HomeMy Public PortalAbout19751126 - Minutes - Board of Directors (BOD) Meeting 75-25
40k
IOU= MW
MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
Regular Meeting
Board of Directors
M I N U T E S
November 26, 1975 745 Distel Drive
Los Altos, CA
I. ROLL CALL
President Duffy called the meeting to order at 7 : 36 P.M.
Members Present: Katherine Duffy, Barbara Green, Nonette Hanko,
Edward Shelley and Daniel Wendin.
Personnel Present: Herbert Grench, Edward Jaynes, Jon Olson,
Jennie George, Carroll Harrington and Stanley Norton.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes of November 12, 1975
N. Hanko mentioned a typographical error on p. 3, paragraph
six. The word should have been "basic" instead of "basis" .
K. Duffy called attention to an error on p. 10 concerning
the time of adjournment, which should be 12: 15 P.M. instead
of 11: 15 P.M. On page 2, VI . A, paragraph two, K. Duffy
questioned "and hiking" as part of the limited access for
the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve. The Board agreed
to change it to read "and organized groups" .
K. Duffy stated the consensus that the minutes of November
12, 1975 be approved as corrected.
III. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
B. Green said she would like to discuss the schedule of the reg-
ular board meetings for the month of December under New Business
Requiring Action.
H. Grench asked that the Board discuss Fee Policy Clarification
under Old Business Not Requiring Action.
N. Hanko asked that staff report on correspondence received
since the October 12, 1975 meeting regarding past Board action
with respect to trails on the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve.
This item was placed under Old Business Requiring Action.
Page two
The Board agreed to adopt the agenda with the above additions.
IV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Ed Schell, Box 1345, Los Gatos, questioned a statement made by
Director Shelley at the November 12, 1975 meeting whereby he
had made the comment that he was elected to represent the citi-
zens of Mountain View. Ed Schell said he hoped the Board felt
they were elected to represent all the citizens of the District.
Ed Shelley responded he had been making the comparison of MRPD
Directors being elected from wards to legislators being elected
from districts and that was the intent of his comment. He felt
certain each Board member was aware of his or her responsibili-
ties to all of the citizens of the District.
V. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
K. Duffy noted there had been correspondence regarding the trails
on the Fremont Older Open Space Preserve. The Board agreed to
discuss these under Old Business Requiring Action.
B. Green referred to a letter addressing Board and staff from
Lois Hogle dated November 17 , 1975 expressing her appreciation
for the District' s progress in the protection of open space.
VI. OLD BUSINESS REQUIRING ACTION
A. Fremont Older Open Space Preserve Trails
K. Duffy opened the meeting to the public.
Donald M. Kuehn, 22549 Rolling Hills Road, Cupertino refer-
red to his letter of November 19, 1975, addressed to Board
and staff, in which he stated his concerns with the location
of a portion of the trail constructed November 15, 1975
on the south slope of a canyon bordering his property. He
said that surveyors contracted by the District had surveyed
on November 26, 1975 and confirmed that a portion of the
trail did extend onto his property. He further expressed
his concern for erosion problems due to the present trail
location, trespassing because the trail's so close to pro-
perty lines and the invasion of personal privacy. He em-
phasized his main concern was not that the trail was on his
property line. He said his request for closing that por-
tion of the trail that parallels the back boundaries of
his and the Bradley' s property until further study could be
done had been granted. In addition, he asked that Board
and staff consider having no trails on the south slope of
this canyon, but if this location is necessary, that the
trail follow contour lines, begin 150 feet west of his pro-
perty, and that a chain link fence be installed by the
District which would separate park land from Kuehn' s and
Bradley s.
Page three
J. Olson confirmed the findings of the survey and felt there
had been reason enough to close that portion of the trail,
which had been done. He said a permanent sign indicating
closure of that portion of the trail would be installed Nov-
ember 28 , 1975. He recommended that this portion should
remain closed until it can be restudied along with other
trails on the site. J. Olson stated that a link between
Regnart Road and Prospect Road was a greater priority, for
that link would benefit more people. He said further study
of the area since the November 12, 1975 meeting indicated
some of the trails presented at that time might be scaled
down in Phase I . He pointed out some major factors that
would have to be addressed before Phase I is implemented,
such as an environmental assessment, placement of signs and
gates,and distribution of maps and ordinances.
