HomeMy Public PortalAbout19910601 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Open Space
----------------
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Meeting 91-16
WORKSHOP
SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
June lr 1991
MINUTES
I. ROLL CALL
President Nonette Hanko called the meeting to order at 9: 05 A.M.
Members Present : Katherine Duffy, Nonette Hanko, Richard Bishop,
Robert McKibbin, Teena Henshaw, Ginny Babbitt, and Betsy Crowder.
Personnel Present : Herbert Grench, Craig Britton, David Hansen,
Jean Fiddes , Michael Foster, John Escobar, Joan Combs, and Emma
Johnson.
II . Strategic Planning for the Nineties (Report R-91-66 dated May 14 ,
1991)
N. Hanko stated the purpose of the workshop was to have a study
session on the Strategic Planning for the Nineties document that
was developed by staff . She added that the Board would not be
taking final action on the proposals at this time and that the
public would have an opportunity to provide input to the Board at
later regular meetings . She introduced Geoffrey Ball of Geoffrey
Ball and Associates who was the facilitator for the workshop.
Geoffrey Ball said the purpose of the workshop was to review the
District ' s current situation and future objectives so that staff
has clear direction from the Board as to allocation of resources
and future policy regarding the emphasis among program areas , and
to establish priorities and timelines for future plans .
H. Grench summarized the reasons for creating a plan for the
nineties, noting that the District is on a collision course
between the desire to complete the greenbelt, provide access to
the public, increase visibility of the District to the public,
and provide better stewardship of District .lands . He said that
it is not possible to do all these things with current funding,
that time is short for completing the greenbelt, and that extra
funds are needed for the greenbelt ' s completion .
Discussion centered on what the greenbelt is . H. Gr
ench said it
is preservation of continuous , contiguous lands that are not now
developed in the foothills and baylands. He added that all this
land does not necessarily have to be owned by the District.
I�
K. Duffy said that open space does not always have to be
available for public use, as long as it is preserved as open
space.
Ilk
201 San Antonio Circle,Suite C-135 • Mountain View,California 94040 • Phone:(415)949-5500 • FAX:(415)949-5679
General Manager:Herbert Grench Board of Directors:Katherine Duffy,Robert McKibbin,Teena Henshaw.Ginnv Babbitt.Nonenr Hankn
Meeting 91-16 Page 2
N. Hanko asked how close to the urban area are the greenbelt
fringe, the District boundaries, and the sphere of
P influence.
C . Britton
i ton said th
e greenbelt is part of the life experience in
the ar
ea and that --
i
t ' s
are not necessary on all 11 preserves
it s important enough that th� P e tee
9 greenbelt exists for viewshed.
D. Hansen added that it is not always necessary to acquire fee
title to the land.
R . McKibbin noted that the greenbelt is a way to contain growth
and development .
�I
N. Hanko asked if the greenbelt should provide public access .
i
G. Babbitt said the greenbelt could be appreciated visually as
well as for its accessibility.
N. Hanko said that the public 's perception of the greenbelt at
the time the District was established was that it would be
accessible to the public.
III
K. Duffy and T. Henshaw said what the public perceives now is the
important point. N. Hanko said that additional funds and public
P
perception of the greenbelt are important.
G. Ball summarized that public support is a result of the
public' s perception.
Discussion followed
o ed on public support. N. Hanko said public
support is unknown, that the District has not conducted a survey
on how well-known the District is or what the public perception
is . N. Hanko said that a strategy to develop more public funds
must include education
of the
h public. C . Britton suggested that
a funding measure is one way to educate the public about the open
space district. N. Hanko added that a survey is important to
find out if the public is willingto support
PP g
art a funding measure
J. Escobar suggested there may be a perception by th
e public
that
there is enough open space, that it may be easier to gain support
if the public perceives that the District has not been successf
ul
yet . T. Henshaw said that users are st
rongest supporters and
there sh
ould
ld be a tie-
in with how the _land will be used. R.
