Significant Differences Were Mismissed as "edits", by Eric

From: eschaefe
Date: Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:48 AM
Subject: Rescind "Community Vision 2040" or Suffer the Consequences

Liang,
Thank you for publishing the information on the BC blog.  Writing to the city is so much easier when I can point to the data.
I responded at cupertinogpa.org:

======================================================================
On July 29 and July 30, the Better Cupertino blog (http://bettercupertino.blogspot.com/) published some explicit examples of significant differences between the new general plan ("Community Vision 2040") and the previous general plan.  If these differences were even noted in the comparison tables at cupertinogpa.org, they were dismissed as "edits".  In fact, the comparison tables at cupertinogpa.org indicate that there were no significant changes between the new general plan and the old, only splits, joins, and edits.

Thank goodness that some residents have the time and inclination to watch what the city is doing; and what a pity that the city is muddling the process.

I understand that recently some city staff met with some residents to analyze the differences between the old plan and the new ... and I wonder why that hasn't been published on cupertinogpa.org

The city does not appear forthcoming about publishing the changes to such an important document as the general plan.  The process suggests an incompetence or a lack of transparency in our municipal government.

The CV2040 was approved by the city council at a meeting that had a full agenda, by a council with two new members.  There was significant public participation at the meeting.  The changes between the old plan and the new were not published before the meeting, and there was very little deliberation among council members.  I am not confident that the full extent of the changes are known even now.  I wonder that the council members (and residents) were aware of the full implications of resolution 14-211.

I urge the city council to take the following actions:
1. Rescind resolution 14-211 (general plan "Community Vision 2040", and general plan map amendments).
2. Postpone any action that is predicated on 14-211.
3. Request the city staff to publish an accurate analysis of the differences between the old plan and the new plan.
4. After the differences are published, let the residents provide feedback, and let the council members consider the changes and diligently deliberate in a transparent council action.

Thank you for your consideration.
===========================================================

Cupertino's New General Plan is Questionable by Liang

From: Liang C
Date: Thu, Jul 23, 2015
Subject: Cupertino's New General Plan is Questionable
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>

Cupertino’s new general plan “Community Vision 2040” (CV2040) did not follow the generally accepted review and approval procedure used by other cities and Cupertino in the past. Resolution 14-211, which approves CV2040, should be rescinded.

The Housing Element was well publicized, and sparked animated discussion by several hundred residents at the December 2014 council meeting. The rest of the general plan was reviewed only briefly. CV2040 was never put on the agenda as the new general plan, since the City has insisted “the majority of the General Plan’s content will remain the same.” City staff indicated that besides the Housing Element changes, CV2040 contained only minor “clean-up” changes, mostly for compliance with state laws. In the course of a single meeting, the Council approved CV2040, a 360-page document.

Unknown to most, CV2040 contains massive changes. In June 2015, at the request of residents and the Council to clearly identify the changes, the city staff published comparison tables at CupertinoGPA.org. The tables indicate that policies were added, removed, and edited. Many policy changes were not required by state laws. And the Council never voted separately to include these individual changes.
Some important policies were removed, including the policy on job-housing balance, the policies to maintain a tolerable traffic condition, policies to protect neighborhood from pollution, policy to encourage headquarters in Cupertino.
The General Plan is a constitution for the development and growth of Cupertino. Like any legal document, it should be examined and reviewed in detail since minor details might influence millions of dollars in revenue or expenses, the quality of schools and the character of life in Cupertino. Any unintended damage done as a result of a well-intentioned, yet badly-worded policy, would be very hard to undo and could haunt the city for decades.

The fact is that the 360-page document was first available in any Council meeting on Oct. 14 for the Planning Commission and it was first on the Council agenda on Dec. 16, 2014 (not counting Nov. 10 meeting). Without a comparison table or red-lined copy, do you feel in good conscience that you could approve the new general plan in one meeting without much deliberation?

We spent more time editing and rephrasing a simple 300-word reader's letter to Cupertino Courier.

Please do the right thing and rescind Resolution 14-211. Then, put the draft general plan "Community Vision 2040" on the agenda for multiple meetings to be reviewed in detail.
Liang-Fang Chao
Cupertino Resident

Rescind "Community Vision 2040" Immediately Before Any More Development Project, by Liang

From: Liang C
Date: Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:55 PM
Subject: Rescind "Community Vision 2040" Immediately Before Any More Development Project
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>, City Clerk CityClerk@cupertino.org

Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang, and Council members,

The new General Plan "Community Vision 2040" did not follow the generally accepted review and approval procedure used by other cities and Cupertino in the past. The Council did not go over the policies one-by-one or the chapters one-by-one. The Council certainly did not go over the wordings of each policy one by one. The Council approved "Community Vision 2040" in one meeting when little time was even spent on deliberating the content of the General Plan.

The Comparison Tables in CupertinoGPA.org revealed that the new General Plan is a massive rewrite of the 2000-2020 General Plan (a.k.a. 2005 General Plan), even though the city kept insisting that "the majority of the General Plan’s content will remain the same" (April 1, 2014 Council Meeting). The Comparison Tables also revealed that many policy changes are NOT REQUIRED by the State Laws, but are optional or simply best practices, which a city could choose not to adopt. Policies were added, removed or edited without deliberation by the Council or review by the public.

The General Plan is a constitution for the development and growth of Cupertino. Like any legal document, it should be examined and reviewed in detail since the removal or inclusion of one policy or a slight change in wording might mean tens of millions of dollars in revenue or expenses. And the impact of these policies would stay for decades. Any unintended damages done as a result of a well-intentioned, yet badly-worded policy would be very hard to undo. The General Plan deserves to be reviewed and deliberated in detail.

Since the Comparison Tables between 2005 General Plan and the new General Plan were not available on Dec. 2, 2014 and the city consistently stated that "the majority of the General Plan’s content will remain the same." The Council members and the residents all thought that Resolution 14-211 only contained necessary changes for the Housing Element and some "cleanup items," as the staff described.

The new General Plan, "Community Vision 2040", should not be approved in one meeting without much deliberation. Resolution 14-211 should be rescinded. Let us start over and follow the proper procedure to approve the 2040 General Plan. Cupertino deserves a General Plan that's carefully-reviewed and well-accepted by the residents.
Tens of millions of dollars, if not billions, and the future of Cupertino and Cupertino schools are at stake. Be responsible. Be accountable. Correct the unintended mistake. Please Rescind Resolution 14-211. Please immediately correct the mistake before approving anymore development projects.

Liang-Fang Chao

Cupertino Resident

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

Retail Component in Exchange for Height - Please Remove the Policy! by Liang

From: Liang C
Date: Thu, Jul 16, 2015
Subject: Ground-floor Retail component in exchange for extra height - Please remove the policy!
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, "City of Cupertino Planning Dept." <planning@cupertino.org>

Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang and Council members,

As some Council members have recognized during Council meetings and even joked about it, allowing ground-floor retail components in exchange for extra building height hasn't produced any community benefit at all. It has been abused to grant huge benefits for the developers while the retail component is either not accessible to the public easily or the retail component is in fact an integral part of the developer's project and benefit the developer more than the community.

Please fix the problem in the General Plan that has been ongoing for 10 years or more.

A restaurant in a hotel should not be claimed as a retail component, since it's an integral part of the hotel and mainly benefit hotel residents. A retail space not accessible by the community should not be considered a "retail component". For the example of Main Street, the extra office space gained by the developer is 19 times more than the retail space in the ground floor. And that tiny retail space is not even accessible from outside of the building. The Council should put more stringent requirements on the ground-floor retail component and make sure that its design (from the size of each store, to accessibility, to access to parking) is viable as a retail component that serves the entire community of Cupertino.

Such bad policy in the General Plan should be fixed as soon as possible. Please do not approve any more development project using such terrible policy until the General Plan is fixed. It is a well-known problem. Why not fix it? Why allow it to continue to exist in the new General Plan?

I would like to urge the Council to put this on the agenda of the next Council meeting for consideration.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Liang-Fang Chao

Cupertino Resident

Budget Before Spending - Civic Center Master Plan by Liang

From: Liang C
Date: Tue, Jul 7, 2015
Subject: Budget Before Spending
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>

Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang and Council Members,   With an annual budget of $89 million, spending $53 million to rebuild the Civic Center without a financial plan is irresponsible. If you are expecting to pay for these with millions donated by developers to get their projects approved or exceptions on the General Plan granted, that's even more irresponsible.   Hamptons already expressed that they will donate $7 million to the Civic Center. I figured that you are expecting Marina and Oaks and other developers to pick up a few millions here and there. However, every million dollar spent on the Civic Center is one million that could have been spend elsewhere to fix the public safety problems, like more police and more crossing guards, to provide much needed city services or even to fund school facilities and fix traffic problems that our residents are experiencing every day.    Since the new General Plan puts Cupertino on a path of urbanization, the City should be a model to pioneer efforts to transform us to an urban city. This whole project started because 40 more parking spaces is needed. Just release 40 of the about 150 the reserved permit parking spaces around the library. The city staff should be encouraged to take the alternative mode of transportation, as promoted by the new General Plan. And the city can encourage the staff to park in other parking lots and provide shuttle buses or encourage biking.

  The new Civic Center goes against the very principal of modern Cupertino, where you are promoting less vehicle traffic and encouraging biking, walking and taking public transportation. Please set a goal to encourage 50% of the staff to take alternative modes of transportation. Then, we don't need a new Civic Center at all.   If your kid wants to buy a new bike which is worth $500 when your kid only has $300 allowance a year, what would you tell your kid? If your kid expects to pay for the new bike by sweet talking his uncles and aunts for donation to pay for the new bike, what would you tell your kid? Please do not set a wrong example for our kids. Please budget before spending. And please pick a more affordable bike within our annual budget and do not expect to pay for an expensive bike using gift money, which does not exist yet.

Sincerely,Liang-Fang ChaoCupertino Resident

Civic Center Master Plan - Driven by Everything Other Than What Residents Want by Brooke

From: Brooke
To: citycouncil@cupertino.org
CC: cityclerk@cupertino.org
Sent: 7/6/2015 8:31:21 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time
Subj: Civic Center Master Plan

  

Dear Mayor Sinks and Council Members,

I am writing to address the new Civic Center Master Plan.  This plan seems to be driven by everything other than what residents want.  There is seemingly little desire by the city to build a city hall complex that is attractive or within the city’s budget or does not eliminate green space and trees.  In addition, the city seems to have become stridently authoritarian when dealing with residents.

The buildings in the current city/library complex area are traditional in nature.  They seem to be either Mediterranean or Eichleresque; based on the renderings there appears to be no attempt to have the proposed civic center fit into the surrounding area.  The proposed city hall is ghastly; residents in the neighborhood need appeal to the tax assessor for lower rates to compensate for looking at the monstrosity across the street.  Did the city have an architectural ugly dog contest and this was the winner?

  Secondly, how can the city afford this $54 million dollar folly? The city moved $30 million from one fund to another fund giving the illusion the city budget is $119 million, when in fact it has an annual budget of $89 million—less than half the cost of proposed city hall. How will this be financed? How many 40 year bonds will be floated for this? The City does not have enough money to address traffic issues or the increase of crime, but there is enough for a new city hall? My street lacks a speed limit sign because of budget limitations, there has been an increase in residential burglaries of 22% in the last six months if I understood Captain Sung’s presentation correctly, and there has been an armed robbery in Cupertino, but the city has the money for this monument to hubris?

Why is there a drive in Cupertino to obliterate every tree, every blade of grass, any green space at all?  We are consistently told that Cupertino is built out, but more building is always on the agenda. We are told trees the marked for death will be replaced with new trees; since it takes roughly ten years minimum for trees to grow significantly, this seems to be a poor second.  68 more parking spaces and less land for the playing field at the library—does anyone notice the soccer and cricket games there? More parking spaces do not build a community.

  Finally, like many citizens I am offended by the tone the city is taking with its residents.  My last issue with the Civic Center Master Plan is the City’s disclaimer “If you challenge the action of the City Council in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else has raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Cupertino at, or prior to, the public hearing.” What exactly does this mean? Is this attempt to limit the amount of dissent because the City does not want to hear our objections? Is it a coercive and preemptive attempt to discourage people from seeking legal redress? Or does it mean the City suspects there may serious issues with the plans that the City may or may not be aware of, and wants to be given a pass before they materialize or are discovered?

 

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

Brooke Ezzat

Take a Moment and Ask Yourself. Would Your Vote Be the Same?

On June 30, Mayor Sinks admitted that "Community Vision 2040" is a rewrite of the General Plan.

But NONE of the Meeting Notifications Mentioned the GPA is a Rewrite of the General Plan.

-------------------------------------

From: Liang C

Date: Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 7:27 AM
Subject: NONE of the Meeting Notifications Mentioned the GPA is a Rewrite of the General Plan.
To: rsinks@cupertino.org, City Council citycouncil@cupertino.org

Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang and Council members,

   Mayor Sinks tried to clarify on June 30 that General Plan Amendment can be a rewrite of the General Plan (at time 03:15 of the video). So, the Council now admits that "Community Vision 2040" is a rewrite of the General Plan. I have to ask whether it is responsible to approve a rewrite of the General Plan within one meeting when the focus on the meeting is only on Housing Element?

Please. Take a moment and ask yourself. Is it a responsible thing for you as a Council member to approve something you didn't totally understand within one meeting?
It is correct that GPA can be a total rewrite of the General Plan. However, I'd like to point out again that in NONE of the meeting notifications the city informed the residents that the GPA is going to be a massive rewrite of the General Plan. Even in Oct. 7 Staff Report, it states "The proposed Project considers citywide land use, urban design, mobility, and economic development choices but is not a complete revision of the City’s 2000-2020 General Plan."

The term "Community Vision 2040" or even the hint of a new General Plan did not appear until Oct. 14 Staff Report. So, as a result, even the Council members, new or incumbent, did not know the extend of the change in Resolution 14-211 ("Community Vision 2040). Since there is no red-lined version or even comparison table available, there is no way for any one, either a Council member or a resident, to even comprehend the extent of the modification.

I respect that you each have integrity and would try to be the best Council member you can be. I trust that you will put the best interest of Cupertino in mind. Please. Take a moment and ask yourself.

• Did you fully understand that Resolution 14-211 is a massive rewrite of the General Plan?

• Now that you have seen the comparison table. Do you think in good conscience, you would vote to approve Resolution 14-211 in its entirety after just one meeting, which focuses on Housing Element only?

• Do you think that Community Vision 2040 could be approved within one meeting without going through each chapter one by one?
• Shouldn't the Council spend more time reviewing and revising all modifications in Community Vision 2040?

------------------------------------------------------

This blog article points out a few places in meeting notification and staff reports where the residents were told that GPA is NOT a rewrite of the General Plan.

 

GPA is Cupertino's New General Plan! Are You Kidding Me?

Many residents are very surprised to learn that the GPA approved on Dec. 4, 2014 is a new General Plan of Cupertino, which replaces the existing 2000-2020 General Plan. These residents attended Community Workshops for General Plan Amendment (GPA) and have attended numerous city meetings on GPA since June 2013. Many of them wrote to the Council and spoke at meetings. Many of them are appalled, "The GPA is Cupertino's New General Plan! Are You Kidding Me?"

In fact, in so many GPA postcards, newsletters, meeting notices, the city never informed the residents that the GPA is a new General Plan for the year 2040. The public were misinformed and misled! And then, in one meeting which only discussed the Housing Element, the entire new General Plan "Community Vision 2040" was adopted.

Around 11pm on Dec. 3, 2014, the City Council reached a consensus to discuss only Housing Element and postpone GPA items to allow the two new Council members and the public time to study it. Yet, around 2pm on Dec. 4, the Council voted to adopt Resolution 14-211. The public who were still in the meeting and those who were watching at home, the Cupertino Courier reporter, Matt Wilson, and even Vice Mayor Barry Chang who seconded the motion to adopt Resolution 14-211 all thought it contains necessary edits only for Housing Element. Unfortunately, this is far from the truth.

Not only Resolution 14-211 contains the GPA that the Council promised to postpone, Resolution 14-211, the 349-page document titled "Community Vision 2040," is in fact almost a total rewrite of the 2000-2020 General Plan, also known as the 2005 General Plan.

However, for over 5 months, no one thought to even compare the adopted Resolution 14-211 with the existing 2000-2020 General Plan. After Dec. 4, some GPA items were postponed and eventually discussed on May 19th, such as development allocation, building heights/planes and Community Benefits program. People were led to believe that the GPA includes Housing Element and these postponed items only. But as it turns out, the the scope of the GPA approved goes way beyond what's described in the meeting notice.

In fact, ever since the GPA process started in June 2013, the city has never conveyed in any communication that this process is a new General Plan for the year 2040 in any workshop or any meeting. In each postcard and each newsletter for GPA and in each staff report, the public were told repeatedly:

"the City Council initiated a process to review several properties in the commercial districts in Cupertino, including the Vallco shopping district, as part of a focused General Plan Amendment." (GPA Newsletter #1, June 2013. GPA Postcard #1)

"While the project will consider citywide land use, urban design, mobility and economic topics, it is not a rewrite of the City’s 2005 General Plan." (Settings and Opportunities Report, Sep. 2013)

"Goal 6: Revise existing General Plan policies and diagrams as they relate to the goals listed above, and make some additional minor changes to address recent State and regional requirements." (Settings and Opportunities Report, Sep. 2013)

"the majority of the General Plan’s content will remain the same" (Staff Repot of April 1 City Council Meeting)

"While the proposed Project considers citywide land use, urban design, mobility, and economic development choices, it is not a complete revision of the City’s 2000-2020 General Plan." (EIR, June 2014) 

"The proposed Project considers citywide land use, urban design, mobility, and economic development choices but is not a complete revision of the City’s 2000-2020 General Plan.” (Staff Report of Oct. 7, 2014 City Council meeting)

"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)

All of a sudden, the new General Plan "Community Vision 2040" is approved on Dec. 4, 2014, buried inside a resolution. Yet, there is no redlined comparison of the new General Plan with the existing one. It is not easy at all for any one to tell exactly what's changed. However, almost everyone who've compared any one chapter of 2000-2020 General Plan with that in the new General Plan think it's almost a total rewrite. Many important policies in the 2000-2020 General Plan are removed. These policy changes were not discussed in any community meeting or council meeting.

Many residents participated in meetings from 2003 to 2005, contributed to the 2000-2020 General Plan, and attended Council meetings over 6 months period when the Council went over the General Plan item by item, motion by motion. These residents were especially upset since their effort to provide a vision for Cupertino were voided in one single meeting and one single vote. Cupertino residents are appalled, "The GPA is Cupertino's New General Plan for 2040! Are You Kidding Me? We were misinformed and misled."

REFERENCE:
Dec. 2 Meeting Notice published in Cupertino Courier (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7RMc9DXGhUAMVE4UGpmWDJrLUc2UlVaMktKQ2MtZUttVEJN/view?usp=sharing)
Links to the old and new General Plans: http://bettercupertino.blogspot.com/2015/05/please-rescind-resolution-14-211-total.html

--------------------------------------

Liang-Fang ChaoCupertino Resident

No Meeting Notifice Mentioned the GPA is a Rewrite of the General Plan, by Liang

From: Liang C
Date: Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 7:27 AM
Subject: NONE of the Meeting Notifications Mentioned the GPA is a Rewrite of the General Plan.
To: rsinks@cupertino.org, City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>

Dear Mayor Sinks, Vice Mayor Chang and Council members,

   Mayor Sinks tried to clarify on June 30 that General Plan Amendment can be a rewrite of the General Plan (at time 03:15 of the video). So, the Council now admits that "Community Vision 2040" is a rewrite of the General Plan. I have to ask whether it is responsible to approve a rewrite of the General Plan within one meeting when the focus on the meeting is only on Housing Element?

Please. Take a moment and ask yourself. Is it a responsible thing for you as a Council member to approve something you didn't totally understand within one meeting?
It is correct that GPA can be a total rewrite of the General Plan. However, I'd like to point out again that in NONE of the meeting notifications the city informed the residents that the GPA is going to be a massive rewrite of the General Plan. Even in Oct. 7 Staff Report, it states "The proposed Project considers citywide land use, urban design, mobility, and economic development choices but is not a complete revision of the City’s 2000-2020 General Plan."

The term "Community Vision 2040" or even the hint of a new General Plan did not appear until Oct. 14 Staff Report. So, as a result, even the Council members, new or incumbent, did not know the extend of the change in Resolution 14-211 ("Community Vision 2040). Since there is no red-lined version or even comparison table available, there is no way for any one, either a Council member or a resident, to even comprehend the extent of the modification.

I respect that you each have integrity and would try to be the best Council member you can be. I trust that you will put the best interest of Cupertino in mind. Please. Take a moment and ask yourself.

• Did you fully understand that Resolution 14-211 is a massive rewrite of the General Plan?

• Now that you have seen the comparison table. Do you think in good conscience, you would vote to approve Resolution 14-211 in its entirety after just one meeting, which focuses on Housing Element only?

• Do you think that Community Vision 2040 could be approved within one meeting without going through each chapter one by one?
• Shouldn't the Council spend more time reviewing and revising all modifications in Community Vision 2040?

------------------------------------------------------This blog article points out a few places in meeting notification and staff reports where the residents were told that GPA is NOT a rewrite of the General Plan.

 

GPA is Cupertino's New General Plan! Are You Kidding Me?