E. Shelley asked if keeping this trail closed and not build-
ing an alternate in Phase I in that location would satisfy
the needs of the people who addressed the Board at the Novem-
ber 12, 1975 meeting. J. Olson replied that it would for
the most part.
N. Hanko stated she did not feel that rescinding the Board' s
previous action was proper since the matter had not been
agendized.
D. Wendin said he did not want to rescind previous Board
action. He said it had become apparent that a portion of
the trail could not continue to be open from a certain point.
Staff had used proper authority by closing it. He suggested
a public hearing regarding the Fremont Older Open Space Pre-
serve could be held at the second Board meeting in December.
K. Duffy responded that she would like the Board to confirm
staff' s closing of the trail.
J. Olson reviewed the procedures of the planning process
which requires that staff develop a draft plan followed by
a neighborhood meeting. He advised that making a hurried
decision about a trail doesn't fully address the site' s
agricultural, recreational and educational potentials. He
emphasized that it is a complex site requiring careful plan-
ning to function properly and smoothly.
J. Olson said that as a practical matter, the present closure
would not be a particular problem; however, the people who
had been issued permits to use that trail should be notified
of the partial closing.
Gordon Jennings, 441 Meadow Drive, Palo Alto said he felt
the closing of a portion of the trail would not be a great
hardship to equestrians. He recommended that staff ' s de-
cision to close the trail was an excellent solution and
Page four
that no Board action would be necessary. He commended the
Kuehns for their conciliatory approach.
H. Grench said staff would proceed with the proper planning
process, including a neighborhood meeting.
B. Green requested that each homeowner near the trail be
personally notified.
Motion: K. Duffy moved that the Board confirm staff' s
action of closing that portion of the trail.
B. Green seconded the motion.
Discussion: D. Wendin said he opposed the motion
because it appeared that the Board was rescind-
ing previous action without a public hearing on
the decision. N. Hanko objected because it
appeared that Board was taking action on an
unagendized item. E. Shelley said he didn't
feel Board needed to become involved in every
administrative action of the staff and in this
particular case Board action did not seem evident.
The motion failed on the following vote:
AYES - K. Duffy and B. Green
NOES - D. Wendin, N. Hanko and E. Shelley
B. Letter from I. Sewell Regarding Sequoia Union High School
District Farm Hill Site
At its November 12, 1975 meeting, the Board agreed to agen-
dize a written communication from Isabel Sewell regarding
surplus school property for discussion at that time.
D. Wendin raised the two issues that were significant to
him, first, disposition of excess school properties in
general, and secondly, that this may be the first in a series
of requests to look at property in the proposed annexation
area. He felt the letter deserved a Board response.
H. Grench said that since the District has no Master Plan
or policies on how to approach lands in San Mateo County,
he had suggested to Ms. Sewell that she mention this fact
to the school board along with the information that there
is a citizen' s drive for annexation in south San Mateo
County. The school board might consider waiting until the
District could give it further study.
H. Grench said that in the past, staff had sent letters to
school districts in Santa Clara County indicating interest
in being informed of surplus school lands. He suggested if
there is an annexation, a new series of letters could be
sent to school districts in San Mateo County.
Page five
N. Hanko suggested that staff inform Ms. Sewell of past
communications to schools in Santa Clara County and that
the Board did not feel it would be proper to take any action
in San Mateo County before annexation. She said if annex-
ation does occur, the two new directors representing the
area might have valuable opinions and suggestions.
The Board agreed a written response should be sent to Ms.
Sewell expressing their opinions.
