Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 24 2017 APPROVED_PWC_Min_17-0424 7/3/17 1 Los Altos Hills Pathway Committee FINAL Minutes of Regular Meeting of Monday, April 24, 2017 1. ADMINISTRATIVE A. Call to Order Chairman Ann Duwe called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM B. Members/Associates present:  Members: Alisa Bredo, Nick Dunckel, Ann Duwe, Melissa Dyrdahl, Robert Elson, Bridget Morgan, Judy Nagy, Sue Welch, Sonja Wilkerson, Denise Williams, Rachelle Mirkin (7:04)  Associates: Eileen Gibbons, Susan Cretekos Members/Associates absent:  Members: N/A  Associates: Bob Stutz Council Liaison(s) present: Roger Spreen (7:06) Gary Waldeck Members of public present: Carl Cahill, City Manager Allen Chen, Public Works Director C. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved. ND moved, AB seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor (AB, ND, AD, MD, RE, BM, JN, SW, SWi, DW, RM) D. Approval of Minutes The minutes from the PWC meeting on March 23, 2017 were approved with one minor correction. AB moved, DW seconded, and the vote was unanimously in favor (AB, ND, AD, MD, RE, BM, JN, SWe, SWi, DW, RM) E. Ex Parte communications. No Ex Parte communications were noted. 2. New Business A. Presentation by Public Works Department by Allen Chen Allen Chen presented updates on a number of items affecting pathways, and will plan to attend PWC meetings going forward. a) Available construction costs for prior pathways (requested during the March PWC meeting) were provided. b) Maintenance update: the Maintenance crew cleared a number of pathways after winter storms, and also scraped and cleared the path on Conception between Vicaino and Westwind Way, the Edgerton, Bob Stutz, and Mary Stutz paths, the Byrne Preserve path and Altamont View path, and the Arastradero path to Page Mill/Baleri Ranch Rd. The issue on Fran’s Path was in progress, with plans for a contractor to meet with the county at the property on April 25 to verify whether groundwater runs under the hill section. This will help determine the repair course of action. An alternative path option is being considered, with the hope that it would be open as a detour by Apr 28th. c) VTA Meeting update: per BPAC program $10k/yr should be available for Los Altos Hills. This program is not competitive, so LAH should be able to receive funds if a proposal is sent. The application process was still a few months away; a proposal should be written based on criteria that will be available closer to fall. The VTA Board is currently in the process of developing the criteria for the use of Measure B funds and associate guidelines for each project. d) Update on proposed CIP projects: Summerhill and bridge on Page Mill at Moon Ln/across from Paseo del Roble were discussed. Both were approved in fiscal year 2016-2017. Three proposals were received for each project and will be reviewed shortly. PWC Chair offered to forward RFPs to interested members of PWC. The Page Mill proposal includes doing a topo map survey for the proposed bridge (geotechnical testing), as well as estimated design an d construction costs. The Summerhill project is a little more complex since some segments are already built, so part of the scope is determining which properties have right-of-way (ROW) and which do not. Topo maps, design, ROW determination, and connect ion plans are needed. PWC discussed and decided to nominate a subgroup of PWC to review the proposals. e) Clarification of Clickfix: Clickfix is an app that could potentially be used to identify maintenance issues on pathways. The app identifies the geographic location, and it would be sent to the Town. It is free for citizens, and was used in Fremont for maintenance crew. All reports would transfer to one email account. PWC discussed doing a pilot with the PWC members as initial users. APPROVED_PWC_Min_17-0424 7/3/17 2 B. Maintenance and Enforcement Issues a) Summitwood Fence update: enforcement action pending b) Post installed in the pathway on the Moon Lane fire Rd near Saddle Mountain – staff will examine C. Properties for Review a) 14172 Amherst Court (APN 182-41-006, # 373-16-ZP-SD-GD, New residence ) The developer was not present. The lot is on the east side of Amherst Court and has frontage on both Amherst Court and Page Mill Road, Amherst Ct is a public cul-de-sac serving 11 lots. The bubble map of 2006 shows the path over the pavement and no roadside paths exist on any other lots on Amherst Ct. No off-road paths exit from the cul-de-sac. Although it is a cul-de-sac with more than >8 lots, the PWC opted to recommend collection of an in -lieu fee, rather than require a a roadside path. PWC reviewed the adjacent parcel (14170 Amherst Ct) in 2016 with the recommendation to ask for an in -lieu fee. The parcel also has frontage on Page Mill which is designated to have roadside paths on both sides, However, this side of Page Mill has Mat adero Creek and a narrow bridge which would make construction of a roadside path difficult, and the opposite side of Page Mill has a roadside path in good condition and separated from the road. No pathway easements were found in a brief search of Town records. PWC noted that a path from the end the cul-de-sac would have been a connector to Christopher Lane, but was removed from MPP because it was blocked by Stanford because it had to go on Stanford land to get there. RE made motion that the PWC recommend the Town to collect a pathway in-lieu fee from the owners of 14172 Amherst Ct. BM seconded, and the vote was unanimously in favor (AB, ND, AD, MD, RE, BM, JN, SWe, SWi, DW, RM) b) 10501 Loyola Drive (APN Not Available, # 112-17-ZP-SD, Attached second unit) The developer was not present. SWe moved that the PWC recommend that the Town collect an in-lieu fee at this time from developers of 10501 Loyola Dr. per Apr 6, 2016 City Council meeting directive to collect in-lieu fees in annexed areas until the Master Path Plan is approved [Attachment A]. BM seconded, and the vote was unanimously in favor (AB, ND, AD, MD, RE, BM, JN, SWe, SWi, DW, RM) c) 23651 Camino Hermoso (APN 336-39-007, #123-17-ZP-SD) The developer was not present. Property is a flag lot on a public road. PWC discussed the property’s mailbox on other side of street, which is currently blocking the pathway there, and decided to agendize the issue of mailboxes blocking pathways in a future meeting when post office requirements for placement of mailboxes are in -hand. ND moved to