Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20041109 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 04-28 ... . . _ ... _. Regional Open S j ce MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT t:I:LESRA1'C'wt 30 YEARS OF OPEN SPA€;F PRESERVA'C'ION Meeting 04-28 SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 7:00 p.m. Tuesday,November 9,2004 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos California AGENDA* 7:00 ROLL CALL ADOPTION OF AGENDA—M. Davey BOARD BUSINESS 7:05* 1. Approval of Revised Ward Boundaries to Include the Coastside Protection Area for Elected Representation on the Board to Further Implement the Processes Set Out in the District's Resolutions Fulfilling LAFCo's Conditions of Approval of the Annexation of the Coastside Protection Area 7:35* ADJOURNMENT * TIMES ARE ESTIMATED AND ITEMS MAY APPEAR EARLIER OR LATER THAN LISTED.AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE OF ORDER. ** TO ADDRESS THE BOARD: The Chair will invite public comment on agenda items at the time each item is considered by the Board of Directors. You may address the Board concerning other matters during Oral Communications. Each speaker will ordinarily be limited to three minutes. Alternately,you may comment to the Board by a written communication,which the Board appreciates. **• motion. Board members the General Manager,and members o the r m be approved without discussion b one All items on the consent calendar may pp y8 .� public may request that an item be removed from the Consent Calendar during consideration of the Consent Calendar. IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT,IF YOU NEED ASSISTANCE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MEETING,PLEASE CONTACT THE DISTRICT CLERK AT(650)691-1200. NOTIFICATION 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THE MEETING WILL ENABLE THE DISTRICT TO MAKE REASONABLE ARRANGEMENTS TO ENSURE ACCESSIBILITY TO THIS MEETING. 330 Distel Circle 650-691-1200 InfoPopenspace.Org BOARD OF DIRECTORS:Pete Siemens,Mary Davey,Jed Cyr, GENERAL MANAGER: Los Altos CA 94022-1404 650-691-0485 fax www.openspace.org Deane Little,Nanette Hanko,Larry Hossett,Kenneth C.Nitz L.Craig Britton Regional Open Sp.,,Le 1 R-04-115 Meeting 04-28 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT November 9, 2004 CIS.I.IBRA I'1\(1 i0 1'I-.AR', OI- UI'[ til':\C:I I'RI{JF.R\':\I-lU\ AGENDA ITEM I AGENDA ITEM Approval of Revised Ward Boundaries to Include the Coastside Protection Area for Elected Representation on the Board of Directors to Further Im ent the Processes Set Out in the District's Resolutions Fulfilling LAFCo's Conditions of Appro al of the Annexation of the Coastside Protection Area GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Approve a Ward Boundary redistricting plan and approve the attached resolution redistricting Ward Boundaries accordingly. DISCUSSION Background In recognition of the District's commitment to work with coastside residents, community groups, local elected officials and interested parties to develop a redistricting plan that best reflects overall desired ward configurations,the Board adopted Resolution 04-07 on February 25, 2004,which established a public participation process and timeline for redistricting of the District's ward boundaries upon completion of the annexation (See Report R-04-29). This public participation process became a condition of the San Mateo Local Agency Formation Commission's(LAFCo's)approval of the coastside annexation and includes the following elements: • District staff shall prepare four alternative redistricting scenarios that illustrate the extension of one, two,three or four wards to include the Coastside Protection Area. Each of the four scenarios will be based on the legal criteria established by Federal and State law, and any applicable District criteria, for redistricting of election districts. • In order to include as many constituents as possible in determining the new ward boundaries,the District will conduct public workshops to present the alternative redistricting scenarios and receive input from residents, community groups,coastside organizations, and elected officials. • The alternative redistricting scenarios will be posted on the District's web site and available for review at the District's administrative office. • Within 60 days after the effective date of the proposed Annexation and Sphere of Influence Amendment for the proposed Coastside Protection Area, as approved by the San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission,and the receipt of the revised population estimates for this area,the Board of Directors will hold these public workshops. The Board will then hold a public hearing to consider the input received at the workshops and adjust the boundaries of the wards of the District so that the wards meet applicable legal criteria and are as nearly equal in population as may be possible. On September 7, 2004 the Coastside Protection Program became official and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District's(MROSD)boundary was extended to the Pacific Ocean from the City of Pacifica to the Santa Cruz County line. Therefore, it is necessary to implement the Board-adopted public 33o Distel Circle 650-6gi-1200 info@openspace.org BOARD OF DIRECTORS:Pete Siemens,Mary Davey,Jed Cyr, GENERAL MANAGER: Los Altos CA 94022-1404 650-691-0485 fax www.openspace.org Deane Little,Nonette Hanko,Larry Hassett,Kenneth C.Nitz L.Craig Britton R-04-115 Page 2 participation process and redraw the wards in order to democratically represent coastside residents who became constituents when the boundary was extended. Alternative Redistricting Scenarios District staff prepared 6 ward boundary alternatives extending up to four wards to encompass the Coastside Protection Area(see Exhibit A). These alternatives are based on the Year 2000 total population figures provided by the US Census Bureau. The District utilized special redistricting software designed for use with Geographic Information Systems(GIS)technology. Using GIS, District staff analyzed very detailed Census data at the block-level to make precise boundary adjustments and to achieve the goal that the population within each ward remains within+/- I percent of the other wards. In adjusting ward boundaries, staff used the following criteria: • Population Balancing the population of each ward to within+/- 