Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal Minutes June 25Los Altos Hills Pathway Committee Minutes of Meeting June 25, 2007 1. ADMINSTRATIVE Chairman Ginger Summit called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM Members present: Jim Bliss, Anna Brunzell, Courtenay Corrigan, Nancy Ginzton, Ginger Summit, Bill Silver, Bob Stutz, Jolon Wagner, and Sue Welch Members absent: Nick Dunckel, Chris Vargas Council Members present: Councilman Breene Kerr Members of public present: Ms. Yu Ling Wang and Mr. Chen, property owners of 13751 La Paloma Road Boris and Rachel Renski, property owners of 12170 Dawn Lane Mr. Behrooz Mohazzabi, property owner 13241 East Sunset Mr. Lee, property owner 28263 Christopher's Lane The agenda was approved as amended below. 1. NEW BUSINESS A. The following properties were reviewed for pathway recommendations: i. 13751 La Paloma Road (Lands of Chen/Wang). The reason for pathway review is a remodel. The property owners were present. They reported that they had no comments and were interested in the Committee's decision. The property is a long lot on the west side of La Paloma Road just north of Todd lane. According to LAH Resolution 38-96 (May 1996), La Paloma should have roadside pathways on both sides. A shallow drainage ditch runs approximately parallel to the road on the property. Courtenay Corrigan moved that the owners of 13751 La Paloma Road construct a IIB pathway along the roadside accommodating the drainage as necessary. Anna Brunzell seconded. The vote was unanimously in favor. ii. 14440 Manuella Road (Lands of Colman). The property owner was not present. The property is on the east side of Manuella Road just north of Rancho Manuella Lane. According to LAH Resolution 38-96 (May 1996), Manuella Road should have roadside pathways on both sides. A roadside pathway exists at this site, but it needs repairs and likely will be damaged further during construction. The mailbox is in the path and should be moved. Anna Brunzell moved that at 14440 Manuella Road the PWC ask the property owners to restore the existing IIB pathway after construction is completed and to move the mailbox so it does not obstruct the pathway. Courtenay Corrigan seconded. The vote was unanimously in favor. iii. 12369 Gigli Court (Lands of Shokrala). The property owner was not present. The property is at end of Gigli Court, a cul-de-sac that serves six properties. No off-road pathways connect to Gigli Court. Bill Silver moves that for 12369 Gigli Court the PWC request an pathway in-lieu fee because a pathway is not needed on this cul-de-sac serving a maximum of six properties and there are no connecting off-road pathways. Anna Brunzell seconded. The vote was unanimously in favor. iv. 28263 Christopher's Lane (Lands of Lee). The property owner, Mr. Lee, was present. The property is on the north side of Christopher's Lane, which is on the east side of I-280. A IIB pathway exists on the opposite side of the street, which is the preferred side for the pathway. Nancy Ginzton moved that the PWC request an in-lieu pathway fee from the owners of 28263 Christopher's Lane. Courtenay Corrigan seconded. The vote was unanimously in favor. Mr. Lee asked how much the fee would be. Chairman Summit told him that the Town Engineer would calculate the exact fee based on the square footage of the property; it amounts to about $10,000 for a one-acre lot . v. 14350 Manuella (Lands of Ryan). This 2-lot subdivision was reviewed by the PWC on October 23, 2006. The project is now at site development review and has been resubmitted to the PWC. The previous PWC recommendation was that a IIB path be constructed along Manuella Road and along Alicante Lane. The property owners have accepted these recommendations. Bill Silver moved that the PWC not reconsider its previous recommendation. Jim Bliss seconded. The vote was unanimously in favor. 2. OLD BUSINESS A. The committee was asked to reconsider pathway recommendations for the following properties that were reviewed on earlier dates: i. 12170 Dawn lane (Lands of Renski). This property was previously reviewed by the PWC on April 23, 2007 and the PWC recommendation at that time was that the property owners provide a pathway in-lieu fee. Peter Duxbury, the architect for the project represented the property owners at that meeting and reported his clients' preference not to have a pathway easement through the property. Minutes from previous meeting are shown below. Boris and Rachel Renski, the property owners were present at tonight's meeting seeking information about pathway easements and in-lieu fees. Chairman Summit explained the Town policy and the Renskis agreed to the pathway in-lieu fee previously recommended by the PWC. No further action was taken. i. 13241 Burke Road (Lands of Mohazzabi). This property was previously reviewed by the PWC on June 27, 2005 and June 26, 2006 (see minutes below). The recommendation in June 2006 was that the Town Engineer visit the property with Mr. Mohazzabi and determine how high retaining walls would have to be to construct 3-foot wide and 5-toot wide pathways along West Sunset. Mr. Louis was requested to prepare a drawing for the PWC. PWC easement maps show a pathway within the road right-of-way along East Sunset. At the November 27, 2006 PWC meeting, the committee recommended that a IIB path be required on the adjacent property (i.e., 13300 E. Sunset, the next lot up the hill). The property owner, Mr. Mohazzabi and his son were present at the meeting and asked the PWC to change the previous recommendation and abandon the requirement for a pathway along E. Sunset. Mr. Mohazzabi provided to the PWC written arguments for not constructing a pathway, as