that the PWC recommend the Town to request an in lieu fee from the property owner at 23651 Camino Hermoso and also for the Town and homeowner to work together to remove the mailbox from the pathway across the street. RE seconded, and the vote was unanimously in favor (AB, ND, AD, MD, RE, BM, JN, SWe, SWi, DW, RM) d) 13861 La Paloma (APN: 175-35-003, #114-17-ZP-SD-GD, New residence) The developer was not present. PWC discussed La Paloma designation as a 2-sided road (paths on both sides), and noted that path segments have been built on nearby parcels on the west side of the road. La Paloma is a public road and there is a path on the opposite side of the road. BM moved that the PWC recommend that the town ask the owner of 13861 la Paloma to install a 2b path at the far side of the road ROW as shown on the plans. PWC noted that the driveway was already roughed on the plan. RE seconded, and the motion passed unanimously (AB, ND, AD, MD, RE, BM, JN, SWe, SWi, DW, RM). 3. Old Business A. Mayor Waldeck’s request of all volunteer committees: Review the charter and general plan (Pathways Element and Municipal Code in our case) as they relate to the committee’s work. Consider how the PWC is working with respect to the documents and r eport back to him. PWC reviewed the Standing Committee Resolution 18-15 Section 5 (f) and the LAH General Plan - Pathways Element. Discussion ensued with regard to the Bicycle Plan and Circulation Element (updated April 2015), and it was determined that the current language would not have a substantive effect on the way the PWC operates. Section f (iii) of Resolution 18-15 (assigning duty to PWC Chair to appoint member to serve as Town’s representative to the Valley Transportation Authority’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee was already removed per recent City Council meeting. PWC Chair distributed a copy of Municipal Code Sections [Attachment B]. PWC Chair agreed to communicate outcome of discussion to Mayor Waldeck in writing. B. Presentation of decision tree for pathway recommendations. SWe shared decision tree documents [Attachments C and D, developed in 2014 to help clarify decision-making process behind PWC recommendations, based on Town ordinances and Pathways Element. The tree illustrates APPROVED_PWC_Min_17-0424 7/3/17 3 general rules for the committee to follow for roadside paths only. Off-road paths are noted on the Master Path Plan and approved by council. SWe also shared a record of pathway recommendations for 2014 [Attachment E] C. Master Path Plan Map Update – addition of Working Reference Map information to approved MPP Update Draft Map At the time of the meeting, the Master Path Plan Map was with the Planning Commission for review. Mayor Waldeck requested a map showing which side of road was provisionally preferred (an updated version of a 2006 map known as the ‘Bubble Map’, designating which side of the street is provisionally preferred for pathways and showing segments that have been built). PWC Chair agreed to print this for PWC, Planning Commission, and City Council. Mayor Waldeck clarified that the Bubble Map is not a plan, and Council Member Spreen noted that the plan being sent for approval will not have the sides of the road designated. Instead the bubble maps are working documents to aid in analysis. Other parts of town had that aid in place when the map for off-road paths was last updated. D. CIP Projects Update – Summerhill, Page Mill at Moon, Bob Stutz connector PWC has been recently asked to budget 5 years of CIP projects instead of one year at a time. PWC discussed having a champion within the PWC for each CIP project, to play a proactive role in moving the project forward to completion. PWC Chair requested PWC members to review CIP list with this in mind. CIP Project updates discussed under 2A earlier in the meeting. E. Alta Consulting Update PWC Chair provided update. The inventory information gathering took longer than anticipated due to the bad weather and mud, but should be completed by the end of April or the week after. They will have a meeting to report back on information form. The Alta information is to be stored in GIS file compatible with autoCAD. In future they will have a web system with layers to add easement information. F. No Parking on Pathways update PWC discussed updating the municipal code to say ‘pathways’ instead of ‘parkways’. DW moved that the PWC recommend amending the Town Municipal Code 4-3.1002 to state pathways rather than parkways. SWe seconded, and the motion passed unanimously (AB, ND, AD, MD, RE, BM, JN, SWe, SWi, DW, RM). G. Report from Associate Member Subcommittee PWC Subcommittee recommended a new requirement: that Associate Members shall only be eligible if they have served as full PWC members. Mayor Waldeck clarified that any committee can offer a candidate as an Associate Member and can vote on that, but it is not in committee charter to set rules for accepting Associate Members. This policy is set by the City Council. The PWC has the right and responsibility to accept a nomination and to vote. PWC discussed the difference between PWC Associate Member and public, and size of the committee. PWC Chair suggested tabling the topic for 6 months to see how many people apply to be Associate Members, and adhering to current practices in the meantime. 4. Reports from other meetings A. City Council meeting, April 20; Youth Commission Clean Up; Earth Day AD attended the Youth Commission Clean Up B. VTA Meeting SC provided update. Earliest date to receive funds is July. VTA is looking for ways to make schools safer, an d trying to get people out of cars and onto bikes and paths. Currently they are $15M in debt due to the landslides in Santa Cruz Mountains, and resurfacing roads, so they will not have spare funds next year, although the automobile tax will add funds. 5. Presentations from the floor (discussion) May 13 is the Pathways Run. Eileen Gibbons did registration in the past, but may not be in town this year. PWC should represent. SC volunteered to assist, possibly JN as well. 6. Next Pathway walk: Saturday, May 20, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. Next Pathways meeting: Monday, May 22 at 7:00 p.m. 7. Request topics for next agenda PWC Members should email PWC Chair with any topics for the next meeting. 8. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at: 9:32pm PWC_ChopChart16-0517.xlsx 5/17/16 1 Yes
Exis(ng
 roadside
 path
on
this
 frontage?







