Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 2003 1119 CC REG ITEM 09DTO FROM: ITEM 9."D f /I- i9 X023 MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT 0 Honorable City Council Deborah S. Traffenstedt, ATCM /City Clerk�� DATE: November 13, 2003 (CC Meeting of 11/19/03) SUBJECT: Consider City Council's Response to Board of Supervisor's Request for Input on the Open Space District Advisory Committee's (OSDAC) Recommendations for Forming, Funding and Governing a Ventura County Regional Open Space District BACKGROUND Attachment 1 is the letter from the Ventura County Board of Supervisors dated October 22, 2003 (the enclosure to that letter, "OSDAC's Recommendations for Forming, Funding & Governing a Ventura County Regional Open Space District" dated June 2003 has been provided to the Council under separate cover) . The Board of Supervisor's letter requests a formal reply to the following question: Does your agency support the package of recommendations? (Or, in keeping with the consensus approach, can your agency "live with" the package of recommendations in the Committee report? A formal reply to the question and other comments on the Final Report are requested no later than November 26, 2003. Included as Attachment 2 to this staff report is a copy of the Board of Supervisor's October 7, 2003, agenda report, which provides a brief summary of the OSDAC's recommendations and open space district background information. DISCUSSION Attachment 3 to this staff report is a copy of the City's April 25, 2003, response letter on the Draft Summary Report of the OSDAC, and Attachment 4 is a copy of the staff report for the April 16, 2003, City Council meeting. At the April 16 meeting, the City Council 000166 Honorable City Col November 19, 2003 Page 2 voted to support request for minor reflected in the separate cover. incil Regular Meeting the Draft Summary Report of the OSDAC with a edits. The requested edits were made and are OSDAC June 2003 Final Report provided under Since the Council last considered this matter on April 16, 2003, concerns have been expressed by other cities pertaining to how the open space district would be funded. As summarized in Attachment 2, a sales tax measure has been recommended as the preferred funding mechanism. The OSDAC's preference is for a 1/8 -cent sales tax measure with a ten -year sunset provision. A reason cited in support of this option was that a benefit assessment district would not generate enough money to allow the open space district to accomplish its mission. It was further noted that if a sales tax measure fails, a benefit assessment district could be proposed at a later date. The OSDAC member representing the Ventura County Taxpayers Association also expressed his opinion that the sales tax was preferable to the assessment district in regard to a more equitable shared tax burden. The OSDAC has also recommended that the open space district funds should be distributed among three defined North, East, and West geographic areas (as shown on page 11 in the Final Report), and that the distribution of revenues among these areas should be population based. Page 2 of the April 16 staff report provides further discussion regarding why other funding distribution methods were considered but then rejected. The OSDAC June 2003 Final Report contains a detailed discussion on governance (pages 17 -27). The open space district enabling legislation states the district may be governed by: 1) an elected five - member board of directors, 2) Supervisors) five - member board of Supervisors acting ex- officio. The provide a recommendation to the Board but did state a "strong preference" board of directors. an appointed (by Board of directors, or 3) Board of OSDAC was not requested to of Supervisors on governance, for an appointed five - member Staff recommends that the City Council continue to support the consensus of the OSDAC, and respond affirmatively that the Moorpark City Council supports the package of recommendations as described in the June 2003 Final Report. 0001G7 Honorable City Council November 19, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Direct staff to prepare a letter to the Board of Supervisors confirming the City Council's support of the OSDAC's recommendations in the Final Report dated June 2003. Attachments: 1. Letter from Board of Supervisors dated 10/22/03 (enclosure sent under separate cover) 2. Board of Supervisors Agenda Report for 10/7/03 Meeting (without Exhibit 1) 3. City of Moorpark's Letter dated 4/25/03 supporting the OSDAC's Draft Summary Report 4. City Council Staff Report for 4/16/03 Meeting (without attachments) o� i fi,6ti� ATTACHMENT 1 P BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF VENTURA 3855 -F ALAMO STREET SIMI VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 93063 