Loading...
HC 4-25-2024 APPROVED1 City of Cupertino 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE HOUSING COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON April 25, 2024 CALL TO ORDER Chair Cunningham opened the meeting at 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Commission Members present: Connie Cunningham, Chair Ryan Golze, Vice Chair Angan Das, Commissioner Yuyi He, Commissioner Govind Tatachari, Commissioner Staff present: Luke Connolly, Assistant Director of Community Development Alec Vybiral, Senior Housing Coordinator Benjamin Fu, Director of Community Development Piu Ghosh, Planning Manager Jon de Ridder, Administrative Assistant APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Subject: Approve the March 14 Housing Commission meeting minutes Recommended Action: Approve the March 14 Housing Commission meeting minutes. MOTION: Tatchari moved, and Golze seconded to approve the minutes. AYES: Cunningham, Golze, Das, He, Tatachari NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None VOTE: 5-0-0-0 POSTPONEMENTS None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Rhoda Fry expressed her concern about use of the BMR/Affordable Housing Fund. She stated that she felt funds were being misused and encouraged commissioners to review BMR Program rules and Development Impact Fee reports. 2 Chair Cunningham stated that the subject was not part of the Housing Committee’s charter and suggested she bring her concerns to the Audit Committee. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Written Communication was email to the Commission sent before 5:00 p.m OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS 2. Subject: FY 2024-25 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Annual Action Plan (AAP) Recommended Action: Conduct Public Hearing; and Approve the Draft FY 2024-25 CDBG Annual Action Plan for submittal to HUD. Senior Housing Coordinator Vybiral provided an overview and made a presentation. Commissioners asked clarifying questions. Commissioner Das asked for clarification on if Director Everton from Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley had ever provided a breakdown for the funding for the upcoming year that was requested at the prior meeting. Housing Coordinator Vybiral stated that he had not received the information and would follow up. Commissioner Das stated that he would not feel comfortable voting yes or no and could not make an informed decision without the information. Commissioner Das asked about the care program. Housing Coordinator Vybiral stated that it was supportive services provided to individuals at risk of homelessness to help keep the housed. Chair Cunningham clarified that the program was on going and part of the City Work Program and not part of the CDBG or AAP. Vice Chair Golze asked for clarification on the final two items in the presentation. He wanted to know if they were part of the discussion at the last meeting. Housing Coordinator Vybiral clarified that public services are funded on two-year cycles and these items were part of the previous year’s budget. He stated that they were entering their second year. Commissioner Tatachari asked for clarification on goal out come numbers from the previous year and if they should be updated and incorporated to the current charts. Housing Coordinator Vybiral stated that technically the CAPER was still in FY 2022-23 and would end June 30. He clarified that once the cycle ended the numbers would be updated and presented in a report. Chair Cunningham asked for clarification on the City’s contact agency regarding homeless that the public sees and is concerned about. Housing Coordinator Vybiral clarified that the City partners with Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing. He stated that the City utilizes County resources to reach out to individuals and assess their needs. Chair Cunningham inquired if there was a city policy. Housing Coordinator Vybiral stated that there was a policy for assisting unhoused individuals on the City website. He clarified that he would provide the information to the commissioners. 3 Chair Cunningham asked that non-targeting broad community advertisements concerning CDBG be targeted to organizations known for their interest in housing and related services for low income. She also asked that contact information for City Emergency Manager, Tom Chin be provided to commissioners. Housing Coordinator Vybiral stated he would provide the contact information. Chair Cunningham stated that the Action Plan notes that there is no Emergency shelter and transitional housing available for the homeless in Cupertino. She expressed a need for it as required by State law and suggested it be highlighted in the Action Plan. Commissioner Tatachari asked for clarification as to why Service Partners was the only vendor of its kind appearing on the table for the consolidated plan. Housing Coordinator Vybiral stated that all the organizations appearing on the table participated or were consulted during the consolidated plan process. He clarified that the plan covers 2020 thru 2025. He stated that as many organizations are contacted during the engagement to help assess the needs and wants of city residents. Commissioner Tatachari asked for clarification on how other organizations might be contacted for the upcoming outreach for