1% of the other wards • Geography Using major roads, streams, and other major geographic features to define boundaries • Cohesiveness, contiguity, integrity,and compactness of territory Avoid splitting cities or communities wherever possible Follow established census block boundaries • Community interests of the District Keep Director's residences within their wards Avoid crossing County lines in more than one ward • Extending up to four of the District's seven wards to the coast By law,the District is limited to a maximum of seven wards,each of which must represent as far as practicable an equal population. Before the Coastside Protection Program was approved, each of the 7 wards contained approximately 93,000 residents, which served a combined population of 649,711. With the addition of 29,963 coastside residents the wards must be redrawn in order to extend representation to all new constituents. Previous District Population 649,711 Coastside Protection Area Population 29,963 Total New District Population 079.674 Dividing the new District population into equal numbers(as far as is practicable)means that each of the 7 wards will include approximately 97,096 residents. Since the coastside population is 29,963, a separate ward for the Coastside Protection Area is not feasible and would not meet legal requirements. However, the Coastside Protection Area could be included in one or more wards, providing elected representation for all coastside residents, and enabling one or more residents the opportunity to run for and serve on the District's Board of Directors. Public Workshops The Board held three public workshops to receive input on 6 alternative redistricting scenarios: • October 21 at the Comfort Inn/Miramar Lodge Conference Center, Half Moon Bay • October 26 at the Russell Administration Center, Pescadero • November 4 at the MROSD Skyline Office, Woodside R-04-115 Page 3 Notification and Posting Notice of the workshops and Board meeting, and opportunity for on-line participation was published in the Half Moon BayReview, San Mateo County Times and San Jose Mercury News on October 13 and h' 20 2004.Notices were mailed to all coastside governmental agencies, special districts organizations, g g P g government-sponsored organizations,community groups, land trusts,and District-wide agenda subscribers.Notices were also e-mailed to coastside agencies and interested districts and organizations, many of which posted the information on their own websites and included it in electronic newsletters. The alternative redistricting scenarios were posted on the District's web site along with a survey asking willing participants for their first and second choice and the reasons for their selections. The survey also provided space for additional comments. Summary of Public Comments Scenario 1 extending one ward to the coastside, and Scenario 2 extending two wards to the Coastside, appear to be the most popular with the community who responded at the workshops and in the survey. A summary of the workshop attendance and participants comments and results of the on-line survey are included in Exhibit B. i Minor Refinements to Scenarios 1 and 2 Based on Director input and staff review, staff has incorporated a few very minor refinements to the two most popular alternatives: in Scenario 1 b, Ward 5 retains more area north of Lytton Road and east of El Camino Real within Palo Alto City limits, Ward 2 gains an area in Palo Alto to the west and south of El Camino Real, and Ward 1 is extended northwest to Highway 9 in a sparsely populated area within Santa Clara County. In Scenario 2c, Ward 7 encompasses more of the unpopulated baylands north of Highway 101, including Bair Island,and Ward I includes the sparsely populated area at Highways 9 and 35. Conclusion and Recommendation It is recommended that the Board review the resulting eight alternative redistricting scenarios,consider the public input received at the workshops and through the survey, receive public testimony at the November 9,2004 meeting and approve one of the Ward Boundary redistricting plans to include the Coastside Protection Area Prepared by: Matthew Sagues, Cartographer Matthew Freeman, Senior Open Space Planner Cathy Woodbury, ASLA/AICP, Planning Manager Contact person: L. Craig Britton, General Manager Exhibits: A. Alternative Redistricting Plans B. Summary of Workshop Attendance and Comments and Results of On-Line Survey RESOLUTION NO. 04- RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT ADJUSTING EXISTING WARD BOUNDARIES TO INCLUDE THE COASTSIDE PROTECTION AREA The Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does resolve as follows: WHEREAS, on April 7, 2004 the San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCo") conditionally approved the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District("District") Coastside Protection Program which annexed the Coastside Protection Area to the District and directed the District to implement the District's Public Participation Process for Reapportionment adopted on February 25, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District has reviewed population figures provided by the 2000 United States Census for the District's seven wards; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that ward boundary adjustments are required to incorporate the annexation of the Coastside Protection Area into the District so as to achieve an equal population, as far as practicable, per ward based on the 2000 Census data: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District as follows: Section One: Pursuant to Elections Code Section 22000 and Public Resources Code Section 5572, ward boundaries are hereby adjusted for wards of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District as described schematically in Exhibit A affixed hereto and made a part hereof and as delineated in detail on the following maps on file with the District Clerk in the District office, which documents are incorporated herein by reference: A roved Redi z blerted] [ rr Section Two: The ward boundaries as established by the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District on May 29, 2002 with respect to the wards in Santa Clara County and San Mateo County by Resolution 02-16 are superseded by this resolution. CurrentIvard Boundaries A Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District San .AritKa F r a n c i s c o Bay MATED f10NTAM AM)S MACM q�f� r u +Af NAl "'to MT PARK Dl — ff/.Nf Of 6 Pacific Ocean COASTSIDE '°"'°'"°""" 105 AiTDfNif Lr fAM(,RLG0O SAN lost u 2 PROTECTION racADtKo f�a AREA WARDS - 1 Pete Siemens 2 Mary Davey - 3 Jed Cyr 0 4 Deane Little e SANTA CKUZ 5 Nonette Hanko 0 6 Larry Hassett 1.25 2.5 5 Miles - 7 Ken Nitz Dwafw us—, r.Np Ri d OCNhr.3001 ai ASidia�imula 41-1 o—Space Di.. Scenario 1 : Ward 6 To The Coast San MCHICA \ Francisco \ Say SA f5 IF ASOHIABA AgSS�EACX ' BFIM ` �rY A MHS�N / IEMO MY tAB[ �' } MOODLA I �- Sf•XIOBO hr 4 � Pacific O c e a n 10S A,oT HIB � Z,s E.o sAN CBECOBIO uH OA N� C� _ AN los[ B,SCAb— f s1 � yea WARDSI �.. - 1 Pete Siemens 2 Mary Davey - 3 Jed Cyr t„ 0 4 Deane Little ® e S NTA CBUZ 5 Nonette Hanko 6 Larry Hassett '.25 z.5 5 Miles CaumY 7 Ken Nitz a S U C..w�& Y, B.Mwv llSCB G we Mnp P-IM Ckro ,—4 M MiApcnimula 0. 