October 22, 2003 Mayor Patrick Hunter and Council Members City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, CA 93021 MEME ERS OF THE SOMM JUDY MIKELS chwr STEVE BENNM LINDA PARKS KATHY L LONG JOHN K. FLYNN ENJOY MWJ" FOURTH DISTRICT (W5) 5e2-8010 FAX (WS) 582 -SOW INTERNAL MAIL: LSWI O WES sits: h0PlNrww.vw*r&"9 Subject: Request for Input on the Open Space District Advisory Committee's (OSDAC) Recommendations for Forming, Funding and Governing a Ventura County Regional Open Space District Dear Mayor Hunter and Council Members: The City of Moorpark was a represented member of the 41- person Ventura County Open Space District Advisory Committee. We thank you for the participation of your appointee, and appreciate the time and hard work she put into the completion of the Committee's recommendations The Board of Supervisors recently received the report from the Committee outlining its recommendations for forming, funding and governing a Ventura County Regional Open Space District. A copy of the report is enclosed. The Board generally supports the recommendations in this report and is looking toward a November 2004 ballot measure to create and fund an Open Space District. Because pursuing formation of a countywide Open Space District would involve a substantial commitment of time and money on the part of County government, the Board of Supervisors wants to know whether the member agencies support the consensus of the Committee. Accordingly, the Board formally seeks the input of the City of Moorpark. The recommendations in the report are reflective of an inclusive process based on consensus among committee members. The Committee defined consensus as "the recommendations may not have been the fast choice of all members, but all members 'can live with' the recommendation package.' ® "�""" 000169 The principal question the Board wishes to answer is whether there is also a countywide consensus on the Committee's recommendations? The Board is aware that most agencies would like to change some aspect of one or more of the list of recommendations, and certainly Board members have their own perspectives on many of the recommendations as well. Nevertheless, the Committee achieved consensus on the package of recommendations, and the Board may be willing to accept the Committee's consensus if it represents the consensus of the member agencies and organizations. Therefore, the Board seeks the City of Moorpartk's formal reply to the following question: • Does your agency support the package of recommendations? (Or, in keeping with the consensus approach, can your agency give with" the package of recommendations in the Committee report ?) Besides answering the fundamental question above, your agency may wish to pass along other comments about the document. If you have specific concerns, it would be most helpful to the Board in its deliberations if they were listed and specifically discussed (i.e., what recommendations 'can't you live with' and how would you specifically change them). In order to keep this process moving forward, the Board would like to consider this matter again before the end of the calendar year. To accomplish this, we will need to receive your formal comments no later than November 26, 2003. Your comments should be sent directly to Chris Stephens, Planning Director, 800 South Victoria Avenue, 1.01740, Ventura CA 93009. Chris and his staff will assemble the responses for presentation to the Board in December. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Chris at 654 -2481 or Gene Kjellberg at 654 -2455. In dosing, thank you for providing a representative to the Committee and for your continued interest and participation in this important effort to preserve Ventura County's valuable agricultural and open space lands. Sincerely, </", � Yni-10 ju6f Mikelik,/Chalr Ventura County Board of Supervisors Enclosure Recommendations for Forming, Funding and Governing a Ventura County Regional Open Space District cc: Board of Supervisors Johnny Johnston, CEO Joe Gibson/Jim Engel, OSDAC co -chairs Chris Stephens, Planning Director 2 0001'70 2 RESOURCE MANAGEME ATIJqHMENT N C Y October 7, 2003 (Agenda) Board of Supervisors County of Ventura 800 South Victoria Avenue Ventura, CA 93009 Planning Division Christopher Stephens Director SUBJECT: Presentation of Open Space District Advisory Committee's ( OSDAC) Recommendations for Forming, Funding and Governing a Ventura County Regional Open Space District RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Receive the OSDAC's Final Report titled 'Recommendations for Forming, Funding and Governing a Ventura County Regional Open Space District" (see Exhibit 1"). 2. Provide direction to staff on open space district follow -up actions. 