HomeMy Public PortalAbout20080311 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting 08-06
SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
March 11, 2008
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
I. ROLL CALL
President P. Siemens called the Special Meeting to order at 5:37 p.m.
Members Present: Pete Siemens, Jed Cyr, Mary Davey, Ken Nitz, Curt Riffle and
Larry Hassett
Members Absent: Nonette Hanko
Staff Present: Craig Britton and Sue Schectman
II. CLOSED SESSION
P. Siemens stated that there were no reportable items from the Closed Session regarding
Item 1 and 2.
III. PUBLIC SESSION
P. Siemens called the Public Session of the Special Meeting to order at 7:36 p.m., and
asked for a Roll Call.
Members Present: Pete Siemens, Jed Cyr,Nonette Hanko, Mary Davey, Ken Nitz,
Curt Riffle, and Larry Hassett
Members Absent: None
Additional Staff Present: G. Sam, M. Freeman, A. Christenson, D. Sanguinetti, R.
Jurgensen, D. Simmons
IV. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion: J. Cyr moved that the Board adopt the Agenda. N. Hanko seconded the
motion. The motion passed 7 to 0.
V. BOARD BUSINESS
Meeting 08-06
A. Agenda Item No. 1 —Tentative Approval of Amendment to the Use and
Management Plan for El Sereno Open Space Preserve to Establish a Permit-Only
Area and Designate Recreational Uses on Overlook Trial; Use and Management
Committee's Recommendations: GA) Tentatively Approve a Use and
Management Plan Amendment for El Sereno Open Space Preserve to Establish a
6-Car Permit-Only Parking Lot at the End of Overlook Drive Past Gate ES05-,
Provide Enforcement of"No Parking" Ordinances at the End of Overlook Drive
Adjacent to the Preserve, Including the Installation of"No Parking" Signs; and
Formally Designate Overlook Trial as Open to Hiking, Bicycling, and On-Leash
Dog Use; Or In the Alternative (I B) Direct Staff to Develop a Strategy to Close or
Relinquish Ownership of the Northern Area of El Sereno Qpen Space Preserve;_
General Manazer's Recommendation: Tentatively Approve a Use and
Management Plan Amendment for El Sereno Open Space Preserve to Establish a
6-Car Permit-Only Parking Lot at the End of Overlook Drive Past Gate ES05;
Provide Enforcement of"No Parking" Ordinances at the End of Overlook Drive
Adjacentto the Preserve, Including the Installation of"No Parking" Signs-, and
Formally Designate Overlook Trial as Open to Hiking, Bicycling, and On-Leash
Dog Use - (Report R-08-36)
P. Siemens gave a brief overview of how the public hearing would be held, and
asked any public speakers to fill out a speaker card.
A. Christenson presented the staff report, and she said she would describe the Use
and Management amendment. She gave some background information about El
Sereno Open Space Preserve. She said the preserve provides recreational access
to the surrounding neighborhoods. Currently,parking is limited to a small two-
vehicle pullout located off of Montevina Road, and she showed the area on a map.
She said that staff has evaluated all of the entrances to the preserve to find a
potential multiple-car parking area. Staff has concluded that the best area for
potential parking is located in the northern area of the Overlook Trail at the
established trailhead. She said that steep topography; heavy vegetation and
adjacent private property precludes the construction of a multi-car parking area at
any of the other preserve entrances.
A. Christenson said that staff proposes establishing a six-car permit only parking
lot near gate ES05 and she showed this area on a wall map. She said the
opportunity to establish parking near gate ES05 occurred with the District's
purchase of the former Hayes property in 2004. She said that at the time of the
Hayes purchase, staff reported to the Board that a small permit parking lot was
envisioned at this site.
A. Christenson said that the use and management process for this project began,
with a staff presentation to the Use and Management Committee in December
2006. She said that the meeting was attended by 11 members of the public,
including several representatives of the Montgomery Highlands Homeowner's
Page 2
r
Meeting 0 8-06
r
Association(MHHA). She said that the representatives of the MHHA presented
staff with a series of questions and concerns regarding the proposed project. Staff
defined the project and did research to respond and answer the questions during
the spring and summer of 2007. Staff took the refined proposals to the MHHA
board in September 2007. The MHHA board remained opposed to the project.
Staff brought the project before the District's Use and Management Committee in
December 2007.
A. Christenson said that at the second Use and Management meeting, staff
described four(4) alternatives for parking at the Overlook Drive site. Staff
recommended the permit parking option because it provided limited and
controlled public access while being considerate of neighbor's concerns about the
potential impacts of increase public use and parking at the site. In addition, staff
recommended formalizing the hiking, biking and on-leash dog uses on Overlook
Trail and to open the entire preserve to dogs on-leash.
