HomeMy Public PortalAbout20110413 - Agenda Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 11-08
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
330 Distel Circle
Los Altos, California
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT BEGINS AT 5:00 P.M.*
A G E N D A
SPECIAL MEETING
5:00 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT –
PUBLIC SESSION
ROLL CALL
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS – PUBLIC
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
5:05 CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approve Minutes of the District’s Special and Regular Meeting – March 9, 2011
2. Approve Revised Claims Report
3. Approve Written Communications – C. Dremann
4. Approve the purchase of the Tax-Defaulted “Redwood Park” Parcels as an addition to Purisima Creek
Redwoods Open Space Preserve, (San Mateo County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 067-096-010, 067-102-
160, 067-103-060, 067-104-030, 067-115-110, 067-121-010, 067-123-060, 067-124-080, 067-126-070, 067-
128-040, 067-128-100, 067-133-100, 067-133-140, 067-134-060, 067-134-060, 067-134-070, 067-154-070,
067-171-030, 067-172-030, 067-172-060, 067-185-160, and 067-186-220); Adopt the Preliminary Use and
Management Plan; and Approve a Categorical Exemption in Accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act – M. Williams
5:10 BOARD BUSINESS
5. Consideration of Strategic Plan Ad Hoc Committee Recommendations – N. Hanko, C. Harris, and C. Riffle
6. Board Workshop – Strategic Plan
Meeting 11-08
INFORMATIONAL REPORTS – Reports on compensable meetings attended. Brief reports or announcements
concerning activities of District Directors and staff; opportunity to refer public or Board questions to staff for
factual information; request staff to report back to the Board on a matter at a future meeting; or direct staff to
place a matter on a future agenda.
A. Committee Reports
B. Staff Reports
C. Director Reports
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.
Consent Calendar: All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved without discussion by one motion. Board
members, the General Manager, and members of the 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.
Written materials relating to an item on this Agenda that are considered to be a public record and are distributed to Board members less than 72 hours prior to the
meeting, will be available for public inspection at the District’s Administrative Office located at 330 Distel Circle, Los Altos, California 94022.
I, Michelle Radcliffe, District Clerk for the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), declare that the foregoing amended agenda for the Special
Meeting of the MROSD Board of Directors was posted and available for review on April 8, 2011, at the Administrative Offices of MROSD, 330 Distel Circle, Los
Altos California, 94022. The agenda is also available on the District’s web site at http://www.openspace.org.
Signed this 8th day of April, at Los Altos, California.
District Clerk April 8, 2011
CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA
Meeting 11-06
SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
March 9, 2011
MINUTES
BOARD WORKSHOP
I. ROLL CALL
President Hassett called the Special Meeting to order at 5:03 p.m.
Members Present: Pete Siemens, Cecily Harris, Nonette Hanko, Yoriko Kishimoto, Jed
Cyr and Larry Hassett
Members Absent: Curt Riffle
Staff Present: Planning Manager Ana Ruiz, General Counsel Sue Schectman, Interim
Assistant General Counsel James Atencio, Senior Resource
Management Specialist Cindy Roessler, Senior Resource Planner Kirk
Lenington, Resource Planner I Julie Anderson, and District Clerk
Michelle Radcliffe.
II. BOARD BUSINESS
A. Agenda Item 1 - Workshop to Review the Resource Management Policies of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (R-11-17)
Resource Planner I Julie Anderson presented an overview of the District’s Resource
Management Policies and stated that the purpose of the workshop is to complete the
review of the policies. The Board reviewed the policies and made changes.
Discussion ensued.
No action was taken by the Board.
Meeting 11-06 Page 2
III. ADJOURNMENT
President Hassett adjourned the Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 5:35 p.m.
REGULAR MEETING
I. ROLL CALL
President Hassett called the Regular Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Members Present: Cecily Harris, Nonette Hanko, Yoriko Kishimoto, Curt Riffle (arrived
at 7:03 p.m.), Pete Siemens, Jed Cyr, and Larry Hassett
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: General Manager Steve Abbors, General Counsel Sue Schectman,
Interim Assistant General Counsel James Atencio, Public Affairs
Manager Rudy Jurgensen, Planning Manager Ana Ruiz, Operations
Manager David Sanguinetti, Real Property Manager Mike Williams,
Administrative Services Manager Kate Drayson, Real Property
Specialist Michael Reeves, Assistant Program Coordinator Jennifer
Williams, Skyline Area Superintendent Brian Malone, and District
Clerk Michelle Radcliffe.
II. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were none.
III. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
President Hassett requested to have Agenda Item #6 be heard prior to Agenda Item #5.
Motion: Upon motion by Director Cyr, seconded by Director Hanko, and unanimously
passed, the Board adopted the agenda as amended. (Vote: 6-0-0; Absent: Riffle)
IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion: Upon motion by Director Cyr, seconded by Director Kishimoto, and unanimously
passed, the Board approved adoption of the Consent Calendar to approve the FY 2010-11
Annual Claims List; Annual Dedication Report, Minutes of January 26, 2011, as
amended; and Revised Claims 11-05. (Vote: 6-0-0; Absent: Riffle)
Meeting 11-06 Page 3
V. BOARD BUSINESS
A. Agenda Item 6 – Approve the Proposed Purchase of the Powell Trust Property from
the Peninsula Open Space Trust as an Addition to Monte Bello Open Space Preserve,
located at 17287 Stevens Canyon Road in unincorporated Santa Clara County
(Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 351-26-003 and 351-26-004); Approve a License and
Management Agreement with the Peninsula Open Space Trust; Adopt the Preliminary
Use and Management Plan for the Property; Approve a Funding and Acquisition
Agreement with Santa Clara County to support the District’s Purchase; and Approve a
Categorical Exemption in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(R-11-39).
Real Property Department Manager Mike Williams introduced Marc Landgraf with
Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) and Tim Heffington with Santa Clara County
Parks and provided a brief overview of the involvement of each organization in this
partnership project. Real Property Specialist Michael Reeves then provided an
overview of the proposed purchase of the Powell Trust Property from POST,
explaining that POST is serving as the intermediary buyer of the property, and that the
County of Santa Clara is contributing $1,250,000 or 50% in matching funds towards
the District’s purchase of the Powell Trust Property as well as the District’s October
2010 purchase of the adjacent Harmon Powell property. He explained that the District
and County Parks have been working together for many years to connect public lands
within Stevens Canyon for a future sub-regional trail connection between Lower and
Upper Stevens Creek County Parks and Monte Bello Open Space Preserve. Mr.
Reeves further explained that in exchange for the County’s funding contribution, the
District will grant a Conservation Easement to the County that ensures the
preservation of the two Powell properties for open space and parks purposes.
Mr. Reeves reported that there are vacant structures on the property and that staff
recommends that they be demolished. He also reported that there is a dumpsite
located on the property and that $45,000 will be held in escrow for the dumpsite clean-
up. Mr. Reeves also reported that the next step is to enter into a License and
Management Agreement with POST to allow the District to manage the Powell
Property while under POST ownership until the property transfers to the District.
Discussion was held.
Public Comment: Marc Landgraf spoke in favor of the purchase and thanked the
Board and staff for the partnership to purchase the property.
Tim Heffington thanked the Board and staff for the partnership.
Motion: Upon motion by Director Hanko, seconded by Director Riffle, and
unanimously passed, the Board approved the purchase of the Powell Trust Property
from POST, approved the License and Management with POST, adopted the Use and
Management Plan, Approved the Funding and Acquisition Agreement with Santa
Clara County, and approved a categorical exemption in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act. (Vote: 7-0-0)
Meeting 11-06 Page 4
B. Agenda Item 5 – District Geocaching Program (R-11-35)
Assistant Program Coordinator Jennifer Williams provided an overview of the
District’s geocaching program and explained how the program connects new and
existing users to District preserves. Discussion was held on how the program works
and how success of the program would be measured.
Public Comment: Mike Beshue spoke in favor of the District’s geocaching program.
No action was taken by the Board.
C. Agenda Item 7 – Field Enforcement Activity Report for Calendar Year 2010 and Ten-
Year Field Activity Summary (R-11-23)
Operations Manager David Sanguinetti provided an overview of the District’s Field
Enforcement activity for 2010. Brief discussion ensued.
Public Comment: Gordon Baillie thanked the Board for their support during his
tenure with the District.
No action was taken by the Board.
VI. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Director Hanko reported that the Strategic Plan Ad Hoc Committee met on March 8th and that
the Committee held discussion on the District’s “four big questions” and partner feedback.
She stated that the Board will need to have a Strategic Plan Board Workshop to hold Board
discussion on the “four big questions”.
STAFF REPORTS
Operations Manager David Sanguinetti reported that there will be two District residences
available for rent. He stated that District rangers will have first priority to the residences and
if there is no interest, priority will be given to maintenance staff.
Real Property Manager Mike Williams reported that a grant application was submitted to the
California Coastal Conservancy for the purchase of the POST Silva property.
Public Affairs Manager Rudy Jurgensen reported that District was featured in a few
newspaper articles regarding Cooley Landing, Mount Umunhum, docent led hikes at Russian
Ridge Open Space Preserve, and the missing hikers in the Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve.
Planning Manager Ana Ruiz reported that staff had installed new District signage at the
Administrative Office.
Meeting 11-06 Page 5
District Clerk Michelle Radcliffe reminded the Board to submit their Fair Political Practices
Commission Statement of Economic Interest forms before March 31, 2011.
General Manager Steve Abbors provided a brief update on the efforts of California Forward
and reported that he attended an event entitled “Living Landscape Initiative” hosted by the
Moore Foundation and stated that news about funding for preservation efforts in the Santa
Cruz Mountains was presented.
DIRECTOR REPORTS
The Directors submitted their compensable meeting forms to the District Clerk.
Director Cyr shared his vacation experience with the Board.
Director Hanko reported that she attended the Open House Event hosted by Assemblymember
Rich Gordon on March 4th. She also expressed concerns over Governor Brown’s proposal to
sell state parks and felt that state parks should be dedicated land.
Director Kishimoto reported that she is taking representatives of a Chinese newspaper on a
hike at one of the District’s preserves.
Director Riffle reported that he attended the Living Landscape Initiative event and stated that
he was happy to see numerous agencies collaborate on an issue. He also reported that he
attended the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Board meeting.
Director Siemens reported that he attended the Santa Clara County Special Districts
Association with Mr. Abbors and that they met with newly elected Santa Clara County Board
of Supervisor Mike Wasserman. He stated that a follow-up meeting with Supervisor
Wasserman needs to be scheduled so that the District and the Supervisor can discuss
partnerships.
President Hassett suggested that the District partner with a local Kaiser medical office to
create a program to educate the public on the health benefits of visiting open space preserves.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
President Hassett adjourned the Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of the
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District at 9:13 p.m.
Michelle Radcliffe, CMC
District Clerk
Regranaf
OpenSpace
April 13, 2011
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Mr. Craig Dremann
Redwood Seed Company
Craig@astreet.com
Re: Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve
Dear Mr, Dremann:
The District's Board of Directors has received your recent email correspondence dated March 20, 2011
and March 24, 2011. The Board acknowledges and respects the sincere interest and concerns you have
expressed about prescribed burns at Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve. The District staff has listened
to your input and responded to your concerns in a good faith effort to share perspectives in how to best
address promotion of native vegetation and removal of invasive vegetation at Russian Ridge. While you
may disagree with the approach taken at Russian Ridge, there is no question that we share the same
goal: to properly steward the beautiful resources at Russian Ridge.
The District Board, as you do, treasures the natural resources at our many preserves and takes its
resource management responsibilities seriously. To further that objective even more, the Board has
directed staff to further analyze and monitor conditions at Russian Ridge, including undertaking
additional CEQA review. The Board will consider all of your input during that process.
You have raised many points about the District's CEQA compliance in the past and asked that the Board
adopt or agree to several of these points. We feel it would be more productive to directly address the
future of Russian Ridge than engage in a debate about the past. Staff will be conducting additional
monitoring on Russian Ridge in FY2011-12. The District anticipates undertaking further CEQA review of
vegetation management the following fiscal year and relevant information gleaned from monitoring will
be included in this review. We agree that not all projects involving management of existing native
vegetation are categorically exempt under CEQA. There can be projects in sensitive. habitats where a
more extensive level of CEQA review is appropriate and that call for special protection.
We also understand that you have submitted a recent Public Records Act request concerning Russian
Ridge. Staff will be preparing a response to your request.
Sincerely,
Larry Hass tt, President, Board of Directors
330 Distel Circle Los Altos, CA 94022 I p 650.691.1200
F 650.691.0485 I www.openspace.org
R-11-51
Meeting 11-08
April 13, 2011
AGENDA ITEM 4
AGENDA ITEM
Approve the Purchase of the Tax-Defaulted “Redwood Park” Parcels as an Addition to Purisima
Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve, (San Mateo County Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 067-
096-010, 067-102-160, 067-103-060, 067-104-030, 067-115-110, 067-121-010, 067-123-060,
067-124-080, 067-126-070, 067-128-040, 067-128-100, 067-133-100, 067-133-140, 067-134-
060, 067-134-060, 067-134-070, 067-154-070, 067-171-030, 067-172-030, 067-172-060, 067-
185-160, and 067-186-220); Adopt the Preliminary Use and Management Plan; and Approve a
Categorical Exemption in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
GENERAL MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
1.Determine that the recommended actions are categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as set out in this report;
2. Adopt the attached resolution authorizing purchase of the San Mateo County Tax-Defaulted
properties;
3. Adopt the Preliminary Use and Management Plan as set out in this report;
4.Indicate the Board of Director’s intention to both dedicate the parcels lying westerly of the
dedication boundary as public open space, and to withhold from dedication the parcels lying
easterly of the dedication boundary as set out in this report.
SUMMARY
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (District) is proposing to purchase a total of 21
parcels totaling 2.31-acres of Tax-Defaulted “Redwood Park” parcels as an addition to Purisima
Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve, at a price not to exceed $41,000. The following report
presents a description of the property, a Preliminary Use and Management Plan, the
environmental review, purchase terms and conditions, and financial considerations.
R-11-51 Page 2
DISCUSSION
Over the last twenty five years, the District has been acquiring, through gift or tax sale, “paper”
lots in the Redwood Park Subdivision adjacent to Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space
Preserve. In 1990, the District received approximately 1,100 lots in the subdivision from San
Mateo County for open space preservation. The transfer agreement with the County also
required the District to endeavor to acquire all of the Redwood Park parcels located west of
Redwood Springs Road, which is the demarcation line between the developed parcels to the east
along Skyline Boulevard and the area west of this road that is almost entirely undeveloped (see
attached map). The current transaction includes an additional twenty one (21) parcels (32 lots)
from San Mateo County through a Chapter 8 Sale of Tax-Defaulted Property for a purchase price
not to exceed $41,000. A Chapter 8 Sale allows qualified public agencies to acquire tax-
defaulted properties at the minimum bid amount set by the County tax collector, without the
necessity of a public auction. These tax properties add to and help round out the District land
ownership pattern in the Redwood Park Subdivision. The tax-defaulted parcels contain
approximately 2.31 acres.
Property Description
The Redwood Park subdivision was filed in 1908. The area of the subdivision nearest to Skyline
Boulevard (State Highway 35) has been developed with single family residences and is part of
the Kings Mountain community. The westerly portion of the subdivision is largely undeveloped
with the exception of a couple private residences. The westerly property is a densely wooded
canyon consisting of redwood and Douglas forest, which includes the headwaters of No Name
Gulch. Primary access to the property is from Ridge Road via Skyline Boulevard to the west.
The land is surrounded by existing District land with a few neighboring private parcels. There
are no improvements on the properties proposed for purchase.
The District currently owns approximately 89.77 acres (1,384 lots) of the 198-acre subdivision
tract; the remaining portions of the subdivision are privately owned. The San Mateo County
Tax-Defaulted Parcels total 2.31 acres. The addition of these parcels would bring District
ownership in the Redwood Park “paper” Subdivision up to 92.08 acres (1,416 lots).
Approximately 35 acres of the entire subdivision consists of roads shown on the original
subdivision map of which most were never built. Most of the District-owned lots were received
from San Mateo County either by quitclaim deed or tax sale. San Mateo County established a
Dedication Boundary along Redwood Spring Road separating the residential developed area
along Skyline Boulevard from the undeveloped and heavily forested area of the subdivision. The
developed area of the subdivision occurs easterly of the “dedication line”, and is the original
reasoning for the demarcation. The area designated as the “preserve boundary” that separates the
westerly undeveloped area includes approximately 139 acres; the easterly developed area
includes approximately 59-acres. This boundary line has been used as the District's demarcation
between dedicated and undedicated land, in accordance with the agreement with San Mateo
County
R-11-51 Page 3
USE AND MANAGEMENT
Planning Considerations
These properties are located in an unincorporated area of San Mateo County, within existing
District jurisdictional boundaries. All of these lots are part of the Redwood Park Subdivision,
generally located within the Kings Mountain area along Skyline Boulevard. The primary access
is off Skyline Boulevard to the west, connecting with Ridge Road along the southerly boundary
of this "paper" subdivision. All of these parcels adjoin, or are surrounded by, existing District
lands. The parcels received a low to medium rating for suitability as open space in the District's
master plan, and were identified in the Regional Open Space Study as an area where the District
owns some but not all of the parcels.
Preliminary Use and Management Plan (Next Steps)
The Preliminary Use and Management Plan will take effect at the close of escrow and remain
effective until the Plan is amended or a Comprehensive Use and Management Plan or Master
Plan is approved for Purisima Creek Open Space Preserve. The property will be maintained in
its current condition, with no changes anticipated. If changes to land use or the physical
environment are proposed in the future, the plan would be subject to further environmental
review and public input.
Public Access: Closed to public use.
Signs and Site
Security:
Install Preserve boundary signs where appropriate
Structures and
Improvements:
None
Resource
Management:
Conduct interim invasive plant and animal management activities consistent
with the District’s policies and practices.
Agricultural
Resources:
None
Patrol: Routinely patrol the properties.
Wildfire Fuel
Management:
None
Roads and Trails: None
Site Safety
Inspection:
There are no known safety hazards on the site.
Name: Name the property as an addition to Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space
Preserve.
