Browse archives: 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 | 2003 | 2002 | 2001 | 2000 | 1999 | 1998 | 1997 | 1996 | 1995

Published on 05/04/1998 All articles from this issue

Residents crossed over paths

printer friendly version

Off-road system in Los Altos Hills raises questions of access vs. property rights

By Carol Tiegs and Bruce Barton

Town Crier Staff Writers

A long-standing off-road pathways system in Los Altos Hills has recently come under intense scrutiny as residents on both sides of the issue are now making their opinions felt.

Possibly triggering the latest uproar is an April newsletter published by the grass-roots Los Altos Hills Civic Association with a headline titled "Proposed Pathways Ire Residents." The newsletter offered a survey asking respondents to indicate under what circumstances they find off-road pathways acceptable.

Meanwhile, a petition is being circulated by residents in support of the pathways system.

Controversy over the process for adding more paths to the existing system erupted at a Los Altos Hills City Council meeting last November, in which a portion of the pathway plan underwent review.

The system itself grew from the philosophy of the town's founders.

The green sheet promoting Los Altos Hills incorporation in 1956 stressed residents' desire to preserve the rural nature of the area - its horse paddocks and agricultural businesses. In the first General Plan, adopted in 1959, town leaders set encouraging "the development of recreational open space, parks, equestrian paths and permanently preserved greenbelts along the principal water courses..." as a principle to future development. A separate plan for equestrian paths and hiking trails was the first order of business in the General Plan's proposal for traffic circulation.

Today, the pathways system includes approximately 93 miles of trails in Los Altos Hills. The question is whether that network of paths should be considered complete.

The town's master path plan, last updated in 1981, contains proposals for additional paths. Often they are intended to link existing pathways or to complete a pathway. With increased property subdivision and construction in Los Altos Hills, some proposed pathways cross residents' side or back yards. That raises concerns about safety, liability and privacy.

"I support the pathway system 150 percent," said Mayor Toni Casey. "But I will never support a path that is invasive to a neighbor's privacy."

Where a planned pathway crosses a property, the property owner is asked to grant an easement, similar to a utility easement. In some instances the owner may pay a fee in lieu of granting the easement.

However, some residents feel the town engages in a form of extortion by holding up building permits for new construction unless the pathway easement is granted. Pathway supporters look at it as a trade-off, similar to paying for sidewalks or roads along houses.

But security and liability are huge issues among off-road pathways opponents. Resident Carol Petty called public pathways on private property "a liability issue waiting to happen."

Resident Sandy Carse, who is currently fighting for abandonment of a pathway easement on her property, noted, "When someone injures himself, he is not going to sue the city, which has no insurance. Instead, the target of the litigation will be us, the landowner."

Councilwoman Elayne Dauber said the only instance a landowner would be liable is by negligence, such as leaving a rake along a path that might cause an accident. Otherwise, "the town takes first liability on the paths," she said. "When the town has the easement, it assumes the liability."

On the safety issue, Carse noted a burglar a few years back who was using off-road pathways as escape routes. Dauber countered that not only are such instances rare, but suspects are more likely to get lost than achieve successful getaways.

Additionally, there is a question of notification. Some new residents buy property knowing it has a pathway easement designated on it, choosing to fight the easement with the city later. Others said at the Nov. 5, 1997, council meeting that they didn't know an off-road pathway was proposed on their property until they saw their street number outlined on a pathways map set out with a town newsletter.

City Manager Jeff Peterson said the town council began updating the master path plan as part of an overall push to bring all municipal documents up-to-date. The council planned to hold neighborhood-by-neighborhood public hearings on each section of the plan, notifying residents as their portion of town came up for review.

The first hearing passed without incident. Council made several plan modifications in response to residents' input. But the majority of residents in the southwest corner of town reviewed at the Nov. 5 meeting spoke vehemently against off-road pathways proposed in their back yards. As a result, the council directed Peterson and Casey to develop a new process for review of the off-road pathway proposals for the master pathway plan.

