HomeMy Public PortalAbout20070207 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Regional Open Space
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Meeting 07-03
SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
February 7, 2007
Half Moon Bay Fire Protection District Board Room
1191 Main Street, Half Moon Bay, CA 94019
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
I. ROLL CALL
President Ken Nitz called the special meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Jed Cyr, Larry Hassett, Ken Nitz,Nonette Hanko, Curt Riffle,
Pete Siemens, and Mary Davey
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: C. Britton, S. Schectman, S. Rice, D. Simmons, M. Freeman, R.
Jurgensen, J. Maciel, M. Williams, M. Reeves
II. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
John Meuller, Council Member from Half Moon Bay, welcomed the Board of
Directors and staff and thanked them for coming.
Mr. and Mrs. Shannon, 12373 San Mateo Road, Half Moon Bay, said they were there
to discuss old business regarding Miramontes Ridge and their property bordering on
it. Easement access to their property was discussed. They have not received a letter
referring to the public access. Their other question was about when docent led tours
would happen on the property and they had not heard further about that. C. Britton
apologized for not following up with her,but said that he would address those issues
in a letter.
I
c
f
Meeting 07-03 Page 2
III. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Motion: J. Cyr moved that the Board adopt the Agenda. P. Siemens seconded
the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0.
IV. BOARD BUSINESS
A. Agenda Item No. 1 —Tentative Adoption of Amendments to the District's
Resource Management Policy,New Chapter 10: Grazing Management-
(Report R-07-23)
K. Nitz started by saying that he was happy that the Board would be
reviewing two policy issues at this meeting and thanked the large audience for
being present.
M. Freeman presented the revised draft of the grazing policy. He said he was
presenting the report on behalf of K. Lenington who was ill.
He said he would review the changes they have made since the Board
reviewed the draft at the September 27, 2006 workshop. The District drafted
the policy in partnership with a number of other agencies—The Natural
Resource Conservation Service, The UC Cooperative Extension, and the SF
PUC. The policy shows that livestock grazing is a vital practice to preserve
and maintain our native grassland eco-systems. Livestock are replacing
recurring wildfires and native elk that are no longer present in our native eco-
systems. He said that they believe livestock grazing can benefit and maintain
eco-systems by preventing the encroachment of brush and other vegetation
into our grasslands. This in turn can reduce the risk of wildfires. It is also a
tool that can promote native grassland biodiversity and restoration projects
and there can also be tremendous wildlife benefits.
M. Freeman showed a map indicating the size of the land of the County
Coastal protection area, 140,000 acres in size. The service plan policy is
complementary with the grazing policy before the Board.
He said there is a lot of potential to reintroduce grazing on to some of the
properties that were formerly grazed in the past. He showed a map
representing District preserves indicating grassland—5,300 acres that the
District manages, including Driscoll Ranch. He said this policy has
widespread application.
M. Freeman said that since the September 27th study session,K. Lenington
i has been busy with an outreach program to share the District's draft policy
with a number of organizations and agencies. Meetings were held with the
Farm Bureau,the San Mateo County Agricultural Advisory Committee,the
San Mateo County Resource Conservation District, and other agencies at the
III
Meeting 07-03 Page 3
Tunitas Creek Ranch property. He said these were very productive meetings
and were supportive of the policy.
M. Freeman said that grazing management plans will be developed on land
not open to the public first, to work out any kinks, and then the access will be
available to the public. They would also work on educating the public on the
preserves where the grazing is taking place—sharing grazing etiquette.
The lease development with tenants is also being developed. They are
looking for long-term leases,which include site-specific conditions that reflect
the care and capacity of a given property, access, distance to market, and other
factors. They will develop the lease with the unique property, and to the
extent possible, involve the tenant in the development of the lease.
C. Riffle asked if it is possible to reintroduce grazing at some of the lands the
District already owns. M. Freeman said that was correct. He reviewed some
preserves that will have grazing plans, including the former Big Dipper and
Silva ranches at a section of Skyline Ridge OSP, and Tunitas Creek is another
area(being discussed later in this meeting).