3. If your Board approves the Committee's open space district recommendations, or otherwise directs staff to work toward a November 2004 ballot measure, it is recommended your Board direct staff to prepare a ballot measure work program, including a schedule and estimated staffing needs/budget, and report back in 60 days. FISCAUMANDATES IMPACTS Mandatory: No Source of Funding: NIA Impact on Other Departments: None DISCUSSION History: Sixty -eight percent of Ventura County voters approved Advisory Measure A in November 1998. Among other things, the measure recommended that an open space district (OSD) should be formed to protect open space and farmland. In November 2001, up to 75% of opinion survey respondents supported the formation of an OSD — a majority of survey respondents also supported a stable OSD funding measure. In April 2002, the State Legislature and Governor approved OSD authorizing legislation for Ventura County. This legislation (AB 1145), and related laws, requires that voters must approve OSD formation and voters or property owners must approve funding mechanisms. In March 2002, your Board established the diverse 41- member Open Space District Advisory Committee ( OSDAC) to advise your Board on OSD formation, funding and governance issues. Between April 2002 and June 2003, OSDAC (and its Working 800 South Victoria Avenue, L# 1740, Ventura, CA 93009 (805) 654 -2481 Fax (805) 654 -2509 Printed on Recycled PWW 00017-1 0_1 October 7, 2003 (Agenda) Board of Supervisors Page 2 Subcommittee) convened 27 meetings. The recommendations and analysis included in Exhibit "1" represent a consensus of views from the 41 agencies and organizations that comprised OSDAC. On June 27, 2003, OSDAC held its final meeting and formally disbanded having completed the tasks assigned by your Board. OSDAC Work Obiectives: The work of the OSDAC was guided in large part by the texts of Measure A and AB 1145 and the 2001 opinion survey. In addition, your Board outlined a broad scope of work for the Committee. Based on these materials, the OSDAC identified the following seven primary tasks for itself: 1. Identify a purpose and mission for the OSD 2. Identify and define property acquisition categories — i.e., agricultural, open space and parkland 3. Identify and define acquisition eligibility standards 4. Identify and define acquisition selection criteria 5. Review and prioritize funding options 6. Define the territory to be included in the OSD 7. Review and analyze OSD governance options Through an agreed upon consensus- building process, and the assistance of an experienced facilitator, the OSDAC successfully completed all of these work objectives. OSDAC Summarti Recommendations The OSDAC's recommendations are highlighted below — a more detailed description is included on pages 13 through 19 of Exhibit °1 ". Purpose and Mission • To preserve, enhance and restore the agricultural and natural resources of Ventura County for the enjoyment and benefit of present and future residents. Acquisition General Eligibility Standards • OSD will not have the power of eminent domain — the property or conservation easement is available for acquisition from a willing seller • A capable governmental entity and/or non governmental organization monitors, administers, operates, maintains and/or accepts liability for the property • The existing or proposed use of the property does not create a significant land use compatibility conflict among adjacent agricultural, open space or parkland uses Acquisition Standards and Criteria • Acquisitions could include farmland, open space land or parkland — acquisition options include fee purchase and purchase of conservation easements • Eligibility standards and Selection Criteria will serve as a "filter" for selecting and funding future acquisitions 000172 October 7, 2003 (Agenda) Board of Supervisors Page 3 • Standards and Criteria is divided into four categories -- General, Agricultural, Open Space and Parkland • The more Standards and Criteria a proposed acquisition complies with, the more likely it will be funded OSD Funding • The OSD should be funded by a 10 -year revenue measure First choice is a 1/8 cent sales tax If a 1/8 cent tax is not possible, a 1/4 cent sales tax should be pursued • If a sales tax is not feasible, a benefit assessment district should be considered • A minimum of 85% of revenue should be used for acquisition purposes — remaining funds may be used for administration, operations, maintenance or acquisition • Funds should be distributed among three geographic areas (see page 11 of Exhibit "1") • After 10 years, each geographic area would receive an equal distribution of funds • Flexibility Fund — up to 10% of the acquisition funds should be used for projects of special merit that do not meet geographic distribution criteria OSD Territory • OSD should be a countywide regional district — boundaries are the same as Ventura County's boundaries and include incorporated cities and unincorporated County lands OSD Governance Three governance options are authorized by OSD legislation (AB 1145) • Elected 5- member board of directors • Appointed (by Board of Supervisors) 5- member board of directors • Board of Supervisors acting ex- officio • OSDAC completed an analysis of the governance options (see page 20 of Exhibit "11") • OSDAC has a strong preference for an appointed 5- member board of directors • If appointed board option is selected, Board of Supervisors and the City Selection Committee should participate in the nomination and appointment process: • Board of Supervisors nominates 2 of the 5 directors • City Selection Committee nominates 3 of the 5 directors • Board appoints the OSD board of directors to 4 -year fixed terms • OSD board of directors should establish a diverse advisory committee • OSD board of directors should establish a 3- member Fiscal Oversight Committee Post OSDAC Actions (OSD Formation and L4FCO Procedures) If your Board approves OSDAC's recommendations including the November 2004 ballot measure, it is recommended that you direct staff to prepare a ballot measure work program, including a schedule and estimated staff needs/budget, and report-back in 60 days. The work program will address several follow -up actions that must be pursued prior 000173 October 7, 2003 (Agenda) Board of Supervisors Page 4 to the November 2004 election: • Prepare an OSD formation resolution required by Section 5506.12(a) of the Public Resources Code (PRC). • The OSD formation resolution shall: • Include the name and reasons for formation of the proposed OSD • Specify the OSD's governing mechanism — directly elected, appointed by Board of Supervisors, or Board of Supervisors • Describe the proposed OSD's territory • Specify boundaries of the five wards (applies to elected board of directors option) • Specify the OSD will not have the power of eminent domain • Describe the OSD's funding mechanisms • Call, and give notice of, a formation election to be held in the proposed OSD • Prescribe other matters necessary for OSD formation • Following a noticed public hearing, the Board adopts the formation resolution that initiates an election (the resolution is adopted by the Board at least 115 days prior to date of election) • LAFCO reviews and considers the Board's OSD formation application and resolution • If LAFCO approves the OSD formation application, Board directs the preparation of an OSD ballot measure • LAFCO prepares and approves an impartial analysis of OSD ballot measure • OSD formation, funding and governance ballot measure(s) submitted to voters on November 4, 2004 The offices of the County Executive Officer, the County Counsel, LAFCO and the Auditor - Controller have reviewed this agenda item. If you have any questions concerning this report, please contact me at extension 2481 or Gene Kjellberg at extension 2455. Sincerely, dL Christopher Stephens Planning Director Attachments: Exhibit "1"— OSDAC Recommendations for Forming, Funding and Governing a Ventura County Regional Open Space District GAPlanning DivisionWgenda- Itemsftard Letterswegional PrograrmOSDAC BOS Final Report 10.7 -M.doc 000174 ATTACHMENT 3 MOORTARK 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 517 -6200 April 25, 2003 Open Space District Advisory Committee C/O Ventura County Planning Division Attention Gene Kjellberg 800 S. Victoria Avenue Ventura, CA 93009 SUBJECT: Moorpark City Council's Response to Request for Agency Review /Comments on Open Space District Advisory Committee ( OSDAC) Draft Summary Recommendations Dear Advisory Committee Members: The Moorpark City Council discussed the OSDAC's Draft Council's April 16, 2003 meeting. The Council directed OSDAC to clarify the Council's position of support fo including a request for minor editing revisions to the Acquisition Eligibility Standards and Selection Recommendations sections. Legislative format ha s recommended language revisions as follows: Page 1, I. Purpose Statement staff r the Summary Report at the to prepare a letter to the Summary Draft Report, Purpose Statement, Property Criteria, and Governance been used to show the The purpose of the Regional Open Space District (OSD) is to preserve, enhance and /or restore the natural qualities of Ventura County (e.g., ridgelines, scenic viewsheds, wildlife corridors, natural habitat, agricultural lands, greenbelts between the cities, hillsides, wetlands, rivers and streams, and natural parksites) for the enjoyment and benefit of present and future residents of the County. (Reason for change is to provide consistency with other language in the Summary Report encouraging restoration of habitat.) Page 2, A. General Category 1. Eligibility Standards. The OSDAC recommends that properties or conservation easements acquired or funded by the Open Space District (OSD) meet all of the following standards: 000175 43 PATRICK HUNTER KEITH F MILLHOUSE CLINT HARPER ROSEANN MIKOS JANICE S. PARVIN hA -.,^, .._..