On Jan. 7, the town council adopted three provisions from Peterson's and Casey's proposal. The first called for preparation of a new map that shows the off-road pathways on the 1981 master pathway plan where town has acquired all or a portion of the necessary easements to complete the pathway.

The other adopted provisions provide a process for review of recommended new pathways, including notification of affected neighbors and soliciting neighborhood input. If the council decided to proceed with a proposed off-road pathway, a public hearing would be held to get further public input before a final decision.

The council rejected a proposal to delete all proposed off-road paths on the 1981 master pathway plan that have no easements granted.

"Council members realized they needed an updated map to proceed," Peterson said.

The engineering intern hired for the update has been unable to work due to severe injuries suffered in an auto accident. Town staff has been too burdened by building applications to work on the map, Peterson said. "Now we're looking for a consultant to complete the map," he said.

Meanwhile, the Los Altos Hills Civic Association, had received approximately 150 responses as of last week from the survey in its April newsletter, sent out to about 3,000 households, said Tom Lefevre, an association member conducting the survey.

So far, 69 percent of the respondents said they don't find off-road pathways acceptable, while 27 percent said the paths are acceptable through neighbors' back yards if neighbors don't object.

"What I'm finding is a significant portion of the town that really doesn't like off-road pathways," Lefevre said.

Lefevre, whose profession is market research, said he plans to present survey results to the town council at the end of the month.

The survey, in turn, has prompted a pro-off-road pathways petition drive that netted approximately 300 signatures as of last week. Both sides are criticizing each other's efforts, saying the questions are phrased to provoke desired responses.

"There has been quite a number of people stirred up by the newsletter," said Councilman Sid Hubbard, the council's liaison to the town Pathways, Recreation and Parks Committee. "There are a few people willing to throw out the whole pathway system because they don't like one path."

Alan Dale signed a petition in support of the pathway plan. "We have a path along the end of our property," said the 33-year Los Altos Hills resident. "I like seeing people go along it."

Dale said two trails in his area have been blocked up. "Some people along the route of one trail have blocked it off," he said. "People at the end of the road declined a path on their property."

Los Altos Hills resident Dominick Curatola, also an El Camino Hospital District board member, stands firmly opposed to the pathways system, noting in an April 20 letter to the Town Crier, "We had to spend tens of thousands of dollars in making improvements on the easements for our pathway, which literally runs through our back yard. ... These off-road pathways are an egregious invasion of some of the most cherished American ideals of right to privacy and security."

"Some developers in the 1960s objected to paths for the same reasons as today," said Bob Stutz, a former pathway committee chairman. "Wallace Stegner raised holy hell about a path on his property, but then he became a (pathway) advocate.

"As the horse population goes down the need for paths is not perceived as being as important as the need for privacy," said resident Bill Sauers. "People start protecting their turf. The same thing happened in Woodside. There was some vicious litigation there over it."

Depending on what side of the property line you're on, most off-road paths are useful and well traveled, or they're not being used at all. Casey said Los Altos Hills was a horse town when the system was designed in the 1950s. Now, she estimates 2-3 percent of the population own horses. As for foot traffic, she said most seniors won't use the paths because they're physically exerting, and school children aren't going to use the paths because they're "afraid." Supporters feel the opposite, noting children find pathways a convenient shortcut to school, and seniors and others are using them for brisk exercise.

In addition, opponents said off-road paths are either poorly maintained or not maintained at all. Indeed, it can be sluggish going for some, given the often steep terrain and - especially after rains - soggy conditions of some paths. Dauber said the town budgets about $125,000 a year for pathways maintenance.

It would be "short-sighted" to abandon the pathways plan, Sauers said. "As long as we have the paths we should keep them," he said. "They're very hard to get back."

But even some residents, like Carse, who are fighting pathways on their properties, are quick to note they're not looking to scrap all pathways. Their problem is with the process. "Either make the system voluntary or put the item up for a public referendum," she said.

"Over many years the system developed to preserve a safe connection between neighborhoods and neighbors," Hubbard said. "The paths are important for kids going to school and as secondary evacuation routes in case of emergency. We need to be sensitive to preserving privacy as well as community."

