P&R 02-05-04 CUPERJINO
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Thursday, February 5, 2004, 7 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
AGENDA
2.
3.
4.
5.
o
10.
11.
12.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INTRODUCTION OF APPOINTED COMMISSIONERS
ROLL CALL
SELECTION OF OFFICERS FOR 2004
A. Chair
B. Vice-Chair
PRESENTATION
A. Nature Programs at McClellan Ranch - Barbara Banfield, Naturalist
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
A. Regular meeting of December 4, 2003
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the commission on any matter not on
the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes a person. In most cases, state law will prohibit the
commission from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
A. Grace and Tony Toy's packet to the City Council dated January 5, 2004
NEW BUSINESS
A. Consider selecting a date in February to review Community Congress exercise
MISCELLANEOUS - NO ACTION REQUIRED
A. Staff oral reports
a. City Council Goals for 2004
b. Budget Update
c. 4"' of July
d. Cupertino Historical Society
e. Stevens Creek Corridor Grant Request
B. Community contacts
ADJOURNMENT
lin compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the city of Cupertino
will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you
require special assistance, please contact the Parks and Recreation office at 777-3110
at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting.
Parks and Recreation Commission
December 5, 2003
Page 2 of 3
them fairly. They expressed their dissatisfaction with the three minutes (six
minutes total) they have been allowed at each meeting to express their concerns.
They stated that they would have liked to have a direct, face-to-face meeting with
the whole commission, instead of behind the microphone.
Supervisor McCarthy stated that the subcommittee to discuss the court reservation
policies should be wrapping things up with two more meetings. The
recommendations from those meetings will be brought back to the commission in
March.
Commissioner Jelinch commended staff on their hard work getting the Sports
Center remodeled and stated they deserved the Commission's full support.
Commissioner Bradford asked how the Teen Center was being marketed.
Supervisor McCarthy stated that the Teen Commission has established goals to
generate interest in the Teen Center via their respective schools, there is
information on the Teen Commission's website, the center will be mentioned in
the recreation brochures, plus he believes that word of mouth will encourage
community interest. Commissioner Bradford stated that she would like to see the
department more aggressively market the center to the school district, teens, and
parents.
Director Smith reported that one of the challenges of the teen center is defining
the age group that they will serve. She stated that the Teen Commissioners are
"older" teens and the teens coming to the Sports Center are younger (age range 11
to 13). The challenge may be in attracting the older teens, and there are challenges
in developing appropriate activities for all ages.
Commissioner Bradford agreed that there are two teen groups and stressed the
importance of developing a clear forum and understanding the needs of the age
groups being targeted. She asked for a copy of the Sports Center Rules and
Regulations. She asked about the capacity of the Child Watch room. Supervisor
McCarthy stated that it could accommodate 8 to 10 children. It is expected that
this space could be fully utilized on any given day. Initially, this service will be
offered during prime time to gauge the use of the program. Director Smith stated
that staff could conceivably limit the amount of time children can be allowed to
be watched to get everybody through, or possibly look at alternative rooms.
Supervisor McCarthy stated that the industry standard for this type of service is l-
lA hours per a child's stay. Commissioner Bradford commended staff on their
hard work.
Commissioner Peng asked what system was going to be used to provide proper
allocation of the multipurpose room. Supervisor McCarthy answered that initially
there will be experiments with use patterns. Based on that need, allocations will
be established.
Parks and Recreation Commission
December 5, 2003
Page 3 of 3
Commissioner Peng asked about the proposed policy "management reserves the
right to restrict youth access to certain specialized areas based on risk, safety and
age." Supervisor McCarthy stated that using industry standards, age limits have
been established for child watch and use of fitness equipment for the safety of the
children and the protection of the center.
Director Smith explained the reasoning behind the proposed policy not to have
standing and ongoing rentals was because of the lack of available indoor
recreational space in the community. Staff believes this policy would provide for
maximum community use and flexibility. She stated that the Commission may
hear complaints from time-to-time on this issue and wanted them to understand
the staff's reasoning.
B. Consider canceling the January 1, 2004, regular meeting.
ACTION:
Brown made a motion, Jelinch seconded it, and there was a unanimous decision to
cancel the January 1, 2004, regular meeting. The next regular meeting of the
Commission will be February 5, 2004.
MISCELLANEOUS - NO ACTION REQUIRED
A. Staff oral reports - Director Smith reported that Mayor James has called for a City
Council study session on the Stevens Creek Corridor funding strategy on
December 15, 5:30 p.m. Director Smith will report the outcome of that meeting at
the February regular meeting.
Community contacts - Commissioner Jelinch reminded the community of
Breakfast With Santa on December 6 and the Tree Lighting on December 7.
6. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Made Preston, Administrative Secretary
Televised Council meetings may be viewed live on Cable Channel 26, and may also be viewed
live or on demand at www. cupertino, org. Videotapes of the televised meetings are available at
the Cupertino Library, or may be purchased from the Cupertino City Channel, 777-2364.
Minutes approved at the ,2004, regular meeting.
To: Cupertino City Council Members
From: Grace and Tony Toy
10130 Crescent Rd.
Cupertino, CA 95014
408-257-9900 (press *99 after beep to fax)
Email: tony.toy~Sun. COM
Date: January 5, 2004
Subj: Response to Staff Report Before Sports Center Grand Opening
The following message is being delivered during the Oral Communications
session:
In early November, we delivered our message with two concerns: 1) At the
Parks and Recreation Department, no one represents the interest of our City
2) At the Sports Center, our City can increase revenue $100,000 every year,
without prime-time team tennis.
On November 17, stafftumed in their report, which listed their reasons in
granting priority to the Cupertino Tennis Club or CTC.
We have just submitted a comprehensive package with facts and our
comments in response to this staff report.
Over the past year, we sent many emails to the Department; staff has
responded to some of them..We have also submitted a few of these latest
emails. These correspondences will give our City authority a better
understanding of how staffhandles different situations, so that you can
evaluate their competency.
CTC is an independent organization which does not share its revenue with
the Sports Center. Our City authority has no jurisdiction over the club
officials. However, these club officials have no restriction on court use. They
monopolize prime-time and their practices are concealed.
In the package, we have included two emails from another passholder, Mr.
Clarke, who also opposes prime-time team tennis. Mr. Clarke said that his
contract did not mention that CTC players will receive priority court use at
prime-time and that it is unfair. Since Mr. Clarke's emails were ignored and
covered up by staff, he asked us to deliver them to the Parks and Recreation
Commission.
We would like to specially mention that all the members of the Parks and
Recreation Commission are very responsible and dedicated. They asked the
right questions and used very good judgment. Unfortunately, the infom~ation
they received was distorted, filtered, and misleading. They are an advisory
group and their role is to oversee policy. They do not have the authority to
investigate the cover-ups, verify the truth, and discipline the misbehavior.
We wish that a higher level City authority would look into this matter.
For over 10 years, staff conducted business according to the reservation
sheet, which was open to all passholders. It was working well. Other city
facilities also use the same system. Ever since we questioned prime-time
team tennis policy a year ago, the management has covered up the
reservation sheet, which is public record. These days nobody keeps track of
tennis court use and staff is well protected. We have lost the check and
balance system.
This Saturday, our City Council Members will attend and celebrate the grand
re-opening of the Sports Center. We are very excited about the new facility.
We are also very concerned that there is a loophole in our security system
and it's not a secret anymore. On team tennis evenings, the Sports Center has
an open door policy for the families and friends of both teams. Anyone can
come in and take advantage of it.
We have seen many strangers taking over the tennis courts and using the
facilities. The Center is a facility provider. All frontdesk staffwork part-time
and cannot always identify passholders. It does not have a club environment,
in which pros socialize with all players and monitor the courts while
professional trainers oversee the gym. We do not have any responsible staff
for patrolling. For years, we reported many incidents of unauthorized users
on CTC evenings. Instead, we had been questioned by the managing staff.
No one took any responsibility or paid any attention, but yet we were given a
hard time for being whistle-blowers.
After the grand opening, who will safeguard our state of the art facility and
more importantly, who is going to pay for these extra expenses?
This is an economic issue. While other tennis facilities have increased their
fees periodically, we remain the same for the past 10 years. Staffkept the
2
rate low to deft:ay for their poor management. With these low membership
fees, the remover rate is still very high. Staff treats court time as a surplus
and uses it to reward CTC officials who praise their work at Department
meetings. No one oversees the Sports Center.
At other public parks and private clubs, tennis court time is a merchandise.
Prime-time has high market value and is in great demand. There are many
tennis players and families shopping for a great facility, at a central location,
with professional management, and a fair reservation system. Our new
facility can match up and compete with many private clubs. It is our golden
opportunity. With a $2.5M investment, our City should ama to reap the
highest return and provide quality service to the general public. The key
question is who will manage the crown jewel of our City.
We hope our Mayor and City Council members will go through the package
and take care of the Sports Center. We have been the biggest fans for over 10
years.
Thank you very much for listening.
To:
Cupertino City Council Members
From:
Grace and Tony Toy
10130 Crescent Rd.
Cupertino, CA 95014
408-257-9900 (press *99 after beep to fax)
Email: tony.toy~Snn. COM
Date: November 3, 2003
Subj:
Proposal for Marketing Strategy of New Sports Center to
Increase Revenue
Comment: The following message will be delivered at the November 3rd
City Council meeting. We would like to provide detailed information to our
City leaders and interested parties to pursue this matter. Please contact us.
Last month, our City Council had allocated almost $2.5M for the renovation
of the Cupertino Sports Center. Thank you very much. Unfortunately, in the
Parks and Recreation Department, there is no one representing the interest
of our City and therefore, the City loses over $100,000 in revenue every
year. We are concerned.
For over 10 years, we have been the biggest supporters of the Sports Center.
We purchased the most guest passes and regularly bring in many friends to
play tennis. Tony introduced so many co-workers that he initiated the
Corporate rate. He brought in the whole men's 5.0 team. For a few years,
Grace catered all the refreshment for the staffs Christmas parties. Since we
know many tennis players, we handed out flyers and conducted tours of our
facility. We rallied several successful membership drives in the early days
when business was slow.
We greatly advertise the Center so as to bring in more business and increase
the City's revenue. We are very dedicated and know that it has strong
potential. However, we have seen great obstacles. For over a year, we
addressed our concern to the Department. On and offthe record, several in
authority have offered us a refund and asked us to quit. Here's the problem:
Almost 10 years ago when our City purchased the Center, Mr. Gonzales was
the manager. He was also a board member of the Cupertino Tennis Club,
which was not affiliated with the Sports Center. The club members do not
have a home court but yet they sponsor team tennis, of which Mr. Gonzales
was a major player. He granted his club free use of courts.
At that time, the Center had more courts than players. Each year there was
only one league season and players could only play on one team. The club
sponsored a few teams and the impact was insignificant.
Over the last few years, the United States Tennis Association has greatly
increased the number of leagues year round. Team tennis has become very
big business and court fees are much higher. At the Center, the number of
team tennis players has remained fairly steady at around 160, which is less
than 20 percent of the users. Last year, they formed 30 teams; this year, 35
teams. Some players are on six or seven teams. They have extensive use of
the best lit courts at prime-time, without restriction. Some tennis club
officials even reserved courts for personal practice.
If these teams were to play at Sunnyvale, each team would have to pay
almost $1000 in court fees. Cities such as Sunnyvale, Mountain View, and
Santa Clara have increased court fees according to the high market demand.
At the Center, team tennis is free. They use up extra staff hours to schedule
the teams, service the frontdesk, and clean up the court sides. Their
opponents even use our gym facilities and extra tennis courts. The Center is
bearing extra expenses. We are still using the same fee schedule set forth by
Mr. Gonzales, when he was providing personal favors to his club. Mr.
Gonzales covered up the marketing value and our City has lost revenue for
almost 10 years.
The Sports Center only provides facilities, which is easier for the
management. It does not conduct any programs, organize any social events,
or run any activities. Non-team tennis players do not know each other and
we enjoy our privacy.
Everyone pays about $350 and signs a yearly contract. We become
passholders and can use the gym facilities, tennis courts, etc. However, our
contracts did not disclose the fact that most of the prime-time courts were
reserved exclusively for team tennis, for free. Staff conducts business behind
closed doors and covers up the reservation sheets. Club officials are well
connected with the Department and staffreceive good reviews.
5
Team players are insiders and non-team players are outsiders. Over 80 % of
non-team players are subsidizing less than 20 % of team tennis players.
Three months ago, Mr. Gonzales disappeared but his legacy continues to live
on. The Parks and Recreation Department is still surrounded by club
officials, who strongly influence the operation system and take advantage of
it.
Lately, the Department has started a process to consolidate and secure the
old system. The staffhas no intention to make room for more passholders
and generate more revenue for the new facility.
