HomeMy Public PortalAbout19940122 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Open Space
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Meeting 94-02
SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
January 22, 1994
MINUTES
ROLL CALL
President Ginny Babbitt called the meeting to order at 8:40 A.M.
Members Present: Ginny Babbitt, Betsy Crowder, Nonette Hanko, Robert McKibbin, Pete
Siemens, and Wim de Wit. Teena Henshaw arrived at 9:35 A.M.
Personnel Present: Craig Britton, Jean Fiddes, John Escobar, Randy Anderson, and
Malcolm Smith. Geoff Ball of Geoff Ball & Associates facilitated the special workshop
meeting.
BOARD BUSINESS - Workshop on the District's Goals and Objectives j
G. Ball reviewed the proposed agenda for the meeting, the facilitator's role, ground rules,
levels of consensus, and desired outcome from the workshop. He noted that the discussion
would first focus on the items listed in section two of the January 12, 1994 memorandum to
the Board, followed by items in section three.
The desired outcomes for the workshop were: 1) providing specific guidance to staff on
policy issues, including topics where direction not clear (section two); proposed staff actions
(section three); other areas where most Board members in agreement (section one); and
process to develop guidelines; 2) identifying items that the Board wants brought back for
formal Board action; 3) clarifying the meaning of language in the survey questions; and 4)
reaching consensus.
The process by which the District sets its annual priorities is clear - C. Britton reviewed the
overall annual planning and implementation cycle chart for the planning program to explain
how annual priorities are now set. Discussion centered on the need for Board members to
understand acquisition priorities; how input is received from the public, as well as members
of the staff; the need to show where and when members of the public and the staff are
providing input on various plans; better utilization of the agenda notices to announce use and
management plans; and the desire to review Board adopted notification policies for use and
management plans. The conclusions for this item were: 1) create a generic chart showing
who is inputting at what stages of process (not asking for details on each project); 2)
inclusion, outreach and notification of affected people is important to the Board; 3) revisit
the notification process - place on a future agenda; 4) process is solid and in general works
well; some fine-tuning or understanding may be needed; and 5) continue use of workshops
to get Board and public input.
I
330 Distel Circle - Los Altr "aliforni i 9402 2-1 404 * Phone: 415 6)1 70 « FAX: 415-691-0485 e
Board of I)iret tors:Fete Sierra Ebert M(Ki6bm ieena f fen,Ii.m Ginny Babbitt,Nonett o,Betw Browder,Wim de Wit
Meeting 94-02 Page 2
The short-term goals and objective, of the District are clear - G. Babbitt said that she fell
this statement was tied to the statement in section three "the District should substantially
complete the greenbelt by acquiring an estimated additional 15,000 acres within the next 8 -
10 years, to bring the District's open space holding, to 10,000 acres". G. Ball noted that
this statement would be discussed later in the meeting. Discussion focused on the need to
revise the Strategic Plan for the Nineties to make it more of a strategic plan showing how
district's goals will be accomplished and including financial forecasting; the need to come to
agreement on the definition of short-term and long-term goals. N. Hanko noted that the
Administration and Budget Committee might be charged with working on revisions in the
strategic plan. The conclusions for this item were: 1) define short-term as approximately
five years; 2) revise short-term goals in context of revisions of the Strategic Plan for the
Nineties after the hiring of the new general manager; link into potential Administration and
Budget Committee assignment; 3) definition of short-term goals and objectives in terms of
one year (Action Plan); five years (site emphasis, capital improvement plan, acquisition
priorities, strategic plan); and ten years (Basic Policy); and 4) there may be short-term goals
and objectives with which the Board does not agree.
Even if grant funds are not available, the District should develop one new staging area
approximately every two years. The elements of this statement were discussed and included
the need to show explicitly what the District has done in developing staging areas; increased
emphasis for staging areas; public access and use is desired by the Board and needed for
public support; showing built, planned, and desired staging areas on an overlay map; and
developing a plan for prioritization of areas. Issues and concerns discussed included the two
year figure being too arbitrary, the need to respond to where the public wants to go, being in
a proactive mode in terms of developing staging areas as opposed to a reactive mode of
developing a staging area when cars are parked all over the land, and the ineffectiveness of a
time formula to govern development of staging areas. Discussion focused on going ahead
with the development of staging areas in the absence of grant funds, the development of
staging areas and internal improvements being a high Board priority, and tradeoffs potentially
having to be made on other planning activities in order to develop staging areas. It was
noted that high priority acquisition sites are mostly related to access. A big "picture" is
needed to show the full Board the intricacies in the budget in terms of how site
improvements, management and operations, and acquisition all fit together.