McKibbin said that because of a funding shortage, there is less
land accessible for public use. He said a new
n funding ndin source
could overcome some past weaknesses such as accessibility,
completing the greenbelt , education, and development pressures .
N. Hanko added that decreased funding is an important factor in
the present dilemma . T. Henshaw said that many groups are
competing for funds . C . Britton added that exponentially
increasing land values are a factor.
N. Hanko asked if the public would support a tax increase . K.
Duffy suggested that very positive reasons for a tax increase
would have to be presented.
` Meeting 91-16 Page 3
R. McKibbin said that during the last few years the District ' s
land management program has been competing for funds for
development of the preserves with the land acquisition program
and there must be a way for the two programs to be complementary.
G. Babbitt noted that even beyond public outreach, the open space
not only provides a visual backdrop, but also provides local
education for appreciation and stewardship of the land . K. Duffy
said preservation of open space is the message necessary for
fundraising, not focusing only on the users. R. McKibbin stated
that accessibility is the key. T. Henshaw noted that it is a
"balancing act" between long term preservation of the greenbelt
and at the same time giving access to the public. B. Crowder
added that there is a large user public who now feel that the
preserves are getting overcrowded and that may be one way to get
support for expansion. R. McKibbin noted that successful ballot
measures in Cupertino and Los Altos Hill reflect the need and
desire for open space, and could be considered a survey of public
support .
G. Ball noted the discussion was focusing on either more
preservation or public access . C . Britton said the keys are
timing and balance of development on the preserves so that people
support the programs and yet not destroy the ecosystems . He
added that what is needed is enough people who want to use the
land to support the District and preserve as much capital as
possible to acquire land. He said that District land can always
be developed and that he sees no problem with the present
balance.
G. Ball noted the discussion was centering on the need for more
funding to complete the greenbelt , and to do that additional
funds are needed which requires public support , and for public
support , access to the land by visual and active users is needed.
He said he was also hearing that money needed to develop and
manage the land reduces the funding for acquisition to complete
the greenbelt . R. Bishop said it is important to consider the
balance the Board wants between acquisition, access , and
development .
Edward Shelley, 2406 Villaneuva Way, Mountain View, questioned
whether going to the users for support to complete the greenbelt
is the driving force or if the main pressure for development is
the use itself . He said historically the pressure for
development has been for recreational development itself , to
provide access for its own right , noting that if completing the
greenbelt is primary and all other actions are in support of
that, there would be a different strategy than what there is now.
N. Hanko said the need to emphasize development is to include
public, of onlyto support a funding measure but because
the c n
PP g P
providing access to the public is one of the basic policies ,
adding that access should exist on its own, not necessarily tied
to seeking additional funds .
Meeting 91-16 Page 4
Further discussion followed regarding the proportion of the
budget spent on acquisition versus management.
G. Ball called a recess at 10 : 25 A.M. The meeting reconvened at
10 : 50 A.M.
G. Ball proposed that the group discuss the options for each
basic policy objective and chart them, based on importance (1 -
important; 2 , 3 - very important; 4 , and 5 - critically
important) on a timeline divided into now, 1-2 years, 3-4 years ,
and 5+ years categories. (See attached Exhibit A depicting
options the Board voted to place on the importance-timeline chart
during the workshop. )
1 . BASIC POLICY OBJECTIVE
The District will purchase or otherwise acquire interest in the
maximum feasible amount of strategic open space land within the
District, including baylands and foothills.
C. Britton reviewed where the District is now. He said the main
critical issue from an acquisition standpoint is that the
District has essentially used up all of its debt capacity, with
potential acquisition of 50, 000 acres of land still remaining to
complete the greenbelt. He said there will be a shortfall of
approximately $150, 000 , 000 in today' s dollars to acquire that
land. He said the most critical issue is where to get the money
if the Board ' s highest priority is to complete the greenbelt .
DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS
Option 1
Place a supplementary funding measure on the ballot for
consideration by District constituency.
Option 2
Support current efforts to place a statewide initiative on the
ballot in 1992 that is similar to Proposition 70 placed before
the voters in 1988 .
