HomeMy Public PortalAbout19950708 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 95-17 'as
Open Spa
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Meeting 95-17
SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AGENDA
10:00 A.M. Gate at Intersection of
Saturday Skyline Boulevard and Portola Park Heights Road,
July 8, 1995 Long Ridge Open Space Preserve
San Mateo County
(10:00) ROLL CALL
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -- Public
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
BOARD BUSINESS
1. Neighborhood Workshop for Long Ridge Open Space Preserve - Site Visit and
Discussion of Proposed Use and Management Plan Items Including Trail Use
and Road Issues
(12:00) ADJOURNMENT
Members of the public not able to attend this neighborhood meeting are encouraged to relay their
comments in advance of the meeting to either Mary Gundert, Open Space Planner, or Jean Fiddes,
District Clerk at (415) 691-1200.
------------------
330 Distel Circle - Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 - Phone:415-691-1200 - FAX:415-091-0485 * E-mail: nitosd@netconixorn @
Hoard of Oiw(tots:Pete Siernem,Maly C. [).iwy, feerm Henshaw,Ginny Bahbitt,Nonetle Kinko,Betsy Crowder,Win)de Wit
Goner,i/m,imiget:1.(roig Britton
Open Spa
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
1
R-95-91
Meeting 95-17
July 8, 1995
AGENDA ITEM
Neighborhood Workshop for Long Ridge Open Space Preserve
BACKGROUND
A neighborhood meeting was held with residents of the Portola Park Heights on Tuesday, April
25, 1995 to discuss a proposed alignment for the Bay Area Ridge Trail. The proposed trail
crosses Portola Park Heights Road near the existing Skyline Boulevard entrance gate. The
meeting was attended by approximately 20 people. At that time, there appeared to be general
support of the Ridge Trail alignment. Some concerns were expressed over liability, signing,
trespass, and the location and configuration of this particular crossing and other future trail
crossings.
Following the workshop, a use and management plan amendment to construct the Bay Area
Ridge Trail segment across Portola Park Heights Road was presented to the Board of Directors
at their May 24, 1995 meeting. Several Portola Park Heights neighbors attended the meeting
and raised concerns and questions relating to private landowner liability, federal relief from
damage incurred during the winter storms, additional trail crossings affecting Portola Park
Heights Road, converting the existing entrance gate at Skyline Boulevard to an electric gate,
installing additional gates at the District's boundary with private property, and additional
comments on the proposed trail alignment. A decision on the trail alignment was delayed until
a second workshop could be held on-site. Minutes from the May 24 meeting are attached (see
Exhibit 1).
DISCUSSION
Some of the concerns raised at both the April 25 and May 24 meetings are addressed below.
Additional discussion will occur at the July 8 meeting.
Bay Area Ridge Trail Crossing on Portola Park Heights Road
The proposed trail crossing on Portola Park Heights Road is located adjacent to the existing gate
entrance at Skyline Boulevard. A site plan representing the existing conditions is attached as
Exhibit 2. A site plan showing the proposed trail crossing is attached as Exhibit 3. The
proposed plan shows the fencing, stiles, and signing solutions discussed at the April 25
workshop. These additional improvements will alert trail users to (1) remain on the trail; (2)
slow and/or dismount to cross the road; (3) be aware of vehicle traffic. Additional signing will
be posted to alert vehicle drivers of the trail crossing.
330 Diste I Circle: * Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 - Phone: 4'1 5-691-1200 « FAX:415-691-0485 N E-mail: ntrosd@netcom.com
Board or Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C.Davey,Teena I ienshaw,Ginny Babbitt, Nonette I ianko,How Crowder,Winn de Wit
General Manager:1_.Craig Britton
R-95-91 Page 2
Additional Trail Crossings on Portola Park Heights Road
With the District's recent purchase of Devils Canyon, trail planning linking the Devils Canyon
trails to the remainder of the preserve trail system has become a priority. The preserve's trails
are currently being inventoried for their physical characteristics as the first step in formulating
a trails plan for the preserve. Prior to the completion of the trails plan, staff's best estimate is
that there will be two additional trail crossings developed on Portola Park Heights Road within
the next five years. At the present time, there are at least three frequently-used, informal trail
crossings of Portola Park Heights Road. The known crossings are identified on the attached site
map, identified as Exhibit 4. The trail crossings will be completed with signing, fencing, and
stiles to limit the crossing of Portola Park Heights Road to a specific location. Line-of-sight
considerations will play an important role in determining the best location for the crossings. The
exact crossing locations are not known at this time.
Electric Gate
In late 1992, a member of the Portola Park Heights Homeowners Association began to work
with District staff to obtain rights to bring electrical service to the existing gate in order to install
an electric gate. The service was to be obtained from a power pole located approximately five
hundred feet south of the Skyline Boulevard gate. A license agreement was formulated giving
the homeowners association the authority to complete the work. In exchange, the District was
to receive a one-time $500 credit toward the District's share of road improvements on Portola
Park Heights Road. The agreement was approved by the District's Board of Directors at your
January 13, 1993 meeting, but was never executed by the homeowners association.
Some members of the homeowners association wish to have an electric gate installed as part of
the Bay Area Ridge Trail project. Recently, staff has been working with neighbors to the north
of the Long Ridge Preserve to complete a separate acquisition and development project. This
project is known as the Fowkes driveway project. The project entails the acquisition of a small
piece of land, fencing, signing, and installation of a section of the Bay Area Ridge Trail. The
project also includes replacement of an existing electric gate.
