Loading...
CEP 06-06-2022 (Special) (FINAL version 2 submitted 9-16)City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN – STRATEGIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE HELD ON JUNE 6, 2022 CALL TO ORDER Chair Moore opened the meeting at 11:00 a.m. ROLL CALL Commission Members present: Kitty Moore, Chair and City Councilmember Tessa Parish, Vice Chair and Chair, Housing Commission Liang Chao, Vice Mayor Steven Scharf, Chair, Planning Commission Commissioners Members absent: None Staff present: Luke Connolly, Senior Planner Piu Ghosh, Planning Manager Chris Jensen, City Attorney Cyrah Caburian, Administrative Assistant Outside Panelists: Ande Flower, Principal Planner, EMC Planning Group Kylie Clark, Public Policy Coordinator, West Valley Community Services APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Subject: Approve the May 16 Community Engagement Plan – Strategic Advisory Committee Special Meeting minutes Recommended Action: Approve the May 16 Community Engagement Plan – Strategic Advisory Committee Special Meeting minutes Comment by Chao to include request to add the performance of the previous 5th Cycle Housing Element and show the five sites approved for building from previous Housing Element Update cycles. Chao moved and Scharf seconded to amend 4th bullet point in draft minutes under “Committee provided the following feedback” to include “presentation at the Community Meetings to include timeline and information for existing Housing Element performance”. AYES: Moore, Parish, Chao, Scharf NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None VOTE: 4-0-0-0 POSTPONEMENTS 2 None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR None PUBLIC HEARINGS None OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS 2. Subject: Report from staff and EMC Planning Group regarding the proposed community engagement and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) plans for the Housing Element update process. Recommended Action: Receive report and provide guidance to staff on plans for additional community engagement and for engagement consistent with compliance with State Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements. Staff member Connolly provided brief staff report and introduced Mr. Flower and Ms. Clark to lead discussion of feedback from the Community Meeting held May 23, 2022. Ms. Clark reported out that peaks of 71 total attendees who participated via Zoom, as well as 20 in-person attendees at Community Hall. All feedback received from during the meeting and exit polls will inform (but not dictate) future Community meetings, outreach to groups most impacted by housing needs, and policy. The Committee was also informed of inclusive outreach efforts conducted by staff, including an upcoming discussion with Project Sentinel’s executive director regarding that organizations work on fair housing issues in Santa Clara County. Contact has also been made with Parents helping Parents and also anticipate a meeting to be scheduled for early to mid-June. Written Communications for this item were emails from Liang Chao that were received by the Committee before the meeting. Upcoming Community Meetings: • Meeting 2: Focus on De Anza students and older adults, mid-July (weeks of July 12 or July 19) • Meeting 3: Current residents who may be “house-wealthy” and otherwise low-income and at risk of possible displacement, and additional ideas brought forth by Committee. Suggestions: o Employees who work in the Service Industry and who would like to live in Cupertino o Faith Community outreach (coordination with WVCS and EMC) 3 Next steps of Consultant’s engagement plan includes providing qualitative individual interviews and videos and receiving qualitative feedback to be incorporated into the EngageCupertino.org webpage, as well as individual and group participation recruitment, and an open house (intended to be an informal discussion in an open public space). Outreach suggestions from the Committee included producing and distributing flyers at key City locations, placing banners at prominent public locations throughout the City, having staff attend local events such as farmers’ markets and weekend festivals, and utilizing City staff from other departments to maximize community engagement efforts. Staff have utilized social media platforms and are looking into the “meeting in a box” concept to include any member of the public who wishes to be an ambassador to the Community engagement process. Mr. Flower concluded presentation requesting Committee feedback for the upcoming third Community meeting and identifying which individuals, groups, or representatives would they like to see be included. The following members of the public spoke: Lisa Warren – supported outreach to house-wealthy groups and suggestion to include Habitat for Humanity in future outreach efforts Shivani Kavuluru – asked how to access previous meetings and expressed concern on the timeline for the site inventory. Govind Tatachari (representing self) – request more timeline visibility and milestone schedule, the status of progress made on sites inventory in terms of outreach and implement a method in which participants can see how their participation helps inform the process. Kalisha Webber, Housing Choices – thanked Consultant for engagement work and provided feedback from the May 23rd meeting and advocated for housing experiences and stories to be included on the EngageCupertino.org webpage. Chao provided the following feedback: • Calendar timeline by the month be included on the EngageCupertino webpage • Utilization of other organizations outside WVCS for outreach • Question of whether outreach was made for those who participated in the 2021 Housing survey • Commended consultants for presentation • Include outreach efforts at the third Community meeting to Service Industry employees, labor unions and other public agencies, caretakers of seniors and young children • Two versions of outreach survey, one for general housing and one for fair housing • Request to include table from the March 8 City Council meeting listing all protected classes and characteristics under Federal and California Law Mr. Flower responded that the meeting in the box is something that can be implemented and brought back to the Committee. The survey in draft form will also be brought forth to the Committee before 4 being