The Board agreed that timing is crucial on Option 1 and that it
has the highest priority. H. Grench said the initiative (Option
2) is something the District will be working for regardless of
whether the supplementary funding measure is on the ballot. C .
Britton noted that Option 1 could provide all the money needed
whereas Option 2 would provide about one-third the amount needed.
H. Grench noted that this effort is currently on hold , that the
Planning and Conservation League (PCL) is holding back on an
initiative at this time, and that there is no hope of the
District getting $70, 000, 000 from an initiative in June, 1992.
R. Bishop noted that a Prop 70-type initiative, if it could be a
viable movement, would be better because of a successful
precedent, and that under Option 1 , the money has to be repaid by
the District whereas with Option 2 the state repays the debt . He
Meeting 91-16 Page 5
proposed the District encourage PCL to proceed with their
original plans . He said the administration ' s plan appears to be
a park acquisition plan but all financial responsibility would
have to be assumed by the local districts .
N. Hanko stated she felt that it may not be necessary for the
District to repay the debt under Option 1 , that it could be a
sales or parcel tax, and stated her opinion that Option 1 is an
important option. She added that it is necessary for the
District to work with the governor and legislature.
N. Hanko said that when the District was established a survey was
done to determine support among the voters , and that she would be
opposed to a ballot measure unless there were assurances that the
vote would be affirmative.
R. McKibbin asked how the District can get local funding if it is
not available from the state. He added that a 50% vote, rather
than the present 66%, is a crucial issue, and that the District
needs to lobby legislators toward the 50% vote . R. Bishop agreed
that a 50% vote is crucial . He added that if Option 1 is adopted
it should be subject to the timing so that a bond issue is not
submitted to the voters until after the law will permit a win by
a 50% majority. H. Grench said a benefit assessment district
does not require the 2/3 vote.
G. Babbitt asked if the Board agreed that a funding measure need's
to be studied and the implications considered.
Tom Karnofel , representing Local 715 of the S. E. J .U. , said the
union supports any decision of the Board to seek more revenue and
that Local 715 has a Political apparatus that would like to be
part of the task force to promote Option I or Option 2 , such as
mailings , phone calls , and walking precincts .
G. Ball showed how he would move a card with the option noted on
it up slowly from "important" to "critically important" and Board
members would raise their hands when they felt it was at the
right Point . When four Directors ' hands were up, that would be
the "vote. " He explained that the timeline would be set
similarly, moving from now to later.
The Board voted to place Option 1-1 in the high-4 rang
e and in
the-.immediate-now range.
The Board voted to place Option 1-2 -in the high-4 range and in
the immediate now ranqe.
gption 3
Although limited to only a few specific areas , use benefit
assessment districts to help fund acquisition of sites with
unusually high neighborhood benefit .
Meeting 91-16
Page 6
Option 4
Increase pace of acquisition subsequent to passage of funding
measure.
The Board agreed not to prioritize OPtions _3 and 4 .
ption 5
Continue to concentrate on acquiring land which is tinder threat
of development.
R. McKibbin said that if there is no new funding, the District
may need to re-prioritize properties that are considered for
acquisition but that it should be done also if funding is
acquired.
G. Ball suggested that staff develop principals and strategy that
address the limited resources . C . Britton said the strategy for
twenty years has been to consider properties that are currently
available, while being aware of what is being developed .
N. Hanko questioned whether the Board wants to change its
Policies regarding acquisition of lands outside the sphere of
influence or in the sphere but outside District boundaries. The
Board agreed that it is an issue that needs to be considered at a
future time. K. Duffy questioned whether there is anything wrong
with the present priorities . E. Shelley noted that the Board has
had a policy to reserve funds for critical properties . Penny
Durham, PO Box 4035, Menlo Park, said she would like to see
maximum flexibility in acquisitions .
T. Henshaw said the Board would like to pursue at a later time
the issue of acquisition of land outside District boundaries and
outside the sphere of influence. N. Hanko added the Board should
discuss whether District boundaries should be expanded . There
was strong agreement for T. Henshaw ' s proposal and that it should
occur as soon as possible.
G. Ball , summarizing the Board ' s discussion, added two options
for Placement on the chart : Option 1-10 - land purchase priority
determination and Option 1-11 - acquisition of land outside
District .
The Board voted to laceOption 1-10 at the to of the critically
important range and in the ' immediate now range .
The Board voted to laceOption 1-11 in the hi_qh-4 range and in
the mid-now range,
The Board agreed to consider Options 6 , 7 , 8 , and 9 together.
Option 6
Continue to encourage local government to make sound decisions on
land use .
-Meeting 91-16 Page 7
Option 7
Increase board and staff efforts to engage in speaking
opportunities to present the District ' s program and need for
funds .
Option 8
Increase District Director Political contacts for support of
District programs, proposed funding measures, and cooperative
acquisition projects .
Option 9
Encourage and support local open space acquisition efforts which
advance District goals .
R. McKibbin suggested that Option 6 is not keyed to acquisition
and could be discussed under the second basic Policy objective.
Other members of the Board concurred.
Speaking about Option 7 , T. Henshaw said there is an increased
need for the Board to become more involved in the Political arena
outside the Board room. Referring to Option 8 , she said the
option emphasizes examining the charge the Board gives to the
general manager in terms of use of his time. She added that the
Board has to consider what the general manager is asked to do and
what his role is . K. Duffy noted that Option 8 is looking at
commitment from the Board of Directors and not the general
manager.
D. Hansen noted that Board members have done a lot of speaking
engagements in the past . There was agreement by Board members to
increase their speaking to build support for additional revenues
and the District in general , with back-up support by the staff
and realistic in amount of time. N. Hanko added that Directors
must speak as a single voice regarding what the District supports
and needs in the way of taxing measures .
The Board agreed to examine who on staff has responsibility for
different Political liaison activities and possibly opening up
avenues for additional support in Political areas .
The meeting recessed for lunch at 12: 00 and reconvened at 12 : 48 P.M.
2 . BASIC POLICY OBJECTIVE:
The District will work with and encourage Private and other public
agencies to preserve, maintain, and enhance open space.
H. Grench noted that this Policy overlapped with other programs . He
said that the Board and staff need to consider the benefits to the
District as weighed against staff time and costs .
H. Grencb reviewed some cooperative projects which have been
accomplished with non-profit agencies, as well as cities, counties ,
and the state . He noted that available staff time is a limiting
Meeting 91-16 Page 8
factor for many projects , and that* the opinion of District staff is
frequently sought by other agencies .
DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS
Option 1
Allocate more Board and staff time to enhance contacts with public and
non-profit agencies.
Option 2
Enter into cooperative management agreements to gain more efficient
use of staff .
gRtion 3
Enhance joint planning for adjacent preserves and parks .
Option 4
Foster more planning on a regional scale among the District and park
agencies .
N. Hanko suggested encouraging joint projects with cities and counties
for acquisition and development of sites. C. Britton noted that
cooperative management agreements between agencies are becoming more
prevalent. T. Henshaw suggested including environmental groups and
organizations in joint projects .
R. McKibbin said that the general plans of cities are generally
development-heavy, and that staff time needs to be spent to give input
into cities ' general plans. H. Grench said that a great deal of
attention should not be given to projects that do not have a direct
impact on the District.
N. Hanko suggested that Board members could be more directly involved
in projects in their particular wards .
G. Ball noted that the major issue for Options 1 , 2 , and 3 appeared to.
be the availability of staff time, and that the Board had indicated a
desire to maintain contacts with other agencies and to build new
directions . K. Duffy said that she envisions the District operating
in a legislative influencing role, and that the District needs to
monitor projects while not necessarily participating.
Discussion centered on the level of activity desired . T. Henshaw
stated that the District needs to be more proactive rather than
reactive . K. Duffy noted that many agencies and cities seek the
District ' s advice and input . J. Escobar noted that staff is sometimes
required to react on short notice, and that better relationships need
to be formed concerning short-term projects .
