Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 22 2018LOS ALTOS HILLS PATHWAYS COMMITTEE FINAL Minutes of Special Meeting of Monday January 22, 2018 Scribe: Alisa Bredo 1.Call to Order (roll call) a.PWC Chair called the meeting to order at: 7:01 Members Associates Alisa Bredo (AB) Nick Dunckel (ND) Ann Duwe (AD) Melissa Dyrdahl (MD) Bob Elson (BE) Val Metcalfe (VM) Rachelle Mirkin (RM) Bridget Morgan (BM) Judy Nagy (JN) Sonja Wilkerson (SW) Denise Williams (DW) Susan Cretekos (SC) (until 8:06) Eileen Gibbons (EG) Bob Stutz (BS) (AB, ND, AD, BE, VM, RM, JN, SW, DW) PWC noted that New Year’s Walk was a success with good weather, great turnout, and a nice article about the walk in the Town Crier PWC Chair noted that PWC documents are on a google site that can be shared with future PWC Chairs Council Liaison(s) present: Roger Spreen (until 8:10) Other City Council Members Present: None Town Staff Present: Jeremy Koch, Assistant Engineer Public Works Department Marni Moseley, Sr. Planner (until 9:14) Members of the public Present: Kjell Karlsson Allen Epstein b.Approval of Agenda I.One amendment was made to the Agenda: the next pathways walk updated to Sat. Feb 24 II.AD moved to approve as revised, SW seconded, and the vote was unanimously in favor (AB, ND, AD, BE, VM, RM, JN, SW, DW) c.Approval of Minutes from Dec 4, 2017 PWC Meeting: I.Minor amendments were suggested. LOS ALTOS HILLS PATHWAYS COMMITTEE FINAL Minutes of Special Meeting of Monday January 22, 2018 Scribe: Alisa Bredo d.AD moved to approve as amended, ND seconded, and the vote was unanimously in favor (AB, ND, AD, BE, VM, RM, JN, SW, DW) e.Ex parte communications I.Parks & Rec – AB attended Jan Parks & Rec meeting, where it was announced that PWC approved idea of distributing maps 2.Review of Operating Principles a.PWC Chair reviewed operating principles from 25Sep2017 3.New Topics & Announcements a.Staff Updates I.Staff Update Jeremy will take over for Allen for foreseeable future. II.Basset Ln John Chau and Jeremy and two engineers for Basset developer marked the path using stakes with red tape. The easement varies in width from 10’ to 40’, so there are a number of possible routes. III.Finance asked to remind PWC re: budget requirements for 2018 and to make desired priorities clear. a)PWC requested due date(s). Jeremy will find specific due dates and forward to Rachelle. Roger will also follow up with Carl to make sure aligned. PWC noted that PWC used to submit priority projects by a certain date, but cost estimates made by engineering staff later. New method will require additional costing based on measurements by PWC prior to submission. Need to understand what is requested by Town. May also be helpful to see budget available for pathways. Historically there was not always a fixed budget; depended upon circumstances and desirability of project. Allen (on Finance and Investment committee) noted that money has been raised that is allocated for pathways and PWC can get update on current budget. Some funds are allocated for specific projects, and need to be re-allocated for these projects if they are not completed in the year. Budget must be completed before end of the fiscal year, and guidance regarding priorities and expected cost will be helpful. Just after Feb the town starts working on the budget. June 30 is the end of the fiscal year. PWC should have pool of projects with engineering completed so that Council can choose between suggested projects. III.Policies on second units – update from Dec minutes re: current procedure a)Town Staff clarified that Town is not changing current procedures at this time, and will continue to send second unit applications to PWC for recommendations. IV.GIS update provided by Sr. Planner LOS ALTOS HILLS PATHWAYS COMMITTEE FINAL Minutes of Special Meeting of Monday January 22, 2018 Scribe: Alisa Bredo a)Sr Planner noted that the pathway layer is in place on the GIS map, and working online. It has not been publicized yet; need to make sure correct first. Once georeferenced, the trail data on the GIS map aligned better, but it still needs QC from PWC. A subcommittee was selected to work on the GIS map: AB, AD, JN, BM, EG, ND and VM. This subcommittee will walk pathways and note any corrections needed to make the layer accurate. Goal is to figure out what exists currently so that priorities can be determined. AD requested printout so that PWC can walk with it. Can also pull up via link on phone. b)The system currently has address, APN, property owner name, street address, when built, school district, and lot size. c)The system does not currently record easements. Per Sr. Planner, the town is not responsible for easement documents, and not holders of that data, since easements are recorded by the County. When an easement is recorded for the benefit of town, LAH sends the information to the County for filing. Currently easement data is also not in a format that can plug into GIS. a.PWC noted that it is essential to have easements readily available. Ideally, GIS or another Town system, should allow the ability to click on a parcel and see recorded easement documents. b.Council Member Spreen noted that the prior expectation was that easements would be included in the GIS system. c.PWC discussed easement records. There are currently 3 notebooks with handwritten pages listing easements on all lots up to 2005. That information has never been made available electronically. Prior expectation was that these documents would be put into the GIS system. From 2005 to the present there are some documents but not a complete catalogue of pathway easements. PWC needs to continue to advocate for resources for this. Roger will follow up with Carl on how best to move forward. d)Roadside paths are blue, native paths are green. PWC noted that these annotations do not quite match other pathways designations on maps. It also does not include segments on the road where there is road right of way for the pathways but no path. Segments are defined as stretches where data stays the same (e.g. same material and width) until street or change disconnects. e)Maintenance/condition of pathways was not included in the GIS survey in the end (it changes too quickly), just impediments (obstructions, etc.) which are documented as an item in the notes. The project was completed in May or June of 2017 so segments approved after that date will need to be added to the system. Some funding remains in the LOS ALTOS HILLS PATHWAYS COMMITTEE FINAL Minutes of Special Meeting of Monday January 22, 2018 Scribe: Alisa Bredo contract with Alta. Residents can identify maintenance issues via Los Altos Hills Connect. Town staff has not yet determined how to connect app to GIS map. f)Town Staff to establish process for updating GIS map with newly constructed paths. g)The GIS map links to County Assessor’s data via APN. Other layers are available on map: private vs. public streets, sewer system, etc. Data ???resides at Westbase location. Town consults with a company that maintains GIS for the sewer system. h)Approved Master Pathways Map is not yet a layer on the GIS map. Approved MPP of 2005 was done on CAD , but file is missing.. The topography layer is the next one that will come online, then one for contour??? data, and one for geologic hazards. PWC noted that having the Approved Pathways Map of 2005 data would be very valuable, and Sr. Planner noted that Town Staff has been trying to pull from old CAD files. V.Hale Creek project bidding status update a)Bid was for same design that was put out for bid late last year. No bids yet but 23 people took information. b.Translating 2733 Ursula learnings into action – new process ??? in collaboration with staff presented by PWC Chair and Roger Spreen I.Bob and Rachelle met with Roger and Carl to discuss final resolution of Ursula Ln. a)4 scenarios were put forward by PWC members: a.1. Owner moves easement to E. side, and Town builds the path. b.2. Owner, in addition to items in #1. Above pays an in-lieu fee c.3. Owner pays olny an in lieu fee d.4.???? e. Town and Planning Commission were interested in PWC recommendations despite the imposed limitations (PWC was asked to limit suggestions to those imposed criteria that should include easement recommendation in current location and move forward with in lieu fee). ?????????? b)Some lessons will be implemented in future: a.The Site Development Checklist (used for Town to review plans) will be updated to include pathways as a specific item, which will give the opportunity to ensure a more upfront review. b.Pathways are already required to be on civil drawings but that will now be a requirement prior to submission. c.Paths should be installed with subdivision improvements such as driveways, drainage, walkways, etc. and not after home has been completed, as per Town ordinances LOS ALTOS HILLS PATHWAYS COMMITTEE FINAL Minutes of Special Meeting of Monday January 22, 2018 Scribe: Alisa Bredo d.Town has agreed to professional analysis (paid by town) on difficult lots to understand full picture before it comes to PWC for review. e.Staking will be required and there will be an opportunity for PWC ? to review the staking. c)Kjell Karlsson noted that contrary to the Ursula homeowner’s statement, the PWC did not impose pathway in the location chosen, but instead gave the homeowners a choice. The natural path existed for 50 years prior to development on the other side of the property. The developer was the one who designed the path in another location. PWC questioned this at the time. The Town accepted a design very different from that recommended by the PWC IF the western side of the lot was used. A path was a condition of approval, and the homeowner would have to deliver on the promised path. Neighbor noted in 2009 that property line not accurate but this was not addressed until 2017. When addressed, the path route had to be revised in a way that made it even more expensive. d)Council Member Spreen noted that easement is currently in place, will not go away, and technically at this point property owner is still required to build path, but that is not likely to happen. e)VM suggested that on parcels where pathways are required, the developer put money in escrow to put pathway in. This would relieve burden from homeowner. f)Town plans to apply lessons learned on Ursula to the Bassett subdivision (like staking of path). g)Prior action is technically in effect????, which is for it??? to be referred to Planning Commission with PWC making recommendation. h)PWC discussed the time PWC spent over last few years