Recreation
Stevens Creek Trail
6/27/2001 Council Meeting
STEVENS CREEK TRAIL, REACH 4, SEGMENT 2 DRAFT FEASIBILITY REPORT
A Councilmember asked if the Guadalupe Coyote Resource Conservation District (GCRCD) has jurisdiction over the City and what their specific role is in this process. The Public Works Director responded that the GCRCD is a special district in Santa Clara County with an appointed board of directors.
Judy Shandley, David Powers & Associates, environmental consultants for the feasibility study, added that the
GCRCD is a trustee agency and an overseer of creek and riparian resources. She noted that they do not have any formal permitting or legal authority over resources in the City of Mountain View; however, they offer their opinions about things and work with the Audubon Society and the Department of Fish and Game to further their goals.
A Councilmember asked if staff could provide further information on this organization and what potential authority they have to pursue litigation against the City.
Bicycle Lanes
2/29/2000 Council Meeting
Bike route designation - One Councilmember expressed concern that
citizens would take it upon themselves to police the street and harass bicyclists using the route if the City
does not designate it as an official bicycle route. She noted that
whether mapped or not, dedicated bicyclists would find this route.
Motion: M/S Ambra/Faravelli - Carried 4-3; Lieber, Noe, Stasek no
Approve the Council Transportation Committee's recommendation to
continue directing bicyclists along the bike lanes on Sylvan Avenue
and Moorpark Way and not designate portions of Glenborough Drive,
Foxborough Drive and a pathway connecting Foxborough Drive and
Moorpark Way as a bike route.
Teen Center
3/28/2000. Council Meeting
Evaluation of teen program locations - A Councilmember commented that
the Escuela House has been a more relaxed location for the Teen Center and they are not going to have the same
flexibility and comfort level if they move the Teen Center back to the
Senior Center.
Skateboard Park
9/28/99 Council Meeting
One Councilmember questioned spending $250,000 for a park that only 50
residents would use and suggested that the Council find a way for
those residents to be able to skateboard for a lot less money.
BMX Park
6/13/2000 Council Meeting
A Councilmember responded that this type of project does not get done
quickly and noted that
the North Bayshore Area contains Shoreline park, which is a wildlife
sanctuary and would not be an appropriate place to have a BMX park.
She added that after going through the experience of the skateboard
and dog parks, she is hesitant to take on another very specialized
recreational activity that serves a very small segment of the youth in
the City. One Councilmember stated that 50 to 60 hours is an
unrealistic amount of time for this type of project and could foresee
it becoming a very complicated time-consuming process. She also
noted that there is a limited amount of park space in the City.
Motion: M/S Faravelli/Ambra
FAILED 3-4; Stasek, Lieber, Noe, Kasperzak no
Direct staff to refer the investigation of a BMX park in Mountain View
to the Youth Ad Hoc Committee, spending 10 hours on the subject, and
report back to the Council at a later date.
Parks and Recreation Commission
2/15/2000 Special meeting
A Councilmember stated that she is not comfortable with the Commission
having control over staff time and being able to direct staff to do
more investigation. She suggested that the Commission could recommend
what they need more investigation on with Council to have final
approval.
Golf Course Fees
5/15/01 Special Meeting
A Councilmember stated that offering the junior rate on the weekends is important in order to encourage young people to play golf, particularly patents with their children. Other Councilmembers concurred with one suggesting they also provide senior discounts on the weekend.
Adobe Building
01/23/01 Special
Meeting
Adobe building update/operarating policies
Another
Councilmember asked what the present staffing at other facilities is
for reservations and if that staffing could be leveraged to take care
of the reservations for the Adobe Building as well. The Assistant
Community Services Director responded that it would be easier if
everyone was at the same facility, but the person at the Rengstorff
House works this time of year approximately 10 hours a week and in the
spring and summer, the person works 25 to 30 hours a week. At the
Community Center, reservations are by appointment only because of
limited staff time, so she did not feel they have any extra leverage
that could be used at this time. Staff continued to explain that there are a lot of questions involved in the
process of making reservations.
Another
Councilmember disagreed with the ad hoc committee and suggested that
the Council can sort out the issues tonight and direct staff to bring
the item back to the Council. She commented that the Adobe Building
needs to be different from the other City facilities because what the
City is lacking is recurrent space for groups, and there are a number
of places where space may be available on an ad hoc basis, but there
is no place for regular community groups to meet. She recommended a
change in philosophy in regard to the Adobe Building because it has
historic value and is being restored for its historic value. She said
she did not support giving any kind of use priority in the building to the schools and felt that they have
lots of rooms for meetings. She also was not interested in judging groups and said that no member of the Council is
in a position to judge the relative community value based on their
position on issues, what they are doing or how long they have been in
the area. The beauty of the community, she said, is that if you are
here, you are a part of the community and this building is going to be
a community resource. In terms of pricing, she would like to see a
spread in the rates. She noted that Mountain View is fortunate that
the businesses that are in the City and which would take advantage of
a facility like the Adobe Building have the capacity to pay. She
suggested looking at the rates a corporate group would pay if they
were renting space at a conference center or a hotel and see what the
City can do from a corporate standpoint and then attempt to bump down the nonprofit rates.
Adobe
Building Art 6/12/01 Special Meeting
Another Councilmember said that she, too was expecting WPA and she reiterated that this is going to be primarily experienced by driving by in a car, and it should be of a scale to be even
remotely recognizable in that venue. She does not think the level of detail in this piece will be anything that people will be able to get any enjoyment from going by in a car. She
said she also hoped for something that would capture the WPA spirit. She said that she loves going to Coit Tower because it is a very identifiable-type art motif and that would
actually do well because the scale is very clean and simple and something you can see very clearly from the vantage point of Central Expressway. Finally, she said she especially liked the theme of the
peve and that these are all of the people who are doing things in this public gathering place, but she thought it was far too detailed and did not capture enough of the WPA spirit. Street
Festivals 02/22/01 Council Meeting
Street closure, sound amplification, festival area designaation and animal ban for Afribbean 2001 music and cultural festival
One Councilmember commented that the feedback she has received regarding the letter from the Central Business Association is that there were merchants downtown who are unaware that this letter was sent to Council, and they were not necessarily in agreement with the sentiments of the letter and were concerned that all of the businesses were being
represented in this letter.
|
