HomeMy Public PortalAbout19910530 - Agendas Packet - Board of Directors (BOD) - 91-15 Open Space
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Meeting 91-15
WORKSHOP
SPECIAL MEETING
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
A G E N D A
7 :30 P.M. 201 San Antonio Circle
Thursday Building C - Suite 135
May 30 , 1991 Mountain View, Calif .
(7 :30) ROLL CALL
1 . Graphic Design Workshop for Development of a Logo
for District Patches , Decals , and Signs
ADJOURNMENT
201 San Antonio Circle,Suite C-1 35 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,Ginny Babbitt,Nonette Hanko,Betsy Crowder,Richard Bishop
Open apace
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
R-91-61
(Meeting 91-15
May 30 , 1991)
REPORT
May 23, 1991
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench, General Manager
RESPONSIBILITY AND PREPARATION: M. Hale, Public Communications
Coordinator
SUBJECT: Graphic Design Workshop for Development of a Logo for District
Patches , Decals, and Signs
Recommended Action:
1 . Approve one or more of the designs on pages X-3 and X-4 to develop
into color samples (Plan A) .
2. If the above action is not taken, approve development of a new design,
according to the criteria set forth in Plan B (pages X-10 through X-
13) .
Discussion: At your May 23 , 1990 meeting, you requested staff to return
with a recommendation for a process to continue the coordinated design
program to include the multiple-color version for use on patches , entrance
signs, and decals for District vehicles .
The logo revision process began more than four years ago at the request of
field staff , a number of whom felt that the original design was mistakenly
interpreted by some members of the public as a marijuana leaf , and
therefore, derided field staff and compromised the rangers ' position as
peace officers . They wanted a symbol to reflect their pride in working for
and representing the District before the public.
At the same time, Public Communications was beginning to revise the
District' s printed materials into a coordinated format and design. The two
projects were merged for reasons of efficiency in management and finances .
The District' s leaf logo was also determined to present reproduction
problems that affected quality because of its inherent technical
limitations . Also, informal surveys indicated at that time that the symbol
did not represent the concept of open space . It was most often perceived
as a Native Americ
an symbol , having no relationship to the District,
R-91-61 Page 2
The design and color samples of signs, patches , and decals presented at
your May 23 , 1990 meeting had been developed and refined over a four-year
period, with staff reviews at every stage. Four different designers were
involved in this project, each serving in succession as it became more
difficult for any designer to resolve conflicting opinions so that a single
design would be acceptable to everyone. The unusual shape of the design
presented to you in May 1990 was the result of the request by field staff
for an outline that would make their shoulder patches stand out , so that
they could be more easily identified as District emblems . At this stage ,
consultants Deborah Mills and Leif Trygg were hired to use the design that
had been approved by staff and to develop production samples for Board
review. The Board' s response to the shape was inconsistent with staff
response, and the Board requested staff to return with recommendations for
a process to facilitate completion of a graphic design program for District
vehicle decals , signs , and shoulder patches .
During your December 12 , 1990 meeting, staff presented a five-point plan to
complete the District ' s coordinated design program for patches , signs , and
vehicle decals. At that meeting, you requested that staff input be
inserted between steps 4 and 5. Following are steps 1 - 5:
Step 1 : Staff will present design concept specifications for Board
approval to be sure that there is Board consensus as to its
objectives for logo development and to approve the procedure
by which design concepts will be solicited.
Step 2 : A request for design concept proposals (RFP) will be
prepared, based on Board-approved specifications .
Step 3 : Statf will review all design concept proposals to ascertain
that they meet the specifications .
Step 4 : Those design concept proposals meeting the --pecifications
will be presented to the Board to determine which design
should be approved for further development.
Seek staff input. (added during December 12, 1990 meeting) .
Step 5: Staff will negotiate a contract with the designer whose
concept is approved by the Board. The contract will be
submitted for Board approval before implementation begins .
