Harbor Commissioner

San Mateo County Harbor Commission Stalls on California Voting Rights Act

Press Release

On March 21, 2018, the board majority denied the Harbor District an opportunity to comply with the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) before the upcoming 2018 election. Staff recommendations and legal advice was ignored and a vote to “Do Nothing” was approved. Board President Virginia Chang-Kiraly, Commissioner Tom Mattusch, and Commissioner Robert Bernardo expressed doubts about whether racially polarized voting exists in San Mateo County.

In an effort to comply with state law Harbor Commissioners Sabrina Brennan and Edmundo Larenas requested that the CVRA be placed on the March 21, 2018 agenda. Both commissioners worked collaboratively with Harbor District staff and attorney Kimon Manolius to draft Resolution 18-04-A. Counsel’s review of the resolution was cut short because Chang-Kiraly contacted Manolius and demanded that he “stop working with Brennan and Larenas.”

Minority Opinion

The Harbor District is a countywide agency funded by countywide property tax. Its five-member elected board does not adequately represent all areas of the county and hasn’t for decades. The board’s decision to “do nothing” delays the District’s ability to serve marginalized communities. 

—Edmundo Larenas, SMC Harbor Commissioner

Candidates of a protected class elected to an agency’s governing board do not negate a finding that racially polarized voting exists for that class. Under the CVRA, a class members’ successful campaign is not the only factor considered when determining the existence of racially polarized voting.

—Sabrina Brennan, SMC Harbor Commissioner

Flouting state law could put the special district on the receiving end of a demand letter.

March 21, 2018, Meeting Video

Item 12: First Motion

  • Motion by Brennan, second by Larenas to Comply with the California Voting Rights Act and Transition from At-Large Elections to District-Based Elections
  • Failed: 2-3 Vote

Item 12: Second Motion

  • Motion by Chang-Kiraly, second by Bernardo to “Do Nothing”
  • Approved: 3-2 Vote
  • Proactive Approach

On February 27, 2018, Commissioners Edmundo Larenas and Sabrina Brennan called for district based elections to save millions in property tax funds currently being wasted on a countywide at-large election system. The Harbor District paid the County $752,490 for printing and mailing ballots for the Nov 2017 countywide at-large election. Switching to district elections would improve accountability; increase citizen participation including marginalized communities, and lower taxpayer costs by decreasing the cost of printing and mailing ballots.

In 2010, Sabrina Brennan first proposed district elections as a way to reduce election costs.

Half Moon Bay Review – July 12, 2010

Resident suggests new format for harbor elections

According to Brennan, lowering the cost would not only relieve the burden on taxpayers but also encourage more qualified candidates to run for board positions.

"I'm concerned about the fact that for people who want to run, like myself … it costs a lot of money," she said, citing it would cost $7,000 for a candidate to place an optional statement onto the voter pamphlet.

Local agencies that have switched to district based as a result of CVRA challenges:

  • At least 169 school districts
  • 32 community college districts
  • Over 78 cities including the City of Menlo Park
  • San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
  • 10 water and other special districts

Due to the significant costs of defending against CVRA lawsuits, the vast majority of local agencies approved voluntarily transitions to district elections.

Examples of settlements:

  • Anaheim - $1.1 million
  • Hanford Joint Union Schools - $118,000
  • Madera Unified - about $170,000
  • Merced City - $42,000
  • Modesto - $3 million plaintiff's attorney fees and $1.7 million for its own lawyers
  • Palmdale - $4.7 million
  • Placentia - $20,000
  • Santa Barbara - $600,000
  • Tulare Hospital - $500,000
  • West Covina - $220,000 
  • Whittier - $1 million

CBS KPIX: Sexual Harassment Investigation—Harbor Commissioner Tom Mattusch Accused of Mailing Lewd Photos

Watch the news segment:

It's a case making waves in the San Mateo County Harbor District where two commissioners have conflicting takes on graphic photos sent by e-mail. Katie Nielsen explains. (2-22-18)

Oyster Point Marina JPA Considerations

By Ed Carter

This is in response to recent meetings, Staff Reports, 5 Year Capital Improvement Project Summary (CIP) and proposals involving a possible Oyster Point Marina (OPM) JPA Rewrite/Update by South San Francisco (SSF) and the San Mateo County Harbor District (HD).

