Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 25 2014 FinalPWC_Min_14-0825 10/24/14 1 Los Altos Hills Pathway Committee FINAL Minutes of Regular Meeting of Monday, August 25, 2014 1. ADMINISTRATIVE Chairman Ann Duwe called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM Members present: Weegie Caughlan, Nick Dunckel, Ann Duwe, Eileen Gibbons, Breene Kerr, T im Warner, Sue Welch, Denise Williams, Bob Stutz (Associate) Members/ absent: Vic Hesterman, Joe Kleitman, Rachelle Mirkin Council Members present: Courtney Corrigan (PWC Council Liaison) Planning Commissioner: Jim Abraham Members of public present: Ryan Knauss (for 12689 Robleda Road) Robert Wheatley (for 26644 Purissima Road) Greg Badros (for 13651 Burke Road) Carol Gottlieb (Summerhill) Bill Balson (Dori Lane) 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND MINUTES Agenda changed to move item 5a forward to accommodate visitors. AD moved to approve revised agenda, BK seconded; vote was unanimously in favor (WC, ND, AD, EG, BK, TW, SW, DW). Minutes from the July 28, 2014 meeting were approved with minor amendments. 3. Properties for Review The following properties were reviewed for pathway recommendations: A. 26644 Purissima Road (File 219-14-ZP-SD). Reason for pathway review is construction of an addition. The Robert Wheatley was present representing the developer . The parcel is on the west side of Purissima across from the intersection with Concepcion (Attachment A). Purissima is a major public road that is heavily traveled by cars, bikes, pedestrians, and equestrians. Purissima is officially designated as a ”two -sided” road that should have roadside paths on both sides. A IIB path exists along the roadside on the frontage of the parcel, but needs to be repaired where it meets the driveway. PWC recommends the Town require the homeowner to restore the roadside path along Purissima to IIB standards after construction is c ompleted, taking care to repair the section where it meets the driveway. Staff should also confirm that a pathway easement exists here and if one does not, to request one. B. 13651 Burke Road. Reason for pathway review is a two-lot subdivision. The developer was present and addressed the PWC (Attachment B). This triangular parcel has frontage on Burke Road, Fremont Road, and Old Altos. There is lot of pedestrian traffic in the area because it is close to downtown Los Altos. A IIB path in good condition exists on the opposite side of Old Altos (constructed several years ago by the Town as part of a CIP project). The PWC discussed the possibility of a roadside path on this side of Old Altos as well to improve pedestrian safety at night. A IIB path in good condition exists along the Burke Road frontage of the parcel. The Fremont Road frontage appears to have a gravel parking area along much of the length, but not a IIB path. Fremont is officially designated as a ”two-sided” road that should have roadside paths on both sides. The developer reported that the Town will require the road right -of way be extended 10 feet into the parcel to meet town standards. WC moved that the Town require the subdivider of 13651 Burke Road to 1) construct a IIB path in the Fremont Road right-of-way and to dedicate additional easement on Fremont if necessary; and 2) to require the owners to restore the roadside path along Burke Road to IIB standards after construction is completed and have staff confirm that the Town holds a pathway easement along the Burke frontage. AD seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor. C. 25520 Deerfield Drive (File 232-14-ZP-SD-CDP-VAR). Reason for pathway review is construction of a new residence. The developer was not present. This parcel is less than one-acre and is on the south side of Deerfield at the intersection of Deerfield, Burke Road, and Fremont. It has frontage on Deerfield and Burke Road. Deerfield is a cul-de-sac serving 12 addresses and is a public road in front of this parcel. The Master Path Plan (MPP) approved in 2005 shows a future off-road path off the end of Deerfield connecting to Robleda Road and Burke Lane and the Town holds pathway easement for part of this connection. The PWC roadside path Working Map (“bubble map”) shows the pathway in the Deerfield road right-of-way (Attachment B). Although an off-road path exits from Deerfield, the lots are substandard and the street has little traffic. Burke is also a public road and a IIB path has been constructed across the street from this parcel. Because this area is close to the Town of Los Altos and has significant pedestrian traffic, the consensus was that paths on both sides of Burke in this area would improve safety. The pathway should extend around the corner of the parcel at the three-way intersection of Burke, Deerfield, and Fremont so pedestrians can stay off the roadway at this busy corner. WC moved that the Town require the developer of 25520 Deerfield Drive to build a IIB path in the road right-of-way along the Burke frontage and to dedicate a pathway easement if necessary. EG seconded and FinalPWC_Min_14-0825 10/24/14 2 the vote was unanimously in favor. D. 25608 Deerfield Drive (File 233-14-ZP-SD-CDP-VAR). Reason for pathway review is construction of a new residence. The developer was not present. The parcel is on the south side of Deerfield Road, the second lot in from Fremont (adjacent to 25520 Deerfield above; Attachment B). Although an off -road path exits from the end of Deerfield, the lots on this street appear to be substandard (less than one acre) and th e street has little traffic. The PWC roadside path Working Map (“bubble map”) shows the pathway in the Deerfield road right - of-way. SW moved that the Town require the developers of 25608 Deerfield Drive to pay a pathway in -lieu fee. WC seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor. E. 12345 Briones Way (237-14-ZP-SD-Gd). The PWC reviewed this parcel at the Regular Meeting of Jan 27, 2014 when a permit for a second unit was requested. The PWC recommendation at that time was for payment of pathway in-lieu fee. The developers have now submitted plans to construct a new residence. The developer was not present. The parcel is on the west side of Briones Way, a public road. The property slopes up steeply from the roadside. The PWC roadside path Working Map (“bubble map”) shows the preferred side of Briones for a roadside path is the side opposite this parcel (Attachment C). WC moved that the town require the owners of 12345 Briones Way to pay a pathway in-lieu fee. EG seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor . F. 26355 Esperanza Drive (File 236-14-SP-GD). Reason for pathway review is construction of a new residence and pool. The developer was not present. The parcel is on the north side of Esperanza, a public loop road serving 24 addresses, and has frontages on both Esperanza and Ascencion. The PWC roadside path Working Map (“bubble map”) indicates that the preferred side for a roadside path along Esperanza is the outside of the loop (i.e., the same side as this parcel) and/or within the road (Attachment D). Th e adjacent parcel to the south (26335 Esperanza) appears to have a IIB path with header boards constructed on the wide bench above the road. The bench continues onto the parcel under review and could accommodate a pathway separated from the roadside. The PWC discussed whether a retaining wall would be needed if the path were built closer to the pavement. The frontage on Ascencion could accommodate a roadside path and one would improve safety for pedestrians on this narrow winding road. WC moved that the Town require the developer if 26355 Esperanza Drive to: 1) build a IIB pathway in the road right-of-way using a retaining wall and/or additional easement if necessary; and 2) to build a IIB roadside path along the Ascension frontage. ND seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor. 4. NEW BUSINESS None. 5. OLD BUSINESS A. Stirling Subdivision. SW recused herself and exited the room for the discussion and vote . EG took minutes for this part of the meeting. AD began the discussion of item 5a by stating that the PWC had considered this subdivision in 2012 and in 2013 (Attachments E and F). The current subdivision map and the map shown in discussion in 2012 had moved the road by about 30 ft. and that between 2012 and 2013, the road on the subdivision map was moved about 30 feet. And that the PWC did not take that movement into consideration during the 2013 vote. She also had the following points to present for discussion: 1. When the new 2013 map was presented, we did not discuss how the road movement impacte d the lots and the paths thereon. It might have eaffected our decision. 2. Comparison to another large subdivision, the Edgerton subdivision, the Open Space committee requested a 50 ft scenic and pathway easement around the subdivision to reduce impact on the neighbors and to preserve the open spaces. Precedent was set by that decision as well as others she could recall (unnamed). BK asked if this property had met the Park in-lieu fees cut-off. Cynthia Richardson said yes and they will probably pay some unless they dedicate some park space. And she showed the park map. 3. On the map there is open space easement designated about 900+ feet along the eastern part of the subdivision. 