Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20001016 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Regional Open S. yce MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Meeting 00-27 SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS October 16, 2000 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING I. ROLL CALL President Ken Nitz called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. Members Present: Jed Cyr, Mary Davey, Nonette Hanko, Deane Little (7:05 p.m.), Peter Siemens, and Ken Nitz. Members Absent: None Staff Present: Craig Britton, Duncan Simmons, Sue Schectman, John Escobar, Lisa Zadek II. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Dave Pilling, Canario Way, Los Altos Hills, said there were coyotes in his neighborhood. When he talked to vector control, they said they couldn't help them. He said they can't fire guns and have lost two cats to the coyotes. He asked how they could control such a wild animal population. The vector control people said there is a fair amount of distemper among the coyote population. C. Britton replied that the only coyote trapping the District did was after a child was bitten. The coyotes they caught then all had cat scratch fever. He said the District is not responsible and would not be involved in trapping or killing them. However, staff will try to find out where Mr. Pilling can get help. III. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: J. Cyr moved that the Board adopt the agenda. N. Hanko seconded and the motion passed 6 to 0. IV. BOARD BUSINESS A. Agenda Item No. I - Workshop to Review the Preliminary Draft Service Plan Being Prepared for the Public Workshops Scheduled for October. 2000 and to Become Ultimately a Part of the District's Local Agency Formation 330 Distel Circle • Los Altos, CA 94022-1404 # Phone:650-691-1200 Fax:650-691-0485 • E-mail:mrosd@openspace.org • Web site:www.openspa(,e.org C)FaEEgT Board of[Directors:Pete Siemens,Mary C. Davey,Jed Cyr,Deane Little,Nonette Hanko, Betsy Crowder,Kenneth C. Nitz • General Manager:L.Craig Britton Meeting 00-27 Page 2 Commission (LAFCo) Application for the San Mateo County Coastal Annexation -(Report R-00-132). Patrick Miller, 2M Associates, said copies of the draft were sent to the entire mailing list. He reviewed the Preliminary Draft Service Plan, stating that since June they had passed all CEQA comments on to Thomas Reed & Associates and some members of the public, and have revised the draft service plan to the current document dated October 6. He said these were guiding principles for how the District will operate within the coastal area. He introduced Terry Watt, a planner, who was also working on the process. He listed significant changes from the previous draft including the following: • Eminent domain prohibited; • Expanded discussion of LAFCO and the criteria they use to evaluate applications for annexation; • Refined language about forestry - District not in forestry business per se; • New section on partnership opportunities; • Wards and representation on the coast. Map of coastal annexation area and existing ward structure; • Section that defines the kinds of services on coast; • Table - outline a timeline; • Proposal is to expand sphere of influence and District boundary to coast. A good portion of it is in the coastal plan. Have added a section that says it is not the intent of the District to request any general plan amendments or zoning changes; • Table which described three scenarios, now describes one basic service plan. The proposal as it stands at this time is that the District would annex property with or without a voter-approved funding measure. The basic service proposal (project description) is to expand, to annex the entire coastal area, but work within the current funding sources and techniques currently used. Alternative funding scenarios outlined are as follows: (1) There would be an additional voter-approved funding source only within the coastal area. (2) There would be an additional voter-approved funding source within the entire District. Some items that were suggested by letters and comments received after June that they have NOT included in the preliminary plan are as follows: • Any assessments would only be on residential, commercial, and industrial parcels, not on agricultural lands; • All land and resource management policies are to be made prior to annexation; • Acquisition of agricultural land be only in the form of easements, not in fee simple. They have outlined some assumptions about what percentage of easements would be acquired versus outright acquisition; Meeting 00-27 Page 3 • Forestry alternatives - analysis of different forest practices. P. Miller noted that the LAFCo application involves three elements: service plan, CEQA document, and fiscal analysis. He said it was important that when the application goes to LAFCo, they present an accurate picture of the fiscal dynamics of the services being proposed. P. Miller said the new LAFCo law, AB 2838, takes effect January 1, 2001, and this application will not be submitted by then. A lot of the policy statements are elevated, for example the importance of open space is heightened as it pertains to controlling urban sprawl. There are changes in the definition of prime agricultural land. It expands the criteria that LAFCo would use in making their decisions. It specifically says that any information or comments from affected land owners, and any information relating to existing land use descriptions need to be considered. The significant change from the District's standpoint is that in previous LAFCo legislation, the District would have been the conducting authority, and LAFCo is the conducting authority now. P. Miller summarized that they are trying to wrap up the draft service plan, including having a second round of workshops. He said this is not a legal process, but a planning process. They will come back to the Board to accept the draft service plan as the project description. Following