Rural Incorporated Districts (RID)www.helprid.us  Set my people free Coastside group pushing new city By Tim Hay, STAFF WRITER Saturday, October 11, 2003 - HALF MOON BAY -- A newly formed Coastside group wants to wrest control of some 30,000 unincorporated acres from an open-space agency and form a new city: the Town of Rural Lands. The new town would be free from the "tyranny" of County government, environmental groups and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, said Oscar Braun, founder of the Rural Lands Incorporation Now Committee. It would be the first new incorporated area since 1983 when East Palo Alto was formed. Sustainable San Mateo County Database: LAND USE DATA Allocation of Land Uses by County County Urban% Rural% Greenbelt% Estimated UDI1 Alameda 29.2 56.9 21.6 25 Contra Costa 30.2 46 23.8 16 Marin 14 35 51 14 Napa 4 75.8 20.2 16 San Francisco 79.4 1.3 19.3 92 San Mateo2 26.2 39.1 34.7 22 Santa Clara 21.5 56.9 21.6 21 Solano 9.7 71.1 19.2 8 Sonoma 6.3 83.7 10 18 Source: Greenbelt Alliance: Greenbelt at Risk 2000 1. Urban Density Index (UDI): Total housing units/urban square miles/100. Source: US Census 2000 2. Total area of San Mateo County is 285,339 acres. "We're an agricultural community. We have virtually nothing in common with the urban areas, but our rights are determined by the urban majorities," Braun said Thursday from his home just outside Half Moon Bay. "People (on unincorporated coastal land) want self-governance, self-determination. What we have now is a kind of apartheid system." Braun, a retired Johnson & Johnson executive, founded the group with former Woodside mayor John Blake, retired civil engineer John Plock and several other Coastsiders. "This is an attempt by the residents of rural lands to take control of their own destiny," Plock said from his home Thursday. More than 100 people out of the 6,500 or so that live on rural land have already joined his crusade, Braun said. On several bellicose Web pages that quote liberally from the Bible and the Constitution -- and feature moving images of wild pigs -- Braun and other committee members denounce "Enviro-cults" and "racketeer-influenced" government, and lay out in detail the plan for the Town of Rural Lands. The town would be governed by a five-member council, and operate on the property taxes that the open-space agency now receives from Woodside, Atherton, Menlo Park, San Carlos, Redwood City and Portola Valley, Braun said. City leaders would also collect vehicle-license fees, franchise fees and an assortment of other routine charges. Government services could be kickstarted by an initial general fund balance of $100,000, Braun predicts. The group must get 25 percent of the 3,200 registered voters of the rural lands to sign a petition in favor of forming the new town, which would be submitted to the County's Local Agencies Formation Commission. The commission has jurisdiction over all boundary changes and annexations on the Peninsula. If LAFco approved it, the plan could be put before voters in the next general election. But Martha Poyatos, LAFco's executive officer for the County, does not exactly gush with joy when asked about the prospect. In a March 27 letter to Braun, she brought up conflicts with the County's General Plan and Local coastal Program, and said a thorough study of the idea could cost the committee more than $100,000. "Of even greater concern is the fiscal viability of a new city in the current climate of local government finance in which well-established cities with diverse sources of local revenue are being forced to cut vital city programs," Poyatos wrote. But to Braun, fending off special districts and environmental groups is well worth the risk. Braun, who formed Save Our Bay and the Half Moon Bay's Surfrider Foundation, has been a thorn in the side of every agency, supervisor or environmental group that has tried -- successfully or not -- to regulate or control unincorporated areas. "These cults are trying to undermine our communities and our governments," he said. Braun has fought the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District since it announced in 1997 a plan to annex some 140,000 acres from Skyline Drive to the coast. He and others have said the agency has no plan for the area, cannot provide fire safety and has diminished residents' water rights. In an effort to boost membership in their organization, the proponents of the new town are hosting a forum on Oct. 16 at the 4-Cs ranch off Highway 92 at 7 p.m. It will be moderated by a consultant who works with LAFco in Santa Barbara. The 4-Cs ranch is owned by John Cozzolino, who tried unsuccessfully to get a permit to bring elephants to his farm for this month's pumpkin festival in Half Moon