Loading...
Draft Minutes 02-08-11 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING CONiMISSION DRAFT MINUTES 6:45 P.M. FEBRUARY 8, 2011 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of February 8, 2011 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA., by Chairperson Winnie Lee. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Winnie Lee Vice Chairperson: Marty Miller Commissioner: Don Gun Commissioner: Paul Brophy Commissioner: Clinton Brownley Staff present: Community Development Director: Aarti Shrivastava City Planner: Gary Chao Discussion of Renresentation on Various Committees: Environmental Review Committee Representative: (Meets 1�` and 3 Thursdays at 9:30 a.m. Conference Room C; Recommendation to Ciry Council) • The chair of the Planning Commission serves as the ERC Representative, subject to the City Council approval. Chair Winnie Lee will serve on ERC. Housin� Commission (Meets 2" Thursday at 9: 00 am., Conference Room C.) • Com. Brownley volunteered to serve as representative to the Housing Commission. Design Review Committee Chair and Member: (Meets 1�` and 3 Thursdays at 5:30 p.m., Conference Room C.) • Vice Chair Miller volunteered to as first representative on the DRC. � Com. Brophy volunteered to serve as the second representative to the DRC. • Staff will contact the Commissioners in the event a backup person is needed to attend a meeting. Economic Develonment Committee: (Meets 2" Tuesday, Quarterly beginning in Feb. at 3:30 p.m.; Conference Room A; 2011 Schedule: 2/8, S/10, 8/9 and 11/8) • Com. Sun volunteered to serve as representative to the EDC. • Chair Lee volunteered to serve as alternate representative to the EDC. Attendance at Mavor's Monthlv Meeting: (Meets 2" Tuesday at 4:30 p.m., Conference Room A, beginning February 8, 20I1. Scheduled Attendance is: Feb — Chair Lee June — Com. Sun Sept. — Com. Brophy Mar. — Com. Brownley July — Chair Lee Oct. — Vice Chair Miller April — Com. Brophy Aug — Com. Brownley Nov. — Com. Sun May — Vice Chair Miller Dec. — Chair Lee Cupertino Planning Commission 2 February 8, 2011 Discussion of 2011 Meeting Schedule Aarti Shrivastava: • Noted that the November 2011 meeting is scheduled for November 8 election day; November 22 meeting is scheduled during Thanksgiving week; December 27 City Hall will be closed; it is recommended that the December 27 Planning Commission meeting be cancelled also. Motion: Motion by Com. Brownley, second by Vice Chair Miller, and unanimously carried 5-0-0, to cancel the December 27, 2011 Planning Commission meeting � WRITTEN COMMU1vICATIONS None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR None CONSENT CALENDAR None PUBLIC HEARING None OLD BUSINESS 1. ABAG/MTC Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) Overview of the Subregion Regional Housing Needs Allocation (Sub RHNA) Process. Continued from the January 25, 2011 Planning Commission meeting. Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director, presented the staff report: • Reviewed that the background information on the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) process was provided at tY�e previous Planning Commission meeting. Planning for affordable housing in the Bay Area is an essential task of sustainable development, and the process for setting goals for housing growth is a necessary precursor to the Housing Element process and is known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). There is a March 16, 2011 deadline for the City Council to decide whether or not to form a subregion with other cities. The Directors of the Santa Clara County level have been meeting and will be making recommendation to the County Managers' Association; multiple cities must agree on the desire to form a subregion, and have been working on what the advantages of a subregion are. She explained that each city is required to adopt a Housing Element which looks at how they plan to accommodate all of the units that are projected for their city. The pro�ections come from the State to every metropolitan planning organization; (ABAG for Cupertino) and they develop a formula in collabora.tion with the cities and counties. • The experiences heard from various entities who have tried the subregion, mainly San Mateo, is not only do you have to monitor what ABAG is doing; because that is the safety net should the subregional process fall apart; but you also have to run your own process and have an entity that will make decisions for the subregion. That requires a huge amount of resources; and at this point other cities have not stepped up to the plate to lead the charge with the funds and staff. Page 1-2 of the staff report outlines what some of the things are that can be done without a subregion. • She reviewed the timelines set forth on Page 1-4 of the staff report. The appointrnent of RI�A Methodology Committee will take place in January 2011, March 16 is the deadline for the final decision on whether or not to participate in the Sub RHNA process; February through August 2011 is the participation and review period of the housing methodology formula including local agency input. Cupertino Planning Commission 3 February 8, 2011 Staff answered Commissioners'questions. Chair Lee opened the meeting for public comment. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Commented about ABAG's role, and said she felt they did not strictly mandate how much housing is going into cities. ABAG in the past with their housing element has lagged, and not been in sequence with their housing numbers, stating Cupertino needed new housing. She said she was uncomfortable with any type of mandated housing for Cupertino as she felt the city was already built out, and she preferred Cupertino to be a healthy community of tech and suburbia; and the communiTy needed to pay attention and proceed cautiously and not have other cities mandating how much housing Cupertino needs. Cupertino should decide for itself particularly in light of the recovering economy and the high unemployment rate. Chair Lee closed the public input portion of the meeting. Vice Chair Miller: • Said he felt they should start thinking about it from what must Cupertino do, what would Cupertino like to do, and what can Cupertino practically do. When they contemplate that, they cannot ignore that there are some constraints and with regard to housing, the bigger constraints are the school systems which the majority of residents in Cupertino are concerned about. The school systems are now in dire financial straits, with another parcel taar coming up for a vote soon. It is hard to see how they can support a large increase in students because of their fmancial situation. • Said another issue with respect to housing is have limited land resources to put it on; in the Vallco azea there are significant amounts of land, with interests to be concerned about as well. One being the new owner of a large piece of land in North Vallco as well as the impacts that housing might have on neighboring communities in terms of the school system. Another concern is the city's finances; and as the State's finances continue to deteriorate, they seem to reach out to the schools, cities and counties to fill their budget deficit. • Moving forward, there is a