Darrel - 9212 Report for CCSG Initiative is flawed

Letter from the representative of Cupertino Concerned Citizens (CCC).

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

From: Darrel Lum
Date: Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:25 PM
Subject: Ballot Language for Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>, Barry Chang <bchang@cupertino.org>, Savita Vaidhyanathan <svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org>, Darcy Paul <dpaul@cupertino.org>, Rod Sinks <rsinks@cupertino.org>, Gilbert Wong <gwong@cupertino.org>, Grace Schmidt <cityclerk@cupertino.org>, Grace Schmidt <graces@cupertino.org>
Cc: David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>, Aarti Shrivastava <aartis@cupertino.org>, Randolph Hom <rhom@cupertino.org>

Please find attached concern about the City's Ballot Language for the Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative 

for the November 8, 2016 election, attachment is in black and red :

                                            Page 1-3  History

                                            Page 4- 5  Fact Sheet

                                            Page 6 Recommendation

                                            Page 7  Figure LU-1 Community Form Diagram, General Plan Amendment

                                                         to Community Vision (General Plan) 2040 approved by

                                                         Resolution #15-087 by the City Council of City of Cupertino     

                                                         on October 20, 2015

                                                         see page 245 of 248 of General Plan Amendment or hand-delivered copy

                                                         to City Clerk

Darrel Lum

CCC Letter to Council: 9212 Report for CCSG Initiative is Flawed (PDF preview below)
 

Liang - Numerous Justifications for Special Meeting on May 3rd, but None for the one on April 5.

Liang listed numerous justifications for calling a special meeting to discuss the ballot question of CCSG Initiative on May 3rd, while there was no reason given to call the special meeting on April 5.

Besides Darcy Paul and Barry Chang, the same letter was sent to the other three Councilmembers as well with the same information.

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

From: Liang C <lfchao@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, May 2, 2016 at 8:45 AM
Subject: JUSTIFICATION for 9 PM Special Meeting on May 3rd: Supporters of CCSG Initiative Deserve a Fair Chance
To: Barry Chang <bchang@cupertino.org>
Cc: "dpaul@cupertino.org" <dpaul@cupertino.org>

Dear Mayor Chang,

Councilmember Darcy Paul said that he supports to put CCSG Initiative on Tuesday May 3rd meeting agenda if a second Councilmember or in particular the Mayor second it.

Thank you for meeting with us yesterday. Thank you for sharing the events leading up to the calling of the surprise 9pm special meeting. So, the justification was that Gilbert Wong said someone called to ask for the meeting. So, you seconded Gilbert's motion to call the meeting, is that right?

Well, this time, many residents emailed to request a 9pm special meeting. We just want to have a fair chance to refute the false interpretation in the 9212 Report. This time there are many reasons for calling a special meeting:

• There is evidence that the attorney who prepared the 9212 Report made a mistaken and referred to an out-dated version of the report.
• There is evidence that the Council violated Elections Code 9051 as explained in earlier emails. The ballot question should be "true and impartial purpose of statement" and not meant to prejudice voters for or against any measure.
• There are many emails from residents to request a 9 pm May 3rd special meeting to be held right after the regular meeting.
• The 9 pm special meeting on May 3rd to re-visit the ballot question of CCSG Initiative might avoid a lawsuit to force the city to comply with Elections Code 9051.
• The 9 pm special meeting on May 3rd to re-visit the ballot question of CCSG Initiative might avoid wasting the taxpayer dollars on a lawsuit to force the city to comply with Elections Code 9051.
• On March 31, the supporters of CCSG Initiative was not give a fair chance to refute the false interpretation in EC 9212 Reprot since the City only announced the amended ballot question during March 31 meeting. The CCSG Initiative committee had no access to the letter from Sand Hill's attorney. The Council didn't even display the amended ballot question on screen during the discussion for the residents to see what's being amended.
• On April 5, the supporters was once again surprised at 9 AM in the morning for a 9 PM special meeting. The residents didn't have time to study the issues during the day. People did scramble to speak with the little time they have, but no time was spent studying the 9212 report or Elections Code. People did scramble to attend the meeting, but many people were not able to attend.
• The supporters of CCSG Initiative should be finally given a fair chance to refute the false interpretation in the 9212 Report with sufficient preparation.

With all these reasons, we are requesting a 9 PM special meeting to be called on May 3rd right after the regular meeting. If the 9 PM meeting called on April 5 because of some phone call is justifiable at all, this request for the 9 PM meeting on May 3rd is reasonable and justifiable.