1.1 Open Sp —,kt f Scenario 2: Wards 7 & 6 To The Coast San rAoricA F r a n c i s c o B a Y NAM .nAwNT �i. �iHIRrON rARa .�/ �- su.roso Pacific O c e a n Toy A,Tas N„ SAX G S — u SAN 1011 I WARDS - 1 Pete Siemens 0 2 Mary Davey - 3 Jed Cyr 4 Deane Little e SANTA CRUZ 6 Nonette Hanko 6 Larry Hassett '.ZS z.5 5 Miles - 7 Ken Nitz Scenario 2 B: Wards 6 & 5 To The Coast San .ACIFKA _ F r a n cis c o Bay A10NTAM ��_` AIOff EMCN �FIMONt r C +'EA! Au A ATI[ETON NA MY AMMLo 'A .d L----- }w000510F �� fT� E LO 6 4 rTA Pacific rp AvA w Ocean lUp.,To>IIIIIp ITOf. -o� SAH POSE u ^/ L i WARDS - 1 Pete Siemens 0 2 Mary a Davey Y D v Y - 3 Jed Cyr 4 Deane Little ® iA t{ 5 Nonette Hanko e ¢A N� UE y 6 Larry Hassett 'ZS 2.5 5 Miles - 7 Ken Nitz Map Pnryed aldxr.2—aI Midi ..I.Rq—I Open Space DWII Scenario 1 B: Ward 6 To The Coast S a n Francisco 13aY \ �.."x' � ��` �`yet r'. •� --try 7 I Nam` PaCljlC C.�e e a n �. n 1 WARDSF _ 1 Pete Siemens 2 Mary Davey a= - 3 Jed Cyr r 4 Deane Little r 5 Nonette Hanko 6 Larry Hassett Miles 7 Ken Nitz �'�' Scenario 2C: Wards 7 & 6 To The Coast l \, \ \\. 5 a n af� Francisco Bay {'}C ATNfeiOel: 5 Pacific Ocean DAyI L r \ f � \ 1 1� RSU 0 1 y f Y•a } WARDS 1 Pete Siemens 2 Mary Davey 3 Jed Cyr 4 Deane Little � 5 Nonette Hanko D 1 25 2.5 5 6 Larry Hassett 7 Ken Nitz �<�^ himetl Ocwbn.l0M al rn-I.xepuvl Open Space O�unn Scenario 3: Wards 7, 6 & 5 To The Coast San Francisco Bay .wrEo EEUIOHT C ATHEETOH uHTlO .Mql II1E ��I` f TAMTDAD 4 Pacific O c e a n �°°T°"�""`r AfTD,HIII 6 SAH GII[fAElO Y DA ^ 5-IOfE �4 i WARDS - 1 Pete Siemens 2 Mary Davey - - 3 Jed Cyr 4 Deane Little e $AHTA CEOI 5 Nonette Hanko 6 Larry Hassett ZS 2.Mil ee 5 s 7 Ken N itz wp Inge Cke ,,—1 Audpe,,;,,,w,RM.10. %.1 D.— Scenario 4: Wards 7, 6, 5 & 2 To The Coast 1 San KA Francisco Bay SA MAL[O I BFLN AIMF[FON � .� uF �Nw uF rAui •. srtu 2� � 4 6 ' Pacific Ocean IOITOIA YA4FY "� ,of AF.of ` y C-�7 FAN fOSF lA DA - n•'S r0 i WARDS - 1 Pete Siemens 2 Mary Davey - 3 Jed Cyr 4 Deane Little ® e —TA Au. 5 Nonette Hanko � 0 1.25 2.5 5 6 Larry Hassett Miles a�sa.<waN^41 w.e vcs 7 Ken N itz imN(JciWx..l •i mi�lpen�nsua aeg��wlt)�xn S�a<e U�airkt Scenario 4B: WNds 7 6 5 & 2 To -Ae Coast Ward 2 covers Menlo Park San EACH- Francisco Bay 4 atlMO„T�� ^ S i ATNaa,ON xur MOO TO `A!Y � ,IOT A. „ 6 Pacific O c e a n "TOE,,VALLFT ALTOS Nltl 1to LTO* $AN 101E LAN OA G TecAoelo r c S WARDS - 1 Pete Siemens 2 Mary v I Y Davey Y 3 Jed Cyr Y 4 Deane Little ® 5 Nonette Hanko e !ANT C111 - 6 Larry Hassett ° 125 2.Mil ee 5 s fm 7 Ken N itz °� Map-Oclaber.]Waal AMd,xn�mWa Regional Open Spxe-1. Redistricting Plan Summaries Scenario l: (One ward, #6, goes to coast) Ward 7: This boundary would include the cities of San Carlos, Redwood City, and Redwood Shores, except for a portion of Redwood City to the south of Hwy 84. Ward 6: This boundary would cross and take the entire coastal annexation area. Ward 6 would represent all of the communities in the coastal annexation area, and still represent the cities of Woodside, Portola Valley, Atherton, part of Menlo Park (except that portion to the east and north of El Camino Real, and a portion of Redwood City to the south of Hwy 84. Ward 5: This boundary would encompasses the cities of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, unincorporated lands to the west of the "cherry stem," and that area of Menlo Park that lies to the east and north of El Camino Real. It would not include a section of Palo Alto described in the boundary of Ward 2. Ward 4: This boundary would encompass the city of Mountain View, as well as the city of Los Altos except for that area of the city within the census tract 5101, which would be in Ward 2. Ward 3: This boundary would encompass the portion of Sunnyvale north and east of El Camino (Hwy 82), as well as census tracts 5084.04, 5084.01, and parts of tracts 5085.03, which lies to the south of Hwy 82. Ward 2: This boundary would encompass the community of Stanford, as well as large tracts of unincorporated land between Skyline Boulevard and Foothill Expressway, the portion of Los Altos to the east and south of San Antonio Road, the areas of Sunnyvale not included in the boundary of Ward 3, the following census tracts within the city of Palo Alto: Tracts 5113 and 5116.04, and Los Altos Hills. Ward 1: This boundary would include the communities of Cupertino, Saratoga, Los Gatos, Lexington Hills, and all unincorporated tracts (within the district boundary)that lie to the south of Skyline Blvd (Hwy 35) and to the east of Hwy 17. Scenario 1B: (One ward, #6, goes to coast) Ward 7: This boundary would include the cities of San Carlos, Redwood City, and Redwood Shores, except for a portion of Redwood City to the south of Hwy 84. Ward 6: This boundary would cross and take the entire coastal annexation area. Ward 6 would represent all of the communities in the coastal annexation area, and still represent the cities of Woodside, Portola Valley, Atherton, part of Menlo Park (except that portion to the east and north of El Camino Real, and a portion of Redwood City to the south of Hwy 84. Exhibit A Ward 5: This boundary would encompasses the cities of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, unincorporated lands to the west of the "cherry stem", and that area of Menlo Park that lies to the east and north of El Camino Real. It would not include a section of Palo Alto described in the boundary of Ward 2. Ward 4.: This boundary would encompass the city of Mountain View, as well as the city of Los Altos except for that area of the city within the