Attached on pages X-3 and X-4 are a number of designs which were presented
to you informally several weeks ago to determine your response . These same
designs were then presented in the same manner to the office staff , to the
field staff , and to some members of the public. The purpose of this survey
was to determine the extent to which there was unanimity on any of these
designs . Staff was also interested to see whether there were any
preferences linked to whether the respondent was a Board member, office
staff , field staff , or member of the public .
Results of the survey are also attached, and further information about the
survey will be presented to you during the meeting by consultant Deborah
Mills , owner of Design Concepts , who is working with the Public
Communications Coordinator on this project . Ms . Mills prepared the logo
R-91-61 Page 3
survey and tabulated the results for your review.
Survey results suggest that some of the attached designs (numbers 2 , 10,
and 12 on pages X-5, X-6 , and X-7) are worth developing to see whether one
or more of them could be used for field staff patches , truck decals , and
preserve signs.
Because of the acceptance of the new printed materials bearing the new
design, and because of several awards these materials have received, staff
would like to be able to base the patch, decal , and preserve signs on this
design (Plan A) , before spending any money toward developing something
completely different. There is a substantial financial investment in
preserving the existing design as currently used on our printed materials .
However, if there is no consensus among Board members reviewing the designs
on page X-3 and X-4 , then staff would take the steps outlined for Plan B on
page X-10 for the design selection workshop.
Based on experience with reviewing many previous designs , the subjectivity
of a project like this can mean the expenditure of undetermined, but
potentially large, amounts of staff time, consultant time , and money, with
results that still may not be what the Board desires . The design presented
to you in May 1990 was the result of more than four years of reviewing
hundreds of designs , sampling surveys among staff , considerable revisions ,
and refinements . The preparation of color samples presented to you on May
23, 1990 , was an attempt to simulate as closely as possible what the final
patches , decals , and signs would look like.
A majority of staff , including field staff , liked the design presented to
you on May 23 , 1990 , and some field staff have expressed interest in using
that design as a basis for exploring new options . You have indicated your
preference that staff be involved in the selection process for any new
design that might be proposed. Herein lies the difficulty. We need to
determine the audience for this visual image . Previous attempts to
determine a design were based on staff input, particularly field staff , who
would be wearing the symbol on their uniforms .
A visual symbol should be designed for the public . It should be a symbol
that will be useful for 50 years or more. While it is ideal to have
internal agreement on a design, it is more important whether the design
works : how easy it is for the public to associate the symbol with the
District; how easy it will be for the public to remember the symbol as it
is used on District signs , patches , trucks , and literature .
Above all , however, there are the technical requirements needed for the
design to work as a field patch, decal , and sign emblem, as well as on
printed items , if a completely new design is preferred.
The attached pages are provided as reference information which will be
helpful prior to your discussion on May 30 .
Attachment A is a proposed discussion format for the workshop.
R-91-61 Page 4
Summary
The proposed decision before you is to select either Plan A or Plan B.
Plan A provides eighteen designs , of which three are determined to be the
most popular among the surveyed group. If the Board approves one or more
of these designs on May 30, staff will proceed to have the selected designs
prepared into color samples , matching as closely as possible actual field
patches , decals , and a preserve sign, as was prepared for your May 23, 1990
meeting.
Plan B is suggested as the process to follow if there is no Board consensus
on any of the designs shown on pages X-3 and X-4 . Plan B would involve a
lengthy process detailed on pages X-10 through X-13 . Essentially, the
Board' s approval for staff to proceed with Plan B is to approve the
development of a completely new design, not using current printed materials
as a basis for the new design, but a totally new approach, not only for the
field staff patches , decals , and signs, but also for all the District ' s
printed materials . Plan B would, therefore, be far more costly as well as
require considerably more time to prepare new designs for Board approval .
Open Space
Attachment A MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
Proposed Discussion Format
Graphic Design Workshop
May 30, _1991�,
1 . Review 18 sample designs and responses from Board, staff and public.
2. Review 3 top choices and their adaptability to shoulder patch, truck
decal, and preserve entrance signs .
3. Choose design for preparation of samples for approval by Board and
staff .
4. If further development of one or more designs is approved, the
development process will include the following:
A. Determination of specifications .
B. Preparation of multiple color comps for selected designs .
C. Development of patch, truck decal and sign samples in actual
size.
D. Scheduling of Board meeting for discussion of design samples .
E. Final approval of selected design and estimated costs for
implementation.
If no decision is reached by the Board at this May 30 , 1991 meeting, go to
Plan B:
1. Review and approve designer selection process .
2. Discuss financial ramifications , including number of designers to be
invited to submit designs .
3. Schedule tentative date for blind competition.
proposed sample mailing to designers
PF
we need a new logo
Deborah G.Mills Date: Jul 1, 1991
Design Concepts y
1968 Menalto Avenue
Menlo Park,Ca. T The Designer (letter will be personally addressed)
7 7
415 -321 - 7 3 o: g p y
I am inquiring in your interest level in a logo competition for one of my
clients, an environmental agency. The first stage of this competition
would be for you to submit a few samples of your past work in logo design
(returnable upon request).
If the client feels there is a possible match in terms of design styles, you
would be given a packet of current logo applications and asked to design a
rough comp incorporating the current logo into a format which would
work on the three uses that are not working, those being the trucks, arm
patches and site signs. In addition, if you wish, you can submit a new
concept based on what you see as a better logo to identity the agency.
The time requested for the rough camp is 4-6 hours and you would be
paid $550.00.
Of those submitted, 3 designers would be chosen to develop their idea to
a more final stage. If you are selected, you would be paid an additional
$800.00 for this work, again only asking for 4-6 hours of your time.
You would also be asked to submit a bid for final production and usage of
the logo at this stage. If your design is accepted, you will be paid your bid
price for the job.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. If not, and you find
this a challenge you would enjoy, please return the enclosed Reply Card
with two or three of your favorite logo designs and you will hear from us by
July 20, 1991.
Thank you for considering this request.
Deborah G. Mills
X-13
logo selection process
in order to address the concerns of the Board concerning the current design, we
are implementing the following steps in an attempt to develop a logo which will
meet all the necessary applications for printed materials, site signs, decals, and
arm patches for field staff.
Deborah G.Mills
Design Concepts
1968 Menalto Avenue Because the current design is working well on the printed materials, has won
Menlo Park,Ca.94025 professional awards, and has become recognized as the District's graphic identity,
41 5 -321 - 7773 P g g P tY�
we will first try to adapt this to the unresolved applications of the site signs, decals,
and patches. This is Plan A, in which we hope to have your approval on one of
the designs on pages X-3 or X-4 to be developed into variations using the shape
approved, and into color samples for your approval. If this is not possible, we will
develop a totally new logo for MROSD, Plan B (pages X-10 through X-13).
Our goal is to please the Board of Directors and the staff , but some compro-
mises will have to be made because not everyone will be totally happy with the
final decision.
PLAN A
1. Review applications of the current design in various shapes.
2. Review the statistics of the research we completed, including the responses by
the Board, field and office staff, docents, and the public.
3. Select one or more designs for further development and into color samples.
4. Board approval will be necessary for final selection of shape, design and color.
PLAN B
1 . Review steps to the Logo Selection Board Workshop.
2. Review process for involving designers in our logo design.
3. Review sample packet to designers. The steps for the Request For Proposal
(RFP) as outlined in the December 12, 1990 Board meeting will be
discussed.
4. Review blind judging process.
5. Review parameters of our logo application.
6. Review financial considerations for the Plan B process.
X-1
PLAN A
new shapes usin current design
P 9 g
Because the main objection to the patch, sign, and truck decal presented to the
Board on May 23, 1990, seemed to be the shape that was used, we decided to do
some research to find out if another shape would be more acceptable. We produced
a small book of 18 logo designs using a number of different shapes and styles and
polled Board members, office staff and field staff, docents, and the public. There was
a consensus on three shapes. Strong likes and dislikes of the other designs were
expressed. It seems that in fact, opinion is what we are dealing with.
The three strongest logo choices are indicated on pages X-5, X-b, and X7, with the
percent of popularity each received. If you would like to see one of the 18 designs, or
more than one developed further, that will be our next step. First, we will do variations
of the shape with input received from Board, staff and public. We will do color comps
for the patch, sign and truck decal and see if a consensus can be reached. Based on
the research we have done to date, there will not be any design that will get total
approval by all concerned. The decision at this point seems to be whose approval of
the logo-use applications is felt to be the most important to the Board.
If Plan A is not the option you prefer, we will present this project to the design
community as described under Plan B. The outline for this process is described, with
the financial considerations, on pages X-10 through X-13.
X-2
designs included in survey
N SP
9 Open Space
Open Space LMIDPENINSULAREGI
NAL OPEN OSPACE MROSD
DISTRICT
1-48% 2-85% 3-39 /o o
Q�N SP"�C, 'S SPj
O rn Oe O�
Open Space MROSD MROSD
4-30% 5-42% 6-58%
Open Space
nMROSD F01
MROSD OPEN SPACE SPACE
7-18% 8-59% 9-41 %
X-3
designs included in survey
Q�N S P�C� Open Space
O �
MIDPENINSULA MROSD MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL REGIONAL
OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
DISTRICT
N'V
10-79% 11-30% 12-80%
Q�N S P`9 DREGIONAL
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL MIDPENINSULA OPEN SPACE DISTRICT REGIONAL
OPEN SPACE PEN SPACE
DISTRICT
13-55% 14-41 % 15-59%
Q�N Spy •
F
MIDPENINSULA M ROS D v
i� � , ,
16-23% 17-62% 18-21 %
X-4
logo number 2 - 85 %
ly-
MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL
OPEN SPACE
DISTRICT
X_5
logo number 10 - 79%
S
Q
Q
MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL
OPEN SPACE
DISTRICT
X-h
logo number 12 - 80%
Open Spa
MIDPENINSULA
REGIONAL
OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
X-7
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Last Date of Cumulative Statistics 5-20-91 Number of Responses 71
Logo Number Board Member Field Staff Office Staff Docent Public
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
1-48% 1 4 1 2 0 24 3 7 6 1 1 0 11 4 5
2.85% 0 6 1 14 9 3 6 7 3 2 0 0 8 8 4
3-390% 1 1 5 2 7 17 2 7 7 0 1 1 0 7 13
4-30%) 1 1 5 0 4 22 2 4 10 0 1 1 1 7 12
5-42`I, 1 0 6 3 9 14 3 6 7 0 0 2 1 7 12
6-58`%, 1 2 4 2 10 14 6 6 4 0 2 0 5 7 8
7-18% 1 1 4 0 2 24 0 1 15 0 1 1 3 4 13
x 8--591% 1 3 3 4 13 9 3 9 4 0 0 2 2 7 11
6
0 9-41`% 1 2 4 1 6 19 0 5 11 0 0 2 6 8 6
1(}�79°Io 2 4 1 7 13 6 1 9 6 1 0 1 6 13 1
1 1-30"l> 1 2 3 2 5 19 0 3 13 0 1 1 3 4 13
2 6 0 7 12 7 3 10 3 1 0 1 7 10 3
13-55`/, 2 2 3 5 10 11 1 5 10 0 1 1 8 5 7
14-41`%, 2 2 2 3 8 15 0 2 14 0 1 1 5 6 9
1 5-5 9`l, 0 4 3 7 8 11 1 5 10 2 0 0 9 6 5
16-23%, 1 0 6 2 2 22 0 1 15 0 1 1 7 2 11
17-6 20% 1 3 3 12 5 9 1 5 1O 0 1 1 9 7 4
18-21%, 1 1 5 1 5 20 0 2 14 0 0 2 3 2 15
Code: 1=Yes , it works. Refine. 2=Maybe, develop further. :i=No it does not work. %, Based on Yes and Maybe Response.