The conditions present at the Fowkes driveway are very different from the conditions present
at Portola Park Heights Road. The Fowkes driveway entrance from Skyline Boulevard is located
at the southern end of a long sweeping bend in the highway. Line-of-sight is very limited on
the highway, as well as at the trail crossing. In addition, the replacement of the gate was
negotiated as part of the land acquisition. Lastly, the project is funded by a state grant,
requiring no out-of-pocket expenses by the District. See the diagram of the Fowkes driveway
project attached as Exhibit 5.
The electric gate for the Fowkes driveway consists of two eight-foot wide metal gates. The
gates will be operated by two motors attached to a keypad or remote control opening system.
When open, the gates will block the trail crossing. The cost of installing the two gates is
approximately $11,000. This does not include incidental costs associated with the fencing,
stiles, and signing. This project utilizes existing electrical power on the site. The neighbors are
responsible for maintenance costs and the cost of utilities. Fencing and signing similar to that
proposed for the Portola Park Heights Road crossing is proposed.
R-95-91 Page 3
Legal Issues
As mentioned at both the April 25 and the May 24 meetings, a letter was to be sent to the
Portola Park Heights Homeowners Association from District legal counsel regarding residents'
concerns about liability in relation to the road. A letter was sent to Candace Stone on June 28,
1995. A copy is attached (see Exhibit 6).
Portola Park Heights Road passes through land already owned in fee by the District. As owner
of the fee, the District may use all parts of its property, including the road, so long as it does
not unreasonably interfere with use by the easement holders. Whether a particular use is an
unreasonable interference is a factual determination. The District will be examining a variety
of means of encouraging safe use by the easement holders, and the users of District land which
will not unreasonably interfere with use by the easement holders. These means could include
painting crosswalks, installing stop signs, and/or establishing speed limits as necessary and
appropriate. Motorists have a general duty to operate vehicles in a safe manner whether on
public or private roads. The District will be working closely with its neighbors to achieve a
reasonable balance between the needs and rights of all parties involved.
Road Maintenance
There is a recorded road maintenance agreement for the property owners with access rights on
Portola Park Heights Road. The formula is based on the ownership of road frontage. The
District's share has changed over the years due to the purchase of additional parcels as part of
the Long Ridge Open Space Preserve. The current amount the District pays as set by the
formula amounts to 70 percent of 50 percent of the road maintenance costs, or 35% of the cost.
Since 1984 the District has paid $33,822.
The methodology used in creating the road maintenance agreement was based upon the
assumption that all parcels would be developed. The agreement was in place when the District
first purchased property in the Long Ridge area. The District pays for a much greater
percentage of the road maintenance costs than a formula based strictly upon frequency and
distance of use, which would ordinarily apply utilizing the District road and maintenance
agreement policy. The District's policy relies on Civil Code Section 845, which states in part
that the road maintenance costs are "proportional to the use made of the road by each owner."
Case law also dictates that developed property pay a greater share than unimproved property.
District vehicle use of the road is much less than is implied by the recorded agreement. Staff
estimates the District's use of the road to be as little as the equivalent to one developed parcel,
to as much as five developed parcels if public trail use were encouraged and included. Under
the Civil Code, the District's contribution could be as low as 2% to as high as 10% of the road
maintenance costs.
Additional Concerns
Neighbors will have the opportunity to discuss any of the above items or any other items at the
July 8, 1995 meeting.
Prepared by:
Mary Gundert, Open Space Planner
Contact person:
Same as above
Excerpt from May 24 , 1995 Minutes Exhibit 1
V. BOARD BUSINESS
A. Agenda Item 1 - Amendment to the Use and Management Plan for Long
Ridge Open Space Preserve to Construct a Portion of the Bay Area Ridge
Trail (Report R-95-66)
R. Anderson highlighted the staff report, noting that the District's National
Recreational Trails Fund grant includes the construction of a one-mile
segment, mostly on Long Ridge Open Space Preserve, of the Bay Area Ridge
Trail. He said that the proposed trail would cross Portola Park Heights Road
near the existing gate at Skyline Boulevard and showed overheads depicting the
proposed trail alignment and crossing. He stated that a neighborhood meeting
was held on April 25, 1995 with Portola Park Heights residents to discuss the
trail alignment and crossing. He said that staff would be addressing concerns
regarding signing and trespass in the design of the trail crossing and that
district legal counsel would be responding to liability issues that had been
raised.
Sandra Touchatt, P. O. Box 254, Redwood City, asked if any other trail
crossings were proposed, said she felt a two-way gate at the trail crossing
would be appropriate to protect trail users and the Portola Park Heights
residents, adding that bicyclists created the real problem, said she felt the
District had not been a good neighbor because the District had not worked
with the Portola Park Heights neighbors on application for FEMA funds for
road damage on the Portola Park Heights Road, and questioned the District
ranger's role at the Portola Park Heights Road Association meetings. In
g g
response to S. Touchatt's questions, R. Anderson said that there could be
additional trail crossings in the future, and J. Escobar explained the application
process the District followed as a public agency to apply for FEMA funds and
said that District staff attend road association meetings primarily to participate
in decisions regarding road repair.
