The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAugust 22 2016 FINAL_PWC_Min_16-0822.doc 7/7/17 1 Los Altos Hills Pathway Committee FINAL Minutes of Regular Meeting of Monday, August 18, 2016 1. ADMINISTRATIVE A. Call to Order. Chairman Ann Duwe called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM B. Members/Associates present: Alisa Bredo, Weegie Caughlan, Nick Dunckel, Ann Duwe, Eileen Gibbons, Vic Hesterman, Breene Kerr, Rachelle Mirkin, Sue Welch, Members/Associates absent: Bridget Morgan, Denise Williams (Members); Bob Stutz, Tim Warner (Associates) Council Liaison present: John Radford (left 8:30 pm) Members of public present: Jim and Sue Waller (26105 Elena Road) Ibraham Saah (24024 Oak Knoll Circle) Elizabeth Loinaz (12660 Corte Madera Lane) Kjell Karlsson (LAH FIC) C. Approval of Agenda. The agenda was approved after amending to move Item 3A (Repeat vote on PWC officers) to before New Business. EG moved, SW seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor (AB, WC, ND, AD, EG, VH, BK, RM, SW). D. Approval of Minutes. The minutes from the PWC meetings of July 25, 2016 were approved with minor amendments. EG moved, AD seconded, and the vote was 8 in favor (AB, WC, ND, AD, EG, VH, BK, SW) with 1 abstaining (RM, not present at meeting). E. Ex Parte communications. AD reported meeting with Planning Commissioner Susan Mandle. They discussed Planning Commission procedures for site visits. The Town arranges a 5-day period during which the commissioners can visit the development site. 2. NEW BUSINESS A. Properties for Review The following properties were reviewed for pathway recommendations: i. 24024 Oak Knoll Circle (Lands of Saah; APN 336-125-003; file #261-16-ZP-SD-GD). The reason for PWC review is construction of an addition and second unit. The parcel is on the SE side of Oak Knoll Circle, a public road (TR#8331). Oak Knoll Circle is a public road (TR#8331). A future off-road path connecting Oak Knoll Circle to Dawson Drive exits from this side of Oak Knoll Circle on an existing easement on an emergency access road on 24032 Oak Knoll. The developer, Ibraham Saah, was present but did not comment. IIB roadside paths built at the time of subdivision exist on all properties on the outer side of the Oak Knoll Circle loop, including a path in good condition on 24024. The driveway needs roughening. WC moved that the PWC recommend the Town to require the developers of 24024 Oak Knoll Circle to restore the existing roadside path on the Oak Knoll Circle frontage to IIB standards after construction and to roughen the driveway for equestrian safety. ND seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor (AB, WC, ND, AD, EG, VH, BK, RM, SW). ii. 12660 Corte Madera Lane (Lands of Lionaz; APN 175-54-006; file #279-16-ZP-SD). The reason for pathway review is construction of a second unit. The parcel is on the east side of Corte Madera Lane at the end of this public cul-de-sac (TR#1926) serving 19 lots. The Council-approved 2005 Master Path Plan map shows an off-road path over this parcel connecting to La Paloma Road. The Town holds all easements necessary to complete this approved off-road route, including a 5-ft wide easement on the southern border of 12660 Corte Madera; a 5-ft wide easement on the northern border of 12650 Corte Madera and a 10-ft easement along the eastern border of 12650, all dedicated at the time of subdivision (TM- 1926, Fremont Hills Subdivision Unit #2, May 57). The Town also holds a 10-ft wide pathway easement on 13697 La Paloma Road (CR-124-93, Nov 93); and a 32-ft wide easement on the NW side of 13685 La Paloma over the shared driveway (CR-124-93, Nov 93). PWC reviewed a site development project on 13697 La Paloma in May 2016 with a recommendation to construct a native path on the existing easement. The developer, Elizabeth Lionaz, was present and expressed opposition to a path on the existing pathway easement on her property, citing concerns for privacy and for wildlife that use the off-road route through to La Paloma. PWC discussed options at length. Members who FINAL_PWC_Min_16-0822.doc 7/7/17 2 walked the route reported it is easily passable except near the roadside where oleanders have been planted in the easement. It was suggested the homeowner might want to move the easement slightly to accommodate the oleanders and create a better transition to the street. Several members stated the PWC should uphold the Master Path Plan approved by Council in 2005 after lengthy public hearings and recommend that the path be installed. One member said the path does not need to be put in. The path creates a neighborhood loop and is a potential route for students walking or cycling to Bullis School. ND moved that the PWC recommend the Town require the developers of 12660 Corte Madera Lane to put in a native path in the existing pathway easement along the southern border; and offer them the option to move the easement to a location they prefer. EG seconded and the vote was 8 in favor (AB, ND, AD, EG, VH, BK, RM, SW) and one opposed (WC). iii. 24840 Summerhill Avenue (Lands of Ali and Varadarajan; APN 336-15-009; file #260-16- ZP-SD-GD). The reason for pathway review is construction of a new residence. The developer was not present. The parcel is on the south side of Summerhill (south lane within LAH is a public road) and is accessed via a driveway off Tiara Lane (a private road). It has no frontage on Summerhill, but has frontage on El Monte Road. An asphalt roadside path (i.e., sidewalk) that appears to be in the road ROW exists along the El Monte frontage. No off-road path easements or paths were identified on or near the parcel. EG moved that the PWC recommend the Town to require the developers of 24840 Summerhill Avenue to pay a pathway in-lieu fee. SW seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor (AB, WC, ND, AD, EG, VH, BK, RM, SW). iv. 23600 Ravensbury Avenue (Lands of T and T Community Property Trust; APN 336-38-006; file #275-16-ZP-SD-GD). The reason for pathway review is construction of a new residence, second unit, and pool. The developer was not present. Ravensbury is a public road (TR#13, 1184, 2224, 3039, 3246, 3283, 3872). The parcel is on the east side of Ravensbury just north of the 90-degree turn in the road. Roadside paths exist in sections along both sides of Ravensbury in the vicinity. No off-road path easements or off-road paths were identified on or near the parcel. The road shoulder on 23600 is wide and relatively flat (then slopes up to a fence) and could accommodate a roadside path separated from the pavement. Ravensbury is a busy road and a roadside path will improve safety for pedestrians and equestrians. EG moved that the PWC recommend the Town to require the developers of 23600 Ravensbury Avenue to grant a pathway easement and build a IIB roadside path separated from the pavement. VH seconded and the vote was 8 in favor (AB, ND, AD, EG, VH, BK, RM, SW) and one opposed (WC). B. Policy to cap pathway construction costs. PWC discussed the proposal raised by Council Member Corrigan at the Aug 18, 2016 Council meeting to establish a cap on developers’ costs for pathway construction. AD distributed her personal comments on the proposal sent to Council for that meeting (Attachment A). At the Council meeting, Council established an ad hoc committee (Council members Corrigan and Spreen) to study this issue and asked SW to provide input. At the PWC meeting, Council Liaison Radford invited all members of the PWC to also attend these meetings. C. Statement from Santa Clara County Sherriff’s Department re Crime and Pathways. AD reported she wrote the Santa Clara County Sherriff’s Department requesting any data linking pathways to burglaries. They responded that they have no direct information that would lead them to conclude that pathways are leading to crime. D. Request to remove Robleda to Elena Off-Road Path. Jim Waller, the owner of 26105 Elena Road asked to remove the existing off-road paths on his property. Both easements are shown on the 2005 Council-approved Master Path Plan (MPP) Map. The native path segments on 26105 Elena are part of an off-road path that runs along the west side of I-280 behind three parcels (12469 Robleda, 26101 Elena and 26105 Elena) from Robleda Road to Elena. PWC reviewed a development project on this parcel on 9/28/15 with a unanimous recommendation to maintain the existing paths (Attachment B). At the 6/27/16 PWC meeting, Mr. Waller complained that the when the Town crew cleared the path in June they broke a glass door his house, damaged trees, and left tree prunings on his property. He also said police motorcycles have driven over the path on several occasions (Attachment B). The Wallers are now asking to have the paths removed FINAL_PWC_Min_16-0822.doc 7/7/17 3 from the MPP map citing concerns about privacy, disruption of a wildlife corridor, unwarranted use of private land, and the fact that the parcel has paths on three sides. Review of records shows: — The off-road pathway easements on the parcel were granted at the time of