Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.2 ITEM #3.2 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS October 26, 2016 Staff Report to the Planning Commission SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO UPDATE THE MASTER PATH MAP TO ADD ROADSIDE AND OFF-ROAD PATHWAYS IN AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN ANNEXED TO THE TOWN SINCE 2005 AND TO ADD PATHWAY CONNECTIONS IN THE FOLLOWING AREAS: • STORYHILL LANE TO PAGE MILL ROAD • ZAPPETINI COURT TO CENTRAL DRIVE • VIA FELIZ TO MAPLE LEAF COURT • ATHERTON COURT TO LA PALOMA ROAD • EAST SUNSET DRIVE TO DIANNE DRIVE • MIRALOMA WAY TO VOORHEES DRIVE • MAGDALENA ROAD TO FERNHILL DRIVE FILE #238-15-MISC; CEQA REVIEW: CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PER SECTION 15061(B)(3). FROM: Suzanne Avila,AICP, Planning Director SA RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission either: 1. Continue the matter and provide direction to staff and/or the Pathways Committee for revisions to the draft map and/or provision of additional information or analysis; or 2. Forward a recommendation to the City Council on the adoption of the draft Master Path Map. BACKGROUND The Master Path Map was last updated in 2005. At that time there were some areas where pathways were considered and a final decision was not made. These areas were referred back to the Pathways Committee for further consideration, and are the focus of the current map update along with areas that have been annexed to the Town since 2005. The Pathways Committee (PWC) has been working on the map update since January 2015 as directed by the City Council. A five member Master Path Map Update (MPMU) Subcommittee of the PWC was formed to work on the project, and includes Ann Duwe, Eileen Gibbons,Bridget Morgan,Nick Dunckel and Sue Welch. The Subcommittee began the process by holding meetings with small groups of residents of neighborhoods that have been annexed since 2005. The Subcommittee also conducted extensive research of Town records to document pathway easements, and walked the areas where new pathways are being proposed. A draft map was then created and discussed by the entire Pathways Committee. The next step in the process is for the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing and to formulate a recommendation to the City Council on the adoption of the draft map. If needed,the Commission may hold additional meetings _ before forwarding a recommendation to the Council. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Master Path Map Update October 26,2016 Page 2 of 3 On May 23, 2016 the City Council and Planning Commission held a joint study session. Attachment 4 is the draft minutes from the discussion on the Master Path Map update. DISCUSSION The Subcommittee held nine neighborhood meetings beginning in January 2016, as shown in the following chart: Area Neighborhood Meeting Date Site Visits/Walk Date La Loma January 28, 2016 January 30, 2016 Olive Tree February 3, 2016 February 6, 2016 Ravensbury I February 4, 2016 February 6, 2016 Ravensbury II February 10, 2016 February 13, 2016 West Loyola I February 11, 2016 February 13, 2016 West Loyola II February 24, 2016 February 27, 2016 West Loyola III March 2, 2016 March 5, 2016 Mora March 3, 2016 March 5, 2016 Undecided areas July 18, 2016 July 16, 2016 The MPMU Subcommittee solicited resident feedback at the nine neighborhood meetings and six public walks, and conducted extensive research of Town records before developing the draft map. Attachment 3 is the presentation that was made at the neighborhood meetings. Major tasks undertaken by the Subcommittee include the following: • Researched and documented new pathways easements dedicated since 2004 • Documented new pathway segments constructed since 2004 • Revised the list of streets that should have pathways on both sides • Recommended future roadside and off-road paths for areas that have been annexed to the Town since 2005 • Developed recommendations for off-road pathways where a decision was not made during the 2005 Master Path Map update • Updated the Master Path Map and working maps used by the Pathways Committee Attachments 1 and 2 are matrixes that include a list of proposed pathways with rationale and comments and the PWC recommendation on each segment. The Planning Commission will be forwarding a recommendation to the City Council on the draft Master Path Map. The City Council is the approving body for the Map as it is part of the Town's General Plan. The Commission may recommend the map in its entirety or break down the recommendation to individual pathways using the two matrices provided by the Subcommittee. COMMITTEE REVIEW As the Subcommittee proceeded with research, held neighborhood meetings, and developed the first draft map, status updates were provided at City Council and Pathways Committee meetings. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Master Path Map Update October 26,2016 Page 3 of 3 The draft Master Path Map was discussed by the Pathways Committee at the April 25, June 4 and July 18, 2016 meetings. A summary of the PWC recommendations on proposed roadside and off road paths is provided in Attachment 1. Attachment 2 is a summary of PWC recommendations on pathway segments that were referred back to the Committee in 2005. PUBLIC COMMENT On October 6, 2016 staff sent an advisory email to residents who had previously requested to be notified of any public meetings regarding the Master Path Map update. A Town-wide notice of the public hearing was mailed on October 12,2016,and was posted in designated posting locations. Attachment 6 is a comment letter from a resident regarding the proposed off-road path connecting St Nicholas School to Voorhees Drive,Barley Hill Road and Miraloma Drive. CEQA STATUS The project is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 15061(B)(3). No pathway projects are proposed at this time. At such time that a specific capital improvement project is proposed, the scope of work will be reviewed to determine if environmental review is required. ATTACHMENTS 1. Pathways Committee recommendations—Annexed areas (10 pages) 2. Pathways Committee recommendations—2005 Off-road paths referred to PWC(three pages) 3. PWC neighborhood meeting presentation(21 pages) 4. May 23, 2016 City Council-Planning Commission Joint Study Session Minutes (16 pages) 5. Study of Pedestrian Paths along W Loyola and Mora Drives(41 pages) 6. Letter from Tina Patel with supporting documentation(50 pages),received August 8, 2016 7. Draft Master Path Map (Planning Commission only) Draft Master Path Plan Map Update Approved by Pathways Committee at Regular Meeting of 04/25/16 (Revision 6/04/16) Loyol. Annexation • • Street Section Pathways proposed Rationale/Comments Pathways recommended PWC Vote on Strawman Draft at PWC meeting of Map(04/14/16) 4/25/16 Roadside Paths. West Loyola From Eastbrook to Roadside paths on East side of road from Eastbrook No change Motion 8 below. Drive Sunhills Drive west side of road(blue to 10850 West Loyola is not in (Vote was 7 in favor; 2 bubbles) LAH.From 10855.West Loyola to recused) Sunhills,roadside topography on west side can better accommodate roadside path. West Loyola .. . From Sunhills Dr to Roadside paths on Shoulders on south side are wide . No change . Motion 8 below. Drive Ravensbury south side of road and relatively flat for most of this. (Vote was 7 in favor; 2 (blue bubbles) section and can better recused) accommodate roadside paths. Roadside path is already installed in ROW at 10300 West Loyola. Eloise Circle Full length Easements conferring Narrow private street loop with 10 No change Motion 8 below. public access over lots;little traffic;some homes (Vote was 7 in favor; 2 pavement on private close to road. recused) road(purple triangles) Berkshire Drive Full length(from Roadside paths on Through-road with poor sight- Public access over pavement Motion 6 below eastern intersection south or east side of distance at.curves.Some homes on on road.(Remove blue (Vote was 5 in favor; 1 with West Loyola to road(blue bubbles) west and north side are veryclose bubbles.Place purple opposed; 1 abstaining; western intersection to road.Topography on south and triangles in roadway.) 2 recused) with West Loyola) east side not flat,but comparable to many other roads in LAH that have roadside paths. Rolly Road From West Loyola to. Easements conferring Private road serving only 3 lots, No change Motion 8 below. Town border public access over only one of which is in LAH. (Vote was 7 in favor;2 pavement on private recused) road(purple triangles) 1 PWC_TABLE16-0425 10/19/16 W71215 Loyola Annexation Street Section Pathways proposed Rationale/Comments Pathways recommended PWC Vote on Strawman Draft at PWC meeting of Map(04/14/16) 4/25/16 • Off-road paths West Loyola to Proposed future off Arrow indicating future Connect West Loyola to Eastbrook 1.Remove arrow indicating 1.Motion 4 below. Eastbrook road path off-road path between as alternative to roadside'path along future off-road path (Vote was 7 in favor; 2 10840 and 10842 West lower West Loyola.Assumes future between 10840 and 10842 recused) Loyola(corrected annexation of unincorporated county West Loyola.Route steep. 2.Motion 5 below. addresses) lands along Terry and Eastbrook that 2.Add arrow indicating future (Vote was 7 in favor;2 are in LAH SOI and have been pre- off-road path along northeast recused) zoned for annexation. border of 10842 West Loyola; continuing along eastern border of 10850 West Loyola; and along driveway easement to Eastbrook Mora Drive Annexation Street Section Pathways proposed Rationale/Comments Pathways proposed at PWC Vote on Strawman Draft meeting of 4/25/16 Map(04/14/16) Roadside Paths Mora Drive Northern LAH Roadside paths on Narrow,winding road with heavy No change Motion 8 below. border to just north west side of road(blue pedestrian and bike use by (Vote was 7 in favor; 2 of intersection with bubbles) residents and others entering recused) Sunhills on 10810 Rancho San Antonio County Park. Mora Drive IIB roadside path was requested from developer of 10730 Mora. Mora Drive 10810 Mora Drive to Roadside paths on east Narrow,winding road with heavy No change Motion 8 below. southern end of side of road(blue pedestrian and bike use by (Vote was 7 in favor; 2 Mora Drive at bubbles) residents and others entering recused) MROSD entrance Rancho San Antonio County Park. Topography better for roadside path.Same side as path installed by county in 1965. 2 PWC_TABLEI6-0425 10/19/16 r Mora=Drive Annexation Street Section Pathways proposed Rationale/Comments Pathways proposed at PWC Vote on Strawman Draft meeting of 4/25/16 Map (04/14/16) Roadside Paths Sunhills Drive From West Loyola Roadside paths on Local connector to County park No change Motion 8 below. Drive to Mora Drive west side of road(blue entrance.West side topography . (Vote was 7 in favor;2 bubbles) can better accommodate roadside recused) paths;homes on east side closer to road. Kenbar Road From Sunhills Drive Easements conferring Narrow private cul-de-sac with 10 No change Motion 8 below. to Town border public access over lots,only 2 lots in LAH;little (Vote was 7 in favor; 2 pavement on private traffic;some homes close to road. recused) road(purple triangles) Off--road paths Terry Way to Proposed future off- Arrow indicating Connect lower Mora and Terry to No change Motion 8 below. eastern West road path proposed future off- West Loyola and Eastbrook. (Vote was 7 in favor;2 Loyola area road path from end of Assumes future annexation of recused) Terry Way cul-de-sac unincorporated county lands along towards Town border Terry and Eastbrook that are in LAH SOI and have been pre-zoned for annexation. Ravensbury Annexation .EY Street Section Pathways proposed Rationale/Comments Pathways proposed at PWC Vote on Strawman Draft meeting of 4/25/16 Map(04/14/16) Roadside paths Ravensbury From Magdalena to Roadside paths on Road carries traffic to lower No Change Motion 8 below. Avenue Arroyo Oaks BOTH sides of road. Magdalena from multiple feeder (Vote was 7 in favor;2 (blue bubbles) streets in Ravensbury annex area; recused) speeding occurs along this straight,downhill section 3 PWC_TABLE16-0425 10/19/16 Ravensbury Annexation Street Section Pathways proposed Rationale/Comments Pathways proposed at PWC Vote on Strawman Draft meeting of 4/25/16 Map(04/14/16) Roadside paths Ravensbury From Arroyo Oaks . Roadside paths on Shoulders on southwest side from No change Motion 8 below. Avenue south around the 90- southwest side of road Arroyo Oaks around curve are (Vote was 7 in favor;2 degree curve to at 23600 and 23576 wide and relatively flat for most of recused) southwest border of Ravensbury around this section and can better 23576 Ravensbury 90-degree curve(blue accommodate roadside paths.East bubbles) side of road drops off steeply around the curve. Ravensbury From parcel across Roadside paths on Topography of shoulders on No change Motion 8 below. Avenue from 23548 southeast side of roadsoutheast side can better (Vote was 7 in favor;2 Ravensbury south to . (blue bubbles) accommodate roadside paths. recused) intersection with West Loyola Ravensbury West Loyola south to Roadside paths on east Topography of shoulders on this No change Motion 8 below. Avenue and including 23230 side of road(blue side can better accommodate . . (Vote was 7 in favor; 2 Ravensbury bubbles) except last roadside paths.Native path along recused) parcel within LAH Ravensbury frontage was requested from developer at 10180 West Loyola.Allow access over the pavement along the parcel south of 23230 Ravensbury, which slopes up steeply from road. Crestridge Drive Full length Access over pavement Wide public cul-de-sac with 7 lots No change Motion 8 below. on public road(purple (Vote was 7 in favor;2 triangles) recused) Old Ranch Road Full length of cul-de- Access over pavement Wide public cul-de-sac with 6 lots No change Motion 8 below. sac on public road(purple (Vote was 7 in favor;2 triangles) recused) 4 PWC_TABLE16-0425 10/19/16 Ravensbury Annexation Street Section Pathways proposed Rationale/Comments Pathways proposed at PWC Vote on Strawman Draft meeting of 4/25/16 Map(04/14/16) Roadside paths Old Ranch Lane Full length of cul-de- Access over pavement Wide public cul-de-sac with 7 lots No change Motion 8 below. sac on public road(purple (Vote was 7 in favor;2 triangles) recused) Hillpark Lane Full length of cul-de- Access over pavement Wide public cul-de-sac with 9 lots No change Motion 8 below. sac. on public road(purple (Vote was 7 in favor; 2 triangles) recused) Arroyo Oaks Full length of cul-de- Access over pavement Wide public cul-de-sac with 9 lots No change Motion 8 below. sac on public road(purple (Vote was 7 in favor; 2 triangles) recused) Off-Road Paths Ravensbury Connect Ravensbury Convert easement and Off-road path can serve as Confirm scope of existing Motion 2.Below. Avenue to Par Ave to Par Ave existing off-road path alternative to walking along easement along northwest (Vote was 6 in favor; 1 Ave along northwest Magdalena.Route is on approved borderand propose as opposed;2 recused) border of Foothills Master Path Plan of 2005 and path future conventional LAH off- Ranch subdivision is in common use.Staff to research road path with public between Ravensburyeasement status.Maybe public . access.(Change red stars to and Par to LAH off- . utility easement and/or private , green dots.) . . road path easement equestrian easement requiring conferring public conversion to standard pathway access(red stars). easement. 5 PWC_TABLE16-0425 10/19/16 J ., ftgi Loma Annexation, ,. s .. s?*. 'v .,*.`m-'t��3 ^.*.'t-a r • "':;..• "ffi, � '.s ;r.:i:.i�,:.1..wWK; 4 '`i.• • Street Section Pathways proposed on Rationale/Comments Pathways proposed at PWC Vote Strawman Draft Map meeting of 4/25/16 (04/14/16) Roadside Paths La Loma Drive From northern Roadside paths on New paths will connect to existing. Roadside paths on south Motion 10 below. border of annexed southwest side of road roadside paths on this side; side of road(blue bubbles) (Vote was 7 in favor; 2 area(shared drive shoulders are flat and can recused) off west side of La accommodate roadside paths Loma just south of 25259)to and including 25275 La Loma Dr La Loma Drive 25355 La Loma Roadside paths on New path will connect to existing Roadside paths on south Motion 10 below. Drive south side of road roadside paths on this side; side of road(blue bubbles) (Vote was 7 in favor;2 shoulders are flat and can recused) accommodate roadside paths Off-Road Paths La Loma Drive to Proposed future off- 1.Arrow indicating Connect La Loma neighborhood to No change Motion 10 below. Rhus Ridge Road road path future off-road path Rhus Ridge neighborhood to the (Vote was 7 in favor; 2 over shared driveway west. recused) off west side of La Loma (green dots) 2.Arrow pointing northwest along property line between 25263 and 25265 La Loma and arrow pointing southeast from Rhus Ridge Road 6 PWC_TABLE16-0425 10/19/16 .-.,, ,..bl. .,r ij.. Aa A .:....- m.r..' v. n,k.0 :u :0.."'dXtr. `..' + _}'fl .,.v .:� d� �, . "ae r„. $ „ x-� „+. xc d, > 4 � ':"`:u �, °� S,tr ��' "..,., a ri� „ a...s.. �` ,_� :. n ,aa�, ,+",y� r rw, 3��.. .,�-,.aP� aha 4+,�. "" *;�'��' 4` �;..,, r b a �4 ttd:,:., " .41'-�.,. ��5...� .. .... „ � _r a„� `�...a... ,. .r..s ,,kyr rc:.. ..'�.��. 3, " •�+°' l'”`-.� " Y �"1�'„ rr • t a �^:.:-asG" .« d+'� r� tS. „r & . ' { rN ..a� r4 ..A y� ,4 ". • av xt �,:ti.�Yi �_ La Loma Annexation ; ��3 � � "�°, �,� 4 � , � , �, ,,�;. �, ,z i. 11/177 . � s.„,�: _ate'-��` � _�a&in�">' ;�+ "�s���a«„�m ,. ;� `����� d� r.�`;�:��' ;W '" a'-yam„ � �:mn+, �'�C �r ;�a"ss',r<�. ,�� "u� 0:`1, Street Section Pathways proposed on Rationale/Comments Pathways proposed at PWC Vote Strawman Draft Map meeting of 4/25/16 (04/14/16) Off-Road Paths La Loma Drive to Proposed future off Easement conferring' Connect La Loma neighborhood to La Loma Drive to open open space road path(Approved public access over Rancho San Antonio to the south; space on 2005 MPP map) shared driveway to this 8-acre parcel is subdividable. 25309 and 25313 La Retain approved future off-road Loma and along paths shown on 2005 MPP map property line between (blue and green lines) these parcels(blue and green lines); La Loma Drive to Proposed future off- Retain arrows shown.on Connect newly annexed La Loma No change Motion 10 below. open space road path approved 2005 MPP neighborhood to quarry (Vote was 7 in favor; 2 (Approved on 2005 indicating future off- neighborhood to the east and fire recused) MPP map) road paths into 25355 road/path in open space.Future La Loma connecting to off-road paths that an be added 1) La Loma Road;2) when 25355 La Loma(a Laura Ct;and 3)fire subdividable 8-acre parcel)is road.Add arrow into NE subdivided or developed'. corner of parcel. La Loma Drive to Proposed future off- . Retain arrows shown on Connect newly annexed La Loma No change Motion 10 below. Prospect road path approved 2005 MPP neighborhood to Prospect (Vote was 7 in favor; 2 indicating future off- neighborhood to the north. recused) road paths into 24840 Replaces approved off-road route Prospect Ave from behind lots on Stonebrook.that is north,southeast,and not maintained or accessible. west were approved in 2005.Add arrow into SW corner of parcel. 7 PW C_TABLEI6-0425 10/19/16 1 An;;e:atiel Roadside Paths Street Section Pathways proposed on Rationale/Comments Pathways proposed at PWC Vote Strawman Draft Map meeting of 4/25/16 (04/14/16) Olive Tree Lane From eastern border Roadside paths on . Road is steep downhill at this blind No change Motion 10 below. of annexed area to south side of road(blue curve (Vote was 7 in favor;2 sharp curve to south bubbles) recused) (24808 and part of 24860 Olive Tree) Olive Tree Lane Part of 24860 Olive Easements conferring Private cul-de-sac with reasonable No change Motion 10 below. Tree to end of Olive public access over sight distance.Steeply sloped (Vote was 7 in favor;2 Tree cul-de-sac pavement on private roadsides. recused) road(purple triangles) Off--Road Paths.. Northcrest Lane From Stonebrook to Easements conferring Connect newly annexed Olive tree Show emergency access Motion 10 below. Olive Tree Drive public access over area to quarry neighborhood, route,as proposed,future . (Vote was 7 in favor; 2 existing Emergency Stonebrook,and Magdalena to the off-road path and seek recused) Access Road(red stars) north public access.Staff to confirm scope of existing emergency access easement/private road. (Change red stars to green dots) 4•Miscellaneous y R'oadsi'de Paths Burke Road Full length Pathways proposed on both sides of the road 8 PWC_TABLE16-0425 10/19/16 Address Errors.The"strawman" draft map of 4/14/16 has two errors on West Loyola: 1) the parcels shown as 10850 and 10858 West Loyola should be 10842 and 10850,respectively; 2),the arrow indicating a proposed future off-road path to eventually connect to Eastbrook is shown going into 10836 West Loyola Drive. The correct location for the arrow is along the border between 10840 and 10842 West Loyola (corrected addresses). Motion 1: BK moved that PWC recommend removing from the draft map the proposed off-road path from Eloise Circle to Arroyo Oaks. ND seconded.Vote was 7 in favor (JB, ND,AD,VH, BK, SW, DW) with 2 recused (WC, BM);AB not present for vote. Motion 2:AD moved that PWC recommend removing from the draft map the proposed off-road path routes over the private equestrian easements along the borders of the Foothill Subdivision (red stars) with the exception of retaining the proposed off-road route along the easement(and existing path) connecting Ravensbury to Par along the northwest border of the subdivision. BK seconded.Vote was 6 in favor (JB, ND,AD,VH, BK,SW); 1 opposed (DW);with 2 recused (WC, BM);AB not present for vote. Motion 3: BK moved that PWC recommend removing from the draft map the proposed off-road path across the "thumb" of the sharp curve on West Loyola between 10811 and 10855 West Loyola.AD seconded.Vote was 7 in favor (JB, ND,AD,VH, BK,SW, DW) with 2 recused (WC, BM);AB not present for vote. Motion 4: BK moved that PWC recommend removing from the draft map the proposed off-road path connection between 10840 and 10842 West Loyola (corrected addresses) connecting to Eastbrook.AD seconded.Vote was 7 in favor (JB, ND,AD,VH, BK,SW, DW) with 2 recused (WC, BM);AB not present for vote. Motion 5: BK moved that PWC recommend adding to the draft map a proposed off-road path route along the northeast border of 10842 West Loyola (corrected addresses) continuing along the eastern border of 10850 West Loyola on an easement not public at this time) and connecting to Eastbrook.AD seconded.Vote was 7 in favor (JB, ND,AD,VH, BK,SW, DW) with 2 recused (WC, BM);AB not present for vote. Motion 6: SW moved that PWC change the recommendation on the draft map for Berkshire Drive from proposed roadside paths along the south side of Berkshire to easements conferring public access over the road. ND second.Vote was 5 in favor (JB, ND,VH, BK, SW); 1 opposed (AD); 1 abstaining (VH); with 2 recused (WC, BM); AB not present for vote. Motion 7: BK moved that PWC recommend Ravensbury be designated as a"2-sided" road to have roadside paths on both sides from Magdalena to Arroyo Oaks.JB seconded.Vote was 7 in favor (JB, ND,AD,VH, BK, SW, DW) with 2 recused (WC, BM); AB not present for vote. Motion 8: BK moved that PWC recommend adopting the draft map with the roadside and off-road paths as shown for the West Loyola, Mora Drive,and Ravensbury annexation areas (with Berkshire changed to access over pavement).Vote was 7 in favor (JB, ND,AD,VH, BK, SW, DW) with 2 recused (WC, BM);AB not present for vote. 9 PWC_TABLE16-0425 10/19/16 Motion 9: BM moved that the proposed off-road paths from La Loma to Rhus Ridge Road and Bassett and over Northcrest from Olive Tree to Stonebrook be removed from the draft map.WC seconded.Vote was 3 in favor (WC,VH, BM) with 6 opposed ((jB, ND, AD, BK, SW, DW));AB not present for vote. Motion 10: ND moved that PWC recommend adopting the paths for the La Loma and Olive Tree annexation areas as shown on the draft map,with the modification that the route on Northcrest Drive is to be shown as a future off-road path route. BK seconded.Vote was 7 in favor (JB, ND,AD,VH, BK, SW, DW) with 2 opposed (WC, BM);AB not present for vote. 10 PWC_TABLE16-0425 10/19/16 Draft Master Path Plan Map Update Approved by Pathways Committee at Special Meeting of 07/18/16 (all off road) Street Section Pathways proposed Rationale& Pathways PWC Vote on 2005 Map Comments recommendation update PWC meeting of 7/18/16 Storyhill Lane to,Page Through 12345 Page Path was proposed Page Mill needs off Path tobe on west. Motion A below..Vote Mill Road Mill along creek through road paths. and south boundaries 5 Aye.3 Nay "" center of property " Easements exist to be of 12345 connected on west side. • Zappettini Court to near 12620 Zappettini Marker for general Easement exists for Path end of Zapettini Motion B below. Vote Central Drive area of path, but part and connection to to Central in existing 6 Aye, 2 Nay specific route Byrne preserve easements and added unspecified desirable southern border of 12620 Zappettini to Byrne Via Feliz to Maple Maple Leaf off Elena Route on North of 13140 Avila Ct not Path between 27827 Motion C below Vote Leaf Court . 27801 Via Feliz and . requested for path. and 27801. Via Feliz 7 Aye 1 Nay east on 131.15 Maple . Slope and intrusion . . .'and path tobe place • Leaf less on new proposed when 13466 N Fork .. route Lane is subdivided La Paloma Road to South Alta Lane and Various connections An off-road path runs Continue path from Motion D below Atherton Court La Paloma to Atherton proposed from La Paloma to the 13310 La Paloma to 8 Aye 0 Nay • Ct. southern tip of 13310 northern border of La Paloma.Pathway 12933 Atherton. easements exist along Remove northern the east border of border of 12940 n 13060 Alta Lane S Atherton. rD i • • Street Section. Pathways proposed Rationale& . Pathways PWC Vote on 2005 Map Comments recommendation update PWC meeting of 7/18/16 East Sunset Drive to. . connection from Prior proposed very . . .See motion Motion E.below Vote Dianne Drive 13010 Sunset and steep and intrusive. 5'Aye, 2 Nay; 1 12799 Dianne Current proposal less Abstain proposed steep, less intrusive, and on old roadbed Voorhees, Barley Hill Connecting St. Routes to south of St. Barley Hill connection Barley Hill to Hilltop Motion F below Vote and Miraloma Nicholas School to NicholasNoorhees to not needed due to replaced with 6 Aye, 2 Nay neighborhoods Miraloma and other paths in area. connector to end of connection Barley Hill Hilltop connector to Voorhees. South of to Hilltop proposed Voorhees better St. Nick to Miraloma neighborhood/school replaced with connector. 24595 has Voorhees to Miraloma EXISTING easement through south end of which could be used 24595 Voorhees Magdalena Road to Near 10531 Route along creek Much discussion and no recommendation Motion G below Vote Fernhill Drive. .Magdalena and 25557 .proposed . other routes proposed made at the time. 7.Aye 1 Nay. Fernhill Voting and discussion was cut off A. PWC recommend a future off-road path continuing on the existing pathway easement along the western border of 28140 Story Hill Road to the southwest corner of the property,and then running east along the southern border of 28140 Story Hill (adjacent to 12345 Page Mill. B. PWC recommend a.future off-road connecting the existing IIB off-road path off the end of Zappettini to Central Drive using the existing off-road pathway and open space easement on the north side of Central; and continuing the existing IIB path along the southern border of 12620 Zappettini east to Town-owned Westwind Barn property. C. PWC recommend 1) a future off-road path from the end of Via Feliz south along the border between 27827 and 27801 Via Feliz,and from there an arrow indicating a future connection through 13466 North Fork Lane; 2) removal from the map of the routes shown along the north and east border of 27801 Via Feliz; 3) placing an arrow indicating a future connection up from the existing easement off Maple Leaf Court across the southwest corner of 13115 Maple Leaf Court and into 13466 North Fork Lane D. PWC recommend a future path continuing the existing off-road path on 13310 La Paloma southward onto the existing easements along the east border of 13060 Alta Lane S [map incorrectly shows this address as 13080] and eastward along the northern border of 12399 Atherton;then connect south to the bulb of Atherton Court along the border between 12399 and 12940 Atherton Court. Remove the proposed route along the creek north of 12940 Atherton Court. E. PWC recommend a future off-road route connecting Miraloma Way to Voorhees using the existing pathway easement on 12585 Miraloma and continuing across 24595 Voorhees; and 2) connecting Voorhees to Hilltop along the border between 26402 and 24500 Voorhees to the end of the shared driveway on 12169 Hilltop. F. PWC recommend a future off-road route connecting Miraloma Way to Voorhees using the existing pathway easement on 12585 Miraloma and continuing across 24595 Voorhees; and 2) connecting Voorhees to Hilltop along the border between 26402 and 24500 Voorhees to the end of the shared driveway on 12169 Hilltop G. PWC recommend taking no action on this area and asking the Planning Department to assess the feasibility of the terrain for a path.JB amended the motion to add the recommendation that Planning Department also look for alternative routes in this area connecting Magdalena to Fernhill. , t .,.7 1 11 .. ' '.."1: ,.... •,.,,,. , 4 ..1' ., . , •.. . ,.... , . Attachment 3 ,,,,, _.••-.. • 4. :, 4,„;. _,, .4t,„.. !. ,, , 1%. , ,, ....- . - ' If i ,,. -' ' it- 41,v•ii . 4' 'MO. ,! l'e,%o " "''4:I#4.'4'fr 44.l' -41,., • z-4/ .,. .1 .Addity .-4;444''-' :4',,,,,N )''. 1,••""' 1,'' 4 ' -'143/.1 '''; .,4 "e„ ,..6.1vv.1.0..--,e-:..1.,.."...t • :--. 0 . . , Ai-...- 7 -.' • ,, .•.+Z4 ' i'. - .; . i' % -.. —. .. ,i. ieck., r •, ...,,40., ,... ,,,, • t 1 • it 7; ,, ,,,,,. ,,, , ,...., ii„,,,,,,,,•.. t ai , . '•4 . 'Alk,4 zi.,.4,4'..4_,c.i~..., '.. -. if t 1 1 , , : • , -1. • ...di,;..'. 'ry .,Ato •'# -,zik„., 1. , , .....n. Ai, 5- -.. •,- .v •-.,. ..-,.. -..c..: . t ',4../‘f'-'4;.' : . . ''''A 'it f 4-"''' -46-- '. ,• '. f' j ,' ' i , t .'..• „ *It.: iC '.. ' (*q 4, cr; : ' ' . t. i 1 . • ' ' . ::-•-oit, '';.• of "i t 1 4 :i ' il .i , ., • , . • 4. ,s_ .. ,,..._,„•„„. .. ._ , :,„„ ..., ..,_ 1 0 1,4 -. - - • Or /011111°1 .. cs., , ,,-• ' . * - li,l, __., 4 . .., - . . , A4 ../ ,. ).• fts! ,_,...,. , (1....) ''-- ',4 "' • w.1.1' , k*-'' 4') 4., ( Ct (/) . • . ' '.:°, rijk.,. 1 I ‘ . . * . ...) t • X Cn ,4, •v--I 75 • ._ V) U P-1 -- -, • Cid CL) t * • -'• 'Pi. - , . . :.* •Yt - . ;,' A. •1i S' 0 Ct _ .. 4-41 - 4•. 1' --‘ •'''• kifyia, . ........., . 1 4 (140) E 141L1 tii Cid , . . . %,...... '''' tt ••* -' im.,. * , F- ',.-Ir ' 4 aj . ......• • . • I • S. - 4, ,,- ;,,Z • Cd Ct E (1.) t .',*.1/1 paletessiparrommate........... , . T T' ° (1) I 1 )1011\ -4 ) 0 Ct • r ,, * ; 1 $..lia Ct Ct CI) .- , • • 'r * . 1 . g . t ...r • ' I it*. t*• .4c. i . r i • .1---1 • F•' •i . - . ..0. • -k.t-- . -1 : I, . " 4" 1• ( F1 ' ' ':,'• ' . N1.40' , . ..• '. 't '''ti'4 2.: -TN: „.... . ‘ _.. • , . . . ).. , . . • ,%, . e , l'E )1A .1.. t.i'i . . 1- i •:i •,- -- '* — • . . -. _. , _ .. ,,, • . .....i 3/4- ' i •,-4:..,- ...• • * t• ...., I Our pathway system is a vital part of the Town's infrastructure • Required by the Town 's ordinances • Designed to complement our roads • Intended primarily for residents • Consists of roadside and off-road segments , totaling 94 miles LAH pathway system is a work in progress • All property owners share responsibility for the beauty and functionality of our pathway system . • Paths are added incrementally as parcels are developed or redeveloped . • Town is responsible for maintenance . Benefits of Pathways • Facilitate non-motorized circulation between neighborhoods • Connect us with nearby towns and open space preserves • Create emergency access routes • Provide safe routes to schools • Offer a means of outdoor recreation • Contribute to the open , rural character of our Town History • 1956: Paths pre-dated Town's founding • 1981 : Pathway Element added to General Plan Master Path Plan maps became part of Pathway Element • 2005 : Update of Master Path Plan off-road map • 2002-2012 : Expansion of Town boundaries • 2016: Master Path Plan update to extend pathway system to unmapped parts of Town and resolve areas left undecided in 2005 Types of Paths • Roadside paths are within or near the road right-of-way - May be adjacent to pavement - Preferably separated from pavement - In very limited cases , access may be over the pavement • Off-road paths generally run along property boundaries Pathway • • Road right-of-way Pavement (standard is E60 ft; Parcel property line Parcel 1 Fardel 2 Parol 3 Parc€ .; Parcel 5 Roadside__ Paths 1 Pathway in road right-of-way adjacent to tie pavement 2 Pathway in road right-of-way separated from the road pavement 3 Pathway in dedicated pathway easement on private property 4 4-*--r►Pathway over the road pavement (requires pa:h to be built) Public road: No easement regLIred to allot.) public access over the road Private road: Easement required td allow public access over the road Off-road Path 5 Off-road path (gene-ally located along property line) Pathway Construction • Design standards — IIB path (5-ft. wide , crushed gravel with header boards) - Native path (width varies ; surface is roughly graded dirt or gravel) • Generally, construction must be completed before the Town signs a certificate of occupancy for a completed project • LAH Public Works Department offers guidance II Pathway Recommendation Process • Development or redevelopment triggers review of how an individual property fits into the pathway system. - Pathways Committee reviews maps , makes site visit and makes a recommendation during a regular, public meeting. - Planning Staff reviews recommendation, may modify it before adding it to Conditions of Approval for development permit. - Planning Commission reviews Conditions of Approval at a public meeting and may support, deny or modify them. - City Council has final authority. low do LA: I landowners contribute to the pathways system? • LAH ordinances require a contribution to pathway system as a condition of approval for major development projects , including: - Subdivisions - New residences or second units - Major house additions , barns, stables >900 sq ft - Certain variances and conditional use permits • Landowners can voluntarily donate pathway easements and / or build paths Homeowner Responsibility • Contributions to the pathway system can be one or more of following: - Restore an existing path - Dedicate a pathway easement - Build a new path on a new or existing easement - Pay pathway in-lieu fee Easements must remain free of building, fencing, landscaping and debris , even if there is no path. Basis for Pathway Recommendations • Recommendations rely on established policies and ordinances that describe how this part of the Town infrastructure is to be developed and maintained . rr-1 , t.:4S. , *7.. - 17"-A`io . 1. 144 ':a /? :i .te` , ~- II: ,,.:. ..it: _,.: 4 - i--: -- yfi) kolL "- ±,-4Ni :A, ,.:*., ,,, 4„ -*.t,„ ,--4:,-- :. ' .4: , 4,, �, ;'�a�"h+ �e:1,`"r ,,fiil • NOT bas ` � r . -4 -., � . I VC . _ 1 _ memben _ `. . P-. Basis for Off-road Recommendations • Consistency is a major goal for all pathway recommendations — Consistent with Town policies and ordinances — Consistent with what is / was required for similar properties • Goal is to rigorously apply the same set of general rules to all projects under review • Off-road paths connect neighborhoods and create walkable loops • Cul-de-sacs should have off-road paths that connect the end of the street to adjoining neighborhoods III Master Path Plan - Set of Maps 1 . Map showing streets with roadside paths planned on both sides 2 . Map showing streets with roadside paths planned on one side 3 . Map showing existing and planned off-road paths - Class 1 = Easement + built path - Class 2 = Easement + no built path - Class 3 = Future planned path (no easement, no built path) MPP Map Update Process • Began January 2015, at direction of Council, as required by the General Plan • Subcommittee of five PWC volunteers are doing the groundwork - Chair: Eileen Gibbons - Members : Nick Dunckel, Ann Duwe, Bridget Morgan, Sue Welch - Discussed project with Planning and Engineering staff, including objectives , priorities methods, and available resources (e.g. , consultants , databases and GIS mapping systems) - Chair provided regular progress reports to Council and PWC MPP Update Major Tasks • Update all Master Path Plan maps • Document new pathway easements dedicated since 2004 • Document new Pathway segments built since 2004 • Revise list of streets to have roadside paths on both sides ("two-sided streets") • Recommend future paths , roadside and off- road, in neighborhoods not previously mapped (i. e . , annexed areas) • Make recommendations to resolve areas left undecided during 2005 off-road map update MPP Specific tasks • Subcommittee tasks : - Walked annexed areas several times - Held 9 neighborhood meetings and 6 public walks to solicit feedback from residents - Drew up draft maps for proposed future roadside and off-road paths - Presented draft maps to the public and PWC • Full eleven-member PWC reviewed draft maps and made site visits • Full PWC heard public comment, discussed and voted on draft maps at a public meeting (4 / 25 / 16) Map Update "to do " list • Pathways Committee will forward draft maps and other update documents to Planning Commission . • Planning Commission will review PWC recommendations and hold public hearings before making recommendations to City Council. • City Council will hold public hearings before making a decision to accept, deny or modify the Master Path Plan update of 2016 . Parts of the MPP update needing Council approval • List of streets with paths planned on both sides • Map of streets on which roadside paths are planned • Map of planned future off-road paths • Resolution of off-road segments left undecided during the 2005 MPP update Parts of the MPP not needing Council approval • Documentation for pathway easements dedicated since 2004 • Documentation for pathway segments built since 2004 • "Working reference map , " which shows the suggested side of the road for roadside paths , as of May 2016 • Printed walking map tlitioltr _y , :.7:11114: '':- .4/75141 ; -.: 110;11.... ',,,4 ..,,_,...,., .„,,,-. it_ s, .... ,,,, . ,-.... . , ,..,„,,,,.. , .. ‘,--. ., . ., . . . ,. , 4. 4.;01 Alliblipla . .. 111.1044Flit - Vit/lo. . .; 4 'tr. ,... • " 41,,,,W6 % . r'y ' *, . •.''' . 1N.,ri, 4.,olor,..k A ' lolf ata Rte:.. .. 4 • ,•, . ,. gig ' •.: e� 4. • `,111/4. e (*py-r + 7 S e Mr'''' ,_,eit N.. .. ... A . .... .0.. a.4" 4 y. 4 i . TIC. ,.y' • " • ti ,...73,•,y • +r!4, + A ae' •44.,, 'l •. _+ ! .."- til Y' �,, i , . r V. ► • ._ e f� iir • . s.. � • A : i- ., g i II v`T •.0 , _ . ,r gb NA s ,+ h CrA. _ VC - • 1 A1) ..."4 P .11". 4 ..."4 ',P.' tiii, tio . .1• . . • , if.. , .. . t , ,..7 ' . -. ... • * • �• ,e . 41• PACM►ARD PATHWAY :� ;� DA 7 >moo. Inv"014W* • It r • h i A ♦ Attachment 4 DRAFT • Town of Los Altos Hills Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting Minutes Monday, May 23, 2016 Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road; Los Altos Hills, California NOTICE TO PUBLIC Mayor Harpootlian called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. CALL.TO ORDER(5:00 P.M.) A. Roll Call of the City Council and Planning Commission Present: City Council Members !� _MayortHarpo.otlian,VicMayor Waldeck; Councih tuber Corrigan, Councilmember:Radford,'y,Councilmember Spreen Plammhg-Comimssioners \ e . Chair Couperus,Vice Chair-Tankha Commissioner Abraham, Commissioner 1Vlsndle, Comnussioner Partridge,) Absent: None Staff: City Manager Carl Cahill, City Attorney Steve Mattas,Planning; Director Suzanne Avila, Public Works Director/City Engineer Richard Chiu, City Clerk Deborah Padovan B. Pledge of Allegiance L PUBLIC COMMENT (PUBLIC COMMENT IS LIMITED TO ITEMS WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE SPECIAL MEETING) There was no public comment. 2. STUDY SESSION ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION/ACTION: A. Discussion Regarding Proposed Development Regulations for Substandard Lots in the Town of Los Altos Hills and Direction by the City Council. Mayor Harpootlian thanked the Planning Commission for all of their hard work. 1 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting May 23,2016 Commissioner .Mandle presented the proposed development regulation for substandard lots. The Commission responded to questions.from the Council. Council discussion ensued. Chair Couperus summarized by saying, if we look at Deerfield as an example, we ended up with thesame result we wouldhave by either path,but the expense and grief in getting there is double what we would have had. This doesn't change the target acceptable house that the individual ends up with, the new w rules would change how the process works. Commissioner Mandle continued the presentation relating to grandfathering. City Attorney Mattas explained that grandfathering rights run with the land. Further Council and Commission discussion ensued regarding grandfathering. City Attorney Mattas informed the Council that direction could be given tonight. However, any change to the zoning code to implement rules would have to go through 4liblic heariing process, through theylanuiiii Coniiflissidn and back to the City Council.`' l�w_ `). / L-_, In addition,he'stated that'if•the Council-wants the Planning Commission to package up their-recommendation to•the,'Council and send it back, then the Commission can direct that with the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) that they are recommending to the Council. If the Council want to change the FAR, or have another standard other than a FAR, direction would need to be provided. Further, institution of an FAR of .18 and the variance findings aspects, more specification behind what will allow a setback variance Councilmember Corrigan asked if thereis any interest in taking the model and use either or as it makes sense. There was Council consensus to allow the Planning Commission the latitude to decide as projects are brought before the Commission. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED: Councilmember Radford moved to direct that the recommendations of the Planning Commission be presented to the City Council, at a minimum, at a City Council noticed public hearing, and that if necessary, in consultation with the City Attorney'soffice,they need to hold another hearing of the Planning Commission to accomplish that,then they will need to do that first. The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Waldeck.. Motion Carried 5 to 0: AYES: Mayor Harpootlian,Vice Mayor Waldeck, Councilmember Corrigan, Councilmember Radford, Councilmember Spreen 2 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting May 23,2016 • NOES: None ABSENT: None . • ABSTAIN: None B. History and Background of Los Altos Hills Pathways; General Policy Discussion on Master Path Map Update and Direction by the City. Council (No map recommendations will be presented) Mayor Harpootlian asked the City Attorney to outline the ground rules for public comment. City Attorney Steve Mattas stated that the Council did provide an opportunity for public comment on items on the Council agenda at the beginning of the meeting, so there has been an opportunity provided for public comment. The Council is not required to allow for further public input,but if the Council wishes to have further public input they may do so. Ann D.uwe,_Chairof_thPathways-Committee,_presented_the-report by outlining the basics anaihe' e history-of}the master path plan update..6She said that pathways are al distinctive feature .of:the community, a_legacy for the future and they are legally! required by+Town's ordinances. 'Like setback requirements, height limits and other regulations, the,path4ay systemrcontributes to x`I.the-open look of the • community:- The ommunity:The Town has had 60 years of experience with pathways and they have become more important and more popular with residents every year. The pathway system is a work in progress and are designed to complement the roads. Their use is intended primarily for residents, and at the present time the.Town has about 94 miles of paths. It takes a long time, 60 years, to develop 94 miles of paths; things did not happen overnight. Once the pathways are built, it is the Town's responsibility to maintain them. • The chief motivation for having a pathway system was to connect neighborhoods. to connect residents with nearby towns, and to create alternatives to roads in the event of an emergency. The paths provide safe routes to school, they offer a means of outdoor recreation, and they contribute to the rural and open character of the Town. Each time the pathway system has been 'amended, the system has been challenged, and it has been controversial every single time. But in the end, the pathway system has been upheld. In the current pathway update, the Committee is looking at 200 parcels within the existing boundaries of the Town. In the past, decisions to recommend access over the pavement have been very sparingly used. They have only been used in instances where it was a very small private road 3 • Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting May 23,2016 or in a cul-de-sac with the terrain being very challenging and perhaps there was just no other option. She then outlined the Pathway Recommendation Process. The Planning Department asks the Pathway Committee to review all projects that may require a contribution to the pathway system. When the Committee reviews the map, they look at documentation,make a visit to the site, and then hold a public meeting. At that time the Committee makes a recommendation. That recommendation is returned to . the planning staff. The planning staff reviews the recommendations.. Staff may modify before adding it to the conditions of approval, and. eventually the Planning Commission reviews the conditions of approval at a public meeting and the Commission may support, deny or modify whatever recommendations the Pathway Committee has made. There are many levels of review before any recommendation of the Pathway Committee becomes an actual requirement of the homeowner. So then the question may arise, "How do homeowners contribute to the pathways system?" The ordinances require a contribution from each parcel, and that contribution may come when land is subdivided. It may come when someone wants to build a new residence or a second unit. It may come when someone wants an addition,a barn or some other building that is less than 900 sq. ft. It has also been true in the past that landowners-+have voluntarily given,lpathway—easements-4 or-actually built the path:1 Homeowners have a responsibility, to contribute in one way or another. They i may restore an existing path, dedicate_a\pathway-easement; build a new path on a new or'existing/easement,'or;pay an in-li'eu fee: This concludes part one of the Pathways Committee presentation. She requested that fellow Committee member Sue Welch provide a detailed description of how the Committee makes a decision and how those decisions are motivated by the Pathway Element and some related provisions within the Town's General Plan. Sue Welch, Member of the Pathways Committee, said that there is a perception . that the Pathways Committee just sits down as a group and says, "Well should we put a path here? Or should we put a path there?" When in fact pathway recommendations are based on very well established policies and ordinances that describe what the parts of the infrastructure of the Town is supposed to be developed and maintained. It is not based on personal preferences of Pathway Committee members or who can yell the loudest at the meeting. The basis for the pathway recommendations come from the General Plan. It comes from 10 pages of dense text in the Pathway Element as well as a couple of pages of code. Consistency is a major goal for the Committee as they make their recommendations. The goal in.making recommendations is to rigorously apply the sameset of general rules toall projects under review. Part of the difficulty in the perception of how these decisions are made is that these policies and ordinances are scattered among 10 pages. There may be eight or 12 actual policies that affect the 4 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting May 23,2016 recommendations,but they're all scattered through the 10 pages of dense text in the Pathway Element. Not many people have the patience to dig and read them and the result is that people do not understand that these policies exist and are actually being used and they interpret these decisions as being arbitrary. To assist in making it more understandable of how these decisions are made, the Committee has organized these policies in the form of a decision tree. The tree has a series of decision points, each of which is based on a specific written policy. At each decision point committee members look at a parcel or frontage and say, "is this true or is it not true?" An answer can be a simple yes or no. The decision tree may look complicated but it is based on a simple,set of policies. She then outlined different scenarios explaining how the tree functioned. In summary, she said that this chart is an 'illustration that the recommendations made by the Pathways Committee are not based on personal preferences but on a clear, very well defined set of rules. Ms. Duwe continued and said that the Committee's decisions are not arbitrary. The decisions are based on a very careful reading of the Pathway Element and the ordinances in the General Plan that relate to pathways. She now discussed the Master Path Plan Update. The Master Path Plan is described in the general 1 The-goal of the Master Ilan-No--4 is, t maintain and implement the Master Path„Plan to`i ensure' the development of k the Town's pathway system." The Map'of-198:1"laid the_framework--for-this path plan. There was one updatel in 2005/that!handled,off=road paths, and then in January 2016 the Council directed-tlie-Pathways Comimttee to do an.update because i"t_had not been done, or no portion of it had been done since 2005. The Master Path Plan is a set of documents which can be either regular documents, lists, or maps. Essentially, they have to show streets, clear paths, roadside paths, if planned on both sides; they have to show streets where roadside paths are planned on just one side, and there has to be maps showing existing and planned off-road paths of three different classes. The process has been to take a look at all the documents that relate to pathway easements that have been dedicated, and committee members actually performed the research back to 2004. Part of the Committee's task also was to make recommendations to resolve six areas that were left undecided during the off-road map updates of 2005. Finally, the Committee's task included recommending future paths, both roadside and off-road in the neighborhoods that were not previously mapped. In other words,the annexed areas. The Pathways Committee formed a subcommittee of five members with Eileen Gibbons as the Chair. The other members are Nick Dunckel, Bridget Morgan, Sue Welch, . and Ann Duwe. The subcommittee did the leg work to uncover documentation andthe subcommittee hada number of meetingswith the Planning staff, Engineering staff, the City Manager. They discussed what would be the best mappingtechnology; what would be the best database to use to capture this 5 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting May 23,2016 • information electronically, since in. the past that is only been kept in paper records. The subcommittee provided regular updates to the City Council to keep them informed of the process. The subcommittee, comprised of five members, represents less than_a quarter Of the Pathway Committee and is not in violation of • the Brown Act. • The subcommittee held nine neighborhood meetings, six public walks to solicit feedback from the residents, and drew up draft maps for proposed future roadside and off-road paths. The subcommittee presented those draft maps to the public and the Pathways Committee as a whole. The Committee heard a lot of public comments and discussed the comments. The Committee voted on the draft maps at a public meeting on the 25th of April. In the near future,:the Committee will forward the draft maps and the other update documents to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will review those recommendations, hold their own public hearings before making recommendations to the City Council. The City Council will hold public hearings before making a decision to either accept, deny, or send it back down the line for • modifications. Not everything in the Master Path Plan needs Council approval, but there are certain things that absolutely do need Council approval. Those items that need approval are, the list of streets with paths on both sides, the map of streets on which roadside,paths-are-planned, and'the map of-planned-future-off-road paths. There !are also I some—parts of ,the__Master':Path-= with as much consistency as possible, to all parts of the Town. As we move forward with the Master Path Plan Update, it is imperative that we apply the.same rules. to the annexed areasthat we apply to parcels in the original part of the Town. Applying the pathway basics will help integrate the new neighborhoods with the older ones. This is part of the process of assimilation of those new parcels. In the best case, the pathway system would be something that unites all the parts of town. The pathway elements, like the setback ordinances, the height limits, • the acre minimums, all those ordinances apply equally to all, parts of town. By remaining consistent we will give all residents the benefits of the pathway system and all residents will have equal responsibility for the beauty arid the maintenance of our pathway system." Mayor Harpootlian thanked Ann Duwe and Sue Welch 'for presenting the information. He said that he appreciated her comment with regard to "we are a community. We are not the same as the unincorporated area. We're here focusing on pathways. The way that things were Computed for annexed areas was different. But all these things were different when you looked at whether or not you joined this community. That's important. Los AltosHills was formed in 1956 and the first attempt to unincorporate was 1957. This has not necessarily been a homogenous and easily reconciled community. But we are a community:. I will do everything in my power to keep us a community. I_would rather see you look towards-uniricorporating-your areae acid joining-the-unincorpIor t d area or asking Los Altos to take;it in rather than/see you!destroy the community of Los Altos Hills'. fI would ratlier-see that.. I W uld event be interested i�nlwhat the possibilities are of convertets 11to p converting your streristreets.vate streIf that meant that you would eliminate:the-need for pathways.., L f(� Councilmember Corrigan inquired if the Planning.Commissioners were going to have an opportunity to weigh in. Mayor Harpootlian responded that any map changes will come before the Planning Commission prior to coming before the Council. The Council wants to comment and hear from the Planning Commission. Councilmember Corrigan said with that in mind though,the Council needs to be very careful taking a specific position on any pathways that could potentially come in front of either body. There was agreement not to discuss any specific pathways but rather provide direction to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Radford said that he requested a study session on this topic because it was so controversial and there was so much misinformation that he thought it would be beneficial if we were all on the same page before we embarked on the process ,that was laid out. He said that he asked the City Attorney to attend Pathways Committee meetings and asked whether or not the Pathway Committee could make decisions on properties in 'any annexed area without an approved Master Path Plan. 7 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting May 23,2016 City Attorney .Mattas said that the Committee needs to follow the Town ordinances which reference the placement of pathways where they have been designated on the Master Pathways Plan. Councilmember Radford continued that the next step was.whether or not the Town would accept in-lieu fees or delay decisions until a Master Path Plan has been brought forward. Now we are at the point where the issue is, can we proceed and recommend a new Master Path Plan that is in complete conflict with what certain annexed areas in Town want? City Attorney Mattas replied that the City Council can adopt a Master Path Plan that it deems appropriate for the area that is part of the Town. • • Councilmember Radford said that we are now in a position .where we have to decide whether to move through the process. The Council is in a position to.make a decision on how to go forward. The Master Path Plan has not been adopted yet. It • now rests with the Planning Commission: The Planning Commission has not yet reviewed and helda public hearing on this matter. Nor has the Council. There will be multiple opportunities for the public to be heard. He continued saying that the annexed areas need to be reviewed, "do we want to follow what-We've'always-followecriniall.other-areas-of—Town?—Or do we fmd that one or two areas may require a dikerent approach as we i have in other areas of Town' Or do;we find-that one or ttwo areas;may require a:different approach than we have m other areas iii.town:1t And"I'm not giving an answer to that. I'm just simply saying that really is'-• thewposition'�thatwe face. Not-talking about any one individual path,just in concept. And so, I'm not sure where I come out on that. But I want to frame the issue as being really clear. There is a large group of neighbors that believe that they do not want our pathway systems in their.areas. They know no reason why that should be forced on them. And, we're going to have to decide whether we're going to do that or not." Councilmember Corrigan clarified that it was her understanding from the . neighbors that she has talked to, it's not that they don't want.pathways in their • community, in their part of town, it's just that they don't want off-road or side of the roadconstructed pathways.They are perfectly happy with over the road. access which has existed for 60 years. She thought the crux of this entire discussion comes down to the reason there's so much conflict is because the annexed areas have not been added to the Master Path Plan. In fact to act as if the residents in the annexed have said they want special.treatment is not fair. They have said they are perfectly happy with over the road access which has existed up here for 60 years with no fatalities and no issues. Councilmember Radford said that all Californians legally have a right to walk on • any road they want. That's the'law. 8 • Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting May 23,2016 • • Councilmember Corrigan replied that was true, except when they're privately owned. She previously made .this presentation to the Council in October of 2013:The problem exists because the current ordinance says that in Town, every resident will have access to a pathway, on or across the street,, or adjacent. That is not what our Master Path Plan looks like'when you open it up and look at the green line. There's already a problem with what one document says, and another one says. 'Ignoring the annexed area for just a minute, that problem exists in the meeting several weeks ago arid we are still talking about building an off-road path from East Sunset, which isn't on the Master Path Plan at all, down to a Catholic retreat outside of our city. That is adiscussion that is so far beyond the current Master Path Plan, it doesn't belong in committee. There may have to be a philosophical difference that needs to be addressed before the Pathways Committee continues to make recommendations. Councilmember Radford said that the neighbors feel perfectly safe walking On the road and we shouldn't get in their way. Let's take a step further. What if the Town • says that though we believe there are safety concerns and regardless of whether individuals feel it is safe to walk on the:road, we ask along with some neighbors - that it is not safe? Does the Town ask all those neighbors on that road to indemnify the Town if any person gets hit on that road because they were walkingin the middle of it rather than on a path? Or if a child gets run over? \v i� 1 «/°\�` Councilmember Corrigan asked if`sbmeone gets hurt on;that path who are they , going to sue?There's-going`to be.lawsuits no atter--what." / i . �-- �'� Councilmember Radford'aid,i`my point\is_do we have a right.to say, "Okay, we buy into some of these arguments." But in certaincases we're going to exercise judgment where we believe safety is at a premium, and the Town because of the risks we incur taking you into the Town, we want more safety provided in that area • regardless of what you tell us, and what you think, because you're not going to be the one getting sued if someone gets hit." Councilmember Corrigan said that using the word, arbitrary; is a very good example of what the problem is with the existing Pathway Model. What has happened over the years, is the Town has been arbitrarily building those paths, that hopscotch from one side of the road to another, instead of taking a continuous line. In some cases the paths meander back and forth as necessary,but in other cases the Town has taken the path when offered due to opportunity. Part of the motivation she had in asking for this when she made this presentation, . was to get a Master.Path Planupdated and:approved once and for all that says what we plan to build. The Town has an obligation to direct where it intends to put paths. Ultimately the Town,.asa community, needs to make decisions andstate the long range plan. 9 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting May 23,2016 It should be straightforward, the Town has a Master Path Plan, a project comes in, it is reviewed; you aren't on the plan, you are on the plan, we need a path, we don't needa path; it should be black and white at that point. Further, Councilmember Corrigan said, "we shouldn't have. so much discussion about going up streets that aren't on these maps. Having said that, I think there's a number of other issues that I alluded to in that original document including setting limits, to what we're asking for in terms of cost, a reasonable standard about where we're asking paths to be built, the liabilities and what we're asking somebody to construct and then hand over. Who bears responsibility at that point? Now we're going to maintain a path that may go to somewhere'or nowhere, for how long, and why? It's a very complicated-issue that I think this is a great opportunity in our town history to sit down and get our arms around this once and for all. I'll just close by saying this, for_years that I served on the Pathway Committee we always said, the pathways are designed for the use of their immediate neighbors and for our fellow residents. We didn't want the maps published. The intent was to have it for the ability for our neighbors to use them, 'so they could walk around and wave at each other, get fresh air, ride their horses, ride their bikes, get the kids out on the street, be safe, off the road away from vehicles. I'm not opposed to any of that. I love our paths. I use them. I walked today down to Los Altos. I love them. But, I also believe thattheintent is to build them for the immediate neighbors who are —Thgoing to-use.them:; I-sat-through that exact same-meeting;two-hours of testimony from'neighbors, saying, "I'm opposed,\,I'm opposed, I'm opposed." And for the whole rest of the hour, the:-dialogue 'that went:along amongst the rest of the committee, not one single acknowledgement of any one of the neighbor's comments .