Charlie Touchatt, P. O. Box 254, Redwood City, stated that he felt the
District ranger at the Portola Park Heights Road Association meetings, held
prior the FEMA application deadline, should have informed the residents that
the District was applying for FEMA funds and should have suggested the
residents look into FEMA funding, expressed his thanks to the District field
staff for all their help during the winter storms, requested that Board meeting
packets be mailed earlier, questioned the exact location of the trail crossing to
the entrance gate, and stated the District had to be very_ careful that the
proposed trail did not become a four-wheel drive trail.
Dr. Linda Huntimer, 400 Doherty Ridge Road, La Honda, a newly-elected
member of the Portola Park Heights Association, explained the process she
used to apply for FEMA funds in behalf of the association prior to the second
application deadline, said she felt it would be good to exchange information of
mutual interest at the road association meeting, and requested she be added to
the notification list, noting she had not received a notice for the April 25
Exhibit 1 (cont)
Meeting 95-12 Page 3
neighborhood meeting. C. Britton, after confirming that Dr. Huntimer was a
new property owner in the area, stated that her name and address was not on
the District's most current assessor's list microfiche used to notify neighbors
as required by Board policy.
T. Henshaw, referring to the application for FEMA funding, suggested that the
Board review the Good Neighbor Policy, with a particular focus on being
more cognizant of two-way communication that benefits both the District and
the District's neighbors. C. Britton stated that the District should have
informed neighbors about its FEMA application activities, adding that staff
would investigate whether anything could be done at this time to assist the
Portola Park Heights residents.
In response to a question posed by Portola Park Heights resident Pat O'Coffey
regarding legal concerns that were documented and raised at the April 25
meeting, S. Schectman stated that staff was researching the liability concerns
and would be responding in a letter. She said that there are a couple issues,
adding that there are alot of immunities that protect both private property
owners and public agencies for recreational users. She said the issue of
negligence would not be covered by these immunities.
Dr. Huntimer stated that she and the other residents were very concerned and
very interested in having the gate installed so that the residents are protected
when hikers cross the trail and so that the residents can show they have done
everything they need to do so that someone is not hurt or injured and so that
the residents are not liable for an injury to a trail user.
Board discussion centered on the need to meet with the Portola Heights
residents to discuss their concerns, the scheduling, and the type of meeting that
should be held. There was Board concurrence to hold an on-site meeting with
the full Board in attendance to review the proposed trail and trail crossing and
other concerns of the residents, including the gate being proposed by the
residents. N. Hanko said that after the full Board met with the neighbors a
sub-committee could be formed, if necessary, to address various concerns. B.
Crowder requested that the minutes from this agenda item be sent to residents
in advance of the on-site meeting, and the Board requested that at least a
month's notice be given in advance of the meeting. P. Siemens requested that
staff have tentative design ideas for the proposed trail crossing, including
alignment and dimensions, for review at the on-site meeting. N. Hanko
requested that Portola Park Heights Homeowners Association collect all their
concerns prior to the meeting for discussion with the Board at the meeting.
Exhibit i (cont)
Meeting 95-12 Page 4
Leslie Wadsworth, Portola Parks Heights, requested that the Board strongly
consider installation of an electric gate in light of the heavy use anticipated on
the trail and hazards associated with bicycles, adding that she did not feel the
District had been a good neighbor when not allowing an easement for an
electrical connection.
William Obermayer, 22400 Skyline Boulevard, #22, La Honda, stated that he
stands by his previous letter sent to the Board, expressed his concerns
regarding his liability if there's an accident on the road and his concerns
regarding the proposed trail crossing and the District's notification policies for
people with easement rights. He said he believes the gate should be installed
where public access to the private road ends.
Motion: M. Davey moved that the Board continue the discussion until a
meeting is set at a convenient time for all parties.sometime
during the month of July to discuss the Portola Park Heights
neighbors' concerns. B. Crowder seconded the motion. The
motion passed 7 to 0.
Exhibit 2
BAY AREA RIDGE TRAIL ALIGNMENT I
PORTOLA PARK HEIGHTS ROAD
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Existing
Disc Line
a�
O
IL
I �
Mailboxes
p Q I
Line of Sight T— - 30' — 70'
130' I
Existing
12' Gate
50'-
Caltrans
Right of Way
NJ 1
i
Scale 1 " = 25'
July 1 , 1995
Exhibit 3
BAY AREA RIDGE TRAIL ALIGNMENT I
PORTOI.A PARK HEIGHTS ROAD I
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
Existing I
Disc Line
1 ' L
Install Signs Alerting Trail
Users of Driveway Xing I o
"Watch for Cars, Cross with Caution" °0
I � �
I Install
I
Remove Split Rail U)
Existing Vegetation I Fencing Mailboxes
gy
I i Q
i I
Line of Sight - 30' 70' - - --�-
130' — _ � � I
- - SkA Existing
Stiles 12' Gate
� I
Install Signs Alerting Cars \���\�. Proposed
of Trail Crossing Multi-Use Trail
"Trail Crossing Ahead"
50' -
Caltrans
Right of Way
i N
1
i
Scale 1 " = 25'
July 1 , 1995
�, „ �._ . o Upper Stevens Creek ,
�" 1�� �� ,L_ Gee a ,f3°o� ` •� '� '�; .1� �� County Park
Ridge Trail 1�1111 1�,� ,� i - ff`
Skyline Boulevard �'
-000
O11 �����`. Parkin I , J J
� � � t , .,; 'J `�l�\\�Jf,���y 1 t�� �• `'� , ti �l4 Proposed Trail
Crossing
SKYLINE RIDGE '' ,f•� �. � � Grizzly Flat 4�
t I OPEN SPACE PRESERVE, \ Potential Trail ��- �••� I Parking Area
f�
Alignment � ,� :� , ';�•�� �
`( I �
ex} Ridge Trail
01G, Existing `\ _
Trail `
ice'`-.� "J � .-� ;<< �:-�-f � •�1 �1 (`?�� � /' ' .\`�` _ �.., •�� lF/ .�, .) f
Exhibit 4
` LONG RIDGE/
?TRAIL CONNECTIONS BETWEEN r,��f ��; - l �� ;1` OPEN SPACE PRESERVE
' l` T
.�j SKYLINE AND LONG RIDGE
'1 \
�
OPEN SPACE PRESERVES �•�V�� " ��; ,- �: .