In addition to the staff recommendations, the Use and Management Committee
added a component to add signage and enforce parking on Overlook Drive
adjacent to the preserve. In consideration of neighbor opposition and the potential
of limited public access, the Committee also recommended to forward to the full
Board"Option 2": To develop a strategy or relinquish ownership of the northern
area of El Sereno Open Space Preserve. This is in recognition that without
limited or controlled public access, those properties in northern El Sereno could
only function with private open space,which is not consistent with the Board's
mission.
A. Christenson reviewed the different components of the two options before the
Board. She described the proposed permit-only 6-slot parking lot and pointed out
the location on the map. She showed a photo of the proposed parking site. She
said the site was developed to minimize the amount of grading and vegetation
removal required to formalize a small parking area. Site improvements would
include applying base rock, installing wheel stops, installing a small single-rail
fence, and a low wooden retaining wall. The plan would include trail
improvements to the Overlook Trail, including a stile, and standard gate, and a
signboard and any appropriate regulatory signage. The lot does not require any
county permits.
A. Christenson said that at the Use and Management Committee meeting the
neighbors voiced concern the parking lot would have on their neighborhood. She
said that staff does not think impacts from such a small project will exist, staff
drafted a parking permit to help alleviate those concerns and address their
questions and concerns. She said the permit parking lot would be located behind
a locked gate, ES05. Visitors without a permit would be unable to park in the lot,
because the combination for the gate lock would only be published on the parking
permit acquired through the District's office. She further described the permit
procedure. She said the permit would include a map of the property, the gate
Page 3
Meeting 08-06
combination, and District regulations. The permit itself would remain on the
dashboard of the car. She said the condition attached to the permit directly
address the concerns that are most important to the homeowner's association. In
response to neighbor concerns about potential liability from the limited public use
of the area, the permit also includes indemnification and release. The
indemnification means that the permit holders would assume all obligations and
liability when traveling to and from and using the permit parking lot. She said
that this is unprecedented for the District. It provides protection to property
owners in addition to that provided by California's Recreation Immunity Statute.
She said that the second element of the first option is to install signage and
enforce parking at the end of Overlook Drive adjacent to the preserve. Overlook
Drive ends in a cul-de-sac that serves El Sereno and the District residence, a San
Jose Water Company water tank, and a private residence. She showed a picture of
the site. She said that the District would install "no parking" signs in addition to
the ones already in place.
The third element of option one is to formalize the hiking, bicycling and on-leash
dog use on Overlook Trail. At this time dogs are allowed by permit only. She
showed a picture of Overlook Trail showing its width, and that it is flat and even.
It leads to a nice view of Santa Clara valley. According to the site evaluation
criteria, all of El Sereno, is well suited for on-leash dog use; however, at this time
a decision concerning a preserve-wide use is not an appropriate component of this
project, but should be a separate consideration for another time.
A. Christenson reviewed the second option forwarded to the Board by the Use and
Management Committee. This second option is to identify the means to close or
relinquish ownership of the northern area of the preserve. The first way this could
be done is to sell the parcels. Because the parcels are dedicated, the parcels could
only be sold with voter approval in a special election, which would be
prohibitively costly and it is unlikely the District's constituents would support
such a sale. Another option would be to convey the parcels to another
government agency,but this option appears to be infeasible because there is little
reason for another agency to take ownership of this particular area. The District
could close the parcels through the creation of a Conservation Management Unit,
or abandon the proposed Use and Management Amendment. These would not
affect members of the public or the neighbors who have a right to use the trail, but
it would not fulfill the goal of public access in this area.
She said that the District staff and Board have received public comments on this
project at two Use and Management Committee meetings, at a staff meeting with
the MHHA Board and with written correspondence. She summarized the
comments as stated in the staff report.
N. Hanko said that there is a flat area of the trail and noted that the District does
not have many handicap trails and she asked if this area would permit handicap
Page 4
Meeting 08-06
trail access. A. Christenson said that staff is planning on doing a review of the
District's accessibility policy and look at all of the trails on all of the preserves in
the next fiscal year. An evaluation of Overlook Trail would occur at that time.
L. Hassett asked how much the District has spent on properties of the 12 parcels
in this area. C. Britton said the District has spent in the range of$5 to $7 million.
K. Nitz asked why this project is happening now and if it is a priority for the
District. A. Christenson said that this project was mentioned during the Hayes
acquisition and the project was put on the Action Plan after the purchase. Once it
was put on the Action Plan in the fall of 2006, staff has continued working on the
proj ect.
K. Nitz asked if staff had a copy of the easements and A. Christenson said they
did. He asked if staff had a copy of the road management agreement. A.
Christenson said that staff has not been able to locate the District's copy and have
requested a copy from the MHHA, since it is not a recorded agreement.
K. Nitz asked how the number of six slots for the parking lot was determined. A.
Christenson said that six spaces fit very well given the physical size of the area.
She said it could be a lower number, but difficult with more than six. K. Nitz
asked if they looked at the usage or number of people on the trails and asked how
staff came up with the number. A. Christenson said that they determined the
number mostly from the size of the area.
K Nitz asked if the five(5) round trips was an average for a single-lane, private
road up in the mountains. A. Christenson said the statistics are not that specific.
K. Nitz asked how, when and how often the District will provide enforcement. D.
Sanguinetti replied that rangers routinely patrol through the area and they enforce
the regulations. K. Nitz asked how often"routinely"meant. D. Sanguinetti said
that it means on an as needed basis. With a new parking lot going in, staff would
increase its presence in the area at first to see how the use goes,but he said it
would be roughly once per day on the weekends and then a few visits during the
week days. P. Siemens asked if there was a staff person already living in the
former Hayes residence. D. Sanguinetti said that the house is currently vacant,but
they are in the process of choosing among four interested staff that want to live
there. C. Riffle asked what the expectations were of the employee who would
reside in the house. D. Sanguinetti said the staff s presence is the primary role,
and depending on the person's classification, they will have no direct enforcement
responsibilities (because a badged staff person will not be living there), but they
will be responsible for calling in problems, specifically to Los Gatos Police
Department, Santa Clara County Sheriff, and calling District staff. All of the
District's maintenance staff have fire fighting and first aid training. C. Riffle
asked if a neighbor could knock on the door of the staff person if they have a
question, or would the neighbor have to call the District's office. D. Sanguinetti
Page 5
Meeting 08-06
said that District employees who live on District preserves are accessible to
neighbors knocking on the door.
K. Nitz noted that the neighbors currently have problems with bicyclists and he
asked if the District is responsible for that now. A. Christenson said that the
current regulatory signs state that bicycle riding is allowed on the District
preserve; however,the District is not responsible for bicycle use in the
neighborhoods. Bicycling is considered to be a use that pre-existed the District's
purchases in this area.
N. Hanko said she remembered when the District first purchased properties in this
area that the neighbors were very welcoming. She said that she hoped the same
feelings existed in the neighborhood.
L. Hassett asked what the typical use of the other permit lots that the District has,
A. Christenson replied that the District keeps records of all of the permits, and
between spring and summer last year(6 months)both Bear Creek Redwoods and
La Honda permit parking lots had fewer than 10 cars per month. She said that
could change depending on the month or time of year.
C. Riffle asked for more information about number 5 on page 7 regarding the
signage. He also asked if the current road speed limit is 15 mph. A. Christenson
said she did not know the road's speed limit. She said that the 15 mph speed limit
is the typical speed on District's roads. The District could ask the permit holders
to follow a lower speed limit that could be followed by the neighbors. She added
that the District could install signs along the road, at the request of the MHHA, to
indicate the speed limit, or a narrow part of the road.
C. Riffle said that he has been following this issue for over a year by being a
member of the Use and Management Committee. He has visited the site. He
asked if Villa Montalvo and the trail behind it were an access option. M. Freeman
replied that Villa Montalvo has been identified as having a potential connection to
El Sereno Open Space Preserve. He said the connection would be steep, it is
possible to look at a connection over the long term.
P. Siemens asked if the long-term plan for Villa Montalvo was for a trail
connection to connect to the upper end of El Sereno. M. Freeman said it is
difficult to say.
A Freeman added that it was brought up that a staging area could be put in at
Villa Montalvo. The County Parks are very different from the open space
preserves. He said he looked at the Villa Montalvo website, and talked with the
county planners, it is a very different sort of place for visitors.
C. Riffle asked if the permit can be obtained without coming into the District's
office. A. Christenson said that people can call in, as with the other permits,
Page 6
Meeting 08-06
provide their information and then the permit can be faxed or mailed to them.
Director Siemens Board President asked for comments from the public.
Fairaborz Agandel, Overlook Dr., asked if he could go through the slides and said
that the proposed site was an isolated area, but if the access is in another area,
there would be more access to the open space. The proposed lot is not really
adding any value to the users of the park. He said that the 2.4 mile access at
Overlook Trail and asked why this area is more valuable than the other options.
