The URL can be used to link to this page

CC 03-07-05 F CUPEIQ1NO AGENDA CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING 10350 Torre Avenue, Community Hall, Council Chamber Monday, March 7, 2005 7:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the council trom making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda. CEREMONIAL MATTERS - PRESENTATIONS 1. Proclamation for Craig Breon for his work as an environmental advocate. NEW BUSINESS 2. Conduct a joint meeting with the Parks and Recreation Commission, and the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, to discuss the Stevens Creek Corridor Park project. ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the City of Cupertino will make reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special assistance, please contact the city clerk's office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in advance oj the meetinf(. CITY F CUPEIQ1NO Parks and Recreation Department CITY COUNCIL PARKS RECREATION COMMISSION AND BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item Number ~ Agenda Date: March 7, 2005 SUBJECT Stevens Creek Corridor Park INTRODUCTION The Stevens Creek Corridor Park Project has been ongoing for several years. We have planned this meeting to: · Provide information to the Council and Commissioners, · Provide the public an opportunity to address the Council and Commissions together, and · Prepare the Council for decisions that need to be made fairly soon with respect to: The trail alignment The options for operating Blackberry Farm Picnic Grounds (with or without an entry fee) The tentative project schedule, and Transferring the Blackberry Farm fund balance of $680,000 into the capital improvement budget, to commence the park improvement project. Two of the three park alternatives generated for this meeting include a limited Blackberry Farm entry fee picnicking operation. At the City Manager's request, these two "hybrid options" were developed for public comment. They are attached; Alternatives A-2 and A-3. We will discuss them at the meeting. Printed on Recycled Paper ;2 -I Stevens Creek Corridor Park March 7, 2005 Page 2 of5 Trail Alignment Recommendation: We are recommending an eastside alignment with a single bridge to be constructed between the southern end of the Stocklmeir orange orchard and the golf course pond. This location maintains the 100- foot setback requested by the residents of the Meadows neighborhood. The eastside alignment provides the best internal park circulation and links activity centers. Timing: The decision regarding a trail alignment is needed so park and restoration plans can be refined. Residents of the surrounding neighborhoods are anxious to provide input and hear the Council's preference. Discussion: The eastside alignment is shown on all of the alternatives. A task force worked for two years on a feasibility study and determined that separating a free trail ITom the 4000 person Blackberry Farm entry fee-based recreational facility was infeasible. Ultimately, two alignments were considered: . The east bank alignment - connecting to Stevens Creek Boulevard at the Stock1meir property, crossing the creek at the southern end of the orange orchard and then extending through Blackberry Farm and the Water District parcel. The trail continues around the community gardens and 4-H pens in McClellan Ranch Park. . The west bank alignment - connecting to Stevens Creek Boulevard at the Stocklmeir property, then crossing back and forth over Stevens Creek on five bridges. The west alignment ultimately extends through the Santa Clara Valley Water District parcel and into McClellan Ranch Park at the community gardens and 4-H area. The west bank alignment was rejected because ofthe expense and environmental consequence of building five bridge crossmgs. NOTE: Both alignments will require relocation/reconstruction of the 4-H pens and this cost should be borne by the project. We have progressed with park planning options and all ofthem have been enhanced by an eastside trail alignment. For this meeting, we have generated three alternative park plans and two of the options allow some per-person entry fee collection for Blackberry Farm Picnic Grounds. These are discussed below. ;)-2 Stevens Creek Corridor Park March 7, 2005 Page 3 of 5 Rental Income: Note - this discussion does not take into account the income ITom rental property at the Blue Pheasant, McClellan house and the Simms property. Rental income is currently deposited into the General Fund. The rental income ITom all properties is ITom the: Blue Pheasant Restaurant, Simms house, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, and Friends of