Loading...
P&R 09-01-94CITY 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 Council Chambers September 1, 1994 CALL TO ORDER 1. Regular meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission called to order at 7:03 p.m. SALUTE TO THE FLAG 2. ROLL CALL 3. Commissioners present: Commissioners absent: Staff present: Hendrickson, Lohmiller, Hopkins, Buhler (arrived 7:06 p.m.) Quinlan 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 this evening is to review the specific language in the proposed revisions to the Park Dedication Ordinance. (Commissioner Buhler arrived at 7:06 p.m.) The most significant change is the reduction from 50% credit to 25% credit for projects that provide on-site private recreation. The Director reviewed the remaining proposed revisions to the Park Dedication Ordinance. "There are a few glitches that have come up since we've reviewed this. Commissioner Quinlan had asked the question, that if the minimum requirement was one-acre, what happens with large developments. The developer is obligated to provide a facility and/or fees commensurate with his park dedication obligation. If there are 2,000 residents, there is an obligation of six acres. So, the developer has the option of providing six acres of on-site recreation and getting credit for currently half of that, proposed twenty-five percent, and the rest in fees. When you look at that, there is a potential problem for large developments. If you eliminate the turf area and you start to try to increase proportionally the remaining optional elements, you could get a distorted end product." "The second issue was brought to my attention by Commissioner Buhler and that is the 1.3 acre requirement. That says in the optional elements if the developer is going to provide a play apparatus and a recreation center, then the minimum requirement is 1.3 acres. There was an intent to make the minimum at least one acre. But it appears that what we inadvertently have done now is discouraged the developer to put in a play apparatus and a rec building because they have to provide more space if they do that." Commissioner Hopkins asked, "How does the City use the money from the fees that are generated?" PRC #156 Approved 10/6/94 Call to order Flag Salute Roll Call Park Dedication Ordinance credit section Director said, "The City is divided into three park zones and the fees generated out of these developments go toward neighborhood or community park facilities in three different zones. It cannot be used for maintenance, it can be used for purchase or development only." Jim Sisk, 19672 Stevens Creek Boulevard #149, Cupertino. "I'm here representing the Forge family. The Forge family are the owners of a ten-acre parcel located on Homestead Road, westerly of De Anza Boulevard. We have filed an application to develop the ten-acre property into an apaihnent project of 240 units. The plan has been developed based on the existing ordinance that is in effect. I am hoping that because I filed and there is no new ordinance that I will be able to continue to process my plan under the old ordinance. I did want to appear before you to just generally say that the 50% credit has been an encouragement to the people especially in apartment projects. It has encouraged us to provide more facilities then we would normally. There are probably only three properties left in the community that could benefit by a 50% credit as opposed to a 25% credit, us being one of them. I hope if you do change the ordinance, that I could still qualify under a pipeline requirement, since I've already filed my application." Chairman Hendrickson asked, "If the existing ordinance does change, does it effect anybody who has already applied for a building permit?" Director Dowling said, "That would be a question for the City Attorney." Jackie Diller, 2152 Levinworth San Francisco. "I work for Maxim Property Management. We have several concerns about changing the ordinance. There are basically five concerns with these changes. First, the reduction in credit discourages the provision of open space by private developers. Second when you look at the comparison of city's. It is true that alot of city's do have 25% park dedication credits, but most city's have park dedication fees that are half what City of Cupertino's fees are. Third, and probably the most important point is that they wanted to delete the turf area as an eligible part of the credit saying that children do not rely on it for field sports, but instead rely on public facilities. There is no data or studies to support that conclusion. If a private developer were to propose such a change it would require an E.I.R. We would think that the same requirements should be imposed on the public sector. Fourth, in relation to deleting the landscape park quiet like areas, I would think that the City would want these areas. Fifth, we are the developers of the Cupertino City Center apattments and we are kind of in a similar situation as Mr. Sisk, where we based our feasibility of the project on the existing ordinance and we are already in the pipeline of developed plans. We do request that if the ordinance was changed that our project would be grandfathered in to the old ordinance." Chairman Hendrickson asked if the E.I.R. question was a concern for this Commission. Director Dowling replied by saying, '%Io, that is not under your purview. Your role is to basically analyze the merit of the language from your perspective and experience. Whether or not an EIR is required would be determined by the Planning Commission. The Environmental Review Committee, which is the appointed group that takes the first glance at projects has already given a