census tract 5101,which would be in Ward 2. Ward 3: This boundary would encompass the portion of Sunnyvale north and east of El Camino (Hwy 82), as well as census tracts 5084.04, 5084.01, and parts of tracts 5085.03, which lies to the south of Hwy 82. Ward 2: This boundary would encompass the community of Stanford, as well as large tracts of unincorporated land between Skyline Boulevard and Foothill Expressway, the portion of Los Altos to the east and south of San Antonio Road, Los Altos Hills, the areas of Sunnyvale not included in the boundary of Ward 3,the following census tracts within the city of Palo Alto: Tracts 5113, except that portion north of Lytton Road, 5116.04, and portions of tracts 5115 and 5117 that lie to the west and south of El Camino Real Ward 1: This boundary would include the communities of Cupertino, Saratoga, Los Gatos, Lexington Hills, and all unincorporated tracts (within the district boundary)that lie to the south of Skyline Blvd (Hwy 35) and to the east of Hwy 17. Scenario #2: (Two wards extend to coast, #6 and#7) Ward 7: This boundary would encompass the northern section of the coastal annexation area, with the division line between it and the southern annexation area being a census tract line,that which lies between tracts 6137 (north) and 6138 (south). Ward 7 would represent the coastal communities of Half Moon Bay and those to the north of HMB, as well as San Carlos, Redwood Shores, and portions of Redwood City and Woodside. Ward 6: This boundary would encompass the southern section of the coastal annexation area, with the division line between it and the northern annexation area being a census tract line, that which lies between tracts 6137 (north) and 6138 (south). Ward 6 would represent the coastal communities of Pescadero and San Gregorio, as well as La Honda, most of Woodside, Portola Valley, Atherton, much of Redwood City, and the area of Menlo Park that lies to the west of Hwy 82. Ward 5: This boundary would encompass the portion of Menlo Park to the east of Hwy 82, as well as the cities of East Palo Alto and Palo Alto, excluding the area south of the Oregon Expressway and east of Middlefield Road. Exhibit A Ward 4: This boundary would encompass the city of Mountain View, as well as the area of Los Altos east of Foothill Expressway and north of San Antonio Road, and the portion of Palo Alto east of Middlefield Road and south of the Oregon Expressway. Ward 3: This boundary would encompass the portion of Sunnyvale north and east of El Camino (Hwy 82), as well as census tracts 5084.04, 5084.01, and parts of tracts 5084.03 and 5085.03, which lie to the south of Hwy 82. Ward 2: This boundary would encompass the community of Stanford, as well as large tracts of unincorporated land between Skyline Boulevard and Foothill Expressway, the portion of Los Altos to the east and south of San Antonio Road, the areas of Sunnyvale not included in the boundary of Ward 3, and Los Altos Hills. Ward 1: This boundary would include the communities of Cupertino, Saratoga, Los Gatos, Lexington Hills, and all unincorporated tracts (within the district boundary)that lie to the south of Skyline Blvd (Hwy 35) and to the east of Hwy 17. Scenario #2b: (Two wards, #6 and#5, extend to coast) Ward 7: This boundary would include the cities of San Carlos, Redwood City, and Redwood Shores. Ward 6: This boundary would encompass the northern section of the coastal annexation area, with the division line between it and the southern annexation area being Highway 84 to the community of La Honda, and then Pescadero Road to Skyline Blvd. Ward 6 would represent the coastal communities of Half Moon Bay and those to the north of HMB, as well as Woodside, Atherton, and the portion of Menlo Park to the west of El Camino Real. Ward 5: This boundary would encompass the southern section of the coastal annexation area, with the division line between it and the northern annexation area being Highway 84 to the community of La Honda, and then Pescadero Road to Skyline Blvd. Ward 5 would represent the coastal communities of Pescadero and San Gregorio, as well as East Palo Alto, most of Palo Alto except that area described in Ward 2's boundary, and the area of Menlo Park to the east and south of El Camino Real. Ward 4: This boundary would encompass the city of Mountain View, as well as the city of Los Altos except for that area of the city within the census tract 5101, which would be in Ward 2. Ward 3: This boundary would encompass the portion of Sunnyvale north and east of El Camino (Hwy 82), as well as census tracts 5084.04, 5084.01, and parts of tracts 5085.03, which lies to the south of Hwy 82. Ward 2: This boundary would encompass the community of Stanford, as well as large tracts of unincorporated land between Skyline Boulevard and Foothill Expressway, the Exhibit A i I portion of Los Altos to the east and south of San Antonio Road, the areas of Sunnyvale not included in the boundary of Ward 3, and the following census tracts within the city of Palo Alto: Tracts 5113 and 5116.04, and Los Altos Hills. Ward 1: This boundary would include the communities of Cupertino, Saratoga, Los Gatos, Lexington Hills, and all unincorporated tracts(within the district boundary) that lie to the south of Skyline Blvd(Hwy 35) and to the east of Hwy 17. Scenario #2C: (Two wards extend to coast, #6 and#7) Ward 7: This boundary would encompass the northern section of the coastal annexation area, with the division line between it and the southern annexation area being a census tract line, that which lies between tracts 6137 (north) and 6138 (south). Ward 7 would represent the coastal communities of Half Moon Bay and those to the north of HMB, as well as San Carlos, Redwood Shores, and portions of Redwood City and Woodside, as well as Bair Island. Ward 6: This boundary would encompass the southern section of the coastal annexation area, with the division line between it and the northern annexation area being a census tract line, that which lies between tracts 6137 (north) and 6138 (south). Ward 6 would represent the coastal communities of Pescadero and San Gregorio, as well as La Honda, most of Woodside, Portola Valley, Atherton, much of Redwood City, the area of Menlo Park that lies to the west of Hwy 82, as well as Greco Island. Ward 5: This boundary would encompass the portion of Menlo Park to the east of Hwy 82 as well as the cities of East Palo Alto and Palo Alto, excluding the area south of the Oregon Expressway and east of Middlefield Road. Ward 4: This boundary would encompass the city of Mountain View, as well as the area of Los Altos east of Foothill Expressway and north of San Antonio Road, and the portion i east of Middlefield Road and south of the .Oregon Expressway. of Palo Alto e g p Y iIF Ward 3: This bound would encompass the portion of Sunnyvale north and east of El �'Y p p Y Camino (Hwy 82), as well as census tracts 5084.04, 5084.01, and parts of tracts 5084.03 and 5085.03, which lie to the south of Hwy 82. Ward 2: This boundary would encompass the community of Stanford, as well as large Skyline Boulevard and Foothill Expressway,tracts of unincorporated land between Sky p y, the portion of Los Altos to the east and south of San Antonio Road, the areas of Sunnyvale not included in the boundary of Ward 3, and Los Altos Hills. Ward 1: This boundary would include the communities of Cupertino, Saratoga, Los Gatos, Lexington Hills, and all unincorporated tracts (within the district boundary)that lie to the south of Skyline Blvd (Hwy 35) and to the east of Hwy 17. Exhibit A Scenario#3: (Three wards, #7, #6 and#5, extend to coast) Ward 7: This boundary would encompass the northern section of the coastal annexation area, with the division line between it and the southern annexation area being the census boundary between tracts 6137 and 6138. Ward 7 would represent the coastal communities of Half Moon Bay and those to the north of HMB, as well as San Carlos and most of Redwood City, except the section to the east of Hwy 82, except tract 6091, which would be included in Ward 7. Ward 6: This boundary would encompass the middle section of the coastal annexation area, with the division line between it and the northern annexation area being the census boundary between tracts 6137 and 6138, and the boundary to the south being Pescadero and Alpine Road. Ward 6 would represent the coastal communities of San Gregorio and La Honda, as well as Portola Valley, Woodside, Atherton, the portion of Menlo Park to the west of El Camino Real, West Menlo Park, Redwood Shores, and that area of Redwood City not included in Ward 7. i Ward 5: This boundary would encompass the southern section of the coastal annexation area, with the division line between it and the middle annexation area being Pescadero and Alpine Road to Skyline Blvd. Ward 5 would represent the coastal community of Pescadero, as well as East Palo Alto, Palo Alto (except for that area encompassed by Ward 4), and the area of Menlo Park to the east and south of El Camino Real Ward 4: This boundary would encompass the city of Mountain View, the portion of Palo Alto east of Middlefield Road and south of the Oregon Expressway, as well as the city of Los Altos except for that area of the city within the census tract 5101, and the portion of the city to the west of I-280, which would be in Ward 2. Ward 3: This boundary would encompass the portion of Sunnyvale north and east of El Camino (Hwy 82), as well as census tracts 5084.04, 5084.01, and parts of tracts 5085.03, which lies to the south of Hwy 82. Ward 2: This boundary would encompass the community of Stanford, as well as large tracts of unincorporated land between Skyline Boulevard and Foothill Expressway,the portion of Los Altos to the east and south of San Antonio Road, as well as the portion to the west of I-280, the areas of Sunnyvale not included in the boundary of Ward 3, and Los Altos Hills. Ward 1: This boundary would include the communities of Cupertino, Saratoga, Los Gatos, Lexington Hills, and all unincorporated tracts (within the district boundary) that lie to the south of Skyline Blvd (Hwy 35) and to the east of Hwy 17. Scenario 4: (Four wards, #7, #6, #5, and#2 extend to coast) ass the northernmost section of the coastal would encompass Ward 7: This boundary p annexation area, with the division line between it and the top-middle annexation area Exhibit A being the census tracts surrounding but not including the community of Half Moon Bay. Ward 7 would nco represent the unincorporated coastal communities north of Half Moon P � Bay, as well as San Carlos, Redwood Shores and most of Redwood City, except tracts 6111, 6112, and that area south of Hwy 84, which would be included in Ward 7. Ward 6: This boundary would encompass the top-middle section of the coastal annexation area, with the division line between it and the northernmost annexation area being the boundary of Half Moon Bay, and the boundary with the bottom-middle area being Hwy 84 to La Honda, then Pescadero Road to Hwy 35 (Skyline Blvd.). Ward 6 would represent the coastal communities of Half Moon Bay and La Honda, as well as Portola Valley, Woodside, Atherton, the portion of Menlo Park to the west of El Camino Real, West Menlo Park, and that area of Redwood City not included in Ward 7. Ward 5: This boundary would encompass the bottom-middle section of the coastal annexation area, with the division line between it and the top-middle annexation area being Hwy 84 to La Honda, then Pescadero Road to Hwy 35 (Skyline Blvd.), and the boundary with the southernmost annexation area being Pescadero Road and Alpine Road to Hwy 35. Ward 5 would represent the coastal community of San Gregorio, as well as East Palo Alto, Palo Alto (except for that area encompassed by Ward 2), and the area of Menlo Park to the east and south of El Camino Real. Ward 4: This boundary would encompass the city of Mountain View, as well as the city of Los Altos except for that area of the city within the census tract 5101, which would be in Ward 2. Ward 3: This boundary would encompass the portion of Sunnyvale north and east of El Camino (Hwy 82), as well as census tracts 5084.04, 5084.01, and parts of tracts 5085.03, which lies to the south of Hwy 82. Ward 2: This boundary would encompass the community of Stanford, as well as large tracts of unincorporated land between Skyline Boulevard and Foothill Expressway, the portion of Los Altos to the east and south of San Antonio Road,the areas of Sunnyvale not included in the boundary of Ward 3, and the following census tracts within the city of Palo Alto: Tracts 5113 and 5116.04, and Los Altos Hills. Ward 1: This boundary would include the communities of Cupertino, Saratoga, Los Gatos, Lexington Hills, and all unincorporated tracts (within the district boundary)that lie to the south of Skyline Blvd (Hwy 35) and to the east of Hwy 17. Scenario 4b: (Four wards, #7, 46, #5, and#2 extend to coast, with#2 extending into Menlo Park) Ward 7: This boundary would encompass the northernmost section of the coastal annexation area with the division line between it and the top-middle annexation area beingthe census tracts surrounding but not including the community of Half Moon Bay. g g Ward 7 would represent the unincorporated coastal communities north of Half Moon Exhibit A Bay, as well as San Carlos, Redwood Shores and most of Redwood City, except tracts 6111, 6112, and that area south of Hwy 84, which would be included in Ward 7. Ward 6: This boundary would encompass the top-middle section of the coastal annexation area, with the division line between it and the northernmost annexation area being the boundary of Half Moon Bay, and the boundary with the bottom-middle area being Hwy 84 to La Honda,then Pescadero Road to Hwy 35 (Skyline Blvd.). Ward 6 would represent the coastal communities of Half Moon Bay and La Honda, as well as Portola Valley, Woodside, Atherton, the portion of Menlo Park to the east of E1 Camino Real, and that area of Redwood City not included in Ward 7. Ward 6 would also split the following Menlo Park census tracts with Ward 2: 6127, 6126, and 6128. Ward 5: This boundary would encompass the bottom-middle section of the coastal annexation area, with the division line between it and the top-middle annexation area being Hwy 84 to La Honda, then Pescadero Road to Hwy 35 (Skyline Blvd.), and the boundary with the southernmost annexation area being Pescadero Road and Alpine Road to Hwy 35. Ward 5 would represent the coastal community of San Gregorio, as well as East Palo Alto, Palo Alto (except for that area encompassed by Ward 2), and the area of Menlo Park to the east and south of El Camino Real. Ward 4: This boundary would encompass the city of Mountain View, as well as the city of Los Altos except for that area of the city within the census tract 5101, which would be in Ward 2. Ward 3: This boundary would encompass the portion of Sunnyvale north and east of El Camino (Hwy 82), as well as census tracts 5084.04, 5084.01, and parts of tracts 5085.03, which lies to the south of Hwy 82. Ward 2: This boundary would encompass the community of Stanford, as well as large tracts of unincorporated land between Skyline Boulevard and Foothill Expressway,the portion of Los Altos to the east and south of San Antonio Road, the areas of Sunnyvale not included in the boundary of Ward 3, as well as a portion of Menlo Park to the west of El Camino Real as described in the Ward 6 description, Los Altos Hills, and census tract 6130, which formerly belonged to Ward 6. Ward 1: This boundary would include the communities of Cupertino, Saratoga, Los Gatos, Lexington Hills, and all unincorporated tracts (within the district boundary) that lie to the south of Skyline Blvd (Hwy 35) and to the east of Hwy 17. Exhibit A Summary of Comments Half Moon Bay Workshop Pescadero Workshop Skyline Workshop On-Line Survey Number of , 7 7 11 17(As of 9114/04) Participants Scenario 1 - 1.0ne Director representing entire Coastside 1. Greater possibility of electing someone 1. Retains cohesiveness of Coast 1. Coastal protection area should be as Positives agricultural community from coastside to Board "contiguous"as possible i 2.All coast side represented in one ward. 2. Increases sense of community on Coast. 2. Because Larry Hassett is the current director. 3. Common coastal interests in one ward. 3. Concentrates voting power. 3.Gives maximum weight to the coastside in choosing their representative 4.Advantages for active agriculture. 4. Having a single county involved with the coastal areas could simplify matters when future issues or conflicts arise 5.OK if boundaries are adjusted to reflect a lar er rural area within ward. Scenario 1 - 1. Less chance to elect a coastside 1. Difference in perspective between mid- 1. Limits opportunities for coastside N ies representative. coast and south coast. Directors. 2. Only one chance to elect coastside 2. Only one seat open every 4 years. representative every 4 years. 3.Too many different community interests for one ward mid-coast vs.south coast). 4. Not enough elected Directors representing coastside. 5.Only one Director representing non-tax paying constituents(Coastside program funded by ba side constituents). Scenario 2- 1.Addresses community diversity between 1.Advantages&disadvantages in having 2 1. Offers good compromise between 1. Having two directors allows a sharing of the Positives mid-coast and south coast. wards. representation and voting power. workload and increases diversity of the points of view brought to the board 2. La Honda has greater affinity with south 2. Reflects different needs and interests of 2. North coast and south coast are very different coast. Better than Scenario 2 because "urban"and'rural'coastal areas. boundary is further north. 3. Best follows County lines,while allowing for two representation opportunities for Coastside residents yo 2- 1.Splitting agricultural areas into 2 wards is 1. Divides coastal communities--which Ney.acives undesirable. have more in common with each other than with Ba side. 2.Advantages&disadvantages in having 2 wards. Scenario 2B- 1. Divides communities of La Honda and Positives San Gre orio. 2. Ward 5 becomes more fragmented. 3. Splitting communities and existing precincts complicates election process. Scenario 2113- Ne atives Scenario 3- Positives Scenario 3- 1. PMAC precinct should not be divided. 1. Divides Pescadero. Negatives Exhibit B Summary of Comments Half Moon Bay Workshop Pescadero Workshop Skyline Workshop On-Line Survey 2. Should redraw Scenario 3 to encompass 3 2. Results in very small populations within distinct areas: Half Moon Bay&mid-coast, each Ward, marginalizing voters. La Honda area, and PMAC area. Scenario 4- 1.Ties coastside more closely to District. 1. Increases representation. 1. Divergent views on coastside issues can be Positives represented 2.4 elected Directors representing coastside. Scenario 4- 1.Too fragmented. 1.Ward 5 represents very low coastside 1. Multiple Ward scenarios dilute coastal Negatives population. votes. 2.Ward 2 is physically and logistically 2.Too many coastal wards:creates chaos 2. Results in unnatural,fragmented Ward impractical((long distance from one end to and confusion. boundaries. the other, no throughway. 