Loading...
PC 06-21-89 CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10300 Torre Ave. Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 252-4642 MINUTES OF JOINT MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION HELD ON JUNE 21, 1989 SALUTE TO THE FLAG: ROLL CALL: Commissioners Present: Chairman Adams Vice Chairman Claudy Commissioner Mackenzie Commissioner Sorensen Commissioner Szabo Chairwoman Colman Commissioner Klinger Commissioner Dean Commissioner Condon Commissioner Martin Staff Present: Robert Cowan, Director of Planning and Development Larry Harmer, City Planner Steve Dowling, Director of Parks and Recreation Department Chr. Adams stated that the Study Session was to consider changes, if any, in the General Plan; he invited Parks and Recreation Commissioners to work with them on these issues. Chr. Colman agreed that this was their objective as well; she added that these deliberations prepared for the future of the community. She cited the limited land available in the City. Mr. Cowan noted Parks and Recreation Commission's desire to review the General Plan, Parks and Open Space Element; he reviewed events of the last General Plan update and presented a handout showing the role of each Commission and a definition of tasks. Mr. Dowling noted that the Genera Plan Open Space Element was designed to provide neighborhood parks; this task was nearing an end and it was time to direct attention to the recreational needs of the 1990's. He reviewed the Recreational Needs Survey and testi- mony taken at Parks and Recreation Commission Hearings. Com. Sorensen asked whether the needs of senior citizens had been identified in the Survey; Mr. Dowling noted that over 50% of households felt the senior center should be expanded. Com. Mackenzie commented that residents as well as workers had been identified as users of recreational facilities; in addition to the 55,000 daytime workers, how many residents remained at home during the day? Mr. Cowan responded that the numbers were available. Com. Mackenzie questioned how the neighborhood park program had preformed? PLANNING COMMlSSION/PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES Joint Meeting of June 21, 1989 Page 2 PC - 574 Com. Claudy responded that the City would not be able to meet recreational space demands in terms of making services and facilities available without a wait time. Mr. Dowling reviewed the status and location of City-owned recreational areas. Com. Sorensen noted the partnership between the City of Sunnyvale and Cupertino Union School District to develop and upgrade open space areas on the school sites; such would seem a logical step for the City of Cupertino. Mr. Dowling agreed. Com. Szabo commented there was confusion on the part of the general public between private open space at school sites and publicly owned open space areas; if school sites were sold for development, the public would protest the loss of open space. Secondly, as prop- erty values continued to escalate, property owners would try to convert open space to other uses; lack of action on the part of the City would result in the loss of this open space. Com. Martin agreed; however, the property would have to be rezoned for a change in use. Com. Szabo cited examples wherein the property owner could claim that maintaining the open space area was not a reasonable use of their property; examples were cited. Chr. Colman noted the extensive changes in the City during the past ten years; the declining recreational resources were cited. During the Recreational Needs Survey, testimony was taken; however, there was a question whether a vocal minority were providing the input or whether the feelings of residents as a whole were being heard. Com. Claudy responded that although a majority of residents were in favor of the Park Bond, the two-thirds majority required to pass the measure was not secured. He cited the State Supreme Court Case involving the City of Palo Alto; if the City of Cupertino pro- hibited reasonable development of existing private open space, the City would be vul- nerable to lawsuits. A recent Application heard by the Planning Commission was cited. Com. Dean noted the contrasting testimony and communication patterns between the Com- missions; it was critical for the Planning Commission to understand the Parks and Recre- ation Commission's communication patterns in order to make good decisions. They were seeing children who were participating in one program after another, i.e., parents were using programs to care for the children, and the programs were becoming over subscribed. Com. Claudy responded that the majority of testimony taken at the Planning Commission Meetings was from residents--those who did not have a vested interest in the project. Com. Szabo noted the City would have to decide what properties to purchase and arrange financing; private property