Loading...
PC 05-22-07 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES 6:45 P.M. May 22,2007 TUESDAY CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL The Planning Commission meeting of May 22, 2007, was called to order at 6:45 p.rn. in the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California, by Chairperson Lisa Giefer. SALUTE TO THE FLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Chairperson: Commissioner: Commissioner: Vice Chairperson: Lisa Giefer David Kaneda Gilbert Wong Cary Chien (arrived later in the meeting) Commissioners Absent: Commissioner: Marty Miller Staff present: Community Development Director: Steve Piasecki City Planner: Ciddy Wordell Staff Absent: Assistant City Attorney: Eileen Murray APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the May 8, 2007 Planning Commission meeting: Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Kaneda to approve the May 8, 2007 minutes as presented. (Vote 2-0-1; Chairperson Giefer abstained; Com. Miller and Vice Chair Chien were absent). WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, noted receipt of a letter regarding the Market Place and the locations of restaurants in the center. POSTPONEMENTSIREMOV ALS FROM CALENDAR: 1. U-2006-13, ASA-2006-22, Use Permit and an Architectural Site Review to construct TM-2007-02, Z-2006-05 13 attached and 8 detached single-family residential units (EA-2006-18) Lawrence on a 1. I-acre site (northwest comer of Stelling Road and Guy, 10955 No. Stelling Rd. 1-280) Tentative Map to subdivide a 1. I-acre parcel into 21 parcels and one common parcel. Rezoning of a 1. I-acre parcel from BQ (Quasi-Public) to P-Res (Planned Residential) Request postponement to June26, 2007. Tentative City Council date: Unscheduled. Motion: Motion by Com. Wong, second by Com. Kaneda, to postpone Item 1 to the June 26, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. (Vote: 3-0-0; Com. Miller Cupertino Planning Commission 2 May 22, 2007 and Vice Chair Chien absent) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: . Expressed her concern that it was apparent that the City of Cupertino did not have a historic house ordinance, and said it was important to have one since there were so few historic structures within the city boundaries of Cupertino. She referred to Victorian homes and homes of particular building styles of the 1920s and 1930s, and said it was important for the city to embrace its past and acknowledge the different types of history that have occurred within the city. . She said that when proposals are presented to demolish homes within the city, evidence of the age ofthe home should be presented and their historic nature. She reported that San Jose has a historic inspector who reviews the age of homes, and said that Cupertino needs to try to protect all their buildings and protect anything prior to 1930 of historic significance. Ciddy Wordell: . Said that the city had a practice, but not written policy. When an application is submitted for a demolition permit, staff must verify that there is no historic interest in that particular property. If it is determined that there is, the Historical Society is given the opportunity to provide their input. Vice Chair Chien arrived at the meeting. OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS; The agenda was moved to Item 3. 3. Annual Review of Implementation of General Plan Policies and Strategies. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, presented the staff report: . Explained that State law mandates an annual review of the General Plan to report on the city's Gen,eral Plan progress and implementation, including meeting its regional housing needs and local efforts to remove government constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. The review also serves as the mitigation monitoring program required by the California Environmental Quality Act. . She reported that Exhibit A contained a matrix of the General Plan policies and strategies, including strategies that require specific action and comments regarding how the strategy was being implemented. . The role of the Planning Commission is to understand the status of the General Plan implementation. Staff does not recommend that some of the actionable items that are not scheduled be scheduled at this time because the action items are usually part of the City Council goals and the Planning Commission's annual work program. The City Council has already set its goals and reviewed the Planning Commission's work program. The capital improvement program which is also part of the way in implementing some of these projects is almost complete; if the Planning Commission feels that some of the action items are important, it may be something to recommend when new projects are considered. Cupertino Planning Commission 3 May 22, 2007 . One of the action items in the General Plan is to review the development allocation every year. The General Plan distributes square footage, hotel rooms, and housing units throughout the different parts of the city, and special centers throughout the city. . She reviewed the growth in residential and non-residential development occurring since 2005, including constructed units and affordable units, as outlined in the staff report . She also reviewed the traffic levels of service, 2007 work program, and additional required review items, as outlined in the staff report. Com. Wong: . Said that the housing allocation indicates l,739, and the staff report indicates that if the 130 units from the Morley Brothers do not get built, the number will increase to 1,869 in February. Ciddy Wordell: . Said