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