HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal Minutes August 25MINUTES OF PATHWAY COMMITTEE MEETING
August 25, 2003
Present:
Chris Vargas (CV), Chairman
Ginger Summit (GS), Vice Chairman
Nancy Ewald (NE)
Charlene Geers (CG)
Nancy Ginzton (NG)
Mike Kamangar (MK)
Bob Stutz (BS)
Absent:
Dick Cassam (DC)
Fred Fallah (FF)
Jorge Fernandes (JF)
DuBose Montgomery (DM)
Meeting called to order at 6:03 pm
Review of Minutes of July 28, 2003
Modification to Old Business:
Topic of discussion: Alternate entry trail into the Mid Peninsula Open Space Preserve.
BS stated he had discussions with Mary Davey (Mid-Peninsula’s Open Space
Preserve’s representative) regarding the town open space. Ms. Davey supports an
alternate entry into the Preserve and discussions focused on possible entry points near
the Wayman property. The committee expressed interest in and support of these
possibilities.
Minutes approved as amended (CG, 2nd MK), unanimous approval.
Old business:
Evaluation of II-B pathway materials. NE has not had time to re-evaluate them.
Discussion tabled until the next meeting.
Date to walk the Lyman property will be Saturday, Sept. 20th, during the regular monthly
walk. The Lymans’ will be notified ahead of time.
New business:
Recommendations on properties seen on the Saturday pathway walk:
1. 25617 Elena Road: there is an acceptable existing path on the other side of Elena.
Motion (CG, 2nd MK) to recommend collection of the impact fee. Question for staff: can
an impact fee be collected if a path already exists? Amended Motion (CG, 2nd MK) to
recommend discussion with staff to see if an impact fee can be collected if a path exists.
If an impact fee cannot be collected, the recommendation is for restoration of the
existing II-B path. 5 approve, 2 abstain.
2. 27101 Byrne Park Lane. Discussion: there are acceptable existing paths on Byrne
Park Lane and Altamont. Motion (NE, 2nd BS) to restore the existing II-B paths on
Byrne Park Lane and Altamont. Unanimous approval.
3. 25551 Burke Lane: good existing path on other side of road Motion (BS, 2nd GS) to
collect an impact fee. Unanimous approval.
Discussion of possible new projects for FY2004: Open discussion and suggestions:
1. Monitor capital projects quarterly (bids, progress of what advised)
2. Monitor Planning Commission and Town Council meetings. Advantages: keeping
current on key issues, presenting Pathway Committee position on issues when needed.
Concerns: A number of members had attended in the past and found them lengthy, of
limited benefit and were uncomfortable speaking as a pathway committee representative
without knowing the Committee’s views (CG). Proposal: attend the Planning
Commission meetings on a 3-month trial basis. September - CV, NE; October - GS and
NG; November - not assigned
3. Monitoring Pathway recommendations: To ensure Committee recommendations are
followed up. Potential unknowns: Fast Track seen only by CV (Pathway Chair);
conditional use permits coming up for renewal. Proposal: create a tracking spreadsheet
listing all properties seen by the Pathway Committee and resultant recommendations.
Review at PC monthly meeting.
4. Possibility of creating a program to assist in cost of privacy screening. GS will
approach staff about the possibility of some financial assistance for paths in off-road
easements. Discuss formal program in Sept. meeting.
5. Active solicitation of path easements. Possible benefits: donators do not have to pay
for legal descriptions (LAH does) and there are possible tax benefits.
6. Liability concerns. CV, GS attended recent County Pathway planning meeting. At that
meeting, a lawyer who works frequently with Portola Valley and Woodside stated that
residents are not generally liable for pathways that run alongside their property, if those
paths are part of the town network (CV, Dot S) .
7. Updating the Master Pathway Plan. Underlying map needs updating. What makes a
good system? For future choices, look to Master Plan and missing links (GS). Carol G
thinks the system exists, just need to enhance it.
County S-1 trail briefing by Les Earnest. Presentation of current alternatives for County
S1 trail. Les summarized the views of the County and Stanford University (SU), and
commented on route suitability for actual users as follows:
S1-A; Potentially unpleasant user experience walking alog Page Mill/280 interchange
S1-B: Divides SU land
S1-C:Concerns: poor walkway along Arastradero and bad Page Mill/280 interchange
S1-D: Palo Alto Supervisor Kniss proposal, up 280 onramp
S1-E: ‘Cherry Stem’ route
S1-F: ‘Cherry Stem’ route that avoids the ravine.
Proposal: Committee to provide a recommendation to Town Council after the walk-
through.
Alternatives for pathway development for 28210 Natoma Rd. (Poor Clare’s Monastery)
(CV) Poor Clare’s approached Mayor Cheng about assistance to developing the
pathway development along Natoma Rd. The issues were finances and Scout
volunteers were unable to help build the path. Discussion: This is not a Pathway
Committee issue. Les Earnest suggested that they contact the Trail Center
(650.968.7065, East Bayshore, Palo Alto), a non-profit group that might charge less than
most for path construction. NE will forward this information.
Presentations from the floor:
1. Les Earnest: S-1 path briefing
2. Dot Schreiner: Monthly update of Pathway Easement ad hoc Committee. The group is
only documenting easements - have done the 1st go through, documenting where found
and recorded. Currently working with Resolutions; a gap from 1970-1984 will require
going to microfiches. Carol G says that map should not go out to the public yet;
emphasizing it is only a planning tool.
Adjournment at 8:08 pm