Reso 2552 OF - HP PLANNING CONM I Ss I ON OF THE CITY OF CUPER T I NO
RECOMMENDTNf:1 THE ADOPTION OF A EENERAL Pt AN REVIEW
4111 PROCEDURE AS DESCRIBED B'Y EXHIBIT A ATTACHED HERETO.
•
•
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of August, 1984, at a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Cupertino,
State of California, by the following roll call vote:
110
AYES: Commissioners Adams, Clardy, Koenitzer, Szabo,
Chairperson Blaine
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST: APPROVED:
-1aL,James JL Sisk _4ys4.-S.harouL_B.1a i n a
James H. Sisk Sharon Blaine, Chairperson
F'l ann.i no Director Planning Commission
August 240 1984
G i -t y t3-1P Glut r -t i Irk •
t3 ce ri t 1 1 r-r v i t a-- t3 c t-a. L I-
The Review procedure for General Plan Amendments has two stages.
Stage 1 . A determination whether the request warrants a public
hearing for further consideration.
Stage 2. A determination whether the request is a minor or •
major amendment. A minor amendment will be considered
in June and December. A major amendment will only be
• considered in December.
STAGE 1 : CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING IF A HEARING SHALL BE
SCHEDULED.
The decision to consider a General Plan Amendment should be
primarily based upon the degree to which the amendment will
benefit the community and is compatible with the existing General
Plan policies and Goals. In addition, the amendment should meet
at least one of the following tests:
® 1 . The amendment appears to support the existing General Plan
goals and objectives. (The degree of benefit could not be
fully ascertained until the project is assessed
environmentally, economically, and socially in the context
of a public hearing for the amendment) .
2. The proposed amendment represents an unforeseen land use
trend that had not been considered. •
3. The existing General Plan policy which precluded the
proposed land Use activity is based on outdated or
inaccurate information: •
STAGE 2: CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHEN A HEARING SHALL BE
SCHEDULED •
•
General Plan Amendments will be scheduled twice a year. Minor
amendments will be heard in June and December while hearings for
major amendments are limited to December.
a
An amendment which meets the following tests is defined as major •
and Wi11 be scheduled for the annual review.
ANL
1 . The amendment would result in physical , economic, or social
impacts which extend well beyond the project site.
2. The amendment results in direct impact which are local in
nature but has the potential to be precedent setting and
thusi results in widespread change.
City of Cupertino Review Procedure August 24, 1984
A,kThe deadline date for the December review of major amendments is
the second Monday in September. The deadline date for minor
amendments for June and December hearings is the second Monday in'
April and second Monday in October.
The . Planning Commission/City Council may schedule additional
General Plan Amendment hearings when said bodies determine that a
long delay would result in extraordinary hardships for an
applicant and/or that an expeditious General Plan review would
benefit the community.
APPLICATION MATERIALS
A General Plan applicant shall submit a ,written request outlining
how the proposal complies with the "Stage 1 " criteria outlined
above.
If the City Council authorizes a public hearing, the applicant
will prepare and submit an environmental worksheet for review by
the Environmental Review Committee. The Environmental . Worksheet
shall be accompanied with detailed documentation describing the
project and its probable environmental , economic and social
impacts. The " Initial Study" shall be based upon a scope of work
prepared by City staff and shall be funded entirely by the
applicant.