Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19980520 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Regional Open S� -ce P g MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Meeting 98-11 SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS May 20, 1998 MINUTES I. ROLL CALL President Betsy Crowder called the meeting to order at 6:12 P.M. I Members Present: Mary Davey, David Smernoff, Pete Siemens, Nanette Hanko, Betsy Crowder, and Ken Nitz. J. Cyr arrived at 7:55 P.M. Members Absent: None Personnel Present: Craig Britton, Sue Schectman, John Escobar, Deirdre Dolan,Randy Anderson, Del Woods, Jodi Isaacs, Mary de Beauvieres, and Malcolm Smith. II. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS—None. III. BOARD BUSINESS A. Agenda Item No. 1 —Discussion of issues Related to the Fe-asibLty of Expanding the District by Annexation to Establish a System of Open Space Preserve, Parks, and Beaches on the San Mateo County Coast in Coordination with Existing and Planned District Preserves and Trails. to Include Discussion of Potential_Elections, Po ici Advisory Committee, Public Opinion Polling, and Related Subjects. B. Crowder stated that the object of the Board was to decide with the help of the public whether to proceed with an annexation proposal. She referred to a memo from C. Britton outlining the proposed order of business. C. Britton referred to the Board report of February 11 (Report R 98-23)which contained background information. He said staff was seeking direction from the Board as to what they wanted to do next—go forward with the annexation or look into it further. He outlined workshop topics as contained in his memo to the Board dated May 20 and referred to S. Schectman's memo regarding the time line for the annexation. N. Hanko said her memo of April 22 also listed issues for discussion. She asked that financing, impacts on the existing District, and unfinished tasks of the ad hoc committee and Board be added to that list. She also requested that"Procedure" be added to Item IV.A, Annexation. 330 Distel Circle • Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 • Phone:650-691-1200 FAX: 650-691-0485 • E-mail: mrosd@openspace.org • Web site:www.openspace.org Board of Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C. Davey,led Cyr,David T.Smernoff,Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C.Nitz •General Manager:L.Craig Britton II Meeting 98-11 Page 2 , Harry Haeussler said he had been a constant critic of the Board's actions in past. He talked about the 1974 law change which he said happened without voter approval for the District to change it's name to open space and annexation of part of San Mateo County and parts of other Santa Cruz County under the guise of sphere of influence. He asked if they were really going to have some parks over there and who would pay for it. N. Hanko informed him that the law that created MROSD was specific and that language had to be used. She said they assumed people read the ballot argument that made it very clear that the district had an agreement with the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors not to do parks. She said the annexation in San Mateo had been voted on. Mr. Haeussler said his question was about the people in the District voting on the annexation. B. Crowder said they did take a poll in the District and the existing District was overwhelmingly II in favor of preservation. Zoe Kersteen-Tucker urged the Board to move forward with a vote in November. She said people are waiting to start working. She encouraged them to start looking at campaign funding and to spend time working on agricultural policies that bring together agricultural and environmental interests. She said the State Farm Bureau and the Farmland Trust should probably be represented on an advisory committee. Ms. Kersteen-Tucker said she thought there was a press to move forward as quickly as possible. D. Smernoff suggested the use of a matrix showing the main issues and policy intent. B. Crowder brought attention to the timelines prepared by S. Schectman and Peggy Coats. C. Britton said the latest the Board could put something on the November ballot is at the June 24 meeting and the election would cost approximately$18,000. P. Siemens said he was looking at a time line to phase in some other policies including agriculture. N. Hanko asked for more detail about the funding vote. S. Schectman said Proposition 218 requires special taxes to get a 2/3 vote. There is an argument that a territory that has not been annexed can only have an advisory election. She said it is difficult to say whether an advisory vote on funding would satisfy the law. LAFCO can as a condition of approval of the annexation instruct the District to have an election in the area to be annexed. She said the District could have a funding vote or could go through the annexation procedure and not have one. S. Schectman said LAFCO would certainly consider the advisory vote as an expression of support of the area to be annexed; but if there were a sufficient protest they would require another election on annexation. She said there could be an advisory vote on whether they want to tax themselves. C. Britton said a District-wide election would cost approximately $400,000 and the District currently has$80,000 budgeted for elections in four of the seven wards in November. Meeting 98-11 Page 3 Fran Pollard, El Granada, said she hoped the Board would put this issue on the November ballot. She said they need the District on the coast side. She said they passed Proposition 20 to save the coast 25 years ago and are now fighting the battles again. Tim Rourke, Pescadero, said he thought the District would have to make the tax rate very clear. He said he fully supported the concept and the way the District is going about its business in a professional manner. He talked about the concept of removing development rights then selling or leasing the land back to the same people who have owned it and have not shown proper stewardship. He said topsoil is rapidly disappearing because of some farming practices on the coast. He presented