M. Freeman,using an overhead display, showed the changes to Section 10.5
and 10.6 regarding flexible leases. He reviewed the changes and additions.
L. Hassett said he was pleased with the report. He said one of the areas he
was most pleased with was the added area under Goals, the protection of
natural resources and compatible with public access. Regarding 10.3,
monitoring, he pointed out that it did not look like the District was going to be
monitoring fuel-load and the impact of grazing on fuel-load. He asked if it
was possible to add this. 10.5 —grants—he said that it should reflect when
possible they should look for grants, but it currently infers that they will get
grants.
C. Riffle asked about incorporation of agricultural science. M. Freeman asked
clarifying questions and said they would incorporate it into a site-specific
grazing plan. Animals could be adjusted up or down depending on the needs
of the land and based on monitoring. K. Nitz asked if this could be put into
the policy. M. Freeman said it could be added.
J. Cyr followed up on the prior comment, reading the grazing plan on Big
Dipper,there is a lot of detail on adjusting it depending on rainfall and brush
inclusion. He said this was very detailed and he was happy with it. He agreed
that a statement in the overall policy should be incorporated.
K. Nitz asked if there would be a grazing policy plan for each area. M.
Freeman said it would make more sense to look at the ecological units and he
gave some brief examples.
Meeting 07-03 Page 4
K. Nitz asked how the District would determine rent. He asked if staff would
use our general leases or lease authority. M. Freeman answered that staff has
been researching what other agencies do to make sure they are fairly current
on what the standard rent is for a typical grazing lease. One option being
looked at is"in-kind"services benefiting both the District and the tenant.
K. Nitz referred to Section 10.5 and said he did not like the word"sustain"
and asked if the word"support"could replace it. He said the District could
help the local economy,but not sustain it. M. Davey said she thought they
should keep the word"sustain"because they are looking to keep sustainability
of the land. She said that word helped more with the mission of what the
District is. K.Nitz disagreed, saying that they are there to help foster the local
agricultural economy but not responsible to sustain it. L. Hassett agreed that
the District was not in a financial ability to single-handedly sustain the
economy,but he said the policy did not say that, it says help sustain it, and to
him it is the whole purpose of the coastal protection plan. He added that he
was 100%agreement with M. Davey that the original language remain as is.
P. Siemens said that it does say help sustain and so he agreed with leaving it
as is. He said that where it states"provide economic stability", he thought
what they are really trying to do is"promote financial viability".
K. Nitz asked to add"educational'to this historical facts bullet to Section
10.6.
K. Nitz asked if the grazer would be allowed to put in roads or buildings. M.
Freeman said they would probably not be allowed to do that. Any specifics
would be included in the leases and if there were request to alter that by
adding infrastructure,they would need Board approval first. He reminded
them that the first goal is resource protection.
K. Nitz asked about use of ATV's or trucks. Currently the District does not
allow motorized vehicles, so will this be changed. M. Freeman said the draft
plan would allow the tenant to use a truck and the District would specify the
terms and conditions under which the tenant can use motorized vehicles,
including speed limits,weather condition limits, etc. There would also be
interpretive signs notifying the public that they may encounter these things
while the property is being grazed. S. Schectman said that all of these issues
would be addressed in the management plan and then in the individual tenant
leases.
K. Nitz asked if the District was providing water, and will water be pumped in
and what are the limits. M. Freeman said that in a number of instances there
are existing stock ponds. He said that once a lease is entered into the District
will not need to provide water that does not already exist on the land. K. Nitz
asked if they'll need permits for the stock ponds and M. Freeman said that
Meeting 07-03 Page 5
they would in some cases when a repair or upgrade was needed. He said the
stock ponds provide essential habitat for red-legged frogs and in some cases
the San Francisco garter snakes along the coast. Minor upgrades would not
require permits.
K. Nitz asked that a brochure would be nice to explain why the District is
doing this,because a brochure can go into more detail than signage. He gave
an example from East Bay Regional Parks. M. Freeman said they could add
that under Section 10.7.