=Itis ab'solutely,''and Ann just said-it, when she closes her comments and she said. "Here's what we look at. The ordinances, the policies and this." And on the second to the last slide she pulled up, nowhere on there is there room to hear what the neighbors want. What do the homeowners want here? When we look at a property, we look at singularly. We go out to notice you, we go out and walk your property. We don't notice everyone else around you and say, "Hey, we're coming." We assume everybody knows that. This is the opportunity to sit down and ask, "What do you want?" And now we're talking about a region that, a single entity, we need a pathway literally, nopun intended, to help these newly annexed areas understand what their, rights and obligations are. And I think we have mishandled this for now going on seven years, and have an opportunity to clarify once and for all what we intend to do. So that's what I hope our end game is here. When this is all finished, we are clear about where we intend to build a path, on what side of the road, and who supports it and who doesn't." Vice Mayor Waldeck said it sounds like both Councilmembers Radford and Corrigan made interesting points. In thinking about it, the fact is living with it for the past five or six years, it's always been a thorny issue and theeasiest thing to do is let the Pathways Committee make their recommendation and then decide if it's a good one or not. Based on the previous; comments, he said he sees a slightly different side of things, and it occurs to him that maybe the Council needs to decide 10 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting May 23,2016 just exactly what the process should be: He believed the process was a good one, but questioned whether it went far enough. He said would support going back and looking at the process to see if it needs to be modified. Councilmember Spreen said that he attended the recent Planning Commission meeting, and read every single letter directed to him and he takes them all very seriously. It's a very high level problem for the Town. First, the things that have been mentioned as arbitrary all went through Planning Staff, Planning Commission, City Council, and were approved. The Council is ultimately the blaming body for letting these problems happen. Second, he agreed that there should have been more details about which the side of the road a pathway will be placed. He said we are not planning these pathways for the current neighbors. These things are generational The Town is planning this for the next generation as sometimes these paths take 30 to 60 years to come together. Further, he said"this is kind of a weird argument, I picture in 30 years from now, I'd hate to have a whole bunch of families with kids here saying, "Hey,we're Los Altos Hills. How come we don't we have paths in our neighborhood?" So we really do have to look past just what we think about our particular house, our particular neighborhood and say, "This takes vision.: This takes long term vision." The pathway system, one of the fewthings that required long term vision beyond its original founders, reaches way beyond all of usrhere So,Wei-have-to be careful whiplashing--through-the;"-Hey, we don't like this.",: There's',a\lot of things)we don''tlike about the town. x l'm not trying to force anything on anyone,;I=m.just saying_we do have-to raise our vision to say, "This is a 30 year intention:"; I think,.it could-help That another 30 years from now, that's the side of:tlie=road we want to.have it on, and these are the ones that are going to be impacted. We can do the work to say, how wide is the road easement? Where everything is going to go? And so forth. And there's certain details that have to be left to develop overtime. Some have to be done upfront. And when we're going to make it happen. But, I really feel like this is something that requires that sense of, this is what we're leaving for our future residents, not just for ourselves. So, I want to bear that in mind." Mayor Harpootlian said he has never served on the Pathways Committee, but wanted to reflect a storythat Councilmember Spreen's comments has'brought to mind. He said, "A friendof mine who did a subdivision with an open space that ran along the properties, and he had every member of that subdivision say, "I want a fence off that open space from my property." And he said, "Okay." And so, there's this continuous fence all the way along all the properties. But he said the funny thing was that he came batik five years later and every single house along that easement,they put a gate in that fence, because every single one wanted access to that pathway. That's five years, not 30 years. That's just long enough for you to buy a dog, or have a kid. So, it's something that we try to consider over the long term here." He then asked the Planning Commissioners for their comments. 11 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting May 23,2016 Planning Commissioner Couperus said that he appreciated what Councilmember Spreen just said. He further commented, "I recognize flowcharts as I am a former programmer. I looked at the chart provided by the Pathways Committee with a programmer's eye and said, "there's a decision missing."'What happens if there is no opportunity to .build a path there? I'll give you a very good.example. There's a section of road where there is a, one of those metal things they put along the freeway, a crash guard to stop you from going down a ravine. And there's an 80 degree slope on the other side, and this is just wide enough for two cars. You come down here and you say, "Son of a.gun, where am I going to put that bloody path?" There is no exit which says halting and catch fire. At least I couldn't fmd it. Sometimes you have to use human thought. Having said that, there's this other thing which I think is a communication problem. About two years ago, we had a bunch of angry neighbors in here, who heard the Pathway Committee tell them, "My God, we're going to take 30 feet of your property from you and we're going to put a path in." That's what they heard. It's not what was said. And you hear it even now in annexed areas. The nuances of well the path could be just along the road, and it could be just a native path, and it could be just two feet wide. But we'd like to if possible separate it from the,what Americans call the pavement, I'll clarify that in a moment, with some growth in between so that the cyclists don't run down the horses.: Very true case, we had a homeowner come in here who actually came from the Indian Sub-continent. He spoke English and_was American. And we talked about the-pavement:--It-confused ,the\hell out-of-the 'guy: 'He thought we were talking about the sidewalk. You liave,to be very careful about these things. What that man heard)and I-had;to clarify_it for bi n: It completely sent him off in the wrong fdirectiona`tl : But bottom line,/wh 'm getting to is almost all roads in town are I amenable-to-some kind of better/than minimum place for somebody to walk. The question what is better than minimum? To me that minimum is the blacktop with the white stripe down it, and the only protection you've got is that white stripe. There areplaces where we don't even have that white stripe. But at a minimum we'd like to know where to make that white strip wider on this side or the road or that sideof the road.. That's the minimum. That's where you want to say, "As you get a chance over the next 30 years, if you're walking, even if we can't put in a dirt pathway, at least paint the white stripes to encourage people to walk this side rather than that side." That's the ground minimum. We'd like to do more. The ultimate: is as you go down Fremont here, you see a nice path. Its five feet wide. It's got header boards, and it's off the road by three, four, five feet, may even be raised up. That's what we'd really like but we're not -going to get that everywhere. How do we get there from here? This is the really good stuff for the flowchart. Where I think some human element has. to come into it, and some communication skills that when we annex an area, there isn't this immediate Pavlov reaction of, "Oh my God. The Russians are coming. They're going to take 30 feet off the front of my yard." That's just some of my wisdom on that." Commissioner Mandle said she is a pathway user and a pathway supporter and believed a Master Path Plan was needed. Beyond that, she did not have enough information to say much. She further stated, "I'm an information junkie as you can 12 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting May 23,2016 tell by the presentation you saw previously. If we're talking about a specific area then I need to know more about that specific area before I say much of anything. " Mayor'Harpootlian asked how she would handle having the Master Path Map come before her as a Planning Commissioner. Commissioner Mandle responded, saying "when it's available for the public to look at or me, I think I qualify as the public, I think I'd like to know as soon as possible so that I have the time to look at specifically what's being proposed. I'd like to know how it's different than the existing Master Path Plan. And I've read a lot of emails so I think I know how the neighbors feel in various areas,but there might be more neighbors out there who haven't seen a new Master Path Plan. I would like to know what people think,about it in general not,just one small part of Town." Commissioner Abraham recalled the rather unpleasant event in 2005 when the pathway map was examined closely in a new off-road pathway map was approved. It was quite a battle. He expressed that a few changes needed to be made to the policy. He didn't think it is realistic to say that we're going to have a pathway in front of every single house in this Town. Because,there are places in this town where it's just not feasible building a pathway. If a pathway is too expensive, it shouldn't bebuilt.He-said, "I,think everything needs-to have a-sanity check done on it before it gets too far into the process. \ �T ? ; r_-- _ He further stated, ",you really, got to go oyer the General Plan and get a straight map and make-it-say something thatreally makes sense. Not only is it the anxiety that it can create with residents having to go through this process, it's 90 some odd miles of pathway. That's quite a maintenance burden and I think that's more distance than we have roads. I know it's almost twice the distance of our power lines. That's a boatload of pathway to take care of. So,I would suggest you take a good,hard look at it and do a little head scratching and a little doodling with the numbers and see, "My gosh. Is this what we want to be spending our money on?". Who knows?Maybe we can pay off some of ourunfundedpension debts and other things and wiser use of our funds. And, it's not that I don't like pathways. I use them, I like them. My kids use them. My wife uses them all the time. And, my doctor says.I should be using them more, but I'm too lazy. The pathway in front of my house I don't like at all,because it damn near kills me to walk up on it." Commissioner Tanka said that she thought this all came about because there's still a lot.of uncertainty in the areas that have been annexed as to what will happen if the pathways ever happen. She said that the first thing is that the Town needs to do is do a better job of communicating to the newly annexed areas about if and when thesepathways ever happen and come up with a long term plan. The Pathway Committee has only been doing their job and following directions. Thisneeds to come back to Council in order to take a fresh look to see where the new pathways go with a Master Path Plan in place. 13 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting May 23,2016 • • . Commissioner Partridge said that pathways have not been very controversial in the past couple years and he can see the benefit of the established .pathway • system. He further said, "I.also really hark upon a point, John, in the beginning, that we are one community. We have to have everybody consistent across that community. If there's a problem, we should address it. And I'm listening to try to understand that, but just like when a new-community comes in and they get access to our sewers and they get help with forestalling over development. They're part of • the community. And I said very strongly at one of our meetings about how-one of - the newly annexed areas is now part.of Los Altos Hills. And people are talking • about maybe we should go by the Countyrules. No, you live by the Los Altos Hills rules. And, we're all very clear on that. That with respect to the development standards, but I think that pathways are still in the same category. So, maybe some • of the rules need to be changed and improved and I'm interested in learning and have an open mind and I've not dealt with these issues before. As I say, I'm just a • casual•pathway user myself,but I did feel strongly on John's initial point that we are all one:Town, with one set of rules and so far we just have a single zoning within the Town that we.may have to change at some point if we have to adopt some of these areas with small lots. I actually think that's a very good thing that we have single zoning and everybody plays by the same rules. So, I'm mostly here listening and it sounds like we'll have a lot to listen to when it comes to the Planning Commission. So, I'll look forward to that. Councilmember Radford' said that' he has[been the liaison for the Pathways Committee for to,two years and wan• ted clarify-somefpoints. The committee has communicated clearly and• exhaustedly over;and over again and it is clear that the Loyola=commumty: Mayor Harpootlian said that he wanted "to make a correction and it's what we're looking at here is the pathway recommendation process for development, redevelopment triggers review. The Master Path.Map it seems a little droll to go over the entire process,but you really are at the beginning of it. What we're looking at is we've completed the first couple steps of an update to the Master Path Map. And that map will still go as it says here, Planning Staff, Planning Commission, and City Council. What happens after that is there's a.line on a map. Big deal. Even Google recognizes it as sometimes a minor thing. What happens next is somebody at a residence says, "I want to build 900 sq. ft. or more. Or, I want to tear down this house and build a new house." Then this thing is what this page is all about. The Pathway Committee will review the maps, make a site visit and make a recommendation for if a path goes there, or, and this happens at a public meeting, or in-lieu fee is suggested. That goes to the Planning Staff. That then goes to the Planning Commission, and it may finally come to the Council if there's some disagreements. It's a long, long process.. As Roger was indicating, this may be a 30 year process. That most of the people who are here have moved on to better places in an intervening thing or an intervening time. It's along process that we're looking at and we're right at the beginning of it." Councilmember Corrigan believed that making two simple changes:-would probably solve 99%of the problem. She continued, "the first is as I suggested three and a-half y 1 rs:!,ago;-get\this edit made. -I=ve-read-youw-what it said. My recommendation I,dont carelif youitake mine,'or if you want Ito take a sub group to work on it. My)recommend'ation,� swe'tchange�-it to-read, "A Master Path Plan shall • be adopted by/the 1 Town 'Council using input from residents, Town staff, the Planning_�Conimission and`of course the.Pathway Committee. It will be updated periodically as needed." Eliminate any of this must adjacent, across the street from a portion of the current ordinance. It doesn't have to be, it doesn't become a hammer, with which we build pathways. And we edit it to make it a little more general. Create a threshold, or a ceiling on fees; both in-lieu and construction. The way the process works right now, the committee reviews and we would like a path there, it goes to staff and they agree; the pathway recommendation is buried in the document and the Planning Commission reviews. If you put :a ceiling on the construction cost on the homeowner it now becomes the burden of the city to construct." Councilmember Radford said that the Master Path Plan needs to be updated despite the challenges in the Loyola area, there are other areas that are quite happy with the changes. He suggested moving it forward to the Planning Commission. Councilmember. Corrigan said if her suggestions are implemented first, it makes the second part easier. Mayor Harpootlian suggested bringing Councilmember Corrigan's suggestions forward at a future meeting. 15 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Special Meeting May 23,2016 City Manager Cahill asked, "that in terms of having the pathways work, are we just talking about their recommended amendments for the Master Path Map for the annexed areas?" Councilmember Radford responded and said it is for the entire project,the annexed areas and six others that were left out; take what the Pathways Committee hascome up with and then decide if more outside help is needed, or just send it right to the Commission. Mayor Harpootlian suggested the City Manager work with the Chair of the Planning Commission. MOTION MADE AND SECONDED:-Councilmember Radford moved to take . the next step on the recommended pathways process to have the Pathways Committee make a recommendation to the planning staff to review and modify the conditions of the approval;the Master Path Plan shall be sent to the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing; the Planning Commission shall then make a recommendation to the City Council.The motion was seconded by Vice Mayor Waldeck. Motion Carried 5.to 0: _ F-77 AYESI MayorHarpootlian,Vice Mayor Waldeck, Councilmember Corrigan, C/o uri�cilmemberRadford;‘Councilmember Spreen j NOES J11None-1 ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None • 3. ADJOURNMENT OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION The meeting adjourned at 8:27 p.m. • Respectfully submitted, Delyarcav Padova-iv : • Deborah Padovan City Clerk • • • • 16 Joint City CouncilPlanning Commission Special Meeting May 23,2016 Attachment 5 • s �.,.• t' '� ,i , 1�• ',. 0. • Study of Pedestr4911.11, ian Path, ., ' ,o • /''�� a: ., ! , • and Mora Drives •• '.0,4 -�' towneAsef of Los Altos Hills; C I ,o`r "�� r r %2tt , -OF -. Ni.1 -.October 13, 2016 `; - ' ; ` -y ! . t;:: lo „y ";+�� �v ,i r`, i .,.` 'I+ ,t•t :r . �• '�\ —. t • ,O._ • ♦ . •'I—kik': w 6 yt�+" __ • 1 T 1* • 4/014ZA 4.11 , , - . . :t.. . "" :- `til f � . ..44v . . . , . ... ... •rt -.7 ' •rWL•l� 'IJl1^. `i t 1 ,} .1.11r + A �fl , a ' lies ` �•: ,\ - `rte . • r. Trail People, i•scaseA�rchitec"�ts and Planners , 4 919 First Str=_ ite 1, Benicia,CA r...... ','!• r•� P ^.,� y .'1 _ . i ...-4o, ' At '.• • J`� T 1 I P e O p I e tanning and designing trails and y;, ...;41.....— + „ . - {�°-t aths for everyone " Study of Pedestrian Path along W. Loyola and Mora Drives, Town of Los Altos Hills Prepared October 13, 2016 by TrailPeople,Landscape Architects and Planners,919 First Street,Suite 1, Benicia,CA 94510 Bruce R. (Randy)Anderson, Principal Landscape Architect randy@trailpeople.net (707) 205-1370 Casey Osborn,Senior Planner Brian Wilson,GIS Specialist Table of Contents Introduction and Overview 2 Study Scope and Objectives 2 Existing Conditions 2 Determining Path Study Alignments 4 Mora Drive— 4 W. Loyola Drive— 4 Methodology 5 Data Collection 5 Type of Feature/Obstruction 5 Features Inventoried 5 Distance from the Fog line 6 Description 6 Slope 6 Inventory Maps 6 Using the Inventory for Cost Estimates 6 Path Construction and Cost Assumptions 7 Project Size and Bidding Assumptions 8 Construction Cost Items and Assumptions 8 Constructing Path on Slopes 10 W. Loyola and Mora Drive Path Study Town of Los Altos Hills Accommodating Trees on Slopes 14 Pathway Cost Estimates 16 Conclusion 16 Appendix: Path Segment Cost Estimate Details 17 List of Figures Figure 1:Study Location Map 3 Figure 2:Standard Town Path Detail 7 Figure 3: Pathway Concept on Moderate Slope 10 Figure 4:Town Standard Path Detail for Slopes 12 Figure 5:Alternative Path/Retaining Wall Concept 13 Figure 6:Concept for Path at Oak Tree Roots 15 List of Tables Table 1: Unit Cost Assumptions 9 Table 2:Total Costs for Each Project Area 16 Table 3: Unincorporated Mora-Minimum Width Path 17 Table 4: Incorporated Mora- Minimum Width Path 18 Table 5: Unincorporated Mora-Standard Width Path 19 Table 6: Incorporated Mora-Standard Width Path 20 Table 7:W. Loyola-Minimum Width Path 21 Table 8:W. Loyola-Standard Width Path 22 List of Photos Photo 1: Existing Guardrail Along North Side of Mora Drive 4 Photo 2: Path along Reliez Valley Road in Lafayette,CA 13 Photo 3: Path with Downslope Wall along Reliez Valley Road in Lafayette,CA 14 TrailPeople October 13, 2016 Wage W. Loyola and Mora Drive Path Study Town of Los Altos Hills Introduction and Overview Study Scope and Objectives This study addresses the feasibility of constructing a pedestrian path along Mora Drive and West Loyola Drive in the southern portion of the Town of Los Altos Hills,CA.The objective of the study was to detail the requirements and feasibility/reasonableness of constructing a path along these routes to meet the Town standards of a 5'wide path with headerboards and decomposed granite or quarry fines surface, as well as the feasibility of an alternative 3'wide path.The study includes an inventory and maps of existing conditions and constraints with identification of those that would need to be removed or modified,and those that would require the design of the path to be modified. It includes a description of potential design treatments and assumptions regarding construction requirements and costs, and planning-level project cost estimates. Existing Conditions The study area is located in the southern part of the Town of Los Altos Hills as well as a portion of unincorporated Santa Clara County(see Figure 1). Under current conditions neither road has a formal pedestrian facility,and walkers use the roadway,creating the potential for conflicts with vehicles, especially where the road is narrow and/or curves sharply. Mora Drive connects to the Rancho San Antonio Open Space Preserve,which is a popular destination for local residents and is also visited by classes from the Waldorf School down the street. The study area is challenging because of obstructions along the roadside, narrow right of way,and steep slopes along both routes. The Mora Drive study area is an approximately 0.54 mile route that extends from the corner of Mora Drive and Eastbrook Avenue west to the Mora Trail in Ranch San Antonio Open Space Preserve. The Waldorf School of the Peninsula is located on the northeast corner of Mora and Eastbrook. The route is partially within an area recently annexed by the Town. Mora Drive approximately west of Terry Way is within Los Altos Hills;east of Terry Way it is in unincorporated Santa Clara County. The study breaks out the requirements and cost for Incorporated and unincorporated Mora Drive separately. West Loyola Drive roughly parallels Mora Drive to the north,extending approximately 0.9 miles west from Eastbrook Avenue. The western portion turns to the north.At Ravensbury Avenue West Loyola becomes Camino Hermosa Drive.The entire route is in the Town limits.There are steep winding portions with embankments on both sides,and guardrails on the downhill side. TrailPeople October 13, 2016 Wage W. Loyola and Mora Drive Path Study Town of Los Altos Hills Figure 1:Study Location Map • a s )ft . '•�� • me e-t.\-‘ Z LL O Y P • . 't'�HILL• 4 .9 cF , • 260 +1F: ... O O '4.N'2, ? 10�0`P t4 'fit •' pe ic9,4, Los Altos ° P ,'a° Hills / 4,0 46R1<S1-1I:E OC.- �A,�aP �_" ` i i O� / • • erg :,4, "kill 411% .,,,, NoG i� P ,, iit 1 • 1 Rancho ti San Antonio OS •�' '4 e850Study area rtt14 t'[ 0 Mora and Loyola Drive foot paths Ir,,,People ��� Los Altos Hills, California 919 First Street,Suite 1 Data TradPeople.County of Santa Clara.USGS Benicia,CA 94510 Elevations NOAH Coastal LIDAR (707)205-1370 •�� cu,•ew wwwtrailpeople net Date 9 22 2016 Time 50541 PM TrailPeople October 13, 2016 3 I P a g W. Loyola and Mora Drive Path Study Town of Los Altos Hills Determining Path Study Alignments A first step in the study was to determine which side of the road had the most significant constraints, so that the study could focus on the least constrained side. All path study alignments are well within the public road right-of-way,generally as close as possible to the edge of pavement, but leaving at least a one foot buffer between the pavement and the path. The option was investigated that the path would displace part of the pavement in locations where there was inadequate space for the path, but wide pavement(i.e. 22'or more). We found that in all the locations where the space for the path was very constrained the paving was also narrow;there were no significant opportunities to facilitate the path by reducing pavement width. Decisions on which side of the roads to focus on were made as follows: Mora Drive— Initially, heading east from the open space preserve boundary,the northern side of Mora Drive appears to have more space for a path, however,approximately 200 feet west of Terry Way there is a guardrail on the northern side that runs for 190 feet and protects cars from the steep slope below.Since both sides of the road had their challenges—narrow space between the road and private landscaping,curbs, trees,steep slopes,etc.—the guardrail was the deciding factor in the decision to focus the path study on the south side of Mora Drive. Photo 1:Existing Guardrail Along North Side of Mora Drive • •4'. Vit''., _ h • .� '•i•,•7 - ,�T'yi 14t • ' , `. `A' • 't p W. Loyola Drive— Heading west from Eastbrook,there is a steep downslope along the southern side of W. Loyola Drive, including guardrails running for approximately 580 feet.This extended downslope was determined to be a greater constraint than the upslope on the northern portion of the road. Further along W. Loyola, however,just past Rolly Road, is an existing decomposed granite walking path. Because this path already exists;and because the final stretch of road on the north side of Loyola has a moderately steep downslope,we focused study of the W. Loyola Drive path on the north side of the road between Eastbrook and Rolly Road,then crossing to the south side of the road from Rolly to the terminus at Camino Hermoso. The intersection of Rolly and Mora provides a relatively safe visual and physical clearance for pedestrians to cross from one side to the other. TrailPeople October 13, 2016 Wage W. Loyola and Mora Drive Path Study Town of Los Altos Hills Methodology A preliminary inventory was made using Google Earth Street view for both the north and south sides of W. Loyola and Mora Drives.This preliminary inventory not only helped determine what side of the road was best suited for a path and would therefore be inventoried in the field, but also what types of features to include for recording in our data collection form. We used GPS to collect feature and location data. Features along W. Loyola and Mora Drives were inventoried via a walking audit. Features that were cataloged included objects that had the potential to obstruct and/or constrain the path at specific points,such as mailboxes,signs,trees,and utility poles; and objects that had the potential to obstruct or pinch the path for some distance along the route,such as dense vegetation,walls,fences,slopes,and drainage ditches. Data collected using GPS in the field and mapped using GIS in order to visualize the location of the features,severity of the slope,and available right-of-way for the potential alignments.The inventory was also used to develop assumptions about the extent of removals,site work and construction required, and assumptions for unit costs for work,as described in greater detailed in a later section. Data Collection Based on distance from the edge of the road,or"fog line"the inventory classified objects into three types: Type of Feature/Obstruction • Pinch—Object is in the path alignment but will not be removed or disturbed;the path will be narrowed or"pinched" (to a minimum of 3'from the standard 5').This type was assigned to mature trees and utility poles. • Remove—Object is in the path alignment and will be moved or removed/replaced. Objects that fell under this category included traffic signs, mailboxes,and landscaping, including landscaping and native vegetation that serves screening/privacy purposes,which the estimate assumes will be replaced in kind. • Other—this includes objects that do not directly affect the path but were inventoried for context,and some objects that are in the alignment of the path and have a cost impact, but are not obstructions or involving impacts on private improvements in the right of way—such as utility boxes (which can be re-set if necessary) or driveways(which create a savings in path construction—no driveways were too steep for the path to cross). Features Inventoried • Curb—including asphalt curbs and as an umbrella category for slopes • Drain—including culverts and ditches • Driveway—all driveways regardless of surface, includes asphalt, brick pavers, etc. • Fence—privacy fences and decorative fences • Guardrail—any guardrails along the road • Hydrant—all hydrants • Shrubs—includes planted and natural tall shrubs • Landscaping—including low shrubs, rocks,groundcover,etc. TrailPeople October 13, 2016 5 I P a g e W. Loyola and Mora Drive Path Study Town of Los Altos Hills • Parking—areas along the shoulder that appear to be regularly used for parking • Sign/Mailbox—includes traffic signs, mailboxes on posts • Tree—Species of tree was denoted in the description • Utility Poles—telephone poles • Utility Boxes—water, cable,etc • Wall/Structure- includes privacy walls and mailboxes/entryway pillars built using materials such as brick or stucco Distance from the Fog line We measured every feature's distance from the fog line (the white stripe on the edge of the roadway). These distances ranged from 0 feet(driveways paved to the edge of the road),to 6 feet. Any obstruction further than 6 feet from the fog line was not inventoried,as 6 feet would provide the space necessary for the standard 5 foot path with a 1 foot setback from the fog line. Description Descriptions of the features include type of landscaping,type of sign,length of driveway,type of utility, tree,or drain, and the presence of a slope as well as the length of the slope and the severity. Slope Sloped areas were captured under the category of"curb"and denoted as severe or moderate slope.The length of slope(how far along the road it ran)was also recorded All slopes had a starting point recorded in GIS,a total length,a severity(e.g. "moderate," "minimal"), and a photo. The severity of slope was classified as follows: "Severe"slope—any slope within six feet from the fog line where the top of the bank is greater than 3 feet high "Moderate"slope—any slope within six feet from the fog line where the top of the bank is less than 3 feet high Relatively flat areas and sections with minimal slope in which the path could be constructed without walls were not recorded;any non-moderate or severe sloped areas on the map are within that category. Inventory Maps A series of seven detailed GIS route inventory maps was created for Mora Drive,and a series of ten maps was created to cover W. Loyola Drive. These are provided as a separate product accompanying this report.The maps show all the features/objects inventoried and clarify which of them are"remove" types and "pinch"types,as indicated by"R"and "P" labels, and which of the conflicts are eliminated in the minimal 3'wide path alternative,as indicated by the M symbols.The maps give an indication of the geographic distribution and quantity of the constraints along the route. Using the Inventory for Cost Estimates Length and severity of slopes, number and type of features marked for removal/modification,and utilities needing to be reset all added to path construction costs. Driveways,which do not require path construction,were subtracted from the length of the path construction costs. TrailPeople October 13, 2016 6 I P a g e W. Loyola and Mora Drive Path Study Town of Los Altos Hills For the"Minimal" path alternative,the distance from the fog line measurement was used to exclude features and their associated costs that are too far from the fog line to obstruct the 3 foot wide version of the path. Path Construction and Cost Assumptions The basic goal of the study is to assess the requirements/feasibility and planning-level cost estimate for constructing a 5'wide quarry fines surfaced path per the Town's standard detail (see Figure 2).As an alternative,the study also considers the feasibility of a "minimal"3'wide path. Figure 2:Standard Town Path Detail HEADER BOARDS SHALL NOT PROJECT ABOVE THE PATHWAY OR ADJACENT GRADES 2'—O' SHOULDER SHOULDER (MINIMUM) (MINIMUM) 3%-10% 3% SLOPE' 3%-10% L I SLOPE SLOPE .. ..... / TQM41 / 6' STEVENS CREEK QUARRY /G4)\ CRUSHED FINES 2'x 4' STAKE 2'-0' LONG 0 6' MAXIMUM SPACING AND 2'x 6" REOW000 OR PRESSURE AT EACH SPLICE. CONNECT TREATED HEADER. (2-1"x 6' STAKE TO HEADER WITH A REDWOOD HEADERS MAY BE USED SEE NOTES MINIMUM OF 4-10d ON CURVES). 4 k 8 GALVANIZED NAILS. —— AC BERM OR CURB NOTES; 1. PATHWAY MATERIAL AND SHOULDERS SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 95% RELATIVE DENSITY. 2. IRRIGATION SYSTEMS SHALL NOT BE LOCATED CLOSER THAN 3 FEET TO A PATHWAY. NO IRRIGATION WATER MAY BE DIRECTED TOWARD OR ON THE PATHWAY. 