HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 23 2015
FINAL_PWC_Min_15-0323.doc 4/29/15 1
Los Altos Hills Pathway Committee FINAL (Approved 04/27/15)
Minutes of Regular Meeting of Monday, March 23, 2015
1. ADMINISTRATIVE
Vice-Chairman Eileen Gibbons called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM
Members present: Weegie Caughlan (left at 7:45 pm), Nick Dunckel, Eileen Gibbons, Vic Hesterman, Breene
Kerr (arrived 7:10), Rachelle Mirkin, Sue Welch, Denise Williams, Bob Stutz (Associate)
Members/ absent: Ann Duwe, Tim Warner
Council Members present: John Radford
Members of public present: Jim Basiji (Fawn Creek Court)
Steve Schmidt (Byrd Lane)
2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND MINUTES
The agenda was approved as published (EG moved, ND seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor (WC,
ND, EG, VH, RM, SW, DW). Minutes from the February 25, 2015 meeting were approved with minor
amendments. (EG moved, ND seconded and the vote was six in favor (WC, ND, EG, VH, RM, DW) and one
abstaining, SW, secretary).
3. PROPERTIES FOR REVIEW
The following properties were reviewed for pathway recommendations:
A. 26890 Alejandro Drive (77-15-ZP-SD-VAR). Reason for pathway review is construction of a new residence.
The developer was not present. The parcel is at the end of Alejandro, a public cul-de-sac serving five parcels.
The parcel is a steep lot with a small frontage and driveway entrance on Alejandro and a larger frontage along
Nina Place. No roadside paths exist on Alejandro and this road does not connect to an off-road pathway. The
PWC roadside path working map indicates paths over the road. Nina Place is a public cul-de-sac serving four
driveways and has no existing roadside or off-road paths. The parcel slopes down steeply from Nina. WC
moved that the Town ask the developers of 26890 Alejandro Drive to pay a pathway in-lieu fee. SW
seconded and the vote was six in favor (WC, ND, EG, RM, SW, DW) and one abstention (VH).
B. 27470 Black Mountain Road (82-15-ZP-SD-GD). Reason for pathway review is construction of a new
residence and pool. Developer was not present. The parcel is on the east side of Black Mountain at the
intersection with Sunrise Farm Road and has frontages on both roads. Black Mountain is a busy, winding
public road and has IIB pathways separated from the pavement on this side of the road all the way from
Natoma to Altamont, including on this parcel frontage. Altamont is on the list of roads designed to have
roadside paths on both sides. Sunrise Farm is a private cul-de-sac serving three driveways; it has no roadside
paths and does not connect to an off-road path. The PWC roadside path working map indicates a roadside path
along the Altamont frontage of the parcel and a path over the pavement on Sunrise Farm. DW moved that the
town ask the developers of 27470 Black Mountain Road to restore the existing roadside path along the
Altamont frontage to IIB standards after construction is completed. No roadside path is needed along
the Sunrise Farm frontage. WC seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor (WC, ND, EG, VH,
BK, RM, SW, DW).
C. 25531 Fremont Road (248-14-ZP-SD-CDP-VAR). Reason for pathway review is a major remodel. The
developer was not present. This is a substandard (0.32 acre) parcel on the south side of Fremont Road near the
intersection with Edith Road. Fremont is a busy public road close to both downtown Los Altos and Bullis
Gardiner Bullis School and is heavily used by pedestrians, cyclists, and autos. Fremont is designated to have
roadside pathways on both sides. A roadside path in excellent condition was constructed on the opposite side
of the road in 2012 as part of the Fremont Road Safe Routes to School project. Development plans show that
the road right-of-way will be upgraded to meet current Town standards of 30 feet from the centerline. This will
allow ample room within the road ROW for a roadside path along the Fremont frontage. PWC recommended a
roadside pathway along the Fremont frontage of the parcel one lot away on the same side of Fremont (13880
Ciceroni) when it was reviewed in 2006 and 2014. WC moved that the Town ask the developer of 25531
Fremont Road to build a IIB pathway within the road right-of-way along on the outer edge of the right
of-way (closest to the house) and as far from the pavement as possible. ND seconded and the vote was
unanimously in favor (WC, ND, EG, VH, BK, RM, SW, DW).