K. Nitz then invited public comment:
Ron Sturgeon said the grazing policy is a move in the right direction. The
Coastal annexation area is constantly changing. He said it is inaccurate and
missing is the planned agricultural area and areas under the Williamson Act.
Under Section 10.5 it states the support of agriculture, but the goal states
something a little different. He said he thought the policies are in reverse
order, and he said he thought the goal should be that preserve agriculture
should be above other natural resource areas.
George Cattermole, Coastside Habitat Cattle, San Gregorio, CA said the most
important part will be the lease. He said to ask ranchers to do quarterly
reports and protect natural habitats puts restrictions on the ranchers. He said
that if the District wants to protect the ponds and preserve the natural habitat,
then he leans towards paying the ranchers.
Lennie Roberts, Committee for Green Foothills, Portola Valley, CA said she
had been involved in the development of the local Coastal plan and
monitoring. She wanted to clarify that both the Coastal Act and local coastal
plan have, as their highest priority in the rural area is habitat protection and
protection of agricultural land as a resource. She said the District's plan was
consistent with the intent of the County's public policies for the coastal area.
She commended the District in their hard work developing the grazing
management program.
Bruce Mendiola, Tunitas Creek Road, said he was concerned about the
number of cattle they have now and how many they plan to have in ten years.
He said he is currently having trouble with cattle, so he is curious about how
many cows there will be. K. Nitz asked M. Freeman if the number of cows
was indicated. M. Freeman said the plan would address the range of cattle
allowed on the property. The number could go up or down depending on
rainfall, there would be an upper limit and a lower limit. This would go
through the public planning process and the public would have an opportunity
to participate in this issue.
Meeting 07-03 Page 6
Leonard Warren, El Granada, CA,wanted to add to what Lennie Roberts said.
He said he would like to see the policy state that resource protection has a
higher priority than the agricultural uses. He hopes there won't be too much
of a conflict, but stating which is a higher priority will help the Board address
any conflict when it comes up. He said that he has been disappointed that not
very much of the land has been opened up to the public. He said they should
put more attention into opening the agency's holdings to public access. He
suggested adding wording specifically prohibiting roads. Under Section 10.5
he suggested replacing"sustain"with"viable", such as "helping keep the
local agricultural land viable."
C. Britton read portions of the service plan to remind everyone that the policy
is the overriding document and then there will be a master plan for the
preserve and then a management policy for each piece of property. Each step
will provide an opportunity for public input.
P. Siemens commented that a general statement about how the District will
figure the rents,by looking at market rent and then tempering it with what the
tenant will contribute. He said there should be something stated about how
rents will be determined. He wants to be able to show, in general terms, how
rents would be calculated. He agreed with Mr. Cattermole's comments and
with C. Britton's that they did not intend to make money on the leases. We
want to make sure the ventures are viable.
C. Britton said that they need to rent the property at fair market value,but fair
market value takes into account all of the factors of the lease and the rent. If it
I�
is not economical, we won't have anyone interested in a lease. Since this is
referred to in the general policy,he said it was not appropriate to put this in
it the grazing policy.
J. Cyr said it is clear, reading the grazing plan,that the District is not giving it
away,because there has been some concern elsewhere that government
agencies give the land away to private operators, but on the other hand this
plan is not designed to provide lots of income to the District. He said with the
comments, he is satisfied with the language in the policy.
L. Hassett agreed that he is happy to support this item,with the incorporated
wordsmithing. He said he thought the policy is workable, though not perfect.
Resource protection does not mean it is exclusive of agricultural viability.
C. Riffle said that he would support this item too. He found the comments
very interesting. He read a short part of the policy to show how the policy, the
management plan and the use of the plan are all linked.
Motion: M. Davey moved approval of the tentative adoption of
Amendments to the District's Resource Management Policy,
Meeting 07-03 Page 7
New Chapter 10: Grazing Management. N. Hanko seconded
the motion.
