PC 05-23-06
CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
AMENDED MINUTES
5:30 P.M. MAY 23, 2006 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The Planning Commission Study Session of May 23,2006 was called to order at 5:30 p.m. in the
Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Marty
Miller.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present:
Chairperson:
Vice Chairperson:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Commissioner:
Marty Miller
Lisa Giefer
Cary Chien
Taghi Saadati
Gilbert Wong
Staff present:
Community Development Director:
City Planner:
Senior Planner:
Assistant City Attorney:
Steve Piasecki
Ciddy Wordell
Colin lung
Eileen Murray
STUDY SESSION
1. North Vallco Master Plan.
Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, presented the staff report:
. Explained that it was the third Planning Commission study session on the North Vallco Master
Plan.
. She introduced Al Savay, City of Mountain View Zoning Administrator, who was invited to
present an overview of the Mountain View Planning Process for their Downtown Plan.
Al Savay, City of Mountain View Zoning Administrator:
. Presented a review of the Downtown Precise Plan for the City of Mountain View, focusing on
the public process.
. The Downtown Precise Plan was established in 1988, and entailed a lengthy process over more
than fifteen years, which also included two Plan updates in 2001 and 2004.
. Mr. Savay emphasized the importance of the public process to ensure that public input is
solicited in all aspects of the plan.
. He reviewed the stakeholders involved, the challenges encountered, the processes followed,
and the lessons learned during the process to successfully revitalize Mountain View's
downtown area.
. He responded to Commissioners' questions regarding the process and the outcome.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
2
Chair Miller:
. Thanked Mr. Savay for his informative presentation on the Mountain View Downtown Plan.
Chairperson Miller opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident:
. Asked that the hangar at Moffett Field be preserved because of its historic presence.
. Said she was pleased that Mountain View has maintained Shoreline Park as a tech center.
. Said one of the points of the study session is to keep the North Vallco area in Cupertino free of
housing.
. Said that Cupertino Village is a vibrant shopping District, and asked that the area be kept free
of housing so that it could remain as a thriving shopping district for Cupertino.
. She urged Cupertino to maintain and protect its tech parks as they cannot be brought back
again. Cupertino has a long proud history in the tech arena with Apple, HP, and other good
tech companies.
Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
Ms. Wordell:
. Discussed the next steps, stating that the City Council wanted recommendations from the
Planning Commission before embarking on the North Vallco Study.
. Reported that RFPs were sent to 9 urban designers with a June 22nd deadline for returning
proposals. She estimated a timeline of August for forwarding their recommendation to the
City Council.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. Said the complexity of the project has changed with Apple's purchase of property.
. Asked for Apple's timeline and the expectation of when they would be submitting permit
requests and architectural and site appoval or a specific plan for their campus.
Ms. Wordell:
. Said she was not aware of any further information other than their statement at the meeting
they had nothing to share at this time. She said the concept was to do small pieces hand in
hand; and as the city develops concept of what the community desires, they could participate.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. Said not to misunderstand her comments; it is an important project but she wanted to ensure
that they define what they want working with Apple and the other land owners there and that it
is applicable.
. Does not want Apple to be on a faster timeline than the city.
Chair Miller:
. Reiterated the need to move forward expeditiously. He said he spoke with people from Apple
who indicated the time frame would be in the neighborhood of six months or further out, which
would provide time to think through the issues.
. He said it was important to stay in close contact with Apple and keep them in the loop.
. He said if they could not agendize it for the first meeting in July, he concurred with Com.
Wong's suggestion to hold a special meeting so that they could forward it to the City Council
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
before the end of July.
May 23, 2006
3
Ms. Wordell:
. Said the target was the July 11 th Planning Commission meeting, and forwarding it to City
Council on July 18th.
Chair Miller adjourned the study session and declared a short recess.
Chair Miller called the regular Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:45 p.m. The same
commissioners were present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Minutes of the April 25, 2006 Planning Commission meeting:
Corrections as noted:
. Page 7, second line, "another change" should read "another chance"
Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Saadati to approve the
April 25, 2006 minutes as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0)
Minutes of the May 9,2006 Study Session:
Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Vice Chair Giefer, to approve the
May 9, 2006 Study Session minutes as presented. (Vote: 5-0-0)
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR:
4. DIR-2006-09, V -2006-02
Nick Kukulica (Sprint)
11640 Regnart Canyon
Director's Minor Modification to install six panel antennas
on an existing PG&E tower and install supporting
equipment. Variance to allow a telecommunications facility
on a residential property. Removedfrom calendar.
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Chien, to remove Applications
DIR-2006-09 and V-2006-02 from the calendar. (Vote: 5-0-0)
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR
2. EXC-2006-04
Wayne Okubo
(Wahoo's Fish Taco)
19626 Stevens Creek Blvd
Sign Exception to allow exposed neon on two wall signs at
Marketplace. Planning Commission decision final unless
appealed.
Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Chien, to approve Consent Calendar
Item EXC-2006-04 (Vote: 5-0-0)
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
4
aTEM 3 IS VERBATIM TEXT)
3. CP-2006-01 (EA-2006-01)
City of Cupertino
Stevens Creek Corridor
Conduct a phased construction program to convert a
commercial picnic facility into a neighborhood park;
restore in-stream riparian habitat along sections of
Stevens Creek with the 100 year floor plain; enhance
nearby upland oak woodland habitat; construct a new
5,900 foot long, all weather trail and a new environmental
education center; demolish and rebuild existing park
buildings and facilities on 60 acres of City and Santa
Clara Valley Water District owned lands.
Tentative City Council date: June 20, 2006
Therese Smith, Director of Parks and Recreation, presented the staff report:
. Thank you Chair Miller; I am here with Janna Soquel and Christine Schneider, both are
consultants working on this project; Janna is the environmental planner and Christine is with
Thomas Reed Associates, Environmental Consultants, the preparer of the mitigated negative
dec. before you.
. Thank you for taking the time tonight to give the public an opportunity to comment on this
document. We are probably three-quarters of the way through the public input period; it
started April 28th; the document has been in the library, on the city website and available for
review. We are taking comments through May 30.
. The public comments received in writing carry the same weight as those given in a meeting;
we will treat them all the same, but people have preferences for how they choose to comment.
For those watching this televised and webcast meeting, you still have an opportunity to get
your input in, and we will respond.
. This project has been in the works for a number of years; in its current form as a park planning
effort, it has been just over three years. In December of 2002 the City Council gave us their
goals for this project, some of which are articulated. The significant ones within the plans in
the background section.
. We started a public visioning process that some of you may have participated in, in early 2003
when we distributed vision kits and we had a response to this effort that exceeded anything the
city ever done, or anything I was ever involved in.
. We thought we might get 50 people who would take the time to submit a park plan; in fact we
distributed 320 vision kits and over 500 people participated in an effort that really
communicated to us that stream restoration was a priority for this property that the city owns,
between Stevens Creek Boulevard and McClellan Road.
. So with that, we began to prepare a master plan that incorporated a lot of those restoration and
environmental goals while retaining some of the use of the corridor that is historical, like the
golf course which we found out was very important; and the Council also needed to retain
some of the revenue generating capacity of the property.
. You will hear more in detail about the changes proposed as Janna and Christine walk you
through the project description.
. But in essence, Blackberry Farm now operates 100 days a year for profit; it serves up to 4,000
people a day with onsite parking of 1100; beyond that parking is shuttled from Monta Vista. It
is closed, although people go into the corridor, there really isn't much there that they can
participate in with the exception of McClellan Ranch which is the home to our environmental
programming and we hope to make more available to the community and we will talk about
those changes.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
5
. What we are looking at tonight and with this document is the delta between what is there now
and what they are proposing. We are not changing everything that is there now and we hope
that the changes we are proposing are an enhancement to the environment, but we are really
only evaluating that delta with this analysis.
. What we are here tonight to do primarily is listen, give the public an opportunity to comment,
give the people at home an opportunity to hear the comments of others while there is still time
for them to submit their own. And then at the conclusion of this all those comments will be
summarized, forwarded to the City Council and the Council will take final action. Weare
hoping to have this back before the Council on June 20.
. With that, I will turn it over to Janna and then Christine to give the Power Point presentation.
Janna Janice Soquel:
. Good evening commissioners and public. Tonight we are going to give you an overview of
the Stevens Creek corridor park and restoration plan concepts and then we are going to go
through the impacts and mitigations that are associated with that plan.
. Our primary purpose is listen to the public tonight in one final summary of all the comments
that will be received over the 30 days in this long process in developing the plan and the
restoration concepts.
. The final comment day will be May 30th and at the end we will also take all the
commissioners' comments which will become part of the public record that will be forwarded
onto the Council.
. Just in brief summary, and I will go into greater detail, but the park and restoration plan
focuses on the conversion of the commercial picnic facility at Blackberry Farm into a
neighborhood park. It focuses on the restoration of the instream habitat and riparian habitat
along the stream banks, all within the 100 year floodplain; it has another component which
enhances the upland habitat throughout Blackberry Farm area primarily.
. It includes a construction of a trail the full length from McClellan Road to Stevens Creek
Boulevard and the development of a new environmental education center at McClellan. The
project extends from McClellan Road to Stevens Creek; it includes about 60 acres on both
sides of the creek; the vast majority of the focus of the project is indeed within Blackberry
Farm.
. The trail however runs the length; the stream improvements are ... the majority of them are
within Blackberry; there is potential for some improvements within Stocklemeir, although
those are viewed more as future improvements, and then there are the environment ed centers
at McClellan as well as the trail and the trail includes the rerouting or the reconfiguration of
the 4H facilities and a slight expansion of the community gardens to accommodate the trail.
. This is ... we have prepared an initial study and a mitigated neg dec., Cupertino is the lead
agency; we have also been partnering with the Santa Clara Valley Water District who is a
responsible agency and along with many other jurisdictional agencies will be issuing permits
for this project.
. Weare here tonight as a courtesy to the public at the direction of the Council and that typically
a public hearing is not required for a mitigated negative dec. but to include all of those
comments, we are having that hearing tonight.
. The findings of the CEQA document indicate that the project would enhance habitat for
stee1head, and that is the primary reason that the Water District is a partner in the project, and
that the negative effects of the project can be avoided or reduced with a minimal number of
mitigation measures.
. As I mentioned before, the 30 day period began on April 28th; because it ends on Memorial
Day weekend, it will actually close on the business day May 30th, and people will have time to
send in comments until that date.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
6
. Pursuant to the CEQA guidelines, which is the California Environmental Quality Act, the city
has prepared a mitigated neg. dec. because all impacts could be mitigated to less than
significant; as opposed to proceeding with an EIR.
. We are stating within the document that in the light of the full record, the project is actually an
overall improvement to the habitat and to the environmental values of the corridor.
. This is just an overall schedule to allow everyone in the audience to understand the process.
The public period will close on May 20th and then May 30th, and then it will be forwarded onto
the City Council for their final review on June 20th.
. Now I am going to walk you through the operational changes and the physical changes that
accompany those operational changes.
. Blackberry Farm will be open as a neighborhood park 365 days a year; that is a change. The
picnic - the commercial picnic area will be maintained as a 100-day a year operation as it has
been; however, it will diminish in size from a 4,000 person picnic facility at its maximum
capacity which occurred a few days each summer, to an 800 person maximum capacity; and
that allows us to change the footprint of the picnic facility and consolidate it all to the west
bank.
. Additional operational changes include the removal of four in stream barriers to fish and other
animal passage, up and down the corridor. It includes the development of an environmental
education center at McClellan and the development of a multi-use trail for walking, bicycling
and dog walking the length of the corridor.
. These are the physical changes that will allow the public to enjoy the corridor in new ways.
The instream component ... again, the removal of the four barriers, the realignment of the
creek for about 2,000 feet in 3 different locations; one of those locations is at Horseshoe Bend;
one is a realignment through the existing parking lot at Blackberry Farm, and one is a potential
realignment through the orange orchard at Stocklemeir.
. That entire area as well as some in situ improvements near the diversion dam and other low
flow crossings will total 3,200 feet of new pool and riffle habitat for steelhead spawning and
movement up and down the channel. Riparian planting will be planted along 3,200 feet of
these channels on both banks from the low benches within the channel to 25 feet past the top
of bank. In addition there will be 200 foot back water wetland created off the old channel, in
addition to a 600 foot willow swale off the golf course. This is a map that gives you a brief
overview of the location of the creek realignments, at Horseshoe Bend through the parking lot
and through Stocklemeir. The dark black graphic are the riffle areas; the blue circles are the
pools. Within 20% of the pools there will be heavy woody debris from downed trees that exist
in the corridor this year. That woody debris will provide different, a current in eddies ??
within the channel to create additional fish habitat during the summer months and during high
flows. We will be doing an extensive amount of demolition in order to implement this plan.
Everything you see in red in this plan is hardscape that will be removed from the corridor; that
includes concrete within the creek channel, includes low flow crossings, diversion dams, it
includes the parking areas throughout the entire Blackberry Farm area; it includes the picnic
structures, the fire pits, the sheds, some of the maintenance buildings that are perched on the
edge of the creek. Most of this will be replaced with a permeable surface and reduced in size
greatly. The green that you see in this is the removal of trees throughout the corridor in order
to support the realignment of the channel. There will also be a vast improvement to the picnic
area and the pool complex; the West Bank picnic area which will be the consolidated new
picnic facility, will have some underground utilities for water to the sites; central catering
building, barbecues that will remain throughout the flood and be flood available. Then the rest
of the facilities will be removable, so they can be taken out of the floodplain in the winter
months. The 1,100 style parking area, paved parking area, will go to a 350 vehicle permeable
parking area and all of the restrooms will be upgraded to serve the new picnic facility as well
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
7
as the pool. There will be a new pool entry kiosk and there will be a new bridge that spans
between that pool entry kiosk and the west bank picnic area. Folks arriving at the park will be
able to park in that facility and follow the trail to either the pool complex if they are coming
just to swim, or to the picnic area if they are coming for a paid picnic event. There will be new
fencing and paving stones around the pool to make it more usable to families; the heavy chain
link fence will be removed and the pool/lawn area will be fenced in a decorative fence to allow
people to walk and come and go to the pool.
· The bridge I mentioned is a 14 foot wide bridge, and that would allow for some light duty
vehicles to service the picnic area.
· The project also calls for the removal of the existing three pedestrian bridges.
· This is a brief overview of the picnic complex and pool area; there will also be some
improvements to the park entrance. The existing kiosk which is also an office building will be
demolished.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· The last slide you put up with the layout of the park, we couldn't see the slide that at all, you
went through it so quickly.
JaBBa Janice SoqueI:
· This slide is included in the CEQA document; I don't have the exhibit number, but it shows
the dotted line which you see is prominent is the existing creek channel. The hatched line is
the new creek channel; and you can see that it bows out into the parking area.
· You can see that the parking area has been greatly reduced; the picnic area all along the east
bank and all throughout Horseshoe Bend has been removed; that area is all upland restoration;
and the picnic (can I touch the screen; I can use the mouse; this might be helpful)
. This is the Horseshoe Bend area, all picnicking is removed from here; all picnicking is
removed upstream all the way up to the fence that separates this from the McClellan area, and
it has been consolidated to the west bank.
. This is the bridge that spans the creek connecting the pool entry kiosk to the picnic facility;
here is the parking area. The trail comes across from Stocklemeir, comes along the golf course
and then actually also serves as the route to the pool. The trail then continues through
Horseshoe Bend and onto McClellan.
· The parking right now comes all the way out to the drip line of these trees, and this is the
dotted line is the existing channel. So we are actually lengthening the creek through this
activity and by lengthening the creek, we are allowed to pick up the big grade changes that
exist at the low flow crossings where the creek has been incised.
· We are pulling the creek back a little bit away from its undercutting at Horseshoe Bend, and
this is actually returning the creek here to its historic channel.
. This part of Horseshoe Bend was filled over the years and we have aerial photographs that
have demonstrated that to us, probably in the days to support the commercial picnic operation.
· All of the large significant sycamore trees that are in the area which are native to the corridor
will remain, but more of the non-native trees that have grown in this filled area would be
removed to pull the channel back.
Com. Wong:
. So real quick, the reason why you are realigning the creek is to put it back to its historical. . .
JaBBa Janice SoqueI:
· The real reason we are realigning the creek is to enhance the corridor ecologically, and we are
doing that primarily based on the community's number one goal from their visioning process
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
8
2-1/2 to 3 years ago.
. But because the community had that as their primary goal for this unique piece of land, the
Water District has also partnered with the city and their primary goal was to implement
elements of the F AAHCE (Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Collaborative Effort) which was an
outgrowth of a lawsuit that had been filed against the District over its management of this
particular stream and two others for the endangered species, the steelhead.
. And this stream over the years by (end of TaDe 1) (missinI! some text at beI!inninI! oftaDe 2)
steelhead passage, large diversions, roadway crossings, as well as the releases from the dam
needed to provide a certain amount of cold water to what is considered in Blackberry Farm
and McClellan, the juvenile rearing the habitat of the steelhead. Steelhead is an anadromous
fish which comes in from the ocean when conditions are appropriate, swims upstream and
spawns here. It is a phenomenal fish and they still return; we still see steelhead as big as
laundry baskets in the creek, and this is where the young are raised. There are not many of
them, but nonetheless, they are released. Often times they are caught in Mountain View and
Sunnyvale, where they are removing barriers there, and lifted, assisted up the stream to rear
their young here. And then they return; unlike salmon, they return to the sea again.
Therese Smith:
. Commissioner Wong, the lengthening of the creek helps create the grade that makes it possible
for the fish to get up the corridor naturally. The various low flow crossings over the years
have eroded to where if you go out there now, you see little waterfalls. So in order to pick up
that vertical drop, you have to lengthen the horizontal reach of the creek.