3. TREES AND SHRUBS SHALL NOT BE PLANTED CLOSER THAN 5 FEET TO A PATHWAY. GROUND COVER MAY NOT BE PLANTED CLOSER THAN 3 FEET FROM A PATHWAY. •4. 5% MAXIMUM IF APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. PATHWAY AND SHOULDER CROSS SLOPES SHALL DRAIN TOWARD OR AWAY FROM THE ADJACENT ROAD AS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. 5. UTILITY BOXES, SERVICE METERS, MANHOLES, MAIL BOXES, FIRE HYDRANTS AND ALL OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE PATHWAY. PATHWAYS MAY MEANDER AROUND EXISTING UTIUTY POLES, FIRE HYDRANTS AND MAIL BOXES WHERE FEASIBLE. 6. HEADER BOARDS MAY BE OMITTED ON THE SIDE OF THE PATHWAY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO BERM AND CURBS. 7. SEE STANDARD DETAIL 021 FOR WATER BAR INSTALLATION. TITLE ROADSIDE PATH TYPE (28) ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL DATE: SCALE: NONE STANDARD DETAIL 12/07/2011 DATE:11/18/2011 1 5 '`��j' CHK: RIP�el;LIFORNIA 28379 FREMONT ROAD, LAS ALTOS HILLS, CA 94022 • Phone: (650) 941-7222 TrailPeople October 13, 2016 7 I P a g e W. Loyola and Mora Drive Path Study Town of Los Altos Hills Project Size and Bidding Assumptions The cost estimates reflect the assumption that the projects are bid separately. If projects on the unincorporated part of Mora,the incorporated part of Mora,and/or Loyola are combined,there could be a significant savings due to reduction of project start-up and overhead costs and greater overall construction quantities. Bid prices can vary significantly based on current economic conditions,time of year of bid solicitation,and ability to generate significant bidder interest. Construction Cost Items and Assumptions Unit costs for various construction elements and overall construction and project cost factors are detailed in Table 1. • Items 1-4 are typical contractor overhead items that are calculated as lump sum items based on Town input and general proportion to the extent of construction work. • Item 5,Sitework and Removal, reflects costs for dealing with obstructions or constraints for building the path. • Some of features that were inventoried were determined to not interfere with the path alignment,such as file hydrants, driveways,and parking. They are on the maps for context. • In the case of driveways,there is a cost savings item in the estimate.This is because the path doesn't need to be constructed across the driveway. However,driveway surfaces may have to be roughened for equestrian purposes,and an allowance is provided for this. • Some items are assumed to be locations where the 5' path would be reduced in width ("pinch"), rather than remove or relocate the object,for example utility poles. These"pinch points"are identified on the maps but are not assumed to have an impact on costs. • Where items in the right-of-way are relatively feasible and inexpensive to relocate or remove and replace in-kind,such as signs, mailboxes,fences,decorative walls, landscaping,and shrubs, costs for this are included in the estimate. • Item 5.3 is a pathway design concept for accommodating trees on slopes,as described in more detail below. It is an addition to the base pathway cost on slopes in Item 9. • Item 5.10, Drainage Work,is an allowance for locations where there are existing swales or ditches that carry water along the shoulder in a location where the path would be adjacent. This covers regrading and potential measures such as lining the ditch with rock or other erosion control method. • The construction cost total includes a 30%estimating contingency. • Allowances for other project costs—survey,design,and construction administration,are included as percentages of the construction cost. Construction administration is assumed to include inspection and compaction testing. TrailPeople October 13, 2016 Wage W. Loyola and Mora Drive Path Study Town of Los Altos Hills Table 1:Unit Cost Assumptions UNIT COST ASSUMPTIONS BANNING-LEVEL ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST-October 2016 REVEWED BY:RA-TrailPeople PREPARE)BY:CO-TrailPeople Note:Estimate based upon conceptual designs and is to be used for study purposes only. No. Description Unit Cost per Cost Unit 1 Mobilization LS 2 General Conditions,Bonds and Insurance LS See 3 Erosion Control -Includes all BMPs,SWPPP and Reporting LS Individual 4 Traffic Control LS Estimates Subtotal Contractor's Overhead 5 Sitework and Removal-site preparation for construction 5.1 Re-setting of utility boxes EA $200.00 5.2 Shrub removal and replacement EA $20.00 5.3 Path accommodation for tree on slope(raised path with railing+kern 9) LF $200.00 5.4 Remove/repair existing low decorative wails EA $500.00 5.5 Remove and relocate existing sign or mailboxes(simple-complex counted as w ails) EA $300.00 5.6 Remove and replace existing wood fence LF $100.00 5.7 Landscape removal and restoration(low shrubs,plants,rock,irrigation) SF $10.00 5.8 Roughen Driveway EA $200.00 5.9 Deduct path cost at driveway(aft assumed to be on minimal slope) LF -$39.10 5.10 Drainage Work(locations w here there are drainage sw ales and ditches adjacent to path) LF $20.00 6 Path on Minimal Slope-3'width-total per LF $39.10 6.1 Clearing and Grubbing-5'wide=5 SF x.0.50=2.50/LF SF $0.50 $2.50 6.2 Excavation and Grading-3'path minimal slope-5'wide by 0.5'deep=0.1 CY/LF CY $100.00 $10.00 6.3 Redwood,treated,or plastic headersboards and stakes(2 sides) LF $5.00 $5.00 6.4 Quarry fines path with base rock,binder,and compaction- 3'wide by 0.5'deep= .06CY/LF CY $240.00 $21.60 7 Path on Minimal Slope-5'width-total per LF $65.60 7.1 Clearing and Grubbing-8'wide=8 SF x.0.50=4.00/LF SF $0.50 $4.00 7.2 Excavation and Grading-5'path minimal slope-8'wide by 1'deep=0.3 CY/LF CY $100.00 $30.00 7.3 Redwood,treated,or plastic headersboards and stakes(2 sides) LF $10.00 $10.00 7.4 Quarry fines path with base rock,binder,and compaction- 5'wide by 0.5'deep= .09 CY/LF CY $240.00 $21.60 8 Path on Moderate Slope-4'width-total per LF $179.00 8.1 Clearing and Grubbing-8'wide=8 SF x.0.50=4.00/LF SF $0.50 $4.00 8.2 Excavation and Grading-4'path moderate slope-6'wide by avg.2'deep=0.5 CY/LF CY $100.00 $50.00 8.3 Treated wood retaining waft 18"high-moderate slope((§$80/face foot) LF $120.00 $120.00 8.4 Redwood,treated,or plastic headersboards and stakes(one side) LF $5.00 $5.00 8.5 Quarry fines path with base rock,binder,and compaction- 4'wide by.5'deep=.07 CY/LF CY $240.00 $17.76 9 Path on Severe Slope-4'width-total per LF $374.00 9.1 Clearing and Grubbing-8'wide=8 SF x.0.50=4.00/LF SF $0.50 $4.00 9.2 Excavation and Grading-4'path severe slope-8'wide by avg.3'deep=1.0 CY/LF CY $50.00 $50.00 9.3 Treated w ood retaining w all 4'high-severe slope(@$80/face foot) LF $320.00 $320.00 9.4 Redwood,treated,or plastic headersboards and stakes(one side) LF $5.00 $5.00 9.5 Quarry fines path with base rock,binder,and compaction- 4'wide by.5'deep=.07 CY/LF CY $240.00 $17.76 Subtotal Sitew ork and Path Construction Subtotal Contractor's Overhead(Items 1-4) Contingency 30% CONTSTRUCTION TOTAL Surveying 5% Engineering-Rans,Specifications,and Estimate 20% Construction Admin.,Inspection and Testing 20% Subtotal Project Design and Adminstration 45.0% PROJECT TOTAL TrailPeople October 13, 2016 Wage W. Loyola and Mora Drive Path Study Town of Los Altos Hills Constructing Path on Slopes Items 6,7,8, and 9 in Table 1 provide the costs for constructing the path on relatively level ground up to severe slope. In the case of minimal slope there is an option (item 6)for constructing a path that is 3' wide rather than 5'wide (Item 7). The study assumes design approaches for accommodating the path on slopes -classified into three types: 1. Minimally sloped ground—relatively flat terrain that will require minor grading, but no retaining walls; 2. Moderately sloped ground—will require a retaining wall averaging approximately 18" high (see Figure 3); Severely sloped ground-will require a significant retaining wall approximately 4' high (see Figure 4 and Figure 5). A design assumption was made that the "standard" path or the "minimal" path would both be four feet wide where they are constrained by moderate or severe slopes, based on the theory that more than three feet of space would be desirable next to walls or slopes, but that constructing to five feet would entail significantly more cost and impact on adjacent features,such as trees. Four feet was seen as a reasonable compromise between these considerations. Figure 3:Pathway Concept on Moderate Slope Mo Drive-Minirnal Treatrnent ttika • ±} • •� v:ti 4 c e a -a Y EAsingSk" • < a, ;tf Wuod Wall 4"fog line 18'High I 20' 1 1 Rua]Width TrailPeople October 13, 2016 10 I P a g e W. Loyola and Mora Drive Path Study Town of Los Altos Hills The Town has a standard detail for a path on a slope that includes a "backfill"or"downslope" retaining wall and a railing—see Figure 34. The deep footings and addition of the railing make this a relatively expensive design to construct. A conceptual design assumption was made that if the path was closer to road level,created by cutting the slope and retaining it with a wall beyond the path (see Figure 5),the more expensive railing version would not be needed, but that a post and cable railing as illustrated in Photo 2 might suffice. TrailPeople October 13, 2016 11 I P a g e W. Loyola and Mora Drive Path Study Town of Los Altos Hills Figure 4: Town Standard Path Detail for Slopes 4 1/2"95(REF) 5' PATH OR PER CITY ENGINEER1/11 PATHWAY HAND RAIL. ;.> SEE STD. DETAIL 20 —� \1111 67w FOR DETAILS. v N 1vz<.-� \ I I Z�� '1� I I M J 2X12 R.S. PTDF WALES - . N > E (SPLICE AT PILE, N =I I if_w o COUNTERSINK FOR N o o o BOLTS & NUTS) v N n I v rai w=W 6" STEVENS CREEK QUARRY o cc Lu cc Ctil RUSHER FINES COMPACTED TO 95% REL. DENSITY I SLOPE T1 N, *WM % Ai 40 O DRAIN A 1 Ak\. _ ,,,,.,„.. , I I �. I ' . 1 SEE aII41© :DETAIL \ W , I I iv L9:i u �� /8"O BOLTS AGGREGATE SUB BASE 1 NUTS & WASHERS COMPACTED TO 95% R.D. WALES 6X6 R.S., P.T., HANDRAIL CONNECTION DF ® 6' O.C. MAX • \\ DETAIL NOTES: j :•y • \ .\/,\ EX. GROUND \-� ' „,‘,„/ Z i\/, (2:1 MAX SLOPE) 1. PILE HOLES TO BE CLEAN & 5 DAMP BEFORE PLACING lc, CONCRETE. 2. CONCRETE TO BE CLASS A \\ PER STD. SPECIFICATIONS. ' •.\/ 3. WALE NAILING TO BE 2-16d 4 ' \� GALVANIZED. fai 4. THERE SHALL BE A 4' 12"0 WALL/HAND-RAIL RETURN AT 'rot 45' (OR AS DIRECTED) AT EACH END OF WALL. 3" OF DRAINROCK LOS ALTOS IDI,I.S TITLE PATHWAY RETAINING WALL AND HANDRAIL ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL DATE: SCALE: NONE STANDARD DETAIL W 12/07/201 1 DATE: 11/18/2011 2 2 CHK: JMP CALIFORNIA 26379 FREMONT ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS, CA 94022 • Phone: (650) 941-7222 TrailPeople October 13, 2016 12 I '' , W. Loyola and Mora Drive Path Study Town of Los Altos Hills Figure 5:Alternative Path/Retaining Wall Concept .. W Loyola-UpsIope Wallr," r4ol11 . .J .v iii .. • A `, ii;• . –-14#"‘% . . .. •,... .-: ..10. - , -, 1, . ,,\,,,‘ Pr %X\ . - y _ � i. iC t .. ,mow -�� - / = ,,, '`fir 4 fV.l a « t_ I 20' I2I I Road Width Photos 2 and 3 provide examples of paths from Lafayette,CA similar in design to the type of path considered for W. Loyola and Mora Drives. Photo 2:Path along Reliez Valley Road in Lafayette,CA Win.: T w y 1 , 1 ., e c:— _ _ --- '" -- A )..4,441 e;t!.• - Google ear to ° TrailPeople October 13, 2016 13 ( P a g e W. Loyola and Mora Drive Path Study Town of Los Altos Hills Photo 3:Path with Downslope Wall along Reliez Valley Road in Lafayette, CA z..sh.. •-,. - . •°; + 'f s, is V"i *-tsigti�3vt#t ;<R fkl."' . I.' I ,' - ys ° Alt ....--- ..,..04.2.44.2„.. - Goosle earth • S. Accommodating Trees on Slopes There are a number of mature trees in the right-of-way, primarily native oaks. No mature trees are necessary to remove to accommodate the path—at most the path can pinch around them. Some of the oak trees are on steep slopes and are relatively close to the striped edge of the roadway(the "fog line"). These are clustered at the top of the sharp curve at the east end of Loyola Drive. Where there is sufficient setback a 4' high retaining wall at the back of the path (Figure 5) is assumed to continue past the trees. Where the clearance is tight and it appears that cutting the slope might interfere with the roots of the tree,the path is assumed to be constructed by transitioning to a retaining wall near the road with a railing,and filling behind (Figure 6),similar to Figure 4,Town standard detail No. 22,except that the path is assumed to be 4'wide and the wall up to 4' high. To maintain a maximum gradient of 5%,the transition to/from these raised pathway sections would be a minimum of 80'on either side of the tree. At the sharp curve on Loyola where there is a cluster of trees the raised path detail was assumed to continue throughout the curve. TrailPeople October 13, 2016 14 I P a g e W. Loyola and Mora Drive Path Study Town of Los Altos Hills Figure 6:Concept for Path at Oak Tree Roots a • 11•!.';-:" -•-'` .,'. ,r� 'Yf ;441'-'4'''''' ''' ., •' , i .v. • Wood Wall up et to4'High \ row •:,:aline \ x 20' I I 4' Road Width TrailPeople October 13, 2016 15 I P a g e W. Loyola and Mora Drive Path Study Town of Los Altos Hills Pathway Cost Estimates Table 2 provides a summary of the cost of the path segments on Mora in the unincorporated area and incorporated area,and on Loyola,for the"minimal"3'wide path (4'wide where retaining walls are involved,and the "standard" 5'wide path (also 4'wide where retaining walls are involved). Table 33 through 8 located in the Appendix provide the cost estimate detail for each path segment. Table 2:Total Costs for Each Project Area TOTAL COSTS FOR EACH PROJECT AREA FLAMIING-LEV EL ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST-October 2016 REV EWER BY:RA-TrailPeople FREPARED BY:CO-TrailPeople Note:Estimate based upon conceptual designs and is to be used for study purposes only. Description Total Total Suvey, Construction Design and Total Project Mora Drive Minimum Width Alternative(3'wide path;4'wide on slopes) Cost Admin.Cost Cost Segment 1:Mora Drive from Eastbook Drive to Terry Way(unincorporated area)1,527 LF $133,166 $59,923 $193,089 Segment 2:Mora Drive from Terry Way to Open Space(incorporated area)-1,233 LF $166,051 $74,721 $240,773 Total for Mora Drive Mnimum Width Alternative-2,760 LF $433,861 Mora Drive Standard Width Alternative(5'wide path;4'wide on slopes) Segment 1:Mora Drive from Eastbook Drive to Terry Way(unincorporated area)-1,527 LF $183,096 $82,391 $265,487 Segment 2:Mora Drive from Terry Way to Open Space(incorporated area)-1,233 LF $200,458 $90,204 $290,663 Total for Mora Drive Standard Width Alternative-2,760 LF $556,150 W.Loyola Drive Minimum Width Alternative(3'wide path;4'wide on slopes) Loyola Drive from Eastbrook Ave to Ravensbury Ave-4,776 LF $806,610 $362,972 $1,169,582 W.Loyola Drive Standard Width Alternative(5'wide path;4'wide on slopes) Loyola Drive from Eastbrook Ave to Ravensbury Ave-4,776 LF $990,691 $445,809 $1,436,500 Total for all minimum width segments $1,603,443 Total for all standard width segments $1,992,650 Conclusion The cost estimates reflect the expense of building the path on steep slopes.This,and the fact that the route is about 2,000 feet longer, bring the total project cost for the W. Loyola Drive path to$1.17 million for the minimal width alternative,and $1.44 million for the standard width alternative. The Mora Drive path is much less expensive because it is shorter and there is limited construction on slopes. There is a savings of about 22%on Mora Drive and 19%on W. Loyola Drive for the minimum width path vs.the standard width path.This reflects less disturbance of private improvements in the right-of-way, in exchange for a narrower path. Overall the costs reflect fairly limited removal or modification of private improvements. No mature trees are removed or utility poles moved because the path width is assumed to be reduced around them even in the standard width alternative. TrailPeople October 13, 2016 16 ' Page W. Loyola and Mora Drive Path Study Town of Los Altos Hills Appendix: Path Segment Cost Estimate Details Table 3:Unincorporated Mora-Minimum Width Path Segment 1:Mora Drive from Eastbook Drive to Terry Way(unincorporated area)1,527 LF Minimum Width Alternative(3'wide path;4'wide on slopes) PLANNING-LEVEL ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST-October 2016 REVIEWED BY:RA-TrailPeople PREPARED BY:CO-TrailPeople Note:Estimate based upon conceptual designs and is to be used for study purposes only. QTY COST SUB TOTAL 1 Mobilization 1 LS $6,000 2 General Conditions,Bonds and Insurance 1 LS $2,000 3 Erosion Control -includes all BMPs,SWPPP and Reporting 1 LS $2,500 4 Traffic Control 1 LS $8,000 Subtotal Contractor's Overhead $18,500 5 Sitework and Removal-site preparation for construction 5.1 Re-setting of utility boxes 0 EA $200.00 $0 5.2 Shrub removal and replacement 0 EA $20.00 $0 5.3 Path accommodation for tree on slope(raised path with railing+Item 9) 0 LF $200.00 $0 5.4 Remove/repair existing low decorative walls 1 EA $500.00 $500 5.5 Remove and relocate existing sign or mailboxes(simple-complex 2 EA $300.00 $600 5.6 Remove and replace existing wood fence 0 LF $100.00 $0 5.7 Landscape removal and restoration(low shrubs,plants,rock,irrigation) 522 SF $10.00 $5,220 V 5.8 Roughen Driveway 9 EA $200.00 $1,800 5.9 Deduct path cost at driveway(all assumed to be on minimal slope) 299 LF -$39.10 -$11,691 5.10 Drainage Work(locations w here there are drainage sw ales and ditches adjacent to path) 33 LF $20.00 $660 Path Construction 6 Path on Mnimal Slope-3'width-total per LF 1333 LF $39.10 $52,120 8 Path on Moderate Slope-4'width-total per LF 194 LF $179.00 $34,726 9 Path on Severe Slope-4'width-total per LF 0 LF $374.00 $0 Subtotal Sitework and Path Construction $83,935 Contingency 30.0% $30,731 Total Construction $133,166 Surveying 5.0% $6,656 Engineering-Plans,Specifications,and Estimate 20.0% $26,633 Construction Admin.,Inspection and Testing 20.0% $26,633 Subtotal Project Design and Adminstration $59,923 Total Project $193,089 TrailPeople October 13, 2016 17 ( P a g e W. Loyola and Mora Drive Path Study Town of Los Altos Hills Table 4:Incorporated Mora-Minimum Width Path Segment 2:Mora Drive from Terry Way to Open Space(incorporated area)-1,233 LF Minimum Width Alternative(3'wide path;4'wide on slopes) PLANNING-LEVEL ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST-October 2016 REVIEWED BY:RA-TrailPeople PREPARED BY:CO-TrailPeople Note:Estimate based upon conceptual designs and is to be used for study purposes onl . QTY COST SUBTOTAL 1 Mobilization 1 LS $5,000 2 General Conditions,Bonds and Insurance 1 LS $1,800 3 Erosion Control -includes all BMPs,SWPPP and Reporting 1 LS $2,000 4 Traffic Control 1 LS $6,500 Subtotal Contractor's Overhead $15,300 5 Sitework and Removal-site preparation for construction 5.1 Re-setting of utility boxes 1 EA $200.00 $200 5.2 Shrub removal and replacement 2 EA $20.00 $40 5.3 Path accommodation for tree on slope(raised path with railing+Item 9) 0 LF $200.00 $0 5.4 Remove/repair existing low decorative walls 2 Fes, $500.00 $1,000 5.5 Remove and relocate existing sign or mailboxes(simple-complex counted as walls) 0 EA $300.00 $0 5.6 Remove and replace existing wood fence 0 LF $100.00 $0 5.7 Landscape removal and restoration(low shrubs,plants,rock, irrigation) 99 SF $10.00 $990 5.8 Roughen Driveway 9 EA $200.00 $1,800 5.9 Deduct path cost at driveway(all assumed to be on minimal slope) 243 LF -$39.10 -$9,501 5.10 Drainage Work(locations w here there are drainage sw ales and ditches adjacent to path) 199 LF $20.00 $3,980 Path Construction 6 Path on Ivinimal Slope-3'w idth-total per LF 1005 LF $39.10 $39,296 8 Path on Moderate Slope-4'width-total per LF 0 LF $179.00 $0 9 Path on Severe Slope-4'width-total per LF 228 LF $374.00 $85,272 Subtotal Sitework and Path Construction $123,076 Contingency 20.0% $27,675 Total Construction $166,051 Surveying 5.0% $8,301 Engineering-Flans,Specifications,and Estimate 20.0% $33,210 Construction Admin.,Inspection and Testing 20.0% $33,210 Subtotal Project Design and Adminstration $74,721 Total Project $240,773 TrailPeople October 13, 2016 18 ( P a g e W. Loyola and Mora Drive Path Study Town of Los Altos Hills Table 5:Unincorporated Mora-Standard Width Path Segment 1:Mora Drive from Eastbook Drive to Terry Way(unincorporated area)-1,527 LF Standard Width Alternative(5'wide path;4'wide on slopes) PLANNING-LEVEL ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST-October 2016 REVIEWED BY:RA-TrailPeople PREPARED BY:CO-TrailPeople Note:Estimate based upon conceptual designs and is to be used for study purposes only. QTY COST SUB TOTAL 1 Mobilization 1 LS $6,000 2 General Conditions,Bonds and Insurance 1 LS $2,000 3 Erosion Control -includes all BM Ps,SWPPP and Reporting 1 LS $2,500 4 Traffic Control 1 LS $8,000 Subtotal Contractor's Overhead $18,500 5 Sitework and Removal-site preparation for construction 5.1 Re-setting of utility boxes 1 EA $200.00 $200 5.2 Shrub removal and replacement 0 EA $20.00 $0 5.3 Path accommodation for tree on slope(raised path with railing+Item 9) 0 LF $200.00 $0 5.4 Remove/repair existing low decorative walls 1 EA $500.00 $500 5.5 Remove and relocate existing sign or mailboxes (simple-complex counted as walls) 3 EA $300.00 $900 5.6 Remove and replace existing wood fence 83 LF $100.00 $8,300 5.7 Landscape removal and restoration(low shrubs, plants,rock,irrigation) 1124 SF $10.00 $11,240 5.8 Roughen Driveway g EA $200.00 $1,800 5.9 Deduct path cost at driveway(all assumed to be on minimal slope) 299 LF -$39.10 -$11,691 5.10 Drainage Work(locations w here there are drainage sw ales and ditches adjacent to path) 33 LF $20.00 $660 Path Construction 7 Path on Mnimal Slope-5'width-total per LF 1333 LF $65.60 $87,445 8 Path on Moderate Slope-4'width-total per LF 194 LF $179.00 $34,726 9 Path on Severe Slope-4'width-total per LF 0 LF $374.00 $0 Subtotal Sitework and Path Construction $134,080 Contingency 20.0% $30,516 Total Construction $183,096 Surveying 5.0% $9,153 Engineering-Flans,Specifications,and Estimate 20.0% $36,619 Construction Admin.,Inspection and Testing 20.0% $36,619 Subtotal Project Design and Adminstration $82,391 Total Project $265,487 TrailPeople October 13, 2016 19 I P a g e W. Loyola and Mora Drive Path Study Town of Los Altos Hills Table 6:Incorporated Mora-Standard Width Path Segment 2:Mora Drive from Terry Way to Open Space(incorporated area)-1,233 LF Standard Width Alternative(5'wide path;4'wide on slopes) PLANNING-LEVEL ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST-October 2016 REVIEWED BY:RA-TrailPeople PREPARED BY:CO-TrailPeople Note:Estimate based upon conceptual designs and is to be used for study purposes only. QTY COST SUB TOTAL 1 Mobilization 1 LS $5,000 2 General Conditions,Bonds and Insurance 1 LS $1,800 3 Erosion Control -includes all BM Ps,SWPPP and Reporting 1 LS $2,000 4 Traffic Control 1 LS $6,500 Subtotal Contractor's Overhead $15,300 5 Sitework and Removal-site preparation for construction 5.1 Re-setting of utility boxes 1 EA $200.00 $200 5.2 Shrub removal and replacement 2 EA $20.00 $40 5.3 Path accommodation for tree on slope(raised path with railing+ttem 9) 0 LF $200.00 $0 5.4 Remove/repair existing low decorative walls 2 EA $500.00 $1,000 5.5 Remove and relocate existing sign or mailboxes (simple-complex counted as walls) 0 EA $300.00 $0 5.6 Remove and replace existing wood fence 0 LF $100.00 $0 5.7 Landscape removal and restoration(low shrubs, plants,rock,irrigation) 303 SF $10.00 $3,030 5.8 Roughen Driveway 9 EA $200.00 $1,800 5.9 Deduct path cost at driveway(all assumed to be on minimal slope) 243 LF -$39.10 -$9,501 5.10 Drainage Work(locations w here there are drainage sw ales and ditches adjacent to path) 199 LF $20.00 $3,980 Path Construction 7 Path on Mnimal Slope-5'width-total per LF 1005 LF $65.60 $65,928 8 Path on Moderate Slope-4'width-total per LF 0 LF $179.00 $0 9 Path on Severe Slope-4'width-total per LF 228 LF $374.00 $85,272 Subtotal Sitework and Path Construction $151,749 Contingency 20.0% $33,410 Total Construction $200,458 Surveying 5.0% $10,021 Engineering-Rans,Specifications,and Estimate 20.0% $40,092 Construction Admin.,Inspection and Testing 20.0% $40,092 Subtotal Project Design and Adminstration $90,204 Total Project $290,663 TrailPeople October 13, 2016 20 I P a g e W. Loyola and Mora Drive Path Study Town of Los Altos Hills Table 7:W. Loyola-Minimum Width Path Loyola Drive from Eastbrook Ave to Ravensbury Ave-4,776 LF Minimum Width Alternative (3'wide path;4'wide on slopes) PLANNING-LEVEL ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST-October 2016 REVIEWED BY:RA-TrailPeople PREPARED BY:CO-TrailPeople Note:Estimate based upon conceptual desi.ns and is to be used for study purposes only. QTY COST SUBTOTAL 1 Mobilization 1 LS $12,000 2 General Conditions,Bonds and Insurance 1 LS $4,000 3 Erosion Control -includes all BM Ps,SWPPP and Reporting 1 LS $5,000 4 Traffic Control 1 LS $18,000 Subtotal Contractor's Overhead $39,000 5 Sitework and Removal-site preparation for construction 5.1 Re-setting of utility boxes 9 EA $200.00 $1,800 5.2 Shrub removal and replacement 2 EA $20.00 $40 5.3 Path accommodation for tree on slope(raised path with railing+Item 9) 490 LF $200.00 $98,000 5.4 Remove/repair existing low decorative walls 5 EA $500.00 $2,500 5.5 Remove and relocate existing sign or mailboxes(simple- complex counted as walls) 9 EA $300.00 $2,700 5.6 Remove and replace existing wood fence 0 LF $100.00 $0 5.7 Landscape removal and restoration(low shrubs,plants, rock,irrigation) 1106 SF $10.00 $11,060 5.8 Roughen Driveway 18 EA $200.00 $3,600 5.9 Deduct path cost at driveway(all assumed to be on minimal slope) 755 LF -$39.10 -$29,521 5.10 Drainage Work(locations w here there are drainage sw ales and ditches adjacent to path) 515 LF $20.00 $10,300 Path Construction 6 Path on!Animal Slope-3'width-total per LF 3091 LF $39.10 $120,858 8 Path on Moderate Slope-4'width-total per LF 109 LF $179.00 $19,511 9 Path on Severe Slope-4'width-total per LF 1049 LF $374.00 $392,326 Subtotal Sitework and Path Construction $633,175 Contingency 20.0% $134,435 Total Construction $806,610 Surveying 5.0% $40,328 Engineering-Flans,Specifications,and Estimate 20.0% $161,322 Construction Admin.,Inspection and Testing 20.0% $161,322 Subtotal Project Design and Adminstration $362,972 Total Project $1,169,582 TrailPeople October 13, 2016 21 I P a g e W. Loyola and Mora Drive Path Study Town of Los Altos Hills Table 8: W. Loyola-Standard Width Path Loyola Drive from Eastbrook Ave to Ravens bury Ave -4,776 IF Standard Width Alternative(5'wide path;4'wide on slopes) PLANNING-LEVEL ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COST-October 2016 REVIEWED BY:RA-TrailPeople PREPARED BY:CO-TrailPeople Note:Estimate based upon conceptual designs and is to be used for study purposes only. QTY COST SUB TOTAL 1 Mobilization 1 LS $15,000 2 General Conditions,Bonds and Insurance 1 LS $5,000 3 Erosion Control -includes all BMPs,SWPPP and Reporting 1 LS $6,000 4 Traffic Control 1 LS $20,000 Subtotal Contractor's Overhead $46,000 5 Sitework and Removal-site preparation for construction 5.1 Re-setting of utility boxes 15 EA $200.00 $3,000 5.2 Shrub removal and replacement 3 EA $20.00 $60 5.3 Path accommodation for tree on slope(raised path with railing+Item 9) 490 LF $200.00 $98,000 5.4 Remove/repair existing low decorative w ails 6 EA $500.00 $3,000 5.5 Remove and relocate existing sign or mailboxes (single-complex counted as walls) 15 EA $300.00 $4,500 5.6 Remove and replace existing w ood fence 0 LF $100.00 $0 5.7 Landscape removal and restoration(low shrubs, plants,rock,irrigation) 1833 SF $10.00 $18,330 5.8 Roughen Driveway 18 EA $200.00 $3,600 5.9 Deduct path cost at driveway(all assumed to be on minimal slope) 755 LF -$39.10 -$29,521 5.10 Drainage Work(locations w here there are drainage sw ales and ditches adjacent to path) 515 LF $20.00 $10,300 Path Construction 7 Path on Minimal Slope-5'width-total per LF 3091 LF $65.60 $202,770 8 Path on Moderate Slope-4'width-total per LF 409 LF $179.00 $73,211 9 Path on Severe Slope-4'width-total per LF 1049 LF $374.00 $392,326 Subtotal Sitework and Path Construction $779,576 Contingency 20.0% $165,115 Total Construction $990,691 Surveying 5.0% $49,533 Engineering-Plans,Specifications,and Estimate 20.0% $198,138 Construction Admin., Inspection and Testing 20.0% $198,138 Subtotal Project Design and Adminstration $445,809 Total Project $1,436,500 TrailPeople October 13, 2016 22 I P a g e WIti S t .`..; IN N. ".� ) MILLER ," D �� . 1`3 4 ,n ; rn p A v C -i N r- O g n 11 . 11 C O to m J = N i0 m d � O �`' m 4 v w m v a +• v VI' vm 3 m m • 1,„ 141,... I Allir.liti .t ' ,.., e `- tv k 'c, ", i r .e.� , Kir }�»(4. .4.. N X k . . e 2 d0" ' 11 • i t 1 \i N .1 M o- .. • .1,,,,,„ w _ 0 i = M, 1. � T. i, • N- o \- •,, :-.4 0 Nk...,;*‘P, Qi 4% 919 First Street,Suite 1 Loyola 1/10 lit .kk Benicia,CA 94510 ?; Benicia, Los Altos Hills Mora and Loyola foot paths ' (707)373-5164 cell Tra i t Pe o p l e www.trailpeople.net Date:9/8/2016 Time:1:27:48 PM Rotation 75 Page 1 of 17 \'F,A ` • D ,0 ® • ;U,. • ❑ •® •• 04*G) K N 0 A a C -1 N 0 O 0 u d c o m m 3 ' _ — m J D o • d n n n m a n o n £ J N av — m m CI m m m — _. m o w a '< n vi H ry - J Rq ,• 70 7 ',41/4-1,1 ,...t?,,‘?1 -0 4, 3: RS w`.. _ _ III k ,, 14, 10. M 'b 1 -o n .. 4 _ ... lit-, . . ,,, T., ...:, , . _o ,. ,------,--46,z,_„ . , , , .. ...,.., ,, t, art i_- ._ .�, . S' . . ' r ♦ 1"4. n om• . o— o - co mco } — 4 ..'- :o,t r6 2 . I. 919 First Street,Suite 1 Loyola 2/10 I ill Benicia, 94510 t (707)205-1-1o 370 office (707)373-5164 cell Los Altos Hills Mora and Loyola foot paths Tr,:!People www.trailpeople.net Date:9/8/2016 Time:1:28:37 PM Rotation 60 Page 2 of 17 A..., , .44:-..sw D ®E •® ♦ * • ❑ ■ • O c co O A _7 C —1 m O o - .1� �� m n it w 3 P, m - A 2 ° pIF m 90 w m It‘T., ?/ a i k. m `i 1-, A Vt:7, ,'4.,. —10 , . • �� ] O . � . . • w lR 4.y 4' I^ , O /r i1 A y ii',. J t ,i. ,'I • / / / \ , p /'p O O p D Y).• / ,: Iiy Y v. ' ' / :'' o - � - ?: mom_ R- t ,c3), ,,,,, cn ,„ . , ,;:. • 41i 919 First Street,Suite 1 Loyola 3/10 1 1jj\�[p y){�3 iti C Benicia,CA 94510 (707)205-1370 office (707)373-5164 cell Los Altos Hills Mora and Loyola foot paths TrailPeople . ., _ www.trailpeople.net Date:9/8/2016 Time:1:29:25 PM Rotation 150 Page 3 of 17 e,.' p p. ► p IP . . 07373, C00013 °a m 2...- 3 g m '' m 3' a. v° �. a w m n e �`, r, x '�� m — v * 0 3 m n h: - `fit a Ver /+ ,. a' . -£ ♦ . rdh ♦ r,, +,f + ♦ ♦A li♦ ;r _3sio,3- O y 7, 1 \\:.,,,, ‘.O _ Ct. GJ tDs } N O F- v(i O ® , Y Nm ( 919 First Street,Suite 1 Loyola 4/10 Benicia,CA 94510 Itt 111.;:,..LA _ (707)205-1370 office Los Altos Hills Mora and Loyola foot paths (707)373-5164 cell Tra i l People www.trailpeople.net Date:9/8/2016 Time:1:30.15 PM Rotation 140 Page 4 of 17 ... .P4101- : N O A 0 C m m O O 2 -uS-i" it IPS m o w m a a 4i� \/ 0 g - 5 F C r A i:fr f / ' l it rn r/( -j0i M ,fir j. M ': ,6v, KyA 4 \ ... r z-,, 4 m.. .47-7; LST - ' t v";,, ' 0., , ,\. _ , v. .1.,, , \,..,,,i, \*... ,;_, I.‘ ..e.--r-...fr-. t„, Z1. o — I, O_ t. } 0 .. ...., s' Ms �' r., -- BFirstStreet,Suite 1 Loyola 5/10 Benicia,CA 94510 i kik� (707)205-1370 office (707)373-5164 cell Los Altos Hills Mora and Loyola foot paths TrailPeople ::::z"::"` www.trailpeople.net Date:9/8/2016 Time:1:31:01 PM Rotation 110 Page 5 of 17 '' ... { H1I ! ui ihk at IP� S o 3 n m m r I ea 1 z `t 4{ 1 x /-----,_ s- ,,,4., ,,i4 . 't aj� ice . 1 I� , . : ?+ ` fit, _r v sir R.; .. ' . c '- s+l' I Or `.�.,.a,, i. i• M • , 1 it -SUNHL — Y __:,.._,.... , .., c _ .,., 4 - -,rx',;-4.,.; i--1,-',, ot •'•1r .*."-1 r /:// e.,, ...,,,. ,, II( f (t Oiki6-4 1 .' . ' -.' tlAt't-'-' , ... . -' ,f 1,4,,-7. „,..„&„, w ht --41 N J.. N O 01 0 0 a 919 First Street,Suite 1 Loyola 6/10 t �11 fs.j� Benicia,CA 94510 IQ{ Y'��'��_ (707)205-1370 office Los Altos Hills Mora and Loyola foot paths • (707)373-5164 cell '� ��` www.trailpeople.net TrailPeople:` a Date:9/8/2016 Time:1:31:53 PM Rotation 140 Page 6 of 17 1 ,o < �, a • m w - m 2. s Aa � �w vam r . • i. _ / , y !•41r� L , • t i', .: rot I 'II ^,7".''' f tr- ti ..• ( .%. y,y -o p tib A s. w,.....: ir'^- -...t.. i +a ` f t f , e..A.p 1. f .q 1 f 'A , 4* •a O \�j7��;&, 'f' c O i!' 7 y . w, .+, - O` f, ri +' J ..�►..- .A r, 4 s _ i o •- r t rn a r - c d • r. t. .474'4 fr lig/ .' 919 First Street,Suite 1 Loyola 7/10 It kit it(70A Benicia,CA 94510 (707)205-1370 office (707)373-5164 cell Los Altos Hills Mora and Loyola foot paths Trai'people�:,.::;:'-..`` ` www.trailpeople.net Date:9/8/2016 Time:1:32:39 PM Rotation 160 Page 7 of 17 >® 0 o • * o • ❑ • 4 ��. K 0 A 7.3. C -I In r 0 0 v m . o w 3 ,Z m m o $ m, v g t, a 0 o a ' a a , 441 N-- s 3 d :L jp 417 :4147- ..,- 1 r 1,4 1.1 t- � .•'� � :rr t . V S ;.. ,i •, 4:„.,„ . , . +` ► „.„.1..,:„.....,.. .. r T I I ` el, / r 1 f 6 -0 N O- ' 4 _,. ‘,,:' J RK SRF r , ', ♦ �,.T « �it• : ` : 1Yv ». / F +'N W ` .'