Discussion: K.Nitz commented on the grazing, talking about rent, that the
District is looking at it from a resource management view,
trying to reduce the number of invasive plants and
reintroducing native plants. The cattle will help with this,
rather than doing this by hand.
He said this is a tentative adoption and asked C. Britton if this
item would come back as a single plan. C. Britton said that
each plan will be brought to the Board individually, and then
when they are all completed, they will be presented as one final
policy. K. Nitz said he would like to see it again before it was
incorporated into the final document. C. Britton said staff
could give the Board a strike-out version and a final version in
an FYI. K. Nitz said that would be fine.
N. Hanko asked C. Britton to review the other plans that will
be presented, including any presentations on the Coast, in
addition to grazing. M. Freeman said the list included wildland
fuel management, an overall agricultural policy for the Coast,
wildlife and wildlife corridors, and cultural and historic
resources. The Agricultural Policy would be considered at a
coast-side meeting. K. Nitz asked that next time, a list be
available of which plans are being worked on and which have
been completed.
Vote: The motion passed 7 to 0.
B. Agenda Item No. 2—Purchase of the Peninsula Open Space Trust(Tunitas
Creek) Property as an Addition to the District's Open Space Preserve System,
Located in Unincorporated San Mateo County at 330 Tunitas Creek Road,
Half Moon Bay(San Mateo County Assessor's Parcel Numbers 066-260-040,
080-090-020,-040 and—050); Determine that the Recommended Actions are
Categorically Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA)As Set Out in The Report; Adopt the Resolution Authorizing the
Purchase of the Peninsula Open Space Trust Property and Approving the
Related Assignment of Lease; Adopt the Preliminary Use and Management
Plan Recommendations Contained in the Report; Designate the Property as a
New Open Space Preserve Named, "Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve";
Indicate Intention to Dedicate the Property as Public Open Space— Report R-
07-19).
Meeting 07-03 Page 8
M. Reeves presented the staff report and gave a PowerPoint presentation
showing a map and pictures of the property. He gave background
information. He said the property lies just downstream of the Purisima Creek
Redwoods Open Space Preserve. He said the size and topography of the
property make it an eventual stand-alone preserve. He said there are a house,
a barn, corral area and several out-buildings. The property has historically
been in dry land farming. The house is located on a landslide area and in
1998 a landslide washed away a section of the main driveway leading to the
ranch compound. He showed slides of the landslide damage, explaining
damage to the house. He said the current grazing tenant has reopened an old
ranch road to provide access to the compound,but it is on a steep grade not
ideal in poor weather conditions. Staff will evaluate repairing the main
driveway.
M. Reeves reviewed the Preliminary Use and Management plans for the
property. He said that the house and the out-buildings would be demolished
and the barn would be considered for restoration. He then reviewed the Terms
and Conditions, stating that the purchase would be entirely grant funded.
C. Riffle asked if the current grazing tenant was on a year-to-year lease and
M. Reeves said it was. C. Riffle asked if the District would go to a longer
term lease right away or in a year or two. M. Reeves said that the current
lease is up for renewal in July of this year, so staff will look toward
developing a lease that is more in line with the draft grazing policy and
coastside protection plan.
M. Davey asked if the District was going to improve the barn, and M. Reeves
said the District probably would. He said that the tenant has made several
improvements to the property, which had not been grazed a few years prior,
and POST has been working with the tenant to put those improvements in
place and the District would want to continue that process to make it as viable
an operation as possible.
K. asked if there was a grazing management plan already in place. M.
Freeman added that there is a consultant who is looking at the Tunitas Creek
property to develop an updated grazing plan, and staff is confident that he will
be able to get a long-term plan in place by July or close to July.
M. Davey asked if the house can be salvaged. M. Reeves said that staff had a
building contractor inspect the house, and because the house is located on a
mapped landslide it is unlikely a permit could be secured to rebuild the house
on site.
K. Nitz noted the low rent for the tenant and asked if that low rent continue.
M. Reeves replied that POST was anxious to bring a tenant onto the property
to begin grazing, so the rent is reflective of an in-kind relationship between
I
Meeting 07-03 Page 9
the tenant and POST for the work that needed to be done to make the property
viable for grazing.
L. Hassett asked about the out-buildings and asked if they were being used in
addition to the barn. M. Reeves said that the current tenant is using the barn
and surrounding corrals. There are five out-buildings, one of which is
flattened, the other two are held up by willows, and there are two structures
leaning badly. L. Hassett asked if the current tenant had any interest in the
house. M. Reeves said that the house is red-tagged and uninhabitable.
L. Hassett asked about the process and asked who will demolish the house and
structures, asking if it would be District staff or go out to bid. M. Reeves said
it was a big job and would need to go out for bid. L. Hassett said that the
District has worked with a regular group of contractors that consistently put
bids in on projects, and so now that the District is beginning to have projects
on the coast he said he wanted to be sure that staff is reaching out to the local
contracting companies and that they are aware of the District's bid procedures.
He encouraged staff to look at the types of jobs and bid requests, and that staff
does not take a passive role in this,but a more active approach to including
coastside contractors and other firms. M. Williams responded with an
example of a clean up of a property on the coast and staff did solicit bids from
at least two coastal contractors and a local contractor was chosen. He added
that staff has contacted the Farm Bureau for a list of other contractors they
might work with.
J. Cyr asked what the current surface of the driveway. M. Reeves said it was
originally asphalt,but now the section that was destroyed by the landslide is
loose dirt. The driveway is fairly overgrown,but it is a gentler sloping drive
than the old ranch road that is being used now.
Ron Sturgeon referred to page one of the staff report about the boundary of
the annexation area being between Skyline Boulevard and the Pacific Ocean,
noting that the grant agreement was executed between the Habitat
Conservation Fund and he read that it was the State Parks and asked if they
had the grant agreement before them. He asked if they were aware of the
covenants and restrictions of the grant agreement, and asked if they could see
if it allows dry land farming, agriculture. He said he had seen Habitat grants
that precluded agriculture as a condition of the grant agreement. C. Britton
said they are working with State Parks on the grant and said the District will
meet the requirements of the grant. Mr. Sturgeon read the last paragraph of
the Resolution regarding the funding and asked about it. S. Schectman said
that the District's Bond Counsel recommended including this paragraph. It is
an internal accounting IRS procedure.
Paul Ringgold, Director of Land Stewardship from POST, said they were
excited to work with the District to place this property into permanent
Meeting 07-03 Page 10
protection for open space uses. He said that the proposed District uses were
exactly in line with what the person who donated the land wanted. He said
POST was appreciative of District staff with working with both POST staff
and the current grazing operator on the property to learn more about the
current uses and to ensure a smooth transition when the property transfers.
Pliny Keep, Tunitas Creek Ranch, LLC, Half Moon Bay, CA, said he was the
manager of Tunitas Creek Ranch. He gave background on the name for the
ranch, and he asked that the property go by the name Tunitas Creek Property,
or Durham Ridge Ranch, or the Bettencorp Property he said that would be a
good neighbor gesture. He said he would like the Board to reflect on land
management, and in the past this has fallen to the tenant or lease manager,but
it has been difficult to see how the goals are being reflected in the day to day
interaction on the land. C. Britton gave information on naming the property
as Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve and asked if he found that compatible.
Mr. Keep said it was okay.
Motion: M. Davey moved Board approval of the purchase of the
Peninsula Open Space Trust(Tunitas Creek)property as an
addition to the District's Open Space Preserve System, located
in unincorporated San Mateo County at 330 Tunitas Creek
Road, Half Moon Bay(San Mateo County Assessor's Parcel
Numbers 066-260-040; 080-090-020, -040 and—050);
Determine that the recommended actions are categorically
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) as set out in the report; Adopt Resolution No. 07-04
authorizing the purchase of the Peninsula Open Space Trust
property and approving the related assignment of lease; Adopt
the Preliminary Use and Management Plan recommendations
contained in the report; Designate the property as a new open
space preserve named, "Tunitas Creek Open Space Preserve";
Indicate intention to dedicate the property as public open space.