I strongly suggest that the Harbor District limit any JPA update to the current term of the JPA and make no new capital investments at OPM.

SSF has publicly threatened to push for dissolution of the HD if it does not “go along” with funding massive new capital investment at OPM. This undermines any future partnership and strongly suggests that SSF was involved in the Grand Jury inquiries and other behind the scenes maneuvering to dissolve the HD. This antagonism should caution the HD commissioners against extending the JPA.

The LAFCO Municipal Services Review (MSR) and Grand Jury Report both cite a long history of HD operating deficits as justification for its dissolution. The OPM JPA is a significant contributor to these deficits. Continued revenue deficiencies may lead to dissolution of the HD if the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors decides to do so. There has been no economic study completed of the projected return on investment of the HD’s proposed OPM CIP items. I would argue that an accurate projection is impossible until after the OPD project is completed and fully leased for a year or more. Failure of any additional capital investment in enterprise projects, to produce adequate revenues, would further jeopardize the future of the HD.

JPA land that previously provided revenue to the HD has been transferred to a private developer. This revenue will not be replaced. Reduction in the land area in the JPA and development of adjacent, previously JPA controlled property, by others (Oyster Point Development, OPD) makes prediction of future productive use of the remaining “substandard” JPA property very difficult. The Marina has long had excess capacity, over 20% of the berths are not currently rented. Future parking for the existing western berths will be reduced by fifty percent. Therefore, access to these berths will be more difficult.  Existing boat maintenance facilities will be gone. No one can predict how these changes will affect  the demand for marina facilities.

SSF appears to believe the HD will supply all of the capital for future development by the OPM JPA. The HD does not own the land or have a long‐term lease (nor should it want either) to justify any more capital investment at OPM.

The JPA has not developed the landside facilities of the marina significantly since its inception. There is no reason to believe this will change in the future. The OPM CIP includes $250,000 in Planning, specifications and engineering investment in landside development in 2017‐18 without a hint as to the nature of successful enterprise activity that might be developed there.

JPA property has been reduced to only the most exposed and unstable area of the old landfill. Barriers to future landside development include the landfill legacy problems of hazardous waste, subsidence and geotechnical issues complicated by projected sea rise. Extension of the JPA may also result in HD being held responsible for problems associated with hazardous waste deposits at the site that existed before the JPA was formed. These issues will result in limitations on what can be built including increased costs of construction. Further, the proposed 40,000 square feet available for new development in the remaining JPA Property is: small, irregular in shape, landlocked and otherwise limited in its use by adjacent trails and planned hotel development on adjacent property.

The HD has challenging issues at Pillar Point Harbor (PPH), including: the demand for more and larger berths, implementation of the PPH 5 year CIP, water quality improvement, landside development supporting existing enterprise activity tenants, expansion of enterprise activity, ADA compliance, dredging and beach enhancement. The HD should utilize all of its available and future capital resources at PPH in order to fulfill its mission statement: “To assure that the public is provided with clean, safe, well‐managed financially sound and environmentally pleasant marinas”. If it continues in the OPM JPA with a business as usual approach the operating losses will continue and the HD will not be able to fulfill this mission at either PPH or OPM.

Conclusion

Given the above it is difficult to understand the apparent willingness of the HD to expend its resources on this failed JPA partnership. The HD should set future priorities based upon the LAFCO MSR and Grand Jury comments. This will help direct staff and make future planning fact based and goal oriented

HD has experienced consistent operating losses under the JPA. Future marina development and landside enterprise activity at OPM should be left to the landowner, SSF. All future HD tax revenue should be reserved for use at PPH.

While it may be desirable for the HD to have a continued presence at Oyster Point it is under no obligation to invest in additional capital projects at OPM. It makes no sense to build SSF and their developer partner OPD a shiny new marina with San Mateo County Taxpayer money.

The currently proposed OPM CIP should be suspended. The HD should limit its future involvement with the JPA and OPM to operation and maintenance of the marina under a cost plus contract, with SSF funding all CIP and operating losses. The HD should look for partners and other funding sources to support its public access and marine safety activities at OPM. Without implementing these strategies it may be impossible for the HD to achieve revenue neutral operations at OPM.