• ' j1# lit 919 First Street,Suite 1 Loyola 8/10 t 1(,:.'x A Benicia,CA94510 (707)205-1370 office Los Altos Hills Mora and Loyola foot paths (707)373-5164 cell TrailPeople "..'..: _' www.trailpeople.net Date:9/8/2016 Time:1:33:27 PM Rotation 160 Page 8 of 17 Irpoir O -. � N ro o � m m' , 0 3 am \ TD' ' S \ ` m ( =qtr.:: ' ' F, • S AIWA!" 114 j rr�¢ r� ,� may. ?� T / j , ,,, • s t•• \R rill 6.4 n 4 '- r 41j J; p _yam,[' 4. • a r - z.x, ,_ — r 1' -.v4 ' I I I ,17 r j'Rr • R-, ``, O .1. , x :-...:, 0 -.. t. 1 1 919 First Street,Suite 1 Loyola 9/10 ItBenicia,CA 94510 !!�� (707)205-1370 office (707)373-5164 cell Los Altos Hills Mora and Loyola foot paths Trai l Peo p l e www,trailpeople.net Date:9/8/2016 Time:1:34:15 PM Rotation 195 Page 9 of 17 A. D® E • * o • ❑ • I♦ 4 i O O 11 c m r; r2 O v m •t. . d � fief . n m ` d m m n m 0 / 4: ' m 5 '''4*‘11fl ( ° # iH ONO -w• (.- Ilk. a ,-- - / ' , . . >' f; it _ ',.'„'' - 4; ' '-' . , ---A. './.rR ' fr';`; 5Lo is It' / l' •4Or t • , E�'r•, o� ti c. ° • i 1. c S V r,r[ r: A '. ( i ts, --4t.:, A + , `_,ter :/ , • .4; ci` , i*,'�`.r r7i. T k tk .r. .!, ;., ' ��.. t• r ~ . 1r>t- , ,, qt o At :.., , • r� k 3 ° r, 3 <-:ii 0 ;•, .'•‘..fp. . 4� 919 First Street,Suite 1 Loyola 10/10 illy Benicia,CA 94510 :� _ (707)205-1370 office Los Altos Hills Mora and Loyola foot paths "11\\��1� (707)373-5164 cell TrailPeopie . www.trailpeople.net Date:9/8/2016 Time:1:35:03 PM Rotation 195 Page 10 of 17 '}0;11+ . ..W Doo o • • tit o • ■ 00 ' c o A * c -, vi 1.7 m o o L1 Nr, 40 i w m a FO i n yr tv N. a � 4 R� , t,y " - Yr+ k • ` ,-- k �� � , +s,c , ♦ s 'r, a,,r °q a, ' 71oqte` r w F L3, 7 ii opp 1- . "fir �� Y i 4 / i , v U irr -v t ,, :p mo ,Jr• A ,'l 4. r. I' `{" jJ ,Ir1 n+— 0 r. rr cri0 . O A • •e4 919 First Street,Suite 1 Mora 1/7 Benicia,CA 94510 (707)205-1370 office Los Altos Hills Mora and Loyola foot paths (707)373-5164 cell Tri PeOple ". Hnvw.trailpeople.net Date:9/8/2016 Time:1:35:53 PM Rotation 160 Page 11 of 17 p Oo o • • o • ■ ❑ • ■ f gip m O f c N m m o v ---`? V m a m • .51 W m 2 4. .A . �A 1'll 47 J/t• 5 o- - w - o m 2) 0 919 First Street,Suite 1 Mora 2/7 Benicia,CA 94510 (707)205-1370 office Los Altos Hills Mora and Loyola foot paths (707)373-5164 cell TrailPeople www.trailpeople.net Date:9/8/2016 Time:1:36:47 PM Rotation 140 Page 12 of 17 • D ►® E ' • • o • ■ ❑ • ■ '`` IIIPP " 2 S cn O A _- c - N r 77 O O n SW m m . : t:''' '' 1 = : g 'f:. 3 i 0 I't-: .. -..*, til ; 3 tY4,;:\ tea..;d I i / a �'jf Y' _. g r 1. f - Al "' l'''.:*'.." ,. , tz.$, 7 7 -1110- 4�!! '114' : ,s-1, * ti • Aro /",.. -4.--:„..---- /N ``4 AA all _ , , \ + ' l '4r ti ;, J ��o O - i a ,t,"'. •S,L * T.r:'�',`�.. t rte, 919 First Street,Suite 1 Mora 3/7 Benicia,CA 945o0 officelit 4h A ce w (707)373-5164 cell Los Altos Hills Mora and Loyola foot paths Trai(People www.trailpeople.net Date:9/8/2016 Time:1:37:31 PM Rotation 170 Page 13 of 17 • _ . _. 1 0 —IL 44144 Y (I) fl) r--/- —/ a) 5. 0 ,c) —1 -0 ea 0 7/ 0 ig 0 ch'-"- ,-- %L., 1.- - 'lil/ SD- % D -0 . -0 z ,-.--_-.0 .. J1,- ` ,i; ...4.- .-- . CD a) c .: .., _, ,,. .-1- _... . . ... 4. SD — D 0 5_; ,-4 - — - -.P.. 1 co ---1 --1 -a CD 0 a ig - - 0 ,-.71- .._, c - a D 1/4:-<-1- -4. ,.X • , ,\ ..A _\ .. -''• • . ''' N\ 0 \ o 74: 1.< - o ._ 0 > n > 0 - , ' - 0) .--1- — _. 1 • . 's 0 —• 0 = - , \ 1 .,,• cn (n A AreN 919 First Street,&Jae 1 Mora 4/7 Benicia,CA 94510 Mit 111% A (707)205-1370 office (707)373-5164 cell Los Altos Hills Mora and Loyola foot paths Tra People www.trailpeople.net Date:9/8/2016 Time:1:38:17 PM Rotation 160 Page 14 of 17 'llif .n- ® o o • • * o • ❑ O syr, • p :1,. ' 0 Ul p A A C (4, O O D N N v. 3 ' _ N 7 N ]. DO ��._ d D 6 O � ,G � Oi i � �� d W N if', N .. • S a n NA, m 3a 44„..V • lig-,; !J. r' f,'4 -----\ �-�` • ..fi D 1 ,01 x of ••• _ ,:z I, ., U I "e'. ;9 ' v • 4`+ w .b 3 x ' -!!'4, --.:\i-f. - ,r: v \----"\ ,,, czi J ® 919 First Street,Suite 1 Mora 5/7 Benicia,CA 94510 M.Lik2fA._ (707)205-1370 office Los Altos Hills Mora and Lo ola foot paths . (707)373-5164 cell Y Trai[People ".,,,:--._ www.trailpeople.net Date:9/8/2016 Time.1:39:07 PM Rotation 120 Page 15 of 17 iiii on � o • • • o • 11104p- , 1 o � � C m oa2:, Y l o Q % dm '31' -0, 411/' "t S v s " I//i4e* t r`1. 91 oaf. 6 1 d iY r ti �%+_77 , Y , 1 N A, 3 A ..\w o ,„,4,..;,,... Ji. 919 First Street,Suite 1 Mora 6/7 & Benicia,CA 94510 ('07,205-,37O office Los Altos Hills Mora and Loyola foot paths (707)373-5164 cell Tra i l People www.trailpeople.net Date:9/8/2016 Time:1:39:50 PM Rotation 100 Page 16 of 17 6 3a n w n `m R' o \>HTII:4,, ' 11 3 2. \ hies \ MIL •• yC / '1(4 --\ ‘ . / •. r M M; 07 } i ,f'' 41111 i o ). '57a,` 1 (1 .. ;i: a tit , .QA. . .,0. . .-,. _r _ Com'' �_ • r_'_-'._... _.ems_ ,_ '. O- ' { Ak W - O N O in 919 First Street,Suite 1 Mora 7/7 y 1 hi C Benicia,CA 94510 ST (707)205-1370office (707)373-5164 cell Los Altos Hills Mora and Loyola foot paths Trai'People:::....;:_ www.trailpeople.net Date:9/8/2016 Time:1:40:28 PM Rotation 90 Page 17 of 17 Attachment 6 Suzanne Avila From: Tina Patel <t_s_patel@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, August 08, 2016 8:47 PM To: Courtenay Corrigan;john.harpootlian@gmail.com;John Radford; Roger Spreen; Gary C. Waldeck;jima.pc@gmail.com;jitze.Couperus@gmail.com;jsmandle@Hotmail.com; richard.partridge@comcast.net; kavitat@comcast.net; Carl Cahill; Suzanne Avila Cc: Rod Incerpi; Bill Owen; Nancy Traficanti; Sylvia Johnson; stellakister@yahoo.com;James Steinmetz; Paul Wolber; Barbara Steinmetz; Kathleen Owen;William Leschensky; Ben Johnson; Scott Kister; Dick Swanson; Carol Matre; Denise Incerpi;Tricia Baldwin Subject: Proposed Pathways on Voorhees Drive Attachments: Attachment A.pdf;Attachment B (2005 Council Minutes).pdf To: Los Altos Hills City Council; Los Altos Hills Planning Commission; Los Altos Hills City Manager; Los Altos Hills Planning Director From: Homeowners on Private Portion of Voorhees Drive(copied on this email, collectively referred to as"Voorhees Residents")) Re: Pathways Committee Meeting (July 18, 2016) At the Pathways Committee Meeting on July 18, 2016, the Pathways Committee voted to recommend the addition of two pathways to the Pathways Map. The two pathways recommended are(a) between 24595 Voorhees Drive and 24555 Voorhees Drive (hereinafter referred to as "Pathway A")and (b) between 24500 Voorhees Drive and 24602 Voorhees Drive(hereinafter referred to as "Pathway B"). For the reasons articulated below, the Voorhees Residents are strongly opposed to Pathway A and Pathway B. The Voorhees Residents request that the Planning Commission and City Council firmly reject the Pathways Committee recommendation and not revisit these pathways or any pathways that abut, lead to or cross over the private portions of Voorhees Drive unless and until Voorhees Drive is a public road. 1. The proposed pathways deadend into the private portion of Voorhees Drive. This specific private portion of Voorhees Drive(the cul de sac area) is actually not a road but more of a private driveway. It is owned by one homeowner, has its own APN, the one homeowner pays taxes on it and the other homeowners who use this driveway do so pursuant to a contractual easement right. There is no public right of access (pedestrian, equestrian, vehicular or otherwise), by contract or otherwise, on this private driveway. There is no access to the public portion of Voorhees Drive (or any other public property from the proposed Pathways A and B). The proposed Pathways A and B serve no purpose other than to encourage, aid and abet trespassers on private property. The only easement (other than utility easements) on this private drive are for ingress/egress of Voorhees Residents and their invited guests. 2. These (and similar) pathways were the subject of numerous prior discussions, including most recently in 2002-2005 (see Attachment A). In 2005 the City Council recommended that pathways deadending into the private portions of Voorhees Drive (including Pathways A and B) should be removed from the Master Pathways Plan and the issue only revisited if Voorhees Drive was to become a public road (see Attachment B, pages 9-11). There has been no law or fact change since 2005 to warrant adding these pathways to the Master Pathways Plan or revisiting these issues now when the 1 issue was extensively discussed, reviewed and closed in 2005. See Attachment A and Attachment B, pages 9-11. 3. As articulated in this email and can be seen by Attachment A, the Voorhees Residents have (and continue to be) uniformly opposed to the adding of these pathways for safety, privacy and liability reasons. 4. As previously explained in Attachment A, St Nicholas School has also expressed a desire to only have students enter the school from the front of the school so creating any pathways which encourage entrance through the back raises issues for the school. 5. As previously explained in Attachment A, alternative pathways in this area have and continue to exist and there is no reason for the Pathways Committee to recommend these pathways 6. While there have been no fact changes to warrant revisiting the adoption of Pathway A or Pathway B, there has been a change in facts to further support that Pathway A should not be added to the Master Plan. When the new construction (24555 Voorhees)was approved by the city, the driveway for this new home was originally 10 feet from the property line with 24595 Voorhees Drive; however the Planning Commission and/or City Engineer later allowed the driveway to be constructed 4-5 feet from the property line. The homeowners at 24595 Voorhees raised numerous concerns about this change in 2011-2013 (the homeowners of 24595 Voorhees only purchased the home in 2011) including that this change was forcing much of the necessary screening between the homes to be planted in the area where there is a pathway easement. The city's response on this issue was simply that the pathway had been taken off the Master Path Map in 2005. To revisit this issue now after the city allowed the building of a driveway within 4-5 feet of the proposed pathway is unfair to and improperly prejudices the affected homeowers who planted screening in this proposed pathway area. If additional details and background would be helpful on this issue, please contact the 24595 Voorhees Drive homeowners directly. The homeowners at 24595 Voorhees also have safety, privacy and liability concerns which can be detailed and raised if necessary, including the proximity of the proposed pathway to the home itself with sight lines directly into the home, the pool and backyard. 7. The homeowners at 24500 and 24602 believe there is no easement on or between their property to even support the proposed Pathway B so it is unclear where or how the Pathways Committee could even recommend such a pathway. Moreover the proposed pathway also raises privacy issues and safety/liability issues (including proximity to the home and pool)that the homeowners at 24500 Voorhees can further explain in detail and raise if necessary. 8. The homeowners of 24500 Voorhees also paid a pathway in lieu fee back in 2010 when they subdivided their property to create 24555 Voorhees Drive. Those homeowners actually paid fees in respect of both lots. To now go back and suggest that an easement eventually be added across their property after the payment was made seems unfair. If it was important for the proposed paths to be added to the Master Plan then the city should not have collected in lieu fees and insisted on the easements back in 2010. In reality, the proposed pathways are neither necessary nor desired. 9. We also have concerns about the process for raising these pathways which we believe has numerous defects including the fact that not all the Voorhees Residents even received a mailed notice of the meeting (in particular homeowners of homes directly impacted by Pathways A and Pathways B never received notice). Moreover, we never even received information about the proposed pathways until the meeting itself and in fact, the specific proposed paths were raised and discussed by the committee only after the residents were given a chance to speak. We found the process by which this very important issue was raised to be both frustrating and concerning. The Voorhees Residents are tired of revisiting this issue in some form every few years and would like comfort that this issue is closed unless there is a change in 2 the law or facts that warrant revisiting. A change of Pathways Committee members, Planning Commission members or City Council members every few years is not the right reason to force the neighborhood to revisit this issue every few years. If after reviewing this email and the attachments, any City Council member or Planning Commission member still believes Pathways A and/or B (or any pathway abutting or ending at the private portion of Voorhees Drive) should be pursued then we respectfully request a meeting with the Voorhees Residents to be further heard on this issue. Thank you. 3 To: Los Altos Hills Pathway Committee, Planning Commission, and Town Counfq kCE1V7-D January 11, 2005 JAN 1 9 2005 Subject: Revision of Town Master Pathway Plan - T OWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS (1) Request to not create or propose any path easement on, adjacent, or leading to the private portion of Voorhees Dr. (2) Request to eliminate any existing or proposed easements or paths on, adjacent,or leading to the private portion of Voorhees Dr. Since the 1970's, with respect to Voorhees Dr., the then Town Councils created and have recogni7ed Voorhees Dr. as a private road,both legally and factually, with no general public access and no pathway. Accordingly, there should be no proposed pathway on, adjacent, or leading to Voorhees Dr.. Time and time again, over the years,owners on Voorhees Dr. have presented documentation to Town Councils and committees to support the subject requests. On those occasions when people using Voorhees Dr., who are obviously not business or personal guests, are confronted by owners and informed that Voorhees Dr. is a private road with no general public access or pathway, they often challenge owners with the assertion that there is a path shown on a Town map, even if it is only a proposed future path. Owners point out that there is a posted"No Trespassing Private Road" sign and an "End of Pathway" sign before the private portion of Voorhees Dr.. They are advised that there are parallel and other paths on Summerhill, Barley Hill, and Clauson Ct. that go to and from the path on El Monte Rd., and to the path on the public portion of Voorhees Dr., and also that paths on Summerhill and Barley Hill are connected by the path on Hilltop. There is no need to use the private portion of Voorhees Dr. or any existing unimproved or proposed easement leading to it as a pathway to go to any destination that cannot be reached by these parallel existing paths. In the past, a variety of proposed and existing pathway maps have been misleading or in error and published in disregard of proper procedures and information; all of these maps have at least one thing in common. They put the burden on the Voorhees Dr. landowners of showing that there should be no path, or proposed path,on or leading to Voorhees Dr. which is a deeded, truly private, no public access road ( See attachment 1. Typical Voorhees Dr., Deed, and See attachment 2. City attorney Opinion dated 11/1/2002). The burden should be on the Town, i.e., and the pathway committee, to show that there is a need for any particular pathway. That need for a pathway should be supported by Page 1 of 4 pages Revision of Town Master Pathway Plan credible evidence and should not violate existing, long standing, private property rights and not overturn decisions of previous planning commissions and Town Councils (See attachment 3. Council Minutes of 7/6/77 that Voorhees Dr. is to be maintained as a private roadway easement). Voorhees Dr. is within the property lines of the lots in the Voorhees subdivision (See attachments 4. and 5. - recorded Subdivision parcel maps). The appurtenant property owners and their guests use Voorhees Dr. for internal ingress and egress and utility purposes. A pathway map that is published with erroneous or misleading path information compounds privacy problems, slanders the titles of the affected properties on Voorhees Dr., and leads to embarrassing and even dangerous confrontations because it encourages trespassing on Voorhees Dr. and surrounding property. Who really needs proposed paths on, or leading to Voorhees Dr.?No one! Except over the years, the only insistence for a path on Voorhees Dr., or a path leading to it have been by a few members of the pathway committee, unsupported by any evidence of a need, and a resident who lives on Summerhill who has been a member of the pathway committee for about thirty years, who want "SOME DAY" to have a pathway on Voorhees Dr., and to "hell" with private property rights and other issues of privacy, safety, liability, steep terrain,trespass, and parallel pathways. There has never been any substantial evidence of a desire or need for another pathway or for a public way on Voorhees Dr.. There has never been a study, survey of residents, or a pathway origin- destination study showing some empirical evidence of any need for paths on or leading to Voorhees Dr., such as the proposed or existing path easements leading to Voorhees Dr. from the Cheng, Johnson, and Incerpi properties. These proposed or existing pathway easements should be eliminated. Certain members of the pathway committee often refer to the need of students to use a path on Voorhees Dr. to go to St. Nicholas School. As stated above and at many meetings in the past,there are parallel and duplicating paths with a common destination already in existence on Summerhill, El Monte Road, and Barley Hill. These existing paths allow anyone to arrive at the same destinations, such as the only approved entrance to St Nicholas School, which is from the path already existing on El Monte Road—not from Voorhees Dr (See attachment 6. letter from St Nicholas School, and See attachment 8.. items 1. and 2. —no change in entrance and agreement that there be no access to school from Voorhees Dr.). There is no need, contrary to these understandings, to impose the burdens of creating new or additional paths on, adjacent, or leading to or from Voorhees Dr. and St. Nicholas School. Page 2 of 4 pages Revision of Town Master Pathway Plan Lastly, and most importantly, is the fact that every property owner on Voorhees Dr., as indicated by their signatures below, is against creating any new or proposed pathways, and they are for eliminating any existing or proposed pathways or easements on, adjacent, or leading to Voorhees Dr. The following attachments 1 through 11, some referred to above, are hereby submitted in support of the long standing decisions by the Los Altos Hills Town Councils since the 1970s, original subdivision, and re-subdivision in 1977, and over the years since then that for many persuasive reasons as set forth above, and in the attached documents,the private portion of Voorhees Dr. should remain a Private Road with no public access and no pathways, or proposed pathway easements on, adjacent,or leading to it: 1. Typical Voorhees property Deed establishing private road rights 2. City Attorney Opinion, dated November 1, 2002 3. 7/6/77: Council Minutes, "...that Voorhees Drive should be maintained as a private road..." -No path established or proposed on Voorhees Dr. 4. Re-subdivision parcel map—Voorhees Dr. easement within private property no paths established or proposed. 5. 9/29/70: Original subdivision parcel map - there is no pathway easements on Voorhees Dr. or Ieading to it. 6. 4/25/02: Letter from St. Nicholas School: Children"...to enter and exit the school from the main entrance on El Monte..." 7. December 20, 1977: UNDERSTANDING RELATING TO VOORHEES DRIVE- Voorhees Dr. owners to maintain it as a private road. 8. 2/22/89 Letter to Town— See items 1.and 2. St Nicholas School and Voorhees residents agree to no change in entrance to school and no access from Voorhees Dr. to St Nicholas school. 9. 4/24/02 Communication to Town regarding privacy, pathway easement taking, and trespass. 10. 6/4/2002 Communication to Town Clerk (Pat Dowd) and Mitze Cheng referring to previous submissions and to eliminate proposed or existing paths connecting to Voorhees Dr. Page 3 of 4 pages Revision of Town Master Pathway Plan 11. 8/8/02 Communication to Town Council C/O Pat Dowd referring to previously submitted Documents and issues regarding Voorhees Dr. and that connecting or proposed paths be eliminated. Respectfully submitted: Date: 1/11/05 Signature: Date: -1 ;\ti / / 1/ cc Alexander J and Nancy Traficanti E ' . (/( In %1l r / 24615 Voorhees Dr. .--7 ' - // ; - I / /A/65 ' ' / //4J,__- Kathleen and Bill Owen / __,�,_ )3//OS- 24601 Voorhees Dr. C--- +L 11 t J ///� 0Emily and Frank Cheng i 1.,.-, ? r ( I it%i f % j' e / 24595 Voorhees Dr. -‘,J4 -2 l - /3 - 6u-- q it Ronald Incerpi ` Gr"-0 ' L Q \.i.-,,,,t, / -- )/ i1 24500 Voorhees Dr. l ,', 0 — , jp .4.311K Ben and Sylvia Johnson 24602 Voorhees Dr. \ \. --511-; -j- ( 1 1 Paul Wolber and Patricia Baldwin ,.,J( t, z,Q,-)... /?J(,:1 - x-- 24650 Voorhees Dr. f �i.l,t'Al41C-4164/117 WH/G5— 1 Jim and Barbara Steinmetz O A z. j� 1,,,e, 24635 Voorhees Dr. y„r, ( Betsy Vobach /1-------' /Z Ja-k 200 5---- 24700 24700 Voorhees Dr. Page 4 of 4 pages Revision of Town Master Pathway Plan V # 1 14 'Act11•1 I . '.- 30 t'. 174 is.... (.1! I -:, b AZL !NOVI. THIS LIMt It.ri ' 'it.. • .• "1"" :+•. a0,1ve l cull value . 1 Joint 'Tenancy (;rant INte- 11, 1 1,.6.4' ' WO.PCOM•Y•NR+•.O ei,HILA• ..c••..rl 1•1►t W.rs..1 i. vm.17A14d.1 t ONSIUI:NATtoN. r•ralpl ul .4•11i1 I.Iwel•r r.fa•rin,lxe,1. VAN111'rtVErII VrfRN1.FS AND MIRY M. vonP iiT';, husband and wife I hereby t,knN71'.1 w GIUSEPPE. and BENP.Dl�TTA P.l.f*NA f.A`:`AI/a, his . AA g(nPYf T1.. ANTh, 0,,,,..4 prufwn) in Ow city of Los Altos lit IIn • c;.•„Itty of Santa Clara sow 41,41u'... •w„itw.1 a.: . PARCEL ONE J , PARCCI. 2. AS SHOWN nm THAT CI.RTAIN PARCEL MAP PILED FOP RI r;rfkr: IN THE OFFICE: OP THE RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OP SANTA CL•ARA, !rumOF r:At,IFOPNIA 1 ew SEPTEbthF.R 29. 1990 IN Or10L 271 OF MAPS, Al PAOF 14, PARCEL TIM ' 'f . A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, ECRESS ANDUTILITY pup I'nSFS OVER VOORHEES DR1VE..'A PRIVATE ROAD APPIIRTIPANT TtIP.PI:TC,, AS SIUIMRi IIPOK THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP IrlLEB FOR 1414'.'Ik11 IN Till 80,1.1' I: t+I, THE RTCORf►rP OF rfuE fn11yTY Or SANTA I:LARA, cTATI' OP CAL1FoR!:i.t n!: . SEP'F*IBFR 29. 197n IN ROC, 271 or MAPS:, AT PALL. 44 V• . • t,.,,.1 /. . ..I,•l•• /•• , .' / '•, a. .l. . . • ( 't•. /. - . .�:tt!1,I.PVI lit Y.H+kf11 I S .0.11 .•J • •404%• tt ' r�. 1 - 1.114.1 •., t'nOR1Cl•I' ,... 1..• . r.,. .I I e. . ,.,.. ,.......i. 1 I.•.•,,,.... � .... .. . • • . e••:ice.• • •G . I '• i ''' .. .�... ..1 - _ ....r r .w . .. ' 'y M. ..AttY 10 a: x , 1 . • . . . . .. ....,• 7. •, ,..J I... J •.. . . .. .. .... .N WWI '•JM• 4. a,t••wir•.•w Io•••wodw I. y,) •. 1 • 1..t. .•..I.. t• — {AAAA .,. I.w•. ♦.. !/ .{•L• • ......• tit 1.tAltmtgtta AL utatCTto not/ t Y V.1 ATTACHMENT 1 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM CONFIDENTIAL - PRIVILEGED DATE: November 1, 2002 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney V SUBJECT: Public Use of Pathways Shown on the Pathway Map Introduction: Vice-Mayor Cheng has requested that I prepare a memo for the City Council addressing whether members of the public may access private streets where a pathway is shown on the Pathway map. The answer to this question differs depending on whether there exists a perfected easement and improved pathway along the private street. The following is a discussion of several unique circumstances that may result from the dedication to the Town, or lack thereof, of a roadside pathway easement. Discussion: The dedication of a pathway easement to the Town sets apart that land for public use as a pathway. See Grupe Development Co v. Superior Court (1993), 4 Cal. 4th 911, 926. Acceptance of the offer of dedication is essential to the completion of dedication. In Los Altos Hills, the dedication of a pathway easement is generally accepted by a resolution of the City Council. Los Altos Hills has acquired roadside pathway easements both through statutory dedication under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, and through common-law dedication This year, for example, the Town accepted a pathway easement on the Lands of Askarinam & Yazdani simultaneous with the approval of a final subdivision map for the parcel. The Town also accepted a common law pathway dedication in March of this year on the Lands of Kachru, which was unrelated to any subdivision. When the Town accepts a dedication for a specified, limited and definite purpose, such as a pathway, the subject of the grant cannot be used for another and different purpose. See Roberts v. City of Palos Verdes Estates (1949), 93 Cal. App. 2d 545, 547. For example, easements previously dedicated for utility purposes may not now be redesignated as pathway easements. Public Access to Private Roads where no easement has been dedicated. The question posed concerns public access to private roads in Los Altos Hills. A private street is not passable by the public without consent of the owners of that street. Such streets are maintained by the owners of - - 605510-1 ATTACHMENT 2 the street and not by the Town. See Cal, Civ. Code § 845. In fact, many private streets were at one time offered for dedication to the Town (or its predecessor in interest, the County of Santa Clara), though at that time the dedication was not accepted. Access to private streets is not necessarily exclusively limited to the adjacent property owners. Owners of homes located on private streets in Los Altos Hills generally recognize the need to allow utilities and other such services to reach their homes and have usually granted easements for utility purposes over the private roads. In addition, the owners themselves often hold non- exclusive easements for ingress and egress over the private road, permitting them to use the entire length of the road for access to their homes. Such private roads are private property, and members of the public not holding an easement over the road may not walk, drive, or otherwise enter the road without the permission of the owner. Inherent in the ownership of property is the right to exclude others. See Cal. Civ. Code § 654. As an incident of their ownership, the private property owners may thus prohibit the public, via fencing or otherwise, from entering upon their property. A similar analysis applies in the case of a public road which is surrounded by private property. Members of the public may use the road, but are not entitled to use a roadside path located on private property that has not been dedicated to the city for purposes of pathway use. Public access to unimproved accepted pathway easements. The situation may also arise whereby a landowner or developer has dedicated a pathway and the Town has accepted the dedication, but neither the landowner nor the Town has actually constructed the pathway. The question that arises is whether the public, upon mere dedication and acceptance, obtains the right to use the pathway in its unimproved state. Dedication and acceptance is a unique form of property transfer that is distinguishable both from a municipality's acquisition of property for valuable consideration and from acquisition by condemnation. The rights that inure to the public as a result of a dedication are slightly different than those resulting from the acquisition of property through other means as the Town holds the dedicated parcel in trust for the public. This relationship essentially requires the Town to only make authorized use of the property and prohibits the Town from relieving itself of the public trust. See Wright v. Austin (1904), 143 Cal. 236. This relationship contrasts with property acquired through alternative means which may be disposed of in a manner of the Town's choosing, so long as the disposal is for the common benefit of the Town. See Cal. Govt. Code § 37350. The case law does not provide a clear answer as to whether the public obtains an immediate right to use a dedicated parcel upon its acceptance. The relevant cases do however indicate that a municipality must"open" or"develop" a dedicated street before a continuing maintenance obligation will arise. See,for example Clay v. City of Los Angeles,21 Cal. App.3d 577, 584. While the Court of Appeal in Clay_specifically declined to address a municipality's maintenance obligation for a street which had not been opened or developed, the argument can be made that the public right in a dedicated pathway does not ripen until such time as the municipality has improved and opened the dedicated pathway easement. 605510-1 Once improved and opened the Town may likely enact regulations controlling the use of the dedicated pathway easement. Cat. Govt. Code § 37350. Just as the Town may enact regulations with regard to the pathway system, it presumably can prohibit the public use of the dedicated property until such time as the pathway has been improved and opened to the public. Such a prohibition on public use of unimproved pathways is prudent as the Town may be subject to liability should the public use a pathway that has not been improved and is not necessarily deemed safe. Despite the Town's general control of the easement, the Town is nevertheless required to eventually provide a pathway pursuant to the terms of the accepted dedication. Under the Subdivision Map Act, the town must develop a schedule indicating when the dedicated pathway easements will be improved for public use. Cal. Govt. Code § 66477. In Los Altos Hills, the improvement of a specific dedicated pathway easement is generally predicated on the acquisition of other connecting easements. Regarding the enforcement of these dedications, case law indicates that an action in equity may be brought against a municipality by anyone having a special interest in the dedication to enforce the uses for which the dedication was made. Clay v. City of Los Angeles (1971), 21 Cai.App.3d 577, 583; City of Hermosa Beach v. Superior Court (1964), 41 Cal.Rptr.796. Thus,while the public may not have a right to traverse an unimproved pathway, if it appears that the Town has abrogated its responsibility to construct the pathway the Town may be forced to make improvements. Unaccepted pathway easement dedications_ A farther complication may result if the Town did not accept the dedicated pathway easement at the time of dedication. Under the Subdivision Map Act, at the time the City Council approves a final subdivision map, the Council is also required to accept, accept subject to improvement, or reject any offer of dedication. Cal. Govt. Code § 66477.1. While unlikely, there is the possibility that pathway easement dedications have previously been rejected, or not formally accepted by the Town. Despite the rejection, the Town may retain the right to accept the pathway easement in the future. Under Government Code § 66477.2, the offer of dedication remains open and the Council may accept and open the paths for public use. However, because the easement was never accepted, the public has no right to use the pathway, as no pathway easement yet exists. Thus, there is not a general right of access to the public when pathway easement dedication has not been accepted. Should you have any questions or require further information regarding public access to the dedicated pathways, please do not hesitate to contact me. 3 605510-1 CITY COUNCIL MINUS - July 6, 1977 SPECIAL ORDERS (Cont'd) : LANDS OF RICH (Cont'd): Councilmn Proft moved, seconded by Councilman McReynolds, to amend Condition 1 c) as recommended by the Planning Commission by changing the word "should" in the first sentence to the word "shall ." Councilman McReynolds moved, seconded by Councilman Cheney, to waive the path in-lieu requirements because of the amount of land required to be dedicated. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote. Councilman Proft moved, seconded by Councilman Cheney, to approve the tentative map, LANDS OF RICH, File #TM204E-76, subject to the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission and as amended by Council (above). Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote. 5. Request for Tentative Map Approval , LANDS OF TRAFICANTI , File #TM 0055-77: f. Mr. Crowe noted that no action had been taken by the Planning Commission with regard to the proposed tentative map before Council ; that the Commission was reluctant to grant the conditional exception of having more than five holes on the private road (Voorhees Drive). Council and Staff discussed Council dialogue which had occurred previous to the proposed subdivision in which a cor;census had been reached that certain portions of Voorhees Drive would rernair, private. Council concurred that their position had not altered, and requested that Staff inform the Planning Commission of the following action: Councilman Proft moved, seconded by Councilmen Cheney, that the City Council • is on record as agreeing that Voorhees Drive should be maintained as a private road from the easterly boundary of the Clawson property to the easterly terminus of Voorhees Drive. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote. With the consent of the applicant, the proposed tentative map was referred back to the Planning Commission for further action and recommendation at the next meeting of the City Council . 6. Consideration of design concept for Page Mill Culvert Improvements: City Manager Robert Crowe noted the alternative approaches to the design of the culvert improvements proposed for Page Mill Road. He stated that Staff agreed that Alternative "E" was the one recommended for Council approval . After discussion by Council and Staff regarding the major and basic differences in the alternative designs. Councilman Proft moved, seconded by Mayor • Brown to approve the design concept outlined by Alternative "E" submitted by Jones-';iilsor, & Associates. Motion carried by roll call vote, Councilman Mel7Avretlri.e rl4eec,++4rnn ATTACHMENT 3 ..P;ii u.. l AM• • •• R•i•At:••• ;IC:, N CArM• tC K «>< T f ,i'; 3)4 21-3 V• 11111.1O F1:AR)1 t4� l-C lin' {„tTY.KH.4La1N•1z_4 ------,---"-s: - Klrtt)a"e. • fig et Vs*ta.rink.K.WAS/V-E.0 i444 McOrtni• rlh�Gin elIenit/N this,map conn»v; Aran"aw Portal KT raurdsdin beak M411161".el1►ta laiary Kap Ad and baa \ K S' ------ , — 44,4anie Clan(*an!),Recerrit,we.Moen at$alone.( r r harinta shown on No map. DofflrY r.$xr*t at.. ,G /��(� (136-1i-SnlinlinlesA '•Aert.tlt�l..nniar- C! `\ w �`'/"' " /eT "s Allditlentato►>'1rmmisneant•fp+wm(ralerldeiu+affl�earrf ` )„O Y J� • er lie tilos border intaa!aa kit intineary allh laid e•hlirided Lt La map ` X IA = t!t 1t e { a w ... ,r.w • indirat.sr/it.,,pip•IN•n.fcrnd. Fain!in boundary. .s mat : • - Sal K h in sat £ 1:' �'� bre P ter."Y ... t ,•, ' PARCEL 1 OF P M.- f • a Tf+ionw .ra CiLliffyinl_ RTIp aprodl iPARCEL t pttl3.biRFr-R 4/ s•rt1.,r[w»....ttri-rci basad aBahl lutil NE-flf,flips.�S ('rail ee tar) upon )3F Tt!e!! i 7/e•-- � 11 Inenhf of f!rt l+rlyd.44i • \ s 7/ 4 r(C#i1)T/ •,ru:e Zri.�Cs.rli is Taf f317. } r rpr+a�todara 1 rllirt atai at 1 Mt Ki �HT bealIlia prrtdatrpatnl IN- \ �! qal STAYS•r Crure(M,P and Ilse caedil:•+ts el fr). ? �` a CnnerT r er SwttvR Cuawat b fit 1r11Sffe1 prier la . _,,,,.‘41111M Rei•frimd�r f Ctik t/`,ryn,be frit wad[ei0p' rdeer4+4" :- ;In I •Wary rolelic mond 1•r said Comfy end Sbrlt,rtaiefinq 1 \ �b lkartin,daTy owr,triaitisned end t+r arrr�ar eb x d / h\ - Q4 Q'-4Sd adAlexander l_Tr*lioantiand Nawtyl.Tr•(icen ,!neem t �. 2 .te ma b 6t!At pa roan*wtMst wan►aa an wixribad is�e 'd t .-C:‘" S� Villein irt•frWtanl anJ eckrr$* ? r4[ir•e so d • AO. �a NI .0(1_ ttetulci Hit own r,as Mei ; �l er _ CP MXrTMt•t3r'atRlrai ltfswb.rr.rrleseteryf.+.d•rrdaf� o S / India'•Ffieialseal Mtkir and veer int briocar Meets rutg RTIFIC o lam/ �N Ars!Acre re written FiiaN•.( ASK S • Aetaptid for mord and re P.cK1wLEQa�4�yT r _. _.47 r„ nr_. �•at.•liff�. %ATa•r CAlePeaptAA "„�_� ay' ��" .s ft. .lax un a nti pool_.1_"KA i / pCowart eA�ueTxGwau/ jwnrbepintSr. Qat lid 4 'i of S,44w,tyTT,betrri me,..lf_;5441; t 81-11: p...p t i Q)~1titif (E TtFi AT[ ell.l•rrArttieEraend,r widtwny.nd s•t!e,r.e. ra;q, Tb,e blletiein9 at•rr►ent•*lite!V••rltaat DNtit. 17efifrtiFywrQi, R.elraeretAte.,wrta{,•rbertearrt►i4F!,1i4r wmmislfitey/Mdfrrerr�ferhwtliy f �f!}�� tPstilre Gm,end Electric Company and Pod tie h' ~ eV ir!rrerki++•nd ft!t a real'Farr included vrithin the•vbdi r- ar+= __._ _r6n•rw Sa ma i•k t �d•r�_ d� 7'• jets0SA 1 and Tata ns h itirn•harm•r•enfli•n»pand%aIaa•ret4•nlyFtraerio JeriIVOI ,rgps<fittlr,efPeg Alla Financial ralian 1 c •1"� dreG!`t,)4)1 �� w6••kpTt4•t/'a lif. 44"tP:scn!it nt[tttary ltyos•r cStarkbrrred4Ne rws, aCatitarnie tiippnfMtt,the'crperafisn Viol tuuculed Ifni ¢G6ferr.it Weiler Serrics C•mp Rec.,.iut J+Rl,Illj cl wit ctAtenl is the prep.r•!;•,t e..i ntsed•titn•f told snap Ai Min it»!rseretn}owl known(r eve b i»�»par sena FGe•s• in Seek am al Pi ye 143. _ > a tyytivitim es ehawn mtlhvrt B.t talons/fierier Fats, aatad new Mon d wets eorper•tian one racy otLLnrrkdpaf PARCEL~�� n.,c' b m•Ilea!sa d arrer•!ien areceftd Ibt actrcat rrveba, _ • {� ./�rcMltrrtaslCMtatar,th..airnur:!rftlr,y`wc�an±•ffixta (� trtytIto*loft Pa rimy i&a r.%r (7 lefty eu.. • can dr. atlP j"1 rrf br.r.af'ra RIrC/• `. te r P•w^�•t s �� et,H6 A SuramflQMQ>'/Won. VIM NIR"' r.: rr...rr. ft ��`:f 11[rAt1•[0trrtiostt;t2+t>r tom' • •-• ""�"'� .t�f +rly aF t+e SA/STA Ct.Rtll tt)t)etTy MAP,AT MGl 4♦ z ve ere ° ., et;r:i;..Ce ti lvrnia«.e..,.ros e. • ..-._.._-_ _t._.. � / )5!S ot%.r,... �<b.... TOWN OF LO ALTOS surRos `-j .a•r...4. if iL L S ...Ai •—• r-- SANTA ClAfi/b COUNT"' r.:..TF.r:...ry CJctlf t.DtltB 0., •.,,„ • . . . . • . . .. . • •- - ' 11•••••••-r•• ; •-•••.• • • ,0-'1.;tt- 0 1 5 3.. 4,433:1.1 .1.,11‘X I sr*a it 11.41 Shirr z st . St a u it.st ' s:44. ' .4::.•g.pr . 6114.11,44 0106.111r0 amit311,„ .":11.4) • •.,., Call-tPort . .., •:. . 'Nil\1 -,3- ;;j..• •.• • ' . •• • . • • . , i • a •• •• : • • •.. , • . '•._ ' . ..... • • •.. . .. . . .. . .., . • •• ,. . ..• • .. , i ..' 1.11.11/79 • • t.: . . . - • .. ../ . . . . .-.• • PAI:201; •tv . • • Y./ ••••s". • - . ' . ........' . 1 -•:.-• • . -4„ . • • • •' • . ••..• • . . • • -' I, ..:. :• loctast•... -• ?AttjEt.. 1 • • • TI'' •-'1‘: i • - 1. .- (334:-V.'• , - K-.. ` AP .1 • . , ....• • . •••0•4! . • • .... '11 . - • - t.. • • - • 7,-1, ; • '' ' • -• • ••'t :. •7., s••:.• - . 7 lOor +L-11,+,,, ..; , . .. . •. - ....reo!..,.. i'srass 3r,d Ev--Iss Iv wiry'4--te..-.0". ....LI .,,,....,, . e. . ...:, . 4‘.it' ".--1 le. L--JIIII,La YL s.145 3 3i ......- . • ::: v, •.- r . 14 0_'•:. .ii 6 _!. 4 'i_WO=V4*1 .". • ,- 0 Al.1 V E .::...41 ' 4,114 'S i : .1416.: •• ........------ et/se-0- •„.-:. •• br,.fil.i POrt111,..Z.r,1 . I\ E . or, ... 1„4• .-.....:', :* • la ' , t t•". . . . . Illf • .n• 1C13'3iC--M---30:! 11111111111RkI4*Allire.o...f..q_,"1-..1•- ......T. o• - i __ • . _.- . ..a..... . VOOE . - . t .•.•.. ., • . • . • - • •- ••L':'.'.'. .. ,.. _.. - , . • 4i 4 7 1 • 1 it 1_ ' cti.g4i-irl •.:' • • .4 fl.'-• • ' • 4 t., t : • 110\ 14 n s• .:.' C.Lsu.sEt: ' y4'. W..;EL 4 . - .. • 4.1"4" - - - : -:OS; . tr. - -.i.-:. --ts!4.4 • • -ic • . f'si;-:1-.t; : •L;:-, . . . . .. 43 '...T::-....... 4.4.,... .1*i 4CP • . it 4 •i• .- • It .. - ..• • - • - '...-;"1•;•••":. •-• . • .. •••‘ . . :••-"V". :.12`...•-: rol --. ...... - •• - • , • ••.,, ..N..... • • • • .-77.•lrflerls•:7' •.`.1`• '7 - ,. : '' ^. • . ••' .or•:*,•;', • # • .,-.., '.7..'--' .: --• ''*•4' 01. •• • -6.1••,.,•:..-•••••A -,.. ,•• ••-• • , • • -..:.... ..A. .'•-;":?••••••••••-:• . -1 .• ..... ...' ,...- .*44011'.*....4`1 V:V.f.' 7-4':... . .' . .. . -•;.- 4-t..-r- ••••.,,,,,...r.-1.,.........-- • - LA nttf• 0 r'-- '• G...II lirC.11.• . . .. . -.. .. ,. „iti.....01.:•... , ..: • • -.. ...:..,. .b.,4.... „:•:*•••.i•••...::-,t. • •..:......:••...:...Zs.: -•. !.• .4.ft-cf.:IA.••ti.sraT1.76:411`3, IL " ..-• -...• • - - - '-' • 034"INk.4 1:: •- -4- ••• • , • • --•. •' ''.".1 .1 • ••'.•., '( ....„.. .„• -•-• ' ' 4 ..e .. ...•••.:t4.21:.1::.4,.." ...??.Y...':,__ '.1:.• 4••••rw,arc •„.• •7 .-.'..:./..:'••-i...:4..t1.-:-1.t...V.•;..' :.":, analiclii(fall ceirrancA, ••- -•. ••- •..t•.• ....-• .,....,• •.,.... • :,....... ,...,.!: rs-:, -. z-4!` 1 7•1.17144.''-`44.:44;1q11;`,-...'tr s; RELiERDKILM-5•110---0-1._ •. , ,- .., . • .• •,.. t.• ••.-,-,- • . - .g.-r..:..rtt.e..:.,..,,, ,..et... . , : . ,,,. , .... . . s •. ..... ..,,..,14-;r '..*.:'?•21-^ic.-- 4..st,Ha..1 f/few.111 Fel tg.5"-- ' vaith iho rsigiciumnio..-.-F freeman Hop t., ... .r -:.•. •-.• • • • -- - - '' 'v• ---_-r-....'sfs-• 2:'1'1. "r7r.i.''''• Mad NioAll! rin d_offit4o_..,:1112,cdge...rM,i,aleFttigtf 2:40 of " "•e •••-"-•%=". 4:j•••41;.;.,:---t-d•"0-••• P•nie 44.4 Iht.r‘grat fief:hoes,5.I&:.ind:oso... .. ... .. ;'••, ' . ... .• .:• ... 47••••••••:'•••'..7•••4.•••••4.'•;4 1 ,1';'-.. ...."'-‘,.-7....::..-... •41•••:.4.t.;;. : 1 't •• • . • • • t ''•: .' ' • . aii:r.. :•..-.-44.'rat'.'.0W.-+_144.4034%..+;,./ 2- is.,-....:..i.•'-':Ltor",.,-..a.,.-.•!.. .- .-.•..r..: •.-a.: •--. ••i'n•- . ru.„-fg".....4"...4•4,1. itt*„.%:31F2•.-14...4.1 -%... -...-.''#1...,.•,' t,...,Groot,.5..romort.mCm000ly flosardor • , . ••• ! '' '"'Jr•..4.a...49T::tt••e...,44.••••PNR-......• ,.•.•••••tql.".•,).1/4,.i••.. ..• .......4:"..' 4",...,29,' • •. :• .....:...,'•••1.45,'ft•if..;.......r.i..4:4Er',::•!.-....*. ••I'A.41". ., fiSlitcf_JNISZI--ttfEff_ . a.ray • 7:3'Ac.,•-re.3,S frf11-..t3-7_.,of i'att Ht.-14..es:Triy'aim cf 1 :4143 Act!mitt:.".. . • - • - --:' -..,-,`:1'.--'.-.••• ••. . • • t...-.4.. .; : -e..... ....-..k.. ...,. . ..1.. .. . stulon vs Rot-tt of •-..::•'%f :-.-..c-,-,rtc:rietl in S031;zr*f.LIGpa cs.?zit ZEN, - ' ...':''S•.;.;,1,1k•i i-• 7;•:b-.."1.:%.• '.• ...• ,•••••14412%V 44,-•".•,•i •••C.* ,**i• ••••• • -. ...): -....o•o•-• •. • .._7•••.' • 11144••• .. .,'Tfte...„'..41•. .1'.e, ...3, .--fp,AA."'-u....,i •''''"1"--'';1.17..... •. scr rc Cart Cnfinil rkz:sr.t'i,v.,:w Vilm as rat emit i laxity brim spor••- • . '..f_ •.? . . - PARCEL' MAI 1 ....... . ••. ,‘ ...1.4'....i.r......:....1,3".Z.‘4.• .sio•;:i.......e:i....; ... •.:..Z.•4.....-•••.:••••,,••••L . . , '--••• .' . • -;...-...:>::- --.17., • • . . ,:••7 'j;'. ita"nal.. - ''':''.:--• I'... '....• ;+"•'."..i4..i'341' ' ..•nt'..W:i.: .,.••••,.:• •.', RYWO R"If gt nil CAT t - - . - • • • ....?‘.•.r.it Z•:.' • .•,,H 'i:i:.:iours zut lanniarrs 3r3 4,1,c,4,-n' ,to frit cn4 rfocia33:s f!;zra_ 11-,...i 7.(17.'A 3 b c rel,-•::-.1 1 1:1 Zr.,.:r encnac -my dirit or.:-..7.41•, ,u.!•_;pr. Tr--rat' :.;.s:z ',*:":;;:. 7AKI:4-7.7vi-i.2 ye-A raz3rd il::::Ii7r1.1=-1011 V. 5:!Se rupncinn!ik Ci U)t 9.:,bdrii;icr'..tc-r. gs.INs, A 7:121,...7.s cr. '..!".:T r,, OF-ri,.. F-) 1!:4;,;,8 4rdsr'i-..f..c!es bout-,431.1:1!-.4 13nd subd;vitti!.-.1 Ibis r.lc F.. Act al thartcnvesto!::-Vendor-von-LrSoas:n.:Arp4:111..cr!!!71 A 71AT:094 OF LOT 1.5mieg..R.g p.i.ao iVfE.-21-5;1::1.:TIts Asses5,1:-,Fir Z t 1 livini.•.tr., .. ,•. :•. . i heat"ctrf•!li gaz•-i 1 cznitrtr.,!a!he opprnvo.d tertailve:1"..7 c 7:J.!he cont-7..!icr:5 14 crpprav•s;1.•!lerni....P.--...-.t et Frarisi.mns of applitobis ofec larat ...•r••- -----. . .c„ .; ...• '•`.• • - ..... • ..''.:••.44,..••••••.• ' .•.' • ..--.---. • :-..4'-....z....-1 s-tir-:•-•:'-'1,`..-.=Nt Lam:....-trtp%ed%in_ • . ......... . --s.. ::.....--.. ...--.. -.- :..... ., TOWN Or LOS ALTOS L. SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CAL ,_1 I: ,..•.••...--.:. • e•-••:.•a•: ...... . .:-.N.: •Sz•. • •-. ;:. . 4A -.. 1 ... .. , . , _. _ . ... . .... .. it...............-,---.... • --a.giiCit.to;ti -gift*1... ri• , licaufor.r.,er • •:,..i,---•• -', -••2'--!.. .::,i- i-i.f-'-•; -- - - --.•••eln:l•-•-.:,.• .--..; ••.-- -- ; .....-Cit. -i.:o. .."4,• . ..1.1"*;,,..t . _. .. - . y ,,.. ...-6,4114....z.1-I.-..r..,t .;•,01.• .N• ••• ..• . • - E ID W 1 t•I U. Sri IT fri • ' ";"' &:".9.-.1%•"-N:... .•1-.4•7:: '!.-4'i. -..• -•'. - -.'et.f . • ..,,_ .... ..ec. . agrwro.,,,S11+ ,",•.,,,,,,,, 12816 South El Monte Avenue•Los Altos Hills.CA 94022 Phone: (650) 941.4056 • Fax (650) 917-9872 Saint Nicholas School April 25, 2002 Mrs. Nancy Traficanti 24615 Voorhees Drive Los Altos Hills, CA 94024 Dear Mrs. Traficanti, Yesterday, you contacted the St. Nicholas School regarding our position on the creation of a path providing access to the campus from Voorhees Drive. St. Nicholas School and Parish have no position on this matter, and we were never contacted previously to take a position on the matter. However, we do wish for our children to enter and exit the school from the main entrance on South El Monte. Thank you. Sincerely, lc ,L"lit-Y---4--,,,t4.4" Ave ,/ Father Gary Thomas Mary ams Coy!-, Pastor Principal ATTACHMENT 6 i\1.i'\ANDlilt '1.12111' I CANTI I: 133''-;L- '`/' ,, r1 I' 1.33:1E V2 � 2r21615 Voorlt��c, Dr. , � N/14 r � . b.. 1I.os Altos nil1s , CA 91122l .a- P ;'11�� , �i, Recorded it the NTT: • fit?c i,tsorance and Trust C UNDERSTANDING RETATTNG 70 VOORI11 ES DRIVE DEC 1 1373 as shown on Parcel Map of the Lands of Dr. Vanderveer Voorhees , dated ‘September 29 , George A. Mann, 2c.-col 1970 and filed in Book 273 of maps at page Santa Cera County, rJI%a1 44 thereof in the County Recorders Office of the County of Santa Clara. v2 ' By reason of the action of the City Council of the Town of • Los Altos Hills on July 6, 1977 , in which it was determined that Voorhees Drive should be oaincained • as a private read, notwithstanding that "it would serve more than five lots , the undersigned owners of lots abutting the private portion of Voorhees Drive mutually agree as follows : 1. That Voorhees Drive may be used for ingress and egress to any additionally subdivided lot upon the condition that .any owner thereof or successors in interest shall become, with respect to such lot , a party to the Road Maintenance Agreement on file in the Santa Clara County Recorders Office in Book 9088 Official Records at page 407 ; 2 . That Voorhees Drive, may be realigned, improved, or changed between lots abutting Voorhees Drive to facilitate or accomplish the subdivision an existing lot on Voorhees Drive only with and by the consent and a: ae expense of the owners whose .lot boundaries or driveways may be changed; provided, that a roadway of equal quality and surface as now exists or is being maintained under the above Road Maintenance Agreement is assured; 3. That Voorhees Drive may. be used to extend utility services to any new lot, including the extension of water mains for fire protection; prc- vided that installation thereof in any part of the improved roadway or driveway extending into Voorhees Drive shall be accomplished so as to provide a roadway or driveway of equal quality and surface as now exists cr is being maintained under the above stated Road Maintenance Agreement. Dated as of December 20, •77. ,l, , ,,,- 0 17,/ 6,4,, • ,.„..„ njafnin F. , ohm on f/ Syr G. .6' ns r: fiefs of ,Farce 3 1 • '14.:94/ ''.- , /2 2.1r e.7C—' g ^.1, ' 4 —77" 4 6—,, „. ,) f - - ks/*�oe G ssara Ler.edetta Elna Cascara s� of ar e 2 1. , 44/ 0/0/L, /!2?fcee, /--,/,-, ,L((' /J I„Z: # . e.. ander J. Tram anti Nancy 4.(jirafican.Ei . ners of Parcels and 4 , / -;7 ATTACHMENT 7 _ •j Q Februa:-y 22, 1989 City of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fri' it Road Isis Altos, CA 94022 • Attention: M . Bill Eckern Acting City lea. r T tative map.- Lands of Clausen Gem: At the request cf the City Cxnx i.l, a roctirgawas arranged for representatives cf St. Ni alas Sahool, Vtorhecs Hk .:-.c hers, Mr. Clausen and the City to d suss items to be shown on the final mapG ich were not incli riAi in the tenative nap. follawing is cur u undersizanding cf the acem,lents reacted at this nstirag hple. on February 21, 1989. �, 1• mere will be no dh es to the exi.. entrance to St. Nicholas �Ool. ,i . There will be no Aores from Vcorbees into the school property. r`' 3. Amrcval will be requested from Cal-1 ars to install a flphing white light "Stop Ahead" sign cn the 4280 off-ramp-or sinp -s n 4. T.rprove the visibility from the off-ra-p to the intexse ion and the signal lights where rcrsible. 5. Round the corner of Vcomocs (oc the atta s:t) . 6. Add a street light on E2 Monte and Vocrbees. 7. Provide a right 'turn lane from El Mont_ onto Voorhees. 8. ill a "No Right Zln on Red Sig-el" sign cn El Monte before Vocrheea Drive intersection. 9. Provide a turn arc&r d on Voorhees after the driveway for Lot 4 wits^. a "Private Road, Not a Thrcu h Street" sign on existing Voorhees. utilities -connect to existing Lei�zrin3 utilities on Vim. 11. Suitable acne for Voorhees residents will be maintained durir4 aor .r.:cti on. 12. The representatives will be advised and given an opportunity to review the final map prior to construction or sutxnissicn to the City Council. Please advise Lis if there are any disc-epeoies ofcur ., of the above items. S.rc .rely, 4 4411 tf J / IWO St. Mic^ho as S�1 Rerresenta.tivy .., • _- , .`s. • =%. iaticn At-tz 4t(ter I- h i r e,4 Y Council cc: '.r'ovack and Associates, Inc. (Engineers) ATTACHMENT 8 d C EEi ,';'-• D uil 5 2002 From: Residents of Voorhees Drive Los Altos Hills TOM OF LOS ALTOS HILLS To: Pathway Committee Members ' - -- _ Planning Commissioners O'v % , Los Altos City Council Members We, the residents on the private pordon of Voorhees Drive, Los Altos Hills, would like to express our concern on the issue of pathways on this private section of Voorhees Drive, and the off-road pathway easement on the Cheng's property at 24595 Voorhees Drive. This is a private road, and there is no public �ces �e front public portion of Voorhees Drive. When the original owner of the Cheng's property went to the town for a 2 lots subdivision, the town took the offroad pathway easement and road side easement without neighborhood input.There is actually no legal gicess to the front part of Voorhees Drive. Legally, we can put a gate in front of the private section and close off the read. The offi-oad pathway easement on the Cheng's property is not going to lead anywhere. It is not the right place for a path, very invasive to residents' privacy. St. Nicholas School is a private school. There was an agreement made on 2-2I-1989 during the Clausen subdivision that there will be no 4cess from Voorhees to the school property. There will still be a good route for homeowners to enjoy without this link. The route will be from Summerhill Road,to Hilltop, to Barley Hill Road, to the front part of Voorhees, which is the public section. This route is all roadside path,not invasive to residents' privacy, and a very nice pathway route. We don't need pathways on every street in town. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and please take into consideration that we are the residents of our street. We maintain our own private road, and we will be affected the most. S ely ()1, 14 ., ' . . , 6.1E. I-5— 1/64.61., Residen of Voorhes Driv'(Private Road) 11(9-)r (....).e....."2 y.,.,(4) --,ex_ 9ae_ 4-e.-4(6. 2„1 . _ ) t(jj- Pe--(-:,- ---,-,----)21--er-- _- E ' er 8)./ Yo_ lei-:'d--e... 0-)4.)-111 ,01i , : , _4.4' 6r,,,___, 41'' , , i' J�> \ / .4 I ' ' �. f7`C/` / , ,// __ via,t,z-- l/ ATTACHMENT 9 Dear Pat: June 4, 2002 I talked to Mintze Cheng who suggested that I write this e-mail to you and the Council relative to the pathway map being reviewed for Public comment on June 6. The purpose of this e-mail is to request that both the "Blue Line" on Voorhees Dr. and the "Red Lines" leading to Voorhees Dr. be removed. At the last Pathway committee meeting I presented the following: 1. Minutes of previous Council meetings showing that from the 1970's Voorhees Dr. was and continues to be to this day, a private road with no public access. Only invited personal and business guest are allowed. 2. Grant Deeds of residents on Voorhees Dr. showing that Voorhees Dr. is only used by residents for internal ingress and egress, and by express language in the Deeds remains a private road. 3. A letter from St. Nicholas School stating in effect what its position has been since 1970's that for safety and security it wants students and guests to the school to enter only from El Monte Road, i.e. not from Voorhees Dr., being the back of the school. 4. Lastly on numerous occasions all of the residents on Voorhees Dr. have stated in documentation to previous Councils that they do not want public access to Voorhees Dr. All of the above mentioned documents were handed to Mintze Cheng or to Dubose Montgomery, the committee Chair. I hereby request that these documents be made available for Council review. Because of the topography and maintenance on Voorhees Dr. there are genuine issues of liability and insurance in addition to the invasion of privacy and security a path would create, especially because of our proximity to the 280 Freeway and Foothill College. For all of the foregoing reasons the residents on Voorhees Drive and I believe there is no legal or factual basis for imposing a path on Voorhees Dr., (the Blue Line) and every reason to eliminate proposed or existing paths, (the Red Lines) which attempt to connect with our private road, such as those on the properties of Carel and Ronald Incerpi, Benjamin and Sylvia Johnson and Emily and Frank Cheng, who's property abut Voorhees Dr. As stated above please remove both the "Blue Line" on Voorhees Dr. and the "Red Lines" leading to Voorhees Dr. Sincerely, Al Traficanti 24615 Voorhees Dr. ATTACHMENT 10 .q9 Xc: 14:::•11 r To the Council Los Altos Hill: August 8, 2002 CIO: Pat Dowd, City Clerk Regarding my comments on the Town's pathway system, reference is hereby made to my pervious memo of June 4, 2002 (which is an attachment to this • e-mail) and incorporated in this communication as though fully set forth in this memo. I am unable to attend the meeting scheduled for August 15, 2002 regarding the Town's Pathways. Please consider my previous comments to you dated June 4, 2002 and the following brief comments: It must be understood that Voorhees Dr. was created by deed as a private road easement for the purpose of ingress and egress as stated in each of the titles to properties affected along the non- public portion of Voorhees Dr.; Voorhees Dr. is actually a private easement within the proper Lines of the affected properties, If the Council were to designate Voorhees Dr. as a public pathway it would amount to a taking of private property for a public use. Also, publishing a map showing it as an existing pathway or inferring that it is an existing pathway would constitute a slander of title as to each of the properties involved. Lastly, please consider that there are parallel pathways to Voorhees Dr. along Wild Barley Hill and Summerhill roads. There really is no need for another pathway on Voorhees Dr. Sincerely, Al Traficanti 24615 Voorhees Dr. RECEiv AUG 8 2002 TOWN Uf'LOS ALT()S HILLS ATTACHMENT Il Pa$:w:n 2.'.x atg,Si 15:U2 Subject: Pathway Meeting, 8115102 Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 22:19:54-0700 From: Alexander Traficanti<trafnan pacbell.net> To: Pat Dowd<pdowd@Iosaltoshills.ca.gov> Pat: Please provide my comments in the attachments to the Council. I am unable to attend the subject meeting. Thanks, Al Name: Pathway meet, June 6.doc f Pathway meet. Jutsc d.doc Type: Microsoft Word Document (applicationitn5wortl) Encodingbase64._ Name: Pathway Meet. Aug 15.doc 113)Pathway Meet. Aug15.doc Type: Microsoft Word Document(applieation/msword) Encoding: base64 Meeting Minutes March 8, 2005 Town of Los Altos Hills City Council Special Meeting Tuesday, March 8, 2005 6:30P.M. Bullis School Multi-Purpose Room, 25890 Fremont Road 1. CALL TO ORDER, ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Present: Mayor Mike O'Malley, Mayor Pro Tern Breene Kerr, Councilmember Craig A. T. Jones, Councilmember Jean Mordo and Councilmember Dean Warshawsky Absent: None Staff: City Manager Maureen Cassingham, City Attorney Steve Mattas, Planning Director Carl Cahill, Acting City Engineer/Public Works Director Dave Ross, Associate Engineer John Chau and City Clerk Karen Jost MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Warshawsky, seconded by Kerr and passed unanimously to limit the length of time for public comments to three minutes. 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR Patty Ciesla, Moody Court, reported that in conjunction with the Habitat Restoration Project in Byrne Preserve, she had been removing french broom plants. She had pulled approximately 3,000-5,000 plants. This would allow native plants to revegetate the area. Robert Beese, La Cresta Drive, (Pathway B2.27) stated that he purchased his residence for the privacy and security and did not want the proposed path next to his home. He believed that the path would devalue his property and wanted to know who would compensate him for his loss. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO REVISE THE TOWN MASTER PATH PLAN AND REVIEW OF NEGATIVE DECLARATION; TOWN WIDE LOS ALTOS HILLS PROPOSED RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTO HILLS TO UPDATE AND AMEND THE MASTER PATH PLAN OF 1981 1 City Council Special Meeting Minutes March 8,2005 Mayor O'Malley summarized the meeting format for the review process of the revised master path plan. He explained that Council, at tonight's meeting, would fmalize the proposed revisions of the 1981 pathways map in accordance with the General Plan. The Council is tasked with periodically reviewing and updating the map and this was the first such update since the map was adopted in 1981. For this review process, due to the enormity of the task and to keep the process in manageable segments, Council would only be addressing off-road paths and not considering on-road paths and easements, which would be reviewed at a future date. O'Malley noted that Council would not consider the removal of any existing off-road paths at this meeting and requested the audience limit their comments to the proposed paths due to the potential length of the meeting and the considerable number of residents in attendance who wished the opportunity to speak on tonight's meeting subject. He clarified that all though the removal of existing easements was not part of this review process, it did not reflect that the Town was relinquishing the right to the easements that are considered assets to the community and noted that any such request for a removal of an easement must be processed through the appropriate channels. O'Malley thanked the Pathways Committee for their efforts and dedication over the past two years noting that hundreds of volunteer hours had been committed to the update of the path map. He asked Councilmember Warshawsky, Council Liaison to the Pathways Committee to provide insight into the process. Councilmember Warshawsky voiced his appreciation to the Committee and offered kudos to them for their effort in generating the final version of their recommendations. He noted that the Committee had been very inclusive during the review process, holding numerous public meetings, neighborhood walks and visits to the path sites. Warshawsky offered that the update process had been attempted before, but that this group had managed to bring it to fruition and he credited the objectivity of the process that had incorporated community input. He spoke to the eclectic mix of the Committee that provided a good balance of opinions about paths including strong property rights proponents and those that cherish the Town's pathways system. He recognized Committee Chair Chris Vargas and the eleven Committee members and introduced the membership. Mayor O'Malley additionally thanked the Map Committee, Planning Commission and Town staff explaining that each had played a crucial role in the review process. He gave special acknowledgement to staff member John Chau, Associate Engineer, for his help with the exhibits and numerous map iterations. Mayor O'Malley explained that the Council meeting would follow the same format that was used at the Planning Commission's Public Hearing on the path map: segments would be reviewed individually; Pathways Committee Chair Chris Vargas would comment on the justification for each path recommendation; Planning Commissioner Chair Bill Kerns would offer the rationale for the Commission's decisions if it differed from the Committee's recommendation; and public input would be taken for each segment with time limits of three minutes for each speaker and if the audience member was speaking on multiple segments a time limit of two minutes would be imposed. 2 City Council Special Meeting Minutes March 8,2005 Mayor O'Malley polled the audience to identify which section had the highest number of public in attendance that wished to speak noting that the segments would be reviewed in that order. Les Earnest, 12769 Dianne Drive, addressed Council. He had three questions regarding the process: 1)did the plan consist of the map and the spreadsheet, 2)when would the De Anza trail be considered, and 3) would the email that he had sent to Council that identified errors in the map be addressed at tonight's meeting? Planning Director Carl Cahill explained the spreadsheet would be an exhibit to the map. Council moved forward with the public hearing. Council briefly discussed the De Anza trail alignment that was identified on the Draft path map. There was consensus to delete the De Anza trail alignment from the draft map and return it to the Pathways Committee for further consideration. SECTION(Study Zone)14 Chris Vargas, Pathways Chair, identified this area as the Hidden Villa to Rancho San Antonio zone. The Committee had walked the area and taken input from the residents. Vargas explained that the Committee identified the need for alternate routes into Rancho San Antonio and after much discussion and input from the Community,they had focused on proposed routes from Hidden Villa identified on the map by blue arrows(B4.1, B4.2). The Committee had also voted by a narrow margin to retain two additional routes(B3.28, B3.30). The Planning Commission had felt that these were unnecessary due to traffic issues and the difficulty in controlling public access into the neighborhoods. Vargas concluded that before Council was the recommendation to retain alternate routes into Rancho San Antonio through Hidden Villa but not using the routes through residential areas. Bill Kerns, Planning Commission Chair, concurred with Vargas noting that the Planning Commissioners were recommending the elimination of two connections (B3.28, B3.30) because of parking, safety and erosion concerns and were recommending the retention of potential future connections into Rancho San Antonio from Hidden Villa(B4.1,B4.2). OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Patty Ciesla, 27150 Moody Court, expressed support for retaining connector B3.28. She opposed shifting the responsibility to Hidden Villa for a path into Rancho San Antonio. Chris Vargas explained that the Pathways Committee had voted to keep the loop however during discussions at the Planning Committee, it was determined that it did not satisfy any of the requirements in the Path Element for paths that included: connecting cul-de- sacs, connecting neighborhoods or leading to a public space. Nancy Ewald, resident, voiced her support for retaining an additional access into Rancho San Antonio. She was concerned that Hidden Villa might change in the future and there would be no other options for a connector. Ewald encouraged Council to also consider equestrian use as well as pedestrian use when reviewing the paths. 