a binder he had prepared regarding restrictions that should be put in place if the District acted. C. Britton said staff doesn't know much about farming and would have to be educated from scratch. He said the District had not decided how farmland will be preserved. Mr. Rourke said he was more concerned about the large tracts that POST has already bought and the people who have been farming that will continue. He said he thought fanning practices could be modified. He said there is a responsibility on behalf of the District to make sure proper farming methods are carried out. B. Crowder said the District will be working on its policies and would like to know about the best agricultural practices. P. Siemens agreed, stating that there should be strong requirements to preserve farmland. Kit Dove, El Granada, San Mateo County Agricultural Advisory Committee, encouraged the Board to move ahead. He asked them to add as a resource MALT (Marin Agricultural Land Trust). She thought the Mid-Coast Park Lands would like to participate on the advisory committee and added that the Monterey Sanctuary may have an interest in sharing their point of view. He suggested that the District consider land by zoning designation rather than whether it is rural or urban. Nancy Maule, Montana, shared a public notice that a neighbor brought to her regarding a lot line adjustment on McNee ranch. She said they need the District's help. Ms. Kersteen-Tucker added a different perspective based on comments about MALT. She said one of the problems is that fanners feel they are already burdened with regulatory agencies and she was sure they would be opposed to another regulatory group. C. Britton said he thought the District would have other workshops as the District considered agricultural practices. There will be a tour conducted by the Faun Bureau. He expressed concern about rushing into policy development. He also mentioned that the District has nQ regulatory powers. Chuck Kozak, Montara, asked if the Board decided to go with the advisory vote, would they also begin the annexation process. C. Britton said that is a decision the Board would have to make. Staff is recommending that the Board pass the resolution approving going to an advisory vote. B. Crowder said she thought the ad hoc committee was anxious to move ahead. Meeting 98-11 page 4 P. Siemens said he liked the idea of getting the process going and thought staff could start the paper work. C. Britton said staff is recommending a follow up telephone survey and they could bring a contract for Board approval to the next meeting. N. Hanko said she thought the poll would be very important because a lot of people were undecided. She said she would like to see an updated poll. Mr. Kozak talked about the process of developing policies that will be exclusive to the coast and agreed that they did not want to rush. He said it was very important however to be working on policies for agricultural lands and eminent domain. He thought an advisory group consisting of a small working core of five or six people with input from other agencies should be formed. Discussion followed regarding the funding. P. Siemens said the current assessment within the District is about $50 for a $300,000 property. Whether or not to extend the regular tax rate into the new area will be one of the things under discussion. He said each Board member probably has an idea of how we will pay for this. N. Hanko said the poll showed strong support in the existing District for acquisition on the coast at a cost of about $10-12 a year per parcel. M. Davey said the assessment of agricultural and commercial properties might be different than for residential. C. Britton said a per parcel tax is the most common to put in place; if the Board decided on a funding vote they could test these options through a poll. Discussion followed about merging parcels. C. Britton said there is a difference between a legal lot and an assessor's parcel. Mr. Rourke said it must be explained clearly. N. Hanko said the District is not legally required to go to the existing District for an advisory election, which saves$400,000. She said we can administratively begin the annexation process without a vote on the coast, but she did not think the Board would do that. As far as an election for funding, she said the District would have to philosophically look at the coast and say this area is so important to the existing District we should give annexation a chance. Then we have to see if we can do some financing in the entire area. Harry Haeussler said he thought it was a waste of time and the District doesn't have enough money now for the operations and planning departments. Don Johnson, Half Moon Bay, said the survey needs to be phrased so they get a good answer regarding the eminent domain question. He asked if the District would revise their seven wards so that coast side will be represented. N. Hanko answered that they would be required to do that. M. Davey said according to the law the District can have no more than seven wards. They will have to design the wards to best represent voters. N. Hanko said there has to be an equal number of voters in each ward. N Meeting 98-11 Page 5 When asked their opinion regarding eminent domain, the audience as a group responded, "keep it. P. Siemens said the District likes to buy from willing sellers. He didn't know if they needed to change their policy. N. Hanko said she thought the advisory committee should look at the policy and perhaps exempting active ranching or farming. She said she would want to be sure that they considered how well managed the lands are. C. Britton said the reason the District was doing a telephone survey on the coast is to find out how the convent issue might have changed opinions. M. Davey said they need advice but she thought they should keep eminent domain as a final resort to protect endangered open space from development. P. Siemens said if they look at their policy very carefully they probably would not need to change it but probably ought to put in clarification. He said they need to look at agricultural, eminent