HomeMy Public PortalAbout19810204 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting 81-3
All;
%lor r
0 Amw
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
375 DISTEL CIRCLE,SUITE D-1,LOS ALTOS,CALIFORNIA 94022
(415) 965-4717
SPECIAL MEETING
Board of Directors
M I N U T E S
February 4 ,-1981
I. ROLL CALL
President Richard Bishop called the meeting to order at 7 : 34 P.M.
Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Daniel Wendin, Edward Shelley,
Harry Turner, Nonette Hanko, and Richard Bishop.
Member Absent: Barbara Green.
Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Craig Britton, Steven Sessions ,
Charlotte MacDonald, and Jean Fiddles .
II . WORKSHOP INTRODUCTION
H. Grench explained the staff process involved in preparing the
evaluations for the workshop and referred to memorandum M-81-13,
dated January 26 , 1981. He noted that the staff was anticipating
as much Board feedback as possible on the 1981-1982 Key Projects
and Activities .
III. OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION PROGRAM
C. Britton reviewed the three subprograms under the acquisition
program: negotiations , land analysis, and special projects. He
noted that, since the writing of the January 26, 1981 memorandum,
the New Lands Commitment budget category had been overspent by $1. 59
million. He said, in terms of the previous land commitment
backlog, that he was hoping to close the Hassler, East Palo Alto
Baylands , and McNiel acquisitions before the end of the fiscal year,
which would leave the Bear Creek, Los Gatos Cooperative and
Slate Creek projects . He said the negotiations subprogram's
key projects and activities for the 1981-1982 fiscal year had
not changed, but did include obtaining, where possible, private
funding with favorable terms.
H. Grench noted that 1981-1982 might be a big year for SB 174
(Roberti-Z 'berg) projects and said that the proposed Bear Creek
Redwoods State Park would be a good joint project.
C. Britton said that the District was considering the Coplon
and McNiel acquisitions as possible projects for Land and Water
Conservation Fund grants and noted that he was trying to
get a waiver of retroactivity for these projects .
IV. OPEN SPACE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
S. Sessions reviewed the progress on the 1980-1981 key projects
and activities and the proposed 1981-1982 key projects and
activities for the planning, design and development, the operation,
maintenance and volunteer, and the enterprise activities subprogram.
N. Hanko asked if the 1981-1982 key project and activity relating
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 81-3 Page Two
to the Bayfront Trail included discussions with San Mateo
County and whether San Mateo County had an adopted trails plan.
S. Sessions responded that the activity included interaction
with San Mateo County, and H. Grench said staff would be trying
to undertake broad Bayfront Trail planning , while focusing on
certain specific segments of the trail, such as Mountain View
Shoreline Park and Crittenden Marsh.
S. Sessions said he did not know of an adopted trails plan for
San Mateo County, and K. Duffy said that staff should collect
information on any Bayfront Trail plans that had been done by
San Mateo in the past.
H. Grench stated that he was not sure that the fourth 1981-1982
key project and activity for the planning, design and development
subprogram should be considered as a key priority since it was
a project that might not be able to be completed in one
year.
D. Wendin noted that it was important to carry out the first
portion of the activity, which would include the review or
gathering of land management policies , but that he did not
think it feasible for the revision of the land management
policies to be completed within the year.
R. Bishop stated the Board's consensus that the item relating
to land management policies should remain a 1981-1982 key
project and activity, but the wording should be changed to
read "Review and begin the revision as appropriate of all land
management policies and present in a coherent reference form" .
Discussion centered on the most common types of citations for
violations of District ordinances issued by the Rangers and
on the District sites with the greatest enforcement problems .
N. Hanko felt that it was important to have a monitoring system
that would categorize citations in order to determine whether
any of the District ordinances needed to be changed.
S. Sessions responded that staff was in the process of getting
information from the Rangers on whether they have problems with
any of the ordinances or on the manner in which they have
to be enforced.
E. Shelley asked why the expenditure of funds for development and
maintenance was under budget.
S. Sessions responded that only 65% of the work scheduled to
be completed had been undertaken because of other higher
priority items that needed to be completed, and therefore the
dollars budgeted had not yet been spent.
K. Duffy noted that she felt it important for staff to clarify
the policy regarding ranger residences , and E. Shelley noted
that the Site Use Committee, when considering the question
of rentals , could consider ranger residences. S. Sessions
said that staff was working to resolve the questions regarding
ranger residences before the end of the fiscal year.
Meeting 81-3 Page Three
Discussion centered on the types of activities that produce
revenue for the District. S. Sessions stated that the
staff was considering preparing a revenue-producing study
for District resources in order to help develop appropriate
policies . E. Shelley and N. Hanko noted that they felt
it was necessary for the Site Use Committee to review current
policies relating to enterprise activities .
The Board adjourned for a break at 9 :05 P.M.
The Board reconvened for the public meeting at 9 :13 P.M.
V. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS AND GOVERNMENTAL LIAISON PROGRAM
C. MacDonald reviewed the public participation and education
and media subprograms ' key projects and activities for the 1980-
1981 and the 1981-1982 year, noting that increased acquisitions
impacted the various Public Communications activities.
D. Wendin asked the purpose of the telephone survey discussed
in the public participation and education subprogram.
C. MacDonald responded that the proposed survey was intended to
measure the effectiveness of the newsletter by determining whether
it increased its readers ' knowledge of the District. She noted
the survey would solicit the types of information that subscribers
would like to see in future newsletters. She added that, currently,
only about one-half of the newsletters printed are mailed to sub-
scribers. The remainder are distributed at random and the survey
would sample only those constituents who are already "friends" of
the District.
H. Grench stated that he would be conducting a more general
District survey in the spring as part of his thesis and would
distribute the results of the survey to the Board. He asked
Board members to submit any questions they felt should be
included in the survey, and N. Hanko noted that the results
from the two surveys would be useful to the Board.
Discussion centered on the reason for undertaking the Openspace
newsletter's survey and the priority the survey should have.
D. Wendin noted the survey should be done in an effort to
determine that the effort put into producing the newsletter
was worthwhile and that the newsletter was an effective
informational vehicle. R. Bishop stated that other work done
in the Public Communciations program would appear to have a
greater priority than the survey.
N. Hanko noted that the development of brochures for the public
was not included in the activities of the public participation
and education subprogram and she felt this was a key activity
since the public needed to be informed about the location
of District sites .
H. Grench responded that specific site brochures fell into the
Open Space Management Action Plan, while general informational
brochures fell under Public Communications .
Meeting 81-3 je Four
K. Duffy thought it would be helpful to have a formal two-three
year schedule for the program of presentations to councils ,
planning commissions , and other governmental commissions and
noted that personal contacts on the part of the Board members
were also very important.
R. Bishop said directors should determine what type of presen-
tations were needed in their respective ward, as well as
determine how much available time they had for such presentations.
N. Hanko suggested that the 1981-1982 key projects and
activities for the private and public liaison subprogram
include encouraging San Mateo County to develop a Bayfront
Trail plan within the District's boundaries in that County.
The Board agreed that N. Hanko's suggestion be incorporated
into the second 1981-1982 key project and activity for the
Planning, Design and Development subprogram so as to read
"Obtain plans and commitments from other agencies for the
Bayfront Trail alignment (both Counties) " .
VI . GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND PROGRAM SUPPORT
T.-Fiddes reviewed the progress on the 1980-1981 key projects
and activities and outlined the 1981-1982 key projects and
activities for that program.
N. Hanko explained the redistricitng process , noting that, in
the past, it had been very valuable to have a two-person
Board committee working on the project. H. Grench noted that
the subject of redistricting would be presented to the
Board as an agenda item in the future.
VII. REVIEW AND WRAP-UP COMMENTS
H. Grench noted that the 1981-1982 key projects and activities
discussed during the workshop would be incorporated into the
1981-1982 Action Plan. He noted that it was likely that the
Action Plan would have a new format this year.
K. Duffy asked if it appeared that two program evaluations each
year were too many.
H. Grench stated he felt the process was very useful for the
staff and N. Hanko felt the new evaluation procedure should
be used for one year. R. Bishop thought the next evaluation
should be in mid-September, and rather than having a complete
evaluation review, the staff should discuss new items or items
that had been deleted from key projects and activities .
J. Fiddes asked if the members of the Board preferred having
the program evalautions on a Wednesday night or on a Saturday
morning.
E. Shelley thought the Board and staff were more productive on
a Wednesday night. N. Hanko said that perhaps more members of
the public might attend on a Saturday morning. R. Bishop stated
the Board's consensus that the Board's preference was to have
program evaluation workshops on a Wednesday night.
VIII . ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10 : 30 P.M. Jean H. Fiddes
District Clerk
CORRECTIONS TO MINUTES OF
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. February _ 4 , 1981
Motion: N. Hanko moved the adoption of the minutes of February 4 , 1981.
D. Wendin seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
B. February 11, 1981
Motion: N. Hanko moved the adoption of the minutes of February 11, 1981.
D. Wendin seconded the motion.
Discussion: K. Duffy requested that her statement in the
seventh paragraph on Page Four be changed to read "K. Duffy
said that the Hidden Villa program is the kind the District
should be encouraging, and said she felt the safety problem
was a separate issue, less critical with this program than
with general use of the property, " in order to more ac-
curately reflect the statement she made at the meeting.
K. Duffy requested that the words "relating to the ac-
quisition of the Winship property" be placed after "memo-
randum M-81-18" in item B of Old Business with Action
Requested on Page Two in order to designate what the
Board' s action concerned. N. Hanko and D. Wendin agreed
to include K. Duffy' s revisions in their motion. N. Hanko
asked if the minutes were correct in stating that the
the Windmill Pasture committee was to have reported back
to the Board at the first meeting in March with their
report. D. Wendin noted the minutes were correct and
said he, N. Hanko, and H. Turner, had not yet met as
a committee. The motion passed unanimously.