D. 26120 Rancho Manuella Lane (66-15-ZP-SD-GD). Reason for pathway review is construction of a new
residence. The developer was not present. The parcel is on the south side of Rancho Manuella, a public cul-de-
sac serving seven residences. There appears to be a roadside path or parking strip on the adjacent parcel to the
west and on this parcel. Two large evergreen trees have been planted in the road ROW and foliage extends
almost to the pavement edge. On the parcel to the east, vegetation has been planted in the road ROW and
extends to the pavement edge. No off-road paths exit from Rancho Manuella and the PWC roadside path
working map indicates a path over the pavement. WC moved that the Town ask the developers of 26120
Rancho Manuella Lane to pay a pathway in-lieu fee. RG seconded and the vote was unanimously in
favor (WC, ND, EG, VH, BK, RM, SW, DW).
FINAL_PWC_Min_15-0323.doc 4/29/15 2
E. 13075 Alta Lane South (67-15-ZP-SD-GD). Reason for pathway review is construction of a new residence.
The developer was not present. The parcel is a flag lot off Alta Lane South, a private cul-de-sac serving five
residences. The only frontage is the driveway entrance. No roadside paths exist on Alta South and it does not
connect to an off-road pathway. The PWC roadside path working map indicates a path over the road. PWC
recommended payment of pathway in-lieu fees for nearby parcels on Alta Lane South (10370 and 10390) when
they were reviewed in 2005 and 2011, respectively. WC moved that the Town ask the developers of 13075
Alta Lane South to pay a pathway in-lieu fee. RM seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor (WC,
ND, EG, VH, BK, RM, SW, DW).
F. 13410 La Cresta Drive (90-15-ZP-SD-GD). Reason for pathway review is construction of an addition. The
developer was not present. The parcel is on the east side of La Cresta (a public road) between Carillo Lane and
St. Francis. The PWC roadside path working map indicates the opposite side of La Cresta Drive is the
preferred side for a roadside pathway and a roadside pathway in good condition exists opposite this parcel. An
off-road pathway easement exists along the northeastern border of this parcel (and all the parcels on this side of
La Cresta between Arastradero and St. Francis), although this off-road route has been removed from the off-
road Master Path Plan Map. La Cresta is not on the list of roads designed to have roadside paths on both sides.
BK moved that the Town ask the developers of 13410 La Cresta Drive to pay a pathway in-lieu fee. DW
seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor (WC, ND, EG, VH, BK, RM, SW, DW).
G. 12345 Gigli Court (51-15-TM). Reason for pathway review is a proposed two-lot subdivision. The developer
was not present. The two parcels are on the north side of Gigli Court, a public cul-de-sac serving six residences
(before subdivision). The parcels overlook I-280, but are separated from the Caltrans right-of-way by a small
parcel (ownership unknown). The PWC roadside path working map indicates the side of Gigli Court opposite
the subdivision has existing roadside paths and PWC members observed roadside pathways in good condition
on that side at the site visit. WC moved that if the Town approves the subdivision, the Town should
charge a pathway in-lieu fee for the new lot. If the Town does not approve the subdivision, no in-lieu fee
is required. RM seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor (WC, ND, EG, VH, BK, RM, SW,
DW).
4. NEW BUSINESS
A. Staffing PWC Table at Earth Day. EG will set up an information table at Earth Day on Sunday, April 26, 2015
at Westwind Community Barn from 1:00 pm to 4:00 pm. ND and DW volunteered to help staff the table.