3.Ward 2 has too diverse a community: 3. Divides communities. 3. Fragments coastal communities(which Stanford-Pescadero. require some healing). 4. More bayside constituents represented in 4.Make this into a 3-ward scenario and 4. Complicates election process. each ward(differences in constituencies) retain PMAC boundary intact. 5. Multiple ward scenarios cross County lines and increase election costs. Scenario 4B 1, Keeps Palo Alto in one ward. 1. It shows more of the wards sharing coastal Positives regions as well as some ba land areas. 2. Provides opportunities for wider spectrum 2. Minimize bayside influence-'non-neighbor' of representation. influence. 3. South coast needs specific representation as their needs are unique. Scenario 41B Negatives General 1. Election cycle determines/affects voter 1. To extent possible,draw wards to follow 1. None of the above scenarios work since the Comments turnout. (e.g. Presidential elections result in natural boundaries. needs of the coastal communities differ so greater voter turnout).Could be positive or greatly from those of the communities"over the ne ative. hill." 2. Keep coastside intact with one ward. 2. Communicate redistricting criteria and 2. Development of a permanent Coastal other factors to constituents using all Advisory subcommittee of the MROSD Board. available media. 3. Provide more opportunities for coastsdie 3. 1 think it is inappropriate to mix the bayside committees and advisory groups and coastside wards. 4. I'm not sure about the"equal"population requirement of the the boundaries.Given the size of the coastside area and its rural character,coastside should have its own representation and not be diluted by the urban communities east of 280. 1 know there was a lot of opposition to the coastside extension out there.We need to embrace the rural voices, not bury them, if we want this extension to work. Two survey respondents were from outside District boundaries. Exhibit B i Results of Scenario Selection Half Moon Bay Pescadero Skyline WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopOn-Line Survey No Selections First Choice Made First Choice First Choice Second Choice Scenario As of 11/5/04 As of 11/5/04 Total First Total Second Choice Choice 1 1.5 N/A 6 6 3 13.5 3 2 2.5 NIA 2 6 4 10.5 4 2B 0.5 N/A 0 1 3 1.5 3 3 1.5 N/A 0 0 0 1.5 0 4 0 N/A 0 1 3 1 3 4B 0 N/A 0 3 2 3 2 i 11I9/2004 Results of Scenario Selection Half Moon Bay Pescadero Skyline WorkshopWorkshopWorkshopOn-Line Survey First Choice No Selections First Choice First Choice Second Choice Made Scenario As of 1119104 As of 1119104 Total First Total Second Choice Choice 1.5 N/A 6 11 6 18.5 6 2 2.5 N/A 2 10 8 14.5 8 2B 0.5 N/A 0 1 7 1.5 7 3 1.5 N/A 0 2 1 3.5 1 4 0 N/A 0 2 4 2 4 4B 0 N/A 0 3 3 3 3 11t9/2004 Summary of Comments Half Moon Bay Workshop Pescadero Workshop Skyline Workshop On-Line Survey Number of 7 7 11 31 (As of 1119104) Participants Scenario 1 - 1.0ne Director representing entire Coastside 1. Greater possibility of electing someone 1. Retains cohesiveness of Coast 1. Coastal protection area should be as Positives agricultural community from coastside to Board .,contiguous"as possible 2.All coast side represented in one ward. 2. Increases sense of community on Coast. 2.Because Larry Hassett is the current director. 3. Common coastal interests in one ward. 3. Concentrates voting power. 3.Gives maximum weight to the coastside in choosing their representative 4.Advantages for active agriculture. 4. Having a single county involved with the coastal areas could simplify matters when future issues or conflicts arise 5.OK if boundaries are adjusted to reflect a larger rural area within ward. Scenario 1 - 1. Less chance to elect a coastside 1. Difference in perspective between mid- 1. Limits opportunities for coastside Larry might be overwhelmed with issues. N ves re resentative. coast and south coast. Directors. 2.Only one chance to elect coastside 2. Only one seat open every 4 years. Ward 7 would be a better choice to extend to the representative every 4 years. 3.Too many different community interests for one ward mid-coast vs.south coast). 4.Not enough elected Directors representing coastside. 5.Only one Director representing non-tax paying constituents(Coastside program funded by ba side constituents). Scenario 2- 1.Addresses community diversity between 1.Advantages&disadvantages in having 2 1. Offers good compromise between 1. Having two directors allows a sharing of the Positives mid-coast and south coast. wards. representation and voting power. workload and increases diversity of the points of view brought to the board 2. La Honda has greater affinity with south 2. Reflects different needs and interests of 2.North coast and south coast are very different coast. Better than Scenario 2 because "urban"and"rural"coastal areas. boundary is further north. 3. Best follows County lines,while allowing for two representation opportunities for Coastside residents S io 2- 1. Splitting agricultural areas into 2 wards is 1. Divides coastal communities--which N +es undesirable. have more in common with each other than with Ba side. 2.Advantages&disadvantages in having 2 wards. Scenario 213- 1. Divides communities of La Honda and Positives San Gregorio. 2. Ward 5 becomes more fragmented. 3. Splitting communities and existing precincts complicates election process. Scenario 2113- Ne atives Scenario 3- Seems more balanced. Positives Scenario 3- 1. PMAC precinct should not be divided. 1. Divides Pescadero. ,Negatives Exhibit B ' 11/9/2004 Summary of Comments Y Half Moon Bay Workshop Pescadero Workshop Skyline Workshop On-Line Survey 2. Should redraw Scenario 3 to encompass 3 2. Results in very small populations within distinct areas: Half Moon Bay&mid-coast, each Ward,marginalizing voters. La Honda area,and PMAC area. Scenario 4- 1.Ties coastside more closely to District. 1. Increases representation. 1. Divergent views on coastside issues can be Positives represented 2.4 elected Directors representing coastside. Scenario 4- 1.Too fragmented. 1.Ward 5 represents very low coastside 1. Multiple Ward scenarios dilute coastal "Carves up"the coast. Ne atives population. votes. 2.Ward 2 is physically and logistically 2.Too many coastal wards:creates chaos 2. Results in unnatural,fragmented Ward impractical((long distance from one end to and confusion. boundaries. the other,no throughway. 