He said they understand that the District is not advertising the road to the public,
but that the roads are being opened up for use by the public. He said it is a
secluded area that people will find out exists. He said that the District agreed to
pay$1.3 million dollars for the upgrade of the water system,but it was not to
allow people and the public to use the park and the area. He said that the six
roundtrips per day is not the same quality of the homeowners,but these would be
new drivers who do not know the area and roads, and putting up more signs or
mirrors is not going to help, and they don't want more signs or mirrors, so they
don't feel this is a solution. He said he hoped they would have a chance to drive
behind cars not familiar with the area. He asked who would enforce the rules and
regulations that make the visitors responsible. He said there is nobody there.
Someone showing up three or four times a week is not enough to enforce the rules
and regulations.
Elizabeth Twaddell, Overlook Dr., said she is the neighbor who lives right across
the street from the proposed parking lot. She said that it is not an accessible trail
currently. She said that it is not fair to say that they solicited the District to come
into their neighborhood and that they are now angry that they are there. She said
the property the District purchased had a covenant to provide water to all of the
houses below it. While the District put money in, they all put money in and it was
an agreement they all came to as a group that was mutually satisfactory. She said
that there are advantages to having the District there, but now this project is at
their disadvantage. She said these are private roads for which they take on all of
the liability and care for. The $17,000 was required of the District to contribute,
so this is not voluntary money given by the District,but a legal obligation for the
purchased property. She said that she is the one who brought up the idea of Villa
Montalvo because the argument brought before them is that this is the only
parking lot possible ever. She said she thought this is untrue. She said it is unfair
to ask them to "pony up"more money relative to everybody else,because these
are basically private roads for the benefit of the public. She said that the District's
right to invite the public onto their private roads because of the District's
ownership seems to her to not be a good argument. She said she has repeatedly
asked for what the legal basis is to open up their private roads to the public at the
District's request and she said that no one has given her a good answer. She said
it is an unfair request to ask them to open up their roads to the public. She said
that Villa Montalvo has 50,000 visitors per year because they have a huge arts
program. They have concerts constantly going. They have trails that are rustic,
just like Overlook Trail and there are parking lots, bathrooms, and water
Page 7
Meeting 08-06
fountains. There is a trail that runs from Overlook Trail to Villa Montalvo that
the District could uncover and then have an 8-mile trail that would be something
useful. She said she is at a loss as to why the District is not looking at something
that would be of more public value and not alienate its neighbors. The parking lot
is ill considered.
P. Siemens asked about her whole access on the trail and asked if it was because
of the condition or the steepness. Ms. Twaddell replied that she can go for a
while, noting that the picture that was shown was not very representative of the
trail, but that beginning of the trail is flat,but as it goes along it becomes less and
less flat. She goes to Rancho San Antonio and can go past Deer Hallow Farm and
that trail is wheelchair accessible even though it is not paved. Overlook Trail is
rough,uneven, steep,rutted, but there comes a certain point that she cannot go
further. Beyond people in wheelchairs, the trail is not useful for people who have
strollers, or people who have any sort of ambulatory difficulty.
Leslie Logan, Canon Dr., said she is very concerned about the safety on the roads.
A new parking lot would add to the issues. She said her question tonight was
about cyclists and that staff did not seem to feel this was a big concern to them.
She said that a site evaluation criteria was done for walking dogs on the trail. She
asked what sort of site criteria was done for cycling on the trail. The cyclists are
her biggest concern. The amount of cyclists using the road and new people
driving the roads who are not knowing the area is worrying. She said she didn't
have a sense that anybody cared about the cyclists.
C. Riffle asked for clarification about the cyclist about whether the concern was
about them going up the roads and then turning around and coming back down, or
did she think it was cyclists making a loop. Ms. Logan said her sense of it,
because they see 15 to 20 cyclists at a time, is that they are coming through the
preserve from the Los Gatos side, coming down the hill and then bicycling back to
Los Gatos.
M. Davey asked Ms. Logan how long she has lived there. Ms. Logan said she has
lived there 15 years. M. Davey asked if she has ever known of a bicyclist being
harmed during those 15 years. Ms. Logan said that she has not seen anyone be
harmed. M. Davey asked if she had ever had a sheriff come because of a cyclist
accident and Ms. Logan said not that she was aware of. Ms. Logan asked if this
mattered. She said that you have to encounter it to understand how scary it is for
someone driving on the road.
J. Cyr noted that Ms. Logan said that it seemed that some cyclists come through
that portion of the preserve and then go down hill on Overlook or Canon, so that
would seem to indicate they go in at gate ES06 in order to make that loop. He
said that he did not notice on the District map that there were connecting roads to
the ES06 gate,but did notice there were connecting roads in the southern section
of the preserve, so he didn't see how that loop would be made. He said he was
Page 8
Meeting 08-06
not disputing what Ms. Logan said,but he's just trying to figure out how folks are
making that kind of loop.