This evening we would like to propose a marketing strategy for the new
Sports Center. Before the renovation, the Center had approximately 850
passholders. It had a huge membership turnover because it has very limited
courts at prime-time. This is the key factor in detemfining its full capacity.
With the new facility, we propose to open up all the courts at prime-time,
which can comfortably accommodate an extra 300-400 longtime
passholders, including family memberships. This segment of the market is
still growing. It is very profitable and user-friendly. Passholders will renew
their memberships when they have an equal chance to reserve all the courts
at prime-time.
The new facility can increase its capacity by 40 % and generate over
$100,000 of extra revenue. It is feasible.
We have the best facility at the best location. We are confident that the
Mayor and the Council members will make decisions for the best interest of
our City.
To:
Cupertino City Council Members
From:
Grace and Tony Toy
10130 Crescent Rd.
Cupextino, CA 95014
408-257-9900 (press *99 after beep to fax)
Email: tony.toy@Sun. COM
Date:
January 5, 2004
Subj:
Cupertino Sports Center Marketing Proposal
Response to Parks and Recreation Department Staff Report
Agenda Item #25
Agenda Date: November 17, 2003
We would like to list the facts and our comments regarding this report. We
have copied three pages (pages 3-4, 3-5, and 3-6) and marked 1-6 for your
reference. Below is our feedback. We have also attached a meeting notice
following this document (page 5).
Staff has addressed the issue and the following are facts and our comments:
Cupertino Tennis Club (CTC) at Sports Center
1)CTC players represent less than 20 percent of all passholders. At the
beginning of low season (October 2002), team tennis reserved the best
lit courts at prime-time, consecutively for two weeks. Thus, prime-
time courts have reached its full capacity only to accommodate 17
percent of passholders who participate in team tennis. During high
season, they block off more courts for longer hours. They use up over
50 percent of the best lit courts at prime-time year round.
Without team tennis, the Center can open up more prime-time courts
and accommodate more passholders who will pay fair market price for
the service. Our City will greatly increase its revenue.
Compare Team Tennis Court Use with City of Sunnyvale
2)Team tennis at other cities such as Sunnyvale cannot choose their
favorite courts and times. Unlike our City, their general public has
priority during prime-time. Management at Las Palmas efficiently
assigns teams to fill up all the courts on weekend afternoons, two
hours each, back to back, when courts are in less demand. Sunnyvale
players pay for the court fees of their opponents and do not take
advantage of anyone.
When CTC visited Las Palmas on weekend afternoons, our courts are
also wide open. The reciprocal effect does not help to free up our
courts. When Sunnyvale players visit us at prime-time and use up our
best lit courts, they take away the court opportunity from non-CTC
players. Our City does not receive any revenue.
CTC can choose to start their matches at anytime. For example, from 7
- 10 PM, court #1 can serve eight passholders without team tennis.
CTC matches can only accommodate two passholders for the whole
evening. The remaining court time is too fragmented to be used. CTC
court use efficiency is only 25 percent of its full capacity and this
happens on over 50 percent of the evenings! We oppose team tennis at
prime-time.
Prime-Time Courts for All Passholders
3)Our facility has 17 courts. Only 12 are lit courts and three of them
are permanent teaching courts. Only nine courts are available during
prime-time. Staff has over exaggerated the number of available courts
by 47 percent.
Team Tennis Now and Then (We Only Obtained Partial Data for
2002)
4)In 1994, business was very slow and there were too many open
courts. Our City lost $60,000-$100,00 per year to subsidize the
facility. USTA League had only one season per year, which was very
short. CTC had 70 players, which represented 20 percent of all
passholders. Each member can only play on one team and the Sports
Center sponsored about five teams. The impact of team tennis was
minimal to non-CTC players.
In 2002, prime-time courts were very tight in all public and private
facilities. CTC matches took away prime-time courts extensively,
which could otherwise serve more passholders. The membership
turnover is very high at the Sports Center. USTA League is a popular
year round event. CTC had 135 players, which represented less than
20 percent of all passholders. Some of them played on six or seven
teams. CTC formed 30 teams during the year. They took away too
many prime-time courts and too much business opportunity from the
facility to serve the public. The impact of team tennis is tremendous,
both to non-CTC players and our City.
Market Analysis for Public Parks, Private Clubs, and Sports
Center
5)The market analysis on page 3-6 is misleading. It greatly
underestimates the annual revenue for other tennis facilities.
City parks like Las Palmas and Cuesta charge higher rates during
prime-time, which is mostly booked up by the public. They have low
expenses without any amenities. They have reached their highest
potential to serve the public and bring in considerable revenue. Their
fees are adjusted yearly to reflect the market demand.
Private clubs like AVAC charge over $1,500 per year, not $648 as
stated in the report. Most of these clubs have over 700 members, not
150. Over 90 percent of the tennis players join team teimis. Club pros
tightly control prime-time court use. For example, at AVAC, members
can only play on one team per season and most team matches are
played on weekend afternoons. Court use is very efficient. Their
reservation system is fair and there is no complaint. Non-tennis
players (workout only) pay a much lower fee. Professional staff
monitors all usage fairly.
In the past 10 years, all public tennis facilities and private clubs have
doubled and tripled their fees. In our facility, the fee had remained the
same because of shortage of prime-time courts and degradation of
service. Even though membership fees are below market cost, turnover
rate is still very high, as most passholders quit because they cannot
book courts at prime-time.
At the Sports Center, all passholders pay the same fees, whether they
play tennis or not. CTC players have priority court use during prime-
time, without any consideration for non-CTC players. In the Bay Area,
only CTC can choose to play at any prime-time court, without any
time limit. Court use is inefficient and unfair. Staff does not manage or
conduct business professionally. Sports Center can reach its potential
by opening up all prime-time courts under professional management.
More Information on Public Hearing and Policy Reservation
Committee
3
6)In the Spring and Suinmer 2002, staff also granted many personal
court use on the best lit court at prime-time to team tennis officials.
We asked to see the policy regarding the city support for priority team
tennis court use, which the staff had cited for years. Our meetings with
staff were fruitless. We requested to enlist this issue during the
November general meeting.
Staff switched the agenda under our names to the discussion of court
#1 reservation policy, and mixed it with the renovation of the facility.
Before the meeting, we faxed, emailed, and telephoned the staff to
correct the agenda. During the meeting, staff stuck to their agenda.
Their written and oral reports were false and misleading, which
confused the Commission. After the meeting, we requested and
received the meeting notice on court #1, which was mailed out to all
passholders except us (see next page). We never had any chance to
communicate directly with the Commission.
In October 2003, the Department initiated a five-member committee to
review and draft a new reservation policy. The Director appointed four
positions. Two of them are staff members. Along with a tennis club
official, this trio has already formed the majority to grant priority to
team tennis. Tony was lucky to win the draw and fill the only public
position. Even though he understands that his vote will not be counted,
he still represents the interest of all passholders to voice their concern
regarding unfair policies. Tony's email listing the problems and
inconsistencies never received a reply. His suggestion of using email
to discuss the policies was declined. The staff completely ignored him
and avoided any of his input on record. In the meantime, all
conversations during the meetings were modified, omitted, and
revoked on the minutes to change the record. The proposed policies
are already in print before voting. They are incomprehensible
inconsistent, and unfair.
We have also attached our message delivered at the January 5, 2004 City
Council meeting in which we also brought up other staff and team tennis
problems.
Thank you very much.
City I-lab
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Telephon,~: (408) 77%3110
I=A~: (408) 77%3366
Webaise: '¢,'ww.a upettino,org
'PARKS AND RECREATION ADNflNISTRAT[Olq
October 28, 2002
To: All Cupertino Sports Center Pass Holders:
MEETING NOTICE
The Cupertino Parks and Recreation Commission will be listening to pass holder views on how
the stadicttn court (Court #l) shotlld be utilized during prime time:
· Thursday, November 7
· ,. 7p,m.
· City Hall, 10300 Tone Avenue, City Couucll Chambers
All pass holders are welcome to attend and express their vie~s. The meeting will also be
televised on Cable Channel 26 and webcaqted at www.euoenmo.org.
Cupertino Sports Center Mm~agement
ALL- -T'I-IE ROLES. OU~ PROPO.SE~ AG~N2)A IN qOES'TtOg
OF TI-t~ C~'TY ,5'o?FOR. T Fo,e. PR~oRiT/ TEAM
POLIC~' WA5 $i, dj'TCklWD To 'THg . POBLiC
~£e/,f~>tNG COuR. T ~i RF-S~R.V^'DoN ?OL) C'/. WF_
/2.£CEIVE_~ THIS NoT/C[ AFTER 'TH[ OENE~AL ME£'T/NG,
,~@ 3g*'0d OHIiN3dF.F.) JO AIiO 9'3E£LZZBv}V 8c*:'3T
.5
CITY OF
CUPFP TINO
Parks and Recreation Deeartment
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Number
Agenda Date: November 17, 2003
SUBIECT
Receive a report regarding the Sports Center marketing proposal presented by Grace and Tony
Toy on November 5, 2003.
ISSUE
On November 5, 2003, Grace and Tony Toy, under Oral Commun/cat/ons, proposed that the
Cupertino Sports Center could generate an additional $100,000 in revenue per year if Team
Tetmis use of the courts during prime time hours was eliminated. Per the Toy's proposal, this
change would open the courts up and enable the center to attract more pass holders. For your
convenience, the proposal they distributed at the November 5 meeting is attached.
Some important points:
· . Ail members of the Cupertino Tennis Club that participate in Team Tennis are annual pass
holders. They are required to purchase an annual pass, whether or not they play year-round.
Therefore, they are not displacing players that would otherwise purchase an annual pass.
It is trna that players fr~m other cities compete on our courts w/th Team Tmmis players, and
that they are not pass holders. However, Cupertinians receive reciprocal treatment at other
facilities and, consequently, play elsewhere half of the time. This frees up space at the Sports
Center.
During prime time hours, the Cupertino Tennis Club will have access to a maximum of five
courts (of 17 total courts) during the months of April through August and a maximum of
three courts from September through February.
BACKGROUND
Attached are minutes from the 1994 City Council meeting and the Parks and Recreation
Cormnission meeting where current policies were considered and instituted.
The Cupertino Tm~nis Club was initially formed in the 1970's as a co-sponsored club. The club
used courts throughout Cupertino. When the City purchased the Sports Center, the matches were
moved there and court number one, the stadium court with bleachers, was used for competition
play. Initially, the club members paid an hourly rate for court usage, but as membership grew,
Printed on Recycled Paper ~'~ ~ /
November 17, 2003
Page 2 of 2
5
staffwas asked to evaluate the fairness of the Teanu Te~mis hourly rate. The outcome, as revealed
in the attached minutes, was that all termis club players were required to purchase annual passes.
Staffhas contacted private tennis facilities and other murficipalities to see how our fees compare
for tennis club usage. The surmuary is attached. Because club members are required to purchase
an annual pass, the fees they pay for court time are considerably higher than fees paid by
members participating in other cities. This is only fair given the amenities they have access to
within the Sports Center. Conversely, our municipal sports center fees are significantly less than
private clubs.
The Toy's have made numerous six-minute presentations to the Parks and Recreation
Commission: December 2, 2002, February 6, March 6, June 5, July I0, and August 7, 2003. In
addition, the Parks and Recreation Commission held public hearings with pass holders in
November 2002 and again in October of this year to discuss various issues raised by' the Toys.
The Commission recommended that a committee of pass holders be formed to evaluate the
reservation system (specifically the reservation of courts for Team Tennis play) and that
committee has been formed. Tony Toy is a member of the comrnittee.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
No Council action is needed at this time. Staff will forward any recommendations for changes
made by the pass holder committee, if appropriate.
SUBMITTED BY:
Therese gm~brosi Smith, Director
Parks mid Recreation Department
APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION
TO CITY COUNCIL:
David W. Knapp
City Manager
g:\parks ~nd recreation admin~ports center'reports\business plan to cc 1 ] 1703.doc
MARKET ANALYSIS
Private Agencies Estimate # USTA member~
San Jose Swim & Racquet Club 150
C°urtside 15~
Los Gatos Swim & Racquet Club 150'
A__lmaden Valley Athletic Club150
City-Owned Club Estimate # USTA member~
City of Cupertino 150
Ci~ty Parks and Recreation Estimate # of Court HourE
Mountain View
S---unnyvale 1010
Milpitas 1010
Los Altos 1010
11/17/2003
$1,200
$3,000~
$1,320
Cost per--
$350
Cou~ cost per hot --
$6.00
$9.0(
$15.o,
$2.oo
--A~-~ u ~1 Re~en u~-e
$180,00~
$ oC6
$198,000
$97
Annual Revenu,
$52,500
Annual Revenue
$9,090
$15,150
$2,020
Subject: RE: Staff Foul Play with Dual Reservation Policy
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 17:26:01 -0800
From: Therese Ambrosi Smith <ThereseS @cupertino.org>
To: Tony.Toy@Sun. COM
Tony-
I want you to know that I have read your email.
