Loading...
P&R 05-13-04 CUPEIQ1NO PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Regular Adjourned Meeting Thursday, May 13,2004, 7 p.m. City Hall Council Chambers AGENDA CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL 1. PRESENTATION A. Blackberry Farm Picnic Center and Golf Course 2. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING - Regular meeting of April I, 2004 3. 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. 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Stevens Creek Corridor - potential Water District partnership B. Commission calendar update 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Recommend a name for the "City Center Park" to City Council 6. MISCELLANEOUS - NO ACTION REQUIRED A. Staff oral reports a. Applications for California Cities Helen Putnam A ward for Excellence b. Grant application update c. Budget update B. Commissioner contacts 7. ADJOURNMENT In 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 ofthe meeting. DRAFT PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION CITY OF CUPERTINO REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY, APRIL 1,2004 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Brown called the regular meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission to order at 7 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Jeanne Bradford, Rod Brown, Frank Jelinch, Roger Peng, Cary Chien None Therese Ambrosi Smith, Director; Marie Preston, Administrative Secretary Commissioners absent: Staff present: 4. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING A. The minutes of March 4, 2004. ACTION: The minutes of March 4,2004, were unanimously approved as written. 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Parag Kulkarni, secretary of the Tennis Ball Cricket Association, spoke in favor of promoting sports fields for the game of cricket in Cupertino. He reported that the sport has increased significantly in the Bay Area over the last five years. His organization is nonprofit. Director Smith responded that the department is starting a youth cricket program on April 15 with the California Cricket Academy. The field was secured at the Library Field (Torre and Pacifica), and will be prepared with a decomposed granite "runway". The department will evaluate the youth program for one year. Because ofthe requirements for the adult size field, none of the city's parks can accommodate a cricket pitch for adult games. She also reported that the department is e¡¡:cited about being able to offer a new program, which will include cricket camp and matches. Lonnie Toensfeldt, formerly community club leader for the RoIling Hills 4-H Club at McClellan Ranch, spoke about the challenge 4-H is facing with possible drastic budgetary cuts from the County. The system not only supports 4-H, but also the Master Gardner program at McClellan Ranch. They are currently working with County Supervisor Don Gage and the Agriculture Commissioner to come up with a mechanism Parks and Recreation Commission April 1,2004 Page 2 of7 to keep the organization afloat. She stated that the program is in jeopardy at this point. She requested their support of the program via letters to Supervisor Pete McHugh, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, 70 West Hedding Street, San Jose, 95110. The program needs $65,000 to 100,00 to stay alive. 6. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter to Mr. Tom McNair from Glenn Goepfert, Assistant Director of Public Works, March 9, 2004, regarding use of City property for construction staging. Director Smith read the letter from Glenn Goepfert to Mr. McNair and showed pictures of the said property. She also read a memo from Mr. Goepfert that stated that the Public Works Department determined that a permit from the Santa Clara Valley Water District, under the provisions ofthe district water shed ordinance, was not required for the McNair project, as it is not in the established floodplain of Stevens Creek. Chairman Brown asked when the amendment to Mr. McNair's agreement was going to City Council, and Director Smith reported that she expected it in the next month. When she finds out, she will let the Commission know her findings. Public Comments Deborah Jamison, Rumford Drive, displayed recently taken photos of the McNair construction site on City property, which showed storage of building materials, debris, a portable toilet, and a vehicle. She stated that the property is under the protection of Ordinance 710. Lonnie Toensfeldt, prior member of the McClellan Ranch Master Plan Task Force and Parks and Recreation Commission, reported that she remembers there were strong objections to this project. She recalled that the Public Works and Planning Departments were asked what the boundaries for the Simms and McClellan Ranch properties were, and they could not give an answer. She reported that a few years ago it was discovered the property line for the previous owner went right up to the back of the Simms house. She stated her concerns as to how Mr. McNair was permitted to build his house without City supervision. She also stated her concern that now that Mr. McNair was given access to City property for his construction project, he may feel he has the right to come in there anytime to access the bottom part of his property. Her other concern was that Mr. McNair will not be able to return this City property back to its original condition, for instance, the gravel road needs to be scraped and reseeded, not just planting over. Craig Breon, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, stated his concerns over the protection of the creek. He commented that he had reported that the contractor had not placed appropriate creek protection measures, which has since been corrected. His primary concern is that the construction personnel, who may be undereducated about the value of the creek, may dump materials into Stevens Creek. He believes that at minimum there should be a fee or requirement of some sort that is related to his use of the park for Parks and Recreation Commission April 1,2004 Page 3 of7 his private purposes, and that the fee would go back into creek restoration, or something associated with the health of the general area. Another possibility is that a portion of Mr. McNair's land be planted with native species that would help the general conditions. Staff Comments Director Smith reported that the area was not that pristine to begin with, so this is an opportunity to make it better. If it has to be scraped clean, regraded and soil brought back in, then it might as well be replanted with native and noninvasive plants. She also reported that Ordinance 7 I 0 has never been amended to add anything to it; the ordinance only covers McClellan Ranch Park. Despite several searches through official records, the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the Simms properties do not fall under Ordinance 710, though there is a strong desire for this to be the case. The issue did go to the Parks and Recreation Commission and they recommended it to go to City Council. The record shows that the Council decided to use the Simms property for transitional housing, which was continued until last year. The property is zoned R1. As part of the Stevens Creek Park master plan, the boundaries of the preserve need to be addressed; the Simms property is not part of the nature preserve at this time. Regarding the Water District property, Director Smith has talked with the Water District and was told that a temporary use, such as the McNair project, does not trigger the same level of review. Regarding the issue of laying down the gravel road for emergency access, it was because of the impending wet weather and the need to bring in heavy equipment during that time. In summary, she reported that there had been a very long public process to get this project approved, and thereafter access via City property was