negative declaration to this, but if there was a desire to do an EIR, Planning Commission or City Council would make that judgment." The public input was concluded at this point and brought back to the Commission. Page 2 Credit Section Park Dedication Ordinance (continued) Jim Sisk 19672 Stevens Creek Blvd. # 149 Cupt. [ackie Diller Maxim Property Management Commissioner Lohmiller commented, "From the city side of things in trying to achieve equities throughout the community, the private areas make it more difficult for us. For Commissioners that are relatively new, part of the discussions in the past have been that the turfed play field in private residential areas are only for those residents that live there. Depending on the homeowners association that can impose their own rules, they may restrict the activity of that space. It doesn't become public area. It's beautiful open space and it makes it nice for that area. It makes it a better community overall but it doesn't add to the acres. I find that is the problem. That's why it was decided by the past Commissions to recommend that this be dropped back.. I wouldn't want this to go forward if we have some glitches in it. I would want it to be re-looked at." Commissioner Hopkins asked, "With this ordinance, can City Council make adjustments to it, case by case?" Director Dowling replied, "You can make adjustments only within the constraints of the ordinance. The language is up to 50% or up to 25%." Commissioner Hopkins added, "There isn't a guarantee that the person would get 50% credit." Director added, "That is correct, they must make findings that there is justification for whatever percentage is applied." Commissioner Hopkins said, "So we are just recommending lowering the ceiling. If I were a developer, I would put these amenities in anyway because occupancy rate isn't as high because of jobs moving out of the area. I don't really agree with the argument that this would be a disincentive. I also agree with Dick, that even if one would put in private recreational space, they would still use City parks." Commissioner Buhler stated, "I hear very clearly the public comment about the people who are already in process, and I am curious if the staff has considered that in an effective date of the ordinance or the way that this would actually be implemented." Director Dowling said, '2qo, we haven't put a target date for implementation. We have had some general conversations about those that are in the pipeline. Clearly that is a determination that has to be made by legal counsel." .... Id Commissioner Buhler stated, I wou be interested in understanding the impact more precisely that we would be having on existing projects and that understanding if we have any flexibility in building the ordinance to take into account those project. Chairman Hendrickson said, "It would be of interest to find out what happens to those in the pipeline. Seven Springs was mentioned and originally when I heard this too, that was a classic example. That was a field that was put in and credit was given and the public was not allowed to use it." Director Dowling added, "Just a quick point of clarification, it was never intended to be public space, but it was intended that the residents of that development could use it for active play. Residents of that development were denied use." Chairman Hendrickson said, "I think to me that is where I was under a misunderstanding. I think then that the people who live in Seven Springs did use the fields and that there was an impact on the City of Cupertino for that use. I would like to see if the Commission is in agreement to go ahead and put this off until next month and ask if we can go ahead and find out what happens to the projects in the pipeline, and does this only affect two other properties. Perhaps that would help us." Commissioner Lohmiller said, "That would be my feeling, I would not want to be a party to anything that is retroactive." Page 3 Credit Section Park Dedication Ordinance (continued) Director Dowling added, "I need direction on the two things that I brought up. Is the Commission interested in an idea that reinstates the turfed play field?" Commissioner Lohmiller said, "I certainly would be, recognizing that it is a private turfed play field. I think when it was eliminated, we thought it was the same as a public park. Those things have proven that they aren't that. They are what the homeowners association deems them to be. I would be willing to stick it back in, in some form, recognizing that it wasn't what we originally thought it was." Director Dowling stated, "If that is a consensus, then we will look at that." Chairman Hendrickson said, "I think that is agreed." Director Dowling added "The second issue is the 1.3 acre requirement if there is play apparatus and a rec center. Do you want us to come back with a specific number, or do you have that number in mind?" Commissioner Buhler added, "I would be interested in hearing your number." Director Dowling said he would bring a number back let them know why. NEW BUSINESS 7. Commissioner Hopkins is on the board of the YMCA and because the YMCA is involved in this perspective situation, Hopkins stepped down and was not a part of the discussion or voting. Director Dowling stated, "The issue before the Commission tonight is to review the proposal to install a ropes course facility at McClellan Ranch Park. The Commission will recall that early last Spring, the Commission gave endorsement to the idea of a ropes course at Linda Vista Park. Mr. Rich Knapp and some of the people involved in the concept, upon further investigation of Linda Vista, felt that it was not suitable to their needs and in their view, McClellan Ranch Park would be a much more desirable location for the ropes course. This issue has been before the McClellan Ranch Task Force on a number of occasions and I need to report to the Commission their views on it. It was the consensus of the Task Force that the ropes course concept at McClellan Ranch was not appropriate. They felt that it was inconsistent with the mission statement and that it was not in keeping with ordinance #710 that established McClellan Ranch as a rural preserve." Director Dowling reviewed some of their specific concerns. The consortium that is putting this concept together does have the prerogative of appearing before you and seeking a recommendation." It was turned over to Rich Knapp to convey the idea of a ropes course at McClellan Ranch Park. Rich Knapp stated "The amount of space at Linda Vista Park was limited because of the terrain and existing structures. The areas that seemed appropriate, after walking the area, seemed very limited. Upon review of that, we went down to McClellan Ranch Park and spent some time looking there, trying to keep in mind the nature of the park. The area that seemed most suitable was back in the old orchard area which aligned with the Blackberry Farm area. We also looked at building the course not in the trees, but on telephone poles so that there would be minimum impact on the vegetation in the area. We came out twice and walked the course with the Task Force. We tried to take into consideration their concerns in building the course. We feel that a local ropes course is very important." Liz Gallegos, YMCA. "I'd like to clarify why the YMCA would be interested in joining this venture. The YMCA is about programs that strengthen kids, our families, and our communities. We think that the ropes challenge course provides this unique opportunity for collaboration between the City, the schools and non-profit. We spoke before and talked about the leadership, the self-esteem and the learning that happens through that experience in the ropes challenge courses. It is safe, cost-effective and it has a healthy respect for our environment. We urge your support and we think that McClellan Ranch Park is the ideal place for the ropes challenge program." Page 4 Credit Section Park Dedication Ordinance (continued) Rope Coupe concept m McClellan Ranch Park Rich Knapp Liz Gallegos Rich Knapp added, "We contacted Project Adventure. Project Adventure has built over 1,000 courses across the United States and they would come out and help plan the course and it would be designed specifically for the site." Commissioner Lohmiller asked, "Is this Water District property?" Director Dowling replied, "A portion of it is." Commissioner Lohmiller asked, "Does it require their approval?" Director answered, "We have a perpetual lease on it, but it would be appropriate to advise them." Commission Buhler asked, "What other sites besides Linda Vista and McClellan Ranch have you explored?" Rich Knapp said, "We went to Stevens Creek Park. We looked at three different places there. We also looked at the City of Sunnyvale and the Shoreline Bayland Park area." Page 5 Rope Course concept at McClellan Ranch Park (continued) It was opened up for public comment. Debbie Jamison, 21346 Rumford Drive, Cupt. "I was a member of the master planning committee for Debbie Jamison McClellan Ranch Park. I looked through the master plan and concluded that no stretch of interpretation 21346 would include something like a ropes challenge course at McClellan Ranch Park. Ropes challenge Rumford Dr. courses are a wonderful thing but their primary purpose doesn't fall within the purview of learning about natural history, environmental history, and human history of our nature preserve. I hope they find another area for the rope course but Cupertino's nature preserve is not the appropriate place for it." Ralph Eddy, 10200 Stonydale Drive, Cupt. "I am on the present Task Force at McClellan Ranch Park. I Ralph Eddy don't think that a ropes course fits in with the master plan. Everything I have heard about ropes courses 10200 Stonydale is very positive. I think they are a good thing, It would be very nice if Cupertino had one, but I don't Dr. think that McClellan Ranch Park is the proper place for it. The ropes course would impinge on the riparian area. I live about two houses from Varian Park and I would not be opposed to having it there." Reid Freeman, 1575 S. Blaney, San Jose. "McClellan Ranch Park is one of my favorite places to visit. I'm there once a week. What these people are proposing to do has its benefits, but it is inconsistent with Freeman1575 S. the long range goal of the park." Blaney S.J. Howard Johnson, 22560 Alcalde, Cupt. "I am a resident, a gardener at McClellan Ranch Park, a ~oward member of Audubon, and I am a member of the Task Force who is implementing the master plan. I Johnson would like to thank the people who brought this proposal to the table. I am very concerned with the 22560 Alcalde noise that this could bring. I am concerned about the people who live around McClellan Ranch Park. My primary concern is habitat. My other concern is what kind of precedent would this set. What would the master plan be worth if we choose at this juncture not to really follow the direction that it would provide. I don't believe that this proposal is in keeping with the master plan." Catherine Sleight, 11074 La Paloma, Cupt. "I am one of the people that was on the original task force Catherine that came up with the master plan. This is a tough one for me because thirty years ago my mother Sleight started programs like the ropes course in New York state. From that perspective I'm really for it. Palomal1074La However, having worked on the committee for McClellan Ranch Park I really have to say that the preserve aspect does come first. McClellan Ranch Park needs to stay as a preserve." Roxanne Beverstein, 1061 November Drive, Cupt. "I am a gardener at the community gardens and a Roxanne master gardener. I have a great respect for the park. I would not like to see anything come into the park Beverstein1061 that would not have the same sort of respect for the land and the habitat." November Dr. Maryanna Tubman, Alcalde Road, "I am a gardener and bird watcher. I don't get the sense of putting telephone poles in a field really promotes an understanding of the environment. The main purpose of the ropes course could be served on a flat grass park if you are going to have to build walls. I feel that Mr. Knapp's description of the placement, if you were going to put one at McClellan, it seemed like a good location in that it would be visually a little less disturbing to people. I do think that there might be better place for it." Ralph Riddle, 1061 November Drive, Cupt. "This park is an oasis in a city that is developed. This is a place that you can go and peace and quiet, hear nature, relax, and see things you just can't see other places." Mike Hanison, Cupertino resident. "I appreciate what a ropes course could be. It would be good if we could have one somewhere. The orchard would be great if we could keep it as an orchard." Larry Curb, Sunnyvale resident, Principal of Kennedy Junior High. "I heard a lot of reasons why people might not want a ropes course on this property. I think if we were talking today about having the gardens, we would be having this same argument, but the gardens are there and now that they are there we don't want anything else. My concerns are that there is a limited amount of space in this large suburban area where a ropes course could be put up where there is access to the students in the community. We don't have the funds to take students on long trips. I think that there is a lot of land here that needs to be shared. The course will blend in and there will be a great deal of value to the community. There are lots of reasons not to do it, but there are lots of reasons to do it. I urge you to consider that there can be a balance here for everyone and we can all work together and serve everybody's needs." George Lee, resident of Cupertino. "I am here to speak in favor of the ropes course. I think a ropes course could be built here that would blend in. I am here as a supporter of the ropes course." Mary Jane Coombs, 1523 Ashcrofi Way, Sunnyvale. "For a year and one-half I have been a member of the ropes course through Homestead High School. Nothing I have been a member of expect the ropes course has given me the opportunity to bond with people of such wide backgrounds and diverse socio- economic groups. That bonding experience is so important. I believe through my experience in the ropes course that I have developed a great respect among nature. I think a ropes course is extremely important to teens these days and we really need a place to have a positive experience and learn with our peers." Rich Knapp, "This is a complex issue. McClellan is a special place. There is a delicate balance that exists between preserving an environment and having kids or people in it. If we don't find and provide opportunities for kids to interact in a natural environment, they won't develop the values and appreciation that we would hope they would develop. The chances for negative activities to take place in what little land we have will increase." Discussion went back to Commission. Commissioner Buhler asked, "Is there any other acceptable sites in or near Cupertino for this Ropes Course? Rich Knapp said, "In Cupertino, I have not seen one. Linda Vista park if we scaled it way down, you may be able to build one there. I don't think you could reach all the goals that were established if you built it there. We looked at Stevens Creek Canyon below the dam. The access just was not reasonable. We have not explored up the canyon. Access in terms of transportation becomes an issue." Page 6 Rope Course concept at McClellan Ranch Park (continued) Ma~yanna Tubman Ralph Riddle Vlike Hanison Larry Curb George Lee Cupertino resident Mary Jane Coombs Rich Knapp Commissioner Lohmiller said, "I agree with all the points that have been presented. I think it is important to our community that we try to do this. I'm not comfortable with it at McClellan. I've been involved with that park for a long time and I've always questioned its use or lack of use. They took care of my objections by putting together a master plan committee and I agree with the mission statement of that plan. Part of that was the use of this area for environmental purposes. The increased use of the park is important. I think the increased usage has to come from the plan that has been implemented. If we were to allow use of this in an area that might be of questionable compatibility, I think it would restrict the use of putting in another activity. In the number of years that I have sat up here this to me is the toughest one yet. There are two outstandingly good reasons to have activities in these parks. I think the solution is to somehow get another level of activity looking for a suitable site, whether it be some other use of Linda Vista or another area of land available might be the Stevens Canyon area. I don't have the answer. It is an outstanding program." Chairman Hendrickson said, "I am going to speak in approval of the concept. One of the missions is to expand community awareness and understanding of natural history and environment. I had the pleasure of going on the ropes course twice. Youth is the important part here. I've lived above that park for eight years and I think it very much used exclusively by some people and I think it is wrong. I think this is a wonderful opportunity to open it up. The people that are have been there have tried to open it up to youth and it hasn't worked. The reaching out isn't really what the youth want to grab a hold of. Nothing is forever. Why not give it a chance. Why not give this a try." Chairman Hendrickson made a motion to approve in concept the Ropes Course at McClellan Ranch Park. There was no second to the motion. Motion was dead. Commissioner Buhler said, "I really see this as two competing uses that we are trying to decide on, both which are great causes. One is working with kids in outdoor education and the other is trying to preserve something that is in a state that is at least close to its natural state. I don't think you can argue that one is inherently better than the other. Personally, I can identify greatly with the uses and the goals of the ropes course. As a new member on this commission, I also have great respect for the work that has been done before I got here and the amount of work that went in to developing the master plan, the number of times that it has been reviewed, and the number of places in the records of the City that the purpose of this piece of land has been made very clear. I have a very hard time casting a vote here that would fly in the face of all of that work and precedent. I point out that the concept of the ropes course has come before the commission and we were all very supportive of it and ! stand by that. I am not prepared at this point to say that this is the location that this commission should recommend for the course. I agree with the idea that we should continue to look for a location and see what we can come up with." Commissioner Lohmiller added, "It is the location at this site that I have the problem with at the Ranch. I wouldn't have any problem at all with the having it behind the Simms house. That is a setting that it would work fine in my mind." Commissioner Lohmiller moved that we not approve the recommendation as presented. Commissioner Buhler seconded the motion. Vote: Lohmiller and Buhler - aye. Hendrickson - nay. Motion carried. Director stated that of course staff is available to the consortium if they would like to continue to explore other sites. Director stated that Central Coast Section did not submit a written request to have the fees waived. This item will be continued. Director stated, "The Commission will recall that the City endorsed the Friends of Stevens Creek Trail and subsequent to that entered into an agreement for this organization to lease space at McClellan Ranch Park. The document before you tonight basically identifies what the nature of the endorsement means. This has the support of staff and has been reviewed by the City Attorney" Page 7 Rope Course concept at McClellan Ranch park (continued) Motion Motion CCS waiver item cont'd Friends of Stevens Creek Trail Agreement 10. Ronald Custance said, "We are very appreciative of having not only the endorsement from the city but Page 8 Friends of the opportunity to enter into an agreement with you to do some of the things that we've been able to do Stevens in some of the other cities. We look forward to you endorsing this agreement." Creek Trail) Agreement Commissioner Hopkins moved that the Parks and Recreation Commission endorse the agreement Motion between the City of Cupertino and the Friends of Stevens Creek Trail. Commissioner Lohmiller seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried. Director said, "The item before the Commission, although we don't have a specific location, is to endorse the concept of a marker at Blackberry Farm indicating the historical significance of Elisha Stephens. This is funded by private donations and our role is simply to allow the placement of the plaque. Commissioner Buhler moved to endorse the suggestion from the Historical Society for placement of a Motion marker at Blackberry Farm. Commissioner Lohmiller seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 11. Commissioner Lohmiller moved and Commissioner Hopkins seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the August 4, 1994 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. All in favor. Motion carried. Motion WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 12. Director Dowling stated, "I know this won't come as a surprise for those of you who know Chris but we got some nice compliments of his work in the Family-to-Family program." MONTHLY REPORTS 13. Director announced that the Highway 85 dedications are coming up. October 15 will be a busy day in Monthly Cupertino. There will be events all day long. October 19 is when the freeway officially opens, reports 14. Commissioner Hopkins reported on the Volunteer Luncheon at the Senior Center. Commissioner community Buhler added that he thought it was well organized, well run and he enjoyed just meeting all the contacts seniors. Commissioner Lohmiller announced the CCS auction and barbecue at Blackberry Farm on September 10. MISCELLANEOUS 15. There was no legislative update. 16. There was no report on the Mayor's luncheon. 17. There were no additional staff reports. ADJOURNMENT 18. Commissioner Hopkins moved and Commissioner Buhler seconded the motion to adjourn at 9:23 p.m. to the regularly scheduled meeting of Parks and Recreation Commission on October 6, 1994, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers. All in favor. Motion carried. Motion ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Chairperson