A. Christenson replied that on the District's brochure map, only the District's
trails are shown. Their maps do not show the neighborhood roads. When talking
about the loop, it includes Overlook Trail,but all of the neighborhood roads are
not shown, and so you might be able to see how a loop could be made.
Roger Hopkins, Overlook Dr., said he could answer the question about the
bicyclists stating that they absolutely come through the open space and out of that
gate and down our hill at 30 to 35 mph. He said he has a driveway that he needs
to come out really slow because it is a little bit blind. If he comes out of his
driveway and a bicyclist is coming down Overlook Drive, there is no way they are
going to be able to stop and they'll go flying over his car and someone is going to
end up getting killed. He said he has�no problem with the public using the open
space up there. He said it is a great thing that it is there. He said his problem is
the access to the area. With the District having people use their private roads to
use the open space, he said that is a huge problem, and it is just not right to put the
people who live there in that position. He said that the District has bought parcels
in the area and are parcel owners just like the rest of them. He said he didn't see
why they were coming to the District's meetings, but that the District Board
should be attending their homeowner meetings. He said that they have always had
a democratic situation where they live,with 22-23 homes up there, and they get
together and vote on things and they come up with the right solution. He said that
the District,by buying these parcels, acts like it can do anything it wants up there.
He gave an example of opening a restaurant at his home and wanting to put six to
eight parking spaces in front so that people could come enjoy dinner with a great
view. He said he didn't think people would put up with that at all. He said that
the District project is the same situation, except a lot more dangerous. He said his
wife wrote an e-mail to the District and she put together some numbers. He said
that if they take the 6 parking spots multiplied by 365 days per year, it comes to
2,190 cars. With two people in those cars, it adds up to 4,380 coming up there
every year. Even cutting that number in half, there is no resident present that
invites over two thousand people to their home in a year. He said the District's
argument does not carry much weight. He said the District staff presentations
make it look very simple, easy and looks great,but he said that the Board and staff
did not live in the area day-in and day-out and deal with all of the people going up
and down that road. He said he is afraid for his wife to walk down the road
because of some of the situations that they get into. He said people are very
hostile. He said she had a confrontation with a couple of bicyclists as she tried to
explain to them that these are private roads and that they should not be there. He
said she went up to the ranger station to get a ranger to talk to the two cyclists. He
said he had his head in his wife's car with his finger in her face, yelling at her.
He's on our private roads and he's yelling at her. He said it's not right and that
they deal with this all of the time. He said they deal with hostile people, garbage
on the road that they are picking up constantly, and what the District is proposing
Page 9
Meeting 08-06
will open up a can of worms and it will get worse than it has been before. He said
that A. Christenson said that the bicyclists were a pre-existing problem, and he
said it is a problem because they cannot be out there 24 hours a day stopping
people from coming up there.
M. Davey asked if the neighbors have an agreement with the sheriff's department
in Santa Clara County to provide law enforcement in their area. Mr. Hopkins
replied that they had to call the sheriff two weeks ago and he said the sheriff's
kind of agree that they should be able to do what they want on their private roads.
M. Davey asked if the sheriff makes regular trips, or does Mr. Hopkins have to
call for law enforcement. Mr. Hopkins said he thought they try to patrol the area
as much as they can, but it's not very often; when they are called the sheriff does
come, but by the time the sheriff gets there the other person is gone.
Allison Hopkins, Overlook Dr., said the open space is a beautiful area and she
hikes it all of the time. She said that the District is stretching it by saying that
people could go up and down the hill five times a day, adding that they would be
an idiot to go up and down five times a day. It would be very inefficient with time
management as well as gas planning. She said at most one would go up and down
once,maybe twice in a day. She said that multiplying out three times a day by
365 days would mean at least several thousand people going up and down the hill
with no knowledge of the hill. It is a dangerous situation for people who are not
used to it. She said it was upsetting that the six parking spots for a few people to
hike 2.4 miles has caused so much angst in the neighborhood. She said they did
not understand what the element of opening up the area to the public meant to the
neighborhood. She said she worries about the six permit holders telling their
friends, who will tell their friends, and that the compound effect is much larger.