subdivision (PM- 458M55-56, Feb 1980). The Title Report shows 10-ft pedestrian and equestrian easements along the NW and NE border. The path along Elena Road is in the road ROW adjacent to the pavement. — The path on 26105 Elena is shown as an approved existing route on the 2005 Council- approved Master Path Plan Map. This decision was made following extensive public hearings and review by Planning Commission and City Council. — The conditions of approval for a new residence on the property (1/24/95) require clearing the native paths and restoring the path along Elena Road to IIB standards. PWC discussed options at length well as the larger implications of PWC acting to remove paths from the MPP map. Equestrians and pedestrians reported using the off-road path since it was cleared in June because it provides a route away from the roadside path adjacent to the pavement along Robleda and Elena, which are both busy roads. The route along the NW border is somewhat close to the house, but the route on the NE border along I-280 is not and was proposed at one time to continue further to the north along the freeway, although extension of this route beyond 26105 Elena was removed from the MPP in 2005. PWC also discussed whether PWC had authority to add off-road paths or to remove them from the approved MPP map without Council approval. BK moved that the homeowner of 26105 Elena Road take his request to remove the existing off-road pathway on his property to City Council since the PWC does not have authority to remove existing paths from the Master Path Plan Map approved in 2005 without Council direction. PWC does not favor simply removing this off-road path, but would consider looking at the area for alternative routes (e.g., north along the freeway). EG seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor (AB, WC, ND, AD, EG, VH, BK, RM, SW). 3. OLD BUSINESS A. Repeat vote on election of officers. The City Clerk requested PWC to repeat the election of new officers done at the July meeting because the protocol for use of secret ballots was not followed. Council Liaison Radford distributed ballots and counted them after they were marked. Nominations were as described in minutes for the July PWC meeting. The results of the balloting were: AD Chair, EG CoVice-Chair, SW secretary, AB co-vice-secretary. Radford also reminded PWC members WC, AD, ND, and EG that their terms are up in November. B. “No Parking on Pathways” Card. PWC discussed options for discouraging parking on pathways and informing drivers that parking on paths is illegal. Ideas included a card to place on the windshield of vehicles parked on pathways, signs at major entrances to Town, and placement of “No Parking” signs in problem locations. AB volunteered to research how other towns address this and AD will confer with staff again. C. Report from Master Path Plan Map (MPP) Update Subcommittee. EG reported the subcommittee will now work on documenting new easements and paths built since the last MPP update and creating a database. A Planning Commission special study session to review the Master Path Plan maps may be held in September or October. a. PWC discussed adding Burke Road from Chapin to the eastern Town border to the list of Council-approved roads that are to have paths on both sides. Because of proximity to the Los Altos center, this road has a lot of pedestrian, auto, and bicycle traffic and paths on both sides would improve safety. D. CIP projects and budget update. The Town has widened the path used by Bullis School students on Fremont Road between Campo Vista and the school entrance. A path across the front of the school is still needed. Public Works staff also informed Chair AD that the Town will be making improvements to the roadside path along Robleda as part of the paving project. The Town resubmitted to Caltrans the request for an encroachment permit for a small segment along the I- 280 Magdalena off-ramp to allow construction of the east end of the Bob Stutz path. E. Top Elegant Investment, LLC (Stirling) Subdivision. SW recused herself for proximity, left the table, and did not participate in the discussion. PWC briefly reviewed PWC recommendations for FINAL_PWC_Min_16-0822.doc 7/7/17 4 this 18-acre subdivision. Planning Commission will hold a study session for this project on Sept 1, 2016. AD will attend to present PWC recommendations and answer questions. 