By Elizabeth Cloutman

Controversy remains, emotional response from residents

Even though the Los Altos City Council appears to be moving toward a final resolution on proposed changes to the town’s pathways system, a frequently emotional crowd of 300 residents at Thursday’s public hearing made it clear that the issue remains volatile.

Boos, cheers and voices raised in anger alternated with periods of calm discussion as the council solicited public input on the updated version of the 1981 Master Path Plan map during the four-hour meeting at Congregation Beth Am. The meeting was the first of several planned public hearings on the map.

The council reviewed the map section by section, listening to residents’ comments on certain pathway easements and pathways. No existing roadside or off-road pathways with easements were proposed for removal.

Council members recommended retaining all but one of the existing off-road pathway easements without paths, as well as retaining additional proposed pathways identified on the 1981 map.

The council then began a review of those proposed pathways and easements recommended for removal by the town’s pathways committee, but was unable to complete the task in one evening.

The council will schedule a second meeting to complete the task at a later date, possibly next month. Additional hearings at planning commission and city council meetings will also be held before the council makes a final decision on adopting a revised map, Mayor Toni Casey said.

Residents are divided on whether to make it voluntary for property owners to provide easements for future pathways as well as whether to retain easements on paths not yet built. Many of those who commented at Thursday’s meeting said that the council is essentially giving away the town’s assets by honoring property owners’ rights over the best interests of the community. Several called for a referendum requiring voter approval for the town to remove pathways.

A majority of the council members support making easement donations voluntary. They and their proponents have said that while they support the pathways system, they believe that mandating off-road pathways presents a threat to residents’ privacy and security in today’s world.

Pathways committee chairman Dubose Montgomery, who supports the council majority’s view ,was interrupted several times by opponents as he presented a statement at the beginning of the meeting. Councilman Mike O’Malley, who supports keeping pathways easements mandatory, admonished opponents for their reaction. “You’re really not helping your case,” he said, “and I’m on your side.”

Montgomery noted that while the pathways committee had recommended removing some easements and paths indicated on the 1981 map, the town’s pathways system would increase from 65.5 miles to more than 110 miles, if the council accepted the committee’s recommendations for future new paths.

Pathways committee member Ginger Summit, representing the minority view, urged the council not to recommend removing any paths or easements from, but instead, put them into a town reserve. “We’re not just thinking for the short term, but for generations to come,” she said. “The pathways are not only links to neighborhoods, but ways to schools and regional trails … Our pathways are a treasured asset.”

Many residents, including Summit, commented that there a number of errors and omissions in the map revision. Several noted that there were pathways and easements noted in deeds that were not on the map. Others said some off-road pathways and easements indicated on the map were impassable or potentially dangerous. They suggested possible alternatives.

Casey urged residents to contact town staff immediately with any additional information they might have. She also reminded concerned residents several times that the council was not making any final decisions Thursday night.