that, they can finalize the CEQA document and fiscal analysis. After the CEQA period, there will be comment meetings, then it will go back to the Board for adoption of the plan and certification of the EIR. Finally, the package goes to LAFCo. S. Schectman emphasized this service plan assumes a program of acquisition or management based on existing revenues. The service plan stresses this is a plan to acquire from willing owners without the use of eminent domain. P. Miller said certification of the EIR would occur in March at the earliest. The fiscal plan will be available when the draft EIR is issued as a public document. April, 2001 would be the earliest that the application could go to LAFCo. S. Schectman said the change in LAFCo legislation could relieve staff of some burden. They will do everything they can to facilitate the process for LAFCo. K. Nitz referred to page 14, next to the last paragraph, and asked if the consulting would take place in meetings. P. Miller said this paragraph meant that staff would be going to meetings in the coastal annexation area. Regarding changing zoning laws, C. Britton said when a public agency buys land that is zoned TPZ, by law, the zoning has to be changed. The District has never initiated a zoning change. Meeting 00-27 Page 4 P. Miller said the 20% number on page 19 ("acquisition of conservation easements will account for approximately 20% of the acquisitions by the District") was not a fixed number. They had worked with staff to reach that figure. He said the 1,720 acres referred to in the last paragraph on page 19 was extrapolated from the District's history. J. Escobar said there are 33 or 34 field staff. K. Nitz asked if the $12 per parcel per year, referred to on page 21, was a fixed amount. C. Britton said it was based on polling done statewide. P. Miller emphasized that this figure is for information, and that the basic service plan is not predicated on any number. Jack Olsen, San Mateo County Farm Bureau, answered questions about the definitions of Class I and Class II prime agricultural land referred to on page 29 of the plan. He said it was a criteria established by the Natural Resources Conservation Service to grade the quality of the soils. However, the San Mateo County Local Coastal Plan has a far more restrictive prime soil designation than either the Conservation Service or what is being proposed by the modifications to LAFCo. N. Hanko asked if prime agricultural land would include forested land. J. Olsen said traditionally forested lands are resource management zoning, or separate timber production zone (TPZ), not prime agricultural district zoning. He said the Storei Index Rating mentioned on page 29 was an NRCS rating system. P. Miller said item 3 on page 29 does include outdoor growing of flowers. Michael Murphy, Rural Coast Open Space Trust, said he would support the plan and do his best to get it accepted with the rural coast. He had two issues, the first being the voting situation. C. Britton informed him that the population of a ward is close to 100,000. Before the next general election, redistricting will take place according to the census figures. M. Murphy said he thought people would prefer to be associated with two wards. He said most people on the rural coast would like urban and rural in separate districts. P. Siemens said he thought it was up to the coastal people to tell the i District how they want t to work.rk M. Murphy said the other issue is taxes. C. Britton said the current property tax rate is rP Y P P Y 1.7 cents per $100 value. He estimated that would work out to about $100 for a house worth $700,000. M. Murphy said there was a need to tell people up front what taxes might be and whether it will be a District-wide vote. S. Schectman pointed out that on Page 21 of the service plan, it stated that the basic I service plan has no tax measure. The hypothetical scenarios in the plan say that if a tax were proposed and were to pass by a 2/3 vote, it is anticipated, based on polling, that the maximum tax would be up to $12 per parcel per year. She said perhaps they should I I I I Meeting 00-27 Page 5 say the reasonably foreseeable tax rate is $1 per month. She referred to page 8 of the plan which described the process of presenting a funding measure. C. Britton stressed that the figure of$1 per month was based on previous polling and perhaps they should indicate that the District would do current polling to determine a final amount. P. Miller said they will clarify that section. Erik Huff, Big Creek Lumber, said he was pleased with the new language but was concerned about the difference between limited tree removal and commercial harvest of timber. He said they are facing a diminishing supply of redwoods, and he would hate to see any of it go to waste. C. Britton noted that these are guidelines, not policies. P. Miller said they could add to Guideline G43 that, in such cases, the timber may be sold. E. Huff said that they might want to consider what would happen if there were a lifetime timber harvesting plan on land the District acquired. Henry Rodegerdts, counsel for the California Farm Bureau Federation, said he was assisting the San Mateo County Farm Bureau in connection with their review of this program. He said the Farm Bureau has worked closely with the development of the service plan, and they did comment extensively on the June, 2000 draft. Mr. Miller's summary of the points raised which were not included in the current draft capsulated the farm bureau's comments. He was concerned that they had not heard how their members felt about the plan in its current form. C. Britton said if they had their comments on November 6 or 7, they could be considered at the November 15 meeting. D. Little acknowledged P. Miller, 2M Associates, and Mr. Murphy. C. Britton acknowledged C. Woodbury, as well as R. Anderson, who worked on the plan as a staff member and a consultant. V. ADJOURNMENT At 8:27 P.M., the meeting was adjourned. Roberta Wolfe Recording Secretary