The Board concurred with G. Ball's statement capturing the major points of the discussion.
The statement read "The District is to hold as a high priority the creation of staging areas
and internal improvements in support of increased public access. The intent is to review
built, planned, and desired improvements and to develop a plan for prioritization of sites
(including acquisition) and allocation of funds to these improvements within desired time
lines and to address operations costs and acquisition tradeoffs." The words "even if grant
funds are not available" were deleted as the opening clause to the first sentence.
It was suggested that "public promotion" could substitute for the words "public access". The
site emphasis plan, use and management plans, action plan, and budget were mentioned as
vehicles to reflect the Board's intent regarding public access. The Board agreed that it
wishes to retain the planning/allocation systems that have been built up over the last six years
with some fine-tuning as necessary.
The Board recessed for a break at 10:30 A.M. and reconvened for the workshop at
10:50 A.M.
Meeting 94-02 Page 3
The statements The District should increase its expenditures to improve public access while
only acquiring high priority properties and The District should continue to acquire lands
adjacent to existing preserves when the opportunity exists even if property has not been
identifies as a high priority were considered together. Discussion centered around District
funding and the need to balance site improvement, acquisition, and management-operations-
operating expenses in allocating District dollars.
Public Access
Site Improvement Acquisition
*Buy as opportunity arises
*Hold in reserve
Allocation $
Management/Operations/Operating Expenses
*Increases as acquire more land and
as improve it
R. McKibbin noted that the statements were too black and white, and N. Hanko noted that in
the first statement the words "as established by the Board" should be added after "high
priority properties". T. Henshaw noted that because of District's funding situations, alternate
means of securing land (such as options, easements, joint projects) need to be pursued.
The Board discussed the types of information important to them in setting priorities on
individual projects while balancing sometimes competing goals. To support each Board
members thinking about individual properties, the following types of information was felt
necessary: impact on finances in each case; long-term projections of finances; clear picture
regarding options and how options in place will work in the future in terms of the District's
financial situation; cumulative cost of options; impact on operations and management,
including staffing and increases in costs; list of criteria used to evaluate the property - what
makes it desirable; and long-term projections on trail system and collaboration with
surrounding agencies, as appropriate.
Board members indicated that they needed this type of information when considering future
acquisitions.
At 11:30 A.M., G. Ball stated that the Board should focus on section 3 - areas of overall
Board agreement or disagreement and discuss management team's recommendation on how
each item should be handle.
The District needs a mission statement that includes a definition of the greenbelt. There was
consensus that the resource management mission statement should be used as a starting point
for a District mission statement. Staff, including the new general manager, and the
Meeting 94-02 Page 4
committee working on resource management policies should work on this mission statement
project prior to submitting to full Board for consideration.
The Basic Policies of the District should be reviewed. There was Board consensus that the
Basic Policy should be reviewed. An August-November timeframe was agreed upon for
reviewing the Basic Policy.
The District should substantially complete the greenbelt by acquiring an estimated additional
15,000 acres within the next 8-10 years, to bring the District's open space holdings to 50,000
acres. Discussion centered on the need to define "greenbelt" and what completion of the
greenbelt meant, talking about the greenbelt in terms of long-term and short-term goals rather
than specific numbers of acres, estimated costs to complete the greenbelt and how much
money the District would need to raise over a period of years to complete the greenbelt, and
addressing the greenbelt in the mission statement. There was Board consensus that the
greenbelt should be addressed in the mission statement, that the greenbelt should not be
defined in terms of a number of acres and a timeline, and that another workshop should be
considered to discuss the greenbelt in terms of the "big picture", including financial
implications regarding maintenance and operations and capital improvements.
Due to the hour, the Board discussed how items not discussed in the workshop should be
handled. It was recommended that statements 14) The District needs to provide a wider
variety of recreational opportunities than is currently provided, i.e. pack-in camp, picnic
areas, etc,, 15) the District should develop facilities for use by the general public like
uestrian enters additional interpretive/nature retive/nature stud centers hikers huts youth hostels
� c � rP y •
etc., and 16) the District should continue to be responsible for improvement and
management of historic sites and buildings and their proposed recommendations be
considered at the February 9 meeting.
Disposition of the additional six statements in section three should also be considered by the
Board at the February 9 meeting, in addition to reviewing the results of the workshop and a
summary of action. The Board requested that staff present in the same report the remainder
of items to be addressed, a proposed timeline and workplan that prioritizes what needs to be
done.
The Board agreed that C. Britton and G. Babbitt could adjust the date this follow-up report
would be presented to the Board.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12:07 P.M.
Jean H. Fiddes
District Clerk