Loading...
Draft Minutes 1-25-11 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMIVIISSION DRAFT MIl�TUTES 6:45 P.M. January 25, 2011 TLTESDAY CUPERTINO CONIMUNITY HALL The regular Planning Commission meeting of January 25, 2011 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA., by Chair Paul Brophy. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Paul Brophy Vice Chairperson: Winnie Lee Commissioner: Lisa Giefer Commissioner: David Kaneda Commissioner: Marty Miller Staff present: Community Development Director: Aarti Shrivastava Election of Chair and Vice Chair for 2011 • It was moved by Com. Miller, seconded by Com. Kaneda and carried 3-0-2, to elect Com. Winnie Lee as Chair for 2011; Com. Lee and Com. Giefer abstained. Com. Giefer explained that she abstained because she felt that the new Planning Commission members should be included in the vote for Chair and Vice Chair for 2011. • It was moved by Com. Lee, seconded by Com. Brophy and carried 3-0-2, to elect Com. Miller for Vice Chair for 2011; Com. Miller and Com. Giefer abstained. Com. Giefer explained that she abstained because she felt that the new Planning Commission members should be included in the vote for Chair and Vice Chair for 2011. Chair Winnie Lee chaired the remainder of the meeting. APPROVAL OF 1VIINUTES Minules of the December 14, 20I0 Planning Commission meeting: Motion: Motion by Com. Kaneda, second by Vice Chair Miller, and unanimously carried 5-0-0 to approve the Dec. 14, 2010 Planning Commission minutes as presented WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None ORAL COMMU1vICATIONS Clinton Brownley, New Planning Commissioner: • Expressed his appreciation for being provided information on the roles and responsibilities of Cupertino Planning Commission 2 January 25, 2011 the Planning Commissioners; and information to update him and prepare him for his service on the Commission. He addressed the Planning Commissioners whose terms had expired, and said they had been a tremendous asset both to the Planning Commission and City of Cupertino, and their experience, knowledge and participation will be missed. He noted that his term would begin in February. Chair Lee: • Thanked Coms. Giefer and Kaneda for their yeazs of service and expertise. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Commended Com. Giefer for her 8 years of service to the City of Cupertino and for always going above and beyond her role, and demonstrating positive qualities. She wished her success in her future endeavors. • Thanked Com. Kaneda for his service, input and expertise, and welcomed the new Planning Commissioners. Chair Lee and Com. Kaneda: • Thanked Jennifer Griffm for her input and participation at the Planning Commission meetings. Com. Brophy and Com. Miller: • Thanked Coms. Giefer and Kaneda for their participation and expertise on the Planning Commission and their ability to resolve difficult matters before the Commission. Aarti Shrivastava: • Thanked Coms. Giefer and Kaneda for their expertise and diversiTy of opinions and service to the City of Cupertino. Com. Giefer: • Thanked the community for their support and providing input over the years, and encouraged the community to get involved with the community. She thanked retired Community Development Director Steve Piasecki for his expertise and help during her tenure; and thanked staff for their fair and unbiased input and recommendations. She also expressed her appreciation to her family and friends for their support during her tenure on the Commission. She said her goal as a Planning Commissioner was to improve the quality of life in Cupertino, specifically by trying to make it a more sustainable environment; and she was proud of the work she did on the General Plan as a Planning Commissioner with a number of buildings that were built to LEED standards and certified LEED standard. She was also privileged to be one of the original members of the League of Cities Green Building Task Force which provided input on a much broader scale to all of the different cities within the area She wished the new members success on their term as Commissioners. Com. Kaneda: • Said that his reason for serving on the Planning Commission was to get involved in some of the green building ordinance work being done and some of the policies the city was making; also to learn about the Planning process. He thanked the city staff for a tremendous learning experience; and encouraged the City Council and Planning Commission to trust the planning staff and encourage them to remain on city staff for a long time and have a compelling vision that would ultimately make Cupertino into a much better place. He thanked the Planning Commissioners, stating it was a pleasure to work with them and the previous commissioners. He also thanked his family for their support during his tenure on the Commission. CONSENT CALENDAR None Cupertino Planning Commission 3 January 25, 2011 PUBLIC HEARING None OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS 1. ABAG/MTC Sustainable Communities Strategy Update Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director, presented the staff report: • The purpose of the report is to provide the Planning Commission with an overview of the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) process to date. The report also describes the relationship between Senate Bill 375 and the SCS and the effect of the law on local governments as well as the Bay Area as a region. In the past, every two years ABAG created a document that projected for the next 25 years, the jobs, housing, and housing unit projection over time in the Bay Area. Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) had an 8 year plan where they planned out their infrastructure improvements and how to divide the money they received. What SB375 did was try to merge the two, with a green focus; the ultimate goal was to realize AB32 which is to reduce greenhouse gases and merge the two processes that MTC had as well as ABAG had into one 8 year process, where they would merge their two projections. Now, land use as well as transportation would go hand in hand. ABAG and MTC are laying out their projections together, calling it the Sustainable Community Sirategy (SCS). The idea is that we would have an 8 year plan consistent transportation-wise as well as land use-wise and it would also satisfy the RHNA (regional housing need allocation) requirement that the city gets every 7 years, which is now an 8-year plan. • The next steps leading to the housing element will take time and the city won't get their housing element that staff work toward and will follow up with and update the Planning Commission. A housing methodology committee determines how to divide the different RHNA allocations, which are the regional housing needs allocations for the different jurisdictions; they have a formula they agree on. The numbers that HCD gives you are plugged into the formulas that SCS provides, which gives the number for each area, which gives the RHNA allocation. She said they are discussing forming a subregion which has not been done before, and the decision has to be made fairly early in the process without knowing what the numbers are. A subregional process allows a conglomeration of cities geographically connected to form a subregion where they get one large number from ABAG instead of individual allocations; and they have a choice of either waiting to get ABAG's allocations if things don't work out, or they get to divide things up amongst themselves, creating their own formula. She said that as part of the planning staff of all the cities, they are considering the pros and cons and at the next meeting will bring forth a recommendation and what the options are as far as forming a subregion. It does not change the RHNA process, but provides an option and they should make certain they understand that before moving forward. • She referred to Attachment 1 of the staff report and reviewed the timeline. The preparation of the RTP plan will occur in September or October of 2013; the RHNA methodology will be agreed on about a year prior to that; the actual draft RHNA allocations will be out in February 2012, and the fmal allocations in July or August of 2012. Staff answered Commissioners' questions about the process. Chair Lee opened the meeting for public comment. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: • Urged the Commission to proceed with caution, and said better communication is needed with ABAG and whoever they are dealing with about the current economic cycles. Whenever the Cupertino Planning Commission 4 January 25, 2011 city deals with others who are not from Cupertino, saying how much housing Cupertino needs to have in the future, careful consideration needs to be given about what their motivations are and do they know what is best for the future of Cupertino? She expressed concern about where to put all the people 50 years in the future if the retail is filled with two, three and four story housing. She said she doubted whether Cupertino could handle the amount of housing that everyone else would like to build in Cupertino. Chair Lee closed the public comment portion of the meeting. Com. Kaneda: � Asked staff to explain a number given for allocation of 5,000 houses; does it mean that you have to build 5,000 houses, or just that you are allowed to build 5,000 houses? Aarti Shrivastava: • Explained that you don't actually have to build the specified number of houses, but you must have the sites appropriately zoned and a plan for them in order to allow the units to be built should someone come in with an application. • She said their last allocation was 1,170, which was low compared to the previous allocation in the 3,300 range; primarily because they were trying to focus housing on the big three transportation conidors (Oakland, San Jose and San Francisco), but with the housing methodology that was tempered a little. This time there is not a huge change because the focus is on green house gas reduction which is a focus that they didn't have as strongly before. • They did try to become more sustainable long term, but this time it may have even more of the focus. The entire number is not known, their share may be smaller, but the number depends on what they get from HCD and what fmally gets decided; it will be at least one-seventh or one- eighth larger because it will be an 8 year plan instead of a 7 year plan. • The recommendation will include the pros and cons on whether to form a subregion or not and to provide a recommendation to the Council. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMIYIISSION: Environmental Review Committee • Com. Brophy reported that the next meeting is Thursday, to discuss the mitigated Negative Declaration on the Scenic Drive project. Housin� Commission: • Com. Kaneda reported that a breakfast meeting was held at Hobees Restaurant. Mayor's Monthlv Meeting With Commissioners: Meeting ne�rt week. Economic Development Committee Meetin�: No meeting. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMU1vITY DEVELOPMENT: • No additional report. Adiournment: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting scheduled for February 8, 2011. Respectfully Submitted: /s/Elizabeth Ellis Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretary