07. BBF picnic capacity
CITY OF
CUPEIUINO
Parks and Recreation Department
CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item Number~
Agenda Date: 7/5/2006
Issue:
Does the City Council want to revisit the issue of whether or not to operate Blackberry
Farm with a per/person entry fee, and/or revisit the decision regarding capacity ofthe
picnic ground operation?
Back2round:
A special study session was held with the Council, Parks and Recreation Commission
and BicyclelPedestrian Commission regarding Stevens Creek Corridor Park on March
7,2005, followed by a City Council meeting on March 15,2005 at which a number of
decisions were made including: charging an entry fee for the Blackberry Farm picnic
area for 100 days/year, while keeping the majority of the park open. Council set the
capacity of the picnic area at 800, a number chosen for the maximum revenue with
sufficient area for creek restoration. This decision followed hours of public testimony
on the project. The minutes of March 15,2005 are attached as well as the slides from
the March 7,2005 PowerPoint presentation relative to the discussion of picnic ground
capacity and finance. This information has not been updated; it is reprinted here so that
Council can review the material that was the basis for the decision. All decisions the
City Council made on March 15, 2005 are incorporated into the project plan and
environmental document.
On June 20, 2006, the City Council adopted the environmental document for the
project. There was some discussion among Council members relative to revisiting the
size and operation of the picnic area. Staff, after reviewing the history of the decision,
and the considerable testimony received, believes Council achieved the appropriate
balance, although it is always the Council's prerogative to revisit any decision.
Discussion:
The current picnic facility can accommodate up to 4000 customers/day; the plan is to
downsize the picnic area capacity to 800. The picnic operation will remain a 100-
day/year business, although the newly created corridor park will be available to the
7-1
Printed on Recycled Paper
community year-round. Staffis confident that residents will avail themselves of the
new park and trail year-round, and also reserve the picnic area during the summer
season.
Concerns have been raised about non-resident use of the picnic facility. The Nelson
family started the picnic business purely as a moneymaking venture and cast as broad a
net as possible to bring customers to the facility. For those that travel to Blackberry
Farm for the annual company picnic or family reunion, the facility is part of their
summer tradition. The park, on weekends, is crowded, with the creek denuded from the
impacts of so many picnickers and cars in a small area. With so much open space in the
foothills surrounding Cupertino, it is not difficult to understand why residents would
forgo the $9.00/person entry fee and not spend the day at Blackberry Farm. However,
the revenue from returning out of town customers can help offset the cost of the year-
round operation for residents.
Pricing and resident use policy are most appropriately reviewed with the Council prior
to the re-opening of the facility, as was done with the Sports Center after the remodeling
project. However, if the Council decides that it no longer wants to be in the paid
picnicking business, the physical improvements planned to support that business would
not have to be constructed. These improvements involve entry kiosks at the parking lot
and pools, parking and a separate set of restrooms for trial users (during the 100 day
season) and a catering station on the west side of the creek. The cost of these items is
roughly estimated at $500,000.
If the Council, after reviewing the historical information attached, wishes to reconsider
the continued operation of the fee-for-use picnic area, staff would appreciate a decision
as soon as possible. The project plans and specifications are being prepared.
Recommendation:
Take no action and proceed with the project based on the City Council decisions of
March 15,2005.