She said her concern is about enforcement. There's never anybody in that house
to enforce anything. She has gone to the ranger office and there in no one ever
there. Last summer, a maintenance worker drove up the hill with his daughter in
the backseat, she fell out and hit her head. She and her husband went out and
attended to the girl until the ambulance arrived. She said the driver admitted he
was drunk. She asked how they going are oin to enforce that the six people with
e actually going to follow the rules and regulations. She asked if there
permits are y g g �
parking,the rather
was not another way for the District to find a different place for p g,
than entering a private road.
Steven Krotoski said he wrote an e-mail today asking the Board to abandon its
plans and asked if they were going to do that. P. Siemens said that the Board will
discuss and vote on the issue after the public hearing portion. Mr. Krotoski said
that he has had a horrible experience with the District. He said there are Board
and management failures in a preliminary report that is going to get bigger. He
said the report includes a recommendation that the Board should resign and that a
new Board would come in; it includes that the Board does not follow procedural
policies as G. Sam has admitted; failing to fulfill promises by saying one thing
and doing another; inaccurate reports by the staff. He said all of the presentations
Page 10
Meeting 08-06
are false. He said they would like to debate staff on their findings,because what
they have found is false. There are questionable ethical operations and quite a
double standard. There is growing tension, and this has made him very upset and
he said he's not an upset person. He said that he's been called names by the
District which he does not appreciate. There are unsafe uses by bicyclists and he
gave some examples. He said they need to look for a better solution someplace
else. He said the enforcement is not there. He said some of the bike use is from
the street and some of it is from the trail and he gave some examples. He said he
was going to fight the District as hard as he can because what the District is doing
is unethical and wrong. He said there is a technique in driving in the mountains
and it is easy to get lost. He said there is a double standard at the District and it is
pushy, obstinate, and staff has yet to reply to his e-mail from 90 days ago, and his
second e-mail 70 days ago. He asked that they cancel this plan and that they
should supervise their work because it is not accurate. He said he would be
sending further e-mails. He asked if the District buys into private neighborhoods
with the intent to make them public.
N. Hanko said that the Board is trying to do its job. The District has acquired a lot
of property in the area. They contributed to the water system and road repairs, and
they have provided open space there for a few neighbors, and it really a beautiful
piece of property. She said they are trying to find ways to introduce people to the
property that is not going to be hurtful to the neighborhood.
Mr. Krotoski said that he has run through all of these mountains and that there are
plenty of good vistas on them and he gave some examples. He said there is no
shortage of trails.
Stephen Clark said the District is lacking on some in-depth knowledge about the
road management. He said that before the District takes any action involved with
this project,he asked them not to take any action until the road management is
studied further. He said that safety is the number one issue for this project. He
said they need to be careful due to the bicycle riders. He said it is unfortunate and
the wrong neighborhood to want to create an access using their roads. He said
they should start at Villa Montalvo and stick with that area. He said that staff
needs to get road management confirmation first before going forward on the
project,because that is lacking information.
Mr. Agandel asked a further question about whether staff had spoken with the fire
marshal to get their opinion on the project.
P. Siemens closed the public hearing session.
J. Cyr said that one of the suggestions is for the Board to formalize bicycle transit
on Overlook Trail, but bicycles in the neighborhood seems to be one of the
concerns that was most disturbing in the conversations he's heard here and in the
e-mails. He asked what would be the possibility or impact of not choosing to
Page 11
Meeting 08-06
allow bicycles on Overlook Trail. M. Freeman said their recommendation reflects
the status quo approach to bicycle use on the trail. He said they recognize that
there was historic use or some existing use. He said that District staff heard at the
MHHA board meeting that one of their representatives have ridden the area for 20
years, including the trail. He said that to close the trail to bikes would be to
disenfranchise those who have historically used the trail, or those who have a
prescriptive right to do so. He said that they heard at the last Use and
Management meeting that there was great interest among bike users to maintain
their rights, and there was potential evidence that they could have a prescriptive
claim.
K. Nitz said he did not know it is a through trail for bicycles and asked if they can
close ES06 where the bikes are coming in, or do they need to leave it open to
bikes. M. Freeman said the gate is currently open to the neighbors on that side.
K:Nitz asked if there is no possible way to put parking down there. M. Freeman
said that staff looked very carefully at providing staging area locations elsewhere,
and its been brought up that there does not appear to be great public benefit to
establish parking to access a 1.2 mile trail, when in the south there is six miles of
other trails. He said it would have been staff s preference to expand parking at the
location,but currently it's limited to pull-out limited to two parking spaces off
Montevino Road. It is difficult to engineer a larger lot. He said at the last Use
and Management meeting there was a resident who inferred that a portion of the
pull-out was on his property, and it is, in fact, an encroachment,which is an issue
staff is exploring. K. Nitz asked about the area at ES06 in Linda Vista and if they
could not create parking there. M. Freeman said it is not possible there. K. Nitz
asked if it was too steep. M. Freeman said there are very steep hillsides and drop
offs.
