After meeting in closed session to discuss a letter from a San Francisco law firm retained by a group of residents, the Los Altos Hills City Council decided last Thursday to postpone deciding on a controversial off-road pathway easement vacation. The deferral to mid-May allows town staff time to complete a more detailed report.
The letter did not threaten imminent legal action. However, attorney Rachel Hooper, of Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger, advised the council that the staff report on vacating a pathway easement on Greg and Sandra Carse’s property, and amending the General Plan to allow for the vacation, failed to comply with two state laws. The Committee for the Preservation of Los Altos Hills retained Hooper’s firm because, according to a press release, it believes vacating the Carse easement “could open the floodgates and lead to requests to vacate at least another 30 easements that have not yet been activated or that await the dedication of the final links in their respective trail chains.” Council members and staff received the letter earlier in the day.
Hooper, who was not present at the meeting, stated in her letter that the proposed vacation of the Carses’ easement failed to comply with the requirements of the state’s Public Streets, Highways and Service Easements Vacation Law and also contravened the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
“I’m suggesting we take the longer route regarding the CEQA and EIR (Environmental Impact Report) in the staff report and then come back to you the second week in May,” City Attorney Sandy Sloan told the city council. The council agreed, but decided to proceed with the public hearing already scheduled for the meeting.
Hooper’s letter claimed the staff report, prepared by City Planner Carl Cahill, contained several legal errors. First, she wrote, the report based its recommendation for vacating the easement on the “public service easements” section of the Streets and Highways Code, even though pathways and equestrian trails fall under a separate “streets and highways” section of the code. “As a result, the town may summarily vacate the Carse easement only if it has been superseded by relocation,” she wrote.
In addition, vacating the easement violates CEQA guidelines, because it “can reasonably be expected to create significant direct and cumulative impacts to crucial environmental resources to the town, as well as to the safety of its residents,” Hooper wrote. “(CEQA’s) categorical exemption for minor alterations to land use limitations (cited in Cahill’s report) does not apply here.”
At the beginning of the year, the Pathways Committee recommended deferring the decision until City Engineer Mintze Cheng completed an update of the town’s Master Pathways Plan map, slated to be done within the next month or so. However, the Planning Commission recommended that the council vote to allow summary vacation of the Carse pathway easement before then. The Carse property is located near the intersection of Taaffe and Altamont roads.
The Planning Commission based its recommendation on several findings. The commission said the off-road pathway segment is not needed, since the existing Taaffe roadside path, which runs parallel to the Carse easement, is adequate to accommodate current and future pedestrian circulation. In addition, the pathway easement is not necessary to provide direct routes to a school or open space, or to provide neighborhood connections.
Commissioners, as well as neighbors testifying at Thursday’s public hearing, noted that the Carse pathway easement lay in a conservation easement and that construction or pedestrian and equestrian use of the proposed pathway would disturb the vegetation and wildlife in the area.
