PC 08-14-2012 CITY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino,CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVED MINUTES
6:45 P.M. August 14, 2012 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The regular Planning Commission meeting of August 14, 2012 was called to order at 6:45 p.m. in
the Cupertino Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue,Cupertino,CA. by Chair Marty Miller.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson: Marty Miller
Vice Chairperson: Don Sun
Commissioner: Paul Brophy
Commissioner: Winnie Lee
Commissioner: Clinton Brownley
Staff present: Community Development Director: Aarti Shrivastava
City Planner: Gary Chao
Senior Planner: Vera Gil
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
1. Minutes of the July 10, 2012 Planning Commission meeting:
MOTION: Motion by Com. Brownley,second by Com. Lee,and unanimously carried
5-0-0, to approve the July 10, 2012 Planning Commission minutes as
presented.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
PUBLIC HEARING: None
2. Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)Methology
Report is provided for informational and discussion purposes only.
Cupertino Planning Commission 2 August 14, 2012
Vera Gil,Senior Planner,presented the staff report:
• Explained that the RHNA Methodology specifies how all cities and counties in the San
Francisco Bay Area will provide a fair share of the region's housing need, both market and
affordable.
• Factors influencing the overall RHNA in the approved methodology include household
formation growth; minimum housing floor jurisdiction; past RHNA performance in Non-PDA
areas; employment; and transit, as outlined in detail in the staff report.
• The three factors that significantly figure into Cupertino's proposed RHNA number of 1,059
include Cupertino's PDA designation, overall growth designated to the PDA and income
allocation factor as detailed in the staff report.
• She reviewed the steps to be followed from the comment period of September 10, 2012 to the
October 2014 deadline for submission of the approved Housing Elements for HCD review.
Staff answered Commissioners' questions relative to the RHNA allocation.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing.
Jennifer Griffin,Rancho Rinconada resident:
• Said she resided near the PDA, and was surprised at the amount of rezoning and development
targeted for the frontage along Stevens Creek Boulevard from Tantau to Stevens Creek and
Sunnyvale/Saratoga Rds. Said she did not support high density housing along that corridor
since it is already difficult to get through those intersections now and was not sure any thought
was given to the PDA.
• Said she had a dim opinion of ABAG because since Rancho Rinconada annexed into the city,
ABAG wanted to build tremendous amounts of housing throughout Cupertino. Said she was
concerned about the poor economy with 8.2% unemployment. San Jose has a lot of
unoccupied high density housing; does ABAG take into consideration that presently along
Stevens Creek Boulevard the intersections are at full load capacity and cannot take any more
traffic. Does ABAG want to deteriorate the existing neighborhoods or do they care. Perhaps
the entire city should be zoned residential to eliminate having to get more housing.
Phyllis Dickstein,Cupertino resident:
• Said in the information provided there appeared to be an inherent unfairness that if you are
already a high density area, you have to suffer more high density; but if you are a low density
area,you get a pass.
• It appears that every few years there is going to be another allocation of more housing on one
street where it is already congested and left turns out of the condominium development on
Blaney are almost impossible. Why should only a small portion of Stevens Creek a couple of
miles and a couple of miles on DeAnza Boulevard be the only target for housing and meeting
the development targets for Cupertino? The answer seems to be that is where the buses run
and that is what VTA wants. Did VTA ever consider changing some of the bus routes so that
busses run on more streets and housing could be put up on a scatter site model and not overly
burden one street; Stevens Creek is becoming impossible.
Chair Miller closed the public hearing.
Staff answered speakers' questions.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• ABAG does not look at individual city traffic intersections when they allocate units; they are
given a set of numbers by the state for their region and try to allocate it in the best location it
believes will serve the community best. There is a committee consisting of various city
Cupertino Planning Commission 3 August 14, 2012
officials who participate in helping to create that methodology; but they don't get involved in
individual city traffic intersections.
• Responding to the question why they can't scatter these throughout the city and/or change the
bus routes so the bus routes run through more areas in the city and have a wider dispersion of
the affordable units; she said she did not know about the VTA business model, but felt they
were trying to focus rapid transit and the two areas in Cupertino where they see the maximum
opportunity for ridership; the more streets they go through the higher cost, but the lower the
volume so they are trying to see where they can get the most impact for the money they spend
as a public agency.
Com.Brophy:
• Said that the numbers are becoming more challenging and he felt they have tried their best in
terms of evaluating housing issues; there has to be sensitivity to whatever they put into a
housing element that it is not just a plan to be ignored down the road, nor say they didn't mean
it when a hearing comes up.
• The sites and proposed densities have to be thought about with a great deal of care when
making revisions to the housing element.
Corn. Sun:
• Had no comment.
Com.Lee:
• She recalled reviewing the housing element sites with staff in the past and was grateful that
staff always met the deadlines and were not imposed penalties. She said she felt the
allocations were not feasible and many other cities were concerned also; especially due to the
economy and the redevelopment money being taken away.
• She supported the Commission accepting the report as an action; and was pleased that the
allocations were even across the board in the categories; some cities need more above-
moderate housing than very-low housing; it will be difficult for Cupertino to achieve the very
low and low now; it appears that Cupertino will need a couple of hundred in each category.
Com.Brownley:
• Concurred with other commissioners' comments about putting care and thought into the type
of city that Cupertino wants to be, noting that there are challenges presented based on the
numbers expected; and to the extent that is feasible or that they are interested in creating that
type of community or having that allocation. The Council will have to face those challenges
about the next housing element and stating goals for the city. He echoed Corn. Brophy's
comments about thinking about those issues and reaching a conclusion of what type of city
they would like to see over the next few years and creating a housing element that reflects that.
Chair Miller:
• Said it was clear they were building more office space in Cupertino; there are a number of
approved projects that will increase the amount of office space; and more commercial space is
going up which will increase the numbers.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• The housing element RHNA process did not have a one-to-one correlation; they looked at it at
a more regional level and got in the range of 80 additional units for the employment factor.
They are not doing a one-to-one allocation, but look at it and see which communities have
larger portions of the communities dedicated to office and retail; they don't specifically look at
every project approved. They are not following the jobs housing ratio as directly as they have
in the past.
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 August 14, 2012
Chair Miller:
• Said it was unclear if they build out additional squares of office space if that would impact the
housing requirement.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Said it would not impact the 2014 to 2022 numbers because the calculations were already done
for that; and she was not sure what the process would be for 2002 and beyond. It will be a
similar factor and they are moving away from the one-to-one ratio because they are trying to
achieve sustainable growth which means,directing more growth towards transit nodes, trying
to achieve general jobs employment balance in the region and to some extent telling
communities there might be some small impact if there is an imbalance.
Chair Miller:
• Said he felt the process was flawed; on the State's part they are asking the city to do things that
they do not have resources to achieve.
• He suggested that at a minimum in the areas where they are asking for more housing on the
Stevens Creek corridor and DeAnza corridor; that they look at current policies in terms of
identifying other future sites and reconsidering specifically the policy that they have retail in
every nook and cranny on Stevens Creek Blvd whether it makes sense financially or not. The
imbalance needs to be addressed or it will reappear in the future and everyone will be
scrambling around requirements unless there is a long term plan in place. (Said he did not see
any areas in the DeAnza corridor that are available for housing; it falls mostly on the Stevens
Creek corridor;) He said if they are serious about what the state is doing, and are serious about
trying to meet the requirements, there should be some forward planning as to how we go
forward as we increase our mix of office space and commercial space which will generate
more housing as it always does.
Com. Brophy:
• Said he felt they should not take the issue of meeting new numbers so seriously because they
are so unreasonable and not a Cupertino specific problem. Looking at other communities there
is no way, given the resources available to the state at any level of government that those type
of low income housing units would be built anywhere. Said he felt it was a make believe
process; they are under pressure to fulfill the obligations they have, but to say that somehow
there is a way they can come up with 600 low or very low income housing units is impossible;
just as it is impossible for every other town in the county or region to come even close to the
numbers that are being made up.
