Loading...
P&R 09-07-95CITY OF CUPERTINO~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone (408) 777-3200 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION City Hall September 7, 1995 CALL TO ORDER 1. Regular meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission called to order at 7:07 p.m. SALUTE TO THE FLAG 2. ROLL CALL 3. Commissioners present: Commissioners absent: Staff present: Buhler, Hendrickson, Hopkins, Lohmiller Quinlan Stephen Dowling, Director of Parks and Recreation Linda Lagergren, Recording Secretary INTRODUCTIONS 4. None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 5. None UNFINISHED BUSINESS 6. None NEW BUSINESS 7. Director stated, "Since our last meeting on this subject, we have more information from the County. There is a revised Master Plan document, the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report that is part of this General Plan Amendment Review by the County, and we also have a revised County-wide Trails Map." The Director said, "The first consideration for you would be to endorse or reject the Master Plan Trails Map (Attachment A). The second consideration is to endorse or reject the preamble or the strategy statements of the Trails Master Plan document. The third consideration is to adopt one of three alternatives relative to this proposed project - (a) No Project - existing trails plan would remain in place. (b) Reduced Trails Master Plan - after consideration the proposed Trails Master Plan minus the ranchland, agricultural or hillside areas would be in the General Plan Amendment. (c) Mitigated Trails Master Plan - under this alternative the Master Plan would be modified to incorporate the recommended mitigation measures of the proposed Master Plan. Director began by showing on the map what Cupertino's General Plan says about our trail system. "The County plan essentially mirrors what our General Plan says with regard to trail routes within Cupertino." Director showed on the County map the changes made by the County from the last version of the map. PRC # 169 Approved 10/5/95 Call to order Salute to Flag Roll Call Review Santa Clara County Trails Master Plan update Director Dowling said, "There were six strategies identified in the Master Plan document. These have not been changed, nor has the sequence been changed. There was some discussion about whether or not to change the sequence and the Master Plan Committee felt for a number of reasons that these are not intended to be priorities or sequential. They are simply strategies and the sequence of these strategies has to do with references and consistencies to the County's overall General Plan document. So that is why they didn't want to make any change in their order." Director said, "As for option #3, Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, it is not our intent or our direction to review the entire EIR document. We were asked by the County to review the mitigation tables. In that table certain impacts were identified should the County map be adopted. In addition to the impacts also identified were a series of mitigation measures, some of which already existed in the Master Plan document, some of which needed to be added. The objective of those mitigations is to reduce the impact to an insignificant level." Commissioner Buhler asked, "Can you give us any insight into how these mitigations would affect the proposed Stevens Creek Trail plan. How would these affect the discussions on the riparian zones?" Director said, "This Trails Master Plan includes design statements about how to build these trails and what they will look like. As the County staff mentioned at the last meeting, they are not holding each jurisdiction to those standards. If it is our trail, we will build it to our own design standards." John Kolski, 50 year resident of Cupertino and representative of Stevens Creek Quarry where he has worked for 33 years said, "We have no opposition, and believe me I have been following this through all the County Task Force meetings of this trail plan. I think that there are a couple things that are specific to the City of Cupertino that I think that everybody within the city needs to be aware of and make sure that you understand the potential problems within Stevens Canyon. There was a question asked where are the trails within the city of Cupertino." Mr. Kolski showed this on the map. "First I'd like to address this subject as a resident of Cupertino. I think there is a misconception that on the County level if a private property owner wanted to put this trail in, the perception is that this trail would be put in under the guidelines of the County. That is the perception right now because this trail shows up on the county plan. The next issue is Stevens Canyon Road. That road has a major safety problem because it is a two lane road with no shoulder and designated bicycle lane. If you dump this bicycle trail on that road, you are adding to it. The other potential problem is the Stevens Creek Trail. What would you do with Stevens Canyon Road with trails crossing the canyon road? How would you cross people across Stevens Canyon Road? Please be aware of the safety problem if you add to this. We may put ourselves in a position that we will be sorry for later." Beez Jones, resident of Cupertino and landowners representative for Dianne McKenna for the Trails and Pathways Master Plan Committee. "Last night there was a meeting with the Park Commission and the Planning Commission of Santa Clara County. There were many trail advocates and landowners that spoke. The landowners have a lot of concerns about the ranchland and hillsides. Those are rural areas and it reduces the value of the peoples land even if there is just a line across it. It increases their liability and it effects how they can borrow money on their property. The ranchers borrow annually to operate. So many of these things say that the mitigation is insignificant. This EIR and Trail plan will affect Cupertino. I spoke with CDF