Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPRC 08.05.1992 Agenda CITY OF CUPERTINO PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers 10300 Torre Avenue 408-252-4505 August 5, 1993 7:00 p.m. AGENDA CALL TO ORDER I. SALUTE TO THE FLAG 2. ROLL CALL 3. INTRODUCTIONS 4. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 5. Members of the audience regarding matters not on the agenda. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS 7 Review final report from Sports Center Master Plan. 8 Schedule tour of Fremont Older property. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING 9. Approval of July 1, 1993 Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS M MONTHLY REPORTS 12 Review July Recreation Program Monthh Report 13 Community Contacts Report MISCELLANEOUS -NO ACTION REQUIRED 14 Legislative Update 15 Mayor's Luncheon 16 Staff Oral Reports ADJOURNMENT 17 Adjournment to regularly scheduled meeting of Parks and Recreation Commission or September 2. 11)93. 7 00 p m , Council Chambers Cupertino Sports Center Master Plan Committee Initial Recommendations Summer when preparing a master plan it is customary to develop a single vision for the facility being planned. There is a reason this final report is titled Initial Recommendations". The committee felt that it was not realistic to develop a single vision for a sports complex at this time. There are a number of factors that influence a single vision and currently there are three major factors which impede developing a final concept: • The uncertainty of future capital improvement funding makes any definitive plan premature. Under the best of circumstances it will be at least five years before the City of Cupertino can begin to consider funding a sports complex. • The initial success of the Cupertino Sports ports Center contractual operation has diffused the need to make dramatic changes in the existing sports center. The City is very optimistic that the current contractor can continue to operate this racquet sports, swimming complex successfully. • A final determination of where a gymnasium/swimmin g Pool shoul be located is greatly influenced by a multi-agency cooperation; it a enxinvolve the private sector. During these difficult economic times, meaningful conversations about such a partnership simply are not viable. It is for these reasons that the master plan committee feels that this report should end with four possible options that in the future the City of Cupertino can use as a starting point when we are in a position to prepare a definitive master plan for a multi-use sports complex. Background In the fall of 1990, Cupertino City Council appointed an Ad Hoc Committee to prepare a long range master plan for the recently acquired Sports Center. The original objecti committee was to: ve of the "Develop a master plan for the Sports Complex Phase of Memorial Park that provides a variety of recreational sports facilities and opportunities for revenue generating concessions." The composition of the committee included representation from City Council, Parks and Recreation Commission, City staff, business community, and the Commons Homeowners Association. Addendum "A" is a roster of the original committee. The first phase in the strategy was to understand existing community needs and the committee began by reviewing the recreation needs assessment survey conducted in 1988. Relevant conclusions from the survey showed that 66% of all respondents felt that a city-owned public pool would be desirable and 57% felt that a city-owned gymnasium would be desirable. Community Input Next, the committee extended an invitation to dozens of organizations and agencies to present their views on what needs were not being met and how the Memorial Park complex might be utilized. A contact list is provided in Addendum "B". During the months of January and February of 1991, individual residents as-well-as organizational representatives were given an interview with the committee to describe their recommendations and ideas for a sports complex. Although the needs and suggestions expressed were varied and even extreme, there were a number of points that kept coming to the surface. Those similarities could be summarized as follows: • The existing facility should continue principally as a tennis center • Other recreational sports should be introduced such as outdoor basketball courts and sand volleyball • The existing swimming pool should be enlarged to allow instructional classes, aqua fitness programs, and competitive swimming • Teenagers in the community need a positive place to meet and congregate In the spring of 1991 the committee invited representatives of the School Districts and even conducted interviews with students. The School Districts and DeAnza College representatives stressed the need for a recreational gymnasium that could be used by school groups during the day and community groups in the evening. Greg Druehl, the DeAnza College representative, suggested that the City and college might consider a joint effort to construct a multi-purpose gymnasium. The input from the students concluded that they felt the need to have a place that they could call "our place". They described a drop-in facility that would allow them a place to socialize, study, work-out, listen to music, and munch. They felt it was important to have opportunities for active and passive activities. After taking input from various segments of the community, the committee conducted a "visioning" session facilitated by volunteer Ron Iamar. The purpose of the exercise was to allow committee members an opportunity to conceptualize the kind of facility they envisioned based upon all of the data received. The committee ultimately identified: Site Master Plan Considerations (the Vision) • Draws people from whole cite • Whole-family activities • Places to