Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19800123 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting 80-2 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415) 965-4717 Regular Meeting Board of Directors January 23, 1980 375 Distel Circle, Suite D-1 Los Altos, California I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by President Barbara Green at 7: 30 P.M. Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Daniel Wendin, Barbara Green, Edward Shelley, Nonette Hanko, Harry Turner, and Richard Bishop. Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Craig Britton, Charlotte MacDonald, Jean Fiddes, and Stanley Norton. II. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS J. Fiddes indicated that there were no written communications. III. ADOPTION OF AGENDA The Board adopted the agenda by consensus. IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Thomas P. McHugh, 2259 Derby Street, Berkeley, addressed the Board on behalf of Rancho Canada de Verde, Inc. and presented a letter, addressed to the Board of Directors and dated Janaury 23, 1980, regarding the Sandstone Caves acquisition project. B. Green requested that Mr. McHugh wait until District Counsel was present at the meeting to state his oral communication. Robert Mark, 725 Cowper, Palo Alto stated that he had attended the FORUM meeting on Castle Rock State Park held on January 15 in Saratoga and hoped that staff would report on the meeting during Informational Reports . Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Barbara Green,Nonette G.Hanko,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin Meeting 80-2 Page Two V. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY A. New District Slide Show C. MacDonald presented a new District slide show, "The Case for Open Space" , prepared by four students at San Jose State University as a part of their senior class project in the Public Relations Program. On behalf of the Board, B. Green thanked Mary Ann Gustafson and Jim Nelson, two of the students involved, for their efforts in preparing the slide show. B. Appointment of Board Committees B. Green introduced report R-80-2 , dated January 4, 1980 , and appointed the following Board members to the Budget Committee and Legislative Committee for 1980 with the Board' s consent: Budget Committee Legislative Committee D. Wendin (Treasurer? R. Bishop N. Hanko B. Green H. Turner N. Hanko R. Bishop and D. Wendin stated they did not feel it necessary to state in writing the role and purpose of the Budget Committee. B. Green reviewed each of the existing Ad Hoc Committees described in report R-80-2. Motion: R. Bishop moved that the Hassler/Edgewood Committee be terminated. D. Wendin seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. B. Green stated that R. Bishop, K. Duffy, and H. Turner had agreed to continue to serve on the Picchetti Winery Committee. Motion: E. Shelley moved that the Deer Hollow Farm Committee be disbanded. D. Wendin seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Motion: K. Duffy moved that the Site Naming Committee be dis- banded. D. Wendin seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. B. Green stated that R. Bishop, K. Duffy, and B. Green had agreed to continue to serve on the Dog Committee. K. Duffy stated that the Site Use Committee should be disbanded, noting that if work for the Committee was generated from the Board/Staff workshop, the Committee could be recreated. N. Hanko stated that the Committee should not disband. She felt that the Committee still had to address the question regarding the procedure for notification to public agencies on the demolition of buildings. Meeting 80-2 age Three Motion: E. Shelley moved that the Site Use Committee remain in existence at present. N. Hanko seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. K. Duffy noted that there had been two Fremont Older Ranchhouse Committees, and she was not certain that the actual Board committee had been disbanded but felt that the citizens committee had been. Motion: K. Duffy moved that the Fremont Older Ranchhouse Committee be disbanded. R. Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. B. Green stated that there had been some staff discussion on the potential need for an office space committee since the District's lease expired in November. E. Shelley recommended that the creation of such a committee be discussed as a future agenda item. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, continued S. Norton responded to the four questions stated in Mr. McHugh' s letter of January 23, 1980 noting that: 1) The Land and Water Conservation Fund grant has apparently II been denied,and the Board has taken no further action. 2) The Board has taken no action expressing an intent to acquire the property. 3) The Board has taken no action to reapply for funding. 4) With regard to grant applications, there is no legal notice requirement. The Board could consider a policy requiring notice, but it would be inappropriate at this meeting since the Board ordinarily does not act on matters not on the agenda. S. Norton noted that the statement in paragraph three, "I was told at a later point by District counsel that you had made no decision to acquire the property" , was correct and that the statement, That decision would only be made after the Federal application was granted" , was not necessarily correct since the Board could act to acquire a property independent of any grant application. He also suggested it would be inappropriate for the Board to say it would never acquire a certain property because it might appear to tie the hands of this or future Boards. Mr. McHugh asked what staff actions were in regard to the Sandstone Caves project and if anyone in the District was actively trying to acquire the property. D. Wendin requested that staff respond formally to Mr. McHugh's letter and that the Board move on to the next agenda item. Mr. McHugh requested that the formal response include the actions of staff. Meeting 80-2 je Four N. Hanko stated that the Board may wish to consider, at some future time, a policy which would provide some kind of notification to property owners when a grant application which may effect their property was being considered by the Board. B. Green stated that such discussion could take place when the subject of a policy regarding notification was an agendized item. VII . NEW BUSINESS WITH ACTION REQUESTED A. Date and Agenda for Proposed Board/Staff Workshop B. Green reviewed memorandum M-80-12, dated January 17, 1930, and the second draft of the proposed agenda for the Board/Staff Workshop. Discussion centered on the productivity of small group discus- sions, the need to clearly define current Board policy regarding emphasis and non-emphasis of sites, the proper wording of the workshop' s goal, and the deletion of the summaries of the small group discussions in the afternoon. B. Green stated the Board's consensus that the summaries of the small group discussions, scheduled from 1:00 - 1: 30 , be deleted. Motion: N. Hanko moved that the words "emphasized" and "non-emphasized" be changed to "emphasis" and "non-emphasis" throughout the proposed agenda. D. Wendin seconded the motion. Motion: D. Wendin moved for a recess so that the Workshop Committee could meet to discuss possible changes for the proposed agenda. N. Hanko seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The Board recessed at 9 : 00 P.M. The Board reconvened at 9: 15 P.M. E. Shelley proposed the following changes on behalf of the Workshop Committee: the addition of the words "for potential policy adoption" at the end of the workshop's goal; the deletion of the small group summaries; and the rescheduling of the afternoon session from 1:00 - 3:00 P.M. , with no specific time set aside for the consensus and recap of the workshop and actions items for Board and staff. N. Hanko withdrew her motion that had been seconded by D. Wendin. Motion: E. Shelley moved the adoption of the agenda revised as presented by him. N. Hanko seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Motion: N. Hanko moved the adoption of February 23, 1980, from 9: 30 A.M. to 3 :00 P.M. , as the date and time of the Site Emphasis Policy Workshop. E. Shelley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Meeting 80-2 Page Five B. Dedication of Two Parcels of Land (Fremont Older Open Space Preserve) and Addition of One Parcel to Undedicated Lands Report C. Britton reviewed memorandum M-80-10, dated January 17, 1980, regarding the dedication to two parcels of land within the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve that had inadvertently been omitted from the list of lands to be dedicated in February 1979 and the addition of a one acre parcel to the list of lands to be withheld from dedication. Motion: E. Shelley moved the adoption of Resolution 80-2 , a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Dedicating Certain District Lands to Public Open Space Purposes. D. Wendin seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Motion: E. Shelley moved the adoption of the recommendation to add the undedicated parcel (the former Boy Scout property) to the list of land to be withheld from open space dedication. H. Turner seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. C. Revision of Authorized Signatories for District Accounts and Safe Deposit Box H. Grench introduced memorandum M-80-9, dated January 17, 1980, regarding the need to revise the authorized financial instrument signatories for the District' s accounts and safe deposit box, as outlined in the Rules of Procedure and as a follow-up to the election of officers for 1980. Motion: D. Wendin moved the adoption of Resolution 80-3 of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Establishing Financial Instrument Signatories of the District for Santa Clara County Accounts. H. Turner seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Motion: D. Wendin moved the adoption of Resolution 80-4 of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Approving Certificate of Authority of Officers (United California Bank - San Francisco) . H. Turner seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Motion: D. Wendin moved the adoption of Resolution 80-5 Establishing New Specimen Signatures for Signing and Endorsing Checks and Other Instruments (Union Bank- Palo Alto) . H. Turner seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Meeting 80-2 Page Six Motion: D. Wendin moved the adoption of Resolution 80-6 Authorizing Signing and Endorsing Checks and Other Instruments for Savings Account (United California Bank - Los Altos) . H. Turner seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Motion: D. Wendin moved the adoption of Resolution 80-7 Authorizing Signing and Endorsing Checks and other Instruments for Checking Account (United California Bank - Los Altos) . H. Turner seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Motion: D. Wendin moved the adoption of Resolution 80-8 Establishing Signatories for Entering Safe Deposit Box (United California Bank - Los Altos) . H. Turner seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Motion: D. Wendin moved the adoption of Resolution 80-9 Authorizing Signing and Endorsing Checks and Other Instruments for Checking Account (Wells Fargo Bank - Mountain View) . H. Turner seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. D. Renewal of Note with Union Bank H. Grench reviewed memorandum M-80-11, dated January 18, 1980, noting that the District needed to renew its note with Union Bank. Motion: D. Wendin moved that the Board adopt and sign Resolution 80-10 , a Certified Copy of Borrowing Resolution with Union Bank. H. Turner seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. E. Possible Rescheduling of First Regular Meeting in February H. Grench noted that it might be advisable to cancel the first regular meeting in February since he knew that at least two Board members would be out of town on the date of , the scheduled meeting. A Special Meeting could be scheduled for February 20 if needed. Motion: R. Bishop moved that the Board authorize the President or Vice President to cancel the meeting of February 13, 1980, if appropriate. H. Turner seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. VIII. INFORMATIONAL REPORTS H. Grench asked R. Mark to report on the FORUM meeting of January 15, 1980 since S. Sessions, the District's representative, was not present at the Board meeting. Mr. Mark, noting that he would still like to hear a staff report, stated that the meeting had been very productive with most of the agencies responsible for law enforcement in the area being represented. Topics of discussion included law enforcement problems, transportation problems, and CALTRANSI proposed scenic vista at the Saratoga Gap intersection which would include 18 parking Meeting 80-2 Page Seven spaces. R. Bishop requested that he be informed of all future meetings involving Castle Rock State Park. H. Grench reported that the latest wording of SB 547 did not include the proposed formula allocation of funds, but did include phrases stating that the needs of regional parks and open space districts must be taken into account by the counties in which they are located. He suggested that the Board may want to express their support of the bill when it appeared on the June ballot. H. Grench reported on the activities of the Personnel Consultant, noting that Mr. Foss had been working with both the General Manager and the Administrative Assistant on the implementation of the new personnel and salary system. Specifically, Mr. Foss ' activities included a personnel filing system, the new benefits plan, the writing of new job specifications , and the preparation of material for filling the positions of Secretary and Accounting Specialist. N. Hanko announced that the Legislative Committee would be meeting on February 6, 1980 with Supervisor Arlen Gregorio the Skyline Corridor plan. IX. CLAIMS Motion: H. Turner moved that the Board approve the Revised Claims C-80-2, dated January 23, 1980. E. Shelley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. X. EXECUTIVE SESSION The Board recessed to Executive Session at 9 :50 P.M. XI. ADJOURNMENT The Board reconvened to adjourn at 12 :02 A.M. Jean H. Fiddes District Clerk CORRECTIONS TO MINUTES OFr 'D B. January 23, 1980 B. Green stated the Board' s consensus that the minutes of January' 23, 1980 be approved as presented with the addition of the Revised Claims, C-80-2, which had been inadvertently deleted. Prior to approving the minutes, the Board reviewed a letter from Mr. Thomas P. McHugh, Attorney at Law, 2259 Derby Street, Berkeley, California, dated February 25, 1980 requesting that the Board consider his comments, based on personal notes from the January 23, 1980 meeting, for possible addition to the minutes. MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022 (415) 965-4717 Special Meeting Board of Directors SITE EMPHASIS POLICY WORKSHOP M I N U T E S February 23, 1980 375 Distel Circle,- Suite D-1 Los Altos, California I. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 10 :00 A.M. by President Barbara Green. Members Present: Richard Bishop, Barbara Green, Katherine Duffy, Nonette Hanko, Edward Shelley, and Daniel Wendin. Member Absent: Harry Turner. Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Craig Britton, Steve Sessions, Jean Fiddes, Del Woods, Cynthia DiGiovanni, Jennie George, Sue Herda, Charlotte MacDonald, Pat Starrett, Wendy Lieber, Robert McKibbin, Dennis Danielson, Stanley Norton, Robert Camyre, Kathy Blackburn, and Joan Combs. Others Present: Sam Jones, Robert Mark, Robert Augsburger, and Ellie Huggins. II. INTRODUCTION B. Green said the goal of the workshop was to define emphasized and non-emphasized sites, concentrating on site specifics, site emphasis, and policy review, and keeping in mind a time limit of the next five years. III. REVIEW OF LAND USE AND PUBLICITY POLICIES A. Publicity Policy C. MacDonald reviewed the District' s publicity policies: 1. A policy adopted in April, 1976 specified that information about District sites would be available through the office only. This was apparently modified through subsequent Board action. 2. The Long-Term Goal adopted in October 1978 emphasized development of specific sites through publicity and programs. 3. Current Publicity Policy from Action Plan, adopted June 13, 1979: Herbert A.Grench,General Manager Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Barbara Green,Nonette G.Hanko,Richard S.Bishop,Edward G.Shelley,Harry A.Turner,Daniel G.Wendin Page Two a. Publicize docent program b. Continue development and distribution of general information c. Publicize availability of District sites at a level consistent with Board policy and with a short and long term ability to manage sites responsibly. B. Land Use Policy S. Sessions reviewed the policy on signing, adopted April 1976, which states that the District will provide signs to protect the site, users and neighboring properties and to indicate ownership at the entrance or entrances of sites. He noted that in February 1979, the staff proposed a development policy proposal which informally set guidelines for developed and undeveloped sites and which included: 1) Developed sites would include parking areas, signed trail systems, site identification signs, docent tours, brochures available on site, and maintained roads and trails. 2) Undeveloped sites would have minimal parking and signing, no tours, unmarked existing roads, one brochure covering all undeveloped sites available on request, maintained fences, and weekly patrol, with response as needed. IV. OVERVIEW OF THE MONTE BELLO PLAN D. Woods reviewed the Monte Bello Plan as an example of implementation of an emphasized site. The Monte Bello site, approximately 2600 acres, has access points on Page Mill Road, Skyline Boulevard, and Monte Bello Road. Most of the proposed development is in the Page Mill Road area, including a parking lot, perimeter fencing, restrooms in parking lot, and trails (existing and proposed) . The Stanford Ranch site would be designed for a backpacking camp for group use on a reservation system. The proposed limit of campers is 6-12 at one time, and at this time, there will be no fee charged. D. Woods noted that many of the projected uses and development of Monte Bello are very similar to Los Trancos Open Space Preserve. A brochure similar to the Los Trancos brochure is planned and there will be a docent interpretation program. There will be a ranger residence off Skyline Boulevard. A regular patrol will be maintained on Page Mill Road, Skyline Boulevard, and Monte Bello Road, as well as a foot patrol to Saratoga Gap. A fire watch station is being constructed on Black Mountain. Agricultural use areas will be studied in the future. Water availability is not proposed for the site, except at the backpack camp, where potable water is available. Providing water would mean drilling wells, which is expensive, or purifying spring water. N. Hanko noted that if Monte Bello is to be an emphasized site, available water should be a consideration. She said that extensive trail systems make water availability seemingly essential. Page Three B. Green said that the District may have to develop a policy on the provision of drinking water. V. SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION H. Grench noted that the intent of the small group discussions was to generate participation. He said participants must keep practi- calities in mind and that completion of the questionnaire should be consistent with Land Management budget guidelines. He noted that about one-half of this year' s Land Management budget (approximately $350,000 to $375, 000) , is for salaries. S. Sessions pointed out that the small groups were designed for balance between the Board, staff and public. He reviewed the Site Emphasis Questionnaire, noting that the general categories were meant to stimulate the thought process. He said the results of the small group discussions would be tabulated during lunch, with the summary serving as the basis of the large group discussion. N. Hanko observed that problems with vandalism were not included in the questionnaire and said this problem should be kept in mind while filling out the questionnaire. The Board recessed for lunch at 12 :40. The Board reconvened at 1:20. VI. LARGE GROUP DISCUSSION H. Grench introduced Gayle Riggs, a District docent who had volunteered to record the main points of the session in order to help facilitate discussion. S. Sessions reviewed the questionnaire tabulations and noted that interpretations varied in each group. He explained that responses were color coded for the Board, staff and public to see if there was a correlation of thought. He also noted written comments had been added to the questionnaire by a number of participants and these comments would be evaluated later. A. Suggestions and Comments on Publicity Arising from Small Group Discussions 1. Brochures and Maps R. Camyre said his group generally favored one type of brochure for each site. N. Hanko reported that her group opposed brochures for no access sites. R. Mark said he felt that there should be no restrictions on information, and that information on no access sites should be available by request. Page Four C. Britton reported that his group favored a map for every site and one general map for wide distribution. N. Hanko said her group favored a generally distributed area-wide map with the sites identified and accessibility explained. S. Session' s group was in favor of eliminating the 8h" x 11" maps and producing a larger, more informative brochure. R. McKibbin said his group felt there was less chance of vandalism with the folded 83�" x 13" brochures, since they were more compact and could be placed in boxes on the sites. His group also favored 8�" x 13" brochures on emphasized sites, with 8�" x 11" maps for non-emphasized sites available at the office. W. Lieber said she felt that the folded brochures were convenient, but too expensive, and there is also a greater tendency for people to take them. H. Grench said his group suggested an informational sign on the site telling where brochures and maps could be obtained. K. Blackburn suggested that maps could be sent out with the newsletter or a general mailing. E. Shelley' s group discussed the possibility of general distribution of brochures through libraries, city halls, etc. R. Bishop felt that brochures should emphasize sites rather than the structure of the District. B. Green noted that the concern most frequently expressed in the large group was the cost of printing versus the cost of loss. 2. Media/Publicity/Special Promotion B. Green said a definition of promotion is needed and could include special event displays and speakers ' programs. R. Bishop asked if an announcement to the newspapers of an acquisition constituted promotion. If so, then all sites are promoted at the time of acquisition. N. Hanko noted that at the time of acquisition, a site is not ready to be emphasized. R. Bishop said that too much publicity can generate an "over response" by the public. The public should be informed about all sites, but publicity should explain problems and limitations. Page Five D. Danielson suggested that de-emphasized sites could be described to the public as wildlife habitat and therefore, not developed for public use. E. Huggins said it is good for the public to understand there Are budget restrictions on developing sites. R. Bishop said he felt that non-emphasized sites should be publicized in such a way that people would understand the present situation and what is planned for the future. R. McKibbin said he preferred to re-direct the public to emphasized sites rather than discourage them from visiting non-emphasized sites. W. Lieber stated that she felt people should know the site limitations before they arrived at a site, and said she preferred to deal with an informed public. She added she believed the public has a right to all available information about the District. H. Grench reported that his group considered two possibilities for published books: 1) a regional trail guide published by the District, and 2) books published by other, with the District having little or no control of the content. C. MacDonald said that the District had worked with other publications on occasion and had found the writers to be cooperative after they had received an explanation of what the District wishes and does not wish promoted. She felt it was important to establish a good working relationship with these people, since they can get the desired information elsewhere. C. Britton said he didn't feel the District had a choice when the media asks questions and that these questions should be answered completely. R. Camyre said he felt publicity should be controlled before it was out of control. If a site can handle higher public use, then the District can publicize it. 3. Signs/Site Exposure S. Sessions noted that Private Property signs are "good neighbor" signs, alerting the public that they may be encroaching on privately owned land. C. Britton asked if trail directional signs are a promotion or a management tool. He said that if a trail is known to be used, even on a non-emphasized site, the District has a responsibility to the public to show a concern for public safety. Page Six R. MCKibbin suggested that wooden boundary signs by replaced by metal ones, as they are less expensive. R. Bishop noted that large signs reach a segment of the public which might not otherwise know about a Preserve. E. Shelley asked if there were any figures on the vandalism of signs. R. McKibbin replied that certain areas are highly vandalized, and in some instances, the District is changing to metal signs. W. Lieber asked if informational signs could substitute for brochures, noting that it might be a cost-effective way to publicize and inform. K. Duffy suggested small off-the-road signs for low use areas, and, for high use areas, Use of Preserve signs near the road. W. Lieber said that Use of Preserve signs are too vulnerable to vandalism to be near a paved road. 4. Visitor Site Amenities D. Woods noted that roadside parking areas can be hazardous. However, he felt the District should use existing roadside parking areas . E. Shelley stated that his group felt that restrooms are associated with emphasis and high use. W. Lieber said that restrooms are conducive to "creative vandalism" . N. Hanko suggested that the District check with other agencies which have similiar vandalism problems in order to find possible solutions. B. Green said her group agreed that there should be water available on the sites if a source of water already exists and can be provided at minimum cost. 5. Programming K. Blackburn noted that docent tours can be a way of con- trolling use of non-emphasized sites. She added that docents are often the public ' s image of the District, and said the Board must give direction on programs for emphasized and non-emphasized sites. C. Britton reported that his group felt that both emphasized and non-emphasized sites should have both regularly scheduled and requested docent tours. Page Seven K. Blackburn said that her group felt scheduled docent tours on a non-emphasized site invited unwanted publicity. If people went on a docent tour, they might want to return on their own. Scheduled docent tours on a non-emphasized high potential site are a controlled way of introducing