Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&R 04.02.1992 Minutes CITY OF CUPERTINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA PRC # 126 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 Unapproved Telephone (408) 252-4505 MINUTES OF THE RBmIAR MEETING OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION April 2, 1992 Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER 1. Regular meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission called to Call to order at 7:33 p.m. Order SALUTE TO THE FLAG 2. Flag Salute ROLL CALL 3. Commissioners present: Hopkins, Lohmiller, Condon, Colman, Roll Call Quinlan, Throne Commissioners absent: Hendrickson Staff present: Stephen G. Dowling, Director Linda M. Lagezgren, Recording Secretary Ciddy Wordell, City Planner INTRODUCTIONS 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. Commissioners identified who would take lead role on 192-193 work '92-193 plan topics. work plan * QUINLAN -Review the park dedication ordinance * TTUZONE - Rev i ew/recomrrmend sports center contract * CONDON - Establish policies for commercial sponsorship of recreation events or facilities * 'THRONE & OOIIMAN - Review/rec=-end Sports Center Master Plan Committee recommendation ' LOH�"QLLER & HENDRICKSON - Establish sports fields use policies * LOHMILLER - Review/reccmnernd the master plans for the eight school sites * HOPKINS - Review/recommend environmental master plan for McC 1 e l l an Ranch Park * CIDLMAN & QUINLAN - Review renovation strategy for Monta vista Recreation Center * HOPKINS - Develop neighborhood park site for area Jl, J2,and K * LOHMILLER - Review Cupertino Roan use guidelines * a)NDON & HOPKINS - Establish/recommend a specific urban trail plan * ALL CCKC SS I ONERS - Recommend cargos i t i on Of Commission for 194 appointments PRC # 126 P. 2 work plan Chairman Hopkins asked if Director will forward work plan on (cont Id) to City Council. Director stated, ,it will go before them on the 20th of April." NEW BUSINESS Change 7. Director remarked, "in checking with the City Clerk all that start time is necessary to change the meeting time is t of mtgs. e a motion an6 o make it; it's not determined by ordinance. The suggestion was that the start time be moved from 7:30 to 7:00 p.m.81 Commissioner Colman made a motion to change the start time of the regularly scheduled Parks and Recreation Commission meetings from 7:30 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Lohmiller seconded the motion. Motion approved. Park Plan 8. Regarding new business item, develop in "core" residential development in "core" area Director for oposed"this area item is referred from the Plannin g Commission. At the time we reviewed our neighborhood park system, we didn't at that time feel that there was any indication or any need for park planning in some of the industrial areas of town. But because of some very creative ideas that are being generated at the Planning Commission level with regards to housing, the issue does come back to you tonight." City Planner, Ciddy Wordell explained, "Steve summarized the reason that there might need to be some specific recommendations relating to a policy that the Planning Commission is moving toward and that policy is to get much stronger on residential development in the non-residential areas. . .To improve the job/housing balance, the Planning Commission recommended mended that the growth occur in the change areas." Ciddy showed overhead transparencies of examples of possibilities of where this kind of development could occur. "this is a different way of looking at residential growth in Cupertino and it might require a different way of looking at park requirements. . . ." Ciddy described some of the differences in needs with the new housing development in existing non-residential area from the neighborhood park programs needs. She explained how these differences could affect planning for future parks and possible recommendations regarding parks in these areas. PRC # 126 p. 3 Commissioner Throne suggested we get input from each Park plan Commissioner on the four possible recommendations put forth by in "core" the Planning staff. area (cont'd) Commissioner Lohmiller expressed, "I'm concerned about having another seven Springs, where we have dedicated space that is not dedicated to the public and is not open to the public except for the people who live there. I think we have very responsible companies here that are very generous and I'm for expanding them and seeing that happen, but when somebody owns the property and they're maintaining the property, they dictate what goes on in that property. That is what has happened at seven Springs and I don't think that has been a positive thing for the general public." Commissioner Quinlan stated, "I disagree with what he's saying, I think there are instances in which it makes sense for it to be -s private space and it's the only space you are going to get, especially in these circumstances where you are going to have isolated residential areas in the middle of industrial areas. I think it will accommodate and I don't think we will get it otherwise. . . I like a combination of both, as the way the Planning staff has presented it, park space that may be very lenticular in it's walk area - passive space (public space) and the private space may be more active. I think what is posed here is not a bad idea if it is done properly. There needs to be some study in regards to the possibility of having some requirements for use permits concerning the industry as a source of revenue." Commissioner Colman commented, "Right now we are having a hard time finding additional park space. . .If any more development goes in, at minimum, they need to at least provide the park that matches their own people's needs. . .It should be open to the public around there, just like our parks in any neighborhood are open. . .the only way that any deduction could be considered is if there is an active area that is really needed by the town. There needs to be a draw to bring people into a residential area (tennis courts, fields) . . .they might go out of their way to use it." Commissioner Throne remarked, "I tend to agree with Dick regarding developers who are given credit for park dedication fees when they use private space. I understand it's part of the Quimby Act. . .When you have the kind of development that Tandem is talking about, it's a different situation then if you have a residential area in the middle of another residential area. I also think the only people who will use it are the people that live there. It's private for all practical purposes, people will not go in unless someone who lives there invites them in. PRC ,# 12 6 P. 4 Park Plan in "core" 'he open space in a residential area, I look at it as an areaarchitectural feature. If you are going to have 500 houses built in those areas it's o'(cont'd) live in a town house area, ��e, be high density