- - �-- rn,.....a— k— r`..., a. .ti (`— nrilmcmhar Open Space District Advisory Committee April 25, 2003 Page 2 (Reason for change is the intent that the OSD function as a "pass through" agency and fund but not acquire land or easements.) Page 2, A. General Category 1. Eligibility Standards. c. The use of the property does not create a significant land use compatibility conflict among adjacent agricultural, open space or parkland uses. (Reason for change is the standard is too vague as written.) Page 2, B. Agriculture Category 1. Eligibility Standards. The OSDAC recommends that properties or conservation easements acquired or funded by the OSD include one or more of the following: (Reason for change is the intent that the OSD function as a `pass through" agency and fund but not acquire land or easements.) Page 3, C. Open Space Category 1. Eligibility Standards. The OSDAC recommends that properties or conservation easements acquired or funded by the OSD include one or more of the following: (Reason for change is the intent that the OSD function as a `pass through" agency and fund but not acquire land or easements.) 2. Selection Criteria. c. The acquisition has significant strategic value in meeting broad OSD goals such as protecting coastal water quality, or preserving scenic vistas..-, and /or restoring/enhancing natural habitat. g. The acquisition provides multiple benefits (e.g., valuable core habitat or the potential for restoration of natural habitat and wildlife corridor). (Reason for change is Open Space Category Eligibility Standard b. includes the following language: "...or the potential for restoration of the natural habitat." The City's concern is that the lack of any reference to restoration of habitat in the Selection Criteria could later be interpreted so as to preclude acquisition of open space land which does not contain high quality habitat or high number and biodiversity of native species, but does present an opportunity for successful restoration/ enhancement and protection.) 000176 Open Space District Advisory Committee April 25, 2003 Page 3 Page 8, D. Structure of Open Space District Language should be included in this section or a new section of the Summary Report pertaining to requiring any agency /organization receiving Open Space District (OSD) funding to sign an agreement that restricts sale of land or easements and change in land use for projects funded by the OSD. (Reason for requested change is with an OSD operating as a `pass through" agency, there is a need to require the agency or organization that receives the OSD funds to maintain the use for which the funding was received. The City Council had previously expressed a concern that a project that received funding priority for preservation of open space should not later be converted to a recreation use.) The Moorpark City Council appreciates the opportunity to provide comments to the OSDAC and the efforts of the County of Ventura to coordinate the OSD formation process. If you have any questions about these matters, please contact Deborah Traffenstedt, Assistant to City Manager /City Clerk, at 805 - 517 -6213. Sincerely, Steven Kueny City Manager SK/DST cc: Honorable City Council Board of Supervisors Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Assistant to City Manager /City Clerk Barry Hogan, Community Development Director 000177 TO FROM: ITEM q - ATTACHMENT_.�J_ MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Honorable City Council Deborah S. Traffenstedt, Assistant to City Manager/ City Clerk __3')5'- DATE: April 10, 2003 (CC Meeting of 4/16/03) SUBJECT: Consider City Letter of Support on the Draft Summary Report of the County of Ventura Open Space District Advisory Committee ( OSDAC) BACKGROUND Attachment I is the staff report for the December 18, 2002 meeting, ;which provides background information on the OSDAC. Attachment II Js a copy of a March 27, 2003, e -mail request from County Planning Division staff requesting Agency or Organization review, comments, and position on the Draft Summary Report of the OSDAC (included as an attachment to the e- mail). Comments on the Draft Summary Report are requested to be provided no later than April 25, 2003. DISCUSSION The Draft Summary-Report represents the consensus of the 41-member Advisory Committee, following detailed discussion at eleven meetings over a one -year time period. For Council discussion purposes, following is a summary and explanation of some of the key OSDAC recommendations contained in the Summary Report and recommendations for revisions. OSDAC Summary Report Recommendations