P. Siemens seconded the motion. The motion passed 7 to 0.
At 9:07pm K. Nitz announced a five-minute break. The meeting reconvened at
9:15pm.
C. Agenda Item No. 3 - Adopt the Revised Good Neighbor Policy—(Report R-
07-22).
R. Jurgensen reviewed the Good Neighbor Policy, giving a brief background
of how the policy was established by the Legislative, Finance, and Public
Affairs Committee(LFPAC). He reviewed the public involvement process
that LAFPAC initiated, giving an overview of the community and public
I
;I
Meeting 07-03 Page 11
meeting dates and places. There were newspaper articles and notifications in
the mail to solicit information and input. He said that the policy before the
Board was a compilation of all of the information and responses staff and the
committee had received in the process that took about a year and a half. He
explained that the policy was divided into three sections.
N. Hanko said that she had introduced the first Good Neighbor Policy in the
1980's. She said that when L. Hassett joined the Board they suggested that
another look should be done with the Good Neighbor Policy. This was a good
opportunity to talk with people on the Coast to see what they thought about.
They received very thoughtful replies. N. Hanko reviewed the policy
provisions. She reviewed the implementation processes for the policy. The
guidelines are for the entire District, not just within the coastal area; however
policy sections 3, 9, 10 and 11 are focused to the coastal protection area.
L. Hassett thanked the committee and N. Hanko specifically for taking the
lead. He said he would like to discuss the concept of a neighbor. He quoted
that a neighbor is defined as, "residents and property owners located adjacent
or close to a District preserve who may be affected by maintenance or visitor
activities on a preserve." However, further on in the policy, neighboring
property owners are defined at 500' or 300' —the concept of someone living
within a certain number of feet of a preserve is foreign to him. He said
looking at maps where there are thousands of acres, 500' is a very small
amount. He said that the District should look at neighbors in a more site-
specific term, and he gave an example showing the limits of a notification and
would like the notification to be as inclusive as is possible to all people being
affected by District decisions. He asked that staff be aware that they should
look at notifications on a case by case basis.
L. Hassett said another concern he had, referring to implementation guideline
number 4,the last sentence, "efforts will be made to notify the public a
minimum of one week in advance of a public meeting." He asked staff not to
make one week the baseline,but to make it that they will meet and exceed
that,perhaps up to two weeks. N. Hanko agreed with this as well,but that
staff had a strong argument to support the one week notice, so she said she
was glad he raised this issue too.
L. Hassett's next comment was on policy provision 11, the District's Planning
Manager as the primary staff liaison, and he asked if the Operations Manager
might be a better choice for a"boots on the ground"primary liaison. He said
that operations is, in touch with everything that is going on day-to-day. He
said that as a neighbor, it is difficult for the public to deal with a bureaucracy,
which is what the District is. L. Hassett said that the easier way a neighbor
can contact the District the better. He suggested that a contact sheet be
created that could be available to give out. He said that Item 13 addressed
that, but he would like to see it made clearer.
i
Meeting 07-03 Page 12
L. Hassett's final comment was that the District should have a quicker
response. He said one of the frustrating things was the length of time to reply
to a letter, but would like to reduce the length of time to respond,by a capable
staff person. He said the Board should empower staff to respond quickly.
L. Hassett noted a minor detail in Item number 3, regarding controlling non-
native vegetation and animals, and initiate controls with the neighbors. He
said that this looks like the District is initiating a cooperative effort and he
wanted to know what the process was if the landowner wanted to initiate the
effort.
L. Hassett asked S. Schectman what the legal note at the end of the policy
meant. She said that it means that the District is subject to a wide variety of
government requirements to operate as a Board, such as the Brown Act, and
other noticing requirements. She added that the Good Neighbor Policy was
not to adopt another set of statutes,but to adopt ethical and policy guidelines
that the Board committed to observe. She said that this Board was going far
beyond what the law requires with this policy.