G. Ball summed up the discussion by stating that the Board had
indicated a desire to work more closely with cities, counties , and
agencies , and that a mechanism is needed to build good working
relationships and maintain sufficient contacts .
The Board voted to Place Options 2-1 , 2, 3 , and 4 in the important
category in the mid-now range.
' Meeting 91-16
Page 9
3 . BASIC POLICY OBJECTIVE:
The District will follow a land management Policy that provides proper
care of open space land, allowing public access appropriate to the
nature of the land and consistent with ecological values.
D. Hansen stated that District lands are becoming increasingly Popular
and that many site improvement grant programs need to be completed.
He said that staff was concerned with protecting sites while
continuing to serve the public, and that safety and liability factors
need to be considered. He said that other Problems included overuse
Of some sites, the importance of monitoring trail use, and the need
for better signing.
J. Escobar noted that some preserves are nearing too high a use level,
and that the District needs to consider long term preservation . He
suggested the Possibility of limiting the number of permitted
activities on the preserves. He reported that 84 injury accidents had
occurred since January 1989, mostly bicycle accidents . He said that
the critical issue was how much the District was willing to spend to
manage the preserves .
Discussion centered on what makes particular sites most Popular. J.
Escobar said that the most heavily used preserves were close to urban
areas, i .e. , Rancho San Antonio, Fremont Older, and St . Joseph ' s Hill
Open Space Preserves , which account for nearly 80% Of visitor use. C.
Britton noted that close-in properties are the most expensive to
acquire.
E. Shelley stated that there may be a risk of not buying the maximum
amount of open space land, and that the preserves were not intended to
be substitutes for county parks . Trevor Burrowes , 1920 Cooley Avenue,
#2, East Palo Alto, said that acquisition of open space land near the
bay was needed in his community, and that acquisition of these close-
in lands would help people to acquire respect for open space and help----
to alleviate pressure on more distant preserves .
G. Ball suggested discussing options in the following groupins :
Options 3-1 , 2, and 13; Options 3-5, 6 , 7 , 8 , and 11 ; and Optigons 3-3 ,
4 , and 9 .
DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS
Option 1
Identify those critical factors , immediate and long term, that need to
be addressed for proper stewardship of District lands .
Option 2
Develop and implement an open space management organizational
structure and staffing plan to meet the District ' s needs in the
nineties .
Option 13
Review existing management Policies to evaluate site use restrictions
or closures, including landbanking, as potential methods to reduce or
limit impacts to resource, funding, and management needs .
Meeting 91-16
Page 10
Discussion centered on the definition of "proper stewardship. " Dennis
Danielson, Route 2, Box 317, La Honda , noted that the District ' s
enabling legislation requires adequate Police and fire Hanko stated that staff should be protection. N.
provided with the proer
accomplish necessary tasks. D. Hansen said that he belipevedtools thatto the
District generally provides proper stewardship, was
inadequate patrol in some areas and some resourcealthough degradationthere caused
by overuse .
E. Shelley stated that the question to be decided was whether or not
the District wanted to encourage more public use of the preserves . R.
McKibbin suggested that Planning should be the first step, followed by
management of the land.
Discussion centered on the underlying issues of stewardship: usage
control , public safety, staffing needs , growth in usage, and acreage,
and how to maintain the quality of stewardship as acreage and use
increase. H. Grench suggested that the Board rate the of stewardship. Using a scale of A, B, C, D present level
, and F, the majority of
the Board rated District stewardship at a C level ( or .
Bishop said that he felt this rating was acceptableor inC+view ofB-)theR.
District ' s acquisition Policy, and that a higher level of stewardship
would be at the expense of acquisition.
T. Henshaw stated that she considered that field staff had a strong
commitment to land stewardship, and that rangers and open space
technicians often felt stretched too thin. R. McKibbin said that the
office staff was also spread too thin, particularly planning staff .