4. Perhaps the neighbors in existing houses would like substantial buffer and park-like quality of this subdivision to remain abutting their properties. Even if there are fences, larger easement allows meandering path and no tunnel effect and would save more trees. 5. Construction of houses will last a long time. If the paths are built on the edges of the property instead of beside the roads, they will be less disrupted by construction. 6. In the Nov. 2013, there was no mention of the bridge across the creek. We possibly made the assumption that only the changes mentioned in 2013 from the first 2012 recommendation would be made, but we should not forget the bridge and should include it in the final recommendation. Carol Gottlieb (member of public) spoke and said that someone like “The Trail Center” people should design the path first, then we should ask for an easement under that design so that any path design would meander down the steep hillside to make horse passage easier. She pointed out that the Taaffe path was difficult for horses to go down (although up was OK) and the path at Fernhill to Magdalena was designed by Trail Center FinalPWC_Min_14-0825 10/24/14 3 people and was an example of a good path for horses. Bill Balso (member of public) spoke and said that the town has a history of making incremental decisions that drive the passage of animals into the center of town. The animals’ movement can be bad for public health and he does not think that the pathway considers that in deliberations. AD noted that the PWC is governed by ordinances that promote wildlife passages. BB replied that there are conflicting ordi nances which all need to be balanced. DW asked if we are considering a 50 ft easement on the east side of the subdivision and stated that paths in the “back yard” are intrusive as she had one on her property. Answer was that we are considering all possibil ities, the return to the 2012 proposal, reconfirm the 2013 proposal or make a new recommendation. ND stated that he feels that the east and north pathways in the 2012 recommendation were better than what is shown on the current subdivision map (dated 6-17-2014). BK stated that the steep part of the path in the Northern side should be surveyed and staked and planned to make a good path. The planning and process of several updates within the Nicholson subdivision was recalled. We need the bridge. This path is a very valuable addition to the pathway system and we need to be mindful of that and try to have input into staff for making a good path, with appropriate materials. TW stated that the northern boundary is a priority that we need to get right and we need the bridge. He prefers the 2012 recommendation. WC stated that a path on the eastern boundary, instead of a roadside path does not service the other people in lots 5 - 9. It does not save a lot of trees. She recalled that the homeowners with the old road behind their houses on Kate Drive did not want the pathway running behind them as it was a magnet for vandals and teens, therefore she thought a similar design would not be a good one. Building pathways in the conservation easement was good as no building could be placed there anyway. We need the bridge. She prefers a similar recommendation to the 2013 PWC recommendation. EG stated that her vote for the 2013 recommendation was based on not wanting a tunnel along the eastern side of the subdivision and thought that the roadside path would feel more open. The wider pathway was a compromise. BK asked if the northern side pathway would be engineered like the Taaffe path, which needed granite and shoring up for stability or if it would be II2 or native path. TW stated it shouldn’t be native path. BK suggested that it be an ALL WEATHER off road path. Cynthia stated that it is possible to get permits for crossing the creek especially if nothing is built into the creek bed. WC moved that we accept the developers 6-17-14 map with the following provisions, IIB roadside path in the east side of the roadway right of way connecting to the Northern property line. A 20FT easement connects to the pathway easement on the property of Yong. The easement going on the northern boundary of lot 5 be 20 to 50 ft to be engineered and the bridge built across Matadero Creek. Motion died with no second. EG moved that we accept the developers map with the following corrections. Allow the roadside pathway easement to increase to 20ft outside the road right of way where necessary to avoid trees and to allow more meandering. Lot 5 pathway easement should be in all of conservation easement, 30 ft outside the