3 City Council Special Meeting Minutes March 8,2005 Betty Kerns, 11888 Francemont, spoke on behalf of the residents and homeowners on Francemont, Adobe Creek and Murietta. She explained that there was a one hundred (100) percent participation in a petition opposing any new trailheads in their neighborhood. Kerns offered that paths should be for local residents and not provide access into Rancho San Antonio for non-residents citing concerns of traffic, parking and safety. She asked the Council to support the Planning Commissions recommendation to eliminate B3.28 and B3.30. Bob Stutz, Pathways Committee, said there was an historical equestrian trail in the area being discussed and he believed it was a valuable asset and should not be relinquished. Steve Boboricken, 11870 Francemont, commented that he had resided in the area for thirty years and that it was a haven for wildlife. He encouraged the Council to leave the habitat natural and for the wildlife. Nancy Benjamin, 11969 Murietta Lane, speaking on path B4.3, distributed a handout to Council of pictures representing the steepness of the terrain and existing drainage issues that resulted from natural springs. She explained that pipes had been installed to protect the drainage and the proposed path would be over the pipes. She implored the Council to approve paths that would help the neighborhood not endanger the property and residents. Les Earnest, Dianne Drive, did not believe that there was any problem of instability with the existing trail and noted that it was a beautiful path and gorgeous trail system. Shari Emling, Murietta, commented that she was a long time resident and her children had ridden horses in the area but she disagreed that the historical trail was located on Murietta ridge and suggested it was farther down the road. She supported designating the area as a wildlife refuge and noted that the path had been designated for removal in 1979 because of it's steepness. Chris Vargas, Templeton Place speaking as a resident, agreed that this was a spectacular area but that it was plagued with two problems that he believed were insurmountable: 1) parking and 2) erosion. He offered that the responsible alternative to accessing Rancho San Antonio was through Hidden Villa not through a neighborhood path. Ms. Yang, 11991 Murietta Lane, expressed her concern with non-residents roaming the area and the many potential problems that would accompany a path in this area. Russell Hirsch, 11880 Francemont, voiced his opposition to any new trailheads. He was concerned with potential traffic congestion problems on Moody Road, related safety issues for bicyclists on Moody Road, the geological impact and erosion in the area that could result from the trail and the increased threat of fire. Steve MacDonald, 11800 Francemont, provided Council with a description of his street. He noted that it was a very short street and that there was an easement with an existing path on his property that in one area was only ten feet from his residence. MacDonald offered that there was a redwood grove in the rear of his property that was often used by teenagers for illegal parties. He was concerned that if Francemont were to become a 4 City Council Special Meeting Minutes March 8,2005 trailhead it would be a parking lot on the weekends and would increase traffic on his path. Jane Mark, Park Planner with the Santa Clara Parks and Recreation Department, addressed Council. She requested that the Council include the County, National Park Service and Mid Peninsula Open Space when they consider the De Anza trail alignment. Mayor O'Malley thanked Mark for attending and offered that they would be apprised when the discussions on the De Anza trail were scheduled. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Mayor O'Malley noted that Council was considering the acceptance of the Pathways Committee and Planning Commission recommendations for Section 14 with discussion of B4.4, B4.3, B3.31, B3.30 and B3.28-essentially the connections from Adobe Creek, Murietta and Francemont into the Town's Open Space and Rancho San Antonio. Councilmember Mordo had no opposition to removing B4.3, B3.28 and B3.30 as trailheads/connectors but supported retaining the loop until a route was identified. Mordo suggested using an existing Town-owned property on the corner of Rhus Ridge and Moody as a parking lot to alleviate the congestion problem at the existing trailhead. Mayor Pro Tem Kerr explained that there was an existing proposal to improve the parking at the Moody Road path and this would be visited by Council in the near future. Kerr suggested that if Hidden Villa did grant parking to the Town, then Council would revisit a connection through Murietta Ridge properties to the Town's Open Space and Midpeninsula Open Space Lands. He agreed that at this time, the loop as shown on the map (2/10/2005 Version 3) was of little benefit and he would accept the Planning Commission's recommendation to remove it. Councilmember Warshawsky concurred that he would support revisiting the connectors to Rancho San Antonio in the event that Hidden Villa granted parking but at this time he concurred with the Planning Commission's recommendations for Section 14, adding that he believed there were very real privacy issues and potential trail heads would be very disruptive to the neighborhoods. Councilmember Jones voiced his support for acceptance of the Planning Commission's recommendations for Section 14 and felt it was an appropriate response to the wishes of the residents. Mayor O'Malley concurred with the Planning Commission's recommendation and citied the disruptive nature of trailheads and his belief that the wildlife in the area should be left alone as key factors in making his decision. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Warshawsky, seconded by Jones and passed by the following roll call vote to approve Section (Study Zone) 14 as recommended by the Planning Commission. 5 City Council Special Meeting Minutes March 8,2005 AYES: Mayor O'Malley, Mayor Pro Tern Kerr, Councilmember Jones, Councilmember Mordo and Councilmember Warshawsky NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SECTION(Study Zone)2 Chris Vargas,Pathways Chair, explained that there were two areas in this section that had drawn the most interest. First, A1.1 where the goal was to eventually connect Saddle Mountain to Elena Road. Vargas noted that A1.1 was a good and nonintrusive path but that A1.2 currently specified on the Master Plan, was not good due to privacy issues, vegetation and steepness. The Pathways Committee preferred A1.3b because it was a grassy knoll between two properties. He suggested there were other alternative routes that could be considered to complete this path. The second area that had received the most resident input was B1.8. The Pathways Committee had not made a recommendation on this path, however, the Planning Commission, had recommended removal of the path. Vargas reviewed the proposed future path alignments noted in this section with Council. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Harry Price, 24616 Summerhill Avenue, spoke on behalf of the Masuda's who reside at 14313 Saddle Mountain and whose property is surrounded by three paths. He requested Council support for the Planning Commission's recommendation to remove A1.2. In addition, Price asked the Council to consider removing A1.3b and to revisit alternative connectors at a future date. Price noted that the Masuda's did not oppose A1.1 but felt that their property was unfairly impacted with paths on both sides of the property. He distributed a petition with signatures supporting his position and a map of the property. Terrie Masuda, 14313 Saddle Mountain Drive, read a statement into the record opposing the February 10, 2005 version of the path map. She explained that she was speaking on behalf of twenty-nine residents who resided on Stirrup Drive, Saddle Mountain Drive and Saddle Court. Masuda requested removal of A1.2, a portion of A1.3a and A1.3b. She did not believe any additional paths were necessary in the area because public access to Saddle Mountain Drive was already available and any additional path would be redundant. Dot Schreiner, 14301 Saddle Mountain Drive, identified Al.! as a wide easement through beautiful land. She believed that A1.3a and A1.2 were obtrusive paths and encouraged the Council to vote for their removal. Schreiner noted that A1.3b put the burden of two easements on the Masuda property and was unfair. She suggested that other alternatives be reviewed. Ed Masuda, 14313 Saddle Mountain Drive, clarified for Council the alternative location (14321)that he believed would be a more appropriate site for the path. 6 City Council Special Meeting Minutes March 8,2005 Nancy Ewald, Pathways Committee, explained that B1.8 had been previously eliminated by a former Council and she could not explain why an alternative path was not accepted at that time. She supported removal of B1.8, noting that it had numerous safety issues including traffic. Ewald noted that A1.9 also had safety issues and was dangerous for pedestrians and equestrians and suggested locating a path on the opposite side of the creek where the properties were larger but the path would require a bridge. Jeffrey Logan, 14250 Berry Hill Lane, requested consideration of the relocation of the pathway near his home to across Page Mill Road. He offered a petition of forty signatures that agreed with his request and explained that the map being considered by Council incorrectly designated his path as an on-road path and it was an off-road path. Mayor O'Malley explained that Council was not considering the removal of existing paths during this review process and referred the request to the Pathways Committee. • Chris Vargas, Pathways Committee Chair,noted that their request for the paths relocation would be placed on the agenda for review by the Pathways Committee. City Attorney Steve Mattas clarified that only items that were shown on the 2005 Off- Road Path Plan dated February 10, 2005 Version 3 could be considered by Council and new items should not be added to the map as part of the review process. Planning Director Carl Cahill explained that paths noted in green on the map are identified as being retained and were not noticed as being removed. He noted that these paths were existing paths being used by the public and property owners who were seeking any modifications or changes should be directed to the Pathways Committee for the initial review. Chris Vargas, Pathways Chair, explained that a connector in the Saddle Mountain area was needed to make the "path work". He clarified that A1.3b would be located on the grassy knoll not on the driveway. Vargas described additional alternative connection options. Patty Ciesla, Moody Court, encouraged Council to approve a trail that connected to Saddle Mountain around the Fenwick property. Yen-Son Paul Huang, 27580 Arastradero Road, thanked the Council for their previous support to remove B1.8 and requested their acceptance of the Planning Commission's recommendation that also called for the elimination of the path. He explained that it was very dangerous and intrusive. Sounan Lu, 27510 Arastradero Road, spoke in opposition to B1.8, explaining that he had small, school age children and was worried about their safety and had concerns of privacy. He explained that the Planning Commission and City Council had voted numerous times to remove this path and encouraged the Council to honor their prior commitments. May Ip, 27520 Arastradero Road, supported the Planning Commissions recommendation to remove B1.8 and requested Council support for removal of connected segments A1.1, A1.2, and A1.3b. 7 City Council Special Meeting Minutes March 8,2005 Feng Yang, 27520 Arastradero Road, spoke in support of the Planning Commission's recommendation to remove path B1.8. He explained that it was very intrusive and redundant. Sopia Huang, 27580 Arastratero Road, presented a petition to Council with thirty signatures of her surrounding neighbors in support of removal of B1.8, A.l, A.1.2 and A1.3b. She offered that they were redundant. Huang noted that she had paid path-in-lieu fees when she had developed her subdivision and completed approximately 1000 linear feet of paths that connect to Purissima Road and Saddle Mountain Road. Carol Gottlieb, 24290Summerhill Avenue, noted that the path had been shown on the 1981 Master Path Plan with arrows. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Mayor O'Malley poled the Council for any additional areas of discussion in Section 2. There were no additional items for discussion and Council discussion focused on A1.1, A1.3 and B1.8. Mayor Pro Tern Kerr spoke in favor of retaining A1.3b and locating it on the grassy knoll. He opposed removing A1.1 and believed it would be beneficial if the Fenwick property were to be subdivided in the future. Kerr suggested that if Council voted to remove B1.8, that blue arrows be placed on the map indicating a future connector between Twin Oak Court and A1.1. Councilmember Warshawsky requested direction from the City Attorney on how Council should address any suggestions or additional items that are not identified on the map before them. City Attorney Mottos clarified that additional items could be accumulated at tonight's meeting and referred to the Pathways Committee and Planning Commission for review and the proper noticing. Councilmember Warshawsky supported the Planning Commission's recommendations for Section 2 and added that he would like to forward to the Planning Commission for further review locating arrows at the cul-de-sac. Councilmember Jones voiced his support for the Planning Commission's recommendations for the section. Councilmember Mordo offered that he had no issues with removing B1.8 and he favored A1.3b on the grassy knoll as the least obtrusive location. He supported the Planning Commission's recommendation for Section 2. Mordo questioned if it would be possible to realign A1.1 further away from Lot 6. Pathways Chair Chris Vargas noted that this alternative was worth exploration and it would be reviewed. Mayor O'Malley spoke in favor the Planning Commission recommendations. He supported retention of A1.3b and removal of B1.8 and A1.2. Following a brief discussion, Council consensus was to wait for the submittal of future development to revisit the addition of blue arrows to this section. 8 City Council Special Meeting Minutes March 8,2005 MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Warshawsky, seconded by Kerr and passed by the following roll call vote to approve Section (Study Zone) 2 as recommended by the Planning Commission. AYES: Mayor O'Malley,Mayor Pro Tem Kerr, Councilmember Jones, Councilmember Mordo and Councilmember Warshawsky NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SECTION(Study Zone) 17 Chris Vargas, Pathways Chair noted that the most reviewed path in this Section was the D3.1, D3.2, D3.3. The design goal for the path was to serve as a connection from Miraloma to Hilltop and evidentially to Barley Hill. The Pathways Committee had voted to retain D3.1, D3.2 and D3.3 in the belief that all three could be useful and valuable. The Planning Commission had not agreed and did not believe that they were not necessary connections. Vargas added that the Committee still believed that a connection was needed between Miraloma and Hilltop. Vargas identified an alternative route through Miraloma to Hilltop that could be used as a connection that would be less obtrusive. City Attorney Mattas explained that the Council could act on the rest of the map tonight and direct that segment back to the Pathways Committee and Planning Commission for study. It would then return to Council for consideration and approval as a further amendment to the Master Path Plan. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Susan Anderson-Norby, 12169 Hilltop Drive, concurred with the Planning Commission's recommendation and supported the deletion of D3.1, D3.2a, D3.3a and D3.3b noting that they were intrusive and redundant paths and the area was an animal refuge. Emily Cheng, 25495 Voorhees Drive, explained that the Planning Commission had voted to remove the path on Voorhees Drive and encouraged the Council to honor their recommendation. She noted that the Pathways Committee had recommended a path on the private section of Voorhees Drive and she questioned the legality of this decision and expressed her belief that the path review process was too subjective. Cheng offered that the Pathways Committee's proposed off-road path was parallel to the existing on-road path and affected fifteen neighborhood properties that were in opposition to the path. She hoped the Council would give value to the neighbors' objections when making their decision. Nancy Ewald, 26131 Altadena, Pathways Committee, explained that this Section had very few circulation routes. She understood that the neighbors were in opposition of the paths but supported the Council thinking to the future. Carol Gottlieb, 24290 Summerhill Avenue, suggested that the Council consider the Circulation Element during this review process. She offered that there was not an off- 9 City Council Special Meeting Minutes March 8,2005 road path connecting her neighborhood to Saint Nicholas School and believed that the Voorhees/Mira Loma route was a good connecting path to the school. Gottlieb distributed a document to Council that she believed was part of the Clausen subdivision agreement and related to the private section of Voorhees Drive and the proposed path. Chris Vargas, Pathways Chair, explained that it was important for Council to have an understanding of the philosophy the Committee had applied to the review process. They had felt it was critical to be consistent, reasonable and practical. Vargas explained that when the Committee reviewed this area, they found that it was probably the largest area in Town with limited connections and isolated cul-de-sacs. The Pathways Element specifies that cul-de-sacs "shall" be connected with pathways and they were interpreting the Element and attempting to be practical with their recommendation. He suggested that Council should first determine if they want to connect the seven cul-de-sacs along Miraloma, Hilltop and Barley Hill and then select a route that was the least invasive. Vargas favored his alternate route through Miraloma to Hilltop. Planning Commission Chair Bill Kerns, summarized the Planning Commission's recommendation for this Section noting that it had been a split vote to remove D3.1, D3.2a and D3.3a. Privacy issues and the steepness of the site had been key factors in their decision. Kerns added that Voorhees was a private road without public access and there were concerns that people would continue on Voorhees once they came to the end of the public path. Kerns added that they had not reviewed the alternate route suggested by Vargas, but that it appeared to be a good solution to the problem with a less invasive path. Al Trafficant, resident, stated that the position of the Saint Nicholas School Board was that they did not want anyone entering from the back of the School. Father Geary's most recent statement was that the Pathways Committee was the Town's business and he has never stated whether he wanted or did not want a path to the School. Les Earnest, Dianne Drive, concurred with the Pathways Chair that a connection was needed in this area. He supported the removal of D3.2a,noting the steepness of the site. Patty Ciesla, suggested that the Council should be considering a master path plan that could be used as the Town builds out in the future and for the next one hundred (100) years. She believed that people wanted choices and would enjoy a selection of different paths to use. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Councilmember Warshawsky explained as Council Liaison to the Pathways Committee, he had extensively reviewed the issues that were before Council tonight. He supported the Planning Commission's recommendation for Section (Study Zone) 17 and favored forwarding the alternate route suggested by Pathways Chair Vargas back to the Pathways Committee and Planning Commission for review. Councilmember Jones concurred with Warshawsky on the removal of the paths identified in red noting their steepness and poison oak and supported forwarding the alternative path presented by Vargas to the Pathways Committee for review. 10 City Council Special Meeting Minutes March 8,2005 Councilmember Mordo supported exploring the alternative route suggested by Pathways Chair Vargas but would retain D3.1 and not use it until Voorhees became a public road. Mayor Pro Tem Kerr favored further review of the alternative path identified by Chris Vargas and would retain D3.1. Mayor O'Malley concurred that he would like the alternative route suggested by Vargas reviewed. He supported the Planning Commission's recommendation to eliminate D3.3 and D3.2 and noted that Council was not relinquishing any easements but they would no longer be shown as paths on the map and if in the future Voorhees became public, Council could revisit the issue. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Kerrr, seconded by Warshawsky and passed by the following roll call vote to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation for Section(Study Zone) 17 with the exception of the red line beginning at Miraloma Way continuing to the bordering parcels 12585, 12580 and 12595. AYES: Mayor O'Malley,Mayor Pro Tern Kerr, Councilmember Jones, Councilmember Mordo and Councilmember Warshawsky NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Kerr, seconded by Jones and passed by the following roll call vote to direct the Pathways Committee to review the connector route between Hilltop and D3.1 as identified in the previous motion and to forward a recommendation to the Planning Commission as a General Plan Amendment. AYES: Mayor O'Malley, Mayor Pro Tem Kerr, Councilmember Jones, Councilmember Mordo and Councilmember Warshawsky NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None COUNCIL RECESSED 9:10 p.m. COUNCIL RECONVENED TO OPEN SESSION AT 9:20 p.m. SECTION(Study Zone) 12 Chris Vargas, Pathways Chair, introduced this Section. Two areas in this segment had generated the most discussion: 1) East/West Sunset connection and West Sunset to La Rena connection (C2.3 and C2.8). Vargas noted that the design goal was to allow a downtown access to Dianne Drive and La Rena. Both C2.3 and C2.8 currently exist as foot paths and were deemed walkable and practical by the Pathways Committee. They recommended retaining the informal paths for future paths but because West Sunset was 11 City Council Special Meeting Minutes March 8,2005 a private road without public access, the paths would not be published nor identified as walking paths on any map until such time as it West Sunset became a public road. Vargas added that West Sunset, because of it's curvy, winding topography, should be marked as a pedestrian only path. 2) C2.11a and C2.11b with the design goal to connect La Paloma to Robleda. The Pathways Committee had recommended to remove the path (shown in red)that bisected the property and to relocate it to the boundary of the property (shown in purple). Vargas noted that the Planning Commission had concurred with the Committees recommendation. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Les Earnest, Dianne Drive, suggested that C2.12b was a better route to connect Atherton Court with Brendell Drive. He did not believe the path between two driveways was two obtrusive. Charles Bieber, 12800 W. Sunset, stated that the issue of public access on Sunset was complicated. He explained that an action of the Town in 1963 designated a section of West Sunset as a private road and he had obtained supporting legal opinions. He noted that East Sunset was a public road and as such is maintained by the Town. Lalia Helmer, 12995 W. Sunset Drive, supported the red arrows (removal) on C3.4 and objected to the recommendation to retain C2.3 and C2.8 because they were located on a private drive. She voiced her concern that people walking this route would not stop when they reached West Sunset which was private with no public access. Chris Vargas explained that the path would not be identified on any walking path map. Judy Anderson, 13021 W. Sunset Drive, opposed any published path on West Sunset. She spoke to the dangerous size of the road and did not want to encourage people to use it as a pathway. Gina Bertolino, 12851 W. Sunset, spoke in opposition to retaining C2.3 and C2.8 and requested Council consider removing them due to their invasive nature to her property and the narrow, steep road. She did not believe it was safe for pedestrians, equestrians or kids on bikes. Bertolino suggested that the release of the draft path map for review had created an increase in foot traffic in her area. Larry Anderson, 13021 W. Sunset Drive, relayed to Council his background as a safety engineer and stated that the proposed path design was a potential for disaster. He suggested that it was ill advised to have paths end on roads that were not safe for pedestrians. Chris Vargas,Pathways Chair, noted that he understood the concerns of the residents and he did not support publishing the paths or blue arrows on any walking map that would identify this as a path and he concurred with the residents that the any future path should be limited to pedestrians only. Jolon Wagner, Pathways Committee, read from several letters that supported keeping paths in the area. 12 City Council Special Meeting Minutes March 8,2005 CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Councilmember Jones supported the Pathways and Planning Commission's recommendations for Section(Study Zone) 12 and would not publicly identify the Sunset path until such time as the road became public and then as a"pedestrian only"path. Councilmember Mordo concurred with the Planning Commission's recommendations with two exceptions: 1) he would retain the two blue arrows to preserve the right for a path if there was a future subdivision and 2) he would direct the Pathways Committee to seek a connection to Atherton Court in-lieu of C2.11b. Mayor Pro Tem Kerr spoke in favor of directing the Pathways Committee to study a connection between Dianne and East Sunset. Mayor O'Malley supported the Pathways Committee and Planning Commission's recommendations for Section (Study Zone) 12. He concurred with the suggestion that the Pathways Committee investigate a possible "swap" of easements with the property owner on C2.11b. Councilmember Warshawsky supported the Pathways Committee and Planning Commission's recommendations for this segment and directing the Pathways Committee to review the connection from East Sunset to Dianne Drive and the potential connection through Atherton Court versus C2.11b MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Jones, seconded by Warshawsky and passed by the following roll call vote to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation for Section(Study Zone) 12. AYES: Mayor O'Malley,Mayor Pro Tern Kerr,Councilmember Jones, Councilmember Mordo and Councilmember Warshawsky NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Mordo, seconded by Kerr and passed by the following roll call vote to direct the Pathways Committee to investigate: 1) an alternative to C2.11b to Atherton Court and 2) a connection from East Sunset Drive to Dianne Drive. AYES: Mayor O'Malley, Mayor Pro Tem Kerr,Councilmember Jones, Councilmember Mordo and Councilmember Warshawsky NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 13 City Council Special Meeting Minutes March 8,2005 SECTION(Study Zone) 4—B3.12, B3.13.B3.34 only Councilmember Jones recused himself from consideration of B3.12, B3.13 and B3.34 due to the proximity of his residence and the potential for a conflict of interest. Pathways Chair Chris Vargas had no comments on the identified paths. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Patty Ciesla, Moody Court, requested that the Town improve the grade on B3.34 in the future. She encouraged the Council to remove the De Anza Trail from consideration at tonight's meeting and to reconsider it's location. She believed revised location would permit the Town to seek outside agency funding for the path. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Warshawsky, seconded by Mordo and passed by the following roll call vote to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation for B3.12,B3.13 and B3.34 in Section(Study Zone)4. AYES: Mayor O'Malley,Mayor Pro Tem Kerr, Councilmember Mordo and Councilmember Warshawsky NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Councilmember Jones SECTION(Study Zone) 4—B3.22 only Councilmember Mordo recused himself from consideration of B3.22 due to the proximity of his residence and the potential for a conflict of interest. Pathways Chair Chris Vargas explained that the Pathways Committee had recommended that B3.22 be marked as an orange path (no current plan to build a path). There was a redundancy issue however;they thought it might serve as a useful future connection. Planning Commission Chair Bill Kerns explained that the Planning Commission, during their review process, had attempted to make decisions on all orange/yellow paths to retain or not retain the paths and had voted to remove B3.22 from the map because of redundancy and the steep terrain. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Les Earnest, Dianne Drive, supported retaining B3.22. He believed it was a buildable path. Patty Ciesla, Moody Court, supported retaining B3.22 for a future path. She noted that it was next to a creek and there were no privacy issues with the path. 14 City Council Special Meeting Minutes March 8,2005 Chris Vargas, Pathways Chair, agreed that this was a beautiful path but explained that the Pathways Committee was trying to be consistent with their principles of the review process and recommendations and they believed this was a redundant path, very steep and a wildlife refuge area. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Pro Tern Kerr noted that he was not familiar with the area but would support retaining the path for possible future use. Councilmember Warshawsky concurred with the Pathways Committee's recommendation and supported removal of the path because of the redundancy issue. Councilmember Jones concurred with Mayor Pro Tern Kerr and supported retaining the path because of its unique location near a creek. Mayor O'Malley had walked the area, he noted that it was steep but a beautiful path and supported retaining it. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Kerr, seconded by Jones and passed by the following roll call vote to retain B3.22. AYES: Mayor O'Malley,Mayor Pro Tern Kerr and Councilmember Jones NOES: Councilmember Warshawsky ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Councilmember Mordo SECTION(Study Zone) 4—Remainder Pathways Chair Chris Vargas offered that there were additional areas worthy of review in this segment. The Planning Commission had differed from the Pathways recommendation on B3.21b. The Committee had supported identifying this path in orange/yellow as a path where there was no current plan to build a path but should be retained as a future connection and the Planning Commission had voted to not retain B3.21b. Vargas explained that the design goal of B3.21d was to eventually connect to Taffee Road/Elena and this was supported by the Planning Commission. Vargas noted that A3.9 had also generated resident input. It was the connection between Zappetini Court and Central Drive. The Planning Commission had supported their recommendation and concurred with their recommendation to delete A3.5 which was redundant with A3.9 and bisected two lots. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Bob Stutz, Pathways Committee, explained that the area being discussed was previously wide open grazing land. Patty Ciesla, Moody Court, agreed with the red designation noting that this was an important wildlife corridor that connected to Byrne Preserve. She encouraged Council to 15 City Council Special Meeting Minutes March 8,2005 review wildlife corridors as another pathway designation when they complete dtheir review of the path map. This would prevent fencing and provide open access for wildlife movement. Les Earnest, Dianne Drive, believed that A3.9 was not a buildable path. He suggested that A3.5 should be"swaped" for another easement that would work. Patty Ciesla, Moody Court, stated that it was her belief that A3.9 was buildable and that A3.5 was a wet marshland with numerous drains and pipes. Carol Petty, 26932 Almaden Court, explained that she had spoken numerous times at different hearings on the proposed pathway behind her house. The neighbors agreed with her objection to the path because of the abundant animals in the area and would prefer a wildlife corridor. Chris Vargas, Templeton Place, speaking as a resident, supported this area's red designation noting the steepness of the terrain and the preponderance of wildlife in the area. (B3.21b) Planning Commissioner Kerns explained that the Planning Commission were unanimous in their vote to remove this section and agreed with Vargas that the terrain was very steep and it would be better designated as a wildlife corridor. Al Whaley, 26925 Taffee, spoke in favor of deleting B3.21b which was located in the rear of his property and was on a plus 100% grade and very isolated. He noted that he had a very nice path in front of his property. Resident, Almaden Court, explained that he had nothing to say but because he had been sitting through the meeting all night he would speak to the large number wildlife in the area. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Kerr, seconded by Jones and passed by the following roll call vote to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation for the remainder of Section(Study Zone)4. AYES: Mayor O'Malley, Mayor Pro Tern Kerr,Councilmember Jones, Councilmember Mordo and Councilmember Warshawsky NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Warshawsky, seconded by Mordo and passed unanimously to direct the Pathways Committee to revisit A3.9. SECTION(Study Zone)18 Pathways Chair Vargas reported that there was only one area in this segment that had generated discussion: D4.1, D4.2 and D4.2a. The Pathways Committee had supported 16 City Council Special Meeting Minutes March 8,2005 removal of D4.1 and D4.2 with the condition that two arrows connecting Fernhill to Magdalena be added to the map. Planning Commission Chair Kerns explained that the Commission had been advised by staff that arrows represented subdivisions and since this was not a subdivision, they had voted to remove the arrows. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Bob Stutz, Pathways Committee, expressed his concern of potential fires in the area and believed that D4.1 and D4.2 should be retained as an emergency exit. Nancy Ginzton, Pathways Committee, explained that in reviewing Cluster 18 the Committee had sought an alternative route from Fernhill to Magdalena. She distributed a map of her proposed path to Council. Ginzton commented that the proposed path was not, in her opinion, intrusive and she would like it considered as an alternative to D4.1, D4.2. Les Earnest, Dianne Drive, stated that he believed that it was essential to make a connection here to complete the route. He supported retaining D4.2 and returning the issue to the Pathways Committee for further discussion. Bill Jarvis, 23923 Jabil, explained that his neighborhood was strongly opposed to D4.1 and D4.2 and hoped the Council would support the Planning Commission's recommendation. He noted that he had provided a petition to the Commission with 23 signatures. Jarvis offered safety, security and privacy concerns as his reasons for requesting the elimination of the path. Nancy Ewald, Pathways Committee, advised that there were very few off-road paths in the area and believed that her Committee should look at the alternatives. Patty Ciesla,Moody Court, favored giving residents off-road path options. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Councilmember Jones explained that he was conflicted with this segment. He believed that the pathways were important as connections within the Town and wanted to see all residents treated equally, however, he wanted to be fair to the residents who had spent time in numerous meetings giving their input. Jones would support the Planning Commission's recommendation for Segment 18, but because of the limited number of off-road paths in this area he recommended directing the Pathways Committee to investigate alternative routes to connect Fernhill and Magdalena. Councilmember Mordo, favored removing D4.1 and retaining D4.2 and directing the Pathways Committee to fmd an alternative route to connect Fernhill to Magdalena. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Jones, seconded by Kerr and passed by the following roll call vote to accept the Planning Commission's recommendations for Section(Study Zone)18. 17 City Council Special Meeting Minutes March 8,2005 AYES: Mayor O'Malley,Mayor Pro Tem Kerr,Councilmember Jones, Councilmember Mordo and Councilmember Warshawsky NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Jones, seconded by Kerr and passed by the following roll call vote to direct the Pathways Committee to investigate the most advisable route between Fernhill and Magdalena and to forward their recommendation to the Planning Commission. AYES: Mayor O'Malley,Mayor Pro Tern Kerr,Councilmember Jones, Councilmember Mordo and Councilmember Warshawsky NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SECTION(Study Zone)5 Pathways Committee Chair Vargas explained that the key design goal for this section was a connection between Via Felice to Elena Road or Byrd Lane. Vargas noted that the initial Committee recommendation had been to use the combination of A2.2 and B2.6a but subsequent to their recommendation, they learned that B2.6a would bisect a property that was in the process of a lot merger. The Planning Commission selected B2.9, B2.10 with B2.6a as an alternative to the Pathways Committee's route. Vargas explained that the property owner of the parcels that are being merged was supportive of the path and was granting a path easement along his portion of B2.10. He was swapping B2.6a for B2.10. Vargas added that the Pathways Committee had voted to keep B2.11 but that the Planning Commission was recommending removal of B2.11. Planning Commission Chair Kerns explained the Commission had felt that it was unfair for the property owner at B2.11 to have paths on four sides of his property. They also believed their were privacy issues and the topography of the site was very steep. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Pete Foley, 13124 Byrd Lane, opposed B2.11 explaining that the average slope on the proposed site was 45%. He noted that the path was very intrusive and redundant to the paths on Middle Fork. Carol Gottlieb, 24290 Summerhill, explained that she was speaking on behalf of the path group that had walked the area. She concurred that this was a beautiful walk(B2.10)but that it was very invasive if it was continued as shown on the map and would eventually pass through a resident's carport. Tom Cave, 1614 Shirley Avenue, Los Altos, addressed Council on behalf of the property owners at 13432 Middle Fork and 13466 North Fork which was the property being 18 City Council Special Meeting Minutes March 8,2005 bisected by B2.6a. He confirmed that the property owners had agreed to swap easements from the west side of the property to the east side(B2.10). CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Kerr, seconded by Warshawsky and passed by the following roll call vote to accept the Planning Commission's recommendations for Section(Study Zone) 5. AYES: Mayor O'Malley, Mayor Pro Tem Kerr,Councilmember Jones, Councilmember Mordo and Councilmember Warshawsky NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Kerr, seconded by Mordo and passed by the following roll call vote was to direct the Pathway Committee to investigate realigning B2.9, B2.6b and B2.10 consistent with the existing conditions in the area and the creek. AYES: Mayor O'Malley,Mayor Pro Tern Kerr,Councilmember Jones, Councilmember Mordo and Councilmember Warshawsky NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SECTION(Study Zone) 7 Pathways Chair Chris Vargas explained that the design goal for this segment was to create some activity for the isolated areas between Purissima Road and La Cresta. The Pathways Committee suggested: 1) B1.4 a very walkable and non-intrusive path through a meadow and 2) B2.2a, B2.27. Vargas identified B2.2a as a problematic segment that was very steep with privacy issues and he believed it would not be a good connection to B2.2c and B2.2b. The Committee had proposed B2.27 and Vargas described the purple line that came off the shared driveway and was meant to deter residents from going to the end of the path into the private drive. Vargas explained that the red path was very intrusive but that the Committee was recommending the purple path, which followed the culvert and was less intrusive and more walkable. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Robert Beese, 12827 La Cresta, opposed B2.27. He referred to a letter from his attorney that spoke to the negative effect the path would have on the value of his property with the loss of his privacy. The path paralleled his driveway and he noted that he had paths on three sides of his property. The path was not identified on his property when he purchased his home in 1978. 19 City Council Special Meeting Minutes March 8,2005 Pathways Chair Chris Vargas explained that the property was identified to have a path on one side or the other and the Committee was trying to make it the best location for the resident and as a neighborhood connection. He suggested that Council determine if they want a second connection between La Cresta and Purrissima and if they did, he believed this was the best route. Vargas explained that the map was a living document that was continuously changing with the addition and deletion of paths. Nancy Ewald, Pathways Committee, explained that this was an area with few off-road paths and encouraged Council to take this in consideration when they deliberated. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Council discussion ensued. They requested clarification from the Planning Director on the proposed sewer maintenance road that could serve as an alternative route. Planning Director Cahill explained that the service road would be located in the center of the parcel at 27641 Purissima with a wide bridge that potentially could serve as the road for a subdivision. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Mordo, seconded by Jones and passed by the following roll call vote to accept the Planning Commission's recommendations for Section(Study Zone) 7 with the following modifications: replacing B2.2c and B2.2b with blue arrows pointing east and west across 27641 Purissima Road and removing segments of B2.27 that runs north and south. AYES: Mayor O'Malley, Mayor Pro Tern Kerr,Councilmember Jones, Councilmember Mordo and Councilmember Warshawsky NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SECTION(Study Zone) 11 Pathways Chair Chris Vargas explained that there were two areas of interest in this Section. The first area, C2.2 was identified by green, blue and purple lines on the map. Vargas explained that the current master path plan shows the path with the green and blue lines and is located in a very muddy area. The homeowner has suggested an exchange for the blue/green location in the muddy area to the purple path on his driveway at 13721. The second area of interest was C2.5 that the Committee recommended be retained and the Planning Commission supported. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Les Earnest, Dianne Lane, requested that Council consider a path from Quail to Wildflower as a neighborhood connection. 20 City Council Special Meeting Minutes March 8,2005 CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Warshawsky, seconded by Mordo and passed by the following roll call vote to accept the Planning Commission's recommendations for Section(Study Zone) 11. AYES: Mayor O'Malley, Mayor Pro Tern Kerr,Councilmember Jones, Councilmember Mordo and Councilmember Warshawsky NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC COMMENT Art Bussi, 25980 Todd Lane, spoke in opposition of his off-road path explaining that his guest house was unusable due to its close proximity to the path. The path had been used by motorcyclists numerous times and he had reported this violation to the Town's Public Safety Officer Steve Garcia. Bussi offered that his attorney had written a letter to Council expressing his legal opinion that the paths were not legal because Todd Lane was private and the original dedication had been rejected. His attorney did not believe that partial acceptance, i.e. paths only was legal. Bussi had provided copies of the letter to Council in their boxes on the dais. He requested a copy of the City Attorney's legal opinion on public and private roads. City Attorney Mattas provided him a copy of the opinion. SECTION(Study Zone) 9—B2.28 only Councilmember Jones recused himself from consideration of B2.28 due to the proximity of his residence and the potential for a conflict of interest. Pathways Chair Chris Vargas reported that the Pathways Committee had supported that B2.28 be converted to a full pathway. Les Earnest, Dianne Drive, explained that it was his opinion that the paths along Pinewood,B2.28,B 1.2b had path easements as defined by common law. City Attorney Steve Mattas clarified that they would have to review the deed documents to determine if what Mr. Earnest had described was accurate. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Kerr, seconded by Warshawsky and passed by the following roll call vote to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation for B 2.28 in Section(Study Zone)9. AYES: Mayor O'Malley,Mayor Pro Tem Kerr and Councilmember Mordo NOES: Councilmember Warshawsky ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Councilmember Jones 21 City Council Special Meeting Minutes March 8,2005 SECTION(Study Zone) 9—Remainder Pathways Committee Chair noted there was not much debate with the rest of the segment. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Nancy Ewald, Pathways Committee, explained that she wanted to ensure that B1.9 was identified as a path only. She explained that the purpose of the Mandoli Court to Palo Hills and Mandoli Court to Alejandro design was to provide a path in the area noting that the area from La Cresta to Arastradero was void of paths. Ewald believed that the path routes would be safer and better than using Arastradero which is a very busy road. Resident, 13434 Manoli Drive, spoke on B 1.2a. She explained that part of the proposed path was not on an existing easement and described the access that was identified at the time of the subdivision forty (40) years ago which was along a public utility easement. She noted that part of the access for the proposed path was on her driveway that was used by her family and contiguous to her garage. She sited concerns of safety and privacy as her objection to B1.2a. The resident also voiced concerns about increased traffic. Barry Newman, 13456 Mandoli, explained that he had concerns about the proposed path being used by the noon time walkers from the neighboring office complexes. He noted that Mandoli was a "jog" off of Deer Creek and they have a great deal of traffic from people making a wrong turn into their neighborhood. Pathways Chair Chris Vargas offered that the issues described by the residents were valid concerns and there were real privacy issues. He suggested that a path would probably never be built unless a home was removed. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Council discussion ensued. Council offered that there was a potential for increased foot traffic from the office areas into the private cul-de-sac. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Kerr, seconded by Jones and passed by the following roll call vote to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation for Section(Study Zone) 9 with the exception that pathway segment B2.1 a be removed from the Master Path Plan. AYES: Mayor O'Malley,Mayor Pro Tem Kerr,Councilmember Jones, Councilmember Mordo and Councilmember Warshawsky NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None COUNCIL RECESSED AT 12: 25 a.m. COUNCIL RECONVENED TO OPEN SESSION AT 12:35 a.m. SECTION(Study Zone)3—A2.10b,A2.11 only 22 City Council Special Meeting Minutes March 8,2005 Mayor O'Malley recused himself from consideration of A2.10b and A2.11 due to the proximity of his residence and the potential for a conflict of interest. Pathways Chair Chris Vargas explained that the Pathways Committee and Planning Commissions concurred on the recommendations for the two identified segments OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Les Earnest, Dianne Drive, supported the red on A2.11. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Jones, seconded by Warshawsky and passed by the following roll call vote to accept the Planning Commission's recommendations for A2.10 and A2.11 for Section(Study Zone) 3. AYES: Mayor Pro Tem Kerr,Councilmember Jones,Councilmember Mordo and Councilmember Warshawsky NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Mayor O'Malley SECTION(Study Zone) 3-Remainder Pathways Chair Chris Vargas explained that there had been few issues with this segment. He advised Council that the resident at A2.3d had indicated a willingness to donate his private pathway and that this was currently being explored by Town staff. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Les Earnest, Dianne Drive, suggested that it would be appropriate to delete the paths that were identified in the unincorporated areas. Patty Ciesla, Moody Court, recommended that the Council consider placing an arrow on A2.3c. Carol Gottlieb, Summerhill Avenue, explained that there was a proposed trail on A2.3c but that no easement was accepted. She suggested arrows be placed through the property and that the property be retained for a path along Page Mill. Connie Frenzel, 13311 Country Way, thanked the Council for their efforts. Her property was bordered on three sides by paths and requested that Council consider removing A2.7 because of it's redundancy to a neighboring path and privacy issues. She noted that her property is also bordered by a fire road that draws motorcyclists and cars and she was concerned that if the path was identified on a map it would bring additional traffic. 23 City Council Special Meeting Minutes March 8,2005 Brian Frenzel, 13311 Country Way, explained that he had attended numerous pathways meetings and hearings and that the residents in his neighborhood supported his request to remove A2.7. Pathways Committee Chair Vargas explained that retention of A2.6 and A2.7 were not required as segments for a design goal for this Section. CLOSED PUBIC HEARING MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Jones, seconded by Mordo and passed by the following roll call vote to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation for the remainder of Section (Study Zone) 3 with the exception of removing A2.7 from the Master Path Plan. AYES: Mayor O'Malley,Mayor Pro Tern Kerr,Councilmember Jones, Councilmember Mordo and Councilmember Warshawsky NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Jones, seconded by Mordo and passed by the following roll call vote to direct staff to investigate the fence as a code enforcement issue that is reported to block the path near A2.8. AYES: Mayor O'Malley, Mayor Pro Tem Kerr, Councilmember Jones, Councilmember Mordo and Councilmember Warshawsky NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SECTION(Study Zone) 1 Pathways Chair Chris Vargas noted for Council that there was only one area in this Section where the Pathways Committee and Planning Commission had differed on their recommendations. The Committee had voted to retain A1.12 for emergency purposes only as a route out of Christopher's Lane and not as a walking path. The Planning Commission voted to remove the line because it was not designating a path. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Les Earnest, Dianne Lane,offered that if the purpose of A1.14 was to connect to Stanford Lands there was a better route through the Hogle Land. He suggested a route that followed the access road and was less intrusive. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING 24 City Council Special Meeting Minutes March 8,2005 MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Jones, seconded by Mordo and passed by the following roll call vote to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation for Section(Study Zone) 1. AYES: Mayor O'Malley, Mayor Pro Tern Kerr, Councilmember Jones, Councilmember Mordo and Councilmember Warshawsky NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SECTION(Study Zone) 6—B2.21,B2.22a,B2.22b-only Councilmember Mordo recused himself from consideration of B2.21, B2.22a, B2.22b due to the proximity of his residence and the potential for a conflict of interest. Pathways Chair Chris Vargas had no comment on this Section. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Jones, seconded by Warshawsky and passed by the following roll call vote to accept the Planning Commission's recommendations for Section(Study Zone)6 B2.21, B2.2a and B2.2b. AYES: Mayor O'Malley, Mayor Pro Tern Kerr,Councilmember Jones, and Councilmember Warshawsky NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Councilmember Mordo SECTION(Study Zone) 6—Remainder Pathways Chair Chris Vargas explained that the only area of discrepancy between the Pathways Committee and Planning Commission in this section was B2.3.b. The Committee had wished to identify this segment in orange as a possible future connection to Elena. Vargas explained that the Planning Commission in their efforts to make decisions on all orange paths had determined that it was a redundant path and voted to not retain the segment. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Patty Ciesla,Moody Court, expressed her appreciation for B2.19. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING 25 City Council Special Meeting Minutes March 8,2005 MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Jones, seconded by Kerr and passed by the following roll call vote to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation for the remainder of Section(Study Zone)6. AYES: Mayor O'Malley, Mayor Pro Tern Kerr, Councilmember Jones, Councilmember Mordo and Councilmember Warshawsky NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SECTION(Study Zone) 13 Pathways Chair Chris Vargas stated that there was a concurrence between the Pathways Committee and Planning Commission on Section 13. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Les Earnest, Dianne Drive, reported that the wonderful path at Foothill College had been removed and he believed there should be a connection. He advised that the map identifying a green path in this area was incorrect. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Jones, seconded by Kerr and passed by the following roll call vote to approve Section (Study Zone) 13 as recommended by the Planning Commission. AYES: Mayor O'Malley, Mayor Pro Tem Kerr,Councilmember Jones, Councilmember Mordo and Councilmember Warshawsky NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SECTION(Study Zone) 1 S Pathways Chair Chris Vargas acknowledged that there were no differences between the Pathways Committee recommendations and the Planning Commission's recommendations for this Section. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Les Earnest, Dianne Drive, suggested that there were two errors on the map: 1) C2.16- line should run along the right edge of 13390 Lennox Way not into the Redwood Grove and 2) C2.17 was shown as a red arrow and should be retained because the Pathways Element says there should be a connection to Shoup Park. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING 26 City Council Special Meeting Minutes March 8,2005 Council discussed the map errors and concurred that they could be corrected administratively by staff. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Jones, seconded by Mordo and passed by the following roll call vote to accept the Planning Commission's recommendations for Section(Study Zone) 15 and to direct staff to make the appropriate technical corrections as identified. AYES: Mayor O'Malley, Mayor Pro Tem Kerr, Councilmember Jones, Councilmember Mordo and Councilmember Warshawsky NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SECTION(Study Zone) 16 Pathways Chair Chris Vargas noted that there were no issues on Section(Study Zone) 16. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Les Earnest, Dianne Drive, supported retention of the purple arrow pointing into Foothill College. Patty Ciesla, Moody Court, supported changing the arrow from red to purple under the Freeway. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Jones, seconded by Kerr and passed by the following roll call vote to accept the Planning Commission's recommendations for Section(Study Zone) 16. AYES: Mayor O'Malley, Mayor Pro Tem Kerr, Councilmember Jones, Councilmember Mordo and Councilmember Warshawsky NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SECTION(Study Zone) 8 Pathways Chair Chris Vargas noted that there was one Pathways Committee recommendation that had been changed by the Planning Commission. The Committee had recommended a path at B3.4 which was an access route into the Packard property Open Space. The path segment was between two neighbors on a driveway. The Commission had supported the residents' opposition and agreed to retain the original route. 27 City Council Special Meeting Minutes March 8,2005 Planning Commission Chair Kerns explained that they had listened to the residents presentation regarding the best route into the Packard land and voted to retain the original path. Kerns noted that they had also removed a brown arrow on the Sister's of Charity land because there was an existing emergency access route. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING Nancy Ginzton, Pathways Committee, urged the Council to consider moving B3.4 below the designation and onto the driveway. Patty Ciesla,Moody Court, suggested that B3.8 be changed from red to blue. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Mordo, seconded by Kerr and passed by the following roll call vote to accept the Planning Commission's recommendations for Section(Study Zone) 8. AYES: Mayor O'Malley, Mayor Pro Tem Kerr, Councilmember Jones, Councilmember Mordo and Councilmember Warshawsky NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SECTION(Study Zone) 10 Pathways Committee Chair Chris Vargas acknowledged that there were no differences between the Pathways Committee and the Planning Commission recommendations for this section. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Jones, seconded by Warshawsky and passed by the following roll call vote to accept Section (Study Zone) 10 as recommended by the Planning Commission. AYES: Mayor O'Malley, Mayor Pro Tem Kerr, Councilmember Jones, Councilmember Mordo and Councilmember Warshawsky NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Kerr, seconded by Mordo and passed by the following roll call vote to eliminate the De Anza (Anza) trail alignment as presented in the 2005 Off-Road Path Plan dated 2/10/2005 Version 3. AYES: Mayor O'Malley, Mayor Pro Tem Kerr, Councilmember Jones, Councilmember Mordo and Councilmember Warshawsky 28 City Council Special Meeting Minutes March 8,2005 NOES: None • ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Planning Director Cahill clarified that the De Anza trail alignment would be studied at a future date. MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Jones, seconded by Warshawsky and passed by the following roll call vote to adopt the Negative Declaration including the findings therein as presented. AYES: Mayor O'Malley,Mayor Pro Tern Kerr,Councilmember Jones, Councilmember Mordo and Councilmember Warshawsky NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION SECONDED AND CARRIED: Moved by Kerr, seconded by Warshawsky and passed by the following roll call vote to adopt Resolution No. 30-05 approving the Revised Master Path Plan and incorporating into the motion all of the preceding votes and abstentions on the 2005 Off-Road Path Plan dated 2/10/2005 Version 3. AYES: Mayor O'Malley, Mayor Pro Tem Kerr,Councilmember Jones, Councilmember Mordo and Councilmember Warshawsky NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by consensus of the Council at 1:50 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Karen Jost City Clerk The minutes of the March 8, 2005 Special City Council Meeting were approved as presented at the April 7,2005 Regular City Council Meeting. 29 City Council Special Meeting Minutes March 8,2005 c) csro1 23760 12177 23800 r 11534 11569 113 I ' �1 25650 ' ` k\it0111111' \ t 1565 11111111111. 11316 10905 12150 23750 10885I! 23715 �' s.� ' ' 10881 2368041\ 1519 / --- -`� \111Ifllttito ri�� 11552 10669 1067 ,' 12211 23350 23660\//11520 °81' / H 4140 10811 u 23851 - 10565 't. 23670 23600 )0 Xi '� �: 10695 ', ..�� 23840 10855 10795 i :: 10850 0 fs %. 558 . 2310024301 \ 10711 i' 10842 1031141111110:;/.23601 i IL, 10645 y 11033 23500 11120:5111.20 . ' 110465 10515 f 10665 (11:::::,55;;;,„„0-,.:-'-0435 : 10640 11031 23570 23450 23480 10625 10838 11027 10285 :,\ 10820 10686 10251 1 23420 11000 11029 ' 10415 104 10531 10575 10590 23500 23400 10501 ' y 10620 10800 10999 11 lair / 10371 / 10605 10990 � i \\Ik 10580 1111 1 AN 23460 / 10450 ` �.L....�-----/ 10580 r 10977 i 4111Wie' 4 ros...- / 10980 11091 10225 , 10500II 10545 110 232 III10535 .. 10501 1045 10971 11001 10444 _ / 10931 �. ' `'• •_la : _ i 10401 10490i 44 DIP- y 2320 23370 10180 10271 / 1091 10970 11030 11060 10240 \,, 104 10869 11000 .40,,/,,Q.,„„,...,� glir 10410 10451 + i ala _ '.i"'i�\ ,' 10898 23200 23230 �\ 23281 23100 10300 w43501038 l`• 10450 10831 10868 12838 10340 `. y 10708 23219 10300 10364 10401 10810 10890 uostp . , ( fsi lams asts ••'''''- "`"•••• "t • -----, wave oink ,, 1 ..101... 111.1N10.1 IP*, 1 .k i' MAYFIE _ -..... is • s i'-----% STIR I $1 ----,:gse k,,. . . lbE WEST dlItr . al 3r- inil_to*. -: • •.,".•- - , litt,,./.1,,,..'' .. 'V Id.MSS OW 44' it y ........„-----r-, , • , ,„:. . rt.• . , „, ...1 (0 Q. i „,......., sir / , I. g' -- .'la ''.' •,'• 0.6.4140.4 ei ).' g Ea, '''. • 0/4 • %500 )41Sl, tile 1 ,/' •• • s.M.SteoM....ILO 44 ,.., ci 4/ - ti ,.1( , Er _ I ci . - c 4.-_------ . , 4 l'fCs• ...me PIS.S. '0.- IS. '''' lyt - 4' .0,11014 ;,...,2.,, 17:1,""4,6; 416(4.4. ., t3 . ••• 4.02 3r 0T minpril it_ i '•ril --I ',.'' ct ,"40 , •' ;8':', ,Vo.00 1..3440* `..- .i , • LOT 2 1,-'5 _„: x - mi., . ,"5: .!,.01:10013,01 110_4.1 a 'k ** t, 1.001 M.2 1.7,4 r 'i I.1 .,, . . t i/ 21 ..,.„ 4,4.105 X, PS Se Fr t_.1..Skiii_ • 1 .. .4" 4.• 1,14 i‘ !. ... W.• ' .4, '; ..'•>('--;. • 0000 w..... . ' k /Of 447-, i-i , ' ..• , Ili Nis. 0 Ai HI I low 'it 4.4r4.4 11111M11 , 4>b. .(41 Star ' .., ^•.:2,1 IP 0 05.00 -0 ,•arm— iiirrA... - U i.1:,o .1-0:-.41.111w%. , I S "1 • 14414. -. k (.14 ti 3 0111 Act h, A. . 5>- - • ‘0410 .:••, ' SO .9/ ILS EPO RRT i--.,"/K. / •!,..S i6s.O.s. /0 S 50 ''''' MOWS Kt 444• ••• •. - -.'""'71.-4.1•47--7-4-"i(17.7 '11",-varrt 54/8, OnabaCk/0179ferrai '' -id tes. ,411..,.••• ' '1.44' : ! i.. .., -s----k .s3r4„. ,. s 0' ,''..-1--. •••• ••••,:, b.04. 5.0-‘!` i_.,•••,-;:::::::._:,--5--,---;r15/5 5-ilto//' tr;° , _• .., "••••w---- ---------3)1‘,,,,, ',..• ,4, ..,...-- -:, .• -,..-,0A„r....- ro.” e ''i-,->ralljeii/jerfs&.. :r" sae----..--i•-..--.----,-..*•• - z 7- "'420* --,..".-•-,') - .0..- -11''. LOT I --.-- " 4P or i E.. --....:. ---•,.:.-.2 us (.of IA'•LOT • , fA4r/ne.t'i 4 .43+-7• '.. 0. f 47 aii--....-' .• 4 .. 40dP 4 ,../41 ..v4".`",.... /0 gY0 P.Ury ,,'". 4.' //03, f 10. Ims Act l. • - sslOSNIMININF "- •• -----,-- '.'''' //rta..0 L' ' sefebia 441 — ----- -- . CW6 rin - I' :.....,.. _ ' PI:frallos . . --)--> chatoSEIA--,.4r,L fit petit , , 4: / ' .--7 OF, 209P 2 \‘1 (r9fietti . . It7Iii0ZALSt t• ra I°Jilt': i 1 . i ti LOT to . 1 COCI milt , ..:' 414,,r cA5.e medvi f t 1 I, 1 ..; TRACT NO, 5618 BASIS OF BEARINGS -NY a Le74 As4 CC 4.41•51"Y ti CIIIVIIPAY " Pitra•m1/4 a 5 i 5 Y 04' . * 77re beartha of 90,971i 4°/I'WiST of iho Na4121coes.r/y - : ,00440$ '.4 Lief of 14,14k 007&WU, 7,taes`N. 3/Z at 1;141(Ill 0.ek&of, ,or oi pare AI,.94-y• to iv tboniy i Rocetretrwar 14,41., ar ihe Graria.o 54aerhr',Saw, .N.41•411. 1110.00 4 7•..:, 'W' .-.4,, . as h/kMv . ,,i: CINNABAR 1-1ILLS so-. CCERESTP.a Ca TwO 5.4EETS ......... . '...'•'‘......"-- . A 04,...: ---"1 ...,./ ....-I '...,------, BM A Deane% OF 1.0TS 9-0 A.I.10 gs Al 91.101.4/4 NOTES AND LEGEND_ t ,-•Art um.7.AT clareAL MAP Darr..10 "MAP OP LOS • a i : X54*, vv('-/,isr Asicoest 19,s bevedory of bna' g /I\kJ-, - C' v( / Wii 1 * ALTOS COWRY CLUE PROPERTES" RECORDED la EC044"Ir OE MAPS. PARES 60,Si,OE i SS,so.,,A, obo',47'el bgi 854 map. . , I 6 Ailgi 7c.1 cow'rhcrantions av _rho.,,.ir,4,r1 ' $ I • CLARA GOWN MOWS. W' C/07510/1 /041f00( . . LOT 7 , LIAIMIDIr 4' "" 17to arrow/61A 878 oke bate,of eh,e"met, DOS , ' iff i `r SANTA CLARA CCUNITY,CALIFORNIA C,.. /0.242 oars, icolien ore°ii 04430C/0f 1, Tfiriil:Si t •PEE, .4.1 • rndie0:144 3/4"kl/f7 Pip, firAlei V.,r4S/oi4sowlis noied I. tAtt.gligr 0,1 sc.ix r.sa °crown , = 10/1/1 . InaVco‘fi f,/.".44/aepo sae . t COIA.Artti )1 tlil ( )Ihera-Ars ',two'dd., DavrEri a A.:oat:MI • 4,7,6evAtt&no'Anly mclegenened bit wa4,1%).24131rele -. LOIMii. as 1,01410! 1 I CONSUL-M.4 CIVIL ENGINE.= 1' •rdr im,rut TIO4, % di fO ath, .. . ,--- SouLoca Cana,CAL:COW...it& . Ill 1.0.o0 lull,. . -'.. _..Y..-':-------- ,II.Atd.11.r.I. .h... .- ,,,,, ,rl/943' i 422.4„.. .... a'corrico _L mMo a .±.12412._Lb* a_aot Algyst ports 11.2-,I '' ' C , ',11'':4 ' 1! , ' r' -,...s.r Ls sumo.aid Rs. &ITT 2 O/2 ‘ I 2 ,-. r Town of Los Altos Mfrs 1981 APA - N \ AMENDEDMASTER ME TH 8, 2005LN "' 'E 411, O • AMENDED SEPTEMBER 17,2013 r•- T �, PUBLIC HEARING DRAFT Sir,/' i OCTOBER 26, 2016 44/ w eied"'""Lem•m : ,41Ilink..-Nstri : ,644ri ..4,„ort i .,,,t. , , -4cro, . IL* t . . .7.11„,f,._ ...., , i ,:,_________ _ % behs,_0„. Asi _ ____:_\ wi," wi ik.,* ...,__ . st,.. _,4 _.ik evi, , 11101 5bILV V4-:'ilt,4"0,001*• R-S 0 P :Aft t 1471 -- iliillo h . ILA% it, 4 60 0 iik glo.---- -lei . .. JE, ....,,,,.... 444. .111-1M *Ski* , lAiikosi moot . ilk, ,.. \‘ ,, . V1/4*14giAlattp,. St\ lelik Viik_, . iliNIc ,, , . , _th,.. xottropri..ja...4 7 LEGEND PATH ARROARROWS TO BE CONNECT ED t__:.:: PROPERTY DEVELOPS ' '. lab iiitir _OR SUBDIVIDES ^ -- -�PROPOSED ADDITION TO MASTER PATH PLAN(OFF-ROAD AND ROADSIDE) ..,� ',o.onwxw _ PROPOSED - --- - - .�_ .\_•-\ ADDITION TO MASTER PATH PLAN(OVER PAVED ROAD) .. - _