on the Ursula property and how to ensure that it doesn’t happen again/recommendations heard. How does PWC ensure that required paths installed as planned before house built and plans change? c.Property Review I.26925 Orchard Hill Ln (New Residence & Pool). Lands of Schott, APN 175-24- 044 Off-road path at the end of the cul-de-sac so per PWC procedures should request path. AD noted that the neighboring property installed plantings and water system over path. There is a path on the same side of the street on either side of the property. ND moved that the homeowners at 26925 Orchard Hill ln install a IIB pathway in the road right-of-way and if necessary on an easement, separated from the road as much as possible. BE seconded, and the vote was unanimously in favor (AB, ND, AD, BE, VM, RM, JN, SW, DW). PWC noted that this path is also a safe route to school. LOS ALTOS HILLS PATHWAYS COMMITTEE FINAL Minutes of Special Meeting of Monday January 22, 2018 Scribe: Alisa Bredo II.25788 (Lot 2 of 25700) Bassett Lane project ( File 404-17-ZP-SD-GD). Note that Town switched addresses with other 25700 parcel due to the recorded map and the options on locations of driveways. The previous parcel that was 25700 is now 25788 Bassett Ln). APN 336-43-013, Lands of ?? PWC noted that there was a staking of the path with stakes labelled ‘pathway’ when PWC reviewed the property, and that the staking was helpful. In the past sometimes a PWC representative walked with the developer to understand where the path should be. Pink stakes were the easement lines and the red ribbon was the? ?engineering department proposed path. PWC discussed potential drainage issues since the proposed path crossed the swale three times, and suggested the possible need for drainage pipes. Developer’s engineer was with town staff and put geo-coordinates of path on CAD. PWC noted that neighbors can plant to retain privacy, since they will have notice of impending paths, and the property owners can also do the same. At this point PWC revised scope of discussion to include only Lot 1. Requirement for lot 1 is to provide a path over the private road. PWC discussed status of subdivision and noted that ordinances require that paths be put in along with other infrastructure improvements. but Council allowed them to do it after development instead in this case. Full subdivision was accepted except for developing the path. This is contrary to current ordinances. PWC at time of subdivision collected easement on private road. RM moved that the property owner at 25700 Basset ln reaffirm public access over private road along their Basset Ln frontage and pay an in lieu fee. BE seconded, and the vote was 8 in favor (AB, ND, AD, BE, VM, RM, JN, DW) and 1 opposed. (SW). Town staff will determine if this is possible or not. III.25788 Basset Ln – Re-review staked pathway See discussion above. Lot 2 had the proposed off-road path staked. A pathway easement existed since 1957 as an equestrian and pedestrian trail easement. PWC noted that there is a lot of water coming down that slope. PWC was concerned with 3 crossings of swale with current layout (would require multiple bridges, drainage pipes, etc.), and preferred reducing the crossings to 1. The top could also be angled to reduce the slope. Easement is 60’ going down to 30’. PWC discussed advantages and disadvantages of detailing path location. May need PWC subcommittee to review and work with Town Engineer and Developer engineer to discuss further and bring recommendation back to next PWC meeting. A subcommittee was appointed: BE, AD, ND. Sr. Planner noted that current easement ends before reaching Rhus Ridge Rd. PWC needs plan set for 27588 Bassett (only 27500 was provided). Need this with lot lines and easement lines shown. RM moved for 27588 Bassett Ln for the Town Engineer Jeremy and Owner engineer and PWC subcommittee including AD, BE, and ND to meet and bring a recommendation back to the next PWC meeting. SW seconded, and the motion passed unanimously (AB, ND, AD, BE, VM, RM, JN, SW, DW). LOS ALTOS HILLS PATHWAYS COMMITTEE FINAL Minutes of Special Meeting of Monday January 22, 2018 Scribe: Alisa Bredo IV.27881 Baker Ln (New Residence, APN: 175-57-012) This property is a corner lot off of Purissima Rd. There is a roadside Pathway on Purissima currently and no path on the Baker Ln. frontage. PWC noted that the Master Path Plan shows a proposed off road path off of Baker Ln. Baker lane also has >8 residences, so should have a path. However, the opposite side of road looked like a much better place to put a path on Baker Ln. due to drainage swale on the 27881 property. ND moved that PWC request an in lieu fee from the homeowners at 27881 Baker Ln and also request that after the construction phase of the project that they restore the pathway on Purissima to IIB standards. BE seconded and vote passed unanimously (AB, ND, AD, BE, VM, RM, JN, DW, SW). V.23281 Mora Heights Way (New Residence) This property is currently undergoing annexation, and is a flag lot. RM moved that 23281 Mora Heights Way pay an in lieu fee. BE seconded, and the vote passed unanimously (AB, ND, AD, BE, VM, RM, JN, SW, DW). ?????PW member noted as a point of clarification that for developments in newly annexed areas the PWC should note that for each property