Therese Smith
..... Original Message .....
From: Jeanne Bradford [mailto:jeanne@dynamic-results.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 5:00 PM
To: Therese Ambrosi Smith
Subject: FW: Staff Foul Play with Dual Reservation Policy
...... Forwarded Message
From: Tony Toy <Tony. Toy@Sun.COM>
Reply-To: Tony. Toy@Sun. COM
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2003 23:58:22 -0800
To: thereses@cupertino.org
Cc: jeanne@dynamic-results.com, rodney_e_brown@yahoo.com,
rpeng®fcpa.fujitsu.com, fjelinch@juno.com
Subject: Staff Foul Play with Dual Reservation Policy
I uphold your proposal to serve all passholders so as to e~brace the Sports
Center. AS you have observed during the meeting, I am concerned about
meeting the deadline and suggested that we speed up our process through
email before the holidays. I am energized and participated positively. I
care.
On the contrary, Mr. McCarthy once again went overboard. He used me as a bad
example for passholders, pointing out that I leaned over the counter to see
the reservation sheet. A year ago, it was open to all passholders, without
any political issues, before management problems surfaced. Furthermore, when
I asked to see the reservation sheet (to collect data so as to formulate
policies to mitigate prime time congestion and help my group solve
problems), he brought up my personal issue and
questioned whether I was looking for someone's name and telephone number.
Ail I was requesting was a yes/no answer. He led the meeting with arrogant
statements, comments, questions, and attitude towards me, as usual.
However, contrasting to our private meeting last October when he spent four
hours interrogating, humiliating, and bashing me without accomplishing
anything, he has toned down so much that I should not complain. I genuinely
have a desire to move on and disregard these closed door personal attacks.
Unfortunately, the following issue is eminent and deserves your attention
and action:
The new court #1 Reservation Policy started on Wednesday, 10/15. I heard
from some passholders and staff that the week goes from "Wednesday to
Wednesday." Instead, Grace and I were given harsh t~rms. Susan, who works
the morning shift, automatically rules us out from reserving court #1,
assuming that we already had a reservation. We were confused. We missed a
few opportunities because of her mistakes, which she would admit later.
After we had called back, court #1 had been taken by then. Our
court ~1 reservation had also been mistakenly removed without notice.
I especially asked her to explain the policy. She said that I can only
reserve court #1 seven days after my previous reservation, regardless of
when the week started. I figured that if a passholder had reserved court #1
on Thursday and there were a CTC match next Thursday, he would have to wait
until Monday (ll days later) before he has the opportunity to reserve court
#1 again.
Grace also verified with Ms. Manning that same afternoon; Ms. Manning echoed
the same statement as Susan. Grace then proceeded to ask whether the policy
is the same for team tennis. Ms. Manning said that they can choose when to
start their week and then change it anytime. Team tennis does not have
restrictions like passholders. Grace commented that this is an unfair "dual
policy."
On 11/14/2003 during our first meeting, I suggested that the new policy
should be consistent in defining "a week." I recommended "Monday to Sunday"
to be the standard. Mr. McCarthy said "Wednesday to Wednesday" is good for
team tennis. If next week were Christmas and they would not be using courts
for two weeks (USTA blackout weeks), they would be able to use up their
Wednesday and Thursday quota ahead, so that they could have four consecutive
days to play on court ~1 the week before Christmas
and other holidays. Mr. McCarthy is very thoughtful in nurturing team
tennis.
After the first meeting, on Monday, 12/1, I emailed Ms. Manning my feedback
for the two policies. On item 7, I wrote "Currently, 'per week' has two
definitions. A passholders can only make a court #1 reservation at least
seven days after their last court #1 reservation. CTC can make two
reservations without this restriction. It is unknown how CTC defines one
week. Thus, CTC can possibly make four reservations within a seven day
period, or four consecutive days. This is inconsistent (since CTC
has chosen their dates a few months in advance, it further limits the courts
available for the passholders who can only reserve court #1 after the
seventh day, only if there is no CTC match)." I have expressed my point very
clearly.
Ms. Manning's brief reply is as follows: "Thank you for your email, I will
add these items to the agenda, for the next meeting on 12/5/03. I checked my
out box and I have sent you responses to your emails" (I did not receive any
email from her during that period). Ms. Manning is very thorough and works
in detail.
According to the Ground Rules, "Minutes of each meeting will be prepared and
emailed to all members, members agree to verify accuracy of minutes within
48 hours." I never received the minutes prior to the Friday, 12/5, second
meeting.
I finally received the minutes, when the meeting started and surprisingly
found out that everyone else had already read through it days before. Ms.
Manning claimed that it was "on the file rack" and that I should have picked
it up a couple of days ago, like everyone else. The team tennis schedule
(which I had asked for a few times and Ms. Manning had promised to post over
a month ago) was also already there. I felt left out. Even though this
miscommunication is unprofessional, I can bare with it
and look ahead.
I would not have written this message if it had stopped there.
In the minutes, she wrote "Tony stated Susan made a mistake scheduling court
one and she admitted she looked at the wrong date. Tony would like to see
the reservation system change from Wednesday to Wednesday to Monday- Sunday.
Colleen stated the new policy took effect on a Wednesday and that is why the
reservations are taken Wednesday- Wednesday. Don stated we will work with
Susan to improve the accuracy and we will revisit this subject at the next
meeting
Action Items:
Court One reservations being taken from Wednesday to Wednesday or
Monday-Sunday."
It is not a mistake or another miscommunication. After the ordeal for over a
year, when we are looking forward to move on, here comes the reply!
After the meeting, Grace and I finally woke up and realized that we are the
only two passholders bounded by this restrictive, confusing and suppressing
policy. Wow! What a plot!
The ultimate reason why I am reporting to you is that in this round, I have
embarrassed our City and the Sports Center in misleading many passholders.
Ever since I became a member of the "Reservation Policy Committee", many
passholders contacted me in regards to all kinds of policies. A few of them
brought up the court #1 reservation policy as "Wednesday to Wednesday",
which is inconvenient. I persistently and patiently explained to them that
my instruction to interpret the policy comes directly from the manager. Most
of them were convinced and regulate their own reservation thereafter. I also
promised to relay their preference for "Monday to
Sunday" during the meeting.
Being a leader for my tennis buddies, I have a good reputation among many
passholders who are not affiliated with any group. They embraced and
encouraged me to be a pioneer to carry out their mission. On the other hand,
I am aware that I have aroused the emotional upsets of hundreds of others.
They did not attend the 12/4 Parks and Rec general meeting, and they did not
know that we had resumed our 10 year flawless court use record, which is an
honor to me. While I labor to regain and establish
their trust, I stumbled again.
Instead of establishing a long term, fair and consistent reservation system,
I have widely and falsely interpreted the first major policy, in which I am
the only victim. May I ask you how I can entrust and work with staff, as a
team, for a prosperous and harmonious future at the Center?
I understand your dedication and enthusiasm. I truly believe that you have
no knowledge and no reason to direct this foul play at this critical time.
Nevertheless, staff members Mr. McCarthy and Ms. Manning are still in on it.
Is there any hope that they will ever drop it so that all of us would
genuinely contribute to the success of the Sports Center?
Regards,
Tony Toy
P.S. The staff should "post" (not put in a rack) a memo on when to start the
week. Most passholders follow the USTA match schedule, which goes "Monday to
Sunday." "Wednesday to Wednesday" is only catered to team tennis but is
confusing for most passholders to schedule their matches. Please pick one. I
will direct my group to read the memo. Let's get it over with ASAP.
I understand that this is the task of the Committee. Please instruct me to
Cc: to them if necessary.
...... End of Forwarded Message
Subject: Update to Staff Foul Play with Dual Reservation Policy
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 13:37:37 -0800
From: Tony Toy <tony.toy~Sun. COM>
To: jeanne~dynamic-results.com, rodney_e brown~yahoo.com, rpeng~fcpa.fujitsu.com,
i]elinch~juno.com
In the round of "Staff Foul Play with Dual Reservation Policy", we feel sorry that
the management has spent so much energy (which translates to extra expenses under a
tight budget) for revenge° We are sending out this update because sadly, we sense
that another wave will be coming from the frontdesk staff who actually assign the
courts and monitor our activity.
Except for Susan, all the frontdesk employees are short-term, college-bound
youngsters. It is their past-time and no one has pursued a career within the
department during the past 10 years. We have seen a few capable, hard-working, and
ambitious employees who are frustrated with the unfair management and low work
morale. They have made the right choice and have already moved on.
Susan, who works the morning shift, is very different. About six years ago, she was
given instruction to treat us unfairly. She skillfully used different methods such
as screening the callers, rearranging the order, and switching the clocks, etc. We
also had two lengthy, fruitless meetings with Mr. McCarthy who brought in our
personal issues and bashed us. Subsequently, we contacted Director Mr. Dowling and
had a few telephone conversations with him° How Mr. Dowling disciplined the staff
was not
made public. Susan finally observed the seven-day first come, first served
reservation policy. For a few years, she never overstepped too far and too often,
and this issue had quieted down.
Her collaboration and loyalty to Mr. McCarthy and the former manager were rewarded
with job security and full-time employee benefits (the only staff position aside
from the manager). When the reservation sheet is tightly concealed and management is
fully backing her up, she has made many intentional "mistakes" to short-change us.
Over a year ago, only a handful of higher level frontdesk staff like Susan had
collaborated with management to treat us unfairly. Most frontdesk staff chose not to
participate and stayed out it. Under the new manager, we can see a dramatic change.
The former manager was a long-time tennis player. He was in and out during
prime-time and would occasionally fill in the shift at the frontdesk. When the
courts were tight, he could easily identify most CTC groups with back-to-back
reservations. On most evenings, the majority of the courts were (and still are)
being double booked by these groups. He would take away and reassign these courts.
We are the only handful of passholders who abide by the court use policies all the
time (we have reported
these abusive situations to Ms. Smith a year ago).
The new manager Ms. Manning never played tennis, never serviced the frontdesk, never
worked in the evenings during prime-time, never attempted to recognize passholders
and CTC groups (except CTC officials), never had hands-on experience regarding court
use, and never managed a tennis facility. She has the privilege that she does not
need any of the above.
She is very skillful in writing reports and minutes, drafting impractical, harsh,
ambiguous policies which cannot be fully and fairly implemented to run the business.
These policies are designed to target a few passholders who speak up from their
hearts, like us. She has dramatically changed the profile of the frontdesk staff to
achieve her goal.
Ms. Smith appointed four positions among the five-member Reservation Policy
Committee. Mr. McCarthy, MS. Manning, and tennis club official formed the majority.
Tony surprisingly won the lucky draw to represent all the passholders, but his vote
will definitely be singled out. Ms. Manning writes up the minutes before attending
the meeting and the staff's proposed policies are already in print before voting.
Staff skillfully planned their "dual policy" strategy. First, they hampered our
reputation during the October 2003 meeting. Thereafter, even if we had found out, it
was too complicated and too difficult to draw the attention of any authority. It
would be just another "he said, she said" situation without any proof.
The scenario changed when we resumed our reputation and Tony participated in
drafting the new Reservation Policy. Thus, we had many chances to cormmunicate with
other passholders and staff, and gained a better understanding of different
definitions and requirements on reserving court #1. After the second meeting, we
finally figured out that the staff had applied the harsh condition only to us. In
our email to Ms. Smith, we suggested that the management should make up for it by
posting a clear
reservation policy, "once per week, starting on Monday", as requested by most
passholders. We wanted to quietly leave it behind and move on.
Unfortunately, every time we discovered a fraud, management would aggressively seek
another new plot to cover it up further. The management had previously lobbied and
attempted to mislead the Commission in condemning us. This time, a more aggressive
and comprehensive tactic had been applied to brainwash and rejuvenate the frontdesk
staff. The frontdesk staff was convinced that they had misinterpreted the previous
instruction of weekly court #1 reservations from Wednesday to Wednesday, and that
we had complained to the authority. The frontdesk staff was grateful that their
mistakes had been covered up when the Toys accused them. Their resentment towards us
had been established.
Some of the frontdesk staff blatantly said that they had never heard of Wednesday to
Wednesday, when we actually overheard the same staff explaining it to other
passholders. Some of them were confused and said that they were not clear about the
issue. Most staff also specially pointed out that everyone had been treated in the
same way, when in fact, they had paid special attention to monitor us. Their words
had been scripted and the fraud had been covered up very smoothly.