approved. The file shows that there was an understanding by all that access was needed to construct the house. The record also shows that the Parks and Recreation Department has not been left out of the loop. Commission Comments Commissioner Jelinch stated he would like to see the restoration be secured with some type of bond ifit's not too late. Commissioner Bradford asked when the project was expected to be complete. Director Smith reported that by September 2004, the majority of the construction will be done and access will then be from McClellan Road. Bradford also agreed with Jelinch in that securing a bond is a good idea and that the City needs to negotiate a specific restoration plan with a time line. She is concerned with materials ending up in the creek and she would like to know there is some kind of accountability that this will not happen. Parks and Recreation Commission April 1,2004 Page 4 of7 Commissioner Chen agreed that the expectations of the restoration plan need to be clarified. Commissioner Peng agreed with the other commissioners about clarifying the expectations of the restoration plan. He would like to see a more proactive approach to improve communication between the City departments so that the perception of miscommunication is diminished if any future projects arise. Chairman Brown stated that this was an opportunity to address the concerns and put together requirements for a restoration plan. He also stated that the Commission would like to stay informed about the issue. 7. NEW BUSINESS A. Update on the construction progress of City Center Park and the plan to program and maintain it. Director Smith displayed a picture of the City Center Park with the new sculpture, which was a project of the Arts Commission. She reported that the City has entered into a license agreement with Cupertino City Center Owners Association for use of the property. She gave a brief history of the development of the parkland, which started with a development agreement in September 1987. Under the agreement, the City installed the improvements. There is a one-year warranty that insures that the City's contractor will maintain the park. After that one-year, the Association will maintain the park forever more, except for the art, which the City owns. This is the only park in the city where the City needs to get the private property owner's permission to use the park site. In her PowerPoint presentation, Smith displayed a rendition of the area around the park. The park will be open 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. every day; dogs will be allowed on leash. The park is close to a nearby amphitheater area, parking spaces, and a large parking garage for up to 1,000 cars, which is under the management of the Association. This area would be a nice venue if anyone wanted to have a major event. The Association is open to all organizations for community events, but events of a commercial nature will only be permitted with the consent of the Association. There will be no rental fee for use of the park, but the event sponsor will be responsible for all expenses, including those expenses resulting from City and Association requirements. There will be a $600 security deposit, and if additional areas are being used, the Association may require an additional deposit. The agent for the Association will hold the deposits. The City schedules use of the park, including activities scheduled by members of the Association, and reservations must be made six months in advance. The Cypress Hotel may hold up to two Saturdays per month for use of the park for weddings and other private parties. Each event plan must include at minimum: event description, hours of operation, attendance, utility requirements, parking plan, security plan, trash removal and portable toilet plan, access requirements, and a child safety plan. Parks and Recreation Commission April 1,2004 Page 5 of7 Other requirements will be that there will be insurance coverage no less than $ I ,000,000 per occurrence and the City and Association must be named as additional insured and held harmless. Alcohol may be served at the park providing all Alcohol Control Board requirements have been met. The event sponsor will be responsible for 100 percent of the actual out-of-pocket costs incurred by the City and Association. The event organizer will be required to notify the interested property owners and tenants at least 30 days prior to the event and resolve any issues prior to the event. The City and Association will return the security deposit upon sign-off after the area has been inspected for damage and cleanup. Smith reported the park will be open in a couple of weeks and that plans are being developed for a dedication ceremony. Commission Comments Commissioner Bradford asked if the tenants surrounding the park were notified of the meeting. Director Smith reported that the agents were notified and the agent is reviewing policies with the interested renters. Commissioner Peng asked how many parking spaces were available. Smith reported that in the parking garage, 1,000 spaces are available. The combined number of spaces between the retail area and on-street spaces is under 400. She reported that the hotel parking garage cannot accommodate event parking, but the Symantec parking garage could be available after 5 p.m. and on weekends, and there will probably be a fee involved for its use by event goers. Commissioner Peng asked if there were standard hours for all the City parks. Director Smith answered that there are a variety of hours for the various parks. Commissioner Chen asked about safety precautions due to the proximity to Stevens Creek and De Anza Boulevards. Smith answered that a licensed landscape architect designed the park, so the liability for the design of the park is born by Gazzardo and Associates; however, the City would not have an event there for children. She believes the park is more of an urban plaza, and events where moving objects such as balls are involved would not be scheduled. Commissioner Chen asked ifthere had been any consideration to renaming the park to a plaza. Smith reported that the Historic Society has suggested Cali Brothers Plaza and Cali Mill Park. The Historic Society is coming to the April 19 City Council meeting with a proposed name and the issue of park or plaza will occur at that meeting. Commissioner Jelinch asked if there has been any consideration with putting in historical markers. Smith reported that there is a great deal of interest in this and the Historic Society is going to take the lead and decide what this is going to be. Parks and Recreation Commission April 1,2004 Page 6 of7 B. Consider canceling the May 6 regular meeting due to the Portal Park re-dedication event. Director Smith asked the Commission to also consider having a special meeting in mid Mayas she is expecting an important report from the Santa Clara Valley Water District on the limits of riparian vegetation to be established with the Corridor. ACTION: A motion was made, seconded and unanimously approved to cancel the May 6 meeting and adjourn to May 13 to consider the Santa Clara Valley Water District report. MISCELLANEOUS - NO ACTION REQUIRED A. Commission Reports: a. Commissioner Chen reported he attended the Mayor's Breakfast and there was discussion about incentives that might be offered to seniors to encourage them to join the Cupertino Sports Center. He thought the incentive for access to the Sports Center fitness area from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. at $275/year is a good deal and he encouraged interested seniors to take advantage of this special. 