Loading...
P&R 11-03-94CITY OF CUPERTINO~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1i¥300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone (408) 777-3200 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION City Hall Council Chambers November 3, 1994 CALL TO ORDER 1. 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: INTRODUCTIONS 4. None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 5. None OLD BUSINESS 6. None NEW BUSINESS 7. Hendrickson, Lohmiller, Hopkins, Buhler, Quinlan (7:03 p.m.) None Stephen Dowling, Director of Parks and Recreation Linda Lagergren, Recording Secretary Colin Jung, Associate Planner Director said, "Although the Planning Commission has not had the opportunity to get into depth regarding neighborhood park and open space issues, they have tentatively reviewed the information you sent them and it did generate some more questions on their part. I would like to go through those issues again and see if it is consistent with your thoughts. Secondly, we are being asked to identify what are some of the advantages and disadvantages to private versus public open space. Thirdly, if the open space should be offered, what kinds of uses would you see the city making, and which of those areas would you see the city being most interested in. (Commissioner Quinlan arrived at 7:03 p.m.) Director reviewed the summary of recommendations. Commissioner Hopkins stated, "I think it covered everything that we talked about. I don't have any questions except I think we are making an assumption here that we are not going to change E-l's boundaries or E-2 because of the physical barrier." Director Dowling said, "I think that is an issue that is still up in the air, where that triangular portion of E-1 ends up, whether it goes to E-2 or whether, depending upon what happens with the amendment, there is a park opportunity within the Diocese property. It might be a little premature to say that it is definitely going to E-2." Commissioner Buhler said, "I have a question, I recall coming to the conclusion about what is stated in number 1 when we were looking at some of the low density alternatives, but I didn't remember coming to that conclusion with the high density alternatives. In my mind it was still an open question about whether we would put a neighborhood park in if they chose one of the developments that had a large number of units." PRC#159 Approved I/5/95 Call~oorder Salute to Flag Roll Call Open Space issues related to the development of the Diocese Property Commissioner Quinlan said, "My response to that is you are right from the neighborhood park standpoint, from the acquisition of land for a neighborhood park that was out." Commissioner Buhler said, "I agree with that. I wouldn't preclude the possibility of a neighborhood park without that triangle if the number of residents in the new development were sufficient to warrant it." Director said, "If you will recall even the maximum number of units would only generate a park need of 2.2 acres. If you could serve the existing neighborhoods in congress with the new development then a neighborhood park from your perspective made sense." Commissioner Lohmiller said, "I'm in agreement with what we have up here." Steven Haze, San Juan Road, Cupt. "I am definitely in support of the summary of recommendations and it is also how I remember the discussion. I think you have articulated quite well what really should be the objective as it relates to open space on the Diocese property. Again, that it is publicly accessible and that it is owned by the public. The next issue may be who should own it and again I would like to point out that the city of Los Altos Hills and the city of Palo Alto each do own their own open space preserve. I hope that later on if the Planning Commission comes back and asks "does this mean that the city would consider owning some of the property or all of it that is being offered", you could take a look at that and say it is feasible." Diana Cooley, 10346-B Alpine, Cupt. "I've been a property owner and tax payer in Cupertino since 1972. In 1985 I discovered the parks that skirt the foothills. Parks are very important to me. The school yard parks don't do the same thing, it doesn't give you the same perspective. It is important to me to consider that the property out there be public, or be accessible to the public. The summary of recommendations looks good at this point." There was a consensus acknowledgment by commission that it was a summary of their recommendations. Director said, "Another issue we want to talk about relative to the Diocese property is the issue of private versus public and the pros and cons." Director reviewed the pros and cons, private and public, detailed out in the memo to commission from city planner, Ciddy Wordell. Director stated, "That is a beginning of a list, you may or may not have other issues to attach to that." Mike Bruner, "As the project manager for the Diocese proposal and trying to move this forward, our single biggest concern is trying to put the cart before the horse. What we are trying to do is create a situation where the public can have ownership and access on 65% of the Diocese property and at the same time the Diocese can have a development proposal. One of the concerns I have of this body is specifically how they convey their concerns, questions, and comments to the Planning Commission. I recognize that in the city of Cupertino, Cupertino Parks and Recreation is not necessarily an open space property manager. By the same token if the response goes back to the Planning Commission that we don't want any of it, I can tell you that for a lot of legal reasons there is nobody else that is going to step up until somebody says this is what can be public and this is what can be developed because there is a lot of inverse condemnation issues. There are all sorts of issues out there that need to be resolved. My single concern is that we are putting the cart before the horse by trying to decide who is going to own the property before we even know if there is going to be any property there which scares a lot of agencies away from stepping up and even saying that they want it, other then the city. I would caution you in how you propose back to the planning commission." Commissioner Quinlan said, "I've had second thoughts. I'm one of the persons that pushed for public ownership, specifically the city of Cupertino. One of the concerns I have is if we are going to restrict it from access completely as opposed to very passive uses, I've got a concern about whether any public agency should own it because the public normally thinks they have a right to access to public properties." Page 2 Diocese property (continued) Steven Haze 22681 San Juan Road Cupt. Diana Cooley 10346-B Alpine, Cupt Mike Bruner Sobrato Dev. Company Mike Bruner said, "From my perspective there is no reason to stop any access if it is owned by the public." Quinlan said, "I thought we had a problem with the low area." Bruner continued, "Trying to lock people out of that area is probably more detrimental than letting people into the area and posting signs that they are not to take the frogs. There is a whole difference of opinion there and for this commission to make a decision on whether or not there should be public access in and around that supposed frog habitat, you have not even heard any input from any biologists to make that decision. From all the biologists I've worked with I don't see it as a big problem for the public to go through there." Quinlan added, "You are suggesting that it is premature for us to think in those terms, but that it is not premature to accept it as public domain. I think both go hand and hand. If it is something that we don't want to have access to than I don't think the public should own it." Mike Brunet said, "The only thing I put forth relative to that whole issue is correct in that if it is not public ownership there will not be any public access. You are going to force the purchase of all the land around the easements because you can't police it." Diana Cooley, "I belong to two trail patrol organizations. There are volunteers out there that value this property and are willing to put time in to help monitor from a patrol standpoint or trail maintenance. Keep these organizations in mind as a pool of people to assist." Commissioner Hopkins asked, "If I have private open space, potentially I could ask that that space be developed, is that correct?" Director said, "According to the planning director, covenants could be put on that, that it could not. Commissioner Hopkins continued, "My main concern for public would be maintenance and operations costs." Commissioner Lohmiller said, "Under private ownership I would add the term "liability" to trail easements." Commissioner Quinlan added, "My only concern is where you are going to have access, regardless of what kind of access it is, but you want access, then it should be in public domain. But where you don't want access I'm not so sure it should be in public domain. That is the issue with me. There may be parts of that open space that we've looked at that would be in public domain and we may have to accept some of it." Steven Haze said, "I am also on the board of directors on the Committee for Green Foothills and our attorney has indicated that with the Dolen case, that recently came down from the Supreme Court that there is not nexus and that you can't really put constraints and covenants on private property. If it is in private ownership you won't obtain the benefit from private volunteer organizations that would keep the maintenance costs down. We have neighboring communities that have been doing this for years." Director added, "The Dolen vs. Tigard case of last summer did put very strong restrictions on this nexus issue and public benefit. The assumption under this scenario is that the development would offer to keep it in open space." Commissioner Buhler said, "Picking up on what Bob said, I think what was behind your question was the issue of control of future use for the property. It's clearly a measure that you would apply to both public and private and you would want to evaluate to what extent you could control future use." Director added, "I think that was the point that initially this commission leaped to the public ownership because of the control." Buhler added, "All I am saying is that I am hearing a little ambiguity about what is the nature and extent of the control that could be obtained under private ownership. I think that public is pretty clear. So I think that is something to evaluate in more detail. The second question I have is are there any places where there is public/private cooperation on parcels like this? Is that something that we should look for that would enable us to get the best of both worlds? What I am saying is that we may have more alternatives here then appear." Page 3 Diocese property (continued) Diana Cooley Steven Haze Director said, "The third issue has to do with if there is an offer of public open space, and it has been described as some of the sensitive areas, which of those areas makes sense for the city to own, and if we own it what kinds of uses do you envision there." Director showed on an overhead transparency the various parcels of land in discussion. Steven Haze said, "The National Park Service has been involved with a comprehensive plan and env.ironmental impact study regarding the knoll and the historical significance. The value of that knoll would be a real asset to our community as an interpretive site." Area A - 6.1 acre - potential public open space. Commissioner Lohmiller said, "In my opinion that is an impractical piece of property for the city to own. It certainly makes sense to make it part of the county park or part of the Diocese." It was the consensus of commission that Area A is more practical as part of the County sphere because of adjacency. Area B - 3.2 acre - potential public open space Commissioner Lohmiller said, "If you are preserving the area you want to keep it in public ownership. I think it should be part of the whole package." Commissioner Hopkins added, "I don't see any kind of use visual for B because it is separated from the rest of the property by Cristo Rey. For aesthetic reasons it would be nice to be left undeveloped. If it means that it has to be a part of the public land, then I think it should be." Chairman Hendrickson said, "B does not have the common denominator like A. B stands by itself with the exception of the private development." Commissioner Buhler said, "D is the most desirable and would provide the greatest public benefit. C is next because of the environmental benefits. B is next because it's contiguous with C. A is the least desirable." Commissioner Hopkins said, "That would be my order with a nod to Commissioner Quinlan's concern about C in that it is wetland and it is not going to be developed anyway, so what is the benefit of having it private or public. Commissioner Quinlan said, "On the basis of trying to preserve open space and access if it is public, I would take A and E first combined, and I would take D next and C and B after that." Commissioner Lohmiller said, "From the general public point of view, stepping back from the County, preserving area E is very appropriate, preserving area A is also important and then in the order of D, then C and then B." Commissioner Buhler moved that "our consensus be we rank from point of view of desirability for city ownership, we rank those parcels as D #1, C #2, B #3, A #4". Commissioner Hopkins amended that motion to read in order D, C, B, A, and E. Commissioner Hopkins seconded the motion. Commissioner Quinlan asked, "Are we just assuming that the County is going to get E with this motion?" Director Dowling added, "It is not guaranteed that the County will take that. That is an indication. Would the city want that if the county didn't and where would it be in your priorities?" Commissioner Buhler added, "My motion assumes that the county wants it and gets it and that is why it is ranked #5." Director said, "Why don't you set that parameter in your motion." Recording secretary reread the motion as follows: "Based on the premise that the County would assume ownership of E and the southern portion of A then the Commission's consensus is that the ranking of the parcels for desirability would be D, C, B, and A." Commissioner Lohmiller mentioned that the word city was dropped from the motion. Director requested recording secretary reread the motion. "Based on the premise that the County would assume ownership of E and the southern portion of A the parks and recreation commission's consensus for city ownership of the parcels for desirability would be D, C, B, and A." Commissioner Quinlan said "We are isolating A now." Lohmiller said, "Why don't we lump A in with E." Commissioner Buhler said, "I would suggest that if the consensus of the commission is we think the county should own A then that should be the next motion." VOTE: Buhler(aye) Hopkins, Lohmiller, Hendrickson & Quinlan(nay). Motion did not pass. Page 4 gan Jose Diocese property (continued) Motion Commissioner Quinlan moved that "the priority based upon this plan of city ownership would be E, D, C, B, and A, however it is assumed at this time that the County would be interested in obtaining E and possibly A, if that be the case, the priority would change to D, C, and B." Commissioner Lohmiller seconded the motion. Commissioner Hopkins said, "I would have them in different order. I don't think the city should own E." Commissioner Buhler said, "I think we are being presented with a scenario, and I think the minute you get away from that scenario you have so many variables. I'm uncomfortable saying what we would do. The scenario being presented clearly shows that the County is taking E. So I think that becomes an assumption that we can take and move forward on that basis, clearly stating that if that assumption changes then they need to come back to know what this commission would say." VOTE: Quinlan(aye) Hendrickson, Lohmiller, Buhler, Hopkins(nay). Motion did not pass. Commission Hopkins moved that based on the scenario being presented tonight, not considering the general areas of interest to Santa Clara County but regarding the remaining areas offered for public open space, the City ownership preference would be in the following order Area D, Area C and then Area B. Commissioner Lohmiller seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried. Director said, "The issue before the Parks and Recreation Commission tonight is to identify park relevant issues in the Heart of the City concept." Director introduced Colin Jung, Associate Planner. Colin Jung presented the Heart of the City concept to the Commission. Commissioner Hopkins asked, "In the Heart of the City Plan are there any places for rest areas. Are there any small nooks that you could sit in a park setting along the boulevard? Is that part of the landscape plan?" Colin Jung said, "There are a number of possibilities. Part of the specific plan one of the wish list features are benches along the Boulevard. Another aspect of it is that the southeast comer of Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard (the grassy spot) is proposed to be not a park but a rest area with a four seasons orchard that would include possibly public art as well as benches and walkways in that area. Commissioner Quinlan stated, "At one time the Fine Arts Commission was considering that when a commercial building was built a certain percentage of money was to be set aside and that particular owner would develop some sort of art that would have to be approved by the city. Is that a requirement?" Colin Jung said, "The city doesn't have any ordinance on its books at this point that requires a percentage of the construction budget of a private development to be devoted to public art. There are particular cases, for example the Apple development, where as part of the agreement to approve that development, that a public art component be included. The Fine Arts Commission is pursuing that concept of developing an ordinance that would require a certain percentage of the construction value of a project be devoted to public art. I don't know how actively they are pursuing it, but they are thinking about, since it is within their purview. The Fine Arts Commission has been pursuing the idea that instead of buying catalog furniture, that they may be able to work in design commissions to work in some of this furniture. Whether that will happen or not, still remains to be seen, so we may end up with public furniture that functions as public art." Commissioner Quinlan stated, "I agree with the concept and that we don't need another 3.5 acre park in this area." Director Dowling added, "This is kind of a first test of a policy statement we added during our General Plan deliberations (Attachment B, policy 5-53) which talked about "New Residential Development in Non-residential Areas" and at the time we were drafting this policy we were in throes of some really shortages in terms of active space, but as Colin pointed out when you have 500 units spread over a two- mile stretch, a single neighborhood park doesn't seem to be warranted. But it doesn't mean that there can't be other recreational features as outlined in that policy." Page 5 San Jose Diocese (continued) Motion Motion Heart of the City Specific Plan Pharokh Deboo, 10257 Nile Drive, Cupt. "Although I am here representing myself, I have been for the last five years on the board of directors of Cupertino Waterfall. I am a very active member of CURB. The general comment I have is regarding the park design policy, policy 5-47. The new General Plan calls out for intense density in certain key areas of the city, specifically the City Center. Along with that one of the concepts that have come up is the concept of pocket parks to balance some of this high density. We feel that the real low priority that has been given to some areas, like the City Center, for pocket parks should be escalated to a higher priority. Specific to this application, the Heart of the City does call out for 1,000 units and an average of twenty units per acre. However, some of the units going into the City Center have about four times that density. The current application for 120 unit complex is very close to 80 units per gross acre. We do feel that some areas in that area should be developed as a pocket park. A lot of residents in this area did buy property adjoining the triangle area open space that it would become green. We feel that a lot of the density that is going into the Heart of the City Plan is going to be concentrated in areas such as the Cupertino City Center. We feel that there should be a little more balance with open space. We try to keep the triangle as open space as much as possible. In terms of amenities that have been provided in that area, it can be argued that some of the areas can't constitute public space and I'd like refute some of the claims. The amphitheater has been pointed out that it constitutes open space but we have not in general been allowed to open access of that land, even though that property has been given 50% credit. Even though the average density was quoted as 20 units per acre, this area does have intense development. I'd also like to refute one claim made by Colin, about the southeast corner a t the intersection o f De Anza Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard where he said there would be orchards. There appears to be only one alternative. There is also a second alternative for that area to have retail space. The orchard is only one alternative. We hope you will consider the triangle space as it was originally designated in the 1983 plan and hopefully put some green over there." Commissioner Quinlan moved that it is not feasible to provide a neighborhood park on Stevens Creek Boulevard that could adequately serve all the units. Commissioner Hopkins seconded the motion. Commissioner Buhler amended the motion to include that we encourage that private development shall provide recreation amenities consistent with policy 5-53, item 1 of the General Plan. All in favor. Motion carried. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 9. Commissioner Quinlan moved and Commissioner Lohmiller seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the October 6, 1994 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. All in favor. Motion carried. 10. Commissioner Lohmiller moved and Commissioner Hopkins seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the October 19, 1994 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. All in favor. Motion carried. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 11. None MONTHLY REPORTS 12. Director thanked commissioners who came out to Ghostwalk. 13. There were no community contacts. MISCELLANEOUS 14. There was no legislative update. 15. There was no Mayor's luncheon report. 16. Director reported on the dedication of the baby grand piano at the Quinlan Community Center and two upcoming craft faires (Senior Center and Quinlan Center). Page 6 Heart of the City Specific Plan (continued) Pharokh Deboo 10257 Nile Drive, Cupt Motion Motion Motion ADJOURNMENT 17. Commissioner Buhler moved and Commissioner Lohmiller seconded the motion to adjourn at 9:20 p.m. to the adjourned regular meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission on November 28, 1994, 7:00 a.m. McClellan Ranch Park parking lot. All in favor. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED: Chatrperson Page 7 Adjournment Motion