When the reservation sheet was open to the public, staff was responsible for
checking in players, marking off the courts, and reassigning courts if there were no
shows or cancellations. We would check out the reservation sheet and notify the
staff of any open courts to mitigate the court shortage. When the reservation sheet
is covered up, frontdesk staff do not have to follow any rules and they are relieved
of all their responsibilities. When they are well protected, our City loses its
check
and balance system.
The higher level management is even more corrupt. Tony's email listing the problems
and inconsistencies of the new policy never received a reply. His suggestion of
using email to discuss the policy issues was declined. They completely ignored him
and avoided any of his input on record. In the meantime, all discussions and
announcements during the Reservation Policy Committee meetings were modified,
omitted, and revoked on the minutes to change the record.
The new court #1 policy has been in affect since October 15. Hundreds of CTC members
who previously complained that they could not book court #1 have lost interest.
Court #1 is no more busier than other courts. The most valuable resource of our
facility is often sitting empty. There are a lot of no-shows and the management had
secretly and extensively exercised their power of discretion to pardon these
undisclosed violators. No one was reprimanded.
On the other hand, frontdesk staff work hard only to monitor us. When our 1 ~ hour
court time is up, they would kick us off court #1 even if no one has reserved the
court after us. Other CTC groups can keep playing to fill in the space.
While all passholders can only reserve courts for 1 ~ hours, CTC players can stay on
court #1 (or any court) for a match, which can extend beyond three hours. They have
no time limit and are very well-protected.
While we have no way of checking out how and to whom Susan assigns court #1, CTC can
take up court #1 for a whole week during prime-time. There is also no disclosure
that CTC can reserve all the better lit courts for a few consecutive weeks, every
evening, during prime-time.
The old policy allows a paid guest the freedom to use our facility, like any
passholder, after he/she has signed in and reserved a court.
Since we invited the most guests, the new restrictive guest policy is designed to
solely target our guests. Staff who recognize our guests would follow and watch them
closely, to enforce the rules. Our guests cannot reserve courts. They can only share
the same court with us and leave the facility promptly thereafter. Being the host,
we cannot take a break or have any injury. Our guests cannot stay over for any
reason. It is very easy to frame us.
CTC players always play with the same groups and they do not have to purchase guest
passes. On CTC evenings, the Center has an open door policy after 5:30 or 6:30 PM.
When the reservation sheet is covered, intruders can easily take over any open
court, whereas we were denied courts frequently. They can attend any workout
classes, use the gym and shower facilities, etc. They have no restrictions and no
one will be responsible.
CTC opponents also enjoy more privileges than non-CTC passholders like us. They can
play on court #1 for over three hours during prime-time. CTC players often visit
their opponents during non-prime time, when our courts are also wide open on weekend
afternoons. The manager and frontdesk staff cannot distinguish between the
passholders, day pass users, paid guests, and the intruders. There is no patrolling
within the facility. Only our guests are being singled out.
In all private clubs, courts are assigned and controlled by the pros. Ail members
can check out the reservation sheet. Team tennis opponents do not have a chance to
take over any courts. Since all members know each other, back-to-back overbooking
never happens and this opens up more courts. The management is fair and respectful.
There is no cover up and thus, no complaints. Everyone has an equal chance. Staff
never has to cite an a~nbiguous policy and use their discretion to target two
members,
as the current practice at our facility does.
During the October meeting, the Committee had entrusted the management staff to
formulate a fair policy and empowered them to exercise their discretion. The
Commission should be informed of the development, application, and intention of
these new policies. The Commission has created another great opportunity for the
managing staff to openly and aggressively punish us!
In November 2002, Ms. Smith acknowledged that we had been doing everything right and
that she would seek to change the policy. She plays the game very well.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Subject: RE: Court gl Reservation and Usage By Our Guests/Documentation forTeamTennis
Policy From City Council Members
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 11:51:26 -0800
From: Therese Ambrosi Smith <ThereseS @ cupertino.org>
To: Tony.Toy@Sun. COM
CC: Don McCarthy <DonM@cupertino.org>, jeanne@dynamic-results.corn,
rodney_e_brown @ yahoo.corn, rpeng @ fcpa.fujitsu.com, kriswang88 @ hotmail.com,
fjelinch@juno.com, Colleen Manning <ColleenM@cupertino.org>,
danag @ lifetimetennis.com, eggower @ earthlink.net
I want to acknowledge that I have read your message.
Regards,
Therese Smith
Thank you for writing to me.
..... Original Message .....
From: Tony Toy [mailto:Tony. Toy@Sun. COM]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 11:03 AM
To: Therese Ambrosi Smith
Cc: Don McCarthy; jeanne@dynamic-results.com; rodney_e_brow~@yahoo.com;
rpeng@fcpa.fujitsu.com; kriswang88@hotmail.com; fjelinch@juno.com;
Colleen Manning; danag@lifetimetennis.com; eggower@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Court ~1 Reservation and Usage By Our Guests/Documentation
forTeamTennis Policy From City Council Members
Dear Ms. Smith,
Thank you for your email. Your assumption is correct that Tony will work very hard
to represent the interest of current and future passholders. He will address any
issue if it is deemed necessary. You wrote "... From comments that I have received
from staff and other committee members, this is not the case." Please specify.
Do you mean that Tony does not work hard enough to be on the Committee? With our
combined experience, knowledge, and passion, Tony has listed our reasonable, general
concern regarding the two drafted policies on the ll/1 email, which was also Cc'ed
to all related parties. These drafted policies will produce the identical outcome,
as in the current unfair situation. Why then would we bother to change a few words
so as to maintain the old essence? We should open our minds and accept that change
is
sometimes good.
Ms. Manning will include Tony's list on the agenda for discussion. We would like to
hear from other Committee members.
We wish that our voice has been heard and considered, and that our stride to achieve
fairness will make some difference to all passholders.
In regards to our request to Mr. McCarthy to respond through email, we do not expect
to take so much of a toll on him. As you know, we have been labeled as abusive,
manipulative, and destructive by hundreds of acquaintances. We wish to have a few
words of acknowledgment from him to clarify the issue. Only you and Mr. McCarthy
could verify our innocence and resume our flawless court use record. We sincerely
appreciate your offer to close this chapter and move on. We pray that we will not
have to
play our matches under intense surveillance every night. It is not too much fun to
be accused.
Thank you very much.
Therese Ambrosi Smith wrote:
>
> Dear Mr. and Ms. Toy,
> Up to this point, I have assumed that you wsre interested in working in the best
interest of sports center pass holders, and that you were raising important concerns
that deserved our attention. From comments that I have received from staff and
other committee members, this is not the case.
> I will be sitting in on Friday's meeting, as an observer, to make sure all points
of view are acknowledged, and that the committee will be abls to complete its work
within a couple of meetings. I can't promise that the reservation policy will be
what you want, but your voice has been, and will continue to be heard. Our job is to
run the center for the greatest overall benefit, not for the benefit of the
individuals that complain the most.
> In the meantime, in reviewing my file on this matter, I believe Don has put more
than enough energy into your complaints, which in some form or other, have been
ongoing for years. I am concerned about the time this is taking away from what I
need him to focus on, that is, opening the new building.
> Address your reservation concerns to the committee and help i~ complete i~s work.
Tony is a member of the committee, you have a voice. It is time to bring this
chapter to a close.
> Best regards,
> Thereee Smith
> ..... Original Message .....
> From: Tony Toy [mailto:Tony. Toy@Sun. COM]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2003 3:55 PM
> To: Don McCarthy
> Cc: Therese Ambrosi Smith; jeanne~dynamic-results.com;
> rodney_e_brown@yahoo.com; rpeng@fcpa.fujitsu.com;
> kriswang88@hotmail.com; fjelinch~juno.com; Colleen Manning;
> danag@lifetimetennis.com; eggower~earthlink.net
> Subject: Re: Court #1 Reservation and Usage By Our Guests/Documentation
> forTeam Tennis Policy From City Council Members
>
> Our email is addressed to you, not the committee. Please respond to us through
small. Please re-read the first paragragh of our original email. "Court #1
Reservation and Usage By Our Guests" is a personal issue. Please respond through
email so that all interested parties will be informed and thus, make their own
judgement accordingly.
>
> For years, we have questioned your verbal Priority Team Tennis Policy. Last year,
our 11/7/02 agenda on this issue had been switched to court #1 reservation. We were
never given a chance to address this. It was not until the October 2, 2003 Parks
and Rec general meeting that you officially announced this "support" by City Council
memners. Please email us the document to verify your words.
>
> Grace and Tony Toy
>
> Don McCarthy wrote:
>>
> > Thank you for your e-ma//. The reservation policy committee will attempt to
address your concerns at our meeting this Friday December
>>
> > ..... Original Message .....
> > From: Tony Toy [mailto:Tony. Toy@Sun. COM]
> > Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 10:26 AM
> > To: Don McCarthy
> > Cc: Therese Ambrosi Smith; jeanne~dynamic-results.com;
> > rodney_e_brown@yahoo.com; rpeng@fcpa.fujitsu.com;
> > kriswang88@hotmail.com; fjelinch@juno.com; Colleen Manning;
> > danag~lifetimetennis.com; eggower@earthlink.net
~ > Subject: Court #1 Reservation and Usage By Our Guests/Documentation for
> > Team Tennis Policy From City Council Members
> > During the 11/14 Cupertino Sports Center Reservation Committee meeting, you set
the ground rules that "each individual is here to represent their group, not their
individual ideas" and "all members agree to be respectful of each other and listen
to all sides presented." You were the first member to break these rules. At least
six times, you explicitly said that "you play at court #1 for three hours every
night." This is a false accusation by a Recreation Supervisor during an official
meeting.
~ > Ail managing staff should resign if such extensive violations of policy had
existed for years but was not disciplined at all.
> > We would like to disclose the trap set up by staff and keep our record straight.
On 11/15/02, we emailed and faxed a letter to Ms. Smith and Cc'ed you on the subject
of questions regarding policies for Toys' paid guests (see attachment). We wrote:
>>
> > "We were not allowed to transfer our guests' names onto the reservation sheet.
Our guests can only use up our court time; furthermore, they cannot stay over for
half an hour and play singles by themselves. Mr. Gonzales claimed that once we take
off our names, he will personally take over the court. He will put his name and
passholder number on the reservation sheet and we would lose our court ... He
referred us to seek explanation from you. Do you have different policies for:
> ~ 1)the general passholders, their guests, and daily passholders
~ ~ 2)team tennis officials
> ~ 3)the Toys
> > 4)the Toys' paid guests"
~ ~ For six months, staff retaliation had not been corrected. During the 5/1/03
general meeting, we gave examples in four situations when staff was unfair to us.
Once again, we pointed out that our guests could only use up our court reservation.
Their court time and rights were deprived, we asked for an explanation from the
management staff. We never received any response, as usual.
>>
> > The staff intentionally created an impression that we "play" on court #1 for
three hours. It is misleading. We usually have two groups of guests. The early ones
would purchase day passes and hit on court #1 by themselves. Our guests are not
aware of the following traps:
> > 1) They were not allowed to change the reservation to their names while other
passholders' guests have no restrictions.
> > 2) The staff should transfer our reservation to our guests when we were not
using the court, but they never did.
> > 3) Our guests did not realize that staff would later use the covered reservation
sheets to accuse us of playing for three hours.
> ~ We would arrive later and play doubles with a second group of guests. If the
first group left early, we would properly cancel the last 1/2 hour before our match
started. Thus, we were accused of having too many cancellations. Sometimes we would
invite six guests and play two doubles matches of 1 M hours each. We never overbook
or play beyond our designated court times.
> > In the same letter to Ms. Smith, we wrote" ... you said that we had been doing
everything right and therefore, the staff could not do anything about it. Thank you
for your compliment. You will seek to change the policy." Ms. Smith never dropped
by the Sports Center but she is well aware that we abide by all rules. Who provided
her with this information?
>>
~ ~ For years, all Tennis Club officials, the manager, as well as a few designated
employees, gauged and recorded every minute of our court time. They worked very
hard but no one ever found any problems of excessive use beyond 1 1/2 hours. If we
had ever violated any minor rules, we would have been kicked off the court and
expelled from the facility immediately. Nevertheless, we have a perfect court use
record and therefore, the staff could not get rid of us. Many times we had declined
your offer of
> > a refund and to quit the Sports Center. S~bsequently, management had greatly
overstepped their authority to give us a hard time in many ways, to force us to
quit.
> > Every year we invite a few hundred guests. Staff eliminated all their court use
records and registered their court time under our names. The reservation sheets are
solely controlled by staff to entrap us. The truth is that our court time also
includes hundreds of hours of unlisted guest usage, which cannot be detected from
the reservation sheets.
