Loading...
P&R 10-19-94c][TY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1 OB 00 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone (408) 777-3200 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION City Hall October 19, 1994 CALL TO ORDER 1. Regular adjourned meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission called to order at 4:02 p.m. FIELD TRIP 2. Commission car pooled from the City Hall parking lot to view the Diocese property located adjacent to Cristo Rey Drive. All Commissioners were present. Staff included Steve Dowling, Director of Parks and Recreation and Ciddy Wordell, City Planner. Mike Bruner of Sobrato Development led the tour. The Commission viewed designated sensitive areas and areas of proposed development. RECESS 3. The Commissioners recessed for dinner. CALL TO ORDER 4. Parks and Recreation Commission meeting reconvened in City Council Chambers and was called to order at 6:10 p.m. SALUTE TO THE FLAG 5. ROLL CALL 6. Commissioners present: Commissioners absent: Staff present: Hendrickson, Quinlan, Lohmiller, Hopkins, Buhler Stephen Dowling, Director of Parks and Recreation Linda Lagergren, Recording Secretary INTRODUCTIONS 7. None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 8. None OLD BUSINESS 9. Director stated, "Following the last Commission meeting we adjourned from, Commission had asked a number of questions and as I go through the presentation tonight I will be answering those questions. One of the last things you asked for was a summary of the E.I.R. It is included in your packet this evening. I'd like to review the issues before the Commission, and reaffirm what kinds of recommendations the Planning Commission is expecting from this body. As we discussed last time, the development on the Diocese property, as identified in our General Plan, triggers consideration for re- drafting a couple of neighborhood boundaries, specifically neighborhood E-1 and N. What we had said preliminarily was that if the Diocese property were to be developed, that one possible alignment for the new boundaries would be making Foothill Boulevard a new western boundary for neighborhood E-1 and subdividing N into sub zones. Now that the Diocese property development seems eminent, we need to address what happens to these neighborhood boundaries in this area." PRC #158 Approved 11/3/94 Call to order Field Trip Callto order Salute to Flag Roll Call Discussion regarding San Jose Diocese property neighborhoo d park in Area N Commissioner Quinlan mentioned, "We also discussed the possibility of tying E-2 in, or that piece that's in E-1, west of Foothill Boulevard into E-2." Director Dowling said, "When we were doing the General Plan we had talked about just this, but at the last meeting the suggestion was also made that perhaps this triangle would be better served by E-2. We need to get back to that discussion tonight and wrap that up." Director Dowling added, "One of the issues that came up about this neighborhood boundary had to do with how many people live there now. The population of the residents that live there now is +800. You add to that the Forum property with another 320, so that brings us to 1,120, the number of existing residents in that area. That equates to a neighborhood park need of 3.3 acres. The question came up last time, did the Forum pay park dedication fees? And the answer is, yes they did." Director continued, "In addition to determining the boundaries for neighborhood parks in this area, one of the other issues that has come up is if there is to be an actual offer on the part of the Diocese to dedicate open space, where would that open space likely be and which jurisdiction would likely be the recipient of the dedication, both in terms of title and operation and management. So we need to address that issue tonight along with where are some likely locations for neighborhood parks." Director said, "As we were discussing potential issues around a neighborhood park and where likely locations might be depending upon the extent of development, the question came up at the last meeting about the second access that was being proposed, an emergency access. The question was raised, what are the impacts of that access and right now that is still under review by the Planning Commission. Determination hasn't been made but the City Attorney has reviewed the issue from a legal standpoint and right now based upon traffic warrants a second access is not called out for. Which means if there is to be a second access to the property, other than the emergency, that again would have to be volunteered by the property owner. It is not something the City could require based upon existing traffic need. Another impact of a second access, and more than likely it would appear somewhere along the Stevens Creek Boulevard area, it could provide some sort of walkway adjacent to it that could provide a second route for residents into a neighborhood park." Director stated, "We recognize that we are still dealing with six different alternatives, all calling out for varying degrees of development, and we recognize that we tend to get into discussions that become somewhat rhetorical. My advice to the Commission tonight is I would decide the issues about boundaries for neighborhoods and I would decide the issue about the need for a park in this development, but as far as specific locations for neighborhood parks, and as far as specific routes for access, I think we need to wait and see what the extent of development is going to be before we get to that kind of detail. But it is certainly within your purview to make some temporary recommendations based on the degree of development." It was turned back to the Chair. Commissioner Lohmiller asked, "We're talking about a secondary access, a road access, that is also the same in a trail access, with the boundary of the railroad and the problem of crossing that, we really don't even have a trail access from that Stevens Creek side, do we?" Director Dowling answered by saying "the General Plan makes some general references to the desirability of a trail through there, but it does not get route specific, so the railway corridor does become an issue." Commissioner Lohmiller asked, "Is the emergency access a given?" Director said, "Yes it is." Page 2 Discussion regarding neighbor- hood park in Area N. (continued) Mike Bruner said, "Right now there is vehicular access, that grade crossing is a private crossing that is an easement across the County land that has been there for tens of years and is something that can clearly be for emergency access. Trying to upgrade that to a public road system is obviously very problematic, especially with respect to the railroad track. But as far as emergency access, we are going to have to get a permanent agreement that can't be revoked. Typically with the Southern Pacific Railroad, when you have an agreement, if it's a private agreement, it is a revocable agreement. We would need to upgrade that to a irrevocable agreement for emergency access and pedestrian." Commissioner Buhler asked, "Could you outline what you think is the purpose of a neighborhood park as distinct from the other types of potential open space that we looked at today." Director Dowling stated, "Typically a neighborhood park is a small, formally developed parcel that its most distinguishable characteristic is that it is within walking distance. It does not provide for group organized activity. It is designed to meet individual and family needs and more of the passive recreation such as picnicking. There is typically a playground apparatus, one for each age group. Things such as formal play fields and designated sports fields you would not find in a neighborhood park. In this city we have defined a neighborhood park somewhere around three to three and one-half acres. Open space on the other hand is very large parcels that are not formally developed, may have trail systems and access for active uses such as hiking, biking, and equestrian. The neighborhood park is intended to serve a very different recreational need then an open space area. It tends to be more of a social gathering place." Steven Haze, 22681 San Juan Road. "I wanted to talk about some of the aspects related to the General Plan amendment. I am on a number of boards of various organizations. I can speak on behalf of the Los Altos Hills Horseman Association which for over 20 years has been located in Los Altos Hills but its articles of incorporation include the surrounding communities and we are very interested in what will develop along the way as it relates to equestrian opportunities, pathway systems and open space. Out of 30 letters that were received by the City by the August 12th deadline, 14 of them dealt with historical aspects, open space, equestrian opportunities and trails. At the Planning Commission level they have just been talking about development and whether or not there should be a General Plan amendment. At this point in time for nearly 50% of those who provided input to the draft E.I.R., our belief is that there could be substantial public benefit. This is the only body in which we can talk about opportunities for the public in general. I would like to thank you for allowing me to provide input. If the knoll is preserved it will be on the exact route that De Anza had traversed in 1776. As a result, we would become eligible for Park Service moneys that are specifically available on a matching fund basis. As far as the park, the concern is where will the park ultimately be located if it is determined that it is necessary. There are concerns that if you locate a playground at the top of the knoll, that you lose the historical value of that knoll. To me the park is secondary to some of the other assets that exist on the Diocese property. There are other considerations as well, whether it is public versus private open space. Only the Planning Commission has looked at it, but it seems that this Commission should be looking at it as well. Pathways cannot go through private lands, but pathways can go through public lands. The question is how do we make that occur. I believe this Commission should be seeing how we can create these opportunities. The neighborhood park would be a secondary consideration, that the open space and pathway system would be of the highest consideration." Mike Bruner distributed the Diocese property plan. "There are alot of issues that have come up that we are trying very hard to listen to and address. We are trying to look at the public benefit and one of things that we are looking for from a Commission such as this is a comment back to the Planning Commission that says that there is a benefit to some of this land and who it would be in the best hands with, whether it should be in the County, yourself and how best to control it. We think there is a benefit and that the word will get across." It was brought back to the Commission. Page 3 Discussion regarding neighbor- hood park in Area N. (continued) Steven Haze 22681 San Juan Road Mike Brunet Sobrato Develop- ment Commissioner Hopkins added, "This is just a point of clarification, I think earlier you said we were going to look at basically two things and that is the boundaries and then given the boundaries, is there a park need?" Director Dowling said, "It's not just boundary driven though, it is driven by the scale and scope of development on the Diocese property. That's the neighborhood park issue. We also have this bigger issue and that is that the Developer has stepped forward and made this offer of 130+ acres of open space. And even though the Planning Commission at this point is not looking specifically at that single plan, we have been asked to comment on the configuration of the open space and possible jurisdictional responsibility of that open space." Commissioner Quinlan asked, "How do we respond to the Developer making his request this evening when we don't know what plan is going to be accepted by the Planning Commission? I can see us making a recommendation regarding park lands which may be in direct conflict with what the overall plan should be in the long run. I'm concerned about us moving ahead of the Planning Commission in respect to the overall layout. The other question I had is, is there money now reserved under the Quimby Act as a result of the Forum development?" Director Dowling said, "We do have some funding still left in our park dedication fund for park development and acquisition in that zone. The first question is certainly a debate that staff has had for weeks on this issue. We continue to go back and forth about which do you do first. The underlying issue here is that first and foremost the Planning Commission must make a determination that a General Plan amendment is appropriate. I believe as both speakers indicated, one of the things that will help them make that determination is the extent of the public benefit to amend the General Plan. So if we as a Commission could look at the big picture tonight and send some big issue information back to the Planning Commission, hopefully that will help them in their final analysis. I think it would be a mistake tonight to start talking about routes and accesses and trail heads and things like that when we don't know the configuration or the extent of the development. Obviously there are some park and open space issues at work here and we owe it to the Planning Commission to give them some information." Commissioner Quinlan said, "The only thing I'm comfortable with right at this moment in regard to big picture recommendations is the question about open space, and I'm not completely comfortable with that because it depends on the configuration. My general feeling conceptually is that the open space as opposed to being in private ownership should be in public ownership and specifically I'd recommend that it come to the City of Cupertino. I know there is some sentiment against that, but I think just because it is owned or dedicated to the City of Cupertino doesn't mean it has to be operated by the City of Cupertino. It could be leased out to the County or whoever. I have a problem with the neighborhood situation from the standpoint of location and it seems to me that we have two alternatives on the neighborhood park. One is to generally locate it to the south end where one proposed development is. The other is to reconfigure the boundaries and have that triangular area that is cut-off by the railroad tracks think in terms of going south, at least the southern part of it. The northern part would come around by Cristo Rey. The possibility of a piece of the open space property, certainly not the knoll, I think we all agree that the knoll should be left unblemished, might .be set aside into a neighborhood park." Director Dowling put an overhead up that indicates the open space areas that the property owner has stepped forward and said these are areas that could be considered for open space. "You can look at these formations and talk about this is consistent with our General Plan and our open space element and are these areas that we want to continue to protect and if so which jurisdictional responsibility is most appropriate." Page 4 San Jose Diocese ~roperty neighbor- hood park in AreaN (continued) To date we have letters from the County and Midpeninsula. Midpeninsula has taken the position that in terms of operational responsibility, they are not interested. The County has expressed more of an interest in lands that are contiguous to the Rancho San Antonio County Park. With some different alignments, more of the open space may be of interest to the County. Looking at these four areas, is there a consensus from the Commission that there is a public benefit derived from these remaining in open space and is that appropriate?" Commissioner Buhler, "I think there is clearly a public benefit to having land permanently set aside as open space in that part of the community." Commissioner Quinlan, "I would agree with the concept of the four areas, but I would like to tie those open space properties together a little bit, physically and visually." Commissioner Hopkins added, "I think there is a benefit of having land dedicated to the public." Commissioner Lohmiller said, "I agree definitely." Chairman Hendrickson stated, "I think it is unanimous at this point that the Commission would agree that it is certainly a public benefit." Director Dowling asked "Do you have a greater preference whether it is public versus private ownership? As Mike indicated, to expect private holdings to provide public easements is not as likely as it once was. If you are talking about simply preserving the area as open space without utilization, then private works. If on the other hand you are talking about allowing access and utilization then there has to be a public ownership." Commission Lohmiller said, "I think it should be in public ownership, whoever that might be, it could be multi-jurisdictional. If we have to pay for it, then my opinion changes." Commission Hopkins said, "I think that all areas in public ownership would be the most beneficial." Commissioner Quinlan said, "There is one parcel that I am not sure should remain in public ownership, and that's because of the configuration, and that is in the southeast comer. He said part of that property would go to the cemetery. As far as I'm concerned the whole thing could go to the cemetery and just leave the riparian area there for your trail and access... I think if (those four areas) they are going to be dedicated to the public, I think it should be dedicated to the City. That doesn't have anything to do with who operates it or who maintains it. I definitely don't think that Midpeninsula Open Space District should be in there." Steven Haze added, "I just want to again offer you some ideas as it relates to jurisdiction. I agree with Bob about Midpeninsula. I have the same reservations, but there is the County and the City. I'd like to give you two examples of what can be done with that open space. These areas can become recreational gateways into a very large County park. The other aspect dealt with neighborhood N, E-1 and E-2. I think if you asked them if they would prefer a neighborhood park or more direct access through a pathway to the County park, I think their preference would be the access. You could actually relieve traffic, if they could walk in." Commissioner Quinlan stated, "I'm sure that one of the concerns that staff has in their reluctance to just to go along with this being open space, and owned by the public, is that there are probably going to be some problems there in that low area. We're going to have some vandalism and people get hurt and a number of incidents that will be of the criminal nature that will occur. I think we need to look at both sides of the coin." Director Dowling stated, "Receiving the property into public ownership is only the beginning, that's why discussions around who manages and operates become critical. The City obviously has not historically managed open space areas, but we have had some experience at McClellan Ranch Park and Linda Vista Park. At least tonight we are beginning to identify the important considerations in making a determination about a General Plan amendment." Page 5 San Jose Diocese propen'y neighbor- hood park in ~rea N (continued) Commissioner Buhler said, "I keep thinking about costs. Public ownership is better than private ownership assuming that the cost is equal. Certain parts of this area, the benefit of public ownership is great and certain parts of this, the benefit of public ownership is marginal. There are probably costs associated with all public ownership. The question is where do the benefits of public ownership outweigh the costs? That to me begins to get at a little bit of the complexity of what we are looking at here." Commissioner Buhler moved that the Parks and Recreation Commission respond to the Planning Commission that they believe that there is public benefit to the permanent preservation of open space as outlined before us tonight; that there is a benefit to public ownership within the development and that public ownership should be by City and/or County; and that it is subject to cost consideration. The motion was seconded by Commission Lohmiller. All in favor. Motion carried. Commissioner Lohmiller said, "There are other areas in the City that I feel are much more deserving of a neighborhood park if we had "X" amount of funds to spend. I think some of the benefits of this area and its location to existing open space and to existing County area negates the need for a neighborhood park. I have trouble with the neighborhood park concept in this area." Commissioner Quinlan said, "We have money that has been collected from the Forum that has to be spent in an area designated that the Forum is in and it can't be spent anywhere else. We have to put it in that area." Chairman Hendrickson asked, "Steve, how much money is involved from the Forum?" Director said "Their park dedication obligation was approximately $400,000+." Chairman Hendrickson continued "So at this point we are talking about $400,000+ that we would spend on a facility." Director said "There have been other sources over time contributing to that fund, so I don't know tonight what is the balance of our park dedication in area A." Chairman Hendrickson added, "Can we give it back to them? The only reason I bring it up is that it's not the expense of putting something in, it's the expense of maintenance down the way. I'm wondering if there is something we can do creative, and say in this case we will return their park dedication fee for something they may deem appropriate." Director Dowling stated, "You need to look at the history of the City. In the late 1970's and 1980's the General Fund fronted a lot of park development. For one reason we wanted to retain our park dedication fees in reserves which was earning interest, which was a very important revenue source for the City. There may be a need, for whatever dollar amount is in there, to go back and reimburse the General Fund. So I don't want you to get too concerned about the park dedication dollars, the operational dollars are a concern because they are with us forever." Commissioner Quinlan added, "But his question is, is there some innovative way, should we desire and City Council desire, to put that money back into a facility that the Forum would agree to maintain." Director Dowling said, "I don't know." Commissioner Lohmiller said, "In the renovation of the Monta Vista Community Center, does that qualify for use of park dedication fees? Director said, "Yes it would." Commissioner Lohmiller continued, "So therefore that money is being used as it is intended. It is being used within the zone. You don't specifically look at one property owner. We are looking at the large general area." Steven Haze said, "A number of examples of how the park fund could be used is on footbridges, pathways, parking area for neighborhood E-2 at the trail head and finally for the knoll." Director briefly walked through the six Alternatives again. Commissioner Lohmiller moved that a neighborhood park should be considered in any proposed site plan that allows for public open space where the neighborhood park may be located on the appropriate portion of the open space land. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Quinlan. All in favor. Motion carried. Page 6 San Jose Diocese property neighbor- hood park in Area N (continued) Motion Motion Commissioner Quinlan moved that the triangular piece that is west of Foothill Blvd. and north of Stevens Creek and bordered on the west by the railroad tracks be placed in zone E-2. There was no second to the motion. Commissioner Lohmiller added, "We think Foothill is a big barrier, we think the railroad tracks are a barrier and we think Stevens Creek is a barrier. E-2 has Foothill dissecting it therefore it's not that big a barrier, yet up in E-1 there is three stoplights to cross Foothill if one needed to. So I have a hard time with the barrier point of view." Director Dowling added, "The reason this section of Foothill is so ominous is because of the trucks from Kaiser. Would you feel more comfortable with keeping this triangle within a newly defined N zone if there were a pedestrian access through the riparian corridor that might also lead to a neighborhood park. If there were a pedestrian access provided crossing the tracks here in this general area that would tie in some sort of trail concept through the riparian corridor that might also provide access to a neighborhood park, would you feel better about leaving that triangle in N?" Commission Quinlan withdrew his motion. NEW BUSINESS 10. None MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 11. None. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 12. None MONTHLY REPORTS 13. There were no community contacts. MISCELLANEOUS 14. There was no legislative update. 15. There was no Mayor's luncheon report. 16. There were no staff oral reports. ADJOURNMENT 16. Commissioner Quinlan moved and Commissioner Hopkins seconded the motion to adjourn at 8:10 p.m. to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission on November 3, 1994, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers. All in favor. Motion carried. ATTEST: City Clerk Respectfully submitted, APPROVED: Chairperson Page 7 San Jose Diocese property neighbor- hood park in ~reaN (continued) Motion