Residents

crossed

over paths

LAH off-road tradition in question triggers survey, petition drive

By Carol Tiegs and Bruce Barton

Town Crier Staff Writers

A long-standing off-road pathways system in Los Altos Hills has recently come under intense scrutiny as residents on both sides of the issue are now making their opinions felt.

Possibly triggering the latest uproar is an April newsletter published by the grass-roots Los Altos Hills Civic Association with a headline titled "Proposed Pathways Ire Residents." The newsletter offered a survey asking respondents to indicate under what circumstances they find off-road pathways acceptable.

Meanwhile, a petition is being circulated by residents in support of the pathways system.

Controversy over the process for adding more paths to the existing system erupted at a Los Altos Hills City Council meeting last November, in which a portion of the pathway plan underwent review.

The system itself grew from the philosophy of the town's founders.

The green sheet promoting Los Altos Hills incorporation in 1956 stressed residents' desire to preserve the rural nature of the area - its horse paddocks and agricultural businesses. In the first General Plan, adopted in 1959, town leaders set encouraging "the development of recreational open space, parks, equestrian paths and permanently preserved greenbelts along the principal water courses..." as a principle to future development. A separate plan for equestrian paths and hiking trails was the first order of business in the General Plan's proposal for traffic circulation.

Today, the pathways system includes approximately 93 miles of trails in Los Altos Hills. The question is whether that network of paths should be considered complete.

The town's master path plan, last updated in 1981, contains proposals for additional paths. Often they are intended to link existing pathways or to complete a pathway. With increased property subdivision and construction in Los Altos Hills, some proposed pathways cross residents' side or back yards. That raises concerns about safety, liability and privacy.

"I support the pathway system 150 percent," said Mayor Toni Casey. "But I will never support a path that is invasive to a neighbor's privacy."

Where a planned pathway crosses a property, the property owner is asked to grant an easement, similar to a utility easement. In some instances the owner may pay a fee in lieu of granting the easement.

However, some residents feel the town engages in a form of extortion by holding up building permits for new construction unless the pathway easement is granted. Pathway supporters look at it as a trade-off, similar to paying for sidewalks or roads along houses.

But security and liability are huge issues among off-road pathways opponents. Resident Carol Petty called public pathways on private property "a liability issue waiting to happen."

Resident Sandy Carse, who is currently fighting for abandonment of a pathway easement on her property, noted, "When someone injures himself, he is not going to sue the city, which has no insurance. Instead, the target of the litigation will be us, the landowner."

Councilwoman Elayne Dauber said the only instance a landowner would be liable is by negligence, such as leaving a rake along a path that might cause an accident. Otherwise, "the town takes first liability on the paths," she said. "When the town has the easement, it assumes the liability."

On the safety issue, Carse noted a burglar a few years back who was using off-road pathways as escape routes. Dauber countered that not only are such instances rare, but suspects are more likely to get lost than achieve successful getaways.

Additionally, there is a question of notification. Some new residents buy property knowing it has a pathway easement designated on it, choosing to fight the easement with the city later. Others said at the Nov. 5, 1997, council meeting that they didn't know an off-road pathway was proposed on their property until they saw their street number outlined on a pathways map set out with a town newsletter.

City Manager Jeff Peterson said the town council began updating the master path plan as part of an overall push to bring all municipal documents up-to-date. The council planned to hold neighborhood-by-neighborhood public hearings on each section of the plan, notifying residents as their portion of town came up for review.

The first hearing passed without incident. Council made several plan modifications in response to residents' input. But the majority of residents in the southwest corner of town reviewed at the Nov. 5 meeting spoke vehemently against off-road pathways proposed in their back yards. As a result, the council directed Peterson and Casey to develop a new process for review of the off-road pathway proposals for the master pathway plan.

On Jan. 7, the town council adopted three provisions from Peterson's and Casey's proposal. The first called for preparation of a new map that shows the off-road pathways on the 1981 master pathway plan where town has acquired all or a portion of the necessary easements to complete the pathway.

