Loading...
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