If you as an elected representative of the voters of Cupertino, a Mayor of Cupertino, believe in fairness and good governance, you would support the request to call a 9 pm May 3rd special meeting.

Sincerely,

Liang Chao

Liana - EC 9212 report references wrong version of General Plan; CCSG Initiative ballot question requires correction

Liana pointed out that the Consultants might have referenced wrong version of the General Plan.

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

From: 'Liana Crabtree' via CCSGI-Core <ccsgi-core@googlegroups.com>
Date: Mon, May 2, 2016 at 5:47 AM
Subject: Fw: EC 9212 report references wrong version of General Plan; CCSG Initiative ballot question requires correction

This is a copy of the message I sent to all Council Members individually this morning.

Liana

On Monday, May 2, 2016 5:35 AM, Liana Crabtree <lianacrabtree@yahoo.com> wrote:

Dear Council Member Paul:

This is a follow up to a message I posted to all City Council Members on Sunday, May 1, 2016.

In my earlier message, I asserted that it appeared the team responsible for the EC 9212 report for the CCSG Initiative referenced the wrong version of the General Plan in those places where the EC 9212 report states that the CCSG Initiative will raise the maximum building heights in neighborhoods.

It is understandable why those responsible for the EC 9212 report could have cited the wrong version of the General Plan.

For those not familiar with the Web page that links users to each chapter of the General Plan, it appears current information about land use will be included in the link "Chapter 3: Land Use and Community Character Element". However, in October 2015, the City Council approved an amendment to the General Plan that replaced Figure LU-1 with the updated figure that is included exactly as it was approved in the CCSG Initiative. The updated Figure LU-1 is not included in the Chapter 3 link on the General Plan Web page. Instead, Chapter 3 available on the City Web site today includes the outdated version of Figure LU-1 (PDF p 18).

The resolution that adopted the updated Figure LU-1 in October 2015 is visible from a link in the General Plan Web page called "here" (second paragraph of the introductory text). See PDF p 40 of Resolution 15-087 for the current Figure LU-1. Note that Neighborhoods is defined in the legend as a special area and that the Neighborhoods special area box establishes a maximum building height of 30 feet.

Resolution 15-087 includes this instruction on PDF p 4, under the heading "NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED," item 3:

"3. Adopts the amendments to the General Plan (Application No. GPA-2015-01), text and figures, as shown in Exhibit GPA-1, which is incorporated herein by reference as part of this resolution, and authorizes the staff to make grammatical, typographical, numbering, and formatting changes necessary to assist in the production of the final published General Plan;"

And, the third paragraph of the introductory text on the General Plan Web page says: "The final General Plan layout is currently under review and will be posted on this website as soon as it is available. (Tentatively by December 31, 2015)." In my review of Chapter 3, it appears the update to the "final" General Plan to incorporate the content of Resolution 15-087 has not been completed, so it is understandable that a consultant agency on a very short timeline to complete the EC 9212 report might have been given or might have collected for itself the wrong version of the General Plan to build its arguments related to the EC 9212 report.

Please do consider that the reason the EC 9212 report states the CCSG Initiative will "increase building heights in Neighborhoods" is because the consultants were referencing the wrong version of the General Plan. Indeed, no other explanation for the inclusion of the false statement "increases to 45 feet the maximum building heights in neighborhoods" in the EC 9212 report and now in the ballot question for the CCSG Initiative makes any sense.

We have urgency to correct the error in the ballot question for the CCSG Initiative. Best for all if the City Council corrects the ballot question voluntarily now and not with legal mandate later. Act today to add the correction of the ballot question as an agenda item for a special meeting following the May 3, 2016 regular City Council meeting.

Thank you,

Liana Crabtree
Cupertino resident


REFERENCES:

+ City of Cupertino Web page "General Plan: Community Vision 2015 - 2040".

(Link: http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=1275)

Note that "Chapter 3: Land Use and Community Character Element" still includes the December 2014 version of Figure LU-1 and does not include updated text to describe the special area that was created in the October 2015 GPA called "Neighborhoods".

Users must click the "here" link in paragraph two of the introductory text on the City of Cupertino Web page "General Plan: Community Vision 2015 - 2040" to view Resolution 15-087 in order to view the content of the October 2015 GPA, including the updated Figure LU-1 with the new Neighborhoods special area with residential densities and criteria defined.

+ Entire text visible to the public regarding the status of the General Plan: Community Vision 2015- 2040 on the City of Cupertino Web site as of May 2, 2016.

