Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 25 2016 FINAL_PWC_Min_16-0125.doc 2/29/16 1 Los Altos Hills Pathway Committee FINAL Minutes of Special Meeting of Monday, January 25, 2016 1. ADMINISTRATIVE A. Call to Order. Chairman Ann Duwe called the meeting to order at 7:00PM B. Members/Associates present: Alisa Bredo, Jim Basiji, (7:25 pm), Weegie Caughlan, Nick Dunckel, Ann Duwe, Vic Hesterman, Eileen Gibbons, Sue Welch, Denise Williams, Bob Stutz and Rachelle Mirkin (Associates) Members/Associates absent: Bridget Morgan, Breene Kerr, (Members) and Tim Warner (Associate) Council Liaison present: John Radford (depart 8:00 pm) Members of public present: Ayoub Farahyar (11175 Summitwood) Leslie Stuwe (14555 Miranda Road) Thom Large (11460 Summitwood) C. Approval of Agenda. The agenda was approved moving Item 2E to top of property reviews. EG moved, WC seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor (AB, WC, ND, AD, EG, VH, SW, DW). D. Approval of Minutes. Minutes from the Dec 14, 2015 meeting were approved with amendments. AD moved, WC seconded, and the vote was unanimous (AB, WC, ND, AD, EG, VH, SW, DW). E. Ex Parte communications. None declared. 2. PROPERTIES FOR REVIEW The following properties were reviewed for pathway recommendations: A. 11475 Summitwood Road (Lands of Farahyar; APN 336-32-043; 246-15-ZP-SD-GD). Reason for pathway review is construction of a new residence. The developer, Ayoub Farahyar, was present and spoke, He noted that the La Loma frontage was flat and could accommodate a path, but thought the Summitwood frontage was steeply sloped and would require a retaining wall. Summitwood is a public road and La Loma is private. PWC reviewed this parcel on July 27, 2015 and Aug 24, 2015. The recommendation in Aug 2014 was to ask developer to grant pathway easements as necessary and construct a IIB roadside path along the La Loma frontage continuing along the Summitwood frontage around the hairpin turn on the top of the bank and terminating at the planned driveway. PWC reviewed the plans again on Dec 14, 2014 and discussion was continued to allow another site visit to review the topography of the Summitwood frontage from driveway to the western property line. PWC discussed options at length, including considerations of safety, terrain, width of road ROW, and lot constraints. Some members favored a path separated from pavement up on the bank extending from the driveway to western property line because it would provide a safer route and could in the future connect to a path (also separated from the road) on the adjacent parcel (25111 La Loma). Others were concerned a path in this location would be too close to the house. WC moved that for 11475 Summitwood Road the PWC reconfirm the previous recommendation made on August 24, 2015; and ask staff to remind the developers to roughen the driveway where the path will run. EG seconded and the vote was 7 in favor (AB, WC, ND, EG, VH, SW, DW) one opposed (AD) and one abstention (JB). Previous PWC recommendation for 11475 Summit Wood Road (Aug 24, 2015): WC moved that the PWC recommend the Town require the developers of 25225 La Loma Drive to construct a IIB roadside path along the La Loma frontage stopping at the north side of the parcel on Summit Wood. EG seconded and the motion failed with four in favor (JB, WC, EG, SW) and five opposed (AB, ND, AD, VH, BK). AD moved that the PWC recommend the Town require the developers of 25225 La Loma Drive to grant easements as necessary and construct a IIB roadside path along the La Loma frontage continuing along the Summit Wood frontage around the hairpin turn on the top of the bank and terminating at the planned driveway. ND seconded and the vote was six in favor (JB, AB, ND, AD, VH, BK) with WC and SW opposed and EG abstaining. B. 27755 Central Drive (Lands of Littlefield; APN 182-28-009; #5-16-ZP-SD-GD). Reason for pathway review is construction of a garage and office. The developers, who live on the adjacent parcel (27464 Altamont Road), were not present. The parcel is on the north side of Central Drive near the intersection with Red Rock and close to Byrne Preserve. Access will be from Central Drive. A tributary of Moody Creek, which originates in Foothills Park, runs through the parcel. Because of confusion about the location of the project, PWC members did not visit the site from the Central Road side and requested additional information. AD moved that the PW defer discussion of 27755 FINAL_PWC_Min_16-0125.doc 2/29/16 2 Central Drive until the PWC has made a site visit from the Central Drive side of the property. SW seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor (AB, JB, WC, AD, ND, EG, VH, SW, DW). C. 12387 Stonebrook (Lands of Kleitman; APN 336-23-017; #446-15-ZP-SD-GD). Reason for pathway review is construction of a second unit. The developer was not present. The parcel is on the east side of Stonebrook, a public road, where it makes a sharp turn to the west. Foothill College students park in the area and walk to the campus along Stonebrook. A IIB roadside pathway separated from the road exists on the opposite side of the road on 12359 Stonebrook. EG moved that the PWC recommend the Town to ask the owners of 12387 Stonebrook Drive to pay a pathway in-lieu fee. ND seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor (AB, JB, WC, AD, ND, EG, VH, SW, DW). D. 12389 Stonebrook (Lands of 12389 Stonebrook, LLC; APN 163-23-020 and 021). Reason for pathway review is construction of a new residence. The developer was not present. The parcels are on the east side of Stonebrook (a public road) and both have frontage on the Caltrans right-of-way for Interstate 280 (southbound on-ramp from El Monte). The only frontage on Stonebrook is the driveway exit. Both parcels have an existing 10-ft wide pathway easement along the northern property line adjacent to the interstate (dedicated by PM-445M55-56, Sep 1978). The Bob Stutz off-road path runs on these easements. EG moved the PWC recommend the Town ask the developers of 12389 Stonebrook Drive to restore the existing native path after construction is completed if any damage occurs. AB seconded and the vote was 8 in favor (AB, JB, WC, AD, EG, VH, SW, DW) with one abstention (ND). E. 24183 Dawnridge Drive (Lands of McNish; APN 336-18-027; #439-15-ZP-SD-GD). Reason for pathway review is construction of a new residence. The developer was not present. The parcel is on the east side of Dawnridge (a public cul-de-sac serving 17 lots). No easements were found in a limited records search. PWC discussed options at length. Dawnridge is wider than typical LAH roads, with pavement approximately 30 feet wide (standard lane widths are 11 or 12 feet). No roadside paths exist on other parcels on the street. Two off-road paths exit from the western end of the cul-de-sac. Some members argued that requiring a roadside path would be consistent with Town policy for cul-de-sacs connecting to off-road paths; others argued that the exceptional width of the pavement provided adequate room for pedestrians to walk. WC moved that the PWC recommend that the Town ask the developers of 24183 Dawnridge Drive to pay a pathway in-lieu fee. ND seconded and the vote was 6 in favor (JB, WC, ND, VH, SW, DW) and 3 opposed (AB, AD, EG). F. 14407 Kingsley Way (Lands of Bible; APN XXX; #428-15-ZP-SD). Reason for pathway review is construction of a new residence. The developer was not present. The parcel is on the west side of Kingsley and is comprised of a number of merged small “picnic lots”. The property was reviewed at the Dec 14, 2015 meeting and continued pending additional information about 1) the road/pathway easement on the western part of the parcel and 2) whether a pathway in-lieu fee has been paid in the past. An off-road path ran along the rear (west) part of the property in the past but was not shown on the development plans for the Dec 14, 2015 meeting. This path remains in common use. AD reported documents showing that the Town vacated the Lowell Road easement in 1988, and dedicated a pathway easement in this location at that time. PWC discussed pros and cons of retaining this off-road path connecting to nearby open space land (Esther Clark Park). The alternate roadside route runs immediately adjacent to the pavement on Kingsley and provides access to the park via a small easement in the southeast corner. AD moved that the PWC recommend the Town to ask the developer of 14407 Kingsley Way to build a native path in the existing pathway easement along the western edge of the property. The vote was 7 in favor (AB, JB, AD, ND, VH, SW, DW) and 2 opposed (WC, EG). G. 13697 La Paloma (Lands of Mattson Nagy; APN 175-35-023; #424-15-ZP-SD-GD). PWC reviewed this property in Dec 2015 with the recommendation that the Engineering Department investigate the feasibility of constructing a path on the existing easement on the parcel as a CIP project continuing to Corte Madera, considering the drainage problems. AD conferred with the Town Engineering Department who agreed that this is a feasible CIP project and said the drainage problems could be addressed. No further action was taken. 