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.)

Danessa's Speech on traffic, air qualify, water shortage

Speech by Danessa Techmanski 

Feb. 2, 2016 City Council Meeting

If you take The Hills, the Oaks, Main Street, Apple, and the Rose Bowl and lump them all together it will add at least 32,000 people to our city every day, not even including the added retail customers. In this area 68% of people drive to work alone which means those developments will bring an additional 21, 700 cars every work day, effectively doubling the number of workers on the road. Due to the locations of those developments they will clog 280, 85, Wolfe, DeAnza, Steven’s Creek, Homestead and Foothill. You will not be able to get into, out of, or through Cupertino. So having all of the extra office space in the world will be useless because no company will want to locate here if their employees can’t get to work.

Secondly, all of that traffic will cause our air quality to plummet. Just  one average vehicle idling in traffic for an hour a day will be dumping 1,239 lbs. of Carbon monoxide into our air each year (3.4 lbs. daily) causing our air quality to worsen anywhere from 30-50% depending on weather factors.

With the additional 32,000 people added to our city we will need to provide a minimum of an extra 2,552,400 of gallons of water per day that we just don’t have., and that’s not even including the extra water for restaurants or hotels.

You also need to calculate in the added water for Vallco’s 30 acre green roof. Sand Hill is trying to wow us with orchards, vineyards, olive trees, and vast expanses of grasses which will require soil depths of soils of 4 ft or greater render the project as an intensive type of green roof. You must also consider that we live in a drought area where storm recapture isn’t going to be huge. 

In summary,  you just can’t pull water clean air, and roads out of a hat. We have to live here, and we elected you to be OUR representatives, NOT the facilitators of greedy developers and investors from overseas. 

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

Joan - First Do No Harm

Sent to the City before Feb. 2, 2016 Council Meeting

Dear City Council Members,                                                                                        

First Do No Harm! 

Developers are proposing large and irregular constructions to you, because the market is favorable for them to profit enormously. The constructions are irregular because they would require many exceptions to the General Plan, which you have been elected to follow.

In considering any of these development proposals, I ask that you take the other view. Instead of seeing these developers as long-awaited suitors, excited that any property owner would want to build something in our city, take the stand that you have something great to offer to developers, that you have to be persuaded that their plans have much to offer the city, which exists as a body of residents, businesses and workers. Yes, we need to build our revenues, but only in a way that benefits the community as a whole. We are the city. 

Yes, the city exists because of its residents, businesses and workers. We the people. The city is nothing without us. You have been elected to represent us, not to go overboard with excitement on every grandiose idea coming our way.

First do no harm. There are some diseases and physical disabilities in our wonderful city. 

• Traffic on our highways that is so dense that drivers are choosing to use our city streets and just pass through Cupertino, making it difficult for us all to get where we need to go within the city. 
• Schools that don't favor the individual student. The crowded conditions and limited resources only allow a percentage of the students to benefit from the great schools. There is also a significant percentage of students that are hurt by our schools and fall between the cracks.
• Infrastructure was only built for the city we have been, not for mass developments with urban density. It was never planned for Cupertino to become a mega-suburban center.  We don't have the land to support great growth. We do have the people to support a great mall in our part of west Santa Clara County.
• Environmental concerns must always be in the forefront of our decisions. Water usage, air safety, protecting our Bay, real green development (not that ridiculous green slanted roof).
• Growth that is already approved but not yet up-and-running. This is a situation we need to allow to happen and play out, before we approve more significant developments.

These are the situations that must be your chief concern as we receive proposals that will only make all these problems and concerns worse. 

First do no harm. The key to that may be to put a moratorium on new oversized developments for, say, three years. 

Then, push back on the development proposals to bring them in line with our city's General Plan and the spirit and soul of the city. Remember that the Cupertino is not just whatever you want to envision, Cupertino is first and foremost the people, businesses and workers that make this our home.

Thank you for reading my views.

Joan Chin

Resident of 33 years, HP employee of 23 years, Block Leader