(Link: http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=1275):

"General Plan: Community Vision 2015 - 2040

On December 4, 2014, the City Council formally adopted an amended General Plan for Cupertino known as Community Vision 2040. The General Plan is a State-mandated document and provides the vision for Cupertino’s future. It sets the City’s policy direction in a number of areas including land use, mobility, housing, open space, infrastructure, public health and safety, and sustainability through specific goals, policies and strategies.

On October 20, 2015, the City Council adopted minor amendments to the language to the Community Vision 2040 including a change in the name of the document to "General Plan: Community Vision 2015 - 2040." The resolution adopting the changes is available here.  Community Vision 2040 posted below and the resolution adopting the changes together constitute the General Plan: Community Vision 2015 - 2040.

The final General Plan layout is currently under review and will be posted on this website as soon as it is available. (Tentatively by December 31, 2015).

Community Vision 2040 (adopted by the City Council on December 4, 2014)

Cover and Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Planning Areas
Chapter 3: Land Use and Community Character Element (note: contains outdated Figure LU-1)
Chapter 4: Housing Element
Chapter 5: Mobility Element
Chapter 6: Environmental Resources and Sustainability Element
Chapter 7: Health and Safety Element
Chapter 8: Infrastructure Element
Chapter 9: Recreation, Parks and Community Services Element

Attachment A: Land Use Definitions
Attachment B: Housing Element Technical Report
Attachment C: Air Quality
Attachment D: Community Noise Fundamentals
Attachment E: Geologic and Seismic Hazards
Attachment F: Slope Density "

Liang - Supporters of CCSG Initiative Deserve a Fair Chance

This email was sent to each Councilmember individually hoping to get a response from them without violating the Brown Act.

Savita Vaidhyanathan <svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org>
Barry Chang <bchang@cupertino.org>
Rod Sinks <rsinks@cupertino.org>
Gilbert Wong <gwong@cupertino.org>
Darcy Paul <dpaul@cupertino.org>

Only Councilmember Darcy Paul replied to support the special meeting to discuss the ballot question for CCSG Initiative as long as a second Councilmember would agree.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Liang C
Date: Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 4:08 PM
Subject: Supporters of CCSG Initiative Deserve a Fair Chance
To: Savita Vaidhyanathan <svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org>

Dear Councilmember Savita Vaidhyanathan,

   Your prompt response is appreciated on this very important matter.

   Supporters of CCSG Initiative deserves a fair chance to refute the claims in EC 9212 Report. Please send Mayor Chang an email to request to put the ballot question of CCSG Initiative on May 3rd Council meeting agenda.

   By requesting to put the ballot question of CCSG Initiative for discussion, you simply agree to be fair and finally giving the supporters of CCSG Initiative enough time to prepare to refute the claims made in EC 9212 Report on building heights. I'm sure that you won't deny the citizens a fair chance as they well deserve.

   We just realized that May 3rd Council meeting is the last chance for the Council to amend the ballot question before the citizens are forced to pursue other legal action.

   On March 31, 2016, the supporters of CCSG Initiative did not know that the city would amend the ballot question based on a letter from Sand Hill. The public has no knowledge of the existence of the letter from Sand Hill's attorneys sent moments before March 31 Council meeting. The public has no knowledge that the staff would change the recommended ballot question in the staff report and prepared by the City Attorney. The public were surprised by the amended ballot question. All throughout the March 31 meeting, the amended ballot question was not never once displayed on the screen for all to see what exactly were being amended in the context of the full 75-word ballot question.

    Therefore, the supporters of CCSG Initiative were not prepared to argue against EC 9212 Report at all on March 31 since the last minute amendment was a total surprise. The public did not know why the outside counsel Mr. Perlmutter derived his false interpretation in EC 9212 Report at all during March 31 Council meeting. Without going back to study EC 9212 Report, the public was not given a chance to refute Mr. Perlmutter's false interpretation.

   In the morning of April 5, 2016 at 9 am, the CCSG Initiative committee were given a courtesy notice of the 9 pm special meeting called to change the ballot question to "increase to 45 feet". Scrambling to prepare for the meeting while juggling daytime jobs and family commitment, the supporters of CCSG Initiative was again caught by surprise. There was no staff report given in the 9pm special meeting to give any reason why the city decided to call a special meeting with no new evidence.