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Logo Statistics
Last Date of Cumulative Statistics 5-20-91 Number of Responses 71
Logo Y-1 Y-2 Y-3 YA Y-5 M-1 M-2 M-3 M-4 M-5 N-1 N-2 N-3 NA N-5
1 6 8 3 11 6 7 5 4 11 5 18 17 2 8 29
2 13 13 12 11 17 11 14 5 15 15 7 4 2 5 8
3 1 4 1 3 3 1 9 4 11 12 20 18 4 17 25
4 1 2 2 4 1 4 11 2 8 19 26 18 15 19 30
—5 5 3 2 3 7 9 11 2 10 12 17 17 5 18 21
6 4 7 3 8 6 12 . 13 2 11 116 15 11 4 12 18
7 3 1 1 3 2 2 6 1 3 6 26 23 7 24 32
8 5 6 1 . 7 5 13 14 5 14 18 13 11 3 1 17
9 4 4 2 4 6 11 8 2 11 10 16 19 5 16 24
10 7 8 2 6 11 16 17 6 17 22 8 6 1 8 7
11 - 6 0 1 2 5 6 5 4 7 8 19 25 4 21 27
12 9 8 2 . 8 11 14 17 7 19 19 8 6 0 4 10
13 7 7 3 7 10 12 8 3 1 13 12 16 3 14 17
14 8 2 1 4 7 10 . 4 5 7 12 13 24 3 19 21
15 7 9 1 7 10 11 8 4 11 12 13 14 4 13 18
16 6 4 1 4 7 3 2 1 2 14 21 26 7 25 29
17 10 13 11 9 15 11 6 . 4 12 19 10 12 4 11 15
18 6 0 1 3 4 4 15 1-1 5 5 21 126 17 23 31
Code: 1=20-3 5 years 2=36-55 years 3=55+ years 4=fernale 5=rnale
Although discrepancy does exist in logo selection based on age and gender, on the three top choices, it is quite consistent.
PLAN B
steps to the logo selection workshop
1. A mailing to more than 250 designers listed in the immediate area. After calling a
number of designers and inquiring into their interest level in such a project, the
suggested financial terms, etc., a mailing regarding the competition was suggested.
The initial response was good, but more information was desired. A letter inquiring into
their interest and a description of the competition with a Business Reply Card will be
mailed to this list. A sample letter is attached. If you wish to include anyone else in this
mailing, please advise.
2. An ad will be placed in the Western Art Directors Magazine in order to open the
competition up to anyone not listed in the phone directory. This publication is also a give
away at a number of the established graphic vendors in this area. A posting of the compe-
tition on the front door of the District's office where meeting notifications are placed will
also be done. All those who inquire will also receive the above mentioned letter.
3. After we have answered all of the above correspondence and received the first series
of concepts from the 12-20 chosen to submit, we will mail this group a RFP as outlined in
the December 12, 1990 Board meeting. The second Board workshop will take place at
an agreed upon date after the chosen designers have been given enough time to
develop their design and complete the proposal as outlined by the Board.
4.This Board workshop will consist of a blind judging of the entries. This means that all
entries will be submitted on a 10" x 12" black matte board with no designer identification
on the front. All entries must meet the base criteria for our logo application in order to
receive the $550.00 fee.
At this time we will discuss what works and why. Whether we can utilize the logo
selections in all our applications and which three logos we want to select will go to
the next step of formalization. This being an open meeting, the public and staff*
can also fill out a judging form, to be identified as such. After the three finalists have
completed the final designs, the Board will meet to make the final selection. The
designers will be asked to submit a written estimate for logo development at this
time.