K. Nitz asked about the eight (8) mile road and if staff knows about it. M.
Freeman said they have been in talks with Santa Clara County Parks about trail
connections to Villa Montalvo,but to his knowledge he is not aware of an existing
alignment that meets the District's current trail standards, but he will look into it.
Someone in the audience added that she has hiked it and that the trail is pretty
overgrown with poison oak and other things, but she said it used to be a fire road
and it went toward the Saratoga side. She said the left side goes toward Los
Gatos, and in the other direction it goes toward Villa Montalvo. She said the trail
clearly exists, but it just needs to be cleared.
K. Nitz asked staff if it is possible to look into this road/trail before the March 26
meeting. M. Freeman said he would look into it.
K. Nitz asked if a cyclist evaluation was done, or if they did not do one because of
the pre-existing use. M. Freeman said they considered it a historic and existing
use so they did not do an evaluation of the trail.
Page 12
Meeting 08-06
P. Siemens asked if the proposed permit parking lot would have no impact on the
bicycle use in the preserve. M. Freeman said it would have no impact on
bicycling through the preserve.
C. Britton spoke about the dog criteria. He said there is bicycle criteria,but it
would be for a new site with no existing use and they are determining if use is
appropriate. They do the same thing with dog use. He said that if there was
existing dog use, they would not apply that criteria to review that use without
having a public hearing. He said they do not typically look at a existing uses to
end them,but they look at their master planning process of where they might open
areas to dogs or bikes.
N. Hanko said that she was not willing to vote for anything tonight. She said that
she heard the audience asking them to attend one of the homeowners meetings and
thought that the Good Neighbor Policy might be include them going to their
meeting. She said she would like to learn a little bit more, for instance about the
trail that's been closed, before she makes a decision. C. Britton said that staff has
attended the homeowner meetings.
C. Britton said he attended the neighborhood meetings when they were purchasing
the Bishop-Krone property. He said he wanted to give some background on that
property, especially for those who have moved into the neighborhood recently.
He said the Bishop-Krone property has a 30-year history. He said he's worked at
the District the entire time and he gave some historically significant information
about the property. He said there was a lot of litigation involved regarding the
water system and road maintenance. He said the water problem is not a new
problem. He said the District helped build a new water system there and the
District was considered a great friend. It is a much better area than it had been
and new houses have been built as a result. He said that the neighbors and the
District have worked together for years in the area and have had a good
relationship. He said that the District is asking for a minimal disturbance, and in
fact, he thinks they will find that their permit lots receive very few visitors. He
said he was sorry it has come to this situation, upsetting to the neighborhood and
that their proposal was reasonable. He added that he did not think that Villa
Montalvo was an answer for the District. He said it may be a main parking area
for people to hike up and back. He said that someday, working with San Jose
Water Works land may come into District ownership and that they could connect
the two trail systems. This proposal is the lowest possible impact.
C. Britton said there was no lien against the Hayes property. He said the District
refused to close escrow until they paid the $17,000 dollars and in fact asked why
there was no lien against the property and was told that the road association did
means to do so. H e said that the District was instrumental in making
not have a m g
sure the Hayes' did pay the $17,000. He said that he hoped the neighbors would
find that the District is a good neighbor, and that it provides several thousand
0
ei
acres of open space in the area, and that 9010 of the use is probably neighborhood
Page 13
Meeting 08-06
use and not public use. He said the District does not publish their roads on its
maps and nobody will find the permit lot without a map. He said District staff is
very professional and that A. Christenson has done a good job. He said he was
sorry this was a difficult issue, but his recommendation remains for the Board to
approve this project and move forward.
M. Davey said the District's mission statement says the District shall provide
opportunities for ecological sensitive public enjoyment and education. She said
they represent seven wards in three counties, or almost I million people, and of
those people they all pay taxes and they have a right to visit the land the District
has purchased since 1972. This project is caring out that purchase to provide
access to publicly owned land that all of you and all of them have paid taxes
toward. She said that staff has met with the neighbors and has talked with the
public at large, spoken with the Board, and they have gone through many
evolutions of trying to find an answer. She said this is the most modest and most
practical way that they have found to allow the vast public a very tiny ability to
access an absolutely beautiful piece of land that has been all of ours since 1974.
She said she was sorry that the neighbors feel as deeply as they do,but it is the
Board's responsibility to look at the greater need, greater good, and the greater
access for all the people. She said there will be another meeting on March 26 and
the Board will pay attention to what the public has said, and they will look at what
has been presented this meeting.