Bay. County Planners shot down the permit, fanning the anger of Braun and others. "There's a group of urban officials deciding a farmer can't have something on his land that's permitted by law," Plock said. IT'S THE "OIL" STUPID ! Question: How many houses in the Rural Lands & how many acres? Answer: SMC Housing Log Question: How much Open Space Greenbelt in the Bay Area: Answer: Over 1 Million Acres! Question: What are the San Mateo County Statistics? Here they are! Click Here for:  Map of San Mateo County Unicorporated Area Sustainable San Mateo County Database: LAND USE DATA Allocation of Land Uses by County County Urban% Rural% Greenbelt% Estimated UDI1 Alameda 29.2 56.9 21.6 25 Contra Costa 30.2 46 23.8 16 Marin 14 35 51 14 Napa 4 75.8 20.2 16 San Francisco 79.4 1.3 19.3 92 San Mateo2 26.2 39.1 34.7 22 Santa Clara 21.5 56.9 21.6 21 Solano 9.7 71.1 19.2 8 Sonoma 6.3 83.7 10 18 Source: Greenbelt Alliance: Greenbelt at Risk 2000 1. Urban Density Index (UDI): Total housing units/urban square miles/100. Source: US Census 2000 2. Total area of San Mateo County is 285,339 acres. SELF GOVERNMENT IS AN AMERICAN TRADITION     When I attended a recent meeting of interested citizens near Half Moon Bay I was impressed by three things:   The heartfelt concern they have for the future of the coastal side of San Mateo County;   The fact there was a cross-section of people representing more than 10 separate and identifiable communities;   The level of knowledge they had regarding local government issues.   The purpose of the meeting, at which I had been invited to speak, was to review governmental options for this area of San Mateo County.  Incorporating a city is not like annexing land to obtain services for a proposed development.  Matters of government organization reflect the choices communities make regarding the distinct governmental structure desired to carry out civic affairs.   Laws in California are designed to ensure that cities are incorporated only if they are financially feasible and do not adversely affect the finances of the county government. The Local Agency Formation Commission, or LAFCO, is the agency that regulates local government boundaries.  It can approve the incorporation of a new city – and allow the matter to go to a vote – only if it finds the new city is financially feasible and there are no adverse, unmitigated fiscal affects on other agencies as a result.   Only then are the voters in the proposed city allowed to decide whether to create a new local government for themselves.   When a community incorporates in California, it does not stop being part of the County.  If the coastal area becomes a new city it will remain a part of San Mateo County, as are the 21 existing cities in the County.   However, responsibility for certain types of services would transfer from a board of supervisors that is elected by all the voters in the County to a locally elected city council, the type of local self-representation that is a hallmark of a democratic society.    City obligations in California include local law enforcement, maintenance of public streets and thoroughfares and decisions regarding land use plans, zoning and building regulation.  Cities are bound by existing State laws including regulations in the California Coastal Zone.   It is not by accident that State laws require the first action of any new city council to be to adopt all county zoning ordinances and regulations.  Any subsequent change in these rules requires public hearings, compliance with environmental rules and conformity with State planning procedures.   Once a city is created those decisions are made by individuals who are elected by and accountable to those within the city boundaries.   The preponderance of San Mateo County voters live on the Bay side of the ridge and most of those within existing cities.  As a result decisions regarding local land use and public services for much of the coastal area are made by County officials who do not live in the area and are elected by voters who live elsewhere.    It challenges our sense of democratic institutions when so many decisions about local community issues are made by outsiders who are not directly accountable to those whose lives and property are most affected by the decisions.   Time will tell whether residents of the coastal side of the County have sufficient interest and drive to incorporate a new city that encompasses their lands and varied interests.  Should that process proceed and the facts reveal a new city is financially feasible and would not adversely affect the County’s finances, local self-determination is the courses that will clearly recommend itself.   