that when the Use Permit expires in the Fall, it would go back to the allocation pool. When the General Plan was done, any housing units that were already locked in, such as the Vallco Rosebowl site were considered built. Vallco has 204 residential units that do not show as potential because they are committed and are considered in the built category; there would be 204 more potential than are shown. Com. Wong: . Referred to Exhibit B, Table 2-A and asked staff when the Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) would respond about lowering the numbers. Steve Piasecki: . Said it was not a function of lowering, but was a function of going into the next phase, the next six year period. Staff was successful in getting the number significantly reduced from what they might have been; presently the projection is approximately 1,200 units, which would be in the next six year phase in addition to what is shown. Com. Wong: . One of the policy strategies was to master plan Vallco Park South and it states there is no present funding; it could be a potential after the one year moratorium expires. He asked what was projected for the future, and if it would be put on the work plan in the future? . He asked how they could have a General Plan so that people know that if it was purchased by somebody that there is a concrete proscriptive plan versus a repeat of history. Ciddy Wordell: . Said it was a timing issue; there is no project before them, and if it is funded, it gets priority over a project, and then they would proceed. Steve Piasecki: . Suggested that the Planning Commission may want to take it up as well as other program related issues, for the City Council to prioritize in the next work program they develop. . He said they would advise anyone looking to develop in the South Vallco area that it is the intent of the General Plan to have a master plan and they should contemplate a master plan as part of their process even the city is not ready. Com. Wong: . Said that the Crossroad Streetscape Strategy states ground floor retail parking and very limited housing, and also building up to 35 units per acre. He asked staff to clarify the conflict of limited housing but 35 units per acre. Cupertino Planning Commission 4 May 22, 2007 Ciddy Wordell: . Said that it has not been analyzed yet because the update of the Crossroads Plan has not been completed. However, it is not inconceivable to have 35 units per acre even with limited residential. If there are inconsistencies, they will have to make them consistent. Steve Piasecki: . Said there were limited opportunities; 35 units was put in because there are some small sites and even a few units would be a fairly high density per acre if you put a few units over retail on a small site. . Said that ABAG coordinates the RHNA process, (Regional Housing Needs Allocation Process) which is on a six year cycle; the last one was 2000-2006 with some extensions. The next one will be 2006-2007 to 2012-2013 and the housing element will be updated to conform whatever those new numbers are. There will need to be creativity with what kind of housing does not have a significant school impact; senior housing is one example of housing that does not have significant impact on schooling. He said the numbers would get added to the remaining potential numbers. Chair Giefer: . Questioned why sustainability was not listed as part of the matrix reviewed. Ciddy Wordell: . Said the list included the "not scheduled" items; sustainability is scheduled and is underway. . Said the data provided on Page 3-4 included affordable units both for purchase and for rental. . Said staff would report back on the number of low income units; since affordable units come with higher density housing and some big projects were lost. . Said her earlier statement was that they were not gaining any new construction in the neighborhood of single family development. It is one for one, a demolition for every new house; there is not a gain. Chair Giefer: . Said she was not aware they were planning to put a crossroad streetscape landmark on all the other corners where there is no park. She asked what the landmark would be. Ciddy Wordell: . Said there were small easements on the northeast and the southwest corners because those developments came in recently; and that the landmark could be a fountain or some small piece of art. Com. Kaneda: . Said the Plan Review states the affordable units has a goal of 378; however, there is a list of different developments and what kind of housing was put in, totaling 125 units. He asked staff to clarify. Ciddy Wordell: . Clarified that the General Plan's base year was 2000 but was actually adopted in 2005; 125 units were actually built. . She said the housing element was adopted in 2001 and she was not certain how the numbers were arrived at. Staff will provide a report on how the higher number was actually chosen. Cupertino Planning Commission 5 May 22, 2007 Chair Giefer: . Suggested that a member of the Housing Committee or the staff member who works with the Housing Committee update the Planning Commission on what was done in the past and what their thoughts are on why they did not get close to the numbers. It would be beneficial for the Planning Commissioners to understand what the issues are as projects are submitted to them. . Said when she was on the Housing Committee it was calculated based on the Nexis study they did with ABAG and jobs, and at that time the ABAG numbers were inflated as well. Steve Piasecki: . Explained that the housing element legislation requires that the city zone and general plan for the number of housing units