Dear Council
Members,
An
enormous mistake was made by the consultants who wrote the EC9212
report
to analyze the impacts of CCSGI.
In the last paragraph of page
7
and first paragraph of page 8 of its Appendix A-2, they wrote:
"Outside
of the Special Areas shown in Figure LU-1, building heights may
not
exceed 45 feet." The
only
areas of the City that are "outside of the Special Areas" are the
part of the City that the General Plan defines as
Neighborhoods.
The existing General Plan--as well as the City's Zoning
Ordinance--establish 30
feet as the maximum building height for the neighborhoods.
Accordingly,
this provision would increase the maximum building height of the City'
s
Neighborhoods by 15 feet, to 45 feet. (Please
see attached)
However,
the consultants have mistakenly used the December
2014 version of the General Plan as the current
plan certified and adopted by the [current]
City Council when the October
2015
version should be used since it was the latest version certified and
adopted by
the [current] City Council (please see page 6 of EC9212
report for
reference).
Both
the CCSGI text and the October
2015 version of the General Plan clearly
include the "
Neighborhoods" in Figure
LU-1
as a newly designated
"special area." Incidentally,
the consultants have deleted the
key reference to Figure LU-1 in a sub-clause of the quoted CCSGI
text and a copy of Figure
LU-1
from the
CCSGI or the correct
(October 2015) version of the General Plan.
The
box inserted for that designation in
Figure
LU-1
indicates the zoning for the maximum building height in the "Neighborhoods"
is 30
feet. CCSGI did not
change, increase or decrease that zoning
limit since
the "Neighborhoods"
is one of the nine "special areas"
in the October
2015 version of the General Plan.
Therefore, the council started out the discussion and eventually
determined the
contents
of the 75-word "ballot question" (aka "ballot label")
on an incorrect recommendation from the EC9212 authors who have charged the
City $150,000
for this faulty report.
Please see the detailed in the text below for a more detailed
analysis and seriously consider to re-visit and promptly correct the
text of the CCSGI ballot
question. Thank
you.
Respectfully yours,
Ignatius Y. Ding
A 39-year resident
(408) 692-5757
False
interpretation in consultants' reports contributes to deceptive ballot
question in violation of Elections Code 9051
Cupertino
Citizens' Sensible Growth (CCSG) Initiative maintains existing maximum
building heights in all areas of Cupertino, except where there is no
limit, such as Vallco. The text of the CCSG Initiative should be the
basis of any discussion.. Once CCSG Initiative is adopted, the text
will become the law, not any biased or false “interpretation” in any
report or letter.
The
text of CCSG Initiative is clear and precise on building heights. The
maximum heights of the Neighborhoods Special Area remain 30 feet in
CCSG Initiative.
Page
5 of CCSG Initiative: “Policy LU-3.0: The maximum heights and densities
for the special areas shown in the Community Form Diagram (Figure LU-1)
shall not be exceeded. Outside of the Special Areas shown in Figure
LU-1, building heights may not exceed 45 feet.”
Figure
LU-1, in Page 6, shows “Neighborhoods” under a list of special areas
and a box showing its maximum height is 30 feet. Figure LU-1 comes from
the most recent Oct. 20, 2015 General Plan Amendment.
Policy
LU-3.0 refers to “special areas shown in Figure LU-1” in both the first
sentence and second sentence, so there is no confusion that the
“special areas shown in Figure LU-1” includes Neighborhoods, which
maintains the existing height of 30 feet.
Mr.
Perlmutter, the attorney prepared EC 9212 Report, and Sand Hill’s
attorneys altered the meaning of Policy LU-3.0 by ignoring the
important restrictive clause “shown in Figure LU-1” and ignoring Figure
LU-1 in the next page. An apparent mistake!
The
deceptive ballot question, based on EC 9212 Report, is not only false,
but also violates Elections Code 9051 since it is not a “true and
impartial statement of purpose” and it is very “likely to prejudice
voters against “the CCSG initiative. The Council should correct the
mistake and follow Elections Code.
| 
No comments:
Post a Comment