Cupertino Did Not Follow the Proper Process for General Plan

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Liang C
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 2:50 AM
Subject: Cupertino Did Not Follow the Proper Process for General Plan
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>, City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>, Aarti Shrivastava <AartiS@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>

Please look at how other cities are updating their General Plan.

Cupertino did not follow a generally accepted process for a comprehensive update of the general plan.

The General Plan needs to be reviewed carefully since minor change in wording or the removal of one policy might mean millions of dollars lost in revenue or millions of dollars in expense to fix the problems created.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Blogger <no-reply@blogger.com>
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 2:38 AM
Subject: [BetterCupertino (CRSZaction.org)] Cupertino Did Not Follow the Proper Process for General Plan

 

To: lfchao@gmail.com

To the surprise of almost everyone who has been paying close attention to Cupertino Council meetings, the new General Plan "Community Vision 2040" was approved on Dec. 4, 2014 while the meeting notice only specified

"General Plan Amendment to establish citywide development allocation for commercial, office, hotel and residential uses, development parameters for key study areas (including the Vallco Shopping District) and updates to address recent State Law requirements." (Dec. 2 Meeting Notice in Cupertino Courier, published on Nov. 21, 2014)

Everyone was surprised because it was never mentioned in any meeting notice that the GPA process started in 2013 will result in a new General Plan. (More detail in  blog: GPA is Cupertino's New General Plan! Are You Kidding Me?) And every one was surprised because Cupertino's existing "2000-2020 General Plan", a.k.a. 2005 General Plan, would still be in effect until 2020.

Is it a common practice for a city to approve a new General Plan within one Council meeting without reviewing each policy in details?
Is it a common practice to just announce a major revision, in fact, a massive rewrite of the general plan, simply as a General Plan Amendment, a term also used for minor revision?
We looked around and here is what we found.

Every city we've looked, including Palo Alto, San Jose, Sunnyvale, and Campbell, has appointed an advisory committee with representatives from the residents and business owners. And the public outreach spells it out clearly that the process is for a General Plan for the next 20 years (or other specific number of years).

Palo Alto's current general plan goes until the year 2020. It has just started the process to update its general plan to the year 2030. They are setting up a 20-member Citizens' Advisory Committee. (Source: http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/get-involved/citizens-advisory-committee/)

San Jose had a 37-member Task Force for their "Envision San Jose 2040" General Plan with representatives from each council district, various interest and background. (Source: https://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?NID=359)
Campbell is also in the process of appointing an advisory committee for its General Plan update. The committee will be free of city officials, but homeowners, renters, neighborhood associations and business owners. The Council should be at a listening role, according to Campbell's Vice Mayor Jason Baker. (Source: http://www.mercurynews.com/campbell/ci_28247319/campbel)
Sunnyvale also has Horizon 2035, a 15-member Advisory Committee for general plan updates on Land Use and Transportation Element and Climate Action Plan. (Source: http://sunnyvale.ca.gov/Departments/CommunityDevelopment/CurrentProjectsandHearings/LandUseandTransportationElementUpdate.aspx)
The General Plan is a constitution that governs the development of a city and impact the quality of life of all who live and work in the city. It is a complex document and should be drafted and reviewed carefully. Therefore, it often takes 2 to 4 years to finalize the plan. The General Plan needs to be reviewed carefully since minor change in wording or the removal of one policy might mean millions of dollars lost in revenue or millions of dollars in expense to fix the problems created.

Yet, in Cupertino, the proper process for a comprehensive update for a 20-year General Plan was NOT followed for "Community Vision 2040." 

• None of the meeting notices mentioned that the GPA process will result in a new General Plan for the year 2040.
• Not sufficient outreach effort was done since most residents did not even know the GPA process or its scope.
• Not sufficient involvement from residents since no advisory committee was appointed.
• Not sufficient deliberation in Council meetings to review the General Plan, since it was approved in just one meeting, which mainly focused on the Housing Element.
• Not sufficient information provided to list the modifications made and justification or authorization for making the changes.

Such an advisory committee or a task force for a general plan is not required per State Law. However, it is necessary for a comprehensive update since the issues of a General Plan are complex. Community inputs collected through Open Houses or Study Sessions are only one-sided and not a true form of communication. Therefore, almost every city sets up an Advisory Committee with citizens to meet frequently to discuss general plan issues.

Resolution 14-211 "Community Vision 2040" was approved by mistake in the confusion during wee hours on Dec. 4, 2014, when everyone thought it contained only necessary edits for the Housing Element. We urge the Council to rescind Resolution 14-211 and follow the proper process for a comprehensive update to give us a true "Community Vision 2040," which truly gets the community involved through an advisory committee or a task force.

 

 

CRSZaction.org and BetterCupertino.org
Paid for by Cupertino Residents for Sensible Zoning Action Committee, PO Box 1132, Cupertino, CA 95015, FPPC #1376003