Respectfully submitted:
Reviewed by:
/J /)/l'C-",
IJ' LA I'
Therese Ambrosi Smith, Director
Parks and Recreation Department
~
David W. Knapp, City Manager
'1-2-
City Council
Parks and Recreation Commission
and
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission
Stevens Creek Corridor Park
March 7,2005
--..J
)
'--0
Excerpts
BLACKBERRY FARM OPERATIONAL OPTIONS
Current 4,000 Capacity 500 Maximum Capacity 500 Maximum Capacity 800 Maximum Capacity
Entry Fee Based Option No Entry Fee Based Option Entry Fee Based Option Entry Fee Based Option
With Youth CampslRec. Swim Alternative A2 Alternative A3
Alternative A1
REVENUE REVENUE REVENUE REVENUE
Picnickil1Q 505,000 Picnickil1Q 15 000 Picnickil1Q 270 000 Picnickil1Q 387000
Snack Bar 45,000 Snack Bar 24,000 Snack Bar 30,000 Snack Bar 45,000
Caterina 236 000 Caterina 50,000 Caterina 75,000 Cateril1Q 120,000
Youth Camps Programmil1Q 0 Youth Camps Programmil1Q 167,000 Youth Camps Programmil1Q 0 Youth Camps ProClrammil1Q 0
Total Revenue 786 000 Total Revenue 256,000 Total Revenue 375,000 Total Revenue 552,000
EXPENSES EXPENSES EXPENSES EXPENSES
Salaries & Benefits 230,000 Salaries & Benefits 230 000 Salaries & Benefits 230 000 Salaries & Benefits 230 000
PT Staff & SuPplies 395 000 PT Staff & Supplies 235,000 PT Staff & Supplies 220,000 PT Staff & Suoplies 250,000
Total Expenses 625 000 Total Expenses 465,000 Total Expenses 450 000 Total Expenses 480 000
ODe ration Profit (Loss) 161,000 Operation Profit (Loss) (209,000) Operation Profit (Loss) (75,000 Operation Profit (Loss) 72,000
GOLF COURSE
Golf Course Revenue 714,000 Golf Course Revenue 714,000 Golf COlXSe Revenue 714000 Golf Course Revenue 714,000
Golf Course Expenses 489 000 Golf COlXSe Expenses 489 000 Golf COll'Se Expenses 489 000 Golf Course Expenses 489,000
Golf Course Profit 225,000 Golf Course Profit 225,000 Golf Course Profit 225,000 Golf Course Profit 225,000
COMBINED OPERATIONS
TOTAL REVENUE 1 500 000 TOTAL REVENUE 970 000 TOTAL REVENUE 1,089,000 TOTAL REVENUE 1 266,000
TOTAL EXPENSES 1,114,000 TOTAL EXPENSES 954,000 TOTAL EXPENSES 939,000 TOTAL EXPENSES 969,000
TOTAL PROFIT (LOSS) TOTAL PROFIT (LOSS) TOTAL PROFIT (LOSS) TOTAL PROFIT (LOSS)
FROM ALL OPERATIONS *386,000 FROM ALL OPERATIONS *16,000 FROM ALL OPERATIONS *150,000 FROM ALL OPERATIONS *297,000
Facilitv Improvements 20 000 Facilitv Improvements 20,000 Facilitv Improvements 20,000 Facilitv Improvements 20,000
Fixed Assets 5000 Fixed Assets 5,000 Fixed Assets 5000 Fixed Assets 5000
TOTAL 25,000 TOTAL 25,000 TOTAL 25,000 TOTAL 25,000
TOTAL PROFIT (LOSS) TOTAL PROFIT (LOSS) TOTAL PROFIT (LOSS) TOTAL PROFIT (LOSS)
AFTER IMPROVEMENTS 361,000 AFTER IMPROVEMENTS (9,000) AFTER IMPROVEMENTS 125,000 AFTER IMPROVEMENTS 272,000
'This does not include rental income from Blue Pheasant, Simms House, M;Clellan Ranch house, which goes directly into the General Fund in the amount of $131,136.