Funding: The OSDAC's preference is for a 1/8 -cent sales tax measure with a ten -year sunset provision. The primary reason cited in support of this option was that the benefit assessment district would not generate enough money to allow the Open Space District (OSD) to accomplish its mission. It was further noted that if a sales tax measure fails, a benefit assessment district could be proposed at a later date. The OSDAC member representing the Ventura County Taxpayers Association also expressed his opinion that the sales tax was preferable to the assessment district in regard to a 000178 Honorable City Council April 16, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 2 more equitable shared tax burden. Dan Goodwin, County Assessor, also gave a presentation to the OSDAC and recommended the sales tax versus the assessment district. The OSDAC has recently been provided information that efforts to recruit a legislative sponsor for a 1/8 -cent sales tax authorization measure in 2003 were unsuccessful, due to the State's continuing budget problems. The OSDAC is scheduled to further discuss the recommendations of the Working Subcommittee (Attachment III) pertaining to funding and timeline recommendations, including the scheduling of the OSD formation and sales tax ballot measures for November 2004. There has been no specific discussion at this time regarding how the election for approval of the OSD and sales tax measures would be funded. Funding Distribution: The OSDAC has recommended distribution of OSD funds among three defined geographic areas: North, East and West. The OSDAC also recommends that the distribution of OSD revenues among these areas be population- based, and that a minimum of 85 percent of the entire revenue stream be used for acquisition purposes. The other geographic distribution method that received serious consideration was use of 15 Areas of Interest, including the ten cities and Los Posas, Oak Park, Bell Canyon, Piru, and Lake Sherwood /Hidden Valley areas. The disadvantage of this approach was that there may be desirable properties in some of the areas which would have limited funding because of low sales tax collection. The conclusion was that creating the three defined geographic areas with an equitable population spread provided more opportunities to fund a larger variety of projects. The OSDAC supported maintaining flexibility by not requiring the geographic distribution of the funds to be balanced every year, but instead allowing balancing over the ter. -year life of the revenue measure and also allowing up to 10 percent of the entire revenue stream to be available to fund projects of special merit that do not meet the geographic distribution requirement. There are many details regarding funding that still need to be worked out. Governance: The OSDAC consensus was a strong preference for the Appointed Five- Member Board of Directors option, involving nomination by the City Selection Committee and the Board of Supervisors and then formal appointment by the Board. The State enabling legislation for the Ventura County OSD states that the OSD 0001'79 Honorable City Council April 16, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 3 may be governed by: 1) an elected five- member board of directors, or 2) an appointed (by the Ventura County Board of Supervisors) five- member board of directors, or 3) the members of the Ventura County Board of Supervisors, acting ex- officio. The November 2001 public opinion survey, initiated by the County of Ventura, showed a higher level of support for the appointed board of directors in comparison to the directly elected board and the Board of Supervisors. Although the City Selection Committee is suggested to be used to recommend three of the appointments for an appointed OSD, the OSDAC was informed verbally at its last meeting that County Counsel had given an opinion that city councilmembers could not be appointed to the OSD board. Special enabling State legislation would be required to permit this. For example, the Ventura County Transportation Commission (VCTC) and the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) have specific enabling provisions in State law to permit councilmember appointment to those Commissions. Advisory Committees: The OSDAC is recommending, that regardless of the governance option selected, Advisory Committees should continue to be utilized (one fiscal and one diverse and geographically balanced). This approach is considered necessary, because there is no predetermined list of projects to be funded by the OSD. Examples were discussed of two Bay Area open space agencies which each have appointed 17- member advisory committees. Open space agencies which have rejected the advisory committee concept include those which were approved by a ballot measure that