Loading...
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