3.Ward 2 has too diverse a community: 3. Divides communities. 3. Fragments coastal communities(which Stanford-Pescadero. require some healing). 4.More bayside constituents represented in 4. Make this into a 3-ward scenario and 4. Complicates election process. each ward(differences in constituencies) retain PMAC boundary intact. 5. Multiple ward scenarios cross County lines and increase election costs. Scenario 4B 1. Keeps Palo Alto in one ward. 1. It shows more of the wards sharing coastal Positives reqions as well as some ba land areas. 2. Provides opportunities for wider spectrum 2.Minimize bayside influence-'non-neighbor' of representation. influence. 3. South coast needs specific representation as their needs are unique. Scenario 413 Negatives General 1. Election cycle determines/affects voter 1. To extent possible,draw wards to follow 1. None of the above scenarios work since the Comments turnout.(e.g.Presidential elections result in natural boundaries. needs of the coastal communities differ so greater voter turnout). Could be positive or greatly from those of the communities"over the negative. hill." 2. Keep coastside intact with one ward. 2. Communicate redistricting criteria and 2. Development of a permanent Coastal other factors to constituents using all Advisory subcommittee of the MROSD Board. available media. 3. Provide more opportunities for coastsdie 3. 1 think it is inappropriate to mix the bayside committees and advisory groups and coastside wards. 4. I'm not sure about the"equal"population requirement of the the boundaries.Given the size of the coastside area and it's rural character,coastside should have its own representation and not be diluted by the urban communities east of 280. 1 know there was a lot of opposition to the coastside extension out there.We need to embrace the rural voices,not bury them,if we want this extension to work. *Two survey respondents were from outside District boundaries. Exhibit B Scenario 1 C: Ward 6 To The Coast San u Francisco Say r .r.,w i L1 / ua J � � Pacific '^ " Ocean �P 6 • iro y SU/W[GgUO U W i 2 I a — �rRo� r� WARDS ® 1 Pete Siemens 2 Mary Davey 3 Jed Cyr 4 Deane Little — 5 Nonette Hanko 0 1.25 2.5 5 6 Larry Hassett Miles 7 Ken N itz { Scenario 2D: Wards 7 & 6 To The Coast J'. San Francisco Bay W.T[O 8—T, + or r i � �v n � r Pacific Ocean �Y.os.uos.w Ly _ 6 1 i 1 { j 1 WARDS ® 1 Pete Siemens 2 Mary Davey \ 3 Jed Cyr 4 Deane Little \ e \ T�NT4C4UZ a 5 Nonette Hanko 6 Larry Hassett 'ZS 25 5 Miles 7 Ken Nitz Page IVIROSD Info From: "Mary Bordi" <mbordi@pobox.com> To: <info@openspace.org> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 10:48 AM Subject: Ward boundary survey This may not be the proper email address to send this to so I would appreciate my email being forwarded to the correct person. I was unable to take the online Ward Boundary Survey. I did not wish to choose any of the scenarios and because of that I was not able to give any input! This is not a shortcoming of the survey program--it could be set up to take comments without choosing from your scenarios. A person should not have to make a choice before being allowed to comment on why none of the choices seemed appropriate to that person! My main problem with the presented scenarios is that it seems that more care was taken in ensuring that current directors were not disturbed by boundary changes than care was taken in ensuring representation of the residents of the recently taken over coastside! I thought directors were elected for a term, not appointed for life! Seems to me if they no longer reside in the "new" ward they could serve out their term and then run for election in whatever ward they now live in. I do not know if there is any equitable way to represent the people who live in the area that you are trying to "save", when you have to lump them in with city folk with such a different lifestyle. Sincerely, Mary Bordi La Honda Nov 08 04 11s07a SMCFB t6501726-4495 p. 1 SAN MATEO COIJYff FAM BU WAU 765 MAIN STREET FB HALF MOON BAY, CALIFORNIA 94019 PHONE (650)726.4485 November 4,2004 The Honorable Mary Davey President,Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District 330 Distel Circle Los Altos,CA 94022-1404 Dear President Davey: San Mateo County Farm Bureau reviewed the proposed Ward Boundary proposals at our November Board Meeting. We feel the scenario presented with option two would be the best. However,we don't have a firm position as to option 2,2B or 2C. We understand the parameters placed by election code may preclude a complete picture until you can look at the population of each Ward. i With the option of two Wards coming to the Coast, we feel that the different perspectives from urban and rural areas can have the chance for representation on your Board. With a single Ward coming over it could be as long as six years before a candidate from the Coast would have an opportunity to seek election to the Mid Peninsula Board. With two Wards that time frame could be shortened to only two years. Thank you for the chance to offer our comments. We look forward to seeing this process move forward to resolution. Sincerely, Jack Olsen Executive Administrator i Craig Britton From: Matt Freeman Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 10:17 AM To: Craig Britton; Rudy Jurgensen Subject: FW: comments on Meeting of November 4 III -----Original Message----- From: General Information Sent: Monday, November 08, 2004 8:52 AM To: Cathy Woodbury; Matt Freeman Subject: Fw: comments on Meeting of November 4 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ruth Waldhauer" <waldhauer@batnet.com> To: <info@openspace.org> Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2004 3:12 PM Subject: comments on Meeting of November 4 I attended the workshop of November 4 for redrawing the District's ward boundaries. I did not complete the comment card then, but here is what I offer now. My first choice for the redistricting is to extend ward 6 to include all of the coastside. This would not 3 dilute 2 the coastside voice that dividing it into parts of the seven existing wards. Matt Freeman made an excellent presentation. All the present MROSD board members seem to be sensitive to the concerns of the coastsiders, so I guess it hardly matters how the redistricting is done. I feel that the present board members will uphold the purpose and spirit of MROSD while doing their very best to be good neighbors. ill I 1