JaBBa Janice SoqueI:
. And actually, you know... a lot of the adult fish can make some of these jumps. But it is the
young that live here all summer who are isolated and locked between these physical structures
and can't access the habitat up and down the creek because of these barriers, in the
summertime when there is only like an inch running over them.
. The park improvements - The entry building that exists as you come into Blackberry and make
the turn down near the pool would be demoed and a much smaller park entry kiosk similar to a
national park would be built to greet visitors coming to the park.
. The conference center and juniper landscaping would be removed and some vehicle parking
placed there along with native landscaping around the center. There would be new buffer
landscaping adjacent to the one private residence within the park. There would be a pedestrian
and bike access created from San Fernando Avenue.
. The trail would extend from McClellan to Stevens Creek Boulevard, it would be eight feet
wide. It would span the creek near the eighth hole of the golf course. This is the second of
two new bridges that would be constructed in replacement for three that are being removed.
There would be a fence to protect trail users from the short distance to the golf course that they
are traveling along. The trail would come out to Stevens Creek Boulevard. The sidewalk
there would be removed and there would be a nice access to a new crossing at Stevens Creek
Boulevard.
. In the McClellan end there would be a relocation of the 4H goat pen, down the hill and in
addition to that some expansion of the community gardens.
. The trail has been sited to minimize grading or removal of vegetation. There will be a total of
187 trees removed as part of the project. Most of those, the vast majority, probably 180 are
removed as part of the creek realignment; 22 of the trees ... 22 for trail construction, there are
some orchard trees that we counted towards the trail; 12 trees are within McClellan, and 10 are
within Stocklemeir.
. There is also a small trail head staging area built near the existing restroom to the south end of
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
9
the pools. That area now accommodates about 200 cars, and serves the Walnut Court picnic
areas. That trail staging area, all of that would be demoed and just the 17 car staging area and
an upgraded restroom.
. Blue Pheasant area has 91 spaces, it will be restriped to increase the capacity by 9 additional
spaces.
. The environmental education center has been proposed for 2,000 square feet. Under this
document it will depend on what type of funding to see what is built; but at least there will be
environmental clearance for that amount of building and it would be placed at the pad of the
former double wide residence trailer. It is shown in yellow here on this graphic. For those of
you who are familiar with McClellan, it is sort of tucked behind the barn, the large barn and
there are two palm trees in front of the site.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. Can you show us where the goat pen will be relocated?
JaBBa Janice Soquel:
. Yes, you see the area here, that's in black. This outlines the new area of 4H; their footprint
increases a little bit. The goat pen is actually right up in the edge right there. We are moving
them down slope a little bit and then adding, I think it is 9 new garden plots in this area.
. There will also be quite a bit of upland habitat restoration throughout the area. And this is
habitat that would be considered sort of oak grassland and other upland native shrubs. This is
not considered part of the riparian habitat, so it is slightly different and it is further away from
the creek and has different watering requirements unlike those vegetation that need the stream
water throughout the summer.
. Maintenance facilities will be upgraded. The golf maintenance facility that is perched on the
banks of the creek, down at the end of the existing parking area will be demoed. A new park,
golf maintenance would be tucked behind the conference center.
. In addition, the park maintenance facility that's down near the proposed 17 car staging area to
the south of the pool complex would be updated to be a 1,200 square foot facility. That is
about what it is now.
. The irrigation system which used to tap into groundwater, and we have been off groundwater
for three years due to a rusting of the tank, that stored groundwater will be reconditioned and a
cistern onsite will be used to store that water which will be below ground.
. And that's it; it is a fairly big project for a small piece of land but that's because there are so
many habitat components to it. With that I will turn the presentation over to Christine
Schneider who will talk to you about the impacts and the mitigations.
Christine Schneider:
. Good evening Chair and commissioners; I am Christine Schneider from TRA and I am going
to briefly walk through the environmental factors that were affected by this initial study
mitigated neg dec.
. And again, the reason why we are having this mitigated neg. dec. is because out of all the
environmental factors that were ... that exceeded standards of significance, we can apply 11
mitigation measures to mitigate all factors to less than significant levels. That is why we don't
have to do an EIR or any other documents.
. So I am going to walk through ... I am going to walk you through these mitigation measures
very briefly.
. First of all the issues: Special set of species within the corridor. There are... there was quite a
few biotic reports were prepared in 2004 and 2005.
. In those we found that steelhead as has been mentioned, are present. white tail kite have been
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
10
present; western pond turtle and 7 other species have been low to moderate potential to be
found in the project area.
. So of those, we have a series of impacts and mitigation measures and the first impact would be
that we have identified is the removal of structures and the removal of vegetation could impact
nesting birds. And so then this mitigation measure would ensure that all activities would not
impact nesting birds over levels of significance.
. Same with impact two. Where we have identified that there is a big brown bat maternity roust
at Horseshoe Bend and this mitigation measure would ensure that no impacts would occur,
significant impacts would occur to this maternity roust.
. Impact three, these are special status species; California red legged frogs, western pond turtles,
and dusky footed wood rats. We are saying that the mitigation here would avoid impacting
these special status species.
. Impact four; again biological resources and we have identified steelhead could parish due to
the construction activities that will be going on as part of the proposed project.
. Impact five has to deal... deals with dog use in the corridor; since dog use has its own suite of
activities and again dog use is only on the trail. We have identified minimization and
avoidance measures to keep dog users and their owners on the trails and we are going to have
patrols and citations. There is going to be new city park service employees, volunteer patrols,
education, limiting creek use, limiting areas that people who have dogs can access the creek
and such.
. I should also mention that we are also going to have adapted management and that is really
key, especially when you are dealing with putting a new use in an area that does not have the
use. Adaptive management in this case means that we are going to monitor what happens.
And if anything presents itself as either an impact or some other kind of issue comes up, then
we will take different measures.
. So the city will be continually monitoring the effects. You know... are dogs being kept out of
the creek; how is it working, that is what adaptive management is all about.
. One of the other biological resources impacts that we have identified has been that the trail
alignment may affect root zones of native heritage trees. Again, what we are trying to do in
the trail alignment is avoid removing trees and we are also trying to avoid any kind of removal
of the majority of roots from trees that are not going to be removed. This would ensure that
trees would not be removed. There is a lot of really great heritage trees, oaks, sycamores,
cottonwoods out there that we don't want to disturb.
. Next one has to do with trees as well. That is the tree trimming or removal could violate both
the City of Cupertino policies as well as the Department of Fish and Game policies from the
State of California. So we would implement, or the city would implement the mitigation
which includes replacing Coast Live Oaks at a ratio of 3: 1 and additional tree removal permits
if needed.
. Impact eight has to do with the cultural resources issues. Any time you are working in a creek
there is always the potential to have archeologic resources, and this creek is no different. In
fact there has been, there is a known possibility, a recorded possibility of a site on the
Stocklemeir orchard, so these mitigation measures that I am going to present to you in the next
couple of slides would serve to avoid or reduce impacts to these archeological issues.
. In order to facilitate our findings in cultural resources, the City hired a archeological
consultant to prepare a dig in Stocklemeir in the orchard, and they did it in February of this
year. They did a series of 8 trenches that they dug down to see if they found anything; if they
found any presence of any material and they did not. So it is not expected that there will be
anything but in the event that something is found, these measures are here to protect the city
and to protect those resources.
. I briefly want to walk through them very quickly. The first one would be that everybody... all
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23,2006
11
the contractors on the site would be briefed on the issue and they would be educated. And
then the next three measures here are about what happens if we do find something, just in case
we find something. Then part time archeological monitoring is required throughout that area
to allow for spot checking of subsurface construction. Both inside the boundary of this known
archeologic resource area and within the 100 foot buffer zone of that area.
. We also have a mitigation measure to reduce or avoid impacts caused by soils with pesticide
use in the Stocklemeir orchard since this is an orchard and since it is quite possible that other
areas within the corridor have also been used to grow orchard trees before. There could be the
possibility that there is pesticide residue in the soil. We want to do some testing to make sure,
to ensure the city doesn't have that.
. The next issue is hydrology water quality. There is no additional risk of flooding from this
project. This project would not either create more flooding or reduce it. The same amount of
water is going to come down, and because the pool at Blackberry Farm for example, isn't
moving, the same amount of water through that area would come through.
. The real difference is the fact that the park is going to be open 365 days per year; right now it
is open during the summer. In order to ensure that there are not any hazards to park users
during heavy storm events, even though most people don't like to be walking around in heavy
storm events, but in case that they would, the city could close the trail corridor or could post
signs or do both.
. The last one is the land use planning. This has to do with the environmental education center.
Since we don't know the exact design at this time, and again it was talked about previously in
this presentation that what we are trying to do is create a space that has environmental
clearance for a 2,000 square foot environmental ed center. We don't know the exact... how it
is going to look, we don't have floor plans; we don't have renderings; we don't have elevations;
and so we want to ensure that it is consistent, or the city wants to ensure it is consistent with
the McClellan Ranch Master Plan. So this mitigation measure would facilitate that.
. So in summary, the findings for the initial study mitigated neg. dec. prepared for this project
evaluates only changes to existing conditions; and it states the impacts identified are less than
significant with the mitigation measures incorporated that I have just presented.
. Implementation mitigation measures included would ensure that all significant impacts from
the proposed project would be avoided or reduced to insignificant levels.
. Now at this point because the space is ... this hearing is to hold the space to allow the public to
comment, I just wanted to mention that all verbal and written comments on this project during
the public review will be forwarded to the City Council. In addition, the City Council will
consider all comments received both tonight as well as written in light of the entire project.
Chair Miller:
. Thank you.
. Before we start our questions or the public, could I get an idea of how many people would like
to speak tonight? Please raise your hands. Great, that is a fair amount. So what I would like
to do then is open the public hearing now and then after we hear all the comments from the
public then we will bring it back to the commission and discuss it further.
. What I would like to do is if you plan to speak, please fill out a card and when you get up to
speak, please give your name and we will allow you three minutes to speak.
. The first speaker I have here is Robert Levy.
. Robert, welcome.
Robert Levy:
. Mr. Miller, Mr. Chairperson, members of the Commission, staff members, this is very
interesting project which started really to find a way to get a non-paying Stevens Creek Trail
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
12
througli a paying money making facility belonging to the city and to reduce some of the
impact of that money making. Other things have seemed to have gotten added along the way.
. The only thing I want to talk about in my brief time here is the entry to this new park. I am
probably out of date because I am working with an April set of maps in the documentation but
my Figure 12, Byrne Avenue access shows a crossing of San Fernando Avenue and then a 4
foot wide boardwalk for pedestrian, bicycle access. That now seems to be from the slides that
we saw here made 5 feet wide.
. The reason for that separate path, separate access is because the road isn't really wide enough
to tolerate bicycles and people, and buses, and cars, except sort of single file in either
direction.
. The real problem with that is that back in the 60s the entrance to Blackberry Farm was from
Stevens Creek Boulevard. When the golf course got put in, the entry was changed to come in
from Byrne Avenue. So for a large number of years traffic has been routed up Bubb Road,
across McClellan, down Byrne, down San Fernando, going by all sorts of houses and all sorts
of facilities on route.
. When I first suggested that the entry ought to be from Stevens Creek Boulevard and instead I
was told no we can not do that because we would have to relocate some of the golf course. If
you look at the Figure 10, the Stocklemeir Master Plan or Figure 19, the Reach C creek
alignments, the proponents of this thing have taken a step that I never would have proposed
which is don't relocate the golf course, relocate the creek.
. And if you look at the amount of creek realignment there is more than enough room to run
down from the edge of the parking lot at the Blue Pheasant down along where the creek used
to be by these plans and down to the point where it enters the festival parking lot.
. By doing that you would not have to build a bridge across Stevens Creek to come from the
Stocklemeir property with the Stevens Creek Trail; you could just run that down and along the
same entry road. If you are going to have bicycles riding as if they are the main road you
might as well have them riding on a road. In addition to which that would then change the San
Fernando Avenue exit to a pedestrian and park vehicle only entrance.
. Thank you.
Chair Miller:
. Thank you Robert.
. Next speaker is Rhoda Fry.
Rhoda Fry:
. I need help. This says red; I want to do slides.
Chair Miller:
. Okay, could someone help.
Mr. Piasecki:
. What you need to do is put it there and the video crew will bring it up.
Rhoda Fry:
. How about the... Can you hear me? Cool.
Com. Wong:
. Can you center that so we can see it better, please.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
Rhoda Fry:
. It looks like it is centered to me.
May 23, 2006
13
Com. Wong:
. There we go, thank you.
Rhoda Fry:
. Alright, never be afraid to walk away from a bad deal and this is a bad deal for neighbors of
the property, Cupertino citizens and the environment.
. Myth: reduction of picnic size reduces impact; only excess capacities removed; turns away
unmarriageable groups and retains 80,000 - 100 day usage; increases impact in a single locale;
800 used to spread out throughout the park and did damage; concentration in one place does
more.
· Currently you got 80,000 people and 100 days; proposed 169,000 people and 365 days; that is
double the people, double the traffic. We got the worst traffic area of Cupertino.
. Our streets are not walkable due to the introduction of the patchwork sidewalks and it is
getting worse. Diversion of traffic from the Blue Pheasant parking lot, that which is planned is
going to make it worse. By the way, one of the plan, one of the objectives for the City of
Cupertino Council was to relocate, analyze, relocating the entrance and it is not even in the
documents.
. Solutions:
· Decrease the usage in the corridor.
· B. Increase the parking at Blue Pheasant. Push the golf course in the Blackberry Farm
parking lot, solves the night time problems too, and also you need to add a bus turnout at
Stevens Creek Boulevard. You got 262 trips, 85 % + non residents. You are talking
somewhat only over 200 bus trips a day. Have them walk in a quarter mile, they do it at
Red Grove in Los Altos, we can do it here.
. Only 8 to 12% of reservations come from Cupertino. Is this a Cupertino amenity or an arm
pit? The plan increases the food service which is not a core accomplishment.
. This claims to be good for fish, yet the steelhead were present when there were even more
barriers including a 6 foot dam. Predicted impacts are incomplete. No new measurement
devices or consequences for excessive dust articulates.
. If bats are removed what happens to the west nile virus mosquitoes?
. Truck trips - assume that workers don't leave for lunch or breaks and of course there is more
but I don't have time for that.
. Proposed mitigations rely on human intervention. Our experience has shown that the city is
incapable of adhering to the simplest of codes, let alone a project of this magnitude.
. Where is the ROI? Economic, environmental, and social. Cupertino has acquired a unique
property, let's get together and create a magical place that it deserves to be.
. Thank you very much and I can't believe I have forty five seconds remaining. I appreciate
your attention.
Chair Miller:
. Maybe I can ask you a question or two. The pictures that you took of the trash in the park.
Are they recent pictures or older pictures?
Rhoda Fry:
. They are fairly recent pictures. The standard of operations has been to leave trash in open cans
all night long. The cans are. .. trash cans are tipped over by animals during the night and have
created an environmental havoc, and disruption of the animal populations and the environment
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
14
within the corridor. Santa Clara County Vector Control has been called in on numerous
occasions, yet there have only been marginal improvements. Cupertino code says that all cans
must be covered. There are still problems. I have more recent pictures as well.
Chair Miller:
. Okay, so the problems have been ongoing.
. Have they been addressed to your knowledge to some extent at this point?
Rhoda Fry:
. They have been addressed to some extent, yet the ground squirrel problem; the Santa Clara. . ..
There is still a ground squirrel problem which has not to my knowledge been addressed.
. It was not only required by the Santa Clara County Vector Control but also the Santa Clara
V alley Water District because it causes disruption of the creek sides.
. You go down there, the ground looks like swiss cheese and it is making the sycamore trees
unstable. We need those to shade the creek for the fish.
Chair Miller:
. And the number of the increase in usage; you got those numbers from where?
Rhoda Fry:
. I got them from the documents. Although the documents do not list the 262+ non-resident
groups that come in on buses. They acknowledge the one such date, but they don't recognize
the weeks and weeks of dates that buses go through the neighborhoods.
Chair Miller:
. Thank you Rhoda.
Rhoda Fry:
. Thank you very much; I appreciate your time.
Chair Miller:
. The next speaker is Lee Shodiss. (no response)
. The next speaker is Deborah Jamison. Did everyone turn in a card and then leave? Lee didn't
respond so Deborah you are on.
Deborah Jamison:
. Thank you, I am Deborah Jamison, 21-year resident of Cupertino, involved with issues
concerning McClellan Ranch since 1990.
. I worked with Nancy Hurder, and Lonnie Tonsfelt, leaders of the 70s movement to save
McClellan Ranch and have it become the city's first and still only nature of rural preserve. I
was appointed to the McClellan Ranch Master Plan Committee which worked for 2 1/2 years
on writing goals, objectives and recommendations to improve the wildlife habitat and
educational opportunities in McClellan Ranch, which includes the leased water district parcel,
known as the old orchard and the Simms addition on the west side of the creek.
. I am a naturalist by educational training and have a masters degree in ecology and another in
science teaching. My former profession was naturalist and environmental educator.
. I have thoroughly read and digested the entire set of documents and I am about half way
through writing my comments, questions, concerns and complaints. I cannot begin to explain
all these in three minutes and I can only briefly list a couple of them now. I have no time to
praise the plan.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23,2006
15
. My main purpose in speaking before you tonight is to say if you have not read and thought
about the project's potential impacts and how the project can be modified to lessen or
eliminate them in addition to the mitigation measures offered, I hope you will take the time to
do so.
. This is a major project. My first comment was submitted a few days after the release of the
Initial Study. I protested the 30 day comment period during what is the busiest month for
anyone involved in nature birding, wildlife, or gardening. In other words, the city residents
who would be most interested in studying the project to date and its anticipated environmental
impacts.
. This Master Plan is now five years in the process giving citizens a longer period, say 60 days
to read this voluminous set of documents and submit their thoughts is not asking too much
considering how long we have waited to get this far.
. I have sacrificed my income-producing work and organizational commitments to read and
respond to this, but I suspect most other interested residents are unwilling to do so. Thirty days
may be the city's usual response period for a negative dec., but this isn't a normal project.
. The way that the so-called Simms property has been treated over the last few years and the
planned continuation of the status quo as described in this study is a betrayal of the public trust
and public coffers.
. This property was purchased for over $1 million in 1990 and added to McClellan Ranch in
City Resolution No. 8933. There was a native plant project on the property; there were
designated caretakers living in the Simms house.
. Today that property is leased to a private party with no acknowledgement that they are
residing on city park land with sensitive habitat that the city purchased to protect. The entire
back of the property is now a road bed, parking lot, and construction yard for the private house
being built on the adjacent property with no end in site. The native plant restoration area was
destroyed.
. This whole situation should be an embarrassment to the city. It is unacceptable after waiting
16 years this plan gives no hope that the goals of McClellan Ranch Master Plan for this
property or any environmental goals will be met any time in the foreseeable future.
. I have many other comments, concerns, questions, and alternative suggestions which will be
presented to the city in written form. I hope the city is not in such a hurry to approve this
negative dec. that you do not take the time to read and understand all of the many facets of this
plan and the implications and impacts.
. I hope that the city will honor the time that some residents and organizations are taking to
respond to these documents and not leave us with the impression that it does not matter what
we say. This is a done deal as presented to you.
. Thank you very much.
Chair Miller:
. If you want to take a little more time, please do so.
Ms. Jamison:
. Okay, thank you.
. The plan results in a loss of a small portion of the McClellan Ranch meadow because of the
squeezing in of a new trail. In essence, lost community garden plots are replaced in large
because of the trail construction. This riparian meadow is a rare and wildlife valuable asset
and should not be sacrificed in any degree for a recreational use that is inconsistent with the
mission of McClellan Ranch which is clearly spelled out in Ordinance 710, the regulations and
guidelines in the Master Plan.
. I have a suggestion in my written comments that community gardens be expanded in other
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
16
places in the city and that the meadow not be sacrificed. The estimates for trail usage are
vastly underestimated for when the trail is connected to the Linda Vista Park, the county park
and beyond. At that time it will become the regional multi-use recreational facility it was
destined to be. It will become an alternative to paying $5.00 to park in the county park lots,
especially for mountain bikers. It will become an alternative for over crowded parking lots at
Ranch San Antonio that turn away cars every nice weekend. Even without the connection it
will become an alternative for those seeking a short walk with kids and bikes to Deer Hollow
Farm at Rancho. This trail will provide a very similar use experience and the impacts of
bicycles and dogs which the plan acknowledges will amplify as the trail is used by more and
more people in the years to come. I think that the trail needs to be better contained for dogs
and bicyclists; more fencing to protect the restoration areas and to protect McClellan Ranch
from the inevitable off trail usage that such trails engender. The effectiveness of the
mitigation measures is wholly dependent on the quality the project, the management, and the
long term monitoring, enforcement, ongoing restoration of deteriorators ... deteriorated areas
and commitment on the part of the city. Ultimately the commitment over the years to
McClellan Ranch does not inspire confidence that this will be done right and that the impacts
will be mitigated. This brings up the same point that Rhoda said that the track record of the
city is not good and it is not inspiring a lot of confidence that all these mitigation measures
will be properly instigated. The 17 car parking lot that is in the section of Blackberry Farm for
a trailhead, I am opposed to. I think that all the parking should be consolidated in a large
parking lot and that cars should not be invited down this narrow corridor. That trailhead should
be a very small trailhead for bicyclists and pedestrians and not cars. People can walk; people
can walk from the main parking lot to access the trails. They can park at the two parking lots
at either end and access the trail. They don't need to invite parking into the middle of
Blackberry Farm like that in the 17 car lot.
. I will stop. Do you have any questions?
Chair Miller:
. I believe we do.
Com. Chien:
. Thank you Chairman Miller.
. Deborah, I know ... I was on the Parks and Rec Commission back in 2003 when we started
this public hearing process and I know you have been very passionate.
. In particular, I have noticed when we were out there, you and I joined the city naturalists to go
out to McClellan Ranch preserve and walk that property.
. Your concerns mainly focused on that particular property. So with respect to the preserve,
would you say your feeling about it has changed or has it remained the same? If it has
changed, what's caused it?
Deborah Jamison:
. You mean with regards to this Master Plan or in general?
Com. Chien:
. With regards to the Master Plan and how it plans out the preserve.
Deborah Jamison:
. I am very concerned about the impacts to wildlife. I think that some of the mitigation
measures are good, but I am not confident that they will actually carried out in long term and
that monitoring and re-restoration will be done in those areas that are impacted by misuse of
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
17
the trail.
· I am concerned about blue bird nesting in the old orchard area. I am concerned about the
hooded orioles nesting in the palm trees and I am very opposed to reduction of the meadow.
· That riparian meadow is a rare type of habitat. In the days when we had agriculture in the
valley, a meadow or field next to a riparian zone, next to a creek was a common thing. Now it
is a very rare type of habitat and it is that habitat that creates the great biodiversity in
McClellan Ranch.
. It is the juxtaposition; it's the ecotone created when a riparian woodland is contiguous with the
field, and I think sacrificing even one inch of that meadow is not only the wrong thing to do,
but it is in ... it is in clear violation of the mission of McClellan Ranch to preserve ...
preserve. That is why the city made it a nature and rural preserve, not...
. And yes, the gardens are a very popular program. There is a waiting list for those gardens, and
it is time for the city to create some community garden opportunities for other ... in other
places in the city, particularly on the east side.
· And it is not an environmental solution, that people from the east side driving all the way to
the west side of McClellan Ranch. McClellan Ranch should not take the brunt of the entire
recreational need for community gardens. It is time to put some more community gardens
somewhere else.
Com. Chien:
. Thank you very much.
Deborah:
. Any other questions?
Chair Miller:
. Any other questions for Deborah?
. Thank you Deborah.
. Our next speaker is Jennifer Griffin.
Jennifer Griffin:
. Good evening Planning Commission; I am Jennifer Griffin.
. I am a long-time resident of this area; I attended local schools; I have very fond memories of
Blackberry Farm picnics my junior high and senior end of the school year.
. I understand that this is a project of great scope and magnitude, and obviously it is going to
take a great deal of thought by the city.
. I was very pleased a number of years ago when I heard that Cupertino had purchased
Blackberry Farm to protect it. I think that happened in 1990 if I am not mistaken. I think it
was a wonderful plan to have the park available; it will be nice to have it available to residents
now.
. Obviously there are a number of issues because of the increased use of the park. Rancho San
Antonio having grown up near that area, I have seen the proliferation of people using Rancho
San Antonio Park from the first days that it had opened, and it has absolutely snowballed into
just a very important regional park. But I am very concerned about Blackberry Farm getting to
that magnitude.
. You have some very very congested areas in Monta Vista and the entrance to Blackberry Farm
has been ... has had problems in the past, having gone down that little road on a school bus
many many times.
. Please make sure that any oak trees that are removed from the area are replaced with correct
species, field grown oak trees; they are available. Stanford has had extensive replanting
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23,2006
18
programs of young oaks on their lands that have been very successful.
. Since this is the first time that the park has been opened up to public access, we have families
using the park; children on bicycles.
. I understand people with the dogs do use the park now. Hopefully people will be sensitive to
keeping dogs on leashes. I am particularly concerned about squirrels; dogs will chase
squirrels.
. You have a number of sensitive riparian areas there. You also have a number of areas where
bikes are probably not appropriate near creek beds. Having three brothers, I know how
wonderful it is to get into areas in the spring when there are lots of mud.
. I do hope that people who use the park and have dogs or using bicycles will be good members
of the public and keep dogs on leashes, on trails, where they are supposed to be and have a
good use of bicycles and not take them down into creek beds unless that is as the city dictates.
. I understand there is a native fish population; hopefully that can be brought back. Is the water
controlled through Stevens Creek at this time?
. Also too, please have increased security of bicycle patrol officers. I think it is very important.
. Thank you very much.
Chair Miller:
. Thank you Jennifer.
. The next speaker is Audrey Butcher.
Audrey Butcher:
. I was born in an orchard, still live in one, and knew both Gladys and Louie Stocklemeir.
. I am concerned about those ten trees that you are removing. What are those ten trees? The
Stocklemeir trees?
Chair Miller:
. We will answer your questions later. If you would just give us your comments and if you have
questions, I will make sure we will answer them before the end of the hearing.
Audrey Butcher:
. Well I did not understand why ten trees should be removed from that property. I wasn't able
to see the map very clearly.
. I don't think trees should be removed from an orchard because it destroys the unity and you
can no longer disk or spray properly. But those orange trees do not need spraying. I have 18
orange trees that my father in law planted over 100 years ago and we never spray them and
they are healthy and they produce lots of oranges. I don't know why any trees should be
removed from the Stocklemeir orchard.
. I am glad that you have wood rats in your oak trees because there should be; we have them
with our oak trees.
. I am also a little concerned with those bridges because there should be some way to be certain
that bicycles walk across those bridges. I no longer am a bicyclist so I can say what I want
about those who use them.
. But my son, daughter and I were assaulted in hoity toity Los Gatos by bikers. We were
observing an art exhibit on the bridge but they thought we should get out of the way because
they were more important than we were.
. Thank you.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
19
Chair Miller:
. Thank you Audrey.
· Our next speaker is Andy Butcher.
Andy Butcher:
· I am living on a ranch currently that has been in the family for 125 years, and I have had a
chance to go up and take a look at the Stocklemeir orchard and I would like you to take a lot of
consideration for all those beautiful persimmon trees that are on the north end of the property.
I have never seen persimmon trees as beautiful as those and those really need to be protected.
· I have read a couple of conflicting ideas about the orchard. I have heard one person that all the
orange trees will be removed completely and not replaced. I have also heard they would be
replaced with apricot trees.
· I think a lot of concern ought to be given to what you want to do with this property. I
personally wouldn't mind if it were replaced with habitat, but don't tell my family or other
orchardists that.
· I am glad that with the present alignment of the river that you have taken into concern its
gradient and consequent erosion. I think it is very important to be aware of that and I actually
hope more than, may I say this simply naturalist, I have a degree in horticulture and I am a full
time gardener for Stanford, I am active with the CMPS; but I hope that ... I am sorry, that
orchard needs to have its integrity retained.
· As far as the alignment of the river, any increase... any shortening of the length of it is going
to increase the velocity and increase the erosion. It looks like you have taken that into
consideration. I hope that you really look at this lady's document when she is finished with it.
It sounds like she really is on the ball.
. Thank you.
Chair Miller:
. Would it be alright if I asked you a few questions sir?
. You said the orchard needs to have its integrity remain. Could you comment on that why that
is important?
Andy Butcher:
. Well whenever you have a margin on an orchard, you have a problem with pests on the
outside. You have a root problem, it is difficult to disk. You put a path through it, you have
doubled its margin. You have impacted the integrity of that orchard.
. I can see how it would be nice to have people traveling through it and there might be a way to
do it on a temporary basis, with a temporary path.
. I know that there are federal standards for bike paths and so forth. Maybe we could do
something a little more innovative than carve up the orchard.
Chair Miller:
. Thank you. The next speaker is Nicole Rau.
Nicole Rau:
. Good evening; I am a terrible speaker but I felt like I should have a say tonight and I agree
with Deborah. I wish we had much more time because there is so much that could be said
with this plan coming up.
. My main concern right now is also the orchard at Stocklemeir; where I wish there was a way
we can do an alternative plan and not have to carve away so many trees and threaten some of
the blue birds and other birds that nest in the area.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
20
. Right now I am working and helping out at the Cupertino Historical Society and I have
recruited a couple of students who are working on the education program and I had always
hoped in the future we could use the orchard as part of our education program, because so
many have disappeared in the area and there are now shopping centers; and so many children
do not have an idea where their food is coming from.
. It is good to have an environmental project but if the orchards are missing, it is missing
actually a big part of their history about the area as well; which I would hope we could
integrate that and have both like our national history as well as the history of the area and
preserve that in some way with the Stocklemeir property.
. Some other concerns I also have are also liability with increased visitors passing through the
Stocklemeir area as well as restroom use; if there will be enough and if so will they be going
through Stocklemeir.
. Also the cost of security enforcement, with the increase of people on the trails. I would hope
that in the future there could be a joint benefit project but I think there does need to be a great
deal of revision and some things worked out with this.
. I hope we can preserve the orchard and keep that as educational resource for students.
. And now the trail will not only be for hikers, but also for seniors, and students or other people
who might have an interest in the area.
. Thank you.
Chair Miller:
. Thank you. Nicole, we have some questions.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. On the Stocklemeir property, where would you suggest a trail be placed?
Nicole Rau:
. I actually in honesty I just found out about the plans the night before and the maps are very
very difficult to read.
. An eight foot paved trail or they are saying a permanent trail, is that asphalt or is that going to
be paved?
Vice Chair Giefer:
. It is a pervious. .. after reading the report it is some non-toxic permeable surface.
Nicole Rau:
. I would definitely have to have a clear view of the map and look at alternatives and would
hope there could be other routes.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. Thank you for that.
Chair Miller:
. Thank you. The next speaker is Mike Foulkes.
Mike Foulkes:
. Thank you Mister Chair and members of the Planning Commission. I am Mike Foulkes here
today as a board member of the Cupertino Historical Society.
. I think Nicole's comments were dead on and so I am here it give a little more of a historical
flavor. I think the overall document that has been discussed has a lot of good pieces to it and I
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
21
think there is obviously a lot of work that has gone into it.
. But Blackberry Farm is the focus and I think at the Historical Society that is our problem is
that the focus on Stocklemeir is fairly non-existent. I think you have heard from several
speakers about the orchard.
. Part of this goes back to when the Historical Society went to City Council. As you all know
the Stocklemeir house since the city bought has remained derelict and is in great disrepair and
many worry that it is not going to last very much longer if we don't do major work on it.
. So the city has had ongoing discussions with the Historical Society about coming and taking
over that property and working on it. In fact we have a memorandum of understanding with
the city on this and we have gone out and doing surveys and raising money, etc.
. The problem we have is that we have always envisioned having the Stocklemeir property not
just the house. This plan unfortunately and perhaps for reasons of golf or other reasons cuts
the property in half, takes away a huge portion of the orchard which is critical to the plans that
we have been envisioning to make that to raise the funds to help with Stocklemeir property
and takes and puts the path, the walkway right in between the property, really making it
useless for most educational activities that we have envisioned.
. So while I understand there are some rationale for that in the overall plan, it really does
devalue this whole area and makes it very difficult for us to fill the mission that we have been
contemplating for the several years with the city.
. My concern is, in this document there is lots of millions of dollars are going to be spent on
restoration and upgrading of facilities.
. There is nothing in here for the Stocklemeir home. If we are truly going to cut up the
Stocklemeir ranch and kind of destroy the ranch aspect of it and really make it more of a
restoration project which is the choice of the city, then it is going to be very difficult for us to
bring in the resources and I would hope that if the city is going to destroy the orchard as a
education tool and then there at least is consideration to and funding to really restore the
Stocklemeir property because I don't know it is something our organization can do. I know we
have several board members who will probably elaborate on that. Thank you.
Chair Miller:
. Thank you Mike.
. Next speaker is Mark McKenna.
Mark McKenna:
. Good evening commissioners. I am Mark McKenna, I am representing .. I am President of
Cupertino Chamber of Commerce. I actually hate following Mike Foulkes because he says
everything so eloquently.
. So what I would like to first say is on June 3rd we are having our 40th anniversary dinner; it is
$100 per person and you are more than welcome to come.
. Having said that I would also like to echo some of the comments that have already been said
earlier.
. Moving the creek over, moving the trail over, it is kind of a slice and dice of that property, and
it makes it useless to us. If the creek stays where it is, soils won't not be disturbed and we
won't have to worry about mitigating for pesticides. We would really love to see a trail go
right down along where the present creek is, where we can display the orchard and the creek
and we can do interpretive classes on the two of them.
. Thank you for your time.
Chair Miller:
. Thank you. The next speaker is Joe Walton.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
22
Joe Walton:
. Thank you Chair Miller, and thank you commissioners for working hard on this project; it is a
big one and I think it is going to be a great one when it gets done.
. I am Joe Walton and I am going on forty years of residence of our fair city. I serve on the
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission and have for some years. I represent the City of Cupertino to
the VT A on bicycle and pedestrian issues.
. The park has served as a safe route to school for many many years. The City Council, I think
at their last meeting decreed that the gate would be closed and no more people would pass
through the park from Scenic Circle Drive.
. The problem is that it is a safe route for students going to our three schools, middle school,
high school and elementary school. Particulary for those on bicycles traveling in the morning
and in the afternoon on McClellan Road is a very dicey prospect. The road is not large enough
to permit a bicycle lane or striping for bicycles. So as consequence the students is at risk.
. Formerly, bicyclists and students walking to school could utilize that path from Scenic Circle
across the park and coming out on Byrne Avenue and an easy walk to school. So that has been
closed, but I think it needs to be re-thought and reopened as a controlled path, not a public
path, not a western gateway to the park, but rather for students use only. It would be open
before, during, and after school hours for a limited time; and then it would be closed.
Obviously it would be closed on the weekends and when summer gets here it would be closed
all the time. But it is an important path and I think we have just recently a young student
bicycling to school who was collided with a car, even though he was not run over, I don't think
seriously hurt, but it highlights the fact that if we allow that situation to continue that we are
going to have many more people contending with the terrible traffic and as a consequence
suffering injurious injuries.
. So that is my pitch to give some consideration of the reopening of a pathway across the park. I
have a letter I sent along to Director Smith; I think you have gotten that so it will be in your
packet and it will go on to City Council.
. I think it is an important consideration. If you have any questions I am up for them, otherwise
I will repair.