3. NEW BUSINESS A. Rosenberg’s Rules of Order. SW reviewed a PWC vote last month in which four members voted aye and five abstained. The vote was incorrectly recorded as failing. Per Town policy to follow FINAL_PWC_Min_16-0125.doc 2/29/16 3 Rosenberg’s Rules of Order and in absence of a specific rule for the committee, PWC will follow the default rule, i.e., the “present and voting” system. In this system abstention votes are not counted on the motion. Members who abstain are counted for purposes of determining quorum (they are “present”), but they are not counted as voting. Abstaining does not count as a “No” vote. Therefore, members who do not support passing a motion, should vote “No”, rather than abstain. B. Establish Feedback Mechanism for PWC Recommendations. AD recommended PWC establish a system to follow up on outcomes for PWC recommendations (i.e., compare final conditions of approval for development projects with PWC recommendations). ND moved that an additional field be added to the existing form for recording PWC recommendations for staff to record this information. EG seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor (AB, JB, WC, AD, ND, EG, VH, SW, DW). C. Consideration of Recommending to Council on naming a public place, such as a pathway, in memory of Rex Gardiner. PWC discussed options for off-road paths to name in honor of Rex Gardiner. Members were asked to review the pathway map and bring suggestions for discussion at the February PWC meeting. 4. OLD BUSINESS A. Miranda Road Path. AT the Dec 16, 2015, City Council meeting, Council reviewed plans for the Miranda Path and deferred approval of the contract until they received confirmation from PWC about the cost of the project and its relative priority as a CIP project. They also wanted to assure neighbors were informed about potential impacts of the path on on-street parking. Leslie Stuwe, a resident of Miranda Road, spoke to PWC in opposition to the proposed Miranda Path project. She considers the path costly and unnecessary and objects to the removal of existing landscaping plants in front of her house for the path. PWC reviewed history of the project and discussed pros and cons at length. The contract cost (approximately $180K) was consistent with initial PWC estimates in Feb 2015 ($240K). PWC support for the project since it was introduced by the neighborhood in Oct 2014 was based on providing a safe route to near-by Gardiner Bullis School, and the strong support and input from the majority of Miranda Road residents. PWC discussed a preference for meandering rather than straight paths and use of simpler curb cuts (e.g., asphalt) rather than the bumpy “truncated dome” ADA- compatible curbs shown in the plans. EG moved that the PWC confirm to Council their support for the Miranda Path as the top priority CIP project and to go forward with the project, but keeping in mind that the rural character of the Town pathways should be upheld. The PWC requests minimizing removal of vegetation and omitting the bumpy (“truncated dome”) curb ramps. The vote was 8 in favor (AB, JB, AD, ND, EG, VH, SW, DW) and one opposed (WC). B. Report from Map Update Subcommittee. AD showed the PowerPoint presentation for the upcoming neighborhood meetings which are starting the last week of January (Attachment A) and solicited feedback from the PWC. AD will incorporate the suggested changes. 5. REPORTS FROM OTHER MEETINGS. See 4A. 6. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR. 7. GENERAL DISCUSSION AND PATHWAY REPRESENTATION REQUESTS. A. Path Across the Front of Gardner Bullis School (GBS). Nothing new to report. 8. NEXT SCHEDULED MEETINGS. Next Pathway Walk: Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 9:00 AM at Town Hall Next Regular Meeting: Monday, February 22, 2016 at 7:00 PM at Town Hall 9. TOPICS FOR NEXT AGENDA. A. Crosswalks at Fremont, Concepcion intersection. 10. ADJOURNMENT. The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 pm. Attachment A: Presentation for Neighborhood Meetings Final minutes approved without amendments at the Pathways Meeting of Feb 22, 2016. 1 Master Path Plan Update: A Task of the Pathways Subcommittee on Mapping Eileen Gibbons, Chair Nick Dunckel, Ann Duwe, Bridget Morgan, Sue Welch Neighborhood Meeting for Residents of La Loma Annexations January 28, 2016! LAH Pathway System •!A vital part of the Town’s infrastructure •!Designed to complement our roads •!Intended primarily for residents •!Consists of approximately 94 miles of paths 3 LAH Pathway system is a work in progress •!All property owners share responsibility for the beauty and functionality of our pathway system. •!Paths are added incrementally as parcels are developed or redeveloped. •!The Town is responsible for maintenance. 