C. Master Plan of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District
H. Grench referred to the memorandum (M-75-167 dated Novem-
ber 18, 1975) from the Master Plan Subcommittee (K. Duffy
and D. Wendin) which evolved out of the November 18 , 1975
meeting. The subcommittee restudied the proposed format
and shortened text of the draft Master Plan. The subcom-
mittee recommended that the evaluation section in the new
text replace the previously adopted version, that no other
changes in the text be made and that the draft Master Plan
be printed as originally decided with a multi-page, map-sert
format. H. Grench also introduced his memorandum (M-75-169
dated November 20, 1975) , relating to an attached memor-
andum from Don Weden, Associate Planner from Santa Clara
County, which the Subcommittee agreed should be submitted
to the Board for consideration.
D. Wendin stated it was the consensus of the Subcommittee,
not necessarily for the same reasons, that putting the
Master Plan on the back of the map was not a good idea. He
referred to the Santa Clara County UD/OS Plan, pointing out
the fact that the District plan would not have pictures and
therefore would not be as attractive. He felt the revised
format did not allow for any additions to the text, and, in
fact deleted significant items.
D. Weden said he thought the shorter version would receive
greater attention and the public would be more likely to
review it. As mentioned in his memorandum, the shorter
version had received favorable response from District staff
and the County Planning Department staff.
E. Shelley felt that D. Weden' s analysis was good and that
he didn't see any loss in the shorter version - the major
content was still there. He thought it would be to the
District' s advantage to maximize the number of people who
would read the document.
D. Wendin said people who are genuinely interested in the
District' s policies will read a longer version.
Robert Mark, 725 Cowper, Palo Alto mentioned that the Santa
Clara County UD/OS Plan has a book that accompanies it.
He felt the shorter version of the District Master Plan
would be a significant constraint now and in the future. He
suggested the Board consider a summary on the back of the
map which accompanies the longer version.
Page six
Motion: Ed Shelley moved that the Board adopt the shorter
version of the draft Master Plan and that the
Subcommittee discuss with Don Weden the maximum
utilization of the space and any further discussion
of the text. The Subcommittee need not return to
the Board for action unless there were substantial
changes in the text. B. Green seconded the motion.
Discussion: N. Hanko asked if the Subcommittee
should consider adding pictures, and raised the
question of outside consultation. D. Wendin said
he would be willing to go through the current
shortened version right now item by item to be
certain it was what the Board wanted. E. Shelley
said he did not feel there were any substantial
differences in the statements of policy in the
shortened version and that all the time and efforts
spent by the Subcommittee was evident in the docu-
ment.
The motion passed on the following vote:
AYES - B. Green, E. Shelley and K. Duffy
NOES - D. Wendin and N. Hanko
D. Wendin requested that President Duffy find a replacement
for him on the Master Plan Subcommittee. E. Shelley volun-
terred his services and K. Duffy appointed him to the Sub-
committee.
D. Cupertino Hillside General Plan/Draft EIR
K. Duffy introduced the Subcommittee' s memorandum (M-75-168
dated November 19, 1975) . At the September 24, 1975 Board
meeting, Mr. James Sisk, Director of the City of Cupertino
Planning Department, presented the proposed Cupertino Hillside
General Plan/Draft EIR to the Board. A subcommittee consis-
ting of Directors Kay Duffy and Nonette Hanko was established
to review the Cupertino plan and return to the Board with
suggested comments and recommendations.
The Subcommittee recommended the following:
1. Urban Service Area Boundary - withdrawal of the
Cupertino Urban Service Area boundary to approach
the appropriate size as established by LAFCO
and as defined in the County ordinance enacting
the C-S zone.
2. Rural Residential - endorsement of the City' s
proposed Rural Residential Zone.
3. Foothill Residential - adoption of a slope
density formula considerably less dense than
the City' s plan and more in keeping with that
of the Monte Bello Ridge Study recommendation.
Page seven
4. Semi-Rural - densities of these areas should
reflect the limitations of services and be
appropriately restrictive to provide the de-
sired transition beginning with a 2. 5 A/du
density.
5. Open Space in Foothills - that Open Space be
an acceptable use in the "foothill" zone as
well as in the "rural" zone.
6. Protective Planning - that a review procedure
be established which would provide for District
comment on building and subdivision activity
on lands adjacent to District preserves.
7 . County Parks - that the County' s long range
parks plan should be noted on the Cupertino
General Plan map.