easement, 20 ft on the northern side of lot 4. WC said she would second if the road side path easement was decreased to 10 ft and the pathway between lot 4 and 5 was 20 ft. EG changed and WC seconded. TW stated in discussion that town is losing the rural feel. That a ride down a “sidewalk” in front of houses is not an open feeling and town is losing its way. Other towns seize the opportunity to keep to their standards which allow their towns to remain as planned. Carol Gottlieb stated that town was built on the rural atmosphere and that in all the town documents that point is stressed. The motion failed to pass. EG and WC AYE; DW, AD, ND, BK, TW NO, SW recused. AD proposed a 30 ft easement with a meandering path on the east side of the subdivision, a 30 ft easement on the north side of lot 5 until the conservation easement line, then the pathway easement to be all of the lot 5 conservation easement. No roadside path. BK proposed adding in a 20 ft easement between lot 4 and 5 to attach to the northern boundary. AD added that to the motion. Construction should be all weather material suitable for passage in all seasons, not necessarily IIB standards. PWC should review the stakeout prior to construction. The bridge should be built across Matadero Creek. Pathways should be open during construction and should be part of the subdivision improve ments. ND seconded. AD, DW, ND, BK, TW, EG AYE; WC NAY (impingement on private property rights due to 3 pathways on lot 4 being too much of a burden). SW recused herself and exited the room for the discussion and vote. Recommendation for Stirling Subdivision Pathway Committee August 25, 2014 FinalPWC_Min_14-0825 10/24/14 4 After much discussion, the Pathway Committee recommends that the property owners for the Stirling subdivision be required to: Grant a 30 ft. pathway easement along the eastern side behind lots 1 through 4. A meanderi ng pathway should be built to avoid trees and connect to the pathway easement on lands of Yong. Grant a 20 ft. pathway easement from the end of the cul de sac to the northern property line between lots 4 and 5. Grant a 30 ft. pathway easement on the northern side of lot 4 and 5 down to the point of the conservation easement on lot 5. Grant a pathway easement in all the conservation easement area on lot 5. When laying out the path on the northern side, PWC would like to review it after it is staked, but before construction. Construct a pathway suitable for all weather access, not necessarily IIB standard, but a surface appropriate for horse and foot traffic in all seasons in the pathway easements. Construct a bridge across Matadero Creek. Pathways should be built and open as part of the subdivision improvements and should not be blocked during the construction phases. B. Review Recommendations for update of LAH Circulation Element of General Plan. This item was deferred until the September meeting. 6. REPORTS FROM OTHER MEETINGS. None 7. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR. None. 8. GENERAL DISCUSSION AND PATHWAY REPRESENTATION REQUESTS A. Pathways Committee Representation at Hoedown. EG, ND, and AD volunteered to staff the Pathways Committee information table at the LAH Hoedown to be held at the Westwind Community Barn on Saturday, September 6, 2014. B. Stirling Subdivision Meeting. Chair AD reported that the public Subdivision Meeting for the Stirling Subdivision will be held on Tuesday, August 26, 2104 at 7 pm at Town Hall. EG will prepare the PWC recommendations made at the meeting this evening and send them to the Planning Department. C. PWC Site Visits. The possibility of reconsidering options for organization of PWC site visits was raised. AD will talk to staff about options (e.g., whether visits could be noticed as regular meetings as they are for the EDC). 9. NEXT SCHEDULED MEETINGS Next Pathway Walk: Saturday, September 20, 2013 at 8:30 AM at Town Hall Next Regular Meeting: Monday, September 22, 2013 at 7:00 PM at Town Hall 10. TOPICS FOR NEXT AGENDA. None 11. ADJOURNMENT. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 pm. Attachment A: PWC Roadside Path Working Map for 26644 Purissima Road Attachment B: PWC Roadside Path Working Map for 13651 Burke Road and 25520 and 25608 Deerfield Road Attachment C: PWC Roadside Path Working Map for 12345 Briones Way Attachment D: PWC Roadside Path Working Map for 26355 Esperanza Drive Attachment E: PWC Recommendation for Stirling Subdivison (September 24, 201 2) Attachment F: PWC Recommendation for Stirling Subdivison (November 25, 2013) Approved as amended (shown as strikeouts and new red text) at the Regular meeting of September 25, 2014.