 Restore
exis(ng
roadside
path
 a5er
construc(on
 Yes
 Request
construc(on
of
roadside
 path
in
exis(ng
easement

 OR
defer
construc(on

 Exis(ng


 path
 easement
 on
this
 frontage?







 On
a
road
 designated
 to
have
paths
 on
both
 sides?







 Yes
 No
 No
 No
 1
 1
 2
Request
construc(on
of
roadside
 path
and/or
pathway
easement

 OR
request
pathway
easement
 and
defer
construc(on
 START
 Restore
exis/ng
path
this
side

 2XXXX
Dezahara
Way
(Taaffe)

 10XXX
West
Loyola
(Ravensbury)

 13XXX
Burke
Road
(Burke)
 26XXX
Purissima
(Robleda)
 12XXX
Robleda
Road
 26XXX
Todd
Lane
(La
Paloma)
 26XXX
Purissima
(Purissima)

 26XXX
Purissima
(Purissima)

 25XXX
Moody
Road
(Moody)
 26XXX
Purissima
(Purissima)
 13XXX
La
Paloma
(La
Paloma)
 13XXX
La
Paloma
(Purissima)

 26XXX
Altamont
Road
 Construct
path
in
exis/ng
easement.
 27XXX
Dezahara
Way
(Dezahara)

 26XXX
Altamont
Road
 24XXX
Hillview
Rd
(Hillview)

 13XXX
Page
Mill
 12XXX
ZappeZn
Court
(ZappeZni)

 Frontage
on
2‐sided
road,
no
exis/ng
path
 Request
new
path/easement
this
side.
 12XXX
ZappeZni
(Altamont)

 13XXX
Burke
(Fremont)

 13XXX
Ciceroni
(Fremont)

 26XXX
Oretga
(Fremont)


 26XXX
Moody
Road

 Private
cul‐de‐sac
serving
any
number
lots
and
connec/ng
to
off‐road
path.
 Request
easement
for
access
over
private
road
if
none
exists
or
in‐lieu
fee
if
one
does.


 25XXX
Deerfield.
Lot
on
private
part
of
cul‐de‐sac
serving
5
lots
and
connec(ng
to
off‐road
path.
 25XXX
Moody
(Rhus
Ridge)*.
Rhus
Ridge
serves
8
lots
and
connects
to
off‐road
path.


 25XXX
VInedo
Lane.
Lot
is
on
private,
single
lane
cul‐de‐sac
serving
5
lots
and
connec(ng
to
off‐road
path.

 Opposite
side
has
exisi/ng
path.
 Request
in‐lieu
fee.
 12XXX
Robleda
Road
 13XXX
Burke
Road*
(Old
Altos)

 14XXX
Miranda**
 25XXX
Deerfield
(Burke)
**
 Opposite
side
is
preferred
for
path.
 Request
in‐lieu
fee.
 25XXX
O'Keefe
(O'Keefe)*

 27XXX
Lupine
Road
 26XXX
Anacapa
Drive

 12XXX
Briones
Way

 27XXX
Via
Ventana
 Public
road,
not
cul‐de‐sac

 1.
or
2.
Request
easement
and/or
path
construc/on
 27XXX
Roble
Alto
(Roble
Alto)

 27XXX
Roble
Alto
(Paseo
del
Roble)

 10XXX
West
Loyola
Drive

 26XXX
Esperanza
Dr
(Esperanza)

 26XXX
Esperanza
Drive
(Ascencion)
 24XXX
Hillview
Rd
(Magdalena)
 25XXX
La
Loma
(La
Loma)
 25XXX
La
Loma
(Summitwood)
 Public
cul‐de‐sac
serving
>8
lots
and
connec/ng
to
off‐road
path.
 1
or
2.
Request
easement
and/or
path
construc/on
 11XXX
Hilltop
Drive.
Serves
12
lots;
connects
to
two
off‐road
paths.
 26XXX
Todd
Lane
(Todd).
Serves
11
lots;
connects
to
off‐road
path
to
Bullis
School.
 25XXX
O'Keefe
(La
Rena).
Serves
16
lots;
connects
to
off‐road
path.
 3.
Rely
on
access
over
public
road
and
request

in‐lieu
fee
 25XXX
Deerfield
(Deerfield)*
Public
cul‐de‐sac
serving
>8
lots
connec(ng
to
future
off‐road
path.

 25XXX
Deerfield.
Serves
>8
lots
connec(ng
to
future
off‐road
path
should
have
roadside
path.

 12XXX
Priscilla
Lane.
Serves
12
lots;
road
is
very
wide
an
ILF
requested
instead
or
roadside
path.

 Cul‐de‐sac
serving
≤8
lots
and
does
not
connect
to
off‐road
 path.
 Request
in‐lieu
fee.
 27XXX
Appaloosa
Way
 13XXX
Ciceroni
Lane
 13XXX
Ciceroni
Lane*
 26XXX
Ortega
Drive*
 11XXX
Old
Ranch
Road
 26XXX
Torello
Lane
 13XXX
La
Paloma
(Calle
del
Sol)*
 12XXX
Hilltop
Drive.

 27XXX
Byrne
Park
Lane.

 Recommenda)ons
for
parcels
reviewed
by
Pathways
Commi9ee
 2014:



 18
(31%)
=
Restore
exis)ng
path
or
build
path
in
exis)ng
easement

 22
(38%)
=
Pay
pathway
in‐lieu
fee
 18
(31%)
=
Request
new
pathway
or
easement
 58
frontages
=
total
reviewed
 LAH
Municipal
Code
10–2.602(a)
 Policy
1.1
 Policy
4.12
 LAH
Municipal
Code
10–2.602(a)
 Policy
1.1
 Policy
4.2
and
4.4
 LAH
Municipal
Code
10–2.602(a)
 Policy
1.1,
2.2,
2.3,
4.2,
4.4
 Resolu(on
#38‐96
 Cul‐de‐sac
 connects
to
 off‐road
 path?







 On
a
cul‐de‐ sac
serving
 >8
lots?







 Roadside
 path
 needed
on
 cul‐de‐sac
 for
safety?







 Yes
 No
No
 Yes
Yes
 No
Request
pathway
 in‐lieu
fee
 3
 LAH
Municipal
Code
10–2.602(a)
 Policy
1.1,
2.4,
4.2
 On
a
 
public
road?







 Opposite
side
 has
exis(ng

 roadside
path

 or
easement?







 Opposite
 side
 preferred
for
 path?







 No
 Yes
 Yes
 Request
pathway
 in‐lieu
fee
 Request
pathway
 in‐lieu
fee
 No
 No
 4
 5
 6
 Yes
On
a
 private
road?







 7
 1.
Request
easement
for

 access
over
private
road
ROW
 
if
one
does
not
already
exist

 OR
 3.
Request
pathway
easement
on
 roadside
or
parcel
and
construc(on
of
 roadside
path
(or
defer
construc(on)
 OR
 2.
Request
in‐lieu
fee
if
easement
for
 access
over
private
road
ROW
exists
 1.
Request
pathway
easement

 in
road
ROW
or
on
parcel

 AND
construc(on
of
roadside
path
 OR
 3.
Rely
on
access
over
public
road
 
AND
request
pathway
in‐lieu
fee

 (No
easement
or
construc(on)
 
OR
2.
Request
pathway
easement

 in
road
ROW
or
on
parcel

 AND
defer
construc(on

 Yes
 Each
decsision
point
is
based
on
specific
 policies
in
the
Pathway
Element
and
LAH
 ordinances.

 LAH
Municipal
Code
10–2.602(a)
 Policy
1.1,
2.2,
2.3,
4.2,
4.1b
 LAH
Municipal
Code
10–2.602(a)
 Policy
1.1,
2.2,
2.3,
4.2,
4.1b
 LAH
Municipal
Code
10–2.602(a)
 Policy
1.1,
2.1,
4.2,
4.4
 LAH
Municipal
Code
10–2.602(a)
 Policy
1.1,
2.1,
4.2,
4.4
 Major
decision
points
for
ROADSIDE
pathway
recommenda/ons:
 1.
Does
this
road
frontage
have
an
exis/ng
roadside
pathway
or
pathway
 
easement?
 

 2.
Is
this
road
frontage
on
a
road
designated
to
have
roadside
pathways
on
 
 both
sides?
 3.
Is
this
road
frontage
on
a
small
cul‐de‐sac
where
roadside
paths
may
not
 be

 required?
 4.
Does
the
road
frontage
on
the
opposite
side
of
the
street
already
have
a
 
 pathway
or
pathway
easement?
 5.
Is
the
opposite
side
of
the
road
preferred
for
a
roadside
pathway?
 6.
Is
this
road
frontage
on
a
public
road?
 7.
Is
this
road
frontage
on
a
private
road?
 On
a
 cul‐de‐sac?







 Yes
 No
 !"#$%&’(!")*+",(-%$.//%01"2.0’(3.#(4567( !"#$%&’()*+#,)-#+./-0’*#1)(, 2#$%&’()*+#,)-#+./-0’*#+)-+3+’(# 68(9:6;<(-%’).#%(%=>’20?(@")*(.#(AB>&1(@")*(>0(%=>’20?(%"’%/%0)( 4#5’#6789:+9-)6#;#<#8&(-#=/(,#’&#&>9%&):#1)(,# ?#511&-/(+#-/:+#&@#%&):#,)-#+./-0’*#1)(,A+)-+3+’(#&%#/-#1%+@+%%+:#-/:+# "#B7C8/6#6789:+9-)6#=/(,#&>9%&):#1)(,D#)66+--#&E+%#%&):# "#B%/E)(+#6789:+9-)6#=/(,#&>9%&):#1)(,#F)66+--#+)-+3+’(#+./-(-G## 44(9:C;<(-%DB%’)(@")*+",(>0E&>%B(3%%( 2#H&):#:+-/*’)(+:#@&%#1)(,-#&’#C&(,#-/:+-# <#B7C8/6#(,%79%&):I#&’#1%+@+%%+:#-/:+#)’:#’&#1)(,#&’#&11&-/(+#-/:+## "#B7C8/6#6789:+9-)6#=/(,#&>9%&):#1)(,# !#J511&-/(+#-/:+#,)-#+./-0’*#1)(,#FK/%)’:)D#1)(,-#’&(#’++:+:#C&(,#-/:+-G# 6F(9:6;<(-%DB%’)(0%+(@")*(GHI(@")*+",(%"’%/%0)( JF(K.)"&(3#.0)"?%’(#%L>%+%1(974(@"#$%&’<( 2A!4A!?#!<#