By Justin HAGER

After a long and emotional, but mostly orderly, special Crescenta Valley Town Council meeting on Monday night, the town council voted unanimously to ask LA County not to move forward on a proposed trail along the Eagle Canyon flood control path. The town council is an elected advisory body to the county supervisor’s office and other governing agencies and, as was the case on Monday night, holds community-wide forums to inform or garner opinion from residents.

The special meeting was a packed house, with a near maximum capacity audience of 57 community members present in person at the American Legion Hall, and another 75 participating online via Zoom.

The project originated in 2009 when the town council, at the urging of local resident Paul Rabinov, the CVTC’s representative to the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, submitted a report and request to the County to explore the feasibility of a larger trail that would follow the Eagle Canyon Channel from Orange Avenue through Two Strike Park to Pine Glen Road, and eventually to a Mt. Lukens trailhead and the regional trail system of Glendale and La Cañada. Support for the project came from neighboring cities and former Supervisor Mike Antonovich, an active outdoorsman who had just received the American Trails: California Trail Advocacy Award. However, the project lay dormant with time, energy and money directed toward related, but different, projects like improving ADA accessibility at Two Strike Park and purchasing land that is now the Rosemont Preserve. The proposal was revived in 2018 when then-councilmember Desiree Rabinov again asked the County to explore the idea of starting with just one small portion of the original project – a two-block trail connecting the intersection of El Caminito and La Crescenta Avenue to Two Strike Park.

Over the course of the next four years, the council held several meetings on the topic but, with a global pandemic raging and council meetings moved to Zoom, conducting proper community outreach was difficult. Petitions and letters circulated on both sides of the issue and, while there seemed to be strong support for the proposal in terms of numbers, local residents who would be the most impacted by the decision felt as though they had not had the opportunity to weigh in. Tuesday’s meeting gave them a platform to be heard.

The overwhelming majority of those in attendance were opposed to the trail, with opponents offering concerns about privacy, crime, cost, traffic, parking and the lack of an immediately identifiable problem the trail was intended to solve. Concerns over crime were especially prevalent with one local resident describing how a sexual predator could use the trail to gain access to his backyard and young child. While the comment received applause from the audience, it failed to recognize that the land the trail was proposed to be built on is already publicly accessible and regularly used as an unofficial trail by numerous people; at least two current council members commented on how they traverse it regularly. LA County Sheriff Dept.-CV Station Acting Captain Rob Hahnlein downplayed concerns about crime. Responding to a question about crime and homelessness along La Cañada’s trails he said he had not seen any evidence that the trails in La Cañada led to increased rates of crime or a greater presence of homeless populations. Numerous studies show that there is no correlation between the existence of trails and increased crime to adjacent neighbors or trail users. In fact, in several locales, the rate of crime actually decreased.

Though the meeting was mostly orderly, and there was one instance when a pro-trail speaker and former council member went over her allotted time. She was shouted down by the audience with one attendee even saying, “Just shut up.” Council President Harry Leon quickly restored order and called for respect.

Attempting to address many of the concerns, project originator Paul Rabinov offered to form a task force of residents on both sides of the proposal with the goal of finding common ground and a plan that worked for everyone. But after more than a decade, few of the meeting’s attendees appeared enthusiastic about going back to the drawing board.

Ultimately, it was the cost of the project that led the council opposition.

Councilmember Chris Kilpatrick offered support for the project in concept but could not ultimately vote in favor of it.

“If we look at the merits of the project, there are some pros and there are some cons … aside from the merits, there is just the financial cost to consider,” he said.

Councilmember Jeffrey Rodriguez recognized broad-based support for the project and for more green space, but also could not support this specific proposal.

“We need to be mindful of the fact that people do want this in our community,” he said. “Inherently, open space is a good thing for our community. Exhausting all our funds for something that just isn’t that long and just isn’t that big an improvement just isn’t worth it for me.”

Councilmember Kerri Lewin echoed that sentiment.

“If we use all of this money for a two-block stretch that will only be used by some, it will preclude us from using [funds] on any other project … there will be nothing for the future.”

The motion to oppose the project and recommend to the County to no longer pursue it passed 8-0 with first alternate Ted Yu voting in place of Councilmember Paul Barnes, who was not present.