8. Primary Road System for Regnart-Lindy Canyons -
that densities be kept low enough so new
roads are not required.
9. Grading Ordinance - support for proposed upgrad-
ing of Cupertino' s ordinances and strict enforce-
ment.
10. Williamson Act Lands - that there be ample time
upon cancellation (up to 10 years) of the con-
tract to review and revise the General Plan for
these areas. Suggested that the designation of
"long term open space" would be more proper.
K. Duffy asked if there were any comments on the proposals.
H. Grench advised that Bob Cowan, Assistant Planning Director
of the City of Cupertino, had contacted the District stating
that the proposed road on the Fremont Older Open Space Pre-
serve would be a fire trail and not an improved road. The
Subcommittee responded that they were aware of this and the
recommendation would be the same.
D. Wendin pointed out on page two under Semi-Rural heading
the densities were reversed and should read A/du instead
of du/A.
Motion: K. Duffy moved Board accept the Subcommittee report
(M-75-168 dated November 19, 1975) and forward a
copy with revisions to the City of Cupertino.
B. Green seconded the motion.
Amendment: D. Wendin suggested any reference in the report
to Permanente Creek Park should be rewritten to
read "District' s Perham Ranch Acquisiton" . The
motion passed unanimously.
Page eight
VII. OLD BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION
A. Proposed Friends of the MRPD Foundation
H. Grench introduced his memorandum (M-75-165 dated Novem-
ber 17, 1975) , in which he stated he would give an oral
report on the subject of establishment of private founda-
tions for funding parks and open space programs based on
a seminar session at the 1975 Congress for Recreation and
Parks.
H. Grench mentioned that his exchange with individuals at
the conference was most beneficial to him this year. He
referred to two specific sessions - one dealing with Federal
Title Six (equal opportunity) and another on grantsmanship.
An interesting post conference workshop addressed the estab-
lishment of private foundations. The workshop was headed
by Bill Mott of the California State Parks Foundation. He
said there was a strong consensus among the participants
of a proper structure for the foundation. One type of struc-
ture included a Board of Directors, Executive Committee,
Advisory Group and Public Membership. The foundation should
be set up as a public, non-profit corporation. It usually
is the responsibility of the Board of Directors of such a
foundation to find a paid fund raiser. H. Grench advised
that his direction would be toward finding the first key or
two key individuals to head such a board. He added he had
cassette recordings of this session for those who are inter-
ested.
B. Fee Policy Clarification
J. Olson, referring to discussion at the November 12, 1975
Board meeting and a review of the tape recordings and min-
utes, said he did not feel staff had a clear direction on
Board policy regarding fees for Phase I on Fremont Older
Open Space Preserve.
H. Grench advised that if the Board might be in favor of
fees, it might be difficult to institute after adopting
Phase I .
B. Green stated she was not in favor of endorsing fees until
she had a clearer idea of the costs involved with public use
of the lands.
D. Wendin said that he would like to have staff specifically
attempt to identify the long term costs of trails for hikers
and equestrians, as well as estimates of the long term num-
ber of permits expected to be issued, with an evaluation.
He asked that staff include gross estimates on capital im-
provements, e.g. , fencing and gates, related to a trails
system. He felt these estimates should be made before Phase I
is opened.
Page nine
N. Hanko stated she was not sure she would support fees,
regardless of cost, unless the cost for maintenance of
horse trails was substantial enough to differentiate be-
tween hikers and equestrians.
E. Shelley questioned if the Board could realistically
open the trails on a no-fee basis and then institute fees
later. He felt there needed to be a great deal of study
on the basic issues.
The Board agreed to agendize fee policies for their Decem-
ber 10, 1975 meeting.
