Loading...
PC 03-29-99CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 To~e Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408)777-3308 APPROVED MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD ON MARCH 29, 1999 CONFERENCE ROOM C SALUTETO THEFLAG ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Con', Harris, Kwok, Stevens, Chairperson Doyle Staff present: Robert Cowan, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Raymond Chang, Traffic Engineer; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: None POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: ORAL COMMUNICATION: None None PUBLIC HEARING OLD BUSINESS 1. Annual General Plan Review Ms. Ciddy Wordell, City Planner, distributed the expanded outline for the meeting, and provided a brief overview of the outline for the annual general plan review. She reviewed the implementation progress, including the regional housing needs and the affordable housing program. A discussion ensued regarding the affordable housing opportunities provided, wherein staff answered questions. Mr. Cowan noted that the report being forwarded to City Council would include the rehab units owned by non-profit organizations, as well as the 18 homes in the diocese development. Mr. Raymond Chong, City Traffic Engineer, distributed the attached revised traffic report, which outlined the 1998 intersection level of service. In response to concerns expressed about the accuracy of the level of service indicated because of the approved developments, Mr. Chong provided an illustration of major intersections and on/off ramps and explained how the level of service (LOS) was calculated. Discussion followed regarding the impacts of the approved developments on traffic at the major intersections. Mr. Chong pointed out that Caltraus is responsible for the metering lights on the fxeeway ramps and the city is responsible for the street traffic lights. Com. Harris suggested that the intersection of Wolfe and Pruneridge be added to the annual review of intersections or critical need. She pointed out that it was misleading to categorize one of the worst intersections as a B LOS. Planning Commission Minutes 2 March 29, 1999 Mr. Chong discussed the difference between the Congestion Management Program and an intersection that does not have that designation. He said that in the county, Valley Transportation Authority is mandated by the state to manage congestion in the valley; and Public Works and Planning Department staff worked throughout the year on those which were the major roads to look at principle medals and which are the major intersections that intersect. He said that Stevens Creek and DeAnza Blvds. are both major arterials in the county designed as a CMP; highway 280 and route 85 are both CMP freeways and are considered major roadway facilities in the county. Ms. Wordell reviewed the Cupertino Development Status as of December 31, 1998 (Table 1, Exhibit A) which was included in the staff report, and illustrates the residential and non-residential growth in Cupertino since 1990. Following a lengthy discussion, there was consensus to shift allocations to increase the undesignated residential allocations to allow more maneuvering room. Mr. Cowan explained that a goal he wanted to accomplish for the work program was the idea of shifting the general plan in concept from the ten year annual review to the one year minor review to the five year bump, which is a major shift. He said the Council agreed with the concept in joint session with the Planning Commission. Mr. Cowan explained that there were three stages related to the land use type of process; establishing policies, primarily with the general plan, discretionmy review pertaining to reviewing individual developments related to zoning, use permits and maps, ~nd the building permit. He said in t~xms of creating the general plan, the most complex part is the community preference goals process, now called the visioning committee, wherein staff works with the community as a whole to define the direction of the general plan. He said it is a very cumbersome process, one time taking a year and 85 people, and a tremendous amount of money to accomplish, resulting in merely educating those people, and not changing fundamental policy. He pointed out that a general plan is mandated by the state. He said he planned to work with the Council and discuss types of citizen input to be used in the general plan update, by way of Council and Commission heatings. Mr. Cowan said that his recommendation to Council in terms of the five year bump was to look at the charette process, hire a strong facilitator, and get input from the community, and discuss the opportunities a community survey could provide with attitudes and information about land use and housing, which would replace the goals and vision committees. Com. Harris said that the benefit of a large general plan program is finding the future leaders of Cupertino, bringhag them fonvard to meet and be part of a process, and resulting from that general plan goals committee were many people who have since staffed commissions and nm for Council. She said that although it is easier and probably more efficient and effective, it loses the enormous groundswell of public support and activity level. Chair Doyle said that leadership in Cupertino tends to be a training ground for people headed in that direction, whereas the visioning and goals committee tends to pull people out of the neighborhoods who feel the need to be involved ia their comm~xnity. Mr. Cowan said that when done correctly, as was done with the charette for the Stevens Creek Grand Boulevard Plan, it was a very exciting process and resulted in 40 or 50 people being involved. Com. Hams said that she felt neighborhood meetings may be more effective, attracting 25 people at each, lather than the charette, because the charette process is a brief process, pulling people together for only the two days of the meetings. Planning ComnUssion Minutes 3 March 29, 1999 Mr. Cowan reviewed Stage II, the discrefionmy review process and answered questions. He said at the stage II level, general plan pohcy level decisions are made, and he maintained that the general plan is involved based on what occurs at the meetings. Chair Doyle said he viewed it differently; that the general plan looks at vast mounts of information with some visions, goals, to start the program out; they are refined to what are the impacts of implementing those s~xategies; the tactics are provided with a cohesive backing, meeting all the requlxements. In most cases, the plannmg Commission interprets what the general plan says, and occasionally a situation exists where the general plans does not reflect the views of the community, and four times per year, general plan changes can be made. The general plan provides the sWacture, background, understanding and the cohesive package that allows the Planning Commission to take action, and know that as long as they remain within those boundaries, the infrastructure of the organization or the city will stand together; the schools won't deteriorate significantly; the fire problems w ' ' on t get worse; and there will not be more traffic congestion, etc. Mr. Cowan reviewed the proposed general plan review, Figure 3, as outlined in the staff report. Com. Harris suggested adding neighborhood town meetings to the 5 year public input step. She said that if a new plan is set, it needs to be very specific and there needs to be a statement as to what is going to be accomplished in the five year plan; specifying what kinds of things are going to be done in the annual update. Referring to the Housing Element section of the General Plan, Com. Harris expressed concern about specific areas that still needed to be addressed and recommended to the Planning Commission as to whether they should be removed or pursued. Ms. Wordell pointed out that it possibly could be handled in the five year plan, beginning in the year 2000. Com. Hanis reiterated that it needed to be in writing as part of the general plan review to handle those projects not scheduled in the last general plan and either take them out or put them in the work plan. She said that more needed to be added to the undesignated category, and reported to the Council as a general plan change. Chair Doyle said that as part of the proposal to the City Council, it should include long term, with a review of the allocations; for short term there needs to be a general plan amendment implemented, and see if the Council agrees with that strategy. Com. Harris referred to the undesignated residential of 48 units on the chart and suggested that it be corrected to show 15 with one more pending. Ms. Wordell referred to the 1999 draft work program and discussed areas that required finxher comment. Chair Doyle reported that the planning horizon should be in the 10 or 20 year range, with the ideal planning range of 20 years, with a packaged plan for 10 years, and strategies for the next 5 years. Relative to creating a redevelopment project area at Vallco Fashion Park, Mr. Cowan said that the catalyst for that would be the willingness of the owner to proceed. He said that a consultant has labeled the area as a blighted area_ Com. Harris requested a copy of the list of the City Council ideas fi.om their January 22 meeting. Planning Commission Minutes 4 March 29, 1999 Discussion continued wherein the remaining projects on the 1999 work program were reviewed. Relative to the list of Draft 1999-2000 Goals, Mr. Cowan said that Nos. 3, 5, 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 22 and 26 related to his work program. Relative to the role the city can take to encourage retail, and improve obsolete shopping centers, Mr. Cowan said that it was more of a economic development strategy to encourage the improvement of the centers. Ms. Wordell noted that the sign issue was related to the proliferation of temporary signs, which she indicated was an enforcement issue. There was a brief discussion about the indusla'ial/residential mixed use review, wherein it was suggested that it remain on the list as a general plan issue. Ms. Wordell said that the policy manual was an internal document. Relative to height/setback ratios for the city, Com. Harris said that if there were any corridors in the city that are commercial or office, they should have a plan for height and setback, but only for corridors. There was consensus to leave ratios/setbacks on the work program. Ms. Wordell explained that Inspiration Heights was related to the Don' property, and the suggestion was made to master plan the entire area Mr. Cowan said that there was enough development potential for a total of five as indicated in the general plan. He said there was no need to spend more funds as the Dorr application supercedes the project. Com. Harris emphasized the need for townhouse units in the city. Com. Harris requested that biographies of contractors be included in the stalTreport packet when a contractor comes before the Planning Commission. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. on April 12, 1999. Respectfully submitted, Recording Secretary~ Approved as presente& April 12, 1999