Cupertino Planning Commission forms ad hoc subcommittee to study community-noticing practices

The Cupertino Planning Commission on Oct. 14 appointed an ad hoc subcommittee to study best practices for community noticing on projects that come before the Planning Commission.

The subcommittee’s scope is limited to community-noticing practices as they apply to planning commission matters in the City Work Plan (CWP), including notice for SB 330 (referred to in the meeting as SB 3 30) preliminary applications, notification radii and community meeting practices. Vice Chair Kasal Schurant and Commissioner Scharf volunteered to serve on the group; Chair Rao made the motion to form the subcommittee and Commissioner Scharf seconded it. The commission voted to approve the appointment and the volunteer assignments; the clerk recorded the motion as carrying unanimously.

The subcommittee is intended to meet on a limited, ad hoc basis and return to the full Planning Commission with recommendations. Anthony Wu, representing city staff and legal counsel during the discussion, said the subcommittee “will meet for a limited purpose on this subject matter as described. And then whatever recommendations you have, you'll bring this back to the [planning] commission to relay the findings you have.” Wu clarified the subcommittee is not formed to direct staff to take action.

Staff told the commission it has not yet spent time on the CWP item. Staff said the municipal code requires a 300-foot notification radius as a minimum and that staff sometimes notices up to 1,000 feet for development projects to reach entire neighborhoods, but that preliminary SB 330 filings often receive no notice because they arrive as very minimal submittals. A staff member stated: “Right now, the city does not do any noticing on SB 330 prelims because they generally come in as very bare bones.”

Commissioners debated the scope and the legal limits of the commission’s authority to influence staff procedures. Commissioner Lindskog raised concerns that the Planning Commission should not direct staff on administrative tasks and asked what would happen to the subcommittee’s findings. Chair Rao and staff said the subcommittee’s report would be an input to the full commission and, if forwarded, could go to the City Council for consideration; the council — not the commission — would direct staff if it chose to do so.

A member of the public, Jennifer Griffin, spoke in support of the subcommittee and urged the commission and council to study how other cities handle community-noticing to better inform local residents. Griffin told the commission, “I, as a resident, demand it. I want my city council, my planning commission, I want the other commissions to be aware, educated of everything that is around us and how it affects us.”

Commissioners discussed timing and requested the subcommittee propose a timeline; the volunteers indicated a three-month readout could be reasonable, with a potential report-back in January. Staff said there is no dedicated staff time currently allocated to implement any recommendations that fall outside the approved work plan.

The motion to appoint the ad hoc subcommittee specified the study be limited to “best practices of other cities on community noticing as applicable to projects heard at the Planning Commission.” The subcommittee will be dissolved once it completes its narrowly defined task and reports back to the full commission.