5. OLD BUSINESS
A. Discussion of Draft Circulation Element. EG summarized discussion of the Circulation Element that took place
at the Planning Commission meeting on March 19, 2015. A large number of changes have been made since the
Aug 2105 version and many of the changes recommended by the PWC were not adopted. Because the draft
was released just before the PS meeting, the PC opted to continue this item to allow more time for study. SW
read several recommendations for PWC consideration (Attachment A), including: 1) restore the words
“develop and” back to Policy 1.2 as PWC requested in letters to Planning Department in August 2014 and
February 2015 (Attachment B); and 2) modification of the text describing the pathways system to more
accurately describe the extent and goals of the pathways system that the Town has been developing since 1956;
and 3) PWC should inform staff of the proper definition of “off-road paths”. The term is incorrectly used to
describe roadside paths separated from the pavement in multiple places in the March draft. Members also noted
that Elena Road is not on the list of streets designated for to have roadside pathways on both sides. After
committee discussion, EG moved that PWC request these changes in the March draft of the Circulation
Element. BK seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor (ND, EG, VH, BK, RM, SW, DW); WC
left the meeting was excused for family business at 7:45 pm before the vote).
B. Discussion of Pathways Element Policy 1.1. A proposal to change Policy 1.1 of the Pathways Element will be
before City Council on March 31, 2015. EG read a short memo from Chair AD with comments for PWC
consideration (Attachment C). PWC discussed at length Policy 1.1, as well as the need to update Master Path
Plan maps. EG moved that PWC make a formal recommendation from the committee that Pathways
Element 1.1 not be changed and has been working well and has stood the test of time. Further, Policy 1.1
should not be changed piecemeal at this time, but like the Circulation Element, should be reviewed and
updated according to our accepted schedule of reviewing elements. ND seconded and the vote was
unanimously in favor (ND, EG, VH, BK, RM, SW, DW).
FINAL_PWC_Min_15-0323.doc 4/29/15 3
6. REPORTS FROM OTHER MEETINGS. See above.
7. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR.
Candidates for PWC Vacancy. LAH residents, Jim Basiji and Steve Schmidt, introduced themselves and spoke
about their interests in participating in the PWC. City Council will review applications and appoint a new member
at the March 30, 2105 Council Meeting.
8. GENERAL DISCUSSION AND PATHWAY REPRESENTATION REQUESTS
A. Robleda Road Pathway Upgrade. BK reported that he and AD reviewed plans provided by City Engineer,
Richard Chiu, visited the site, and discussed the project with SCVWD. This project does not appear to be a
good fit for a grant from the SCVWD. The off-road path connecting from Dawnridge to Hilltop, which
includes a pathway through a riparian area, may be a better match. PWC will make site visit next month.
B. Roadside Path at 12355 Hilltop. A path separated from the pavement and on the inside of the drainage ditch is
preferred for safety at this sharp corner with poor sight distance. ND checked records and found no existing
easement for a roadside path along the Hilltop frontage on this parcel. However, it may be possible to add a
path within the road ROW.
9. NEXT SCHEDULED MEETINGS
Next Pathway Walk: Saturday, April 25, 2015 at 9:00 8:30 AM at Town Hall
Next Regular Meeting: Monday, April 27, 2015 at 7:00 PM at Town Hall
10. TOPICS FOR NEXT AGENDA.
A. Dawnridge to Hilltop off-road path
B. Review of Manuella roadside paths
C. Review Walking Map for improvements
11. ADJOURNMENT. The meeting was adjourned at 8:44 pm.
Attachment A: Suggested Changes to Mar 2015 Draft of Circulation Element
Attachment B: Letter from PWC Requesting Changes to Aug 2104 Draft of Circulation Element
Attachment C: Memo on Proposed Update of Pathways Element
Minutes approved at the regular PWC meeting on April 27, 2015
Attachment A_Changes to Circulation Element15‐0323.docx3/17/15 1
Attachment A: Pathway Committee Meeting March 23, 2105
Suggested Changes to March 2015 Draft of Circulation Element
1) Text of Policy 1.2 (pg C-4)
MARCH 4, 2015 VERSION
The Town should develop and maintain corridors for travel for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians
and equestrians through Town in which the user can enjoy and view the natural environment and
open spaces that provide a buffer from adjacent land uses. These corridors should include
pathways proposed or existing in the Pathways Element.
PWC SUGGESTED WORDING (changes shown in red)
The Town should develop and maintain corridors for travel for motorists, pedestrians and
equestrians through Town in which the user can enjoy and view the natural environment and
open spaces that provide a buffer from adjacent land uses. These corridors should include
pathways proposed or existing in the Pathways Element.
Rationale: PWC asks that the words “develop and” be restored to be consistent with Goal 1 of the
Pathways Element: “Develop and maintain a safe, convenient pathways system that allows non-
vehicular travel throughout the Town, meets recreational needs of residents, and provides
regional connections.” Town roads are also expected to be developed over time (e.g., as new
subdivisions are created and substandard roads are brought up to town standards) and a number of
new bikeways have been proposed for development
2) Text of PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES (pg C-20)
MARCH 4, 2015 VERSION includes some of changes (in red) suggested by PWC and
adopted by staff
125. The Town’s semi-rural setting creates an environment where walking on the sides
of some roadways or road-side paths is enjoyable for many residents. The
Town's pathway system is extensive and provides for safe and convenient non-
vehicular travel within Town. School children, walkers, joggers, and equestrians
use this system extensively. The major pedestrian and equestrian paths are
generally located along neighborhood connector and collector roads. In addition,
off-road paths not only provide connections via easements, in critical areas where
roads are not feasible, but also have intrinsic recreational value. The Town’s
General Plan includes a separate Pathways Element which thoroughly describes
the types of pathways in town and identifies separate goals and policies related to
the development and maintenance of the pathway system.
PWC SUGGESTED WORDING (changes shown in red)
125. The Town’s extensive pathway system, composed of 92 miles of roadside and off-
road paths, was formalized at the time of incorporation in 1956 and continues to
develop incrementally. School children, walkers, joggers, and equestrians use this
system extensively. The major pedestrian and equestrian paths are generally
located along neighborhood connector and collector roads. Roadside pathways, the
majority of which are constructed within road rights-of-way, are intended to serve
in lieu of sidewalks and provide for safe and convenient non-vehicular travel
Attachment A_Changes to Circulation Element15‐0323.docx3/17/15 2
throughout the Town. In some areas with low traffic volumes (e.g., on private
roads and small cul-de-sacs), pedestrians walk on the sides of roads rather than in
constructed pathways. Off-road pathways are designed to connect neighborhoods,
provide recreational opportunities, and allow safe escape routes in the event of
emergency.
3) Correct misuse of the term “off-road pathways” in multiple places in text
Attachment B: Regular Pathways Meeting March 23, 2015
Memo sent to Planning Department with PWC Suggested Changes to Circulation Element
Attachment B_PWCMeetingMemo15‐0327.docx 1
To: Suzanne Avila
Date: February 27, 2015
Subject: Pathway Committee Recommendations for Changes to Aug. 2014 Draft Circulation
Element
From: Ann Duwe, Pathway Committee Chair
At the meeting of Feb. 25, 2015, the Pathway Committee (PWC) again reviewed the Aug. 2014 draft of
the Circulation Element and made recommendations for the changes. Changes recommended by the
committee in September 2104, some of which appear to have been incorporated, are shown on page 4.
SW moved that the PWC request the changes described below to the text of the August 2014 Draft
Circulation Element. ND seconded and the vote was 8 in favor (ND, AD, EG, BK, RM, TW, SW,
DW) and one opposed (WC).
1) Policy1.2 (pg C-3)
ORIGINAL in AUG 2014 DRAFT
The Town should develop and maintain corridors for travel for motorists, pedestrians and equestrians
through Town in which the user can enjoy and view the natural environment and open spaces that
provide a buffer from adjacent land uses. These corridors should include pathways proposed or existing
in the Pathways Element.