C. Britton responded to L. Hassett's comments. He reviewed the one week
notification and how the work flows realistically in the office. Regarding the
500', he said it is a minimum measure and that they try to extend it as far as
they can, and he gave an example. The 500' guideline was copied from the
San Mateo County requirement; however,the District does attempt to go
beyond that measurement, but it is a minimum measurement for staff to use.
L. Hassett said that he and his neighbors find the 500' guideline inadequate, at
least with their dealings with San Mateo County. He gave an example of a
local Skyline winery and the issues that impacted more neighbors than those
few that were notified. L. Hassett emphasized his desire for staff to look
closely at ways to be inclusive of neighbors when a notification is sent out. C.
Britton replied that staff really does try to over notify and that what is in the
policy are the minimum requirements.
C. Britton replied to the staff time used to answer questions from the public.
He said they are empowered to answer those questions,but if it rises to a
question about policy,that question should first come before the Board.
C. Britton said there was a debate about choosing the best liaison staff person
to contact and felt that the Planning Manager was the appropriate staff
member for the purposes of the kind of notice the policy deals with because it
P 1P P Y
deals with more policy issues and not operational issues. He said the idea of
p Y p
number 13 is not the brochure itself,but that staff will issue a brochure of who
to contact on a day-to-day basis.
Meeting 07-03 Page 13
S. Rice commented on District responsiveness to the public. She pointed out
that there is a receptionist who can direct callers to the correct staff to
respond. There are a lot of compliments from the public for having a live
person to answer and listen to their questions and then direct their calls to the
appropriate staff member.
J. Cyr said that developing this policy has been a long process. He said
having this discussion with people with fresh eyes is very helpful. He
described how the committee discussed many of the comments that L. Hassett
brought up. He said he appreciated the sidebar notations as explanations for
the policy statement that help clarify.
C. Riffle said he liked the structure of the policy and the implementation
language. He asked why the word"coastside" is throughout,but asked why it
isn't including all District people. S. Schectman clarified that the policies
with notations in italics were adopted by LAFCo and are verbatim and must
remain verbatim. The implementation is how the District will apply the
policy—whether District wide or just in the coastal protection area.
C. Riffle asked if there is a way to find out how the District is doing with this
policy. R. Jurgensen said there would be an annual public meeting to review
the policy.
C. Riffle said that a lot of work had gone into the policy and that it should be
implemented right away and they should start using it, and then improve it as
they go.
Ron Sturgeon said he had reservations about the District being a good
neighbor because he said that the District did not know its mission and then he
read the mission statement. He said that agriculture was missing from the
mission statement and he said that it was not noticed by the Board. N. Hanko
said she had noticed that, but she reminded him that the policy needs to work
throughout the District. She agreed that perhaps the District should have a
mission statement that applies to the coast too.
Todd McGee, Montara, CA, said that the District wards are backwards and
that the Board members are neighbors with the bay-side and he said that the
ward boundaries should have been redrawn to give the coastside its own
representative. He requested that there should be a standing committee, not an
ad hoc committee, to represent the coastside so that agriculture does not get
forgotten. He said that the coastside people need to be involved earlier in the
process when ideas are being discussed. He said it is encouraging that they
have this policy.
Terry Gossett thanked L. Hassett for his inclusive words about neighbors. He
said that everyone on the coast is a neighbor. He said that he took the Good
I
i
i
Meeting 07-03 Page 14
Neighbor Policy to include the whole District and that the demarcation of 500'
misses the point. He said they were all working together. He said all
neighbors should be equal.
Leonard Warren, El Granada, CA, said he agreed with L. Hassett's comments
on the notification timeline and distances,but he understands that agendas are
not set until closer to the meeting. He suggested that some middle ground
should be found, as an example putting out a notice that there was going to be
a meeting two to three weeks out from this meeting with just a date and time.