well as two maps describing the running slope of E. Sunset adjacent to his property and further up the road. He argues that the proposed pathway would be unsafe because 1) it would be too steep; 2) it would not connect to another pathway; 3) the roadway is winding and narrow; and 4) the pathway could not conform with ADA requirement. The property owner did not have estimates on how high retaining walls would have to be for the proposed pathway. PWC members discussed at length the pros and cons of requiring a roadside pathway along this property. E. Sunset is steep and narrow; the sharp left-hand curve just off Burke is probably the most dangerous spot because of the limited sight-distance. The property slopes down steeply from the road edge. It is not clear how a roadside pathway can be constructed on the next lot up Sunset (13300 E. Sunset). Some WC members agreed with the property owner that constructing a pathway up this steep and winding street might encourage people to walk up a path that does not lead to another roadside path and would be dangerous. Others argued that a pathway is important here precisely because the street is steep and winding and that walkers would be safer off the road than on it. It was suggested that the Town help to pay for the retaining walls that would be needed for the pathway so that the homeowner did not have to bear the entire cost. A pathway could be constructed on the flatter terrain below the road berm (just outside the existing construction fence), but this would be closer to the home and compromise privacy. It was suggested that the pathway on the property across the street (13300 Burke) would be a good model for a pathway on the Mohazzabbi property. This pathway starts out at five feet wide at the corner of Burke and W. Sunset and as it goes up the hill, gradually tapers to about two-feet wide at the property edge. It has a rolled concrete curb. Courtenay Corrigan moved that the PWC ask for an easement in the road (E. Sunset) and that the previous recommendation for a IIB pathway be rescinded. The vote was 3 in favor; 4 opposed, 1 abstention. Thus, the motion to change the previous recommendation of the PWC failed. Chairman Summit suggested that the property owner appeal to the Planning Commission and, if necessary the City Council. B. Special Meeting with City Council. Councilman Mike O'Malley, City Council liaison to the PWC has requested that the PWC meet with City Council to discuss committee priorities and pathway maintenance issues. Discussion was postponed until the next meeting. C. Earth Day School Pathway Clean Up. Thanks to Anna Brunzell for managing the Bullis School Earth Day pathway cleanup that was rained out in April. The rescheduled event took place on June 8, 2007 with support from kids, parents, teachers, the Santa Clara Sheriff's department, and the local HAM radio group. D. PWC booth at the LAH Town Picnic. The LAH town picnic was held Saturday June 2, 2007 from 1:00 to 4:00 PM. Thanks to Bill Silver, Anna Brunzell and Jim Bliss for staffing the PWC information table and fielding more requests for a Town walking map. E. Additions and Changes to the Public Walking Map. Chairman Summit asked PWC members to continue reviewing the draft version of the public walking map (dated November 22, 2006) for inaccuracies in their quadrants and to submit hard-copies or email to her ASAP with corrections. Roadside pathways and existing off-road pathways should be included. Roadside pathway routes can be designated as a line in the middle of the road (no need to specify which side of the road the pathway currently runs along). Jim Bliss will assume Anne Duwe's map quadrants. Chairman Summit and Councilman Mike O'Malley have been making site visits to paths where easements are in question (e.g., certain public utility easements that have been in common use) and Debbie Pedro has been researching the status of these areas. The draft walking map will be reviewed by the PWC, posted on the Town web site, and then taken to the City Council for approval. This map will not be like a master path plan; it will be considered a work in progress and subject to updating. F. Pathway Maintenance Issues. Chairman Summit suggested that pathway maintenance might improve if the PWC directly manages maintenance requests and contractors. Nick Dunckel agreed to discuss the status of pathway maintenance projects with Henry Louie before he left. He is currently out of the country. G. Pathway In-Lieu fees. Brian Froelich, LAH Planning Department, has asked the PWC to consider approving a change in the calculation of pathway in-lieu fees. The current formula is 1/4 the property perimeter in feet times $48. For a typical one-acre lot, this is about $10,000; for a two-acre lot the fee is about $15,000 and for a three-acre lot, about $17,500. Brian argues that an alternate method (using the square root of the total lot area in feet) would be more equitable. Bill Silver suggested that the town provide the PWC with sample calculations using both methods so that the differences can be appreciated. An estimate of the number of properties in various lot size categories would also be helpful. The consensus was that any changes in the calculation of pathway in-lieu fees should be revenue neutral (i.e., should not result in significant loss of revenue to the Town). H. Pathway CIP Projects. PWC reviews pathway CIP projects are usually reviewed in June. Chairman Summit handed out a table of the June 2006 CIP projects and asked members to review them for discussion at the next meeting. G. Reports from PWC members who attended City Council or Planning Commission. PWC members volunteered to attend Planning Commission and City Council Meetings on the following dates: June 28, 2007 Planning Commission Ginger Summit August 2, 2007 Planning Commission Ginger Summit 3. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOO A. Councilman Breene Kerr reviewed the history and current status of new pathway construction on Moody Road and El Monte road. Bids open on June 26, 2007 for the next stage of the project (i.e., through Foothill College). Councilman Kerr reported that part of the pathway along Moody Road between Adobe Creek Lodge and Murietta Road needs upgrading to make it safe for horses. The Town has been maintaining this part of the path although it is in the unincorporated County. He also reported that the Town plans to start an adult equestrian program at West Wind Barn and requested that PWC members help to identify pathway routes (preferably loop rides) through Town that could be suitable for horse riding. It may be possible to find money to improve some of these routes. Jolon Wagner and Bob Stutz will join Councilman Kerr on an exploratory ride in the July. B. Les Earnest reported that the Town Engineer had declared East Sunset a public road although apparently this was never recorded with the County Supervisor. He pointed out the inconsistency of having East Sunset designated a public road and West Sunset designated a private road. Chairman Summit will discuss this with Debbie Pedro, who has assumed duties of Town Engineer until the position is filled. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of June 25, 2007 were approved as amended. Meeting was adjourned at 9:45 PM. 6. NEXT SCHEDULED MEETINGS The PWC will not meet in July or December of 2007 Next pathway walk: Saturday, August 25, 2007 at 8:30 AM at Town Hall Next regular meeting: Monday, August 27, 2007 at 7:00 PM at Town Hall Respectfully submitted, Sue Welch July 2, 2007 From PWC minutes of the April 23, 2007 meeting: ii. 12170 Dawn Lane (Lands of Renski). The reason for pathway review is construction of a new residence. Peter Duxbury, the architect for the project reported his clients' preference not to have a pathway easement through the property. Dawn Lane is a cul-de-sac off Elena Road. The property is a flag lot off the end of Dawn lane; access is via a private drive that serves on other residence. The PWC has long considered a connector from Natoma Road to Elena Road important and this connection is shown on the approved Master Path Plan. The Town holds an easement along the southern border of 27288 Elena and the Master Path Plan shows the path continuing along the border of the adjacent property (27200 Dawn Lane) to the Poor Clare's property (28210 Natoma). Although an easement on 12170 Dawn Lane near the northeast corner of the lot could provide connectivity, Mr. Duxbury says that the house is sited only 30 feet from the property line here and thus a 10-foot easement would place the path very close to the house. The Ginzton family donated easements along the southern borders of their properties at 28014 and 28012 Natoma. (The National Trust for Historic Preservation donated the easement on 28014 at the Ginzton's request and Nancy Ginzton donated the easement on 28012.) Neighbors on Natoma adjacent to the Ginzton's and to Poor Clare's (28210 Natoma) apparently do not oppose a pathway through the area if the easement is not on their property. The logical and most direct route for the pathway is on the edge of Poor Clare's Monastery property (i.e., along the south edge and a short distance along the east edge). For reasons of privacy, Poor Clare's has strongly opposed these easements on their property. The PWC will continue to seek an appropriate route for this important connecting pathway. Courtenay Corrigan moved that the Town ask for an in-lieu fee from the property owners at 12170 Dawn Lane instead of a pathway easement. Anna Brunzell seconded. The vote was four in favor and two abstentions. Nancy Ginzton recused herself because she lives less than 500 feet from the property under review. From PWC minutes of the June 26, 2006 meeting: ii. 13241 Burke Road (Lands of Mohazzabi). The property owner, Mr. Bruce Mohazzabi requested that the PWC review their recommendation made June 27, 2005. At that time, the PWC recommended that a IIB pathway be constructed on this property along West Sunset. The reason for original pathway review and recommendation was new construction. The lot is at the corner of Burke Road and West Sunset Drive. The property drops off steeply from the edge of W. Sunset Road, a private road that curves uphill beside and behind the property. The recommendation of the PWC on June 27, 2005 was that a IIB pathway was required along W. Sunset. No path was required on the property along Burke. Mr. Mohazzabi said that he had been told at the June 2005 meeting that the pathway would not need to be 5-feet wide along its entire length. Mr. Mohazzabi recently met with Town engineer staff and was told that the recommended IIB path must be 5 feet wide along its full length. Because this will require construction of a substantial retaining wall, Mr. Mohazzabi is appealing to the PWC to construct a 3-foot wide path, which would require a smaller retaining wall. The pros and cons of a 3-foot versus a 5-foot pathway and the issue of public access to private roads were discussed. Bill Silver moved that Town Engineer, Henry Louie visit the lands of Mohazzabi at 13241 Burke Road with the property owner and determine how high retaining walls would have to be to construct 3-foot wide and 5-foot wide pathways along W. Sunset. Mr. Louis is requested to prepare a drawing and present it to the Pathway Committee. The vote was 5 for, 2 against, and 1 abstention.