PWC REVISION
The Town should develop and maintain corridors for travel for motorists, pedestrians and equestrians
through Town in which the user can enjoy and view the natural environment and open spaces that
provide a buffer from adjacent land uses. These corridors should include pathways proposed or existing
in the Pathways Element.
Rationale: PWC asks that the words “develop and” be restored to be consistent with
Goal 1 of the Pathways Element: “Develop and maintain a safe, convenient pathways system that allows
non-vehicular travel throughout the Town, meets recreational needs of residents, and provides regional
connections.”
Town roads are also expected to be developed over time (e.g., as new subdivisions are created and
substandard roads are brought up to town standards).
2) PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES (pg C-19)
ORIGINAL in AUG 2014 DRAFT
125. The Town’s semi-rural setting and low traffic volumes create an environment where walking on the
sides of some roadways or road-side paths is enjoyable for many residents. The Town's pathway system is
extensive and provides for safe and convenient non-vehicular travel within Town. School children,
walkers, joggers, and equestrians use this system extensively. The major pedestrian and equestrian paths
are generally located along the arterial and collector roads. In addition, off-road paths provide
connections via easements, in critical areas where roads are not feasible.
PWC REVISION
25. The Town’s semi-rural setting and low traffic volumes creates an environment where walking on the
sides of some roadways or road-side paths is enjoyable for many residents. The Town's pathway system is
extensive and provides for safe and convenient non-vehicular travel within Town. School children,
Attachment B: Regular Pathways Meeting March 23, 2015
Memo sent to Planning Department with PWC Suggested Changes to Circulation Element
Attachment B_PWCMeetingMemo15‐0327.docx 2
walkers, joggers, and equestrians use this system extensively. The major pedestrian and equestrian paths
are generally located along the arterial and collector roads. In addition, off-road paths not only provide
connections via easements, in critical areas where roads are not feasible, but also have intrinsic
recreational value.
Rationale: The PWC voted 8:1 to request the wording of the first sentence in the PEDESTRIAN
FACILITIES section (which implies that residents like to walk on roadsides without paths) be changed to
be consistent with the Pathway Element and the goal of the pathway system to provide safe walking on
roadside pathways, rather than on the sides of roadways without a designated pathway. While walking on
the sides of roads without a designated pathway or even in the vehicular roadway itself is an allowable
option (i.e., on some private roads and small cul-de-sacs), it is not desirable—especially for public
streets—because it is less safe than walking on a designated roadside path.
The general consensus of the PWC is that the Town does NOT have “low traffic volumes”.
The PWC requests that the last sentence of 125. be modified to reflect the recreational value of off-road
pathways in addition to their role in connecting neighborhoods where roads are not feasible. Off-road
paths are not constructed only in places where roads are not feasible. Off-road paths link neighborhoods,
create pleasant loops and are an important safety route in emergencies, when roads may become blocked
or impassable.
Pathways Element 102. Roadside Paths. … Roadside paths provide safe routes for pedestrians and
equestrians in the Town, much as sidewalks function in more urban communities. Roadside paths
separate the car and pedestrian or other non-vehicular user, and allow each a safer movement. The hills of
the Town result in streets that often have steep sections or blind curves, which make pedestrian separation
more important than with a grid street system.
Additional edits/corrections submitted by Nick Dunckel at the PWC meeting of 2/25/15 are as follows:
Section 108 & 114 - Only the north end of Page Mill Road is an "expressway."
The south end definitely is not.
The index is not correct, at least for "Emergency Vehicle Access."
Policy 2.2 typo, should be: "i.e., freeways"
Policy 3.3 awkward, change to: Provide routes for walking ....."
Policy 3.4 awkward, change to: transportation is ....
Policy 5.3 & 8.8 recommend: roughen and generally level surface of driveway for
pathway crossings".
Committee may want to discuss "sharrows" Section 124 & Policy 6.4
Policy 6,3: missing verb.
Attachment B: Regular Pathways Meeting March 23, 2015
Memo sent to Planning Department with PWC Suggested Changes to Circulation Element
Attachment B_PWCMeetingMemo15‐0327.docx 3
Program 6.4 is missing.