   The supporters of CCSG Initiative didn't read the argument in EC 9212 Report and the letter from outside counsel Ms. Bricks sent at 4:40pm on April 5 until after April 5 meeting. And as it turns out, EC 9212 Report and outside counsel Ms. Bricks made the same mistake of ignoring the important phrase "shown in Figure LU-1" and Figure LU-1 in Page 6 of the CCSG Initiative text. As Liana Crabtree pointed out in another email, the outside counsel who prepared EC 9212 Report most likely mixed up versions of the General Plan from Dec. 2014 with the most recent one adopted on Oct. 20, 2015.

   We plead that the Council give the supporters of CCSG Initiative a fair chance to refute false interpretation in EC 9212 Report. It's important that the ballot question of CCSG Initiative reflects the "true and impartial statement of purpose" in accordance to Elections Code.

   On March 31, we were surprised with a last-minute amendment with literally no time to study or prepare any rebuttal.. On April 5, we were surprised with a last-minute special meeting with again literally no time to study and prepare sufficient rebuttal.

   Putting the ballot question of CCSG Initiative on May 3rd meeting is only giving the citizens a fair chance to refute false interpretation in the EC 9212 Report and in the letter from outside counsel sent at 4:30pm on April 5, moments before the April 5 Council meeting. I'm sure that you believe in fairness and a through process. Please send an email to Mayor Chang to request the ballot question of CCSG Initiative be placed on May 3rd Council meeting agenda.

   Your prompt response is appreciated on this very important matter, whether or not you agree to give supporters of CCSG Initiative a fair chance. As long as 2 Councilmembers support in giving citizens a fair chance, Mayor Chang has agreed to put the matter on May 3rd agenda as a 9pm special meeting.

   We would be available to meet any time on Monday if you would like to understand more about the issues surrounding building heights in CCSG Initiative.

Sincerely,

Liang Chao

Liana - Justification for a special meeting to amend ballot question for CCSGI

The false interpretation of the EC 9212 Report could be derived from an out-dated General Plan on the city website.

Liana spoke to both Councilmembers Rod Sinks and Barry Chang in person and both of them agreed that it is something worth looking into and asked Liana to send them more information.

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

From: Liana Crabtree
Date: Sun, May 1, 2016 at 12:25 PM
Subject: request for a special meeting, Tuesday, May 3, to amend ballot question for the CCSG Initiative (includes justification)
To: "bchang@cupertino.org" <bchang@cupertino.org>, "svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org" <svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org>, "rsinks@cupertino.org" <rsinks@cupertino.org>, "gwong@cupertino.org" <gwong@cupertino.org>, "dpaul@cupertino.org" <dpaul@cupertino.org>
Cc: City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.org>, "manager@cupertino.org" <manager@cupertino.org>, Liang Chao <lfchao@gmail.com>, Joan Lawler <joan.lawler@gmail.com>, Peggy Griffin <griffin@compuserve.com>

Good Afternoon Mayor Chang, Vice Mayor Vaidhyanathan, and Council Members Paul, Sinks, and Wong:

Mayor Chang, thank you for meeting with a small group of supporters for the Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative (CCSG Initiative) this morning to discuss why the phrase "increase to 45 feet the maximum building height in the Neighborhoods" is false and deceptive and why it needs to be removed from the ballot label (ballot question) for the CCSG Initiative.

Council Member Sinks, thank you for taking the time during the Earth Day festivities yesterday to talk with me about why the phrase "increase to 45 feet the maximum building height in the Neighborhoods" is false and deceptive and why it needs to be removed from the ballot question for the CCSG Initiative.

I am writing to all Council Members today to request that a sufficient number of you (my understanding from today's meeting with Mayor Chang, two are required) agree to request a a special meeting on Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 9 pm following the regularly scheduled City Council meeting. The purpose of the special meeting is to remove the false and deceptive phrase "increase to 45 feet the maximum building height in the Neighborhoods" from the ballot label (ballot question).

The justification for the City Council to amend the ballot question for the CCGG Initiative is based on our group's assertion that it is possible the team responsible for the EC 9212 report, which is the guidance some Council Members followed when they added language about maximum building heights to the ballot question, referenced the December 2014 version of the General Plan that is published on the City of Cupertino Web site without amendment and not the October 2015 version of the General Plan, which is the General Plan of record today and at the time of the drafting of the CCSG Initiative.

As Mayor Chang and Council Member Sinks are aware, the General Plan amendment adopted in October 2015 (October 2015 GPA) as part of Resolution 15-087 includes an update to Figure LU-1 to add a special areas box called "Neighborhoods" where residential density and criteria are defined. The Neighborhoods special area is a super set comprised of the 12 neighborhoods that are also defined in the October 2015 GPA. With the addition of the Neighborhoods special areas box, the October 2015 GPA established that residential densities and criteria will be defined in Figure LU-1. In the Neighborhoods special area on Figure LU-1, maximum residential densities and criteria are defined as "15 units per acre for Neighborhood Commercial Sites" with a maximum height of "30 feet".