He said the County is an example of how not to do things, such as
notifications. He gave some examples of how he thought notifications should
be handled.
L. Hassett said he liked Mr. Warren's idea that notifications should be done as
far in advance as possible, with a minimum being one week. He said that
notifications need to be in as broad a spectrum as possible. He acknowledged
that it will vary issue by issue, and case by case,but every effort needs to be
made and it needs to be written down.
P. Siemens said he supported L. Hassett's idea on the 500' because that is one
of his issues. He said he would prefer to eliminate the 500' guideline and do
something closer to what L. Hassett was describing, and say something closer
to neighbors in the affected area.
P. Siemens said that he would like to see C. Britton's statement about the
notice ahead of time put into policy. He said that if a notice could be sent out
earlier, a disclaimer could be put on it telling the public to refer to the website
for any updates about the noticed meeting's agenda. Items wouldn't be added,
but some item(s)may be dropped.
P. Siemens said that the policy looks great, but that the final disclaimer leaves
it on a sour note. He asked if it could be revised slightly stating what the
purpose is of the policy and not what the policy is not. S. Schectman said it
can be re-written in a positive manner,being a promise and not a regulation.
P. Siemens said the policy should be used District-wide. He referred to policy
p Y P Y
number 3 and asked that the coastside protection area italics be removed, and
he reworded the first sentence. He asked that all of the coastal references be
put in an Appendix at the end of the policy and refer to the Appendix. He was
told by staff that they cannot do this, as the policy statements were from
LAFCo. P. Siemens said he wanted to strengthen the wording, he said he had
a problem with the italics.
C. Britton suggested that if this is a major contention then the policy should
go back to the committee. P. Siemens agreed. C. Britton gave an example of
the debate for provisions appropriate for the coast,but not the entire District,
Meeting 07-03 Page 15
and if that is a discussion Director Siemens wants to have,then it should
happen in the committee setting.
J. Cyr said as a member of the committee they get locked into a particular
focus, which results in someone looking at the policy"cold" and having a
different response than the committee anticipated. He said he agreed they
should hear the comments from people looking at the document freshly.
C. Britton suggested constituting a new ad hoc committee and having P.
Siemens and L. Hassett be members of the new committee. He said maybe
fresh eyes of a new committee should look at the policy. P. Siemens said he
agreed with that idea.
P. Siemens said that the whole policy is great and the individual
implementation aligned with what he would like to see it do. The work was
good, but he had issues on how to write the policy part. S. Schectman said
she was concerned that there had been two years of work on developing this
policy and staff has heard the Board's concerns and she said she worried that
it may take another year to make further changes. She said a word-smithed
document addressing the comments could be brought back to the Board
without referring the matter back to committee.
C. Britton added to S. Schectman's comments and reminded the Board that
this policy will be reviewed annually. He suggested that the Board allow staff
to put in the comments listed at this meeting and that the Board approve this
document. He shared S. Schectman's concern that it would take another year
to review in Committee and in the meantime there would not be a policy in
place.
L. Hassett said he would like the policy to go back to the committee to come
back to the Board one final time. He said the policy was 98% done, and it did
not need to go back to square one. He said that staff had heard the comments
and they can do a good job adjusting the language accordingly. He said ifa
new committee is formed for the annual review he was in agreement with that
idea and he would like to be on that committee. N. Hanko said she agreed
with L. Hassett.
Motion: L. Hassett moved that the Good Neighbor Policy be returned to
the committee for final revisions and brought back to the Board
of Directors at the earliest convenience. P. Siemens seconded
the motion.
Discussion: C. Riffle asked if a specific date or timeline should be
documented as to when the policy would return to the Board.
J. Cyr asked if there would be another meeting on the coast
when the Board would review the policy again. K. Nitz said
Meeting 07-03 Page 16
that the Committee could decide and make recommendations
and then come back to the Board.
Vote: The motion passed 7 to 0.
V. ADJOURNMENT
At 10:43 p.m. the Special meeting was adjourned.
Sally Rice/Lisa Zadek
Recording Secretaries