Loading...
Draft Minutes Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 1 May 23, 2006 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES 5:30 P.M. MAY 23,2006 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The Planning Commission Study Session of May 23, 2006 was called to order at 5:30 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Marty Miller . SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLLCALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Vice Chairperson: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Marty Miller Lisa Giefer Cary Chien Taghi Saadati Gilbert Wong Staff present: Community Development Director: City Planner: Senior Planner: Assistant City Attorney: Steve Piasecki Ciddy Wordell Colin Jung Eileen Murray STUDY SESSION 1. North Vallco Master Plan. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, presented the staff report: . Explained that it was the third Planning Commission study session on the North Vallco Master Plan. . She introduced At Savay, City of Mountain View Zoning Administrator, who was invited to present an overview of the Mountain View Planning Process for their Downtown Plan. Al Savay, City of Mountain View Zoning Administrator: . Presented a review of the Downtown Precise Plan for the City of Mountain View, focusing on the public process. . The Downtown Precise Plan was established in 1988, and entailed a lengthy process over more than fifteen years, which also included two Plan updates in ZOOl and 2004. . Mr. Savay emphasized the importance of the public process to ensure that public input is solicited in all aspects of the plan. . He reviewed the stakeholders involved, the challenges encountered, the processes followed, and the lessons learned during the process to successfully revitalize Mountain View's downtown area. . He responded to Commissioners' questions regarding the process and the outcome. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 2 May 23, 2006 Chair Miller: . Thanked Mr. Savay for his informative presentation on the Mountain View Downtown Plan. Chairperson Miller opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: . Asked that the hangar at Moffett Field be preserved because of its historic presence. . Said she was pleased that Mountain View has maintained Shoreline Park as a tech center. . Said one of the points of the study session is to keep the North Valleo area in Cupertino free of housing. . Said that Cupertino Village is a vibrant shopping District, and asked that the area be kept free of housing so that it could remain as a thriving shopping district for Cupertino. . She urged Cupertino to maintain and protect its tech parks as they cannot be brought back again. Cupertino has a long proud history in the tech arena with Apple, lIP, and other good tech companies. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Ms. Wordell: . Discussed the next steps, stating that the City Council wanted recommendations from the Planning Commission before embarking on the North Valleo Study. . Reported that RFPs were sent to 9 urban designers with a June 22nd deadline for returning proposals. She estimated a timeline of August for forwarding their recommendation to the City Council. Vice Chair Giefer: . Said the complexity of the project has changed with Apple's purchase of property. . Asked for Apple1s timeline and the expectation of when they would be submitting permit requests and architectural and site appoval or a specific plan for their campus. Ms. Wordell: . Said she was not aware of any further information other than their statement at the meeting they had nothing to share at this time. She said the concept was to do small pieces hand in hand; and as the city develops concept of what the community desires, they could participate. Vice Chair Giefer: . Said not to misunderstand her comments; it is an important project but she wanted to ensure that they defme what they want working with Apple and the other land owners there and that it is applicable. . Does not want Apple to be on a faster timeline than the city. Chair Miller: . Reiterated the need to move forward expeditiously. He said he spoke with people from Apple who indicated the timeframe would be in the neighborhood of six months or further out, which would provide time to think through the issues. . He said it was important to stay in close contact with Apple and keep them in the loop. . He said if they could not agendize it for the first meeting in July, he concurred with Com. Wong's suggestion to hold a special meeting so that they could forward it to the City Council Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting before the end of July. 3 May 23, 2006 Ms. Wordell: . Said the target was the July 11 th Planning Commission meeting, and forwarding it to City Council on July 18th. Chair Miller adjourned the study session and declared a short recess. Chair Miller called the regular Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:45 p.m. The same commissioners were present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the Apri/25, 2006 Planning Commission meeting: Corrections as noted: . Page 7, second line, "another change" should read "another chance" Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Saadati to approve the April 25, 2006 minutes as amended. (Vote: 5-0-0) Minutes of the May 9, 2006 Study Session: Motion: Motion by Com. Saadati, second by Vice Chair Giefer, to approve the May 9, 2006 Study Session minutes as presented. (Vote: 5-0-0) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV AL FROM CALENDAR: 4. DIR-2006-09, V-2006-02 Nick Kukulica (Sprint) 11640 Regnart Canyon Director's Minor Modification to install six panel antennas on an existing PG&E tower and install supporting equipment. Variance to allow a telecommunications facility ona residential property. Removedfrom calendar. Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Giefer, second by Com. Chien, to remove Applications DIR-2006-09 and V-2006-02 from the calendar. (Vote: 5-0-0) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CONSENT CALENDAR 2. EXC-2006-04 Wayne Okubo (Wahoo's Fish Taco) 19626 Stevens Creek Blvd Sign Exception to allow exposed neon on two wall signs at Marketplace. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed. Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Chien, to approve Consent Calendar Item EXC-2006-04 (Vote: 5-0-0) Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 4 ,- May 23, 2006 (Item 3 is verbatim text) 3. CP-2006-01 (EA-2006-01) City of Cupertino Stevens Creek Corridor Conduct a phased construction program to convert a commercial picnic facility into a neighborhood park; restore in-stream riparian habitat along sections of Stevens Creek with the 100 year floor plain; enhance nearby upland oak woodland habitat; construct a new 5,900 foot long, all weather trail and a new environmental education center; demolish and rebuild existing park buildings and facilities on 60 acres of City and Santa Clara Valley Water District owned lands. Tentative City Council date: June 20, 2006 Therese Smith, Director of Parks and Recreation, presented the staff report: . Thank you Chair Miller; I am here with Janna Soquel and Christine Schneider, both are consultants working on this project; Janna is the environmental planner and Christine is with Thomas Reed Associates, Environmental Consultants, the preparer of the mitigated negative dec. before you. . Thank you for taking the time tonight to give the public an opportunity to comment on this document. Weare probably three-quarters of the way through the public input period; it started April 28th; the document has been in the library, on the city website and available for review. We are taking comments through May 30. . The public comments received in writing carry the same weight as those given in a meeting; we will treat them all the same, but people have preferences for how they choose to comment. For those watching this televised and webcast meeting, you still have an opportunity to get your input in, and we will respond. . This project has been in the works for a number of years; in its current form as a park planning effort, it has been just over three years. In December of 2002 the City Council gave us their goals for this project, some of which are articulated. The significant ones within the plans in the background section. . We started a public visioning process that some of you may have participated in, in early 2003 when we distributed vision kits and we had a response to this effort that exceeded anything the city ever done, or anything I was ever involved in. . We thought we might get 50 people who would take the time to submit a park plan; in fact we distributed 320 vision kits and over 500 people participated in an effort that really communicated to us that stream restoration was a priority for this property that the city owns, between Stevens Creek Boulevard and McClellan Road. . So with that, we began to prepare a master plan that incorporated a lot of those restoration and environmental goals while retaining some of the use of the corridor that is historical, like the golf course which we found out was very important; and the Council also needed to retain some of the revenue generating capacity of the property. . You will hear more in detail about the changes proposed as Janna and Christine walk you through the project description. . But in essence, Blackberry Farm now operates 100 days a year for profit; it serves up to 4,000 people a day with onsite parking of 1100; beyond that parking is shuttled from Monta Vista. It is closed, although people go into the corridor, there really isn't much there that they can participate in with the exception of McClellan Ranch which is the home to our environmental programming and we hope to make more available to the community and we will talk about those changes. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 5 May 23, 2006 . What we are looking at tonight and with this document is the delta between what is there now and what they are proposing. We are not changing everything that is there now and we hope that the changes we are proposing are an enhancement to the environment, but we are really only evaluating that delta with this analysis. . What we are here tonight to do primarily is listen, give the public an opportunity to comment, give the people at home an opportunity to hear the comments of others while there is still time for them to submit their own. And then at the conclusion of this all those comments will be summarized, forwarded to the City Council and the Council will take final action. Weare hoping to have this back before the Council on June 20. . With that, I will turn it over to Janna and then Christine to give the Power Point presentation. Janna Soquel: . Good evening commissioners and public. Tonight we are going to give you an overview of the Stevens Creek corridor park and restoration plan concepts and then we are going to go through the impacts and mitigations that are associated with that plan. . Our primary purpose is listen to the public tonight in one final summary of all the comments that will be received over the 30 days in this long process in developing the plan and the restoration concepts. . The final comment day will be May 30th and at the end we will also take all the commissioners' comments which will become part of the public record that will be forwarded onto the Council. . Just in brief summary, and I will go into greater detail, but the park and restoration plan focuses on the conversion of the commercial picnic facility at Blackberry Farm into a neighborhood park. It focuses on the restoration of the instream habitat and riparian habitat along the stream banks, all within the 100 year floodplain; it has another component which enhances the upland habitat throughout Blackberry Farm area primarily. . It includes a construction of a trail the full length from McClellan Road to Stevens Creek Boulevard and the development of a new environmental education center at McClellan. The project extends from McClellan Road to Stevens Creek; it includes about 60 acres on both sides of the creek; the vast majority of the focus of the project is indeed within Blackberry Farm. . The trail however runs the length; the stream improvements are ... the majority of them are within Blackberry; there is potential for some improvements within Stocklemeir, although those are viewed more as future improvements, and then there are the environment ed centers at McClellan as well as the trail and the trail includes the rerouting or the reconfiguration of the 4H facilities and a slight expansion of the community gardens to accommodate the trail. . This is ... we have prepared an initial study and a mitigated neg dec., Cupertino is the lead agency; we have also been partnering with the Santa Clara Valley Water District who is a responsible agency and along with many other jurisdictional agencies will be issuing permits for this proj ect. . Weare here tonight as a courtesy to the public at the direction of the Council and that typically a public hearing is not required for a mitigated negative dec. but to include all of those comments, we are having that hearing tonight. . The findings of the CEQA document indicate that the project would enhance habitat for steelhead, and that is the primary reason that the Water District is a partner in the project, and that the negative effects of the project can be avoided or reduced with a minimal number of mitigation measures. . As I mentioned before, the 30 day period began on April 28th; because it ends on Memorial Day weekend, it will actually close on the business day May 30th, and people will have time to send in comments until that date. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 6 May 23,2006 . Pursuant to the CEQA guidelines, which is the California Environmental Quality Act, the city has prepared a mitigated neg. dec. because all impacts could be mitigated to less than significant; as opposed to proceeding with an EIR. . We are stating within the document that in the light of the full record, the project is actually an overall improvement to the habitat and to the environmental values of the corridor. . This is just an overall schedule to allow everyone in the audience to understand the process. The public period will close on May 20th and then May 30th, and then it will be forwarded onto the City Council for their fmal review on June 20th. . Now I am going to walk you through the operational changes and the physical changes that accompany those operational changes. . Blackberry Farm will be open as a neighborhood park 365 days a year; that is a change. The picnic - the commercial picnic area will be maintained as a 100-day a year operation as it has been; however, it will diminish in size from a 4,000 person picnic facility at its maximum capacity which occurred a few days each summer, to an 800 person maximum capacity; and that allows us to change the footprint of the picnic facility and consolidate it all to the west bank. . Additional operational changes include the removal of four instream barriers to fish and other animal passage, up and down the corridor. It includes the development of an environmental education center at McClellan and the development of a multi-use trail for walking, bicycling and dog walking the length of the corridor. . These are the physical changes that will allow the public to enjoy the corridor in new ways. The in stream component ... again, the removal of the four barriers, the realignment of the creek for about 2,000 feet in 3 different locations; one of those locations is at Horseshoe Bend; one is a realignment through the existing parking lot at Blackberry Farm, and one is a potential realignment through the orange orchard at Stocklemeir. . That entire area as well as some in situ improvements near the diversion dam and other low flow crossings will total 3,200 feet of new pool and riffle habitat for steelhead spawning and movement up and down the channel. Riparian planting will be planted along 3,200 feet of these channels on both banks from the low benches within the channel to 25 feet past the top of ban1c In addition there will be 200 foot back water wetland created off the old channel, in addition to a 600 foot willow swale off the golf course. This is a map that gives you a brief overview of the location of the creek realignments, at Horseshoe Bend through the parking lot and through Stocklemeir. The dark black graphic are the riffle areas; the blue circles are the pools. Within 20% of the pools there will be heavy woody debris from downed trees that exist in the corridor this year. That woody debris will provide different, a current in eddies ?? within the channel to create additional fish habitat during the summer months and during high flows. We will be doing an extensive amount of demolition in order to implement this plan. Everything you see in red in this plan is hardscape that will be removed from the corridor; that includes concrete within the creek channel, includes low flow crossings, diversion dams, it includes the parking areas throughout the entire Blackberry Farm area; it includes the picnic structures, the fire pits, the sheds, some of the maintenance buildings that are perched on the edge of the creek. Most of this will be replaced with a permeable surface and reduced in size greatly. The green that you see in this is the removal of trees throughout the corridor in order to support the realignment of the channel. There will also be a vast improvement to the picnic area and the pool complex; the West Bank picnic area which will be the consolidated new picnic facility, will have some underground utilities for water to the sites; central catering building, barbecues that will remain throughout the flood and be flood available. Then the rest of the facilities will be removable, so they can be taken out of the floodplain in the winter months. The I, I 00 style parking area, paved parking area, will go to a 350 vehicle permeable parking area and all of the restrooms will be upgraded to serve the Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 7 May 23,2006 new picnic facility as well as the pool. There will be a new pool entry kiosk and there will be a new bridge that spans between that pool entry kiosk and the west bank picnic area. Folks arriving at the park will be able to park in that facility and follow the trail to either the pool complex if they are coming just to swim, or to the picnic area if they are coming for a paid picnic event. There will be new fencing and paving stones around the pool to make it more usable to families; the heavy chain link fence will be removed and the pooL'lawn area will be fenced in a decorative fence to allow people to walk and come and go to the pool. . The bridge I mentioned is a 14 foot wide bridge, and that would allow for some light duty vehicles to service the picnic area. . The project also calls for the removal of the existing three pedestrian bridges, . This is a brief overview of the picnic complex and pool area; there will also be some improvements to the park entrance. The existing kiosk which is also an office building will be demolished. Vice Chair Giefer: . The last slide you put up with the layout of the park, we couldn't .... That at all, you went through it so quickly. Janna Soquel: . This slide is included in the CEQA document; I don't have the exhibit number, but it shows the dotted line which you see is prominent is the existing creek channel. The hatched line is the new creek channel; and you can see that it bows out into the parking area. . You can see that the parking area has been greatly reduced; the picnic area all along the east bank and all throughout Horseshoe Bend has been removed; that area is all upland restoration; and the picnic (can I touch the screen; I can use the mouse; this might be helpful) . This is the Horseshoe Bend area, all picnicking is removed from here; all picnicking is removed upstream all the way up to the fence that separates this from the McClellan area, and it has been consolidated to the west bank. . This is the bridge that spans the creek connecting the pool entry kiosk to the picnic facility; here is the parking area. The trail comes across from Stocklemeir, comes along the golf course and then actually also serves as the route to the pool. The trail then continues through Horseshoe Bend and onto McClellan. . The parking right now comes all the way out to the drip line of these trees, and this is the dotted line is the existing channel. So we are actually lengthening the creek through this activity and by lengthening the creek, we are allowed to pick up the big grade changes that exist at the low flow crossings where the creek has been incised. . We are pulling the creek back a little bit away from its undercutting at Horseshoe Bend, and this is actually returning the creek here to its historic channel. . This part of Horseshoe Bend was filled over the years and we have aerial photographs that have demonstrated that to us, probably in the days to support the commercial picnic operation. . All of the large significant sycamore trees that are in the area which are native to the corridor will remain, but more of the non-native trees that have grown in this filled area would be removed to pull the channel back. Com. Wong: . So real quick, the reason why you are realigning the creek is to put it back to its historical ... Janna Soquel: . The real reason we are realigning the creek is to enhance the corridor ecologically, and we are Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 8 May 23, 2006 doing that primarily based on the community's number one goal from their visioning process 2-112 to 3 years ago. . But because the community had that as their primary goal for this unique piece of land, the Water District has also partnered with the city and their primary goal was to implement elements of the F AAHCE (Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Collaborative Effort) which was an outgrowth of a lawsuit that had been filed against the District over its management of this particular stream and two others for the endangered species, the steelhead. . And this stream over the years by (end of Tape 1) (some missin1! text) steel head passage, large diversions, roadway crossings, as well as the releases from the dam needed to provide a certain amount of cold water to what is considered in Blackberry Farm and McClellan, the juvenile rearing the habitat of the steelhead. Steelhead is an anadromous fish which comes in from the ocean when conditions are appropriate, swims upstream and spawns here. It is a phenomenal fish and they still return; we still see steelhead as big as laundry baskets in the creek, and this is where the young are raised. There are not many of them, but nonetheless, they are released. Often times they are caught in Mountain View and Sunnyvale, where they are removing barriers there, and lifted, assisted up the stream to rear their young here. And then they return; unlike salmon, they return to the sea again. Therese Smith: . Commissioner Wong, the lengthening of the creek helps create the grade that makes it possible for the fish to get up the corridor naturally. The various low flow crossings over the years have eroded to where if you go out there now, you see little waterfalls. So in order to pick up that vertical drop, you have to lengthen the horizontal reach of the creek. J aooa Soquel: . And actually, you know... a lot of the adult fish can make some of these jumps. But it is the young that live here all summer who are isolated and locked between these physical structures and can't access the habitat up and down the creek because of these barriers, in the summertime when there is only like an inch running over them. . The park improvements - The entry building that exists as you come into Blackberry and make the turn down near the pool would be demoed and a much smaller park entry kiosk similar to a national park would be built to greet visitors coming to the park. , . The conference center and juniper landscaping would be removed and some vehicle parking placed there along with native landscaping around the center. There would be new buffer landscaping adjacent to the one private residence within the park. There would be a pedestrian and bike access created from San Fernando Avenue. . The trail would extend from McClellan to Stevens Creek Boulevard, it would be eight feet wide. It would span the creek near the eighth hole, of the golf course. This is the second of two new bridges that would be constructed in replacement for three that are being removed. There would be a fence to protect trail users from the short distance to the golf course that they are traveling along. The trail would come out to Stevens Creek Boulevard. The sidewalk there would be removed and there would be a nice access to a new crossing at Stevens Creek Boulevard. . In the McClellan end there would be a relocation of the 4H goat pen, down the hill and in addition to that some expansion of the community gardens. . The trail has been sited to minimize grading or removal of vegetation. There will be a total of 187 trees removed as part of the project. Most of those, the vast majority, probably 180 are removed as part of the creek realignment; 22 of the trees ... 22 for trail construction, there are some orchard trees that we counted towards the trail; 12 trees are within McClellan, and 10 are within Stocklerneir. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 9 May 23, 2006 . There is also a small trail head staging area built near the existing restroom to the south end of the pools. That area now accommodates about 200 cars, and serves the Walnut Court picnic areas. That trail staging area, all of that would be demoed and just the 17 car staging area and an upgraded restroom. . Blue Pheasant area has 91 spaces, it will be restriped to increase the capacity by 9 additional spaces. . The environmental education center has been proposed for 2,000 square feet. Under this document it will depend on what type of funding to see what is built; but at least there will be environmental clearance for that amount of building and it would be placed at the pad of the former double wide residence trailer. It is shown in yellow here on this graphic. For those of you who are familiar with McClellan, it is sort of tucked behind the barn, the large bam and there are two palm trees in front of the site. Vice Chair Giefer: . Can you show us where the goat pen will be relocated? Janna Soquel: . Yes, you see the area here, that's in black. This outlines the new area of 4H; their footprint increases a little bit. The goat pen is actually right up in the edge right there. We are moving them down slope a little bit and then adding, I think it is 9 new garden plots in this area. . There will also be quite a bit of upland habitat restoration throughout the area. And this is habitat that would be considered sort of oak grassland and other upland native shrubs. This is not considered part of the riparian habitat, so it is slightly different and it is further away from the creek and has different watering requirements unlike those vegetation that need the stream water throughout the summer. . Maintenance facilities will be upgraded. The golf maintenance facility that is perched on the banks of the creek, down at the end of the existing parking area will be demoed. A new park, golf maintenance would be tucked behind the conference center. . In addition, the park maintenance facility that's down near the proposed 17 car staging area to the south of the pool complex would be updated to be a 1,200 square foot facility. That is about what it is now. . The irrigation system which used to tap into groundwater, and we have been off groundwater for three years due to a rusting of the tank, that stored groundwater will be reconditioned and a cistern onsite will be used to store that water which will be below ground. . And that's it; it is a fairly big project for a small piece of land but that's because there are so many habitat components to it. With that I will turn the presentation over to Christine Schneider who will talk to you about the impacts and the mitigations. Christine Schneider: . Good evening Chair and commissioners; I am Christine Schneider from TRA and I am going to briefly walk through the environmental factors that were affected by this initial study mitigated neg dec. . And again, the reason why we are having this mitigated neg. dec. is because out of all the environmental factors that were ... that exceeded standards of significance, we can apply 11 mitigation measures to mitigate all factors to less than significant levels. That is why we don't have to do an EIR or any other documents. . So I am going to walk through ... I am going to walk you through these mitigation measures very briefly. . First of all the issues: Special set of species within the corridor. There are ... there was quite a few biotic reports were prepared in 2004 and 2005. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 10 May 23, 2006 . In those we found that steelhead as has been mentioned, are present. white tail kite have been present; western pond turtle and 7 other species have been low to moderate potential to be found in the project area. . So of those, we have a series of impacts and mitigation measures and the first impact would be that we have identified is the removal of structures and the removal of vegetation could impact nesting birds. And so then this mitigation measure would ensure that all activities would not impact nesting birds over levels of significance. . Same with impact two. Where we have identified that there is a big brown bat maternity roust at Horseshoe Bend and this mitigation measure would ensure that no impacts would occur, significant impacts would occur to this maternity roust. . Impact three, these are special status species; California red legged frogs, western pond turtles, and dusky footed wood rats. We are saying that the mitigation here would avoid impacting these special status species. . Impact four; again biological resources and we have identified steelhead could parish due to the construction activities that will be going on as part of the proposed project. . Impact five has to deal ... deals with dog use in the corridor; since dog use has its own suite of activities and again dog use is only on the trail. We have identified minimization and avoidance measures to keep dog users and their owners on the trails and we are going to have patrols and citations. There is going to be new city park service employees, volunteer patrols, education, limiting creek use, limiting areas that people who have dogs can access the creek and such. . I should also mention that we are also going to have adapted management and that is really key, especially when you are dealing with putting a new use in an area that does not have the use. Adaptive management in this case means that we are going to monitor what happens. And if anything presents itself as either an impact or some other kind of issue comes up, then we will take different measures. . So the city will be continually monitoring the effects. You know ... are dogs being kept out of the creek; how is it working, that is what adaptive management is all about. . One of the other biological resources impacts that we have identified has been that the trail alignment may affect root zones of native heritage trees. Again, what we are trying to do in the trail alignment is avoid removing trees and we are also trying to avoid any kind of removal of the majority of roots from trees that are not going to be removed. This would ensure that trees would not be removed. There is a lot of really great heritage trees, oaks, sycamores, cottonwoods out there that we don't want to disturb. . Next one has to do with trees as well. That is the tree trimming or removal could violate both the City of Cupertino policies as well as the Department of Fish and Game policies from the State of California. So we would implement, or the city would implement the mitigation which includes replacing Coast Live Oaks at a ratio of 3: 1 and additional tree removal permits if needed. . Impact eight has to do with the cultural resources issues. Any time you are working in a creek there is always the potential to have archeologic resources, and this creek is no different. In fact there has been, there is a known possibility, a recorded possibility of a site on the Stocklemeir orchard, so these mitigation measures that I am going to present to you in the next couple of slides would serve to avoid or reduce impacts to these archeological issues. . In order to facilitate our findings in cultural resources, the City hired a archeological consultant to prepare a dig in Stocklemeir in the orchard, and they did it in February of this year. They did a series of 8 trenches that they dug down to see if they found anything; if they found any presence of any material and they did not. So it is not expected that there will be anything but in the event that something is found, these measures are here to protect the city and to protect those resources. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 11 May 23,2006 . I briefly want to walk through them very quickly. The fIrst one would be that everybody... all the contractors on the site would be briefed on the issue and they would be educated. And then the next three measures here are about what happens if we do find something, just in case we fInd something. Then part time archeological monitoring is required throughout that area to allow for spot checking of subsurface construction. Both inside the boundary of this known archeologic resource area and within the 100 foot buffer zone of that area. . We also have a mitigation measure to reduce or avoid impacts caused by soils with pesticide use in the Stocklemeir orchard since this is an orchard and since it is quite possible that other areas within the corridor have also been used to grow orchard trees before. There could be the possibility that there is pesticide residue in the soil. We want to do some testing to make sure, to ensure the city doesn't have that. . The next issue is hydrology water quality. There is no additional risk of flooding from this project. This project would not either create more flooding or reduce it. The same amount of water is going to come down, and because the pool at Blackberry Farm for example, isn't moving, the same amount of water through that area would come through. . The real difference is the fact that the park is going to be open 365 days per year; right now it is open during the summer. In order to ensure that there are not any hazards to park users during heavy storm events, even though most people don't like to be walking around in heavy storm events, but in case that they would, the city could close the trail corridor or could post signs or do both. . The last one is the land use planning. This has to do with the environmental education center. Since we don't know the exact design at this time, and again it was talked about previously in this presentation that what we are trying to do is create a space that has environmental clearance for a 2,000 square foot environmental ed center. We don't know the exact... how it is going to look, we don't have floor plans; we don't have renderings; we don't have elevations; and so we want to ensure that it is consistent, or the city wants to ensure it is consistent with the McClellan Ranch Master Plan. So this mitigation measure would facilitate that. . So in summary, the findings for the initial study mitigated neg. dec. prepared for this project evaluates only changes to existing conditions; and it states the impacts identified are less than significant with the mitigation measures incorporated that I have just presented. . Implementation mitigation measures included would ensure that all significant impacts from the proposed project would be avoided or reduced to insignificant levels. . Now at this point because the space is ... this hearing is to hold the space to allow the public to comment, I just wanted to mention that all verbal and written comments on this project during the public review will be forwarded to the City Council. In addition, the City Council will consider all conunents received both tonight as well as written in light of the entire project. Chair Miller: . Thank you. . Before we start our questions or the public, could I get an idea of how many people would like to speak tonight? Please raise your hands. Great, that is a fair amount. So what I would like to do then is open the public hearing now and then after we hear all the comments from the public then we will bring it back to the commission and discuss it further. . What I would like to do is if you plan to speak, please fill out a card and when you get up to speak, please give your name and we will allow you three minutes to speak. . The first speaker I have here is Robert Levy. . Robert, welcome. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 12 May 23, 2006 Robert Levy: . Mr. Miller, Mr. Chairperson, members of the Commission, staff members, this is very interesting project which started really to find a way to get a non-paying Stevens Creek Trail through a paying money making facility belonging to the city and to reduce some of the impact of that money making. Other things have seemed to have gotten added along the way. . The only thing I want to talk about in my brief time here is the entry to this new park. I am probably out of date because I am working with an April set of maps in the documentation but my Figure 12, Byrne Avenue access shows a crossing of San Fernando Avenue and then a 4 foot wide boardwalk for pedestrian, bicycle access. That now seems to be from the slides that we saw here made 5 feet wide. . The reason for that separate path, separate access is because the road isn't really wide enough to tolerate bicycles and people, and buses, and cars, except sort of single file in either direction. . The real problem with that is that back in the 60s the entrance to Blackberry Farm was from Stevens Creek Boulevard. When the golf course got put in, the entry was changed to come in from Byrne Avenue. So for a large number of years traffic has been routed up Bubb Road, across McClellan, down Byrne, down San Fernando, going by all sorts of houses and all sorts of facilities on route. . When I first suggested that the entry ought to be from Stevens Creek Boulevard and instead I was told no we can not do that because we would have to relocate some of the golf course. If you look at the Figure 10, the Stocklemeir Master Plan or Figure 19, the Reach C creek alignments, the proponents of this thing have taken a step that I never would have proposed which is don't relocate the golf course, relocate the creek. . And if you look at the amount of creek realignment there is more than enough room to run down from the edge of the parking lot at the Blue Pheasant down along where the creek used to be by these plans and down to the point where it enters the festival parking lot. . By doing that you would not have to build a bridge across Stevens Creek to come from the Stocklemeir property with the Stevens Creek Trail; you could just run that down and along the same entry road. If you are going to have bicycles riding as if they are the main road you might as well have them riding on a road. In addition to which that would then change the San Fernando Avenue exit to a pedestrian and park vehicle only entrance. . Thank. you. Chair Miller: . Thank you Robert. . Next speaker is Rhoda Fry. Rhoda Fry: . I need help. This says red; I want to do slides, Chair Miller: . Okay, could someone help. Mr. Piasecki: . What you need to do is put it there and the video crew will bring it up. Rhoda Fry: . How about the... Can you hear me? Cool. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 13 May 23,2006 Com. Wong: . Can you center that so we can see it better, please. Rhoda Fry: . It looks like it is centered to me. Com. Wong: . There we go, thank: you. Rhoda Fry: . Alright, never be afraid to walk away from a bad deal and this is a bad deal for neighbors of the property, Cupertino citizens and the environment. . Myth: reduction of picnic size reduces impact; only excess capacities removed; turns away Wlmarriageable groups and retains 80,000 - 100 day usage; increases impact in a single locale; 800 used to spread out throughout the park and did damage; concentration in one place does more. . Currently you got 80,000 people and 100 days; proposed 169,000 people and 365 days; that is double the people, double the traffic. We got the worst traffic area of Cupertino. . Our streets are not walkable due to the introduction of the patchwork sidewalks and it is getting worse. Diversion of traffic from the Blue Pheasant parking lot, that which is planned is going to make it worse. By the way, one of the plan, one of the objectives for the City of Cupertino COWlcil was to relocate, analyze, relocating the entrance and it is not even in the documents. . Solutions: · Decrease the usage in the corridor. · B. Increase the parking at Blue Pheasant. Push the golf course in the Blackberry Farm parking lot, solves the night time problems too, and also you need to add a bus turnout at Stevens Creek Boulevard. You got 262 trips, 85 % + non residents. You are talking somewhat only over 200 bus trips a day. Have them walk in a quarter mile, they do it at Red Grove in Los Altos, we can do it here. . Only 8 to 12% ofreservations come from Cupertino. Is this a Cupertino amenity or an arm pit? The plan increases the food service which is not a core accomplishment. . This claims to be good for fish, yet the steelhead were present when there were even more barriers including a 6 foot dam. Predicted impacts are incomplete. No new measurement devices or consequences for excessive dust articulates. . Ifbats are removed what happens to the west nile virus mosquitoes? . Truck trips - assume that workers don't leave for lunch or breaks and of course there is more but I don't have time for that. . Proposed mitigations rely on human intervention. Our experience has shown that the city is incapable of adhering to the simplest of codes, let alone a project of this magnitude. . Where is the ROI? Economic, environmental, and social. Cupertino has acquired a Wlique property, let's get together and create a magical place that it deserves to be. . Thank: you very much and I can't believe I have forty five seconds remaining. I appreciate your attention. Chair Miller: . Maybe I can ask you a question or two. The pictures that you took of the trash in the park. Are they recent pictures or older pictures? Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 14 May 23, 2006 Rhoda Fry: . They are fairly recent pictures. The standard of operations has been to leave trash in open cans all night long. The cans are ... trash cans are tipped over by animals during the night and have created an environmental havoc, and disruption of the animal populations and the environment within the corridor. Santa Clara County Vector Control has been called in on numerous occasions, yet there have only been marginal improvements. Cupertino code says that all cans must be covered. There are still problems. I have more recent pictures as well. Chair Miller: . Okay, so the problems have been ongoing, . Have they been addressed to your knowledge to some extent at this point? Rhoda Fry: . They have been addressed to some extent, yet the ground squirrel problem; the Santa Clara . . .. There is still a ground squirrel problem which has not to my knowledge been addressed. . It was not only required by the Santa Clara County Vector Control but also the Santa Clara Valley Water District because it causes disruption of the creek sides. . You go down there, the ground looks like swiss cheese and it is making the sycamore trees unstable. We need those to shade the creek for the fish. Chair Miller: . And the number of the increase in usage; you got those numbers from where? Rhoda Fry: . I got them from the documents. Although the documents do not list the 262+ non-resident groups that come in on buses. They acknowledge the one such date, but they don't recognize the weeks and weeks of dates that buses go through the neighborhoods. Chair Miller: . Thank you Rhoda. Rhoda Fry: . Thank you very much; I appreciate your time. Chair Miller: . The next speaker is Lee Shodiss. (no response) . The next speaker is Deborah Jamison. Did everyone turn in a card and then leave? Lee didn't respond so Deborah you are on. Deborah Jamison: . Thank you, I am Deborah Jamison, 21-year resident of Cupertino, involved with issues concerning McClellan Ranch since 1990. . I worked with Nancy Hurder, and Lonnie Tonsfelt, leaders of the 70s movement to save McClellan Ranch and have it become the city's first and still only nature of rural preserve. I was appointed to the McClellan Ranch Master Plan Committee which worked for 2 112 years on writing goals, objectives and recommendations to improve the wildlife habitat and educational opportunities in McClellan Ranch, which includes the leased water district parcel, known as the old orchard and the Simms addition on the west side ofthe creek. . I am a naturalist by educational training and have a masters degree in ecology and another in science teaching. My former profession was naturalist and environmental educator. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 15 May 23, 2006 . I have thoroughly read and digested the entire set of documents and I am about half way through writing my comments, questions, concerns and complaints. I cannot begin to explain all these in three minutes and I can only briefly list a couple of them now. I have no time to praise the plan. . My main purpose in speaking before you tonight is to say if you have not read and thought about the project's potential impacts and how the project can be modified to lessen or eliminate them in addition to the mitigation measures offered, I hope you will take the time to do so. . This is a major project. My first comment was submitted a few days after the release of the Initial Study. I protested the 30 day comment period during what is the busiest month for anyone involved in nature birding, wildlife, or gardening. In other words, the city residents who would be most interested in studying the project to date and its anticipated environmental impacts. . This Master Plan is now five years in the process giving citizens a longer period, say 60 days to read this voluminous set of documents and submit their thoughts is not asking too much considering how long we have waited to get this far. . I have sacrificed my income-producing work and organizational commitments to read and respond to this, but I suspect most other interested residents are unwilling to do so. Thirty days may be the city's usual response period for a negative dec., but this isn't a normal project. . The way that the so-called Simms property has been treated over the last few years and the planned continuation of the status quo as described in this study is a betrayal of the public trust and public coffers. . This property was purchased for over $1 million in 1990 and added to McClellan Ranch in City Resolution No. 8933. There was a native plant project on the property; there were designated caretakers living in the Simms house. . Today that property is leased to a private party with no acknowledgement that they are residing on city park land with sensitive habitat that the city purchased to protect. The entire back of the property is now a road bed, parking lot, and construction yard for the private house being built on the adjacent property with no end in site. The native plant restoration area was destroyed. . This whole situation should be an embarrassment to the city. It is unacceptable after waiting 16 years this plan gives no hope that the goals of McClellan Ranch Master Plan for this property or any environmental goals will be met any time in the foreseeable future. . I have many other comments, concerns, questions, and alternative suggestions which will be presented to the city in written fonn. I hope the city is not in such a hurry to approve this negative dec. that you do not take the time to read and understand all of the many facets of this plan and the implications and impacts. . I hope that the city will honor the time that some residents and organizations are taking to respond to these documents and not leave us with the impression that it does not matter what we say. This is a done deal as presented to you. . Thank you very much. Chair Miller: . If you want to take a little more time, please do so. Ms. Jamison: . Okay, thank you. . The plan results in a loss of a small portion of the McClellan Ranch meadow because of the squeezing in of a new trail. In essence, lost community garden plots are replaced in large Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 16 May 23, 2006 because of the trail construction. This riparian meadow is a rare and wildlife valuable asset and should not be sacrificed in any degree for a recreational use that is inconsistent with the mission of McC]ellan Ranch which is clearly spelled out in Ordinance 710, the regulations and guidelines in the Master Plan. . I have a suggestion in my written comments that community gardens be expanded in other places in the city and that the meadow not be sacrificed. The estimates for trail usage are vastly underestimated for when the trail is connected to the Linda Vista Park, the county park and beyond. At that time it will become the regional multi-use recreational facility it was destined to be. It will become an alternative to paying $5.00 to park in the county park lots, esp~cially for mountain bikers. It will become an alternative for over crowded parking lots at Ranch San Antonio that turn away cars every nice weekend. Even without the connection it will become an alternative for those seeking a short walk with kids and bikes to Deer Hollow Farm at Rancho. This trail will provide a very similar use experience and the impacts of bicycles and dogs which the plan aclmow]edges will amplify as the trail is used by more and more people in the years to come. I think that the trail needs to be better contained for dogs and bicyclists; more fencing to protect the restoration areas and to protect McClellan Ranch from the inevitable off trail usage that such trails engender. The effectiveness of the mitigation measures is wholly dependent on the quality the project, the management, and the long term monitoring, enforcement, ongoing restoration of deteriorators ... deteriorated areas and commitment on the part of the city. Ultimately the commitment over the years to McClellan Ranch does not inspire confidence that this will be done right and that the impacts will be mitigated. This brings up the same point that Rhoda said that the track record of the city is not good and it is not inspiring a lot of confidence that all these mitigation measures will be properly instigated. The 17 car parking lot that is in the section of B]ackbeny Farm for a trailhead, I am opposed to. I think that all the parking should be consolidated in a large parking lot and that cars should not be invited down this narrow corridor. lbat trailhead should be a very small trailhead for bicyclists and pedestrians and not cars. People can walk; people can walk from the main parking lot to access the trails. They can park at the two parking lots at either end and access the trail. They don't need to invite parking into the middle of Blackberry Farm like that in the 17 car lot. . I will stop. Do you have any questions? Chair Miller: . I believe we do. Com. Chien: . Thank you Chairman Miller. . Deborah, I know ... I was on the Parks and Rec Commission back in 2003 when we started this public hearing process and I know you have been very passionate. . In particular, I have noticed when we were out there, you and I joined the city naturalists to go out to McClellan Ranch preserve and walk that property. . Your concerns mainly focused on that particular property. So with respect to the preserve, would you say your feeling about it has changed or has it remained the same? If it has changed, what's caused it? Deborah Jamison: . You mean with regards to this Master Plan or in genera]? Com. Chien: . With regards to the Master Plan and how it plans out the preserve. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 17 May 23, 2006 Deborah Jamison: . I am very concerned about the impacts to wildlife. I think. that some of the mitigation measures are good, but I am not confident that they will actually carried out in long term and that monitoring and re-restoration will be done in those areas that are impacted by misuse of the trail. . I am concerned about blue bird nesting in the old orchard area. I am concerned about the hooded orioles nesting in the palm trees and I am very opposed to reduction of the meadow. . That riparian meadow is a rare type of habitat. In the days when we had agriculture in the valley, a meadow or field next to a riparian zone, next to a creek was a common thing. Now it is a very rare type of habitat and it is that habitat that creates the great biodiversity in McClellan Ranch. . It is the juxtaposition; it's the ecotone created when a riparian woodland is contiguous with the field, and I think sacrificing even one inch of that meadow is not only the wrong thing to do, but it is in ... it is in clear violation of the mission of McClellan Ranch to preserve ... preserve. That is why the city made it a nature and rural preserve, not... . And yes, the gardens are a very popular program. There is a waiting list for those gardens, and it is time for the city to create some community garden opportunities fOT other. .. in other places in the city, particularly on the east side. . And it is not an environmental solution, that people from the east side driving all the way to the west side of McClellan Ranch. McClellan Ranch should not take the brunt of the entire recreational need for community gardens. It is time to put some more community gardens somewhere else. Com. Chien: . Thank you very much. Deborah: . Any other questions? Chair Miner: . Any other questions for Deborah? . Thank you Deborah. . Our next speaker is Jennifer Griffin. J enniler Griffin: . Good evening Planning Commission; I am Jennifer Griffin. . I am a long-time resident of this area; I attended local schools; I have very fond memories of Blackberry Farm picnics my junior high and senior end of the school year. . I understand that this is a project of great scope and magnitude, and obviously it is going to take a great deal of thought by the city. . I was very pleased a number of years ago when I heard that Cupertino had purchased Blackberry Farm to protect it. I think that happened in 1990 if I am not mistaken. I think it was a wonderful plan to have the park available; it will be nice to have it available to residents now. . Obviously there are a number of issues because of the increased use of the park. Rancho San Antonio having grown up near that area, I have seen the proliferation of people using Rancho San Antonio Park from the first days that it had opened, and it has absolutely snowballed into just a very important regional park. But I am very concerned about Blackberry Farm getting to that magnitude. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 18 May 23, 2006 . You have some very very congested areas in Manta Vista and the entrance to Blackberry Farm has been ... has had problems in the past, having gone down that little road on a school bus many many times. . Please make sure that any oak trees that are removed from the area are replaced with correct species, field grown oak trees; they are available. Stanford has had extensive replanting programs of young oaks on their lands that have been very successful. . Since this is the first time that the park has been opened up to public access, we have families using the park; children on bicycles. . I understand people with the dogs do use the park now. Hopefully people will be sensitive to keeping dogs on leashes. I am particularly concerned about squirrels; dogs will chase squirrels. . You have a number of sensitive riparian areas there. You also have a number of areas where bikes are probably not appropriate near creek beds. Having three brothers, I know how wonderful it is to get into areas in the spring when there are lots of mud. . I do hope that people who use the park and have dogs or using bicycles will be good members of the public and keep dogs on leashes, on trails, where they are supposed to be and have a good use of bicycles and not take them down into creek beds unless that is as the city dictates. . I understand there is a native fish population; hopefully that can be brought back. Is the water controlled through Stevens Creek at this time? . Also too, please have increased security of bicycle patrol officers. I think it is very important. . Thank you very much. Chair Miller: . Thank you Jennifer. . The next speaker is Audrey Butcher. Audrey Butcher: . I was born in an orchard, still live in one, and knew both Gladys and Louie Stocklemeir. . I am concerned about those ten trees that you are removing. What are those ten trees? The Stocklemeir trees? Chair Miller: . We will answer your questions later. If you would just give us your comments and if you have questions, I will make sure we will answer them before the end of the hearing. Audrey Butcher: . Well I did not understand why ten trees should be removed from that property. I wasn't able to see the map very clearly. . I don't think trees should be removed from an orchard because it destroys the unity and you can no longer disk or spray properly. But those orange trees do not need spraying. I have 18 orange trees that my father in law planted over 100 years ago and we never spray them and they are healthy and they produce lots of oranges. I don't know why any trees should be removed from the Stocklemeir orchard. . I am glad that you have wood rats in your oak trees because there should be; we have them with our oak trees. . I am also a little concerned with those bridges because there should be some way to be certain that bicycles walk across those bridges. I no longer am a bicyclist so I can say what I want about those who use them. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 19 May 23, 2006 . But my son, daughter and I were assaulted in hoity toity Los Gatos by bikers. We were observing an art exhibit on the bridge but they thought we should get out of the way because they were more important than we were. . Thank you. Chair Miller: . Thank you Audrey. . Our next speaker is Andy Butcher. Andy Butcher: . I am living on a ranch currently that has been in the family for 125 years, and I have had a chance to go up and take a look at the Stocklemeir orchard and I would like you to take a lot of consideration for all those beautiful persimmon trees that are on the north end of the property. I have never seen persimmon trees as beautiful as those and those really need to be protected. . I have read a couple of conflicting ideas about the orchard. I have heard one person that all the orange trees will be removed completely and not replaced. I have also heard they would be replaced with apricot trees. . I think a lot of concern ought to be given to what you want to do with this property. I personally wouldn't mind if it were replaced with habitat, but don't tell my family or other orchardists that. . I am glad that with the present alignment of the river that you have taken into concern its. gradient and consequent erosion. I think it is very important to be aware of that and I actually hope more than, may I say this simply naturalist, I have a degree in horticulture and I am a full time gardener for Stanford, I am active with the CMPS; but I hope that... I am sorry, that orchard needs to have its integrity retained. . As far as the alignment of the river. any increase ... any shortening of the length of it is going to increase the velocity and increase the erosion. It looks like you have taken that into consideration. I hope that you really look at this lady's document when she is finished with it. It sounds like she really is on the ball. . Thank you. Chair Miller: . Would it be alright if I asked you a few questions sir? . You said the orchard needs to have its integrity remain. Could you comment on that why that is important? Andy Butcher: . Well whenever you have a margin on an orchard, you have a problem with pests on the outside. You have a root problem, it is difficult to disk. You put a path through it. you have doubled its margin. You have impacted the integrity of that orchard. . I can see how it would be nice to have people traveling through it and there might be a way to do it on a temporary basis, with a temporary path. . I know that there are federal standards for bike paths and so forth. Maybe we could do something a little more innovative than carve up the orchard. Chair Miller: . Thank you. The next speaker is Nicole Rau. Nicole Rau: Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 20 May 23, 2006 . Good evening; I am a terrible speaker but I felt like I should have a say tonight and I agree with Deborah. I wish we had much more time because there is so much that could be said with this plan coming up. . My main concern right now is also the orchard at Stocklemeir; where I wish there was a way we can do an alternative plan and not have to carve away so many trees and threaten some of the blue birds and other birds that nest in the area. . Right now I am working and helping out at the Cupertino Historical Society and I have recruited a couple of students who are working on the education program and I had always hoped in the future we could use the orchard as part of our education program, because so many have disappeared in the area and there are now shopping centers; and so many children do not have an idea where their food is coming from. . It is good to have an environmental project but if the orchards are missing, it is missing actually a big part of their history about the area as well; which I would hope we could integrate that and have both like our national history as well as the history of the area and preserve that in some way with the Stocklemeir property. . Some other concerns I also have are also liability with increased visitors passing through the Stocklemeir area as well as restroom use; if there will be enough and if so will they be going through Stocklemeir. . Also the cost of security enforcement, with the increase of people on the trails. I would hope that in the future there could be a joint benefit project but I think there does need to be a great deal of revision and some things worked out with this. . I hope we can preserve the orchard and keep that as educational resource for students. . And now the trail will not only be for hikers, but also for seniors, and students or other people who might have an interest in the area. . Thank you. Chair Miller: . Thank you. Nicole, we have some questions. Vice Chair Giefer: . On the Stocklemeir property, where would you suggest a trail be placed? Nicole Rau: . I actually in honesty I just found out about the plans the night before and the maps are very very difficult to read. . An eight foot paved trail or they are saying a permanent trail, is that asphalt or is that going to be paved? Vice Chair Giefer: . It is a pervious... after reading the report it is some non-toxic permeable surface. Nicole Rau: . I would definitely have to have a clear view of the map and look at alternatives and would hope there could be other routes. Vice Chair Giefer: . Thank you for that. Chair Miller: . Thank you. The next speaker is Mike Foulkes. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 21 May 23, 2006 Mike Foulkes: . Thank you Mister Chair and members of the Planning Commission. I am Mike Foulkes here today as a board member of the Cupertino Historical Society. . I think Nicole's comments were dead on and so I am here it give a little more of a historical flavor. I think the overaIl document that has been discussed has a lot of good pieces to it and I think there is obviously a lot of work that has gone into it. . But Blackberry Farm is the focus and I think at the Historical Society that is our problem is that the focus on Stocklemeir is fairly non-existent. I think you have heard from several speakers about the orchard, . Part of this goes back to when the Historical Society went to City Council. As you all know the Stocklemeir house since the city bought has remained derelict and is in great disrepair and many worry that it is not going to last very much longer if we don't do major work on it. . So the city has had ongoing discussions with the Historical Society about coming and taking over that property and working on it. In fact we have a memorandum of understanding with the city on this and we have gone out and doing surveys and raising money, etc. . The problem we have is that we have always envisioned having the Stocklemeir property not just the house. This plan unfortunately and perhaps for reasons of golf or oilier reasons cuts the property in half, takes away a huge portion of the orchard which is critical to the plans that we have been envisioning to make that to raise the funds to help with Stocklemeir property and takes and puts the path, the walkway right in between the property, really making it useless for most educational activities that we have envisioned. . So while I understand there are some rationale for iliat in the overall plan, it really does devalue this whole area and makes it very difficult for us to fiIl the mission that we have been contemplating for the several years with the city. . My concern is, in iliis document there is lots of millions of dollars are going to be spent on restoration and upgrading of facilities. . There is nothing in here for the Stocklemeir home. If we are truly going to cut up the Stocklemeir ranch and kind of destroy the ranch aspect of it and reaIly make it more of a restoration project which is the choice ofthe city, then it is going to be very difficult for us to bring in the resources and I would hope that if the city is going to destroy the orchard as a education tool and then iliere at least is consideration to and funding to really restore the Stocklemeir property because I don't know it is something our organization can do. I know we have several board members who will probably elaborate on that. Thank you. Chair Miller: . Thank you Mike. . Next speaker is Mark McKenna. Mark McKenna: . Good evening commissioners. I am Mark McKenna, I am representing .. I am President of Cupertino Chamber of Commerce. I actually hate following Mike Foulkes because he says everything so eloquently. . So what I would like to first say is on June 3rd we are having our 40th anniversary dinner; it is $100 per person and you are more than welcome to come. . Having said that I would also like to echo some of the comments that have already been said earlier. . Moving the creek over, moving the trail over, it is kind of a slice and dice of that property, and it makes it useless to us. If the creek stays where it is, soils won't not be disturbed and we won't have to worry about mitigating for pesticides. We would really love to see a trail go Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 22 May 23, 2006 right down along where the present creek is, where we can display the orchard and the creek and we can do interpretive classes on the two of them. -Thank you for your time. Chair Miller: - Thank you. The next speaker is Joe Walton. Joe Walton: . Thank you Chair Miller, and thank you commissioners for working hard on this project; it is a big one and I think it is going to be a great one when it gets done. . I am Joe Walton and I am going on forty years of residence of our fair city. I serve on the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission and have for some years. I represent the City of Cupertino to the VT A on bicycle and pedestrian issues. _ The park has served as a safe route to school for many many years. The City Council, I think at their last meeting decreed that the gate would be closed and no more people would pass through the park from Scenic Circle Drive. _ The problem is that it is a safe route for students going to our three schools, middle school, high school and elementary school. Particulary for those on bicycles traveling in the morning and in the afternoon on McClellan Road is a very dicey prospect. The road is not large enough to permit a bicycle lane or striping for bicycles. So as consequence the students is at risk. . Formerly, bicyclists and students walking to school could utilize that path from Scenic Circle across the park and coming out on Byrne Avenue and an easy walk to school. So that has been closed, but I think it needs to be re-thought and reopened as a controlled path, not a public path, not a western gateway to the park, but rather for students use only. It would be open before, during, and after school hours for a limited time; and then it would be closed. Obviously it would be closed on the weekends and when summer gets here it would be closed all the time. But it is an important path and I think we have just recently a young student bicycling to school who was collided with a car, even though he was not run over, I don't think: seriously hurt, but it highlights the fact that if we allow that situation to continue that we are going to have many more people contending with the terrible traffic and as a consequence suffering injurious injuries. _ So that is my pitch to give some consideration of the reopening of a pathway across the park. I have a letter I sent along to Director Smith; I think: you have gotten that so it will be in your packet and it will go on to City Council. . I think it is an important consideration. If you have any questions I am up for them, otherwise I will repair. Chair Miller: . We have a question for you. Vice Chair Giefer: - Thank you for joining us this evening. _ On the current plan there is a light weight vehicle, one bridge that may accommodate students potentially from Scenic Circle and I was just wondering if you have any thoughts on the placement of that particular bridge? Joe Walton: . If you were to... I understand you are taking bridges out, I am not familiar with the plan exactly, but the pathway comes down at probably the lowest road elevation to the elevation of Cupertino Planning Conunission Study Session & Regular Meeting 23 May 23, 2006 the park itself, it is slightly downhill. . If there is a bridge some place in that vicinity that would accommodate walking and bicycling that would be great. At the other side of the park, on the east side of course they just pedal out the entrance. But some consideration should be given. Vice Chair Giefer: . Great, thank you. Chair Miller: . Thank you Joe. The next speaker is Joyce Eden. Joyce Eden: . Hello, thank you for taking public comments. I appreciate the work that is going into this plan. I appreciate the City of Cupertino for buying these properties with the intention of preserving them. . You are probably all aware that this is, especially McClellan Ranch Park is an incredible treasure for the city of Cupertino and for the future of our children and grandchildren. I love it and I want the habitat preserved and we have the beautiful gift from the previous City Councils of having it designated as a preserve so I am very interested in the focus remaining on that. . Since the other properties are contiguous and go along the creek and have important habitat, and I am going to guess there is species there we don't even know about. Let's try and preserve that; so I do oppose a wide trail that includes bikes. . I have been waiting probably for at least a decade, maybe longer for the bike trail from Stevens Creek Boulevard to go through to Rancho San Antonio, so I would urge you to put funds into that vs. widening a wide trail for bikes along this river corridor. . I have three boys, they are grown now, but let's not fool ourselves about a bike path, unless you have some plan that I can't imagine which you could, but I highly doubt it, of how you are going to keep the kids from going off bike or even the high intensity bike racers that might want to go there from on their way to Stevens Canyon Road or Foothill South, whatever it is called now. That is a big concern. . I did hear Miss Giefer mention permeable path; however I have seen this happen in way too many national parks where the intention was to have a permeable built path and it ended up to be paved; so just wondering about that plan. . The bat habitat - I understand there is bat habitat that may be destroyed from the configuration and that is really not a good idea. They do eat a lot of mosquitoes and we want to keep that. . We want to keep the quiet atmosphere there; the slow quiet atmosphere which is the problem with the bike path through there. As you know I am a biker, but not there. . I understand that there is going to be a new snack bar, and I am very concerned with that because again people since there is going to be a trail, people will be carrying their snacks and the wrappings and I imagine it will get out of control and thinking of mitigation, oh there is going to be garbage cans, oh there will be clean x amount of times; it won't happen. It just won't end up happening. . So the less that "if we build it they will come" in terms of those kinds of things, the better. And also the issue of keeping the bikes on the trails as I said. . The 15 ... the 17 car parking lot in the middle of the property; please don't do that. Let's keep the vehicles out as much as possible and that's adding those 17 places in the middle there is really not a good idea. . I am not sure how the configuration works but I heard people talk about the children passing Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting through and I do support the kids having a pathway and a bike way going to the schools. Maybe there is a card they can use with the gate, some kind of configuration like that. It is very important. We want the kids to walk and bike to school. . Another aspect of the snack bar, please don't make this a cash cow. It's real easy to make a public land into a cash cow for the city. Let's pay for things through our taxes and not try to do that. . The same goes for all the construction. Construction, mitigation; oh keep so far from the riparian zone, don't knock over the trees, and so on. This never works, so please understand. You are bringing in big vehicles; there is going to be damage beyond, way beyond what is planned for. So the less construction, the less big bulldozers and cranes the better. . Oh, and I do want to say about the monitoring. Unless you put monitoring into this plan and you put long term funds for monitoring, it will drop by the wayside; it won't happen. . Also, I want the bird habitat preserved; when you have dead trees that is habitat; it is not just a dead tree and it is very important. . Thank you very much. . Oh, and I ask you please, if you don't read the plan, read the public comments. Please do that. . Thank you. 24 May 23, 2006 Chair Miller: . Thank you Joyce. The next speaker is John Kolski. John Kolski: . Good evening commissioners and staff. My name is John Kolski. I am a 61-year native resident of Cupertino and have lived on my family property since it was purchased in 1902. . I am here speaking for myself and six of the oldest and longest native members of this community who had extensive acres of orchards in our city and founded our city. And I believe we all wouldn't be enjoying our city today if it wasn't for the older founding members of our community which we should honor. . They all and I would like to save the Stocklemeir orchard as a heritage orchard. We have only that orchard to save now. Sunnyvale has a nice, that Charlie Olson takes care of, a nice heritage orchard and we really don't; we have little bits and pieces of what is left from all the old ranchers in this community and not one left complete orchard. . There is some problems in talking to the old timers about changing that orchard. . One - that is a really well preserved orange orchard and I realize that the descendants of the Stocklemeirs never liked their parents having an orange orchard, and that they would have rather having to have had other fruit there but that's not really a reality there according to the old timers. . That orchard produces a lot of oranges. . Right now it needs constant pruning; it needs disking; it doesn't need spraying. It needs to be just maintained. But the problem that that orchard has with replacing any of the trees with other trees, stone fruit, prune trees, apricot trees, anything other than walnut trees is the oak root fungus. . And oak root fungus thrives in the ground at Stocklemeirs just like any other place where it has constant water supply. Moving the creek only helps make the oak root fungus worse in the whole area of that orchard because you bring the water closer to the trees. Orange trees and walnut trees survive; apricot trees and prune trees, and almost anything else after a few years will die in that oak root fungus conditions of over moist soil continually month after month, year after year. . The trail that would go through the center of it creates another problem as you have heard tonight; that you are impacting the ground; you are cutting off the natural water supply from Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 25 May 23,2006 the surface and you are cutting off the air supply to the trees. . You also bring a factor in that has been brought up tonight and I wonlt dwell on it, is the impact of the trail and then the impact of the people walking off the trail around trees. I think we all know that's a problem around the root systems oftrees. . Chips - there have been chips ... wood chips spread on that orchard already that I think some of, if you don't mind me saying some of the old timers really got upset about because they used to take care of the Stocklemeir orchard for Mr. Stocklemeir. They have been disked in, that cuts off the air and stops the weeds from growing. We all understand what chips do in your yard but it stops the air and the water from going in. It is terrible. . Fruit trees also bring another problem to that orchard area. It is debatable of how bad of a problem. If you put peaches or apricots or prunes, or plums in there; you are going to have ... if you think you have a deer problem there now, you are going to have a bigger deer problem because it is a sweet fruit. The stone fruits are a sweet fruit and they will eat the fruit. On an apricot tree they will strip the leaves from the tree and the trees will die. The deer will kill the trees. . Orange trees are a little big, they have bitter leaves so they don't eat the oranges obviously because of the rind on the oranges. They usually don't eat the leaves, at least they donlt strip an orange tree to where there are no leaves to get air and water from the top of the tree. . That orchard needs to be disked. I have gone to the city quite a few times and I think Steve will go along with that and had people volunteer to disk that orchard. . Everybody thinks that the orchard needs to have the weeds growing and doesn't need to be disked. The ground needs to cultivated; the ground needs to get air and water through it and the orchard just needs to be taken care of. . I think. we owe it to our founding members of our community that are still alive to have at least one place left that brought us all here to Cupertino in the ftrst place. . Thank. you for your time. Chair Miller: . Thank. you John. . We are back to Lee Shodiss; is Lee Shodiss in the room? . I am out of speaker cards. Does anyone else wish to speak on this issue, on this item? . Okay, I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the Commission. Vice Chair Giefer: . I would like to start with a couple questions for staff with regards to the project. . After reading the packet that we received and I did read all of it, the ftrst question I have is why canlt we restore the creek where it currently is? Why are you proposing changing the placement of the creek? ... Anybody. Therese Smith: . Any of us could do it. . The biggest issue is that the removal to impediments to ftsh passage. There is actually a couple things going on but one of the signiftcant ones is that hydrologically, and there has been a lot of engineering done for this. This is not something that has been taken lightly; and a lot of alternatives generated. . We were looking for a system that would be self maintaining; we donlt want a lot of fish structures that require maintenance and could potentially be eroded. We need to achieve a certain gradient; we need to replace spawning habitat, spawning gravels. We need to take care of some areas that are undercutting; replace some areas that are artiftcially filled with the creek channel itself and reconnect that channel to the floodplain. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 26 May 23, 2006 . Janna could probably go into this at great length, but in order to improve the habitat for spawning fish, it is necessary to have a gradient long enough that picks up the vertical drop, that has eroded over years of misuse of the creek. It is actually about driveways through it. Low flow. Vice Chair Giefer: . Right, I walked the property again this morning or this afternoon, but I could not help but look at the creekbed where it is today and wonder why you can't either engineer the soil to ... and again I am not a hydrologist, whatever the right term is ... but it just seemed to me it would take a lot more effort to realign and we would lose many more trees, than to try and remedy the problems we have in the current creek. Christine Schneider: . Maybe I could elaborate on Therese's response a little bit. . We looked at restoring the creek within its self, in situ; and part of it is going to be done it that manner. The part from the Blackberry Farm fencing to the walnut orchard down to about the first low flow can be done in situ, within the existing channel; but that area is not as deeply incised and down cut. . It almost looks, when you look at the area along the parking lot today, it almost looks like it is a levy creek channel out near the bay; it is not. It is so deeply incised that it floods; it doesn't even connect to the floodplain. . All of Blackberry Farm, all of Stevens Creek Corridor is in the 100 year floodplain; and now the typical ten year flood just flushes through that area and drains to the bay. It doesn't overbank; it doesn't feed those trees any longer; you; you don't see baby sycamores out there; you see big majestic trees that are reaching the end of their life span and falling down. . If we were to fix it within the channel, the solution there was all hardscape. It was stoned, hand placed stone pools, mortared in place that would break up that gradient and that you would series of six inch step pools all the way down, very hard in structure which minimizes your ability to plant within the creekbanks, because you are trying to plant within concrete and boulders. It does allow the fish to move but it doesn't enhance the rest of the habitat. It further disconnects the creek from the floodplain. So by lengthening it and widening it, laying those creekbanks back we are able to do so much more for the ecological function of the corridor. So where we could do it in place we did. . We also then, the Stocklemeir orange orchard has raised a lot of concern tonight and I think I should address the golf course area. We wanted to restore that portion of the creek actually in situ in the channel. However, in that area the entire edge of the golf course is lined with shot creek, rip rap, poured concrete, and it is all over time decaying and being undermined, collapsing and falling apart. . We wanted to widen that creekbank out and we are limited by a major sewer line that runs almost immediately adjacent to the creek through most of that portion of the area. Our only fix in situ is to pull all the concrete out and put in a poured concrete vertical wall along that portion of the creek to protect the sewer line and then to create a very low bench where we could do some planting in the bottom of the channel, very minimal and then we could plant no trees at the top of it because you have a sewer line to deal with as well. . We could have done that as well, that was one of the options. No one was going to want to put money into that; it's not environmentally sensitive. So in that case we thought of what else can be done in that area, in the absence of completely ripping out a sewer line which would require a pump station and all the other things associated with it; and that was to flip- flop the creek and the habitat that is along the Stocklemeir property is still in great shape. . There are beautiful oaks that provide the oak fungus to the orchard; there are beautiful Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 27 May 23, 2006 buckeyes, sycamores and by transitioning the creek to the other side, you maintain water connection to those existing trees and then you are able to replant the whole other side. It does impact the orchard significantly. It is a tradeoff between natural habitat versus historical orchard. . That orchard is actually relatively new; it is 30 to 40 years old. Prior to that time this was a pick and pay walnut orchard that was sprayed; and we're concerned about pesticides because ofthat use. . Over time the front end of the property is still historic walnut orchard and persimmon and a variety of other citrus trees as well as some olive and some kumquat and some loquat all within that area. That area is indeed preserved but the orchard trees closest to the riparian habitat would be lost; and I don't know the exact count; I could give that to you. 87 orange trees would be lost; about half the orchard. Maybe that is a long answer as to why we couldn't fix it in place. Vice Chair Giefer: . I heard several different things that were going on at once. With regards to the Stocklemeir property, I actually heard that there was an alternative. It may not be the one you like but it sounds like you did investigate another alternative. Christine Schneider: . Yeh, there is an alternative. . It would essentially be a wall like this. Vice Chair Giefer: . So moving on, my next question is in regards to the tree replacement. . You are proposing a 3:1 replacement for the native species trees that are lost; and oak which is probably several hundred years with three acorn species of similar oaks as opposed to field grown oaks. . Is that right? Did I misunderstand that in the report that your tree replacement will be.. I can tell you where it is in your appendices. Christine Schneider: . I know where it is. . Let me say too that the tree report is as aggressive as possible. Let me look at that particular tree that you bring out. I don't even think that tree is actually coming out. Is it, let's see. Vice Chair Giefer: . We didn't have a tree map so when I walked the property I was actually unable to pick out which trees that they were that were ... Christine Schneider: . It is on the demo plan, but you don't have a tree by tree by tree. Vice Chair Giefer: . I am very concerned. I am sorry, it is a 91 inch circumference on the tree. . Now, my question is you're proposing to replace them with basically one or two inch sprouted acorns. Is that correct? Christine Schneider: . There are three large oaks that are of that significance... Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 28 May 23, 2006 Vice Chair Giefer: . There is more than three. Christine Schneider: . Well no, of that size that are in that area and they are actually on the west bank picnic area where the creek cut would come through. Vice Chair Giefer: . But you are proposing that you replace them with acorns? . So you are going to replace a 90 inch circumference oak tree with three trees this size. Janna Soquel: (?) . First of all let' s separate the two issues. . There's.,. this whole project really strove to reduce tree loss and there are some places where trees will be lost; but there are over 4, 000 trees within the whole Stevens Creek corridor. Vice Chair Giefer: . No, I hear you and that is not my issue. . I understand that, but we would never let a developer come to us and say I want to cut down a 100-year old oak tree and I am going to put in three sprouted acorns. Christine Schneider: . The reason for that is that we are trying to maintain the genetic integrity of the corridor, and if we were to put in a boxed oak tree, a 36 inch box which you would typically require of a developer who was removing such a large tree; it would not be of the Stevens Creek corridor watersheds stock. . And as a matter of fact, box trees over time are out compete by that acorn within a 15 to 20 year period; and actually the acorn tree actually does better. This is particularly the case if you were to plant a one gallon versus a 15 gallon tree. Within 3 to 5 years that young tree, the smaller tree would be much larger than the 15 because the root development in the specific soil conditions is what benefits that particular tree; and you collect an acorn from onsite. . This would be probably actually be required by the jurisdictional agencies in the area as well. Therese Smith: . I was just going to mention the Water District guidelines for native plantings are that if you cannot provide stock from within the watershed you have to plant an exotic. Because they do not want the cross-contamination between the species that are watershed specific and ones that were cultivated in other watersheds. . So we may be required by permit, this document is also written for the benefit of the permitting agencies; and we suspect that is going to be required of us. Vice Chair Giefer: . Have you considered transplanting? Christine Schneider: . Transplanting does not work. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 29 May 23, 2006 Vice Chair Giefer: . It worked across the street. . We had TaylorWoodrow dig up heritage sized oak trees, box them up and replant them. Christine Schneider: . It is possible to do that in certain locations, yes. . The three trees that are of significant size are too large to be moved. Some of the .... Vice Chair Giefer: . You have some smaller ones. Christine Schneider: . And the smaller ones are all against an actual roadway and they are all in poor condition and would be difficult to move because the root mass is so stilted already. Vice Chair Giefer: . Okay, the other question that I have is in general I felt the negative dec. was very biased against dogs and dog owners; and we have coyotes running around as well as dogs. . Now, I dontt know the background of what people are doing in this park, because it is not one that I walk in often, but... and I think that Deborah Jamison probably did the best job of anybody of talking about the wildlife habitat in McClellan Ranch and why it makes sense to only keep them on the trail in that area. . And I am not suggesting that dogs be allowed in the creek, but I think you need to allow them anywhere else people are allowed in the Blackberry Farm portion, in the picnic areas. . This will be the only park in Cupertino that dogs are not allowed. (urn hmm) Therese Smith: . The dog issue was one that didn't really come up until we were drafting the document and I insisted that.. that the current operation of Blackberry Farm is that during the 100 days it is opened, dogs are not allowed and there are no dogs allowed. . But last winter I moved out to Blackberry Farm to work for a couple of months so I could see how the place operated. What I noticed is that this is people drive there to walk their dogs in the morning. This is what they use it for; and so I thought we had to provide ... and I can tell you the biological team wasn't excited about this, but we had to provide some opportunity for dog owners and then if during this environmental review it fell out, it would fall out. . Having an 800 person picnic area with the potential for several hundred dogs at anyone time just does not seem like a good idea to me. Vice Chair Giefer: . And I am not suggesting that the pay for picnics bring their dogs but the people who are walking that might just go off trail to have a snack or have lunch or something, you know. . I would be breaking the law if I brought my dog. Therese Smith: . That is correct; if your dog was on a leash, however, you could walk it. Vice Chair Giefer: . We are going to walk it on the trail. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 30 May 23, 2006 Therese Smith: . We are going to have to balance the habitat. Vice Chair Giefer: . And I am not suggesting that anybody go walking through the habitat, dogs or people, because we want to retain that as habitat; and I am not seeing that you are suggesting people swim in the creek either. . I am not suggesting dogs swim in the creek either; but I just think that it is too limiting as a plan for us to not allow dogs to go where people are in the Blackberry Farm portion. I am not . .. my comments do not apply to McClellan Ranch at all. Therese Smith: . Well that is an interesting comment. We will take that into consideration. . Enforcement is going to be very difficult. Vice Chair Giefer: . I think that if you allow dogs to stay on the path walking through McClellan and if you have specified free picnic areas for people who are walking through McClellan to go to Blackberry from the neighborhoods who happen to have their dogs. . I would like there to be a place where I can legally, with my dog on a leash, sit and have a snack. Therese Smith: . There will be tabIes on the 17 person parking area, which is .. the plan is hard for me to read; it is right here ... It is hard to see it.. there is actually because it is under this red; but there is a small trailhead with 17 parking spaces, a restroom, and there will be some picnic tables there. . Oh yeh, here is the existing softball diamond, right there; and it will be right adjacent to that. I have heard some comments about that parking being in the center of the park. The rationale for that is that the Council was very specific that during the time Blackberry Farm west bank. picnic area, that 100 days a year when that's a for-profit operation, they wanted, and you actually enter through a kiosk and pay to go to that parking lot. They wanted to have a place for people to park and not have to go through the kiosk. That was a specific ... that was Council direction that we provide that kind of opportunity outside the pay-for area; and that is right along the trail. That little area would be available to you. Vice Chair Giefer: . I mean a bigger, easier to post "no dogs there" and then if ... your report consistently said there was a issue with dog droppings, but I observed no dog bags as you see at every other public park. It makes sense, they are not allowed there right now; so you bring your own bags. I don't see the same problem in other parks that I visit; that people don't curb their dogs or pick up after them. . I was very pleased to see that there is a 2,000 square foot environmental center proposed at McClellan Ranch. . I was also very displeased that I saw no green building philosophy or sustainability for that; and I am wondering what your ... I am interested in your comments on how you are going to improve the sustainability and make the buildings that will be rebuilt and new buildings and what your plans are for sustainability and green building in this park. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 31 May 23, 2006 Therese Smith: . Well, that is the goal and I thought that was in the document. !fit isn't, it was an oversight.. Vice Chair Giefer: . I didn't see a word about making a green building or using green building principals or working on self sustaining or photophotaic or anything. Therese Smith: . That is specific Council direction. Vice Chair Giefer: . Okay, that is good to hear; I am pleased to hear that. . I am just going through my notes here because I have many. . I was just curious, in the 4H; it has been along time since I visited the 4H area, but there were horses there last time. You are not suggesting that horses also ... this is not an equestrian trail tie in up to the hills? Therese Smith: . I have never seen horses there; there are horses there now? Vice Chair Giefer: . There are horses there now. Therese Smith: . That is not part of their program. Vice Chair Giefer: . I was just wondering. . Then why isn't it part of the program? I am just kidding; we are putting enough different things on the trail right now. (laughter) Mr. Piasecki: . Horses on leashes.... Vice Chair Giefer: . Horses on leashes, with your own bag to pick up after them, that is what we want. (laughter) . Do you want comments or just questions? Chair Miller: . Do just questions first and then we will come back for comments. Vice Chair Giefer: . Thank you very much. Chair Miller: . Thank you Lisa. Cary, do you want to go next? Com. Chien: . Thank you Chairman Miller. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 32 May 23, 2006 . My questions will focus mainly on the two parts that I think. the public has commented on tonight and that is starting with McClellan Ranch Park. . Therese, isn't it true that at one time that the department considered alternative routes for the trail that goes through McClellan Ranch Park? Therese Smith: . In terms of the driveway or the trail? Com. Chien: . The trail. Therese Smith: . Yes, we did. . The current trail alignment... Well, two things. Mr. Foulks talked about an MOD with the Historical Society; actually what was adopted a little over two years ago was a resolution giving the Historic Society the ability to corne in and negotiate a long term lease for that property upon reaching certain fund raising goals. That offer is still on the table. That is this area here. Com. Chien: . I was asking about McClellan Ranch. I started with McClellan Ranch Park. Therese Smith: . Oh, I am sorry, I thought you were talking about Stocklemeir. Com. Chien: . Yeh, I started with McClellan Ranch Park. . I believe when I was on the Parks and Rec Commission you had presented alternative routes that could have gone through McClellan Ranch, is that correct? Therese Smith: . Dh yeah, many. . We have been through many many alternatives. The current alignment is the eastern most alignment. Com. Chien: . Isn't is true that the eastern alignment as it exists right now is less of an impact to the neighbors because frankly the neighbors are further away and they are across McClellan. Therese Smith: . It wasn't so much the impacts to the neighbors we were concerned about; it was the impacts to the meadow. On two issues, there is a foot path that currently exists; I am not very good at this... there is a foot path that currently.. okay Steve is going to do it ... exists along there. It is just a little track and it is used for nature study. . The multi purpose trail, the one that would allow dogs, goes to the far east, sort of behind the 4H facility and the reason we are moving it further down slope is so that we can accomplish the construction of the trail and make it accessible without getting into a lot ofretaining walls and switch backs. . So it will go to the far east; it will be separated from the walking experience and hopefully not impact the natural experience in the meadow. Cupertino Planning COlrunission Study Session & Regular Meeting 33 May 23, 2006 . And I can tell you that the Council met on this, these individual decisions were made over a period of years with a lot of public testimony and you were involved in it and you know how that went. We do have finally an alignment I think is a good compromise. That is a good compromIse. Com. CWen: . And the trail that goes through there in fact is a more difficult one to implement because of the grading, if I remember correctly. . Is that correct? Therese Smith: . It is not as bad with the relocation of the goats downhill. Com. CWen: . But compared to sayan alignment that goes through the west side of the preserve; this would be much more difficult to implement? Therese Smith: . There would be a lot more issues associated with that and environmentally I think. Com. Chien: . My other question is centered around Stocklemeir property and a little bit of surprise there because I don1t recall hearing as much concern there. . So my question is what was the nature of that agreement with Cupertino Historical Society, the one that Mr. Foulks mentioned? Therese Smith: . It is not an agreement; it is a resolution of intent to enter into an agreement upon the Historical Society formulating a plan and reaching certain fund raising goals. . One of the reasons the document is largely silent on what is going to happen to the Stocklemeir property is we donlt yet know. Therese Smith: . There have been a lot of things talked about, some pretty ambitious plans, and I think the biggest, the most difficulty that they have implementing those plans is they can't do all the things they want to do onsite; retain an orchard and park cars. . The most recent proposal they have come in with calls for the house, which is up here, to become a period home; the garage is behind the house to be replaced with a historical museum; that construction of a 150 person picnic area and a 100 person picnic area to be rented out, and somehow within that envelope retain an orchard and... there is no ... they have no plans for parking cars; they want to use the Blue Pheasant parking lot. . So until that plan is I think more realistically refined and this body will see this plan because this property is zoned agriculturaVlow density/residential; it would require rezoning and it would have to come back with you and you will be grappling with a lot of these issues; once their plan is more fully developed. . Weare sort of silent on this at the moment, and what we plan to construct in 2007 will be this side until these issues are resolved; and we have talked with the leadership of the Historic Society and said we would I ike to do something up here in 2009, so it gives you a little more time while we deal with the rest of the park. So that is kind of where that is. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 34 May 23, 2006 Com. Chien: . So Therese, knowing how premature the plans of the Historical Society have been, why did we consider it an alternative route through the Stocklmeir property that would be more in line with the pipe? Therese Smith: . As Janna mentioned before, when the Nelson's developed this golf course way back when, they hardened the edge of the golf course, and most of this work that was done in Blackberry Farm, the extending the picnic area out here at Horseshoe Bend, ,the filling of an area to expand the parking lot and this hardening of the channel along the golf course was not done with the benefit of a lot of engineering; and what we have discovered in the process of doing all our engineering, is that this hardening is eroding out; we have had a very wet year and we are having real concerns about what happens here, and as we mentioned before, there is this sewer line right along here that we have to protect; so we need to be planning to do something there. . As Jana mentioned earlier, there is a nicely established row of... there is oaks and sycamores along what is now the west bank of the creek. If we were to simply just move out the golf... you know move out the creek where it is along the golf course, we would take all of that vegetation out. . By flip-flopping the creek and by that I mean taking what is now the west bank and making it the east bank, and saving that vegetation, putting the creek on the other side, you move the creek while keeping that side of the channel anchored while maintaining that habitat, so in our planning for the purposes of just getting our document through to the end, what made the most sense of the creek was doing this. . The document acknowledges that there will have to be future environmental review when the final plans for the Stocklemeir property use are known, and we are just putting that out there now because if we start to lose the golf course we will have to do something. Com. Chien: . That is all I have for now, thank you. Chair Miller: . Thank you Cary. Taaghi.. Com. Saadati: . Thank you Mr. Chair. . What is the average or minimum and maximum without the trail? Therese Smith: . I am sorry ... Com. Saadati: . Minimum and maximum without the trail. Therese Smith: . Width - 8 feet. Com. Saadati: . It is constant? 8 feet? Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 35 May 23, 2006 Therese Smith . Yes. Com. Saadati: . What is the minimum required? Therese Smith: . 8 feet. Com. Saadati: . We did not consider putting a 4 foot trail. .. Therese Smith: . No. Com. Saadati: . You mentioned that there is a permeable parking surface proposed. Therese Smith: . Yes. Com. Saadati: . How did the environmental impact would be addressed as far as oil and .. Therese Smith: . No oil Com. Saadati: . Car oiL If it is parking, there is going to be ... Therese Smith: . Oil leaking from cars. . That is an impact now, but those oils run directly to the creek, so at this point they would be ... they would leak into a smaller permeable parking area. There is no plan to capture that, but it is much less intensive use. Female: * Ught voice . Actually the Regional Water Quality Control Board requires that the project have a stormwater management plan, and a stormwater pollution prevention plan. Com. Saadati: . So the area of the slope is going to be reconfigured so the water hopefully runs through some green area. Therese Smith: . That's right, and there is going to be ... as shown on the plan, there is a planted buffer; a little bit of a buffer between the parking lot and the actual creek. Com. Saadati: . Is it correct to assume that there is going to be 561 trees planted for 187 removed trees, ... Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 36 May 23,2006 proposed removed trees? Therese Smith: . No, the 3:1 ratio is only for the oak trees; but I think ultimately that number of trees planted will be more like 1500 because of all of the habitat restoration that is ongoing, that is above and beyond what we are just mitigating for. Com. Saadati: . The 1500 is going to be planted as a part the project by the time the project is completed Therese Smith: . Right, perennials, trees, and shrubs. Com. Saadati: . So we are going to exceed the 561 then, which is 3: 1 ratio. Therese Smith: . Oh, by far. Com. Saadati: . Okay. Com. Saadati: . My concern was dogs on trails, as Vice Chair Giefer brought it up. Are there going to be any bags placed along the trails? Therese Smith: . Yes. Com. Saadati: . Some other cities have that. . What type of monitoring. .. what type of enforcement is going to be in place to ensure that. . . Therese Smith: . What we propose to do and this is subject to negotiation with OE 3 which is one of our unions; and we really... I can't say we have gotten this far yet... either by contract or by hiring, a new classification called Park Service Worker which is similar to what they have in Mountain View; if you have ever been to the Shoreline Trail and to Shoreline Park, they actually have rangers; and those positions are different than anything we have in the city now because they combine some elements of code enforcement and some elements of light duty maintenance. . So they are in the park; they are working; but they are also empowered to write citations. I think it is something that has been coming; something that we have needed in parks; we just haven't had critical mass to make the creation of those kinds of positions feasible. . With the reopening of Blackberry Farm, it will be feasible, because we will take some positions we have right now that are purely maintenance and transition them into a new kind of position. Com. Saadati: . Have you used volunteer forces to enforce some of the rules like this. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 37 May 23, 2006 Therese Smith: . Well, I actually volunteer for the National Park Service; typically what happens is the volunteers have a radio and if they need somebody to do enforcement, they call them. You don't normally put that burden on a volunteer. Com. Saadati: . How many orange trees going to be removed from Stocklemeir property? Therese Smith: . About half of them. . Now I want to say something about the Stocklemeir property and I think it is important to know this that we are in a situation right now where we have to start replanting that orchard because fruit trees don't live forever; no tree does. But generally speaking, they are not trees that live as long as say Oaks. So we are in a situation where we need to start a management ... I think Mr. Kolski eluded to it; we do need an orchard management plan, so this would certainly hasten that. Com. Saadati: . Did you consider to run the trail around the perimeter of the property versus going through almost the center? Therese Smith: . Well it would run along the creek, so that what is really driving the removal is not the trail, it is the relocation of the creek. And again, you have... it's a tradeoff between taking out the oaks and the riparian habitat on that one bank. . When we flip-flopped the creek, we lose orange trees, but we are gaining some enhanced habitat; and if we take on orchard management, hopefully we can achieve a balance. Com. Saadati: . Could you elaborate the effect of this project on the community garden as far as the number of spots. Therese Smith: . Yes, it's quantified in the document and I am going to, off the top of my head, say we are losing four to the trail, but adding nine. So Deborah is correct in her comments that we are losing some of that edge habitat. . This is something we talked about because the garden supports a particular kind of bird; it supports songbirds; the meadow supports rafters; there is a lot of diversity down there because of the two activities. . But you know, what is the right balance, and in the document we didn't see a great impact of adding those garden spots because we are creating so much other ~dge habitat where we are taking out picnic areas and adding oak woodland uplands adjacent to the riparian area, which right now if you go out there, there are cars parked right up to the creek and we are doing away with that activity; we are foregoing that revenue generating potential to create that woodland habitat, that oak upland habitat. . So you are going to have that important edge for a longer stretch of the corridor. . So that balances something that you know we could debate; but we are cognizant of that important ... how important that edge is. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 38 May 23,2006 Com. Saadati: . I think that covered all my questions. Thank you. Chair Miller: . Thank you Taaghi. Gilbert... Com. Wong: . Thank you Marty. . I was wondering if you could bring that map up again, Therese. . A lot of folks mentioned about the meadow. And could you specifically circle which meadow, Ijust want to make sure. Therese Smith: . Well, McClellan Ranch is right here, so this is the meadow and these little squares here are the community garden plots. Com. Wong: . Okay, and the concern about protecting the meadow is because where the location of the trail was? Ijust wanted to see if you can answer ... Therese Smith: . Well the trail is actually... the meadow is an important part of all of our trail discussions, because we discussed a trail going through here and a number of locations. . But the trairs actually following along the east side and this is the meadow, and the edge habitat is where you have you know, the meadow and the creek and the meadow and the garden; it's those parts that are so important. Com. Wong: . And the part that we will be losing part of the community gardens, where will some of the loss would be? Therese Smith: . Well, when the trail comes through here, whoops, when the trail comes through here, right there, it is right in here. I think Janna could probably show it better with the mouse because that red line is so thick. Janna Soquel: . The trail is going to skirt up around the back of the 4H area here, and everything in red is going to be changed. . So because the trail is moving here, you are losing a few garden spots right in this zone in order to accommodate for 4H, we are adding garden plots out here. Com. Wong: . Going into the meadow. Janna Soquel: . Going into the meadow, right. And so what you are doing is shifting everything by the distance of one garden plot which is about 10 feet, times the length of 9 garden plots. So if they are 10 by 10, it is 90 feet, plus there are some fence lines in between. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 39 May 23, 2006 Therese Smith: . They are not very big. Com. Wong: . Okay, every time you go one foot into a meadow, you would be losing precious... okay. Janna Soquel: . Yes. . And the overall number of the grassland habitat that is going to be lost represents about 4% of the overall grassland habitat; that is not is very big. Com. Wong: . Okay, the other thing has been a lot of discussion about the Stocklemeir property with the Cupertino Historical Society and if you were to relocate that creek, more or less some of the plans that the Historical Society wants to do, is probably going to be up in the air. Is that correct? I see a lot of nods over there. Therese Smith: . Again, our project that we are going to build stops here. And we are putting this in for environmental review; this piece. We are throwing this out here for environmental comment. . We would like to begin writing grants and we would like to begin raising money to do a project up here in 2009. We are waiting for a proposal from the Historical Society that we can forward to you and process with a zoning amendment. . And, you know, they are going to have to come up with that plan so we can move on. . In. the absence of any participation from them, this is what we would propose to build. Com. Wong: . So you would still go ahead and do the restoration, or you will hold off on this. Therese Smith: . Well, we don't have any plans to do anything up here before 2009. Com. Wong: . Okay, I see what you are saying. Therese Smith: . And it may require a modification to the document at that time depending on what their project looks like; we don't know that at this time. Com. Wong: . Okay, and back in 2003 I think maybe only just Taaghi and I were fortunate enough that Steve and you took us on a tour all the way from Rancho San Antonio through Stevens Canyon and everything. . It was really nice going through that orange orchard was that, you know, a lot of the trees were very full and it was growing really nice and everything; so are you saying that maybe we need to hire an orchard management and come and make sure while we wait until 2007, 2008, 2009 for a plan from somebody, I think that hearing from the public, maybe we need to maintain the house and maintain the orchard while we as a community try to figure out what we want to do with the Stocklemeir property. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 40 ' May 23, 2006 Therese Smith: . Right, we are going to re-roof the house this year; it has gotten that bad. The city architect has put some money in the capital budget; if it gets approved. . Also to analyze its condition in terms of just bringing it up to code. It is going to be a significant amount of money to put that house back on line; it is not currently connected to the sewer; the leach fill has failed. . As you know, we once had it rented and we had to condemn it and evict the tenants. So it is . .. what it is going to become, I don't know; I know the Historical Society will be a player in deciding that. You will also have a lot to say about that though as well. It is going to require a zoning change to make it a public use facility. Com. Wong: . The other thing is that this whole capital improvement ... the cost. Where is the cost coming from? Therese Smith: . For the part we intend to build in 2007? Com. Wong: . Correct, the restoration. Therese Smith: . It is largely grants, and Water District. Com. Wong: . Largely grants; not budget? Therese Smith: . No, we will probably need help from the city budget, but at this point there are not city funds appropriated. . We are going to be taking a budget... a full project to the city within the next couple of months. We have about $5 million in grant funds and it is really up to how much the Council wants to get done at one time. It is up to them. Com. Wong: . Originally Blackberry Farm was only open 100 days as you said, and now we are going to open it 365 clays, and we are going to be reducing the picnic grounds. What kind of impact will it be to both the neighbors, traffic, impact to humans, you know using trails 365 days because when I walked back there in 2003, we walked through the Water District area, walked through the city, and we actually saw deer and we saw wildlife and what I am concerned about is once you open up 365 days, having traffic, having foot traffic, etc" you mow, there is going to be impact on this area. Therese Smith: . You want to answer that, you have been doing trail studies. Com. Wong: . The human impact on the wildlife. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 41 May 23, 2006 Janna SoqueI: . On the wild life; not on the residents. . You are absolutely right; you are opening up the area to additional uses, and the trail will have some level of impact. I suspect many of the species in the corridor will be just fine. . It's areas where you have sensitive nesting habitat where birds could be disturbed at that time that are of concern to everyone, and that is in part why the trail is cited (sited??) as it is cited; and it's in part why there lots of mitigation measures also associated with the dogs, because that is a whole other use that has not been occurring in the corridor and that is why there is an additional planting mitigation to include another acre of habitat for cover and for forage area because of that additional use, . But you are taking a corridor that is infrequently visited, particularly the Water District parcel which is between McClellan and the garden area and Blackbeny where it is fenced off, and opening that to a through traffic. So you are changing the character of the park to some extent to accommodate the human visitor. Com. Wong: . My concern is that the wildlife, the deer, the birds, because there is 200 days where it is pretty much not touchable, and most of the residents who do live on the cliffs, get to enjoy a quiet park-like area; so I am concerned about that. . The other thing is that, I know you kept talking about (a cereal mine??) at Blackberry Farm and Blackberry Farm is something that was developed, but did you ever consider about relocating the golf course and have the creek on the other side so that we could keep Stocklemeir property in tact, and the orchard in tact? Therese Smith: . Well yes, we went through many alternative concepts including one that actually had a driveway through there and no golf course. . The Council considered many many alternatives and you get to the point where you could do just about anything you wanted if you had unlimited funds. Moving the golf course was.. is a big expense; even relocating holes and reconfiguring for very little return if we can work around it, so I think that is where we landed. Don't touch the golf course until we are really ready to ... Janna SoqueI: (?) . I think that I work in many spaces within Santa Clara County and you are stuck now dealing with what is left over; we have built everything and it is just a very tough struggle to fit all the needs of the community for a golf course, an intact orchard, a through trail, a reduced commercial picnic facility, a swimming facility, habitat for the wildlife; 4H for the children, community gardens .., you are asking a lot of 60 acres and it is a compromise at every step along the route. Com. Wong: . And I agree. . One of the things I asked this question back in 2003, was that, and I think Deborah Jamison brought this up, was that there was a master plan for McClellan Ranch; I actually had the Planning Department dig it out for me and maybe something that you would want to bring back to the Councilor even back to Planning Commission is that how many of those items have you accomplished? I am sure you accomplished something. . The other thing is that both what was brought up by many speakers was the Simms?? property and Stocklemeir property what was the goals of those two properties when we Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 42 May 23, 2006 bought them a couple of decades ago and were those goals accomplished, because as Parks and Recreation Commissioners, Planning Commissioners, City Council members, or even staff change, even you learn Therese some of the stuff that Deborah brought to our attention as well too, that you know, some of the stuff we just overlooked, so that would be a nice thing to bring back as a report to see what we have accomplished and what more we have to do. Therese Smith: . If I can respond to that, the document references McClellan Ranch master plan and incorporates aspects of it; the Simms property was discussed by the Council as recent as I believe last Fall, and they reaffirmed their desire to lease it because our lease was up. They reaffirmed their desire to lease it at fair market value, not as a caretaker facility, but at fair market value and at leas with the current budget situation and the current Council, their intent is to use that as a rental property for as long as it is viable. . As you know the Stocklemeir piece is no longer viable as a rental. So you know, we didn't . .. there were comments about the scenic circle access, there are a lot of Council decisions made that we did not second guess in the environmental document; they got to define the project and we just took it from there. . So I think: what the document states is that at the time the Council no longer wants to rent that property out, that becomes then a restoration site. I don't know when that will be in the future. Com. Wong: . And will someone follow up regarding construction, when they are going to start using construction, also one of the concerns that the community brought up regarding construction pileup on the city property. Therese Smith: . Okay, what they are referring to there is the McNair property; right, exactly, the home construction; and as it turns out we have tried to play hardball with Mr. McNair, but it turns out he actually has, there is an old haul road easement back there, and it exists from 1917 and he has the right to drive through there, so our attempts to play hardball with him backfired a bit. . What we would like to do is ultimately get him to extinguish his rights there so that there is no longer a throughway behind the Simms property along the creek. But that is going to take some delicate negotiations with Mr. Mc Nair. Com. Wong: . My last question to conclude is that a lot of folks were talking about heritage orchards on Stocklemeir property. Is there any way that we can try to preserve intact that orchard? Therese Smith: . Yes, and that would be very interesting to have a defmition of "heritage orchard". What my understanding is from looking at old records and old photographs, before Blackberry Farm was a golf course and I think lana mentioned this, it was a V-Pick walnut orchard and that's what grew here, and we have some remnant walnut orchard on the Water District parcel. . There are places, the Water District parcel was talked about, and some of the visions that came forward for this property; the Water District parcel which is actually this parcel in here that is kind of between McClellan and Blackberry Farm, as (a new orchard??) site and there are still some mature walnut trees there. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 43 May 23,2006 . I think those ideas can be worked in once we know what is going to happen up here; if we still need an orchard we can work that out. But we really do need to encourage the Historical Society to get a plan before the Planning Commission to see what is actually possible there. Com. Wong: . I am just using the word as an adjective "heritage" it may be 10 years, it may be 4 years, it may be 50 years, that's up to question. . But you know when I was born and raised here in Santa Clara County this whole county was covered with orchards and I think the community member has a very good point is that a lot of the young folks, especially my two daughters will never get to see an orchard in Santa Clara County unless I take them out to Central Valley or maybe up to Pittsburgh, Antioch, beyond there. . I got very lucky and got to pick walnuts or peaches when I was young with my parents, but you know you already have mature orange orchard with some walnuts, and so why do you want to reinvent it over on the Santa Clara Water District area, which I do recall walking there, two or three years ago with you, but you know, this is something that is already there and everything cost money. Therese Smith: . We can retain about half of it with the creek project and have the habitat and the orchard. We can't retain all of it. And if they in fact want to build a museum into (and two??) picnic areas there have a restored house and somewhere park cars, it would be very interesting to see how well that can be made to fit. . I will also say that we have the Blue Pheasant leased out for another 3 years, 3-112 years, and that operator has an option to renew and I don't know what his feelings will be about that business when that day comes, but at some point we as a community will either need to make a big investment in that facility or maybe it goes away and there is parking and something else can happen here. But that is down the road. . I guess that is why we are stopping right here. We know there is still a lot of unanswered questions. Com. Wong: . Another thing that was brought to my attention, is Rhoda Fry. An email that she wrote that since we are opening 365 days, and I would assume that the main entrance will still be Byrne to San Fernando to the picnic area, what is that impact on that particular neighborhood, especially that road going in where those few homes are. What is the traffic impact; how are you mitigating that fact? And noise as well too. Therese Smith: . The ultimate plan is ... as you know there is a bus pull-out on Stevens Creek here now that serves Valley Transportation Authority and so our plan is within this parking lot and within Stevens Creek Boulevard, to ultimately have bus traffic on this end and to put a bus dugout on McClellan to serve the ranch. . So I think Deborah talked about how the arterials really ought to serve the majority of the people coming to the corridor and I think that will be the most convenient way for them to get there. Com. Wong: . So there is no bus turnaround at San Fernando? Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 44 May 23, 2006 Therese Smith: . There is within the parking lot; now 100 days a year when we have school groups and things coming into the Blackbeny Farm area, well school groups ... ultimately if there is a trail, we can drop school groups off and walk them in, but you are still going to have picnic traffic 100 days a year coming into Blackberry Farm. . And again what we are evaluating here is the delta between what is now and what will be in the future and while it won't be just a quiet preserve, it is not going to be an intense as it is now. . Now we have a facility that can accommodate up to 4,000 people a day, and we will be reducing that down to 800. Com. Wong: . Correct, but that 800 is for 365 days. Therese Smith: . No; it is for 100 days. Com. Wong: . Only for 100 days. I just wanted to make that clear, because the committee was saying something else. That is good that we cleared that up. Therese Smith: . No, it is still 100 days. Com. Wong: . So, in other words, after the 100 days, that gate will be closed. The swim pool will be closed. Therese Smith: . That is what happens. The bridge, the way it is configured in the proposed plan, which is actually pretty elegant, you have got this west bank picnic area which is where that picnicking is going to occur, and you have got a bridge that connects the pool to that area; once the west side closes at the end of the season, that is gated off. The trail comes down through the east side, so that part of the operation closes down. Com. Wong: . And the parking lot will also close at the same time too? Therese Smith: . No, the parking lot will just be available for anyone to come in and park. If they want to drive through the neighborhood and come down there and park there, they can. But there will also be parking available on both ends. Com. Wong: . Currently right now, is that parking lot open 365 days or not? Therese Smith: . The park isn't open 365 days, but you can come down and find cars in it; not a lot, one or two. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 45 May 23, 2006 Com. Wong: . Thank you. Chair Miller: . Thank you Gilbert. Chair Miller: . I think. most of my questions have been answered already. I just have a couple more. . In terms of noticing for this meeting, was this a citywide notice for this meeting, or what kind of noticing went out. Therese Smith: . No it wasn't; the environmental document when it went up on the website, prior to going up on the website, April 28th. we did ... we have a mailing list of several hundred people because we had all the people involved in the visioning and the trail. . We sent letters out. newsletter updates to everyone, and we put it up on the web site. and then just standard city, what you call, agenda posting; in addition to the clearing house. In addition to that the corridor was posted so that people coming in and out from all angles would see the signs announcing it. . In addition. I believe there was an advertisement around in the paper; in addition, it was posted with the County Clerk; in addition it was sent to the State Clearinghouse and sent to all the regulatory agencies. Chair Miller: . Deborah Jamison mentioned that a 60 day period for receiving comments might have gotten more comments from folks that are very experienced on this and would contribute very germane comments. Had you considered a longer period; why was only 30 days chosen? Therese Smith: . We had a number of ... as you know the Water District is our partner in this, and we had a lot of back and forth, a lot more input through them that took, probably delayed the release of the document by two months. . We are on a pretty tight timeline with the Dept. of Water Resources to get a CEQA document done next month and want to meet that goal. It was always our intent to have the 30 day; that is the CEQA process, it was always our intent to allow 30 days for public comment and we are doing that, and I understand Deborah would like more time, and it looks like she has already gotten all her work done, so ... she has done quite a bit of work. But no, we will not be extending the public comment period; the agencies have the same statutory 30 days in which to respond. Janna Soquel: . If I might add, generally speaking if a comment period is extended, it is usually extended for an EIR and it's usually extended to a total of 45 days and not 60 days. Chair Miller: . Okay. . Another comment that Deborah made, is that when this trail hooks up to a larger trail system, there will be a lot more traffic than considered in this report. Can you comment on that? Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 46 May 23, 2006 Therese Smith: . Again, we are measuring with this review the delta between what we have there now and what we are proposing. The future trail connections will go through a project you will review. You know where that is on the quany property and have to hook up to Stevens Creek County Park and the ... I think the thought that people would park here and bicycle up through Linda Vista Park and then through the quarry to get to Stevens Creek Park .. I think there are very few people that would do that; I think we would analyze that at that time, maybe see who is using the County park and where they are coming from, but the people with the athletic ability to do that I think would be pretty few. Because that is where they would start their ride after they got there; I think it would be a fairly minor impact, but we could analyze that further at that time. Chair Miller: . Another comment that was made was that it wasn't clear that the report considered over use or off trail use by bikes since we are having a bike trail in there. Therese Smith: . I would say to you that we have given design thought to that and we have cited a trail in ways that we hope to limit and discourage trail travel anywhere else, bike travel anywhere else other than the trail. We have a significant amount of linear footage of very low split rail fence to keep people on the trail in areas where one might think they would want to jump a curvature in the trail, and that is included in all of the grant applications to provide funding for that. Chair Miller: . Thank you. . I know that you said you would only consider the delta; but given the magnitude of this project, had you considered that maybe this was an opportunity to perhaps put in a design that would actually focus on reducing the impacts to the neighborhood surrounding Blackberry Farm? Therese Smith: . Well I think the Council did a number of alternatives, and I think as lana phrased it perfectly, this is a series of compromises. . They looked at alternatives that for instance would generate no revenue for the corridor and decided realistically if we were going to provide patrol and environmental programming and all these other things, that we had to provide some revenue stream. . It was a balancing act; it was a tradeoff; and they made that decision after a lot of public input, so I am not going to try to re-second guess those now because they were months in coming, and a lot of people participated and not everyone got what they wanted, but they tried to come up with the best compromise. Chair Miner: . Thank you. . There was also some comments about expending the snack facilities, and given the increased traffic that will be on the trail, that that will create further opportunities for littering and environmental abuse. Therese Smith: . Thank you for bringing that up. That was one of the things I wanted to address. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 47 May 23, 2006 . There is a snack bar there now in Blackberry Farm, and what's proposed is a window that opens out to the trail, because it opens inward toward the pool. And the reason for that is, in surveys done at the senior center, one of the things we have learned is that an amenity that was considered to be really desirable was a place where you could walk and maybe gather and when we started working on this project it was, like wouldn't it be great if seniors would come down here and walk in the morning and they could stop and have a cup of coffee and have a place to do that. Wouldn't this be a great thing to add to the community. So we started looking at ways to make that snack bar accessible from the outside. It is not a new snack facility; it is just a new window. Chair Miller: . Okay, thank you. . The next question is, there were a number of residences and we saw some pictures that indicated perhaps the cleanup in the area is not going as well as it should and the question is, when we have a private developer come in and ... or business owner, and they are not adhering to the rules in terms of trash pickup, we generally ask them to fix the current problems before moving on to new and larger projects. . So is there a plan in place or how would the city respond to the issue of the open garbage cans and the overturned garbage cans, and the problems that creates with the rodents and ground squirrels. Therese Smith: . Those are old photos. We have replaced ... we have spent over $50,000 two years ago out of our solid waste fund and replaced all the trash cans within Blackberry Farm to make them rodent proof. We also changed our operation an we went to contract so that we could bring . .. for trash pickup... so that we could have more people in the park at once at close. . Because the way we did in the past, we had two people who after close and before dark, which isn't very much time, had to get through the entire park and pick up all the trash, and it wasn't a very good system, and Rhoda was instrumental in having that system changed. She did report us to vector control but if you look at our reports since that time, they have been clean. Management changed and the physical containers changed. So I think she won; she did a good job on that. She made us change our ways. Chair Miller: . That is all the questions I had. . I have a question for Steve now. What, from the staff's standpoint would you like us to do at t his point. Mr. Piasecki: . If you have any additional comments that you haven't heard that you would like communicated onto the City Council, voice those now and I will be writing it down and then we will prepare a response in conjunction with this document; we are not expected to give you a response right now. We will just take your questions.... Or your issue and respond to it in the environmental document. Chair Miller: . What about voting on the EIR? Mr. Piasecki: . It is not an EIR; it is an environmental assessment, neg dec., and you don't need to. This is a Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 48 May 23,2006 public project, this was only an opportunity to provide more public input on the environmental assessment; it isn't like all the other private projects that you see and we go through that other process with. It is a little strange, a little different, but you don't see very many of these where an item like this is coming before you, yet you don't really have a decision making role relative to it. You are providing a service to provide more opportunity for input. Chair Miller: . So we don't have to; but it's really up to us. Mr. Piasecki: . I think the commentary is important; if you have comments that you want to make sure get included, that is another way for you to communicate interests and issues individually as COmmISSIOners. Therese Smith: . If I can add one comment, because we are still in the public process, anyone taking action before May 30th would be sort of stepping on the toes of the public; I think some people have not yet had a chance to submit their input, and I think this meeting tonight being televised will stimulate more comment, more input and I really want to thank you because we could have done this with the Parks and Rec Commission, but it's nice to get fresh input. They would not have asked the questions you had, they would have been so tired of it. But... so I really appreciate that you have done this; you have a Chair that sits on the ERC so you have experience with this kind of document, and it's really helpful to us and helpful to the public. So thanks. Chair Miller: . Well thank you for bringing it to us. . Okay, why don't we do comment. Lisa, do you want to start. Vice Chair Giefer: . First, I would like to say that I am actually really excited about the change, the anticipated changes to Blackberry Farm especially. But I do have some concerns. . McClellan Ranch I think we heard the comment tonight that rather than increasing the garden plot sizes, that perhaps we should look for a suitable place on the east side so that we are distributing that equally throughout the city; and I whole heartedly agree with that. I think it would help us with regards to less impact on the meadow, which I am fully supportive of; and even though I want to be able to walk my dogs through this whole place, I agree that we need big screen, such as the example photo in the appendices of the curved gates, and golf ball fences there. . Because I do think that this is too sensitive an area and we need to make every effort in the McClellan preserve to keep bicyclists, hikers, and dogs on leash of course, in that area. But on the other hand, I would like to expand the areas that are appropriate for dogs on leash to go in the Blackberry Farm portion of it. I have different objectives depending on where I am. But I want to do everything we can to preserve McClellan Ranch as it is and make sure that we are not violating the master plan because it is such a rare area as a preserve. . The other thing is, as you may have guessed, I am exceedingly concerned about the tree preservation. I think that having 90 inch oak. trees eliminated and ... and I intellectually I absolutely understand why you would replace them with 3 inch oaks or something to that effect. We would never let a developer do that. Never; and I am not comfortable saying it is Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 49 May 23, 2006 okay for Parks and Rec or the city to do that, because I think we have to lead by example, and I see some opportunity as an example to keep Reach A in situ and maybe straighten it where it curves; have it go more into what is the current parking lot, so it appears to me, and I may be using the wrong reference points, but when I am looking at the map in front of me, it looks to me like we have an opportunity perhaps to straighten it out more here and preserve more of the trees if we keep this portion insitu, and the oak picnic area; follow it down, so you are not losing these oaks or these oaks, which are my biggest concern. . So I don't know if you have looked at that, but as a comment, that's one of the things that I am concerned about. . I would also... it sounded to me as though you did analyze keeping the creek in its current streambed and what it would take to achieve your objectives, which I actually agree with in terms of repairing the riparian habitat, restoring the vegetation, the native vegetation, but I don't want to lose the oaks, and so if it is possible to do it without changing the stream or if you can change, adapt the plan that is in you're the packet that we have been given, and preserve the large oaks, I would prefer to see t hat type of solution. Either fix what we have today to preserve the trees or minimize the impact on the trees. . The other ... I like the ripples?? I like the idea of keeping the felled?? Trees where they are to create habitat, those are all wonderful things; I am fully supportive of that. . I would like to see some sort of an east/west pedestrian bike safe route to school. I like the idea that Joe Walton?? had with regards to opening the Scenic Drive gate during school hours. . As I was in the park today, I saw lots of students using it as a short cut, so keeping that gate shut isn't stopping students from short cutting through the park. Of course we would need to make sure that we have a bridge conveniently located for them. And again, I don't know which bridge they are using today. . The comment that was made to me by one of the students that I stopped and asked; he wouldn't ride his bike because there is too many things that pop his bike tires; so .. I hear that all the time from kids. My kids ride their bikes to school and they know where the bad areas are that will cause puncture. . The other things I was pleased to hear is that we are going to be employing sustainable building practices. I hope that reaches to the pool as well and that we will be putting solar heating on the pool. I would much rather lose and this I know people will disagree with this; I would much rather lose golf ( end of tape Side A, loss of some words) Stocklemeir orange trees. I think that we need to preserve that; I would love to see it be a heritage orchard, and again I understand there is tradeoffs and if we can continue to make the golf course pay, but do something to realign it, to keep the creek out of the orchard, I would much rather have that. . I would also suggest we eliminate the 17 parking spaces on the trailhead. If this is a wilderness park, a natural park that we want to encourage people to walk into, they can leave their cars behind, and as we expand it and link it into Linda Vista Park, you know.. I see people in my neighborhood, the need to drive there is eliminated if we have that trail, and I would look forward to using it because I think it is just a wonderful wilderness area today and is so beautiful. . I was also very interested in Bob Levy's suggestion of linking it to Stevens Creek though this may be over the top at this point, but it just seemed very practical to me if there was any way to have the park entry be off of Stevens Creek as opposed to Byrne but I understand that that's a whole other can of worms. . And I wondered if you had also considered having the trail going through the Simms property as opposed to McClellan Ranch at all because it seemed to me that there was some potential there and I think that McClellan is just such a wonderful resource; I would really like to keep Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 50 May 23, 2006 people out of there. I mean, not out of there, but enjoying it in a way we would it to be enjoyed. . I would like to preserve the options for the Historical Society, by not reducing the amount of square footage of that property today. . Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to review this and make our comments. Chair Miller: . Gilbert. . . Com. Wong: . Thank you Mr. Chair. . A lot of stuff that Lisa said, I agree with her; so I want to restate what she said that I agree with her and there is some things that I have a difference of viewpoint. . I also agree that community garden is a great asset for the community and it wouldn't all be located in one location; I think the meadow is more important for the community especially for the children of Cupertino. So I would rather than a smaller community garden and keep the meadow intact or even expand it; because the whole reason of having the trail away from the creek at that point was to preserve the trail, and I believe that the meadow has to stay intact. . I agree with Lisa that the tree preservation is very important. I understand where you are coming from and kind of agree than an acorn or smaller tree will grow faster and that is what I have been advocating for but, we have been putting developers and property owners here in Cupertino with a higher standard and if we say to the Parks and Recreation or city say that you can do an acorn vs. other folks have to do a 24,36 inch box, I don't see the equity or fairness there. . I also agree with what Lisa said is that if we can save an oak tree or heritage tree or trees, I would rather save the tree than to move the creekbed. I think that the tree is very very important. I meant that yes, the creekbed should not have been moved in the first place when some of the picnic grounds that were put in. . Scenic Circle, that opening was debated very much at the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council made the final decision based on neighborhood input. I understand both the pros and cons but I believe that if it was the Council made the decision that the Scenic circle should be closed and that was what the neighbors wanted, I think that is what we should follow and not re-address that issue again. . I also agree with Lisa that this is something that City Council has to weigh in regarding the golf course vs. the Stocklemeir property. I believe that the orchard trees are very important and I think that community input that we heard today; and I think that if we had another opportunity and I know that the period of public hearing is from Apri128tb to May 30tb; it wouldn't even hurt to come back after the period has closed and just have a followup here of the Planning Commission because I think Deborah by that time should have a finish report and actually can print it and maybe submit it and you know... Deborah has always you know, been coming to Parks and Recreation, Planning Commission and City Council and has always given useful ideas, and this is a property we bought maybe 20, 30 years ago and I believe that to put it in and say this is just a regular 30 day public hearing process; this is something more important; this is going to effect me, it is going to affect my children, it is going to affect the next generation, and I think that if we are going to do it right the first time, we need to do it right today, vs. wait and I know that the grant money, you are working very hard to get the $5 million grant money; but also we want to make sure that we get this Stevens Creek corridor area right too. . I know that some of the things have been decided, you know, is there going to be a 6 foot Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 51 May 23, 2006 trail, 8 foot trail, all of those things have been decided; but there are still some unanswered questions like the Cupertino Historical Society, you know, they are still trying to work out their plan, work it out with staff, and I think that I agree with Lisa too, that is that we need to partnership with our non-profits, like the Historical Society and see that if they can get a plan that is saleable to the city and saleable to them, then where we put this creek trail is going to affect their plans. . So I don't see what the rush is going into this. . I also agree that we should eliminate 17 spaces at the trailhead. This is supposed to be preservation of the habitat. Also I think that we still need to follow up that before this area was only open for 100 days; now we are going to have a trail that is for 365 days, so we need to see what is the impact on humans and the animals as we walk on the trails. . I still would love to have another opening on Stevens Creek Boulevard that if we re-look at the golf course is to have a road or some kind of access that folks can drive up to a certain point and then they have to walk the other way, than to mitigate some of the traffic and some of the buses that go down Byrne to San Fernando. . Over and over and over people come to us and say that we are tired of hearing that, and I believe that if we cut off that access, here on Byrne Avenue, and have the access on either entering from Stevens Creek Boulevard or from McClellan, I think that would be a win-win for the community. . The other thing is that options of the outreach, and I know that we got a lot of outreach tonight, but I feel that it is important to bring it back after the public hearing is finished and folks like Rhoda Fry and Deborah Jamison, I would love to see what their input is as well too. . Thank you. Chair Miller: . Thank you Gilbert. . Cary ... Com. Chien: . Thank you Chairman Miller. . You know sometimes I think we get mired in details and perhaps I have had the unfair advantage because I was on the Parks and Rec Commission for three years and I was able to hear a lot of this while we were in the planning stages. . The big picture here to me is pretty clear now. The Council, back to Council in 2000, not our current Council, directed that we look into opportunities, additional recreational opportunities for our city. So we decided we are going to take this piece of land very much like a developer would take a piece of land and plan it, but the only difference here is a developer there is only one stakeholder, really that developer for that piece ofland, but here we have many, many stakeholders. . That is what I really learned through this process, that we have a lot of stakeholders and we have got to do our best to try to address the concerns of each of these stakeholders. And I will give examples real quickly. . I think that over, one of the most important stakeholders is really the past Council, going back all the way to when they first established the particular ordinance, Ordinance 710, which said that any uses in McClellan Ranch Preserve has to be consistent with the preserve there. So we heard that and we said we are going to keep the trail out of the preserve and we are going to take it along a graded area that is more difficult to plan and keep it away from the preserves. We heard that, and I think that was really the spirit of most community residents who wanted to preserve that piece of property and we did that by moving the trail to an eastern alliance. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 52 May 23, 2006 . Scenic Circle residents also came in talked to us. They said they didn't want an access from their neighborhood and the Council voted to close off that gate to bring relief for that neighborhood. . Community gardeners wanted t keep their plots; in fact we have added more plots for them; I don't necessarily agree with it, but I think we have done that in the plan. . So those are just some of the stakeholders that I have saw and I think we have really done our best to try to address most of their concerns. That is not to say there aren't any additional comments and we have heard many of them here tonight. I think there is room for adjustments as we move forward. . For example, I would support not adding additional plots so that we can keep as much of the preserve as we can. I don't know if it matters to the environmentalists who want as much of the preserve as they can have. Perhaps a row of plots would mean a difference and I would support not having that additional row. . So really that kind of sums it up for me. I think: once all is said and done, this is going to be a good jewel for the residents of Cupertino, and really the goal is to keep this as a local amenity for our residents. The goal has never been to make it a regional park. . Lastly, kudos to the staff and to the Commissions who have worked on this; I Imow they have spent long hours doing this. Also to the TV crew for providing those cut-ins of the property because I think that is tremendously important for our viewers at home. . That is all I have. Com. Saadati: . Thank you. . Other commissioners have provided a lot of good comments, so I am going to just provide a couple. . I do bike on the weekends sometimes; I don't get in my car and do my shopping with bikes and I encourage creating a walkable city. . However, an 8 foot wide trail does not have a serene, walkable environment to me, and I have been on various trails also; and I am not sure if a 4 foot wide trail was considered. I Imow we had discussions in the past; the Caltrans requirement for bike trail has to be a minimum 4 foot on each side, but if it can, that would be a lot of improvement and instead of having a trailhead parking, we have bike racks; so people can bike there and then park their bike and walk. . Also, I would like to see as much of the orchard preserved as possible, 50 percent seems to be a lot; the community is connected to that orchard and I think we may regret it in future if it takes so much out. . The good things here that has been implemented, reducing the number 4,000 to 800 that environmentalist sensitive steps actually that has been taken, there are a lot of positive aspects of this project, and I hope that it moves forward, but as I said earlier, I have hiked a lot on the trail, 2 foot trail; the feeling is completely different when you are in a narrow trail vs. an 8 foot wide trail; it is not a trail; you could drive a maintenance vehicle on it actually. . That is my feeling about the project. Chair Miller: . Thank you Taaghi. . Well, I don't have that many comments either, given all the good input you have gotten already, but I do have a couple. . My first concern is over the comments that there hasn't been enough time to respond completely to the documents, and my feelings there is that it's more what I would say from an industry ... looking at an industry example, it is more important that we get a quality result Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 53 May 23, 2006 than we get a faster time to market, so to speak. . I think that if there is a way to extend this period so that you get all the input necessary, and that means that this project gets delayed for some period oftime, I would rather see that then rush to a conclusion that then turns out that there were some things that we hadn't considered that are extremely difficult to undo if that is even possible. So that was my first concern. . I agree with my colleagues on ... I also think that it's... I understand we have competing objectives here and that's always difficult, but my feeling is that I wouldn't mind seeing some of the golf course go in return for saving the orchard as well. . I agree also with the comments about saving the meadow, and maybe that means that some of the garden areas have to relocate to another area of town. . I agree that I am not convinced that having that 17 car parking lot adds something. . I also agree with the comments from the commissioners that we want to make this as much as natural habitat as possible and extending that even further, I kind of feel like with a project of this magnitude, we should be looking at not just status quo for the impact to the neighborhoods, but looking at ways to reduce that traffic, particularly since it appears that the majority of people coming in on buses are not even Cupertino residents; and so we are impacting our neighbors for a very small amount of profitable return to the city and to the convenience of people who don't live here; and somehow that doesn't sit right with me. . I guess ... and then comments that I have had before, I feel also that some of these comments we have heard tonight and just hearing them and having read the report that maybe some more study needs to go into ... or further study into the impacts of traffic when this system gets linked up that perhaps we haven't fully taken into account. . So those are my comments; there was one Commissioner suggested that we bring this back after the close of the comment period. Is there any interest in doing that from anyone else? Vice Chair Giefer: . I would support that. Com. Chien: . To bring it back to our Commission again? Sure. Therese Smith: . Mr. Chair, I have one concern. . Some of the items that have been discussed here by the Commission; one is the 17 car parking lot; yes, we could bring these things back, but the problem is there is a lot of debate that went into those decisions; they weren't random and they are actually Council action. . The reason behind that parking lot is that as I mentioned before, for those times when the large parking area is used to support the 100 days when that fee for picnic operation is running, there needs to be something for the residents. . You could say that people should walk in, but our concern is we have heard from the surrounding neighbors, that people don't want park goers parking in their neighborhood. So there is that impact, and so everything was a tradeoff and the difficulty is, and I apologize that you don't have all this background, but we can respond to your comments in writing and we can provide you at the end of this comment period, with a summary of everything that goes to the Council in response, and you could certainly come at ... and everyone .,. even though the public comment period for our written response ends May 30th... the Council hearing isn't until June 20th, and people will continue to prepare their remarks for presentation at that time. . But I think the body that made those decisions has to then evaluate those decisions in light of the impacts. It's hard to put you in a position of questioning that. . So I would recommend that we provide you with our summary of all ... we are getting a lot Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 54 May 23,2006 of responses in writing... we provide you with all of that background, plus response to all your comments, and then not hold another public hearing. That would be I think a better way to be true to what. .. to the decisions that the Council has already made. Chair Miller: . Gilbert. . . Com. Wong: . So, what the Planning Commission is recommending is not to change any City Council's decision; all we are suggesting is that we want further input. This will give the community more time to give input before the June meeting. . So the June City Council meeting is not going to change; we are not advocating any change. What we are advocating is that for city staff, that you heard a lot of response today; what I suggest is that it gives you an opportunity to come to the Planning Commission, explain to the community, you know... what you heard tonight, what you heard from us; explain to us, so that when it goes to City Council you won't have a long City Council meeting, and hopefully most of those technical questions will be answered at our Commission level and have the City Council look at the bigger question saying that do we want to invest the money and move the creek over to the golf course, or etc, etc., etc. . I amjust saying that it is public input; it is just a recommendation; we all know that the City Council makes the final decision. Mr. Piasecki: . And hearing the sentiment of the Commission, I assume there is a majority of you. What we can do is raise the issue with the Council, and if the Council feels there is value added with that to their decision, then we will ask them to bring it back to you at least either as an informational item or what have you. . Why don't we just handle it that way; we will bring it up to the Council that you have raised the issue. And if they want you to do ... Com. Saadati: . I am in favor of this. Mr. Piasecki: . Is that okay with the rest of the Commissioners that raised it? Chair Miller: . Lisa?? Com. Giefer: . If the response to us would be, here is the same thing again and here is the summary of the comments ... then yes, it is a waste of our time. . So I would just as soon hear Council's comments and make our feelings known to them. Therese Smith: . For instance, the Scenic Circle, I mean access... we even have some council members who want us to put that back in the document, but in the absence of a Council vote to do that, we can't analyze that. . They have made a decision one way, close that gate, and there are a lot of good reasons to open it, and some of them may have even changed their minds. But until they have told us, Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 55 May 23,2006 we want you to analyze something different, we have no business picking and choosing; we can't do that. It is what it is. Chair Miller: . Gilbert ... Com. Wong: . So I think Steve's recommendation is pretty good; if you can bring it up to the Council that the Planning Commission would like to have further recommendation based on community input, and our input. . . Mr. Piasecki: . And then if it helps them with their decision ... let it be their choice. Com. Wong: . And our feelings won' be hurt if they decide not so. Chair Miller: . So there is no further action on this item. . We conclude this item and we will take a short 5 minute recess. Chair Miller declared a recess. PUBLIC HEARING 5. U-2006-05, EXC-2006-03 Jim Mattison (Union Pacific Railroad McCleUan Road & Railroad Tracks. Use Pemit for a telecommunication facility consisting of a 65-foot monopole (treepole) and ground equipment. Exception for a 65-foot monopole (treepole) for a telecommunications facility to exceed 55-feet in height. Planning Commission decision final unless appealed, Colin Jung, Senior Planner, presented the staff report: . Reviewed the applications for a Use Permit to erect a personal wireless service facility consisting of a treepole and ground equipment; and a Height Exception to allow the treepole to go from the ordinance maximum of 55 feet in height to a maximum height of 65 feet. . The applicant is proposing a treepole similar to the one erected on Middlefield Road near Mitchell Park in Palo Alto. . Staff identified the following project issues outlined in the staff report: visual screening, potential base equipment noise, radio frequency radiation (RFR) assessment, and the potential DeAnzalUnion Pacific Trail. . Staff recommends that the Use Permit be conditioned to provide an improved trail from Rainbow Drive to McClellan Road, an approved trail for pedestrians and bicyclists, with accompanying easements for public access. . Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss the applications and continue them to a future public hearing to allow the applicant time to redesign the proposal to improve the visual screening. . If continuance is unacceptable to the applicant, staff recommends denial of the application per the model resolution. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 56 May 23, 2006 Jim Mattison, AAT Communications Corp.: . Said he communicated with staff about 9 months ago about the project, and in October found the ideal place for the carrier pole. He emailed staff and talked to Mr. Jung about the project, submitted the application and assumed everything was satisfactory. He then received a letter from staff on April 28th addressing concerns such as visual screening, the right location for the pole, and the pedestrian pathway. . Said that he discussed the pedestrian pathway on several different occasions and said that the Director indicated that a pathway was needed. However, applicant was leasing space from the railroad company, and could not get an easement from the railroad company. . Said he made every effort to comply with concerns and direction from the Planning Department staff, indicating his' willingness to discuss concerns and comply with requests. He said he did not hear further from the Planning Department staff. . Following the neighborhood meeting with 11 people present, he continued to communicate with staff, and did not receive any feedback until a week ago when staff discussed a continuance or denial on some items. He expressed frustration at the length of time the Planning Department has taken to respond and discuss the application. . Clarified that the proposed project was a 3 carrier pole not a 4 carrier pole, as most jurisdictions want a multi-carrier pole rather than several poles throughout the city. . He acknowledged the major concern that there was no service from carriers in the southwest comer of the city; and said that the few people who attended the neighborhood meeting were in favor of the carrier pole because presently there was no coverage. Chair Miller opened the public hearing. Eric Klein, Cupertino resident: . In favor of application. . Has resided for 14 years near the proposed facility. . Is a member of the Telecommunications Commission, but is speaking on his own behalf as a private citizen. . Supports the proposal for personal, business, and safety related reasons. . There has not been cell coverage in the area for 14 years. . Expressed concern that there was no service in that particular quadrant which poses a safety concern as there is no way to contact public safety officials in a power outage in that area. . Cited two incidents in Linda Vista Park where the police could not be called because of lack of service in the area. . Expressed concern that his children could not use their cell phone if there was an emergency walking from school to their home; there is no phone service in that area. George Maclin, 421 Elm Ct.: . Opposes the application. . Resides approximately 140 feet from the proposed cell tower; and has endured many proposals, but the cell tower is the most threatening one. . This tower will completely change the neighborhood. . Said that his cell phone has always worked in the area. . Said the area around the pond is one of the most densely populated areas in Cupertino; all the schools are within walking distance of the pond, and is the home for many animals and fish. . No one can know what the impact will be on the area; it is one of the few places in Cupertino that still remains a natural setting where people feel free safe and free without having to use their cars to drive someplace. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 57 May 23, 2006 . If the cell tower is approved, it will destroy the neighborhood; either out of fear of what the tower might do, whether it does it or not. . The base station supporting the proposed cell site will have an adverse impact on the environment because of the level of noise, large metal boxes, and batteries at the cell site for backup power. . Recommendation to alleviate some of the problems associated with base stations would be to enclose them underground. . What will happen to the base stations, the towers, during the next major earthquake; how will the tower perform during an earthquake? . We want to keep the neighborhood residential and not change it. . What will be on that tower; will the railroad have their communications included in the four carriers on the pole? Shing-Shwang Yao, Cupertino resident: . Thanked the Planning Commissioners and staff for the excellent planning for the city to provide a good quality of life in Cupertino. . The proposed tower does not fit the environment well; people enjoy walking around the trail and pond every day and would not be pleased to see the tower base and the fence. . The city Master Plan says the least preferred is the new structure in residential area and we believe this is a new structure in residential area. . Said he lived on Elm Court, about 150 feet away from the proposed treepole; he can now see redwood trees out his window, and would be able to see the tower if it was located there. . It is not going to be beautiful. . Is there any ecological study about how radio waves will affect balance of the environment . Radio wave from antenna could disrupt bats ability to send and receive their own radio wave to catch mosquitoes, and eventually bats might all have to go because they could not catch mosquitoes. More mosquitoes will exist in this pond area; more disease could be carried from mosquitoes to human beings. . I appreciate living there because this pond is to me like a park; but do we want to put an antenna in a park. Sankara Venkataraman, resident: . Opposes application. . Expressed frustration that he came to the meeting at 6:45 p.m. and waited until 10:30 p.m. to speak. . Said he did not have much to say, but felt it was more important than speaking about the antenna. . Asked how many antennas there were in the area; and why a location was chosen that had a large concentration of people residing in the area in many apartment complexes and three schools. . Said that people complain about cell phone coverage, but he was receiving adequate coverage with his present carrier. . It looks like there are going to be radiation problems and associated problems. There was one at Monta Vista High School where they tried to put a cell phone tower. I would like to fmd out why that was rejected; is it because of radiation? If radiation is not a problem, just put it anywhere else. . How was the site chosen; why not a mile from here? Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 58 May 23, 2006 Com. Wong: . Expressed appreciation to the audience members for attending the meeting. . He suggested that in the future if there are items on the meeting agenda that are important to residents or interested parties, they view the meeting from their home on Channel 26 on Cable TV or the city's website as the item approaches, in order to avoid waiting a long period of time at the meeting, since the Planning Commission cannot predict the time the agenda item would be heard or how long it would to conclude discussion of the item. David Dai, September Drive, Cupertino: . Opposed the application. . Recommended Venzon for coverage. . Said it was a commercial structure in a residential area. . The antenna does not look like a real tree, and is a poisonous tree. . He said the antenna will emit radio frequency pollution; and people don't have any way to protect themselves. . Said that the wireless frequency wave radiation has been proven to have adverse impacts on humans especially for those exposed 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, for 10-40 or more years. Com. Wong: . Clarified for the speaker that the staff recommendation was denial of the project. Chair Miller: . Clarified for the remaining speakers that the Planning Commission is not pennitted to rule on whether or not the radio 'waves are harmful to humans; and is prohibited by Federal Law from doing that. . Said it cannot be a condition or cause for denial of the application; other issues have to be addressed. Wendy Zheng, Cupertino resident: . Opposes the application. . Said the antenna pole would change the environment of the neighborhood; her family likes to bike and walk in the area. . Don't know the long term harmful effects on humans. Ying Qiang Zheng, resident: . Opposed to the application. . . The tower is 65 feet high; 30 feet from the railway, causing a safety concern. . The tower is close to the water pipe, may cause damage to the basement. Horace Lo: . Did not speak. Lee Shodiss, 21412 Elm Court: . Opposed to the application. . Resides about 140 feet from proposed antenna site. . Those particular towers do not look like trees and are eyesores. . Communicated with his real estate agent who said they were advising prospective buyers not to purchase homes near the antenna poles. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 59 May 23, 2006 . Although the Conunission cannot address the health issues, ifthere is some uncertainty there, it should not be ignored. . Requested that due to concerns expressed at the meeting, a better site be considered that might be more suitable and not so central to the people located there. Young Gin Xie, Cupertino resident: . Opposed to the application. . Said there is no clear standard regarding equipment noise and RF level and no enforcement. . The residents and company have a conflict of interest. . It will affect the quality of life in the area. Jesse Cheng, Monta Vista High School Senior student: . Opposed to the application. . Senior at Monta Vista High School. . Said that the pond area by the proposed antenna provides a serene atmosphere for students. . The antenna and sOWld of equipment will negatively affect the quiet atmosphere. . Expressed concern about the safety issue of the proposed fence if antenna is build behind a fence. Julia Zhu, Cupertino resident: . Opposed to application. . Asked who benefits from the project; is the City taking the opportunity for the money? . Said that the 2.5 % radiation is misleading, which would be for a public area, not residential which is exposed 24 hours. . Said that Federal regulations prohibits local government making a decision, but it does not prohibit residents from speaking about their concerns on the radiation frequency. Tom Bugonin, 20076 La Roda Ct.: . Opposed to the application. . Said he did not reside near the proposed location, but has had applications to have similar devices placed in his vicinity. . Said he was opposed to having the antennas in residential areas, especially when there are better locations close by for them. . Said the commercial area on Bubb Road next to Hwy. 85 would be an ideal location to place one of the devices or on the DeAnza College campus with its large trees to screen it. . Said the proposed location is a poor choice, and does not meet the objectives of Cupertino's Wireless Master Plan. It is not stealth; they are visible to residents. . He expressed concern about the 65 foot height; currently the General Plan allows buildings of 30 feet in this area; towers may be exempt but in the spirit of the General Plan, 30 feet height is appropriate for the Monta Vista area. . Supports staff recommendation for denial of the application. Chair Miller closed the public hearing. Com. Wong: . Stated that the recommendation is for denial of the application; they need an exception because in the area they cannot exceed 55 feet, and are asking for 65 feet. . Mr. Huganin had a good suggestion of locating it at DeAnza College or locating it at a public institution, or even at a business. Cupertino Planning Conunission Study Session & Regular Meeting 60 May 23, 2006 . The applicants have to find a landlord or property owner who is willing to allow them to lease a space for them; after they can enter the contract, they have to come to the City of Cupertino and apply for a permit, which city staff has a prescriptive ordinance, which is teleconununication plan. · There was a proposal in that particular neighborhood at Monta Vista High School; the Planning Commission did pass it; it did go through Fremont Union High School District and they voted otherwise, since they are the landlord of the property. · There have been attempts to put it at public institutions, and other places, but the applicant has a right to a public hearing and the community has their due process to come here as well too. · Apologized for the late hour of the meeting, and pointed out that sometimes meetings run later. He said they could not gage what time applications will be heard; that is why he suggested viewing the meetings on the City Channel or Cable TV. · Said he felt it was a miscommunication and that staff would not intentionally not contact Mr. Mattison, He asked staff to follow up with Mr. Mattison regarding the project. . Thanked Com. Klein who serves on the Telecommunications Committee for sharing his expertise and providing recommendations to the City Council. He said it was important to listen to all viewpoints. · Relative to the radiation frequency (RF), he stated that there is a Federal Law preventing any rulings to be made based on RF. . Said he recognized it was an emotional item, but if you look at a prescriptive on how staff broke it down, I do agree with staff's recommendation; it is over the height limit of 55 feet; I think that we need to follow our policy. · Said he agreed with staff's recommendation in the model resolution regarding inadequate screening as well as restrictive visual impacts. · Said he agreed with the applicant that there is no nexus between putting a trail with the application of putting in an antenna. He said he did not feel the trail and application for an antenna should be connected. . Staff reconunendation is appropriate. Com. Chien: . Asked Mr. Mattison how feasible underground bay stations are, if they are even possible. Mr. Mattison (applicant): · They are possible but impractical, especially around there because all the pipes are in that area. Com. Chien: . Staff reports says that although no base equipment has been proposed, such equipment has the potential to generate a lot of noise. . Where is the base equipment. Mr. Mattison: . It would be in the shelter; the noise is about the same as a refrigerator. Mr. Jung: . Said he was being overly cautious when talking about the base equipment. . Said they had not received any complaints about the noise from the base equipment. . All of them have met city noise standards. In this case, most of that equipment being air cooled will generate very little noise. However, there are certain types offacihties; Verizon, Nextel, has a shed with air conditioning equipment that generates noise. . He said that if the equipment is undergrounded, it cannot be air cooled, and would require Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 61 May 23, 2006 mechanical ventilation for the underground equipment, which is very costly, and would generate a lot of noise. The above ground air cooled units generate very little noise. . He said he was being cautious to say do a noise study to make sure it meets the noise ordinance. Com. Chien: . Asked Mr. Mattison if he was aware of the staff recommendation for a proposal for him to improve the screening. Mr. Mattison: . Reiterated that he was not aware of the issues until a week ago; and that he had been in contact with staff through phone calls and emails. . Staff contacted him last Wednesday stating they had concerns. . He asked if he could meet with staff about the concerns; one of them was the placement of the tree. . Reported that there were 8 emails to the Planning Department staff last month to inquire if everything was satisfactory, and were there any issues to be discussed before the Planning Commission meeting. He said he did not receive a response until a week ago, and 3 emails were sent and 2 phone calls. He said there was no response until this evening. . Said he was aware of the concerns now. Com. Chien: . Said that staff recognizes he was not given enough time to bring back changes. . Asked Mr. Mattison to comment on the changes. Mr. Mattison: . Said he told Mr. Jung a week ago that he was wiling to cooperate in any way in order to comply; he would move a tree, hire an arborist. . He expressed concern that it should be addressed this evening, as it was not addressed a month ago. He said he felt the issues should have been resolved prior to the meeting, and the purpose of the meeting this evening was to approve the application. . He expressed frustration that the application would have to be returned; and suggested that a condition of approval be made in order to move the application forward. . He said it was apparent that there is no nexus between the pathway and the facility itself, leaving the screening as the outstanding issue. He said he was willing to work with the Planning Department relative to the screening. Com. Chien: . Said it appeared that the applicant was willing to have it as a condition; however, was not willing to go back and redraw the plans and return for another hearing. Mr. Mattison: . Said he was not consulted that there were issues about the 65 foot height. . Said he was receptive to continuing the application if it would help resolve the issue; and that he was willing to cooperate with the Commission and staff on moving forward with the application. . Said it appeared that the screening was the only issue hanging up the application. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 62 May 23, 2006 Chair Miller: . Asked for clarification on the issue brought up by speaker relative to the comment of a commercial structure in a residential neighborhood. Mr. Jung: . Responded that a portion of the Southern Pacific right of way, the portion that abuts the Santa Clara Valley Water District property is zoned BQ, which allows telecommunications facilities with a use permit. Chair Miller: . Said that a previous speaker commented there was a potential environmental impact because of the possible effect on a bat roost in the area. He asked staff if the issue needed to be addressed. Mr. Jung: . Said he was not aware of any studies that analyze cell phone reception and bat frequencies, which are high frequency. Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Chien, to deny Application U-2006-0S and EXC-2006-03 per the model resolution. Com. Chien: . Said he did not agree with the statement that because the Commissioners may not live in Cupertino, they do not care. He said they all work hard on every issue that is presented to them. . There has been a lot of discussion about RF concerns, and the rationale that we always hear is that local municipalities, cities such as ourselves, cannot rule based on those reasons. The other side of it is that it is not that it is ignored, it is one of those things of democracy called separation of powers where the FCC regulatory agency has the ability to rule on those things. They had a study that was included in the staff report about the effects ofRF, so it is not that it is not being looked at, it simply is not being looked at by us; it is being looked at by your Federal government which you pay tax dollars to. Chair Miller: . Expressed concern, that although there is apparently a small area zoned BQ; it is in the middle of a residential area. He said he has seen towers similar to them before and is concerned about the appearance as well as the height. . Said he could not support the application at this time. (Vote: 3-1-0; Chair Miller No; Vice Chair Giefer absent). (Application denied) . MISC: Eric Klein: . Asked for clarification on the voting process of the Planning Commission, specifically Commissioners reporting their reasons for a "no" vote on an application. Chair Miller: . Explained that the individual Commissioner has the choice whether or not he/she wishes to make comments relative to their vote on an application. Cupertino Planning Commission Study Session & Regular Meeting 63 May 23,2006 Com. Saadati: . Explained why he voted no on the previous application. The recommendation was to continue the application; if the applicant was not willing to accept the continuance, deny the application. He clarified that the applicant indicated he was willing to continue it to address the architectural appearance issues. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Environmental Review Committee: . Chair Miller reported that there was a discussion of the Stevens Creek Trail. Bousin~ Commission: . No meeting since the last Planning Commission meeting. Mavor's Monthlv Meetin2 With Commissioners: . Com. Wong reported that he would attend the next meeting scheduled for the first week of June. Economic Development Committee: . No meeting held. Director of Community Development: . No additional report. The meeting was adjourned to the regular Planning Commission on June 14,2006 at 6:45 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: SUBl\fiTTED BY: Elizabetb A. Ellis, Recording Secretary