finalized and go live to the public to ensure unbiased questions will be posed and proper collaboration is maintained between the Consultant, staff and the Committee. Mr. Flower and staff requested for links to surveys held by other Cities (Mountain View, San Mateo, to provide guidance on what questions can be used in Cupertino’s survey. Regarding the 2021 Housing Survey, staff responded that confirmation will be made whether the about 800 responses received are included in the current outreach efforts. Staff noted that outreach will be done with other clients aside from WVCS, stating again that staff will be meeting with Project Sentinel, Parents Helping Parents, and the third Community meeting focusing on housing needs for students and senior adults. Additional outreach may include first responders and service workers. Moore asked whether all protected classes/characteristics from the aforementioned table are being reached out to and are included in the Housing Element process. Staff responded that efforts are being made to reach out to as many of the groups in the protected class/characteristics list and can collaborate with County agencies to conduct further outreach for future meetings; it is not a guarantee that all agencies will respond to requests for participation. Previous meetings (except for the May 23rd Community meeting which, at the time of this meeting was still being finalized by staff) are available on the EngageCupertino.org webpage and on YouTube. Parish provided the following feedback: • Clarification on “meeting in a box” definition • What questions would be asked of and in different focus groups (i.e., parking concerns, and questions for above-moderate income participants, faith-based groups) • Question of who was monitoring email lists from which responses were solicited • Question of not inclusion from the May 23rd Community meeting of different ethnicities and how the City can prove to HCD that outreach was done for the right groups • Feedback that videos from individuals wishing to share their stories focus on how their needs can be met “Meeting in a box” is intended to be a toolkit of survey questions from the Committee so that each person leading Community meetings can select which questions would be incorporated for that meeting. Mr. Flower clarified that all income groups are being reached out to, as well as faith-based groups, with flyers that can be made readily available so as to increase ambassadors to join the discussion and help move site selection process along. Regarding video stories, it is the intention of the Consultants that by listening and addressing the housing needs of participants, it will be clear to HCD that sites were selected with those groups in mind, and seek to be as inclusive as possible. Moore added that the LGBTQ community can also be reached out to. Scharf provided the following feedback: • Regarding slide presentation on the May 23rd Community meeting, wondered whether questions asked could be answered by both tenants and owners • Eliminating affordable housing fees 5 • Clarification that height restrictions tend to increase affordability • Need for funding for affordable housing • Feedback that Cupertino’s survey be short to encourage increased participation (cited Sacramento’s AFFH 4-question survey as an example) • Would like to see question on survey regarding parking and commuting patterns and how that correlates among different income levels • Suggested community outreach can be done at the De Anza flea market, held every 1st Saturday of the month • Inclusion of Housing is a Human Right in agency outreach Staff responded that question regarding how participants believe affordable housing should be funded would be outside the scope of the Housing Element. Regarding parking, staff noted that while it is not illegal to provide insufficient parking, projects have in the past been approved with sufficient parking spaces per unit. Chao liked the idea of outreach at the De Anza flea market and expressed concern that lack of parking spaces on approved large-scale projects would further worsen overflow parking concerns and clarified that the protected classes should be reached out to by looking at the whole picture of circumstances and not based on primarily on income. Also mention of leveraging County resources. Question raised by Chao and Moore if De Anza would like to speak on funding allocated for student housing needs as Community Colleges were not included in HCD criteria to setting RHNA allocations; Mr. Flower clarified that while dormitory housing would not count towards RHNA numbers, higher density housing intended for students not needing parking due to the proximity to the De Anza campus can count towards RHNA numbers. Chao would like to see input gathered from the De Anza board president, employee union members, and students who are not necessarily in the 18-21 year old demographic. Discussion concluded with the second Community meeting to focus on the student and senior adult needs as planned for, and to incorporate feedback received from the Committee to have a panelist that can initiate the conversation and encourage more responsiveness from participants. Parish asked whether Chamber of Commerce can get the word out for businesses to participate; it was clarified that the City has a list of all businesses in Cupertino that can be provided. Moore requested presentation and material presented at meeting to be uploaded to webpage and timeline for moving forward; the Planning Commission would like to hold a joint meeting with the Housing Commission and invited City Council to participate if they wish; no determination was made regarding participation of City Council at this meeting. STAFF UPDATES AND COMMISSION REPORTS None Committee Updates None 6 FUTURE AGENDA (limitation, cannot discuss) • Next meeting date: Monday, June 20, 2022 at 11:00 a.m. • Continued discussion on who will be invited to the planned third Community meeting • Discussion of surveys that can be discussed for the meeting in a box • Sample Surveys from other Cities (Chao) • Runthrough of what changes have been implemented on the EngageCupertino webpage and the usefulness of the housing simulator tool ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 1:26 p.m. to the next special meeting. Respectfully submitted: /s/Cyrah Caburian___ Cyrah Caburian Administrative Assistant