Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20001128 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Regional Open c ice MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT Meeting 00-33 SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS November 28, 2000 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING I. ROLL CALL President Ken Nitz called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M. Members Present: Jed Cyr, Mary Davey,Nonette Hanko, Larry Hassett, Deane Little 7:45 P.M. Pete Siemens and Ken Nitz. Members Absent: None. Staff Present: CraigBritton Sue Schectman John Escobar Cathy Woodbury, Duncan y 1`Y, Simmons, and Stephanie Jensen. I K. Nitz introduced Larry Hassett who had been appointed the previous evening to fill the un-expired term as Director for Ward 7. Director Hassett talked about his background and experience. H. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - There were none. I11. ADOPTION OF AGENDA Motion: J. Cyr moved that the Board adopt the agenda. P. Siemens seconded and the motion passed 6 to 0. IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT CALENDAR Motion: M. Davey moved that the Board adopt the Consent Calendar, including Revised Claims 00-19. J. Cyr seconded the motion. The motion passed 6 to 0. V. BOARD BUSINESS A. Agenda Item No. 1 - Approval of the Draft Service Plan for the San Mateo County Coastal Annexation Which Will Provide the Project Description for the Environmental Impact Report and Act as the Foundation for the Fiscal Anal and Which Will Ultimately Become a Part of the District's Local Agency 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, Deane Little, Nanette Flanko,Larry Hassett,Kenneth C. Nitz -General Manager:L.Craig Bri' Meeting 00-33 Page 2 Formation Commission (LAFCo) Application for the San Mateo County Coastal Annexation—(Report R-00-145). C. Britton introduced the item, explaining that the annexation application consists of three parts: • Draft Service Plan(project description to be used for preparation of the EIR) • Environmental Impact Report(EIR) • Fiscal analysis He said adoption of the Draft Service Plan is the first step in the formal action to annex. C. Woodbury presented the staff report that described the changes and refinements incorporated into the plan since the October 6 draft. It already included a policy to include a permanent policy to acquire land only from willing sellers and to give up the right to use eminent domain. The changes included the following: • Added statements at the bottom of page 11 under Agriculture that are from the Planned Agricultural District purpose as stated in the San Mateo County Plan and that closely reflected the county's agricultural district policies for preservation and fostering of agricultural uses. • Added on page 12 under Implementation the San Mateo County Agricultural Advisory Committee, Resource Conservation District, and Local Farm Bureau to the list of agencies to consult with. • Deleted the term "open field agriculture" under definitions in the appendix, page A-1 under agricultural lands. • Refined tables to more closely reflect a realistic level of service. C. Woodbury introduced Patrick Miller and Terry Watt of 2M Associates, consultants on the project. N. Hanko talked about things that were not in the Draft Service Plan including the following things mentioned in Farm Bureau letter and that she would like to see added: • The four statements under Agriculture's Primacy in the Coastal Zone on page 4 of the letter of November 20 included in the Draft Service Plan. • The suggested language on page 5 as an alternative to the planned agricultural district ordinance - she thought it would be worth the District's time to include these ideas so they are not held up in LAFCo. • She thought there would be value to District having its own agricultural advisory committee. Meeting 00-33 Page 3 Jack Olson, Farm Bureau, said the feeling was that the Agricultural Advisory Committee was already an established body, but he thought the bureau could support it either way. Terry Watt said they had met with representatives of the Farm Bureau and as a result have incorporated some specific measures. She talked about why they were not incorporated in whole. She said this version is much more weighted towards protecting existing agricultural land and minimizes the extent to which they would take land out of agricultural production. She said they tried to craft the Draft Service Plan in a way that was respectful of agricultural production but did not discount the fact that the District has other objectives as well. She said implementation action G.3.B.i was directly in response to the request to have an advisory committee. G.3.C.i was added to acknowledge that the District would entertain acquisition of agricultural conservation easements, would consider the terms of easement on a case-by-case basis, and specifically, would allow all agricultural uses permitted by San Mateo County. She referred to two of the permanent policies carried forward from the last draft and shown on page 18. She said these basically said the District is not intending to initiate activities that would require general plan amendments or zone changes in the coastal zone. She said they might want to consider making this language area-wide. S. Schectman said she understood that the Farm Bureau representative recognized that the District is not a land use regulatory agency, and that anything the District does would be subject to the Planned Agricultural District zoning. The second issue was that if the District incorporated the PAD ordinance by reference, we don't know what might occur in the future in the event the ordinance was amended. Third, the District's objective