Chair Miller:
. We have a question for you.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. Thank you for joining us this evening.
. On the current plan there is a lightweight vehicle,.-6lle bridge that may accommodate students
potentially from Scenic Circle and I was just wondering if you have any thoughts on the
placement of that particular bridge?
Joe Walton:
. If you were to... I understand you are taking bridges out, I am not familiar with the plan
exactly, but the pathway comes down at probably the lowest road elevation to the elevation of
the park itself, it is slightly downhill.
. If there is a bridge some place in that vicinity that would accommodate walking and bicycling
that would be great. At the other side of the park, on the east side of course they just pedal out
the entrance. But some consideration should be given.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. Great, thank you.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
23
Chair Miller:
. Thank you Joe. The next speaker is Joyce Eden.
Joyce Eden:
. Hello, thank you for taking public comments. I appreciate the work that is going into this
plan. I appreciate the City of Cupertino for buying these properties with the intention of
preserving them.
. You are probably all aware that this is, especially McClellan Ranch Park is an incredible
treasure for the city of Cupertino and for the future of our children and grandchildren. I love it
and I want the habitat preserved and we have the beautiful gift from the previous City
Councils of having it designated as a preserve so I am very interested in the focus remaining
on that.
. Since the other properties are contiguous and go along the creek and have important habitat,
and I am going to guess there is species there we don't even know about. Let's try and
preserve that; so I do oppose a wide trail that includes bikes.
. I have been waiting probably for at least a decade, maybe longer for the bike trail from
Stevens Creek Boulevard to go through to Rancho San Antonio, so I would urge you to put
funds into that vs. widening a wide trail for bikes along this river corridor.
. I have three boys, they are grown now, but let's not fool ourselves about a bike path, unless
you have some plan that I can't imagine which you could, but I highly doubt it, of how you are
going to keep the kids from going off bike or even the high intensity bike racers that might
want to go there from on their way to Stevens Canyon Road or Foothill South, whatever it is
called now. That is a big concern.
. I did hear Miss Giefer mention permeable path; however I have seen this happen in way too
many national parks where the intention was to have a permeable built path and it ended up to
be paved; so just wondering about that plan.
. The bat habitat - I understand there is bat habitat that may be destroyed from the configuration
and that is really not a good idea. They do eat a lot of mosquitoes and we want to keep that.
. We want to keep the quiet atmosphere there; the slow quiet atmosphere which is the problem
with the bike path through there. As you know I am a biker, but not there.
. I understand that there is going to be a new snack bar, and I am very concerned with that
because again people since there is going to be a trail, people will be carrying their snacks and
the wrappings and I imagine it will get out of control and thinking of mitigation, oh there is
going to be garbage cans, oh there will be clean x amount of times; it won't happen. It just
won't end up happening.
. So the less that "if we build it they will come" in terms of those kinds of things, the better.
And also the issue of keeping the bikes on the trails as I said.
. The 15 ... the 17 car parking lot in the middle of the property; please don't do that. Let's keep
the vehicles out as much as possible and that's adding those 17 places in the middle there is
really not a good idea.
. I am not sure how the configuration works but I heard people talk about the children passing
through and I do support the kids having a pathway and a bike way going to the schools.
Maybe there is a card they can use with the gate, some kind of configuration like that. It is
very important. We want the kids to walk and bike to school.
. Another aspect of the snack bar, please don't make this a cash cow. It's real easy to make a
public land into a cash cow for the city. Let's pay for things through our taxes and not try to
do that.
. The same goes for all the construction. Construction, mitigation; oh keep so far from the
riparian zone, don't knock over the trees, and so on. This never works, so please understand.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
24
You are bringing in big vehicles; there is going to be damage beyond, way beyond what is
planned for. So the less construction, the less big bulldozers and cranes the better.
. Oh, and I do want to say about the monitoring. Unless you put monitoring into this plan and
you put long term funds for monitoring, it will drop by the wayside; it won't happen.
. Also, I want the bird habitat preserved; when you have dead trees that is habitat; it is not just a
dead tree and it is very important.
. Thank you very much.
. Oh, and I ask you please, if you don't read the plan, read the public comments. Please do that.
. Thank you.
Chair Miller:
. Thank you Joyce. The next speaker is John Kolski.
John Kolski:
. Good evening commissioners and staff. My name is John Kolski. I am a 61-year native
resident of Cupertino and have lived on my family property since it was purchased in 1902.
. I am here speaking for myself and six of the oldest and longest native members of this
community who had extensive acres of orchards in our city and founded our city. And I
believe we all wouldn't be enjoying our city today if it wasn't for the older founding members
of our community which we should honor.
. They all and I would like to save the Stocklemeir orchard as a heritage orchard. We have only
that orchard to save now. Sunnyvale has a nice, that Charlie Olson takes care of, a nice
heritage orchard and we really don't; we have little bits and pieces of what is left from all the
old ranchers in this community and not one left complete orchard.
. There is some problems in talking to the old timers about changing that orchard.
. One - that is a really well preserved orange orchard and I realize that the descendants of the
Stocklemeirs never liked their parents having an orange orchard, and that they would have
rather having to have had other fruit there but that's not really a reality there according to the
old timers.
. That orchard produces a lot of oranges. Right now it needs constant pruning; it needs disking;
it doesn't need spraying. It needs to be just maintained. But the problem that that orchard has
with replacing any of the trees with other trees, stone fruit, prune trees, apricot trees, anything
other than walnut trees is the oak root fungus.
. And oak root fungus thrives in the ground at Stocklemeirs just like any other place where it
has constant water supply. Moving the creek only helps make the oak root fungus worse in the
whole area of that orchard because you bring the water closer to the trees. Orange trees and
walnut trees survive; apricot trees and prune trees, and almost anything else after a few years
will die in that oak root fungus conditions of over moist soil continually month after month,
year after year.
. The trail that would go through the center of it creates another problem as you have heard
tonight; that you are impacting the ground; you are cutting off the natural water supply from
the surface and you are cutting off the air supply to the trees.
. You also bring a factor in that has been brought up tonight and I won't dwell on it, is the
impact of the trail and then the impact of the people walking off the trail around trees. I think
we all know that's a problem around the root systems of trees.
. Chips - there have been chips ... wood chips spread on that orchard already that I think some
of, if you don't mind me saying some of the old timers really got upset about because they used
to take care of the Stocklemeir orchard for Mr. Stocklemeir. They have been disked in, that
cuts off the air and stops the weeds from growing. We all understand what chips do in your
yard but it stops the air and the water from going in. It is terrible.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
25
. Fruit trees also bring another problem to that orchard area. It is debatable of how bad of a
problem. If you put peaches or apricots or prunes, or plums in there; you are going to have...
if you think you have a deer problem there now, you are going to have a bigger deer problem
because it is a sweet fruit. The stone fruits are a sweet fruit and they will eat the fruit. On an
apricot tree they will strip the leaves from the tree and the trees will die. The deer will kill the
trees.
. Orange trees are a little big, they have bitter leaves so they don't eat the oranges obviously
because of the rind on the oranges. They usually don't eat the leaves, at least they don't strip
an orange tree to where there are no leaves to get air and water from the top ofthe tree.
. That orchard needs to be disked. I have gone to the city quite a few times and I think Steve
will go along with that and had people volunteer to disk that orchard.
. Everybody thinks that the orchard needs to have the weeds growing and doesn't need to be
disked. The ground needs to cultivated; the ground needs to get air and water through it and
the orchard just needs to be taken care of.
. I think we owe it to our founding members of our community that are still alive to have at least
one place left that brought us all here to Cupertino in the first place.
. Thank you for your time.
Chair Miller:
. Thank you John.
. We are back to Lee Shodiss; is Lee Shodiss in the room?
. I am out of speaker cards. Does anyone else wish to speak on this issue, on this item?
. Okay, I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the Commission.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. I would like to start with a couple questions for staff with regards to the project.
. After reading the packet that we received and I did read all of it, the first question I have is
why can't we restore the creek where it currently is? Why are you proposing changing the
placement of the creek? ... Anybody.
Therese Smith:
. Any of us could do it.
. The biggest issue is that the removal to impediments to fish passage. There is actually a
couple things going on but one of the significant ones is that hydrologically, and there has
been a lot of engineering done for this. This is not something that has been taken lightly; and a
lot of alternatives generated.
. We were looking for a system that would be self maintaining; we don't want a lot of fish
structures that require maintenance and could potentially be eroded. We need to achieve a
certain gradient; we need to replace spawning habitat, spawning gravels. We need to take care
of some areas that are undercutting; replace some areas that are artificially filled with the creek
channel itself and reconnect that channel to the floodplain.
. Janna could probably go into this at great length, but in order to improve the habitat for
spawning fish, it is necessary to have a gradient long enough that picks up the vertical drop,
that has eroded over years of misuse of the creek. It is actually about driveways through it.
Low flow.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. Right, I walked the property again this morning or this afternoon, but I could not help but look
at the creekbed where it is today and wonder why you can't either engineer the soil to ... and
again I am not a hydrologist, whatever the right term is ... but it just seemed to me it would
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
26
take a lot more effort to realign and we would lose many more trees, than to try and remedy
the problems we have in the current creek.
Christine Schneider:
· Maybe I could elaborate on Therese's response a little bit.
· We looked at restoring the creek within its self, in situ; and part of it is going to be done it that
manner. The part from the Blackberry Farm fencing to the walnut orchard down to about the
first low flow can be done in situ, within the existing channel; but that area is not as deeply
incised and down cut.
· It almost looks, when you look at the area along the parking lot today, it almost looks like it is
a levy creek channel out n<;:ar the bay; it is not. It is so deeply incised that it floods; it doesn't
even connect to the floodplain.
· All of Blackberry Farm, all of Stevens Creek Corridor is in the 100 year floodplain; and now
the typical ten year flood just flushes through that area and drains to the bay. It doesn't
overbank; it doesn't feed those trees any longer; you; you don't see baby sycamores out there;
you see big majestic trees that are reaching the end of their life span and falling down.
· If we were to fix it within the channel, the solution there was all hardscape. It was stoned, hand
placed stone pools, mortared in place that would break up that gradient and that you would
series of six inch step pools all the way down, very hard in structure which minimizes your
ability to plant within the creekbanks, because you are trying to plant within concrete and
boulders. It does allow the fish to move but it doesn't enhance the rest of the habitat. It
further disconnects the creek from the floodplain. So by lengthening it and widening it, laying
those creekbanks back we are able to do so much more for the ecological function of the
corridor. So where we could do it in place we did.
· We also then, the Stocklemeir orange orchard has raised a lot of concern tonight and I think I
should address the golf course area. We wanted to restore that portion of the creek actually in
situ in the channel. However, in that area the entire edge of the golf course is lined with shot
creek, rip rap, poured concrete, and it is all over time decaying and being undermined,
collapsing and falling apart.
. We wanted to widen that creekbank out and we are limited by a major sewer line that runs
almost immediately adjacent to the creek through most of that portion of the area. Our only
fix in situ is to pull all the concrete out and put in a poured concrete vertical wall along that
portion of the creek to protect the sewer line and then to create a very low bench where we
could do some planting in the bottom of the channel, very minimal and then we could plant no
trees at the top of it because you have a sewer line to deal with as well.
· We could have done that as well, that was one of the options. No one was going to want to put
money into that; it's not environmentally sensitive. So in that case we thought of what else
can be done in that area, in the absence of completely ripping out a sewer line which would
require a pump station and all the other things associated with it; and that was to flip-flop the
creek and the habitat that is along the Stocklemeir property is still in great shape.
· There are beautiful oaks that provide the oak fungus to the orchard; there are beautiful
buckeyes, sycamores and by transitioning the creek to the other side, you maintain water
connection to those existing trees and then you are able to replant the whole other side. It does
impact the orchard significantly. It is a tradeoff between natural habitat versus historical
orchard.
· That orchard is actually relatively new; it is 30 to 40 years old. Prior to that time this was a
pick and pay walnut orchard that was sprayed; and we're concerned about pesticides because
of that use.
· Over time the front end of the property is still historic walnut orchard and persimmon and a
variety of other citrus trees as well as some olive and some kumquat and some loquat all
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
27
within that area. That area is indeed preserved but the orchard trees closest to the riparian
habitat would be lost; and I don't know the exact count; I could give that to you. 87 orange
trees would be lost; about half the orchard. Maybe that is a long answer as to why we couldn't
fix it in place.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. I heard several different things that were going on at once. With regards to the Stocklemeir
property, I actually heard that there was an alternative. It may not be the one you like but it
sounds like you did investigate another alternative.
Christine Schneider:
. Yeh, there is an alternative.
. It would essentially be a wall like this.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. So moving on, my next question is in regards to the tree replacement.
. You are proposing a 3: 1 replacement for the native species trees that are lost; and oak which is
probably several hundred years with three acorn species of similar oaks as opposed to field
grown oaks.
. Is that right? Did I misunderstand that in the report that your tree replacement will be.. I can
tell you where it is in your appendices.
Christine Schneider:
. I know where it is.
. Let me say too that the tree report is as aggressive as possible. Let me look at that particular
tree that you bring out. I don't even think that tree is actually coming out. Is it, let's see.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. We didn't have a tree map so when I walked the property I was actually unable to pick out
which trees that they were that were ...
Christine Schneider:
. It is on the demo plan, but you don't have a tree by tree by tree.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. I am very concerned. I am sorry, it is a 91 inch circumference on the tree.
. Now, my question is you're proposing to replace them with basically one or two inch sprouted
acorns. Is that correct?
Christine Schneider:
. There are three large oaks that are of that significance...
Vice Chair Giefer:
. There is more than three.
Christine Schneider:
. Well no, of that size that are in that area and they are actually on the west bank picnic area
where the creek cut would come through.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
28
Vice Chair Giefer:
· But you are proposing that you replace them with acorns?
· So you are going to replace a 90 inch circumference oak tree with three trees this size.
JaBBa Janice SoqueI:
. First of all let's separate the two issues.
· There's... this whole project really strove to reduce tree loss and there are some places where
trees will be lost; but there are over 4, 000 trees within the whole Stevens Creek corridor.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· No, I hear you and that is not my issue.
· I understand that, but we would never let a developer come to us and say I want to cut down a
100-year old oak tree and I am going to put in three sprouted acorns.
Christine Schneider:
· The reason for that is that we are trying to maintain the genetic integrity of the corridor, and if
we were to put in a boxed oak tree, a 36 inch box which you would typically require of a
developer who was removing such a large tree; it would not be of the Stevens Creek corridor
watersheds stock.
· And as a matter of fact, box trees over time are out compete by that acorn within a 15 to 20
year period; and actually the acorn tree actually does better. This is particularly the case if you
were to plant a one gallon versus a 15 gallon tree. Within 3 to 5 years that young tree, the
smaller tree would be much larger than the 15 because the root development in the specific
soil conditions is what benefits that particular tree; and you collect an acorn from onsite.
· This would be probably actually be required by the jurisdictional agencies in the area as well.
Therese Smith:
· I was just going to mention the Water District guidelines for native plantings are that if you
cannot provide stock from within the watershed you have to plant an exotic. Because they do
not want the cross-contamination between the species that are watershed specific and ones that
were cultivated in other watersheds.
· So we may be required by permit, this document is also written for the benefit of the
permitting agencies; and we suspect that is going to be required of us.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. Have you considered transplanting?
Christine Schneider:
· Transplanting does not work.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. It worked across the street.
· We had TaylorWoodrow dig up heritage sized oak trees, box them up and replant them.
Christine Schneider:
. It is possible to do that in certain locations, yes.
. The three trees that are of significant size are too large to be moved. Some of the. . ..
Vice Chair Giefer:
. You have some smaller ones.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
29
Christine Schneider:
. And the smaller ones are all against an actual roadway and they are all in poor condition and
would be difficult to move because the root mass is so stilted already.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. Okay, the other question that I have is in general I felt the negative dec. was very biased
against dogs and dog owners; and we have coyotes running around as well as dogs.
. Now, I don't know the background of what people are doing in this park, because it is not one
that I walk in often, but ... and I think that Deborah Jamison probably did the best job of
anybody of talking about the wildlife habitat in McClellan Ranch and why it makes sense to
only keep them on the trail in that area.
. And I am not suggesting that dogs be allowed in the creek, but I think you need to allow them
anywhere else people are allowed in the Blackberry Farm portion, in the picnic areas.
. This will be the only park in Cupertino that dogs are not allowed. (urn hmm)
Therese Smith:
. The dog issue was one that didn't really come up until we were drafting the document and I
insisted that the current operation of Blackberry Farm is that during the 100 days it is opened,
dogs are not allowed and there are no dogs allowed.
. But last winter I moved out to Blackberry Farm to work for a couple of months so I could see
how the place operated. What I noticed is that this is people drive there to walk their dogs in
the morning. This is what they use it for; and so I thought we had to provide ... and I can tell
you the biological team wasn't excited about this, but we had to provide some opportunity for
dog owners and then if during this environmental review it fell out, it would fall out.
. Having an 800 person picnic area with the potential for several hundred dogs at anyone time
just does not seem like a good idea to me.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. And I am not suggesting that the pay for picnics bring their dogs but the people who are
walking that might just go off trail to have a snack or have lunch or something, you know.
. I would be breaking the law if I brought my dog.
Therese Smith:
. That is correct; if your dog was on a leash, however, you could walk it.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. We are going to walk it on the trail.
Therese Smith:
. We are going to have to balance the habitat.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. And I am not suggesting that anybody go walking through the habitat, dogs or people, because
we want to retain that as habitat; and I am not seeing that you are suggesting people swim in
the creek either.
. I am not suggesting dogs swim in the creek either; but I just think that it is too limiting as a
plan for us to not allow dogs to go where people are in the Blackberry Farm portion. I am not
. .. my comments do not apply to McClellan Ranch at all.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
Therese Smith:
· Well that is an interesting comment. We will take that into consideration.
· Enforcement is going to be very difficult.
May 23, 2006
30
Vice Chair Giefer:
· I think that if you allow dogs to stay on the path walking through McClellan and if you have
specified free picnic areas for people who are walking through McClellan to go to Blackberry
from the neighborhoods who happen to have their dogs.
· I would like there to be a place where I can legally, with my dog on a leash, sit and have a
snack.
Therese Smith:
· There will be tables on the 17 person parking area, which is .. the plan is hard for me to read; it
is right here ... It is hard to see it.. there is actually because it is under this red; but there is a
small trailhead with 17 parking spaces, a restroom, and there will be some picnic tables there.
· Oh yeh, here is the existing softball diamond, right there; and it will be right adjacent to that. I
have heard some comments about that parking being in the center of the park. The rationale
for that is that the Council was very specific that during the time Blackberry Farm west bank
picnic area, that 100 days a year when that's a for-profit operation, they wanted, and you
actually enter through a kiosk and pay to go to that parking lot. They wanted to have a place
for people to park and not have to go through the kiosk. That was a specific ... that was
Council direction that we provide that kind of opportunity outside the pay-for area; and that is
right along the trail. That little area would be available to you.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· I mean a bigger, easier to post "no dogs there" and then if ... your report consistently said
there was a issue with dog droppings, but I observed no dog bags as you see at every other
public park. It makes sense, they are not allowed there right now; so you bring your own bags.
I don't see the same problem in other parks that I visit; that people don't curb their dogs or pick
up after them.
· I was very pleased to see that there is a 2,000 square foot environmental center proposed at
McClellan Ranch.
· I was also very displeased that I saw no green building philosophy or sustainability for that;
and I am wondering what your (delete ...) plans are. I am interested in your comments on
how you are going to improve the sustainability and make the buildings that will be rebuilt and
new buildings and what your plans are for sustainability and green building in this park.
Therese Smith:
· Well, that is the goal and I thought that was in the document. If it isn't, it was an oversight ..
Vice Chair Giefer:
· I didn't see a word about making a green building or using green building principals or
working on self sustaining or photovoltaic or anything.
Therese Smith:
. That is specific Council direction.
Vice Chair Giefer:
· Okay, that is good to hear; I am pleased to hear that.
· I am just going through my notes here because I have many.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
31
. I was just curious, in the 4H; it has been akmg a long time since I visited the 4H area, but
there were horses there last time. You are not suggesting that horses also (Delete ... ) use the
path there; this is not an equestrian trail tie in up to the hills?
Therese Smith:
. I have never seen horses there; there are horses there now?
Yiee Chair Ciefer Janice Soquel:
. There are horses there now.
Therese Smith:
. That is not part of their program.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. I was just wondering.
. Then why isn't it part of the program? I am just kidding; we are putting enough different things
on the trail right now. (laughter)
Mr. Piasecki:
. Horses on leashes....
Vice Chair Giefer:
. Horses on leashes, with your own bag to pick up after them, that is what we want. (laughter)
. Do you want comments or just questions?
Chair Miller:
. Do just questions first and then we will come back for comments.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. Thank you very much.
Chair Miller:
. Thank you Lisa. Cary, do you want to go next?
Com. Chien:
. Thank you Chairman Miller.
. My questions will focus mainly on the two parts that I think the public has commented on
tonight and that is starting with McClellan Ranch Park.
. Therese, isn't it true that at one time that the department considered alternative routes for the
trail that goes through McClellan Ranch Park?
Therese Smith:
. In terms of the driveway or the trail?
Com. Chien:
. The trail.
Therese Smith:
. Yes, we did.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
32
· The current trail alignment... Well, two things. Mr. Foulks talked about an MOU with the
Historical Society; actually what was adopted a little over two years ago was a resolution
giving the Historic Society the ability to come in and negotiate a long term lease for that
property upon reaching certain fund raising goals. That offer is still on the table. That is this
area here.
Com. Chien:
· I was asking about McClellan Ranch. I started with McClellan Ranch Park.
Therese Smith:
. Oh, I am sorry, I thought you were talking about Stocklemeir.
Com. Chien:
. Yeh, I started with McClellan Ranch Park.
. I believe when I was on the Parks and Rec Commission you had presented alternative routes
that could have gone through McClellan Ranch, is that correct?
Therese Smith:
. Oh yeah, many.
. We have been through many many alternatives. The current alignment is the eastern most
alignment.
Com. Chien:
. Isn't is true that the eastern alignment as it exists right now is less of an impact to the neighbors
because frankly the neighbors are further away and they are across McClellan.
Therese Smith:
. It wasn't so much the impacts to the neighbors we were concerned about; it was the impacts to
the meadow. On two issues, there is a foot path that currently exists; I am not very good at
this... there is a foot path that currently.. okay Steve is going to do it ... exists along there. It
is just a little track and it is used for nature study.
. The multi purpose trail, the one that would allow dogs, goes to the far east, sort of behind the
4H facility and the reason we are moving it further down slope is so that we can accomplish
the construction of the trail and make it accessible without getting into a lot of retaining walls
and switch backs.
. So it will go to the far east; it will be separated from the walking experience and hopefully not
impact the natural experience in the meadow.
. And I can tell you that the Council met on this, these individual decisions were made over a
period of years with a lot of public testimony and you were involved in it and you know how
that went. We do have finally an alignment I think is a good compromise. That is a good
compromIse.
Com. Chien:
. And the trail that goes through there in fact is a more difficult one to implement because of the
grading, if I remember correctly.
. Is that correct?
Therese Smith:
. It is not as bad with the relocation of the goats downhill.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
33
Com. Chien:
· But compared to sayan alignment that goes through the west side of the preserve; this would
be much more difficult to implement?
Therese Smith:
· There would be a lot more issues associated with that and environmentally I think.
Com. Chien:
· My other question is centered around Stocklemeir property and a little bit of surprise there
because I don't recall hearing as much concern there.
· So my question is what was the nature of that agreement with Cupertino Historical Society, the
one that Mr. Foulks mentioned?
Therese Smith:
. It is not an agreement; it is a resolution of intent to enter into an agreement upon the Historical
Society formulating a plan and reaching certain fund raising goals.
· One of the reasons the document is largely silent on what is going to happen to the
Stocklemeir property is we don't yet know.
· There have been a lot of things talked about, some pretty ambitious plans, and I think the
biggest, the most difficulty that they have implementing those plans is they can't do all the
things they want to do onsite; retain an orchard and park cars.
· The most recent proposal they have come in with calls for the house, which is up here, to
become a period home; the garage is behind the house to be replaced with a historical
museum; that construction of a 150 person picnic area and a 100 person picnic area to be
rented out, and somehow within that envelope retain an orchard and... there is no ... they have
no plans for parking cars; they want to use the Blue Pheasant parking lot.
. So until that plan is I think more realistically refined and this body will see this plan because
this property is zoned agricultural/low density/residential; it would require rezoning and it
would have to come back with you and you will be grappling with a lot of these issues; once
their plan is more fully developed.
. Weare sort of silent on this at the moment, and what we plan to construct in 2007 will be this
side until these issues are resolved; and we have talked with the leadership of the Historic
Society and said we would 1 ike to do something up here in 2009, so it gives you a little more
time while we deal with the rest of the park. So that is kind of where that is.
Com. Chien:
. So Therese, knowing how premature the plans of the Historical Society have been, why did we
consider it an alternative route through the Stocklmeir property that would be more in line with
the pipe?
Therese Smith:
. As Janna mentioned before, when the Nelson's developed this golf course way back when,
they hardened the edge of the golf course, and most of this work that was done in Blackberry
Farm, the extending the picnic area out here at Horseshoe Bend, ,the filling of an area to
expand the parking lot and this hardening of the channel along the golf course was not done
with the benefit of a lot of engineering; and what we have discovered in the process of doing
all our engineering, is that this hardening is eroding out; we have had a very wet year and we
are having real concerns about what happens here, and as we mentioned before, there is this
sewer line right along here that we have to protect; so we need to be planning to do something
there.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
34
· As Jana mentioned earlier, there is a nicely established row of... there is oaks and sycamores
along what is now the west bank of the creek. If we were to simply just move out the golf...
you know move out the creek where it is along the golf course, we would take all of that
vegetation out.
· By flip-flopping the creek and by that I mean taking what is now the west bank and making it
the east bank, and saving that vegetation, putting the creek on the other side, you move the
creek while keeping that side of the channel anchored while maintaining that habitat, so in our
planning for the purposes of just getting our document through to the end, what made the most
sense of the creek was doing this.
· The document acknowledges that there will have to be future environmental review when the
final plans for the Stocklemeir property use are known, and we are just putting that out there
now because if we start to lose the golf course we will have to do something.
Com. Chien:
. That is all I have for now, thank you.
Chair Miller:
. Thank you Cary. Taaghi..
Com. Saadati:
. Thank you Mr. Chair.
. What is the average or minimum and maximum without the trail?
Therese Smith:
. Width - 8 feet.
Com. Saadati:
. It is constant? 8 feet?
Therese Smith
. Yes.
Com. Saadati:
. What is the minimum required?
Therese Smith:
. 8 feet.
Com. Saadati:
. We did not consider putting a 4 foot trail...
Therese Smith:
. No.
Com. Saadati:
. You mentioned that there is a permeable parking surface proposed.
Therese Smith:
. Yes.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
35
Com. Saadati:
. How did- would the environmental impact W&lIkl be addressed as far as oil and pollutants.
Therese Smith:
. No oil
Com. Saadati:
. Car oil. If it is parking, there is going to be (Delete...) oil leaking from cars.
Therese Smith:
. Oil leaking from cars.
. That is an impact now, but those oils run directly to the creek, so at this point they would be ...
they would leak into a smaller permeable parking area. There is no plan to capture that, but it
is much less intensive use.
Female Janice Soquel:
. Actually the Regional Water Quality Control Board requires that the project have a stormwater
management plan, and a stormwater pollution prevention plan.
Com. Saadati:
. 80 the area of the slope The sloped area is going to be reconfigured so the water hopefully
runs through some green area.
Therese Smith:
. That's right, and there is are going to be (Delete...) swales as shown on the plan, there is a
planted buffer; a little bit of a buffer between the parking lot and the actual creek.
Com. Saadati:
. Is it correct to assume that there are going to be 561 trees planted for 187 removed trees.
proposed removed trees?
Therese Smith:
. No, the 3: 1 ratio is only for the oak trees; but I think ultimately that number of trees planted
will be more like 1500 because of all of the habitat restoration that is ongoing, that is above
and beyond what we are just mitigating for.
Com. Saadati:
. The 1500 is going to be planted as a part the project by the time the project is completed
Therese Smith:
. Right, perennials, trees, and shrubs.
Com. Saadati:
. So we are going to exceed the 561 then, which is 3:1 ratio.
Therese Smith:
. Oh, by far.
Com. Saadati:
. Okay.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
36
Com. Saadati:
. My concern was dogs on trails, as Vice Chair Giefer brought it up.
bags placed along the trails?
Are there going to be any
Therese Smith:
. Yes.
Com. Saadati:
. Some other cities have that.
. What type of monitoring ... what type of enforcement is going to be in place to ensure that
(Delete ...) compliance.
Therese Smith:
. What we propose to do and this is subject to negotiation with OE 3 which is one of our unions;
and we really... I can't say we have gotten this far yet... either by contract or by hiring, a
new classification called Park Service Worker which is similar to what they have in Mountain
View; if you have ever been to the Shoreline Trail and to Shoreline Park, they actually have
rangers; and those positions are different than anything we have in the city now because they
combine some elements of code enforcement and some elements of light duty maintenance.
. So they are in the park; they are working; but they are also empowered to write citations. I
think it is something that has been coming; something that we have needed in parks; we just
haven't had critical mass to make the creation of those kinds of positions feasible.
. With the reopening of Blackberry Farm, it will be feasible, because we will take some
positions we have right now that are purely maintenance and transition them into a new kind
of position.
Com. Saadati:
. Have you used volunteer forces to enforce some of the rules like this.
Therese Smith:
. Well, I actually volunteer for the National Park Service; typically what happens is the
volunteers have a radio and if they need somebody to do enforcement, they call them. You
don't normally put that burden on a volunteer.
Com. Saadati:
. How many orange trees going to be removed from Stocklemeir property?
Therese Smith:
. About half of them.
. Now I want to say something about the Stocklemeir property and I think it is important to
know this that we are in a situation right now where we have to start replanting that orchard
because fruit trees don't live forever; no tree does. But generally speaking, they are not trees
that live as long as say Oaks. So we are in a situation where we need to start a management...
I think Mr. Kolski eluded to it; we do need an orchard management plan, so this would
certainly hasten that.
Com. Saadati:
. Did you consider to run the trail around the perimeter of the property versus going through
almost the center?
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
37
Therese Smith:
· Well it would run along the creek, so that what is really driving the removal is not the trail, it
is the relocation of the creek. And again, you have... it's a tradeoff between taking out the
oaks and the riparian habitat on that one bank.
· When we flip-flopped the creek, we lose orange trees, but we are gaining some enhanced
habitat; and if we take on orchard management, hopefully we can achieve a balance.
Com. Saadati:
· Could you elaborate on the effect of this project on the community garden as far as the number
of spots affected.
Therese Smith:
· Yes, it's quantified in the document and I am going to, off the top of my head, say we are
losing four to the trail, but adding nine. So Deborah is correct in her comments that we are
losing some of that edge habitat.
· This is something we talked about because the garden supports a particular kind of bird; it
supports songbirds; the meadow supports rafters; there is a lot of diversity down there because
of the two activities.
· But you know, what is the right balance, and in the document we didn't see a great impact of
adding those garden spots because we are creating so much other edge habitat where we are
taking out picnic areas and adding oak woodland uplands adjacent to the riparian area, which
right now if you go out there, there are cars parked right up to the creek and we are doing away
with that activity; we are foregoing that revenue generating potential to create that woodland
habitat, that oak upland habitat.
· So you are going to have that important edge for a longer stretch of the corridor.
· So that balances something that you know we could debate; but we are cognizant of that
important. .. how important that edge is.
Com. Saadati:
· I think that covered all my questions. Thank you.
Chair Miller:
· Thank you Taaghi. Gilbert. . .
Com. Wong:
. Thank you Marty.
· I was wondering if you could bring that map up again, Therese.
· A lot of folks mentioned about the meadow. And could you specifically circle which meadow,
I just want to make sure.
Therese Smith:
· Well, McClellan Ranch is right here, so this is the meadow and these little squares here are the
community garden plots.
Com. Wong:
· Okay, and the concern about protecting the meadow is because where the location of the trail
was? I just wanted to see if you can answer...
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
38
Therese Smith:
. Well the trail is actually ... the meadow is an important part of all of our trail discussions,
because we discussed a trail going through here and a number of locations.
· But the trail's actually following along the east side and this is the meadow, and the edge
habitat is where you have you know, the meadow and the creek and the meadow and the
garden; it's those parts that are so important.
Com. Wong:
. And the part that we will be losing part of the community gardens, where will some of the loss
would be?
Therese Smith:
· Well, when the trail comes through here, whoops, when the trail comes through here, right
there, it is right in here. I think Janna could probably show it better with the mouse because
that red line is so thick.
Janna Janice SoqueI:
. The trail is going to skirt up around the back of the 4H area here, and everything in red is
going to be changed.
. So because the trail is moving here, you are losing a few garden spots right in this zone in
order to accommodate for 4H, we are adding garden plots out here.
Com. Wong:
. Going into the meadow.
JaBBa Janice SoqueI:
. Going into the meadow, right. And so what you are doing is shifting everything by the
distance of one garden plot which is about 10 feet, times the length of 9 garden plots. So if
they are 10 by 10, it is 90 feet, plus there are some fence lines in between.
Therese Smith:
. They are not very big.
Com. Wong:
. Okay, every time you go one foot into a meadow, you would be losing precious... okay.
JaBBa Janice SoqueI:
. Yes.
. And the overall number of the grassland habitat that is going to be lost represents about 4% of
the overall grassland habitat; that is not is very big.
Com. Wong:
. Okay, the other thing has been a lot of discussion about the Stocklemeir property with the
Cupertino Historical Society and if you were to relocate that creek, more or less some of the
plans that the Historical Society wants to do, is probably going to be up in the air. Is that
correct? I see a lot of nods over there.
Therese Smith:
. Again, our project that we are going to build stops here. And we are putting this in for
environmental review; this piece. We are throwing this out here for environmental comment.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
39
. We would like to begin writing grants and we would like to begin raising money to do a
project up here in 2009. We are waiting for a proposal from the Historical Society that we can
forward to you and process with a zoning amendment.
. And, you know, they are going to have to come up with that plan so we can move on.
. In the absence of any participation from them, this is what we would propose to build.
Com. Wong:
. So you would still go ahead and do the restoration, or you will hold off on this.
Therese Smith:
. Well, we don't have any plans to do anything up here before 2009.
Com. Wong:
. Okay, I see what you are saying.
Therese Smith:
. And it may require a modification to the document at that time depending on what their project
looks like; we don't know that at this time.
Com. Wong:
. Okay, and back in 2003 I think maybe only just Taaghi and I were fortunate enough that Steve
and you took us on a tour all the way from Rancho San Antonio through Stevens Canyon and
everything.
. It was really nice going through that orange orchard was that, you know, a lot of the trees were
very full and it was growing really nice and everything; so are you saying that maybe we need
to hire an orchard management and come and make sure while we wait until 2007, 2008, 2009
for a plan from somebody, I think that hearing from the public, maybe we need to maintain the
house and maintain the orchard while we as a community try to figure out what we want to do
with the Stocklemeir property.
Therese Smith:
. Right, we are going to re-roof the house this year; it has gotten that bad. The city architect has
put some money in the capital budget; if it gets approved.