1 I Scale: 1" = Approx. 1,200' �. ;;1 p(, �,� ) } )i�' Nort
INSTALL PRESERVE BOUNDARY
SIGNS EVERY 75 FT. ALONG FENCE
a
PROPOSED NEW LANDSCAPING
(RECOMMEND 5 GAL NATIVE
RIGHT-OF-WAY
SHRUBS) SEE BELOW
PROPOSED NEW 4'-0" _ A�� LAND AQUIRED FROM
HIGH FIELD FENCE � -- `r�f� FOWKES ( APPROX. 0.75 AC.)
6' \ CENTERLINE
;
w ` 01 + �_
INSTALL SIGNS ALERTING TRAIL
USERS OF DRIVEWAY XING "WATCH
FOR CARS, CROSS WITH CAUTION"
REALIGN EXISTING
DRIVEWAY
J( `
RELOCATE EXISTING
12'-0" GATE
WOODEN GATE IS TO BE USED
WHEN VEHICLE GATES ARE LEFT OPEN
PROPOSED TWO 8'-0" GATES
I (EXISTING 17'-0" ELECTRIC GATE
SUGGESTED NATIVE SHRUBS: WILL BE SALVAGED)
RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA (COFFEE BERRY) FOWKES
RIBES CALIFORNICA (CALIFORNIA GOOSEBERRY) N
PROPOSED SITE PLAN T
Exhibit 5
NOV. 1993
Open Spac EXHIBIT
-----------------------
A..
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
June 28, 1995
Portola Park Heights Homeowners Association
c/o Candace Stone
Route 2
Box 336
La Honda, CA 94020
Subject: Long Ridge Open Space Preserve - Liability for injury to persons using
Portola Heights Road
Dear Ms. Stone:
This letter is intended to address concerns your Homeowners' Association may have
regarding the extent of potential liability of the easement holders for District users of
Portola Heights Road. It is important to note that there are two very distinct issues
involved. One is the potential liability of an easement holder for injuries caused by the
condition or design of the road. The second is the potential liability of an easement
holder driving on the road causing injury or damage to another user of the road.
Liability of the easement holders for injuries caused by the condition or design of the
d: In assessing liability for the easement holders, it makes a significant difference
who is using the easement. In general, easement holders have an obligation to
maintain the easement in a safe condition. The duty is owed equally to other easement
holders, the owner of the underlying fee and any other user of the easement. Under
California law, the duty to maintain the easement in a safe condition is owed to all
persons who may happen to enter the property. It does not matter whether that
person is an owner, an easement holder, a tenant, a guest, an invitee, or even a
trespasser. There is, however, an exception to that general rule. To the extent that
easement holders can be protected from injuries to any persons-or property they are the
least liable to the recreational users of District land because of the protection provided
by Civil Code Section 846, California's Recreational Use Statute, which will be
discussed in more detail later on.
Duty of care owed to non-recreational users: A property owner, including an easement
owner, must use ordinary care in the use or management of his other property so as to
avoid injury to others. This does not require insuring the safety of others; it does
mean using reasonable care in view of the probability of injury to others. Determining
330 Distel Circle • Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 • Phone: 415-691-1200 • FAX: 415-691-0485 • E-mail: mrosd@netcom.com
Board of Directors:Pete Siemens, Mary C.Davey, Teena Henshaw.Ginny Babbitt,Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder.Wim de Wit
General Manager:L.Craig Britton
Portola Park Heights Homeowners Assn. Page 2
June 28, 1995
liabilityrequires examining the facts of each case, includingassessing such thins as
q 9 9 9
the foreseeability of harm.
In examining whether the care used was reasonable in a particular case, a court will
ordinarily look at the surrounding circumstances. In the case of a road, for example, a
court might look to how the road is ordinarily used, what uses should reasonably be
expected on the road, and whether under the circumstances the condition presented an
unreasonable risk of injury.
The easement at issue here is non-exclusive and was intended to serve both residential
and commercial (logging) purposes. By its express terms, it serves both pedestrians
and vehicles. The easement provides for ingress and egress as well as a corridor for
the installation of utilities. The terms of the easement expressly contemplated future
subdivision and resubdivision of the parcels. The easement is not expressly restricted
to residential use. Under these circumstances, a court might hold that the reasonable
expectation of the easement holder is that it will be used by pedestrians and all manner
of vehicles and that there would be increasing use of the easement over time. The
court might, therefore, conclude that the easement should be designed, maintained and
used with these risks in mind. Such reasoning might be used to determine whether or
not there is adequate speed control, whether sight lines are adequate, or if warning
signs might reduce risk of injury.