the next consolidated plan. Housing Coordinator Vybiral stated that extensive outreach and publications would happen at the end of the year, letting interested parties be aware that the engagement period is open for input. MOTION: Tatachari moved, and Golze seconded to approve the Draft FY 2024-25 CDBG Annual Action Plan for submittal to HUD. Commissioner Das reiterated that without the information he had requested, he would not feel comfortable voting yes or no. He stated he would abstain. Motion carried with the following vote: AYES: Tatachari, Cunningham, Golze, He NOES: None ABSTAIN: Das ABSENT: None VOTE: 4-0-1-0 Chair Cunningham closed the item. STUDY SESSION 3. Subject: Study Session and Staff Presentation on the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Recommended Action: Receive the staff presentation on the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Chair Cunningham opened the item. Assistant Director of Community Development, Luke Connolly and Planning Manager, Piu Ghosh, gave an overview and made a presentation. Commissioners asked clarifying questions. 4 Commissioner Tatachari asked for clarification on the RHNA property and development sites. Assistant Director Connolly stated that there were 62 property sites which worked out to be 36 potential development sites. Commissioner Das asked for clarification on if the March 28th version of the draft Housing Element was the latest. Assistant Director Connolly clarified that it was. Planning Manager Ghosh stated that a clean copy of the of the draft was available with the current Planning Commission packet. Commissioner Das asked for clarification on if the update to the Housing Element was mandated by the state. Assistant Director Connolly stated that it is. He clarified that originally the mandate was for every 5 years but has been pushed out to 8 years due to the complexity of the process. Commissioner Tatachari asked if the recent presentation to the City Council was more comprehensive that what was being shown to the Housing Commission. He stated that he would like access to the presentations. Assistant Director Connolly clarified that both presentations would be available online. Commissioner Das asked for clarification on the mandate of the Housing Element. He asked if it was the City’s clear plan to generate a certain number of housing units by a certain date. Assistant Director Connolly clarified that this was correct. Commissioner Das asked for clarification of the term RHNA. Assistant Director Connolly clarified the term as Regional Housing Need Allocation. He stated that it originated with the state and referred to the housing units that would be needed for a region in a given planning period. Commissioner Das asked for clarification that the City would need 4588 units in the next 8 years. Assistant Director Connolly stated this was correct. He clarified the unit percentages would need to be within the income categories indicated as well. Commissioner Das asked for clarification on who develops the potential developable areas. He asked if the City invites developers to bid on sites. Assistant Director Connolly clarified that the Housing Element was a framework for development to occur but the City did not actively develop the sites. Commissioner Das asked how owners of potentially developable sites were notified that they had a site the City was interested in. Assistant Director Connolly stated that the City reached out to any property that was eligible and asked if they were interested in development. Commissioner Das asked for clarification if the goal of the 5th cycle of the Housing Element was met or if the new number of units for the 6th cycle was a partial carry over. Assistant Director Connolly clarified that projects were approved by City Council well beyond the goal but building permits were not pulled. Commissioner Das asked what actual percentage for the 5th cycle was built. Planning Manager Ghosh stated it was roughly 30%. Commissioner Tatachari asked for clarification on if the development by Hwy 85 was part of the last cycle. Planning Manager Ghosh stated that it depended on when the building permits were pulled. Assistant Director Connolly clarified that some projects from the last cycle were considered pipeline projects and the City was given credit for them because they had already been entitled. Commissioner Das asked for clarification for when the State counts it towards RHNA. He asked if it’s when the final 5 building inspection occurs or when the permit is pulled. Planning Manager Ghosh stated it counts when the building permit is pulled. Commissioner Tatachari asked for clarification on the density numbers. He stated that early on he heard fifty but now the densities were much higher. Planning Manager Ghosh stated that what the commissioner probably heard was the minimum density. Assistant Director Connolly clarified that early on in the process, the City did not have ranges figured out. He stated that as the project developed, they were able to be more specific about certain areas. Commissioner Das asked for clarification on if the properties being proposed and all their information was available for viewing or in the information was confidential. Assistant Director Connolly clarified that the information was available in appendix B4 on the city’s website. Commissioner