. Also to analyze its condition in terms of just bringing it up to code. It is going to be a
significant amount of money to put that house back on line; it is not currently connected to the
sewer; the leach fill has failed.
. As you know, we once had it rented and we had to condemn it and evict the tenants. So it is
. .. what it is going to become, I don't know; I know the Historical Society will be a player in
deciding that. You will also have a lot to say about that though as well. It is going to require a
zoning change to make it a public use facility.
Com. Wong:
. The other thing is that this whole capital improvement ... the cost. Where is the cost coming
from?
Therese Smith:
. For the part we intend to build in 20017
Com. Wong:
. Correct, the restoration.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
40
Therese Smith:
. It is largely grants, and Water District.
Com. Wong:
. Largely grants; not _ budget?
Therese Smith:
· No, we will probably need help from the city budget, but at this point there are not city funds
appropriated.
· We are going to be taking a budget ... a full project to the city within the next couple of
months. We have about $5 million in grant funds and it is really up to how much the Council
wants to get done at one time. It is up to them.
Com. Wong:
· Originally Blackberry Farm was only open 100 days as you said, and now we are going to
open it 365 days, and we are going to be reducing the picnic grounds. What kind of impact
will it be to both the neighbors, traffic, impact to humans, you know using trails 365 days
because when I walked back there in 2003, we walked through the Water District area, walked
through the city, and we actually saw deer and we saw wildlife and what I am concerned about
is once you open up 365 days, having traffic, having foot traffic, etc., you know, there is going
to be impact on this area.
Therese Smith:
. You want to answer that, you have been doing trail studies.
Com. Wong:
. The human impact on the wildlife.
JaBBa Janice SoqueI:
· On the wild life; not on the residents.
· You are absolutely right; you are opening up the area to additional uses, and the trail will have
some level of impact. I suspect many of the species in the corridor will be just fine.
· It's areas where you have sensitive nesting habitat where birds could be disturbed at that time
that are of concern to everyone, and that is in part why the trail is cited (sited??) as it is cited;
and it's in part why there lots of mitigation measures also associated with the dogs, because
that is a whole other use that has not been occurring in the corridor and that is why there is an
additional planting mitigation to include another acre of habitat for cover and for forage area
because of that additional use.
· But you are taking a corridor that is infrequently visited, particularly the Water District parcel
which is between McClellan and the garden area and Blackberry where it is fenced off, and
opening that to a through traffic. So you are changing the character of the park to some extent
to accommodate the human visitor.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
41
Com. Wong:
. My concern is that the wildlife, the deer, the birds, because there is 200 days where it is pretty
much not touchable, and most of the residents who do live on the cliffs, get to enjoy a quiet
park-like area; so I am concerned about that.
. The other thing is that, I know you kept talking about (a cereal mine??) at Blackberry Farm
and Blackberry Farm is something that was developed, but did you ever consider about
relocating the golf course and have the creek on the other side so that we could keep
Stocklemeir property in tact, and the orchard in tact?
Therese Smith:
. Well yes, we went through many alternative concepts including one that actually had a
driveway through there and no golf course.
. The Council considered many many alternatives and you get to the point where you could do
just about anything you wanted if you had unlimited funds. Moving the golf course was .. is a
big expense; even relocating holes and reconfiguring for very little return if we can work
around it, so I think that is where we landed. Don't touch the golf course until we are really
ready to ...
Janna Janice-SoqueI:
. I think that I work in many spaces within Santa Clara County and you are stuck now dealing
with what is left over; we have built everything and it is just a very tough struggle to fit all the
needs of the community for a golf course, an intact orchard, a through trail, a reduced
commercial picnic facility, a swimming facility, habitat for the wildlife; 4H for the children,
community gardens ... you are asking a lot of 60 acres and it is a compromise at every step
along the route.
Com. Wong:
. And I agree.
. One of the things I asked this question back in 2003, was that, and I think Deborah Jamison
brought this up, was that there was a master plan for McClellan Ranch; I actually had the
Planning Department dig it out for me and maybe something that you would want to bring
back to the Councilor even back to Planning Commission is that how many of those items
have you accomplished? I am sure you accomplished something.
. The other thing is that both what was brought up by many speakers was the Simms?? property
and Stocklemeir property what was the goals of those two properties when we bought them a
couple of decades ago and were those goals accomplished, because as Parks and Recreation
Commissioners, Planning Commissioners, City Council members, or even staff change, even
you learn Therese some of the stuff that Deborah brought to our attention as well too, that you
know, some of the stuff we just overlooked, so that would be a nice thing to bring back as a
report to see what we have accomplished and what more we have to do.
Therese Smith:
. If I can respond to that, the document references McClellan Ranch master plan and
incorporates aspects of it; the Simms property was discussed by the Council as recent as I
believe last Fall, and they reaffirmed their desire to lease it because our lease was up. They
reaffirmed their desire to lease it at fair market value, not as a caretaker facility, but at fair
market value and at leas with the current budget situation and the current Council, their intent
is to use that as a rental property for as long as it is viable.
. As you know the Stocklemeir piece is no longer viable as a rental. So you know, we didn't...
there were comments about the scenic circle access, there are a lot of Council decisions made
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
42
that we did not second guess in the environmental document; they got to define the project and
we just took it from there.
· So I think what the document states is that at the time the Council no longer wants to rent that
property out, that becomes then a restoration site. I don't know when that will be in the future.
Com. Wong:
· And will someone follow up regarding construction, when they are going to start using
construction, also one of the concerns that the community brought up regarding construction
pileup on the city property.
Therese Smith:
· Okay, what they are referring to there is the McNair property; right, exactly, the home
construction; and as it turns out we have tried to play hardball with Mr. McNair, but it turns
out he actually has, there is an old haul road easement back there, and it exists from 1917 and
he has the right to drive through there, so our attempts to play hardball with him backfired a
bit.
· What we would like to do is ultimately get him to extinguish his rights there so that there is no
longer a throughway behind the Simms property along the creek. But that is going to take
some delicate negotiations with Mr. Me Nair.
Com. Wong:
· My last question to conclude is that a lot of folks were talking about heritage orchards on
Stocklemeir property. Is there any way that we can try to preserve intact that orchard?
Therese Smith:
· Yes, and that would be very interesting to have a definition of "heritage orchard". What my
understanding is from looking at old records and old photographs, before Blackberry Farm
was a golf course and I think Jana mentioned this, it was a U-Pick walnut orchard and that's
what grew here, and we have some remnant walnut orchard on the Water District parcel.
· There are places, the Water District parcel was talked about, and some of the visions that came
forward for this property; the Water District parcel which is actually this parcel in here that is
kind of between McClellan and Blackberry Farm, as (a new orchard??) site and there are still
some mature walnut trees there.
· I think those ideas can be worked in once we know what is going to happen up here; if we still
need an orchard we can work that out. But we really do need to encourage the Historical
Society to get a plan before the Planning Commission to see what is actually possible there.
Com. Wong:
. I am just using the word as an adjective "heritage" it may be 10 years, it may be 4 years, it
may be 50 years, that's up to question.
. But you know when I was born and raised here in Santa Clara County this whole county was
covered with orchards and I think the community member has a very good point is that a lot of
the young folks, especially my two daughters will never get to see an orchard in Santa Clara
County unless I take them out to Central Valley or maybe up to Pittsburgh, Antioch, beyond
there.
· I got very lucky and got to pick walnuts or peaches when I was young with my parents, but
you know you already have mature orange orchard with some walnuts, and so why do you
want to reinvent it over on the Santa Clara Water District area, which I do recall walking there,
two or three years ago with you, but you know, this is something that is already there and
everything cost money.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
43
Therese Smith:
. We can retain about half of it with the creek project and have the habitat and the orchard. We
can't retain all of it. And if they in fact want to build a museum into (and two??) picnic areas
there have a restored house and somewhere park cars, it would be very interesting to see how
well that can be made to fit.
. I will also say that we have the Blue Pheasant leased out for another 3 years, 3-1/2 years, and
that operator has an option to renew and I don't know what his feelings will be about that
business when that day comes, but at some point we as a community will either need to make a
big investment in that facility or maybe it goes away and there is parking and something else
can happen here. But that is down the road.
. I guess that is why we are stopping right here. We know there is still a lot of unanswered
questions.
Com. Wong:
. Another thing that was brought to my attention, is Rhoda Fry. An email that she wrote that
since we are opening 365 days, and I would assume that the main entrance will still be Byrne
to San Fernando to the picnic area, what is that impact on that particular neighborhood,
especially that road going in where those few homes are. What is the traffic impact; how are
you mitigating that fact? And noise as well too.
Therese Smith:
. The ultimate plan is ... as you know there is a bus pull-out on Stevens Creek here now that
serves Valley Transportation Authority and so our plan is within this parking lot and within
Stevens Creek Boulevard, to ultimately have bus traffic on this end and to put a bus dugout on
McClellan to serve the ranch.
. So I think Deborah talked about how the arterials really ought to serve the majority of the
people coming to the corridor and I think that will be the most convenient way for them to get
there.
Com. Wong:
. So there is no bus turnaround at San Fernando?
Therese Smith:
. There is within the parking lot; now 100 days a year when we have school groups and things
coming into the Blackberry Farm area, well school groups... ultimately if there is a trail, we
can drop school groups off and walk them in, but you are still going to have picnic traffic 100
days a year coming into Blackberry Farm.
. And again what we are evaluating here is the delta between what is now and what will be in
the future and while it won't be just a quiet preserve, it is not going to be an intense as it is
now.
. Now we have a facility that can accommodate up to 4,000 people a day, and we will be
reducing that down to 800.
Com. Wong:
. Correct, but that 800 is for 365 days.
Therese Smith:
. No; it is for 100 days.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
44
Com. Wong:
· Only for 100 days. I just wanted to make that clear, because the committee was saying
something else. That is good that we cleared that up.
Therese Smith:
. No, it is still 100 days.
Com. Wong:
· So, in other words, after the 100 days, that gate will be closed. The swim pool will be closed.
Therese Smith:
· That is what happens. The bridge, the way it is configured in the proposed plan, which is
actually pretty elegant, you have got this west bank picnic area which is where that picnicking
is going to occur, and you have got a bridge that connects the pool to that area; once the west
side closes at the end of the season, that is gated off. The trail comes down through the east
side, so that part of the operation closes down.
Com. Wong:
· And the parking lot will also close at the same time too?
Therese Smith:
· No, the parking lot will just be available for anyone to come in and park. If they want to drive
through the neighborhood and come down there and park there, they can. But there will also
be parking available on both ends.
Com. Wong:
· Currently right now, is that parking lot open 365 days or not?
Therese Smith:
. The park isn't open 365 days, but you can come down and find cars in it; not a lot, one or two.
Com. Wong:
· Thank you.
Chair Miller:
. Thank you Gilbert.
Chair Miller:
· I think most of my questions have been answered already. I just have a couple more.
. In terms of noticing for this meeting, was this a citywide notice for this meeting, or what kind
of noticing went out.
Therese Smith:
. No it wasn't; the environmental document when it went up on the website, prior to going up
on the website, April 28th, we did ... we have a mailing list of several hundred people because
we had all the people involved in the visioning and the trail.
· We sent letters out, newsletter updates to everyone, and we put it up on the website, and then
just standard city, what you call, agenda posting; in addition to the clearing house. In addition
to that the corridor was posted so that people coming in and out from all angles would see the
signs announcing it.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
45
. In addition, I believe there was an advertisement around in the paper; in addition, it was posted
with the County Clerk; in addition it was sent to the State Clearinghouse and sent to all the
regulatory agencies.
Chair Miller:
. Deborah Jamison mentioned that a 60 day period for receiving comments might have gotten
more comments from folks that are very experienced on this and would contribute very
germane comments. Had you considered a longer period; why was only 30 days chosen?
Therese Smith:
. We had a number of ... as you know the Water District is our partner in this, and we had a lot
of back and forth, a lot more input through them that took, probably delayed the release of the
document by two months.
. We are on a pretty tight timeline with the Dept. of Water Resources to get a CEQA document
done next month and want to meet that goal. It was always our intent to have the 30 day; that
is the CEQA process, it was always our intent to allow 30 days for public comment and we are
doing that, and I understand Deborah would like more time, and it looks like she has already
gotten all her work done, so ... she has done quite a bit of work. But no, we will not be
extending the public comment period; the agencies have the same statutory 30 days in which
to respond.
JaBBa Janice SoqueI:
. If I might add, generally speaking if a comment period is extended, it is usually extended for
an EIR and it's usually extended to a total of 45 days and not 60 days.
Chair Miller:
. Okay.
. Another comment that Deborah made, is that when this trail hooks up to a larger trail system,
there will be a lot more traffic than considered in this report. Can you comment on that?
Therese Smith:
. Again, we are measuring with this review the delta between what we have there now and what
we are proposing. The future trail connections will go through a project you will review. You
know where that is on the quarry property and have to hook up to Stevens Creek County Park
and the ... I think the thought that people would park here and bicycle up through Linda Vista
Park and then through the quarry to get to Stevens Creek Park .. I think there are very few
people that would do that; I think we would analyze that at that time, maybe see who is using
the County park and where they are coming from, but the people with the athletic ability to do
that I think would be pretty few. Because that is where they would start their ride after they
got there; I think it would be a fairly minor impact, but we could analyze that further at that
time.
Chair Miller:
. Another comment that was made was that it wasn't clear that the report considered over use or
off trail use by bikes since we are having a bike trail in there.
Therese Smith:
. I would say to you that we have given design thought to that and we have cited a trail in ways
that we hope to limit and discourage trail travel anywhere else, bike travel anywhere else other
than the trail. We have a significant amount of linear footage of very low split rail fence to
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
46
keep people on the trail in areas where one might think they would want to jump a curvature in
the trail, and that is included in all of the grant applications to provide funding for that.
Chair Miller:
. Thank you.
. I know that you said you would only consider the delta; but given the magnitude of this
project, had you considered that maybe this was an opportunity to perhaps put in a design that
would actually focus on reducing the impacts to the neighborhood surrounding Blackberry
Farm?
Therese Smith:
. Well I think the Council did a number of alternatives, and I think as Jana phrased it perfectly,
this is a series of compromises.
. They looked at alternatives that for instance would generate no revenue for the corridor and
decided realistically if we were going to provide patrol and environmental programming and
all these other things, that we had to provide some revenue stream.
. It was a balancing act; it was a tradeoff; and they made that decision after a lot of public input,
so I am not going to try to re-second guess those now because they were months in coming,
and a lot of people participated and not everyone got what they wanted, but they tried to come
up with the best compromise.
Chair Miller:
. Thank you.
. There was also some comments about expending the snack facilities, and given the increased
traffic that will be on the trail, that that will create further opportunities for littering and
environmental abuse.
Therese Smith:
. Thank you for bringing that up. That was one of the things I wanted to address.
. There is a snack bar there now in Blackberry Farm, and what's proposed is a window that
opens out to the trail, because it opens inward toward the pool. And the reason for that is, in
surveys done at the senior center, one of the things we have learned is that an amenity that was
considered to be really desirable was a place where you could walk and maybe gather and
when we started working on this project it was, like wouldn't it be great if seniors would come
down here and walk in the morning and they could stop and have a cup of coffee and have a
place to do that. Wouldn't this be a great thing to add to the community. So we started looking
at ways to make that snack bar accessible from the outside. It is not a new snack facility; it is
just a new window.
Chair Miller:
. Okay, thank you.
. The next question is, there were a number of residences and we saw some pictures that
indicated perhaps the cleanup in the area is not going as well as it should and the question is,
when we have a private developer come in and ... or business owner, and they are not
adhering to the rules in terms of trash pickup, we generally ask them to fix the current
problems before moving on to new and larger projects.
. So is there a plan in place or how would the city respond to the issue of the open garbage cans
and the overturned garbage cans, and the problems that creates with the rodents and ground
squirrels.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
47
Therese Smith:
· Those are old photos. We have replaced ... we have spent over $50,000 two years ago out of
our solid waste fund and replaced all the trash cans within Blackberry Farm to make them
rodent proof. We also changed our operation and we went to contract so that we could bring
. .. for trash pickup. .. so that we could have more people in the park at once at close.
· Because the way we did in the past, we had two people who after close and before dark, which
isn't very much time, had to get through the entire park and pick up all the trash, and it wasn't
a very good system, and Rhoda was instrumental in having that system changed. She did
report us to vector control but if you look at our reports since that time, they have been clean.
Management changed and the physical containers changed. So I think she won; she did a good
job on that. She made us change our ways.
Chair Miller:
. That is all the questions I had.
· I have a question for Steve now. What, from the staffs standpoint would you like us to do at t
his point.
Mr. Piasecki:
· If you have any additional comments that you haven't heard that you would like
communicated onto the City Council, voice those now and I will be writing it down and then
we will prepare a response in conjunction with this document; we are not expected to give you
a response right now. We will just take your questions.... Or your issue and respond to it in
the environmental document.
Chair Miller:
. What about voting on the EIR?
Mr. Piasecki:
. It is not an EIR; it is an environmental assessment, neg dec., and you don't need to. This is a
public project, this was only an opportunity to provide more public input on the environmental
assessment; it isn't like all the other private projects that you see and we go through that other
process with. It is a little strange, a little different, but you don't see very many of these where
an item like this is coming before you, yet you don't really have a decision making role
relative to it. You are providing a service to provide more opportunity for input.
Chair Miller:
. So we don't have to; but it's really up to us.
Mr. Piasecki:
. I think the commentary is important; if you have comments that you want to make sure get
included, that is another way for you to communicate interests and issues individually as
commISSIOners.
Therese Smith:
. If I can add one comment, because we are still in the public process, anyone taking action
before May 30th would be sort of stepping on the toes of the public; I think some people have
not yet had a chance to submit their input, and I think this meeting tonight being televised will
stimulate more comment, more input and I really want to thank you because we could have
done this with the Parks and Rec Commission, but it's nice to get fresh input. They would not
have asked the questions you had, they would have been so tired of it. But. .. so I really
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
48
appreciate that you have done this; you have a Chair that sits on the ERC so you have
experience with this kind of document, and it's really helpful to us and helpful to the public.
So thanks.
Chair Miller:
. Well thank you for bringing it to us.
. Okay, why don't we do comment. Lisa, do you want to start.
Vice Chair Giefer:
. First, I would like to say that I am actually really excited about the change, the anticipated
changes to Blackberry Farm especially. But I do have some concerns.
. McClellan Ranch I think we heard the comment tonight that rather than increasing the garden
plot sizes, that perhaps we should look for a suitable place on the east side so that we are
distributing that equally throughout the city; and I whole heartedly agree with that. I think it
would help us with regards to less impact on the meadow, which I am fully supportive of; and
even though I want to be able to walk my dogs through this whole place, I agree that we need
big sereen, screening fences such as the example photo in the appendices of the curved gates,
and golfball fences there.
. Because I do think that this is too sensitive an area and we need to make every effort in the
McClellan preserve to keep bicyclists, hikers, and dogs on leash of course, in that area. But
on the other hand, I would like to expand the areas that are appropriate for dogs on leash to go
in the Blackberry Farm portion of it. I have different objectives depending on where I am.
But I want to do everything we can to preserve McClellan Ranch as it is and make sure that we
are not violating the master plan because it is such a rare area as a preserve.
. The other thing is, as you may have guessed, I am exceedingly concerned about the tree
preservation. I think that having 90 inch oak trees eliminated and (Delete... ) replaced with
Sprouted Acorns is not appropriate and I intellectually and absolutely understand why you
would replace them with 3 inch oaks or something to that effect. We would never let a
developer do that. Never; and I am not comfortable saying it is okay for Parks and Rec or the
city to do that, because I think we have to lead by example, and I see some opportunity as an
example to keep Reach A in situ and maybe straighten it where it curves; have it go more into
what is the current parking lot, so it appears to me, and I may be using the wrong reference
points, but when I am looking at the map in front of me, it looks to me like we have an
opportunity perhaps to straighten it out more here and preserve more of the trees if we keep
this portion insitu, and the oak picnic area; follow it down, so you are not losing these oaks or
these oaks, which are my biggest concern.
. So I don't know if you have looked at that, but as a comment, that's one of the things that I am
concerned about.
. I would also ... it sounded to me as though you did analyze keeping the creek in its current
streambed ftBEI-- in what it would take to achieve your objectives, which I actually agree with
in terms of repairing the riparian habitat, restoring the vegetation, the native vegetation, but I
don't want to lose the oaks, and so if it is possible to do it without changing the stream or if
you can change, adapt the plan that is in you're the packet that we have been given, and
preserve the large oaks, I would prefer to see that type of solution. Either fix what we have
today to preserve the trees or minimize the impact on the trees.
. The other... I like the ripples ?? ripple pools; I like the idea of keeping the felled trees where
they are to create habitat; those are all wonderful things; I am fully supportive of that.
. I would like to see some sort of an east/west pedestrian bike Safe Route To School. I like the
idea that Joe Walton !f.+- had with regards to opening the Scenic Drive gate during school
hours.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23,2006
49
. As I was in the park today, I saw lots of students using it as a short cut, so keeping that gate
shut isn't stopping students from short cutting through the park. Of course we would need to
make sure that we have a bridge conveniently located for them. And again, I don't know
which bridge they are using today.
. The comment that was made to me by one of the students that I stopped and asked; he
wouldn't ride his bike because there is too many things that pop his bike tires; so .. I hear that
all the time from kids. My kids ride their bikes to school and they know where the bad areas
are that will cause puncture.
. The other things I was pleased to hear is that we are going to be employing sustainable
building practices. I hope that reaches to the pool as well and that we will be putting solar
heating on the pool. I would much rather lose and this I know people will disagree with this; I
would much rather lose golf ( end 8f tape Side. 4, loss of slime W6rdS) the golf course than
the Stocklemeir orange trees. I think that we need to preserve that; I would love to see it be a
heritage orchard, and again I understand there is tradeoffs and if we can continue to make the
golf course pay, but do something to realign it, to keep the creek out of the orchard, I would
much rather have that.
. I would also suggest we eliminate the 17 parking spaces on the trailhead. If this is a
wilderness park, a natural park that we want to encourage people to walk into, they can leave
their cars behind, and as we expand it and link it into Linda Vista Park, you know .. I see
people in my neighborhood, the need to drive there is eliminated if we have that trail, and I
would look forward to using it because I think it is just a wonderful wilderness area today and
is so beautiful.
. I was also very interested in Bob Levy's suggestion of linking it to Stevens Creek though this
may be over the top at this point, but it just seemed very practical to me if there was any way
to have the park entry be off of Stevens-Creek as opposed to Byrne but I understand that that's
a whole other can of worms.
. And I wondered if you had also considered having the trail going through the Simms property
as opposed to McClellan Ranch at all because it seemed to me that there was some potential
there and I think that McClellan is just such a wonderful resource; I would really like to keep
people out of there. I mean, not out of there, but enjoying it in a way we would like it to be
enjoyed.
. I would like to preserve the options for the Historical Society, by not reducing the amount of
square footage of that property today.
. Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to review this and make our comments.
Chair Miller:
. Gilbert. . .
Com. Wong:
. Thank you Mr. Chair.
. A lot of stuff that Lisa said, I agree with her; so I want to restate what she said that I agree with
her and there is some things that I have a difference of viewpoint.
. I also agree that community garden is a great asset for the community and it wouldn't all be
located in one location; I think the meadow is more important for the community especially for
the children of Cupertino. So I would rather than a smaller community garden and keep the
meadow intact or even expand it; because the whole reason of having the trail away from the
creek at that point was to preserve the trail, and I believe that the meadow has to stay intact.
. I agree with Lisa that the tree preservation is very important. I understand where you are
coming from and kind of agree than an acorn or smaller tree will grow faster and that is what I
have been advocating for but, we have been putting developers and property owners here in
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
50
Cupertino with a higher standard and if we say to the Parks and Recreation or city say that you
can do an acorn vs. other folks have to do a 24,36 inch box, I don't see the equity or fairness
there.
· I also agree with what Lisa said is that if we can save an oak tree or heritage tree or trees, I
would rather save the tree than to move the creekbed. I think that the tree is very very
important. I meant that yes, the creekbed should not have been moved in the first place when
some of the picnic grounds that were put in.
. Scenic Circle, that opening was debated very much at the Parks and Recreation Commission
and City Council made the final decision based on neighborhood input. I understand both the
pros and cons but I believe that if it was the Council made the decision that the Scenic circle.
should be closed and that was what the neighbors wanted, I think that is what we should
follow and not re-address that issue again.
. I also agree with Lisa that this is something that City Council has to weigh in regarding the
golf course vs. the Stocklemeir property. I believe that the orchard trees are very important
and I think that community input that we heard today; and I think that if we had another
opportunity and I know that the period of public hearing is from April 28th to May 30th; it
wouldn't even hurt to come back after the period has closed and just have a followup here of
the Planning Commission because I think Deborah by that time should have a finish report and
actually can print it and maybe submit it and you know... Deborah has always you know, been
coming to Parks and Recreation, Planning Commission and City Council and has always given
useful ideas, and this is a property we bought maybe 20, 30 years ago and I believe that to put
it in and say this is just a regular 30 day public hearing process; this is something more
important; this is going to effect me, it is going to affect my children, it is going to affect the
next generation, and I think that if we are going to do it right the first time, we need to do it
right today, vs. wait and I know that the grant money, you are working very hard to get the $5
million grant money; but also we want to make sure that we get this Stevens Creek corridor
area right too.
. I know that some of the things have been decided, you know, is there going to be a 6 foot trail,
8 foot trail, all of those things have been decided; but there are still some unanswered
questions like the Cupertino Historical Society, you know, they are still trying to work out
their plan, work it out with staff, and I think that I agree with Lisa too, that is that we need to
partnership with our non-profits, like the Historical Society and see that if they can get a plan
that is saleable to the city and saleable to them, then where we put this creek trail is going to
affect their plans.
. So I don't see what the rush is going into this.
. I also agree that we should eliminate 17 spaces at the trailhead. This is supposed to be
preservation of the habitat. Also I think that we still need to follow up that before this area
was only open for 100 days; now we are going to have a trail that is for 365 days, so we need
to see what is the impact on humans and the animals as we walk on the trails.
. I still would love to have another opening on Stevens Creek Boulevard that if we re-Iook at the
golf course is to have a road or some kind of access that folks can drive up to a certain point
and then they have to walk the other way, than to mitigate some of the traffic and some of the
buses that go down Byrne to San Fernando.
. Over and over and over people come to us and say that we are tired of hearing that, and I
believe that if we cut off that access, here on Byrne Avenue, and have the access on either
entering from Stevens Creek Boulevard or from McClellan, I think that would be a win-win
for the community.
. The other thing is that options of the outreach, and I know that we got a lot of outreach tonight,
but I feel that it is important to bring it back after the public hearing is finished and folks like
Rhoda Fry and Deborah Jamison, I would love to see what their input is as well too.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
51
· Thank you.
Chair Miller:
· Thank you Gilbert.
· Cary.. .
Com. Chien:
· Thank you Chairman Miller.
· You know sometimes I think we get mired in details and perhaps I have had the unfair
advantage because I was on the Parks and Rec Commission for three years and I was able to
hear a lot of this while we were in the planning stages.
· The big picture here to me is pretty clear now. The Council, back to Council in 2000, not our
current Council, directed that we look into opportunities, additional recreational opportunities
for our city. So we decided we are going to take this piece ofland very much like a developer
would take a piece of land and plan it, but the only difference here is a developer there is only
one stakeholder, really that developer for that piece of land, but here we have many, many
stakeho lders.
· That is what I really learned through this process, that we have a lot of stakeholders and we
have got to do our best to try to address the concerns of each of these stakeholders. And I will
give examples real quickly.
· I think that over, one of the most important stakeholders is really the past Council, going back
all the way to when they first established the particular ordinance, Ordinance 710, which said
that any uses in McClellan Ranch Preserve has to be consistent with the preserve there. So we
heard that and we said we are going to keep the trail out of the preserve and we are going to
take it along a graded area that is more difficult to plan and keep it away from the preserves.
We heard that, and I think that was really the spirit of most community residents who wanted
to preserve that piece of property and we did that by moving the trail to an eastern alliance.
· Scenic Circle residents also came in talked to us. They said they didn't want an access from
their neighborhood and the Council voted to close off that gate to bring relief for that
neighborhood.
· Community gardeners wanted t keep their plots; in fact we have added more plots for them; I
don't necessarily agree with it, but I think we have done that in the plan.
· So those are just some of the stakeholders that I have saw and I think we have really done our
best to try to address most of their concerns. That is not to say there aren't any additional
comments and we have heard many of them here tonight. I think there is room for adjustments
as we move forward.
· For example, I would support not adding additional plots so that we can keep as much of the
preserve as we can. I don't know if it matters to the environmentalists who want as much of
the preserve as they can have. Perhaps a row of plots would mean a difference and I would
support not having that additional row.
· So really that kind of sums it up for me. I think once all is said and done, this is going to be a
good jewel for the residents of Cupertino, and really the goal is to keep this as a local amenity
for our residents. The goal has never been to make it a regional park.
· Lastly, kudos to the staff and to the Commissions who have worked on this; I know they have
spent long hours doing this. Also to the TV crew for providing those cut-ins of the property
because I think that is tremendously important for our viewers at home.
· That is all I have.
Com. Saadati:
. Thank you.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
52
. Other commissioners have provided a lot of good comments, so I am going to just provide a
couple.
. I do bike on the weekends sometimes; I don't get in my car and do my shopping with bikes
and.! encourage creating a walkable city.
. However, an 8 foot wide trail does not have a serene, walkable environment to me, and I have
been on various trails also; and I am not sure if a 4 foot wide trail was considered. I know we
had discussions in the past; the Caltrans requirement for bike trail has to be a minimum 4 foot
on each side, but ifit can, that would be a lot of improvement and instead of having a trailhead
parking, we have bike racks; so people can bike there and then park their bike and walk.
. Also, I would like to see as much of the orchard preserved as possible, 50 percent seems to be
a lot; the community is connected to that orchard and I think we may regret it in future if it
takes so much out.
. The good things here that has been implemented, reducing the number 4,000 to 800 that
environmentalist sensitive steps actually that has been taken, there are a lot of positive aspects
of this project, and I hope that it moves forward, but as I said earlier, I have hiked a lot on the
trail, 2 foot trail; the feeling is completely different when you are in a narrow trail vs. an 8 foot
wide trail; it is not a trail; you could drive a maintenance vehicle on it actually.
. That is my feeling about the project.
Chair Miller:
. Thank you Taaghi.
. Well, I don't have that many comments either, given all the good input you have gotten
already, but I do have a couple.
. My first concern is over the comments that there hasn't been enough time to respond
completely to the documents, and my feelings there is that it's more what I would say from an
industry ... looking at an industry example, it is more important that we get a quality result
than we get a faster time to market, so to speak.
. I think that if there is a way to extend this period so that you get all the input necessary, and
that means that this project gets delayed for some period of time, I would rather see that then
rush to a conclusion that then turns out that there were some things that we hadn't considered
that are extremely difficult to undo if that is even possible. So that was my first concern.
. I agree with my colleagues on ... I also think that it's ... I understand we have competing
objectives here and that's always difficult, but my feeling is that I wouldn't mind seeing some
of the golf course go in return for saving the orchard as well.
. I agree also with the comments about saving the meadow, and maybe that means that some of
the garden areas have to relocate to another area of town.
. I agree that I am not convinced that having that 17 car parking lot adds something.
. I also agree with the comments from the commissioners that we want to make this as much as
natural habitat as possible and extending that even further, I kind of feel like with a project of
this magnitude, we should be looking at not just status quo for the impact to the
neighborhoods, but looking at ways to reduce that traffic, particularly since it appears that the
majority of people coming in on buses are not even Cupertino residents; and so we are
impacting our neighbors for a very small amount of profitable return to the city and to the
convenience of people who don't live here; and somehow that doesn't sit right with me.
. I guess ... and then comments that I have had before, I feel also that some of these comments
we have heard tonight and just hearing them and having read the report that maybe some more
study needs to go into ... or further study into the impacts of traffic when this system gets
linked up that perhaps we haven't fully taken into account.
. So those are my comments; there was one Commissioner suggested that we bring this back
after the close of the comment period. Is there any interest in doing that from anyone else?
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23,2006
53
Vice Chair Giefer:
. I would support that.
Com. Chien:
. To bring it back to our Commission again? Sure.
Therese Smith:
. Mr. Chair, I have one concern.
. Some of the items that have been discussed here by the Commission; one is the 17 car parking
lot; yes, we could bring these things back, but the problem is there is a lot of debate that went
into those decisions; they weren't random and they are actually Council action.
. The reason behind that parking lot is that as I mentioned before, for those times when the large
parking area is used to support the 100 days when that fee for picnic operation is running,
there needs to be something for the residents.
. You could say that people should walk in, but our concern is we have heard from the
surrounding neighbors, that people don't want park goers parking in their neighborhood. So
there is that impact, and so everything was a tradeoff and the difficulty is, and I apologize that
you don't have all this background, but we can respond to your comments in writing and we
can provide you at the end of this comment period, with a summary of everything that goes to
the Council in response, and you could certainly come at ... and everyone ... even though the
public comment period for our written response ends May 30th ... the Council hearing isn't
until June 20th, and people will continue to prepare their remarks for presentation at that time.
. But I think the body that made those decisions has to then evaluate those decisions in light of
the impacts. It's hard to put you in a position of questioning that.
. So I would recommend that we provide you with our summary of all. .. we are getting a lot of
responses in writing ... we provide you with all of that background, plus response to all your
comments, and then not hold another public hearing. That would be I think a better way to be
true to what. .. to the decisions that the Council has already made.
Chair Miller:
. Gilbert. . .
Com. Wong:
. So, what the Planning Commission is recommending is not to change any City Council's
decision; all we are suggesting is that we want further input. This will give the community
more time to give input before the June meeting.
. So the June City Council meeting is not going to change; we are not advocating any change.
What we are advocating is that for city staff, that you heard a lot of response today; what I
suggest is that it gives you an opportunity to come to the Planning Commission, explain to the
community, you know... what you heard tonight, what you heard from us; explain to us, so
that when it goes to City Council you won't have a long City Council meeting, and hopefully
most of those technical questions will be answered at our Commission level and have the City
Council look at the bigger question saying that do we want to invest the money and move the
creek over to the golf course, or etc, etc., etc.
. I am just saying that it is public input; it is just a recommendation; we all know that the City
Council makes the final decision.
Mr. Piasecki:
. And hearing the sentiment of the Commission, I assume there is a majority of you. What we
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
54
can do is raise the issue with the Council, and if the Council feels there is value added with
that to their decision, then we will ask them to bring it back to you at least either as an
informational item or what have you.
. Why don't we just handle it that way; we will bring it up to the Council that you have raised
the issue. And if they want you to do ...
Com. Saadati:
. I am in favor of this.
Mr. Piasecki:
. Is that okay with the rest of the Commissioners that raised it?
Chair Miller:
. Lisa??
Com. Giefer:
. If the response to us would be, here is the same thing again and here is the summary of the
comments. .. then yes, it is a waste of our time.
. So I would just as soon hear Council's comments and make our feelings known to them.
Therese Smith:
. For instance, the Scenic Circle, I mean access... we even have some council members who
want us to put that back in the document, but in the absence of a Council vote to do that, we
can't analyze that.
. They have made a decision one way, close that gate, and there are a lot of good reasons to
open it, and some of them may have even changed their minds. But until they have told us, we
want you to analyze something different, we have no business picking and choosing; we can't
do that. It is what it is.
