Loading...
PC 04-28-03 Study sessionCITY OF CUPERTiNO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 AMENDED MINUTES OF TIlE PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION APRIL 28, 2003, CONFERENCE ROOM C - 5:30 P.M. ROLL CALL Commissioners present: Corr, Miller, Saadati, Wong, Chairperson Chen Staff present: Steve Piasecki, Director of Community Development; Ciddy Wordell, City Planner; Colin Jung, Senior Planner; Eileen Murray, Assistant City Attorney Chairperson Chen opened the meeting. Mr. Piasecki stated that the purpose of the study session was to discuss the process for dealing with large projects, and understand how to make things work better in terms of development applications. Mr. Piasecki outlined the application process, which begins with someone's idea, they inquire if they can do the project; staff scopes the issue with them considering such things as how intense is it, does it work; and in many cases there is a period of time that is looked upon as a confidentiality period; because the person with the idea may not be the property owner, negotiations may be ongoing to purchase the property. Staff is sensitive to issues relating to tenants or owners who don't want to discuss the proposed project too early in the stage because it would attract attention. Until an application becomes public, it remains confidential. Becoming public means they have initiated some public process, staff asks every applicant to meet with neighbors, they take it upon themselves to get a notice out to the neighbors of the meeting with neighbors to discuss the project. When the application becomes public, it is entered into the development activity report on the city's website, and provides a soume of information and a good place for people to monitor what is going on. Stakeholders include: Neighboring residents and businesses Property owners and developers League of Women Voters Environmental groups Residential/Homeowner groups City Council If any of the above groups want to be notified of any development activity, they will be sent an agenda or notice. Mr. Piasecki explained the process followed with the Verona Apartments, which was under the 300 foot notification prior to the 500 and 1,000 foot notification requirement. He said a number of hearings were held, and at the time there was not a demand for greater notice. He added that although the 500 and 1,000 foot notification now takes place, people still claim they have not been notified about the project. He said that stakeholders could specifically be noticed earlier; but with a caveat that it would have to be after the confidentiality period is over and it has become public. Planning Commission §tudy §esslon M~nutes 2 April 2~, 206~ Mr. Piasecki said the legal notices must be placed in a legal newspaper, either the San Jose Mercury News or the Cupertino Courier. Relative to advertising public notices, he said staff does not. control where the Cupertino Courier places the notice in the newspaper; the newspaper does not put the legal notices on the front page; Ms. Wordell said that occasionally they place display ads which is more costly, but still not on the front page. Mr. Piasecki said that interested stakeholders can ask to be notified when something comes public. Com. Miller suggested contacting the Courier to arrange to put the ads and notices for big projects on the first page or second page since it is newsworthy. It was noted that the requirement for public notices is 10 days prior to the meeting. In response to Com. Wong's request that the Planning Commissioners be put on a list to receive the legal notices, Ms. Wordell said that the media service would be contacted to put the Planning Commissioners on the notification list. Com. Corr said he was concerned that occasionally projects are discussed in public by City Council members before any hearings, which may catch the Planning Commissioners off guard. Ms. Murray said those frequently come out of the City Council study sessions. Mr. Piasecki said that some City Council members like the early input process and staff has no control of how it is relayed to the public. He said caution should be exercised to remain objective so that it does not appear that the project is being promoted when it still has not gone through the process. In resp6nse to Com. Miller's question about how other cities handle the notification process, Mr. Piasecki said since they w~re now doing 500 and I000 foot notifications and have a developer who strongly encourages meeting with the neighbors before the hearing, he felt the city was further ahead than most other cities, who follow the 300 foot notification and 10 days prior to the hearing process. He said that staff requires it as part of the process. Mr. Piasecki said that staff is reluctant to sponsor the interaction with the neighbors, since it may appear that they are sponsoring a project and are in favor of that project. He said they would attend as interested observers, but want there to be an opportunity for the developer and residents to interact on their own. It is more direct and allows the developer to do whatever they want to promote it; it is not a required public hearing. It alerts people to what is happening and it does allow people to express concerns. He cited the instance with Saron Gardens where as a result of early meetings, the applicant lowered the height of the perimeter buildings because they heard concerns from neighbors. They have also become alerted to other issues that neighbors have been concerned about. They have started talking to the Housing Commission about the tenant relocation assistance program early, they have already worked through a number of issues in anticipation because staff has told them that a coudition will be required. He said it helps when they get to the public hearings that those discussions have taken place. Com. Saadati questioned if there had been a study session with City Council on the Extended Stay America project. He said he heard from a council member that they did not know much about the project. Mr. Piasecki said there was not a study session in the case of Extended Stay America for two reasons; the applicant did not ask for it; and Extended Stay America was utilizing units already in the General Plan; they didn't need a General Plan amendment, they were proposing a project which was in all ways consistent with the plan, so it wasn't so radical in anybody's mind; it was merely a four story hotel. Mr. Piasecki said