By Bruce Barton

Horse owner Karen Sremac is not happy. Neither is trails lover Les Earnest. They are among a slew of Los Altos Hills residents who want the town to rework a revised map of town pathways that they say is hopelessly - and some say, purposely - flawed. The council stands to approve the revised map at Thursday’s meeting.

The map, submitted for approval as part of the town’s general plan, shows the deletion of easements adding up to 15 miles of proposed paths - paths that showed on the 1981 map. The changes reflect the shift in political makeup among town leaders toward those who side more with private property rights than town recreation needs.

The controversial elements of the map continue to surround off-road paths which run along property lines and either evoke scenic enjoyment or security breach.

Town officials said the revised map is a marked improvement over the 1981 map and more accurate. They add that no current off-road paths are being eliminated and there has been ample time for public comment and input.

Pro-trails residents such as Sremac see town officials pushing to approve the revised map too quickly, despite the perceived flaws or consequences. Sremac points to one planned path, between Elena and Natoma roads, that will be erased despite property owners’ approval of easements and a neutral stand from the Poor Clares monastery. “There are no other connections through this area,” Sremac said.

Resident Cheryl Ginzton noted a steep, virtually unusable path has replaced a more accessible one leading to Central Drive, used for more than 45 years by children in the Westwind 4-H Riding for the Handicapped program. She wrote, “I find it difficult to imagine that a handicapped child who has difficulty staying on a horse could ride down this steep path safely.”

DuBose Montgomery, currently chairman of the town pathways committee, erected a fence on his property that blocked the old trail. It did not have a formal easement.

Still, other residents back efforts to get some pathways easements removed that they see as either unnecessary, too intrusive or even a hazard. Shari and Ed Emling noted a proposed pathway for Murietta Lane would create “the dreaded trail to nowhere that has historically been a haven for a quite undesirable and dangerous element, rather than the typical user of our town pathways who is a recreational walker.”

But Earnest and others familiar with the off-road system said the map errs more on the side of omissions than inclusions. As an example, he cited Adobe Creek Lodge trails going back 50 years or more with connections to Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and Hidden Villa properties do not appear on the new map. A planned route for the Anza Trail from Los Altos Hills also is missing even though it was adopted by the council in 1995.

Earnest, a former member of the pathways committee, presented the town with numerous and detailed examples of errors in the revised map, but said he has had little reaction to his efforts. Even those to which town staff has responded, such as a “bogus route” for the Edgerton trail, was “moved to another bogus location,” he said. “Plus, they’re giving up the easement to where the actual path goes.”

His lengthy Sept. 24 letter to the town concludes the map “is grossly erroneous and incomplete, and is inconsistent in many ways with the town’s general plan. Furthermore, the public has been deceived, apparently deliberately, about the kinds of changes being considered.”

Earnest said the map’s green lines noting new roadside paths were actually adopted by the council in 1996. The only exception is Moody Road, he said.

Town officials claim the 2002 map has only four fewer miles than the 1981 map (108.68 to 112.6 ) and roughly 5.5 fewer miles of total planned paths (44.48 to 50.1). But the number of planned off-road paths falls from 23.8 miles to 8.29.

Town Planning Director Carl Cahill said the change “will result in a pathway system that is more sensitive to resident privacy, more practical to construct, less redundant in terms of routes served and less detrimental to the town’s narrow open space conservation areas - along major creeks.” He noted “environmental impacts associated with the construction and use of pathways in such sensitive locations. Roadside pathways, on the other hand, tend to be easier to construct and maintain, and are not intrusive to environments since they are located near existing streets.”

But pro-paths residents, in a Sept. 25 letter drafted by their attorneys to the town planning commission, note the intent of off-road paths is providing easy access for equestrians and pedestrians while being “impermeable” to cars. “The project proposes eliminating off-road pathways which provide links between neighborhoods and town resources,” the letter states, “and replacing them with sidewalks which are, by definition, just as inefficient and impermeable as the roads they run beside.” The letter also takes issue with the less scenic outcomes on-road paths provide when running alongside vehicular traffic.

Resident Tay Vanderlip, an environmental consultant, contends the initial study leading to the revised map “does not provide full disclosure or an accurate impact analysis” warranting a mitigated negative declaration, and thus is in violation of the process under the state’s Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA.

Pro-paths residents said they would consider a referendum or litigation to stop the pathway plan from becoming law, if the council approves the revised map. “We’re hoping they will do the sensible thing and postpone (approval),” Earnest said. “This total deaf-ear approach is a serious problem.”

Thursday’s meeting is set to begin at 6 p.m., at Town Hall, 26379 Fremont Road.