had line item detail regarding future projects and funding. "Pass Through" Agency: The OSDAC is recommending that the OSD primarily function as a "pass through" agency in that the OSD would collect the tax revenue, approve the projects for funding, and then distribute the funding to appropriate agencies or organizations. Details have yet to be worked out regarding how the OSD will ensure that land or easements that are transferred to another agency or organization will be protected. This is one of the concerns that the Council expressed at its December 18, 2002 meeting, including that land funded for open space protection would not be subsequently converted to another land use. Staff suggested that this comment be repeated in the comment letter on the Draft Summary report. Eligibility Standards and Selection recommended Acquisition Eligibility Criteria. Although the City Council's Criteria: The OSDAC has Standards and Selection previous recommendation in 111 :1 Honorable City Council April 16, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 4 December 2002 was that a recreation acquisition should receive a lower priority in funding, the overall consensus of the OSDAC was to maintain flexibility and allow the OSD to fund projects that meet the eligibility standards and the greatest number of the selection criteria. Given the "Parkland" definition, which includes a "primarily passive recreation" description, and the number of criteria that focus on natural habitat preservation, a truly urban park proposal could probably only qualify under two of the Parkland Selection Criteria (c. The acquisition has access from one or more public roadways; and h. The acquisition improves or significantly enhances parkland in an urban or park -poor community or it is deemed necessary to meet an urgent recreational need.). Recommendations for OSDAC Summary Report Revisions Staff is recommending several minor revisions to the Property Acquisition Eligibility Standards and Selection Criteria section of the SummarV Report of the OSDAC. Legislative format has been used to show the recommended language revisions: Page 2, A. General Category, 1. Eligibility Standards. The OSDF:C recommends that properties or conservation easements a-equA funded by the Open Space District (OSD) meet all of the following standards: (Reason for change is the intent that the OSD function as a "pass through" agency and fund but not acquire land or easements.) Page 2, A. General Category, 1. Eligibility Standards. c. The use of the property does not create a significant land use compatibility conflict among adjacent agricultural, open space or parkland uses. (Reason for change is the standard is too vague as written.) Page 3, C. Open Space Category, 2. Selection Criteria. One or more of the Open Space Category Selection Criteria should be revised to be consistent with Open Space Category Eligibility Standard b., which includes the following language: "...or the potential for restoration of the natural habitat." (Reason for change is staff is concerned that the lack of any reference to restoration of habitat in the Selection Criteria could later be interpreted so as to preclude acquisition of open space land which does not contain high quality habitat or high number and biodivers.ity of native species, but does present an opportunity for successful restoration and protection.) 0001 31 Honorable City Council April 16, 2003 Regular Meeting Page 5 Page 8, D. Structure of Open Space District. Language should be included in this section or a new section of the Summary Report pertaining to requiring any agency /organization receiving Open Space District (OSD) funding to sign an agreement that restricts sale of land or easements and change in land use for projects funded by the OSD. (Reason: While staff supports the recommendation for a "pass through" agency, there is a need to require the agency or organization that receives the OSD funds to maintain the use for which the funding was received. The City Council had previously expressed a concern that a project that received funding priority for preservation of open space should not later be converted to a recreation use.) With the exception of the revisions discussed above and on the preceding page, staff supports the recommendations contained in the Draft OSDAC Summary Report. STAFF RECOM ENDATION Direct staff to prepare a letter to the OSDAC for the Citv Manager's signature and final language approval including: The City Council's support of the Draft OSDAC Summary Report and requesting the revisions discussed in the agenda report. Attachments: I. Agenda Report dated 12/18/02 II. E -mail from County Planning Staff dated 3/27/03 and Draft Final Summary Report of OSDAC III. OSDAC Working Subcommittee Preliminary Funding and Timeline Recommendations 000182