domain, and acquisition policies. NOTE: I Cyr arrived at 7:55 P.M. P. Siemens said the Board needs to look at a policy that says the District is not spending any of the existing funds. We will annex but wait until we have new sources of money. Paul Perkovic, Mid Coast Community Council, said it would be very important to be clear how the eminent domain policy applies to the current District and how it would apply to the annexed area. S. Schectman said the Board could adopt an ordinance setting forth whatever regulations they wished but could not change the enabling statute. N. Hanko said they have used eminent domain for friendly purposes, too. C. Britton described a case where it had benefited the property owner for the District to invoke eminent domain. Nancy Maule said she could not imagine the Board would let eminent domain go out of their hands because they would lose an opportunity to get a precious piece of property. C. Britton said he thought the question was how do you develop policy that answers questions regarding the family farm vs. the person who will subdivide land with profit as the only motive. Dick Curtis, Half Moon Bay, member of the Planning Commission, said the Board should be aware that eminent domain is a hot issue on the coast. Mr. Kozak said he would not encourage giving up anything in order to win an election. He said it would be important to sell the District for its preservation of open space and agricultural uses. He commented that the District needs to have policies like eminent domain to make that work. He Meeting 98-11 Page 6 said it needs to be made clear that the District is working on agricultural policies. RECESS: 8:25-8:40 P.M. N. Hanko said the District used to have a site emphasis plan which showed which areas were going to be developed and which would be left as they were. She thought the coast might lend itself to this kind of plan. C. Britton said he thought it would be important to look at what other agencies are doing and what our niche would be. It would be necessary to look at what the District would provide there in terms of public access. April Vargas, Montana, said she appreciated what the District has done and that they are willing to look at hard issues. Regarding polling, she asked how soon they envisioned doing it and when results would be available. She said the results would be invaluable in crafting a campaign. K. Nitz asked how this poll would be different from the other one. C. Britton said the original poll took 20 minutes and this would be about half that long and would ask new questions about the convent. It would only be on the coast and probably target 250 people. The cost would be $8,700. M. Davey said the committee had discussed the poll at some length and agreed this would be a good comparison. It is a way to get information on how effective education has been and the effect of the convent situation. D. Smernoff asked if there were any questions about other preservation methods. People might feel there are too many organizations. Perhaps there are other preservation methods on the coast rather than annexation. He asked if voters were aware of the difference between the District and other organizations and if property owners were willing to have another agency with eminent domain have jurisdiction over their property. C. Britton said the Board would approve the final ballot language on June 24. Mr. Kozak said that aside from preserving agricultural land and providing public access too en F gF F space lands, there are some extremely sensitive and undisturbed native habitats on the west side of the ridge. B. Crowder said she personally thought there should be as few trails as possible. C. Britton said an extension of the Regional Open Space Study would be important. He did not think there needed to be the same density of trails on the coastside. Katherine Green, Mountain View, talked about preservation of rare and endangered species and asked if there had been a study of what is there. C. Britton said the District staff had met with the Nature Conservancy and they have identified unique areas. He said part of the District's program is to look into those possibilities and encourage that kind of study. 1 Meeting 98-11 Page 7 N. Hanko said she would like to see the advisory committee continue if the vote is successful. C. Britton said he thought the residents would desire some kind of an advisory group on the coast because they live there and we don't. K. Nitz asked if they should make having a permanent advisory committee for the area part of the advisory vote. N. Hanko said if there is an opportunity she thought they ought to include that information and any other information that makes it clear in the ballot arguments. S. Schectman said she had been having discussions with county counsel and their position is that arguments for and against the measure should be filed as they usually are. S. Schectman said if the Board decides to go forward, the Board would take a preliminary look at what the resolution and measure might look like on June 10. There is a 75-word limit. Once the Board adopts a resolution calling for an advisory vote, the Board and staff can no longer be involved in terms of spending staff time unless it is developing policy. S. Schectman said the Board can it its entirety sign the ballot argument in favor of the measure; they are the proponent. They can adopt a resolution supporting the measure. She said the District can disseminate neutral factual material on the measure. M. Davey brought up four items she thought Board should act on this evening. C. Britton informed them the Board could not take formal action on them at this time. The items were as follow: • Authorize staff to implement public opinion poll • Proceed with advisory vote on November 3 • Convene an advisory committee • Proceed with preparation for annexation of coast, those tasks that we can do now. By consensus, Board members agreed to move forward with formal consideration of these items at June Board meetings. IV. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 P.M. Roberta Wolfe Recording Secretary