Dedication: Indicate your intention to dedicate the nineteen (19) parcels totaling 2.17 acres
in the designated dedication area as public open space. Withhold from
dedication two (2) parcels totaling 0.14 acres that lie outside the designated
dedication area at this time. These parcels may be exchanged for other parcels
within the Redwood Park subdivision or for other open space lands in San
Mateo County.
R-11-51 Page 4
CEQA COMPLIANCE
Project Description
The project consists of the acquisition of approximately 2.17 acres of land within the Redwood
Park paper subdivision as an addition to the Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space Preserve,
and the adoption of a Preliminary Use and Management Plan for the property. The land will be
permanently preserved as open space and maintained in a natural condition.
CEQA Determination
The District concludes that this project will not have a significant effect on the environment. It is
categorically exempt from CEQA under Article 19, Sections 15301, 15316, 15317, 15325, and
15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines as follows:
Section 15316 exempts the acquisition of land in order to create parks if the site is in a natural
condition and the management plan proposes to keep the area in a natural condition. The
Preliminary Use and Management Plan specify the properties will be operated and maintained in
a natural condition and there will be no expansion of use. The properties will be closed to the
public.
Section 15317 exempts the acceptance of fee interests in order to maintain the open space
character of an area. The District will acquire fee interest and maintain the open space character
of the area. No development is proposed as part of this project.
Section 15325 exempts transfers of ownership of interests in land in order to preserve open
space. This acquisition will transfer fee ownership to the District and ensure it will be preserved
as public open space by incorporating it into the Redwood Park Area of Purisima Creek
Redwoods Open Space Preserve.
The project qualifies under all three sections. The project is also exempt under Section
15061(a)(3), as there is no possibility the actions may have a significant effect on the
environment.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
The San Mateo County Tax-Defaulted Redwood Park properties are being acquired through
Chapter 8 Sale at a purchase price of approximately $38,600. A Chapter 9 Sale allows qualified
public agencies to acquire Tax-Defaulted properties at the minimum bid amount set by the
County tax collector, without the necessity of public auction. The purchase price is set by statute
as the cost of defaulted taxes and assessments and any cost of sale. The final cost figure is
determined on the effective date of the sale. It is anticipated that the final amount will not
exceed $41,000.
R-11-51 Page 5
BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS
2011–2012 Budget for New Land Purchases:
New Land $13,495,000
San Mateo County Tax-Defaulted Properties ($ 41,000)
New Land Purchase Budget Remaining $ 13,454,000
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. No additional notice is required.
NEXT STEPS
Should the Board of Directors approve this item, the District’s Operations Department would
manage these “Redwood Park” parcels as an addition to Purisima Creek Redwoods Open Space
Preserve, in accordance with the Preliminary Use and Management Plan.
Attachments:
1. Resolution
2. Area Map (Exhibit A)
3. Detail Map (Exhibit B)
Prepared by:
Jean Chung, Real Property Administrative Assistant
Contact person:
Michael C. Williams, Real Property Manager
Graphics prepared by:
Zach Alexander, Planning Technician
RESOLUTION 11-__
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF AGREEMENT TO
PURCHASE TAX DEFAULTED PROPERTY, AUTHORIZING GENERAL MANAGER
OR OTHER OFFICER TO EXECUTE CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT
TO DISTRICT, AND AUTHORIZING GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANY
AND ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO CLOSING OF
THE TRANSACTION (PURISIMA CREEK REDWOODS OPEN SPACE PRESERVE –
TAX DEFAULTED REDWOOD PARK PROPERTIES, SAN MATEO COUNTY,
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS: 067-096-010, 067-102-160, 067-103-060, 067-104-030,
067-115-110, 067-121-010, 067-123-060, 067-124-080, 067-126-070, 067-128-040, 067-128-
100, 067-133-100, 067-133-140, 067-134-060, 067-134-060, 067-134-070, 067-154-070, 067-
171-030, 067-172-030, 067-172-060, 067-185-160, and 067-186-220)
The Board of Directors of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does resolve as follows:
Section One. The Board of Directors of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does
hereby accept the offer contained in that certain Agreement to Purchase Tax Defaulted Property
between the County of San Mateo and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, a copy of
which purchase agreement is attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, and authorizes
the President or other appropriate officer to execute the Agreement on behalf of the District to
acquire the real property described therein (“the Tax Defaulted Redwood Park Properties”).
Section Two. The General Manager, President of the Board of Directors, or other appropriate
officer is authorized to execute Certificate of Acceptance for the Grant Deed on behalf of the
District.
Section Three. The General Manager or the General Manager’s designee shall cause to be given
appropriate notice of acceptance to the seller and to extend escrow if necessary.
Section Four. The General Manager is authorized to expend up to $2,500.00 to cover the cost of
title insurance, escrow fees, and other miscellaneous costs related to this transaction.
Section Five. The General Manager and General Counsel are further authorized to approve any
technical revisions to the attached Agreement and documents, which do not involve any material
change to any term of the Agreement or documents, and which are necessary or appropriate to
the closing or implementation of this transaction.
Section Six. The purpose of this Section is to enable the District to reimburse its general fund
for the cost of certain land acquisitions. The District wishes to finance certain of these real
property acquisitions and expects to use tax-exempt debt, such as bonds, but a tax-exempt
financing is not cost-justified for the District unless the principal amount of the financing is large
enough to justify the related financing costs. Consequently, it is the District’s practice to buy
property with its general funds and, when a tax-exempt financing is cost-justified based on the
aggregate value of acquisitions, to issue tax-exempt obligations to reimburse itself for previous
expenditures of general funds. These general funds are needed for operating and other working
capital needs of the District and are not intended to be used to finance property acquisitions on a
long-term basis.
U.S. Income Tax Regulation Section 1.150-2 requires an issuer of tax-exempt debt to declare its
intent to use a portion of tax-exempt debt proceeds for reimbursement of expenditures prior to
the payment of the expenditures. Accordingly, the Board of Directors hereby declares its intent
to issue tax-exempt obligations in the maximum principal amount of $41,000.00.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Kin g s Mo untain Road
P u r i s i m a C r e e k R e d w o o d sOpen S p a c e P r e s e r v e
E l C o r t e d e M a d e r a C r e e kOpen S p a c e P r e s e r v e
R e d w o o d P a r k S u b d i v i s i o n
R e d w o o d P a r k S u b d i v i s i o nPurisima C r e e k R e d w o o d s O p e n S p a c e P r e s e r v e
0 0.5 10.25 MilesIProduced by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, October 2010
·|}35
·|}35
Exhibit A: Area Map
Private
Other Open Space
Partial MROSD ownership
MROSD
Prepared by A/R - File: G:\Projects\Purisima_Creek_Redwoods\Redwood Park\LocationMap\Location_Map_10_10.mxd
SKY
L
I
N
E
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
(
h
i
g
h
w
a
y
3
5
)
SEQUOIA ROAD
DEL MAR ROAD
CED
A
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
OA
K
A
V
E
N
U
E
LIL
A
C
A
V
E
N
U
E
MO
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
CYP
R
E
S
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
LAU
R
E
L
A
V
E
N
U
E
VIN
E
A
V
E
N
U
E
WILLOW AVENUE
MADERA ROAD
REDWOOD
ROAD
HUCKLEBERRY AVENUE
CREEK AVENUE
MADRONE AVENUE
MANZANITA AVENUE
ROAD
MILL
MILL
ROAD
ROAD
MILL
ROAD
PINE
BIG
DEL MAR
ROA
D
MANZANITA AVENUE
ROAD
MANZANITA AVENUE
FILBERT AVENUE
RIDGE RO
A
D
RIDGE ROAD
MARI
N
E
R
O
A
D
SPR
I
N
G
S
REDW
O
O
D
HUCKLEBERRY AVENUE
Dedication Boundary(Set by San Mateo County)
Redwood Park Subdivision - Purisima Creek Redwood Open Space Preserve
0 750 1,500375
FeetI
San Mateo County Tax Default Parcels
Produced by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, March 2011
MROSD
Private
San Mateo Co Dedication Boundary
Exhibit B: San Mateo County Tax Default Parcels
Other Public Open Space
Pre
p
a
r
e
d
b
y
A
/
R
-
F
i
l
e
:
G
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
P
u
r
i
s
i
m
a
_
C
r
e
e
k
_
R
e
d
w
o
o
d
s
\
R
e
d
w
o
o
d
P
a
r
k
\
T
a
x
D
e
f
a
u
l
t
_
0
3
0
1
1
1
.
m
x
d
RESOLUTION 11-
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF AGREEMENT TO
PURCHASE TAX DEFAULTED PROPERTY, AUTHORIZING GENERAL MANAGER
OR OTHER OFFICER TO EXECUTE CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT
TO DISTRICT, AND AUTHORIZING GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANY
AND ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO CLOSING OF
THE TRANSACTION (PURISIl\'IA CREEK REDWOODS OPEN SPACE PRESERVE-
TAX DEFAULTED REDWOOD PARK PROPERTIES, SAN MATEO COUNTY,
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS: 067-096-010,067-102-160,067-103-060,067-104-030,
067-115-110,067-121-010,067-123-060, 067-124-080, 067-126-070, 067-128-040, 067-128-
100,067-133-100,067-133-140,067-134-060, 067-134-060, 067-134-070, 067-154-070, 067-
171-030,067-172-030,067-172-060,067-185-160, and 067-186-220)
The Board of Directors of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District does resolve as follow s :
Section One. The Board of Directors of Midpeninsul a Regional Open Space Di strict doe s
hereby accept the offer contained in that certain Agreement to Purchase Tax Defaulted Property
between the County of San Mateo and the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, a copy of
which purchase agreement is attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof, and authori zes
the President or other appropriate officer to execute the Agreement on behalf of the District to
acquire the real property de scribed therein ("the Tax Defaulted Redwood Park Properties").