> > You were correct when you reported to the Commission that the staff did not
enforce the rules when the use of court #I had been abused and manipulated. Very
often court #1 was granted to Tennis Club officials and team captains extensively,
for personal use. We just happened to catch some of their matches onsite. Was the
former Cupertino Tennis Club Coordinator reprimanded? In fact, reservations granted
in this manner were not on record. Even lately, we have seen staff scribbling and
erasing old
> > reservation sheets, which were routinely covered up.
>>
> > Ever since the change in court #1 reservation policy, all day pass users and
paid guests are excluded from reserving court #1 even though they pay premium court
fees. The new policy works against the interest of our City. Its operation had not
been fairly implemented.
>>
> > For years, you informed us that our City has granted priority court reservation
for team tennis and therefore, they choose the best courts at prime time as often as
they want, inefficiently, without restriction. However, you refused to put the terms
in writing.
> > During the 10/2/03 general meeting, you reported to the Commission that our
City Council had made the decision to support team tennis. The Commission
understands that they have to comply with the existing City policy. As a
consequence, the Commission had voted on the New Team Tennis Policy based on this
City Policy and the staff's recommendation. Please provide documentation on the
"support" that the Council members had granted to team tennis. We had requested this
official documentation in an
> > email dated 11/2/03 but have yet to receive a copy of the documentation.
~ ~ Thank you very much.
Subject: Oral Communication from 12/4/2003 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:00:49-0800
From: Tony Toy <tony.toy~Sun. COM>
To: jeanne~dynamic-results.com, rodney_e_brown~yahoo.com, rpeng~fcpa.fujitsu.com,
f~elinch~juno.com
CC: ThereseS~cupertino.org
We (Grace and Tony Toy) delivered the following message during the 12/~/2003 Parks
and Rec general meeting:
Good evening. We are Grace and Tony Toy. Tony has just passed out a package, which
includes 3 emails which had been Cc'ed to the Commission and staff. The first one is
our corament on the October general meeting. The other 2 were letters to staff, Ms.
Smith, and Ms. Manning.
We would like to highlight a few points. In the second email, we are relieved to
receive a clearance from our bad name and resume our perfect court use record for 10
years. As for the outpour of emails, we take responsibility in being the whistle
blowers. Since the Center does not have head pros to monitor the courts on team
tennis evenings, we alerted the st~ff that some visitors are using up our courts. We
felt that it was the right thing to do even though staff never handled it properly.
Some
of the emails are from our friends. We can see from their point of view that they
are compelled to send the same message to the Commission; otherwise, they will not
be able to play on the team.
In the same way, we also revealed that many courts were granted to Club officials
-- for personal use. They were not on record. We just happened to be there and nobody
else would have figured it out except us.
We also want to point out that CTC is the only group in the Bay Area that enjoys
prime time court use without any restriction. We have the best courts. Our City set
the function of the Sports Center to accommodate individual passholders, seeking a
quiet tennis environment. It is not a club and a home court. It does not have the
infrastructure to monitor team tennis visitors who will use our facility. After the
grand opening, we need a security system unless the authority prefer to ignore it,
as
in the past.
I was very lucky. My name was drawn among many entrants to represent passholders on
the Reservation Policy Committee. In the third email, I have listed my concerns to
Ms. Manning on the two policy drafts. They are very similar to the current policies.
They cover up the unlimited court use privilege granted to CTC. It is inconsistent.
Rules are ambiguous. We are the only two under intense surveillance. Staff
extensively exercise their discretion without a standard. We watch our court time
and our
backs. Still, our courts had been canceled anonymously and we have been denied
courts frequently. Staff is erasing and scribbling on old reservation sheets.
A good policy should be fair, well defined, and cover every aspect. It does not need
fine print or special interpretation. The new policy should fairly recognize the
existence and benefit of different user groups. If a Committee is uncomfortable in
listing an item, and leaves it blank, something is hiding and it has to be fixed.
Currently, the court reservation policy in the welcome package did not mention CTC
at all. New passholders do not know that less than 20 % of passholders, who are CTC
players, block off 50+ % of the prime time courts. Many non-CTC passholders just
-- could not get courts on team tennis evenings and therefore, they have never seen or
heard of CTC.
They are consumers who pay for a city facility but their contract did not disclose
the limitation on court designation. It is my responsibility to ask the Conm~ittee to
incorporate this disclosure in the new policy so that no one will be surprised and
disappointed after they sign the contract.
I hope our Committee will be creative. We should make the best use of both
prime-time and non-prime time courts, to make room for new passholders in the grand
opening.
I will look after the interests of my group. AS I work through every detail, I was
asking who will represent the City. Perhaps the staff or Commission could use .the
rest of my 3 minutes to answer my question.
Thank you very much.
Since there was no discussion, we quoted the last two paragraphs from the first
email:
"We appreciate the fact that each of us was allowed three minutes in the 'oral
communications' session to highlight problems regarding prime time tennis.
Unfortunately, information spread out in a 12-month span is too sketchy and
fragmented for decision making. We truly believe that the Commission had approached
this issue with an open mind and a desire to resolve the problem. It is also logical
and predictable that the staff's rounded-up recommendations were adopted. Staff did
not propose any
alternative to be considered.
We wish that this issue had been handled openly and properly. The .Commission will
have a different perspective if we were given a chance to conduct direct
communication with all Commission members across the table, not behind the
microphone in three minutes."
From: Dan Clarke <danclarke@sbcglobal.net>
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tony Toy <tony.toy@sun.corn>
Subject: Tennis courts at CTC
To: Tony and Grace Toy
Dear Tony and Grace,
In early January, I sent the following email to Ms. Therese Smith at Cupertino Parks and
Recreation Commission. It was my second correspondence with her on the matter of equitable
usage of the tennis courts at the Cupertino Sports Center.
I am very disappointed that I never received her response. Please submit both of my letters
directly to the Parks and Recreation Commission during the June 5th general meeting.
Thank you very much.
Regards,
Dan Clarke
January6, 2003
City of Cupertino
Parks and Recreation Commission
c/o Therese Smith
10300 Torre Ave.
Cupertino, CA 95014
Dear Ms. Smith,
On November 22, 2002, I emailed a letter to the Cupertino Parks and Recreation Commission c/o
Therese Smith. In late December I received a response to my letter from Mr. Richard Gonzales.
While I am most grateful for the letter from Mr. Gonzales, I am still concerned that the letter
might not have reached the intended audience - the City of Cupertino Parks and Recreation
Commission.
In his letter, Mr. Gonzales made some assertions, which I have no way of verifying. I would
appreciate very much if I could have a reply from you or another member of the Cupertino
'Commission. If you would please submit my letter directly to the Commission as soon as
possible and verify with me that it has been submitted, I would appreciate it very much.
Thank you,
Dan Clarke
Member #1702
Cupertino Sports Center
November 22, 2002
City of Cupertino
Parks and Recreation Commission
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
Attn: Ms. Terese Smith
Subject: Equitable Use of Tennis Facility: Opposition to policy re USTA Team Tennis
on Weeknight Evenings; support for current 7-day reservation policy
Hello,
My name is Dan Clarke. I have been a card-holding member of the Cupertino Tennis
Center for the past 2 years. During that time there have been several occasions when I
have tried to reserve a court that is lighted for an evening match, only to be turned away
because many of the lit courts are in use by teams playing USTA team tennis.
While I realize the enjoyment that serious tennis players receive in playing team tennis, it
really seems unfair to give them higher priority in the use of the courts. After all, there
are others of us who are also serious players who wish to play after work on weekdays,
and who pay the same dues as those playing team tennis.
As a matter of fact, half of those playing team tennis are from other clubs, either as
opponents or as free, invited guests. So I, as a dues paying member of Cupertino Tennis
Center, am being refused the right to play on a court while others who do not pay dues
are being allowed the use of the courts that have been specially set aside by Club
management for the USTA teams. How can this be seen as an equitable arrangement?
Moreover, when I joined the Cupertino Tennis Center, I received a contract. Nowhere on
the contract is it mentioned that certain members will receive priority in scheduling
courts over other members.
I really believe that this is an inequitable and basically unfair use of the tennis facilities,
and I would like to hear from you as to how you plan to address this issue. Personally, I
feel that the current 7 day advance registration policy is excellent, and should be
administered equally to all members, regardless of whether they are playing on a USTA
team.
Yours truly,
Dan Clarke
Subject: Response to October 2 Parks and Recreation Agenda
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 14:48:24 -0800
From: Tony Toy <tony.toy~Sun. COM>
To: jeanne~dynamic-results.com, rodney_e_brown~yahoo.com, rpeng~fcpa.fujitsu.com,
kfiswang88~hotmail.com, f]elinch~juno.com, thereses~cupertino.org,
donm@cupertino.org
We would like to thank the Commission for attending the October meeting and trying
to understand the issues and problems. It is difficult to make the right decision
with biased, inconclusive information. We especially appreciate your efforts in
exploring options to improve the lighting. We will help to raise the funds.
The Commission had received partial information (mostly from staff) regarding court
#1 reservations and team tennis at prime time. We have some feedback and questions
as follows:
I. On October 2, our message to consider the interest of our City was relevant to
the agenda "Consider and Formulate Policies for Tennis Court Reservation at the
Sports Center." This is a very important aspect because our City is the service
provider with millions of dollars of capital investment.
We have listed many examples from our neighboring cities that also co-sponsor team
tennis. They have greatly increased court fees according to current market value.
They do not give priority to team tennis like our City. Teams cannot choose their
match times and favorite courts. Most of them are assigned at non-prime time with
restrictions. We have the best facility but team tennis at the Sports Center use
prime time courts excessively, inefficiently, with easy access in booking, for free.
They
deprive our City the opportunity to serve more users and to generate more revenue in
the new facility. The interest of our City had been underminded. We sincerely ask
the Committee to consider and incorporate our concern in the policy.
II. According to club president Mr. Gower, he has 171 team players in 2003 within a
12-month period. This is not a USTA official record. Last year, Mr. Gower's nuraber
was 35 percent higher than the USTA record.
Mr. Gower also reported that his club had 30 new passholders joining team tennis.
Most of them are ongoing passholders. They are not "new." Mr. Gower did not report
how many team players quit. In fact, the club does not benefit the Sports Center in
bringing new business. Business will greatly improve without team tennis at prime
time.
III. The Commission can only formulate fair policy based on complete, unbiased
information. Mr. McCarthy selected information only to support his recommendation.
We would like to fill in some details regarding the operating process and current
situation:
1) There are more than two league seasons. Team tennis is a year round nonstop event
and league seasons overlap. It is still growing.
2) Team matches take longer hours and more courts than is recorded. Mr. McCarthy
said that league matches usually take 1 1/2 hours, with some overtime. Last October,
team matches reserved three of the best courts for two weeks consecutively, for 2
1/2 hours (7 - 9:30 PM) to accor~aodate only six team players every evening. After we
spoke up at the meeting, all reservations were changed to two hours (7 - 9 PM).
Dr. Michael zimmerman also reported that at 6:30 PMi his teammates and opponents
were already waiting and begging for courts (to warm up for their 7 PM match). Many
visitors also take away courts from general passholders.
3) The pre-season match projections are inaccurate. There are 35 teams and captains,
with hundreds of matches. Later during the season, well connected captains will
block off more courts. They simply notify part-time, inexperienced staff to block
off courts at the last minute. These extra reservations are not on record.
On September 23, for example, team tennis used up six courts, which was not listed
on the projection. That leaves only one court for all passholders (staff later
allocated one more court for advance reservation). Most passholders simply could not
book courts on that evening. Non-team tennis passholders did not notice this problem
because the reservation sheet is covered.
4) The expenses and problems incurred by team tennis were also not brought up by
staff. Team tennis requires extra staff to schedule matches, service the frontdesk,
and clean up the court sides.
Since the Center only provides facilities, it does not have the resources to resolve
team tennis guest problems, such as using gym facilities and extra courts. Non-team
tennis players cannot enjoy a peaceful and quiet environment because USTA groups
generate loud noise with a club atmosphere. It is disturbing.
5) Team tennis court use is very inefficient. For example, without team tennis,
eight passholders can play on court #1 from 7 - 10 PM. Our guests regularly pay
premium fees for well lit courts. However, each team match blocks off two hours from
7 PM to 9 PM to accommodate only two team players. The hour after 9 PM is usually
wasted. Team tennis court use efficiency is only at 25 percent of capacity. It takes
place on 50+ % of the evenings. Furthermore, most seniors do not play on cold winter
nights. There are many defaults and no shows on the best lit courts.
