HomeMy Public PortalAbout19880130 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting 88-03
ML
20=04am
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
OLD MILL OFFICE CENTER,BUILDING C,SUITE 135
201 SAN ANTONIO CIRCLE,MOUNTAIN VIEW,CALIFORNIA 94040
(415)949-5500
SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
January 30, 1988
MINUTES
I. ROLL CALL
Director Teena Henshaw, who chaired the Special Meeting, called the meeting to
order at 9:15 A.M.
Members Present: Richard Bishop, Teena Henshaw, Edward Shelley, Nonette Hanko,
Katherine Duffy, Gerry Andeen, and Robert McKibbin.
Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Craig Britton, David Hansen, Mary Hale, Jean
Fiddes, James Boland, Del Woods, David Topley, and Geoff Paulsen.
Members of the Board, staff, and public in attendance introduced themselves. T.
Henshaw stated that the impetus for the workshop had been the Board's tour of the
Skyline Boulevard area to review sites and signing. She said that the Skyline
Boulevard Field Trip Follow-Up Committee had determined that a review of the
Basic Policy was necessary in order to review what the District had done and
where it was going, as well as looking at the Basic Policy fifteen years after
the District's formation. She reviewed the format that would be used for the
Special Meeting.
II. HISTORY OF THE DISTRICT
N. Hanko presented a brief history of the District's formation, noting that in
1968 environmentalists in Palo Alto were becoming increasingly concerned about
possible development in the foothills. She noted that the Livingston and Blaney
report studied the potential hillside development, stated that it would be too
costly to the City of Palo Alto, and recommended that a district be formed to
preserve the land; the concept for a district later expanded from a Palo Alto
district to a regional open space district. N. Hanko read from the 1972 ballot
measure on formation of the District in northwestern Santa Clara County, noting
that, at that time, the law stated that the District had to be formed under the
name of a park district. She noted that part of the formation of the District
was based on an agreement with Santa Clara County that initial expenditures on
recreational improvements would be limited to not more than 5% of the District's
income for the first 10 years.
III. TEN-YEAR REVIEW
H. Grench reviewed the wall posters that showed various milestones in the
District's history. He noted that if Proposition 13 had not passed the District
today would own more land, have a smaller debt service, and the pace of site
development would be greater. He reviewed the chart concerning the District's
Herbert Grench,General Manager;Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Robert McKibbin,Teena Henshaw,Edward Shelley,Nonette Hanko,Gerry Andean,Richard Bishop
Meeting 88-03 Page two
land acquisition hist--y, as well as the chart showing one trend in land manage-
ment expenditures.
IV. COMPARISON WITH OTHER DISTRICTS
D. Hansen provided a brief comparison of the District to the East Bay Regional
Park District, the Marin County Open Space District, and the Monterey Peninsula
Regional Park District.
V. PERCEPTION OF THE DISTRICT IN 1987 AND VISION FOR THE FUTURE
R. McKibbin stated that he felt the Basic Policy reflects what Board members were
thinking in 1974 and that, through the document, one can see the progression of
the District. He noted that some of the policies were obsolete. He said that
his vision for the future included: 1) a regional trail network system; 2) more
working relationships between agencies (State, county, etc) ; 3) an integral
greenbelt network where a person could go from a highly developed park area to a
wilderness area to the beach; and 4) more undeveloped wildland areas.
G. Andeen said that he felt that the District was well run and equated it to a
Central Park or Golden Gate Park, noting that in 100 years people will look back
at the importance of the District. He questioned why people could not find
preserves, why there weren't more signs, why more people weren't out and on the
land and why more people didn't know about the District. He stated that the
District was fundamentally different now than when founded and that the District
must respond to the difference. He said that there were pressures on the
District and its land and that the District must broaden its base of political
support. He said that the statement in the third policy should be changed from
"allowing" public access to encouraging the public to use and enjoy District
lands. He called for more signing and a greater community outreach effort.
T. Henshaw said that she wanted the District to be the leader in working with
other agencies, as well as generating more cooperation between agencies. She
said that she wanted an awareness in the public's mind of what the District is
and what other agencies are, as well as an awareness from the public's point of
view that the District's land is their land. She stated that her vision for the
future also included more neighborhood meetings.