where PWC is taking an in lieu fee as a result of operating without an approved Master Path Plan for that area (as ordered by Town Council), Town Council is going against Town ordinances in ruling that in lieu fee should be taken instead of following General Plan, and PWC should add rider ‘under protest’. Reference Goal 4 of general plan. An alternative would be to take an in lieu fee and ask for easement instead, which would allow building of pathways in future. As it is, the newly annexed areas are being denied the access to pathways that the rest of town has. (I would omit all of words back to the question marks.) Additional note: this parcel requested annexation, but everything around this parcel is currently outside Town boundaries. a.Native path specifications. I.ND presented an overview of current and proposed path specifications.[Attachment?] Currently there are no approved native path specifications. There are currently 5 approved IIB path specification documents. Currently town paths have slopes up to 40% (path near Matadero Creek, which interestingly has held up fine with no built up support). One subsection is even 62% slope. Most of the current paths are 2-5% side slope, some over 10%. Some poor path design was discussed (e.g. retaining boards with supports on wrong side, etc.) Suggested recommendation was for slopes >10% to generally require water bars, and >20% to require steps. Height can also be compensated for by switchbacks. Tread height is 6-10” for steps. Water bars should be spaced with 1 bar per 12” feet. Tread length and slope suggestions were provided. Retaining board requirement also suggested for cross-slopes. Vegetation clearance/management suggestion also included. PWC discussed 7’ suggested width for clearance and noted that not all native paths would be that wide – when paths meander they may have 5’ or less clearance. PWC suggested LOS ALTOS HILLS PATHWAYS COMMITTEE FINAL Minutes of Special Meeting of Monday January 22, 2018 Scribe: Alisa Bredo adding ?variability to guidelines since, particularly for native paths, conditions may warrant flexibility. II.AD suggested the use of split rail fences rather than the round or 1”x 6” boards for handrails to better match the rural feel of the town. III.PWC suggested to add ‘preferred’ terminology for the width, and to clarify the first bullet on the presentation for slope (no additional), to investigate railings and also to capture that when necessary sand or gravel can be added to the surface of a native path as needed to prevent the path’s becoming boggy in winter. IV.Additional suggestion to add ‘retaining boards/retention solution is required for overall cross slope gradients >15% before grading’ to native path specifications. V.PWC noted that it may also be necessary to find a way to verify compacting of IIB paths (should be 90-95%), and discussed IIB standard materials. VI.PWC Chair recommended that native path specifications (as amended) go to Town to flush out further, to then go to Town Engineering and Council. 4.Continuing Business a.Meeting report-outs AD went to City Council meeting last Thu. Sterling subdivision was under discussion and will go back to Planning Commission for further recommendations b.CIP Projects Currently there are 26 potential projects. Each PWC member has chosen a project to promote. Currently 4 are in progress: a)Summerhill ( in progress) b)Page Mill at Moon Lane (in progress) c)Altamont Plunge – DW presented. BE priced out. Can document and file so Town has a copy. [Attachment?] d)Fremont Rd to Redwood Grove – AD-presented on a potential connection to the Redwood Grove. Can do native path with switchback instead of having stairs, would just need to clear ivy. Entered measurements and came out with cost of $20k. Need to refine materials and get some estimates. [Attachment?] II.Matadero Creek path – move fence to redo closed part of path to allow for switchback. AD will talk to homeowner. Hoermeown has already been approached by Council member. c.Marketing/Communications (a)New Year’s Day walk went well, article in Town Crier (b)Want to write article on PWC in Town Newsletter, explaining function of PWC to get exposure/branding. However missed deadline for next newsletter. If PWC wants to schedule another walk in summer, they can. Parks & Rec does senior walk every month. In the past PWC did history walk and also a shared walk with equestrians, both were very successful. History walk was day of Town Picnic; walkers parked at LOS ALTOS HILLS PATHWAYS COMMITTEE FINAL Minutes of Special Meeting of Monday January 22, 2018 Scribe: Alisa Bredo Town Hall and walked over to Purissima. This worked very well, PWC may consider similar for a summer walk. (c)Estimates for cost to send map to each resident $5800-6200. AD drafted letter, Parks & Rec added. 1 correction to make to existing walking map, so will make that update prior to printing additional maps. 5.Presentations from the floor There were no presentations from the floor. 6.Next pathway walk: Sat, Feb 24 Next pathway meeting: Mon, Feb 26 7.Request topics for the next agenda 8.Adjournment: Meeting was adjourned at 10:07pm. The minutes of the January 22, 2018 regular Pathways Committee were approved with edits at the February 26, 2018 regular Pathways Committee.