Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hawthorne Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trails committee to draft its own letter as Hawthorne proposal raises conservation‑easement, parking and legal‑representation questions
Summary
Portola Valley’s Trails and Paths Committee debated whether to sign an open‑space letter asking the town to secure outside legal counsel on the Hawthorne project; members instead voted to draft their own trails‑focused letter and requested assurance they will be included in any site development and conditional‑use review.
The Trails and Paths Committee of Portola Valley Town agreed May 20 to draft its own letter to the Town Council expressing concerns about how the Hawthorne project could affect trails and asking that legal questions tied to the property’s conservation easement be clarified before permitting moves forward.
The committee discussed a two‑page letter the Open Space Committee circulated asking that the town retain outside counsel because of apparent town‑council conflicts and the complexity of possible changes to the conservation easement. Committee members said they support asking for legal interpretation but declined to simply sign the open‑space letter, instead preferring to produce a shorter letter focused on trail connections, trail safety, and how proposed parking might affect routing.
"We expect to have our discretionary input on this project as it pertains to trails within our purview," the committee lead said, urging that the Trails and Paths Committee be consulted when Midpen submits site development and conditional‑use permit applications. Members raised the prospect that changes to the conservation easement could be negotiated between the property owner and Midpen but stressed that only legal counsel can clarify what modifications are permissible and how they would affect trail access and parking.
Several members said the committee’s priority is ensuring safe trail alignments for school routes and protecting multi‑use connections, not intervening in every element of the conservation easement. One member urged the committee to recommend that the Town Council consider leveraging existing council legal work to avoid duplicative expense while still securing clear answers.
Public commenters and some committee members also highlighted concerns about the proposal’s planned 50‑space parking area and its potential to increase vehicle movement at a trail crossing used by children. Speakers urged early coordination between Midpen and the town and suggested a liaison process to keep cities and Midpen aligned.
The committee decided to draft a short, trails‑focused letter that would request: legal interpretation of the conservation easement as it pertains to trails; assurance that the Trails and Paths Committee will be included in discretionary review of site development and conditional‑use permits; and consideration of alternate parking solutions that reduce trail conflicts. Committee members volunteered a small drafting group and agreed to return the draft for committee review before sending it to the Town Council.
Next steps: the drafting subgroup will prepare the letter and circulate it to committee members for comment ahead of the next meeting; the committee emphasized it will reserve final recommendations until Midpen’s formal permit applications are available for review.