The CCSG Initiative includes Figure LU-1 exactly as it appears in the October 2015 GPA.

The relevant text from the CCSG Initiative, Policy LU-3.0 Community Form, related to maximum building heights says, "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."

Because the current version of Figure LU-1 now includes the special area called Neighborhoods, the area defined in the CCSG Initiative as "outside of Special Areas" is very small and might include real estate adjacent to freeway interchanges or other undeveloped areas that are under Cupertino's jurisdiction but have not been assigned a land use designation. "Outside of the special areas" is an important part of the CCSG Initiative because any land annexed to Cupertino in the future will be introduced with the building density maximum of 45 feet.

The CCSG Initiative and the Title and Summary for the CCSG Initiative prepared by the City Attorney include no proclamations that the CCSG Initiative will "establish" or "increase" building heights in Cupertino.

Elections Code 9051 requires that the responsible body assigned the responsibility of approving the title and summary, and by extension, the ballot question ensure that the language "shall neither be an argument, nor be likely to create prejudice, for or against the proposed measure".

As written today, the ballot question for the CCSG Initiative is false and deceptive because it includes the phrase "increase to 45 feet the maximum building height in the Neighborhoods," which is not supported by the content of the CCSG Initiative, the content of the Title and Summary for the CCSG Initiative as prepared by the City Attorney, or the content of the General Plan of record today and at the time of the drafting of the CCSG Initiative.

I urge all Council Members to act promptly to take the required actions to amend the ballot question for the CCSG Initiative to remove the false and deceptive language "increase to 45 feet the maximum building height in the Neighborhoods".

Thank you,

Liana Crabtree
Cupertino resident



REFERENCES
+ current October 2015 GPA, Figure LU-1, see PDF p 40.

(Link: http://64.165.34.13/weblink/0/edoc/428960/CC%20Resolution%20No.%2015-087%20Approving%20a%20General%20Plan%20Amendment%20to%20Community%20Vision%202040%20%28General%20Plan%29%20Policy,%20Text%20And%20Figures%20and%20change%20land%20use%2010950%20N.%20Blaney%20Ave.pdf)

Note that the October 2015 GPA includes the following statement on PDF p 4, item 3 under the heading "NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED":

"3. Adopts the amendments to the General Plan (Application No. GPA-2015-01), text and figures, as shown in Exhibit GPA-1, which is incorporated herein by reference as part of this resolution, and authorizes staff to make grammatical, typographical, numbering, and formatting changes necessary to assist in production of the final published General Plan;"


+ outdated Community Vision 2040 (General Plan approved in December 2014), Chapter 3 "Land Use and Community Design Element", Figure LU-1, see PDF p 18.

(Link: http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=1275)

It appears that as of today, May 1, 2016, the exercise to update the final published General Plan approved in December 2014 with the amendments approved in Resolution 15-087 has not been completed. As a result, the Community Vision 2040, Chapter 3 "Land Use and Community Design Element" includes the previous version of Figure LU-1 that does not include the Neighborhoods special areas box where residential densities and criteria would later be defined in the October 2015 GPA.

If those responsible for preparing the EC 9212 report referenced the outdated Figure LU-1 included in the now outdated Chapter 3 of the General Plan approved in December 2014, the statement "increase to 45 feet the maximum building height in the Neighborhoods" could be argued to be true because in December 2014, Figure LU-1 did not include the Neighborhoods special areas. As a result, for the window of time between December 4, 2014 and October 20, 2015, residential densities and criteria for neighborhoods is not defined in Figure LU-1 and the Neighborhoods special area did not exist.


+ CCSG Initiative, Policy LU-1 Community Form, see PDF p 5; and Figure LU-1 exactly as it was approved in the October 2015 GPA, see PDF p 6.

(Link: http://www.cupertino.org/inc/pdf/Initiatives/ccsgi/CCSG-initiative-text.pdf)


+ Title and Summary for the CCSG Initiative as prepared by the City Attorney. The Title and Summary for the CCSG Initiative, which is intended to be the basis for the ballot question according to Elections Code 9051, includes no references to "establishing" or "increasing" building heights in neighborhoods.

(Link: http://www.cupertino.org/inc/pdf/Initiatives/ccsgi/CCSGI-City-Attorney-Ballot-Title-and-Summary.pdf)


+ Elections Code 9051.