VIII. NEW BUSINESS REQUIRING ACTION
A. Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula
Regional Park District Confirming Exercise of Option to
Purchase Real Property, Authorizing Officer to Execute
Certificate of Acceptance of Conveyance to District, and
Authorizing General Manager to Execute Any and All Other
Documents Necessary or Appropriate to Closing of the Trans-
action (Fremont older Open Space Preserve Addition)
E. Jaynes referred to a memorandum (M-75-166, dated Novem-
ber 18, 1975) from H. Grench, stating that on November 18 ,
1975, court approval was obtained by the Estate of Duncan
B. MacDonald to proceed with the sale to the District of
the Estate' s interest in the approximately 36&cres of land
covered by the option the Board exercised on October 23,
1975. E. Jaynes said that closing of escrow would be pos-
sible within a few days after Boards adoption of the Reso-
lution.
Motion; K. Duffy moved that the Board adopt Resolution
No. 75-24, a Resolution of the Board of Directors
of the Midpeninsula Regional Park District Confirm-
ing Exercise of Option to Purchase Real Property,
Authorizing Officer to Execute Certificate of
Acceptance of Conveyance to District, and Author-
izing General Manager to Execute Any and All Other
Documents Necessary or Appropriate to Closing of
the Transaction (Fremont Older Open Space Preserve
Addition) . B. Green seconded the motion. The
motion passed unanimously.
The Board recessed at 9: 14 P.M. and reconvened at 9:30 P.M.
B. Proposed Use and Management Plan for Congress Springs Open
Space Preserve
H. Grench introduced his memorandum (M-75-171, dated Novem-
ber 21, 1975) , in which he asked the Board to adopt the
recommendations contained in the Land Manager' s report (R-75-22)
Page ten
regarding the proposed use and management for Congress
Springs Open Space Preserve. H. Grench wished to withhold
his recommendation that Board adopt Congress Springs Open
Space Preserve as the official name until further evaluation
could be done.
J. Olson said the Preserve was adjacent to Congress Springs
Road (Highway 9) and two miles west of Saratoga. He mentioned
that presently all of Route 9 is included in the Scenic High-
way Element of the State of California Master Plan, and the
portion adjacent to the Preserve had received County recog-
nition as a scenic road. He stated that the steep topo-
graphy and dense vegetation made the property a valuable
portion of the watershed. It is characterized by a dense
woodland community with a large variety of trees, shrubs
and herbs throughout the entire site. Public access to the
Preserve is limited due to the lack of available parking.
He referred to the license agreement between the Midpenin-
sula Regional Park District and Saratoga Union School Dis-
trict granting the School District the irrevocable right
to use the property for the purposes of conducting outdoor
science education programs and classes for a period of twenty
years. His specific policy recommendations are as follows:
1. Prohibit any development of the site.
2. Cooperate with city and County efforts to
establish a scenic corridor along Route 9
so long as changes in the use and management
of the site are within the scope of the Dis-
trict' s goals.
3 . Exempt the site from entry permit requirements
and encourage only occasional low intensity use.
Recommended improvement and management were as follows:
1. Remove some major debris and bury decomposed
refuse.
2. Schedule periodic volunteer cleanups.
3. Maintain regular patrol.
Motion: K. Duffy moved adoption of the policy recommendations
and improvement and management recommendations for
Congress Springs Open Space Preserve as stated in
the report (R-75-22 dated November 21, 1975) .
N. Hanko seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously.
C. Second Board of Directors Meeting in December
H. Grench said the second regularly scheduled meeting in
December would be December 24 and he recommended cancelling
that meeting. He did not feel there were any pressing items
of business requiring the Board to schedule a special meet-
ing in December. He remarked that a gift of land might
warrant scheduling a special meeting and that was always
possible near the end of the year. He discussed his overall
Page eleven
schedule that had been presented last year, which was as
follows: Annual Report, Goals Workshop, Action Plan and
the Budget Process. He suggested Saturday, February 28,
1976 for the Goals Workshop.
J. Olson said one of the main items on the December 10
agenda would be the determination by the Board of whether
to have an EIR or negative declaration regarding the Fre-
mont Older Open Space Preserve Phase I trails system.
N. Hanko recommended that the Board make a decision regard-
ing a second meeting in December at their regular meeting
of December 10, 1975.
Motion: K. Duffy moved the Board cancel the regular Decem-
ber 24 , 1975 meeting. B. Green seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
Motion: K. Duffy moved to schedule the Goals Workshop for
February 28 , 1976. B. Green seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously.