R. Bishop stated that acquisition of land should continue to have a high place in
the District's priorities, noting that acquiring the land was necessary to
complete the dream of a greenbelt. He said that as the District acquired more
land, more funds need to be spent each year on management and that importance
must be given to the nuts and bolts business of making land available after
acquisition, including having trails, signs, and a place to park. He stated that
the District should not do too many things to detract from the basics of making
preserves available to the public.
E. Shelley stated that if the Basic Policy works, it should not be changed. He
said that the Policy has served the District well and that the District's charter
is still to provide a regional greenbelt, noting that once the greenbelt was
acquired it could then be developed. He said that his future vision included
more public on the land, more development, and more ways to get people on the
land. He said that 15 years into an agency was far too soon to make major policy
changes, adding that when changes were called for he would be open to changing
policies. He stated that the word "provide" rather than "encourage" might be
more acceptable to him as a wording change for "allowing" public access.
Meeting 88-03 Page three
K. Duffy stated that she did not consider herself a visionary and quoted from a
1977 workshop in which, even at that time, staff anxiety regarding the diversion
from acquisition priorities to use priorities was discussed. She stated that the
District had grown in terms of acreage owned, usage, and getting the word out to
the public about District sites. She noted that, in spite of everyone's im-
patience to get things done, simply throwing money at the projects would not
solve the problems. She noted that thoughtfulness, care, a logical progression,
and continued reasonable approaches were needed.
N. Hanko stated that she was proud of the District's concept and what it had
accomplished. She distributed a memorandum dated January 28, 1988 setting forth
her suggestions on points of discussion and changes in Basic Policy that she
wanted to address at the workshop, which included redefinition of the concept of
encouraging private open space stewardship, statement of protection of neighbor
privacy in District location of public trails, extension of the Good Neighbor
Policy through increased communication with neighbors, that public access be
"encouraged" rather than "allowed", that previous limitations on District
expenditures for recreational improvements be restated to reflect updated policy
and that co-operative planning efforts with both public and private agencies be
redefined.
T. Henshaw outlined the format to be followed for the small group discussions,
assigned Board and staff members to different groups, and indicated where the
different groups would be meeting.
There was a break at 10:45 A.M. The small groups convened at 11:00 A.M.
Following a lunch break, the meeting reconvened at 1:50 P.M. G. Andeen was not
present for the afternoon portion of the meeting.
VI. SMALL GROUP REPORTS
T. Henshaw stated that various Board members would provide a summary of the
comments that had been made in their particular groups. She noted that no action
was requested at this Special Meeting, adding that any individual Board member
who felt strongly about an item discussed could place an item on a future Board
meeting agenda for further discussion.
Group 3 (including T. Henshaw and E. Shelley) : Possible alternatives suggested
for "allowing" public access in policy 3c were "encouragingto or "providing." The
fourth policy regarding public communications was not being fulfilled. The
policies may be too complicated and should perhaps be limited to major state-
ments. Site emphasis should be examined more closely, including how to publicize
sites and how to sign them appropriately. Education needed for preserve users
and District constituents.
qKpAp 4 (including R. Bishop) : Possible alternatives suggested for "allowing"
public access in policy 3c were "providing" or "encouraging." How the use of
'"encouraging" in the policy could impact budget was discussed, as was the
question of increased funding for improvement of public access to preserves being
equal to land acquisition funding. Basic Policy should be updated to reflect
what the District is actually doing. Long-term planning and proper stewardship
of District lands needed. Various "friends" programs should be developed.
Impact that use levels have on budget. A question was raised whether it is
necessary for all District supporters to visit preserves. Questioned whether site
Meeting 88-03 Page four
emphasis is working and the impact of deviations from site emphases. The fourth
policy regarding public communications is a good policy; however, not yet fully
nor effectively implemented. A quarterly brochure was suggested in terms of
"reaching out" more frequently and there was discussion regarding to whom the
District should be "reaching out." Public access is premature until there are
trails and signs at a site. Parking lots and roadside parking were discussed.
"Maximum feasible amount of strategic open space" in the first policy discussed
in terms of quality of the land, as opposed to quantity of land. Agricultural
uses of open space are important. The following definition was suggested: "The
purpose of MROSD trails is to provide opportunities for safe enjoyment of natural
beauty and serenity of District preserves. This will be accomplished through a
planning process that emphasizes environmental protection and public participa-
tion."
Group 1 (including N. Hanko and R. McKibbin) : Discussion concerning communica-
tions included encouraging support groups, holding neighborhood Board meetings,
having separate newsletters for constituents or special target areas, and better
notification for meetings. The carrying capacity of a site according to the time
and evolution of a site, signing, and public awareness should be considered in
terms of site development. Recognizing and addressing the concerns of private
property owners were important during all phases of acquisition and development.
District myths and misconceptions were discussed.
qKpAp 2 (including G. Andeen and K. Duffy)
The word "allowing" in the third policy should be replaced with a different word.
With respect to the fourth policy, community outreach needs to be strengthened.
VII. SUMMATION
N. Hanko noted the diverse opinions expressed in the groups. She said the
District needed to be sure the public, as well as local residents, have use of
District land, but hoped that preserves would not get masses of people. She
stated that education and good communication were necessary with users, preserve
neighbors, and support groups like the docents.
K. Duffy said that she felt a change in the Basic Policy was needed to make it
simpler, shorter, and easier to read. She noted that "allowing" public access
had been left out of actual practices ages ago and that "encouraging" could be
included. She stated that outreach communications were not properly addressed in
the policy.
E. Shelley said that the Basic Policy did not need major revisions, noting it had
served the District well and will continue to do so. He said that the District's
lack of making people aware of District sites was different from encouraging use,
adding that it is the District's responsibility to inform rather than encourage.
He stated that the District must continue to move steadily and cautiously in
development and use of sites so that increased use can be monitored.
T. Henshaw stated that the District cannot be all things to all people and needed
to be clear in what its mission is, as well as what to do in terms of site
emphasis. She said that signing needed to be addressed, that work needed to
progress on the good neighbor policy, and that the impact of the Skyline Ridge
development on surrounding areas needed to be reviewed.
Meeting 88-03 Page five
R. Bishop said that he favored changing the third policy to make it as simple as
possible, noting that "allowing" could be changed to "encouraging" with the
proviso that it did not dictate an increase in the open space management budget.
He felt that the fourth policy regarding public communications did not need to be
changed. He noted that it was impossible to reach everyone, adding that not
everyone's interested in the District. He said that he felt the District could
not afford a larger public communications staff.
R. McKibbin stated that he would like to see the workshop's discussions continued
since so many ideas needing discussion had been introduced. He suggested placing
an item on the agenda in approximately two weeks to allow for further discussion.
N. Hanko suggested that Board members write out and share their ideas, as well as
input from their groups, so that concrete ideas would not be lost.
T. Henshaw encouraged members of the public present to keep the Board informed of
their views.
H. Grench stated that his main goal was to help ensure that the vision to create
a continuous greenbelt in the foothills and baylands was not lost. He said that
the District should be involved in more longer-term planning.
H. Turner stated that the achievement of a greenbelt should be the District's
first objective and the Board should be steadfast in achieving it. He said that
increased attention needed to be given to sustaining public support and that the
third policy should be revised per G. Andeen's proposal, noting that in its
implementation, a greater energy level of publicizing the District was needed.
He stated that the Board should instruct the General Manger to fulfill the fourth
policy regarding public communications. He called for bringing the access goal
in closer parity with the land acquisition goal and suggested joint trail
building projects and organizing constituency groups.
Marthine Galloway, 1400 Native Sons Road, Woodside, expressed her concerns about
the District's public image in the "flatlands" versus the mountain areas, and the
need for the Board to be proportionately concerned about Skyline residents who
are directly impacted by District preserves and their use.
Jim Warren, 345 Swett Road, Woodside, said that he felt R. McKibbin's group
summary did not include all significant points that had been made; R. McKibbin
responded that his report was meant to be a summary and that his notes would be
available for review.
Berkeley Dreissel, Santa Clara, said that the District needed to look at its
boundaries in Santa Clara County in light of the new open space district that is
to be formed. Beez Jones, 16891 Stevens Canyon Road, Cupertino stated that she
felt that Santa Clara County residents should be able to choose between the two
open space districts.
Janet Schwind, 11825 Skyline Boulevard, Los Gatos, called for greater importance
being placed on input from the District ranger staff.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:58 P.M.
Jean Fiddes
District Clerk