---J
1
-L:
CURRENT OPERATION - 4,000 CAPACITY - FEE BASED
Blackberry Farm Picnic
Average Group Size per Reservation
.-:l
I
'-\
240
220
200
# of 180
Groups 160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
50- 101- 201- 301- 401- 501- 751- 1000 +
100 200 300 400 500 750 1,000
# of . Weekday 211 57 10 6 2 2 1 1
Days 164 64 31 12 6 5 2 2
o Weekend
CURRENT OPERATION - 4,000 CAPACITY - FEE BASED
Blackberry Farm Picnic
Average Reservation Attendance
--.J
)
~'
28
24
20
Number of
Days 16
12
8
4
0
0-500 501- 1,001 -
1,000 1,500
. Weekday 25 22 4
CJ Weekend 13 13 9
1,501 - 2,001 - 2,501 - 3000 +
2,000 2,500 3,000
2 100
7 2 1 1
CURRENT OPERATION
4,000 CAPACITY - FEE BASED -- WEEKDAY
Blackberry Farm Weekday Admission and Expenditures
Revenue and Cost Summary
People Re\enue* Cost
200 $1,200.00 $1,338.00
300 $1,800.00 $1,338.00
400 $2,400.00 $1,338.00
500 $3,000.00 $1,338.00
750 $4,500.00 $1,338.00
1,000 $6,000.00 $1,535.00
1,500 $9,000.00 $2,362.00
2,000 $12,000.00 $2,477.00
2,500 $15,000.00 $3,915.00
3,000 $18,000.00 $4,742.00
3,500 $21,000.00 $4,742.00
4,000 $24,000.00 $4,742.00
* Re\enue = Per Person
Admission Fee
-....J
~
Expenditure Breakdown
People 1 -500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000
Expenditures
Office $297.50 $385.00 $385.00 $473.00 $561.00 $561.00 $561.00 $561.00
Lifeguards $577.50 $660.00 $660.00 $660.00 $660.00 $660.00 $660.00 $660.00
Maintenance $108.00 $135.00 $162.00 $189.00 $189.00 $216.00 $216.00 $216.00
Janitorial $48.00 $48.00 $48.00 $48.00 $48.00 $48.00 $48.00 $48.00
Pools $67.00 $67.00 $67.00 $67.00 $67.00 $67.00 $67.00 $67.00
Supplies $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00
Utilities $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00
Sheriff 0 0 $800.00 $800.00 $800.00 $1,600.00 $1,600.00 $1,600.00
Shuttle 0 0 0 0 $1,350.00 $1,350.00 $1,350.00 $1,350.00
Administrati\e Staff $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00
Maintenance Staff $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00
Total Cost $1,338.00 $1,535.00 $2,362.00 $2,477.00 $3,915.00 $4,742.00 $4,742.00 $4,742.00
CURRENT OPERATION
4,000 CAPACITY - FEE BASED -- WEEKEND
Blackberry Farm Weekend Admission and Expenditures
* Rewnue = Per Person
Admission Fee
People 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000
Expenditure
Office $418.00 $522.50 $522.50 $522.50 $627.00 $627.00 $627.00 $627.00
Lifeguards $654.50 $654.50 $748.00 $748.00 $748.00 $748.00 $748.00 $748.00
Maintenance $108.00 $108.00 $135.00 $162.00 $162.00 $216.00 $216.00 $288.00
Janitorial $48.00 $48.00 $48.00 $48.00 $48.00 $48.00 $48.00 $48.00
Pools $67.00 $67.00 $67.00 $67.00 $67.00 $67.00 $67.00 $67.00
Supplies $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00
Utilities $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00
Sheriff $800.00 $800.00 $800.00 $800.00 $1,600.00 $1,600.00 $2,400.00 $2,400.00
Shuttle $1,350.00 $1,350.00 $1,350.00 $1,350.00
Administratiw Staff $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00
Maintenance Staff $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00
Total Cost $2,335.50 $2,440.00 $2,560.50 $2,587.50 $4,842.00 $4,896.00 $5,696.00 $5,768.00
Expenditure Breakdown
Revenue and Cost Summary
People Rewnue* Cost
200 $1,800.00 $2,335.50
300 $2,700.00 $2,335.50
500 $4,500.00 $2,335.50
750 $6,750.00 $2,335.50
1,000 $9,000.00 $2,440.00
1,500 $13,500.00 $2,560.50
2,000 $18,000.00 $2,587.50
2,500 $22,500.00 $4,842.00
3,000 $27,000.00 $4,896.00
3,500 $31,500.00 $5,696.00
4,000 $36,000.00 $5,768.00
--.J
~
~
CUPEIQ"INO
APPROVED MINUTES
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, March 15,2005
CALL TO ORDER
At 6:10 p.m. Vice-Mayor Richard Lowenthal called the meeting to order In the Council
Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California.
ROLL CALL
City Council members present: Vice-Mayor Richard Lowenthal, and Council members, Sandra
James, Dolly Sandoval, and Kris Wang. Council members absent: Mayor Patrick Kwok.
CLOSED SESSION
1. Labor negotiations - Government Code Section 54957.6 - closed session regarding
proposals for fiscal year 05-06 with Cupertino Employees Association (CEA).