IX. NEW BUSINESS NOT REQUIRING ACTION
A. Projected Office Space Requirements
H. Grench introduced his memorandum (M-75-170, dated Novem-
ber 21, 1975) , in which he stated he would expand on the
data in his memorandum (M-75-160, dated November 5, 1975) ,
regarding the Proposed Office Lease Amendment which the
Board adopted at its November 12, 1975 meeting. He felt
that further discussion was necessary to familiarize the
Board with present and projected staff and office space
requirements based upon future needs of the District as
seen by both Board and staff.
He presented a chart which set forth present and possible
future staff requirements for the District. He said the
Board appointed posi
tions wou
ld remain
in the same but more
time probably would be required of the Controller and Legal
Counsel should annexation occur. He recommended hiring
a full time clerk typist immediately so the Administrative
Aide could assume more responsibilities and work load from
the General Manager, Assistant General Manager and Land
Manager, and to disperse some of the Administrative Aide' s
and Public Communication Assistant' s general clerical work
to the present Secretary and the additional clerk typist.
The new position would also require that the person be
capable of handling the radio equipment and issuance of
permits. He said he planned to present a Job Description
for this position for Board' s approval at the December 10,
1975 meeting. He noted the Accounting Technician' s posi-
tion would remain with increasing time. Sometime in the
Page twelve
future, depending on District programs and needs, more
secretarial help might be required. He asked the Assistant
General Manager and Land Manager to interpret their specific
programs as dipicted on the chart.
E. Jaynes said the District' s land acquisition record since
the District had received its first tax revenues two years
ago indicated the District acquires roughly 1, 500 acres of
land per year or 6. 2 acres per working day. An area of
great importance, in his opinion, was the more active pursuit
of gifts of land. He felt this could be a full-time activity
handled by a person specialized in this field. He said he
had not personally been able to devote very much time towards
this effort, but the results of the time he had spent looked
quite positive. This person could be utilized presently
in the area of gifts, and supplement the Assistant General
Manager' s activities.
D. Wendin asked what decisions from Board staff was antici-
pating.
H. Grench replied that he wanted general responses and com-
ments particularly negative ones, and if there were no
specific objections from Board, staff would progress with
the investigation of additional office space and return to
Board with Job Descriptions at the appropriate time.
K. Duffy said she' s always favored pursuing the area of gifts
of land.
D. Wendin commented that one significant gift of land per
year pays for itself.
B. Green inquired if there were allowances in the budget for
these proposals.
H. Grench said that for the present, the budget did allow
for the addition of 1 or 2 people in the way of secretarial
help and in land acquisition. Additional staff in the area
of land management would depend mostly on the Board' s de-
cisions regarding future land uses.
J. Olson said his position as Land Manager would continue
the same. The Ranger position, he said, has become an
operations position rather than one of just patrolling. He
pointed out the various directions this position can take:
being responsible for all the site operations including
issuance of permits; negotiations with resident caretakers;
and naturalist programs. He said the planning and drafting
functions, which are currently being handled by a Planning
Aide, had continued to accelerate with the demand for maps
and information for each site and would have to continue.
Page thirteen
The Ranger Aide, who works weekends and holidays, is mainly
related to direct use on the sites. Depending on public
awareness and uses of certain sites, additional help in the
form of aides might be necessary soon, possibly in January.
The Volunteer Coordinator position has been very successful.
Many present maps and boundary determinations are being
done by volunteers qualified in these areas.
J. Olson said that the need for a second ranger would de-
pend on the use of the lands and annexation. With regard
to the future, additional rangers would be related to land
use and the number and type of acres acquired. He dis-
cussed other general needs in the land management areas of
regional trails, environmental planning (ecology) , agri-
cultural leases and permits. Due to other demands required
of him and lack of specific expertise in certain areas, he
felt some of these general needs might be handled by con-
sultants or volunteers. The addition of a clerk typist
who could also issue permits would probably be sufficient
for the present; however, a full-time permit clerk might
conceivably be required in the future. He said that these
were all issues that everyone needed to be conscious of
and that they all related to the decisions that were to
be made on the types of uses allowed on the land.
H. Grench replied that for most of the functions in the
"futures" column, he had been thinking in terms of the
fiscal year 1976 and beyond.
B. Green said she felt an environmental planner, either
as a consultant or volunteer, would be desireable.
E. Shelley said he wondered if the manner in which the
Board was evaluating these plans was consistant with the
policy of a small, efficient staff dedicating its resources
to land acquisition for the next ten years. He felt it
appeared Board was aiming more towards opening of the land
and diverging from the policy of land banking. He thought
Board should acknowledge if they were deviating from that
policy and address that policy question.
N. Hanko said she didn't feel the projections were geared to
development but rather to the protection of the property.
E. Shelley asked what resource information is available to
help in determining the effects of this type of expansion
and how rapid the point would be reached when a very signifi-
cant portion of the financial resources would be spent on
staff and its needs.
D. Wendin replied he felt that impact depended on the uses
Board approved for the land.
Page fourteen
B. Green suggested this matter be further pursued and dis-
cussed at the Goals Workshop.
D. Wendin said he favored formulating the job description
for a gifts specialist. He thought annexation would also
require hiring an acquisition specialist to aid the Assis-
tant General Manager, and perhaps this person might also
be qualified in the area of environmental planning. In
addressing the ranger positions, he emphasized that Board
decisions affect these requirements, and suggested that
Board and staff review notes and minutes of a year ago
comparing attitudes at that time to their present feelings
with regard to land use.
E. Shelley felt Board needed a clearer definition of the
ranger and/or caretaker requirements on the sites to aid
in making decisions on the level of uses to allow on par-
ticular sites as they are opened. He said a consistent
policy was needed with regard to opening the lands, and
information relating to the long term costs of management
should be incorporated at the time of that decision.
H. Grench addressed the subject of additional office space.
He said in the pre-annexation period, including the gift
specialist, clerk typist and increasing number of volunteers
working, he recommended the addition of another bay amount-
ing to $115 per month additional rent. He said that would
support the present needs plus two additional staff people.
In evaluating staff requirements with respect to the post-
annexation period, he said another � to 1 full bay would
probably be required.
N. Hanko commented that if there is an addition of two more
directors from San Mateo County, consideration might need
to be given to expansion of the present conference room to
accomodate the audience and perhaps a larger conference
table.
H. Grench observed that there are larger audiences from the
public at the Board meetings as the opening of District
land is being discussed. He advised that it might be neces-
sary in the future to hold regular meetings at another loca-
tion.
E. Shelley agreed the conference area was becoming inade-
quate but preferred meeting at the present location if
adjustments for increased needs could be made. He thought
Board should maintain an awareness of future needs and
evaluate those needs along with the present expansion con-
siderations.
Page fifteen
X. CLAIMS
Motion: N. Hanko moved adoption of the revised claims
(C-75-22, dated November 26, 1975) . E. Shelley
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
XI. EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Board recessed to Executive Session at 10: 40 P.M to dis-
cuss land negotiations.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
The Board reconvened to adjourn at 11: 06 P.M.
Jennie George
Deputy District Clerk
II
Ill.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes of November 26 , 1975
B. Green said the reference on page two under Written Com-
munications that "B. Green referred to a letter. . . " was
incorrect, and should probably read "J. George referred to
a letter. . . " She said the word "rapid" in the seventh
paragraph on page thirteen should read "rapidly. "
N. Hanko asked that an additional sentence be added to
the first paragraph on page seven, under the "Semi-Rural"
category, which reflects that the Subcommittee recommended
that the semi-rural designation be a permanent one. K.
Duffy agreed that this should be added.
D. Wendin said he objected to the intent of the motion
made in the first paragraph on page six of the minutes ,
regarding adoption of the draft Master Plan. He said he
would like to agendiae the item.
E. Shelley stated that it was the intention of the motion that
the Subcommittee would not return to the Board unless there
were substantive changes in the draft Master Plan.
K. Duffy stated the consensus that the minutes be adopted
as amended.
i