Many residents are very surprised to learn that the GPA approved on Dec. 4, 2014 is a new General Plan of Cupertino, which replaces the existing 2000-2020 General Plan. These residents attended Community Workshops for General Plan Amendment (GPA) and have attended numerous city meetings on GPA since June 2013. Many of them wrote to the Council and spoke at meetings. Many of them are appalled, "The GPA is Cupertino's New General Plan! Are You Kidding Me?"

In fact, in so many GPA postcards, newsletters, meeting notices, the city never informed the residents that the GPA is a new General Plan for the year 2040. The public were misinformed and misled! And then, in one meeting which only discussed the Housing Element, the entire new General Plan "Community Vision 2040" was adopted.

Around 11pm on Dec. 3, 2014, the City Council reached a consensus to discuss only Housing Element and postpone GPA items to allow the two new Council members and the public time to study it. Yet, around 2pm on Dec. 4, the Council voted to adopt Resolution 14-211. The public who were still in the meeting and those who were watching at home, the Cupertino Courier reporter, Matt Wilson, and even Vice Mayor Barry Chang who seconded the motion to adopt Resolution 14-211 all thought it contains necessary edits only for Housing Element. Unfortunately, this is far from the truth.

Not only Resolution 14-211 contains the GPA that the Council promised to postpone, Resolution 14-211, the 349-page document titled "Community Vision 2040," is in fact almost a total rewrite of the 2000-2020 General Plan, also known as the 2005 General Plan.

However, for over 5 months, no one thought to even compare the adopted Resolution 14-211 with the existing 2000-2020 General Plan. After Dec. 4, some GPA items were postponed and eventually discussed on May 19th, such as development allocation, building heights/planes and Community Benefits program. People were led to believe that the GPA includes Housing Element and these postponed items only. But as it turns out, the the scope of the GPA approved goes way beyond what's described in the meeting notice.

In fact, ever since the GPA process started in June 2013, the city has never conveyed in any communication that this process is a new General Plan for the year 2040 in any workshop or any meeting. In each postcard and each newsletter for GPA and in each staff report, the public were told repeatedly:

"the City Council initiated a process to review several properties in the commercial districts in Cupertino, including the Vallco shopping district, as part of a focused General Plan Amendment." (GPA Newsletter #1, June 2013. GPA Postcard #1)

"While the project will consider citywide land use, urban design, mobility and economic topics, it is not a rewrite of the City’s 2005 General Plan." (Settings and Opportunities Report, Sep. 2013)

"Goal 6: Revise existing General Plan policies and diagrams as they relate to the goals listed above, and make some additional minor changes to address recent State and regional requirements." (Settings and Opportunities Report, Sep. 2013)

"the majority of the General Plan’s content will remain the same" (Staff Repot of April 1 City Council Meeting)

"While the proposed Project considers citywide land use, urban design, mobility, and economic development choices, it is not a complete revision of the City’s 2000-2020 General Plan." (EIR, June 2014) 

"The proposed Project considers citywide land use, urban design, mobility, and economic development choices but is not a complete revision of the City’s 2000-2020 General Plan.” (Staff Report of Oct. 7, 2014 City Council meeting)

"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)

All of a sudden, the new General Plan "Community Vision 2040" is approved on Dec. 4, 2014, buried inside a resolution. Yet, there is no redlined comparison of the new General Plan with the existing one. It is not easy at all for any one to tell exactly what's changed. However, almost everyone who've compared any one chapter of 2000-2020 General Plan with that in the new General Plan think it's almost a total rewrite. Many important policies in the 2000-2020 General Plan are removed. These policy changes were not discussed in any community meeting or council meeting.

Many residents participated in meetings from 2003 to 2005, contributed to the 2000-2020 General Plan, and attended Council meetings over 6 months period when the Council went over the General Plan item by item, motion by motion. These residents were especially upset since their effort to provide a vision for Cupertino were voided in one single meeting and one single vote. Cupertino residents are appalled, "The GPA is Cupertino's New General Plan for 2040! Are You Kidding Me? We were misinformed and misled."

REFERENCE:
Dec. 2 Meeting Notice published in Cupertino Courier (https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7RMc9DXGhUAMVE4UGpmWDJrLUc2UlVaMktKQ2MtZUttVEJN/view?usp=sharing)
Links to the old and new General Plans: http://bettercupertino.blogspot.com/2015/05/please-rescind-resolution-14-211-total.html

--------------------------------------

Liang-Fang Chao

Cupertino Resident