At 6: 1 0 p.m., Council recessed to a closed session. At 6:50 p.m. Council reconvened,
and Deputy City Attorney Eileen Murray reported that no action had been taken.
RECESS - 6:34 p.m. until 6:50 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
At 6:50 p.m. Mayor Patrick Kwok called the meeting to order again in the Council Chamber,
10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS - None
POSTPONEMENTS - None
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
The City Clerk reported that Council had been given a letter dated February 14 from Cathy
Helgerson regarding item No.9; an exhibit handed out for the Stevens Creek Corridor near
Blackberry Farm, item No.1 0; and email from Mary Luke with questions about item No. 1 O.
l-~
March 15,2005
Cupertino City Council
Page 2
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
E. J. Conens said he did not think it was proper that Council member James was involved with
the Association for a Better Cupertino (ABC), which was opposing the CCC initiatives, since the
Council members should represent everyone in the city. James said that the ABC was a group of
local community members who had aligned themselves to answer questions regarding the
initiatives. She said that as an elected official, it was her role to make sure everyone has proper
and accurate information, and the community will make the final choice.
Bob McKibbin spoke about the lack of adequate public notification regarding projects in
general, and in particular the Vallco "Rose bowl" item on the agenda. He said there had been
changes made 5 days before the City Council meeting that should not be treated as a minor
modification. He asked that it be delayed to allow more citizen review and participation.
Rusty Britt said that instead of replacing empty storefronts with new businesses, housing is going
into those places. She asked the council to slow down their plans for housing and instead attract
new businesses.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Lowenthal/James moved and seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar as
recommended. Vote: Ayes: James, Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None. Absent:
None.
2. Approve the minutes from the March 1 City Council meeting.
3. Adopt resolutions accepting Accounts Payable for February 25 and March 4, Resolution
Nos. 05-041 and 05-042.
4. Adopt a resolution accepting Payroll for February 25, Resolution No. 05-043.
5. Accept the Treasurer's Budget Report for January 2005.
6. Accept applications for Alcoholic Beverage Licenses:
(a) Ramenrama Red Miso, 19772 Stevens Creek Blvd. (new restaurant next to the
Elephant Bar)
(b) A restaurant at 1655 S. DeAnza Boulevard, near Prospect Road (formerly
Formosa Restaurant)
7. Adopt a resolution authorizing an application for grant funding under the Clean, Safe
Creeks and Natural Flood Protection Program, Resolution No. 05-044.
8. Adopt a resolution approving the Settlement and Mutual Release of Claims Agreement
with the Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority (SV ACA), Resolution No. 05-045.
7-(D
March 15,2005
Cupertino City Council
Page 3
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR (above) - None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
9. Consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Application No. TM-2004-
05, Wayne Aozasa (CA Water Service), located on Greenleaf Dr., APN 326-33-107:
(a) Tentative Map to subdivide a .95-acre parcel into four lots ranging from
approximately 6,430 square feet to 8,880 square feet, plus a remainder of 11,500
square feet.
Community Development Director Steve Piasecki reviewed a PowerPoint presentation,
and the City Clerk distributed a letter from Cathy Helgerson dated February 14, 2005, to
the California Water Company raising concerns about potential contamination of the
well.
Cathy Helgerson spoke and distributed copies of her statement. She said that Cupertino
citizens have submitted a petition with 78 names opposed to the Greenleaf Driye project.
Helgerson said the project does not comply with California laws regarding water
resources, that there is a potential for contamination, especially within 100 feet of the
well, and that she believed an environmental impact review is necessary.
Shawn Heffner, representing California Water Service, referred to a letter written in
response to Ms. Helgerson's concerns. He said current regulations set forth guidelines for
location of wells with respect to sewer and storm drain lines. In this project, both the
sewer and storm drain lines will be at least 50 feet away and are in compliance with the
requirements of the California Department of Water Resources. He said the well itself is
715 deep, and the water table begins at 160 feet, and that all their wells are concrete
sealed. He said the well is tested regularly, with full testing every 3 years, plus water
sampling done every week.
Jeannette Weber, Water Quality and Laboratory Manager for California Water Service,
said that the compliance period for organic and inorganic chemistry testing is every three
years pursuant to the California Water Code, and other federal regulations require
radiological testing every four years.
David Lee, an attorney representing California Water and Northern California
Developments, said the applicant could relocate the trees instead of removing them,
although they are disfavored trees, such as eucalyptus and pines. He discussed the
landscaped island that had been added to the entrance in order to angle the traffic, and he
said they believe the wrought iron fence around the well area would provide sufficient
security.
,- \1
March 15, 2005
Cupertino City Council
Page 4
Leo Wang expressed concern about the possible contamination of the well because it
provides drinking water for many Cupertino residents. He showed a copy of California
Water Well Standards from the Department of Water Resources that indicates there
should be at least 50 feet between a well and possible sources of contamination.
Arlett Kerley, Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health, said that her
agency had reviewed the project and had no concerns.
Penny Whittaker asked how many households were serviced by the well, how old are the
wells, and what proof is there that the water will not become contaminated by vehicle
traffic or chemicals used in the homes.
Virginia Tamblyn said she is a real estate agent, and has had a listing on Homestead road
that was next door to a well. She said it was on a fenced lot surrounded by a lot of trees,
and there was some noise from the equipment. The existing neighbors did not mind it.
Council members discussed whether an independent assessment of water quality was
advisable, since the water company had a financial interest in the project.
In response to concerns raised by the City Council, Community Development Director
Steve Piasecki said that staff would contact the Public Utilities Commission and other
agencies for a referral to an expert third party to conduct an independent evaluation of
this project and its potential impact on water quality. He said that the costs would be
borne by the applicant. He suggested that this item be removed from the agenda at this
time and would be advertised again when the independent review was completed.
Lowenthal/James moved and seconded to table this item. The motion carried
unanimously.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
10. Consider the trail alignment, picnic ground capacity, fund balance transfer, and project
schedule for Stevens Creek Corridor Park.
Parks and Recreation Director Therese Smith showed a PowerPoint slide show that
highlighted the staff report and distributed a photocopy of the presentation.
Rhoda Fry said she didn't think the community was giyen sufficient notice about the
decision on the trail alignment. She said that although the community has been working
on it for years, this seems to be an 11 th hour change.
Alex Tsai said he had concerns about security, noise and privacy. He asked the Council
to consider impacts on the neighborhood, and he suggested reducing the number of
bridges. Council member Lowenthal said that one of the major reasons to change the
park operation has to do with Mr. Tsai's home, and in order to separate free areas from
1 ~{ 2-
March 15,2005
Cupertino City Council
Page 5
fee areas, the bridges and tunnels are necessary to keep the park usage away from the
residence.
Lowenthal/Sandoval moved and seconded to approve an east side trail alignment (as
illustrated on all the alternative plans) with a 100' setback from the Meadows property
line. The motion carried unanimously.
Discussion followed about making the trail appropriate for multiple uses.
The following individuals were in favor of a multi-use trail.
. Mike Vroman (in favor of paving)
. Don Burnett (in favor of paving)
. Fred Stanke
. Margaret Limberatos
. Larry Dean (in favor of paving)
. David Greenstein (preferred no paving but ADA compliant)
. Paul Nam (keep McClellan Ranch area natural)
. Kevin Jackson
. Jeanne Bradford (not paved)
. Anne Ng, (paved up to McClellan Ranch and then a natural, all-weather surface
through the park).
. Aaron Grossman (new materials available are more organic and drain better;
prefers a smooth, all-season surface that is environmentally sensitive)
. Robert Skyles
. Adrienne Harber
Deborah Jamison read a statement and distributed copies that included photographs of the
Los Alamitos Creek Trail in San Jose. She said that this project would disrupt the old
orchard area and would impact the local wildlife including bluebirds, deer, and red-
shouldered hawks.
The following individuals were also opposed to a multi-use trail:
. Robert Hirt, Vice President of the Santa Clara County Audubon Society. He
suggested a one-year test period.
. Rhoda Fry
. Larry Loo
. Don Bautista
. Janet Van Zoeren
Sandoval/James moved and seconded to approve a multi-use trail along the east side of
McClellan Ranch, preserving the meadow and keeping traffic as far from the creek as
possible. The motion carried unanimously.
~7-1 :)
March 15,2005
Cupertino City Council
Page 6
LowenthallW ang moved and seconded to haye a non-asphalt, non-concrete trail that
would be suitable for all wheeled activities including rollerblading, bicycling, strollers,
wheelchairs, etc. The.motion carried unanimously.
Discussion followed regarding the picnic facilities.
Deborah Jamison said that the impact of picnickers could harm the creek restoration, and
the west side should be kept relatively free of human impacts. She said that Council
should not choose to gain more revenue at the expense of restoration and natural areas.
Jennifer Van Zoeren said she agreed with Jamison's comments. She also felt that all
areas of the park and picnic areas should be open to the public when not reserved for
groups.
Rhoda Fry talked about the possible contamination from swimming pool water entering
the creek and suggested that the pool be moved following the end of its useful life. She
also talked about the change in picnic use and said that the park did not need extra fences,
gates, or barriers. She said that nonresident users should pay full fare, and that the park
needs an entrance from the Stevens Creek Trail.
J ames/Lowenthal moved and seconded that Blackberry farm shall operate at a maximum
capacity of 800 persons with 300 parking spaces, and that staff shall manage parking with
shuttles, as necessary. This alternative reserves both riparian restoration options. The
motion carried unanimously.
Lowenthal/Sandoval moved and seconded that the project shall commence in 2007, to
meet a grant funding deadline, and that Blackberry Farm will operate as it has for the
2005 and 2006 season; and there shall be a transfer of $680,000 from the Blackberry
Farm Fund balance to the project budget. The motion carried unanimously.
Sandoval asked that when the next meeting is held to discuss access to the site, they
should also discuss paid parking and opportunities for people to picnic at the farm
without paying an entry fee.
NEW BUSINESS
11. Consider architectural and site review for a previously approved use permit for 204
residential units, 105,300 square feet of new retail and a parking structure. Application
No. ASA-2005-03, Mike Rohde (Val1co Shopping Center), 10123 and 10150 N. Wolfe
Road, Assessor's Parcel Nos. 316-20-037 and 316-20-038.
Mike Rohde, Val1co Fashion Center, said that the project had been reduced in height from
72 to 69 feet. He discussed the development agreement that was signed in October of
1991, and said it gives them the opportunity to create a unique, standalone project that
will help revitalize the project.
7-(l(
March 15,2005
Cupertino City Council
Page 7
Architect John Eller gave a brief PowerPoint slide show of the Rose Bowl site and
discussed the circulation plan, building setbacks, and the pedestrian links throughout the
project. He said the primary corner of interest is now an octagonal tower instead of an
ellipse that was shown on earlier plans.
Landscape Architect Vince Lattanzio reviewed the landscaping plan and recommended
accent trees at the corners such as palms, upright poplars or cypress trees.
Ned Britt recommended that the City Council not approve this project until the theaters
are under construction, and he also suggested more public notice since they are adding
another story and increasing the building and parking areas, which will cause concern
about school impacts and traffic.
Dennis Whittaker said this project's height is out of character for Cupertino, and that the
public had not been noticed about the character change. He said the contents of the
development agreement should also be publicized, and that the combination of projects
by Menlo Equities and Va1lco will create major congestion.
Jennifer Griffin said she was concerned by the number of changes in the plans since last
week, and public notice was particularly important concerning the Rose Bowl area. She
said there would be impacts on overall density and traffic and pedestrian safety; that
attention should be paid to bus routes; that the green belt area should serve as a public
park; and that the new plans remove many of the ash trees that were supposed to be
retained.
Bob McKibbin asked for a 60-day deferral because of the lack of sufficient public
notification. He said that these appear to be major changes, including building density
increase of23%.
Tom Hugunin expressed concern with the height, density, and the amount of affordable
housing that would be provided. He said it appears that the traffic circulation will require
the use of Finch A venue, and he objected to the use of palm trees as a gateway design for
the city.
Virginia Tamblyn said that residents throughout Cupertino should receive proper notice
with photographs of the proposal. She was also interested in seeing the 1991
development agreement and how it addresses residential uses.
Mark McKenna, representing the Cupertino Chamber of Commerce, said that with
current conditions it is very difficult to provide housing for Cupertino residents and
employees, and they did not want that requirement passed on to businesses unfairly. For
that reason they wish to work with the City to find land to support both business and
housing, to look at the ABAG housing to jobs ratio, and find ways to create more housing
and not lose jobs.
<7-i)
March 15,2005
Cupertino City Council
Page 8
Mike Rohde described the new parking structures that will be used by movie theater
patrons, and said that yesterday they had pulled the permit to begin demolition at the
theater site. He said the lower level work would take about 6 months. Then, they will
begin working on the upper level, the podium on top ofthe mall, and finally will build the
shell for the theater.
James/Wang moved and seconded to give architectural and site approval, file No. ASA-
2005-03, in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution No. 6295 and with the
conditions listed below. The motion carried with Lowenthal voting no.
. Height shall be those shown in height comparison graphic dated 3-15-05
. Accurate square footage shall be provided as part of the additional design review
. The intent of the project is for it to truly be sales-tax generated retail
. Include a water feature as a design element
. Council preferred the taller of the two towers shown on the plans
. Encourage the applicant to look at incorporating one-bedroom units
Lowenthal asked that the record reflect he voted no because he did not have a problem
with the project, but with the process, and he thought the construction of the project
should be linked with the construction of the movie theaters.
12. Reject all bids for Blackberry Farm Golf Course maintenance, Project No. 2005-01;
Authorize staff to evaluate the bid requirements and re-bid the project contract; and
Authorize the Director of Public Works to negotiate and execute a change order for a
two-month extension to the current contract with Professional Turf Management to
ensure continuity for maintenance of the golf course in an amount not to exceed $35,000.
Lowenthal/Sandoval moved and seconded to reject all bids, authorize to evaluate the bid
requirements and re-bid the project, and to authorize the Director of Public Works to
negotiate and execute a change order for a two-month extension with Professional Turf
Management. The motion carried with Council member Sandoval absent.
13. Accept the 2003-04 Management Letter from City Auditors, Maze and Associates.
This item was continued to the next meeting.
ORDINANCES
14. Conduct the second reading of Ordinance No. 1960 repealing Chapter 20.02, which
required the City Council to authorize General Plan Amendments. "An Ordinance of the
City Council of the City of Cupertino repealing Chapter 20.02 of the Cupertino Municipal
Code Regarding General Plans."
James/Lowenthal moved and seconded to read the ordinance by title only and that the
City Clerk's reading would constitute the second reading thereof. Ayes: James, Kwok,
Lowenthal, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None. Absent: Sandoval.
l-Ib
March 15,2005
Cupertino City Council
Page 9
Lowenthal/James moved and seconded to enact Ordinance No. 1960. Ayes: James,
Kwok, Lowenthal, Sandoval, and Wang. Noes: None. Absent: Sandoval.
STAFF REPORTS
15. Receive a legal opinion on mailed ballot elections.
This item was continued to the next meeting.
16. Receive a status report on General Fund Revenue and Expenditures (No documentation in
packet).
This item was continued to the next meeting.
17. The next General Plan hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, March 22, at the regular
Planning Commission meeting held in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre
Avenue, Cupertino (No documentation in packet).
City Manager David Knapp invited the public to attend.
COUNCIL REPORTS
Council members highlighted the activities of their committees and various community events.
ADJOURNMENT
At 12:50 a.m. on March 16,2005, p.m. the meeting was adjourned to Tuesday, April 5 at 6:00
p.m. to conduct interviews for the Community Development Block Grant (CD BG) Steering
Committee.
tt
Kimberly Smi , City Clerk
For more information: Staff reports, backup materials, and items distributed at the meeting are
available for review at the City Clerk's Office, 777-3223, and also on the Internet at
www.cupertino.org.Click on Agendas & Minutes/ City Council! Packets.
Most Council meetings are shown live on Cable Channel 26, and are available at your
convenience from our web site. Visit www.cupertino.org and click on Watch Meetings.
Videotapes are available at the Cupertino Library, or may be purchased from the Cupertino City
Channel, 777-2364.
l '-ll