Discussion centered on consideration of closures of some open space
areas (Option 13) . D. Hansen noted that the District 's unwritten
Policy is to keep all lands open to the public. J. Escobar stated
that staff had never viewed closing an area as a realistic
Possibility. R. McKibbin noted that the Conservation Management Unit
(CMU) designation was useful , and that staff could request the Board ' s
permission to close an area .
The Board voted to Place Option 3-1 (examine level of stewardship
care of land) at a mid-four level and in the now. ran ge .
The Board voted to place Option 3-2 (open space management
organi—'ational structure and staffing) at a high-four level and in the
mid-now range .
Option No. 5
Develop a—volunteer foot, equestrian, and bicycle patrol program to
provide a greater presence on District land and assess costs and
benefits of staff bicycle or equestrian patrol .
Option 6
Evaluate and utilize existing local volunteer organizations to
complement, enhance, and structure the District ' s programs .
Meeting 91-16
Page 11
Option 7
Utilize the docent Program to present a greater variety of
interpretive activities and educational opportunities to a broader
cross-section of the District 's constituency (e.g. , Junior Rangers,
Whole Access activities , other youth programs) .
Option 8
Support increased volunteer activities with the staffing necessary to
organize and manage the activities .
Option 11
Explore alternative methods and funding to provide for site
maintenance needs. Consider an Ado pt-A-Trail or other similar
programs to encourage citizen and corporate involvement .
J. Fiddes noted that volunteers require a significant amount of staff
support . G. Babbitt suggested that a staff bicycle patrol be
considered before a volunteer bicycle Patrol , and B . Crowder
concurred. Tom Karnofel , 13640 Burke Road, Los Altos Hills , said that
he was concerned with liability problems inherent in volunteer
patrols . H. Grench clarified that the volunteer patrols were intended
to act as eyes and ears only, with no enforcement Powers . E. Shelley
stated that he felt it was most important that volunteer patrols
represent user groups, thus Providing peer enforcement.
The Board voted to place Options 3-5 , 6, 7 , and 11 in the two category
and in the low-now range.
Option 10
Develop and implement a comprehensive risk management program that
includes continuing training for planning and field staff on
identification and mitigation of liability problems .
Option 12
Implement a maintenance management plan for District preserves .
Discussion centered on the importance Of allocating staff
time to
development and implementation of comprehensive risk management ,
The Board voted to Place Option 3-10 in the four category and in the
mid-now range.
The Board concurred that no discussion Of Option 12 was necessary, as
it involved an internal matter to be handled by staff.
Option 3
Develop comprehensive resource restoration plans , following adoption
Of resource management Policies , seeking funding to help prepare and
implement the plans .
Option 4
Adopt and implement Trail Use Guidelines regarding physical trail
standards , designation of trail uses, safe use of trails , signing,
public education, etc.
i
Meeting 91-16 Page 12
D. Hansen said that while critical issues regarding resource
management were addressed in use and management plans, an overall
resource management policy was needed.
H. Grench noted that Option 3 could be divided into two parts : 1)
adopting resource management policies , and 2) developing
implementation plans .
D. Hansen noted that the resource management policies were currently
in draft form. C. Britton stated that the resource management plan
would probably be ready for presentation to the Board in September,
1991 .
The Board voted to lace O tion 3-3 in the two sate o
- p �' a rY and in the
-September or low-now w a range.
The Board concurred that implementation of trail use guidelines
4
(Option P ) was already being addressed, and that the present schedule
was acceptable.
Option 9
Increase efforts
to utilize adjacent
� nt state, count and
Y city parks
staff to aid in District site manag
ement
g nt through reciprocal management
agreements and planning studies .
T. Henshaw said that this option tied in with Options -s 2 P 1 , 2, 3, and 4
that had previously been addressed and placed in the
important, mid-
now range. Discussion centered on the staffing implications of
implementing this option.
The Board recessed for a break at 2: 50 P.M. and reconvened at 3 : 00 P.M.
