Loading...
P&R 11-15-01 APPROVED MINUTES PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION CITY OF CUPERTINO REGULAR ADJOURNED MEETING THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 1 $ 2001 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Jelinch called the regular meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission to order at 7 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLLCALL Commissioners present: Jeanne Bradford (arrived for second item), Frank Jelinch, Roger Peng, Kris Wang Therese Ambrosi Smith reported that due to Commissioner Bradford's home having a close proximity to the Sports Center, she has recused herself from discussion of the Sports Center programming and would join the meeting following those discussions. Commissioners absent: Rod Brown Staff present: Therese Ambrosi Smith, Director; Richard Gonzales, Recreation Coordinator; Marie Preston, Administrative Secretary; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner Others present: Lauren Livingston, The Sports Management Group; Leon Pirofalo, Planning Resource Associates MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 1. The October 1, 2001 minutes were unanimously approved as written. COMMUNICATIONS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None UNFINISHED BUSINESS Sports Center Programming: Therese requested the Commission, at the end of the presentations and the public comment, make a recommendation to the City Council about what they believe the programming for the center should be; before the facility is designed, the types of programming need to be determined. The Commission was presented with budgetary data for running different types of programming in a new facility. They were also given the results of the October 11 Public Workshop on Sports Center programming. The cost recovery projection potentials for years one through three were given for three programming options under consideration: Parks and Recreation Commission November 15, 2001 Page 2 of 10 · Option A: · Option B: · Option C: 2,725 sq. ft. fitness, aerobics room, two racquetball courts, spa 3,800 sq. ft. fitness, aerobics room, child watch 3,800 sq. ft. fitness, aerobics room, child watch, future gymnasium Public Comment Sherm Waldman, 7585 Bollinger Road, stated his support for keeping or increasing the number of tennis courts. He is opposed to the gym because it may displace a number of tennis courts. He asked for clarification for the justification of building a gym. Edmund Tai, 7802 Festival Drive, stated that the uniqueness of the Sports Center's large tennis center is attractive to many residents and non-residents in the area. He does not want the tennis courts displaced. He believes that there will be a loss of revenue if courts are lost. He stated that the tennis program needs to be reinforced and not sacrificed. He does support the gym idea. Tal~hi Saadati, 1153 Elmsford Drive, thanked the Parks and Recreation Department for the public workshop - "good show." He suggested the Sports Center enhance their programming in conjunction with what already exists in the community; and perhaps a collaborative approach with the YMCA would be a good idea. He stated that at the YMCA, there is a child watch, swimming, aerobics room, and a weight room. He requested that we strive to increase communication with the YMCA to develop a partnership to serve the community better, especially the youth. He liked the idea of a climbing wall. Linda Zhu, 5647 Glen Haven Ct., and Azusa Karitani, 4838 Rio Vista Ave., stated that they were OK with any option as long as no tennis courts were displaced. They believe that the community needs more tennis courts to handle the demand. The courts at some school sites are in poor condition, where the courts at the Sports Center are well maintained. Securing a court at a park is difficult due to the high community demand. Barbara Huml~hrey, 30+ year resident, stated that the Sports Center has the best public tennis center in the area; it is better than Mountain View, Cuesta Park, and Las Palmas in Sunnyvale. She doesn't believe that Cupertino would want to give that up and does not want tennis courts displaced. She thought it was stated that the new building would displace two tennis courts, and asked if a gymnasium would displace two additional tennis courts, or did we mean two total? She stated that with Monta Vista tearing down their tennis courts, Cupertino is loosing tennis courts. She supports the building of a gymnasium, but had understood that the cost was prohibitive. Parking is currently a problem, and a gymnasium will create a need for more parking. Therese responded that the intent is to keep the old building until the new one is finished In order to do that, two tennis courts will be taken out to build the new building. When the old building is torn down, that space will be available for new Parks and Recreation Commission November 15, 2001 Page 3 of 10 courts. It costs $120,000 to buiM one tennis court. Also, a stand-alone gymnasium will not work, but in combination with a fitness center that has revenue generating potential, this option would work out. Emily Chou, 10597 Felton Way, believes that the tennis center is an important element of the Sports Center. Cheryl Vargas, Executive Director of the Northwest YMCA, 20803 Alves Drive, stated that she and Therese have toured each other's facilities. She stated that the YMCA is interested in collaborating. They see a tremendous need for a gym; however, the location at the Sports Center may not be the right place for it. She has a huge room she would like to renovate and create into a gym. She requested there be further communication between the YMCA and the City to see how the two agencies can work together to provide those services for the youth and the teens. She attended the October 11 public workshop and saw a lot of interest and advocates for youth and teen programs. She would like to open the door to help meet the needs of the young families in both aspects and offered the idea of a special membership where people can access both facilities. Christine Kao, 1342 Rose Garden Lane, stated that with Monta Vista High School tearing down its tennis courts, Cupertino does not have enough tennis courts to meet the young people's needs. She does not support the elimination of any tennis courts and does not support a teen center because she believes teens will not use it. Alexander Tai, 7802 Festival Drive, stated that if the City looses tennis courts, his tennis team would become a casualty; more courts are needed. Nam Nguyen, 1569 Adolfo Drive, San Jose, staff member on the Cornerstone Proiect who has been working the City and three high schools, feels that the other teens in the community that do not play tennis should also be heard. He believes that an addition of a gym would be a community asset. He likes the idea of collaborating with the YMCA. Teens in the community need a skate park or other teen-type facilities. He believes that at the public workshop, the tennis advocates were not welcoming to other ideas. Also supports the idea of not eliminating any tennis courts. Sherm Waldman asked clarifying questions regarding the exclusion of two racquetball courts in Option B. He would like to see the addition of two racquetball courts. At the October 11 workshop, he felt a bias against racquetball courts. He saw that there were five dots on the board for racquetball courts and felt that should have been recognized in the prepared data. Therese answered that there was a limited amount of square footage. In order to create a larger fitness room and to create a child watch area, the square footage came from the racquetball courts. She stated that there isn't an option where you can add more square footage to create other spaces without giving something up. To add racquetball courts would take an increase in the budget. The Council approves the program, so individuals can advocate to the Council about adding more money so Parks and Recreation Commission November 15, 2001 Page 4 of 10 that the building can be larger and incorporate other programs. As far as the five dots for racquetball, the data gathered was from the written comments left by the attendees. There was a discrepancy between the dots on the chart and what people wrote down when they were in their groups. The data used was what the people wrote. It was felt that there was some confusion about placing the dots on the board. Commission Questions and Comments: Wang: Are the teen center, the skate park, and other facilities still options? I don't see these options listed. Is there any way to add those facilities? Smith: Those options were thrown out. The climbing wall did not get much interest at the meeting. What we tried to do was consider a gym, which would be flexible space for some of these needs. The feedback that we got did not suggest that we should put in a climbing wall or a teen center. There were many tennis players at the workshop giving their input. Because of your broader view of community recreation, your recommendation should reflect whatever you think is best for the community. The Council is ultimately accountable for what the program is; they will look to you for what you think is the best recommendation. Wang: It seems that we have totally utilized the spaces that we have at that site, and I wanted to hear if the other programs have been totally eliminated from consideration. If we go with Option C, the only way to make it work is to take away two tennis courts, there's no other option? Smith: There are always other options. You can put parking in a structure. You can put tennis courts on podium parking. When you look at the cost of doing those things, does it makes sense? It probably makes more sense to light courts and get more play that way, or take a neighborhood park and add tennis courts. Of all the things we can add into neighborhoods, tennis courts are probably the least offensive, because they do not generate a lot of traffic or noise - it's a good use in a neighborhood. There are ways to make up the tennis. A stand-alone gym does not pencil out, whether it goes on the Sports Center site or at the YMCA. A gym needs to be built in conjunction with some other facility. The gym would probably be about five years down the road, where it ends up can be decided later. There is definitely a need. Peng: Are there any major differences between Option B and C besides the gym and displacement of the tennis courts? Is there data to back up the statement that Option C addresses more of the needs that were identified from the community? Smith: Option C is Option B with the gymnasium added. The data supporting the statement is included in the staff report. We know there is a community need for a gym and we know it won't pencil out if that is all we built, but somewhere down the road, we may want to add it. Jelinch: Is there a projection on what the population growth would be, because I am interested in knowing if the growth is going to increase by 5,000 from new Parks and Recreation Commission November 15, 2001 Page 5 of 10 annexations, and whether we are going to take that into consideration in expanding the services to accommodate the additional people. Wordell: Rancho Rinconada and Garden Gate were really the biggest annexation areas, so that population increase is already there. Monta Vista may already be more than half annexed, if not more; and those people might be serviced already since their proximity is so close to the Sports Center. Any other annexations are not expected. There are some statistics stating that population increases from new development is expected to be about 6,800. Jelinch: The option that has the most attraction for me is Option B because it keeps the existing tennis courts and adds the child watch program, which is important. All major sports centers have child watch programs and it is long over due. It increases the revenue by expanding the fitness area, and it appears to provide the greatest cost recovery. After the third year, recovery would be almost 100 percent. This data is based on research of hundreds of similar facilities? Livingston: Yes, the data gives conservative numbers. We expect the performance to be at the levels shown, and it should be greater. Jelinch: With the data given, we might even be able to generate a profit? And with the profit we could expand other facilities, perhaps build other tennis courts, racquetball courts, or gymnasium? Livingston: Yes Peng: When looking at the data, my personal choice is Option B. Wang: Our function is to meet the community needs. We should serve all segments of the population. I would lean more toward Option C, but I would like to see if it is possible to work around the displaced tennis courts issue. I would leave the technical details to staff. Smith: When a program is selected, the architect can start working. If your desire is, with Option C, to plan for podium parking with tennis courts on top, please make that motion so that we have a specific recommendation from the Commission. For clarification, Option C is Option B for the first years, until you have enough money to build Option C. And Option C just got a lot more expensive by way of podium parking with tennis courts on top. We would build Option B now, and we would plan on adding podium parking and a gym in the future. We would design the building so that the gym could be added and it would have to happen sometime in the future, if the Council accepts your recommendation, when there is enough money to put the gym in with some tennis courts on top of parking. Jelinch: Doesn't a vote for Option C include the additional cost at this time rather than the future? It doesn't include any of the wiring, utilities, etc? Parks and Recreation Commission November 15, 2001 Page 6 of 10 Smith: We would plan the structure so that the building could be added on, but it would be within the existing budget. Jelinch: It seems to me that once you vote on Option C, you've already spent some of the money to get that gym. Is that correct? Can you back out of it at that point? Smith: If additional plumbing connections, additional wiring, sleeves in the ground, etc. are run for future construction, the cost is really minimal if you do it up front. It's when you have to tear things up later that it becomes expensive. ACTION: Commissioner Wang made a motion and Commissioner Peng seconded to recommend Option C to City Council, with the addition that the tennis courts are not to be displaced. The motion carried 2 to 1. RECESS Commissioner Bradford joined the other members of the Commission at the dais. o General Plan: Therese provided an overview of her General Plan update, which she developed from input received from three Commissioners. She introduced Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, who introduced Leon Pirofalo from Planning Resource Associates. Therese explained that the input Ciddy and Mr. Pirofalo receive at this meeting would be put into General Plan policies. There are three areas where the Commission needs to make determinations: · The ultimate purpose for the acreage at Blackberry Farm · Whether or not the City should acquire park land outside of the city limits · The use of park fees Jelinch: Starting with Blackberry Farm, it has historically been thought of as a conferencing facility. What is the percentage of revenue generation compared to the cost? Smith: Last year, it generated $200,000 for the General Fund. It paid its operating cost and generated an additional $200,000 that went toward the acquisition of it. It makes about a quarter million a year in profit. Jelinch: There are so few places where we can generate that kind of money; I hate to give it up. Bradford: I think the re-plan of Blackberry Farm gives us a tremendous opportunity to address what the needs of the future are. That doesn't mean we need to take everything away that's there and start all over. Smith: There is a lot of deferred maintenance in the facility. Once we have a plan, we can start to address those deferred maintenance needs. I don't see it being a real profit center - more of a self-supporting facility. Parks and Recreation Commission November 15, 2001 Page 7 of 10 Bradford: Because of the re-plan, we have an opportunity to look at the underserved segments of the community, and turn it into a community facility, as opposed to something that caters more toward corporate business. The Stevens Creek Trail alignment through Blackberry Farm/McClellan Ranch area is being considered. This is an opportunity to address neighborhood concerns of parking, noise, security, etc. Peng: The statistics show that 90 percent of the use is from non-residents. It would seem to me that the higher recreational priority is for the City residents. Perhaps reduce the size of the non-residential use and use some of the acreage and incorporate it into the master plan. Wang: Since it appears that we are under serving our residents, we probably should consider transitioning slowly over 5 to 10 years into more community needs at · Blackberry Farm. Jelinch: What does it mean "life of the bond? Smith: I believe the life of the bond is nine more years. Bradford: If we turn Blackberry Farm into a community park and we let go of some of the revenue, how much money are we talking about? Smith: There are a number of things that can be moved around. For instance, the lease on the Blue Pheasant will be up in 2004. It could become a conferencing facility and we could consolidate more of the moneymaking operation on the Stevens Creek end with the community park on the other end. What we need is policy direction - do you want to use all or a portion of those 33 acres to go into your community park inventory to help with the acres-per-population ratio? Wordell: You could add wording to say, "Taking into account the financial implications of this transition..." so that it is clear that that is a factor in what you want to do. ACTION: Commissioner Bradford moved and Commission Peng seconded to direct the staff to utilize the Blackberry Farm acreage as part of the acres-per-thousand- population that we have for community parks for the life of the bond and beyond. The motion passed in favor of the motion 4 to 0. Jelinch: The next question to be considered is should the city consider land acquisitions outside the city limits? Therese described a recent discussion about land acquisition outside the city limits that had to do with some property on Stevens Canyon Road, well beyond the city limits, but adjacent to the county park. The property has a potential use for summer camp programs, and it could generate revenue and would serve both residents and non-residents. She asked if this was something Parks and Recreation wants to be in Parks and Recreation Commission November 15, 2001 Page 8 of 10 the business of do we want to consider acquisition outside the city limits or do we want to use our resources within the city limits. Therese explained that acquisitions usually are opportunistic; it is rare that a city will go out and condemn land and then purchase it. Anytime a city buys land, the first question asked is if it is consistent with the General Plan. Cities do acquire property outside their city limits and it is something that is decided on when developing a long-range plan if a need is perceived. Therese requested policy direction from the Commission. Wang: Concerned about buying land outside the city limit; how far outside the limits can land be purchased; does a specific site need to be identified? Smith: As an example, she suggested possible language that might say, "Should a suitable site come up outside the city limits for another nature preserve, or a camp site, or a retreat..." She said it would be a very broad policy that would open the door to the consideration of purchasing land." She went on to say that the Commission would not identify a particular site. Jelinch: He gave examples of land owned by other cities, Mountain View and Palo Alto, which are outside their city limits. Bradford: Sees the primary responsibility as focusing on the resources within the city limits, and is not sure it serves the city well to have as a priority to proactively look for random pieces of property in the Bay Area. But if something does become available, the city should have the latitude to consider that acquisition. She mentioned that other opportunities that might come up would be with developers for joint development of park areas outside the city limits. Policy should not be black and white. Smith: Advised that statements be made that if school sites were surplused that there be some provision for acquiring those parcels. She pointed to the park ratio matrix that showed that the school acreage is the biggest chunk, 81.85 acres, of park acreage, and it is land the city does not own; the land is only leased for nine more years. She does not see schools closing in the near future, but if they did, the acreage would be important to community recreation and the city would want to acquire it. Jelinch: Reiterated that she was suggesting the Commission set a high priority on funding acquisition of surplused school property should it become available, and then use park fees for those acquisitions? Smith: Agreed, but stated that if the Commission wants to include facility development, other than park facility development, that would be up to the Commission. Stated that developer fees have been used for specific projects. Fees are used to expand opportunities. Bradford: Asked if it was reasonable for the fee allocation to be split and create a reserve that is for acquisition of school property as it became available, with the Parks and Recreation Commission November 15, 2001 Page 9 of 10 balance used elsewhere; Therese agreed. Also, the Commission would look to Therese to recommend what the percentage of the split might be, and Therese agreed. ACTION: Commission Bradford made a motion and Commissioner Peng seconded that a percentage of the fees be held in reserve for the potential acquisition of surplus school property, the percentage of which to be recommended by staff. The motion unanimously passed. Ciddy stated that General Plan draft will be made available in early 2002. These will be circulated and study sessions will be scheduled to review the amendments. After this step, the General Plan will go to the Planning Commission and the City Council thereafter. Adoption of the plan is scheduled around May or June of 2002. Ciddy asked the Commission about their level of interest in the trail system and what kind of priority should it have. Ciddy stated that the trail system element is currently small, and there is thinking that it should be built up. Bradford: She answered that trails offer a huge amenity to the community. Trails are highly aligned to the overall objectives of the city of a more walkable community. It brings tremendous benefit to the community. The Commission unanimously agreed. Jelinch: stated that converting the railroad right-of-way to a rail-to-trails system should be given high priority. MISCELLANEOUS - NO ACTION REQUIRED Community Contacts: Commissioner Wang had talked with the principal of Monta Vista High School about the tennis courts that were torn down and that the tennis team does not having courts to practice on. She stated that the high school is looking for courts for two months. They have been searching for locations, but have been unsuccessful and were hoping the city could facilitate them at the Sports Center. Therese reported that Don McCarthy had been in contact with someone from the school district, not the high school, and suggested it would be better if there were one point of contact. Therese's understanding was that what we had to offer them was not ideal, that they were looking at a site in Sunnyvale, and we were waiting to hear back from them. It was reported that the tennis courts at Monta Vista High School would be rebuilt in one year. Commissioner Wang said she would contact the school district to check on their progress. Commissioner Jelinch asked that a liaison from the Teen Commission be assigned to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Therese agreed to initiate. Commissioner Bradford reported that she attended the first Teen Commission meeting and welcomed them. She likes the idea of working with the Teen Commission on common issues. Parks and Recreation Commission November 15, 2001 Page 10 of 10 Commissioner Jelinch asked each member to consider registering for the CPRS conference in April. Marie will send out information packets. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Jelinch adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, reston, Administrative Secretary Approved at the December 6, 2001 regular meeting.