Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 18 2015 FINAL_PWC_Min_15-0528.doc 6/23/15 1 Los Altos Hills Pathway Committee FINAL Minutes of Special Meeting of Monday, May 18, 2015 1. ADMINISTRATIVE Chairman Ann Duwe called the meeting to order at 7:02 PM Members present: Weegie Caughlan, Nick Dunckel, Ann Duwe, Eileen Gibbons, Vic Hesterman, Rachelle Mirkin, Bridget Morgan, Sue Welch, Denise Williams Members absent: Breene Kerr, Tim Warner, Bob Stutz (Associate) Council Liaison present: John Radford Members of public present: Milaka Junaid (0 Taaffe Road) Alisa Bredo (13820 Page Mill Road) Kjell Karlsson (Traffic Safety Committee) 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND MINUTES The agenda was approved as written (SW moved, WC seconded. Vote was unanimously in favor (WC, ND, AD, EG, VH, RM, BM, SW, DW)). Minutes from the April 17, 2015 meeting were approved with minor amendments. (EG moved, AD seconded, and the vote was 8 in favor (WC, AD, ND, EG, VH, RM, BM, DW) and one abstaining, SW, secretary). 3. PROPERTIES FOR REVIEW The following properties were reviewed for pathway recommendations: A. 0 Taaffe Road (182-13-036). Reason for pathway review is construction of a new residence. Mikali Junaid was present representing the owner. The parcel has now been designated 26727 Taaffe Road. The parcel is on north side of Elmberg Ridge, a private road off the north side of Taaffe Road, with no frontage on Taaffe. A roadside path in good condition runs along the opposite side of Tafffe Taaffe. An off-road path runs on the adjacent parcel to the north (12117 Foothill Lane) on the other side of the creek, but there is no off-road path on the parcel under review. EG moved that Town staff determine whether a pathway in-lieu fee was paid for this parcel at the time of subdivision and if not, to request one. WC seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor (WC, AD, ND, EG, VH, RM, BM, SW, DW). B. 13685 La Paloma Road (no file number). Reason for pathway review is construction of a new residence. The developer was not present. The parcel is on the west side of La Paloma, a public road designated by Council to have roadside path on both sides. The 2005 Off-Road Master Path Plan Map approved by Council shows an off-road path easement along the northwest boundary of the parcel and records show a 32-ft wide off-road pathway easement along this side (CR-124-93; Nov 93). This is probably the driveway for 13697 and 13709 La Paloma. This easement connects to an off-road easement on the adjacent parcels to the west (13697 La Paloma Road and 12650 Corte Madera Lane). No off-road path was visible at the site visit. PWC discussed the benefits of the planned off-road path connecting these neighborhoods. A roadside path appears to exist along the La Paloma frontage. EG moved that the Town ask the developers to restore the roadside path along the La Paloma Road frottage frontage to IIB standards after construction and inform the developers that off-road path easements connecting to Corte Madera exist on the parcel and adjacent parcels and that the PWC will agendize the opening of this planned off-road route. SW seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor (WC, AD, ND, EG, VH, RM, BM, SW, DW). 4. NEW BUSINESS A. Project Description for Update of Master Path Plan Maps. Chair AD reviewed an email from former PWC Chair Ginger Summit describing the lengthy process involved in the last update of the Master Path Plan Map (Attachment A). PWC discussed plans for the current update. Public Works Director, Richard Chiu, communicated to EG that the existing CAD system has data in it, works well, and should be retained as the platform for the pathway maps. In the past, his department has used interns and mapping consultants to help with this system. AD showed a summary from the PWC Ad Hoc map update subcommittee describing the project plan (Attachment B). PWC discussed the document, goals of the project, proposed inventory of maps to be produced, and the detailed list of specific tasks. AD will email the doc to PWC members. PWC Council Liaison, John Radford, requested PWC prepare a presentation summarizing these steps and including a preliminary time-line and cost estimate. Subcommittee will meet with staff for help on this. EG distributed copies of the Walking Map and asked members to provide updates. B. Materials and Staffing for PWC Information Table at Town Picnic. The vent event will be held May June 7 at Purissima Park. EG volunteered to set up the table and canopy. Display m will include the current walking map, an easement map, and general information about the proposed Master Path Plan Map update. A notebook to solicit feedback from residents on the pathway system, the proposed map update, maintenance requests, and general comments will also be available. AD and DW volunteered to help staff the table. 