4 . BASIC POLICY OBJECTIVE
The District will educate and make clearly
visible vis '
to the public the
purposes and actions of the District, and will
activ
ely encourage
public communication
s an
d in
volvement olv eme nt in Dist
rict activities.
H. Grench presented an overview of the program, noting that there are
Possibilities for expansion . He said that the key issue to be
considered was implementing a strong marketing program to publicize
the District ' s
concept of open
n space
e as we
ll
11 as the facilities theDistract awns an
d ma
intains .
intalns . He said this marketing program should
involve public outreach as well as public communications .
He recommended grouping the options for discussion as follows :
Options 4-1 , 7 , 8 , 10; Options 4-3, 6 , 9; and Option 4-4 .
DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS
Option 1
Establish a program to garner the public support needed if a funding
measure is to be approved by the voters .
Meeting 91-16 Page 13
Option 7
Increase public outreach efforts and resources to secure support of
local citizens and Politicians through editorial and news articles
explaining the District ' s Position on local events .
Option 8
Position the District as a model of land preservation nationally
through placement of District-written articles in national
publications , including professional magazines of American Society of
Landscape Architects , American Institute of Planners , Califrnia Parks
and Recreation Society, National Recreation and Parks Association ,
etc.
Option 10
Actively involve the District in Open Space America and regional open
space efforts .
N. Hanko said that she felt that the Public Communications section of
the Basic Policy was not being realized at this Point, and that not
enough information is being disseminated to the public.
R. McKibbin stated that new goals and directions need to be
established for the Public Communications program, with adequate
staffing to implement these goals . H. Grench asked if the Board
wanted to get into a more comprehensive program or simply Put a
different emphasis on various components of the program. N. Hanko said
that she felt the entire Board should be involved in establishing an
outreach program and better public communications . She said that she
felt this was a top priority for consideration, and that a meeting
should be scheduled to discuss what needs to be done. Discussion
centered on the desirability of forming a Board committee to help plan
the District ' s 20th Anniversary in 1992. She said that another issue
that needed to be raised was promoting a funding measure.
K. Duffy noted that the Publications Program has been upgraded, and
that the 1990 International Open Space Conference had fully engaged
Public Communications staff for nearly a year. She said that everyday
contacts and public education needed to be addressed.
Ernie Ramires , 525 East Meadow Drive, Palo Alto, commented on the
inaccessibility of some District lands to the public.
Discussion centered on the need for a public survey
whether a funding measure might pass . to determine
G. Ball redefined Option 4-1 as the need to conduct a public survey to
determine public support for a funding measure.
The Board voted to Place Option .4-1 in the. critically important
category and the immediate-now range.
G. Ball stated the Board ' s consensus that agreement on Option 2 was of
paramount importance, and suggested that the Board address this option
first . R . McKibbin noted that Option 2 covered most of the other
options, and the Board concurred.
Meeting 91-16 Page 14
DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS
Option 2
Establish a comprehensive public outreach program, including increased
public information about the benefits of open space protection, the
District ' s accomplishments, and need for
con
tinued
ed support .
Option 3
Publicize need for sensitivity to preserve the ecological values ,
animal and plant life on P District
preserves .erve s .
Option 5
Increase specific public outreach and awareness programs to protect
Distr
ict preserv
es es from threats of adjacent development .
Option 6
Publicize a public youth environmental education and participation
program that will concentrate on involving organizations such as the
Environmental Volunteers , Boy Scouts , and Audubon Society, and
teachers at the
elem
entary school high schoo
l , and college levels .
Option 9
Focus publicity and special events on those sites where more use can
be readily accommodated .
Op t '�.on 11
Examine possibility of special publication to increase public
awareness
and support.
Option 12
Develop multi-cultural programs and publications .
H. Grench said that a full public outreach program would have staffing
implications , which might involve staff reassignments . T. Henshaw
said that she favored a more comprehensive Public Communications
program, which would put more emphasis on public outreach, education,
and distributing publications to a larger audience.