Duty of care owed to recreational users: California's Recreational Use Statute (Civil
Code Section 846) provides private landowners with significant immunity for injuries to
people using private property for recreational use. As a result, the risk of liability to the
easement holders from recreational users of District land is less than would have been
the case had the property been subdivided and residentially developed. Section 846
provides that a property owner has no duty of care to keep the premises safe, or warn
of hazardous conditions, as to persons entering or using the property for any
recreational purpose. This is true even if the property owner would be liable to a guest,
invitee, customer, or other person entering for purposes other than recreational use of
the property.
The protection provided by Section 846 is not complete immunity, but it is substantial.
The immunity covers injuries caused by the condition of the premises. The purpose of
the statute is to encourage property owners to allow recreational use of private
property. The statute has been construed to include easement holders as well as land
owners.
The difference in liability to the recreational user from what is ordinarily owed to other
types of property users is very significant. If an injury were alleged to be caused, for
i
Portola Park Heights Homeowners Assn Page 3
June 28, 1995
example, by improper maintenance of the road, the easement holders might be immune
from liability to a recreational bicyclist even if they would be liable if the injured party
was instead another easement holder commuting home from work on a bicycle.
There are three circumstances in which the statutory immunity won't apply. First,
Section 846 immunity does not cover injuries caused by "willful or malicious failure to
guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity." Thus, if the
easement is known to be in a dangerous condition such that a serious injury was
probable, as opposed to possible, there is a possibility that the immunity could not
apply and the easement holders would be liable. Such malicious behavior has rarely
been found. Second, immunity from liability also does not apply where the property
owner charges a fee for entry. Third, immunity does not apply to persons who are
expressly invited onto the land by the easement holder, rather than merely permitted to
enter.
Liability for an individual driving on the road causing injury or damage to some other
user of the road: Every person has a duty to operate their motor vehicles in a safe
manner. There is no recreational use immunity for negligent operation of a motor
vehicle. The determination as to whether due care in driving was used will depend, in
part, upon the reasonable expectations of the driver. The easement is non-exclusive
and currently serves at least 20 parcels. Additionally, the express terms of the
easement contemplate further subdivisions, as well as commercial uses such as
logging. The easement expressly describes use by pedestrians as well as vehicles.
Under the circumstances the reasonable driver must expect to find both pedestrians
and all manner of vehicles using the road. Thus an individual who is using the roadway
must use the road with due care and respect for the risk that there will be others using
the road, regardless of whether the user is an easement holder, a landowner, a
recreational user, a guest, or even a trespasser.
Though there is no immunity for negligent driving, if a lawsuit were brought based upon
an accident caused by a condition of the road, such as site distance, the Recreational
Use Statute would apply.
Conclusion: The Recreational Use Statute provides a significant degree of protection to
private landowners. Although there is no guarantee that the easement holders will
never be liable for injuries to users of District land, the risk of liability is less than would
have been the case had the property been privately developed as anticipated. Although
the Recreational Use Immunity Statute is not a license to be careless or reckless, the
duty of care owed to non-paying recreational users is less than would be required for
the invitees, owners and residents of the developed property.
We hope this letter has addressed some of your concerns regarding liability. Both the
District and your group have an interest in insuring safe use by all. Safety is important
Portola Park Heights Homeowners Assn Page 4
June 28, 1995
to the District in determining when and how public access will be provided on District
lands. The District will explore, with its neighbors, various ways to address these
concerns. These methods can include consideration of trail location, trail design,
signage, various means of directing visitor traffic, establishing appropriate speed limits
or other appropriate traffic controls.
Very truly yours,
'.6�;-c�� }
Susan M. Schectman
Legal Counsel
SMS:ej
cc: Board of Directors
I
ARGUMENT FOR COOPER
ATION BETWEEN PPHPOA AND
MROSD REGARDING TRAIL CROSSING AT FRONT GATE.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.,.
Our neighborhood association (PPHPOA) should not pursue a dispute with the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) over a trail crossing at the
front gate. Many neighbors care deeply about maintaining a strong level of
cooperation between residents and the Open Space District. And many of us are
not interested in financing or participating in a legal dispute over the district's right
to establish a trail which simply needs to cross the road. We need to be reasonable
with MROSD, not join in with a couple of neighbors who choose to constantly be
antagonistic with the District, and accept that the hiking public should and will be
allowed access to this public property. The Open Space District can certainly win
any legal battle we initiate allowing their right to have a trail cross over an
easement on their property. An easement is an unrestricted right to pass through
someone else's property, not ownership control of how that easement is otherwise
used by the property owner. The fact is that the Open Space District initiated the
first meeting at the gate and has worked hard to foster community cooperation.
This is their style, not a requirement.
It is unfair for the same anti-MROSD property owners to demand an electric gate
in exchange for acceptance of the trail crossing. This is simply an unfair demand.
MROSD should not use taxpayers funds in such inappropriate ways. And it is not
fair to blame this MROSD proposal for all of our ongoing concerns about liability.
The issue of liability must be addressed, at the trail crossings and throughout our
road system, and must be our primary concern. The District shares these concerns,
has records of previous agreements, legal opinions and can prove to be very
helpful to us in this regard.
Earlier this year PPHPOA and MROSD showed us all what cooperation can do.
Together both organizations shared the expense and quickly paid for the repair
required of the wash-out of the Peters Creek culvert which closed our road for 52
hours. We need cooperation between PPHPOA and MROSD to deal with the
important ongoing issues of liability, road maintenance, fire safety and natural
disasters like the one we just had.
