Loading...
PC Min - 07/14/2009CITY OF CAMPBELL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 7:30 P.M. The Planning Commission meeting of July 14, 2009, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California by Chair Ebner and the following proceedings were had, to wit: JULY 14, 2009 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS TUESDAY ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Chair: Vice Chair: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Commissioner: Mark Ebner Elizabeth Gibbons Bob Alderete Theresa Alster Michael Rocha Bob Roseberry Commissioners Absent: Commissioner: Gary Gairaud Staff Present: Contract Planning Manager: Ciddy Wordell Housing Coordinator: Sharon Teeter City Attorney: William Seligmann APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Alster, seconded by Commissioner Roseberry, the Planning Commission minutes of the meeting of June 23, 2009, were approved as submitted. (4-0-1-2; Commissioners Gairaud was absent and Commissioners Gibbons and Rocha abstained) COMMUNICATIONS There were no communications Items Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for July 14, 2009 Page 2 AGENDA MODIFICATIONS OR POSTPONEMENTS There were no agenda modifications or postponements. ORAL REQUESTS There were no oral requests. *** PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair Ebner read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record as follows: 1. PLN2009-74 Public Hearing to consider adoption of the 2009-2014 City Staff Housing Element of the Campbell General Plan (PLN2009- 74). A Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. Council Meeting Date: August 4, 2009. Project Planners: Ciddy Wordell, Contract Planning Manager, and Sharon Teeter, Housing Coordinator Mr. Geoff I. Bradley, Planning Consultant, Metropolitan Planning Group, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the Commission is being asked to review the proposed adoption of the 2009-2014 Housing Element, which is a five-year document that is a part of the General Plan. • Said that the Housing Element consists of four major components: a housing needs assessment; the evaluation of the constraints to housing; identifying residential sites within the community to accommodate the projected housing needs; and program strategies to address those needs. • Reported that the actual housing allocation assigned to the City is set by ABAG (Association of Bay Area Governments) and is known as RHNA (Regional Housing Needs Allocation). • Added that the Housing Element requires review by the State Housing & Community Development Department (HCD). • Stated that the Housing Element update process has been underway since October 2008. There was an initial Council study session, numerous additional study sessions and two public meetings to this point. • Informed that the draft was forwarded to HCD for review and comments on the draft were provided by HCD. • Outlined the State-wide housing needs as consisting of 1,500,000 units. Of that, ABAG's share is 214,500 units. Santa Clara County was assigned 60,338 units from that number. Campbell has been assigned 892 units. These 892 units are broken into four income categories: very low income, low income, moderate income and above moderate income. Income levels are based on an average median income, which in this area is very high. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for July 14, 2009 Page 3 • Said that units constructed since 2007 are counted against the 892 units required in Campbell. Therefore, currently 46 of the required 153 very low income units have been constructed. None of the required 122 low income units have yet to be constructed or approved. Ninety one (91) of the required 158 moderate income units have been approved or constructed and 382 of the 413 above moderate income units have either been approved or constructed. The City has achieved almost its entire allocation of above moderate units. Low income units are the area of focus for this Housing Element update. • Pointed to the map that shows existing sites within the City with existing General Plan designations and existing zoning designations that can accommodate residential development. • Reminded that the Housing Element is updated every five years. The HCD is now requiring more detailed analysis of sites where in the past the analysis was more general. Now actual sites must be shown where housing could theoretically be built. • Explained that within the Housing Element there are new policies and programs that deal with the following issues: conserving existing affordable housing; housing affordability; housing production; residential sites, governmental constraints; and equal housing opportunity (fair and equal access). • Reported that the HCD letter was straightforward and did not ask for substantive changes or policy changes. The changes were more administrative documenting those things that the City is already doing. A copy of the HCD letter is in the staff report. The language in the draft Housing Element has been tightened to make more detailed conclusionary statements. • Said that the next step in this process is the anticipated final compliance letter from HCD by the end of July and consideration by Council at its August meeting for final adoption. Chair Ebner: • Questioned Mr. Geoff I. Bradley as to why Campbell appears to have the "lion's share" with 892 units and the potential for 1,311 more units. • Said that in contract, Saratoga is providing only 292 units, 45 of which are low income; Los Gatos has a total requirement for 125 units with 59 of them being low income units; and Los Altos has 317 total and 74 of them are low income. • Reiterated that he is confused as to why Campbell has been assigned the "lion's share" when it has done so much already. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley said that the short answer is that this is the way that the Housing Element law is written. It is a mandate from Sacramento using formulas based on existing growth, population and jobs as well as proximity to transit. It represents the nature of the ability of a community to accommodate infill development. Chair Ebner said that it appears that Campbell is being punished because it has three transit stations. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for July 14, 2009 Page 4 Mr. Geoff I. Bradley said that to some extent that is true. He explained that some cities that are 100 percent residential with little job development potential (such as Saratoga and Los Gatos) have fewer units assigned while cities like Mountain View and Santa Clara with more potential for job and population growth are assigned more units. With Campbell being located near transit, its obligation goes up. Chair Ebner pointed out that some cities have appealed their allocations. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley said such an appeal is difficult to obtain as any reduction from Campbell's units would have to be assigned somewhere else. Chair Ebner: • Said that although Los Altos is near a lot of high tech and has Amtrak, they only have to provide 317 units. • Pointed out that Los Altos has a greater land mass than Campbell as well as more areas still to be developed. • Said that he does not understand why Campbell is taking the brunt of it when it is actually building while other communities have not. Contract Planning Manager Ciddy Wordell said that staff evaluated the merits of the allocation and didn't see a way to protest it. Chair Ebner reiterated that immediate adjacent cities have much lower numbers and he does not understand it. Commissioner Alderete: • Reported that he visited both the HCD and ABAG websites. The ABAG site described the process and considerations of the allocations. It is very complex. • Suggested that the process is somewhat skewed. • Agreed that Campbell participates in the process and works hard to meets its numbers while others don't seem to comply. The downside/penalties of non- compliance don't seem so great. • Asked what the downside/penalties are for non-compliance. • Said that while he understands that the Housing Element depicts potential for development of housing units and does not represent guarantees for development, actual development of housing units does not fall in the City's control. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley reported that one of his client cities, Belvedere in Marin County, has an allocation of 17 units and they have expressed these exact same concerns raised this evening by this Commission over its own allocation. Commissioner Alderete pointed out that Belvedere is one of the cities that appealed. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley agreed and said they went from 25 to 17 units but they are still struggling with exactly where those units would go. He added that he is also working with Santa Clara on their Housing Element. Their allocation is 5,800 units. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for July 14, 2009 Page 5 Commissioner Alderete asked Mr. Geoff I. Bradley if he filed the appeal for Belvedere. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley: • Replied no, they had done that prior to engaging his firm. • Added that Santa Clara was another city that had a successful appeal but they still feel that their 5,873 number is pretty big. • Reiterated that most cities take issue with their numbers. • Said that Campbell has been fairly progressive planning for these increased densities around light rail. Campbell has been interested in cultivating development in certain areas. • Said that the question is what a city itself envisions for its own future. Commissioner Alderete: • Said that the vision issue is confusing. • Questioned at what point ABAG decides that this is impinging on or hindering a city from realizing its goal for itself -its vision. • Pointed out that the State itself is willing to throw out things like building height restrictions and/or parking requirements, which are referred to as government constraints. These used to be zoning code requirements by which land is developed, the rules by which our City is developed. • Expressed his strong concern and said that is why he was so interested in, and studied up on, the appeals that have been made to the ABAG allocations. • Asked why Campbell seems to feel there is no need to appeal. Why accept numbers delivered? Who's looking out for this stuff? What are we giving up? • Reminded that in the preparation of the Inclusionary Housing Element, the Planning Commission was very adamant in its resolve to keep restrictions. • Said that he looked at the new draft Housing Element to see if it is including increased building heights as a concession. Is the issue of building heights one that the City would negotiate with developers about or is it off the table? Mr. Geoff I. Bradley asked Commissioner Alderete if he is asking about concessions for density bonuses. He reported that under State law, a developer can ask for three concessions, be it general restrictions or fees. Contract Planning Manager Ciddy Wordell said that page 44 offers three development incentives that may be requested. She added that it is her understanding that this does not tie Campbell to just those three but rather those are the ones that Campbell would be interested in granting. Commissioner Alderete pointed out that pages Al-31 through Al-39 do not include building heights specifically as a concession and he hopes that has intentionally been left out. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley said that the Housing Element is simply restating what is in the Ordinance and not above and beyond that. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for July 14, 2009 Page 6 Commissioner Alderete asked whether, even if the State and/or ABAG mention heights as a concession issue, would Campbell still be okay. He stressed the need to not sacrifice building height limitations. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley said that Item C could be considered a "catch all." He added that it is possible that this document would not preclude the City from getting that kind of request. Commissioner Alderete asked how that would play out. Would the developer sue the City? City Attorney William Seligmann said that the bottom line is that they would have to demonstrate in some fashion that the concession they seek is necessary to make that project able to proceed. This is done on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley said that one of the benefits of having a certified Housing Element is that it is assumed that all of policies and regulations that flow from that are considered valid on its face. City Attorney William Seligmann added that there is also a specific State statute that if a city does not have a Housing Element that complies with State requirements, that city cannot invoke its General Plan as a basis for denying a housing project. Commissioner Alderete asked about the community outreach done specifically given the potential for the "removal of governmental constraints." Mr. Geoff I. Bradley said that the items listed are goals and equal broad categories. Attendees as the public meetings provided ideas for each category representing public comments. Commissioner Gibbons said that there is no relevance to the ordinance itself but rather represents a record of what was said at the public meeting(s). Mr. Geoff I. Bradley said that is correct. He said that they wanted to get ideas from the public. This was a blank sheet exercise. Commissioner Alderete: • Suggested more public outreach going forward. • Stressed the need for more multi-lingual outreach than has been attempted in the past. • Questioned why the Home Church property is listed as a potential residential development site. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley explained that this goes back to original concepts discussed between the City and Home Church leaders for potential retail with residential development. He added that this is not a mandate but simply recognizes the existing Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for July 14, 2009 Page 7 zoning. The potential for housing is there but no one is pro-actively pursuing implementing housing there. Commissioner Alderete pointed to a typographical error in the findings where the year 2009 reads "2090." Chair Ebner: • Referred to the HCD letter in which the City of Campbell's policy to promote transit- oriented development with higher densities and reduced parking requirements are commended. • Suggested that because Campbell is seeking this more, that is why we're being "rewarded" with excessive housing unit assessments. Commissioner Gibbons said it is a case of "be careful of what you ask for." Chair Ebner agreed. He said that it appears that we're asking for this and that is ~vhy we're being "rewarded" while other sister cities aren't getting as much assigned as we are. Commissioner Roseberry: • Joked that "no good deed goes unpunished." • Asked what percentage in housing stock increase is estimated for each of the 7 years included on the horizon. • Added that by his estimation it appears to be about 20 percent or so. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley said that we have about 1,600 units in the community now. Commissioner Roseberry corrected that as being 1,700 units. Commissioner Gibbons agreed that this new allocation represents about a 20 percent increase. Commissioner Roseberry questioned how this might compare with historic growth rates in Campbell, both in population and housing units, to contextualize this information. Is this a big increase or a steady rate of two to three percent per year compounded? Contract Planning Manager Ciddy Wordell said that housing site numbers are just to provide appropriate sites. The market itself actually dictates how many are actually built. Commissioner Roseberry: • Said that he understands that concept. • Added that he is just wondering if this number sounds like a lot or simply represents the actual normal growth. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for July 14, 2009 Page 8 • Said that everyone is sensitive to the economic conditions that we are all facing today. • Stated that over the next couple of years, he would say that we'd be lucky to get our normal percentage of growth. • Asked how this compares with our General Plan. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley said that five percent (5%) over seven years is less than one percent (1 %) per year. Commissioner Roseberry suggested that it would be good to have that number at the ready for Council. It helps people to understand while the raw number is harder to understand. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley said that Campbell has a history of occasional booms and normal steady growth. Commissioner Roseberry stressed the need for specific numbers and facts. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley reminded that at the time of the 2001 Housing Element update, the City was also updating its entire General Plan. He added that laws were less restrictive at that time. It had been determined that the City could accommodate 1,600 new units and its ABAG allocation was only 777. That was sufficient. Commissioner Roseberry said that the question is whether the current assessment is a big number, a little number or a "just right" number. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley reminded that the General Plan was a 20 year document and we're talking about two five-year plans (Housing Elements). Commissioner Roseberry asked how this Housing Element relates to the General Plan and what teeth (penalties) are in place for not having one. "What's the hand slap," he asked. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley said that the State is using more of a carrot than stick approach. There is an inducement to certify a Housing Element. If one is in place, a city does not have to deal with cumulative RHNA numbers. However, if you do not have a certified Housing Element, then the State can choose to impose a cumulative number if goals are not met. This can also happen in those cases where a stated policy included within a Housing Element is not met. Commissioner Gibbons: • Said that she remembers the 2001 update. • Pointed out that the initial ABAG assessment at that time was much larger at 1,300 units. • Reported that Campbell was successful in appealing that and having it reduced to 777 units although the provisions under the General Plan could accommodate 1,600 units. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for July 14, 2009 Page 9 • Said she recalled that there was the risk of a $1,000 per unit fine if there were no certified Housing Element in place. • Said that she didn't think that the current allocation (892 units) was substantively different than the previous one of 777 units. With 800 units and a 2,000 increase in population, this represents approximately five percent (5%) growth. That's about what they've done here. It fits the pattern and makes sense to her. • Stated that Chair Ebner hit the "nail on the head." We are being "penalized" for our own good behavior. We increased the capacity of density because of transit locations and our economic goals in different areas. We've shown the propensity for more units. We are getting "penalized." • Said that, as mentioned by Commissioner Alderete, the incentives offered need to be identical in both places. • Added that she is confused as to which one governs. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley agreed, saying that the goal is to reiterate the adopted code. Contract Planning Manager Ciddy Wordell said that staff has noted this and will ensure that there is consistency. Commissioner Alster asked if it is reasonable to expect that most cities, because of the current economic conditions, will not be building much housing right now. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley said that his firm is doing work for approximately 15 cities. Usually that involves a lot of housing development but right now there is none. Commissioner Alster pointed out that the State's plan is for growth and using transit- based infill development. However, with less immigration and people leaving California, she asked if it is not possible that the population in the State will actually go down. Commissioner Gibbons said that another thing going against us is the need to reduce traffic and the 50/50 split between jobs and housing. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley agreed that the job/transportation balance is a consideration. Chair Ebner: • Said that growth will happen. • Pointed out that California is a magnet state. • Said that use of transit is a pipe dream in terms of housing. • Added that Campbell staff has aggressively pursued transit-oriented development. • Mentioned that 90 percent of the time Negative Declarations are prepared with no stated impacts. • Suggested that stating there are no impacts is extremely naive. • Stated that the City is already understaffed in terms of Fire and Police. There will be a cost to the City with increased population and housing units. Therefore "no impacts" is not an honest assessment. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for July 14, 2009 Page 10 Contract Planning Manager Ciddy Wordell said that the impacts of the Housing Element itself will not significantly impact the City. It has already been evaluated. However, specific project impacts would be evaluated for specific sites as the time of development. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley: • Said that if this document (Housing Element) proposed to change any Zoning or General Plan designations, it would not be accurate to state no impacts. However, we're simply holding up a mirror to the existing General Plan saying that these are your land uses and these are your densities. • Added that these were covered in the 2001 EIR, which did find impacts, some of which were mitigated, some of which were found to be unmitigatable and the Council made a Statement of Overriding Considerations to allow that document to go forward. • Said that it is important to realize that this is simply a document that reiterates existing City policy in terms of those properties identified. • Stated that he would hate for the Commission to feel like the Negative Declaration was somehow inaccurate or dishonest because within this policy arena that the Commission is in, it's different than looking at a development project. • Reminded that each specific project would have its own environmental review. • Reiterated that for this policy document, a Negative Declaration is appropriate. Chair Ebner pointed out that the City is already understaffed in Police, Fire and City employees. We are feeling the pinch. Police (and staff) are extended. We are already in the negative. Commissioner Roseberry said that all the Negative Declaration is saying is that this Housing Element will not have a substantial effect on what has already been counted as an impact. The Negative Declaration is consistent with impacts counted for with the General Plan. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley agreed. Chair Ebner asked Commissioner Rocha if he has any comments on the Housing Element. Commissioner Rocha said that he is not passionate about the issue of a Housing Element and would confine his comments. Commissioner Alderete: • Suggested people visit the California Cities Finance Website. • Said that he found a document posted there that states that multi-family residential developments are the largest drain on city resources with the smallest return as a source of revenue. • Questioned where we are going with these higher density developments. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for July 14, 2009 Page 11 • Said that it is necessary to resolve a paradox between the provision of affordable housing with the economic slump in which we find ourselves now. • Pointed out that many of this year's SARC meetings have been cancelled and Planning Commission agendas have been light due to lack of development. • Agreed that this slump will turn around but it is important to square the impact that the cost of multi-family housing development brings to the City. • Said he is worried about any further dilution of city services going forward. His fear, which he hopes is unfounded, is that such development would degrade and/or interfere with the quality of life that we're accustomed to. Chair Ebner said that almost half (43%) of Campbell is multi-family development. Commissioner Roseberry asked staff if there is anything on the other side of the balance sheet in the General Plan to cover the cost of service shortfall. He said the issue is not ownership versus renter status but rather what pays the bill for Police and/or Fire services. Commissioner Alderete said he has continued to bring this issue up in any public meeting he attends and thus far no one has answered. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley: • Said that city management articles he has read that mentioned the multi-family housing drag on funds is generally in reference to apartment developments. They generate more calls for Police and Fire services and the property taxes per unit are not as high as that for ownership units. • Reported that in Campbell, multi-family units tend to be townhomes or condominiums. Over the last 10 years or so there have only been a couple of pure apartment projects built in Campbell. • Added that this is not necessarily a good thing from a planning perspective. • Said that Campbell has been aggressive in terms of its recently adopted tax measure and going after new retail development in the City. Commissioner Alderete said that he believes the City gives up too much in its attempt to draw retail development. He added that the '/4 cent sales tax was the right idea but for the wrong amount. He said that he has called it a partial solution and represents another lost opportunity. He said that while Campbell has been aggressive, it is not when compared to other cities especially since it had been a long time since the previous sales tax increase. Chair Ebner asked staff how revenue could be generated to cover increases in Police and Fire services. Mr. Geoff I. Bradley said he has no answer for that. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for July 14, 2009 Page 12 Commissioner Alderete mentioned the incentives offered by the State for compliance. He asked which incentives the City intends to avail itself of. There are a lot of them - between 12 and 15. Housing Coordinator Sharon Teeter agreed and reminded the Commission that the City had previously applied for and was granted Begin Funds for the Charities Housing development and that project was awarded $1.3 million. She said that the City hopes to go back for that as well as Home funds and CDBG funds. Chair Ebner opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Philip Reynolds, Resident on Wren Way: • Thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak this evening. • Said that he heard mention of the quality of life in the City of Campbell. • Said that he is a resident who moved to Campbell for its great quality of life. • Said that there has been lots of discussion about mandates from the top down. • Asked what the community can do. If the community is aware of these mandates and their potential impact, their interest might be raised. • Said that outreach in some avenue that would bring to the attention of the public the negative impacts of density are needed as well as the rewards of bringing transit to our City. • Suggested that there be some sort of "green" credit for higher green numbers in construction that would be a reward to offset these housing numbers. Commissioner Alderete commended Mr. Philip Reynolds on his good points made. Chair Ebner said that he shares some of Mr. Philip Reynold's frustration. He said that he agrees with him that the quality of life issue is important and thanked him for coming to speak. Chair Ebner closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Alderete: • Suggested that the public utilize the City's website and take apro-active approach to staying informed. • Pointed out that public participation at Planning Commission and Council meetings is pitifully low. • Added that the City has RSS feeds available for electronic notifications. • Asked if the August deadline for adoption of this Housing Element is imposed by ABAG or the State. Contract Planning Manager Ciddy Wordell said that the State deadline (June 2009) has passed already. It should be completed as quickly as possible. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for July 14, 2009 Page 13 Commissioner Alderete said that the list of due dates for other communities range between the next two to three months and go as late as September 24t". He said that while it is great to move this along but there may be some leeway. Chair Ebner asked Commissioner Alderete if he is proposing a continuance. Commissioner Alderete replied no. Commissioner Roseberry asked what the next step is. Should he make a motion and include changes? Contract Planning Manager Ciddy Wordell reminded that there was one consistency issue raised that would be corrected. Commissioner Roseberry said that requires consistency between page Al-38 and page H-44. Commissioner Alderete added that the effective dates listed on attachment 1 must be corrected to read 2009-2014. He added the specific reference to multi-lingual promotional materials for public outreach. Commissioner Roseberry suggested that the specific stats discussed earlier in this hearing be available for reference during the Council hearing. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roseberry, seconded by Commissioner Alster, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3952 recommending that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration and the 2009-2014 Housing Element of the City's General Plan, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Alderete, Alster, Ebner, Gibbons, Rocha and Roseberry NOES: None ABSENT: Gairaud ABSTAIN: None Chair Ebner advised that this item would be considered by Council for final action at its meeting of August 4, 2009. *** REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Contract Planning Manager Ciddy Wordell advised that a permanent Planning Manager has been hired - Mr. Paul Kermoyan. Paul will start on July 27t" and is highly qualified and will be a good fit for Campbell. Campbell Planning Commission Minutes for July 14, 2009 Page 14 Commissioner Gibbons asked about the Burger King operational hours. She reported that at a recent visit she was advised by a staff member there that their drive-thru was open until 1:30 a.m. Contract Planning Manager Ciddy Wordell promised to look into this matter. Commissioner Alderete expressed thanks to Mr. Geoff I. Bradley for his work on the Housing Element. He did a really excellent and thorough job and handled questions well. He also thanked Housing Coordinator Sharon Teeter. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:53 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting of July 28, 2009. SUBMITTED BY: orinne A. Shinn, Recording Secretary APPROVED BY: V U . Mark EbnLc. Chai ATTEST: `~ Ciddy Worde ,Acting Secretary