Section Two. The General Manager, Pre s ident of the Board of Directors, or other appropriate
officer is authori z ed to execute Certificate of Acceptance for the Grant Deed on behalf of the
District.
Section Three. The General Manager or the General Manager's des ignee shall cau se to be given
appropriate notice of acceptance to the s eller and to extend escrow if necessary.
Section Four . The General Manager is authOlized to expend up to $2,500.00 to co ver the co st of
title insurance, escrow fees , and other miscellaneous costs related to this transaction.
Section Five . The General Manager and General Counsel are further authori zed to approve any
technical revi sions to the attached Agreement and do cuments , which do not in volve any materi a l
change to any term of the Agreement or documents, and which are necessary or appropriate to
the closing or implementation of this transaction .
Section Six . The purpose of thi s Section is to enable the Di strict to reimburse it s general fund
for the cost of certain land acquisitions. The District wi shes to finance certain of the se real
propelty acqui sitions and expects to use tax-exempt debt, such as bonds, but a tax-exempt
financing is not cost-justified for the Di sltict unless the principal amount of the financing is large
enough to justify the related financing co sts . Consequently, it is the District's practice to bu y
property with it s genera l funds and , w hen a tax-exempt financing is cost-justified based on the
aggregate va lue of acquisitions , to iss ue tax-exempt obligations to reimburse it se lf for previolls
expenditures of genera l funds. These genera l fund s are needed for ope ratin g and other working
capital need s of the District and are not intended to be used to finance property acqui sitions on a
long-term basis.
U.S. Income Tax Regulation Section 1.150-2 requires an issuer of tax-e xempt debt to declare it s
intent to u se a portion of tax-e xempt debt proceeds for reimbursement of expenditures prior to
the payment of the expenditures. Accordingly, th e Boa rd of Directors hereby declares it s intent
to issue tax-exempt obligations in the maximum principal amount of$41,000.00 .
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Kin g s Mo untain Road
P u r i s i m a C r e e k R e d w o o d sOpen S p a c e P r e s e r v e
E l C o r t e d e M a d e r a C r e e kOpen S p a c e P r e s e r v e
R e d w o o d P a r k S u b d i v i s i o n
R e d w o o d P a r k S u b d i v i s i o nPurisima C r e e k R e d w o o d s O p e n S p a c e P r e s e r v e
0 0.5 10.25 MilesIProduced by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, October 2010
·|}35
·|}35
Exhibit A: Area Map
Private
Other Open Space
Partial MROSD ownership
MROSD
Prepared by A/R - File: G:\Projects\Purisima_Creek_Redwoods\Redwood Park\LocationMap\Location_Map_10_10.mxd
SKYLINE BOULEVARD (highway 35)
SEQUOIA ROAD
DEL MAR ROAD
CEDAR AVENUE
OAK AVENUE
LILAC AVENUE
MOSS AVENUE
CYPRESS AVENUE
LAUREL AVENUE
VINE AVENUE
WILLO W AVEN UE
MADERA ROAD
RED WOO DROADHUCKLEBERRY AVENUE
CREEK AVENUE
MADRONE AVENUE
MANZANITA AVENUE
ROAD
MILL
MILL
ROAD
ROAD
MILL
ROAD
PINE
BIG
DEL MAR
ROAD
MANZANITA AVENUE
ROAD
MANZANITA AVENUE
FILBERT AVENUE
RIDGE ROAD
RIDG E ROAD
MARINE ROAD
SPRINGS
REDWOOD
HUCKLEBERRY AVENUE
Dedication Boundary(Set by San Mateo County)
R e d w o o d P a r k S u b d i v i s i o n - P u r i s i m a C r e e k R e d w o o d O p e n S p a c e P r e s e r v e
0 750 1,500375
FeetI
San Mateo County Tax Default Parcels
Prod uced by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, March 2011
MROSD
Private
San Mateo Co Dedication Boundary
E x h i b i t B : S a n M a t e o C o u n t y T a x De f a u l t P a r c e l s
Other Public Open Space
Prepared by A/R - File: G:\Projects\Purisima_Creek_Redwoods\Redwood Park\TaxDefault_030111.mxd
R-11-52
Meeting 11-08
April 13, 2011
AGENDA ITEM 5
AGENDA ITEM
Approval of Strategic Plan Documents
STRATEGIC PLAN AD HOC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Strategic Plan Ad Hoc Committee recommends that the Board:
1. Accept the proposed Identity Statement.
2. Accept the proposed Strategy Screen.
3. Accept the proposed Big Questions.
SUMMARY
In July 2010, the District began a strategic planning process and had a second workshop in October
2010, during which it developed an Identity Statement for the District. Since then, staff and the Ad Hoc
Committee have reviewed the Identity Statement with selected partner organizations, developed a
Strategy Screen, and identified Big Questions for the full Board to consider. This report presents the
final proposed Identity Statement, Strategy Screen, and Big Questions for the Board’s approval.
DISCUSSION
Background
In July 2010, the District kicked off the strategic planning process at a Board workshop where staff
presented an overview of the proposed process, the suggested format of the Strategic Plan, and the
deliverables from the process. In October, the Board met again to develop the District’s Identity
Statement and, subsequently, directed the Committee and staff to further refine the document as well as
develop the Strategy Screen and Big Questions. A flow chart of the strategic planning cycle that
outlines how the Identity Statement, Strategy Screen, and Big Questions fit into the strategic planning
cycle can be found in Attachment A. It is important to remember that the strategic planning process is
iterative and dynamic and is intended to be a process that is revisited annually, or more frequently as
needed.
R-11-52 Page 2
Since October, staff in the Strategic Plan Working Group has met bi-weekly to develop and finalize the
aforementioned items for consideration by the Committee. At the Ad Hoc Committee meetings on
March 8 and 25, the Committee reviewed and approved the proposed Identity Statement, Strategy
Screen, and Big Questions, and directed that these documents be presented to the full Board for
consideration.
Identity Statement
The Identity Statement captures the essence of who the District is through the following seven
components:
1. Mission – succinct statement of the District’s mission, its reason for existence.
2. Impact – what the District is aiming to accomplish in fulfillment of the mission.
3. By Serving – who the District considers to be its “customers.”
4. In – the geographic area in which District services are provided.
5. Through – what “services” are provided by the District.
6. Differentiating Strengths – what attributes the District possesses that set it apart from other similar
organizations.
7. Revenue Sources – the financial revenue and in-kind contributions that sustain the District and
enable it to fulfill its mission.
At the Board workshop of October 2010, the Board worked through each of the seven sections of the
Identity Statement and, at the end, directed staff to work with the Ad Hoc Committee to consolidate the
comments and refine the Identity Statement.
Over the next two months, staff and the Committee developed a draft Identity Statement and, to gain
perspective on how others perceive the District, staff consulted with selected individuals from outside
partner organizations as well as a broad spectrum of District staff to solicit their feedback on the draft
Identity Statement (Attachment B). The organizations consulted consisted of San Mateo County Parks
Department, Peninsula Open Space Trust, Santa Clara County Parks Department, California State Parks
Santa Cruz Area, and the City of Mountain View. After reviewing the staff and partner feedback, the
Committee directed staff to propose revisions to the Identity Statement based on the feedback received.
The final proposed Identity Statement is included as Attachment C.
Strategy Screen
The Strategy Screen is essentially a discussion guide comprised of a list of criteria that will assist with
consistent decision-making and priority-setting based on what is most important to the District. The
proposed District Strategy Screen frames the evaluation of strategic options around the following
contexts:
1. Best way to achieve Mission
2. Are we the best-suited organization?
3. Opportunity cost and consequences of no action
4. Capacity and sustainability
5. Benefits, impacts, and tradeoffs
6. Differentiating Strengths
R-11-52 Page 3
The full proposed Strategy Screen document is included as Attachment D. It is important to note that
the Strategy Screen is intended to be flexible, and it is natural for it to change over time as the District’s
priorities shift.
Big Questions
“A Big Question is an opportunity or threat to which the organization must respond. Usually, it is
beyond the scope of the organization’s strategies, thus requiring a new strategy.” (La Piana, 2008) Big
Questions generally fall into one of three categories:
1. An opportunity to do something new or expand an existing program or service.
2. It may be a threat or barrier negatively impacting the organization’s current activities.
3. It may be a business model challenge which is a challenge that affects the entire industry.
The development of an Identity Statement and Strategy Screen has clarified the District’s mission and
desired impact on the San Francisco Peninsula and communities, and has prepared the organization to
identify and respond to the proposed Big Questions. Big Questions are strategic challenges to the
organization and must be considered within the context of the District’s mission and priorities. As such,
each Big Question includes a summary of the background and problem statement, the desired results,
and examples of current strategies the District is using. Below are the four proposed Big Questions
developed by staff and recommended by the Committee. The full text of the Big Questions can be
found in Attachment D.