Figure c-3: Path from Page Mill to Elena is not suitable for bicycles; route from
Hilltop to El Monte (not mentioned) is suitable for bicycles.
Should show schools in figure as biking
Attachment B: Regular Pathways Meeting March 23, 2015
Memo sent to Planning Department with PWC Suggested Changes to Circulation Element
Attachment B_PWCMeetingMemo15‐0327.docx 4
Attachment H: Pathways Meeting of September 25, 2014
Revised PWC Recommendations to Submit to Planning Commission
1. PWC reiterates its strong objections to use of “sharrows” (i.e., remove program 6.4) and preference
for minimum roadway signage.
2. PWC reiterates its request for “bike-friendly” curbs (e.g., rolled curbs instead of vertical curbs) so
bikes can safely get off the road if necessary; curbcuts at intersections should also be bike-friendly.
3. Remove from the bikeways map any bike routes that include off-road pathways on private property.
4. Changes to Bikeways Map, Figure C-5 of the Circulation Element
a. The map should include the newly-incorporated areas of Town.
b. The map should include some of the road system in adjacent towns to facilitate the understanding
of through-traffic.
c. The map should show the existing bike route thru Palo Alto bypassing the dangerous section of
Arastradero from Purissima to Foothill Expressway as a multipurpose path.
d. Map should show the new multipurpose path through Stanford land terminating at Arastradero and
Purissima.
e. The Moody Court to Central Avenue route (in green) is a less than ideal bike route as it is partly a
dirt road.
f. The Elena to Page Mill route (the Fran Stevenson Path) is shown as a “major” bike route but it is
at best a connecting multipurpose path difficult to traverse by bicycle. This and all other bikeways
that include off-road pathways on private property should be removed from the bikeways map.
g. Miranda is no less a local bikeway route than is Manuella and should be marked the same.
h. Remove the bike path thru Foothill College shown on the circular loop road around the campus.
Instead show the designated bike path that is adjacent to the parking lot and bypasses the narrow,
twisty section of El Monte.
i. The map should include Old Page Mill road as a major route.
j. Add the multipurpose path parallel to Arastradero running from Purissima to La Cresta on the
southeast side of Arastradero. It is about 20+ feet off Arastradero.
k. The map should show the mostly paved bypass of Page Mill Road from Three Forks Lane almost
to Matadero Creek Lane.
l. The bike paths marked on Hilltop and Dawnridge should be removed from the Bikeways map
because they include off-road sections on private property.
m. Schools should be shown on the Bikeways map as the town is making a strong effort to provide
bikeways to schools. Showing schools on the bikeways map would emphasize the importance of
bikeways in this area. For instance, the multipurpose routes in the vicinity of Bullis Gardener
should be included. St. Nicholas and Foothill College should be included. Also the nearby Palo
Alto schools that serve Los Altos Hills should be included: Gunn, Terman, LAHS, and Pinewood.
n. In 2005 PWC recommended a roadside route for the De Anza Trail through LAH. PWC
recommends showing a route through Town for the De Anza Trail using roadside pathways. The
proposed route would connect from Rancho San Antonio to Arastradero Preserve as follows: Rhus
Road to Moody Road to Elena Road to Robleda Road to Purissima Road to Arastradero Road East
to Page Mill Road to Arastradero Road West.
Attachment C: Regular Pathways Meeting March 23, 2015
Memo from Chair AD on Proposed Update of Pathways Element
There are five main reasons I believe a re-write or revision is not needed at this time.
1. Policy 1.1 is working well. It has stood the test of time.
2. Updating the Master Path Plan maps is a far more urgent project.
3. Pathway Policy 1.1 should not be revised piecemeal but like the Circulation or other elements, should be
reviewed in turn according to our accepted schedule for reviewing elements.
4. In general the people who complain about Element 1.1 are looking for an exception or a reason not to
comply with the gist of the Element, regardless of the specific words.
5. As written, Policy 1.1 applies equally to all properties in Town.