people to the site. She added that if another educational group offers a program on an emphasized site at no cost to the District and does not duplicate the District ' s own program, they should be welcome. W. Lieber said that her group felt there should be no docent tours on a non-emphasized low potential site except by request only. K. Blackburn noted that docents are needed on so many of the preserves that it would not now be practical for them to go to some non-emphasized site. She added that if written policy directed that a non-emphasized site have public ex- posure, the docents could function within that framework. R. Augsburger said that regular bus service to emphasized sites would be advantageous to both nearby residents and the general public. C. Britton said the District should promote shuttle bus service to emphasized sites, as long as the District incurs no financial responsibility. N. Hanko reported that her group had discussed the possi- bility of having a city or private group provide shuttle bus service to District sites. R. Camyre said that if a busline were nearby, it could perhaps re-route and serve a Preserve. B. Green said that one of the workshop' s goaps was to define emphasized and non-emphasized sites. She asked what policy questions had been identified but had not been clarified and what policies, that do not presently exist, need to be addressed. VI. CONSENSUS AND RECAP D. Woods said that policy issues need to be identified. C. MacDonald asked how the District will inform the public about site policies. R. McKibbin suggested that site emphasis be reviewed yearly. B. Green noted that policy questions need to be clarified. For example, the District lacks a policy on emphasis as well as a policy on publicity. Page Eight K. Blackburn said that as definitions of emphasized and non- emphasized sites become solidified, programming should be an important part of that definition. R. Bishop said that lack of access and lack of money can retard development of a site. W. Lieber asked if a policy existed on how far development can go on an organized site. B. Green replied that development must be in keeping with environ- mental protection of the site and budget guidelines. She noted these are subject to interpretation. R. McKibbin suggested that Board members should occasionally ride with the ranger staff. He noted that rangers and Board members may have different opinions of site status, and felt that a ride-along program would enable the ranger staff to better appreciate the problems that face the Board. D. Wendin expressed trepidation at this proposal, as he felt that the Board could inadvertently get involved in managerial problems. B. Green said that a ride-along program would enable the Board to witness first-hand how policies are being implemented. She suggested a group trip as a possibility. W. Lieber noted that rangers see things differently because of their training. She added that the ride-along program could have an informative, formalized format. B. Green said it is one thing to make policy and another to see policy being enforced. :he suggested that the question of ranger- Board ride-alongs be placed on a future agenda and that some research into legalities involved would be needed. B. Green said there was a need to include the following topics on future agendas: 1) ranger ride-along program, 2) policy on emphasis, 3) policy on publicizing emphasis, and 4) provision of camping facilities. C. Britton noted that if the tally of categories on the question- naires were computed, Land Management budget guidelines would probably be exceeded. He said the District needs to determine where cuts would be made on a guideline basis. R. Bishop said that decisions on emphasis must be made at budget time when weighing one project against another and finding out how money will be distributed. N. Hanko suggested the questionnaire be reproduced to give an indication of workshop opinion. H. Grench recommended that the Board assign staff the task of producing a set of recommended policy questions. Page Nine B. Green said some items to consider were 1) cost of printing brochures vs. cost of loss, 2) whether a policy was needed for a brochure format, 3) policy for fees for brochures, and 4) a policy for amount of publicity the District solicits. D. Wendin said that it had been a valuable meeting, but it was not feasible for the Board or staff to try to formulate a policy from small discussion groups. he said that the Board and staff can try to identify policy issues, rather than policy, noting that many questions, but no policy, came out of the workshop. He said that more discussion of the issues was needed before policies could be formulated. B. Green stated that the Board concurred with D. Wendin ' s recom- mendation. C. MacDonald suggested that another policy question was how much information did the District intend to provide the public concerning a policy on site emphasis. W. Lieber asked what physical limitations were placed on the development of a site, and when does "open space" become "park" . She said there was a need to define what an open space agency will provide to the public and what the public is expected to know on its own. She wondered if the District intended to cater to all groups or to remain open space. She said that as the Monte Bello development comes closer, the District needs to consider these questions. VII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 3 : 30 P.M. Joan Combs Recording Secretary