is the same as the essence of the PAD's objectives to protect and foster agriculture, and these objectives are incorporated into the plan. Fourth, the reference to the Agricultural Advisory Committee has been added to make it clear there would be consultation on any agricultural policies. C. Britton said they assume the existing Agriculture Advisory Committee would be an ongoing, appointed committee that the District would work with. J. Olson said they look at this as the beginning of a long-term relationship. They would like to see the formation of an advisory body to the Board. In relation to the PAD ordinance, he said that Measure A in San Mateo County stated that any lessening or weakening of any policy must be ratified by a full vote of the electorate of San Mateo County with a majority vote. He thought that needed to be added for consideration. N. Hanko talked about other questions that had not been raised lately and might not need to be part of the service plan. One was whether there would be a tax consequence to the school district from the acquisition of land. C. Britton said Meeting 00-33 Page 4 that would be part of the fiscal study which would analyze that question and which is a mandatory part of the application N. Hanko talked about the District not destroying housing that could be used by farm labor people or members of families of agricultural lands. C. Britton said it was their plan that they would not get involved in any agricultural properties until the District had developed agricultural policies on the coast. P. Siemens wondered if it should be part of the Draft Service Plan. P. Miller referred to page 20 of the Draft Service Plan which contained text that under existing improvements should the District acquire land containing existing structures, these structures would be maintained and improved for uses such as staff and caretaker housing or rental to others at market rate. C. Britton thought it would be worthwhile adding a sentence stating if the housing is associated with agriculture, use of those buildings would be developed as part of the agricultural policies. S. Schectman noted that there is a required housing section that will be included in the Draft EIR. N. Hanko said Bill Cook had mentioned that there is pressure on downtown Pescadero regarding public toilets and perhaps they could work together on that issue. P. Siemens said he would like to see language that the District plans to consider formation of an advisory committee during development of more specific policies. P. Miller stated to the Board that when they went to community groups they heard from them that they did not need more committees. N. Hanko said maybe it should be under representation because in a sense it strengthens the representation on the coast to have an advisory committee. P. Siemens suggested wording saying that during development of the detailed policies the District would consider formation of advisory committees as necessary to meet the needs of the particular issue being addressed. Stan Pastorino, 12491 San Mateo Road, Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County Farm Bureau, talked about true representation on the Board and asked when the re- districting would take place and the wards drawn up. Meeting 00-33 Page 5 P. Miller added there was text on page 13 stating that based on the 2000 census, the District will be re-apportioning the boundaries in 2002, prior to the next general election. N. Hanko suggested changing "one or two wards"to "one or more wards" in the second paragraph on page 13. She would like how the wards are made up to be by a consensus of the people represented. Regarding S. Pastorino's question, S. Schectman said the redistricting would have to take place before the next general election. C. Britton noted there is a maximum number of seven wards allowed under law and that perhaps all seven wards could be extended. S. Pastorino stated that people on the coast would like to see more than one ward extended to the coast if possible. Oscar Braun talked about voting patterns in the election and about the differences in those patterns between rural lands and the populated urban mid-coast. He said the issue of representation will be highly debated by those who live in rural land. P. Siemens agreed to changing representation (page 13) to "one or more." He suggested that the rest of the paragraph be deleted. S. Schectman said LAFCo commented that in the Draft Service Plan there should be some discussion of how they would go about representation. She added that LAFCo will be trying to address that. C. Britton asked P. Miller to write down the suggested changes, then rewrite the plan to include the changes approved. April Vargas, Montara, chair of the MidCoast Community Council, said the council was happy that three of the main concerns expressed in their letter were included. Those were as follows: 1. The representation section. 2. Recognition of the importance of sensitive habitat as well as protecting the economically viable agriculture. 