8. B. Staff Updates: a. Director Smith reported that the 4th of July planning is going well. The fireworks launching will be from Cupertino High School. Creekside Park, Sedgwick and Hyde Schools will be used as viewing sites. There is a limited budget and staff is working hard to develop an evening program at each site with roving musicians and recreational staff directing games and face painting. Picnics are welcomed, but portable barbeque grills will not be allowed to be brought in. The events will begin about 6:30 p.m. People will also be encouraged to have block parties. b. Smith reported that the Senior Citizens Commission has reviewed the funding of the Case Management position. Staff is preparing information for the Council's May 26 meeting on revenue and expenditures. The Parks and Recreation Commission will also get this report. 9. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Brown adjourned the meeting to May 13, 2004. Respectfully submitted, Marie Preston, Administrative Secretary Parks and Recreation Commission April 1, 2004 Page 7 of7 Televised Council meetings may be viewed live on Cable Channel 26, and may also be viewed live or on demand at www.cuvertino.orf!:. Videotapes o/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. Upcoming Events Meetings through October 2004 . Optional workshop to assist w/Community Congress - DONE . Commissioners' Reception - 2/25 - DONE . Reg. Meeting 3/4 - Sports Center Policies - DONE . Community Congress - 3/27 - DONE . Reg. Meeting 4/1 - tentatively budget and draft downtown parks and town hall - DONE . Neighborhood park re-dedications - 4/29 and 5/6 - DONE . May 13 - potential Water District/City partnership for creek restoration . May 18 - Hoe-Down & Dinner @ Cupertino Senior Center . Jooe 3, Reg. MeetÏÐg Ste':eRs Creek Cerriàer Master Plan CANCELLED . Recommend canceling 7/1 meeting or rescheduling to 7/8 - recommendation to City Council regarding Water District/City restoration partnership . August 5, field use policy review . September 2, Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan (tentative) . October 7, Stevens Creek Corridor Master Plan Upcoming Events 2004.doc 5750 ALMADEN EXPWY SAN JOSE, CA 9511B-3614 TELEPHONE 140BI 265-2600 FACSIMILE 140BI 266-0271 www"alleywatec,ocg AN [QUAL appaRTUNI'" EMPLOYER April 28, 2004 êC DoLl(, (n:y,,<:- B C}jr VCL(C"-,, Therese Ambrosi Smith City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 SUBJECT: District Interest Report for the City of Cupertino's Master Planning at Blackberry Farm, along Stevens Creek. Dear Ms. Smith: During the meeting late last November between you, Scott Akin and myself and the follow up field trip in December with City and District staffs, we explored common goals for the City's Master Plan at Blackberry Farm along Stevens Creek (Master Plan). Following our meetings, District staff developed an internal document regarding District interested in the proposed Master Plan. This document is called the "District Interest Report for the City of Cupertino's Master Planning at Blackberry Farm, along Stevens Creek". The Interest Report explores possible opportunities for a partnership with the City to achieve common goals including stream restoration, fish passage barrier removal, trails, and riparian rehabilitation. The Interest Report also describes the City's visioning process and the different aspects of the project that coincide with elements of the District policies and existing commitments. A copy of the Interest Report is included for your information. Based on the Interest Report's positive results, staff believes it is in the interest of both the City and District to have District staff involved in the development of the Master Plan. This will allow us to pursue opportunities for partnership and cost-sharing on various elements of the Master Plan. I plan on having the Environmental Planner assigned to the Lower Peninsula and West Valley Watershed Program Support Unit act as liaison with the City on this project. As liaison, the environmental planner will be the point person for the District and will coordinate activities with District staff and attend the City's project meetings, provide input and review documents. The environmental planner should be available to assume this assignment sometime in June 2004. This hopefully will lead to future partnership efforts between the District and the City of Cupertino at Blackberry Farm. If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (408) 265-2607, Extension 2702. The mi"ioe of the Saeto Clara Volley Wat"' Di,tc;cr i, a healthy, ,ofe oed eehaeced quo lily of li,;eg Ie Saeta Clam Coeely Ihcough the oampcehe"i,. maeagemeel of water ceweeces ie a pmotiool, oo,'-effeoti,. oed e"imemeelally se"ili,e maceec- !í Therese Ambrosi Smith Page 2 April 28, 2004 Sincerely, ~. Jason Christie Watershed Program Support Unit Manager Lower Peninsula and West Valley Watersheds celene: J. Fiedler; B. Goldie; S. Akin; B. Springer; J. Christie; File District Interest Report City of Cupertino's Master Planning at Blackberry Farm, along Stevens Creek A Potential Partnership Between Santa Clara Valley Water District And City of Cupertino Prepared By: Scott Akin, Jae Abel & Jason Christie Backqround In March of 2003, the City of Cupertino invited interested parties to participate in a visioning process to help define potential future uses in the Stevens Creek Corridor between Stevens Creek Boulevard and McClellan Road. Over the past 25 years the City has acquired property in this reach of the stream a number of public use facilities including: Blackberry Farm (picnic area) and Golf Course, McClellan Ranch and twol private residences, one of which includes an orchard. District staff assisted in the preparation of the public visioning process materials in an effort to ensure that District water supply, flood protection and stream stewardship goals for the area would be facilitated. By August, 2003, City staff had completed the visioning process and identified a number of recommendations for possible changes. City council then directed staff to move forward with a more detailed master planning effort for the site that incorporated these recommendations. City Parks & Recreation Department Director, Therese Smith, then approached District staff to discuss possible opportunities for a partnership with the District. Master Plan elements that City staff felt might interest the District included, stream restoration, barrier removal, riparian rehabilitation, and trails. Figure 1 shows the "No Fee Picnic and Golf' alternative that was identified as the preferred alternative through the City's visioning process. The figure shows proposed areas for restoration as identified in the initial visioning process. Under the proposed alterative, corporate picnic facilities would be removed and the overall capacity for picnicking would be reduced from its current capacity of several thousand to approximately 500 guests. Education and environmental elements would be added and a portion of the Stevens Creek trail would pass through the corridor. Portions of the golf course would be re-routed and parking facilities and other infrastructure would be upgraded. Based on observations made during a field walk-through of the Blackberry Farm in late December 2003, this section of Steven's Creek is degraded and is therefore a candidate for environmental improvement. Several in-stream structures in this reach have previously been identified by the Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Collaborative Effort as candidates for removal for the benefit of steel head trout. Shot-crete banks are present in other locations. Concrete banks provide poor habitat and preclude vegetation colonization, so rehabilitation of these banks and re-planting could be beneficial. The existing "riparian" vegetation near and on the tops of banks includes some mature native tree specimens. However, the under-story is sparse, the strip of streamside vegetation is very narrow, and numerous non-native and undesirable trees and under-story plants are also present. Upland areas adjacent to the stream are heavily impacted by trampling, paving and presence of non-native vegetation. Stream bank and upland vegetation could be improved in the existing creek alignment, and potentiai stream realignment, mentioned during the site tour, could provide additional opportunities for improvement. Figure 1. . City of Cupertino Goals As a result of its visioning process, the City of Cupertino has identified goals for the site and believes that the alternative developed in their visioning process addresses these goals. The City goals include: Invite members of the community to enjoy the property in the corridor year-round and serve more residents. . Minimize the effects of park operations on surrounding residents. . Preserve and restore the natural environment of the creek corridor for park users and as a habitat for wildlife. . Provide a trail or trails compatible with the natural setting that will accommodate a variety of trail users. . Acknowledge and interpret the history of the area through a series of historical markers and through the preservation of buildings at McClellan Ranch and Stockmier property. Encourage educational uses of the creek corridor and support environmental programming at McClellan Ranch. The result of the community visioning process revealed that these goals can best be met through a plan that e Jminates for-fee group picnicking and emphasizes the natural stream setting and historic features of the site. The "No Fee Picnic and Golf' alternative has received preliminary support by the Parks & Recreation Commission and City Council and is the basis for the ongoing Master Planning Effort. City staff feels that there may be a natural partnership opportunity with the District that results from the District's existing commitments within the watershed through the Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Collaborative Effort and the Clean Safe Creeks Program. In approaching the District, City staff is hoping to build' a partnership that meets each organization's interests within the stream corridor. The City is also seeking to take advantage of the scientific and technical expertise that the District possesses to ensure that valuable environmental resources within the project are protected and enhanced. Santa Clara Valley Water District Goals The District has several existing commitments that may be satisfied through a partnership effort with the City of Cupertino. Linkages to FAHCE Settlement The proposed Blackberry Farm Master Planning effort is located within the Fisheries Management Zone identified in the FAHCE settlement. Under the terms of the settlement the stream reach between Stevens Creek Reservoir and US Highway 280 has been identified as the area that the majority of habitat restoration and water supply management will occur. Blackberry Farm is centrally located within this reach and as a result is a key target for fisheries habitat improvements identified in the settlement. The settlement specifically identifies several actions to be taken within the footprint of the park including: . Removal of two low-flow road crossings connecting the east side parking areas with the west-side picnic areas. . Removal or remediation of a small flash board dam and associated unscreened diversion structure. The settlement commits the District to contributing up to 50% of the cost of these projects in a cost-sharing arrangement. In addition that District can assist the City of Cupertino in applying for grants or supporting funds to help complete the project. The District's contribution can come in the form of financial support or in-kind services. The Capital Program currently shows work beginning on these barriers in 2005. In addition to the barrier removal projects that are specifically identified in the settlement there are two other potential linkages that should be considered. Geomorphological Pilot Project - the settlement calls for the District to complete a geomorphologically based stream restoration project of at least 2000' in length in each of the three watersheds. The proposed Blackberry Farm project is approximately 2000' long. Since it is located within the "zone of management" the project could provide high biological benefit since all steelhead trout life stages would be present and a resident population of rainbow trout would utilize the features on a year-round basis. Habitat Restoration Project - the settlement commits the District to conduct in- stream and stream-side habitat restoration projects in each of the three watersheds. Eligible projects could include installation of "large organic debris" (logs, crib walls, and other wood structure that provide rearing habitat), riparian canopy in-fill and gravel replenishment. Restoration of the degraded reaches within the park could include any of these elements. Linkages to the Stream Maintenance Program 4-5 acres of land located along the west side of the stream could be rehabilitated to support a mixed community of riparian and upland vegetation. The level of in-stream, riparian and upland improvements that can be made will depend on, among other considerations, planned land uses in the area (such as trails, creek set-backs, recreational facilities), soil types and conditions, and potential constraints associated with preservation of existing mature vegetation. The level and type of improvements that can be made will also help determine whether the site is most suitable for CEQA and permit-required mitigation or enhancement. However, District staff believes that enough potential exists to consider certain site improvents as potential for both in- and out-of-kind mitigation (Beyond vegetation rehabilitation, there could be in-kind as well: e.g. bank repair footage is mitigated on a 1:1, removing the shot-crete bank could be spent that way and even rip-rap armoring could be replaced with a biotech solution for improvement credit) for activities conducted by the Stream Maintenance Program (SMP). The District would need to negotiate this with the appropriate regulatory agencies, but staff believes that the potential improvements associated with a site of this size would be attractive to all parties. Linkages to the Clean, Safe Creeks Program The Clean, Safe Creeks and Natural Flood Protection Program (CSC Program) has two elements that may apply to the City's plans at Blackberry Farm. First, Outcome 3 of the CSC Program includes the provision to create a "Community partnership to identify and implement environmental restoration, fisheries management and restoration." Second, Outcome 4 of the CSC Program includes the provision to create a "Community partnership to identify recreational uses and construct trails." As noted in previous narrative, the City's plan for Blackberry Farm coincides with these two elements of the CSC Program. The plan's objective is to restore and/or rehabilitate the stream corridor by: 1) reducing the picnic area; 2) removing hardscape; 3) completing re-vegetation along the creek; and 4) removing fish barriers. The plan also includes the establishment of a creekside trail from Stevens Creek Boulevard to McClellan Ranch. District involvement in this plan would allow for further implementation of the CSC Program through partnerships on enhancements and trails. The process for funding a proposed enhancement project is currently under development to fulfill Outcome 3 of the CSC Program. At this time, the District is developing criteria for the Environmental Enhancement Program (EEP) and anticipates the development of a priority list in fall 2004. Elements of the proposed work at Blackberry Farms appear to be good candidates for funding under the EEP as restoration and rehabilitation-type activities. The process for funding a proposed trail has been established as a grant program to fulfill Outcome 4 of the CSC Program. The development of the City's master plan for Blackberry Farm would be considered the enabling step toward applying for a District grant under the Trails and Open Space Grant Program. The City would be required to submit a grant application and compete against other countywide candidates in the next round of the biennial grant program scheduled to begin in December 2004. Joint Project Goals District staff has considered what might be realistic goals associated with a joint project and have identified the following: Develop a master plan that integrates City and District goals . Plan for phased implementation to address funding, site transfers, service interruptions and other issues. . Plan for design and sequencing that minimizes invasive species management Plan for a design that minimizes or removes non-native vegetation Plan for design that maximizes ecosystem processes that are sustainable and self maintaining. Plan for integration of all design elements from Stevens Creek Blvd. to McClellan Rd. Plan for access management with appropriate routing of paths, points, overlooks, vegetative screening, site-specific designed interpretive curricula. Negotiate potential credits for rehabilitation efforts outside existing District commitments. Developinq A Partnership Staff recommends that this District proceed to investigate the potential for a joint City- District project at Blackberry Farm. Staff has identified several steps that might be taken to facilitate this goal. 1. Develop an initial evaluation of the site and possible benefits using internal District staff resources. 2. Develop a cost-share agreement with the City for preparation of a Master Plan for the site. The City has selected Thomas Reid and Associates to prepare the plan and is currently in negotiations. 3. Develop a project plan and 2-year budget for District staff participation in the Master Plan, CEOA and other planning elements. 4. Identify additional staffing and financial resources that would be contributed as the District's part of the partnership. sewn Ai.. BO. A2712 AGREEMENT BE1WEEN THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AND SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF . BOLLINGER ROAD BRIDGE OVER CALABAZAS CREEK CITY OF CUPERTINO, a municipal corporation, first party, hereinafter called "CITY"; and SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, a public corporation, second party, hereinafter called "DISTRICT", . AGREE this 6th 'day of MARCH , 2001, as follows: RECITALS: A. CITY desires to widen the existing Bollinger Road Bridge over Calabazas Creek and replace it with a 76 foot wide bridge. B. The existing channel for Calabazas Creek underneath the Bollinger Road Bridge is unable to pass the one percent flood; DISTRICT therefore desires to enlarge its capacity. C. Widening of the bridge would benefit CITY by providing safer traffic, bicycle and pedestrian conditions. D. This agreement will provide for construction of a new bridge, which will meet both such needs upon terms hereinafter specified. AGREEMENT: 1. CITY will contract with consultants to prepare plans and specifications for the construction of a bridge across Calabazas Creek at Boliinger.Road, together with appurtenant and associated road and channel improvements (hereinafter "the project"), all as generally described in the itemization of features thereof shown on Exhibit "A" hereto, so marked and made a part hereof. 2. City shall provide 60%, 90%, 100% and final plans: specifications and engineer's cost estimates to the District for review. 3. Upon approval of said plans and specifications by DISTRICT and CITY, DISTRICT will, in accordance with its lawful procedures, secure construction bids for work. Following written notification to CITY that DISTRICT has received bids and intends to award a construction contract, CITY shall approve or disapprove the award of the construction contract within 10 days. 4. If upon opening of bids, it is found that the lowest responsible bid exceeds the Engineer's Estimate bŸ 10 percent or more, DISTRiCt and CITY shall immediately confer and determine whether to reduce the scope of the project or to award the contract. If, after 30 days, a course of action is not agreed upon, this AGREEMENT shall be deemed to be terminated by mutual consent. 5. If the award of the construction contract is not approved by both parties and if both parties agree, the construction plans and specifications may be rebid or the project redesigned. . 6. Upon approval of the award by DISTRICT and CITY, the DISTRICT will award the contract. The DISTRICT will administer the construction contract and supervise and inspect the work to completion. 7. The parties agree that, for purposes of this AGREEMENT, the cost of engineering and design administration, environmental permitting and processing for CEQA compliance shall be the actual cost of the consultant services provided. The parties agree that, for purposes ofthis AGREEMENT, the cost of construction inspection, survey, testing, and contract administration shall be set at 10 percent of the actual construction contract cost The total cost ofthe project shall be deemed to consist of the actual construction contract cost, the consultant services and the construction administration costs. 8. Payment of the total project cost will be shared by the parties generally as provided in this Agreement, and specifically as follows: A. The total project cost shall be the cost of total amounts of payments made to consultants and the costs of total amounts of payments of final quantities used to make final payments to the Contractor at the completion of the project. The costs thereof shall be the actual prices as bid, awarded and paid to the Contractor. . B. If the Contractor submits any claims, the additional construction administration cost will be split 79% to the DisTRICT and 21 % to the CITY. If any claim relates solely to the responsibility of either party, that party shall assume 100 percent of the construction administration cost relating to said claim. 9. As summarized in Exhibit "B", the following shall not be included in the total project cost: . A. The cost of stabilizing and revegetating erosion sites between Bollinger Road and Old Bollinger Road and' removing the old Bollinger bridge is to be paid solely by DISTRICT. The cost for engineering, design administration, environmental permitting and processing, construction inspection and contract administration, and construction for this portion is $372,000. B. Any federal or state grants or third party funding, currently estimated to be none. 2 10. CITY will pay 21 percent of the actual construction costs, as specified above and on said Exhibit "B", which is currently estimated to be $285,000. City will also pay its proportionate share of the engineering, design administration, environmental permitting and processing, construction inspection and contract administration as specified above and on said Exhibit "B" which is currently estimated to be $81,000. Total estimated CITY cost is $366,000. 11. DISTRICT will pay 79 percent of the actual construction cost, after deducting all the costs as specified above and on said Exhibit "B", which is currently estimated to be $1,070,000. DISTRICT will also pay :ts proportionate share of the engineering, design administration, environmental permitting and processing, construction inspection and contract administration as specified above and on said Exhibit "B" which is currently estimated to be $302,000. The total estimated District share of the bridge reconstruction is $1,372,000. Total estimated DISTRICT project cost, including bank stabilization, revegetation, and removal of the old Bollinger bridge, is $1,744,000. . 12. CITY will, in accordance with its lawful procedures, contract with consultants to provide engineering including environmental permitting and processing for CEQA compliance, printing of plans and specifications and design administration for the. project. CITY will make progress payments to consultants and notify the DISTRICT. 13. DISTRICT will provide construction inspection, construction surveying, contract administration and testing. DISTRICT will provide progress payments to the construction contractor and notify the CITY. 14. Upon completion of the project and resolution of all relevant contract claims and appeals, the DISTRICT shall compute the total project costs and tender to the CITY a final accounting of the CITY's share of such costs. The final accounting shall list the costs of all project work based on the actual expenses incurred by the CITY and shall include consultant and project construction cost. The total construction cost shall consist of the total amount offinal quantities used to make final payments to the Contractor at the completion of the pròject. Only the actual project as bid, awarded and paid, including change order items to the contractor shall be allowed. In addition, the costs for construction administration of any claims submitted by the Contractor shall be included in the final accounting as allowed for in Item 8-B. 15. In the event the total contribution by the CITY is less than its minimum required share of total costs, the CITY shall, no later than 45 calendar days after receipt of written notice, make a cash payment to the DISTRICT of whatever sum is required to meet its required share of total costs. . 16. In the event the CITY has made a cash contribution in excess of its required share for total project costs, the DISTRICT shall, no later than 45 calendar days after the final accounting is complete, subject to the availability of funds, return the said excess to the CITY. 17. All requests for significant extra work submitted by the Contractor, except for those items which will be paid entirely by DISTRICT, must be approved by CITY before the extra work is begun. CITY shall respond to DISTRICT within five (5) working days with comments. DISTRICTs cost share of extra work shall be 79 percent, except that those items specifically requested by the DISTRICT for the benefit of DISTRICT shall be paid for completely by DISTRICT, and items specifically requested by CITY for the benefit of CITY shall be paid for completely by CITY. Extra costs incurred by Contractor by reason of awaiting CITY approval of extra work requests shall be the exclusive responsibility of CITY and shall not be shared by DISTRICT~. ' 18. CITY's design engineer shall be available, at no cost, as required for the review of Contractor submittals, request for information forms, changes, and estimates of changes. 19. CITY will provide DISTRICT and construction contractor with sets of reproducible plans for the project prior to the beginning of construction and the DISTRICT will provide CITY with a marked up set of blue line drawings indicating the ~as built" conditions at the completion of the project The CITY's design engineer will complete the final "as-built" drawings. 20. Neither DISTRICT, nor any officer or employee thereof, shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to CITY under this Agreement. It is also understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, CITY shall indemnify and hold DISTRICT harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under this Agreement. 21. Neither CITY, nor any officer or employee thereof, shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by DISTRICT under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to DISTRICT under this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, DISTRICT shall indemnify and hold CITY harmles.s from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by DISTRICT under this Agreement. 22. DISTRICT will require any contractor awarded a contract for any portion of the project to secure and maintain in full force and effect at all times during construction of the project and until the project is accepted by DISTRICT, public liability and property damage insurance in forms and limits of liability satisfactory and acceptable to both DISTRICT and CITY, naming DISTRICT and CITY and their respective officers and employees as insureds, from and against any claims, loss 4 .' ~ ,.,,~ liability, cost or expense arising out of or in any way connected with the construction of the project. 23. Before any party to this AGREEMENT may bring suit in any court concerning an issue relating to this AGREEMENT, such party must first seek in good faith to resolve the issue through negotiation or other forms of nonbinding alternative dispute resolution mutually acceptable to the parties. WITNESS THE EXECUTION HEREOF the day and year first hereinabove written. CITY OF CUPERTINO SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT B~¿-4;( ~By:~¡j'!!;' 1-. ¡J~ - Mayor . Chief Executive Officer CITY "DISTRICT" (.....S"'LoJ ATTEST: ATTEST: 'BY:~~' City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: I~¡:~~ ~L// httutffi~: e. ~ City Attorney As~T- 5 EXHIBIT A COST ESTIMATE CONSTRUCTION 1 Upstream (flooding) $835,000 2 Downstream (Bike/pedestrian) $520,000 3. Erosion Stabilization $290,000 Subtotal $1,645,000 DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION 1. Engineering Design / Administration $250,000 2. Environmental Pen'nitting/CEOA $50,000 . 3. Construction Inspection / Administration $165,000 Subtotal $465,000 Total Project Cost $2,110,000 6 ,,:,: EXHIBIT B CITY OF CUPERTINO - SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT COST-SHARE FOR BOLLINGER ROAD BRIDGE PROJECT Calculations, for determination of Santa Clara Valley Water District and City shares for Bollinger Road Bridge using Modified Joint Guidelines Cost of Project $2,110,000 Less Grants . $0 Less District Paid Erosion work $372,000 Net Amount for City/District Cost Sharing $1,738,000 SCVWD share of width = 12 X (no. of existing lanes) + 6 ft. of shoulder + Y.X (width of existing sidewalk) + Y. X (width of safety curb and raiJing) = (12X4) + (6) + (Y. X8) + (Y. X 4) = 60 ft. City share of width = 76' - 60' = 16 ft. . SCVWD share of cost = (60/76 X $1,738,000) + $372,000 = $1,744,000 City share of cost = (16/76 X $1,738,000) = $366,000 7 THE SOLUTION The Balance or Bust board game was invented to take groups of residents in "City Council Teams" through a fiscal year in which they needed to erase a $2 million budget deficit. The Council Teams had the power necessary to achieve their goal, including the ability to: Approve economic development projects . Apply for grants . Reduce service levels or make city operations more efficient . Raise fees Refinance debt, etc. In addition to the known budget deficit, the Council Teams found themselves faced with the economic uncertainties (state take-aways, reduced sales tax revenue from a lagging economy, etc.) that all councils face. Additional unforeseen costs from natural disasters and lawsuits afforded participants a realistic journey through a one-year budget cycle. How the Game is Plaved The objective: the City Council Team must decrease spending (or increase revenue) by $2 million by the end of the fiscal year. One trip around the board equals one fiscal year. The Cupertino fiscal year is July 1 to June 30; December 3 I is "midyear" and the Council considers midyear budget adjustments in Jarìuary. The layout of the board reflects the proportion of General Fund money allocated to various city services. Public Works, which consumes 29 percent of the city budget, is represented by 29 percent of the squares on the board; law enforcement, which consumes 20 percent ofthe city's General Fund budget, represents 20 percent of the squares on the board, etc. Consequently, the odds of landing on a particular department are proportionate to the percentage of General Fund dollars allocated to that department. Parks and Recreation, which consumes only 7 percent of the General Fund budget, has fewer squares on the board and fewer opportunities for budget cuts. Comm. 0".9% 0"0"'% Team members consecutively roll the die and draw cards. Each card describes a service that can be cut or reduced and the amount of savings, and the consequences of making the cut. If a team decides