and with the trails that are planned there is no way they can access to fight fires. It will all have to be by foot. That doesn't make sense. Fire is a major concern. The next concern is the Sheriff. The Sheriffs have said that they cannot protect hikers on these trails that are out beyond the houses. They simply do not have the personnel. Maintenance is the next concern. There is no maintenance plan. The next consideration is liability. The railroad is an operating railroad and my concern is that the city of Cupertino might be considered liable if anything happened. It keeps saying that it is insignificant and the landowners feels that that is not adequate." Page 2 Review Santa Clara County Trails Master Plan update John Kolski BeezJones Commissioner Hopkins asked, "The County is asking us to endorse their plan." Director said, "That is correct." Commissioner Hopkins continued, "But our endorsement has no legal binding on them, so if we reject it, they can still do whatever they want to do. If we accept it, they can do whatever they want outside of the city's boundaries. So by accepting it, we are saying that we understand you want a trail here and you are recommending that we connect to your trail." Director said, "Correct." Hopkins continued, "If we didn't accept that, they could still build the trail up to the city line and it would just dead end." Director said, "They could, but I think it unlikely that they would do that. The whole spirit of the document as you recall is based on cooperation." Commissioner Lohmiller said, "All the lines written on the maps are broad brushes. If time comes to put in the trails, if it is on County land it is revisited by the County, if it is on City land, it certainly will be revisited by the City." Director said, "That is correct." Lohmiller said, "In that regard, with the reduced trail plan I feel uncomfortable dealing with that issue to some degree. Is there ranchland, agricultural, or hillside in our jurisdiction?" Director said, "Well there is certainly hillside, I don't know about the other two designations. There is currently agricultural, but that might be changing with development of the Diocese. Obviously those kinds of designations are much more significant in the south county and east foothills." Commissioner Hopkins said, "In looking at the different options, certainly option #1, the Master Plan Trails Map, and looking at what we've discussed four years ago when we were going through the General Plan, defining trails or corridors, they are consistent with what we discussed four years ago. So in looking at this Master Plan Trails Map, I don't see anything that is inconsistent with my thoughts four years ago. For option #2, the policies look pretty straight forward, so I don't have a problem with that either. For option #3, in terms of looking at the EIR, I don't think I am really qualified to accept or reject the supplemental EIR because as pointed out, some of these judgments in terms of whether or not the mitigation is sufficient or not, I can't say either way. So for option #3 I don't feel qualified to make an opinion at this time without more information." Commissioner Hendrickson said, "There are two concerns that I heard from the audience and they are extremely valid and that is fire safety and the safety of the trail user. If those two items can be attached to our recommendations that are forwarded to the County, those are items that should be noted." Commissioner Buhler said, "I agree with Bob Hopkin's general outline and the general assessment of where we are, so my suggestion would be to take this in two pieces, which is one to adopt the things that we are comfortable with and have that as the first action and then make the comments on the third item. I'm not comfortable adopting the EIR in its form but raising issues. I think we have gotten some great input on that." Commissioner Hopkins moved that the Parks and Recreation Commission recommend to City Council endorsement that the Cupertino city limits portion of the Master Plan Trails Map is consistent with our General Plan, and endorsement of the preamble and policy statements of the Trails Master Plan update. Commissioner Hendrickson seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed. Commissioner Lohmiller added, "I have a concern about things that adversely affect property owners and as was mentioned the opposed trail through private property impacts the value of that property. I don't know if that is tree or false, but I have concern about that. I have concern of us doing things that adversely affect the property owner." Commissioner Hopkins moved that the Parks and Recreation Commission recommend to City Council that we have concerns about the EIR in three areas: land use, fire protection and police protection and we feel that within the EIR the mitigation measures as defined in that document are not adequate to reduce the level of impact to insignificant. Commissioner Hendrickson seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed. Page 3 Review Santa Clara County Trails Master Plan update Motion Motion Director said, "The issue before the commission this evening is to consider whether or not to consider allowing food and beverage concessions within the parks, most specifically Memorial Park. As you are aware our current municipal code precludes the sale of any article within 1,000 feet of any park boundary. Staff's position is that there doesn't seem to be any compelling need from the constituency that we deal with to provide this at Memorial Park. We have not had those kinds of requests coming to us directly. I'm not saying that there might not be a need out there, but it is not being expressed to us. One of the by products if we were to take an action is that the code enforcement office has a concern. Right now they have the responsibility of preventing vendors from being within that protective barrier. If we were to go into a competitive bid process and issue an exclusive concession, then the burden falls on us to make sure that no other vendors encroach upon that. Another consideration is the Oaks Shopping Center. Although we have not noticed them or discussed this with them, if you were asked to look into this issue and review the policy, based on prior conversations with the Chamber, I can assure you that they would have some concerns about those kinds of concessions in the park. As it is now they are at times concerned about the number of special events we have where Council allows concessions by non-profit groups." John Hagen, Mr. Mustard in Cupertino. "I brought this proposal up over one year ago. One of the things brought up last year was garbage in the park. One of my concerns is about kids running from Memorial Park across Mary Avenue to get into the Oaks. Right now all the garbage at Memorial is from the Oaks. I brought this up to sell ice cream which would be certain hours and certain days during the summer time. The Commission could set days and hours. You could probably put a small stand out there. Vending hot dogs isn't what I wanted, but maybe someone else would want it. You have a softball field out there and there are no beverages out there and they want something out there. I'm just trying to get you to open up to something small, maybe just for the softball field. In the bid a percentage could go to the city." John Morgan said, "I am John's Super Dogs here in town. Many years ago when Memorial Park was built, there was a conscious effort at that time to put in a concession stand. There is one there now behind the softball diamond. It has never been used as a concession stand, it is used to store lawn mowers. A lot of revenue can come into this city out of a concession stand out there. I am not saying that small carts should go into that park. It is not necessary and it looks bad. If you have a nice clean concession stand, there is not reason why that park can't stay clean. As far as the Oaks getting upset, the Oaks is not selling hot dogs, the Oaks isn't selling ice cream bars or candy bars. That's all you are really talking about at Memorial Park. I have no idea how much money could be brought in on a concession stand. A gut feel on a gross, at least $100,000 to 150,000 per year could be brought in. When the city starts taking a pementage, that is putting a lot of money in the city's pockets. I think you will find that there will not be any more garbage in Memorial Park then there is today. I've lived in this city for about 35 years. This is just a good way to make a little more money for the city. I hope you will consider it." Commissioner Hendrickson said, "I am intrigued. I would like to see if this could be done on a trial basis. I am intrigued for two reason: revenue and the convenience factor." Commissioner Lohmiller, "I don't think the Oaks is an issue. You don't see children unescorted in the park. You don't see children running across Mary into the Oaks. It is a nice park. If people are there for a long time, they are usually there having a picnic, in which case I don't think they need the convenience of a vendor. I go by there every Wednesday and I have heard an ice cream truck. I don't think a trial basis would work now going into the Fall. I kind of like the park the way it is." Commissioner Hopkins said, "I would like to have a better understanding of what the demand is for that kind of service. I do believe there is a safety issue crossing Mary Avenue because there is no crosswalk. Certainly if we did have something there, the Oaks could bid on it. I would like to understand what the real need is first." Page 4 Foo~/ beverage in parks John Hagen John Morgan Commissioner Hendrickson moved to request permission from City Council to investigate the subject of allowing food/beverage concessions in Memorial Park. Commissioner Hopkins seconded the motion. Vote: Hendrickson-aye, Hopkins-aye, Buhler-aye, Lohmiller-nay. Motion passed. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 9. Commissioner Lohmiller moved and Commissioner Hopkins seconded the motion to approve the minutes of the August 3, 1995 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. All in favor. Commissioner Hendrickson abstained. Motion approved. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 10. Commission reviewed letter from Lisa Scott-Ponce complimenting the lifeguards and swim instructors at Monta Vista pool. MONTHLY REPORTS 11. Director had nothing to add to the monthly report. 12. There were no community contact reports. MISCELLANEOUS 13. There was no legislative update. 14. There was no Mayor's breakfast meeting report. 15. Director showed commission the stack of thank you cards that the children from Garden Gate School sent over. "We are just about to finish nine school site project and this September we opened up Lincoln school and Garden Gate after the field renovations. There was a brief ceremony at Garden Gate and these are some of the letters and posters thanking the city for the improvements to the fields. Also Kennedy Junior High school is under construction. This is the last of our nine school site projects." 16. Director reported that they are knocking the buildings down at Creekside Park. The asbestos took longer then they had expected. Half of the buildings are gone. We expect the contract for the landscape architect to go to council on the 18th of September. 17. Director reported that because of a lack of a quorum, there was no McClellan Ranch Task Force meeting. ADJOURNMENT 17. Commissioner Hendrickson moved and Commissioner Hopkins seconded the motion to adjourn at 9:00 p.m. to the regular meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission on Thursday, October 5 1995, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers. All in favor. Motion passed. Respectfully submitted, Li-~c~ h. Lagergren,' I~~ ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: Chairperson Page 5 Motion Motion Written communi- cation Staffmports Creekside P~k Motion of Adjournment