Chair Miller:
• Said they can take that perspective; however, they do have a real impact on the communities.
At many of the leadership Silicon Valley meetings they talk about the need for more housing
and how it is the single biggest problem that the companies in the area identify; not enough
housing, and not enough affordable housing and that it is an increasing expense for the
companies here, and in the long run will force some of the companies at the margin to move
out of the area. In the end the cities are really hurting themselves unless they come up with a
realistic plan to address the issue. One can say they don't want to take it seriously, but it is
creating real issues that at some point in time have to be addressed.
Com.Brophy:
• In 1977 companies such as Hewlett Packard were moving out of the Bay Area and opening up
facilities in Idaho and Oregon, Colorado; and given the cost of housing and given that it seems
like the State is unable to provide the most basic public needs of funding our schools, public
Cupertino Planning Commission 5 August 14, 2012
safety, etc., he felt they are no closer to coming up with an answer to that problem, than they
were 35 years ago.
Chair Miller:
• Said he agreed; however pointed out that when working at Hewlett Packard for many years, he
watched the manufacturing move out and the support groups and lower paying jobs moved out
of the area leaving only R&D. Salt Lake City is now growing, with many high tech
companies moving from the Bay Area.
• The issues still exist in the community and they can't be addressed at this level, but has to be a
countywide or Bay Area approach; making that occur politically seems impossible. That
doesn't mean that it isn't a problem and it won't continue to exacerbate over time.
Motion: Motion by Vice Chair Sun,second by Com. Lee, and unanimously carried 5-0-0 to
accept the RHNA report.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE:: No report.
HOUSING COMMISSION: Vera Gil discussed the current agenda topic.
MAYOR'S MONTHLY MEETING:
Public Safety Commission: Working on Cupertino Alert System, 500 signatures; plan to hold
future signup activities
Library Commission: Will be conducting database training for their financial materials; also
sponsoring exhibit on Japanese American experience in California and America
Housing Commission: In the works is a new scoring system for the Community Development
Block Grant
The Bicycle Commission: Working on pedestrian transportation plan, working on including the
bike routes around Scenic Circle on the official city map although it is already being used
TIC Commission: Working on improving cell coverage; some cell applications coming up soon;
digital upgrade for community television; there is a panel on Sept. 24 on community TV station
Parks and Rec Commission: Completing its work plan; working on Stevens Creek Trail; City
Council would like them to look at all property issues there; one thing coming up on Parkside trail
is extending the Stevens Creek trail along the old road that runs from Linda Vista park to
McClellan Road; Mayor Santoro's comment along the lines of the state forcing the cities to do
things they don't like; Council held a special meeting to discuss a plastic bag ban.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE_ No meeting.
MISC:
• Com. Lee announced Cupertino Quota Club will be holding event to raise funds for hearing
Cupertino Planning Commission 6 August 14, 2012
impaired, deaf women and children, and disadvantaged women and children on September 15`h
from 12 noon to 3 p.m. at Original Pancake House, with 20% of their sales going to West
Valley Community Services
• Sept. 22 Cupertino Garage Sale Tilson Ave
REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
• Written report submitted.
Aarti Shrivastava:
• Reported that the second reading of the Political Sign Ordinance was scheduled for August
21 and would go into effect 30 days after that date.
• City Council reduced the fee for political signs from $5 to $ 3; and called in the sign retrieval
fee.
• The Green Building ordinance will go back to Council in September; staff is looking at minor
changes for simplification; discussed a deposit relative to certification process.
Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned to the next regular Planning Commission meeting
scheduled on August 28, 2012 at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted: 0 / •
iza. s�`ecor•i : ' c -
Approved as presented: September 11, 2012