Loading...
P&R 06-01-95CFI Y OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torte Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone (408) 777-3200 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION City Hall June 1, 1995 CALL TO ORDER 1. Adjourned regular meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission called to order at 7:00 p.m. SALUTE TO THE FLAG 2. ROLL CALL 3. Commissioners present: Commissioners absent: Staff present: Quinlan, Buhler, Hopkins, Lohmiller Hendrickson Stephen Dowling, Director of Parks and Recreation Linda Lagergren, Recording Secretary INTRODUCTIONS 4. None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 5. None UNFINISHED BUSINESS 6. None NEW BUSINESS 7. Director Dowling stated that "the issue before the Commission this evening is to review and pass along to City Council a recommendation on two aspects of the County's Trail Master Plan. The first aspect is the map itself that identifies desirable trail routes within the County. The second aspect is to review the strategies (six of them) and pass a recommendation on to City Council. As we spoke about last meeting, this Commission is not going to get involved in the priorities nor the design criteria for the actual trails." Director introduced Santa Clara County Park Planner, Julie Bondurant. Julie Bondurant gave an overview of the process that the Trails Committee went through to develop the trails plan and then she went through the components of the plan and gave a status report on where the committee and the plan is at this point. "The work that the Trails Advisory Committee has been doing is an update of our existing map and policies that are contained within our County General Plan. This existing map and policies were developed in the late 1970's and adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 1980. Our County General Plan just went through an update for the entire plan and the Board of Supervisors readopted the existing plan and policies as a placeholder for the work that the committee was doing." Chairman Quinlan asked, "Do you anticipate most of the trail being by easement or do you anticipate property acquisition?" PRC # 167 Aapproved 8/3/95 Call to order Salute to Flag Roll Call Review Santa Clara County Trails Master Plan Bondurant replied, "It will involve a whole realm of different means of developing the trail and we have easements in place. We will continue to use some easements, but that will not develop our whole trail system by any means. It will be a combination and it will also include using some road rights-of- way." Bondurant continued, "Now that we have finished the draft Master Plan, we as staff and the consulting team are working on the Environmental Impact Report, and that should be going out to the public for review in the Summer, possibly July. We will be taking the final Master Plan, General Plan, and the E.I.R. to the Board of Supervisors in the Fall, probably mid-October. When we go to the Board of Supervisors we will be asking for approval for three things - adopt a General Plan Amendment (preamble, strategies and policies, and the map), adopt the Trails Master Plan, and certify a program level E.I.R. for both the General Plan Amendment and the Master Plan." Julie Bondurant reviewed the six strategies from the General Plan. Chairman Quinlan asked, "If a property owner is under the Williamson Act and acquisition of a trail area is through their property, will a property owner's status be affected under the Williamson Act? Bondurant explained, "these three policies address that. We will not be developing trails in land that is in the Williamson Act, unless a property owner were to come to us and wanted to have us secure an easement while they continued in agriculture. That would not preclude them from staying in the Williamson Act." Chairman Quinlan asked, "Will your trail system also suggest locations for parking? I'm curious because some of your trails are such a great distance from one end to the other. Are there going to be suggested places for people to go, where they can take possibly half or one-third of the trail." Julie Bondurant stated, "We are looking at regional staging areas in this Master Plan." Ms. Bondurant reviewed the existing and proposed staging areas on a map. The policies include guidelines on what should be included in a regional staging area." Commissioner Buhler asked, "Does the plan include regional staging areas in cities, or are they only in County areas." Ms. Bondurant replied, "They would include regional staging areas within cities." Commissioner Buhler asked, "Are there any in Cupertino on that map?" Ms. Bondurant replied, "On the borders. Rancho San Antonio would be considered a regional staging area and Stevens Creek County Park has Fremont Older. Although it is not in Cupertino, Shoreline of Mountain View would be considered a regional staging area for the bay trail." Commissioner Quinlan asked, "What is the guidelines for distance between those regional staging areas, if you have one?" Ms. Bondurant said, "We do have policies about where there should be a distance between staging areas, they wouldn't necessarily be regional staging areas that would include all the amenities the committee is looking at for a regional staging area, but they would be access points." Commissioner Lohmiller asked, "What is proposed in Cupertino?" Ms. Bondurant said, "There are some revisions to what is shown on this map. One of the key things that is being revised on this plan is that along Stevens Creek we show all of this as being off-road, and that will not be tree. We are revising our plans so that it is more reflective of what you are looking at in your General Plan. We are taking those parts of your General Plan where they incorporate our regional trails and we are trying to follow them to the letter, because it is going to be up to you to implement our trails plan. So it is really important that if you already have an adopted General Plan, that wherever we can, we look at what you are doing." Page 2 Review Santa Clara County Trails Master Plan. Director Dowling stated, "There is a narrative section to this draft plan that describes in detail the various intersections with streets. Essentially there are three trails that are within our city limits or sphere of influence. We have one regional trail - De Anza Trail, we have a sub-regional trail - Stevens Creek Trail, and the third trail that is in our city limits is the Southern Pacific Rail Trail. So when you are making a recommendation to city council, my advice to you is to focus your recommendation on those trails that are within our sphere of influence or city limits." At this point the Commission came down and reviewed the map plan. Commissioner Buhler asked, "Are we going to be asked to adopt the map tonight?" Director Dowling said, "You are being asked to endorse the map and endorse the six strategies." Commissioner Buhler added, "Given that, how extensive are the changes to the map that we have yet to see?" Director Dowling said, "The map is being changed to reflect our General Plan." Chair Quinlan asked, "How does the General Plan impact the Kaiser property or properties south of Stevens Creek?" Director Dowling said, "It is a general route line, it is not a route specific line. You are saying tonight that the general route is consistent with our General Plan." Commissioner Buhler said, "I'm puzzled, my reaction is that we should re-adopt the General Plan because that is what we know and that is really our policy. If you are asking us to state tonight that the map reflects the General Plan, you have already said, it doesn't, because there is at least one major exception. You've also said there are some other changes that have been made and they haven't been specific. I then say, are you asking us to say that it is consistent with the General Plan with the following exceptions, and if so are you going to tell us what the exceptions are." Director Dowling said, "I understand the difficulty you are having and the option here is to not take an action tonight, but to wait until the plan has been revised by the consultant, and we bring you that plan back." Julie Bondurant stated, "The revised trail plan and the EIR will be coming out this summer. There is a 45-day review period that goes on in conjunction with the EIR. During that time we will be having a public hearing." Chair Quinlan asked, "From a timing standpoint, have you gone to the other cities yet?" Ms. Bondurant replied, "We have gone to several other cities and at this point aside from our County Historic Heritage Commission which endorsed the general alignment and concept of having the Juan Bautista DeAnza trail in the trails plan, everybody else has had workshops. They have not taken formal motions. In terms of the committees work, they are looking for acceptance of this plan before they forward their recommendation on to the Planning and Parks Commission. That will be happening late summer or early fall. If you feel uncomfortable until there is a draft plan and you really see the environmental report that accompanies that, remember that it is a program level EIR, so it is not going to address a specific alignment in your city. But it will be addressing the overall environmental impacts at a policy level. If that is when you feel comfortable, then take this presentation and dwell on it, and look at the EIR and the revised plans, so you have a comfort level." Chair Quinlan asked, "Are your strategies that you have listed in order of priority as far as the committee is concerned? Because if they are, I disagree with them. Because #6 (Facilitate inter- jurisdictional coordination) should be above #4 (Adequately operate and maintain trails). Maintenance of trails presumes that you have trails, that you have constructed them, you are going to have to have interjurisdictional coordination before you get any trails in there. Item #6 should be up at #2 or #3." Commissioner Buhler stated, "Once I looked at the list I said this can't be in chronological order." Page 3 Review Santa Clara County Park Trails M~ster Plan. Commissioner Hopkins asked, "Regarding funding on a regional trail is it possible for local and county governments to get ISTEA money for certain part of trails?" Ms. Bondurant replied, "Assuming that the ISTEA funding goes forward, and that CALTRANS lets us spend the ISTEA funding that we've gotten, yes we have as a County gotten some ISTEA funding, I would say that the ISTEA funding is in serious jeopardy. But hopefully we will continue to see money coming out of the transportation funding." Beez Jones, Cupertino resident." I am Dianne MeKenna's appointee. She appointed two people from her district, Nancy White to represent the trail people and I was to represent the landowners. The plan is parcel specific. There are 200 families who have the trail lines through their property. This is county- wide. I don't know how it is in Cupertino. That is why I came tonight to find out who's property you are going to go through. On this parcel specific, they have had a workshop and allowed the property owners to come and speak and express their concerns, and they have some very serious concerns about putting a trail across their private property. One of the decisions that has been made is that they will have a different graphic sign when it is going across private property. Patrick Miller, consultant, led me to believe that you could tell me whose property the trail was going through." Commissioner Hopkins said, "Back to my question, your main input was from the staff?." Ms. Bondurant said, "The main input from each of the incorporated jurisdictions was from working with the staff. The area that Beez is referring to in terms of being parcel specific is related to the unincorporated areas where we tried to identify where there were private properties, where the County would have jurisdiction in working with those landowners. We did not do individual noticing to every single person in the county except for trying to put flyers out at public counters because we do not have jurisdiction in those cities." Commissioner Hopkins stated, "When you drew out on the map the Stevens Creek trail, you actually worked with city of Cupertino to get a ball park figure of where that trail would go through the city of Cupertino." Ms. Bondurant stated that that was correct. Commissioner Hopkins continued, "What does it mean to the city of Cupertino, if we endorse the plan?" Ms. Bondurant said, "The existing plan has served as a guide for many of the cities for the last fifteen years. Knowing that, the Board of Supervisors would probably be interested in knowing that you still see a value in those routes we are showing and that they are coordinated with your city." Mark McKenna, representative from Kaiser Cement. "I can address the prioritization of the list and why the maintenance was so high on the list. You have to remember that the property owners had a great deal of influence here and so things seemed a little bit skewed. One of them was we don't want the trail on our property if you can't maintain the fences. So for property owners, that was very high. I can't go through everyone of those and list why it received the priority it did, but it gives you a little insight of why things look a little bit different than they should. Kaiser Cement is directly or indirectly related to the three trails that are going through Cupertino. In regards to the Rail Trail, we are the only one that receives or uses that rail line between the junction to Highway 85 and 17 up to Cupertino. We have three trains that come up, one on Sunday, one on Tuesday and one on Thursday. The train line goes by enough to be deadly. We worry about that. Once we endorse this plan, I'll be monitoring you because it directly affects our operation." Chair Quinlan asked, "Does Kaiser own the Rail line?" Mark McKenna said, "No, Southern Pacific does, but they only come out to do us." Chair Quinlan asked, "Does that make you liable or Southern Pacific liable?" Mark McKenna said, "It makes Southern Pacific liable, but if they shut down that rail line, then it directly affects us. And that is why we are really concerned. It is just bad publicity for us because we are the only ones that use the rail line. I didn't specifically compare the verbiage between Cupertino's General Plan and the County's General Plan but I compared the trail routes. I have told the County that I agree with the City's General Plan on that. We liked your alignment." Page 4 Review Santa Clara County Park Trails Master Plan. Rep on Trails Advisory Committee Mark McKenna Kaiser Cement Chair Quinlan asked, "Mark, are you satisfied with the trail plan insofar as the Cupertino General Plan depicts it?" Mark McKenna said, "Yes." Director Dowling asked Commission if they had any other changes or recommendations on the strategy statements. Chair Quinlan said, "I heard Mark and understand his concern, but from the standpoint of the overall picture, there needs to be a reorder of the strategies. I'm specific about item #6 being moved up." Commissioner Buhler said, "I am not sure that there was a priority intended." Ms. Bondurant said, "There is some relationship to the ordering of them compared to the way the whole County General Plan is done. There is also a focus on areas that we have jurisdiction over. That would tend to put #6 towards the end." Beez Jones said, "One of the first meetings of the trails committee was to set up priorities and strategies and after that date I don't recall going over the order of it. If this is a concern of yours then it should be brought before the committee." Commissioner Buhler moved to continue agenda item #7 until the revised map and EIR are available and to insure that it is consistent with our General Plan. Commissioner Hopkins seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried. 8. Director Dowlin. g said the issue before the Commission tonight is to essentially do a little goal setting and issue setting culminating from a meeting with the Chair and Vice Chair and myself. Seven items were identified as possible consideration/discussion items for the Commission. Tonight we will start with this list, if some of you have additions, that is fine and indeed welcome. We'd like to talk about each one of these in terms of what your preferred outcomes are and then from that, setup some timelines and implementation strategies." Commission reviewed each of the seven items: 1. Commission involvement in Capital Improvement budget for parks. 2. Changes in parks programs to accommodate demographic changes. 3. Relationship with YMCA regarding related activities. 4. Recreation programs for Cupertion based industries (on-site and offsite). 5. Parks and Recreation activities for shut-ins. 6. Long-term strategies. 7. Procedure for developing commission agenda and committee assignments. Director said he thought there is a need for the Commission to review the Capital Improvement Program document prior to it going to council for their review. So what I am suggesting is whether there is one item or twenty capital improvement items for Parks and Recreation, that in January the Commission look at the draft. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEET1NG 9. Commissioner Lohmiller moved and Commissioner Hopkins seconded the motion to approve the minutes of the May 4, 1995 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. All in favor. Motion approved. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 10. None MONTHLY REPORTS 11. Director reported that Dottie Schmid was a recipient of a CREST award. He also reported that registration numbers were very high for our Summer basketball and roller hockey sports camps. 12. Commissioner Hopkins reported on the CURB meeting that he attended. Commissioner Lohmiller reminded commission of the upcoming charity golf tournament. MISCELLANEOUS 13. There was no legislative update. 14. Chairman Quinlan reported on the Mayor's breakfast meeting. Page 5 Review Santa Clara County Park Trails Master Plan. Review and discuss commission goals and Motion Monthly Reports 15. Director reported, "Cupertino Union School District has approached us about administering their after- school enrichment program. This is a pretty significant program. It occurs at all 18 of their sites. We contacted the adjacent cities to make sure we weren't stepping on their toes. All of them said no problem. This is an excellent opportunity to increase our market base and reduce the duplication between their after-school classes and our classes and get into some new areas. This will begin next Fall. Initially it will be a net revenue of $10,000 and within a year or two as much as $30,000." 16. Commissioner Lohmiller reported that the next Creekside Master Plan Committee meeting would be held on Tuesday, June 6, in conference room A at City Hall. ADJOURNMENT 17. Commissioner Buhler moved and Commissioner Hopkins seconded the motion to adjourn at 9:32 p.m. to the regular meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission on Thursday, July 6 1995, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers. All in favor. Motion passed. Respectfully submitted, ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: Chairperson Page 6 StaffOral Reports Motion