Loading...
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