6) When Commissioner Brown asked Mr. McCarthy about the total number of passholders,
Mr. McCarthy said that staff did not know the exact number of tennis players,
especially during the construction period. Mr. McCarthy said it would be in the area
of 350.
We would like to report to Commissioner Brown that currently, the total number of
passholders on record is 666. There is no workout facility during the construction
period. The total number of tennis players definitely exceeds 500. We would like to
thank Commissioner Brown for asking such an important and intelligent question. It
is a key factor in formulating policy.
7) Before the renovation, the Center had 1000+ passholders on a 12-month period
count, over 850 on an average day. Last year, according to USTA official record, the
Cupertino Tennis Club had 160 team players. They represent less than 17 percent year
round and on an average day. Staff never presented these statistics to the
Commission. The privilege of team tennis players are over-represented. Non-team
tennis players like us do not get our fair share of court designation.
IV. The outpouring of dissatisfied emails regarding the Stevens Creek Corridor
project is understandably different from the reaction on court #1 reservation. The
Stevens Creek Corridor project affects long time residents. Each family has their
own concern and therefore, the Commission received a wide range of opinions.
Everyone speaks for themselves, truly from their hearts.
It is staff's strategy to raise the issue regarding the reservation of court #1. The
motivation behind team tennis players is very clear. Last November when we
questioned prime-time team tennis policy, the staff switched our proposed agenda to
court #1 reservation. Staff worked closely with club officials. They wanted to
divert the attention and cloud the issue.
Without team tennis, court #1 is booked on a first come, first served basis. Most
early callers refused to take it. Team players who do not want center court
attention are simply following their club. Ail emails come from the same blueprint.
These messages do not truly represent their concern. We would like to ask the
Commission how many emails are from non-team players. They definitely looked genuine
and outstanding.
V. We emailed Ms. Bradford that "On November 20, Priya t~ld us that Mr. Gonzates had
given special instruction not to show us the reservation sheet. It was OK to show
everyone else." When Ms. Bradford visited the Center, you informed us that Priya did
not say that. Did you find out more about it later?
Mr. Gonzales specially arranged many selected team tennis players like Sargan Isaac
to report to Ms. Bradford.
Did Mr. Gonzales introduce Ms. Bradford to any non-team passholders? Their stories
also came from the same blueprint. Did Ms. Bradford ask any non-team players if they
knew how team tennis court use was operated? The truth is that they are totally
uninformed and unaware of the situation, being ruled out and neglected.
VI. Prime time team tennis policy is not fair and consistent. The following facts
and details are not made public to non-team players or higher City officials. Team
players enjoy exclusive privilege. They take away the best lit courts at prime time
from non-tea~ passholders. They deprive the city from serving a broader community
and generating more revenue.
Prime time courts are very tight. While we all have the heart to welcome team tennis
opponents, we ~o not want to give them our court and sit on the sideline when all
passholders pay the same fees.
HOW can team tennis policy be fair when less than 20 % of them enjoy the best lit
court exclusively 50+ % of the evenings? Should 80 % of the prime time courts be
designated for non-team players exclusively? Is there any privilege for non-teaun
players? Would the staff recommend not allowing team players to book courts on USTA
evenings? Should our guests and friends (of non-team players) be given free passes
and granted the best lit court with extended hours and advanced booking?
General passholders join a City facility and entrust our City to provide a fair
service. They are conslnners. They did not sign up for a club or join a political
arena. They are not constituents or lobbyists. They should not be required to file a
petition in order to receive fair service.
Most general passholders do not know about team tennis. ~hey do not understand why
prime time courts are so tight. A handful of non-team players questioned the
management about team tennis reservation policies. They were denied, discouraged,
and ignored. Ever since we questioned team tennis policy, staff has changed the
operating system and given us a hard time. Several in authority even asked us to
quit.
Stevens Creek Corridor residents will not sell their homes but instead voice their
concern. Most tennis players are not interested in civil matters. Disappointed
non-team tennis players simply change their home base and are playing tennis
somewhere else.
Team tennis players are insiders. Non-team tennis players are outsiders. To be fair
and consistent, we propose that the Parks and Recreation Department send out a
disclosure which lists in detail how team tennis is operated. We would be glad to
help draft an announcement of this nature. All past and current non-team tennis
players deserve to know that they have been short-changed. They will definitely
email the Commission.
VII. We appreciate the fact that each of us was allowed three minutes in the "oral
cor~nunications" session to highlight problems regarding prime time tennis.
Unfortunately, information spread out in a 12-month span is too sketchy and
fragmented for decision making. We truly believe that the Commission had approached
this issue with an open mind and a desire to resolve the problem. It is also logical
and predictable that the staff's rounded-up recommendations were adopted. Staff did
not propose
any alternative to be considered.
We wish that this issue had been handled openly and properly. The Commission will
have a different perspective if we were given a chance to conduct direct
communication with all Commission members across the table, not behind the
microphone in three minutes.
We are looking forward to receiving comments from staff and the Commission.
Thank you very much.
Subject:
Date:
From:
To:
CC:
Emails with No Replies
Mon, 01 Dec 2003 10:28:49 -0800
Tony Toy <tony.toy~Sun. COM>
colleenm@cupert]no.org
donm~cupertino.org, thereses~cupe~]no.org, jeanne~dynam~c-results.com,
rodney_e_brown@yahoo.com, rpeng~fepa.fujitsu.eom, kriswang88@hotmail.com,
fjelinch~juno.com, danag~lifetimetennis.com, eggower@earthlink.net
Colleen,
Mr. McCarthy said that you have had trouble with your email. If you had not received
the following emails, please contact me:
1) Date: 11-10-03 Re: Profile a review of the current court reservation status and
policy
2) Date: 11-12-03 Re: A) My court #1 reservation from 7-8:30 PM (1 1/2 hours) had
been canceled and moved to court #8 for one hour only, without notification. Staff
identity had been covered (no initials and no arrow). B) Staff constantly deny me
court #1 and later claimed that she made a mistake.
3) Date: 11-13-03 Re: I was denied of courts numerous times when many courts were
available. Please exlDlain.
I have reviewed your 11-14-03 documents on 1) "Court One Prime Time Court
Reservation Policies" and 2) "Cupertino Tennis Club Court Reservation Policies."
Here are my comments:
1) Ail court #1 usage should be incorporated into one document, which includes all
privileged groups, such as CTC. It is misleading to separate it into two documents
when the second document is ambiguous (will discuss later).
2) "If a member is on Court One for more than 1.5 hours per day they will not be
able to play on Court One for a period of 30 days." Please specify your plan on how
to enforce this rule so that "all" matches are evenly monitored. Currently, only a
few passholders are under intense surveillance.
3) The Committee should receive a detailed list of the passholders who violate the
24-hour cancellation policy. How do you handle it? What criteria do you consistently
use to decide who "may or may not" lose the right to reserve court #1 for a period
of 30 days? In the past, this also happened with CTC matches many times. Are they
immune from the penalty?
4) On Friday, court #1 is not open for reservation for passholders after 7 PM, but
can possibly be used for CTC matches.
5) Over a month ago, you said that you would post the CTC match schedule to the
public. Where did you post it? Is it possible that CTC could voluntarily post their
schedule at least 14 days in advance, so that all passholders can plan on their
schedule accordingly? The Committee should be notified and in agreement if there is
any change after it is posted.
6) What is the penalty for CTC violations regarding court #1 reservations? Is it
also an one month suspension of all CTC reservations?
The public is not aware of the following reservation practice (or system). They
should be clearly listed on the policy, unless you plan to change them.
7) Currently, "per week" has two definitions. A passholders can only make a court #1
reservation at least seven days after their last court #1 reservation. CTC can make
two reservations without this restriction. It is unknown how CTC defines one week.
Thus, CTC can possibly make four reservations within a seven day period, or four
consecutive days. This is inconsistent (since CTC has chosen their dates a few
months in advance, it further limits the courts available for the passholders who
can
only reserve court #1 after the seventh day, only if there is no CTC match).
8) Passholders can play on court #1 for a maximum of 1 1/2 hours per day. How long
can CTC players play?
9) CTC can reserve court #1 twice per week, with their choice of times, for how
long? What do you do with the unused prime-time court time?
10) CTC has no restriction on prime time court use on other well-lit courts.
11) Do CTC players have to comply with the once per week court #1 reservation? Some
CTC merabers play on six or seven teams. Currently, CTC can possibly take over court
#1 four times in a seven day period. How can you achieve the "goal to provide a fair
and equitable opportunity for all members to access court #1" when the management
can o~ly control and record 50 percent of the prime-time court use? It seems that
Susan has overly monitored the booking of court #1 through her, for seven day
advance reservations. How can she monitor CTC players? Does she have their court use
record when she assigns the court? Currently, Susan is closely monitorinH a few
passholders. How can she oversee all passholders with the same intensity? Mow can
the management prevent CTC players from overusing court #17
I am concerned that the court use policies which will be included in the welcome
packet for new passholders is ambiguous. A policy should not include some fine print
with different interpretations. New passholders should not have to make a second
guess and be surprised, as in the past, with the limited nualber of courts available
at prime-time, because of CTC matches. Here is a list of your CTC Court Reservation
Policies and my concerns:
1) Policy "During prime time hours CTC will have access to five courts during the
months of April through August and three courts from Septen~ber through February."
Concern: CTC can possibly have matches every night, for a few consecutive weeks, as
often as they want, with their choice of courts and times. This happened in the past
and should be disclosed to prospective passholders~
2) Policy "For USTA CTC league matches participants can play and complete one single
match on Court One per day."
Concern: Without setting a limit, some matches will go beyond three hours. It may
extend into match continuation and rescheduling. It also happened in the past where
another full match time would be reserved on court #1 again, for these unfinished
matches.
3) Policy "Cupertino Tennis Club will have access to Court One two nights per week."
Concern: How many matches and how many hours can CTC reserve per night? How do you
define "one week" and is this the same for passholders?
Please respond through email. Thank you very much.
CUPEI TINO
City Hall
10300 Torte Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014-3255
Telephone: (408) 777-3212
FAX: (408) 777-3366
davek~cupertino.org
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Number / q
Agenda Date: February 2~ 2002
SUBJECT AND ISSUE
Review and adopt City Council goals for 2004.
BACKGROUND
On January 9, 2004, City Council held a study session to consider goals for 2004. Staff has
summarized the proceedings of that meeting and updated last year's goals to reflect Council's desires
for 2004.
RECOMMENDATION
Review and adopt City Council goals for 2004.
Respectfully submitted:
David W. Knapp, City Manager
City Council Goals 2004
January 2004 Update
Project Goal Status Comments
1. Library and Civic Center
)~ Open in October 2004 Under construction on schedule.
)~ Incorporate coffee shop in the Library
)~ Provide timelines and options on purchasing
FF&E for Library
)~ Automated Checkout Machines Four automated checkout machines The Cupertino Library has the highest self-
have been installed, checkout usage in the SCC system, representing
24% of check-out, or 412,000 items per year.
2. Trails Plan
)~ Stevens Creek Corridor Plan The Stevens Creek trail is a single On Sept. 15 the City Council directed staffto
component of the Stevens Creek continue to work on the corridor plan including:
Corridor Plan. On 9/15/03 the · Year-round use
Council directed that the trail · Incorporating a multi-use trail
through the corridor should be · Working with the Cupertino Historical
multi-use: Society on the Center for Living History
· Reducing the size of the picnic grounds
· Changing the fee collection system
Staff is working on completing the master plan
and seeking funding to implement it. This is an
ongoing project.
~ Construct San Tomas/Saratoga Creek Trail The trail is open.
ge Cupertino Council Goals - update January 27 2004
City Council Goals 2004
January 2004 Update
Project Goal Status Comments
3. Parks
~ Stevens Creek Corridor Park
· Support the Cupertino Historical Society in its The Cupertino Historical Society has The board of the Cupertino Historical Society
efforts to create a Center for Living History asked that the Council agree to a has raised the seed money to contract with a
: long-term lease of the Stocklmeir capital campaign consultant, and will begin to
)roperty and the historic barn and work on the campaign as soon as they get the go
blacksmith shop at McClellan ahead from Council
Ranch, if within 5 years of I
commencement of their capital
campaign, they raise sufficient
money for restoration.
* Work with the Santa Clara Valley Water Water District Staff have been City and Water District staff will be working on
District on a partnership to complete the evaluating the riparian corridor an agreement for review by the board and the
riparian planning and restoration for Stevens (soils testing a& biological Council, so that the necessary analysis and
Creek Corridor Park evaluation) in order to determine the environmental review can commence.
appropriate limits of riparian
restoration. Water District staff a re
~, also working on a proposal to fund
this project within their fiscal year
2004/05 budget.
· Complete the Stevens Creek Corridor Master Staff has received proposals from Staff anticipates bringing the contract for
consultants to complete the master consultant services forward by July, '04.