The other adopted provisions provide a process for review of recommended new pathways, including notification of affected neighbors and soliciting neighborhood input. If the council decided to proceed with a proposed off-road pathway, a public hearing would be held to get further public input before a final decision.

The council rejected a proposal to delete all proposed off-road paths on the 1981 master pathway plan that have no easements granted.

"Council members realized they needed an updated map to proceed," Peterson said.

The engineering intern hired for the update has been unable to work due to severe injuries suffered in an auto accident. Town staff has been too burdened by building applications to work on the map, Peterson said. "Now we're looking for a consultant to complete the map," he said.

Meanwhile, the Los Altos Hills Civic Association, had received approximately 150 responses as of last week from the survey in its April newsletter, sent out to about 3,000 households, said Tom Lefevre, an association member conducting the survey.

So far, 69 percent of the respondents said they don't find off-road pathways acceptable, while 27 percent said the paths are acceptable through neighbors' back yards if neighbors don't object.

"What I'm finding is a significant portion of the town that really doesn't like off-road pathways," Lefevre said.

Lefevre, whose profession is market research, said he plans to present survey results to the town council at the end of the month.

The survey, in turn, has prompted a pro-off-road pathways petition drive that netted approximately 300 signatures as of last week. Both sides are criticizing each other's efforts, saying the questions are phrased to provoke desired responses.

"There has been quite a number of people stirred up by the newsletter," said Councilman Sid Hubbard, the council's liaison to the town Pathways, Recreation and Parks Committee. "There are a few people willing to throw out the whole pathway system because they don't like one path."

Alan Dale signed a petition in support of the pathway plan. "We have a path along the end of our property," said the 33-year Los Altos Hills resident. "I like seeing people go along it."

Dale said two trails in his area have been blocked up. "Some people along the route of one trail have blocked it off," he said. "People at the end of the road declined a path on their property."

Los Altos Hills resident Dominick Curatola, also an El Camino Hospital District board member, stands firmly opposed to the pathways system, noting in an April 20 letter to the Town Crier, "We had to spend tens of thousands of dollars in making improvements on the easements for our pathway, which literally runs through our back yard. ... These off-road pathways are an egregious invasion of some of the most cherished American ideals of right to privacy and security."

"Some developers in the 1960s objected to paths for the same reasons as today," said Bob Stutz, a former pathway committee chairman. "Wallace Stegner raised holy hell about a path on his property, but then he became a (pathway) advocate.

"As the horse population goes down the need for paths is not perceived as being as important as the need for privacy," said resident Bill Sauers. "People start protecting their turf. The same thing happened in Woodside. There was some vicious litigation there over it."

Depending on what side of the property line you're on, most off-road paths are useful and well traveled, or they're not being used at all. Casey said Los Altos Hills was a horse town when the system was designed in the 1950s. Now, she estimates 2-3 percent of the population own horses. As for foot traffic, she said most seniors won't use the paths because they're physically exerting, and school children aren't going to use the paths because they're "afraid." Supporters feel the opposite, noting children find pathways a convenient shortcut to school, and seniors and others are using them for brisk exercise.

In addition, opponents said off-road paths are either poorly maintained or not maintained at all. Indeed, it can be sluggish going for some, given the often steep terrain and - especially after rains - soggy conditions of some paths. Dauber said the town budgets about $125,000 a year for pathways maintenance.

It would be "short-sighted" to abandon the pathways plan, Sauers said. "As long as we have the paths we should keep them," he said. "They're very hard to get back."

But even some residents, like Carse, who are fighting pathways on their properties, are quick to note they're not looking to scrap all pathways. Their problem is with the process. "Either make the system voluntary or put the item up for a public referendum," she said.

"Over many years the system developed to preserve a safe connection between neighborhoods and neighbors," Hubbard said. "The paths are important for kids going to school and as secondary evacuation routes in case of emergency. We need to be sensitive to preserving privacy as well as community."