Chair Miller:
. Gilbert ...
Com. Wong:
. So I think Steve's recommendation is pretty good; if you can bring it up to the Council that the
Planning Commission would like to have further recommendation based on community input,
and our input. . .
Mr. Piasecki:
. And then if it helps them with their decision. .. let it be their choice.
Com. Wong:
. And our feelings won' be hurt if they decide not so.
Chair Miller:
. So there is no further action on this item.
. We conclude this item and we will take a short 5 minute recess.
END OF VERBA TIM TEXT FOR ITEM 3
Chair Miller declared a recess.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
55
PUBLIC HEARING
5. U-2006-05, EXC-2006-03
Jim Mattison (Union
Pacific Railroad
McClellan Road &
Railroad Tracks.
Use Pemit for a telecommunication facility consisting of
a 65-foot monopole (treepole) and ground equipment.
Exception for a 65-foot monopole (treepole) for a
telecommunications facility to exceed 55-feet in height.
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed.
Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report:
. Reviewed the applications for a Use Permit to erect a personal wireless service facility
consisting of a treepole and ground equipment; and a Height Exception to allow the treepole to
go from the ordinance maximum of 55 feet in height to a maximum height of 65 feet.
. The applicant is proposing a treepole similar to the one erected on Middlefield Road near
Mitchell Park in Palo Alto.
. Staff identified the following project issues outlined in the staff report: visual screening,
potential base equipment noise, radio frequency radiation (RFR) assessment, and the potential
DeAnzalUnion Pacific Trail.
. Staff recommends that the Use Permit be conditioned to provide an improved trail from
Rainbow Drive to McClellan Road, an approved trail for pedestrians and bicyclists, with
accompanying easements for public access.
. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss the applications and continue them to
a future public hearing to allow the applicant time to redesign the proposal to improve the
visual screening.
. If continuance is unacceptable to the applicant, staff recommends denial of the application per
the model resolution.
Jim Mattison, AA T Communications Corp.:
. Said he communicated with staff about 9 months ago about the project, and in October found
the ideal place for the carrier pole. He emailed staff and talked to Mr. Jung about the project,
submitted the application and assumed everything was satisfactory. He then received a letter
from staff on April 28th addressing concerns such as visual screening, the right location for the
pole, and the pedestrian pathway.
. Said that he discussed the pedestrian pathway on several different occasions and said that the
Director indicated that a pathway was needed. However, applicant was leasing space from the
railroad company, and could not get an easement from the railroad company.
. Said he made every effort to comply with concerns and direction from the Planning
Department staff, indicating his willingness to discuss concerns and comply with requests. He
said he did not hear further from the Planning Department staff.
. Following the neighborhood meeting with 11 people present, he continued to communicate
with staff, and did not receive any feedback until a week ago when staff discussed a
continuance or denial on some items. He expressed frustration at the length of time the
Planning Department has taken to respond and discuss the application.
. Clarified that the proposed project was a 3 carrier pole not a 4 carrier pole, as most
jurisdictions want a multi-carrier pole rather than several poles throughout the city.
. He acknowledged the major concern that there was no service from carriers in the southwest
corner of the city; and said that the few people who attended the neighborhood meeting were
in favor of the carrier pole because presently there was no coverage.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
56
Eric Klein, Cupertino resident:
. In favor of application.
· Has resided for 14 years near the proposed facility.
· Is a member of the Telecommunications Commission, but is speaking on his.own behalf as a
private citizen.
· Supports the proposal for personal, business, and safety related reasons.
· There has not been cell coverage in the area for 14 years.
· Expressed concern that there was no service in that particular quadrant which poses a safety
concern as there is no way to contact public safety officials in a power outage in that area.
· Cited two incidents in Linda Vista Park where the police could not be called because oflack of
service in the area.
· Expressed concern that his children could not use their cell phone if there was an emergency
walking from school to their home; there is no phone service in that area.
George Maclin, 421 Elm Ct.:
. Opposes the application.
· Resides approximately 140 feet from the proposed cell tower; and has endured many
proposals, but the cell tower is the most threatening one.
. This tower will completely change the neighborhood.
· Said that his cell phone has always worked in the area.
· Said the area around the pond is one of the most densely populated areas in Cupertino; all the
schools are within walking distance of the pond, and is the home for many animals and fish.
· No one can know what the impact will be on the area; it is one of the few places in Cupertino
that still remains a natural setting where people feel free safe and free without having to use
their cars to drive someplace.
· If the cell tower is approved, it will destroy the neighborhood; either out of fear of what the
tower might do, whether it does it or not.
· The base station supporting the proposed cell site will have an adverse impact on the
environment because of the level of noise, large metal boxes, and batteries at the cell site for
backup power.
· Recommendation to alleviate some of the problems associated with base stations would be to
enclose them underground.
· What will happen to the base stations, the towers, during the next major earthquake; how will
the tower perform during an earthquake?
· We want to keep the neighborhood residential and not change it.
· What will be on that tower; will the railroad have their communications included in the four
carriers on the pole?
Shing-Shwang Yao, Cupertino resident:
· Thanked the Planning Commissioners and staff for the excellent planning for the city to
provide a good quality of life in Cupertino.
· The proposed tower does not fit the environment well; people enjoy walking around the trail
and pond every day and would not be pleased to see the tower base and the fence.
· The city Master Plan says the least preferred is the new structure in residential area and we
believe this is a new structure in residential area.
· Said he lived on Elm Court, about 150 feet away from the proposed treepole; he can now see
redwood trees out his window, and would be able to see the tower if it was located there.
. It is not going to be beautiful.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
57
. Is there any ecological study about how radio waves will affect balance of the environment
. Radio wave from antenna could disrupt bats ability to send and receive their own radio wave
to catch mosquitoes, and eventually bats might all have to go because they could not catch
mosquitoes. More mosquitoes will exist in this pond area; more disease could be carried from
mosquitoes to human beings.
. I appreciate living there because this pond is to me like a park; but do we want to put an
antenna in a park.
Sankara Venkataraman, resident:
. Opposes application.
. Expressed frustration that he came to the meeting at 6:45 p.m. and waited until 10:30 p.m. to
speak.
. Said he did not have much to say, but felt it was more important than speaking about the
antenna.
. Asked how many antennas there were in the area; and why a location was chosen that had a
large concentration of people residing in the area in many apartment complexes and three
schools.
. Said that people complain about cell phone coverage, but he was receiving adequate coverage
with his present carrier.
. It looks like there are going to be radiation problems and associated problems. There was one
at Monta Vista High School where they tried to put a cell phone tower. I would like to find
out why that was rejected; is it because of radiation? If radiation is not a problem, just put it
anywhere else.
. How was the site chosen; why not a mile from here?
Com. Wong:
. Expressed appreciation to the audience members for attending the meeting.
. He suggested that in the future if there are items on the meeting agenda that are important to
residents or interested parties, they view the meeting from their home on Channel 26 on Cable
TV or the city's website as the item approaches, in order to avoid waiting a long period oftime
at the meeting, since the Planning Commission cannot predict the time the agenda item would
be heard or how long it would to conclude discussion of the item.
David Dai, September Drive, Cupertino:
. Opposed the application.
. Recommended Verizon for coverage.
. Said it was a commercial structure in a residential area.
. The antenna does not look like a real tree, and is a poisonous tree.
. He said the antenna will emit radio frequency pollution; and people don't have any way to
protect themselves.
. Said that the wireless frequency wave radiation has been proven to have adverse impacts on
humans especially for those exposed 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, for 10-40 or more years.
Com. Wong:
. Clarified for the speaker that the staff recommendation was denial of the project.
Chair Miller:
. Clarified for the remaining speakers that the Planning Commission is not permitted to rule on
whether or not the radio waves are harmful to humans; and is prohibited by Federal Law from
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
58
doing that.
· Said it cannot be a condition or cause for denial of the application; other issues have to be
addressed.
Wendy Zheng, Cupertino resident:
. Opposes the application.
. Said the antenna pole would change the environment of the neighborhood; her family likes to
bike and walk in the area.
. Don't know the long term harmful effects on humans.
Ying Qiang Zheng, resident:
. Opposed to the application.
. The tower is 65 feet high; 30 feet from the railway, causing a safety concern.
. The tower is close to the water pipe, may cause damage to the basement.
Horace Lo:
. Did not speak.
Lee Shodiss, 21412 Elm Court:
. Opposed to the application.
. Resides about 140 feet from proposed antenna site.
. Those particular towers do not look like trees and are eyesores.
. Communicated with his real estate agent who said they were advising prospective buyers not
to purchase homes near the antenna poles.
. Although the Commission cannot address the health issues, if there is some uncertainty there,
it should not be ignored.
. Requested that due to concerns expressed at the meeting, a better site be considered that might
be more suitable and not so central to the people located there.
Young Gin Xie, Cupertino resident:
. Opposed to the application.
. Said there is no clear standard regarding equipment noise and RF level and no enforcement.
. The residents and company have a conflict of interest.
. It will affect the quality of life in the area.
Jesse Cheng, Monta Vista High School Senior student:
. Opposed to the application.
. Senior at Monta Vista High School.
. Said that the pond area by the proposed antenna provides a serene atmosphere for students.
. The antenna and sound of equipment will negatively affect the quiet atmosphere.
. Expressed concern about the safety issue of the proposed fence if antenna is build behind a
fence.
Julia Zhu, Cupertino resident:
. Opposed to application.
. Asked who benefits from the project; is the City taking the opportunity for the money?
. Said that the 2.5 % radiation is misleading, which would be for a public area, not residential
which is exposed 24 hours.
. Said that Federal regulations prohibits local government making a decision, but it does not
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
59
prohibit residents from speaking about their concerns on the radiation frequency.
Tom Hugunin, 20076 La Roda Ct.:
. Opposed to the application.
· Said he did not reside near the proposed location, but has had applications to have similar
devices placed in his vicinity.
· Said he was opposed to having the antennas in residential areas, especially when there are
better locations close by for them.
. Said the commercial area on Bubb Road next to Hwy. 85 would be an ideal location to place
one of the devices or on the DeAnza College campus with its large trees to screen it.
· Said the proposed location is a poor choice, and does not meet the objectives of Cupertino's
Wireless Master Plan. It is not stealth; they are visible to residents.
· He expressed concern about the 65 foot height; currently the General Plan allows buildings of
30 feet in this area; towers may be exempt but in the spirit of the General Plan, 30 feet height
is appropriate for the Monta Vista area.
. Supports staff recommendation for denial of the application.
Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
Com. Wong:
. Stated that the recommendation is for denial of the application; they need an exception
because in the area they cannot exceed 55 feet, and are asking for 65 feet.
· Mr. Huganin had a good suggestion of locating it at DeAnza College or locating it at a public
institution, or even at a business.
. The applicants have to find a landlord or property owner who is willing to allow them to lease
a space for them; after they can enter the contract, they have to come to the City of Cupertino
and apply for a permit, which city staff has a prescriptive ordinance, which is
telecommunication plan.
. There was a proposal in that particular neighborhood at Monta Vista High School; the
Planning Commission did pass it; it did go through Fremont Union High School District and
they voted otherwise, since they are the landlord of the property.
. There have been attempts to put it at public institutions and other places, but the applicant has
a right to a public hearing and the community has their due process to come here as well too.
. Apologized for the late hour of the meeting, and pointed out that sometimes meetings run later.
He said they could not gage what time applications will be heard; that is why he suggested
viewing the meetings on the City Channel or Cable TV.
. Said he felt it was a miscommunication and that staff would not intentionally not contact Mr.
Mattison. He asked staffto follow up with Mr. Mattison regarding the project.
. Thanked Com. Klein who serves on the Telecommunications Committee for sharing his
expertise and providing recommendations to the City Council. He said it was important to
listen to all viewpoints.
. Relative to the radiation frequency (RF), he stated that there is a Federal Law preventing any
rulings to be made based on RF.
. Said he recognized it was an emotional item, but if you look at a prescriptive on how staff
broke it down, I do agree with staffs recommendation; it is over the height limit of 55 feet; I
think that we need to follow our policy.
. Said he agreed with staffs recommendation in the model resolution regarding inadequate
screening as well as restrictive visual impacts.
. Said he agreed with the applicant that there is no nexus between putting a trail with the
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
60
application of putting in an antenna. He said he did not feel the trail and application for an
antenna should be connected.
· Staff recommendation is appropriate.
Com. Chien:
· Asked Mr. Mattison how feasible underground bay stations are, if they are even possible.
Mr. Mattison (applicant):
· They are possible but impractical, especially around there because all the pipes are in that
area.
Com. Chien:
· Staff reports says that although no base equipment has been proposed, such equipment has the
potential to generate a lot of noise.
. Where is the base equipment.
Mr. Mattison:
· It would be in the shelter; the noise is about the same as a refrigerator.
Mr. Jung:
. Said he was being overly cautious when talking about the base equipment.
· Said they had not received any complaints about the noise from the base equipment.
· All of them have met city noise standards. In this case, most of that equipment being air
cooled will generate very little noise. However, there are certain types of facilities; Verizon,
Nextel, has a shed with air conditioning equipment that generates noise.
· He said that if the equipment is undergrounded, it cannot be air cooled, and would require
mechanical ventilation for the underground equipment, which is very costly, and would
generate a lot of noise. The above ground air cooled units generate very little noise.
· He said he was being cautious to say do a noise study to make sure it meets the noise
ordinance.
Com. Chien:
· Asked Mr. Mattison if he was aware of the staff recommendation for a proposal for him to
improve the screening.
Mr. Mattison:
· Reiterated that he was not aware of the issues until a week ago; and that he had been in contact
with staff through phone calls and emails.
. Staff contacted him last Wednesday stating they had concerns.
· He asked if he could meet with staff about the concerns; one of them was the placement of the
tree.
· Reported that there were 8 emails to the Planning Department staff last month to inquire if
everything was satisfactory, and were there any issues to be discussed before the Planning
Commission meeting. He said he did not receive a response until a week ago, and 3 emails
were sent and 2 phone calls. He said there was no response until this evening.
· Said he was aware of the concerns now.
Com. Chien:
· Said that staff recognizes he was not given enough time to bring back changes.
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23,2006
61
. Asked Mr. Mattison to comment on the changes.
Mr. Mattison:
. Said he told Mr. Jung a week ago that he was wiling to cooperate in any way in order to
comply; he would move a tree, hire an arborist.
. He expressed concern that it should be addressed this evening, as it was not addressed a month
ago. He said he felt the issues should have been resolved prior to the meeting, and the purpose
of the meeting this evening was to approve the application.
. He expressed frustration that the application would have to be returned; and suggested that a
condition of approval be made in order to move the application forward.
. He said it was apparent that there is no nexus between the pathway and the facility itself,
leaving the screening as the outstanding issue. He said he was willing to work with the
Planning Department relative to the screening.
Com. Chien:
. Said it appeared that the applicant was willing to have it as a condition; however, was not
willing to go back and redraw the plans and return for another hearing.
Mr. Mattison:
. Said he was not consulted that there were issues about the 65 foot height.
. Said he was receptive to continuing the application if it would help resolve the issue; and that
he was willing to cooperate with the Commission and staff on moving forward with the
application.
. Said it appeared that the screening was the only issue hanging up the application.
Chair Miller:
. Asked for clarification on the issue brought up by speaker relative to the comment of a
commercial structure in a residential neighborhood.
Mr. Jung:
. Responded that a portion of the Southern Pacific right of way, the portion that abuts the Santa
Clara Valley Water District property is zoned BQ, which allows telecommunications facilities
with a use permit.
Chair Miller:
. Said that a previous speaker commented there was a potential environmental impact because
of the possible effect on a bat roost in the area. He asked staff if the issue needed to be
addressed.
Mr. Jung:
. Said he was not aware of any studies that analyze cell phone reception and bat frequencies,
which are high frequency.
Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Chien, to deny Application U-2006-05
and EXC-2006-03 per the model resolution.
Com. Chien:
. Said he did not agree with the statement that beeause the CommissioBers mll-j' Bot live iB
CupertiBo, although the Commissioners may not live in the area where the project is under
Cupertino Planning Commission
Study Session & Regular Meeting
May 23, 2006
62
consideration they do not care. He said they all work hard on every issue that is presented to
them.
. There has been a lot of discussion about RF concerns, and the rationale that we always hear is
that local municipalities, cities such as ourselves, cannot rule based on those reasons. The
other side of it is that it is not that it is ignored, it is one of those things of democracy called
separation of powers where the FCC regulatory agency has the ability to rule on those things.
They had a study that was included in the staff report about the effects ofRF, so it is not that it
is not being looked at, it simply is not being looked at by us; it is being looked at by your
Federal government which you pay tax dollars to.
Chair Miller:
. Expressed concern, that although there is apparently a small area zoned BQ; it is in the middle
of a residential area. He said he has seen towers similar to them before and is concerned about
the appearance as well as the height.
. Said he could not support the application at this time.
(Vote: 3-1-0; Chair Miller No; Vice Chair Giefer absent). (Application denied)
MISC:
Eric Klein:
. Asked for clarification on the voting process of the Planning Commission, specifically
Commissioners reporting their reasons for a "no" vote on an application.
Chair Miller:
. Explained that the individual Commissioner has the choice whether or not he/she wishes to
make comments relative to their vote on an application.
Com. Saadati:
. Explained why he voted no on the previous application. The recommendation was to continue
the application; if the applicant was not willing to accept the continuance, deny the
application. He clarified that the applicant indicated he was willing to continue it to address
the architectural appearance issues.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Environmental Review Committee:
. Chair Miller reported that there was a discussion of the Stevens Creek Trail.
Housinl! Commission:
. No meeting since the last Planning Commission meeting.
Mavor's MonthIv Meetinl! With Commissioners:
. Com. Wong reported that he would attend the next meeting scheduled for the first week of
June.