Stevens Creek Trail. Total rent received is $131,136 per year, paid to the General Fund. Options for operating Blackberry Farm Picnic Grounds: Recommendation: If the Council's primary concern is loosing revenue ITom the picnic grounds, the "800 person maximum capacity for fee picnicking" option (Alternative A3) will provide the greatest revenue generating potential. The "500 person maximum capacity for fee picnicking" option (Alternative A2) provides the best mix of revenue to restoration. Timing: We recommend operating Blackberry Farm as it currently is for the '05 and '06 seasons with construction of the new facilities to commence in 2007. This schedule will meet the requirements ofthe Department of Water Resources Grant. The Santa Clara Valley Water District is budgeting funding for their portion of the restoration effort for 2007 construction. Discussion: The community visioning process that followed the work of the Stevens Creek Trail Task Force resulted in the Council reaffirming goals for the project that emphasized education and environmental restoration and included a trail or trails to serve a variety of trail users. Staff worked with the Parks and Recreation Commission and the community to develop an appropriate program for the park that emphasized environmental restoration and education. We presented a proposed program for the park - minus the entry fee - to the Parks and Recreation Commission and the public. After receiving comment, we reviewed the public comment and the financial projection to operate the park with the City Manager. This financial alternative (labeled A1, "500 Maximum Capacity, No Fee Based Option with Youth Camps/Rec. Swim" on Exhibit B, Blackberry Farm Operational Options) resulted in a cost to the City of $9,000 per year, with golf course profits paying for all salaries and park maintenance. At the City Manager's request, two additional entry fee alternatives were prepared for review by the Council, Commissions and members of the public. Both of these alternatives retain some of the profit generating aspects of Blackberry Farm, but with far less activity. The plans for these alternatives are attached as Exhibits A1 and A2. The expected revenue and expenditures for the three alternatives is summarized in Exhibit B, Blackberry Farm Operational Options. :2-] Stevens Creek Corridor Park March 7, 2005 Page 4 of 5 Creek Restoration: Restoration planning began in November, 2004 following execution of the collaborative agreement with the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). The work to date has focused on developing alternatives for in-stream restoration. Restoration work will not be limited to in- stream work - oak woodland meadow (upland) plantings will also be introduced. Two approaches to the in-stream restoration have been proposed by Balance Hydrologics, stream restoration consultants. One approach uses more natural, self-maintaining stream restoration concepts that aim to remove the fish barriers and develop pools and riffles habitat. The second approach is a more traditional solution, which includes the construction ofhardscape (concrete and boulder) step pools and drops that allow for improved fish passage, but have a more limited ability to provide spawning and rearing habitat. The benefits ofthe more natural self-sustaining approach to flood management include reduced long-term maintenance and enhanced steelhead spawning and rearing habitat provided by the pools and riffles. The more natural approach can only be achieved (between the second and third low flow automobile crossing in the park) through realignment and lengthening of the creek channel. The pools and riffles must have a shallow gradient to remain stable over time. A large parking demand would preclude the use of the more natural stream realignment/stabilization techniques because there would not be sufficient channel length available to achieve this gradient. The water district can work with either approach. Water district staff will be at the meeting to answer any questions the Council may have. Parking considerations: We have generated two optional "entry fee" alternatives (Exhibits A2 and A3). The parking is proposed to be "festival style" for the 100 days per year that the picnic ground is open for business (in both Alternatives). The number of spaces, both fixed and festival style, is noted on the attached drawings. By using festival style parking and shuttling from offsite for major events, it is possible to contain the amount of the parking needed inside the park to a reasonable amount, while maintaing some entry fee picnicking. Parking has the greatest impact on the available area for restoration of any of the park activities. Parking at the Stevens Creek Boulevard parking lot is proposed to be increased through a tighter parking arrangement (with angled parking and one-way aisles). The proposed Stevens Creek Boulevard parking layout shown in all three alternatives utilizes the frontage road along Stevens Creek Boulevard. Currently, there are 92 spaces available; the preferred parking layout increases parking availability to 125. This is the amount of parking that we believe we can place on the site without shortening the golf course. 2-L( Stevens Creek Corridor Park March 7, 2005 Page 5 of5 Parking at McClellan Ranch Park is not proposed to be expanded beyond the 31 spaces currently available. The Simms house frontage will still be used a few times a year for parking overflow for special events such as Wildlife Education Day. With proper scheduling, parking in the interior of Blackberry Farm, off San Fernando, can be used for overflow. The trail will serve as an important amenity within the park linking activity centers. Proiect Schedule Recommendation: We are recommending that Blackberry Farm operate as it has for two more seasons through October 2005 and 2006. Groundbreaking for Stevens Creek Corridor Park could commence in 2007, if Council so directs. Timing: The decision regarding when to build the project is needed fairly soon to ensure that a number of critical path activities that must occur prior to groundbreaking in 2007 are completed. Growing native plant material for use in the restoration project and pursuing the extensive permitting needed to complete the in-stream work needs to begin now. Having a defined project schedule assists in preparing additional grant applications for funding. If Council believes these concepts are well enough defined for making the decisions on: · Trail alignment · Blackberry Farm operation · Project schedule Staff would like to forward them to the Council on March 15 for decision. At that time, staff would also ask Council to transfer the funds in the Blackberry Farm fund balance into a capital improvement project account, for project implementation. This study session is intended to answer questions in advance of the decision-making meeting. If many questions remain unanswered, staff will return on March 15 with additional information. Respectfully submitted: , ,) }l ~____ Therese Ambrosi Smith, Director Parks and Recreation Department R9L David W. Knapp, City Manager g:\parks and recreation admin\l stevens creek corridor\staffreports\joint cc mtg.doc 2-) ,/".r- ~ Legend B Multi-Use Sheller . Proþosed Restoration Area , ' D Existing Golf Course Playing Areas Existing Golf Course Greens -p:I. Proposed Pedestrianl Bike Bridge ~- Stevens Creek Channel ---/ (low flow) -- Proposed Bike/Ped Trail - Existing Nalure Trail l Proposed Fence Around Picnic Area \ Existing Tree Canopy l. , ~ Historic Meander Restoration -, , r, I High Flow ChanneV I( ~ Seasonal Wetland ~>;;,.; Pool and Riffle Restoration ~ STEVENS CREEK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVE A1: UP TO 500 PERSON MAXIMUM CAPACITY-NO ENTRY FEE ~'J tâl~ J~\.j /f ,I1C,-:', I~ \\.I <'$---0 l '~~ Ul} ( ", r'-b00 '-~\.~~ LL,)gg<:: B I ,'i I' I" " ) { ''1, i' ( fi~.1,:) Lt' \ 'I \ \"' . \, Ii! '- ('-'"::'3 .. ',\1" \,L /' I ) j~......-. '; - Historic Meander Restoratlo~ (' (V ',< '" High Flow ChanneV _ C ' Seasonal Wetland _~ /' ! .,/0> " \, f.~ r-' \ ( C::J ---;:) " ~ ~( ~ (Upt~!II\O~ ~ Monta Vista High School T GR.l.PHIC 8CÀ!.I o 1001&1) 2Q(¡ XIO t.c..,1......"--' ,--¡ 1 in~h = 100 tl. - I NORTH /' / i " ,) , , -, c \ ~~. <: h /",1 ) Hlstonc Meander RestoratJ~. Ii (v , \, HIgh Flow ChanneV l seasonaIVVe~an~ I, EntryKlo&k ::;:". Picnic Area Accommodatin 500 PersonrJ ''--:j 'ì '- ( , Perimeter Picnic Fence \. exlll!II'I(jITI1Ie ("J '- r-~- ~ CII1OPI'} ( /,...-J \'. ... ,,__c/ / -- e"~~" --'~I' , " I "'," ø II' """ \ F-'\I "'''ý' /7.* x...... :-.; ( fJ\.-· ~(ö~i{~/'c}·çlo\~~<~~ _Î j'-' (ö ~f-E"'.' N""" C; \0.\ /-{ r!~;.J r"" ~>-? '\- / llJ.) rf'.. (' °McClellàn ÖL-¡ .¡......,,: ) -.Hi I \ :' ) Ranch () i Hor I· :(1 ' "'t\/;) \¡, Y" / (70 C, ) \ \:~"'~ì é», ( / ~.¿-i.. ,:- ,¡ ... \ . '" "l1I1!;- J\ .~~ ',- 01, :~ì U , ¡ C__., /~~~ :::-.., Legend B Multí~Use Shelter . Proposed Restoration Area ~ Existing Golf Gourse L~ Playing Areas Existing Golf Course Greens ):d. Proposed Pedestrian! Bike Bridge Stevens Creek Channel (low flow) ---/ -- - Proposed Bike/Pad Trail l Existing Nature Trail Proposed Fence Around Picnic Area _[~J', " ' I~·· Existing Tree Canopy ~ Historic Meander Restoration ~~:':~:. High Flow ChanneV Seasonal Wetland »R~ Pool and Riffle Restoration Monta Vista High School T ORTH GIIW'HIC$CAUi loa Ur) toO J(IQ ~I.........I I....) 1 inch = 100 It. ~ ~ J '" \)i¡"~ (L;I'f1QI~O~ STEVENS CREEK CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVE A2: UP TO 500 PERSON MAXIMUM CAPACITY- WITH ENTRY FEE .-'/ Jll Stevens Creek Blvd. , '~J' ~ Driveway RølitaurWIII :'->¡OoIfProSIJOÞ In "-;:h~"''''''''" ,t:, B r" ,I ;~ ".¡" (\--1 ¡' t ¡ .,.,.,.~ { .lire': >( /i {-',I"j \ \.,-¡ , ': (¡ 1,' ) II (') '! ,'J If~"\ 'In.. \} ( r . \, ~" " ( '7> " "'-'\' '&'\ \ I, ¡'UJ, '-, j ) .~ } . I , (/"J.;' f~ () .-, " :."" L"s .( \ ..... "!J \ ( .. BI~bEf1\' ~ u Fc0JS \ "I ': , .,.". I I.. ì 'VI C GO}fA.ì<o(;Jr$,ê ( / . ~-,; i ¡' \, ì HoIe5', !,___~\ ) { ':>, r~~'j ,"....'HI>IÐ,:! L ."~",,-./..~,,. r' ". IJ ' '. \, I, '" (} ,I' I I'" j (I [, 1.,1 í~ì '(' , () ¡ 2 ' , , .' \,/Î " HaIioeJ I ('1 ~:,.ß'J:; \ 0'/'-/ 1.,J_,'U!' L' '\ "'-.~ 0 0 Q I~Cr'S;.~_r.n ../ ,.", ___f"' ,.,=."J Large Picnic Area A=mmodatin~ .. 800 Persons ../,,/________ l Entry KIoak'':;'' ...J <; ,---,,--'\ .~_......'Ã: ,.--~, Perimeter Picnic ..-0 " ,.; Fence \ .. C~ .....-;,:J l ~c \, r, Legend [8] Multi-Use Shelter . Proposed Restoration Area D Existing Golf Course Playing Areas Existing Golf Course Greens 'fd. Proposed Pedestrianì Bike Bridge ...../ Stevens Creek Channel (low flow) -- Proposed Bike/Ped Trail ..- Existing Nature Trail l Proposed Fence Around Picnic Area c Existing Tree Canopy ~ Historic Meander Restoration .~}~',~ High Flow Channell Seasonal Wetland ~~ Pool and Riffle Restoration - Monta Vista High School T ORTH GIUPHIC SCJ.IZ o '00'» 190 30CI ~-~ . (.'-1 1 inch ; 100 ft, ~ I Historical reservation information was requested by Councilmember Wang, so we are making it available to councilmembers and commissioners. This material is not referred to in the staff report, but we can answer any questions about it in the meeting. CURRENT OPERATION - 4,000 CAPACITY - FEE BASED Blackberry Farm Picnic Exhibit C 1 Average Group Size per Reservation 240 i ---- 220 -, 200 ~ -- - - #of 180 Groups 160 -- -- 140 120 100 --.---..-- 80 60 -, 40 1... -- --- - 20 , " -= -= -- " , 0 ' " 101 - ~01 . 301· 401- 501· 751- 200 300 400 500 750 1 000 1000 + J - # of I_ Weekday 211 57 10 6 2 2 1 1 Days ~ - - - - - - - o Weekend 164 64 31 12 6 5 2 2 CURRENT OPERATION - 4,000 CAPACITY - FEE BASED Blackberry Farm Picnic Exhibit C2 Average Reservation Attendance 28 ~// -- ------- - ____n ____ 24 / _____n_ --~ 20 ---- ------ Number of Days 16 12 ----- 8 4 0 I . . o -500 501- 1,001 - iO '0 iO 3000 + 1,000 1,500 O( 51 O( -- - . Weekday 25 22 4 2 1 0 ° - - - - - - - CJ Weekend 13 13 9 7 2 1 1 ---- WEEKDA Y CURRENT OPERATION 4,000 CAPACITY - FEE BASED Blackberry Farm Weekday Admission and Expenditures People Re\enue' Cost People 1-500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 200 $1,200.00 $1,338,00 Expenditures 300 $1,800,00 $1,338.00 Office $297. 50 $385.00 $385,00 $473.00 $561,00 $561,00 $561.00 $561.00 400 $2,400.00 $1,338,00 Lifeguards $577.50 $660,00 $660,00 $660,00 $660.00 $660,00 $660,00 $660.00 500 $3,000.00 $1,338.00 Maintenance $108.00 $135.00 $16200 $189,00 $189.00 $216.00 $216.00 $216,00 750 $4,500,00 $1,338.00 Janitorial $48,00 $48.00 $48,00 $4800 $48,00 $48,00 $48,00 $48.00 1,000 $6,000,00 $1,535.00 Pools $67.00 $67.00 $67,00 $67.00 $67.00 $67,00 $67.00 $67.00 1,500 $9,000.00 $2,382.00 Supplies $20,00 $20,00 $20,00 $20.00 $20.00 $20,00 $20,00 $20.00 2,000 $12,000.00 $2,477. 00 Utilities $20.00 $20.00 $20 00 $20,00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20,00 2,500 $15,000,00 $3,915.00 Sheriff 0 0 $800.00 $800,00 $800.00 $1,600,00 $1,600,00 $1,600.00 3,000 $18,000,00 $4,742.00 Shuttle 0 0 0 0 $1,35000 $1,350.00 $1,350.00 $1,350,00 3,500 $21,000.00 $4,742,00 Administrati\e Staff $100,00 $100,00 $100,00 $100,00 $100.00 $10000 $100,00 $100,00 4,000 $24,000,00 $4,742.00 Maintenance Staff $100.00 $100.00 $100,00 $100,00 $100,00 $100,00 $100.00 $100.00 Total Cost $1,338.00 $1,535,00 $2,362,00 $2,477.00 $3,915.00 $4,742.00 $4,742.00 $4,742,00 Expenditure Breakdown Revenue and Cost Summary Per Person Admission Fee , Re\enue = C3 Exhibit CURRENT OPERATION 4,000 CAPACITY - FEE BASED WEEKEND Blackberry Farm Weekend Admission and Expenditures Revenue and Cost Summary Expenditure Breakdown People 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 Expenditure Office $418.00 $522.50 $522.50 $522.50 $627.00 $627.00 $627.00 $627.00 Lifeguards $654.50 $654.50 $748.00 $748.00 $748.00 $748.00 $748,00 $748,00 Maintenance $108,00 $108.00 $135,00 $162,00 $162,00 $216,00 $216,00 $288.00 Janitorial $48,00 $48,00 $48,00 $48,00 $4800 $48,00 $48.00 $48.00 Pools $67,00 $67,00 $6700 $67,00 $67.00 $67,00 $67.00 $67,00 Supplies $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 Utilities $20,00 $20,00 $20.00 $20.00 $20,00 $20,00 $20,00 $20,00 Sheriff $600.00 $600,00 $800.00 $800,00 $1,60000 $1,800,00 $2,400,00 $2,400,00 Shuttle $1,350.00 $1,350.00 $1,350.00 $1,350.00 Administrati..e Staff $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100,00 $100.00 $100,00 $100.00 $100,00 Maintenance Staff $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 Total Cost $2,335.50 $2,440.00 $2,560.50 $2,587.50 $4,842.00 $4,896.00 $5,696.00 $5,768.00 C4 Exhibit People Re..enue' Cost 200 $1,800.00 $2,335,50 300 $2,700.00 $2,335.50 500 $4,500.00 $2,335,50 750 $6,750.00 $2,335,50 1,000 $9,000.00 $2,440,00 1,500 $13,500.00 $2,560.50 2,000 $18,00000 $2,587.50 2,500 $22,500,00 $4,842,00 3,000 $27,000.00 $4,896,00 3,500 $31,50000 $5,696.00 4,000 $36,000.00 $5,768.00 , Re..enue = Per Person Admission Fee BLACKBERRY FARM OPERATIONAL OPTIONS Exhibit B - - . Current 4,000 Capacity 500 Maximum Capacity 500 Maximum Capacity 800 Maximum Capacity Entry Fee Based Option No Entry Fee Based Option Entry Fee Based Option Entry Fee Based Option With Youth Camps/Rec. Swim Alternative A2 Alternative A3 Alternative A 1 - REVENUE REVENUE REVENUE REVENUE - Picnicking 505,000 Picnickin 15,000 Picnicking 270,000 Picnicking 387,000 Snack Bar 45,000 Snack Bar 24,000 Snack Bar 30,000 Snack Bar 45,000 Catering 236,000 Caterin 50,000 Catering 75,000 Catering 120,000 Youth Camps Programming 0 Youth Cam s Pro ramming 167,000 Youth Camps ProgramminQ 0 Youth Cam s Pro ramming 0 Total Revenue 786,000 Total Revenue 256,000 Total Revenue 375,000 Total Revenue 552,000 EXPENSES EXPENSES EXPENSES EXPENSES Salaries & Benefits 230,000 Salaries & Benefits 230,000 Salaries & Benefits 230,000 Salaries & Benefits 230,000 PT Staff & Supplies 395,000 PT Staff & Su lies 235,000 PT Staff & Supplies 220,000 PT Staff & Su lies 250,000 Total Expenses 625,000 Total Ex enses 465,000 Total Expenses 450,000 Total Ex enses 480,000 Operation Profit (Loss) 161,000 Operation Profit (Loss) (209,000) Operation Profit (Loss) (75,000) Operation Profit (Loss) 72,0()0 GOLF COURSE Golf Course Revenue 714,000 Golf Course Revenue 714,000 Golf Course Revenue 714,000 Golf Course Revenue 714,000 Golf Course Expenses 489,000 Golf Course Expenses 489,000 Golf Course Expenses 489,000 Golf Course Expenses 489,000 Golf Course Profit 225,000 Golf Course Profit 225,000 Golf Course Profit 225,000 Golf Course Profit 225,0()O COMBINED OPERATIONS TOTAL REVENUE 1,500,000 TOTAL REVENUE 970,000 TOTAL REVENUE 1,089,000 TOTAL REVENUE 1,266,000 TOTAL EXPENSES 1,114,000 TOTAL EXPENSES 954,000 TOTAL EXPENSES 939,000 TOTAL EXPENSES 969,000 TOTAL PROFIT (LOSS) TOTAL PROFIT (LOSS) TOTAL PROFIT (LOSS) TOTAL PROFIT (LOSS) FROM ALL OPERATIONS *386,000 FROM ALL OPERATIONS *16,000 FROM ALL OPERATIONS *150,000 FROM ALL OPERATIONS *297,000 Facilitv Improvements 20,000 Facility Improvements 20,000 Facility Improvements 20,000 Facility Improvements 20,000 Fixed Assets 5,000 Fixed Assets 5,000 Fixed Assets 5,000 Fixed Assets 5,000 TOTAL 25,000 TOTAL 25,000 TOTAL 25,000 TOTAL 25,000 TOTAL PROFIT (LOSS) TOTAL PROFIT (LOSS) TOTAL PROFIT (LOSS) TOTAL PROFIT (LOSS) AFTER IMPROVEMENTS 361,000 AFTER IMPROVEMENTS (9,000) AFTER IMPROVEMENTS 125,000 AFTER IMPROVEMENTS 272,000 .. . . .-- 136, of $131 the General Fund In the amount Simms House, McClellan Ranch house, which goes directly Into include rental income from Blue Pheasant, ·This does not B cc/~'1~D~ DEboRA!. JAMisON 21H6 RUMfoRd DRivE CUPERtiNO, CA 408-72~-0424 VOiCE/fAX E-MAil: ddjAMisON@COMCAST.NET February 28, 200S Dear City Council Members and Parks and Recreation Cornmissioners, The following are responses to the various comments made by Commissioners, particularly at the last meeting. Cornmissioners expressed concern over the speed of bicyclists, and the illegal trail blazing that dirt bikers do on bicycle accessible trails. None of the comments are direct quotes, but paraphrasing of comments made by one or more Commissioners. Commission comment: We cannot discriminate against bicyclists and therefore must have a bike accessible trail. Response: Allowing access to pedestrians and those rnoving at pedestrian pace, such as wheelchairs and strollers, is not discriminating again bicyclists. It is discriminating against bicycles. Most bicyclists, like myself, have legs that are capable of walking. Bicycle activists defend their right to trail access everywhere as a matter of principle. They represent a cause. But there is no right to take a bicycle anywhere. They are not allowed on sidewalks, for good reasons. They are faster moving vehicles, and pose a danger to pedestrians. They require that the trail be wider, which is not always appropriate or conducive to habitat protection in a narrow corridor such as ours. They require speed limits and signage, and median lines, that change and degrade the type of experience for other slower moving users. (see attached photos). Many community members have said in surveys and they like and want trails and they like multi-use trails. This does not necessarily translate into they want bicycle access everywhere a trail can be accommodated. The bicycle advocates do in principle. But other citizens do make distinctions and recognize special and different circumstances. You are also going to discriminate against dog in McClellan Ranch, I hope. Just because we do something recreationally does not mean you have the right to do it in a nature preserve or anywhere you want to. Commission comment: We can design the trail to slow down the bicyclists. We can have a natural surface, not hard surfacing. We can have speed bumps. We can fence the whole trail in. We can have it meander. We don't know what we can do, but don't worry, we can do something, and we'll do it right. Response: Mountain bikers and dirt bikers love dirt surfacing. They don't need smooth, even trails. The dirt bikers will like the speed bumps; they might make them even larger, or make their own as I have shown you in several photographs of other local areas accessible by multi-use trails. I doubt that the wheelchair users will like the bumps though. Any surface that is usable by wheelchairs will be just fine for fast-moving bicyclists. A fence may keep in law-abiding bicyclists. But if a fence can be hopped or a gate opened, it won't be a barrier to dirt bikers. Any fence that effectively keeps in bicyclists will also keep in walkers. Walkers, such as myself, want to be able to leave the multi-use trail and take the creek trail, or go through the community gardens. Not allowing walkers to connect with other trails in McClellan Ranch is discriminating against our use of our nature preserve in the way the preserve was meant to be used. If a walker can leave the trail to connect with these other trails, then so can a bicyclist. A meandering trail will be nice for ambiance, but it won't slow down dirt or young, adventurous mountain bikers. In fact, it may even promote cutting the curves with trail blazing wùess there is a serious fence, maintained over the years, to hold them on the trail. Speeding bicyclists are a problem in our foothills and mountain trial system. It is a hot topic of debate of complaint for MROSD. They are not allowed in very busy Rancho San Antonio beyond the first mile. Commission comment: And therefore we can make the trail safe for pedestrians. Response: I keep hearing this, but I don't hear what these mecb.miRTnA are that can be effective. Bicycles move faster than pedestrians. Speed limits on trails don't work, especially if they require that bicycles slow down to pedestrian speed. Pedestrians on multi-use trails cannot fully relax. One must always be careful to stay to one side. Hearing impaired people, which includes many elderly, are fearful to use a multi-use trail. Bird watchers and nature observers cannot just stop to use binoculars or spotting scopes, or stoop down to identify a wildflower or observe insects without rif:l1cing bodily harm. They are forced to step off the trail to do their nature study, thus widening the land impacted by the trail. If there is a restrictive fence, they are prohibited from using the trail for their recreational pursuits in favor of another recreational pursuit that has little to do with natural or rural history preservation and education. I use multi-use trails all the time, as a bird watcher and nature walker, a hiker, and a runner. Some of them are so busy that it would be safer and more re1.n;Y1g to be out on the street using a sidewalk. On a bicycle accessible trail, one must stay to the right, look both ways, and always be mindful of traffic in both directions. (see photographs 11-4) Commission comment: We will need to have people keeping an eye on McClellan Ranch to make sure the bicyclists are not on the other trails, or blazing their own trails, or making a dirt bike "park". Response: Ai; someone who uses many different kinds of trails all the time and have witnessed incidents of illegal trail usage, I can testify that very few people take the risk of trying to stop or inform violators. City staff, and non-profit group staff, will be burdened with the job of being "bike police." And because they have other duties, and this one is unpleasant, it will be hard to monitor the trail as much as will be needed, especially on weekend mornings, and Sunday in general when no staff are around. I know that Mtn. View, for example, has volunteer "monitors" whom I see infrequently and who were ineffective in stopping the dirt bike "playground" that has developed next to the trail. I do recommend that signage be erected that has the Sheriff's dispatch phone number so that park users can notify the dispatcher of any suspicious or illegal activities. But to rely on park users to monitor and stop trail blazing or speeding will not be effective. Commission comment: If the bicycle usage becomes a problem, we can close the trail to bicyclists and institute alternatives. Response: Once access is allowed, it would be very difficult to cut it offin the future. Habits and privileges are difficult if not impossible to change. If the trail is built for multi-use, it's width, perhaps surlacing and alignment, will be different than if the trail is built for pedestrian use only. The SCT Feasibility Report aligned the trail along the far eastern edge of McClellan Ranch as a testament to the fact that a regional, bicycle through trail doesn't belong in a small nature preserve, so it should be kept as marginal as possible. Ifthe trail is a pedestrian trail only, it could connect to existing, narrower trails in McClellan Ranch, upgraded in some cases for wheelchair accessibility, rather than carving out of the property a completely new trail alignment. Commission comment: Rancho San Antonio is a model. We foresee a smaller version of Rancho. Response: Please see the photo (65) of a trail sign at Rancho. It directs pedestrians on to the trail, and bicyclists on to the parallel road to Deer Hollow Farm. After the farm, bicyclists are not allowed access to the trails at all. Because the trail is a bicycle dead end, not many bicyclists use it. And still, the m~gement of RanchQ saw a need to separate the bicyclists from the pedestrians. Our trail is not a dead end. Users can continue on a street, or in the future, use the trail to go to Linda Vista Park and beyond. Also, the parkland is orders of magnitude smaller than Rancho_ If Rancho is the model. then the message is clear: we need to separate the pedestrians from the bicyclists. Commission comment: Our kids are obese. We need to encourage exercise and bicycling in particular. Response: Ai3 a bicyclist, runner, hiker, swimmer, walker and occasional triatWete, I know that exercise is healthy, and it's good to have a variety of activities. Kids w" lkinE this trail will get exercise, but in addition they will observe more nature, observe more rural vestiges of our history, and learn more. That is the mission to which McClellan Ranch has been dedicated. That will be the primary purpose of the Stocklmeir history center also. Blackberry Farm is steeped in early Cupertino history. Ai3sumíng the restoration efforts are successful, Blackberry Farm will become in the decades ahead a more natural area with increased habitat value as well, with more opportunities for nature observation. There are and will be programs and activities for children that are not offered in any other park in the city. McClellan Ranch is a very multi-use facility, but dedicated and limited to activities that exist no where else. Every other park in the city has a paved path that can be used. by smaller kids wishing to bicycle. Older kids can also use our quieter residential streets. Mountain bikers should advocate strongly for the connection ofthe Anza Trail out of Rancho San Antonio to the County Park. Dirt bikers could advocate for a dirt bike park along the Southern Pacific Railroad trail in future years (I understand that the Calabazas dirt bike park has been closed due to a broken neck and an $8 million lawsuit against the City of San Jose; see photo # 6). Our riparian flood zone, wildlife rich natural and rural corridor cannot accommodate everyone's needs for fast moving, wheeled recreational activities. Bicycle advocates fervently lobby for the right to bicycle on all trails as a deeply held principle. But that doesn't mean that their perceived right must extend to all trails in all situations. A small nature preserve that is an oasis of wildlife, peace and serenity in a hectic, congested urban environment, is one place that a bicycle through route does not belong. I am just about the most dog oriented and involved person in the city (very long history). Among other activities involving dogs, I organize dog hikes in the Bay area. Do I think dogs should be allowed in McClellan Ranch? Certainly not. Just because I am fervently involved in something does not mean I have the right to engage in that pursuit everywhere I want. In the case of McClellan Ranch, wildlife needs, and honoring the mission of this special place, take precedence. I wish the bicyclist advocates could understand that. I hope that you do. Thank you for your time in reading the responses to some of your comments on the trail access issue. Regards, þz ~ 2';: r"-¡ S'¡"'H/¿:/~r'"S. 1f¡,¡llt-use- ¡;'¿f,ï - j(J .f~f /I/Þ'e.- J · eL-l'Hulfr-u$t:- ~1Y1 ï(qllc.hfJ Sd# ;1nf,H; (!PtH'f7 "¿f~k ~ Ir4/1 -/P ~ey" #/;61() r;,,,rH. J?¡:/é'.r/1"IPHS' ()h fplt/ï" h/(:r~II-m 6n ,.r;,,¡:/. lJ/~e"sis . sIø"T 'þ"WI. bIlH"T- rtJeeed rrtter ðH .p.A'1. '';'"1 ., r " 2/28/05 2:5D p Page 1 of Ryan doing an x-up at the Calabazas Dirt Jumps Close WIndow] Calabazas Dirt Jumps· Photo Detail http://www.waltscycle.com/calabazas7.h1m ! t'.." ~;..f' ;:;:1?# 15'''' ~"", "' 1t~ , ,- , ...... _.-.-- . , J>4f'&ed 11 C. ~/,Uql1 7¥~s~rvt!.-. /' I: : Kimberly Smith C.C/3-7-05 To: Subject: Therese Ambrosi Smith; City Council FW: Steven's Creek Trail FYI Kimberly Smith Cupertino City Clerk (408) 777-3217 kimberlys@cupertino.org -----Original Message----- From: Eugene Cordero [mailto:cordero@met.sjsu.edu] Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 11:26 PM To: City Clerk Subject: Steven's Creek Trail Dear Cupertino City Council As a regular user of the Steven's Creek Trail, I wish to express my strong support for multi-use access to the Steven's Creek Trail (SCT) through Cupertino. If the city is serious about reducing traffic and improving the 'livability' of it's community, then providing safe access for bicycles and pedestrians must take a higher priority. Bike trails like the SCT in Mountain View are excellent and proven examples of how healthy communities are built. Sincerely, Eugene Cordero 2301 Oberlin St. Palo Alto, CA 94306 650 424-8085 1 Message Page 1 of2 Kimberly Smith CC/2;-7 -OS From: David Knapp Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 3:48 PM To: 'ARod' Cc: Michael O'Dowd; Therese Ambrosi Smith: Kimberly Smith Subject: RE: Blackberry Farm Dear Mr. Rodriguez, Thank you for your e-mail. I share your concern about the locked gate and have met with Max Bokleman and Don Bautista, the two neighbors closest to the gate, Besides neighbors who are barred from using the wonderful amenity, school kids use the gate as a safer way to and from school. I believe the immediate neighbors are concerned about long-range proposals to provide a trail through McClellan Ranch, Blackberry Farm, and the Stocklmeir Grove, They fear that Scenic Circle will become a trail head and produce parking, safety and noise problems, City Council, along with the Parks and Recreation and Bicycle/Pedestrian Commissions will discuss this issue at 7:00pm next Monday at the Community Hall. You are welcome to come and participate or view the proceedings on cable channel 26, A video will be available on our website at www,cuDertino,ora, In any case, I will make sure your e-mail will be provided to Council and the commissions, Again, thank you for your e-mail. Dave -----Original Message---n From: ARod [mailto:run_seven@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 3: 13 PM To: David Knapp Subject: Blackberry Farm Mr.. Knapp, City Manager Good afternoon, I am a resident of the Monta Vista area (San Fernando Court) adjacent to Blackberry Farm and I would like to understand why a gate between the park and Scenic Circle has been locked. I understand that you have significant issues that affect the city of Cupertino and this matter may be new to you, I have also directed my questions to the Director of Parks and Rec and the Manager of Blackberry Farm, I've have lived next to Blackberry Farm for 12 years and was disappointed to see that the gate has been locked and thus barring access between Scenic Circle and the park, I have used the gate as passage between streets separated by the park when I take my daily jog, Over the years there have been some efforts to minimally secure the gate and I have been able to support this action with minor inconveince, To access Scenic Circle is a personal conveinience matter but I am also concerned about the students that I have observed using the gate to traverse the area (which is also bordered with Stevens Creek waterway) to attend their local schools, My experience of a neighbor of the farm has been generally positive, When changes or events occur that impacted neighbors of the park, there was always some effort to communicate changes that might impact residents nearby, The recent action of locking the gate and erecting a sign that the locked gate is "by the 3/112005 Message Page 2 of2 will of Scenic Circle" is an oddity, I wanted to take this opportunity to voice my concern and ask park personnel to reconsider the action that led to the gate being locked, Thank you for your time and consideration, Art Rodriguez 22044 San Fernando Ct 650,996,6411 3/1/2005