4 Benefits of Pathways •!Facilitate non-motorized circulation between neighborhoods •!Connect us with nearby towns and open space preserves •!Create emergency access routes •!Provide safe routes to schools •!Offer a means of outdoor recreation •!Contribute to the open, rural character of our Town 5 History •!Paths pre-dated the Town’s founding in 1956 •!Pathway Element added to the General Plan in 1976 •!Master Path Plan map of 1981 •!Master Path Plan, off-road map update of 2005 •!Expansion of Town boundaries •!Master Path Plan update of 2016, an opportunity to extend our pathway system to new parts of Town 6 Master Path Plan 2016, A set of maps to: •!Show streets with roadside paths planned on one or both sides •!Document pathway easements and paths built since 2005 •!Suggest a framework for future paths •!Must be approved by the City Council before becoming part of the Pathway Element of the General Plan 7 Pathway Construction •!Construction must follow one of two design standards –!IIB path (5 feet wide with crushed gravel and header boards) - Native path (width varies; surface is roughly graded dirt) •!Generally, construction must be completed before the Town signs off on a building permit 8 Types of Paths •!Roadside paths within the road right-of- way –!Roadside paths may be adjacent to the pavement –!Roadside paths may be separated from the pavement by a few feet or by many feet –!Access may be over the pavement itself •!Off-road paths generally run along property boundaries 9 Options for pathway locations 10 Map Update Process Map Update Subcommittee will: •!Document pathway easements dedicated since 2004 •!Document pathway segments built since 2004 •!Make a recommendation to resolve six problem areas left undecided during the 2005 off-road update •!Hold neighborhood meetings and neighborhood walks for unmapped areas •!Create draft maps for presentation to the Pathways Committee 11 Map Update Process (continued) •!Pathways Committee holds a public hearing for consideration of the draft maps and makes recommendations to the Planning Commission. •!Planning Commission reviews the PWC recommendations. The Planning Commission holds X public hearings before making recommendations to the Town Council. •!Town Council holds X public hearings before making a final decision to accept, deny or change the Master Path Plan of 2016. •!Residents are encouraged to participate in all public meetings leading to approval of the new Master Path Plan. 12 Considerations •!What type of traffic is typical on the road? •!How wide is the road? •!If on a cul-de-sac, how many homes share the cul-de-sac? •!Is there an off-road connection at the end of the cul-de-sac? •!If a path were built in the road right-of-way, which side of the road is preferable? •!Will a path have to switch from side to side? •!Does the terrain preclude any path? 13 More Considerations •!Are there paths on adjacent properties? •!Is the property on a street designated for paths on both sides? •!Do approved maps show a need for a path? •!Is there a path across the street? •!What kind of access exists for this parcel? •!If a path provides a “missing link,” can it be built within the road right-of-way? •!Would it function better separated from the road? by how much? •!Would an off-road path help avoid costly retaining walls or narrow shoulders? 14 What paths might best serve your neighborhood? •!(Show map of neighborhood) 15 16 17 Pathway easement •!Is a permanent, legally binding agreement between the landowner and the Town •!Confers public access over a private road or private property •!Is attached to parcel records; all subsequent owners must comply with it •!Cannot be obstructed with structures, fencing, landscaping, irrigation or debris •!Does not affect the maximum development area or maximum floor area allowed for the parcel 18 Pathway process •!Development or redevelopment of a property triggers a review of how an individual property fits into the pathway system. •!Pathways Committee visits the property and makes a recommendation during a regular, public meeting. •!Planning Commission reviews the recommendation to support, deny or make a different decision. The Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the Town Council. •!Town Council makes a final decision. •!Property owners are encouraged to participate in all public meetings and may appeal at any step along the way. 19 Options for recommendations •!Dedicate an easement for a future path •!Build the path on the easement •!Build the path within the road right-of- way •!Pay an in-lieu fee •!After construction, restore an existing path •!Landowners may voluntarily donate pathway easements and/or construct pathways 20