that the threshold for a large project has not been defined. Study sessions have been held for anything that requires General Plan amendment such as major zone changes. Planning Commiggion §tudy §eggion Minuteg 3 April Mr. Piasecki explained that information and reports are not continually sent out on projects as their project can be followed on the development activity report. Two council members sit on the Economic Development Committee and receive previews from the development activity report. No red flags are raised, they are aware of it, and can bring up any issue they wish to. Chair Chen asked to have more information provided in the development activity report relating to the general description of the project, status of the process, and the scheduled meetings, in order to visualize the project and be able to anticipate what kind of public input may be received. Mr. Piasecki explained that the development activity report was divided into pre-apps, applications under construction, and recently completed. He said that "pre-apps" referred to projects prior to filing an application, and said that until it is filed, noticing deadlines or hearing deadlines are not a major part of the process. The notification process was discussed. Mr. Piasecki said he felt the 500 foot notification guideline was working better. The notification is sent to the property owner and could be expanded to tenants, but would be more costly to expand the service. He said there was no legal obligation to notify the tenant; it is the applicant's choice, and he said it would be the courteous thing for them to do. Com. Saadati inquired about notifying the business owner and property owner; and the resident and owner. Mr. Piasecki said that it could be done if the addresses were known. He noted that the service used by the city for notification relied on the assessor's records. Com. Corr questioned what triggers the 500 or 1,000 foot notification. Mr. Piasecki said that 1,000 feet is for projects such as the Town Center, and Villa Serra scale projects; 300 foot notification is done for R1. Com. Corr said that the stakeholders should include the Planning Commissioners for notification purposes. Ms. Wordell reiterated that study sessions are not always held, and there is not always a neighborhood review held. If it was decided to have neighborhood meetings, what would be the sequence of City Council involvement? Com. Miller asked if it would be beneficial to require a neighborhood review before the application is heard. Mr. Piasecki said if it was required, the specific procedures that the applicant would be required to follow in terms of neighborhood review would have to be stipulated. Currently staff does not exercise any review over that, they organize the m.eetings in different quadrants, and staff is not responsible for overseeing it. In response to Com. Miller's suggestion that staff could require that the applicant demonstrate that they made an effort to contact the neighbors, Mr. Piasecki said that the developers are willing to do it since they benefit from hearing the concerns of the neighbors. He said staffcould monitor it. In response to Com. Miller's question about the corporate citizens, Mr. Piasecki said they would receive notice if they are a property owner and would be treated like the other tenants if they were not a property owner. He said it was suggested earlier to look into the possibility of notifying the tenants also. Com. Miller said the mixed use projects encourage more affordable housing, and although the option exists, it is up to the developer to do it or not. He said there have not been discussions with the specific developer about type of housing, price range or if there are other options besides the BMR. He said although the BMR program is a good program, there may be other options more appropriate or better in some instances. Com. Miller said at the recent League of Cities workshop he learned about a number of cities that were involved in partnerships with non-profits or had gotten for-profit and non-profit together to design projects. He asked for input and discussion on ways to elicit other and more creative Planning Commission gtudy gesslon Minutes 4 April 28, :2003 solutions among themselves and the developer community, since affordable housing is such a high priority. Mr. Piasecki cited CCS as an example of a non-profit in the city working together to build 24 affordable units; the affordable project on Stevens Creek Boulevard at Tantau which has both affordable units and commercial; and the handicapped project on Bianchi Way. He said it was possible to negotiate for more, although the city has no policy structure to do that; hence they would be going beyond what the policy structure suggests. A policy structure could be developed that says if you put 25% affordable in, you will get more density or whatever it is. It was suggested in the General Plan update to add some units, which is possible at Vallco and Hewlett Packard, which is an example of where the capacity exists to add more units. If the 15% is applied, (2,000 more units than was previously anticipated), it is 300 affordable units, which is 10 or 12 CCS projects that the private marketplace provides as opposed to $2.7 million of public funds for every 24 units. Mr. Piasecki said that as people go through their life cycle they demand different kinds of housing; at one point a single family home may be the need; then the retirement stage for homes such as townhomes; live work units are also desirable. It can be looked at not merely providing affordable housing, but providing more variety. Chair Chen questioned how to balance between high density and affordable housing since high density was not necessarily supported by the neighborhood. She said in the interest of time, affordable housing deserves its own discussion at another time. In response to when the Planning Commission is included in study sessions, Mr. Piasecki said there was no study session held on Saron Gardens because it conforms to the General Plan as Extended Stay America did. They are keeping the density within the General Plan, and replacing one unit type with another; therefore no study session was necessary. When a study session is held, staff will inquire from the City Council if it should be a joint study session. In the case of Vallco, the City Council did not want a joint study session, because they felt it was their opportunity to communicate their goals and objectives for Vallco