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Pathway Maintenance Requests. AD will prepare an Excel spreadsheet or some other system to track pathway maintenance requests and Town crew work on pathways. FINAL_PWC_Min_15-0528.doc 6/23/15 2 6. REPORTS FROM OTHER MEETINGS. None. 7. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR. 8. GENERAL DISCUSSION AND PATHWAY REPRESENTATION REQUESTS A. Taaffe Road Path. Construction vehicles involved with work at 26691 Taaffe Road are parking on the path across the street and have torn up the path. AD will ask staff to request the developers repair it after construction is completed. B. Bob Stutz Path. PWC has requested Town work crew to place additional gravel along the lower part of the path route to improve surface and better designate the route. Survey markers have been placed on easements along the Magdalena off-ramp (Eastbrook Avenue). Public Works Director, Richard Chiu included a request in the FY 2015-16 budget for funds to build this route and the Miranda Road improvement project. 9. NEXT SCHEDULED MEETINGS. Next Pathway Walk: Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 9:00 AM at Town Hall Next Regular Meeting: Monday, June 22, 2015 at 7:00 PM at Town Hall 10. TOPICS FOR NEXT AGENDA. 11. ADJOURNMENT. The meeting was adjourned at 8:48 pm. Attachment A: Email from Prior PWC Chair Describing Master Path Plan Updates Attachment B: Summary of Project Plan from Master Path Plan Map Update Subcommittee Minutes approved with amendments (in red) at the regular Pathways Committee meeting of June 22, 2015. Attachment A: Minutes of Pathways Committee Meeting 05/28/15 -----Forwarded Message----- 
From: Ginger Summit <gsummit@earthlink.net Sent: Oct 18, 2012 2:52 PM
 To: John Harpootlian <harpootlian@gmail.com Subject: Master Path Plan history
 Hi John---- 
I just wanted to clarify some misunderstanding about the Master Path Plan, and give you some history of it's revision.
 For many years the Pathways Committee has been aware of the urgent need to update the old Master Path Plan (sometimes referred in the past as the the Dead Sea Scrolls, just because it was the original map we've been following for years). To make the process a bit more manageable, it was divided into two phases---the off-road paths, and the on- road paths. At the outset we decided the off-road update was more urgent, and when Chris Vargas was chairman, the committee undertook this project. I"m sure you remember those incredible days! Chris was excellent in cutting it into 'bite-size' pieces----dividing the map into sections, and addressing each one with public input, and then eventually into a town-wide meeting. It took a couple of years and tons of meetings and energy. When the first phase was completed, the committee and staff decided to put forward the revised MPP Off-Road map, rather than wait for the second phase to be completed and submitting the entire thing. The Revised Off-Road MPP is what you were looking at the other night.
 I followed Chris as chairperson of the committee, and we immediately embarked on updating the on-road portion. We divided the map into quadrants, assigning each member of the committee to a section which they would walk and then report back on, recommending the condition of the road and existing paths, and suggested updates, including segments needing immediate attention to complete routes, and preference for side of road. This resulted in what is referred to as the 'bubble map'.
>
>As you can imagine, this also took a huge amount of time, since after individuals recommended improvements, the entire committee walked those segments to confirm the status. The next step was to have public hearings and then bring the entire map to council for approval. Because these are on-road/road-side paths, and many if not most of the paths are in road right-of-way and are already in use, we did not expect the same kind of response that was given the off-road hearings. However, council liaison at the time (Dean Warshawsky) was getting very tired of the entire map revision process, and strongly suggested to the committee and the council that we just put the entire map revision on hold, indefinitely. We were so close to completion, but on the recommendation of council (probably in 2006/7), we did indeed stop moving forward, and used the 'bubble map' to inform committee recommendations.