1. The District has preserved approximately 59,000 acres of open space in the Santa Cruz Mountains,
however our financial ability to carry out the mission with the primary emphasis on land acquisition
is projected to substantially change within the next 3-6 years with current funding. How will we
respond?
2. How do we allocate resources among programs to achieve desired results?
3. Together with our partners, how can we most effectively take advantage of the opportunities to close
the gaps in the preserved conservation network within District boundaries, and address the threats to
natural open space resources, agriculture, and rural character?
4. How can the District diversify and increase its revenue stream, in the short and long term, to ensure
funds are available to continue to sustainably fulfill our mission?
These proposed Big Questions are interrelated and cannot be considered independently from each other.
However, Big Question #1 needs to be considered first as it directly impacts how the District can best
continue to fulfill its mission and thus influences the responses to Big Questions #2, 3, and 4.
Once the Board has approved the Big Questions, the District can begin to consider various strategies that
could be employed to respond to the challenges raised in the Big Questions. As potential strategies are
identified, the Strategy Screen can be used to assess the relative effectiveness, risk, feasibility, etc. of
each of the strategies, enabling the District to select the best options. After a number of potential
strategies have been identified, it is recommended that the Board refer them back to the Strategic Plan
Ad Hoc Committee for further analysis and refinement.
FISCAL IMPACT
Acceptance of the Committee’s recommendations will have no impact to the District’s budget.
R-11-52 Page 4
PUBLIC NOTICE
Public notice was provided as required by the Brown Act. Notice was provided to individuals at partner
organizations consulted during the process and persons attending previous meetings. No additional
notice is required.
CEQA COMPLIANCE
The proposed actions are not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and no
environmental review is required.
NEXT STEPS
If approved by the Board, discussion of potential strategic responses to the Big Questions can begin
during the Board Workshop immediately following the Regular Board Meeting on April 13. Further
workshops will be necessary to address all four of the Big Questions. Attachment F reflects the
anticipated timeline over the next six months.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Strategic Plan Development Cycle
Attachment B: Identity Statement Partner and Staff Feedback
Attachment C: Final Identity Statement
Attachment D: Strategy Screen/Discussion Guide
Attachment E: Big Questions
Attachment F: Strategic Plan Timeline
Prepared by:
Kate Drayson, Administrative Services Manager
Sandy Sommer, Senior Real Property Planner
Kirk Lenington, Senior Resource Planner
Craig Beckman, Maintenance and Resource Supervisor
Strategic Plan Working Group:
Craig Beckman, Maint and Resource Supervisor Casey Cleve, GIS Coordinator
Bunny Congdon, Sr Accounting Specialist Kate Drayson, Administrative Services Manager
Anna Duong, Deputy District Clerk/Office Mgr Leigh Ann Gessner, Communications Specialist
Tom Lausten, Supervising Ranger Kirk Lenington, Sr Resource Planner
Rick Parry, Lead Open Space Technician Sandy Sommer, Sr Real Property Planner
Managers and Board Appointees:
Kate Drayson, Administrative Services Manager Rudy Jurgensen, Public Affairs Manager
Ana Ruiz, Planning Manager David Sanguinetti, Operations Manager
Annetta Spiegel, Acting HR Manager Mike Williams, Real Property Manager
Steve Abbors, General Manager Sue Schectman, Legal Counsel
Contacts:
Strategic Plan Ad Hoc Committee:
Nonette Hanko
Cecily Harris
R-11-52 Page 5
Curt Riffle
Develop Identity Statement
The Identity Statement captures the essence of who the District is and includes:
- Our mission and vision
- The activities we perform to fulfill our our mission
- Our differentiating strengths
- Our revenues and other resources that support us
Develop Strategy Screen
The Strategy Screen is essentially a discussion guide comprised of a list of criteria that will assist with consistent
decision-making and priority-setting based on what is most important to the District. It includes criteria upon
which we will base our decisions and explicitly defines our values.
Identify the Big Questions
“A Big Question is an opportunity or threat to which the organization must respond. Usually, it is beyond the
scope of the organization’s strategies, thus requiring a new strategy.” (La Piana, 2008)
Develop Potential Strategies
Develop strategies that can be used to respond to the threat or challenge posed by each Big Question. A
strategy is defined as “an organized pattern of behavior toward an end” (La Piana, 2008) and consists of several
actions the organization will take to accomplish the goal.
Test Potential Strategies
Using the Strategy Screen, test the potential strategies that have been identified to determine whether the
District’s response to a big Question is consistent with our mission, direction, and capabilities.
Select and Implement Strategies
After testing the potential strategy options, the District will select those strategies it wants to implement.
Subsequently, staff will incorporate appropriate programs and activities in the Annual Action Plan to implement
those strategies.
Attachment A: Strategic Plan Development Cycle
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
ATTACHMENT B
Identity Statement
Partner and Staff Feedback
March 2, 2011
1
Identity Statement Partner Feedback Staff Feedback
We advance
our mission
of:
To acquire and preserve a regional greenbelt of open space land in
perpetuity; protect and restore the natural environment; and provide
opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and
education.
And, on the San Mateo Coast: To acquire and preserve in perpetuity
open space land and agricultural land of regional significance, protect
and restore the natural environment, preserve rural character,
encourage viable agricultural use of land resources, and provide
opportunities for ecologically sensitive public enjoyment and
education. The District will accomplish this mission as a cooperative
endeavor with public agencies, non-profit organizations, and
individuals with similar goals.
Dave Holland, Director, San Mateo County Parks Department
(SMCP): Suggests combining two missions into a shorter, more concise
version.
Audrey Rust, President and Walter Moore, Executive Vice-
President, Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST): Feel that the
Coastside Service Plan Mission Statement inclusion imbues a
disproportionate emphasis on the San Mateo Coast to the District’s
Identity Statement. Feel that the District does more than provide a
regional greenbelt – may want to go beyond that concept to express
modern ecological concepts of the interconnectedness of people and
environment (e.g healthy, integrated natural systems)
Julie Mark, Acting Director; Jim O’Connor, Deputy Director Park
Operations; Jane Mark, Senior Park Planner; Margaret Hastings,
Associate Real Estate Agent; Ian Champeny, Associate Real Estate
Agent, Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department
(SCCP): Suggests expanding Mission Statement to identify District role
as land stewards and funding partner. Consider incorporating
something around “advocacy” and taking a more active role in engaging
the community. Feel this Mission Statement sells the District short.
Chet Bardo, District Superintendent; Victor Roth, Senior Park and
Recreation Specialist, Santa Cruz District, California State Parks
(State Parks): The Mission statement would be clearer if it related what
the Open Space District does. That is, look at the District’s operations
(Action Plan), and align the Mission Statement with the projects that are
described therein.
Kevin Duggan, City Manager, Mountain View (MV): Encourages
the District to develop one brief mission statement. The mission
statement does not need to provide a lot of specifics or differentiate
areas within the District. Feels that the concept of “regional greenbelt”
understates what we do, especially in terms of ecological protection.
SFO, Admin: Some staff did not realize that the District had two
missions. They thought it was odd and that it would be clearer if the two
were combined.
AO OPS Staff: Like the simplicity of the original mission, but think it
would be nice to incorporate agriculture in some way since it’s going to
be a vital part of the District moving forward and is found currently and
historically in other areas of District outside of Coast.
. . . and
seek to:
(impact)
· Complete the Peninsula’s mountain, foothill and bayland greenbelt
as an edge to, and a natural scenic backdrop for, the urbanized
area.
· Complete the Peninsula’s system of interconnected regional trails
SMCP: General comment: Perhaps the impact the District seeks is the
“wild experience”, allowing people to have personal experiences in the
natural world away from the urbanized areas. Is there a way to shorten
this section and express this concept?
SFO: Felt that the following language needed clarification -“Improve the
environmental health of the region and the quality of life of its people
through the protection of air quality, water quality, and public health.”
Staff wanted to know how we protect air and water, since we don’t
provide drinking water or declare “spare the air” days. They suggested
Identity Statement Partner Feedback Staff Feedback
(See map)
and provide outdoor recreation in a natural setting.
· Inform a diverse public about the existence and benefits of open
space, and provide them opportunities for personal contact with
open space lands and nature.
· Preserve and connect key land and water corridors for fish habitat,
wildlife movement and survival.
· Preserve sensitive, rare, threatened and endangered species and
enhance their habitats.
· Manage open space preserves efficiently and appropriately by
balancing public use with resource protection.
· Keep the San Mateo Coastside rural and agricultural, preserve its
natural resources, and provide public recreational access where
compatible with agriculture.
· Improve the environmental health of the region and the quality of
life of its people through the protection of air quality, water
quality, and public health.
· Integrate with and complement Federal, State, County, City and
non-profit parks, preserves, and watersheds.
· 1st and 2nd bullets: Suggests expanding to express partnership vision
· 3rd bullet: Suggests “provide access to” instead of “provide them
opportunities for personal contact with”
· Suggests combining the 4th and 5th bullets, since the distinction
between these two impacts is not readily apparent to the public.
· 6th bullet: Suggests resource “stewardship” instead of resource
“protection” because public may respond to this language better.
POST: General comment: The list would be improved by presenting it
in a prioritized order, since people will probably read it that way.
