HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.2 Supplement #33 Supplemental No. 33
ITEM#3.2
Distributed 10/26/16
MEMORANDUM
To: LAH Planning Commission
From: Lester Earnest<les@cs.stanford.edu>, web.stanford.edu/'iearnest, 650-941-3984
Subject: Path from Dianne Drive to Downtown Los Altos
Date: 2016.10.26
During the 2004 review of the town's Master Path Plan (MPP) I proposed a number of
modifications, most of which were adopted as shown in the Council Minutes, but one went off
track in my view. I live on the Dianne Drive cul-de-sac and proposed that a path be added
northward from there over a small hill and through a small valley to Lawrence Way, which
would allow people to get to downtown Los Altos with a one mile walk instead of the existing
two miles in and along roads.
That proposal was shown on the draft MPP, dated 7/14/2004, as a crosshatched green line
labeled C2.15 (see map segment on next page). I have now added the label "Valley
Route" because it uses a gentle descent next to a small creek, which happens to be the
boundary between Los Altos Hills and Los Altos (specifically the Jesuit Retreat). The path would
connect at the north end to Lennox Way, which leads to Fremont Road then Burke Road to
downtown Los Altos.
Unfortunately, I also mentioned to the Council that it would be possible to make that hike by
putting a path straight uphill from Dianne, shown on the map as "Ridge Route#1", which would
be just two easements long and so could likely be implemented more quickly than the Valley
Route, which requires 8 easements. Hikers could then descend the steep East Sunset Drive and
continue along Burke Road to downtown. However I argued against that choice because it
would involve a very steep climb over height far above the top of the valley route.
Nevertheless, the Council chose the steep route without bothering to look at the terrain.
a~ Ulla A Chance at Repair
„M -.
»w P» ""' When I learned that the Pathways Committee
irnia "' OOP ,,, W would review this matter at their August 2016
mi. ,,e. OOP
,.,,
iv, meeting I notified the Chair of my proposal to
Woo , 0016,•.1p IP 111 DELVat, a % change that route, then documented it and
,... ""° "T°r"a •,, '"-'6,,,,' gave a presentation at their meeting. However
w, s,.., the Chair then closed public comments and
,A, �y ,,,ri �o.. proposed a different route, approximately in
:'°° at, t the place shown on the map as "Ridge#2." I
a.... �•'' ,sas47
a„4„` F immediately asked to make a comment on that
ND ";p ,,,a proposal, given that it made no sense in that it
r•" '""' ""' "''!"', cr would require pedestrians to hike up and over
"`...' e "' ..0 • the steep East Sunset Drive ridge in order to
nr., 7•a"a .n..
.,a .ra •)10 get to the Valley Route. However I was
,►sd#' 4 „„ ""° oar a informed by the Chair that the public hearing
Z� r„ 1 WW1 'on was closed, which I believe was an incorrect
...... ...,7 ,>3* erg,i procedure. When I subsequently sent an email
ass \..., ..ya
ilii, .n°' to the chair pointing out that that looked like a
iiiil iP"" conspiracy she offered no explanation for the
d.•, jWin
.30. '° 3 refusal to allow public discussion of her
ilia. ” " e seriously defective proposal.
ae. *13 -f
ase. ,:e,,,,,s•
�. •. s Consequently, I now again propose that the
UM WO
a4;' "" Valley Route be adopted for the Master Path
los 'a' s' Plan.
I, .27•
,7,v tl•
ailh Ian
1.1.10 .r
MIDWM syn
Pan
a+. it ,sal 4 , uvsS ''
ONO
WV
mall emr WA SW'
7a" >•
/MLA 4114.0 ss` Tar mss,.
+saw riga ,y,.
spa