MidPen presents proposed basic‑policy changes to incorporate coastal service plan; AAC requests materials and follow‑up

Susanna Chen, assistant general manager of the Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District (MidPen), and colleagues presented proposed revisions Feb. 10 to MidPen’s Basic Policy intended to incorporate the district’s coastal service plan into the foundational policy.

Chen described the process: staff and an ad hoc board committee reviewed the Basic Policy and the 2004 coastal service plan to identify gaps and propose language additions and limited deletions. She said the changes aim to bring the Basic Policy into alignment with the service plan’s coastal mission while leaving the service plan itself unchanged.

Key proposals summarized in the presentation included: expanding MidPen’s definition of “open space” to explicitly include working agricultural land where natural resources are protected (consistent with referenced California Government Code language); adding the coastal mission statements from the service plan into the Basic Policy; inserting a prohibition on the use of eminent domain within the coastal protection area; updating obsolete document references; and amending growth guidelines and certain administrative references. The presentation also proposed aligning timber‑harvesting allowances with the district’s agricultural policy for restoration and forestry management.

Brian Malone (assistant general manager) said MidPen holds roughly 18,000 acres in the coastal area and has worked in the coastal annexation area since 2004. The district intends to seek public input through stakeholder meetings in March and April and to return the proposed Basic Policy language to the board (staff said public comments would be consolidated for a board review in June). Chen asked AAC members for feedback specifically on the proposed language additions and deletions.

AAC members requested additional materials and time to review. Committee members asked that MidPen provide the presentation slides and the draft revision tables in the AAC meeting packet before the next meeting, and they requested maps that show which MidPen properties are managed for grazing versus row crops or other agricultural uses to help contextualize the proposed language. MidPen agreed to provide additional materials and to return for follow‑up at the March 10 AAC meeting so committee members could review the proposed text and submit comments.

The committee did not adopt or oppose any specific policy language at the meeting; members requested that MidPen return with written materials (slides, draft policy tables and agricultural‑use maps) and to be placed on the March 10 agenda for continued discussion and public comment.