3. Partnerships - she said there is a local land trust that was not included in the list. P. Miller commented that the list (of partnerships) is open-ended. C. Britton suggested changing it to read, potential local partnerships including but not limited to . . .," and said the list was not meant to be exclusive. Chuck Kozak, Montara, member of the MidCoast Community Council and the Agricultural Advisory Committee, thanked the District for the work on the Draft Meeting 00-33 Page 6 Service Plan and said he thought it represented all interests. He urged them to keep the advisory process inclusive. J. Olson, San Mateo County Farm Bureau, thanked staff for their responsive work on the plan and added that some points needed to be clarified. C. Britton said Mr. Olson could review the changes proposed by the Farm Bureau, then he and S. Schectman could work on minor changes following Board direction. Board members stressed that this is still a draft document. J. Olson discussed the Farm Bureau concerns as follows: • Page 9, fourth bullet, "sustainable" agriculture—change to "economically viable." T. Watt noted that the word "sustainable"had been stricken in the policy section. P. Siemens suggested adding on page 16, G.6.3 a sentence at the end indicating that these plans will include several opportunities for public involvement. • Page 19 - strike the word"field" • Page 19—"acquisition of conservation easements will account for approximately 20%"—modify to not be tied to 20% number; maybe say, "will be a priority for accomplishing the goals of the District." S. Schectman suggested using the language, ". . . acquisition of conservation easements will be an important part. . . " • Page 20 - include in the language relative to existing structures that habitable structures be made available to public service individuals as affordable housing, i.e. high school teachers, fireman, police officers, not just District staff and park rangers. Following discussion, he said that placing a period after the words "and others" would be agreeable. C. Britton stated the District will be addressing its housing policies. • Page A.I - definition of"Prime Agricultural Land"—he requested that the Draft Service Plan mirror the definition in the San Mateo County PAD ordinance. T. Watt recommended that both definitions be included. S. Schectman said LAFCo would let them know if they need clarification. P. Miller said the EIR will evaluate both. Henry Rodegerdts, attorney for the California Farm Bureau Federation, and Stan Pastorino thanked staff for working with them and heeding what came out of the Coastal Advisory Committee (CAC). Pete Tiernan, 6700 La Honda Road, La Honda, said he was surprised and edified by a document that he thought answered most concerns. He considered this document a true representation to the people on the coast of what the District planned to do and how it planned to do it. He expressed concerns about representation and taxation. C. Britton assured him there could be no new taxation without a vote of the electorate. J. Olson noted that the Draft Service Plan under"the mission for the coastal annexation area" included on page 9 a comment stating that this mission Meeting 00-33 Page 7 statement was incorporated into the District's Draft Service Plan for the Coastal Annexation Area. By consensus, Board members agreed it should be included in this draft. In addition, J. Olson said that they would like to have greenhouses included in the document and defined as "economically viable agriculture." T. Watt said that in the definition section, they have suggested the addition of San Mateo County's definition of prime agriculture. P. Miller reviewed the previously discussed changes. Motion: J. Cyr moved that the Board adopt the Draft Service Plan as amended. P. Siemens seconded the motion. Comments: Board members expressed appreciation and thanks to those providing input. Vote: The motion passed 7 to 0. VI. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS M. Davey: 1. She talked about the Board of Supervisors meeting regarding the Stanford land at which they unanimously accepted the 25-year urban growth boundary and the proposal for hillside cluster zoning on land west of Junipero Serra. After one million square feet, housing units would be staged in relation to growth on campus, and there would be no net new commute trips. No permanent open space was approved because of the threat of lawsuits. She said it is essentially a major victory in that there will be oversight. 2. She said the Bressler property was still on the market for $15 million. N. Hanko: 1. She added that it was pointed out that the Board of Supervisors could vote to overturn the 25-year growth boundary with a 4/5 vote. Stanford was directed to come back with a sustainable development plan. The second reading is scheduled for December 12. Stanford has also been asked to come back with protection for habitat resources. Supervisor Beall distributed a memo setting out some of the areas to be protected by Stanford, including the viewshed from Highway 280. 2. She announced that she had talked to Greg Betz of the City of Palo Alto. State Senator Byron Sher had obtained $100,000 for the development of a plan that will connect the Ridge Trail. C. Britton added that money came from the San Francisco Bay Program and is actually Proposition 12 money. N. Hanko said she had been told that the fact that the District eliminated bicycle access on Los Trancos somewhat assured that there would be cooperation with the Ridge Trial. 3. M. Davey, C. Britton, S. Jensen, and she met with Liz Kniss to go over the Stanford plan. Liz Kniss said she would continue to press Palo Alto's position and felt that the supervisors were listening to Palo Alto. D. Little said Rod Brown from ROMP had talked to him about the appointment process and members were concerned about a comment L. Hassett had made at a previous meeting. D. Little said he would assure R. Brown that L. Hassett has no bias one way or another, but we might need to assure the biking community. Meeting 00-33 Page 8 L. Hassett said interviews he had had with the press would clarify his views on trail use and other issues. S. Schectman provided an update on litigation. J. Escobar commented that the City of Palo Alto has approached the District regarding trail building as the District has the expertise and equipment. VIL ADJOURNMENT At 9:28 P.M., the meeting was adjourned. Roberta Wolfe Recording Secretary