· 1st bullet: “greenbelt” is an outdated term, use instead “natural
systems”
· 3rd bullet: The phrase “Inform a diverse public about the existence
and benefits of” is a weak statement. Is this MROSD’s priority? It
seems like there is not sufficient funding to effectively implement
this statement.
· 4th and 5th bullets: These are the primary mission goals of the
District. Would be stronger to put them first.
· 7th bullet: The San Mateo Coast is not the emphasis for the District
and there does not seem to be sufficient funding to do it alone.
Perhaps it would help to add “Support efforts to…” at the
beginning.
· 8th bullet: Add to the end of the statement “… through the protection
of natural systems”.
· 9th bullet: Add at the beginning of the statement “With a system of
Open Space Preserves, MROSD provides the means to …”.
SCCP: Add a statement that includes the District’s role as providing an
interconnected network of lands between State and County parks. Add
a bullet stating “Engage the public.”
· 1st through 5th bullets: Add an umbrella statement that includes all of
these points as sub-bullets.
· 8th bullet: Santa Clara County General Plan has an amendment that
acknowledges the public health values of open space. Suggest
adding a statement to this bullet to incorporate the public health
values and public enjoyment of open space.
State Parks: 7th bullet: Note from State Parks: Santa Cruz District has
approximately 1200 acres of agricultural lands with public recreational
uses allowed, without a single incident.
MV: List seems to capture key themes. Initial reaction: Does the
District really need to specifically single out the Coastside? It’s the
that we change this wording to better distinguish us from the regulatory
agencies.
AO OPS STAFF: Only focuses on Coastside Agriculture, but we have
agriculture in other areas too.
RP / Legal Staff: This section seems to be a blend of a vision, the
benefits of open space, and the impact the District seeks. Perhaps it
would be helpful to refer to the Basic Policy.
FFO: Staff noted that outdoor/public recreation is mentioned two times,
yet the word recreation is not in the mission statement. Would it be
better to use the same term (sensitive public enjoyment)?
Identity Statement Partner Feedback Staff Feedback
only area we call out.
Identity Statement Partner Feedback Staff Feedback
By serving:
(the public)
Primary Emphasis:
· Voters within the District
· Property tax payers within the District
· Individuals and groups within the District that use the preserves
· Youth
Secondary Emphasis:
· District residents who don’t vote or pay property taxes directly to
the District.
· Users who live and pay taxes outside District boundaries
· Non-users we would like to reach out to including diverse
communities and people with difficultly accessing the land
Supportive associates that help us serve the public:
· News Media
· Partners
· Volunteers
SMCP: Concerned that the way that the categories are expressed will
not sit well with the public. Thought it would be improved by driving
down from the mission, for example: “the public seeking a wilder
experience” possibly emphasizing “our residents, our youth, and those
who visit from outside our boundaries.”
POST: General comment: The use of “primary” and “secondary” gives
the impression of “second-class” status to those who are not “primary”.
Suggest using “Direct support from” or “we serve” in place of “primary
emphasis”.
· Question whether “youth” are District constituents
Suggest using “Also provide services to” or “The following also benefit
from MROSD service” in place of “secondary emphasis”.
Suggest using “Our work is also completed through the work of” in
place of “supportive associates that help us serve the public”.
· MROSD needs to take control of messaging – suggest using website
to control the message because we have such an effective website.
· Partners are such an important part of the District’s operations that
the identification of partners should be elaborated on.
· As with the partners, volunteers should be emphasized with greater
specifics provided in the write-up.
SCCP: What is the purpose for the sharp differentiation regarding who
is served by the District? Are we going to treat the groups differently?
A broader public is more advantageous for support. Recommend
getting rid of the three distinctions.
State Parks: General comment: A comment on the visual impression
of the sections of the identity statement on Page 2: The “Through”
section of the document should be larger and emphasized (i.e. this is
what MROSD does), rather than the “by serving” section.
Serving the “youth” is critical to the future of MROSD – these are the
future tax-payers and supporters.
MV: Concerned about the way this section is worded – could be more
inclusive. “Voters” and “tax payers” seems narrow and exclusive.
District provides services to lots of people who are not voters or
taxpayers. The City of Mountain View regards everyone who lives,
works or visits the City as their “customer”.
Our reach is broader than we’ve reflected in this list – we sell ourselves
short.
· Supportive associates: May not want to list news media first.
News media may not exist in their current form for very much
longer. Does the traditional news media’s perception of the
District really affect how the District does business? The City
seeks to engage those it serves directly, not through media.
Public Affairs: Under “supportive associates that help us serve the public,”
include our relationships with legislators that serve to maintain and protect
District funding.
Operations: Uncomfortable with non-voters and non-taxpayers being called
out as secondary. The distinction of voters/non-voters and taxpayers/non-
taxpayers does not apply at the field operational level. Is there a better term
for “users”? Lots of “users” just look at the properties from a distance.
Perhaps a better term would be “visitors”.
Admin: Uncomfortable with distinguishing people that pay property taxes
directly vs. indirect method such as renters. Renters don’t pay property taxes
directly, but property taxes are passed to them in the rental rate. Renters are
often a youthful group that will be future property owners. Suggest listing
elderly if youth is listed. What about renters who don’t vote because they
aren’t a US citizen? Overall, feel that dividing the public in this manner
would make people feel alienated.
SFO: Staff were surprised that users outside the District and non-tax payers
were in secondary emphasis and felt it wasn’t fair.
AO OPS Staff: We encourage a look at the bigger picture of preserving the
environment for humanity, and not just relate it to tax dollars. Renters pay
property taxes too, just indirectly.
RP / Legal Staff: Is “customer” really a useful distinction for the District?
Perhaps we would be better served by focusing on the “benefits” we provide
to Preserve visitors, neighbors, residents and visitors to the area
(beneficiaries of District work). The District serves everyone equally
regardless of residence or voting status.
FFO: Concerned about secondary emphasis non-taxpayers, because renters,
for example, indirectly pay the tax in their rent. This is a somewhat slippery
slope: Are property tax payers who pay a higher total tax amount to the
District more important than property tax payers who pay a lesser total
amount? Perhaps this section should be rethought.
· Neighbors of the preserves receive special attention from the District
and get more staff time expended i.e.; special permits and access.
Preserve neighbors have more influence on District decisions than
others in the District. Should they be listed as primary emphasis?
· The District appears to appeal more to seniors than youth as things
stand now. Should seniors be listed too?
· The District may be surprised who the primary preserve visitors are, if a
survey were conducted. At, Deer Hollow Farm survey of visitors was
different than anticipated.
· The public push for the opening of Mt. Umunhum may not be from
District residents, but from San Jose residents. The way this section is
worded, one might expect that there would be less emphasis on meeting
their needs. Is this the impression that the District means to give?
Identity Statement Partner Feedback Staff Feedback
In:
(geographic
area)
Within the District’s legal boundaries on the San Francisco Peninsula
from south of Pacifica to Los Gatos, and from the Pacific Ocean to the
San Francisco Bay.
In the Santa Cruz Mountains and San Francisco Bay wetland
bioregions, and more broadly, the San Francisco Bay Area
SMCP: Suggests shortening to “Within our boundaries”
MV: Suggests clarifying why differentiating between inside and outside
District boundaries, and how the District contributes the broader area.
Through:
(services)
· Regional greenbelt preservation
· San Mateo Coastside land preservation
· Low-impact public recreational access
· Biotic resource preservation and stewardship, including the
establishment of areas managed solely for conservation.
· Cultural resource preservation and stewardship
· Agricultural land stewardship
· Public safety and visitor services
· Community environmental education
· Community outreach, involvement and connection
· Open space advocacy
· Support of ecological connectivity
SMCP: Suggests simplifying and shortening. Add “Providing wild
experiences”
POST: General comment: Suggest listing services in order of priority.
· 1st bullet: “greenbelt” is an outdated term, use instead “natural
systems”
· 2nd bullet: Question why the San Mateo Coast area is called out
specifically. If not, should the Skyline or Sierra Azul areas be called
out too, for example?
· 6th bullet: The term “agricultural land stewardship” is not clear and
leaves too much to interpretation.
SCCP: Wonder whether bulleted list is in order of priority. The
prioritization of these services will differ depending upon who is
reading the document, i.e., the public will view the list differently than
staff or Board of Directors.
State Parks: Suggest that this list be the list of services provided by
MROSD that differentiates the District from the other agencies and
partners.
Planning: Given the District’s Basic Policy 2.e regarding cultural
resources, suggest that wording in 5th bullet be revised. Preservation and
stewardship is redundant.
Admin: In regards to “Open space advocacy”, some staff felt that this did
not include recreation. Suggest a change to “natural resource, recreation,
and scenic beauty advocacy” or “land protection advocacy”.
Identity Statement Partner Feedback Staff Feedback
and
emphasizing
our
differentiati
ng strengths
of:
· Independence that allows the District to exercise consistent,
patient leadership to carry out a long-term, shared vision of a
thriving, interconnected regional open space network,
accomplished in partnership with POST and others.
· Essential, efficient and frugal land stewardship that provides
limited public access only where it can be cost effectively
sustained, informs strategic land purchasing, and includes
outstanding execution of focused restoration efforts supported by
extensive volunteer involvement.
· Stable property tax funding coupled with skillful, creative
leveraging of District financial resources and a willingness to take
risks and be entrepreneurial.