owners could not be denied the reasonable use of their property. If such were attempted, the City would loose the case in court. Com. Claudy agreed. Chr. Colman responded that the Recreational Need Survey considered available properties and prioritized them on their desirability as open space/recreational areas; De Anza Racquet Club was designated as the highest priority. The Commission recognized that other prop- erties may have to be sacrificed in order to obtain this site. PLANNING COMMISSIONIPARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES Joint Meeting of June 21, 1989 Page 3 PC - 574 Com. Szabo reiterated that the City had to arrange the necessary financing; at present, if one of these sites became available, the City could not afford to purchase it. Perhaps a bond measure requiring a simple majority would be necessary to raise the required financing. Com. Claudy commented that such was the Council's role. Com. Szabo responded that it was the role of the Planning and Parks and Recreation Com- missions to provide leadership and put these issues to a vote. Com. Claudy summarized that those who voted against the Parks Bond did so because they did not know the specific outcome of their vote; for many, the De Anza Racquet Club could not be supported as a City Racquet Club. Chr. Colman agreed confusion existed in the community surrounding the Parks Bond; the measure was vaguely worded and a large amount of money was involved. Given the time constraints, she questioned how a bond measure could be placed on the November ballot. Com. Szabo advised that a bond issue, which required a two-thirds majority, was almost unobtainable since Proposition 13 had been passed. Com. Dean noted the confusion that surrounded the June 12th Planning Commission hear- ing on an Application by De Anza Residential Suites; Com. Szabo stated that while he was opposed to the purchase of the Racquet Club for the sole use as a tennis club, he was favorable to its purchase as a general use facility which included a tennis club. A general use facility would be a reasonable and good use. Com. Klinger questioned the time frame available for the acquisition of the Racquet Club. Mr. Dowling responded that the possible acquisition of the Club was under negotiation. Chr. Colman reviewed the alternatives available given the window of opportunity for obtaining the De Anza Racquet Club. In response to questions by the Commissioners, Mr. Cowan reviewed applicable zoning regulations and requirements surrounding the construction of structures in the flood plain. Com. Szabo cited the First Enl1lish Evan~elical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los An¡¡eles decision. In response to Com. Mackenzie's question on the current negotiations for the Racquet Club, Mr. Cowan responded that zoning designations were not the best way to protect land; Mr. Dowling added that the Council had expressed a consensus that the property would better serve the community, if it were in public ownership. Com. Mackenzie cited the map and noted that open space designations in private owner- ship, allowed under current development policies in lieu of public parks, was not shown. Mr. Cowan thought that only at Northpoint and Seven Springs Ranch was there private open space that was functional. Com. Claudy commented that functional areas did not necessarily meet the community's need for organized play and sports activity fields. Chr. Colman added that businesses, whose employees used the open space/recreational areas, did not pay a park dedication fee. PLANNING COMMISSIONIPARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES Joint Meeting of June 21, 1989 Page 4 PC - 574 Com. Dean noted the impact of 30,000 De Anza students and staff; the College did not have the tennis courts required to hold tournaments. This may be an alternative source of revenue. Mr. Dowling suggested that joint ventures not be precluded. Com. Claudy stated that in addition to the recreational areas in the City, there were certain resources nearby which were not accounted for on the map presented; examples were cited. He urged Parks and Recreations Commission to consider how these facilities could be in- tegrated into the City's useable space; some of these areas had very limited access, although easements for use by the public were supposed to have been created. He suggested these linkages be developed; such would not cost the City money. Com. Dean noted that if Racquet Club facilities were expanded, the City could negotiate with the School District who would wish to use this resource; he cited the great expense of installing an in-field at Kennedy School. Com. Klinger added that the City's access to high school gymnasiums had been very limited; she wished to see greater cooperation between the two, to open these facilities to all interested parties. The schools would benefit by an upgrade of the existing facilities. Otber communities had acheived a greater measure of cooperation than Cupertino had. Com. Szabo felt the City was 1acking in recreatìona1 laci1ìtìes as compareà to oiher ÒiIes. Com. Dean commented that the public made their interest in recreational facilities very clear. Com. Szabo reiterated that without a financial plan these facilities could not be acquired. Com. Sorensen added that partnerships should be considered. Com. Claudy noted that a facility like Blackberry Farm may have a picnic area that was a City park while the golf course may be self supporting from fees charged to patrons. Com. Martin felt that a alternative plan was necessary; he cited the recent loss of the Park Bond wherein months of effort was lost because no back-up plan was in place. Com. Sorensen asked whether the recreational needs of teenagers had been considered. Com. Dean cited recent fund raising events as well as social and recreational activities for teenagers; he noted that recreational facilities could serve a wide range of ages. Com. Claudy questioned whether the priority was acquiring the Racquet Club and/or other facilities, or the use of surplus school sites for the development of open space areas? Com. Dean described the plan for the Racquet Club facilities. Chr. Colman added that the question was where would the facilities make the most sense; she noted the current use of Memorial Park and added that the Commission had considered the cost of building a new gymnasium elsewhere, rather than expanding the Racquet Club. Com. Klinger noted the immediacy of making a decision on the Racquet Club site. . Chr. Adams advised that the priority should be the acquisition of the property as soon as the opportunity were available. Com. Sorensen cited the trend that parents were allowed to enroll their children in the school district where they were employed; she cited the impacts to the child care system. ~~ PLANNING COMMISSIONIPARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES Joint Meeting of June 21, 1989 Page 5 PC - 574 Chr. Adams opened the discussion to public input. Mr. Chuck Jacobsen complimented the Commissions on the positive dialogue; he noted the tough choices in acquisition priorities and the need to find financing. Chr. Adams suggested Architectural and Site Committee be responsible for streetscapes. Com. Claudy commented that the while Architectural and Site Committee would review the aesthetics of streetscapes, the Planning Commission would be involved in location of such. Com. Condon suggested that parking in open space areas be investigated; Regnart Canyon was cited as an example. Com.Claudy noted that one Open Space District Board Member was critical of Cupertino, which they felt had an anti-open space policy and actively resisted efforts of the Park District. He was surprised at this feedback and suggested greater cooperation was required. Chr. Adams suggested a member of the District be invited to an upcoming Mayor's Lunch. Mayor Plungy responded with alternative meeting arrarangements. Com. Szabo advised the City to prepare to finance key properties they wished to acquire; Chr. Adams suggested Staff be asked to review alternative financial mechanisms to be pre- sented to the Planning Commission for recommendation, and forwarded on to the Council. Com. Szabo added that dedicated sources of funding required a two-thirds majority which may be a problem; he suggested that revenues be increased to allow for key acquisitions. Com. Claudy agreed financial planning was required; however, the list of properties com- piled by Park and Recreation Commission was dependent upon sites becoming available for sale. The City would have to be financially prepared to act. Chr. Adams cited the good communications between the two Commissions; he felt the Planning Commission had a better understanding of recreational needs in the City. Parks and Recreations Commission seemed to understand limitations the Planning Commission was under in considering applications for development. Chr. Colman suggested potential follow-up actions that might be profitable for all. Com. Mackenzie noted the upcoming major revision of the General Plan and invited the Parks and Recreation Commission to participate in this process. Chr. Adams added that both the Minutes and Minute Orders from the Planning Commis- sion were available; he invited input from the Parks and Recreation Commission. Chr. Colman reiterated the need for face-to-face communications. Com. Claudy suggested an Ad Hoc Committee to discuss issues of interest to Parks and Recreation Commission; he stated he would welcome the input from the Commission. Mr. Dowling suggested that Staff investigate a vehicle for on-going communications and present recommendations for consideration; Mr. Cowan stated that a work program would also be presented for consideration.