Motion: M. Davey moved adoption of the General Manager's
recommendation to tentatively approve a Use and Management
Plan Amendment for El Sereno, Open Space Preserve to establish a
6-car permit-only parking lot at the end of Overlook Drive past
Gate ES05; Provide enforcement of"no parking" Ordinances at the
end of Overlook Drive adjacent to the Preserve, including the
installation of"No Parking" signs; and formally designate
Overlook Trial as open to hiking, bicycling, and on-leash dog use.
C. Riffle seconded the motion.
Discussion: L. Hassett said that as chair of the Use and Management
Committee and having spent several years on this project, and
having been the one to ask about looking into the opt-out option,
and being convinced that it is the wrong direction to go,he said he
would support the tentative approval. He said he would do so,
because to not support it would create a private open space
preserve paid for by public funds and he said he would have a real
problem sitting on this Board, spending as much money as they
have,he cannot see closing this area off to the public who paid for
it. He said there are prescriptive rights that pre-date the District's
acquisition and they continue to be in effect for the bicyclists,
hikers and for neighbors to use the trails there. Whether the
District owns the property or not, the prescriptive uses of the land
Page 14
Meeting 08-06
will be legally permitted. As he sat through the Hayes acquisition,
he said he heard the public come forward from the MHHA urging
the Board to buy the Hayes property. Looking at the staff report
when they were purchasing the Hayes property, it is clear that one
ns to bu was to correct and improve
of the main reasons y that property rove p
on a public access point. He said at that point he did not hear a
single person from MHHA telling the Board not to buy that
property.
L. Hassett wanted to give his experience as a neighbor to open
space preserves. He said as a direct neighbor to open space and
said where his property was adjacent to Skyline Ridge and Long
Ridge Open Space Preserves. He said there is a regional ridge trail
that crosses his driveway. He said there are cars coming up and
down the ridge that compare or are worse than the roads at
,Montgomery Highlands, one-lane roads with blind corners, yet the
public is welcome. He said that the Montgomery Highlands
neighborhood will absolutely not encounter the 6-cars per day
multiplied by 365 days in the year and the number of visitors that
equals out to be. He said the Allen Road example is a similar
situation that there are not even ten permits asked for in a month
for access to the parking lot at the end of Allen Road. He said the
lot at Allen Road has never been at full capacity and it has far more
trails for people to use. He said the permit process they are talking
about now is a protective mechanism to make sure that the District
falls within what it is promising to deliver, which is to deliver a
minimal amount of public access which the public has bought and
paid for and deserves to have in a very regulated way. The District
will live up to its legal obligations. He said this is a step in the
right direction to formalize an access point that works for the
District, the public, and he said if they give it a chance it will work
for the MHHA.
C. Riffle thanked the public for attending the meeting and for their
e-mail messages. He said he has read all of them and really
appreciates their input and passion about this. He thanked staff,
and especially A. Christenson who he said did a great job in a
tough situation. He said he's studied the project, he's visited the
site, he's listened to the comments, and given the mission of the
it
a etter solution although
District, he said he could not think of b
won't solve everything.
P. Siemens said that he had mixed feeling and was on the fence
about the project. On the one hand they need the access and the
project that has been proposed is probably better for the neighbors.
The fact that the District will put in"no parking" signs and cite
Page 15
Meeting 08-06
people who are parking on Overlook Drive as part of the project
will have a huge benefit. On the other hand, he noted that the
neighbors are opposed. He said that tonight he would not support
the motion and would wait until the March 26 meeting. He said he
thought the best answer right now is to leave the area as status quo
and see how that works for now,but he said he didn't think anyone
would be happy with that in the long run.
Vote: P. Siemens asked for a roll call vote. G. Sam asked each Board
member their vote: Director Cyr voted aye; Director Davey voted
aye; Director Hanko voted no; Director Hassett voted aye; Director
Riffle voted aye; Director Nitz voted aye; President Siemens voted
no. The motion passed 5 to 2.
P. Siemens said that the final report will be due for the March 26, 2008 meeting and said
that staff has some additional research to do between now and then that might add some
additional information. He said he would be interested in finding out more about the
possible trail connection from Villa Montalvo.
C. Britton said that staff took notes on the issues that have come up and they will do the
additional research. He asked the Board to e-mail any additional questions to A.
Christenson.
P. Siemens said he did appreciate all of the work that staff has done. It has been
excellent.
V1. ADJOURNMENT
P. Siemens adjourned the Special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space District adjourned at 9:27 pm.
Lisa Zadek
Recording Secretary
Page 16