Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.2 Supplement #39 Supplemental No. 39 ITEM#3.2 Distributed 10/26/16 From: AllaneosteinC@aol.com To: peborah Padovan Subject: Planning Commission 3.2 CONSIDERATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT-PATHWAYS Date: Wednesday,October 26,2016 4:15:25 PM Hi Deborah, Please forward this email to the Planning Commission. Thank you. Planning Commission Members, 3.2 CONSIDERATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO UPDATE THE MASTER PATH MAP Map discussion should be divided into three parts. 1.Additional "off-road" pathways in established neighborhoods "There you go again.." The pathway committee is proposing off-road pathways, some in exactly the same locations that were proposed before and previously rejected. Fifteen years ago, almost to the day, the Planning Commission voted on another controversial Pathway plan. The SF Chronicle headline that week read, "Taking an ugly turn/ Dispute heats up over Los Altos Hills paths." Maybe the Pathway Committee thinks the former opponents have died or moved away. Based on the letters opposing the proposed pathways sent in for this meeting, from both new and established residents, the opposition remains strong. There is no need to reignite the off-road "pathway wars". The issues haven't changed. Adjacent property owners most affected by the proposed pathways cite security, safety, privacy, liability, cost and impact on their property values as reasons to not build them. The Town happily celebrated its 60th anniversary without these off-road pathways. Clearly there is no compelling reason to attempt to add them now in the face of continued, strong opposition. Recommendation: Reject proposed off-road pathways objected to by affected residents. 2. New pathways in the recently annexed areas The recently annexed areas were built to different setback standards. Improvements and plantings are already built out to the street. Many streets are steep and winding. Building pathways will be costly, interfere with privacy and change the scenic nature of some neighborhoods. More established pathways on Mora will adversely provide easier non- resident access to the open space. There is no equestrian activity in the area. Vehicular and pedestrian traffic is very light. Bicyclists never ride on pathways. As one can see by the over one hundred negative responses there is almost universal citizen rejection of the need for road side or off-road pathways. Pathway committee recommendations are inconsistent. The local residents want "over the road" pathways. This is what they have used for over 60 years. The pathway committee agreed in most cases, specifying over the road pathways on all the cul-de-sacs, Berkshire, and Eloise Circle. Some people say over the road pathways are against the Pathway Element. This is untrue. Off road or roadside pathways are not required everywhere. The Town already has over 90 miles of pathways. There are plenty of pathways for those who want to walk on them. There is no reason to impose pathways in areas where it will be disruptive, injurious and unwanted. Recommendation: Approve only "over the road" pathways in the annexed areas. 3. Pathways on both sides of Ravensbury Avenue There is no justification for"road side" pathways on both sides of a portion of Ravensbury Avenue. The Town has no policy requiring pathways on both sides of the road. The Pathway committee cites no metrics to support their conclusion. No speeding citations or reports of speeding, no accidents, nor any vehicle or pathway usage data. Their rationale appears based on the sole fact that "this section of Ravensbury is straight and could be subject to speeding". Due to its straightness this is the part of Ravensbury where visibility is best for both walkers and vehicles and least in need of pathways. The east side of Ravensbury is formerly annexed area and for the reasons cited above in section 2 and those cited here a road side pathway should not be required on both sides of Ravensbury. In my 30 years living here, my children, wife and I have probably walked around Ravensbury, Camino Hermosa and Magdalena over a thousand times. We never walk on the paths. Neither does anyone else. Six months of the year they are wet and undesirable to use. They are disjointed and, due to terrain, located inconveniently up above or below the road. Due to slope they have wood dividers and erode. Often times, they are unmaintained and overgrown with weeds. Even if completely built out, which is entirely unlikely due to the Town's piecemeal process and the fact that many houses have already been developed without pathways, the road side pathways will not be used. Recommendation: Reject the requirement for road side pathways on both sides of Ravensbury. Over the road pathways is the preferred desire of local residents. Finally, all 3000 households in Los Altos Hills received the notice for this meeting. As of 3:00 PM today, there were no letters provided in support of the Pathway Committee's proposed pathways. Clearly the citizens of Los Altos Hills do not see a compelling need to add these paths. The Pathway Committee should focus on completing pathways where citizens are interested in having the gaps filled. Allan Epstein Ravensbury Ave