and did not involve land use matters as they were communicating early on to prospective buyers. He added that if it was of the Villa Serra or Town Center scale, the Planning Commission would most likely be part of the study session. Com. Wong commented regarding receiving the large agenda packets on Thursday evenings, only 72 hours prior to the meeting, which did not allow a lot of time to digest the information. He asked if they could receive them earlier for study sessions and call the staff prior to the meeting if necessary. The present practice is to go directly from the study session to the regular meeting, take public comment and reach a decision. Mr. Piasecki said that he would look into the suggestion. He pointed out that in many cases staff is working up to the last minute putting together the staff report in order to put out the packets, but would investigate ways to get some of the information to the commissioners earlier for larger projects. Mr. Piasecki explained that if it is a General Plan amendment, or it varies from the General Plan exception, there is almost always a study session; staff would recommend that to the developer if it is a large project. If it is conforming to the General Plan, the presumption is that the use of this intensity is anticipated; in the case of Saron Gardens, the use and intensity while it's a different use, is still anticipated in the General Plan; hence if there was a concern about that, and it should have been brought up in the General Plan process, do you want residential of this density? He said there was a policy in the General Plan which addresses changing out rental for ownership. The policy is structured so that it does not preclude what they are doing, it states that the city Plann;ng Comm{ss;on §tudy §ess~on M{nutes 5 April 28, 2003 should develop a program to deal with this which has never been done. Mr. Piasecki said that sometimes there may be public perception that deal making is going on as there has been no public notice yet; in theory what some commissions have done in the past, they have said they are acting as a quasi-judicial body, and are going to hear the evidence presented in the public hearing; and are not going to talk to any developers or go to the site. They want to retain that appearance of objectivity and anytime there is involvement on the side or talking with somebody or the developer lobbying staff, the perception from the neighbor is that they want to lobby also. It can be a difficult road to go down. He said that Extended Stay America was a good example of a somewhat complex but straight forward project. Mr. Piasecki said study sessions are scheduled for one or two hours; not a 6 hour hearing public testimony about the possible impacts of the project; but are meant to inform the Planning Commission or City Council and not meant to be the full blown public review process. Ms. Wordell said that a possibility would be to not hold the public hearing for large projects unless there is a ten day lead time between the receipt of the agenda packet and the meeting date. Chair Chen questioned recommending to either continue the item or vote on it as a standard practice for large projects, or continuing the item for two or three meetings to allow for more input. Mr. Piasecki said the option was available if the application needed further study. He said it would not normally be done if the commissioners had the full packet with all the information available and heard the public testimony. He said it is important to have as expeditious a process as well, because the public wants that as well as the applicant; and unnecessary delays are not welcome. Mr. Piasecki said that if everybody receives notices, they will expect answers when they come in and if you don't have answers then the application has to be continued. If there is a study session and the answers are not available, two hearings would be required, one for everyone to express concerns and the second hopefully to respond to the concerns. He said perhaps that was the way the process had to work for the large projects. Chair Chen suggested that for major projects a public outreach section be included to detail the public notice. It would cover the public notification that has gone out, the issues already received and the questions asked, as well as hear the concerns and answers. She questioned at what point the project manager was assigned, so that the public would have a point of contact. Ms. Wordell said that Mr. Piasecki would handle the tasks, meeting with developers as they are congealing their plans. He would make the decision at what point another staff member would be assigned to manage the project. Mr. Piasecki said that the project manager's name is usually not included in the pre-app phase as it is felt that not many people will go to that as a resource, and they refer to the development activity report to get updates on what is happening in Cupertino. The contact person is not included in the legal notice. Chair Chen requested that the information be summarized in a process flow chart indicating the process followed and status of the application; including information on how it was presented, at what point is city staff contacted, the start of the application process, and sending out public notices. There was consensus that the Planning Commissioners should receive the 500 and 1,000 foot notifications relative to proposed applications; a flow chart be developed showing status of projects; conduct study sessions for major projects, which would help provide the Planning Commission's perspective to the City Council; clearly define large projects; formalize a memo including the outreach session, even if public outreach is not required; and consider notifying the occupants as well as the owners of a proposed application. Planning Commission §tudy §ession Minutes 6 Apr;1:28, 2003 Ms. Murray suggested that the Planning Commission be included when the City Council decides to have a study session regarding the larger projects. She said the Planning Commission is the threshold body where these things are supposed to reach the public arena, and occasionally the Planning Commission has been excluded from those study sessions and according to the law, they are the threshold group. ADJOURNMENT: The study session recessed at 6:30 p.m. to the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:45 p.m. in the Council chambers. Approved as amended: May 27, 2003 Respectfully Submitted, Recording Secretary