Bob Braitman, Principal Braitman & Associates   Editor’s note:  Braitman & Associates is a consulting firm providing fiscal analysis and jurisdictional relation services in communities throughout California.    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE :   September 22, 2003                BRAUNS V. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO      RE: VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS "42 U.S.C.A. 1983"  October 29, 2003  San Mateo County Times Open Space District files expansion application By STAFF REPORTS Wednesday, October 29, 2003 - The Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District submitted a long-awaited application Tuesday to extend its boundaries to the San Mateo County coast. The application was received by the San Mateo Local Agency Formation Commission, or LAFCO. Remember "Loren McQueen v.Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District? Question: Total Parks & Open Space acres in San Mateo County?  Answer: Shared Vision 2010 Question: How many houses in the Rural Lands & how many acres? Answer: SMC Housing Log Question: How much Open Space Greenbelt in the Bay Area: Answer: Over 1 Million Acres! The program would bring 140,000 acres of open space stretching from Pacifica to the Santa Cruz County line under the jurisdiction of the district. "The district's Coastside Protection Program is the only way to protect and preserve the coast, while also ensuring accountability to local residents through fair and democratic representation," said Craig Britton, district general manager. In what district officials call an act of goodwill, their board of directors agreed to eliminate their ability to use eminent domain in the plan's coastal area and to only purchase property from willing sellers. In addition, the program will only use existing district funds and will not request any additional taxes from area residents, officials said. County Supervisor Richard Gordon, whose district would be most affected if the application is passed, said he has not yet taken a position on the issue. John "Jack" Olson, executive manager of the San Mateo County Farm Bureau, said his organization will most likely oppose the plan, but will wait until members can take a closer look at the application. The ultimate decision on the program will be made by LAFCO. Why the ``Help RID US" incorporation movement? Since 1980, the entire Rural Lands communities area have suffered terribly by the unstable, incompetent and corrupt actions of SMC elected officials and planning staff. ``"The official SMC Housing Log 1980-2001 reveal that a total of only ``69" residential occupancy permits have been issued by the County of San Mateo. Why? Because of the Sierra Club and the Committee for Green Foothills undue influenced lobbying on local and state government has STOPPED all community development in the Rural Lands of San Mateo County. The SMC Local Coastal Plan's (LCP) policies of 0% Rural Lands Development are destroying the Rural Lands sustainability… by design. In short, the Urban majority of San Mateo County has imposed their ``apartheid" land use separation policies upon the residents of the Rural Lands communities. Why? For the purpose of annexation and transferring the entire San Mateo County Coastal Zone Rural Lands area to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. (GGNRA) The Rural Lands residents of San Mateo County demand Environmental Justice for their families and will assume ``local control" of the coordinated resource management and planning of their Rural Lands communities starting in calendar year 2004. The San Mateo County Rural Lands farming communitites have lost over 42,000 acres of property tax revenues, productive ranch and farm agricultural lands and irrigation water rights  to the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District (30,000 acres)  and their private sector partner Peninsula Open Space Trust (12,000 acres) since 1973.  Question: Total Parks & Open Space acres in San Mateo County?  Answer: Shared Vision 2010 Question: How many houses in the Rural Lands & how many acres? Answer: SMC Housing Log Question: How much Open Space Greenbelt in the Bay Area: Answer: Over 1 Million Acres! The Reason for Proposal: The reasons for the proposal are to (a) increase local control and accountability for decisions affecting the community, (b) secure self governance through a Town Council elected by local Hamlets residents; (c) retain local tax revenues for use in the community to support our schools, municipal programs and services, (d) preserve, protect and sustain the quality of life and values prevailing within the proposed Town, (e) promote cost-effective services tailored to the needs of local residents and landowners and (f) provide coordinated "Fire Safe" resource management and planning services for vital community interests including watershed natural systems, parks and open space.  