Plan plan, however, some of the work
needed to complete the master plan
is also work that may potentially be
performed by the Water District as
part of the restoration program. We
are trying to avoid duplication of
effort so completion of the master
Page 2 of 14
P
Cupertino Council Goals - update January 27, 2004
City Council Goals 2004
January 2004 Update
Project Goal Status Comments
plan is temporarily on hold pending
a written proposal from the Water
District, on the portion of the work
they will do.
· Complete the envirmunental review for the See Master Plan schedule above. The environmental review of proposed park and
Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan including The environmental review will restoration improvements will need to be
a review of alternative trail alignments ~ commence after July 1. coordinated. It would not be desirable to
"piecemeal" this project under CQEA.
· Apply for grant funding Staff submitted the first grant Staff will be bringing grant opportunities
application for this project January forward for Council consideration on an ongoing
15, 2004. basis, as the planning continues.
· Renew the Blue Pheasant lease The Attorney's office has prepared a The lessee has indicated a desire to make tenant
lease for the operator's improvements should the new lease be executed;
consideration. The current lease staff is trying to coordinate the timing of work so
expires March 31, 2004. As part of ' that re-roofing can occur within the same
the proposed lease, staffis asking window of closure.
for a window of time in which
repairs and improvements can be
made.
Rancho Rinconada Park The San Jose Water Company parcel The first step in the process is to realign the city
· Commence work on a park for the Rancho along Lawrence Express~vay has boundaries so that the park is within the City of
Rinconada area been identified as a potential park Cupertino. Once this has occurred, the next steps
site. will be to:
· Do community outreach to determine
what the park should be
· budget for said project, and
· begin to pursue funding
ge Cupertino Council Goals- update Janua_ry 27, 2004
City Council Goals 2004
January 2004 Update
Project Goal Status Comments
Neighborhood Park in the Homestead area
~ Vallco Neighborhood Park
This area was identified during the
General Plan process as an area
deficient in neighborhood parks.
This area was identified during the
General Plan process as an area
deficient in neighborhood parks.
Planning staff is working with potential
developers of the Villa Serra project to provide a
neighborhood park in this area.
A neighborhood park will be the subject of
negotiations between the City and developers as
the redevelopment plan for Vallco moves
forward.
Page 4 of 14
Cupertino Council Goals - update January 27, 2004
City Council Goals 2004
January 2004 Update
Project Goal
Status
Comments
Youth Issues
)~ Skateboard Park
· Identify location and funding
Teen Commission
Teen Center
Tomorrows Leaders Today
Teen Academy
Kaleidoscope
The Sk8mobile is on use 4 days/wk;
during the school year; it operated 6
days/wk throughout the summer.
The selection process was revised
and Teen Commissioners have been
appointed.
Website launched on 2/5/02.
The Teen Center is on the bottom
floor of the Sports Center.
2003/04 class in progress
2003/04 class in progress
2003/04 class - Spring 2004
A Sk8fest was held on Oct. 11 at
Creekside Park - 55 youths attended
Marketing for the Sk8mobile included:
· Distributing 8,000 flyers to 3~d thru
8th grades
·Using the website
· Posting flyers at all Cupertino schools
Monthly Sk8 schedules are mailed to 200
registered skaters
The Teen Commission was involved in selecting
the furnishings & equipment for the Teen Center
and will actively market it.
Page 5 of ~ 4
Cupertino Council Goals - update January 27, 2004
City Council Goals 2004
January 2004 Update
Project Goal Status Comments
5. Pursue "Downtown" Opportunities
)~ Develop a Streetscape plan for the Crossroads City Council authorized the 81% of May 3, 2002, Community Congress
block of Stevens Creek Boulevard from De Anza amendments to the Heart of the City respondents agreed with developing a downtown
Boulevard to Stelling Road. plan on January 22, 2002. village in Cupertino and 75% of the June 2002
Community Survey respondents supported
creating a downtown in the Crossroads area.
The Crossroads Streetscape plan
went to the Planning Commission in The General Plan Task Force is scheduled to
Fall 2002, and was continued to present their recommendation in Winter/Spring
enable the General Plan Task Force 2004.
to consider height and setback
recommendations.
~' Work with the Town Center developer to plan a The City council approved the Phase One of the Town Center plan began
mixed used walkable plan master plan in May 2003. construction in December 2003.
5. Street Safety - Walkable Community City Center Pedestrian Plan draft The following projects incorporate walk-ability
> Ensure that "walkable city" concept is present in went to the City Council on October components.
all City development/redevelopment projects 6, 2003. . Orion Lane-creek trail segments
· Rodrigues Avenue - creek trail segments
On Sept. 15, 2003, the City Council · Astoria on Imperial Avenue included a
authorized the Ped/bike Commission Bubb to Imperial trail
to study Regnart Creek Trail ' City Center- public access
segments from Blaney Avenue to · Tra Vigne - public access
Pacifica Avenue. · Saron Gardens - public access
· Town Center - public access
· Oaks Shopping Center - public access
· Menlo Equities
-..3
Page 6 of 14 Cupertino Council Goals - update January 27, 2004
City Council Goals 2004
January 2004 Update
Project Goal Status Comments
6. Building Contmunity/Unity
)~ Continue to offer opportunities and programs to City support for 5Cs programs and Diverse programming is ongoing.
address the needs of our diverse community ethnic festivals is ongoing. · Cultural calendar will be distributed
Neighborhood block leader program to block leaders and included on the
now supports 64 leaders. City website.
Next new block leader training is Feb. 21
> Continue international film and music series
)~ Continue to identify translation needs in our
community
~' Hold public forums in other languages for major Library meeting held on 2/7/02.
capital improvement projects
~ Evaluate methods for communicating Senior Center Newsletter is printed City staff is providing translation and
(electronically and in writing) to non-English in English & Mandarin. interpretation services for publications and
speaking population regarding crime prevention, Emergency Preparedness resident service requests.
emergency preparedness and civic activities instructions are printed in multiple
languages.
~' Implement a bi-lingual pay program Adopted by CEA and non-
represented; OE3 p~nding contract
~' Assist ad-hoc committee with first annual New City funding and staff support
Year Festival and Parade (02/03) provided.
)~ Enhance interaction between 5Cs and the Chamber
of Commerce Asian American Business Council
~ Proactively educate the public on controversial
topics such as the 4th of July Fireworks
)~ Reconsider the scope of the 2004 July 4th
celebration
Page 7 of 14 Cupertino Council Goals - update January 27, 2004
City Council Goals 2004
January 2004 Update
Project Goal Status Comments
7. Economic Development
~' Encourage healthy environment for retail growth
VALLCO Fashion Park ("Plaza Cupertino")
Redevelopment
Add revenue enhancement incentive policy
component of review for new development
Evaluate transit/transportation implications of
economic development strategy
City Council has approved the
following projeets expanding the
City's retail space by approximately
80,000 square feet:
Verona (City Center)
Tra Vigne
Marketplace
BJ's Restaurant & Brewery
Pasadena Mixed Use
Library Coffee Shop
Town Center
Menlo Equities
Vallco was purchased in June 2003
and the new owners are seeking
permits to construct tenant
improvements for a 1,300-seat
banquet style restaurant.
Major projects include an economic
assessment of potential revenue
generation possibilities
The General Plan Circulation
Element will evaluate transportation
implications of new development.
The General Plan update will consider policies
encouraging active commercial uses such as
bookstores, coffee shops and restaurants.
Re-tenanting of existing commercial buildings:
· Wherehouse building
o Panda Express
o T-Mobile
o Starbucks
· Carrows building
o Flames Restaurant
· McWorters/Young tenant space in the
Crossroads Shopping Center
o Oakville Grocers
The new owners are attempting tO re-tenant the
lower level, add theaters and are evaluating long-
range redevelopment plans.
HP has relocated several sales offices to its
Cupertino location.
Borland Software moved a significant Silicon
valley office into the City Center.
Page 8 of 14 Cupertino Council Goals -updale January 27, 2004
City Council Goals 2004
January 2004 Update
· Project Goal Status Comments
8. General Plan
~ General Plan Update ~ The Administrative Draft of the Staffheld General Plan orientation meetings
General Plan was completed and with PC, P&R, BPAC, Housing Committee, the
distributed for public review in business community and held a general
the beginning of January 2003. community meeting.
~ CC/PC study sessions held in
February and March 2003. May 3, 2002, Community Congress focused on
~ Appointed 74 member GP Task the General Plan update.
Force
)~ GP Task Force met from June-
October 2003
)~ Task Force recommendations
will be presented to City Council
in the winter/spring of 2004
9. Public Safety
)~ Review traffic safety issues Monta Vista Safe Routes Project Cupertino High School grant for $405,000
· Safe routes to school program (Monta Vista completed 11/01 approved. Design Fall '03 for completion in -
9/01 and Cupertino High Schools 11/03) Spring '04. Garden Gate grant for $185,000.
Pending approval by Caltrans.
· Review traffic safety for pedestrians Completed Final Pedestrian
Transportation Guidelines to BPAC
and Council 3/02
~ Continue emphasis on Neighborhood Watch 56 active Watch Groups which
represent 165 residential streets.
Held 55 Neighborhood Watch
: meetings. 24 meetings were new
groups to the program and 31 of
them supported existing groups or
revitalized inactive groups.
Cupertino Council Goals - update January 27, 2004
City Council Goals 2004
January 2004 Update
Project Goal Status Comments
Establish an eCap Merchant Watch Program Provide an alert email system for
businesses in the City, similar to the
Neighborhood eCap Program.
Continue emphasis on Emergency Response (ER)
and Preparedness
· Continue expanding of the CERT program · Increased from 4 to 5 CERT Total of 500 residents trained in CERT.
classes/yr.
· Conducted five first aid and Total of 200 citizens trained.
five CPR classes
· Implemented a Disaster Enables community members to participate in
Council/Citizen Corps Council emergency planning.
· Organized two new Total of 10 neighborhoods trained.
neighborhood CERT teams.
· Hold a Mandarin CERT information class to · Scheduled for Spring 2004
assess interest in a Mandarin CERT class
· Developed a model ER
· Develop High School ER Training program with Monta Vista
High School students
· Updated Emergency Plan 12/02
· Ensure ER Training for City staff · Mandated SEMS training; First
Aid and CPR to staff
· Conducts on-going EOC drills
· Offer ER skills to 6th to 12th grade · Offer Kaleidoscope Program 3 Total of 150 students trained to date.
times/year
Page 10 of 14 cu[ tl~ ~
City Council Goals 2004
January 2004 Update
Project Goal Status Comments
· Develop City Evacuation Plan
· Ensure ER Training for business/schools
Expand Volunteer Program
· Project begins early 2003
· Meet monthly with local
business/school emergency
planners and District officials
Ongoing expansion of volunteer
programs with Leadership
Cupertino, TLT, CERT and
Neighborhood Watch. SheriWs
volunteer program in Cupertino has
begun. Five volunteers work on the
Neighborhood Watch program
exclusively. E-mail system to
Neighborhood Watch participants
was activated and to date we have
1200 e-mail alert subscribers.
Page 11 of 14
Cupertino Council Goals - update January 27, 2004
City Council Goals 2004
January 2004 Update
Project Goal Status Comments
10. Affordable Housing
> Provide housing opportunities for Cupertino The 2001 Housing Element The Santa Clara County Housing Trust Home
workers increased the BMR requirement Ownership Assistance Program is applicable to
from 10% to 15%, and identified Cupertino teachers and other public service
~ sites for an additional housing units,workers.
~' Review Below Market Rate Program criteria BMR manual was updated in
November 2002.
> Teacher housing assistance programs City Council appropriated $220,000 City has contracted with Neighborhood Housing
· Develop teacher housing assistance program for a down payment assistance Services of Silicon Valley to implement the
(9/02) program for teachers in May 2003. teacher outreach program in December 2003.
~ CCS Affordable Housing Project CCS 24 unit affordable housing
units and offices were completed in
January 2003
11. Annexation
> Monta Vista Monta Vista annexation process will In Ju!y '02 staffbegan the process of
· Annex pockets using island annexation be evaluated in Winter/Spring 2004. coordinating with Santa Clara County, preparing
procedures (6/02) maps and identifying issues that need to be
addressed in the "Annexation Answer Book."
On January 5, 2004, the Council set February 2,
I 2004 as the protest hearing date.
~' Creston Lot by lot Creston annexations are
· Annex individual contiguous parcels when on-going when major redevelopment
redevelopment occurs of a home is proposed.
> Pursue mmexation of the land under the San
TomaJSaratoga Creek Trail
Page 12 of 14 Cupertino Council Goals - update January 27, 2004
City Council Goals 2004
January 2004 Update
Project Goal Status Comments
12. Sports Center Buildiag Strategy
Under construction.