housing. I goes on it, kids do, but adults don't.TThe space, nobody ever composition of the people in this kind of development will be young, working people without kids. Their demands are going to be different. One of the things we've been looking at is a community center., gym, Pool complex, that's the kind of place people living in this kind of area would be gravitating towards. I would think one of the things we would want to be considering is that we would get some help in doing that sort of thing - off site. Then, it benefits the whole community, it doesn't just benefit the people living in those 500 units. . . ." Commissioner Condon said, "If you are in an apartment or secluded dwelling, it is nice to have a recreation facility on the grounds, but those residents will also use public facilities. . .As for forgiving the dedication fees, that's absurd, You should dedicate some of the money so the parks can exist and take on the demand of the increased population. I believe we should not waive the fees for affordable housing, because these people will put more demand on our park space and park structures. It will mean a lower quality of park and recreation for the City of seeing a creek corridor be Cupertino. I have a hard time because it will have to be a crreeek corridor an ce public park just going to put trees around it. So if that's what w and they're woould call a public park, I think we could do better than that. . .Provide more of a versatile surrounding even if it means having Hewlett-Packard and Tandem get together and dedicate a larger section for a field. I don't want to rule out that we can't put something there that might serve as a Youth sports area." Chairman Hopkins stated, "I have similar concerns as Dick and Darwin about private versus public open space. I don't see how equitable that is tt.:.t th-cy get a credit for open space yet other people aren't able to use that space. Also, when we look at 3 acres/1000 people we don't deduct the community that is using that private space so we still have to find funds to keep that ratio up and by reducing the dedication fees we have less funds to provide that open space for the additional homes that are being built. . .I also have concerns about defining landscape as open space and getting open space credit for that. . . I think there are other enticements besides waiving park fees to encourage people to build affordable housing units in this City. . . ." I PRC #126 P. 5 Director remarked, "The Commission tonight is approaching this topic from the appropriate perspective. You are on this board to deal with parks and open space issues and the perspective that you are espousing is appropriate, however, what is trying to be resolved here is to assist the City in balancing the jobs/housing imbalance. In addition to the housing burden, to ask the developer to meet typical parks and open space requiremc-.its may be in conflict with Planning Commission and Council objectives." Commissioner Quinlan said, "Visualize a City that had no public parks but every facility had enough private recreation facilities to provide the community, you wouldn't be paying any taxes for parks. . .if you take it to the extreme." Commissioner Throne expressed, "One of the problems that you are faced with in the area that we live, is creating a sense of community-if you build complexes that are self contained, it does not contribute to creating a city." Commissioner Quinlan agreed saying, "That is absolutely the best argument there is against this, you can't give me an economical argument against it or assured space argument but you can give me an argument that you get little enclaves that don't mix with each other and that is bad for a community." Don Burnett, resident and member of Bicycle and Advisory Resident Committee, commented, "I generally agree with what you say, I Don Burnett don't see this as a tremendous asset for the reasons that you have given, but I think it does contribute. We are very short on passive type recreational areas in the east end of town. We are very heavy on playing fields. It doesn't meet the needs, but it certainly is better than putting more buildings on that site. If you were to build a pedestrian overpass in that area, it would give the people very easy pedestrian access both to Vallco and the icy rink, people could walk over and take advantage of the features of the park. . . ." Commissioner Hopkins questioned, "We've had a number of comments, how do we want to proceed? Do we want to re-state the four recommendations from the Planning Commission?" City Planner, Ciddy Wordell, stated, "It seems like you have given us some different direction than the wording we presented to you." Resident, Nancy Burnett, ccmmmented that "the area in Vallco Resident Village is a prime candidate for private recreation, serving Nancy only them, even with a pedestrian overpass. It looks like it's Burnett pretty far from that space in Tandem. I think you have to allow space for people for disorganized activities, you have to have a place for people to go and unwind, walk and sit." City planner, Ciddy Wordell, summarized the Commissions comments and said she would formulate something in writing and get it back to the Commission before the next meeting. PRC # 126 P. 6 MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING Approval 9. Commissioner Condon moved and Commissioner Colman Of minutes seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the March 12th meeting of this commission, motion approved. (Commissioner Quinlan abstaining) WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Cupertino 10. A letter was included from the Historical regarding their new exhibit Cupertino Historical Society Society MONTHLY REPORTS Monthly 11. Director reported two Repot Jollyman parks are operating opened this month. Wilson and per ng at a high rate of participation. 12. There were no community contact reports. MISCELLANEOUS 13. There was no Legislative update report. 14. The Mayor's luncheon had not taken place this month yet - no report. Staff 15. Under staff oral reports, Director informed Commission that oral we have a signed contract with our Contractor at the Sports i Center. It will be coming ng to the Commission on the 16th of April. 16. There was no Sports Center Master Plan Committee report. School site 17. Director reported that "the second Eaton School neighborhood master plan meeting is being held tonight. The first pair of schools that will come to the Commission for re commendation will be Kennedy and Hyde's master plans at the May 7th meeting. ADJOURNMENT' Adjournment 18• At 9: 15 p.m. Commissioner Colman moved and Commissioner Lohmiller seconded a motion to adjourn to the adjourned regular commission meeting on April 16, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers. Motion approved. Respectfully submitted, inch M. Iagergren, ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk _ Chairpersm —