* The first logo redevelopment process included a number of designers,
presentations to the staff and revisions (this process took 4 years). The field and office
staff were consulted prior to the Board's review and approved the design presented
to the Board May 23, 1990. Based on this response, what position does the staff's
input have in this new selection? What about the public's response? What r
P p p t group
should prevail in the final decision?
X-10
financial considerations
A rough idea of the cost for implemention of the above process is:
12 entries 20 entries
Step One
Mailing the letter to interested parties. $ 200.00 $200.00
Including printing and postage only.
Ad in W.A.D.C. STUDIO Magazine 200.00 200.00
Step Two
Mailing of 12-20*packets to chosen designers. 30.00 40.00
$550.00 to designers 6,600.00 11,000.00
Step Three
Workshop printed materials, etc. 200.00 250.00
I
Step Four
Retainer to 3 chosen designers 2,400.00 2,400.00
Final Logo Artwork•_ $1,500.00-5,000.00
TOTAL COST FOR DESIGNS $11,130.00-19,090.00
20 entries might be considered more acceptable. Some type of ceiling for the
number of cash awards for rough designs must be set due to the financial
ramifications of a large number of respondents.
**Depending on Designer. An independent designer will charge only $1,500.00,
whereas an established designer or an agency will charge upwards to or beyond
$5,000.00. This price is for logo only and does not include the cost of
implementation of the logo on all printed materials, site signs, decals or patches.
If anew logo desjn is chosen, this logo would need to be implemented on all
printed materials, including, but not limited to visitor's guide, trail brochures,
stationery, etc.
This cost would be in the range of$100,000.00.
-**This price does not include staff or consultant time, room rental cost if a larger
space for workshop is necessary, nor all incidental costs.
X-11
speci���~^����°���� ��� logo application �� ���~������
fications m«u« o�^ o «�— o-»-»«~~=*�n v��� designers)
v �
� The logo will be printed un numerous publications and stationery pieces (samples
attached). The |ugn must be readable when reduced to 1/2" and when enlarged to �
�
banner size as in the photo of the international Open Space Conference.
� We have completed some initial polling of the shapes that are most pleasing to the
Board and staff at MROS[). Copies of these applications are attached. You are in no
way confined to these shapes, but use this information ifitwill beo/help toyou. �
The logo must work in black and white, or one PM3 color. It also needs towork in
multicolor for the patch, site sign and truck decal. These are the applications you �
need to address for the current project. /\ co|mrxemox of current patch is attached.
The parameters for site signs will be addressed by the planners and field staff prior to
your developing this application of the logo. Enclosed isa color xenoxu/a site sign
�
for your consideration, u|mmg with a line drawing of the site sign specifications. This |
will give you a general idea of the application for your design needs. �
Please call Deborah Mills at 415/321-7773 if you want to discuss this project or desire
any more input on what the applications are. We are pleased that you are helping
us with this design problem. �
Thank you for your interest, �
�
�
|
�
�
�
X-12
Open Space
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: H. Grench
SUBJECT: FYI
DATE: May 30, 1991
I
SRJ -Ason, Barish Ass,xiates
MAY, 0 1199,
May 28, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: HERBERT GRENCH
General Manager
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
FROM: RALPH A. HEIM
RE: TERM LIMITS -- LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
A proposed Constitutional Amendment initiative that is now in circulation which
would limit all state and local officials to no more than eight (8) years in office. The
official title of the initiative is "Limitation Upon Government Actions and Service in
Government."
Sponsored by Robert L. Lockridge of Redwood City, the initiative applies to all
members of state and local government who are elected, appointed or hired.
The sponsors have until September 19, 1991 to collect 615,958 signatures.
RAH/kmg
Governmental 916 442-4584 7701 Street
Affairs Fax Sacramento,CA
Consultants 916 441-4926 95814