This article was emailed to you at the request of : Oscar - Oscar@cwposse.org The sender included the following brief message : View this article View San Mateo County Times Open space district's annexation is based on false sense of protection Monday, October 27, 2003 - I enjoyed reading Deborah Ettinger's October 23, 2003, letter to the editor ("No 'Protection' for Coastside"). She points out that the proposal by Mid-peninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) to annex San Mateo County's Coastside is based on a false sense of "protection" that is both unwelcome and unneeded. What your readers may not know is that over 95 percent of the rural coastside lands is already in the hands of public or private open space organizations. Question: Total Parks & Open Space acres in San Mateo County?  Answer: Shared Vision 2010 Question: How many houses in the Rural Lands & how many acres? Answer: SMC Housing Log Question: How much Open Space Greenbelt in the Bay Area: Answer: Over 1 Million Acres! Sustainable San Mateo County Database: LAND USE DATA Allocation of Land Uses by County County Urban% Rural% Greenbelt% Estimated UDI1 Alameda 29.2 56.9 21.6 25 Contra Costa 30.2 46 23.8 16 Marin 14 35 51 14 Napa 4 75.8 20.2 16 San Francisco 79.4 1.3 19.3 92 San Mateo2 26.2 39.1 34.7 22 Santa Clara 21.5 56.9 21.6 21 Solano 9.7 71.1 19.2 8 Sonoma 6.3 83.7 10 18 Source: Greenbelt Alliance: Greenbelt at Risk 2000 1. Urban Density Index (UDI): Total housing units/urban square miles/100. Source: US Census 2000 2. Total area of San Mateo County is 285,339 acres. With less than 5 percent of the lands held by private taxpayers, and much of that preserved under the Williamson Act, the coastal farming community is now an endangered species. Can these taxpayers depend upon MROSD or their elected officials to protect them? San Mateo County is the only county out of California's 58 counties where Supervisors are elected by a countywide election rather than a vote limited to the district they represent. It is no wonder that many of the 3,600 voters that live in nearly 100,000 rural acres feel disenfranchised. As Ms. Ettinger suggests, their best hope is incorporation into a town of there own. Given their fight against taxation without representation, perhaps they should call the new town "Liberty" or "New Boston." But what of MROSD desire to annex jurisdiction over our lands? There offer of "protection" is reminiscent of the British offer of "protection" given colonists by the British practice of "quartering" -- forcing colonists to accept British soldiers into their homes, even if they were unwelcome. Even a docile group of cloistered nuns is not safe. Just think back a few years ago when MROSD voted 6-1 to seize the 284-acre property owned by nuns in the rural hills of our County using their power of condemnation, bringing them to financial ruin in the wake of the legal battle. Perhaps this is why the councils for both Menlo Park and Woodside declined MROSD's request to support the annexation. Feeling a lack of elected representation, MROSD's annexation plan is now being challenged by coastsiders in court. As one of the attorneys fighting MROSD in our local court, I can tell you how much MROSD trusts the residents of our County. MROSD has filed a motion to disqualify the local judge assigned to the case as "prejudiced" and has filed a motion to change venue to Santa Clara County. If MROSD doesn't trust a local, well respected judge (who the voters of San Mateo County have retained for decades), or trust the people and courts of San Mateo County to hear the case against them, should we trust them to annex and control our lands? MROSD's offer of "protection" is both unnecessary and suspect. Local management and control is a better solution, and another reason to support the incorporation of our local rural lands. Support democracy and incorporation, not annexation and extinction, otherwise you may be inviting an unwelcome soldier into our homes, armed with the power! of eminent domain. Ted J. Hannig of Woodside is a community volunteer and the recipient of two Community Start awards. CHUCK KOZAK'S NON-FACTS ABOUT MROSD OPEN SPACE  OP/ED 11/1/03 There Chuckie Kozak goes again. You all remember Chuckie? He's was the Sierra Club's "THINK TUNNEL" SOONER, SAFER, CHEAPER! campaign media guru. Well urban neighbors, the California Watershed Posse has come to your rescue again with "Just The Facts" provided by the official San Mateo County Shared Vision 2010 publication found online since 2001 (see Share Vision 2010 Rural Lands Demongraphics below).  With regards to the total Coastal Rural Lands area Chuckie's 40% figure is only off by 55.18%.  