SMCP: Thought the most compelling strength was the first bullet. Felt
that the second and third bullets were more expressive of why the
District is sustainable rather than being the District’s strengths, and
could be moved to the following section.
POST: Suggest adding a preliminary statement such as “We recognize
the responsibility of being a public agency”. Responsibility is the key
word in this statement and should be emphasized for the reader.
Emphasize the fact that MROSD is the only agency charged with
maintaining lands in a natural state regardless of their past land uses and
building healthy natural systems.
SCCP:
· 2nd bullet: Instead of using the term “limited”, explain what we do;
i.e. “where public access is provided, it is provided in a cost
effective, …”. Use “appropriate” or “ecologically sensitive” instead
of “limited.”
· 3rd bullet: Like the term “entrepreneurial”, however, has
connotations of the District making money off of the lands owned.
Consider “creative” instead?
· MROSD is “the great connector” – we’re the glue between parks
agencies and are critical to the greenbelt concept.
State Parks:
· 1st bullet: Suggest rephrasing this bullet to focus on the open space
concerns of District constituents that desired an independent agency
responsive to their concerns.
MV:
· 1st bullet: Reaction to “Independence” is that the District is separate
or apart, like a teenager saying “no one can tell me what to do”.
However, the District’s work is not disconnected – might be better
to use words like integrated, coordinate, cooperate. Did you mean
something like “singular, specialized focus with attention of
environmental preservation” instead? Reaction to word choice:
consistent, patient – could this read like passive, lazy? Compare
connotation to: careful, thoughtful.
· 2nd bullet: Reaction to word choice: frugal – could this read like
cheap? Compare connotation to: careful of resources, effective.
· 3rd bullet: Reaction is that this wording is too self congratulatory.
Word choice: Stable funding – perhaps dedicated or designated
funding instead?
Operations: Unique strength – small size agency responsive to
community/voters.
General Staff Comment: Frugal seems to have a negative connotation
that we may wish to avoid.
Planning: Frugal carries negative connotation – Suggest: “prudent”,
“cautious”, or “thoughtful”.
Admin: Replace ‘efficient and frugal’ with ‘effective and cost-efficient’
AO OPS Staff: We need to define frugal land stewardship which can
sometimes be a weakness in that the District doesn’t have the resources
to properly care for all of the land that is purchased.
Collective sense of mission among staff is a strength. Don't like the term
"creative leveraging" because it has negative connotations. Perhaps use
fiscally conservative or prudent. Don't like the phrase "taking risks",
especially with public money.
RP / Legal Staff: 2nd bullet: Favor the way that Land Acquisition policy
discusses the “frugal” concept: “Consistently worked to stretch local tax
dollars with other revenue sources to increase purchasing power”.
Another strength: The District’s types of amenities are different from
other park providers. The District does more with less because the focus
is on preserving landscapes in their natural condition. These efforts allow
people to direct their attention to the natural environment rather than
human use of it (activities and extreme sports).
Identity Statement Partner Feedback Staff Feedback
We are
sustainable
by:
(revenue
sources)
Primarily:
· Property tax revenue (1.7 cents per $100 of assessed real property
value)
Also:
· Grants
· Gifts
· Interest income
· Investment income
· Rental income
· Partnerships
· Volunteer services
· Excellent credit rating
POST: Suggest presenting the bulleted list in a prioritized order. As
such, excellent credit rating would be listed first.
SCCP: Add “revenue generating opportunities” to the list of revenue
sources.
MV: “Sustainable by” seems to imply that the property tax funding is
sufficient to carry out the District’s mission – is that the intention? This
section seems to be a list of the source of the resources used to provide
District services. Change “Revenue sources” to “Resources.”
Public Affairs: Include donations and in-kind services, unless this is
already captured under gifts
Planning and Admin: Everything in this list is not a revenue source, so
suggest changing revenue source to something else. Also, include
donations.
General
Comments
and
feedback:
POST: Climate Change should be added somewhere within the
document as this is an important topic and recognizable by the public
and partners and is relevant to the District’s work.
State Parks: Add to the identity statement the District’s role in
providing an edge to urban environments and controlling sprawl.
3/29/11
ATTACHMENT C
IDENTITY STATEMENT
We advance our mission of:
To acquire and preserve a regional greenbelt of open space
land in perpetuity; protect and restore the natural
environment; and provide opportunities for ecologically
sensitive public enjoyment and education.
And seek to:
· Form continuous systems of permanently preserved
open space by linking with other public parklands
and other natural lands;
· Protect places for sensitive, rare, threatened, and
endangered species, enhance habitats, and preserve
and connect key land and water corridors for wildlife
movement and survival;
· Increase public accessibility to and knowledge of the
interconnected regional preserve systems and their
value, and appropriately balance public use with
resource protection.
By serving:
Everyone who lives or works within the District’s
boundaries, or visits the District’s lands.
Within:
The District’s legal boundaries on the San Francisco
Peninsula from south of Pacifica to Los Gatos, and from the
Pacific Ocean to the San Francisco Bay.
Through:
· Regional open space preservation;
· Biodiversity preservation, stewardship, and
connectivity;
· Low-intensity public access;
· Community environmental education and
involvement;
· Open space conservation advocacy;
· Compatible agricultural uses of open space.
Definition of Open Space: (Adapted from the District’s Basic Policy) • Land area that is allowed to remain in or return to its natural, wild state. Open space lands may include compatible agricultural uses. • Protects areas of scenic beauty and rural character. • Preserves natural habitats necessary to sustain plant and animal life, especially native and endangered species. • Offers opportunities to the public for education, recreation, and renewal of spirit. • Enhances public safety by preventing development of areas prone to landslides, earthquake damage, flooding, and wildland fires. • Establishes boundaries for urban growth, and provides a respite from urban living. • Improves the environmental health of the region and the health of its people through the protection of air quality, water quality, and physical exercise.
· In short, open space is “room to breathe.”
3/22/2011 2
And emphasizing our differentiating strengths by:
1. The only public agency within District boundaries actively conserving additional open
space using the following essential tools:
· Independence that allows the District to exercise consistent, patient leadership
to pursue an interconnected regional open space system, accomplished
with public and private partners.
· Essential, efficient and economical land stewardship including intensive
and focused restoration to critical locations.
· Stable property tax funding coupled with skillful, sustainable leveraging of
District financial resources.
2. Owning and managing a unique asset – the Preserves and the benefits provided by
them for species and people.
· Low-intensity public access where appropriate and cost effective for an enjoyable
wildland experience.
We are sustainable by:
Primarily Property Tax Revenue (1.7 cents per $100 of assessed real property value).
Also by:
· Grants
· Gifts
· Interest income
· Investment income
· Rental income
· Partnerships
· Volunteer services
· Excellent credit rating
3/29/2011
ATTACHMENT D
STRATEGY SCREEN / DISCUSSION GUIDE
Best way to achieve Mission
· Are the actions and the expected outcomes consistent with our mission and our identity?
· Is it consistent with long-term success?
Are we the best-suited organization?
· Can others do this better?
· Is there a role for partner agencies?
· Are we the only one who can or will do this?
Opportunity cost and consequences of no action
· Are we required to act by law, policy or other imperative or is action discretionary?
· What is the time sensitivity?
· If we wait to decide or act, what will be the consequences? i.e. will an opportunity be lost or
a resource damaged if we fail to act?
· Will our action preserve future options to the extent possible?
· Do the long-term impacts outweigh the effort/action required?
Capacity and sustainability
· Is staff and management capacity adequate to absorb those impacts?
· Can we sustain the effort required?
· Can it be accommodated within the constraints of our long-term financial model?
· What is the most effective way to leverage our resources?
Benefits, impacts and tradeoffs
· Do the benefits outweigh the impacts (to public, organization)?
· What are the strengths/weaknesses?
· Do we need to consider tradeoffs; are we willing to make tradeoffs?
Differentiating strengths
· Does it build on and reinforce our differentiating strengths?
· Does it make best use of and conserve our tools? (Independence, vision, economical land
stewardship, stable tax funding, creative leveraging of funds)
· Does the action increase public knowledge and awareness of the District (branding)?
3/29/2011
ATTACHMENT E
Big Question #1: District Vision for Future (Next 40
Years)
Big Question
The District has preserved approximately 59,000 acres of open space in the Santa Cruz
Mountains, however our financial ability to carry out the mission with the primary emphasis on
land acquisition is projected to substantially change within the next 3-6 years with current
funding. How will we respond?
Background / Problem Statement
In concert with the work of private and public partners, the District has been exceptionally
successful in bridging the gaps between County and State Park lands to create a continuous
network of protected lands that helps address the region’s recreational and ecological service
goals. Partner agencies see the District as leading agency for land acquisition.
Regional trail initiatives such as the Bay Area Ridge Trail, the Bay Trail, and the Coastal Trail
have certain levels of funding support for establishment, but not management. Important
research and planning on inter-regional biological linkages that will establish land protection
priorities is currently underway, funded by private foundations.
The Basic Policy for the District established the objective of purchasing or otherwise acquiring
interest in the maximum feasible area of strategic open space land within the District. Of
increasing concern is the ability of the District and public agency partners to implement
conservation initiatives because of state and local budgetary problems and economic conditions.
In particular, the District’s ability to continue to purchase land will be severely constrained in the
next 2-6 years due to the impacts of the extended economic downturn on the District’s historical
use of debt to finance the purchase of additional open space land.