> Complete ADA requirements and various other Reopening scheduled for Feb. '04. Opening January 10, 2004.
modifications and upgrades
13. City Center Park attd Intersection "Gateway" Under construction.
Completion scheduled for
April '04.
14. School Partnerships The Teacher Down Payment
)~ Pursue partner opportunities with the three school Assistance program has been
districts including: approved.
· Pool Staff is working on a Senior/Teacher
· Gym Matching program.
· Traffic and parking
· Teacher housing The Public Safety Commission is
working on improving traffic in the
tri-schools neighborhood.
The Safe Routes to Schools projects
i have proceeded with excellent
I cooperation between the City and
Monta Vista, Cupertino and Garden
Gate.
When completed, we use the
Cupertino field house as available.
De AnzaJCity recycling program -
the City gives De Anza used
Page 13 oc 14 Cupertino Council Goals - update January 27, 2004
City Council Goals 2004
January 2004 Update
Project Goal I Status Comments
computers and De Anza refurbishes
them.
· School Resource Officers Added second SRO in FY 2003/04
· Youth Probation Officer Updated contract in FY 2003/04
15. Senior Issues
)~ Explore Senior Commission Resolution establishing the Senior
Commission approved.
Interviews in January
16. Internal Itnprovements
~ Implement Access Cupertino to enhance customer Completed
service response times
~' Implement e-mail response policy for Mayor and Completed
Councilmembers
)~ Notify Council of major events/activities including Master calendar in progress
block parties
~ Add time component to video streaming Completed
)~ Consider consolidating CDBG and Human Service
funding processes
> Perform an audit on the CCS housing allocation Contract with Maze & Associates
process approved. Audit performed in March
'04
.,,~ Page 14 of 14
Cupertino Council Goals - update January 27, 2004
CuPertino City Council
Study Session
January 20, 2004
De Anza Campus Map
Firework Shoots through '02
· 15,000
participants
· 5,000 cars
· 3-hour
program
Back to De Anza Campus in '05
Campus unavailable in '03/'04
· 5,000
spectators
· 3-hour
program
Fireworks - 2004
We evaluated the following sites:
- Monta Vista High School
- Cupertino High School
- Vallco (w/shoot from HP property)
- HP site
- Blackberry Farm
- Memorial Park
- Last month, we also looked at Hanson Quarry
· Too Small per NFPA standards (for 3" & 4"
shells):
- Monta Vista
- Memorial Park
- Blackberry Farm
· In a high fire hazard area:
- Hanson Quarry
4
Cupertino High School, Vallco, and the HP
site further evaluated for:
- Safety
- Quality of the event
- Vallco was evaluated as a viewing site only
· HP site was considered for a detonation site,
as well as a venue for a "De Anza"-type
event:
- Limitations: Sheriff's concerns for safety
along Stevens Creek Blvd.:
Condition of the lot
Lack of lighting
We considered using
for detonation with
Cupertino High School
· Cupertino High School was an adequate
venue for a shoot:
- Fire Marshal approved
- OK for traffic operations
- Approved with conditions by FUHSD,
7
Visibility of Star 1
Creekside: Could see at 400 and 200 feet, the trees
were obstructing the view, but shoot
would be visible from open spaces.
HP Lot: Visibility good.
Hyde: Visibility good.
Memorial Park: Only barely visible.
Sedgwick: Could see the whole time, good visibility.
.Wilson Park: View was good when the chopper was at
400 feet. Not visible at 200 feet.
Recommended Venue - Cupertino High School
::
Creekside ~
Sedgwick J School
8
July 4th 2004 Fireworks Budget
Recommended Site - Cupertino High School
Pyrotechnic, 2" to 4" max. shells - 20-shoot: $30,000
Security fencing: $ 4,000
City's cost tbr detonation set-up $ 1,800
FUHSD permit: $ 2,000
Sherifl"s staffing-- Overtime July 4: $10,400
Overnight July 3: $ 2,000
Sanitation-- Portable toilets: $ 1,000
Temporary trash cans & pick-up: $ 500
Street sweeping in the neighborhood, Vallco, & parking lots after event: $ 2,000
Public Works staffing (street closures, signs, & clean-up): $ 2,000
Parks & Rec. staffing-parking, directing participants to viewing sites, on site at 3 $ 3,800
locations, and at CHS, assist with block parties, etc.:
SUBTOTAL: $59,500
Daytime events: $ 6,000
TOTAL: $65,500
· Met With: - Neighborhood
- Parks and Recreation Commission
-- 4th of July Committee
- Got consensus regarding the Cupertino option
· Recommend - Cupertino HS as venue for '04
shoot
· Other option: provide entertainment at Sedgwick,
Hyde, and Creekside - add $13,000
9
Recommended Venue - Cupertino High School
Additional Budget
Entertainment at 3 Venues
· Staff $2,000
· Programs/map 2,000
· Entertainment 3,000
· 3 Stages 1,500
· 3 sound systems 1,500
· Additional trash cans & pick-up 500
· Additional portable toilets 1,000
· Additional Sheriff costs 1,500
TOTAL $13~000
10
CITY OF
CUPEI TINO
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Number
Agenda Date: February 2, 2004
SUBJECT
Adopt Resolution No. 04- 2.5'~ expressing intent to enter into a long-term, no-cost lease with
Cupertino Historical Society (CHS) for renovation, occupation, and management of the
Stocklmeir property and the historic baru and blacksmith shop at McClellan Ranch Park, upon
reaching fundraising goals.
BACKGROUND
Historic interpretation emerged as a goal for Stevens Creek Corridor Park during the
communitywide visioning exercise conducted last year. The CHS's Board of Directors has
directed their Executive Director to move forward with plans for a history center at the
Stocklmeir house, and exhibits and progrmns at the barn and blacksmith shop within McClellan
Ranch. To implement the vision, CHS desires to renovate the facilities. CHS's plans are
consistent with the community vision for Stevens Creek Corridor Park, City Council goals, and
the McClellan Ranch Park Master Plan. Members of the CHS have indicated that they want to
partner with the City in providing a cultural history component to the natural history offerings
currently available at McClellan Ranch.
The Executive Director has forwarded the attached proposal for Council's consideration. CHS
will hire a capital ~ampaign consultant who will begin to develop a capital campaign plan for
approximately $4 million. CHS will raise funds for the renovation of the facilities over the next
three to five years. The capital canapaign plan may identify phases for implementation of the
overall plan. For exmnple: CHS may determine that renovating the barn as a first-phase project
may build momentum for the rest of the campaign.
Critical to CHS's efforts is an assurance from the Council that they will be able to enter into a
long-term, no-cost lease for managing the facilities for historic mid other educational purposes
after the funds are raised.
Christine Jeffers will be at the meeting to address the Council and discuss her Board's vision and
plm~s. Staff and CHS requests that the Council adopt the Resolution next in order expressing
intent to enter into a no-cost, 30-year lease with CHS for use of the facilities, after the funds are
raised.
January 5, 2004
Page 2 of 4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution next in order expressing intent to enter into a 30-year, no-cost lease
agreement with the Cupertino Historical Society for renovation, occupation, and management of
the Stocklmeir property and the barn and blacksmith shop at McClellan Ranch upon achievement
of fundraising goals within the next three to five years.
SUBMITTED BY:
Therese Ambrosi Smith, Director
Parks and Recreation Department
APPROVED FOR SUBMISSION
TO CITY COUNCIL:
David W. Knapp
City Manager
G:\Parks and Recreation Admin\Historical Society\CHS lease staffreport & reso.doc
DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO: 04-259
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLrPERTINO EXPRESSING
INTENT TO ENTER INTO A LONG-TERM, NO-COST LEASE WITH THE CUPERTINO
HISTORICAL SOCIETY TO OCCUPY AND MANAGE HISTORIC STRUCTURES WITHIN
THE STEVENS CREEK CORRIDOR UPON ACHIEVEMENT OF FUNDRAISING GOALS
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino conducted a communitywide visioning exercise to
plan for the future use of its properties in the Stevens Creek Corridor; and
WHEREAS, there was community consensus that the area was important for historic
interpretation, with special note given the Stocklmeir site and the historic buildings at McClellan
Ranch Park; and
WHEREAS, the Stocklmeir house was formerly the home of Louis Stocklmeir, the
founding father of the Cupertino Historical Society, and the Cupertino Historical Society desires
to renovate the house for historical purposes; and
WHEREAS, consistent within the McClellan Ranch Park Master Plan, the Cupertino
Historical Society desires to renovate the barn and blacksmith shop; and
WHEREAS, the Cupertino Historical Society's Board of Directors is ready to move
forward on a capital campaign to raise funds to renovate these structures; and
WHEREAS, commitment from the City Council that the Cupertino Historical Society
will be allowed to renovate, occupy, and manage these facilities for community purposes is
essential to the success of the capital campaign; and
WHER]~AS, the Cupertino Historical Society intends to raise the necessary funds over a
tlzree to five-year period from commencement of the capital campaign.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino
hereby states its intent to lease the Stocklmeir property and the large barn and blacksmith shop at
McClellan Ranch to the Cupertino Historical Society for a period of thirty (30) years at no cost
upon completion of a capital campaign to raise funds to renovate the facilities, and upon
presentation of a management plan that makes these facilities available to the public. Should the
canxpaign be successful in raising funds for a single structure, the Cupertino Historical Society
would then request the authority to move forward with a first-phase renovation in order to build
momentum for the Center for Living History.
BE IT ALSO RESOLVED that the City Council expresses its support for the Cupertino
Historical Society's efforts to create the Center for Living History in Stevens Creek Corridor
P ark.
Resolution No. 04-259
2
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this
2nd day of February 2004, by the following vote:
Vote
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Members of the City Council
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
City Clerk
Mayor, City of Cupertino
January 15, 2004
The CupeRtino H sTomcal_ $octery Inc.
10185 No~rb S~el.l. lnq Roa~
C~enrmo, CahFonnta 95014
~08 / 973-1~95 · FAX ~08 / 973-80~9 * c~blswnysoc~juno.cow
Cupertino City Council Members
c/o Therese Ambrosi Smith
Director of Parks and Recreation
10300 Torte Avenue
CupeWmo, CA 95014-3255
On behalf of the board of directors for the Cupertino Historical Society, I submit the follow'rog proposal to
the City of Cupertino Council Members for their consideration.
Sincerely, ~ , ~-~-~
Executive Director
The Cupertino Historical Society and Museum requests the permission of the City Council to move
forward on a Capital Campaign to raise the funds to renovate the historic structures at McClellan Ranch
and to renovate the historic structures and grounds of the Stocklmeir property. The structures at McClellan
Ranch will include but am not limited to: the barn, and the blacksmith's shop.
The renovations of the buildings will restore the site to a semblance of its original historic character. In
order to preserve that character and to ensure that the funds invested achieve the result intended by the
donors, the Cupertino Historical Sodlety requests a leasehold interest coveting the above mentioned
structures at McClellan Ranch and the entire Stocklm(~r site. The lease will necessarily be long term of
perhaps 50 years in order to assure continuation of the historical character of the site. The Cupertino
Historical Society will manage and occupy the Stocklmeir site and the restored buildings at McClellan
Ranch creafmg hands-on education programs in parmership with the City of Cupertino, 4t-I, the Nature
Museum and the Santa Clara Audubon Society.
We are asking for a very long-term commitment from the City of Cupertino for Cupertino Historical
Society's use of these facilities. Given that, we are suggesting that the City Council adopt a Resolution of
Intent to lease the facilities to Cupertino Historical Society upon reaching the capital campaign's goals
within 3 to 5 years of the campaign's commencement. The resolution is important to potential donors.
Should the campaign be successful in raising funds for one structurc say the barn--Cupertino Historical
Socioty would want the authority to move forward w/th a first phase of renovation in order to build
momentum for the Center for Living History.
Page 1 of 2
The CupeRTInO H~sTOR~cal- SOaeT. y, Inc.
10185 No~zb sT~l. Llncj P. oab
Cupe~,zmo, CaI. tFoRma 95014
408 / 973-1495 · FAX 408 / 973-8049 · cupblszo~ysoc@Juno.com
Submitted on+his 15Th day of January, 2004 by:
Donna Austin, Board President
Mark McKenua, Board Vice President
Darryl Stow, Treasurer
Helene Davis, Secretary
D. Michael Foulkes
Michael Mansch
Der Kendler
Stefanie Singer
Kaye Steinback
Steve Ting
Robert Vitro
Linda Walker
Jim Walker
Page 2 of 2
The CuperTinO HisTomcal SocieTy & Museum I 3e&ca~;e3 To ensuRmq ~