Let's concentrate on these critical details of road safety, liability protections,
proper signs and fire prevention as this trail is established crossing the road. Let's
spend money on potholes and maintenance rather than lawyers and opinions. It is
his kind of approach that will best succeed in getting things done.
t rr � g �
Submitted by Doug Winslow, 22400 Skyline Blvd., Box 2, La Honda 94020
415/949-4700 , { aV � _ °
r
BAY AREA RIDGE TRAIL ALIGNMENT
PORTOLA PARK HEIGHTS ROAD I
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
Existing
Disc Line
I I c`o
Install Signs Alerting Trail 1 j
Users of Driveway Xing
I I
I I"Watch for Cars, Cross with Caution" I I
I �
� 1 c
1
III II InstallMailboxes
II
>
.
Remove �Split Rail U)Existing Vegetation g
1
I 1 I
I
Line of Sight
130' 1 - 30' — 70' —�
Existing
Stiles 12' Gate
Install Signs Alerting Cars � , Proposed
I
of Trail Crossing Multi-Use Trail I
"Trail Crossing Ahead"
50'
Caltrans '
Right of Way
J �
N � �
Scale 1 " = 25
xrc xt Upper Stevens Creek
County Park
ne 4f , , Ridge Trail
3 IvaF yt Skyline Boulevard',
Parking
�� _ Proposed Trail 7�+ r�/, I��
Eri , Crossing � ff(' �Itp,
SKYLINE RIDGE
tl l' Grizzly Flat
(OPEN SPACE PRESERVE : \l\ potential Trail '
` { `.` Parking Area
m /
Alignent �\q�
..> \ /�*•`":.i ram""""�"" -�. .�,�\.
Ridge Trail �i 1
23
tl. r� l N Trail ..
7 Sl ) y� OlI A / .�� S t
- ALTERNATIVE 2
a ,�1 �t� _ -l�..�`L: _- " �(j. - •� � { ram .•.-� �..� �}
.� �1\ : :` 1. LONG RIDGE
? -`I'TRAIL CONNECTIONS BETWEEN :OPEN SPACE PRESERVE
j SKYLINE AND LONG RIDGE t�-�:,. y�, ! - I (��C l �l� \� - :l �1 L - :�•`�
OPEN SPACE PRESERVES ( If/
��, �I Scale: 1 " = Approx. 1,200' t \\�: ��+, �_I Ir `�,c-North= ..,, �(� 0 G
BAY AREA RIDGE TRAIL ALIGNMENT I
PORTOLA PARK HEIGH rS ROAD
ALTERNATIVE 3
Existing
Disc Lirie
I I '
a�
Proposed
Multi-Used Trail
- ' Mailboxes U)
11
Existing Pullout-a
i
Stiles Install Existing
Split Rail 12 Gate
\ I Fencing
Install Signs Alerting'Cars
i of Trail Crossing I
I "Trail Crossing Ahead"
I I Install Signs Alerting Trail 50'
i Users of Driveway xing Caltrans
lm "Watch for Cars, Cross with Caution" Right of Way 1
I
� I J
NAol I
Scale 1 " = 25'
�s �
zk
4 3 Wti^
W11lam• 0b 22400 SKYLINE BOULEVARD #22
1 ermayer LA HONDA, CA 94020
June 30, 1995
Susan M. Schectman
Legal Counsel
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, CA 94022-1404
Dear Ms. Schectman:
Thank you for your letter of June 21 1995. I'm glad you ag
ree that
"District use should not unreasonably interfere with any rights" I hold
pursuant to my easement.
However, we continue to disagree on some crucial issues.
I am now having done (and doing) research into various of these ques-
tions. Along with the Grant of Easement recorded at Book 5128, page 1,
there are other pertinent documents. I will send you those I can lay my
hands on and some of the other legal research I have that I mentioned
to you on the phone.
If I could get the answers to these simple questions I think it would aid
us both in reaching a resolution.
1. Don't you have a complete obligation to prevent your invited pub-
lic from unreasonably interfering with use of the easement by easement
holders? In your letter you claim the obligation is limited. How could it
be limited?
2. District staff stated on several occasions, including at public meetings,
that Portola Heights Road is a public road because they own it. Is this
true?
3. Did the District purchase the right to govern the road and to enforce
their regulations on the road and the private easement holders?
To Susan M. Schectman June 30, 1995 Page 2
4. Did the District purchase the right to invite the public to use the
road? If not, how did you obtain the right?
5. Can the District do any or all of the above with no obligation to
relieve the private easement owners of any liability?
My right to use my easement for "animal" purposes is found in Volume
5964, page 162 of the Official Records of San Mateo County. This doc-
ument of the Portola Park Heights Property Owners Association also
states, on page 161, that the funds collected by the Committee are for
improving and maintaining private easement roads, not public ones.
Some claims in your letter seem untenable. For example, in many cases,
drainage facilities must be maintained great distances from the centerline
of the road in order to control the flow of water.
What authoritydo you have for our proposition that "the District is
Y Y P P
free to invite the public because no easement holder has an express right
P g
to prohibit such use"? An Attorney P Y
General's opinion says that ". . . In
the absence of express language in the original grant of the easement
indicating that it is for public use. . . the change from a private use to a
public use would be prohibited as the imposition of a new and additional
burden upon the easement. . ." 61 Atty.Gen.Ops. 466, 471
Since, "So long as an easement exists, both parties have the right to
insist that it shall remain substantially the same as it was when granted,
regardless of the relative benefit or damage that would ensue to the par-
ties by reason of a change in the mode and manner of the enjoyment,"
(Atchinson, T. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Abar 275 C.A.2d 456, 465) I can
insist that you not add the additional and incompatible burden of public
use onto this easement. In fact, so long as I'm paying for the mainte-
nance, you can't relieve me from liability and must respect my rights.