4. REPORTS FROM OTHER MEETINGS. A. Senior Pathways Walk. The first in a planned series of pathway walks for seniors will be held on Sept 26, 2016. The route will start at 10:00 am at Town Hall (Parks and Rec Bldg) and follow a 2.2 mile loop over roadside and off-road paths north of Town Hall. 5. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR. A. LAH Hoedown. This annual community event will be held Saturday, Sep 10 from 3 to 8 pm at the Westwind Barn. PWC members will staff a pathways information table. B. Dedication of Rex Gardiner Open Space. The Town will hold a celebration at 2 pm on Tuesday, Sept 10 to dedicate this open space parcel at the corner of Moody Road and Old Snakey. C. Town Compliance Officer. The Town has hired a code enforcement officer. PWC discussed creating a list of illegally blocked pathways that could be opened. 6. NEXT SCHEDULED MEETINGS. Next Pathway Walk: Saturday, September 24, 2016 at 9:00 am at Town Hall Next PWC Meeting: Regular Meeting; Monday, September 26, 2016 at 7:00 pm at Town Hall 7. REQUEST FOR TOPICS FOR NEXT AGENDA 8. ADJOURNMENT. The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 pm. Attachment A: AD Comments on Proposal to Cap Pathway Construction Costs Attachment B: Sept 2015 PWC recommendation for 26105 Elena Road Final minutes were approved as amended (red text) at the regular Pathways Committee meeting of September 26, 2016. ft+tarhnqeu*A I PNc Mee-hi ,^t orlz'>[tro Proposal for policy to impose a cap on pathway construction costs August 15,20L6 I write to ask you to reject the proposal to cap what property owners might pay for pathway construction for the following reasons: 1. The new policy would shift the burden of developing a difficult site to the ta:payers of Los Altos Hllls rather than to the owner or developer. Why should the Town subsidize this particular improvement? The Town does not subsidize installation of other required improvements, all of which can cost more on difficult lots. 2. The new policy would result in greater total costs for paths. Our existing policy allows the building of paths to coincide with the presence on site of workmen lnd equipment necessaryto build driveways, wallarays, drainage systems and other improvements for a major proiect To separate the pattr and make it a public works proJect rather than a condition of development drives up the cost unnecessarily' 3. The new policywould result in a much greater demand forsafftime. Staff would have to review owner estimates and seekbids on behalf of the Town, to say nothing of the added time to manage additional construction projects. 4. There are no records ftom homeowners documenting they spent in excess of $11,215, the average in lieu fee for acre lots, for building a path. Developers and homeowners have often indicated their preference for installing a path. One went so far as to offer to build a path on a neighbor's property, or almost anywherg rather than pay an in lieu fee. He clearly understood that building a path is generally cheaper than paying the in lieu fee. Our existing system has worked reasonablywell for 50 years. Again,l askyou to reject the proposed policy for a pathway construction cap. The proposal seems to address a generally non-existent problem by adding substantially to the cost and time necessary to build whatever might come through this bureaucratic channel in the future. Yours sincerely, Ann Duwe, Chair Pathways Committee ATTACHMENT B: Pathways Committee Meeting Aug 22, 2016    Request to Vacate Pathway Easement     The owner of 26105 Elena Road has requested to vacate the pathway easements on his  parcel. The native path segments on 26105 Elena are part of an off‐road path that runs  along the west side of I‐280 behind three parcels (12469 Robleda, 26101 Elena and 26105  Elena) from Robleda Road to Elena.  Easements were granted at the time of subdivision in 1980 (see below).  — The path is on the 1981 Council‐approved Master Path Plan Map  — The path is on the 2005 Council‐approved Master Path Plan Map. This decision was  made following extensive public vetting and review by both Planning Commission and  City Council.  — The conditions of approval for a new residence on the property (1/24/95) require  clearing the native paths and restoring the path along Elena Road to IIB standards.   — The Town does not generally vacate pathway easements    26105 Elena Road  APN: 182 06 062  File #: 330‐15‐ZP‐SD  Lands of Waller  Parcel is on the northeast side of Elena third parcel north from the intersection of Elena  and Robleda . Elena is a public road, not designated as 2‐sided.  