congregate • Places for organized activities • A place for teens • Drop-in activities Indoor court sports Recreational instruction A place to play (swimming, tennis, racquet, games) • Adequate parking • Integration with Memorial Park • Quiet/passive area • Year round use • Consideration of Commons Programs Needs • Aerobic fitness • Picnic places • Rollerblading • Basketball • Volleyball • Swimming • Food services • Dancing • Playground • Multi-cultural activities • Gymnastics The committee prioritized the various program elements: PROGRAM PRIORITIES Indoor court sports High Priority • Recreation/instructional swimming Quiet passive area • Gymnastics Drop-in activities Moderate Priority • Tennis Aerobic fitness • Picnic places • Rollerblading Low Priority • Food services • Playground • Multi-cultural activities It was at this point in the process that the committee began to realize that the program was becoming too ambitious for the six acre sports center site. Consequently, the committee began to consider the Fremont-Older property as an alternate site to accommodate some or all of the proposed facilities. The two principle advantages to the Fremont-Older site are that it would provide a major recreation facility on the east end of town and its proximity to the major commercial industrial area may present the opportunity for a joint venture between the City and business community. 'Tour of Facilities In order to more adequately visualize a multi-purpose complex, the committee decided to tour a number of recreational sports facilities on the peninsula. In the fall of 1991, the committee took guided tours of the following facilities: • City of Mountain View Sports Pavilion • City of Mountain View Swim Center, Eagle Park • Oracle Employee Fitness/Social Center, Foster City • City of Santa Clara Youth Activity Center Based upon information gathered on the tour, the committee developed the following facility standards: Facility Requirements • 12 minimum lit courts • 35K sq. ft. gymnasium • 75' x 45' sq. ft. swimming pool with wading pool • Save exhibition court • Change room facilities/showers • Close road and make transition to Memorial • Adequate parking • No racquetball • 2000 sq. ft. game room/multi-use room • Indoor/outdoor cafe - minor convenience items • No pro shop • Two offices and staff workroom • Control desk Facility Space Requirements • Pool 25 yd. x 45' 10,125 sq. ft. • Gym 30K to 40K sq. ft. • Tennis court 7200 sq. ft. • Olympic pool - 34K sq. ft. • Basketball court - 5040 to 7280 sq. ft./ct. • Volleyball - 4000 sq. ft. • Softball - 76K sq. ft. Recommended Options In the early spring of 1992, the committee spent several meetings developing and evaluating several different options for the creation of a sports center. After much debate, the committee narrowed the options to four possible scenarios. Following is a listing of those options and the subsequent impacts to each one. MASTER PLAN OPTIONS IMPACTS 1. Leave as is. * No financial impact. * Does not address current/future needs. * Not conducive to multi-user programs (teen drop-in) 2. Build gym adjacent to existing building * Provides aquatic facility on east side of town. and build pool at Fremont Older site. * Lessens total additional building impact on Memorial. * Eliminates 5 tennis courts * Splitting gym and pool precludes sharing of locker rooms/control pts. 3. Retain existing building; expand * Consistent with original concept of landscaping into unlit court area, and acquisition build gym and pool at Fremont Older * Provides major sports facility on east side. site. * Potential partnership with business at Valico area. * Street access better at Fremont Older * Expands Memorial Park landscaping * Most desirable for Commons * Eliminates 5 tennis courts * Reduces number of soccer fields at Fremont Older * Existing building at Memorial not conducive to program objectives. 4. Raze or retain existing building, build * Consolidates facilities at one site, if City supported combination gym and pool at * Provides the greatest program flexibility Memorial Park. * Potential partnership with DeAnza and/or YMCA. * Maximizes Fremont Older as soccer facility. * Maximizes impacts on Memorial Park. * Parking demands too intensive * Eliminates 5 tennis courts * Impedes vista into park * May preclude participation with business community At this point, it may be appropriate for the committee to meet one more time to review the four options in light of current economic conditions and the success of the Sports Center contract. pf CUP�io a 1 o n I 7 � f�F,p It 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 408 252-450; Summary Parks and Recreation Agenda Item Number 8 _Agenda Date August 5 1993 Subject and Issue Schedule tour of Fremont Older property. Background When the City of Cupertino purchased the Fremont Older Elementary School property, we entered into an agreement with Cupertino Union School District to allow them to continue to operate as an elementary school until completion of the Sedgewick School project. It was estimated at that time that the school district would be opening the new school at the Sedgewick site in the Fall of 1994. It appears that they are on schedule and next September the school district will vacate the Fremont Older site. That leaves the City with the challenge of developing both short term and long term plans for the utilization of the Fremont Older property. Preparing such plans take a long time so it is not too soon for the staff and commission to begin to evaluate options. To that end I would like to schedule a tour for all commissioners of the Fremont Older site in the near future. Please review the following dates prior to Thursday nights meeting so that we can determine a tour date. 1. Tuesday, August 24, 4:00 p.m. 2. Wednesday, August 25, 4:00 p.m. 3. Tuesday, August 31, 4:00 p.m.