(Link: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=elec&group=09001-10000&file=9050-9054)

Relevant items as applied to the drafting of the ballot question for the CCSG Initiative include:

"(b) The ballot label shall not contain more than 75 words and shall be a condensed version of the ballot title and summary including the financial impact summary prepared pursuant to Section 9087 of this code and Section 88003 of the Government Code.

   (c) In providing the ballot title and summary, the Attorney General shall give a true and impartial statement of the purpose of the measure in such language that the ballot title and summary shall neither be an argument, nor be likely to create prejudice, for or against the proposed measure."

Ignatius - False interpretation in consultants' reports contributes to erroneous and deceptive ballot question

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ignatius Ding Date: Sun, May 1, 2016 at 12:56 AM Subject: ​False interpretation in consultants' reports contributes to erroneous and deceptive ballot question To: Cupertino City-Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org> Cc: City Attorney's Office <CityAttorney@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <manager@cupertino.org> 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. ​

CCSGI Committee - Request to put CCSGI ballot question on May 3rd Council Meeting Agenda

From: CRSZaction 
Date: Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 8:07 PM
Subject: Request to put CCSGI ballot question on May 3rd Council Meeting Agenda
To: City Council <citycouncil@cupertino.org>
Cc: City Clerk <CityClerk@cupertino.org>, David Brandt <davidb@cupertino.org>

Dear Mayor Chang and Councilmembers,

Here is a request to put CCSGI ballot question for re-consideration on May 3rd Council Meeting Agenda. You can still amend the agenda by 4pm Friday April 29th with 72 hour notice or call a special 9 pm meeting with 24 hour notice.

The text of the Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth (CCSG) Initiative should be the basis of any discussion on CCSG Initiative. Once CCSG Initiative is adopted, the text will become the law, not any interpretation in the EC 9212 Report or Sand Hill’s attorney letters.

The 9212 Report made a very significant mistake since it changed the wording in Policy LU-3.0 by removing the phrase "shown in Figure LU-1" and derived the false conclusion that CCSG initiative would change building heights of Neighborhoods from 30 feet to 45 feet. The false interpretation of 9212 Report was the basis of your decision on April 5. (See the slide included below for details.)

Furthermore, the ballot question adopted does not comply with Elections Code 9051.

Elections Code 9051 states that the 75-word ballot question (namely "ballot label") "shall be a condensed version of the Ballot Title and Summary" and the City Attorney "shall give a true and impartial statement of the purpose of the measure in such language that the ballot title and summary shall neither be an argument, nor be likely to create prejudice, for or against the proposed measure."

The 9212 Report or any attorney's interpretation of the CCSG Initiative is simply an opinion. Such an opinion has no place in the ballot question at all, since it's not a "statement of purpose" as written in the initiative text. Such an opinion belongs in the Arguments and Rebuttals section, not the ballot question.

We trust that the Council value the importance of following Elections Code and value the importance for voters to know the true intent of the CCSG Initiative, as required by the Elections Code. We hope that.

Both the City Attorney and the outside counsel Mr. Perlmutter said they don't feel comfortable with the ballot question you adopted on April 5, which states that CCSG Initiative would increase building heights. Both of them referred to Elections Code 9051when they made the recommendation against using the word "increase".

Cupertino citizens are watching. We believe that Cupertino City Council would represent the people and do the right thing. Please do not waste taxpayer money to defend the city from a potential lawsuit from residents to request the City to adopt a true and impartial ballot question, as required by Elections Code 9051. Please prove to Cupertino citizens that the Council can be trusted to make good decisions.

We urge the Council to put the ballot question of CCSG Initiative on a future City Council meeting agenda for discussion as soon as possible to relieve any distrust and confusion from the citizens. 

There is still time to amend the May 3rd regular Council meeting to add one more agenda item if you act by 4pm Friday April 29. The Council may also call a 9 pm special meeting scheduled right after May 3 regular Council meeting, as you've done for the April 5 9 pm special meeting.


Sincerely,

Committee supporting Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Committee

CCSensibleGrowth.org

Paid for by Committee supporting Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative, PO Box 1132, Cupertino, CA 95015, FPPC# 1381645.

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

​

​

The EC 9212 Report never referenced Policy LU-3.0 of the CCSG Initiative in full when discussing building heights of Neighborhoods. Therefore, it is not possible for the reader to recognize the mistake or misinterpretation when the report conveniently dropped an important restrictive subordinate clause “shown in Figure LU-1.”