Das asked for clarification on Builders Remedy projects and if they can be built if applicable. Assistant Director Connolly clarified that if a city is out of compliance with the State concerning the Housing Element, they are vulnerable to projects outside normal regulatory framework. Commissioner Tatachari asked if there had been a lawsuit related to AB686. Assistant Director Connolly stated he wasn’t aware of any and that the law was adopted in 2018. Commissioner Tatachari asked for clarification of the term missing missile. Assistant Director Connolly clarified that missing middle was mid density residences, ADUs, duplexes, triplexes, etc. He stated that these are not generally built currently. Commissioner He asked if there was a reason that Cupertino didn’t have more of the missing middle. Assistant Director Connolly clarified that up until recently, current zoning ordinances did not allow for development of these types of units. Commissioner Tatachari asked for clarification on if an ADU built at a single-family home is considered two units now and if mitigation fees would apply. Planning Manager Ghosh clarified that BMR units are excluded from mitigation fees, but are counted as units. Commissioner Das asked for clarification on if some of the R1 zoning would be converted to R2 or higher. Assistant Director Connolly stated that none of the R1 properties were being rezoned. Commissioner Das asked for clarification on what the conditional certification the HDC has issued means. Assistant Director Connolly clarified that the 62 priority housing sites must be rezoned to accommodate units. He stated that the Housing Element cannot be finalized until the Housing Element is adopted and rezoning has occurred. Commissioner Das asked if the rezoning was a state mandate. Assistant Director Connolly stated it was a state law for any city that was over a year late for submittal and approval of their Housing Element. Planning Manager Ghosh clarified that the rezoning must match the development standards in the General Plan or it is not possible to meet state requirements. Commissioner He asked for clarification as to how potential sites were identified for rezoning. Assistant Director Connolly stated some owners were contacted and they indicated interest. Additionally he 6 stated that some commercial locations were identified as underperforming in their current state and had the potential to be redeveloped. Commissioner Das asked for clarification on if the City required the owner approval to upzone a property. Planning Manager Ghosh stated that it was not needed, but that HDC would probably not allow the city to count it as a probable redevelopment. Commissioner Tatachari asked for clarification on if the objective design standards for the new zoning could be altered before construction began. Assistant Director Connolly stated these would be put in place after the new zoning is approved. Commissioner Das asked for clarification on if the design standards for the R4 zoning were already in place. Planning Manager Ghosh clarified that this was new zoning designation and that the standards would be established after the General Plan designation is adopted. Commissioner Das asked if owners of higher density housing say apartment buildings had been interested, would they have been eligible for the list. Assistant Director Connolly stated that early on in the process, this was considered. He explained that City Council ruled this out because they didn’t want to displace or relocate existing residents. Chair Cunningham stated that she was pleased with this decision. Commissioner Das asked if the majority of the proposed housing in the previous Housing Element had been located in east Cupertino. He asked for clarification on if there was a struggle to develop west Cupertino as opposed to east Cupertino in the current proposed Housing Element. Planning Manager Ghosh stated roughly five properties for east Cupertino had been proposed for the previous Housing Element. Assistant Director Connolly clarified that it is easier to develop in east Cupertino as the infrastructure is in place. He stated that Chair Cunningham closed the item. STAFF UPDATES AND COMMISSION REPORTS 4. Subject: Chair's Update on Mayor's Commissioner Meeting Recommended Action: Receive update on the Mayor's Commissioner Meeting from the Chair of the Housing Commission. Chair Cunningham gave a brief report on the Mayor’s Commissioner Meeting. Chair Cunningham closed the item. Housing Coordinator Vybiral gave a brief informational report. Chair Cunningham closed the item. FUTURE AGENDA SETTING 7 Commissioner Tatachari asked that a discussion of the work program item sent to City Council concerning the creation of the housing database be considered. Housing Coordinator Vybiral stated that if the City Council decides to move forward with the item, it would come back to the Commissioner for discussion. Commissioner Das asked for a PDF that outlines the work and costs for different CDBG projects on a quarterly basis to better assess their effectiveness. Housing Coordinator Vybiral stated that quarterly progress reports were a staff function, but the request would be considered. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled Housing Commission meeting. Respectfully submitted: /s/Jon De Ridder Jon de Ridder Administrative Assistant