J. Fiddes stated that a more comprehensive public outreach program
might include the docent and volunteer programs . N. Hanko noted that
the docent-led hikes and walks were very Y po pular with the public_, and
that additional staff might be considered in order to give more
support to the docent coordinator.
Discussion centered on the necessity to upgrade site signing and
preserve maps .
G. Babbitt noted that field staff also had a great deal of public
contact and should be requested to provide feedback. J. Escobar
concurred that field staff provided a major portion of public
outreach.
K. Duffy said that a primary focus of the District should be to reach
members of the public who are not already friends and allies .
Meeting 91-16 Page 15
The Board voted to place Option 4-2 in the critically -important
category and in the mid-now range .
Option 4
Commit additional time of general manager, Board, and staff to
political liaison at local , state, and federal levels .
R. McKibbin stated that he would like to see the Board more involved
in developing a strategic legislative plan. T. Henshaw stated that
the Board needs to be more involved with state legislators at the
local level , and suggested meeting with legislators early next year to
discuss various projects and funding sources . She recommended that
the District ' s Legislative Consultant Ralph Heim be asked to advise
Board members on working with legislators .
Discussion centered on planning for the District ' s 20th Anniversary.
N. Hanko stated that she would like Board involvement in the planning.
H. Grench noted that the Public Communications Coordinator had drafted
a list of possible 20th Anniversary activities . N. Hanko said that it
was important for the Board to see the list soon in order to begin
planning.
The Board voted to place Option 4-4 in the very important (3) category
and in the low-now and high in the one to two Year range .
5. BASIC POLICY OBJECTIVE
The staff will administer the affairs of the District in' behalf of the
public so as to maximize accomplishment of the goals of the District
within existing financial constraints.
J. Fiddes introduced the General Management and Program Support
section, stating that staffing needs must be evaluated, particularly
in terms of direction to the general manager . H. Grench said that he
will return to the Board with recommendations on staffing, depending
an priorities .
She said the recommended actions involve enhanced support to District
staff and support required by the Board . She said there needed to be
a decision by the Board in terms of the general manager ' s
fun
ctions ,ons ,
including being the District ' s primary political liaison.
DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS
Option 1
Reorganize , and augment if necessary, District staff to meet Strategic
Ili Plan goals .
Option 2
Set into motion a plan to augment current District funding.
Option 3
Increase Board involvement in potential liaison with federal , state ,
and local officials .
I
i
Meeting 91-16 Page 16
Option 4
Establish a comprehensive staff development and training program.
Option 5
Involve the District via Board members and staff in regional planning
underway for
P
the mid en 'insula area.
H. Grench stated that he will return to the Board with staffing
recommendations depending on priorities set b the P y Board.
G. Ball stated the Board 's concurrence that Option 3 had been
discussed in the previous section.
J. Fiddes noted that Option 4 was an internal staff matter.
Discussion centered on the desirability of allocating more of the
General Manager ' s time to political liaison and the possible creation
of an Assistant General Manager position. G. Ball stated the Board ' s
concurrence to r ��replace the word "Board" with "general manager in
Option
ion p 3
The Board voted to place Option 5-1 in the critically important
category and in the mid-now range.
The Board voted to place Option 5-3 in the very important category and
in the mid-now range.
T. Henshaw requested President Hanko invite G. Ball to return at an
appropriate time to help the Board prioritize items discussed at the
current workshop. N. Hanko asked staff to review the option
priorities set by the Board and return with the components and
ramifications of implementing them, including timing, staffing,
funding, and change of present actions . H. Grench stated that staff
could return to the Board in August with the information requested to
continue the strategic plan formulation process .
Motion: N. Hanko moved that Geoff Ball be engaged to return as
facilitator of the workshop to set priorities . B. Crowder
seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 to 2 on the
following vote:
Yes : N. Hanko, B. Crowder, R. Bishop, G. Babbitt, and T. Henshaw.
No: R . McKibbin and K. Duffy.
The meeting adjourned at 4 :03 P.M.
Recording Secretaries
Joan Combs
Emma Johnson