financial issue and an issue that is always controversial in town in terms of building more housing; and the question is what can they practically do. There have been a number of significant projects; two in particular that have been approved that aren't being developed are the Main Street project, which Peter Pau has entitlements for, but hasn't started the project, which could be a significant source of revenue for the city. Another ongoing project that has not reached its potential is the Vallco Shopping Center, which also could be a considerable source of revenue for the city. The third large project is the Rose Bowl which has been approved for almost a decade, but hasn't been developed and is one of higher density housing which could meet a large portion of the needs seen from RHNA. It seems that Cupertino is very constrained in what it can do regardless of what ABAG or the State say they must do. They can give more areas in town to develop; however, they know practically they v�ill not be able to develop them. If the focus was on the key areas plus tl�e commitments made to the State in the last time around where they actually sent parcels of land to encourage for housing development, and focused on what is on their plates now, that is all that can be done in Cupertino. If that train of thought is followed, the decision of whether or not to join a subgroup, or how they participate in those arenas, has to do with where they are coming from, what they would like to practically achieve, and which particular subgroup or arena they want to participate in to further their own needs as a community. Chair Lee: • Said she agreed with Vice Chair Miller's comments, and expressed concern about the state of Cal Train's deficit budget and the impact on the community. Cupertino Planning Commission 4 February 8, 2011 Aarti Shrivastava: • Said the Commission's deliberations and comments will be summarized and forwarded to City CounciL Many may not be action items, but will help incrementally to understand the larger plan as more information is gained. Staff will provide information on the vision scenazio that is developed, that might put more form into what is a nebulous idea at this point, but the numbers will not come out until the end of the year; the draft RHNA numbers are going to come out in 2013, which is a long term time frame at this point. � Said that once a subgroup is created, an administrating body is needed for the subgroup. In San Mateo County, the County took leadership and provided staff and resources and the CCAG, which is a mechanism that Santa Claza County doesn't have. She said the amount of work involved was similar to staffing another commission or council. Cupertino does not currently have the resources to shoulder the entire burden and most cities have more fiscal constraints. They are currently looking to see if there is an alternative approach to continue to keep the positives in place, understanding that there isn't that kind of resources and time availability. • She said it did not necessarily have to be the County, but could be any one ciTy or number of cities that would want to do it; at this point, it is still in preliminary discussions, the city managers haven't talked about it, the individual cities haven't talked about it and there isn't a lot of time left. They do not hold out a lot of hope but what regardless of what happens, they want to have a Plan B so that they can continue to receive some of the benefits that they would have received without one. She said the conversations have been encouraging; there has been a lot of discussion where previously they were individual cities trying to find out what was going on; it is becoming more collaborative and they are exchanging information. • Said she was not certain of the time or cost involved in staffing a group of cities, but San Mateo had at least one staff person fully assigned to the project as well as other resources. San Mateo also had about 30 public meetings to get people at a countywide level to understand the process; it is a big endeavor, and not as simple as individual cities in a subregion talking to each other. Vice Chair Miller: • Said there is already a forum for doing this; up to this point it has just been information under the leadership of the Silicon Valley Group. If there is interest in moving forward, it would be worthwhile to contact them to see what kind of role they would be interested in taking. Aarti Shrivastava: � Said they were on the Housing Methodology Committee, and are already showing an interest. They have not yet extended the offer of either staffmg or financial support; they do understand that cities are looking at the issue and they support either a subregional or a region light which � is a collaborative approach if that is not possible. NEW BUSINESS• None REPORT OF THE PLANNING COlVIlVIISSION: Environmental Review Committee � Chair Lee reported that at the recent meeting the mitigated negative declaration relative to the existing bridge connecting Scenic Circle to Blackberry Farm was approved. Housin� Commission: No Meeting Cupertino Planning Commission 5 February 8, 2011 Mavor's Monthlv Meeting With Commissioners: Chair Lee reported on the following: � Fine Arts Commission will be selecting the Distinguished Artist of the Year and will be showcased at the Rotary Club's Fall Festival. • Tech Commission: Goals include providing Planning Commission and staff with their input on cell tower applications; new member Rob Livengood; Also working on implementing vehicle charging station for electric cars for the city. • Library Commission selected poet laureate; continues to advocate for library hours for 7 day operation; circulation is 3 million per year; also formed a subcommittee to address parking issue around library. • Public Safety Commission is focusing on safety around the schools; have walk/carpooUbike to school program. Each PS Commissioner is assigned to 2 or 3 schools and remains in touch with PTO and principals; Voltage Program at Lincoln and Kennedy. • Teen Commission, WOW Program; 9 schools. • Parks and Rec: Stevens Creek Trail proceeding; trail doesn't encroach on the 9`� hole of Blackberry Farm as much; New organization, Our City Forest provides training on planting trees. • Bike Commission: Application submitted to be a Bike Friendly community; bike transportation plan approved Economic Develonment Committee MeetinE: No meeting. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMU1vITY DEVELOPMENT: Aarti Shrivastava reported: • Feb. ls City Council meeting: Council continued Green Building Ordinance; they would like to see an ordinance closer to Phase 2 recommendations which staff will prepare. Staff will keep Commission updated. • Council heard the reconsideration of denial of the Bubb Road Wireless appeal; continued to Mazch 15 since it was not clear if more time was needed by appellant. • At Feb. 15� meeting, Council will hear reconsideration of Miller Parking Pad and Results Way Wireless projects. Adiournment: The meeting was adjourned to the neart regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled for February 22, 2011. Respectfully Submitted: /sBlizabeth Ellis Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary