Loading...
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.