Otherwise, haven't you condemned me?
Very truly yours,
William Obermayer
#r► I
MEMORANDUM
TO: WILLIAM OBERMEYER
FROM: THOMAS P. McHUGH, ESQ.
DATE: April 23, 1982
SUBJECT: Right to Park Automobiles on Easement in
Portola Park Heights
I. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS.
This Memorandum of legal opinion has been requested
because a controversy has arisen over the extent of use
permissible by a group of easements holders. The
easement is held by the owners of subdivided lands
in Portola Park Heights. The easement runs, across land
in the same subdivsion, title to which is held by the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) , a
public agency.
The easement was created by express reservation in
a document entitled "Declarations of Easements, Restrictions ,
Conditions, Covenants, and Agreements , " executed and
recorded by the owners of the Portola Park Heights in
June of 1971 . The specific language is as follows:
6 . Easements. Declarant reserves for himself,
its successors and assigns, the following ease-
ments and/or rights of way:
A 50 foot easement, lying 25 feet from the
centerline of each existing road and pathway, as
outlined in Exhibit B by a solid line. Said
easement is for both vehicular, animal and
pedestrian purposes, and for roadways for ingress
and egress to and from every part or parcel of the
property covered hereby and for the purpose of
maintaining overhead and underground utility ser-
vices and drainage facilities. . . . Such ease-
ments shall be mutual and non-exclusive.
Since 1971, the property has been subdivided and
parcels conveyed subject to or benefiting from the express
easement. The MROSD, at some time since 1971, purchased
by negotiated sale a parcel of land subject to the easement.
The parcel has been made part of the MROSD' s open space
preserve.
The easement begins at Skyline Boulevard and proceeds
west into the subdivision and is the principal means of
ingress and egress of the owners of the parcels away
from Skyline Boulevard.
The same document that created the easement also
created the Portola Park Heights Owners Association.
One of the specific powers of the Association relates to
the easement:
The Association shall also be the means for the
promulgation ana enforceinenr or ail regulations necessary
to the governing of the use and enjoyment of such roads.
The Association maintains a locked gate where the ease-
ment meets Skyline Blvd. The mailboxes for the owners
of the parcels of the subdivision are outside the gate,
that is, on the Skyline Blvd. side.
The specific controversy relates to the right of
the easement holders to park cars on the easement on
vt
a temporary, occasional basis. - I am informed that the
specific instance leading to the request for this
Memorandum is typical of the use to which the easement
has traditionally been put. The specific instance is
as follows: William Obermeyer owns a parcel in the
subdivision. His sixteen year old brother, Christopher,
lives with him and attends high school in Pescadero.
Christopher boards the school bus at the gate on
-2-
Skyline Blvd. Since the Obermeyer property is some
distance from Skyline, Christopher drives to the gate
and parks his brother's truck on the side of the road
and parallel to it. The truck does not obstruct the
road in any way. When school is out, Christopher
gets off the bus and drives back to the Obermeyer
property.
Recently, the rangers for the MROSD have cited
the truck for illegal parking under the MROSD' s regulations,
The citation requires a court appearance and carries a
fine of $10 (ten dollars) .
II. ISSUE PRESENTED.
The issue presented is whether, under the terms of
the easement, the easement holders have the right to
park vehicles on a temporary, occasional basis in
such a way that does not obstruct the easement and
access by other traffic.
III. APPLICABLE LAW.
A. General Principles of Interpretation of Easements.
The extent of use of an easement created by express
reservation is determined by the language of the reservation.
California Civil Code § 806 . A grant of a right of way
without limitations or restrictions permits any reasonable
use that does not overburden the easement. Laux v. Freed
(1960) 53 Cal. 2d 512, 2 Cal. Rptr. 265. What is a
reasonable use depends on the circumstances of the particular
case, as well as the terms of the instrument creating the
easement. Wall v. Rudolph (1961) 198 Cal . App.2d, 18 Cal.
Rptr. 123.
B. Specific Law Concerning Parking on Right of Way Easements.
It turns out that this issue is not unique. It has
been the subject of judicial scrutiny in several jurisdictions,
as well as in California. The general rule is expressed
in an article on this precise subject in a secondary source
known as the American Law Reports, 2nd Edition:
. . . it has been held that under a driveway easement,
or a right of way for ingress and egress, the owner
of the dominant estate has no absolute right to
park his vehicles on the driveway or right of
way, but does have a right to park in such a
manner as not to interfere with the use of the
property by the owner of the servient estate.
37 ALR2d 944 , 946 .
[In the archaic language of the law of real property, the
easement holder is known as "the owner of the dominant
estate" and the person who owns the land subject to the
easement is known as "the owner of the servient estate]
The California cases on the subject emphasize that
the important factor is always whether the parking obstructs
the easement. If it interferes with the access of the
other users of the easement, the parking is not allowed.
If the parking is done in such a way that access is still
available to all others, the parking is permissible.
Thus , in the case of Keeler v. Haky (1958) 160 Cal.
App. 2d 471 , 325 P. 2d 648 , the court would not allow
the holders of an easement to construct a permanent parking
lot with a concrete surface, with painted, white lines
to mark parking stalls and with signs excluding use of
the easement by others. The Court noted, however, that
it would be a different case if all that was involved
was "the occasional or temporary parking that normally
-4-
accompanies the movement of vehicles in and out of, or
over a location Keeler v. Haky, supra 160 Cal.
App. 2d at 476.
Similarly, in Heath v. Kettenhofen (1965) 236
Cal. App. 2d 197 , 45 Cal. Rptr. 778 and Hucke v. Kader
(1952) 109 Cal. App. 2d 224 , 240 P. 2d 434 , the Court
enjoined parking on a private roadway easement which
interfered with free passage, but permitted parking
which did not interfere with the use of the easement.
IV. APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO THESE FACTS.
Given the rule described above, it is my opinion
that the easement may be used for the type of parking
such as that described in Section I , above. It is
hard to imagine that a car or truck parked parallel to
a 50 ft. easement would obstruct the free passage of other
vehicles. If a car is parked properly while a student is
at school or while some one has gone to work in a car
pool, it should not be an unreasonable burden on the
easement.
There is another significant factor present here.
The cases cited above all dealt with easements of ingress
and egress. The easement involved here also includes the
right to use it "for vehicular purposes. " Although this
is phrased in general terms, it is clear that it adds some-
thing to the egress-ingress easement. The presence of
this additional purpose strengthens the right to use the
easement to park. of course, on the literal level, parking
is certainly a vehicular purpose. I still believe, however,
-5-
that the bottom line is the free passage of other vehicles
on the easement. If you don't block the road and you
don't build permanent parking structures, you can park
on the easement.
One last point to consider is what relevance, if
any, there is to the fact that the land burdened by the
easement is owned by a public agency. The agency has
the power of eminent domain and can, I'm sure, enact
and enforce regulations on its open space preserve.
However, the right that the easement holders have is
a property right that cannot be taken without due process
of law and without just compensation. This principle
is basic to our form of government and is embodied in
the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution
and in Article I, § 14 of the California Constitution.
If MROSD regulations destroy your private property right
to confer a benefit on the public in general, there has
been a compensable taking. If the MROSD has not gone
through eminent domain proceedings and paid you for
restricting your easement, they cannot prevent you from
enjoying the full use of that easement.
There is also some doubt in my mind as to whether
the MROSD can legally enforce any of their regulation on
the easement. When they bought the property, they could
not buy any greater rights than the previous owner had to
sell. Like the previous owner, the MROSD must be a part
of the Owners Association and it is through the Association
that "all regulations necessary to the governing of the
-6-
of the use and enjoyment of such roads" are to be promulgated
and enforced. I would seriously question the jurisdiction
of the MROSD to enforce regulations on the easement at all.
V. CONCLUSION.
For the reasons stated above, I believe that the
holders of the easement can park on the road on an
occasional, temporary basis, such as that described in
my Statement of the Facts.
As a practical matter, I would suggest that the
Owners Association get together with the MROSD and
pass some resolution specifically directed to this
problem. It is basically a dispute between neighbors
that would be best resolved by mutual agreement. Perhaps
the Association can issue identification stickers to be
displayed on all vehicles that are parked, so that the
MROSD will know that a particular vehicle is authorized
to be there. If an authorized vehicle is parked on
the road for an unusually long period of time, some
arrangement might be made where the MROSD notifies the
Association to take action. it would certainly be in
the interest of all parties to at least attempt to
clear up this matter amicably.
7-
Open Spac
................... E.
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
SPECIAL MEETING - BOARD OF DIRECTORS
NEIGHBORHOOD WORKSHOP
FOR
LONG RIDGE OPEN SPACE PRESERVE
Saturday, July 8, 1995
Gate at Intersection of Skyline Boulevard and
Portola Park Heights Road
10:00 A.M. to Noon
The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District will hold a
neighborhood workshop for the Long Ridge Open Space Preserve beginning at 10:00 A.M.
at the gate located at the intersection of Skyline Boulevard and Portola Park Heights Road.
The purpose of the workshop is to discuss the proposed amendment to the Use and
Management Plan for the Long Ridge Open Space Preserve to construct the Bay Area Ridge
Trail connection between Long Ridge and Skyline Ridge Open Space Preserve and other
concerns of the Portola Park Heights community.
As planned, the proposed section of the Bay Area Ridge Trail will cross the Portola Park
Heights Road near the entrance gate located at Skyline Boulevard, generally following the
alignment of an existing roadbed until it intersects the existing trail at Peters Creek.
The District's Board of Directors considered the proposed trail crossing at their May 24
Regular Meeting. In light of concerns raised by members of the Portola Park Heights
community, the Board deferred taking any action on this matter until after this neighborhood
meeting on the preserve.
Members of the public not able to attend this neighborhood meeting are encouraged to relay
their comments in advance of the meeting to either Mary Gundert, Open Space Planner, or
Jean Fiddes, District Clerk at (415) 691-1200.
----------
330 Distel Circle - Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 - Phone:415-091-1200 - FAX:415-691-0485 * E-mail: mrosdCa)nct(on-i.(-oiTi
Hoard of Oireoors:Pew Siemens,Mary C. Davey, Feena I lenhaw,Ginny Babbitt, Norrette I ianko, Betsy Crowder,Win,de Wit
General Alan,?,wi:L.Craig Britton