. Some of the comments have not been correct and the abutting neighbors have not been considered. He concurs with the recommendations of Commissioner Clow. Commissioner Cottrell said there are extremes in Town. Some people would prefer a path on every lot and some would prefer no pathways. He thinks the errors in the map should be corrected before this is forwarded to the Council. That would result in a repeat performance of what has occurred tonight. The Pathway Committee should address these issues. If the owners of private roads do not want pathways, they shouldn't be there. There needs to he a process for taking pathways to the Council and a plan should be created. He urged a continuation. Commissioner Kerns said there are many off road pathways that pose privacy and security problems. Many of the paths proposed for removal are redundant and aren't needed. He thinks the Pathway Committee has done an excellent job. Brian Robinson walked the entire Town 4 pathway system. This map is far more accurate than the 1981 Master Path Plan. Many Town residents are concerned about privacy and safety. He supports the map. The map can evolve Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/24/02 September 26, 2002 Page 15 4W over time. Anyone who has an issue can request that the Pathway Committee review it. There is a requirement to update the Master Path Plan. He supports removal of the paths on Arastradero Road lot 6 and on Voorhees Drive along the private road. The Encinal Court green path should be removed. The property at 14313 Saddle Mountain Road has paths on three sides. He suggests removing the path along the bottom part of the property and along part of the side of the property, but leaving the red along the back of the property. The green segment on Country Way should be removed. He is not supportive of reinstating the connection of the path between Natoma and Elena Roads. Chair Vitu agrees with fellow Commissioners on the accuracy of the map. The Town needs to update the Master Path Plan and the problem areas can continued to be corrected. The changes that should be made include those mentioned by Commissioner Kerns. She supports adding the trail between Natoma and Elena Roads if it is wanted by the residents. FIVE CONSECUTIVE MOTIONS SECONDED AND PASSED: Motions by Commissioner Clow to remove the following paths from the Master Path Plan: • Voorhees Road orange segment over the private road (seconded by Commissioner Kerns) • Lot 6 Arastradero Road orange segment (seconded by Commissioner Wong) • Saddle Mountain Road, non -red portions (seconded by Commissioner Wong) • Country Way green segment while retaining emergency access status (seconded by Commissioner Wong) Encinal Court green line (seconded by Commissioner Wong) THE FIVE MOTIONS ALL PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Chair Vita, Commissioners Cottrell, Wong, Clow & Kerns ABSTAIN: None NOES: None MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: by Commissioner Clow to add red line paths on Esperanza in two locations for recreational use and emergency access (orange if there are no easements): east from Esperanza to Town Hall and from Esperanza to the utility easement. AYES: Commissioners Clow, Cottrell & Wong ABSTAIN: None NOES: Chairman Vint, Commissioner Kerns MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow, seconded by Commissioner Kerns to add text to bottom of map stating that identification of roadside paths on private roads does not indicate that easements are present (City Attorney to approve final wording). 4W Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2002 Page 16 4W Approved 10/24/02 AYES: Chairman Vitu, Commissioners Cottrell, Wong, Clow & Kems ABSTAIN: None NOES: None MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Kems, seconded by Commissioner Clow, that the Pathway Committee establish a process for correction of errors and update of the map in the future. The Committee should develop a mechanism for updating the map based on input from staff and residents and return with a recommendation. AYES: Chair Vitu, Commissioners Clow, Kems, Cottrell & Wong ABSTAIN: None NOES: None MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow, seconded by Commissioner Kerns to investigate the Edgerton Road purple line prior to forwarding the map to the Council. AYES: Chair Vita, Commissioners Clow, Kems, Cottrell & Wong NOES: None ABSTAIN: None 4 MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow, seconded by Commissioner Kems, to adopt the Resolution to adopt the Negative Declaration and to amend the General Plan Pathway Element Master Path Plan with the following changes: 1. Reflect the votes for bifurcated properties. 2. Remove lot 6, Arastradero Road orange line path. 3. Remove Voorhees Drive orange line path. 4. Remove 14313 Saddle Mountain southern leg and half of the eastern leg. 5. Remove the green line path on Country Way while retaining emergency access. 6. Remove the green line path on Encinal Court. 7. Add red or orange paths on 26359-26363 Esperanza Drive depending on the presence of easements. 8. Direct the Pathway Committee to develop a recommendation on the process to update the Master Plan Map. 9. Direct staff to investigate the purple line path at 27800 Edgerton Road. 10. Direct the City Attorney to prepare language regarding built pathways and their availability for public use. AYES: Chair Vitu, Commissioners Wong, Clow & Kems ABSTAIN: None NOES: Commissioner Cottrell N Planning Commission Minutes Approved 10/24/02 September 26, 2002 Page 17 4. OLD BUSINESS 4.1 Report from subcommittees - none 5. NEW BUSINESS - none 6. REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING 6.1 Planning Commission Representative for September 191h — Commissioner Clow 6.2 Planning Commission Representative for October 3rd — Commissioner Cottrell 6.3 Planning Commission representative for October 17`h — Commissioner Kerns 7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 7.1 Approval of September 12, 2002 minutes -continued to the October 10, 2002 meeting. S. REPORT FOR FAST TRACK SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETING - none 9. REPORT FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT MEETING, none 10. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 12:20 am Respectfully submitted, SuzDavts Acting Planning Secretary L L