Desired Results
· To achieve consensus on an updated vision for the District role in preserving, restoring and
managing conserved lands in the Santa Cruz Mountains Bioregion.
Examples of Current Strategies
· The District uses its available resources primarily to acquire or otherwise preserve land
outside the Urban Service Area boundaries of cities that has regionally significant open space
value and might be lost to development if the District fails to act. (Basic Policy Strategic
Emphasis 1.b)
· The District’s highest priority is acquiring land to complete the greenbelt and to protect
natural resources on open space lands. Public access will be provided gradually to ensure
that the higher priorities of acquisition and resource protection are maintained (Basic Policy
2.b)
Question: Are these strategies sufficient to meet current and future challenges?
3/29/2011
ATTACHMENT E
Big Question #2: Relative Emphasis Between Programs /
Aligning Resources with Expectations
Big Questions
How do we allocate resources among programs to achieve desired results?
Background / Problem Statement
Traditionally, the District has focused on land preservation. However, the Board has expressed a
desire to increase resource management, staff facilities, and public access capacities. The District
does not have adequate funding or staff time (collectively: resources) to emphasize all of these
programs at once.
Desired Results
· To successfully implement the District’s mission and/or critical initiatives through the
prioritized, coordinated deployment of financial and labor resources.
· To ensure that adequate resources are being deployed to accomplish objectives at both
the planning and review stages.
· To allow the Public, Board, Management to effectively evaluate District annual output,
capacity and priorities.
Examples of Current Strategies
· The District’s highest priority is acquiring land to complete the greenbelt and to protect
natural resources on open space lands. Public access will be provided gradually to ensure that
the higher priorities of acquisition and resource protection are maintained (Basic Policy 2.b)
· Because of the District’s commitment to maximum open space preservation efforts,
expenditure guidelines will be established for the amount of funding available for
recreational improvement projects and restoration activities. (Basic Policy 2.b)
In 2011, the guidelines are as follows:
51% of tax revenue = Operating Expenditures
10.5% of tax revenue = Capital Expenditures
Question: Are these strategies sufficient to meet current and future challenges?
3/29/2011
ATTACHMENT E
Big Question #3: Additional Land Preservation
Big Question
Together with our partners, how can we most effectively take advantage of the opportunities to
close the gaps in the preserved conservation network within District boundaries, and address the
threats to natural open space resources, agriculture, and rural character?
Background / Problem Statement
The District’s mission centers on the vision of a landscape-scale system of preserved natural
lands for the San Francisco Peninsula. The District has been successful in implementing this
vision for the last 40 years, having protected over 59,000 acres of open space in three counties.
Many vital parts of the network are still unprotected. Financial projections indicate that within
two to six years our ability to purchase land may be severely constrained.
Desired Results
· To close gaps in the system of protected natural areas, interconnect regional trail systems so
that it is easy for people to reach natural areas, and preserve essential wildlife habitat.
· To preserve the most land in the most effective way.
Examples of Current Strategies
· The District’s highest priority is acquiring land to complete the greenbelt and to protect
natural resources on open space lands. Public access will be provided gradually to ensure that
the higher priorities of acquisition and resource protection are maintained (Basic Policy 2.b)
· To guide the District’s open space preservation efforts, the District has produced a Master
Plan and Regional Open Space Study. (Basic Policy 1.d)
· Focus on large undeveloped or sparsely developed parcels of land. (Land Acquisition
Policies and Procedures)
· Gradually link existing preserved lands on an “as available” basis. Maintain a long range
perspective, with emphasis on the preservation, protection and careful recreational
development of open space. (Land Acquisition Policies and Procedures)
· Coordinate regularly with preservation partners. Employ public private conservation
partnerships to leverage public funds.
Question: Are these strategies sufficient to meet current and future challenges?
3/29/2011
ATTACHMENT E
Big Question #4: Funding
Big Question
How can the District diversify and increase its revenue stream, in the short and long term, to
ensure funds are available to continue to sustainably fulfill our mission?
Background / Problem Statement
To date, the District’s funding model has been reliance on steadily increasing property tax to
support District growth. The current financial downturn has slowed the growth of this revenue
source, challenging our reliance on it. Within the current funding model, a major change will
occur within the next 2-6 years in the District’s ability to buy land through bond financing based
on property tax revenues.
District expenses continue to rise at a faster rate than tax revenues. The District is at or nearing
its limit of land stewardship capacity under the current business model.
Desired Result
To sustainably fund the fulfillment of the District’s mission into the future, and buffer the
District from future economic downturns.
Example of Current Strategies
· Because the District is committed to maximum preservation efforts, administrative expense
growth is limited by following an average annual operating expenses growth guideline, and
by utilizing the help of other governmental agencies, private entities, contractual services,
and volunteers. (Basic Policy 5.a)
In 2011, the guidelines are as follows:
51% of tax revenue = Operating Expenditures
10.5% of tax revenue = Capital Expenditures
· Front-load long-term tax revenue stream by issuing debt to fund land purchases, so that the
District is able to act to preserve threatened land in a timely manner.
· Maintain the best possible credit rating.
Question: Are these strategies sufficient to meet current and future challenges?
Attachment F: Proposed Strategic Plan Timeline
1
Deliverables/Milestones Board Actions Ad Hoc Committee Actions Staff Working Group Actions
April – May
1. Finalize Identity Statement,
Strategy Screen, and Big
Questions
2. Discuss Big Questions
3. Identify potential strategies in
response to Big Questions
April 13 – Workshop
· Accept Identity Statement,
Strategy Screen and Big
Questions
· Begin indentifying strategies
in response to Big Questions
· Begin applying Strategy
Screen to test options
May (Date TBD) – Workshop
· Continue Big Question
discussion
· Consider potential strategies
April 26 – Meeting
· Follow up from Board
workshop
· Discuss potential strategies
May (2nd or 3rd week) – Meeting
· Continue discussing potential
strategies
· Prepare for May Board
workshop
May 24 – Meeting
· Continue discussing potential
strategies
· Prepare for June Board
workshop
April 5 – Meeting
· Have 4/13 Board report
completed
· Begin discussing potential
Big Questions strategies
April 19 – Meeting
· Follow-up from 4/13 Board
Workshop
· Continue discussing
potential Big Questions
strategies
· Prepare for May board
workshop
May 3 – Meeting
· Continue discussing
potential Big Questions
strategies
May 17 – Meeting
· Continue discussing
potential Big Questions
strategies
Attachment F: Proposed Strategic Plan Timeline
2
Deliverables/Milestones Board Actions Ad Hoc Committee Actions Staff Working Group Actions
June - July
1. Revise, refine, and choose
strategies
2. Approve strategies
recommended by staff and Ad
Hoc Committee
3. Direct staff to use selected
strategies to guide FY2012-13
Action Plan development
June (Date TBD) – Workshop
· Continue discussion of Big
Questions and potential
strategies
July 27 – Board Meeting
· Accept strategies
recommended by staff and
Ad Hoc Committee
· Direct staff to use selected
strategies to guide FY2012-
13 Action Plan development
June 14 – Meeting
· Start evaluating strategies
recommended by staff
June 28 – Meeting
· Continue evaluating strategies
recommended by staff
July 12 – Meeting
· Approve strategies
recommended by staff
· Approve Board Report outline
June 7 – Meeting
· Begin selecting strategies to
recommend
June 21 – Meeting
· Continue selecting strategies
to recommend
July 5 – Meeting
· Finalize recommended
strategies
· Prepare Board Report
July 19 – Meeting
· Finalize 7/27 Board Report
August – October
1. Develop program strategies
October – Board Meeting
· Status update on Strategic
Plan and Action Plan
development
September 27 – Meeting
· Review program
recommendations from staff
August & September
· Working Group and
departments identify
and/or develop programs to
implement Strategic Plan
strategies
November - December
1. Develop preliminary 2012-13
Action Plan and Budget
November and December
· Incorporate strategies and
programs into 2012-13
Action Plan
Develop Identity Statement
The Identity Statement captures the essence of who the District is and includes:
- Our mission and vision
- The activities we perform to fulfill our our mission
- Our differentiating strengths
- Our revenues and other resources that support us
Develop Strategy Screen
The Strategy Screen is essentially a discussion guide comprised of a list of criteria that will assist with consistent
decision-making and priority-setting based on what is most important to the District. It includes criteria upon
which we will base our decisions and explicitly defines our values.
Identify the Big Questions
“A Big Question is an opportunity or threat to which the organization must respond. Usually, it is beyond the
scope of the organization’s strategies, thus requiring a new strategy.” (La Piana, 2008)
Develop Potential Strategies
Develop strategies that can be used to respond to the threat or challenge posed by each Big Question. A
strategy is defined as “an organized pattern of behavior toward an end” (La Piana, 2008) and consists of several
actions the organization will take to accomplish the goal.
Test Potential Strategies
Using the Strategy Screen, test the potential strategies that have been identified to determine whether the
District’s response to a big Question is consistent with our mission, direction, and capabilities.
Select and Implement Strategies
After testing the potential strategy options, the District will select those strategies it wants to implement.
Subsequently, staff will incorporate appropriate programs and activities in the Annual Action Plan to implement
those strategies.
Attachment A: Strategic Plan Development Cycle