shown; if the market is at a recessed stage and not building, cities are not expected to go out and build it themselves and you cannot force the private market system to go out and build it. The city does not routinely meet the numbers but it zones and general plans for it; occasionally projects get defeated for other reasons. When the General Plan was updated in 2005 it was anticipated that they would have another allocation from ABAG. Some of the units that ABAG is now allocating to the city have already been incorporated into the General Plan. It is not 1,200 units on top of the present numbers, it is significantly less than that. The General Plan will be updated. Chair Giefer: . Recapped that there were some large projects that have been approved but are not on the ground; and said it would be useful to know what has been approved that is outstanding and not built, and what is in the pipeline in terms of affordable units. Chair Giefer opened the public hearing. Jennifer Griffin, Rancho Rinconada resident: . Asked staff to clarify Policy 5-5, Strategy 2, relative to the potential of expanding allowable home occupations and residentially zoned properties to reduce the need to commute to work. Is it to allow for telecommuting or to allow for home businesses or home repair for cars, etc. . She commented on Policy 2-81, which states that a portion of the developer fee shall be held in reserve for the possible acquisition of surplus school properties if they become available. She suggested a similar concept for purchase of park land in Cupertino, as there was already money for public art, where developers in Cupertino provide a certain amount of money for public art. She said she felt if the city is going to be looking at putting out public art and having the potential to buy excess school land, it should also have an avenue to purchase additional park land. Chair Giefer: . Asked staffto comment on Policy 5-5 in the General Plan, Strategy 2. Ciddy Wordell: . Said the concept was to give people more opportunity to have businesses at home rather than work at somebody else's business. . She said she felt it was problematical to come up with more kinds of businesses than are currently allowed that would help do that, as most businesses are permitted as long as it does not change the character of the residence, relative to number of people and vehicles outside the house. Cupertino Planning Commission 6 May 22, 2007 Chair Giefer: . Asked staff to respond to Jennifer Griffin's question regarding paying for additional park lands. She said she recalled that developer fees were part of every permit application for parks. Ciddy Wordell: . Said there were developer fees which went into the General Fund and to date have been paying off the park debt. Real money has been used to purchase the property in the Rancho Rinconada area; otherwise some of the projects have been through the development process. Steve Piasecki: . Said the City was obligated under different state laws to not charge more than the impact, therefore they are in compliance. . The developer is required to provide park land at the rate of 3 acres per 1,000; an attempt could be made to raise the ratio to 5 acres per 1,000 which may address the speaker's concern. . Reported that fees in the range of $2 million were lost in recent years because five or six housing projects did not go through. Chair Giefer closed the public hearing. Steve Piasecki: . Reported that the City of Cupertino received an award for comprehensive planning of a small jurisdiction from the Northern California Chapter of the American Planning Association. He reported that the City of San Jose received the award for a large city for the North San Jose Plan. Chair Giefer: . Expressed appreciation to the staff and the task force who worked on the General Plan. Steve Piasecki: . Expressed special thanks to Ciddy Wordell for her exemplary work on the General Plan reVIew. Ciddy Wordell: . Reported that Steve Piasecki would make a presentation on General Plan preparation at the next monthly Planning Directors' meeting in Santa Clara County. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION Environmental Review Committee: . There was discussion about the Villa Serra project, including updating the facilities and addition of units. Housin2 Commission: . At the May 10th meeting, the change in development fees was discussed. The Chamber of . Commerce opposes the fee and is meeting with the Housing Commission to discuss the issue. Steve Piasecki explained that it was an in-lieu housing fee that non-housing developers have been asked to pay. He reported on the progress of meetings and discussions with the Chamber and prospective developers. . Com. Wong noted that the Chamber was not opposed to the plan, but is concerned about it and wanted to provide some alternatives. Cupertino Planning Commission 7 May 22, 2007 Mavor's Monthlv Meetin2 With Commissioners: . A report will be provided at the next Planning Commission meeting. Economic Development Committee: . A report will be provided at the next Planning Commission meeting. . Steve Piasecki reported that Kelly Kline has been hired as the Economic and Redevelopment Manager. She was previously employed by the Redevelopment Agency in Downtown San Jose and was the Retail Manager for the Downtown San Jose Redevelopment Effort. Her expertise is in retail, which will be an asset to the City of Cupertino. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned to the June 12, 2007 Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. SUBMITTED BY: /s/Elizabeth Ellis Elizabeth A. Ellis, Recording Secretary