How about that 1998 Coastside Advisory Vote for the MROSD 140,000 acre Annexation? The unincorpated Rural Lands area vote on MROSD Annexation was 56% NO to 44% YES.  The MROSD Annexation Advisory Vote ONLY passed in the Sierra Club Envirocult  occupied No Growth  URBAN territories of the Coastside where Chuckie is still acting as Minister of Prapaganda for the Mid-Coast Advisory Council.   MROSD has fully retained their  Eminent Domain powers and has promised not to use it until the next farm family or church organization tries to develope their lands ( remember the Russian nuns). And finally with regards to the MROSD rangers being on their MROSD lands to watch CDF put out the fire with air tanker drops... the Coastside Fire Safe Council says thank you for being there rangers.   Chuckie, my blessed Mother used to say to me, "Fool me once, shame on you!  Fool me twice, shame on me!" On behalf of the resident majority of the SMC Coastal Rural Lands Chuckie..."THINK RLINC" SAN MATEO COUNTY RURAL LANDS AREA DEMOGRAPHICS: Shared Vision 2010 Question: Total Parks & Open Space acres in San Mateo County?  Answer: Shared Vision 2010 Question: How many houses in the Rural Lands & how many acres? Answer: SMC Housing Log Question: How much Open Space Greenbelt in the Bay Area: Answer: Over 1 Million Acres! Total Rural Lands Area: 99,621 Acres (100%) Total Privately Held Taxpaying: 4,811 Acres (4.82%) Total Government & Land Trust : 94,810 Acres (95.18%) California State Parks 15,811 Acres San Mateo County Parks15,369 Acres San Francisco Watershed 23,000 Acres Mid-Peninsula Open Space 27,030 Acres Peninsula Open Space Trust 9,600 Acres Golden Gate Natl Rec. Area 4,000 Acres Sustainable San Mateo County Database: LAND USE DATA Allocation of Land Uses by County County Urban% Rural% Greenbelt% Estimated UDI1 Alameda 29.2 56.9 21.6 25 Contra Costa 30.2 46 23.8 16 Marin 14 35 51 14 Napa 4 75.8 20.2 16 San Francisco 79.4 1.3 19.3 92 San Mateo2 26.2 39.1 34.7 22 Santa Clara 21.5 56.9 21.6 21 Solano 9.7 71.1 19.2 8 Sonoma 6.3 83.7 10 18 Source: Greenbelt Alliance: Greenbelt at Risk 2000 1. Urban Density Index (UDI): Total housing units/urban square miles/100. Source: US Census 2000 2. Total area of San Mateo County is 285,339 acres. Dr. Andrea Braun,  Co-Founder of the Half Moon Bay Coastside Foundation aka California Watershed Posse www.cwposse.org  SMC Rural Lands There Are Three Steps in Rural Lands Incorporation First, a "resolution of application" or 25% of the registered voters in the proposed incorporation area must sign a petition asking that the county Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) start the incorporation review process.   Second, LAFCO would undertake a thorough examination of the incorporation proposal, including commissioning a “comprehensive fiscal analysis.” Third, an election would be held in the proposed Rural Lands Hamlets incorporated area to decide the actual question of incorporation   RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION OF THE _                                                   INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR A REORGANIZATION: INCORPORATION OF "THE HAMLETS" aka RURAL LANDS AND DETACHMENT FROM THE MIDPENSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT                 WHEREAS, the                                               desires to initiate a proceeding for the reorganization boundaries specified herein;             NOW, THEREFORE, the                                                       does hereby resolve and order as follows:   1.      Enabling Statute - This proposal is made, and it is requested that proceedings be taken, pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000, commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code.   2.      Reasons for Proposal - The reasons for the proposal are to (a) increase local control and accountability for decisions affecting the community, (b) secure self governance through a Town Council elected by local residents; (c) retain local tax revenues for use in the community to support school districts, municipal programs and services, (d) preserve, protect and sustain the quality of life and values prevailing within the proposed Town, (e) promote cost-effective services tailored to the needs of local residents and landowners and (f) provide coordinated "Fire Safe" resource management and planning services for vital community interests including watershed natural systems, parks and open space.    3.      Description of Proposal - The proposal is a reorganization that includes the following changes of organization;   A.     Incorporation of a municipality to be known as The Hamlets.   B.     Detachment of territory from the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District   4.      Boundaries - The boundaries of the proposal are described in the map labeled Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein.   5.      Registered voters - The territory included in the proposal contains approximately 3,600 registered voters.   6.      Spheres of Influence - The proposal is consistent with the spheres of influence of all affected local agencies except for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and it is hereby requested that the District sphere be amended to permit this proposal.   7.      Name – This incorporated municipality shall be the Town of Rural Lands.   8.      Effective Date – The effective date of the incorporation shall be July 4, 2004 or as soon thereafter as possible   9.      Legislative Body – The Town shall be governed by a 7-member Town council elected by division.   10.  Council Terms of Office – The terms of office of Town Council members shall be four years.  Of the first elected legislative body, the terms of the 3 members the largest popular vote shall be 4 years.  Of the first elected legislative body, the terms of the 2 members with the least popular vote shall be 2 years.   11.  First Town Council Meeting – In addition to all other means authorized by law, the first meeting of the Town council may be called by notice given in a lawful manner by any three members of the Town Council.   12.  Form of Organization – The Town Council shall appoint a Town manager who shall fill the positions of Town Clerk and Town Treasurer by appointment.   13.  Provisional Appropriations Limit – LAFCO shall establish a provisional appropriations limit sufficient to accommodate reasonable and possible future increases in proceeds of taxes received by the Town.   14.  Continuation of Existing General Taxes – The Town shall be authorized to levy as general taxes of the Town those general taxes which are from time to time levied by the County including (1) a sales and use tax collected under contract with the State Board of Equalization and returned to the Town pursuant to applicable law, (2) a transient occupancy tax on gross receipts of hotels, motels, and similar facilities within the Town and returned by the operators of such facilities pursuant to local ordinance, (3) a business license tax to be collected by the Town pursuant to local ordinance, and (4) all other applicable general taxes presently imposed by the County to be collected by the same method of collection as used by the County.   15.  Continuation of Charges, Fees, and Assessments – The Town shall be authorized to continue to levy charges, fees and assessments of the Town that are from time to time levied by the County or any of the subject agencies of this incorporation.   16.  Transfer of Assets   A.     On the date of incorporation, or as soon thereafter as practicable, the County shall transfer to the Town a proportionate share of all assets, physical and personal, monies or funds, including cash on hand and monies due but uncollected, of the County and of County-governed districts for which services the Town will become responsible after incorporation, said share to be determined by LAFCO based upon its evaluation.   B.     On the date of incorporation, or as soon thereafter as practicable, County-owned properties and other physical assets situated within the incorporation area and related to services the Town will become responsible after incorporation shall be transferred to and become the property of the Town without payment of compensation by the Town to the County, said assets to be determined by LAFCO based upon its evaluation.   C.     On the date of incorporation, or as soon thereafter as practicable, all District-owned properties and other physical assets of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District situated within the reorganization area shall be transferred to and become the property of the Town without payment of compensation by the Town to the District.   17.  Single Ballot Question – The question of incorporation, all related boundary changes, and all terms and conditions shall be presented as one question on the ballot.     PASSED AND ADOPTED this                          day of                                      .                                                                                                                                                                                           President/Mayor, Board of Directors/City Council   AYES:                                                                                                 NOES:                                                                                                 ABSENT: