Loading...
P&R 10-06-94CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Telephone (408) 777-3200 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION City Hall Conference Room A October 6, 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: Hendrickson, Quinlan, Lohmiller, Hopkins, Buhler Stephen Dowling, Director of Parks and Recreation Linda Lagergren, Recording Secretary INTRODUCTIONS 4. None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 5. None OLD BUSINESS 6. Director stated, "The issue before the Commission, once again, has to do with the Park Dedication Ordinance. We are asking you to re-evaluate the possible spin-offs of our most recent form of this amendment. First, it appears that there are very few developments left to occur in this town that any revisions to this ordinance would impact. Second, we heard from the development community last month about the equity issues and the impact issues of reducing their credit for private open space. So what the committee did was go back to our original mission which was to try and maximize future utilization of the spaces that are given private credit. And in doing so, it seemed to us that what we needed to focus on was a way to make sure that if the development got credit for certain components that those components would remain in place and not be subject to future whims of homeowners associations." "So what I am presenting to the Commission this evening are three options. The first option is to leave the ordinance as it exists. The second option is to reinstate half-acre turfed play field as a mandatory element but at the same time reduce the credit for private facilities from 50% to 25%. The third option is that we leave the Park Dedication Ordinance as it exists and we attempt through restrictive covenants to guarantee that credit given for particular spaces would have to remain in place and would not be subject to future operational rules and regulations by homeowners associations. One other minor item is to take out this landscape park-like quiet area and put in a community garden. That is the recommendation from the committee." It was turned back to the Chair for discussion. PRC 8157 Approved 11/3/94 Call to order Flag Salute Roll Call Park Dedication Ordinance credit section Commissioner Hopkins stated, "Going back about a year ago we had some concerns about the passive or landscape areas which would normally be included in a development. There were some concerns that people would get park dedication credit for something like that, that they would ordinarily do. There were also concerns about turf fields and use of those fields by people other than the residents of that particular development. What staff is proposing now I feel comfortable with for a number or reasons. One is there aren't many areas to be developed now. Some of the areas being developed are in a pipeline situation. Also the additional information we got last month showed that there are one or two cities that require 50% and other cities that don't require anything at all, so it runs the gamut. We are not outrageously high or low in that area. So I feel comfortable with the recommendation. I like the idea of putting some stronger language in there so that the turf area remains active. I support the recommendation." Commissioner Quinlan said, "If you recall, I was the one who made this recommendation as a compromise because I believe in this private credit facility anyway. So I would agree with Bob. One thing I found out in reviewing this is that the play field is separately identified, it doesn't get to be part of the landscaping. Staff has the authority under the ordinance to make sure that that doesn't happen. Certainly, if we are going to give them credit for that active play area, then there ought to be some assurance that it remains for that use. So I think that I would concur with the recommendation." Commissioner Buhler stated, "I am much more comfortable with this approach then I was last time and so I like the direction. In the last recommendation, staff had recommended that we take away the mandatory element, and it came up in the meeting the possibility of including the turf play field as an optional element. Why did you choose to keep it mandatory as opposed to making it optional?" Director Dowling responded by saying, "We came to the conclusion that it would be better to keep it as a mandatory element to supplement our own inventory. I also wanted to report to you because the question of pipeline came up from some of the developers last month. Once again the City Attorney said that certainly those two people who came to the podium are considered in the pipeline and wouldn't be subject to any changes anyway. So we really are talking about just a couple more opportunities for applications." Commissioner Lohmiller moved to accept staffs recommendation to amend the Park Dedication Ordinance by requiring a recordation of covenants to ensure the active use of turfed playfields. Commissioner Quinlan seconded the motion. Commissioner Buhler made a friendly amendment to that motion to include deleting the landscaped, park-like quiet area and replace it with the community gardens. Commissioner Hopkins seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion passed. Commissioner Buhler stepped down during this agenda item because he is a passholder at the Cupertino Sports Center. Director Dowling stated, "The issue before the Commission is to consider a special recommendation to City Council for a fee waiver for an organization and an event that does not meet our current policy on fee waivers for use of recreation facilities. CIF/CCS is requesting the use of the Sports Center for their tennis championships. They have done this the last two years under the Trenner management. As I mentioned in my memo, they do not meet the existing criteria, however staff is bringing to you a recommendation that says we would like to do this anyway for two principle reasons. First, it seems like an appropriate thing for this department to support high school competition and secondly, those kinds of events do expose the facility to the non-resident tennis community. They are asking for a waiver for both the girl's championships in the Fall and the boy's championships in the Spring. We would like to take these case by case, go ahead and give the fee waiver for the girls in the Fall, see what our experience is and then try it for the Spring." Page 2 Credit Section Park Dedication Ordinance (continued) Motion CIF/Central Coast Section request for fee waiver for use at Sports Center Commissioner Lohmiller said, "I have a question of staff, you mentioned they are there on the weekend, but the permit for the girls states Monday, Wednesday and Thursday. I'm all for having them use the facility on the weekdays, I think the weekends is another situation. The weekend is a revenue generating time. If they need to go on the weekend, they should so indicate it on their permit." Commissioner Quinlan stated, "I don't see any reason why they can't have enough flexibility that if they need more time to go into the next week but not on the weekend. Secondly, why do they have to come here every year? There are plenty of tennis facilities around this area that CIF covers? Why aren't they going to Sunnyvale, or Mountain View, or Santa Clara, or Palo Alto?" Director Dowling responded by saying, "They were in Mountain View for years and the tennis Supervisor retired and a new regime came in and they no longer wanted to let them have it for free. That's when they came to Jim two years ago. Their motivation is to find a place that is attractive, yet free." Commissioner Quinlan added, "My feeling is they ought to be restricted to not doing it every year. I think that some of the other cities can share in this, and I think that it would he advantageous to the youngsters." Commissioner Hopkins said, "I agree with Dick concerning the weekdays as opposed to the weekends and I agree with Bob in terms of looking at what is the financial impact of having three or four days with a lot of courts being reserved by CIF and how much it will cost the City. I guess we will do that this time around with the girls to understand the financial impact. I would recommend it's approval for just this year." Commissioner Quinlan moved that Commission recommend to City Council the waiver of fees for the use of the Cupertino Sports Center by the CIF/Central Coast Section for their girl's tennis championships with the condition that weekend use will not be allowed, that it be a one year waiver and that CIF give strong consideration to a rotation plan in which they rotate each year to another city. Commissioner Hopkins seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS 8. Director Dowling said, "I would like to make it clear from the beginning of this particular agenda item discussion that more than likely we are not going finish this tonight. There is some preliminary information and some long range ramifications of your recommendations. What I will be suggesting at the end of this discussion in order to be in compliance with the Planning Commission and City Council's timeline on this issue is that we adjourn tonight to a meeting in two weeks to take this item up again. There are really three very broad issues that the Commission will be asked to provide feedback on. The first has to do with the neighborhood boundaries. Our current General Plan says that when development occurs at the Diocese that might trigger a re-drafting of the boundaries between E-1 and N. The second issue has to do with a neighborhood park for neighborhood N. The third issue has to do with something we typically don't get involved in and that is open space and trail linkages and those kinds of issues that are impacted by this development. So what I'd like to do at the very least is present some of the data and start identifying, where we can, some resolution, and where we can't, identify what the issues are for this Commission." "Director Dowling continued, "This consideration is being triggered by the San Jose Diocese asking for a General Plan amendment. Currently their property is zoned very low density residential with 5-20 acre slope density and they are requesting the Planning Commission and City Council to amend the General Plan to very low density residential foothill modified, half-acre sloped density with a cap of 293 units. Right now the General Plan allows for 36. With this request for an amendment, City Council directed that ten Alternates be analyzed in the context of an Environmental Impact Report. What came out of the EIR is that significant impacts would be caused by this development and those impacts relate to loss of and intrusion into open space lands, elimination of potential park lands, loss of and intrusion Page 3 CIF/Central Coast Section request for f¢¢ waiver for use at Sports Center. (continued) Motion San Jose Diocese property neighborhoo d park in Area N into natural vegetation, wildlife habitat and wetland areas, exposure to adverse geological conditions, storm run-offerosion and pollution, wild fire hazard, visual impacts, water tank failure and leakage and safety to school crossings. The Planning Commission is evaluating if there is enough public benefit and enough cause here to consider a General Plan amendment." The Director reviewed the neighborhood park boundaries (E-l, E-2, and possible N-l, N-2 and N-3). He then reviewed what we look for in a neighborhood park and those amenities. Director then reviewed the project development site. "Both the General Plan and the EIR have identified that within this project area there are sensitive areas that should not be considered for development under any scenario. Some of these are the knoll, the marsh area, the riparian corridor, and the small section of the seminary parcel. Which side of this parcel they development as well as adjacent resident access will drive our discussion around where this neighborhood park should occur." Director reviewed option number one. "If the developer developed this amount, his park obligation is three-tenths of an acre. Which means if we wanted our traditional neighborhood park, we would need to come up with another 3.2 acres, if we want our 3.5 acre minimum. Whether that occurs through dedication or acquisition, we would have to state that in our recommendation. The reason there are ten Alternates and you are only looking at six is because there are some variations on these that don't really influence neighborhood park issues." Commissioner Lohmiller said, "In Alternate one, they don't qualify for a park." Commissioner Hopkins added, "They don't have enough tenants." Commissioner Quinlan said, "I would agree." Director added, "So we could just take the park dedication money and look for something in the future." Commissioner Quinlan added, "We certainly don't want something less than 3.5 acres." Commissioner Hopkins added, "I have some similar thoughts on the smaller developments as well. They don't have the critical mass of people to support 3,5 acres and certainly we don't want to go to a one acre or one-half acre park because of the maintenance costs. Maybe with some of the smaller developments we could encourage the developer to build private recreation for the development." Director added, "We can encourage, but we can't require." Commissioner Lohmiller said, "We have thousands of residents in this city that have been waiting patiently for a neighborhood park, and this should not in anyway imply that this takes a priority over them. Granted, if the land becomes available I can see the development of this, where in the other situation we don't have the land." Director Dowling said, "And would that apply to Alternate 2?" Commission agreed. Director added "We will just call these consensus points right now. So what I am hearing is that in Alternates one and two in your view they don't warrant the need for a neighborhood park. Remember, this neighborhood serves more than just the numbers generated in this alternate. There are other existing homes. I don't have those numbers of existing residents, but I will have that number for the next meeting." Commissioner Buhler asked, "Is the neighborhood park demand based on the number in the development or the total number in the neighborhood?" Director said, "The total number of that defined area. The existing plus the new." Commissioner Quinlan stated, "There is an assumption here that that is going to change, and I am questioning it, because I don't know if it is better to go north of the railroad tracks to another site, or whether to go south. I just don't know yet in my mind. I know Stevens Creek is a barrier, but it's not a problem east, but it's a problem west. If you can get across that railroad track, then that solves the problem." Page 4 San Jose Diocese property neighbor- hood park in An:aN continued) Director Dowling said, "So in your mind we're not even sure we want that boundary to be Foothill and Stevens Creek Boulevard." Chairman Hendrickson stated, "That triangle doesn't necessarily go with E-l, we could drop it down into E-2." Director added, "I think we are in agreement that it shouldn't be apart of E-1. The question is should it become a part of E-2 and remain this way, or does it become N." Director said, "So what we want to look is the boundaries, the two options for those boundaries, and critical to that you need to know the number of the existing population. What we will do for next month in regards to these boundaries is get the population figures and we will come back with two layouts, one that says these folks become part of E-2 and the other one, they become part of N." Director said, "Alternate 3 generates a need for an acre and is entirely on the Seminary property. Are you prepared to make a thought on that, that says let's not consider one here either?" Commissioner Lohmiller asked, "Does the Forum come into play here?" Commissioner Quinlan added, "from a count standpoint for recreation." Director Dowling answered, "Yes it does, numbers wise. We will get the number of Forum residents from Ciddy." Commissioner Quinlan asked, "Did the Forum pay a park dedication fee?" Director Dowling said, "We will look at that." Director said, "In Alternate 3 we are now up to 125 units, do we want to start considering a neighborhood park? I realize you need some other numbers to add onto this. Is this a "maybe" area?" Director said, "In Alternate 4 it is still 125 units but it is split." Chairman Hendrickson added, "I think we are at the same situation." Commissioner Quinlan said, "I don't think it changes the park requirement." Director stated, "At 220 units (Alternate 5), the neighborhood park demand is 1.7 acres and the development is split. At this point are you starting to think that some sort of neighborhood park would be a factor?" Chairman Hendrickson added, "The only other thing is if that other street coming back in from Stevens Creek comes in, then that puts a different complexion on the people at Westridge all the way down to Cristo Rey and how they come in." Director Dowling added, "That's a good point, we will need to look at that second access and the impacts of that before the next meeting." Director stated, "One of the things we will be talking about at the next meeting is private open space versus public. The Diocese has sent a letter to two jurisdictions that already have large open space holdings, the County and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District." Director passed out copies of the two agencies responses to the letter they received from the Diocese. Director showed on a map what area the Diocese offered to the County and to the Midpeninsula Open Space District. Director said, "What I need you to be thinking about is what are the implications of these open space areas? What should the City be interested in, if dedication were offered to us? What are the issues and concerns around public open space in the areas indicated?" Chairman Hendrickson asked, "Could we go on a field trip to the Seminary area to see the areas that are being offered?" Commissioner Quinlan added, "I'd like to see the staked out boundary of what is being offered for open space, public or private." Director said, "Maybe we could adjourn to a meeting at an earlier time frame to take a tour of the site, then take a dinner break and then come back and start working through these issues." Director asked, "What other issues come to mind? Obviously, operational costs and management costs." Page 5 San Jose Diocese property neighbor- hood park in Area N (continued) Commissioner Quinlan said, "If the knoll is a very sensitive area and the marsh is a sensitive area, maybe it's best just to preserve that into some kind of an easement of private space. You wouldn't want to use it as a park, if it's a sensitive area." Director Dowling said, "That is the kind of recommendation that the Planning Commission is looking for. Do we agree that certain areas are sensitive and should be preserved? And if so, how do we recommend that it be preserved, private open space, public open space, which jurisdiction? Commissioner Buhler asked, "When we think about park space, am we limited to a traditional idea of a park or can we think of something like McClellan Ranch Park?" Director answered, "Of course you can, and obviously there is a lot of public support for natural native themes up here." Commissioner Buhler added, "We really have two sets of issues. One is just as citizens, what do we think is the ideal use for that land and then, is City control/ownership the way to achieve that goal?" Director Dowling said, "Everything about this process you are dealing with altematives and you will need to look at each one and take them case by case. We have a neighborhood park issue and a open space issue." Director said, "Let me bring up the issue of the E.I.R. I will try to get you a copy of the summary, so you can get a feel for the environmental issues." The Commission decided on the date for the next meeting. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 9. Commissioner Lohmiller moved and Commissioner Hopkins seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the September 1, 1994 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. Commissioner Quinlan abstained. All others in favor. Motion carried. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 10. None MONTHLY REPORTS 11. Director announced receipt of Baby Grand piano at Quinlan Community Center from the Fine Arts Commission. He reported on success of Art in the Park and reviewed plans for Highway 85 Dedication ceremonies planned for October 15, 1994. 12. There were no community contacts. MISCELLANEOUS 13. There was no legislative update. 14. There was no Mayor's luncheon report. 15. There were no staff oral reports. ADJOURNMENT 16. Commissioner Lohmiller moved and Commissioner Hopkins seconded the motion to adjourn at 9:05 p.m. to an adjoumed regular meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission on October 19, 1994, 4:00 p.m. City Hall. All in favor. Motion carried. ATTEST: City Clerk Page 6 San Jose Diocese property neighbor- hood park in Area N (continued) Motion Monthly Reports Motion Chatrperson V