06/06/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Jim Papp, 13263 Simon Lane, supported removing the path. He believed it was • redundant and unapproachable from Natoma. Resident, 27261 Black Mountain Road, supported keeping the path noting the path was on Edgerton along-the creek bed. Sid Hubbard, 25228 La Loma Drive, questioned the procedure put in place by the Mayor of only allowing those directly affected by the path under discussion to comment. He believed these were issues that affected other residents and the Town as a whole in addition to the person adjacent to the path. Carol Gottlieb, 24290 Summerhill, commented on the Page Mill path and the decision when it was placed on the 1981 Master Path Plan. She noted that it was thought to bring the path up the back way to Page Mill and schematically it was thought that this would work. She also noted that when the previous speaker on the Page Mill path bought his property he knew this path was there. Patty Ciesla, 11990 Page Mill, commented that there was no other way to get up Page Mill in the area and asked if there were alternatives available without going through the owner's property. Jack Caffey, 27133 Adonna Court, commented that the properties at the end of Adonna were reclaimed by Caltrans. Also he noted that the Adonna path connected to Black Mountain and was used for years until it was fenced. He • recommended rebuilding the Black Mountain to Elena and Natoma to Elena pathways. Mike Scott, 27844, 27856 and 27860 Black Mountain, asked for a clear explanation of what this map before them meant. What did it mean if a path was there? How were the costs of putting in paths and maintaining them going to be handled? What was the timetable? Why was Council undertaking this project when there did not seem to be any measurable criticisms? Jim Waller, 26105 Elena Road, wanted to see the path next to his property removed as it was a dead end. Twinkie Lyman, 13770 Wildflower Court, stated that they had lived in Town for many years and the path issue has often been one of controversy. The residents knew of the paths when they purchased the property and with this proposal there were forty four residents who, if the map was approved, would have the path easements removed. She believed the `not in my backyard' attitude was prevalent today. She did not think it was fair to expect a minority to bear the burden. If some easements were removed then all should be. Mrs. Lyman recommended putting this issue on the ballot in November. • June 6, 2002 Special City Council Meeting 3