to make the cut before midyear, it saves the whole amount; after midyear, the savings is reduced by half. If a team doesn't want to cut the whole amount, it may modify the amount of the cut, and accept a lower quality of service. For example: "Cut street tree maintenance and do critical emergency work only - save $400,000/year. Potential for lawsuits must be considered. ($200,000 at mid-year)" May 10,2004 California Cities Helen Pntnam Award for Excellence City of Cupertino ~t~ Page 2 of 5 There are special squares on the board. The two dark pink squares are a grant opportunity. If you land on the dark pink square (Grant Application), you get a second roll. If on the .,¡¡;: IJ¡ second roll you land on the Grant A warded square, you are successful, and can use ~ the money for the specific project the grant was applied for. For example: "Congratulations! Your grant has been awarded so you can build your ~',"1.i' < project; however, these funds cannot be used for maintenance, so it won't, ,- - help your operating budget or your General Fund bottom line." If you land on "Grant Awarded" without landing on "Grant Application" first, you don't get the money because you missed the application step. Dark green squares on the board represent Economic Development opportunities and, R as we know, these are tenuous propositions. Any player landing on a dark green square a gets a second roll. Revenue may come the way of the team, but only ifit successfully ~ avoids the take-away square on the second roll. U Black squares with lightening bolts represent bad news of the economic sort including earthquakes, economic downturns, state take-aways, and lawsuits. Each team is afforded a $1 million emergency reserve "piggybank". The emergency reserve may be applied toward the black cards, but after the reserve is consumed, the cost of disasters or emergencies must be borne by the General Fund. One of the cards reads: "The city is sued when a motorist runs a stop sign and hits another car. The driver claims that cuts to the tree-trimming program caused the unsafe condition. The suit costs the city $150,000. " . At midyear budget adjustment time, the Team Mayor calls time and stops the game to take stock, and reviews the progress made toward reaching the $2 million budget reduction. The game continues after midyear, but the cuts are only worth half as much. There is a Pot O'Gold square on the game board, which represents a huge controversial project (like a box store) that may provide up to $1.5 million in sales tax revenue, but also brings negative impacts like traffic and competition to existing small businesses. The Team needs to evaluate whether or not they were willing to accept the impacts of such a project in exchange for the revenue. ~ eJ At the end of the fiscal year, the Team Mayor reviews the record and asks the group about its priorities and the criteria it developed when making cuts. The Team sums up the core values important to the overall community. May 10,2004 California Cities Helen Putnam Award for Excellence City of Cupertino Jt~ Page 3 of 5 THE RESULTS Approximately 100 residents convened on a Saturday morning to play Balance or Bust. The city manager opened the session with a brief presentation on the city budget (the basics--where the revenue comes from and the proportionate General Fund support to various city departments). The board game was then introduced and the participants were given an hour to play. They played for over an hour and a half; there was tremendous energy in the room, and players could be seen "high-fiving" it when they got a hotel or another economic development project to help them through their financial straights. The fun part of the game was followed by a serious discussion of core values and priority setting in difficult times. Not unexpectedly, residents placed a high priority on public safety. However, there were some surprises. When considering cuts in the city newsletter or local TV access channel (which broadcasts city council and commission meetings), residents often placed a premium on communication. Many felt that communication was even more critical during difficult times and should not be reduced. Maintenance was a concern, as residents feared future staggering deferred maintenance costs. Many favorite community activities (that would normally be advocated for at budget time festivals, free cultural events, seasonal holiday events) were recommended to be cut, unless private sponsors could be found. Fee increases were recommended. There was a new appreciation for economic development, even among those that had previously opposed new projects. The game was so successful in communicating the challenges inherent in prioritizing spending, that it was later used during union negotiations. Schools borrowed the game for civics instruction. One resident of the community donated $ I 00 in return for a game just because he thought it was fun to play. Several who participated in the Community Congress suggested that the exercise be conducted every year. May 10,2004 California Cities Helen Putnam Award for Excellence City of Cupertino Jill. u:.~~ Page 4 of 5 The game was useful because it used real numbers based on the cost to provide actual city services. Residents learned a lot from playing the game about the connection between economic development and a solid tax base, the difficulty in prioritizing competing community goods, and the vulnerability of local government to state take-aways. Most agreed that when presented with the big picture of the city budget, the~y were not that far apart on what the spending priorities should be. All participants left the morning session with a greater understanding of how the budget works. Note: We would be delighted to send you a copy of the game. Contact Cupertino Parks and Recreation at 408- 777-3110 or at parks@cupertino.org. May 10,2004 California Cities Helen Putnam A ward for Excellence City of Cupertino J~ Page 5 of 5 STEVENS CREEK CORRIDOR- WHAT'S YOUR VISION? THE CHALLENGE Our project dealt with the difficulty of re-engaging disenfranchised residents in a public process after afirst planning attemptfailed. Backe:round The city of Cupertino acquired 60 acres of land over a 25-year period: the Stevens Creek Corridor. In the late 1990's, after all the parcels were acquired, a master planning effort was funded, but stalled for several years due to other priorities. In 2000, a trail proponent was elected to the City Council and was successful in advocating for a trail through the Stevens Creek Corridor. The Stevens Creek Trail was added to the City Council's goal list for that year. The Council was somewhat ahead of the community on trail development; many residents were not ready for a multipurpose trail through the Corridor. The City had not anticipated the extent of the opposition to multiuse trails, and the Council goal of making the community "walkable and bikable". The trail planning process was divisive and continued for two years. Twenty residents and stakeholders were selected to be on the Stevens Creek Trail Task Force, and struggled with neighborhood/community issues. At the conclusion of the process, the trail was found to be infeasible under the current management scheme for the Corridor. The community asked that the master plan for the Corridor be completed before more discussion of a trail occurred. Funds were still available for the master plan and staff was ready to undertake the work; however, there were so many strong opinions and so much passionate rhetoric it seemed unlikely a constructive community dialogue could ensue. Staff struggled to devise a way to constructively engage activists on all sides of the issue. How Would You Like To Participate? Staff began the new planning effort by asking participants, who had been involved in the contentious trail planning process, to advise how the process needed to improve. Staff ran eight focus groups with