 Since that time, several minor changes were noted, which the committee chair has in a check-list. However, it should be noted that the 'bubble-map' is entirely consistent with the Pathway Ordinance, Circulation Element and General Plan. All recommendations made by the Pathways Committee are first checked with the original MPP and with the 'bubble map' to make sure that the recommendations made would complete an existing path, or one that has been documented and planned in the past. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IS EVER ARBITRARY!!! There is a map of existing easements, although occasionally the committee is surprised when viewing a plan either that an easement is identified which had not been noted on the maps, or that it is missing from the individual's plans. This can be clarified by the staff, after some research (usually by Richard or Debbie). New easements are only recommended when they will complete either an existing path, or one that has been on the planning maps and is well documented.
 For MANY years we have recommended that realtors and property owners prior to development should examine the MPP and other maps for potential path ways on or near their properties. This information is readily available and should not ever be a surprise to residents. 
 The Planning Commission is absolutely correct to recommend that the MPP be updated in its entirety---this has been a goal for as long as I was ever associated with Pathways and the bulk of the work has been done. The hard work was done by Chris and the committee several years ago, so properly handled, incorporating the road-side paths into this foundation should not be anywhere near as time-consuming as one might imagine. 
>
>Hope this might answer some questions.
 Ginger
 Pathway Map Update_5.14.15 Attachment B: PWC Meeting of 05/18/15 Master Path Plan Goals 5.14.15 1. Create an up-to-date set of maps to serve as the basis for decisions by Town staff, the Pathway Committee, Planning Commission, City Council, residents, prospective residents and developers. A. Maps shall show existing and proposed pathways. B. Maps shall be easy to update and print. C. Maps shall include all parcels within Town boundaries. 2. Work with staff to identify a platform for the mapping system (e.g., GoogleEarth, CAD, GIS) and staff requirements (e.g., mapping consultant, part-time employee) to support the archiving of existing information and new information about paths as well as routine updates. Inventory of maps to be produced 1. Map of all pathway easements, whether or not the easement is in use. 2. Map of all existing roadside path segments, with bubbles to indicate missing segments as well as the preferred side of the road for future segments. 3. Map of existing off-road paths; include segments proposed on the approved 2005 map but as yet unbuilt and new, proposed off-road paths. Also include off-road path sections that were left as “unresolved” in 2005. 4. Map of existing emergency access routes, with an indication as to which ones have pedestrian/equestrian easements and which do not. 5. Walking map for public use showing street names and parcel addresses. The map must differentiate between path segments that exist and segments that are missing. The map must be legible to an average reader without special magnification. Tasks 1. Print 15 copies of a new map, based on the map of 5/2/2006, Version 5.0, expanded to include all parcels in Town and showing less of neighboring Los Altos and Palo Alto. Corrections/edits and additions will be reported using this map as a base. 2. Review PWC minutes from 2004 to the present to generate a list of PWC recommendations and easements that were requested during that period. 3. Review all City Council minutes and Santa Clara County records to confirm that all easements requested by the PWC and approved by the City Council were reported by resolution and recorded in county records. Pathway Map Update_5.14.15 4. Request that a staff member or temporary hire enter all pathway easements into the Town database; compare the Town database with the one prepared by volunteers that covers easements recorded up to 2005. Clear up any discrepancies. 5. Determine, with advice from the Town Attorney, whether the roadside path map requires City Council approval before becoming final. 6. Finish and re-confirm list of corrections/additions to Master Path Plan map of 2005. 7. Review and revise list of two-sided roads. 8. Study each annexed area to determine ways to connect the area to the existing pathway system as well as ways to create neighborhood connectivity. All recommendations made by the mapping sub-committee will be brought before the full PWC for approval before being put on the draft map. 9. As the draft map is developed, hold neighborhood meetings to solicit pathway recommendations from residents of Mora Drive, Ravensbury area, and West Loyola. First the mapping sub-committee and then the full PWC will incorporate these recommendations into the draft map. 10. Present a draft Master Path Plan map, showing on-road and off-road paths to the Planning Commission for review. This step marks the beginning of the public review process.