Page 5 of CCSG Initiative: “Policy LU-3.0: Community Form

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, as included in Page 6 of the CCSG Initiative, shows “Neighborhoods” under a list of special areas and a box showing the maximum height in the Neighborhoods as 30 feet. This Figure LU-1 comes from the most recent General Plan Amendment, adopted on Oct. 20, 2015, without any change. 

Policy LU-3.0 carefully put “shown in Figure LU-1” in both the first sentence and second sentence as a “restriction subordinate clause” so that the “special areas” referenced include Neighborhoods, according to Figure LU-1. Therefore, Neighborhoods would maintain the existing height of 30 feet under CCSG Initiative. Mr. Perlmutter, the attorney prepared EC 9212 Report, interpreted Policy LU-3.0 by removing “shown in Figure LU-1”. And they draw the description of “Special Areas” from other pages in the General Plan instead. An apparent mistake!

Here is the false argument from EC 9212 Report:

Perhaps the most significant of the Initiative’s amendments regarding standards is the provision in the proposed new Policy LU-3.0 that increases maximum building heights for the bulk of the City. Specifically, the second sentence of this Policy (on page 5 of the Initiative) provides that “[o]utside 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 City’s Neighborhoods, which comprise approximately three-quarters of the City’s land area. Both the adopted General Plan and the City’s Zoning Ordinance establish a maximum height limit of 30 feet (or less) for the Neighborhoods. Accordingly, this provision of the Initiative increases the maximum height limit in Neighborhoods by fifty percent (50%) from 30 feet to 45 feet.

Notice that “Special Areas shown in Figure LU-1” in the first paragraph (above) is replaced by only “Special Areas” in the second paragraph. Then, the report referenced to “Special Areas” defined elsewhere to argue that Neighborhoods is not one of the Special Areas. The two letters from Sand Hill's attorneys are based on the same false interpretation and ignored Figure LU-1, which was referenced and included explicitly in the CCSG Initiative.

Policy LU-3.0 in the CCSG initiative text is very clear and precise. The policy uses the phrase “Special Areas shown in Figure LU-1”, not simply “Special Areas,” in both the first and the second sentences. Therefore, the interpretation of Policy LU-3.0 given in EC 9212 Report is false. The CCSG Initiative maintain existing building heights in all special areas, including Neighborhoods. The height of Neighborhoods is maintained at 30 feet as specified in Figure LU-1.

REFERENCE:

•  Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth (CCSG) Initiative text.
•  Policy LU-3.0 and Figure LU-1 from Page 5 and 6 of the CCSG Initiative.
•  EC 9212 Report for CCSG Initiative (Appendix 1 to Appendix 7 are available from March 31 Council meeting packet.)

Cathy's Speech - signature collecting for the Cupertino Citizens’ Sensible Growth Initiative

Oral Communication on Feb. 2 Council Meeting
Speaker: Cathy Wang

Tittle/Topic: Voices heard from signature collecting for the Cupertino Citizens’ Sensible Growth Initiative


Good evening Mayor Chang, City Council Members, and Staff Members.

My name is Cathy wang.  I left China 24 years ago and lived in Cupertino for the  past 13yrs.  Many cities in China I visit today are overdeveloped, highly congested  and extremely polluted.  High real estate value means nothing when quality of life is non-existent.  The saddest thing is the course is irreversible.  We shouldn’t let it happen to Cupertino, a place I considered home.  


That’s why I have assisted with signature gathering recently.  I’d like to share one story here.   One day I approached to the front door of an old house on Bollinger, I saw a sign:  No solicitors!, as well as "THAT MEANS YOU!" underneath it. Nevertheless I knocked.  An old frail gentleman opened the door, I apologized that I was not soliciting right away.  The minute I mentioned THE HILLS he took my pen with his left hand.  With obvious difficulty in moving his right side and speaking (a sign of an earlier stroke), he slowly moved to the bench at the front porch, carefully put his name down, while slowly telling me he used to walk to the Oaks when the bookstore was still there...he said he sure will vote once we put the initiative in the ballot.  I tried to keep the conversation going or I would cry on the spot, witnessing the helplessness, frustration and anger in his eyes.

At that moment I believe I’m not doing this for myself, more so for these long term residents who are extremely upset at the current unchecked overdevelopment of the city, but couldn't have their voices heard – many lived here for 40, 50, even 60yrs, but they couldn’t walk or drive to city hall any more.  It’s our turn to take the baton to help our community stay our community, while we can still walk, talk and fight.  Mr. Mayor and council members, I hope you hear the VOICE.

Thank you!