disgruntled citizens. Many indicated that they had attended 100 hours of meetings regarding the trail, but felt there was never enough time to communicate a vision, even though they had good ideas. Participants didn't believe they had adequate information to enable them to participate constructively in the process. They felt that with access to consultant support, they could articulate better ideas. They wanted the process to make better use of their time. Many felt worn down by the prior two-year effort. May 10,2004 California Cities Helen Putnam Award for Excellence City of Cupertino jt~ Pagelof4 THE SOLUTION Staff took the input to heart and devised a multi-step participation process that included: Documenting input from the focus groups regarding what went wrong with the prior effort. Conducting a public City Council/Parks and Recreation Commission goal setting exercise to set the goals for the master plan. Developing vision kits to give the participants the tools needed to develop plans and illustrate their ideas. . Providing professional support to participants at technical review meetings, where environmental planners, landscape architects, and engineers helped participants refine their plans. . After the plans were submitted, participants were invited to: 0 present to the Parks and Recreation Commission and the City Council 0 continue to refine their work 0 attend a reception to meet people with similar ideas; Smaller working groups formed to refine some of the visions . The Parks and Recreation Commission continued to work with the small groups throughout the summer, drawing from the best ideas, and produced a consensus vision in late summer for City Council review. . The City Council used the Commission's recommendation to develop the consensus program for the new park design. NOTE: the consensus program included "a trail or trails to accommodate a variety of trail users". The Vision Kits There were a number of components to the vision kit including: . Three maps of city owned property at a scale of I" = 100': 0 A site analysis map to be used as the participant was touring the property (this map noted existing features on the property and had room for note taking) A design map for brainstorming preliminary designs, using scaled templates that could be cut out and moved around on the design map A final submittal map made of velum for tracing the design. The participants fixed the scale templates to the design map, and after the final design was laid out, traced it onto the velum for reproduction. On the velum sheet was an evaluation form/goals checklist, which the participants used to evaluate their design against the Council's goals. . Scaled templates of park amenities were included in the vision kits. If a participant required a template not included in the kit, staff produced one. 0 0 May 10, 2004 California Cities Helen Putnam Award for Excellence City of Cupertino rut~ Page 2 of 4 An aerial photograph of the Corridor at the same scale as the map (I" = 100'). Written documents including background information and a Stevens Creek Corridor goals checklist. . An engineering scale at I" = 100'. . Green thread, brown yarn, and black ribbon for laying out the park circulation system- thread being the pedestrian path, yarn representing a multiuse path, and ribbon the approximate scale width of a road. The circulation system was later traced onto the velum. . The kit contained written and videotaped information to provide a better understanding of the history and current uses of the property including a site analysis video narrated by a landscape architect, with assistance from biologists, historians, engineers, etc., and a second video in which staff made presentations regarding the overall Parks and Recreation Department activity in the community, and some of the community input regarding the potential park development. Instructions on how to use the kit were provided in written and videotaped format and multiple kickoff meetings were held due to the overwhelming response. The kits, which cost about $50 each to produce, and were distributed free to the public, were an overwhelming success. Staff expected about 50 residents to request kits, however, 320 kits were requested. Individuals, families, school groups, neighborhoods, and special interest groups requested kits. In the end, 108 visions were submitted representing the participation of over 400 people. During the time the participants were preparing their visions (they were given two and half months to complete the exercise), six technical workshops were held for further information on various aspects of the Corridor, including its biology, history, current use, and design potential. Individuals brought incomplete projects in for technical assistance from the experts. May 10,2004 California Cities Helen Putnam A ward for Excellence City of Cupertino Jt, Page30f4 THE RESULTS All participants were advised that the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council would review every submittal received. We initially thought we would get about 50 requests for kits, and possibly half of those would be returned as visions. However, the response was overwhelming. We received requests for 320 visions kits, most from community residents and school groups (however, we did get a request from a parks department in Ottawa, Canada, and we provided them with a kit to satisfy their curiosity). Of the 320 kits distributed, 108 were returned. Copies of all the visions received were displayed at City Hall and the Quinlan Community Center for approximately two weeks, after which time, a community reception was held for all the visionaries. The visionaries were given an opportunity to present to the City Council and Parks and Recreation Commission in ajoint session. Forty groups chose to do so. It was a long but very positive and productive experience. What we learned from the exercise was that when given the tools to work with, and a good understanding of the issues, many came to a common understanding and agreement on how to proceed. Resident takes in the visions hung in the corridor at Cupertino City Hall. At the reception, visions were hung along the corridors of City Hall and organized by common elements. Those that had more of a historic theme were grouped together; those that had a trail focus were grouped together; those that emphasized education were grouped together, etc. Like-minded visionaries were encouraged to exchange email addresses and contact information, if they desired to continue in the process. Small working groups of like-minded visionaries formed to refine the visions. Throughout the summer, small groups of visionaries worked with the Parks and Recreation Commission to come up with what they believed were the best elements represented in the visions that would provide the most benefit to the community. At the conclusion of the summer, September 4, 2003, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the final, refined proposals and came up with what they believed was the community's desired program for the 60-acre Corridor. A contentious community debate was over, the Parks and Recreation Commission was able to forward a recommendation program for the park to the City Council, and the participants felt their input was utilized. Interestingly enough, the trail survived as an element to be incorporated I the 60-acre creek park. The exact recommendation was: "Provide a trail or trails in the Corridor to serve a variety of trail users." lt is now nearly a year later and we are working with other agencies to further the Corridor planning and environmental review. We have nearly 600 people on our "interested parties" mailing list, and we stay in touch with a monthly or bimonthly letter on the planning effort. There is considerable public support for the project. May 10,2004 California Cities Helen Putnam A ward for Excellence City of Cupertino & ,.!!'"" Page 4 of 4