2005 DB: 10 ft off‐road pathway easements along the NW border and along the border with  freeway (PM‐458M55‐56 Feb‐80)  Title Report also shows “10 ft pedestrian and equestrian easements” along the NW and NE  borders  Condition 17 of approval for site development for construction of a new residence in (Oct  24, 1995) requires clearing the native paths and restoring the path along Elena Road to IIB  standards.   __________________________________________  PWC reviewed the property on 9/28/15 with the following recommendation:  Los Altos Hills Pathway Committee FINAL Minutes of Regular Meeting of Monday, September 28, 2015  A. 26105 Elena Road (Lands of Walller; APN 182-06-062; file #330-15-ZP-SD). Reason for pathway review is construction of a barn. The developer, Jim Waller, present, explained that the parcel already had pathway easements and therefore should not have to pay a pathway in-lieu fee. The parcel is on the northeast side of Elena, the third parcel north from the intersection of Elena and Robleda. Elena is a public road, not designated as an official “two-sided road” to have paths on both sides of the road. A roadside path within the Elena Road ROW exists along the full length of the Elena frontage. Off-road pathway easements on the parcel along the northwest border and along the northeast border (the frontage parallel to I-280) were dedicated to the Town in 1980 (Parcel Map-458M55-56; Attachment A). These paths are passable, but need clearing. It was suggested that the Town crew could clear vegetation from these paths at the same time the off-road path on the adjacent parcels (26101 Elena and 12469 Robleda Road) are cleared. PWC will request staff to send a letter informing neighbors of this activity. WC moved that the PWC recommend that the Town require the owner of 26105 Elena Road to maintain the existing native paths as he has been doing and to restore the path along the Elena frontage to IIB standards after construction is completed. ND seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor (AB, WC, ND, AD, EG, VH, BK, BM, SW, DW).      From: Waller, Jim [mailto:jim.waller@lmco.com]   Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 9:38 AM  To: Genevieve Fernandez <gfernandez@losaltoshills.ca.gov>  Subject: Pathways: It's been almost 20 years but...     I’d like to know when/where my project will be discussed by the pathway committee so I can address them.  Can  you help me with that?      It’s been almost 20 years, but I’m still a little pissed.  When I originally built my house, one of the many items I  waded through was a demand to “upgrade” and move the roadside pathway 10 feet down the embankment away  from the curb.  While there might be areas where this is desired, the slope of the land and the connection to the  adjacent paths made this change unreasonable and would result in steep transitions and a less usable path.  I tried  to talk with the planner at the time to explain why this change would not be an improvement and would result in  unnecessary expense, her response was “Do you want to build your house or not?”  So at an expense of >$2500,  remembering this was 20 years ago, I graded, bought edging lumber, crushed fines, and compacted while almost  every neighbor asked “what in the world are you doing?”  My wife could not use the path since it was too steep for  her wheelchair so she had to go in the road.  She was not happy with me – “How could you let them talk you into  this?”     We spent the next year and a half getting screwed by our contractor, I maxed out all our credit cards, begged and  borrowed from relatives, friends, and co‐workers to try to finish the house.  We almost lost it.  Every time I would  look at the path I would wish I had that money back.  No one used the “upgrade” and everyone walked along the  road anyway.  I believe it was less than two years when the town hired a contractor to upgrade the path along  Elena.  Well they undid everything I had done and the path is now in the logical and useable condition it is now.  It  is this experience, as well as a few others, that make me very impatient with illogical and unnecessary expenses as  part of any development project.  My property bears the burden of pathways on three sides and I’m not in the  mood for a levy, fees or other conditions (other than keeping the path clear) from the pathway committee.  ____________    Planning Commission meeting 06/06/02  Study Session: Preliminary Master Path Plan Update    “Jim Waller, 26105 Elena Road, wanted to see the path next to his property removed as it was a dead end.”   