Cathy

Brooke's Speech - State of the Initiative Update

Speech by Brooke Ezzat

Feb. 2, 2015 Cupertino City Council Meeting

Approximately a week ago, Mayor Chang gave his state of the city address; we would like to give a state of the Cupertino Citizens' Sensible Growth Initiative update.  In a period of 5 weeks, despite inclement weather, holidays and post-holiday lulls, being thrown out of city facilities where we have the right to gather signatures, and being followed by goons, we gathered over 4 thousand signatures.  In a city that is relatively apolitical, this is indicative of the level of outrage citizens feels at the council’s and developers attempt to turn Cupertino into an urban planning nightmare.

Despite the promises the council made to residents regarding the GPA, it was passed anyway, necessitating the need for this Initiative.  There are developments that will come up for review prior to the Initative being placed on the ballot.  We demand a moratorium on project approvals, including, but not limited to the Oaks, Goodyear Tire, Vallco and Mariana Foods until the Initiative is decided. We have demonstrated that we have the political will to act and we will have no problem joining with our associates to act again.

Qin - Please listen to our voice again, by Qin Pan

From: Qin Yahoo
Date: February 2, 2016 at 4:11:17 PM PST
To: CityCouncil@cupertino.org
Subject: Please listen to our voice again

Dear Mayor,

Fall of 2014, You were welcomed at our block party and You promised us you will listen to our concerns and represent us.I indeed expressed my concern about crowed Cupertino high where my second daughter currently attend, compare with when my oldest daughter attend there 4 years ago, the crowed traffic at the wolf exist.  I voted for you at 2014.

The school still so crowed after 2014, the traffic is even worse, its a challenge to be home at a reasonable time without sitting in the traffic . 

Last month, I'm volunteer to knock door to door to collect signatures , in the hope that the initiative can be out on the ballet. 

Since I'm a statistician , I like to share with you some data: I personally would be able to collect 75 signatures . Among the 84 registered voters I approached , 6 of them like vallco current plan ,  3 of them haven't decided, all the rest signed .  So it's 89% of the registered  voters support this initiative. If include those I approached and already signed at library or by with other volunteers, this percentage will even higher 

One lady told me she went to library want to sign the initiative, but she cannot, as she cannot find a parking! She was so happy that I knocked her door so she can have an opportunity to sign.

Thank you for listening to our voice again.

Qin Pan

Open Letter - We Will Not Be Silent

Open Letter to the Council: We Will Not Be Silent.

Speech at January 19, 2016 Cupertino City Council Meeting

For over a year, the citizens of Cupertino have voiced their concerns about the amount of development in the community and the government’s apparent desire to restrict our involvement in the process. We exercised every viable and conceivable avenue to get you to listen to our concerns. We have spoken before you, and spoken individually to you.  We have rallied, we have written, to no avail.  The council has been tone deaf; we hope you hear us now.

The council must represent us, but has used every conceivable avenue to silence us. And our access to the process has been limited by the following:

• December 2014 – Stating that a vote on the General Plan Amendment would be postponed, only to approve a wholesale rewrite of the General Plan.

• Packing the agenda so that items are not scrutinized properly making the public input process less effective. This takes two forms

• Compressing several complex issues into one agenda item thus giving public insufficient time to study and respond or comment on the issues separately.

• Placing so many items on the agenda that individual item cannot be examined adequately.

• Spring 2015 - Promising a workshop for residents on Community Benefits that was never held while quietly holding a series of them with developers.

• May 2015 - Bowing to public pressure to limit building heights, only to circumvent the limits by offering 2 open-seasons for General Plan Amendment requests encouraging developers to request them.

We have been polite, patient and bided our time. We hoped that you would listen to reason, and you have not. Instead you brushed aside our reasoning and concerns as fringe and lectured us on our behavior as if voicing our concerns was a violation of the law.  We are concerned that our municipal government does not have the will or ability to act in the best interest of the city and so we have been forced to act.

It is never an abuse of the system to exercise one’s constitutional rights.  It is in fact, honoring those rights.

This initiative is not solely about building heights, density, millions of square feet of office space, or adding more students to our already over- crowded schools; it is also about democracy.  It is about whether the citizens of this city have the right to a voice in the future of their city or if they are to be regulated to the role of mute bystanders while the right to our future is delegated to outside interests by the council.

You have decided that we should suffer and be silent, and WE have decided that WE WILL NOT.

Liang-Fang Chao, Peggy Griffin and Govind Tatachari

Members of the Committee Supporting Cupertino Citizens’ Sensible Growth Initiative